<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<posthistory>
  <row Id="1" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="31f0420d-7e35-43d6-be08-bc7a388051dd" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:29:48.110" UserId="5" Text="Grasshoppers are valuable source of proteins, and they are eating many plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how much area do I need for the colony of grasshoppers providing about 100kg &quot;meat&quot; a year? In climate such as in Middle Europe or northern US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="31f0420d-7e35-43d6-be08-bc7a388051dd" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:29:48.110" UserId="5" Text="How much area do I need for colony of grasshoopers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="31f0420d-7e35-43d6-be08-bc7a388051dd" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:29:48.110" UserId="5" Text="|husbandry|food|insects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="5afc56a9-ac7a-4375-ada9-e1a451a336d0" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:34:11.153" UserId="5" Text="Forest are the great producer of oxygen, and sustainable living is hardly imaginable with meadows and farmlands only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how to best utilize the forest for animal husbandry, in the way that possibly little interfere with wild nature? I know from history, that our ancestors (in Eastern Europe) have used forest for pasturing pigs. But is it the best way to use forest to 'produce' meat? What about insects, for example?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="5afc56a9-ac7a-4375-ada9-e1a451a336d0" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:34:11.153" UserId="5" Text="How to utilize forest for animal husbandry?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="5afc56a9-ac7a-4375-ada9-e1a451a336d0" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:34:11.153" UserId="5" Text="|husbandry|food|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="e2abdcfc-aabf-4cb9-81a9-ed01c71be391" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:37:16.583" UserId="5" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="Grasshoppers are valuable source of proteins, and they are eating many plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how much area do I need for the colony of grasshoppers providing about 100kg &quot;meat&quot; a year? In climate such as in Middle Europe or northern US? How much farmland or meadow is required to provide food for such colony?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3" RevisionGUID="6f5c5849-3261-4dd0-93f9-91f9348e3b03" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:39:27.800" UserId="5" Text="Snails are good source of proteins. How much area should I have to provide food for the colony of snails producing about 100kg of &quot;meat&quot; every year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3" RevisionGUID="6f5c5849-3261-4dd0-93f9-91f9348e3b03" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:39:27.800" UserId="5" Text="How much area to feed the colony of snails?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3" RevisionGUID="6f5c5849-3261-4dd0-93f9-91f9348e3b03" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:39:27.800" UserId="5" Text="|husbandry|food|mollusca|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="2230a48d-5d89-4cb3-9904-98465036c30b" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:46:14.427" UserId="5" Text="Thatch as the roof has that advantage, that it is very light and it is done for quickly renewable resources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is the best vegetation to build a thatch for very rainy climate, such as those of British island? From what plants would you build your roof to stay dry even if it's raining for weeks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="2230a48d-5d89-4cb3-9904-98465036c30b" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:46:14.427" UserId="5" Text="What is the best vegetation to build a thatch for British climate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="2230a48d-5d89-4cb3-9904-98465036c30b" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:46:14.427" UserId="5" Text="|housing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="90c7fe85-f303-46b3-ab00-c3b9a1f85664" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:50:13.523" UserId="5" Text="It's so easy to preserve food with fridge. But if you don't have an electricity, because of some big disaster or resource depletion, how would you handle with preserving meat for longer time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In winter it is relatively simple, because your whole environment is one big fridge. But what to do to prevent meat from getting rotten during warm months? What would you do to store a meat for at least one year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="90c7fe85-f303-46b3-ab00-c3b9a1f85664" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:50:13.523" UserId="5" Text="How to preserve meat during warm months without electricity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="90c7fe85-f303-46b3-ab00-c3b9a1f85664" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:50:13.523" UserId="5" Text="|food|preservation|meat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="17" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6" RevisionGUID="1c6c8e9e-13b6-4eac-bf94-fa12b54bb18f" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:51:19.820" UserId="20" Text="I own a property that has no water service and thus I need to drill a well.  My neighbors have expressed concern about the water table being lowered by too many people with wells in the area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before I drill the well, what steps, if any, can I take to reduce the impact my new will will have on the existing water table?  Does drilling deeper have any benefit to the water table or does that just allow mine to function longer than other wells that might not be so deep?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="18" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6" RevisionGUID="1c6c8e9e-13b6-4eac-bf94-fa12b54bb18f" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:51:19.820" UserId="20" Text="Before drilling a well, how can I determine any water table impact?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="19" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6" RevisionGUID="1c6c8e9e-13b6-4eac-bf94-fa12b54bb18f" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:51:19.820" UserId="20" Text="|water|planning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="20" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="bf47134f-58c7-4b54-87a2-1b120c079a7a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:54:32.160" UserId="20" Text="I would like to start composting but live in the city and have no yard area.  Is it feasible to try composting on my outdoor porch area?  Is this even worth the effort?  Can I take steps to mitigate the smell so I don't lose use of my porch?  Am I better off trying to find a community garden and schlepping my wastes over to a compost in a community garden?  I'm concerned that if the process is too difficult, I will not keep up the work.  How can I easily compost while living in the city?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="21" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="bf47134f-58c7-4b54-87a2-1b120c079a7a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:54:32.160" UserId="20" Text="Is it feasible to compost in an apartment in the city?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="22" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="bf47134f-58c7-4b54-87a2-1b120c079a7a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:54:32.160" UserId="20" Text="|composting|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="23" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="d8d74a3d-4ae8-4b29-bec1-a2c627385670" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:57:27.460" UserId="20" Text="I'm wondering what products I can use that are not dangerous to keep kitchen surfaces clean and safe?  Should I get different products for different types surfaces (e.g. granite top vs wooden cutting board)?  Should I get different products for different types of foods (e.g. meats vs vegetables)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="24" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="d8d74a3d-4ae8-4b29-bec1-a2c627385670" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:57:27.460" UserId="20" Text="What alternative products can I use to keep my kitchen counters clean and safe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="25" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="d8d74a3d-4ae8-4b29-bec1-a2c627385670" CreationDate="2013-01-29T19:57:27.460" UserId="20" Text="|safe-chemicals|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="26" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="04292a64-9b6a-4bc8-b897-abe2779221f1" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:00:39.710" UserId="21" Comment="Just fixing some small grammar stuff.  I would recommend removing the second paragraph, save the final question." Text="It's so easy to preserve food with a fridge. But if you don't have electricity, because of some big disaster or resource depletion, how would you handle preserving meat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In winter it is relatively simple, because your whole environment is one big fridge. But what to do to prevent meat from getting rotten during warm months? What would you do to store a meat for at least one year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="27" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="04292a64-9b6a-4bc8-b897-abe2779221f1" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:00:39.710" Comment="Proposed by 21 approved by 17 edit id of 1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="28" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="5152b157-9ba0-43e2-8910-f6e9fbc4035d" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:01:24.560" UserId="21" Text="I live in a neighborhood where there is a very real chance my soil will be contaminated by PCBs.  I may need to potentially be able to clean them up, with out breaking the bank.  Are there any microbes or fungi I could employ to help me?  Where can I get them and how can I most effectively employ them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="29" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="5152b157-9ba0-43e2-8910-f6e9fbc4035d" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:01:24.560" UserId="21" Text="How can I remove PCBs from my soil?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="30" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="5152b157-9ba0-43e2-8910-f6e9fbc4035d" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:01:24.560" UserId="21" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="31" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="c2ed90fe-8dfc-461f-81b9-73628f46a250" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:01:51.440" UserId="20" Text="I purchased a Prius many years ago, but many of my friends have put forth claims that the batteries are very toxic and thus I may in fact be creating more harm than good in using a hybrid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can one objectively measure the total footprint of a hybrid vehicle to determine whether the use of a hybrid over a traditional non-hybrid gasoline powered vehicle is lesser or greater?  Has much research gone into the entire picture?  For example, when the car reaches the end of its useful life, what happens to the batteries, can they be recycled or are they thrown away?  What about the manufacture of the batteries, what negative effects come into play during manufacture?  Are there other externalities that I've missed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="32" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="c2ed90fe-8dfc-461f-81b9-73628f46a250" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:01:51.440" UserId="20" Text="How to determine whether hybrid cars are really better for the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="33" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="c2ed90fe-8dfc-461f-81b9-73628f46a250" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:01:51.440" UserId="20" Text="|externalities|hybrid-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="34" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11" RevisionGUID="957584e1-ec84-4673-9947-1a03bc107fd8" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:05:09.957" UserId="20" Text="My employer provides snacks to employees and generally uses compostable plates, cups, and utensils.  However, a significant portion of the waste stream comes from the wrappers for things like chips and cookies.  If my employer wishes to provide these kinds of snack foods, how can they get the attention of manufacturers of these to provide alternative packaging which is compostable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="35" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11" RevisionGUID="957584e1-ec84-4673-9947-1a03bc107fd8" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:05:09.957" UserId="20" Text="How can an employer induce snack food companies to package in compostable materials?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="36" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11" RevisionGUID="957584e1-ec84-4673-9947-1a03bc107fd8" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:05:09.957" UserId="20" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="37" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12" RevisionGUID="a62d0646-8f79-466d-9978-1fba9fd96f28" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:06:25.183" UserId="22" Text="Baking Soda and Lemon should be on the top of your list. There are different solutions to use based the situation. I have found the following site useful for a more natural and safe way to clean food and stuff around the house, http://eartheasy.com/live_nontoxic_solutions.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="38" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="13" RevisionGUID="73903723-31f0-46da-9adc-241db1842727" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:08:50.953" UserId="20" Text="To improve energy efficiency, many homes are now made to reduce and control the amount of fresh air that is circulated from outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm told that many cushions used in couches and materials used in flooring such as carpeting emits dangerous gases over time and that in a home that is tightly sealed, these gases can reach unsafe levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, when shopping for furniture or flooring materials such as carpeting, how can I know the level of these issues in products I am considering?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="39" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="13" RevisionGUID="73903723-31f0-46da-9adc-241db1842727" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:08:50.953" UserId="20" Text="How to pick furniture and carpeting that is safe for a home with low ventilation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="40" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="13" RevisionGUID="73903723-31f0-46da-9adc-241db1842727" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:08:50.953" UserId="20" Text="|safety|furniture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="41" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="14" RevisionGUID="7fbe6c60-6429-47fb-a5cc-69c7d72c485e" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:12:22.173" UserId="5" Text="You'd be imagine how much you can achieve with a piece of cotton, clean water and much patience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While camping, we're cleaning all pots with water and a piece of grass or leaves. It requires more time than using detergents and hot water, but it is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fats don't dissolve in water, so you can use a bit alcohol for them. Of course from house production :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="42" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="9de4befa-3d31-4359-81ad-07d0a8d52af5" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:12:58.880" UserId="20" Text="When starting a compost pile from scratch, do I need some kind of starter material?  For example, should I take any material from an established composting pile to seed it with appropriate biological agents?  If needed, is such starter sold in any stores?  Do I need to add worms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="43" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="9de4befa-3d31-4359-81ad-07d0a8d52af5" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:12:58.880" UserId="20" Text="Does a compost pile need some kind of starter material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="44" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="9de4befa-3d31-4359-81ad-07d0a8d52af5" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:12:58.880" UserId="20" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="45" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="9f134e7f-7c4c-4ed9-a429-b044680284ae" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:13:15.950" UserId="21" Text="I've read about endophytic fungi that grows in between the cell walls of a plant's cells and offers some protection against bacterial and fungal parasites.  Are there are any commercially available spawns that may be used to protect fruit trees against rusts and other fungal attacks?  If there aren't any commercially available, have there been any experiments that have isolated certain species that I might be able to retrieve from the wild to experiment with myself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="46" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="9f134e7f-7c4c-4ed9-a429-b044680284ae" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:13:15.950" UserId="21" Text="Are there any commercially available endophytic fungi to protect fruit trees against rusts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="47" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="9f134e7f-7c4c-4ed9-a429-b044680284ae" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:13:15.950" UserId="21" Text="|permaculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="48" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="17" RevisionGUID="0ad5c09d-22f1-4119-829a-07790ee95274" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:14:05.977" UserId="30" Text="I would probably go with either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Salting&#xD;&#xA; - Smoking&#xD;&#xA; - Drying&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or a combination of those three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Salting has been done for quite a while here in Scandinavia, but mostly with fish. Herring to be precise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="49" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="5f6668d3-8165-49b3-9a28-c35c74f3f95c" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:16:51.223" UserId="25" Text="I want to make sure I have a sustainable water source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I have a source of reasonably safe water like rain water or ground water, how can I make purify this water to a level that I know it is safe to drink?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I filter it, and how do I make these filters?&#xD;&#xA;Should I use distillation, or UV light?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="50" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="5f6668d3-8165-49b3-9a28-c35c74f3f95c" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:16:51.223" UserId="25" Text="What is a good way to produce drinking water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="51" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="5f6668d3-8165-49b3-9a28-c35c74f3f95c" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:16:51.223" UserId="25" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="52" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="72ad1e56-8996-4313-8a7e-cb0281788d1f" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:17:58.703" UserId="20" Text="I've seen various levels of [LEEDs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environmental_Design) certifications on public buildings but never for a private home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are such certifications available for a home and if so, how would I go about finding a building who would be able to meet the goals put forth in LEEDs?  Would trying to get a LEEDs certification on a new home mean I would have to use an architect and if so, how would you find a residential architect with experience in this area?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="53" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="72ad1e56-8996-4313-8a7e-cb0281788d1f" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:17:58.703" UserId="20" Text="Are LEEDs certifications available for homes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="54" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="72ad1e56-8996-4313-8a7e-cb0281788d1f" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:17:58.703" UserId="20" Text="|leed-certification|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="55" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="20" RevisionGUID="b403b72d-2e88-481f-8f4a-9f26349d6a11" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:22:41.577" UserId="10" Text="We have a garden and have two barrels where we collect rainwater. This is usually sufficient to water our plants and vegetables. This is unless the time without rain lasts longer then 8 days. &#xD;&#xA;I am really wondering if you can predict how much volume one need to allocate to fully provide water for gardening. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="56" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="20" RevisionGUID="b403b72d-2e88-481f-8f4a-9f26349d6a11" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:22:41.577" UserId="10" Text="Is there a formula to calculate the amount rainwater you need to collect to be fully sufficient in watering your plants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="57" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="20" RevisionGUID="b403b72d-2e88-481f-8f4a-9f26349d6a11" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:22:41.577" UserId="10" Text="|water|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="58" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="7cddc3c7-19b2-4360-a96e-85ee7f4b0c3f" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:28:06.370" UserId="33" Text="So the short answer is to look at '[life-cycle assessment][1]' studies (LCA). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The longer answer is to ask what you mean by 'better', and then look at a bunch of LCAs and figure out what impact categories you care about most. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, the goal of LCA is to collect all the different inputs and outputs for a product for all stages - not just use, but manufacturing and mining and disposal, etc. These impacts are collected into a smaller number of interpretable impact categories. Some impact categories to think about: carbon footprint/global warming potential, energy consumption, ecotoxicity, human health, water consumption. All of these are pretty commonly used. There is a lot of research on LCA methods, both on how to collect the basic data and how to transform it into these impact categories. Two common methods include the EPA's [TRACI][2] or the european [ReCiPe][3]. Ideally, LCA's provide a quantitative and clear answer, but that's rarely true - they are quantitative though, which is really important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some of your later questions, particularly around batteries, the answers will depend on the study. The technical terms here are allocation and boundary conditions. Do we model battery recycling? who gets the benefits of it? what technologies are we looking at, and what other products do those produce? What impacts or processes do we include or exclude? There are generally a lot of assumptions, which need to be made and defended to move forward - though often they need to be revised for new technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your initial question, older Priuses had an LCA done showing that they were 'worse' than a Hummer in terms of carbon footprint. Newer ones are significantly better, and keeping the car longer will definitely decrease the relative impact (one of the assumptions is about how long cars last). Check out a newer study [here][4]. In terms of toxicity, here's an [older][5] and [newer][6] study on the topic - it can take some study to get a reasonable answer, and it's rarely clear-cut. There are almost always tradeoffs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/traci/traci.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.lcia-recipe.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702178s&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8885172735616357524&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0,39&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es103607c" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="59" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="22" RevisionGUID="07e5fb6c-95dd-437d-b6dd-fa816b1ff223" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:28:38.777" UserId="10" Text="we actually bred snails for quite a while on 6 boxes of 1 square meter. I never weighed the annual production, but these 6 square meter were by far sufficient. We actually stopped breeding snails because of &quot;overproduction&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They were fed on our vegetables garbage. The problem with snails is not so much the insufficient area to feed them, but more the moisturized environment they require. They love water! We live in Belgium, where there is an abundance of rain. If you life in a dry area, keeping snails might be challenging.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="60" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="19cf49f3-0c27-4c59-bf7b-c5f920f00b77" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:31:39.910" UserId="10" Text="We lost all our roses last summer, due to greenfly. The only solution we have so far found was highly toxic. Are the more sustainable alternatives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="61" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="19cf49f3-0c27-4c59-bf7b-c5f920f00b77" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:31:39.910" UserId="10" Text="How to get rid of greenfly in roses and grapes without chemicals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="62" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="19cf49f3-0c27-4c59-bf7b-c5f920f00b77" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:31:39.910" UserId="10" Text="|gardening|pesticides|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="63" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="24" RevisionGUID="79c9e3e1-2308-4483-8d60-0603ba18629d" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:34:42.537" UserId="5" Text="Rain water is generally the safest source of drinking water, as long as you don't live in chemically polluted environment. To remove heavy metals etc. you'd need active carbon filter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you live far from big industry, you can assume rain water is fit for drinking, you can boil it to feel safer. Ground water, if taken from deep, is filtered by ground layers. It contains mud, but you just need to let it stay for a while and take water from top. This is how it is done in well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of bacteriological and parasite hazards, you should always cook that water, as long as you are not sure it's safe to drink it raw. In my family village every household had own well, but some of them were better to drink, so most of the people were taking water for drinking and cooking from the neighbor who was the most lucky when it comes to drinking water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't use water from wells near heavy industry, latrines, pastures etc. Only people who are used to it from childhood can drink such water (I've observed it in Georgia, where children were drinking water from garden hose, we'd probably get heavy diarrhea the next day). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="67" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="33c7e04f-2097-45bd-a930-92f9ac20b14a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:38:50.510" UserId="42" Text="I'm wanting to produce my own energy, but I live in a condo with no access to the roof. I'd like to produce electricity, so maybe turning that energy into electricity safely. I have windows that have access to some sunlight depending on the angle of the sun. What are the best ways to produce my own energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="68" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="33c7e04f-2097-45bd-a930-92f9ac20b14a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:38:50.510" UserId="42" Text="Producing my own energy options in urban area with windows but no roof access?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="69" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="33c7e04f-2097-45bd-a930-92f9ac20b14a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:38:50.510" UserId="42" Text="|city-living|energy|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="70" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="4c600203-d6da-4364-bb58-4384ec9f749c" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:40:38.273" UserId="17" Comment="Some minor fixins. Feels like more work could be done here, though." Text="I want to make sure I have a sustainable water source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I have a source of reasonably safe water like rain water or ground water, how can I purify this water to a level that I will know is safe to drink? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I filter it, and how do I make these filters? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I use distillation, or UV light?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="71" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="dcdaeb67-19ba-486e-8dda-52595055b9ff" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:43:01.357" UserId="45" Text="When building an aquaponics system in general, what is the best equation to use to determine fish loads (waste generation) to grow bed (filtration) ratios.  Is it a simple calculation of pounds of fish to gallons of water processed by the grow bed?  Or pounds of fish to gallons of water held in the grow beds?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="72" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="dcdaeb67-19ba-486e-8dda-52595055b9ff" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:43:01.357" UserId="45" Text="What equation should be used to determine fish load to grow bed (filtration) ratio" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="73" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="27" RevisionGUID="dcdaeb67-19ba-486e-8dda-52595055b9ff" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:43:01.357" UserId="45" Text="|aquaponics|filtration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="74" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="28" RevisionGUID="f9708887-8f04-416f-a237-55ad4d685265" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:43:52.293" UserId="47" Text="A dead mouse in the compost will attract the right kind of microbes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="75" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="24" RevisionGUID="e33e813b-8210-47f5-94a1-5b86894dc27e" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:44:02.450" UserId="17" Comment="Tense fixings and other general stuff." Text="Rain water is generally the safest source of drinking water, as long as you don't live in a chemically polluted environment. To remove heavy metals etc. you'd need active carbon filters. But if you live far from big industry, you can assume rain water is fit for drinking. You could boil it to feel safer on top of that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ground water, if taken from a deep depth, is filtered by ground layers. It will contain mud, but you just need to let it stay for a while and take water from top. This is how it is done in a well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of bacteriological and parasite hazards, you should always cook water that you draw this way, as long as you are not sure it's safe to drink it raw. In my family village, every household had its own well, but some of them were better to drink. Most of the people were taking water for drinking and cooking from the neighbor who was the luckiest when it came to drinking water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't use water from wells near heavy industry, latrines, pastures, etc. Only people who are used to it from childhood can drink such water. I've observed it in Georgia, where children were drinking water from a garden hose. If we drank that water, we'd probably get heavy diarrhea the next day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="76" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="29" RevisionGUID="33e41313-6bd9-4406-a99c-9455448fbad8" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:44:47.517" UserId="45" Text="I am located near Austin.  Using the hanging tower approach, what produce tends to work best in this style of aquaponics system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="77" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="29" RevisionGUID="33e41313-6bd9-4406-a99c-9455448fbad8" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:44:47.517" UserId="45" Text="What produce in central texas works in hanging towers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="78" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="29" RevisionGUID="33e41313-6bd9-4406-a99c-9455448fbad8" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:44:47.517" UserId="45" Text="|aquaponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="79" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="30" RevisionGUID="1da8a9d2-7130-4965-8a03-eefa30521d4f" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:44:52.503" UserId="10" Text="In Belgium and the Netherlands there are still quite some houses with thatched roofs. They are usually houses with from higher segments. Making such a roof is quite time consuming (hence the high installation costs, due to labor costs.) The climate is quite similar if not identical to the british Islands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overhere the roofs are made out of [common reed][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2] (Source: WikiCommons)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phragmites&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IVRWN.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="80" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="31" RevisionGUID="75fcae30-3405-4862-b8a7-c20ee70ee6bc" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:46:20.510" UserId="45" Text="I have seen many different designs for bell siphons.  I was wondering if there was one specific type of bell siphon that is generally known to be the best design.  ...the most kinks worked out of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="81" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="31" RevisionGUID="75fcae30-3405-4862-b8a7-c20ee70ee6bc" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:46:20.510" UserId="45" Text="What is the most efficient design to use when constructing a bell siphon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="82" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="31" RevisionGUID="75fcae30-3405-4862-b8a7-c20ee70ee6bc" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:46:20.510" UserId="45" Text="|aquaponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="83" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="32" RevisionGUID="34a019e9-33dc-4b3f-bab5-1866d091c4c8" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:47:27.153" UserId="25" Text="I read a lot about the amount of medicine found in the environment is ever increasing. This attributes to resistance to antibiotics for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can these chemicals be prevented from entering the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And which medicines are most harmful?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Not sure if I should split this question)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="84" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="32" RevisionGUID="34a019e9-33dc-4b3f-bab5-1866d091c4c8" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:47:27.153" UserId="25" Text="Can I prevent hazardous medicine leaving my body from entering the biosphere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="85" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="32" RevisionGUID="34a019e9-33dc-4b3f-bab5-1866d091c4c8" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:47:27.153" UserId="25" Text="|waste|sanatiation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="86" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="33" RevisionGUID="a8a34db5-6a60-49c1-b880-64615054234a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:48:16.397" UserId="40" Text="I recently had my carpets professionally cleaned, and spent a little while researching the cost and effectiveness of various methods.  But now I'm wondering about the environmental impact as well.  There seem to be two main methods of professional carpet cleaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Steam cleaning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_cleaning), as provided by many commercial services&#xD;&#xA;* Dry cleaning, as provided by [Chemdry](http://www.chemdry.com/) (and perhaps others)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Wikipedia mentions a few [other methods](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_Cleaning) that are less common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemdry claims to be more environmentally friendly than &quot;traditional&quot; steam cleaning.  But the name alone &lt;i&gt;Chem&lt;/i&gt;dry makes me weary of this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I choose the most sustainable and environmentally-friendly method to clean my carpets next time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="87" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="33" RevisionGUID="a8a34db5-6a60-49c1-b880-64615054234a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:48:16.397" UserId="40" Text="What is the most sustainable way to professionally clean my carpets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="88" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="33" RevisionGUID="a8a34db5-6a60-49c1-b880-64615054234a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:48:16.397" UserId="40" Text="|home|cleaners|carpet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="89" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="d57c5dbf-8548-4ce4-9af6-76433b114278" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:49:51.233" UserId="5" Text="The general rule for keeping warm in wilderness in cold climate is to make fire, as big as possible. While being effective, it's not sustainable in longer perspective because it is depleting natural resources very quick. It is also not always possible, for example in subarctic zone, or high in mountains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the techniques to get warm without fire or with limited usage of fire? How to survive  not 2-3 weeks as climbers, but the whole winter? What must be taken into account when housing in such conditions, to create housing conditions using as little timber and other burning materials as possible? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="90" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="d57c5dbf-8548-4ce4-9af6-76433b114278" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:49:51.233" UserId="5" Text="How to keep warm with limited use of fire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="91" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="d57c5dbf-8548-4ce4-9af6-76433b114278" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:49:51.233" UserId="5" Text="|housing|warming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="92" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="35" RevisionGUID="0ca78db5-9b99-4b5a-ad4d-fe4576faec8e" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:54:09.637" UserId="45" Text="So far the best over all design I have seen is provided by Affnan, Rob Torcellini, and TCLynx.  Affnan has expanded on Murray Hallam's original design using a venturi on the internal stand pipe to create better suction. Rob introduced a j tube set up under the tank connected to the stand pipe to create additional back pressure - which once broken also expands on the total suction.  And TCLynx adds another tidbit of great information: make sure your drain pipe is a larger diameter than your input pipe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://affnan-aquaponics.blogspot.com/2010/05/siphon-revised.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these tidbits allow for a slow fill and fast drain but in a manner that drastically reduces the cost of ownership to keep these systems moving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;This link has newer/better details: http://affnan-aquaponics.blogspot.com/2011/04/mini-siphon-improving-previous-design.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="93" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="24" RevisionGUID="4c77e1f2-1cb7-4cd5-a15d-0ed6becd3862" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:55:26.317" UserId="5" Comment="added 338 characters in body" Text="Rain water is generally the safest source of drinking water, as long as you don't live in a chemically polluted environment. To remove heavy metals etc. you'd need active carbon filters or use distillation. But if you live far from big industry, you can assume rain water is fit for drinking. You could boil it to feel safer on top of that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ground water, if taken from a deep depth, is filtered by ground layers. It will contain mud, but you just need to let it stay for a while and take water from top. This is how it is done in a well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of bacteriological and parasite hazards, you should always cook water that you draw this way, as long as you are not sure it's safe to drink it raw. In my family village, every household had its own well, but some of them were better to drink. Most of the people were taking water for drinking and cooking from the neighbor who was the luckiest when it came to drinking water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't use water from wells near heavy industry, latrines, pastures, etc. without distillation. Only people who are used to it from childhood can drink such water. I've observed it in Georgia, where children were drinking water from a garden hose. If we drank that water, we'd probably get heavy diarrhea the next day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In worst case, when you have only contaminated water, you can try to build distillation facility. It requires a lot energy (you can use solar energy). I'm not sure if it is safe with some industrial toxins that evaporate easily, but it's enough for organic toxins such as those from bacteria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="94" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="52bbf51e-c9b6-4271-8d3e-91236b61125a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:58:50.660" UserId="40" Text="I live in a relatively modern (built 1983) home, which has a fireplace in the living room.  How should I decide if I should use the fireplace for heat, or strictly use use the natural-gas central heating system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize not all fire places are created equal, so it may be difficult to provide a specific answer for _my_ fireplace... This is why I ask how I can decide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="95" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="52bbf51e-c9b6-4271-8d3e-91236b61125a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:58:50.660" UserId="40" Text="Should I use my fireplace?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="96" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="52bbf51e-c9b6-4271-8d3e-91236b61125a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:58:50.660" UserId="40" Text="|heating|fireplace|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="97" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="68bdbb33-e544-45b5-99b2-e6aecd0094dc" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:59:26.790" UserId="52" Text="If I were to get solar panels installed on the roof of my home, in the UK, what type should I choose? There appear to be three main types, and at present the choice appears to be between the aforementioned two (thin film panels appear more expensive and less productive unless we're talking about very hot climates.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the advantages and disadvantages of each technology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="98" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="68bdbb33-e544-45b5-99b2-e6aecd0094dc" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:59:26.790" UserId="52" Text="Would monocrystalline or polycrystalline solar panels perform best in a UK climate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="99" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="68bdbb33-e544-45b5-99b2-e6aecd0094dc" CreationDate="2013-01-29T20:59:26.790" UserId="52" Text="|electricity|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="82b4a8d2-1e4b-4101-a5e6-7e39b47ab8a2" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:04:49.823" UserId="20" Text="I've heard claims that it is a bad idea to place meat in your compost pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reason for this?  I'd like to be able to compost all my table scraps to reduce my waste stream, however, if meat is not a good idea to compost, I'd like to know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="82b4a8d2-1e4b-4101-a5e6-7e39b47ab8a2" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:04:49.823" UserId="20" Text="Why shouldn't meat be placed in my compost pile?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="82b4a8d2-1e4b-4101-a5e6-7e39b47ab8a2" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:04:49.823" UserId="20" Text="|composting|meat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="e5ccf7a3-62a2-4c92-9b7d-ffc630210dde" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:04:52.277" UserId="42" Text="Are there problems with an aquaponic tilapia farm for a condo/apartment living space? Is this sustainable and safe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="e5ccf7a3-62a2-4c92-9b7d-ffc630210dde" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:04:52.277" UserId="42" Text="Indoor tilapia aquaponic farm in condo/apartment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="e5ccf7a3-62a2-4c92-9b7d-ffc630210dde" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:04:52.277" UserId="42" Text="|food|aquaponics|apartment|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="365fe835-f115-4bec-903b-6ea749679675" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:05:36.367" UserId="56" Text="A starter material isn't technically necessary, though a good amount of some sort of neutral, non-food based material (such as leaves, dirt, etc) will help to keep it from smelling like rotten food.  I agree that adding worms is an unrelated question.  Otherwise, the natural flora and fauna will breakdown the foods over time, as long as a reasonable nitrogen ratio is maintained." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="daa850be-4abb-46f4-a53d-0c3347963917" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:06:28.713" UserId="20" Comment="Dropped worms based on feedback." Text="When starting a compost pile from scratch, do I need some kind of starter material?  For example, should I take any material from an established composting pile to seed it with appropriate biological agents?  If needed, is such starter sold in any stores?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="41" RevisionGUID="7723b63a-6c77-4e18-a206-5b763997232a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:09:34.523" UserId="41" Text="Groundwater is the stablest source of clean drinking water and normally does not need any extra purification assuming the well is well placed and there are no pollutants nearby. A sample of well water should be analyzed in a lab every three years or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water analysis will tell what kind of filters are needed - if any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a danger of microbes getting into water e.g. because of heavy flooding in the area, the water can be for example treated with UCV light at 245–285 nm or ozoned. There are also reverse osmosis devices for water purification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://water.epa.gov/drink/info/well/upload/2003_06_03_privatewells_pdfs_household_wells.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="eed2e09a-b0ab-40a7-b39e-dae968f2bc46" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:09:40.833" UserId="20" Comment="drop editorial comment" Text="A starter material isn't technically necessary, though a good amount of some sort of neutral, non-food based material (such as leaves, dirt, etc) will help to keep it from smelling like rotten food.  Otherwise, the natural flora and fauna will breakdown the foods over time, as long as a reasonable nitrogen ratio is maintained." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="111" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="40" RevisionGUID="eed2e09a-b0ab-40a7-b39e-dae968f2bc46" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:09:40.833" Comment="Proposed by 20 approved by 17 edit id of 2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="5ef30edb-87e5-4697-8221-a77c2921bb95" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:09:53.107" UserId="20" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="I've heard claims that it is a bad idea to place meat in your compost pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reason for this?  I'd like to be able to compost all my table scraps to reduce my waste stream, however, if meat is not a good idea to compost, I'd like to know.  Or alternatively, if there is a way to compost meat effectively so as to not waste stream it, that would be good to know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="6d6a180f-bdf8-4479-89eb-5f510a929f72" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:10:51.707" UserId="5" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="Forest are the great producer of oxygen, and sustainable living is hardly imaginable with meadows and farmlands only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how to best utilize the forest for animal husbandry, in the way that possibly little interfere with wild nature? I know from history, that our ancestors (in Eastern Europe) have used forest for pasturing pigs. But is it the best way to use forest to 'produce' meat? What about insects, for example?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is about boreal forests, such as those in Canada or Scandinavia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="42" RevisionGUID="41193b49-ff03-49db-bf18-476ee31bc408" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:11:14.173" UserId="52" Text="It's not essential, but it will speed up the process initially if you use a good mix. Personally I don't bother, but I don't really mind when the compost comes and am happy to wait. If you could do with the compost sooner rather than later, then chuck a load of rich soil or existing composting material in there to get it started - they contain a lot of the necessary bacteria which should thrive on their new found food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="e15a379f-dfab-42e2-8a20-c841cd1caf8a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:14:45.780" UserId="52" Text="Rooftop wind turbines seem great in principle, but in practice, especially in urban areas their usefulness and efficiency is debated, such as in [this article][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most general consensus seems to be that in urban areas where there are too many tall buildings around, there may be too much blocking the wind to make a decent amount of energy. However, this is all very vague. Is there a more scientific measure I can use to determine whether this method of collecting energy would be profitable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/2011/02/rooftop_pipedream.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="e15a379f-dfab-42e2-8a20-c841cd1caf8a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:14:45.780" UserId="52" Text="How can I determine whether roof top wind turbines would be beneficial in my area?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="e15a379f-dfab-42e2-8a20-c841cd1caf8a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:14:45.780" UserId="52" Text="|energy|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="1e47d667-ab46-4174-8fa8-8bd2f780ad21" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:20:36.097" UserId="42" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Are there problems with an aquaponic tilapia farm for a condo/apartment living space? Is this sustainable and safe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking there might be problems with humidity/mold and possible water pump noise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="7ba65ebd-2ba9-4da1-91b2-2efa705305a4" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:21:39.600" UserId="41" Text="Anything that has been living can be composted. Local compost manufacturers in finland suggest strongly that meat can be composted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand the problem with meat has something to do with attracting unaerobic processes and overheating the compostor slowing the process down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make sure your compostor gets enough air and the contents are not too tightly compressed so they do not rot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/can-compost-meat-3027.html&#xD;&#xA;http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/compost-meat-waste-2320.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="45" RevisionGUID="a622a596-dcd9-4dd3-a745-0487cbd38a3a" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:21:51.747" UserId="55" Text="I tend to think renewables (like wood) are a more sustainable heat source than natural gas. There are tradeoffs of course. Most fireplaces are pretty inefficient and can result in a lot of particulates. A wood stove (sometimes mistaken for regular fireplaces) or a pellet stove ensure much more complete burning of the fuel (wood), but require an extra up front investment and represent some embodied energy. If you're not burning enough wood energy to make up for the embodied energy of the wood insert, that's probably not worth the investment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to consider is the positioning of the fireplace. Is the fireplace in a central location? If it's off to one corner of the house, you may have more heat radiate outside the home than you actually benefit from inside the home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, do you have a source of good dry wood? If you're buying wood that gets shipped from somewhere other than your own property, the fuel required for transportation may offset the relative carbon savings of using a biofuel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="46" RevisionGUID="7eaa0ba2-c581-45b5-b18a-c61ff3c86fc6" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:26:03.483" UserId="41" Text="There is an empirical measure. Install a small weather station device and record the wind conditions. Then you can compare your charts to what turbine vendors promise and see how much of the time you have enough wind for the turbine to be useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="fcef5c15-4453-4310-9a0c-0769d92457a0" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:26:31.883" UserId="62" Text="I often hear that, although plastic bottles can be recycled quite efficiently, only a part of it gets effectively recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I heard about shipments to Africa to pile them up without a further look at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about this is true? Are there numbers? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="fcef5c15-4453-4310-9a0c-0769d92457a0" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:26:31.883" UserId="62" Text="What part of all plastic drinking bottles is recycled after use, worldwide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="fcef5c15-4453-4310-9a0c-0769d92457a0" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:26:31.883" UserId="62" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="3ff4a356-8fa5-4113-bc77-df04a66bfff1" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:27:42.057" UserId="20" Comment="Clarify question" Text="When starting a compost pile from scratch for kitchen food scraps, do I need some kind of starter material?  For example, should I take any material from an established composting pile to seed it with appropriate biological agents?  If needed, is such starter sold in any stores?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="126" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="3ff4a356-8fa5-4113-bc77-df04a66bfff1" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:27:42.057" UserId="20" Comment="Clarify question" Text="Does a compost pile for food scraps need some kind of starter material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="48" RevisionGUID="9855284a-3ec8-45dc-8c7c-307408bb564b" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:27:56.157" UserId="27" Text="I include all organic materials in my compost, including meat, bones, dairy, grains, oils, and citrus - all of which are often listed as inappropriate for compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meat attracts pests such as dogs, mice, and flies. After adding new material to my compost pile, I put a thick layer of straw on top, and then a scrap of metal mesh fencing on top of that. This contains the smell and discourages digging. I get no flies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use plenty of sawdust in my compost mix, providing carbon to balance the high nitrogen of the materials I want to compost. The sawdust also acts as a sponge to hold and moderate moisture in the pile. A compost pile should be damp (bacteria needs water to travel) but not wet (aerobic bacteria needs access to oxygen). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I include manure in my compost. It would otherwise be a waste product, but in my here it makes a richer compost and provides the ideal bacteria for a hot, active compost pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I build my compost piles pretty big, so they can get hot and contain their heat. The heat helps everything break down nicely.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="b7ce238d-1210-412d-91ce-b19de0548e92" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:28:34.807" UserId="41" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Anything that has been living can be composted. Local compost manufacturers in finland suggest strongly that meat can be composted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand the problem with meat has something to do with attracting unaerobic processes and overheating the compostor slowing the process down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make sure your compostor gets enough air and the contents are not too tightly compressed to only sustain unaerobic processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/can-compost-meat-3027.html&#xD;&#xA;http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/compost-meat-waste-2320.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="1e95128d-cf8d-4b4f-97e9-63b47ab59899" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:29:04.160" UserId="20" Comment="give locale and dimensions" Text="I would like to start composting but live in New York City and have no yard area.  Is it feasible to try composting on my very small outdoor porch balcony area (6 feet x 3 feet)?  The porch is shaded most of the time by other buildings.  Is this even worth the effort?  Can I take steps to mitigate the smell so I don't lose use of my porch?  Am I better off trying to find a community garden and schlepping my wastes over to a compost in a community garden?  I'm concerned that if the process is too difficult, I will not keep up the work.  How can I easily compost while living in the city?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="130" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="1e95128d-cf8d-4b4f-97e9-63b47ab59899" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:29:04.160" UserId="20" Comment="give locale and dimensions" Text="Is it feasible to compost in an apartment in a city like New York?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="3ef1a08d-f247-4a3f-a725-0d9ebc6be891" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:30:03.933" UserId="40" Comment="Improve spelling" Text="Anything that has been living can be composted. Local compost manufacturers in Finland suggest strongly that meat can be composted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand the problem with meat has something to do with attracting anaerobic processes and overheating the compostor slowing the process down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make sure your compostor gets enough air and the contents are not too tightly compressed to only sustain anaerobic processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/can-compost-meat-3027.html&#xD;&#xA;http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/compost-meat-waste-2320.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="132" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="3ef1a08d-f247-4a3f-a725-0d9ebc6be891" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:30:03.933" Comment="Proposed by 40 approved by 41 edit id of 3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="49" RevisionGUID="8ff4358c-5d55-4258-a33b-beddba78e0b7" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:31:23.607" UserId="27" Text="A started isn't a requirement, but it can certainly help. Any long-standing site of decomposition will work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manure works really well in a compost pile that includes food scraps, as it provides thermophillic bacteria that likes the stuff we eat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Include plenty of fine carbonaceous material such as sawdust, to maintain the carbon-nitrogen balance. Build the compost pile big so it can get hot. My compost hits 130 degF.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="73b5484d-238d-45cb-a5ff-8de36e9f41ae" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:35:31.163" UserId="40" Comment="Improve grammar; disambiguate question" Text="I often hear that, although plastic bottles can be recycled quite efficiently, only a percentage of them gets effectively recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have heard about shipments to Africa to pile them up without a further look at them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about this is true? Are there numbers? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="135" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="73b5484d-238d-45cb-a5ff-8de36e9f41ae" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:35:31.163" UserId="40" Comment="Improve grammar; disambiguate question" Text="What percentage of plastic drinking bottles is recycled after use, worldwide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="136" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="73b5484d-238d-45cb-a5ff-8de36e9f41ae" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:35:31.163" Comment="Proposed by 40 approved by 62 edit id of 4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="50" RevisionGUID="6c3ffe18-8419-4976-a4bd-f9be7126ad74" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:36:33.087" UserId="30" Text="I have been wanting to make a aquaponic system as well. The biggest problem, for me, is that I live in Denmark and I am sure that I can't get enough sunlight all year to keep the ecosystem running.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think the same problem, not enough light, might be present in an apartment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="4d8333c5-c0db-4683-a465-8694287e5386" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:39:18.577" UserId="60" Text="Make your own [Sticky Fly Traps][1] using [Tanglefoot’s Tangle-Trap Sticky Coating][2]. Easy to make, cheap and highly non-toxic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make it of strips of paper/plastic and hang it around your roses. If you choose the right color you can make them almost invisible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.instructables.com/id/Make-Your-Own-Sticky-Fly-Traps/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B0039CKKCE/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&amp;index=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="63988737-0abd-4f31-a3a4-f4938b5a3248" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:40:05.877" UserId="27" Text="Open fireplaces provide minimal heat to a house, as the warm air heads out the chimney, while cool air is sucked in to the house to replace it. This is a great feature when cooking over wood in the summer, but it's not helpful for staying warm in the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can buy a woodstove insert that will improve the efficiency, keeping more of the heat in your house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in a major project, look at high thermal mass stoves, which can be extremely efficient when burning wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @rethinktag mentions, **moisture content of wood** is extremely important. All the latent moisture in wood must be evaporated before the wood can get hot enough to burn. Wetter wood means more heat devoted to drying the wood out, which means burning more wood. Wetter wood also means cooler fires, which means incomplete combustion, leading to increased air pollution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="53" RevisionGUID="8b4ee342-6774-4306-9362-faea6b909200" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:40:56.273" UserId="30" Text="I've been told to not put meat in compost heaps because it would attract rats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've only seen one rat in the 15 years I've been living here, and that rat was nowhere near the compost heap. So it must be working ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="51c2f188-43ea-4c67-a97a-5f29f78fe337" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:41:21.937" UserId="58" Text="With ordinary bulbs, I was used to turn the lights off even when I left the room for few minutes (mostly because I know that I can find another bussiness and forget to return :-) ), but I've heard that for [compact fluorescent lamps][1] it's better to turn the light on/off much less frequently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if we calculate not just energy but also ecological footprint from production and liquidation of the lamps, where is the threshold of &quot;dark interval&quot; that saves energy and ecological footprint? For how long must the light be off until I start saving energy (in comparison to having the light on all the time)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are bigger differences between models/subtypes, please send a range and add which lamps are best/ worst/ in the middle. If there are significant differences between estimates of certain on/off turning pattern's impact on durability of the lamps, please give range too. I guess that energy costs or ecological footprint of production and liquidation of a compact fluorescent lamp are quite well known; if not, consider it while computing the range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I don't need it to be extra exact, just to have a good idea whether and how I should change my light-turning habits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="51c2f188-43ea-4c67-a97a-5f29f78fe337" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:41:21.937" UserId="58" Text="What is optimal &quot;light management&quot; with common compact fluorescent lamps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="51c2f188-43ea-4c67-a97a-5f29f78fe337" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:41:21.937" UserId="58" Text="|electricity|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="f98e4819-2144-4c51-a2e8-d24b8b940043" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:41:56.253" UserId="20" Text="Greenware is the brand name of a 100% corn based cups produced by [Fabri-Kal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabri-Kal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is used to provide a plastic cup that can be composted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering what externalities might exist for this product and whether on the whole using such products is sustainable or just a step better than using regular plastic?  Are there any downsides to including these products in your composting efforts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="145" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="f98e4819-2144-4c51-a2e8-d24b8b940043" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:41:56.253" UserId="20" Text="What are the downsides to so called greenware items?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="146" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="f98e4819-2144-4c51-a2e8-d24b8b940043" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:41:56.253" UserId="20" Text="|composting|externalities|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="56" RevisionGUID="af4809b6-596e-42b5-9283-efc4dc6cc794" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:48:44.713" UserId="66" Text="It's more important to worry about a good balance of materials (&quot;greens&quot; and &quot;browns&quot; so that you have about a 30:1 C:N ratio) than it is to worry about a starter colony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of what to use: you can use existing compost, well-rotted animal manures, or healthy soil from your garden. All of these things will have the microbe families that you want in your compost pile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="57" RevisionGUID="1a8524c5-db2c-4627-bcae-6148fa229433" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:58:40.403" UserId="27" Text="In the United States, the average water consumption rate is about 1 quart per day. If you're the only person who needs drinking water, then the costs of digging a well are probably not justified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest option is trucking. Anything between a 5-gallon carboy on a bicycle or in a car, up to a couple hundred gallons in the back of a pickup truck is accessible to most people. Most grocery stores in the USA let you fill your containers for a small fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Capturing rainwater may sound attractive. For every 1000 sq. ft. of roof, and every inch of rain, you can collect 600 gallons of water. The main problem you're likely to hit is contamination **by your roof**. Even if you have an appropriate roof material, you'll probably want to filter the water before drinking it. A slow sand filter might be a good choice, since it's cheap and uses low-energy materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if you want to supply water to more people, or you want to use the same water for washing, you'll need to bigger, more expensive systems to provide enough water. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="58" RevisionGUID="53540153-e1b7-4632-b71a-d4176f3efa77" CreationDate="2013-01-29T21:59:53.477" UserId="66" Text="[Silvopasture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture) refers to practicing forestry and animal husbandry (grazing) in the same area. It isn't clear from your question if you're trying to raise animals in an existing forest or if you're trying to reforest a grazing area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of how you'd do this in a &quot;wild nature&quot; context, but practices that I've heard of would include harvesting the wood, tree products (e.g. nuts), or both, on a rotational basis. Trees need to be planted widely spaced enough so that there's sufficient pasture between the rows." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="59" RevisionGUID="322647cd-beca-48c8-bb4b-85aa22984e6d" CreationDate="2013-01-29T22:03:10.800" UserId="66" Text="The biggest downside is that it is still a consumable; a nontrivial amount of energy needs to go into growing and harvesting the corn, shipping it to the manufacturer, producing the cup, shipping the end product to a retailer, and then getting it to the consumer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With respect to composting, I don't know specifically about this brand, but I have heard that other &quot;compostable&quot; products (e.g. those noisy Sunchip bags) *do* break down, but over a fairly long period of time -- possibly as long as a couple of years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="fe057fe6-6c8b-403a-8f09-589618246055" CreationDate="2013-01-29T22:04:08.387" UserId="69" Text="Mythbusters featured lightbulbs on [Episode 69][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusions they came to were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no appreciable lifespan impact from turning them off and on&#xD;&#xA; - There is no cost savings from leaving them on to &quot;warm up&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, I've started replacing my CFC and halogen bulbs with LEDs, because the price has come down&amp;ndash;a lot! I replaced a tracklight of 4 spotlights with two LED bulbs for a cost of $20. The LEDs offer a comparable amount of illumination (i.e., they aren't dim!) without the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electricity cost of those two lights is $0.20 per year. Eventually, I plan on replacing every bulb with LEDs. Not so much for cost but to reduce my energy consumption as close to zero as I can get it. Then it will be easier to get off the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_69_22000_foot_fall_lig.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="df387a53-c64e-4e45-808e-8c9d4f73f8a9" CreationDate="2013-01-29T22:05:24.307" UserId="67" Text="I've relocated to an apartment with considerable mold in a couple of closets and bathroom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to remove this mold with a biodegradable solution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="df387a53-c64e-4e45-808e-8c9d4f73f8a9" CreationDate="2013-01-29T22:05:24.307" UserId="67" Text="Biodegradable cleaners to remove mold?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="df387a53-c64e-4e45-808e-8c9d4f73f8a9" CreationDate="2013-01-29T22:05:24.307" UserId="67" Text="|cleaners|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="62" RevisionGUID="29281d34-94f5-40da-bb55-466049392a3b" CreationDate="2013-01-29T22:07:37.380" UserId="69" Text="In addition to Baking Soda and Lemon, as @Colby mentioned, I'd add that Vinegar will clean most everything; it is non-toxic and cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found it to be very effective for getting rid of molds and musty smells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you get Vinegar on your food, who cares, right? You could still eat it, unless you don't like the taste." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="156" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="32" RevisionGUID="4a4ce6c9-7354-4de3-a70f-aaafabe30cff" CreationDate="2013-01-29T22:07:38.593" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="63" RevisionGUID="636c6a55-bbeb-475c-ba45-910bbab94484" CreationDate="2013-01-29T22:16:46.903" UserId="66" Text="A formula you could use would be to calculate water needs would be to figure out the area you're watering, the depth of water per week you need to provide, then convert to gallons and figure out how many weeks of storage you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for a 20x20 garden, you have 400 square feet. If you want to provide 1&quot; of water per week, that's 20 x 20 x 1/12, which is about 33 cubic feet, or about 250 gallons per week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you wanted to have 8 weeks' worth of water stored, you'd need 2000 gallons of storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To take a different approach, figure out how much water you use in a watering session. (E.g. if you use drip irrigation.) Then multiply that by how many waterings you do in the period of time you want to have available in storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if your drip system uses 30 gallons per watering, and you water 3x/week, then you need 90 gallons per week, or 720 gallons of storage for an 8 week period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that if you plan to use your rainwater collection system for domestic purposes (e.g. flushing toilets, etc) then you need to account for that in your storage needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you plan to use a pond to store water, consider that you'll lose some water to evaporation -- especially in the middle of a hot, dry drought in midsummer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="170f7bc2-c074-4f85-803e-ead1c3110091" CreationDate="2013-01-29T22:21:34.297" UserId="60" Text="Starting a compost on your balcony seems to be feasible. You can buy or build your own box of suitable dimensions.  &#xD;&#xA;Keeping it running is not difficult if it's shaded but not rained, you have to water it from time to time. And you just add the material and take (and use) the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the smell, it depends mainly on the balance of the substances inside, some [advices are here][1]. That means it can take your time to manage it almost smell-less.  &#xD;&#xA;In my experience including grass cuts (gardening leftovers) makes it better, having mostly kitchen leftovers makes it worse. Temperatures around and below 0°C (freezing) slow/stop the composting process and the smell worsens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/38/60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="65" RevisionGUID="ded02f17-72f0-4cf5-96c8-3e824803cd54" CreationDate="2013-01-29T22:24:25.133" UserId="69" Text="PCB remediation is not something you can (or should) handle yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First thing is I would get the soil tested. If it comes back contaminated, you might consider whether it is still safe to live there, as PCBs are pretty toxic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poking around the [EPA's pages on PCBs][1], it appears that there is a real issue of cleanup and disposal, as in, one has to be licensed to even transport PCBs for disposal. It isn't something that is appropriate to dump in the storm drain or down the toilet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at their document on [PCB handling after a disaster][2] to see what kinds of things they recommend (pages 8-9):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To prepare, the local government should consider establishing contracts with qualified contractors for the cleanup, storage, and transportation of damaged PCB-containing electrical equipment and PCB-contaminated materials before an emergency occurs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the word is &quot;government&quot; and not &quot;individuals&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your soil is truly contaminated, then you might want to contact your local government agency to see what they can do for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/guidance.htm&#xD;&#xA;[2]:http://www.epa.gov/osw/homeland/docs/pcb-disposal.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="5cef2186-d23e-4ff3-aa52-03776147a46c" CreationDate="2013-01-29T22:31:39.860" UserId="69" Text="Try scrubbing with Vinegar. You can try adding baking soda to the vinegar also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've used Vinegar with great success to get mold out of clothes by soaking them in a 4:1 water:vinegar mix overnight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="67" RevisionGUID="94502ef1-7dc5-43aa-8f8e-352976fad940" CreationDate="2013-01-29T22:36:42.453" UserId="69" Text="**Short answer:** no&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Longer answer:** Yes, if you bag your body up in some sort of non-porous plastic to prevent it from excreting any fluid or solid wastes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Alternative question:_ what changes, if any, should I make in my med use to reduce the amount of bio contamination? (list meds here)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="0bd89f60-a02e-4a40-9f2e-e30f8d19cacb" CreationDate="2013-01-29T23:02:09.783" UserId="69" Comment="added longevity; removed irrelevant stuff" Text="Mythbusters featured lightbulbs on [Episode 69][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusions they came to were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no appreciable lifespan impact from turning them off and on&#xD;&#xA; - There is no cost savings from leaving them on to &quot;warm up&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit,** FTFA:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bulb Longevity&#xD;&#xA;&gt;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;They tested one final element of this myth: frequently turning lights on and off decreases their life span, thus leading to greater costs. Grant setup a timer and relay to turn the bulbs on and off repeatedly every 2 minutes. After six weeks, only the LED bulb was still working. Based on this test, they extrapolated that it would take five years of ordinary usage to cause the bulbs to burn out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_69_22000_foot_fall_lig.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="68" RevisionGUID="13d0caea-bee4-4729-81c8-5e55e955a1f6" CreationDate="2013-01-29T23:06:50.857" UserId="60" Text="I use [PVGIS calculator][1] to estimate photovoltaics energy gain to my satisfaction. It contains realistic Europe and Africa weather data.  &#xD;&#xA;Although this would be only a far estimate, let's assume you face south and you're based in Rome, Italy (instead of Chicago, IL), and we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a maximum of 1260 kWh a year with an optimal inclination of 34° and almost south direction&#xD;&#xA;* 810 kWh a year (64% short) with 90° inclination (straight up-down) and a south direction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from a 1 [kWp][2] installed power, i.e. 6m2 of fully covered area. As you probably don't want to entirely cover your windows, you should search for transparent thin film PV panels. Their covered area for 1 kWp would be double or more, depending on the required transmittance and price would be rather high (as of 2013).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the best way? Sometimes it's better to consume less energy (or preserve more of it) than try to produce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt-peak" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="70" RevisionGUID="495b65d7-4e76-4fb3-a2de-9812a9e183e9" CreationDate="2013-01-29T23:15:34.250" UserId="48" Text="There are plenty of biodegradable anti-fungals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, cetrimide is water-soluble, anti-fungal, anti-bacterial and biodegradable.  White vinegar also has anti-fungal and anti-bacterial properties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's only part of the solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other part is to stop the mould returning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To do that, you need to increase the surface temperature of the areas that are getting mouldy, decrease the humidity (or do both). The aim is to get the relative humidity of the air at these surfaces down below 80%, and ideally to 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That will be some combination of: internal wall insulation; external wall insulation; heating; dehumidifier; better ventilation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="2cecd8fc-e3ad-4cd7-b12b-3e6b7b607f42" CreationDate="2013-01-29T23:17:00.720" UserId="69" Text="As part of my ongoing downsizing, my new house's bathroom will be smaller, so I'm looking at installing a toilet/sink combo to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - save space,&#xD;&#xA;  - reduce construction costs, and&#xD;&#xA;  - reduce my water usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Toilet-sink combo][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any experience with these? Are there any recommended review sites where I can compare models/features? What did you find you had to change in your behavior when switching to this setup?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/soUFY.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="2cecd8fc-e3ad-4cd7-b12b-3e6b7b607f42" CreationDate="2013-01-29T23:17:00.720" UserId="69" Text="Switching to Toilet/Sink Combo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="2cecd8fc-e3ad-4cd7-b12b-3e6b7b607f42" CreationDate="2013-01-29T23:17:00.720" UserId="69" Text="|water|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="60" RevisionGUID="d5883f96-d5c0-465a-9c0b-4545b6dbc872" CreationDate="2013-01-29T23:22:01.823" UserId="69" Comment="Added additional source" Text="Mythbusters featured lightbulbs on [Episode 69][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusions they came to were&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is no appreciable lifespan impact from turning them off and on&#xD;&#xA; - There is no cost savings from leaving them on to &quot;warm up&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit,** FTFA:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Bulb Longevity&#xD;&#xA;&gt;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;They tested one final element of this myth: frequently turning lights on and off decreases their life span, thus leading to greater costs. Grant setup a timer and relay to turn the bulbs on and off repeatedly every 2 minutes. After six weeks, only the LED bulb was still working. Based on this test, they extrapolated that it would take five years of ordinary usage to cause the bulbs to burn out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Consumer reports weighs in][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;CFLs keep burning brightly&#xD;&#xA;&gt;---&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The bulbs in our labs have been cycling on and off since early 2009, or 6,000 hours. For comparison, a typical incandescent bulb lasts only around 1,000 hours. Even after all that time, brightness and warm-up times remained virtually the same as after 3,000 hours of testing. Our results were confirmed by an outside lab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]:http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_69_22000_foot_fall_lig.html&#xD;&#xA;[3]:http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2010/october/home-garden/light-bulbs/overview/index.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="72" RevisionGUID="e36ea633-3c8e-4b49-9be5-794778ff7bf8" CreationDate="2013-01-29T23:27:15.083" UserId="52" Text="I haven't installed or used one myself, but my initial reaction comes as the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Saving space - yes, it definitely would. However, it looks like it does so at the cost of accessibility, it looks rather awkward leaning over the toilet bowl to get to the sink each time, and I could well imagine that getting annoying over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Reducing construction costs - are you sure? Sure, there's less there but the novelty of this particular item leads me to believe that unless you know a source you can get it from cheaply, you may not be saving as much as you think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Reducing water usage - yes, it will definitely do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while the above could work in some form, I'd actually suggest another idea - could you not get a conventional sink and run the waste outlet to the toilet bowl? You don't have the same space savings, but small sinks don't take up too much room anyway, and this way you still have the same water conservation in effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="49" RevisionGUID="0740a6a0-13bd-4a61-b3d1-1d5918431461" CreationDate="2013-01-29T23:33:06.013" UserId="60" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="A starter isn't a requirement, but it can certainly help. A shovel from a long-standing site of decomposition will work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manure works really well in a compost pile that includes food scraps, as it provides thermophillic bacteria that like the stuff we eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Include plenty of fine carbonaceous material such as sawdust, to maintain the carbon-nitrogen balance. Build the compost pile big so it can get hot. My compost hits 130 degF.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="175" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="49" RevisionGUID="0740a6a0-13bd-4a61-b3d1-1d5918431461" CreationDate="2013-01-29T23:33:06.013" Comment="Proposed by 60 approved by 27 edit id of 5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="73" RevisionGUID="46a98371-2fda-48fd-9fb5-7beabb921d4c" CreationDate="2013-01-29T23:39:41.553" UserId="27" Text="It's well-documented that adding thermal mass to a woodstove will improve efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can burn smaller splits of wood hotter, causing more complete combustion. The additional heat output won't over-heat the room, because it is buffered by the thermal mass. The thermal mass can keep the space warm long after the fire has gone out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many woodstove users will fill the firebox with wood in the evening, and then close the damper, leaving the wood to smolder overnight. This can keep the home warm for a long time, but it is wasteful of fuel, pollutes the air, and deposits creosote in the chimney. This practice becomes unnecessary with sufficient thermal mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High thermal mass designs I have seen require a dedicated footing in the ground. This is a significant additional expense and inconvenience vs. a conventional woodstove, which can rest on a conventional framed wooden floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I use thermal mass to increase woodstove efficiency without overloading the floor? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="73" RevisionGUID="46a98371-2fda-48fd-9fb5-7beabb921d4c" CreationDate="2013-01-29T23:39:41.553" UserId="27" Text="How can I add thermal mass to a woodstove, without a lot of weight?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="73" RevisionGUID="46a98371-2fda-48fd-9fb5-7beabb921d4c" CreationDate="2013-01-29T23:39:41.553" UserId="27" Text="|woodstove|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="74" RevisionGUID="57f37651-29e4-4330-a237-4fbc68164f18" CreationDate="2013-01-30T00:41:02.757" UserId="66" Text="It's energy intensive up-front, but meat can be home canned and preserved for extended periods of time (possibly longer than salting, smoking, or drying). Once the canning is done, all you have to do is keep the product in a relatively cool, dark, dry place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="26e9b411-e6f3-48b1-8296-bc83b23b4751" CreationDate="2013-01-30T00:47:51.823" UserId="66" Text="[This answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/72/66) to a question about a toilet/sink combo makes me wonder:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What design considerations need to be taken into account if I was to modify my existing sink &amp; toilet so that the sink waste water supplies the toilet tank?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm specifically thinking about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* relative heights&#xD;&#xA;* traps&#xD;&#xA;* overflow&#xD;&#xA;* under-supply (i.e. how do you provide for the situation where the tank needs more water but nobody is using the sink -- does it automatically fill with water from a separate supply line, or do you have to run water in the sink?)&#xD;&#xA;* sanitary requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but there may be other considerations that I haven't thought about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="182" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="26e9b411-e6f3-48b1-8296-bc83b23b4751" CreationDate="2013-01-30T00:47:51.823" UserId="66" Text="What's an effective design for sending sink water to a toilet tank?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="183" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="26e9b411-e6f3-48b1-8296-bc83b23b4751" CreationDate="2013-01-30T00:47:51.823" UserId="66" Text="|water|greywater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="ff25029f-505d-4d91-b346-cb4a00031b2d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T01:15:29.040" UserId="15" Text="Worm farming produces vermiliquid (the liquid component) and vermicast (the solid component).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A google search (with the quotes) for &quot;What is in worm tea&quot; or &quot;What is in vermiliquid&quot; returns zero results. Various sites say it has lots of minerals, but that's very non-specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you add miscellaneous liquids to a worm farm, depending on the design, they may seep straight through to the area tapped for vermiliquid, so you could be getting out some of what you put in (in a more or less broken down form, depending on what it was, and how long you leave it). This is reasonably obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, solid material takes time to break down, and some minerals/compounds may be largely insoluble so won't make it into the vermiliquid at all. Are there any important nutrients/compounds that plants need that don't make it into the vermiliquid (and thus would require vermicast), and if so, what are they?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has any extensive analysis been done on what compounds are in vermiliquid, and what they can be used for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="ff25029f-505d-4d91-b346-cb4a00031b2d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T01:15:29.040" UserId="15" Text="What is in vermiliquid (worm tea)? Or perhaps more importantly, what is not in vermiliquid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="ff25029f-505d-4d91-b346-cb4a00031b2d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T01:15:29.040" UserId="15" Text="|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="9892c1ae-d369-4d9e-835c-a789acdb8aa1" CreationDate="2013-01-30T01:25:45.780" UserId="15" Text="From a physics perspective, I believe thermal mass is exactly equal to mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't help much when it comes to keeping mass down. However, there is a way around it. You can use liquid mass (water is cheap, and very heavy) and store it elsewhere. You just need a way to gently circulate it past the stove and store it in a tank somewhere (one that can handle the temperature increasing somewhat higher than your average water tank!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your tank is located outside of the space you want to heat, you'll need to insulate it heavily. In that case you may also need panels for radiating the heat back into the building, which you'd circulate the hot water through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a liquid to distribute heat is a common method of heating a building; sometimes oil is used and a furnace is running while the building needs heating though. Using oil almost certainly isn't going to be sustainable though, especially when you want to store a tank of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using water, all parts of the system will need to be protected from corrosion (from the inside, especially). It will also need to be able to handle the changes in pressure as the water warms up (and a sudden increase if the water happened to boil by overheating).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, adding mass to any other part of your building that is reasonably warm will help, especially if the insulation is good. This may be an option too. It doesn't have to be right next to the stove (though the closer it is, the more effective it will be)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="c331b0d5-b5db-47a0-a367-0e7aec7fe609" CreationDate="2013-01-30T02:13:27.253" UserId="71" Comment="No need to capitalize Vinegar; improve grammar a little." Text="Try scrubbing with vinegar. You can try adding baking soda to the vinegar as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've used Vinegar with great success to get mold out of clothes by soaking them in a 4:1 water:vinegar mix overnight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="189" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="c331b0d5-b5db-47a0-a367-0e7aec7fe609" CreationDate="2013-01-30T02:13:27.253" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 3 edit id of 8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="6fdc8c7e-d5f8-4995-b595-ab51f1b08982" CreationDate="2013-01-30T02:13:46.767" UserId="71" Comment="Grammar and spelling." Text="Grasshoppers are a valuable source of protein, and they eate many different types of plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how large an area do I need for a colony of grasshoppers providing about 100kg of &quot;meat&quot; a year? In a climate such as in Central Europe or the Northern US? How much farmland or meadow is required to provide food for such colony?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="191" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="6fdc8c7e-d5f8-4995-b595-ab51f1b08982" CreationDate="2013-01-30T02:13:46.767" UserId="71" Comment="Grammar and spelling." Text="How much space do I need for a colony of grasshoppers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="192" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="6fdc8c7e-d5f8-4995-b595-ab51f1b08982" CreationDate="2013-01-30T02:13:46.767" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by -1 edit id of 6" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="4e7df73a-4887-406e-b149-fcb8affbaf59" CreationDate="2013-01-30T02:13:46.767" UserId="3" Comment="Grammar and spelling." Text="Grasshoppers are a valuable source of protein, and they eat many different types of plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how large an area do I need for a colony of grasshoppers providing about 100kg of &quot;meat&quot; a year? In a climate such as in Central Europe or the Northern US? How much farmland or meadow is required to provide food for such colony?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="6cbbce34-d484-42c4-9a0f-60952d903de9" CreationDate="2013-01-30T02:13:54.757" UserId="71" Comment="Improve grammar and spelling; add key qualifier to question title." Text="Forests are the great producers of oxygen, and sustainable living is hardly imaginable with meadows and farmlands only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how to best utilize a forest for animal husbandry, in the way that hopefully interferes with wild nature as little as possible? I know from history, that our ancestors (in Eastern Europe) have used forests for pasturing pigs. But is the best way to use a forest to 'produce' meat? What about insects, for example?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is about boreal forests, such as those in Canada or Scandinavia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="195" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="6cbbce34-d484-42c4-9a0f-60952d903de9" CreationDate="2013-01-30T02:13:54.757" UserId="71" Comment="Improve grammar and spelling; add key qualifier to question title." Text="How to utilize a boreal forest for animal husbandry?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="196" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="6cbbce34-d484-42c4-9a0f-60952d903de9" CreationDate="2013-01-30T02:13:54.757" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 3 edit id of 7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="78" RevisionGUID="fc6c4fee-efd1-47d2-a0b5-7606076cdf84" CreationDate="2013-01-30T02:20:53.343" UserId="27" Text="Toilets use *gallons* of water per flush, and are often one of the top water consumers in the home, so it's worth thinking about reducing water usage here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A cheap and simple option is a **bucket**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Disconnect the drain from under the sink. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Put a cap on the sewer line to keep sewer gasses out of your home. Careful: even an unglued cap can stick very tightly. A screw-on cap is one way to avoid that problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Put a 5-gallon bucket under the sink. You may be able to find these as waste from restaurants or grocery stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. When you want to flush the toilet, pour water from the bucket, instead of using the fresh water in the toilet tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some **limitations**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Small children won't be able to handle the heavy bucket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You need to keep an eye on the bucket to make sure it doesn't get too full, if you wash hands a lot between flushings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Pouring too much water too fast into the toilet bowl might cause it to splash out - yuck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One great advantage to this approach is that you don't have to worry about the toilet overflowing if it's clogged -- you can just stop pouring!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a cabinet under the sink, you might want to remove the doors so it's easier to monitor the bucket, and to haul it out. A small curtain is a nice alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more radical solution is **Humanure**. It uses almost 0 water, converts waste into a valuable resource, and reduces load on septic/sewer systems.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="f50f0840-8f91-4b55-ad6d-5ae91fa4ee6f" CreationDate="2013-01-30T02:33:33.283" UserId="15" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="From a physics perspective, I believe thermal mass is exactly equal to mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't help much when it comes to keeping mass down. However, there is a way around it. You can use liquid mass (water is cheap, and very heavy) and store it elsewhere. You just need a way to gently circulate it past the stove and store it in a tank somewhere (one that can handle the temperature increasing somewhat higher than your average water tank!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your tank is located outside of the space you want to heat, you'll need to insulate it heavily, along with the pipes leading to it. In that case you may also need panels for radiating the heat back into the building, which you'd circulate the hot water through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a liquid to distribute heat is a common method of heating a building; sometimes oil is used and a furnace is running while the building needs heating though. Using oil almost certainly isn't going to be sustainable though, especially when you want to store a tank of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using water, all parts of the system will need to be protected from corrosion (from the inside, especially). It will also need to be able to handle the changes in pressure as the water warms up (and a sudden increase if the water happened to boil by overheating).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, adding mass to any other part of your building that is reasonably warm will help, especially if the insulation is good. This may be an option too. It doesn't have to be right next to the stove (though the closer it is, the more effective it will be)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="ec25731f-c86c-4382-b73b-78847475d9dd" CreationDate="2013-01-30T03:00:41.543" UserId="87" Text="Although there is a definite allure to generating your own energy on-site, if you do not have good solar access then it is hard to get around that reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, there are other ways to have renewable energy captured on your behalf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you have a choice of energy suppliers, buy 100% wind or solar generated energy.  &#xD;&#xA;- Look into group solar.  Perhaps you could get your condo association to invest in solar for the whole building, or to lease space on the roof to an association of community shareholders in a shared solar facility.  There are difficulties with the current structure of solar incentives for groups in some US states, but others have worked through them given time.&#xD;&#xA;- Find a group that is interested in community solar at another site and become a shareholder.&#xD;&#xA;- Do you belong to a co-op (such as a grocery) or community group that might be interested in generating solar for their own use?  You would be replacing conventional power even if it is not used at your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested, I suggest you search the web for &quot;community solar&quot; and also search the archives at homepower.com." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="ad262773-6860-4f31-9913-8dfe364748dd" CreationDate="2013-01-30T03:10:16.857" UserId="87" Comment="grammar" Text="Although there is a definite allure to generating your own energy on-site, if you do not have good solar access then it is hard to get around that reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, there are other ways to have renewable energy captured on your behalf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you have a choice of energy suppliers, buy 100% wind or solar generated energy.  &#xD;&#xA;- Look into group solar.  Perhaps you could get your condo association to invest in solar for the whole building, or to lease space on the roof to an association of community shareholders in a shared solar facility.  There are difficulties with the current structure of solar incentives for groups in some US states, but others have worked through them given time.&#xD;&#xA;- Find a group that is interested in community solar at another site and become a shareholder.&#xD;&#xA;- Do you belong to a co-op (such as a grocery) or community group that you can encourage to install solar for their own use?  You would be replacing conventional power even if it is not used at your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested, I suggest you search the web for &quot;community solar&quot; and also search the archives at homepower.com." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="204" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="64cecf79-c0b2-41ac-aa5c-3906520fca1b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T06:44:17.733" UserId="10" Comment="edited title" Text="How to get rid of greenfly in roses and grapes without toxic chemicals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="205" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="32" RevisionGUID="d4b8a64b-ff86-4f79-8ddd-44565ac90358" CreationDate="2013-01-30T06:47:16.590" UserId="-1" Comment="4" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:58,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pavel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Martijn Pieters&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:91,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Linger&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:10,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Andra&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="565fa170-2606-4d51-b7b0-52cca9000b18" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:05:49.037" UserId="48" Text="There are various ways to include thermal mass with a lower weight. Different substances have different specific **specific heat**. So, for a given weight, a material with twice the specific heat, will have twice the thermal mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water has one of the highest specific heat values of any known material, so for a heat buffer with high thermal mass, low weight, and no phase changes, water is one place to start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phase-change materials are another way to do it.  A high **latent heat of fusion** means that a lot of energy is needed for each kg of material, in order to turn it from solid to liquid.  So, to get a good thermal buffer, you'd need to find a material that has a high latent heat of fusion, and has a melting point at standard pressure that is in a useful range for you - and that's probably around 30&amp;deg;-70&amp;deg;C. Such a phase change material will store lots of heat in relatively low weight when it melts; and release it again when it solidifies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="72" RevisionGUID="f5ffc1e7-62a9-4929-adce-47c7c8709043" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:10:43.553" UserId="52" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="I haven't installed or used one myself, but my initial reaction comes as the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Saving space - yes, it definitely would. However, it looks like it does so at the cost of accessibility, it looks rather awkward leaning over the toilet bowl to get to the sink each time, and I could well imagine that getting annoying over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Reducing construction costs - are you sure? Sure, there's less there but the novelty of this particular item leads me to believe that unless you know a source you can get it from cheaply, you may not be saving as much as you think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Reducing water usage - yes, it will definitely do that over a separate sink and toilet, but not over a sink with a waste pipe feeding into the toilet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while the above could work in some form, I'd actually suggest another idea - could you not get a conventional sink and run the waste outlet to the toilet bowl? You don't have the same space savings, but small sinks don't take up too much room anyway, and this way you still have the same water conservation in effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="eb88b32c-ac5c-4e69-b1b8-899b878fff50" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:14:56.203" UserId="51" Text="Yeasts are used to produce &quot;alcoholic beverages&quot; / beer / wine, to bake, yogurt/cheese, etc....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going to a shop and buy some baker's yeast is easy but not a long term solution.&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to &quot;obtain&quot; Yeasts for this uses at &quot;home&quot; easily? &#xD;&#xA;Which kind? and how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="eb88b32c-ac5c-4e69-b1b8-899b878fff50" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:14:56.203" UserId="51" Text="Yeasts - Home production for alcoholic beverages / Baking / etc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="eb88b32c-ac5c-4e69-b1b8-899b878fff50" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:14:56.203" UserId="51" Text="|food|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="82" RevisionGUID="f0b16561-43ba-491e-ac16-2c35dac8bb10" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:15:12.450" UserId="95" Text="I'm trying to see if I can find a sustainable alternative for toilet paper. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This could either be done by recycled paper (if such exists), &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;but perhaps some other creative solution could be interesting. &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="82" RevisionGUID="f0b16561-43ba-491e-ac16-2c35dac8bb10" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:15:12.450" UserId="95" Text="Alternative to Toilet Paper?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="82" RevisionGUID="f0b16561-43ba-491e-ac16-2c35dac8bb10" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:15:12.450" UserId="95" Text="|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="1d264288-b356-465c-b57a-8a419cbdd15d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:46:04.830" UserId="98" Text="Everywhere can be read that carbon-dioxide increases greenhouse effect. But there are other gases having worse effect than carbon-dioxide, e.g. methane. Is carbon-dioxide emission the real threat, or can we fight more effectively against global warming by reducing the emission of other gases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="1d264288-b356-465c-b57a-8a419cbdd15d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:46:04.830" UserId="98" Text="Which gases increase the greenhouse effect more than carbon-dioxide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="1d264288-b356-465c-b57a-8a419cbdd15d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:46:04.830" UserId="98" Text="|warming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="a58abdc3-43f1-4d13-985c-f5592afa5067" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:52:04.547" UserId="28" Text="What layers of sealing/insulation/etc are needed when putting a green roof on an existing structure?  Strong preference is for materials that are easily findable/not specialized products. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="218" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="a58abdc3-43f1-4d13-985c-f5592afa5067" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:52:04.547" UserId="28" Text="Infrastructure layers for a green roof?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="219" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="a58abdc3-43f1-4d13-985c-f5592afa5067" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:52:04.547" UserId="28" Text="|city-living|green-roof|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="e57b6c61-fe11-4064-9447-404b39060f82" CreationDate="2013-01-30T07:59:34.703" UserId="51" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="Yeasts are used to produce &quot;alcoholic beverages&quot; / beer / wine, to bake, yogurt/cheese, etc....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going to a shop and buy some baker's yeast is easy but not a long term solution, at least the ones I know (and have access) have a  short expiry date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a situation where the &quot;going to a shop&quot; is not an option, is it possible to &quot;obtain/grow&quot; yeasts for this uses at &quot;home&quot; easily? Which kind? And how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="85" RevisionGUID="41c6a37e-6705-4f15-a580-262985627c46" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:02:39.467" UserId="48" Text="Yes, there are plenty of suppliers, at least in the UK, that use recycled materials to make their toilet paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also look for accreditation for sustainable sourcing: there are schemes such as the [Forest Stewarship Council][1] that accredit suppliers that meet their criteria for sustainability. Note that some of these accreditation schemes are controversial, and some criteria are disputed as to just how sustainable they are; and/or how well-enforced they are.  Your mileage may vary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One alternative is to use soap and water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ic.fsc.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="87" RevisionGUID="bfda07c9-31dc-4618-b541-71ff19782d3e" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:09:32.340" UserId="48" Text="Yes, anthropogenic emissions of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; are a real threat: the scientific evidence for this is overwhelming. The IPCC summaries provide, every 6 or 7 years, an overview of all the science. The most recent completed one is AR4; AR5 is being finalised now, for publication over 2013-2014. The physical science basis is summarised by [IPCC Working Group 1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, some other anthropogenic emissions are, gramme-for-gramme, worse than CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. Their total levels of emissions are all lower than CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and they have different lifetimes, which means that you need to pick a particular time horizon to calculate their relative global warming potential (GWP).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a 100-year horizon, methane (CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;) is about 25 times as damaging as CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, weight for weight. Whereas at a 20-year horizon, that factor is about 72.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To effectively fight catastrophic climate change, we need to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, **and** the other greenhouse gases: industrialised nations have to cut their annual emissions by about 80% (on a CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-equivalent basis), and fast (within 2-4 decades, with front-loaded cuts).  That doesn't leave much room for any emissions. So it's about cutting CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;, N&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O, HFC-23, HFC-134a, SF&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt;, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="88" RevisionGUID="651b4af8-2755-45be-920f-19227848507a" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:16:29.180" UserId="99" Text="&#xD;&#xA;1. Make sure your roses are not in location with strong winds, if so relocate them. Beste place is a sunny area with at least 4 hours of sun, slightly windy.&#xD;&#xA;2. Use an organic fertilizer so the roses have enough nutrients. Usually you need to do this twice a year; early spring and after the first flush of bloom, but check the instructions on the fertilizer for more information.&#xD;&#xA;3. Once the greenflies appear spray the roses every day with water, preferably early in the morning so the plant can dry during the day. If there are lots of greenflies add some soap and/or vinegar to the water before spraying. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also read somewhere that lavender, thyme, sage or garlic plants planted between the roses may also help. I've tried lavender last year myself but didn't notice any effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="f9e4f9f6-284d-44d4-b2c1-4f0a9205e7c9" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:23:28.460" UserId="51" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="Yeasts are used to produce &quot;alcoholic beverages&quot; / beer / wine, to bake, yogurt/cheese, etc....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going to a shop and buy some baker's yeast is easy but not a long term solution, at least the ones I know (and have access) have a  short expiry date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a situation where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - going to a shop&quot; is not an option&#xD;&#xA; - trying to &quot;freeze/preserve&quot; some backup batch is not an option&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to &quot;obtain/grow&quot; yeasts for this uses at &quot;home&quot; easily? &#xD;&#xA;Which kind? And how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I want to know how easy/hard it is to obtain this kind of yeasts in the &quot;nature&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="f4aba625-9102-4f7a-9e52-b94ac41baffd" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:38:16.960" UserId="99" Text="Many sites on the internet mention that the liquid from vermicompost is the ideal fluid for (fertilizing) your garden. However, I haven't seen any scientific evidence on this anywhere so I suspect it doesn't exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a quick google and found [this document](http://www.scribd.com/doc/35270170/40/Vermiliquid) where on page 19 it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The evidence for the nutritional value of vermiliquid products is largely anecdotal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There is a paucity of literature available that has investigated the use and quality of vermiliquids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of [this book](http://books.google.com/books/about/Composting_with_Worms.html?id=szGwPAAACAAJ) goes one step further and claims vermiliquid is just waste water and can go bad quickly so it should not be used on your plants. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="90" RevisionGUID="6ded8c3a-ee55-42f0-9eae-85927bc8a42a" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:45:18.957" UserId="85" Text="They are ubiquitous in Japan ([image](http://sanko-kensetsu.sakura.ne.jp/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/010.JPG)), which may be a lead for tracking one down. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the picture shows, they also come with the sink/tank part removed (usually triangular, to fit in a corner), so you can place it wherever you like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it may (and does in Japan) replace a normal sink in a _guest_ toilet, but for all other purposes, you need at least another sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's why&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your waste water will sit inside the tank, and that waste water better be just clear water, otherwise you will have to clean the tank from the inside every week or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You would also have to install an extra faucet, unless you want to flush the toilet everytime you wash your hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- As @berry120 mentioned, the sink will be rather small (which is the point) and unusable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I actually regard them ideal for guest toilets just for the reason you mention, but they are not a replacement for a regular sink." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="0b364810-3e0c-40a9-9aa5-94f7edc33461" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:48:17.173" UserId="106" Text="In 2000, I was introduced to the concept of the ecological footprint, and for the first time I realised how fundamentally unsustainable my lifestyle was. An environmental group had a small questionnaire in their magazine that could be used to estimate ones personal ecological footprint. It included questions on commuting habits, frequency of short-haul and long-haul flights, dietary habits, and others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some similar calculators around on the internet. For example, I filled in the [WWF footprint calculator](http://footprint.wwf.org.uk) which estimates I need 1.7 planets, but as it didn't even ask about the climate I live in, I very much doubt their methodology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are all such online calculators like that, or are there some efforts that are more serious at estimating ones personal ecological footprint?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="0b364810-3e0c-40a9-9aa5-94f7edc33461" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:48:17.173" UserId="106" Text="How do I estimate my personal ecological footprint?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="0b364810-3e0c-40a9-9aa5-94f7edc33461" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:48:17.173" UserId="106" Text="|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="bdb701e9-5f49-46a4-8cce-8b469a317300" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:52:34.667" UserId="106" Text="I've often wondered what is ecologically better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A tomato from the region grown in a greenhouse&#xD;&#xA;* A tomato from several thousand km away grown naturally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming *ceteris paribus*, are there any reliable studies comparing the ecological impact of the two?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="bdb701e9-5f49-46a4-8cce-8b469a317300" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:52:34.667" UserId="106" Text="Local greenhouse vegetables vs. remote naturally-grown vegetables" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="bdb701e9-5f49-46a4-8cce-8b469a317300" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:52:34.667" UserId="106" Text="|diet|groceries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="cfb3c765-632b-444c-b0af-21c29217e665" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:59:00.770" UserId="106" Text="Are there any objective resources to estimate the ecological impact of various travel alternatives? Sites like [Bahn.de](http://www.bahn.de) offer to calculate it, but they obviously favour trains. I've asked [a question on ferries on Travel SE](http://travel.stackexchange.com/q/10041/2509), but didn't get a complete answer taking everything into account. For electrical trains it obviously depends on the mode the electricity is produced. Are there any canonical resources to decide about the trade-off between ecology and other factors when planning travel? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="cfb3c765-632b-444c-b0af-21c29217e665" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:59:00.770" UserId="106" Text="Impact of various travelling options" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="cfb3c765-632b-444c-b0af-21c29217e665" CreationDate="2013-01-30T08:59:00.770" UserId="106" Text="|ecological-footprint|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="24438d80-a6e8-4a67-a0dc-f9003d12b60e" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:02:55.057" UserId="99" Text="The best sealing is simply one layer of [EPDM](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPDM) which you can order in the larger construction store (at least you can here in the Netherlands). You can glue the EPDM to your roof. The material is water and root proof, which are the only requirements basically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On top of that you'll need something that can both hold water and drain superfluous water (drainage layer, 4th layer from the top in [this picture](http://www.safeguardeurope.com/diagrams/flat-green-roof-build-up.jpg) or [look at this picture](http://ecobrooklyn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/drainage-mat.jpg)). On our green roof this was included in the package and I'm not sure if you can buy it separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people like to add a protective layer between the two but in my experience that is not really necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="e7b000a0-c1c2-40c4-9be9-27e8d021b52b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:03:21.040" UserId="106" Text="Organisations such as [JAK](http://jak.se/international/international) and [Rentevrij](http://www.rentevrij.be/) argue that economic interest is fundamentally unsustainable, because it requires perpetual exponential economic growth, something impossible in a finite ecological system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can interest and sustainability co-exist in the long run?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="e7b000a0-c1c2-40c4-9be9-27e8d021b52b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:03:21.040" UserId="106" Text="Is interest sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="e7b000a0-c1c2-40c4-9be9-27e8d021b52b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:03:21.040" UserId="106" Text="|economy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="96" RevisionGUID="b0cfe8e1-f5bd-4ea7-98dd-92f0d685aaf2" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:06:17.270" UserId="103" Text="No. The worst greenhouse gas ist water vapor (H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O). But water is responsible for the *natural* greenhouse effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is the greenhouse gas with the &quot;least&quot; effect on global warming but with the most quantities available in the atmosphere resulting from *anthropogenic* influence/sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, all greenouse gases are compared to CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, talking of [CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-equivalents][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carbon dioxide equivalent (CDE) and Equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2e) are two related but distinct measures for describing how much global warming a given type and amount of greenhouse gas may cause, using the functionally equivalent amount or concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-eqvivalents for common greenhouse gases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    CO2           1    (Carbon Dioxide)&#xD;&#xA;    C3H2F4        4    (2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene)&#xD;&#xA;    H2            6    (Hydrogen)&#xD;&#xA;    CH4          25    (Methane)&#xD;&#xA;    N2O         298    (Nitrous Oxide)&#xD;&#xA;    C2H2F4     1430    (1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane)&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;CFC&quot;     14400    (Chlorofluorocarbon)&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;HFC&quot;     14800    (Haloalkane)&#xD;&#xA;    NF3       17200    (Nitrogen trifluoride)&#xD;&#xA;    SF6       22800    (Sulfur hexafluoride)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to answer your question: CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is the real threat to the climate regarding the *anthropogenic* greenhouse effect. Methane is also very important in global warming. But it's more difficult to say whether methane emissions result from natural or anthropogenic sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally: The greenhouse gases with most concentration in the atmosphere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Water vapor (H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O)&#xD;&#xA;2. Carbon dioxide (CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;3. Methane (CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;4. Nitrous oxide (N&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O)&#xD;&#xA;5. Ozone (O&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="97" RevisionGUID="8b44d0b1-248d-4c27-abac-f5c98b29ea61" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:10:30.390" UserId="85" Text="In India you have to look hard to find toilet paper and if you do it is expensive. They wash themselves after each time the use the toilet (longer). For this purpose, most toilets in India have a (fairly high-power) shower head installed next to them. If you use shower gel for your washing process, the result is much like what you have when you get out of the shower. (In India, of course, this is why they only eat and shake hands with the right hand... In case they didn't have any shower gel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I think I would prefer the recycled paper way to this, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small diversion: In terms of sustainability, one should really use a compost toilet, though. Most mammals know better than to poison their water supply with feces. A marvellous DIY system has been used (and made available online for free) by [the &quot;Humanure&quot; Guy](http://humanurehandbook.com/humanure_toilet.html). I would argue that composting your waste material promotes healthy growth of plants, which is a good counter-weight to global warming (if that is what you're looking for)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="88" RevisionGUID="3d24f39a-3039-42d2-bd6b-4111e670965a" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:16:52.200" UserId="99" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="1. Make sure your roses are not in a location with strong winds, if so relocate them. The best place is a sunny area with at least 4 hours of sun, slightly windy.&#xD;&#xA;2. Use an organic fertilizer so the roses have enough nutrients. Usually you need to do this twice a year (early spring and after the first flush of bloom) but check the instructions on the fertilizer for more information.&#xD;&#xA;3. Once the greenflies appear spray the roses every day with water, preferably early in the morning so the plant can dry during the day. If there are lots of greenflies add some soap and/or vinegar to the water before spraying. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also read somewhere that lavender, thyme, sage or garlic plants planted between the roses may also help. I've tried lavender last year myself but didn't notice any effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="98" RevisionGUID="5e9ad448-5539-4380-ba83-bb7c5a7585ba" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:31:22.353" UserId="85" Text="If I understand you correctly, you are mixing two concepts. Sustainable living can exist regardless of the economic climate. Prices rising does not mean that the _value_ of assets is rising. It mean that you need more paper money to buy those assets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am no economist, but at the moment it seems that the central banks are charging interest on the money they give out. Which means they will have to print more money to give to you to pay the interest. But this money again will have interest on it... This setup leads to more money is accounted for than actually exists. Can interest exist in the long run? Maybe, but only if prices keep rising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With sustainability (in the sense I understand this site to be about), this has little to do. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this site is about sustainable _living_, which can exist, even if the economy crashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the finiteness assumption about this earth's resources could probably lead to a more sustainable model of _economy_, but this is a different question, and probably more suited for Economy SE. (Your question might then be &quot;Can interest exist in a sustainable model of economy?&quot;.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="99" RevisionGUID="72839f76-3b41-43bd-93c2-6d931a921bff" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:32:45.947" UserId="48" Text="Yes, interest and sustainability can co-exist in the long run. Interest has already survived for millennia, so it's probably one of the best-tested sustainable mechanisms we have as a civilisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And interest does not require perpetual exponential growth, neither for savings nor for debt. We've had plenty of periods of history where we **haven't** had exponential economic growth, and we **have** had interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Money and resources are different things&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't confuse money with resources: they are exchangeable, at always-varying rates, but they are not the same thing.  Money can be created at the push of a Central Banker's button - that's what Quantitative Easing is. And debt / savings can be eliminated at the push of a button too - that's what debt cancellation is. And both of these things are happening around us right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interest is a real price, in a real market&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, interest represents a **real** price - the price of credit. If you've got a sum of money that you can access now, you can choose to spend it now, or you can choose to spend it later. If you've got the same sum of money, but you can only access it in one year's time, then you can spend it any time after 1 year, but at no point between now and then. So, by definition, that money that is locked away for a year is worth less than money available now, because you can do less with it. And the price of that is what interest represents - the price of credit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Credit has a real price, and to hide that real price, would distort the market for credit, creating long-term distortions, and actually worsening economic efficiency and thus economic sustainability. Now, economic sustainability is by no means the only kind - there's social sustainability, resource sustainability, and so on. And they are all important. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="98" RevisionGUID="6c64a4c7-75f6-4233-b7e8-adebfcff712a" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:43:47.877" UserId="85" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="If I understand you correctly, you are mixing two concepts. Sustainable living can exist regardless of the economic climate. Prices rising does not mean that the _value_ of assets is rising. It mean that you need more paper money to buy those assets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am no economist, but at the moment it seems that the central banks are charging interest on the money they give out. Which means they will have to print more money to give to you to pay the interest. But this money again will have interest on it... This setup leads to more money is accounted for than actually exists. Can interest exist in the long run? Maybe, but only if prices keep rising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With sustainability (in the sense I understand this site to be about), this has little to do. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think this site is about sustainable _living_, which can exist, even if the economy crashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the finiteness assumption about this earth's resources could probably lead to a more sustainable model of _economy_, but this is a different question, and probably more suited for Economy SE. (Your question might then be &quot;Can interest exist in a sustainable model of economy?&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to @EnergyNumbers's comment, I should add that interest your normal bank charges can even exist in a sustainable model of economy. Charging for the service of lending you money is just like charging for cooking a meal. In that sense interest is perfectly sustainable (in the economic sense)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="248" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="0d8146d9-1ede-452a-8979-bb206e503673" CreationDate="2013-01-30T09:45:37.500" UserId="98" Comment="edited tags" Text="|warming|gases|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="98" RevisionGUID="b36a0905-e9ba-4516-adc2-0e938f7469dd" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:06:12.773" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 247 characters in body" Text="If I understand you correctly, you are mixing two concepts. Sustainable living can exist regardless of the economic climate. Prices rising does not mean that the _value_ of assets is rising. It mean that you need more paper money to buy those assets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am no economist, but at the moment it seems that the central banks are charging interest on the money they give out. Which means they will have to print more money to give to you to pay the interest. But this money again will have interest on it... This setup leads to more money is accounted for than actually exists until the central bank decides to cancel your debt, for services, assets, or just because they like you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the finiteness assumption about this earth's resources could probably lead to a more sustainable model of _economy_, but this is a different question, and probably more suited for Economy SE (which seems not to exist any longer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In response to @EnergyNumbers's comment, I should add that interest your normal bank charges can exist in a sustainable model of economy. Charging for the service of lending you money is just like charging for cooking a meal. In that sense interest is perfectly sustainable (in the economic sense)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="101" RevisionGUID="64a14305-c340-457f-9a09-ece4d89171dd" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:17:13.940" UserId="99" Text="Here in The Netherlands a lot of organic fruits and vegetables and some magazines are wrapped up in corn-based plastics. &#xD;&#xA;A while ago, on a television program they showed what happens with the plastics when you throw them in the separate garden, fruit and vegetables wastebin (these are collected and dealt with separately here). In the communal decomposing factory everything is composted. This process takes about 10 weeks if I remember correctly. However, the plastics take much longer to decomposes so after 10 weeks all left-overs, including the plastics, are filtered out and then incinerated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="d047f053-20ce-4268-93d8-0375d1ca37dc" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:42:54.263" UserId="99" Text="You can use a [bokashi bin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokashi_composting#Bokashi) to preprocess all left-overs including meat and fish. It doesn't smell it all and after about 2 weeks the bin contents can be placed without any risk on the [compost heap](http://www.bokashicompostinghq.com/using-bokashi-compost-in-a-compost-pile/). The downside is that you'll need the buy EM microorganisms regularly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="382acb16-7078-4e96-802e-02d3c1713f78" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:46:15.577" UserId="110" Text="I am currently storing rain water in a 60L blue barrel that is being used to feed chickens, ducks and rabbits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never run dry yet, although I have come close, but there is a steady supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I be doing to ensure this water is suitable for animal consumption or is the regular flow sufficient (emptying, collecting) to keep the water quality reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some things I should look out for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Build up of something&#xD;&#xA;- Should I empty / flush the barrel within a certain period&#xD;&#xA;- Do I need treat the water with anything" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="255" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="382acb16-7078-4e96-802e-02d3c1713f78" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:46:15.577" UserId="110" Text="Maintaining or treating harvested water for animal consumption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="256" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="382acb16-7078-4e96-802e-02d3c1713f78" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:46:15.577" UserId="110" Text="|water|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="102" RevisionGUID="0869e83b-8193-4673-b240-75ab878d7445" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:50:01.937" UserId="99" Comment="added bit about why meat can be problematic" Text="You can compost meat, but the problem is that it will start to smell and attract flies and maggots (as well as neighbourhoods cats and dogs possibly). It also slows down the composting process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use a [bokashi bin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokashi_composting#Bokashi) to preprocess all left-overs including meat, fish and dairy. It doesn't smell and after about 2 weeks the bin contents can be mixed with the compost heap. Tips on how to do this can be found [here](http://www.bokashicompostinghq.com/using-bokashi-compost-in-a-compost-pile/). The downside is that you'll need the buy EM microorganisms regularly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="8083ccad-353f-43e4-ab25-ae64354f8fd2" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:53:15.473" UserId="106" Text="The presently dominant economic system appears to require exponential economic growth. I may be wrong, but whether or not it is is a question that is off-topic here — for the sake of this question, suppose that our economy needs growth and that a steady-state economy wouldn't work. Research has shown that economic growth and an increase in standard of living are tightly linked to an increase in energy use (see e.g. [Physics World](http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/nov/27/modelling-civilization-as-heat-engine-could-improve-climate)). Given the fact that energy sources are finite&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, does this mean that economic models that rely on growth are unsustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/95/106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Of course, there is still plenty of room for growth, as vast amounts of renewable resources go unused." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="260" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="8083ccad-353f-43e4-ab25-ae64354f8fd2" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:53:15.473" UserId="106" Text="Are economies that need growth unsustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="261" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="8083ccad-353f-43e4-ab25-ae64354f8fd2" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:53:15.473" UserId="106" Text="|economy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="f4ad1177-2798-404e-85d2-9eade41d06c4" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:54:08.960" UserId="110" Text="We have a giant (at least 30 metre high) [Norfolk Island Pine][1] in our back yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anything I could do to put the leaves to good use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They don't make good use for composting or as part of the deep litter mix in my chicken coop because they don't break down fast enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently they get chucked in our Green (garden waste) recycle bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [Wikipedia][3] Public Domain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Araucaria_heterophylla&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PmWNo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AraucariaHfoliage.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="f4ad1177-2798-404e-85d2-9eade41d06c4" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:54:08.960" UserId="110" Text="Any use for Norfolk Island Pine leaves?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="f4ad1177-2798-404e-85d2-9eade41d06c4" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:54:08.960" UserId="110" Text="|reuse|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="106" RevisionGUID="aaa24e59-57eb-42f6-836c-332103caaef3" CreationDate="2013-01-30T10:56:53.320" UserId="86" Text="For modification of your existing water fixtures to use grey water to fill and flush a toilet, putting the sink over the toilet, or even any modification of the fixtures themselves, is unnecessary. Modification is still possible, many pedestal sinks do not actually require the pedestal, and can be mounted directly to the wall. This could allow mounting over a toilet if desired, though the options will vary depending on the specific fixtures used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the proceeding example, I will assume that you are working with a system that you have complete control of, and authority over, such as a single family home. You may be able to discuss these options with the community, if you live in an apartment or similar system, as implementation would require group approval, but the benefits would still apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would want to start by changing the drainage path from any grey drains, sinks/tubs/washing machine for example, to drain into a holding cistern, rather than into the septic/sewage system. You could divert downspouts from your rain gutters to deposit into the grey water cistern as well. While a single bathroom sink may not have enough overall drainage to supply a single toilet with adequate quantities of water, the grey cistern will have a much greater chance of meeting the demand. This will leave you with only black water drains entering the septic/sewage system, thereby providing use of the same water twice before discarding, and as such greatly reducing your water usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may (should?) be able to collect more in the grey water cistern than is needed to provide a supply for your toilet needs. This cistern may also be tapped for other uses such as watering the lawn and garden, washing the vehicles or building exterior, and so on. Grey water could ferment, if left in the cistern too long, so a drainage option should be included as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest finding reading specifically relating to grey water systems before implementing a project, to better familiarize yourself with the setup, as well as potential hazards. Jay Bazuzi recommended Art Ludwig's *Create an Oasis with Greywater*, and from the description it appears to be a good place to start. There are many books on the topic, and the more you read the better you will be prepared. You might also be interested in researching 'Humanure' while you are at it, as a way to recycle the black water drains as well, providing a possible third use of the same water; as well as increasing food production, and further reducing septic/sewage load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other things to consider are the possible impact of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Fecal matter reaching the grey water, e.g. cloth diapers in the washing machine.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Urine reaching the grey water, e.g. urinating in the shower.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Cleaning products in the grey water, and their affect on plant life, if using to water the lawn/garden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="266" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="f7269992-dfde-4c42-8c17-f2a5f5b17f2b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T11:15:46.337" UserId="98" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gases|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="267" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="859f5f56-b491-4d2e-9705-63736052ca52" CreationDate="2013-01-30T11:20:23.230" UserId="98" Comment="edited tags" Text="|housing|warming|survival|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="3059da66-af3a-4a1e-ad97-1a2d4e0a1a27" CreationDate="2013-01-30T11:38:15.177" UserId="103" Text="Long question, short answer: No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing like an *universe database on carbon footprints* or similar. Of course there are a lot of websites for example which allow you to calculate the impact of - for example - travelling by plane or by car. But the actual calculation of such values is very complex and always comes along with a lot of research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned the example of trains (Deutsche Bahn). Let's dig into it. What do we need to know for an objective estimation of your ecological impact?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Model and size of train (ICE, IC, EC, RE, RB, S-Bahn, Tram, ...)&#xD;&#xA; - Type of energy used (diesel, electricity, ...)&#xD;&#xA; - Quantity of energy used&#xD;&#xA; - Average speed, number of stops&#xD;&#xA; - Number of passengers (occupancy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these accurate numbers you could calculate your ecological impact (*carbon footprint*) for traveling by train. I doubt that the *Deutsche Bahn* for instance is able to provide you with all these data. And even if they could it's getting more complex. For example - if a train uses electricity - how do you know how the electricity was produced? It's a huge difference on the ecological impact if the train is powered by coal power plants or by renewable energy sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All you get is always some vague estimations. Let's have a look at flights. This is a very hot topic and a lot of sites on the internet offer some sort of calculators. Let's comepare some.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One-way-flight Berlin (TXL) to Tel Aviv (TLV) - ca. 3,000km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Carbon Footprint][1]: 280kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- [Terra Pass][2]: 315kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- [Carbon Neutral][3]: 340kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- [Travel Nav][4]: 372kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- [Atmosfair][5]: 820kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numbers above already tell you a lot about the &quot;objective&quot; nature of this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a look at [this one][6]. This one allows you to adjust more parameters, for example type of plane and overall occupance of the plane. Maybe a better resource. But still no full *obective* resource to estimate your travel impacts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I hope this is enough to answer your question and explained why I said &quot;No&quot; in the beginning. Calculating carbon footprints takes a lot of time for research or else you will only get very rough - sometimes unusable - estimates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.terrapass.com/carbon-footprint-calculator-2/#air&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.carbonneutralcalculator.com/flightcalculator.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.travelnav.com/flight-emissions/from/Berlin,+Germany/to/Tel+Aviv,+Israel&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.atmosfair.de/emissionsrechner/rechner/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.chooseclimate.org/flying/mf.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="440e517c-63b0-4066-bdf8-cb905bff35f8" CreationDate="2013-01-30T12:11:41.043" UserId="111" Text="I mentioned to someone that I admired the person because they were a locavore. They responded that they weren't a locavore because not all their foods were local, just like they weren't a vegetarian because they ate meat along with their vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Merriam Webster [defines locavore][1] as &quot;one who eats foods grown locally whenever possible&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia [defines locavore][2] as &quot;A locavore is a person interested in eating food that is locally produced, not moved long distances to market.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Locavores.com is a group of locavores][3] &quot;making an effort to eat only foods grown or harvested within a 100 mile radius of San Francisco for an entire month&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One restaurant in my area maintains a chalk board of what ingredients it obtained 'locally' and includes farms 250 miles away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jennifer Maiser (editor of [EatLocalChallenge.com][4]) was quoted on PBS &quot;10 Steps to Becoming a Locavore&quot; as defining locavore as &quot;Locavores are people who pay attention to where their food comes from and commit to eating local food as much as possible.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There appears to be quite a range of desire, amount, distance, and time. What makes someone a locavore? Is locavore a noun or more like an adjective (you can be more locavove)?  Is someone who prefers vegetables from their own garden a locavore even if all their other food is from thousands of miles away? Is someone who eats meat from a farm 500 miles away (which they chose because of it's sustainability focus) not a locavore?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/locavore&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locavores&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.locavores.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.eatlocalchallenge.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="272" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="440e517c-63b0-4066-bdf8-cb905bff35f8" CreationDate="2013-01-30T12:11:41.043" UserId="111" Text="When are you a locavore?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="273" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="440e517c-63b0-4066-bdf8-cb905bff35f8" CreationDate="2013-01-30T12:11:41.043" UserId="111" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="35a27b91-365d-4caf-908d-62005af3c005" CreationDate="2013-01-30T12:35:33.417" UserId="86" Text="An Igloo is an efficient shelter made of snow/ice blocks. At first thought, the snow is cold so how could it keep one warm. The true value is in the insulation. The design creates a small insulating shelter. The cold weather stays out, the body heat stays in. This is part of the reason they are built small, like tents. The small volume is easier to heat by residual body temperature alone. The more people in the structure, the quicker and warmer it will become.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The human body averages 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the reason for hypothermia is the environment is sapping too much of that heat energy away from the body. By creating an igloo or similar structure, it is possible to prevent the body heat from moving too far away. As the body releases heat energy, it becomes trapped in the igloo by the thick snow walls, and builds up. The interior will not reach 98.6, but it is possible to raise it to a much more comfortable temperature than the frigid outside air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to remember with igloos is that they are cut down into the snow pack, *not* built on top of it. This allows a smaller surface area presented to the outer environment. Also, the orientation of the door must be taken into consideration. Allowing the cold wind to drive right in through the door is not a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the snow itself will still be cold to the touch. Proper clothing is essential, the igloo just helps to maintain an environment with a higher ambient air temperature, thereby slowing the rate of heat loss from the human body. Any structure performs the same function, the igloo works with body heat because of its small size compared to the size of the occupants. Obviously, if the igloo is built too large for the number of occupants, it will not be possible to heat with residual heat alone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="275" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="370f1d16-c7b4-42b3-9ef4-84574abb8894" CreationDate="2013-01-30T12:49:11.360" UserId="86" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="74" RevisionGUID="8454d05d-bcd4-46f3-8c72-6c8a9c951eeb" CreationDate="2013-01-30T12:52:51.523" UserId="66" Comment="add more detail" Text="It's energy intensive up-front, but meat can be home canned and preserved for extended periods of time (possibly longer than salting, smoking, or drying).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canning meat requires a bit of investment in equipment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* pressure canner (~$80)&#xD;&#xA;* jars, lids, and rings (~$15 per dozen quart jar kit)&#xD;&#xA;* a few misc. tools (e.g. jar lifter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the canner, jars, rings, and tools can be reused many times so that the cost per batch ends up very low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get detailed instructions for home canning meat in trusted books like the &quot;Ball Blue Book&quot; or from the US [National Center for Home Food Preservation](http://nchfp.uga.edu/how/can5_meat.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the canning is done, all you have to do is keep the product in a relatively cool, dark, dry place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="6b1fe540-1135-4e37-be3d-7c345d558a5e" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:17:19.347" UserId="99" Text="Recently on a Dutch television program they asked and answered a similar question. The question was which would be more sustainable; fresh endive grown locally in a greenhouse, or grown in the ground in Spain (about 1300km from here) and then transport it by truck. According to research they had done the answer was that the endive grown in Spain had a lower CO2 footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same television show also mentioned that fresh green beans which are transported by plane (from Kenia) have a far higher CO2 footprint than the ones transported by boat and/or truck (from Senegal, Marocco or Spain), so I guess for all vegetables or fruits it  depends on the method of transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Dutch speakers, here is [the fragment about endive](http://kassa.vara.nl/tv/afspeelpagina/fragment/dilemma-verse-andijvie-uit-nederland-of-uit-spanje/speel/1/) and the one about [green beans](http://kassa.vara.nl/tv/afspeelpagina/fragment/dilemma-sperzieboontjes-uit-afrika/speel/1/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="278" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="b91d465b-ecc2-4dfe-80a0-ce57d12c2b7b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:18:27.743" UserId="86" Comment="edited tags" Text="|city-living|green-construction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="112" RevisionGUID="c10eb15a-6217-4ad3-a8a1-b65bb3d927d0" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:20:20.407" UserId="66" Text="Something that doesn't break down fast -- like pine needles/leaves -- sounds like a great candidate to use as mulch. Since they break down slowly and will slightly lower the soil pH, so you might want to use them around perennial, acid-loving plants like blueberries or azalea-family shrubs (as opposed to using them around annual, neutral-pH plants like in your vegetable garden). The needles in the bottom layer *will* break down over a couple of years, so you can keep adding fresh mulch to the top layer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="113" RevisionGUID="ca3d5982-4790-421a-b5c4-b55923ddcfba" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:26:48.803" UserId="87" Text="As you found, there is a wide range in what is defined as &quot;local&quot;.  I still think it is useful to self-identify as a locavore, but beware of people trying to sell you something using the label &quot;local&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being a locavore is not a philosophical choice that requires an all-or-nothing approach.  Since one of the primary reasons for eating locally is to reduce energy use on your behalf to transport food, every reduction is helpful and conversely there is no way to reach zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you wish to work towards the goals of locavores, feel free to identify yourself as such.  My wife and I joke about defining local as &quot;25 feet&quot; when eating a meal from the garden.  However we still buy selected items that do not grow in our climate (grapefruit, avacados) because we choose to.  Yet by being conscious of where food comes from and choosing sources within 25 miles when possible, we are clearly reducing the total energy use to deliver our food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="283" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="828a9103-dbc7-4d6e-84cf-d61d5d95fe13" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:27:24.710" UserId="-1" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;bstpierre&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Martijn Pieters&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:106,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;gerrit&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:58,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pavel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="68" RevisionGUID="b5b894a2-5ed7-41f1-97c9-665865fbc3ab" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:30:18.017" UserId="60" Comment="improved formatting" Text="I use [PVGIS calculator][1] to estimate photovoltaics energy gain to my satisfaction. It contains realistic Europe and Africa weather data.  &#xD;&#xA;Although this would be only a far estimate, let's assume you face south and you're based in Rome, Italy (instead of Chicago, IL), and we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a maximum of 1260 kWh a year with an optimal inclination of 34° and almost south direction&#xD;&#xA;* 810 kWh a year (64% short) with 90° inclination (straight up-down) and a south direction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from a 1 [kW&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt;][2] installed power, i.e. 6m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of fully covered area. As you probably don't want to entirely cover your windows, you should search for transparent thin film PV panels. Their covered area for 1 kW&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt; would be double or more, depending on the required transmittance and price would be rather high (as of 2013).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the best way? Sometimes it's better to consume less energy (or preserve more of it) than try to produce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt-peak" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="d18e7666-0986-4244-b431-debae6634e32" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:50:24.577" UserId="7" Text="Letting some fresh air inside is always a good idea, but during the winter it seems a bit wasteful to fling open the window and let the fresh air in at the expense of all that hot air going out, and wasted energy with it. What's a good way to have fresh air inside that keeps wasted energy low?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="d18e7666-0986-4244-b431-debae6634e32" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:50:24.577" UserId="7" Text="What is an energy efficient way to get fresh air indoors during winter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="d18e7666-0986-4244-b431-debae6634e32" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:50:24.577" UserId="7" Text="|home|energy|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="288" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="e3225787-d75d-4a4e-a52b-9826183e8069" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:53:23.337" UserId="86" Comment="edited tags" Text="|city-living|plants|roof|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="115" RevisionGUID="73ff2d91-fce2-420a-adda-3251916879c7" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:55:02.277" UserId="99" Text="How can we as consumers persuade manufacturers to make their products more sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;The only things I've come up with (and try to do myself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Buy the most sustainable version of products. The idea is that if enough people do this, manufacturers will notice a change in demand and adjust their method of production.&#xD;&#xA;2. Publish information about manufactureres, shops, restaurants etc. that strive to make sustainable products, or that do just the opposite, in the hope that other people will read and act upon that information.&#xD;&#xA;3. Sign petitions drawn up by organisations like Greenpeace for example to protest against the use of non-sustainable materials (e.g. chemicals used to produce cotton for clothing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any proof that these methods work? Does anyone have a better alternative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="115" RevisionGUID="73ff2d91-fce2-420a-adda-3251916879c7" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:55:02.277" UserId="99" Text="How can we as consumers persuade manufacturers to make their products more sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="115" RevisionGUID="73ff2d91-fce2-420a-adda-3251916879c7" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:55:02.277" UserId="99" Text="|manufacturing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="116" RevisionGUID="ff60e424-e69c-47a7-b54d-29fd1452a12b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T13:57:48.737" UserId="98" Text="Open all windows wide but only for a short period. It will replace the air, but won't cool down the walls. This is the usual recommendation of gas companies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="28d728a3-c2f5-455e-bc71-4f5493b5d7aa" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:02:36.910" UserId="7" Text="A good way to cope with forgetting to turn of the lights is automatic light switches. But they must be using some energy to do their job. What's the rate of energy use for a typical automatic/sensor light switch? How does this compare with, say, a typical CFL?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="28d728a3-c2f5-455e-bc71-4f5493b5d7aa" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:02:36.910" UserId="7" Text="What's the typical energy usage of automatic light switches?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="28d728a3-c2f5-455e-bc71-4f5493b5d7aa" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:02:36.910" UserId="7" Text="|home|energy|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="9bed669b-b4d9-43cb-b7d2-26ab8d920a4f" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:02:52.260" UserId="51" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Yeasts are used to produce &quot;alcoholic beverages&quot; / beer / wine, to bake, yogurt/cheese, etc....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going to a shop and buy some baker's yeast is easy but not a long term solution, at least the ones I know (and have access) have a short expiration date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a situation where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - going to a shop&quot; is not an option&#xD;&#xA; - trying to &quot;freeze/preserve&quot; some backup batch is not an option&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to &quot;obtain/grow&quot; yeasts for this uses at &quot;home&quot; easily? &#xD;&#xA;Which kind? And how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I want to know how easy/hard it is to obtain this kind of yeasts in the &quot;nature&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="297" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="074e949b-c66f-4092-883a-4f88f76220c8" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:12:18.040" UserId="86" Comment="edited tags" Text="|city-living|plants|green-roof|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="118" RevisionGUID="c8ce5c77-0c45-4b66-ba33-d2d40e0b1889" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:13:35.160" UserId="98" Text="An award should be made with a logo. It could be given by a committee to a product and it would entitle the producer to put that logo on that product. In my country (Hungary) there was a similar award in the '80s, named &quot;forum of excellent products&quot;. It had a triangle like logo. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![forum of excellent products][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rgzER.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="c7dda8fc-640a-4b60-92b1-699e8a439be1" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:16:39.793" UserId="91" Text="I am a first time seeder and I am trying to save the seeds from the fruits and vegetables I consume so I can plant them later.  I understand how to properly save most seeds like.  However, I am unsure how to properly seed a tomato.  How should I go about seeding a tomato?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="301" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="c7dda8fc-640a-4b60-92b1-699e8a439be1" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:16:39.793" UserId="91" Text="Saving the seeds of fruits and vegetables" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="302" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="c7dda8fc-640a-4b60-92b1-699e8a439be1" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:16:39.793" UserId="91" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="82" RevisionGUID="edb9b85a-ed7a-4b72-96ea-a6a3f834ed7c" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:17:35.873" UserId="48" Comment="removed chatty stuff and gratuitous line breaks" Text="Are there any sustainable alternatives for toilet paper? This could either be done by recycled paper (if such exists), but perhaps some other creative solution could be interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="305" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="82" RevisionGUID="edb9b85a-ed7a-4b72-96ea-a6a3f834ed7c" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:17:35.873" Comment="Proposed by 48 approved by 117 edit id of 11" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="96" RevisionGUID="fcdfb355-aded-454c-9795-7721545ec3be" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:17:41.753" UserId="99" Comment="corrected spelling and grammar" Text="No. The worst greenhouse gas is water vapor (H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O). But water is responsible for the *natural* greenhouse effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is the greenhouse gas with the &quot;least&quot; effect on global warming but with the most quantities available in the atmosphere resulting from *anthropogenic* influence/sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, all greenhouse gases are compared to CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and we talk about [CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-equivalents][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carbon dioxide equivalent (CDE) and Equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2e) are two related but distinct measures for describing how much global warming a given type and amount of greenhouse gas may cause, using the functionally equivalent amount or concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-equivalents for common greenhouse gases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    CO2           1    (Carbon Dioxide)&#xD;&#xA;    C3H2F4        4    (2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene)&#xD;&#xA;    H2            6    (Hydrogen)&#xD;&#xA;    CH4          25    (Methane)&#xD;&#xA;    N2O         298    (Nitrous Oxide)&#xD;&#xA;    C2H2F4     1430    (1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane)&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;CFC&quot;     14400    (Chlorofluorocarbon)&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;HFC&quot;     14800    (Haloalkane)&#xD;&#xA;    NF3       17200    (Nitrogen trifluoride)&#xD;&#xA;    SF6       22800    (Sulfur hexafluoride)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to answer your question: CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is the real threat to the climate regarding the *anthropogenic* greenhouse effect. Methane is also very important in global warming, but it's more difficult to say whether methane emissions result from natural or from anthropogenic sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally: The greenhouse gases with most concentration in the atmosphere:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Water vapor (H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O)&#xD;&#xA;2. Carbon dioxide (CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;3. Methane (CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;4. Nitrous oxide (N&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O)&#xD;&#xA;5. Ozone (O&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="307" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="96" RevisionGUID="fcdfb355-aded-454c-9795-7721545ec3be" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:17:41.753" Comment="Proposed by 99 approved by 117 edit id of 12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="0a3f8b33-cabc-4b1c-a9c3-ea49887bb0fa" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:17:44.453" UserId="60" Comment="link added" Text="Although there is a definite allure to generating your own energy on-site, if you do not have good solar access then it is hard to get around that reality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, there are other ways to have renewable energy captured on your behalf:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you have a choice of energy suppliers, buy 100% wind or solar generated energy.  &#xD;&#xA;- Look into group solar.  Perhaps you could get your condo association to invest in solar for the whole building, or to lease space on the roof to an association of community shareholders in a shared solar facility.  There are difficulties with the current structure of solar incentives for groups in some US states, but others have worked through them given time.&#xD;&#xA;- Find a group that is interested in community solar at another site and become a shareholder.&#xD;&#xA;- Do you belong to a co-op (such as a grocery) or community group that you can encourage to install solar for their own use?  You would be replacing conventional power even if it is not used at your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested, I suggest you search the web for &quot;community solar&quot; and also search the archives at [homepower.com][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.homepower.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="309" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="79" RevisionGUID="0a3f8b33-cabc-4b1c-a9c3-ea49887bb0fa" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:17:44.453" Comment="Proposed by 60 approved by 117 edit id of 10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="120" RevisionGUID="8c1557ee-6054-4897-890f-f82497730442" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:18:30.217" UserId="99" Text="I know large solar panels generate more energy than is needed to manufacture them, but what about small portable solar chargers for mobile phone or radio? I've read somewhere that their efficiency is much lower than that of the large panels. Wouldn't you be better off just using 'traditional' rechargable batteries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="120" RevisionGUID="8c1557ee-6054-4897-890f-f82497730442" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:18:30.217" UserId="99" Text="Do small portable solar chargers generate more energy than it costs to produce them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="120" RevisionGUID="8c1557ee-6054-4897-890f-f82497730442" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:18:30.217" UserId="99" Text="|solar-power|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="313" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="3ceb9cb9-4a13-4caa-aeb1-2e77ea09de6c" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:19:21.150" UserId="51" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|home|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="121" RevisionGUID="e5d06ff7-4c06-491e-bc61-6b4411b8156d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:25:42.253" UserId="58" Text="During centuries, energy/resource consumption gradually grew. This is not a problem per se if new ways to acquire and exploit new resources are invented. But what is dangerous is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) too fast growth of consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) lack of reserves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) lack of flexibility&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In history, there were good times, when consumption grew, and bad times, when cultures unable to change their habits collapsed. Some civilisations, like ancient Egypt or China, were able to recover from the hard times easier than others, who didn't survive crises so well or even at all. Why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be closely connected with the basic orientation of the culture. For example in ancient Egypt, the biggest goal was to &quot;live forever&quot; - their growth aimed to produce tomb treasures, which could be looted and reused in bad times. There are theories that people could legally loot their ancestors' tombs if the ancestors didn't bless them and protect them - the dead (and especially dead kings) were believed to have power to ensure blessing of good crops and of freedom from enemies. Whether these theories are true or not is a question for History.SE, the conclusion is that such civilisation was oriented for long term survival, not for temporary growth and that it survived thousands of years, at least three big crises and many smaller ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there were many cultures even more oriented for growth than our civilisation - they were mostly war-like states, like most of Dark Age kingdoms. Constant war, winning, loot and new vassals were requirements of their existence, so few such states survived, and many ceased to exist in few years, with just few major defeats. The culture survived the end of such states, but it couldn't stay long in with such orientation on military expansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our civilisation is more similar to the Dark Age than to ancient Egypt, but of course better - it's oriented on economic and technological growth, which are more resistant to temporary failures than military expansion. But not so much - recent economic crisis shows it's drawback. And there are ecological challenges, oil peak and so on. Existence of this forum shows that there are people who try to make the civilisation sustainable, but the idea that we don't need reserves, because technological growth will solve everything decreases flexibility of our civilisation. How shall we survive the moment of opening eyes and seeing that oil is too rare to be cheap, and that other sources are too expensive for our [potlatch][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, economic growth can be sustainable, but &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) must be slower&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) must be backed up by better reserves for bad times&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) must not be a basic aim of the civilisation, since orientation to growth is in conflict with flexibility and willingness to decrease my consumption for the good of the whole. This is a matter of values - if most people are egoists who would rather accept risk of collapse of civilisation later than to decrease standard of living now, than growth is not sustainable and will eventually lead to disaster, but with certain minimal percentage of altruists willing to decrease their ecological footprint, even groth can be sustainable. That's why I'm here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="123" RevisionGUID="16c792e9-36c6-4833-9bb6-ef71d238d954" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:35:10.740" UserId="52" Text="It's quite a hard question to answer objectively, because you don't know how much these panels will be used. They may be left out in bright sunshine all day in which case they will likely generate more energy than was used to manufacture them over their lifespan, or they may stay locked in a cupboard on all but a couple of days a year. Their efficiency will depend much more on the construction technique and technology used as well, so it's hard to give a certain objective answer here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the advantage with these panels is less about the energy you can make back, and much more about the convenience of harvesting power without batteries in the wilderness, or trickle charging without having to change rechargeable batteries. Up to a certain point, yes you may well be better using rechargeable batteries - but what happens after that? If I'm on a journey through wilderness for a few weeks in a hot climate, does it make more sense to take a few ten's of AAs with me, or a simple solar panel and a bunch of connectors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These sorts of panels may well not make their energy consumption back over the course of their lifetime, but you could postulate a sensible argument that that's not their aim. Their aim is to provide a convenient source of continuous power in sunlight when few other sources are available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="124" RevisionGUID="b41a27c8-9613-42d5-a892-041568587c04" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:39:27.003" UserId="115" Text="I'm in the _cleanliness is over-hyped in our culture_ camp, so I probably have a different outlook than you.  But, I wash surfaces mostly with just water and a cloth.  If there's grease to cut or I want to damage microorganisms, I'll wipe down with vinegar.  I don't even use baking soda for _surfaces_ -- just for burned pans and such.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This mild sanitation protocol works well even in my kitchen which is deeply saturated with microorganisms due to years of various, constant fermentations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="125" RevisionGUID="baffb1ba-ea03-46df-aa4c-a02ae53c8462" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:43:09.057" UserId="115" Text="I'd suggest vermicomposting.  You can learn tons by searching the web and there are numerous products you can buy to help you along, but you can also DIY and keep it indoors with essentially no danger of foul odors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This document][1] is particularly suited to working in small spaces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=f8d10625-0a33-45e6-9b3c-359dca90a037&amp;groupId=38322" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="cec59f5c-a672-420d-98a6-cca727c4463e" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:52:05.673" UserId="25" Comment="added more info." Text="I want to make sure I have a sustainable water source for one household.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I have a source of reasonably safe water like rain water or ground water, how can I purify this water to a level that I will know is safe to drink? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I filter it, and how do I make these filters? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I use distillation, or UV light?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="6ac74cc7-0948-469a-b851-ccdd3cb5fb9b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:53:23.527" UserId="20" Text="I have heard it claimed that for public transportation, provided ridership is sufficiently high, that the most efficient means is commuter trains, followed by subways, and lastly buses.  Further, I heard it claimed that buses were actually negatives in that if each person riding the bus instead took a car and the bus did not exist, there would be less resources consumed and less total environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any truth to these claims and how would one go about objectively measuring the complete impact of the various choices for moving about?  Do the choices vary by city size and population density, for example New York City versus Cincinnati?  What are some of the non-obvious externalities of the various public transportation options?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="6ac74cc7-0948-469a-b851-ccdd3cb5fb9b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:53:23.527" UserId="20" Text="When is using public transportation more efficient and less impacting than using a personal car?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="6ac74cc7-0948-469a-b851-ccdd3cb5fb9b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:53:23.527" UserId="20" Text="|city-living|externalities|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="17fe7e0f-712c-4573-a84a-b13e778efeaa" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:59:38.507" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="e865d58e-d024-446e-a109-0ecb78359fb9" CreationDate="2013-01-30T14:59:38.507" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="326" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="9494e80c-61ea-4979-9245-72775b3b2444" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:10:29.673" UserId="51" Comment="edited tags" Text="|water|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="129" RevisionGUID="f6033b5a-c304-4236-a5fb-524ba6c129fe" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:12:52.797" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="130" RevisionGUID="eccebc7f-1853-4c7f-890b-451f13a691de" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:12:52.797" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="329" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="b3cff489-e0e2-4229-bc6b-a2f9ac1dabf5" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:14:34.977" UserId="51" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|home|diy|prepping|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="bfc49c04-5423-4c37-a02f-c485c4893647" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:16:10.680" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="274eef73-3ffa-4b2d-a7ff-f3fac167f043" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:16:10.680" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="da0cee52-7055-4dad-a5fd-81b9944ed21f" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:20:48.497" UserId="67" Comment="formatting" Text="I'm wondering what products I can use that are not dangerous to keep kitchen surfaces clean and safe.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Should I get different products for different types surfaces (e.g. granite top vs. wooden cutting board)?  &#xD;&#xA; - Should I get different products for different types of foods (e.g. meats vs. vegetables)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="333" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="da0cee52-7055-4dad-a5fd-81b9944ed21f" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:20:48.497" Comment="Proposed by 67 approved by 20 edit id of 19" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="0ed789ee-0e20-444b-a8d2-763d49e94a33" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:23:00.610" UserId="10" Text="It is said that websites with a black background are more sustainable from an electricity consumption perspective. &#xD;&#xA;Is there a tool to measure the most sustainable website design you can use while developing websites?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="0ed789ee-0e20-444b-a8d2-763d49e94a33" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:23:00.610" UserId="10" Text="Can I measure the average electricity consumption of a specific website design?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="0ed789ee-0e20-444b-a8d2-763d49e94a33" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:23:00.610" UserId="10" Text="|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="338" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="a93fc6cf-12de-4d45-9962-d1c0ce3c40ca" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:52:53.537" UserId="51" Comment="edited tags" Text="|water|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="58dd64de-e404-4833-a2f8-69182f769880" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:53:31.617" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="135" RevisionGUID="fad0bcee-732b-460e-b80a-6824c487d137" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:53:31.617" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="341" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="d27d7043-c99b-4dae-833b-abe2c7a812d9" CreationDate="2013-01-30T15:54:01.993" UserId="51" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|home|diy|prepping|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="7d994a93-0847-4e2e-902f-784fda95adbc" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:20:56.187" UserId="51" Comment="added 371 characters in body" Text="Prepper(s) (noun): An individual or group that prepares or makes preparations in advance of or prior to any change in normal circumstances or lifestyle without significant reliance on other persons (i.e., being self-reliant) or without substantial assistance from outside resources (govt., etc.) in order to minimize the effects of that change on their current lifestyle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="343" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="131" RevisionGUID="7d994a93-0847-4e2e-902f-784fda95adbc" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:20:56.187" Comment="Proposed by 51 approved by 117 edit id of 17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="42edf1b8-42ff-43fa-aa60-52ad26521548" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:21:02.770" UserId="99" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="Roof covered with vegetation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="345" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="42edf1b8-42ff-43fa-aa60-52ad26521548" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:21:02.770" Comment="Proposed by 99 approved by 117 edit id of 14" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="716aa151-19aa-4b6a-88c1-b5ddeff096fe" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:21:53.720" UserId="99" Comment="added 414 characters in body" Text="A green roof, also called living roof, is a roof covered with vegetation. Various types of vegetation can be used, for example sedum, grass, or even trees.&#xD;&#xA;Green roofs can retain rainwater, insulate the building they cover, filter dust particles from the air and function as a habitat for birds and insects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not use this tag to ask questions about constructing a 'normal' roof with green-labelled materials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="347" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="716aa151-19aa-4b6a-88c1-b5ddeff096fe" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:21:53.720" Comment="Proposed by 99 approved by 117 edit id of 13" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="3e5a4232-3664-4fd0-9659-ce6087b2738f" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:21:57.527" UserId="51" Comment="added 352 characters in body" Text="An individual or group that prepares or makes preparations in advance of or prior to any change in normal circumstances or lifestyle without significant reliance on other persons (i.e., being self-reliant) or without substantial assistance from outside resources (govt., etc.) in order to minimize the effects of that change on their current lifestyle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="349" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="132" RevisionGUID="3e5a4232-3664-4fd0-9659-ce6087b2738f" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:21:57.527" Comment="Proposed by 51 approved by 117 edit id of 18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="cc6b139b-2e72-4db4-a04f-7d52ce61928b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:24:31.817" UserId="44" Text="The yeast you are interested in is saccharomyces cerevisiae, also called &quot;baker's yeast&quot; and &quot;ale yeast&quot;. The process you are looking for is called &quot;spontaneous fermentation&quot; in the context of brewing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brewing beer through spontaneous fermentation is a long process (months, maybe years depending on the style). Brewing from yeast you buy in the store which already have the proper yeast count is - in comparison - only about a month from brew day to consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For bread making the turn around time is faster and is definitely worth it. What you are looking to create is a &quot;sour dough starter&quot; which will be a mixture of water, flour, lactobacillus (responsible for the sour flavor in sour dough), and saccharomyces cerevisiae. You set out a certain amount of water and flour, feed it flour and water, and wait. When you make bread, you use just a portion of it so that you can continue your starter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you search for instructions on creating a sour dough starter from scratch or from (as they call it) &quot;wild yeast&quot;, you will be baking bread in no time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="d10d2dda-a1e3-4eed-845e-5653f425b9e7" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:36:33.460" UserId="67" Text="I have read that the [total embodied energy cost of consumer electronics][1] (e.g. computers, smart phones, digital cameras, etc.) identifies these devices as products of an unsustainable energy economy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of how these devices are disposed of after use, is there a general recommendation for how long such devices should be used by owners in order to 'break even' on the energy used to produce and distribute them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/06/embodied-energy-of-digital-technology.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="d10d2dda-a1e3-4eed-845e-5653f425b9e7" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:36:33.460" UserId="67" Text="Minimum amount of time to use a consumer electronic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="d10d2dda-a1e3-4eed-845e-5653f425b9e7" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:36:33.460" UserId="67" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="354" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="94a803cd-93d2-4d0a-b331-d27c6ad908ce" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:36:41.553" UserId="49" Comment="edited tags" Text="|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="355" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="33" RevisionGUID="d9730bb1-eb78-410e-a11f-261426f75e07" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:36:57.000" UserId="49" Comment="edited tags" Text="|cleaning|home|carpet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="ccb455c2-d07e-419d-a179-00d7e44e25f0" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:42:17.940" UserId="49" Text="I've heard of using walnuts to remove scratches on wooden furniture. Are there any plants that can be grown or foraged that have the ability to remove dirt/stains from carpets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="ccb455c2-d07e-419d-a179-00d7e44e25f0" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:42:17.940" UserId="49" Text="Are there any 'home-grown' substances that can be used to clean carpet stains?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="138" RevisionGUID="ccb455c2-d07e-419d-a179-00d7e44e25f0" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:42:17.940" UserId="49" Text="|home|cleaning|carpet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="51676eff-2e5e-433a-a8ba-4ef6ce303c4a" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:50:23.710" UserId="121" Text="Given that Polypropylene bags are still a plastic product and not very bio degradable or earth friendly, if Earth Bag construction became widely used how could the this method be improved upon even further?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming a scenario where every single house in the world is made from Earth Bag with Polypropylene bags and although it is a lot less wasteful than say cement and wood it is still wasteful.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="51676eff-2e5e-433a-a8ba-4ef6ce303c4a" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:50:23.710" UserId="121" Text="What alternatives to Polypropylene bags could be used in Earth Bag construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="51676eff-2e5e-433a-a8ba-4ef6ce303c4a" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:50:23.710" UserId="121" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="140" RevisionGUID="34540541-e135-4e0c-83f8-acc2e9d49841" CreationDate="2013-01-30T16:58:48.617" UserId="52" Text="While these devices take a fair amount of energy to produce, I'd be careful about labelling their construction, and economy which surrounds them, unsustainable based on that - since it then opens up a minefield of questions about how you *can* use them for a set period of time to become &quot;sustainable.&quot; The questions it opens up in this regard don't actually make an awful lot of sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we're talking about permanent, or semi-permanent technological devices designed to manufacture energy, such as solar panels or wind farms, we can make this judgement call. We can calculate that the energy required to make a square metre of monocrystalline solar cell is  `x`, and that the average energy it produces over its lifetime in a UK climate properly positioned on a south facing rooftop is `y`. It's then a relatively straightforward comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But with devices that don't produce energy, only consume it, this is much less clear cut. What even counts as breaking even? Doing a certain amount of work, making a certain amount of calculations? Being in service for a certain amount of years? The degree to which the containing components can be recycled? Since they don't produce energy, no such device will ever break even in a simple, single unit sense of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this is the reason why there is no commonly accepted &quot;minimum time&quot; that you should own and use a device before disposing of it, and the challenges we face most in this regard are much more along the lines of how to properly recycle and manage this level of waste that we just didn't have 15 years ago, rather than how to work out if we've somehow &quot;broken even&quot; on the energy used to produce the device, and can now morally move on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="33" RevisionGUID="62a1888f-dd29-4880-a208-9c442e104b5a" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:04:41.193" UserId="40" Comment="edited body" Text="I recently had my carpets professionally cleaned, and spent a little while researching the cost and effectiveness of various methods.  But now I'm wondering about the environmental impact as well.  There seem to be two main methods of professional carpet cleaning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Steam cleaning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_cleaning), as provided by many commercial services&#xD;&#xA;* Dry cleaning, as provided by [Chemdry](http://www.chemdry.com/) (and perhaps others)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Wikipedia mentions a few [other methods](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_Cleaning) that are less common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemdry claims to be more environmentally friendly than &quot;traditional&quot; steam cleaning.  But the name &lt;i&gt;Chem&lt;/i&gt;dry alone makes me weary of this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I choose the most sustainable and environmentally-friendly method to clean my carpets next time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="b365aaae-936e-4aaf-95ed-165da48b48fa" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:08:18.007" UserId="40" Comment="added 261 characters in body" Text="I live in a relatively modern (built 1983) home, which has a fireplace in the living room.  How should I decide if I should use the fireplace for heat, or strictly use use the natural-gas central heating system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an open fireplace, situated roughly in the center of the living room, which in turn is in the center of the house.  The fireplace will not completely replace the central heating system, but if it will help reduce my environmental footprint, I'd love to use it to reduce my NG usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And although I think it's slightly tangential, in response to some other comments/answers, I will only be using free firewood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="141" RevisionGUID="102f49c7-421a-4133-be97-d83284d1ab5b" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:09:16.527" UserId="14" Text="I started using a toilet paper alternative since about nine months ago. I was tired of the old plumbing in the house clogging up, and knowing that the toilet paper were cut down trees used so I can wipe my ass felt very wasteful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, we're living in a modern society. I'm a software engineer by trade, so I prefer using technology when I can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found that the quick-dry camping towels you might find at REI works very well. You wet them a bit and wipe. It is the same idea as using a wash rag. To clean it, I use soap. I use Dr. Bronner's castille soap, and pump it from a foaming pump container (which are reusable). Occasionally, I fill a bucket with water and borax and let it soak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never had to do more than three wipes. Most of what comes out are water-soluble, so wetting the towel before wiping helps tremendously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quick-dry towels dries up fast so it does not get collect mold or mildew.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The color matters because you want to know how clean it is. I was unable to find a white quick-dry towel for some reason. I currently use a blue one. The shit-brown color shows up well against the blue (sometimes turning it green). I am not color-blind, so your mileage may vary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="a4f5cd5e-8684-4e78-965a-3a619fec2c26" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:12:02.887" UserId="40" Comment="Improve grammar" Text="I have heard it claimed that for public transportation, provided ridership is sufficiently high, that the most efficient means is commuter trains, followed by subways, and lastly buses.  Further, I heard it claimed that buses were actually negatives in that if each person riding the bus instead took a car and the bus did not exist, there would be fewer resources consumed and less total environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any truth to these claims and how would one go about objectively measuring the complete impact of the various choices for moving about?  Do the choices vary by city size and population density, for example New York City versus Cincinnati?  What are some of the non-obvious externalities of the various public transportation options?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="367" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="a4f5cd5e-8684-4e78-965a-3a619fec2c26" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:12:02.887" Comment="Proposed by 40 approved by 117 edit id of 22" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="115" RevisionGUID="7c4a4c2c-2efc-4b55-af23-1148519dc263" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:20:24.570" UserId="40" Comment="Edit title for concieness, improve grammar/spelling in question" Text="How can we, as consumers, persuade manufacturers to make their products more sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only things I've come up with (and try to do myself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Buy the most sustainable version of products. The idea is that if enough people do this, manufacturers will notice a change in demand and adjust their method of production.&#xD;&#xA;2. Publish information about manufacturers, shops, restaurants etc. that strive to make sustainable products, or that do just the opposite, in the hope that other people will read and act upon that information.&#xD;&#xA;3. Sign petitions drawn up by organisations like Greenpeace, for example, to protest against the use of non-sustainable materials (e.g. chemicals used to produce cotton for clothing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any proof that these methods work? Does anyone have a better alternative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="369" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="115" RevisionGUID="7c4a4c2c-2efc-4b55-af23-1148519dc263" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:20:24.570" UserId="40" Comment="Edit title for concieness, improve grammar/spelling in question" Text="How can consumers persuade manufacturers to make their products more sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="370" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="115" RevisionGUID="7c4a4c2c-2efc-4b55-af23-1148519dc263" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:20:24.570" Comment="Proposed by 40 approved by 117 edit id of 23" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="142" RevisionGUID="a82b2207-af0c-478a-baa3-7bca318b8e6e" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:28:20.870" UserId="103" Text="Nowerdays, a black or white background of websites doesn't matter much as a lot of people trashed their [CRT][1] screens already. LCD displays dont vary much in energy consumption of dark or light colours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, to answer your question: No, or at least: difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is that? Because today not the computer recieving the website is the huge power consumer but the computer which accepts and processes the requests of webbrowsers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best example is google. Current power consumption of Google server parks is estimated as high as one of a city with 500,000 inhabitants. A single search request consumes as much power as required to heat 200ml water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: to measure website's power consumption you should consider the power used to generate the site rather than the power needed to display it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="373" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="ddcace63-334b-42ae-9728-9fee77d0ac43" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:45:13.210" UserId="66" Comment="clarify title" Text="How can I save seeds from a tomato for replanting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="374" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="ddcace63-334b-42ae-9728-9fee77d0ac43" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:45:13.210" Comment="Proposed by 66 approved by 117 edit id of 24" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="375" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="c4d1eb5e-57dc-4ac4-bddd-bc21b6ee40b1" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:49:22.713" UserId="103" Comment="edited tags" Text="|electricity|green-it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="143" RevisionGUID="60a06917-f055-4032-853f-a953c6843834" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:51:47.067" UserId="66" Text="A great reference on seed saving for many common (and some rather uncommon) vegetable crops is &quot;Seed to Seed&quot; by Suzanne Ashworth. You can find tomatoes starting on p156. The info below is cribbed from this book and other sources. (Note that saving tomato seeds is a bit more involved than many other vegetables, some of which are trivial to save, like peas or beans.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are trying to save your own seeds indefinitely (i.e. without refreshing from another source), you'd want to save seeds from at least 20 different plants of the same variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With modern varieties, you may not have to worry about isolation because they don't tend to cross. If you want to be sure about avoiding crossing, you can cage them to avoid insect crossing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tomato seeds need to ferment before they are viable. You'll need to help this fermentation along. Squeeze the seeds and tomato &quot;goo&quot; into a small bucket -- a 32oz yogurt container, deli tub, or similar container. Be sure to label the tubs. After a few days it will smell bad and grow a layer of mold over the top. (You'll want to have the bucket in a place where it won't get tipped over...) At this point, add more water, swish it around, and then let it settle for a moment. The good seeds will be at the bottom. You can skim off the top, or just pour the whole mess through a fine strainer. Rinse. &quot;Seed to Seed&quot; suggests putting the good seeds on a paper coffee filter; cloth or paper towels are a bad idea because it will be really hard to remove the seeds when they are dry. Let the seeds air-dry in dark place, stirring regularly. If they stay damp they may start to germinate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [this answer in gardening.SE about saving seeds](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/774/51) in general; that answer has a link to info that is specific to tomatoes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="f2f1c2db-8882-4386-9c34-5b2400e3e823" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:55:40.913" UserId="115" Text="So I've read quite a bit about cob construction and even after this kind of research, I don't feel equipped to answer this question.  What climates or locations make cob a good or bad idea?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One aspect along these lines with which I _am_ comfortable is drainage.  You want to be able to keep the 'feet' dry, so impossible drainage -- such as in a swamp, means that cob is a dumb choice.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that it can't be too hot.  What about too cold?  What else might I not even be imagining?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="f2f1c2db-8882-4386-9c34-5b2400e3e823" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:55:40.913" UserId="115" Text="What factors should I consider when deciding if cob construction is appropriate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="f2f1c2db-8882-4386-9c34-5b2400e3e823" CreationDate="2013-01-30T17:55:40.913" UserId="115" Text="|construction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="332147ce-160f-482f-b52c-bed652bd95b0" CreationDate="2013-01-30T18:09:39.540" UserId="20" Comment="improve question" Text="[Freakonomics makes the claim](http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/11/15/mass-transit-hysteria-full-transcript/) that for public transportation, provided ridership is sufficiently high, that the most energy efficient means is commuter trains and subways and that buses are the least efficient.  Further, they claim that buses actually consume more energy than cars per rider due to average bus ridership being about ten passengers in that if each person riding the bus instead took a car and the bus did not run, there would be less energy consumed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Typically, moving a passenger a mile by bus requires roughly 20&#xD;&#xA;&gt; percent more energy than moving a passenger around by car.  So, just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in terms of energy expenditure, bus actually fares worse than car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any truth to this claim and how would one go about objectively measuring the complete impact (not just energy) of the various choices for moving about?  Do the choices vary by city size and population density, for example New York City (cited as very efficient) versus Cincinnati?  What are some of the non-obvious externalities of the various public transportation options?  Finally, if the bus system is running whether I'm on it or not, surely it is more sustainable if I ride it instead of taking my car, but by riding it, I'm encouraging its existence, so should I ride the bus or drive to reach a more sustainable solution to transit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="381" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="332147ce-160f-482f-b52c-bed652bd95b0" CreationDate="2013-01-30T18:09:39.540" UserId="20" Comment="improve question" Text="How can you compare the costs of using public transportation versus using a personal car?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="d1e0102e-81a6-46d7-975b-96132db81f36" CreationDate="2013-01-30T18:17:14.240" UserId="20" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="[Freakonomics makes the claim](http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/11/15/mass-transit-hysteria-full-transcript/) that for public transportation, provided ridership is sufficiently high, that the most energy efficient means is commuter trains and subways and that buses are the least efficient.  Further, they claim that buses actually consume more energy than cars per rider due to average bus ridership being about ten passengers in that if each person riding the bus instead took a car and the bus did not run, there would be less energy consumed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Typically, moving a passenger a mile by bus requires roughly 20&#xD;&#xA;&gt; percent more energy than moving a passenger around by car.  So, just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in terms of energy expenditure, bus actually fares worse than car.](http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/11/07/can-mass-transit-save-the-environment-right-wing-or-left-wing-heres-a-post-everybody-can-hate/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any truth to this claim and how would one go about objectively measuring the complete impact (not just energy) of the various choices for moving about?  Do the choices vary by city size and population density, for example New York City (cited as very efficient) versus Cincinnati?  What are some of the non-obvious externalities of the various public transportation options?  Finally, if the bus system is running whether I'm on it or not, surely it is more sustainable if I ride it instead of taking my car, but by riding it, I'm encouraging its existence, so should I ride the bus or drive to reach a more sustainable solution to transit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="4742d597-0b57-4477-b6e1-dbf663ba6542" CreationDate="2013-01-30T18:30:15.077" UserId="71" Text="I don't think there is a 'too hot' climate limit for cob; like adobe the high thermal mass keeps a cob building cool in a hot climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A climate *can* be too cold; if you live far enough away from the equator there won't be enough sunlight in winter to heat up the cob sufficiently. You could combine your cob structure with straw-bale walls on the north and even the west and east sides to compensate for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than climate you want to pay attention to your location; you need stable foundations (dig down if needed) and you need avoid exposed areas (wind erosion) or valley bottoms (too little sunshine), for example. A swampy area is not necessarily a problem; if you can construct a stable and high enough foundation to keep your cob dry, you can build a cob house." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="147" RevisionGUID="4160cb18-de26-4de0-8193-9902294383c7" CreationDate="2013-01-30T18:52:44.430" UserId="5" Text="You should turn off your heating at least half an hour before opening the window, and do not switch it on immediately after closing it. Open the window when temperature of air gets significantly lower and open it when it'll go back higher. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open all the windows, and for the short period of time. Warm air gets immediately sucked out and you'll feel when it is replaced by cold one. Than you should close all windows." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="148" RevisionGUID="4ca57ef9-838a-4cf2-bd8b-66bdf7ca2301" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:02:41.417" UserId="5" Text="Economies that need growth to survive would be unsustainable when they will survive long enough. The resources are limited, and the growth means that resource usage is growing to infinity in infinite time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, after reaching some critical mass such economy must either collapse or become non-growth economy. The Roman Empire have started to fall when it wasn't able to conquer more territory. The Mayan Empire have fallen because of land depletion. But social systems can't be changed rapidly, so when such economy depletes all resources, its fall is rapid and brutal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On our technological level, resource depletion would have tragic consequences for both the whole mankind and the nature. To prevent it, we must either find more and more new resources (beyond Earth) or limit its usage. When the usage of resources is kept on constant level, under contemporary criteria it wouldn't be considered growth. However, if we measure growth for example in cultural or intelectual criteria, the growth is still possible, but it won't be material growth anymore. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="b79968c2-101f-4686-a056-a5407dcfde94" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:13:34.303" UserId="5" Text="In the era of material money the interest was bound with resource consumption growth. But now we have virtual economy and money that you have in bank in reality don't exist. The interest is the increase of value, that doesn't exist in real world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also the inflation. When money was real, inflation means at least increase money printing, yet even that isn't necessary. So you can have deep crisis and high inflation, and still have interests. Only that the value of your money will decrease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking into account non-material goods, there's also the possibility that the growth of virtual money would go in pair in the growth of the non-material goods volumen, when the usage of resources will remain constant or decrease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, it is possible that the prices will go higher, and the people will eat less. This is how virtual economy works. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, the direct relation between money and resource consumption doesn't exist anymore. It's still the correlation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="604812de-d5ab-440f-9d6f-8faa83af146e" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:27:05.287" UserId="69" Comment="added 113 characters in body; edited tags" Text="As part of my ongoing downsizing, my new house's bathroom will be smaller, so I'm looking at installing a toilet/sink combo to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - save space,&#xD;&#xA;  - reduce construction costs by making the bathroom as small as possible&lt;sup&gt;&amp;dagger;&lt;/sup&gt;, and&#xD;&#xA;  - reduce my water usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Toilet-sink combo][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did you find you had to change in your behavior when switching to this setup?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&amp;dagger;&lt;/sup&gt; Finished size will be approximately 3' (0.91m) x 6' (1.83m), thus necessitating the combo device or some other equally-compact setup.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/soUFY.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="395" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="604812de-d5ab-440f-9d6f-8faa83af146e" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:27:05.287" UserId="69" Comment="added 113 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|water|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="150" RevisionGUID="ddf54a87-fd0e-43f9-a20e-a8d7aee06b7a" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:29:08.677" UserId="87" Text="You don't state how much change you are willing to consider.  A device called a Heat Recovery Ventilator (HRV) passes the outgoing air and the incoming air through a heat exchanger and transfers the heat from one to the other.  It usually would be connected to your central air ducts to distribute the incoming air, and would require pass-throughs for the intake and exhaust with the outside." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="544716d7-ff70-4410-a58a-f24adfde3955" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:31:56.653" UserId="103" Text="This is a really difficult question to answer but I might give this a try. As you already noticed, the WWF formula is quite strange and the results are intransparent. You always have to be careful with calculators like this. Mostly the footprints are too complex to simply calculate them on some website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, I guess 1.7 planets refers to the ecological footprint of the whole mankind if *every single human would live like you do*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to calculate your own ecological footprint I would recommend a little excercise for school teachers and students &quot;*How big is my ecological footprint?*&quot; by Tim Turner. It can be found [here][1] (PDF) and takes about 1 hour. You have to answer 50 questions on the following topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Water usage&#xD;&#xA; - Food&#xD;&#xA; - Transportation&#xD;&#xA; - Shelter&#xD;&#xA; - Energy usage&#xD;&#xA; - Clothing&#xD;&#xA; - ... and some fun facts to keep the students motivated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is your ecological footprint measured in hectars/acres. But this is by far **not scientific**. It only helps you to understand the complexity of calculating footprints and might point out some of the most important influences on your ecological footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also be interested in the complexity of calculating carbon footprints of various transportation options as discussed in this thread: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/93/103&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.earthrangers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/how_big_is_my_ecological_footprint.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="4076048b-1d9d-4ae4-a0b9-d3d7c3058152" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:32:03.103" UserId="98" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Everywhere can be read that carbon dioxide increases greenhouse effect. But there are other gases having worse effect than carbon dioxide, e.g. methane. Is carbon dioxide emission the real threat, or can we fight more effectively against global warming by reducing the emission of other gases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="399" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="4076048b-1d9d-4ae4-a0b9-d3d7c3058152" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:32:03.103" UserId="98" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Which gases increase the greenhouse effect more than carbon dioxide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="22c9c3c5-ab17-437d-9204-8524e94c3cd4" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:35:12.573" UserId="69" Comment="fixed the grammar" Text="As part of my ongoing downsizing, my new house's bathroom will be smaller, so I'm looking at installing a toilet/sink combo to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - save space,&#xD;&#xA;  - reduce construction costs by making the bathroom as small as possible&lt;sup&gt;&amp;dagger;&lt;/sup&gt;, and&#xD;&#xA;  - reduce my water usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Toilet-sink combo][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What did you find you had to change in your behavior when switching to this setup?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&amp;dagger;&lt;/sup&gt; The bathroom's finished size will be approximately 3' (0.91m) x 6' (1.83m), thus necessitating the combo device or some other equally-compact setup.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/soUFY.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="66" RevisionGUID="02705150-5b99-4281-8c21-ad81897bcea8" CreationDate="2013-01-30T19:36:11.560" UserId="69" Comment="missed one :)" Text="Try scrubbing with vinegar. You can try adding baking soda to the vinegar as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've used vinegar with great success to get mold out of clothes by soaking them in a 4:1 water:vinegar mix overnight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="e8f13dd4-76a7-4898-8579-05053a71c914" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:10:43.930" UserId="98" Text="There are plenty solar panels installed in the recent years. Their operation expectancy as far as I know is about 50 yrs. This will produce waste for our grandchildren. Please, reassure me, that these panels can be recycled somehow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="e8f13dd4-76a7-4898-8579-05053a71c914" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:10:43.930" UserId="98" Text="Can solar panels be recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="e8f13dd4-76a7-4898-8579-05053a71c914" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:10:43.930" UserId="98" Text="|solar-power|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="0c674b73-605f-4b61-95cf-6c2aebf0ee7a" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:12:36.663" UserId="40" Text="The main/most convincing reason I have heard not to compost meat (as well as dog or cat manure) is due to the possibility that it may harbor pathogens harmful to humans, or other [animals](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15311800).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are steps that can be taken to reduce this risk--mainly high-temperature composting. Although it can be difficult or impossible to achieve the necessary temperatures to kill such pathogens in a small-scale/backyard compost pile.  See [here](http://projectcompost.ucdavis.edu/node/19):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These are organic materials and therefore can be composted, BUT they tend to smell and to attract more rodents and other critters. Decomposing meat may contain bacteria that's pathogenic to humans, so it has to be composted at a very high temperature to kill off the pathogens. Depending on the conditions of your pile, it might not get hot enough for that. So we discourage the composting of meat and dairy in backyard piles. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="154" RevisionGUID="fe713110-a3a5-4910-bb92-e2d6729a13f3" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:22:47.487" UserId="29" Text="Composting can start in a plastic bucket on your counter, and be moved out to an outside place if your producing enough of it. For my indoor composting, I use [Bokashi][1] to mitigate the smell and speed up the breakdown. All you'll have to do here is throw a handfull or 2 on top of your compostables, very simple.  If you need to expand outside, make sure to [keep a good ratio of brown to green][2] so that the compost degrades in a timely manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Bokashi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://goorganicgardening.com/docs/compost-browns-greens.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="153" RevisionGUID="4edeef13-dba9-40d5-bd6c-16503afe0832" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:25:55.523" UserId="40" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="The main/most convincing reason I have heard not to compost meat (as well as dog or cat manure) is due to the possibility that it may harbor pathogens harmful to humans or other [animals](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15311800).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are steps that can be taken to reduce this risk--mainly high-temperature composting. Although it can be difficult or impossible to achieve the necessary temperatures to kill such pathogens in a small-scale/backyard compost pile.  See [here](http://projectcompost.ucdavis.edu/node/19):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These are organic materials and therefore can be composted, BUT they tend to smell and to attract more rodents and other critters. **Decomposing meat may contain bacteria that's pathogenic to humans, so it has to be composted at a very high temperature to kill off the pathogens. Depending on the conditions of your pile, it might not get hot enough for that. So we discourage the composting of meat and dairy in backyard piles.** *(emphasis added)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="614ceb0a-2fe3-4a8d-b4cc-05732970b136" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:30:15.467" UserId="29" Text="I'm interested in installing a solar array on my property, and am trying to find tools that can help me do a cost analysis so I can optimize my budget and see how long it will take to balance the upfront cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any tools available to help me with these calculations? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="614ceb0a-2fe3-4a8d-b4cc-05732970b136" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:30:15.467" UserId="29" Text="How long do solar panels take to pay off?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="413" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="614ceb0a-2fe3-4a8d-b4cc-05732970b136" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:30:15.467" UserId="29" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="414" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="133" RevisionGUID="38a54e6c-f6f6-430b-8d21-474a9ec2007e" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:38:54.457" UserId="-1" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:51,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dryadwoods&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:49,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ambo100&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Martijn Pieters&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:98,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Szilágyi Donát&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:61,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chad Ferguson&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="fb47f86c-bd81-41d9-a4e7-e3fa6cb2e5de" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:39:56.740" UserId="29" Text="What is the best option that's going to be safe for children/pets and require the least amount of reapplication?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for something that has little to no phytotxicity between plant species." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="fb47f86c-bd81-41d9-a4e7-e3fa6cb2e5de" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:39:56.740" UserId="29" Text="Organic aphid control on houseplants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="fb47f86c-bd81-41d9-a4e7-e3fa6cb2e5de" CreationDate="2013-01-30T20:39:56.740" UserId="29" Text="|home|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="158" RevisionGUID="78f949ed-6734-4c7b-9096-954c43da4176" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:05:14.977" UserId="106" Text="I've seen a number of question about composting here. Five, if the [tag:composting] tag is a good way to measure. In my sustainability efforts (no car, no meat, no flying) I've never really considered composting. The conditions are not optimal: I have an apartment with a balcony (see also [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/7/106) and I live in a sub-Arctic climate with seven months per year below 0°C and only one month averaging above 10°C. I do my best to separate my trash to maximize recycling, and the small amount of rest-waste (burnable waste) that I have left ends up in the furnace at the town heating plant, which is used to heat public buildings and apartment (including the one I rent) in town, as well as to generate some electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see the point in minimising waste because of natural resources, but where exactly lies the sustainability gain in composting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="158" RevisionGUID="78f949ed-6734-4c7b-9096-954c43da4176" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:05:14.977" UserId="106" Text="Why should I compost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="158" RevisionGUID="78f949ed-6734-4c7b-9096-954c43da4176" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:05:14.977" UserId="106" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="431cf7f8-910d-419b-a636-9e645fc6f904" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:31:23.033" UserId="29" Comment="add location" Text="I'm interested in installing a solar array on my property, and am trying to find tools that can help me do a cost analysis so I can optimize my budget and see how long it will take to balance the upfront cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any tools available to help me with these calculations? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;I'll be installing them in Colorado, USA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="7f12bc04-9476-4e0b-a2d8-8a52d2350b3f" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:33:36.800" UserId="85" Text="Well, composting would give you a way to use waste products and have them turned into something useful. A sustainable system is closed in the sense that you need to buy as little resources as possible and produce as little waste as possible. Your system just keeps turning, like a perpetual motion machine, with you feeding off the system. Composting your waste is a way to reintroduce it into your system and &quot;closing the loop&quot; so to speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case you are not part of a self-sufficient sustainable system. All you can do to live more sustainably is take measures to have as little negative impact on the system as you can, that is reduce the number of things you need to buy and reduce your waste (or give out your waste in a way for the system to make it reusable, which you do by separating your trash). A direct way to control your impact on the system is to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reduce your requirements for input and reduce your wasteful output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there are many people who use their balcony as garden, be that just herbs, vegetables (like runner beans on poles, potatoes) or bees. To overcome the climate conditions, you could consider turning your balcony into a greenhouse by adding a layer of glass, which would reduce your input (gas/electricity for your heating) and reduce your wasteful output (CO2 emitted for generating the heat). Again, a balcony vegetable garden would reduce input (groceries, plastic bags) and wasteful output (plastic bags, CO2 emissions from the supermarket trucks, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting makes most sense when you use the compost yourself, but even if you do not use it yourself, your gardening neighbour would probably be happy to receive good compost, or even just good food waste. This way you make sure that your food waste doesn't just get burned, which would be a real shame. Food waste is so close to being something so useful...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compost is useful where something grows, be that lush foliage, or just shrubs. In your climate, it is admittedly not easy to live sustainably, because you need or want things which your environment does not provide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="424" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="f1c8340a-1a8b-4e3c-95e6-59524e93d85f" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:39:42.317" UserId="29" Comment="edited title" Text="Estimating the cost of solar panels and return time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="97" RevisionGUID="16477a51-7a23-4915-89ee-2bab6bba78b9" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:45:36.737" UserId="85" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="In India you have to look hard to find toilet paper and if you do it is expensive. They wash themselves after each time the use the toilet (longer). For this purpose, public toilets (train stations, hotels, restaurants) in India sometimes have a (fairly high-power) shower head installed next to them. If you use shower gel for your washing process, the result is much like what you have when you get out of the shower. (In India, of course, this is why they only eat and shake hands with the right hand... In case they didn't have any shower gel.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I think I would prefer the recycled paper way to this, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small diversion: In terms of sustainability, one should really use a compost toilet, though. Most mammals know better than to poison their water supply with feces. A marvellous DIY system has been used (and made available online for free) by [the &quot;Humanure&quot; Guy](http://humanurehandbook.com/humanure_toilet.html). I would argue that composting your waste material promotes healthy growth of plants, which is a good counter-weight to global warming (if that is what you're looking for)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="cbec594d-516f-447f-b08f-9c84e0d6ebd7" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:58:11.547" UserId="110" Text="Given the chance and with endless cashflow I would use store bought hay everywhere. This keeps animals dry, they like to munch on it and it also reduces the smell for those animals (like ducks) that like to splash water everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this is not affordable and likely not a sustainable option. What are some alternatives that I could use which can meet the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Keep pens dry and won't get soggy when trampled on&#xD;&#xA;- Is comfortable on animals feet&#xD;&#xA;- Could be used for animals in nesting boxes&#xD;&#xA;- Can be easily produced (taken, harvested) in large enough quantities at a reasonable price&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently I use the fallen leaves which does a great job, but there isn't always plenty of leaves year round." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="cbec594d-516f-447f-b08f-9c84e0d6ebd7" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:58:11.547" UserId="110" Text="What to use as an alternative to store bought hay?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="cbec594d-516f-447f-b08f-9c84e0d6ebd7" CreationDate="2013-01-30T21:58:11.547" UserId="110" Text="|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="161" RevisionGUID="90f3d9e9-90bd-4197-90ad-8605ffe52505" CreationDate="2013-01-30T22:00:30.713" UserId="85" Text="As preventative measures in addition to reducing humidity, increasing airflow and sunlight exposure, I also find it useful to use [oil warmers](http://www.indiangiftsportal.com/myshop/images/products-big2/tokenz-ccaprd498taz.jpg), diffusing essential oils, which have anti-fungal or anti-bacterial properties (e.g. lavender). The increase in humidity (the lamp uses water to diffuse the scent) is negligible compared to the effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a big fan of incense, but that would be another alternative, I guess." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="162" RevisionGUID="22964872-c25a-4f45-816f-9f9ad3f9a193" CreationDate="2013-01-30T22:02:00.883" UserId="60" Text="You have to get several numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *payments*&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you pay to obtain the PV system&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you pay on taxes, recycling fees from the PV system etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *returns*&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you get back from produced power&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you save on your electricity bill (price of electricity is rising)&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you be payed from incentives (if any)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally the only (almost) objective answer can be given on *how much electricity you can produce*. Anything else is subject to change depending on country/location, legislation and on time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a look at my [answer][1]. It contains a sample calculation of yearly solar gain too.  &#xD;&#xA;Just the explanation: the calculator is based on Europe &amp; Africa data, but those can serve as a rough estimate for any place on the Earth if you keep the right [latitude][2]. I'd pick somewhere in Spain as a substitute for Colorado, USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After dividing total payments by expected yearly returns you'll get the approximate return time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/68/60&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="431" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="5759421f-2874-431e-8aad-0529e787e5d9" CreationDate="2013-01-30T22:21:28.410" UserId="60" Comment="edited tags" Text="|solar-power|planning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="89b5ae2d-cb11-4e39-aea0-edc53399d30d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T22:30:22.613" UserId="66" Text="I live in the northeast US, with relatively cold winters (USDA zone 5, about -15°F ) and a short growing season (about 90 days frost-free; snow possible October through April).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a small flock (less than 30) of chickens for eggs, and raise a batch of chickens (less than 30) for meat each summer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently I buy most of their feed in bags from the store. In fall, winter, and early spring they get to run loose and forage, but they're too destructive to gardens to run loose in the summer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What mix of crops makes an appropriate chicken feed? What's a ballpark estimate of how much space will I need to provide about a year's worth of food for 30 hens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that I'm open to allowing the girls to help with some of the harvesting. E.g. cleaning up fallen fruit from fruit trees, and I've heard good things about Siberian pea shrub for chickens. But some of the food should be non-perishable / storable for a few months.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="433" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="89b5ae2d-cb11-4e39-aea0-edc53399d30d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T22:30:22.613" UserId="66" Text="What can I grow for chicken food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="434" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="89b5ae2d-cb11-4e39-aea0-edc53399d30d" CreationDate="2013-01-30T22:30:22.613" UserId="66" Text="|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="164" RevisionGUID="8327185f-79cd-488f-8b50-7d2180e9bb48" CreationDate="2013-01-30T22:31:52.867" UserId="85" Text="A few cubic metres of air are heated up and cooled down quickly. This is why fan heaters are usually a bad idea. They heat the air and before the air had a chance of heating something more substantial, it creeps out through some crevice you didn't know existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I lived in a flat with a tiled woodstove for a while and it was fantastic. The stove gives off heat all day after just heating a bit in the morning. Even frequent opening of windows doesn't affect the warmth of the room, which is kept at a constant, comfortable room temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than worrying about opening your windows, I think it may be more efficient to think about your insulation and the way you heat your house." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="83795f24-bee2-4ee5-8f4a-26509e73e955" CreationDate="2013-01-30T22:33:56.453" UserId="85" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Well, composting would give you a way to use waste products and have them turned into something useful. A sustainable system is closed in the sense that you need to buy as little resources as possible and produce as little waste as possible. Your system just keeps turning, like a perpetual motion machine, with you feeding off the system. Composting your waste is a way to reintroduce it into your system and &quot;closing the loop&quot; so to speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case you are not part of a self-sufficient sustainable system. All you can do to live more sustainably is take measures to have as little negative impact on the system as you can, that is reduce the number of things you need to buy and reduce your waste (or give out your waste in a way for the system to make it reusable, which you do by separating your trash). A direct way to control your impact on the system is to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reduce your requirements for input and reduce your wasteful output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there are many people who use their balcony as garden, be that just herbs, vegetables (like runner beans on poles, potatoes) or bees. To overcome the climate conditions, you could consider turning your balcony into a greenhouse by adding a layer of glass, which in itself would reduce your input (gas/electricity for your heating) and reduce your wasteful output (CO2 emitted for generating the heat). Again, a balcony vegetable garden would reduce input (groceries, new plastic bags) and wasteful output (used plastic bags, CO2 emissions from the supermarket trucks, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting makes most sense when you use the compost yourself, but even if you do not use it yourself, your gardening neighbour would probably be happy to receive good compost, or even just good food waste. This way you make sure that your food waste doesn't just get burned, which would be a real shame. Food waste is so close to being something so useful...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compost is useful where something grows, be that lush foliage, or just shrubs. In your climate, it is admittedly not easy to live sustainably, because you need or want things which your environment does not provide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="437" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="ade4afaf-491e-4414-917d-1dde3c358cc0" CreationDate="2013-01-30T22:35:54.020" UserId="60" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|electricity|solar-power|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="165" RevisionGUID="c3df88a8-f35d-464d-8420-cabd7ac1783c" CreationDate="2013-01-30T22:41:04.260" UserId="66" Text="Composting is a form of recycling. It allows you to recover (some of) the resource. It also allows you to divert material that would otherwise end up in the waste stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have any way to use the finished compost, and don't know anybody that could use the finished compost, you could try to find a waste processor (e.g. municipal composting services exist in some cities) who could convert your food waste into something useful. Again, this is like recycling -- food scraps are just another type of waste that you can separate and &quot;recycle&quot; separately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="166" RevisionGUID="023a1184-9a8d-434a-afcc-5db4fe88eb11" CreationDate="2013-01-30T22:43:53.820" UserId="71" Text="Spray the plants with soapy water; a natural vegetable-based soap will work fine (no more than about a tablespoon per 2 liters of water).  Make sure to spray the undersides of the leaves too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, do first check for ladybugs or other aphid predators; if there are any such predators present, there is no need to spray at all (and the soap would kill them too)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="217ac0c2-16d0-4bf6-80f5-d4ed6c9de060" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:04:41.883" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Impact of various travelling options](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/93/impact-of-various-travelling-options)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;[Freakonomics makes the claim](http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/11/15/mass-transit-hysteria-full-transcript/) that for public transportation, provided ridership is sufficiently high, that the most energy efficient means is commuter trains and subways and that buses are the least efficient.  Further, they claim that buses actually consume more energy than cars per rider due to average bus ridership being about ten passengers in that if each person riding the bus instead took a car and the bus did not run, there would be less energy consumed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Typically, moving a passenger a mile by bus requires roughly 20&#xD;&#xA;&gt; percent more energy than moving a passenger around by car.  So, just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in terms of energy expenditure, bus actually fares worse than car.](http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/11/07/can-mass-transit-save-the-environment-right-wing-or-left-wing-heres-a-post-everybody-can-hate/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any truth to this claim and how would one go about objectively measuring the complete impact (not just energy) of the various choices for moving about?  Do the choices vary by city size and population density, for example New York City (cited as very efficient) versus Cincinnati?  What are some of the non-obvious externalities of the various public transportation options?  Finally, if the bus system is running whether I'm on it or not, surely it is more sustainable if I ride it instead of taking my car, but by riding it, I'm encouraging its existence, so should I ride the bus or drive to reach a more sustainable solution to transit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="441" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="1dc58db6-7b7a-4082-8a49-54288c87192c" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:04:41.883" UserId="-1" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[93],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Martijn Pieters&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:51,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dryadwoods&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:5,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;lechlukasz&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:103,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;donschoe&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:58,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Pavel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="601fbae0-d8c3-4338-bc2a-1dabf86b2de7" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:12:36.230" UserId="40" Comment="Improve grammar" Text="Well, composting would give you a way to use waste products and have them turned into something useful. A sustainable system is closed in the sense that you need to buy as few resources as possible and produce as little waste as possible. Your system just keeps turning, like a perpetual motion machine, with you feeding off the system. Composting your waste is a way to reintroduce it into your system and &quot;closing the loop&quot; so to speak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case you are not part of a self-sufficient sustainable system. All you can do to live more sustainably is take measures to have as little negative impact on the system as you can, that is reduce the number of things you need to buy and reduce your waste (or give out your waste in a way for the system to make it reusable, which you do by separating your trash). A direct way to control your impact on the system is to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reduce your requirements for input and reduce your wasteful output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, there are many people who use their balcony as garden, be that just herbs, vegetables (like runner beans on poles, potatoes) or bees. To overcome the climate conditions, you could consider turning your balcony into a greenhouse by adding a layer of glass, which in itself would reduce your input (gas/electricity for your heating) and reduce your wasteful output (CO2 emitted for generating the heat). Again, a balcony vegetable garden would reduce input (groceries, new plastic bags) and wasteful output (used plastic bags, CO2 emissions from the supermarket trucks, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting makes most sense when you use the compost yourself, but even if you do not use it yourself, your gardening neighbour would probably be happy to receive good compost, or even just good food waste. This way you make sure that your food waste doesn't just get burned, which would be a real shame. Food waste is so close to being something so useful...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compost is useful where something grows, be that lush foliage, or just shrubs. In your climate, it is admittedly not easy to live sustainably, because you need or want things which your environment does not provide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="443" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="159" RevisionGUID="601fbae0-d8c3-4338-bc2a-1dabf86b2de7" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:12:36.230" Comment="Proposed by 40 approved by 85 edit id of 26" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="2c8c00a5-c5c4-4213-823f-6d9a453aa32e" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:44:55.633" UserId="21" Text="What species of mycorrhizal fungus get a long with Apple trees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="2c8c00a5-c5c4-4213-823f-6d9a453aa32e" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:44:55.633" UserId="21" Text="What species of mycorrhizal fungus do well with Apple trees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="2c8c00a5-c5c4-4213-823f-6d9a453aa32e" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:44:55.633" UserId="21" Text="|permaculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="5fd254d5-6558-4c82-91ca-c188673688ae" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:46:45.290" UserId="21" Text="I have a number of fruit trees that have been in the ground for several years.  I did not have access to mycorrhizal innoculants at the time of planting.  Can I inoculate them somehow now?  How?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="5fd254d5-6558-4c82-91ca-c188673688ae" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:46:45.290" UserId="21" Text="How do I innoculate a 3 year old tree with a mycorrhizal fungus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="5fd254d5-6558-4c82-91ca-c188673688ae" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:46:45.290" UserId="21" Text="|permaculture|fungal-innoculation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="00b9be25-2a13-4f29-a455-ae924a3f4942" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:48:59.703" UserId="21" Text="I'd like to create a pond in a wet spot in my yard so that I can plant some beneficial water plants and possibly attract frogs and toads to help control pests.  Is it possible to seal the pond so that it consistently and naturally holds water with out using a plastic pond liner or something like conrete?  Ideally I'd like shore plants to be able to get their roots into the water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="451" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="00b9be25-2a13-4f29-a455-ae924a3f4942" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:48:59.703" UserId="21" Text="How can I seal a pond with out using a plastic pond liner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="452" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="00b9be25-2a13-4f29-a455-ae924a3f4942" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:48:59.703" UserId="21" Text="|permaculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="453" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="7638c790-10fc-41a5-a4cb-234d3fcde45c" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:54:40.950" UserId="21" Comment="edited tags" Text="|permaculture|fungal-innoculation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="454" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="c4730d33-bb3f-406f-909f-a0ad07f8eb79" CreationDate="2013-01-30T23:56:30.137" UserId="21" Comment="edited tags" Text="|permaculture|water-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="455" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="3b6bcbaa-40a3-4a81-8040-c79f1bca337e" CreationDate="2013-01-31T00:14:49.157" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|water-management|ponds|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="f5e870b5-1da0-479d-8504-cd293fc43d90" CreationDate="2013-01-31T00:33:41.947" UserId="4" Comment="Fixed typos" Text="What species of mycorrhizal fungus get along with apple trees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="457" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="f5e870b5-1da0-479d-8504-cd293fc43d90" CreationDate="2013-01-31T00:33:41.947" UserId="4" Comment="Fixed typos" Text="What species of mycorrhizal fungus do well with apple trees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="f44f55eb-1926-401a-aee2-4defcf32ea01" CreationDate="2013-01-31T00:39:39.677" UserId="40" Comment="improve grammar " Text="Given the chance and with endless cashflow I would use store bought hay everywhere. This keeps animals dry, they like to munch on it and it also reduces the smell for those animals (like ducks) that like to splash water everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this is not affordable and likely not a sustainable option. What are some alternatives that I could use which can meet the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Keep pens dry and won't get soggy when trampled on&#xD;&#xA;- Is comfortable on animals feet&#xD;&#xA;- Could be used for animals in nesting boxes&#xD;&#xA;- Can be easily produced (taken, harvested) in large enough quantities at a reasonable price&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently I use the fallen leaves which does a great job, but there aren't always enough leaves year round." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="459" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="f44f55eb-1926-401a-aee2-4defcf32ea01" CreationDate="2013-01-31T00:39:39.677" UserId="40" Comment="improve grammar " Text="|animals|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="460" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="f44f55eb-1926-401a-aee2-4defcf32ea01" CreationDate="2013-01-31T00:39:39.677" Comment="Proposed by 40 approved by 4 edit id of 27" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="6d542f64-b1a9-4ab0-8c14-fbc48e5eafe9" CreationDate="2013-01-31T00:40:21.657" UserId="4" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Given the chance and with endless cashflow I would use store-bought hay everywhere. This keeps animals dry, they like to munch on it and it also reduces the smell for those animals (like ducks) that like to splash water everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However this is not affordable and likely not a sustainable option. What are some alternatives that I could use which can meet the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Keep pens dry and won't get soggy when trampled on&#xD;&#xA;- Is comfortable on animals feet&#xD;&#xA;- Could be used for animals in nesting boxes&#xD;&#xA;- Can be easily produced (taken, harvested) in large enough quantities at a reasonable price&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently I use the fallen leaves which does a great job, but there aren't always enough leaves year round." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="462" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="160" RevisionGUID="6d542f64-b1a9-4ab0-8c14-fbc48e5eafe9" CreationDate="2013-01-31T00:40:21.657" UserId="4" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="What to use as an alternative to store-bought hay?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="142" RevisionGUID="5133d0b0-363c-4c7f-9f66-9d73b9e7c4f3" CreationDate="2013-01-31T00:41:22.280" UserId="60" Comment="cerrected grammar" Text="Nowadays, a black or white background of websites doesn't matter much as a lot of people trashed their [CRT][1] screens already. LCD displays don't vary that much in energy consumption of dark or light colours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, to answer your question: No, or at least: difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is that? Because today not the computer receiving the website is the huge power consumer but the computer which accepts and processes the requests of webbrowsers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best example is google. Current power consumption of Google server parks is estimated as high as one of a city with 500,000 inhabitants. A single search request consumes as much power as required to heat 200ml water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: to measure website's power consumption you should consider the power used to generate the site rather than the power needed to display it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray_tube" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="464" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="142" RevisionGUID="5133d0b0-363c-4c7f-9f66-9d73b9e7c4f3" CreationDate="2013-01-31T00:41:22.280" Comment="Proposed by 60 approved by 4 edit id of 25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="465" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="95" RevisionGUID="aa658968-d872-407c-8159-d4b36475be2b" CreationDate="2013-01-31T01:02:17.053" UserId="-1" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:98,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Szilágyi Donát&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;bstpierre&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:91,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Linger&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:27,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jay Bazuzi&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="170" RevisionGUID="33322164-d3fb-46c1-945b-9b47618f0c33" CreationDate="2013-01-31T01:42:22.507" UserId="66" Text="Sepp Holzer seals ponds without using liners. Check out [this video](http://youtu.be/3vHXa3y8B7M) [which has pretty bad audio].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary of the technique (I haven't tried this, but I would expect that the devil is in the details...):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* dig out the pond&#xD;&#xA;* while water is in the pond, compact the bottom -- he talks about using an excavator or backhoe with a vibrating attachment&#xD;&#xA;* if the soil is rocky/gravelly, you need to remove extra soil to get rid of the rocks, then replace it with finer soil that will compact better&#xD;&#xA;* it may require multiple compactions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="171" RevisionGUID="001f5891-6723-49bb-99ff-2d463e661272" CreationDate="2013-01-31T02:09:19.210" UserId="66" Text="Why do you think you need to add mycorrhizae? Are the trees having problems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you planted into healthy soil to begin with, and especially if you amended the soil in your planting hole, you probably already have beneficial fungi working with your trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could mulch around your trees with a half inch of compost and then a couple of inches of arborist wood chips -- out to the drip line -- and you'd end up with mycorrhizae on the soil surface. But compost and mulch are a good idea anyway beyond whatever benefits you might get from the fungi. (Just don't &quot;volcano mulch&quot;, and don't mulch right up to the trunk.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="b8d4857e-e679-4ebd-aff0-6160e0025419" CreationDate="2013-01-31T05:35:33.640" UserId="89" Text="Values for [virtual water][1], that is, all water used in the production of whatever you are analyzing, are usualy available for a meal, a piece of clothing, a fruit, but not very easily accessible for electronics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the ammount expended in the production of a cell phone will depend on model, but I can't seem to find even a gross (but reliable) estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would anyone know where can I find such values or how can one estimate them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/home" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="b8d4857e-e679-4ebd-aff0-6160e0025419" CreationDate="2013-01-31T05:35:33.640" UserId="89" Text="How much virtual water comes with a cell phone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="b8d4857e-e679-4ebd-aff0-6160e0025419" CreationDate="2013-01-31T05:35:33.640" UserId="89" Text="|virtual-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="71635a99-beec-4009-a692-36bd7f90a6fd" CreationDate="2013-01-31T05:48:23.860" UserId="131" Text="I am looking to get started with creating my own kombucha. Is there any risk with getting a seed mother from a friend, or is it best to buy from an online store?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="473" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="71635a99-beec-4009-a692-36bd7f90a6fd" CreationDate="2013-01-31T05:48:23.860" UserId="131" Text="Better to get a kombucha Mother from friend or buy from a catalogue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="474" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="71635a99-beec-4009-a692-36bd7f90a6fd" CreationDate="2013-01-31T05:48:23.860" UserId="131" Text="|fermentation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="432f73a9-eba5-4922-8c1e-8848507186b7" CreationDate="2013-01-31T05:51:49.377" UserId="130" Text="Some concerns I would have about putting meat in the composter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Attracting rodents, dogs, and cats&#xD;&#xA; - Things like bones aren't going to compost well (whether very heavily boiled chicken bones might compost is another matter entirely)&#xD;&#xA; - Meat is going to be very high in nitrogen and consequently may pose problems unless you mix in low-carbon mixtures as well&#xD;&#xA; - There is the theoretical concern over pathogens.  However unlike the fecal-oral transmission cycle, I think the risk of this getting spread back via food is pretty low.   Also I treat this as theoretical because all kinds of other stuff we compost (read:  anything that you'd want to refridgerate if saving to eat again!) could also grow bacteria that are pathogenic to humans...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just concerns.  Like all concerns they mean that you can plan for them and overcome them with a little bit of effort.  Keep it enclosed to ensure critters can't access.  Add low-carbon material to compensate (straw might be good), and accept that the bones are going to still be in large pieces when youa are done.  Adding meat to the compost pile adds maintenance.  It is not a hard rule to avoid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This being said, trimming what you serve, and recycling the meat products in the kitchen as much as you can first, is where I would start.  Reduce and re-use first, then recycle (compost) what is left." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="a69ccc25-6887-441c-9069-4074f41c0ae0" CreationDate="2013-01-31T05:57:05.293" UserId="131" Text="What are some easy ways to stay cool during the day without using electricity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="a69ccc25-6887-441c-9069-4074f41c0ae0" CreationDate="2013-01-31T05:57:05.293" UserId="131" Text="What is an easy way to cool off during the summer without electricity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="a69ccc25-6887-441c-9069-4074f41c0ae0" CreationDate="2013-01-31T05:57:05.293" UserId="131" Text="|no-electricity|thermal-regulation|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="176" RevisionGUID="ae4a2df2-61a7-495f-8fd4-efe585477ece" CreationDate="2013-01-31T05:57:05.293" UserId="131" Text="I have gone for an entire summer without using electricity. The fastest way to cool down is to take a cold shower or to keep your bath tub filled with water and take a dip when it gets too hot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it is sometimes difficult to sleep when it is both hot and humid. To solve that I had to step out of the cold shower without drying off, and falling asleep while wet before it got hot. I would sleep right through the night. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Around 4:00AM the humidity would drop until about two hours after sunrise. This allowed for cool blissful morning breakfasts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="177" RevisionGUID="2716bc88-6056-477f-b0cd-d22eb0c29def" CreationDate="2013-01-31T06:02:32.770" UserId="130" Text="It is a basic truth that the resources are finite and so growth is unsustainable in the long-run.  An economy that *requires* growth must therefore be long-term unsustainable in its current form.  That doesn't mean it can't turn into a different, more sustainable economy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the question (and my answer in the paragraph above) presupposes an erroneous viewpoint though.  The fact is that cultures, languages, and economies are constantly changing.  Because an economy is always changing we have to be careful regarding definitions of sustainable.  Typically the current vector will not be sustainable but that doesn't mean that the system won't gradually evolve in the direction of sustainability.   The question is what is required to get there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Prof. Joseph Tainter points out in his books and lectures, very often times, immediate sustainability sacrifices long-term sustainability because it requires additional complexity and consumption.  He points to Rome as an example.  They would have fallen earlier were it not for all the things they did which contributed to a rapid collapse later.  It is an open question whether American and European economies are past that point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="178" RevisionGUID="b4e281d4-a79c-4816-9f76-62101bc5705f" CreationDate="2013-01-31T06:12:20.130" UserId="130" Text="I think the first thing that comes to mind is what you can do to decrease the temperature around the home in the summer.  I am here in Jakarta, Indonesia at the moment and I have found that covering the patios with container gardens has a remarkable impact.  Beyond this, well-placed trees, and the like, can help a lot.  If you compare the house where I am living to my mother-in-law's place across the street, without air conditioning there is no comparison.  Even in the middle of the day my house is quite a bit cooler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I am in Chelan,Washington the summer temperature is often hotter still, but can do ok without an air conditioner if needed (we have one smallish window-mount).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second thing is to pay attention to air flows.  A couple of open windows can be used to generate breezes.  Air flow is absolutely important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cold slowers/baths are good.  I would add that sometimes the simple act of putting water on one's head can help a lot.  If you live near a body of water, swimming helps too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bad news is that if it is hot enough none of this is &quot;easy.&quot;  It takes effort, paying attention to detail, and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach is to leave windows open at night and close them in the morning for as long as you can, closing blinds etc. to reduce the amount of sunlight-driven heat in the home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end these are all techniques.  What you do to make it all work depends on a combination of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="179" RevisionGUID="83ab63f9-9b6e-4785-bec9-7bd350c0ab3a" CreationDate="2013-01-31T08:00:00.630" UserId="130" Text="I make cheese from time to time which produces copious quantities of whey (often more than I can drink in the mean time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any extra uses for whey that I may be overlooking?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="483" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="179" RevisionGUID="83ab63f9-9b6e-4785-bec9-7bd350c0ab3a" CreationDate="2013-01-31T08:00:00.630" UserId="130" Text="Good uses for sweet whey" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="484" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="179" RevisionGUID="83ab63f9-9b6e-4785-bec9-7bd350c0ab3a" CreationDate="2013-01-31T08:00:00.630" UserId="130" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="181" RevisionGUID="1332f337-f4c6-465c-8031-61631406b628" CreationDate="2013-01-31T08:36:04.790" UserId="28" Text="If you have a friend who has a [scoby][1], get it from them.  There's really no need to get one from a store.  Kombucha mothers and starters are fairly robust, and do a good job of fighting off fungus and other nasties that you're not interested in, and it's clear when they've failed to do so.  It's hard to mistake a mold colony for a healthy scoby.  In the sourdough world, it's a fine idea to combine starters with your friends, to keep them various and rigorous.  I assume the same holds true for kombucha mothers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCOBY" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="489" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="d7397e6a-02ef-40c5-ab28-d0e00af4acae" CreationDate="2013-01-31T09:26:31.910" UserId="-1" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;bstpierre&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:27,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jay Bazuzi&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:103,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;donschoe&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:98,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Szilágyi Donát&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:132,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="490" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="168" RevisionGUID="3347b4b9-dda6-4b2f-8173-c3f87a1703fb" CreationDate="2013-01-31T09:45:15.403" UserId="-1" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:27,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jay Bazuzi&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:103,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;donschoe&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:98,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Szilágyi Donát&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:132,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Manishearth&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:107,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;kolin&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="182" RevisionGUID="1e97ba24-ee05-4ca9-938f-bec6f9254206" CreationDate="2013-01-31T11:05:42.730" UserId="103" Text="This is almost impossible and similar difficult to answer as the [question about ecological footprints][1] and the [question about impact of travelling][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before we find out how much virtual water comes along with a cellphone we need to find out *how to calculate the virtual water footprint*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned the [Water Footprint Network][3]. Scientific head behind this project seems to be [Prof.dr.ir. Arjen Y. Hoekstra][4] at the University of Twente. In his book *The water footprint assessment manual: Setting the global standard* ([PDF, pages 48-51][5]), he writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In order to calculate the water footprint of the final product in a production&#xD;&#xA;system, one can best start calculating the water footprints of the most original&#xD;&#xA;resources (where the supply chain starts) and then calculate, step-by-step,&#xD;&#xA;the water footprints of the intermediate products, until one can calculate the&#xD;&#xA;water footprint of the final product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's four pages worth a read if you want to find out more about water footprints of consumer products. Hoekstra explains two different approaches of how to calculate the footprints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the essence is: **You need data**. For you cellphone you need to find out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - all details on processes of the production&#xD;&#xA; - all data of contained parts of the cellphone&#xD;&#xA; - all energy and ressources used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... and maybe much more. To be honest, I doubt you will be able to research this on your own and cellphone producers wont give out such data to consumers unless they really have some kind of transparency drive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find out the exact amount of virtual water used in your cellphone you will have to start your own dedicated research project which will only work *in coorperation* with the manufacturer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/91/103&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/93/103&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.waterfootprint.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.utwente.nl/ctw/wem/organisatie/medewerkers/hoekstra/arjen_hoekstra.doc/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.waterfootprint.org/downloads/TheWaterFootprintAssessmentManual.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="183" RevisionGUID="8bb36d8b-bbd1-41ce-8c5d-68ca9095b222" CreationDate="2013-01-31T11:31:55.420" UserId="58" Text="Milk and milk products including whey were the basic food (along with cereal products) of our ancestors, so there must be even more ways to use it than this link indicates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[16 Ways to Use Your Whey][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least it was (and still is) fermented for an alcoholic drink, but I din't find any handbook of homebrewing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theprairiehomestead.com/2011/06/16-ways-to-use-your-whey.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="183" RevisionGUID="34f26e48-4b71-4957-aa68-54abc0b5220f" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:13:08.243" UserId="58" Comment="Link summary" Text="Milk and milk products including whey were the basic food (along with cereal products) of our ancestors, so there must be even more ways to use it than this link indicates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[16 Ways to Use Your Whey][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: to sum up the link, there are plenty of ways how it be used for food, such as to substitute it for water while baking. It can also be fed to animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is not in the link: whey was (and still is) fermented for an alcoholic drink, but I din't find any handbook to homebrew it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theprairiehomestead.com/2011/06/16-ways-to-use-your-whey.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="3bcb0681-b63d-4603-a078-8fdbcade4253" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:30:06.080" UserId="71" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="I don't think there is a 'too hot' climate limit for cob; like adobe the high thermal mass keeps a cob building cool in a hot climate, and cob, adobe and mud-brick buildings have provided shelter in hot climates since prehistory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A climate *can* be too cold; if you live far enough away from the equator there won't be enough sunlight in winter to heat up the cob sufficiently. You could combine your cob structure with straw-bale walls on the north and even the west and east sides to compensate for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than climate you want to pay attention to your location; you need stable foundations (dig down if needed) and you need avoid exposed areas (wind erosion, rain blown onto the walls) or valley bottoms (too little sunshine), for example. A swampy area is not necessarily a problem; if you can construct a stable and high enough foundation to keep your cob dry, you can build a cob house." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="7d30b513-cb12-4096-b303-6e57f00f054a" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:40:41.477" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo and grammar, rephrased title (literature about this talks about the &quot;virtual water content&quot; of a product)" Text="Values for [virtual water content][1], that is, all water used in the production of whatever product you are analyzing, are usualy available for a meal, a piece of clothing, a fruit, but not very easily accessible for electronics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the amount expended in the production of a cell phone will depend on the model, but I can't seem to find even a gross (but reliable) estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would anyone know where I can find such values or how one can estimate them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/home" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="497" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="7d30b513-cb12-4096-b303-6e57f00f054a" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:40:41.477" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo and grammar, rephrased title (literature about this talks about the &quot;virtual water content&quot; of a product)" Text="What's the virtual water content of a cell phone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="498" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="7d30b513-cb12-4096-b303-6e57f00f054a" CreationDate="2013-01-31T13:40:41.477" Comment="Proposed by 99 approved by 89 edit id of 29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="184" RevisionGUID="208a3e29-dd94-4373-89be-abb695684585" CreationDate="2013-01-31T14:08:29.080" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="185" RevisionGUID="656e4d7c-7251-4400-a791-046af0c402b6" CreationDate="2013-01-31T14:08:29.080" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="a4c06bad-71d9-48d4-b6d9-2ac3f2911f4c" CreationDate="2013-01-31T15:27:40.070" UserId="134" Text="There is very low risk getting a mother from a friend and there are a lot of positives. I totally agree with [tag:Laizer] that they are quite resilient and it is obvious if a scoby is healthy or not. Black is bad, mold is bad, lack of effervescence is bad. It is not bad if it sinks in the liquid. I always keep a backup in starter tea in a small jar in my fridge just in case something happens to the ones I'm using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nice thing about getting it from a friend is you can tell how your tea will taste and choose accordingly. Kombucha, unlike something like Keifer, does not clone itself every time it grows. A mother is not genetically identical to the daughter it produces, and every mother is not identical to all other mothers. The organisms in your scoby (symbiotic culture of bacteria and yeast) affect how the fermented tea will taste, so you will always have variety. They also adapt, so if you are using a specific kind of tea for a long time, the daughters produced will start to adapt to the environment and perhaps be better tasting, or maybe not. If you really like the way your friend's tea tastes, you should get a daughter from them and if you like how the tea you make tastes, you should always keep the mother and give away the daughters or compost them or keep them as back up, whatever you choose.  Also, websites/forums that you only have to pay for postage will allow you to get more than 1 or get another easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people, and I appreciate this isn't a mainstream thought, are of the opinion that you shouldn't ever buy a mother or something like Keifer grains because the organisms are so prolific that its offensive the the energy of the organism to get money for something it obviously wants to share. Definitely not a consideration for everyone, but if you are interested in energies that is one thing to consider." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="b8ffb1db-4130-4bb4-afda-496e361167db" CreationDate="2013-01-31T15:38:47.147" UserId="135" Text="This is true as much in winter as in summer: keeping shutters closed. It will reduce thermal exchanges, and keep a cool temperature inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Windows are (I think) the main surface for heat exchange in an house/appartment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="189" RevisionGUID="ab8c0931-b35c-4f86-aa17-f1989d8563c7" CreationDate="2013-01-31T16:22:26.273" UserId="81" Text="I see a lot of DIY projects that use various plastics, even projects with a focus on sustainable processes and methods.  Is the use of plastic contrary to the idea of sustainability entirely?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are some plastics more sustainable than others?  Which plastics or what qualities of plastics should I consider when trying to be more sustainable in my life and in my &quot;backyard&quot; projects?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="189" RevisionGUID="ab8c0931-b35c-4f86-aa17-f1989d8563c7" CreationDate="2013-01-31T16:22:26.273" UserId="81" Text="Which plastics should I avoid and what qualities of plastics are important to consider?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="189" RevisionGUID="ab8c0931-b35c-4f86-aa17-f1989d8563c7" CreationDate="2013-01-31T16:22:26.273" UserId="81" Text="|diy|building-materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="512" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="c8dec15b-bd8e-497f-80b7-e51b2c29fcf9" CreationDate="2013-01-31T16:30:12.783" UserId="98" Comment="typo fixed in title" Text="How can I seal a pond without using a plastic pond liner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="513" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="c8dec15b-bd8e-497f-80b7-e51b2c29fcf9" CreationDate="2013-01-31T16:30:12.783" Comment="Proposed by 98 approved by 21 edit id of 28" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="190" RevisionGUID="15723194-4b48-4f93-8d26-b34de47052c9" CreationDate="2013-01-31T16:36:58.893" UserId="20" Text="At the grocery store, many offer a choice between brown paper bags (often doubled) or Low Density Poly-Ethylene (LDPE) plastic bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you plan to recycle in either case, which solution is more sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, is buying a reusable heavy duty plastic coated bag better than these disposable choices, or how about a reusable canvas bag?  Another option (only seen this at Food Co-Ops) is reusing the boxes that the store received to package the goods coming in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you had to prioritize all these choices, is there a clear ranking and ordering among them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="515" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="190" RevisionGUID="15723194-4b48-4f93-8d26-b34de47052c9" CreationDate="2013-01-31T16:36:58.893" UserId="20" Text="Which is more sustainable: Paper Bags or LDPE Bags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="516" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="190" RevisionGUID="15723194-4b48-4f93-8d26-b34de47052c9" CreationDate="2013-01-31T16:36:58.893" UserId="20" Text="|recycling|grocery|bags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="185" RevisionGUID="a86f70c7-a73d-43d5-85c2-a5e2d6965108" CreationDate="2013-01-31T17:06:31.220" UserId="89" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="Water consumed during the entire manufacturing of a product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="518" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="185" RevisionGUID="a86f70c7-a73d-43d5-85c2-a5e2d6965108" CreationDate="2013-01-31T17:06:31.220" Comment="Proposed by 89 approved by 117 edit id of 31" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="184" RevisionGUID="5ed1e296-9650-4048-9365-e3489e3e4897" CreationDate="2013-01-31T17:06:35.090" UserId="89" Comment="added 504 characters in body" Text="The virtual water is the amount of water consumed, measured over the whole supply chain of a product, from its basic resources to delivery. It reports the total water-related impact of an object or a meal, for example. [source][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions with this tag should explore discussions on this definition, how to assess the water consumed in the production of an object and where such figures can be found, as well as how to reduce this impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/home" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="520" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="184" RevisionGUID="5ed1e296-9650-4048-9365-e3489e3e4897" CreationDate="2013-01-31T17:06:35.090" Comment="Proposed by 89 approved by 117 edit id of 30" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="191" RevisionGUID="04bffa31-f1e2-4118-9064-b2474ecc31ad" CreationDate="2013-01-31T17:31:39.580" UserId="103" Text="*Is the use of plastic contrary to the idea of sustainability entirely?* **Yes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general answer to this question is: Avoid plastics whereever you can. Plastic takes several hundred years to rot, it's a first class environmental toxic regarding the high amounts ending up in the nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although, plastic can be recycled in some ways most of it is simply burned or somehow ends up in the [oceans][1]. For further lecture on this topic, you should really watch the movie [Plastic Planet][2] --- very impressing and should answer most of your concerns. Anyone who is interested in this topic should see this, by the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Are some plastics more sustainable than others?* **Yes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, there are some plastics more sustainable than others. They are called *organic plastics* or [*bioplastics*][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bioplastics are made from renewable sources and emit less greenhouse gases during production than plastics created from fossil sources. Some bioplastics are even designed to biodegrade within a few weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, it depends on what you want to create in your DIY projects. I would dismiss all kinds of plastics because there are also [health concerns][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.plasticoceans.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1292648/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2157423/Poisoned-plastic-Chemicals-water-bottles-food-packaging-linked-infertility-birth-defects-Scaremongering-truth.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="cf8c2482-1230-45ca-a691-8a0ab985405c" CreationDate="2013-01-31T17:48:33.667" UserId="103" Text="Only [5.7%][1] of LDPE is recycled. Most of it ends up in the environment. Biodegradation time is [500-1000 years][2] if exposed to light, else decomposing time is infinite. Go for a **paper** bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really plan to recycle it: paper bags will be new paper bags, LDPE bags will be [clothes or carpets][3] in asian or african markets. Paper can be recycled as often as you want to (as long as it does not get contaminated too much), LDPE can only be recycled once. Go for a **paper** bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't buy re-usable plastic bags. Read more about why not plastic in this question: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/189/103&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, buy re-usable organic **cotton** or organic **hemp** bags and you are happy for years with them... the environment, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.brighthub.com/environment/green-living/articles/107380.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ehow.com/about_6360593_ldpe-recycled_.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="953d7eb5-f2c9-4180-b33e-9ae566d3fdbd" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:17:34.947" UserId="91" Text="I have a cat that is fixed and fully de-clawed.  It is strictly an inside cat only and never goes outside.  I buy regular cat litter from the store frequently.  I would like to find an alternative.  I have tried newspaper and the cat didn't like it an neither did I.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is there a sustainable alternative to traditional cat litter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="953d7eb5-f2c9-4180-b33e-9ae566d3fdbd" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:17:34.947" UserId="91" Text="Solution To Cat Litter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="953d7eb5-f2c9-4180-b33e-9ae566d3fdbd" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:17:34.947" UserId="91" Text="|pets|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="194" RevisionGUID="49d6ca0c-1c9f-4a32-9cc5-6d693bf27ea4" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:25:55.983" UserId="60" Text="Generally speaking, any water consumption will lower the water table. But if *the [aquifer][1] is being steadily replenished* and *less water is drained from the area*, then the only concern is the current depth of existing wells. Some might need to be drilled deeper, if the water level drops. Then the total water table lowering might be bigger than expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several counter-measures you can take to lower the impact of a new well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Possible ways to help replenishing the water source:&#xD;&#xA;  - cleaning/regulating a nearby stream, river or spring&#xD;&#xA;  - recycling the precipitation locally (underground reservoirs, retention ponds)&#xD;&#xA;3. Ways to lower draining water from the area:&#xD;&#xA;  - enough vegetation (keeps water, prevents too much evaporation)&#xD;&#xA;  - less concrete, asphalt &amp; unpermeable surfaces (quick water drain off)&#xD;&#xA;  - recycling the precipitation locally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquifer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="21f2c7a4-32a4-4b52-888f-5cbcca1aa507" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:26:33.230" UserId="91" Text="I have an inside cat that periodically has flea problems.  The fleas must be getting in via friends of mine that have pets.  I believe the cat is allergic to flea bites because it gets bumps on its skin where it has been bitten.  So, I have been using Frontline monthly to keep the fleas at bay and keep my cat comfortable.  Frontline is exspensive and it is something that I have to continually buy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of a sustainable alternative to keeping fleas off of a pet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="21f2c7a4-32a4-4b52-888f-5cbcca1aa507" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:26:33.230" UserId="91" Text="Eliminating pet fleas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="21f2c7a4-32a4-4b52-888f-5cbcca1aa507" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:26:33.230" UserId="91" Text="|pets|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="530" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="195" RevisionGUID="991b4c38-4206-49b5-b0ed-88ad4ebabe4f" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:52:16.667" UserId="91" Comment="edited title" Text="Eliminating fleas on pets" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="21e482bd-251f-4ec5-9671-d5bdce280d8e" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:55:52.470" UserId="81" Text="Ignoring the question of whether [aquaponics][1] is a sustainable process (which it may not be due to seemingly high energy input required for water movement and filtration).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most [aquaponics][2] designs use plastic as a basic building block for every component.  Given [plastics are not sustainable materials][3], I'd like to avoid their use in &quot;backyard&quot; DIY projects.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some safe, renewable, water-resistant materials I could use instead of plastic in existing designs?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there &quot;backyard&quot; designs that avoid plastic materials and components?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaponics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/#q=diy+aquaponics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/189/which-plastics-should-i-avoid-and-what-qualities-of-plastics-are-important-to-co" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="532" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="21e482bd-251f-4ec5-9671-d5bdce280d8e" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:55:52.470" UserId="81" Text="How to avoid plastic in aquaponics designs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="533" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="21e482bd-251f-4ec5-9671-d5bdce280d8e" CreationDate="2013-01-31T18:55:52.470" UserId="81" Text="|aquaponics|diy|building-materials|hydroponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="534" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="8dc0d366-c87c-4744-8d31-ffbf6478af33" CreationDate="2013-01-31T19:01:02.723" UserId="81" Comment="edited tags" Text="|aquaponics|diy|building-materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="66ec8068-f983-4026-8340-2994c9938aee" CreationDate="2013-01-31T19:07:43.190" UserId="91" Text="I am remodeling a room in my house and have a bunch of material that may end up in the garbage.  I would be throwing away carpet, plaster and planks, trim and etc.  I would like to not throw this stuff away if there is any clever/ helpful use for it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any ideas on if I can reuse this stuff in/on any other project/activities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="536" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="66ec8068-f983-4026-8340-2994c9938aee" CreationDate="2013-01-31T19:07:43.190" UserId="91" Text="Reusing old building materials" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="537" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="66ec8068-f983-4026-8340-2994c9938aee" CreationDate="2013-01-31T19:07:43.190" UserId="91" Text="|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="198" RevisionGUID="14519698-ba67-4fb3-9c0d-8c89dafffabf" CreationDate="2013-01-31T20:23:35.333" UserId="45" Text="This is a fun question.  I am not against plastics in my designs but lets see what we can do to get around this!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood?  I would think that a good hard wood with closely packed grain would be a great building block for grow beds and even the fish tank.  If you employed basic boat building skills and adhesives such as a resin you might be &quot;sustainable&quot;.  You could use a trough design to move water from point A to point B...also achievable with wooden planks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get around the use of pumps you would probably need to employ something like a paddle wheels next to a flowing stream to carry water from a low point to a high point.  From there I think gravity could be employed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as some form of ebb and flow system you would need to get tricky with your siphon.  Perhaps a loop siphon would be easier to achieve with natural pieces.  Perhaps cured animal gut could be dried in a loop siphon form.  But then again using bamboo to fashion a bell siphon might work pretty well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="540" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="82" RevisionGUID="c481b61b-3264-49da-a95e-281ad29f31ce" CreationDate="2013-01-31T20:24:14.533" UserId="103" Comment="edited tags" Text="|toilet|alternatives|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="541" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="67cf0d49-2c5c-4c62-815e-0b856572a248" CreationDate="2013-01-31T20:25:31.473" UserId="103" Comment="edited tags" Text="|composting|city-living|balcony|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="542" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="f3126327-4b74-4c2c-b0a8-fe152f9b1885" CreationDate="2013-01-31T20:29:26.767" UserId="103" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|electricity|light|energy-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="543" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="dd3220bf-3569-4b3d-9071-6809c22e285a" CreationDate="2013-01-31T20:29:41.917" UserId="103" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|solar-power|electricity|city-living|energy-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="544" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="6a1f5caf-4e38-4a92-8bc7-b79575baf411" CreationDate="2013-01-31T20:32:26.080" UserId="103" Comment="edited tags" Text="|cleaning|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="545" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="c044c0c5-f411-4a30-8dd8-40bc98183247" CreationDate="2013-01-31T20:33:40.777" UserId="103" Comment="edited tags" Text="|electricity|thermal-regulation|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="83a8a169-6ad1-4d7f-97c4-0c25f929a81a" CreationDate="2013-01-31T20:35:59.460" UserId="103" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|water-management|ponds|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="547" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="590f656b-5c21-4ee7-99b4-a74570009199" CreationDate="2013-01-31T20:38:20.270" UserId="103" Comment="edited tags" Text="|ecological-footprint|heating|fireplace|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="548" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="f6ee23ae-6cc9-44e3-812d-1e150a5a232d" CreationDate="2013-01-31T20:39:32.577" UserId="103" Comment="edited tags" Text="|water|diy|water-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="549" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="158" RevisionGUID="d2bbe012-c873-4608-b80c-27240eeb42d3" CreationDate="2013-01-31T20:40:37.117" UserId="103" Comment="edited tags" Text="|composting|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="c704c59b-645d-4003-8a15-e5e2cec05a35" CreationDate="2013-01-31T20:47:57.207" UserId="21" Comment="Editing the question for more specificity." Text="In *Mycelium Running*, Paul Stamets talks about inoculating seedlings with mycorrhizal funguses.  He shows a side by side of young Maple saplings, one with and one with out showing the immense difference in health and growth between the two.  I'm getting ready to plant some apple trees of various hybrid varieties and I would like to inoculate them before planting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do different cultivars and varieties do better with different innoculants?  Are there some innoculants that do well with all Apple trees?  Which ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="199" RevisionGUID="564aa778-ed74-4e67-a8b8-29fc65c4a940" CreationDate="2013-01-31T21:04:33.517" UserId="103" Text="According to the German wikipedia: in Europe, [48%][1] of the plastic bottles were recycled back in 2009. According to the Plastic Recycling Report: in North America, [29%][2] of plastic bottles were recycled in 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be hard to get numbers for worldwide recycling rates - and to be honest, what is the value of such a number? I've been to Nigeria in 2009 and 98% of the country don't even have some kind of waste-disposal options. It will take a while until recycling will establish in such countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've mentioned in [this answer][3], recycled plastics mainly go to asia and africa and are used in the production of [clothes and carpets][4]. I've not heard about just *piling them up* overseas as plastic is still a valuable ressource. The main issue is that most of the plastic bottles don't get into the recycle-*cycle* again but are simply disposed to generic waste or even worse - into the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylenterephthalat#Recycling&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.plasticsrecycling.org/news/news-archives/58-press-release/157-2010-pet-and-bottle-rate-reports-released&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/192/103&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://earth911.com/recycling/plastic/plastic-bottles/how-plastic-bottles-are-recycled/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="552" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="47" RevisionGUID="b7c57c2a-abd8-4e06-ad54-d973b9559a71" CreationDate="2013-01-31T21:10:35.583" UserId="103" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|waste|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="553" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11" RevisionGUID="42da658d-e8f5-4dc3-a3fc-ddb14e3eb60f" CreationDate="2013-01-31T21:11:05.863" UserId="103" Comment="edited tags" Text="|composting|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="554" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="13" RevisionGUID="47e0e4dd-9573-427f-a93a-8015d72d75aa" CreationDate="2013-01-31T21:16:56.563" UserId="103" Comment="edited tags" Text="|safety|furniture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="200" RevisionGUID="c8fc5495-bc08-463d-8a0f-45b5a349efed" CreationDate="2013-01-31T21:17:33.877" UserId="57" Text="There's a growing market for reclaimed/salvaged building materials. Check out [Planet Reuse][1] or http://www.build.recycle.net/, or there are probably similar local organizations in your area. I believe Habitat for Humanity tries to use reclaimed material as well; you might look into donating yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're talking DIY projects, I'd say your imagination is the only limit there! It's a little hard to say more without knowing more specifics about what kind of materials and project. (As a start, I've seen some pretty neat projects using old trim to make picture/mirror frames, or shelves.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.planetreuse.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="556" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="8048f228-372c-4fc5-8a38-259ee839cc9a" CreationDate="2013-01-31T21:18:23.663" UserId="81" Comment="edited tags" Text="|reuse|building-materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="5796c2b0-93bb-41d2-a4c0-b0a4805b7415" CreationDate="2013-01-31T21:44:22.890" UserId="15" Comment="Corrected comment regarding relationship of heat capacity to mass" Text="(Corrected)The &quot;thermal mass&quot; value you're interested in increasing is essentially the same (exceptions mentioned in [this other answer][1]) as the mass (essentially weight, for those not into learning physics!) of your material multiplied by its &quot;[specific heat capacity][2]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't help much when it comes to keeping mass down. However, there is a way around it. You can use liquid mass (water is cheap, and very heavy) and store it elsewhere. You just need a way to gently circulate it past the stove and store it in a tank somewhere (one that can handle the temperature increasing somewhat higher than your average water tank!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your tank is located outside of the space you want to heat, you'll need to insulate it heavily, along with the pipes leading to it. In that case you may also need panels for radiating the heat back into the building, which you'd circulate the hot water through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a liquid to distribute heat is a common method of heating a building; sometimes oil is used and a furnace is running while the building needs heating though. Using oil almost certainly isn't going to be sustainable though, especially when you want to store a tank of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using water, all parts of the system will need to be protected from corrosion (from the inside, especially). It will also need to be able to handle the changes in pressure as the water warms up (and a sudden increase if the water happened to boil by overheating).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, adding mass to any other part of your building that is reasonably warm will help, especially if the insulation is good. This may be an option too. It doesn't have to be right next to the stove (though the closer it is, the more effective it will be)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/80/15&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="146" RevisionGUID="84cf3e19-6e8d-466c-b20b-fc14164da130" CreationDate="2013-01-31T21:46:05.810" UserId="71" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="I don't think there is a 'too hot' climate limit for cob; like adobe the high thermal mass keeps a cob building cool in a hot climate, and cob, adobe and mud-brick buildings have provided shelter in hot climates since prehistory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A climate *can* be too cold; if you live far enough away from the equator there won't be enough sunlight in winter to heat up the cob sufficiently. You could combine your cob structure with straw-bale walls on the north and even the west and east sides to compensate for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than climate you want to pay attention to your location; you need stable foundations (dig down to solid ground then build up a foundation if needed) and you need to avoid exposed areas (wind erosion, rain blown onto the walls) or valley bottoms (too little sunshine), for example. A swampy area is not necessarily a problem; if you can construct a stable and high enough foundation to keep your cob dry, you can build a cob house." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="201" RevisionGUID="ca71b81d-9bf2-4653-b785-9f268ac0c662" CreationDate="2013-01-31T21:59:35.097" UserId="103" Text="According to [wikipedia][1] organic materials like **jute** or **hemp** are used as alternatives to solid-weave polypropylene in earthbag construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the sustainable idea somehow *conflicts* with the purpose of earthbags. Polypropylene is chosen for its low cost and its resistance to water damage, rot, and insects. The natural alternatives are in this context of *lower quality* as these are biodegradable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthbag_construction#Bag_types" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="202" RevisionGUID="3b9dd3e0-373f-4399-99a0-6620e843c761" CreationDate="2013-01-31T22:17:52.797" UserId="27" Text="Obviously, the most effective way to avoid generating a lot of waste is not to do the remodeling project, or to do only a small part of it that gets you the most value. **Construction generates a lot of waste**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Drywall &amp; plaster** can be broken up and used as a soil amendment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The older **trim and lumber**, the better that wood will be. If you have any old growth, wood, you could reuse it in your project. You might even look at exposing the wood as part of the beauty of the new room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old **carpet** can be hard to reuse. It's usually pretty nasty. Google had a few suggestions, like insulating your compost pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carpet is also hard to recycle, but your municipality may have a carpet recycling option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="c6b04f19-fda8-4131-87d5-e2937e7d0887" CreationDate="2013-01-31T23:10:30.847" UserId="60" Text="Paper has a relatively short life-cycle (compared to natural gas or crude oil) and belongs to sustainable materials. Paper can be nicely recycled by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* reusing&#xD;&#xA;  * making notes on the other side of one-side-print sheets&#xD;&#xA;  * letting children draw their art on the other side&#xD;&#xA;* recycling to paper again&#xD;&#xA;* burning (I'm just preparing to produce &amp; burn paper briquettes)&#xD;&#xA;* composting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all kinds of paper are suitable for all those ways. Reusing is possible only with relatively good quality and less printed paper. Composting is probably the very last choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which kind of paper is suitable for recycling to paper again and which should be left to be burned? What kind of criteria should I use to decide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="565" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="c6b04f19-fda8-4131-87d5-e2937e7d0887" CreationDate="2013-01-31T23:10:30.847" UserId="60" Text="Which kind of paper should be recycled and which should be burned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="566" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="c6b04f19-fda8-4131-87d5-e2937e7d0887" CreationDate="2013-01-31T23:10:30.847" UserId="60" Text="|recycling|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="204" RevisionGUID="46c3be8f-cf22-4acc-8f46-f242df053d8a" CreationDate="2013-01-31T23:29:16.800" UserId="142" Text="I want to start composting after a few failed attempts at vermicomposting indoors (I didn't have a balcony or any access to land back then). I have a rather large apartment balcony and I think I could easily do composting on the scale of a large Rubbermaid bin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best container to compost in? I have Rubbermaid bins, if something like that works, would I have to drill holes in it? Do I keep a lid on or off?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the bin fills up, how long does it take to compost fully? In that time period, should I add anything to the bin or just leave it alone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I need to do anything to &quot;start&quot; the composting process or just start chucking in veggie scraps, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any odor issues I would have to worry about? How can I minimize odors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because I don't have any land (leaves, shrubs, tree branches) I'm not sure how to incorporate enough brown into my greens. What can I do to ensure I have an adequate mix? (I do have a wood burning fireplace which produces wood ash, not sure if I can add that or if it is a &quot;brown&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there special considerations to take into account each season? I live in Chicagoland which means winters are quite cold and summers quite hot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="204" RevisionGUID="46c3be8f-cf22-4acc-8f46-f242df053d8a" CreationDate="2013-01-31T23:29:16.800" UserId="142" Text="How do I set up a composting system for my apartment balcony?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="204" RevisionGUID="46c3be8f-cf22-4acc-8f46-f242df053d8a" CreationDate="2013-01-31T23:29:16.800" UserId="142" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="205" RevisionGUID="e12c8b68-4724-489e-ba56-ec636bd26e67" CreationDate="2013-01-31T23:34:44.620" UserId="14" Text="Having watched Paul Stamet's TED Talk, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_stamets_on_6_ways_mushrooms_can_save_the_world.html&quot;&gt;Six Ways Mushrooms Can Save the World&lt;/a&gt;, I'd like to be able to cultivate mycelium in an urban environment. I would like to harvest it for food &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a balcony. I have good northern exposure window (if that matters). Where do I start? What are good resources to look at?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="205" RevisionGUID="e12c8b68-4724-489e-ba56-ec636bd26e67" CreationDate="2013-01-31T23:34:44.620" UserId="14" Text="How can I cultivate mycelium for food and fertilizer in my apartment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="205" RevisionGUID="e12c8b68-4724-489e-ba56-ec636bd26e67" CreationDate="2013-01-31T23:34:44.620" UserId="14" Text="|apartment|mushrooms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="206" RevisionGUID="c9be2013-fd3e-4613-9af7-a55cc2177998" CreationDate="2013-01-31T23:45:25.687" UserId="27" Text="Most **cats are picky** about where they'll go poop. In my experience, if I just switch litters, they won't use the new one. Similarly, if I move the litter box, they may just go on the floor at the old location. So, whatever changes you are working on, go slowly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cats can be trained to use a **toilet**, which will use only drinking water, not litter, which may be an improvement. See YouTube.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to switch litters is to fill the litter box 2/3rds with the new litter, and then put a layer of the old litter on top. This will be familiar to the cat, while helping them become accustomed to the new litter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are **biodegradable cat litters** made from newspaper and sawdust. I like the sawdust ones a lot. Once your cat transitions to them, you can switch to **pellets** used for fuel, which are basically the same thing but cheaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use **Humanure**, you can then include the cat poop + pellets in your compost pile. Humanure incurs some additional responsibility, mostly making the compost pile big enough, and letting it sit long enough. See Joe Jenkins [_Humanure Handbook_][1], also [available free online][2] for the full story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Humanure-Handbook-Composting-Edition/dp/0964425831/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://humanurehandbook.com/downloads/Humanure_Handbook_all.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="60c62fa9-0474-42e2-93aa-39491bea29e6" CreationDate="2013-02-01T00:41:48.050" UserId="15" Text="As [the other answer][1] says, baking with sourdough involves keeping a portion of dough for the next loaf baked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you create a sourdough culture from scratch or get one from a friend, once you've got a culture that works for you, you can thinly spread some fermented dough onto some waxed paper (or perhaps a greased tray, if you prefer something you don't have to buy) and let it dry. Once dry, you can break it into flakes and freeze it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how long exactly the flakes will last, but it's helpful to have some stored that way in case you forget to keep some starter or neglect the fresh starter to the point that it grows some nasty mould.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no reason why you couldn't use the same technique to preserve other yeasts too, so you could avoid needing to buy more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've had a few tries at creating a sourdough starter from scratch, without much success. If I persisted, perhaps I could've managed it, but didn't seem easy by any means. I was given some sourdough starter from a friend eventually that worked better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/136/15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="a630a987-2fe4-4d15-89e6-ef6de60d56be" CreationDate="2013-02-01T00:41:52.183" UserId="85" Text="I don't by any means live an electricity-free life, yet, but more than any other household item, I think I would miss the washing machine the most.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sweeping with a good broom is a good alternative to vacuum cleaning. Washing dishes I do by hand anyway. Cooking is possible with gas (or even solar cookers, if you want to get fancy). But washing machines present a particular problem. Clothes need to be washes long enough and with washing detergent, which is both tough on your muscles and tough on your skin. In those parts of the world where washing machines are rare, the task of washing clothes can take several hours for the washing alone, many more hours/days for the drying process. And the washing on washboards is also not good for the clothes...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any good alternatives to commercial electrical washing machines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="a630a987-2fe4-4d15-89e6-ef6de60d56be" CreationDate="2013-02-01T00:41:52.183" UserId="85" Text="Alternative for electrical washing machine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="a630a987-2fe4-4d15-89e6-ef6de60d56be" CreationDate="2013-02-01T00:41:52.183" UserId="85" Text="|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="5b85c073-2f03-4668-a803-ece019c7c808" CreationDate="2013-02-01T00:47:14.727" UserId="15" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="As [the other answer][1] says, baking with sourdough involves keeping a portion of dough for the next loaf baked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you create a sourdough culture from scratch or get one from a friend, once you've got a culture that works for you, you can thinly spread some fermented dough onto some waxed paper (or perhaps a greased tray, if you prefer something you don't have to buy) and let it dry. Once dry, you can break it into flakes and freeze it. Use the flakes to kick off your next batch of dough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how long exactly the flakes will last, but it's helpful to have some stored that way in case you forget to keep some starter or neglect the fresh starter to the point that it grows some nasty mould.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no reason why you couldn't use the same technique to preserve other yeasts too, so you could avoid needing to buy more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've had a few tries at creating a sourdough starter from scratch, without much success. If I persisted, perhaps I could've managed it, but didn't seem easy by any means. I was given some sourdough starter from a friend eventually that worked better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/136/15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="e841ba19-fbb8-4431-9de7-cd063082b4f0" CreationDate="2013-02-01T00:53:37.953" UserId="27" Comment="spelling, grammar, and cooking with wood" Text="I don't by any means live an electricity-free life, yet, but more than any other household item, I think I would miss the washing machine the most.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sweeping with a good broom is a good alternative to vacuum cleaning. Washing dishes I do by hand anyway. Cooking is possible with gas, wood, or even solar cookers, if you want to get fancy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But washing machines present a particular problem. Clothes need to be washed long enough and with washing detergent, which is both tough on your muscles and tough on your skin. In those parts of the world where washing machines are rare, the task of washing clothes can take several hours for the washing alone, many more hours/days for the drying process. And the washing on washboards is also not good for the clothes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any good alternatives to commercial electrical washing machines?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="dc5205a5-422c-40d5-afb5-c3854573a4fb" CreationDate="2013-02-01T01:03:30.550" UserId="4" Comment="Link to book" Text="In [*Mycelium Running*][1], Paul Stamets talks about inoculating seedlings with mycorrhizal funguses.  He shows a side by side of young Maple saplings, one with and one with out showing the immense difference in health and growth between the two.  I'm getting ready to plant some apple trees of various hybrid varieties and I would like to inoculate them before planting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do different cultivars and varieties do better with different innoculants?  Are there some innoculants that do well with all Apple trees?  Which ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Mycelium-Running-Mushrooms-Help-World/dp/1580085792" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="581" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="7caccb6d-58dd-4f53-b3fc-66280b4cddaa" CreationDate="2013-02-01T01:04:13.827" UserId="142" Comment="it's not clear that the fireplace is wood until you read the last sentence in the question" Text="Should I use my wood fireplace?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="582" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="7caccb6d-58dd-4f53-b3fc-66280b4cddaa" CreationDate="2013-02-01T01:04:13.827" Comment="Proposed by 142 approved by 4 edit id of 32" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="209" RevisionGUID="593fcca6-3a0f-47b1-bf97-6afd7ecf14e2" CreationDate="2013-02-01T01:16:37.117" UserId="27" Text="I agree that it would be harder to live without the washing machine than almost any other labor-saving device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, **reduce the need**. Wool smells less than cotton, which smells less than synthetic materials. You can brush wool clean, instead of washing as often. Leather and fur might be good. Go naked in the summer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wear a t-shirt and underpants to absorb sweat, and change those often, while wearing the rest of your clothes for several days at a time. Wear dresses, loose skirts, and loose shirts, as these won't pick up as much body odor. Instead of diapers, let children run around naked out doors as much as possible - they'll learn to manage their pee &amp; poop fast that way, without dirty diapers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live **alone**, you can **hand-wash** underclothes and socks easily. Or you can build a simple manual washer: a toilet plunger with some holes cut in it, and a 5 gallon bucket. Use a biodegradable detergent and send the water to the landscape (use it to flush the toilet, if you don't have Humanure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have **children, or a group** of adults sharing laundry, it's so much work to hand-wash, that you should seriously consider a more complex alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One such alternative is to get a high-efficiency washing machine and a local electricity source. A small generator is cheap, effective, and convenient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're looking for a small project, you can build a bicycle-powered washing machine as a reasonable compromise. You can hook pedals to an older washer, or build from scratch. Here's one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fktpd1ymE8A. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="26beb11c-8ff4-490d-935b-48a71f56c0bc" CreationDate="2013-02-01T01:18:33.153" UserId="27" Text="It's possible that a compost pile will leach in to the ground, possibly contaminating groundwater and nearby wells. If you're composting human or animal manure, the risk is greater, as is the concern of regulatory agencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to detect whether a compost pile is leaching?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="26beb11c-8ff4-490d-935b-48a71f56c0bc" CreationDate="2013-02-01T01:18:33.153" UserId="27" Text="How can I detect leachate from a compost pile?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="26beb11c-8ff4-490d-935b-48a71f56c0bc" CreationDate="2013-02-01T01:18:33.153" UserId="27" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="211" RevisionGUID="25726bc4-04e3-4f7b-b8dd-1cf8e5cef6f1" CreationDate="2013-02-01T01:36:03.913" UserId="85" Text="Although @Nis already gave an answer, I want to expand on it a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does it mean to preserve food?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One would be to put the meat into an environment, where bugs, moulds, etc. don't exist (i.e. can't survive). The common way of doing that is to put your food in the freezer, although I have also seen people preserve grain in barrels filled with nitrogen. (Canning is another option. You just have to be sure, there are no moulds or bacteria inside. People have died from improperly canned food.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other would be to change the food into something that you can still eat, but bugs, moulds, etc. cannot eat any longer. Here you are making use of two advantages which you have over your competitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You are the larger organism. That is to say, you can digest food that smaller organisms cannot digest any longer. I am a big fan of honey, for example. Why do you think that honey doesn't get mouldy? Because it is rich in minerals, vitamins and other things that moulds, or probably even ants can't digest. (Bears can, however.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You have the power of reversing the preservation process, at least to some extent. E.g. you can reconstitute dried food. You don't have to eat it in the preserved state. Your competitors do, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using these two advantages, you can change fresh food into something that, at least for the period of preservation, is not edible by your competitors, but edible by you, once you choose to eat it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The true art of preserving food is, however, not to overdo it (because it will not taste as good) and not &quot;underdo&quot; it (or your competitors, the bugs, moulds, etc. will eat it first). You need to get it &quot;just right&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, when preparing preserved food, you should ask yourself for what period you would like to preserve it and under which conditions you will store it (humidity and temperature are the biggest factors). Then taking into account discrepancies in your calculation, you preserve your food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Salting is very good and doesn't vary so much with humidity. It rather varies with length of preservation and temperature of storage place. A cool place slows down the process of your food being &quot;eaten&quot; by someone else. For Japanese pickled plums (umeboshi) I have the figures in my head:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 7% salt: 1 year in the fridge&#xD;&#xA;- 12-15% salt: 1 year at room temperature (up to 30, 35 degrees in the summer)&#xD;&#xA;- 20%+ salt: indefinitely at room temperature (7 year umeboshi are quite a delicacy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plums are dried in the sun for several days, several hours per day before salting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume similar measures apply to meat. These plums are extremely salty though. You can't really take more than 1 small plum per meal. If you decide to dry and salt your meat, you have to decide how you want to eat it in the end. A big salt-preserved steak won't taste very good...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar ideas apply to smoking and drying. Be sure how you want to eat your preserved meat, for how long you want (or need) to preserve it and then by frugal with your preservation methods. Frugal, but not too frugal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="74" RevisionGUID="c3ece8e6-d159-420c-829a-329727300d12" CreationDate="2013-02-01T02:52:04.243" UserId="66" Comment="&quot;on the hoof&quot;" Text="As I see it, there are 5 options: as detailed below, canning is an option; in @Nis' answer, **salting**, **smoking**, and **drying** are options. The fifth, and possibly the best option, is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Store it &quot;on the hoof&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is to say that if you want to &quot;store&quot; pork for several months, perhaps you should wait until the beginning of winter for slaughter and processing. Or alternatively, don't raise meat animals that provide so much meat that you have to store it. Chickens would fit the bill, since you can process a single chicken, prepare a meal with the mean, make soup (possibly canning it) from the leftovers, and not have to worry so much about preserving the meat. Or make arrangements so that a larger animal (e.g. in the case where you're keeping dairy animals like goats or cattle) can be shared among enough people so that the meat is used immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Canning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's energy intensive up-front, but meat can be home canned and preserved for extended periods of time (possibly longer than salting, smoking, or drying).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canning meat requires a bit of investment in equipment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* pressure canner (~$80)&#xD;&#xA;* jars, lids, and rings (~$15 per dozen quart jar kit)&#xD;&#xA;* a few misc. tools (e.g. jar lifter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the canner, jars, rings, and tools can be reused many times so that the cost per batch ends up very low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get detailed instructions for home canning meat in trusted books like the &quot;Ball Blue Book&quot; or from the US [National Center for Home Food Preservation](http://nchfp.uga.edu/how/can5_meat.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the canning is done, all you have to do is keep the product in a relatively cool, dark, dry place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="8ce9d274-3c2d-4eab-9891-ee43fd1b9460" CreationDate="2013-02-01T02:59:41.507" UserId="16" Text="For carpeting and carpet cushions, you can look for products that meet the requirements of the Carpet and Rug Institute's Green Label Plus program." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="213" RevisionGUID="37de8b15-0d30-4554-81de-d19c3c02a441" CreationDate="2013-02-01T03:17:51.490" UserId="66" Text="In priority order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Durable **canvas bag**. This will last years and can be reused many times. When the bag finally reaches the end of its life, after you've handed it down to your grandchildren, they can compost it. Just remember to always take them with you...&#xD;&#xA;2. The **cardboard boxes** they offer you at the store, if available, and you've forgotten your canvas bags. Corrugated cardboard can be reused -- it would be bulky to carry back to the store, but you may find uses for it around the house. Cardboard is also recyclable, can be used as the bottom layer of a sheet mulch (i.e. composted), and can be torn into decent kindling for starting fires in a wood boiler/furnace.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Paper bags** offered at the checkout, when you forget your bags and there are no boxes available. If you're careful, these can be reused once or twice, are recyclable, come from renewable resources, can be composted, or even used as notepaper.&#xD;&#xA;4. Durable **plastic bags** aren't something I'd choose, but if you have them, you might as well reuse them as much as possible. They aren't as recyclable, aren't created from renewable resources, and don't generally break down in the environment. (Though I suppose you could get vegetable-derived plastic, you'd probably be better off just using paper or canvas.)&#xD;&#xA;5. Disposable plastic bags seem like a clear loser. They fall apart fast so you can't really get much reuse from them, they don't usually end up getting recycled, and they last just about forever in the environment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="214" RevisionGUID="ea619238-da11-444a-a177-619b9ac2e5d9" CreationDate="2013-02-01T03:48:42.753" UserId="66" Text="It sounds like you're mainly using hay as animal bedding, and possibly for a bit of food for the rabbits? With respect to mulch in the summer, it would make sense to put the used bedding to service as mulch -- it will carry along a bit of extra nutrient enrichment. (Of course, being careful not to use it around crops that would come into contact with manures like spinach or lettuce.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My choices for bedding would include straw, wood shavings, sawdust, hay, and dry leaves -- depending on the needs of the animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With any of these, if you are going to DIY, you can make a place to store the finished product until it is ready for use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with the cheapest and possibly the easiest: dry leaves. You might be able to acquire a large quantity of leaves for free. Do you live in a place where people rake up the leaves on their lawns and leave them in bags at the curb? If so, round up a bunch of bags when they're in season and store them for use as bedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on where you live, you might be able to find wood byproducts from a mill for cheap or free -- you'd just have to find a way to transport them to your house. Unfortunately arborist wood chips, which can sometimes be had for free by asking a passing tree truck, are too coarse for animal bedding -- though they do make for nice mulch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could try growing your own straw. I believe you're in Australia's hardiness zone 4, so your winter lows are about 0°C? You could set aside a portion of your yard to growing a grain crop for straw. An appropriate choice might even be something you could grow as a cover crop during your mild winter. With some planning and luck maybe you could even get a triple yield and harvest some grain for use as animal feed or for your own use. (But at least save enough grain so that you have seed for the next crop!) The downside here is the amount of space required, the low straw yield you'll probably get, and the amount of manual labor required to process it. At your scale a scythe is a reasonable way to harvest the crop; I'm guessing that machinery isn't practical in your setting (e.g. hiring someone to come and process 700m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; seems very unlikely). The straw also won't be compacted like machine made bales, so it will take up more space in storage, and may be more prone to taking up moisture if you live in a humid climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly you could try planting your yard to a hay crop. This has the benefit over straw of being perennial. It may be harder to process -- grass is wetter and will take longer to dry. It is also heavier to handle. I'm not a fan of hay for mulch since it is full of seeds and often carries weeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to do it yourself, but want to avoid going to a store, ask around to find farmers in your area who may be willing to sell you what you need. You may be able to get it cheaper or more conveniently if you have the storage at your house to buy a bulk amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can usually save money if you pick up the hay &quot;out of the field&quot; instead of after the farmer has done the work of transporting it and stacking it in his barn. This takes some coordination with the farmer so that you know exactly when the hay is being harvested, and being flexible with your schedule to go and pick it up immediately. (I do this, and it sometimes requires clearing my schedule for an afternoon so that I can go pick up hay and stack it in my barn.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a final note: you will probably end up wanting to combine some of these. E.g. build a storage shed, get dry leaves off your neighbors' curbs when you can, plant a stand of buff oats for straw and as a cover crop, and find someone nearby who can supply you with enough hay to fill those months where you have gaps in your homegrown supply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="215" RevisionGUID="d4c88fd7-449a-4564-b006-0f4a37b742ef" CreationDate="2013-02-01T05:14:24.400" UserId="130" Text="All compost piles leach.  This is ok.  It's not a problem by itself.  The question is what happens when you overload what the soil below can handle. Keep in mind that plants and even bacteria on the surface of the soil, cycle and transform nutrients.  You can &quot;detect&quot; this by simple observation of nearby plants.  Moderate (ok) levels of leachate may cause plants next to the pile to grow better than those around them.  If you see a dead zone around the heap, you may want to back off....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know that there is a single definition of where problems might lie, much less a simple way to detect it.  However here are some things you can do to minimize causes for concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are processing non-manure, there is still some risk of fecal choliforms but this is minimal.  There are nitrates, but plants will suck these up if they are not excessive. Most of these are not threats to groundwater at any depth that one would get from a well.  If you are composting a *lot* you might.....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things that permaculturists sometimes do that would reduce the risk further include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  In-place composting.  The compost heap is in the garden, a new one gets started  in a different place every year,a nd the old material spread around where it was composted.  If you overdo it, I suppose your plants won't grow and that will be a warning sign.....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Moving the existing compost pile once a year or so and growing plants where the old one was.  This helps use the leachate in the soil and it provides some controls to prevent overdoing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:  My gut feeling is you'd really have to be doing industrial-scale composting for this to be an issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="216" RevisionGUID="39387ecf-8f8d-4266-ad24-1db1793c3839" CreationDate="2013-02-01T05:16:46.503" UserId="130" Text="I am interested in permaculture, and have read some of the classic texts on the subject.  What are some good general ways to find other people in my local area who are doing the same to share ideas with and learn from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="216" RevisionGUID="39387ecf-8f8d-4266-ad24-1db1793c3839" CreationDate="2013-02-01T05:16:46.503" UserId="130" Text="How can I find local permaculturalists in my area?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="216" RevisionGUID="39387ecf-8f8d-4266-ad24-1db1793c3839" CreationDate="2013-02-01T05:16:46.503" UserId="130" Text="|gardening|permaculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="217" RevisionGUID="7b5b0340-ae47-4e81-8a23-5c7a2ea0f791" CreationDate="2013-02-01T06:33:19.900" UserId="27" Text="1. Do a Google search for &quot;Permaculture MYTOWN&quot;. Find anyone that is in to permaculture in your area. They will know other people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Search for &quot;cob&quot;, &quot;humanure&quot;, &quot;rocket stove&quot; in your area. If you find a class on these topics, e.g. &quot;Building a cob oven in your back yard&quot;, people at the class will help you get started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Check/post in the [PERMIES.COM Regional][1] section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.permies.com/forums/c/3/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="217" RevisionGUID="8783ae2c-8e89-4be4-8a5c-6017abaf3b57" CreationDate="2013-02-01T06:43:59.297" UserId="27" Comment="farmer's market" Text="1. Do a Google search for &quot;Permaculture MYTOWN&quot;. Find anyone that is in to permaculture in your area. They will know other people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Search for &quot;cob&quot;, &quot;humanure&quot;, &quot;rocket stove&quot; in your area. If you find a class on these topics, e.g. &quot;Building a cob oven in your back yard&quot;, people at the class will help you get started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Check/post in the [PERMIES.COM Regional][1] section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Visit your local farmers market, and find the farmer with the smallest operation - ask them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.permies.com/forums/c/3/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="9b1d9653-707a-46cd-95e0-7b7120b92371" CreationDate="2013-02-01T08:44:05.273" UserId="99" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="The best sealing is simply one layer of [EPDM](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPDM) which you can order in the larger construction store (at least you can here in the Netherlands). You can glue the EPDM to your roof. The material is water and root proof, which are the only requirements basically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On top of that you'll need something that can both hold water and drain superfluous water (drainage layer, 4th layer from the top in [this picture](http://www.safeguardeurope.com/diagrams/flat-green-roof-build-up.jpg)). On our green roof this was included in the package with the growing medium and plants. I'm not sure if you can buy it separately, but it looks something like [this](http://ecobrooklyn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/drainage-mat.jpg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people like to add a protective layer between the EPDM and drainage layer but in my experience that is not really necessary as the EPDM is quite sturdy.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="599" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="204" RevisionGUID="75fbe3e5-650a-4eea-a431-1ed1632a8e3b" CreationDate="2013-02-01T08:44:31.550" UserId="103" Comment="retagged" Text="|composting|city-living|balcony|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="600" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="937d105b-e25f-44a2-88e3-c561b6c1db34" CreationDate="2013-02-01T08:50:30.580" UserId="103" Comment="retagged" Text="|recycling|heating|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="218" RevisionGUID="6832e76d-b53e-40ec-96c6-ea4cd439c7cb" CreationDate="2013-02-01T09:12:22.007" UserId="103" Text="You should avoid buring paper as this is the exact opposite of sustainability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why is that?** Because burning paper simply converts the paper into greenhouse gases like CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and sometimes - depending on the ink or coating - toxic substances blown straight into the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, burned paper can not be recycled. It's a waste of ressources. Recycling paper is very easy and to produce new paper from recycled paper costs less energy and water ressources. That's why it is environmentally friendly and sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to answer your question, of course there is paper that **can not be recycled**. I've been working in a project to reduce waste from one-way coffee cups and we were researching how to dispose or recycle them correctly. The result was that even if they were made from recycled paper, they could not be recycled again because they were too dirty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, paper should be reused or recycled if anyhow possible. This is the only sustainable way. But if it is contaminated with dirt, special inks or coatings or similar, it is not possible to recycle them correctly. But as mentioned in comments, burning the paper is no option. In the end, if recycling or composting are not available due to contamination, you should consider to dispose it with the regular garbage. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="951f20a5-e739-410e-93b1-04fcdf3d89ef" CreationDate="2013-02-01T10:01:28.567" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="6a1dccf5-2ddf-42ea-8861-5e07533f498a" CreationDate="2013-02-01T10:01:28.567" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="221" RevisionGUID="36a31db5-6179-4f99-ac31-45677242e976" CreationDate="2013-02-01T10:03:51.293" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="222" RevisionGUID="5b3263b0-6c4c-42dd-bebc-affedd419ce5" CreationDate="2013-02-01T10:03:51.293" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="606" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="43584caf-dce5-447c-bb55-edeaedcab618" CreationDate="2013-02-01T10:26:14.037" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|alternatives|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="607" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="04129d6b-ad8d-49a9-bd0c-3e4037cbb9f0" CreationDate="2013-02-01T10:27:27.547" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|alternatives|pets|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="608" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11" RevisionGUID="d4a7541f-eba4-42f0-959e-e6ab300bc7c5" CreationDate="2013-02-01T10:51:49.610" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|composting|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="223" RevisionGUID="4d5f41a1-5efa-4270-9373-9c8e096b71ad" CreationDate="2013-02-01T11:21:25.537" UserId="142" Text="Usually when I see lists of things to do to be more energy efficient, they require one to own their own home. **What can I do to be more energy efficient in an apartment?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I can't install solar panels, I can't upgrade/change my appliances, I can't install better insulation or windows, and I can't install a programmable thermostat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty much the only thing I can do (and have done) is switch all of my bulbs to CFLs. I also keep all of my electronics on power strips which I turn off when I leave my apartment and when I'm sleeping.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="610" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="223" RevisionGUID="4d5f41a1-5efa-4270-9373-9c8e096b71ad" CreationDate="2013-02-01T11:21:25.537" UserId="142" Text="How can I be more energy efficient in an apartment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="611" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="223" RevisionGUID="4d5f41a1-5efa-4270-9373-9c8e096b71ad" CreationDate="2013-02-01T11:21:25.537" UserId="142" Text="|energy|apartment|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="2357fe8a-0713-4086-847d-960ac7bf78f6" CreationDate="2013-02-01T11:26:48.197" UserId="60" Comment="update on motivation" Text="Paper has a relatively short life-cycle (compared to natural gas or crude oil) and belongs to sustainable materials. Paper can be nicely recycled by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* reusing&#xD;&#xA;  * making notes on the other side of one-side-print sheets&#xD;&#xA;  * letting children draw their art on the other side&#xD;&#xA;* recycling to paper again&#xD;&#xA;* burning (I'm just preparing to produce &amp; burn paper briquettes)&#xD;&#xA;* composting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all kinds of paper are suitable for all those ways. Reusing is possible only with relatively good quality and less printed paper. Composting is probably the very last choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which kind of paper is suitable for recycling to paper again and which should be left to be burned? What kind of criteria should I use to decide?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**  &#xD;&#xA;The motivation of this question is (partly) because of my experience when cardboard is sometimes excluded from collection by a recycling company." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="224" RevisionGUID="37bb9bc4-7a69-4725-b0f7-7cb14be248a0" CreationDate="2013-02-01T11:30:49.733" UserId="144" Text="After [trying and failing batch domestic anaerobic digestion in Kathmandu][1] at its coldest (December, January), a biogas expert observed our system and explained the bacteria could not operate because of temperature fluctuations--which would throw the anaerobic bacteria back into stasis every evening when the temperature would drop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rumor reached us about an anaerobic bacteria (used in China?) which is cold resistant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inoculating a bio-digester with a different bacteria is more appealing than re-designing a complete system with insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately we have had no details regarding this bacteria. Would you have more information about any cold-resistant anaerobic bacteria? Which one is it exactly? How can it be found, grown and used?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://openbiotecture.wordpress.com/tag/ubab/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="614" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="224" RevisionGUID="37bb9bc4-7a69-4725-b0f7-7cb14be248a0" CreationDate="2013-02-01T11:30:49.733" UserId="144" Text="Is there any cold-resistant anaerobic bacteria for biodigestion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="615" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="224" RevisionGUID="37bb9bc4-7a69-4725-b0f7-7cb14be248a0" CreationDate="2013-02-01T11:30:49.733" UserId="144" Text="|waste|biogas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="af15fa97-77da-4d1c-92a9-bf5bbdcdd412" CreationDate="2013-02-01T11:42:01.583" UserId="144" Text="I would like to know if it is possible to recycle plastic at home by melting and molding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it at all possible? What technique or technology do I need? Can it be done with any plastic? Are there health hazards associated to this activity?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="af15fa97-77da-4d1c-92a9-bf5bbdcdd412" CreationDate="2013-02-01T11:42:01.583" UserId="144" Text="Can I recycle plastics at home by melting and molding?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="af15fa97-77da-4d1c-92a9-bf5bbdcdd412" CreationDate="2013-02-01T11:42:01.583" UserId="144" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="0390fbd9-1af8-445e-a30a-843c30f50854" CreationDate="2013-02-01T12:45:09.460" UserId="144" Text="Organic waste (cooked food waste, uncooked food waste and garden waste) can usually be used productively in composting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in Kathmandu, where I am trying to find domestic solutions for organic waste, composting hasn't yielded much response from the public. It seems, after various discussions with people and organisations who have tried to promote composting in Kathmandu, that compost is not an incentive enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to find alternatives to composting. What other home organic waste management options are available?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can organic waste be turned into fuel? Can it be converted into pet-food? Can it be integrated in the composition of bio-briquettes? Anything else?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="0390fbd9-1af8-445e-a30a-843c30f50854" CreationDate="2013-02-01T12:45:09.460" UserId="144" Text="What alternative to composting is there to manage organic waste at home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="0390fbd9-1af8-445e-a30a-843c30f50854" CreationDate="2013-02-01T12:45:09.460" UserId="144" Text="|composting|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="6e2366d1-28a1-4d97-bf05-e953f89969ca" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:06:39.730" UserId="66" Text="Things you could do with organic waste, other than composting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For food and garden weeds/waste, most of this makes decent chicken food. If I dump a wheelbarrow of weeds from the garden into the chicken run, the girls go nuts -- similarly with a bucket of kitchen waste. They'll skip the stuff they don't like (e.g. banana peels), and you can rake this up when they're done to use for composting. (If you watch [Back to Eden](http://backtoedenfilm.com/), there's a short segment about this practice. It's only a short bit of the film, but the rest of it is worth watching anyway.) Other animals will eat scraps like this too -- pigs, for example. (But do know your animals and avoid feeding anything that would be harmful!)&#xD;&#xA;* If you're getting resistance to simply managing a &quot;proper&quot; compost pile, you could switch to low-management forms of composting like trench composting. With this, you just dig a trench maybe 45-60cm deep and as long as appropriate. Fill the trench with your organic waste, starting at one end. When a section of the trench is filled to within 5-10cm of the top of the hole, cover with topsoil. Over time the waste will decompose and the trench will sink a bit -- you can  dig another trench next to it and use the soil from the second trench to level out the first one.&#xD;&#xA;* [Biogas digester](http://www.green-trust.org/methane.htm), though this requires some up-front investment and some acquired skill in managing the equipment and handling the gas. I don't have direct experience with biogas, but I'd guess that this would work better on a community level." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="228" RevisionGUID="912d18c7-770e-43bb-aa06-8a85711447c9" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:21:18.590" UserId="144" Text="I have heard that catfish (and perhaps other fish too) eat about anything. Would catfish also eat my organic waste? If so I could breed catfish in aquaponics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can my waste be turned into fish-food? Can I use any organic waste? How should I process it before feeding it to the fish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="228" RevisionGUID="912d18c7-770e-43bb-aa06-8a85711447c9" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:21:18.590" UserId="144" Text="Can organic waste be turned into fish food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="228" RevisionGUID="912d18c7-770e-43bb-aa06-8a85711447c9" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:21:18.590" UserId="144" Text="|waste|aquaponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="204" RevisionGUID="fab945d0-5b4f-4728-a01d-b9251e3ba669" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:29:36.733" UserId="-1" Comment="insert duplicate link" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Is it feasible to compost in an apartment in a city like New York?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/7/is-it-feasible-to-compost-in-an-apartment-in-a-city-like-new-york)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;I want to start composting after a few failed attempts at vermicomposting indoors (I didn't have a balcony or any access to land back then). I have a rather large apartment balcony and I think I could easily do composting on the scale of a large Rubbermaid bin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best container to compost in? I have Rubbermaid bins, if something like that works, would I have to drill holes in it? Do I keep a lid on or off?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the bin fills up, how long does it take to compost fully? In that time period, should I add anything to the bin or just leave it alone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I need to do anything to &quot;start&quot; the composting process or just start chucking in veggie scraps, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any odor issues I would have to worry about? How can I minimize odors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because I don't have any land (leaves, shrubs, tree branches) I'm not sure how to incorporate enough brown into my greens. What can I do to ensure I have an adequate mix? (I do have a wood burning fireplace which produces wood ash, not sure if I can add that or if it is a &quot;brown&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there special considerations to take into account each season? I live in Chicagoland which means winters are quite cold and summers quite hot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="628" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="204" RevisionGUID="e70d37e2-66c0-4c42-a1e3-2979ba24e637" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:29:36.733" UserId="-1" Comment="1" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:103,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;donschoe&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:83,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;elssar&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;bstpierre&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user1205935&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:98,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Szilágyi Donát&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="6b564e0c-e8d8-4c6e-8517-8afdc890dddf" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:30:52.920" UserId="83" Text="&gt;I would like to know if it is possible to recycle plastic at home by melting and molding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is possible. One guy [makes chairs out of melted plastic][1]. There are several guides on melting plastic that show up when you search google for it. This one, on [ehow][2] shows how to melt plastic in a toaster oven. Basically, wash the bottles, cut 'em into small manageable chunks and pop them in a metal container and into the oven at 350F. It should take a few minutes for the plastic to melt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for molding them, I found a few guides -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Molding plastics at home][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [How to produce small plastic parts at home][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [A list of molding projects on a crafts site][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But remember, melting plastics will produce fumes which can be harmful if inhaled. Make sure to either melt them in a well ventilated area. And if you're doing it in a room, would be nice to have an exhaust fan in there. Also, check out [this guide][6] on what the different rating numbers on the bottom of plastic bottles mean, specifically, what kinds of plastic a number refers to and is it safe to melt that plastic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.geekologie.com/2008/01/man-makes-chair-out-of-melted.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ehow.com/how_7560535_melt-plastic-bottles.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.squidoo.com/Plastic_injection_molding&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.essortment.com/produce-small-plastic-parts-home-62110.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cutoutandkeep.net/search?cx=partner-pub-6287412971271285:1483162684&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=molding%20plastic%20&amp;sa=Search&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.cutoutandkeep.net/projects/the-very-important-guide-of-plastic-safety" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="230" RevisionGUID="8e2053ff-1d41-4702-9a26-b9eaeb0aec7a" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:49:17.907" UserId="83" Text="As someone who has hand washed his own clothes, I'd say think again before giving up your washing machine. It is a real pain in the neck, and haunches, and forearms - specially if you're washing jeans! And that was one persons clothes - Washing the clothes of 6-8 people would be a nightmare. It's not that it can't be done, you have to be used to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of removing the washing machine from your lives, it would be advisable to use it in a more efficient manner. Like @JayBazuzi said, you could wash small items, like underwear, socks and handkerchiefs by hand. Also, wash clothes less regularly. These lyrics from a song, _I'm Ready_ by Jack's Mannequin come to mind -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I put on the same clothes I wore yesterday.&#xD;&#xA;When did society decide that we had to change&#xD;&#xA;And wash a tee shirt after every individual use:&#xD;&#xA;If it's not dirty, I'm gonna wear it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it need to be washed? Can it be worn again before a wash?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And be more efficient in your usage - fill the machine to capacity before use, use shorter cycles - specially if there isn't much cleaning to do, just sweat and BO to clean. And the biggest saving you could make is by sun drying clothes instead of using a electric dryer. If the clothes aren't dripping, and have been wringed, it shouldn't take too long for them to dry in the sun, or in the air if isn't sunny(if it's not raining, or too cold, it'll take a few hours). The spin cycle of your washing machine should wring the clothes well enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, sustainable living doesn't mean we forsake the comforts of modern life - just that we use them efficiently and judiciously." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="808665fe-3bd1-4332-beeb-cbeca8f6769f" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:56:43.127" UserId="103" Comment="added 306 characters in body" Text="&quot;*The study and practice of designing, manufacturing, using, and disposing of computers, servers, and associated subsystems - such as monitors, printers, storage devices, and networking and communications systems - efficiently and effectively with minimal or no impact on the environment.*&quot; (San Murugesan)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="632" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="808665fe-3bd1-4332-beeb-cbeca8f6769f" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:56:43.127" Comment="Proposed by 103 approved by 117 edit id of 33" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="222" RevisionGUID="9041c200-6739-4b8f-8289-a8dfa1781540" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:56:49.100" UserId="103" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="Process of thermal radiation absorbtion in the atmosphere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="634" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="222" RevisionGUID="9041c200-6739-4b8f-8289-a8dfa1781540" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:56:49.100" Comment="Proposed by 103 approved by 117 edit id of 35" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="1c4bcbde-591d-4654-a6ad-fdb9725054cc" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:56:55.637" UserId="103" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Environmentally sustainable computing and green information technology." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="636" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="1c4bcbde-591d-4654-a6ad-fdb9725054cc" CreationDate="2013-02-01T13:56:55.637" Comment="Proposed by 103 approved by 117 edit id of 34" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="886e746e-d150-4714-b679-7438cc399b29" CreationDate="2013-02-01T14:02:53.993" UserId="96" Text="Don't have the source here right now, but apparently the bacteria in the muck in cold lakes that produce swamp gas live at cooler temperatures ~10-20 °C&#xD;&#xA;Note that you will still want to avoid temperature swings - insulate fermenters. Also, the retention times needed at lower temps are far longer.&#xD;&#xA;With long retention times in a cont. process, the right bacteria will remain in the vessel by themselves. In a batch process, you need to &quot;seed&quot; the fermenter with biologically active material from the last batch.&#xD;&#xA;Mind that whith slower methanogenesis, acid build-up is higher can - you may want to aim for lower OLR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me get back to this when I had time to review typical HRT and OLR for psychotrophilic AD processes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="232" RevisionGUID="a07532c2-6315-4234-bb4b-a9634a59ed05" CreationDate="2013-02-01T14:05:16.323" UserId="91" Text="There are a lot of little things you can do that can add up.  Here a some suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wash clothes in cold water only.&#xD;&#xA; - Turn your freezer/refrigerator down a few degrees.&#xD;&#xA; - Purchase insulated curtains/shades, and close them during the day when you are at work.  &#xD;&#xA; - Make sure your furniture is arranged so that it is not blocking any vents or radiators.&#xD;&#xA; - Purchase a draft guard to place at the bottom of your door leading to the outside where temperature-controlled air can escape from your apartment.&#xD;&#xA; - Install a low flow shower water head.  Shower head screw on/off easily.  Keep the old head to replace when/if you move.&#xD;&#xA; - Clean Your Refrigerator: It's unlikely that you'll purchase new&#xD;&#xA;   energy efficient appliances for your rental, but you can tweak the&#xD;&#xA;   ones you already have. For example, by cleaning the coils on the back&#xD;&#xA;   of your fridge you'll help one of the biggest energy hogging&#xD;&#xA;   appliances run more efficiently.&#xD;&#xA; - Use Energy Efficient Bulbs, even if you're put off by the slightly&#xD;&#xA;   higher upfront cost, you can simply unscrew them and take them with&#xD;&#xA;   you when it's time to move.&#xD;&#xA; - Use Power Strips: A lot of energy is wasted through electronics left&#xD;&#xA;   plugged in, and the resulting vampire energy. Put a stop to it by&#xD;&#xA;   using one of a number of cool, smart energy strips, which will turn&#xD;&#xA;   off vampire energy when the electronics are not in use.&#xD;&#xA; - Use a Humidifier &amp; Lower Your Heat: Keeping humidity levels up during&#xD;&#xA;   the winter is not only good for your health, but also for your air&#xD;&#xA;   and furniture. It also helps keep the ambient air temperature feeling&#xD;&#xA;   warmer than dry air, which means you can turn your thermostat down.&#xD;&#xA;   If your HVAC system doesn't have a humidifier built-in, then you can&#xD;&#xA;   get an inexpensive and portable humidifier to use during dry&#xD;&#xA;   conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="639" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="216" RevisionGUID="45b1d387-868a-4e27-8367-68f9c84b43ad" CreationDate="2013-02-01T14:07:11.860" UserId="-1" Comment="7" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:103,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;donschoe&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:61,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chad Ferguson&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;bstpierre&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:107,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;kolin&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:91,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Linger&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="233" RevisionGUID="37879d2e-dc00-4839-a1d7-1a69c462979b" CreationDate="2013-02-01T14:38:18.970" UserId="130" Text="Some experience with this.  You won't get a yes/no answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general many omnivorous fish (carp, catfish) will eat lots of things but they may not be able to chew or bite with much force.  This limits what they can eat.  Additionally some can be somewhat picky eaters.  Here are some suggestions I have found helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Unless it is really easy to chew (think leafy greens here) it is worth chopping it up finely&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Introduce the fish to a new food a little at a time and watch their reaction.  If the food is not eaten it will decay and foul the water as well as pull oxygen from it.  You don't want that.  You should be able to figure out quickly what they will eat and what they won't or can't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="235" RevisionGUID="21ff92f2-56a6-4d42-af98-b6ac42600e00" CreationDate="2013-02-01T14:59:51.937" UserId="130" Text="I would suggest looking at the early electric (and late pre-electric) washing machines as prototypes.  The early electric machines were just electric motors and belts hooked up to hand-driven washing machines.  It might take some effort to make one, but the principle isn't that hard and with some effort I am sure the early 20th century designs could be improved upon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic idea is that you have a tub you fill with water and an assembly that rotates and drags the clothes through the water.  You add water and detergent to the clothes, crank the crank that turns the agitator, and the clothes are dragged through the detergent solution.  Then you remove the water (Perhaps an exit hose with valve would work here) and fill with clean water, repeat, wring (again, hand-cranked wringer), and hang out to dry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There isn't anything in the early electric machines that couldn't be driven by hand, but attention to detail would be very important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The options aren't limited to full hand-washing or all-electric." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="236" RevisionGUID="4e7b45d6-08a5-44a9-9c93-5c7691d4d553" CreationDate="2013-02-01T16:28:39.260" UserId="25" Text="A tip for drying clothes in-doors without an electric dryer (heat):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I put a fan in the small room where we dry the clothes. The fan uses much less electricity than an electric dryer. It circulates the air in the small space so the clothes dry much quicker. We leave the window open slightly so the humidity can leave the room. Thanks to the moving air this happens a lot faster." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="b54702ad-f1ab-4f10-8527-a1da88dc24b2" CreationDate="2013-02-01T18:34:11.853" UserId="102" Text="We currently use a recipe that involves lemon and salt (the particulars of which are known only to my wife) and though it works and cleans the plates we don't get that beautiful shine that you get when you are poisoning the water supply with chemicals etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, does anyone know of an environmentally sound recipe for dishwasher soap that not just cleans the dishes but makes them shine too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="b54702ad-f1ab-4f10-8527-a1da88dc24b2" CreationDate="2013-02-01T18:34:11.853" UserId="102" Text="Is there a recipe for sustainable dishwasher soap that brings out the shine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="237" RevisionGUID="b54702ad-f1ab-4f10-8527-a1da88dc24b2" CreationDate="2013-02-01T18:34:11.853" UserId="102" Text="|cleaning|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="80" RevisionGUID="511c2641-0805-484c-9477-7cf0a0b20b5c" CreationDate="2013-02-01T18:48:33.363" UserId="48" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="There are various ways to include thermal mass with a lower weight. Different substances have different specific **specific heat**. So, for a given weight, a material with twice the specific heat, will have twice the thermal mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water has one of the highest specific heat values of any known material, so for a heat buffer with high thermal mass, low weight, and no phase changes, water is one of the places to start. The solid alternative would be to look at materials that are used in storage heaters (heat banks) - clay, ceramics, (maybe magnetite).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phase-change materials are another way to do it.  A high **latent heat of fusion** means that a lot of energy is needed for each kg of material, in order to turn it from solid to liquid.  So, to get a good thermal buffer, you'd need to find a material that has a high latent heat of fusion, and has a melting point at standard pressure that is in a useful range for you - and that's probably around 30&amp;deg;-70&amp;deg;C. Such a phase change material will store lots of heat in relatively low weight when it melts; and release it again when it solidifies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="7c047039-85d6-41df-840f-67bb03f9cc62" CreationDate="2013-02-01T18:57:31.597" UserId="91" Text="I have a daughter that has bad allergies.  To help keep her allergies in check I use an electrical air purifier to keep the air in my house clean and filtered.  I heard that houseplants could in effect do the same thing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is true are certain plants better for cleaning the air than others?  Also, are there any guidelines for how many plants would be needed for a certain square footage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="7c047039-85d6-41df-840f-67bb03f9cc62" CreationDate="2013-02-01T18:57:31.597" UserId="91" Text="Purify Indoor Air" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="7c047039-85d6-41df-840f-67bb03f9cc62" CreationDate="2013-02-01T18:57:31.597" UserId="91" Text="|home|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="b38c4876-f74c-44b6-a198-40f1c41b8f53" CreationDate="2013-02-01T19:13:26.697" UserId="25" Comment="Made question more concrete" Text="I want to make sure I have a sustainable water source for one household.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I have a source of reasonably safe water like rain water or ground water, how can I purify this water to a level that I will know is safe to drink? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I filter it, and how do I make these filters? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I use distillation, or UV light?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;In my case I can collect a lot of rain water. I now collect this from the roof, but these roofs might be not the most suitable collectors (toxic materials?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="239" RevisionGUID="8f9a4219-bd5b-4317-a232-c58fc809b9ce" CreationDate="2013-02-01T19:29:46.133" UserId="48" Text="Yes, there are such databases. These are Lifecycle Cost Assessment (LCA) databases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are very difficult and expensive to build, and expensive to maintain. And they exist. You'll need to do a web search for LCA database and your region, but they are out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EU has several, for different purposes. Here's [the LCA database from the EU Joint Research Centre][1]. And this is a [US one from NREL][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it's rather difficult for air travel, because of the high uncertainties around the multipliers that should be applied to aviation emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for public transport generally, there's the rather vexing question of whether you should use short-run marginal cost, or long-run average cost.  If it's a journey you are going to make frequently, then it's definitely average cost. If it's a one-off trip, and the provider has historically shown very few changes in supply in response to changes in demand, then maybe, just maybe, short-run marginal cost is relevant (but there are plenty of experts who'd disagree with me on that point, so take it with a large pinch of salt).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.nrel.gov/lci/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="c9a08f3d-a6e1-4698-af5b-7d3146e71a0c" CreationDate="2013-02-01T19:39:48.970" UserId="48" Text="The question's fundamental premise, that our economy needs growth and that a steady-state economy wouldn't work, is a fallacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also a fallacy to assume that ongoing economic growth requires depletion of finite resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also true, incidentally, that we don't have any good measures of economic growth. The lazy proxy is usually taken to be GDP, but increase in real GDP is not the same thing as economic growth.  You might have come across the broken window fallacy, which illustrates the point rather well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="d220f1c0-f8d5-4a55-a739-af55344475da" CreationDate="2013-02-01T19:49:33.787" UserId="48" Text="Good ventilation needs a strategy of its own accord. It doesn't just happen. It will depend on what climate zone you're in, and what your building is, but from your question, I'm going to assume that winter means you're having to use some space-heating to get the home to a decent temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The very best ventilation strategy we have, is to make sure that your dwelling has a high degree of air-tightness, and then to use Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (UK name), which is also known as Heat Recovery Ventilation (HRV), as mentioned by half-integer fan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will require ducting around your home. Typically, the air is introduced into bedrooms, and extracted from kitchens and bathrooms.  The intake air and extract air are propelled by fans, and pass over a heat-exchanger, so that the intake air absorbs heat from the extract air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is difficult to get the specification right. Don't do it yourself. Use a firm that has a strong reputation for MVHR.  The quality of specification and implementation are **everything**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passivhaus-approved MVHR systems have very efficient fans, and very efficient heat exchangers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t3JiE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="92dafb33-4870-4701-83dc-d56e1680e292" CreationDate="2013-02-01T20:08:13.907" UserId="91" Comment="added 478 characters in body" Text="I have a cat that is fixed and fully de-clawed.  It is strictly an inside cat only and never goes outside.  I buy regular cat litter from the store frequently.  I would like to find an alternative.  I have tried newspaper and the cat didn't like it an neither did I.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with the regular cat litter is that I don't know of anything I can do with it after it has been used.  I just throw it away in the normal garbage.  I am looking for something that I can use elsewhere after it is not longer used for cat litter.  Alternatively, I am looking for something that I already use around the house that I can use in place of the traditional cat litter.  Maybe something that has already filled its need and would otherwise be discarded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is there a sustainable alternative to traditional cat litter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="23b3d6ee-a56d-4c23-869e-3172dcb4a0be" CreationDate="2013-02-01T20:26:33.947" UserId="20" Text="When you go to the grocery store, you may get brown paper bags.  These can be readily recycled, however, they could also be composted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think that recycling requires energy, whereas composting requires no energy other than that needed to stir the pile periodically.  Are you giving up energy by composting that you would reclaim by recycling and if so, does the difference make up for the energy required to perform the composting?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which is more energy efficient to recycle or compost brown paper bags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="23b3d6ee-a56d-4c23-869e-3172dcb4a0be" CreationDate="2013-02-01T20:26:33.947" UserId="20" Text="Is it better to recycle or compost brown paper bags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="664" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="23b3d6ee-a56d-4c23-869e-3172dcb4a0be" CreationDate="2013-02-01T20:26:33.947" UserId="20" Text="|composting|recycling|paper|bags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="3f049328-b562-4a08-b03f-68e7d7532f34" CreationDate="2013-02-01T20:43:38.527" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="0624b75e-b9ea-49c8-8d48-65c7ec64cfa4" CreationDate="2013-02-01T20:43:38.527" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="229" RevisionGUID="cb01890a-d11c-4ca1-80b6-a2dccfc15bb3" CreationDate="2013-02-01T22:40:24.763" UserId="66" Comment="word choice" Text="&gt;I would like to know if it is possible to recycle plastic at home by melting and molding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is possible. One guy [makes chairs out of melted plastic][1]. There are several guides on melting plastic that show up when you search google for it. This one, on [ehow][2] shows how to melt plastic in a toaster oven. Basically, wash the bottles, cut 'em into small manageable chunks and pop them in a metal container and into the oven at 350F. It should take a few minutes for the plastic to melt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for molding them, I found a few guides -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Molding plastics at home][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [How to produce small plastic parts at home][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [A list of molding projects on a crafts site][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But remember, melting plastics will produce fumes which can be harmful if inhaled. Make sure to melt them in a well ventilated area. And if you're doing it in a room, it would be nice to have an exhaust fan in there. Also, check out [this guide][6] on what the different rating numbers on the bottom of plastic bottles mean, specifically, what kinds of plastic a number refers to and whether or not it is safe to melt that plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.geekologie.com/2008/01/man-makes-chair-out-of-melted.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ehow.com/how_7560535_melt-plastic-bottles.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.squidoo.com/Plastic_injection_molding&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.essortment.com/produce-small-plastic-parts-home-62110.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.cutoutandkeep.net/search?cx=partner-pub-6287412971271285:1483162684&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=molding%20plastic%20&amp;sa=Search&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.cutoutandkeep.net/projects/the-very-important-guide-of-plastic-safety" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="671" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="e2b4de6e-00f4-42b1-adf2-73c766e0e429" CreationDate="2013-02-01T22:40:47.997" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|diy|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="40e40761-379b-499c-92ed-5423d1b72a59" CreationDate="2013-02-01T22:44:25.393" UserId="45" Comment="added 241 characters in body" Text="Aquaponics is a sustainable food production system that combines a traditional aquaculture (raising aquatic animals such as snails, fish, crayfish or prawns in tanks) with hydroponics (cultivating plants in water) in a symbiotic environment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="673" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="40e40761-379b-499c-92ed-5423d1b72a59" CreationDate="2013-02-01T22:44:25.393" Comment="Proposed by 45 approved by 117 edit id of 37" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="d583b6f8-7c38-4947-abf5-f0dc41187592" CreationDate="2013-02-01T22:44:29.387" UserId="45" Comment="added 991 characters in body" Text="Aquaponics /ˈækwəˈpɒnɨks/ is a sustainable food production system that combines a traditional aquaculture (raising aquatic animals such as snails, fish, crayfish or prawns in tanks) with hydroponics (cultivating plants in water) in a symbiotic environment. In aquaculture, effluents accumulate in the water, increasing toxicity for the fish. This water is led to a hydroponic system where the by-products from the aquaculture are filtered out by the plants as vital nutrients, after which the cleansed water is recirculated back to the animals. The term aquaponics is a portmanteau of the terms aquaculture and hydroponic.&#xD;&#xA;Aquaponic systems vary in size from small indoor or outdoor units to large commercial units, using the same technology. The systems usually contain fresh water, but salt water systems are plausible depending on the type of aquatic animal and which plants.[citation needed] Aquaponic science may still be considered to be at an early stage, relative to other sciences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="675" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="d583b6f8-7c38-4947-abf5-f0dc41187592" CreationDate="2013-02-01T22:44:29.387" Comment="Proposed by 45 approved by 117 edit id of 36" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="245" RevisionGUID="69ad30e8-3c35-45fb-9b30-1d8eb76d0eb0" CreationDate="2013-02-01T23:58:31.767" UserId="20" Text="If I want to start an aquarium I will need fish stock to get it going. How can I assure that fish stock for my aquarium are coming from sustainable sources (e.g. being farmed) as opposed to coming from over harvesting of natural ecosystems?  Are there clear standards of labeling or do I just have to depend upon the knowledge of the store I buy them from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="677" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="245" RevisionGUID="69ad30e8-3c35-45fb-9b30-1d8eb76d0eb0" CreationDate="2013-02-01T23:58:31.767" UserId="20" Text="How can I assure that fish stock for my aquarium are coming from sustainable sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="678" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="245" RevisionGUID="69ad30e8-3c35-45fb-9b30-1d8eb76d0eb0" CreationDate="2013-02-01T23:58:31.767" UserId="20" Text="|aquarium|fish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="35b17a4b-323b-4779-bb6d-4c5e48827365" CreationDate="2013-02-02T03:49:48.810" UserId="146" Text="I live in a major metropolitan area in the United States, and we have a municipal recycling pick-up program.  They advise us to wash food containers prior to putting them in our bins, and if an item takes &quot;too much water&quot; to wash, that it's better to throw it away instead. What are the differences in the ecological impact between using more water to wash-out a difficult-to-clean item (e.g. a plastic peanut butter jar) vs. throwing it away?  My gut feeling was that it would objectively be better to use more water to wash an item so that it could (possibly) be recycled than it would be to conserve water and have it (ultimately) end up in a landfill, but I don't have any background to evaluate one way or the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="680" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="35b17a4b-323b-4779-bb6d-4c5e48827365" CreationDate="2013-02-02T03:49:48.810" UserId="146" Text="Is it more sustainable to save water or to recycle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="681" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="35b17a4b-323b-4779-bb6d-4c5e48827365" CreationDate="2013-02-02T03:49:48.810" UserId="146" Text="|waste|recycling|water-conservation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="1070c722-dbfe-42ac-916d-db91e9f150b0" CreationDate="2013-02-02T03:58:37.740" UserId="147" Text="I have been trying to look around me to find ways to minimize non-organic wastage...and one of the everyday things is Deodorant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read somewhere that solid deodorants are way much greener than spray ones...hence I switched over to solid ones. I also made sure that the brands I use are made of organic constituents (Tom's of Maine.. available at Trader Joe's etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you might have noticed.. actual deodorant cake is only about 50% of plastic container. I feel its a great wastage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any alternative so that packaging waste from containers can be minimized?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="1070c722-dbfe-42ac-916d-db91e9f150b0" CreationDate="2013-02-02T03:58:37.740" UserId="147" Text="Green Toiletries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="1070c722-dbfe-42ac-916d-db91e9f150b0" CreationDate="2013-02-02T03:58:37.740" UserId="147" Text="|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="248" RevisionGUID="36096780-cd7c-4bcc-9a8d-8d48232960c7" CreationDate="2013-02-02T05:01:43.723" UserId="149" Text="There was a [NASA study][1] that indicates that house plants can indeed help clean indoor air. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More recently there was a [TED talk][2] where the speaker indicated that just three types of plants are needed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Areca Palm (Chrysalidocarpus lutescens) &#xD;&#xA;- Works well in the day time &#xD;&#xA;- Great for living areas &#xD;&#xA;- One needs about 4 shoulder high plants/person&#xD;&#xA;- Needs to be put outdoors once every 3-4 months &#xD;&#xA;- The leaves of the plant need to be wiped everyday in Delhi and perhaps once a month in a cleaner city &#xD;&#xA;- The soil used should be of vermi manure or use hydroponics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Mother-in-law’s Tongue (Sansevieria trifasciata) &#xD;&#xA;- Converts CO2 into O2 at night &#xD;&#xA;- One requires about 6-8 such waist high plants per person in the bedroom &#xD;&#xA;- Leaves need to be wiped in the same way as the Areca Palm &#xD;&#xA;- The soil used should be of vermi manure or use hydroponics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Money Plant (Epipremnum aureum) &#xD;&#xA;- Excellent for removing Formaldehyde and other VOC’s&#xD;&#xA;- Best grown using hydroponics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930073077_1993073077.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://greenspaces.in/blog/ted09/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="249" RevisionGUID="e33484e3-4883-4973-846f-04c1b93db00e" CreationDate="2013-02-02T06:14:38.467" UserId="130" Text="I guess the question presupposes a problem, namely that we are going to use potable water to wash plastic containers to be recycled.  This is, IMO, a major problem with assuming that people should wash containers prior to recycling.  There's really no reason that these need to be washed in ways that reduce our availability of potable water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My sense is the same as yours but for a different reason.  My feeling is that if we get to a point where potable water such an issue one can recycle water for the purpose of washing such containers (maybe using something like runoff from the washing machine).  As they say, premature optimization is the root of all evil.  I wouldn't worry about it.  Short-run it's not a problem.  Long-run it's not a problem without solutions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="bb8aead8-15cf-4ac5-978b-768a708c3d51" CreationDate="2013-02-02T06:22:02.227" UserId="130" Text="One of the basic points of permacultural design and water usage is that bare soil is the single greatest source of loss of water in growing food.  The principle of layering plants in space and time helps reduce the overall water consumption of a garden and also increase its productivity, as much as this goes against conventional (non-sustainable) gardening approaches. The overall goals are to prevent soil from being exposed, and ensure that plants mutually support eachother, and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been looking into applying this with asparagus, to reduce water usage involved in growing this food, but have been unable to find recommendations for plants to plant alongside (and given the spacing between plants, this leads to a *lot* of exposed soil).  I would like to grow asparagus with as little external water input as possible.  What can I plant next to asparagus to help cut down on the water loss, weeding requirements, and fertilizer requirements?  I.e. how can I grow asparagus sustainably?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="bb8aead8-15cf-4ac5-978b-768a708c3d51" CreationDate="2013-02-02T06:22:02.227" UserId="130" Text="More sustainably growing Asparagus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="250" RevisionGUID="bb8aead8-15cf-4ac5-978b-768a708c3d51" CreationDate="2013-02-02T06:22:02.227" UserId="130" Text="|gardening|permaculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="59ecf29b-9575-49be-9c7e-19a67b466d43" CreationDate="2013-02-02T08:19:23.300" UserId="23" Text="I would think of [ollas][1], and here are some more character for my answer to be long enough to be posted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://permaculturenews.org/2010/09/16/ollas-unglazed-clay-pots-for-garden-irrigation/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="7d8927ff-14a8-43e3-b0f3-d90c7fb8b4d3" CreationDate="2013-02-02T08:27:20.260" UserId="23" Text="Is there a sustainable choice when it comes to hosting a domain? What server farm company really cares for the environment? Is there a green alternative to the server farms?&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, I wasn't able to pick a better tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="692" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="7d8927ff-14a8-43e3-b0f3-d90c7fb8b4d3" CreationDate="2013-02-02T08:27:20.260" UserId="23" Text="Sustainable domain hosting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="693" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="7d8927ff-14a8-43e3-b0f3-d90c7fb8b4d3" CreationDate="2013-02-02T08:27:20.260" UserId="23" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="694" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="e22171bc-0285-408e-b803-0c007698e29f" CreationDate="2013-02-02T09:14:19.003" UserId="103" Comment="retagged;" Text="|energy|green-it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="e22171bc-0285-408e-b803-0c007698e29f" CreationDate="2013-02-02T09:14:19.003" UserId="103" Comment="retagged;" Text="Is there a sustainable choice when it comes to hosting a domain? What server farm company really cares for the environment? Is there a green alternative to the server farms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="696" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="8966be13-3763-4a9d-b588-572d8eff10ae" CreationDate="2013-02-02T09:58:24.617" UserId="23" Comment="edited tags" Text="|green-it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="d92603e2-7bf0-4def-8095-624812a80bdf" CreationDate="2013-02-02T10:04:26.407" UserId="23" Comment="removed rude  and useless part, added useful information" Text="I would think of [ollas][1], which are porous terracotta pots with narrow necks that can be buried in the soil. They release the water gradually, and can be filled again when empty, making the use of water very efficient because almost no water is lost due evaporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://permaculturenews.org/2010/09/16/ollas-unglazed-clay-pots-for-garden-irrigation/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="c20eccfa-400f-4b58-b32a-66b60a3a9d8f" CreationDate="2013-02-02T11:53:22.097" UserId="5" Text="Your point would be very abstract to really big number of people on the world. My mother have bought washing machine just recently, and she still washes mostly by hand. You probably never saw how should be hand washing done (if you're living in USA, it's highly probable, while in East Europe it's hardly to imagine). You don't wash like washing mashine. You don't mix clothes with your hand for half an hour. You have to leave it to soak for 10-20 minutes and then you rub the stains. Hand washing is shorter but more precise and intensive than machine washing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern washing powders are more intensive and much much less effort is required to wash the clothes, and they are much much friendlier for hands than before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have more big clothes parts to wash, you could use that idea:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's from the poor village in Ukrainian mountains. People living there are too poor to buy washing machine, I don't know if they are using any detergents except the normal soap. And they still handle it. But they have no choice, and they are learned by their parents how to do everything without XX-century hype.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qMiJf.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="6958828f-fbcf-4480-bd15-09937287e6d7" CreationDate="2013-02-02T12:03:12.623" UserId="5" Text="My grandmother was feeding chickens with cooked potatoes mixed with bran. They will also eat practically all rests of food. They love corn and noodles, even raw. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But they were supplying their diet on the backyard, looking for warms, so in winter you'll have to supply them with some animal food. It can be almost everything, from warms to small fishes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hens should eat something rich in calcium. Such as egg shells (a kind of closed cycle). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My grandmother has fenced garden to protect vegetables ;) Hens could use orchard as much as they wanted, however :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="83d1e557-bafe-4e82-9304-721e6b79fabb" CreationDate="2013-02-02T12:48:55.260" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="ea439c69-3eb8-4418-ace3-536a1645d75d" CreationDate="2013-02-02T12:48:55.260" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="257" RevisionGUID="041389f7-d618-4d1a-892a-809ea4ed34b5" CreationDate="2013-02-02T12:50:07.333" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="258" RevisionGUID="37ddc447-2670-4e3e-a972-81dc596b6809" CreationDate="2013-02-02T12:50:07.333" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="259" RevisionGUID="7cc926f8-fd9c-4145-a612-db2565dc91cb" CreationDate="2013-02-02T12:51:14.537" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="f64f34a6-120b-45e7-ba21-64d1a81a408d" CreationDate="2013-02-02T12:51:14.537" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="261" RevisionGUID="7221a8eb-5174-44ee-be80-eaa223b58056" CreationDate="2013-02-02T13:17:27.840" UserId="142" Text="If you are able to, you could discontinue the use of deodorant. I haven't used any in years and don't miss it a bit. However, I know that isn't for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My boyfriend swears by using baking soda mixed with cornstarch (and I can vouch that it really works). [This great article on My Plastic-Free Life looks at a bunch of home made deodorants.][1] The alternatives boil down to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Baking soda with or without some tea tree oil&#xD;&#xA; 2. Deodorant creams that come in metal or glass (which are reviewed on the link above)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Homemade recipes, most of which are based on baking soda (compiled and reviewed in that link)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Vinegar or alcohol based deodorants&#xD;&#xA; 5. Deodorant bars and crystals (watching out for plastic packaging)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://myplasticfreelife.com/2012/08/great-big-plastic-free-non-toxic-deodorant-review/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="262" RevisionGUID="a5e835a3-d5b4-42b0-85cb-25d45446becf" CreationDate="2013-02-02T13:27:21.640" UserId="5" Text="If you want to be more energy efficient in your apartment, you should look up into the past. How people were living before?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are quite different living patterns in big cities and in small cities or villages. When I first came to big city and I was living with other people, I was shocked how much water was used! The average usage of 6 cubic meters pro person in month is almost 10 times more as by my family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, you don't have to take shower or bath! You can wash yourself in basin. The average water usage will be between 5 and 10 liters. While on camp, where water have to be taken from very small spring, I've managed to wash myself completely in about 2 liters of water, using bottle. The water from basin you can use to flush the toilet 1 or 2 times. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't always have to flush the water with full tank. You can use small pot, about 1-2 liters. This would in most cases be efficient enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being more social in being more energy efficient. If everyone sits in own room with lights and TV on, the energy consumption is high. When people are sitting together in one room, talking or playing board games, the energy consumption is much lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the most energy consumers is transport. Eat mostly the things that grow in your environment. Buy potatoes from your neighbor instead of rice from Thailand, eat apples instead of bananas (example from Europe, you can modify it to fit your local specific).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buy warm clothes. Don't make your apartment too warm in winter. A few years ago it was so obvious that you have to wear warm sweater in winter in your apartment, now people seem to be unhappy they can't be naked all the year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="c1a660ef-f0be-4ae9-af14-f02307b1b643" CreationDate="2013-02-02T13:44:17.187" UserId="130" Text="reduce, re-use, recycle, in that order.  Get the uses you can out of the bags first.  When that's done we get to the recycling bit.  This includes basically three things you can do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Official recycling.  This is probably the best thing to do with bags you have no other specific uses for.  However in addition you can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  papermaking (there are good how-tos on this on the internet).  You can make your own paper or cardboard for craft uses.  Fun and 100% post-consumer recycled ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Mulching.  I am not a fan of just throwing paper in the compost heap unless you are trying to shift the C-N balance towards C (treat paper as &quot;brown&quot;) but it can make a very good lower level for sheet mulching.  See &quot;Gaia's Garden&quot; for more information on this technique of soil building.  Here the purpose of the paper would be as much to act as a temporary mulching barrier as it would be to feed into the compost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="264" RevisionGUID="b91afd94-a7ee-4f0f-8aa9-3851f33189b7" CreationDate="2013-02-02T13:56:33.903" UserId="130" Text="One of the overlooked means of storing meat is fermentation.  This is a bit of an art form so I will leave a few pointers here, but it is important to use salt and to ferment in a proper environment (sometimes starter cultures are added).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may not know this but salami is basically raw meat (beef and pork) which has been salted, fermented, and dried.  It's probably the best place to start.  Fermentation is important because it helps ensure that the food keeps safely for an extended period of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case you are doing what many of the other folks have said but with the added fact that you are using micro-organisms to help with the preservation process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sausage making is a good place to start in this regard.  There are a lot of fermented sausages out there and one can combine this with smoking and other means to create long-term shelf-stable foods if you need to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="fa29a6c7-cef6-4fc4-ace5-9997e6e9a846" CreationDate="2013-02-02T14:50:04.407" UserId="153" Comment="improved spelling and grammar" Text="My grandmother was feeding chickens with cooked potatoes mixed with bran. They will also eat practically all other kinds of food. They love corn and noodles, even raw. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But they were supplying their diet on the backyard, looking for worms, so in winter you'll have to supply them with some animal food. It can be almost everything, from worms to small fish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hens should eat something rich in calcium. Such as egg shells (a kind of closed cycle). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My grandmother has a fenced garden to protect her vegetables ;) Hens could use the orchard as much as they wanted, however :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="715" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="254" RevisionGUID="fa29a6c7-cef6-4fc4-ace5-9997e6e9a846" CreationDate="2013-02-02T14:50:04.407" Comment="Proposed by 153 approved by 5 edit id of 42" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="a1b1c507-1b9b-4cae-a22c-ebd4f51c10ec" CreationDate="2013-02-02T15:31:55.487" UserId="23" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="After reading about the environmental impact of server farms I wonder what are the alternatives for a someone who needs to host a website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a sustainable choice when it comes to hosting a domain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is hosting a website at home on a computer powered by green energy the best green option? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there another green alternative to the server farms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="265" RevisionGUID="708f41e3-6f62-486b-be36-51c29c23a5a8" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:37:14.240" UserId="155" Text="My balcony compost tends to freeze and stop working during winter time because I live in Quebec and we get an average of -13°C. Is there anything I can do to prolong my composting season?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="718" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="265" RevisionGUID="708f41e3-6f62-486b-be36-51c29c23a5a8" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:37:14.240" UserId="155" Text="How can I use my balcony compost during winter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="719" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="265" RevisionGUID="708f41e3-6f62-486b-be36-51c29c23a5a8" CreationDate="2013-02-02T16:37:14.240" UserId="155" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="266" RevisionGUID="e195bb5d-990d-4128-8ff8-f7bea85036f4" CreationDate="2013-02-02T19:07:48.917" UserId="15" Text="Mulching prevents a substantial proportion of water loss by evaporation, and it's clearly [successfully used][1] to grow organic asparagus. I've found that even just pulling out nearby weeds and piling them around my plants makes for a successful mulch, and there's no shortage of weeds around many gardens!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uky.edu/Ag/NewCrops/introsheets/organicasparagus.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="59595c6a-2bd0-4ac0-b510-b3baa65bf724" CreationDate="2013-02-02T19:30:30.147" UserId="15" Text="I have some spare bricks lying around that I'm interested in using to build a rocket stove. What are the key principles I need to understand to build a rocket stove? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a maximum size? How tall should the chimney part of it be? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="59595c6a-2bd0-4ac0-b510-b3baa65bf724" CreationDate="2013-02-02T19:30:30.147" UserId="15" Text="What are the key principles for designing a rocket stove?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="59595c6a-2bd0-4ac0-b510-b3baa65bf724" CreationDate="2013-02-02T19:30:30.147" UserId="15" Text="|woodstove|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="204" RevisionGUID="44139076-b0a4-4c39-8ca0-e03acf9868a9" CreationDate="2013-02-02T19:41:31.620" UserId="142" Comment="emphasizing that i am starting to compost, not that i want to see the feasibility which is asked in the other question" Text="I want to start composting after a few failed attempts at vermicomposting indoors (I didn't have a balcony or any access to land back then). I have a rather large apartment balcony and I think I could easily do composting on the scale of a large Rubbermaid bin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best container to compost in? I have Rubbermaid bins, if something like that works, would I have to drill holes in it? Do I keep a lid on or off?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the bin fills up, how long does it take to compost fully? In that time period, should I add anything to the bin or just leave it alone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do I need to do anything to &quot;start&quot; the composting process or just start chucking in veggie scraps, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any odor issues I would have to worry about? How can I minimize odors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because I don't have any land (leaves, shrubs, tree branches) I'm not sure how to incorporate enough brown into my greens. What can I do to ensure I have an adequate mix? (I do have a wood burning fireplace which produces wood ash, not sure if I can add that or if it is a &quot;brown&quot;.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there special considerations to take into account each season? I live in Chicagoland which means winters are quite cold and summers quite hot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="725" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="204" RevisionGUID="44139076-b0a4-4c39-8ca0-e03acf9868a9" CreationDate="2013-02-02T19:41:31.620" UserId="142" Comment="emphasizing that i am starting to compost, not that i want to see the feasibility which is asked in the other question" Text="How do I start composting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="0660673b-8a87-48f2-b8f9-1cf70941420b" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:11:09.337" UserId="156" Text="I have heard about vertical gardening for a couple of years now. I recently moved to a bigger flat, with some windows i think will fit for vertical gardening. My only problem is i don't know where to start. Do you have a list of things i need to know when starting? Or is there some sites selling a &quot;start-package&quot; with a water pump and some pots to have herbs in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="727" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="0660673b-8a87-48f2-b8f9-1cf70941420b" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:11:09.337" UserId="156" Text="How do i start with vertical gardening?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="728" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="0660673b-8a87-48f2-b8f9-1cf70941420b" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:11:09.337" UserId="156" Text="|vertical-gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="729" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="a447265c-2ce3-4e63-a8c9-d700cc21070c" CreationDate="2013-02-02T20:18:18.443" UserId="156" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|vertical-gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="59843164-7156-446f-8323-f35ed66f1264" CreationDate="2013-02-02T22:25:57.197" UserId="20" Text="When creating a salt water aquarium, is it possible to choose a variety of plants and sea animals such that the tank does not need water filtration or water aeration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, can I count of a sufficient supply of plants to provide oxygen in a home aquarium?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, can I select certain bottom feeding sea animals which will keep the tank clean of things like algae?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or am I likely to have to have some form of external aeration and filtration to keep the tank stable and healthy for its inhabitants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="59843164-7156-446f-8323-f35ed66f1264" CreationDate="2013-02-02T22:25:57.197" UserId="20" Text="Is it feasible to set up a balanced aquarium that does not need filtration or aeration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="269" RevisionGUID="59843164-7156-446f-8323-f35ed66f1264" CreationDate="2013-02-02T22:25:57.197" UserId="20" Text="|water|aquarium|balanced-ecosystems|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="270" RevisionGUID="92ae84f1-5e39-46d7-8ec1-46757f80da51" CreationDate="2013-02-03T02:23:14.257" UserId="33" Text="I feel like the term 'sustainable choice' is pretty open here - sustainability is mostly a case of what we as a civilization want to devote limited resources to. In general, server farms are going to be a more efficient use of electricity than everyone hosting a site locally (even if that were technically feasible). And, for context, while server farms consume a [lot of electricity][1] on an absolute basis, the whole internet uses about [2% of the nationwide total][2], a very good deal considering the services provided (and clearly room to improve). Having pages hosted at home would require a lot of personal computers to be on all the time, rather than shared servers. So, assuming we want to have a digitally connected civilization, server farms are probably a good choice to get economies of scale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the second question: Primarily, what you want to look for is where they get their electricity, ideally whether they pay attention to energy efficiency, and, if possible, whether they are decent to their employees. There are several companies out there that buy renewable energy directly, or buy renewable energy credits ([RECs][3]) equal to or greater than their demand. It's probably preferable to go with one that buys direct, but either way will help incentivize more green power. Statements of corporate responsibility - sponsorship, values, etc. - might help with the other metrics. As with anything, there are a lot of different impacts that could be considered, but since electricity is responsible for the bulk of the global warming impacts from the internet (as well as some respiratory-related ones), that's a straightforward decision tool.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&amp;arnumber=4937762&amp;url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4937762&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/technology/data-centers-waste-vast-amounts-of-energy-belying-industry-image.html?pagewanted=2&amp;_r=0&amp;pagewanted=all&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/gpmarket/rec.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="bfcfed56-e36a-4669-b5ae-759529272f87" CreationDate="2013-02-03T02:43:39.257" UserId="33" Text="As someone who lives in a city and expects that a sustainable world will be interdependent rather than isolated homesteads, I'm interested in which of the many areas I should focus time and effort on to have the biggest impact. Possible areas: transportation, food, home energy usage, workplace. For impacts, I'm particularly interested in a sustainable economy (a tricky term, I know), climate change, and ecotoxicity. There are a lot of things suggested for all these areas, but I don't have time to do them all at once - so where should I start?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="736" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="bfcfed56-e36a-4669-b5ae-759529272f87" CreationDate="2013-02-03T02:43:39.257" UserId="33" Text="What lifestyle choices should city-dwellers focus on first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="737" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="bfcfed56-e36a-4669-b5ae-759529272f87" CreationDate="2013-02-03T02:43:39.257" UserId="33" Text="|food|economy|climate-change|city-life|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="272" RevisionGUID="e3b8460e-8bb3-4c69-adc1-11aad5b1dfc6" CreationDate="2013-02-03T02:56:41.960" UserId="33" Text="Strictly in terms of energy efficiency, you're not gaining or saving energy by composting, but you're offsetting the energy needed to cut and process new trees by recycling the bags into new bags. So, from an energy perspective, recycling probably wins. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For which one is 'better' (in the question title), we'd need to define better. It might also be good to look at nutrient flow from sustainably managed tree farms to your backyard as a result of composting, and whether that's a sustainable flow since the tree farms will need to obtain new nutrients from somewhere. Chris' point that reduce and reuse come before recycle/compost is definitely valid, though. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="273" RevisionGUID="1922f580-57ca-4146-8a15-7975934777c3" CreationDate="2013-02-03T03:28:12.350" UserId="130" Text="First, a few points.  In general my experience is that the level of maintenance required for an outdoor aquatic environment is inversely proportional to size.  A larger environment is far easier to maintain than a smaller environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, remember that plants produce oxygen using sunlight as an energy source.  Indoors, you are going to have a very hard time doing this.  The light level is much, much lower.  Light is going to be an important factor, but remember also that light relates to heat...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do it successfully you are going to have huge numbers of plants and very few fish, probably in a very big aquarium.  Note that the plants would both pull nitrogen from the water and put oxygen in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an outdoors environment your options are quite limited by the fact that this is salt water so you have to pay attention to salinity and you can't drain water off into, say, your garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while I think this is possible, I think it would look very very different from a typical aquarium." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="39c2724d-5bea-4574-aeec-75c3b7cef978" CreationDate="2013-02-03T08:17:36.707" UserId="15" Comment="Added another couple of points" Text="I have some spare bricks lying around that I'm interested in using to build a rocket stove. What are the key principles I need to understand to build a rocket stove? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a maximum or minimum size? Does it matter how tall should the chimney part of it is? Should the air/fuel inlet be a smaller gap than the chimney?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="251" RevisionGUID="d81d2f99-ffc7-44c9-abb0-2f3de8631906" CreationDate="2013-02-03T09:55:14.477" UserId="23" Comment="Added  information" Text="I would think of [ollas][1], which are porous terracotta pots with narrow necks that can be buried in the soil. They release the water gradually, and can be filled again when empty, making the use of water very efficient because almost no water is lost due evaporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry, when I read about water loss I couldn't help but recommend ollas, I've recently discovered them and am enthusiastic about them. You can even improvise with some regular unglazed pots if you don't want or can't buy the olla's (glue the rims of two pots together, close the draining hole of the bottom one, fill them with water, bury but let the open draining hole visible, yet covered with a lid not to let dust go inside). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet I didn't answer your question. Try planting asparagus with strawberries and herbs. You don't have to dig to harvest and bother the asparagus this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://permaculturenews.org/2010/09/16/ollas-unglazed-clay-pots-for-garden-irrigation/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="241321b0-2afe-4598-84f8-1632e732e519" CreationDate="2013-02-03T12:07:36.953" UserId="136" Text="I know that one of the best ways to save energy at home is insulation. The question is, is there a different method for keeping the heat in when it's cold and keeping the heat out when it's warm?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there is a lot to be done with shade/sunlight and such, but this question is specifically about insulation materials and methods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="241321b0-2afe-4598-84f8-1632e732e519" CreationDate="2013-02-03T12:07:36.953" UserId="136" Text="Is there a difference in insulation to keep heat in or out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="241321b0-2afe-4598-84f8-1632e732e519" CreationDate="2013-02-03T12:07:36.953" UserId="136" Text="|energy|thermal-regulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="276" RevisionGUID="e3460227-0466-4282-9bb0-41bc2d1f1827" CreationDate="2013-02-03T13:25:32.247" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="277" RevisionGUID="95d229f6-04c0-4a06-8e2f-27febd5c7bac" CreationDate="2013-02-03T13:25:32.247" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="278" RevisionGUID="57496765-95f6-42ed-a89b-6f4535d2d67f" CreationDate="2013-02-03T13:29:22.170" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="38328bdd-73a4-4945-b43d-57446d59e191" CreationDate="2013-02-03T13:29:22.170" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="280" RevisionGUID="b8841fbf-0307-40da-8118-929f00b1de49" CreationDate="2013-02-03T13:34:31.123" UserId="48" Text="In reality, yes, it probably does matter. In each case, it will depend on a lot of detail, so I'll discuss the theoretical concepts, rather than any one particular application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How heat is lost&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat moves about through a combination of three ways. One, two or all three might be significant in any particular case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **convection** - the movement of hot air to a colder place, and the movement of cold air to a hotter place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **radiation** - the transfer of heat through electromagnetic radiation, such as the sun shining in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **conduction** - the passage of heat through a material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thermal mass&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thermal mass, or thermal inertia, represents a heat store. It is, in the broadest sense, the sum of mass x specific heat of everything in the house.  Air has a very low thermal mass; concrete, bricks, plaster, have much higher thermal masses. If you use internal wall insulation, your rooms will have lower thermal mass. If you use external wall insulation, your rooms will have higher thermal mass. Higher thermal mass means more temperature stability - you have to move a lot more energy to change their temperature by a given number of degrees Celsius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where cold and overheating is coming from&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buildings that are too cold, are typically losing a lot of heat through convection and conduction.  To fix this, insulation should increase air-tightness, to reduce convection, and should add thermal resistance, reducing conduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buildings that are too hot, are typically gaining a lot of heat through direct solar radiation. In this case, preventing sunlight coming into the building at all is the first priority; next, prevent sunlight falling on walls that are directly connected to the inside of the property, and get as much air through the property as possible, when temperatures drop at night - this is also called night purge ventilation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="755" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="1a15ad5f-a745-49d3-a104-468fea5349fa" CreationDate="2013-02-03T13:34:44.430" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|thermal-regulation|building-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="e65c13c7-0853-443e-a6ff-4d2723555fd3" CreationDate="2013-02-03T15:28:32.557" UserId="33" Text="In the winter, I rather enjoy hot showers. I try to keep them short (5-6 min), but it's still a lot of heat going down the drain and out of the house. I was wondering if it would make sense to install a heat exchanger between the incoming and outgoing water lines (possibly with a valve to skip it during summer) to capture that heat. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="e65c13c7-0853-443e-a6ff-4d2723555fd3" CreationDate="2013-02-03T15:28:32.557" UserId="33" Text="Is it economically sensible to install a heat exchanger on my wastewater pipes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="e65c13c7-0853-443e-a6ff-4d2723555fd3" CreationDate="2013-02-03T15:28:32.557" UserId="33" Text="|water|heating|economics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="42c38a3c-f659-4ab5-a02f-9b27829410db" CreationDate="2013-02-03T15:34:58.907" UserId="33" Comment="Edit to reduce scope to single impact category." Text="As someone who lives in a city and expects that a sustainable world will be interdependent rather than isolated homesteads, I'm interested in where money (spent locally as an assumption) is best placed to help support a local economy. Who needs it most? What industries will keep it in local circulation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="760" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="42c38a3c-f659-4ab5-a02f-9b27829410db" CreationDate="2013-02-03T15:34:58.907" UserId="33" Comment="Edit to reduce scope to single impact category." Text="What lifestyle choices have the biggest impact on a local economy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="761" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="42c38a3c-f659-4ab5-a02f-9b27829410db" CreationDate="2013-02-03T15:34:58.907" UserId="33" Comment="Edit to reduce scope to single impact category." Text="|food|city-living|economy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="277" RevisionGUID="00fb9e20-51d0-4f80-9319-e3297b179dbb" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:55:37.333" UserId="20" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) consists of a suite of rating systems for the design, construction and operation of high performance green buildings, homes and neighborhoods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="764" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="277" RevisionGUID="00fb9e20-51d0-4f80-9319-e3297b179dbb" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:55:37.333" Comment="Proposed by 20 approved by 117 edit id of 44" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="258" RevisionGUID="c74cff79-2e2c-4746-bad6-8b626cbcc7e8" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:55:41.970" UserId="5" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Questions about consumption and utilization of edible parts of animals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="766" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="258" RevisionGUID="c74cff79-2e2c-4746-bad6-8b626cbcc7e8" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:55:41.970" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by 117 edit id of 39" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="3626ce79-71ec-4753-ac51-14ad413ea202" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:55:46.140" UserId="20" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="Composting is the process of creating compost: organic matter that has been decomposed and recycled as a fertilizer and soil amendment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="768" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="3626ce79-71ec-4753-ac51-14ad413ea202" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:55:46.140" Comment="Proposed by 20 approved by 117 edit id of 46" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="de1062ba-e971-4ea3-86b2-2f6971adb4b0" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:55:48.733" UserId="5" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="The practice of breading and raising livestock. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="770" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="de1062ba-e971-4ea3-86b2-2f6971adb4b0" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:55:48.733" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by 117 edit id of 38" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="0f5130b2-f89d-4ec9-ba78-f21cec6550f1" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:55:55.717" UserId="5" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Living in wilderness, far from civilization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="772" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="260" RevisionGUID="0f5130b2-f89d-4ec9-ba78-f21cec6550f1" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:55:55.717" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by 117 edit id of 40" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="141" RevisionGUID="b9b5bceb-a728-45a2-97e4-acbb7204c279" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:55:58.450" UserId="152" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="I started using a toilet paper alternative about nine months ago. I was tired of the old plumbing in the house clogging up, and knowing that toilet paper is a cut down tree used so I can wipe my ass, felt very wasteful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, we're living in a modern society. I'm a software engineer by trade, so I prefer using technology when I can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found that the quick-dry camping towels you might find at REI works very well. You wet them a bit and wipe. It is the same idea as using a wash rag. To clean it, I use soap. I use Dr. Bronner's castille soap, and pump it from a foaming pump container (which are reusable). Occasionally, I fill a bucket with water and borax and let it soak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never had to do more than three wipes. Most of what comes out are water-soluble, so wetting the towel before wiping helps tremendously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quick-dry towel dries up fast so it does not collect mold or mildew.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The color matters because you want to know how clean it is. I was unable to find a white quick-dry towel for some reason. I currently use a blue one. The shit-brown color shows up well against the blue (sometimes turning it green). I am not color-blind, so your mileage may vary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="774" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="141" RevisionGUID="b9b5bceb-a728-45a2-97e4-acbb7204c279" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:55:58.450" Comment="Proposed by 152 approved by 117 edit id of 41" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="278" RevisionGUID="d099e8fc-28d7-4405-a336-b3ed2cf0fc95" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:56:01.980" UserId="20" Comment="added 946 characters in body" Text="Compost is organic matter that has been decomposed and recycled as a fertilizer and soil amendment. Compost is a key ingredient in organic farming. At the simplest level, the process of composting simply requires making a heap of wetted organic matter (leaves, &quot;green&quot; food waste) and waiting for the materials to break down into humus after a period of weeks or months. Modern, methodical composting is a multi-step, closely monitored process with measured inputs of water, air and carbon- and nitrogen-rich materials. The decomposition process is aided by shredding the plant matter, adding water and ensuring proper aeration by regularly turning the mixture. Worms and fungi further break up the material. Aerobic bacteria manage the chemical process by converting the inputs into heat, carbon dioxide and ammonium. The ammonium is further converted by bacteria into plant-nourishing nitrites and nitrates through the process of nitrification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="776" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="278" RevisionGUID="d099e8fc-28d7-4405-a336-b3ed2cf0fc95" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:56:01.980" Comment="Proposed by 20 approved by 117 edit id of 45" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="276" RevisionGUID="78d00c42-b987-4fc2-a2b3-b0f83625698d" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:56:05.167" UserId="20" Comment="added 564 characters in body" Text="Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) consists of a suite of rating systems for the design, construction and operation of high performance green buildings, homes and neighborhoods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), and spearheaded by Robert K. Watson, Founding Chairman LEED Steering Committee from 1995 until 2006, LEED is intended to provide building owners and operators a concise framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="778" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="276" RevisionGUID="78d00c42-b987-4fc2-a2b3-b0f83625698d" CreationDate="2013-02-03T17:56:05.167" Comment="Proposed by 20 approved by 117 edit id of 43" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="780" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="271" RevisionGUID="2714b3ab-9237-4b86-a5b9-5a5df2632882" CreationDate="2013-02-03T18:01:13.623" UserId="117" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:15,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Highly Irregular&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Martijn Pieters&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:117,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="5b555ee7-ddf0-4526-bfab-43ebed287d3c" CreationDate="2013-02-03T18:11:12.890" UserId="33" Comment="Edit to add information." Text="In the winter, I rather enjoy hot showers. I try to keep them short (5-6 min), but it's still a lot of heat going down the drain and out of the house - particularly with 3 other people who do not have the same timing compunctions. I was wondering if it would make sense to install a heat exchanger between the incoming and outgoing water lines (possibly with a valve to skip it during summer) to capture that heat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know enough about the efficiency of available heat exchangers to come up with a ballpark estimate for heat energy (and cost) saved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly relevant data:&#xD;&#xA;four adult household, roughly one shower/(day-person), average time 15 min. &#xD;&#xA;Water temperature of ~110ºF, gas heated (recent heater).  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="1c0eba0a-1b28-4e17-aa35-d5050c3f0745" CreationDate="2013-02-03T18:51:11.970" UserId="142" Text="I have a wood burning fireplace which I use on occasion, and I have a decent amount of wood ash each time I have a fire. **How can I dispose of the wood ash without just throwing it in the trash?** I live in an apartment so I can't just chuck it in the woods. I thought of using it in compost but I see online that wood ash should only be used sparingly so as not to increase the pH too high." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="1c0eba0a-1b28-4e17-aa35-d5050c3f0745" CreationDate="2013-02-03T18:51:11.970" UserId="142" Text="What to do with wood ash?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="1c0eba0a-1b28-4e17-aa35-d5050c3f0745" CreationDate="2013-02-03T18:51:11.970" UserId="142" Text="|apartment|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="785" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="dfefd84e-88e4-48b3-8629-b8c334bef1da" CreationDate="2013-02-03T19:46:00.733" UserId="60" Comment="edited tags" Text="|water|heating|economics|waste-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="786" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="268" RevisionGUID="e7283c41-0fba-4d34-a416-c2b64f85ce77" CreationDate="2013-02-03T19:56:40.437" UserId="-1" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:71,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Martijn Pieters&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:152,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Walter&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;bstpierre&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:142,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;lemontwist&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="47721547-5c0d-4371-a479-d360f9d8ed8b" CreationDate="2013-02-03T20:33:24.350" UserId="60" Text="There are drainwater heat recovery systems in production. It is mostly made of copper and in principle it's a passive, opposite flow heat exchanger. The freshwater coming to the house circulates through thin pipes wrapped around a bulky waste-water pipe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any obstructions in the way of waste-water could cause clogging, that's why there is (probably) only one design possible. One example for all:&#xD;&#xA;![One example for all - Power Pipe][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XWyUU.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is economically sensible because there is no energy input needed to collect heat from the waste-water. You pay only to buy the equipment and to install it. It can be used on vertical and/or horizontal sewage lines. I'd wrap the exchanger into mineral wool or PUR foam after installment.  &#xD;&#xA;Installing a heat pump has very little advantage, because incoming water is usually only several degrees above 0°C. You cannot go lower to prevent freezing the sewage line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The efficiency will depend on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the length of exchanger - the longer the better&#xD;&#xA;* the intensity of flow of the water - the lower flow the better&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="284" RevisionGUID="33a215c5-12eb-4b06-8bc5-f14ebbf74a2d" CreationDate="2013-02-03T20:46:58.860" UserId="20" Text="I found [an article at this old house](http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/article/0,,1581470,00.html) which listed ten ideas that I filtered down to these which might work in a city apartment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Melt Ice.  Spreading ash along the surface snow and ice covered walkways gives extra traction and helps melting due to the darker color absorbing more sun energy.&#xD;&#xA;* Clean glass fireplace doors. You can use a damp sponge and dip it in some ashes to scrub away sooty residue on your fireplace doors (if you have any).&#xD;&#xA;* Enrich compost.  But as you said, this must be done sparingly.&#xD;&#xA;* Hide stains on paving.  This one seems pretty rare to need, but if you spill some paint on pavement, you can mix in ashes to obscure it and spread with your foot.&#xD;&#xA;* Pump up tomatoes.  If you are doing any small gardening in your apartment, plants that like calcium rich soils can benefit from some ask mixed into their soil.&#xD;&#xA;* Make soap. IF you are feeling ambitions, you could soak some ashes in water to make lye. Lye can be mixed with animal fat and then boiled to make soap. Adding salt makes it harden when it cools.&#xD;&#xA;* Shine silver. A paste of ash and water makes a nontoxic metal polisher." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="0b0c032a-6431-4c66-8e0c-c789e7c15edf" CreationDate="2013-02-03T21:34:24.837" UserId="60" Comment="celsius temperature" Text="In the winter, I rather enjoy hot showers. I try to keep them short (5-6 min), but it's still a lot of heat going down the drain and out of the house - particularly with 3 other people who do not have the same timing compunctions. I was wondering if it would make sense to install a heat exchanger between the incoming and outgoing water lines (possibly with a valve to skip it during summer) to capture that heat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know enough about the efficiency of available heat exchangers to come up with a ballpark estimate for heat energy (and cost) saved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly relevant data:&#xD;&#xA;four adult household, roughly one shower/(day-person), average time 15 min. &#xD;&#xA;Water temperature of ~110ºF (~43°C), gas heated (recent heater).  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="110" RevisionGUID="97c2bfbc-9910-4ea9-b0d0-f72f8b4db27e" CreationDate="2013-02-03T21:37:21.350" UserId="60" Comment="celsius temperature added" Text="An Igloo is an efficient shelter made of snow/ice blocks. At first thought, the snow is cold so how could it keep one warm. The true value is in the insulation. The design creates a small insulating shelter. The cold weather stays out, the body heat stays in. This is part of the reason they are built small, like tents. The small volume is easier to heat by residual body temperature alone. The more people in the structure, the quicker and warmer it will become.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The human body averages 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit (37°C), the reason for hypothermia is the environment is sapping too much of that heat energy away from the body. By creating an igloo or similar structure, it is possible to prevent the body heat from moving too far away. As the body releases heat energy, it becomes trapped in the igloo by the thick snow walls, and builds up. The interior will not reach 98.6, but it is possible to raise it to a much more comfortable temperature than the frigid outside air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to remember with igloos is that they are cut down into the snow pack, *not* built on top of it. This allows a smaller surface area presented to the outer environment. Also, the orientation of the door must be taken into consideration. Allowing the cold wind to drive right in through the door is not a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the snow itself will still be cold to the touch. Proper clothing is essential, the igloo just helps to maintain an environment with a higher ambient air temperature, thereby slowing the rate of heat loss from the human body. Any structure performs the same function, the igloo works with body heat because of its small size compared to the size of the occupants. Obviously, if the igloo is built too large for the number of occupants, it will not be possible to heat with residual heat alone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="285" RevisionGUID="e0553d76-44e1-4168-a482-3a79ff9d8c1c" CreationDate="2013-02-04T03:18:04.437" UserId="48" Text="A fire is a very inefficient way to get warm and keep warm. However, if your fuel is renewable, and your usage rate is lower than the replenishment rate, **there is no sustainability issue**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make a fire more efficient, use a stove rather than an open fire:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use a good design, to ensure as little heat goes up the flue/chimney, and as much stays in the room, while venting enough to get rid of the fire's emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reduce the amount of heat loss, curtail losses from [radiation, convection and conduction][2]. To curtail radiation, avoid materials that allow infra-red to pass through them; and prefer materials that reflect it. To curtail conduction, use materials with high insulation values (aka very low U-values) - particularly in warm layers of clothing. To curtail convection, have as little air flow through as is needed to prevent the concentration of pollutants, and to keep carbon dioxide levels down below 1000 ppm. Ideally, have a way to [transfer heat from outgoing air to incoming air][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add [a lot of thermal mass][4], to convert the fire's short burst of high temperature into a long slow burst of lower, more useful temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z8BD1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/280/48&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/241/48&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/80/48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="286" RevisionGUID="420782a5-3a1c-41a6-aeee-e9b2c377d8d2" CreationDate="2013-02-04T03:18:55.143" UserId="130" Text="The first thing you want to do is read up on the varieties of fish.  Some fish like goldfish, are purely domesticated.  Some other fish pose rare problems (neon tetras for example).  There are other fish where wild caught fish are possibly being sustainably harvested but tank-bred fish are more popular (cardinal tetras).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no clear standards in labelling, but you don't have to trust the knowledge either.  If you start by researching the varieties, you can get some pretty clear information pretty quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end you are going to want to have your own knowledge so you know what questions to ask.  Expect to take multiple trips to the pet store with research in between." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="287" RevisionGUID="efba03b7-7ef9-47a9-8ce8-caa02949d771" CreationDate="2013-02-04T03:30:42.027" UserId="130" Text="I would probably avoid burning paper in a fireplace for heating a home.  There are a few very big problems with doing this from a safety perspective.  The biggest issue is that sheet paper when burned tends to release very different kinds of embers than does wood, and I would be concerned that these may increase the risk of chimney fires and other things.  I am also not convinced that this would be good from an air quality perspective either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to try to get around these problems I would start by mashing the paper and moulding it, but this would not work on waxed paper, would take time to dry thoroughly, etc. and it would probably only work really well with things like newsprint that are easily recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This being said everything is a matter of tradeoffs.  If you live in an area where you can readily get orchard wood, that's probably your most sustainable bet.  Following that you could try to mash and mold bricks out of paper, letting them cure in a warm dry place until use.  At least that's post-consumer.  You could then use the other forms of paper that are waxed, etc. as starter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="288" RevisionGUID="63d1d7f1-6e8c-4548-bd95-0ac1b13f9367" CreationDate="2013-02-04T03:45:29.390" UserId="130" Text="Almost any plant will pick up particulates on its leaves (as permaculturists will tell you this is actually one of the functions of a leaf)  so some things to think about would be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you spray the plant down periodically?  Most of the time, leaves function in part to trap particulates that can then be channeled down to be food for the plant (this comes up with regard to hedge rows and manure control from time to time).  Being able to spray down a plant in simulated rainfall is likely to be helpful for a plant to maintain this role. so if you can water it in a way in which the leaves get washed that would be ideal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is tailored on the assumption that you are looking specifically at pulling particulate allergens from the air.  Other areas may prove different." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="267" RevisionGUID="bfc4ed20-de83-410e-a86b-c87d8a88ff6c" CreationDate="2013-02-04T04:42:00.453" UserId="27" Comment="clarify this is an outdoor cooking stove, and not for heating a home" Text="I have some spare bricks lying around that I'm interested in using to build a rocket stove for cooking. What are the key principles I need to understand to build a rocket stove? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a maximum or minimum size? Does it matter how tall should the chimney part of it is? Should the air/fuel inlet be a smaller gap than the chimney?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="289" RevisionGUID="c4f8063d-be9d-48af-bad6-c8ac7aa49219" CreationDate="2013-02-04T05:19:17.340" UserId="27" Text="I am by no means an expert in rocket stoves, but just in case we don't have a rocket stove expert here, I'll offer what I know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While rocket mass heaters have become popular in the USA as an efficient way for hippies in cob houses to stay warm with very little fuel, they originated as a way to cook when wood fuel was scarce. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic principle is this: use the draft created by hot exhaust in a chimney to suck lots of fresh air in to the fire. The chimney is insulated and gets very hot, which helps burn more of the gases of combustion, producing more heat from the same fuel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cooking pot sits directly over the chimney, so the hot exhaust hits it directly. You can also add a skirt around the pot, so the exhaust gas is held close to the sides of the pot, further improving heat transfer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To create a functioning rocket stove, you need an insulated J-shaped chimney. Like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add a second 90-degree bend to make the whole thing U-shaped, but the chimney must be much longer than the fuel end, so it will draw the exhaust in the right direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked about principles, and one is that the bend to the chimney should be sharp, not a gentle curve. This will create turbulence that will mix the gases and air for better combustion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to get the chimney hot to make it work. One way is to light the fire *in the chimney*, then start adding fuel the regular way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use just about any found materials that can tolerate the heat and provide insulation where needed. Here's a good Instructable you can follow to build one out of soup cans. That's a good place to start to get a feel for how these things work. http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-a-Rocket-Stove-from-a-10-Can-and-4-So/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, be sure to check YouTube - lots of videos there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dstUqm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rocket_stove.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="9953ce78-9e9b-4cc8-8f6d-3e134ee0868d" CreationDate="2013-02-04T08:20:44.207" UserId="142" Text="I want to start composting my food scraps, however I want to make sure I have a good mix of browns and greens to minimize odors. I live in an apartment, so I don't have any soil, leaves or other yard scraps that I could use as browns. I don't subscribe to a newspaper, although every week I get one of those ad circulars printed on newsprint. What can I add to my bin for appropriate carbon, and what is the ratio of these items to food scraps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="799" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="9953ce78-9e9b-4cc8-8f6d-3e134ee0868d" CreationDate="2013-02-04T08:20:44.207" UserId="142" Text="How to incorporate browns in apartment food scrap compost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="800" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="9953ce78-9e9b-4cc8-8f6d-3e134ee0868d" CreationDate="2013-02-04T08:20:44.207" UserId="142" Text="|composting|apartment|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="f70ec0a1-566c-4246-85e1-1eeabc5a6cb2" CreationDate="2013-02-04T08:47:33.827" UserId="15" Text="Without some kind of external heating mechanism (eg geothermal spring, waste heat from a business), you'd need to rely on lots of insulation and the heat generated from the compost as it breaks down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly a long sheet of stainless steel bent into a U shape (when viewed from above) and insulated around the outside could help the compost keep its heat into winter, and still be durable enough to be worth the effort. In a very cold area such as yours, you'd probably want to add a lid, front and a base to the structure so that every side is insulated (including underneath), which could be very tricky but it may still be possible if you were really keen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gaps would need to be minimal, as a draft flowing through would contribute to cooling. I suggested a U shape so you can access the material easily to turn it, which helps keep up the level of heat. I've found that a largely air tight compost bin can do a great job as long as there's not too much wet green material, and in my region (warm and very dry) it's helpful to avoid air flow to prevent the material drying out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately large sheets of stainless steel may not be easy to obtain, but I guess a slightly damaged one might become available at a local metal recycler. After all, it is a common material used in manufacturing (eg appliances) and may not be usable for many purposes if creased by an accidental knock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because stainless steel lasts a very long time, you could consider it to be a sustainable solution, unlike a similar commercial design I saw called a &quot;Hotter Rotter&quot; which uses a PVC lining. With soft foam insulation and a hard plastic outer shell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider most types of insulation sold commercially to not be particularly sustainable, although wool could be an option if you are certain you can keep out the moisture. That could be addressed in a separate question anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be surprised though if even an insulated compost bin could avoid freezing all winter long in temperatures of -13C, but given enough compost and enough insulation it is certainly possible (though probably not cost effective). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making use of a broken chest freezer might be an option (ensure it's been degassed), as the insulation is already taken care of. If you could protect the inside lining from damage somehow, then it could even last you quite some time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="291" RevisionGUID="bfc1b807-cff5-4b93-8e31-60e1462ff6d7" CreationDate="2013-02-04T08:52:36.570" UserId="15" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="Without some kind of external heating mechanism (eg geothermal spring, waste heat from a business), you'd need to rely on lots of insulation and the heat generated from the compost as it breaks down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possibly a long sheet of stainless steel bent into a U shape (when viewed from above) and insulated around the outside could help the compost keep its heat into winter, and still be durable enough to be worth the effort. In a very cold area such as yours, you'd probably want to add a lid, front and a base to the structure so that every side is insulated (including underneath), which could be very tricky but it may still be possible if you were really keen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gaps would need to be minimal, as a draft flowing through would contribute to cooling. I suggested a U shape so you can access the material easily to turn it, which helps keep up the level of heat. I've found that a largely air tight compost bin can do a great job as long as there's not too much wet green material, and in my region (warm and very dry) it's helpful to avoid air flow to prevent the material drying out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately large sheets of stainless steel may not be easy to obtain, but I guess a slightly damaged one might become available at a local metal recycler. After all, it is a common material used in manufacturing (eg appliances) and may not be usable for many purposes if creased by an accidental knock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because stainless steel lasts a very long time, you could consider it to be a sustainable solution, unlike a similar commercial design I saw called a &quot;Hotter Rotter&quot; which uses a PVC lining with soft foam insulation and a hard plastic outer shell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider most types of insulation sold commercially to not be particularly sustainable, although wool could be an option if you are certain you can keep out the moisture. That could be addressed in a separate question anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be surprised though if even an insulated compost bin could avoid freezing all winter long in temperatures of -13C, but given enough compost and enough insulation it is certainly possible (though likely not cost effective). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making use of a broken chest freezer might be an option (ensure it's been degassed), as the insulation is already taken care of. If you could protect the inside lining from damage somehow, then it could even last you quite some time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="a07a154a-8348-4230-882b-159aece11cd2" CreationDate="2013-02-04T08:59:14.820" UserId="60" Comment="link added" Text="Paper has a relatively short life-cycle (compared to natural gas or crude oil) and belongs to sustainable materials. Paper can be nicely recycled by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* reusing&#xD;&#xA;  * making notes on the other side of one-side-print sheets&#xD;&#xA;  * letting children draw their art on the other side&#xD;&#xA;* recycling to paper again&#xD;&#xA;* burning (I'm just preparing to [produce][1] &amp; burn paper briquettes)&#xD;&#xA;* composting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all kinds of paper are suitable for all those ways. Reusing is possible only with relatively good quality and less printed paper. Composting is probably the very last choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which kind of paper is suitable for recycling to paper again and which should be left to be burned? What kind of criteria should I use to decide?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**  &#xD;&#xA;The motivation of this question is (partly) because of my experience when cardboard is sometimes excluded from collection by a recycling company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.sk/search?q=gude%20lis%20na%20papierove%20brikety" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="52f80679-9357-4f82-8862-01282a167264" CreationDate="2013-02-04T10:42:24.520" UserId="96" Comment="added 747 characters in body" Text="Don't have the source here right now, but apparently the bacteria in the muck in cold lakes that produce swamp gas live at cooler temperatures ~10-20 °C&#xD;&#xA;Note that you will still want to avoid temperature swings - insulate fermenters. Also, the retention times needed at lower temps are far longer.&#xD;&#xA;With long retention times in a cont. process, the right bacteria will remain in the vessel by themselves. In a batch process, you need to &quot;seed&quot; the fermenter with biologically active material from the last batch.&#xD;&#xA;Mind that whith slower methanogenesis, acid build-up is higher can - you may want to aim for lower OLR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, from what you have written I'm not entirely sure that psychotrophiliacs would solve your problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A typical retention time for psychotrophilic process would be 70-80 days, I did not (yet) find good OLR guidances. 3-5kg/m³d is a good guideline for continuos processes, for a batch process I would aim for a lower loading rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would strongly suggest trying with a lower ratio of substrate to dung, using a lot of digested material as a seed for the next batch, and slowly adding more substrate. You need to &quot;train&quot; your bacteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What else did you try? &#xD;&#xA;Did you measure pH? Could there be poisons in the substrate (antibiotics, heavy metals (Cu), strong nitrogen loads (&gt;7g/kg))? &#xD;&#xA;How long did you wait? &#xD;&#xA;I saw you added dung (good) did you mix it? &#xD;&#xA;What's the estimated OLR? &#xD;&#xA;Did you measure solid and organic solids content?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="889b18ed-abfe-4a1d-9eaa-1cce15ed5103" CreationDate="2013-02-04T11:20:11.353" UserId="96" Text="See the other answer for the question of wether this is a real issue.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to mimic an industrial approach, you can put the heap on a plastic foil that's inclined into a small barrel, bucket or whatever to contain the leachate.&#xD;&#xA;Anoteher industrial approach is to put yopur compost heap onto a concrete or asphalt slab that's drained into a gutter.&#xD;&#xA;If you spread the leachate over a wider area, you should minimise nutrient entry into the groundwater." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="230" RevisionGUID="c8e2b9f3-74a4-4529-9780-db13a5fd25e4" CreationDate="2013-02-04T11:21:11.083" UserId="60" Comment="link added" Text="As someone who has hand washed his own clothes, I'd say think again before giving up your washing machine. It is a real pain in the neck, and haunches, and forearms - specially if you're washing jeans! And that was one persons clothes - Washing the clothes of 6-8 people would be a nightmare. It's not that it can't be done, you have to be used to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of removing the washing machine from your lives, it would be advisable to use it in a more efficient manner. Like [@JayBazuzi][1] said, you could wash small items, like underwear, socks and handkerchiefs by hand. Also, wash clothes less regularly. These lyrics from a song, _I'm Ready_ by Jack's Mannequin come to mind -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I put on the same clothes I wore yesterday.&#xD;&#xA;When did society decide that we had to change&#xD;&#xA;And wash a tee shirt after every individual use:&#xD;&#xA;If it's not dirty, I'm gonna wear it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it need to be washed? Can it be worn again before a wash?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And be more efficient in your usage - fill the machine to capacity before use, use shorter cycles - specially if there isn't much cleaning to do, just sweat and BO to clean. And the biggest saving you could make is by sun drying clothes instead of using a electric dryer. If the clothes aren't dripping, and have been wringed, it shouldn't take too long for them to dry in the sun, or in the air if isn't sunny(if it's not raining, or too cold, it'll take a few hours). The spin cycle of your washing machine should wring the clothes well enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, sustainable living doesn't mean we forsake the comforts of modern life - just that we use them efficiently and judiciously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/209/60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="322c94e3-3fdd-4d77-88f4-f8268a884cf6" CreationDate="2013-02-04T11:27:59.450" UserId="96" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="See the other answer for the question of wether this is a real issue.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to mimic an industrial approach, you can put the heap on a plastic foil that's inclined into a small barrel, bucket or whatever to contain the leachate.&#xD;&#xA;Anoteher industrial approach is to put yopur compost heap onto a concrete or asphalt slab that's drained into a gutter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you put a lid on the gutter and minimise the area that's open to rain, this will also tell you how much leachate you get (If this is really an important inforamtion to have, I don't know)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you spread the leachate over a wider area, you should minimise nutrient entry into the groundwater." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="595a8cb5-84a6-461d-8b48-62200c4efb29" CreationDate="2013-02-04T12:08:56.420" UserId="99" Comment="fixed spelling" Text="See the other answer for the question of whether this is a real issue.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to mimic an industrial approach, you can put the heap on a plastic foil that's inclined into a small barrel, bucket or whatever to contain the leachate.&#xD;&#xA;Another industrial approach is to put your compost heap onto a concrete or asphalt slab that's drained into a gutter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you put a lid on the gutter and minimise the area that's open to rain, this will also tell you how much leachate you get (if this is really important information to have, I don't know)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you spread the leachate over a wider area, you should minimise nutrient entry into the groundwater." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="809" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="595a8cb5-84a6-461d-8b48-62200c4efb29" CreationDate="2013-02-04T12:08:56.420" Comment="Proposed by 99 approved by 96 edit id of 48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="293" RevisionGUID="81ade0f0-28ac-4b9c-acd7-9af5b14e0948" CreationDate="2013-02-04T12:21:31.343" UserId="99" Text="The primary function of browns is to supply food to soil organisms and to reduce the moisture of the mix, so basically you can use anything high on carbon that is reasonably dry and will compost, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - cardboard boxes&#xD;&#xA; - empty toilet paper rolls&#xD;&#xA; - empty kitchen paper rolls (or the kitchen paper itself for that matter)&#xD;&#xA; - empty egg cartons&#xD;&#xA; - paper bags&#xD;&#xA; - printing paper&#xD;&#xA; - coffee filters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just tear everything up in pieces and try to use stuff with little or no ink/printing on it. Also beware of anything with a waxy or shiny coating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="f1ed0001-d2ce-4448-ac2e-c65aa50ec01c" CreationDate="2013-02-04T12:44:25.687" UserId="142" Text="Looking at [this question][1], I see that composting doesn't really happen in the winter without external insulation or heat. At what outdoor temperature (or temperature range) does composting occur? Does it make sense to start a compost pile in the winter with below 0C average temperatures?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/265/how-can-i-use-my-balcony-compost-during-winter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="f1ed0001-d2ce-4448-ac2e-c65aa50ec01c" CreationDate="2013-02-04T12:44:25.687" UserId="142" Text="At what outdoor temperature does compost break down?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="f1ed0001-d2ce-4448-ac2e-c65aa50ec01c" CreationDate="2013-02-04T12:44:25.687" UserId="142" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="4b1d151d-5490-44df-b0d2-bf8552383c2b" CreationDate="2013-02-04T14:08:04.110" UserId="99" Text="When composting you should look at the inside temperature of the pile, because that's where all the action is so to speak. The bigger the pile the more insulated the inside is and the better the contents of the pile will continue to decompose when it gets colder outside. If I remember correctly, the inside of a compost pile should be between 30 and 60°C. Below 30°C the process slows down a lot and above 70°C too many organisms will die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give a very rough estimate; outside temperature needs to be above 7°C for a medium-sized compost heap without insulation to work, so starting at 0°C probably doesn't work (until the temperature rises)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="816" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="567f1727-63ce-46b6-b6b8-8aacf4c03705" CreationDate="2013-02-04T14:30:21.210" UserId="142" Comment="&quot;green toiletries&quot; as a question is extraordinarily vague and doesn't get to the question that is being asked" Text="Is there a deodorant with minimal packaging waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="817" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="567f1727-63ce-46b6-b6b8-8aacf4c03705" CreationDate="2013-02-04T14:30:21.210" Comment="Proposed by 142 approved by 85, 117 edit id of 47" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="667aee46-8d86-4b5c-ba49-67f9d3b5f813" CreationDate="2013-02-04T14:30:25.313" UserId="99" Comment="fixed spelling and grammar" Text="Your point would be very abstract to a really big number of people in the world. My mother bought a washing machine just recently, and she still washes mostly by hand. You probably never saw how hand washing should be done (if you're living in USA that's highly probable, while in East Europe it's hard to imagine). You don't wash like a washing mashine. You don't mix clothes with your hand for half an hour. You have to leave it to soak for 10-20 minutes and then you rub the stains. Hand washing is shorter but more precise and intensive than machine washing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern washing powders are more intensive and much less effort is required to wash the clothes, and they are much friendlier for your hands than before. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have more big clothes parts to wash, you could use this idea:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's from a poor village in the Ukrainian mountains. People living there are too poor to buy a washing machine. I don't know if they are using any detergents except the normal soap and they still handle it. They have no choice, and their parents teach them how to do everything without the XX-century hype.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qMiJf.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="819" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="253" RevisionGUID="667aee46-8d86-4b5c-ba49-67f9d3b5f813" CreationDate="2013-02-04T14:30:25.313" Comment="Proposed by 99 approved by 117 edit id of 49" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="295" RevisionGUID="3696c91a-012b-4f7f-8907-a2e6f678cbe5" CreationDate="2013-02-04T14:54:08.993" UserId="117" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="When composting you should look at the inside temperature of the pile, because that's where all the action is so to speak. The bigger the pile the more insulated the inside is and the better the contents of the pile will continue to decompose when it gets colder outside. If I remember correctly, the inside of a compost pile should be between 30 and 60°C (86-140°F). Below 30°C the process slows down a lot and above 70°C (158°F) too many organisms will die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give a very rough estimate; outside temperature needs to be above 7°C (45°F) for a medium-sized compost heap without insulation to work, so starting at 0°C (32°F) probably doesn't work (until the temperature rises)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="b3cc2b24-652f-4078-a51b-e1fbe1870abb" CreationDate="2013-02-04T15:54:07.650" UserId="29" Comment="removed update" Text="I'm interested in installing a solar array on my property, and am trying to find tools that can help me do a cost analysis so I can optimize my budget and see how long it will take to balance the upfront cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any tools available to help me with these calculations? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="296" RevisionGUID="4c735772-ce22-4a84-ae7b-faae33ee532b" CreationDate="2013-02-04T16:42:38.707" UserId="45" Text="You can put a compost pipe in the middle of your grow beds. A 6&quot; pipe for example perforated at the end that is submerged in the grow bed. Worms will go into the pipe during flood cycles and break down the organic waste. Then during drain cycles they will go into the substrate of the grow bed and continue spreading their goodness. The power of worms in AP is awesome!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read here: http://www.ecofilms.com.au/how-to-build-a-worm-tower/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Sample worm tower][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/go6JR.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="297" RevisionGUID="b41b722b-7ea8-4fe4-b7f6-ac581dec59de" CreationDate="2013-02-04T18:08:05.707" UserId="164" Text="If your want to calculate your own [Insolation][1] figures then I would highly recommend having a look at the [gaisma][2] website, which *provides sunrise, sunset, dusk and dawn times for thousands of locations all over the world.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For our purposes though, it also provides details of average Insolation (kWh/m²/day), along with Clearness, Temperature, Wind speed, Precipitation and Wet days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For my own location, in [Oxford, UK][3], it provides the following information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Sun path diagram and Solar energy and surface meteorology][4]&#xD;&#xA;![Sunrise, sunset, dawn and dusk times graph, Oxford UK][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Details of your own location, and prospective PV solar system should allow you to estimate the kWh generated by the system over an average year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gaisma.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/oxford.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YRFqT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sPNmC.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="76fcd654-e701-46e8-8c95-3232a297a6c1" CreationDate="2013-02-04T18:18:08.637" UserId="33" Text="If you are in the U.S. in particular, I would recommend the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's [PVWatts calculator][1], which will provide both likely solar gain (the defaults are reasonable, but you can tweak them to your situation) and potential savings on electricity. For installation costs, again for a US case, LBNL has a [great report][2] on installed costs (panels, balance of system, labor, etc.) - the 2011 US-wide average was $6.1/W for small systems (&lt;10kW) Adjust that with local policies and you can get a pretty good ballpark. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/grid.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://emp.lbl.gov/publications/tracking-sun-v-historical-summary-installed-price-photovoltaics-united-states-1998-2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="299" RevisionGUID="045b707f-6a38-4efb-a29a-1a8e68795b8b" CreationDate="2013-02-04T18:32:04.053" UserId="164" Text="One option which may well become more popular in the future is photo-voltaic double glazing - a form of [Building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV)][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although low cost [thin film PV][2] generally has a lower efficiency than crystalline silicon cells - since they are layered in top of transparent glass, any light not converted into electricity passes through the glass. This makes them ideal for use in places where you would otherwise be unable to site solar panels. Many glass fronted buildings attenuate the incident light anyway, to minimise air-conditioning costs or reduce glare, so converting that light into energy rather then turning it into heat or reflecting it out of the building has a certain appeal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of anyone producing home double glazing units featuring BIPV modules yet, but I know that machines for creating the glass panels for large scale BIPV projects have been around for years (I used to work on them in the mid to late naughties).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is certainly an area I will be keeping an eye on, as the idea of unclipping my existing double glazing units and clipping in replacement double glazing units with integrated PV hold a lot of appear for me personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIPV#Forms&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_film_solar_cell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="300" RevisionGUID="2581ed84-18ec-4b84-bfc7-52e647357ec3" CreationDate="2013-02-04T18:41:04.457" UserId="115" Text="Buy them from the breeder.  If you can't do that, you are pretty likely to be buying fish that are harvested in deeply unsustainable ways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="324b1cd9-e99a-486c-82ce-896db5fb645d" CreationDate="2013-02-04T19:42:41.937" UserId="164" Comment="Added a link for the linked to answer." Text="Good ventilation needs a strategy of its own accord. It doesn't just happen. It will depend on what climate zone you're in, and what your building is, but from your question, I'm going to assume that winter means you're having to use some space-heating to get the home to a decent temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The very best ventilation strategy we have, is to make sure that your dwelling has a high degree of air-tightness, and then to use Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (UK name), which is also known as Heat Recovery Ventilation (HRV), [as mentioned by half-integer fan][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will require ducting around your home. Typically, the air is introduced into bedrooms, and extracted from kitchens and bathrooms.  The intake air and extract air are propelled by fans, and pass over a heat-exchanger, so that the intake air absorbs heat from the extract air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is difficult to get the specification right. Don't do it yourself. Use a firm that has a strong reputation for MVHR.  The quality of specification and implementation are **everything**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passivhaus-approved MVHR systems have very efficient fans, and very efficient heat exchangers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/150/164&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t3JiE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="834" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="324b1cd9-e99a-486c-82ce-896db5fb645d" CreationDate="2013-02-04T19:42:41.937" Comment="Proposed by 164 approved by 117 edit id of 51" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="68" RevisionGUID="097329cd-ec30-48fa-8d97-7309191f8f89" CreationDate="2013-02-04T20:17:59.320" UserId="60" Comment="link to another question added" Text="I use [PVGIS calculator][1] to estimate photovoltaics energy gain to my satisfaction. It contains realistic Europe and Africa weather data.  &#xD;&#xA;Although this would be only a far estimate, let's assume you face south and you're based in Rome, Italy (instead of Chicago, IL), and we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a maximum of 1260 kWh a year with an optimal inclination of 34° and almost south direction&#xD;&#xA;* 810 kWh a year (64% short) with 90° inclination (straight up-down) and a south direction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from a 1 [kW&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt;][2] installed power, i.e. 6m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of fully covered area. As you probably don't want to entirely cover your windows, you should search for transparent thin film PV panels. Their covered area for 1 kW&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt; would be double or more, depending on the required transmittance and price would be rather high (as of 2013).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the best way? Sometimes it's better to consume less energy (or preserve more of it) than try to produce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question [Estimating the cost of solar panels and return time][3] has got some very good answers with references of solar power generation calculators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt-peak&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/155/60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="293" RevisionGUID="d9e34534-8855-4f65-957e-b5530277dfb6" CreationDate="2013-02-04T20:55:48.993" UserId="99" Comment="added egg shells + more explanation about ink" Text="The primary function of browns is to supply food to soil organisms and to reduce the moisture of the mix, so basically you can use anything high on carbon that is reasonably dry and will compost, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - cardboard boxes&#xD;&#xA; - empty toilet paper rolls&#xD;&#xA; - empty kitchen paper rolls (or the kitchen paper itself for that matter)&#xD;&#xA; - empty egg cartons&#xD;&#xA; - paper bags&#xD;&#xA; - printing paper&#xD;&#xA; - coffee filters&#xD;&#xA; - egg shells&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just tear everything up in pieces and try to use stuff with little or no printing on it because some inks can contain harmful chemicals. Also beware of anything with a waxy or shiny coating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="301" RevisionGUID="1cb6a0dc-b533-4e43-950e-38c0e589f408" CreationDate="2013-02-04T21:45:02.210" UserId="15" Text="The biggest cookie company in NZ (Cookie Time) started off by selling its cookies without packaging by providing large glass jars to store them (to be placed on a shop counter). It would very easy to provide some tongs and paper bags to reduce mess when handing them out. You might find a business that can provide the cookies in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[SunChips][1] apparently uses biodegradable bags, [as does Superfood Snacks][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's probably easier to find businesses using sustainable packaging already rather than trying to get a large business to change. When big businesses see small businesses thriving thanks to a particular quality, they often imitate it, so you can make a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if you could create a large enough demand for a particular product (such as forming a consortium of like minded businesses), then it might have enough influence to get a small food business to change their packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Chips&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.innoviafilms.com/News---Events/Media-Centre/Superfoods-Snacks-Packaged-in-Sustainable-NatureFl.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="b96bea42-3286-45cb-96df-0421fb3f2388" CreationDate="2013-02-04T21:58:45.833" UserId="21" Text="I'm looking for a nitrogen fixer that will do well in the high acidity low-density soil perferred by Blueberries.  It needs to be able to resist pine allelopathy and be friendly to waters edge environments.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to try to guild it with Blueberries (Highbush - Vaccinium corymbosum and Lowbush - Vaccinium augustifolium), Japanese nut pines (Pinus pumilla) and maybe some White pines (Pinus strobus) along the edge of a small pond.  I'm in southern Indiana, sitting between zone 6 and 7.  Either a shrub or an herb will do fine.  The soil will be modified with coffee grounds, sand and compost to provide a less clay soil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="839" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="b96bea42-3286-45cb-96df-0421fb3f2388" CreationDate="2013-02-04T21:58:45.833" UserId="21" Text="What acid soil friendly nitrogen fixers won't be effected by pine allelopathy in zones 6-7?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="840" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="b96bea42-3286-45cb-96df-0421fb3f2388" CreationDate="2013-02-04T21:58:45.833" UserId="21" Text="|permaculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="7d2251f6-1360-4b99-9e90-5eaf336fda8d" CreationDate="2013-02-05T00:38:17.733" UserId="15" Comment="Added link" Text="For carpeting and carpet cushions, you can look for products that meet the requirements of the Carpet and Rug Institute's [Green Label Plus program][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.carpet-rug.org/commercial-customers/green-building-and-the-environment/green-label-plus/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="843" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="212" RevisionGUID="7d2251f6-1360-4b99-9e90-5eaf336fda8d" CreationDate="2013-02-05T00:38:17.733" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 117 edit id of 52" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="303" RevisionGUID="5a3b8958-be58-4625-ab2d-1d4dcd08a9c3" CreationDate="2013-02-05T01:23:25.740" UserId="130" Text="There is an ongoing discussion in the permaculture community whether ph changes to the soil are sustainable.  I am in the camp which says they are provided the changes are not huge (going from highly alkaline soil to very acidic) and so I assume your pines are part of this effort.  I have been looking at trying to do something similar in a similar zone but haven't got the blueberries in yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some outstanding questions in my mind which include how some of these plants affect soil pH.....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple observations....  A major part of the allelopathy of conifers seems to be nitrogen depletion.  Conifer needles fall when they are brown, they form a very loose mulch which composts slowly in the absence of a lot of nitrogen.  This creates physical and nutritional barriers to other plants around the trees even before taking into account toxins.  While this is not based so much on observing pines, I have a 100 yr old sitka spruce and this effect here is quite easily noticeable.  Shallowly rooted plants can't get much of a foothold because of the very low density, low nitrogen, low water needle layer at the top.  My thinking is you are going to have to be doing a lot of additional mulching and composting to make up for this effect.  This is not going to be the ideal happy guild that folks go for and is going to be comparatively labor-intensive by permacultural standards.  The composting and mulching will likely help with allelopathic toxins too but given the level of composting required I think nitrogen fixers will be relatively secondary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on to specific recommendations, I have noticed the following plants seeming to do ok around my sitka spruce that are nitrogen fixers:  white clover and russian olive.  A lot of deciduous trees however raise soil pH so I don't know what impact the russian olive might have there.  Also my soil is not quite the same as yours (mildly alkaline in most places, but it varies quite a bit across my yard for various reasons including historic uses, but I am assuming it is mildly acidic where these plants are growing because of the spruce)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="303" RevisionGUID="9849fe35-de61-432c-a0c3-85423e553639" CreationDate="2013-02-05T01:29:09.940" UserId="130" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="There is an ongoing discussion in the permaculture community whether ph changes to the soil are sustainable.  I am in the camp which says they are provided the changes are not huge (going from highly alkaline soil to very acidic) and so I assume your pines are part of this effort.  I have been looking at trying to do something similar in a similar zone but haven't got the blueberries in yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some outstanding questions in my mind which include how some of these plants affect soil pH.....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple observations....  A major part of the allelopathy of conifers seems to be nitrogen depletion.  Conifer needles fall when they are brown, they form a very loose mulch which composts slowly in the absence of a lot of nitrogen.  This creates physical and nutritional barriers to other plants around the trees even before taking into account toxins.  While this is not based so much on observing pines, I have a 100 yr old sitka spruce and this effect here is quite easily noticeable.  Shallowly rooted plants can't get much of a foothold because of the very low density, low nitrogen, low water needle layer at the top.  My thinking is you are going to have to be doing a lot of additional mulching and composting to make up for this effect.  This is not going to be the ideal happy guild that folks go for and is going to be comparatively labor-intensive by permacultural standards.  The composting and mulching will likely help with allelopathic toxins too but given the level of composting required I think nitrogen fixers will be relatively secondary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So on to specific recommendations, I have noticed the following plants seeming to do ok around my sitka spruce that are nitrogen fixers:  white clover and russian olive.  A lot of deciduous trees however raise soil pH so I don't know what impact the russian olive might have there.  Also my soil is not quite the same as yours (mildly alkaline in most places, but it varies quite a bit across my yard for various reasons including historic uses, but I am assuming it is mildly acidic where these plants are growing because of the spruce).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more thing that occurs to me is that the research I have seen on trees and soil pH is that trees become less efficient at changing pH as they get older.  Consequently a few young pines will be quite a bit more effective than an old pine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="304" RevisionGUID="dd3f9dd5-2967-4d0e-b0c9-50792e98a50d" CreationDate="2013-02-05T02:35:33.890" UserId="15" Text="I've read elsewhere that I can grow shiitake mushrooms by soaking logs/branches, drilling holes in them and inserting spores into the holes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I already have some white button mushrooms from the supermarket, I'm wondering whether using spores from those would work, using a similar technique. I don't want to buy a mushroom growing kit because unless I understand the principles involved I'd probably need to keep buying new kits, which is neither economical nor sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a wood based medium is not the best, then is there something else easily obtainable I can use instead? eg Would any of the following work, if spores were added and they were buried (in a damp but not boggy area):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - prunings&#xD;&#xA; - grass clippings (dry or wet)&#xD;&#xA; - kitchen scraps&#xD;&#xA; - wood chips&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a bucket in a garden shed is better than burial, then that would be fine too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can sterilise small volumes of material by boiling, which in some case I understand is important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I'm unlikely to use a volume of material that's more than 2-3 buckets in size, due to space constraints. I don't know whether this would affect the viability of any methods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="847" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="304" RevisionGUID="dd3f9dd5-2967-4d0e-b0c9-50792e98a50d" CreationDate="2013-02-05T02:35:33.890" UserId="15" Text="Sustainably grown white button mushrooms at home; what sort of material to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="848" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="304" RevisionGUID="dd3f9dd5-2967-4d0e-b0c9-50792e98a50d" CreationDate="2013-02-05T02:35:33.890" UserId="15" Text="|mushrooms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="305" RevisionGUID="b158eccf-1452-47ee-a5b0-400d97f786db" CreationDate="2013-02-05T03:18:27.800" UserId="130" Text="According to [this](http://www.ehow.com/how_5427882_grow-white-button-mushrooms.html), you want to use composted manure and the spawn may be somewhat sensitive to initial temperature.  They suggest using a heating pad to get things started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to take the technology requirements down a bit, I would suggest buying composted manure at the gardening supply store or from a local farmer, and you could either move the buckets of manure from one area to another once they have started or try to take advantage of seasonal temperature changes (starting in early fall for example).  Once you have the culture started, it may be possible to divide it and mix in new manure to keep it going.  This could be used to start more buckets to give to friends and family (lots of jokes are possible here) or just to rotate fresh manure through (old stuff can go on the garden)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="7f85a512-1982-4dc7-a6dd-6070b6c4a9f4" CreationDate="2013-02-05T05:46:19.590" UserId="165" Text="We live in an apartment that has a lot of gaps in the doors and windows and poor insulation in the walls. Is there a way to make the landlord fix this? Some sort of property codes or something? He doesn't seem to want to fix it on his own. We live in San Francisco for what its worth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="7f85a512-1982-4dc7-a6dd-6070b6c4a9f4" CreationDate="2013-02-05T05:46:19.590" UserId="165" Text="How can I get my landlord to install better insulation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="7f85a512-1982-4dc7-a6dd-6070b6c4a9f4" CreationDate="2013-02-05T05:46:19.590" UserId="165" Text="|energy|apartment|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="307" RevisionGUID="68de02a0-1e85-44f3-8c67-cdbe9a63bf3e" CreationDate="2013-02-05T06:17:04.577" UserId="27" Text="There isn't likely to be a way to require him to do anything. You'll have to try tact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe offer to do the work yourself, if he buys the materials. He'll be glad to have his property improved, as long as he trusts you with the work.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="ac7c3559-a507-4269-a43b-ac96b94ee70d" CreationDate="2013-02-05T06:46:21.077" UserId="48" Text="This is the classic agency-dilemma,or principal agent problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THe one who should bear the cost, the landlord, doesn't see any immediate benefit; and any indirect benefit may be, or be believed to be absent. The landlord should bear the cost because, at least in theory, in a well-functioning market, a landlord would be able to earn higher rent on a well-insulated apartment. The one who benefits is the tenant, who gets the warmer, more comfortable apartment, and lower heating bills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the cost is to the landlord, the benefit is to the tenant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are at least three ways out of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The best way, at the macro level, is to **get your municipal authority to introduce landlord licensing**, and allow only properties that are well-insulated to be rented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. offer to **share the costs of insulation** with the landlord. Perhaps you know someone who can do the work to a high quality cheaply, or you can source cheap materials, or you'll redecorate after the insulation is done. Or if you've got a guaranteed tenancy for 5-10 years, and expect to stay there that long, pay for it yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. offer to **share the benefits of insulation** with the landlord. So once the insulation is in, you pay more rent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="62667818-5cbd-45a5-a311-ac49405b982a" CreationDate="2013-02-05T08:48:50.457" UserId="15" Text="This is partially a follow up to my earlier question: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/304/sustainably-grown-white-button-mushrooms-at-home-what-sort-of-material-to-use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that manure might be the best medium for growing button mushrooms, so to make use of what I have available (no composted manure readily available) I'm considering trying to grow some shiitake mushrooms in some moist branches/logs instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's lots of information out there on how to do it by drilling holes in the moist wood and  inserting commercially produced dowels, but as soon as I added &quot;without dowels&quot; (quotes included) to the search I got nothing, except for one case where someone had tried it but failed to post their results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are my chances of success if I try to grow some shiitake mushrooms using spores from a store-bought pack? Is there any technique I can use that might increase my chances?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sole search result mentioned above, the person tried growing some spores on some agar produced from boiled sawdust. Is this a technique that is used commonly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="856" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="62667818-5cbd-45a5-a311-ac49405b982a" CreationDate="2013-02-05T08:48:50.457" UserId="15" Text="Will supermarket-bought shiitake mushrooms be suitable to provide spores for growing some myself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="857" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="62667818-5cbd-45a5-a311-ac49405b982a" CreationDate="2013-02-05T08:48:50.457" UserId="15" Text="|mushrooms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="308" RevisionGUID="af3dcfdd-a35d-4be7-9fce-e498f19da71e" CreationDate="2013-02-05T10:54:02.667" UserId="48" Comment="added 681 characters in body" Text="This is the classic agency-dilemma,or principal agent problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THe one who should bear the cost, the landlord, doesn't see any immediate benefit; and any indirect benefit may be, or be believed to be absent. The landlord should bear the cost because, at least in theory, in a well-functioning market, a landlord would be able to earn higher rent on a well-insulated apartment. The one who benefits is the tenant, who gets the warmer, more comfortable apartment, and lower heating bills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the cost is to the landlord, the benefit is to the tenant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are at least four ways out of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The best way, at the macro level, is to **get your municipal authority to introduce landlord licensing**, and allow only properties that are well-insulated to be rented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. offer to **share the costs of insulation** with the landlord. Perhaps you know someone who can do the work to a high quality cheaply, or you can source cheap materials, or you'll redecorate after the insulation is done. Or if you've got a guaranteed tenancy for 5-10 years, and expect to stay there that long, pay for it yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. offer to **share the benefits of insulation** with the landlord. So once the insulation is in, you pay more rent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Many municipal authorities do have some controls / regulations on rented properties. The type of regulation, and (crucially) the level of enforcement, varies hugely. But **in many places, there are regulatory standards that say a place rented for habitation, must be habitable**. If you have a relatively enlightened authority that has the resources to enforce such a regulation, then you may be in luck. First find out which department would be responsible: in England, it would be Environmental Health. It may be Housing, or something else, where you are. Talk to local tenant-support organisations, and local environmental groups - they may know of successful precedents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="860" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="46bcbeef-0afa-4798-bde9-787b86d03326" CreationDate="2013-02-05T13:28:45.410" UserId="-1" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:142,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;lemontwist&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:107,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;kolin&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:61,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chad Ferguson&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="14f31e87-10a4-4a73-9e55-2a82100128f3" CreationDate="2013-02-05T13:52:42.203" UserId="66" Comment="formatting, spelling" Text="I'm looking for a nitrogen fixer that will do well in the high acidity low-density soil preferred by Blueberries.  It needs to be able to resist pine allelopathy and be friendly to waters edge environments.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to try to guild it with Blueberries (Highbush - *Vaccinium corymbosum* and Lowbush - *Vaccinium augustifolium*), Japanese nut pines (*Pinus pumilla*) and maybe some White pines (*Pinus strobus*) along the edge of a small pond.  I'm in southern Indiana, sitting between zone 6 and 7.  Either a shrub or an herb will do fine.  The soil will be modified with coffee grounds, sand and compost to provide a less clay soil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="1ffd159d-d7c1-400c-bcc8-41c8a5e313cf" CreationDate="2013-02-05T13:54:50.533" UserId="164" Text="I have been considering installing secondary double glazing units in my home in an attempt to turn my double glazed windows into triple glazed windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the [law of diminishing returns][1], and the fact that sealed units are inherently more efficient, but is this a practical solution to reducing energy bills?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amongst my concerns are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How I avoid condensation between the secondary glazing and the existing double glazing.&#xD;&#xA;* Whether I can find secondary glazing units which won't prevent the existing windows being opened and or cleaned easily.&#xD;&#xA;* Whether I should try to fit the secondary glazing unit as close as possible to the current double glazing unit, or whether a larger air gap would be preferable.&#xD;&#xA;* If close placement is better, whether I can fit a secondary pane to the existing frame (i.e. fitting it so that it opens with the existing glass).&#xD;&#xA;* If frame placement is possible, whether inside or our would be preferable or even allowed (I could see that bolting an extra pane of glass onto the outside of an existing double glazing unit may pose a risk of the pane falling out and might this be banned under planning regulations).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="1ffd159d-d7c1-400c-bcc8-41c8a5e313cf" CreationDate="2013-02-05T13:54:50.533" UserId="164" Text="Is secondary triple glazing a practical way to reduce energy costs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="1ffd159d-d7c1-400c-bcc8-41c8a5e313cf" CreationDate="2013-02-05T13:54:50.533" UserId="164" Text="|diy|home|glazing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="84b853d8-3786-4645-9f01-ed2c22519c6a" CreationDate="2013-02-05T14:13:09.840" UserId="164" Text="I live in a block of flats with neighbours on 5 sides and only one side open to the outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that conduction is likely to be the main way I lose or gain heat to or from the neighbours on my floor (and this will be based on the temperature differential between our flats), but are there other factors to take into account with my neighbours above and below me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would guess that I have to take into account not only the average temperature differential between our flats, but also the temperature differential within our rooms, as the real differential between my flat and my neighbour above me is the difference between the temperature at the ceiling of my flat and the floor of my neighbour above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, I would expect that I would be much less likely to lose heat into the flat below as it would be dependent on the difference between the temperature at the ceiling of my neighbour below and the floor of my flat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, how would I work out whether it was worthwhile adding wall, ceiling insulation and possibly even under carper insulation, to minimise the heat losses to my neighnours.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="866" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="84b853d8-3786-4645-9f01-ed2c22519c6a" CreationDate="2013-02-05T14:13:09.840" UserId="164" Text="How much of my flat heating is going to heat my neighbours flats?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="867" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="84b853d8-3786-4645-9f01-ed2c22519c6a" CreationDate="2013-02-05T14:13:09.840" UserId="164" Text="|diy|home|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="868" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="5ccdd1c0-4f72-43ed-a619-b2528dca8ff5" CreationDate="2013-02-05T14:14:17.780" UserId="-1" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:107,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;kolin&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:61,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Chad Ferguson&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:91,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Linger&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:164,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Mark Booth&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="869" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="a6ceb2f9-3fdc-4a06-84bc-19853cc325e9" CreationDate="2013-02-05T15:18:17.697" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="|diy|home|insulation|building-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="312" RevisionGUID="5b8a6c7e-8f5f-4af4-bb36-977bf549b911" CreationDate="2013-02-05T15:29:10.297" UserId="48" Text="Here's the basis of the calculation you need for losses through conduction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;heat loss rate = surface area x U-value of separater material x temperature difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will also be losses from convection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to compare the conduction losses through your external walls, to losses through your internal walls, do the calculation for each.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I expect that the temperature difference on external walls is so much greater than the temperature difference on internal walls, and that the U-value of windows in particular is so high, that external losses swamp internal losses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one notable exception: cavity party walls. It used to be believed that they were reasonably good insulators. But that turned out to be false: there are [big losses from convection bypasses][1] within the partition and via lofts / basements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/3377/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="c1d780b5-ce9a-4a56-8635-02768ef2c015" CreationDate="2013-02-05T15:46:56.533" UserId="96" Text="Do you know the rationale behind washing the containers? Theres alarge scale system for, among others, plastic containers in place in Germany, and here you are explicitly advised not to wash the containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gut reply would be to not wash the containers. This is based on the assumption that they will either be recycled, and no recycling plant can rely on you washing your peanut butter jars sufficiently for their purposes, and they can probably wash them more efficiently at their plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the plastic waste is incinerated (in this case the seperate collection may be because plastic waste is high value fuel) and then it really doesn't mattter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot really depends on what actually happens with the plastics. Note that recycling can mean almost anything except landfill in the terms of the relevant laws: thermal recycling = incineration, material recycling = smelting and reuse. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="9ad96eb6-615f-4544-af8e-13c4054d32fb" CreationDate="2013-02-05T17:54:11.127" UserId="45" Text="I am building a new stacked AP system.  While I have built bell siphons in the past I am more interested in getting the simplicity of a loop siphon to work on this system.  Does anyone have experience with loop siphons?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered two methods for creation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Take an 18&quot; long 1&quot; pvc pipe, tape off one end, fill with sand, tape off the other end, heat in the stove for 15 minutes, move, and form into a loop&#xD;&#xA; 2. Use lazy 90 degree pipe bends and small 1&quot; sections of pipe to form a loop&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other methods?  Does anyone have any experience with either of these two methods?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="9ad96eb6-615f-4544-af8e-13c4054d32fb" CreationDate="2013-02-05T17:54:11.127" UserId="45" Text="How to construct a reliable loop siphon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="9ad96eb6-615f-4544-af8e-13c4054d32fb" CreationDate="2013-02-05T17:54:11.127" UserId="45" Text="|aquaponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="315" RevisionGUID="30dffc12-d2bf-4cde-950f-d115b078df59" CreationDate="2013-02-05T18:49:33.723" UserId="159" Text="The thing that matters most here are biomass producing ammonia, and surface area for bacteria in the grow beds to live on -- there must not be too much ammonia produced for the bacteria to handle, otherwise the fish will be stressed and later harmed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good rule of thumb I've seen (links escape me right now) is 0.03Kg of fish per litre of growbed volume, or **30 kg / m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solids filtration is obviously still important, but as long as these get filtered/settled out by the grow media or other filtration, all is good. The setting capacity of a growbed depends on the media in there, plus the flow rates and type (constant flood vs flood/drain etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Caveat**: Like all rules of thumb, you can certainly deviate from this 30 kg fish / m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; growbed figure, but the limitations will depend on many factors like temperature, oxygenation, pH, flow rates and other improvements to the system. Commercial aquaponics systems will stock lot above this figure because they do extra filtration and water quality management." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="878" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="f66e2f6e-2124-45bb-b21d-445db8e3ea9c" CreationDate="2013-02-05T19:56:53.623" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="|diy|home|building-physics|glazing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="316" RevisionGUID="21003715-8e04-4c05-a599-453b5753b7f8" CreationDate="2013-02-05T20:16:16.957" UserId="48" Text="**Short answer**: it's unlikely to be cost-effective, if you consider only the energy savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Longer answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it's possible. Let's look at the issues one by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Condensation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you only open the secondary glazing when the inside air is cool and dry that will reduce the chances of condensation. Put some dessicant in the gap, and dry it out occasionally, if you like. The specific risk of condensation will depend on the temperature and humidity when you open the secondary window, and the temperature to which the air gap subsequently drops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Positioning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The building of the secondary frame, and clearance for opening, will determine the air gap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't fit it to the existing frame: have it in its own frame. The hinges on your double glazing aren't designed to handle the extra weight of another sheet of glass, and you won't get a good seal around the new pane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place the secondary glazing inside: your existing double glazing is already weather-proof. Your secondary glazing needn't be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Energy savings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've already got most of the energy savings that you're going to get, from the double-glazing. And they probably came as much from the improved air-tightness, as from the decreased U-value. With secondary glazing, you'll only have savings from additional U-value decreases. Here's the calculation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combined U-value = 1 /  [ (1 / secondary-glazing U-value) + (1 / double-glazing U-Value) ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if your secondary glazing would have a U-value of 2.0, and your double-glazing has a U-Value of 1.0, then the combined U-value = 1 / (1/2.0 + 1/1.0) = 1 / 1.5 = 0.67. So you'd reduce the window losses (not total losses, just losses through the window) by a third.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's unlikely to be economic, on energy savings alone, unless your unit cost of heat energy is immense, and/or it gets to -20&amp;deg;C outside for a few weeks a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##But&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you currently find that sitting right under the window is uncomfortable because of cool down-draughts, then the effective increase in usable room space you get from the secondary triple-glazing might make it worth it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="316" RevisionGUID="984a77b2-a6a3-49ae-93be-61165319df8a" CreationDate="2013-02-05T20:26:58.807" UserId="48" Comment="added 688 characters in body" Text="**Short answer**: it's unlikely to be cost-effective, if you consider only the energy savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Longer answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it's possible. Let's look at the issues one by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Condensation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you only open the secondary glazing when the inside air is cool and dry that will reduce the chances of condensation. Put some dessicant in the gap, and dry it out occasionally, if you like. The specific risk of condensation will depend on the temperature and humidity when you open the secondary window, and the temperature to which the air gap subsequently drops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Positioning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The building of the secondary frame, and clearance for opening, will determine the air gap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't fit it to the existing frame: have it in its own frame. The hinges on your double glazing aren't designed to handle the extra weight of another sheet of glass, and you won't get a good seal around the new pane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place the secondary glazing inside: your existing double glazing is already weather-proof. Your secondary glazing needn't be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Energy savings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've already got most of the energy savings that you're going to get, from the double-glazing. And they probably came as much from the improved air-tightness, as from the decreased U-value. With secondary glazing, you'll only have savings from additional U-value decreases. Here's the calculation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combined U-value = 1 /  [ (1 / secondary-glazing U-value) + (1 / double-glazing U-Value) ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if your secondary glazing would have a U-value of 2.0, and your double-glazing has a U-Value of 1.0, then the combined U-value = 1 / (1/2.0 + 1/1.0) = 1 / 1.5 = 0.67. So you'd reduce the window losses (not total losses, just losses through the window) by a third.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's unlikely to be economic, on energy savings alone, unless your unit cost of heat energy is immense, and/or it gets to -20&amp;deg;C outside for a few weeks a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##But then there's comfort&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you currently find that sitting right under the window is uncomfortable because of cool down-draughts, then the effective increase in usable room space you get from the secondary triple-glazing might make it worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##And taking it to the extreme&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the place is already super-insulated all over **except** the window, and you get lots of sun in in winter, and you've already installed an [MVHR][1], then adding secondary triple-glazing might be the thing that effectively turns your home into a [Passivhaus][2]. And at that point, you probably wouldn't need a central heating system. The money saved in not having to renew your central heating system, will go a long way to paying back the cost of the secondary glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/241/48&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://passiv.de/en/02_informations/01_whatisapassivehouse/01_whatisapassivehouse.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="317" RevisionGUID="4c5a3beb-9343-45ab-85ab-d32e7c614907" CreationDate="2013-02-05T20:53:10.870" UserId="20" Text="I'v found [several cases on the internet](https://mycotopia.net/forums/fungi-all-edible-medicinal-other-mushrooms/42238-can-i-grow-mushrooms-store-bought-mushrooms.html) where folks have attempted to clone Shiitake.  Some failed and others were successful with no clear reason that I could find to differentiate.  It might be that the freshness of supermarket mushrooms varies greatly or perhaps they have been treated with some kind of preservative that hinders their being cloned.  To reduce the chance of these factors, I'd suggest buying from a supermarket that has very high quality produce which includes a large variety of quality organic vegetables.  I'd suspect that such a market would be more likely to have the freshest mushrooms and least likely to have had them treated some how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the bottom line is you will have to attempt and experiment and report back your results here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="255bbc6d-7b03-4e9f-a66d-3887b74793e9" CreationDate="2013-02-05T20:56:59.863" UserId="20" Text="One related difference between keeping heat in or out relates to the climate.  In very warm and humid areas such as Florida, you place the vapor barrier on the exterior side of the insulation, whereas, in cooler climates that are not so humid, you place the vapor barrier on the interior side of the insulation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="c8eb890b-7297-476a-83bd-ca17e1227c46" CreationDate="2013-02-05T21:37:52.417" UserId="164" Comment="Tidied up the post a little and added some links." Text="Is there a nitrogen fixer which will do well in the high acidity low-density soil preferred by Blueberries?  It needs to be able to resist pine [allelopathy][1] and be friendly to waters edge environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to try to [guild][2] it with Blueberries (Highbush - *Vaccinium corymbosum* and Lowbush - *Vaccinium augustifolium*), Japanese nut pines (*Pinus pumilla*) and maybe some White pines (*Pinus strobus*) along the edge of a small pond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My location is southern Indiana, sitting between zone 6 and 7.  Either a shrub or an herb will do fine.  The soil will be modified with coffee grounds, sand and compost to provide a less clay soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allelopathy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_%28ecology%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="884" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="c8eb890b-7297-476a-83bd-ca17e1227c46" CreationDate="2013-02-05T21:37:52.417" UserId="164" Comment="Tidied up the post a little and added some links." Text="What acid soil friendly nitrogen fixers won't be affected by pine allelopathy in zones 6-7?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="885" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="c8eb890b-7297-476a-83bd-ca17e1227c46" CreationDate="2013-02-05T21:37:52.417" Comment="Proposed by 164 approved by 48, 21 edit id of 53" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="b31a3a2a-effd-4ed3-bd5c-02ddcab130e7" CreationDate="2013-02-05T21:43:53.433" UserId="48" Text="**tl;dr :** For the millions of dwellings that have significant fabric constraints that rule out heat pumps, biomass and solar thermal, how can we decarbonise our space and water heating effectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The specifics of my home, for context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the moment there's natural-gas-fuelled central heating, with water-filled pump-driven loop going into wall-mounted radiators that have been sized for an operating temperature of 60-70&amp;deg;C. That's pretty typical for most British homes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The property is solid-wall construction, and there isn't much external wall - it's mostly glazed. Most rooms are generally tall - about 3m. (a fairly standard late-Victorian British terrace, with some subsequent improvements, including secondary glazing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's still quite leaky for air, but we're working on that, and planning to [build tight, ventilate right][1], over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't have much unshaded south-facing surface. And we're nowhere near any district heating schemes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a garden of about 180m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, with access only through the house. We live cheek-by-jowl with our neighbours, so a heating system of 40dB or more would be too loud. So no heat pumps - the defrost cycle alone is unacceptably noisy, let alone the constant throbbing during normal operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our first emphasis is on reducing space-heating needs through good insulation and air-tightness. But there will remain a big chunk of space-heating requirement, as well as water-heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heating season is roughly October to March, and outside temperatures in deepest winter can get as low as -15&amp;deg;Celsius at times. There may be 30 days a year when the temperature goes below 0&amp;deg;Celsius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And although our home is unique, it is in many ways representative of millions of homes. &#xD;&#xA;So I'm not looking for a unique solution for my own home, but a generic solution or set of solutions for the millions of homes that share the significant features with mine: there are severe fabric constraints that rule out air-source heat pumps, ground-source heat-pumps and solar thermal. Biomass seems an unlikely route, given the local pollution impact of millions of homes with individual biomass burners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So how can I decarbonise my domestic water and space heating, given the severe fabric constraints?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/241/48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="b31a3a2a-effd-4ed3-bd5c-02ddcab130e7" CreationDate="2013-02-05T21:43:53.433" UserId="48" Text="How can I decarbonise my domestic heating, given severe fabric constraints?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="b31a3a2a-effd-4ed3-bd5c-02ddcab130e7" CreationDate="2013-02-05T21:43:53.433" UserId="48" Text="|building-physics|heating|water-heating|decarbonisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="b9201a3f-d2c0-4b52-8596-1fbc8b82c198" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:32:58.277" UserId="29" Text="Is it better to have my compost pile in the sun, or in the shade? I have space on the north and south walls of my house, and want to know which would be a wiser place for the pile.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="b9201a3f-d2c0-4b52-8596-1fbc8b82c198" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:32:58.277" UserId="29" Text="Compost in the sun or shade?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="b9201a3f-d2c0-4b52-8596-1fbc8b82c198" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:32:58.277" UserId="29" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="321" RevisionGUID="4e8e4c1d-0923-49a1-86ad-632420398a92" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:35:32.633" UserId="172" Text="The two answers already provided are great ones, but don't forget there is a sustainability factor. In general, you're going to want to buy/acquire local goods as often as possible and avoid anything that requires shipping.  A SCOBY is no exception to this rule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="375e3fe1-6d74-4f3f-aafd-e8346dfdb621" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:40:15.197" UserId="29" Text="Are there any sound methods that will allow my compost heap to stay aerated without me having to turn it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that if left alone, it will still compost, but I would still like to speed up the process by having a way for it to stay aerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm making quite a bit of compost, and am not interested in an elevated turning mechanism. I want it to be as low tech as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="375e3fe1-6d74-4f3f-aafd-e8346dfdb621" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:40:15.197" UserId="29" Text="Aerate compost without turning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="375e3fe1-6d74-4f3f-aafd-e8346dfdb621" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:40:15.197" UserId="29" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="323" RevisionGUID="2792fe38-7e48-4c2a-80a7-338042816eb8" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:45:32.080" UserId="172" Text="Vinegar is known to be a cleaning agent, but I don't know what sort of stains or what sort of carpet, so it is hard to know if it would be appropriate in your circumstance.  You can make homemade vinegar a number of ways, but my method of choice is a long-standing batch of kombucha.  If I were in your shoes, I might produce a good strong kombucha vinegar, then remove it from the SCOBY, filter nicely, let a bunch of lemon rinds soak in it for several days, then TRY IT on an inconspicuous section of the carpet to see if removes stains without destroying the color/material." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="4b8f585a-bed1-409d-a5ff-99546ad622ad" CreationDate="2013-02-05T22:59:58.317" UserId="45" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="I am building a new stacked AP system.  While I have built bell siphons in the past I am more interested in getting the simplicity of a loop siphon to work on this system.  Does anyone have experience with loop siphons?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered two methods for creation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Take an 18&quot; long 1&quot; pvc pipe, tape off one end, fill with sand, tape off the other end, heat in the stove for 15 minutes, move, and form into a loop&#xD;&#xA; 2. Use lazy 90 degree pipe bends and small 1&quot; sections of pipe to form a loop&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other methods?  Does anyone have any experience with either of these two methods?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;Per the comment asking what a stacked AP system is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/a8ooP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="dbca1ea6-29b5-42e7-b563-9caf89d48983" CreationDate="2013-02-05T23:04:51.847" UserId="80" Text="To contribute to the options offered by Elssar's answer, here is an interesting thing I read about just a few days ago:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Filabot** is a project of compact 3D printer that directly recycles plastic objects at home to create new shapes. It was launched for funding on the 19th of December 2012 [on Kickstarter][1] and tripled its goal by the 23rd of January 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the homepage of the project: http://filabot.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They will apparently ship the devices to the project backers by the end of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rocknail/filabot-plastic-filament-maker" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="ae0951bd-d023-449d-ab4b-f863cdb11f41" CreationDate="2013-02-05T23:17:25.740" UserId="80" Text="I was wondering which drink container is the most sustainable one, when looking at the big picture (complete life cycle analysis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I can see the few following points:&#xD;&#xA;- **Transport**: plastic and aluminium is lighter than glass, and they can be crushed on their way to recycling, which means less transport-related use of energy;&#xD;&#xA;- **Raw material**: I think glass is probably the most sustainable in terms of resource availability and number of recycling cycles - is that right?&#xD;&#xA;- **Pollution**: again, glass would be the best at not disrupting the environment.&#xD;&#xA;- What about the **energy needed for recycling** each of those products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reckon this should be assessed on a contained liquid volume base." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="903" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="ae0951bd-d023-449d-ab4b-f863cdb11f41" CreationDate="2013-02-05T23:17:25.740" UserId="80" Text="Which is more sustainable: aluminium can, plastic bottle or glass bottle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="904" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="ae0951bd-d023-449d-ab4b-f863cdb11f41" CreationDate="2013-02-05T23:17:25.740" UserId="80" Text="|recycling|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="327" RevisionGUID="2184e60c-c9d9-4aa0-abed-572da923e59e" CreationDate="2013-02-05T23:20:04.513" UserId="60" Text="I'm using a compost box made of plastic. The dimensions are about 1m x 1m and 1.4m high. It's walls have holes in them and because it's rather tall it's aerated to my satisfaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process of composting produces heat and that's why its tall structure causes [stack effect][1] and almost ALL the volume is aerated, not only the sides. You can build a wooden alternative but I'd doubt it's stack effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm moving grass from a 300m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; lot plus small garden and kitchen leftovers and one such box is enough. I haven't filled it up fully in a year and I've not taken the product yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not important from a sustainability point of view, but having a green box on your property looks much better than a pile of &quot;unorder&quot; and takes less space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_effect&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wErwi.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="328" RevisionGUID="5a5c4a94-fd76-41e3-a9d8-af4c39b209f7" CreationDate="2013-02-05T23:20:54.517" UserId="170" Text="I noticed maggots in my compost scraps recently (not yet mixed in the tumbler). Is this all right? Should I do something to prevent this in the future? If so, what?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="907" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="328" RevisionGUID="5a5c4a94-fd76-41e3-a9d8-af4c39b209f7" CreationDate="2013-02-05T23:20:54.517" UserId="170" Text="Is it normal to have maggots in my compost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="908" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="328" RevisionGUID="5a5c4a94-fd76-41e3-a9d8-af4c39b209f7" CreationDate="2013-02-05T23:20:54.517" UserId="170" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="329" RevisionGUID="743b9453-c91e-432c-b71b-c126ebaaefb3" CreationDate="2013-02-05T23:40:27.440" UserId="27" Text="It's common; it's up to you whether it's desirable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The maggots will eat food scraps in your compost, helping to break them down faster. Then they will turn in to flies, which are annoying and perhaps unsanitary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people deliberately attract **Black Soldier Fly** maggots, which are particularly good at breaking down compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're including **manure** in your compost, I think it's particularly important to discourage maggots/flies, to prevent them from spreading germs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a lot of compost, with lots of manure, but I get 0 flies. I attribute that success to two factors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I **include brown materials** (sawdust) in compost, to get a good balance of nice balance of carbon and nitrogen. It's not a delicate balance, but it still matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. I cover my compost pile with a thick layer of **straw**. This keeps the attractive smells in, and the flies out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I add to my compost pile, I push the straw aside, add the new material, then add more straw on top.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="330" RevisionGUID="6edeea51-7a55-46f2-be7f-015340f34bc3" CreationDate="2013-02-05T23:45:29.073" UserId="20" Text="I found [this article](http://web.extension.illinois.edu/cfiv/homeowners/990522.html) helpful which stated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... improperly constructed [compost] piles, piles that are not turned regularly or piles that have thinner areas along the edges can provide refuge and breeding areas for some insects, according to U of I entomologist Phil Nixon. These cooler areas of the pile can harbor stable flies, house flies, and green June beetles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid the maggots, I suggest you ensure you are turning your compost pile regularly and that you try to minimize the areas that are thinner, and thus cooler.  One way this can be accomplished is by not just having a pile for your compost, but having some kind of structure to contain it and provide some regularity to its dimensions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="331" RevisionGUID="5303e5b8-fba8-4145-9d9c-266186216b73" CreationDate="2013-02-05T23:47:38.187" UserId="27" Text="Turning compost is somewhat controversial. Conventional wisdom says turning is required, while Joe Jenkins cites research that find that turning is slightly detrimental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a little googling and found that idea that if you include coarse material, like straw, the pile is self-aerating, so turning is unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it helps if the compost is not overwet: too much water will block the flow of air. (Not too dry, either, as bacteria needs water to swim in to get around!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can speed compost by keep it warm. Lining the sides with old carpet or straw, and putting a layer of straw over the top, will help it retain heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="332" RevisionGUID="80f478fb-828e-4ad2-966c-8ab86a900a47" CreationDate="2013-02-05T23:52:31.437" UserId="27" Text="It depends a lot on your climate and what you're putting in your compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compost likes to be warm, so sun helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compost likes to be moist - like a wrung-out sponge. If the sun would cause it to over-dry in the summer, or the shade would allow it to become over-wet in the winter, then you'll need to adjust accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add water to a compost pile, but using fresh drinking water that way seems counter to the very purpose of composting. Greywater is a good choice, and it includes some additional nutrients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your compost is too wet, you can dry it out by mixing in some dry sawdust. I don't recommend wood shavings, however, because they break down very slowly. (It's unfortunate, because wood shavings are an abundant waste product.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="333" RevisionGUID="b128408d-ff58-4063-a0d2-bf890a01c64d" CreationDate="2013-02-05T23:55:23.527" UserId="20" Text="I found [a comparison here](http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/energy-recycle-glass-bottles-vs-aluminum-cans-vs-plastic-2376.html).  My take on reading that is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Aluminum is the most efficient in terms of energy saved in making a new can taking only 5% that compared to working from scratch.&#xD;&#xA;* Glass comes in second saving 20-30% of the energy in making new glass.&#xD;&#xA;* Plastic is a distant third since you keep degenerating to a lower quality plastic formula. (e.g. PET (type 1) soda bottles becomes carpeting and jackets)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm not sure if glass beats aluminum in a total energy consumed to make say a 12 ounce container in that perhaps the amount of energy required or glass is so much less than aluminum that using 70% of the glass number still beats 5% of the aluminum number.  However, with no facts to back this up, my intuition tells me aluminum would still win in a side by side comparison." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="9f85002c-c895-492e-becc-47bbc4ffd559" CreationDate="2013-02-06T00:50:32.270" UserId="27" Comment="@Laizer is not a tag!" Text="There is very low risk getting a mother from a friend and there are a lot of positives. I totally agree with @Laizer that they are quite resilient and it is obvious if a scoby is healthy or not. Black is bad, mold is bad, lack of effervescence is bad. It is not bad if it sinks in the liquid. I always keep a backup in starter tea in a small jar in my fridge just in case something happens to the ones I'm using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nice thing about getting it from a friend is you can tell how your tea will taste and choose accordingly. Kombucha, unlike something like Keifer, does not clone itself every time it grows. A mother is not genetically identical to the daughter it produces, and every mother is not identical to all other mothers. The organisms in your scoby (symbiotic culture of bacteria and yeast) affect how the fermented tea will taste, so you will always have variety. They also adapt, so if you are using a specific kind of tea for a long time, the daughters produced will start to adapt to the environment and perhaps be better tasting, or maybe not. If you really like the way your friend's tea tastes, you should get a daughter from them and if you like how the tea you make tastes, you should always keep the mother and give away the daughters or compost them or keep them as back up, whatever you choose.  Also, websites/forums that you only have to pay for postage will allow you to get more than 1 or get another easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people, and I appreciate this isn't a mainstream thought, are of the opinion that you shouldn't ever buy a mother or something like Keifer grains because the organisms are so prolific that its offensive the the energy of the organism to get money for something it obviously wants to share. Definitely not a consideration for everyone, but if you are interested in energies that is one thing to consider." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="915" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="187" RevisionGUID="9f85002c-c895-492e-becc-47bbc4ffd559" CreationDate="2013-02-06T00:50:32.270" Comment="Proposed by 27 approved by 117 edit id of 57" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="e6f092da-4921-4f18-9b64-925d084b5143" CreationDate="2013-02-06T00:50:36.387" UserId="60" Comment="formatting improved" Text="I was wondering which drink container is the most sustainable one, when looking at the big picture (complete life cycle analysis).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, I can see the few following points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Transport**: plastic and aluminium are lighter than glass, and they can be crushed on their way to recycling, which means less transport-related use of energy.&#xD;&#xA;- **Raw material**: I think glass is probably the most sustainable in terms of resource availability and number of recycling cycles - is that right?&#xD;&#xA;- **Pollution**: again, glass would be the best at not disrupting the environment.&#xD;&#xA;- What about the **energy needed for recycling** each of those products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I reckon this should be assessed on a contained liquid volume base." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="917" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="e6f092da-4921-4f18-9b64-925d084b5143" CreationDate="2013-02-06T00:50:36.387" Comment="Proposed by 60 approved by 117 edit id of 56" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="9448a049-a917-4f77-bf34-c96b4e6665bf" CreationDate="2013-02-06T00:50:40.117" UserId="40" Comment="Improve spelling" Text="Do you know the rationale behind washing the containers? There's a large-scale system for, among others, plastic containers in place in Germany, and here you are explicitly advised not to wash the containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gut reply would be to not wash the containers. This is based on the assumption that they will either be recycled, and no recycling plant can rely on you washing your peanut butter jars sufficiently for their purposes, and they can probably wash them more efficiently at their plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the plastic waste is incinerated (in this case the separate collection may be because plastic waste is high value fuel) and then it really doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot really depends on what actually happens with the plastics. Note that recycling can mean almost anything except landfill in the terms of the relevant laws: thermal recycling = incineration, material recycling = smelting and reuse. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="919" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="9448a049-a917-4f77-bf34-c96b4e6665bf" CreationDate="2013-02-06T00:50:40.117" Comment="Proposed by 40 approved by 117 edit id of 54" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="920" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="f49ae5bd-16e2-4fd4-b982-f8561d4bd073" CreationDate="2013-02-06T01:09:04.907" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/298961476503367680" />
  <row Id="921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="95d2575a-0eea-4a45-9d70-d1329e33b654" CreationDate="2013-02-06T01:28:39.303" UserId="21" Comment="Changing the link on Guilds to go to the Permaculture page.  I think it's a more accurate (if less comprehensive) description of a permaculture guild." Text="Is there a nitrogen fixer which will do well in the high acidity low-density soil preferred by Blueberries?  It needs to be able to resist pine [allelopathy][1] and be friendly to waters edge environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to try to [guild][2] it with Blueberries (Highbush - *Vaccinium corymbosum* and Lowbush - *Vaccinium augustifolium*), Japanese nut pines (*Pinus pumilla*) and maybe some White pines (*Pinus strobus*) along the edge of a small pond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My location is southern Indiana, sitting between zone 6 and 7.  Either a shrub or an herb will do fine.  The soil will be modified with coffee grounds, sand and compost to provide a less clay soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allelopathy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture#Guilds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="334" RevisionGUID="a2b22a59-e3d7-4967-bba9-ae7a77fd11d4" CreationDate="2013-02-06T01:54:46.990" UserId="130" Text="Interestingly glass and aluminum have the same specific heat or close to it (about 0.2 J/g) but the mass of he container is much different, and aluminum has a much lower melting point (about half that F of Glass).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estimating weight of a 12 oz beer bottle at 140 grams (that's prob. low), and going by internet searches to find that empty soda cans weigh about 14 grams, we get a sense that the amount of energy required to bring to melting point is about 5% that of the aluminum can than the glass bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;140 * 2700 * 0.2 = approx 75600 J to melt the glass bottle discarding enthalpy of fusion (which iirc doesn't affect glass).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;14 * 1100 * 0.2 = approx 3080 J to reach melting point plus 398 * 14 = 5572 J to melt, approx 9kJ to melt the soda can vs 76kJ to melt the glass bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As are all answers this is necessarily incomplete.  It isn't clear to me what else goes into recycling either and whether there are other embedded complexity costs, but that's a base line.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="0188928f-2989-4406-aa62-db1a2ebdad30" CreationDate="2013-02-06T02:04:39.223" UserId="142" Text="I use [Catalog Choice][1] to unsubscribe from catalogs. However, I'm not sure how to stop receiving other junkmail and circulars that routinely come in the mail, such as ValPak coupons, ClipperMagazine, and also solicitations from utilities companies that I don't subscribe to that are vying for my business. Any idea on how I can opt out of this junkmail?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(At least the weekly newspaper circular is useful as fireplace kindling.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.catalogchoice.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="0188928f-2989-4406-aa62-db1a2ebdad30" CreationDate="2013-02-06T02:04:39.223" UserId="142" Text="How to unsubscribe from junkmail and circulars?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="0188928f-2989-4406-aa62-db1a2ebdad30" CreationDate="2013-02-06T02:04:39.223" UserId="142" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="336" RevisionGUID="cebc8514-eb45-4462-a00c-66a44d493bbc" CreationDate="2013-02-06T02:33:52.257" UserId="169" Text="**The Direct Marketing Association**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to cut out a lot of the junk mail coming to your house in one blow, the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) is the way to go. It's not a federal program like the Do Not Call Registry but most reputable direct marketers belong to the DMA, and they offer an opt-out service to you, the consumer. You fill out a form with the DMA, then they compile a list of those who do not wish to receive unsolicited mail and send it to client companies who order these lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three ways to register with the DMA's opt-out service: you can simply send a post card with your name and address to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mail Preference Service&#xD;&#xA;Direct Marketing Association&#xD;&#xA;PO Box 643&#xD;&#xA;Carmel, NY 10512&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your name will be added to the list. However this can take about a month to process with the DMA, as well as time for it to feed out to their client organizations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a form provided on their web site that you can fill out and mail in to the same address as above. Filling out the form online gives it a unique tracking number that enables them to process the request faster than if you just send in a post card.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly you can fill out the online form and submit it online. This processes your application immediately and should result in the flow of junk mail slowing within a period of about 1 month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to find out more about the DMA's Mail Preference Service check out their web site at http://www.dmaconsumers.org&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Opt-out of Junk Mail With Individual Companies**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every company works in conjunction with the DMA's Mail Preference Service that allows for mass opt-out. However, many companies do provide forms to fill out so that you don't appear in the lists for their junk mail or to have your address distributed by them. Even if they don't have forms or a proper method in place you can still contact them either through their web site, snail mail or calling customer service and get something sorted out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the idea that we, the consumer, should have to go the extra mile in order to ensure that our names and addresses are not sold from here to Timbuktu and that we not receive unsolicited mail is ridiculous, but unfortunately it is also a fact of life. At least until tougher laws are passed and tighter regulations enforced on the direct marketing industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The place to start individual opting out are businesses that you are in regular contact with. Your bank is a prime target. Also anytime a store asks you for your name and address, ask them what they do with the information and what you need to do to make sure it is not used to send junk mail to your house. Opt-out before they even have a chance to opt you in involuntarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of what I am talking about: in the summer of 2005 I went to a major furniture chain to purchase a freezer. When I made the purchase, they wanted information such as my name and address. I asked them what they would be using the information for and reluctantly they told me it would be used to send solicitations from them to my house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I told them I did not want any junk mail coming to my house. They said ok, and before I left I fill out a three page form saying that I wanted no unsolicited mail from them coming to my house. All well and good, or so I thought. Then, a couple of months later they sent me a flyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I called them, quite upset. After all the trouble I had gone through to fill out the forms so I would get no mail, I still got it in my mailbox. After some arguing with the manager I got him to take my name off the list, and since then I have not received any junk mail from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Opt-out Telephone Numbers and Addresses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here now we will look at contact information for a few businesses that engage in direct marketing. One of the worst types of junk mail are the constant credit card applications coming every day. These junk mailings are for the most part the work of three companies: Experian, Trans Union and Equifax, the big three credit reporting companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These three companies are the ones responsible for compiling all of the data that goes into creating your credit score. They are also to blame for the majority of credit card applications sent to your house. If you want these to stop, there is one simple telephone number you can call:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-888-5OPTOUT or 1-888-567-8688&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will stop you from receiving junk mail from any of the big three credit reporting companies and should also stop the majority of the credit card applications coming your way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are the addresses of many of the worst culprits in sending junk mail. Write them and tell them that you wish to opt-out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publishing Clearinghouse Sweepstakes&#xD;&#xA;101 Channel Dr&#xD;&#xA;Port Washington, NY 11050&#xD;&#xA;1-800-645-9242&#xD;&#xA;1-800-453-0272 (fax)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;American Business information inc.&#xD;&#xA;Attn: Product Quality&#xD;&#xA;PO Box 27347&#xD;&#xA;Omaha, NE 68127&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Donnelly Marketing, inc&#xD;&#xA;Attn: Data Base Operations&#xD;&#xA;PO Box 3502&#xD;&#xA;Ames, IA 50010-3502&#xD;&#xA;888-633-4402&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Haines and Company, inc.&#xD;&#xA;Criss-Cross Directory&#xD;&#xA;Attn: Director of Data Processing&#xD;&#xA;8050 Freedom Ave&#xD;&#xA;NW Canton, OH 44720&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just a few of the worst offenders. There are many others out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The USPS and Form 1500**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although for the most part the USPS is not at all interested in assisting you to stop or opt-out of junk mail, they do have one resource available to you, the consumer: Form 1500. This form is designed to stop explicit and pornographic material from being sent to your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You pick up the form from the post office (you can also find it online) fill it out and can stop all mail from being delivered to you coming from a certain company. While this is generally supposed to refer only to explicit and pornographic materials, the onus is on you for determining what is explicit and pornographic. If there is a single company that is really bothering you this might be the way to go in getting it stopped in short order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From &quot;[How to Opt-Out of Junk Mail Coming to Your House][1]&quot; by Allen Butler&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://voices.yahoo.com/how-opt-out-junk-mail-coming-house-39715.html?cat=17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="337" RevisionGUID="2354b7af-ed96-47be-be11-654405da47fc" CreationDate="2013-02-06T02:43:25.647" UserId="111" Text="Before plastic bottles became popular, recycle meant something different than today. It used to me 'reuse' not 'remanufacture'. I would think reuse of glass bottles would be the most sustainable. Although I'm not aware of any soda manufacturers that reuse bottles in the US, there are dairies that reuse milk bottles now that glass milk bottles are making a comeback at local dairies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="338" RevisionGUID="a3acac01-608a-40a1-b714-2dd39c997592" CreationDate="2013-02-06T02:43:30.950" UserId="85" Text="I think it depends on the type of junk mail it is. Some circulars with a return address can probably be sent back by writing &quot;return&quot; in red letters all over it. (Check with your local post office about how to return mail that has been delivered to you incorrectly; don't tell them it actually bears your name.) The post office should return the mail and charge the sender, which hopefully makes them take you off their mailing list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for flyers and the like, maybe you can complain to the company that is listed, but I don't think you will be very successful. The youngsters that distribute this waste get paid for bringing it into as many households as possible, and are not paid for individual wishes of customers, or for respecting your &quot;no junk mail&quot; sticker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="7adc268d-b0b7-4d4c-bc3a-16f500604c6b" CreationDate="2013-02-06T04:06:26.337" UserId="182" Text="A dog and cat owner friend of mine discovered Cedarcide (http://www.cedarcidestore.com/cedarproducts.html) last year and has succesfully kept fleas out of her home and off her animals (they make products for home and pet application) for the past year, after several terrible bouts of infestation and unsuccessful (and noxious, toxic, unsustainable) treatments with flea pesticides. And her home and pets always smell delightfully of cedar! Yum!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="930" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="326" RevisionGUID="c7c38efb-b796-43b6-bd9c-7a798934454b" CreationDate="2013-02-06T04:09:04.873" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/299006775313694720" />
  <row Id="931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="340" RevisionGUID="75741e39-a529-4936-8f3a-9723b40d32a1" CreationDate="2013-02-06T04:30:53.387" UserId="130" Text="To be honest, I think this part is somewhat self-defeating: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But how to best utilize a forest for animal husbandry, in the way that hopefully *interferes with wild nature as little as possible?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a permaculture perspective the goal isn't to avoid interfering with nature, but to try to ensure that interference is constructive.  In other words, ecosystems are steered towards productive uses by our standards rather subtly instead of using force of effort to the detriment of everything.  Ecosystems are co-evolved so let's try to be part of that coevolution.  So having reframed the question that way, here are some thoughts about utilizing what is there:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Many kinds of trees can be utilized as fodder.  If you watch your animals you can see what they like to eat and a pruning saw (and a pair of loppers) can be used to retrieve some extra food from a bit higher than your animals can reach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The animal manure can help recycle nutrients in the natural ecosystem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  The edges of the forests are likely to be the most productive in this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some thoughts about hazards:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Many kinds of grazing animals will prevent new edible trees from becoming established.  It is probably a good idea to plan to protect some areas for new trees from time to time.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Overgrazing may also damage undergrowth in undesirable ways.  Again the problem here is overgrazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now some thoughts specifically about boreal forests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are mostly conifer forests.  This means that to the extent animals can graze on trees, they will be pines, firs, and the like.  This is not out of the question but it may mean something for animal selection.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="932" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="f634ca09-5510-4a37-9bf7-fef310320c53" CreationDate="2013-02-06T04:31:16.910" UserId="130" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|permaculture|husbandry|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="421f2424-081d-46a9-a4e2-04bc64c86b49" CreationDate="2013-02-06T04:35:35.840" UserId="130" Text="Where I currently live there aren't many restrictions on types of animals one can raise for food in the city.  I don't think I could practically have cattle, but smaller animals are not a problem.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving aside questions of zoning laws and the like, what sorts of animals should I be considering, assuming I can find a sustainable source of feed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="421f2424-081d-46a9-a4e2-04bc64c86b49" CreationDate="2013-02-06T04:35:35.840" UserId="130" Text="Sustainably raising home-grown meat in a city?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="421f2424-081d-46a9-a4e2-04bc64c86b49" CreationDate="2013-02-06T04:35:35.840" UserId="130" Text="|husbandry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="342" RevisionGUID="5902755a-9f63-4288-beac-8d12dd3976b9" CreationDate="2013-02-06T05:34:46.063" UserId="185" Text="poultry. if you and your family eat animal protein the rewards might be worth it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="343" RevisionGUID="f3d2c5c3-3810-4e7d-ba1d-c4f15ca40408" CreationDate="2013-02-06T05:56:40.323" UserId="130" Text="There is a strong movement to push people away from using incandescent lightbulbs in favor of compact flourescent bulbs in order to save energy, but the pollution profiles of these bulbs are very different.  Incandescents are relatively simple to manufacture, do not involve complex electronics, and do not require mercury vapor and yet they use less energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question here is whether it is more sustainable to try to cut energy usage in other ways and stick with incandescent bulbs (to avoid mercury vapor and needless electronics manufacture) or to accept the fact that even with the best recycling there is additional heavy metal pollution associated with these newer bulbs (at very least some will break before reaching the recycling center)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="343" RevisionGUID="f3d2c5c3-3810-4e7d-ba1d-c4f15ca40408" CreationDate="2013-02-06T05:56:40.323" UserId="130" Text="Long-term sustainability concerns of compact flourescent vs incandescent light bulbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="343" RevisionGUID="f3d2c5c3-3810-4e7d-ba1d-c4f15ca40408" CreationDate="2013-02-06T05:56:40.323" UserId="130" Text="|energy|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="344" RevisionGUID="3ee4b496-8be0-4a59-9a94-a3c2c945466a" CreationDate="2013-02-06T06:58:12.007" UserId="186" Text="In The Netherlands, we can put a sticker on our mailbox. One states No/No, which means you don't want to receive unsollicited mail and also not the non-subscription local newspaper. The other states No/Yes, indicating you do wish to receive the latter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is agreement with the marketing companies and the people who deliver the mail to respect this wish. It works perfectly!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="942" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="e5313b47-d0b3-49bf-aa34-8d5b9d1cb606" CreationDate="2013-02-06T07:29:20.337" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:21,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Daniel Bingham&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:15,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Highly Irregular&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:164,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Mark Booth&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:60,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Peter Ivan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user1205935&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="3cafc096-5dfe-4c00-bfda-0b71ff199d96" CreationDate="2013-02-06T07:32:33.113" UserId="48" Text="Both incandescent and fluorescent are quite old technologies, and have been bettered in terms of efficiency and lifecycle impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, compact fluorescents aren't the only type of fluorescents. So although the compact fluorescents are superior to incandescents anywhere with a high-carbon marginal electricity supply (so almost all the world, in 2013, bar Norway, Iceland and Bhutan), they're not in and of themselves the best in class. And remember that one of the highest resource inputs is of the glass, so an incandescent that lasts only 1000 hours is worse in many ways than a long-life bulb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fluorescents with a separable electronic ballast are superior to those compact fluorescents with built-in ballasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are plenty of LED lamps on the market now that give similar lumens per watt than fluorescents, and with much longer life (5-8 times as long).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For brighter lights, there are SONs with electronic ballasts, that offer very high lumens per watt too. And there are an increasing number of OLED lamps coming out too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incandescents are, in almost every case, a terrible option. For anywhere with a high-carbon marginal electricity supply, **lamp lifetime**, and **lumens per watt**, are your best guide as to first-order environmental impact: higher is better, for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example lumens per watt: (note the overlaps between the ranges)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incandescent: 15  &#xD;&#xA;Fluorescent (compact or otherwise): 40-100  &#xD;&#xA;LED: 20-100  &#xD;&#xA;SON (high-pressure sodium): 80-150&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretical maximum (pure green light): 683" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="346" RevisionGUID="7d041505-ebb6-433b-9618-ab130a79febf" CreationDate="2013-02-06T07:46:02.473" UserId="85" Text="Aquaponics seems to be popular lately. The idea is to grow both vegetables and fish, using the nitrogen-rich fish water for the vegetables. This can be done very small scale and with very limited resources and has the great advantage of using the waste water for something useful. You can build the fish tanks wherever you like, around corners, up on a shelf, whatever. The bigger and intricate, the happier your fish will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chicken, I would say need a garden. Rabbits and guinea pigs don't as much, but are happier with a small garden. Goats are free-minded and like to move a lot, hence need an even bigger garden, I would say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it really all depends on the type of property you have available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="d06f0f9b-eae6-4d01-a1f7-018f4202465d" CreationDate="2013-02-06T08:48:07.033" UserId="188" Text="I've been able to acquire several plastic-framed (&quot;energy-saving&quot;) windows - it appears some contractor messed up the measurements and a whole batch of new custom-made windows for a nearby construction was discarded, then we managed to save quite a few before vandals got a sniff of something safe to break.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be quite easy to add some black-painted insulation backing, draw some black-painted pipes, and add the rest of infrastructure but will it work? How will the &quot;energy-saving&quot; properties of these windows affect such use - will they help keeping the inside very hot, or opposite, will they prevent IR from getting inside?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="950" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="d06f0f9b-eae6-4d01-a1f7-018f4202465d" CreationDate="2013-02-06T08:48:07.033" UserId="188" Text="Solar water heater from plastic windows - what are the considerations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="951" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="d06f0f9b-eae6-4d01-a1f7-018f4202465d" CreationDate="2013-02-06T08:48:07.033" UserId="188" Text="|solar-power|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="74bc0a85-c3f1-477f-8849-021816743e53" CreationDate="2013-02-06T09:09:35.210" UserId="188" Text="I'm planning an installation for heating water using solar &quot;exchanger&quot; panels (solar used to heat water directly, not through electricity). I don't want to bind the reservoir, panel and tap locations to the natural circulation cycle though (hot water traveling up etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in order for this to work, I'd have to force some very slow water circulation between the reservoir and the panels; a pump that takes very little power and provides very small but constant throughput: something with power requirements low enough to make this economically viable, maintenance-proof and preferably silent. On the other hand, the throughput can be very low (the water in the panel must be given enough time to heat up, so I guess even something like 10cc/min is satisfactory) and it will work only with clean, drinking quality water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="953" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="74bc0a85-c3f1-477f-8849-021816743e53" CreationDate="2013-02-06T09:09:35.210" UserId="188" Text="Forcing water circulation in solar hot water installation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="954" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="74bc0a85-c3f1-477f-8849-021816743e53" CreationDate="2013-02-06T09:09:35.210" UserId="188" Text="|solar-power|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="956" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="117" RevisionGUID="547de761-adca-4666-9fc5-d073f7936030" CreationDate="2013-02-06T10:09:04.877" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/299097371818745856" />
  <row Id="960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="231" RevisionGUID="ca301667-499e-4c37-865d-c3b42e38ad83" CreationDate="2013-02-06T10:29:33.553" UserId="96" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="The bacteria in the muck in cold lakes that produce swamp gas live at cooler temperatures ~0-20 °C. [Here's an account of the gathering of psychotrophiles from lakes near Mount Everest](http://solarcities.blogspot.de/2011/06/psychrophilic-methanogenic-bacteria.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you will still want to avoid temperature swings - insulate fermenters. Also, the retention times needed at lower temps are far longer.&#xD;&#xA;With long retention times in a cont. process, the right bacteria will remain in the vessel by themselves. In a batch process, you need to &quot;seed&quot; the fermenter with biologically active material from the last batch.&#xD;&#xA;Mind that whith slower methanogenesis, acid build-up is higher can - you may want to aim for lower OLR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, from what you have written I'm not entirely sure that psychotrophiliacs would solve your problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A typical retention time for psychotrophilic process would be 70-80 days, I did not (yet) find good OLR guidances. 3-5kg/m³d is a good guideline for continuos processes, for a batch process I would aim for a lower loading rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would strongly suggest trying with a lower ratio of substrate to dung, using a lot of digested material as a seed for the next batch, and slowly adding more substrate. You need to &quot;train&quot; your bacteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What else did you try? &#xD;&#xA;Did you measure pH? Could there be poisons in the substrate (antibiotics, heavy metals (Cu), strong nitrogen loads (&gt;7g/kg))? &#xD;&#xA;How long did you wait? &#xD;&#xA;I saw you added dung (good) did you mix it? &#xD;&#xA;What's the estimated OLR? &#xD;&#xA;Did you measure solid and organic solids content?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="351" RevisionGUID="75996de3-e436-4bc4-89a8-34c39963eca0" CreationDate="2013-02-06T10:46:54.697" UserId="106" Text="The answer depends on the region where you are. In Sweden, we don't have a system as nice as in The Netherlands (see [this answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/344/106)), but I simply added a big hand-written note on my door &quot;No advertising please&quot;. It works remarkably well. Advertisers know that if many people get annoyed by their advertising, this harms their cause. Perhaps start a grassroots movement in your area where you all use such notifications and call the sender every time they ignore it; that might just help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether it impacts the total amount of junkmail printed is questionable. An acquaintance lives in a village with a few hundred inhabitants where almost everybody has such a notice. The acquaintance has represented the village and tried many times to convince the sender to send less junkmail, because almost nobody in the village wants to have it. Still, they keep sending it. So ultimately, in this particular case, the notifications do help to remove junkmail from the own mailbox, but not to prevent wasteful production." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="425bf8e7-0f7b-44ad-b314-0b0677157a51" CreationDate="2013-02-06T10:50:01.537" UserId="28" Comment="Clarification of question. " Text="What layers of sealing/insulation/etc are needed when putting a green roof on an existing structure?  Strong preference is for materials that are easily findable/not specialized products. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify - I'm looking for what can be used at every layer - everything in between the standard roof and the standard soil.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="1981af2b-14aa-4bf4-826a-25b97d4b1394" CreationDate="2013-02-06T11:05:35.703" UserId="142" Comment="explaining where i live" Text="I use [Catalog Choice][1] to unsubscribe from catalogs. However, I'm not sure how to stop receiving other junkmail and circulars that routinely come in the mail, such as ValPak coupons, ClipperMagazine, and also solicitations from utilities companies that I don't subscribe to that are vying for my business. Any idea on how I can opt out of this junkmail?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify I live in the Chicagoland area in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(At least the weekly newspaper circular is useful as fireplace kindling.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.catalogchoice.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="b98fc5d2-14cb-4951-bf62-190a4cc3a419" CreationDate="2013-02-06T11:53:11.637" UserId="188" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="I'm planning an installation for heating water using solar &quot;exchanger&quot; panels (solar used to heat water directly, not through electricity). I don't want to bind the reservoir, panel and tap locations to the natural circulation cycle though (hot water traveling up etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in order for this to work, I'd have to force some very slow water circulation between the reservoir and the panels; a pump that takes very little power and provides very small but constant throughput: something with power requirements low enough to make this economically viable, maintenance-proof and preferably silent. On the other hand, the throughput can be very low (the water in the panel must be given enough time to heat up, so I guess even something like 10cc/min is satisfactory) and it will work only with clean, drinking quality water and very low pressures (just enough to have the water moving through pipes, no resistances or height pressure to overcome).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have any idea what pumping mechanism could I use for that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="337" RevisionGUID="46dd4a81-6850-41db-8c30-96be90836ebb" CreationDate="2013-02-06T12:17:22.413" UserId="111" Comment="typo" Text="Before plastic bottles became popular, recycle meant something different than today. It used to mean 'reuse' not 'remanufacture'. I would think reuse of glass bottles would be the most sustainable. Although I'm not aware of any soda manufacturers that reuse bottles in the US, there are dairies that reuse milk bottles now that glass milk bottles are making a comeback at local dairies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="969" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="335" RevisionGUID="3de87c84-9381-4031-842e-75b20f2642f0" CreationDate="2013-02-06T13:09:05.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/299142674261352448" />
  <row Id="970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="c6d2a66b-adc1-4a0e-a685-88500e2ed7a2" CreationDate="2013-02-06T13:13:11.203" UserId="130" Text="In the past when I have grown ginger indoors, I have started it in the summer in a pot of 100% peat moss.  Ginger is very sensitive to changes in humidity and requires very moisture-rich soils (in the tropics, I have grown it outdoors in clay soils).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am concerned about the sustainability of peat moss harvests and looking for alternatives.   I don't think that standard potting soils will be sufficient.  Are there any alternatives I can find, perhaps using recycled paper or the like, that will provide a more sustainable alternative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="c6d2a66b-adc1-4a0e-a685-88500e2ed7a2" CreationDate="2013-02-06T13:13:11.203" UserId="130" Text="Soil mixture for sustainably growing ginger indoors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="c6d2a66b-adc1-4a0e-a685-88500e2ed7a2" CreationDate="2013-02-06T13:13:11.203" UserId="130" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="353" RevisionGUID="72214f3a-3d07-4a89-b59c-52a6f59262b0" CreationDate="2013-02-06T13:22:00.983" UserId="130" Text="I wouldn't grow mushrooms on a balcony.  A cool basement closet is a better choice (disclaimer I want to get more into this but used to have some experience with commercial kits).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step is to research thoroughly the type of mushroom you want to grow.  Different mushrooms require different growing media and have different temperature constraints.  You may also want to weed out mushroom varieties.  Are you looking to rot wood?  Is manure-based mushroom growing acceptable to you?  What temperatures can you commit to, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you get this then the steps are obtaining the media, inoculating it, and growing mushrooms in the innoculated media.  These stages are relatively species-dependent, but if you are looking at where to get started, I hope this will help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the primary resources I would recommend actually are just googling how to grow specific mushrooms, and going to your local library and doing general research there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="354" RevisionGUID="0482cba7-1333-401c-ad7e-a3566ea5969a" CreationDate="2013-02-06T13:31:01.417" UserId="130" Text="I guess the fist thought I had was substituting &quot;sod construction&quot; for earthbag construction.  With sod construction the earth is held together by the internal structure of the roots of the sod rather than external forces of bags.  It has a long and proven history (the Vikings in Greenland and some other places used it for hundreds of years, with only a few problems such as &quot;get that cow off my roof!&quot; and it can provide a thick insulating wall that could at least in theory be coupled with other forms of construction for the interior (beware of wood-earth contact of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sod basically works like earthbags and it should be a drop in substitute with the caveat that there are some limitations on sustainable harvest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="618cd114-d1e1-4397-96a3-5fa327272eb5" CreationDate="2013-02-06T13:48:23.230" UserId="99" Comment="expanded answer (more info on alternatives)" Text="I'm assuming you already have insulation and a support panel in place on your roof's structural beams. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the function of the first layer you add is to make the roof water- and rootproof. Personally, I think the best sealing is simply one layer of [EPDM](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPDM) which you can order in the larger DIY stores (at least you can here in the Netherlands). You simply glue the EPDM to your roof. [This site](http://www.rubber4roofs.co.uk/Training-Centre/) has all the info on how to apply it. Alternatively you can use [bitumen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bituminous_waterproofing) but this is more difficult to DIY and won't last as long as EPDM. Never use zinc, which is not very sustainable anyways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people like to add a protective and/or root-repellant layer on top of the first layer, but in my experience that is not really necessary when you have a good and solid first layer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next comes the drainage layer (4th layer from the top in [this picture](http://www.safeguardeurope.com/diagrams/flat-green-roof-build-up.jpg)). It's purpose is to both hold water and drain superfluous water. On our green roof the drainage mats were included in the package with the growing medium and plants. I'm not sure if you can buy it separately, but it looks something like [this](http://ecobrooklyn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/drainage-mat.jpg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can place a filter fleece on top of the drainage layer to prevent it from clogging. We did this on our roof, but I know several people who didn't and their roof seems to work just fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can add the growing medium and vegetation. Don't forget to place pebbles or stones along the edges of the roof to allow drainage and to make sure that the vegetation won't start growing to places it is not supposed to grow (see for example picture below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![green roof on our shed][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tW8B8.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="b3b26c83-f3f7-45f1-975b-f28666cc4a77" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:17:19.783" UserId="164" Comment="Wikipedia images are shared by attribution, so included the link which makes it attributed. Also added wikipedia link for aquaponics." Text="I am building a new stacked AP ([aquaponics][1]) system, similar to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![A small, portable aquaponics system][2]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I have built bell siphons in the past I am more interested in getting the simplicity of a loop siphon to work on this system.  Does anyone have experience with loop siphons?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered two methods for creation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Take an 18&quot; long 1&quot; pvc pipe, tape off one end, fill with sand, tape off the other end, heat in the stove for 15 minutes, move, and form into a loop&#xD;&#xA; 2. Use lazy 90 degree pipe bends and small 1&quot; sections of pipe to form a loop&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other methods?  Does anyone have any experience with either of these two methods?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaponics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/a8ooP.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Portable_fish_farm_at_growing_power.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="978" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="314" RevisionGUID="b3b26c83-f3f7-45f1-975b-f28666cc4a77" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:17:19.783" Comment="Proposed by 164 approved by 117 edit id of 58" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="355" RevisionGUID="78c31bb8-6abe-4c1d-8dab-1acf04ae80ec" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:23:59.120" UserId="21" Text="My plants are under attack by slugs.  I've heard a number of solutions for slugs over the years.  There's the old beer trap, where you fill a bowl full of beer and leave it out.  This works, but it's not terribly sustainable as you have to remember fill the darn bowl and keep buying beer.  There's the eggshell or Diatomaceous earth method.  Those work a little better, but still wash away and must be replaced over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what permaculture solutions are there to the problem?  What predators do slugs have and what things attract them those predators?  Are there any plants they absolutely hate that could be used to form a barrier between them and the stuff they like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="355" RevisionGUID="78c31bb8-6abe-4c1d-8dab-1acf04ae80ec" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:23:59.120" UserId="21" Text="What Permaculture solutions are there for slugs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="355" RevisionGUID="78c31bb8-6abe-4c1d-8dab-1acf04ae80ec" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:23:59.120" UserId="21" Text="|permaculture|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="79c9ef0b-1296-4455-810f-1451c1d8b62a" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:29:19.850" UserId="21" Text="The property we are gradually developing into a forest garden is absolutely overrun with Purple Winter Creeper (*Euonymus fortunei*).  It's quite the invasive and suffocates most other species in the area.  My first instinct is to just sheet mulch it under.  But what else could we do with it?  What are its uses and functions?  It's pretty fibrous, does it make good rope and what is the process for making rope out of it?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any good ways to contain it or keep it in check?  It's so invasive that I have trouble imagining much competing with it successfully.  It grows as a surface vine so rhizome barriers are of no use here.  Is it worth trying to keep it in check to benefit from its uses or should we just wipe it out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="79c9ef0b-1296-4455-810f-1451c1d8b62a" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:29:19.850" UserId="21" Text="Uses for Winter Creeper (Euonymus fortunei), also know as just Euonymus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="79c9ef0b-1296-4455-810f-1451c1d8b62a" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:29:19.850" UserId="21" Text="|permaculture|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="357" RevisionGUID="3abd3b74-4d25-42a1-819d-ccfa6873892f" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:31:53.123" UserId="21" Text="The old problem of the deer moving into the city.  My neighborhood is overrun.  So far the best solution I've seen to keep them at bay is fences or hedges.  The true permaculture solution would be to simply grow enough that the deer can eat their fill and there's still plenty for you.  But that's not tenable when you're working on a suburban lot and with deer population densities 10x what is found in the wild.  So, short of fences or hedges, anyone got any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="357" RevisionGUID="3abd3b74-4d25-42a1-819d-ccfa6873892f" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:31:53.123" UserId="21" Text="What is a permaculture solution for dealing with deer in a suburban environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="357" RevisionGUID="3abd3b74-4d25-42a1-819d-ccfa6873892f" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:31:53.123" UserId="21" Text="|permaculture|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="355" RevisionGUID="5989c6ed-3c5b-44bb-862c-05fda0c6134e" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:32:58.880" UserId="21" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="My plants are under attack by slugs.  I've heard a number of solutions for slugs over the years.  There's the old beer trap, where you fill a bowl full of beer and leave it out.  This works, but it's not terribly sustainable as you have to remember fill the darn bowl and keep buying beer.  There's the eggshell or Diatomaceous earth method.  Those work a little better, but still wash away and must be replaced over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what permaculture solutions are there to the problem?  What predators do slugs have and what things attract those predators?  Are there any plants they absolutely hate that could be used to form a barrier between them and the stuff they like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="a6ec2fa7-355e-4fc3-8266-9f58461ed3ba" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:36:56.037" UserId="164" Text="Is there an easy way to determine the [U-value (or R-value)][1] of an existing fitted double glazing system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two options spring to mind, looking up the value in some kind of database (sadly I have no idea who the manufacturer of my windows were as my flat had them when I moved in) or trying to measure it experimentally (maybe with a heater on one side and temperature sensors attached to the glass on both sides). As such I was wondering whether such databases even exist, whether measurement is practical or if there were options I hadn't considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-value_%28insulation%29#U-factor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="990" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="a6ec2fa7-355e-4fc3-8266-9f58461ed3ba" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:36:56.037" UserId="164" Text="How can I determine the U-value (or R-value) of my existing double glazing system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="991" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="a6ec2fa7-355e-4fc3-8266-9f58461ed3ba" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:36:56.037" UserId="164" Text="|diy|home|building-physics|glazing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="359" RevisionGUID="2df07cf1-991c-4271-ba5d-f65919d22267" CreationDate="2013-02-06T16:42:55.483" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="Rabbits are a good choice.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a garden as most leafy vegetable greens can be fed to the rabbits.  So that much of the unused part of the plant can be recycled as treats/food for the rabbit.  This is true for dandelions, thistles, and many other weeds that tend to pop up in gardens.  You need to do research on this because rabbit digestive systems are sensitive and feeding them the wrong food can be fatal even if the food is not poisonous.  Avoid foods that are &quot;gassy&quot; foods, like broccoli as rabbits do not pass gas easily so this can be an uncomfortable, sometimes fatal condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can create a worm farm with their droppings.  The worms will speed the composting of the droppings and provide a harvest-able and sustainable crop of earthworms as well as providing an excellent top-soil/fertilizer for your garden.  The droppings can also be applied directly as fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rabbit food is relatively inexpensive and a small herd can reproduce and grow fast enough to supplement a good portion the meat needs of a small family.  It is important to choose the right breed for your climate.  Some rabbits do not tolerate heat well at all.  Most rabbits tolerate in cold so long as their water does not freeze. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [American Rabbit Breeders Association(ARBA)][1] is a group dedicated to the promotion of domestic rabbit breeding.  They have many good sources of information as well as local clubs that can be a resource.  While the ARBA is primarily a show rabbit organization many breeders also raise for meat and can help you get started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.arba.net/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="5e36ed12-584c-4b66-9d57-19961e251f91" CreationDate="2013-02-06T17:05:30.037" UserId="29" Text="I want to re-roof my home, but want to use a sustainable option. Is there a resource where I can compare different sustainable options and find the best choice for my budget and situation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="994" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="5e36ed12-584c-4b66-9d57-19961e251f91" CreationDate="2013-02-06T17:05:30.037" UserId="29" Text="Sustainable Roofing Materials" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="995" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="5e36ed12-584c-4b66-9d57-19961e251f91" CreationDate="2013-02-06T17:05:30.037" UserId="29" Text="|home|building-materials|housing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="361" RevisionGUID="55ceb571-d2d7-4496-a92f-f232152a3526" CreationDate="2013-02-06T17:51:37.130" UserId="115" Text="I know people who control slugs with toads and ducks.  I once read an account of Britons using hedgehogs that were sort of a cross between wild and pets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make your garden friendly to toads by eliminating pesticide use, providing shelter such as broken terracotta half-pots and a water source like a small pond.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can keep ducks as pets or livestock, they'll also control the slug population.  I understand that there are several other birds that will eat slugs so if you attract wild birds with a feeder, you might just get lucky." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="362" RevisionGUID="9e73c740-527b-4f37-9884-950a76e732a5" CreationDate="2013-02-06T17:56:52.423" UserId="115" Text="Also remember that you don't need a SCOBY.  You can just buy a bottle of organic, unflavored kombucha, pour it into a gallon jar, add some sweet tea and wait.  A SCOBY will form without any more effort than that.  So if you don't have a brewing friend and you do have a commercial kombucha that you like, just use that culture your own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="363" RevisionGUID="be347cff-b95a-4e39-8d68-6dab2ddeb518" CreationDate="2013-02-06T17:59:39.993" UserId="21" Text="What is the best input mixture to produce cohesive, strong bricks when using [Open Source Ecology][1]'s [compressed earth brick press][2]?  I've heard that lime and sand should be added to help brick cohesiveness.  What proportions?  Are there other additives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://opensourceecology.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Civilization_Starter_Kit_DVD_v0.01#CEB_Press" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1000" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="363" RevisionGUID="be347cff-b95a-4e39-8d68-6dab2ddeb518" CreationDate="2013-02-06T17:59:39.993" UserId="21" Text="What is the most effective mixture of soil and amendments to use with Open Source Ecology's compressed earth brick press?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1001" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="363" RevisionGUID="be347cff-b95a-4e39-8d68-6dab2ddeb518" CreationDate="2013-02-06T17:59:39.993" UserId="21" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="bb08dd58-d6a3-4f8b-9122-7534b6ebf0cd" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:01:40.087" UserId="21" Text="What Earthen Plaster mixture is least dusty for use on interior walls?  The Earthen plasters I've seen, usually some mixture of earth, manure (horse or cow) and sand are pretty dusty.  They work, but, well, it'd be nice to have a more cohesive mixture for those sensitive to dust." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="bb08dd58-d6a3-4f8b-9122-7534b6ebf0cd" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:01:40.087" UserId="21" Text="What is the least dusty Earthen Plaster mixture to use on interior walls?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="364" RevisionGUID="bb08dd58-d6a3-4f8b-9122-7534b6ebf0cd" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:01:40.087" UserId="21" Text="|construction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="7e7d18c4-3ab0-4fc3-9aab-12a56cf94c97" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:03:44.627" UserId="21" Text="Is there a point (USDA Agricultural zone) at which the heat loss in the winter time through north facing windows is out weighed by the gain in the circulation of cool air during the summer time.  At what point as you move from north to south does it become worth it to have north facing windows?  (Reverse this for the southern hemisphere as you move from south to north.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1006" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="7e7d18c4-3ab0-4fc3-9aab-12a56cf94c97" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:03:44.627" UserId="21" Text="Is the winter time loss of heat from north facing windows and doors ever outweighed by the gain in circulation in summer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1007" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="7e7d18c4-3ab0-4fc3-9aab-12a56cf94c97" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:03:44.627" UserId="21" Text="|thermal-regulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="479a7971-45da-4257-8ae6-975bc9da82c5" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:03:53.253" UserId="29" Comment="expand breadth of potential answers." Text="I want to re-roof my home, but want to use a sustainable option. Is there a resource where I can compare different sustainable options and find the best choice for my budget and situation? I'm trying to avoid e-commerce portals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone offer a comparative analysis of currently available materials?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1009" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="356" RevisionGUID="b4d9993e-0dc4-4c1b-8840-e79a6088ebd6" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:04:11.193" UserId="21" Comment="edited title" Text="Uses for Winter Creeper (Euonymus fortunei), also known as just Euonymus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="96606be8-f3e8-4696-98ee-7947cd0d8cf5" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:41:49.097" UserId="21" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Is there a point ([USDA Agricultural zone][1]) at which the heat loss in the winter time through north facing windows is out weighed by the gain in the circulation of cool air during the summer time.  At what point as you move from north to south does it become worth it to have north facing windows?  (Reverse this for the southern hemisphere as you move from south to north.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardiness_zone#USDA_Hardiness_Zones" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="359" RevisionGUID="b7ef5096-8552-4587-9ce7-415f61127f59" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:59:22.177" UserId="33" Comment="Grammatical edits in several locations" Text="Rabbits are a good choice if you have a garden, as most leafy vegetable greens can be fed to the rabbits. With this approach, much of the unused part of the plant can be recycled as treats/food for the rabbit.  This is true for dandelions, thistles, and many other weeds that tend to pop up in gardens.  You'll need to do research on this because rabbit digestive systems are sensitive and feeding them the wrong food can be fatal even if the food is not poisonous.  Avoid foods that are &quot;gassy&quot; foods like broccoli, as rabbits do not pass gas easily and this can be an uncomfortable, sometimes fatal condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can create a worm farm with their droppings.  The worms will speed the composting of the droppings and provide a harvest-able and sustainable crop of earthworms as well as providing an excellent top-soil/fertilizer for your garden.  The droppings can also be applied directly as fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rabbit food is relatively inexpensive and a small herd can reproduce and grow fast enough to supplement a good portion the meat needs of a small family.  It is important to choose the right breed for your climate.  Some rabbits do not tolerate heat well at all.  Most rabbits tolerate cold so long as their water does not freeze. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [American Rabbit Breeders Association(ARBA)][1] is a group dedicated to the promotion of domestic rabbit breeding.  They have many good sources of information as well as local clubs that can be a resource.  While the ARBA is primarily a show rabbit organization many breeders also raise for meat and can help you get started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.arba.net/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1012" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="359" RevisionGUID="b7ef5096-8552-4587-9ce7-415f61127f59" CreationDate="2013-02-06T18:59:22.177" Comment="Proposed by 33 approved by 141 edit id of 59" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="06279286-b190-423c-8642-5973ec14e8a2" CreationDate="2013-02-06T19:07:28.630" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="367" RevisionGUID="b0925be0-48c7-4d5b-8a2f-817d90e3f77d" CreationDate="2013-02-06T19:07:28.630" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1015" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="357" RevisionGUID="e417d593-3ec3-40a2-a584-fe8a351c4e15" CreationDate="2013-02-06T19:09:05.977" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/299233271504568321" />
  <row Id="1016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="359" RevisionGUID="fe5d77e7-bb92-4abd-bb53-401384a470b3" CreationDate="2013-02-06T19:38:12.690" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Rabbits are a good choice if you have a garden, as most leafy vegetable greens can be fed to the rabbits. With this approach, much of the unused part of the plant can be recycled as treats/food for the rabbit.  This is also true for dandelions, clover, thistles, and many other weeds that tend to pop up in gardens.  You'll need to do research on this because rabbit digestive systems are sensitive and feeding them the wrong food can sometimes be fatal even if the food is not poisonous.  Avoid foods that are &quot;gassy&quot; foods like broccoli, as rabbits do not pass gas easily and this can be an uncomfortable, sometimes fatal condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can create a worm farm with their droppings.  The worms will speed the composting of the droppings and provide a harvest-able and sustainable crop of earthworms as well as providing an excellent top-soil/fertilizer for your garden.  The droppings can also be applied directly to your garden as fertilizer as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rabbit food is relatively inexpensive and a small herd can reproduce and grow fast enough to supplement a good portion the meat needs of a small family.  It is important to choose the right breed for your climate.  Some rabbits do not tolerate heat well at all.  Most rabbits tolerate cold so long as their water does not freeze. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [American Rabbit Breeders Association(ARBA)][1] is a group dedicated to the promotion of domestic rabbit breeding.  They have many good sources of information as well as local clubs that can be a resource.  While the ARBA is primarily a show rabbit organization many breeders also raise for meat and can help you get started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.arba.net/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="368" RevisionGUID="3ca49431-be44-4249-acc7-6dd1a713ea70" CreationDate="2013-02-06T19:48:59.847" UserId="66" Text="1. Make up a batch of [bone sauce](http://hines.blogspot.com/2012/05/sepp-holzers-bone-saucesalve-how-to-for.html) and apply it to your tree trunks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; The first pot is buried in moist soil leaving an inch or two above ground. The second, upper, pot if filled with bones and a screen goes between the two pots. Clay seals the pots. A small fire is burned on top of the pots for about two hours. Then the wood is pulled away and the pots are covered with dirt. Let the pots cool overnight. Carefully clean all of the dirt off so that no dirt ends up in the bone sauce / salve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Grow plants that deer don't like. They didn't touch my garlic last spring, but they ate everything else... it's rumored that planting garlic around trees might keep them away, I don't know how well this works if there's a lot of feeding pressure.&#xD;&#xA;1. Grow lots of plants that deer *do* like as a distraction to keep them from the stuff you want for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;1. Grow &quot;deer resistant&quot; plants. Elderberries are supposed to tolerate being munched just about to the ground -- the roots will send up new canes.&#xD;&#xA;1. Get a dog; you'll still need a fence to keep the dog contained, but the requirements for a dog-proof fence are easier to meet than the requirements for a deer-proof fence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also questions where this has come up on gardening.SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [What is the best way to keep deer away?](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/3945/51)&#xD;&#xA;* [What is the best way to prevent animals from eating my garden without a fence?](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/615/51)&#xD;&#xA;* [What is the best way to keep deer away?](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/3945/51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the [bottom line answer](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/3945/51) from that last question is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You will also find suggestions to use bars of soap, human hair, dogs or getting a hunting licence. These will work for some deer, some of the time but if you want a solution for all of the deer, all of the time you need a fence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not suburban, but I have a *lot* of deer pressure, and the only thing that works for me is a fence (and it has to be a *good* fence)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="359" RevisionGUID="6bf67a5f-4558-4fec-a03a-b37dcfb0a704" CreationDate="2013-02-06T20:19:24.903" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Rabbits are a good choice if you have a garden, as most leafy vegetable greens can be fed to the rabbits. With this approach, much of the unused part of the plant can be recycled as treats/food for the rabbit.  This is also true for dandelions, clover, thistles, and many other weeds that tend to pop up in gardens.  You'll need to do research on this because rabbit digestive systems are sensitive and feeding them the wrong food can sometimes be fatal even if the food is not poisonous.  Avoid foods that are &quot;gassy&quot; foods like broccoli, as rabbits do not pass gas easily and this can be an uncomfortable, sometimes fatal condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can create a worm farm with their droppings.  The worms will speed the composting of the droppings and provide a harvest-able and sustainable crop of earthworms as well as providing an excellent top-soil/fertilizer for your garden.  The droppings can also be applied directly to your garden as fertilizer as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rabbit food is relatively inexpensive and a small herd can reproduce and grow fast enough to supplement a good portion the meat needs of a small family.  It is important to choose the right breed for your climate.  Some rabbits do not tolerate heat well at all.  Most rabbits tolerate cold so long as their water does not freeze. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [American Rabbit Breeders Association(ARBA)][1] is a group dedicated to the promotion of domestic rabbit breeding in the US.  They have many good sources of information as well as local clubs that can be a resource.  While the ARBA is primarily a show rabbit organization many breeders also raise for meat and can help you get started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.arba.net/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="f36a59c3-652b-4236-9091-bfe80a4aa3c2" CreationDate="2013-02-06T20:26:15.940" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="I would like to convert my current rain gutter system into a collection and recycling process.  Currently the water is just runoff and ends up in the storm sewer creating more work for my cities aging and already overburdened infrastructure.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way that I can collect this water, filter it naturally, and recycle the water in a sustainable way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="f36a59c3-652b-4236-9091-bfe80a4aa3c2" CreationDate="2013-02-06T20:26:15.940" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="How should I collect and convert drain water into drinking water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="f36a59c3-652b-4236-9091-bfe80a4aa3c2" CreationDate="2013-02-06T20:26:15.940" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="|water|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="371" RevisionGUID="fbdcc1eb-46a9-453e-9aa2-2f1db3a9b6a4" CreationDate="2013-02-06T20:28:15.287" UserId="199" Text="There shouldn't be a big difference in annual energy production between mono and poly in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three main factors that influence energy production of solar panels in real life are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - temperature coefficients (given at the data sheet)&#xD;&#xA; - the efficiency at low light conditions (should be given at the data sheet as the drop against nominal efficiency at 200 W/m^2)&#xD;&#xA; - the spectral response (mostly not given at the data sheet)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these factors are significantly different for both technologies, while&#xD;&#xA;they may differ from one module type to another.&#xD;&#xA;However it is difficult to differentiate between modules given the information on the data sheet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monocrystalline modules in general have a higher nominal efficiency, what could be interesting if you want / need to install as much power as you can. On the other hand they are in general more expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other factors that may be more important:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the price of a Kilo Watt peak &#xD;&#xA; - guaranties, power guaranties and the reputation of the manufacturer&#xD;&#xA;   (the modules have to produce energy over 20 or more years) &#xD;&#xA; - an installer that is available in the case of failures / maintenance&#xD;&#xA; - the dimensioning of the inverter with respect to the installed module power&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(and some more) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="371" RevisionGUID="8dd15eab-b0bb-4105-9831-c1de120f339f" CreationDate="2013-02-06T20:34:35.443" UserId="199" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="There shouldn't be a big difference in annual energy production between mono and poly in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three main factors that influence energy production of solar panels in real life are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - temperature coefficients (given at the data sheet)&#xD;&#xA; - the efficiency at low light conditions (should be given at the data sheet as the drop against nominal efficiency at 200 W/m^2)&#xD;&#xA; - the spectral response (mostly not given at the data sheet)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these factors are significantly different for both technologies, while&#xD;&#xA;they may differ from one module type to another.&#xD;&#xA;However it is difficult to differentiate between module types in general and especially based on the information given on the data sheet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monocrystalline modules in general have a higher nominal efficiency, what could be interesting if you want / need to install as much power as you can. On the other hand they are in general more expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other factors that may be more important:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the price of a Kilo Watt peak &#xD;&#xA; - guaranties, power guaranties and the reputation of the manufacturer&#xD;&#xA;   (the modules have to produce energy over 20 or more years) &#xD;&#xA; - an installer that is available in the case of failures / maintenance&#xD;&#xA; - the dimensioning of the inverter with respect to the installed module power&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(and some more) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="e1fa7aed-3308-4a3b-9a2b-a0f98ffff23c" CreationDate="2013-02-06T21:20:43.450" UserId="72" Text="So I want to put in several raised beds in my garden, surrounded by a green&#xD;&#xA;ground cover that will stand up to my 3 dogs. Something that is both tougher and uses less water than grass (I live in a mediterranean climate). Any suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;I have heard white clover may be a solution, but my understanding is that grows quite tall..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1026" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="e1fa7aed-3308-4a3b-9a2b-a0f98ffff23c" CreationDate="2013-02-06T21:20:43.450" UserId="72" Text="What's a good green ground cover that uses less water than a lawn?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1027" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="e1fa7aed-3308-4a3b-9a2b-a0f98ffff23c" CreationDate="2013-02-06T21:20:43.450" UserId="72" Text="|gardening|water-conservation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="4fb43d65-65db-4091-a5ba-e6844399a838" CreationDate="2013-02-06T21:53:08.853" UserId="33" Comment="added 1155 characters in body" Text="Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an established method for quantifying impacts - often environmental - of a product, process or service's total supply chain. This means looking not only at use, but also at production of raw materials (referred to as the cradle), processing and transportation, and eventual disposal (grave). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions with this tag should focus on comparing possible options based on environmental impacts, or how impacts may vary depending on the supply chain choices - say, recycling paper vs. composting it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The method has been formalized by ISO in the 14040 standards, and can include many different impacts, of which carbon footprints are the most well-known. Other impact categories include [ecotoxicity][1], [eutrophication][2], and various human health categories, as well as resource accounting for water or energy consumption. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related but separate fields include life-cycle costing and material flow analysis, which take a similarly wide perspective but a different method, and are used for answering different questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wikipedia.org/ecotoxicity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wikipedia.org/eutrophication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1029" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="4fb43d65-65db-4091-a5ba-e6844399a838" CreationDate="2013-02-06T21:53:08.853" Comment="Proposed by 33 approved by 117 edit id of 60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="367" RevisionGUID="5360f539-9c0a-4167-b4ec-ed823657e331" CreationDate="2013-02-06T21:53:13.363" UserId="33" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="LCA is a method for quantifying the impacts of a product, process, or service over its entire supply chain. Carbon footprinting is a well-known subset of LCA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1031" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="367" RevisionGUID="5360f539-9c0a-4167-b4ec-ed823657e331" CreationDate="2013-02-06T21:53:13.363" Comment="Proposed by 33 approved by 117 edit id of 61" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1032" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="a1e5baf1-b046-4409-b428-22ce74f76fa9" CreationDate="2013-02-06T22:03:29.977" UserId="33" Comment="edited tags" Text="|externalities|life-cycle-analysis|hybrid-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="373" RevisionGUID="e3106f12-a602-401b-b8af-41074525541f" CreationDate="2013-02-06T22:07:57.583" UserId="60" Text="The most common automatic light switch is a [PIR][1] sensor. I've looked up technical parameters of several such sensors. The idle (sensing) power consumption of most of them is 0.1 W. Some of them have the idle power consumption of up to 0.3 W and I believe some older ones could consume even 1 W. The active power consumption of the sensor is higher, but it's still only a fraction of the CFL's power consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Running them for 24 hours, one week, one month or a year is summed in the table:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;      Appliance      | Nom. power | Wh per 24h | Wh a week | Wh a month | kWh a year&#xD;&#xA;     ----------------+------------+------------+-----------+------------+------------&#xD;&#xA;      Efficient PIR  |      0.1 W |     2.4 Wh |   16.8 Wh |      72 Wh |    0.9 kWh&#xD;&#xA;      Worse PIR      |      0.3 W |     7.2 Wh |   50.4 Wh |     216 Wh |    2.6 kWh&#xD;&#xA;      Rather old PIR |        1 W |      24 Wh |    168 Wh |     720 Wh |      9 kWh&#xD;&#xA;      Mid light CFL  |       15 W |     360 Wh |   2.5 kWh |   10.8 kWh |&#xD;&#xA;      Poweful CFL    |       27 W |     648 Wh |   4.5 kWh |   19.4 kWh |&#xD;&#xA;      Mid light LED  |        7 W |     168 Wh |   1.2 kWh |      5 kWh |&#xD;&#xA;     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- using an **effective PIR sensor for a year compares to forgetting a CFL on for 3 days**&#xD;&#xA;- using a **not-so-good PIR for a year is equivalent to letting a CFL on for a week**, or even less&#xD;&#xA;- even if not asked I included a LED light: its weekly usage compares to a year of activity of an effective PIR sensor.&#xD;&#xA;- the old &amp; power hungry automatic switches should be avoided&#xD;&#xA;- our ability to forget the lights on differs but seems to be sustainable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_infrared_sensor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="374" RevisionGUID="29ef2042-0e34-4d2f-bda5-6ef7f6ceba4d" CreationDate="2013-02-06T22:08:35.757" UserId="27" Text="The ideal sustainable ground cover will:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. require minimal watering, once established&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. enrich the soil with nitrogen (for most soils)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. build topsoil, aka green manure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. tolerate foot traffic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Produce food (in lawns; in your case, only in the foot-traffic area)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crimson clover is a popular choice, as it's nitrogen-fixing, soft underfoot, and feeds bees -- if you keep bees, they will pollinate your other plans, and you can harvest honey. However, because its flowers are very low, walking on it barefoot carries a real risk of bee stings (been there!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your dogs pee in the area, a nitrogen fixer may not be a good choice. Already plenty of nitrogen from the pee, so these plants won't thrive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really like grass, there are a few things you can do to make it more sustainable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- pick a slow-growing variety, so you can mow less often&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- set your mower blade high. The grass will be healthier, need less water, and compete with weeds better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- water less often, but more deeply. The trick is to get the water to soak in deep, so the grass roots reach down to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1035" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="103" RevisionGUID="1c59b7c1-159a-4ae4-b059-fa0f6a423931" CreationDate="2013-02-06T22:09:05.533" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/299278569375416321" />
  <row Id="1036" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="2f5b1f97-9891-4b8a-8d8d-2ccf26905018" CreationDate="2013-02-06T22:10:23.647" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="edited title" Text="How should I collect and convert rain water into drinking water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="375" RevisionGUID="8b63b09f-07d3-4894-be17-943d0bdb6b27" CreationDate="2013-02-06T22:22:00.363" UserId="27" Text="A detailed answer is probably beyond the scope of Stack Exchange, but here's an introduction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hard thing about collecting rainwater from your gutters is that it gets **dirty when it hits your roof**. If you have a **metal**, slate, or clay roof it's cleaner than roofs based on oil products, but it still needs cleaning before drinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest approach is to use that water for other purposes - **watering the garden**, washing clothes, even bathing, and continue to use fresh tap water for drinking. Using a Humanure system will further reduce the amount of fresh water you use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very sustainable approach to purifying rainwater is a **slow sand filter**. It's a simple technology, using easy-to-obtain elements (a barrel, sand, etc.), and anyone can set one up. They do require regular attention and maintenance. Here's one site to get you started: http://www.shared-source-initiative.com/biosand_filter/complete_biosand.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Storing water** is also going to be an issue: in most places there are wet seasons and dry seasons. If you want to save water for the dry season, you're going to have to find a place to put a large container. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck, and consider blogging what you do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="346" RevisionGUID="863dab0f-cf09-41ba-be54-9dc74a367644" CreationDate="2013-02-06T23:35:31.470" UserId="85" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="Aquaponics seems to be popular lately. The idea is to grow both vegetables and fish, using the nitrogen-rich fish water for the vegetables. This can be done very small scale and with very limited resources and has the great advantage of using the waste water for something useful. You can build the fish tanks wherever you like, around corners, up on a shelf, whatever. The bigger and intricate, the happier your fish will be. (Travis Hughey's &quot;[Barrel-Ponics](http://barrel-ponics.com/)&quot; should get you going. There is a free PDF with instructions and pictures available via the linked website.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chicken, I would say need a garden. Rabbits and guinea pigs don't as much, but are happier with a small garden. Goats are free-minded and like to move a lot, hence need an even bigger garden, I would say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it really all depends on the type of property you have available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="377" RevisionGUID="388e58ed-fc60-4297-a58f-cf593ebe40cf" CreationDate="2013-02-07T02:17:51.130" UserId="130" Text="Many, many plants can be made into rope.  These range from sunflower, to nettles, to jute.  The process is quite complex and requires some knowledge, practice, or more expensive equipment.  I have a student in another endeavor who taught herself spinning and weaving and I have had some discussions with her on this as well as this having been an interest of mine for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic process of extracting fibers from plants additionally poses some sustainability problems if not well managed (there were significant laws passed in the Middle Ages to keep people from fowling the rivers and streams making linen) but if managed reasonably well can provide some additional nutrients for your plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step is to cut the plant, and you may want to strip the leaves to compost them separately.  Next you take the stems and ferment them under fresh water until the fibers start to separate. Discard the water (perhaps onto your garden).  The next step is to pound the retted stems until the fibers are separate, and then spin them into twine.  The twine can then be &quot;plied&quot; into rope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spinning either requires use of a drop spindle (which requires significant practice but the tool easy to improvise) or a spinning wheel (more maintenance, more complexity in the tool, easier use but still requires practice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally am I right that this is an annual?  if so you might consider, instead of sheeting it under, seeing it as an initial temporal layer in the garden while perennials are becoming better established." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="377" RevisionGUID="a1b696a3-7489-4498-bf3f-646c17c7a390" CreationDate="2013-02-07T03:49:59.820" UserId="130" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="Many, many plants can be made into rope.  These range from sunflower, to nettles, to jute.  The process is quite complex and requires some knowledge, practice, or more expensive equipment.  I have a student in another endeavor who taught herself spinning and weaving and I have had some discussions with her on this as well as this having been an interest of mine for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic process of extracting fibers from plants additionally poses some sustainability problems if not well managed (there were significant laws passed in the Middle Ages to keep people from fowling the rivers and streams making linen) but if managed reasonably well can provide some additional nutrients for your plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first step is to cut the plant, and you may want to strip the leaves to compost them separately.  Next you take the stems and ferment them under fresh water until the fibers start to separate. Discard the water (perhaps onto your garden).  The next step is to pound the retted stems until the fibers are separate, and then spin them into twine.   I don't think that the fibers need to be combed between pounding and spinning, since they should start off parallel, but don't quote me on that. The twine can then be &quot;plied&quot; into rope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spinning either requires use of a drop spindle (which requires significant practice but the tool easy to improvise) or a spinning wheel (more maintenance, more complexity in the tool, easier use but still requires practice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally am I right that this is an annual?  if so you might consider, instead of sheeting it under, seeing it as an initial temporal layer in the garden while perennials are becoming better established." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="378" RevisionGUID="4098da80-f050-4db9-b57a-f4a454762cf4" CreationDate="2013-02-07T03:54:59.570" UserId="66" Text="*[Trifolium repens](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifolium_repens)* (white clover) only grows to about 6&quot; tall and tolerates mowing and foot traffic. It also does well in mixes with grass -- it fixes nitrogen from the air, so helps to feed the grass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option to consider is to let the lawn go wild a bit and see which weeds flourish. Choose those that you like the best, harvest seeds, and scatter them around. You'll end up with the ground cover that is best suited to your particular environment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1045" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5" RevisionGUID="b8c85a4f-353a-497a-84c0-cb58fc32fa90" CreationDate="2013-02-07T04:09:06.970" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/299369171299471360" />
  <row Id="1047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="380" RevisionGUID="8768a711-b35f-4568-aa50-9f7a97f43071" CreationDate="2013-02-07T05:32:50.443" UserId="130" Text="As soon as you have moving parts, you can no longer have it maintenance-free.  Moving parts wear out eventually.  On the height pressure issue your panels will probably be on your roof and your reservoir somewhat lower.  We can probably disregard the height pressure for operational reasons but if you ever get air in the system you will want to be able to overcome that pressure.  There are a few ways to do this (including of course using the height pressure from the municipal water supply to beat the heigh pressure of the house).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The simplest solution is a small electric motor to drive the water pump.  I suppose if you want it off-grid, you could hook that up to a PV cell as after all you only need it running when the sun is out.  Water pumps are pretty simple devices and there are only a few types out there.  If you break apart a commercial model or two you should get a pretty good idea of how they work.  The only hard part is keeping the motor sealed so water doesn't get in and short things out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1048" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="372" RevisionGUID="09ed37fb-728b-44d0-8abc-7474804894fb" CreationDate="2013-02-07T07:09:06.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/299414469967224832" />
  <row Id="1049" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="341" RevisionGUID="6d19ad48-58ae-4c1d-a88b-55b19f6c5651" CreationDate="2013-02-07T10:09:07.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/299459768857268226" />
  <row Id="1050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="381" RevisionGUID="a3dd281c-d630-4183-a200-8d1f80c48b8b" CreationDate="2013-02-07T11:11:17.680" UserId="136" Text="Nature's solution to an overpopulation problem would be predators or disease.&#xD;&#xA;Introducing a wolf or two to the area would help cull the herd a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm less comfortable with the suggestion of spreading a deer-soecific disease, as it has a much higher likelihood of losing control.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="382" RevisionGUID="b36f8aec-a118-446b-86a6-4b9348a8f227" CreationDate="2013-02-07T11:37:47.787" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="383" RevisionGUID="af0a6918-ab37-4041-be37-f4f1ae5005be" CreationDate="2013-02-07T11:37:47.787" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="384" RevisionGUID="01dabcca-8343-4252-9209-ffcf0d53ee14" CreationDate="2013-02-07T11:50:36.390" UserId="130" Text="Either method will work.  Your primary consideration is simply keeping air out of the siphon while it is operational.  If you can heat and bend this has the advantage of avoiding joints which might eventually be weak points, but the joint and glue approach has the advantage of being more flexible to repurpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it were me, I would choose the join and glue method.  It is somewhat less reliable but it is simpler to set up and simpler to adjust.  This may be somewhat of a preference towards modular construction however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply put:  heating and bending is harder, and it ensures you have a single piece, and it is more conceptually complex.  Joining and gluing is easier, less robust, and easier to assemble.  Your choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="385" RevisionGUID="8cb1bcad-1473-49c0-b7b9-120821c53d85" CreationDate="2013-02-07T12:25:52.100" UserId="48" Text="There isn't a single point.  Circumstances vary widely, and depend on the detail of individual design. There are, however, well-established mechanisms to evaluate any single building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best-established of these is the [Passivhaus Planning Package][1], or [PHPP][2], which will do the full set of calculations for a given dwelling design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for using North-facing windows in the Northern hemisphere for cooling, that's a pretty bad way to do things.  Preventing solar gain in the first place is far more effective, for example by using external window shutters or roof overhangs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;picture courtesy of [PassivDesign.org][4]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.passivhaustagung.de/Passive_House_E/PHPP.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.passiv.de/de/04_phpp/03_sprachen/03_sprachen.php&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpnaG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://passivedesign.org/images/Principles%20of%20Passive%20Design.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1056" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="365" RevisionGUID="c9a64053-071a-43f7-80c2-b70e216c78a5" CreationDate="2013-02-07T12:54:27.703" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="|building-physics|thermal-regulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="e18ef7fc-eee0-415e-9496-28ca5549ca28" CreationDate="2013-02-07T14:32:46.777" UserId="20" Comment="added 704 characters in body" Text="One related difference between keeping heat in or out relates to the climate.  In very warm and humid areas such as Florida, you place the vapor barrier on the exterior side of the insulation, whereas, in cooler climates that are not so humid, you place the vapor barrier on the interior side of the insulation.  A vapor barrier can be as simple as a sheet of something like plastic or aluminum which water can not pass through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for needing a vapor barrier is that when air passes through the insulation from the warm side to the cool side, it is cooling.  As the temperature drops through the insulation, same of the water vapor will condense causing the insulation to be wet.  Fiber glass insulation that is wet does not insulate as well as dry insulation as the water helps to conduct heat through the insulation.  To make matters worse, the wetness can then reach the cool wall and water condensation can now form on that wall leading it to rot due to bacteria growing in the now damp environment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="383" RevisionGUID="9da32e7e-e655-4f55-a666-2476e2be3dc4" CreationDate="2013-02-07T15:29:10.530" UserId="48" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="The application of physics to the built environment, particularly with regard to the movement of heat, air, moisture, pollutants and light through buildings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1060" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="383" RevisionGUID="9da32e7e-e655-4f55-a666-2476e2be3dc4" CreationDate="2013-02-07T15:29:10.530" Comment="Proposed by 48 approved by 117 edit id of 62" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="386" RevisionGUID="c9cc1a34-bfb7-44af-ae4e-e504ce30f69f" CreationDate="2013-02-07T15:39:20.977" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="387" RevisionGUID="e73ab4a9-6fd1-48d2-b33a-74a06b919155" CreationDate="2013-02-07T15:39:20.977" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="388" RevisionGUID="a7004a44-81e1-4223-a665-93eb7011cccd" CreationDate="2013-02-07T15:57:12.453" UserId="130" Text="The most sustainable way to professionally clean your carpet is not to.  It's a lot easier to sustainably clean wood, tile, or stone, so to the extent you can, the best thing to be thinking about is replacing carpet with more sustainable flooring generally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I don't think that's what you had in mind, and so I will discuss alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;National Geographic [recommends](http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/nontoxic-carpet-cleaning-solutions-2640.html) looking for the seal of approval of the Carpet and Rug Institute but something about these ideas of trusting advocacy groups to rein in corporations makes me a bit suspicious long-term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am generally suspicious of large green enterprises.  I would suggest in fact going the opposite route, and talking with a small business, and asking to work with them to sustainably clean your home.  Ask if they could try a vinegar and water treatment via their steam cleaning machines.  The worst they can say is no. Keep trying around until you get someone who is interested in working with you and is willing to put in some of the research time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1064" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1" RevisionGUID="0390d377-b308-4c62-a351-c9836527e4b7" CreationDate="2013-02-07T16:09:09.000" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/299550374778527744" />
  <row Id="1065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="b96029be-e802-494a-9bdd-f624d131ef48" CreationDate="2013-02-07T16:46:10.183" UserId="66" Text="Possibly of interest: [What are some sustainable alternatives to peat for potting compost?](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/1483/51), several answers there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR: my favorite substitute for peat is fully-composted horse manure (with a wood-based bedding product), holds water a lot like peat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting my answer from that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My (peat-free) recipe for potting soil is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    5 gal sifted garden soil  &#xD;&#xA;    5 gal sifted mature horse manure compost (we use a wood-based bedding   product, and the compost has some of the desirable properties of peat)  &#xD;&#xA;    5 gal coarse sand  &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;sprinkling&quot; of equal parts lime, greensand, and rock phosphate -- strength depending on what I'm potting  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Depending on what I'm planting and how much I have, sometimes I substitute sifted garden compost for all or part of the horse manure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I arrived at this recipe because the major components are free, it uses what I have on hand (it's basically impossible to run out of anything but fertilizer), and it has been very successful for getting seedlings off to a strong start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Based on what you have available locally (this is the essence of sustainability), experiment starting with my recipe or something similar and develop your own potting recipe. Nothing that comes from a Big Box is really all that sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="387" RevisionGUID="bdde9d4b-71b5-4f55-9986-4592d6a237ef" CreationDate="2013-02-07T17:47:08.677" UserId="28" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="Food processing technique using microorganisms to provide a food richer in nutrients, to create alcohol, or to preserve the food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1067" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="387" RevisionGUID="bdde9d4b-71b5-4f55-9986-4592d6a237ef" CreationDate="2013-02-07T17:47:08.677" Comment="Proposed by 28 approved by 117 edit id of 64" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="386" RevisionGUID="a33f35af-051e-4638-a827-8600de57c9ca" CreationDate="2013-02-07T17:47:12.233" UserId="28" Comment="added 530 characters in body" Text="Fermentation is a food processing technique where microorganisms (bacteria or yeast) are used to process the food.  The microorganism consume sugars, and produce carbon dioxide, lactic acid, or alcohol. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fermentation is used to naturally increase the nutritional content of foods, or the bioavailability of existing nutrients.  It is also used in food preservation and in the making of alcoholic beverages like beer and wine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notable fermented foods are yogurt, kimchi, sauerkraut, miso, kombucha, and sourdough bread. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1069" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="386" RevisionGUID="a33f35af-051e-4638-a827-8600de57c9ca" CreationDate="2013-02-07T17:47:12.233" Comment="Proposed by 28 approved by 117 edit id of 63" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1070" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="370" RevisionGUID="5d6cd4cd-48bd-4529-888c-7784d7f5cd93" CreationDate="2013-02-07T19:09:09.317" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/299595672724832256" />
  <row Id="1071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="390" RevisionGUID="bad51282-33a0-4ea9-86c7-4a8401bee3b2" CreationDate="2013-02-07T20:39:30.210" UserId="40" Text="I drive a 2003 Volkswagen Jetta with a 1.9 liter turbo-diesel engine.  I often get well over 50mpg on the high way, and I love the fact that I have such a fuel-efficient car that is also fun to drive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few months ago, my check-engine light came on, and my local mechanic told me the [EGR](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas_recirculation) was bad. He suggested I could remove it (which I did).  I did a bit of research on the issue, primarily concerned with the environmental impact of removing the EGR.  I came to the conclusion that I wasn't really sure, but that the environmental pros and cons were nearly a wash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the EGR is mandated by U.S. emissions standards, with the purpose of reducing [NOx](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx) emissions. Although I have read claims that this is likely a [misguided effort](http://tdiclub.com/TDIFAQ/TDiFAQ-5.html).  Also, the addition of an EGR also increases other emissions.  If my rusty memory serves, removing the EGR allows for more complete combustion, resulting in lower particulate emissions... And less restrictive airflow also improves engine performance slightly (by up to 2HP at high RPM for this engine, if memory serves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And lastly, the removal of the EGR means I never have to clean the soot out of my intake manifolds again, which means fewer chemical cleaners, and less maintenance cost over the lifetime of my vehicle.  And no EGR means the EGR can't break and need to be replaced again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So all things considered, and legalities aside, is an EGR (specifically in a 2003 VW TDI engine) an environmental gain or loss?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1072" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="390" RevisionGUID="bad51282-33a0-4ea9-86c7-4a8401bee3b2" CreationDate="2013-02-07T20:39:30.210" UserId="40" Text="Is my car more sustainable with or without an EGR?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1073" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="390" RevisionGUID="bad51282-33a0-4ea9-86c7-4a8401bee3b2" CreationDate="2013-02-07T20:39:30.210" UserId="40" Text="|vehicle|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="391" RevisionGUID="18bf5341-9eab-4171-be89-7c7ad597b962" CreationDate="2013-02-07T21:28:36.983" UserId="85" Text="For a thermos flask, insulation will both keep in cold and keep out warm &amp; keep out cold and keep in warm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A house is different, because it has windows. Sunlight is warmth that can pass through windows. So, to keep your house warm, you should have windows that let in enough sunlight and make sure that you keep the warmth by proper insulating your house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To keep your house cool, you should try to let in little sunlight, and any warmth that creeps in should be able to escape through open windows, say. If you want your house even cooler, you have to use air-conditioning. Then, you need to insulate your house to keep the house cool and put something in front of your windows (outside!), like &quot;green curtains&quot; (e.g. bitter melon)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1075" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="38" RevisionGUID="35714706-b6c8-4c1a-85c6-85abe1b76f91" CreationDate="2013-02-07T22:09:09.153" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/299640971384201218" />
  <row Id="1077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="393" RevisionGUID="8c28df56-6e2c-41de-82c3-acb229397539" CreationDate="2013-02-07T22:23:38.210" UserId="29" Text="[Toby][1] suggested planting some fast growing non-delicious species around the perimeter, perhaps crabapple.  That way, the deer will stick to those instead of eating your food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.patternliteracy.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="117edb0c-2a14-471c-bb4d-613773bc033a" CreationDate="2013-02-07T22:29:36.690" UserId="29" Text="I think a sustainable choice would be to start producing my own food in my backyard. To achieve year round production, I'll need a greenhouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What size greenhouse should I expect to need in order to feed a family of 4? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can I expect as far as potential yield per sq/ft?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="117edb0c-2a14-471c-bb4d-613773bc033a" CreationDate="2013-02-07T22:29:36.690" UserId="29" Text="Dimensions for greenhouse to feed a family of 4?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="117edb0c-2a14-471c-bb4d-613773bc033a" CreationDate="2013-02-07T22:29:36.690" UserId="29" Text="|construction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="be920caa-ddb3-49c7-8589-1c87582c1b36" CreationDate="2013-02-07T22:30:45.010" UserId="146" Comment="Changed the title to be clearer" Text="I live in a major metropolitan area in the United States, and we have a municipal recycling pick-up program.  They advise us to wash food containers prior to putting them in our bins, and if an item takes &quot;too much water&quot; to wash, that it's better to throw it away instead. What are the differences in the ecological impact between using more water to wash-out a difficult-to-clean item (e.g. a plastic peanut butter jar) vs. throwing it away?  My gut feeling was that it would objectively be better to use more water to wash an item so that it could (possibly) be recycled than it would be to conserve water and have it (ultimately) end up in a landfill, but I don't have any background to evaluate one way or the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** I changed the title of the question in response to some answers and comments.  It used to be &quot;Is it more sustainable to save water or to recycle&quot;, which hid the assumption that I would use potable water, and which wasn't clear that I was asking about recycling waste (not water)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1082" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="be920caa-ddb3-49c7-8589-1c87582c1b36" CreationDate="2013-02-07T22:30:45.010" UserId="146" Comment="Changed the title to be clearer" Text="Is it sustainable or necessary to use potable water to wash waste before recycling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="395" RevisionGUID="4308b390-e318-4a6d-b994-63c7f12be677" CreationDate="2013-02-07T23:04:35.510" UserId="210" Text="You could put in an additive (like cooked flour paste) or use a finish layer to protect and keep the dust down. Here is a Wikipedia for some more info http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthen_plaster&#xD;&#xA;I remember another source of info but can not find it. I will update this answer if I can find it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="dbf92d45-3a5a-4fea-955b-55486cc13e01" CreationDate="2013-02-08T00:41:01.703" UserId="16" Text="Our office occupies one floor of a 4-story hundred year old building.  We are making tenant improvements to our space, and are interested in lowering and monitoring our energy use, but are unable to install submetering or take significant savings for any changes we make, since we pay a flat percentage of the overall building’s utilities.  We are currently not able to make massive systems changes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are recommendations for energy monitoring without full blown submetering?  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="dbf92d45-3a5a-4fea-955b-55486cc13e01" CreationDate="2013-02-08T00:41:01.703" UserId="16" Text="How to monitor energy use in existing office building without submetering?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="dbf92d45-3a5a-4fea-955b-55486cc13e01" CreationDate="2013-02-08T00:41:01.703" UserId="16" Text="|energy|electricity|energy-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="6922313b-404b-4725-aacb-ca7148bd4c7e" CreationDate="2013-02-08T01:06:04.803" UserId="29" Comment="help clarify what will come out of the greenhouse" Text="I think a sustainable choice would be to start producing my own food in my backyard. To achieve year round production, I'll need a greenhouse. We enjoy lots of vegetables and salads on a daily basis, and will be using this as a supplement to our animal based protein diet (so it won't be the only source of food).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What size greenhouse should I expect to need in order to feed a family of 4? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can I expect as far as potential yield per sq/ft?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="397" RevisionGUID="eab41c80-a9e3-4a57-93ee-90627c4b329a" CreationDate="2013-02-08T01:41:48.820" UserId="21" Text="This probably depends on exactly how long your winter is.  The typical area I've seen quoted to fully sustain a family of four is about two acres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the space required to be nearly self sufficient, including electricity, animals, and grains.  But most of that space is taken up by the veggies.  Of course, that is to supply the veggies for a whole year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To supply the veggies for just the winter months depends on how long your winter is.  The 7 month long upstate New York winter I use to have to deal with is a totally different ball game than the 3-4 month southern Indiana winter I have now.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, in order to heat enough space, your best bet is probably to use row covers of heavy transparent plastic over your normal garden, rather than using a green house.  Lay in a fall crop of cold tolerant plants, and then build the row covers over the top of them.  Row covers are comparatively cheap to build and maintain.  They don't have to be anything more than hoops made of small diameter pvc pipe or steel re-bar with transparent plastic over them.  If you're somewhere with heavy snow, re-bar is probably the better choice.  As is a heavy plastic.  If your winter is light, you can probably get away with the pvc and a lighter weight plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another alternative is to use cold frames, wooden boxes with glass tops generally facing south.  These are generally harder to get a lot of area with than row covers, but they are very cheap and quick to build and pretty effective.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a semi decent run down of the types of row covers: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-and-grow/row-covers?page=0,0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the info graphic that 2 acres number comes from:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Space to be completely self sufficient][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FKDTp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="398" RevisionGUID="2ed7a828-acce-489b-9f8e-aa07d73c48a6" CreationDate="2013-02-08T01:43:16.203" UserId="210" Text="My wife loves and grows sunflowers lots of them. I use the stocks (they are hollow) as layers in our pile.  Kinda like the pvc answer below/above but without the plastic and you can make sunflower seeds!  Often I incorporate poking the pile with a stick to introduce more air as I do not wish/want to turn it. This works great so far. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="395" RevisionGUID="0e156926-c2b9-4a17-9a88-b877fd61f60a" CreationDate="2013-02-08T01:46:14.020" UserId="15" Comment="Updated link so it doesn't point to the mobile version of the site. Other changes made to meet minimum character limit!" Text="You could put in an additive (like cooked flour paste) or use a finish layer to protect and keep the dust down. The Wikipedia article has lots more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthen_plaster&#xD;&#xA;I remember another source of info but can not find it. I will update this answer if I can find it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1091" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="395" RevisionGUID="0e156926-c2b9-4a17-9a88-b877fd61f60a" CreationDate="2013-02-08T01:46:14.020" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 210 edit id of 66" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="397" RevisionGUID="5755efb4-4086-463d-a949-2f282ffe6fea" CreationDate="2013-02-08T01:46:51.593" UserId="21" Comment="added 577 characters in body" Text="This probably depends on exactly how long your winter is.  The typical area I've seen quoted to fully sustain a family of four is about two acres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the space required to be nearly self sufficient, including electricity, animals, and grains.  But most of that space is taken up by the veggies.  Of course, that is to supply the veggies for a whole year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To supply the veggies for just the winter months depends on how long your winter is.  The 7 month long upstate New York winter I use to have to deal with is a totally different ball game than the 3-4 month southern Indiana winter I have now.  If we assume a decent winter of about 4 months and extrapolate from the graphic below, you'd need about 25,000 sq ft of green house to feed a family of four veggies through the winter.  That number probably varies depending on what, exactly you plant and how you make use of vertical space.  Also, how much veggies you eat (I think that number assumes a completely vegetarian diet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, in order to heat enough space, your best bet is probably to use row covers of heavy transparent plastic over your normal garden, rather than using a green house.  Lay in a fall crop of cold tolerant plants, and then build the row covers over the top of them.  Row covers are comparatively cheap to build and maintain.  They don't have to be anything more than hoops made of small diameter pvc pipe or steel re-bar with transparent plastic over them.  If you're somewhere with heavy snow, re-bar is probably the better choice.  As is a heavy plastic.  If your winter is light, you can probably get away with the pvc and a lighter weight plastic.  You can bury the edges a little, or cover them with mulch and stones to prevent them from blowing away in the wind.  Again, take into consideration just how rough the weather is likely to get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another alternative is to use cold frames, wooden boxes with glass tops generally facing south.  These are generally harder to get a lot of area with than row covers, but they are very cheap and quick to build and pretty effective.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a semi decent run down of the types of row covers: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.organicgardening.com/learn-and-grow/row-covers?page=0,0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the info graphic that 2 acres number comes from:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Space to be completely self sufficient][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FKDTp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="399" RevisionGUID="8f8f502d-7615-45ef-8f5f-2ed3e7f81781" CreationDate="2013-02-08T01:52:18.973" UserId="130" Text="I don't have any experience doing this but doing some research and thinking about the problem.....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution may be as simple as adding vinegar to the rinse cycle.  If the dishes are getting clean but not quite shiny, I would think the issues may be mineral residue left behind, and an acidic rinse may do the trick.  One important note here is that apparently vinegar can damage the rubber hoses in the rinse aid dispenser, so as an alternative you could out it in an upright container in the cup compartment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="400" RevisionGUID="34a076f8-9e64-4115-9630-38ea8e65f9dc" CreationDate="2013-02-08T02:17:10.503" UserId="33" Text="Looking through some of your sources and thinking about the problem, it sounds like there isn't necessarily a definite answer, but a set of tradeoffs. NOx is associated with smog and acidification, particulates are related to respiratory health, and fuel efficiency is related to global warming (among other things like cost). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This problem would seem to be whether we value lower NOx emissions more than lower particulates and GHG emissions. If you don't live in a city, the answer might be that the NOx is less important because smog is less of an issue. If you do live in or commute to a city, it's more of a tradeoff, though with at least a [50% reduction in NOx][1], the 3% lower fuel economy and higher particulates (trapped by a filter which has production impacts, but we'll neglect those for the moment) probably make the EGR a better choice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could probably put some economic values on these various problems (particularly the non-climate-change ones), but the order of magnitude difference would suggest that the EGR is a good idea. In terms of climate change and fossil fuels, it's hard to argue that personal vehicles are ever sustainable, but your Jetta is a ways ahead of many other vehicles out there while we're still using cars. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cims.nyu.edu/~arjun/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/EGR_03_06.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="401" RevisionGUID="5f16a987-bd70-4623-b36d-46c226181ef5" CreationDate="2013-02-08T02:37:08.320" UserId="15" Text="The Eco Store in New Zealand [offers dishwasher powder][1] that contains the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sodium Carbonate &#xD;&#xA; - Sodium Citrate &#xD;&#xA; - Sodium Bicarbonate &#xD;&#xA; - Sodium Percarbonate &#xD;&#xA; - Sodium Metasilicate &#xD;&#xA; - Lauryl/Myristyl Alcohol, Ethoxylated &amp; Propoxylated&#xD;&#xA; - Sodium Polyaspartate &#xD;&#xA; - Amylase &#xD;&#xA; - Protease&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you follow the link above, you'll see the purpose for each of the ingredients in the product. I haven't investigated how eco friendly each of the ingredients is, but on their website you can click the ingredient for some more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You probably can't (and likely wouldn't want to) get all these ingredients if you're making your own, but it still might be helpful for trying to put together a mixture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I use Eco Store products but have no affiliation with their store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ecostore.co.nz/categories/dish-cleaners/products/auto-dish-powder&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="402" RevisionGUID="cf9073f4-bd34-48a9-b58f-2ff1d35dd5f3" CreationDate="2013-02-08T03:09:17.627" UserId="66" Text="The answer is: &quot;it depends&quot;. In theory, you could use a number of different models (e.g. the infographic in Daniel Bingham's answer, John Jeavon's &quot;How to Grow More Vegetables&quot;, [etc](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1433/51)). You'll get a wide variety of answers, and a lot depends on your specific circumstances -- and will likely vary widely for you from year to year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a limiting factor may not be so much the *cold*, but the fact that the plants get fewer hours of sunlight in the winter as you move to higher latitudes, so they're not growing as much in the winter. Eliot Coleman talks about this in some of his books. One strategy you can use if this is an issue is to start your plants that will be harvested during the winter in the late summer so that they can have enough time to grow before the short days of winter arrive; they will be dormant (i.e. not growing) at that point but still harvestable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think an appropriate strategy would be to start small and experiment to figure out what *your* right size is. Set up some hoops over your garden to protect a handful of different winter crops. Keep track of how much space you allocate, what you've planted, and how much you can harvest and eat. Use this information to scale up your winter protection, and possibly to make adjustments to your crop selection, management, and harvesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A complementary strategy would be to increase the size of your summer garden so that you can have vegetables preserved for winter use. Winter squash, potatoes, and onions all store easily, and many more vegetables can be stored for months if you can provide a proper storage facility. (Apples and other fruits too, if you take a food forest approach to gardening.) Even if you don't have a good root cellar, you can preserve many other foods in a variety of ways. If you're processing your own chickens when there's a lot of vegetables available, use them in vegetable-heavy soups. (It makes the meat stretch farther.) These soups can be canned and enjoyed all winter long. I keep bags of greens (kale, spinach, chard) in the freezer for use in recipes during the winter -- lasagna, soups, quiche, etc. If you don't like the energy used by a freezer, most of these can be dried effectively as well, and stored for long periods that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, to put a number on it, let's say that you want to provide four 4oz salads (4oz of fresh greens only) a day for 6 months (October 1 through March 31). That's a pound a day for 180 days -- 180 pounds. A decent yield for spring-grown spinach would be about 1 pound per square foot, lettuce perhaps 2 lb/sqft. To make up a number, let's say you average about .5 lb/sqft for winter-harvested greens. You'd need a greenhouse with 360 square feet of **growing space**, plus space for paths, whatever heating you are going to provide, and whatever else you might keep in the building. It's a fairly simple formula, so you can play with the numbers, but until you *know* what your numbers really are (i.e. the strategy above), it's just a guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(I'm assuming greens above because they're among the easiest things for winter harvest, and to keep the answer simpler. Carrots and parsnips can be harvested in winter too as long as you keep the ground from freezing around them, but they don't need a greenhouse. I cribbed the yield numbers from Jeavons, because I had it handy.)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="96df2c6d-9b42-4a82-88b1-06f4f68aa7d6" CreationDate="2013-02-08T04:35:38.050" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="You are moving the pollution from one area to another.  Neither of which is sustainable.  One just creates more solid pollution at end of life of the vehicle, the other creates more air pollution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you noted the EGR makes that your engine runs less efficiently under throttle.  That results in wasted fuel and reduced power.  Meaning you have to consume more fuel to get the power you need.  The lab tests on this show favorable numbers for the EGR valve but in actual use someone driving in town accelerating fast from a stop can actually emit more pollutants.  Under preferred (read low power) acceleration from stop you get great improvement in either case but the EGR vehicle will emit less CO, N2O, CO2 under the same amount of throttle, with a barely noticeable reduction in power.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern engines including your 2003 Jetta are computer controlled and require an active EGR to operate.  Removing the EGR would require some serious hacking, and performance tuning.  The systems are designed to run optimally with all components operating.  If the EGR is not reporting expected pressures the computer is likely to cause the engine to perform less efficiently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="eac67d94-7f8b-4f50-9957-d33ab321eb4d" CreationDate="2013-02-08T04:41:08.943" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="added 460 characters in body" Text="You are moving the pollution from one area to another.  Neither of which is sustainable.  One just creates more solid pollution at end of life of the vehicle, the other creates more air pollution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you noted the EGR makes that your engine runs less efficiently under throttle.  That results in wasted fuel and reduced power.  Meaning you have to consume more fuel to get the power you need.  The lab tests on this show favorable numbers for the EGR valve but in actual use someone driving in town accelerating fast from a stop can actually emit more pollutants.  Under preferred (read low power) acceleration from stop you get great improvement in either case but the EGR vehicle will emit less CO, N2O, CO2 under the same amount of throttle, with a barely noticeable reduction in power.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern engines including your 2003 Jetta are computer controlled and require an active EGR to operate.  Removing the EGR would require some serious hacking, and performance tuning.  The systems are designed to run optimally with all components operating.  If the EGR is not reporting expected pressures the computer is likely to cause the engine to perform less efficiently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reguardless there is nothing sustainable about the Jetta.  It runs on a gasoline powered Internal combustion engine, requires regular oil changes, and at end of life is a giant pile of fiberglass, plastic, and cheap metal that is not terribly recyclable.  There is quite a bit of aluminum alloy in the frame.  This is less recyclable than steel and often cost prohibitive to re-purpose.  In terms of sustainability the EGR valve is practically irrelevant. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="404" RevisionGUID="79023705-0ee2-46bc-a1dd-773079545ce1" CreationDate="2013-02-08T07:30:18.777" UserId="48" Text="Continue to push for sub-metering if you can - it really shouldn't be hard for your building owner or facilities manager to implement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And on your own account, if you've got access to the main junction box, you should be able to install a clip-on electricity monitor and remote meter. In the [Efergy example][1] shown below, the three clips go one on each phase. That's a domestic model, but there are commercial versions too. The thing is, the clips have to go around the live cable - they won't work if they're clipped around a cable carrying more than one wires. If you've got access to such cables, then you don't need to cut them - the clips just open and clip around the insulation, and don't damage the cable in any way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are monitors in development that will go around cables carrying live &amp; neutral, or 3-phase &amp; neutral, using a dense cluster of tiny magnets radially arranged. But the last I checked, they weren't on the market yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That takes care of the electricity. I think monitoring heat / cooling will be harder: there are noninvasive ways to measure temperature and flow, but I haven't yet seen them integrated into a heat meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.efergy.com/index.php/default/products-uk-1/electricity-monitors-packs/elite3phase-wireless-monitor-uk.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dOhs2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="e62ab832-10e3-49b5-9d17-18efd5ff3efd" CreationDate="2013-02-08T08:16:30.563" UserId="28" Text="My community compost pile is incredibly buggy.  It's a ~30 gallon bucket, with a closed lid and ventilation holes.   It has hundreds of flying bugs swarming in it.  As soon as the lid is open they're all over the place.  The strike me as being similar to fruit flies, but perhaps more active.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like the compost is getting a decent amount of dry material, but it's hard to know, with all sorts of different people contributing to it on a daily basis.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that people are refraining from composting, rather than dealing with the bugs.  What can be done to make the pile a nicer place? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1101" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="e62ab832-10e3-49b5-9d17-18efd5ff3efd" CreationDate="2013-02-08T08:16:30.563" UserId="28" Text="Dealing with bugs in compost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1102" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="e62ab832-10e3-49b5-9d17-18efd5ff3efd" CreationDate="2013-02-08T08:16:30.563" UserId="28" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="283" RevisionGUID="b7fc6e8f-e70e-46fb-b3bb-a533b34c99f2" CreationDate="2013-02-08T11:36:17.843" UserId="60" Comment="update to splitting water" Text="There are drainwater heat recovery systems in production. It is mostly made of copper and in principle it's a passive, opposite flow heat exchanger. The freshwater coming to the house circulates through thin pipes wrapped around a bulky waste-water pipe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any obstructions in the way of waste-water could cause clogging, that's why there is (probably) only one design possible. One example for all:&#xD;&#xA;![One example for all - Power Pipe][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XWyUU.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is economically sensible because there is no energy input needed to collect heat from the waste-water. You pay only to buy the equipment and to install it. It can be used on vertical and/or horizontal sewage lines. I'd wrap the exchanger into mineral wool or PUR foam after installment.  &#xD;&#xA;Installing a heat pump has very little advantage, because incoming water is usually only several degrees above 0°C. You cannot go lower to prevent freezing the sewage line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The efficiency will depend on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the length of exchanger - the longer the better&#xD;&#xA;* the intensity of flow of the water - the lower flow the better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If possible, the incoming water should be split before the system. Then only the water to be warmed would be heated and cold water would always stay cold.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="406" RevisionGUID="836fb6f7-2120-4c8a-9f36-b42e555700dd" CreationDate="2013-02-08T12:56:46.860" UserId="130" Text="As with anything, what you really want to do is a basic risk assessment first.  What are you worried about?  What can you do about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initial thoughts of things to worry about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Fecal-oral pathogens (salmonella, fecal choliforms, etc).  Birds may poop where the rain falls and that poses some concerns.  Obviously the birds aren't dropping like flies but it may impact health impacts elsewhere.  What do you define as &quot;reasonable&quot; there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.   Chemical residues from the barrel and elsewhere.  These are probably reasonable but is all the water being consumed by animals?  Do your animals consume only this water?  Is there other water that they consume?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second step is to determine what your definition of &quot;reasonable water quality&quot; is.  What is the acceptable risk in these areas?  If you want to be super-cautious you could try to treat the water but these generally pose sustainability issues themselves.  However if it were me, and it is just for animal (and maybe emergency human) consumption, as well as irrigation I would probably simply declare these risks to be acceptable and figure that sufficient water flow and reasonable attempts to keep collection area reasonably free of bird poop would be sufficient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1105" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="223" RevisionGUID="a4e9bb3e-5d1d-4e8f-a6fd-46d1af3ae719" CreationDate="2013-02-08T13:09:17.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/299867498705203200" />
  <row Id="1106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="407" RevisionGUID="32aba938-1952-4545-b9ad-0b48b9889521" CreationDate="2013-02-08T13:26:54.410" UserId="99" Text="Compost heaps tend to have a lot of bugs. Most of them are good, they help in the decomposition process. &#xD;&#xA;However, when there are too many of one specific type you might want to take measures. The appropriate measures depend on the type of bug that is dominant. Most often the heap is too wet (damp is good, soggy is not), too compact and/or has not enough browns. The result is a sour-smelling bin and in a lot of flies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Fruitflies**: heap is too wet, if possible turn over the heap to help aerate it, then add a dry layer of browns on top (e.g. shreded cardboard boxes or newspapers). Do not add new material until the problem is reduced.&#xD;&#xA; - **Maggots/houseflies**: either too wet or too much meat or fish on the heap, take the same measures as with fruitflies but also make sure that any animal products are buried well within the heap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Covering existing air holes with a fine mesh will prevent (or at least reduce the number of) unwanted insects from entering the bin in the future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1108" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="fab248ad-0f9c-462c-9a89-f10d5848d29e" CreationDate="2013-02-08T14:48:02.043" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|construction|greenhouse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="7f045e7a-06b2-4932-81ef-2664889fb686" CreationDate="2013-02-08T14:56:09.743" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="You are moving the pollution from one area to another.  Neither of which is sustainable.  One just creates more solid pollution at end of life of the vehicle, the other creates more air pollution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you noted the EGR makes that your engine runs less efficiently under throttle.  That results in wasted fuel and reduced power.  Meaning you have to consume more fuel to get the power you need.  The lab tests on this show favorable numbers for the EGR valve but in actual use someone driving in town accelerating fast from a stop can actually emit more pollutants.  Under preferred (read low power) acceleration from stop you get great improvement in either case but the EGR vehicle will emit less CO, N2O, CO2 under the same amount of throttle, with a barely noticeable reduction in power.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern engines including your 2003 Jetta are computer controlled and require an active EGR to operate.  Removing the EGR would require some serious hacking, and performance tuning.  The systems are designed to run optimally with all components operating.  If the EGR is not reporting expected pressures the computer is likely to cause the engine to perform less efficiently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, there is nothing sustainable about the Jetta.  It runs on a diesel powered Internal combustion engine, requires regular oil changes, and at end of life is a giant pile of fiberglass, plastic, and cheap metal that is not terribly recyclable.  There is quite a bit of aluminum alloy in the frame.  This is less recyclable than steel and often cost prohibitive to re-purpose.  In terms of sustainability the EGR valve is practically irrelevant. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="23882734-2c76-4a5e-8757-6cf0b3a8ce9e" CreationDate="2013-02-08T15:49:59.080" UserId="164" Text="I have been wondering recently whether having my groceries delivered is a net ecological benefit or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is highly likely that the overall environmental impact of the diesel used to delivery my groceries, when amortised over all of the deliveries, would be less than the impact of my own individual petrol journey to and from the supermarket. However, how do I take into account the fact that when the supermarket delivers it uses plastic bags, whereas if I were going there myself I would be using reusable bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not obvious to me what the relative environmental impact of these two factors are, or how I can make a sustainable decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only option that I can see which would be win-win would be to take public transport to the supermarket and use my reusable bags. That way both my travel and materials footprints would be reduced. Alas there is no convenient public transport available, which leaves me in my present dilemma.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how can I easily calculate if it is more sustainable to have my groceries delivered using plastic bags, or drive to buy them myself and use reusable bags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="23882734-2c76-4a5e-8757-6cf0b3a8ce9e" CreationDate="2013-02-08T15:49:59.080" UserId="164" Text="How do I calculate if it is more sustainable to have my groceries delivered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="23882734-2c76-4a5e-8757-6cf0b3a8ce9e" CreationDate="2013-02-08T15:49:59.080" UserId="164" Text="|plastic|bags|vehicle|grocery|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="409" RevisionGUID="e8063909-5003-41b2-b36d-1145e439a4e5" CreationDate="2013-02-08T15:56:07.970" UserId="214" Text="I have heard arguments that the energy spent recycling some materials eclipses the energy spent gathering and working raw materials into new products. I can see how this is possible but without hard numbers, I am wary of taking it at face value. Are there any reports or papers that lays this information out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="409" RevisionGUID="e8063909-5003-41b2-b36d-1145e439a4e5" CreationDate="2013-02-08T15:56:07.970" UserId="214" Text="Are there any hard numbers on enrgy spent on recycling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="409" RevisionGUID="e8063909-5003-41b2-b36d-1145e439a4e5" CreationDate="2013-02-08T15:56:07.970" UserId="214" Text="|waste|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="bfc79c6b-27dc-43b5-abc2-f1d10561d5e9" CreationDate="2013-02-08T15:56:32.170" UserId="215" Text="I've heard a lot of back and forth on this issue, but when purchasing our next vehicle which is actually the better way to go?  If there is a completely &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For us, we cannot go fully electric at this point due to drive times, and there is no good public transit close to our house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This questions whether it is environmentally friendly to purchase a new hybrid, but doesn't really address the choice between types of used vehicles:&#xD;&#xA;[How to determine whether hybrid cars are really better for the environment?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10/how-to-determine-whether-hybrid-cars-are-really-better-for-the-environment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="bfc79c6b-27dc-43b5-abc2-f1d10561d5e9" CreationDate="2013-02-08T15:56:32.170" UserId="215" Text="Older biodiesel vehicle or newer/new hybrid, which is actually more sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="bfc79c6b-27dc-43b5-abc2-f1d10561d5e9" CreationDate="2013-02-08T15:56:32.170" UserId="215" Text="|vehicle|hybrid-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1119" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="e26b5018-fd2e-4c2f-8037-fb45439825b0" CreationDate="2013-02-08T16:09:17.567" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/299912797435867136" />
  <row Id="1120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="411" RevisionGUID="e1812243-f103-4244-868b-0785d00481cc" CreationDate="2013-02-08T16:43:15.453" UserId="212" Text="A simple incremental addition is to add a top cover to your stove.  Presuming you don't cook on the stove this is a nice addition that most woodstoves would be better to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will need an assessment of the load bearing capacity of the floor.  That information should be available in the building specifications for your home.  If you don't have them (most people don't) you can get a copy for a small fee from the local government office that issues building permits.  If this information is unavailable a competent carpenter, structural engineer, or architect can tell you with sufficient accuracy after examining the building.  Use this information to determine the weight of top cover your floor can support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contact companies in your area that build custom stone countertops.  Tell them you want a slab cut to fit the top of your stove.  Granite and soapstone are the common choices, but there may be other options available where you live.  They can cut/form a slab to shape of a thickness that produces a final weight your floor can bear.  The finished product just sits ontop of your stove." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="412" RevisionGUID="96b13a2a-d558-4d54-badd-3cf449955e1d" CreationDate="2013-02-08T16:49:33.763" UserId="83" Text="I have an ant problem in my house, specially in the kitchen, where they seem to have taken over. Just found out that they have cut through the plastic packaging of some food items and gotten inside. Is there a non-toxic pesticide or repellent I could use to drive them away? I have used turmeric powder before, and it is kinda effective, specially if you make a paste and stick it where the ants enter from. But I'd prefer not getting turmeric everywhere, and since I can't exactly find out where the ants are coming from, it wouldn't be as effective anyways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1122" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="412" RevisionGUID="96b13a2a-d558-4d54-badd-3cf449955e1d" CreationDate="2013-02-08T16:49:33.763" UserId="83" Text="Non toxic insect(ant) repellent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1123" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="412" RevisionGUID="96b13a2a-d558-4d54-badd-3cf449955e1d" CreationDate="2013-02-08T16:49:33.763" UserId="83" Text="|pest-management|insects|pesticides|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="413" RevisionGUID="99c799a7-49ef-4a12-9f17-750a0f23c396" CreationDate="2013-02-08T17:41:00.313" UserId="212" Text="Clay.  Cheap, simple, abundant.  Any soil with a clay content in excess of % makes a darn good water retention layer.  One dump truck load of locally sourced high clay should be all you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See &quot;Water Content‐Density Criteria for Compacted Soil Liners.” in the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 116, Issue 12 (December 1990) by D. Daniel, ASCE. and C. Benson, ASCE. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="5c33a47e-e697-40b0-b67e-c5878bc3e2d1" CreationDate="2013-02-08T17:45:15.977" UserId="106" Text="Over at Politics.SE there is a discussion going on [as to whether pollution can be sustainable](http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/960/what-neoconservative-or-neoliberal-libertarian-alternative-policies-for-sust#comment3719_960). I think pollution and sustainability are tightly linked together, although perhaps noise or light pollution are less connected to sustainability than soil toxification. But are there forms of pollution that in the long term render resources more valuable than they were before?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can pollution be sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1127" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="5c33a47e-e697-40b0-b67e-c5878bc3e2d1" CreationDate="2013-02-08T17:45:15.977" UserId="106" Text="Can pollution be sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1128" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="5c33a47e-e697-40b0-b67e-c5878bc3e2d1" CreationDate="2013-02-08T17:45:15.977" UserId="106" Text="|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="415" RevisionGUID="7a4db9ef-0b75-403a-8d51-73572682a5d8" CreationDate="2013-02-08T17:59:04.637" UserId="98" Text="There are electromagnetic ant repellents. Ants cannot stand the waves emitted by these devices. The device can be plugged into the wall socket.&#xD;&#xA;This is safe, harmless to humans and pets, noiseless, clean and hygienic. Energy consumption is about 5W.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="415" RevisionGUID="8bef8bc3-912b-4e30-83f6-7a014081b489" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:21:17.207" UserId="98" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="There are electromagnetic ant repellents. Ants cannot stand the waves emitted by these devices. The device can be plugged into the wall socket.&#xD;&#xA;This is safe, harmless to humans and pets, noiseless, clean and hygienic. Energy consumption is about 5W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These devices are sold at many places. Unfortunately there is no irrefutable scientific evidence of their effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="2bd5d738-cb45-4a47-93fc-4c45ceff000d" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:22:44.163" UserId="40" Text="Without any specifics (because I don't know them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hybrid vehicle reduces emissions.  It increases manufacturing and disposal footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Environmental factors which are roughly the same for both a used biodiesel and new hybrid vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Engine coolant&#xD;&#xA;* Motor oil&#xD;&#xA;* Repairs for: Suspension, engine, windshield, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Disposal footprint for any vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a new hybrid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Manufacturing footprint of a new vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* Additional manufacturing footprint for batteries, electric motor, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Additional disposal footprint for batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a used biodiesel vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Possibly&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;) more fuel consumption, greater emissions&#xD;&#xA;* Possibly greater fuel manufacturing cost&#xD;&#xA;* Greater repair costs/footprint (compared to any new vehicle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;All biodiesel is not created equal. If you have a source of biodiesel recycled from used oil, the fuel refinement cost is practically nothing. If using biodiesel made from soy, it may actually be worse for the environment than straight diesel, as soy farming is not sustainable, and uses a lot of petroleum. I don't know exact numbers, but if memory serves, energy gain for soy biodiesel is something like 10%.  (That is, for 1 liter of soy biodiesel, .9 liters of petroleum are consumed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TLDR;** In my estimation, a new Hybrid never makes sense, from an environmental standpoint.  In fact, a new vehicle, of any type, never makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion, in order of environmental preference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A bicycle&#xD;&#xA;* A used all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with recycled biodiesel&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with standard diesel or soy biodiesel&#xD;&#xA;* A used gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A used hybrid&#xD;&#xA;* A new all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A new diesel vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new hybrid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;I don't actually know if an all-electric vehicle is better than internal combustion, but I suspect it is, because it reduces the mass of the vehicle, and many peripheral fluids (engine coolant, motor oil, etc)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="e3c03c55-a928-4196-9d02-d1bb7ab9a6e5" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:28:24.533" UserId="40" Comment="added 687 characters in body" Text="Full disclosure: I have owned 6 diesel vehicles. I currently own an '86 TurboDiesel Jetta, and an '03 TDI Jetta. I have never owned a hybrid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any specifics (because I don't know them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hybrid vehicle reduces emissions.  It increases manufacturing and disposal footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Environmental factors which are roughly the same for both a used biodiesel and new hybrid vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Engine coolant&#xD;&#xA;* Motor oil&#xD;&#xA;* Repairs for: Suspension, engine, windshield, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Disposal footprint for any vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a new hybrid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Manufacturing footprint of a new vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* Additional manufacturing footprint for batteries, electric motor, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Additional disposal footprint for batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a used biodiesel vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Possibly&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;) more fuel consumption, greater emissions&#xD;&#xA;* Possibly greater fuel manufacturing cost&#xD;&#xA;* Greater repair costs/footprint (compared to any new vehicle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;All biodiesel is not created equal. If you have a source of biodiesel recycled from used oil, the fuel refinement cost is practically nothing. If using biodiesel made from soy, it may actually be worse for the environment than straight diesel, as soy farming is not sustainable, and uses a lot of petroleum. I don't know exact numbers, but if memory serves, energy gain for soy biodiesel is something like 10%.  (That is, for 1 liter of soy biodiesel, .9 liters of petroleum are consumed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TLDR;** In my estimation, a new Hybrid never makes sense, from an environmental standpoint.  In fact, a new vehicle, of any type, never makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion, in order of environmental preference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A bicycle&#xD;&#xA;* A used all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with recycled biodiesel&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with standard diesel or soy biodiesel&#xD;&#xA;* A used gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A used hybrid&#xD;&#xA;* A new all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A new diesel vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new hybrid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;I don't actually know if an all-electric vehicle is better than internal combustion, but I suspect it is, because it reduces the mass of the vehicle, and many peripheral fluids (engine coolant, motor oil, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that even without biodiesel, a diesel vehicle is more sustainable than a gasoline vehicle.  All other things equal, diesel gets roughly 33% better fuel economy than gasoline.  Diesel refining is also, arguably, less harmful to the environment than gasoline.  And lastly, a diesel engine is mechanically simpler than a gasoline engine, and thus will last longer (500k miles is common).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest looking for a good quality used diesel vehicle.  A 2000-2003 Jetta TDI is the ideal right now, easily over 50mpg highway.  But even the newer Jettas still get excellent fuel economy, and the older ones can, too. My '86 gets about 40mpg.  My '03 about 52mpg." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="418" RevisionGUID="b34a3c50-7674-42ea-96e2-d791c45935e4" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:31:57.223" UserId="48" Text="Yes, there are lots. These are typically summarised in Life Cycle Assessment databases, and there are plenty of specific case studies in the literature too. For materials that have a huge energy input for virgin product, such as glass, paper and aluminium, the energy savings can be huge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a wide variety of circumstances, of course, so the specifics will vary, depending on the material in question, and where in the world you are. But in general, the most common types of recycling are either energy-saving, or reduce consumption of non-renewable resources, or both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth noting that energy consumption per se **is** sustainable: the problem is not with energy consumption, but with how that energy is generated in most of the world - depleting finite resources such as high-grade uranium ore and fossil fuels, and generating toxic waste, local pollution and global pollution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="ba2675fe-d45f-4f6f-b3a5-917e2ed6af39" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:32:37.660" UserId="48" Text="&quot;No&quot; is a pretty safe answer in general to this question, just from any reasonable definitions of &quot;pollution&quot; and &quot;sustainable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's look at some corner cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, broadly speaking, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is both a local and a global pollutant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anthropogenic CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions were only 1-2% of what they are now, and not happening within urban areas, then natural carbon sinks could absorb those emissions sustainably, as long as those sinks are allowed to grow, rather than being shrunk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And scientists such as Columbia University's Klaus Lackner have developed means of extracting atmospheric CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and we have the chemistry to turning CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; into other chemicals, including methane. So there are round trips which would involve CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions, but which could be sustainable. Obviously the round trip would be a net consumer of energy, but the price of energy differs by time, place and form, so this can still be economically viable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="484083b8-41ea-47c6-a5f4-205cad5e85f3" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:33:43.903" UserId="40" Comment="added 687 characters in body" Text="Full disclosure: I have owned 6 diesel vehicles. I currently own an '86 TurboDiesel Jetta, and an '03 TDI Jetta. I have never owned a hybrid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any specifics (because I don't know them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hybrid vehicle reduces emissions.  It increases manufacturing and disposal footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Environmental factors which are roughly the same for both a used biodiesel and new hybrid vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Engine coolant&#xD;&#xA;* Motor oil&#xD;&#xA;* Repairs for: Suspension, engine, windshield, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Disposal footprint for any vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a new hybrid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Manufacturing footprint of a new vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* Additional manufacturing footprint for batteries, electric motor, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Additional disposal footprint for batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a used biodiesel vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Possibly&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;) more fuel consumption, greater emissions&#xD;&#xA;* Possibly greater fuel manufacturing cost&#xD;&#xA;* Greater repair costs/footprint (compared to any new vehicle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;My '03 TDI Jetta gets better fuel economy than all but the newest and smallest hybrids (and it's a lot more fun to drive).  All biodiesel is not created equal. If you have a source of biodiesel recycled from used oil, the fuel refinement cost is practically nothing. If using biodiesel made from soy, it may actually be worse for the environment than straight diesel, as soy farming is not sustainable, and uses a lot of petroleum. I don't know exact numbers, but if memory serves, energy gain for soy biodiesel is something like 10%.  (That is, for 1 liter of soy biodiesel, .9 liters of petroleum are consumed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TLDR;** In my estimation, a new Hybrid never makes sense, from an environmental standpoint.  In fact, a new vehicle, of any type, never makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion, in order of environmental preference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A bicycle&#xD;&#xA;* A used all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with recycled biodiesel or straight veg oil (SVO/WVO)&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with standard diesel or soy biodiesel&#xD;&#xA;* A used gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A used hybrid&#xD;&#xA;* A new all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A new diesel vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new hybrid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;I don't actually know if an all-electric vehicle is better than internal combustion, but I suspect it is, because it reduces the mass of the vehicle, and many peripheral fluids (engine coolant, motor oil, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that even without biodiesel, a diesel vehicle is more sustainable than a gasoline vehicle.  All other things equal, diesel gets roughly 33% better fuel economy than gasoline.  Diesel refining is also, arguably, less harmful to the environment than gasoline.  And lastly, a diesel engine is mechanically simpler than a gasoline engine, and thus will last longer (500k miles is common).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest looking for a good quality used diesel vehicle.  A 2000-2003 Jetta TDI is the ideal right now, easily over 50mpg highway.  But even the newer Jettas still get excellent fuel economy, and the older ones can, too. My '86 gets about 40mpg.  My '03 about 52mpg." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="90bcba8e-b8f8-4484-9161-c3645fc62d28" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:36:05.140" UserId="33" Text="Ok (1.5 hours later).&#xD;&#xA;Going by [this reference][1] for bag GWP and [EPA values][2] for burning petrol, I've got 1.57 kg CO2-eq per plastic bag, 271 kg CO2-eq for cloth bags, and 2.35 kg CO2-eq per L of petrol. Putting those together with variables for how much gas is saved by delivery and how many total trips you want to consider, here's the data I come up with: &#xD;&#xA;![Calculation of GWP for groceries with plastic bags delivered or driving with canvas bags][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assumes you use the same cloth bags that whole time (totally doable), that each trip requires 4 cloth or 6 plastic bags, and that the bags end up occasionally reused (as per the original data). The results are mixed, and I'd need information on how much petrol would be saved by delivery to give a final answer. This does, however, provide some guidance - I'd say saving more than 1 L per trip becomes increasingly unlikely, and reusing a bag 200 times is reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: One more note - you could do the same calculation for any number of other impacts, as the sources above have the numbers for many of them. I just tend to settle on GWP because carbon is often what people refer to when they say 'more sustainable'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/SCHO0711BUAN-E-E.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kzAex.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="421" RevisionGUID="10d5c27b-16bf-4aa6-96e3-469bae840683" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:38:45.817" UserId="212" Text="There is no difference in the insulative materials, but there a different in their placement relative to the heat source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A radiation barrier is always placed closest to the source of radiation.  So in a hot climate one would place the radiation barrier exterior to the other insulating materials.&#xD;&#xA; - Conductive barriers are also most effective when placed between the heat source and conductive material rather than between the conductive material and the temperature controlled environment.&#xD;&#xA; - Convection barriers are placed nearest the controlled environment regardless of relative temperature.&#xD;&#xA; - Thermal mass is placed nearest the controlled environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why in most parts of the US, and in southern Europe, well constructed homes have a foil facing underneath the siding, followed by a thin phenolic (often these first two steps are integrated into one rigid foam board), then the framing interlaced with fiberglass/cellulose/spray foam." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1141" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="41bdfc35-4081-4053-aa40-38c451680eea" CreationDate="2013-02-08T18:39:12.323" UserId="98" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vehicle|hybrid-vehicles|biodiesel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1143" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="412" RevisionGUID="87d5d7fc-7698-4d89-bb9a-e9b3ef70ba37" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:09:17.233" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/299958095453515776" />
  <row Id="1144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="422" RevisionGUID="257eb4b8-a779-4800-b269-ed34798b1594" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:10:54.867" UserId="29" Text="I'm interested in replacing the siding on my home, but want to choose a material that is sustainable.  What's the best choice available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1145" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="422" RevisionGUID="257eb4b8-a779-4800-b269-ed34798b1594" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:10:54.867" UserId="29" Text="Sustainable Exterior Siding" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1146" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="422" RevisionGUID="257eb4b8-a779-4800-b269-ed34798b1594" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:10:54.867" UserId="29" Text="|building-materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="899d1144-18be-4e9b-9d25-2a5217490079" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:20:30.823" UserId="40" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="Full disclosure: I have owned 6 diesel vehicles. I currently own an '86 TurboDiesel Jetta, and an '03 TDI Jetta. I have never owned a hybrid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any specifics (because I don't know them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hybrid vehicle reduces emissions.  It increases manufacturing and disposal footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Environmental factors which are roughly the same for both a used biodiesel and new hybrid vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Engine coolant&#xD;&#xA;* Motor oil&#xD;&#xA;* Repairs for: Suspension, engine, windshield, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Disposal footprint for any vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a new hybrid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Manufacturing footprint of a new vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* Additional manufacturing footprint for batteries, electric motor, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Additional disposal footprint for batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a used biodiesel vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Possibly&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;) more fuel consumption, greater emissions&#xD;&#xA;* Possibly greater fuel manufacturing cost&#xD;&#xA;* Greater repair costs/footprint (compared to any new vehicle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;My '03 TDI Jetta gets better fuel economy than all but the newest and smallest hybrids (and it's a lot more fun to drive).  All biodiesel is not created equal. If you have a source of biodiesel recycled from used oil, the fuel refinement cost is practically nothing. If using biodiesel made from soy, it may actually be worse for the environment than straight diesel, as soy farming is not sustainable, and uses a lot of petroleum. I don't know exact numbers, but if memory serves, energy gain for soy biodiesel is something like 10%.  (That is, for 1 liter of soy biodiesel, .9 liters of petroleum are consumed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TLDR;** In my estimation, a new car never makes sense, from an environmental standpoint.  And a hybrid never makes sense--it offers the worst of both worlds (all the pollution, manufacturing, and disposal footprint of internal combustion *and* electric).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion, in order of environmental preference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A bicycle&#xD;&#xA;* A used all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with recycled biodiesel or straight veg oil (SVO/WVO)&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with standard diesel or soy biodiesel&#xD;&#xA;* A used gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A new diesel vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A used hybrid&#xD;&#xA;* A new hybrid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;I don't actually know if an all-electric vehicle is better than internal combustion, but I suspect it is, because it reduces the mass of the vehicle, and many peripheral fluids (engine coolant, motor oil, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that even without biodiesel, a diesel vehicle is more sustainable than a gasoline vehicle.  All other things equal, diesel gets roughly 33% better fuel economy than gasoline.  Diesel refining is also, arguably, less harmful to the environment than gasoline.  And lastly, a diesel engine is mechanically simpler than a gasoline engine, and thus will last longer (500k miles is common).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest looking for a good quality used diesel vehicle.  A 2000-2003 Jetta TDI is the ideal right now, easily over 50mpg highway.  But even the newer Jettas still get excellent fuel economy, and the older ones can, too. My '86 gets about 40mpg.  My '03 about 52mpg." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="423" RevisionGUID="ce07741b-78ac-4144-8c13-fe1fc0236ea7" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:22:20.313" UserId="212" Text="Avoiding the topic of meeting all dietary needs, an early and/or cold resistant grain mixed with early corn works well.  More robust grains like spelt, quinoa, hard red wheat, and amaranth can provide most of the carb and protein your girls need.  Amaranth is particularly attractive due to [it's nutritional density][1] and ease of harvest when grown by the small farmer/gardener.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaranth_grain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1150" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="409" RevisionGUID="80545f7e-ed3d-48fb-bdd3-6e45ef4a2524" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:23:15.137" UserId="98" Comment="typo fixed in title" Text="Are there any hard numbers on energy spent on recycling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1151" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="409" RevisionGUID="80545f7e-ed3d-48fb-bdd3-6e45ef4a2524" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:23:15.137" Comment="Proposed by 98 approved by 214 edit id of 67" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="7e241f7c-1162-4dab-9329-0f2a417dc06e" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:26:06.717" UserId="40" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="**TLDR;** In my estimation, a new car never makes sense, from an environmental standpoint.  And a hybrid never makes sense--it offers the worst of both worlds (all the pollution, manufacturing, and disposal footprint of internal combustion *and* electric).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All things considered, the fuel consumption of any vehicle is minor compared to the manufacturing, disposal, and maintenance footprints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A used vehicle has the lowest manufacturing footprint, sometimes at the cost of greater maintenance footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read (disputed) reports that the environmental footprint of a Prius is the same as that of a Hummer after 100,000 miles. True or not, it helps one think about putting fuel consumption into perspective of the larger picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full disclosure: I have owned 6 diesel vehicles. I currently own an '86 TurboDiesel Jetta, and an '03 TDI Jetta. I have never owned a hybrid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any specifics (because I don't know them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hybrid vehicle reduces emissions.  It increases manufacturing and disposal footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Environmental factors which are roughly the same for both a used biodiesel and new hybrid vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Engine coolant&#xD;&#xA;* Motor oil&#xD;&#xA;* Repairs for: Suspension, engine, windshield, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Disposal footprint for any vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a new hybrid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Manufacturing footprint of a new vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* Additional manufacturing footprint for batteries, electric motor, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Additional disposal footprint for batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a used biodiesel vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Possibly&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;) more fuel consumption, greater emissions&#xD;&#xA;* Possibly greater fuel manufacturing cost&#xD;&#xA;* Greater repair costs/footprint (compared to any new vehicle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;My '03 TDI Jetta gets better fuel economy than all but the newest and smallest hybrids (and it's a lot more fun to drive).  All biodiesel is not created equal. If you have a source of biodiesel recycled from used oil, the fuel refinement cost is practically nothing. If using biodiesel made from soy, it may actually be worse for the environment than straight diesel, as soy farming is not sustainable, and uses a lot of petroleum. I don't know exact numbers, but if memory serves, energy gain for soy biodiesel is something like 10%.  (That is, for 1 liter of soy biodiesel, .9 liters of petroleum are consumed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion, in order of least environmental impact:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A bicycle&#xD;&#xA;* A used all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with recycled biodiesel or straight veg oil (SVO/WVO)&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with standard diesel or soy biodiesel&#xD;&#xA;* A used gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A new diesel vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A used hybrid&#xD;&#xA;* A new hybrid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;I don't actually know if an all-electric vehicle is better than internal combustion, but I suspect it is, because it reduces the mass of the vehicle, and many peripheral fluids (engine coolant, motor oil, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that even without biodiesel, a diesel vehicle is more sustainable than a gasoline vehicle.  All other things equal, diesel gets roughly 33% better fuel economy than gasoline.  Diesel refining is also, arguably, less harmful to the environment than gasoline.  And lastly, a diesel engine is mechanically simpler than a gasoline engine, and thus will last longer (500k miles is common).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest looking for a good quality used diesel vehicle.  A 2000-2003 Jetta TDI is the ideal right now, easily over 50mpg highway.  But even the newer Jettas still get excellent fuel economy, and the older ones can, too. My '86 gets about 40mpg.  My '03 about 52mpg." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="152478f5-51b0-48da-952d-f4997a669dd1" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:40:22.170" UserId="48" Text="Fuel consumption is typically 70-90% of a vehicle's lifecycle energy consumption and GHG emissions, so there are lots of circumstances where upgrading to a significantly more energy-efficient vehicle makes a lot of sense. See, for details [TRL VR6][1] and [The UK Automotive Sector: Toward Sustainability.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the vehicle being replaced gets a very large proportion of its materials recycled, then that helps even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noticing that despite all the FUD on the internet, it is pretty clear that when the science is done, [hybrids are better than fossil-fuelled internal-combustion engines][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that doesn't make hybrids a sustainable option. If you're putting fossil-fuel in, they're not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other, more sustainable options, and these will depend on your real trip patterns. For many households, an electric-vehicle for the vast majority of daily travel that's less than 120km, and borrowing / hiring / sharing a different vehicle for the occasional longer trip, will do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_sustainability/report_sustainable_resource_use_in_the_motor_industry_a_mass_balance_approach.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/reports/SMMT%20Sixth%20Annual%20Sustainability%20Report.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2007/08/27/201795/prius-easily-beats-hummer-in-life-cycle-energy-use-dust-to-dust-report-has-no-basis-in-fact/?mobile=nc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="867f6439-e797-4bba-a795-e4d46559b801" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:46:12.353" UserId="40" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="**TLDR;** In my estimation, a new car never makes sense, from an environmental standpoint.  And a hybrid never makes sense--it offers the worst of both worlds (all the pollution, manufacturing, and disposal footprint of internal combustion *and* electric).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All things considered, the fuel consumption of any vehicle is minor compared to the manufacturing, disposal, and maintenance footprints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A used vehicle has the lowest manufacturing footprint, sometimes at the cost of greater maintenance footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read (disputed) reports that the environmental footprint of a Prius is the same as that of a Hummer after 100,000 miles. True or not, it helps one think about putting fuel consumption into perspective of the larger picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full disclosure: I have owned 6 diesel vehicles. I currently own an '86 TurboDiesel Jetta, and an '03 TDI Jetta. I have never owned a hybrid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any specifics (because I don't know them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hybrid vehicle reduces emissions (although in the U.S., the most efficient hybrid is barely more efficient than the most efficient diesel vehicles, in Europe, there are even more efficient diesel vehicles).  It increases manufacturing and disposal footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Environmental factors which are roughly the same for both a used biodiesel and new hybrid vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Engine coolant&#xD;&#xA;* Motor oil&#xD;&#xA;* Repairs for: Suspension, engine, windshield, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Disposal footprint for any vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a new hybrid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Manufacturing footprint of a new vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* Additional manufacturing footprint for batteries, electric motor, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Additional disposal footprint for batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a used biodiesel vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Possibly&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;) more fuel consumption, greater emissions&#xD;&#xA;* Possibly greater fuel manufacturing cost&#xD;&#xA;* Greater repair costs/footprint (compared to any new vehicle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;My '03 TDI Jetta gets better fuel economy than all but the newest and smallest hybrids (and it's a lot more fun to drive).  All biodiesel is not created equal. If you have a source of biodiesel recycled from used oil, the fuel refinement cost is practically nothing. If using biodiesel made from soy, it may actually be worse for the environment than straight diesel, as soy farming is not sustainable, and uses a lot of petroleum. I don't know exact numbers, but if memory serves, energy gain for soy biodiesel is something like 10%.  (That is, for 1 liter of soy biodiesel, .9 liters of petroleum are consumed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion, in order of least environmental impact:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A bicycle&#xD;&#xA;* A used all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with recycled biodiesel or straight veg oil (SVO/WVO)&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with standard diesel or soy biodiesel&#xD;&#xA;* A used gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A new diesel vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A used hybrid&#xD;&#xA;* A new hybrid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;I don't actually know if an all-electric vehicle is better than internal combustion, but I suspect it is, because it reduces the mass of the vehicle, and many peripheral fluids (engine coolant, motor oil, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that even without biodiesel, a diesel vehicle is more sustainable than a gasoline vehicle.  All other things equal, diesel gets roughly 33% better fuel economy than gasoline.  Diesel refining is also, arguably, less harmful to the environment than gasoline.  And lastly, a diesel engine is mechanically simpler than a gasoline engine, and thus will last longer (500k miles is common).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest looking for a good quality used diesel vehicle.  A 2000-2003 Jetta TDI is the ideal right now, easily over 50mpg highway.  But even the newer Jettas still get excellent fuel economy, and the older ones can, too. My '86 gets about 40mpg.  My '03 about 52mpg." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="21" RevisionGUID="ff99e86e-167b-45ee-b1b7-aa7f02dbda42" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:47:41.017" UserId="33" Comment="Clarified text around Prius vs. Hummer study" Text="So the short answer is to look at '[life-cycle assessment][1]' studies (LCA). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The longer answer is to ask what you mean by 'better', and then look at a bunch of LCAs and figure out what impact categories you care about most. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case, the goal of LCA is to collect all the different inputs and outputs for a product for all stages - not just use, but manufacturing and mining and disposal, etc. These impacts are collected into a smaller number of interpretable impact categories. Some impact categories to think about: carbon footprint/global warming potential, energy consumption, ecotoxicity, human health, water consumption. All of these are pretty commonly used. There is a lot of research on LCA methods, both on how to collect the basic data and how to transform it into these impact categories. Two common methods include the EPA's [TRACI][2] or the european [ReCiPe][3]. Ideally, LCA's provide a quantitative and clear answer, but that's rarely true - they are quantitative though, which is really important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some of your later questions, particularly around batteries, the answers will depend on the study. The technical terms here are allocation and boundary conditions. Do we model battery recycling? who gets the benefits of it? what technologies are we looking at, and what other products do those produce? What impacts or processes do we include or exclude? There are generally a lot of assumptions, which need to be made and defended to move forward - though often they need to be revised for new technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your initial question, there was a poorly done report from years ago that purported to show that older Priuses were 'worse' than a Hummer in terms of energy usage. The report was [debunked][4] all over the place, but it is true that we've gotten better at making batteries over time. New hybrids have much lower impacts than the originals, and keeping the car longer will definitely decrease the relative impact (one of the assumptions is about how long cars last). Check out a newer study [here][5]. In terms of toxicity, here's an [older][6] and [newer][7] study on the topic - it can take some study to get a reasonable answer, and it's rarely clear-cut. There are almost always tradeoffs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/std/traci/traci.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.lcia-recipe.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2007/08/27/201795/prius-easily-beats-hummer-in-life-cycle-energy-use-dust-to-dust-report-has-no-basis-in-fact/?mobile=nc&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702178s&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=8885172735616357524&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0,39&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es103607c" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="8ee322f5-97b2-4980-99ab-dde82740a422" CreationDate="2013-02-08T19:53:06.623" UserId="48" Comment="added 583 characters in body" Text="Fuel consumption is typically 70-90% of a vehicle's lifecycle energy consumption and GHG emissions, so there are lots of circumstances where upgrading to a significantly more energy-efficient vehicle makes a lot of sense. See, for details [TRL VR6][1] and [The UK Automotive Sector: Toward Sustainability.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the vehicle being replaced gets a very large proportion of its materials recycled, then that helps even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noticing that despite all the FUD on the internet, it is pretty clear that when the science is done, [hybrids are better than fossil-fuelled internal-combustion engines][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that doesn't make hybrids a sustainable option. If you're putting fossil-fuel in, they're not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other, more sustainable options, and these will depend on your real trip patterns. For many households, an electric-vehicle for the vast majority of daily travel that's less than 120km, and borrowing / hiring / sharing a different vehicle for the occasional longer trip, will do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trade-off will depend a lot on your particular circumstances: if you've got an older biodiesel vehicle, it will depend on the lifecycle emissions of your biodiesel supply, and that will vary hugely around the world.  If you get a hybrid, will it be biodiesel / electric hybrid, or something else?  If biodisel-electric, then it will almost certainly be better than an older biodiesel vehicle. If fossil-fuel electric, it could be worse, if your current biodiesel supply is pretty clean. Note that in that latter case, there will be trade-offs between local and global pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_sustainability/report_sustainable_resource_use_in_the_motor_industry_a_mass_balance_approach.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/reports/SMMT%20Sixth%20Annual%20Sustainability%20Report.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2007/08/27/201795/prius-easily-beats-hummer-in-life-cycle-energy-use-dust-to-dust-report-has-no-basis-in-fact/?mobile=nc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="54f783a1-25cc-438e-9982-bbfd76a0976c" CreationDate="2013-02-08T20:15:14.440" UserId="40" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="**TLDR;** In my estimation, a new car never makes sense, from an environmental standpoint.  And a hybrid never makes sense--it offers the worst of both worlds (all the pollution, manufacturing, and disposal footprint of internal combustion *and* electric).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All things considered, the fuel consumption of any vehicle is minor compared to the manufacturing, disposal, and maintenance footprints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A used vehicle has the lowest manufacturing footprint, sometimes at the cost of greater maintenance footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read (disputed) reports that the environmental footprint of a Prius is the same as that of a Hummer after 100,000 miles. True or not, it helps one think about putting fuel consumption into perspective of the larger picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full disclosure: I have owned 6 diesel vehicles. I currently own an '86 TurboDiesel Jetta, and an '03 TDI Jetta. I have never owned a hybrid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any specifics (because I don't know them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hybrid vehicle reduces emissions (although in the U.S., the most efficient hybrid is barely more efficient than the most efficient diesel vehicles, in Europe, there are even more efficient diesel vehicles).  It increases manufacturing and disposal footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Environmental factors which are roughly the same for both a used biodiesel and new hybrid vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Engine coolant&#xD;&#xA;* Motor oil&#xD;&#xA;* Repairs for: Suspension, engine, windshield, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Disposal footprint for any vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a new hybrid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Manufacturing footprint of a new vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* Additional manufacturing footprint for batteries, electric motor, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Additional disposal footprint for batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a used biodiesel vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Possibly&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;) more fuel consumption, greater emissions&#xD;&#xA;* Possibly greater fuel manufacturing cost&#xD;&#xA;* Greater repair costs/footprint (compared to any new vehicle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;My '03 TDI Jetta gets better fuel economy than all but the newest and smallest hybrids (and it's a lot more fun to drive).  All biodiesel is not created equal. If you have a source of biodiesel recycled from used oil, the fuel refinement cost is practically nothing. If using biodiesel made from soy, it may actually be worse for the environment than straight diesel, as soy farming is not sustainable, and uses a lot of petroleum. I don't know exact numbers, but if memory serves, energy gain for soy biodiesel is something like 10%.  (That is, for 1 liter of soy biodiesel, .9 liters of petroleum are consumed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion, in order of least environmental impact (assuming you are using the most fuel-efficient vehicle in each class, that will suit your needs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A bicycle&#xD;&#xA;* A used all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with recycled biodiesel or straight veg oil (SVO/WVO)&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with standard diesel or soy biodiesel&#xD;&#xA;* A used gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A new diesel vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A used hybrid&#xD;&#xA;* A new hybrid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;I don't actually know if an all-electric vehicle is better than internal combustion, but I suspect it is, because it reduces the mass of the vehicle, and many peripheral fluids (engine coolant, motor oil, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that even without biodiesel, a diesel vehicle is more sustainable than a gasoline vehicle.  All other things equal, diesel gets roughly 33% better fuel economy than gasoline.  Diesel refining is also, arguably, less harmful to the environment than gasoline.  And lastly, a diesel engine is mechanically simpler than a gasoline engine, and thus will last longer (500k miles is common).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest looking for a good quality used diesel vehicle.  A 2000-2003 Jetta TDI is the ideal right now, easily over 50mpg highway.  But even the newer Jettas still get excellent fuel economy, and the older ones can, too. My '86 gets about 40mpg.  My '03 about 52mpg." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1159" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="757234ce-317b-4dd7-a035-45d3a8c87962" CreationDate="2013-02-08T20:18:49.833" UserId="60" Comment="reformulating the caption to question" Text="What soil mixture is suitable for sustainably growing ginger indoors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1160" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="757234ce-317b-4dd7-a035-45d3a8c87962" CreationDate="2013-02-08T20:18:49.833" Comment="Proposed by 60 approved by 66, 117 edit id of 65" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="425" RevisionGUID="0eaa13df-f756-4388-bc7a-86df03604eb4" CreationDate="2013-02-08T21:37:50.360" UserId="40" Text="Inspired by my own answer [here](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/417/40), I'm wondering what the actual numbers are regarding gasoline and Diesel fuel refining.  I have read (don't remember where) that refining of Diesel fuel is less environmentally damaging than that of gasoline.  But is this actually true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for the sake of this question, I'm interested in the environmental impact of refining per energy output (not per volume of fuel), so the energy density of the output fuel ought to be considered.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="425" RevisionGUID="0eaa13df-f756-4388-bc7a-86df03604eb4" CreationDate="2013-02-08T21:37:50.360" UserId="40" Text="Is gasoline or diesel refining less sustainable, per energy output?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="425" RevisionGUID="0eaa13df-f756-4388-bc7a-86df03604eb4" CreationDate="2013-02-08T21:37:50.360" UserId="40" Text="|energy|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="fa2cceec-b803-4ea5-a7fc-0371d2a3c6e5" CreationDate="2013-02-08T21:38:30.047" UserId="215" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited title" Text="I've heard a lot of back and forth on this issue, but when purchasing our next vehicle which is actually the better way to go?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For us, we cannot go fully electric at this point due to drive times, and there is no good public transit close to our house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This questions whether it is environmentally friendly to purchase a new hybrid, but doesn't really address the choice between types of used vehicles:&#xD;&#xA;[How to determine whether hybrid cars are really better for the environment?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10/how-to-determine-whether-hybrid-cars-are-really-better-for-the-environment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1165" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="fa2cceec-b803-4ea5-a7fc-0371d2a3c6e5" CreationDate="2013-02-08T21:38:30.047" UserId="215" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited title" Text="Older biodiesel vehicle or newer but used hybrid, which is actually more sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="1d7d22be-548d-4387-ba2f-9461192c1483" CreationDate="2013-02-08T21:43:59.360" UserId="40" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="**TLDR;** In my estimation, a new car never makes sense, from an environmental standpoint.  And a hybrid never makes sense--it offers the worst of both worlds (all the pollution, manufacturing, and disposal footprint of internal combustion *and* electric).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All things considered, the fuel consumption of any vehicle is minor compared to the manufacturing, disposal, and maintenance footprints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A used vehicle has the lowest manufacturing footprint, sometimes at the cost of greater maintenance footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read (disputed) reports that the environmental footprint of a Prius is the same as that of a Hummer after 100,000 miles. True or not, it helps one think about putting fuel consumption into perspective of the larger picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full disclosure: I have owned 6 diesel vehicles. I currently own an '86 TurboDiesel Jetta, and an '03 TDI Jetta. I have never owned a hybrid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any specifics (because I don't know them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hybrid vehicle reduces emissions (although in the U.S., the most efficient hybrid is barely more efficient than the most efficient diesel vehicles, in Europe, there are even more efficient diesel vehicles).  It increases manufacturing and disposal footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Environmental factors which are roughly the same for both a used biodiesel and new hybrid vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Engine coolant&#xD;&#xA;* Motor oil&#xD;&#xA;* Repairs for: Suspension, engine, windshield, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Disposal footprint for any vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a new hybrid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Manufacturing footprint of a new vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* Additional manufacturing footprint for batteries, electric motor, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Additional disposal footprint for batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a used biodiesel vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Possibly&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;) more fuel consumption, greater emissions&#xD;&#xA;* Possibly greater fuel manufacturing cost&#xD;&#xA;* Greater repair costs/footprint (compared to any new vehicle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;My '03 TDI Jetta gets better fuel economy than all but the newest and smallest hybrids (and it's a lot more fun to drive).  All biodiesel is not created equal. If you have a source of biodiesel recycled from used oil, the fuel refinement cost is practically nothing. If using biodiesel made from soy, it may actually be worse for the environment than straight diesel, as soy farming is not sustainable, and uses a lot of petroleum. I don't know exact numbers, but if memory serves, energy gain for soy biodiesel is something like 10%.  (That is, for 1 liter of soy biodiesel, .9 liters of petroleum are consumed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion, in order of least environmental impact (assuming you are using the most fuel-efficient vehicle in each class, that will suit your needs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A bicycle&#xD;&#xA;* A used all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with recycled biodiesel or straight veg oil (SVO/WVO)&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with standard diesel or soy biodiesel&#xD;&#xA;* A used gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A new diesel vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A used hybrid&lt;sup&gt;*\*\*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A new hybrid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;I don't actually know if an all-electric vehicle is better than internal combustion, but I suspect it is, because it reduces the mass of the vehicle, and many peripheral fluids (engine coolant, motor oil, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*\*\*&lt;/sup&gt;It's hard to rank hybrids accurately.  Some biased sources claim they are devilspawn. Other sources, biased in the other direction, claim they're heaven-sent. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  So take this absolute raking with a grain of salt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that even without biodiesel, a diesel vehicle is more sustainable than a gasoline vehicle.  All other things equal, diesel gets roughly 33% better fuel economy than gasoline per fuel volume.  Diesel refining is also, arguably, less harmful to the environment than gasoline.  And lastly, a diesel engine is mechanically simpler than a gasoline engine, and thus will last longer (500k miles is common).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest looking for a good quality used diesel vehicle.  A 2000-2003 Jetta TDI is the ideal right now, easily over 50mpg highway.  But even the newer Jettas still get excellent fuel economy, and the older ones can, too. My '86 gets about 40mpg.  My '03 about 52mpg." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1167" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="425" RevisionGUID="aad31158-25af-45d0-84e7-6aba43dc103c" CreationDate="2013-02-08T22:09:19.247" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300003400341401600" />
  <row Id="1168" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="425" RevisionGUID="7021f218-99cd-4300-aa1d-f97be0573423" CreationDate="2013-02-08T22:24:23.463" UserId="40" Comment="edited title" Text="Is gasoline or Diesel refining less sustainable, per energy output?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="426" RevisionGUID="dbb2d309-645d-402f-bfde-62837160911f" CreationDate="2013-02-08T23:02:21.747" UserId="212" Text="If you install a basic filter (gravel, mesh, coarse sand, mesh) before the reservoir, close the system to reduce insect access, and make the barrels completely opaque that water should be safe for your livestock, well...forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no sunlight, and little to no organic matter in the water, it will be safe for you to drink!  At least those measures have proved adequate for missionaries and ranchers all over the world for the centuries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="3d5d38a1-d423-45f0-b023-fe70588a9ffb" CreationDate="2013-02-08T23:24:07.353" UserId="106" Comment="rephrased, hopefully more to-the-point now" Text="In discussing &quot;green&quot; policies, the words &quot;sustainability&quot; and &quot;pollution&quot; are occasionally mixed together, as if they were antonyms. My gut feeling is that something that is polluting is by definition not sustainable, but I don't have a very clear view over the definitions of the two terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is inspired by a discussion at Politics.SE [as to whether pollution can be sustainable](http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/960/what-neoconservative-or-neoliberal-libertarian-alternative-policies-for-sust#comment3719_960). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can a behaviour be polluting while still being sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1171" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="3d5d38a1-d423-45f0-b023-fe70588a9ffb" CreationDate="2013-02-08T23:24:07.353" UserId="106" Comment="rephrased, hopefully more to-the-point now" Text="How are pollution and sustainability related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1172" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="408" RevisionGUID="e30d2d11-e827-4f80-b28b-d0a07c0122e9" CreationDate="2013-02-09T01:09:19.050" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300048699235643392" />
  <row Id="1173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="d088ec1c-16cf-4942-95a2-fbb44eafb7d0" CreationDate="2013-02-09T01:59:13.900" UserDisplayName="user220" Text="I'm playing with the idea of building my own home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not picked the location yet but I think I will be good with 1 acre of land. I follow [Cody Lundin and like the idea of earth house][1]. I'm also fan of Japanese house designs. I will most likely end up with dojo building, tool shed/garage, and main building probably earth house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The question is: after having this basic idea how should I go about planing  of the building, budgeting and sourcing of material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to educate myself on topic of sustainable living and aquaculture before I actually come up with some final decisions, I'm hopping 3 years would be enough for that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.codylundin.com/codys_house.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="d088ec1c-16cf-4942-95a2-fbb44eafb7d0" CreationDate="2013-02-09T01:59:13.900" UserDisplayName="user220" Text="Planing to build zero energy earth house" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="d088ec1c-16cf-4942-95a2-fbb44eafb7d0" CreationDate="2013-02-09T01:59:13.900" UserDisplayName="user220" Text="|home|planning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="428" RevisionGUID="0c9c6a34-7cc8-4262-af46-d070fedb8dd4" CreationDate="2013-02-09T02:36:14.207" UserId="130" Text="Given that you have natural gas heat I have a hard time imagining that there is a lot you can do there.  There are likely some additional constraints given the historical value of the house.  I think in many cases it is more important to preserve historical character than to try to fully decarbonize but that's at least partly a personal preference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some ideas that come to my mind, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  After focusing on leaky windows and doors, and insulation, what about putting a solar collector array on your roof to help heat the water?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Perhaps you could use this to offset your gas-powered water heater first.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Also if you can, perhaps the capability, and south-facing walls, perhaps passive solar collectors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note not all of these may work.  None of them may.  But they are where I would start looking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="52f0c488-2e39-4d67-beaf-63187c281b9a" CreationDate="2013-02-09T03:35:32.950" UserId="130" Text="I don't think it matters.  You start off with crude oil and refining gets you a bunch of components.  If you aren't refining the gas what else are you going to do with it.  Just treat it as a waste product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you are refining oil, I suspect we might as well use it all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy unit to energy unit diesel puts out more greenhouse gasses, but again, once we are using oil, I suspect we might use all of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1178" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="360" RevisionGUID="a032551b-c03b-48f3-8445-68959e69c5ab" CreationDate="2013-02-09T04:09:18.473" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300093996192129025" />
  <row Id="1179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="430" RevisionGUID="d6cc7b27-69b7-4e75-aeda-8c889ef132c6" CreationDate="2013-02-09T04:48:42.403" UserId="85" Text="(This didn't fit in a comment.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 years to learn about earth houses, Japanese architecture and aquaculture? Well, you better get busy. If you are planning to help build it, you should do an apprenticeship with someone designing sustainable housing, permaculture or anything related. You can learn a lot in 3 years, but you can never learn enough. There are too many factors to list, but you should probably start doing _something_ and ask your local hardware store, carpenter, or people on this site for help, when you come across a specific problem. Try to make the place you live in now more sustainable. Sustainability is a mindset, and probably is as much an evolving process as it is a well-planned system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read about earth houses, Japanese architecture, aquaponics and anything else you can get your hands on. Then decide what you would like to focus on. You can't build a Japanese house underground with a river flowing through it..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1180" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="7c62c106-0eb8-4762-845b-2aed2dbcb8f1" CreationDate="2013-02-09T04:50:52.950" UserId="60" Comment="Caption is a question" Text="How to aerate compost without turning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1181" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="7c62c106-0eb8-4762-845b-2aed2dbcb8f1" CreationDate="2013-02-09T04:50:52.950" Comment="Proposed by 60 approved by 29 edit id of 68" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="431" RevisionGUID="3cdc1765-aa34-4f8a-8a15-3852b39040b2" CreationDate="2013-02-09T04:59:08.880" UserId="85" Text="I think pollution is part of the &quot;cycle of life&quot;, so to speak. What is unsustainable is unmanageable amounts of pollutants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="432" RevisionGUID="37af4299-f650-4698-82a4-12ed5b12a5af" CreationDate="2013-02-09T07:10:02.503" UserId="27" Text="Build 3 houses. It takes that long to learn enough to get it right. Live in each one for a while, so you can learn the consequences of your decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Really, there's a lot to learn in designing and building a house. Anyone can learn it, but it takes time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start by learning conventional house construction. There's a lot of hard-learned wisdom encoded in that style of construction. A good way to learn it is to find your local Habitat for Humanity and volunteer with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that house size is the #1 factor in the amount of energy the house will take to build and live in. If you live alone, you might tolerate a 200 sq. ft. tiny house, but if you have a family, be sure they are really in to the adventure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="415" RevisionGUID="70e75581-1066-46e4-ab04-b75b7e3f59ee" CreationDate="2013-02-09T08:35:06.033" UserId="98" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="There are electromagnetic ant repellents. Ants cannot stand the waves emitted by these devices. The device can be plugged into the wall socket.&#xD;&#xA;This is safe, harmless to humans and pets, noiseless, clean and hygienic. Energy consumption is about 5W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These devices are sold at many places. Unfortunately there is no irrefutable scientific evidence of their effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I personally tried is boiling about 5 lit water in a big pot and pouring this 100 C hot water into their hole. Unfortunately it works only outside. A bit primitive, but effective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="433" RevisionGUID="8d98775c-5445-4010-bcd7-6b17746c9613" CreationDate="2013-02-09T08:45:12.283" UserId="48" Text="Neither petrol (gasoline) nor diesel are at all sustainable. Both score zero for sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's for several reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both release carbon dioxide (and other pollutants) during combustion; and that is leading us to catastrophic climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both come from crude oil, which is a finite, depletable resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The extraction of crude oil itself is environmentally destructive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this means that the refining of each is environmentally unsustainable too: the production of each is unsustainable, along the entire supply chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And given that the entire supply chain for each is unsustainable, it does not make any sense to talk about the relative sustainability of one part of that supply chain: sustainability by its very nature is an issue that concerns the whole system, not just one component." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="6b88f1bd-879e-482d-93c0-5029ceefb50e" CreationDate="2013-02-09T08:50:23.410" UserId="48" Comment="added 466 characters in body" Text="&quot;No&quot; is a pretty safe answer in general to the question &quot;Can a behaviour be polluting while still being sustainable?&quot;, just from any reasonable definitions of &quot;pollution&quot; and &quot;sustainable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's look at some corner cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, broadly speaking, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is both a local and a global pollutant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anthropogenic CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions were only 1-2% of what they are now, and not happening within urban areas, then natural carbon sinks could absorb those emissions sustainably, as long as those sinks are allowed to grow, rather than being shrunk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And scientists such as Columbia University's Klaus Lackner have developed means of extracting atmospheric CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and we have the chemistry to turning CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; into other chemicals, including methane. So there are round trips which would involve CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions, but which could be sustainable. Obviously the round trip would be a net consumer of energy, but the price of energy differs by time, place and form, so this can still be economically viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, one way to look at the relationship between pollution and sustainability is this:  &#xD;&#xA;**if there are procedures in place to reverse the pollution; and / or if the rate of release of pollutants is less than the sink rate of the environment, and if the pollutants' pathways from source to sink does not cause collateral harm on the way, then it could be sustainable. Otherwise, it is unsustainable.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1188" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="0ba60ec6-b0b1-4ff7-82b5-74003945d299" CreationDate="2013-02-09T13:09:18.653" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300229892312817665" />
  <row Id="1189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="de97c430-dc6d-4fb3-9934-a411a230c7f8" CreationDate="2013-02-09T14:48:54.373" UserId="99" Comment="fixed spelling and grammar, added zero-energy tag" Text="I'm playing with the idea of building my own home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not picked the location yet but I think I will be good with 1 acre of land. I follow [Cody Lundin and like the idea of a earth house][1]. I'm also fan of Japanese house designs. I will most likely end up with a dojo building, tool shed/garage, and main building probably earth house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The question is: after having this basic idea how should I go about planning the building, budgeting and sourcing of material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to educate myself on the topic of sustainable living and aquaculture before I actually come up with some final decisions. I'm hoping 3 years would be enough for that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.codylundin.com/codys_house.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1190" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="de97c430-dc6d-4fb3-9934-a411a230c7f8" CreationDate="2013-02-09T14:48:54.373" UserId="99" Comment="fixed spelling and grammar, added zero-energy tag" Text="Planning to build zero energy earth house" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1191" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="de97c430-dc6d-4fb3-9934-a411a230c7f8" CreationDate="2013-02-09T14:48:54.373" UserId="99" Comment="fixed spelling and grammar, added zero-energy tag" Text="|home|planning|zero-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1192" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="de97c430-dc6d-4fb3-9934-a411a230c7f8" CreationDate="2013-02-09T14:48:54.373" Comment="Proposed by 99 approved by -1 edit id of 69" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="427" RevisionGUID="91fba402-3fa7-4507-806c-630bc0af3a4a" CreationDate="2013-02-09T14:48:54.373" UserId="66" Comment="fixed spelling and grammar, added zero-energy tag" Text="I'm playing with the idea of building my own home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not picked the location yet but I think I will be good with 1 acre of land. I follow [Cody Lundin and like the idea of a earth house][1]. I'm also a fan of Japanese house designs. I will most likely end up with a dojo building, tool shed/garage, and main building -- probably earth house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: after having this basic idea **how should I go about planning the building, budgeting and sourcing of material?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to educate myself on the topic of sustainable living and aquaculture before I actually come up with some final decisions. I'm hoping 3 years would be enough for that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.codylundin.com/codys_house.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="1f6cf241-51f7-4583-b17b-bf42288b1389" CreationDate="2013-02-09T15:58:05.823" UserId="142" Text="What are some common personal care products I can use that minimize toxic chemicals and plastic (or all) packaging?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="1f6cf241-51f7-4583-b17b-bf42288b1389" CreationDate="2013-02-09T15:58:05.823" UserId="142" Text="How can I minimize packaging and chemicals in personal hygiene products?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="1f6cf241-51f7-4583-b17b-bf42288b1389" CreationDate="2013-02-09T15:58:05.823" UserId="142" Text="|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="38f3f3fa-48bd-402b-b315-e696e650fb07" CreationDate="2013-02-09T15:58:05.823" UserId="142" Text="**Soap**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people, including myself, swear by castile soap such as Dr. Bronners. You can purchase it in bulk, and it has many uses other than just in washing your skin. It's one of those versatile things like baking soda and vinegar which have dozens of uses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A plastic-free alternative is a bar soap, I like the Kiss Your Face pure olive oil soap because it has a paper wrap and the only two ingredients are saponified olive oil and salt. You can also buy rather large bars (more product per packaging). Many stores sell bulk soap (such as some Whole Foods, natural food stores and co-ops) but you probably have to be careful about reading the ingredients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are ambitious you could probably make your own soap, which is best left for somebody with experience to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hair**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shampoo and conditioner can be completely eliminated in favor of castile soap (such as Dr. Bronners) or the &quot;no poo&quot; method, which uses baking soda as a shampoo and dilute vinegar as a conditioning rinse. Personally I have used the &quot;no poo&quot; method for several years and get comments about how great my hair looks, and I think it feels and looks amazing. There are many resources for the &quot;no poo&quot; method (just do a Google search and you will get a ton of hits) but [here is a good blog post with an explanation][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coloring of hair can be done with henna, [this great blog post on My Plastic-free Life][2] shows a couple henna methods (buying henna in bulk, and using a henna bar from Lush). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm hoping somebody else can comment on other hair products, which I tend not to use. I have seen [many recipes for flax hair gel][3] but I'm not sure what is used to replace hair spray, although [this post suggests using sugar or sea salt mixed with water][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deodorant**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This has been touched on in another post on this forum][5]. To sum up: baking soda works miracles!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Teeth**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be difficult to find an eco-friendly toothbrush, which was highlighted in [this great post on My Plastic-free life][6]. I like the Preserve recycled toothbrushes because they are so easy to find, easy to recycle and don't cost a lot of money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For toothpaste, you can make a tooth powder using baking soda, salt and cinnamon (just Google for tooth powder recipes). However, I have heard this is bad for your gums as it's very abrasive and I've stopped using it. [This post on My Plastic-free life goes over a ton of homemade toothpastes and other alternatives][7].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as dental floss goes, I like [eco dent floss][8] which comes with only minimal plastic in the package (to keep the floss fresh). The floss has no teflon coating yet is still very good at gliding between the teeth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have yet to find the best floss alternative for teeth that can't be flossed conventionally (for those of us with braces or a permanent retainer), but super floss (or the drugstore no-name brand) has minimal plastic in the packaging at least. If you found a good, reusable floss threader that would also be an option, although I find them to be very bulky (i.e. hard to fit between my teeth) and very cheap/disposable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Face / Makeup**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Face washing can be accomplished with castile soap (such as Dr. Bronners), some people suggest using the tea tree version of Bronners or adding a few drops of tea tree oil to your favorite castile soap. A lot of people swear that using castile soap has cured their acne problems, but I would take that with a grain of salt as it doesn't work for severe acne. I also like Desert Essence face wash, although it does come in a plastic container you can find it in quart sized bottles which lasts a very long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[My Plastic-free life has a recipe for making your own facial masque using items from a bulk foods store][9]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I enjoy [Organic Essence lip balm][10] which comes in a biodegradable container and has all USDA organic certified ingredients. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully somebody else can comment on makeup, as I haven't phased out my collection to anything approaching sustainable as of yet. I know there are a lot of organic makeup brands out there, but I can't vouch for their actual sustainability or quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hair removal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For shaving, I absolutely love my Merkur safety razor. I had a no name brand safety razor for a while, until the screw on the head broke off and I couldn't get it fixed. The good thing with Merkur is that I've heard they will fix them if they break. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The blades are stainless steel and if you don't have coarse hair, can last a very long time. I have a package of Lord safety razor blades ([for example, on Amazon][11]) that came with no plastic in the packaging. I haven't even used up one small container of 5 in the couple of years I've been using the Merkur razor, so a package of 100 will probably last a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are adventurous enough you could try a straight razor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found that I don't' miss shaving cream at all, I simply use liquid castile soap or lather with my bar soap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as waxing goes, you can use a sugar wax if you're comfortable doing your own waxing. There are a lot of recipes, here are two: [one][12] and [two][13].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweezing is of course another alternative which doesn't require using any products other than a pair of tweezers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Lotion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Organic Essence][14] has some great lotions which come in compostable containers and are made with USDA organic ingredients. I've had my lotion for probably 1-2 years now, and I must admit that the packaging is not in the best shape but has still held up. If you go through lotion quicker than me, it won't be a problem and you can put all of the packaging in your compost bin when you're finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also some lotions ([such as this][15], or do a search on Etsy) that you can find packaged in aluminum tins. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also seen many recipes for making your own lotion, such as [this][16] and [this vegan recipe][17].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you cook with olive oil, I find I like rubbing some in on my hands, although it does leave your hands very greasy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://babyslime.livejournal.com/174054.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://myplasticfreelife.com/2012/08/coloring-hair-with-henna-non-toxic-and-almost-plastic-free/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.crunchybetty.com/homemade-hair-care-flax-seed-hair-gel&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://wellnessmama.com/1409/seven-natural-homemade-substitues-for-conventional-beauty-products/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/247/is-there-a-deodorant-with-minimal-packaging-waste&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://myplasticfreelife.com/2011/05/eco-friendly-toothbrush-review-and-giveaway/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://myplasticfreelife.com/2011/08/searching-for-the-perfect-all-natural-plastic-free-toothpaste-or-powder-or-soap-or/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.eco-dent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://myplasticfreelife.com/2011/07/how-to-make-your-own-mint-julep-masque-without-plastic-or-toxic-chemicals/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.organic-essence.com/lipbalms.html&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.amazon.com/Double-Safety-Razor-Blades-Platinum/dp/B001VTRGGK&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/ancient-egyptian-body-sugaring.html&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://myplasticfreelife.com/2011/08/remove-hair-with-diy-homemade-sugar-wax-cheap-plastic-free-and-dangerous-in-the-wrong-hands/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.organic-essence.com/index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.hardlotion.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://wellnessmama.com/3765/luxurious-homemade-lotion-recipe/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/make-vegan-lotion-2831.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1199" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="19" RevisionGUID="1327d05a-c56a-4c93-9ba8-f68348c8d7c2" CreationDate="2013-02-09T16:09:19.097" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300275190884098050" />
  <row Id="1200" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="fc74440c-6e6e-4b36-b55c-efde40f6e809" CreationDate="2013-02-09T22:09:19.823" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300365790643892224" />
  <row Id="1202" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="29" RevisionGUID="0ceca825-75c4-4f31-9252-569800e15306" CreationDate="2013-02-10T01:09:21.690" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300411097356333056" />
  <row Id="1203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="429" RevisionGUID="a03c27f2-5924-45bc-871e-0eedb95f6917" CreationDate="2013-02-10T05:16:36.830" UserId="130" Comment="added 346 characters in body" Text="I don't think it matters.  You start off with crude oil and refining gets you a bunch of components.  If you aren't refining the gas what else are you going to do with it.  Just treat it as a waste product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you are refining oil, I suspect we might as well use it all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy unit to energy unit diesel puts out more greenhouse gasses, but again, once we are using oil, I suspect we might use all of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:  In case my answer wasn't clear, typically oil refining is done through fractional destillation and diesel is somewhat at a different level there than gasoline.  Consequently these use very different components of crude oil, so this question seems to come down to an equivalent to whether chuck roast is more sustainable than rib steak.  Once you are refining diesel, is it more sustainable to throw away the gasoline as industrial waste or to pull that out separately?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1204" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="61" RevisionGUID="eb9337b1-0f6b-4328-a196-4ea5f823ed3a" CreationDate="2013-02-10T07:10:15.557" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300501920223744000" />
  <row Id="1208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="e3d3453d-2576-4aea-9f9c-984386d45d86" CreationDate="2013-02-10T08:35:01.040" UserId="28" Text="I know that it is illegal to catch and use graywater in many US states.  What states and/or nations have favorable laws for graywater usage? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="e3d3453d-2576-4aea-9f9c-984386d45d86" CreationDate="2013-02-10T08:35:01.040" UserId="28" Text="Favorable laws for graywater usage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="437" RevisionGUID="e3d3453d-2576-4aea-9f9c-984386d45d86" CreationDate="2013-02-10T08:35:01.040" UserId="28" Text="|greywater|law|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1211" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="348" RevisionGUID="10acdd5c-85d1-465f-8965-d4fde6419162" CreationDate="2013-02-10T10:10:15.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300547218681757697" />
  <row Id="1212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="433" RevisionGUID="1daff0a6-1661-4576-8c91-30716fd0d338" CreationDate="2013-02-10T10:32:20.910" UserId="48" Comment="added 3064 characters in body" Text="tl;dr **There really isn't a sustainability argument for switching either way between them: there is only an argument for switching away from both.** It's akin to asking whether we should switch from coal to gas: the answer is that that's not a meaningful question: we absolutely have to stop using both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So although the question is in the same sort of rhetorical terrain as asking whether it's better to suffer a premature death by gun or knife, when the answer is obviously that it's better to not suffer a premature death, let's look at lifecycle analysis of their relative unsustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On specific pollutants, on a well-to-wheel basis, per unit distance driven, diesel tends to be worse for particulates and NOx; petrol (gasoline) is worse for CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and hydrocarbons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The system boundary for sustainability analysis&#xD;&#xA;When looking at sustainability, one has to draw a system boundary somewhere, to set out what will be included in the study, and what will be excluded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where one draws a system boundary is a judgement call: if it goes beyond our galaxy or beyond a billion years, you're system boundary is too large. If, however, it does not include consumption of the product and its direct consequences, then your system boundary is too small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For transport, we typically use a well-to-wheel basis. That's a generic description that applies even when the fuel doesn't come from a well (and even if the transport doesn't have wheels), and relates to the supply chain from initial extraction to the transport itself and the direct consequences, but not the indirect consequences such as changes in land use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Is the question meaningful?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither petrol (gasoline) nor diesel are at all sustainable. Both score zero for sustainability. And there is little to choose between their unsustainability: the trade-offs being some increase in NOx and particulates, for some decrease in CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and hydrocarbons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both release carbon dioxide (and other pollutants) during combustion; and that is leading us to catastrophic climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both come from crude oil, which is a finite, depletable resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The extraction of crude oil itself is environmentally destructive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this means that the refining of each is environmentally unsustainable too: the production of each is unsustainable, along the entire supply chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question, as posed, is not meaningful: it does not make any sense to ask about the sustainability of just the refining part of petrol (gasoline) or diesel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And given that the entire supply chain for each is unsustainable, it does not make any sense to talk about the relative sustainability of one part of that supply chain: sustainability by its very nature is an issue that concerns the whole system, not just one component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###But which is worse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [Life Cycle Assessment of&#xD;&#xA;Vehicle Fuels and Technologies (2006, London Borough of Camden)][1], diesel CO2 emissions are 16% lower than petrol on a life cycle basis (p36). However, particulate and NOx emissions from diesel are significantly worse (p37), with petrol NOx being only 60% of diesel NOx. Petrol has worse hydrocarbon emissions (p38). Those are on a unit-distance basis. Conversely, the unit-energy basis is used in the [UK DTI report from 2003, Life Cycle Assessment of Vehicle Fuels and Technologies][2], which gives total GHG emissions of 87gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e/MJ for ultra low sulphur diesel, and 81gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e/MJ for unleaded petrol (gasoline) (Table II).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary: there's really not much too choose between them. They're both completely unsustainable, in only slightly different ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/Camden%20LCA%20Report%20FINAL%2010%2003%202006.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file14925.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="438" RevisionGUID="1f87b08a-d3d3-4967-b3df-368a5b40d9a8" CreationDate="2013-02-10T11:00:21.317" UserId="48" Text="The Building Regulations for England, and the national (largely voluntary) [Code for Sustainable Homes][1], cover [water efficiency and greywater recycling][2]. The [calculation for legal compliance][3] includes the ability to achieve compliance by increasing your energy efficiency through greywater recycling, so it is **actively encouraged by the regulatory regime**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific legal documents are the [Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations 1999][5] and the Building Regulations (parts [G][6] &amp; [H][7]). The former [requires][8]:&#xD;&#xA; &gt; backflow protection of any public mains supply “back up” connection. They also place an obligation on installers not to allow cross-connection of mains-fed pipework with pipes carrying recycled water, and to clearly mark the pipes to distinguish recycled water from mains derived water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/improving-the-energy-efficiency-of-buildings-and-using-planning-to-protect-the-environment/supporting-pages/code-for-sustainable-homes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-water-efficiency-calculator-for-new-dwellings&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.thewatercalculator.org.uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fVHup.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1148/contents/made&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/buildingregulations/approveddocuments/partg/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/buildingregulations/approveddocuments/parth/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.rainwindsun.com/faqs/grey-water.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="b132b1cc-6991-4d9b-9c8f-59ae874a4850" CreationDate="2013-02-10T15:19:04.110" UserId="48" Text="Iceland is an unusual place. Its electricity grid is not widely connected to other countries. It has lots of geothermal energy. And it has been working hard on decarbonising (removing greenhouse gas emissions as close to zero as possible) all of its energy supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How far had it gone by 2012 in decarbonising its whole energy system? I'm thinking of the whole thing: electricity, heat, transport, industrial uses, the lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the country's plans to further decarbonise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="b132b1cc-6991-4d9b-9c8f-59ae874a4850" CreationDate="2013-02-10T15:19:04.110" UserId="48" Text="How far had Iceland gone by 2012 in decarbonising its energy system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="b132b1cc-6991-4d9b-9c8f-59ae874a4850" CreationDate="2013-02-10T15:19:04.110" UserId="48" Text="|decarbonisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1218" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="48e599be-e25c-4d35-966b-12c582c2b0b7" CreationDate="2013-02-10T16:14:07.827" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300638790211493888" />
  <row Id="1219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="440" RevisionGUID="66a425f9-d8c8-453f-b75c-823b6ae009fb" CreationDate="2013-02-10T18:09:36.570" UserId="20" Text="There are several products on the market that use mint oil such as [this one](http://www.amazon.com/EcoSMART-Roach-Killer-Aerosol-PACK/dp/B001CRK1VI/).  While I haven't used the one linked, I have used ones sold at home depot branded as &quot;safer&quot; and they worked well.  I sometimes had to do multiple applications over time, but in the long run, the ants subsided. In my case, I had sugar ants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1220" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="c950d448-2353-487a-a8b8-7efcff22fb13" CreationDate="2013-02-10T19:14:31.807" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300684190310100994" />
  <row Id="1221" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="394" RevisionGUID="5b1cd36a-f1b9-457a-b5ee-6d9b0d84ccbd" CreationDate="2013-02-10T22:14:52.493" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300729576110292992" />
  <row Id="1222" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="60fade21-cbfe-40b6-b53a-535acc39025b" CreationDate="2013-02-11T01:16:45.260" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300775346259771392" />
  <row Id="1223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="441" RevisionGUID="8894ce29-3e8a-4e98-9810-63185a11334a" CreationDate="2013-02-11T02:56:43.287" UserId="228" Text="You should try [boric acid][1]. Yes, it is an acid, but it is safe enough to be used as an eye wash for medical purposes. It is also toxic to ants and safe to use around the kitchen. I'm not sure if you consider it sustainable or not, but mixed with powdered salt or sugar, it gets rid of ants quite effectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not quite clear on what you mean about non-toxic in the question. Do you mean non-toxic to ants or to people and pets?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boric_acid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="442" RevisionGUID="87ad41d5-7fef-4042-b7ea-4e65206f7bd4" CreationDate="2013-02-11T09:11:09.100" UserId="130" Text="The best source of information I could find was this: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/iceland/energy-use-kg-of-oil-equivalent-per-capita-wb-data.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like about 80% of energy in Iceland comes from alternative sources (primarily geothermal).  However according to http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita they still used more oil in 2007 per capita than the US does.  My reading of this suggests that Iceland has not made strides in reducing overall oil dependence for things like transportation, although they have made strong gains just about everywhere else." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1225" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="390" RevisionGUID="a5dbc79f-acdd-4e6e-8d70-3ee63451310c" CreationDate="2013-02-11T10:17:06.620" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300911329085095937" />
  <row Id="1226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="443" RevisionGUID="186fd8f7-c7b8-4046-8654-f05bd3041914" CreationDate="2013-02-11T12:14:26.300" UserId="96" Text="Behaviour can be sustainable and polluting at the same time, if these conditions are met - all examples from wastewater:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The natural environment you are polluting is at all able to destroy the pollutants (usually, but not always, biological pathways): Taking a dump in a river may be okay, since your feces will be biodegradable. Other, industrial pollutants possibly not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You pollute slower than the system you are polluting can destroy/digest the pollutants. Dumping the feces of whole town into a river will probably overload the ability of the ecosystem there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You could state the last one differently: Pollution does not critically alter the ecosystem. Wastewater in rivers, lakes and the seas oftne consists of biodegradables that are in fact nutritios to parts of the ecosystem. But too many may lead to an algae-bloom, followed by a large scale die-off and eutropification of the lake, river or even patch of sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you need to do is to understand the pathways of pollutants into and out of (defined broadly) the system in question, and try to quantify how much pollutants can be destroayed/degraded/transported out of your system. That should be your cap on sustainable pollution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1227" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="208" RevisionGUID="695f3d45-a0d8-4499-9527-e5c6635bd2fe" CreationDate="2013-02-11T13:17:05.763" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/300956627069202432" />
  <row Id="1229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="b2cec598-a7d6-4280-b025-ea137e339cf1" CreationDate="2013-02-11T13:46:09.817" UserId="20" Comment="added 67 characters in body; edited title" Text="I purchased a Prius many years ago, but many of my friends have put forth claims that the batteries are very toxic and thus I may in fact be creating more harm than good in using a hybrid and that hybrid's are a less sustainable solution than non-hybrids?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can one objectively measure the total footprint of a hybrid vehicle to determine whether the use of a hybrid over a traditional non-hybrid gasoline powered vehicle is lesser or greater?  Has much research gone into the entire picture?  For example, when the car reaches the end of its useful life, what happens to the batteries, can they be recycled or are they thrown away?  What about the manufacture of the batteries, what negative effects come into play during manufacture?  Are there other externalities that I've missed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1230" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="b2cec598-a7d6-4280-b025-ea137e339cf1" CreationDate="2013-02-11T13:46:09.817" UserId="20" Comment="added 67 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to determine whether hybrid cars are really more sustainable than traditional cars?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="444" RevisionGUID="cf7b0268-2ea5-4fa1-a789-2d37780138e9" CreationDate="2013-02-11T15:20:08.973" UserId="28" Text="Links to hard information about countries with high rates of greywater recycling would be very helpful in influencing areas that have unfavorable laws." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="444" RevisionGUID="cf7b0268-2ea5-4fa1-a789-2d37780138e9" CreationDate="2013-02-11T15:20:08.973" UserId="28" Text="What countries have the highest greywater reuse rates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="444" RevisionGUID="cf7b0268-2ea5-4fa1-a789-2d37780138e9" CreationDate="2013-02-11T15:20:08.973" UserId="28" Text="|law|greywater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="8fa2e7b4-877b-44f1-b15a-4134085b20f1" CreationDate="2013-02-11T16:18:47.600" UserId="164" Comment="Made the answer reference into a link." Text="Open fireplaces provide minimal heat to a house, as the warm air heads out the chimney, while cool air is sucked in to the house to replace it. This is a great feature when cooking over wood in the summer, but it's not helpful for staying warm in the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can buy a woodstove insert that will improve the efficiency, keeping more of the heat in your house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in a major project, look at high thermal mass stoves, which can be extremely efficient when burning wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [rethinktag mentions][1], **moisture content of wood** is extremely important. All the latent moisture in wood must be evaporated before the wood can get hot enough to burn. Wetter wood means more heat devoted to drying the wood out, which means burning more wood. Wetter wood also means cooler fires, which means incomplete combustion, leading to increased air pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/45/164" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1235" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="8fa2e7b4-877b-44f1-b15a-4134085b20f1" CreationDate="2013-02-11T16:18:47.600" Comment="Proposed by 164 approved by 117 edit id of 70" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1236" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="444" RevisionGUID="e5bf30e0-5a7a-48d2-bd3c-3bfb3faf3a00" CreationDate="2013-02-11T19:17:05.990" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/301047223997853696" />
  <row Id="1237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="445" RevisionGUID="13edc40c-61fb-4d6d-a010-7de307b42d51" CreationDate="2013-02-11T20:52:10.297" UserId="27" Text="Washington State recently implemented a new set of rules allowing greywater. Details: http://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/WastewaterManagement/GreywaterReuse.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, greywater legislation is typically focused on **plumbing and building codes**, e.g. &quot;Can I plumb my shower to drain in to the garden?&quot; and not behavior, e.g. &quot;can I take a shower in the garden&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of **behaviors** are not so much legal or illegal, as outside of the purview of law.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="bb2413e1-b630-418d-aa12-fc98679dc8a7" CreationDate="2013-02-11T23:40:33.483" UserId="142" Text="Is it possible to reuse greywater in an apartment, in which you can't modify the plumbing? Seems like it would be better to water plants with greywater than using fresh water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="bb2413e1-b630-418d-aa12-fc98679dc8a7" CreationDate="2013-02-11T23:40:33.483" UserId="142" Text="Is it possible to reuse grey water in an apartment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="bb2413e1-b630-418d-aa12-fc98679dc8a7" CreationDate="2013-02-11T23:40:33.483" UserId="142" Text="|apartment|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="447" RevisionGUID="d9b1df55-0c96-48fb-ae8a-f2994e847188" CreationDate="2013-02-12T01:10:26.563" UserId="130" Text="The initial question is what your source of grey water can be.  This will vary from apartment to apartment.  Human ingenuity is a marvellous thing so I will not say it is impossible to practically re-use grey water but it sounds like a real challenge.  Note that not all apartments are the same and water re-use may take unusual forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a conventional graywater system a lot of different water sources are blended together and these have different properties.  Runoff from the shower is combined with runoff from the washing machine for example.  In your case I don't see how this could be made to work.  If you have your own laundry facilities, you might be able to come up with a way to harvest, for example, washing machine runoff, but it won't be quite the same thing but rather much more specific.  Consequently the question is if you get only a small portion of the gray water what then?  At any rate if you can modify the water out pipes from your laundry washing machine (dishwashers will be more complex due to space requirements) you might have a source of re-usable water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that point the question is what you can do with it, since it is unlikely to be conventional gray water.  There may in fact be many uses possible.  I am not sure I would want to harvest water from the detergent-based laundry cycle and put on my plants, but the rinse cycle might be good for that.  The soap cycle however might be a useful bit of water you could use for washing recycling out or for other purposes and then discarded, essentially re-using both the detergent and the water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="5e51f8a5-3ce8-42dc-be43-cd15f826ba83" CreationDate="2013-02-12T02:48:49.057" UserId="66" Text="### Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Dish water** is controversial as a source of greywater -- I often see it categorized as blackwater. If you do your dishes by hand in a tub.&#xD;&#xA;* If you have a **washing machine** in your apartment, it should be easy to reconnect the outflow hose to a bucket. Just make sure (a) the bucket is big enough and (b) the hose is securely attached so that you don't make a mess! (Again, hopefully it's obvious, but if you're washing baby diapers then this is *blackwater* -- don't keep it hanging around, flush it away.)&#xD;&#xA;* If the drain pipes connected to your **sinks** are accessible, they are usually easy to disassemble (either unscrew or slide the pipes apart). You can put a bucket underneath, just be careful that it doesn't overflow. (The same note re: blackwater applies here if you're doing dishes by hand, or if you manage to disconnect the kitchen sink below a dishwasher outlet.)&#xD;&#xA;* If you can't get to the sink pipes, consider placing a **bowl in the sink** to catch water when you wash your hands.&#xD;&#xA;* Similarly, men can **shave** with a bit of water in a bowl instead of letting the water go down the drain.&#xD;&#xA;* I think taking a bath is probably a bigger water waster than taking a quick shower, so I don't think it's worth switching to baths just so you can reuse the water, but if you do take baths, you can scoop out most of the water with a pail before opening the drain. (You'll either need someplace to store it, or you'll have to be able to use it right away though. And if you have little ones in the house, don't keep a tub full of bath water hanging around!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Uses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Any extra water can be used for **flushing**, but you should use the &quot;dirtiest&quot; water for this first since it is the last use that water will have. If you're storing the water in a bucket, you can just dump a gallon right into the bowl to flush.&#xD;&#xA;* If you grab the **soapy water** from the washing machine, you can use it for washing dirty stuff -- scrubbing the toilet bowl, cleaning out trash cans, etc.&#xD;&#xA;* The cleaner water can be used for **watering plants**. Be careful about what you use for cleaning products, and you can probably use the water on more of your plants. Be careful about what water you use on plants that you're eating directly -- I don't think I'd use bath water on my spinach, for example.&#xD;&#xA;* If you have a top-load washing machine, you could pour in some of your cleaner water into the **initial rinse water**.&#xD;&#xA;* If you want to all-out, you can build a [**slow sand filter**](http://tilz.tearfund.org/Publications/Footsteps+31-40/Footsteps+35/The+household+slow+sand+filter.htm) -- even if you don't get the water back to fully potable, you can at least move it back up the cascade a stage or two. E.g. perhaps the washing machine outflow can be reused, assuming you can dump into a top-loader." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1243" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="ab1d4a6c-6282-42a1-8640-78d0d0e84acd" CreationDate="2013-02-12T07:31:49.937" UserId="28" Comment="edited tags" Text="|apartment|city-living|greywater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="439" RevisionGUID="d2799908-784a-4460-8ed5-e4010cb95434" CreationDate="2013-02-12T07:59:12.747" UserId="48" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="Iceland is an unusual place. Its electricity grid is not widely connected to other countries. It has lots of geothermal energy. And it has been working hard on decarbonising (removing greenhouse gas emissions as close to zero as possible) all of its energy supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How far had it gone by 2012 in decarbonising its whole energy system? I'm thinking of the whole thing: electricity, heat, transport, industrial uses, the lot. I'm interested in what it's decarbonised, and how: so &quot;how much?&quot; is part of it, but &quot;how?&quot; is the larger part." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="a1271406-a252-45d9-8cc2-52e1339ebaf6" CreationDate="2013-02-12T09:15:51.660" UserId="15" Text="When reusing preserving jars, the most commonly available metal lids (with a rubber or soft plastic seal) are really just meant for a single use. I did find some reusable plastic lids (BPA and pthalate free) through Google, though whether they'd be available in New Zealand where I live, I have no idea (but it's unlikely to be easy to find or affordable). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are used jam jars or other used jars suitable for preserves? (can the lids be safely boiled, and an airtight seal be obtained reliably?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other readily available methods for safe, cost effective preserves that minimise waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="a1271406-a252-45d9-8cc2-52e1339ebaf6" CreationDate="2013-02-12T09:15:51.660" UserId="15" Text="How to minimise waste when making preserves safely and cheaply?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="a1271406-a252-45d9-8cc2-52e1339ebaf6" CreationDate="2013-02-12T09:15:51.660" UserId="15" Text="|reuse|preservation|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="f3b6637c-28e2-4b6c-9028-44b560922cb1" CreationDate="2013-02-12T10:26:40.510" UserId="130" Text="The old traditional method of sealing was to use wax.  There's no reason why a &quot;float&quot; of beeswax won't get you where you need to go along with jars which cannot themselves be sealed.  While this often works it is not perfect and the seal can break.  This being said there isn't any reason why this can't be used as one aspect of a seal.  It may not be perfect, but it is simple to do, and if the product is used within a few months, it is likely sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option, as you mention, is to re-use existing jam jars and lids.  I have done this with herbal medicine concoctions.  This usually works pretty well but some sorts of jars and lids I have learned to avoid not because they won't seal but because sometimes the seals end up locked and the jars impossible to open.  Jars to avoid include baby food jars.  I would assume that other similar jars should be avoided too.  Note you can test a seal with these by virtue of the fact that the button pops down.  If this doesn't happen, try a wax seal on these, and use first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="299" RevisionGUID="c73c7cfe-7c3b-4868-aad5-0ee1d00dafc5" CreationDate="2013-02-12T13:06:17.197" UserId="164" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="One option which may well become more popular in the future is photo-voltaic double glazing - a form of [Building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV)][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although low cost [thin film PV][2] generally has a lower efficiency than crystalline silicon cells - since they are layered on top of transparent glass, any light not converted into electricity passes through the glass. This makes them ideal for use in places where you would otherwise be unable to site solar panels. Many glass fronted buildings already attenuate the incident light anyway, to minimise air-conditioning costs or reduce glare, so converting that light into energy rather then turning it into heat or reflecting it out of the building has a certain appeal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of anyone producing home double glazing units featuring BIPV modules yet, but I know that machines for creating the glass panels for large scale BIPV projects have been around for years (I used to work on them in the mid to late naughties).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is certainly an area I will be keeping an eye on, as the idea of unclipping my existing double glazing units and clipping in replacement double glazing units with integrated PV holds a lot of appear for me personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIPV#Forms&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_film_solar_cell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1250" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="15" RevisionGUID="7478d9c9-0e7d-484e-ab83-7bcc75be3939" CreationDate="2013-02-12T13:17:06.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/301319016075644928" />
  <row Id="1251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="76d224c0-465e-432b-948e-3be37798eea2" CreationDate="2013-02-12T16:09:10.467" UserId="66" Comment="clarify why dishwater might be blackwater" Text="### Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Dish water** is controversial as a source of greywater -- I often see it categorized as blackwater. If you do your dishes by hand in a tub, then you don't have to worry about modifying any plumbing. Dish water may be categorized as blackwater because it will often contain grease, fat/oil, and food particles and you (a) don't really want to dump this on plants -- especially houseplants -- or (b) want to keep it hanging around for very long.&#xD;&#xA;* If you have a **washing machine** in your apartment, it should be easy to reconnect the outflow hose to a bucket. Just make sure (a) the bucket is big enough and (b) the hose is securely attached so that you don't make a mess! (Again, hopefully it's obvious, but if you're washing baby diapers then this is *blackwater* -- don't keep it hanging around, flush it away.)&#xD;&#xA;* If the drain pipes connected to your **sinks** are accessible, they are usually easy to disassemble (either unscrew or slide the pipes apart). You can put a bucket underneath, just be careful that it doesn't overflow. (The same note re: blackwater applies here if you're doing dishes by hand, or if you manage to disconnect the kitchen sink below a dishwasher outlet.)&#xD;&#xA;* If you can't get to the sink pipes, consider placing a **bowl in the sink** to catch water when you wash your hands.&#xD;&#xA;* Similarly, men can **shave** with a bit of water in a bowl instead of letting the water go down the drain.&#xD;&#xA;* I think taking a bath is probably a bigger water waster than taking a quick shower, so I don't think it's worth switching to baths just so you can reuse the water, but if you do take baths, you can scoop out most of the water with a pail before opening the drain. (You'll either need someplace to store it, or you'll have to be able to use it right away though. And if you have little ones in the house, don't keep a tub full of bath water hanging around!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Uses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Any extra water can be used for **flushing**, but you should use the &quot;dirtiest&quot; water for this first since it is the last use that water will have. If you're storing the water in a bucket, you can just dump a gallon right into the bowl to flush.&#xD;&#xA;* If you grab the **soapy water** from the washing machine, you can use it for washing dirty stuff -- scrubbing the toilet bowl, cleaning out trash cans, etc.&#xD;&#xA;* The cleaner water can be used for **watering plants**. Be careful about what you use for cleaning products, and you can probably use the water on more of your plants. Be careful about what water you use on plants that you're eating directly -- I don't think I'd use bath water on my spinach, for example.&#xD;&#xA;* If you have a top-load washing machine, you could pour in some of your cleaner water into the **initial rinse water**.&#xD;&#xA;* If you want to all-out, you can build a [**slow sand filter**](http://tilz.tearfund.org/Publications/Footsteps+31-40/Footsteps+35/The+household+slow+sand+filter.htm) -- even if you don't get the water back to fully potable, you can at least move it back up the cascade a stage or two. E.g. perhaps the washing machine outflow can be reused, assuming you can dump into a top-loader." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="451" RevisionGUID="404a64b3-75c5-4f26-9064-fd0667f32534" CreationDate="2013-02-12T18:19:34.233" UserId="85" Text="Used jam jars work fine for me. Depending on what you plan on preserving (and how _strongly_ you preserve it), used jam jars can get you quite far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several factors to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **How clean is the jar?**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. **How hot is the preserve at the time of filling?**&#xD;&#xA;3. **How resistant is your recipe against moulds?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For jams, you can strike a good balance with a 50:50 recipe (half sugar, half fruit). If you fill it still &quot;boiling&quot; the jam will be hotter than 100°C and then it is usually enough to wash the jar by hand and let it dry. (Jams I made this way easily last 2 years.) If your recipe is weaker (only hot fruit @80°C) you will probably want to sterilize your jars (and sort out any jars that smell or look dubious). (E.g. by putting your glasses in a steamer and steaming for 30 min.) And don't use damaged lids!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good jam jars have a good rubber seal in their lid. Cheap jam jars use cheap rubber seals and are thus less suited. The Weck jars ([picture](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qqdr7wqPC1w/S8ObnOf7vZI/AAAAAAAAC3A/0hs-8spG2L0/s1600/weck.jpg)) have again become popular in Europe and Japan and are well-suited for reusing. If you are serious about making preserves every year, you might want to invest in glasses. The rubber seals should officially be changed every time, but tend to last much longer than that. You can use them for storing leftovers as well. They are much easier to wash than commercial jam jars, because they don't have a screwing mechanism and many of them have a straight &quot;neck&quot;. (Which makes them less suitable for transporting in cardboard boxes.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="452" RevisionGUID="fb2d94be-671c-4679-ace3-b249fa2a7b3f" CreationDate="2013-02-12T20:47:48.923" UserId="48" Text="What are the sound reasons (let's put aside the unsound reasons) why increasing recycling is taken to improve sustainability (or equivalently to reduce unsustainability)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there real-world circumstances whereby increasing recycling might worsen sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1254" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="452" RevisionGUID="fb2d94be-671c-4679-ace3-b249fa2a7b3f" CreationDate="2013-02-12T20:47:48.923" UserId="48" Text="What is the relationship between recycling and sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1255" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="452" RevisionGUID="fb2d94be-671c-4679-ace3-b249fa2a7b3f" CreationDate="2013-02-12T20:47:48.923" UserId="48" Text="|recycling|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1256" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="452" RevisionGUID="787cb03b-1cbd-4e1c-a31d-95858866d4c2" CreationDate="2013-02-12T22:17:10.243" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/301454928050802691" />
  <row Id="1257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="453" RevisionGUID="97857e83-d08a-495e-b455-aaaa474226ec" CreationDate="2013-02-13T00:50:33.477" UserId="18" Text="The concept of sustainability was originally defined as « meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs » (United Nations Brundtland Commision, 1987). Following this definition, something is either sustainable or not sustainable; sustainability cannot be “improved” or “worsened” (or it is merely the time before depletion that changes).&#xD;&#xA;We are faced to the issue of sustainability because we live in a finite world, with limited amounts of the natural resources we depend upon. When we get rid of rubbish, we often condemn useable material to idleness, which brings us to constantly extract raw material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling means using raw material that has already been extracted; this reduces the need to extract even more of it to meet consumption wants. Simply enough, to be sustainable or to avoid depletion, the rate of extraction must be brought lower or equal to the natural replenishment rate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our use of forests is a good example of unsustainability : world forest cover has been shrinking quickly in the last decade, jeopardizing future generations' ability to enjoy its services (not only generations of humans, but also generations of animal forest dwellers). By recycling forestry products, such as paper and cardboard, we reduce the pressure put on forests and do not impede the latter's ability to replenish. In addition, making paper products form recycled fibers is much less energy demanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, here's the drawback :&#xD;&#xA;Products made from recycled materials are often of lesser quality than the object for which the material was previously used. This is called downcycling; the idea that raw material cannot be reused infinitely is intrinsic to it. Also, recycling is an unsustainable activity if it engenders the excessive use of other resources (e.g. Oil for transportation, or energy for transformation). This may occur for certain materials that are shipped overseas to be managed in developing countries at a lower [financial, not environmental] cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, most of the time, recycling is effective in reducing the demand for raw products and energy. This is especially true when the recycled objects are made from substances that takes very long to regenerate, such as oil (of which all plastics are made).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recycling to be unquestionably sustainable, it is necessary to review the way the material is transformed and re-processed. And for that reason, reusing before recycling is even better as we aim for sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycle Everything: Why We Must – How We Can (Janet Unruh, 2010)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Story of Stuff (Annie Leonard, 2010)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="29e9a771-7700-40b0-9377-eb00b91a9057" CreationDate="2013-02-13T01:02:07.223" UserId="15" Text="You may like to consider having a roof that reflects as much sunlight as possible back into space, thus increasing the earth's [albedo][1]. This probably means having a white roof, but I do remember hearing about special roof paints that were coloured but are designed to reflect as much infrared (heat) radiation as possible, which would be a partial (but likely expensive) compromise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More information here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/16/white-paint-carbon-emissions-climate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1259" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="275" RevisionGUID="c62a064e-2cdf-4ffc-9498-1a4cfd640143" CreationDate="2013-02-13T01:17:10.213" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/301500225674149888" />
  <row Id="1260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="454" RevisionGUID="70f83339-bb29-4179-bd7f-a3f5feee94c2" CreationDate="2013-02-13T04:04:49.953" UserId="15" Comment="grammar" Text="You may like to consider having a roof that reflects as much sunlight as possible back into space, thus increasing the earth's [albedo][1]. This probably means having a white roof, but I do remember hearing about special roof paints that are coloured but are designed to reflect as much infrared (heat) radiation as possible, which would be a partial (but likely expensive) compromise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More information here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/16/white-paint-carbon-emissions-climate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1261" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="446" RevisionGUID="b46bf275-eecd-4cc5-9bc7-7561de5366d6" CreationDate="2013-02-13T04:17:10.073" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/301545525428232192" />
  <row Id="1262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="455" RevisionGUID="4d29dffe-9e06-48b0-b865-76ba0acd4494" CreationDate="2013-02-13T04:53:11.597" UserId="92" Text="There are so many things that one can do to lead a sustainable life. I want to know what the top 5 most impactful things that I can do in my life to help me (and my family) lead a more sustainable life." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="455" RevisionGUID="4d29dffe-9e06-48b0-b865-76ba0acd4494" CreationDate="2013-02-13T04:53:11.597" UserId="92" Text="What are the top 5 sustainable practices for living a sustainable life?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="455" RevisionGUID="4d29dffe-9e06-48b0-b865-76ba0acd4494" CreationDate="2013-02-13T04:53:11.597" UserId="92" Text="|ecological-footprint|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1265" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="175" RevisionGUID="83f15cb2-b75f-4c59-acbf-364739205f53" CreationDate="2013-02-13T07:17:10.757" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/301590825681420289" />
  <row Id="1266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="027e51b6-3d6d-40e1-bde6-5798cd00a7a1" CreationDate="2013-02-13T07:17:38.647" UserId="15" Text="Some solar panels use silicon crystals that required careful purification and enormous quantities of energy. Some types use cadmium, which is highly toxic. [Several types][1] are noted by Wikipedia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we consider energy to manufacture, material toxicity, ability to be recycled, and average useful life, does any type of photovoltaic cell stand out about the others? Has this analysis been done by anyone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="027e51b6-3d6d-40e1-bde6-5798cd00a7a1" CreationDate="2013-02-13T07:17:38.647" UserId="15" Text="What type of photovoltaic cells are the most environmentally friendly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="027e51b6-3d6d-40e1-bde6-5798cd00a7a1" CreationDate="2013-02-13T07:17:38.647" UserId="15" Text="|photovoltaics|materials|recycling|embodied-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="443" RevisionGUID="1a8be645-3fcc-4346-8e30-fba615bcb60b" CreationDate="2013-02-13T08:45:24.283" UserId="60" Comment="corrected grammar" Text="Behaviour can be sustainable and polluting at the same time, if these conditions are met (all examples taken from wastewater):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The natural environment you are polluting is at all able to destroy the pollutants (usually, but not always, biological pathways): Taking a dump in a river may be okay, since your feces will be biodegradable. Other, industrial pollutants possibly not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You pollute slower than the system you are polluting can destroy/digest the pollutants. Dumping the feces of whole town into a river will probably overload the ability of the ecosystem there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You could state the last one differently: Pollution does not critically alter the ecosystem. Wastewater in rivers, lakes and the seas often consists of biodegradables that are in fact nutrition to parts of the ecosystem. But too many may lead to an algae-bloom, followed by a large scale die-off and eutropification of the lake, river or even patch of sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you need to do is to understand the pathways of pollutants into and out of (defined broadly) the system in question, and try to quantify how much pollutants can be destroyed/degraded/transported out of your system. That should be your cap on sustainable pollution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1270" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="443" RevisionGUID="1a8be645-3fcc-4346-8e30-fba615bcb60b" CreationDate="2013-02-13T08:45:24.283" Comment="Proposed by 60 approved by 66, 96 edit id of 71" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="457" RevisionGUID="e6c97260-3b30-4164-b42b-bf486ec5d225" CreationDate="2013-02-13T09:14:57.143" UserId="48" Text="What are the sound reasons (let's put aside the unsound reasons) why increasing energy efficiency takes us further down the road to sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there real-world circumstances whereby increasing energy efficiency might make sustainability harder to achieve?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1272" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="457" RevisionGUID="e6c97260-3b30-4164-b42b-bf486ec5d225" CreationDate="2013-02-13T09:14:57.143" UserId="48" Text="What is the relationship between energy efficiency and sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1273" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="457" RevisionGUID="e6c97260-3b30-4164-b42b-bf486ec5d225" CreationDate="2013-02-13T09:14:57.143" UserId="48" Text="|defining-sustainability|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1274" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="2cc1cd6f-0a86-48a7-8edd-4b84ba402daa" CreationDate="2013-02-13T09:17:29.257" UserId="48" Comment="adding defining-sustainability tag" Text="|defining-sustainability|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="407" RevisionGUID="1f1eced8-feba-42f8-8f18-79236cb8ceed" CreationDate="2013-02-13T09:28:15.997" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo" Text="Compost heaps tend to have a lot of bugs. Most of them are good, they help in the decomposition process. &#xD;&#xA;However, when there are too many of one specific type you might want to take measures. The appropriate measures depend on the type of bug that is dominant. Most often the heap is too wet (damp is good, soggy is not), too compact and/or has not enough browns. The result is a sour-smelling bin and a lot of flies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Fruitflies**: heap is too wet, if possible turn over the heap to help aerate it, then add a dry layer of browns on top (e.g. shreded cardboard boxes or newspapers). Do not add new material until the problem is reduced.&#xD;&#xA; - **Maggots/houseflies**: either too wet or too much meat or fish on the heap, take the same measures as with fruitflies but also make sure that any animal products are buried well within the heap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Covering existing air holes with a fine mesh will prevent (or at least reduce the number of) unwanted insects from entering the bin in the future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="458" RevisionGUID="bf9afe48-f311-460b-aa98-d29adc106b4b" CreationDate="2013-02-13T09:43:27.440" UserId="15" Text=" 1. **Live close to where you want to go.** Most longer distance methods of travel have an enormous environmental impact. Consider where your friends and family live, where you work, and where you shop. Learn about the impact of various types of transport so you can make sensible decisions.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Take a big picture look at the energy use and sustainability of your home.** Consider insulation, the orientation, the location, the size, and the shape of your home and how it affects your heating requirements. Consider the hot water system, the electrical system, and water use. Would it be better to move house than to try to alter your current one?&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Keep learning**. Things change over time and you need to understand whether or not you should change too. It also takes a long time to understand the damage that we cause through the downstream effects of our actions, and what we can do about it. Be comfortable with who you are; if you're not, you won't make sensible decisions. If necessary, make a spiritual journey (metaphorically, perhaps), or if spirituality isn't your thing then find a suitable alternative way to get where you need to be, psychologically.&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Don't buy [thneeds][1].** Before paying for goods or services, ask yourself *Do I really need this? What harm might I cause spending money in this way? What better alternatives are available?*&#xD;&#xA; 5. **Spread the word.** Don't be ashamed of doing any of the above. Teach the principles to your children. Encourage sustainability in your workplace, or find a new place to work that is more sustainable. Set an example to others. Raise awareness of why sustainability matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thneed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="458" RevisionGUID="17c87ba4-8a60-4d02-b087-4b8a38c1026b" CreationDate="2013-02-13T09:55:38.290" UserId="15" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text=" 1. **Live close to where you want to go.** Most longer distance methods of travel have an enormous environmental impact, or just take too long. Consider where your friends and family live, where you work, and where you shop. Learn about the impact of various types of transport so you can make sensible decisions.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Take a big picture look at the energy use and sustainability of your home.** Consider insulation, the orientation, the location, the size, and the shape of your home and how it affects your heating requirements. Consider the hot water system, the electrical system, and water use. Would it be better to move house than to try to alter your current one?&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Keep learning**. Things change over time and you need to understand whether or not you should change too. It also takes a long time to understand the damage that we cause through the downstream effects of our actions, and what we can do about it. Be comfortable with who you are; if you're not, you won't make sensible decisions. If necessary, make a spiritual journey (metaphorically, perhaps), or if spirituality isn't your thing then find a suitable alternative way to get where you need to be, psychologically.&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Don't buy [thneeds][1].** Before paying for goods or services, ask yourself *Do I really need this? What harm might I cause spending money in this way? What better alternatives are available?*&#xD;&#xA; 5. **Spread the word.** Don't be ashamed of doing any of the above. Teach the principles to your children. Encourage sustainability in your workplace, or find a new place to work that is more sustainable. Set an example to others. Raise awareness of why sustainability matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thneed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1278" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="457" RevisionGUID="8246eced-beb6-417a-a0ab-d15c13bb4e23" CreationDate="2013-02-13T10:17:09.900" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/301636121589317633" />
  <row Id="1279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="459" RevisionGUID="33bd0669-3c54-429f-9e2a-77e707fa28b9" CreationDate="2013-02-13T10:21:08.997" UserId="244" Text="Sustainable living could be only possible by giving (equal or more) than taking from environment and other species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Humans are superior species which can think beyond getting food (like other species) can use their ability to preserve and enhance the nature's flora and fauna rather destroying them for self benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You can plant more trees, gift them to your friends.&#xD;&#xA;2. Take care of Animals and Plants around.&#xD;&#xA;3. Use resources only when needed.&#xD;&#xA;4. Try using renewable energy resources like Solar energy, bio gas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="2ba00dc6-814e-42ad-bb61-21283c9ad3cb" CreationDate="2013-02-13T12:28:23.717" UserId="96" Text="Ultimately, it is a question of system boundaries. To be sustainable, a process must not ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*use energy faster than it can be replenished&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*use material resources faster then they can be replenished&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*pollute faster than the polluted system cen clean itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at almost any chemical plant, you will see some effort (and energy expenditure, and often material expenditure) to clean exhaust gases or waste water. Obviously the energy efficiency of the whole plant would be better without the cleaning effort, the sustainability not so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you only compare highly similiar processes, where matter input/output and pollution are the same, the one with the higher efficiency is more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1281" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="11047454-8acc-4fa3-ae65-935b85cca829" CreationDate="2013-02-13T13:17:09.603" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/301681419783127042" />
  <row Id="1282" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="455" RevisionGUID="7e426f65-65c1-4ac1-a7f2-15c6d92f9f39" CreationDate="2013-02-13T15:01:41.957" UserId="-1" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:142,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;lemontwist&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user1205935&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:91,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Linger&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;bstpierre&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="461" RevisionGUID="1d0ac4b2-72fa-4f71-8c1c-d8aa5b091632" CreationDate="2013-02-13T15:33:38.773" UserId="245" Text="Lidded bins tend to have this problem because they run hotter than traditional heaps and seem to be covered because of the lid. Do not underestimate the value of adding newspaper and card to the bin on a regular basis - every time you add anything else in fact. Often times the layers of dry should be as frequent and slightly thicker than the layers of moist (most stuff).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The top might be just damp but that can often hide that the lower levels are soaked and attracting too many flies or it can be that rotting food is calling them in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen a lot of bins that the owners swear blind are balanced but are in fact just too wet. This can be a health hazard when blow fly are involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If it is too wet*&#xD;&#xA;If the bin is too moist you can often tell by the bad smell when you get in close and/or by excessive seepage from the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the issue is drainage - the liquid is not able to escape the bin into the soil below. Maybe the soil is too hard, too much clay and not enough sand or looser material. In which case the bin needs a lot more dry especially lower down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can try sprinkling fine (silver) sand into the compost bin or you may need to simply refrain from adding any vegetative or other most/wet in for a few weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stale bread, card, wax free paper plates, most animal bedding, sawdust, toilet role tubes, pizza boxes, egg cartons, hair... there is a lot of dry that you could be adding but your real issue is that the dry is on top and the damp is at the bottom. I can't really recommend mucking that out with a big spade because... let's just say slime and stink and stop there. The problem is that turning it is the best bet... sorry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is a shady spot bringing it into full sunlight will help. It's better to need to give the pile a drink once a month in the summer than to have it too wet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A big culprit is grass cuttings laid in too thick (also teabags and kitchen waste piled too high without dry). The grass can seem almost dry but releases a lot of moisture as it breaks down. Try to get a thin layer of grass between to layers of dry. It never hurts to have sand or twigs below grass to let the air in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If the problem is fruit, black or vinegar flies*&#xD;&#xA;If you have a lot of tiny flies these may be vinegar flies in which case then the compost might be about right for moisture but not for containment. These guys look a lot like fruit flies and can be killed off by simply leaving a container of vinegar with a small opening nearby. They will often drown themselves for you. However you need to stop them moving in to start with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Killing them efficiently does not deal with the problem that attracted too many black flies, fruit flies and vinegar flies to your garden. They have come for the food and one way to stop this is to cover it up. Cover any food or vegetative scraps with a light layer of soil and follow this up with a few inches of brown material (ripped up newspaper, leaves, pencil shavings, plastic free junk mail or straw are all good). Two to four inches should do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should certainly never leave food scraps on the top exposed. This is asking for trouble but most of us have done it. The lid is only going to protect the bin so much. I know of one gentleman who found that his wife had been dumping the peelings into the compost bin and not putting the lid on correctly- when he came back from a week long business trip in mid summer he had a garden full of flies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have been growing and curing tobacco it can make a natural pesticide but if you are growing your own you probably are trying to avoid toxins to start with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="462" RevisionGUID="5dc35167-b237-44fb-a4fe-4276446664f8" CreationDate="2013-02-13T15:39:43.793" UserId="245" Text="Short simple answer is to learn to make the products yourself from all natural products that you grow (as much as is reasonable) yourself. However that is a tall order but many a (sustainable) cottage industry has started this way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="67fbf00f-5d24-4ac2-b749-88232d2e8b0f" CreationDate="2013-02-13T16:04:38.117" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="spelling correction" Text="Ultimately, it is a question of system boundaries. To be sustainable, a process must not ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*use energy faster than it can be replenished&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*use material resources faster then they can be replenished&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*pollute faster than the polluted system can clean itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at almost any chemical plant, you will see some effort (and energy expenditure, and often material expenditure) to clean exhaust gases or waste water. Obviously the energy efficiency of the whole plant would be better without the cleaning effort, but the sustainability is worse due to pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you only compare highly similar processes, where matter input/output and pollution are the same, the one with the higher efficiency is more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1286" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="67fbf00f-5d24-4ac2-b749-88232d2e8b0f" CreationDate="2013-02-13T16:04:38.117" Comment="Proposed by 141 approved by 117 edit id of 72" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="da224171-788e-4639-9c70-e4a0d5cfb3a1" CreationDate="2013-02-13T16:22:11.607" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="[This answer][1] does a great job of answering how recycling relates to sustainability.  So I will focus on where recycling is not sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recycling to be sustainable it should not create waste that is more damaging to the environment than discarding the original item would be, and/or more less efficient to create the product you end up with at the end of the recycling process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Certain alloys are not easily reforged and the process of forging creates molecular bonds that do not re-purpose well with out breaking those bonds.  To break those bonds on many aluminum alloys requires chemicals and often quite a bit of electricity.  Most of these chemicals are highly toxic, and create hazardous waste.  The effort, waste, and pollution created by recycling these alloys is more damaging to the earth than just discarding the alloy which is chemically stable, and does not create hazardous waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/453/141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1288" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="5364531a-04f5-4c71-acf9-e308b4fc3c38" CreationDate="2013-02-13T19:17:10.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/301772018511126528" />
  <row Id="1289" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="282" RevisionGUID="ce80f0fe-5e8c-4f5d-8caf-7d89674c8a31" CreationDate="2013-02-14T01:17:11.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/301862617960546305" />
  <row Id="1290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="58137617-7f4a-4597-bb35-1ce01fca50ab" CreationDate="2013-02-14T01:30:13.173" UserId="130" Comment="added 1552 characters in body" Text="**Scope of Answer and Safety Information (please read)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer assumes that &quot;preserves&quot; refer to fruit preserved with sugar.  It does not apply to vegetables or meat, or to cases where large amounts of sugar are not added.  If canning in those environment, please use more conservative approaches, or better yet from a sustainability perspective use more traditional means of preserving these foods for later, such as sauerkraut and salami.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fruit is not considered to be a particular risk when canning and if you go back a thousand years or so fruit preserved in sugar was stored open.  The acidity and sugar together combine to prevent harmful bacteria from growing, and white sugar is considered, at least by archaeologists, to be better at preserving fruit than honey is (see &quot;Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink&quot; by Ann Hagen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally there are a few fruit which have fallen out of favor which are traditionally preserved with citrus added, most notably the quince (&quot;marmalade&quot; comes from a word meaning &quot;quince jelly&quot;).  If going outside of the common fruit used for such preserves, you may want to test pH (which may be a good idea anyway).  If in doubt, add some extra lemon juice or other acidic fruit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more on safety, please see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/ill-intox/botu-eng.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.publichealthgreybruce.on.ca/communicable/fact-sheets/botulism-food-borne.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, defence in depth is important  and canning is a part of that depth today when making fruit preserves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Main answer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old traditional method of sealing was to use wax.  There's no reason why a &quot;float&quot; of beeswax won't get you where you need to go along with jars which cannot themselves be sealed.  While this often works it is not perfect and the seal can break.  This being said there isn't any reason why this can't be used as one aspect of a seal.  It may not be perfect, but it is simple to do, and if the product is used within a few months, it is likely sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option, as you mention, is to re-use existing jam jars and lids.  I have done this with herbal medicine concoctions.  This usually works pretty well but some sorts of jars and lids I have learned to avoid not because they won't seal but because sometimes the seals end up locked and the jars impossible to open.  Jars to avoid include baby food jars.  I would assume that other similar jars should be avoided too.  Note you can test a seal with these by virtue of the fact that the button pops down.  If this doesn't happen, try a wax seal on these, and use first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="5ba81cc4-2186-4ca4-b6c9-04aaeb24e324" CreationDate="2013-02-14T02:08:36.483" UserId="130" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="**Scope of Answer and Safety Information (please read)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer assumes that &quot;preserves&quot; refer to fruit preserved with sugar.  It does not apply to vegetables or meat, or to cases where large amounts of sugar are not added.  If canning in those environment, please use more conservative approaches, or better yet from a sustainability perspective use more traditional means of preserving these foods for later, such as sauerkraut and salami.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fruit is not considered to be a particular risk when canning and if you go back a thousand years or so fruit preserved in sugar was stored open.  The acidity and sugar together combine to prevent harmful bacteria from growing, and white sugar is considered, at least by archaeologists, to be better at preserving fruit than honey is (see &quot;Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink&quot; by Ann Hagen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally there are a few fruit which have fallen out of favor which are traditionally preserved with citrus added, most notably the quince (&quot;marmalade&quot; comes from a word meaning &quot;quince jelly&quot;).  If going outside of the common fruit used for such preserves, you may want to test pH (which may be a good idea anyway).  If in doubt, add some extra lemon juice or other acidic fruit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, even in the Middle Ages, such preserves were cooked, both before bottling and after bottling, so you can't omit the water bath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more on safety, please see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/ill-intox/botu-eng.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.publichealthgreybruce.on.ca/communicable/fact-sheets/botulism-food-borne.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, defence in depth is important  and canning is a part of that depth today when making fruit preserves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Main answer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old traditional method of sealing was to use wax.  There's no reason why a &quot;float&quot; of beeswax won't get you where you need to go along with jars which cannot themselves be sealed.  While this often works it is not perfect and the seal can break.  This being said there isn't any reason why this can't be used as one aspect of a seal.  It may not be perfect, but it is simple to do, and if the product is used within a few months, it is likely sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option, as you mention, is to re-use existing jam jars and lids.  I have done this with herbal medicine concoctions.  This usually works pretty well but some sorts of jars and lids I have learned to avoid not because they won't seal but because sometimes the seals end up locked and the jars impossible to open.  Jars to avoid include baby food jars.  I would assume that other similar jars should be avoided too.  Note you can test a seal with these by virtue of the fact that the button pops down.  If this doesn't happen, try a wax seal on these, and use first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1292" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="18" RevisionGUID="97afc34e-4be0-464e-875e-6bdc37518ee2" CreationDate="2013-02-14T07:17:09.890" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/301953211915456512" />
  <row Id="1293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="f8b143af-423c-4152-ad32-84280f49fd45" CreationDate="2013-02-14T07:58:21.060" UserId="60" Text="Use a common (commercially available) electric pump. Home made ones can be problematic, as [Chris][1] writes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solar pumps are available in various power. Even with a very small pump you'd want to install a controller with (at least) two temperature probes on the panel and in the tank to turn the pump on and off.   &#xD;&#xA;I'm using a 45W pump with throughput of 2 litres/minute on a panel with area of 1.2 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. During sunny summer it runs almost all the day and it's stopped by the controller if the heat gain is too low.  &#xD;&#xA;The pump installed in a polystyrene box to silence it and it works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/380/60 &quot;Chris' answer&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="38367c53-efe7-45f2-96b1-0f9f753a310e" CreationDate="2013-02-14T08:05:08.213" UserId="60" Comment="pressure info" Text="Use a common (commercially available) electric pump. Home made ones can be problematic, as [Chris][1] writes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solar pumps are available in various power. Even with a very small pump you'd want to install a controller with (at least) two temperature probes on the panel and in the tank to turn the pump on and off.   &#xD;&#xA;I'm using a 45W pump with throughput of 2 litres/minute on a panel with area of 1.2 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. During sunny summer it runs almost all the day and it's stopped by the controller if the heat gain is too low.  &#xD;&#xA;The pump installed in a polystyrene box to silence it and it works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll always have a high pressure (1 bar) in a closed system with varying temperatures. The panel can easily reach 100°C if the pump stops and the pressure will rise. An expansion tank is a must and water is not to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/380/60 &quot;Chris' answer&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="465" RevisionGUID="55ccfbef-8db5-427f-beef-dece0104a74c" CreationDate="2013-02-14T09:58:09.717" UserId="188" Text="I'd like to heat my house using self-grown firewood. How do I go about calculating the number of trees I'd need to plant each year to make it sustainable - same number of trees harvested each year as new ones planted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know how much firewood (m^3) I need to use per season to keep my house warm, but I have no clue how to convert that to number of saplings and time of growth. Also, what would be the best species for that purpose (climate: moderate, Central Europe), and optimal time (how many years) to wait until harvesting the trees for wood and replacing them with new ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other tips for growing and harvesting trees for firewood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1296" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="465" RevisionGUID="55ccfbef-8db5-427f-beef-dece0104a74c" CreationDate="2013-02-14T09:58:09.717" UserId="188" Text="Planting trees for firewood - how many?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1297" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="465" RevisionGUID="55ccfbef-8db5-427f-beef-dece0104a74c" CreationDate="2013-02-14T09:58:09.717" UserId="188" Text="|gardening|heating|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="371" RevisionGUID="89aef803-ab11-45b3-acc8-c85e2e8d6cd3" CreationDate="2013-02-14T10:11:05.153" UserId="199" Comment="better englisch?" Text="There shouldn't be a big difference in annual energy production between mono and poly in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three main factors that influence energy production of solar panels in real life are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - temperature coefficients (given at the data sheet)&#xD;&#xA; - the efficiency at low light conditions (should be given at the data sheet as the drop against nominal efficiency at 200 W/m^2)&#xD;&#xA; - the spectral response (mostly not given at the data sheet)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these factors are significantly different for both technologies, while&#xD;&#xA;they may differ from one module type to another.&#xD;&#xA;However it is difficult to differentiate between module types based on the information given on the data sheet (even with measurements of the low light behaviour it is difficult to say something about the behavior of other modules of the same type).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monocrystalline modules usually have a higher nominal efficiency, what could be interesting if you want / need to install as much power as you can. On the other hand they are more expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other factors that may be more important:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the price of a Kilo Watt peak &#xD;&#xA; - guaranties, power guaranties and the reputation of the manufacturer&#xD;&#xA;   (the modules have to produce energy over 20 or more years) &#xD;&#xA; - an installer that is available in the case of failures / maintenance&#xD;&#xA; - the dimensioning of the inverter with respect to the installed module power&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(and some more) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="466" RevisionGUID="30bddd3f-280e-4516-947e-cf05f2d45af7" CreationDate="2013-02-14T10:17:32.023" UserId="199" Text="I think the best tool freely available at the moment is the [System Advisor Model (SAM)](https://sam.nrel.gov/) by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) of the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Europe/Afrika a good starting point is [PVGIS](http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="9b13ab0b-43bb-466a-abd3-89b6a6c38bde" CreationDate="2013-02-14T11:55:18.437" UserId="164" Comment="Made the bullet points into bullet points." Text="Ultimately, it is a question of system boundaries. To be sustainable, a process must not ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use energy faster than it can be replenished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use material resources faster then they can be replenished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pollute faster than the polluted system can clean itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at almost any chemical plant, you will see some effort (and energy expenditure, and often material expenditure) to clean exhaust gases or waste water. Obviously the *energy efficiency* of the whole plant would be better without the cleaning effort, but the sustainability is worse due to pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you only compare highly similar processes, where matter input/output and pollution are the same, the one with the higher efficiency is more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1301" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="9b13ab0b-43bb-466a-abd3-89b6a6c38bde" CreationDate="2013-02-14T11:55:18.437" Comment="Proposed by 164 approved by 96 edit id of 73" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1302" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="36" RevisionGUID="1c71636e-6fe6-4e11-b8f9-2266d2bae562" CreationDate="2013-02-14T13:17:12.530" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/302043818436472833" />
  <row Id="1303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="467" RevisionGUID="63f05954-7bd7-4a64-87af-5efa57844d3e" CreationDate="2013-02-14T14:09:57.850" UserId="66" Text="The old farmers' rule of thumb is that you can harvest a cord of wood per acre per year. (For everyone *not* in the US, a cord is a unit of measure equivalent to 128 cubic feet of tightly stacked firewood, or 3.625 m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. An acre is about 0.4 hectares. So the rule of thumb corresponds to about 9m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;/hectare.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being a rule of thumb, there are some variables to account for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Different tree species have more [stored energy per unit of volume](http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm). E.g. Hop Hornbeam (Ironwood, *Ostrya virginiana*) has 26.4 MBTU/cord (7.685 MJ/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;), while Willow	(*Salix spp.*) has 14.2 MBTU/cord (4.133 MJ/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;* Different tree species grow at different rates. E.g. [*Salix x sepulcralis*](http://plants.usda.gov/java/charProfile?symbol=SASE10) may grow to 45' (13m) in 20 years, while [*Ostrya virginiana*](http://plants.usda.gov/java/charProfile?symbol=OSVI) might only reach 20' (6m). So while you can plant willow and get a ton of growth, you'll only get half the energy out of all the labor you'll have to do to harvest the firewood. I do the work to pull 6-8 cords off 10 acres every year with machines (tractor, winch, chainsaw, splitter) and it's a lot of work. I'd much rather have the denser wood, same energy, half the effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask &quot;how many saplings?&quot;, but that also depends on your species type and how you plan to manage the woodlot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask &quot;what would be the best species?&quot;. Personally, I would select 5-10 different species with different stored energy values, growth rates, and pest/disease resistance. If you get a beetle infestation that wipes out one species, you will only lose 10-20% of the total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask &quot;optimal time to harvest?&quot;. Personally, I prefer to harvest trees that are 40-60 years old. In my woodlot, these are typically beech (*Fagus grandifolia*) or maple (*Acer spp.*) that are 18-30&quot; (45-75cm) [DBH](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diameter_at_breast_height). You might be able to harvest smaller trees on a 20 year rotation, but then you're only getting logs that are perhaps 6&quot; (15cm) DBH. Again, that requires 3x the harvesting effort. Also, having mature trees in the woodlot means that they reseed themselves -- I *never* do any planting (just thinning), nor do I remove stumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One question you didn't ask is how to figure out how much wood you need, and how much land you need. Are you already heating with wood? If so, you know how much you use and the mix of species that you're using. You can make a rough calculation about how much energy (BTU or MJ) that works out to, and the volume (cords or m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) that you'll need (assume an average energy density based on your preferred species mix).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions you might ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What are the labor requirements for harvesting a {cord,m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;} of firewood using various methods? (all manual, with machines, with draft animals)&#xD;&#xA;* What kind of storage do I need to build for curing firewood and then keeping it dry?&#xD;&#xA;* What planting density should I use for planting firewood? (Include the species mix you're going to use.)&#xD;&#xA;* What management strategies work well for a firewood planting?&#xD;&#xA;* How can I get multiple uses out of land that is planted to firewood? (silvipasture / agroforestry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer above assumes that you're heating with firewood &quot;conventionally&quot; -- relatively large (&gt;12&quot; DBH) trees that have been cut into ~16&quot; rounds and then split and dried. This is how I deal with wood. I have heard of (but am not familiar with) stoves that are set up to use smaller chunks of wood from *much* younger plantings, e.g. densely planted, fast growing, possibly coppiced species like willow or poplar on 10 year rotations. This possibility suggests questions about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Coppicing (you'll have to do some initial research to be able to ask reasonably answerable questions here)&#xD;&#xA;* Systems (stove/boiler/furnace, storage, and possibly harvesting tools) for heating this way&#xD;&#xA;* Probably other questions that I haven't considered that will come up in your research" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="467" RevisionGUID="64b49f3d-34c7-4f3d-8a6f-f3c5a79cf822" CreationDate="2013-02-14T14:15:41.563" UserId="66" Comment="added 258 characters in body" Text="The old farmers' rule of thumb is that you can harvest a cord of wood per acre per year. (For everyone *not* in the US, a cord is a unit of measure equivalent to 128 cubic feet of tightly stacked firewood, or 3.625 m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. An acre is about 0.4 hectares. So the rule of thumb corresponds to about 9m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;/hectare.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For anyone questioning the validity of this estimate, consider: a 100-year old maple tree could yield a cord of firewood, and you could plant about 100 maple trees on one acre at 20x20' spacing. With that said, it's just a rough way to estimate yields.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being a rule of thumb, there are some variables to account for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Different tree species have more [stored energy per unit of volume](http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm). E.g. Hop Hornbeam (Ironwood, *Ostrya virginiana*) has 26.4 MBTU/cord (7.685 MJ/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;), while Willow	(*Salix spp.*) has 14.2 MBTU/cord (4.133 MJ/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;* Different tree species grow at different rates. E.g. [*Salix x sepulcralis*](http://plants.usda.gov/java/charProfile?symbol=SASE10) may grow to 45' (13m) in 20 years, while [*Ostrya virginiana*](http://plants.usda.gov/java/charProfile?symbol=OSVI) might only reach 20' (6m). So while you can plant willow and get a ton of growth, you'll only get half the energy out of all the labor you'll have to do to harvest the firewood. I do the work to pull 6-8 cords off 10 acres every year with machines (tractor, winch, chainsaw, splitter) and it's a lot of work. I'd much rather have the denser wood, same energy, half the effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask &quot;how many saplings?&quot;, but that also depends on your species type and how you plan to manage the woodlot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask &quot;what would be the best species?&quot;. Personally, I would select 5-10 different species with different stored energy values, growth rates, and pest/disease resistance. If you get a beetle infestation that wipes out one species, you will only lose 10-20% of the total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask &quot;optimal time to harvest?&quot;. Personally, I prefer to harvest trees that are 40-60 years old. In my woodlot, these are typically beech (*Fagus grandifolia*) or maple (*Acer spp.*) that are 18-30&quot; (45-75cm) [DBH](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diameter_at_breast_height). You might be able to harvest smaller trees on a 20 year rotation, but then you're only getting logs that are perhaps 6&quot; (15cm) DBH. Again, that requires 3x the harvesting effort. Also, having mature trees in the woodlot means that they reseed themselves -- I *never* do any planting (just thinning), nor do I remove stumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One question you didn't ask is how to figure out how much wood you need, and how much land you need. Are you already heating with wood? If so, you know how much you use and the mix of species that you're using. You can make a rough calculation about how much energy (BTU or MJ) that works out to, and the volume (cords or m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) that you'll need (assume an average energy density based on your preferred species mix).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions you might ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What are the labor requirements for harvesting a {cord,m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;} of firewood using various methods? (all manual, with machines, with draft animals)&#xD;&#xA;* What kind of storage do I need to build for curing firewood and then keeping it dry?&#xD;&#xA;* What planting density should I use for planting firewood? (Include the species mix you're going to use.)&#xD;&#xA;* What management strategies work well for a firewood planting?&#xD;&#xA;* How can I get multiple uses out of land that is planted to firewood? (silvipasture / agroforestry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer above assumes that you're heating with firewood &quot;conventionally&quot; -- relatively large (&gt;12&quot; DBH) trees that have been cut into ~16&quot; rounds and then split and dried. This is how I deal with wood. I have heard of (but am not familiar with) stoves that are set up to use smaller chunks of wood from *much* younger plantings, e.g. densely planted, fast growing, possibly coppiced species like willow or poplar on 10 year rotations. This possibility suggests questions about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Coppicing (you'll have to do some initial research to be able to ask reasonably answerable questions here)&#xD;&#xA;* Systems (stove/boiler/furnace, storage, and possibly harvesting tools) for heating this way&#xD;&#xA;* Probably other questions that I haven't considered that will come up in your research" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1305" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="465" RevisionGUID="3a2bb970-c537-4614-97d8-8b894a74c0c9" CreationDate="2013-02-14T14:15:55.353" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|heating|plants|firewood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="467" RevisionGUID="0755a49a-50c6-4e87-8a87-f7e79c67d744" CreationDate="2013-02-14T14:26:49.883" UserId="66" Comment="read the question more carefully..." Text="The old farmers' rule of thumb is that you can harvest a cord of wood per acre per year. (For everyone *not* in the US, a cord is a unit of measure equivalent to 128 cubic feet of tightly stacked firewood, or 3.625 m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. An acre is about 0.4 hectares. So the rule of thumb corresponds to about 9m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;/hectare.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For anyone questioning the validity of this estimate, consider: a 100-year old maple tree could yield a cord of firewood, and you could plant about 100 maple trees on one acre at 20x20' spacing. With that said, it's just a rough way to estimate yields.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being a rule of thumb, there are some variables to account for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Different tree species have more [stored energy per unit of volume](http://www.chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm). E.g. Hop Hornbeam (Ironwood, *Ostrya virginiana*) has 26.4 MBTU/cord (7.685 MJ/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;), while Willow	(*Salix spp.*) has 14.2 MBTU/cord (4.133 MJ/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;* Different tree species grow at different rates. E.g. [*Salix x sepulcralis*](http://plants.usda.gov/java/charProfile?symbol=SASE10) may grow to 45' (13m) in 20 years, while [*Ostrya virginiana*](http://plants.usda.gov/java/charProfile?symbol=OSVI) might only reach 20' (6m). So while you can plant willow and get a ton of growth, you'll only get half the energy out of all the labor you'll have to do to harvest the firewood. I do the work to pull 6-8 cords off 10 acres every year with machines (tractor, winch, chainsaw, splitter) and it's a lot of work. I'd much rather have the denser wood, same energy, half the effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask &quot;how many saplings?&quot;, but that also depends on your species type and how you plan to manage the woodlot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask &quot;what would be the best species?&quot;. Personally, I would select 5-10 different species with different stored energy values, growth rates, and pest/disease resistance. If you get a beetle infestation that wipes out one species, you will only lose 10-20% of the total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ask &quot;optimal time to harvest?&quot;. Personally, I prefer to harvest trees that are 40-60 years old. In my woodlot, these are typically beech (*Fagus grandifolia*) or maple (*Acer spp.*) that are 18-30&quot; (45-75cm) [DBH](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diameter_at_breast_height). You might be able to harvest smaller trees on a 20 year rotation, but then you're only getting logs that are perhaps 6&quot; (15cm) DBH. Again, that requires 3x the harvesting effort. Also, having mature trees in the woodlot means that they reseed themselves -- I *never* do any planting (just thinning), nor do I remove stumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You know how much you use, and once you know the mix of species that you're using you can make a rough calculation about how much energy (BTU or MJ) that works out to, and the volume (cords or m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) that you'll need (assume an average energy density based on your preferred species mix). Then when you figure out your planting density (see &quot;other questions&quot; below), you know how much land area this will occupy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other questions you might ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What are the labor requirements for harvesting a {cord,m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;} of firewood using various methods? (all manual, with machines, with draft animals)&#xD;&#xA;* What kind of storage do I need to build for curing firewood and then keeping it dry?&#xD;&#xA;* What planting density should I use for planting firewood? (Include the species mix you're going to use.)&#xD;&#xA;* What management strategies work well for a firewood planting?&#xD;&#xA;* How can I get multiple uses out of land that is planted to firewood? (silvipasture / agroforestry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer above assumes that you're heating with firewood &quot;conventionally&quot; -- relatively large (&gt;12&quot; DBH) trees that have been cut into ~16&quot; rounds and then split and dried. This is how I deal with wood. I have heard of (but am not familiar with) stoves that are set up to use smaller chunks of wood from *much* younger plantings, e.g. densely planted, fast growing, possibly coppiced species like willow or poplar on 10 year rotations. This possibility suggests questions about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Coppicing (you'll have to do some initial research to be able to ask reasonably answerable questions here)&#xD;&#xA;* Systems (stove/boiler/furnace, storage, and possibly harvesting tools) for heating this way&#xD;&#xA;* Probably other questions that I haven't considered that will come up in your research" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="468" RevisionGUID="394be12d-3a30-48fb-ad08-3a909029e0b6" CreationDate="2013-02-14T14:35:25.953" UserId="177" Text="While wood-burning fireplaces have a shorter carbon cycle than coal and gas derived heating and help you to get off-the-grid, they are in no way &quot;clean&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pollution emitted from a domestic fireplace is much worse than the equivalent pollution emitted from dedicated power generation plant for the same amount of heating.  The pollution is also local to your environment, which means you will personally breathe much more of it than if you used electricity supplied from the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your goal is sustainability, a wood burning fireplace is not the best solution.  Investing in [passive solar heating ][1] and [heat storage and release][2] would be a cleaner use of your time (although this really needs to be done when designing the house, not after it's built).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/woodsmoke/index.htm#pollution&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://burningissues.org/car-www/index.html&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/wood-vs-cigarette-smoke&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar_building_design&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storage_%28STES%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="4a72ffa0-8c66-45c8-8e50-48754becd7f2" CreationDate="2013-02-14T14:44:31.427" UserId="96" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="Ultimately, it is a question of system boundaries. To be sustainable, a process must not ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use energy faster than it can be replenished - this obviously depends on the energy source used, direct solar can't be depleted while fossile fuel take geological ages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use material resources faster then they can be replenished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pollute faster than the polluted system can clean itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at almost any chemical plant, you will see some effort (and energy expenditure, and often material expenditure) to clean exhaust gases or waste water. Obviously the *energy efficiency* of the whole plant would be better without the cleaning effort, but the sustainability is worse due to pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you only compare highly similar processes, where matter input/output and pollution are the same, the one with the higher efficiency is more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="469" RevisionGUID="852d28fe-098a-4832-9136-085144d01cb9" CreationDate="2013-02-14T14:52:56.820" UserId="177" Text="Improving energy efficiency may delay a population hitting boundaries on its growth.  For instance, if energy becomes scarce it becomes expensive and a potential couple may decide that their child (or second child) would be too expensive to raise and hence choose not to have it.  If energy usage is reduced by making devices and processes more efficient, a greater number of people can exist in an area before hitting the same energy scarcity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result of this is that when the population *does* hit that limit, it is larger and therefore growing at a faster rate (since population growth is usually exponential).  I expect this would make the &quot;crash&quot; faster and more devastating than if it had happened earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the effect is mostly speculation on my part, it seems plausible and would make increased energy efficiency *less* sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, increased energy efficiency *with population control* should be sustainable assuming energy is the first resource limitation we run into." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1311" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="465" RevisionGUID="56af5a34-f11f-4cbf-8a7b-edd976a8580a" CreationDate="2013-02-14T16:17:12.970" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/302089119889252352" />
  <row Id="1312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="470" RevisionGUID="0ae32da2-140c-4e42-ad74-df1ebbeb026d" CreationDate="2013-02-14T17:33:07.213" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="I am planning my sustainable homestead.  In the planning I am incorporating humanure and grey-water recycling, as well as rain water irrigation.  But I will need a source of fresh water for drinking and supplementing the recycled water supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What sustainability concerns should I be considering when I am planning my well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1313" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="470" RevisionGUID="0ae32da2-140c-4e42-ad74-df1ebbeb026d" CreationDate="2013-02-14T17:33:07.213" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="Sustainability concerns with digging a well" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1314" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="470" RevisionGUID="0ae32da2-140c-4e42-ad74-df1ebbeb026d" CreationDate="2013-02-14T17:33:07.213" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="471" RevisionGUID="4ccd65f3-6458-4191-9971-772f55b7d3ba" CreationDate="2013-02-14T19:52:24.833" UserId="227" Text="We have moderately sized (under or around 0.5 m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;) backyard composter. It is of simple cubic form with hatches at the bottom where the ready stuff is being taken out. Mostly food scraps go in there, but we also add garden waste, whether brown or green. Last spring I took first batch of the compost out, as it looked ready — nice, and dark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I used it in the plant containers as a top soil, some weed started to grow. I don't know what species it was, but it was some sort with a tiny light-blue flowers, looked like high-desert wild plant variety. That is, not a noxious ugly beast, but a weed nonetheless. It was uniformly distributed in the compost, and showed up nearly in each container I put it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently the pile was contaminated by some plant that have gone to seed. So, the questions are: If I leave the pile to work longer, would it help to get rid of the seeds? Can the seeds even be decomposed, or they are too well protected? It's not that big of a hustle to weed them out in the containers, but I assume it would be a bigger problem if I spread it in the yard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1317" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="471" RevisionGUID="4ccd65f3-6458-4191-9971-772f55b7d3ba" CreationDate="2013-02-14T19:52:24.833" UserId="227" Text="Dealing with seeds in a compost pile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1318" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="471" RevisionGUID="4ccd65f3-6458-4191-9971-772f55b7d3ba" CreationDate="2013-02-14T19:52:24.833" UserId="227" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="4e2342ab-bc5a-48c4-9a2d-407204a4cbf2" CreationDate="2013-02-14T20:09:28.953" UserId="227" Text="I have read a bit about the dangers of introducing pathogens in a compost pile. And, as we know, some moulds can be toxic. So I am curious as to whether the normal household mould that appears in the kitchen or the fridge would be something I should be concerned about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1320" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="4e2342ab-bc5a-48c4-9a2d-407204a4cbf2" CreationDate="2013-02-14T20:09:28.953" UserId="227" Text="Is mouldy kitchen scraps okay to compost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1321" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="4e2342ab-bc5a-48c4-9a2d-407204a4cbf2" CreationDate="2013-02-14T20:09:28.953" UserId="227" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="2a9cdfef-aba0-436e-943f-7bc4078cf9cb" CreationDate="2013-02-14T20:10:45.903" UserId="227" Comment="Formatted links." Text="Anything that has been living can be composted. Local compost manufacturers in Finland suggest strongly that meat can be composted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand the problem with meat has something to do with attracting anaerobic processes and overheating the compostor slowing the process down. Make sure your compostor gets enough air and the contents are not too tightly compressed to only sustain anaerobic processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are couple of articles from National Geographic’s _Green Living_: [“Can I compost meat?”][1] and [“How to Compost Meat Waste”][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/can-compost-meat-3027.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/compost-meat-waste-2320.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1323" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="44" RevisionGUID="2a9cdfef-aba0-436e-943f-7bc4078cf9cb" CreationDate="2013-02-14T20:10:45.903" Comment="Proposed by 227 approved by 117 edit id of 74" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="473" RevisionGUID="a922b89d-3787-48f9-8463-c02dfc67247d" CreationDate="2013-02-14T20:34:19.140" UserId="66" Text="In theory, if you get your compost hot enough, it will kill the seeds. In practice, it can be hard to get a pile as small as yours to the temps needed to reliably kill all of the seeds. Also, only material in the center of the pile will heat up all the way; anything that stays on the cooler edges will not be killed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of trying to get it hot, you could just avoid putting seedy material into your compost. I don't put leftovers from canning tomatoes or raspberry/blackberry jam into the main compost pile because of the crazy amount of volunteers they will produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if you aren't ending up with *too* many weeds, just pull 'em out when they sprout and don't worry too much about it. I end up with a fair amount of seedy hay in my compost/manure pile, and I've basically resigned myself to the fact that I'm going to have to hoe those weeds out when I use the compost in the garden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="474" RevisionGUID="5eaaaf05-ba1c-47ea-bf41-42fe2a1312de" CreationDate="2013-02-14T20:50:27.693" UserId="249" Text="I agree with both of the responses above.  Primarily the statement from user18: &quot;Still, most of the time, recycling is effective in reducing the demand for raw products and energy. This is especially true when the recycled objects are made from substances that takes very long to regenerate, such as oil (of which all plastics are made).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And Chad's comment that, &quot;For recycling to be sustainable it should not create waste that is more damaging to the environment than discarding the original item would be, and/or more less efficient to create the product you end up with at the end of the recycling process.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more we can improve on the effeciency of recycling the more beneficial the process will be to all of us.  But consider when we teach the 3Rs, recycling is at the end of that list.  It is a misconception that you are being an environmentalist or living sustainably becuase you recycle.  Cut back on your consumption FIRST, purchase durable goods, consider recycling the LAST possible option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a business/ manufacturing view, should be included in all production whenever possible and always improved on.  From the individual/ consumer point of view, it's just one baby step away from the landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1327" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="471" RevisionGUID="6d2e1788-169f-42ec-8482-14485f86234b" CreationDate="2013-02-14T22:17:12.410" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/302179713781231616" />
  <row Id="1328" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="470" RevisionGUID="3b99cddf-ba51-4ffc-9e34-67c8f347f908" CreationDate="2013-02-15T01:17:12.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/302225013627572224" />
  <row Id="1329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="61b3703f-67eb-4cd7-b568-f6a0b5253fb8" CreationDate="2013-02-15T01:41:23.897" UserId="130" Comment="added 274 characters in body" Text="**Scope of Answer and Safety Information (please read)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer assumes that &quot;preserves&quot; refer to fruit preserved with sugar.  It does not apply to vegetables or meat, or to cases where large amounts of sugar are not added.  If canning in those environment, please use more conservative approaches, or better yet from a sustainability perspective use more traditional means of preserving these foods for later, such as sauerkraut and salami.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fruit is not considered to be a particular risk when canning and if you go back a thousand years or so fruit preserved in sugar was stored open.  The acidity and sugar together combine to prevent harmful bacteria from growing, and white sugar is considered, at least by archaeologists, to be better at preserving fruit than honey is (see &quot;Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink&quot; by Ann Hagen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally there are a few fruit which have fallen out of favor which are traditionally preserved with citrus added, most notably the quince (&quot;marmalade&quot; comes from a word meaning &quot;quince jelly&quot;).  If going outside of the common fruit used for such preserves, you may want to test pH (which may be a good idea anyway).  If in doubt, add some extra lemon juice or other acidic fruit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, even in the Middle Ages, such preserves were cooked, both before bottling and after bottling, so you can't omit the water bath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For fruit preserves, a pH of 4 gives you extra room in case the pH rises due to any number of factors.  Also note that fermented foods generally (that includes either lactic fermented foods like sauerkraut and alcoholic fermented foods like beer) are not botulism risks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more on safety, please see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/ill-intox/botu-eng.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.publichealthgreybruce.on.ca/communicable/fact-sheets/botulism-food-borne.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, defence in depth is important  and canning is a part of that depth today when making fruit preserves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Main answer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old traditional method of sealing was to use wax.  There's no reason why a &quot;float&quot; of beeswax won't get you where you need to go along with jars which cannot themselves be sealed.  While this often works it is not perfect and the seal can break.  This being said there isn't any reason why this can't be used as one aspect of a seal.  It may not be perfect, but it is simple to do, and if the product is used within a few months, it is likely sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option, as you mention, is to re-use existing jam jars and lids.  I have done this with herbal medicine concoctions.  This usually works pretty well but some sorts of jars and lids I have learned to avoid not because they won't seal but because sometimes the seals end up locked and the jars impossible to open.  Jars to avoid include baby food jars.  I would assume that other similar jars should be avoided too.  Note you can test a seal with these by virtue of the fact that the button pops down.  If this doesn't happen, try a wax seal on these, and use first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="475" RevisionGUID="2a7aa8fd-7e43-4d75-a229-d60fae2b76a0" CreationDate="2013-02-15T03:54:36.047" UserId="130" Text="The concern about adding pathogens to a compost pile mostly overstated.  The normal biological action of composting reduces but does not eliminate pathogens in the compost, and the fact is that a lot of things which we compost are potentially hazardous foods.  I suppose if you want to be particularly paranoid you could avoid throwing things like cooked veggies into the compost heap.  Aside from very high pathogen sources (like manure), composting is believed to cause great reduction in pathogen concentration, to safe levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/compost/00Summerpdf/Pathogens45.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1331" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="471" RevisionGUID="ee1b1c74-1fd1-44c1-a111-22a1c5b50cfe" CreationDate="2013-02-15T09:19:39.273" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="f05624df-eeca-48ce-bd5c-9646262e2f9c" CreationDate="2013-02-15T09:59:43.417" UserId="48" Text="What are the sound reasons (let's put aside the unsound reasons) why protecting or increasing biodiversity takes us further down the road to sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there real-world circumstances whereby higher biodiversity might make sustainability harder to achieve?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="f05624df-eeca-48ce-bd5c-9646262e2f9c" CreationDate="2013-02-15T09:59:43.417" UserId="48" Text="What is the relationship between biodiversity and sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="f05624df-eeca-48ce-bd5c-9646262e2f9c" CreationDate="2013-02-15T09:59:43.417" UserId="48" Text="|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="477" RevisionGUID="1064b751-cd9b-468d-9c8b-33501981421e" CreationDate="2013-02-15T10:12:38.777" UserId="251" Text="**High** Biodiversity implies that there are **more potential solutions to survival** for new scenarios in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**High** biodiversity also implies that **more information about survival** is stored in DNA that is active in the ecosystem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the more biodiversity we have the more likely it will be for life to survive future unpredictable events. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be observed from many past events that low levels of biodiversity such as mono cultures are susceptible to total destruction by a change in circumstances. The Irish potatoe famine is one familiar example I can think of, hopefully people can add bigger ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="478" RevisionGUID="6378c00e-e49b-4d6f-9633-be62cfa72f10" CreationDate="2013-02-15T11:24:16.487" UserId="99" Text="Moulds help break down organic matter. They are part of a good compost heap and there is no reason why food with moulds cannot be placed on your heap. However, your heap can become too mouldy but that is usually the result of the heap being too wet and/or containing to much nitrogen. It is true that moulds can be toxic, so you should not let your pets eat any compost heap material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the decomposition process is done, the moulds will be gone and the risk of pathogens is very small. This is due to a number of things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - during the composting process the temperature in the heap rises, killing most of the pathogens&#xD;&#xA; - other micro-organisms will kill and eat pathogens&#xD;&#xA; - in time the pathogens will die by natural causes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reduce the risk of pathogens even further you can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - make sure you have the correct C:N balance, the correct moisture balance and enough air in your heap. This is all to ensure the heap reaches a good temperature. &#xD;&#xA; - turn and mix your heap regularly so stuff on the edges of the heap (where it is less warm) are also heated.&#xD;&#xA; - don't throw animal feces on the heap" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="b517ce6b-77ce-4294-a2ef-db28e1830af1" CreationDate="2013-02-15T12:47:45.507" UserId="96" Comment="added 1228 characters in body" Text="Ultimately, it is a question of system boundaries. To be sustainable, a process must not ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use energy faster than it can be replenished&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use material resources faster then they can be replenished. Note that you could see most forms of energy also as material (fuel)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pollute faster than the polluted system can clean itself. Note that most energy generation also pollutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at almost any chemical plant, you will see some effort (and energy expenditure, and often material expenditure) to clean exhaust gases or waste water. Obviously the *energy efficiency* of the whole plant would be better without the cleaning effort, but the sustainability is worse due to pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you only compare highly similar processes, where matter input/output and pollution are basically the same, you have to look at the energy sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you use an energy source that does not get depleted (direct sun), efficiency should not matter.&#xD;&#xA;* If you use a finite energy source that does not replenish itself on interesting timescales (fossil coal), your process will never be sustainable in the strictest sense - but changing towards better energy efficiency (all else beeing equal) may mean less polution, so you improve sustainability on that end.&#xD;&#xA;* If you use a regrowing energy source (wood), one question is wether you use it faster than it does regrow. All else beeing equal, the difference between an energy-efficient process and an inefficient on may mean the difference between sustainablity or insustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I speak of &quot;improving sustainability&quot; on one occasion, while some will argue that something is either sustainable or not, no gray areas. This view would dismiss any improvements in sustainability for processes using fossile fuels. This view ignores the pollution side of almost any process, where a hard yes/no on the sustainability of one single specific process cannot be given. Consider the question [about sustainability and pollution](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/414/how-are-pollution-and-sustainability-related)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="443" RevisionGUID="3fb0d876-18c2-4287-ab49-37113d29dea9" CreationDate="2013-02-15T12:50:44.147" UserId="96" Comment="added 377 characters in body" Text="Behaviour can be sustainable and polluting at the same time, if these conditions are met (all examples taken from wastewater):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The natural environment you are polluting is at all able to destroy the pollutants (usually, but not always, biological pathways): Taking a dump in a river may be okay, since your feces will be biodegradable. Other, industrial pollutants possibly not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You pollute slower than the system you are polluting can destroy/digest the pollutants. Dumping the feces of whole town into a river will probably overload the ability of the ecosystem there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You could state the last one differently: Pollution does not critically alter the ecosystem. Wastewater in rivers, lakes and the seas often consists of biodegradables that are in fact nutrition to parts of the ecosystem. But too many may lead to an algae-bloom, followed by a large scale die-off and eutropification of the lake, river or even patch of sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you need to do is to understand the pathways of pollutants into and out of (defined broadly) the system in question, and try to quantify how much pollutants can be destroyed/degraded/transported out of your system. That should be your cap on sustainable pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that almost always, a lot of polluters share the same sink for pollution - multiple cities along a river, and basically everyone breathes the same atmosphere. So to answer the question wether one single process is polluting sustainably, you must define how much of a shared sink can be &quot;allocated&quot; to this process. There is not always a straightforward answer to that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1339" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="6b163878-a0ad-4a71-9004-fca881350aea" CreationDate="2013-02-15T13:17:30.130" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/302406279173926912" />
  <row Id="1340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="c3b385be-cef3-49e2-8c39-615727c71ac0" CreationDate="2013-02-15T14:09:01.470" UserId="117" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body; edited title" Text="I was reading about the dangers of introducing pathogens in a compost pile. As you know, some moulds can be toxic. So I am curious if the normal household mould that appears in the kitchen or the refridgerator is something I should be concerned about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1341" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="472" RevisionGUID="c3b385be-cef3-49e2-8c39-615727c71ac0" CreationDate="2013-02-15T14:09:01.470" UserId="117" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body; edited title" Text="Are mouldy kitchen scraps okay to compost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="336" RevisionGUID="1fbbf9d0-32a2-404e-8a49-073dd0e5f8e5" CreationDate="2013-02-15T14:12:07.810" UserId="169" Comment="added 548 characters in body" Text="First, in case you aren't already aware, Catalog Choice offers something they call **MailStop Shield**.  Here's how they describe it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MailStop Shield opts you out of the marketing lists that data brokers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; share with companies you have not done business with, which reduces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unwanted advertising mail. We resubmit your data broker opt-outs on a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; regular basis to ensure your name and address stay off the lists being&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shared. We will also continue to add new data brokers to our lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are other options you can do yourself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Direct Marketing Association**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to cut out a lot of the junk mail coming to your house in one blow, the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) is the way to go. It's not a federal program like the Do Not Call Registry but most reputable direct marketers belong to the DMA, and they offer an opt-out service to you, the consumer. You fill out a form with the DMA, then they compile a list of those who do not wish to receive unsolicited mail and send it to client companies who order these lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three ways to register with the DMA's opt-out service: you can simply send a post card with your name and address to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mail Preference Service&#xD;&#xA;Direct Marketing Association&#xD;&#xA;PO Box 643&#xD;&#xA;Carmel, NY 10512&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your name will be added to the list. However this can take about a month to process with the DMA, as well as time for it to feed out to their client organizations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a form provided on their web site that you can fill out and mail in to the same address as above. Filling out the form online gives it a unique tracking number that enables them to process the request faster than if you just send in a post card.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly you can fill out the online form and submit it online. This processes your application immediately and should result in the flow of junk mail slowing within a period of about 1 month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to find out more about the DMA's Mail Preference Service check out their web site at http://www.dmaconsumers.org&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Opt-out of Junk Mail With Individual Companies**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every company works in conjunction with the DMA's Mail Preference Service that allows for mass opt-out. However, many companies do provide forms to fill out so that you don't appear in the lists for their junk mail or to have your address distributed by them. Even if they don't have forms or a proper method in place you can still contact them either through their web site, snail mail or calling customer service and get something sorted out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the idea that we, the consumer, should have to go the extra mile in order to ensure that our names and addresses are not sold from here to Timbuktu and that we not receive unsolicited mail is ridiculous, but unfortunately it is also a fact of life. At least until tougher laws are passed and tighter regulations enforced on the direct marketing industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The place to start individual opting out are businesses that you are in regular contact with. Your bank is a prime target. Also anytime a store asks you for your name and address, ask them what they do with the information and what you need to do to make sure it is not used to send junk mail to your house. Opt-out before they even have a chance to opt you in involuntarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of what I am talking about: in the summer of 2005 I went to a major furniture chain to purchase a freezer. When I made the purchase, they wanted information such as my name and address. I asked them what they would be using the information for and reluctantly they told me it would be used to send solicitations from them to my house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I told them I did not want any junk mail coming to my house. They said ok, and before I left I fill out a three page form saying that I wanted no unsolicited mail from them coming to my house. All well and good, or so I thought. Then, a couple of months later they sent me a flyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I called them, quite upset. After all the trouble I had gone through to fill out the forms so I would get no mail, I still got it in my mailbox. After some arguing with the manager I got him to take my name off the list, and since then I have not received any junk mail from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Opt-out Telephone Numbers and Addresses**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here now we will look at contact information for a few businesses that engage in direct marketing. One of the worst types of junk mail are the constant credit card applications coming every day. These junk mailings are for the most part the work of three companies: Experian, Trans Union and Equifax, the big three credit reporting companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These three companies are the ones responsible for compiling all of the data that goes into creating your credit score. They are also to blame for the majority of credit card applications sent to your house. If you want these to stop, there is one simple telephone number you can call:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-888-5OPTOUT or 1-888-567-8688&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will stop you from receiving junk mail from any of the big three credit reporting companies and should also stop the majority of the credit card applications coming your way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are the addresses of many of the worst culprits in sending junk mail. Write them and tell them that you wish to opt-out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Publishing Clearinghouse Sweepstakes&#xD;&#xA;101 Channel Dr&#xD;&#xA;Port Washington, NY 11050&#xD;&#xA;1-800-645-9242&#xD;&#xA;1-800-453-0272 (fax)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;American Business information inc.&#xD;&#xA;Attn: Product Quality&#xD;&#xA;PO Box 27347&#xD;&#xA;Omaha, NE 68127&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Donnelly Marketing, inc&#xD;&#xA;Attn: Data Base Operations&#xD;&#xA;PO Box 3502&#xD;&#xA;Ames, IA 50010-3502&#xD;&#xA;888-633-4402&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Haines and Company, inc.&#xD;&#xA;Criss-Cross Directory&#xD;&#xA;Attn: Director of Data Processing&#xD;&#xA;8050 Freedom Ave&#xD;&#xA;NW Canton, OH 44720&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just a few of the worst offenders. There are many others out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The USPS and Form 1500**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although for the most part the USPS is not at all interested in assisting you to stop or opt-out of junk mail, they do have one resource available to you, the consumer: Form 1500. This form is designed to stop explicit and pornographic material from being sent to your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You pick up the form from the post office (you can also find it online) fill it out and can stop all mail from being delivered to you coming from a certain company. While this is generally supposed to refer only to explicit and pornographic materials, the onus is on you for determining what is explicit and pornographic. If there is a single company that is really bothering you this might be the way to go in getting it stopped in short order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From &quot;[How to Opt-Out of Junk Mail Coming to Your House][1]&quot; by Allen Butler&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://voices.yahoo.com/how-opt-out-junk-mail-coming-house-39715.html?cat=17" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="ef541ab7-3cbf-4147-a868-fb1883cf8d6f" CreationDate="2013-02-15T14:50:33.563" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="[This answer][1] does a great job of answering how recycling relates to sustainability.  So I will focus on where recycling is not sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recycling to be sustainable it should not create waste that is more damaging to the environment than discarding the original item would be, and/or less efficient to create the product you end up with at the end of the recycling process, than it would be to extract, and refine from raw materials, or that of a suitable alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Certain alloys are not easily reforged and the process of forging creates molecular bonds that do not re-purpose well with out breaking those bonds.  To break those bonds on many aluminum alloys requires chemicals and often quite a bit of electricity.  Most of these chemicals are highly toxic, and create hazardous waste.  The effort, waste, and pollution created by recycling these alloys is more damaging to the earth than just discarding the alloy which is chemically stable, and does not create hazardous waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/453/141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1345" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="476" RevisionGUID="ef3d43be-e887-4eca-9240-173d6024a229" CreationDate="2013-02-15T19:17:31.130" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/302496880485605376" />
  <row Id="1346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="95840c6c-d755-4c21-a419-0f2febcbb30c" CreationDate="2013-02-15T21:08:46.630" UserId="15" Text="Yes, I know that having a car is unsustainable, but nevertheless I'm interested in the most sustainable way to remove an oil stain from my driveway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unsustainable suggestions I've had include using kitty litter (mining [bentonite][1] is hardly sustainable), and chemical degreasers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously used oil from a car is pretty toxic, so there's probably no avoiding sending the material I use to soak up the oil to landfill (unless perhaps it's safe to burn in small quantities in a hot fire, depending on what material I soak it up into?). However using a material that has the lowest possible environmental impact is something I can control.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentonite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="95840c6c-d755-4c21-a419-0f2febcbb30c" CreationDate="2013-02-15T21:08:46.630" UserId="15" Text="What a sustainable way of removing oil stains from my concrete driveway?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="95840c6c-d755-4c21-a419-0f2febcbb30c" CreationDate="2013-02-15T21:08:46.630" UserId="15" Text="|pollution|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="2e111bb5-b8e5-4d23-8108-4bd4ce7463a4" CreationDate="2013-02-15T21:13:48.093" UserId="15" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="Yes, I know that having a car is unsustainable, but nevertheless I'm interested in the most sustainable way to remove an oil stain from my driveway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unsustainable suggestions I've had include using kitty litter (mining [bentonite][1] is hardly sustainable), and chemical degreasers (probably petroleum based).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously used oil from a car is pretty toxic, so there's probably no avoiding sending the material I use to soak up the oil to landfill (unless perhaps it's safe to burn in small quantities in a hot fire, depending on what material I soak it up into?). However using a material that has the lowest possible environmental impact is something I can control.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentonite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="477" RevisionGUID="6776237d-35f7-4d72-b230-cb2ed25ca30c" CreationDate="2013-02-15T22:17:31.187" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="Moved the reason to the top of the answer and removed the request for more examples." Text="&#xD;&#xA;It can be observed from many past events that low levels of biodiversity such as mono cultures are susceptible to total destruction by a change in circumstances. The Irish potato famine is one familiar example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**High** Biodiversity implies that there are **more potential solutions to survival** for new scenarios in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**High** biodiversity also implies that **more information about survival** is stored in DNA that is active in the ecosystem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the more biodiversity we have the more likely it will be for life to survive future unpredictable events. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1351" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="477" RevisionGUID="6776237d-35f7-4d72-b230-cb2ed25ca30c" CreationDate="2013-02-15T22:17:31.187" Comment="Proposed by 141 approved by 117 edit id of 75" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="448" RevisionGUID="ed66c1bb-3dbe-4449-9419-d543406d69a7" CreationDate="2013-02-16T02:39:24.007" UserId="66" Comment="warning about culturing pathogens" Text="A note of caution from &quot;The Permaculture Handbook&quot; (Peter Bane), p. 170:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Greywater should not be exposed to human contact more than 12 hours after initial use. [...] greywater that is not being actively purified by plants, animals, and soil microbes will culture pathogenic microbes quickly, becoming black water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an apartment, you don't have a yard, trees, etc to dispose of greywater immediately and might be tempted to store it for a period of time. Keep the warning above in mind, and make use of your greywater appropriately. A bit of planning in timing your water-generating and water-using activities might be helpful. (E.g. do laundry when you need to water plants.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Dish water** is controversial as a source of greywater -- I often see it categorized as blackwater. If you do your dishes by hand in a tub, then you don't have to worry about modifying any plumbing. Dish water may be categorized as blackwater because it will often contain grease, fat/oil, and food particles and you (a) don't really want to dump this on plants -- especially houseplants -- or (b) want to keep it hanging around for very long.&#xD;&#xA;* If you have a **washing machine** in your apartment, it should be easy to reconnect the outflow hose to a bucket. Just make sure (a) the bucket is big enough and (b) the hose is securely attached so that you don't make a mess! (Again, hopefully it's obvious, but if you're washing baby diapers then this is *blackwater* -- don't keep it hanging around, flush it away.)&#xD;&#xA;* If the drain pipes connected to your **sinks** are accessible, they are usually easy to disassemble (either unscrew or slide the pipes apart). You can put a bucket underneath, just be careful that it doesn't overflow. (The same note re: blackwater applies here if you're doing dishes by hand, or if you manage to disconnect the kitchen sink below a dishwasher outlet.)&#xD;&#xA;* If you can't get to the sink pipes, consider placing a **bowl in the sink** to catch water when you wash your hands.&#xD;&#xA;* Similarly, men can **shave** with a bit of water in a bowl instead of letting the water go down the drain.&#xD;&#xA;* I think taking a bath is probably a bigger water waster than taking a quick shower, so I don't think it's worth switching to baths just so you can reuse the water, but if you do take baths, you can scoop out most of the water with a pail before opening the drain. (You'll either need someplace to store it, or you'll have to be able to use it right away though. And if you have little ones in the house, don't keep a tub full of bath water hanging around!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Uses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Any extra water can be used for **flushing**, but you should use the &quot;dirtiest&quot; water for this first since it is the last use that water will have. If you're storing the water in a bucket, you can just dump a gallon right into the bowl to flush.&#xD;&#xA;* If you grab the **soapy water** from the washing machine, you can use it for washing dirty stuff -- scrubbing the toilet bowl, cleaning out trash cans, etc.&#xD;&#xA;* The cleaner water can be used for **watering plants**. Be careful about what you use for cleaning products, and you can probably use the water on more of your plants. Be careful about what water you use on plants that you're eating directly -- I don't think I'd use bath water on my spinach, for example.&#xD;&#xA;* If you have a top-load washing machine, you could pour in some of your cleaner water into the **initial rinse water**.&#xD;&#xA;* If you want to all-out, you can build a [**slow sand filter**](http://tilz.tearfund.org/Publications/Footsteps+31-40/Footsteps+35/The+household+slow+sand+filter.htm) -- even if you don't get the water back to fully potable, you can at least move it back up the cascade a stage or two, and/or allow it to be safely stored for longer periods. E.g. perhaps the washing machine outflow can be reused, assuming you can dump into a top-loader." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="d6e839db-b71b-4809-b9eb-50c11f53e2fd" CreationDate="2013-02-16T03:21:33.883" UserId="66" Text="I have a woodlot roughly 10 acres (4 hectares) from which I harvest firewood. From a permaculture perspective, this is my Zone 4; Zone 5 lies along the back edge of the woodlot. I'm in the northeast USA, USDA Zone 5 -- it was recently -10°F (-20°C) during a cold snap. Acidic, loamy, gravelly soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The species makeup is mainly beech and Eastern hemlock; with significant amounts of sugar maple and white pine; and smaller amounts of black cherry, ash, paper birch, and spruce. I harvest using a selective cutting strategy -- removing diseased or damaged trees first, then less-desirable species (hemlock has lower energy density than beech or maple), and paying attention to the amount of light and wind that I'm letting in via cuts as well as which mature species are left in place to scatter seed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The woodlot is just for firewood and wildlife; it is not used for other crops or pasture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not plant anything back there. Actually, in areas where I have thinned and lots of sunlight is reaching the floor I think I am &quot;overstocked&quot;. Many seedlings are growing up very densely -- which leads me to the question: **What guidelines should I follow for thinning?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How do I know how densely various species should be growing for optimum yield? It seems obvious that beech shouldn't be grown 4-6&quot; apart, but how many should I remove?&#xD;&#xA;* Which seedlings should I (de-)select? (I.e. which to cut and which to keep.)&#xD;&#xA;* Is it sensible to deselect the (less energy dense) softwoods and encourage the hardwoods? I don't want to destroy biodiversity, but I don't want to maintain the current ~30-50% hemlock makeup -- or, in one area, ~80% white pine saplings. Also, encouraging sugar maple makes the land more valuable -- sugaring businesses are active in the area, and these trees provide ongoing yields without having to cut them down.&#xD;&#xA;* Should I thin in phases? E.g. aim for a certain density when the seedlings are under 6' (2m) and then a certain lower density when they get to say 15' (5m).&#xD;&#xA;* Is there an ideal time of year to thin? I don't think seedlings are strong enough to regrow when cut, but perhaps some slightly larger trees would -- timing thinning to minimize regrowth (and rework) would be nice.&#xD;&#xA;* Is there any consideration I should give to yields that I can get from thinning? It's quite a bit of work, and I'd love to be able to get something out of it *now*, instead of waiting to get everything 40 years from now. (Note that I'm obviously in this for the long haul, but I'm more than willing to get a yield from what would otherwise be waste.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="d6e839db-b71b-4809-b9eb-50c11f53e2fd" CreationDate="2013-02-16T03:21:33.883" UserId="66" Text="What strategy to follow for thinning a woodlot?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="d6e839db-b71b-4809-b9eb-50c11f53e2fd" CreationDate="2013-02-16T03:21:33.883" UserId="66" Text="|permaculture|firewood|forestry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="368" RevisionGUID="ab45e14b-16f3-46f0-8774-e4ba66055a1c" CreationDate="2013-02-16T04:10:26.147" UserId="66" Comment="add another link" Text="1. Make up [a batch](https://paulwheaton12.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/deer-control/) of [bone sauce](http://hines.blogspot.com/2012/05/sepp-holzers-bone-saucesalve-how-to-for.html) and apply it to your tree trunks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; The first pot is buried in moist soil leaving an inch or two above ground. The second, upper, pot if filled with bones and a screen goes between the two pots. Clay seals the pots. A small fire is burned on top of the pots for about two hours. Then the wood is pulled away and the pots are covered with dirt. Let the pots cool overnight. Carefully clean all of the dirt off so that no dirt ends up in the bone sauce / salve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Grow plants that deer don't like. They didn't touch my garlic last spring, but they ate everything else... it's rumored that planting garlic around trees might keep them away, I don't know how well this works if there's a lot of feeding pressure.&#xD;&#xA;1. Grow lots of plants that deer *do* like as a distraction to keep them from the stuff you want for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;1. Grow &quot;deer resistant&quot; plants. Elderberries are supposed to tolerate being munched just about to the ground -- the roots will send up new canes.&#xD;&#xA;1. Get a dog; you'll still need a fence to keep the dog contained, but the requirements for a dog-proof fence are easier to meet than the requirements for a deer-proof fence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also questions where this has come up on gardening.SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [What is the best way to keep deer away?](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/3945/51)&#xD;&#xA;* [What is the best way to prevent animals from eating my garden without a fence?](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/615/51)&#xD;&#xA;* [What is the best way to keep deer away?](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/3945/51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the [bottom line answer](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/3945/51) from that last question is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You will also find suggestions to use bars of soap, human hair, dogs or getting a hunting licence. These will work for some deer, some of the time but if you want a solution for all of the deer, all of the time you need a fence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not suburban, but I have a *lot* of deer pressure, and the only thing that works for me is a fence (and it has to be a *good* fence). (I haven't tried the bone sauce yet.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="481" RevisionGUID="f78d6e45-aa40-49cb-800c-f5645fb5718e" CreationDate="2013-02-16T04:23:14.870" UserId="130" Text="Right now I am in Jakarta (planning on returning to the US sooner or later) and of course mosquitos are a problem over here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The common method over here to control mosquitos is to spray airborne insecticides frequently to kill mosquitos in the house.  We do what we can, with a single small fan-driven indoor bugzapper but given that all electricity here is coal-fired would like to try to minimize this as well.  I have tried using dried zodia leaves which seem to be mildly effective, and we keep fish and turtles in a pond out back.  Is there anything more we can do to reduce the chemical and electrical load of this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="481" RevisionGUID="f78d6e45-aa40-49cb-800c-f5645fb5718e" CreationDate="2013-02-16T04:23:14.870" UserId="130" Text="Sustainable methods of mosquito control" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="481" RevisionGUID="f78d6e45-aa40-49cb-800c-f5645fb5718e" CreationDate="2013-02-16T04:23:14.870" UserId="130" Text="|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="482" RevisionGUID="d46511fc-a061-4c63-8df0-8dcd99733a73" CreationDate="2013-02-16T04:47:52.680" UserId="66" Text="Chickens have a wide diet and will eat a lot of different things. They need a good mix of carbs, fats, and proteins with a variety of nutrients -- just like we do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For eating &quot;fresh&quot; (i.e. food that won't be stored):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* They can be pastured in an orchard to clean up fallen fruit and remove bugs. Any fruit tree seems like it would be fair game here.&#xD;&#xA;* They will eat grass/legume mixes in open pasture (or the grass/legume mix in an orchard).&#xD;&#xA;* Chickens love &quot;salad bars&quot; -- leafy greens like kale or chard.&#xD;&#xA;* Fast-growing green cover crops like buckwheat, oats, or mustard.&#xD;&#xA;* Leguminous cover crops like field peas -- they can eat the raw pods and beans as well as the leaves, and the plants fix nitrogen into the soil.&#xD;&#xA;* Pastured on &quot;stubble&quot; after harvesting a main crop like corn or small grains. They will pick up fallen grain, eat weeds, and find bugs.&#xD;&#xA;* Shrubs that drop berries/fruit for chickens to eat. Something like [mulberry]()&#xD;&#xA;* [Jerusalem artichokes](https://paulwheaton12.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/amazing-sunchokes/) seem like a possibility.&#xD;&#xA;* Siberian pea shrub is frequently mentioned, and has the bonus of being a nitrogen fixer.&#xD;&#xA;* *Honey* locust (*Gleditsia triacanthos*) (**not** black locust, which is toxic) pods and seeds [should](http://www.permies.com/t/1664/plants/edibility-honey-locust-leaves-pods) make decent food. It isn't immediately clear if they can be stored. Should probably be ground up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For stored food:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Smashed/cut open, [pumpkins and winter squash are acceptable food](http://www.thebackyardchickencoop.com/chickens-and-pumpkins-from-the-garden-after-halloween/comment-page-1/#comment-5979). These can be stored for months given proper conditions, and chickens are not so picky about blemishes as humans are.&#xD;&#xA;* Potatoes (cooked!) as lechlukasz mentions. These can also be stored for months.&#xD;&#xA;* Dried corn can be stored for a long time. This probably should be cracked/ground before feeding.&#xD;&#xA;* Small grains like wheat or oats are a lot more work to harvest and require grinding, but could be stored for long periods. The straw can be used as bedding.&#xD;&#xA;* Sunflower seed, being oily, probably wouldn't store as long as corn or wheat, but has a high protein content (and [entertainment value](http://www.avianaquamiser.com/posts/Sunflowers_for_chickens/)).&#xD;&#xA;* Soy beans, though again these have to be processed before feeding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="9c81e1e2-048d-4f19-8f74-19620955a340" CreationDate="2013-02-16T05:03:05.317" UserId="130" Text="A second significant pest issue we have here is that of the so-called American Cockroach, which seems to normally live outside near human activity and come inside at least a few times a year.  Currently we control these with periodic, carefully timed insecticide application (this cockroach has a slow growth cycle so right now that means 3-4 times/year, 2-3 applications per time).  We spray heavily in bathrooms which have little ventillation, let sit for hours, and then open up to ventillate.  This seems to work but I don't like the implications of using pesticides in this way or manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We believe that the pests enter from outside, and climb into the pipes from the drains in the back garden.  Because of the setup it has not been particularly possible to put screens on those drains with small enough holes to discourage these pests.  Additionally they may wander in the front door (I am not kidding, I have seen this) and then scurry around until hidden, waiting until later to find drains to crawl into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What additional means are there to control/prevent infestations of cockroaches?  I suspect that this species is likely to be the easiest to get rid of, of the cockroaches, because despite the fact that it runs *fast* and that the adults can fly, it takes 6-12 months for young to reach sexual maturity (a bit over 4x the time the German Cockroach requires).  I would assume then that methods of controlling other cockroaches might be effective here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting I have not seen any evidence that they are in our food (we do have geckos but that's another story, and the problems there are simply prevented by being careful about keeping food containers closed).  As far as I can tell the activity is entirely limited to the drain pipes, which go from the septic system (yes, everyone in Jakarta has a septic system) to things like the shower." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="9c81e1e2-048d-4f19-8f74-19620955a340" CreationDate="2013-02-16T05:03:05.317" UserId="130" Text="Sustainable methods of cockroach control (Periplaneta americana)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="9c81e1e2-048d-4f19-8f74-19620955a340" CreationDate="2013-02-16T05:03:05.317" UserId="130" Text="|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1364" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="480" RevisionGUID="bb01c425-5194-4a1f-821c-ef4607a8fcc8" CreationDate="2013-02-16T07:17:39.880" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/302678110757867520" />
  <row Id="1365" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="28a9796e-6fcd-40de-88cb-6bcbdceb51c8" CreationDate="2013-02-16T10:07:29.067" UserId="15" Comment="edited title" Text="What is a sustainable way of removing oil stains from my concrete driveway?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1366" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="327c5c08-dcbb-463f-87a4-c2c9b2c330a0" CreationDate="2013-02-16T10:17:40.443" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/302723412776849408" />
  <row Id="1367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="484" RevisionGUID="52896b05-87c6-4348-b0d4-f1d328786ae1" CreationDate="2013-02-16T10:20:49.517" UserId="85" Text="Install mosquito nets in your windows and/or doors. This can be done very low-tech of course. (I.e. tape a net to your window.) But on the high-tech end, houses in Japan have nets in every window and most doors. Depending on the type of window, [different models](http://www.seiki.gr.jp/products/amido/index.html) can be installed. Frames that open like a window, frames that open like a sliding door, etc. I like the model, which folds the net as you pull it to the side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a sustainable solution may create a better balance in your garden, but balance doesn't mean no mosquitoes. You can reduce the breeding grounds for mosquitoes by making sure you have nothing where water collects. (In Brazil, this is even regulated by law as preventative measure against dengue.) If you collect rainwater, keep fish in that tank, too. But to not get stung in the house, you need to make sure mosquitoes just don't get inside." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="485" RevisionGUID="f5f95438-b7b6-4d64-ab0b-5ec10d3cc8d2" CreationDate="2013-02-16T10:21:20.933" UserId="15" Text="If you can maintain good hygiene in the kitchen (so there's little they can eat in there that will help them breed) then glue traps may be effective enough to keep the population low. I keep a couple of them on the top of the kitchen cupboards, and the cockroach population seems to be under control despite using no sprays whatsoever." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="484" RevisionGUID="fea855f9-35eb-4c06-ae7a-6879cdb62b3f" CreationDate="2013-02-16T10:35:23.193" UserId="85" Comment="added 634 characters in body" Text="Install mosquito nets in your windows and/or doors. This can be done very low-tech of course. (I.e. tape a net to your window.) But on the high-tech end, houses in Japan have nets in every window and most doors. Depending on the type of window, [different models](http://www.seiki.gr.jp/products/amido/index.html) can be installed. Frames that open like a window, frames that open like a sliding door, etc. I like the models, which folds the net as you pull it to the side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a sustainable solution may create a better balance in your garden, but balance doesn't mean no mosquitoes. You can reduce the breeding grounds for mosquitoes by making sure you have nothing where water collects. (In Brazil, this is even regulated by law as preventative measure against dengue.) If you collect rainwater, keep fish in that tank, too. But to not get stung in the house, you need to make sure mosquitoes just don't get inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incense are another solution, but (1) they don't work as well and (2) I am not sure how healthy it would be to breathe incensed air all day long. There are also little diffusers, which you plug into the wall. They work extremely well, but I am not sure how healthy they are, as some (most?) models also emit ultrasonic waves. (Of course, if you weigh possible effects of ultrasonic waves against possible tropical disease, the plug diffuser may win.) These diffusers use about 5W, so turning them on (for 2hs, say) in a room with open doors and turning them off before you sleep with closed doors might be on the sustainable end." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1371" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="481" RevisionGUID="1c2a45e1-3611-461e-9588-8e852a83e422" CreationDate="2013-02-16T13:18:02.410" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/302768803903852544" />
  <row Id="1372" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7" RevisionGUID="b19c0e2a-b0be-4fcf-9fb9-6201cdc95958" CreationDate="2013-02-16T16:18:03.440" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/302814104685514752" />
  <row Id="1373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="ccd1fc5f-cf5e-4a1d-adf4-21193ad08706" CreationDate="2013-02-16T16:19:21.520" UserId="142" Text="I saw a poster at a thruway rest stop once that said something along the lines of accelerating quickly is worse for fuel efficiency and carbon emission than idling for several hours (I don't remember the exact statistic). It made me wonder: **what ways can I drive to be more fuel efficient**? My car is 20 years old, automatic transmission, and I can't afford to buy a new car, or a hybrid car, so I have to make the best with what I have. I already drive predominantly on highways to avoid the gazillions of traffic lights in the Chicago suburbs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="ccd1fc5f-cf5e-4a1d-adf4-21193ad08706" CreationDate="2013-02-16T16:19:21.520" UserId="142" Text="How to drive to be the most fuel efficient" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="ccd1fc5f-cf5e-4a1d-adf4-21193ad08706" CreationDate="2013-02-16T16:19:21.520" UserId="142" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="5a449b4d-db09-421c-ac9c-740cbc62e6ff" CreationDate="2013-02-16T16:35:04.987" UserId="85" Text="I was wondering if there are any numbers comparing the sustainability of reading conventional paper vs. reading on screens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Standard LCD screens emit light while you are reading. Power consumption can be reduced with e-ink screens, but the production costs of an e-reader are certainly higher than the production costs of newspapers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it at all sustainable to read, say one newspaper a day &amp; one book a week. (On recycled paper &amp; with soy-based ink, if you want.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or should one read the same amount on a computer screen instead. (Although, currently there exist nearly no nice screen for reading...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="5a449b4d-db09-421c-ac9c-740cbc62e6ff" CreationDate="2013-02-16T16:35:04.987" UserId="85" Text="Paper vs. screen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="5a449b4d-db09-421c-ac9c-740cbc62e6ff" CreationDate="2013-02-16T16:35:04.987" UserId="85" Text="|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="a589eacb-9c3e-4d8b-ae6c-0e601d7c18c5" CreationDate="2013-02-16T17:13:33.563" UserId="85" Text="Several factors come to mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Air-conditioning**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Probably one of the bigger factors for saving fuel. Open the windows instead (if it's hot); close the windows &amp; wear a jacket (when it's cold).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Air pressure of your tyres**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Not the biggest factor, but you decrease wear (long-term benefit) and friction, which saves fuel on the day, so to speak (short-term benefit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Defensive driving**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;... meaning try to drive without having to step on the brakes. Keep your distance from the cars in front of you. Take your foot of the gas when the traffic light turned to red. (But remember, braking is more cost-efficient than having an accident. Safety comes first, also for sustainability.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Reduce weight**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;No reason to drive around with unnecessary heavy objects in your trunk. Only take with you what you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Drive slowly**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Driving twice as fast increases the air resistance 4-fold. Driving faster thus necessarily means you use more fuel for the same distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Make your car aerodynamic**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Don't transport anything on the roof (if possible). The air resistance is very high. If you do, drive slowly. (See &quot;Drive slowly&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Don't accelerate too fast**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Give your cylinders a chance to use all the fuel you give to them efficiently. Accelerating too fast results in incomplete combustion and more fuel being used for nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a few obvious ones (for sake of completeness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Form alliances**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Take your neighbours to the shopping mall and they'll return the favour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Only drive when necessary**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You save the most fuel when you don't drive at all. Take the bus or train or hitch a ride with friend or neighbours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="8bf1ca5b-6605-4e07-b229-29b4b8ee0b18" CreationDate="2013-02-16T17:19:21.267" UserId="85" Comment="added 386 characters in body" Text="Several factors come to mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Air-conditioning**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Probably one of the bigger factors for saving fuel. Open the windows instead (if it's hot); close the windows &amp; wear a jacket (when it's cold).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Air pressure of your tyres**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Not the biggest factor, but you decrease wear (long-term benefit) and friction, which saves fuel on the day, so to speak (short-term benefit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Defensive driving**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;... meaning try to drive without having to step on the brakes. Keep your distance from the cars in front of you. Take your foot of the gas when the traffic light turned to red. (But remember, braking is more cost-efficient than having an accident. Safety comes first, also for sustainability.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Avoid traffic**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Like the point above, avoid traffic, because in traffic you'll have to brake (for other cars, cyclists, children, traffic lights), which is necessary, but not fuel efficient. Scheduling a longer route around town may well be more efficient (esp. if you are driving defensively and slowly) and doesn't drive you up the wall. (You said that already, I know.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Reduce weight**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;No reason to drive around with unnecessary heavy objects in your trunk. Only take with you what you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Drive slowly**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Driving twice as fast increases the air resistance 4-fold. Driving faster thus necessarily means you use more fuel for the same distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Make your car aerodynamic**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Don't transport anything on the roof (if possible). The air resistance is very high. If you do, drive slowly. (See &quot;Drive slowly&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Don't accelerate too fast**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Give your cylinders a chance to use all the fuel you give to them efficiently. Accelerating too fast results in incomplete combustion and more fuel being used for nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a few obvious ones (for sake of completeness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Form alliances**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Take your neighbours to the shopping mall and they'll return the favour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Only drive when necessary**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You save the most fuel when you don't drive at all. Take the bus or train or hitch a ride with friend or neighbours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="74a14869-6d91-46bb-8646-7c83a48adf58" CreationDate="2013-02-16T17:29:15.523" UserId="85" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Several factors come to mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Air-conditioning**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Probably one of the bigger factors for saving fuel. Open the windows instead (if it's hot); close the windows &amp; wear a jacket (when it's cold).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Air pressure of your tyres**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Not the biggest factor, but you decrease wear (long-term benefit) and friction, which saves fuel on the day, so to speak (short-term benefit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Defensive driving**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;... meaning try to drive without having to step on the brakes. Keep your distance from the cars in front of you. Take your foot of the gas when the traffic light turned to red. (But remember, braking is more cost-efficient than having an accident. Safety comes first, also for sustainability.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Avoid traffic**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Like the point above, avoid traffic, because in traffic you'll have to brake (for other cars, cyclists, children, traffic lights), which is necessary, but not fuel efficient. Scheduling a longer route around town may well be more efficient (esp. if you are driving defensively and slowly) and doesn't drive you up the wall. (You said that already, I know.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Reduce weight**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;No reason to drive around with unnecessary heavy objects in your trunk. Only take with you what you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Drive slowly**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Driving twice as fast increases the air resistance 4-fold. Driving faster thus necessarily means you use more fuel for the same distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Make your car aerodynamic**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Don't transport anything on the roof (if possible). The air resistance is very high. If you do, drive slowly. (See &quot;Drive slowly&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Don't accelerate too fast**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Give your cylinders a chance to use all the fuel you give to them efficiently. Accelerating too fast results in incomplete combustion and more fuel being used for nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a few obvious ones (for sake of completeness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Form alliances**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Take your neighbours to the shopping mall and they'll return the favour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Only drive when necessary**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You save the most fuel when you don't drive at all. Take the bus or train or hitch a ride with friends or neighbours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="3b254898-dee0-49ed-b498-8c0c21161dce" CreationDate="2013-02-16T17:41:24.160" UserId="169" Text="I'm wondering whether I should wash and reuse my Ziploc bags or if it makes more ecological sense to bring them to a grocery store plastic recycling collection bin.  Ideally at home we wash the bags in bulk in a sink full of soapy water then rinse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to know what factors to consider when making this decision (i.e., energy required, what happens to the bags during/after recycling, tips for washing, etc.)  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="3b254898-dee0-49ed-b498-8c0c21161dce" CreationDate="2013-02-16T17:41:24.160" UserId="169" Text="Should I reuse or recycle Ziploc bags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1384" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="3b254898-dee0-49ed-b498-8c0c21161dce" CreationDate="2013-02-16T17:41:24.160" UserId="169" Text="|recycling|plastic|reuse|bags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1385" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="e2828af8-05b4-4772-9dd7-90188493f4ac" CreationDate="2013-02-16T19:18:03.503" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/302859404804497408" />
  <row Id="1386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="490" RevisionGUID="5e485d72-6236-4a37-8faa-e06e0f590827" CreationDate="2013-02-16T20:01:11.300" UserId="177" Text="The existing answer is excellent but before you do any of that, **measure your fuel usage**.  If you don't measure what you're doing, you don't know if you're even making an improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some cars have a fuel efficiency gauge on the dash but I don't recommend watching this as you drive.  The times at which the greatest gains can be made (i.e. accelerating) are exactly the same times when the most concentration is required to ensure you don't crash.  Crashing is not fuel efficient.  If you have an efficiency gauge in your car, check it at the end of each journey, not while you are driving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have one or even if you do, the tried and true method of *writing it down when you fill up on fuel* is my recommendation.  For years when I owned a car I kept a notepad in the glove box that contained pre-drawn columns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _______________________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;    |Date    |Odometer    |Fuel quantity    |Fuel cost    |Notes           |&#xD;&#xA;    |        |            |                 |             |                |&#xD;&#xA;    |        |            |                 |             |                |&#xD;&#xA;    |        |            |                 |             |                |&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From these values, you can calculate how far you traveled since the last fill-up and how much fuel you used to travel that distance and from that, what your *fuel efficiency* was.  The cost isn't necessary for calculating efficiency but I found that information interesting too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make sure to fill up consistently the same way each time.  This is usually achieved by simply holding the fuel pump trigger until it clicks off automatically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also buy car travel logs with similar columns (they usually have both *Start odometer* and *End odometer* columns).  In this modern age of iPhones, Andriods and 3G, you can enter your travel details straight into websites designed to calculate your fuel efficiency such as [Fuelly][1] and [MPGTune][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you have been recording your actual fuel usage for a while, start changing one of the above suggestions at a time and don't change anything else for several fill-ups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to add a few notes from personal experience from when I went through improving my fuel efficiency.  I was driving a large 4WD so the fuel costs hurt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first two ideas I tried were what are called above **defensive driving** and **don't accelerate too fast**.  Leaving a large gap in front of me meant that often the traffic lights would go green before I even needed to brake, meaning I didn't need to accelerate again and waste fuel.  Accelerating slowly simply uses less fuel to reach the same speed (but takes longer) however in small city traffic, I would usually catch the people who accelerated off ahead of me at the next set of red lights so I didn't end up being late due to my changed driving style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these two techniques, I improved my *measured* fuel efficiency from 15L/100Km to 11L/100Km.  (That's roughly 15mpg up to 21mpg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't get to try any further ideas as I moved to London, sold my car and bought a bike.  The fuel efficiency of a bike is generally given to be [53 miles per burrito][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fuelly.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.mpgtune.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.missionbicycle.com/store/53-miles-burrito" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1387" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="465" RevisionGUID="2877fff7-a2f8-44e6-9a24-424b062e4e71" CreationDate="2013-02-16T22:47:27.853" UserId="66" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|heating|plants|firewood|forestry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="265effde-83a6-4bd8-ac9a-b6ddeaa6c077" CreationDate="2013-02-16T23:49:15.753" UserId="85" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="Several factors come to mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Air-conditioning**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Probably one of the bigger factors for saving fuel. Open the windows instead (if it's hot); close the windows &amp; wear a jacket (when it's cold).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Air pressure of your tyres**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Not the biggest factor, but you decrease wear (long-term benefit) and friction, which saves fuel on the day, so to speak (short-term benefit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Defensive driving**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;... meaning try to drive without having to step on the brakes. Keep your distance from the cars in front of you. Take your foot of the gas when the traffic light turned to red. (But remember, braking is more cost-efficient than having an accident. Safety comes first, also for sustainability.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Avoid traffic**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Like the point above, avoid traffic, because in traffic you'll have to brake (for other cars, cyclists, children, traffic lights), which is necessary, but not fuel efficient. Scheduling a longer route around town may well be more efficient (esp. if you are driving defensively and slowly) and doesn't drive you up the wall. (You said that already, I know.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Reduce weight**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;No reason to drive around with unnecessary heavy objects in your trunk. Only take with you what you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Drive slowly**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Driving twice as fast increases the air resistance 4-fold. Driving faster thus necessarily means you use more fuel for the same distance. (I mean, don't drive faster than everyone else, not drive slower than everyone else, forcing people to have to wait for you. That will result in aggression and risky overtaking manoeuvres of other people, using more net fuel...) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Make your car aerodynamic**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Don't transport anything on the roof (if possible). The air resistance is very high. If you do, drive slowly. (See &quot;Drive slowly&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Don't accelerate too fast**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Give your cylinders a chance to use all the fuel you give to them efficiently. Accelerating too fast results in incomplete combustion and more fuel being used for nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a few obvious ones (for sake of completeness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Form alliances**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Take your neighbours to the shopping mall and they'll return the favour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Only drive when necessary**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You save the most fuel when you don't drive at all. Take the bus or train or hitch a ride with friends or neighbours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="491" RevisionGUID="139628a3-afe5-4cef-a5ea-39de32ab76d1" CreationDate="2013-02-17T01:10:00.807" UserId="130" Text="For everything re-use always beats recycling both in terms of energy required and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this is especially true with plastics, which are typically downgraded on each recycling effort and quickly become non-recyclable.  You may start out with soda pop bottles and ziplock bags and get carpet and plastic lumber for example.  Recycle when it can't be re-used anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1390" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="489" RevisionGUID="8ceab3ac-50c5-46d4-b95e-a68bc4ee0091" CreationDate="2013-02-17T01:18:04.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/302950005130551296" />
  <row Id="1391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="492" RevisionGUID="d3761964-cb71-4880-ac9b-0f1da2c6c9e0" CreationDate="2013-02-17T03:08:30.867" UserId="259" Text="If you just changed the oil, ground cork or sawdust works well. If the oil has been sitting there then try distilled white vinegar with baking soda. Take a shop broom or large brush with hard bristles and put some muscle into it. It may take a few rounds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1392" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="449" RevisionGUID="251852ce-01f5-4e6e-94f9-5af659934ac4" CreationDate="2013-02-17T04:18:31.720" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/302995418659307520" />
  <row Id="1393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="f2018908-96e5-46b1-851d-3709dde972ad" CreationDate="2013-02-17T05:20:25.777" UserId="80" Text="I would like to do a donation to an organisation that offers carbon offsets, in order to make up for a recent international flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What reliable organisation would you recommend, and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="f2018908-96e5-46b1-851d-3709dde972ad" CreationDate="2013-02-17T05:20:25.777" UserId="80" Text="What organism is reliable to use for carbon offset?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="f2018908-96e5-46b1-851d-3709dde972ad" CreationDate="2013-02-17T05:20:25.777" UserId="80" Text="|pollution|greenhouse-effect|tourism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="494" RevisionGUID="c2b4a62c-d1f0-47a8-b3db-cd8449837963" CreationDate="2013-02-17T05:21:59.027" UserId="66" Text="Inspired by [this comment](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/489/should-i-reuse-or-recycle-ziploc-bags#comment741_489):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Try to replace [ziplock bags] with something else, and reuse the ones you have until they fall apart. I haven't used ziplock bags in over 5 years and haven't missed them. – lemontwist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We raise and process our own chickens and guinea hens and store them, whole, in large plastic freezer bags in a chest freezer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are alternatives for storing whole frozen poultry that don't involve plastic bags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestions should meet these requirements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Readily available in the US&#xD;&#xA;* Reliably preserve meat in the freezer without loss of quality for up to 12 months&#xD;&#xA;* Not make a mess during thawing/defrosting of the meat&#xD;&#xA;* Not consume large amounts of extra space in the freezer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the kitchen I generally reach for glass bowls for storing food instead of plastic bags, but (a) I think meat will tend to freezer burn in a bowl and (b) it would take up a lot of extra space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I'm aware that there are other, possibly more sustainable, ways of [preserving meat without using the freezer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/74/66); I'm simply looking for alternatives to the plastic bags at the moment.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="494" RevisionGUID="c2b4a62c-d1f0-47a8-b3db-cd8449837963" CreationDate="2013-02-17T05:21:59.027" UserId="66" Text="Storing whole chickens without plastic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="494" RevisionGUID="c2b4a62c-d1f0-47a8-b3db-cd8449837963" CreationDate="2013-02-17T05:21:59.027" UserId="66" Text="|food|plastic|alternatives|meat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="495" RevisionGUID="bc4f6da6-efec-4aea-a177-40516a325c8f" CreationDate="2013-02-17T06:17:14.377" UserId="27" Text="I have a 1975 Ford F-350. It gets 6 miles per gallon. I don't use any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it was fuel-efficient, I think I should get it in to someone else's driveway, so it can reduce the demand on new vehicles. But at 6mpg, that may not be the right choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could sell it, take it to a junk yard, use it for storage, give it to a charity, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not asking about money here - selling it won't get me much. But I do want to think about the ecological impacts of my options. What are choices that align with sustainable living?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1400" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="495" RevisionGUID="bc4f6da6-efec-4aea-a177-40516a325c8f" CreationDate="2013-02-17T06:17:14.377" UserId="27" Text="what to do with an old vehicle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1401" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="495" RevisionGUID="bc4f6da6-efec-4aea-a177-40516a325c8f" CreationDate="2013-02-17T06:17:14.377" UserId="27" Text="|vehicle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="496" RevisionGUID="2d7c662a-a73b-4bf5-a8ef-ddbae71bffa0" CreationDate="2013-02-17T06:31:28.837" UserId="130" Text="Whole chickens I would expect to be a bit of a freezer burn problem with or without ziplock bags.  Freezer burn occurs with air contact and I don't see how to deal with this problem without (or, post-cleaning, even with!) a vacuum sealing machine and I suspect ziplock bags may be superior sustainability-wise in the sense that there is at least a chance of sterilizing and re-using the zip-lock bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My vote would be to keep the ziplock bags if you can in this specific case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a second point I would make has to do with freezerburned meat.  We have a tendency to want to throw away freezerburned meat or treat it as fundamentally degraded, but actually there are a bunch of thins you can do with freezerburned meat where little to no loss of quality is detectable.  My favorite is stews (and for fish that would include fish chowders too), so i think part of the strategy however you do it is addressing losses in this way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1403" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="494" RevisionGUID="3e032fee-7ab4-4feb-b364-c9af32621c9a" CreationDate="2013-02-17T07:18:51.657" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303040801691287552" />
  <row Id="1404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="497" RevisionGUID="45faf2d4-29af-4352-af4a-1c6d47f69b73" CreationDate="2013-02-17T12:56:48.483" UserId="130" Text="Note that these aren't all or nothing.  You *can* help with spontaneous fermentation by proper harvesting of wild yeasts but this isn't strictly speaking necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing you can do is make a starter with store-bought yeast and once it is at concentration keep it in the fridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When doing this it is important to practice good asceptic techniques (less important for bread than beer, if things go sour you might accidently get sourdough but with beer you can get lots of unpleasant tastes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also suggest checking out [homebrew](http://homebrew.stackexchange.com) as yeast harvesting and re-use is a perpetual topic there.  You may find out that with a bit of research, most of your questions may have already be answered there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="c0b72c2f-6f8d-4cc8-89e4-28f035e9c410" CreationDate="2013-02-17T13:14:49.097" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="Updated question to make it more constructive." Text="I would like to do a donation to an organisation that offers carbon offsets, in order to make up for a recent international flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I find a reliable organisation and how can I tell they're reliable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1406" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="c0b72c2f-6f8d-4cc8-89e4-28f035e9c410" CreationDate="2013-02-17T13:14:49.097" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="Updated question to make it more constructive." Text="How can I find a reliable organisation offering Carbon Offsets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1407" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="c0b72c2f-6f8d-4cc8-89e4-28f035e9c410" CreationDate="2013-02-17T13:14:49.097" Comment="Proposed by 141 approved by -1 edit id of 76" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="08dfb401-05de-4392-8f1b-b062d849fedd" CreationDate="2013-02-17T13:14:49.097" UserId="48" Comment="Updated question to make it more constructive." Text="There are various schemes offering carbon offsets. What attributes would make a such scheme meaningful: that is, where my additional money into the scheme would lead to lower global emissions than without it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1409" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="08dfb401-05de-4392-8f1b-b062d849fedd" CreationDate="2013-02-17T13:14:49.097" UserId="48" Comment="Updated question to make it more constructive." Text="Are there meaningful ways to offset greenhouse-gas emissions through carbon offsets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1410" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="08dfb401-05de-4392-8f1b-b062d849fedd" CreationDate="2013-02-17T13:14:49.097" UserId="48" Comment="Updated question to make it more constructive." Text="|pollution|decarbonisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1411" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="3c945782-aaa8-4197-85c7-8eafda138378" CreationDate="2013-02-17T13:19:12.683" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303131485798559745" />
  <row Id="1412" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="495" RevisionGUID="16b5a71b-4396-43de-a88f-16db8256cdaa" CreationDate="2013-02-17T16:19:12.653" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303176785112231936" />
  <row Id="1413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="498" RevisionGUID="bd9e6408-0e96-4e42-9c8c-cdee943be668" CreationDate="2013-02-17T18:02:17.680" UserId="264" Text="I don't have the perfect answer but as you said, even tough it's not really fuel-efficient, it might be more ecological than creating a brand new car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially if we consider that it should be use occasionally by someone who would'nt need to drive a lot, this could always help that person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Maybe it could be recycled, could it be?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1414" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="82" RevisionGUID="45dc4375-d6b6-4a72-bbcb-0846220e3425" CreationDate="2013-02-17T22:19:13.480" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303267384020586496" />
  <row Id="1416" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="d7383e13-756a-4402-977b-03fd7f4f0c6b" CreationDate="2013-02-18T00:22:09.923" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags" Text="|decarbonisation|pollution|greenhouse-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1417" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="7e6eadde-80f3-4f82-955d-2fe2ab262114" CreationDate="2013-02-18T01:19:13.790" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303312685183946752" />
  <row Id="1418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="500" RevisionGUID="2c54f961-d0cc-4634-9bdb-3ff092724846" CreationDate="2013-02-18T01:31:55.997" UserId="227" Text="There are, obviously, two options here: recycling, and reusing (basically anything else you had mentioned in the question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recycling one can look for recyclers who would pick up the vehicle, and pay for it. Big truck like F-350 could fetch up to $1000 depending on the market, because it has a lot of iron in it. Those recyclers usually would save the wheels/tyres and battery to resell separately (thus reusing at least some parts), with the rest going into smasher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important consideration is whether recycler properly disposes of hazardous materials, such as mineral oils, coolant and other chemicals or toxic metals, as [it can be a problem][1]. For more in-depth look at environmental impact of auto-recycling, there is 1994 UCLA dissertation [“Auto Recycler and Dismantler Facilities: Environmental Analysis of the Industry with a Focus on Storm Water Pollution”][2] (PDF).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To increase reuse, one might take off and sell (eBay, Craigslist) or give away (Craigslist, Freecycle) some parts that are in demand, such as front and rear light assemblies, seats and door-panels etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Reuse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would bother with reusing if the vehicle is in, or can be brought to a good mechanical condition. There is not much comparative information, but the only F-350 of that generation ([F-Series sixth generation][3], 1973–1979) [on Fuelly.com][4] posted 10 MPG average over 9000 miles (bottom of the page, 1977). If via tune-up (that is, avoiding proper overhaul of high-mileage engine) similar results can be achieved, it is not half-bad, as even modern petrol V-8s in one ton trucks can get about 13–15 MPG).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best thing would be upgrading the current engine to after-market EFI system, or retrofitting newer refurbished crate motor: either petrol, or, better yet, Diesel (which can be converted to bio-diesel). Unless the vehicle is really in the mint condition, it would be more of a hobby project for wrenching fun and environmental gratification, rather than something that makes economic sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.suscon.org/autorecycling/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.seas.ucla.edu/stenstro/d/denv13&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_F-Series_sixth_generation&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-350" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="500" RevisionGUID="bce2fd71-253f-4f67-aed2-e14535fbace9" CreationDate="2013-02-18T01:37:12.150" UserId="227" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="There are, obviously, two options here: recycling, and reusing (basically anything else you had mentioned in the question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recycling one can look for recyclers who would pick up the vehicle, and pay for it. Big truck like F-350 could fetch up to $1000 depending on the market, because it has a lot of iron in it. Those recyclers usually would save the wheels/tyres and battery to resell separately (thus reusing at least some parts), with the rest going into smasher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important consideration is whether recycler properly disposes of hazardous materials, such as mineral oils, coolant and other chemicals or toxic metals, as [it can be a problem][1]. For more in-depth look at environmental impact of auto-recycling, there is 1994 UCLA dissertation [“Auto Recycler and Dismantler Facilities: Environmental Analysis of the Industry with a Focus on Storm Water Pollution”][2] (PDF).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To increase reuse, one might take off and sell (eBay, Craigslist) or give away (Craigslist, Freecycle) some parts that are in demand, such as front and rear light assemblies, seats and door-panels etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Reuse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would bother with reusing if the vehicle is in, or can be brought to, a good mechanical condition. There is not much comparative information, but the only F-350 of that generation ([F-Series sixth generation][3], 1973–1979) [on Fuelly.com][4] posted 10 MPG average over 9000 miles (bottom of the page, 1977). If via tune-up (that is, avoiding proper overhaul of high-mileage engine) similar results can be achieved, it is not half-bad, as even modern petrol V-8s in one ton trucks can get about 13–15 MPG).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best thing would be upgrading the current engine to a modern after-market systems (fuel injection, electronic ignition etc.), or retrofitting newer refurbished crate motor: either petrol, or, better yet, Diesel (which can be converted to bio-diesel). For that [Mechanics.SE][5] could be of help. Unless the vehicle is really in the mint condition, it would be more of a hobby project for wrenching fun and environmental gratification, rather than something that makes economic sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.suscon.org/autorecycling/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.seas.ucla.edu/stenstro/d/denv13&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_F-Series_sixth_generation&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.fuelly.com/car/ford/f-350&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="501" RevisionGUID="39beb48b-c1e3-406a-8664-a9dff6439c2c" CreationDate="2013-02-18T03:56:25.807" UserId="130" Text="I am not sure I am qualified to answer all your questions but here are the ones I feel qualified to answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Phased selection**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first point I would make is that trees in the wild do start off in dense thickets and naturally self-select as they get larger.  I would expect that this has a number of benefits for the soil such as reduced erosion. I would suggest phasing the thinning.  This has a few benefits including the fact that you may get more initial growth for things like kindling out of the initial high speed growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest during the thinning phase, assuming young trees, that a simple rule might be that if the heads of the trees are touching, you can probably afford to thin half of the trees.  That gives them room to grow for the next phase without thinning them so far you might worry about too much erosion in the spring with the runoff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest also removing the weaker and smaller saplings if there is a difference there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for yelds, if you can saw the small logs on a jig and dry them out they can be useful for kindling in a wood stove.  We heat our house in Chelan with apple wood which cannot be easily split due to the way it has been pruned, and we just use smaller rounds as kindling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Species Selection**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I share your concerns here.  I don't think there is a problem with selecting based on species in order to shift yields. This is a more tricky subject and probably pretty locally dependent so rather than try to provide a definitive answer, I will mention a few things to keep in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many forests have an internal species progression where established trees of one species group enable the next stage of the progression to become established.  These progressions can take hundreds of years in some forests to reach maturity and obviously you don't want to wait that long.  In fact I know of old growth forests in national parks in Washington State, where such a progression has not reached maturity and probably won't for another few hundred years, assuming no fires or the like  (for example in Mt Ranier National Park a lot of the old growths in the lower areas are doug fir-dominated, but the next phase will be Western Hemlock)....  At the same time you may want to be familiar with it because you may be trying to either back things out or push things forward.   Being aware of such cycles is the first step in trying to harness them and it may shape the way you look at species selection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, in your area, beech and maple are probably the pinnacle species, so one thing you should keep in mind is that eventually these trees will likely dominate the other species.  Additionally these species are co-dependent, each reproducing best in the shade of the other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1421" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="246" RevisionGUID="d31048dc-1c9c-4fbd-bf48-98122a87eb91" CreationDate="2013-02-18T07:19:53.150" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303403446411862016" />
  <row Id="1422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="502" RevisionGUID="6a75ddd1-8b14-4a7d-9e53-bc76e451bd7e" CreationDate="2013-02-18T08:34:17.253" UserId="130" Text="Disclaimer:  I sometimes read up to three heavy books a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how you'd begin to compare.  What assumptions do you use regarding the lifecycle of the paper?  Is the paper to be read once and then discarded?  Is it recycled?  Is it read over and over again?  So rather than answer the question I want to explain why it is unanswerable by looking at a few issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider reference books, for example, and to go one step further consider micro-print reference books (like the &quot;Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary&quot;) which are intended to be read with a magnifying glass.  The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary is a large two-volume set, but each page is a micro-print reproduction of four pages of the standard edition.  if the book gets a significant amount of use, possibly over decades, it would be very hard to imagine a screen doing better.  This is one reason I am somewhat concerned about so much academic literature going into electronic form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading could range from there to colorful junk mail, resource-intensive to produce, read once and discarded by a small percentage of recipients....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just can't imagine that there is a single answer here even if we limit it to books." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="502" RevisionGUID="fda4d456-f103-4fc6-aa0d-eee74b4adad8" CreationDate="2013-02-18T08:56:01.440" UserId="130" Comment="added 910 characters in body" Text="Disclaimer:  I sometimes read up to three heavy books a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how you'd begin to compare.  What assumptions do you use regarding the lifecycle of the paper?  Is the paper to be read once and then discarded?  Is it recycled?  Is it read over and over again?  So rather than answer the question I want to explain why it is unanswerable by looking at a few issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider reference books, for example, and to go one step further consider micro-print reference books (like the &quot;Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary&quot;) which are intended to be read with a magnifying glass.  The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary is a large two-volume set, but each page is a micro-print reproduction of four pages of the standard edition.  if the book gets a significant amount of use, possibly over decades, it would be very hard to imagine a screen doing better.  This is one reason I am somewhat concerned about so much academic literature going into electronic form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading could range from there to colorful junk mail, resource-intensive to produce, read once and discarded by a small percentage of recipients....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just can't imagine that there is a single answer here even if we limit it to books.  Nonetheless, here are some back of the hand calculations for reading a 1/2 lb book once and recycling it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we start with US government figures and work back we get slightly under 1kWH per lb of paper in the recycling process.  Keep in mind printing still has to be taken into account and that isn't cheap either.  If we are comparing to a kindle, I couldn't find specific power figures (except that it *charges* at 5 w), that would mean you'd have to read for about 100 hours to make up for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the catch is as always, how much use does a book get?  If you read the Odyssey once every few years, you may quite easily get that 100 hours out of the book.  My 10lb (or maybe heavier) Compact Edition of the OED gets way more than 10k hours of usage over its life, let me tell you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the argument is likely to be an argument against *disposable* books rather than against printed books generally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1424" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="7ce33914-6363-4b0e-8df4-d95ac0823fe3" CreationDate="2013-02-18T10:19:53.353" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303448746610544640" />
  <row Id="1425" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="03ae054b-a09c-44d0-bf6b-39ae0fdec97f" CreationDate="2013-02-18T14:05:23.787" UserId="28" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|home|diy|fermentation|prepping|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="503" RevisionGUID="ab3fd0af-c2c5-4ec0-9339-86ec7b0d75be" CreationDate="2013-02-18T14:09:04.900" UserId="28" Text="Is there any connection between the depth of craft in a culture (meaning how common it is for lay people to engage in craft and deep traditions of craft) and the prevalence of sustainable practices / uptake of sustainable practices? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm investigating the teaching of craft as a cultural lever to encourage sustainability, and would love any anecdotal input and/or pointers to research on the matter. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="503" RevisionGUID="ab3fd0af-c2c5-4ec0-9339-86ec7b0d75be" CreationDate="2013-02-18T14:09:04.900" UserId="28" Text="Connection between crafts culture and sustainable practices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="503" RevisionGUID="ab3fd0af-c2c5-4ec0-9339-86ec7b0d75be" CreationDate="2013-02-18T14:09:04.900" UserId="28" Text="|craft|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="d78bebbd-c55f-4552-8108-8e7a1c7395d1" CreationDate="2013-02-18T14:59:11.347" UserId="130" Text="I think there are actually very strong connections for a large number of reasons.  The obvious comparison that comes to mind is grinding your own hamburger from beef your neighbor raised vs eating at Burger King.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  The simple fact is that mass production generally poses sustainability problems both in terms of energy consumption and complexity costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  I have to credit Gilbert Chesterton for this insight, but the fact is that mass production undermines localist economies and represents a sort of centralizing force that robs local communities of some of their self-sustainability.  Any movement away from mass production in this regard is good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Conversely craft cultures teach localism, re-use and repurposing of materials, and thus stand up very much against mass production of disposable goods.  This also can reduce waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that localism has to be a foundation of sustainability because centralization only works with complex regulation of behavior.  For example the size of the US public sector today as a percentage of GDP is nearing 40%, which is historically unprecedented.  The reason it is so high is because we are so productive as workers, but that productivity is subsidized by the burning of fossil fuels.  Decentralized solutions are robust and cheap.  Centralized ones throughout history have always achieved some economy of scale only at the expense of sustainability (they appear cheaper but in fact they only do so by utilizing surpluses from elsewhere).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't a partisan attack and neither political party in the US has any credible answer to this problem as far as I can see.  My point is just to highlight the relationship between surplus generated by consuming fossil fuels at an incredible rate, and the centralization both of manufacturing/distribution and of regulation and government, and the way this creates problems of sustainability.  Additionally a more robust craft movement makes it harder for government regulation to force people into unsustainable markets (say, banning sale of hand-made wooden children's toys so that we all have to buy plastic mass-produced trinkets from China), and it raises the demand for regulatory reform to cut back on laws already in place.  For example more cheese-makers will make it harder to push for making it harder to purchase milk which hasn't had the proteins denatured via ultrapasteurization.  Moreover these issues are not partisan issues.  They are corporatist vs craftsman issues, and the more craftsmen we have the better we are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, I think crafts culture is an important piece of the puzzle.  Part of the goal has to be to retain our own surpluses instead of pushing them into the machines of centralization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="07ea8057-bb37-491c-81b0-95118b2a9967" CreationDate="2013-02-18T15:06:15.160" UserId="130" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="I think there are actually very strong connections for a large number of reasons.  The obvious comparison that comes to mind is grinding your own hamburger from beef your neighbor raised vs eating at Burger King.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  The simple fact is that mass production generally poses sustainability problems both in terms of energy consumption and complexity costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  I have to credit Gilbert Chesterton for this insight, but the fact is that mass production undermines localist economies and represents a sort of centralizing force that robs local communities of some of their self-sustainability.  Any movement away from mass production in this regard is good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Conversely craft cultures teach localism, re-use and repurposing of materials, and thus stand up very much against mass production of disposable goods.  This also can reduce waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Crafts teach empowerment regarding personal production and consumption, which again is fundamentally necessary for sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that localism has to be a foundation of sustainability because centralization only works with complex regulation of behavior.  For example the size of the US public sector today as a percentage of GDP is nearing 40%, which is historically unprecedented.  The reason it is so high is because we are so productive as workers, but that productivity is subsidized by the burning of fossil fuels.  Decentralized solutions are robust and cheap.  Centralized ones throughout history have always achieved some economy of scale only at the expense of sustainability (they appear cheaper but in fact they only do so by utilizing surpluses from elsewhere).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't a partisan attack and neither political party in the US has any credible answer to this problem as far as I can see.  My point is just to highlight the relationship between surplus generated by consuming fossil fuels at an incredible rate, and the centralization both of manufacturing/distribution and of regulation and government, and the way this creates problems of sustainability.  Additionally a more robust craft movement makes it harder for government regulation to force people into unsustainable markets (say, banning sale of hand-made wooden children's toys so that we all have to buy plastic mass-produced trinkets from China), and it raises the demand for regulatory reform to cut back on laws already in place.  For example more cheese-makers will make it harder to push for making it harder to purchase milk which hasn't had the proteins denatured via ultrapasteurization.  Moreover these issues are not partisan issues.  They are corporatist vs craftsman issues, and the more craftsmen we have the better we are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, I think crafts culture is an important piece of the puzzle.  Part of the goal has to be to retain our own surpluses instead of pushing them into the machines of centralization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="483" RevisionGUID="06d42ad1-db20-4a83-b853-07a27c18c2bb" CreationDate="2013-02-18T15:12:49.587" UserId="130" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="A second significant pest issue we have here is that of the so-called American Cockroach, which seems to normally live outside near human activity and come inside at least a few times a year.  Currently we control these with periodic, carefully timed insecticide application (this cockroach has a slow growth cycle so right now that means 3-4 times/year, 2-3 applications per time).  We spray heavily in bathrooms which have little ventillation, let sit for hours, and then open up to ventillate.  This seems to work but I don't like the implications of using pesticides in this way or manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We believe that the pests enter from outside, and climb into the pipes from the drains in the back garden.  Because of the setup it has not been particularly possible to put screens on those drains with small enough holes to discourage these pests.  Additionally they may wander in the front door (I am not kidding, I have seen this) and then scurry around until hidden, waiting until later to find drains to crawl into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What additional means are there to control/prevent infestations of cockroaches?  I suspect that this species is likely to be the easiest to get rid of, of the cockroaches, because despite the fact that it runs *fast* and that the adults can fly, it takes 6-12 months for young to reach sexual maturity (a bit over 4x the time the German Cockroach requires).  I would assume then that methods of controlling other cockroaches might be effective here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting I have not seen any evidence that they are in our food (we do have geckos but that's another story, and the problems there are simply prevented by being careful about keeping food containers closed).  As far as I can tell the activity is entirely limited to the drain pipes, which go from the septic system (yes, everyone in Jakarta has a septic system) to things like the shower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:  as a side note I have considered trying to introduce geckos to the drain pipes.  Not sure how well they would fare there though and that might be cruel so for now I have ruled that out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="3a66ca1b-4ca2-4c16-b317-97d5ceff72a6" CreationDate="2013-02-18T15:53:56.477" UserId="130" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="I think there are actually very strong connections for a large number of reasons.  The obvious comparison that comes to mind is grinding your own hamburger from beef your neighbor raised vs eating at Burger King.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  The simple fact is that mass production generally poses sustainability problems both in terms of energy consumption and complexity costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  I have to credit Gilbert Chesterton for this insight, but the fact is that mass production undermines localist economies and represents a sort of centralizing force that robs local communities of some of their self-sustainability.  Any movement away from mass production in this regard is good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Conversely craft cultures teach localism, re-use and repurposing of materials, and thus stand up very much against mass production of disposable goods.  This also can reduce waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Crafts teach empowerment regarding personal production and consumption, which again is fundamentally necessary for sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that localism has to be a foundation of sustainability because centralization only works with complex regulation of behavior.  For example the size of the US public sector today as a percentage of GDP is nearing 40%, which is historically unprecedented.  The reason it is so high is because we are so productive as workers, but that productivity is subsidized by the burning of fossil fuels.  Decentralized solutions are robust and cheap.  Centralized ones throughout history have always achieved some economy of scale only at the expense of sustainability (they appear cheaper but in fact they only do so by utilizing surpluses from elsewhere).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't a partisan attack and neither political party in the US has any credible answer to this problem as far as I can see.  My point is just to highlight the relationship between surplus generated by consuming fossil fuels at an incredible rate, and the centralization both of manufacturing/distribution and of regulation and government, and the way this creates problems of sustainability.  I don't think there is any serious debate about whether a very large regulatory sector poses sustainability problems (if there is, I'd like to hear it) given that such a sector must consume resources and energy and is not producing.  Additionally a more robust craft movement makes it harder for government regulation to force people into unsustainable markets (say, banning sale of hand-made wooden children's toys so that we all have to buy plastic mass-produced trinkets from China), and it raises the demand for regulatory reform to cut back on laws already in place.  For example more cheese-makers will make it harder to push for making it harder to purchase milk which hasn't had the proteins denatured via ultrapasteurization.  Moreover these issues are not partisan issues.  They are corporatist vs craftsman issues, and the more craftsmen we have the better we are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, I think crafts culture is an important piece of the puzzle.  Part of the goal has to be to retain our own surpluses instead of pushing them into the machines of centralization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="495" RevisionGUID="65357d86-b621-43a1-bac5-c84ae55536f4" CreationDate="2013-02-18T17:31:27.447" UserId="15" Comment="Minor grammar correction" Text="I have a 1975 Ford F-350. It gets 6 miles per gallon. I don't use it any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it was fuel-efficient, I think I should get it in to someone else's driveway, so it can reduce the demand on new vehicles. But at 6mpg, that may not be the right choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could sell it, take it to a junk yard, use it for storage, give it to a charity, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not asking about money here - selling it won't get me much. But I do want to think about the ecological impacts of my options. What are choices that align with sustainable living?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1434" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="495" RevisionGUID="65357d86-b621-43a1-bac5-c84ae55536f4" CreationDate="2013-02-18T17:31:27.447" UserId="15" Comment="Minor grammar correction" Text="What to do with an old vehicle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1435" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="495" RevisionGUID="65357d86-b621-43a1-bac5-c84ae55536f4" CreationDate="2013-02-18T17:31:27.447" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 66, 117 edit id of 77" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1436" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="503" RevisionGUID="075edc19-5e80-4d38-ba8c-cde02ea64df8" CreationDate="2013-02-18T18:32:55.187" UserId="-1" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:91,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Linger&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:142,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;lemontwist&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:66,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;bstpierre&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:60,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Peter Ivan&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1437" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="322" RevisionGUID="f466ae40-fd9a-4df2-a88c-a944657ad091" CreationDate="2013-02-18T19:20:21.937" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303584762084339712" />
  <row Id="1438" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="169" RevisionGUID="f35ddf8e-f432-4083-a283-372ab195bd70" CreationDate="2013-02-18T22:20:23.447" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303630064392757248" />
  <row Id="1439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="e45d4a00-d59f-448c-aefe-9118c15ce3e3" CreationDate="2013-02-19T01:00:23.390" UserId="130" Comment="added 210 characters in body" Text="I think there are actually very strong connections for a large number of reasons.  The obvious comparison that comes to mind is grinding your own hamburger from beef your neighbor raised vs eating at Burger King.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  The simple fact is that mass production generally poses sustainability problems both in terms of energy consumption and complexity costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  I have to credit Gilbert Chesterton for this insight, but the fact is that mass production undermines localist economies and represents a sort of centralizing force that robs local communities of some of their self-sustainability.  Any movement away from mass production in this regard is good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Conversely craft cultures teach localism, re-use and repurposing of materials, and thus stand up very much against mass production of disposable goods.  This also can reduce waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Crafts teach empowerment regarding personal production and consumption, which again is fundamentally necessary for sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that localism has to be a foundation of sustainability because centralization only works with complex regulation of behavior.  For example the size of the US public sector today as a percentage of GDP is nearing 40%, which is historically unprecedented.  The reason it is so high is because we are so productive as workers, but that productivity is subsidized by the burning of fossil fuels.  Decentralized solutions are robust and cheap.  Centralized ones throughout history have always achieved some economy of scale only at the expense of sustainability (they appear cheaper but in fact they only do so by utilizing surpluses from elsewhere).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't a partisan attack and neither political party in the US has any credible answer to this problem as far as I can see.  My point is just to highlight the relationship between surplus generated by consuming fossil fuels at an incredible rate, and the centralization both of manufacturing/distribution and of regulation and government, and the way this creates problems of sustainability.  I don't think there is any serious debate about whether a very large regulatory sector poses sustainability problems (if there is, I'd like to hear it) given that such a sector must consume resources and energy and is not producing.  Additionally a more robust craft movement makes it harder for government regulation to force people into unsustainable markets (say, banning sale of hand-made wooden children's toys so that we all have to buy plastic mass-produced trinkets from China), and it raises the demand for regulatory reform to cut back on laws already in place.  For example more cheese-makers will make it harder to push for making it harder to purchase milk which hasn't had the proteins denatured via ultrapasteurization.  Moreover these issues are not partisan issues.  They are corporatist vs craftsman issues, and the more craftsmen we have the better we are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nor are historical parallels far to seek.  See Prof. Joseph Tainter's excellent work [&quot;The Collapse of Complex Societies&quot;](http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Archaeology/dp/052138673X)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, I think crafts culture is an important piece of the puzzle.  Part of the goal has to be to retain our own surpluses instead of pushing them into the machines of centralization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1441" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="242" RevisionGUID="cd60d3c6-82db-48c7-8616-9c82d9e2383a" CreationDate="2013-02-19T01:20:24.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303675369574260736" />
  <row Id="1442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="504" RevisionGUID="a13de8a2-c570-461b-96ce-9b38a3369cb8" CreationDate="2013-02-19T01:38:11.503" UserId="130" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="I think there are actually very strong connections for a large number of reasons.  The obvious comparison that comes to mind is grinding your own hamburger from beef your neighbor raised vs eating at Burger King.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  The simple fact is that mass production generally poses sustainability problems both in terms of energy consumption and complexity costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  I have to credit Gilbert Chesterton for this insight, but the fact is that mass production undermines localist economies and represents a sort of centralizing force that robs local communities of some of their self-sustainability.  Any movement away from mass production in this regard is good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Conversely craft cultures teach localism, re-use and repurposing of materials, and thus stand up very much against mass production of disposable goods.  This also can reduce waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Crafts teach empowerment regarding personal production and consumption, which again is fundamentally necessary for sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that localism has to be a foundation of sustainability because centralization only works with complex regulation of behavior.  For example the size of the US public sector today as a percentage of GDP is nearing 40%, which is historically unprecedented.  The reason it is so high is because we are so productive as workers, but that productivity is subsidized by the burning of fossil fuels.  Decentralized solutions are robust and cheap.  Centralized ones throughout history have always achieved some economy of scale only at the expense of sustainability (they appear cheaper but in fact they only do so by utilizing surpluses from elsewhere).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't a partisan attack and neither political party in the US has any credible answer to this problem as far as I can see.  My point is just to highlight the relationship between surplus generated by consuming fossil fuels at an incredible rate, and the centralization both of manufacturing/distribution and of regulation and government, and the way this creates problems of sustainability.  I don't think there is any serious debate about whether a very large regulatory sector poses sustainability problems (if there is, I'd like to hear it) given that such a sector must consume resources and energy and is not producing.  Additionally a more robust craft movement makes it harder for government regulation to force people into unsustainable markets (say, banning sale of hand-made wooden children's toys so that we all have to buy plastic mass-produced trinkets from China), and it raises the demand for regulatory reform to cut back on laws already in place.  For example more cheese-makers will make it harder to push for making it harder to purchase milk which hasn't had the proteins denatured via ultrapasteurization.  (Ultrapasteurized milk won't curdle properly due to protein denaturization and chelation of calcium in the milk.)  Moreover these issues are not partisan issues.  They are corporatist vs craftsman issues, and the more craftsmen we have the better we are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nor are historical parallels far to seek.  See Prof. Joseph Tainter's excellent work [&quot;The Collapse of Complex Societies&quot;](http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Archaeology/dp/052138673X)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, I think crafts culture is an important piece of the puzzle.  Part of the goal has to be to retain our own surpluses instead of pushing them into the machines of centralization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="505" RevisionGUID="7d450bb2-9ecd-4456-a655-723d4ed72f0f" CreationDate="2013-02-19T03:06:44.587" UserId="264" Text="Sorry, if the answer is a bit off-topic but I couldn't help myself …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are we talking about theoretical things or what could be done but isn't necessarily done (whatever the reasons are)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is on a personal scale, again it'll depends if you want to be theoretical or rational because if we speak about screens (and other devices) for instance, there is sometimes (too much time) some planned obsolescence (material or psychological) or things are made-up with less-ecological components or are made in less ecological ways simply because it's more profitable that way (and buying more expensive doesn't necessarily mean that they were more ecologically cautious, I'd say that then consequences can be worse). So it might not be the good fight, we should see further (Either looking for the root of the problems or not being miss-leaded by not-the-real-and-more-important-problems (in general))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, I don't think we can really compare paper to screen that easily, they don't have quite the same features (both have their pro and cons) so that we aren't exactly comparing things that can be compared. (Not only on the ecological-level, which can then sometimes influences the ecological-level back)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it's a tough question in my opinion. So may points to consider …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I guess it's still a really good question to ask to ourselves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="506" RevisionGUID="55e38b4a-e29b-4fc5-a380-5ff5546e5c24" CreationDate="2013-02-19T05:30:59.843" UserId="227" Text="## Driving Strategies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some research and personal experimentation on the topic, and here are some findings (more information in attached links). To achieve better mileage I would advocate the **appropriate driving**. The term _defensive driving_ relates to proactive risk management of on-road hazards, and can be done regardless of speed and acceleration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arbitrary “slower speed” does not guarantee better fuel economy, as different vehicles have different optimal RPM range for any given gear (with highest gear being most economical). However, at motorway speeds aerodynamic drag plays ever increasing role, and that optimal RPM range is usually allows for lower speed than most people indulge themselves on the autobahn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, smooth acceleration and aptly timed deceleration is key, but there are instances where it does not hold true. For example if one pulls out of side street during a rush hour, and the choice is to accelerate rapidly to safely merge into traffic, or be faced with the long line of cars and couple of minutes of idling, the winner is clearly the former (more on evils of idling later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proper deceleration is important, because fast braking (even if one “drives defensively” well under speed limit) does nothing but converting kinetic energy into waste heat, whereas there are more efficient ways to slow down. Releasing throttle well ahead of time not only reduces wear of brake pads and tyres, but allows the car to use natural losses of energy (inside the engine and drivetrain, aerodynamic drag etc.) to slow itself down. Importantly, it has to be done in gear ([engine braking][1]) which qualifies as an _engine overrun_ condition (throttle is off and RPMs are higher than idle) at which point ECU on modern fuel-injected petrol motors _shuts off fuel delivery entirely_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to greatly reduce need for acceleration by planning ahead and properly timing the traffic signals, slowing down well ahead of red lights in order to roll onto green, or accelerating when needed to make the green light, to avoid idling on red.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## On Evils of Idling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next big thing is **to reduce idling**. Besides the obvious “burning fuel with no miles” (0 MPG), there are more serious mechanical consideration against idling (even aforementioned fuel shut-off during overrun was primarily introduced to protect catalytic converter from incomplete combustion). Those are [enumerated elsewhere on SE][2], but in short that incomplete combustion leads to reducing effectiveness of spark plugs (which, in turn, further reduces fuel economy), glazing of combustion chamber, contaminating of oil, and excessive amount of water in exhaust system which increases corrosion. Moreover, idling produces more pollution from the same amount of fuel. For those concerned about implication of frequent stopping and restarting the vehicle, there is some math in above link, and more [in another][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practicality, this means turning off engine at long stop lights, railroad crossings, at the corner shop, and so forth, and reducing time spent warming up. Modern engines warm up better when they are put under moderate load rather than idling. And in the winter, one should protect the windscreen from defrosting with covered parking or putting blanket on it overnight, and to wear weather appropriate clothing, and not waiting for the car interior to turn into sauna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## More Better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other suggestions are also true: **proper tyre pressure** (also, safety issue, as under-inflated tyres are at risk of overheating failure), **low rolling resistance tyres** ([some concerns addressed][4]), **diligent maintenance** (plugs, wires, oil and filters affect performance in little ways that can add up), and **removing unnecessary weight or aerodynamic impediments** (if you do not have skis or a bicycle on your roof rack, it has to go).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of the mechanicals, **alternative transportation** (walking, biking, public transport, motorcycling) and **carpooling** can make an impact. Public transport generally takes longer time, but this time can be used more productively (reading, homework, work), one avoids traffic stress, parking costs, reduces wear, tear, and statistical possibility of an accident in own car. Also helps **avoiding rush hour** when possible, and **combining trips** (engine is more efficient at proper operating temperature, and many separate small trips do not allow motor to reach it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keeping track of the fuel usage (I use Fuelly, [personally][5]) helps not only for monitoring effects of any particular approach, but can also point to problems if certain negative trends develop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is very sensible practises that many can readily apply today in improving their driving habits without entering arcane realm of hardcore _hypermiling_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/3600/is-engine-braking-harmful/3610#3610&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/1772/is-idling-bad-for-your-engine/3428#3428&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/825/is-start-stop-technology-good-or-bad-for-my-car-alfa-mito/3566#3566&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/3030/are-there-any-disadvantage-to-fuel-efficient-tires/3471#3471&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.fuelly.com/driver/theUg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1446" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="349" RevisionGUID="dc2a2c5a-284b-4e74-803b-d0c5ecef5870" CreationDate="2013-02-19T07:20:42.713" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303766041010511872" />
  <row Id="1447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="507" RevisionGUID="db46ed1f-9a61-4a30-a148-4755a45708e5" CreationDate="2013-02-19T09:55:25.073" UserId="253" Text="One of the core practices most hypermilers use that hasn't been mentioned yet is DWB - Driving Without Brakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least with accelerating, you are increasing your kinetic energy so can use it. Every time you hit the brakes you dissipate energy as heat and cannot recover it (unless you have a kinetic energy recovery system...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [hypermiler.co.uk][1] (and these guys really know what they are talking about), the top 5 tips are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Don’t drive &#xD;&#xA;- Drive defensively, anticipating the road ahead.&#xD;&#xA;- Drive without brakes (DWB)&#xD;&#xA;- Slow down&#xD;&#xA;- Coasting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.hypermiler.co.uk/hypermiling/hypermiling-techniques" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="508" RevisionGUID="72c6c99d-1e25-4879-85e1-af4947aaa2fc" CreationDate="2013-02-19T10:38:18.543" UserId="28" Text="What substances can I find to stain and protect wood that are produced without serious pollution and can be disposed of safely? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1449" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="508" RevisionGUID="72c6c99d-1e25-4879-85e1-af4947aaa2fc" CreationDate="2013-02-19T10:38:18.543" UserId="28" Text="What's a sustainable way to stain and protect wood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1450" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="508" RevisionGUID="72c6c99d-1e25-4879-85e1-af4947aaa2fc" CreationDate="2013-02-19T10:38:18.543" UserId="28" Text="|pollution|craft|woodwork|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1451" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="508" RevisionGUID="4290f1df-2c63-4d35-9ce8-fa656fba3532" CreationDate="2013-02-19T13:21:27.737" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303856828859682816" />
  <row Id="1452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="363f4c84-c7b6-49ed-9630-68e77b3d5372" CreationDate="2013-02-19T13:29:15.920" UserId="66" Text="Linseed oil can be used for varnish. It is obtained by pressing seeds of the flax plant, which sounds more sustainable that anything petroleum-derived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to stain before you varnish, [there are a variety](http://www.moneypit.com/article/natural-non-toxic-wood-stain-coffee-berries-and-more) of [natural ways to produce stains](http://www.safenaturaltips.com/decorating/naturalstains.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* soak rusty nails in vinegar for two weeks, then strain&#xD;&#xA;* same with pennies (for blue), or tea+metal (for black)&#xD;&#xA;* soak walnut husks for several days, then strain&#xD;&#xA;* chewing tobacco soaked overnight in 50/50 water/ammonia, then strain&#xD;&#xA;* strong tea&#xD;&#xA;* strong coffee&#xD;&#xA;* berries&#xD;&#xA;* not mentioned in the linked articles, but many plants can be used for dye and some of these dyes may be suitable for staining wood; [search pfaf.org](http://pfaf.org/user/plantsearch.aspx), tick the &quot;Dye&quot; box under &quot;Other uses&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to test your stain and/or varnish on a piece of scrap wood that is of the same type you're finishing so that you can see how it will turn out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="510" RevisionGUID="77db5fd1-3bc7-4699-9328-cdfc2550c496" CreationDate="2013-02-19T13:58:02.660" UserId="130" Text="There are two important variables and one important caution here.  The caution is that containing grasshoppers in an area may be very difficult,  You may have to have insect screens fully covering an area.  Keeping flying migratory livestock contained is somewhat difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The variables regard climate.  Grasshoppers don't survive freezing so you have a limited growing season, and the shorter the growing season the more land you will need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third is water.  The more lush your landscape the less of it you will need.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So assuming you have ideal areas and can sustain a population of grasshoppers at 30/m^2 (this may be optimistic), with each grasshopper weighing about 0.1g, then each M^2 would produce about 3g of meat/year.  1kg would take approx 33m^2, and so you 100kg would require about 3300m^2.  I don't know what you could grow that would sustain a population that size for very long (bamboo, maybe?) so you might want to assume at least 3-4x that size for sustainability reasons.  I would therefore estimate approx one hectare to be safe, more if land is marginal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="511" RevisionGUID="bc3693df-8963-455b-84e6-fd463aa84f4b" CreationDate="2013-02-19T14:53:59.840" UserId="164" Text="The mantra of sustainability is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reduce&#xD;&#xA;* Reuse&#xD;&#xA;* Recycle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. *Reduce what you use, reuse what you can, recycle what you can't*. This order is important, recycling should always be the last resort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like you are being sensible when you wash the bags for re-use, since you are only using water, energy and detergents which were left over after other activities, thus reuse comes with a zero environmental cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to recycle these bags, then there would be the environmental cost of transporting them and reprocessing them, then they would end up being [downcycled][1] into [fabric][2] anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if your Polyethylene bags are soiled with food then they should probably not be recycled&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. As soiled bags should be washed before being recycling anyway, you might as well reuse them once they are clean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1: This is a requirement with my local authority recycling collections, it may not be for you.&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#PET" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1455" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="328" RevisionGUID="bcfc452a-7afd-4f37-a877-0f485c251389" CreationDate="2013-02-19T16:21:28.457" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303902128257257472" />
  <row Id="1457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="c8526fcd-6572-4f70-a891-4af22c5f4f11" CreationDate="2013-02-19T18:45:02.670" UserId="66" Comment="safety is no accident" Text="Linseed oil can be used for varnish. It is obtained by pressing seeds of the flax plant, which sounds more sustainable that anything petroleum-derived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's worth mentioning the safety aspect of using linseed oil. A pile of rags with linseed oil on can **spontaneously combust**, thanks to the linseed oil reacting with oxygen and producing heat that (when the pile of rags is big enough to work as effective insulation) can build up to the point of combustion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[Thanks for [comment by Highly Irregular](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/508/whats-a-sustainable-way-to-stain-and-protect-wood/509#comment792_509)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to stain before you varnish, [there are a variety](http://www.moneypit.com/article/natural-non-toxic-wood-stain-coffee-berries-and-more) of [natural ways to produce stains](http://www.safenaturaltips.com/decorating/naturalstains.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* soak rusty nails in vinegar for two weeks, then strain&#xD;&#xA;* same with pennies (for blue), or tea+metal (for black)&#xD;&#xA;* soak walnut husks for several days, then strain&#xD;&#xA;* chewing tobacco soaked overnight in 50/50 water/ammonia, then strain&#xD;&#xA;* strong tea&#xD;&#xA;* strong coffee&#xD;&#xA;* berries&#xD;&#xA;* not mentioned in the linked articles, but many plants can be used for dye and some of these dyes may be suitable for staining wood; [search pfaf.org](http://pfaf.org/user/plantsearch.aspx), tick the &quot;Dye&quot; box under &quot;Other uses&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to test your stain and/or varnish on a piece of scrap wood that is of the same type you're finishing so that you can see how it will turn out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="cc188d20-6f6a-4f37-a2f5-ac17d9cd81f7" CreationDate="2013-02-19T19:06:53.047" UserId="169" Text="I called Kidde about mailing back their radioactive smoke detector now that it has exceeded its usable life.  It is labeled that it contains 0.9 micro curies of Americium 241.  They claimed over the telephone that the device is safe to discard in the trash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was hoping to learn exactly what are the environmental impacts of doing so?  I am under the impression that the device will be compressed during the trip to the landfill, destroying the protective casing for the material.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="cc188d20-6f6a-4f37-a2f5-ac17d9cd81f7" CreationDate="2013-02-19T19:06:53.047" UserId="169" Text="What are the effects of discarding radioactive smoke detectors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="cc188d20-6f6a-4f37-a2f5-ac17d9cd81f7" CreationDate="2013-02-19T19:06:53.047" UserId="169" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1461" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="190" RevisionGUID="240160bf-e3f8-47a6-ad00-282fee277c1e" CreationDate="2013-02-19T19:21:28.147" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303947426472022017" />
  <row Id="1462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="513" RevisionGUID="34680d30-57e5-4616-8c56-a118a2980b67" CreationDate="2013-02-19T20:10:39.193" UserId="48" Text="Don't break it into pieces and breathe the dust. And don't eat it. Avoid doing those two daft things, and you'll be perfectly safe during disposal. The smoke detector itself is electronic waste, and should be handled accordingly: so **find an electronics recycler, and give it to them**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like your local Kidde aren't being very responsible manufacturers when it comes to handling their product at end of life. It might be worth bearing that in mind, the next time you shop for fire safety equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Handling varies by legislature. Here are some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Within the EU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's covered by the [Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment directive][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your local municipal waste handler or specialist recycler is obliged to have specialist procedures for dealing with electronic equipment - hand it over to them. If you buy a new one, the retailer may take in your old one at time of purchase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Within the United States&#xD;&#xA;The [EPA in the US advise][2] that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates the radioactive materials in smoke detectors. Because the amount of americium in these devices is so small, NRC's regulations exempt individuals purchasing smoke detectors from licensing requirements including those related to disposal of radioactive materials. You can dispose of single, household smoke detectors as ordinary trash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a pretty sloppy way to handle waste electrical and electronic equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###In Australia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The following][3] applies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Individual (up to 10) smoke alarms can be safely disposed of in domestic rubbish. When more than ten smoke alarms are collected together for bulk disposal, they must be treated as radioactive waste and the requirements of the National Health and Medical Research Council's Code of Practice for the Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Australia (1992) must be met.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/index_en.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/americium.html#protectmyself&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=704" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="853f140c-ecf3-4a40-ab66-d5f7638791e0" CreationDate="2013-02-19T21:36:52.280" UserId="60" Comment="one more solution" Text="Use a common (commercially available) electric pump. Home made ones can be problematic, as [Chris][1] writes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solar pumps are available in various power. Even with a very small pump you'd want to install a controller with (at least) two temperature probes on the panel and in the tank to turn the pump on and off.   &#xD;&#xA;I'm using a 45W pump with throughput of 2 litres/minute on a panel with area of 1.2 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. During sunny summer it runs almost all the day and it's stopped by the controller if the heat gain is too low.  &#xD;&#xA;The pump installed in a polystyrene box to silence it and it works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll always have a high pressure (1 bar) in a closed system with varying temperatures. The panel can easily reach 100°C if the pump stops and the pressure will rise. An expansion tank is a must and water is not to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility would be a [bubble pump system or Geyser Pump][2]. It's very simple and innovative - but you'll have to find some references to existing installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/380/60 &quot;Chris' answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sunnovations.com/content/how-sunnovations-system-works" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="ccfe488f-d384-491c-851d-bac5d4f19839" CreationDate="2013-02-19T21:46:21.143" UserId="60" Comment="one more solution" Text="Use a common (commercially available) electric pump. Home made ones can be problematic, as [Chris][1] writes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solar pumps are available in various power. Even with a very small pump you'd want to install a controller with (at least) two temperature probes on the panel and in the tank to turn the pump on and off.   &#xD;&#xA;I'm using a 45W pump with throughput of 2 litres/minute on a panel with area of 1.2 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. During sunny summer it runs almost all the day and it's stopped by the controller if the heat gain is too low.  &#xD;&#xA;The pump installed in a polystyrene box to silence it and it works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll always have a high pressure (1 bar) in a closed system with varying temperatures. The panel can easily reach 100°C if the pump stops and the pressure will rise. An expansion tank is a must and water is not to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility would be a [bubble pump system or Geyser Pump][2]. It's very simple, passive and innovative - but you'll have to find some references to existing installations. There is a [comparison of solar hot water systems][3] to consider your requirements.  &#xD;&#xA;The system is underpressurized and the medium boils when heated in the panel easily. While bubbles move to a (some) higher place, they move the loop of medium toward the water tank. After doing their work, the bubbles condensate back and preheat the returning medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/380/60 &quot;Chris' answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sunnovations.com/content/how-sunnovations-system-works&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_hot_water#A_rough_comparison_of_solar_hot_water_systems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1465" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="dfded303-4e14-4c89-9f05-def311e67bd0" CreationDate="2013-02-19T22:21:51.453" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/303992823735283712" />
  <row Id="1466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="514" RevisionGUID="d4039625-3684-4bf9-9d5c-afaf093eb289" CreationDate="2013-02-19T22:33:26.983" UserId="60" Text="Both [solar thermal water heating systems][1] and [photovoltaic systems][2] already have a good commercial background. Efficiency of energy gain of a solar thermal system is about **80%**, while photovoltaics is up to **20%** nowadays. Producing electricity is a different story than heat so by here it's ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But sometimes *photovoltaic systems are advertised also as a water heating solution*. The electricity produced is fed into an electric water tank heater (no DC/AC conversion needed). **This specific usage** has many disadvantages and seems as wasting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- To have a 2 kW&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt; (peak), we need about 2 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of solar panels but more than 10 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of photovoltaic panels.&#xD;&#xA;- The expenses of those two systems might be 1:3.&#xD;&#xA;- The amount and kind of materials needed to produce a solar vs. photovoltaic panel are in favor of solar panel: glass + copper + heat exchange medium (glycol) vs. fine precessed silicone + wiring.&#xD;&#xA;- Recycling of glass and copper is already a commonplace, the silicone recycling is only in the beginnings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But still, are there any advantages when heating water via a photovoltaic system over solar thermal system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_hot_water&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="514" RevisionGUID="d4039625-3684-4bf9-9d5c-afaf093eb289" CreationDate="2013-02-19T22:33:26.983" UserId="60" Text="What advantages (any?) has water heating via photovoltaic system over solar thermal system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1468" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="514" RevisionGUID="d4039625-3684-4bf9-9d5c-afaf093eb289" CreationDate="2013-02-19T22:33:26.983" UserId="60" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="b9f5494b-bba9-497e-82e0-b4aa7f136652" CreationDate="2013-02-19T23:06:07.227" UserId="85" Comment="added 178 characters in body" Text="Several factors come to mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Air-conditioning**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Probably one of the bigger factors for saving fuel. Open the windows instead (if it's hot); close the windows &amp; wear a jacket (when it's cold). (This is for low speed; for longer stretches on the highway the drag by the open windows might waste more energy than the air-conditioning. See the comment by @JayBazuzi below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Air pressure of your tyres**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Not the biggest factor, but you decrease wear (long-term benefit) and friction, which saves fuel on the day, so to speak (short-term benefit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Defensive driving**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;... meaning try to drive without having to step on the brakes. Keep your distance from the cars in front of you. Take your foot of the gas when the traffic light turned to red. (But remember, braking is more cost-efficient than having an accident. Safety comes first, also for sustainability.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Avoid traffic**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Like the point above, avoid traffic, because in traffic you'll have to brake (for other cars, cyclists, children, traffic lights), which is necessary, but not fuel efficient. Scheduling a longer route around town may well be more efficient (esp. if you are driving defensively and slowly) and doesn't drive you up the wall. (You said that already, I know.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Reduce weight**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;No reason to drive around with unnecessary heavy objects in your trunk. Only take with you what you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Drive slowly**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Driving twice as fast increases the air resistance 4-fold. Driving faster thus necessarily means you use more fuel for the same distance. (I mean, don't drive faster than everyone else, not drive slower than everyone else, forcing people to have to wait for you. That will result in aggression and risky overtaking manoeuvres of other people, using more net fuel...) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Make your car aerodynamic**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Don't transport anything on the roof (if possible). The air resistance is very high. If you do, drive slowly. (See &quot;Drive slowly&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Don't accelerate too fast**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Give your cylinders a chance to use all the fuel you give to them efficiently. Accelerating too fast results in incomplete combustion and more fuel being used for nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a few obvious ones (for sake of completeness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Form alliances**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Take your neighbours to the shopping mall and they'll return the favour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Only drive when necessary**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You save the most fuel when you don't drive at all. Take the bus or train or hitch a ride with friends or neighbours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="498" RevisionGUID="599968f9-7ed2-42d0-ac88-0826e19aac60" CreationDate="2013-02-19T23:55:23.737" UserId="66" Comment="fix spelling" Text="I don't have the perfect answer but as you said, even though it's not really fuel-efficient, it might be more ecological than creating a brand new car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially if we consider that it could be used occasionally by someone who wouldn't need to drive a lot, this could always help that person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Maybe it could be recycled, could it be?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="515" RevisionGUID="b4423cee-d4cf-4e00-9cb1-ed9322cb02d9" CreationDate="2013-02-20T01:16:38.623" UserId="48" Text="###Exergy&#xD;&#xA;PV is generally superior to solar thermal because it produces a higher-quality energy: electricity rather than low-grade heat: 1kWh of electricity has more [exergy][1] than 1kWh of low-grade heat.  As you say, PV's efficiency tends to be significantly lower than solar thermal, in straight watt-for-watt terms, which means less power per unit roof area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you're right that just using the electricity generated to create low-grade heat could be wasteful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Economics&#xD;&#xA;But exergy and economics are different: PV is becoming cheaper and cheaper. So maybe there are circumstances where PV + resistance heating is cheaper than solar thermal.  Misaligned incentives between PV and solar-thermal could make that happen, as could extremely cheap PV systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Deemed exports within Feed-in Tariffs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are cases, for example in the UK, where the payment to the PV system owner is based on the amount of electricity generated, and where there is a payment for electricity exported to the grid, but this is not measured - it's just deemed to be 50% of the total generated. Yes, that is a silly way to do things, given how cheap and easy it is to meter the exports, but that's the system some utilities are operating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under such a regime, the PV is then built with a resistance heater in a hot-water storage-tank, and all the electricity gets dumped as low-grade heat into that tank.  Dumping it as heat doesn't change the revenue generated for by the PV system, and does reduce the heating costs of the homeowner, as well as given them very-low-carbon hot water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Hybrid photovoltaics +  solar thermal&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as [Highly Irregular][2] notes in the comments, there are various [PV-thermal hybrid systems][3], which provide both electricity and low-grade heat: in those cases, some of the PV electricity is used to pump water, but the water is heated by the sun directly, rather than by resistance heater - and this cools the PV panel, raising its electricity output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4] [source][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are people trying to combine a [PV-thermal hybrid with a heat pump][6], but the economics really don't favour it at the moment, and current heat pumps can be pretty noisy, particularly in their defrost cycle. A ground-source heat pump + PV-thermal hybrid might be superior to just a heat pump on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://exergy.se/goran/thesis/paper1/paper1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/15/highly-irregular&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.newformenergy.com/photovoltaic-thermal&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nhNrq.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2010.10.032&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.newformenergy.com/hybrid-solar-solution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="516" RevisionGUID="0ea98248-193e-4293-96ac-626617eead39" CreationDate="2013-02-20T02:20:30.060" UserId="87" Text="I will answer your question from a different approach, which is practicality rather than raw efficiency.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked if there are advantages to heating water using solar PV instead of direct solar hot water.  The first potential advantage is how the variation throughout the year can be handled.  In a modern grid-tied solar PV system, you can bank electrical energy credits across many months, effectively generating power in July for use in January.  Thus the PV system can be sized based on the needed year-round average production instead of a guaranteed minimum production.  Looking at direct solar hot water, energy banking can usually only be done for a matter of days.  This means that a system with sufficient output in winter is likely to overproduce in summer.  If you heat with the solar hot water this is even more the case, since the system will be larger but heating is not needed during the maximum production months.  So the first potential advantage of PV over solar thermal is the percentage of generated energy that actually gets used, on a year-long basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second potential advantage is simplicity.  A solar thermal system cannot offset the total energy use of a home, since much of this is used as electricity.  Therefore the homeowner desiring to offset the entire household usage would end up buying and maintaining two different types of systems.  If the homeowner expects to buy a solar PV system anyway, they may simply find it easier to buy a single system rather than determine the balance between two systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If trying to heat water most efficiently with electricity, a heat pump water heater will raise the effective ratio of energy used to heat gained from .9 (for direct heating) to about 2.4.  Thus, a 20% efficient solar panel (a high number, but taking it from the question) would effectively be 48% efficient at heating water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1474" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="512" RevisionGUID="3b2bbd1e-a019-4d21-905c-4943319b76c8" CreationDate="2013-02-20T02:34:55.513" UserId="169" Comment="edited title" Text="What are the environmental effects of discarding radioactive smoke detectors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1475" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="514" RevisionGUID="a8e71800-5e6d-480f-9b08-39af12c2b9e6" CreationDate="2013-02-20T04:22:36.213" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/304083607369179136" />
  <row Id="1476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="44dbbe72-0904-43a3-807c-c34e176d57c8" CreationDate="2013-02-20T11:43:01.630" UserId="48" Text="What are the sound reasons (let's put aside the unsound reasons) why decarbonisation takes us further down the road to sustainability; and what real-world circumstances might mean that some specific decarbonisation measures make sustainability harder to achieve?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm using **decarbonisation** as shorthand for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from electricity, heating, transport, industry, land use, land use changes and forestry. Where **greenhouse gas emissions** are taken to be those anthropogenic emissions that increase the net forcing effect - so not water vapour emissions, and not emissions of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; where the carbon was already part of the carbon cycle.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="44dbbe72-0904-43a3-807c-c34e176d57c8" CreationDate="2013-02-20T11:43:01.630" UserId="48" Text="What is the relationship between decarbonisation and sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="44dbbe72-0904-43a3-807c-c34e176d57c8" CreationDate="2013-02-20T11:43:01.630" UserId="48" Text="|defining-sustainability|decarbonisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="518" RevisionGUID="7e0247de-f39a-4030-9715-454696563298" CreationDate="2013-02-20T12:27:35.097" UserId="244" Text="Cover the compost with dried leaves or dried grass to prevent the smell flowing out&#xD;&#xA;that attracts flies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also read about adding Vinegar to compost, 1 tablespoon per 8-10Kg compost every 15 days to prevent flies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="519" RevisionGUID="0c5cebb5-96b9-4495-a06a-40eda371678b" CreationDate="2013-02-20T12:33:17.833" UserId="244" Text="I had tried Lemon juice spray on Ants and it worked well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used un-fresh lemon and squeezed its juice into spray-can containing water and sprayed it on ants. On next days, ants weren't there!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1481" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="73" RevisionGUID="d3b99d08-d10a-45e5-8308-420f0e0f8145" CreationDate="2013-02-20T13:22:49.583" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/304219558946955264" />
  <row Id="1483" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="412" RevisionGUID="8603e2fd-1956-4d11-a46a-1ba854201e15" CreationDate="2013-02-20T16:59:51.217" UserId="60" Comment="title is a question" Text="What non toxic insect (ant) repellent can be used?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1484" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="412" RevisionGUID="8603e2fd-1956-4d11-a46a-1ba854201e15" CreationDate="2013-02-20T16:59:51.217" Comment="Proposed by 60 approved by -1 edit id of 78" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1485" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="412" RevisionGUID="db684988-54f8-4838-bb83-361a2281deb4" CreationDate="2013-02-20T16:59:51.217" UserId="83" Comment="title is a question" Text="Non toxic insect(ant) repellent for use in the kitchen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="520" RevisionGUID="7eede9f8-2d1d-4afc-ba2d-6a6feda56077" CreationDate="2013-02-20T18:31:54.840" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="Natural gas is a by product of the natural processes that create oil.  I would think that should everyone change to use NG then we would just be creating new issues that would replace the issues we have with the use of gasoline. How is using natural gas more sustainable than gasoline?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1488" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="520" RevisionGUID="7eede9f8-2d1d-4afc-ba2d-6a6feda56077" CreationDate="2013-02-20T18:31:54.840" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="How is Natural Gas more sustainable as fuel than Gasoline?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1489" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="520" RevisionGUID="7eede9f8-2d1d-4afc-ba2d-6a6feda56077" CreationDate="2013-02-20T18:31:54.840" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="520" RevisionGUID="58e9fb37-ae30-43f1-b59d-065adee8f8e2" CreationDate="2013-02-20T20:01:42.243" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="In California, there are many natural gas vehicle options that are being promoted as more sustainable than regular gasoline vehicles. Natural gas is a by product of the natural processes that create oil.  I would think that should everyone change to use NG then we would just be creating new issues that would replace the issues we have with the use of gasoline. How is using natural gas more sustainable than gasoline?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1491" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="520" RevisionGUID="0ba1ed2b-6b5f-47d3-8f28-5f4d9620ca06" CreationDate="2013-02-20T22:22:49.797" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/304355455034085376" />
  <row Id="1492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="42c3cb2c-5ddd-4121-8b65-81391dc2f985" CreationDate="2013-02-20T22:28:05.050" UserId="85" Comment="included reference" Text="Several factors come to mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Air-conditioning**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Probably one of the bigger factors for saving fuel. At low speeds, open the windows instead (if it's hot); close the windows &amp; wear a jacket (when it's cold). For high speed, close the windows, even when it's hot. At higher speeds the drag created by open windows uses more fuel than the air-conditioning. (See comment by Jay Bazuzi &amp; [reference](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2010/08/natures_air_conditioner.html) by walker below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Air pressure of your tyres**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Not the biggest factor, but you decrease wear (long-term benefit) and friction, which saves fuel on the day, so to speak (short-term benefit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Defensive driving**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;... meaning try to drive without having to step on the brakes. Keep your distance from the cars in front of you. Take your foot of the gas when the traffic light turned to red. (But remember, braking is more cost-efficient than having an accident. Safety comes first, also for sustainability.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Avoid traffic**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Like the point above, avoid traffic, because in traffic you'll have to brake (for other cars, cyclists, children, traffic lights), which is necessary, but not fuel efficient. Scheduling a longer route around town may well be more efficient (esp. if you are driving defensively and slowly) and doesn't drive you up the wall. (You said that already, I know.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Reduce weight**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;No reason to drive around with unnecessary heavy objects in your trunk. Only take with you what you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Drive slowly**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Driving twice as fast increases the air resistance 4-fold. Driving faster thus necessarily means you use more fuel for the same distance. (I mean, don't drive faster than everyone else, not drive slower than everyone else, forcing people to have to wait for you. That will result in aggression and risky overtaking manoeuvres of other people, using more net fuel...) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Make your car aerodynamic**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Don't transport anything on the roof (if possible). The air resistance is very high. If you do, drive slowly. (See &quot;Drive slowly&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Don't accelerate too fast**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Give your cylinders a chance to use all the fuel you give to them efficiently. Accelerating too fast results in incomplete combustion and more fuel being used for nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a few obvious ones (for sake of completeness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Form alliances**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Take your neighbours to the shopping mall and they'll return the favour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Only drive when necessary**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You save the most fuel when you don't drive at all. Take the bus or train or hitch a ride with friends or neighbours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="413" RevisionGUID="fec9cac8-b525-43f3-8665-851341d61bc6" CreationDate="2013-02-20T22:35:01.143" UserId="212" Comment="fixed omition" Text="Clay.  Cheap, simple, abundant.  Any soil with a clay content in excess of 40% makes a darn good water retention layer.  One dump truck load of locally sourced high clay should be all you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See &quot;Water Content‐Density Criteria for Compacted Soil Liners.” in the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Volume 116, Issue 12 (December 1990) by D. Daniel, ASCE. and C. Benson, ASCE. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="521" RevisionGUID="5e6a7f32-aa7d-48aa-b47a-ffae4334df8d" CreationDate="2013-02-20T22:59:51.280" UserId="212" Text="Thermo-siphon works surprisingly well when feasible.  If it is feasible to move the physical location of the reservoir placing it above the collector(s) will cause the water to circulate on it's own.  Placing simple diaphragm valves in the reservoir will make the water circulate only when the panel temp is higher than the reservoir.  If you can achieve precise control of the water level you can do the same with relative positioning of the inlet and outlet pipes using ambient air pressure as your valve." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="7b5dbf7b-b412-40a5-907b-c17188f4c946" CreationDate="2013-02-21T00:48:37.210" UserId="281" Text="Is it better for the environment to cook with gas or with electricity, assuming the electricity does not exclusively come from renewable sources? I am interested in a comparison for each of the following categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Habitat destruction from gas and coal extraction&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;CO2 emissions&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Air quality&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="7b5dbf7b-b412-40a5-907b-c17188f4c946" CreationDate="2013-02-21T00:48:37.210" UserId="281" Text="Cooking with gas or electricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="7b5dbf7b-b412-40a5-907b-c17188f4c946" CreationDate="2013-02-21T00:48:37.210" UserId="281" Text="|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="523" RevisionGUID="1bb2bf0f-4d4f-4909-a35b-10bafabe61e3" CreationDate="2013-02-21T01:01:00.517" UserId="281" Text="How can I calculate if it makes sense from a resource-conservation perspective to purchase a new, more energy efficient appliance, and when it makes sense to use an old appliance until it is beyond repare? Are there appliances that are commonly known to be one or the other?&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in the environmental impact, not in the economics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="523" RevisionGUID="1bb2bf0f-4d4f-4909-a35b-10bafabe61e3" CreationDate="2013-02-21T01:01:00.517" UserId="281" Text="When to buy new, when to keep the old?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="523" RevisionGUID="1bb2bf0f-4d4f-4909-a35b-10bafabe61e3" CreationDate="2013-02-21T01:01:00.517" UserId="281" Text="|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="04a6af68-78ab-4e7f-a5ad-8737f00a8996" CreationDate="2013-02-21T03:04:41.227" UserId="48" Text="It's pure greenwash. Natural gas is not sustainable - it's the direct depletion of natural resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to generate methane (the predominant energy carrier within natural gas) sustainably, e.g. [from biomass in anaerobic digesters][1]; or [synthetically, powered by renewable energy][2]. However, unless you have a supplier that guarantees sustainable sourcing, then the methane gas you're getting is not sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are four fatal flaws in the sustainability, any one of which in its own right makes natural gas unsustainable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Natural gas is a finite resource that is depleted by extraction and combustion.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Extracting the natural gas is environmentally destructive around the area of extraction: either through the collateral damage at oil wells, or the contamination of fresh-water supplies, and earthquake damage at shale gas sites.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Burning natural gas in vehicles creates local pollution including NOx and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; at rates that raise background levels of those pollutants, damaging economic productivity and public health.&#xD;&#xA; 4. The whole supply chain for natural gas from extraction to combustion releases global pollutants: methane and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and the overwhelming body of evidence is that these are leading us to catastrophic climate change. It is indisputable that anthropogenic emissions exceed the world's ability to sink these emissions; and so global heat content is rising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/index.php/ad-basics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://jalopnik.com/5948969/this-e+fuel-works-just-like-gasoline-but-is-entirely-carbon-neutral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="56c9d624-3ed1-461c-9f5a-285c4cf77797" CreationDate="2013-02-21T03:46:03.257" UserId="48" Text="It's going to depend on several factors. There is no one universal answer. It will depend on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the source of your electricity&#xD;&#xA; - the rate of leakage of methane in your gas supply&#xD;&#xA; - the relative efficiencies of the gas and electricity cookers under consideration&#xD;&#xA; - the impact on your domestic heating / cooling energy consumption of the additional ventilation required when cooking with gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's not possible to give a specific answer, with regard to your three criteria. For the specifics of your own case, you'd need to look at lifecycle assessments (LCA) for each of the energy vectors. But let's look at some generalities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###When would electricity be better?&#xD;&#xA;If your electricity supply is not preominantly coal, and you've got efficient electrical cooking (e.g. induction hob, microwave oven, well-insulated convection oven), then cooking with electricity is likely to be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also likely that your electricity supply will get cleaner over the next 10 years, i.e. within the lifetime of any cooking device that you buy now, so the balance may tip towards electric within the lifetime of a cooker bought today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###When would gas be better?&#xD;&#xA;If:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - you can source your gas as biogas or as renewably-synthetisised methane, or if your electricity supply is almost entirely coal- or oil- powered;&#xD;&#xA; - and if the whole supply chain of your gas has very low leakage rates (so, no shale gas, no leaky pipes, no leaky cooker)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then cooking with gas is likely to be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###When is it all bad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your electricity is mostly coal, and your gas supply is as leaky as many seem to be, then cooking is going to be quite carbon-intensive either way; that is, there will be high greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy that actually gets delivered into cooking. In that case, the best option to take you closer to sustainability is find an energy provider who can supply you with cleaner electricity or gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###On the positive side&#xD;&#xA;Cooking tends to be a pretty small part of overall energy consumption (a tiny few percent), so the overall environmental impact from cooking is likely to be a very small part of your total impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Efficiencies&#xD;&#xA;Here#s a quick outline on some relevant efficiencies. The reciprocal of the overall efficiency is the multiplier for environmental damage: for example, an overall efficiency of 33% means that 1 unit of energy used directly for cooking does 3x the damage: An overall efficiency of 50% means 2x the damage. 25% means 4x the damage. etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - gas-powered electricity tends to be ~50% efficient&#xD;&#xA; - coal-powered electricity tends to be ~35% - 40% efficient&#xD;&#xA; - electricity distribution losses might be of the order of 5-10%&#xD;&#xA; - gas-distribution leakage rates can be [around 10%][1]&#xD;&#xA; - gas cookers can be ~[40% efficient][2]&#xD;&#xA; - electric cookers can be ~[70-90% efficient][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that methane has a global warming forcing of about 21-25, relative to CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, at the 100-year time horizon, so methane leakages are significant contributors to climate damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717351.100-leaking-gas-mains-help-to-warm-the-globe-.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/energy-solutions/efficient-cooking&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/cookgtsd.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1504" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="522" RevisionGUID="61c619ef-783f-43ba-9334-4d705f8adad2" CreationDate="2013-02-21T04:23:39.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/304446257622028288" />
  <row Id="1505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="526" RevisionGUID="1ec95e3c-6fb3-4dd7-8a72-c78254081c1d" CreationDate="2013-02-21T05:04:40.827" UserId="282" Text="There are many considerations for building a well concerning water quality. But sustainability wise refill rate seems like the most important concern. If your region is pretty dry and has a low water table then drilling a well may cause damage to the groundwater system. However, I think it is unlikely that a single well will have any negative impact, unless you plan on using a large amount of water for a swimming pool or something like that. I think checking with the municipality might be a decent place to start." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="527" RevisionGUID="5c12ae80-891d-44c1-a71f-6e3b95af9ac5" CreationDate="2013-02-21T05:15:27.057" UserId="282" Text="I am unplugging my refrigerator for the winter months, I live in the northern United States so the temperature is sub freezing most of the time during winter. I have a semi-insulated garage that is about 40 degrees F and am placing refrigerator items in a box there. For freezer items I have started with a cooler placed in the snow outside. My concern is, is there a risk of bacterial contamination with food placed outside? I am also worried about animals visiting, any suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1507" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="527" RevisionGUID="5c12ae80-891d-44c1-a71f-6e3b95af9ac5" CreationDate="2013-02-21T05:15:27.057" UserId="282" Text="Storing food without refrigerator during the winter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1508" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="527" RevisionGUID="5c12ae80-891d-44c1-a71f-6e3b95af9ac5" CreationDate="2013-02-21T05:15:27.057" UserId="282" Text="|energy|zero-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="528" RevisionGUID="0d162c08-3995-4231-a63b-08081009154f" CreationDate="2013-02-21T05:41:17.483" UserId="283" Text="Your phrase &quot;not exclusively from renewable sources&quot; straddles a great deal of ground, which makes any answer necessarily hedged. Great job above by EnergyNumbers. If I might illustrate my point: Look at BC Canada vs. California USA. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/EPD/Electricity/supply/Pages/default.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;^^ Those are just estimates, but 82% hydroelectric and 10% biomass, with only 5.6% natural gas, tells me you (if in BC) should be using electricity wherever possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.getenergyactive.org/fuel/state.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas California is clearly a different situation, with 17% hydroelectric and 14% other renewable sources, and natural gas at 52% of the supply. California is clearly trying, and will improve, but it's not hard to conclude a Californian should cook with gas directly, rather than with electricity substantially generated with gas turbines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last thing to look at would be time-of-day supply mix. Where I live, in Ontario Canada, the dinner hour peak supply is dominated by natural gas, but much of the rest of the day would be driven by nuclear and hydroelectric generation. (This is visible in daily reports from our Independent Electrical System Operator, ieso.ca.) Do I have to cook at dinner time or could I shift that to an all-day slow-cooker, supplemented with BBQ, microwave, etc? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The details matter and I recommend you get to know your regional electrical network well. It makes many decisions more straightforward and can affect your daily behaviour, too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="96400679-f5ad-4eff-b323-e8efad6409e0" CreationDate="2013-02-21T08:11:14.000" UserId="96" Text="Natural gas is not sustainable - it is a finite resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, among fossile fuels natural has one advantage:&#xD;&#xA;Lowest $CO_2$ emissions per energy content - because with Methane (the main component) the biggest part of the calorific value comes from the hydrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas used to be flared off if extracted together with oil (because of the handling diffculties), using it instead adds little pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if natural gas extraction and handling is significantly more or less pollution or energy intensive than natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of $NO_x$ emissions, natural gas fired motors are not worse than gasoline/diesel fired ones and there' no inherent reason why they should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum it up, natural gas is a finite resource, there's no way to extract it in a sustainable manner. On the pollution side it may be the cleanest fossile fuel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="530" RevisionGUID="879a8d2e-0998-43a8-873a-600ddb37b8c7" CreationDate="2013-02-21T09:47:21.640" UserId="48" Text="Let's break down some of the elements of whole-life costing, to glean some clues about when old might be better, and when new might be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Manufacturing costs&#xD;&#xA;If the manufacturing impact of a new device is a high proportion of total lifecycle impact, and if there is a chance that the impact of the latest model will lessen within the extended lifetime of the old device, then repairing the old device is likely to be the better option, giving industry time to clean up its act before you buy a new model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Running costs&#xD;&#xA;If the environmental impact of running the old device represents a large proportion of the whole-lifecycle impact, as it does for cars, then that would typically favour buying a new model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Disposal costs&#xD;&#xA;This is where the cradle-to-cradle philosophy becomes essential: the whole-lifecycle cost includes the cost of turning an old dead device, into components for new devices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a good way of disposing of the old device, such that most of its material will have a very low-impact route to reuse, then buying a new device may be the better option. So, for example, if you're going to trade in an old vehicle for a new one, and the garage you trade in at is going to strip down the old vehicle and use all the mechanical bits for spares, and all of the other materials will be recycled, then that would favour buying a new vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if disposing of an old dishwasher is going to lead to it being dumped in landfill, then the cost of extracting it back out of landfill and reusing the bits, and decontaminating the land afterwards, could be quite high, and that would favour repairing the old model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#A closing note on the economics&#xD;&#xA;You have quite reasonably said in your question that you are interested in the environmental impact, and not in the economics. I thought it might be useful to just note note for other readers why there is a difference between those two, and why they matter differently.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;###Economic theory&#xD;&#xA;In a perfect world, the economics would tell you everything you needed to know about the sustainability. If all externalities were priced in, and if the market were efficient, then the price would reflect everything you needed to know to answer this question - it would include whole-lifecycle costs, on a cradle-to-cradle basis, for each, using a sane discount rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Economic reality&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, there remain many unpriced externalities; markets are often very inefficient; whole-lifecycle cradle-to-cradle costs can be difficult to discover; and people disagree on what a sane discount rate; so the economics can be a very poor guide, unfortunately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a problem that there isn't a single universal standard for &quot;environmental impact&quot;: there are sometimes trade-offs to be made between greenhouse-gas emissions, freshwater usage, local pollution, and so on - it's very difficult to even agree the damage-cost function for a unit of freshwater pollution, because that will vary by time and place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these gaps between the perfect market and markets as they are, create inefficiencies, and cultivate unsustainability and embed it into our economy. So, sometimes it can be more economically efficient to let what we know about environmental impact override what we observe as the market price: because there are areas where we know more about costs than what the market has priced in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1513" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="523" RevisionGUID="4b04c8ef-7845-412f-8870-9b97d4cbae39" CreationDate="2013-02-21T10:23:38.187" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/304536851681783808" />
  <row Id="1514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="1c9d211e-3660-4c8f-a3f0-df7d805ebc3e" CreationDate="2013-02-21T10:44:18.340" UserId="83" Comment="added subscripts to chemical formulas " Text="Natural gas is not sustainable - it is a finite resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, among fossile fuels natural has one advantage:&#xD;&#xA;Lowest CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per energy content - because with Methane (the main component) the biggest part of the calorific value comes from the hydrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas used to be flared off if extracted together with oil (because of the handling diffculties), using it instead adds little pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if natural gas extraction and handling is significantly more or less pollution or energy intensive than natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of NO&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; emissions, natural gas fired motors are not worse than gasoline/diesel fired ones and there' no inherent reason why they should be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum it up, natural gas is a finite resource, there's no way to extract it in a sustainable manner. On the pollution side it may be the cleanest fossile fuel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1515" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="529" RevisionGUID="1c9d211e-3660-4c8f-a3f0-df7d805ebc3e" CreationDate="2013-02-21T10:44:18.340" Comment="Proposed by 83 approved by 96 edit id of 79" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="531" RevisionGUID="81ed5921-3fc1-455e-a97c-88f488422707" CreationDate="2013-02-21T11:35:25.370" UserId="60" Text="I've answered about [the impact of drilling a well on water table][1], which is the most important aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But your question includes also an aspect of [water quality][2]. These two aspects are sometimes contradicting each other. If the water source is plentiful, one well should be enough. Otherwise, consider two wells:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The drinking water one located at a higher place to minimize water pollution. Far from the gray-water recycling and/or humanure lot, etc..&#xD;&#xA;- The lower quality well for irrigation and bigger volume output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wells should be far enough from each other so that the lower one wouldn't significantly drain the one above. This can be avoided by deeper drilling.  &#xD;&#xA;And both wells should be used regularly to prevent 'clogging'. It can take some time until the underground water makes its path to supplement the water requirements of the well. When the well isn't used for certain time, those paths can detoriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's possible, build a tank or a [retention basin][3] to keep the rain water for irrigation. It's the most sustainable way of using the rain water.  &#xD;&#xA;Even if it could seem as a good idea I wouldn't join the retention pond with the well. Mixing the surface water with underground water can pollute the underground water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/194/60&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_quality&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_basin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="532" RevisionGUID="de60de1e-0eef-41ac-aea1-e771e63d0dfc" CreationDate="2013-02-21T12:45:04.167" UserId="111" Text="The question starts with a premise that sustainability is relative. Natural gas is natural resource just like petroleum. They arise from similar processes and are generally found together although the ratios vary. Natural gas (particularly methane) is also produced by living organisms. As a natural resource, 'pure' sustainability would require you to consume at a rate less than it's produced by nature. Since petroleum and natural gas for the most part produced on geologic timescale, they would not generally be considered sustainable. However if you take the premise that sustainable is 'relative' than you could compare and contrast different non-renewable resources for their relative sustainability. For example, it appears new cheaper supplies of natural gas in the United States have led to reduced use of coal for producing electricity ([ref][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas is considered cleaner burning than coal so that is generally seen as better for the environment. The [WSJ article above][2] quotes the Sierra Club president with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here’s our position on gas: it burns more cleanly than coal or oil,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but it is not clean. When coal plants are retired (or new ones are not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; built), we believe that the right “loading order” for new energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sources would be: energy conservation and efficiency, solar and wind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (preferring distributed over large-scale), geothermal and perhaps some&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wave energy, then natural gas to fill in the rest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether 'better for environment' is a sustainability topic is probably a separate question for the [meta][3] site. Independent of the environmental issue, natural gas vs gasoline vs coal vs renewable resources is a relative. My guess is that it would be a similar list to the Sierra Club list above. However, to do it correctly, you really would need to get to specific sources. One measure might be the energy needed to create a unit of energy. This [reference][4] compares petroleum from sand oil vs others and takes into account mining, extraction, transportation, and refining. I could not find a source but my guess would be that on average it would be less for natural gas than petroleum. However, just like in petroleum, it might be dependent on the source of the natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703579804575441683910246338.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703579804575441683910246338.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://meta.sustainability.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CC8QFjAA&amp;url=http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/29589/52906785.pdf?sequence=1&amp;ei=ThQmUe2IDsmn0gHOroDADQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNFGuhPZgsoYdsOtiTquY2lk85h23Q&amp;bvm=bv.42661473,d.dmQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="49b6b569-822b-4d98-ac9b-da32daa0db72" CreationDate="2013-02-21T13:44:15.130" UserId="130" Text="A few things to keep in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food safety for unrefridgerated food is a very complex thing and the answer very much is &quot;it depends.&quot;  Factors include temperature, time in the so-called danger zone (40-140F), pH, other bacterial activity, salt content, and much, much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general a few guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  If your food stays between 32F and 40F you can treat it as refridgerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Frozen food itself is not in significant danger but you may need to watch for thaws.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Between 40F and about 60F there are a significant number of things you can do to keep food edible and safe.  First and foremost, uncooked food can be subject to moderate salting and then lactic fermentation (sauerkraut, salami, yogurt, cheese, traditional pickles, etc).  Note that these are all *live, cultured* foods and the combination of the pH and living culture are important.  Additionally many have added salt which aids preservation too.  Finally I would note that if you make traditional butter, you ferment the cream first and then salt it, and this way the butter will keep more than a few days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chances are you aren't going to be above those temperatures so that should suffice.  If you are above those temperatures, alcoholic fermentation of fruit is possible and lactic fermentation, while possible, requires a great deal more salt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other concerns:  Yes, you do need to protect from animals and some animals are pretty crafty.  Ravens and racoons, for example, can easily get into all kinds of things.  Both these have been known to get into closed coolers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general you should assume low-grade contamination for food to be reheated.  The question is preventing it from being a problem (cold storage and refridgeration).  I don't see additional risk in being in a closed container well below freezing, but when it thaws, that could change fast.  You need to keep an eye on things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="523" RevisionGUID="6540cbed-44ab-4c66-9bfb-6073205fd972" CreationDate="2013-02-21T14:24:41.950" UserId="66" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="How can I calculate if it makes sense from a resource-conservation perspective to purchase a new, more energy efficient appliance, and when it makes sense to use an old appliance until it is beyond repair? Are there appliances that are commonly known to be one or the other?&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in the environmental impact, not in the economics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1521" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="523" RevisionGUID="6540cbed-44ab-4c66-9bfb-6073205fd972" CreationDate="2013-02-21T14:24:41.950" UserId="66" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|home|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1522" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="3f2b3926-5ae7-46b3-a2bd-23aae355d01a" CreationDate="2013-02-21T14:28:25.063" UserId="199" Comment="added photovoltaics tag" Text="|solar-power|electricity|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1523" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="3f2b3926-5ae7-46b3-a2bd-23aae355d01a" CreationDate="2013-02-21T14:28:25.063" Comment="Proposed by 199 approved by 66, 48 edit id of 82" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="521" RevisionGUID="ea2adc24-2b84-444f-bfc7-226e53c5f009" CreationDate="2013-02-21T14:35:12.423" UserId="212" Comment="added external links" Text="[Thermo-siphon][1] works surprisingly well when feasible.  If it is feasible to [move the physical location of the reservoir][2] placing it above the collector(s) [will cause the water to circulate on it's own][3].  Placing simple diaphragm valves in the reservoir will make the water circulate only when the panel temp is higher than the reservoir.  If you can achieve precise control of the water level you can do the same with relative positioning of the inlet and outlet pipes using ambient air pressure as your valve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This picture][4] shows the most simplistic thermosiphon design.  The design challenges in thermosiphon systems are minimizing temperature change in the transfer tubing between collector and reservoir, structural support for the elevated reservoir (water is heavy). If [direct heating][5] is used preventing freeze damage to the collector is a design concern, if [indirect heating][6] is used preventing conductive cooling during non-collection times should be addressed during the design phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I'm not recommending any product from any commercial site hyper-linked above, just directing readers to the educational material, especially pictures/diagrams, on those sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.returntotheancientpaths.com/doku.php?id=thermosiphon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.firespeaking.com/media/articles/details-of-plumbing/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haXK_-rmzFY&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.solahart.com.au/downloads/page/5676_Thermosiphon_Hor_large.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Thermosiphon2.jpg/220px-Thermosiphon2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.suntreksolar.com/solarHotWater/images/ThermosyphonGraphic2.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="0a055c06-53fe-4185-9124-b0b9d7efb0bf" CreationDate="2013-02-21T15:07:56.843" UserId="212" Text="I have two words for you, &quot;Project Car&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="536" RevisionGUID="4756a21d-c160-487f-887b-d16674e97360" CreationDate="2013-02-21T15:36:35.910" UserId="58" Text="[Root zones][1] are better than industrial wastewater treatment in many ways - sustainability is the biggest one, but the price is favorable too. On the other hand, I've heard that root zones are economically sensible only on low-scale, and that they cannot manage some kinds of waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What exactly are the limits of this way of wastewater treatment? Under which conditions they aren't completely sensible, or even not effective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sustainable-buildings.org/wiki/index.php/Root_Zone_System" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="536" RevisionGUID="4756a21d-c160-487f-887b-d16674e97360" CreationDate="2013-02-21T15:36:35.910" UserId="58" Text="What are limits of root zone wastewater treatment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="536" RevisionGUID="4756a21d-c160-487f-887b-d16674e97360" CreationDate="2013-02-21T15:36:35.910" UserId="58" Text="|waste-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1532" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="b994fc83-01f0-4f4f-bf45-c7b3c10f3e32" CreationDate="2013-02-21T15:50:10.980" UserId="199" Comment="added solar-power tag" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|materials|recycling|embodied-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1533" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="456" RevisionGUID="b994fc83-01f0-4f4f-bf45-c7b3c10f3e32" CreationDate="2013-02-21T15:50:10.980" Comment="Proposed by 199 approved by 66, 117 edit id of 80" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1534" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="9bfe596f-a096-4e9f-a30c-5cf56db3f1d8" CreationDate="2013-02-21T15:50:16.160" UserId="199" Comment="added photovoltaics tag" Text="|solar-power|planning|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1535" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="155" RevisionGUID="9bfe596f-a096-4e9f-a30c-5cf56db3f1d8" CreationDate="2013-02-21T15:50:16.160" Comment="Proposed by 199 approved by 66, 117 edit id of 81" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1536" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="527" RevisionGUID="1cd375d0-1849-4583-a693-01d1cbae902d" CreationDate="2013-02-21T16:23:38.427" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/304627450137153536" />
  <row Id="1537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="524" RevisionGUID="c44a3a93-9973-4a6d-a521-f1cf1b4b93c2" CreationDate="2013-02-21T16:40:13.340" UserId="48" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="It's pure greenwash. Natural gas is not sustainable - it's the direct depletion of natural resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to generate methane (the predominant energy carrier within natural gas) sustainably, e.g. [from biomass in anaerobic digesters][1]; or [synthetically, powered by renewable energy][2]. However, unless you have a supplier that guarantees sustainable sourcing, then the methane gas you're getting is not sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are four fatal flaws in the sustainability, any one of which in its own right makes natural gas unsustainable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Natural gas is a finite resource that is depleted by extraction and combustion.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Extracting the natural gas is environmentally destructive around the area of extraction: either through the collateral damage at oil wells, or the contamination of fresh-water supplies, and earthquake damage at shale gas sites.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Burning natural gas in vehicles creates local pollution including NOx and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; at rates that raise background levels of those pollutants, damaging economic productivity and public health.&#xD;&#xA; 4. The whole supply chain for natural gas from extraction to combustion releases global pollutants: methane and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and the overwhelming body of evidence is that these are leading us to catastrophic climate change. No sane, scientifically literate person honestly disputes that anthropogenic emissions exceed the rate at which the world sinks these emissions; hence the laws of physics tell us that global heat content is rising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/index.php/ad-basics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://jalopnik.com/5948969/this-e+fuel-works-just-like-gasoline-but-is-entirely-carbon-neutral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="537" RevisionGUID="49a092b4-ce79-4f26-acda-b6b3def945ec" CreationDate="2013-02-21T17:48:01.383" UserId="281" Text="My worm composting bin is infested with fruit flies. What can be done to get rid of the flies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1539" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="537" RevisionGUID="49a092b4-ce79-4f26-acda-b6b3def945ec" CreationDate="2013-02-21T17:48:01.383" UserId="281" Text="How to get rid of fruit fly infestation in worm composting bin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1540" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="537" RevisionGUID="49a092b4-ce79-4f26-acda-b6b3def945ec" CreationDate="2013-02-21T17:48:01.383" UserId="281" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="089d3168-f1fa-4d41-ac0c-1bdb3039036c" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:01:18.650" UserId="281" Text="How should I manage my worm bin so I can keep it inside the house in my kitchen?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do I prevent odor?&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do I prevent fruit fly infestations? Another question deals with [how to get rid of an existing fruit fly infestation][1].&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How much can I feed the worms per day?&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there foods I should not feed to worms kept indoors?&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/537/how-to-get-rid-of-fruit-fly-infestation-in-worm-composting-bin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="089d3168-f1fa-4d41-ac0c-1bdb3039036c" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:01:18.650" UserId="281" Text="How should I manage a worm bin that is inside a kitchen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="089d3168-f1fa-4d41-ac0c-1bdb3039036c" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:01:18.650" UserId="281" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="539" RevisionGUID="cca7d303-b173-4a6f-a10d-d4a142446ea4" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:13:24.860" UserId="281" Text="I have lived in an urban setting for a couple of years, where I used a composting toilet. Now I live in an apartment in a major metropolitan area in California and would like to continue using composting toilets. I have access to a little back-yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any laws that prohibit composting of human waste in US cities? Do I have to get permission of my landlord?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="539" RevisionGUID="cca7d303-b173-4a6f-a10d-d4a142446ea4" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:13:24.860" UserId="281" Text="Are there any laws that prohibit composting of human waste in US cities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="539" RevisionGUID="cca7d303-b173-4a6f-a10d-d4a142446ea4" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:13:24.860" UserId="281" Text="|composting|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="d332d79f-89cb-42e7-994c-daa5e772a0ce" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:35:01.067" UserId="281" Text="Given the following conditions:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One expects to have to move multiple times&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;One would like to keep the furniture&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to make a generalization as to which is more sustainable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buying used furniture that at moving time require multiple trips with a moving van, or buying new furniture from a self-assembly store like IKEA, which makes it easy to disassemble the furniture when moving, saving the resources associated with additional trips with a moving van?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are many more variables that influence the outcome (how often does one move, how far apart are those locations...), what I am trying to establish is wether or not one or the other is drastically more unsustainable, making it a worse choice under &lt;b&gt;most&lt;/b&gt; circumstances." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="d332d79f-89cb-42e7-994c-daa5e772a0ce" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:35:01.067" UserId="281" Text="Buying used or self-assembly furnitures when expecting to move frequently" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="d332d79f-89cb-42e7-994c-daa5e772a0ce" CreationDate="2013-02-21T18:35:01.067" UserId="281" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="3c8c052b-4929-4413-9399-4979838933e4" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:04:20.437" UserId="281" Comment="deleted 67 characters in body" Text="How should I manage my worm bin so I can keep it inside the house in my kitchen?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do I prevent odor?&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How do I prevent fruit fly infestations? Another question deals with [how to get rid of an existing fruit fly infestation][1].&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;How much can I feed the worms per day?&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Are there foods I should not feed to worms kept indoors?&lt;/li&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/537/281" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="541" RevisionGUID="f0910ca8-0e28-47b2-bd44-ab985dde1a52" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:22:02.427" UserId="212" Text="Most urban areas have zoning regulations that forbid the composting of human waste.  There are two places you need to go to find out.  First is the authority, name differs from town to town, that issues building permits in your municipality.  The second is the Water Resources Board, although this government body often has a different name as well there will be an equivalent in your area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last place to check is with the zoning board.  It is very likely there are prohibitions based on parcel zoning.  While these restrictions won't affect the whole city it very may well affect your property." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1552" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="539" RevisionGUID="ab001508-bb46-424c-b9af-6fae3cf2403e" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:23:38.337" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/304672747731177474" />
  <row Id="1553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="5179c11a-f110-48b2-9466-c3ba23f10c23" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:28:56.493" UserId="212" Text="Avoid surfur rich foods in addition to the normal vermicomposting no-nos.  The best way to prevent odor is to ensure adequate air circulation and proper hydration.  Most odor comes as a consequence of too much moisture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the fruit flies, you can try placing cups of vinegar in the bin, but this will probably only reduce the quantity of flies rather than eliminate them.  Some kind of predator may work, but you're better off starting over.  Dump the bin, pick out the worms, wash them like you would a basket of root vegetables, clean the bin thoroughly and start composting again from scratch.  You'll loose some worms to stress, but you'll ditch the flies, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="299e5d56-7e40-4caf-b7e2-86648eeb5423" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:42:52.993" UserId="3" Comment="deleted 41 characters in body" Text="How should I manage my worm bin so I can keep it inside the house in my kitchen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How do I prevent odor?&#xD;&#xA;- How do I prevent fruit fly infestations? Another question deals with [how to get rid of an existing fruit fly infestation][1].&#xD;&#xA;- How much can I feed the worms per day?&#xD;&#xA;- Are there foods I should not feed to worms kept indoors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/537/281" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1558" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="b5f5cbd6-9b24-40bb-b5fd-0e673efb3d75" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:57:01.433" UserId="281" Comment="edited tags" Text="|composting|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1559" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="537" RevisionGUID="f0f1688d-70df-44e9-aa47-919d71d99840" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:57:34.943" UserId="281" Comment="edited tags" Text="|composting|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1560" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="539" RevisionGUID="eb8d7ab3-b523-4b14-b369-0e404317a955" CreationDate="2013-02-21T19:58:27.157" UserId="281" Comment="edited tags" Text="|composting|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="544" RevisionGUID="5c0f5255-760f-4fa9-bbac-25bc7a445e59" CreationDate="2013-02-21T20:07:23.933" UserId="212" Text="Products and processes that provide a benefit while consuming resource(s) at a rate less than those resources are produced are sustainable.  Those that consume any resources at a rate that higher than that resources rate of production, but lesser than in common practice are &quot;more sustainable&quot;.  Those resources that are non-renewable, or renew at very low rates relative to consumption and are definitative to our civilization are the most limiting.  Hence why petrol is of such concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing greenhouse gas emission does almost nothing to &quot;take us further down the road to sustainability&quot;.  Reduction of greenhouse gas comes as a consequence.  Seeking such reductions as an objective is how all the psycho-greenies ruin good and productive environmental work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="545" RevisionGUID="ec4e9bd8-5e33-44af-820b-6cd2a43f6df5" CreationDate="2013-02-21T20:28:14.133" UserId="212" Text="Without regard to individual site qualities; those living north of the equator but south of the Tropic of Cancer receive a positive net benefit from northern glazing.  The benefit is so small to be meaningless.  For those living in the tropics window orientation is decided exclusively by site characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course those living south of the Tropic of Capricorn definitely want north facing windows!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="546" RevisionGUID="d5cf0317-4c55-4bf8-aeaa-24e118461c7f" CreationDate="2013-02-21T20:28:23.000" UserId="288" Text="[Much][1] is being made of [the clean coal breakthrough][2] announced at Ohio State this week. The effort utilizes an innovative process called &quot;chemical looping.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Typical coal-fired power plants burn coal to heat water to make steam, which turns the turbines that produce electricity. In chemical looping, the coal isn't burned with fire, but instead chemically combusted in a sealed chamber so that it doesn't pollute the air. A second combustion unit in the lab does the same thing with coal-derived syngas, and both produce 25 thermal kilowatts of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This project sounds promising. But in the official press release there isn't a single mention of waste. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the byproducts and how to dispose of/recycle them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5257258&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.osu.edu/features/2013/ohio-state-develops-clean-coal-technology.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="546" RevisionGUID="d5cf0317-4c55-4bf8-aeaa-24e118461c7f" CreationDate="2013-02-21T20:28:23.000" UserId="288" Text="How &quot;clean&quot; is this Ohio State clean coal technology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="546" RevisionGUID="d5cf0317-4c55-4bf8-aeaa-24e118461c7f" CreationDate="2013-02-21T20:28:23.000" UserId="288" Text="|energy|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="547" RevisionGUID="7c99465e-c550-416f-874b-9ad16fcbb950" CreationDate="2013-02-21T21:08:49.607" UserId="85" Text="I don't know how sound it is, but I have heard the argument that carbonisation takes us further from sustainability, because a high percentage of CO2 means that some of that CO2 gets absorbed into bodies of water (e.g. lakes), whereby the acidity of the water increases and microorganisms die, leaving the lake lifeless. A lifeless lake is quick to &quot;erode&quot; or dry up, resulting in unfertile land and less flora and fauna. And moving towards a nutrient-depleted earth is in the long run unsustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, there are already lakes, which have &quot;died&quot;, supposedly from the high CO2 content of the air. In that sense, decarbonisation should be part of a movement towards sustainability, at least for the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, more CO2 in the air could also mean more trees, more oxygen and more green, but I guess at the moment the amount of trees is not enough to absorb the effect of the carbonisation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="548" RevisionGUID="b5abd751-9cf3-4133-8666-f71d654b069d" CreationDate="2013-02-21T21:15:00.410" UserId="212" Text="The U-value and R-value of glazing systems are not a single measure.  Instead they are a composite number from R &amp; U measures at several different places on the glazing system (center of glass, edge of glass, sash, frame, etc.)  In Europe windows sold across member nation borders have to publish a U-value according to a predetermined formula.  Duplicating it outside of a lab environment is impractical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check for published numbers, but they are not likely to be directly comparable to those published by other manufacturers unless your comparing recent numbers by European manufacturers.  The most likely place you are to find a make/model number is on a sticker placed on the outer sides of a moving sash.  The stickers usually fall off vinyl windows, however, so don't get your hopes up if you've had them long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple home test can be done with a heat lamp.  Remove the sash and brace it into a standing position on a table.  Place the lamp 1 inch from the exterior glass perpendicular to the window.  Wait five minutes then turn off the lamp and quickly record the temperature of the interior glass with an IR thermometer.  Wait an hour for the window to return to ambient temperature then repeat on the opposite side.  You switch sides, because some low-e coatings are unidirectional and some are only applied to one plate.  Now subtract the ambient temperature from your two recorded numbers so you are left with temperature gain.  This is quite limited and your only testing the glass pack, but will allow you to test prospective replacement windows using the same methodology. Quantifying window performance outside a lab is rather difficult." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="549" RevisionGUID="6949cf87-fee2-488a-9ba2-509ce13bea62" CreationDate="2013-02-21T21:37:27.613" UserId="212" Text="EnergyNumbers pretty much covered it all.  I can only add two things.  If you have vinyl windows already, adding a very thin sheet of rigid plastic (lexan, polyethylene, etc.) larger than the original glazing cut to fit the interior of the sashes using an adhesive (epoxy works best, but it's permanent) can reduce conductive and convective loss.  It's easy to ruin the aesthetics so practice on windows less visible first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the risk of going off-topic, an alternative option is replacement sashes.  Contact the manufacturer and you can usually purchase replacement sashes with more efficient glass packs for about the cost of good storm windows.  The energy benefit is usually better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="550" RevisionGUID="0427c606-d422-4ee1-a22e-eeffc27fa8f1" CreationDate="2013-02-21T22:08:41.270" UserId="212" Text="If you have a basement you can install a ground loop.  It may not be available in your area, but &quot;remote dive&quot; boring equipment comes small enough now that it can be brought in through your front door.  Obviously groundwater and underground utilities are concerns, but it's still possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think I'll ever understand people's carbon fixation, but if your electric supplier is selectable surely in the UK there is an renewable electricity supplier, buy only from them, replace the gas boiler with an electric and voila!  99% decarbonized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Insolation in your locale is probably to low, but if not an evacuated tube solar thermal collector(ETC) will operate in your temperatures to preheat water.  ETCs are not uncommon in Alaska and northern Japan where winter temps are even colder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="551" RevisionGUID="aadce19c-b47c-4ef3-984c-eea2d3cd80c0" CreationDate="2013-02-22T00:24:42.620" UserId="52" Text="Generally this comes from having an excess of &quot;greens&quot; rather than &quot;browns&quot; in the bin, and potentially too much moisture also.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this has happened to me I generally put a generous amount of shredded newspaper / junk mail in, and try to let it dry out as much as possible - the fruit flies will then tend to up and leave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's probably also worth noting that the flies aren't an inherent problem to the compost per-se, they're just rather unpleasant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="533" RevisionGUID="3f0eb497-3518-45de-9dfc-f67d7ed8ed97" CreationDate="2013-02-22T01:04:15.457" UserId="130" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="A few things to keep in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food safety for unrefridgerated food is a very complex thing and the answer very much is &quot;it depends.&quot;  Factors include temperature, time in the so-called danger zone (40-140F), pH, other bacterial activity, salt content, and much, much more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general a few guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  If your food stays between 32F and 40F you can treat it as refridgerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Frozen food itself is not in significant danger but you may need to watch for thaws.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Between 40F and about 60F there are a significant number of things you can do to keep food edible and safe.  First and foremost, uncooked food can be subject to moderate salting and then lactic fermentation (sauerkraut, salami, yogurt, cheese, traditional pickles, etc).  Note that these are all *live, cultured* foods and the combination of the pH and living culture are important.  Additionally many have added salt which aids preservation too.  Finally I would note that if you make traditional butter, you ferment the cream first and then salt it, and this way the butter will keep more than a few days.  (Edit to clarify:  Many, though not all, of these foods become shelf-stable at higher temperatures after fermentation too.  Examples include cheese, where well-aged cheese can be left out at room temperature without food borne illness risk.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chances are you aren't going to be above those temperatures so that should suffice.  If you are above those temperatures, alcoholic fermentation of fruit is possible and lactic fermentation, while possible, requires a great deal more salt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other concerns:  Yes, you do need to protect from animals and some animals are pretty crafty.  Ravens and racoons, for example, can easily get into all kinds of things.  Both these have been known to get into closed coolers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general you should assume low-grade contamination for food to be reheated.  The question is preventing it from being a problem (cold storage and refridgeration).  I don't see additional risk in being in a closed container well below freezing, but when it thaws, that could change fast.  You need to keep an eye on things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="552" RevisionGUID="a5a7dcbb-a6fe-49a9-af93-eee206f915a1" CreationDate="2013-02-22T03:27:42.620" UserId="289" Text="The normal no refrigeration ways work just as good in winter too.  Can, salt, and dehydrate.  I still dry garden veggies and can with a water bath just like grandma taught me 20 years ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="553" RevisionGUID="2df1aa65-ab1e-4a0e-a683-8c0a885a745e" CreationDate="2013-02-22T03:38:54.197" UserId="289" Text="it's a bit of a pain, but you can cook the compost in a big solar cooker.  It's how I make my starting mix.  It kills all the seeds.  I also kills the good organisms too, but a little worm tea or a handful of other good soil will grow the good stuff back.  I'd be a pain to do as a regular thing, but for a one off deal, it'd get the job done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="554" RevisionGUID="a13eccaf-be0e-407c-98bb-90e41a2dea79" CreationDate="2013-02-22T03:47:24.610" UserId="289" Text="Do like I do.  In the spring and fall when the weather alternates between comfortable and cool.  I turn the thermostat off pull out the heavy blankets and curl up with my boyfriend to stay warm." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="78ec50a8-2ef7-4841-a9dc-18f39e6dcdc4" CreationDate="2013-02-22T03:56:08.747" UserId="289" Text="Is reusing old food buckets as flower pots actually a good sustainability practice or a bad one since I'm ruining good buckets by poking holes in the bottoms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get the buckets for free from my brother's restaurant.  They'd recycle them if I didn't take'em." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="78ec50a8-2ef7-4841-a9dc-18f39e6dcdc4" CreationDate="2013-02-22T03:56:08.747" UserId="289" Text="Reusing buckets for flower pots?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="78ec50a8-2ef7-4841-a9dc-18f39e6dcdc4" CreationDate="2013-02-22T03:56:08.747" UserId="289" Text="|recycling|gardening|plastic|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="556" RevisionGUID="437c93b1-df25-4a9c-ab43-66f25b7c4b3b" CreationDate="2013-02-22T04:11:34.797" UserId="289" Text="on my homestead we save the rainwater in a cistern then filter it with a reverse osmosis filter powered by a solar panel.  Its worked pretty well for three years.  I know we'll have to replace the membrane every so many years, but thats pretty low waste.  I'd call that sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="557" RevisionGUID="791a1279-4bbf-4ff1-a648-6948ce495847" CreationDate="2013-02-22T04:23:17.387" UserId="289" Text="In the ocean tidal effect and sea currents circulate vast quantities of water.  You'd have to find a way to duplicate that effect.  Also like Chris said such an aquarium would have to be big.  By big I actually mean huge.  Like stop thinking in gallons and start thinking in cubic yards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two alternatives, though.  An aquarium that showcases low oxygen life instead of fish.  Or manual aeration.  By manual I mean using human labor or a wind powered pump." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1581" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="546" RevisionGUID="bd6d8ab6-84c2-4ede-b913-f5f5eb23773b" CreationDate="2013-02-22T04:23:50.887" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/304808695798321155" />
  <row Id="1582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="558" RevisionGUID="870c5a70-c8ed-4839-88a7-0ebd25159767" CreationDate="2013-02-22T06:47:12.667" UserId="15" Text="If you don't mulch around your plants then doing that would mean you'd need to water your plants about less often, so your water supply would last longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This experiment][1] looked at how much less water was lost by mulched plants. The result was a reduction in evaporation of about 25% when the plants were mulched, but I'm sure it varies depending on all sorts of conditions such as mulch type and thickness, plant type, and soil type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/newsletters/hortupdate/hortupdate_archives/2006/nov06/ScienceFair.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="559" RevisionGUID="41ac54c4-5b30-4d6b-9010-c43d6339ee06" CreationDate="2013-02-22T09:06:09.157" UserId="130" Text="It is certainly preferable to recycling, since you can always recycle when you are done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the simple answer is that generally repurposing something and using what would otherwise be discarded (recycled or sent to a land fill) is usually good practice, particularly if it does not interfere with recycling later.  There may be exceptions but generally one thing repurposed instead of discarded means one more thing not purchased and thus a little bit of natural resources not consumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, I would recommend continuing this practice and if you find more uses for such buckets, go for it!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="560" RevisionGUID="7f4e927b-17d5-419e-adbe-3bf3ec632793" CreationDate="2013-02-22T09:21:33.757" UserId="130" Text="Part of the problem here is what you call &quot;clean.&quot;  I am in the camp that says &quot;there's no such thing as clean coal technology.&quot;  I would however like to explain what the problem and disagreement is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clean coal technology usually refers to technology to convert coal into heat or electricity in such a way that carbon dioxide can be captured and no coal tar or other pollutants released into the air.  That's all well and good but there are really three main problems worth bringing up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This metric basically is limited to one and only one piece of the supply chain.  The pre-processing, mining, etc. isn't considered, and consequently you have the idea that while one piece of the supply chain may be relatively &quot;clean&quot; that doesn't say anything about the overall environmental impact of using the coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is that the waste still has to be disposed of somehow.  It isn't clear what the disposal method is, whether it would be used to produce useful products or just dumped into the earth (again requiring extra energy) and so the disposal portion of the supply chain is a bit of a potential issue too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally there are the complexity costs.  What goes into making the equipment and materials for this reaction?  How much energy goes into them?  What kinds of materials?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically when people are talking about the technology being clean they are looking at an idealized environment limited to the use of this coal here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interestingly, note that a number of products of coal combustion are utilized in many other ways.  We get sulfa antibiotics from the waste of certain forms of coal combustion, for example, the same with a lot of modern dyes (in fact sulfa drugs were an off-shoot of coal dye production).  One key element I haven't been able to find information on is what level of re-use of waste products is possible with such a system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of how clean it is, however, heavy reliance on non-renewable resources is not sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1585" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="555" RevisionGUID="e3f4f74c-146b-4543-90b9-fd1a00a36c7e" CreationDate="2013-02-22T10:24:02.430" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/304899341712228352" />
  <row Id="1587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="553" RevisionGUID="5a3dbe07-8c9a-40ad-b8e8-6a10b704a599" CreationDate="2013-02-22T17:55:19.510" UserId="227" Comment="Formatting, typos." Text="It’s a bit of a pain, but you can cook the compost in a big solar cooker. It's how I make my starting mix. It kills all the seeds. It also kills the good organisms too, but a little worm tea or a handful of other good soil will grow the good stuff back. It’d be a pain to do as a regular thing, but for a one-off deal, it would get the job done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1588" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="553" RevisionGUID="5a3dbe07-8c9a-40ad-b8e8-6a10b704a599" CreationDate="2013-02-22T17:55:19.510" Comment="Proposed by 227 approved by 117 edit id of 83" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1589" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="7b29a359-cc03-46bc-836a-ba8dbd0670e3" CreationDate="2013-02-22T19:24:16.540" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/305035296154714112" />
  <row Id="1590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="534" RevisionGUID="0b7dbf5f-ed89-4fa6-9f42-935db8e8dc87" CreationDate="2013-02-22T19:38:56.643" UserId="212" Comment="Added more serious content." Text="I have two words for you, &quot;Project Car&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seriously, though, donate it to the auto-tech department of your county career center or community college.  The students get experience by fixing it up, then proceeds from the sale fund operation of the auto-tech department." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="561" RevisionGUID="5a155fc1-cd89-4cb0-aad7-6af487851233" CreationDate="2013-02-22T19:47:05.173" UserId="278" Text="It's very hard to come up with numbers since books can be reused, borrowed, traded and have a life of decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, regarding bestsellers and novels in general, they are mostly sold as new, and a lot of paper needs to be used. In the ebook form, it's just a matter of copying a file and has practically no impact on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can consider that building electronic devices is not as sustainable as producing books, because of the use of rare materials and polluting processes. However, e-readers are very simple devices, and their construction process (I saw a video showing the inside of the Kindle) is much simple than, for instance, smartphones. Also, the energy needed to read a book is about 5W * 2 hours / 1000 pages (about how lasts one recharge) = 0.01 Wh/page, which is much less than the power needed for printing it on paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think that buying an ebook (not a reader, the actual book) is pretty much like buying an used book in terms of impact. The real difference (in my opinion) can be made in the market of new books, without considering the costs (and impact) of distribution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="562" RevisionGUID="04ea56cc-7d79-4bd4-a70e-22fca067bdd0" CreationDate="2013-02-22T19:57:32.930" UserId="212" Text="The energy embodied in durable goods pretty much guarantee the greatest environmental benefit is derived from keeping the old until it dies.  That includes performing repairs up to the actual cost of a new unit.  Many, especially older, durable goods are modifiable at the time of repair to make them more eco-friendly.  This is always the most sustainable practice.  If it'd just go to the landfill or recycling plant it's almost always a sustainability loss to replace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few durable goods actually have pretty low embodied energy.  In these cases the most sustainable practice actually is replacement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="563" RevisionGUID="ffddbc50-2f33-4d74-8473-10c428fd85a5" CreationDate="2013-02-22T20:24:53.400" UserId="48" Text="It's probably easiest to find a datasheet for the nearest comparable system to yours. The things to look for will be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the material of the frame (probably either aluminium or uPVC)&#xD;&#xA; - if it's aluminium, whether the frames have a thermal break in them&#xD;&#xA; - the spacing between the panes of glass&#xD;&#xA; - the approximate age of the double glazing&#xD;&#xA; - whether there are trickle vents or not&#xD;&#xA; - the ratio of glazing surface area to frame surface area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of a database per se, but there are various listings around of example U-values, so you should be able to make a reasonable estimate of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you could do a **hand-wavy thing and say the U-value is around 3**, and you won't be too far off, probably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is conceivable that you could make measurements to estimate it in situ, but it's pretty difficult. You'd have to build an enclosure either side of the window, keep one side at a specific high temperature, one side at a specific low temperature, and then use heat-flux meters to measure the rate of heat flow through glass and frame separately. If you really wanted to go down this route, it might be worth getting in touch with the closest university with a building-physics group, and asking if they've got student that would like to attempt this as a project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simpler and cruder way to do it, is to wait til it's pretty cold outside (which is right now, if you're in the UK), and about 21&amp;deg;C inside, and then measure the temperature of the glass inside the room. That will allow you to estimate [the central-pane U-value][1] (NB that's only for the glazing - the frames will have a different value)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Next to a **single-glazed window**, the internal surface temperature is around 1°C (**U&gt;5**).&#xD;&#xA; - Next to a **double-glazed window (2000 vintage)**, the surface temperature is around 11°C (**U~3**).&#xD;&#xA; - Next to a **modern, energy-efficient double-glazed window**, the surface temperature is 16°C (**U~1.6**).&#xD;&#xA; - Next to a **well-made modern triple-glazed window**, the temperature is 18°C (**U~0.65**). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(frustatingly, the source I've linked to doesn't say what the outside temperature is supposed to be, for these measurements. Minus a few Celsius, I guess)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.homebuilding.co.uk/advice/key-choices/green/triple-glazing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1594" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="537" RevisionGUID="e8f44a88-c9c9-4085-a3b3-898db63b1a04" CreationDate="2013-02-22T22:24:16.617" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/305080596047228928" />
  <row Id="1595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="6588eba0-ed61-4c7a-900c-da0cfd511dea" CreationDate="2013-02-22T23:44:16.107" UserDisplayName="user290" Text="There is a discussion on the James Oliver site asking if a [free-range bird can have hock burns][1].  There are statements that a free-range chicken could develop hock burn due to exposure to mud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A chicken tractor (sometimes called an ark) is a movable chicken coop lacking a floor.  By moving it to fresh pasture daily the chickens would not be exposed to bare earth plus all the chicken tractors that I've seen include shelter from rain, wind and other weather.  Is this likely to reduce the chance of hock burn?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jamieoliver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=28758" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="6588eba0-ed61-4c7a-900c-da0cfd511dea" CreationDate="2013-02-22T23:44:16.107" UserDisplayName="user290" Text="Are broiler chickens raised in &quot;chicken tractors&quot; less likely to get hock burn?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="564" RevisionGUID="6588eba0-ed61-4c7a-900c-da0cfd511dea" CreationDate="2013-02-22T23:44:16.107" UserDisplayName="user290" Text="|permaculture|food|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1598" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="536" RevisionGUID="e326875a-0144-4c96-a146-601be0f8e5b9" CreationDate="2013-02-23T01:24:22.967" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/305125920275062784" />
  <row Id="1599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="565" RevisionGUID="81bc3f5f-aeda-4e55-b14e-8eb186c2fcfc" CreationDate="2013-02-23T04:23:33.647" UserId="130" Text="There are a couple reasons I would consider natural gas to be more sustainable than gasoline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is that it is quite possible to produce a significant amount of a workalike using sources we currently discard.  Sewage treatment facilities could be turned into methane factories if we wanted, for example, and the same goes with manure from farms and the like.  Coming up with a sustainable workalike for gasoline is much harder, particularly if we want to use waste products to do it.  For this reason natural gas poses *less of a sustainability problem* than petroleum.  In combination with reduced consumption, this may be a step in the right direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it isn't enough by itself to get there.  The US consumes about as much oil as Saudi Arabia produces in each of three areas every year:  agriculture, transportation, and everything else (this means we consume almost as much as the top three oil producing nations make combined).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the technology is more sustainable in the sense that if we use a lot less of it we can probably make sustainable sources of energy work instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think then the key is not that natural gas is more sustainable but rather that it paves the way for some possibilities of more sustainable approaches, but these too must depend on reduced consumption and substituting one fossil fuel for another won't really have any positive impact (the coal will all be burned eventually and so will the oil)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1600" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="540" RevisionGUID="ecaa939e-29ef-428d-8896-042d5930c3d9" CreationDate="2013-02-23T04:24:24.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/305171221211910144" />
  <row Id="1601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="566" RevisionGUID="03e4ebdb-e9aa-4484-88f3-7bb16d016908" CreationDate="2013-02-23T05:48:35.523" UserId="289" Text="yes.  it will reduce hock burn." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1602" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="163" RevisionGUID="a0a49bff-46e9-4d6d-b003-c36cd413c7ba" CreationDate="2013-02-23T07:24:22.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/305216518201937920" />
  <row Id="1604" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="158" RevisionGUID="e832cc5d-be81-48c1-9071-62652451a699" CreationDate="2013-02-23T16:25:39.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/305352732506738688" />
  <row Id="1605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="de429d3f-2926-424e-a43f-12fbe43b908d" CreationDate="2013-02-23T19:07:11.863" UserId="292" Text="(I asked this on gardening.se but it was suggested I try asking it here. Hope this is an appropriate place to ask...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a relatively new dog owner. Living in a relatively woodsy area with an acre of land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dog poops. I feel odd bagging it and tossing it in the trash each time. Seems a) wasteful and b) tedious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been reading a bit about mulching dog waste. One technique I've seen mentioned a few times is to take a plastic trash can, cut out the bottom, dig a hole about as deep as the can, put the can in there, line with rocks for drainage, and then start putting the poop in there along with some septic starter and water. Essentially, making a small septic system just for dog waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has anyone used this method? Does it cause any health issues for trees in the immediate vicinity? Does it smell? Are there other methods I should consider? I've also seen commercial products that tend to emulate that same technique (essentially a 4' hole with a plastic bucket on top that overflows into the pit). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1606" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="de429d3f-2926-424e-a43f-12fbe43b908d" CreationDate="2013-02-23T19:07:11.863" UserId="292" Text="Mulching Solid Dog Waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1607" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="de429d3f-2926-424e-a43f-12fbe43b908d" CreationDate="2013-02-23T19:07:11.863" UserId="292" Text="|pets|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="568" RevisionGUID="c7490ad1-201c-43b2-9112-228b5c4b19b7" CreationDate="2013-02-23T19:13:04.460" UserId="292" Text="Is there a relatively reliable way to figure out what energy source to go with when upgrading appliances?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need a new hot water heater, for starters. Our current one is propane. Options include another propane tank, an electric tank, or a combo electric/HeatPump tank. When I ask around as to which one to get, I get a rather vague &quot;well it depends...&quot; most of the time. What should I be looking for in these? Can I compare energy star ratings across energy sources? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We'll also have this debate when we replace our dryer and oven (again, stick with propane or switch to electric?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it matters, (I think it does), we live in WA state, which, from what I understand, means a lot of our electricity comes from renewables (wind and hydro). We also pay extra for wind based power (meaning we opt in to pay a bit more in return for it going towards wind). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1609" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="568" RevisionGUID="c7490ad1-201c-43b2-9112-228b5c4b19b7" CreationDate="2013-02-23T19:13:04.460" UserId="292" Text="Propane vs. Electric vs. Heat Pump" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1610" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="568" RevisionGUID="c7490ad1-201c-43b2-9112-228b5c4b19b7" CreationDate="2013-02-23T19:13:04.460" UserId="292" Text="|fuel-efficiency|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1611" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="c3288481-b321-480d-b53d-71b7bc76f776" CreationDate="2013-02-23T19:25:38.607" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/305398030331424768" />
  <row Id="1612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="5c9df9cf-6aee-42dd-b048-b40692eda9dd" CreationDate="2013-02-23T23:16:10.527" UserId="227" Comment="Chemistry notation." Text="You are moving the pollution from one area to another.  Neither of which is sustainable.  One just creates more solid pollution at end of life of the vehicle, the other creates more air pollution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you noted the EGR makes that your engine runs less efficiently under throttle.  That results in wasted fuel and reduced power.  Meaning you have to consume more fuel to get the power you need.  The lab tests on this show favorable numbers for the EGR valve but in actual use someone driving in town accelerating fast from a stop can actually emit more pollutants.  Under preferred (read low power) acceleration from stop you get great improvement in either case but the EGR vehicle will emit less CO, N&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; under the same amount of throttle, with a barely noticeable reduction in power.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern engines including your 2003 Jetta are computer controlled and require an active EGR to operate.  Removing the EGR would require some serious hacking, and performance tuning.  The systems are designed to run optimally with all components operating.  If the EGR is not reporting expected pressures the computer is likely to cause the engine to perform less efficiently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless, there is nothing sustainable about the Jetta.  It runs on a diesel powered Internal combustion engine, requires regular oil changes, and at end of life is a giant pile of fiberglass, plastic, and cheap metal that is not terribly recyclable.  There is quite a bit of aluminum alloy in the frame.  This is less recyclable than steel and often cost prohibitive to re-purpose.  In terms of sustainability the EGR valve is practically irrelevant. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1613" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="403" RevisionGUID="5c9df9cf-6aee-42dd-b048-b40692eda9dd" CreationDate="2013-02-23T23:16:10.527" Comment="Proposed by 227 approved by 141 edit id of 84" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1614" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="0f21bb4b-a000-4496-bc3f-d9a1cdd4e4b1" CreationDate="2013-02-24T01:25:38.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/305488626316353537" />
  <row Id="1615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="569" RevisionGUID="d0c66e6d-a5dc-426f-a4a2-ade1e90dc283" CreationDate="2013-02-24T20:10:09.653" UserId="293" Text="When you use a refrigerator, very nearly all the energy used by your refrigerator ends up as heat in your home. During winter, that means that the real cost of using your refrigerator is the difference between heating through electricity and heating through your normal heating system for that amount of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you store food outside, you'll lose a lot heat from your home every time you open the door to retrieve it, which all has to be replaced. Minimaly, you'll also lose the heat stored inside the food. More importantly, you are at a much greater risk of losing food due to predation and thawing. These are in addition to any resources spent on preserving food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion is to not do it. If you want to reduce your energy costs or your footprint, reduce heating in your home and/or improve insulation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="570" RevisionGUID="d251aa85-7c00-4cd9-900b-66eff832919f" CreationDate="2013-02-24T20:26:02.797" UserId="48" Text="There isn't a single reliable way that fits all circumstances.  What we can do, is look at some of the factors that influence the pros and cons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Uncertainties within the green electricity tariff&#xD;&#xA;If it was absolutely clear that some of the money you spend on electricity goes to increasing the amount of renewable energy going into the grid, then that would be a big plus. However, it's rarely clear that that is the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Washington State US is in the [WREGIS trading area][1], and that means that a green-energy tariff there is typically based on trading [Renewable Energy Certificates][2] on WREGIS. You'd have to do some digging to find out how much of your tariff premium actually goes to the renewable-energy generators, and how much additional capacity (if any) gets built as a result of that money. The answer there, will make a huge difference to answering your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it is about how much new renewable capacity gets built, because generally, renewables have extremely low short-run marginal costs - lower than the wholesale price of electricity - which means that they generate as much as they can anyway, so increasing short-run demand for renewable electricity, does not increase its short-run supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Propane - useful but filthy and unsustainable&#xD;&#xA;**Propane summary: if your green electricity tariff doesn't get new renewables built, and the marginal electricity generator in your area is coal, then it may be better to stick with propane for now**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Propane is a fossil fuel, and so we know it's a contributor to catastrophic climate change, as well as being a resource that's being depleted unsustainably. So far, so bad. But a switch away is only worth it if it will reduce overall greenhouse-gas emissions. The problem is that if your green electricity tariff results in virtually no extra money going to renewable generators, and thus no additional renewable electricity, then your additional electricity demand from resistance heating or heat pump, will actually get met by fossil generation; and the sustainability impact could be even worse than using propane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Electrical resistance heating - very low capital impact, potentially high-impact operating impact&#xD;&#xA;**Resistance heating summary: If there's a net sustainability benefit from your green tariff, then electrical resistance heating offers the best contribution toward sustainability (but it will cost you money). Otherwise, it's the worst option**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An electrical resistance heater and storage tank are very cheap to buy, but in operation are very intensive in terms of exergy in to energy out: electricity is a high-quality carrier of energy, whereas the low-grade heat in a hot-water tank is of lower quality - that is to say, there's less exergy per unit energy. To put it another way, getting low grade heat at an efficiency of 90-99% from electricity isn't really very efficient, despite seeming so from those numbers. On the plus side, the materials to make a resistance heater are very simple, so the whole-life sustainability impacts of the equipment, putting aside for one moment the cost of the electricity consumed, are very low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The net sustainability impact will all depend on what the net result of your green electricity tariff really is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Heat pump - efficient and complicated&#xD;&#xA;**Heat pump summary: This might be the cheapest direct financial cost to you, if the heat pump is good enough; but is unlikely to be the best option from the sustainability angle.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relative to resistance heating, a heat pump has worse sustainability impact for the equipment up front, and probably on disposal too. Actual real-world performance could give a Seasonal Performance Factor of anywhere between 1 and 5. That's equivalent to an average annual efficiency of 100-500%. The efficiency is influenced by the temperature of your heat source (higher is better), the temperature of your incoming water (higher is better), the temperature you're heating the water to (lower is better), the quality of the installation and equipment, and how well-specified the heat pump is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Looking forward to the Smart Grid&#xD;&#xA;Domestic electricity consumption that has the ability to turn up or down in response to the grid balancer, so-called **Demand-Side Response**, is going to have an economic and sustainability value to the forthcoming Smart Grid. If you've got lots of *storage* hydro on the grid already, then that value will be low. If you haven't, and if grid-balancing at the scale of seconds to minutes is done by fossil fuel, then the value could be high. In this case, electrical heating, and in particular resistance heating, is likely to be one of the better opportunities for Demand-Side Response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Extra options&#xD;&#xA;###Solar thermal&#xD;&#xA;If you've got enough unshaded south-facing surface, then solar thermal could provide a big chunk of your water-heating needs, depending on local climate and your seasonal usage pattern of hot water, in a more sustainable way than any of the other options. (solar thermal works economically in Denmark, and that's at a more northerly latitude than Washington State US - but the Danes do take advantage of the economies of scale).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Community heating&#xD;&#xA;If you live in a high-density built environment, then getting together with your neighbours to set up a community heating scheme is probably the most sustainable option. That would allow you to get heating from a combination of different sources; and you could tune the combination to give the most sustainable outcome.  The combination might feature ground-source or water-source heat pumps, solar thermal, electrical resistance heating, biomass (possibly with CHP), and maybe geothermal too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some assumptions I've made, in order to get to some kind of answer&#xD;&#xA; - Your propane (LPG) comes from oil and/or natural gas, with the unsustainability that goes with that&#xD;&#xA; - When you say you're in WA state, that means Washington State in the US, rather than Western Australia or anywhere else. I think your reference to hydro means that Washington is more likely than Western Australia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wregis.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/gpmarket/tracking.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1617" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="568" RevisionGUID="db7b4195-9cf0-48d8-bc83-fd715e67aef1" CreationDate="2013-02-24T22:26:31.007" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/305805936331743232" />
  <row Id="1618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="3710e65d-db5d-4b18-8e54-9b1d206307fa" CreationDate="2013-02-25T04:11:30.627" UserId="292" Comment="Expanded question slightly to include mulching" Text="(I asked this on gardening.se but it was suggested I try asking it here. Hope this is an appropriate place to ask...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a relatively new dog owner. Living in a relatively woodsy area with an acre of land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dog poops. I feel odd bagging it and tossing it in the trash each time. Seems a) wasteful and b) tedious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been reading a bit about mulching or using a mini-septic system for dog waste. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One technique I've seen mentioned a few times is to take a plastic trash can, cut out the bottom, dig a hole about as deep as the can, put the can in there, line with rocks for drainage, and then start putting the poop in there along with some septic starter and water. Essentially, making a small septic system just for dog waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has anyone used this method? Does it cause any health issues for trees in the immediate vicinity? Does it smell? I've also seen commercial products that tend to emulate that same technique (essentially a 4' hole with a plastic bucket on top that overflows into the pit).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other methods (such as some form of mulch pile) I should consider? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1619" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="567" RevisionGUID="3710e65d-db5d-4b18-8e54-9b1d206307fa" CreationDate="2013-02-25T04:11:30.627" UserId="292" Comment="Expanded question slightly to include mulching" Text="Mulching or &quot;Mini Septic&quot; for Solid Dog Waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1620" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="4faacfd5-8335-46fc-92b0-3d428fd81ec1" CreationDate="2013-02-25T04:26:30.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/305896532023078914" />
  <row Id="1621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="571" RevisionGUID="85a65e9e-795c-479b-b085-248c869e92b3" CreationDate="2013-02-25T09:35:47.743" UserId="51" Text="There are many studies (about health and approving it) about convert Human Waste into a Safe Garden Compost Fertilizer. **In that way, it seems plausible that the same can be done with cat/dog feces.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information about &quot;how to convert Human Waste into a Safe Garden Compost Fertilizer&quot;, plase create a new question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1623" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="306" RevisionGUID="058180bf-178e-4c08-8756-b4e9ca5fe8d8" CreationDate="2013-02-25T10:27:05.553" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/305987273072181248" />
  <row Id="1624" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="e24756a8-0b10-4bd1-bbbf-c39dbb0e7a91" CreationDate="2013-02-25T16:27:34.777" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/306077994655563776" />
  <row Id="1625" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="203" RevisionGUID="404f524b-9a54-4726-b42e-bf0c24f82bd1" CreationDate="2013-02-25T19:27:35.547" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/306123294128619520" />
  <row Id="1626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="2d507195-895e-4e4b-897f-8393a1cd0d50" CreationDate="2013-02-25T22:00:02.087" UserId="27" Text="Animals poop in the woods all the time. Just because it's a dog doesn't suddenly change that. The main concern is if there is too much poop in one area for nature's existing systems to tolerate. A secondary concern is dog poop where you walk or wrestle your kids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple technique you can use is to drop a handful of sawdust or peat moss on the poop, and let it compost in place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _Humanure Handbook_ goes in to detail about composting human poop. It's not hard. You can follow the same methods for the dog poop, although there isn't much research here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1627" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="193" RevisionGUID="82adcf1d-8415-4be1-9816-33ad17407102" CreationDate="2013-02-25T22:27:35.017" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/306168591156379648" />
  <row Id="1630" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="290" RevisionGUID="cb0eda93-a682-4a3c-8cef-8194a7c694c6" CreationDate="2013-02-26T01:27:34.927" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/306213890486837249" />
  <row Id="1631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="572" RevisionGUID="8f2d67bc-20fd-40b1-9193-5f64d084dd09" CreationDate="2013-02-26T04:16:39.870" UserId="27" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Animals poop in the woods all the time. Just because it's a dog doesn't suddenly change that. The main concern is if there is too much poop in one area for nature's existing systems to tolerate. A secondary concern is dog poop where you walk or wrestle your kids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simple technique you can use is to drop a handful of sawdust or peat moss on the poop, and let it compost in place. This will also stop it from sticking to shoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The _Humanure Handbook_ goes in to detail about composting human poop. It's not hard. You can follow the same methods for the dog poop, although there isn't much research here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1632" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="517" RevisionGUID="82c8690e-1799-4538-85a4-c7cdc4ad6650" CreationDate="2013-02-26T04:27:35.307" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/306259188533841920" />
  <row Id="1633" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="281" RevisionGUID="af7d977b-afc5-49b9-8311-a902ecc538a2" CreationDate="2013-02-26T07:27:35.260" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/306304487914602496" />
  <row Id="1634" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="da61d581-cb2b-4404-ba95-b708c6515a8f" CreationDate="2013-02-26T10:27:34.653" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/306349784875274242" />
  <row Id="1635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="573" RevisionGUID="ffe3e5f3-518c-42b3-acfc-8b7affb71abc" CreationDate="2013-02-26T10:43:40.350" UserId="130" Text="The primary concerns about manure/dung of any sort really boil down to the fact that it is concentrated organic matter (and often a concentrated source of nitrogen for plants) and that it is a biologically active substance possibly including significant pathogen and pathogen marker species (fecal choliforms generally even if not pathogenic).  However Jay is right above.  Sawdust (or other high carbon, absorbant material) will work fine to compost it in place and both speed up the process, as well as help prevent the nitrogen from overwhelming your plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the pathogen issue, the simple fact is that animals poop in the woods all the time and we don't worry about the fact that bears don't make use of campsite outhouses (in fact, we are probably glad for the fact that they don't!). Wild animal poop is not necessarily different from domesticated animal poop in this regard.  Additionally permacultural designs often incorporate animals (either domesticated or wildlife) as nutrient distribution systems specifically because they poop in the garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always the issue is on scale.  Its one thing to have a dog poop occasionally in the garden.  It's very different to have a herd of cattle penned up in a field grinding their dung to dust and letting it get wafted in the wind.  Living ecologies tend towards homeostasis and this includes microbial elements as well.  The presence of such things as animals does affect this, but again the question is one of relative balance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we used to do is just use a shovel and scoop up the poop and throw it somewhere where it won't cause as much of a problem.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1636" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="311" RevisionGUID="ad5ba03b-3f74-4eaf-8881-b37c318e73d7" CreationDate="2013-02-26T13:28:04.060" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/306395203785342977" />
  <row Id="1638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="574" RevisionGUID="adb9e63c-5a6c-4d92-b036-9606a3ef5212" CreationDate="2013-02-26T16:40:00.853" UserId="215" Text="This winter we raised two hogs.  We don't have too much land, and don't grow the grains that would be required for fully feeding them from products grown on our hobby farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is whether it is more sustainable to raise animals myself, or support local farms that raise more animals more efficiently**.  It seems like the economies of scale work up to a point when you balance humane treatment, pollution, and other factors.  Where is that point?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For us, we were mostly using a commercial feed since the locally sourced feed available in our area (Scratch and Peck Feeds) was out of our price range.  The pigs did fill a very good niche in our little system in that they ate anything that we didn't finish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1639" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="574" RevisionGUID="adb9e63c-5a6c-4d92-b036-9606a3ef5212" CreationDate="2013-02-26T16:40:00.853" UserId="215" Text="Should I raise my own animals, or support a local farm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1640" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="574" RevisionGUID="adb9e63c-5a6c-4d92-b036-9606a3ef5212" CreationDate="2013-02-26T16:40:00.853" UserId="215" Text="|food|ecological-footprint|meat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="575" RevisionGUID="4d7e74ab-e4ee-4309-a813-76b1d647e579" CreationDate="2013-02-26T16:46:26.450" UserId="215" Text="Our family tried the garbage can method, and it did not work very well.  We live in a fairly wet climate with a high clay content in the soil, so drainage was our biggest issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are going to give the idea a try, make sure that you have good drainage, and that your water table is below the bottom of the container.  You don't want to concentrate the poop and feed it directly into your ground water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure you've looked around, but here is one commercial solution:&#xD;&#xA;[In the ground poop collector][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.drsfostersmith.com/product/prod_display.cfm?pcatid=570" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="fbd4532c-22f5-464a-9c9a-74dbead36deb" CreationDate="2013-02-26T17:36:54.157" UserId="212" Text="In a case like yours you're probably better off composting the things you generate that you fed to the hogs and buying the meat from a good responsible local farmer.  Even better buy from a CSA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you weren't generating enough food for the hogs on site, you want want to consider a smaller animal(s) that eat most of the same waste.  A dwarf/pygmy/mini hog may suit you better.  Perhaps even better, chickens and goats require only a fraction of the caloric intake of a hog which means you can tailor the size of your flock to your waste output.  They will each just about anything a hog will, and you don't have to mix it into slop!  Then you're only buying a feed supplement, if that, instead of bulk feed.  Plus chickens and goats give you food in-process, not just after slaughter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1643" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="574" RevisionGUID="0c1fbc8b-b305-4a87-80da-1d7507daf4cc" CreationDate="2013-02-26T19:28:25.527" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/306485893554913281" />
  <row Id="1644" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="343" RevisionGUID="65e7edc4-0660-4848-a128-2587af7784b5" CreationDate="2013-02-27T01:28:25.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/306576489799892992" />
  <row Id="1645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="577" RevisionGUID="56903eb7-6227-4673-bea0-25683e1a29ff" CreationDate="2013-02-27T03:53:13.807" UserId="227" Text="I am interested in implications of using various gasses that are commonly packaged in small containers for household use, such as propane, butane and so forth. It is mostly for awareness purposes, and understanding. I am not particularly interested in lecture on unsustainability of using petroleum by-products (it is understood), just practical consideration of the energy source we are going to be using in the foreseeable future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to see which kind is more energy dense: I am not too good with chemistry, and I am not sure if simple measure of energy content in J/kg is sufficient enough to make a comparison. There might be differences in efficiency of combustion processes (some reactions are simple, others are extremely complex multi-stepped affairs), and in efficiency of the actual methods by which we use them. Also different processes produce different amounts of pollutants of various degrees of toxicity which need to be considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other considerations. For instance, as far as I know (anecdotally), butane is more efficient for cooking than propane, but as butane used industrially to produce synthetic rubber, is it better to curb other, non-industrial uses for butane? On the other hand, propane with some butane and other gasses mixed in, is used as a cleaner alternative to petrol in the form of LPG. How do we balance these various uses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which fuels are better for cooking, and which are more efficient in small engines (such as [Lehr][1])? Which fuels are better for refilling reusable containers (e.g. I know that propane is refillable, but I had only seen butane in small aerosol cans)? Which kinds of fuels can be more sustainably generated via capture of septic, agricultural by-products and so forth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope I did not throw too much in one question, I just wanted a sort of overview, to set a starting point. I focused on propane and butane, because I often use both, and I am not aware if methane and other gasses are readily used in small-scale portable applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.golehr.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1646" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="577" RevisionGUID="56903eb7-6227-4673-bea0-25683e1a29ff" CreationDate="2013-02-27T03:53:13.807" UserId="227" Text="Relative environmental impact of various portable gasses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1647" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="577" RevisionGUID="56903eb7-6227-4673-bea0-25683e1a29ff" CreationDate="2013-02-27T03:53:13.807" UserId="227" Text="|natural-gas|gases|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="578" RevisionGUID="d40e00fd-fcca-4b29-bc07-059256e8b7d7" CreationDate="2013-02-27T10:55:22.560" UserId="130" Text="I would recommend buying used and selling for a couple of reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Less petroleum consumed in moving physically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Less expenses paid to moving companies or truck rentals (and less resources consumed there)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Less resources being spent on cheap mass produced materials and more on re-using what is already there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1649" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="83" RevisionGUID="a1b15b8e-a1b7-4961-812e-e89cf57e160a" CreationDate="2013-02-27T13:29:22.243" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/306757922346635267" />
  <row Id="1650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="579" RevisionGUID="9a031fd3-679f-4255-a4ba-39bcf9a5c12e" CreationDate="2013-02-27T17:36:22.133" UserId="303" Text="It depends on how you define &quot;sustainable&quot; and what your goals are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your intention is to provide meat for yourself and your family independent of community or industry, in other words &quot;self-sustainability&quot; then raising livestock yourself makes sense but you need to be prepared to provide feed for your animals independently as well as enough room to keep them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, on the other hand, you are more concerned with economic or ecological impact then buying from a local farm would be more sensible. The farmer becomes less dependent on outside business, your money indirectly benefits the local economy and there's less pollution from transporting the meat to a remote purchaser. All of these benefits your local community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="580" RevisionGUID="b1592008-821b-485a-abc9-6203ff52f356" CreationDate="2013-02-27T18:38:44.697" UserId="303" Text="It depends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Windows treated with IR blocking films will make them less efficient as a means of solar collection but double pane windows also provide better insulation than single pane windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[EngergyNumbers][1] suggestion of a greenhouse is also a good use for them. Especially if they have a UV blocking film. Several studies suggest plants are as sensitive to UV radiation humans are and blocking UV radiation can increase plant vitality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/48/energynumbers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="581" RevisionGUID="de15534c-bb3e-421d-9e90-a53820589079" CreationDate="2013-02-28T00:30:00.150" UserId="227" Text="Gasses for household applications (propane, butane etc.) often come in small disposable containers, such as metal bottles or cans. I know that it is possible to refill some of them, such as one-pound bottle that is ubiquitous in North America, but there are some safety and legal issues associated with that (latter, however, is to prevent people to commercially refill those in potentially unsafe conditions and/or sell them as new, as I understand).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there dedicated small multi-use containers for various gasses either in metric or imperial sizes with simplified refilling infrastructure? Out of non-traditional products I had only seen [Ragasco][1] and [Lite Cylinder][2], which offer composite LPG tanks, that are lighter and supposedly safer than regular steel ones, offering several other advantages, such as ability to clearly see the level of fuel, and non-corrosiveness (boon for marine applications). But they do not offer any small-size products (minimum is 5kg propane containers or thereabouts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ragasco.com/lpg-products/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.litecylinder.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1654" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="581" RevisionGUID="de15534c-bb3e-421d-9e90-a53820589079" CreationDate="2013-02-28T00:30:00.150" UserId="227" Text="Alternatives to disposable propane (and other gasses) bottles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1655" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="581" RevisionGUID="de15534c-bb3e-421d-9e90-a53820589079" CreationDate="2013-02-28T00:30:00.150" UserId="227" Text="|gases|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1659" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="577" RevisionGUID="094db683-fe99-4bd0-9309-a1a478cb8cc5" CreationDate="2013-02-28T07:29:29.287" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/307029742861840384" />
  <row Id="1662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="9e0ec853-0541-443f-97f1-b7305cf4e12a" CreationDate="2013-02-28T15:55:09.670" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="What are the most sustainable options for cooking &quot;appliances.&quot;  Obviously any appliance or cooking device that utilizes petroleum based gas to fuel their heat source is going to be unsustainable.  But what are the best options that are sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="9e0ec853-0541-443f-97f1-b7305cf4e12a" CreationDate="2013-02-28T15:55:09.670" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="What are the sustainable options for cooking tools" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1664" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="9e0ec853-0541-443f-97f1-b7305cf4e12a" CreationDate="2013-02-28T15:55:09.670" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="890c72d1-86f2-4a36-8577-1c99609dd832" CreationDate="2013-02-28T16:09:10.267" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="Added a link to a CSA Resource" Text="In a case like yours you're probably better off composting the things you generate that you fed to the hogs and buying the meat from a good responsible local farmer.  Even better buy from a [CSA][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you weren't generating enough food for the hogs on site, you want want to consider a smaller animal(s) that eat most of the same waste.  A dwarf/pygmy/mini hog may suit you better.  Perhaps even better, chickens and goats require only a fraction of the caloric intake of a hog which means you can tailor the size of your flock to your waste output.  They will each just about anything a hog will, and you don't have to mix it into slop!  Then you're only buying a feed supplement, if that, instead of bulk feed.  Plus chickens and goats give you food in-process, not just after slaughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.localharvest.org/csa/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1666" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="890c72d1-86f2-4a36-8577-1c99609dd832" CreationDate="2013-02-28T16:09:10.267" Comment="Proposed by 141 approved by 117 edit id of 85" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1669" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="506a22f5-923c-47bf-9cdb-73507c7380f7" CreationDate="2013-02-28T16:41:53.737" UserId="117" Comment="edited title" Text="What are the sustainable options for cooking applicances?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="c1de67c7-0096-4afb-898b-4dbeb292ae39" CreationDate="2013-02-28T18:08:03.657" UserId="48" Text="If you live remotely, and have lots of wood growing out back that you can harvest by hand, then wood is probably the most sustainable coooking fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For everyone else, then induction hobs, well-insulated convection ovens and microwave ovens powered by electricity generated from renewable sources are the most sustainable cooking media, as long as the cooking devices are sent for repair or recycling at the end of their lives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, a life-cycle assessment database would be needed to assess the full cradle-to-cradle impact of particular devices.  Publications such as [Ethical Consumer][1] do audits, including sustainability, of [various consumer devices including cookers][2]. Espresso fans like me will be reassured to see that [the classic Bialetti stove-top scores well on sustainability][3] (if you can live with having that much steel dedicated to a single wonderful purpose.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/appliances.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/appliances/coffeemakers.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0H2Sq.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1671" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="581" RevisionGUID="57cf7a4e-7c2f-499d-a1b0-49a55990f46e" CreationDate="2013-02-28T19:30:34.937" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/307211209868988416" />
  <row Id="1672" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="d24c1e23-69a0-4eef-a12c-17659cceb6d4" CreationDate="2013-02-28T22:30:34.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/307256507559456769" />
  <row Id="1673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="475" RevisionGUID="4ea86c73-794b-4d75-802d-47fe630da959" CreationDate="2013-03-01T00:01:54.900" UserId="227" Comment="Formatted link." Text="The concern about adding pathogens to a compost pile mostly overstated.  The normal biological action of composting reduces but does not eliminate pathogens in the compost, and the fact is that a lot of things which we compost are potentially hazardous foods.  I suppose if you want to be particularly paranoid you could avoid throwing things like cooked veggies into the compost heap.  Aside from very high pathogen sources (like manure), composting is believed to cause great reduction in pathogen concentration, to safe levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [_Pathogens and Public Health Concerns with Composting_][1] by Chris Cronin (PDF, via Vermont Waste Management Division).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/compost/00Summerpdf/Pathogens45.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1674" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="475" RevisionGUID="4ea86c73-794b-4d75-802d-47fe630da959" CreationDate="2013-03-01T00:01:54.900" Comment="Proposed by 227 approved by 130 edit id of 86" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1675" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="265" RevisionGUID="36afa357-8db9-467f-8eeb-b35e469544fa" CreationDate="2013-03-01T01:30:34.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/307301808307572738" />
  <row Id="1676" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="146bd0fe-b53b-4483-833c-0d48a05805b4" CreationDate="2013-03-01T04:30:36.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/307347111022821377" />
  <row Id="1677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="586" RevisionGUID="e8d98e32-a69b-494c-8c53-833ebf76253c" CreationDate="2013-03-01T06:16:09.747" UserId="130" Text="I am not sure this is a good question for Q&amp;A so much as an opportunity for discussion, and I am not sure why this is acceptable but questions about a possible connection between crafts and sustainability is not....  With that disclaimer in mind though I want to give a very different answer based largely on the work of anthropologist Joseph Tainter (&quot;The Collapse of Complex Socieites&quot;), and look at the relationship between surplus, complexity, and sustainability.  I don't think the relationship is a simple one, and yes there are cases where energy efficiency may make moderate-term sustainability harder to achieve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it is necessary to take a long view both of the past and the future in addressing this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tainter's Theories on Complexity and Collapse**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joseph Tainter has authored a large survey of societal collapse (meaning, as he puts it, simplification), where the number of societal roles decreases radically, as does the coordination between them.  A good example would be the fall of the Western Roman Empire.  The survey is [The Collapse of Complex Societies](http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Archaeology/dp/052138673X) and it is well worth reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tainter's thesis is that complex societies collapse by simply becoming unsustainably complex, namely that we add complexity to society to solve problems and that at some point we can't keep that going, so major investments required to maintain a current quality of life usually foretell collapse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tainter also directly discusses the impact of energy (in the form of agricultural surplus) in the case of Rome.  During the expansion of Rome, the government was largely fueled by pillaging acculumated surpluses from elsewhere (or more properly proxies for that in the form of gold).  When this could not be continued, Rome had to move from accumulated past surpluses (representing, as he puts it &quot;past solar energy&quot;) to current production (as he puts it &quot;current solar energy&quot;).  This move was catastrophic for the Roman Empire and it lead to a spiral of currency devaluation, and eventually the inability to maintain food production up to the level it needed to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the points that Tainter brings up is that much of the complexity added was actually there to stall the collapse, and that Rome would have fallen much sooner had they not added the complexity that they did.  However with complexity comes a large sector of the economy which is largely devoted to regulating the rest.  In modern parallels, this would include not only government but also business administration.  The more complex these fields become the fewer people are actually producing and eventually the whole thing collapses.  The level of detail he goes into is astounding and I recommend both watching what lectures he has on Youtube and reading the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We Use Energy To Subsidize Complexity**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to the age of fossil fuels, greater social complexity meant that people had to work harder.  The difference between a simple society governed by local self-sufficiency generally and a complex one with large amounts of regulation meant that in the second, people had to work much harder to achieve subsistence.  Historically of course the best example of this is moving from forraging to agriculture (see [The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race by Jarrod Diamond](http://www.scribd.com/doc/2100251/Jared-Diamond-The-Worst-Mistake-in-the-History-of-the-Human-Race)).  In essence the agricultural revolution meant trading quality of life for larger populations and in order to make that work we see additional complexity arise in societies relating to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same thing applies to the so-called green revolution and the dawn of modern fossil-fuel-based agriculture but with a twist.  In the past humans and animals put forth the effort into tilling the soil, planting, harvesting, etc.  Now the humans and animals are replaced by machines, and the energy comes not from eating grain but from fossil fuels.  Similarly much of the nutrition of the soil comes from fossil fuels instead of decaying organic material, but to build and maintain the machines, associated supply pipelines, etc, many new roles had to arise, and farming came to embody more economic complexity.  This of course was only possible because the energy came from fossil fuels, and this was only possible because of a surplus, at the time, of fossil fuel-based energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Energy Efficiency being good for Sustainability**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the largest challenges sustainability-wise that we have is the fact that we are as dependent on fossil fuels as we are both for energy and for materials (coal, fertilizer, plastic, graphene, and much more).  Additionally demand for energy is increasing faster than supply and for this reason our individual embodied consumption must decrease at least for now.  The larger and more open question of course, is whether being more energy efficient for most of the population just means that their energy consumption can be spread out, where greater energy efficiency of appliances is offset by having more of them (this, itself, may not be a bad thing for reasons below, but it does nullify the effect).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally more energy sources become viable when we become more energy efficient.  It may not be sustainable to run cars on sweetgrass ethanol, but it might be if cars were twice as efficient (perhaps fuel-cell hybrids).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Energy Efficiency being bad for Sustainability**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two significant mechanisms by which increased energy efficiency might lead to unsustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is that we have to be honest, that real solutions to problems require large levels of economic investment and consequently if an economy which is based on ever increasing and unsustainable consumption of consumer products begins to falter, it may be much harder to engage in needed projects, such as grid upgrades necessary to guarantee baseline power from wind, or the like.  Having more sustainable products doesn't matter of people can't pay for them, and so the simplification of consumption which is needed to achieve sustainability also can thwart that same goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is that if we succeed in freeing up surplus energy we will, as history shows, want to use that energy to solve our problems and therefore the shift will be made from using it in ways which are necessary for human life and towards a regulatory role.  This can add to non-productive complexity and make it harder to solve the next challenges down the road.  For example, we could see an actual consumption drop in energy lead to an increase in energy consumption in businesses who then use that energy to subsidize complexity of their own operations, or the same for government.  The same goes for moving towards higher levels of technology, where greater complexity goes into engineering, manufacturing, and maintenance when compared to relatively simple technologies.  Each of these tasks takes energy and consequently, we become far more dependent on energy efficiency and less able to make investments in solving future problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already pointed to a book written largely on this topic.  I am sure many more could be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="02b1c268-c76e-4db2-a070-189b0f32071e" CreationDate="2013-03-01T06:33:32.907" UserId="130" Text="Following up on EnergyNumbers' questions:  What is the relationship between localizing the economy and sustainability?  Does pushing for local food markets, local production of goods for use, local energy sources, local food production help sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any cases where a push for localization makes sustainability harder to accomplish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="02b1c268-c76e-4db2-a070-189b0f32071e" CreationDate="2013-03-01T06:33:32.907" UserId="130" Text="What is the Relationship between Localising the Economy and Sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="02b1c268-c76e-4db2-a070-189b0f32071e" CreationDate="2013-03-01T06:33:32.907" UserId="130" Text="|economy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1681" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="76ffae52-9d75-4d6c-8265-98ab22f25afd" CreationDate="2013-03-01T07:30:35.550" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/307392407526313984" />
  <row Id="1682" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="49dea4ee-fae9-4346-99bd-e8fd4bf1694e" CreationDate="2013-03-01T08:20:06.197" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags" Text="|economy|localisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="239a9cbc-7e15-4310-8810-9a10765f0098" CreationDate="2013-03-01T09:06:11.323" UserId="99" Text="The big advantage of localising the economy is that transport is reduced, which means less CO2 emissions.&#xD;&#xA;A second advantage is that multiple local farms or factories spread over the country have less impact on the local enviroment than one large farm/factory that needs to produce the same amount. Farm monocultures for example can only be maintained with (artificial) fertilizers and often pesticides are also used. &#xD;&#xA;Third, localisation reduces the power of multinational companies and a lot of multinationals have very poor track records when it comes to sustainability (e.g. Shell, Chevron, Dow Chemicals, Cargill). &#xD;&#xA;Finally, although not directly related to sustainability, food that is produced in bulk is usually processed and then stored in warehouses for years before it is being consumed. This means that the quality of the food is much less than that of food produced locally and consumed quickly after harvesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this being said, some of the advantages I mentioned need not necesarilly apply. For example, some crops only grow in countries with a warm climate all year round. To only way to have those crops available in countries with a colder climate is to grow them in greenhouses. Greenhouses use gas or electricity for heating which leads to higher CO2 emissions than when transporting those crops from warmer countries (provided transportation is done by truck and/or boat, see also [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/92/99)). Also a local farmer can still use a lot of pesticides and artificial fertilizers to grow crops when trying to increase his production.&#xD;&#xA;Some people also claim that localization requires more land to produce the same amount of food and products, but the debate on this point is still ongoing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you also count 'social sustainability', localising the economy will mean that people in poor countries do not have access to markets in rich countries so it may be harder for them to earn money. On the other hand, infant industries in poor countries will not be put out of business by large global companies and in local economies there are much less corporate 'middlemen' who do nothing more than drive up prices. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="589" RevisionGUID="8632a4f0-b158-4e6c-aeed-2230e7e701fc" CreationDate="2013-03-01T09:10:41.763" UserId="48" Text="Generally, localisation and sustainability are opposites. Localising the economy will typically require more inputs for a given set of outputs, and higher inputs means lower sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, it requires much lower inputs to grow fruit in the tropics and ship it to Iceland, that to grow fruit in Iceland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shipping is a remarkably low-input way to move things around, and a lot of work is underway to lessen its unsustainability. Road transport over the last few tens of miles is far more costly than shipping over a few thousand kilometres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've known for a couple of centuries now, since the work of David Ricardo, that free international trade allows for national specialisations, meaning that countries that can produce the same goods for lower inputs, will do so, and export to other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More recently, in the last 12 years, Gregor Czisch and others established that the lowest-cost and lowest-input way to provide sustainabile electricity was by hugely increasing the capacity of international electricity connectors (interconnectors): up to pretty high levels, the larger the interconnectors, and the larger the international electricity trade, the easier it is to get to a sustainable electricity supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not to say that internationalisation in and of itself is beneficial: it is **necessary**, but not **sufficient**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When there are unpriced externalities in transport, then it is very difficult to establish what a sustainable level of international trade is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the big problems with localisation is that it requires low-density land-use, so that settlements have local supplies of food and water.  However, low-density land-use makes most transport unsustainable: high-density cities with remote high-intensity farm and water supplies are far more sustainable than the equivalent population in rural settlements, because of the relative land-take and energy inputs needed for the transportation of people and goods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1685" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="def4b3cb-e769-4c45-b637-5faedcd8e5c9" CreationDate="2013-03-01T09:11:01.513" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="|defining-sustainability|economy|localisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1686" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="587" RevisionGUID="7cc0f390-fbb8-4d50-b885-3ced1df4c1f0" CreationDate="2013-03-01T10:30:34.833" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/307437703924961281" />
  <row Id="1687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="3a49bd1c-b3f7-4857-90e0-a714d51ab640" CreationDate="2013-03-01T11:20:06.630" UserId="179" Text="When I travel to Japan, I occasionally bring back a few items with me (not an awful lot), and they have recyclable containers. Most commonly, I have items categorized as plastic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Japanese recycling for plastic. The katakana says プラ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Image from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_in_Japan#Symbols)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to recycle the items in Australia (Randwick council), but I have two concerns:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are items designed for recycling in one country recyclable in another country?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Will the item being categorized under a different recycling scheme (and in a different language and alphabet!) cause any problems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/J7e9r.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="3a49bd1c-b3f7-4857-90e0-a714d51ab640" CreationDate="2013-03-01T11:20:06.630" UserId="179" Text="Recycling items from another country" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="3a49bd1c-b3f7-4857-90e0-a714d51ab640" CreationDate="2013-03-01T11:20:06.630" UserId="179" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1690" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="590" RevisionGUID="3663788e-0eac-4e72-b0b0-ac52b65055a9" CreationDate="2013-03-01T13:30:51.787" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/307483071438024704" />
  <row Id="1691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="576" RevisionGUID="8fa4326c-b654-4a91-9c77-7e0f92ebdb94" CreationDate="2013-03-01T16:53:33.143" UserId="212" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="In a case like yours you're probably better off composting the things you generate that you fed to the hogs and buying the meat from a good responsible local farmer.  Even better buy from a [CSA][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you weren't generating enough food for the hogs on site, you may want to consider a smaller animal(s) that eat most of the same waste.  A dwarf/pygmy/mini hog may suit you better.  Perhaps even better, chickens and goats [require only a fraction of the caloric intake][2] of a hog which means you can tailor the size of your flock to your waste output.  They will each eat just about anything a hog will, and you don't have to mix it into slop!  Then you're only buying a feed supplement, if that, instead of bulk feed.  Plus chickens and goats give you food in-process, not just after slaughter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.localharvest.org/csa/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/reference/foodandwater.html#table1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="b70db4f2-abf8-4093-8754-f5bb704ca315" CreationDate="2013-03-01T17:37:19.523" UserId="212" Comment="biomass/biofuel" Text="If you live remotely, and have lots of wood or other biomass growing out back that you can harvest by hand, then a biofuel is probably the most sustainable cooking fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For everyone else, then induction hobs, well-insulated convection ovens and microwave ovens powered by electricity generated from renewable sources are the most sustainable cooking media, as long as the cooking devices are sent for repair or recycling at the end of their lives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, a life-cycle assessment database would be needed to assess the full cradle-to-cradle impact of particular devices.  Publications such as [Ethical Consumer][1] do audits, including sustainability, of [various consumer devices including cookers][2]. Espresso fans like me will be reassured to see that [the classic Bialetti stove-top scores well on sustainability][3] (if you can live with having that much steel dedicated to a single wonderful purpose.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/appliances.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/appliances/coffeemakers.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0H2Sq.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1694" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="b70db4f2-abf8-4093-8754-f5bb704ca315" CreationDate="2013-03-01T17:37:19.523" Comment="Proposed by 212 approved by -1 edit id of 87" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="b35631ec-1823-48d8-9dd6-655f67d258ce" CreationDate="2013-03-01T17:37:19.523" UserId="48" Comment="biomass/biofuel" Text="If you live remotely, and have lots of wood or other biomass growing out back that you can harvest by hand, and that will grow at least as fast as you harvest it, then that is probably the most sustainable cooking fuel. However, this sort of cooking is typically 30-40% efficient, so high inputs are needed for a given output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For everyone else, then induction hobs, well-insulated convection ovens and microwave ovens powered by electricity generated from renewable sources are the most sustainable cooking media, as long as the cooking devices are sent for repair or recycling at the end of their lives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, a life-cycle assessment database would be needed to assess the full cradle-to-cradle impact of particular devices.  Publications such as [Ethical Consumer][1] do audits, including sustainability, of [various consumer devices including cookers][2]. Espresso fans like me will be reassured to see that [the classic Bialetti stove-top scores well on sustainability][3] (if you can live with having that much steel dedicated to a single wonderful purpose.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/appliances.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/appliances/coffeemakers.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0H2Sq.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="f2d62e16-62c3-48dc-b15c-5e64e8ade57c" CreationDate="2013-03-02T00:24:06.290" UserId="310" Text="If your main goal is keeping your compostable waste out of landfill (as opposed to producing compost for your own use), consider using a pickup service like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newyorkcompost.com/&quot;&gt;New York Compost&lt;/a&gt;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="ce514dc5-9002-4b27-92c3-d9265ba85c3f" CreationDate="2013-03-02T01:25:43.520" UserId="227" Text="Reading some comments on the [question comparing various materials from which bottles are made][1], the thought arose: indeed, what prevents large scale collection and reuse of glass tare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was growing up in Soviet Union, there was a standard 0.5l bottle which was used nationwide for anything from lemonade to beer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could turn in those bottles for cash refund in any store, and later they would be cleaned (steam cleaning, perhaps?) and reused with new tags. Likewise, bottles and jars for dairy (milk, sour cream, quarks etc.) were all standard and could be returned to a local dairy shop or a larger market where they would be cleaned and reused, sealed by colour-coded aluminium foil, much like Yoplait yoghurt containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, centrally planned and operated Soviet economy allowed for streamlined collection and return: shops would send the bottles back to regional distributor, which, in turn, would relay them back to manufacturers. In the market economy with fragmented distribution of retailers and bottlers, and with countless variations on bottle shape in lieu of preposterous “brand-recognition” concept (if everyone is “unique” I still cannot tell them apart), organizing such concerted effort would be undoubtedly difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, European [Green Dot system][3], seems to yield some results, even in the face of packaging industry opposition it initially endured. And so there are ways to reuse glass tare by returning it all the way to the manufacturer from the consumer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is European system successful, can it be replicated, and are there better alternatives? Given the push back by special interests, is it viable to promote standardised containers to simplify the logistics. Are there other concerns, such as health or enforcement of food safety, or if the manufacturer has to disinfect the new bottles anyway, it should not make any difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/326/227&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nzaUe.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Dot_%28symbol%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1698" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="ce514dc5-9002-4b27-92c3-d9265ba85c3f" CreationDate="2013-03-02T01:25:43.520" UserId="227" Text="Large-scale reuse of glass bottles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1699" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="ce514dc5-9002-4b27-92c3-d9265ba85c3f" CreationDate="2013-03-02T01:25:43.520" UserId="227" Text="|recycling|reuse|glass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1700" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="3d45ef6f-da0f-4e45-b536-b7bc013eb002" CreationDate="2013-03-02T01:31:22.900" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/307664396887400449" />
  <row Id="1701" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="cacf9cb0-eae3-495b-9c7f-ea0a5f3cd8ba" CreationDate="2013-03-02T10:31:40.310" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/307800363044569088" />
  <row Id="1702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="21d1a0e5-bf7b-4883-9668-62844602181b" CreationDate="2013-03-02T11:57:35.187" UserId="85" Text="In Germany there is a system, just the way you describe it. It is something like, anything container that contains a drink, which is not a milk product has to charge extra money for the container (e.g. bottle), which is to be refunded on return of the container. (Aluminium cans are also exempt.) There is a special word for this amount of money, which at the moment is 0.25€ for plastic bottles and 0.08€ for glass bottles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the Coca-Cola company wasn't happy about their customers having to pay extra money for just the bottle, and having to bring the bottle back somewhere, so the German Coca-Cola contains fractional amount of whey, which allowed them to classify Coca-Cola as milk product...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, other than that the recycling system seems to work quite well. Glass bottles are being reused. Even plastic bottles for water are manufactured to be stronger and are being reused. There are a number of standard bottles for manufacturers to choose from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![water bottles](http://www.fotostudio-bonn.de/lizenzfreie-bilder/Gruene-Mineralwasserflaschen-9266.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the customer is done, he can bring the bottles to his nearest supermarket. Likely they will have a machine, where you put all your bottles in (full cases 1-by-1, bottles 2 at a time). The machine then gives you a voucher over the refunded money, which you can either turn into cash at the till, or use against your next shopping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Returning used bottles](http://www.express.de/image/view/2012/10/5/20791326,16331438,highRes,i0jqthar.bmp.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Green dot system you mention does endure, at least in Germany, but is about _recycling_ and not _reusing_ a product. My family's separated trash is (by weight)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. organic waste that is to be composted&#xD;&#xA;2. bottles/jars that are to be reused.&#xD;&#xA;3. paper that is to be recycled.&#xD;&#xA;4. plastics that are to be recycled.&#xD;&#xA;5. waste that is not to be reused or recycled (usually land-fill).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="637b8733-c54b-473d-98a1-0e620260d4e1" CreationDate="2013-03-02T12:05:06.627" UserId="85" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="In Germany there is a system, just the way you describe it. It is something like, anything container that contains a drink, which is not a milk product has to charge extra money for the container (e.g. bottle), which is to be refunded on return of the container. (Aluminium cans are also exempt.) There is a special word for this amount of money, which at the moment is 0.25€ for plastic bottles and 0.08€ for glass bottles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the Coca-Cola company wasn't happy about their customers having to pay extra money for just the bottle, and having to bring the bottle back somewhere, so the German Coca-Cola contains fractional amount of whey, which allowed them to classify Coca-Cola as milk product...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, other than that the recycling system seems to work quite well. Glass bottles are being reused. Even plastic bottles for water are manufactured to be stronger and are being reused. There are a number of standard bottles for manufacturers to choose from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![water bottles](http://www.fotostudio-bonn.de/lizenzfreie-bilder/Gruene-Mineralwasserflaschen-9266.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the customer is done, he can bring the bottles to his nearest supermarket. Likely they will have a machine, where you put all your bottles in (full cases 1-by-1, bottles 2 at a time). The machine then gives you a voucher over the refunded money, which you can either turn into cash at the till, or use against your next shopping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Returning used bottles](http://www.express.de/image/view/2012/10/5/20791326,16331438,highRes,i0jqthar.bmp.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past 20 years I haven't heard of any health issues associated with reused bottles. The caps are always new and I don't think it is very difficult to sterilize bottles large scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a last point, the Green dot system you mention does endure, at least in Germany, but is about _recycling_ and not _reusing_ a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It hasn't always been this way, but now my family's separated trash is (by weight)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. organic waste that is to be composted,&#xD;&#xA;2. bottles/jars that are to be reused,&#xD;&#xA;3. paper that is to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;3. jars that are to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;4. plastics that are to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;5. waste that is not to be reused or recycled (usually land-fill).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="594" RevisionGUID="59043096-7268-4be7-a791-401e8558c87e" CreationDate="2013-03-02T12:26:23.527" UserId="130" Text="The big problem in the US is with expectations.  I remember the first time I ordered a beer in Quito and it came in an obviously re-used bottle and I was both amazed (in a pleasant way) and shocked at the same time.  Bottle re-use is obvious.  You see wear lines develop around the bottles.  This is one reason I think remanufacture is preferred to re-use in the US.  Consumers, at least all the businesses think, prefer picture-perfect goods to buy.  The bottles, despite branding, had an efficient reuse infrastructure with most restaurants collecting and returning the bottles for re-use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't have a strong re-use culture in the US at present and such a culture is a necessity to reuse containers in ways which are obvious to the consumer.  I think this is the big obstacle, but if it is tackled, beverage manufacturers will end up having to comply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second important obstacle we have is the three tier alcohol distribution system.  This makes it very difficult for breweries to have deals with restaurants regarding bottle reuse, because the distributors must be the broker both ways, and currently they are only the brokers in one direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think these are insurmountable but it means tackling a lot of very dear aspects of American consumption and economic culture to make it happen, I am afraid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1705" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="120" RevisionGUID="318d19ce-3d24-4ed0-a689-32fffe41b930" CreationDate="2013-03-02T13:31:39.797" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/307845662685396992" />
  <row Id="1706" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="320" RevisionGUID="7b1d40f7-379a-4b67-b702-6d10c2226b1a" CreationDate="2013-03-02T16:31:40.200" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/307890960581394432" />
  <row Id="1707" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="144" RevisionGUID="40755b8e-cce6-4be2-a6f0-ef77f64fbf91" CreationDate="2013-03-02T19:31:39.733" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/307936258389340160" />
  <row Id="1708" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6" RevisionGUID="ce0e4d36-cb0c-406f-ba76-693b6e550b91" CreationDate="2013-03-02T22:31:39.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/307981557874978816" />
  <row Id="1709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="d37bcd55-2a8f-4ea0-b95e-4860189646ba" CreationDate="2013-03-03T01:43:40.993" UserId="130" Text="What is the relationship between permaculture and sustainability?  What are sound reasons why both urban and rural permaculture takes us further down the road to sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there real-world cases where permaculture makes sustainability harder?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1710" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="d37bcd55-2a8f-4ea0-b95e-4860189646ba" CreationDate="2013-03-03T01:43:40.993" UserId="130" Text="What is the relationship between permaculture and sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1711" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="d37bcd55-2a8f-4ea0-b95e-4860189646ba" CreationDate="2013-03-03T01:43:40.993" UserId="130" Text="|permaculture|defining-sustainability|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="586" RevisionGUID="a86bac68-84e4-41d6-9dc8-cca95cd2900b" CreationDate="2013-03-03T01:45:22.270" UserId="130" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="I am not sure this is a good question for Q&amp;A so much as an opportunity for discussion, and I am not sure why this is acceptable but questions about a possible connection between crafts and sustainability is not....  With that disclaimer in mind though I want to give a very different answer based largely on the work of anthropologist Joseph Tainter (&quot;The Collapse of Complex Socieites&quot;), and look at the relationship between surplus, complexity, and sustainability.  I don't think the relationship is a simple one, and yes there are cases where energy efficiency may make moderate-term sustainability harder to achieve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it is necessary to take a long view both of the past and the future in addressing this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tainter's Theories on Complexity and Collapse**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joseph Tainter has authored a large survey of societal collapse (meaning, as he puts it, simplification), where the number of societal roles decreases radically, as does the coordination between them.  A good example would be the fall of the Western Roman Empire.  The survey is [The Collapse of Complex Societies](http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Archaeology/dp/052138673X) and it is well worth reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tainter's thesis is that complex societies collapse by simply becoming unsustainably complex, namely that we add complexity to society to solve problems and that at some point we can't keep that going, so major investments required to maintain a current quality of life usually foretell collapse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tainter also directly discusses the impact of energy (in the form of agricultural surplus) in the case of Rome.  During the expansion of Rome, the government was largely fueled by pillaging acculumated surpluses from elsewhere (or more properly proxies for that in the form of gold).  When this could not be continued, Rome had to move from accumulated past surpluses (representing, as he puts it &quot;past solar energy&quot;) to current production (as he puts it &quot;current solar energy&quot;).  This move was catastrophic for the Roman Empire and it lead to a spiral of currency devaluation, and eventually the inability to maintain food production up to the level it needed to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the points that Tainter brings up is that much of the complexity added was actually there to stall the collapse, and that Rome would have fallen much sooner had they not added the complexity that they did.  However with complexity comes a large sector of the economy which is largely devoted to regulating the rest.  In modern parallels, this would include not only government but also business administration.  The more complex these fields become the fewer people are actually producing and eventually the whole thing collapses.  The level of detail he goes into is astounding and I recommend both watching what lectures he has on Youtube and reading the book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**We Use Energy To Subsidize Complexity**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to the age of fossil fuels, greater social complexity meant that people had to work harder.  The difference between a simple society governed by local self-sufficiency generally and a complex one with large amounts of regulation meant that in the second, people had to work much harder to achieve subsistence.  Historically of course the best example of this is moving from forraging to agriculture (see [The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race by Jarrod Diamond](http://www.scribd.com/doc/2100251/Jared-Diamond-The-Worst-Mistake-in-the-History-of-the-Human-Race)).  In essence the agricultural revolution meant trading quality of life for larger populations and in order to make that work we see additional complexity arise in societies relating to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same thing applies to the so-called green revolution and the dawn of modern fossil-fuel-based agriculture but with a twist.  In the past humans and animals put forth the effort into tilling the soil, planting, harvesting, etc.  Now the humans and animals are replaced by machines, and the energy comes not from eating grain but from fossil fuels.  Similarly much of the nutrition of the soil comes from fossil fuels instead of decaying organic material, but to build and maintain the machines, associated supply pipelines, etc, many new roles had to arise, and farming came to embody more economic complexity.  This of course was only possible because the energy came from fossil fuels, and this was only possible because of a surplus, at the time, of fossil fuel-based energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Energy Efficiency being good for Sustainability**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the largest challenges sustainability-wise that we have is the fact that we are as dependent on fossil fuels as we are both for energy and for materials (coal, fertilizer, plastic, graphene, and much more).  Additionally demand for energy is increasing faster than supply and for this reason our individual embodied consumption must decrease at least for now.  The larger and more open question of course, is whether being more energy efficient for most of the population just means that their energy consumption can be spread out, where greater energy efficiency of appliances is offset by having more of them (this, itself, may not be a bad thing for reasons below, but it does nullify the effect).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally more energy sources become viable when we become more energy efficient.  It may not be sustainable to run cars on sweetgrass ethanol, but it might be if cars were twice as efficient (perhaps fuel-cell hybrids).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Energy Efficiency being bad for Sustainability**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two significant mechanisms by which increased energy efficiency might lead to unsustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is that we have to be honest, that real solutions to problems require large levels of economic investment and consequently if an economy which is based on ever increasing and unsustainable consumption of consumer products begins to falter, it may be much harder to engage in needed projects, such as grid upgrades necessary to guarantee baseline power from wind, or the like.  Having more sustainable products doesn't matter of people can't pay for them, and so the simplification of consumption which is needed to achieve sustainability also can thwart that same goal.  For example if electricity consumption drops, it is harder to justify investment into wind-based power generation and the grid upgrades necessary to make that happen.00&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is that if we succeed in freeing up surplus energy we will, as history shows, want to use that energy to solve our problems and therefore the shift will be made from using it in ways which are necessary for human life and towards a regulatory role.  This can add to non-productive complexity and make it harder to solve the next challenges down the road.  For example, we could see an actual consumption drop in energy lead to an increase in energy consumption in businesses who then use that energy to subsidize complexity of their own operations, or the same for government.  The same goes for moving towards higher levels of technology, where greater complexity goes into engineering, manufacturing, and maintenance when compared to relatively simple technologies.  Each of these tasks takes energy and consequently, we become far more dependent on energy efficiency and less able to make investments in solving future problems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already pointed to a book written largely on this topic.  I am sure many more could be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="596" RevisionGUID="1668a551-c3b9-4b5f-93cc-7c80bdaebc7c" CreationDate="2013-03-03T02:43:18.387" UserId="130" Text="I think the obvious counterargument is that if we all grow the most efficient crops (i.e. with the most outputs to the fewest inputs), we can achieve sustainability easier and therefore biodiversity gets in the way of sustainability the way localizing the economy does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem though is that efficiency comes at the cost of safety margins and safety mechanisms.  The Irish Potato Famine occurred because everyone was growing the same high yield strains of potatoes, because other crops were out of reach of the Irish peasants.  While this was a very energy efficient solution, it wasn't sustainable.  Therefore one of the concerns regarding sustainability needs to be robustness and this is where diversity comes in and mitigation of risks even if this comes with the loss of efficiency, at least if we define sustainability not to include massive famines or the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diversity is the key mitigation strategy and it has two important components.  First, highly diverse systems help control pests the way we currently use pesticides (this is a key strategy of permaculture for pest control btw).  Secondly they limit damage because species-specific pests have greater trouble spreading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second important issue has to do with evolutionary ecology.  One of the key things to note is that ecological niches are not static but in fact change as environmental factors change.  Let's look at gypsy moths for example.  During an outbreak of these pests one thing that is observed is that predators specialize in ways they wouldn't before.  Animals that might eat gypsy moths in all stages may go for what they might find easier to catch, whether it is the actual moths (possibly bats), the caterpillers (some birds), or the like.  As the outbreak subsides, many of these will actually re-generalize.  Diversity of predators thus provides layers of protection in the case of pest outbreaks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1714" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="84" RevisionGUID="8969168c-f9e1-4026-9ad2-9ddcf065afb5" CreationDate="2013-03-03T07:31:53.017" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/308117506894225408" />
  <row Id="1715" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="77189ab2-4e6b-4e9b-b086-b92ab879d985" CreationDate="2013-03-03T10:31:53.233" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/308162806551814144" />
  <row Id="1716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="597" RevisionGUID="4f4cfa12-3443-4e87-9bbd-d67b8d6d3caf" CreationDate="2013-03-03T12:13:26.460" UserId="130" Text="Since this is a part of the defining sustainability series, I want to throw add my own approach as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true, as EnergyNumbers points out, that localization does tend to add some inefficiencies.  If you compare a small bakery to a large bread factory, there are some optimizations that can happen with the latter that can't happen with the former (for starters, the ovens, by virtue of being larger, will have higher volume to surface area ratios and this reduces accidental energy loss).  Similarly centralized transportation requires less inputs than decentralized transportation.  The farmer who takes 500lbs of produce in his pickup truck 200 miles to sell at a farmer's market uses up a lot of fossil fuels compared to what would happen if things were shipped in larger quantity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taken to its extreme I think one might be tempted to say that Walmart is good from a sustainability perspective because it saves us from farmer's markets and local bakeries.  The problem is though this optimizes (and optimizes badly, I might add) for only one factor and thus, in my view runs the wrong way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before I say why I think that runs the wrong point it is worth saying that a lot of things *cant* be localized.  Many of the higher technology components, like solar cells, really do require a certain economy of scale even to hit break-even points energy-wise.  For this reason I don't think that things go all one way.  This being said, I think sustainability requires to some extent decentralizing the economy from where we are today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Localization and Agriculture**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our current system of food production, distribution, and processing is very energy-intensive.  The [majority of this is in indirect costs](http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32677.pdf), such as pesticides and fertilizers.  The massive use of fossil fuels allows modern large-scale farming techniques and there is no current substitute which allows downsizing our nation's farms without the large input of fossil fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that the congressional report cited above notes that the majority of energy consumed in the production of most crops is in the manufacture of fertilizers and pesticides, not the use of diesel to plow land, harvest, etc.  Cutting down on fossil fuels in agriculture thus means abandoning large-scale mechanized farming of hundreds of acres and a move towards smaller scale, where concerns over soil fertility, pest control, etc can be managed through biodiversity.  Thus liquid biomass fuels don't really even approach a solution for agriculture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary contenders to solve this problem both require downsizing farms and replacing cheap fossil fuel inputs with more expensive human inputs.  These include smaller scale organic farming (note that draft animals are [making a comeback](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-12-farming-horses_x.htm) as a reaction to high fuel prices.  Organic farming by draft animal potentially gets rid of the vast majority of fossil fuel inputs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other possibility is permaculture, which tries to harness natural dynamics between species for support of plants and control of disease.  Permaculture is small-scale, however, and while it is high yield at low inputs, most of the human-directed inputs are directly human.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see any possibility of achieving sustainability without decentralizing farming.  This means a shift of inputs from fossil fuels to people and animals.  That has a lot of implications regarding lifestyles, and a need to significantly downsize energy consumption in order to make that happen (more people working in agriculture, fewer in energy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Localization and Energy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some materials in this area do not work well from a standpoint of localization and so manufacturing and distribution of these may not be able to be localized.  However, I think that there are still very important benefits from thinking about the problems in terms of localization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is that the most promising technology to replace fossil fuels for electricity generation is wind power, at least given current EROI figures.  Wind has a [very good EROI](http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_%28EROI%29_for_wind_energy).  The real challenge is that wind is fickle and unreliable, and so it is hard to generate baseline energy over a small area.  One solution for this to have large numbers of geographically dispersed wind farms but this requires a power grid designed for a level of what might be described as &quot;chaos&quot; that they are not designed for today (where things are based on large, reasonably dependable power plants serving specific areas).  Thinking in terms of localized production, done well, is an important aspect I think to more distributed energy production (and Wind requires thinking about energy production in a distributed manner).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second point is that there have been [installations](http://www.environmentalleader.com/2010/03/29/cargill-adds-second-dairy-farm-methane-to-power-digester/) of methane digesters at commercial dairy farms.  Whether CAFO-modelled dairy farms may not be sustainable, the idea of smaller scale, local energy production off of material that would otherwise be discarded is very positive development sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Localization and Waste Management**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final area where I think that is important to consider here is the idea of local material cycles.  Our current approach can be described as &quot;factory to landfill&quot; and the problem with this is that recycling becomes somewhat problematic and requires heavy centralization.  While some areas of recycling can be centralized, things like organic material are harder to do so.  We can't exactly ship sewage or compost effectively over the railway system and so the ability to take waste products and turn them into useful products is reduced by over-centralization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Waste management is closely tied to energy and agriculture however.  New York City is [moving towards](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/science/09sewage.html?_r=0) harvesting methane from sewage treatment for electrical power, and they are not alone.   Some forms of fertilizer come out of wastewater treatment and there are many other products which can be seen as locally produced in this way as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Robustness vs Efficiency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With modern agriculture and global distribution of food, we still see famines as a result of civil war and other factors, where disruption of distribution, in the distribution network leads to catastrophic human costs.  There are major issues here including the over-centralization of agriculture globally and this raises very significant social and economic sustainability concerns.  Overreliance on long-distance trade raises concerns about robustness.  This means that overcentralization trades efficiency for a lack of robustness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I think decentralization, re-ruralization, and localization, compared to where we are today, are necessary for attaining sustainability.  This does not mean however, that everything can be decentralized.  Some things may require greater economies of scale to be viable.  However our centralization today is heavily subsidized by fossil fuels and to kick that dependency one must move somewhat in the other direction.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1717" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="816f70de-4dc7-4bb0-ad17-1e10b443861b" CreationDate="2013-03-03T16:32:10.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/308253475320496129" />
  <row Id="1718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="598" RevisionGUID="e60b62ad-55b0-4f87-9b4d-daffb28afe1c" CreationDate="2013-03-03T20:28:17.550" UserId="315" Text="Energy Efficiency reduces the amount of energy required to achieve any given task thus increasing the amount that can be achieved from a certain energy source thus allowing it to last a bit longer - the ultimate goal of Sustainability, as simple as that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1719" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="210" RevisionGUID="7d2ad3bd-c030-4fb6-90da-2c7227db8abe" CreationDate="2013-03-04T01:32:25.910" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/308389435806990336" />
  <row Id="1720" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="a465ee00-f108-4214-809d-27a4a171a49e" CreationDate="2013-03-04T07:32:26.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/308480036632162305" />
  <row Id="1721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="599" RevisionGUID="a891a076-f403-4533-a115-8e66a703a1e2" CreationDate="2013-03-04T08:09:57.680" UserId="256" Text="Anytime you can extend the life of a product you are practicing sustainable methods as long as the product isn't causing damage ie toxins, offgassing, etc. If you are only using the buckets temporarily I would double check with your local recycling program to ensure that you would in fact be able to recycle the buckets with holes in them. Recycling in general has many unsustainable aspects due to the amount of energy used to complete a true recycle. So, you if you are finding uses for these buckets that normally would not have another use I would say you are indeed practicing a good sustainability practice. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="11bd2d78-9039-48eb-8084-43e2bb326afd" CreationDate="2013-03-04T09:18:09.370" UserId="318" Text="If you compare a MC (monocrystalline) and PC (polycrystalline ) PV (photovoltaic) panel with the same full-sun efficiency in each case, there is very little difference in efficiency as light level falls, between the MC &amp; PC panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the same full-sun efficiency monocrystalline are **slightly** better in low light conditions but the difference is liable to be well under 10% of output in any given circumstances and other factors such as keeping the panels clean, will usually have a greater effect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monocrystalline PV cells are available in slightly higher efficiencies than are polycrystalline but the main effect that this has is to mean that polycrystalline panels are slightly larger for the same power output. Higher efficiency cells usually command a price premium - which is only of benefit to the user if available space is limited and you want as much power as possible win a given area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PC are up to about 15% efficient and   &#xD;&#xA;MC up to about 18%.   &#xD;&#xA;SunPower make &quot;rear contact&quot; MC cells that have the current collection wires on the rear surface and also have optimisations aimed at reducing reflections (which otherwise reduce available light) and dealing with off angle light slightly better than usual - all of which adds up to give about 23% efficiency in commercially available cells -  but cost per Watt is higher and they will generally not be the best option in &quot;normal&quot; applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modest gains can be achieved by edging your panels with low cost reflectors to achieve a very modest degree of concentration. 10% - 20% extra power is &quot;not too hard [tm] to achieve this way. [3M make a reflective film specifically aimed at this application]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is very seldom mentioned or used, modest but useful gains in output can be achieved by cooling the panel somewhat. Whether this is worthwhile depends on available means of cooling. Water cooling works very well but is not usually practical, and air cooling is a possibly but liable to be pursued only by the &quot;excessively enthused&quot; :-). With the present low and falling cost of PV panels, just buying one more is usually more economical than trying to get more power out of a given number of panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to note that available energy is related to light level and that cloudy or end of day outputs will be well down on peak outputs. While this sounds obvious, numerous solar product makers do not make this clear. THE most important requirement is a clear line of sight between the panel surface and the sun (or brightest spot in sky). On a full sun day, if direct sunlight does not fall on the panel the out[ut will be under 10% in most cases and perhaps as high as 20% if an exceptionally good reflective  path is available. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very bright cloudy day such that the sun location cannot be determined but the cloud is so bright as to hurt your eyes will give perhaps 20% - 30% of full output. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sunlight through a window will give perhaps 80% of full output **IF** direct sunlight falls on the whole panel surface. Otherwise output will be poor, as above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In low insolation areas (which would include the UK) it is vital that panels are mounted  at the correct elevation angle, and changing this a few times per year will give you slightly better output. This is well covered on the internet. One excellent site is www.gaisma.com with [London data](http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/london.html) and [All UK locations](http://www.gaisma.com/en/dir/gb-country.html) as examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The diagram below from Gaisma's [London](http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/london.html) page show the path of the sun with time during a day at midsummer (green), midwinter (blue) and now (1 March, blue). Midday sun angle from horizontal is 60 degrees in midsummer, about 15 degrees !!! in midwinter and about 30 degrees at present. What angle you set your panels to depends on whether you can alter the angle  occasionally throughout the year or intend to leave them at a fixed angle. Fixed optimum angle depends on whether you want maximum energy overall or maximum winter output or some other choice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SHrPS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="601" RevisionGUID="54159b3a-680a-4f10-87ae-94997e2c3154" CreationDate="2013-03-04T11:23:25.097" UserId="130" Text="Yes, root zone treatment only works really well where you have space.  Here in Jakarta everyone has septic systems in a city twice the size of New York.  I wouldn't drink the well water even if you boiled it.  The major concerns include things like organic chemicals/solvants, and the like.  many of these things take time to break down in the soil, and they require sufficient soil to break down in, neither of these work very well in a crowded city.  For houses with wells, you can actually smell the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For large cities, I am not convinced they are more sustainable either.  The basic problem is that there are things you can do with centralized treatment (on a city level) that you can't in the root zone.  For example, you can harvest methane, compress it, and pipe it into the natural gas system.  This itself may be a partial answer to decarbonizing heating for folks with gas heating systems and severe fabric constraints on their houses.  However for rural systems they are the way to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1724" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="3ca2f872-80f0-4958-96cf-492a15247df0" CreationDate="2013-03-04T13:32:27.807" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/308570638107435009" />
  <row Id="1726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="600" RevisionGUID="518e8b80-4014-4890-bb76-87a6e137569b" CreationDate="2013-03-04T14:48:45.297" UserId="318" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="If you compare a MC (monocrystalline) and PC (polycrystalline ) PV (photovoltaic) panel with the same full-sun efficiency in each case, there is very little difference in efficiency as light level falls, between the MC &amp; PC panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the same full-sun efficiency monocrystalline are **slightly** better in low light conditions but the difference is liable to be well under 10% of output in any given circumstances and other factors such as keeping the panels clean, will usually have a greater effect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Monocrystalline PV cells are available in slightly higher efficiencies than are polycrystalline but the main effect that this has is that polycrystalline panels are slightly larger for the same power output. Higher efficiency cells usually command a price premium - which is only of benefit to the user if available space is limited and you want as much power as possible within a given area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PC are up to about 15% efficient and   &#xD;&#xA;MC up to about 18%.   &#xD;&#xA;SunPower make &quot;rear contact&quot; MC cells that have the current collection wires on the rear surface and also have optimisations aimed at reducing reflections (which otherwise reduce available light) and dealing with off angle light slightly better than usual - all of which adds up to give about 23% efficiency in commercially available cells -  but cost per Watt is higher and they will generally not be the best option in &quot;normal&quot; applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modest gains can be achieved by edging your panels with low cost reflectors to achieve a very modest degree of concentration. 10% - 20% extra power is &quot;not too hard [tm] to achieve this way. [3M make a reflective film specifically aimed at this application]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is very seldom mentioned or used, modest but useful gains in output can be achieved by cooling the panel somewhat. Whether this is worthwhile depends on available means of cooling. Water cooling works very well but is not usually practical, and air cooling is a possibly but liable to be pursued only by the &quot;excessively enthused&quot; :-). With the present low and falling cost of PV panels, just buying one more is usually more economical than trying to get more power out of a given number of panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to note that available energy is related to light level and that cloudy or end of day outputs will be well down on peak outputs. While this sounds obvious, numerous solar product makers do not make this clear. THE most important requirement is a clear line of sight between the panel surface and the sun (or brightest spot in sky). On a full sun day, if direct sunlight does not fall on the panel the out[ut will be under 10% in most cases and perhaps as high as 20% if an exceptionally good reflective  path is available. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A very bright cloudy day such that the sun location cannot be determined but the cloud is so bright as to hurt your eyes will give perhaps 20% - 30% of full output. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sunlight through a window will give perhaps 80% of full output **IF** direct sunlight falls on the whole panel surface. Otherwise output will be poor, as above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In low insolation areas (which would include the UK) it is vital that panels are mounted  at the correct elevation angle, and changing this a few times per year will give you slightly better output. This is well covered on the internet. One excellent site is www.gaisma.com with [**London data**](http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/london.html) and [**All UK locations**](http://www.gaisma.com/en/dir/gb-country.html) as examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The diagram below from Gaisma's [**London**](http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/london.html) **page** show the path of the sun with time during a day at midsummer (green), midwinter (blue) and now (early March, blue). Midday sun angle from horizontal is 60 degrees in midsummer, about 15 degrees !!! in midwinter and about 30 degrees at present. What angle you set your panels to depends on whether you can alter the angle  occasionally throughout the year or intend to leave them at a fixed angle. Fixed optimum angle depends on whether you want maximum energy overall or maximum winter output or some other choice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SHrPS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="232" RevisionGUID="fdc468a1-5f0d-468e-a1e4-db86ede017e3" CreationDate="2013-03-04T15:44:06.707" UserId="317" Comment="Turning the freezer/fridge UP will reduce energy consumption; turning it DOWN increases energy consumption" Text="There are a lot of little things you can do that can add up.  Here a some suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wash clothes in cold water only.&#xD;&#xA; - Turn your freezer/refrigerator up a few degrees.&#xD;&#xA; - Purchase insulated curtains/shades, and close them during the day when you are at work.  &#xD;&#xA; - Make sure your furniture is arranged so that it is not blocking any vents or radiators.&#xD;&#xA; - Purchase a draft guard to place at the bottom of your door leading to the outside where temperature-controlled air can escape from your apartment.&#xD;&#xA; - Install a low flow shower water head.  Shower head screw on/off easily.  Keep the old head to replace when/if you move.&#xD;&#xA; - Clean Your Refrigerator: It's unlikely that you'll purchase new&#xD;&#xA;   energy efficient appliances for your rental, but you can tweak the&#xD;&#xA;   ones you already have. For example, by cleaning the coils on the back&#xD;&#xA;   of your fridge you'll help one of the biggest energy hogging&#xD;&#xA;   appliances run more efficiently.&#xD;&#xA; - Use Energy Efficient Bulbs, even if you're put off by the slightly&#xD;&#xA;   higher upfront cost, you can simply unscrew them and take them with&#xD;&#xA;   you when it's time to move.&#xD;&#xA; - Use Power Strips: A lot of energy is wasted through electronics left&#xD;&#xA;   plugged in, and the resulting vampire energy. Put a stop to it by&#xD;&#xA;   using one of a number of cool, smart energy strips, which will turn&#xD;&#xA;   off vampire energy when the electronics are not in use.&#xD;&#xA; - Use a Humidifier &amp; Lower Your Heat: Keeping humidity levels up during&#xD;&#xA;   the winter is not only good for your health, but also for your air&#xD;&#xA;   and furniture. It also helps keep the ambient air temperature feeling&#xD;&#xA;   warmer than dry air, which means you can turn your thermostat down.&#xD;&#xA;   If your HVAC system doesn't have a humidifier built-in, then you can&#xD;&#xA;   get an inexpensive and portable humidifier to use during dry&#xD;&#xA;   conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1728" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="232" RevisionGUID="fdc468a1-5f0d-468e-a1e4-db86ede017e3" CreationDate="2013-03-04T15:44:06.707" Comment="Proposed by 317 approved by 117 edit id of 88" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1729" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="173" RevisionGUID="dc0249e6-1583-4064-b1fe-0a00873c3b9d" CreationDate="2013-03-04T16:32:34.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/308615965304819712" />
  <row Id="1730" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="02988fea-1dd3-4a0d-a10f-452cec94ce95" CreationDate="2013-03-05T01:32:34.467" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/308751859844272128" />
  <row Id="1731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="595" RevisionGUID="e5cd2061-fba3-4a87-a1bb-b92feca4b98a" CreationDate="2013-03-05T02:49:26.513" UserId="130" Comment="added 963 characters in body" Text="What is the relationship between permaculture and sustainability?  What are sound reasons why both urban and rural permaculture takes us further down the road to sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there real-world cases where permaculture makes sustainability harder?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE** as per request, here is a description of permaculture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Permaculture is an approach to small to moderate scale agricultural production which involves trying to engineer mini-ecosystems which produce the foods and goods that we want to use.  The ideal permaculture would have no external inputs once designed and implemented although like the ideal gas law, this is only an approximation and such do require human input and cultivation after design.  Principles of permaculture design include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Layering plants in space and time for mutual support and reduction in water loss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Interplanting multiple species so as to ensure mutual nutritional support&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Incorporating wildlife and wild plants into design of productive environments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Biodiversity as the primary method of pest control&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These tend to prevent mechanized approaches to farming, requiring human input for harvesting and low-grade influence to keep productive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="602" RevisionGUID="1c821497-b389-48f0-ad1b-14f8f729f729" CreationDate="2013-03-05T03:05:35.820" UserId="67" Text="I have oak wood floors that need significant cleaning. I don't know what specifically is on them, but they're very sticky to walk on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's a good natural cleaner to cut the build up and not harm the wood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1733" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="602" RevisionGUID="1c821497-b389-48f0-ad1b-14f8f729f729" CreationDate="2013-03-05T03:05:35.820" UserId="67" Text="Natural cleaner for oak floor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1734" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="602" RevisionGUID="1c821497-b389-48f0-ad1b-14f8f729f729" CreationDate="2013-03-05T03:05:35.820" UserId="67" Text="|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="c78efc59-43a6-4cc2-a492-063b216b3bdf" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:09:45.257" UserId="144" Text="I would like to build or purchase an Atmospheric Water Generator, using as simple and energy efficient technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be various models available out there. Could you help cataloging the various models and assessing their efficiency?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1736" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="c78efc59-43a6-4cc2-a492-063b216b3bdf" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:09:45.257" UserId="144" Text="What is an efficient Atmospheric Water Generator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1737" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="c78efc59-43a6-4cc2-a492-063b216b3bdf" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:09:45.257" UserId="144" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="1580feed-995b-4e8a-9f8d-5e66bd071d49" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:12:49.280" UserId="144" Text="I have set-up a rooftop garden at home. I am too lazy to water it every day so I am planning to set up a drip irrigation system. But the question remains: is drip irrigation more water-efficient than conventional watering?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="1580feed-995b-4e8a-9f8d-5e66bd071d49" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:12:49.280" UserId="144" Text="Is drip irrigation more water-efficient than conventional watering?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="1580feed-995b-4e8a-9f8d-5e66bd071d49" CreationDate="2013-03-05T05:12:49.280" UserId="144" Text="|water|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1741" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="604" RevisionGUID="028fc329-ee14-4a55-90ad-accc12655370" CreationDate="2013-03-05T10:32:48.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/308887812076367872" />
  <row Id="1742" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="603" RevisionGUID="05f7e1aa-8c01-44ed-95c9-6464d6dc7dfb" CreationDate="2013-03-05T22:32:48.160" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/309069007099682816" />
  <row Id="1743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="e9c4fe3a-a16f-44a5-a63c-65e60f5a706e" CreationDate="2013-03-05T23:53:15.720" UserId="319" Text="I'm fill a 30 litter bin every day. And I feel uncomfortable with it, but I don't have a benchmark." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="e9c4fe3a-a16f-44a5-a63c-65e60f5a706e" CreationDate="2013-03-05T23:53:15.720" UserId="319" Text="When do you know you're generating too much waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="e9c4fe3a-a16f-44a5-a63c-65e60f5a706e" CreationDate="2013-03-05T23:53:15.720" UserId="319" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="606" RevisionGUID="6fac0ef6-1c02-4887-9b0c-2156dbfb800d" CreationDate="2013-03-06T00:52:36.557" UserId="318" Text="It would probably be hard to find a better summary than [**The Wikipedia 'Air Well' page**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_well_%28condenser%29) that EnergyNumbers referenced. This provides an excellent and extensive discussion of many alternatives and trials. The large structures at the top of the article are only one attempted system. Modern versions of this are much less massive. Reading the whole article is advised. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are numerous radiative condensers in operation - and the large size of some suggests that they have been chosen as the most cost effective solution by people in 'real world' situations. &quot;Best&quot; will depend of geography and topology - dew formation is generally considered essential to operation even though the Dyson award system does not seem to suggest this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any atmospheric water generator works by cooling air below its dew point.   &#xD;&#xA;Higher relative humidity potentially yields more water.  &#xD;&#xA;Lower condensing temperatures potentially produce more water.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a given RH there is a &quot;dew point&quot; temperature which the air must be cooled below in order for water to  be condensed. ie Any system that works by condensation must cool the air to below it's current dew point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Atmospheric pressure also plays a part and dewpoint temperature is affected by altitude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This chart shows the percentage of water in air at the dew point at sea level at various temperatures. [From here - Wikipedia: Dewpoint ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point) - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typical radiative system (Wikipedia):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 550 square metre radiative condenser built near ground level in north-west India experiences dew conditions dew for 8 months a year and the installation collects about 15 millimetres (0.59 in) of dew water over the season with nearly 100 dew-nights. In a year it provides a total of about 9,000 litres (2,000 imp gal; 2,400 US gal) of potable water for the school which owns and operates the site. [This text is based on Wikipedia text that I have edited for appropriateness and content. Source from above referenced page.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**9000 litres / 550 m^2 / year  =~ 45 cc per square metre per day.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Radiative_condenser_%28section%29.jpg/220px-Radiative_condenser_%28section%29.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Image: 550 square metre radiative condensing Indian system (Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O2UDj.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7mETJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/twmQ4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to STOP windows condensing - do this in reverse :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://chicagowindowexpert.com/windowtags/aluminum-windows/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Calculating dewpoint](http://www.brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/107534.aspx)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="606" RevisionGUID="4db76f2d-8931-4cef-868c-593702506bba" CreationDate="2013-03-06T00:59:42.987" UserId="318" Comment="added 270 characters in body" Text="For an &quot;energy efficient&quot; system, it would probably be hard to find a better summary than [**The Wikipedia 'Air Well' page**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_well_%28condenser%29) that EnergyNumbers referenced. This provides an excellent and extensive discussion of many alternatives and trials. The large structures at the top of the article are only one attempted system. Modern versions of this are much less massive. Reading the whole article is advised. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are numerous radiative condensers in operation - and the large size of some suggests that they have been chosen as the most cost effective solution by people in 'real world' situations. &quot;Best&quot; will depend of geography and topology - dew formation is generally considered essential to operation even though the Dyson award system does not seem to suggest this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are willing to use an &quot;active&quot; system then you can use cooling with counterflow heat recovery. A Stirling cycle cooler is liable to provide best energy efficiency as the cooling source. More on this in due course maybe ... . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any atmospheric water generator works by cooling air below its dew point.   &#xD;&#xA;Higher relative humidity potentially yields more water.  &#xD;&#xA;Lower condensing temperatures potentially produce more water.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a given RH there is a &quot;dew point&quot; temperature which the air must be cooled below in order for water to  be condensed. ie Any system that works by condensation must cool the air to below it's current dew point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Atmospheric pressure also plays a part and dewpoint temperature is affected by altitude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This chart shows the percentage of water in air at the dew point at sea level at various temperatures. [From here - Wikipedia: Dewpoint ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point) - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typical radiative system (Wikipedia):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 550 square metre radiative condenser built near ground level in north-west India experiences dew conditions dew for 8 months a year and the installation collects about 15 millimetres (0.59 in) of dew water over the season with nearly 100 dew-nights. In a year it provides a total of about 9,000 litres (2,000 imp gal; 2,400 US gal) of potable water for the school which owns and operates the site. [This text is based on Wikipedia text that I have edited for appropriateness and content. Source from above referenced page.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**9000 litres / 550 m^2 / year  =~ 45 cc per square metre per day.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Radiative_condenser_%28section%29.jpg/220px-Radiative_condenser_%28section%29.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Image: 550 square metre radiative condensing Indian system (Wikipedia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O2UDj.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7mETJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/twmQ4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to STOP windows condensing - do this in reverse :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://chicagowindowexpert.com/windowtags/aluminum-windows/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Calculating dewpoint](http://www.brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/107534.aspx)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="607" RevisionGUID="832c1dbd-32ed-4750-8b94-326f4ab24b75" CreationDate="2013-03-06T03:07:27.513" UserId="318" Text="Drip irrigation is more efficient in general terms, but there are many variables to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drip irrigation is aimed at placing the amount of water required to supply the plants needs at a location where they can access it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventional watering loses water both to the air during transit (small) and from evaporation from the surface and hear surface after deposition. Losses are potentially large as a proportion of all water supplied, depending very much on circumstances and specific layout.   &#xD;&#xA;eg  loss of water will be increased by any of hot conditions, full sun  (seldom a good time for conventional watering), shallow soil,  lack of mulch, dark soil surface, hard soil surface not allowing rapid penetration, ... . Drip irrigation is somewhat affected by all these but to a lesser extent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Wikipedia - drip irrigation**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drip_irrigation) useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drip irrigation has probably existed in some form for millenia, but modern drip irrigation was developed in Israel as a response to its hot climate and low availability of arable land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brief but useful comment on Israeli irrigation practices [**is here**](http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Economy/eco3.html) - some of their large scale lessons are applicable to your home garden :-). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Lots of pictures**](https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=drip+irrigation+israel&amp;hl=en&amp;tbm=isch&amp;tbo=u&amp;source=univ&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=4bA2UYmyBsmQkAXypoCgCw&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CFcQsAQ&amp;biw=1920&amp;bih=1081) - each one links to a relevant webpage. &#xD;&#xA;____________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bluestarpr.com/the-ripple-effect.html?gclid=CM6RtaeM57UCFaE8pgodbkoArQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.netafim.com/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1749" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="602" RevisionGUID="d72f9086-8a54-4d07-afde-87f28b4f14b5" CreationDate="2013-03-06T13:32:53.887" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/309295522982793218" />
  <row Id="1750" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="a34dc038-8a45-45b4-a1f6-37dec3601de5" CreationDate="2013-03-06T16:51:25.243" UserId="117" Comment="4" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:117,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="608" RevisionGUID="cdfb3ec9-0cbd-41a0-bf3e-1bb4638745fa" CreationDate="2013-03-06T18:54:37.057" UserId="310" Text="I've generally heard white vinegar, mixed with water, recommended as the best cleaner for hardwood floors.  Can't get much more natural than that!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to various sources on the internet (for example http://www.cinhome.com/murphys.html), use of Murphy's Oil Soap can lead to the kind of sticky buildup you're describing.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1752" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="55" RevisionGUID="8042108c-72c8-4abf-8004-39a6eb3285ff" CreationDate="2013-03-06T19:33:10.330" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/309386190426079232" />
  <row Id="1753" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="20" RevisionGUID="87e3aab5-7b4d-44b1-bcb9-145f908636bc" CreationDate="2013-03-06T22:33:10.430" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/309431487453872129" />
  <row Id="1754" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="512d9be8-ae95-4ff7-a973-311acf0856bd" CreationDate="2013-03-07T01:33:10.160" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/309476785853173761" />
  <row Id="1755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="0638b512-bc42-46f9-a1b5-8589078aca92" CreationDate="2013-03-07T07:50:13.290" UserId="319" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="I (a single person, me, myself) fill and dispose a 30 liter bin every day, and I feel uncomfortable with it, but I don't have a benchmark. What I want to know is considered normal waste generation per capita; if you can narrow it to recyclable, organic and inorganic, that'd be lovely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the conception, that to have a neutral carbon footprint inorganic, non-recyclable waste should be 0, is that right? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="609" RevisionGUID="3d3ad647-7eb1-4007-858a-c86cfb22f981" CreationDate="2013-03-07T10:25:11.740" UserId="325" Text="Although I am far from an expert on permaculture and sustainability, I would think by your definition of permaculture one obstacle would be to source the materials and resources needed to establish a permaculture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely as soon as you can harvest your permaculture, and you do so in a way that enough resources prevail to enable to grow more of the harvested product, than by definition it should be sustainable. But the same problems arise from harvesting a permaculture than from traditional farming.  &#xD;&#xA;I suppose you'd have to design the permaculture in a way that it produces your product in excess and no organism within can really use it or is dependent on it, such that taking this product out of the permaculture would not impact any organism within. Otherwise you would always have to put something back into the system after harvesting so that it can grow again and the balance is maintained, so it risks being unsustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I can't provide you with any real world examples. I just thought it would be  a good discussion ;) and it's definitely an interesting question. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1757" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="3020d6ba-4a75-4d12-bc2a-f0dc8c251ab4" CreationDate="2013-03-07T13:33:44.583" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/309658124627894274" />
  <row Id="1758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="610" RevisionGUID="98917cd3-cbf0-4a52-b1e1-c16dadbcc8d8" CreationDate="2013-03-07T13:56:46.680" UserId="130" Text="A couple of factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Methane is a greenhouse gas but can be produced in some ways sustainably (methane digesters, etc).  It has the lowest energy density per volume or weight.  It is also lighter than air.  Nitrogen has a molecular weight of 14, while methane is at 10.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ethane, Propane, and so forth are going to be heavier than air.  Ethane has a molecular weight of 18, and propane has one of 26.  Butane is even heavier.  As the molecular weight of a hydrocarbon increases two things happen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  It produces more heat when burned per weight or volume but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  It produces more CO2 when burned per unit weight (and less water).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these are because the hydrogen to carbon ratio goes up when the chains become smaller and down when they become larger.  Polyethylene has a ratio of 2 for example, while methane has a ratio of 4, and ethane has a ratio of 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The environmental profile of these gasses is just different.  I don't know that they can be directly compared on a single scale.  Sustainability-wise, though, methane is the only one I can think of that is particularly sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1759" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="49d10583-7bf3-4b02-945e-bc9ac9f1afc4" CreationDate="2013-03-07T14:51:47.607" UserId="117" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:117,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="1760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="611" RevisionGUID="b843ace4-eafc-4b95-a944-e1119b9507b1" CreationDate="2013-03-07T16:57:56.780" UserId="212" Text="There are not in Europe or North America.  Other regions of the world, I don't know.  Some enterprising trep could still make a bundle developing one and getting it through the various legal hurdles.  However, advancing battery and renewable technology has relegated such vessels to limited roles in which an electric device is just not a suitable replacement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="2848ca4e-1730-43b0-b013-5cd7ea7c2ec8" CreationDate="2013-03-07T18:49:32.743" UserId="277" Text="Given the fact that the average life time for a car batter is 3 years and all of the batteries (hopefully) end up at a landfill at the end of their life time, how sustainable are electric cars in providing a cleaner environment in the future? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The common sense is that they are a much cleaner alternative to the gas engine, but how much more? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1762" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="2848ca4e-1730-43b0-b013-5cd7ea7c2ec8" CreationDate="2013-03-07T18:49:32.743" UserId="277" Text="Are electric cars as environmentally friendly as we think they are?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1763" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="2848ca4e-1730-43b0-b013-5cd7ea7c2ec8" CreationDate="2013-03-07T18:49:32.743" UserId="277" Text="|electricity|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="613" RevisionGUID="f0a04e1b-33cd-4daf-a235-33d927cb5db0" CreationDate="2013-03-07T20:40:59.137" UserId="48" Text="EVs offer some definite advantages, and lots of advantages that depend on the specifics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They definitely reduce local pollution - unlike fossil cars, they don't emit NOx, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, CO or particulates.  And they are much easier to decarbonise than fossil cars - they just need renewable electricity to recharge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in general, yes, electic cars are a significant improvement over their fossil-fuel guzzling competitors.  (And it's rather bizarre to hope that the batteries end up at a landfill after just 3 years of life.  But if that were the case, no, that would not be remotely sustainable.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of their advantages over petrol (gasoline) &amp; diesel, it will depend on just how your electricity is generated, and what the full lifecycle costs are of each vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presently, at least here in the UK, a lot of electric-car suppliers are leasing, rather than selling, the batteries, which means that they'll go back to the manufacturer at the end of their life for complete recycling. After all, a dead battery contains all the ingredients needed to make a brand-new battery - the thing that needs doing, is reversing all the decay chemistry, which is just a question of energy inputs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I wrote [over on skeptics.SE][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars are about 4x as efficient as fossil-fuelled combustion engines, tank-to-wheel: [ICE engine efficiency][1] is around 20%. Electric engines tend to be [around 80-90%][2].  For the whole-cycle energy-efficiency, then well-to-wheel would be the efficiency you were after, and then it would be very sensitive to how your electricity would be generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the nitty-gritty of the energy consumption of electric, fossil and hydrogen cars, see [this paper from George Wallis of the Claverton Energy Group][3] (pdf, 317kb). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that pretty much all electric cars benefit from regenerative braking, and very few fossil-cars do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficiencies do depend on the drive cycle: and whereas ICEs tend to be optimised for speeds around 85km/h, the efficiency of electric cars decreases with increasing speed, just as the core physics would lead you to expect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[(source)][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on efficiencies power-station to wheel of electric vehicles, see the [US Gov Fuel Economy][6] site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://courses.washington.edu/me341/oct22v2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.claverton-energy.com/?dl_name=nazisharks1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9tHTr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/15013/6236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1765" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="90a79d79-06ff-45b1-ac4f-97bcd8bac1e1" CreationDate="2013-03-08T01:33:44.863" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/309839318518743041" />
  <row Id="1766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="614" RevisionGUID="a11b4255-54e3-46fc-9663-c963bca69d74" CreationDate="2013-03-08T02:17:41.733" UserId="130" Text="Since this is a part of the defining sustainability series, I am adding my own perspective here.  Other perspectives of course are welcome and the whole purpose is to provide public insight into what's on and off topic here so please vote on these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problems @Pitt noted above are design issues with well understood solutions, which include biodiversity for starters (so that removing part of one species enables fallback on others).  The larger barrier of course is knowledge.  Permaculture involves working smarter rather than harder, and so reducing the overall energy inputs.  This means humans have to do most stuff, you can't leave it to machines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that permaculture is an important aspect of any attempt to become sustainable because it is sustainable itself, because we must mimic natural ecosystems in our own approaches to material and waste management, and because it cultivates interconnected and sustainable communities on all levels.  This is not to say that there aren't challenges regarding human inputs and knowledge levels, and that these may have impacts elsewhere.  On the whole, I think that widespread permaculture is a good thing however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Permaculture is Sustainable Itself**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Permaculture is sustainable with few external inputs.  Permaculture utilizes processes of evolutionary ecology to replace most of the external direct energy inputs aside from the sun, as well as all indirect inputs beyond the initial design and implementation phase.  This largely cuts fossil fuels out of the system of food production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Permaculture utilizes carefully chosen plants and domestic animals, as well as sometimes wildlife, for pest control.  For example one might plant thorny hedges to keep deer out of the food production area, while providing habitat for birds of prey so that that they can prevent rodents from becoming a problem.  Pests an never be entirely eliminated because predators always lag behind pests, but in this way they can be controlled so that they do not cause substantial damage in established permacultures.  A good beginner's book on this subject is [Gaia's Garden](http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-Second-Home-Scale-Permaculture/dp/1603580298).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second point is that species are arranged in ways which mutually support eachother.  I haven't been able to experiment with this but a example of an area where this might be helpful might be co-raising cattle and horses, together in an area that has snow so as to minimize the need for hay.  Cattle won't eat what they can't see so they tend to starve quickly when it snows, but horses will kick the snow away to eat.  Thus the horses can be used to help the cattle forage in winter.  If areas are maintained with sufficient forage, hay may not even be necessary (there are recorded cases of cowboys with herds stuck in winter storms following mustang herds in order to ensure the cattle could eat, and thus saving their herds).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Necessity for Material Lifecycles to Mimic Ecosystems**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an ecosystem, the waste product of one species or element becomes the input of another.  Bears poop in the woods.  Micro-organisms break down the poop and they release waste products which plants take in.  Those plants may produce fruit and the bears eat the fruit.  The bears then poop and the cycle repeats.  This example shows the way in which nutrient cycles work in ecosystems, re-using and re-cycling all components and over time building quality soils and very efficient ways of transforming current solar energy into biological energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability requires, among other things, that we stop polluting our environment with things which cannot readily be re-used in the biological context.  For this reason it is very important to develop closed material lifecycles.  Our current factory-to-landfill must eventually be replaced with a closed cycle where very little if anything ends up in land fills because everything is re-used in some context or another.  Doing this requires in essence having the output or waste of one system becoming the input of another.  Recycling is one way this can happen (re-use is another), but either way waste must be re-purposed as an asset.  An example might be privatizing sewage treatment, not as a waste disposal service, but as a series of cooking gas and fertilizer factories.  Waste products which cannot be recycled can be re-used in unexpected ways, such as building things out of &quot;urbanite.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The shift in thinking from a factory to landfill pipeline to a series of interconnected and infinitely continuous series of material lifecycles (akin to the water cycle, or to nutrient cycles in ecosystems), is absolutely necessary to achieving sustainability, and permaculture teaches this quite a bit.  This is a reason why I am such of a fan of urban permaculture.  While the idea of feeding a family of 4 on a city lot is probably unrealistic, the lessons learned about sustainability and the increase in free time from doing so (instead of high maintenance flower gardens!) is well worth it.  Most of my &quot;flower gardens&quot; also produce fruits and veggies, they look nice, and they require very, very little maintenance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainable Communities**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphasis on the output of one component being the input of another has the potential at least to build close-knit, sustainable communities through garden exchanges, and also things like thinking about what one can re-use things that would otherwise be discarded.  Urbanite as a building material for small projects (say outdoor pizza ovens) comes to mind but the possibilities here are really endless.  The more we think about what we can do with waste, the less of it ends up being discarded in unsustainable ways and the closer we become as communities as we utilize the waste products of neighbors and vice versa,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainability Challenges**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big one actually is manpower (and this is an issue for most green energy too btw but for very different reasons), and the second is education.  Building permacultures requires years of practice and/or significant training.  It also turns food production into an intellectually challenging activity.  However it is also less physically challenging than conventional agriculture in many cases, and so there are possibilities of closing loops here.  The problem with manpower though is not so easily overlooked.  With modern fossil-fuel-based agriculture it is not hard for an individual to successfully farm vast tracts of land, possibly in the hundreds of acres, with only seasonal help.  Permaculture requires more *people* to be working in food production.  It also requires that people make more careful choices regarding foods to consume (grains are less sustainable than chestnuts for example, and wheat is less sustainable than rice).  More people in &quot;farming&quot; full-time means fewer people engineering green energy solutions and the like.  Competition for manpower is thus a significant concern as I see it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see permaculture as pretty close to a necessity for achieving sustainability both due to its direct effects and also its indirect effects.  I also see permaculture ultimately as the best current training ground for the sorts of patterns we must develop in order to achieve sustainability generally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="615" RevisionGUID="1e6a59bc-ab44-4d10-bdd9-1517192caee6" CreationDate="2013-03-08T04:32:01.430" UserId="130" Text="&gt; I have the conception, that to have a neutral carbon footprint inorganic, non-recyclable waste should be 0, is that right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that is right but it is very hard to do in the modern world.  For comparison, when I am by myself I fill a 30L garbage can every two weeks (or maybe a little less time), and probably generate a similar amount of recyclables, and that is without composting.  This is because I prepare most of my food myself from scratch and tend not to utilize many canned foods, etc.  One important aspect here is a general emphasis on avoiding lots of packaging and a lot of disposable goods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second important strategy I have is to take kitchen odds and ends, and things that can't be eaten (like bones) and remove them before serving, throwing them in a bag in the freezer to be used for making stock.  I am often amazed at how much would otherwise get thrown out that ends up essentially being eaten." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="c6d4a6d4-9357-4096-98e7-262ab887ef21" CreationDate="2013-03-08T07:36:03.803" UserId="15" Text="There are lots of different battery types available, and different brands. I remember back in the 80's I think the first batteries came out that didn't contain mercury. Now, I have no idea how likely it is for common AA to D sized batteries to contain mercury, given that only a few brands advertise themselves as mercury-free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For this question, let's keep the scope limited to small batteries**, defining a &quot;small&quot; battery to be larger than a button cell (for future questions, perhaps they can be &quot;tiny&quot;?) but smaller than say a motorcycle lead-acid battery. **So this includes common AAA to D sized batteries**, those big fat ones used in outdoor torches, and the little ones like a short AA battery that were commonly used for to power cheap film cameras in the 90's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The types of battery that are readily available include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NiCad (rechargeable)&#xD;&#xA; - NiMH (rechargeable)&#xD;&#xA; - Alkaline&#xD;&#xA; - Lithium (both rechargeable and disposable types)&#xD;&#xA; - Whatever technology the cheapest AA batteries are (I think none of the above)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cadmium in particular I know is extremely toxic, but for all I know NiCad batteries might be easier to recycle and have a lower overall environment impact (when recycled correctly). My point here is that higher toxicity may not mean the battery is unsustainable (if you had to pay a $10 deposit on each battery, you'd probably make the effort to recycle it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which battery types are the most sustainable, or at least have the potential to be the most sustainable?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="c6d4a6d4-9357-4096-98e7-262ab887ef21" CreationDate="2013-03-08T07:36:03.803" UserId="15" Text="How to choose the most sustainable battery for small portable devices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="c6d4a6d4-9357-4096-98e7-262ab887ef21" CreationDate="2013-03-08T07:36:03.803" UserId="15" Text="|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="cab51c37-fc59-41df-afbc-d4cc2376753f" CreationDate="2013-03-08T08:29:26.067" UserId="15" Text="Unfortunately, knowing what is normal waste generation per capita isn't going to help you much when it comes to being sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it simply, the current reality is that it's normal to be unsustainable. That needs to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There are two things most people can do to reduce waste without too much effort, depending on their situation:**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. **Compost your compostables**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Recycle your recyclables**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These actions not only reduce waste, but also make more efficient use of the land used for landfill (which is expensive, when done properly), as well as reducing smell and leachate problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it's also a reality that most recycling isn't carbon neutral. In New Zealand, our plastic is picked up by diesel trucks, and with various intermediate steps, is later shipped to China where it's recycled. Glass is ground up and used as road aggregate, which may even be worse than just piling it up somewhere (we could at least use it for glass later that way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in a household of 3, and we tend to fill a rubbish bag about every 2 weeks. We go one step further than the above, and bury our meat scraps (which are not compostable in your average composting system). Things that tend to fill it up are polystyrene foam, used tissues, and plastic packaging. Reducing purchases of products containing those things will be our next step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, my philosophy is that it's more important to be a positive example to others (to change what's normal) than it is to become an extremist myself. If I lived in a monastery somewhere living off the land, I wouldn't be mixing with others to set a visible example. That's why I'm on an unsustainable computer right now writing this post instead of using the time walking to a special store that will sell me some food without packaging." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="ecd7fda4-73ca-4e5f-891f-8b906f115af6" CreationDate="2013-03-08T09:00:36.977" UserId="99" Text="I'm looking for a way to recycle biodegradable plastics myself and I was thinking about putting them in my wormery. Does anyone have experience with vermicomposting biodegradable plastics? Is it safe for the worms? Are there things to look out for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1773" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="ecd7fda4-73ca-4e5f-891f-8b906f115af6" CreationDate="2013-03-08T09:00:36.977" UserId="99" Text="Can you vermicompost biodegradable plastics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1774" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="ecd7fda4-73ca-4e5f-891f-8b906f115af6" CreationDate="2013-03-08T09:00:36.977" UserId="99" Text="|recycling|biodegradable-waste|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="205f46a8-cf5a-44e4-947c-2c73a5e3d3af" CreationDate="2013-03-08T09:08:45.987" UserId="15" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, knowing what is normal waste generation per capita isn't going to help you much when it comes to being sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it simply, the current reality is that it's normal to be unsustainable. That needs to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There are two things most people can do to heavily reduce waste without too much effort, depending on their situation:**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. **Compost your compostables**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Recycle your recyclables**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These actions not only reduce waste, but also make more efficient use of the land used for landfill (which is expensive, when done properly), as well as reducing smell and leachate problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it's also a reality that most recycling isn't carbon neutral. In New Zealand, our plastic is picked up by diesel trucks, and with various intermediate steps, is later shipped to China where it's recycled. Glass is ground up and used as road aggregate, which may even be worse than just piling it up somewhere (we could at least use it for glass later that way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in a household of 3, and we tend to fill a rubbish bag about every 2 weeks. We go one step further than the above, and bury our meat scraps (which are not compostable in your average composting system). Things that tend to fill it up are polystyrene foam, used tissues, and plastic packaging. Reducing purchases of products containing those things will be our next step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, my philosophy is that it's more important to be a positive example to others (to change what's normal) than it is to become an extremist myself. If I lived in a monastery somewhere living off the land, I wouldn't be mixing with others to set a visible example. That's why I'm on an unsustainable computer right now writing this post instead of using the time walking to a special store that will sell me some food without packaging." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1776" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="a3b1c0e1-df36-4d1d-a19d-bf0f74f1481e" CreationDate="2013-03-08T19:34:23.713" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/310111272270168064" />
  <row Id="1778" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="616" RevisionGUID="c36b4c01-2af6-4fad-8c2e-617467f7d3a1" CreationDate="2013-03-09T01:34:28.510" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/310201891034390528" />
  <row Id="1779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="619" RevisionGUID="dd2ef60e-ac58-4e86-8bec-cb49d1f0be07" CreationDate="2013-03-09T07:10:53.743" UserId="329" Text="You would want to refer back to the overall governing body on this one for the best response: http://new.usgbc.org/leed/certification/homes. USGBC developed the LEED standard and this page outlines all of the costs and considerations for getting a home certified. Yes, you will definitely need to have someone do the verification. However, I believe that they don't have to be an architect to be LEED certified. I know one or two people in my area (central California, US) that are LEED Professionals who are not full architects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same professionals would also be your best bet for locating any houses that have been certified. I would try contacting some Architecture firms and asking about LEED professionals. Another good bet, in my experience, is to look for activities/gatherings with an environmental leaning and asking about it there. I have found &quot;Green Drinks&quot; events to be a good nexus for this if you have one in your area: http://www.greendrinks.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="6f27e433-9adc-46e9-9cf1-3fe75ba1a6c3" CreationDate="2013-03-09T07:26:42.287" UserId="330" Text="I use Sanyo Eneloop recharchables (1.2 volts in size AA and AAA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a very high lifetime, do not self-discharge as other NiMH and NiCad accumulators do, and have a high current till they are empty (alkaline batteries have a much lower current—therefore alkalines are not suitable for digital cameras and the like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The high lifetime is—non-exclusively—due to the low self-discharge. Common NiMH accumulators laying around break, because of deep discharge (below 1.0 volt).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some exhaustive long time trials on the web (mostly from private persons) which proof the long life time of these batteries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="c2b44ee6-7b9f-4272-8bed-23d1e5c0f5de" CreationDate="2013-03-09T07:32:13.443" UserId="330" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="I use Sanyo Eneloop recharchables (1.2 volts in size AA and AAA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a very high lifetime, do not self-discharge as other NiMH and NiCad accumulators do, and have a high current till they are empty (alkaline batteries have a much lower current—therefore alkalines are not suitable for digital cameras and the like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The high lifetime is—non-exclusively—due to the low self-discharge. Common NiMH accumulators laying around break, because of deep discharge (below 1.0 volt).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some exhaustive long time trials on the web (mostly from private persons) which proof the long life time of these batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Converters for AA or AAA to C and D exist for a low price, if you need bigger batteries for some old devices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="617" RevisionGUID="d0bf8957-2771-4604-aaeb-25a057808b5f" CreationDate="2013-03-09T08:45:49.343" UserId="15" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, knowing what is normal waste generation per capita isn't going to help you much when it comes to being sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put it simply, the current reality is that it's normal to be unsustainable. That needs to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There are two things most people can do to heavily reduce waste without too much effort, depending on their situation:**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. **Compost your compostables**&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Recycle your recyclables**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These actions not only reduce waste, but also make more efficient use of the land used for landfill (which is expensive, when done properly), as well as reducing smell and leachate problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it's also a reality that most recycling isn't carbon neutral. In New Zealand, our plastic is picked up by diesel trucks, and with various intermediate steps, is later shipped to China where it's recycled. Glass is ground up and used as road aggregate, which may even be worse than just piling it up somewhere (we could at least use it for glass later that way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in a household of 3, and we tend to fill a rubbish bag about every 2 weeks. We go one step further than the above, and bury our meat scraps (which are not compostable in your average composting system). Things that tend to fill it up are polystyrene foam, used tissues, and plastic packaging. Reducing purchases of products containing those things will be our next step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, my philosophy is that it's more important to be a positive example to others (to change what's normal) than it is to become an extremist myself. If I lived in a monastery somewhere living off the land, I might be 100% sustainable, but I wouldn't be mixing with others to set a visible example. That's why I'm on an unsustainable computer right now writing this post instead of using the time walking to a special store that will sell me some food without packaging." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="621" RevisionGUID="b7f272d9-fce0-4b20-b8a1-4603b3166b61" CreationDate="2013-03-09T09:19:17.750" UserId="329" Text="As with most of these calculations, you are right to say without thinking about lots of other variables. I think that there are a few that need to weigh in a little bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest one is access to either of these types of stores to buy the products. For me, IKEA is a two hour drive each way. I could get to a Target or Walmart in 15-20 minutes, so it would probably be better to get self-assembly furniture there instead and save the longer trip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, buying used can be even closer to home, especially if you are buying second hand from others. However, in terms of driving time, you likely will buy from a diverse group of people to get all the furniture you need, which could mean lots of individual trips, versus one trip to get the self-assembly furniture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in terms of initial purchase time and driving time, this could learn more towards self-assembly in my book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second step is then the actual moving. Again there are two options, sell or ship. For shorter moves, I would guess that it is better to just move the furniture versus again driving all over town to get &quot;new&quot; furniture (really just different if you are buying used :) ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of selling your furniture, I would guess that there is a decent disparity between the price that you can get for a piece of self-assembly furniture v. a used piece of quality furniture. In my experience, self-assembly furniture is at least half price what you would pay in store if buying used. Standard furniture you can seomtimes sell for as much or more than you bought it used. (This is probably more the disparity between new and used than a direct relation to quality. Also it is far easier to look up the price of an IKEA piece of furniture than other used furniture, so the &quot;new&quot; price is more known.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not that price is the ultimate decider in terms of sustainability, but I find that it has a definite influence on the ability to accept a green practice. When someone knows that they will be hard pressed to recover the cost of a product and deem it fairly cheap to begin with, it is more likely to be thrown away than sold or shipped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, my primary consideration (having moved 3 times in the past year), is the ability to pack around the furniture. I had some furniture from IKEA that we disassembled and moved around. I also had some used furniture that I packed. I also had some furniture of both that was either seriously worn or cumbersome to move, so we donated that to a local thrift store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you plan to be moving often, I would want to limit the number of moving trucks and I think that this can be done with either type of furniture as long as you are willing to pack in around the furniture (which may depend on the moving company more than anything). We did a U-Haul, so we were able to pack it full and move it well. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="622" RevisionGUID="4048a54a-2b68-41d7-a467-1a8ad598f76f" CreationDate="2013-03-09T09:55:30.963" UserId="329" Text="The general rule of thumb that I have heard is no. I can't seem to find a good resource at this time that breaks it out conclusively but the logic that I have heard go as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting happens at different speeds and different heat levels. Your typical worm bin tends to operate at a low temperature (otherwise the worms would bake!). This would be slower normally, but the worms speed up the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the overall heat increases (usually as a result of the proper mix of materials and frequent turning), the speed of the material breakdown increases. (For example a commercial system like this - http://www.hotrotsolutions.com/ - can yield compost in as little as 10-14 days according to their site.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, you need a hotter, more active system to really breakdown a lot of biodegradable plastics. Not that they won't eventually break down in your regular compost systems, but they likely won't break down as quickly as the other materials, leaving plastic pieces mixed in the compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other consideration would be whether this adds any value to the worms. I have found vermicomposting to be like raising a pet, allows having to make sure that they have the right amount of food and water. Much of the material that you put in the system breaks down quickly because the worms are either eating it or using it as bedding. I guess that the plastic could be a form of bedding (this is pure speculation) but because I would assume that it would break down much slower than the newspaper that it more commonly used, it is likely to end up gumming up your system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="089757a8-6537-42cc-a455-a9e521f5162c" CreationDate="2013-03-09T10:13:18.403" UserId="330" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I use Sanyo Eneloop recharchables (1.2 volts in size AA and AAA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a very high lifetime, do not self-discharge as other NiMH and NiCad accumulators do, and have a high current untill they are empty (alkaline batteries have a much lower current—therefore alkalines are not suitable for digital cameras and the like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The high lifetime is—non-exclusively—due to the low self-discharge. Common NiMH accumulators laying around break, because of deep discharge (below 1.0 volt).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some exhaustive long time trials on the web (mostly from private persons) which proof the long life time of these batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Converters for AA or AAA to C and D exist for a low price, if you need bigger batteries for some old devices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1786" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="54550b61-f5c2-4e5f-af4a-7ecad6efdc36" CreationDate="2013-03-09T10:34:50.590" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/310337879270387712" />
  <row Id="1787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="623" RevisionGUID="00ca1121-ce6d-447f-aa2a-c608d061c5bc" CreationDate="2013-03-09T13:58:31.007" UserId="130" Text="One of the big difficulties with this question is that different countries may be, well, different.  In the case in question, all we know is that the plastic is listed as recyclable in Japan but not categorized in Western systems, which seem almost obsessed with categorization for determining what they can recycle or not.  For this reason I think the mismatch between Japan and Western countries is likely to be high enough to cause issues for the recycling system.  Between Canada in the US, or between Australia and Germany, the situation may be very different however." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="624" RevisionGUID="9dc4e014-fd00-40d1-85c7-8411a85f2969" CreationDate="2013-03-09T17:51:02.057" UserId="329" Text="As an American, I feel that I grew up on the &quot;Reduce, Reuse, Recycle&quot; phrase, which applies here. Only later did someone eventually add &quot;in that order&quot;, which made the entire process for me even more clear. And after some research, I find some of the European variations to be more accurate (though maybe less kid friendly...) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reusing is going to be a better practice over recycling becauses it saves energy and costs at a lot of stages. You didn't need someone to transport the bucket to a recycling facility, transport those raw materials from the recycling process to a new manufacturer, incur the energy costs of manufacturing from the raw materials, and then the transport of the new bucket (or pot) back to a store for you to buy. (And this ignores the issue of [Downcycling](http://www.sustainabilitydictionary.com/downcycle/)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the bigger issue that is hidden in your question is could there be an even better use for the buckets. Once you poke the holes in the buckets, they are only good for flower pots. Without the holes, you could still use them as watering cans or rainwater catchment, just to come up with a few gardening related ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire premise here being that you are diminishing the overall value of the bucket by poking holes in it. In that way you are getting it closer to the point where recycling is the only option, since it won't work for a variety of other uses. In some ways this is inevitable, since pretty much everything wears out eventually and needs to be cycled as sustainably as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only recommendation would be to consider if there are intermediate uses for the buckets in between the restaurant use and your use as a garden pot. If you can use them for something and then as they get worn, use fresh buckets from the restaurant for that task and poke holes in the old buckets for pots, I would figure that would be a more sustainable cycle. Considering that your brother likely has a plethora of buckets, I would start there to handle your gardening needs over buying pots!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="b2087ab2-7ac1-44b0-a05a-d8fb08189fa4" CreationDate="2013-03-09T18:04:00.403" UserId="329" Text="Some of the other questions have discussed the differences between localization and sustainability, for example, [What is the Relationship between Localising the Economy and Sustainability?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/587/what-is-the-relationship-between-localising-the-economy-and-sustainability)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of the answers bring up the issue that local food production can be far less efficient than large-scale commercial growers, especially when the commercial growers are located in a more favorable climate. They also discuss the transport issues in a farmer that drives three hours in a pickup truck with a relatively small amount of produce compared to the more efficient transport of large quantities even over the longer distances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if this can be partly overcome by bringing the food production even closer to home. I'm thinking of rooftop gardens for urban areas, porch gardens, or even community gardens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of my thinking is that though likely less efficient then either the small-scale or large-scale farmer, they are utilizing &quot;marginal&quot; land and space that likely would have gone unused, while bringing the food production even more local. Is this an accurate assumption? Can this be even a marginally useful tactic in terms of sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="b2087ab2-7ac1-44b0-a05a-d8fb08189fa4" CreationDate="2013-03-09T18:04:00.403" UserId="329" Text="What are the challenges in mixing food production with living spaces?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="b2087ab2-7ac1-44b0-a05a-d8fb08189fa4" CreationDate="2013-03-09T18:04:00.403" UserId="329" Text="|gardening|city-living|localisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1793" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="224" RevisionGUID="56062e24-972b-40be-affe-e8844baccc5f" CreationDate="2013-03-09T19:34:52.000" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/310473780541677568" />
  <row Id="1794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="626" RevisionGUID="b8d9f290-82bb-4d4d-9c84-6b33960f5336" CreationDate="2013-03-09T20:46:01.320" UserId="333" Text="You can make a trap to catch the existing fruit flies with an empty jar, a small plastic sandwich or zip close baggie with square corners, a rubber band and some wine or beer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pour a small amount of beer in the bottom of the jar. Snip off a tiny bit of the corner of the bag, making a small hole. Push the corner of the bag a few inches down into jar, making a funnel shape, and pull the rest of the bag over edge of the jar. Put a rubber band around the the rim of the jar sealing the edge of the bag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fruit flies crawl in through the funnel, then can't get back out. I seen similar versions of a fruit fly trap where you punch small holes through the lid of the with a nail. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="627" RevisionGUID="7ad0a7f7-2e27-4c60-bd8b-bb1387849e6b" CreationDate="2013-03-10T02:00:37.247" UserId="130" Text="**The Challenges**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of challenges facing urban food production and these range from homeowners associations to zoning laws, to practical issues like time inputs.  Finally the foods we normally prefer to eat are of questionable sustainability.  Our culture sees home gardening as a hobby and something which provides at best a small supplement to commercially grown foods.  This means if you start growing cabbages and tomatoes in your front yard, neighbors may complain, and there have been people fined for zoning law violations for growing too many vegetables in their city lots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are, of course, alternatives which can match the constraints but understanding the constraints are necessary first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to also expand on the question of sustainability of current preferences regarding vegetables.  We mostly eat annuals in this role, and they mostly fall into the ecological role of &quot;pioneer species&quot; in fertile areas, which prefer to grow on disturbed fertile soil, and help prepare the soil for the next wave of plants.  However, perpetually disturbing the soil has significant costs fertility-wise which is why chemical fertilizers (usually made from fossil fuels) are necessary.  This isn't to say we should abandon lettuce, tomatoes, and cabbage, but it is to say that we may want to be more careful about where and how much of these we grow and consume.  Alternative, perennial vegetables are more sustainable when grown right and they deserve much more space than we give them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Western culture *used to* eat a fair number of perennial veggies (and we still eat a few like asparagus) but these have frequently fallen by the wayside, which is a shame sustainability-wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usefulness in Sustainability**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I totally agree that done right, urban food production is an important aspect of sustainability.  It is unlikely to mean that cities are self-sufficient, food-wise, but it does mean that fewer energy inputs are required because less food has to move at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in addition I am in particular a fan of urban *permaculture* because this provides higher yields with fewer inputs, and it provides general sustainability training of a sort that is otherwise quite irreplaceable (see my proposed answer to the connection of permaculture and sustainability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Historical Interlude:  Victory Gardens**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In WWII, one interesting aspect of the war effort was the promotion of victory gardens by the White House as a matter of easing pressure on domestic food sources brought on both by the war effort and the internment of Japanese-American farmers.   By the end of the war it was estimated that around half of the produce grown in the United States was grown in private lots and city parks.  So while this does not necessarily lead to self-sufficiency regarding food in cities, it certainly helps reduce the burdens on transportation and fossil-fueled agribusiness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some thoughts on urban permaculture**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One aspect of my own gardens at the house in Chelan, WA is that a lot of garden space is actually multi-purposed.  I have many flowers which produce edible tubers, or are useful in herbal medicine, or even produce edible fruit.  I intend to extend my &quot;flower gardens&quot; to include blueberry patches, and I can already go most of the summer without buying fruit (ornamental plums, freestone peaches, grapes, strawberries, blackberries).  The gardens themselves utilize very few inputs and many don't even get weeded more than once a year if that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However you can't look at the flower gardens from a distance and see that they are anything other than ornamental.  The gardens look like flower gardens which keeps many neighbors happy and there are some small vegetable gardens (and I also add container gardens) in places where they are helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the use as you say is trying to use &quot;all my yard&quot; for something.  If I have to mow the lawn and I am not using it, it does me no good.  I am even thinking about putting beehives on the roof..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="628" RevisionGUID="af08b130-bda0-4b69-abad-e5581909508d" CreationDate="2013-03-10T06:50:01.803" UserId="334" Text="When I lived in IL I was told that any broken glass went into the landfill. How much glass do you think is not broken when it is dumped into the recycling garbage truck?&#xD;&#xA;I think it is a terrible waste of energy to not recycle glass. &#xD;&#xA;Here is a good site for information:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/182/1/Recycling-energy-savings.html&#xD;&#xA;Glass, plastic, and aluminum are discussed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="97c1e1cb-f3b1-48cc-9c14-e9f7e7c30959" CreationDate="2013-03-10T13:46:32.953" UserId="277" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Given the fact that the average life time for a car batter is 3 years and all of the batteries end up at a landfill at the end of their life time, how sustainable are electric cars in providing a cleaner environment in the future? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The common sense is that they are a much cleaner alternative to the gas engine, but how much more? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="613" RevisionGUID="3e251e7f-d92b-4ee6-be58-648f96aab02a" CreationDate="2013-03-10T13:53:33.737" UserId="48" Comment="Reworked the bit re batteries and landfill, given the slightly revised question" Text="EVs offer some definite advantages, and lots of advantages that depend on the specifics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They definitely reduce local pollution - unlike fossil cars, they don't emit NOx, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, CO or particulates.  And they are much easier to decarbonise than fossil cars - they just need renewable electricity to recharge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in general, yes, electic cars are a significant improvement over their fossil-fuel guzzling competitors. I've seen no evidence that the batteries end up at a landfill after just 3 years of life - that seems to be a bizarre and unsupported claim.  Such a practice would not be remotely sustainable. I have seen evidence that some manufactures are seeking to recover the batteries: presently, at least here in the UK, a lot of electric-car suppliers are leasing, rather than selling, the batteries, which means that they'll go back to the manufacturer at the end of their life for complete recycling. After all, a dead battery contains all the ingredients needed to make a brand-new battery - the thing that needs doing, is reversing all the decay chemistry, which is just a question of energy inputs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of their advantages over petrol (gasoline) &amp; diesel, it will depend on just how your electricity is generated, and what the full lifecycle costs are of each vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I wrote [over on skeptics.SE][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars are about 4x as efficient as fossil-fuelled combustion engines, tank-to-wheel: [ICE engine efficiency][1] is around 20%. Electric engines tend to be [around 80-90%][2].  For the whole-cycle energy-efficiency, then well-to-wheel would be the efficiency you were after, and then it would be very sensitive to how your electricity would be generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the nitty-gritty of the energy consumption of electric, fossil and hydrogen cars, see [this paper from George Wallis of the Claverton Energy Group][3] (pdf, 317kb). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that pretty much all electric cars benefit from regenerative braking, and very few fossil-cars do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficiencies do depend on the drive cycle: and whereas ICEs tend to be optimised for speeds around 85km/h, the efficiency of electric cars decreases with increasing speed, just as the core physics would lead you to expect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[(source)][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on efficiencies power-station to wheel of electric vehicles, see the [US Gov Fuel Economy][6] site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://courses.washington.edu/me341/oct22v2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.claverton-energy.com/?dl_name=nazisharks1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9tHTr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/15013/6236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="629" RevisionGUID="39f144cf-69a1-4058-95b4-b316c03c1876" CreationDate="2013-03-10T18:01:06.110" UserId="337" Text="In the UK, milk bottles used for home delivery of milk are reused (being collected by milk deliverer). This system has been in place for as long as I can remember (50 years) - and probably a lot longer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that, about 30-40 years ago, there was some serious discussion of standardising other drinks bottles, to allow reuse, but this was opposed by manufacturers - because they liked the &quot;brand identity&quot; of non-standardised bottles, and perhaps didn't want the hassle of setting up systems to collect and reuse.&#xD;&#xA;There doesn't seem to be much discussion of this now, and I wonder whether the encouragement of &quot;recycling&quot; by manufacturers is partly to give consumers a &quot;feel-good&quot; factor and reduce pressure for standardisation and reuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in my opinion, the answer to the question is &quot;resistance from the drinks industry, and insufficient public pressure to overcome this.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="f6174889-ae44-43d1-8a3d-217e32077173" CreationDate="2013-03-11T00:13:13.033" UserId="339" Text="In the last years I have been very concerned about the incredible waste of water from washing machine that could be easily used for toile use, but up to now I have not found an easy way apart from filling some containers and manually lifting them for toilet use. THis is a very unsatisfying solution as the containers (around 20 litres) are heavy and the filling needs to be always supervised. Are there ways to easily connect waters from washing machine to toilet in a more efficient way? Do you knw if this solution has been thought of by engineers? In my two years experimentation I have reduced the water consumption by half. I think this would be a very interesting way to have a sustainable water consumption in the house, leaving clean fresh water only for important processes (cooking, dish washing, personal igiene...)&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for replying." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1801" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="f6174889-ae44-43d1-8a3d-217e32077173" CreationDate="2013-03-11T00:13:13.033" UserId="339" Text="How to recover water from washing machine for toilet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1802" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="f6174889-ae44-43d1-8a3d-217e32077173" CreationDate="2013-03-11T00:13:13.033" UserId="339" Text="|recycling|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="9be6ed16-86bb-48b6-98dc-3084d084d416" CreationDate="2013-03-11T02:13:20.557" UserId="318" Text="Most washing machines pump water out. The pump is not intended to have a very high &quot;head&quot; or lift distance above floor level, but must have enough pressure to piump water above the level of a wash-tub as this is usually what is used as the water drain. Such pumps will be able to pump water &quot;somewhat higher&quot;. Flow rate will drop with increasing height, but a tank mounted slightly above toilet tank level will be able to be filled. From there it is &quot;easy enough&quot; to take a pipe to the toilet water inlet.  If desired you could use an independent inlet with its own valve so the mains feed is left in place with the tap turned off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that washing machine water will contain soap scum and dirt from clothes, which is liable to build up in storage tank, cistern and vales and pipe and need occasional cleaning. Filtering, settling and careful positioning of the toilet feed pipe ebtry will minimise this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small electric pump could be used to transfer water from a lower level tank or a handpump could be used. You may wish to figure pump and pumping costs into your calculations if you want to know how &quot;green&quot; your solution is overall. In my country (New Zealand) the water for a toilet cistern fill costs about 3 cents and the electricity required to lift this one meter (assuming a fairly inefficient system) costs about 0.01 cents, so the reuse costs about 300 times less. Electric pumps can come from windscreen washer pumps (good lift, low rate, more easily blocked, usually 12V operation), electric washing machine pumps (fairly ideal: mains powered, OK lift, find in junk-yard) and more. Only some washing machine pumps are electrically powered - older ones tend to use mechanical drive using the main motor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="632" RevisionGUID="fbc00355-f357-4604-94af-5c134bfb5be1" CreationDate="2013-03-11T02:29:54.773" UserId="318" Text="Short: Lithium Ferro Phosphate - a Lithium variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Longer:  Of the more commonly available cells, the NimH cells mentioned by Eric are as good as most from a efficiency and sustainability point of view. Low self discharge adds to energy efficiency if you only use them occasionally. If used daily then self discharge is less important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new Eneloop batteries have much longer cycle lifetimes that the old ones - the new ones have a &quot;crown&quot; symbol on them. Take great care - many people sell the old style ones and claim them to be new and there are many fakes/clones/ripoffs made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NimH cells contain Nickel which is not one of the banned &quot;ROHS&quot; materials but has some disposal impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are prepared to use less standard voltages - ie will not drop straight in to a standard torch or radio, then lithium Ion (LiIon) can be good. Energy discharge/charge efficiency is good and if the circuitry is designed well the cycle life can be 1000+ cycles. LiIon are capable of extremely violent destruction if faulty. &quot;Vent with flames&quot; is a cute but descriptive term sometimes used. cf Dream Liner batteries :-(.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best of all, but less know so far, are lithium Ferro Phosphate (LiFePO4). These are related to Lithium Ion but have an inbuilt crystalline structure which prevents mechanical &quot;pumping&quot; during use cycles and allows very long lifetimes. Cycle lives of 3000 cycles are reasonably easily achieved and larger versions with special care can get 5000++ cycle. Energy out/in efficiency is excellent and they work over extended temperature ranges (say -20C to +60C) and allow higher discharge rates than most LiIon. They are very stable and do not have LiIons melt-down mode. You can drive a spike through their heart and not provoke them to violence. If the dreamliners had used these they would still be flying.&#xD;&#xA;LiFePO4 have lower energy densities than LiIon or NimH (larger or heavier for same energy stored) so are less favoured by those who insist on the very lightest or very smallest devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiIon and LiFePO4 are both environmentally friendly. Discharge them fully (especially LiIon) then drill multiple holes through them and leave soaking in water. Dilute and pour on garden :-). [Lithium can be commercially extracted from sea-water - sending it back there in dilute form is sending it home).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiFePO4 cost MORE per energy to buy but give the lowest cost of whole lifetime ownership of any available battery, they are about as energy efficient as any, and are probably about as environmentally friendly as you can reasonably get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1805" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="f45de2cd-926f-4987-808a-3e078b922902" CreationDate="2013-03-11T04:36:06.330" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/310972374575091713" />
  <row Id="1806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="c32f306d-b589-4380-977f-5358768a3d48" CreationDate="2013-03-11T10:56:17.187" UserId="96" Text="Often, a [Lifecycle Assessment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment) (LCA) can be useful to judge the ecological and social impact of a product or procedure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What tools to produce an LCA are freely available?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially of interest would be tools with a shallow learning curve, that allow a casual user (who doesn't write LCAs every day) to asses a product quickly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="c32f306d-b589-4380-977f-5358768a3d48" CreationDate="2013-03-11T10:56:17.187" UserId="96" Text="What are freely available tools or databases for Lifecycle Assesment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="c32f306d-b589-4380-977f-5358768a3d48" CreationDate="2013-03-11T10:56:17.187" UserId="96" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1809" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="390" RevisionGUID="796414a9-1f3a-4028-be54-ccd92ea33ce4" CreationDate="2013-03-11T12:30:18.223" UserId="106" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vehicle|fuel-efficiency|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1810" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="7fe73295-9809-4e82-a9a3-2cbfa54b6d6d" CreationDate="2013-03-11T12:30:25.587" UserId="106" Comment="edited tags" Text="|electricity|fuel-efficiency|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1811" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="6bbc9b9d-1ebe-4409-82a1-76cce0ecac0e" CreationDate="2013-03-11T12:30:38.803" UserId="106" Comment="edited tags" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|externalities|hybrid-vehicles|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1812" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="df2dd443-311f-4b12-b75b-6fccc5244fb1" CreationDate="2013-03-11T12:31:22.873" UserId="106" Comment="edited tags" Text="|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1813" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="495" RevisionGUID="cc6b233f-2329-4d0c-81e9-b12e9053881c" CreationDate="2013-03-11T12:31:35.090" UserId="106" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vehicle|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1814" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="6afaf091-a690-49a8-8c3f-134a1cb7cd42" CreationDate="2013-03-11T12:31:56.087" UserId="106" Comment="edited tags" Text="|cars|vehicle|hybrid-vehicles|biodiesel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="3571ab7c-186f-484f-8d30-ac23704fb5ff" CreationDate="2013-03-11T12:51:57.710" UserId="330" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="I use Sanyo Eneloop recharchables (1.2 volts in size AA and AAA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a very high lifetime, do not self-discharge as other NiMH and NiCad accumulators do, and have a high current untill they are empty (alkaline batteries have a much lower current and a linearly decreasing voltage—therefore alkalines are not suitable for digital cameras and the like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The high lifetime is—non-exclusively—due to the low self-discharge. Common NiMH accumulators laying around break, because of deep discharge (below 1.0 volt). The newest version has part number HR-3UTGB (AA size) oder HR-4UTGB (AAA size). They have 1800 unload/load cycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some exhaustive long time trials on the web (mostly from private persons) which proof the long life time of these batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Converters for AA or AAA to C and D exist for a low price, if you need bigger batteries for some old devices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1816" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="a59f05b2-bc14-4da7-a21d-d5c38ef1441d" CreationDate="2013-03-11T13:36:50.163" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/311108454024626176" />
  <row Id="1817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="632" RevisionGUID="18f5ae19-8d63-48b2-a870-95d8bab021a6" CreationDate="2013-03-11T13:46:34.390" UserId="318" Comment="added 362 characters in body" Text="Short: Lithium Ferro Phosphate - a Lithium variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Longer:  Of the more commonly available cells, the NimH cells mentioned by Eric are as good as most from a efficiency and sustainability point of view. Low self discharge adds to energy efficiency if you only use them occasionally. If used daily then self discharge is less important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new Eneloop batteries have much longer cycle lifetimes that the old ones - the new ones have a &quot;crown&quot; symbol on them. Take great care - many people sell the old style ones and claim them to be new and there are many fakes/clones/ripoffs made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NimH cells contain Nickel which is not one of the banned &quot;ROHS&quot; materials but has some disposal impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are prepared to use less standard voltages - ie will not drop straight in to a standard torch or radio, then lithium Ion (LiIon) can be good. Energy discharge/charge efficiency is good and if the circuitry is designed well the cycle life can be 1000+ cycles. LiIon are capable of extremely violent destruction if faulty. &quot;Vent with flames&quot; is a cute but descriptive term sometimes used. cf Dream Liner batteries :-(.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best of all, but less know so far, are lithium Ferro Phosphate (LiFePO4). These are related to Lithium Ion but have an inbuilt crystalline structure which prevents mechanical &quot;pumping&quot; during use cycles and allows very long lifetimes. Cycle lives of 3000 cycles are reasonably easily achieved and larger versions with special care can get 5000++ cycle. Energy out/in efficiency is excellent and they work over extended temperature ranges (say -20C to +60C) and allow higher discharge rates than most LiIon. They are very stable and do not have LiIons melt-down mode. You can drive a spike through their heart and not provoke them to violence. If the dreamliners had used these they would still be flying.&#xD;&#xA;LiFePO4 have lower energy densities than LiIon or NimH (larger or heavier for same energy stored) so are less favoured by those who insist on the very lightest or very smallest devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiIon and LiFePO4 are both environmentally friendly. Discharge them fully (especially LiIon) then drill multiple holes through them and leave soaking in water. Dilute and pour on garden :-). [Lithium can be commercially extracted from sea-water - sending it back there in dilute form is sending it home).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiFePO4 cost MORE per energy to buy but give the lowest cost of whole lifetime ownership of any available battery, they are about as energy efficient as any, and are probably about as environmentally friendly as you can reasonably get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good site for battery information in general is [**Battery University**](http://batteryuniversity.com/). They provide a wide range of information on more battery  types than most people will ever meet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most major battery manufacturers provide detailed technical information on web but this can be hard to locate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="74c82be8-5308-4277-acfd-7948f2787bff" CreationDate="2013-03-11T15:38:42.683" UserId="15" Comment="fixed spelling, add greywater tag" Text="In the last years I have been very concerned about the incredible waste of water from washing machine that could be easily used for toilet use, but up to now I have not found an easy way apart from filling some containers and manually lifting them for toilet use. This is a very unsatisfying solution as the containers (around 20 litres) are heavy and the filling needs to be always supervised. Are there ways to easily connect waters from washing machine to toilet in a more efficient way? Do you know if this solution has been thought of by engineers? In my two years experimentation I have reduced the water consumption by half. I think this would be a very interesting way to have a sustainable water consumption in the house, leaving clean fresh water only for important processes (cooking, dish washing, personal hygiene...)&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for replying." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1819" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="74c82be8-5308-4277-acfd-7948f2787bff" CreationDate="2013-03-11T15:38:42.683" UserId="15" Comment="fixed spelling, add greywater tag" Text="|recycling|water|greywater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1820" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="630" RevisionGUID="74c82be8-5308-4277-acfd-7948f2787bff" CreationDate="2013-03-11T15:38:42.683" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by 117 edit id of 90" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1821" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="707b2bde-23c0-479c-a360-42ce91020f64" CreationDate="2013-03-11T16:36:50.427" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/311153754437193730" />
  <row Id="1822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="6a051008-0765-41aa-9da8-0ed3e9f6c5d7" CreationDate="2013-03-11T21:19:48.607" UserId="85" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="In Germany there is a system, just the way you describe it. It is something like, anything container that contains a drink, which is not a milk product has to charge extra money for the container (e.g. bottle), which is to be refunded on return of the container. (Aluminium cans are also exempt.) There is a special word for this amount of money, which at the moment is 0.25€ for plastic bottles and 0.08€ for glass bottles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the Coca-Cola company wasn't happy about their customers having to pay extra money for just the bottle, and having to bring the bottle back somewhere, so the German Coca-Cola contains fractional amount of whey, which allowed them to classify Coca-Cola as milk product...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, other than that the recycling system seems to work quite well. Glass bottles are being reused. Even plastic bottles for water are manufactured to be stronger and are being reused. There are a number of standard bottles for manufacturers to choose from. The picture shows the standard glass bottle for (weakly carbonated) mineral water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![water bottles](http://www.fotostudio-bonn.de/lizenzfreie-bilder/Gruene-Mineralwasserflaschen-9266.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the customer is done, he can bring the bottles to his nearest supermarket. Likely they will have a machine, where you put all your bottles in (full cases 1-by-1, bottles 2 at a time). The machine then gives you a voucher over the refunded money, which you can either turn into cash at the till, or use against your next shopping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Returning used bottles](http://www.express.de/image/view/2012/10/5/20791326,16331438,highRes,i0jqthar.bmp.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past 20 years I haven't heard of any health issues associated with reused bottles. The caps are always new and I don't think it is very difficult to sterilize bottles large scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a last point, the Green dot system you mention does endure, at least in Germany, but is about _recycling_ and not _reusing_ a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It hasn't always been this way, but now my family's separated trash is (by weight)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. organic waste that is to be composted,&#xD;&#xA;2. bottles/jars that are to be reused,&#xD;&#xA;3. paper that is to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;3. jars that are to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;4. plastics that are to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;5. waste that is not to be reused or recycled (usually land-fill).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="632" RevisionGUID="fba486ea-9047-4b89-a148-2c9c959fd5b8" CreationDate="2013-03-12T01:22:23.460" UserId="318" Comment="added 3114 characters in body" Text="**Short:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For equipment which takes &quot;standard size&quot; plug in AA / C / D cells -   &#xD;&#xA;**-&gt;**  Low self discharge NimH cells or batteries.   &#xD;&#xA; Sanyo Eneloop are an excellent example of this technology, but not the only choice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For equipment which can be designed to make best use of the battery - and best result overall   &#xD;&#xA;**-&gt;** Lithium Ferro Phosphate - a Lithium variant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Longer:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use cells which can be inserted in equipment designed to use &quot;standard 1.5V&quot; AA or C or D cells, or 9V 'PP3' 'transistor radio type' batteries, then a &quot;LSD&quot; (low self discharge) long cycle life NimH is probably the best choice overall. These provide good sustainability through good use of energy, long number of cycles so less recycling, and relatively benign breakdown products. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are now a large number of brands of low self discharge NimH batteries available. Of these the best known and best specified and probably &quot;safest bet&quot; are the Sanyo Eneloop cells that **Eric** mentioned. Others may also be very good, but technical information is usually far less available than for Eneloops cells, and many less known brands will be sourced from equally unknown makers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The new Eneloop batteries have much longer cycle lifetimes that the old ones - the new ones have a &quot;crown&quot; symbol on them. Take great care - many people sell the old style ones and claim them to be new and there are many fakes/clones/ripoffs made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NimH cells contain Nickel which is not one of the banned &quot;ROHS&quot; materials but has some disposal impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**LiIon:** If you are prepared to use less standard voltages - ie will not drop straight in to a standard torch or radio, then lithium Ion (LiIon) can be good. Energy discharge/charge efficiency is good. Cycle life is usually about 500 cycles, but if the circuitry is designed well and a reduction in available capacity is acceptable then the cycle life can be 1000+ cycles. LiIon are capable of extremely violent destruction if faulty. &quot;Vent with flames&quot; is a cute but descriptive term sometimes used. cf Dream Liner batteries :-(.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Best of all**, but less know so far, are **Lithium Ferro Phosphate** (LiFePO4). These are related to Lithium Ion but have an inbuilt crystalline (&quot;Olivine&quot;) structure which prevents mechanical &quot;pumping&quot; during use cycles and allows very long lifetimes, at the cost of reduced capacity per size or weight due to the need to included the electrically inactive Olivine structure). Cycle lives of 3000 cycles are reasonably easily achieved and larger versions with special care can get 5000++ cycle. Energy out/in efficiency is excellent and they work over extended temperature ranges (say -20C to +60C) and allow higher discharge rates than most LiIon. They are very stable and do not have LiIons melt-down mode. You can drive a spike through their heart and not provoke them to violence. If the dreamliners had used these they would still be flying.&#xD;&#xA;LiFePO4 have lower energy densities than LiIon or NimH (larger or heavier for same energy stored) so are less favoured by those who insist on the very lightest or very smallest devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiIon and LiFePO4 are both environmentally friendly. Discharge them fully (especially LiIon) then drill multiple holes through them and leave soaking in water. Dilute and pour on garden :-). [Lithium can be commercially extracted from sea-water - sending it back there in dilute form is sending it home).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiFePO4 cost MORE per energy to buy but give the lowest cost of whole lifetime ownership of any available battery, they are about as energy efficient as any, and are probably about as environmentally friendly as you can reasonably get. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good site for battery information in general is [**Battery University**](http://batteryuniversity.com/). They provide a wide range of information on more battery  types than most people will ever meet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most major battery manufacturers provide detailed technical information on web but this can be hard to locate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is [**Eveready's technical information page**](http://data.energizer.com/DataSheets.aspx) with links to their various products.   &#xD;&#xA;Here is their [**NimH page**](http://data.energizer.com/SearchResult.aspx) - usefully, they list both current and obsolete products, allowing comparisons. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Here is [**Duracell's product finder**](http://www.duracell.com/en-US/Global-Technical-Content-Library/Product-Data-Sheets.jspx) with inks to data sheets and more. Also [Duracell specification sheets page](http://www.duracell.com/procell/en-US/technical-reference/data-specification-sheets.jspx). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ENELOOP:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;Candle Power Forums&quot; is an excellent website for a very wide range of discusssions of all things to do with portable lighting including LEDs, batteries and more.   &#xD;&#xA;Here is a CPF disucssion on [**Eneloop - Performqnce details for experts**](http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?219301-Eneloop-Performance-Details-for-Experts) which is useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is [**Eneloops home page** {USA}](http://us.sanyo.com/eneloop) with a fairly glossy presenttaion style but some good information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note carefully that there are 3 types of Eneloop cells. Standard, XXX and lite. Standard are rated at about 20000 mAh capacity in the AA size (14500) and about 1500 cycle life. The lite has about half the mAh capacity but a 2000 cycle life. The XXX have higher capacity (about 2500 mAh in AA) but about 500 cycle life. The standard and lite versions have extremely low self discharge compared to conventional NimH cells - useful capacity remaining at 3 years under specified storage conditions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there are 1st and 2nd generatin standard versisons being sold. Buyer beware! - some sellers clain cells are the new version when they are not.   &#xD;&#xA;Sanyo say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1500 times rechargeable eneloop battery (2nd generation) has a dark gray cover around the positive electrode and a crown logo on the side. HR-3UTGA (AA) / HR-4UTGA (AAA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1000 times rechargeable eneloop battery (1st generation) has a white cover around the positive electrode and there isn't a crown logo on the side. HR-3UTG (AA) / HR-4UTG (AAA)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1824" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="633" RevisionGUID="2483ba9c-0799-4843-8f98-844cbe4794f3" CreationDate="2013-03-12T01:37:33.777" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/311289831135272960" />
  <row Id="1825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="4db27d71-b5dd-4205-b426-a948e09106ff" CreationDate="2013-03-12T04:32:44.483" UserId="130" Text="Looking for some alternatives for air fresheners.  I have been looking at various alternatives such as coffee grounds (possibly in a muslin bag), and the like.  What works here?  I would rather get away from the current mass-produced air freshioners that are currently used in cars and homes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="4db27d71-b5dd-4205-b426-a948e09106ff" CreationDate="2013-03-12T04:32:44.483" UserId="130" Text="Most sustainable way to freshen air?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="4db27d71-b5dd-4205-b426-a948e09106ff" CreationDate="2013-03-12T04:32:44.483" UserId="130" Text="|home|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1828" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3" RevisionGUID="1478f945-2637-4b27-8363-6a48ee60fd98" CreationDate="2013-03-12T10:37:47.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/311425784805982208" />
  <row Id="1829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="635" RevisionGUID="350cdd03-ffa0-42bc-b4ec-b6832fc81494" CreationDate="2013-03-12T13:14:18.683" UserId="28" Text="My community compost pile is now home to a very active ant's nest.  As soon as any food goes on the pile, the ants are swarming over it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it anything to worry about, or are the ants a healthy part of the system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="635" RevisionGUID="350cdd03-ffa0-42bc-b4ec-b6832fc81494" CreationDate="2013-03-12T13:14:18.683" UserId="28" Text="Ants and Compost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="635" RevisionGUID="350cdd03-ffa0-42bc-b4ec-b6832fc81494" CreationDate="2013-03-12T13:14:18.683" UserId="28" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="4f1f6ebd-4de9-435f-8186-b52f6de605c6" CreationDate="2013-03-12T13:34:33.253" UserId="130" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="Looking for some alternatives for air fresheners.  I have been looking at various alternatives such as coffee grounds (possibly in a muslin bag), and the like.  What works here?  I would rather get away from the current mass-produced air freshioners that are currently used in cars and homes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue here is that I am in a situation where I have inlaws complaining about odors in cars etc and they are used to air fresheners in these cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="636" RevisionGUID="5c960d00-627a-4917-8f80-c72f3c8df52e" CreationDate="2013-03-12T15:53:07.730" UserId="212" Text="All you need to do is position a tank (herein called catchment tank), large enough for the wash water volume, above the height of the toilet tank with a downspout into the toilet tank inlet.  It will be helpful to place a tightly woven screen or loosely woven synthetic fabric over the outlet of the catchment tank.  That will filter out most of the debris that would interfere with the operation of your toilet's fill valve.  You will also want an overflow drain positioned so that excess wash water doesn't overflow the catchment tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no need to pressurize the catchment tank, gravity can do all the work, just keep in mind it will fill your toilet at a slower rate than the fresh water supply does.  The rate of fill will be determined by the diameter of the pipe between the catchment and toilet tanks, and more importantly the difference in their height.  The frequency you clean the filter will vary with your usage and filter material." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="637" RevisionGUID="b5c5da72-8d9d-4d43-bbe8-d8b6d2424374" CreationDate="2013-03-12T17:39:51.983" UserId="212" Text="From a pure sustainability viewpoint NiMH are probably the best.  Their performance is still acceptable relative to other technologies, but the manufacturing is likely the least harmful to the environment of the mainstream types and the materials are definitely require the least amount of energy to recycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, all means of electricity storage are inherently problematic when it comes to sustainable practices.  Using energy as it is produced will always have lower impact on the world around you than attempting to store it and retrieve it later.  In other words, that battery that gets used the least is probably most sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="638" RevisionGUID="122716da-76bf-4c03-ada6-a4e6e6ff2f72" CreationDate="2013-03-12T18:06:04.467" UserId="212" Text="Any kind of potpourri is the most sustainable option.  The Fabreeze product is also surprisingly low impact and quite effective.  Regular automotive type air fresheners actually aren't that bad, though.  Usually their a paper base soaked in various alcohols and esters.  All of those things are produced from renewable sources and decompose readily." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="c90bcfe0-9303-4613-b5af-28bcabc24691" CreationDate="2013-03-12T23:19:33.970" UserId="274" Text="My fan takes 3 chandelier base bulbs; I traditionally use incandescent flame tips, but since they're behind frosted glass, I don't really care.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having just replaced my dimm-able recessed light with Utilitech dimm-able LEDs, and being quite pleased with the results, I want to do the same to this fan.  Unfortunately, I can't find bulbs with equivalent brightness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The light is currently dimm-able, and the bulb slots say 75W - 125V.  Since I can't even get 75W incandescent bulbs anymore, so I figured I'd do LED or (less-preferably) fluorescent bulbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="c90bcfe0-9303-4613-b5af-28bcabc24691" CreationDate="2013-03-12T23:19:33.970" UserId="274" Text="Are there any bright chandelier base LED bulbs equivalent to a 60-75 Watt incandescent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="c90bcfe0-9303-4613-b5af-28bcabc24691" CreationDate="2013-03-12T23:19:33.970" UserId="274" Text="|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1839" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="4b753598-5b9d-4717-9c89-9dfbc31508f0" CreationDate="2013-03-13T04:39:02.083" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/311697888013070339" />
  <row Id="1840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="640" RevisionGUID="fb301818-8b75-4c3d-bfac-7634951541d1" CreationDate="2013-03-13T07:31:41.580" UserId="48" Text="The best way would be to **remove the source of the odours, and ventilate properly**. Consider using **an antiseptic solution for cleaning**, which will help kill the bacteria that can cause persistent odours from things such as absorbed sweat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second-best way is to **circulate the air through an activated charcoal filter**, which will remove smelly contaminants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly, if you just want to mask the odours, then there are plenty of **sustainably-farmed smelly oils that can soak into paper** to provide slow-release fragrances.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="641" RevisionGUID="330f9eff-2a7a-4e25-9a0d-64e1fe5bd90f" CreationDate="2013-03-13T08:38:42.140" UserId="15" Text="Recently when we picked a crop of basil for making pesto the house was filled with the aroma. Obviously I'm not the only one who's noticed this, as Googling *make your own herb air freshener* returns a lot of relevant results. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This one][1] specifically suggests just putting some leaves in some newspaper in your car, which might be suitable for your purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other suitable substances appear to include lavender, rosemary, thyme, mint, cinnamon, and citrus peel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://lifehacker.com/5944860/use-herbs-as-an-all+natural-air-freshener" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="642" RevisionGUID="98206bf1-d004-4011-b514-9cc2ba749311" CreationDate="2013-03-13T11:34:09.640" UserId="99" Text="Ants in your compost heap are not a problem. The ants can be a benefit by helping cut heap material in tiny pieces, making tunnels and spreading fungi.&#xD;&#xA;However, if your heap is their home (did you find ant eggs in your heap?) that usually means that the heap is not functioning properly. It may not be wet enough or not heat up properly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want the ants to leave, turn and moisten the contents regularly. Spreading the contents and leaving it for a few days will also help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="f34e8d9f-1e9c-4883-8188-e15edfd5984a" CreationDate="2013-03-13T14:06:19.200" UserId="274" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="My fan takes 3 candelabra (E12) base bulbs; I traditionally use incandescent flame tips, but since they're behind frosted glass, I don't really care.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having just replaced my dimm-able recessed light with Utilitech dimm-able LEDs, and being quite pleased with the results, I want to do the same to this fan.  Unfortunately, I can't find bulbs with equivalent brightness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The light is currently dimm-able, and the bulb slots say 75W - 125V.  Since I can't even get 75W incandescent bulbs anymore, so I figured I'd do LED or (less-preferably) fluorescent bulbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1845" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="f34e8d9f-1e9c-4883-8188-e15edfd5984a" CreationDate="2013-03-13T14:06:19.200" UserId="274" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="Are there any bright candelabra base LED bulbs equivalent to a 60-75 Watt incandescent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="643" RevisionGUID="94f02b62-ee88-4605-b5a9-412ad2919784" CreationDate="2013-03-13T14:53:21.567" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="I would be more concerned with what you are throwing out than the amount of it.  Some activities have inherently more waste than others.  Some waste is can be re-purposed or reused instead of going to a landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old clothes - Those that no longer fit anyone but that are in good shape can be donated.  Those that fit but have holes can be mended and used as work cloths.  Those beyond mending may be suitable to be cut up and used as rags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scrap Wood - Especially used lumber in good shape should be saved and reused. Create a pile of scrap lumber and use the wood from that pile for projects before getting new lumber.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastics - It is practically impossible to purchasing anything today that has no plastic content.  Try to restrict purchases to items that at least use recyclable plastic.  re-purpose before recycling.  Then Recycle what you can.  Make note of any plastic you have to throw away so that you can avoid those products in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organic and Food waste. - Ideally this is the majority of your waste and most of it is used for composting.  Most of this waste should be things like peelings, shells, and cuttoffs.  If you are discarding/composting large amounts of leftover food then you are preparing to much food for each meal.  Work to create right sized meals and/or eat the left overs before they spoil.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="228c868b-e59a-4e73-8814-e1167f96c030" CreationDate="2013-03-14T00:42:10.577" UserId="319" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I (a single person, me, myself) fill and dispose a 30 liter bin every couple of days, and I feel uncomfortable with it, but I don't have a benchmark. What I want to know is considered normal waste generation per capita; if you can narrow it to recyclable, organic and inorganic, that'd be lovely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the conception, that to have a neutral carbon footprint inorganic, non-recyclable waste should be 0, is that right? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="614" RevisionGUID="0426220f-d8cc-410e-a956-0b351d959603" CreationDate="2013-03-14T11:18:19.957" UserId="353" Comment="maybe not everyone knows about the TL;DR acronym" Text="Since this is a part of the defining sustainability series, I am adding my own perspective here.  Other perspectives of course are welcome and the whole purpose is to provide public insight into what's on and off topic here so please vote on these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problems @Pitt noted above are design issues with well understood solutions, which include biodiversity for starters (so that removing part of one species enables fallback on others).  The larger barrier of course is knowledge.  Permaculture involves working smarter rather than harder, and so reducing the overall energy inputs.  This means humans have to do most stuff, you can't leave it to machines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that permaculture is an important aspect of any attempt to become sustainable because it is sustainable itself, because we must mimic natural ecosystems in our own approaches to material and waste management, and because it cultivates interconnected and sustainable communities on all levels.  This is not to say that there aren't challenges regarding human inputs and knowledge levels, and that these may have impacts elsewhere.  On the whole, I think that widespread permaculture is a good thing however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Permaculture is Sustainable Itself**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Permaculture is sustainable with few external inputs.  Permaculture utilizes processes of evolutionary ecology to replace most of the external direct energy inputs aside from the sun, as well as all indirect inputs beyond the initial design and implementation phase.  This largely cuts fossil fuels out of the system of food production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Permaculture utilizes carefully chosen plants and domestic animals, as well as sometimes wildlife, for pest control.  For example one might plant thorny hedges to keep deer out of the food production area, while providing habitat for birds of prey so that that they can prevent rodents from becoming a problem.  Pests an never be entirely eliminated because predators always lag behind pests, but in this way they can be controlled so that they do not cause substantial damage in established permacultures.  A good beginner's book on this subject is [Gaia's Garden](http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-Second-Home-Scale-Permaculture/dp/1603580298).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second point is that species are arranged in ways which mutually support eachother.  I haven't been able to experiment with this but a example of an area where this might be helpful might be co-raising cattle and horses, together in an area that has snow so as to minimize the need for hay.  Cattle won't eat what they can't see so they tend to starve quickly when it snows, but horses will kick the snow away to eat.  Thus the horses can be used to help the cattle forage in winter.  If areas are maintained with sufficient forage, hay may not even be necessary (there are recorded cases of cowboys with herds stuck in winter storms following mustang herds in order to ensure the cattle could eat, and thus saving their herds).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Necessity for Material Lifecycles to Mimic Ecosystems**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an ecosystem, the waste product of one species or element becomes the input of another.  Bears poop in the woods.  Micro-organisms break down the poop and they release waste products which plants take in.  Those plants may produce fruit and the bears eat the fruit.  The bears then poop and the cycle repeats.  This example shows the way in which nutrient cycles work in ecosystems, re-using and re-cycling all components and over time building quality soils and very efficient ways of transforming current solar energy into biological energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability requires, among other things, that we stop polluting our environment with things which cannot readily be re-used in the biological context.  For this reason it is very important to develop closed material lifecycles.  Our current factory-to-landfill must eventually be replaced with a closed cycle where very little if anything ends up in land fills because everything is re-used in some context or another.  Doing this requires in essence having the output or waste of one system becoming the input of another.  Recycling is one way this can happen (re-use is another), but either way waste must be re-purposed as an asset.  An example might be privatizing sewage treatment, not as a waste disposal service, but as a series of cooking gas and fertilizer factories.  Waste products which cannot be recycled can be re-used in unexpected ways, such as building things out of &quot;urbanite.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The shift in thinking from a factory to landfill pipeline to a series of interconnected and infinitely continuous series of material lifecycles (akin to the water cycle, or to nutrient cycles in ecosystems), is absolutely necessary to achieving sustainability, and permaculture teaches this quite a bit.  This is a reason why I am such of a fan of urban permaculture.  While the idea of feeding a family of 4 on a city lot is probably unrealistic, the lessons learned about sustainability and the increase in free time from doing so (instead of high maintenance flower gardens!) is well worth it.  Most of my &quot;flower gardens&quot; also produce fruits and veggies, they look nice, and they require very, very little maintenance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainable Communities**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The emphasis on the output of one component being the input of another has the potential at least to build close-knit, sustainable communities through garden exchanges, and also things like thinking about what one can re-use things that would otherwise be discarded.  Urbanite as a building material for small projects (say outdoor pizza ovens) comes to mind but the possibilities here are really endless.  The more we think about what we can do with waste, the less of it ends up being discarded in unsustainable ways and the closer we become as communities as we utilize the waste products of neighbors and vice versa,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainability Challenges**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big one actually is manpower (and this is an issue for most green energy too btw but for very different reasons), and the second is education.  Building permacultures requires years of practice and/or significant training.  It also turns food production into an intellectually challenging activity.  However it is also less physically challenging than conventional agriculture in many cases, and so there are possibilities of closing loops here.  The problem with manpower though is not so easily overlooked.  With modern fossil-fuel-based agriculture it is not hard for an individual to successfully farm vast tracts of land, possibly in the hundreds of acres, with only seasonal help.  Permaculture requires more *people* to be working in food production.  It also requires that people make more careful choices regarding foods to consume (grains are less sustainable than chestnuts for example, and wheat is less sustainable than rice).  More people in &quot;farming&quot; full-time means fewer people engineering green energy solutions and the like.  Competition for manpower is thus a significant concern as I see it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR - Short version**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see permaculture as pretty close to a necessity for achieving sustainability both due to its direct effects and also its indirect effects.  I also see permaculture ultimately as the best current training ground for the sorts of patterns we must develop in order to achieve sustainability generally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1849" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="614" RevisionGUID="0426220f-d8cc-410e-a956-0b351d959603" CreationDate="2013-03-14T11:18:19.957" Comment="Proposed by 353 approved by 130 edit id of 91" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="644" RevisionGUID="d5e0c010-91f1-48ca-91c3-c3097fb83bbc" CreationDate="2013-03-14T16:25:57.750" UserId="33" Text="One if the issues with LCA is that it's very data intensive, and that generic products/processes can be subject to a lot of uncertainty. These factors merit a need for time investment to generate the data, standardize it, and develop tools for using it. That's why the products are expensive, often have high learning curves, and why people take multiple semester course sequences to learn about LCA. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, some of the raw data is free - the [US LCI][1] database is, and can be combined with LCIA tools like [ReCiPe][2] in Excel to get 'interpretable' impacts like GHG emissions. That won't fulfill the 'easy' part right away, but some Python or Excel macros would likely make it pretty functional for everyday use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative might be something like [Sustainable Minds][3], which is not free, but is designed to be very easy to use. It's aimed at designers and iteration, so it might not be ideal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One sidenote is that assessing the social impacts of products/processes is something that's still very much in basic research. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR: There's a reason LCA tools cost money, and it's because it requires a lot of time and effort to generate the underlying data. You can either deal with a free but limited subset of the data and invest time, or invest money, perhaps in a simpler tool.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nrel.gov/lci/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lcia-recipe.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sustainableminds.com/software" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="d8095a96-3983-4e0d-ad01-9985b22a1d63" CreationDate="2013-03-14T17:57:25.057" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="A [2010 NYT article][1] using BioChar to sequester carbon and improve soil quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is BioChar?  Is it possible to use it in a small scale to improve my garden? How do I figure out the best amount to use?  If a home garden is too small scale to have any effect what is the minimum scale needed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/09/07/07greenwire-once-lowly-charcoal-emerges-as-major-tool-for-c-4963.html?pagewanted=all" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1852" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="d8095a96-3983-4e0d-ad01-9985b22a1d63" CreationDate="2013-03-14T17:57:25.057" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="What is BioChar and can I use it to improve my garden?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1853" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="d8095a96-3983-4e0d-ad01-9985b22a1d63" CreationDate="2013-03-14T17:57:25.057" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="|decarbonisation|sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="643" RevisionGUID="ad8e1ba4-6686-451c-b5ff-a325df8bdfd4" CreationDate="2013-03-14T18:12:51.663" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="added 557 characters in body" Text="I would be more concerned with what you are throwing out than the amount of it.  Some activities have inherently more waste than others.  Some waste is can be re-purposed or reused instead of going to a landfill.  So instead of worrying if you are generating too much waste, work to reduce the waste you are generating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old clothes - Those that no longer fit anyone but that are in good shape can be donated.  Those that fit but have holes can be mended and used as work cloths.  Those beyond mending may be suitable to be cut up and used as rags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scrap Wood - Especially used lumber in good shape should be saved and reused. Create a pile of scrap lumber and use the wood from that pile for projects before getting new lumber.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastics - It is practically impossible to purchasing anything today that has no plastic content.  Try to restrict purchases to items that at least use recyclable plastic.  re-purpose before recycling.  Then Recycle what you can.  Make note of any plastic you have to throw away so that you can avoid those products in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organic and Food waste. - Ideally this is the majority of your waste and most of it is used for composting.  Most of this waste should be things like peelings, shells, and cuttoffs.  If you are discarding/composting large amounts of leftover food then you are preparing to much food for each meal.  Work to create right sized meals and/or eat the left overs before they spoil.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paper and Cardboard.  Not all created equally. Paper that has not been glued is more recyclable than paper that has.  This is especially true with magazines that have a glued binding.  You can cut the pages off of the binding to improve the amount that will be recyclable.  Avoid laminated paper and cardboard.  This is virtually useless when recycling.  Try and limit your purchases to  items that are packaged in reusable or recyclable packaging." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="ec51da39-8a2b-4fdc-8840-4d426c2fb306" CreationDate="2013-03-14T18:20:24.713" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="&gt; [Ecovillages][1] are intentional communities with the goal of becoming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; more socially, economically and ecologically sustainable. Some aim for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a population of 50–150 individuals. Larger ecovillages of up to 2,000&#xD;&#xA;&gt; individuals exist as networks of smaller subcommunities to create an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ecovillage model that allows for social networks within a broader&#xD;&#xA;&gt; foundation of support. Certain ecovillages have grown by the nearby&#xD;&#xA;&gt; addition of others, not necessarily members, settling on the periphery&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the ecovillage and effectively participating in the ecovillage&#xD;&#xA;&gt; community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I find information on  that are looking to form, looking for new members, or looking for others to trade with so I can support their movement?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecovillages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1856" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="ec51da39-8a2b-4fdc-8840-4d426c2fb306" CreationDate="2013-03-14T18:20:24.713" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="How can I find information on Ecovillages?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1857" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="ec51da39-8a2b-4fdc-8840-4d426c2fb306" CreationDate="2013-03-14T18:20:24.713" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="|balanced-ecosystems|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="3f551350-722b-4a57-a0d5-c019bcdde304" CreationDate="2013-03-14T18:31:57.563" UserId="45" Text="A buddy of mine is interested in attempting to grow Hops in an aquaponic system.  He is particularly interested in something of the deep water culture style of system.  Is this possible with Hops?  If so - what methods have you used to attempt this?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="3f551350-722b-4a57-a0d5-c019bcdde304" CreationDate="2013-03-14T18:31:57.563" UserId="45" Text="How can you grow Hops (for beer) in an aquaponics system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="3f551350-722b-4a57-a0d5-c019bcdde304" CreationDate="2013-03-14T18:31:57.563" UserId="45" Text="|aquaponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="648" RevisionGUID="d1cb1085-e43b-42d9-be9f-88a7c2e00ae9" CreationDate="2013-03-14T18:41:31.003" UserId="21" Text="One way would just be to do a google search for 'Ecovillage' and then examine the websites you find.  Many of them have websites (although not exactly modern websites) that will have information about what they are, where they are, how to become a member, whether they have interns or places for transients to stay.  Many of the bigger and older ones do.  Here are a couple of the more well known ones you may have heard of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Dancing Rabbit][1] is near Rutledge, MO and has a fairly up to date website.  They have a lot of internships and the like.  I've had many friends take classes or do internships there.  Here's what they have to say about learning more about them, from their [about][2] page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you are interested in Dancing Rabbit, you have lots of options:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subscribe to our blog, arrange a visit, or come do a work exchange&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stint. We are actively seeking new members to share our lives and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; goals. Together we can build our dreams!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Earthaven][3] is near Black Mountain, NC and also has a fairly up to date website.  They also seem to be a place of many internships and classes.  I've got some friends who've visited and speak very highly of it.  From Earthaven's [about][4] page: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We teach workshops on starting an ecovillage, and designing an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ecovillage. See our Calendar for details. For those seeking in-depth&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information about ecovillages and intentional communities, we offer&#xD;&#xA;&gt; additional information and for those seeking technical information we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; offer consultations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the two I have personal experience with.  Well, that is, aside from the one I live in (shameless plug) which is just getting started: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Dandelion Village][5] in Bloomington, IN.  We love visitors and often have couch surfers pass through.  But right now we're three houses in a neighborhood attached to ~3 acres of land. We're just getting started building eco-houses and a food forest on the land.  We spent about 3 years getting the city to change the land's zoning to allow us to build on it.  Being in the city we've had to deal with a lot of regulations and politics, which just slow everything down.  Also, sorry about the website.  We're working on it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to find more, just do that google search and poke around the websites you find.  You can learn a lot that way!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.dancingrabbit.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.dancingrabbit.org/about-dancing-rabbit-ecovillage/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.earthaven.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.earthaven.org/what-is-earthaven/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.dandelionvillage.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="506565f5-8767-4d99-98b8-121ee6273b30" CreationDate="2013-03-15T00:45:09.283" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="Updated the question to be more constructive." Text="A buddy of mine is interested in attempting to grow Hops in an aquaponic system.  He is particularly interested in something of the deep water culture style of system.  Is this possible with Hops?  If so - what methods have been successful with this?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1863" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="506565f5-8767-4d99-98b8-121ee6273b30" CreationDate="2013-03-15T00:45:09.283" Comment="Proposed by 141 approved by 117 edit id of 92" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="649" RevisionGUID="c95cb295-3b54-4d59-93f1-6c9df42d77dc" CreationDate="2013-03-15T08:24:33.617" UserId="15" Text="When my family purchases meat from the supermarket, it comes on a non-recyclable plastic foam tray with plastic cling wrap over the top. We can improve on this by purchasing meat elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we often remove purchased meat from its packaging and cling wrap it into smaller portions for freezing, since it's very difficult to separate once frozen. Using plastic in this way is wasteful and unsustainable, and likely not healthy either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reusable plastic containers for freezing portions in won't improve things much, as plastic containers tend to be brittle when frozen and occasionally break. We could possibly use glass containers, however reusable ones often have plastic lids (which also tend to split when frozen), and besides, glass itself becomes quite brittle too (and additionally can be broken by the frozen contents expanding).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of much else that's readily available that we could use to store individual portions of meat. Does anyone have any better alternatives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="649" RevisionGUID="c95cb295-3b54-4d59-93f1-6c9df42d77dc" CreationDate="2013-03-15T08:24:33.617" UserId="15" Text="What sustainable packaging can be used for meat in the freezer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="649" RevisionGUID="c95cb295-3b54-4d59-93f1-6c9df42d77dc" CreationDate="2013-03-15T08:24:33.617" UserId="15" Text="|meat|storage|plastic-alternatives|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="650" RevisionGUID="583f7a39-d8f6-4346-a14c-189c12ece39c" CreationDate="2013-03-15T10:00:37.450" UserId="99" Text="Simply put biochar is charcoal made by burning biomass and using it to enhance soil, but  &#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar) explains it a bit more exact. You [can buy it](https://www.google.nl/search?q=where+can+i+buy+biochar) or [make it yourself](https://www.google.nl/search?q=how+do+i+make+biochar). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biochar is currently used in all sorts or places - farm fields, gardens, indoor plantpots - but since we don't know much about its effect yet, its usage is mostly experimental. Raw biochar needs to be mixed with compost before adding it to your garden or else it may draw nutrients and water away from your plants. How much to add depends on the type of soil you have (and what you want to grow), so you may want to do a soil analysis first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is quite a bit of professional research going on, as well as people experimenting themselves (just search the internet). Personally I found the following 5 links very useful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tips on buying it](http://michiganbiochar.com/2011/06/4-tips-on-how-to-buy-biochar-2/). &#xD;&#xA; - [tips on how to make it](http://www.howtogardenadvice.com/soil_prep/make_biochar.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [tips on how to use it](http://turtlebackbiochar.com/how-to-use/) (commercial website!)&#xD;&#xA; - [a lot of other useful information](http://biochar.pbworks.com/w/page/9748043/FrontPage)&#xD;&#xA; - [gardening SE question on charcoil in general](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1314/1916)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="650" RevisionGUID="0ed59273-6cbf-4fb2-90b0-e008fa1e30c6" CreationDate="2013-03-15T10:18:32.067" UserId="99" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Simply put biochar is charcoal made by burning biomass and using it to enhance soil and/or capture CO2, but  [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar) explains it a bit more exact. You [can buy it](https://www.google.nl/search?q=where+can+i+buy+biochar) or [make it yourself](https://www.google.nl/search?q=how+do+i+make+biochar). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biochar is currently used in all sorts or places - farm fields, gardens, indoor plantpots - but since we don't know much about its effect yet, its usage is mostly experimental. Raw biochar needs to be mixed with compost before adding it to your garden or else it may draw nutrients and water away from your plants. How much to add depends on the type of soil you have (and what you want to grow), so you may want to do a soil analysis first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is quite a bit of professional research going on, as well as people experimenting themselves (just search the internet). Personally I found the following 5 links very useful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tips on buying it](http://michiganbiochar.com/2011/06/4-tips-on-how-to-buy-biochar-2/). &#xD;&#xA; - [tips on how to make it](http://www.howtogardenadvice.com/soil_prep/make_biochar.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [tips on how to use it](http://turtlebackbiochar.com/how-to-use/) (commercial website!)&#xD;&#xA; - [a lot of other useful information](http://biochar.pbworks.com/w/page/9748043/FrontPage)&#xD;&#xA; - [gardening SE question on charcoil in general](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1314/1916)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="651" RevisionGUID="c7cf14de-704f-4544-9081-81d457ef0e4a" CreationDate="2013-03-15T11:28:38.103" UserId="318" Text="If you can't buy a specific bub that fits and you don't mind a  slightly strange appearance then almost any mains powered dimmable LED bulb that fits and has the correct wattage (that narrow the field :-) ). could have a modifed base added by a competent technician or engineer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 75 Watt incandescent needs ABOUT 15 Watts of LED light to produce the same total light output (lumens), but as the light is well directed ij this application, the directionality of the LEDs compared to incandescent bulbs means that you would probably be happy with 5 to 10 Watts of total LED power. As lumen/Watt efficiency goes up continually even 5 Watts can be &quot;very very bright&quot; in many applications. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most basic but easiest method would be to start with LEDs and suitable heat sink mountings and use an external power supply fed through the existing wiring. This would allow the lamp to be very close to standard in appearance but involves non standard playing at the other end of the wiring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closest to 'plug in and go&quot; (apart from a correctly fitting lamp) is any of the many many LED lamps now available that meets your spec as above, some bases from old bulbs , some suitable adhesive and time skill and patience. With the correct LED lamp it's literally just a matter of connecting the 2 existing wires to the 2 wires from the bulb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two crucial points are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - LED lifetimes are greatly affected by temperature. Keeping them cool is necessary if their days are to be long on the face of the land. Much effort is put into keeping the LEDs at an OK temperature when used in a standard light fitting. If the fitting you are using has obstructed or limited air flow (which is very likely to be the case) then you need to ensure that 'bulb' temperature stays below manufacturers maximum rating. This may required forced air (hidden small fan), or extra metal heat sinking, or running more bulbs than you need at less than full power per bulb. If they share a common air space then having multiple bulbs may still result in excessive temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Brand matters. Y' don't buy no ugly truck!.  &#xD;&#xA; If you want good lifetime it pays to ensure that the LEDs proper are made by a master in the dark arts, or has  licenced technology from one such.  No name no provenance (usually) Asian LEDs can be very good but, alas, more often than not will go down into the grave at a faster rate than is nice. There are industry standard certifications which such products are required to meet to stop the use of junk. I don'y know how well such schemes are policed and certified at the US end, but I do know from extensive general experience at the Asian end of things, that many certifications (CE, ROHS, UL, ....) are quite commonly no more than a printed label. I'm in NZ and have NO factory in China (or anywhere else) and have received invoices in exchange for which the company involved will provide certification that they have visited my factories and that I am doing things as they should be done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An incomplete list of masters of the arcane art of long life LED design includes   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Philips (lumileds, luxeon) - possibly the world's leading exponents of the art.  &#xD;&#xA; (Founded 1891. Named  '... Philips' Gloeilampenfabrieken' from 1912-1991 and now again at industry front of &quot;Gloeilampen&quot; manufacture.)    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Nichia (inventors of the white phosphor LED),  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cree (US face, Asian fab minly). They also sell their LED die to 3rd party encapsulators. Hopefully they do technology transfer of what it trakes to do good encapsulation as well as encapsulation and lead frames are crucial to longevity.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- HP / Avago  (who do all things well as long as it's not the printer/scanner side of the busines)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Seoul Semiconductor  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- GE  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Osram  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and perhaps a few more independently PLUS all their cross licencees.  &#xD;&#xA; If in doubt, buy Philips in one of its guises. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Full disclosure**: I have no financial interest in Philips or any other LED maker (sadly). I'm just impressed over the decades wity how well Philips does its stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="651" RevisionGUID="8605506b-a7bd-4533-bf6f-a09fc896fa94" CreationDate="2013-03-15T12:09:09.503" UserId="318" Comment="added 3255 characters in body" Text="If you can't buy a specific bub that fits and you don't mind a  slightly strange appearance then almost any mains powered dimmable LED bulb that fits and has the correct wattage (that narrow the field :-) ). could have a modifed base added by a competent technician or engineer. Be careful re &quot;dimmable&quot; - some LED bulbs are, some aren't. Some can use standard phase control dimmers, while others can be dimmed only by using a custom control unit.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When replacing a 75 Watt incandescent you need ABOUT 10 - 15 Watts of LED power input  to produce the same total light output (lumens), **but** as the LED light is well directed in this application, the directionality of the LEDs compared to incandescent bulbs means that you would probably be happy with 5 to 10 Watts of total LED power. As LED lumen/Watt efficiency is going up continually, even 5 Watts can be &quot;very very bright&quot; in many applications. (An incandesecnt bulb may produce 15 lumen/Watt. Good modern LEDs give in excess of 120 l/W and last time I checked the top available-to-buy offering from Cree was managig 200 l/W in some very specific circumstances.). Whole lamp l/W will be less than for the LEDs alone due to diffusers, reflectors, power supply losses and stupid designs, but approaching 100 l/W is common enough and higher is becoming available. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most basic but easiest method would be to start with LEDs and suitable heat sink mountings and use an external power supply fed through the existing wiring. This would allow the lamp to be very close to standard in appearance but involves non standard playing at the other end of the wiring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Closest to 'plug in and go&quot; (apart from a correctly fitting lamp) is any of the many many LED lamps now available that meets your spec as above, some bases from old bulbs , some suitable adhesive and time skill and patience. With the correct LED lamp it's literally just a matter of connecting the 2 existing wires to the 2 wires from the bulb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An important factor in many cases is the LED lamp's CRI (Colour Rendering Index). This is a subjective measurement based on a number of colour samples which tells you how well the LED renders the colours of various items compared to a standard tungsten filament incandescent lamp. A tugsten lamp is defined as having a CRI of 100 and LEds can approach that when great care is taken. Not surprisingly, Philips are among the leaders in making high CRI LED lamps.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A CRI of &gt;= 90 is extremely good and few would notice the difference.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A CRI of 80 is good for most purposes by a degree of colour difference is noticeable by many people. Most tasks can be done without major problems.      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A CRI of 70 gives light which definitely gives non-tungsten results. These are acceptable in many applications but the difference is clear. eg you'd happily eat a meal, read a book, do homework etc. Colours would be &quot;off&quot; but this would not generally matter except when the colour was a significant part of the task eg looking at photos.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - A CRI of 60 is OK for area illumination where colour is not at all important. Camping, tyre changing, night time sports, market stalls (colour suffers), ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A CRI of under 60 will usually be an actinic blue tinged light pretending to be White. Such LEds are also usually low quality and low lifetime. Their advantages are high light output per power input, all else being equal. Don't buy them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hand in hand with CRI is CCT (correlated colo[u]r temperature - but if you get the CRI that you want then CCT will follow. CCT is expressed in degrees Kelvin (same size degree steps as Celsius but starting at absolute zero of = -273 C.)  Tungsten has a CCT of about 2900 K, Halogen 3200K, sunlight 5600 K, shade about 7500K. To get a CRI of near 100, CCT will be around 2800K. A CCT of about 6000K is getting down to a CRI of about 70. I personally prefer light of about 6000-7000 K to that of tungsten - slightly on the shady side of noon sunlight. Some love the horrible orange yukky look of tungsten bulbs :-). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**See pictures at end.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two crucial points are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - LED lifetimes are greatly affected by temperature. Keeping them cool is necessary if their days are to be long on the face of the land. Much effort is put into keeping the LEDs at an OK temperature when used in a standard light fitting. If the fitting you are using has obstructed or limited air flow (which is very likely to be the case) then you need to ensure that 'bulb' temperature stays below manufacturers maximum rating. This may required forced air (hidden small fan), or extra metal heat sinking, or running more bulbs than you need at less than full power per bulb. If they share a common air space then having multiple bulbs may still result in excessive temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Brand matters. Y' don't buy no ugly truck!.  &#xD;&#xA; If you want good lifetime it pays to ensure that the LEDs proper are made by a master in the dark arts, or has  licenced technology from one such.  No name no provenance (usually) Asian LEDs can be very good but, alas, more often than not will go down into the grave at a faster rate than is nice. There are industry standard certifications which such products are required to meet to stop the use of junk. I don'y know how well such schemes are policed and certified at the US end, but I do know from extensive general experience at the Asian end of things, that many certifications (CE, ROHS, UL, ....) are quite commonly no more than a printed label. I'm in NZ and have NO factory in China (or anywhere else) and have received invoices in exchange for which the company involved will provide certification that they have visited my factories and that I am doing things as they should be done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An incomplete list of masters of the arcane art of long life LED design includes   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Philips (lumileds, luxeon) - possibly the world's leading exponents of the art.  &#xD;&#xA; (Founded 1891. Named  '... Philips' Gloeilampenfabrieken' from 1912-1991 and now again at industry front of &quot;Gloeilampen&quot; manufacture.)    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Nichia (inventors of the white phosphor LED),  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cree (US face, Asian fab minly). They also sell their LED die to 3rd party encapsulators. Hopefully they do technology transfer of what it trakes to do good encapsulation as well as encapsulation and lead frames are crucial to longevity.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- HP / Avago  (who do all things well as long as it's not the printer/scanner side of the busines)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Seoul Semiconductor  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- GE  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Osram  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and perhaps a few more independently PLUS all their cross licencees.  &#xD;&#xA; If in doubt, buy Philips in one of its guises. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Full disclosure**: I have no financial interest in Philips or any other LED maker (sadly). I'm just impressed over the decades wity how well Philips does its stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CCT and colour :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From Wikipedia - color temperature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature)   &#xD;&#xA;Anywhere on the black curved line (The &quot;Plankian locus&quot;) is seen by the eye as **white** !!!  &#xD;&#xA;CCTs are shown on the curved line. Daylight at midday is about central and tungsten is towards the yukky orange end :-). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eFGe6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ibpj6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="652" RevisionGUID="d8319046-0921-442b-b371-98c55f3576c8" CreationDate="2013-03-15T13:09:13.430" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="You can use [Butcher Paper][1], which is the same material used by many fresh meat counters to wrap your meat.  It can be purchased in either white(bleached) or a natural unbleached brown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The draw back to using butcher paper instead of plastic wraps is that it allows moisture transfer.  This is going to result is less of a freezer shelf life for your frozen food.  A better option may be to use reusable plastic containers.  These are not water permeable so will protect your food from both contamination and freezer burn.  It is important to choose the right size packaging as you want to minimize the empty space in the container.  While this is plastic so it is not sustainable on its own you can often pick up unused or good condition containers from garage sales that were destined for the landfill otherwise.  If you never cook the food in the containers, the containers can last for a really long time.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course the most sustainable method is to acquire only as much meat as you will use while it is fresh.  This will reduce your energy consumption for keeping the food cold, reduce food waste due to freezer burn, and provide you and your family with healthier and tastier meals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butcher_paper" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1872" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="985891a9-c3c5-4117-b8d4-ba964b082ec3" CreationDate="2013-03-15T17:45:11.537" UserId="48" Comment="1" />
  <row Id="1873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="653" RevisionGUID="077b63d4-20d0-458d-933d-c141a62aa0af" CreationDate="2013-03-15T18:05:09.523" UserId="212" Text="Plain old [cellophane][1]!  Cellophane is biodegradable, water-proof, vapor permiable, available in an elastic form, and can usually be purchased at the same supermarket you buy your meat.  Cellophane is by most accounting much more earth-friendly than paper.  Incidentally, the &quot;cling wrap&quot; used by your local grocery probably is cellophane.  Although I doubt they chose it because of it's very low environmental impact.  It's cheaper than butcher paper and lets the consumer see the meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellophane" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="654" RevisionGUID="4717fb02-c6e2-4712-9f48-c16529a6da84" CreationDate="2013-03-15T20:51:57.433" UserId="357" Text="I often use a vacuum sealer to seal up food, including meat. I don't know how the freezer shelf life compares to the other answers, but anecdotally I can attest that I've never encountered problems using the stored food several weeks later. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I buy vacuum sealed bags that I can reuse (albeit sometimes I have to cut off a small amount of the plastic to open the bag, but the remainder can be washed and reused when I need to freeze something else. I use a vacuum sealer similar to [this one](http://www.amazon.com/FoodSaver-Advanced-Design-Vacuum-Sealer/dp/B0044XDA3S/), although I can't remember where I bought mine. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1875" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="649" RevisionGUID="e2eb94c6-f6d4-4cc1-8428-ad5cffd66819" CreationDate="2013-03-15T22:40:32.890" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/312694835754700800" />
  <row Id="1876" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="a6c6842b-5fb3-4daf-b78b-94d6f0e884bc" CreationDate="2013-03-16T01:41:00.797" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/312740249891663873" />
  <row Id="1877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="655" RevisionGUID="d1db8e71-07db-4ba8-b4f2-713fdc339e23" CreationDate="2013-03-16T08:49:50.997" UserId="130" Text="Like many families, we eat eggs and this produces egg shells.  While I am aware that composting is a possibility I am wondering if there are other things we can do with them.  We are not raising chickens of our own yet so feeding them back to chickens is not a possibility.  We do however have turtles and carp (both ornamental and edible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)  Can egg shells be fed to turtles and other animals as a calcium supplement (in lieu of cuttlebone)?  If so, any advice on how to do this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)  Is there any reasonable way to incorporate eggshells into cooking to produce extra calcium for human consumption?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)  are there other household uses for eggshells?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="655" RevisionGUID="d1db8e71-07db-4ba8-b4f2-713fdc339e23" CreationDate="2013-03-16T08:49:50.997" UserId="130" Text="(Non-compost) uses for egg-shells?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="655" RevisionGUID="d1db8e71-07db-4ba8-b4f2-713fdc339e23" CreationDate="2013-03-16T08:49:50.997" UserId="130" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1880" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="655" RevisionGUID="deaaa574-5464-410e-8f88-cb08c8182a5c" CreationDate="2013-03-16T10:41:31.603" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/312876274592927745" />
  <row Id="1881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="656" RevisionGUID="916032a6-55cc-405f-b56c-c04100f8be41" CreationDate="2013-03-16T14:03:44.887" UserId="57" Text="I've heard conflicting reports on feeding eggshells to reptiles. Most people seem to think it's ok. The concern seems to be about heavy metals and hormones in the shells--though if you're buying organic I don't think that would be as much of a problem--and salmonella contamination. [Tortoise Trust says not to do it][1] because of the salmonella risk and because they claim that &quot;Eggshells are not a good source of calcium, in fact.&quot; I have to say that such a claim runs counter to everything else I've ever heard about egg shells... unless maybe they meant that the calcium in raw eggshells is somehow difficult for a turtle's digestive system to absorb? (Disclaimer: I am no turtle expert.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as human consumption... I've heard that some Thai food has eggshell as an ingredient, though I haven't come across any recipes. [This woman made eggshell cupcakes][2]. I don't think you're supposed to eat the shell in that case, but the baking would kill any salmonella and then you could grind them up for other uses. Then again there might be bits of cake stuck to them. Haven't tried it myself, yet. An alternative would be just to pop them in the oven while you're baking something else. From a sustainability standpoint I can't justify heating up the whole oven *just* for eggshells...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some folks also claim you can [use egg membrane as a bandage, or to treat pimples][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This site][4] suggests a ton of other uses, including Christmas ornaments, homemade sidewalk chalk, and as an abrasive cleaner for dirty pans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.tortoisetrust.org/articles/webdiet.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cupcakeproject.com/2011/04/easter-cupcakes-baked-in-real-egg.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://tipsandhintsforyou.blogspot.com/2009/07/6-tips-using-egg-shell-membrane.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.theprairiehomestead.com/2012/08/9-things-to-do-with-eggshells.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="657" RevisionGUID="db670023-f9a7-44eb-bb1a-912e933ba243" CreationDate="2013-03-16T15:12:19.950" UserId="57" Text="I've heard before that it's a bad idea to use an oven to heat your house, because it's inefficient and carries the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. But what about leaving the oven door open after I'm done baking, to let the heat out into the room? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Are there any health risks when the oven is off? &#xD;&#xA;+ Is this bad for the oven?&#xD;&#xA;+ Would it actually be more energy efficient to leave the door closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="657" RevisionGUID="db670023-f9a7-44eb-bb1a-912e933ba243" CreationDate="2013-03-16T15:12:19.950" UserId="57" Text="Leaving the oven door open for heat - bad idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="657" RevisionGUID="db670023-f9a7-44eb-bb1a-912e933ba243" CreationDate="2013-03-16T15:12:19.950" UserId="57" Text="|energy|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="658" RevisionGUID="a4010fb5-6398-4016-a74d-de28ec99ef14" CreationDate="2013-03-16T17:26:24.653" UserId="346" Text="I would definitely take the time to browse this website and its list of projects. It has an INTERNATIONAL list of permaculture projects occuring around the world. While some of the institutions are not technically eco-villages, some of them are very close to taking that form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://permacultureglobal.com/projects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1886" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="ebefff4d-4359-4511-a173-fa2bab73f078" CreationDate="2013-03-16T18:03:37.697" UserId="48" Comment="1" />
  <row Id="1887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="659" RevisionGUID="a2c94a51-5cba-4730-8ff6-c91e359492f8" CreationDate="2013-03-16T20:03:44.897" UserId="15" Text="The inefficiency you're referring is probably not related to the efficiency with which the gas is burned, but instead is likely to be because the air heated by an oven is not mixed well with air in the room, so convection causes it to rise straight to the ceiling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't tend to make a cold house feel much warmer (especially if the ceiling is not well insulated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same problem exists with electric oil heaters, or other types of heater that rely on convection to distribute the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further to that, you can use less heating if you have the heater close to where the heat is needed. Unless you have a particularly well insulated house, you're unlikely to get much value from heating the kitchen while you're in a different room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="659" RevisionGUID="8cf57ed8-49c6-419d-9f5e-ce609507a513" CreationDate="2013-03-16T20:16:32.093" UserId="15" Comment="added 539 characters in body" Text="The inefficiency you're referring is probably not related to the efficiency with which the gas is burned, but instead is likely to be because the air heated by an oven is not mixed well with air in the room, so convection causes it to rise straight to the ceiling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't tend to make a cold house feel much warmer (especially if the ceiling is not well insulated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same problem exists with electric oil heaters, or other types of heater that rely on convection to distribute the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second reason not to use your oven specifically for heating is that you can use less heating if you have the heater close to where the heat is needed. Unless you have a particularly well insulated house, you're unlikely to get much value from heating the kitchen while you're in a different room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly, an electric [heat pump][1] can put up to around 4 units of heat into your house for each unit of electricity used. This is far more efficient than using any type of electric resistance heating, though comparing it with other types of heating (efficiency and sustainability) is not just simple maths; for example, if you live in a forest you're probably going to have a free, renewable source of firewood for a wood burner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really have a need to heat your living area with an oven, try pointing a large fan at it to distribute the heat through the room and avoid all the hot air sitting up by the ceiling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="659" RevisionGUID="dc795996-c018-4205-8515-335ecc236829" CreationDate="2013-03-16T20:42:15.080" UserId="15" Comment="added 539 characters in body" Text="**Efficiency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inefficiency you're referring is probably not related to the efficiency with which the gas is burned, but instead is likely to be because the air heated by an oven is not mixed well with air in the room, so convection causes it to rise straight to the ceiling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't tend to make a cold house feel much warmer (especially if the ceiling is not well insulated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same problem exists with electric oil heaters, or other types of heater that rely on convection to distribute the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second reason not to use your oven specifically for heating is that you can use less heating if you have the heater close to where the heat is needed. Unless you have a particularly well insulated house, you're unlikely to get much value from heating the kitchen while you're in a different room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly, an electric [heat pump][1] can put up to around 4 units of heat into your house for each unit of electricity used. This is far more efficient than using any type of electric resistance heating, though comparing it with other types of heating (efficiency and sustainability) is not just simple maths; for example, if you live in a forest you're probably going to have a free, renewable source of firewood for a wood burner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really have a need to heat your living area with an oven, try pointing a large fan at it to distribute the heat through the room and avoid all the hot air sitting up by the ceiling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Health Risks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've turned the oven off already, the only significant added health risk is likely to be the risk of burning yourself on the open oven door. If the oven is on though, then you may be at risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, especially if the oven is usually vented. Efficiency while the door open is lower in some models (eg [this one][2]), which may mean production of carbon monoxide is much higher when the oven door is open because the oven wasn't designed to operate that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.britannialiving.co.uk/image/britannia_instruction_manual.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1890" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="657" RevisionGUID="2c00288d-8b27-475e-81b9-01642ec29eb8" CreationDate="2013-03-16T20:48:43.343" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|heating|energy-efficiency|safety|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="660" RevisionGUID="290ec154-fbcf-4f52-8e24-d90aad0ef8ef" CreationDate="2013-03-17T06:29:56.807" UserId="361" Text="I have driven a hybrid since 2000 and noted that I get 39.6  miles per gallon. This is primarily due to the fact that I do mostly freeway driving. I do get much better gas mileage when using city streets. This is because at lower speeds the hybrids will use the battery for power in place of gas. So when looking at a car you may want to take into account your driving habits. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="0eba8772-b39c-4217-b960-742723f6d199" CreationDate="2013-03-17T08:44:36.453" UserId="130" Text="First, given that the heat has to go somewhere, I dont think you will get *more* heat transferred usefully to your house from opening the oven door.  You may get less for the reason that the hot air may rise as a mass (rather than trickling out) and thus have less impact on the rest of the air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As some of the others have said the issue efficiency-wise will have to do with hot air pooling in the ceiling.  The best way to prevent this is with a fan of some sort, to keep the air moving and mixing.    You may find that use of a fan by itself captures a fair bit of your cooking heat and that this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a warning however, I have noticed a few major problems with re-capturing electrical cooking heat.  In particular if the heat is used to boil water, I have found that the opposite of what I expected to happen in fact did --- the house was made *colder* by the added hot steam, compared to not cooking at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My working theory is that what happens is that the steam condenses on the windows and other surfaces that are not as well insulated.  They deposit heat there, and then evaporate slowly pulling heat from the room to do so.  They then condense again, depositing this heat wherever the house is least well insulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So pay attention, experiment, and be careful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as health hazards, once you have turned off the oven, the gas has to go somewhere.  It's going to go into your house whether you leave the oven door open or not.  Again, my gut feeling says that you will lose more than you gain by opening the oven door, but I can't be sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1894" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="48033f54-84b2-4bad-88a7-e1947b549c83" CreationDate="2013-03-17T15:16:10.633" UserId="15" Comment="Reworded title to be more specific about what's being asked" Text="What to do with surplus building materials?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1895" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="48033f54-84b2-4bad-88a7-e1947b549c83" CreationDate="2013-03-17T15:16:10.633" Comment="Proposed by 15 approved by -1 edit id of 93" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1896" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="197" RevisionGUID="a997d112-2c51-40da-956b-7373b5f0526e" CreationDate="2013-03-17T15:16:10.633" UserId="48" Comment="Reworded title to be more specific about what's being asked" Text="What reuses are there for surplus building materials?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1897" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="657" RevisionGUID="1defecd7-5b1a-47dd-a4ab-0000af2d2f9f" CreationDate="2013-03-18T04:43:22.430" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/313510919537840128" />
  <row Id="1898" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="e7f05918-e98a-466b-a8df-425b6553256b" CreationDate="2013-03-18T07:43:22.417" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/313556216582385664" />
  <row Id="1899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="659" RevisionGUID="7667a1a6-c8c8-40a9-ba5e-cac103fc4ff2" CreationDate="2013-03-18T07:56:30.453" UserId="15" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="**Efficiency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inefficiency you're referring to is probably not the efficiency with which the gas is burned (a separate issue), but instead is likely to be because the air heated by an oven does not mix well with air in the room, so convection causes it to rise straight to the ceiling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't tend to make a cold house feel much warmer (especially if the ceiling is not well insulated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same problem exists with electric oil heaters, or other types of heater that rely on convection to distribute the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second reason not to use your oven specifically for heating is that you can use less heating if you have the heater close to where the heat is needed. Unless you have a particularly well insulated house, you're unlikely to get much value from heating the kitchen while you're in a different room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly, an electric [heat pump][1] can put up to around 4 units of heat into your house for each unit of electricity used. This is far more efficient than using any type of electric resistance heating, though comparing it with other types of heating (efficiency and sustainability) is not just simple maths; for example, if you live in a forest you're probably going to have a free, renewable source of firewood for a wood burner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really have a need to heat your living area with an oven, try pointing a large fan at it to distribute the heat through the room and avoid all the hot air sitting up by the ceiling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Health Risks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've turned the oven off already, the only significant added health risk is likely to be the risk of burning yourself on the open oven door. If the oven is on though, then you may be at risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, especially if the oven is usually vented. Efficiency while the door open is lower in some models (eg [this one][2]), which may mean production of carbon monoxide is much higher when the oven door is open because the oven wasn't designed to operate that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.britannialiving.co.uk/image/britannia_instruction_manual.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="650" RevisionGUID="b338f30d-34b5-4646-96d2-009641c8e8ea" CreationDate="2013-03-18T12:53:43.550" UserId="99" Comment="added more explanation (definition and pyrolysis)" Text="Simply put [biochar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar) is charcoal made by burning biomass and using it to enhance soil and/or capture CO2. The idea is that the charcoal improves the soil's carbon content and functions as a carbon sink for atmospheric CO2. This would be especially useful for depleted soils. The idea of using charcoil to enhance to soil was derived from the [Terra Preta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta) found in the Amazone. Terra Preta is very dark and rich soil with high content of charcoil that supposedly was created by Amazone natives between 450 BC and 950 AD. However, research has to point out how much of the idea behind biochar is actually true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can either buy Biochar (a list of sellers drawn up in Nov 2011 is available [here](http://biochar.bioenergylists.org/buy_biochar)) or you can make it yourself via [pyrolysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis), which is burning organic materials with very low levels of oxygen. Here is [one movie](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXMUmby8PpU) on how to make it, but you can find [many other movies or webpages](http://www.google.nl/search?q=how+do+i+make+biochar) on the net.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biochar is currently used in all sorts or places - farm fields, gardens, indoor plantpots - but since we don't know much about its effect yet, its usage is mostly experimental. Raw biochar needs to be mixed with compost and water before adding it to your garden or else it will draw nutrients and water away from your plants. How much to add depends on the type of soil you have and possibly on what you want to grow, so you may want to do a soil analysis first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is quite a bit of professional research going on, as well as people experimenting themselves (just search the internet). Personally I found [this link](http://biochar.pbworks.com/w/page/9748043/FrontPage) and [this link](http://turtlebackbiochar.com/how-to-use/) very informative and useful.&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is also a [Gardening SE question on using charcoal as soil amendment](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1314/1916) with some interesting answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="657" RevisionGUID="1069ee39-b9d0-4e11-a924-1956fdc267c3" CreationDate="2013-03-18T16:30:27.543" UserId="57" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="I've heard before that it's a bad idea to use an oven to heat your house, because it's inefficient and carries the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. But what about leaving the oven door open after I'm done baking, to let the heat out into the room? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: to clarify, the oven is **off**. It's definitely a bad idea to leave the door open with the oven on!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ Are there any health risks when the oven is off? &#xD;&#xA;+ Is this bad for the oven?&#xD;&#xA;+ Would it actually be more energy efficient to leave the door closed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="662" RevisionGUID="f2db4f0c-05a3-4e59-9c26-8a6190182618" CreationDate="2013-03-19T04:47:32.727" UserId="366" Text="It isn't a good idea to do so, the material from the plastic will build up in the worms bodies, and they will probably die.&#xD;&#xA;Also the compost could be toxic to the plants you are using it for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="663" RevisionGUID="f4498f50-33b7-4565-89d3-50eedc22d8c8" CreationDate="2013-03-19T12:48:18.227" UserId="96" Text="There are standartized Systems for bottled gas, but I can't say how ubiquitous they are - see [gas cylinders](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_cylinder). Here in Germany a common size is I think about 10 kilo of Buthane. Maybe the wikipedia article provides you with some keywords to search for different suppliers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that for very good reasons they may only be refilled by authorized personnel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative would be the [gas bag](http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/11/gas-bag-vehicles.html). Those would not be pressureized. I think there are 1m³ versions, to be carried by one person, developed for use in less industrialized areas. Those are designed for Methane or Biogas, with significantly lower energy densities than propane or buthane what you are asking for. &#xD;&#xA;However they are unwieldy, the energy density is low and there is no pressure that you can use for your equipment downstream. While the low energy density of uncompressed gas makes them also less hazardous, you would still need to take into account numerous safety issues. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what you are planning to do, but I would strongly advise to stick woth safe and tried solutions than to hopmebrew a possibly dangerous system - unless you know very well what you are doing, and changes are you don't. &#xD;&#xA;Maybe a portable system that uses liquid fuel - there are camping stoves that use a wide variety of fuels, including diesel - is more appropirate for your needs.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="b91fe377-9f87-48d6-a507-9468820f7d89" CreationDate="2013-03-19T14:56:46.883" UserId="371" Text="I have a [Shimano Hub Dynamo][1] wheel from an old bike, I intend on turning into a small wind-turbine, probably starting off [like this][2] but being modded further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My modest aim is to charge a light in my shed (I am unsure what I can expect to get from such a turbine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is - what is a good option for a trickle charging unit, ideally one which won't mind a bit of frost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not afraid of soldering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/global_cycle/en/nl/index/components/city___comfort_bike/inter-l__hub_dynamo/product.-code-DH-3NB1.-type-..html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwK1UsaphSM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="b91fe377-9f87-48d6-a507-9468820f7d89" CreationDate="2013-03-19T14:56:46.883" UserId="371" Text="Trickle-charging batteries for outdoor usage/ wind turbine suggestions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="b91fe377-9f87-48d6-a507-9468820f7d89" CreationDate="2013-03-19T14:56:46.883" UserId="371" Text="|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="9c5669b7-cd10-4106-a155-a0370e184264" CreationDate="2013-03-19T15:07:33.160" UserId="371" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="I have a [Shimano Hub Dynamo][1] wheel from an old bike, I intend on turning into a small wind-turbine, probably starting off [like this][2] but being modded further when I have the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My modest aim is to charge battery for a light in my shed (I am unsure what I can expect to get from such a turbine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is - what is a good option for a trickle charging unit, ideally one which won't mind a bit of frost, and wont cost the earth. Is there something I can re-purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not afraid of soldering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/global_cycle/en/nl/index/components/city___comfort_bike/inter-l__hub_dynamo/product.-code-DH-3NB1.-type-..html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwK1UsaphSM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="4b06dfba-9aaf-4af8-a966-7c374fa34eb2" CreationDate="2013-03-19T16:04:22.567" UserId="371" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="I have a [Shimano Hub Dynamo][1] wheel from an old bike, I intend on turning into a small wind-turbine, probably starting off [like this][2] but being modded further when I have the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My modest aim is to charge battery for a light in my shed (I am unsure what I can expect to get from such a turbine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is - what is a good option for a trickle charging unit, ideally one which won't mind a bit of frost, and wont cost the earth. Is there something I can re-purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not afraid of soldering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing I have found to what I want is a thinkbiologic ReeCharge for ~£25 presumably the &quot;1600 mAh lithium-polymer battery&quot; would be ok if suitably insulated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a more conventional solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/global_cycle/en/nl/index/components/city___comfort_bike/inter-l__hub_dynamo/product.-code-DH-3NB1.-type-..html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwK1UsaphSM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="05076d31-1b63-462b-891a-751cd23fed22" CreationDate="2013-03-19T16:30:56.813" UserId="375" Text="For packaging of parcels, is it feasible/ possible to produce wood wool from the waste of plywood products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, what alternative packaging uses are there for plywood waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1911" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="05076d31-1b63-462b-891a-751cd23fed22" CreationDate="2013-03-19T16:30:56.813" UserId="375" Text="Can wood wool be produced from plywood waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1912" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="05076d31-1b63-462b-891a-751cd23fed22" CreationDate="2013-03-19T16:30:56.813" UserId="375" Text="|waste|waste-minimisation|woodwork|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="d5a16823-ff16-4c32-a8cd-a478158de37b" CreationDate="2013-03-19T17:38:08.643" UserId="377" Text="I know some countries enforce having cars automatically shut down the engine when stopping at a traffic light.  &#xD;&#xA;How much resources are really saved by this process?  &#xD;&#xA;Does the car need to be designed differently to make this effective? For example, do they make the ignition system different?  &#xD;&#xA;Can we do the same manually (just remember to shut down when stopping, and start again when the light turns green) and get similar benefits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1914" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="d5a16823-ff16-4c32-a8cd-a478158de37b" CreationDate="2013-03-19T17:38:08.643" UserId="377" Text="How effective is turning a car's engine off while standing at a traffic light" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1915" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="d5a16823-ff16-4c32-a8cd-a478158de37b" CreationDate="2013-03-19T17:38:08.643" UserId="377" Text="|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1916" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="4a40d86a-1e6a-48cc-abdd-d2efadab8765" CreationDate="2013-03-19T17:55:11.330" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags" Text="|wind-power|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1917" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="1e6cd96e-b85d-4786-995b-ba8c95cc80b2" CreationDate="2013-03-19T17:56:10.347" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags" Text="|cars|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1919" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="70b7af82-185a-4aac-9e2a-d08d1d6a55b6" CreationDate="2013-03-20T01:44:35.847" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/314190704681295872" />
  <row Id="1920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="75560109-beac-4e6e-afb6-53551e3319d1" CreationDate="2013-03-20T02:26:03.433" UserId="318" Text="Any rechargeable battery with a voltage of up to about 6 Volts will be usable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The SHD (Shimano Hub Dyno) makes about 3 Watts - 6V x 0.5A at rated output. This is at relatively low RPM due to bicycle use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How fast does it need to be turned?**  &#xD;&#xA;Imagine we have a 26&quot; diameter wheel with 1&quot; of tyre thickness so total diameter ~~~= 28&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA; At 30 mph = 44 feet/second the dynamo should be at full output - possibly so at half that.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circumference of a wheel is about 28&quot; x Pi / 12 feet = 7.3 feet.  &#xD;&#xA; 30 mph = 44 feet per second. &#xD;&#xA; So at 30 mph the wheel will turn 44/7.3 = 6 turns  &#xD;&#xA;= 360 RPM  &#xD;&#xA;Or 180 RPM at 15 mph.     &#xD;&#xA;This is &quot;nice and slow&quot; by wind turbine standards and makes it much more usable than many alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Output is AC so you will need a &quot;bridge rectifier&quot; - this has 4 diodes in it and allows DC to be poduced from 2 wire AC. . Any small bridge rectifier from a hobby electronics shop with a rating of 0.5A or more will do. Voltage will be &gt; 6V so unimportant. A bridge rectifier has 4 terminals - two AC inputs (connect either way) and a positive and negative output. Positive goes to battery positive, negative to battery negative, 2 x AC input go to dynamo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Battery types:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Anything rechargeable&quot; :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**LiIon or Lithium Polymer.**   &#xD;&#xA;OK&#xD;&#xA;MUST have a voltage clamp at 4.2V or perhaps a little lower.    &#xD;&#xA;MUST have.    &#xD;&#xA;A zener diode is &quot;too soft&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Ask if more information needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiFePO4 similar to LiIon but lower clamp voltage needed. A superb battery type but not necessary here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NimH x 3.**  (Or NiCd x 3) &#xD;&#xA;Need about 4.5V.  &#xD;&#xA;NimH x 4 may be a good choice as they will charge when :&quot;flat&quot; but never get to full capacity imn most cases so will self limit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 3 cells a battery voltage clamp is a good idea but not totally necessary. Under most wind conditions yo are liable to get, if you use the light daily Vbattery may be OK uncontrolled.&#xD;&#xA;Worst case you cook you NimH early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Reecharger you mention probably looks after battery management for you but is very very dear for what you get. Buying a bare battery and playing is advised. Note voltage warning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Lead Acid** - 6V a bit marginally high - need to check dyno and see what voltage it REALLY makes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4V Lead Acid OK. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1921" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="647" RevisionGUID="b04e2b84-32b3-42fa-88f6-ae1ad0d54a51" CreationDate="2013-03-20T07:45:15.577" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/314281467544993792" />
  <row Id="1922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="ba18670a-8506-4025-a610-abddf6e814d1" CreationDate="2013-03-20T08:05:10.987" UserId="318" Comment="added 5188 characters in body" Text="Disclosure: Doing things such as this is my 'day job'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use a bicycle dynamo to recharge a suitable battery at very little expense and wit minimal effort. Use of something like the &quot;*Reecharger*&quot; that you mention is not essential, does extremely little for you and, if their description of their own products are accurate, the Reecharger is a badly designed piece of equipment that has major problems. Brief notes justifying this rather unlikely sounding claim are at the end of this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any rechargeable battery with a voltage of up to about 6 Volts will be usable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The SHD (Shimano Hub Dyno) makes about 3 Watts - 6V x 0.5A at rated output. This is at relatively low RPM due to bicycle use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any battery that can tolerate a charge rate of up to 0.5A is acceptable - and any modern rechargeable battery from about AA size on up would be suitable. You need some additional simple circuitry which I'll describe below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read my answer here on stack exchange Electrical Engineering [Building a new dynamo bike light](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/58718/building-a-new-dynamo-bike-light/58728#58728).  From there you will find an indirect link to this [PDA / GPS bike mounted USB charger](http://www.arenddeboer.com/bike-mounted-usb-charger) This doubles the voltage from the hub dyno to allow low speed operation. His circuit (shown below) may be somewhat daunting if you have never built such but he discusses what is involved and you can get advice on the stack exchange electrical engineering page if you decided to pursue this. Cost of this is probably a few GBP - if you pursue this people on the EE site (including me) would be happy to comment on what is needed for battery charging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________&#xD;&#xA;**How fast does it need to be turned?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine we have a 26&quot; diameter wheel with 1&quot; of tyre thickness so total diameter ~~~= 28&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA; At 30 mph = 44 feet/second the dynamo should be at full output - possibly so at half that.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circumference of a wheel is about 28&quot; x Pi / 12 feet = 7.3 feet.  &#xD;&#xA; 30 mph = 44 feet per second. &#xD;&#xA; So at 30 mph the wheel will turn 44/7.3 = 6 turns per second&#xD;&#xA;= 60 seconds/minute x  6 revs/second = 360 RPM  &#xD;&#xA;Or 180 RPM at 15 mph.     &#xD;&#xA;This is &quot;nice and slow&quot; by wind turbine standards and makes it much more usable than many alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Output is AC so you will need a &quot;bridge rectifier&quot; - this has 4 diodes in it and allows DC to be produced from 2 wire AC. Any small modern silicon bridge rectifier from a hobby electronics shop with a rating of 0.5A or more will do. Voltage rating of any bridge rectifier being sold will be &gt; 6VAC so is unimportant. You MAY find some very very very (decades) old Germanium or copper oxide or selenium rectifiers. Do not use them. A suitable modern bridge rectifier should cost well under 1 GBP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bridge rectifier has 4 terminals - two AC inputs (connect either way to the dynamo output wires) and a positive and negative output. Positive goes to battery positive, negative to battery negative, 2 x AC input go to dynamo. Adding a filter capacitor would help if you were powering other equipment rather than battery charging, but for battery charging it is not strictly necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use a &quot;regulator&quot; between the battery and dynamo but, for initial investigation, the most that is strictly essential is a means of limiting maximum voltage applied to the battery. The simplest and most effective means in this context is a &quot;clamp regulator&quot;. This has 2 wires, connects directly to the battery and usually does nothing whatsoever. If the battery ever rises to a certain present voltage under charge the clamp regulator will &quot;shunt&quot; current to limit the battery voltage to the desired maximum. The regulator can be more complex than that, but that will do well enough in this context in many cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Battery types:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Anything rechargeable&quot; :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**LiIon or Lithium Polymer.**   &#xD;&#xA;OK&#xD;&#xA;MUST have a voltage clamp at 4.2V or perhaps a little lower.    &#xD;&#xA;MUST have.    &#xD;&#xA;A zener diode is &quot;too soft&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Ask if more information needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiFePO4 similar to LiIon but lower clamp voltage needed. A superb battery type but not necessary here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NimH x 3.**  (Or NiCd x 3) &#xD;&#xA;Need about 4.5V.  &#xD;&#xA;NimH x 4 may be a good choice as they will charge when :&quot;flat&quot; but never get to full capacity imn most cases so will self limit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 3 cells a battery voltage clamp is a good idea but not totally necessary. Under most wind conditions yo are liable to get, if you use the light daily Vbattery may be OK uncontrolled.&#xD;&#xA;Worst case you cook you NimH early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Reecharger you mention probably looks after battery management for you but is very very dear for what you get. Buying a bare battery and playing is advised. Note voltage warning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Lead Acid** - 6V a bit marginally high - need to check dyno and see what voltage it REALLY makes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4V Lead Acid OK. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BioLogic ReCharge Power Pack** - [home page here](http://www.thinkbiologic.com/products/reecharge-power-pack).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Dynamo powered battery charger should&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Work with a wide range of typical dynamos &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Tolerate usual dynamo input conditions regardless of battery state or battery presence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Not be damaged by over voltage, under loading, overloading, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ideally would have a replaceable battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Be described in technical terms that demonstrate that the seller or manufacturer understands the product and which give confidence that the product meets the specs given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Be priced at a fair market price for what it does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ReeCharge unit fails on all these points.   &#xD;&#xA;[Here in their FAQ](https://thinkbiologic.zendesk.com/forums/20189876-reecharge-power-pack) they explicitly say that you may damage it if you ride too fast. They say    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot; ... For a 20&quot; wheel, sustaining speeds over 25km/h (~15.5mph) for long periods may overload the power regulator so we discourage riding above this speed with the power regulator engaged. 3W hubs can also generate more power than 2.4W ones under the same speed. The 20&quot;-25km/h rating is for a 2.4W hub.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For larger wheels, proportionately greater speeds can be sustained. Our tests show that a standard 26&quot; wheel can go up to 35~40km/hr (21~25mph) without any problem for the power regulator.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My 26&quot; where example noted that 30 mph gave 360 RPM - so their safe max speed is about say 300 RPM. Achievable RPM with a wind turbine will depend on design or happenstance, but 300 RPM is an unusually low expected maximum RPM for a wind turbine - possible even for one with bicycle wheel rotor with duct-tape blades (I like it). You can certainly limit the speed by various means BUT you should not need to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When they say &quot; ... If your hub outputs *the 6V current* that is standard for most dynamo hubs ...&quot; we all know what they mean, but one would be wise to wonder about their technical abilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say &quot;The power regulator should be disconnected from the hub when it’s not charging the ReeCharge Power Pack to prevent overloading the power regulator.&quot; - which is wholly unacceptable for something made to be used on we dark windswept nights or sudden unexpected exhilarating downhills. The unloaded voltages encountered are modest by any reasonable design standards. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think thrice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I8h3x.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="c893ee84-ef03-485e-aa84-b9b3c0c6dd76" CreationDate="2013-03-20T08:52:33.143" UserId="96" Comment="added 290 characters in body" Text="Ultimately, it is a question of system boundaries. To be sustainable, a process must not ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use energy faster than it can be replenished&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use material resources faster then they can be replenished. Note that you could see most forms of energy also as material (fuel)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pollute faster than the polluted system can clean itself. Note that most energy generation also pollutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at almost any chemical plant, you will see some effort (and energy expenditure, and often material expenditure) to clean exhaust gases or waste water. Obviously the *energy efficiency* of the whole plant would be better without the cleaning effort, but the sustainability is worse due to pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you only compare highly similar processes, where matter input/output and pollution are basically the same, you have to look at the energy sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you use an energy source that does not get depleted (direct sun), might not matter.&#xD;&#xA;* If you use a finite energy source that does not replenish itself on interesting timescales (fossil coal), your process will never be sustainable in the strictest sense - but changing towards better energy efficiency (all else beeing equal) may mean less polution, so you improve sustainability on that end.&#xD;&#xA;* If you use a regrowing energy source (wood), one question is wether you use it faster than it does regrow. All else beeing equal, the difference between an energy-efficient process and an inefficient on may mean the difference between sustainablity or insustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that, as you change towards more efficient processes, more sources of energy might become viable. LED lighting powered off battereis charged with photovoltaics come to mind, this would not have been possible on the same scale with bulbs. Not that I think LED toys to be particular sensible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I speak of &quot;improving sustainability&quot; on one occasion, while some will argue that something is either sustainable or not, no gray areas. This view would dismiss any improvements in sustainability for processes using fossile fuels. This view ignores the pollution side of almost any process, where a hard yes/no on the sustainability of one single specific process cannot be given. Consider the question [about sustainability and pollution](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/414/how-are-pollution-and-sustainability-related)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1924" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="cc6bb6b9-9d94-4532-88b2-93b616cec758" CreationDate="2013-03-20T10:45:15.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/314326766640562177" />
  <row Id="1925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="6d850345-07dc-495c-aa5a-9548b9f60801" CreationDate="2013-03-20T11:23:10.430" UserId="330" Comment="added 295 characters in body" Text="I use Sanyo Eneloop recharchables (1.2 volts in size AA and AAA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a very high lifetime, do not self-discharge as other NiMH and NiCad accumulators do, and have a high current untill they are empty (alkaline batteries have a much lower current and a linearly decreasing voltage—therefore alkalines are not suitable for digital cameras and the like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The high lifetime is—non-exclusively—due to the low self-discharge. Common NiMH accumulators laying around break, because of deep discharge (below 1.0 volt). The newest version has part number HR-3UTGB (AA size) oder HR-4UTGB (AAA size). They have 1800 unload/load cycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some exhaustive long time trials on the web (mostly from private persons) which proof the long life time of these batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following graph is showing the low self discharge. It’s from a [long time time test from Stefanv](http://www.stefanv.com/electronics/sanyo_eneloop.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Long time test by Stefanv](http://www.stefanv.com/electronics/eneloop/newgraph.gif)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Converters for AA or AAA to C and D exist for a low price (if you don’t use the ones offered by Sanyo), if you need bigger batteries for some old devices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="93817e81-6316-4951-84ec-953b070c1737" CreationDate="2013-03-20T11:32:18.033" UserId="330" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="I use Sanyo Eneloop recharchables (1.2 volts in size AA and AAA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a very high lifetime, do not self-discharge as other NiMH and NiCad accumulators do, and have a high current untill they are empty (alkaline batteries have a much lower current and a linearly decreasing voltage—therefore alkalines are not suitable for digital cameras and the like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The high lifetime is—non-exclusively—due to the low self-discharge. Common NiMH accumulators laying around break, because of deep discharge (below 1.0 volt). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The newest version of the Eneloop has part number **HR-3UTGB** (AA size) or **HR-4UTGB** (AAA size). They have **1800** unload/load cycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some exhaustive long time trials on the web (mostly from private persons) which proof the long life time of these batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following graph is showing the low self discharge. It’s from a [long time time test from Stefanv](http://www.stefanv.com/electronics/sanyo_eneloop.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Long time test by Stefanv](http://www.stefanv.com/electronics/eneloop/newgraph.gif)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Converters for AA or AAA to C and D exist for a low price (if you don’t use the ones offered by Sanyo), if you need bigger batteries for some old devices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="54dbb975-7af5-4ab1-9de1-dee6e4109b93" CreationDate="2013-03-20T18:33:41.613" UserId="45" Text="I am installing a new aquaponics system.  It will have 2 650 gallon fish tanks, 1 1500 gallon sump, 1500 gallons of flood and drain grow beds, and 3000 gallons of DWC beds.  The fish tank and sump tank will be buried in the ground with their tops flush.  The fish tank is 2' tall.  The sump is 6' tall.  From the ground up to the top of the grow beds is 2'.  The DWC top is 12&quot; off the ground.  I am planning on using gravity as much as possible.  The system will consist of 4 rows of beds.  The fish tanks are on one end and the sump on the other end. The fish tanks will protrude from the ground about 12&quot;.  The sump will be buried flush.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea being that I will pump out of the sump up to the flood/drain grow beds.  This will do a normal auto-siphon out which will gravity feed into the DWC beds.  This will flow from one end of the bed to the other and gravity feed into the fish tank.  The overflow from the fish tank will gravity feed over to the sump.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if this is enough information to point me in the right direction for the appropriate pump.  I can provide more details as needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kvy4w.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="54dbb975-7af5-4ab1-9de1-dee6e4109b93" CreationDate="2013-03-20T18:33:41.613" UserId="45" Text="What pump should be used for a 5000 gallon aquaponics system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="54dbb975-7af5-4ab1-9de1-dee6e4109b93" CreationDate="2013-03-20T18:33:41.613" UserId="45" Text="|aquaponics|pump-capacity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="f7d759f2-8af0-4e62-87f1-709c51a38a8e" CreationDate="2013-03-20T19:50:36.333" UserId="274" Comment="added 277 characters in body" Text="My fan takes 3 candelabra (E12) base bulbs; I traditionally use incandescent flame tips, but since they're behind frosted glass, I don't really care.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having just replaced my dimm-able recessed light with Utilitech dimm-able LEDs, and being quite pleased with the results, I want to do the same to this fan.  Unfortunately, I can't find bulbs with equivalent brightness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The light is currently dimm-able, and the bulb slots say 75W - 125V.  Since I can't even get 75W incandescent bulbs anymore, so I figured I'd do LED or (less-preferably) fluorescent bulbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** at the recommendation of the moderators here at Sustainable Living, I've [replicated this question at DIY Stack Exchange][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/25973/what-can-i-do-to-avoid-incandescent-bulbs-for-my-3-bulb-ceiling-fan-yet-maintai" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="2a56a1ea-29fe-4a69-a9a3-e91c0e22413a" CreationDate="2013-03-20T22:18:39.807" UserId="227" Text="I’ve already touched on this topic on the sister SE site [once][1] or [twice][2]. To summarize what is told there (check for more detail), there would be several considerations as related to energy use and sustainability:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Idling in itself wastes fuel for no good reason, and that adds up. In US (country whose residents drive probably more than anyone else on Earth, to put it in perspective) the average cars idles 16 minutes a day (including warming up, waiting, and sitting in traffic). Even 2.0 L compact car would burn (at a rate of 1L per hour) almost 100 L of fuel a year. Obviously, some idling is unavoidable, but even half of that saved and multiplied by the number of all the cars in the world would amount to significant impact.&#xD;&#xA;* Idling negatively affects the engine internals due to incomplete combustion (glazing of the combustion chamber, fouling of the spark plugs) which further decreases fuel efficiency for all other regimes of operation.&#xD;&#xA;* What’s more, excessive idling affects other components (burning up of the catalytic converter, increased corrosion of exhaust system, increased engine wear due to higher vibration etc.), whose premature wear and replacement lead to increased use of raw materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What one can do (and what I do) is to turn off engine during long traffic lights, railway crossings and so forth. Anything more than 10 to 15 (generously) seconds would save fuel, because car that is already warm does not need that much effort to re-start, as it is at the proper operating temperature, and oil is distributed around the engine and at a high lubricity. Motor stays within the efficient range of temperatures for more than few minutes, and takes several hours to completely cool down (depending on the weather), so there is definitely no need to keep the car running during short errand (never mind someone could simply run off with the vehicle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any concerns about premature wear of the starting infrastructure are moot considering savings on fuel and other engine components. See the linked posts for detailed arithmetic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/a/3428/1764&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/a/3566/1764" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="671" RevisionGUID="e46c1750-9376-4b2d-bf99-95fefe281ca9" CreationDate="2013-03-21T01:19:39.613" UserId="318" Text="Engineers view :-). Replace with answer by somebody with practical hydroponics experience when available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can determine desired flow rate needed from hydroponics lore.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say flow wanted = L litres/hour.&#xD;&#xA; Lift from top of sump if full to grow bed = 2 feet.   &#xD;&#xA; If you want to be able to pump with simp only half full = 3 feet from top, required lift = 5 feet. Say 1.5 metres.  If you want to be able to pump sump from very bottom you need more power or be willing to accept a lower flow rate (probably acceptable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So say Lift at full flow = 1.5 metres = height = head = h&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) The easy way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pump manufacturers provide lift x volume charts and these can be used to select required power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) The slightly harder way &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Power ~~ = litres per hour / 66 in your case. Read on ...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pump power at 100% efficiency ~= head x litres/second x 10 Watts  &#xD;&#xA; litres/second = litres/hour/3600.&#xD;&#xA;For system with less than 100% efficiency multiply power needed by K.&#xD;&#xA;K = 100/efficiency %.  &#xD;&#xA;eg 50% efficiency -&gt; k= 2.  &#xD;&#xA;25% efficiency  K = 100/25 = 4 etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Power = metres lift x litres / hour * 10/3600 * k &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume k-5 for now = 20% efficient = easily achieved.  &#xD;&#xA; This includes pipeline head or pressure losses at typical flow rates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Power = lift x litres /h x 50/3600 = h x l x 0.0139  &#xD;&#xA;Close enough to start:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Power = lift x litres per hour / 100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **For 1.5m lift Power = litres per hour / 66**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - or **litres per hour = 66 x Watts.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="9521f642-512a-4556-868e-517af5a63af1" CreationDate="2013-03-21T05:01:58.193" UserId="318" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="Disclosure: Doing things such as this is my 'day job'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use a bicycle dynamo to recharge a suitable battery at very little expense and with minimal effort. Use of something like the &quot;*Reecharger*&quot; that you mention is not essential, does extremely little for you and, if their description of their own products are accurate, the Reecharger is a badly designed piece of equipment that has major problems. Brief notes justifying this rather unlikely sounding claim are at the end of this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any rechargeable battery with a voltage of up to about 6 Volts will be usable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The SHD (Shimano Hub Dyno) makes about 3 Watts - 6V x 0.5A at rated output. This is at relatively low RPM due to bicycle use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any battery that can tolerate a charge rate of up to 0.5A is acceptable - and any modern rechargeable battery from about AA size on up would be suitable. You need some additional simple circuitry which I'll describe below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read my answer here on stack exchange Electrical Engineering [Building a new dynamo bike light](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/58718/building-a-new-dynamo-bike-light/58728#58728).  From there you will find an indirect link to this [PDA / GPS bike mounted USB charger](http://www.arenddeboer.com/bike-mounted-usb-charger) This doubles the voltage from the hub dyno to allow low speed operation. His circuit (shown below) may be somewhat daunting if you have never built such but he discusses what is involved and you can get advice on the stack exchange electrical engineering page if you decided to pursue this. Cost of this is probably a few GBP - if you pursue this people on the EE site (including me) would be happy to comment on what is needed for battery charging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bicycle electronics site:**  Here is an [***excellent*** site with mini projects relating to bicycle electronics including bicycle alternator circuits**](http://www.pilom.com/BicycleElectronics/BicycleElectronics.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________&#xD;&#xA;**How fast does it need to be turned?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine we have a 26&quot; diameter wheel with 1&quot; of tyre thickness so total diameter ~~~= 28&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA; At 30 mph = 44 feet/second the dynamo should be at full output - possibly so at half that.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circumference of a wheel is about 28&quot; x Pi / 12 feet = 7.3 feet.  &#xD;&#xA; 30 mph = 44 feet per second. &#xD;&#xA; So at 30 mph the wheel will turn 44/7.3 = 6 turns per second&#xD;&#xA;= 60 seconds/minute x  6 revs/second = 360 RPM  &#xD;&#xA;Or 180 RPM at 15 mph.     &#xD;&#xA;This is &quot;nice and slow&quot; by wind turbine standards and makes it much more usable than many alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Output is AC so you will need a &quot;bridge rectifier&quot; - this has 4 diodes in it and allows DC to be produced from 2 wire AC. Any small modern silicon bridge rectifier from a hobby electronics shop with a rating of 0.5A or more will do. Voltage rating of any bridge rectifier being sold will be &gt; 6VAC so is unimportant. You MAY find some very very very (decades) old Germanium or copper oxide or selenium rectifiers. Do not use them. A suitable modern bridge rectifier should cost well under 1 GBP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bridge rectifier has 4 terminals - two AC inputs (connect either way to the dynamo output wires) and a positive and negative output. Positive goes to battery positive, negative to battery negative, 2 x AC input go to dynamo. Adding a filter capacitor would help if you were powering other equipment rather than battery charging, but for battery charging it is not strictly necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use a &quot;regulator&quot; between the battery and dynamo but, for initial investigation, the most that is strictly essential is a means of limiting maximum voltage applied to the battery. The simplest and most effective means in this context is a &quot;clamp regulator&quot;. This has 2 wires, connects directly to the battery and usually does nothing whatsoever. If the battery ever rises to a certain present voltage under charge the clamp regulator will &quot;shunt&quot; current to limit the battery voltage to the desired maximum. The regulator can be more complex than that, but that will do well enough in this context in many cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Battery types:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Anything rechargeable&quot; :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**LiIon or Lithium Polymer.**   &#xD;&#xA;OK&#xD;&#xA;MUST have a voltage clamp at 4.2V or perhaps a little lower.    &#xD;&#xA;MUST have.    &#xD;&#xA;A zener diode is &quot;too soft&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Ask if more information needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiFePO4 similar to LiIon but lower clamp voltage needed. A superb battery type but not necessary here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NimH x 3.**  (Or NiCd x 3) &#xD;&#xA;Need about 4.5V.  &#xD;&#xA;NimH x 4 may be a good choice as they will charge when :&quot;flat&quot; but never get to full capacity imn most cases so will self limit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 3 cells a battery voltage clamp is a good idea but not totally necessary. Under most wind conditions yo are liable to get, if you use the light daily Vbattery may be OK uncontrolled.&#xD;&#xA;Worst case you cook you NimH early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Reecharger you mention probably looks after battery management for you but is very very dear for what you get. Buying a bare battery and playing is advised. Note voltage warning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Lead Acid** - 6V a bit marginally high - need to check dyno and see what voltage it REALLY makes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4V Lead Acid OK. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BioLogic ReCharge Power Pack** - [home page here](http://www.thinkbiologic.com/products/reecharge-power-pack).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Dynamo powered battery charger should&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Work with a wide range of typical dynamos &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Tolerate usual dynamo input conditions regardless of battery state or battery presence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Not be damaged by over voltage, under loading, overloading, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ideally would have a replaceable battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Be described in technical terms that demonstrate that the seller or manufacturer understands the product and which give confidence that the product meets the specs given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Be priced at a fair market price for what it does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ReeCharge unit fails on all these points.   &#xD;&#xA;[Here in their FAQ](https://thinkbiologic.zendesk.com/forums/20189876-reecharge-power-pack) they explicitly say that you may damage it if you ride too fast. They say    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot; ... For a 20&quot; wheel, sustaining speeds over 25km/h (~15.5mph) for long periods may overload the power regulator so we discourage riding above this speed with the power regulator engaged. 3W hubs can also generate more power than 2.4W ones under the same speed. The 20&quot;-25km/h rating is for a 2.4W hub.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For larger wheels, proportionately greater speeds can be sustained. Our tests show that a standard 26&quot; wheel can go up to 35~40km/hr (21~25mph) without any problem for the power regulator.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My 26&quot; where example noted that 30 mph gave 360 RPM - so their safe max speed is about say 300 RPM. Achievable RPM with a wind turbine will depend on design or happenstance, but 300 RPM is an unusually low expected maximum RPM for a wind turbine - possible even for one with bicycle wheel rotor with duct-tape blades (I like it). You can certainly limit the speed by various means BUT you should not need to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When they say &quot; ... If your hub outputs *the 6V current* that is standard for most dynamo hubs ...&quot; we all know what they mean, but one would be wise to wonder about their technical abilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say &quot;The power regulator should be disconnected from the hub when it’s not charging the ReeCharge Power Pack to prevent overloading the power regulator.&quot; - which is wholly unacceptable for something made to be used on we dark windswept nights or sudden unexpected exhilarating downhills. The unloaded voltages encountered are modest by any reasonable design standards. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think thrice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I8h3x.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="671" RevisionGUID="2ca1a05d-ab8c-468c-ad6f-a05dbc68f1e3" CreationDate="2013-03-21T06:14:53.720" UserId="318" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="Engineers view :-).   &#xD;&#xA;Replace with answer by somebody with practical hydroponics experience when available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can determine desired flow rate needed from hydroponics lore.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say flow wanted = L litres/hour.&#xD;&#xA; Lift from top of sump if full to grow bed = 2 feet.   &#xD;&#xA; If you want to be able to pump with simp only half full = 3 feet from top, required lift = 5 feet. Say 1.5 metres.  If you want to be able to pump sump from very bottom you need more power or be willing to accept a lower flow rate (probably acceptable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So say Lift at full flow = 1.5 metres = height = head = h&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) The easy way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pump manufacturers provide lift x volume charts and these can be used to select required power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) The slightly harder way. In your case -  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Power ~~ = (litres per hour) / 66 Watts**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You will get about 66 litres per hour per Watt in your system.  &#xD;&#xA; Divide litres by ~~= 4 to get US gallons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why ?   &#xD;&#xA;Read on ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pump power at 100% efficiency ~= head x litres/second x 10 Watts  &#xD;&#xA; litres/second = litres/hour/3600.&#xD;&#xA;For system with less than 100% efficiency multiply power needed by K.&#xD;&#xA;K = 100/efficiency %.  &#xD;&#xA;eg 50% efficiency -&gt; k= 2.  &#xD;&#xA;25% efficiency  K = 100/25 = 4 etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Power = metres lift x litres / hour * 10/3600 * k &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume k-5 for now = 20% efficient = easily achieved.  &#xD;&#xA; This includes pipeline head or pressure losses at typical flow rates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Power = lift x litres /h x 50/3600 = h x l x 0.0139  &#xD;&#xA;Close enough to start:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Power = lift x litres per hour / 100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **For 1.5m lift Power = litres per hour / 66**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - or **litres per hour = 66 x Watts.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="671" RevisionGUID="86d7da03-a064-40e5-9c64-06b077678886" CreationDate="2013-03-21T10:06:59.310" UserId="318" Comment="added 831 characters in body" Text="Engineers view :-).   &#xD;&#xA;Replace with answer by somebody with practical hydroponics experience when available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can determine desired flow rate needed from hydroponics lore.   &#xD;&#xA;Let's say the system = 5000 gallons or 20,000 litres (4:1 is close enough for this purpose).&#xD;&#xA;To recirculate the total fluid in 1 week = 168 hours requires 5000/168 = 30 gallons per hour or about 120 litres per hour   &#xD;&#xA;(= 2 litres/minute or 33 cc/second - about 1/3 of a 100cc medicine measure per second.  &#xD;&#xA; Not very fast.)   &#xD;&#xA;According to the formula in part (2) below that would requires about 120/66 or about a 2 Watt pump.   &#xD;&#xA;That's very small.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the other approach - a 50 Watt pump will supply about 50 x 66 = 3300 litres per hour. Total system fluid will recirculate in about 20,000l/3300 = 6 hours.   &#xD;&#xA;If 6 hours is acceptable then a 50 Watt pump will be adequate. That sizing was probably conservative so I'dd expect you'd actually get substantially more flow and quicker turnover than that if required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say flow wanted = L litres/hour.&#xD;&#xA; Lift from top of sump if full to grow bed = 2 feet.   &#xD;&#xA; If you want to be able to pump with simp only half full = 3 feet from top, required lift = 5 feet. Say 1.5 metres.  If you want to be able to pump sump from very bottom you need more power or be willing to accept a lower flow rate (probably acceptable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So say Lift at full flow = 1.5 metres = height = head = h&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) The easy way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pump manufacturers provide lift x volume charts and these can be used to select required power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) The slightly harder way. In your case -  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Power ~~ = (litres per hour) / 66 Watts**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You will get about 66 litres per hour per Watt in your system.  &#xD;&#xA; Divide litres by ~~= 4 to get US gallons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why ?   &#xD;&#xA;Read on ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pump power at 100% efficiency ~= head x litres/second x 10 Watts  &#xD;&#xA; litres/second = litres/hour/3600.&#xD;&#xA;For system with less than 100% efficiency multiply power needed by K.&#xD;&#xA;K = 100/efficiency %.  &#xD;&#xA;eg 50% efficiency -&gt; k= 2.  &#xD;&#xA;25% efficiency  K = 100/25 = 4 etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Power = metres lift x litres / hour * 10/3600 * k &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume k-5 for now = 20% efficient = easily achieved.  &#xD;&#xA; This includes pipeline head or pressure losses at typical flow rates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Power = lift x litres /h x 50/3600 = h x l x 0.0139  &#xD;&#xA;Close enough to start:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Power = lift x litres per hour / 100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **For 1.5m lift Power = litres per hour / 66**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - or **litres per hour = 66 x Watts.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="a41e2ac3-7889-4355-bb72-65a9caab0987" CreationDate="2013-03-21T15:17:21.397" UserId="45" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="I am installing a new aquaponics system.  It will have 2 650 gallon fish tanks, 1 1500 gallon sump, 1500 gallons of flood and drain grow beds, and 3000 gallons of DWC beds.  The fish tank and sump tank will be buried in the ground with their tops flush.  The fish tank is 2' tall.  The sump is 6' tall.  From the ground up to the top of the grow beds is 2'.  The DWC top is 12&quot; off the ground.  I am planning on using gravity as much as possible.  The system will consist of 4 rows of beds.  The fish tanks are on one end and the sump on the other end. The fish tanks will protrude from the ground about 12&quot;.  The sump will be buried flush.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea being that I will pump out of the sump up to the flood/drain grow beds.  This will do a normal auto-siphon out which will gravity feed into the DWC beds.  This will flow from one end of the bed to the other and gravity feed into the fish tank.  The overflow from the fish tank will gravity feed over to the sump.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know if this is enough information to point me in the right direction for the appropriate pump.  I can provide more details as needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;What pump brand / model would be suggested for a continuous running system to circulate the water at least once per day or not more often.  Has anyone tried a pool style pump?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kvy4w.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="672" RevisionGUID="fdfc5a17-b3a9-405a-9ae8-2526f85188f7" CreationDate="2013-03-22T03:38:05.073" UserId="130" Text="I think deep water systems, if I understand them correctly, would be problematic because hops plants become quite large (larger, perhaps, than cucumber plants!).  Now it might be possible with proper training and support, since these are vines, but that's where your limitations are likely to be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1943" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="669" RevisionGUID="dc19ef6c-83a3-46ba-8fa2-d08e3cfebf02" CreationDate="2013-03-22T04:47:53.127" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/314961604976443393" />
  <row Id="1944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="b707ce59-5784-4c89-a144-67eb0fd595c8" CreationDate="2013-03-22T06:15:44.903" UserId="92" Text="Every night when I wash dishes, I either throw food scraps down the garbage disposal or throw it in the trash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it more sustainable to throw food scraps down the garbage disposal? I think things end up in the sewer system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Obviously composting would be the most sustainable be don't compost)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1945" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="b707ce59-5784-4c89-a144-67eb0fd595c8" CreationDate="2013-03-22T06:15:44.903" UserId="92" Text="What is more sustainable...throwing food scraps into garbage or down my sink's garbage disposal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1946" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="b707ce59-5784-4c89-a144-67eb0fd595c8" CreationDate="2013-03-22T06:15:44.903" UserId="92" Text="|waste|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="674" RevisionGUID="18bbff4f-4e82-4130-ad57-122eca3f863a" CreationDate="2013-03-22T13:51:20.797" UserId="117" Text="If you twisted my arm to choose between those two options, I would say the garbage disposal is more sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sewage goes through physical and biological process to remove contaminants and the treated water is returned to the ecosystem. Even though not *all* the sludge byproducts are reusable &amp;mdash; some are only suitable for disposal &amp;mdash; it's pretty safe to say that your ground up apple peels are contributing to *reusable* side of the equation&amp;hellip; typically a farm fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, most household refuse is sent to a landfill. While there are efforts to make safer landfills, they are still essentially just piling the stuff up somewhere. Landfill materials don't biodegrade to any great degree, and the land isn't easily reclaimed for reuse. In essence, it is a *less* sustainable practice than the former.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting is still the best sustainable option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="ff553577-032a-4b1b-a614-500d09beba75" CreationDate="2013-03-22T21:27:20.287" UserId="40" Text="A friend recently spilled beer on my dry-clean only [flat cap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_cap).  As I was picking up the cap from the dry-cleaner, it occurred to me I should have looked first for a more environmentally-friendly alternative.  What such alternatives exist?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="ff553577-032a-4b1b-a614-500d09beba75" CreationDate="2013-03-22T21:27:20.287" UserId="40" Text="Alternatives to dry cleaning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="ff553577-032a-4b1b-a614-500d09beba75" CreationDate="2013-03-22T21:27:20.287" UserId="40" Text="|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="677" RevisionGUID="f5b6f0cf-b4a7-4e4e-91a1-4d2d1a675921" CreationDate="2013-03-22T21:50:55.020" UserId="40" Text="Egg shells can be used as a calcium suppliment for humans.  The most common way is to grind them.  They can be baked first (to make the more brittle, and to kill any pathogens).  Or [this source](http://www.naturalnews.com/028049_calcium_eggshells.html) suggests boiling them first, then simply letting them dry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can grind them in a coffee grinder, or with a mortar and pestle, then mix the powder with other foods.  In small quantities, it should mix well with hot cereal, soup, stir-fry, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure you could use the same process to prepare egg shells as a calcium supplement for pets or other animals as well, then mix it with their food and/or water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="678" RevisionGUID="da7407e2-78f2-4e0c-be93-7c33d80efac8" CreationDate="2013-03-23T00:32:46.477" UserId="318" Text="Actions like those below are always YMMV / Caveat Emptor / DTTAH (unless you are confident that you an do it intelligently)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Dryclean only&quot; probably means that the product *may*  be damaged in some manner by the normal asking process. If you can identify what factors cause damage to occur you may be able to allow for them of to prevent them. Sometimes the manufacturer may be being careful or lazy - by saying &quot;don't wash me&quot; they limit liability and possibility of damage by &quot;cowboys&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example a product may be crushed irrevocably by tumbling with other products. it may be water soluble or colours may not be water fast or soap or detergent may cause some reaction. There my be a component that cannot tolerate getting water inside it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contacting the manufacturer or agent may provide useful guidance.   &#xD;&#xA;In many cases this is not possible and you will have to decide for yourself.  &#xD;&#xA;In the case of your cap it seems likely that mechanical damage may be the issue. Or it may contain cardboard or similar stiffeners which will be permanently affected by water soaking. If a careful examination suggests that water by itself will (probably) not cause damage you could insert a cloth &quot;stuffing&quot;to main tain its shape and sponge it with a well moistened sponge. Plain soap is unlikely to cause problems and you can probably rinse it out while still towel filled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dry cleaning usually uses solvents applied against a surface to cause contaminants to wick out of the fabric. If you know what the contaminant is then yo can choose a suitably low impact solvent. In the case of beer, it is likely that &quot;drycleaning&quot; with water would work as well as most other things. ie a semi soaked towel or sponge applied to the surface while the hat is kept in shape - repeat as required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;YMMV - Your mileage may vary.&#xD;&#xA;Caveat Emptor - Buyer beware = It's your responsibility  &#xD;&#xA;DTTAH - Don't try this at home (unless ...)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="674" RevisionGUID="9458bf84-c427-4d27-9429-5baab91d5782" CreationDate="2013-03-23T02:46:24.993" UserId="117" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="If you twisted my arm to choose between those two options, I would say the garbage disposal is more sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sewage goes through physical and biological process to remove contaminants and the treated water is returned to the ecosystem. Even though not *all* the sludge byproducts are reusable &amp;mdash; some are only suitable for disposal &amp;mdash; it's pretty safe to say that your ground up apple peels are contributing to the *reusable* side of the equation&amp;hellip; typically a farm fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, most household refuse is sent to a landfill. While there are efforts to make safer landfills, they are still essentially just piling the stuff up somewhere. Landfill materials don't biodegrade to any great degree, and the land isn't easily reclaimed for reuse. In essence, it is a *less* sustainable practice than the former.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting is still the best sustainable option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="679" RevisionGUID="d4bb7a8b-8d9d-4375-8da4-8ccfe81bb353" CreationDate="2013-03-23T06:53:58.977" UserId="179" Text="In the advertising for this year's earth hour in Sydney, Australia, it encourages people to switch from conventional electricity to renewable energy. A number of electricity providers offer &quot;100% renewable&quot; plans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds like a good idea, but does consumers switching to &quot;renewable electricity&quot; plans increase the production of renewable electricity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm worried about is that the amount of renewable and non-renewable electricity produced remains the same, and that &quot;my&quot; electricity becomes 100% renewable, and that the electricity of those on the &quot;conventional&quot; plan has a higher proportion of non-renewable energy than before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1959" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="679" RevisionGUID="d4bb7a8b-8d9d-4375-8da4-8ccfe81bb353" CreationDate="2013-03-23T06:53:58.977" UserId="179" Text="Do &quot;100% renewable&quot; electricity plans increase renewable electricity production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1960" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="679" RevisionGUID="d4bb7a8b-8d9d-4375-8da4-8ccfe81bb353" CreationDate="2013-03-23T06:53:58.977" UserId="179" Text="|energy|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="4e3ac407-0653-4253-a504-a3ce6802216d" CreationDate="2013-03-23T08:13:29.843" UserId="15" Text="&quot;[Green Earth Cleaning][1]&quot; claims to have a *green dry cleaning process that is completely safe*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they also seem to be a bit confused by silicon and silicone, stating &quot;*GreenEarth cleans with pure liquid silicone. In essence, liquefied sand.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that even though silicone contains silicon, it's vastly different. It may still be better than the traditional perchloroethylene though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greenearthcleaning.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="680" RevisionGUID="f88d5cf6-ab1b-4bf5-a678-9b76f2256f58" CreationDate="2013-03-23T08:18:37.363" UserId="15" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="&quot;[Green Earth Cleaning][1]&quot; claims to have a *green dry cleaning process that is completely safe*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they also seem to be a bit confused by silicon and silicone, stating &quot;*GreenEarth cleans with pure liquid silicone. In essence, liquefied sand.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that even though silicone contains silicon, it's vastly different. It may still be much better than the traditional perchloroethylene though. The chemical name for the solvent is decamethylcyclopentasiloxane, according the Wikipedia article linked below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia [lists some other alternatives][2], including liquid CO2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greenearthcleaning.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cleaning#Solvents_used" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="b8e6698e-28b8-4410-bb0a-520343d90e8f" CreationDate="2013-03-23T15:55:10.303" UserId="92" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="Every night when I wash dishes, I either throw food scraps down the garbage disposal or throw it in the trash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it more sustainable to throw food scraps down the garbage disposal? I think things end up in the sewer system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Obviously composting would be the most sustainable)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1964" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="679" RevisionGUID="20009ff5-1b99-47c6-9f91-69a152f37739" CreationDate="2013-03-23T16:49:07.317" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/315505498042548224" />
  <row Id="1965" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="8895a0bd-65ca-45d6-89dc-1538b50baeb9" CreationDate="2013-03-23T19:49:07.420" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/315550796899045376" />
  <row Id="1966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="681" RevisionGUID="81d9bc41-b484-4388-8625-ae6d1446596d" CreationDate="2013-03-24T00:32:25.190" UserId="130" Text="Not directly, no.  However the hope is that this sends a market signal that more renewable energy is demanded.  The hope is that the more people sign on, the more renewable energy will be produced to meet the clear consumer demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally what it does do is it ensures that the power company has a commitment to buy *at least* a floor amount of renewable energy.  More people buying the plans means they need to plan to buy more renewable energy in the future.  However if the power company couldn't meet this commitment now, they probably wouldn't be selling the plans." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="03539051-7ff8-4ac7-a945-37f04f0a2a84" CreationDate="2013-03-24T07:44:55.123" UserId="48" Text="Do “100% renewable” electricity plans increase renewable electricity production? Well, it will depend on how the specific scheme is implemented, what the renewable suppliers are, and what timescale you are considering. So, the answer could be yes, no or maybe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know about your supplier's particular plan, and in order to keep this answer useful to as many readers as possible, I'll talk about the generalities that make a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Generation-specific&#xD;&#xA;Most renewable sources have such low short-run marginal costs that they'll run pretty much any time, regardless of the current price in the market. So an increase in demand from consumers on renewable tariffs is very unlikely to result in immediate increase in renewable supply. There might be corner cases on small grids where the marginal producer is a renewable supplier with non-trivial short-run marginal costs, such as biomass or biogas: in such cases, increased demand from people on 100% renewable tariffs could cause an immediate and equivalent increase in renewable supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Scheme-specific&#xD;&#xA;Most 100%-renewable tariffs tend to be based on the trading of certificates-of-origin of renewable electricity. Whether your tariff really makes a difference, will depend on whether or not there is a surplus of such certificates in the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Surplus**: If there *is* a surplus, and it is expected that there will continue to be a surplus, (as is the case Britain with the REGOs - Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin) then no, the tariff makes no difference at all. The situation in this case is exactly as you describe: &quot;your&quot; electricity becomes 100% renewable, and the electricity of those on the &quot;conventional&quot; plan has a higher proportion of non-renewable energy than before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No surplus**: If there is *not* a surplus of such certificates now, or there is expected not to be one over the next few years, then the price of those certificates will rise, incentivising investment in new renewable generation infrastructure. The increase in renewable generation might be more or less than the amount you have consumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Company-specific&#xD;&#xA;Some companies (such as [Ecotricity][1] in the UK) choose to invest a large proportion of their revenue into new renewable capacity. So buying from a company such as them, **does** increase renewable electricity production, over the scale of years, regardless of what's going on with the generation-specific and scheme-specific issues set out above. In such cases, the increase in renewable generation tends to be much more than the amount you have consumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/for-your-home/greenest-outcome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="184a87c9-caa8-47c1-8263-7e5fb53d9076" CreationDate="2013-03-24T16:27:46.707" UserId="48" Text="[This pdf on Danish Renewable Energy Policy by Preben Maegaard][1] refers on page 11 to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; A repowering programme that had been launched by the previous government resulted in a short term revitalisation of the sector in 2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The figures from the [Danish Energy Agency][2] do show a spike in decommissioned wind capacity in 2002:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(source: my chart, compiled from ENS statistics)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was this repowering programme? I mean, I know what **a** repowering programme is: an incentivisation scheme to replace old turbines with new. But what was the law, and what were the incentives, behind **this** repowering programme?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wcre.de/en/images/stories/pdf/WCRE_Maegaard_Danish%20RE%20Policy.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ens.dk/da-DK/Info/TalOgKort/Statistik_og_noegletal/Oversigt_over_energisektoren/Stamdataregister_vindmoeller/Sider/forside.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V7v4K.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="184a87c9-caa8-47c1-8263-7e5fb53d9076" CreationDate="2013-03-24T16:27:46.707" UserId="48" Text="What was the repowering programme that caused a spike in Danish turbine decommissioning in 2002?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="184a87c9-caa8-47c1-8263-7e5fb53d9076" CreationDate="2013-03-24T16:27:46.707" UserId="48" Text="|wind-power|economics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="3e7f38bc-bab7-4938-b50c-08415b440211" CreationDate="2013-03-25T00:20:48.173" UserId="400" Text="You are asking to choose between two bad systems, and the least bad choice will depend on the surplus capacity of the sewage system vs space in the landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vancouver B.C. has now passed a building code against garburators.  Reason:  It doubled the amount of solid waste in the sewer system.  The additional solids also made for more problems with blockages.  We have friends there, who, despite having a yard the size of a commerative postage stamp compost nearly everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;City of Edmonton has a very advanced garbage sorting system, and kitchen waste is composted in bulk, along with yard waste, wood scrap, and non-recycleable paper.  (I buy a 60 cubic yard trailer of it per year for my tree farm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall I would argue that a landfill tolerates 'too much' better than a sewage system does.  City of Edmonton made the mistake years ago of having the storm drain system tied into the their sewage system.  So at peak rainfall or snow melt, there is too much water to treat properly, and semi-raw sewaage goes into the river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are better choices than either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Vermiculture.  A 70 liter tote makes an excellent worm farm, and will handle all of the non-meat kitchen waste a couple can generate.  And the commpost is good for the garden&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Having a city that composts -- agitate for it, and point to CoE as the example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Keep guinea pigs. They will eat all the kitchen waste including the mean scraps. This is the traditional disposal method in Peru.  Every now and then you have roast guinea pig for supper.  Quite tasty.  It will pick up the flavour of the dominant scraps fed it.  I had some once that were fed on fish offal.  Very odd to have something with the texture of turkey breast, and the taste of tuna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Do conventional composting in the back yard.  Takes more room that worms, but it's even easier.  7 pallets, available for the taking in any industrial area (ask first), and be set up as a 3 bin compost system in an afternoon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="685" RevisionGUID="5fa6222c-478d-448e-aed7-4865d9693393" CreationDate="2013-03-25T00:23:19.480" UserId="400" Text="You can also use them in the garden.  I dump them in an open gallon jar to dry.  Every now and then I crush them down.  Grind them coarsely, and use them as slug barriers, or just mix into the garden soil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="686" RevisionGUID="64404c9f-6ed3-46a5-b6c6-8f3212d60c2e" CreationDate="2013-03-25T00:27:07.933" UserId="400" Text="No, it's not a health concern.  Right now it's locked up as siding.  If you remove it, you will break it up, make dust, which IS a health problem, but sitting there bonded to concrete on the side of your house it is harmless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep it painted to keep dust from spalling off of it. although that is a pretty minor concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even asbestos insulation is largely harmless once in place.  The hazard is in working around it, with it, but asbestos bonded into tile or cement siding is reasonably safe unless some process is turning it into powder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1975" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="676" RevisionGUID="d3a24e72-a5e3-494d-82e2-be61512d6e32" CreationDate="2013-03-25T01:49:47.997" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/316003952820903936" />
  <row Id="1976" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="a66da413-f2b8-45ce-8b79-dec929f8110a" CreationDate="2013-03-25T04:49:59.833" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/316049300096438272" />
  <row Id="1977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="33359f54-5826-40b7-8f28-4d5638d1d371" CreationDate="2013-03-25T04:50:51.783" UserId="318" Text="The motivation is summaries in passing in [Repowering of Wind Turbines: Economics and Optimal Timing  ](http://www.eonerc.rwth-aachen.de/global/show_document.asp?id=aaaaaaaaaacoynw) - reference details at end of this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The development of wind power utilization in Denmark has been characterized by strong public involvement. The first target can be found in Decree Energy 81: the installation of 60,000 windmills to supply 10% of the electricity demand by 2000, a target that had already been reached in 1998 with fewer than 5000 turbines (Agnolucci, 2007). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **In the early 1990s, a second target was announced by the government, namely to build 100 MW of wind power capacity, while in 1996 the utilities and the government signed a target agreement to install 1500 MW by 2005.** Indeed, at the end of 2000, 2300 MW had already been installed (Agnolucci, 2007).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The aim of repowering is to make better use of wind resources on existing sites. Older sites can be &quot;fully populated&quot; by turbines in the 100's of kW range such that no new turbines can be installed. By replacing existing turbines with fewer much larger turbines with much higher mean heights an increased amount of energy can be intercepted for the same site area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FCN Working Paper No. 19/2011  &#xD;&#xA;Repowering of Wind Turbines: Economics and Optimal Timing  &#xD;&#xA;Sebastian Himpler and Reinhard Madlener  &#xD;&#xA;November 2011 Revised July 2012  &#xD;&#xA;Institute for Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN)  &#xD;&#xA;School of Business and Economics / E.ON ERC  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="0bfaaaa4-3700-4422-8a50-b1868d5a00a1" CreationDate="2013-03-25T04:58:47.980" UserId="318" Comment="added 577 characters in body" Text="The motivation is summarised in passing in [Repowering of Wind Turbines: Economics and Optimal Timing  ](http://www.eonerc.rwth-aachen.de/global/show_document.asp?id=aaaaaaaaaacoynw) - reference details at end of this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The development of wind power utilization in Denmark has been characterized by strong public involvement. The first target can be found in Decree Energy 81: the installation of 60,000 windmills to supply 10% of the electricity demand by 2000, a target that had already been reached in 1998 with fewer than 5000 turbines (Agnolucci, 2007). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **In the early 1990s, a second target was announced by the government, namely to build 100 MW of wind power capacity, while in 1996 the utilities and the government signed a target agreement to install 1500 MW by 2005.** Indeed, at the end of 2000, 2300 MW had already been installed (Agnolucci, 2007).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The aim of repowering is to make better use of wind resources on existing sites. Older sites can be &quot;fully populated&quot; by turbines in the 100's of kW range such that no new turbines can be installed. By replacing existing turbines with fewer much larger turbines with much higher mean heights an increased amount of energy can be intercepted for the same site area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The picture below is from [Europe Replaces Old Wind Farms](http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/europe-replaces-old-wind-farms)   &#xD;&#xA;The amazingly similar [tm] cloud formations indicates that this is a conceptual rather than actual &quot;after&quot; example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Photo-illustration: Bundesverband WindEnergie.  &#xD;&#xA; A wind farm at Simonsberg, in northern Germany, would produce more electricity with just a few large turbines than it does with many small ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FCN Working Paper No. 19/2011  &#xD;&#xA;Repowering of Wind Turbines: Economics and Optimal Timing  &#xD;&#xA;Sebastian Himpler and Reinhard Madlener  &#xD;&#xA;November 2011 Revised July 2012  &#xD;&#xA;Institute for Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN)  &#xD;&#xA;School of Business and Economics / E.ON ERC  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rBL8Z.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="688" RevisionGUID="d5dfe8c5-b05d-45e4-9c75-f2cfbb14eeb4" CreationDate="2013-03-25T05:27:07.957" UserId="130" Text="Since the comment mentions wool, the single best way to care for wool is to spot-clean by hand.  You shouldn't need to routinely dry clean wool and hand washing spots out is perfectly reasonable.  The big problem is that when wool is tumble dried, bad things happen so if it is bad enough you can always run it through the wool cycle and then hang up to try.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see the mechanical washing as a bit of a last resort with wool though because I *have* had woolen articles of clothing damaged by washing machines.  I much prefer to hand wash trouble spots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="62998359-bc75-47cd-80c5-4da076e7ce66" CreationDate="2013-03-25T05:35:39.083" UserId="130" Text="Is there sufficient data to measure the energy spent managing regulation on both sides (energy spent on compliance, enforcement, permit application processing, and the like)?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there tools available to help communities determine what the net impact of a regulatory change on energy consumption is likely to be?  One example might be whether permitting for landlords requiring sufficient insulation would require more energy in compliance efforts, enforcement, and permit application processing that would be saved and under what circumstances that might be the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally are there tools for lifecycle analysis which allow us to look at embodied energy as *including regulatory compliance and governmental actions regarding enforcement and permitting?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a few quick looks around and I couldn't find much.  Am I missing something or do we just consider this to be &quot;dark energy?&quot;  I recognize that all models are simplifications but is there an accepted way to include government energy expenditures in pursuit of regulations in these equations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="62998359-bc75-47cd-80c5-4da076e7ce66" CreationDate="2013-03-25T05:35:39.083" UserId="130" Text="How to measure the embodied energy of a regulation. Is data available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="62998359-bc75-47cd-80c5-4da076e7ce66" CreationDate="2013-03-25T05:35:39.083" UserId="130" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|embodied-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="c0d88b89-37cd-4796-8988-bc8b6df89911" CreationDate="2013-03-25T06:38:21.710" UserId="48" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="[This pdf on Danish Renewable Energy Policy by Preben Maegaard][1] refers on page 11 to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; A repowering programme that had been launched by the previous government resulted in a short term revitalisation of the sector in 2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The figures from the [Danish Energy Agency][2] do show a spike in decommissioned wind capacity in 2002:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(source: my chart, compiled from ENS statistics)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was this repowering programme? I mean, I know what **a** repowering programme is: an incentivisation scheme to replace old turbines with new. But what was the law, and what were the incentives, behind **this** repowering programme?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that the Himpler and Madlener paper &quot;Repowering of Wind Turbines: Economics and Optimal Timing&quot; does not discuss the specific Danish law and incentives behind this repowering programme)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wcre.de/en/images/stories/pdf/WCRE_Maegaard_Danish%20RE%20Policy.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ens.dk/da-DK/Info/TalOgKort/Statistik_og_noegletal/Oversigt_over_energisektoren/Stamdataregister_vindmoeller/Sider/forside.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V7v4K.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="690" RevisionGUID="9f71a0b0-8c2d-4438-8374-7ab597c38217" CreationDate="2013-03-25T09:33:51.843" UserId="48" Text="It is, in almost all cases, so vanishingly small that it's not worth itemising, whether you're counting greenhouse gas emissions (which are bad things) or energy consumed (which is neutral - it's neither good nor bad).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get a decent first-order estimate by looking at the total distance driven, and HVAC (heating, ventilation, aircon) requirements, of staff in implementing the regulation: those are likely to swamp out everything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB that's not telling you how much the **net** energy is. You'd need to subtract out the alternative arrangements in the absence of the new regulation.  So if there are already some regulations on the habitability of rented properties, then you're only interested in the *additional* cost of the *additional* regulation. That might be zero; it might even be net negative, if the new regulations are tighter, but more streamlined than their predecessors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So although such an item does in some cases get considered in some policy impact appraisals, it's a very small value. In [Britain, policy appraisals][1] include a cost-of-carbon in valuing both costs and benefits; greenhouse-gas emissions from regulatory activities are monetised and included in the costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/using-evidence-and-analysis-to-inform-energy-and-climate-change-policies/supporting-pages/policy-appraisal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1985" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="e6442ea7-d028-4bba-844a-d5a1abea660f" CreationDate="2013-03-25T10:50:11.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/316139948455624706" />
  <row Id="1986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="689" RevisionGUID="697b5e01-435e-461e-a5f6-7456638007b0" CreationDate="2013-03-25T11:08:51.217" UserId="130" Comment="added 339 characters in body" Text="Is there sufficient data to measure the energy spent managing regulation on both sides (energy spent on compliance, enforcement, permit application processing, and the like)?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there tools available to help communities determine what the net impact of a regulatory change on energy consumption is likely to be?  One example might be whether permitting for landlords requiring sufficient insulation would require more energy in compliance efforts, enforcement, and permit application processing that would be saved and under what circumstances that might be the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally are there tools for lifecycle analysis which allow us to look at embodied energy as *including regulatory compliance and governmental actions regarding enforcement and permitting?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a few quick looks around and I couldn't find much.  Am I missing something or do we just consider this to be &quot;dark energy?&quot;  I recognize that all models are simplifications but is there an accepted way to include government energy expenditures in pursuit of regulations in these equations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Here's my first guess:  Figure average energy consumption, including indirect consumption via materials, per individual in a city, figure the ratio of permitting and inspecting employees, including supervisors, to annual permits, try to add miles driven, but at a bit of a loss, wondering if there are formulas for other admin costs.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="687" RevisionGUID="52b2b233-4c11-4e1b-8dc0-c0d6f4c7569b" CreationDate="2013-03-25T13:12:50.880" UserId="318" Comment="added 7823 characters in body" Text="Added at start:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer this question at the depth requested could require a few reams of paper and its own website :-).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **The original statement about repowering was somebody's simplificatioin of one small part of a complex ongoing process. The basis for the claim can be seen in various sources but it is arguably not justified as a pithy one line summary of the factors that drive Danish wind power installations in and leading up to 2000. Read on ...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original &quot;Energy 81&quot; incentive set targets and these were adjusted along the way by agreement and negotiation between government and industry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The refence in (2) below gives a reasonably blow-by-blow description of the timing and nature of major relevant incentives. Repowering is not mentioned per se but you can easily see where it might fit in to such a program, laden with incentives to do new better things, create jobs, meet increased performance targets etc. Note the electricity production support scheme described as &quot;only for gas from 2000&quot; - that sounds like a very major reason to get any qualifying wind turbine work completed BY 2000. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) This UK Tyndal Centre report gives a reasonable brief summary of the issues and processes and timetables involved.    &#xD;&#xA;[**The role of political uncertainty in the Danish renewable energy market**](http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wp76.pdf). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of significance is their comment about per turbine capacities. The original legislation was framed with both total megawatt capacity and turbine count targets in mind. The growth in per-turbine capacity was not anticipated originally and repowering was a consequence of the better economics achievable by obtaining more power (and energy) from a given site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their section 2.1 notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The first target for the deployment of wind power is found in Energy 81: 60,000 windmills to supply 10% of electricity by 2000. In 1990 a program was introduced to build 100MW of wind (Gronheit, 2002). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In 1996 the government and utilities signed an agreement for the installation of&#xD;&#xA;200 MW. Utilities were already responsible for a target of 1,500 MW by 2005.   &#xD;&#xA;However, at the end of 2000 almost 2,300 MW wind capacity had been already installed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It is worth noting that in 1997 the number of turbines was under 5,000, i.e. far below the target introduced in Energy 81. The increased size of turbines had not been forecasted by the legislation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In 1998 utilities signed an agreement to install 750 MW offshore wind turbine before 2008. According to government’s forecast, these turbines would generate 10% of the electricity consumption. The agreement is considered the first phase of a total 4,000 MW installation before 2030. According to reports from the Ministry of Environment, the capacity for offshore wind is 12,000 MW or 30-40 TWh in generation terms (DEA, 2002). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Here is a summary of key Danish legislative steps along the way from about 1990. Note that it is not possible to with certitude fit any one action to a repowering spike in 2000, but the relationship of the various actions to what occurred is traceable in general terms. [Denmarks's Green industrial development](http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/08/19817/41690)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a subset of those with arguable relevance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **1993 Wind turbine obligations** - utilities pay high rate (85% of consumer price) for electricity from wind, plus subsidies, plus CO2 tax rebate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1994 Green taxes, including energy &amp; transport taxes - positive results in terms of emissions, industry behaviour and technological development. Continually revised. €10bn revenue in 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **1996 Energy21 policy - set target for 20% consumption from renewables by 2003.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1996 Electricity Act, supporting the development of all renewable energy technologies ~ utilities forced to give priority access to RE and pay 85% of consumer price. **Utilities set target of 1,500MW from wind turbines by 2005 (met end 2000, with 2,100MW installed).** Target of 50% of primary energy use from renewables (79% of electricity) set for 2030.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **1996-7 Number of Government 'Executive Orders' - provide subsidies of 15 to 30% of the construction costs for renewable energy equipment.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1997 - 1999 Introduction of policies to support the research and development of new products and processes, and the uptake of these by Danish enterprises. Development of a Green Jobs concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1997 Programme for clean technologies, targeting SMEs - focus on new processes till 2000, then new products 2000-2004. Subsidies for development projects, green labelling and life-cycle analysis &amp; method development. €35m for 2000 to 2004 phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1997 Action plan for ecological reorientation of buildings - subsidies for the development of products and processes. €10m for 2000 to 2004 phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1998 Green Jobs Fund - financial support (subsidies) for the creation of new jobs concerning environmental protection, including in product and process design &amp; development. €4m a year for 1998 to 2001. 1,000 permanent jobs created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1998 Energy research programme - grants and subsidies for the R&amp;D of new and future (green) energy sources. €90m from 1998 to 2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1998 Electricity production support scheme - grants (per unit produced) for electricity production from renewables, bio materials and natural gas. €720m from 1998 to 2003 -   &#xD;&#xA;scaled down and only for gas from 2000.&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1999 Electricity Reform Act - RE subsidies transformed and introduction of green certificates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1999 Programme to support energy efficient enterprises - aims to encourage the design, development and use of new methods &amp; processes. €250m for 1999-2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3)  [Danish EPA climate change paper](http://www.statensnet.dk/pligtarkiv/fremvis.pl?vaerkid=1833&amp;reprid=0&amp;filid=58&amp;iarkiv=1) Includes ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - F.1 The Electricity Supply Act&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The Act defines the rules for accounting and tariff-setting (essentially defining electricity supply as a non-profit business) and sets the regulatory framework for the sector. The Act - originally from 1976 - also enables the Minister of Energy to order electricity supply companies to use specific fuels and specific modes of generation. The &quot;modes of generation&quot; can be used to ensure that new capacity is in the form of combined heat and power plants, wind turbines, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In 1985, ... the Minister of Energy and the power companies signed an agreement securing the construction of 100 MW of wind power capacity before 1991.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In 1990, after a similar agreement, the power companies agreed to establish another 100 MW of wind capacity before 1994.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **In February 1996, the Minister for Environment and Energy announced a new agreement with the main electricity utilities to establish an additional 200 MW wind capacity during the next four years.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) The 2000 peak is not overly pronounced here ([Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The motivation is summarised in passing in [Repowering of Wind Turbines: Economics and Optimal Timing  ](http://www.eonerc.rwth-aachen.de/global/show_document.asp?id=aaaaaaaaaacoynw) - reference details at end of this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The development of wind power utilization in Denmark has been characterized by strong public involvement. The first target can be found in Decree Energy 81: the installation of 60,000 windmills to supply 10% of the electricity demand by 2000, a target that had already been reached in 1998 with fewer than 5000 turbines (Agnolucci, 2007). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **In the early 1990s, a second target was announced by the government, namely to build 100 MW of wind power capacity, while in 1996 the utilities and the government signed a target agreement to install 1500 MW by 2005.** Indeed, at the end of 2000, 2300 MW had already been installed (Agnolucci, 2007).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2012 -  [Energy policy in Denmark](http://www.ens.dk/Documents/Netboghandel%20-%20publikationer/2013/Energy%20Policy%20in%20Denmark.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2006 - [Global wind report](http://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/gwec-2006_final_01.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wind power in Denmark - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Why wind power works for Denmark](http://incoteco.com/upload/CIEN.158.2.66.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wind targets for Europe 2020, 2030](http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/reports/Pure_Power_III.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;============================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**re**&#xD;&#xA;________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The aim of repowering is to make better use of wind resources on existing sites. Older sites can be &quot;fully populated&quot; by turbines in the 100's of kW range such that no new turbines can be installed. By replacing existing turbines with fewer much larger turbines with much higher mean heights an increased amount of energy can be intercepted for the same site area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The picture below is from [Europe Replaces Old Wind Farms](http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/europe-replaces-old-wind-farms)   &#xD;&#xA;The amazingly similar [tm] cloud formations indicates that this is a conceptual rather than actual &quot;after&quot; example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Photo-illustration: Bundesverband WindEnergie.  &#xD;&#xA; A wind farm at Simonsberg, in northern Germany, would produce more electricity with just a few large turbines than it does with many small ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FCN Working Paper No. 19/2011  &#xD;&#xA;Repowering of Wind Turbines: Economics and Optimal Timing  &#xD;&#xA;Sebastian Himpler and Reinhard Madlener  &#xD;&#xA;November 2011 Revised July 2012  &#xD;&#xA;Institute for Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN)  &#xD;&#xA;School of Business and Economics / E.ON ERC  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1rLUY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rBL8Z.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="683" RevisionGUID="8c790a33-8071-4718-a56d-2f86d8aaea4f" CreationDate="2013-03-25T15:48:52.850" UserId="48" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="[This pdf on Danish Renewable Energy Policy by Preben Maegaard][1] refers on page 11 to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; A repowering programme that had been launched by the previous government resulted in a short term revitalisation of the sector in 2002&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The figures from the [Danish Energy Agency][2] do show a spike in decommissioned wind capacity in **2002**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(source: my charts, compiled from ENS statistics)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What was this repowering programme? I mean, I know what **a** repowering programme is: an incentivisation scheme to replace old turbines with new. But what was the law, and what were the incentives, behind **this** repowering programme?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note that the Himpler and Madlener paper &quot;Repowering of Wind Turbines: Economics and Optimal Timing&quot; does not discuss the specific Danish law and incentives behind this repowering programme)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wcre.de/en/images/stories/pdf/WCRE_Maegaard_Danish%20RE%20Policy.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ens.dk/da-DK/Info/TalOgKort/Statistik_og_noegletal/Oversigt_over_energisektoren/Stamdataregister_vindmoeller/Sider/forside.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V7v4K.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V6znj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="691" RevisionGUID="a06a4cf7-f87f-4fa0-abb6-4b01b1fcc264" CreationDate="2013-03-25T15:49:00.337" UserId="403" Text="&quot;#3&quot; is an excellent answer.  To add to this, consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many in the sanitation treatment industry feel the garbage disposal was among the most troublesome inventions in the history of the modern home.  Treatment facilities are designed to remove bacterial and viral contaminants, not solid wastes (grinding it and sending it into the sewer system does not change the fact that it is solid waste).  Most plants have been retrofitted to remove the increased volume of food waste (among other things), but it is no where near as efficient as composting this waste stream.  Essentially, using a garbage disposal is another way to outsource waste removal without paying additionally for it, and it puts an undue burden on infrastructure.  To see this process in action, and to see what happens when food waste is co-mingled with wastewater, I highly recommend taking a tour of your local treatment facility - usually this is a free service provided to citizens.  For example, if you live in southern California, the Orange County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts will offer free tours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ocsd.com/index.aspx?page=115&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.lacsd.org/education/tours/default.asp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting is relatively easy, although it does require a bit of maintenance.  If you have a backyard, outdoor composting is definitely the preferred solution - there are plenty of websites out there that will provide instructions.  If you live in an apartment or have limited space, consider worm composting.  If done properly, there is no odor, and the end product (worm casting &quot;poo&quot;) makes for perfect potting soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting (as above) should only be done with specific kinds of scraps - e.g. fruits, veggies, breads, egg shells, garden cuttings, etc.  Do NOT add fats, oils, meats, or dairy products.  I had never heard of guinea pigs as a disposal method - cool idea! Along those same lines, many people in the U.S. are using chickens to achieve the same goal.  Chickens will eat anything, including meats, fats, dairy products, cooked food, etc!  But check your city or county ordinances to make sure this is approved in your area." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1990" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="635" RevisionGUID="8e9a5a6e-ac64-48d4-b59e-40ed25986859" CreationDate="2013-03-25T16:50:12.237" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/316230546646765568" />
  <row Id="1991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="102ef3d6-360f-41cc-87e3-dac797350e8e" CreationDate="2013-03-25T23:04:13.440" UserId="404" Text="What is the most cost efficient way to capture carbon dioxide from coal plants?  I know there are several possibilities here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - cryogenic - I've seen a figure as low as $33 per ton from [sustainable energy solutions](http://sustainablees.com/documents/conferencebrochure.pdf).&#xD;&#xA; - amine solvents - haven't found a good figure for this, but [Sask Power](http://www.saskpowercarboncapture.com/index) is set to launch the first commercial CCS plant April 2014 using this tech ([Estevan Mercury](http://www.estevanmercury.ca/article/20111222/ESTMERCURY0101/111229984/-1/estmercury/co2-stripper-rolls-into-boundary-dam)).&#xD;&#xA; - direct air capture - [Carbn Engineering](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/business/pilot-plant-in-the-works-for-carbon-dioxide-cleansing.html?_r=1&amp;) say they can do it for $100/ton&#xD;&#xA; - metal organic frameworks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ARPA-E currently has [these research projects](http://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=project-tech-areas/carbon-capture) going on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, what are the most valuable uses of captured CO2?  This is probably contextual, but in an optimistic scenario, how much would CO2 go for for an enhanced oil recovery project?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="102ef3d6-360f-41cc-87e3-dac797350e8e" CreationDate="2013-03-25T23:04:13.440" UserId="404" Text="What is currently the most promising form of carbon capture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="102ef3d6-360f-41cc-87e3-dac797350e8e" CreationDate="2013-03-25T23:04:13.440" UserId="404" Text="|decarbonisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="6e54ce20-058c-4ebd-931e-fcfbec76c21a" CreationDate="2013-03-25T23:11:04.333" UserId="405" Text="I've always washed them out and let them soak in the water I use for houseplants to leach minerals into" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="694" RevisionGUID="795d2166-45cf-4be1-8595-cd5f2c4ba4fc" CreationDate="2013-03-26T00:36:34.983" UserId="15" Text="According to [this article][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Every megaliter of seawater contains about 1300 kg of magnesium, 900&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kg of sulfur, 400 kg each of potassium and calcium, and smaller&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amounts of virtually every metal on the periodic table of elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sodium also is present in high quantities, though perhaps it's not particularly useful for manufacturing and therefore not mentioned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seawater is probably one of the most sustainable sources for minerals/materials, alongside products from sustainably managed plants or animals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any websites that list products completely comprised from such sustainable sources, without mining?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greenprophet.com/2012/08/mining-minerals-desalination/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="694" RevisionGUID="795d2166-45cf-4be1-8595-cd5f2c4ba4fc" CreationDate="2013-03-26T00:36:34.983" UserId="15" Text="Where can I find a comprehensive list of products that can be produced without mining?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="694" RevisionGUID="795d2166-45cf-4be1-8595-cd5f2c4ba4fc" CreationDate="2013-03-26T00:36:34.983" UserId="15" Text="|manufacturing|mining|seawater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="1998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="694" RevisionGUID="30910438-1e13-4c49-bde4-c0d3868b8c92" CreationDate="2013-03-26T00:54:56.123" UserId="15" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="According to [this article][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Every megaliter of seawater contains about 1300 kg of magnesium, 900&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kg of sulfur, 400 kg each of potassium and calcium, and smaller&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amounts of virtually every metal on the periodic table of elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sodium also is present in high quantities, though perhaps it's not particularly useful for manufacturing and therefore not mentioned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seawater is probably one of the most sustainable sources for minerals/materials, alongside products from sustainably managed plants or animals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any websites that list products completely comprised from such sustainable sources, without mining?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not asking about what could theoretically be produced, if we were able to extract tiny quantities of a mineral at great expense; I'm asking about products that are currently produced, or could easily be produced, from such sources that are already cost effective to utilise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greenprophet.com/2012/08/mining-minerals-desalination/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="695" RevisionGUID="66212c8d-8652-4738-b549-3a0c53f438bd" CreationDate="2013-03-26T05:56:57.187" UserId="404" Text="I haven't seen a comprehensive list.  In fact all the sea mineral products i've seen on the net a for home gardening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ag-usa](http://ag-usa.net/Four_Wonderful_Sea_Mineral_Products.htm) has a list of four home gardening mineral products they say make up the market.&#xD;&#xA; - [seamazing](http://www.seamazing.net/) offers a similar product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds like this list will grow, along with the sea mineral products offered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't rush to the conclusion, however, that because these products use sea minerals, they are more sustainable.  From a land use perspective, of course they will be.  However, mining minerals from the sea can be very energy intensive, according to a lot of sources, [mdpi](http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/4/980/pdf) for instance.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High energy intensity, depending on the energy source used, could actually lead to more air pollution, including GHGs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2002" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="695" RevisionGUID="4da6750a-beb7-440f-b2d1-7af5a550c1ba" CreationDate="2013-03-26T05:56:57.187" UserId="404" />
  <row Id="2003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="696" RevisionGUID="ec5fd949-dc9b-46ee-bf1d-90a1a6ca5ca6" CreationDate="2013-03-26T06:03:20.833" UserId="406" Text="Try Bokashi composting: Done in the kitchen in an air-tight container--this is an anaerobic composting method or fermentation, not aerobic like conventional composting--surprisingly little odor is produced because *nothing rots* as happens in conventional composting. Can take a greater variety of wastes than conventional composting (including meat, bone, cooked food, etc.) Requires Bokashi bran for the particular microbes that work on the food scraps, called &quot;Effective Microorganisms&quot; or EM-1. Every time you add food scraps to your container you cover them with a handful of Bokashi bran, which contains the bacteria, fungi, etc. which break down the cellulose in the scraps. When the bucket is full, you set it aside for 2 weeks and then bury the contents in dirt. If you live in an apartment, you can use the material for container gardening or donate it to someone who has a garden or to a community garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I like best about Bokashi is that it's pretty simple to do (compared with vermiculture, chickens or guinea pigs). And it demonstrates that one's food waste doesn't have to be regarded as waste at all. You can watch it become awesome fertilizer with most or all the nutrients intact (preserved by fermentation) to grow some new, tasty food.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="697" RevisionGUID="0eed5278-521d-4812-9216-3b9933633825" CreationDate="2013-03-26T08:19:07.543" UserId="48" Text="Seawater is no more a sustainable source of minerals than mining is. They're both depleting a finite resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One big difference is that mining uses fewer resources to do the extraction, than seawater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another is that the ecosystem impact *can* be easier to mitigate with mining, though often is not. Seawater extraction often involves some form of filtering of very large volumes of water, close to shore, potentially with consequential high impacts on the near-shore ecosystem. Typically, vast volumes of sea water must be filtered to extract small quantities of useful minerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my knowledge, the only minerals currently extracted from sea water cost-effectively are in sea salt, and they're cost-effective because they are at much higher concentrations in seawater, so solar evaporation from rock pools does most of the work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="697" RevisionGUID="d36edf88-ae7a-4e6f-aed1-57d5e20af98d" CreationDate="2013-03-26T09:04:43.713" UserId="48" Comment="added 369 characters in body" Text="Seawater is no more a sustainable source of minerals than mining is. They're both depleting a finite resource, insofar as the minerals in the sea come from rock erosion anyway.  There's a small difference in that some of the minerals in the sea come from waste from human activities. But in those cases, mining landfill sites or doing mineral extraction at sewage farms is going to be less resource-intensive and more cost-effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One big difference is that mining uses fewer resources to do the extraction, than seawater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another is that the ecosystem impact *can* be easier to mitigate with mining, though often this is not done, owing to weak regulation of miners. Seawater extraction often involves some form of filtering of very large volumes of water, close to shore, potentially with consequential high impacts on the near-shore ecosystem. Typically, vast volumes of sea water must be filtered to extract small quantities of useful minerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my knowledge, the only minerals currently extracted from sea water cost-effectively are in sea salt, and they're cost-effective because they are at much higher concentrations in seawater, so solar evaporation from rock pools does most of the work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="690" RevisionGUID="3a37fbe2-eac5-41e3-b6a8-d1b5cfea8d64" CreationDate="2013-03-26T10:17:35.087" UserId="48" Comment="added 558 characters in body" Text="The regulatory environmental impact itself is, in almost all cases, so vanishingly small that it's not worth itemising, whether you're counting greenhouse gas emissions (which are bad things) or energy consumed (which is neutral - it's neither good nor bad).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get a decent first-order estimate by looking at the total distance driven, and HVAC (heating, ventilation, aircon) requirements, of staff in implementing the regulation: those are likely to swamp out everything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the actual physical costs of implementing the regulation, you'd want an Lifecycle assessment database, or similar; or for a specific measure (e.g. energy embodied in specific types of insulation), there are sources in the scientific literature, in manufacturers' datasheets, and some supervisory organisations: I'd imagine people like the UK's Energy Savings Trust, Ethical Consumer magazine, and maybe even the &quot;Which&quot; consumer group, might have such information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB that's not telling you how much the **net** energy is. You'd need to subtract out the alternative arrangements in the absence of the new regulation.  So if there are already some regulations on the habitability of rented properties, then you're only interested in the *additional* cost of the *additional* regulation. That might be zero; it might even be net negative, if the new regulations are tighter, but more streamlined than their predecessors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So although the regulatory costs do in some cases get considered in some policy impact appraisals, it's a very small value. In [Britain, policy appraisals][1] include a cost-of-carbon in valuing both costs and benefits; greenhouse-gas emissions from regulatory activities are monetised and included in the costs, along with the costs of implementation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/using-evidence-and-analysis-to-inform-energy-and-climate-change-policies/supporting-pages/policy-appraisal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="698" RevisionGUID="6ce13597-caf9-4d81-ad33-e4aff6ddd121" CreationDate="2013-03-26T10:32:23.007" UserId="318" Text="**Summary**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The 4 metals currently extracted (in combination with other materials (eg &quot;salt&quot;) or as ions in an extraction process are the only ones commercially viable at present, and may be the only ones readily able to be extracted for the forseeable future.  The &quot;big 4&quot; are - &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- Sodium   &#xD;&#xA;- Magnesium   &#xD;&#xA;- Calcium   &#xD;&#xA;- Potassium, &#xD;&#xA; - Energy considerations make the task of extraction non-viable in all other cases except possibly for Lithium and Uranium, due to their high energy content when used as nuclear 'fuels'. Lithium is substantially more viable in this respect but has not as yet been extracted commercially. For all other materials the need to process extremely large amounts of water mean that the energy required almost invariably greatly exceeds either that used for extraction from other sources and the &quot;energy value&quot; of the recovered materials. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Development of  unconventional extraction systems using eg bacteria or sea plants or animals to concentrate materials selectively may make some other materials viable in future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Detail:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The four most concentrated metals in sea water are Sodium, Magnesium, Calcium and Potassium, and these are the only ones commercially extractable today. The least concentrated is Potassium at 400 parts per million.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Materials below the level of concentration of the above 4 are not economically extractable by direct removal by filtering, membranes and similar due to energy considerations. The energy required to move the vast quantities of water through a filtration system typically greatly exceeds the energy needed for extraction by other means on land. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two possible exceptions are Lithium and Uranium due to the large amount of energy released when they are used as 'fuel' in nuclear reactions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Japanese ran a Uranium extraction experimental system for some years but practical activity on the project seems to have ceased (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Available materials can be surprisingly low. All the dissolved copper in seawater (20th in occurrence) amounts to about 50 years of use worldwide at current rates. Getting the Copper out would be a humungous task and clearly not practical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Other means: **As an alternative to filtering other means have been and are being investigated** which **MAY** have application for a range of minerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [**Mining minerals from seawater - TED talk - Damian Palin**](http://www.ted.com/talks/damian_palin_mining_minerals_from_seawater.html)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **The (hopefully) magic bullet ? - bacterial processing.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) **Good discussion of energy issues**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Extracting Minerals from Seawater: An Energy Analysis**  &#xD;&#xA;[**Abstract here**](http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/4/980)  &#xD;&#xA;[**Full free paper here** {PDF}](http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/4/980/pdf)  &#xD;&#xA;Ugo Bardi, Dipartimento di Chimica, Università di Firenze, ... 2010&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Abstract: ... Seawater contains large amounts of dissolved ions and the four most concentrated metal ones (Na, Mg, Ca, K) are being commercially extracted today. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; However, all the other metal ions exist at much lower concentrations. This paper reports an estimate of the feasibility of the extraction of these metal ions on the basis of the energy needed. In most cases, the result is that extraction in amounts comparable to the present production from land mines would be impossible because of the very large amount of energy needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This conclusion holds also for uranium as fuel for the present generation of nuclear fission plants. Nevertheless, in a few cases, mainly lithium, extraction from seawater could provide amounts of metals sufficient for closing the cycle of metal use in the economy, provided that an increased level of recycling can be attained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) **Ref1:**   This excellent paper discusses the issues involved and provides details of attempts to extract Uranium and Lithium. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [**Mining the Oceans: Can We Extract Minerals from Seawater?**](http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4558)  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; Ugo Bardi - September 22, 2008  &#xD;&#xA;Website: The Oil Drum: Europe   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;An image in Ref1 shows Japanese researchers investigating Uranium extraction!  &#xD;&#xA;They say - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The four most concentrated metal ions, Na+, Mg2+, Ca2+, and K+, are the only ones commercially extractable today, with the the least concentrated of the four being potassium (K) at 400 parts per million (ppm).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **Below potassium, we go down to lithium, which has never been extracted in commercial amounts from seawater, with a concentration of 0.17 ppm.**  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; Other dissolved metal ions exist at lower concentrations, sometimes several orders of magnitude lower.   &#xD;&#xA;**None has ever been commercially extracted.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A company set up in New Zealand a decade + ago to do Lithium extraction. It SOUNDED plausible and much money was spent. The promotrer turned out to be an internationally known con-man! :-(.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The main problem - energy cost and return.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Ref 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Table 2. (see paper). Elements are ordered as a function of the mass of seawater that would need to be filtered in order to obtain the same amount of materials that we obtain today from traditional mining. That value is calculated in the optimistic assumption of 100% efficiency of the filtering membrane. For data sources, see note (1) at the end of the text&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The table shows that, even for the best case listed, lithium, in order to recover the same amount we get today from conventional mining we would need to set gigantic facilities. **We'd need to process at least ten times as much water as it is processed by desalination plants today.** All the other metals would require to process amounts of water orders of magnitude larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving these gigantic amounts of water is **not just a practical problem**:   &#xD;&#xA;**it involves energy**; a critical parameter especially if we consider the extraction of two elements that are to be used as energy sources: lithium and uranium. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **In both cases, the feasibility of extraction is determined by the energy needed according to the well known concept of &quot;EROEI&quot; (energy returned for energy investment) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(4) [The geochemistry of seawater](http://liquidminerals.blogspot.co.nz/2007/06/sea-water.html)  &#xD;&#xA;[Table of 84 minerals in seawater here {jpg image}](http://liquidminerals.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/seawater_analysis.jpg)  Copied below - order inobvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hpC9C.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="686" RevisionGUID="9c8c68ac-d52d-4230-a88c-0a093d1a7de0" CreationDate="2013-03-26T14:42:11.967" UserId="400" Comment="Comment was correct  Not an answer. Added more material to address the trade-offs" Text="Much depends on what you consider sustainable. The two major sustainability questions concern the energy to produce it,  and the resource used to produce it.  Additional concerns are the difficulty to recycle/dispose of at end of life, and the costs of both moving the resource to manufacturing point, and moving the product to the use point.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK there is no general purpose definition.  Here's some comparisons and tradeoffs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Group 1.  Plastic/Petrochemical&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vinyl** -- probably one of the worst picks.  All sorts of poisonous byproducts in it's manufacture, and in disposal.  Relatively innocuous in use.  Lifetime 15-25 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Shingle** -- Similar to the standard asphalt and fiber and rock shingles used on roofs, but designed to be used vertically.  Tend to last longer as siding than they do as roof, because there is no snow load, no hail, less sun.  Not terribly hard on the environment -- basically the same material as roads with glass fiber added.  As long as we are going to use fossil fuel, we will have a surplus of asphalt.  Of this group, I consdier this one most sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Group 2:  Wood based.  Wood is the only fully renewable material on this list, so in that sense is the most sustainable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wood slab.**  Formed from the first cut off the side of a log, bark scraped off, and a half lap rabbeted on each side.  Requires new coat of log oil every 5 years or so. Very sustainable -- better use than for fuel, which is otherwise what happens to slabs. Very time consuming to put on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Clapboard.**  Requires large trees as feed stock, and so competes with the other uses for large trees.  If Cedar clapboard is used, puts higher demand on an already high demand wood.  Requires regular painting.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tongue &amp; Groove Milled siding.**  Similar to clapboard but both thicker and narrower.  Can be made with smaller trees.  Uses more wood overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chip based siding** -- Made from slash and scrap wood. Requires regular painting. Requires significant petrochemical resins to bond the chips together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Group 3 Metal based. Metal siding requires careful attention to the details around doors and windows.  It also has zero water permiability, so some form of ventilation or rain screen needs to be behind the siding. Metal siding usually won't require care once up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminum siding.  High initial embodied energy cost, but will last a very very long time.  Subject to dents.  Aluminum recycles quite well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steel siding.  Lower energy than aluminum, but also lower lifetime.  Better dent resistance.    Also endlessly recyclable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Group 4.  Cementaceous based siding.  Relatively high emboddied energy, and low recycleability.  Used material is only good for fill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Portland cement and fiber:** Portland cement is one of the highest energy materials out there -- a significant amount of our cultures total energy budget is spent making portland cement.  In that sense it's unsustainnable.  The raw material is limestone, and we have whole mountains made of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fiber can be one of several minerals, indlcuding asbestos, serpentine, rock wool from slag, spun glass from recycled glass.  Coloring can be either embedded mineral pigments, or painted.  If embedded will last a very long time.  Essentially impossible to recycle -- use as fill.  Note that it requires a lab test to determine if the fiber component is asbestos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Lime/Earth Plaster:**  See any resource on strawbale building.  The energy cost of lime is much smaller than for portland cement, and earth based is just clay and fine sand.  However the usual use is with buildings with wide eaves to reduce the amount of rain hitting them.  They are very labour intensive to apply, and require attention to maintenance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Stucco:**  Relatively cheap, long lasting, but very limited in available colours.  While it can be painted, it seldom is.  Stucco housing developments tend to be grey and dreary looking. Stucco is also based on portland cement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, My opinion is that the wood slab siding is the most sustainable.  The resource is renewable, the energy costs moderate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second on my list are the lime/earth based plasters if you have a house/climate that allow it. Stucco comes close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third on my list is steel siding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better answer than this would require  deciding which factors are most important, as well as energy and resource use of the particular product and manufacturer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate sustainable action is to do nothing.  It requires no energy, no resources.  If the present siding works and is not harming you while present, the the most sustainable siding is the present siding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original Answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it's not a health concern.  Right now it's locked up as siding.  If you remove it, you will break it up, make dust, which IS a health problem, but sitting there bonded to concrete on the side of your house it is harmless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep it painted to keep dust from spalling off of it. although that is a pretty minor concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even asbestos insulation is largely harmless once in place.  The hazard is in working around it, with it, but asbestos bonded into tile or cement siding is reasonably safe unless some process is turning it into powder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2012" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="665" RevisionGUID="18fc3242-0f1f-4c8d-8230-a8c2756c53ee" CreationDate="2013-03-27T07:51:51.670" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/316819843204653056" />
  <row Id="2013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="b8b46b98-a787-4cd0-973b-1fadc61d4b4b" CreationDate="2013-03-27T08:22:10.247" UserId="60" Text="They've included the best mixture in their [earth brick press wiki][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bricks are made of **20%-30% clay, the rest being sand and silt**. A combination of mechanical and electrostatic forces is responsible for the high strength of compressed earth blocks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For stabilized bricks, chemical binding forces of the binder - such as cement - are responsible for the strength.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll have to learn or estimate the composition of your soil, as [Chris][2] writes and add the missing component to get the right balance.  &#xD;&#xA;As with most enthusiastic activities, you'll have to use &quot;trial and error&quot; to get the best results. And both OSE and SE communities will be happy to hear back from you about your progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/CEB_Press_Design_Rationale,_Product_Ecology&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/363/what-is-the-most-effective-mixture-of-soil-and-amendments-to-use-with-open-sourc#comment675_363" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2014" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="363" RevisionGUID="4505e437-2364-470c-9fd2-dbe146e56927" CreationDate="2013-03-27T10:52:55.297" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/316865408357502976" />
  <row Id="2015" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="4281b47a-412d-44e2-aa4e-2d1a5159659a" CreationDate="2013-03-27T16:52:58.040" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/316956017307033601" />
  <row Id="2020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="693" RevisionGUID="1dc506e7-e7f5-4690-a842-eaf76884e7ba" CreationDate="2013-03-27T18:25:03.877" UserId="405" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="I've always washed them out and let them soak in the water I use for houseplants to leach minerals into. I've always heard it was good for plants, but have no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Seems to work though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="703" RevisionGUID="5a92aa27-b3b6-4b43-9da1-f68f58aaa05d" CreationDate="2013-03-28T05:14:38.137" UserId="400" Text="A ton of coal is roughly 240 kWh of electricity.  At present, the coal mine north of me charges the local power company something like $1.90 /ton for coal.  So the fuel cost is about a cent per kWh.  The wholesale price of electricty is about $.03/kWh.  The retail price of that power is $.15/kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A $24/ton carbon tax would be 10 cents/kWH.  That's enough to make people start looking for better ways.  Wind and solar start looking very attractive. $100/ton would raise power costs by 50 cents/kWh. Almost any renewable power can be efficient at this level.  Note that natural gas releases a lot less carbon per kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I stray from the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two most promising ways I see at this point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Reforestation.  This is slow to get started, and ultimately buys us only a few decades.  A forest will soon (50-200 years) get into equilibrium where decomposition and photosynthesis balance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Charcoal in the soil.  Charcoal does not degrade rapidly, and has positive effects on the nutrient storage capability of the soil.  The science is still new, and not well understood.  Google 'terra preta'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this to be successful, all it would take is a reasonable way to heat a barn using a charcoal generator fueled with farm waste (corn stalks, straw, moldy hay) In a nutshell, you need to burn roughly twice the fuel, but half of it is turned into charcoal, which you can either put on your own fields, or sell.  The science of this is still new.  Stay tuned.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other possibilities.  Fertilizing the oceans with iron comes up, but I don't think we understand oceanic ecology well enough.  It would be a bitch to measure progress.  At least with charcoal and trees, we can make good estimates of how much carbon is there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The power plant near my home looked at a pilot plant for extract CO2 from the exhaust stream, and storing it underground.  It looked like a 10% cost in plant efficiency, and a large increase in plant cost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="704" RevisionGUID="4a3e5157-bef0-407e-9a31-4c21173b907f" CreationDate="2013-03-28T09:33:07.560" UserId="404" Text="I'm looking for a range, or better yet, likelihood distribution, compared to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The average US meat consumer.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The average world meat consumer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How significantly are those averages affected by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Distance the meat travels to plate.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Food source of the meat.  For instance, are these numbers greatly impacted if the livestock is fed with organic feed, or range grass vs. meal&#xD;&#xA; 3. The types of meat consumed.  I know beef much more GHG intensive than chicken.  But how much and where does pork fit in?&#xD;&#xA; 4. Any other factors you can identify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, is the impact of cutting out other animal products as significant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="704" RevisionGUID="4a3e5157-bef0-407e-9a31-4c21173b907f" CreationDate="2013-03-28T09:33:07.560" UserId="404" Text="What are the greenhouse gas benefits of vegetarianism?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="704" RevisionGUID="4a3e5157-bef0-407e-9a31-4c21173b907f" CreationDate="2013-03-28T09:33:07.560" UserId="404" Text="|food|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="705" RevisionGUID="a31d26a1-f673-43c6-b3b7-f83edf7c4b41" CreationDate="2013-03-28T10:27:45.307" UserId="404" Text="Based on the question as currently worded, I believe you're concerned about fraudulent and 'anyway' offsets - paying money for a business to do what they would have done anyway.  For example, if a company knew it was going to install solar panels on a roof that they were already going to install solar on because of tax incentives, you wouldn't want to give them money for what was already economic for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few characteristics of carbon offsets that you may want to purchase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - you are paying into a new low carbon energy infrastructure, as opposed to existing infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA; - you are purchasing from a well regulated electricity market where claims can be verified.  Try to avoid schemes in distant, unregulated countries, unless you have good reason that there is truth in the carbon offset claims.&#xD;&#xA; - the offsets you are purchasing are not redundant to government incentives or pre-existing market benefits (eg don't pay for a company to go from incandescent to cfl - they should already be doing it because it will save them money).&#xD;&#xA; - you are driving a new technology to market and scale.  Your dollars are best placed in technologies that not only offset the carbon you paid for, but promise to do more in the future.  For instance if there is a new wind turbine blade that is already cost competitive with others on the market, but will likely drop further in cost as they are more widely adopted, support it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Economist did a great debate piece on this.  [Check it out](http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/249)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2030" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="704" RevisionGUID="c1279728-5804-4081-b519-98cc7b6d2d3d" CreationDate="2013-03-28T13:53:21.107" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/317273203905015810" />
  <row Id="2037" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="738a35f2-1ee4-4d37-b19f-418a9cb83a79" CreationDate="2013-03-28T16:35:25.653" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="Qualified the question" Text="What is currently the most promising form of carbon capture for Coal Plants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2038" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="738a35f2-1ee4-4d37-b19f-418a9cb83a79" CreationDate="2013-03-28T16:35:25.653" Comment="Proposed by 141 approved by 130, 3 edit id of 94" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="704" RevisionGUID="c09e0ef2-7ed1-42f3-96c2-1758ff801032" CreationDate="2013-03-29T03:51:55.183" UserId="404" Comment="deleted 76 characters in body" Text="I'm looking for a range, or better yet, likelihood distribution, compared to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The average US meat consumer.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The average world meat consumer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How significantly are those averages affected by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Distance the meat travels to plate.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Food source of the meat.  For instance, are these numbers greatly impacted if the livestock is fed with organic feed, or range grass vs. meal&#xD;&#xA; 3. The types of meat consumed.  I know beef much more GHG intensive than chicken.  But how much and where does pork fit in?&#xD;&#xA; 4. Any other factors you can identify." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="706" RevisionGUID="57575db6-6e19-4e9e-916d-de55b9e97a51" CreationDate="2013-03-29T08:41:55.353" UserId="15" Text="If large scale mineral extraction from seawater was performed, how quickly could we expect the minerals to be naturally replenished?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For each particular mineral, the answer to this may be dependent on whether the mineral is at (or close to) a saturation point or not. If it is at a saturation point, then removal of some of that mineral would allow more to dissolve into the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to get an understanding of whether mineral extraction from seawater could be considered reasonably sustainable, assuming the energy used to do it was sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, even natural replenishment will have its limits, but let's save that discussion for another day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="706" RevisionGUID="57575db6-6e19-4e9e-916d-de55b9e97a51" CreationDate="2013-03-29T08:41:55.353" UserId="15" Text="If the concentration of minerals in oceans was reduced through extraction, would they be replenished quickly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="706" RevisionGUID="57575db6-6e19-4e9e-916d-de55b9e97a51" CreationDate="2013-03-29T08:41:55.353" UserId="15" Text="|mining|seawater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="707" RevisionGUID="91b3da5a-4f82-4ad4-8b9b-3fb8520677df" CreationDate="2013-03-29T08:48:30.307" UserId="384" Text="I recently fantasized about a project that starts from a small solar furnace (small, but can melt steel), and a small solar farm (that control the electronics). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then all the energy is used to build more mirrors and solar cells to extend the power plant's capacity. This way it's capacity can slowly but exponentially grow on free energy. When it grew large enough it could be connected to the power grid and become useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are there such projects? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2045" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="707" RevisionGUID="91b3da5a-4f82-4ad4-8b9b-3fb8520677df" CreationDate="2013-03-29T08:48:30.307" UserId="384" Text="Are there projects that use renewable energy sources to create renewable energy sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2046" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="707" RevisionGUID="91b3da5a-4f82-4ad4-8b9b-3fb8520677df" CreationDate="2013-03-29T08:48:30.307" UserId="384" Text="|energy|economy|zero-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="703" RevisionGUID="2840aef0-08b2-40f2-adc4-315ec1e0cd19" CreationDate="2013-03-29T15:01:28.967" UserId="400" Comment="Added cost estimates base on clarification by original poster." Text="A ton of coal is roughly 240 kWh of electricity.  At present, the coal mine north of me charges the local power company something like $1.90 /ton for coal.  So the fuel cost is about a cent per kWh.  The wholesale price of electricty is about $.03/kWh.  The retail price of that power is $.15/kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A $24/ton carbon tax would be 10 cents/kWH.  That's enough to make people start looking for better ways.  Wind and solar start looking very attractive. $100/ton would raise power costs by 50 cents/kWh. Almost any renewable power can be efficient at this level.  Note that natural gas releases a lot less carbon per kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I stray from the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two most promising ways I see at this point:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Reforestation.  This is slow to get started, and ultimately buys us only a few decades.  A forest will soon (50-200 years) get into equilibrium where decomposition and photosynthesis balance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Charcoal in the soil.  Charcoal does not degrade rapidly, and has positive effects on the nutrient storage capability of the soil.  The science is still new, and not well understood.  Google 'terra preta'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this to be successful, all it would take is a reasonable way to heat a barn using a charcoal generator fueled with farm waste (corn stalks, straw, moldy hay) In a nutshell, you need to burn roughly twice the fuel, but half of it is turned into charcoal, which you can either put on your own fields, or sell.  The science of this is still new.  Stay tuned.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other possibilities.  Fertilizing the oceans with iron comes up, but I don't think we understand oceanic ecology well enough.  It would be a bitch to measure progress.  At least with charcoal and trees, we can make good estimates of how much carbon is there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The power plant near my home looked at a pilot plant for extract CO2 from the exhaust stream, and storing it underground.  It looked like a 10% cost in plant efficiency, and a large increase in plant cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked about costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40562.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cites cost ranging from 200 to 2000 dollars per acre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forest biomass:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0717-forest_carbon.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;cites an average of 377 tons/acre averaged across 18 sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you are willing to wait,  the cost is somewhere between 50 cents and 5 bucks per ton. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the 10% efficiency loss for CO2 separation at the power plant and deep well injection is correct, then since a state of the art coal plant is about 45% efficient, it would increase the cost of power by 45/35.  Your ton of coal produces 240 kWh at 3c or about $7.20  This would raise the price by around $2.  Now the separation process is only about 70% efficient.  (Making it more efficent makes the power plant less so.)  So first order ballpark cost is around $3 per ton of carbon.  It would be lower for natural gas and oil fired plants since they get more energy per ton of carbon.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The charcoal sequesterization, if a workable system can be made, actually MAKES money.  Many crops produce enough residual plant matter that what to do with it is an issue.  Not all of it can be used for feed, and all too often growers will bale it just to get it off their field.  Significant amounts are burned in outside furnaces to provide heat for livestock sheds, shops, etc.  It *should* be a simple redesign to make charcoal makers, which would get only half the heat per bale, but produces charcoal as a byproduct.  The farmer wins with more productive fields as he works this into his land, mostly showing up as decreased fertilizer cost, fewer crop failures, and higher production -- maybe.  Quantifying this is difficult to impossible because we are at the cutting edge of soil science with carbon.  It will also be a tough initial sell.  I would expect a charcoal maker to be 2-4 times as expensive to make as a bale burner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a process that will work with a lot of municipal waste too that would otherwise fill landfills.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="708" RevisionGUID="8d1099b6-b426-49d2-95d5-e5f0dfa13f12" CreationDate="2013-03-29T20:17:03.253" UserId="15" Text="Yes, there is one major project underway, called the the [Sahara Solar Breeder][1]. Wikipedia also has a good page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Solar_Breeder_Project&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ssb-foundation.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="709" RevisionGUID="0947e96f-d9a2-4690-8f23-5871c63361e4" CreationDate="2013-03-30T13:00:24.303" UserId="400" Text="Does anyone use wood wool anymore?  It's all peanuts and bubbles now a days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood wool depends on pulling long shavings with the grain. If you cut across the grain, the strand will break on a growth ring.   With scraps, I think it would be hard to maintain the orientation of the scrap to the strand knives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Successive layers of wood have grain at right angles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The glue/resin would be tough on the knives.  At least with other composite wood material, such as OSB, particle board, MDF board, are tough on saw blades, and result in the need for sharpening with much higher frequency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood wool doesn't compress well (ok, it doesn't re-expand well after shipping)needs to produced near the place of use, otherwise you pay through the nose for shipping. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Alternative use.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The glue content makes it necessary to burn it under controlled conditions. Not advisable to use it for fuel in your wood stove.  Depending on the glue formulation you will get anything from dioxins (very bad) to formaldehyde (somewhat bad) at domestic wood burning temps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;large scraps can enter the reuse and hobby stream.   E.g. Square foot scraps make bird houses, kids puzzles.  If you are producing this on contractor levels, have a rack by your office where you give it away, or sell at cheap.  Hire a high school kid to trim the edges straight, and produce a raft of standard sizes.  If the kid is any good, put him to work on another project.  If he's a slow learner, he hasn't cost you much money&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why not grind it up and feed into the particle board stream? The cost of grinding it will make it more expensive than the usual source -- sawmill waste, but not by much.  Particle board and plywood are an obvious match in a production plant.  Much of the equipment is similar, and making plywood is going to have all sorts of waste bits anyway. This is certainly cheaper than paying landfill disposal fees for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="710" RevisionGUID="144ac52d-624d-4166-b7bc-d37b08d8bafa" CreationDate="2013-03-30T13:27:40.400" UserId="400" Text="This is a partial answer, but it's too long to be a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not clear to me that there are greenhouse benefits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Transport:  Most of the weight in transported food is water.  A truckload of carrots is going to cost close to the same as a truckload of hamburger.  A vegetarian diet tends to have a *lot* more fiber in it.  I would expect that a such a diet would result in increased transport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Range vs feedlot.  Feedlot beef obviously has all the vegy costs plus all the meat costs.  Range fed meat is often done on land that is not suitable for farming, either because of terrain (too steep, rocky) or climate (too dry, too wet, too cold)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  As a lead in to the GHG component, look at the conversion ratios -- how many pounds of feed does it take to produce a pound of meat?  Pigs are between chickens and cows.  Rabbits and guinea pigs are better than chickens.  Cows in particular produce methane in large quantities, but I suspect that all animals that can digest cellulose will do the same.  Methane has a residence time of about a century in the atmosphere, so while it is a greenhouse gas, it is not here forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;World Vs. US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be more appropriate to make this comparison on the basis of First world vs rest of world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Optimizing factors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Range fed meat is better than vegetarianism for GHG&#xD;&#xA;2.  Local obviously trumps long distance.  I would hate to be on a vegetarian diet on what can be grown locally.  Never have an avocado or a peach again?  5 months a year without green stuff?  Only greenhouse tomatoes (Is that a win?  Depends on greenhouse design, but in our climate (central Alberta) I suspect that shipping from California is a Greener choice than a greenhouse in winter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more I look at this, the less I see that vegetarianism is the main factor.  Regionality, appropriate land use, availability of transport all are at least as significant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So perhaps you want to start over and rework the question as &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;How can our diet be optimized to reduce to production of greenhouse gasses?&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="711" RevisionGUID="f0cc33a5-29dd-4398-a686-fd7b38495fe8" CreationDate="2013-03-30T13:51:59.530" UserId="400" Text="You think big, I'll grant you that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a partial answer, probably should be a comment, but it's too damn big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factor 1:  The ocean is large. 1.3 billion cubic kilometers. Most of the disolved minerals are present in very small numbers.  You are going to have to process cubic km of water.  I suspect that the only way to do this economically is to develop materials that bind to a particular atom or ion, coat fabric with it, and let the currents go past it.  For perspective the larger open pit mines have total volumes measured in a small number of cubic kilometers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factor 2:  To gather material at a level that would make a measurable decrease in the mineral content, you would have to process a measurable fraction of the ocean.  Suppose that you decided to mine the Gulf stream.  So you intercept a 300 km wide strip of ocean 100 m deep.  The gulf stream moves at about 4 mph -- 6 kph say.  So your system will intercept 180 cubic kilometers of water per hour.  At that rate it would take you 7 million hours (about 8 centuries) to process the entire ocean once.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factor 3:  Replenishment processes.  Most minerals are not close to saturation.  Common salt, the most common mineral, is present at about 3%.  Saturation for salt is about 30%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will be some exchange between sea floor sediment, but this is going to be VERY slow.   Turnover times for the abyssal plain are on the order of 10,000 years.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the primary replenishment processes will be geological -- erosion.  If this is correct, then you would do far better by filtering the rivers as they flow to the sea, mining our cities sewage (meta content thousands of times higher than in sea water)  ANY technology that can extract useful minerals out of sea water can extract them out of any liquid waste stream, with likely far greater efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Intercepting significant amounts of an ocean current will have climate effects.  People in nothern Europe will NOT be pleased with you if you slow down the Gulf stream by 10%  Slowing it down, also means that the temperature differential between the tropics and the pole will increase giving greater potential energy to hurricanes.  You just picked up another hate group.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveats:  Even now vacuuming up manganese nodules off the ocean floor is worth while.  There are likely conditons that have concentrated other minerals in sea floor sediments.  But I didn't understand this to be the type of mining you meant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="712" RevisionGUID="4b938c8d-b652-4f03-91fd-8b3218900e2d" CreationDate="2013-03-30T23:32:05.347" UserId="421" Text="I mean to ask, in order to know, for example, whether someone today should be learning/preparing to lead a post-oil life? i.e no **new** plastic products, gas-powered vehicles, petrol-generated electricity, etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that petroleum is only just one of several types fossil fuels, but it seems that it's likely to be the first one to disappear... Anyone have any stats or facts on this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that even if it's not within our own lifetimes we should use the facts about current trends and start preparing our children for such an era." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="712" RevisionGUID="4b938c8d-b652-4f03-91fd-8b3218900e2d" CreationDate="2013-03-30T23:32:05.347" UserId="421" Text="Would we come to a period of no oil within our lifetime? If so, should we prepare, and how?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="712" RevisionGUID="4b938c8d-b652-4f03-91fd-8b3218900e2d" CreationDate="2013-03-30T23:32:05.347" UserId="421" Text="|energy|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="713" RevisionGUID="373587d0-21db-4eaa-9102-7d00e5f3597f" CreationDate="2013-03-31T01:03:24.330" UserId="404" Text="**Vegetarian Diet vs Avg US Meat Consumer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Brighter Planet](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;ved=0CDEQFjAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fattachments.brighterplanet.com%2Fpress_items%2Flocal_copies%2F52%2Foriginal%2Fcarbon_foodprint_wp.pdf&amp;ei=XHVXUZ78LYq-igKM0ICICQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNE66mbGBynNpP8KajE2WUYpiyIaWw&amp;bvm=bv.44442042,d.cGE) did a report on the American Carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gives the following averages for US diet types: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - omnivore - ~6500 lbs CO2 per person per year&#xD;&#xA; - vegetarian ~5100 lbs CO2 per person per year&#xD;&#xA; - vegan ~4400 lbs CO2 per person per year&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's over a 20% improvement for vegetarianism over a meat diet and over a 30% improvement for vegans (this assumes equal caloric intake).  Note I eyeballed those numbers off graphs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, fairly important, I saw no mention of emissions associated with deforestation from clearing land for pasture.  This could be significant  and imply a more significant GHG reduction from a vegetarian diet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vegetarian vs Avg Global Meat Consumer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A report](http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf) undertaken by two World Bank environmental advisers, estimated that the global livestock industry (lifecycle supply chain) accounts for 51% of global CO2 emissions.  This seems really high.  The UN FAO put the figure at 18%, but report cited above includes respiration, land use change, undercounted methane, increased meat consumption between the dates of the reports (2002 and 2009), and several other smaller factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find an emissions per calorie figure for the globe, however, the ratios probably aren't too different from above.  What's important at the global scale is meat consumption now stands at 322 g/day/capita in the US.  The global figure is 115 g/day/capita.  That means the world outside of the US is relatively vegetarian.  However, as incomes climb, consumers eat more meat (though at a diminishing rate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, the world is shifting towards a more meat dense diet and thereby raising food emissions significantly (stats above from [UNEP GHG Emissions Associated with Meat Production](http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP-GEAS_OCT_2012.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vegetarianism vs Locavorism**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A paper from Environmental Science and Technology](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f#), which earned ACS honors for top paper in environmental policy, claims that 83% of food emissions are in production - only 11% of lifecycle emissions are caused by transportation. They conclude:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shifting away from red meat, especially to a vegetarian diet, is a stronger lever towards reducing GHG emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Importance of Livestock Feed**&#xD;&#xA;This could actually be pretty significant for beef.  Haven't found a scientific figure, a prof from Dalhousie University claimed an [interview with Science News](http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40934/description/AAAS_Climate-friendly_dining__meats), the significance could be on the order of 50%.  That would make it competitive with some fruits and vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Relative emission intensities of meat products**&#xD;&#xA;The same report from Brighter Planet gives the following GHG intensities per calorie (g CO2/calorie) by food group:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - red meat : 11&#xD;&#xA; - poultry: ~5.5&#xD;&#xA; - fish ~ 7.5&#xD;&#xA; - dairy ~ 6.5&#xD;&#xA; - vegetables and fruits 5-6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Vegetarianism has non-negligible GHG benefits (less so with poultry)&#xD;&#xA; - The difference is most stark with red meat&#xD;&#xA; - Differences in meat type and agricultural practices may be as significant as the difference between the average meat diet and vegetarianism.&#xD;&#xA; - Composition of diet is more important than location of food sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="714" RevisionGUID="069ea824-8d10-40f6-85f1-2f006b671e46" CreationDate="2013-03-31T02:51:43.783" UserId="317" Text="It's highly unlikely that within &quot;our&quot; lifetime we will completely _run out_ of oil. What is likely to happen is that oil prices will continue to rise, until it gets to the point where it's economically advantageous to invest more significantly in alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why we're not going to run out of oil (soon)...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we talk about how much oil is &quot;left&quot;, we're typically talking about _recoverable_ oil. There's a lot of oil in places that we can't easily reach right now. As oil reserves are consumed, the price of oil increases (simple supply and demand). Counter-intuitively, as the price of oil increases, the amount of oil reserves has historically _increased_.  This is because the oil that was previously not considered recoverable can now be extracted because drilling technology has advanced and the higher price-per-barrel makes it more economical to extract that hard-to-reach oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the more oil we use, the more the price of oil increases, and the more oil we can afford to extract at the new, higher prices. We're now seeing production of oil from tar sands, which is much more difficult and expensive than extraction from a conventional well. We will continue to see production of harder (and more expensive) to reach oil reserves as the price increases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, when drilling for oil, not all of the oil is actually extracted. The faster you extract oil the less you get out, and it's never possible to extract _all_ of the oil. This is referred to as the upper technically recoverable and economically recoverable amount, and gives the probability of extracting a particular volume of oil from a certain oil field. This image shows a generic example, showing the difference between what's _possible_ to recover and what's _economical_ to recover:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![oil recoverability curve][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it becomes increasingly difficult to find new oil sources, I expect we will see advancements in technology (and in the amount of money oil companies are willing to invest) to go back to &quot;finished&quot; wells and extract oil that wasn't previously extractable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now obviously, oil is a finite resource. It will technically run out eventually, but it won't be like hitting a brick wall. It'll be an overall increase in cost and decrease in availability over the next 20, 50, maybe 100-200 years. Depending on who you ask, there are about 0.8-1.5 trillion barrels of recoverable oil left in conventional reserves worldwide&lt;sup&gt;([1][3])&lt;/sup&gt;. At a current consumption rate of about 90 million barrels of oil per day&lt;sup&gt;([2][4])&lt;/sup&gt;, that would put us right about at 30 years before current reserves run out. _But_, that doesn't take into account unconventional sources, future advancements in extraction technology, and the production in the future of sources not presently considered recoverable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![world oil supply chart][5]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What are the alternatives for energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you said, petroleum does seem the most likely to disappear, or at least become economically unfeasible to continue using the soonest. Coal and natural gas are the other major fossil fuels, and we have quite a bit of both. From a sustainability perspective, natural gas is preferable to oil and coal: it's relatively clean to burn from an air pollution perspective, and while still emitting CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; when burned, it does emit less carbon than other fossil fuel sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have quite a bit of natural gas and coal left - especially coal. The US Energy Information Administration estimates there are about 483 billion short tons of coal reserves in the US alone&lt;sup&gt;([3][7])&lt;/sup&gt;. In terms of raw energy content, that's the equivalent of about 2 trillion barrels of oil&lt;sup&gt;([4][8])&lt;/sup&gt;. In other words, the US has at least twice as much energy in coal as the whole world does in oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal is obviously unsustainable. It's a major source of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and the extraction process is environmentally devastating. You're right that we won't run out of coal anytime soon, but it's not a good alternative to oil (although [coal liquifaction][9] is a real technology that we may see more of in the future).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We really don't need to use oil for electricity or heat generation. Other technologies are much better for those tasks. It's very difficult to replace oil for transportation though, because almost nothing is as energy dense and portable as petroleum products. Biofuels have the potential to _help_, but have their own sustainability challenges and often use more fossil fuels in the production process than they save. Next-generation biofuels based on cellulosic feedstocks and microbial/algal production have potential as well, but it is unlikely that we'll replace our entire petroleum-based transportation system with biofuels - we simply don't have the land to do it. Battery technology is improving, and we'll likely see a gradual shift to electric vehicles as they become more practical. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there will also be some necessary lifestyle changes to move away from oil as a transportation fuel. There will come a point - be it sooner or later - when petroleum is simply too expensive for us to continue our current lifestyle without changes. Whether the change is to electric vehicles, greater use of public transportation, more active transit (walking, biking, etc.) or something else is something we have yet to see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What are the alternatives for plastics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a plastics expert, although I am friends with a few. We can make plastics from plants, and have been for some time - those biodegradable plastics you see sometimes are made from corn. Bio-plastics are an up-and-coming research area, but as with energy, we won't be able to keep up our current level of consumption with bio-replacements alone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastics recycling is a tricky situation right now, and we're going to see a lot more recycling in the near future. Companies have developed technology that can take waste plastics (unsorted of any type) and break them back down into crude oil to be reprocessed&lt;sup&gt;[(5)][10]&lt;/sup&gt;. This avoids the hassle of separating plastic types (which is a major disincentive for recycling in the eyes of many people today), and provides greater flexibility for the end product. A combination of bio-plastics and plastics recycling may help alleviate these problems in the future, but plastics likely will get more expensive at some point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6bZV3.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aPHD6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.eia.gov/coal/reserves/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28coal%20energy%20content%20*%20483%20billion%20short%20tons%29%20/%20BOE&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.agilyx.com/our-technology/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="1ca9fabd-8cd2-4aab-b9eb-0cad9d4f74c6" CreationDate="2013-03-31T09:06:07.903" UserId="48" Text="#Peak oil - a red herring&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peak oil is a red herring. And it always has been.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claimed problem of Peak Oil is that we have too few hydrocarbons, and in particular too little oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And we know from [climate science][1] that we have [too much hydrocarbons in reserve][2], including oil: the known reserves are sufficient to change climate so much that human civilisation as we know it would not continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It is not possible to simultaneously have too much hydrocarbons, and too little.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we know we have too much, and most of the known hydrocarbon reserves, will have to stay in the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Replacing oil and fossil fuels throughout the economy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we already have all the technologies we need to displace fossil fuels from our supply chains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[High-density fuels][4] can be [produced][5] from [biomass][6], and can also be synthesised - including up to [Jet A quality and uses][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastics can be [produced from biomass][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, by capturing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; directly from the air, and generating hydrogen from water, oil fuels, and oil-derived products, can be [completely synthesised from scratch][9] in a zero-carbon manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://trillionthtonne.org/questions.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.carbontracker.org/unburnable-carbon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SxMVl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.greenflightinternational.com/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.biofuelstp.eu/air.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intertek.com/biofuels/biofuel-atlantic-flight/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-18/fat-replaces-oil-for-f-16s-as-biofuels-head-to-war-commodities.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.nnfcc.co.uk/tools/biochemical-opportunities-in-the-uk-nnfcc-08-008&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.imeche.org/news/archives/12-10-15/UK_engineers_create_petrol_from_air.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="bd0975eb-bb9e-4b5a-9a79-2c7aa5adbf04" CreationDate="2013-03-31T19:29:13.263" UserId="48" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="#Peak oil - a red herring&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peak oil is a red herring. And it always has been.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claimed problem of Peak Oil is that we have too few hydrocarbons, and in particular too little oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And we know from [climate science][1] that we have [too much hydrocarbons in reserve][2], including oil: the known reserves are sufficient to change climate so much that human civilisation as we know it would not continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It is not possible to simultaneously have too much hydrocarbons, and too little.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we know we have too much, and most of the known hydrocarbon reserves, will have to stay in the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Replacing oil and fossil fuels throughout the economy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we already have all the technologies we need to displace fossil fuels from our supply chains. And they are, by and large, economical. The problem is that oil, coal and gas all get double-subsidies, globally. Firstly, they get explicit financial subsidies from many governments. And secondly, they get implicit subsidies because governments have not embedded the external costs of climate-change damage into the price of fossil fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[High-density fuels][4] can be [produced][5] from [biomass][6], and can also be synthesised - including up to [Jet A quality and uses][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastics can be [produced from biomass][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, by capturing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; directly from the air, and generating hydrogen from water, oil fuels, and oil-derived products, can be [completely synthesised from scratch][9] in a zero-carbon manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if we stop burning waste, then plastics from oil become sustainable. And as oil for fuel will have been removed from the global economy, we will have a lot of very cheap plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://trillionthtonne.org/questions.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.carbontracker.org/unburnable-carbon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SxMVl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.greenflightinternational.com/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.biofuelstp.eu/air.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intertek.com/biofuels/biofuel-atlantic-flight/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-18/fat-replaces-oil-for-f-16s-as-biofuels-head-to-war-commodities.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.nnfcc.co.uk/tools/biochemical-opportunities-in-the-uk-nnfcc-08-008&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.imeche.org/news/archives/12-10-15/UK_engineers_create_petrol_from_air.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="72ceff79-3479-449b-801b-843e2e4a9e98" CreationDate="2013-03-31T20:19:03.120" UserId="48" Comment="added 390 characters in body" Text="#Peak oil - a red herring&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peak oil is a red herring. And it always has been.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claimed problem of Peak Oil is that we have too few hydrocarbons, and in particular too little oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And we know from [climate science][1] that we have [too much hydrocarbons in reserve][2], including oil: the known reserves are sufficient to change climate so much that human civilisation as we know it would not continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It is not possible to simultaneously have too much hydrocarbons, and too little.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we know we have too much, and most of the known hydrocarbon reserves, will have to stay in the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Replacing oil and fossil fuels throughout the economy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The technology and the economics stack up&#xD;&#xA;We already have all the technologies we need to displace fossil fuels from our supply chains. And they are, by and large, economical: that is to say, there's enough of a potential market now to give sufficient critical mass to give non-oil fuels enough momentum to take the market; - if there were a level playing field, the momentum would be sufficient to ensure that economies of scale and commercially-viable research would complete the task. The problem is that oil, coal and gas all get double-subsidies, globally. Firstly, they get explicit financial subsidies from many governments. And secondly, they get implicit subsidies because governments have not embedded the external costs of climate-change damage into the price of fossil fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Specific fossil-fuel-free substitutes&#xD;&#xA;[High-density fuels][4] can be [produced][5] from [biomass][6], and can also be synthesised - including up to [Jet A quality and uses][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastics can be [produced from biomass][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, by capturing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; directly from the air, and generating hydrogen from water, oil fuels, and oil-derived products, can be [completely synthesised from scratch][9] in a zero-carbon manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, if we stop burning waste, then plastics from oil become sustainable. And as oil for fuel will have been removed from the global economy, we will have a lot of very cheap plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://trillionthtonne.org/questions.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.carbontracker.org/unburnable-carbon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SxMVl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.greenflightinternational.com/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.biofuelstp.eu/air.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intertek.com/biofuels/biofuel-atlantic-flight/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-18/fat-replaces-oil-for-f-16s-as-biofuels-head-to-war-commodities.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.nnfcc.co.uk/tools/biochemical-opportunities-in-the-uk-nnfcc-08-008&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.imeche.org/news/archives/12-10-15/UK_engineers_create_petrol_from_air.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2065" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="707" RevisionGUID="7194ce00-6029-431c-ad37-2d149791a496" CreationDate="2013-03-31T22:54:52.117" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/318496644867952641" />
  <row Id="2066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="0d7098a8-d0c5-4b81-816a-f21d3c6f2366" CreationDate="2013-04-01T01:44:48.673" UserId="130" Text="Living in Indonesia at the moment and under long-term discussions regarding whether to move back to the US.  One issue is retirement and one aspect of that is sustainability.  In Indonesia, multi-generational households are the norm, and in the US we push for an independent retirement.  One factor on my side is sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at this from a sustainability perspective only, how do these compare?  I would expect that larger households to use fewer resources per person, and so household consolidation to better make sustainability easier to achieve.  In my initial assessment I don't think it is an accident that countries with less per capita resource consumption tend to have multi-generational households.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing something?  Is it more sustainable to retire by moving in with the kids and helping with the grandkids?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="0d7098a8-d0c5-4b81-816a-f21d3c6f2366" CreationDate="2013-04-01T01:44:48.673" UserId="130" Text="Independent retirement vs moving in with the kids" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="0d7098a8-d0c5-4b81-816a-f21d3c6f2366" CreationDate="2013-04-01T01:44:48.673" UserId="130" Text="|energy|consumption|lifestyle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2071" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="712" RevisionGUID="7a0c7d0b-c2bf-43d6-8659-aa8da9aadcb7" CreationDate="2013-04-01T15:55:21.220" UserId="117" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;lechlukasz&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:91,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Linger&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:117,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2073" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="ec7a63f2-f92d-49e0-925d-f7ccc9cfdd47" CreationDate="2013-04-01T21:58:43.523" UserId="58" Comment="2" />
  <row Id="2076" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="718" RevisionGUID="7afcf30a-f766-4d1c-863e-8a89687b9968" CreationDate="2013-04-01T22:55:09.893" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/318859106997899264" />
  <row Id="2077" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="694" RevisionGUID="e66188a9-4384-4798-95e7-d8f1a06ee99b" CreationDate="2013-04-02T01:55:09.860" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/318904405892136960" />
  <row Id="2078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="719" RevisionGUID="9434ecb6-1eb0-4273-a343-2430b46bf92b" CreationDate="2013-04-02T02:48:06.533" UserId="404" Text="I'm going to focus on energy and carbon emissions because that's what I know best.  Anyone wanting to add waste generation and other considerations please feel free. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chad is right that the question depends first on how your kids live and where you decide to live. Geography and economy are very important variables.  A study by [Chris Jones](http://www.stanford.edu/group/peec/cgi-bin/docs/events/2009/becc/presentations/1F%20Jones%20BECC%20Final.pdf) at UC Berkeley broke the average carbon footprints of the US and world as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science Daily](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm) has the total figures as 20 and 4 tons for the US and world respectively.  I suggest this has to do with Jones accounting of indirect supply chain emissions he calculated using [lifecycle input output analysis](http://www.eiolca.net/), so I tend to trust his figures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [paper Jones published](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es102221h) in Environmental Science and Technology showed, using the same methodologies, that these distributions can vary substantially.  For instance, a comparison of San Francisco vs St. Louis showed the following differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - transportation emissions 2x as high in SF compared to SL&#xD;&#xA; - housing emissions over 2x as high in SL compared to SF&#xD;&#xA; - food emissions twice as high in SL compared to SF&#xD;&#xA; - goods emissions ~30% higher in SF compared to SL&#xD;&#xA; - service emissions ~40% higher in SF compared to SL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because I'm not sure which locations you are choosing between, I can't say what categories will be most important to you, so I'll use the average US case.  Based on Jones' analysis we see that transportation, electricity and heating are good place to start to look at reducing your carbon impact.  The first consideration you should therefore make is your traveling habits at the two different places:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As a retired person will you be traveling on vacation a lot?  Using&#xD;&#xA;   [EPA Climate Leaders'](http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/documents/resources/commute_travel_product.pdf) figures, we can crudely estimate that a 6000 mi flight * .185 kg / passenger-mi results in over one metric ton of direct CO2 emissions - roughly 10% of the average American's direct transportation emissions - not insignificant.&#xD;&#xA; - what will your daily commute look like?  If you're staying at home wiping the grand kids' ass then score some points for sustainability!  However, if you are going to need to drive your car for entertainment, volunteering, work in either situation, you'll need to exploit opportunities to carpool or use a low emission vehicle (think electric with solar).&#xD;&#xA; - what will the building situation look like?  If you can't directly compare electric and heating bills, consider the natural lighting, the climate (a more extreme climate leads to increased HVAC loads), insulation and air leakiness of the house.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now more specific to your question, let's hold these factors constant and just consider how adding an additional person to a house can contribute to sustainability.  Every four years the EIA conducts a [residential energy consumer survey](http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/index.cfm?view=consumption#summary).  Now here is some data I love and think would be very interesting to you  (there is a bunch of other great stuff in there for any data junkies):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are substantial energy savings from increasing the number of members per household. However *there are diminishing returns* to adding another member to the house.  So the first person would contribute 30% per capita energy savings, the second 20%, the third 10%.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say you are considering a two person house vs a six person house.  Moving into the two person house, you would be responsible for 50% of the 2-person house's primary energy (45 MBtu).  If you were the sixth person in a five person house, you would be responsible for 4MBtu margin of going from 5 person to six person house.  **A huge difference!**  These gains are mostly from shared energy sources, such as a refrigerator, shared lighting, shared air temperature etc.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Obviously energy consumption is very different outside US, but the principles should hold. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ipXsv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/blWi7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2079" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="719" RevisionGUID="28a4a277-243b-47a0-a69c-cfb8de47eee7" CreationDate="2013-04-02T02:48:06.533" UserId="404" />
  <row Id="2080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="2369edcc-071b-494d-9b04-96a5cff256c9" CreationDate="2013-04-02T03:14:07.807" UserId="318" Text="&gt; So are there such projects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Or, only just. So far. For good reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, it's worth noting that out whole existent infrastructure worldwide is based on such a system. You may need to refine your assumptions or conditions to eliminate some aspects which are not desired.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All energy sources that we can access are in some manner area based on &quot;star stuff&quot; at root. Our own Star &quot;Sol&quot; drives wind, hydro, PV, solar thermal, coal and more. Other stars have sourced radioactives. Everything above iron appears to have come from Supernovae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One  obvious questionable point is the use of hydrocarbons obtained by &quot;mining&quot; in some way or another (drill, dig, Frac ...). These energy sources are repositories of stored solar energy - but &quot;we&quot; did not do the storing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another questionable source is radioactives. These also are &quot;star stuff&quot; - but not from our current nearby Star. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system could be devised that adds to its energy wealth without use of hydrocarbon energy or radioactives except for the getting-going phase but it would be a close fought thing. There are many who argue that there is no net energy gain available in current systems such as biomass where long term energy out is said not to match total system wide energy expenditure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole of life energy cost of a product can be VERY roughly approximated by expressing its best available initial cost in energy cost terms. eg you can buy PV solar material in vast volume in China for approaching $US0.10/Watt_mp and whole made up panels at around $US0.50 ex factory. This must be more than the cost energy of fabrication IF government or other subsidies are not present. In fact, Chinese solar manufacturing is crucially dependant on state subsidy at present so overall it is likely that PV panels bought in vast volume cost around the energy cost of production - and that the lifetime energy available from these systems will be somewhat higher than this but not vastly so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any one energy source was vastly more cost effective it would dominate world markets and displace alternatives. At present coal, hydro, geothermal are king, nuclear is a special case and the &quot;wannabees&quot; are wind &amp; waves (both a form of solar) and PV &amp; thermal solar. I say nuclear is a special case as all insurance risk has always been underwritten by governments in all installations anywhere, no private insurer will tough the market with a triple length barge pole and in an open market the product could not be sold, no matter how &quot;truly safe&quot; it was. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While wind and various solar sources are being used in competition with traditional sources they are invariably assisted by various special tariffs or market distortions or enforced special rates or conditions. Its still hard to compete head on with energetic gooey stuff found for free (initially) in the ground. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, so far, if you can build an escalating self-replicating infrastructure with traditional energy sources, then you can probably do so with &quot;alternate&quot; sources, but it will be harder, or much harder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;While it is a work of fiction, Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy + &quot;Red Mars&quot;, &quot;Green Mars&quot;, Blue Mars&quot; contains many ideas in the ability to build a world starting with small seed input. He use nuclear, solar, thermal and more on a grand scale. A very worthwhile read from many perspectives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="b1bb053d-2f99-440d-b955-ff39a12cbf54" CreationDate="2013-04-02T07:38:46.607" UserId="48" Text="While such a project is technically possible, I have to wonder: why bother? There already exists a huge energy infrastructure, warehouses full of photovoltaic (PV) waiting to be bought, electricity transmission networks, mineral extraction and processing plants, and so on. Doing it all from scratch while ignoring available infrastructure looks like putting a purist philosophy above the practicalities. Which is romantic, but it's not engineering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Technical feasibility&#xD;&#xA;For it to be technically feasible, just requires that the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) is greater than 1, when assessed on a full lifecycle basis. And we have renewable technologies that meet that criterion - here are some examples. (NB specific values will depend on the specific installation - the following numbers are ballpark)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Onshore wind has an EROEI in the range 18-80&#xD;&#xA; - Offshore wind has an EROEI of around 20-35&#xD;&#xA; - PV has an EROEI of around 6-38&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some sources: [1][1], [2][2], [3 (pdf)][3]&#xD;&#xA;###Real-world example&#xD;&#xA;[Highly Irregular's answer][4] identifies the [Sahara Solar Breeder][5] (SSB) project. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here  are its technical objectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Harnessing the 3rd value of the desert for energy: Large scale/low cost production of  solar-grade silicon from desert sand.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Solar breeder: Construction of solar cell plant doubling its scale every energy payback time (1-2 years at present).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. DC power transmission by HTSC cable: From test line to global network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few odd things on there. Why go for High Temperature Superconductor (HTSC) for transmission? It doesn't make sense at the moment - it's an excessively complex way of doing things. High-voltage direct-current (HVDC) losses are low over long-distances, and it's a much simpler, more reliable technology. Their target isn't that ambitious - 100GW of capacity in 30 years: the world did that in (about) the last ten years, and is likely to do the same in fewer than the next 5 years - the plan is to get to [300GW of new capacity per year by 2025][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a useful experiment to prove the concept. It's a useful trial run for a similar project on, say, Mars. But the starting-from-scratch concept doesn't have a lot going for it in terms of providing clean global electricity: why slow down decarbonisation by ignoring all the really useful infrastructure already in place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-1-environmental-benefits/energy-balance-analysis.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vestas.com/Files/Filer/EN/Sustainability/LCA/LCAV90_juni_2006.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.clca.columbia.edu/241_Raugei_EROI_EP_revised_II_2012-03_VMF.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/708/48&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ssb-foundation.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JmKnB.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.pv-magazine.com/features/300-gwa-initiative/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="39efe97c-bfd9-46fe-8c89-a4b9bba72485" CreationDate="2013-04-02T07:39:47.377" UserId="318" Comment="added 2208 characters in body" Text="&gt; So are there such projects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Or, only just. So far. For good reason.   &#xD;&#xA;Some people do not like that answer, but its true.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sadly, while [The Sahara Solar Breeder Project](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Solar_Breeder_Project) is a grand idea that may yet produce some concrete results, so far, it's very largely a pipe dream and research project between some Japanese and Algerian universities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A look at the rather empty Wikipedia page (link above) is not too encouraging.  &#xD;&#xA; The [**Sahara Solar Breeder Foundation**](http://www.ssb-foundation.com/) **official website** has more pictures and desriptions, but nothing obviously new (2010 copyright date) and has a now passed 1st prototype date with no indication that anything has actually been builyt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system could be devised that adds to its energy wealth without use of hydrocarbon energy or radioactives except for the getting-going phase but all avaible studies, and all experience to date with alternative energy, suggest that it would be a close fought thing. There are many who argue that there is no net energy gain available in current alternative energy systems such as biomass where long term energy out is said not to match total system wide energy expenditure. eg for biomass energy is expended on planting, harvesting, transportation, processing, storage, waste disposal etc. To make biomass products such as transport alcohol viable subsidies are usually required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting carefully that all energy sources that we can access are in some manner area based on &quot;star stuff&quot; at root. Our own Star &quot;Sol&quot; drives wind, hydro, PV, solar thermal, coal and more. Other stars have sourced radioactives. Everything above iron appears to have come from Supernovae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth noting that that out whole existent infrastructure worldwide is already based on a solar driven breeder system. You may need to refine your assumptions or conditions to eliminate some aspects which are not desired.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One  obvious questionable point is the use of hydrocarbons obtained by &quot;mining&quot; in some way or another (drill, dig, Frac ...). These energy sources are repositories of stored solar energy - but &quot;we&quot; did not do the storing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Another questionable source is radioactives. These also are &quot;star stuff&quot; - but not from our current nearby Star. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole of life energy cost of a product can be VERY roughly approximated by expressing its best available initial cost in energy cost terms. eg you can buy PV solar material in vast volume in China for approaching $US0.10/Watt_mp and whole made up panels at around $US0.50 ex factory. This must be more than the cost energy of fabrication IF government or other subsidies are not present. In fact, Chinese solar manufacturing is crucially dependant on state subsidy at present so overall it is likely that PV panels bought in vast volume cost around or even slightly less than the energy cost of production - and that the lifetime energy available from these systems will be somewhat higher than this but not vastly so.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A look at real world solar PV realities is not encouraging. eg  1000 Wmp of PV panels costs about $US400 FOB factory at present in large volume.   &#xD;&#xA;The installed cost of such a sytem in a &quot;western location&quot; is around $1/Watt mp.  &#xD;&#xA; In a good location mean daily output is about 4 kWh and for a say 20 year design life total energy produced = 4 kWh x 365 days x 20 years =~ 30 MWh.  AT $US0.10 wholesale / kWh that's $2920 of electricity for $1000 of installed panel cost over 20 years. At first glance that's a win. However, if you include &quot;cost of money&quot; = which you must, then a simple DCF calculation suggests about $1960 at 5%, $1400 at 10% and $1100 at 15%.&#xD;&#xA;At $1/Wmp installed break even is barely reached at 15% - a rate that international financiers of large risky project are liable to expect. Even at 5% the profit of about $900/kW of panels is required to also fund maintenance, cleaning. a significant factor, any early failures and decommissioning. $900 is $45 / year per kW of panels including any profit. That's about 6 square metres of panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any one energy source was vastly more cost effective it would dominate world markets and displace alternatives. At present coal, hydro, geothermal are king, nuclear is a special case and the &quot;wannabees&quot; are wind &amp; waves (both a form of solar) and PV &amp; thermal solar. I say nuclear is a special case as all insurance risk has always been underwritten by governments in all installations anywhere, no private insurer will tough the market with a triple length barge pole and in an open market the product could not be sold, no matter how &quot;truly safe&quot; it was. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While wind and various solar sources are being used in competition with traditional sources they are invariably assisted by various special tariffs or market distortions or enforced special rates or conditions. Its still hard to compete head on with energetic gooey stuff found for free (initially) in the ground. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, so far, if you can build an escalating self-replicating infrastructure with traditional energy sources, then you can probably do so with &quot;alternate&quot; sources, but it will be harder, or much harder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;While it is a work of fiction, Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy + &quot;Red Mars&quot;, &quot;Green Mars&quot;, Blue Mars&quot; contains many ideas in the ability to build a world starting with small seed input. He use nuclear, solar, thermal and more on a grand scale. A very worthwhile read from many perspectives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="04d65ac8-8ebe-446b-ab3a-a4021d91b6e4" CreationDate="2013-04-02T08:22:00.873" UserId="318" Comment="added 3135 characters in body" Text="&gt; So are there such projects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Or, only just. So far. For good reason.   &#xD;&#xA;Some people do not like that answer, but its true.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sadly, while [The Sahara Solar Breeder Project](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Solar_Breeder_Project) is a grand idea that may yet produce some concrete results, so far, it's very largely a pipe dream and research project between some Japanese and Algerian universities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A look at the rather empty Wikipedia page (link above) is not too encouraging.  &#xD;&#xA; The [**Sahara Solar Breeder Foundation**](http://www.ssb-foundation.com/) **official website** has more pictures and desriptions, but nothing obviously new (2010 copyright date) and has a now passed 1st prototype date with no indication that anything has actually been builyt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system could be devised that adds to its energy wealth without use of hydrocarbon energy or radioactives except for the getting-going phase but all avaible studies, and all experience to date with alternative energy, suggest that it would be a close fought thing. There are many who argue that there is no net energy gain available in current alternative energy systems such as biomass where long term energy out is said not to match total system wide energy expenditure. eg for biomass energy is expended on planting, harvesting, transportation, processing, storage, waste disposal etc. To make biomass products such as transport alcohol viable subsidies are usually required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting carefully that all energy sources that we can access are in some manner area based on &quot;star stuff&quot; at root. Our own Star &quot;Sol&quot; drives wind, hydro, PV, solar thermal, coal and more. Other stars have sourced radioactives. Everything above iron appears to have come from Supernovae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth noting that that out whole existent infrastructure worldwide is already based on a solar driven breeder system. You may need to refine your assumptions or conditions to eliminate some aspects which are not desired.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One  obvious questionable point is the use of hydrocarbons obtained by &quot;mining&quot; in some way or another (drill, dig, Frac ...). These energy sources are repositories of stored solar energy - but &quot;we&quot; did not do the storing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Another questionable source is radioactives. These also are &quot;star stuff&quot; - but not from our current nearby Star. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole of life energy cost of a product can be VERY roughly approximated by expressing its best available initial cost in energy cost terms. eg you can buy PV solar material in vast volume in China for approaching $US0.10/Watt_mp and whole made up panels at around $US0.50 ex factory. This must be more than the cost energy of fabrication IF government or other subsidies are not present. In fact, Chinese solar manufacturing is crucially dependant on state subsidy at present so overall it is likely that PV panels bought in vast volume cost around or even slightly less than the energy cost of production - and that the lifetime energy available from these systems will be somewhat higher than this but not vastly so.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A look at real world solar PV realities is not encouraging. eg  1000 Wmp of PV panels costs about $US400 FOB factory at present in large volume.   &#xD;&#xA;The installed cost of such a sytem in a &quot;western location&quot; is around $1/Watt mp.  &#xD;&#xA; In a good location mean daily output is about 4 kWh and for a say 20 year design life total energy produced = 4 kWh x 365 days x 20 years =~ 30 MWh.  AT $US0.10 wholesale / kWh that's $2920 of electricity for $1000 of installed panel cost over 20 years. At first glance that's a win. However, if you include &quot;cost of money&quot; = which you must, then a simple DCF calculation suggests about $1960 at 5%, $1400 at 10% and $1100 at 15%.&#xD;&#xA;At $1/Wmp installed break even is barely reached at 15% - a rate that international financiers of large risky project are liable to expect. Even at 5% the profit of about $900/kW of panels is required to also fund maintenance, cleaning. a significant factor, any early failures and decommissioning. $900 is $45 / year per kW of panels including any profit. That's about 6 square metres of panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any one energy source was vastly more cost effective it would dominate world markets and displace alternatives. At present coal, hydro, geothermal are king, nuclear is a special case and the &quot;wannabees&quot; are wind &amp; waves (both a form of solar) and PV &amp; thermal solar. I say nuclear is a special case as all insurance risk has always been underwritten by governments in all installations anywhere, no private insurer will tough the market with a triple length barge pole and in an open market the product could not be sold, no matter how &quot;truly safe&quot; it was. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While wind and various solar sources are being used in competition with traditional sources they are invariably assisted by various special tariffs or market distortions or enforced special rates or conditions. Its still hard to compete head on with energetic gooey stuff found for free (initially) in the ground. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, so far, if you can build an escalating self-replicating infrastructure with traditional energy sources, then you can probably do so with &quot;alternate&quot; sources, but it will be harder, or much harder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;While it is a work of fiction, Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy + &quot;Red Mars&quot;, &quot;Green Mars&quot;, Blue Mars&quot; contains many ideas in the ability to build a world starting with small seed input. He use nuclear, solar, thermal and more on a grand scale. A very worthwhile read from many perspectives.&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added Q&amp;A:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q: Energy numbers asked:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If I've read this correctly, you're claiming that the economics implies that PV has an EROEI of only just above 1, or below it. And in comparing wind with fossil fuel subsidies, you've ignored the subsidies and externalities of fossil fuels. Have I understood correctly? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** @EnergyNumbers Close enough, alas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add in fossil fuel etc subsidies as may esist if you wish, but on a level playing field the raw concentrated &amp; stored energy of petroleum makes it hard to compete with. The cost of petroleum is essentially extraction + transport + refining + profit + taxes. You do not largely need to &quot;interact&quot; with the energy source per se and the energy per volume is high these both  make the job cheaper and easier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've added to my answer above with some rough figures for solar. The &quot;trouble&quot; with existing energy sources is that we have tapped the obvious easy ones. Liquid hydrocarbons (petrol, diesel, kerosine) give around 10 kWh/kg or say about 2.5 kWh/kg delivered energy in an internal combustion engine system. Coal delivers lower energy/kg but is still extremely energy dense compared to non chemical-stored-energy alternatives.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Falling mass (water or whatever) delivers 10 Watt.seconds per kg.metre     &#xD;&#xA;But to equal the delivered energy from 1 kg of hydrocarbon takes  &#xD;&#xA;2500 Watt hours x 3600 seconds/hour = 9,000,000 Watt seconds !!! of energy.  &#xD;&#xA;This takes 900 ton.metres of falling mass at 100%. ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put another way   &#xD;&#xA;1 ton = 1000 kg falling 10 metres   &#xD;&#xA;delivers 100,000 Watt.seconds = 27.777.. Watt hours of energy.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or 1 kg/second falling 10 metres in one second   &#xD;&#xA;delivers 100 Watts at 100% efficient,   &#xD;&#xA;but do that for one hour = 36,000 litres or 36 tons of water to get about 1% of the energy in 1 kg of petroleum (or 4% of delivered energy in auto use). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AND hydro is &quot;easy and cheap&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;We know that PV needs subsidies / FITs etc to compete.   &#xD;&#xA;And that eg the Chinese government are essentially subsidising ALL the still surviving Chinese PV makers makers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;problem&quot; is that we value energy at the hydrocarbon equivalent value to our society and until we are willing to bite the &quot;pay what it really costs&quot; bullet alternatives will remain marginal or of negative value. Alas. &#xD;&#xA;[[FWIW: I design/make small solar products, manufactured in China (at present) for developing country use. So I watch what solar and similar costs and where it is going. So, sometime. But not yet. Despite what the downvoter may think :-). ]].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that people in the US who cover their roof with PV usually are happy with the payback. The feed in tariffs, purchase subsidies and lack of costed labor for eg panel cleaning, mean that they may get $ for $ break even in the 5 to 10 years range.But add some discounted cash flow cost-of money calculations and take away the various subsidies (including those by the Chinese government) and you find that PV are at best fighting neck and neck with traditional systems when areas of good sunshine are available, or losing out in real terms. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2084" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="5b6ae7ec-dd91-4b66-bfd5-6ec7f7486d0a" CreationDate="2013-04-03T02:59:34.603" UserId="92" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the most sustainable way to handle food waste...throwing food scraps into garbage or down my sink's garbage disposal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="ed34904c-78b7-4f18-b8b8-45a5c9605e13" CreationDate="2013-04-03T05:08:10.853" UserId="430" Text="It's kind of hard to remove paper labels glued onto glass bottles and jars, especially if you have a lot of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does leaving them on cause a problem in recycling the glass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it require a lot of energy to purify the glass if the bottles have the stickers on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2086" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="ed34904c-78b7-4f18-b8b8-45a5c9605e13" CreationDate="2013-04-03T05:08:10.853" UserId="430" Text="Is it ok to recycle glass bottles and jars with paper stickers on them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2087" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="ed34904c-78b7-4f18-b8b8-45a5c9605e13" CreationDate="2013-04-03T05:08:10.853" UserId="430" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2088" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="722" RevisionGUID="e541575b-a3a8-4202-bdf2-a57825eafcb0" CreationDate="2013-04-03T16:55:33.693" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/319493384593096704" />
  <row Id="2093" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="706" RevisionGUID="37e9f8f1-4c21-496a-afc5-c267ffd713c1" CreationDate="2013-04-04T04:55:43.797" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/319674621895004161" />
  <row Id="2094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="724" RevisionGUID="ff748356-4398-4aaa-80b8-e12c9bbd3a3c" CreationDate="2013-04-04T07:30:14.230" UserId="329" Text="My understanding is that this is a problem that had to be dealt with but that many facilities are capable of dealing with labels on glass bottles. In other words, it is likely to depend on the facility in your area that is actually processing the glass as part of the recycling process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the material that I find on the subject tucks away the fact that labels can be left on deep in the material. A couple examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://pages.uoregon.edu/recycle/after_collection.html#glass in the third paragraph highlights that the plants can handle some contamination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/ToolsandResources/GlassRecycling/tabid/17878/Default.aspx mentions that the labels can be left on in the last paragraph but states that other contaminations (cap rings and metal) need to be removed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.santarosa.fl.gov/news/factsheet/glass%20recycling%20final%20draft.pdf at the end of the second paragraph says that labels can be left on. (Though this pdf may be a special case since this sounds more like a `downcycle` than recycling)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="22a214ba-53e2-4d3e-9923-e019f1ebbfa5" CreationDate="2013-04-04T14:01:24.160" UserId="318" Comment="added 623 characters in body" Text="Note: This is an essentially good answer.   &#xD;&#xA;I don't expect people to get all enthused and vote it up highly.  &#xD;&#xA; But for it to sit here with a -1 vote is derisive and misleads seekers as to its true worth.  &#xD;&#xA; For answers which say &quot;yes there are such schemes&quot; to get positive votes, and for only one example to be given, which is actually not a &quot;real&quot; project at all so far and probably never will be, simply misleads other seekers.   &#xD;&#xA; It's worse than useless for people to be mislead by the overall combination we see here so far. If it doesn't change I'll scrap it so others will not be mislead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________ &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So are there such projects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Or, only just. So far. For good reason.   &#xD;&#xA;Some people do not like that answer, but its true.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sadly, while [The Sahara Solar Breeder Project](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Solar_Breeder_Project) is a grand idea that may yet produce some concrete results, so far, it's very largely a pipe dream and research project between some Japanese and Algerian universities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A look at the rather empty Wikipedia page (link above) is not too encouraging.  &#xD;&#xA; The [**Sahara Solar Breeder Foundation**](http://www.ssb-foundation.com/) **official website** has more pictures and desriptions, but nothing obviously new (2010 copyright date) and has a now passed 1st prototype date with no indication that anything has actually been builyt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system could be devised that adds to its energy wealth without use of hydrocarbon energy or radioactives except for the getting-going phase but all avaible studies, and all experience to date with alternative energy, suggest that it would be a close fought thing. There are many who argue that there is no net energy gain available in current alternative energy systems such as biomass where long term energy out is said not to match total system wide energy expenditure. eg for biomass energy is expended on planting, harvesting, transportation, processing, storage, waste disposal etc. To make biomass products such as transport alcohol viable subsidies are usually required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting carefully that all energy sources that we can access are in some manner area based on &quot;star stuff&quot; at root. Our own Star &quot;Sol&quot; drives wind, hydro, PV, solar thermal, coal and more. Other stars have sourced radioactives. Everything above iron appears to have come from Supernovae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth noting that that out whole existent infrastructure worldwide is already based on a solar driven breeder system. You may need to refine your assumptions or conditions to eliminate some aspects which are not desired.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One  obvious questionable point is the use of hydrocarbons obtained by &quot;mining&quot; in some way or another (drill, dig, Frac ...). These energy sources are repositories of stored solar energy - but &quot;we&quot; did not do the storing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Another questionable source is radioactives. These also are &quot;star stuff&quot; - but not from our current nearby Star. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole of life energy cost of a product can be VERY roughly approximated by expressing its best available initial cost in energy cost terms. eg you can buy PV solar material in vast volume in China for approaching $US0.10/Watt_mp and whole made up panels at around $US0.50 ex factory. This must be more than the cost energy of fabrication IF government or other subsidies are not present. In fact, Chinese solar manufacturing is crucially dependant on state subsidy at present so overall it is likely that PV panels bought in vast volume cost around or even slightly less than the energy cost of production - and that the lifetime energy available from these systems will be somewhat higher than this but not vastly so.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A look at real world solar PV realities is not encouraging. eg  1000 Wmp of PV panels costs about $US400 FOB factory at present in large volume.   &#xD;&#xA;The installed cost of such a sytem in a &quot;western location&quot; is around $1/Watt mp.  &#xD;&#xA; In a good location mean daily output is about 4 kWh and for a say 20 year design life total energy produced = 4 kWh x 365 days x 20 years =~ 30 MWh.  AT $US0.10 wholesale / kWh that's $2920 of electricity for $1000 of installed panel cost over 20 years. At first glance that's a win. However, if you include &quot;cost of money&quot; = which you must, then a simple DCF calculation suggests about $1960 at 5%, $1400 at 10% and $1100 at 15%.&#xD;&#xA;At $1/Wmp installed break even is barely reached at 15% - a rate that international financiers of large risky project are liable to expect. Even at 5% the profit of about $900/kW of panels is required to also fund maintenance, cleaning. a significant factor, any early failures and decommissioning. $900 is $45 / year per kW of panels including any profit. That's about 6 square metres of panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any one energy source was vastly more cost effective it would dominate world markets and displace alternatives. At present coal, hydro, geothermal are king, nuclear is a special case and the &quot;wannabees&quot; are wind &amp; waves (both a form of solar) and PV &amp; thermal solar. I say nuclear is a special case as all insurance risk has always been underwritten by governments in all installations anywhere, no private insurer will tough the market with a triple length barge pole and in an open market the product could not be sold, no matter how &quot;truly safe&quot; it was. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While wind and various solar sources are being used in competition with traditional sources they are invariably assisted by various special tariffs or market distortions or enforced special rates or conditions. Its still hard to compete head on with energetic gooey stuff found for free (initially) in the ground. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, so far, if you can build an escalating self-replicating infrastructure with traditional energy sources, then you can probably do so with &quot;alternate&quot; sources, but it will be harder, or much harder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;While it is a work of fiction, Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy + &quot;Red Mars&quot;, &quot;Green Mars&quot;, Blue Mars&quot; contains many ideas in the ability to build a world starting with small seed input. He use nuclear, solar, thermal and more on a grand scale. A very worthwhile read from many perspectives.&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added Q&amp;A:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q: Energy numbers asked:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If I've read this correctly, you're claiming that the economics implies that PV has an EROEI of only just above 1, or below it. And in comparing wind with fossil fuel subsidies, you've ignored the subsidies and externalities of fossil fuels. Have I understood correctly? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** @EnergyNumbers Close enough, alas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add in fossil fuel etc subsidies as may esist if you wish, but on a level playing field the raw concentrated &amp; stored energy of petroleum makes it hard to compete with. The cost of petroleum is essentially extraction + transport + refining + profit + taxes. You do not largely need to &quot;interact&quot; with the energy source per se and the energy per volume is high these both  make the job cheaper and easier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've added to my answer above with some rough figures for solar. The &quot;trouble&quot; with existing energy sources is that we have tapped the obvious easy ones. Liquid hydrocarbons (petrol, diesel, kerosine) give around 10 kWh/kg or say about 2.5 kWh/kg delivered energy in an internal combustion engine system. Coal delivers lower energy/kg but is still extremely energy dense compared to non chemical-stored-energy alternatives.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Falling mass (water or whatever) delivers 10 Watt.seconds per kg.metre     &#xD;&#xA;But to equal the delivered energy from 1 kg of hydrocarbon takes  &#xD;&#xA;2500 Watt hours x 3600 seconds/hour = 9,000,000 Watt seconds !!! of energy.  &#xD;&#xA;This takes 900 ton.metres of falling mass at 100%. ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put another way   &#xD;&#xA;1 ton = 1000 kg falling 10 metres   &#xD;&#xA;delivers 100,000 Watt.seconds = 27.777.. Watt hours of energy.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or 1 kg/second falling 10 metres in one second   &#xD;&#xA;delivers 100 Watts at 100% efficient,   &#xD;&#xA;but do that for one hour = 36,000 litres or 36 tons of water to get about 1% of the energy in 1 kg of petroleum (or 4% of delivered energy in auto use). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AND hydro is &quot;easy and cheap&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;We know that PV needs subsidies / FITs etc to compete.   &#xD;&#xA;And that eg the Chinese government are essentially subsidising ALL the still surviving Chinese PV makers makers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;problem&quot; is that we value energy at the hydrocarbon equivalent value to our society and until we are willing to bite the &quot;pay what it really costs&quot; bullet alternatives will remain marginal or of negative value. Alas. &#xD;&#xA;[[FWIW: I design/make small solar products, manufactured in China (at present) for developing country use. So I watch what solar and similar costs and where it is going. So, sometime. But not yet. Despite what the downvoter may think :-). ]].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that people in the US who cover their roof with PV usually are happy with the payback. The feed in tariffs, purchase subsidies and lack of costed labor for eg panel cleaning, mean that they may get $ for $ break even in the 5 to 10 years range.But add some discounted cash flow cost-of money calculations and take away the various subsidies (including those by the Chinese government) and you find that PV are at best fighting neck and neck with traditional systems when areas of good sunshine are available, or losing out in real terms. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="41757c63-cacc-40e3-9396-9bb186ff1c81" CreationDate="2013-04-04T14:27:28.113" UserId="439" Text="Im vegetarian but need a high-protein diet. I was eating a lot of beans but theyre not so great for my digestion. My belly really prefers nuts instead. I know a lot of veggies eat cashews, but after being in Costa Rica and seeing how they grow, Im a little concerned about how eco-friendly that is. (Basically, there is a fruit the size of your hand, and there is one cashew that grows on the end of it. In other words, for each cashew, you need to grow an entire fruit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone comment on what kinds of nuts are sustainable or not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you recommend any good (and inexpensive) suppliers? Id like to buy in bulk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="41757c63-cacc-40e3-9396-9bb186ff1c81" CreationDate="2013-04-04T14:27:28.113" UserId="439" Text="What kind of nuts are eco-friendly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="41757c63-cacc-40e3-9396-9bb186ff1c81" CreationDate="2013-04-04T14:27:28.113" UserId="439" Text="|food|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="5795d967-6c8b-4006-9fd1-a7b2cf5172e9" CreationDate="2013-04-04T19:49:51.353" UserId="117" Comment="deleted 94 characters in body" Text="Im vegetarian but need a high-protein diet. I was eating a lot of beans but theyre not so great for my digestion. My belly really prefers nuts instead. I know a lot of veggies eat cashews, but after being in Costa Rica and seeing how they grow, Im a little concerned about how eco-friendly that is. (Basically, there is a fruit the size of your hand, and there is one cashew that grows on the end of it. In other words, for each cashew, you need to grow an entire fruit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone comment on what kinds of nuts are sustainable or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="726" RevisionGUID="734a0e7a-3c90-4e21-bf82-9aca1f53f9f6" CreationDate="2013-04-04T21:37:33.070" UserId="117" Text="I question your basic premise that a plant's edible food density *necessarily* equates to &quot;eco-friendly.&quot; That may turn out to be the case, but it would have much more to do with the conventional farming and production practices used, offset by any possible other sustainable uses for these disposable byproducts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider that most nuts come from trees that are huge &amp;mdash; dozens of feet tall &amp;mdash; and live often for hundreds of years. Barring other external factors (like clearing rainforests to create farmlands, or indiscriminate use of fertilizers or pesticides that may destroy eco systems), harvesting fruits from long-lived tress seems eminently more eco-friendly than a conventional &quot;instant crops&quot; like beans, peanuts, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to answer the crux of your question, cashew trees produce on average **about 817 pounds per acre (916 kg/hectare)** ([source](http://www.cashewworld.com/)). Compare that to other commercially-grown nuts &amp;mdash;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [Profitable Plants](http://www.profitableplants.com/5-most-profitable-nut-trees-to-grow/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Almonds** &amp;mdash; 1,500 to 3,000 shelled pounds per acre per year&#xD;&#xA; - **Chestnuts** &amp;mdash; 2,000 to 3,000 pounds per acre&#xD;&#xA; - **Filberts** &amp;mdash; 1,500 pounds of dried nuts per acre&#xD;&#xA; - **Pecans** &amp;mdash; 1,200 to 2,000 pounds of nuts per acre&#xD;&#xA; - **Walnuts** &amp;mdash; 6,000 pounds per acre&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="726" RevisionGUID="15074efc-adec-49ae-a706-85f46374f255" CreationDate="2013-04-04T21:43:42.820" UserId="117" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I question your basic premise that a plant's edible yield density *necessarily* equates to &quot;eco-friendly.&quot; That may turn out to be the case, but it would have much more to do with the conventional farming and production practices used, offset by any possible other sustainable uses for these disposable byproducts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider that most nuts come from trees that are huge &amp;mdash; dozens of feet tall &amp;mdash; and often live for hundreds of years. Barring other external factors (like clearing rainforests to create farmlands, or indiscriminate use of fertilizers or pesticides that may destroy eco systems), harvesting fruits from long-lived tress seems eminently more eco-friendly than a conventional &quot;instant crops&quot; like beans, peanuts, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to answer the crux of your question, cashew trees produce on average **about 817 pounds per acre (916 kg/hectare)** ([source](http://www.cashewworld.com/)). Compare that to other commercially-grown nuts &amp;mdash;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [Profitable Plants](http://www.profitableplants.com/5-most-profitable-nut-trees-to-grow/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Almonds** &amp;mdash; 1,500 to 3,000 shelled pounds per acre per year&#xD;&#xA; - **Chestnuts** &amp;mdash; 2,000 to 3,000 pounds per acre&#xD;&#xA; - **Filberts** &amp;mdash; 1,500 pounds of dried nuts per acre&#xD;&#xA; - **Pecans** &amp;mdash; 1,200 to 2,000 pounds of nuts per acre&#xD;&#xA; - **Walnuts** &amp;mdash; 6,000 pounds per acre&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="7739ad9d-2b6a-4e51-8072-db50cc990122" CreationDate="2013-04-05T01:33:48.453" UserId="130" Text="Interestingly the cashew fruits are edible and some people do cook them.  Permaculturalists also eat the young leaves cooked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think yield of nuts is the only issue.  The other issues must include long-term soil issues and the like.  While higher yields can in theory support larger populations, that's only one long-term variable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, nuts are probably more sustainable as a class than beans because beans are typically grown as pioneer species on disturbed soil while nots are grown as longish term trees.  While beans fix nitrogen, the fact that they are pioneer species works against them in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short there are a very large number of variables.  Some that I think you should consider are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  How useful are the rest of the parts of the tree?  With cashews, the &quot;apples&quot; can be cooked and eaten (mildly astringent fruit resembling the Indonesian jambu air).  with walnuts, the wood is useful  We don't use as much hazelwood as we used to (it's good for bows and for tally sticks).  And so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  What is the impact long-term on the soil as it is typically grown?  How much fertilizer goes in?  How much in the way of pesticides?  This is a real issue and it may differ so much from region to region that it makes a clear comparison difficult.  In general organically grown nuts as a class will do better than non-organic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  What is the embodied energy of the labor?  Does it require a lot of migrant labor which comes in via car and moves around (in small groups by car) around a large area every year?  Or does it support more sendantary labor?  Tropical nuts will do better than temperate nuts in this regard, but....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Are you growing them yourself?  There is no more sustainable food than the food you grow and harvest yourself without chemical fertilizers or pesticides." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="708" RevisionGUID="f6cdbab8-cf90-4395-9dff-c6e226dbe215" CreationDate="2013-04-05T07:41:26.190" UserId="15" Comment="added 871 characters in body" Text="Yes, there is one major project underway, called the the [Sahara Solar Breeder][1]. Wikipedia has a [small page on it][2]. There seems to be little information about the project since 2010, (perhaps because of the Japan tsunami?) but I did see a mention on their website of progress planned for 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a summary of the project in [New Scientist][3] and [Gizmag][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a few research papers out there about solar breeder projects in general, but nothing that appeared freely available. My guess is that because there's a lot more to creating and using PV panels than just purifying silicon (materials for protecting the panel, conducting the electricity, control circuitry, accommodation, offices, labour), the additional costs make a solar breeder project prohibitively expensive (at least, so far).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ssb-foundation.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Solar_Breeder_Project&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19785-sun-and-sand-breed-sahara-solar-power.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.gizmag.com/sahara-solar-breeder-project/17054/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="2f6b9976-c6e1-4e4b-bc3f-bc2d0d813854" CreationDate="2013-04-05T12:12:53.660" UserId="318" Comment="added 4638 characters in body" Text="&gt; So are there such projects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Or, only just. So far. For good reason.   &#xD;&#xA;They MAY come. but not soon, and not easily.   &#xD;&#xA; BUT energy production as a whole is potentially moving towards the model suggested in the question. Whether it gets there depends on many factors ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As much as we all may like to see a numerous and increasing number of &quot;breeder&quot; projects the reality so far is that the only ones that appear to exist turn out to so far be only theoretical and &quot;on paper&quot;. Their day is yet to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall such systems do exist on a larger scale but they are interleaved through industry as a whole. That is, rather than having identifiable stand alone systems that self-grow we instead have an industrial society whose energy production capability is increasing and which uses its own energy production to drive this increase. So far this increase is driven by energy from mixed sources - both renewable and non renewable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prospect of renewable energy sources providing an increasing proportion of total energy production - and so approaching the ideal suggested by the questioner, increases with time due to eg &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As our capabilities grow the ability to get more energy per land area from windfarms, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Increasing efficiencies from solar photovoltaic while using thinner lower material content PV cells. (eg until recently state of the art industrial PV crystalline silicon panels were about 18% efficient but recent back contact cells with improved antireflective methods have resulted in 23%+ efficient commercially available PV cells. Efficiency improvement allows higher energy per area, less maintenance costs from eg cleaning, better land utilisation. Silicon material availability is not usually a primary issue but thinner cells improve yields and allow new variants such as flexible crystalline silicon - double side irradiation etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Longer life higher efficiency solar thermal plants with eg molten salt heat storage to extend operating hours per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Commercialisation of dish-Stirling systems with best in class efficiencies in excess of that so far achievable by solar PV. (Commercially viable Solar dish Stirling has been  a decades long journey which even now is at the marginal stage. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these and others will slowly push up the the potential proportion of renewable energy in the global energy mix. However, the massive increasaes in petroleum availability on the last decade or so due to &quot;Fracking&quot; developments and the incipient potential for eg coal recovery by fluid flow methods and the massive potential for deep sea Methane Hydrate recovery also means that the renewable proportion of total energy produced may fall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Breeder reactor methods, and the long long long proposed Thorium [Pebble Bed reactor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor)  technology while not fully renewable, greatly increases nuclearfuel utilisation. Thorium PBRs notionally have energy production costs &quot;far less than coal&quot;. That claim somehow sounds strangely familiar :-).   &#xD;&#xA;See refs at end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What about the &quot;Sahara Solar Breeder project&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sadly, while [The Sahara Solar Breeder Project](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Solar_Breeder_Project) is a grand idea that may yet produce some concrete results, so far, it's very largely a pipe dream and research project between some Japanese and Algerian universities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A look at the rather empty Wikipedia page (link above) is not too encouraging.  &#xD;&#xA; The [**Sahara Solar Breeder Foundation**](http://www.ssb-foundation.com/) **official website** has more pictures and desriptions, but nothing obviously new (2010 copyright date) and has a now passed 1st prototype date with no indication that anything has actually been builyt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system could be devised that adds to its energy wealth without use of hydrocarbon energy or radioactives except for the getting-going phase but all avaible studies, and all experience to date with alternative energy, suggest that it would be a close fought thing. There are many who argue that there is no net energy gain available in current alternative energy systems such as biomass where long term energy out is said not to match total system wide energy expenditure. eg for biomass energy is expended on planting, harvesting, transportation, processing, storage, waste disposal etc. To make biomass products such as transport alcohol viable subsidies are usually required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting carefully that all energy sources that we can access are in some manner area based on &quot;star stuff&quot; at root. Our own Star &quot;Sol&quot; drives wind, hydro, PV, solar thermal, coal and more. Other stars have sourced radioactives. Everything above iron appears to have come from Supernovae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth noting that that out whole existent infrastructure worldwide is already based on a solar driven breeder system. You may need to refine your assumptions or conditions to eliminate some aspects which are not desired.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One  obvious questionable point is the use of hydrocarbons obtained by &quot;mining&quot; in some way or another (drill, dig, Frac ...). These energy sources are repositories of stored solar energy - but &quot;we&quot; did not do the storing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Another questionable source is radioactives. These also are &quot;star stuff&quot; - but not from our current nearby Star. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole of life energy cost of a product can be VERY roughly approximated by expressing its best available initial cost in energy cost terms. eg you can buy PV solar material in vast volume in China for approaching $US0.10/Watt_mp and whole made up panels at around $US0.50 ex factory. This must be more than the cost energy of fabrication IF government or other subsidies are not present. In fact, Chinese solar manufacturing is crucially dependant on state subsidy at present so overall it is likely that PV panels bought in vast volume cost around or even slightly less than the energy cost of production - and that the lifetime energy available from these systems will be somewhat higher than this but not vastly so.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A look at real world solar PV realities is not encouraging. eg  1000 Wmp of PV panels costs about $US400 FOB factory at present in large volume.   &#xD;&#xA;The installed cost of such a sytem in a &quot;western location&quot; is around $1/Watt mp.  &#xD;&#xA; In a good location mean daily output is about 4 kWh and for a say 20 year design life total energy produced = 4 kWh x 365 days x 20 years =~ 30 MWh.  AT $US0.10 wholesale / kWh that's $2920 of electricity for $1000 of installed panel cost over 20 years. At first glance that's a win. However, if you include &quot;cost of money&quot; = which you must, then a simple DCF calculation suggests about $1960 at 5%, $1400 at 10% and $1100 at 15%.&#xD;&#xA;At $1/Wmp installed break even is barely reached at 15% - a rate that international financiers of large risky project are liable to expect. Even at 5% the profit of about $900/kW of panels is required to also fund maintenance, cleaning. a significant factor, any early failures and decommissioning. $900 is $45 / year per kW of panels including any profit. That's about 6 square metres of panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any one energy source was vastly more cost effective it would dominate world markets and displace alternatives. At present coal, hydro, geothermal are king, nuclear is a special case and the &quot;wannabees&quot; are wind &amp; waves (both a form of solar) and PV &amp; thermal solar. I say nuclear is a special case as all insurance risk has always been underwritten by governments in all installations anywhere, no private insurer will tough the market with a triple length barge pole and in an open market the product could not be sold, no matter how &quot;truly safe&quot; it was. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While wind and various solar sources are being used in competition with traditional sources they are invariably assisted by various special tariffs or market distortions or enforced special rates or conditions. Its still hard to compete head on with energetic gooey stuff found for free (initially) in the ground. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, so far, if you can build an escalating self-replicating infrastructure with traditional energy sources, then you can probably do so with &quot;alternate&quot; sources, but it will be harder, or much harder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;While it is a work of fiction, Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy + &quot;Red Mars&quot;, &quot;Green Mars&quot;, Blue Mars&quot; contains many ideas in the ability to build a world starting with small seed input. He use nuclear, solar, thermal and more on a grand scale. A very worthwhile read from many perspectives.&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added Q&amp;A:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q: Energy numbers asked:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If I've read this correctly, you're claiming that the economics implies that PV has an EROEI of only just above 1, or below it. And in comparing wind with fossil fuel subsidies, you've ignored the subsidies and externalities of fossil fuels. Have I understood correctly? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** @EnergyNumbers Close enough, alas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add in fossil fuel etc subsidies as may esist if you wish, but on a level playing field the raw concentrated &amp; stored energy of petroleum makes it hard to compete with. The cost of petroleum is essentially extraction + transport + refining + profit + taxes. You do not largely need to &quot;interact&quot; with the energy source per se and the energy per volume is high these both  make the job cheaper and easier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've added to my answer above with some rough figures for solar. The &quot;trouble&quot; with existing energy sources is that we have tapped the obvious easy ones. Liquid hydrocarbons (petrol, diesel, kerosine) give around 10 kWh/kg or say about 2.5 kWh/kg delivered energy in an internal combustion engine system. Coal delivers lower energy/kg but is still extremely energy dense compared to non chemical-stored-energy alternatives.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Falling mass (water or whatever) delivers 10 Watt.seconds per kg.metre     &#xD;&#xA;But to equal the delivered energy from 1 kg of hydrocarbon takes  &#xD;&#xA;2500 Watt hours x 3600 seconds/hour = 9,000,000 Watt seconds !!! of energy.  &#xD;&#xA;This takes 900 ton.metres of falling mass at 100%. ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put another way   &#xD;&#xA;1 ton = 1000 kg falling 10 metres   &#xD;&#xA;delivers 100,000 Watt.seconds = 27.777.. Watt hours of energy.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or 1 kg/second falling 10 metres in one second   &#xD;&#xA;delivers 100 Watts at 100% efficient,   &#xD;&#xA;but do that for one hour = 36,000 litres or 36 tons of water to get about 1% of the energy in 1 kg of petroleum (or 4% of delivered energy in auto use). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AND hydro is &quot;easy and cheap&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;We know that PV needs subsidies / FITs etc to compete.   &#xD;&#xA;And that eg the Chinese government are essentially subsidising ALL the still surviving Chinese PV makers makers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;problem&quot; is that we value energy at the hydrocarbon equivalent value to our society and until we are willing to bite the &quot;pay what it really costs&quot; bullet alternatives will remain marginal or of negative value. Alas. &#xD;&#xA;[[FWIW: I design/make small solar products, manufactured in China (at present) for developing country use. So I watch what solar and similar costs and where it is going. So, sometime. But not yet. Despite what the downvoter may think :-). ]].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that people in the US who cover their roof with PV usually are happy with the payback. The feed in tariffs, purchase subsidies and lack of costed labor for eg panel cleaning, mean that they may get $ for $ break even in the 5 to 10 years range.But add some discounted cash flow cost-of money calculations and take away the various subsidies (including those by the Chinese government) and you find that PV are at best fighting neck and neck with traditional systems when areas of good sunshine are available, or losing out in real terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thorium Pebble Bed - &quot;not quite renewable /  cheaper than coal** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor  &#xD;&#xA;http://pebblebedreactor.blogspot.co.nz/           http://www.thoriumenergycheaperthancoal.com/  &#xD;&#xA;[Norway 4 year Thorium power trial](http://singularityhub.com/2012/12/11/norway-begins-four-year-test-of-thorium-nuclear-reactor/)    &#xD;&#xA;[China Thorium power ](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9784044/China-blazes-trail-for-clean-nuclear-power-from-thorium.html)    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Thorium Pebble Bed](https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=thorium+reactor&amp;hl=en&amp;tbm=isch&amp;tbo=u&amp;source=univ&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=-rpeUdHXFdGyiQf0moHAAg&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CFwQsAQ&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=720#hl=en&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=1&amp;q=thorium+reactor+pebble+bed&amp;oq=thorium+reactor+pebble+bed&amp;gs_l=img.3...226776.229953.0.230188.11.11.0.0.0.0.248.1691.5j0j6.11.0...0.0...1c.1.8.img.JXE6k3-ayZQ&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;bvm=bv.44770516,d.aGc&amp;fp=80a3200bb8b7bcb6&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=720)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More ...](http://www.docstoc.com/docs/75393281/Pebble-Bed-Reactors-for-Once-Trough-Nuclear-Transmutation)  &#xD;&#xA;[Coal power station + thorium PBR + CO2 capture](http://coal2nuclear.com/ss_skyscrubber_pilot.htm)  &#xD;&#xA;[More ...](http://www.docstoc.com/docs/68006457/The-Pebble-Bed-Modular-Reactor)  &#xD;&#xA;[ANTI-Thrium argument5s](http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/environment/dont-believe-thorium-nuclear-reactor-hype/)  &#xD;&#xA;[A nuclear reactor in every home](http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/10/a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home/) Hookey Walker   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This is an essentially useful answer even though (or because) it addresses a wide range of variably relevant material. I don't expect people to get all enthused and vote it up highly.  &#xD;&#xA; But for it to sit here with a -1 vote is derisive and misleads seekers as to its true worth.  &#xD;&#xA; For answers which say &quot;yes there are such schemes&quot; to get positive votes, and for only one example to be given, which is actually not a &quot;real&quot; project at all so far and probably never will be, simply misleads other seekers.   &#xD;&#xA; It's worse than useless for people to be mislead by the overall combination we see here so far. If it doesn't change I'll scrap it so others will not be mislead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="4dbb354d-de75-4492-bbe0-e2bab9c47de1" CreationDate="2013-04-05T14:42:53.910" UserId="71" Comment="Grammar, add a paragraph break. " Text="I'm vegetarian but I need a high-protein diet. I was eating a lot of beans but they're not so great for my digestion. My belly really prefers nuts instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know a lot of veggies eat cashews, but after being in Costa Rica and seeing how they are grown, I'm a little concerned about how eco-friendly they are. (Basically, there is a fruit the size of your hand, and there is one cashew that grows on the end of it. In other words, for each cashew, you need to grow an entire fruit). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone comment on what kinds of nuts are sustainable or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2106" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="4dbb354d-de75-4492-bbe0-e2bab9c47de1" CreationDate="2013-04-05T14:42:53.910" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 130, 117 edit id of 95" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="691" RevisionGUID="a921ae5a-fcbc-4664-a3d6-e48ecb66d4e0" CreationDate="2013-04-05T14:43:05.240" UserId="164" Comment="Removed the unusable answer reference and turned the links into links." Text="Many in the sanitation treatment industry feel the garbage disposal was among the most troublesome inventions in the history of the modern home.  Treatment facilities are designed to remove bacterial and viral contaminants, not solid wastes (grinding it and sending it into the sewer system does not change the fact that it is solid waste).  Most plants have been retrofitted to remove the increased volume of food waste (among other things), but it is no where near as efficient as composting this waste stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, using a garbage disposal is another way to outsource waste removal without paying additionally for it, and it puts an undue burden on infrastructure.  To see this process in action, and to see what happens when food waste is co-mingled with wastewater, I highly recommend taking a tour of your local treatment facility - usually this is a free service provided to citizens.  For example, if you live in southern California, the Orange County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts will offer free tours:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Orange County Sanitation District][1]&#xD;&#xA;* [Los Angeles County Sanitation District][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting is relatively easy, although it does require a bit of maintenance.  If you have a backyard, outdoor composting is definitely the preferred solution - there are plenty of websites out there that will provide instructions.  If you live in an apartment or have limited space, consider worm composting.  If done properly, there is no odor, and the end product (worm casting &quot;poo&quot;) makes for perfect potting soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting (as above) should only be done with specific kinds of scraps - e.g. fruits, veggies, breads, egg shells, garden cuttings, etc.  Do NOT add fats, oils, meats, or dairy products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had never heard of guinea pigs as a disposal method - cool idea! Along those same lines, many people in the U.S. are using chickens to achieve the same goal.  Chickens will eat anything, including meats, fats, dairy products, cooked food, etc!  But check your city or county ordinances to make sure this is approved in your area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ocsd.com/index.aspx?page=115&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lacsd.org/education/tours/default.asp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2108" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="691" RevisionGUID="a921ae5a-fcbc-4664-a3d6-e48ecb66d4e0" CreationDate="2013-04-05T14:43:05.240" Comment="Proposed by 164 approved by 117 edit id of 96" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2109" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="634" RevisionGUID="baa7fd5d-12ec-46da-8dcd-8018481da11f" CreationDate="2013-04-05T16:56:01.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/320218277429272576" />
  <row Id="2110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="af153c74-aec0-42af-9d70-5df4f2b1819e" CreationDate="2013-04-05T19:50:46.840" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="Added link to pioneer species definition" Text="Interestingly the cashew fruits are edible and some people do cook them.  Permaculturalists also eat the young leaves cooked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think yield of nuts is the only issue.  The other issues must include long-term soil issues and the like.  While higher yields can in theory support larger populations, that's only one long-term variable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, nuts are probably more sustainable as a class than beans because beans are typically grown as [pioneer species][1] on disturbed soil while nuts are grown as longish term trees.  While beans fix nitrogen, the fact that they are pioneer species works against them in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short there are a very large number of variables.  Some that I think you should consider are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  How useful are the rest of the parts of the tree?  With cashews, the &quot;apples&quot; can be cooked and eaten (mildly astringent fruit resembling the Indonesian jambu air).  with walnuts, the wood is useful  We don't use as much hazelwood as we used to (it's good for bows and for tally sticks).  And so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  What is the impact long-term on the soil as it is typically grown?  How much fertilizer goes in?  How much in the way of pesticides?  This is a real issue and it may differ so much from region to region that it makes a clear comparison difficult.  In general organically grown nuts as a class will do better than non-organic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  What is the embodied energy of the labor?  Does it require a lot of migrant labor which comes in via car and moves around (in small groups by car) around a large area every year?  Or does it support more sendantary labor?  Tropical nuts will do better than temperate nuts in this regard, but....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Are you growing them yourself?  There is no more sustainable food than the food you grow and harvest yourself without chemical fertilizers or pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_species" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2111" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="af153c74-aec0-42af-9d70-5df4f2b1819e" CreationDate="2013-04-05T19:50:46.840" Comment="Proposed by 141 approved by 117 edit id of 97" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="79a5de39-60c8-4481-95b6-649addb69a55" CreationDate="2013-04-06T02:12:39.793" UserId="130" Comment="added 589 characters in body" Text="Interestingly the cashew fruits are edible and some people do cook them.  Permaculturalists also eat the young leaves cooked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think yield of nuts is the only issue.  The other issues must include long-term soil issues and the like.  While higher yields can in theory support larger populations, that's only one long-term variable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, nuts are probably more sustainable as a class than beans because beans are typically grown as [pioneer species][1] on disturbed soil while nuts are grown as longish term trees.  While beans fix nitrogen, the fact that they are pioneer species works against them in the long run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why permaculturalists disfavor pioneer species for long-term sustainability is that they grow in disturbed soil, which requires ploughing, and this leads to both depletion of nutrients and erosion of soil.  This requires strategies for mitigating both pests nutrient depletion.  Trees are considered more sustainable because they represent an ecological niche closer to the apex of ecological succession and are thus can be grown in ways which require, long term, far fewer inputs.  Of course this is only one factor and how the trees are grown is critically important too.  For more on this, see Toby Hemenway's [Gaia's Garden](http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-Second-Home-Scale-Permaculture/dp/1603580298)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short there are a very large number of variables.  Some that I think you should consider are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  How useful are the rest of the parts of the tree?  With cashews, the &quot;apples&quot; can be cooked and eaten (mildly astringent fruit resembling the Indonesian jambu air).  with walnuts, the wood is useful  We don't use as much hazelwood as we used to (it's good for bows and for tally sticks).  And so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  What is the impact long-term on the soil as it is typically grown?  How much fertilizer goes in?  How much in the way of pesticides?  This is a real issue and it may differ so much from region to region that it makes a clear comparison difficult.  In general organically grown nuts as a class will do better than non-organic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  What is the embodied energy of the labor?  Does it require a lot of migrant labor which comes in via car and moves around (in small groups by car) around a large area every year?  Or does it support more sendantary labor?  Tropical nuts will do better than temperate nuts in this regard, but....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Are you growing them yourself?  There is no more sustainable food than the food you grow and harvest yourself without chemical fertilizers or pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_species" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="39b92bf9-699c-4593-9d9d-31e06e8483d6" CreationDate="2013-04-06T12:18:14.363" UserId="318" Comment="deleted 686 characters in body" Text="&gt; So are there such projects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. Or, only just. So far. For good reason.   &#xD;&#xA;They MAY come. but not soon, and not easily.   &#xD;&#xA; BUT energy production as a whole is potentially moving towards the model suggested in the question. Whether it gets there depends on many factors ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As much as we all may like to see a numerous and increasing number of &quot;breeder&quot; projects the reality so far is that the only ones that appear to exist turn out to so far be only theoretical and &quot;on paper&quot;. Their day is yet to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall such systems do exist on a larger scale but they are interleaved through industry as a whole. That is, rather than having identifiable stand alone systems that self-grow we instead have an industrial society whose energy production capability is increasing and which uses its own energy production to drive this increase. So far this increase is driven by energy from mixed sources - both renewable and non renewable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The prospect of renewable energy sources providing an increasing proportion of total energy production - and so approaching the ideal suggested by the questioner, increases with time due to eg &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As our capabilities grow the ability to get more energy per land area from windfarms, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Increasing efficiencies from solar photovoltaic while using thinner lower material content PV cells. (eg until recently state of the art industrial PV crystalline silicon panels were about 18% efficient but recent back contact cells with improved antireflective methods have resulted in 23%+ efficient commercially available PV cells. Efficiency improvement allows higher energy per area, less maintenance costs from eg cleaning, better land utilisation. Silicon material availability is not usually a primary issue but thinner cells improve yields and allow new variants such as flexible crystalline silicon - double side irradiation etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Longer life higher efficiency solar thermal plants with eg molten salt heat storage to extend operating hours per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Commercialisation of dish-Stirling systems with best in class efficiencies in excess of that so far achievable by solar PV. (Commercially viable Solar dish Stirling has been  a decades long journey which even now is at the marginal stage. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these and others will slowly push up the the potential proportion of renewable energy in the global energy mix. However, the massive increasaes in petroleum availability on the last decade or so due to &quot;Fracking&quot; developments and the incipient potential for eg coal recovery by fluid flow methods and the massive potential for deep sea Methane Hydrate recovery also means that the renewable proportion of total energy produced may fall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Breeder reactor methods, and the long long long proposed Thorium [Pebble Bed reactor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor)  technology while not fully renewable, greatly increases nuclearfuel utilisation. Thorium PBRs notionally have energy production costs &quot;far less than coal&quot;. That claim somehow sounds strangely familiar :-).   &#xD;&#xA;See refs at end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What about the &quot;Sahara Solar Breeder project&quot;**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sadly, while [The Sahara Solar Breeder Project](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Solar_Breeder_Project) is a grand idea that may yet produce some concrete results, so far, it's very largely a pipe dream and research project between some Japanese and Algerian universities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A look at the rather empty Wikipedia page (link above) is not too encouraging.  &#xD;&#xA; The [**Sahara Solar Breeder Foundation**](http://www.ssb-foundation.com/) **official website** has more pictures and desriptions, but nothing obviously new (2010 copyright date) and has a now passed 1st prototype date with no indication that anything has actually been builyt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A system could be devised that adds to its energy wealth without use of hydrocarbon energy or radioactives except for the getting-going phase but all avaible studies, and all experience to date with alternative energy, suggest that it would be a close fought thing. There are many who argue that there is no net energy gain available in current alternative energy systems such as biomass where long term energy out is said not to match total system wide energy expenditure. eg for biomass energy is expended on planting, harvesting, transportation, processing, storage, waste disposal etc. To make biomass products such as transport alcohol viable subsidies are usually required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting carefully that all energy sources that we can access are in some manner area based on &quot;star stuff&quot; at root. Our own Star &quot;Sol&quot; drives wind, hydro, PV, solar thermal, coal and more. Other stars have sourced radioactives. Everything above iron appears to have come from Supernovae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also worth noting that that out whole existent infrastructure worldwide is already based on a solar driven breeder system. You may need to refine your assumptions or conditions to eliminate some aspects which are not desired.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One  obvious questionable point is the use of hydrocarbons obtained by &quot;mining&quot; in some way or another (drill, dig, Frac ...). These energy sources are repositories of stored solar energy - but &quot;we&quot; did not do the storing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Another questionable source is radioactives. These also are &quot;star stuff&quot; - but not from our current nearby Star. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole of life energy cost of a product can be VERY roughly approximated by expressing its best available initial cost in energy cost terms. eg you can buy PV solar material in vast volume in China for approaching $US0.10/Watt_mp and whole made up panels at around $US0.50 ex factory. This must be more than the cost energy of fabrication IF government or other subsidies are not present. In fact, Chinese solar manufacturing is crucially dependant on state subsidy at present so overall it is likely that PV panels bought in vast volume cost around or even slightly less than the energy cost of production - and that the lifetime energy available from these systems will be somewhat higher than this but not vastly so.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A look at real world solar PV realities is not encouraging. eg  1000 Wmp of PV panels costs about $US400 FOB factory at present in large volume.   &#xD;&#xA;The installed cost of such a sytem in a &quot;western location&quot; is around $1/Watt mp.  &#xD;&#xA; In a good location mean daily output is about 4 kWh and for a say 20 year design life total energy produced = 4 kWh x 365 days x 20 years =~ 30 MWh.  AT $US0.10 wholesale / kWh that's $2920 of electricity for $1000 of installed panel cost over 20 years. At first glance that's a win. However, if you include &quot;cost of money&quot; = which you must, then a simple DCF calculation suggests about $1960 at 5%, $1400 at 10% and $1100 at 15%.&#xD;&#xA;At $1/Wmp installed break even is barely reached at 15% - a rate that international financiers of large risky project are liable to expect. Even at 5% the profit of about $900/kW of panels is required to also fund maintenance, cleaning. a significant factor, any early failures and decommissioning. $900 is $45 / year per kW of panels including any profit. That's about 6 square metres of panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any one energy source was vastly more cost effective it would dominate world markets and displace alternatives. At present coal, hydro, geothermal are king, nuclear is a special case and the &quot;wannabees&quot; are wind &amp; waves (both a form of solar) and PV &amp; thermal solar. I say nuclear is a special case as all insurance risk has always been underwritten by governments in all installations anywhere, no private insurer will tough the market with a triple length barge pole and in an open market the product could not be sold, no matter how &quot;truly safe&quot; it was. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While wind and various solar sources are being used in competition with traditional sources they are invariably assisted by various special tariffs or market distortions or enforced special rates or conditions. Its still hard to compete head on with energetic gooey stuff found for free (initially) in the ground. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, so far, if you can build an escalating self-replicating infrastructure with traditional energy sources, then you can probably do so with &quot;alternate&quot; sources, but it will be harder, or much harder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;While it is a work of fiction, Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy + &quot;Red Mars&quot;, &quot;Green Mars&quot;, Blue Mars&quot; contains many ideas in the ability to build a world starting with small seed input. He use nuclear, solar, thermal and more on a grand scale. A very worthwhile read from many perspectives.&#xD;&#xA;________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added Q&amp;A:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q: Energy numbers asked:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If I've read this correctly, you're claiming that the economics implies that PV has an EROEI of only just above 1, or below it. And in comparing wind with fossil fuel subsidies, you've ignored the subsidies and externalities of fossil fuels. Have I understood correctly? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A:** @EnergyNumbers Close enough, alas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add in fossil fuel etc subsidies as may esist if you wish, but on a level playing field the raw concentrated &amp; stored energy of petroleum makes it hard to compete with. The cost of petroleum is essentially extraction + transport + refining + profit + taxes. You do not largely need to &quot;interact&quot; with the energy source per se and the energy per volume is high these both  make the job cheaper and easier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've added to my answer above with some rough figures for solar. The &quot;trouble&quot; with existing energy sources is that we have tapped the obvious easy ones. Liquid hydrocarbons (petrol, diesel, kerosine) give around 10 kWh/kg or say about 2.5 kWh/kg delivered energy in an internal combustion engine system. Coal delivers lower energy/kg but is still extremely energy dense compared to non chemical-stored-energy alternatives.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Falling mass (water or whatever) delivers 10 Watt.seconds per kg.metre     &#xD;&#xA;But to equal the delivered energy from 1 kg of hydrocarbon takes  &#xD;&#xA;2500 Watt hours x 3600 seconds/hour = 9,000,000 Watt seconds !!! of energy.  &#xD;&#xA;This takes 900 ton.metres of falling mass at 100%. ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put another way   &#xD;&#xA;1 ton = 1000 kg falling 10 metres   &#xD;&#xA;delivers 100,000 Watt.seconds = 27.777.. Watt hours of energy.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or 1 kg/second falling 10 metres in one second   &#xD;&#xA;delivers 100 Watts at 100% efficient,   &#xD;&#xA;but do that for one hour = 36,000 litres or 36 tons of water to get about 1% of the energy in 1 kg of petroleum (or 4% of delivered energy in auto use). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AND hydro is &quot;easy and cheap&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;We know that PV needs subsidies / FITs etc to compete.   &#xD;&#xA;And that eg the Chinese government are essentially subsidising ALL the still surviving Chinese PV makers makers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;problem&quot; is that we value energy at the hydrocarbon equivalent value to our society and until we are willing to bite the &quot;pay what it really costs&quot; bullet alternatives will remain marginal or of negative value. Alas. &#xD;&#xA;[[FWIW: I design/make small solar products, manufactured in China (at present) for developing country use. So I watch what solar and similar costs and where it is going. So, sometime. But not yet. Despite what the downvoter may think :-). ]].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that people in the US who cover their roof with PV usually are happy with the payback. The feed in tariffs, purchase subsidies and lack of costed labor for eg panel cleaning, mean that they may get $ for $ break even in the 5 to 10 years range.But add some discounted cash flow cost-of money calculations and take away the various subsidies (including those by the Chinese government) and you find that PV are at best fighting neck and neck with traditional systems when areas of good sunshine are available, or losing out in real terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thorium Pebble Bed - &quot;not quite renewable /  cheaper than coal** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor  &#xD;&#xA;http://pebblebedreactor.blogspot.co.nz/           http://www.thoriumenergycheaperthancoal.com/  &#xD;&#xA;[Norway 4 year Thorium power trial](http://singularityhub.com/2012/12/11/norway-begins-four-year-test-of-thorium-nuclear-reactor/)    &#xD;&#xA;[China Thorium power ](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9784044/China-blazes-trail-for-clean-nuclear-power-from-thorium.html)    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Thorium Pebble Bed](https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=thorium+reactor&amp;hl=en&amp;tbm=isch&amp;tbo=u&amp;source=univ&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=-rpeUdHXFdGyiQf0moHAAg&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CFwQsAQ&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=720#hl=en&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=1&amp;q=thorium+reactor+pebble+bed&amp;oq=thorium+reactor+pebble+bed&amp;gs_l=img.3...226776.229953.0.230188.11.11.0.0.0.0.248.1691.5j0j6.11.0...0.0...1c.1.8.img.JXE6k3-ayZQ&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;bvm=bv.44770516,d.aGc&amp;fp=80a3200bb8b7bcb6&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=720)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More ...](http://www.docstoc.com/docs/75393281/Pebble-Bed-Reactors-for-Once-Trough-Nuclear-Transmutation)  &#xD;&#xA;[Coal power station + thorium PBR + CO2 capture](http://coal2nuclear.com/ss_skyscrubber_pilot.htm)  &#xD;&#xA;[More ...](http://www.docstoc.com/docs/68006457/The-Pebble-Bed-Modular-Reactor)  &#xD;&#xA;[ANTI-Thrium argument5s](http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/environment/dont-believe-thorium-nuclear-reactor-hype/)  &#xD;&#xA;[A nuclear reactor in every home](http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/10/a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home/) Hookey Walker   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="728" RevisionGUID="4afb43ca-1b89-4c4e-bd57-dff417a834af" CreationDate="2013-04-06T18:25:03.123" UserId="975" Text="I'm not sure there's a good answer to your 1st question.  As an answer to your second question, I would cite the [Jevons Paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) as a very real and well-documented set of circumstances wherein increased efficiency of a product or process actually leads to increased consumption due to price elasticity.  The whole article is well worth reading but I would like to draw note to one of the last sentences as a way to account for this effect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ecological economists Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees have suggested that any cost &#xD;&#xA;&gt; savings from efficiency gains be &quot;taxed away or otherwise removed from further economic &#xD;&#xA;&gt; circulation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="ac0dd5f1-c329-4cf5-bb4f-64610094c0cf" CreationDate="2013-04-06T18:54:01.693" UserId="330" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="I use Sanyo Eneloop recharchables (1.2 volts in size AA and AAA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a very high lifetime, do not self-discharge as other NiMH and NiCad accumulators do, and have a high current untill they are empty (alkaline batteries have a much lower current and a linearly decreasing voltage—therefore alkalines are not suitable for digital cameras and the like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The high lifetime is—non-exclusively—due to the low self-discharge. Common NiMH accumulators laying around break, because of deep discharge (below 1.0 volt). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **newest version** of the Eneloop has part number **HR-3UTGB** (AA size) or **HR-4UTGB** (AAA size). They have **1800** unload/load cycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some exhaustive long time trials on the web (mostly from private persons) which proof the long life time of these batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following graph is showing the low self discharge. It’s from a [long time test from Stefanv](http://www.stefanv.com/electronics/sanyo_eneloop.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Long time test by Stefanv](http://www.stefanv.com/electronics/eneloop/newgraph.gif)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Converters for AA or AAA to C and D exist for a low price (if you don’t use the ones offered by Sanyo), if you need bigger batteries for some old devices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="728" RevisionGUID="b283c6e3-767c-4d79-9eba-5384ab4f16fe" CreationDate="2013-04-06T22:37:15.580" UserId="975" Comment="consistency/grammar corrections" Text="I'm not sure there's a good answer to your 1st question.  As an answer to your 2nd question, I would cite the [Jevons Paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) as a very real and well-documented set of circumstances wherein increased efficiency of a product or process actually leads to increased consumption due to price elasticity.  The whole article is well worth reading, but I would like to draw note to one of the last sentences (citing one of the foremost ecological accountants) as a way to account for this effect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ecological economists Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees have suggested that any cost &#xD;&#xA;&gt; savings from efficiency gains be &quot;taxed away or otherwise removed from further economic &#xD;&#xA;&gt; circulation&quot;. . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="e2e09259-b59d-4857-9ebc-455cfd87c911" CreationDate="2013-04-07T04:50:38.823" UserId="404" Text="About once every year or two I come to the point where I have to part with the shoes I've bonded with over my day in day out walks to work, the market, around the block yada yada.  Trust me I wear my shoes to the max (i've even used wet suit repair materials to patch holes from the rather large bunyon on my feet to get an extra few months).  I'm not talking about shoes I'm parting with as a fashionista - these are shoes that can't be re-used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the basic sneaker, there are several layers and materials:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - leather or mesh upper body&#xD;&#xA; - cotton laces&#xD;&#xA; - soles: usually some combination of rubber, polyurethane, thermoplastic rubber.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The composite nature of shoes doesn't make their sustainable disposal easy.  Moreover, leather and cotton can't be thrown in a recycle, and I'm not sure which of the above rubber materials are recyclable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two possible ways to break down this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It seems unlikely, but do any vendors take shoes and reuse the material in new shoes or otherwise?&#xD;&#xA; - what are the best ways to dispose the main shoe materials mentioned above?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, if anyone recommends a manufacturer that make shoes designed to be sustainably disposed, I'd be interested.  However, nothing that will aggravate knee or foot pain.  I'm mostly interested in how to dispose your everyday Nike, Pumas, etc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2119" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="e2e09259-b59d-4857-9ebc-455cfd87c911" CreationDate="2013-04-07T04:50:38.823" UserId="404" Text="What is the most sustainable way to dispose of shoes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2120" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="e2e09259-b59d-4857-9ebc-455cfd87c911" CreationDate="2013-04-07T04:50:38.823" UserId="404" Text="|recycling|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="d01fbe68-2048-4903-b12f-41552505232c" CreationDate="2013-04-07T05:03:25.617" UserId="130" Text="Looking at gas milage and air conditioner use, it seems to me I get a significantly better gas milage when I don't use the air conditioner.  However, if I roll down the windows, I assume this increases aerodynamic drag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under what circumstances does it make sense gas consumption wise to use an air conditioner vs rolling down the windows and vice versa if I want to reduce my gas consumption?  For example would it make more sense to run the air conditioner when driving on the highway?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2122" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="d01fbe68-2048-4903-b12f-41552505232c" CreationDate="2013-04-07T05:03:25.617" UserId="130" Text="Gas/cooling strategies for reducing fuel consumption while driving: air conditioner vs windows" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2123" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="d01fbe68-2048-4903-b12f-41552505232c" CreationDate="2013-04-07T05:03:25.617" UserId="130" Text="|energy|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="75f60f09-c8bf-40f7-a977-92dbfeb0ba9f" CreationDate="2013-04-07T05:34:33.103" UserId="404" Comment="I gutted this thing to better encompass the political and economic issues of commercial ccs and narrowed the question down to the US." Text="The first (likely) commercial scale coal ccs plant is scheduled to begin operation at Boundary Dam in Canada by the end of the first quarter of 2014 ([Estevan Mercury](http://www.estevanmercury.ca/article/20111222/ESTMERCURY0101/111229984/-1/estmercury/co2-stripper-rolls-into-boundary-dam)).  A few key points about the project:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Plant owner [Sask Power](http://www.saskpowercarboncapture.com/index) will not be building a new plant.  They will retrofit one of their coal plant's 130 MW combustion units.&#xD;&#xA; - they estimate the project will reduce the plant's emissions by 90%-95%.&#xD;&#xA; - the CO2 stripper will use amine solvents to capture the CO2.  I couldn't find any additional tech specs on the stripper.  However, it seems likely that they are savvy to [potential efficiency gains](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es302513j?mi=sijcbk&amp;af=R&amp;pageSize=20&amp;abstract=nmr) researched at the Laval U of Quebec in fall 2012.  &#xD;&#xA; - the Canadian government is investing $240 million in the $1.24B project ([zeroco2.no](http://www.zeroco2.no/projects/saskpowers-boundary-dam-power-station-pilot-plant)).&#xD;&#xA; - most of the CO2 will be sold to operator Cenovous for enhanced oil recovery.  The oil fields will be connected by a 40 mile long pipe (zeroco2.no).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we see here is a capture project in a location where the captured CO2 will have economic value that won't all be lost by transportation costs, government financial support, and active regional research in CCS.  My questions is where and when will similar circumstances arise in the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could be specific about current or likely government policies (local, state, or federal) and the likely value of captured CO2 (most likely for enhanced oil recovery), that'd be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also (this may be tangential and a separate question on its own), if you have any insights on the technologies that may obviate the need for government support or high captured CO2 values, I'm definitely interested in that as well.  Here are some links about alternative capture methods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [cryogenic capture, estimated at $33/ton right now by sustainable energy solutions](http://sustainablees.com/documents/conferencebrochure.pdf)&#xD;&#xA; - ARPA-E is currently investing in [these CCS research projects](http://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=project-tech-areas/carbon-capture)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2125" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="75f60f09-c8bf-40f7-a977-92dbfeb0ba9f" CreationDate="2013-04-07T05:34:33.103" UserId="404" Comment="I gutted this thing to better encompass the political and economic issues of commercial ccs and narrowed the question down to the US." Text="Where are commercial conditions for a CCS NG or coal plant most likely to emerge in the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2126" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="75f60f09-c8bf-40f7-a977-92dbfeb0ba9f" CreationDate="2013-04-07T05:34:33.103" UserId="404" Comment="I gutted this thing to better encompass the political and economic issues of commercial ccs and narrowed the question down to the US." Text="|decarbonisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2127" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="9c80657c-1679-4994-9b77-6debd2b77fdc" CreationDate="2013-04-07T07:56:18.113" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/320807228095479809" />
  <row Id="2128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="731" RevisionGUID="99e7da46-f157-4eb6-8b9a-0c705f11eec1" CreationDate="2013-04-07T10:56:33.707" UserId="58" Text="It was already answered in [answers for a more general question about driving][1] (it's just on the top in the linked answer): it depends on speed. The slowing effect of an open window depends on speed qudratically, but it becomes really significant only at high speeds (more than 100 km/h according to what I know, though I can try to back it by some source if you want).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that air conditioning becomes clearly more gas-efficient than open window only on speeds forbidden on any highway except for those in Germany (no speed limit). That's why I never regret my car has no air conditioning :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/488/58" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="dc74f6b4-2e9d-4f36-88bb-578fc6ba0e56" CreationDate="2013-04-07T11:31:33.350" UserId="28" Text="One idea is to repurpose/upcycle them as planters.  I saw this one at a street fair in Jerusalem last week.  The artisan manning the table said that it's requires only one change - drill or cut a hole in the bottom for drainage.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Show as Planter][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FHc8K.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="732" RevisionGUID="697e055b-c3d8-4e87-8e9d-074a519f2a05" CreationDate="2013-04-07T14:21:58.457" UserId="28" Comment="typos" Text="One idea is to repurpose/upcycle them as planters.  I saw this one at a street fair in Jerusalem last week.  The artisan manning the table said that it requires only one change - drill or cut a hole in the bottom for drainage.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Shoe as Planter][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FHc8K.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="46d8ae80-8834-4ca5-8571-8eaaaf72a9e4" CreationDate="2013-04-07T15:03:01.210" UserId="130" Text="We have a big sort of pond which is aerated by a largish aquarium pump (air pump only).  We have carp and two turtles in the pond.  My guess is the capacity is in the 1000 to 1500 gallon range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering about the possibility of incorporating aquaponics into the structure as it currently exists.  Ideas included adding styrofoam deep water floats with some light plants on them or trying to grow aquatic plants for food (lotus being a possible example).  Given that the water does maintain ample aeration, what sorts of problems am I likely to face?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="46d8ae80-8834-4ca5-8571-8eaaaf72a9e4" CreationDate="2013-04-07T15:03:01.210" UserId="130" Text="Aquaponics without water pumps: Is it possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="46d8ae80-8834-4ca5-8571-8eaaaf72a9e4" CreationDate="2013-04-07T15:03:01.210" UserId="130" Text="|aquaponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="bc9660b5-ebce-4629-9ccf-59f1440f40e7" CreationDate="2013-04-07T20:30:24.733" UserId="58" Text="&quot;Recycle&quot; is the last in reduce-reuse-recycle triad, and though it's an obvious choice for plastic bottles, there are ways to make the most of every bottle. I drink from every bottle for some time and still I slowly make a deposit of such bottles. Many of my friends are not so eco-friendly and they buy a lot of these containers, so there is enough plastic bottles for something bigger to do with them before recyclation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of my ideas is something like this - a raft:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally I would join the bottles together by some kind of an adhesive tape. It has some advantages - it's easy to use and it can be recycled along with the bottles. But still it's a significant amount of material used with no sensible reuse option (if you know some, it counts for an answer!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There must be some alternative way to join the bottles using just reused materials and/or materials that can be reused later (preferably but not necessarily if it's salvage is not almost as difficult as the raft construction). Do you now any examples of such a material, tell me!  &#xD;&#xA;*If some more difficult task is required, please add a how-to paragraph and/or link to some tutorial to do it.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4g8vC.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2138" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="bc9660b5-ebce-4629-9ccf-59f1440f40e7" CreationDate="2013-04-07T20:30:24.733" UserId="58" Text="How to make a fully reused/reusable raft?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2139" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="bc9660b5-ebce-4629-9ccf-59f1440f40e7" CreationDate="2013-04-07T20:30:24.733" UserId="58" Text="|diy|reuse|vehicle|plastic-bottles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="e3b3ecb3-8753-4131-b23e-330bea562f38" CreationDate="2013-04-07T20:36:24.353" UserId="975" Text="Which universities have programs that have shown quantitative reductions in GHG emitted?  Which universities set ambitious goals and have a plan to meet them?  Which universities do a good job of involving other stakeholders?  Please provide documentation.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="e3b3ecb3-8753-4131-b23e-330bea562f38" CreationDate="2013-04-07T20:36:24.353" UserId="975" Text="Which university has done the most to reduce GHG?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="e3b3ecb3-8753-4131-b23e-330bea562f38" CreationDate="2013-04-07T20:36:24.353" UserId="975" Text="|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2143" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="733" RevisionGUID="d98b9aa8-9527-4834-b5c4-2e4f3712452a" CreationDate="2013-04-07T22:56:21.653" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/321033735002796033" />
  <row Id="2144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="736" RevisionGUID="ef29bca2-5b90-439d-b17b-7fa7451328fe" CreationDate="2013-04-08T01:24:12.060" UserId="15" Text="It's a more complicated answer that just saying &quot;use your air con if you're going over X km/h&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to keeping cool in your car, there are other factors that make a big difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. On a cold but sunny day, the inside of a car can still get very hot, but opening a window just a little bit can reduce the temp to a comfortable level and is unlikely to substantially increase drag, no matter what your speed&#xD;&#xA; 2. On a very humid hot day, opening windows all the way might not cool you down much, despite increasing drag&#xD;&#xA; 3. The fan speed with which you run your aircon can affect how much power it draws, if I understand correctly how it works&#xD;&#xA; 4. I'd guess that newer vehicles are more likely to have more efficient aircon that older vehicles, though it likely differs by model&#xD;&#xA; 5. You may also be able to change the clothes you're wearing to something more comfortable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the time you consider all those factors, you'd just about need to read a book on the subject to make the most efficient choice!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sensible strategy to use would be this, in order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Choose comfortable clothing&#xD;&#xA; 2. If the air temperature is reasonably cool, and you're not following a truck belching out stinky fumes, open windows the minimum amount necessary for comfort&#xD;&#xA; 3. If you're still too hot, run the aircon, but reduce the fan speed (if it's manually controlled) to the minimum necessary level for comfort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note the following: In my experience (and this will differ by manufacturer and vehicle age) the temperature setting in most vehicles shows a range from blue to red but the actual function of this setting is to provide a range of heating from none to lots. Don't run your aircon with the temperature setting half way between none and lots, because you're telling the car to heat the air again after you cool it! The one exception to this is when you want to defog your windscreen, where cooling then heating helps dry the air and thus defog more effectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="737" RevisionGUID="20328ff4-0fe2-4484-9082-baee59c905fa" CreationDate="2013-04-08T08:16:24.810" UserId="318" Text="Definitely doable.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a 'proof of concept' water lilies can be grown in floating pots and survive many years. We found the limiting factor was preventing ducks eating them - a losing battle :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Air lift or bubble pump**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make a water lift pump using a &quot;bubble pump&quot;. Some of your air bubbles are lead into the bottom of an open tube whose top protrudes above the water by the desired distance.  The expanding bubbles drive a column of water above them, which flows out of the open topped tube. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With suitable sizing of bubble size, bubble rate and tube diameter you can pump water to a head of many feet. Energy input is the obvious limiting factor for flow and as usual head and flow rate trade-off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bubble pumps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Many many many ideas here](https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=bubble+pump&amp;hl=en&amp;tbm=isch&amp;tbo=u&amp;source=univ&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=zXhiUZyWBeqpiAeMzYCwBA&amp;ved=0CDYQsAQ&amp;biw=1920&amp;bih=1081)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia - gas lift pump](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_lift)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Solar gas lift pump using fluid boiling](http://www.bubbleactionpumps.com/bubble_pump_manual/how_bubble_pump_works.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Renewable energy design - bubble pumps](http://renewableenergy.wikia.com/wiki/Bubble_pump) refs and links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Analysis &amp; desig of bubble pumps](http://www-old.me.gatech.edu/energy/SusanThesis.pdf) - closed cycle cboiling type - includes Einstein cycle regrigerator. More for interest than value here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Another Thesis](http://forms.gradsch.psu.edu/diversity/mcnair/mcnair_jrnl2011/files/Zhang.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="14368ca6-fd5a-467a-a9a3-4c837d8ae0dc" CreationDate="2013-04-08T11:32:20.530" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="739" RevisionGUID="4e6818d9-6133-4e49-81f7-7aa38c6f8287" CreationDate="2013-04-08T11:32:20.530" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="739" RevisionGUID="fa1de34f-05ef-4db8-9ae9-818b0e9db690" CreationDate="2013-04-08T15:05:26.977" UserId="99" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="A structure for the cultivation or protection of plants, usually made of glass and aluminium, and where temperature, humidity and ventilation can be controlled. For questions on greenhouse-effect please use the greenhouse-effect tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2149" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="739" RevisionGUID="fa1de34f-05ef-4db8-9ae9-818b0e9db690" CreationDate="2013-04-08T15:05:26.977" Comment="Proposed by 99 approved by 130, 117 edit id of 99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="bb6b8215-d408-46e5-9635-e7fa64a1ca38" CreationDate="2013-04-08T15:05:34.760" UserId="99" Comment="added 356 characters in body" Text="A greenhouse is a structure, primarily made of glass and a metal framing, that is designed to  retain warmth from the sun and to cultivate or protect plants. Most greenhouses can control the temperature, humidity and ventilation to optimize the conditions for the plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions on the greenhouse-effect please use the [tag:greenhouse-effect] tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2151" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="738" RevisionGUID="bb6b8215-d408-46e5-9635-e7fa64a1ca38" CreationDate="2013-04-08T15:05:34.760" Comment="Proposed by 99 approved by 130, 117 edit id of 98" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2152" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="f098d5f8-0a4c-4120-ad7f-2e7c89c1ea2a" CreationDate="2013-04-08T16:56:28.377" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/321305554020618240" />
  <row Id="2153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="188" RevisionGUID="572cf20e-22da-4a69-ab6e-7c9808118b57" CreationDate="2013-04-08T17:44:04.470" UserId="135" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="This is true as much in winter as in summer: keeping shutters closed. It will reduce thermal exchanges, and keep a cool temperature inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Windows are the main surface for heat exchange in an house/appartment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="fdfbc7bb-65f4-4c14-9876-4661eeb937de" CreationDate="2013-04-08T17:53:28.893" UserId="135" Text="I have been told some months ago that the paper and cardboard recycling cycle needed clean raw material. Mostly, paper stained with oil were inappropriate to input in the recycling, and should rather be thrown away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I live we can select/filter/sieve wastes between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. glass&#xD;&#xA; 2. paper, cardboard, recyclable platic containers, metal cans&#xD;&#xA; 3. garbage everything else  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I happen to throw pizza cardboards, they often have oil (pepper oil) that has leaked/stained the inside of the cardboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I am not aware of the chemistry that is at stake for paper/cardboard recycling... I don't know if I should throw the pizza cardboard with stains of oil to recycling or not. If it is a good idead or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the limit where a dirty cardboard/paper should no longer be candidate to recycling. (Namely with oil).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="fdfbc7bb-65f4-4c14-9876-4661eeb937de" CreationDate="2013-04-08T17:53:28.893" UserId="135" Text="Are pIzza cardboards stained with oil still recyclable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="fdfbc7bb-65f4-4c14-9876-4661eeb937de" CreationDate="2013-04-08T17:53:28.893" UserId="135" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="42f44a6a-73d4-48b5-a5aa-e33e7fc00419" CreationDate="2013-04-08T18:03:09.353" UserId="28" Text="I up-cycled a glass liquor bottle into a drinking glass (by means of scoring, heat-shocking, and polishing).  What I'm left with is a lovely glass with some very stubborn label glue on it.  How can I get rid of the glue?  Big bonus points for something that doesn't involve nasty chemicals. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2158" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="42f44a6a-73d4-48b5-a5aa-e33e7fc00419" CreationDate="2013-04-08T18:03:09.353" UserId="28" Text="Getting rid of label glue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2159" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="42f44a6a-73d4-48b5-a5aa-e33e7fc00419" CreationDate="2013-04-08T18:03:09.353" UserId="28" Text="|recycling|upcycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="c1f8bb0e-12b5-4cea-aedb-58fef73f25f9" CreationDate="2013-04-08T18:14:00.510" UserId="164" Text="As [Highly Irregular suggests][1] this very much depends on the specifics of your vehicle, conditions outside of your car and your desired conditions inside your vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this question was brought up on [skeptics][2] the best evidene we could find was from Mythbusters which visited this topic in both [episode 22][3] and [episode 38][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Episide 22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PARTLY CONFIRMED *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tests were performed under varying conditions (55 mph versus 45 mph). The 55 mph test used a computer to estimate fuel efficiency based on air intake, not actual fuel consumption, and showed A/C was more efficient. The 45 mph test consisted of running the tank until it was empty, and showed open windows were more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Because the original tests were inconclusive, this &quot;urban puzzle&quot; was revisited in episode 38: It is more fuel efficient to use air conditioning when the car is traveling approximately 50mph or more. Otherwise, windows are more fuel efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Episode 38&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PARTLY CONFIRMED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fundamental flaw in the MythBusters’ test was that the point where the drag becomes powerful enough to inhibit a car’s performance with windows down was inside their 45 – 55mph margin at 50mph. Going less than 50mph it is more efficient to leave your windows down, but going greater than 50mph it is more efficient to use your A/C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly unless you have the same vehicle, are driving in the same conditions and have the same comfort requiremennts, this tells you little about your own situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next time you fill up, decide on a strategy and stick to it until your next fill up, then calculate your overall fuel efficiency. Then try a different strategy and see if the efficiency changes. From a series of such tests you can build up a body of empirical evidence about how your own vehicle, preferences and environment interact, and this find out what is most sustainable for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/736/164&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/5661/2772&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode22&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode38" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="afa93314-4c96-4de3-93ff-c395d2fd96b7" CreationDate="2013-04-08T19:12:47.493" UserId="450" Text="A car or household lubricating oil, such as WD-40 or 3-in-one oil (both are brand names in the UK) will dissolve the label glue. Put one or two drops on glue residue and rub with, say, a paper towel for a few seconds and the glue should start to come off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't tried using vegetable oils, so I don't know if any of those will work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="743" RevisionGUID="75e9a891-7ae8-4e4e-accf-f8e4ebe18739" CreationDate="2013-04-08T20:00:30.280" UserId="450" Comment="Fixed some typos" Text="A car or household lubricating oil, such as WD-40 or 3-in-One oil (both are brand names in the UK) will dissolve the label glue. Put one or two drops on the glue residue and rub with, say, a paper towel for a few seconds, and the glue should start to come off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't tried using vegetable oils, so I don't know if any of those will work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="ed357a83-1277-4c70-9432-6d6aa0da79ea" CreationDate="2013-04-08T20:11:10.537" UserId="143" Text="The [Ocean Cleanup Project][1] aims to collect floating plastic from the oceans. By having static &quot;sea water processors&quot; filter the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any existing small scale deployments of this idea, i.e to clean lakes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.boyanslat.com/plastic5/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="ed357a83-1277-4c70-9432-6d6aa0da79ea" CreationDate="2013-04-08T20:11:10.537" UserId="143" Text="Small scale deployment of the ocean cleanup project" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="ed357a83-1277-4c70-9432-6d6aa0da79ea" CreationDate="2013-04-08T20:11:10.537" UserId="143" Text="|plastic|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2166" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="f2fc45d2-aa4a-4bd4-9ad7-1cb4246b90f5" CreationDate="2013-04-08T21:53:17.123" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="d99f32dc-7338-435c-a811-6fd80b76976f" CreationDate="2013-04-08T23:49:32.910" UserId="975" Comment="added clarification on question" Text="Which US universities, either public or private, have programs that have shown quantitative reductions in GHG emitted?  In fact I would like to see universities &quot;bridge the gap&quot; between themselves and their &quot;real-world&quot; neighbors, so I am going to ask the question in terms of external impact (students walking to class is not necessarily reflective of any significant change).  I would guess that end-use analysis would be more appropriate than LCA analysis in this context, but if you can provide evidence to the contrary please present such.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which universities set ambitious goals and have a plan to meet them?  I would like to see pounds of CO2 per student, if such a figure has been estimated.  Please provide documentation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2168" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="e0a87dd7-1773-49b3-bf2a-7528303ee4db" CreationDate="2013-04-09T01:00:17.767" UserId="975" Comment="added clarification to title" Text="Which US university has done the most to reduce GHG?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="745" RevisionGUID="f0be9e59-532c-4c13-a89c-9432693fc37a" CreationDate="2013-04-09T03:07:47.330" UserId="317" Text="Check out the [American Colleges and Universities President's Climate Commitment][1]. It is a collection of universities whose presidents have signed commitments to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions in a certain timespan. Member universities must:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Complete an emissions inventory.&#xD;&#xA;- Within two years, set a target date and interim milestones for becoming climate neutral.&#xD;&#xA;- Take immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by choosing from a list of short-term actions.&#xD;&#xA;- Integrate sustainability into the curriculum and make it part of the educational experience.&#xD;&#xA;- Make the action plan, inventory and progress reports publicly available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of right now, 665 universities have signed the commitment, and are in various stages of the process. Universities have some discretion in terms of how and what they count for emissions, but the program does provide certain guidelines and requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With nearly 700 schools on the list, it would be difficult to say which one is the furthest along, but if you're interested in finding more information, or seeing how to get something like this started at your school, there's a lot more information on their website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another measurement is renewable energy purchasing. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains [a list of the top 20 college and university purchasers of renewable energy][2] in the US. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;sub&gt;(The list is ranked by total renewable purchases, although percent of energy from renewable resources is also listed. I would personally prefer to see it listed by percent, not by sheer quantity, since it doesn't seem right to praise an institution for using a lot of renewable energy if their overall energy consumption is very high and they are still using a lot of conventional energy sources.)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, The University of Pennsylvania is leading in annual &quot;green power usage&quot;, with about 200,000,000 kWh (but only 48% of their energy is &quot;green&quot;). The university with the largest amount of &quot;green&quot; power usage that also has 100% &quot;green&quot; power usage is Carnegie Mellon University (116,000,000 kWh), followed by Georgetown University (113,000,000 kWh) and Oregon State University (95,000,000 kWh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/toplists/top20ed.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="746" RevisionGUID="99e2e73a-324b-44cc-80dd-1a058219a21a" CreationDate="2013-04-09T06:05:36.717" UserId="28" Text="I just realized that direct heating with a flame does a pretty good job.  Boiling water wasn't enough, but heating with a flame seems to do the trick. After heating, wiping with a rag takes the glue off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is still the smallest amount of residue left after the flame-and-wipe.  I'll give @Claran's oil suggestion a try and compare the results." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="747" RevisionGUID="21562e02-4e6b-4058-8971-a0a0044728cd" CreationDate="2013-04-09T07:25:57.147" UserId="96" Text="I soak in water and use a steel sponge. Might be interesting for those who don't want to play with fire." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="748" RevisionGUID="2686966a-9b20-4598-962c-e66d3909b896" CreationDate="2013-04-09T12:43:30.427" UserId="453" Text="According to the [University of Stanford][1] soiled food packaging should not be recycled like unstained paper and cardboard waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Why can't pizza boxes be recycled?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A: Pizza boxes are made from corrugated cardboard, however the cardboard becomes soiled with grease, cheese, and other foods once the pizza has been placed in the box. Once soiled, the paper cannot be recycled because the paper fibers will not be able to be separated from the oils during the pulping process. Food is a major source of contamination in the various paper categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://bgm.stanford.edu/pssi_faq_contamination" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="f393605a-52f8-4d1c-8023-e2ff10f3c1c2" CreationDate="2013-04-09T12:54:15.337" UserId="318" Text="The best solvent I have ever found for stubborn materials is (surprisingly) **&quot;NZ tea tree oil&quot;**.     &#xD;&#xA;[**Many  sellers here**](https://www.google.com/search?q=nz+tea+tree+oil&amp;hl=en&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=NA1kUfPlE8LUrQfInoHwBw&amp;ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&amp;biw=1745&amp;bih=982) - be sure it is from NZ tea tree (really). It's never cheap, but as a solvent a tiny amount is enough for most purposes, when all else fails. And, the result smalls good :-).  It also does not seem to harm most surfaces - a paradox. Not known to be especially poisonous - sold as a health product. The genuiness of the helth claims made for it are unknown to me, but it seems close to the ideal solvent to have on hand.   &#xD;&#xA;[**One seller here as an example -** good website name :-}](http://teatreeoil.co.nz/)  ie **http://teatreeoil.co.nz/.**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is **not** the same as Australian tea-tree oil, which is derived from a quite different plant and is nowhere near as good as a solvent - sadly so as it is much cheaper. . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Eucalyptus oil** is extremely good. Similar overall to NZ tea-tree oil. Not as good as a solvent but better than most. Inhale fumes for blocked chest. Put a drop on a spoon of sugar for internal use. May or may not work BUT those were among my (long ago) childhood remedies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ethyl alcohol, or meths (in NZ it no longer contains added Methyl alcohol despite the name). Not as good as above but often useful. Safe enough in small quantities (do not drive and label dissolve :-) ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acetone often does well. Likes dissolving some plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Methanol** (wood alcohol) is often effective. Nasty stuff and very poisonous - but the drop or so usually needed as a solvent should be easy to use safely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon tetrachloride was the mainstay of drycleaners for many years. A carinogen, absorbed through the skin and a liver poison. Charming. Still has its place if used sparingly in small volumes with great care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Methyl Chloride !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&#xD;&#xA;Nasty poisonous stuff. Dissolves some things really well. Will chew apart set epoxy (with violent cracking). Has its place. Use with extreme care. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="750" RevisionGUID="13d3ea54-a706-4966-9515-f157f15e7998" CreationDate="2013-04-09T14:15:59.440" UserId="453" Text="I'm curious about which and how much of a refrigerant is commonly used in modern refrigerators (say, produced from 2000 onwards). How harmful is it for the environment? What is the ozone depletion potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this little paragraph on [Wikipedia][1] but it does not say how much less harmful R-134a is compared to R-12 - it doesn't mention quantities either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Commercial refrigerator and freezer units, which go by many other names, were in use for almost 40 years prior to the common home models. They used gas systems such as anhydrous ammonia (R-717) or sulfur dioxide (R-764), which occasionally leaked, making them unsafe for home use and industrial purposes. Practical household refrigerators were introduced in 1915 and gained wider acceptance in the United States in the 1930s as prices fell and non-toxic, non-flammable synthetic refrigerants such as Freon-12® (R-12) were introduced. However, R-12 damaged the ozone layer, causing governments to issue a ban on its use in new refrigerators and air-conditioning systems in 1994. The less harmful replacement for R-12, R-134a (tetrafluoroethane), has been in common use since 1990, but R-12 is still found in many old systems today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator#Commercial_and_domestic_refrigerators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2175" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="750" RevisionGUID="13d3ea54-a706-4966-9515-f157f15e7998" CreationDate="2013-04-09T14:15:59.440" UserId="453" Text="Which refrigeant is used in today's refrigerators and how harmful is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2176" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="750" RevisionGUID="13d3ea54-a706-4966-9515-f157f15e7998" CreationDate="2013-04-09T14:15:59.440" UserId="453" Text="|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="2bdd954c-df51-4b1b-8f60-f42618ece8b3" CreationDate="2013-04-09T15:17:28.713" UserId="169" Text="I need a new couch and over the past few years having heard in the news the possible dangers and ineffective but widespread use of flame retardants in cushions, I'd like to find a sofa that is free of these chemicals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Consumer Reports][1] wrote, &quot;In tests of 102 residential couches purchased in the U.S. from 1985 to 2010, scientists at Duke University and the University of California at Berkeley found that 85 percent of the couches they tested contained flame retardants.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, clearly some sofas are made without flame retardants.  But I'm having a difficult time finding sofas clearly identified as &quot;flame-retardant free&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contacted Pottery Barn, and was told by one employee when asking about the Greenwich sofa, that no flame retardants were used.  Shortly thereafter, this information was contradicted by a different rep who claimed that all of their sofas contain flame retardants.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are flame-retardant-free couches, directly labeled as such, sold in the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/02/how-safe-are-flame-retardants/index.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2178" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="2bdd954c-df51-4b1b-8f60-f42618ece8b3" CreationDate="2013-04-09T15:17:28.713" UserId="169" Text="Are flame-retardant-free couches sold in the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2179" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="2bdd954c-df51-4b1b-8f60-f42618ece8b3" CreationDate="2013-04-09T15:17:28.713" UserId="169" Text="|furniture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="644d1fdd-63f1-4149-8528-781f514ffcf8" CreationDate="2013-04-09T16:34:14.430" UserId="454" Text="I have a small backyard and live in a densely populated part of Brooklyn.  I'm interested in exploring the possibility of getting two chickens for eggs.  I was wondering if anyone has any advice for the urban chicken coop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it legal? I know some of my neighbors have them. &#xD;&#xA;Is it safe? Will they get eaten by rats?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2181" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="644d1fdd-63f1-4149-8528-781f514ffcf8" CreationDate="2013-04-09T16:34:14.430" UserId="454" Text="Is it legal to have chickens in NYC?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2182" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="644d1fdd-63f1-4149-8528-781f514ffcf8" CreationDate="2013-04-09T16:34:14.430" UserId="454" Text="|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2183" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="741" RevisionGUID="eb4c7de3-134c-46bd-b451-cd3ccc134f2a" CreationDate="2013-04-09T16:56:31.740" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/321667956822126593" />
  <row Id="2184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="b9120e3f-cd17-4d77-8fc2-60dc9b8385f3" CreationDate="2013-04-09T17:06:02.207" UserId="169" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Over the past few years, I have heard in the news about the likely dangers and ineffective but widespread use of flame retardants in furniture cushions.  I'm in the market for a sofa, and I'd like to find one that is free of these chemicals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Consumer Reports][1] wrote, &quot;In tests of 102 residential couches purchased in the U.S. from 1985 to 2010, scientists at Duke University and the University of California at Berkeley found that 85 percent of the couches they tested contained flame retardants.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, clearly some sofas are made without flame retardants.  But I'm having a difficult time finding sofas clearly identified as &quot;flame-retardant free&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contacted Pottery Barn, and was told by one employee when asking about their Greenwich sofa, that no flame retardants were used.  Shortly thereafter, this information was contradicted by a different rep who claimed that all of their sofas contain flame retardants.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are flame-retardant-free couches, directly labeled as such, sold in the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/02/how-safe-are-flame-retardants/index.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="42b25aa8-a75a-4b72-9b59-cedfab8dbf51" CreationDate="2013-04-09T17:34:55.710" UserId="215" Text="I'm not sure of the legality, but here is an article on raising chickens in NYC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Urban Agriculture: Raising Chickens in New York City][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked at the NYC Ordinances and it looks like it may be possible to get a permit to keep chickens, but then it also looked like permits will no longer be issued.  Check out NYC Title 24: `http://72.0.151.116/nyc/RCNY/r724h061.asp?zoom_highlight=chicken`.  I linked to the ordinances from a lawyer's website, but the site only has an IP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (3) The revision makes it clear that in built-up portions of the City a permit to keep chickens cannot include the right to keep roosters (see: People v. Filactas, 257 App. Div. 95, 12 N.Y.S. 2d 175 (1st Dept. 1939)), and the prohibition is extended to ducks, geese and turkeys. Even persons who keep live rabbits or fowl for purposes other than sale and who therefore do not need permits, are prohibited by §161.19(a) from keeping roosters, ducks, geese and turkeys in built-up areas. (4) Permits will no longer be issued for the keeping for sale or sale of live rabbits and poultry on the same lot as a dwelling; under §19 Reg. 2(d) this apparently could be done with the consent of the occupants although S.C. §19 Reg. 2(a) prohibited it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thekitchn.com/owen-taylor-city-farms-trainin-45764" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="924f9618-1af2-474e-9fe2-b10b2662b58b" CreationDate="2013-04-09T20:00:13.090" UserId="975" Comment="edited for consistency in phrasing" Text="I've often wondered what is ecologically better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A tomato from the region grown in a greenhouse&#xD;&#xA;* A tomato from several thousand km away grown naturally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ceteris paribus*, are there any reliable studies comparing the ecological impact of the two?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2187" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="924f9618-1af2-474e-9fe2-b10b2662b58b" CreationDate="2013-04-09T20:00:13.090" Comment="Proposed by 445 approved by 117 edit id of 100" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2188" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="5cb54c9c-ca00-425b-83dc-63c101e18dc7" CreationDate="2013-04-09T23:07:36.257" UserId="-1" Comment="2" />
  <row Id="2189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="754" RevisionGUID="58eb4d9a-61da-44f0-adde-15862a6e7ff9" CreationDate="2013-04-10T01:10:20.697" UserId="256" Text="I agree with the above answers but also depending on your location the results can vary. If the air is hotter outside than inside, opening windows can hurt your efforts. If this is the case and your house is in direct sunlight covering the windows during the day can decrease the amount of absorption significantly. If your house has many floors it is crucial to pay attention to &quot;heat rises&quot;. Directing the flow from a lower floor to the top open windows will push the heat out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cooking is also an often ignored heat source. Barbecue, use an outdoor oven etc can help. And paying attention to other electronics as heat sources is important. Turn off and unplug what you aren't using." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="755" RevisionGUID="e10d55aa-9f4b-43e8-a603-cfdc776deb46" CreationDate="2013-04-10T01:15:46.667" UserId="256" Text="I was on this quest myself a year ago and found articles like [this][1] made with 55-gallon barrels like the ones used for rain collection. I still want to do this - good luck with your quest!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ehow.com/how_8739993_make-raft-55gallon-barrels.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2191" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="16f20768-b65c-4c5c-9869-3271cbef03bf" CreationDate="2013-04-10T01:16:02.567" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags" Text="|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="749" RevisionGUID="efb03ce8-17f7-448a-86c4-ca7f97117e48" CreationDate="2013-04-10T03:36:43.880" UserId="318" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="The best solvent I have ever found for stubborn materials is (surprisingly) **&quot;NZ tea tree oil&quot;**.     &#xD;&#xA;It also does not seem to harm most surfaces - a paradox.   &#xD;&#xA;It's not known to be especially poisonous - it is sold as a health product.   &#xD;&#xA;The genuineness of the health claims made for it are unknown to me, but it seems close to the ideal solvent to have on hand.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Many  sellers here**](https://www.google.com/search?q=nz+tea+tree+oil&amp;hl=en&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=NA1kUfPlE8LUrQfInoHwBw&amp;ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&amp;biw=1745&amp;bih=982) - be sure it is from NZ tea tree (really). It's never cheap, but as a solvent a tiny amount is enough for most purposes, when all else fails. And, the result smells good :-).  [**One seller here as an example -** good website name :-}](http://teatreeoil.co.nz/)  ie **http://teatreeoil.co.nz/.**   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is **not** the same as Australian tea-tree oil, which is derived from a quite different plant and is nowhere near as good as a solvent - sadly so as it is much cheaper. . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Eucalyptus oil** is extremely good. Similar overall to NZ tea-tree oil. Not as good as a solvent but better than most. Inhale fumes for blocked chest. Put a drop on a spoon of sugar for internal use. May or may not work BUT those were among my (long ago) childhood remedies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ethyl alcohol, or meths (in NZ it no longer contains added Methyl alcohol despite the name). Not as good as above but often useful. Safe enough in small quantities (do not drive and label dissolve :-) ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acetone often does well. Likes dissolving some plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Methanol** (wood alcohol) is often effective. Nasty stuff and very poisonous - but the drop or so usually needed as a solvent should be easy to use safely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon tetrachloride was the mainstay of drycleaners for many years. A carinogen, absorbed through the skin and a liver poison. Charming. Still has its place if used sparingly in small volumes with great care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Methyl Chloride !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&#xD;&#xA;Nasty poisonous stuff. Dissolves some things really well. Will chew apart set epoxy (with violent cracking). Has its place. Use with extreme care. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2193" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="b535b4c3-39dd-4f87-b204-3fb95ee26c03" CreationDate="2013-04-10T04:56:31.717" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/321849149836378113" />
  <row Id="2194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="1d2bd5ec-e149-4ee8-865c-b6107b00faea" CreationDate="2013-04-10T06:23:39.153" UserId="99" Comment="improved answer by adding that greenhouses are used in the winter" Text="Recently on a Dutch television program they asked and answered a similar question. The question was which would be more sustainable **in the winter**; fresh endive grown locally in a greenhouse, or grown in the ground in Spain (about 1300km from here) and then transport it by truck. According to research they had done the answer was that the endive grown in Spain had a lower CO2 footprint because the local greenhouse requires lots of gas for heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same television show also mentioned that fresh green beans which are transported by plane (from Kenia) have a far higher CO2 footprint than the ones transported by boat and/or truck (from Senegal, Marocco or Spain), so I guess for all vegetables or fruits it  depends on the method of transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Locally grown vegetables that are grown in the summertime, when you don't need a greenhouse, have the lowest CO2 footprint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Dutch speakers, here is [the fragment about endive](http://kassa.vara.nl/tv/afspeelpagina/fragment/dilemma-verse-andijvie-uit-nederland-of-uit-spanje/speel/1/) and the one about [green beans](http://kassa.vara.nl/tv/afspeelpagina/fragment/dilemma-sperzieboontjes-uit-afrika/speel/1/)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2195" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="752" RevisionGUID="0f156ca6-05d2-4c73-aa43-2115dae281da" CreationDate="2013-04-10T08:04:26.297" UserId="28" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|city-living|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2196" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="ce50f711-83b3-410b-8bf2-677e0067b76e" CreationDate="2013-04-10T11:24:27.490" UserId="99" Comment="added paper tag, fixed typo in title" Text="Are pizza cardboards stained with oil still recyclable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2197" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="ce50f711-83b3-410b-8bf2-677e0067b76e" CreationDate="2013-04-10T11:24:27.490" UserId="99" Comment="added paper tag, fixed typo in title" Text="|recycling|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2198" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="ce50f711-83b3-410b-8bf2-677e0067b76e" CreationDate="2013-04-10T11:24:27.490" Comment="Proposed by 99 approved by 135 edit id of 101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2199" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="750" RevisionGUID="6b55394a-1986-455a-9b59-6a3e5d740499" CreationDate="2013-04-10T13:38:42.520" UserId="453" Comment="edited title" Text="Which refrigerant is used in today's refrigerators and how harmful is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="756" RevisionGUID="2b3fd1e4-9606-4bdd-882e-b84bb24befc3" CreationDate="2013-04-10T17:40:18.243" UserId="454" Text="It IS legal to have chickens in NYC and there is even an organization that helps people get set up and understand what they are getting into called the City Chicken Project. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.justfood.org/city-farms/city-chicken-project&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This interview with Elizabeth Bee Ayer, who runs City Chicken Institute in Metro NY also stated that it is legal to have chickens but NOT roosters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.metro.us/newyork/lifestyle/home/2012/06/19/how-to-raise-chickens-in-new-york-city/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She also explains the level of commitment that it takes to raise chickens in NYC.  Most importantly is this part of the article by  MEREDITH ENGEL Published: June 19, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How expensive is it to raise chickens here?&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “It is a fairly costly venture. You have to buy the birds, you have to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; build the coop, you have to buy a feeder and water. It’s so expensive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to raise chickens that most people lose money. You would have to sell&#xD;&#xA;&gt; your eggs at, like, $15 a dozen if you’re gonna pay your labor costs.”" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2201" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="750" RevisionGUID="360de4f2-2bcf-4049-a14a-e3e9153ffe27" CreationDate="2013-04-10T22:25:40.123" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags" Text="|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2202" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="7eadd3d3-1dd4-431f-8d6f-a75f632c7891" CreationDate="2013-04-10T22:27:01.690" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags" Text="|furniture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="757" RevisionGUID="0f105310-5855-494c-bb12-46f9a3c76138" CreationDate="2013-04-11T01:57:17.933" UserId="130" Text="it is worth noting that although you can't recycle pizza boxes as cardboard, this doesn't mean you have to merely throw them away either.  They form an almost perfect barrier layer for sheet mulches for example and you can compost them otherwise keeping in mind that they are a &quot;brown&quot; (i.e. high carbon, low nitrogen) and therefore act as a bit of a nitrogen sink in the compost pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of strategies for doing this.  The most simple (as I mentioned above) is [sheet mulching](http://www.patternliteracy.com/books/gaias-garden/how-to-the-ultimate-bomb-proof-sheet-mulch) where soil may be disturbed but then covered with something like pizza boxes, newspaper, and other high carbon barriers, then packed with various layers and then left to compost in place briefly before plants are planted in the composting material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So just because you can't recycle it into more cardboard doesn't mean it is best thrown away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="fa5f0ded-aa5d-4979-9e46-8bd966863d43" CreationDate="2013-04-11T08:09:39.543" UserId="15" Text="Recently [someone developed some filament][1] for 3d printers that contains about 40% wood pulp and 60% plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be possible to print with wood pulp without the plastic mixed in? (Either without an additional binding agent, or with a sustainable one)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess I'm hoping that someone with experience in paper making (or similar) might be able to share some insight as to the level of difficulty. It would be really neat if we could [3d print a house][2] out of wood someday...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:30552&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/new-plan-3-d-printed-house-thats-actually-house" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="fa5f0ded-aa5d-4979-9e46-8bd966863d43" CreationDate="2013-04-11T08:09:39.543" UserId="15" Text="How easy might it be to 3D print with wood pulp, without plastic mixed in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="fa5f0ded-aa5d-4979-9e46-8bd966863d43" CreationDate="2013-04-11T08:09:39.543" UserId="15" Text="|building-materials|printing|building|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2207" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="f25096fa-bcfc-418c-b184-714796d3fdc1" CreationDate="2013-04-11T10:15:30.257" UserId="164" Comment="Updated the title to make it fit the question better." Text="Is there a sustainable binding agent suitable making wood pulp filament for 3D printing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2208" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="f25096fa-bcfc-418c-b184-714796d3fdc1" CreationDate="2013-04-11T10:15:30.257" Comment="Proposed by 164 approved by -1 edit id of 103" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2209" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="9017ab60-6dbc-4241-8222-1c05b28d8c71" CreationDate="2013-04-11T10:15:30.257" UserId="15" Comment="Updated the title to make it fit the question better." Text="Is there a sustainable binding agent for 3D printing with wood pulp?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="ae818a7a-7426-4ed1-ad3c-7e0411c91873" CreationDate="2013-04-11T10:22:47.977" UserId="15" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="Recently [someone developed some filament][1] for 3d printers that contains about 40% wood pulp and 60% plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it be possible to print with wood pulp without the plastic mixed in? (Either without an additional binding agent, or with a sustainable one)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand correctly, not all types of 3D printing use filament, so the &quot;ink&quot; may not need to be melted. If printed slowly enough, a water based mix may even work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess I'm hoping that someone with experience in paper making (or similar) might be able to share some insight as to the level of difficulty. It would be really neat if we could [3d print a house][2] out of wood someday...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:30552&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/new-plan-3-d-printed-house-thats-actually-house" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="759" RevisionGUID="17cec4d8-29a6-444f-8eb5-d836791d43f5" CreationDate="2013-04-11T10:34:00.247" UserId="15" Text="This might help answer the question, as some reasoning has been given with the advice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###In New Zealand&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Disposing of old smoke alarms&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; When your smoke alarm fails, you can put it out in your normal rubbish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposal.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; On average, a cubic metre of New Zealand soil is about as radioactive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as 13 smoke alarms. Disposing of smoke alarms in a landfill doesn’t&#xD;&#xA;&gt; really change the landfill’s overall radioactivity.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In fact, the natural radioactivity of domestic rubbish is less than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that of soil. Even if every household threw out several smoke alarms a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; year, the average radioactivity in landfills would still be lower than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in most New Zealand soils.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [The NZ Govt Ministry of Health][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/healthy-living/environmental-health/household-items-and-electronics/smoke-alarms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="760" RevisionGUID="b0959218-97b9-40df-ab60-668a90c26aa5" CreationDate="2013-04-11T10:48:27.110" UserId="15" Text="Living in suburbia I rarely see any frogs, but I understand that creating a small but unpolluted pond in my backyard is likely to provide a desirable habitat if there are any frogs in the general area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the lack of suitable habitat for frogs nearby, it is something I'd like to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the addition of frogs to my backyard ecology make any difference to the success of my vegetable or flower gardens, positive or negative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2213" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="760" RevisionGUID="b0959218-97b9-40df-ab60-668a90c26aa5" CreationDate="2013-04-11T10:48:27.110" UserId="15" Text="What benefits and detriments might frogs have for home gardens?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2214" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="760" RevisionGUID="b0959218-97b9-40df-ab60-668a90c26aa5" CreationDate="2013-04-11T10:48:27.110" UserId="15" Text="|gardening|ponds|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="761" RevisionGUID="473ad346-4b2d-4bfa-b77a-5ef6de242ecc" CreationDate="2013-04-11T13:07:31.770" UserId="318" Text="Effects on gardens I can't say much on. But I can tell you about one extremely important aspect of frogs that MUST be considered in suburbia. If you want to know what this issue is without reading my context setting and *almost* :-)  relevant preamble, skip to the heading **&quot;Cut to the chase ...&quot;** below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in suburbia in a 1/4 acre jungle &quot;just off&quot; Auckland City. (ie people think that I live at a residential address in a residential street but I really live in a semi jungle :-) ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have what was an above ground concrete swimming pool about 35 feet x 15 feet, but for many years it's been a home for such wild ducks that wish to visit, or top stay and raise families. We probably get 5 to 15 new families of (wild) ducklings per year. Mallards seem to have claimed the property as their own. We get very rarely a Grey Heron (sorry guy, fish are all gone) and a steady trickle of NZ native birds (Tui, Piwakawaka, occasional Kereru.) But, I (almost) digress :-). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And**, we have two small goldfish and &quot;lily&quot; ponds. The lilies and goldfish are long gone, victims of the ducks. But we get frogs. Big noisy ones. I don't know how they got here or how they found us. But they seem to like what they have found. During the winter months there is no sign of them. Where they go to and/or how they hide I know not. But, sometime in the spring as the days lengthen and the nights warm, suddenly they are there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cut to the chase ...**&#xD;&#xA;How do I know? You can't miss them.   &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Braaaaaaaach. Braaaaaach. Braaaaaaaach.   &#xD;&#xA;... pause ...   &#xD;&#xA;wough wough wough wough wough.   &#xD;&#xA;... Answer in kind by another frog, or if not, a longer pause.   &#xD;&#xA;Then repeat.   &#xD;&#xA;Ad infinitum.   &#xD;&#xA;Ad nauseum.    &#xD;&#xA;Ad all night longeum.     &#xD;&#xA;Loud!  &#xD;&#xA;Very very loud.   &#xD;&#xA; Very.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do not bother me. I like the sound.  &#xD;&#xA;I can sleep through almost anything and can roll over and go back to sleep in 5 minutes if woken. My wife can't. Our bedroom is at the front of a largish house. The frog pond is at the rear and then some 30 feet further back again. For the last two years at least they have moved slightly further away again, into the &quot;duck pond&quot; / swimming pool. STILL VERY loud. Still wife waking. They are closer to the neighbours. Pretty grim on occasion, I'm told. Odds are that they may have to go. Quite how you catch large fairly invisible deep pool enshrined frogs I know not. But, I may yet have to find out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had a vegetable garden instead of a jungle I'd expect that the frogs would be of at least minor benefit and unlikely to be harmful. The jungle does not seem to mind at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="6e3a7042-9452-48fc-86ed-e86fad407b26" CreationDate="2013-04-11T15:17:49.653" UserId="143" Comment="fixed the link" Text="I'm not sure of the legality, but here is an article on raising chickens in NYC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Urban Agriculture: Raising Chickens in New York City][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked at the NYC Ordinances and it looks like it may be possible to get a permit to keep chickens, but then it also looked like permits will no longer be issued.  Check out NYC Title 24: http://72-0-151-116.tvc-ip.com/nyc/RCNY/r724h061.asp?zoom_highlight=chicken.  I linked to the ordinances from a lawyer's website, but the site only has an IP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  (3) The revision makes it clear that in built-up portions of the City a permit to keep chickens cannot include the right to keep roosters (see: People v. Filactas, 257 App. Div. 95, 12 N.Y.S. 2d 175 (1st Dept. 1939)), and the prohibition is extended to ducks, geese and turkeys. Even persons who keep live rabbits or fowl for purposes other than sale and who therefore do not need permits, are prohibited by §161.19(a) from keeping roosters, ducks, geese and turkeys in built-up areas. (4) Permits will no longer be issued for the keeping for sale or sale of live rabbits and poultry on the same lot as a dwelling; under §19 Reg. 2(d) this apparently could be done with the consent of the occupants although S.C. §19 Reg. 2(a) prohibited it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thekitchn.com/owen-taylor-city-farms-trainin-45764" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2217" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="753" RevisionGUID="6e3a7042-9452-48fc-86ed-e86fad407b26" CreationDate="2013-04-11T15:17:49.653" Comment="Proposed by 143 approved by 130, 117 edit id of 102" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2218" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="758" RevisionGUID="7185c0fe-bff2-4c12-94e7-1e5544063a4f" CreationDate="2013-04-11T16:56:38.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/322392759732408320" />
  <row Id="2219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="762" RevisionGUID="15dc711a-19b4-4283-a66c-27d5e158e906" CreationDate="2013-04-11T18:18:46.940" UserId="318" Text="It's uncertain what &quot;sustainable&quot; means in this context. Glues tend not to be recycled or broken down to component parts at end of life. However, glues from renewable resources are available. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flour glue could work reasonably well, but is not waterproof and not overly strong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blood glues (also called albumen glue) used to be a very major wood-glue and are still much used in specialist areas. There is much material on blood glues on web. They are waterproof and reasonably strong. Used for making eg plywood. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Casein glue - overlaps with blood glue. Made from protein from bones, hide, sinews. Also from milk protein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Egg albumen glue](http://stainsfile.info/StainsFile/prepare/adhesives/eggalb.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="762" RevisionGUID="b3a444e8-6fc7-4ad0-af50-6dfc37c5fe8b" CreationDate="2013-04-11T18:24:06.403" UserId="318" Comment="added 430 characters in body" Text="It's uncertain what &quot;sustainable&quot; means in this context. Glues tend not to be recycled or broken down to component parts at end of life. However, glues from renewable resources are available. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flour glue could work reasonably well, but is not waterproof and not overly strong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blood glues (also called albumen glue) used to be a very major wood-glue and are still much used in specialist areas. There is much material on blood glues on web. They are waterproof and reasonably strong. Used for making eg plywood. Their are some very useful manuals and information sheets on web on glue making from the early to mid 20th century. One example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Blood albumin glues: their manufacture preparation and application. 1955](http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/876/FPL_281-2ocr.pdf?sequence=1) - US Forect Service. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Casein glue - overlaps with blood glue. Made from protein from bones, hide, sinews. Also from milk protein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Egg albumen glue](http://stainsfile.info/StainsFile/prepare/adhesives/eggalb.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have many more references on disk and could dig out some of the more useful ones if of interest. &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="763" RevisionGUID="b522a2e7-f5c6-4b76-bb0c-b9de73fe9955" CreationDate="2013-04-12T10:39:16.203" UserId="130" Text="One important aspect of frogs regarding gardens and every other aspect of living is important:  they eat insects.  Having a good variety of insectavores around limits the amount of control needed for  other insect control.  One note is that they will eat predatory insects like dragonflies as well so that is a small mark against them.  However seeing them as control for other insect pests, such as destructive moths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose if you are trying to raise grasshopper meat frogs might get in the way, but otherwise generally their use as pest control (not only for garden pests but also various insects which are pests around the home!) would be generally positive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting however, that most of the time your primary pollinators are also insects and could be threatened by frogs.  So one possible negative impact you might find is that if you don't have many other pests, you might see a drop in productivity of plants if the pollinators are eaten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the whole though predators are an important aspect of any permacultural garden regarding pest control, and in general if you are having trouble with sufficient polinators, planting to attract more is better than eliminating predators." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="87211dbb-798e-43a2-8088-9081f4507f2f" CreationDate="2013-04-12T17:46:57.063" UserId="462" Text="Shade your windows, preferably from the outside with awnings and plants. While curtains and window shades will help some, sunlight coming through the window will heat the shades. When the shades heat up, they will transfer some of that heat to the air in your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't take major steps like that, a wet bandana can make a big difference in how you feel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="764" RevisionGUID="82702ec8-6a03-4e09-8cd1-bb64e73bb6d8" CreationDate="2013-04-12T18:06:32.863" UserId="462" Comment="added 172 characters in body" Text="Solar gains account for over half of a typical home's cooling requirements in the northern United States, so shade your windows--preferably from the outside, using awnings and plants. While curtains and window shades will help some, sunlight coming through the window will heat the shades. When the shades heat up, they will transfer some of that heat to the air in your home. Light-colored roofing materials will also make a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't take major steps like that, a wet bandana can make a big difference in how you feel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="760" RevisionGUID="9dc47402-a497-47aa-b7a5-b502ef57e3d6" CreationDate="2013-04-12T19:00:56.860" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="Updated teh question to bring it more ontopic" Text="Living in suburbia I rarely see any frogs, but I understand that creating a small but unpolluted pond in my backyard is likely to provide a desirable habitat if there are any frogs in the general area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the lack of suitable habitat for frogs nearby, it is something I'd like to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the addition of frogs to my backyard ecology make any difference to the sustainability of my yard and vegetable/flower gardens?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2226" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="760" RevisionGUID="9dc47402-a497-47aa-b7a5-b502ef57e3d6" CreationDate="2013-04-12T19:00:56.860" Comment="Proposed by 141 approved by -1 edit id of 104" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="760" RevisionGUID="82f74458-7780-4188-9beb-9dfd63045644" CreationDate="2013-04-12T19:00:56.860" UserId="15" Comment="Updated teh question to bring it more ontopic" Text="Living in suburbia I rarely see any frogs, but I understand that creating a small but unpolluted pond in my backyard is likely to provide a desirable habitat if there are any frogs in the general area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the lack of suitable habitat for frogs nearby, it is something I'd like to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the addition of frogs to my backyard ecology make any difference to the sustainability of my yard and success of my vegetable/flower gardens?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2228" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="3df6c922-12ae-4d53-bcc9-00b63501053d" CreationDate="2013-04-12T19:56:38.697" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/322800446504837120" />
  <row Id="2230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="c65a4643-8d15-4655-9483-df29e21aa8bd" CreationDate="2013-04-13T00:30:18.060" UserId="463" Text="Since we use reusable bags now, we don't have many disposable plastic bags to use in cleaning up after our dogs. This isn't really a problem in the yard, but what is the easiest way to pick up after your pet when you're out on a walk without using plastic bags? I hate buying lots and lots of those plastic poop baggies (I really don't buy it that they are biodegradable)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="c65a4643-8d15-4655-9483-df29e21aa8bd" CreationDate="2013-04-13T00:30:18.060" UserId="463" Text="For dog owners, what do you use to pick up after you dog on walks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="c65a4643-8d15-4655-9483-df29e21aa8bd" CreationDate="2013-04-13T00:30:18.060" UserId="463" Text="|plastic|pets|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2233" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="ddcfb2d5-411b-4e9c-b7d4-b11922f676be" CreationDate="2013-04-13T10:08:46.523" UserId="58" Comment="Title changed to be clearer" Text="How to make a fully reused/reusable plastic bottle raft?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="766" RevisionGUID="bc2d52f5-b9a5-4f3c-8286-0777ab28b86c" CreationDate="2013-04-14T02:00:26.520" UserId="85" Text="I think sustainability also comes in when considering which furniture you buy. The gasoline required for driving a particular piece of furniture across the country might be quite mild when you consider that you are supporting forest-depleting practices by buying new furniture. Well-sourced wood, proper manufacturing and ability to recycle (or compost) go a long way and might put taking your shelf or desk with you on the more sustainable side. There are good hand-made designs, which allow you to dissemble your furniture without any need for screw(driver)s." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2235" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="6bc631a1-4c14-4c6a-853f-c722bf4f74ba" CreationDate="2013-04-14T07:56:40.297" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/323344035584565248" />
  <row Id="2236" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="2f6baaa0-a459-481b-9e3d-79ec1422421e" CreationDate="2013-04-14T09:06:55.027" UserId="467" Comment="typo / grammar error in subject" Text="For dog owners, what do you use to pick up after your dog on walks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2237" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="765" RevisionGUID="2f6baaa0-a459-481b-9e3d-79ec1422421e" CreationDate="2013-04-14T09:06:55.027" Comment="Proposed by 467 approved by 15, 130 edit id of 105" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2238" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="760" RevisionGUID="5d37702d-a258-43d6-a37a-d656df22af9a" CreationDate="2013-04-14T10:56:40.607" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/323389335812579328" />
  <row Id="2239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="767" RevisionGUID="d9f5a3c5-0bf5-4f4b-85cd-e707351371d1" CreationDate="2013-04-14T11:08:39.447" UserId="453" Text="Being somewhat familiar with the life cycle assessment methodology from my experience the main impact to consider here is the consumption of fuel for moving furniture by truck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fuel consumption depends mainly on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the distance you will move&#xD;&#xA; - how frequently this trips will be undertaken&#xD;&#xA; - which mode of transport will be chosen (truck, van, ship)&#xD;&#xA; - which fuel will be used&#xD;&#xA; - and if you transport other goods&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these factors are linked. If you move in a vehicle that has a lot of storage capacity the distance is essentially insignificant. If you use *green fuel* it will be less important if you do the trip multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you try to compare two systems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. One were you buy new (!) furniture once and move it at some frequency. Basically you have to add the environmental costs of every move of it to the costs of the initial purchase.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The other system is described by constantly replacing your furniture as soon as you move so you essentially don't have costs for moving but for new furniture ... though this furniture is not new but reused. It gets complicated here: if you are using furniture beyond its expected life time (which you do by using it second hand) the environmental impact of it's initial purchase is reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You stated that you will move frequently. However compared to everydays truck movements this is still very little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I argue that the impact from moving furniture from time to time is insignificant compared to impacts associated with the initial purchase (including resource harvesting, production, storage, delivery) of it - however with more specific statements (especially considering distance and frequency).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="767" RevisionGUID="714b79aa-5f84-4691-8468-cbf5dbc620bf" CreationDate="2013-04-14T11:19:11.883" UserId="453" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="Being somewhat familiar with the life cycle assessment methodology from my experience the main impact to consider here is the consumption of fuel for moving furniture by truck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fuel consumption depends mainly on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the distance you will move&#xD;&#xA; - how frequently this trips will be undertaken&#xD;&#xA; - which mode of transport will be chosen (truck, van, ship)&#xD;&#xA; - which fuel will be used&#xD;&#xA; - and if you transport other goods&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these factors are linked. If you move in a vehicle that has a lot of storage capacity the distance is essentially insignificant. If you use *green fuel* it will be less important if you do the trip multiple times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two systems described in your question are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Obtaining new furniture that is saving space in case of moving.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Obtaining used furniture that is more bulky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main consideration therefore regard the space in the vehicle you are moving in (distances to a retailer for initial purchase will not be very significant over the whole lifetime of a piece of furniture). If the truck is big enough to do all the moving at once the environmental costs will be the same but you state that this is not the case. How much more often will you have to move the vehicle? Over which distance? And in the end, how frequent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You stated that you will move frequently. However compared to everydays truck transport this is still very little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I argue that the impact from moving furniture from time to time is insignificant compared to impacts associated with the initial purchase (including resource harvesting, production, storage, delivery). This favours the purchase of used furniture as you will use it beyond it's expected life time and therefore offsetting initial environmental costs. However, without specifications on transport distance and frequency this is not much better than just a guess.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="ba4f8000-18bd-4eca-a5b4-a4fba5138801" CreationDate="2013-04-15T04:53:56.373" UserId="404" Text="I'm going to focus on the potential for enhanced oil recovery, permanent sequestration and government support for active projects.  Carbon capture technology is a whole other beast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Enhanced Oil Recovery in the US**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [DOE](http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/), CO2 injection accounts for 60% of all EOR in the US.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CO2 injection has been used successfully throughout the Permian Basin of West Texas and eastern New Mexico, and is now being pursued to a limited extent in Kansas, Mississippi, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Alaska, and Pennsylvania.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of this CO2 has come from naturally occurring reservoirs, but increasingly CO2 is coming from industrial processes, such as NG processing, fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One demonstration at the Dakota Gasification Company's plant in Beulah, North Dakota is producing CO2 and delivering it by a 204-mile pipeline to the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Dakota Gasification's website](http://www.dakotagas.com/CO2_Capture_and_Storage/index.html), the CO2 is injected for permanent sequestration.  In fact, Cenovus, who signed a 10 year agreement to purchase ~2740 tonnes CO2/day from the Sask Power project above, currently gets 5,500 tons of CO2 per day from North Dakota.  Sask Power CEO claims they can sell their CO2 for **$15-50 per ton** ([Calgary Herald](http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=4af2f49b-831d-4a28-89b6-c8c9b5afc7c7)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conflicts with Shale Gas**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two maps below show the top 50  largest proved oil reserves in the US and then a map of shale oil and gas formations.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem that our largest oil reserves are in Texas, California, and the Northern Great Plains. However, these reserves coincide greatly with shale gas reserves.  According to a [2012 study in Environmental Science and Technology](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es2040015), 80% of US capacity for CO2 geological sequestration (ie deep saline aquifers) exists in shale gas reserves.  Unfortunately, the fracking process undermines the ability of the aquifer to meaningfully sequester the carbon - the CO2 would escape through the tiny cracks used to extract the natural gas.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Active US projects and Government Support**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[sequestration.mit.edu](http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/antelope_valley.html) has a great database of active and cancelled CCS projects in the US.  I was surprised how many projects are on the burner now.  Here is a summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Including all of the cancelled projects, the US government is spending well into the billions on CCS across the country.  Texas is obviously most active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cg1wW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Psgyv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CYnHu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="769" RevisionGUID="a7b79b63-b529-4d31-8450-b402efb37f91" CreationDate="2013-04-15T11:22:58.110" UserId="62" Text="I would consider using a small bucket with a cover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can easily be carried and the cover will restrain the smell. Also they are easy to clean with some water outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For practical considerations: You could take a small shovel in it, or just use the cover to get the poo in the bucket, although I think the latter will require some exercise before it can be done properly without spilling some on the outside of the bucket or cover." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2243" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="750" RevisionGUID="126a6fb3-aa14-43fd-a68f-5ba6107a3ba2" CreationDate="2013-04-15T13:56:58.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/323797099131052034" />
  <row Id="2244" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="729" RevisionGUID="455485bf-96eb-4e57-bc1d-c43d8d947c4e" CreationDate="2013-04-15T16:56:58.903" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/323842397660397569" />
  <row Id="2245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="96035321-43dd-4843-bb3c-d0c3bbaf3c1a" CreationDate="2013-04-15T17:21:59.240" UserId="462" Text="Nike grinds up worn-out athletic shoes to make sports surfaces. They even use the fabric parts: http://www.nikereuseashoe.com/where-it-goes/recycling-process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leather shoes are a bit different, but many modern dress shoes use rubber and plastics in the soles. In theory, those soles are recyclable but it looks like Nike only takes athletic shoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find any other companies that take old shoes for recycling with my (admittedly not very thorough) Google searching, but it looks like most shoe companies are using recycled materials in at least some of their products." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="762" RevisionGUID="a0372f7a-75af-4820-b095-0204821a6aac" CreationDate="2013-04-15T22:49:33.833" UserId="318" Comment="added 1147 characters in body" Text="It's uncertain what &quot;sustainable&quot; means in this context. Glues tend not to be recycled or broken down to component parts at end of life. However, glues from renewable resources are available. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flour glue could work reasonably well, but is not waterproof and not overly strong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blood glues (also called albumen glue) used to be a very major wood-glue and are still much used in specialist areas. There is much material on blood glues on web. They are waterproof and reasonably strong. Used for making eg plywood. Their are some very useful manuals and information sheets on web on glue making from the early to mid 20th century. One example: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Blood albumin glues: their manufacture preparation and application. 1955](http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/876/FPL_281-2ocr.pdf?sequence=1) - US Forect Service. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Casein glue - overlaps with blood glue. Made from protein from bones, hide, sinews. Also from milk protein. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Egg albumen glue](http://stainsfile.info/StainsFile/prepare/adhesives/eggalb.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have many more references on disk and could dig out some of the more useful ones if of interest. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@mart Asked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My understanding is that 3d printers melt the plastic while extruding, and it will solidify soon after beeng extruded. I don't see how to do that with glues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3D printers work by using whatever method they can make work.   &#xD;&#xA;Filament melting and resolidification is indeed one method - and proves to be a good but not a perfect one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Others produce a layer of material in a &quot;pond&quot; which is set by UV or LASER or whatever at the surface in required places, then all moved down by one delta thickness and repeated. Others ... .  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**IF** you can get a glue which tacks the material well enough immediately to hold it in place and which sets well enough in an acceptably short period to provide enough strength to allow model building to proceed then it will work.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;trick&quot; is to find materials and methods with acceptable values for &quot;well enough&quot;,  &quot;acceptably short period&quot; and &quot;enough strength&quot; :-). Doing this sort of thing is what leads to the sudden appearance of marvels of engineering which are obvious in retrospect but completely inobvious before someone had the lightbulb-inspiration that enabled them. Whether eg blood glue &quot;wood&quot; allow such a breakthrough is TBD. But, as you suggest, quite possibly not :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2247" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="730" RevisionGUID="e795527a-e9f1-4fb5-88e0-29f134af3329" CreationDate="2013-04-16T04:56:59.323" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/324023592478203904" />
  <row Id="2248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="a66959bd-28a4-47de-8925-e8797a77b442" CreationDate="2013-04-16T06:12:51.057" UserId="227" Text="Using the reusable bags at the shop check-out is well-known, and is getting wider acceptance. Also, some details were already discussed [here before][1]. However, what to do with transparent plastic bags supermarkets provide in their bulk foods and produce sections? I already try to minimize my usage by putting several things in one bag (mainly those sold in singles, like bell peppers, or bunches of radishes). I can also see bringing some of them back and reusing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I wonder if there is some viable long-term alternative. I was recently reading some article promoting use of bulk foods, and one of the benefits stated was reduction in packaging waste, especially with use of reusable bags. What would those be? Requirements would be transparency so that the cashier can see what you’re buying, and ability to hold friable stuffs such as flour or sugar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/190/227" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="a66959bd-28a4-47de-8925-e8797a77b442" CreationDate="2013-04-16T06:12:51.057" UserId="227" Text="Reusable alternatives to bulk and produce bags at the supermarket" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2250" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="a66959bd-28a4-47de-8925-e8797a77b442" CreationDate="2013-04-16T06:12:51.057" UserId="227" Text="|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="59d8227f-a2dd-49fd-acee-e2c5b902377d" CreationDate="2013-04-16T06:42:02.937" UserId="472" Text="According to [this article][1], adding the flame-retardant chemicals has been a legal requirement in California for a long time and this affected the national production. This law was annulled recently and according to the same article the manufacturers can start the production of flame-retardant-free furniture from next year:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Manufacturers could start making the new furniture, which would carry&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a &quot;TB-117-2013&quot; tag, on July 1, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Flame-retardant-law-may-be-scaled-back-4264854.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="6f685bb8-2ae4-4357-8847-f16d923dbb14" CreationDate="2013-04-16T12:09:20.293" UserId="471" Text="Here in my place there is a shortage of river water during this days because of lack of rain. so here people are demanding to use sea water as more as we can so please suggest the way we can use the sea water as more as we can..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2253" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="6f685bb8-2ae4-4357-8847-f16d923dbb14" CreationDate="2013-04-16T12:09:20.293" UserId="471" Text="how to use sea water efficiantly in daily life?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2254" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="6f685bb8-2ae4-4357-8847-f16d923dbb14" CreationDate="2013-04-16T12:09:20.293" UserId="471" Text="|seawater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2257" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="e7044696-55dc-4645-8b66-493e769fe507" CreationDate="2013-04-16T13:56:59.527" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/324159488791826432" />
  <row Id="2258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="bf103832-6e01-4744-baa0-ef6a062a3250" CreationDate="2013-04-16T15:26:24.503" UserId="169" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="Over the past few years, I have heard in the news about the likely dangers and ineffective but widespread use of flame retardants in furniture cushions.  I'm in the market for a sofa, and I'd like to find one that is free of these chemicals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Consumer Reports][1] wrote, &quot;In tests of 102 residential couches purchased in the U.S. from 1985 to 2010, scientists at Duke University and the University of California at Berkeley found that 85 percent of the couches they tested contained flame retardants.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, clearly some sofas are made without flame retardants.  But I'm having a difficult time finding sofas clearly identified as &quot;flame-retardant free&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I contacted Pottery Barn; after much difficulty and initially contradictory claims of flame retardant usage, they finally acknowledged with certainty they add flame retardant to all of their sofas, despite some of them containing the word &quot;organic&quot; in the item description.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are flame-retardant-free couches, directly labeled as such, sold in the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/02/how-safe-are-flame-retardants/index.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="774" RevisionGUID="90911da2-6a57-4d7e-a735-8646732e2a27" CreationDate="2013-04-16T16:35:58.633" UserId="462" Text="Some stores (for example the co-op in Northfield, MN) allow you to bring your own reusable plastic or glass containers, but you need to weigh your containers before you fill them. The co-op in Bozeman, MT provides clean glass jars for bulk liquids, and when you have finished with them you can bring them back to the store to be cleaned and set out for other customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, there are sustainable alternatives, but you will need to check with your local store to be sure they will accept your containers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="775" RevisionGUID="a65c6f7e-b9a6-445d-a114-1584e5d0efcc" CreationDate="2013-04-16T17:00:06.580" UserId="462" Text="Why not discuss cost-sharing arrangements with the building owner and other tenants? For example, if everyone pays per bulb for lighting upgrades in spaces they pay the bill for, the whole building gets the upgrade and every tenant should see the benefits. Splitting the cost of building upgrades with the owner and other tenants will allow you to avoid sharing savings you paid for with others through the percentage system because they will have paid for their share of the savings. Cost sharing might allow for mechanical systems improvements that make the building more comfortable for everyone, without a single party footing the bill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="287a603a-248b-400d-83e2-ded7bac1c550" CreationDate="2013-04-16T17:17:58.720" UserId="472" Comment="Improvement" Text="**Short answer:** Since the flammability requirements in the state of California are changing, you probably can shop for a new couch which does not have flame-retardant chemicals come next summer. Although the label `TB-117-2013` on the product menas that it meets the new requirements, but it does not guarantee that the product is free of flame-retardant chemicals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long answer:** Current regulations of flammability requirements in the state of California (4 CA ADC § 1374, *CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS/TITLE 4. BUSINESS REGULATIONS/DIVISION 3. BUREAU OF HOME FURNISHINGS/ARTICLE 13. FLAMMABILITY REGULATIONS*) which originally date back to 1975 requires that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) All filling materials contained in any article of upholstered &#xD;&#xA;&gt; furniture, and all filling materials added to reupholstered furniture,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall meet the test requirements as set forth in the State of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; California,  Bureau of Home Furnishings Technical Bulletin Number 117,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entitled  [&quot;Requirements, Test Procedures and Apparatus for Testing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Flame  Retardance of Filling Materials Used in Upholstered Furniture,&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dated  March 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tests require the material to be exposed for 12 seconds to a small, open flame. &quot;[...] as a result, manufacturers throughout the nation have been adding brominated or chlorinated chemicals to the foam to slow the spread of flames.&quot;[&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;][3] to meet the flammability regulations requirements. Although this was not a national regulation or law, it affected the national production.[&lt;sup&gt;+&lt;/sup&gt;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [draft][4] for new flammability regulations was released in February 2013 which only requires the material to be exposed to smoldering objects during the tests and not to an open flame. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the regulations does not ban the use of flame-retardant chemicals (which are [claimed][5] to be safe by the chemicals industry), but the laxed test requirements make it possible for the manufacturer to start making new furniture without adding the flame-retardant chemicals. These new products would be labelled as `TB-117-2013`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Flame-retardant-law-may-be-scaled-back-4264854.php&#xD;&#xA;   [2]: http://www.bhfti.ca.gov/industry/117.pdf&#xD;&#xA;   [4]: http://www.bhfti.ca.gov/about/laws/propregs.shtml&#xD;&#xA;   [3]: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=california-to-unveil-new-flammability-standard-to-avoid-chemicals-in-furniture&#xD;&#xA;   [5]: http://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news-releases/Flame-Retardants-Are-Used-in-Furniture-to-Meet-Standards-and-Provide-Protection-from-Fires.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="776" RevisionGUID="d9e08609-a05f-46f6-8e80-6819f3c372ee" CreationDate="2013-04-16T22:19:39.743" UserId="180" Text="What are the cheapest and easiest methods for converting grey water to potable water?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious about what it would take to convert any of the usual grey water sources (kitchen sink, shower, laundry, etc) into water that is safe to drink." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2263" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="776" RevisionGUID="d9e08609-a05f-46f6-8e80-6819f3c372ee" CreationDate="2013-04-16T22:19:39.743" UserId="180" Text="What are the cheapest and easiest methods to convert grey water to potable water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2264" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="776" RevisionGUID="d9e08609-a05f-46f6-8e80-6819f3c372ee" CreationDate="2013-04-16T22:19:39.743" UserId="180" Text="|water|greywater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2265" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="744" RevisionGUID="01837982-0fdf-4299-bdb3-422f52544240" CreationDate="2013-04-16T22:57:00.347" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/324295387726893056" />
  <row Id="2266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="401f643b-0afd-4ed3-abbb-5a69f8088133" CreationDate="2013-04-16T23:08:23.893" UserId="180" Text="# Toxicity:&#xD;&#xA;According to the [EPA][2], the LC50 (lethal concentration for 50% of tests) for rats is &gt;500,000 ppm for R-134a compared to 760,000 ppm for R-12, which doesn't seem much different.  They're short term exposure limit is slightly different with R-134a at 75,000 ppm and 50,000 ppm for R-12.  It appears not to concentrate in soil or water since it vaporizes so easily so that is less of a concern than a breathing in near a large leak and general pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Environmental:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Modelling indicates insignificant ozone depletion potential, a significant global warming potential, and negligible acidification potential.&quot; [reference][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Quantity:&#xD;&#xA;It seems that most fridges have between 4 and 6 oz of R-134a in them.  I'm not sure how to convert this into ppm if say you leaked all of your refrigerant into a small room or something like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/en/cicad11.pdf&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/safety.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="778" RevisionGUID="afc6a15e-3de3-43d3-8020-faa110b1c8fb" CreationDate="2013-04-16T23:38:35.270" UserId="180" Text="I understand that this isn't a link to a complete reference, but it is a general list that might get you or others started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary sustainable roofing systems I am aware of are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Metal - These can be used to collect rainwater and many are coated in such a way that they do not contaminate your water.  The roof can last 50 years, and even then, the metal can be recycled at the end of its life.  Around here, it costs about $10/sqft installed [[reference][1]] and of the three listed here, the most easy to find a local contractor.&#xD;&#xA; - Green Roof - This often requires a rubber membrane (most often a synthetic) on top of which soil and plants are placed.  This kind of roof adds a significant weight to your roof and so is often not possible in retrofits without reinforcing the load bearing walls.  This type of roof is often claimed to reduce both heating and cooling costs due to its thermal mass, the evapotranspiration of the plants and a small increase to R-Value.  Installed, a green roof can cost $15-$20 [[reference][2]], though many people do it themselves and about their only cost is in the rubber pond liner. &#xD;&#xA; - Thatching - This is often done with special grasses and can be quite tricky, though it is completely compostable and the only/most common system I have seen which could conceivably be grown and produced 100% locally and/or yourself.  It seems to be more common in England and other parts of the world than the US, so I know less about it.  Anyone else know more?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://www.homewyse.com/services/cost_to_install_seam_metal_roof.html&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://www.lid-stormwater.net/greenroofs_cost.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="779" RevisionGUID="e0b4d5ba-d349-4abc-946a-9761024886c6" CreationDate="2013-04-16T23:49:27.053" UserId="180" Text="[ic.org][1] has a great directory of Intentional Communities with a decent search tool.  I find it to be quite comprehensive, though sometimes **too** comprehensive.  Not all Intentional Communities are Eco-villages (though many are), all Eco-villages are Intentional Communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://directory.ic.org/records/?action=search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="31c2eb01-ef08-4f4e-bf6d-efe9f24005fc" CreationDate="2013-04-17T00:52:24.110" UserId="15" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body; edited title" Text="Here in my place there is a shortage of river water during because of lack of rain. People are demanding to use sea water where we can so please suggest the ways in which we can use sea water..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2270" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="31c2eb01-ef08-4f4e-bf6d-efe9f24005fc" CreationDate="2013-04-17T00:52:24.110" UserId="15" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to use sea water efficiently in daily life?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2271" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="31c2eb01-ef08-4f4e-bf6d-efe9f24005fc" CreationDate="2013-04-17T00:52:24.110" UserId="15" Comment="deleted 35 characters in body; edited title" Text="|water|seawater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="780" RevisionGUID="d92e3a4f-07d6-45a0-a867-802cb4be89c0" CreationDate="2013-04-17T02:28:18.487" UserId="404" Text="According to [Environment Canada](http://www.ec.gc.ca/Air/default.asp?lang=En&amp;n=4CA440F8-1) both R-12 and R-134a have 0 ozone depletion potential.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, R-12 has a global warming potential of 2400 CO2eq, while R-134a has a GWP of 1300 CO2eq.  These aren't apples to apples comparisons however.  R-12 has an atmostpheric lifetime of about 100 years compared to about 14 years for R134a ([NOAA](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/chapters/chapter1.pdf)).  You also really need to need to know the mass efficiency of the refrigerant to get compare their GWP in a meaningful way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="776" RevisionGUID="e5553b6b-e8e9-4892-b83a-96f7a04d7e7a" CreationDate="2013-04-17T03:07:59.823" UserId="180" Comment="deleted 77 characters in body" Text="What are the cheapest and easiest methods for converting grey water (of the usual sources, kitchen sink, shower, laundry, etc) to potable water that is safe to drink?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="e43735c0-9265-4aae-aaa2-d904b4d6ae4e" CreationDate="2013-04-17T03:10:01.083" UserId="180" Comment="rewording for clarification" Text="# Toxicity:&#xD;&#xA;According to the [EPA][2], the LC50 (lethal concentration for 50% of tests) for rats is &gt;500,000 ppm for R-134a compared to 760,000 ppm for R-12, which doesn't seem much different.  They're short term exposure limit is slightly different with R-134a at 75,000 ppm and 50,000 ppm for R-12.  It appears not to concentrate in soil or water since it vaporizes so easily so that is less of a concern than a breathing in near a large leak and general pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Environmental:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Modelling indicates insignificant ozone depletion potential, a significant global warming potential, and negligible acidification potential.&quot; [reference][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Quantity:&#xD;&#xA;It seems that most fridges have between 4 and 6 oz of R-134a in them.  I'm not sure how to convert an X ounce spill into a room sized Y into ppm, which makes it difficult to know just how dangerous it really is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/en/cicad11.pdf&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/safety.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="778" RevisionGUID="71868719-964b-4194-8b25-d99fdb152610" CreationDate="2013-04-17T03:16:54.943" UserId="180" Comment="added an item to the list of answers" Text="I understand that this isn't a link to a complete reference, but it is a general list that might get you or others started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary sustainable roofing systems I am aware of are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Metal - These can be used to collect rainwater and many are coated in such a way that they do not contaminate your water.  The roof can last 50 years, and even then, the metal can be recycled at the end of its life.  Around here, it costs about $10/sqft installed [[reference][1]] and of the three listed here, the most easy to find a local contractor.&#xD;&#xA; - Green Roof - This often requires a rubber membrane (most often a synthetic) on top of which soil and plants are placed.  This kind of roof adds a significant weight to your roof and so is often not possible in retrofits without reinforcing the load bearing walls.  This type of roof is often claimed to reduce both heating and cooling costs due to its thermal mass, the evapotranspiration of the plants and a small increase to R-Value.  Installed, a green roof can cost $15-$20 [[reference][2]], though many people do it themselves and about their only cost is in the rubber pond liner. &#xD;&#xA; - Thatching - This is often done with special grasses and can be quite tricky, though it is completely compostable and the only/most common system I have seen which could conceivably be grown and produced 100% locally and/or yourself.  It seems to be more common in England and other parts of the world than the US, so I know less about it.  Anyone else know more?&#xD;&#xA; - Wooden shingles - Honestly, I don't know much about this option.  [This site][3] claims an installed cost of around $6/sqft.  It would be interesting to know how much this would change if you tried to ensure sustainably sourced wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://www.homewyse.com/services/cost_to_install_seam_metal_roof.html&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://www.lid-stormwater.net/greenroofs_cost.htm&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://www.homewyse.com/costs/cost_of_wood_shingle_siding.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="776" RevisionGUID="736fca94-8c1c-45ff-960b-06df02d6f38c" CreationDate="2013-04-17T04:27:23.163" UserId="180" Comment="grammar" Text="What are the cheapest and easiest methods for converting grey water (of the usual sources: kitchen sink, shower, laundry, etc) to potable water that is safe to drink?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="781" RevisionGUID="ddca4212-cb6b-4acb-9f29-4615b5b02747" CreationDate="2013-04-17T05:48:56.390" UserId="85" Text="To produce fresh water from sea water sustainably (i.e. sustainable in usage, if not in production), I think solar stills are your best bet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article here ([PDF](http://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/2778020/soa-seawater_desalination.pdf)) claims that a single-layer solar still can produce up to 6 litres per day, per square metre. More intricate (double-layer) designs may yield even more water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For long-term improvement, I would also consider investigating why the river now carries less water than before. An forest upstream may be able to store a lot of water, induce rain and stabilize the flow of the river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Irrespective of the abundance or shortening of water, it would also be a good idea to reduce the use of water in the household &amp; reuse grey water where possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="781" RevisionGUID="e435ee1d-bb92-4c6d-ae1c-54ced0b70482" CreationDate="2013-04-17T06:01:46.217" UserId="85" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="To produce fresh water from sea water sustainably (i.e. sustainable in usage, if not in production), I think solar stills are your best bet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article here ([PDF](http://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/2778020/soa-seawater_desalination.pdf)) claims that a single-layer solar still can produce up to 6 litres per day, per square metre. More intricate (double-layer) designs may yield even more water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For long-term improvement, I would also consider investigating why the river now carries less water than before. An forest upstream may be able to store a lot of water, induce rain and stabilize the flow of the river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Irrespective of the abundance or shortening of water, it would also be a good idea to reduce the use of water in the household &amp; reuse grey water where possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seawater itself may have other applications as well. One example would be a [seawater greenhouse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_greenhouse)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="781" RevisionGUID="6040025c-9b73-4c5e-aaea-833d72f8e7c6" CreationDate="2013-04-17T07:34:09.470" UserId="85" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="To produce fresh water from sea water sustainably (i.e. sustainable in usage, if not in production), I think solar stills are your best bet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article here ([PDF](http://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/2778020/soa-seawater_desalination.pdf)) claims that a single-layer solar still can produce up to 6 litres per day, per square metre. More intricate (double-layer) designs may provide better insulation and consequently yield even more water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For long-term improvement, I would also consider investigating why the river now carries less water than before. An forest upstream may be able to store a lot of water, induce rain and stabilize the flow of the river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Irrespective of the abundance or shortening of water, it would also be a good idea to reduce the use of water in the household &amp; reuse grey water where possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seawater itself may have other applications as well. One example would be a [seawater greenhouse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_greenhouse)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2280" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="776" RevisionGUID="ebb94c93-42e4-40f2-82f4-c820d2b21e5b" CreationDate="2013-04-17T10:57:00.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/324476582876045312" />
  <row Id="2282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="778" RevisionGUID="e2ce896f-2645-4662-b2f3-f3c3d9ab4eda" CreationDate="2013-04-17T12:42:09.150" UserId="180" Comment="more detail on wooden shingles" Text="I understand that this isn't a link to a complete reference, but it is a general list that might get you or others started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary sustainable roofing systems I am aware of are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Metal - These can be used to collect rainwater and many are coated in such a way that they do not contaminate your water.  The roof can last 50 years, and even then, the metal can be recycled at the end of its life.  Around here, it costs about $10/sqft installed [[reference][1]] and of the four listed here, the most easy to find a local contractor.&#xD;&#xA; - Green Roof - This often requires a rubber membrane (most often a synthetic) on top of which soil and plants are placed.  This kind of roof adds a significant weight to your roof and so is often not possible in retrofits without reinforcing the load bearing walls.  This type of roof is often claimed to reduce both heating and cooling costs due to its thermal mass, the evapotranspiration of the plants and a small increase to R-Value.  Installed, a green roof can cost $15-$20 [[reference][2]], though many people do it themselves and about their only cost is in the rubber pond liner. &#xD;&#xA; - Thatching - This is often done with special grasses and can be quite tricky, though it is completely compostable and the only/most common system I have seen which could conceivably be grown and produced 100% locally and/or yourself.  It seems to be more common in England and other parts of the world than the US, so I know less about it.  Anyone else know more?&#xD;&#xA; - Wooden shingles - Honestly, I don't know much about this option.  [This site][3] claims an installed cost of around $6/sqft.  It would be interesting to know how much this would change if you tried to ensure local/sustainably sourced wood.  This one could also probably be almost completely DIY, though I am not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://www.homewyse.com/services/cost_to_install_seam_metal_roof.html&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://www.lid-stormwater.net/greenroofs_cost.htm&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://www.homewyse.com/costs/cost_of_wood_shingle_siding.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="339fee34-fd74-45cb-a22e-ce7a29295b2b" CreationDate="2013-04-17T12:50:08.767" UserId="180" Comment="add reference" Text="# Environmental:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Modelling indicates insignificant ozone depletion potential, a significant global warming potential, and negligible acidification potential.&quot; [reference][1]  One gram of R-134a has the same global warming effect as 1.41 kilograms of CO2, while one gram of R-12 is similar to 8.5 kilograms of CO2. [reference][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Toxicity:&#xD;&#xA;According to the [EPA][2], the LC50 (lethal concentration for 50% of tests) for rats is &gt;500,000 ppm for R-134a compared to 760,000 ppm for R-12, which doesn't seem much different.  They're short term exposure limit is slightly different with R-134a at 75,000 ppm and 50,000 ppm for R-12.  It appears not to concentrate in soil or water since it vaporizes so easily so that is less of a concern than a breathing in near a large leak and general pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Quantity:&#xD;&#xA;It seems that most fridges have between 4 and 6 oz of R-134a in them.  I'm not sure how to convert an X ounce spill into a room sized Y into ppm, which makes it difficult to know just how dangerous it really is.  I'm also not sure what the &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/en/cicad11.pdf&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/safety.html&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/automobiles/02COOL.html?_r=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="784" RevisionGUID="c98d1ff9-63a8-43e0-8271-ee1c9ba2e72f" CreationDate="2013-04-17T14:14:48.050" UserId="99" Text="It's very difficult to find any hard numbers. Countries that currently have the highest greywater usage are most likely countries with very poor water-supply systems (think Congo, Liberia, Palestine). These are also the countries that do have the resources to keep track of things like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at [Google Trends](http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=grey%20water,%20gray%20water,%20greywater,%20graywater), you can see that most searches on grey water/gray water/greywater/graywater are currently done in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Australia     1.00*52 + 0.55*24 + 1.00*15     = 80.2&#xD;&#xA;    USA           0.20*52 + 1.00*24 + 0.20*15 + 3 = 40.4&#xD;&#xA;    South Africa  0.50*52 +         + 0.49*15     = 33.35&#xD;&#xA;    Canada        0.25*52 + 0.47*24 + 0.19*15     = 27.13&#xD;&#xA;    New Zealand   0.35*52                         = 18.2&#xD;&#xA;    UK            0.20*52 + 0.22*24 + 0.12*15     = 17.48&#xD;&#xA;    India         0.08*52 + 0.13*24 + 0.07*15     =  8.33&#xD;&#xA;    Ireland       0.13*52                         =  6.76&#xD;&#xA;    Germany       0.01*52                         =  0.52&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the numbers are just relative to each other. They don't mean anything other than a particular amount of interest. Also, this data is very much biased towards English speaking countries where many people have internet. I don't know what the german term is for greywater, but if I included it no doubt Germany would have had a higher score.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, if you're interested in a document that describes the policies of certain countries, then you may find [this one](http://www.pacinst.org/reports/greywater_overview/greywater_overview.pdf) interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="785" RevisionGUID="2beb6923-2b83-427f-a6f0-4505510cb53b" CreationDate="2013-04-17T15:20:54.713" UserId="462" Text="I suspect a white roof made (at least partially) of recycled materials--and 100% recyclable or compostable materials--is your most sustainable option. It will greatly reduce the amount of heat your house absorbs in the summer, which will reduce the amount of energy you need to cool your home. During the useful life of a modern roof, the energy cost of heat absorbed from sunlight is probably a significant portion of the roof's environmental impact. This is especially important if you live in a hot, sunny climate, but even at 50 degrees N white roofs help more than they hurt. Metal roofs are less effective from this perspective than white roofs, but better than dark roofs. Of course, you could always add a white coating to a metal roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know anything about sustainable white coatings for roofs, but it's something to look into for the comfort and energy efficiency benefits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="0bc2a00c-c1c1-4f15-ba12-8ae58567a2ec" CreationDate="2013-04-18T07:05:13.680" UserId="471" Text="Hello i want to suggest gardener to plant a tree to reduce pollution from factory which exhaust poisons gas so, which plant is prefer to plant in the area around the factory area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance..:)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="0bc2a00c-c1c1-4f15-ba12-8ae58567a2ec" CreationDate="2013-04-18T07:05:13.680" UserId="471" Text="Which Tree Consumes most carbon dioxide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="0bc2a00c-c1c1-4f15-ba12-8ae58567a2ec" CreationDate="2013-04-18T07:05:13.680" UserId="471" Text="|pollution|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="f490e5f5-c41f-44b9-a07f-c3851a4a9c4e" CreationDate="2013-04-18T07:32:46.040" UserId="404" Text="After four years living in San Francisco, I'm really feeling the urge to update my wardrobe.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never been much of a fashionista, but that's partly because of the damage I assumed caused to the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some websites or stores that offer either modern second hand clothes OR companies that take old clothing and turnit into something new?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm fine with some process energy embodied in the clothing, but I'd prefer no new materials in these clothes.  bonus points for sustainable processing, ie low water use, use of sustainable energy sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2296" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="f490e5f5-c41f-44b9-a07f-c3851a4a9c4e" CreationDate="2013-04-18T07:32:46.040" UserId="404" Text="Recycled and Used Fashion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2297" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="f490e5f5-c41f-44b9-a07f-c3851a4a9c4e" CreationDate="2013-04-18T07:32:46.040" UserId="404" Text="|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="50a78da2-d4de-463d-92cc-2fc3dc36d7cb" CreationDate="2013-04-18T07:46:26.227" UserId="404" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="After four years living in San Francisco, I'm really feeling the urge to update my wardrobe.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never been much of a fashionista, but that's partly because of the damage I assumed caused to the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some websites or stores that offer either modern second hand clothes OR companies that take old clothing and turnit into something new?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How sustainable is recycled fashion?  You hear that recycled aluminum actually has significant embodied process energy.  Is process energy signficant for recycling clothes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, any indication if how much water and land you are saving by purchasing recycled clothes (ie gains from re-using the textile materials)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="662b1db5-28ab-497a-a7bd-e538c27e8afe" CreationDate="2013-04-18T08:22:14.570" UserId="99" Text="I was curious about the same thing and Googled for this a while back. I found that there are several websites that list trees that are good in absorbing carbon, e.g. [this website](http://environment.about.com/od/whatyoucando/a/best_trees.htm) and [this website](http://www.ehow.com/info_8609132_trees-absorb-carbon-dioxide.html). Both sites list trees like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Pine (Ponderosa, red, white and Hispaniolan pines)&#xD;&#xA; - Oake (Scarlet, Red and Virginia Live Oak)&#xD;&#xA; - Douglas fir &#xD;&#xA; - Bald Cypress&#xD;&#xA; - Common Horse-chestnut &#xD;&#xA; - Black Walnut&#xD;&#xA; - London Plane&#xD;&#xA; - American Sweetgum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is [one site](http://www.everything71.com/2012/02/10-type-of-trees-most-carbon-dioxide.html) that has an entirely different list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Trembesi (Samanea saman)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo (Bambuseae)&#xD;&#xA; - Cassia (Cassia sp)&#xD;&#xA; - Cananga/Kenanga (Canangium odoratum)&#xD;&#xA; - Pingku (Dysoxylum excelsum)&#xD;&#xA; - Banyan/Beringin (Ficus benyamina)&#xD;&#xA; - Krey Payung (Fellicium decipiens)&#xD;&#xA; - Matoa (Pometia pinnata)&#xD;&#xA; - Mahogany (Swettiana mahagoni)&#xD;&#xA; - Saga (Adenanthera pavonina)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure which list is more accurate, but I do know that for good sustainability you will have to consider more things than simply the amount of CO2 a tree can absorb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all not all trees grow in all places. The tree you have in mind should be appropriate for the region and climate. If you have to water it, add fertilizer regularly or package it during cold winters to survive, etc. then it will be less sustainable. If the factory does indeed exhaust poisonous(?) gases as you said, then trees may not grow at all near it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, think about what will you do with the trees once they are mature. If you harvest them and plant new trees then you can capture more CO2. But if let the tree fall down and rot or if you burn wood from harvested trees, then the captured CO2 will be released again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="40d013e9-6f8c-4c79-b72f-a0e2561fa913" CreationDate="2013-04-18T08:33:13.437" UserId="99" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="I was curious about which trees absorb the most CO2 and Googled for this a while back. I found that there are several websites that list trees that are good in absorbing carbon, e.g. [this website](http://environment.about.com/od/whatyoucando/a/best_trees.htm) and [this website](http://www.ehow.com/info_8609132_trees-absorb-carbon-dioxide.html). Both sites list trees like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Pine (Ponderosa, red, white and Hispaniolan pines)&#xD;&#xA; - Oake (Scarlet, Red and Virginia Live Oak)&#xD;&#xA; - Douglas fir &#xD;&#xA; - Bald Cypress&#xD;&#xA; - Common Horse-chestnut &#xD;&#xA; - Black Walnut&#xD;&#xA; - London Plane&#xD;&#xA; - American Sweetgum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is [one site](http://www.everything71.com/2012/02/10-type-of-trees-most-carbon-dioxide.html) that has an entirely different list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Trembesi (Samanea saman)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo (Bambuseae)&#xD;&#xA; - Cassia (Cassia sp)&#xD;&#xA; - Cananga/Kenanga (Canangium odoratum)&#xD;&#xA; - Pingku (Dysoxylum excelsum)&#xD;&#xA; - Banyan/Beringin (Ficus benyamina)&#xD;&#xA; - Krey Payung (Fellicium decipiens)&#xD;&#xA; - Matoa (Pometia pinnata)&#xD;&#xA; - Mahogany (Swettiana mahagoni)&#xD;&#xA; - Saga (Adenanthera pavonina)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure which list is more accurate, but I do know that for good sustainability you will have to consider more things than simply the amount of CO2 a tree can absorb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all not all trees grow in all places. The tree you have in mind should be appropriate for the region and climate. If you have to water it, add fertilizer regularly or package it during cold winters to survive, etc. then it will be less sustainable. If the factory does indeed exhaust poisonous(?) gases as you said, then trees may not grow at all near it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, think about what will you do with the trees once they are mature. If you harvest them and plant new trees then you can capture more CO2. But if let the tree fall down and rot or if you burn wood from harvested trees, then the captured CO2 will be released again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="789" RevisionGUID="c50986e8-1843-465b-9c11-1c8ce63508dc" CreationDate="2013-04-18T08:42:08.917" UserId="96" Text="Trees absorb carbon dioxide to grow and build biomass. If you want to absorb much $CO_2$ you need a tree that grows fast at your local conditions - consult with your gardener about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this will not solve problems with other pollutants, and will only put a rather symbolical dent into wordwide $CO_2$ emissions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="0ef566a5-5095-4c2b-be6a-8a48b879a87d" CreationDate="2013-04-18T09:18:30.257" UserId="476" Text="What gonna I do with my Samsung ML-1640? I see in the internet that toners may be incompatible with printers and Samsung &quot;protects&quot; us from bad quality by expiring their cartridges electronically - they stop working after a number of pages printed. What do I do with my cartridge? I live in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All green people know that the first danger to the Earth is PLASTIC. [I read this in the cartridge recycle article][1] also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's hundreds of millions of cartridges that end up in landfills&#xD;&#xA;&gt; every year, made with plastics that can take at least 1,000 years to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decompose. Not a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which arguments would ecology activists left with if capitalists invented a rapidly decomposable plastic? The main danger would be eliminated, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that they sell refilled cartridges but where do they collect them? Nobody know how to recycle them. So everybody drops used cartridges into trash can. But, there must be a way if commercial companies industrially reuse them. Right? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/ink-cartridges-recycling#ixzz2QnwYgm8R" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2303" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="0ef566a5-5095-4c2b-be6a-8a48b879a87d" CreationDate="2013-04-18T09:18:30.257" UserId="476" Text="printer cartridge recycling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2304" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="0ef566a5-5095-4c2b-be6a-8a48b879a87d" CreationDate="2013-04-18T09:18:30.257" UserId="476" Text="|recycling|printing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="791" RevisionGUID="a9b8fe47-b10b-452d-a43b-b6b0b2ab6bcf" CreationDate="2013-04-18T09:54:53.137" UserId="85" Text="The factory will pollute much more than can be undone by planting trees (up to a reasonable number). Any approach that reduces the pollution of the factory will be more effective than planting trees as counter-measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true, however, that, say, a forest around the factory would help clean the air and absorb much of the pollution, so that planting trees is always a good idea, of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="2e7d893d-5667-4106-9b09-5b554ec68298" CreationDate="2013-04-18T10:03:03.317" UserId="130" Text="Basic chemistry here.  Plants consume carbon dioxide and water to produce glucose.  They then polymerize the glucose to create cellulose.  In general, the amount of biomass that a tree produces is dependent on its net carbon uptake.  If all you are trying to do is ensure that you take some CO2 out of the air, you want to plant fast-growing trees, ideally which are harder than softer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="a095aa23-b678-4dd3-b736-e6b19038a2b9" CreationDate="2013-04-18T10:08:26.670" UserId="476" Comment="deleted 27 characters in body" Text="What gonna I do with my Samsung ML-1640? I see in the internet that toners may be incompatible with printers and Samsung &quot;protects&quot; us from bad quality by expiring their cartridges electronically - they stop working after a number of pages printed. What do I do with my cartridge? I live in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All green people know that the first danger to the Earth is PLASTIC. [I read this in the cartridge recycle article][1] also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's hundreds of millions of cartridges that end up in landfills&#xD;&#xA;&gt; every year, made with plastics that can take at least 1,000 years to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decompose. Not a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which arguments would ecology activists left with if capitalists invented a rapidly decomposable plastic? The main danger would be eliminated, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I have elicited how they collect the used cartridges.][2] But it is only available in UK. I still do not know what to do in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/ink-cartridges-recycling#ixzz2QnwYgm8R&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/136657721/Cartridgesave-Recycling-Guide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="794" RevisionGUID="c741e7e2-6682-4228-b45c-df21847de06a" CreationDate="2013-04-18T15:17:03.127" UserId="462" Text="The [Samsung recycling website][1] indicates that in Estonia their printer cartridge recycling is handled by their distributors. Call or e-mail Samsung and ask who their distributor is in your area and whether that distributor will take your used cartridges back for recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/sustainability/environment/takebackrecycling/takebackrecyclingprograms.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="719" RevisionGUID="3eac74b0-24d5-4c79-8547-954f7191a8a2" CreationDate="2013-04-18T17:05:50.210" UserId="404" Comment="Clarified the comment about diminishing turns." Text="I'm going to focus on energy and carbon emissions because that's what I know best.  Anyone wanting to add waste generation and other considerations please feel free. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chad is right that the question depends first on how your kids live and where you decide to live. Geography and economy are very important variables.  A study by [Chris Jones](http://www.stanford.edu/group/peec/cgi-bin/docs/events/2009/becc/presentations/1F%20Jones%20BECC%20Final.pdf) at UC Berkeley broke the average carbon footprints of the US and world as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science Daily](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm) has the total figures as 20 and 4 tons for the US and world respectively.  I suggest this has to do with Jones accounting of indirect supply chain emissions he calculated using [lifecycle input output analysis](http://www.eiolca.net/), so I tend to trust his figures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [paper Jones published](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es102221h) in Environmental Science and Technology showed, using the same methodologies, that these distributions can vary substantially.  For instance, a comparison of San Francisco vs St. Louis showed the following differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - transportation emissions 2x as high in SF compared to SL&#xD;&#xA; - housing emissions over 2x as high in SL compared to SF&#xD;&#xA; - food emissions twice as high in SL compared to SF&#xD;&#xA; - goods emissions ~30% higher in SF compared to SL&#xD;&#xA; - service emissions ~40% higher in SF compared to SL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because I'm not sure which locations you are choosing between, I can't say what categories will be most important to you, so I'll use the average US case.  Based on Jones' analysis we see that transportation, electricity and heating are good place to start to look at reducing your carbon impact.  The first consideration you should therefore make is your traveling habits at the two different places:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As a retired person will you be traveling on vacation a lot?  Using&#xD;&#xA;   [EPA Climate Leaders'](http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/documents/resources/commute_travel_product.pdf) figures, we can crudely estimate that a 6000 mi flight * .185 kg / passenger-mi results in over one metric ton of direct CO2 emissions - roughly 10% of the average American's direct transportation emissions - not insignificant.&#xD;&#xA; - what will your daily commute look like?  If you're staying at home wiping the grand kids' ass then score some points for sustainability!  However, if you are going to need to drive your car for entertainment, volunteering, work in either situation, you'll need to exploit opportunities to carpool or use a low emission vehicle (think electric with solar).&#xD;&#xA; - what will the building situation look like?  If you can't directly compare electric and heating bills, consider the natural lighting, the climate (a more extreme climate leads to increased HVAC loads), insulation and air leakiness of the house.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now more specific to your question, let's hold these factors constant and just consider how adding an additional person to a house can contribute to sustainability.  Every four years the EIA conducts a [residential energy consumer survey](http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/index.cfm?view=consumption#summary).  Now here is some data I love and think would be very interesting to you  (there is a bunch of other great stuff in there for any data junkies):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are substantial energy savings from increasing the number of members per household. However *there are diminishing returns* to adding another member to the house.  So the first person would contribute 30% per capita energy savings, the second 20%, the third 10%.  This is important from a macro-perspective.  Let's say you have 30 people and developers are considering design occupancy.  The improvement from going from six 5-person units to five 6-person units is not as significant as moving from fifteen 2-person units to ten 3-person units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your perspective as an individual (or couple), there will be significant advantages to living in 5+ person house compared to a house for one or two people.  Let's say you are considering a two person house vs a six person house.  Moving into the two person house, you would be responsible for 50% of the 2-person house's primary energy (45 MBtu).  If you were the sixth person in a five person house, you would be responsible for 4MBtu margin of going from 5 person to six person house.  **A huge difference!**  These gains are mostly from shared energy sources, such as a refrigerator, shared lighting, shared air temperature etc.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Obviously energy consumption is very different outside US, but the principles should hold. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ipXsv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/blWi7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="9496fdc2-5234-4ec8-9caa-37416f3900f7" CreationDate="2013-04-18T19:04:57.063" UserId="476" Comment="added 672 characters in body" Text="What gonna I do with my Samsung ML-1640? I see in the internet that toners may be incompatible with printers and Samsung &quot;protects&quot; us from bad quality by expiring their cartridges electronically - they stop working after a number of pages printed. What do I do with my cartridge? I live in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All green people know that the first danger to the Earth is PLASTIC. [I read this in the cartridge recycle article][1] also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's hundreds of millions of cartridges that end up in landfills&#xD;&#xA;&gt; every year, made with plastics that can take at least 1,000 years to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decompose. Not a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which arguments would ecology activists left with if capitalists invented a rapidly decomposable plastic? The main danger would be eliminated, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I have elicited how they collect the used cartridges.][2] But it is only available in UK. I still do not know what to do in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have discovered a couple of local companies, that refill cartridges &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://home.kassetitankla.ee/hinnakiri/&#xD;&#xA;http://www.odavprint.eu/price_est.php&#xD;&#xA;http://www.abiprint.ee/?srch=1640&amp;page=pricelist&amp;act=show&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It costs 20 EUR (+6 EUR for single-time chip reprogramming). Though, I can find the new cartridges at this price, http://www.hinnavaatlus.ee/products/Arvutiriistvara/124915/124915/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last company also buys the empty cartridges, though there is no Samsung 1640 among accepted particles&#xD;&#xA;http://www.abiprint.ee/?page=buy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not opposed if anybody converts this question to a wiki, adding options in their region or adds more answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/ink-cartridges-recycling#ixzz2QnwYgm8R&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/136657721/Cartridgesave-Recycling-Guide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="f30e3657-3649-49af-8943-25640c1d3302" CreationDate="2013-04-18T19:26:55.060" UserId="476" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="What gonna I do with my Samsung ML-1640? I see in the internet that toners may be incompatible with printers and Samsung &quot;protects&quot; us from bad quality by expiring their cartridges electronically - they stop working after a number of pages printed. What do I do with my cartridge? I live in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All green people know that the first danger to the Earth is PLASTIC. [I read this in the cartridge recycle article][1] also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's hundreds of millions of cartridges that end up in landfills&#xD;&#xA;&gt; every year, made with plastics that can take at least 1,000 years to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decompose. Not a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which arguments would ecology activists left with if capitalists invented a rapidly decomposable plastic? The main danger would be eliminated, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I have elicited how they collect the used cartridges.][2] But it is only available in UK. I still do not know what to do in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have discovered a couple of local companies, that refill cartridges &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://home.kassetitankla.ee/hinnakiri, http://www.odavprint.eu/price_est.php and&#xD;&#xA;http://www.abiprint.ee/?srch=1640&amp;page=pricelist&amp;act=show Refilling costs 20 EUR (+6 EUR for single-time chip reprogramming). Though, I can find the new cartridges at this price, http://www.hinnavaatlus.ee/products/Arvutiriistvara/124915/124915/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last company also buys the empty cartridges, though there is no Samsung 1640 among accepted particles&#xD;&#xA;http://www.abiprint.ee/?page=buy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not opposed if anybody converts this question to a wiki, adding options in their region or adds more answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/ink-cartridges-recycling#ixzz2QnwYgm8R&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/136657721/Cartridgesave-Recycling-Guide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="796" RevisionGUID="c74f58b3-a9e1-4333-8e4d-3f223807b805" CreationDate="2013-04-18T23:45:08.730" UserId="87" Text="For produce, you can make or buy mesh bags for use just as you reuse the grocery bags.  We made some but I would think that bags made to hang items for drying (e.g. while camping) would work well.  For powders you could use glass jars if your grocery has scales that can be tared.  You could also use a stronger storage bag like Ziploc that is more likely to stand up to reuse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="797" RevisionGUID="e4057a17-1aeb-4b89-b47b-d489c48382b8" CreationDate="2013-04-19T01:21:44.833" UserId="480" Text="On walks, we just use the disposable plastic bags in a roll that are made for dog waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They aren't biodegradable, but since we dispose of the waste in the municipal trash, I don't think it makes any difference - modern landfills aren't designed to promote biodegradability. The local municipality specifically forbids dog waste in the municipal compost bins, they want it disposed as trash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the dog waste bags are smaller than plastic grocery bags, if you were previously using the 'free' grocery bags, there's still a net environmental win by using the smaller dog waste bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I used to live in the city and had a much smaller dog who would generally poop close to home, I would take a Kleenex doubled over and use it to pick up the waste, then I'd flush it when I came home. I'm not sure if that an environmental win for the environment due to the water usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="784" RevisionGUID="5ddaa283-8531-4d09-9038-2546acc0612e" CreationDate="2013-04-19T07:24:21.707" UserId="99" Comment="updated stats and added stats for german 'grauwasser' and french 'eaux grises'" Text="It's very difficult to find any hard numbers. Countries that currently have the highest greywater usage are most likely countries with very poor water-supply systems (think Congo, Liberia, Palestine). These are also the countries that do not have the resources to keep track of things like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, to get some indication of interest in greywater reuse you can look at [Google Trends](http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=grey%20water%2C%20gray%20water%2C%20greywater%2C%20graywater%2C%20grauwasser). It shows that most searches on grey water/gray water/greywater/graywater/grauwasser/eaux grises are currently done in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Australia     79.19&#xD;&#xA;    USA           40.20&#xD;&#xA;    South Africa  26.01&#xD;&#xA;    Canada        25.80&#xD;&#xA;    New Zealand   18.36&#xD;&#xA;    UK            16.83&#xD;&#xA;    India          7.07&#xD;&#xA;    Ireland        6.12&#xD;&#xA;    Germany        1.51&#xD;&#xA;    France         1.00&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the numbers don't mean anything. They are just a particular amount of interest relative to each other. I've calculated them by looking at the average and regional interest for each keyword. Also, this data is very much biased towards English, German  and French speaking countries where many people have internet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, if you're interested in a document that describes the policies of certain countries, then you may find [this PDF](http://www.pacinst.org/reports/greywater_overview/greywater_overview.pdf) interesting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="798" RevisionGUID="6e645c6a-60eb-4d1c-bfca-9d0c356dc1d5" CreationDate="2013-04-19T13:38:40.143" UserId="484" Text="Recently I started composting at home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As many sources told me not to put cooked food and several other things. Mainly to not attract animals. I don't put them on on my compost pile, but put put it in the bag for organic waste which goes to the recycling park (as I don't have chicken who I can give it to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That made me think that maybe if everybody does this, the recycling park might get problems for discomposing the organic waste?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was also wondering about the fact I'm not allowed to sort dog and other animal feces together with the organic waste, if all other organic things I shall not put on my compost pile are allowed, why animal feces aren't?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="798" RevisionGUID="6e645c6a-60eb-4d1c-bfca-9d0c356dc1d5" CreationDate="2013-04-19T13:38:40.143" UserId="484" Text="Cooked food composting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="798" RevisionGUID="6e645c6a-60eb-4d1c-bfca-9d0c356dc1d5" CreationDate="2013-04-19T13:38:40.143" UserId="484" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="799" RevisionGUID="abc83653-461c-4163-bcf1-50bc3bd33c6a" CreationDate="2013-04-19T13:44:08.153" UserId="471" Text="here near to my place there are so many trees along the road so every day so many leaves fallen and road cleaning workers burn it every day and all the got wasted. i want to use that waste for some good way. i got one idea to dump it in dig for long time and it will become green fertilizers. i want other way to use it. so please let me know to use this waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks earth Lover " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2325" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="799" RevisionGUID="abc83653-461c-4163-bcf1-50bc3bd33c6a" CreationDate="2013-04-19T13:44:08.153" UserId="471" Text="how can we use fallen leavs from tree in best way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2326" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="799" RevisionGUID="abc83653-461c-4163-bcf1-50bc3bd33c6a" CreationDate="2013-04-19T13:44:08.153" UserId="471" Text="|waste|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="800" RevisionGUID="953da799-ad43-445a-8d05-9a9667045d28" CreationDate="2013-04-19T14:07:05.090" UserId="130" Text="Cooked food may attract animals, but I find a few ways of composting them.  If you have a composter or a vermipost bin, those will work too.  Below is my own method though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tend to aggressively sheet mulch.  While I am here in Indonesia I am known to prune the mango trees to get leaves to sheet mulch.  These allow me to compost a fair bit of stuff in place.The leaves are definitely a green and they take a few weeks to decompose.  The basic structure here is an alternating set of layers of &quot;greens&quot; and &quot;browns&quot; to help speed composting, but these are small and make use of surface area and ground contact rather than size and heat.  In this way I incorporate smallish amounts of more risky foods (like cooked veggies) underneath the mulch, between the mulch and the soil.  I find that if I do this, it decomposes fast and the sorts of animals attracted tend to be small decomposers like centipedes, ants, and earthworms.  The 4 inch layer of leaves act as a bit of an odor damper and help avoid some of the more noxious pests (like cockroaches).  Other approaches might include plastic composters, covered piles, vermipost, or the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always pest management is very local so what works for me may not work for you.  Trial and error is necessary sometimes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="801" RevisionGUID="c96f9dc0-b4b6-4c1b-969e-d9cda4b4717b" CreationDate="2013-04-19T15:39:15.000" UserId="117" Text="Composting (to enrich soil and provide fertilizer) and for use as mulching material are *great* ways to reuse these materials &amp;mdash; especially if you use them to *replace* less-sustainable alternatives (e.g. water soluble chemical fertilizers and commercially-farmed mulches)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="799" RevisionGUID="dc400f6b-dc7d-41bb-be73-84b53ebd318d" CreationDate="2013-04-19T19:20:05.443" UserId="117" Comment="added 11 characters in body; edited title" Text="In my neighborhood, there are so many trees along the road. So every day many leaves fall and everyday road-cleaning workers wastefully just burn it. I was hoping to use that waste in a more productive way. One idea I had was to dig it in somewhere for long time and it will become green fertilizers. I would like some other suggestions about how to use it. Please let me know to use this waste." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2330" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="799" RevisionGUID="dc400f6b-dc7d-41bb-be73-84b53ebd318d" CreationDate="2013-04-19T19:20:05.443" UserId="117" Comment="added 11 characters in body; edited title" Text="How can we use fallen leaves from tree in best way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="b5e5b8a9-76ec-4471-88ad-cd8b1197fec3" CreationDate="2013-04-20T06:49:03.193" UserId="476" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="What gonna I do with my Samsung ML-1640? I see in the internet that toners may be incompatible with printers and Samsung &quot;protects&quot; us from bad quality by expiring their cartridges electronically - they stop working after a number of pages printed. What do I do with my cartridge? I live in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All green people know that the first danger to the Earth is PLASTIC. [I read this in the cartridge recycle article][1] also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's hundreds of millions of cartridges that end up in landfills&#xD;&#xA;&gt; every year, made with plastics that can take at least 1,000 years to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decompose. Not a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which arguments would ecology activists left with if capitalists invented a rapidly decomposable plastic? The main danger would be eliminated, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS1**&#xD;&#xA;[I have elicited how they collect the used cartridges.][2] But it is only available in UK. I still do not know what to do in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS2** I have discovered a couple of local companies, that refill cartridges: kassetitankla.ee][3], [odavprint.eu][4] and [abiprint.ee][5]. Refilling costs 20 EUR (+6 EUR for single-time chip reprogramming). Though, I can find the [new cartridges at this price][6]. The last company also buys the empty cartridges, though there is no Samsung 1640 among accepted particles&#xD;&#xA;http://www.abiprint.ee/?page=buy I am not opposed if anybody converts this question to a wiki, adding options in their region or adds more answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/ink-cartridges-recycling#ixzz2QnwYgm8R&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/136657721/Cartridgesave-Recycling-Guide&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://home.kassetitankla.ee/hinnakiri&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.odavprint.eu/price_est.php&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.abiprint.ee/?srch=1640&amp;page=pricelist&amp;act=show&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.hinnavaatlus.ee/products/Arvutiriistvara/124915/124915/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="9746d5fe-f947-4003-ae2a-c2ecc69fe051" CreationDate="2013-04-20T11:13:55.730" UserId="130" Text="As mentioned in a previous question, I am looking at integrating aquaponics-type food growth into my multi-thousand gallon carp tank (two turtles live there too).  I recognize that aquatic plants may be food for more than just us but figure we should start somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had two ideas as to where to start.  The first was in integrating aquatic vegetables like lotus into the existing fish tank.  This would provide a more natural environment for the fish and turtles, as well as more food all around for us.  The first candidate there to my mind is lotus (the tuber is widely eaten around Asia).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other option is to get some heavy styrofoam and make floats and grow some light vegetables (maybe bok choi or the like).  Which would be a better way to start?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="9746d5fe-f947-4003-ae2a-c2ecc69fe051" CreationDate="2013-04-20T11:13:55.730" UserId="130" Text="First plants to integrate with fish (carp) tank: Aquaponic floats or aquatic vegetables like lotus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="9746d5fe-f947-4003-ae2a-c2ecc69fe051" CreationDate="2013-04-20T11:13:55.730" UserId="130" Text="|aquaponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="75cacea7-3094-49ec-b393-c44faa1bcfa1" CreationDate="2013-04-21T07:36:52.317" UserId="476" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="What gonna I do with my Samsung ML-1640? I see in the internet that toners may be incompatible with printers and Samsung &quot;protects&quot; us from bad quality by expiring their cartridges electronically - they stop working after a number of pages printed. What do I do with my cartridge? I live in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All green people know that the first danger to the Earth is PLASTIC. [I read this in the cartridge recycle article][1] also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's hundreds of millions of cartridges that end up in landfills&#xD;&#xA;&gt; every year, made with plastics that can take at least 1,000 years to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decompose. Not a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which arguments would ecology activists left with if capitalists invented a rapidly decomposable plastic? The main danger would be eliminated, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS1**&#xD;&#xA;[I have elicited how they collect the used cartridges.][2] But it is only available in UK. I still do not know what to do in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS2** I have discovered a couple of local companies, that refill cartridges: [kassetitankla.ee][3], [odavprint.eu][4] and [abiprint.ee][5]. Refilling costs 20 EUR (+6 EUR for single-time chip reprogramming). Though, I can find the [new cartridges at this price][6]. The last company also buys the empty cartridges, though there is no Samsung 1640 among accepted particles&#xD;&#xA;http://www.abiprint.ee/?page=buy I am not opposed if anybody converts this question to a wiki, adding options in their region or adds more answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/ink-cartridges-recycling#ixzz2QnwYgm8R&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/136657721/Cartridgesave-Recycling-Guide&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://home.kassetitankla.ee/hinnakiri&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.odavprint.eu/price_est.php&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.abiprint.ee/?srch=1640&amp;page=pricelist&amp;act=show&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.hinnavaatlus.ee/products/Arvutiriistvara/124915/124915/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="6ca488a1-5f9f-4356-90f8-faa2fbc3b536" CreationDate="2013-04-21T08:13:20.130" UserId="476" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="What gonna I do with my Samsung ML-1640? I see in the internet that toners may be incompatible with printers and Samsung &quot;protects&quot; us from bad quality by expiring their cartridges electronically - they stop working after a number of pages printed. What do I do with my cartridge? I live in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All green people know that the first danger to the Earth is PLASTIC. [I read this in the cartridge recycle article][1] also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's hundreds of millions of cartridges that end up in landfills&#xD;&#xA;&gt; every year, made with plastics that can take at least 1,000 years to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decompose. Not a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which arguments would ecology activists left with if capitalists invented a rapidly decomposable plastic? The main danger would be eliminated, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS1**&#xD;&#xA;[I have elicited how they collect the used cartridges.][2] But it is only available in UK. I still do not know what to do in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS2** I have discovered a couple of local companies, that refill cartridges: [refill.ee][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[kassetitankla.ee][4], [odavprint.eu][5] and [abiprint.ee][6]. Refilling costs 20 EUR (+6 EUR for single-time chip reprogramming). Though, I can find the [new cartridges at this price][7]. The last [company also buys the empty cartridges][8], though there is no Samsung 1640 among accepted particles. But in general refilling is 2x cheaper (25 vs 55 EUR). I am not opposed if anybody converts this question to a wiki, adding options in their region or adds more answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/ink-cartridges-recycling#ixzz2QnwYgm8R&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/136657721/Cartridgesave-Recycling-Guide&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://refill.ee/index.php/ru/zapravka/samsung-2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://home.kassetitankla.ee/hinnakiri&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.odavprint.eu/price_est.php&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.abiprint.ee/?srch=1640&amp;page=pricelist&amp;act=show&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.hinnavaatlus.ee/products/Arvutiriistvara/124915/124915/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.abiprint.ee/?page=buy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="803" RevisionGUID="6e2e907d-dc68-40e4-a106-cc0e30833b9d" CreationDate="2013-04-21T10:04:05.910" UserId="486" Text="This is a really big question, and [@EnergyNumbers' answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/613/486) addresses some of it.  I'll try to address some more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Battery End-of-Life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is obviously referring to **standard** car batteries, which are used to power the car's starter motor.  These are generally lead-acid batteries.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A true Electric Car (EV) may have a small battery just like this (e.g. to drive accesories), but this kind of battery is **not** what drives the car, and is not the big impact on the recycling/landfill issue.  An EV's traction motor will probably be a NiMH or Li-ion battery pack.  It's very large, and very expensive.  It also happens to be about 85% recyclable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My 2011 Nissan LEAF has a 24 KWh capacity Li-ion battery pack in it.  At this point, it's hard to tell exactly what the longevity will be, because it's a new product.  However, automakers do test these things before fielding new models (the results are obviously important when they decide what kind of warranties to offer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nissan projects the life of this battery pack to be 10 years.  What does that mean?  By their definition, at the end of 10 years of life, it will have a useful capacity that's 70-80% of its original capacity, depending on how you use it.  So, by no means is the battery *dead*.  But, they're estimating what a user would be willing to tolerate in terms of driving range reduction.  If your trips tend to be 20 miles or less, or you have recharge facilities at your typical destination (e.g. workplace charging), then you may continue to use your 10 year-old batteries.  But, 10 years seems like a reasonable longevity estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, the bigger a battery is, the more likely you can recycle it, and even get paid to do so.  As I said, a Li-ion battery is largely recyclable, and with 70-80% capacity, even still usable for non-automotive energy storage applications.  It's **very** hard to believe that a battery pack that originally cost [several thousand dollars](http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/15/nissan-leaf-profitable-by-year-three-battery-cost-closer-to-18/), that still has 70% capacity, and is 85% recyclable, wouldn't fetch a significant trade-in value.  This value will likely ensure that EV batteries are not simply thrown away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Energy Efficiency / Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As EnergyNumbers said, the overall energy efficiency of an EV depends highly on *where* the electricity came from.  **However, whether it's more environmentally friendly than standard gas internal combustion engines (ICE) does not.**  Even if all the car's electricity comes from coal, which is our dirtiest source of electricity, an EV is about 25% more energy efficient than a gas ICE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this Union of Concerned Scientists report](http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf), the average midsize gas ICE fuel economy is 26 mpg.  Based largely on the (midsize) Nissan LEAF, the EV well-to-wheels equivalent energy economy is 30 mpg&lt;sub&gt;ghg&lt;/sub&gt;.  So, that's already a 15% improvement for the 100% coal-powered EV.  However, a gas ICE's fuel economy is not rated *well-to-wheels*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like electricity, gas requires energy to make.  Currently, [gas and petro-diesel average an *energy ratio* of about 0.8 to 0.9](http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EnergyLifeCycleSoybeanBiodieseI6-11.pdf), which means that to produce a gallon of gas, you have to spend about .1 to .2 gallons to make it.  For Saudi oil, it takes relatively little energy to produce.  However, as that runs out, and we continue to get more gas/diesel from deepwater rigs, and tar sands oil, gas and diesel will become even more costly (and environmentally damaging) to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when you perform well-to-wheels accounting, an EV *starts* at about 25% better than an ICE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** a well-publicized [report has recently been released](http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html), that found Toyota Prius to be more GHG friendly than Nissan LEAF in most US states (accounting for where each state gets power from).  However, it's important to note that the Prius has a lower drag coefficient than LEAF (0.28 vs 0.30), which will increase energy economy, but is unrelated to the cars' powertrains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how environmentally-friendly *you* think EVs are, but yes, they are more environmentally friendly than standard gas engine cars, in almost every way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to post more here as I get time ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="803" RevisionGUID="0c8b5ea4-bac4-4b35-a360-4cc1a24c1b1c" CreationDate="2013-04-21T10:13:54.053" UserId="486" Comment="caveat" Text="This is a really big question, and [@EnergyNumbers' answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/613/486) addresses some of it.  I'll try to address some more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Battery End-of-Life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is obviously referring to **standard** car batteries, which are used to power the car's starter motor.  These are generally lead-acid batteries.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A true Electric Car (EV) may have a small battery just like this (e.g. to drive accesories), but this kind of battery is **not** what drives the car, and is not the big impact on the recycling/landfill issue.  An EV's traction motor will probably be a NiMH or Li-ion battery pack.  It's very large, and very expensive.  It also happens to be about 85% recyclable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My 2011 Nissan LEAF has a 24 KWh capacity Li-ion battery pack in it.  At this point, it's hard to tell exactly what the longevity will be, because it's a new product.  However, automakers do test these things before fielding new models (the results are obviously important when they decide what kind of warranties to offer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nissan projects the life of this battery pack to be 10 years.  What does that mean?  By their definition, at the end of 10 years of life, it will have a useful capacity that's 70-80% of its original capacity, depending on how you use it.  So, by no means is the battery *dead*.  But, they're estimating what a user would be willing to tolerate in terms of driving range reduction.  If your trips tend to be 20 miles or less, or you have recharge facilities at your typical destination (e.g. workplace charging), then you may continue to use your 10 year-old batteries.  But, 10 years seems like a reasonable longevity estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, the bigger a battery is (all else equal), the more likely you can recycle it, and even get paid to do so.  As I said, a Li-ion battery is largely recyclable, and with 70-80% capacity, even still usable for non-automotive energy storage applications.  It's **very** hard to believe that a battery pack that originally cost [several thousand dollars](http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/15/nissan-leaf-profitable-by-year-three-battery-cost-closer-to-18/), that still has 70% capacity, and is 85% recyclable, wouldn't fetch a significant trade-in value.  This value will likely ensure that EV batteries are not simply thrown away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Energy Efficiency / Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As EnergyNumbers said, the overall energy efficiency of an EV depends highly on *where* the electricity came from.  **However, whether it's more environmentally friendly than standard gas internal combustion engines (ICE) does not.**  Even if all the car's electricity comes from coal, which is our dirtiest source of electricity, an EV is about 25% more energy efficient than a gas ICE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this Union of Concerned Scientists report](http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf), the average midsize gas ICE fuel economy is 26 mpg.  Based largely on the (midsize) Nissan LEAF, the EV well-to-wheels equivalent energy economy is 30 mpg&lt;sub&gt;ghg&lt;/sub&gt;.  So, that's already a 15% improvement for the 100% coal-powered EV.  However, a gas ICE's fuel economy is not rated *well-to-wheels*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like electricity, gas requires energy to make.  Currently, [gas and petro-diesel average an *energy ratio* of about 0.8 to 0.9](http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EnergyLifeCycleSoybeanBiodieseI6-11.pdf), which means that to produce a gallon of gas, you have to spend about .1 to .2 gallons to make it.  For Saudi oil, it takes relatively little energy to produce.  However, as that runs out, and we continue to get more gas/diesel from deepwater rigs, and tar sands oil, gas and diesel will become even more costly (and environmentally damaging) to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when you perform well-to-wheels accounting, an EV *starts* at about 25% better than an ICE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** a well-publicized [report has recently been released](http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html), that found Toyota Prius to be more GHG friendly than Nissan LEAF in most US states (accounting for where each state gets power from).  However, it's important to note that the Prius has a lower drag coefficient than LEAF (0.28 vs 0.30), which will increase energy economy, but is unrelated to the cars' powertrains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how environmentally-friendly *you* think EVs are, but yes, they are more environmentally friendly than standard gas engine cars, in almost every way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to post more here as I get time ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="803" RevisionGUID="71adab1d-4034-40c5-801c-aa102b79b347" CreationDate="2013-04-21T10:23:31.383" UserId="486" Comment="specific about ICE type" Text="This is a really big question, and [@EnergyNumbers' answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/613/486) addresses some of it.  I'll try to address some more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Battery End-of-Life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is obviously referring to **standard** car batteries, which are used to power the car's starter motor.  These are generally lead-acid batteries.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A true Electric Car (EV) may have a small battery just like this (e.g. to drive accesories), but this kind of battery is **not** what drives the car, and is not the big impact on the recycling/landfill issue.  An EV's traction motor will probably be a NiMH or Li-ion battery pack.  It's very large, and very expensive.  It also happens to be about 85% recyclable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My 2011 Nissan LEAF has a 24 KWh capacity Li-ion battery pack in it.  At this point, it's hard to tell exactly what the longevity will be, because it's a new product.  However, automakers do test these things before fielding new models (the results are obviously important when they decide what kind of warranties to offer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nissan projects the life of this battery pack to be 10 years.  What does that mean?  By their definition, at the end of 10 years of life, it will have a useful capacity that's 70-80% of its original capacity, depending on how you use it.  So, by no means is the battery *dead*.  But, they're estimating what a user would be willing to tolerate in terms of driving range reduction.  If your trips tend to be 20 miles or less, or you have recharge facilities at your typical destination (e.g. workplace charging), then you may continue to use your 10 year-old batteries.  But, 10 years seems like a reasonable longevity estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, the bigger a battery is (all else equal), the more likely you can recycle it, and even get paid to do so.  As I said, a Li-ion battery is largely recyclable, and with 70-80% capacity, even still usable for non-automotive energy storage applications.  It's **very** hard to believe that a battery pack that originally cost [several thousand dollars](http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/15/nissan-leaf-profitable-by-year-three-battery-cost-closer-to-18/), that still has 70% capacity, and is 85% recyclable, wouldn't fetch a significant trade-in value.  This value will likely ensure that EV batteries are not simply thrown away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Energy Efficiency / Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As EnergyNumbers said, the overall energy efficiency of an EV depends highly on *where* the electricity came from.  **However, whether it's more environmentally friendly than standard gas internal combustion engines (ICE) does not.**  Even if all the car's electricity comes from coal, which is our dirtiest source of electricity, an EV is about 25% more energy efficient than a gas ICE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this Union of Concerned Scientists report](http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf), the average midsize gas ICE fuel economy is 26 mpg.  Based largely on the (midsize) Nissan LEAF, the EV well-to-wheels equivalent energy economy is 30 mpg&lt;sub&gt;ghg&lt;/sub&gt;.  So, that's already a 15% improvement for the 100% coal-powered EV.  However, a gas ICE's fuel economy is not rated *well-to-wheels*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like electricity, gas requires energy to make.  Currently, [gas and petro-diesel average an *energy ratio* of about 0.8 to 0.9](http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EnergyLifeCycleSoybeanBiodieseI6-11.pdf), which means that to produce a gallon of gas, you have to spend about .1 to .2 gallons to make it.  For Saudi oil, it takes relatively little energy to produce.  However, as that runs out, and we continue to get more gas/diesel from deepwater rigs, and tar sands oil, gas and diesel will become even more costly (and environmentally damaging) to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when you perform well-to-wheels accounting, an EV *starts* at about 25% better than a gasoline ICE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** a well-publicized [report has recently been released](http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html), that found Toyota Prius to be more GHG friendly than Nissan LEAF in most US states (accounting for where each state gets power from).  However, it's important to note that the Prius has a lower drag coefficient than LEAF (0.28 vs 0.30), which will increase energy economy, but is unrelated to the cars' powertrains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how environmentally-friendly *you* think EVs are, but yes, they are more environmentally friendly than standard gas engine cars, in almost every way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to post more here as I get time ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="803" RevisionGUID="c41907c5-5f10-449e-a3a4-7ae459d444e6" CreationDate="2013-04-21T10:31:01.937" UserId="486" Comment="oops on the Cd" Text="This is a really big question, and [@EnergyNumbers' answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/613/486) addresses some of it.  I'll try to address some more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Battery End-of-Life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is obviously referring to **standard** car batteries, which are used to power the car's starter motor.  These are generally lead-acid batteries.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A true Electric Car (EV) may have a small battery just like this (e.g. to drive accesories), but this kind of battery is **not** what drives the car, and is not the big impact on the recycling/landfill issue.  An EV's traction motor will probably be a NiMH or Li-ion battery pack.  It's very large, and very expensive.  It also happens to be about 85% recyclable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My 2011 Nissan LEAF has a 24 KWh capacity Li-ion battery pack in it.  At this point, it's hard to tell exactly what the longevity will be, because it's a new product.  However, automakers do test these things before fielding new models (the results are obviously important when they decide what kind of warranties to offer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nissan projects the life of this battery pack to be 10 years.  What does that mean?  By their definition, at the end of 10 years of life, it will have a useful capacity that's 70-80% of its original capacity, depending on how you use it.  So, by no means is the battery *dead*.  But, they're estimating what a user would be willing to tolerate in terms of driving range reduction.  If your trips tend to be 20 miles or less, or you have recharge facilities at your typical destination (e.g. workplace charging), then you may continue to use your 10 year-old batteries.  But, 10 years seems like a reasonable longevity estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, the bigger a battery is (all else equal), the more likely you can recycle it, and even get paid to do so.  As I said, a Li-ion battery is largely recyclable, and with 70-80% capacity, even still usable for non-automotive energy storage applications.  It's **very** hard to believe that a battery pack that originally cost [several thousand dollars](http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/15/nissan-leaf-profitable-by-year-three-battery-cost-closer-to-18/), that still has 70% capacity, and is 85% recyclable, wouldn't fetch a significant trade-in value.  This value will likely ensure that EV batteries are not simply thrown away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Energy Efficiency / Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As EnergyNumbers said, the overall energy efficiency of an EV depends highly on *where* the electricity came from.  **However, whether it's more environmentally friendly than standard gas internal combustion engines (ICE) does not.**  Even if all the car's electricity comes from coal, which is our dirtiest source of electricity, an EV is about 25% more energy efficient than a gas ICE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this Union of Concerned Scientists report](http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf), the average midsize gas ICE fuel economy is 26 mpg.  Based largely on the (midsize) Nissan LEAF, the EV well-to-wheels equivalent energy economy is 30 mpg&lt;sub&gt;ghg&lt;/sub&gt;.  So, that's already a 15% improvement for the 100% coal-powered EV.  However, a gas ICE's fuel economy is not rated *well-to-wheels*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like electricity, gas requires energy to make.  Currently, [gas and petro-diesel average an *energy ratio* of about 0.8 to 0.9](http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EnergyLifeCycleSoybeanBiodieseI6-11.pdf), which means that to produce a gallon of gas, you have to spend about .1 to .2 gallons to make it.  For Saudi oil, it takes relatively little energy to produce.  However, as that runs out, and we continue to get more gas/diesel from deepwater rigs, and tar sands oil, gas and diesel will become even more costly (and environmentally damaging) to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when you perform well-to-wheels accounting, an EV *starts* at about 25% better than a gasoline ICE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** a well-publicized [report has recently been released](http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html), that found Toyota Prius to be more GHG friendly than Nissan LEAF in most US states (accounting for where each state gets power from).  However, it's important to note that the Prius has a lower drag coefficient than LEAF (0.25 vs 0.28), which will increase energy economy, but is unrelated to the cars' powertrains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how environmentally-friendly *you* think EVs are, but yes, they are more environmentally friendly than standard gas engine cars, in almost every way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to post more here as I get time ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="804" RevisionGUID="12283920-3210-421c-abe4-0b4448ccc1a4" CreationDate="2013-04-21T13:40:48.450" UserId="488" Text="I would suggest gorse or scotch broom. I see them both growing in my peaty acidic soil of about 4.5. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="801" RevisionGUID="3775a398-e226-42ff-9bbd-4784f43e0107" CreationDate="2013-04-21T18:44:40.857" UserId="117" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="Composting (to enrich soil and provide fertilizer) and for use as mulching material (to reduce water use and keep weeds down) are actually *great* ways to reuse these materials &amp;mdash; especially if you use them to *replace* less-sustainable alternatives (e.g. water soluble chemical fertilizers and commercially-farmed mulches)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="658bb5cb-e9e1-4fee-9b61-0c65728b9f0a" CreationDate="2013-04-21T19:01:09.270" UserId="486" Comment="spelling and grammar" Text="Given the fact that the average lifetime for a car battery is 3 years and all of the batteries end up at a landfill at the end of their lifetime, how sustainable are electric cars in providing a cleaner environment in the future? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common sense says that they are a much cleaner alternative to the gas engine, but how much more? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2348" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="658bb5cb-e9e1-4fee-9b61-0c65728b9f0a" CreationDate="2013-04-21T19:01:09.270" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 130, 117 edit id of 106" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="789" RevisionGUID="dcfbd05d-90fa-4bb6-bdbc-f700d989b4ca" CreationDate="2013-04-21T19:01:13.613" UserId="486" Comment="subscript formatting fixed" Text="Trees absorb carbon dioxide to grow and build biomass. If you want to absorb much CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; you need a tree that grows fast at your local conditions - consult with your gardener about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this will not solve problems with other pollutants, and will only put a rather symbolic dent into wordwide CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2350" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="789" RevisionGUID="dcfbd05d-90fa-4bb6-bdbc-f700d989b4ca" CreationDate="2013-04-21T19:01:13.613" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 117 edit id of 107" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="a00e7170-56a5-4d28-96d8-594a95ec088c" CreationDate="2013-04-21T22:04:15.400" UserId="486" Text="Although I think the other answers do provide good information, I would argue that, as posed on `sustainability.stackexchange.com`, all of them are still wrong (albeit maybe Chris Travers' answer is only partially so).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You should not put meat in your compost pile.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sustainability of Eating Meat in the First Place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're even remotely concerned with sustainability (underlying assumption I'm making, based on where this question is), then you shouldn't be eating meat at all.  [Meat is hands-down the most inefficient, unsustainable way to feed a human being, as it stands today](http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/energy-required-to-produce-a-pound-of-food.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To really go back to first principles, consider the laws of thermodynamics.  You can't create energy from nothing, and no process is perfectly energy efficient.  In order to *build* an animal from food, first you have to grow, process, and transport the food.  The animal has to eat it and process the food into energy, which it does not do with perfect efficiency.  Then, the animal has to live for a while (weeks, months, or years, depending on the meat), during which time it has to move around, eat, poop, heat itself and make noise.  All these things take energy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of performing this cycle, skip the animal altogether and just grow (non-animal) food that can be directly consumed by humans.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How inefficient it is to eat meat depends on the animal, what you feed it, and the processes used.  So, there's no one answer here.  But, a reasonable range, for example, might be that in order to produce a given unit of beef energy (e.g. a *calorie*), you have to put in 6 to [50 times that much energy](http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat) in the process.  That puts the effective energy efficiency of the process at between 2% and 16%.  That's terrible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it gets worse.  The previous figures only discussed *energy* efficiency.  If you believe that climate change is a problem, you should understand that not all greenhouse gases are equally *potent*.  [Methane is 22x more *effective* at trapping heat in the atmosphere](http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html) than is CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and the animals we get our meat from produce a lot of methane, meaning that their contribution to global warming is even worse than suggested by looking at their energy efficiency alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, don't eat meat (cow, pig, sheep, deer, etc.) in the first place.  Poultry (chicken, turkey) is a bit better.  Seafood is better still.  A vegetarian or vegan diet is most sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If You Do Eat Meat, Don't Compost It&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As had been said many times on this site, including in [Chris's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/174/486), sustainability choices should be prioritized to reduce use first, then reuse second, then recycle last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do you have **extra** meat at all?  If you have leftover meat, then buy a smaller cut.  Virtually everywhere I see meat sold allows you to buy pieces in an almost continuous array of sizes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the developing world, [currently about 1/3 of food is lost](http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/the-conundrum-of-food-waste/), mostly to disease or spoilage (lack of preservatives, but also refrigeration).  However, in the developed world, the loss is almost exactly the same (1/3), for different reasons.  One reason is people buying and preparing more food than they need, and just throwing the rest out (or composting it).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find yourself in the scenario where you can't find a way to stop eating meat, you try to buy the right-sized portion, but you still have leftovers, then save the edible meat for tomorrow.  Chop it up to make a lunch sandwich.  If you still have fat and gristle left, those things probably won't break down quickly in your compost bin, and can create health/rodent concerns outlined in other answers.  Just bury the fat in a hole you dig.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aside:* in response to the plethora of responses everywhere online about people saying &quot;I compost meat and rarely see rats&quot;, I respond: &quot;Rats tend to come out when you're not there.  Trust me, they find the meat, unless your bin is under tight lockdown.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking a sustainability question about putting meat in a compost pile is like asking one about the proper tire inflation pressure for a Humvee.  True, you can save some gas by keeping tires inflated properly, but if you have a Humvee at all, you've already gone awry.  I don't pose this comparison, simply as a rhetorical tactic.  The direct contribution of agriculture to global warming is roughly equivalent to that of transportation ([about 10-15%](http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3213/Climate_change_and_agriculture.html)).  If you add in secondary effects from land-use change, it's even worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciding not to eat meat at all is one of those currently uncomfortable sustainability solutions, along with having fewer babies, and not keeping pets.  People don't want to consider it, but the impact of the choice is large, and completely within your control, right now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="c9b09404-201a-457c-8168-d01f20761089" CreationDate="2013-04-21T22:35:45.433" UserId="486" Comment="added comment about &quot;wasting&quot; calories" Text="Although I think the other answers do provide good information, I would argue that, as posed on `sustainability.stackexchange.com`, all of them are still wrong (albeit maybe Chris Travers' answer is only partially so).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You should not put meat in your compost pile.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sustainability of Eating Meat in the First Place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're even remotely concerned with sustainability (underlying assumption I'm making, based on where this question is), then you shouldn't be eating meat at all.  [Meat is hands-down the most inefficient, unsustainable way to feed a human being, as it stands today](http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/energy-required-to-produce-a-pound-of-food.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To really go back to first principles, consider the laws of thermodynamics.  You can't create energy from nothing, and no process is perfectly energy efficient.  In order to *build* an animal from food, first you have to grow, process, and transport the food.  The animal has to eat it and process the food into energy, which it does not do with perfect efficiency.  Then, the animal has to live for a while (weeks, months, or years, depending on the meat), during which time it has to move around, eat, poop, heat itself and make noise.  All these things take energy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of performing this cycle, skip the animal altogether and just grow (non-animal) food that can be directly consumed by humans.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How inefficient it is to eat meat depends on the animal, what you feed it, and the processes used.  So, there's no one answer here.  But, a reasonable range, for example, might be that in order to produce a given unit of beef energy (e.g. a *calorie*), you have to put in 6 to [50 times that much energy](http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat) in the process.  That puts the effective energy efficiency of the process at between 2% and 16%.  That's terrible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it gets worse.  The previous figures only discussed *energy* efficiency.  If you believe that climate change is a problem, you should understand that not all greenhouse gases are equally *potent*.  [Methane is 22x more *effective* at trapping heat in the atmosphere](http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html) than is CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and the animals we get our meat from produce a lot of methane, meaning that their contribution to global warming is even worse than suggested by looking at their energy efficiency alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, don't eat meat (cow, pig, sheep, deer, etc.) in the first place.  Poultry (chicken, turkey) is a bit better.  Seafood is better still.  A vegetarian or vegan diet is most sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If You Do Eat Meat, Don't Compost It&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As had been said many times on this site, including in [Chris's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/174/486), sustainability choices should be prioritized to reduce use first, then reuse second, then recycle last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do you have **extra** meat at all?  If you have leftover meat, then buy a smaller cut.  Virtually everywhere I see meat sold allows you to buy pieces in an almost continuous array of sizes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the developing world, [currently about 1/3 of food is lost](http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/the-conundrum-of-food-waste/), mostly to disease or spoilage (lack of preservatives, but also refrigeration).  However, in the developed world, the loss is almost exactly the same (1/3), for different reasons.  One reason is people buying and preparing more food than they need, and just throwing the rest out (or composting it).  If you need to eat 2000 calories per day, then prepare 2000 calories.  Don't prepare 2500, and then compost the unused portion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find yourself in the scenario where you can't find a way to stop eating meat, you try to buy the right-sized portion, but you still have leftovers, then save the edible meat for tomorrow.  Chop it up to make a lunch sandwich.  If you still have fat and gristle left, those things probably won't break down quickly in your compost bin, and can create health/rodent concerns outlined in other answers.  Just bury the fat in a hole you dig.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aside:* in response to the plethora of responses everywhere online about people saying &quot;I compost meat and rarely see rats&quot;, I respond: &quot;Rats tend to come out when you're not there.  Trust me, they find the meat, unless your bin is under tight lockdown.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking a sustainability question about putting meat in a compost pile really is like asking one about the proper tire inflation pressure for a Humvee.  True, you can save some gas by keeping tires inflated properly, but if you have a Humvee at all, you've already gone awry.  I don't pose this comparison, simply as a rhetorical tactic.  The direct contribution of agriculture to global warming is roughly equivalent to that of transportation ([about 10-15%](http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3213/Climate_change_and_agriculture.html)).  If you add in secondary effects from land-use change, it's even worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciding not to eat meat at all is one of those currently uncomfortable sustainability solutions, along with having fewer babies, and not keeping pets.  People don't want to consider it, but the impact of the choice is large, and completely within your control, right now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="803" RevisionGUID="df452e35-91ec-4dc1-8621-f70a91bdd4c7" CreationDate="2013-04-22T05:23:33.613" UserId="486" Comment="typos" Text="This is a really big question, and [@EnergyNumbers' answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/613/486) addresses some of it.  I'll try to address some more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Battery End-of-Life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is obviously referring to **standard** car batteries, which are used to power the car's starter motor.  These are generally lead-acid batteries.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A true Electric Vehicle (EV) may have a small battery just like this (e.g. to drive accesories), but this kind of battery is **not** what drives the car, and is not the big impact on the recycling/landfill issue.  An EV's traction motor will probably use a NiMH or Li-ion battery pack.  It's very large, and very expensive.  It also happens to be about 85% recyclable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My 2011 Nissan LEAF has a 24 KWh capacity Li-ion battery pack in it.  At this point, it's hard to tell exactly what the longevity will be, because it's a new product.  However, automakers do test these things before fielding new models (the results are obviously important when they decide what kind of warranties to offer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nissan projects the life of this battery pack to be 10 years.  What does that mean?  By their definition, at the end of 10 years of life, it will have a useful capacity that's 70-80% of its original capacity, depending on how you use it.  So, by no means is the battery *dead*.  But, they're estimating what a user would be willing to tolerate in terms of driving range reduction.  If your trips tend to be 20 miles or less, or you have recharge facilities at your typical destination (e.g. workplace charging), then you may continue to use your 10 year-old batteries.  But, 10 years seems like a reasonable longevity estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, the bigger a battery is (all else equal), the more likely you can recycle it, and even get paid to do so.  As I said, a Li-ion battery is largely recyclable, and with 70-80% capacity, even still usable for non-automotive energy storage applications.  It's **very** hard to believe that a battery pack that originally cost [several thousand dollars](http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/15/nissan-leaf-profitable-by-year-three-battery-cost-closer-to-18/), that still has 70% capacity, and is 85% recyclable, wouldn't fetch a significant trade-in value.  This value will likely ensure that EV batteries are not simply thrown away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Energy Efficiency / Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As EnergyNumbers said, the overall energy efficiency of an EV depends highly on *where* the electricity came from.  **However, whether it's more environmentally friendly than standard gas internal combustion engines (ICE) does not.**  Even if all the car's electricity comes from coal, which is our dirtiest source of electricity, an EV is about 25% more energy efficient than a gas ICE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this Union of Concerned Scientists report](http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf), the average midsize gas ICE fuel economy is 26 mpg.  Based largely on the (midsize) Nissan LEAF, the EV well-to-wheels equivalent energy economy is 30 mpg&lt;sub&gt;ghg&lt;/sub&gt;.  So, that's already a 15% improvement for the 100% coal-powered EV.  However, a gas ICE's fuel economy is not rated *well-to-wheels*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like electricity, gas requires energy to make.  Currently, [gas and petro-diesel average an *energy ratio* of about 0.8 to 0.9](http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EnergyLifeCycleSoybeanBiodieseI6-11.pdf), which means that to produce a gallon of gas, you have to spend about .1 to .2 gallons to make it.  For Saudi oil, it takes relatively little energy to produce.  However, as that runs out, and we continue to get more gas/diesel from deepwater rigs, and tar sands oil, gas and diesel will become even more costly (and environmentally damaging) to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when you perform well-to-wheels accounting, an EV *starts* at about 25% better than a gasoline ICE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** a well-publicized [report has recently been released](http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html), that found Toyota Prius to be more GHG friendly than Nissan LEAF in most US states (accounting for where each state gets power from).  However, it's important to note that the Prius has a lower drag coefficient than LEAF (0.25 vs 0.28), which will increase energy economy, but is unrelated to the cars' powertrains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how environmentally-friendly *you* think EVs are, but yes, they are more environmentally friendly than standard gas engine cars, in almost every way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to post more here as I get time ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="162" RevisionGUID="79f99233-e618-4d2e-beb4-34512556e495" CreationDate="2013-04-22T06:25:08.200" UserId="60" Comment="emphasis added" Text="You have to get several numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *payments*&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you **pay to obtain** the PV system&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you **pay on taxes, recycling fees** from the PV system etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *returns*&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you **get back from produced power**&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you **save on your electricity** bill (price of electricity is rising)&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you be payed from **incentives** (if any)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally the only (almost) objective answer can be given on *how much electricity you can produce*. Anything else is subject to change depending on country/location, legislation and on time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a look at my [answer][1]. It contains a sample calculation of yearly solar gain too.  &#xD;&#xA;Just the explanation: the calculator is based on Europe &amp; Africa data, but those can serve as a rough estimate for any place on the Earth if you keep the right [latitude][2]. I'd pick somewhere in Spain as a substitute for Colorado, USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After dividing total payments by expected yearly returns you'll get the approximate return time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/68/60&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="885fa3d2-201f-48e4-bba8-209c6e363956" CreationDate="2013-04-22T07:12:29.330" UserId="227" Comment="Grammar, removed fluff." Text="I want to suggest the gardener to plant trees to reduce pollution from a factory. Which species is preferable to plant in the area around the factory?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2356" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="885fa3d2-201f-48e4-bba8-209c6e363956" CreationDate="2013-04-22T07:12:29.330" UserId="227" Comment="Grammar, removed fluff." Text="Which tree consumes most carbon dioxide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2357" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="885fa3d2-201f-48e4-bba8-209c6e363956" CreationDate="2013-04-22T07:12:29.330" Comment="Proposed by 227 approved by 130, -1 edit id of 108" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="60eb12b4-19a3-417b-9269-1086d8b8d4e7" CreationDate="2013-04-22T07:12:29.330" UserId="15" Comment="Re-added mention of poisonous gases, and emphasised. I know it's kind of vague, but earlier edits that removed it really changed the question too much" Text="I want to suggest to a gardener to plant trees for reducing pollution and poisonous gases emitted from a factory. Which species is preferable to plant in the area around the factory?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2359" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="60eb12b4-19a3-417b-9269-1086d8b8d4e7" CreationDate="2013-04-22T07:12:29.330" UserId="15" Comment="Re-added mention of poisonous gases, and emphasised. I know it's kind of vague, but earlier edits that removed it really changed the question too much" Text="Which tree consumes most carbon dioxide and poisonous gases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="e9edee36-0ac0-4b01-ac96-ef7e759709e9" CreationDate="2013-04-22T07:53:40.170" UserId="486" Comment="clarified that it's farmed animals I'm referring to, as they're the overwhelming fraction of meat consumed" Text="Although I think the other answers do provide good information, I would argue that, as posed on `sustainability.stackexchange.com`, all of them are still wrong (albeit maybe Chris Travers' answer is only partially so).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You should not put meat in your compost pile.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sustainability of Eating Meat in the First Place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're even remotely concerned with sustainability (underlying assumption I'm making, based on where this question is), then you shouldn't be eating meat at all.  [Meat is hands-down the most inefficient, unsustainable way to feed a human being, as it stands today](http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/energy-required-to-produce-a-pound-of-food.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To really go back to first principles, consider the laws of thermodynamics.  You can't create energy from nothing, and no process is perfectly energy efficient.  In order to *build* an animal from food, first you have to grow, process, and transport the food.  The animal has to eat it and process the food into energy, which it does not do with perfect efficiency.  Then, the animal has to live for a while (weeks, months, or years, depending on the meat), during which time it has to move around, eat, poop, heat itself and make noise.  All these things take energy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of performing this cycle, skip the animal altogether and just grow (non-animal) food that can be directly consumed by humans.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How inefficient it is to eat meat depends on the animal, what you feed it, and the processes used.  So, there's no one answer here.  But, a reasonable range, for example, might be that in order to produce a given unit of beef energy (e.g. a *calorie*), you have to put in 6 to [50 times that much energy](http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat) in the process.  That puts the effective energy efficiency of the process at between 2% and 16%.  That's terrible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it gets worse.  The previous figures only discussed *energy* efficiency.  If you believe that climate change is a problem, you should understand that not all greenhouse gases are equally *potent*.  [Methane is 22x more *effective* at trapping heat in the atmosphere](http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html) than is CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and the animals we get our meat from produce a lot of methane, meaning that their contribution to global warming is even worse than suggested by looking at their energy efficiency alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, don't eat meat (cow, pig, sheep, deer, etc.) in the first place.  Poultry (chicken, turkey) is a bit better.  Seafood is better still.  A vegetarian or vegan diet is most sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If You Do Eat Meat, Don't Compost It&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As had been said many times on this site, including in [Chris's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/174/486), sustainability choices should be prioritized to reduce use first, then reuse second, then recycle last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do you have **extra** meat at all?  If you have leftover meat, then buy a smaller cut.  Virtually everywhere I see meat sold allows you to buy pieces in an almost continuous array of sizes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the developing world, [currently about 1/3 of food is lost](http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/the-conundrum-of-food-waste/), mostly to disease or spoilage (lack of preservatives, but also refrigeration).  However, in the developed world, the loss is almost exactly the same (1/3), for different reasons.  One reason is people buying and preparing more food than they need, and just throwing the rest out (or composting it).  If you need to eat 2000 calories per day, then prepare 2000 calories.  Don't prepare 2500, and then compost the unused portion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find yourself in the scenario where you can't find a way to stop eating meat, you try to buy the right-sized portion, but you still have leftovers, then save the edible meat for tomorrow.  Chop it up to make a lunch sandwich.  If you still have fat and gristle left, those things probably won't break down quickly in your compost bin, and can create health/rodent concerns outlined in other answers.  Just bury the fat in a hole you dig.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aside:* in response to the plethora of responses everywhere online about people saying &quot;I compost meat and rarely see rats&quot;, I respond: &quot;Rats tend to come out when you're not there.  Trust me, they find the meat, unless your bin is under tight lockdown.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking a sustainability question about putting meat in a compost pile really is like asking one about the proper tire inflation pressure for a Humvee.  True, you can save some gas by keeping tires inflated properly, but if you have a Humvee at all, you've already gone awry.  I don't pose this comparison, simply as a rhetorical tactic.  The direct contribution of agriculture to global warming is roughly equivalent to that of transportation ([about 10-15%](http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3213/Climate_change_and_agriculture.html)).  If you add in secondary effects from land-use change, it's even worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciding not to eat farmed meat at all is one of those currently uncomfortable sustainability solutions, along with having fewer babies, and not keeping pets.  People don't want to consider it, but the impact of the choice is large, and completely within your control, right now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2361" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="799" RevisionGUID="7a22a69f-10a8-42f9-98a6-1b16957c9b21" CreationDate="2013-04-22T07:57:23.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/326243323222306816" />
  <row Id="2362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="4c722ca8-13bf-4f96-8bc3-53b85d24e617" CreationDate="2013-04-22T09:23:27.020" UserId="476" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="What gonna I do with my Samsung ML-1640? I see in the internet that toners may be incompatible with printers and Samsung &quot;protects&quot; us from bad quality by expiring their cartridges electronically - they stop working after a number of pages printed. What do I do with my cartridge? I live in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All green people know that the first danger to the Earth is PLASTIC. [I read this in the cartridge recycle article][1] also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's hundreds of millions of cartridges that end up in landfills&#xD;&#xA;&gt; every year, made with plastics that can take at least 1,000 years to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decompose. Not a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which arguments would ecology activists left with if capitalists invented a rapidly decomposable plastic? The main danger would be eliminated, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS1**&#xD;&#xA;[I have elicited how they collect the used cartridges.][2] But it is only available in UK. I still do not know what to do in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS2** I have discovered a couple of local companies, that refill cartridges: [refill.ee][3], [kassetitankla.ee][4], [odavprint.eu][5] and [abiprint.ee][6]. Refilling costs 20 EUR (+6 EUR for single-time chip reprogramming). Though, I can find the [new cartridges at this price][7]. The last [company also buys the empty cartridges][8], though there is no Samsung 1640 among accepted particles. But in general refilling is 2x cheaper (25 vs 55 EUR). I am not opposed if anybody converts this question to a wiki, adding options in their region or adds more answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/ink-cartridges-recycling#ixzz2QnwYgm8R&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/136657721/Cartridgesave-Recycling-Guide&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://refill.ee/index.php/ru/zapravka/samsung-2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://home.kassetitankla.ee/hinnakiri&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.odavprint.eu/price_est.php&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.abiprint.ee/?srch=1640&amp;page=pricelist&amp;act=show&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.hinnavaatlus.ee/products/Arvutiriistvara/124915/124915/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.abiprint.ee/?page=buy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="7de22e6c-2535-4c1b-bf49-2699059ed13c" CreationDate="2013-04-22T21:37:51.877" UserId="85" Text="I love lotus root and am a bit prejudiced against styrofoam, so I would probably try to grow lotus plants. They supposedly clean the water as well, so I am sure they'd be a good addition to your system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't much about it, but in Japan the lotus is harvested in winter (December–January), when the fields look like all harvest has long rotted away:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![lotus fields](http://jodan.blog.ocn.ne.jp/blog/images/2013/03/20/k7_12638.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Japan, the [Ibaraki prefecture](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibaraki_Prefecture) seems to be the best climate for growing lotus. Since I guess you won't be able to reproduce the climate of Ibaraki, I wonder how good the lotus grows and if it tastes any good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="ce333055-30c4-4bf9-9a17-df760da59a22" CreationDate="2013-04-23T14:49:00.323" UserId="484" Comment="Some small language corrections" Text="What should I do with my Samsung ML-1640? I see on the internet that toners may be incompatible with printers and Samsung &quot;protects&quot; us from bad quality by expiring their cartridges electronically (they stop working after a number of pages printed). What should I do with my cartridges? I live in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All green people know that the first danger to the Earth is PLASTIC. [I read this in the cartridge recycle article][1] also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That's hundreds of millions of cartridges that end up in landfills&#xD;&#xA;&gt; every year, made with plastics that can take at least 1,000 years to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decompose. Not a good thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which arguments would ecology activists give, if capitalists invented a rapidly decomposable plastic? The main danger would be eliminated, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS1**&#xD;&#xA;[I have elicited how they collect the used cartridges.][2] But it is only available in the UK. I still do not know what to do in Estonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS2** I have discovered a couple of local companies, that refill cartridges: [refill.ee][3], [kassetitankla.ee][4], [odavprint.eu][5] and [abiprint.ee][6]. Refilling costs 20 EUR (+6 EUR for single-time chip reprogramming). Though, I can find [new cartridges for this price][7]. The last [company also buys the empty cartridges][8], though there is no Samsung 1640 among the accepted particles. But in general refilling is 2x cheaper (25 vs 55 EUR). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not opposed if anybody converts this question to a wiki, adding options in their region or adds more answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/ink-cartridges-recycling#ixzz2QnwYgm8R&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/136657721/Cartridgesave-Recycling-Guide&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://refill.ee/index.php/ru/zapravka/samsung-2&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://home.kassetitankla.ee/hinnakiri&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.odavprint.eu/price_est.php&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.abiprint.ee/?srch=1640&amp;page=pricelist&amp;act=show&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.hinnavaatlus.ee/products/Arvutiriistvara/124915/124915/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.abiprint.ee/?page=buy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2366" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="ce333055-30c4-4bf9-9a17-df760da59a22" CreationDate="2013-04-23T14:49:00.323" Comment="Proposed by 484 approved by 117 edit id of 109" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2367" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="798" RevisionGUID="a2095783-3ea8-448f-bca9-ae89d88e28fd" CreationDate="2013-04-23T19:57:23.997" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/326786905276551168" />
  <row Id="2368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="807" RevisionGUID="0bc54b36-715a-425f-b456-61f681bf5351" CreationDate="2013-04-23T21:40:03.663" UserId="493" Text="The best site for this is &#xD;&#xA;http://www.themodernhomestead.us/article/Feeding.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read this site and his book.  Take a look at what suggestions he has that will grow in your area.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="058840fe-7784-408e-afa1-613a380f1851" CreationDate="2013-04-24T06:27:20.193" UserId="130" Text="We eat fish.  I know some small fish bones are fried and eaten as food in some parts of the world, and they can be composted for mineral content.  I do compost some already, but we don't have that much space for composting and we do have to worry about rats so not much cooked food goes out that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular I am wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1:  Are fish bones good calcium supplements for turtles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2:  Should I consider drying, baking, and grinding as a human calcium supplement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3:  Are there any other uses I am not thinking about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2370" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="058840fe-7784-408e-afa1-613a380f1851" CreationDate="2013-04-24T06:27:20.193" UserId="130" Text="uses for fish bones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2371" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="058840fe-7784-408e-afa1-613a380f1851" CreationDate="2013-04-24T06:27:20.193" UserId="130" Text="|waste|pets|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2372" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="a2b8c812-5d32-43d1-adff-9ad1d0b80c7c" CreationDate="2013-04-24T07:57:33.507" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/326968137490788352" />
  <row Id="2373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="cadc8e18-1388-4687-bfaa-8d33c0681bee" CreationDate="2013-04-24T10:42:42.627" UserId="85" Text="I don't know about turtles, but let me give you an idea from the world's number one fish eaters again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Japan, there are several uses for fish bones (with some meat left on them). The bones plus meat are ground into a paste called [surimi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surimi), which is then processed into [satsuma age](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satsuma_age), [chikuwa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chikuwa), or similar products (pictures below), which all have a rubber-like consistency. They can be eaten cold in salads, warm in soups or just for snacks. Fresh they last for about a week in the fridge, but are usually stored in the freezer for months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![satsuma-age](http://www.cybergarden.net/gourmet/images5/DSC45582.JPG)&#xD;&#xA;![chikuwa](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lv1nMvNcrYM/UMdd2GrTpyI/AAAAAAAAAks/XpPQNaVczeE/s1600/uocha_101209.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="f10fbb17-8f7c-4ed1-942b-cbd4642da2ce" CreationDate="2013-04-24T13:01:38.533" UserId="85" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="I don't know about turtles, but let me give you an idea from the world's number one fish eaters again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Japan, there are several uses for fish bones (with some meat left on them). The bones plus meat are ground into a paste called [surimi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surimi), which is then processed into [satsuma age](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satsuma_age), [chikuwa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chikuwa), or similar products (pictures below), which all have a rubber-like consistency. They can be eaten cold in salads (sliced), warm in soups or just for snacks and go well with mustard and/or soy sauce. Fresh they last for about a week in the fridge, but are usually stored in the freezer for several months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![satsuma-age](http://www.cybergarden.net/gourmet/images5/DSC45582.JPG)&#xD;&#xA;![chikuwa](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lv1nMvNcrYM/UMdd2GrTpyI/AAAAAAAAAks/XpPQNaVczeE/s1600/uocha_101209.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="810" RevisionGUID="a5902554-62d6-4c4a-a14d-54f8914fe46d" CreationDate="2013-04-24T15:49:59.630" UserId="227" Text="I use generic gear oil to lubricate my motorcycle’s chain. I have a modern fuel-injected machine, so the chain is the only source of storm-water pollution I can think of. I try to use as little oil as necessary to keep drivetrain lubricated and efficient, and reduce fling. Yet, “as little” is not “none at all”, so I am looking for some alternatives, vegetable or synthetic, that would be economical, minimizes pollution of the soil and water, but at the same time would posses necessary qualities of lubricity, viscosity, and not very sticky to reduce attraction of dirt. If the same type of oil could be used in the marine outboard motor’s gear case, all the better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both applications, my needs are by no means high-performance — 12 kW (16 rwhp) motorcycle, and a range of outboards of up to 20 hp. However, the more options, the merrier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2376" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="810" RevisionGUID="a5902554-62d6-4c4a-a14d-54f8914fe46d" CreationDate="2013-04-24T15:49:59.630" UserId="227" Text="Cleaner alternatives to gear and chain oils" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2377" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="810" RevisionGUID="a5902554-62d6-4c4a-a14d-54f8914fe46d" CreationDate="2013-04-24T15:49:59.630" UserId="227" Text="|pollution|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="c20ebfa3-af28-438f-9e4b-a7a5b206b24a" CreationDate="2013-04-24T17:53:25.257" UserId="227" Comment="Formatting." Text="We eat fish.  I know some small fish bones are fried and eaten as food in some parts of the world, and they can be composted for mineral content.  I do compost some already, but we don’t have that much space for composting and we do have to worry about rats so not much cooked food goes out that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular I am wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Are fish bones good calcium supplements for turtles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Should I consider drying, baking, and grinding as a human calcium supplement?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Are there any other uses I am not thinking about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2379" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="c20ebfa3-af28-438f-9e4b-a7a5b206b24a" CreationDate="2013-04-24T17:53:25.257" UserId="227" Comment="Formatting." Text="Uses for fish bones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2380" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="808" RevisionGUID="c20ebfa3-af28-438f-9e4b-a7a5b206b24a" CreationDate="2013-04-24T17:53:25.257" Comment="Proposed by 227 approved by 85, 117 edit id of 110" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="811" RevisionGUID="c4295e2e-240b-40b0-86e2-e62664038731" CreationDate="2013-04-24T18:01:29.947" UserId="400" Text="First of all you are picking up pennies while the world is burning bills.  The amount of oil from your chain is small even compared to the amount of oil that comes out of your exhaust, which in turn is small compared to the unburned hydrocarbons from the gasoline, which in tuern is small compared to what everyone in their SUV's are releasing.  You are already a good citizen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's not what you asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at some of the products at bicycle shops.  One product I like is a graphite powder in mineral spirt solvent &amp; oil.  The spirits evaporate, leaving the graphite with enough of a film of oil to keep the graphite from running away.  There is s simlar product that uses teflon.  A friend who is an ardent cyclist claims that for these to work well, you have to remove ALL the oil from the chain.  This usually means two washes with solvent, then a wash in acetone to remove the oil film left by the solvent.  But talk to the guys in the bicycle shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveat:  The forces between chain and tooth are a LOT smaller on a bicycle than on a motor bike.  If this doesn't work you may need two new sprokets and a chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My estimate is that the graphite would work better. The key for it is keeping it attached to the chain.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an outboard motor, the key is keeping the seals intact.  Also:  Many outboard motors discharge their exhaust under water.  This is NOT friendly.  Run your motor in a barrel of water for 20 minutes, let the water set overnight, and look at the reflection in the morning.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost all pollutants are tolerable sufficiently diluted.  Using a tiny put-put going through a swamp that sees a dozen boats a year is unlikely to be an issue.  Take  close look at the shore line, however at any marina." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="374dd385-0d0f-4295-874a-868ead44bde6" CreationDate="2013-04-25T04:08:23.973" UserId="130" Text="Because of limited space for gardening, we have a fairly large number of trees and plants in flower pots.  In particular I have found that citrus trees seem to demand a lot of mulch around them and so I am doing sheet mulch and in place composting in the pots.  There is usually a 2-4 inch layer of leaf fall mulch covering a thin layer of kitchen waste in these pots.  The leaf fall is currently mostly mango and papaya leaves.  The mango leaves are usually green when put in, the papaya leaves may be harvested when the show that they are about to fade.  I would assume most of this would be considered a &quot;green&quot; for composting purposes and that the soil and plant acts as the main nitrogen sink.  Sometimes I add mango twigs as a brown, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would also like to add that most pots contain between one and three different plant species.  Examples include lemon and ginseng, eggplant and ginseng, some sort of sour starfruit relative, celery, and ginseng, eggplant, lime, and durian, and the so forth (yes I am growing a lot of ginseng-- I have almost 20 ginseng plants and counting, most of which are only a few months old).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is this.  When composting above-ground parts of plants in an area where there is not much topsoil, such as a flower pot, to what extent do I need to worry about allelopathy between plant species?  Is this a serious issue I need to keep a close eye on?  Or is it less of an issue since typically I am not dealing with a lot of roots?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="374dd385-0d0f-4295-874a-868ead44bde6" CreationDate="2013-04-25T04:08:23.973" UserId="130" Text="In-place composting around flower pots and allelopathy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2384" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="374dd385-0d0f-4295-874a-868ead44bde6" CreationDate="2013-04-25T04:08:23.973" UserId="130" Text="|composting|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="813" RevisionGUID="f34eafcd-8ecb-4289-ae3e-781afa8df223" CreationDate="2013-04-25T06:23:48.660" UserId="227" Text="My question about [lubricating automotive gears and chains][1] also got me thinking about cleaning said contrivances which is required prior to lubrication. Oftly, kerosene is used as a generic cleaner. Other chemicals harmful to the environment could also be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are biodegradable cleaners available, such as some citrus-based solvent I have to clean bicycle parts, but those come in small and expensive containers, and I could easily use a quarter- to a half-litre of fluid to clean, say, motorcycle chain, depending on the degree of contamination. And it could prove really spendy in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there generic category of biodegradable solvents that can be purchased cheaply and/or in bulk, and at the same time provide decent cleaning performance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/810/227" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2386" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="813" RevisionGUID="f34eafcd-8ecb-4289-ae3e-781afa8df223" CreationDate="2013-04-25T06:23:48.660" UserId="227" Text="Alternatives to automotive cleaners and solvents (such as kerosene)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2387" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="813" RevisionGUID="f34eafcd-8ecb-4289-ae3e-781afa8df223" CreationDate="2013-04-25T06:23:48.660" UserId="227" Text="|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="814" RevisionGUID="428b7df4-cb4f-4e2b-9251-96a29aacc5ca" CreationDate="2013-04-25T10:24:06.543" UserId="99" Text="AFAIK most occurances of allelopathy indeed come from roots, but it is possible for allelopathy to occur from allelochemicals leaching from leaves via rainfall or from fallen leaves. For example the leaves and nuts of the black walnut inhibit growth of plants like tomato, pepper, and eggplant. Composting will reduce the amount of allelochemicals, but may not remove it entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never found a good list or guide on allelopathic plants and trees and suspect a lot of this is still unknown. I did a quick google on the plants you mentioned and here is the result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Mango**: dried mango leaf powder completely inhibited sprouting of purple nut sedge tubers ([source](http://agropedia.iitk.ac.in/content/allelopathy))&#xD;&#xA; - **Papaya**: papaya *seed* reduces the emergence of seedlings from certain plants like tomatoes and cucumber ([source](http://www.crdc.kmutt.ac.th/AgriculturalScienceJournal.files/data/642-644%20.pdf))&#xD;&#xA; - **Citrus tree**: no replanting of same sort ([source](http://agropedia.iitk.ac.in/content/allelopathy))&#xD;&#xA; - **Ginseng**: no replanting of same sort ([source](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21137325))&#xD;&#xA; - **Eggplant**: found nothing.&#xD;&#xA; - **Celery**: inhibits growth of lettuce ([source](http://journal.ashspublications.org/content/117/2/308.full.pdf))&#xD;&#xA; - **Durian**: found nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like you are ok with the mango and papaya leaves, but you may want to do a more extensive search that includes the latin names of your plants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="814" RevisionGUID="f509db10-da65-4cc7-9d36-c96de9b26287" CreationDate="2013-04-25T10:29:46.207" UserId="99" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="AFAIK most occurances of allelopathy indeed come from roots, but it is possible for allelopathy to occur from allelochemicals leaching from leaves via rainfall or from fallen leaves. For example the leaves and nuts of the black walnut inhibit growth of plants like tomato, pepper, and eggplant. Composting it first separately (so not directly composting in pot) will reduce the amount of allelochemicals, but may not remove it entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never found a good list or guide on allelopathic plants and trees and suspect a lot of this is still unknown. I did a quick google on the plants you mentioned and here is the result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Mango**: dried mango leaf powder completely inhibited sprouting of purple nut sedge tubers ([source](http://agropedia.iitk.ac.in/content/allelopathy))&#xD;&#xA; - **Papaya**: papaya *seed* reduces the emergence of seedlings from certain plants like tomatoes and cucumber ([source](http://www.crdc.kmutt.ac.th/AgriculturalScienceJournal.files/data/642-644%20.pdf))&#xD;&#xA; - **Citrus tree**: no replanting of same sort ([source](http://agropedia.iitk.ac.in/content/allelopathy))&#xD;&#xA; - **Ginseng**: no replanting of same sort ([source](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21137325))&#xD;&#xA; - **Eggplant**: found nothing.&#xD;&#xA; - **Celery**: inhibits growth of lettuce ([source](http://journal.ashspublications.org/content/117/2/308.full.pdf))&#xD;&#xA; - **Durian**: found nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like you are ok with the mango and papaya leaves, but you may want to do a more extensive search that includes the latin names of your plants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="de883ce7-9623-4559-b9ae-1fd71685cf94" CreationDate="2013-04-25T11:06:25.740" UserId="484" Text="I know that when making tea it uses less energy when heating the water when using a water boiler(cooker), than when using an electrical plate. A water boiler is directly heating the water, while a cooking plate first transmits heat to the pot and then to the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I need to boil water for cooking broccoli. Shall I first boil water with a water boiler an than pour it into my pot (where it will be cooled down again by the walls of my cold pot and I will have to heat the pot anyway to keep it boiling for a while), or shall I boil immediately in my pot without the water boiler?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or are there other techniques to use less energy to boil my broccoli? Heating the pot a bit before pouring the water (although this sounds very stupid)? Using heated tap water (from an electrical heater/gas heater or geyser).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it matters, I'm having an electrical cooking plate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="de883ce7-9623-4559-b9ae-1fd71685cf94" CreationDate="2013-04-25T11:06:25.740" UserId="484" Text="Shall I boil water with a water boiler (cooker) or with a pot?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="de883ce7-9623-4559-b9ae-1fd71685cf94" CreationDate="2013-04-25T11:06:25.740" UserId="484" Text="|energy-efficiency|cooking|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="37182a3d-0144-450f-906f-9ede1e71f9cd" CreationDate="2013-04-25T11:14:48.600" UserId="484" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="I know that when making tea it uses less energy when heating the water when using a water boiler(cooker), than when using an electrical plate. A water boiler is directly heating the water, while a cooking plate first transmits heat to the pot and then to the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I need to boil water for cooking broccoli. Shall I first boil water with a water boiler an than pour it into my pot (where it will be cooled down again by the walls of my cold pot and I will have to heat the pot anyway to keep it boiling for a while), or shall I boil immediately in my pot without the water boiler?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or are there other techniques to use less energy to boil my broccoli? Heating the pot a bit before pouring the water (although this sounds very stupid)? Using heated tap water (from an electrical heater/gas heater or geyser).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it matters, I'm having an electrical cooking plate (not ceramic or glass)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="816" RevisionGUID="f7fd3616-f2c1-421f-8352-ddc30297e50b" CreationDate="2013-04-25T14:03:08.763" UserId="180" Text="A water boiler or hot water tap are the most efficient ways to heat up water since they are insulated, keeping all of the heat in the container and water (and not the air).  I would say that your best bet is heating water with the water boiler, pouring it into your pot, and cooking on the stove from there.  Some heat would be lost to the container in the water boiler, but I think it would be less than the heat lost to the air from a hot pot on a stove.  If you could cook the broccoli in the water boiler, that would be even better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using hot water from your tap is probably second best (and maybe even best), only because it won't get the water up to boiling and the water will have to spend more time on the stove." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2395" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="812" RevisionGUID="bec12a03-037a-4c3b-822d-c5877e1cd45f" CreationDate="2013-04-25T16:57:32.257" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/327466416917868545" />
  <row Id="2396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="817" RevisionGUID="17a2315a-30ce-4b95-84df-f9fd9b796a8f" CreationDate="2013-04-25T19:12:16.723" UserId="143" Text="You can use leaves in [vermicomposting][1] as bedding and for extra layers between kitchen scraps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermicompost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2397" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="815" RevisionGUID="0aae7e8d-90e5-45d2-be76-1e360ce08ae6" CreationDate="2013-04-25T19:57:45.173" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/327511767867600896" />
  <row Id="2398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="818" RevisionGUID="8342b140-4b9a-40a3-833f-740f749852f7" CreationDate="2013-04-25T20:39:01.207" UserId="117" Text="To maintain boiling water in the cooking pot, you'll have to bring it up to temperature before adding the pre-heated water boiled elsewhere. During that time, heat and energy is being lost. It might as well be used to heat the water. Electrical and heating appliances are not efficient. We're probably talking minutia here, but heating up two completely different system is more wasteful than sticking to the one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you really want to save energy,** *steam* your broccoli. It's healthier, tastier, it needs less cooking time&amp;hellip; and you'll have to boil ***much, much, much less water.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="818" RevisionGUID="d9a9518a-80c6-4d4a-8ce7-f75c19cccefc" CreationDate="2013-04-25T20:46:30.730" UserId="117" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="To maintain boiling water in the cooking pot, you'll have to bring it up to temperature before adding the pre-heated water boiled elsewhere. During that time, the system inefficiencies are in effect for *two* systems, and heat and energy is being lost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heat being radiated during the pre-heating of the cooking pot might well be used to heat the water it will eventually contain. Besides, electrical and heating appliances are *not* efficient. We're probably talking minutia here, but heating up two completely different system is more wasteful than sticking to the one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you really want to save energy,** *steam* your broccoli. It's healthier, tastier, it needs less cooking time&amp;hellip; and you'll have to boil ***much, much, much less water.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="818" RevisionGUID="655455cd-6d0d-4b7d-aadd-27a6386198ab" CreationDate="2013-04-25T20:52:35.273" UserId="117" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="One system would be more efficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To maintain the boiling water transferred to the cooking pot, you'll have to first bring it up to temperature. During that time, the system inefficiencies are in effect for *two* systems, and heat and energy are being lost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heat being radiated during the pre-heating of the cooking pot might as well be used to heat the water it will eventually contain. Besides, electrical and heating appliances are *not* efficient. We're probably talking minutia here, but heating up two completely different system is more wasteful than sticking to the one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you really want to save energy,** *steam* your broccoli. It's healthier, tastier, it needs less cooking time&amp;hellip; and you'll have to boil ***much, much, much less water.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="818" RevisionGUID="57310aee-3029-4237-a099-4434cd9d111a" CreationDate="2013-04-25T21:10:06.490" UserId="117" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Operating *one* cooking appliance would be more efficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To maintain the boiling water transferred to the cooking pot, you'll have to first bring that cooking pot up to temperature. During that time, the system inefficiencies are in effect for *two* systems, and heat and energy are being lost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heat being radiated during the pre-heating of the cooking pot might as well be used to heat the water it will eventually contain. Besides, electrical and heating appliances are *not* efficient. We're probably talking minutia here, but heating up two completely different system is more wasteful than sticking to the one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you really want to save energy,** *steam* your broccoli. It's healthier, tastier, it needs less cooking time&amp;hellip; and you'll have to boil ***much, much, much less water.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="818" RevisionGUID="74be6f70-2370-4aed-a72a-d183e6964f93" CreationDate="2013-04-25T22:19:17.107" UserId="117" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Operating *one* cooking appliance would be more efficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using your two-pot method, to maintain the boiling water once it is transferred to the cooking pot, you'll have to first bring that cooking pot up to temperature. During that time, the system inefficiencies are in effect for *two* systems, and heat and energy are being lost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heat being radiated during the pre-heating of the cooking pot might as well be used to heat the water it will eventually contain. Besides, electrical and heating appliances are *not* efficient. We're probably talking minutia here, but heating up two completely different systems is more wasteful than sticking to the one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you really want to save energy,** *steam* your broccoli. It's healthier, tastier, it needs less cooking time&amp;hellip; and you'll have to boil ***much, much, much less water.***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="59debd97-61c9-450b-83c6-fe87e125f595" CreationDate="2013-04-25T22:45:36.077" UserId="480" Text="Based on personal experience, I agree with Zach's conclusion that the dedicated water boiling kettle is more effcient than the stove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My 1500W electric kettle boils a liter of water about 2-1/2 times faster than a covered pan on my stove's 2100W element (4 minutes versus 10 minutes)... and more than 3 times faster than the stove's smaller 1600W element). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My pan just covers the entire large heating element if I place it carefully,  and has considerable overlap over the smaller  element. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the heating element in the kettle has much more efficient heat transfer to the water - while I can't see the element itself,I can see a raised bump at the bottom of the kettle where the heating element is, and I assume that it's mechanically bonded to the metal bottom of the kettle allowing for very efficient heat transfer. Further, the plastic bottom of the kettle doesn't get extremely hot, so the bottom of the element must be insulated to keep most of the heat against the water. And since the bottom of the kettle is not vented, there's not much opportunity for convection to pull heat away from the heating element. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stove, on the other hand, relies on the weight of the pan to make contact with the element, and the spiral element may not be completely level, so some parts of the element are in better contact than others. Since the bottom of the element is exposed, it is free to radiate some of the heat down into the stove drip pan. Also, there seem to be some convection air currents carrying heat away, since if I hold my hand a few inches over the pan while heating water, it becomes uncomfortably warm in a short period of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I agree that there is some  heat lost in heating up both the kettle and the the pan, the specific heat of water is about 8 times greater than stainless steel, so the energy wasted in heating up the 24 ounce kettle is around the same energy needed to heat up 3 ounces of water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="819" RevisionGUID="459a941b-6be6-4a76-9ca1-26765debe8ec" CreationDate="2013-04-25T22:51:38.987" UserId="480" Comment="added 402 characters in body" Text="Based on personal experience, I agree with Zach's conclusion that the dedicated water boiling kettle is more effcient than the stove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My 1500W electric kettle boils a liter of water about 2-1/2 times faster than a covered pan on my stove's 2100W element (4 minutes versus 10 minutes)... and more than 3 times faster than the stove's smaller 1600W element). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My pan just covers the entire large heating element if I place it carefully,  and has considerable overlap over the smaller  element. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the heating element in the kettle has much more efficient heat transfer to the water - while I can't see the element itself,I can see a raised bump at the bottom of the kettle where the heating element is, and I assume that it's mechanically bonded to the metal bottom of the kettle allowing for very efficient heat transfer. Further, the plastic bottom of the kettle doesn't get extremely hot, so the bottom of the element must be insulated to keep most of the heat against the water. And since the bottom of the kettle is not vented, there's not much opportunity for convection to pull heat away from the heating element. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stove, on the other hand, relies on the weight of the pan to make contact with the element, and the spiral element may not be completely level, so some parts of the element are in better contact than others. Since the bottom of the element is exposed, it is free to radiate some of the heat down into the stove drip pan. Also, there seem to be some convection air currents carrying heat away, since if I hold my hand a few inches over the pan while heating water, it becomes uncomfortably warm in a short period of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I agree that there is some  heat lost in heating up both the kettle and the the pan, the specific heat of water is about 8 times greater than stainless steel, so the energy wasted in heating up the 24 ounce kettle is around the same energy needed to heat up 3 ounces of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it all depends on what type of appliances you're using. I have a stove with traditional spiral elements, if I had an inductive cooktop, it's likely that it would be more efficient than the electric kettle since more of the stove's energy would be going into the cooking pan. A glass cooktop with heating elements or infrared elements might also change the equation. As would a gas stove." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2405" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="813" RevisionGUID="9445161f-46ba-4c16-a742-0508b0cc9a34" CreationDate="2013-04-25T22:57:45.020" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/327557066409537536" />
  <row Id="2406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="820" RevisionGUID="be7571aa-abbe-48bf-818e-761a0359d1a2" CreationDate="2013-04-26T02:18:10.723" UserId="130" Text="To the extent you can cultivate predators (certain birds, frogs, etc), you will have a wonderful, on-going, biological control system that will keep them under control.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the cockroaches problem I mentioned before I have started trying to cultivate frogs and lizards around the perimeter of the house.  The same should work with slugs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means focusing on habitat and then bringing in species deliberately if there are none around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="813c359a-cd06-4001-a29f-765e8c9937a4" CreationDate="2013-04-26T07:20:02.667" UserId="130" Text="As time has gone on, education requirements to meaningfully have a career has increased incrementally over time.  This is true across virtually all fields.  This means that we start careers later, are more dependent on corporate jobs, and have to invest much more in our own children's education and development than generations in the past have done.  Is this a good or a bad thing in terms of sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My initial guesses are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  More time living alone means more energy consumption.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Fewer children may have both positive and negative effects.  For example, having fewer than two children makes it socially harder for people to expect to move in with their kids upon retirement.  On the other hand, people consume resources....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Less career time means less overall energy available for manual production.  The job functions necessarily become oversight functions, and the labor is automated via cheap energy sources like fossil fuels.  This leads to less flexibility regarding reducing energy usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Less time and flexibility to make informed choices regarding sustainability because of additional burdens like student loans requiring additional efforts to make ends meet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that this should be a negative factor sustainability-wise.  Is this far wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2409" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="813c359a-cd06-4001-a29f-765e8c9937a4" CreationDate="2013-04-26T07:20:02.667" UserId="130" Text="What are the sustainability impacts of requiring more and more years of education?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2410" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="813c359a-cd06-4001-a29f-765e8c9937a4" CreationDate="2013-04-26T07:20:02.667" UserId="130" Text="|energy|economy|family|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2411" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="48744653-a24d-472a-816d-1b6531b2968c" CreationDate="2013-04-26T08:26:58.650" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://productivity.stackexchange.com/questions/7094/poor-fridge-management" />
  <row Id="2412" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="823" RevisionGUID="f46cfb8b-7ee1-45cf-9530-894b3ce623b9" CreationDate="2013-04-26T08:26:58.650" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://productivity.stackexchange.com/questions/7094/poor-fridge-management/7095#7095" />
  <row Id="2413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="823" RevisionGUID="15be044e-ddf7-40ae-8576-22d122bf92c4" CreationDate="2013-04-25T16:50:04.287" UserDisplayName="petajamaja" Text="Here are some tips I find useful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- don't buy food once in two weeks for the whole fortnight, instead go shopping more often and buy food for several days in smaller quantities (that doesn't have anything to do with products that don't get expired like salt, sugar,porridge etc, here you better stock up);&#xD;&#xA;- create yourself a draft week menu and plan what you are going to cook during the next two days; this helps avoid buying food that you won't eat at all;&#xD;&#xA;- put a note with your current ideas of what to cook on the fridge; you may also write yourself a note like &quot;Have you drunk you daily glass of milk yet?&quot; or &quot;Vegetables are beneficial for your health&quot; and so on, which will remind you that you need to eat/drink products that get expired;&#xD;&#xA;- browse the net for interesting recipes that require some of your soon-to-be-expired ingredients, write them down/print them and put on your kitchen desk/table/fridge/wherever you will see them often.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="cc6e6740-7f61-4f43-abb4-fa9645425ee5" CreationDate="2013-04-25T16:20:02.243" UserId="501" UserDisplayName="Gruber" Text="Sadly, about [30-50% of the Western world's food is thrown away][1]. Personally, I waste about half of my food, due to poor fridge management. I forget what I have bought and find expired food located in the back of the fridge all the time. It's very annoying from a time perspective, as I have to waste time (and money) by replenishing the things I throw away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I manage my fridge's contents better? What's considered best practice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/10/half-world-food-waste" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="cc6e6740-7f61-4f43-abb4-fa9645425ee5" CreationDate="2013-04-25T16:20:02.243" UserId="501" UserDisplayName="Gruber" Text="Poor fridge management" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="cc6e6740-7f61-4f43-abb4-fa9645425ee5" CreationDate="2013-04-25T16:20:02.243" UserId="501" UserDisplayName="Gruber" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="824" RevisionGUID="3b946c05-7b48-4e0c-a4ff-96b5115a2f00" CreationDate="2013-04-26T08:51:36.563" UserId="15" Text="Mulching appears to work in some circumstances. I found that mulching my strawberries with dry grass prevented the berries resting against the moist dirt where the slugs liked to be. Throughout the entire season, there was very little slug damage to the berries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2418" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="810" RevisionGUID="39975838-5839-4c15-adbc-5beb9e1e062b" CreationDate="2013-04-26T10:57:44.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/327738259427950593" />
  <row Id="2419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="825" RevisionGUID="9bf0db2a-6407-4d2f-9601-d8a3059d933c" CreationDate="2013-04-26T12:31:22.810" UserId="502" Text="So I've just put a system in place for this, it appears to be working 'okay'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My plan was to reduce the amount of food that goes bad in the fridge, and to, as a secondary goal eat a wider variety of foods and make sure that I washed up after myself and so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes this easy is that I have a favourite pan, I do pretty much all my cooking in my favourite pan. This is it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TEMPORARY PLACEHOLDER FOR IMAGE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took my pan and I hung it in a cupboard some distance away from the kitchen, and to make sure I didn't subconiously think I'd just left it there by mistake I anchored it in with a little rubber band. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TEMPORARY PLACEHOLDER FOR IMAGE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also made two lists, one for things that I must do before I go and get the pan and one for when I put the pan back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one for before I take the pan includes such things as.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Look though the fridge and plan a meal using the food going off&#xD;&#xA;   soonist. (I used to decided what I wanted to eat before opening the&#xD;&#xA;   fridge, which is a very bad habit) &#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that you have&#xD;&#xA;   tupperwear open for making leftovers. (I had/have a bad habit of&#xD;&#xA;   making enought food for several days and then absent mindedly eating&#xD;&#xA;   it that evening.  &#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that you have out all your ingredients&#xD;&#xA;   before starting cooking (prevents me from finding out that I had to&#xD;&#xA;   go shopping halfway though cooking.&#xD;&#xA; - Leave house keys on hook. (this means that I always remember to put the pan next to the list afterwards) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has vastly reduced the amount of food I waste, it's reduced the amount of energy I waste (no more getting quite a long way into cooking without finding I was missing a key ingrediant, and given me a more balanaced and better organised diet - there's much less time spent on cooking because I've been able to have more tupperware lunches and I've been able to presoak a lot more things to reduce cooking.  It's been really effective. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2420" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="821" RevisionGUID="e9d5f984-d7ca-4cac-bf62-07eeb4f96bad" CreationDate="2013-04-26T16:57:48.510" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/327828872110415872" />
  <row Id="2421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="825" RevisionGUID="4617ed04-860e-4cf7-a951-6b922af30d77" CreationDate="2013-04-26T19:15:54.910" UserId="227" Comment="Grammar, spelling, wording, formatting." Text="So I’ve just put a system in place for this, it appears to be working okay. My plan was to reduce the amount of food that goes bad in the fridge, and, as a secondary goal, to eat a wider variety of foods and make sure that I washed up after myself and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes this easy is that I have a favourite pan, I do pretty much all my cooking in my favourite pan:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TEMPORARY PLACEHOLDER FOR IMAGE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took my pan and I hung it in a cupboard some distance away from the kitchen, and to make sure I didn’t subconsciously think I’d just left it there by mistake I anchored it in with a little rubber band:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TEMPORARY PLACEHOLDER FOR IMAGE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also made two lists, one for things that I must do before I go and get the pan and one for when I put the pan back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one for before I take the pan includes such things as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Look though the fridge and plan a meal using the food going off soonest. (I used to decide what I wanted to eat before opening the fridge, which is a very bad habit.) &#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that you have containers available for storing leftovers. (I had/have a bad habit of making enough food for several days and then absent-mindedly eating it all that evening.  &#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that you have out all your ingredients before starting cooking (prevents me from finding out that I had to go shopping halfway though cooking.&#xD;&#xA; - Leave house keys on hook (this means that I always remember to put the pan next to the list afterwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has vastly reduced the amount of food I waste, it’s reduced the amount of energy I waste (no more getting quite a long way into cooking without finding I was missing a key ingredient, and given me a more balanced and better organised diet — there’s much less time spent on cooking because I’ve been able to have more leftover lunches and I've been able to pre-soak a lot more things to reduce cooking.  It’s been really effective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2422" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="825" RevisionGUID="4617ed04-860e-4cf7-a951-6b922af30d77" CreationDate="2013-04-26T19:15:54.910" Comment="Proposed by 227 approved by 117 edit id of 111" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="826" RevisionGUID="d87129c8-2ce4-4c9d-8ab5-ef632c0717d6" CreationDate="2013-04-26T23:09:28.843" UserId="501" Text="Apparently a lot can be done. [Fridge triage boxes][1] look like a good idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Triage boxes][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tracking what's inside the fridge [with dry-erase decals][3] also seem good, but probably takes a lot of time to manage properly. [Keeping your fridge uncluttered][4] is definitely good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grouping similar food types together in a refrigerator to increase the awareness of available foods has [scientifically been shown to be useful][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[An article][6] provides great tips:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Practice FIFO. It stands for First In, First Out. When unpacking groceries, move older products to the front of the fridge/freezer/pantry and put new products in the back. This way, you’re more likely to use up the older stuff before it expires. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Understand expiration dates. Turns out those expiration dates don’t always have to do with food safety; rather, they’re usually manufacturers’ suggestions for peak quality. If stored properly, most foods (even meat) stay fresh several days past the “use-by” date. If a food looks, smells, and tastes okay, it should be fine. If any of these elements are off, then it’s time to toss it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Smart-Fridge-Triage-Boxes-to-Reduce-Food-Waste-244376.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ow95D.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://unclutterer.com/2013/02/11/simple-steps-you-can-take-to-reduce-food-waste/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wholeliving.com/136597/12-ways-prevent-food-waste-home/@center/136755/green-home-guide&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/54184/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://greatist.com/health/how-to-ways-reduce-food-waste" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2424" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="e639818e-2471-43b3-aa8b-a366a40eec34" CreationDate="2013-04-27T01:57:46.103" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/327964757300744192" />
  <row Id="2425" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="ff715c97-e7c5-4e68-94d9-876d8a023e20" CreationDate="2013-04-27T04:57:45.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/328010054819274754" />
  <row Id="2426" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="790" RevisionGUID="e10ad7b8-35e1-4eae-accb-081ebfe974c4" CreationDate="2013-04-27T07:57:45.993" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/328055353038221312" />
  <row Id="2427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="827" RevisionGUID="dbbe1785-9dee-4e40-a818-b61b0014469a" CreationDate="2013-04-28T02:11:43.383" UserId="130" Text="Here is what I do.  I throw very little away if I am managing the food.  This can keep waste down well below what people consider waste.  It takes some trial and error to get right (no onion skins can't go in the stock bag and neither can squash skins), and those can be costly in terms of throwing stuff away but once you get it, this leads to hyper-efficiency in terms of food (throwing away less than people would if they ate everything they cooked).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Focus on fewer more re-usable ingredients as your staples.  These include things like onions, cabbage, and other relatively long-keeping vegetables (onions don't need to be refridgerated, cabbage can last a long time in the fridge).  Buy many other things when you need them (like meat).  This gives you fresher food and better awareness of what is in the fridge.  My own primary staples tend to be beans (various kinds, dry), cabbage, onions, garlic and garlic.  I try to keep all of these around all the time.  I tend to buy tomatoes when I want to use them.  Keep in mind if I am by myself I can go through cabbage between one head in a couple of days to one head in two weeks, so having two heads of cabbage in my fridge is usually a good thing since it keeps well.  Other things like tomatoes, other veggies, meat (when I don't have it in my freezer from local farm purchases), etc. I buy for the meal I want to cook.  This means shopping every few days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Rely on the freezer more for left overs.  This lets you cook larger batches and re-heat when you want to.  I frequently cook 10 to 15 meals worth of food at once.  Some of it goes in the freezer.  Sometimes I eat it for a week, but if you rely on your freezer you don't have to eat it for a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Keep a stock bag in the freezer.  In it goes onion and vegetable ends (but not lots of skins), bones, cooked meat leftovers I don't get to within a week, etc.  When it gets full, I put it in a pot with water and boil to make a broth.  The remains go into the compost, and the stock goes into the freezer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I find is that if more of my fridge is used for staples, and less is used for short term ingredients, I throw a lot less away.  I also eat a lot more cabbage and that can't be bad.....  I also cook less frequently and rely on leftovers more.  The freezer can be used to enforce variety." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="828" RevisionGUID="f8bf1ee4-6383-48c7-93c9-e48980be5866" CreationDate="2013-04-28T06:52:35.127" UserId="130" Text="The two I would look at carefully would be citrus cleaners and turpentine depending on what you are trying to clean.  Turpentine is the older traditional one, but is fiarly expensive compared to petrochemicals.  It is destilled from pine resin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turpentine is quite a bit more expensive than citrus cleaners.  the cheapest I can find it on Amazon is about $30/gallon.  It may be worth looking at in cases where citrus cleaners are inadequate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="792" RevisionGUID="4c34bb39-1313-4cda-8a22-ea6e2e0e2c60" CreationDate="2013-04-28T08:17:46.670" UserId="130" Comment="added 541 characters in body" Text="Basic chemistry here.  Plants consume carbon dioxide and water to produce glucose.  They then polymerize the glucose to create cellulose.  In general, the amount of biomass that a tree produces is dependent on its net carbon uptake.  If all you are trying to do is ensure that you take some CO2 out of the air, you want to plant fast-growing trees, ideally which are harder than softer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:  one more thing to keep in mind: particulates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the best things that trees are good at is removing particulates from the air, particularly if you have frequent rain.  The particulates stick to the leaves and are washed off by rain.  This is actually a function of the leaves since it means that trees get to catch floating sources of nutrients (for example, animals grinding dung into dust that then ends up in the wind).  So one of your most effective reasons to plant around factories is to reduce particulate pollution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2430" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="10486aac-c942-4ff5-883e-d9a2640e12a1" CreationDate="2013-04-28T10:57:46.763" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/328463042616651776" />
  <row Id="2431" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="60c9ca62-01db-45e0-8ae2-7b534794cdc8" CreationDate="2013-04-28T12:23:05.470" UserId="49" Comment="added tags" Text="|food|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2432" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="60c9ca62-01db-45e0-8ae2-7b534794cdc8" CreationDate="2013-04-28T12:23:05.470" Comment="Proposed by 49 approved by 130, 85 edit id of 112" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="829" RevisionGUID="d184b673-8894-4fc2-91ef-1e6184289eb3" CreationDate="2013-04-28T13:37:12.023" UserId="106" Text="What is the lowest-impact regular¹ method to cross the Atlantic Ocean?  Specifically, which method has the lowest carbon dioxide equivalent emission per passenger-kilometre?  I'm aware there are other impacts to consider, but for this question I'm focussing on the carbon equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought a ship would be lower impact than a flight, but this [appears to be false](http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2006/dec/20/cruises.green), at least when comparing to cruise ships.  But what about [freighters](http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Freighter_travel)?  They're slower, lack the luxuries of a cruise ship, and for freight there is little alternative.  How does this affect the equation of the additional carbon footprint per passenger-kilometre?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: *http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/93/106* for a more generic question on a similar topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;¹By regular, I mean a way accessible for people without special skills or access to their own boats.  Therefore, I'm not counting rowing, sailing or (until I can buy a ticket on one) [solar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BBranor_PlanetSolar) boats." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="829" RevisionGUID="d184b673-8894-4fc2-91ef-1e6184289eb3" CreationDate="2013-04-28T13:37:12.023" UserId="106" Text="Lowest impact transatlantic crossing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="829" RevisionGUID="d184b673-8894-4fc2-91ef-1e6184289eb3" CreationDate="2013-04-28T13:37:12.023" UserId="106" Text="|ecological-footprint|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2436" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="829" RevisionGUID="1a6e74cc-20e9-4390-b7be-f369a98b9edf" CreationDate="2013-04-29T01:57:46.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/328689535494004738" />
  <row Id="2437" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="802" RevisionGUID="cec4978c-e0fc-482e-9bd0-d34313b9c335" CreationDate="2013-04-29T07:57:46.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/328780131864834048" />
  <row Id="2438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="830" RevisionGUID="9848edac-3cf5-4a7f-a200-db8059dced41" CreationDate="2013-04-29T08:18:17.623" UserId="58" Text="It's hard to assume how much ecological footprint does one extra passenger add to a freighter. I'd guess it's near zero, since it's a cargo ship which needs some basic facilities for the crew anyway, so one person doesn't mean a difference. The twelve passengers limit for cruisers without a doctor means freighter travel isn't likely to be mass used, but for an individual travel it seems more sustainable than anything else (whether transport of anything on such distances is sustainable is another question)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="825" RevisionGUID="756b35d1-c313-4d43-9454-44babfeeb5f3" CreationDate="2013-04-29T16:24:15.973" UserId="502" Comment="adding images." Text="So I’ve just put a system in place for this, it appears to be working okay. My plan was to reduce the amount of food that goes bad in the fridge, and, as a secondary goal, to eat a wider variety of foods and make sure that I washed up after myself and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes this easy is that I have a favourite pan, I do pretty much all my cooking in my favourite pan:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took my pan and I hung it in a cupboard some distance away from the kitchen, and to make sure I didn’t subconsciously think I’d just left it there by mistake I anchored it in with a little rubber band:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also made two lists, one for things that I must do before I go and get the pan and one for when I put the pan back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one for before I take the pan includes such things as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Look though the fridge and plan a meal using the food going off soonest. (I used to decide what I wanted to eat before opening the fridge, which is a very bad habit.) &#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that you have containers available for storing leftovers. (I had/have a bad habit of making enough food for several days and then absent-mindedly eating it all that evening.  &#xD;&#xA; - Make sure that you have out all your ingredients before starting cooking (prevents me from finding out that I had to go shopping halfway though cooking.&#xD;&#xA; - Leave house keys on hook (this means that I always remember to put the pan next to the list afterwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has vastly reduced the amount of food I waste, it’s reduced the amount of energy I waste (no more getting quite a long way into cooking without finding I was missing a key ingredient, and given me a more balanced and better organised diet — there’s much less time spent on cooking because I’ve been able to have more leftover lunches and I've been able to pre-soak a lot more things to reduce cooking.  It’s been really effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RE2vs.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MmAyT.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="831" RevisionGUID="7f3f0a8a-c8f5-4e90-871f-497771dbd37e" CreationDate="2013-04-30T05:40:46.123" UserId="227" Text="While this doesn’t answer of how to dispose of any which shoe, it may point to the types of products that are designed in more sustainable ways to begin with. There are manufacturers like Okabashi (flip-flops and sandals) that ask their customers to return worn-out shoes to them for discount towards new pair, and [fully recycle][1] it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.okabashi.com/Recycle/b/2493603011?ie=UTF8&amp;title=Recycle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="4026aea5-c19e-4f49-9f0d-c826b8120103" CreationDate="2013-04-30T10:24:22.360" UserId="453" Text="In general it is assumed that the energy that is required to produce a certain type of food is a good surrogate for the total environmental burden of food products. I scanned some studies to compare fish and meat (such as poultry, pork and beef) products, however there seems not to be a common consensus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Energy use for fish (cod and plaice) is higher than for meat (pork, chicken, beef) though the impact on Global warming for fish is roughly the same as for pork and chicken. Beef is worse. [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Chicken performs better than filleted fish (salmon from aquaculture and cod) in terms of energy consumption. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Meat from fish has lower energy requirements than poultry and pork (Data from mid 1990s in the Netherlands). [3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Red meat causes around 150% of the greenhouse gas contributions compared to chicken and fish (focused on USA). [4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the first two studies compare only a small range of products the other two are localised (and study [3] is probably outdated). Are there more general studies or a consensus that I am not aware of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which food product chains require more energy? Fish or meat?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Burg SWK van den, Taal C, de Boer IJM, Bakker T, Viets TC (2012): Environmental performance of wild-caught North Sea whitefish - A comparison with aquaculture and animal husbandry using LCA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] Ellingsen H, Aanondsen SA (2006): Environmental impacts of wild caught cod and farmed salmon - A comparison with chicken. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11, 60–65.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] Dutilh CE, Kramer KJ (2000). Energy consumption in the food chain - Comparing alternative options in food production and consumption. Ambio J. Hum. Environ. 29, 98–101.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4] Weber CL &amp; Matthews HS (2008): Food-Miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 3508–3513." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="4026aea5-c19e-4f49-9f0d-c826b8120103" CreationDate="2013-04-30T10:24:22.360" UserId="453" Text="Meat and fish, which requieres more energy to produce?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="4026aea5-c19e-4f49-9f0d-c826b8120103" CreationDate="2013-04-30T10:24:22.360" UserId="453" Text="|energy|food|meat|fish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="d67cdf1b-a4b6-40e1-8c9e-2d35519b8d9a" CreationDate="2013-04-30T11:20:16.167" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="90da01a7-49e3-4264-a6dc-3a91c879e709" CreationDate="2013-04-30T11:20:16.167" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="ac221925-287e-4891-aeac-ba5c3bee6f27" CreationDate="2013-04-30T12:43:39.340" UserId="453" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="In general it is assumed that the energy that is required to produce a certain type of food is a good surrogate for the total environmental burden of food products. I scanned some studies to compare fish and meat (such as poultry, pork and beef) products, however there seems not to be a common consensus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Energy use for fish (cod and plaice) is higher than for meat (pork, chicken, beef) though the impact on global warming for fish is roughly the same as for pork and chicken. Beef is worse. [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Chicken performs better than filleted fish (salmon from aquaculture and cod) in terms of energy consumption. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Meat from fish has lower energy requirements than poultry and pork (Data from mid 1990s in the Netherlands). [3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Red meat causes around 150% of the greenhouse gas contributions compared to chicken and fish (focused on USA). [4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the first two studies compare only a small range of products the other two are localised (and study [3] is probably outdated). Are there more general studies or a consensus that I am not aware of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which food product chains require more energy? Fish or meat?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Burg SWK van den, Taal C, de Boer IJM, Bakker T, Viets TC (2012): Environmental performance of wild-caught North Sea whitefish - A comparison with aquaculture and animal husbandry using LCA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] Ellingsen H, Aanondsen SA (2006): Environmental impacts of wild caught cod and farmed salmon - A comparison with chicken. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 11, 60–65.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] Dutilh CE, Kramer KJ (2000). Energy consumption in the food chain - Comparing alternative options in food production and consumption. Ambio J. Hum. Environ. 29, 98–101.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4] Weber CL &amp; Matthews HS (2008): Food-Miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 3508–3513." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2448" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="ac221925-287e-4891-aeac-ba5c3bee6f27" CreationDate="2013-04-30T12:43:39.340" UserId="453" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Meat or fish, which requieres more energy to produce?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="37d3bdfa-07c6-4cbf-a75e-b355e5acfb54" CreationDate="2013-04-30T14:08:05.110" UserId="99" Comment="added 455 characters in body" Text="An ecological footprint estimates how much land and ocean area is required to sustain the consumption pattern of one person of a particular group of people. For example in 2007 it was estimated that mankind's total ecological footprint was 1.5 planet Earths, i.e. humanity uses 1.5 times more of the available resources than the Earth can renew them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of a personal ecological footprint calculator can be found [here](http://myfootprint.org/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2453" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="37d3bdfa-07c6-4cbf-a75e-b355e5acfb54" CreationDate="2013-04-30T14:08:05.110" Comment="Proposed by 99 approved by 130, 48 edit id of 113" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="3a51dab4-4873-4d55-8e75-60e4deeb6c07" CreationDate="2013-04-30T14:08:12.907" UserId="99" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="a measure of human impact on the Earth's ecosystems&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2455" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="3a51dab4-4873-4d55-8e75-60e4deeb6c07" CreationDate="2013-04-30T14:08:12.907" Comment="Proposed by 99 approved by 130, 48 edit id of 114" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2458" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="e4ed5bfd-539f-42e2-bd1c-03bce5a5661f" CreationDate="2013-04-30T16:57:52.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/329278441469911040" />
  <row Id="2459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="21846e6d-f09d-41ec-8844-32d2ae77a67d" CreationDate="2013-04-30T17:04:23.080" UserId="135" Text="I'm used to burning matches to ignite my incense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I wondered about the which is best: to use matches or a lighter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course a lighter would use natural gas (butane or propane) and consume plastics - I don't know what the firestone is made of. I think plastic lighter could be refillable, but honestly, I don't don't refill them, I don't even know how to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I could consider something like a zippo, refillable, but it's using gasoil derivated spirits to work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary matches use sulfur things, wood, and cardboard for the box. But I remember also hearing that the matter on the side of the box (that fire the matches up) was rather toxic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="21846e6d-f09d-41ec-8844-32d2ae77a67d" CreationDate="2013-04-30T17:04:23.080" UserId="135" Text="Matches or lighter ? Which is more sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="21846e6d-f09d-41ec-8844-32d2ae77a67d" CreationDate="2013-04-30T17:04:23.080" UserId="135" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="3f2651f1-35cf-4199-a5c1-c2bb8bb194ae" CreationDate="2013-04-30T19:58:39.440" UserId="513" Text="I am currently trying to buy a dish washer and just got a washing machine lately and I am really confused whether it is better to buy a machine which uses less water or one which uses less energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dish Washer A:  &#xD;&#xA;Energy: 211 kWh/a  &#xD;&#xA;Water: 2520 l/a  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dish Washer B:  &#xD;&#xA;Energy: 220 kWh/a  &#xD;&#xA;Water: 1680 l/a  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cost for 1 kWh is 22,25 cents, the cost for 1000 l Water 1,85 eur, meaning the difference in annual costs is 2.0025 - 1.554 (delta_energy - delta_water) which is about 45 cents per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it really comes down to: Do I want to save energy or do I want to save water?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I do not live in an area with water or energy scarcity)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="3f2651f1-35cf-4199-a5c1-c2bb8bb194ae" CreationDate="2013-04-30T19:58:39.440" UserId="513" Text="What is worse: Wasting water or energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="3f2651f1-35cf-4199-a5c1-c2bb8bb194ae" CreationDate="2013-04-30T19:58:39.440" UserId="513" Text="|energy|water|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="6defc47a-68a6-440f-9842-a225b13d2671" CreationDate="2013-04-30T21:09:25.740" UserId="502" Text="From http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/meat-eaters-guide-get-to-know-the-carbon-footprint-of-your-diet-lamb-beef-cheese-are-the-worst.html we have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I find pretty facinating - certainly I would have put pork much closer to beef than either salmon or Turkey... really interesting stuff... I'd like to see as well the same graph but per calorie rather than per kg - certainly that would make an interesting relationship between things like rice and tuna...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S9Oub.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="5c0b5694-a95b-42a7-8940-f089eabc376e" CreationDate="2013-04-30T22:02:21.780" UserId="143" Text="What are the consequences of mixing worm species? &#xD;&#xA;To increase &quot;processing&quot; throughput rate, would it be better to have two worm bins of x m³, where each on uses a different specie (i.e Eisenia fetida and Eisenia hortensis), or one huge bin (2x m³) with both species mixed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="5c0b5694-a95b-42a7-8940-f089eabc376e" CreationDate="2013-04-30T22:02:21.780" UserId="143" Text="Is mixing species in vermicomposting beneficial?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="5c0b5694-a95b-42a7-8940-f089eabc376e" CreationDate="2013-04-30T22:02:21.780" UserId="143" Text="|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2470" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="6e137207-f513-4dee-9cd1-29cffc20cc14" CreationDate="2013-04-30T22:57:52.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/329369039644270592" />
  <row Id="2471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="6145275c-fed5-44ad-83a9-81671b004e0c" CreationDate="2013-05-01T02:16:56.377" UserId="404" Text="**Benefits of Buying Used Clothes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This [article in ecotextiles](http://oecotextiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/what-is-the-energy-profile-of-the-textile-industry/) claims 100-340 MJ energy input per kg of weaved cloth (flax and cotton on the lowest on the list, nylon the highest).  Additionally the textile industry is the number one industrial polluter of fresh water and releases up to 2000 different chemicals into the environment (if someone knows more about these, please elaborate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buying used clothes obviates these manufacturing outputs.  Buying clothes with recycled fabric will obviate much of this as well, though there will be associated energy with actually recycling the fabric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**online vs traditional retail**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be beneftis to purchasing your clothing online as well.  [A life cycle inventory analysis](http://www.ce.cmu.edu/GreenDesign/docs/life-cycle-comparison.pdf) conducted at Carnegie Mellon found that e-commerce options were less energy intensive 80% of the time (30% less energy on average).  However, in their analysis, 65% of traditional retail primary energy was composed of personal transportation to the store, so if that isn't an issue in your shopping, then this analysis might not be that meaningful.  Last mile delivery and packaging composed 32% and 22% of e-commerce energy usage, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**where can i buy used fashion?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are your local thrift stores, but below is intended to be wiki list of places and websites with high availability of recycled materials or used clothing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [etsy.com](http://www.etsy.com/) has both retail and personal vendors selling used items, clothing as well as craft items.&#xD;&#xA; - [ebay](http://www.ebay.com/) is rather obvious, but it allows you to filter your searches based on their condition, with an option for pre-owned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2472" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="8d659ec5-fd2d-4cc2-9b2d-d9ef3f3e3026" CreationDate="2013-05-01T02:16:56.377" UserId="404" />
  <row Id="2473" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="837" RevisionGUID="0a0f156e-de47-4a03-a0ba-7277919a5dfe" CreationDate="2013-05-01T04:57:52.993" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/329459635792801792" />
  <row Id="2474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="4ad35516-4ac7-489a-b8e9-4e6099b3f1b5" CreationDate="2013-05-01T07:53:34.393" UserId="15" Text="Water takes energy to pump, filter and treat (and the treatment chemicals require energy to make), so it's likely a substantial part of the water cost goes to energy anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that in your case you can save a massive amount of water for very little extra electricity, I'd go with the water saving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, it's often possible to run a lower temperature cycle, which will lower your energy use. The manual should have details. If you have the option on the model you purchase (and a suitable dwelling and climate, and some willingness), you may be able to skip the dry cycle and air-dry the dishes to save a substantial amount of energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have plastic items that go in the dishwasher, lower operating temperatures will increase the life of the plastic and may decrease any leaching of chemicals (eg Phthalates, BPA, which some believe contribute to cancer, endocrine disruption, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ever want to collect your own water, it's a much more low-tech and thus more sustainable task than generating your own electricity, though @gerrit is correct that location does make a difference. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="841" RevisionGUID="c449b0b8-f5e2-4314-a5fc-2dbd6ea03224" CreationDate="2013-05-01T08:06:01.677" UserId="15" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Water takes energy to pump, filter and treat (and the treatment chemicals require energy to make), so it's likely a substantial part of the water cost goes to energy anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that in your case you can save a massive proportion of water for very little extra electricity, I'd go with the water saving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, it's often possible to run a lower temperature cycle, which will lower your energy use. The manual should have details. If you have the option on the model you purchase (and a suitable dwelling and climate, and some willingness), you may be able to skip the dry cycle and air-dry the dishes to save a substantial amount of energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have plastic items that go in the dishwasher, lower operating temperatures will increase the life of the plastic and may decrease any leaching of chemicals (eg Phthalates, BPA, which some believe contribute to cancer, endocrine disruption, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ever want to collect your own water, it's a much more low-tech and thus more sustainable task than generating your own electricity, though @gerrit is correct that location does make a difference. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="beeee370-d768-4d25-b223-8174df8fd38e" CreationDate="2013-05-01T08:10:47.067" UserId="502" Text="I've been considering a dishwasher, but there are a range of different opinions on if they save water (or even energy) or not.  Do we have an sources one way or the other? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="beeee370-d768-4d25-b223-8174df8fd38e" CreationDate="2013-05-01T08:10:47.067" UserId="502" Text="Does a dishwater save water in the long term?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="beeee370-d768-4d25-b223-8174df8fd38e" CreationDate="2013-05-01T08:10:47.067" UserId="502" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="5d2f6bbd-6fb9-4b70-8510-e0cdef74ee9f" CreationDate="2013-05-01T08:55:29.660" UserId="164" Comment="Corrected spelling." Text="As [Highly Irregular suggests][1] this very much depends on the specifics of your vehicle, conditions outside of your car and your desired conditions inside your vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this question was brought up on [skeptics][2] the best evidene we could find was from Mythbusters which visited this topic in both [episode 22][3] and [episode 38][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Episide 22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PARTLY CONFIRMED *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tests were performed under varying conditions (55 mph versus 45 mph). The 55 mph test used a computer to estimate fuel efficiency based on air intake, not actual fuel consumption, and showed A/C was more efficient. The 45 mph test consisted of running the tank until it was empty, and showed open windows were more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Because the original tests were inconclusive, this &quot;urban puzzle&quot; was revisited in episode 38: It is more fuel efficient to use air conditioning when the car is traveling approximately 50mph or more. Otherwise, windows are more fuel efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Episode 38&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PARTLY CONFIRMED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fundamental flaw in the MythBusters’ test was that the point where the drag becomes powerful enough to inhibit a car’s performance with windows down was inside their 45 – 55mph margin at 50mph. Going less than 50mph it is more efficient to leave your windows down, but going greater than 50mph it is more efficient to use your A/C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly unless you have the same vehicle, are driving in the same conditions and have the same comfort requiremennts, this tells you little about your own situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next time you fill up, decide on a strategy and stick to it until your next fill up, then calculate your overall fuel efficiency. Then try a different strategy and see if the efficiency changes. From a series of such tests you can build up a body of empirical evidence about how your own vehicle, preferences and environment interact, and thus find out what is most sustainable for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/736/164&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/5661/2772&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode22&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode38" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2480" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="4a188f07-b5b4-4faf-898c-97651e8c11fd" CreationDate="2013-05-01T09:37:06.277" UserId="85" Comment="edited title" Text="Does a dishwasher save water in the long term?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="5a8f43f7-9925-422f-a23b-178e116394ee" CreationDate="2013-05-01T10:04:55.897" UserId="502" Comment="typo" Text="I've been considering a dishwasher, but there are a range of different opinions on if they save water (or even energy) or not.  Do we have any sources one way or the other? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2482" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="839" RevisionGUID="1cd00a4f-fea2-4f01-8bd7-74fceede78f1" CreationDate="2013-05-01T10:57:53.110" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/329550234961203200" />
  <row Id="2483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="585ada5a-0d04-4956-883e-1f013c60bcda" CreationDate="2013-05-01T11:57:51.617" UserId="471" Text="It depends on criteria and availability of energy and water around your area, if there may be scarcity of water there then you should not wast water and save it.&#xD;&#xA;so it depends where you live." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="643" RevisionGUID="f09a05c2-6166-4364-89aa-fcdddf0b96cd" CreationDate="2013-05-01T12:35:54.630" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I would be more concerned with what you are throwing out than the amount of it.  Some activities have inherently more waste than others.  Some waste is can be re-purposed or reused instead of going to a landfill.  So instead of worrying if you are generating too much waste, work to reduce the waste you are generating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Old clothes - Those that no longer fit anyone but that are in good shape can be donated.  Those that fit but have holes can be mended and used as work cloths.  Those beyond mending may be suitable to be cut up and used as rags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scrap Wood - Especially used lumber in good shape should be saved and reused. Create a pile of scrap lumber and use the wood from that pile for projects before getting new lumber.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastics - It is practically impossible to purchasing anything today that has no plastic content.  Try to restrict purchases to items that at least use recyclable plastic.  re-purpose before recycling.  Then Recycle what you can.  Make note of any plastic you have to throw away so that you can avoid those products in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organic and Food waste. - Ideally this is the majority of your waste and most of it is used for composting.  Most of this waste should be things like peelings, shells, and cuttoffs.  If you are discarding/composting large amounts of leftover food then you are preparing to much food for each meal.  Work to create right sized meals and/or eat the left overs before they spoil.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paper and Cardboard.  Not all created equally. Paper that has not been glued is more recyclable than paper that has.  This is especially true with magazines that have a glued binding.  You can cut the pages off of the binding to improve the amount that will be recyclable.  Avoid laminated paper and (laminated)cardboard.  This is virtually useless when recycling.  Try and limit your purchases to  items that are packaged in reusable or recyclable packaging." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="7a347c12-4c1a-4fb3-908f-9b4d954edb16" CreationDate="2013-05-01T12:36:18.780" UserId="471" Text="Here in the place plants are infected with the insects surrounding it and it affects the leaves and root too so decrease the life of plants.&#xD;&#xA;So i want to know how to prevent this. Please suggest an idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="7a347c12-4c1a-4fb3-908f-9b4d954edb16" CreationDate="2013-05-01T12:36:18.780" UserId="471" Text="How to prevent plant from insects?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="7a347c12-4c1a-4fb3-908f-9b4d954edb16" CreationDate="2013-05-01T12:36:18.780" UserId="471" Text="|plants|insects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="e5d49db7-cea0-4967-8bed-9d0ccf8a54b0" CreationDate="2013-05-01T13:39:37.473" UserId="135" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="I'm used to burning matches to ignite my incense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the least environmentally damaging way to start a fire ? to use matches or a lighter ? something else ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course a lighter would use natural gas (butane or propane) and consume plastics - I don't know what the firestone is made of. I think plastic lighter could be refillable, but honestly, I don't don't refill them, I don't even know how to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I could consider something like a zippo, refillable, but it's using gasoil derivated spirits to work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary matches use sulfur things, wood, and cardboard for the box. But I remember also hearing that the matter on the side of the box (that fire the matches up) was rather toxic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2490" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="e5d49db7-cea0-4967-8bed-9d0ccf8a54b0" CreationDate="2013-05-01T13:39:37.473" UserId="135" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="What is the least environmentally damaging way to start a fire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="08753b93-a3d0-4abf-8f7e-2bf8d0d77a3a" CreationDate="2013-05-01T13:44:57.830" UserId="135" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="I'm used to burning matches to ignite my incense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the least environmentally damaging way to start a fire ? to use matches or a lighter ? something else ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course a lighter would use natural gas (butane or propane) and consume plastics - I don't know what the firestone is made of. I think plastic lighter could be refillable, but honestly, I have never refilled them, I don't even know how to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I could consider something like a zippo, refillable, but it's using gasoil derivated spirits to work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the contrary matches use sulfur things, wood, and cardboard for the box. But I remember also hearing that the matter on the side of the box (that fire the matches up) was rather toxic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2492" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="e2592fef-3104-427a-a618-fae01a52a0e1" CreationDate="2013-05-01T13:57:53.703" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/329595534589456384" />
  <row Id="2493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="845" RevisionGUID="c0f80cba-5b9c-45cd-bc0e-61f253246b22" CreationDate="2013-05-01T15:03:05.113" UserId="130" Text="The typical Permaculture approach is to cultivate habitat for animals that will eat the insects.  It is hard to say without knowing more about the insects but if they are aphids, maybe ladybugs will be helpful.  If they are big beetles, maybe frogs and lizards.  And don't forget birds!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general it is important to cultivate habitat first before trying to import such predators into your garden,  Without habitat, they will leave or die.  With habitat they will be more likely to call your garden home.  You may not even need to import any as they may come from all around to live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a fairly general answer to a fairly general question, but it should get you started.  Of course you want to start by finding out what sorts of predators might be appropriate and where they live.  Note pesticides may work in the short term but they tend to kill off predators early and prevent predators from being able to long-term effectively control the pests." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2494" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="1178f858-b730-4153-8794-b3ba2eb7bad7" CreationDate="2013-05-01T16:31:18.110" UserId="502" Comment="reword for clarity" Text="How to protect plant from insects?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2495" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="1178f858-b730-4153-8794-b3ba2eb7bad7" CreationDate="2013-05-01T16:31:18.110" Comment="Proposed by 502 approved by 130, 85 edit id of 115" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="846" RevisionGUID="06448126-f401-4655-8126-3d3e414050dd" CreationDate="2013-05-01T18:16:54.963" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="It is going to depend on the size of fire your need.  If you need a camp or bonfire then using  a drill and plough [method as described here][1] is probably your best bet. It can be done with scrap wood and the amount of waste is negligible.  Sure it takes a lot of effort but most of us can use extra the calorie burn. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you just need a small fire, like for lighting incense or a candle then not only is it alot of work but it is a huge waste.  A cardboard match is probably going to come in first since it has a smaller waist footprint.  Wooden matches should come next.  A lighter is going be the least friend since they burn hydrocarbons and most of them are byproducts of natural gas/oil refinement. If you use plastic then then you have more waist that is not disposable.  The refillable lighters like Zippo's tend to waist a lot of fuel.  So for small fires matches are the way to go.  As for the tip it usually [sulfur based][2], and sulfur is the byproduct of many processes, and the small amounts mean that in limited use there is little danger of toxicity.  And the strike strip is usually basically fine grit sand paper.  Nothing to dangerous there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/04/29/9-ways-to-start-a-fire-without-matches/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ehow.com/facts_5948585_match-head-made-of_.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="417" RevisionGUID="c2ddad1d-6643-464c-b5cd-13a211fb5275" CreationDate="2013-05-01T18:47:35.117" UserId="40" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="**TLDR;** In my estimation, a new car never makes sense, from an environmental standpoint.  And a hybrid never makes sense--it offers the worst of both worlds (all the pollution, manufacturing, and disposal footprint of internal combustion *and* electric).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All things considered, the fuel consumption of any vehicle is minor compared to the manufacturing, disposal, and maintenance footprints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A used vehicle has the lowest manufacturing footprint, sometimes at the cost of greater maintenance footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read (disputed) reports that the environmental footprint of a Prius is the same as that of a Hummer after 100,000 miles. True or not, it helps one think about putting fuel consumption into perspective of the larger picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full disclosure: I have owned 6 diesel vehicles. I currently own an '86 TurboDiesel Jetta, and an '03 TDI Jetta. I have never owned a hybrid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without any specifics (because I don't know them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A hybrid vehicle reduces emissions (although in the U.S., the most efficient hybrid is barely more efficient than the most efficient diesel vehicles, in Europe, there are even more efficient diesel vehicles).  It increases manufacturing and disposal footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Environmental factors which are roughly the same for both a used biodiesel and new hybrid vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Engine coolant&#xD;&#xA;* Motor oil&#xD;&#xA;* Repairs for: Suspension, engine, windshield, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Disposal footprint for any vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a new hybrid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Manufacturing footprint of a new vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* Additional manufacturing footprint for batteries, electric motor, etc&#xD;&#xA;* Additional disposal footprint for batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors which are greater for a used biodiesel vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* (Possibly&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;) more fuel consumption, greater emissions&#xD;&#xA;* Possibly greater fuel manufacturing cost&#xD;&#xA;* Greater repair costs/footprint (compared to any new vehicle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;My '03 TDI Jetta gets better fuel economy than all but the newest and smallest hybrids (and it's a lot more fun to drive).  All biodiesel is not created equal. If you have a source of biodiesel recycled from used oil, the fuel refinement cost is practically nothing. If you are buying commercial biodiesel in the U.S., it is almost certainly made from soym and onventional soy farming is not sustainable.  Although, the [most recent numbers from the USDA](http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EnergyLifeCycleSoybeanBiodieseI6-11.pdf) suggest that soy biodiesel is more efficient than before (thanks @Nate). Although the USDA has a clear bias (an interest in promoting aggriculture), I have no specific reason to think their numbers are wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion, in order of least environmental impact (assuming you are using the most fuel-efficient vehicle in each class, that will suit your needs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A bicycle&#xD;&#xA;* A used all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with recycled biodiesel or straight veg oil (SVO/WVO)&#xD;&#xA;* A used diesel vehicle, with standard diesel or soy biodiesel&#xD;&#xA;* A used gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new all-electric vehicle&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A new diesel vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A new gasoline vehicle&#xD;&#xA;* A used hybrid&lt;sup&gt;*\*\*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* A new hybrid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;**&lt;/sup&gt;I don't actually know if an all-electric vehicle is better than internal combustion, but I suspect it is, because it reduces the mass of the vehicle, and many peripheral fluids (engine coolant, motor oil, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*\*\*&lt;/sup&gt;It's hard to rank hybrids accurately.  Some biased sources claim they are devilspawn. Other sources, biased in the other direction, claim they're heaven-sent. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  So take this absolute raking with a grain of salt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that even without biodiesel, a diesel vehicle is more sustainable than a gasoline vehicle.  All other things equal, diesel gets roughly 33% better fuel economy than gasoline per fuel volume.  Diesel refining is also, arguably, less harmful to the environment than gasoline.  And lastly, a diesel engine is mechanically simpler than a gasoline engine, and thus will last longer (500k miles is common).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest looking for a good quality used diesel vehicle.  A 2000-2003 Jetta TDI is the ideal right now, easily over 50mpg highway.  But even the newer Jettas still get excellent fuel economy, and the older ones can, too. My '86 gets about 40mpg.  My '03 about 52mpg." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="847" RevisionGUID="088f4d24-490a-4bbe-b755-cbab5754fb6b" CreationDate="2013-05-01T19:27:08.837" UserId="514" Text="Surely the most natural solution would be for the human population to reduce the deer population by eating them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2499" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="836" RevisionGUID="bd219d52-b93d-4534-9feb-776b4e8480c2" CreationDate="2013-05-01T19:57:53.520" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/329686130863775744" />
  <row Id="2500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="848" RevisionGUID="40eac5bd-f43d-4095-9f6e-ea5f8f803770" CreationDate="2013-05-02T01:53:54.973" UserId="130" Text="First of all, dishwashers, compared to hand washing, will not save energy.  When you automate things, you substitute electricity for manual energy.  At best you are substituting fuel for food (but more likely you'd use that food anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For water, there are a fair number of factors.  These include how you wash dishes, how greasy the dishes are, how much water your dishwasher uses, and much more.   For places which have separate irrigation water lines, I would actually recommend finding out whether the irrigation water is of sufficient quality to use for washing dishes (the required water quality to safely wash dishes is lower than that to drink).  I would suggest that if the water is safe to play in (keep in mind kids, particularly, tend to ingest small amounts of water as they play), it is probably safe to wash dishes in.  Here dishwashers have an advantage if they heat the water up to disinfecting levels and may allow you to use less potable water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2501" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="12445de8-0a16-4675-bad9-4dbb16e49631" CreationDate="2013-05-02T07:57:53.673" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/329867326189096960" />
  <row Id="2502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="849" RevisionGUID="b6588450-d811-47ee-9f82-a3aae8f18e08" CreationDate="2013-05-02T09:51:30.063" UserId="99" Text="**Quick answer**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on the circumstances in your bin and your abilities to keep those circumstances ideal for a particular type of worm. Assuming this is no problem, my best bet would be that a mix of Eisenia Fetida and Eisenia Hortensis has the highest throughput rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long answer**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most research on vermicomposting focuses on reproduction and grow rates of different worms species. It is assumed that higher reproduction rates means more juvenile worms which in turn means a higher processing rate. I'm not entirely sure if this assumption is true but since we have nothing else to go on I'll stick with reproduction and grow rates for my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mixing worm species can be done just fine as long as you can keep the conditions in your bin suited for all species involved. Chances are however that the conditions will be more favorable for one particular type of worm and that this worm will flourish and the population of the other worms will decline, so not all combinations of worm species will result in an effective mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most research on vermicomposting worms favor Eisenia Fetida (a.k.a red worm) for a number of reasons. Fetida worms have fast reproduction and grow rates, they tolerate and can survive under a wide range of circumstances, and they don't mind disturbances of their enviroment (at least not so much as other worm species like the Eudrilus Eugeniae). This is probably the reason that the Fetida worm is the most popular one for vermicomposting. A bin with only Fetida worms certainly is a good choice to get a good throughput rate under different circumstances. The only problem with Fetida worms is that they tend to stay close to the surface. They don't eat food that is buried deep into a bin. That's why I think you might be able to get a slightly higher throughput rate if you add Eisenia Hortensis (a.k.a. Dendobaena Veneta or European nightcrawler) worms. Hortensis worms like it a bit more wet and colder than Fetida worms, but both species will do ok at . Additionally, Hortensis worms like to spread out all over the bin so if you add food both at the top and deeper into the bin you'll get a larger surface of active worms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there has been some discussion about Hortensis worms. Research done in the late 80s and early 90s showed that the Hortensis had a rather low reproduction and grow rate, but in the late 90s this has been questioned by a number of worm farmers. Several people have reported that they found that the Hortensis worm can grow and reproduce just as fast as the Fetida and claim the different results can be explained by the difference in bin conditions or in the food supplied to the worms. I'm not sure if the high reproduction rate of the Hortensis has already been proven scientifically but the fact is that the Hortensis worm has gained quite a bit of popularity in the last 10 years. If the Hortensis worm indeed has a similar reproduction and grow rate then it may outperform the Fetida worm when it comes to throughput rates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said in my quick answer, ultimately it will depend on the circumstances in your bin(s) and your abilities to keep those circumstances ideal for one or more types of worms. If you have a rather wet bin, it might be best just to use only Hortensis worms. If you have a lot of temperature changes the Fetida worm may be more better. If your bin is kept at a constant temperature of around 25 Celsius (77 F) a bin with only Eudrilus Eugeniae might be the better choice. The best way to found out what works for you is to experiment yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2503" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="f04ce791-ca37-4983-b5bf-06dc9cf1712c" CreationDate="2013-05-02T10:57:53.330" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/329912624013795328" />
  <row Id="2504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="850" RevisionGUID="b9140202-6de5-4801-92fb-f4ec8319f26d" CreationDate="2013-05-02T12:08:58.027" UserId="486" Text="I disagree that [dishwashers, compared to hand washing, will not save energy](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/848/486).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, as with almost anything, *it depends how it's done*.  If you run your dishwasher half full, that's going to be bad for energy and water use.  Similarly, if you hand wash, with the hot water running the whole time, that's bad.  So, either technique requires tuning the way you use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, dishwashers have some inherent advantages, in that they're closed units.  Being closed units allows them to build up heat and humidity.  That helps the washing process.  It also means that water sprayed on dishes in the upper rack can then filter down, and rinse dishes in the lower rack.  The same goes for water that's sprayed horizontally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than try to reproduce such an analysis myself, I'll point to an [article on treehugger.com](http://www.treehugger.com/kitchen-design/built-in-dishwashers-vs-hand-washing-which-is-greener.html).  An important excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These numbers indicate that it's possible to be more efficient when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hand-washing, but it's pretty tough. Can you successfully wash and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rinse a soiled dinner plate in just over a cup of water? If you can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; keep the water use low, equal to an efficient machine, you'll require&#xD;&#xA;&gt; less energy, but doing an entire load of dishes in 4 gallons of water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is roughly equivalent to doing them all in the same amount of water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you use in 96 seconds of showering (using a showerhead that emits 2.5&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gallons per minute).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, as long as you don't often run your dishwasher when it's only half&#xD;&#xA;&gt; full of dirty dishes, or unless you are very miserly with your water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use (or have an old, inefficient dishwasher), the automatic dishwasher&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is likely to be more efficient. That is to say, it's possible to use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; less water and energy by hand washing your dishes, but it's not easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll also address another point in the other answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When you automate things, you substitute electricity for manual energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Manual energy&quot; doesn't come from nowhere.   It comes from the food we eat.  Powering a human being involves converting sun, water, and soil into food, processing the food, then letting the human convert it into usable energy.  **The human body, combined with the agricultural inputs**, do not represent an *efficient* machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also offer the somewhat economic argument regarding [opportunity cost](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost).  The time you'd spend handwashing dishes might better be spent on something else.  If you're interested in sustainability (yeah!), then consider what other sustainable projects you could work on with the X hours a month you'd spend handwashing dishes.  Perhaps add some insulation to your attic?  Add mulch to your garden?  Brew biodiesel yourself?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these things matter in the overall assessment of what saves energy, or makes energy usage more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, if I had to be tied down to a short, simple answer, I'd say that **yes, a dishwasher does save water**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="850" RevisionGUID="57760f5f-8de3-4cd8-80b4-3cd2699e857b" CreationDate="2013-05-02T12:20:27.207" UserId="486" Comment="some better wording, and emphasis" Text="I disagree that [dishwashers, compared to hand washing, will not save energy](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/848/486).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, as with almost anything, *it depends how it's done*.  If you run your dishwasher half full, that's going to be bad for energy and water use.  Similarly, if you hand wash, with the hot water running the whole time, that's bad.  So, either technique requires tuning the way you use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, dishwashers have some inherent advantages, in that they're closed units.  Being closed units allows them to build up heat and humidity.  That helps the washing process.  It also means that water sprayed on dishes in the upper rack can then filter down, and rinse dishes in the lower rack.  The same goes for water that's sprayed horizontally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than try to reproduce such an analysis myself, I'll point to an [article on treehugger.com](http://www.treehugger.com/kitchen-design/built-in-dishwashers-vs-hand-washing-which-is-greener.html).  An important excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These numbers indicate that it's possible to be more efficient when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hand-washing, but it's pretty tough. Can you successfully wash and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rinse a soiled dinner plate in just over a cup of water? If you can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; keep the water use low, equal to an efficient machine, you'll require&#xD;&#xA;&gt; less energy, but doing an entire load of dishes in 4 gallons of water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is roughly equivalent to doing them all in the same amount of water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you use in 96 seconds of showering (using a showerhead that emits 2.5&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gallons per minute).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, as long as you don't often run your dishwasher when it's only half&#xD;&#xA;&gt; full of dirty dishes, or unless you are very miserly with your water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use (or have an old, inefficient dishwasher), the automatic dishwasher&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is likely to be more efficient. That is to say, it's possible to use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; less water and energy by hand washing your dishes, but it's not easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll also address another point in the other answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When you automate things, you substitute electricity for manual energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Manual energy&quot; doesn't come from nowhere.   It comes from the food we eat.  Powering a human being involves converting sun, water, and soil into food, processing the food, then letting the human convert it into usable energy.  **The human body, combined with the agricultural inputs**, do not represent an *efficient* &quot;machine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also offer the somewhat *economic* argument regarding [opportunity cost](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost).  The time you'd spend handwashing dishes might better be spent on something else.  If you're interested in sustainability (yeah!), then consider what other sustainable projects you could work on with the X hours a month you'd spend handwashing dishes.  Perhaps add some insulation to your attic?  Add mulch to your garden?  Brew biodiesel yourself?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these things matter in the overall assessment of what saves energy, or makes energy usage more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, if I had to be tied down to a short, simple answer, I'd say that **yes, a dishwasher does (tend to) save water**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="850" RevisionGUID="31b8fbe3-617f-4596-a1b7-8ad79d7f1b6a" CreationDate="2013-05-02T12:52:10.007" UserId="486" Comment="explanation about water heating" Text="I disagree that [dishwashers, compared to hand washing, will not save energy](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/848/486).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, as with almost anything, *it depends how it's done*.  If you run your dishwasher half full, that's going to be bad for energy and water use.  Similarly, if you hand wash, with the hot water running the whole time, that's bad.  So, either technique requires tuning the way you use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, dishwashers have some inherent advantages, in that they're closed units.  Being closed units allows them to build up heat and humidity.  That helps the washing process.  It also means that water sprayed on dishes in the upper rack can then filter down, and rinse dishes in the lower rack.  The same goes for water that's sprayed horizontally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, understand that a dishwasher is fundamentally different than a clotheswasher.  A dishwasher doesn't need to spend a lot of energy physically moving around heavy clothes and a large tankful of water.  Much of the energy a dishwasher uses is in heating the water.  But, that happens with handwashing, too.  Hopefully, you can intuitively see that if the issue is largely about heating water, it's easier to do so in an enclosed space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than try to reproduce a thorough analysis myself, I'll point to an [article on treehugger.com](http://www.treehugger.com/kitchen-design/built-in-dishwashers-vs-hand-washing-which-is-greener.html).  An important excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These numbers indicate that it's possible to be more efficient when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hand-washing, but it's pretty tough. Can you successfully wash and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rinse a soiled dinner plate in just over a cup of water? If you can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; keep the water use low, equal to an efficient machine, you'll require&#xD;&#xA;&gt; less energy, but doing an entire load of dishes in 4 gallons of water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is roughly equivalent to doing them all in the same amount of water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you use in 96 seconds of showering (using a showerhead that emits 2.5&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gallons per minute).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, as long as you don't often run your dishwasher when it's only half&#xD;&#xA;&gt; full of dirty dishes, or unless you are very miserly with your water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use (or have an old, inefficient dishwasher), the automatic dishwasher&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is likely to be more efficient. That is to say, it's possible to use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; less water and energy by hand washing your dishes, but it's not easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll also address another point in the other answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When you automate things, you substitute electricity for manual energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Manual energy&quot; doesn't come from nowhere.   It comes from the food we eat.  Powering a human being involves converting sun, water, and soil into food, processing the food, then letting the human convert it into usable energy.  **The human body, combined with the agricultural inputs**, do not represent an *efficient* &quot;machine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also offer the somewhat *economic* argument regarding [opportunity cost](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost).  The time you'd spend handwashing dishes might better be spent on something else.  If you're interested in sustainability (yeah!), then consider what other sustainable projects you could work on with the X hours a month you'd spend handwashing dishes.  Perhaps add some insulation to your attic?  Add mulch to your garden?  Brew biodiesel yourself?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these things matter in the overall assessment of what saves energy, or makes energy usage more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, if I had to be tied down to a short, simple answer, I'd say that **yes, a dishwasher does (tend to) save water**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="763d282b-ba92-44ae-8098-734dd2f416ee" CreationDate="2013-05-02T13:48:31.010" UserId="502" Text="I'm looking for sources that can give some reasoned arguments about Telecommuting in sustainablity terms - how much of an energy costs in there to working at home compared with commuting X miles in Y minutes by Z mode of transportation.  Particularly interested in references to relatively large studies and an acknowledgement of the cost of perhaps not been as effective a worker when away from the office. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2508" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="763d282b-ba92-44ae-8098-734dd2f416ee" CreationDate="2013-05-02T13:48:31.010" UserId="502" Text="Sustainablity of Telecommuting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2509" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="763d282b-ba92-44ae-8098-734dd2f416ee" CreationDate="2013-05-02T13:48:31.010" UserId="502" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="852" RevisionGUID="eda88436-e802-4a8a-a620-bb4a579abc20" CreationDate="2013-05-02T13:55:03.000" UserId="502" Text="I get relatively little natural light into one room as shown below (this is the only window): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a  way to increase natural light into the room so that I don't have to use the electic light all the time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EVEmT.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="852" RevisionGUID="eda88436-e802-4a8a-a620-bb4a579abc20" CreationDate="2013-05-02T13:55:03.000" UserId="502" Text="Improving natural light access" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="852" RevisionGUID="eda88436-e802-4a8a-a620-bb4a579abc20" CreationDate="2013-05-02T13:55:03.000" UserId="502" Text="|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="853" RevisionGUID="8e97e1a5-3bc6-496c-8dc0-be1084b91bac" CreationDate="2013-05-02T14:35:32.350" UserId="453" Text="Ignoring the aspect of how effective a person works at home compared to their working place your question essentially boils down to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the conditions at my working place (basically all facilities you use there; including work and non work related actions)  *plus* the transport to get there more environmentally harmful than the conditions at home?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are hundreds of factors involved then - presuming that you refer to office environments you need certain hardware to perform your tasks. This hardware can be shared at work while at home you have to have your own installment. But it also includes issues about basic human needs - can these be more sustainable fulfilled at your working place or at home?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the generally large energy consumption of transportation (again, it depends a lot what mode of transport you choose), that is likely to exceed the energy costs of your daily working life, my advice is: stay home. :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="f5a4df4c-7b52-478c-8b10-0907380da902" CreationDate="2013-05-02T14:51:58.950" UserId="85" Text="Well, what causes the room to be dark? The light gets absorbed into objects and stays there. To keep the light buzzing through your room to make it feel bright, you need to make sure that as much in your room as possible reflects light. Mirrors reflect almost 100% of the light, i.e. more mirrors means less light absorption means a brighter room. Light colours (white) reflect more light than dark colours (brown/black). If you change your interior design, you will have a brighter room and may not need to add more light. (If you add mirrors to your room, it would be most efficient to place them where the light enters the room.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, countries with long winters (e.g. Norway, see below) have bright interior designs, because in the winter period one has to keep as much light as possible from being absorbed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Countries with mild winters and strong sun during the day (e.g. Spain, picture below) tend to have darker designs, presumably to allow the eyes to rest at least inside the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Norwegian house](http://maxcdn.fooyoh.com/files/attach/images/627/587/592/vivendelstien-house-in-norway-2.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Spanish office](http://theluxhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Elegant-and-luxurious-office-interior-design-ideas-1-533x354.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="855" RevisionGUID="793ae5fa-4ef4-4cae-849b-fb2117744bef" CreationDate="2013-05-02T18:48:59.800" UserId="480" Text="If it's your own building, you might be able to add on some sort of light tunnel that extends to the roof to collection natural sunlight and beam it into your room:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_tube&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though if that were an option, a skylight might be an easier option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lacking that, how about a mirror (preferably unbreakable plastic or metal) the size of a pane of glass that hangs out the window at a 45 degree angle such that if you look at it out the window, it reflects the sky above. That would channel some additional light into your room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keeping it clean might be a problem, especially if you have pigeons in your building." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="855" RevisionGUID="3132223e-0d54-43bd-bc4d-78b17249e97e" CreationDate="2013-05-02T19:10:59.330" UserId="480" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="If it's your own building, you might be able to add on some sort of light tunnel outside the window or through the ceiling that extends to the roof to collect natural sunlight and beams it into your room:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_tube&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though if that were an option, a skylight might be an easier option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lacking that, how about a mirror (preferably unbreakable plastic or metal) the size of a pane of glass that hangs out the window at a 45 degree angle such that if you look at it out the window, it reflects the sky above. That would channel some additional light into your room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keeping it clean might be a problem, especially if you have pigeons in your building." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="856" RevisionGUID="642b0e27-5e14-45a1-b308-d50836636011" CreationDate="2013-05-02T20:52:43.627" UserId="486" Text="Before responding to your questions in turn, I'd like to propose that I think this issue behaves somewhat like [the (justifiably) maligned Laffer curve](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve).  In other words, I think it's clear that with **no** education, humans would still be stuck in primitive societies, which **were** sustainable, and involved small per capita resource usage.  As education increases, you do get an increase in resource consumption, with a standard-of-living increase.  However, I believe that in the future, we can achieve lower levels of resource consumption again, with further **increases** in education.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    More time living alone means more energy consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Staying in school doesn't just mean *&quot;living alone&quot;*.  It probably also means living modestly, in a small apartment.  And it often does mean living with roommates.  The people at both the universities I went to (in the US) all lived with small energy and spatial footprints, relative to working adults in the surrounding society.  So, I'd say this issue favors staying in school, as more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A link on CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint vs. age that reflects this issue](http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/if-you-act-your-age-whats-your-carbon-footprint/), although school vs. work at the same age is not teased apart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Fewer children may have both positive and negative effects. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While, technically this is true (there are positive **and** negative effects), I strongly disagree with the implied equivalency.  Human beings consume lots of resources.  Lots.  In those countries where higher education is a realistic option (as posed in your question), humans consume even more resources.  More humans fundamentally means more resource consumption.  Not to mention the basic math that birth rates above the [replacement rate](http://www.wikigender.org/index.php/Replacement_rate) are *inherently* unsustainable, as long as we're bound to this one planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Less career time means less overall energy available for manual production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exactly.  As I alluded to earlier, students do have lower environmental footprints than an average working adult.  The amount of work output by today's current population vastly exceeds that required to fulfill basic human needs (as evidenced by many of us working in jobs that are not fundamentally **necessary**).  We need people to be working at jobs **less** than they do now (in the developed world), and producing less.  I'm not advocating education simply on the grounds that it takes time away from production, but I do believe that's a beneficial side effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and the labor is automated via cheap energy sources like fossil fuels. This leads to less flexibility regarding reducing energy usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Labor will be automated regardless, and less educated workers could actually provide more incentive to automate.  I've seen a number of your posts on the site that suggest to me that you think *automation* fundamentally increases energy usage.  While that could be its own separate discussion, I'll merely assert here that I find that to be false (and my apologies if that's not actually your belief).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Less time and flexibility to make informed choices regarding sustainability because of additional burdens like student loans requiring additional efforts to make ends meet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, you **can't** make informed choices without education.  Education underlies all decision-making.  If there's any obstacle to sustainability today in the US (where I live), it's **ignorance** of the basic science that supports consensus thinking on climate change.  While there are educated skeptics who simply don't trust climate science, want more data, or believe the solution is elsewhere (not sustainability, but something like *geoengineering*), the majority here are skeptical because of a lack of basic understanding of the science.  I believe a subject like this, while possible to treat at the high school level, is probably better expanded on at universities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, at least in the US, it's not true that taking out student loans requires working more to make ends meet.  It's precisely the opposite.  [Higher levels of education reap higher lifetime earnings](http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf) by an amount that easily pays for the cost of the extra education (plus interest).  Granted, that equation is going to be different in every country, as tuition rates vary, as do student loan interest rates.  But, based simply on the example of the world's largest developed economy, you do **not** wind up having to work more simply because you paid for more education.  You may *choose* to work more, because you have a more enjoyable career, or have suffered less *wear-and-tear* from a white collar career.  But, that's a separate point.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="4b839151-a1d8-46b6-964e-2662b4f0db90" CreationDate="2013-05-03T03:31:19.000" UserId="471" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="It depends on criteria and availability of energy and water around your area, if there may be scarcity of water there then you should not wast water and save it.&#xD;&#xA;so it depends where you live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here there are many kind of machine, let me give one example that in the area around river where water are available more there you can select machine which saves more energy rather than water because energy is more precious then water and in other case area of forest where water is more precocious. I hope i explained well&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="858" RevisionGUID="3ce9abaf-5275-44b4-a2c6-37f3cbf4caa0" CreationDate="2013-05-03T04:22:29.997" UserId="522" Text="Dishwashers will not save any type of energy. We live off grid and only have rain water and there is no ground water available either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wash your dishes in a small sink, and only when you have enough dishes to clean to use the water you use in the sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dishwasher also uses power to heat the water, which also uses more power than either gas or solar heated water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="859" RevisionGUID="30e12ea3-75c9-48c7-a940-01b3cfbc85f3" CreationDate="2013-05-03T04:29:47.290" UserId="522" Text="People have been drinking untreated rain water for centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our home, we use simple filter cartridges which we change annually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My only advice would be to consider your location. If you live near a volcano or industrial areas spewing our pollutants into the air, then reverse osmosis is probably the safest solution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in the country, then drink it just as nature supplies it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="860" RevisionGUID="8b6d4964-e7f4-48f0-83db-503901a8a1cf" CreationDate="2013-05-03T04:38:19.540" UserId="522" Text="If you really want to save water, stop using water in your toilet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use a composting toilet or a low flush toilet without a cistern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;100% of the water we use in our house goes into a 7000l below ground tank with a submersible pump in it. The pump has a float switch that then pumps the water out into the garden to water the vegetables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="861" RevisionGUID="e99e8fe3-e3c9-45f6-a6dc-9b6dcd43fa20" CreationDate="2013-05-03T04:43:15.623" UserId="522" Text="Drip irrigation systems greatly vary in design, but I would recommend the pipe with built in self cleaning drippers as apposed to adding drippers into a reticulation pipe/hose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The self cleaning internal drippers clean themselves when the water is turned on. Cleaning is necessary as ants sometimes block the drippers with sand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="846" RevisionGUID="b5c0063f-b5bf-4a37-947e-d21ef29196d8" CreationDate="2013-05-03T05:57:02.153" UserId="486" Comment="spelling and grammar" Text="It is going to depend on the size of fire you need.  If you need a camp or bonfire, then using  a drill and plough [method as described here][1] is probably your best bet. It can be done with scrap wood and the amount of waste is negligible.  Sure it takes a lot of effort, but most of us can use extra the calorie burn. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you just need a small fire, like for lighting incense or a candle, then not only is it a lot of work, but it is a huge waste.  A cardboard match is probably going to come in first since it has a smaller waste footprint.  Wooden matches should come next.  A lighter is going be the least friendly since they burn hydrocarbons and most of them are byproducts of natural gas/oil refinement. If you use plastic then then you have more waste that is not disposable.  The refillable lighters like Zippos tend to waste a lot of fuel.  So for small fires, matches are the way to go.  As for the tip, it's usually [sulfur based][2], and sulfur is the byproduct of many processes, and the small amounts mean that in limited use there is little danger of toxicity.  And the strike strip is usually basically fine grit sand paper.  Nothing too dangerous there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/04/29/9-ways-to-start-a-fire-without-matches/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ehow.com/facts_5948585_match-head-made-of_.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2526" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="846" RevisionGUID="b5c0063f-b5bf-4a37-947e-d21ef29196d8" CreationDate="2013-05-03T05:57:02.153" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 130, 99 edit id of 116" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="843" RevisionGUID="e4a1fbe1-f561-48d3-8280-7eb05f73e119" CreationDate="2013-05-03T08:06:57.023" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar and spelling" Text="It depends on criteria and availability of energy and water around your area. If there is a scarcity of water there then you should not waste water and save it, so it depends on where you live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here there are many kinds of machines. Let me give one example; in an area around a river where lots of water is available there you can select a machine which saves more energy rather than water because energy is more precious than water, compared to other cases, an area of forest for example, where water is more precious. &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2529" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="e7fe88f4-4634-4287-8166-64dcd596cbee" CreationDate="2013-05-03T11:27:32.123" UserId="453" Comment="3" />
  <row Id="2530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="862" RevisionGUID="4fe27cce-0639-4729-822e-f448eed8ecee" CreationDate="2013-05-03T12:09:24.547" UserId="58" Text="In general, commuting is not more sustainable than working home or at least near (within a walk radius) home. But there are many cases where it's the better solution:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - having no job might be better than commuting from pure sustainability perspective, but it's clearly not acceptable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - not everyone can work at home. Some proffesions simply disallow it, and sometimes the family is a distraction so strong that the work is much less efficient at home than almost anywhere else&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it might be more sustainable to live with your family on countryside (where the rest of your family and you in your free time can engage in permacultural gardening and other sustainability-friendly activities) and commute than to live in a city&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - having another place to live and seeing your family during the weekends only is not only bad for relationships in your family, but is also likely to be less sustainable than telecommuting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To conclude, in general commuting is bad, but in practice the question &quot;to commute or not to commute?&quot; must be solved on &quot;case to case&quot; basis and is quite complex." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="777" RevisionGUID="dc619dc4-429c-4ae9-85d6-ae33d311bf96" CreationDate="2013-05-03T12:24:05.703" UserId="180" Comment="remove unfinished sentance" Text="# Environmental:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Modelling indicates insignificant ozone depletion potential, a significant global warming potential, and negligible acidification potential.&quot; [reference][1]  One gram of R-134a has the same global warming effect as 1.41 kilograms of CO2, while one gram of R-12 is similar to 8.5 kilograms of CO2. [reference][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Toxicity:&#xD;&#xA;According to the [EPA][2], the LC50 (lethal concentration for 50% of tests) for rats is &gt;500,000 ppm for R-134a compared to 760,000 ppm for R-12, which doesn't seem much different.  They're short term exposure limit is slightly different with R-134a at 75,000 ppm and 50,000 ppm for R-12.  It appears not to concentrate in soil or water since it vaporizes so easily so that is less of a concern than a breathing in near a large leak and general pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Quantity:&#xD;&#xA;It seems that most fridges have between 4 and 6 oz of R-134a in them.  I'm not sure how to convert an X ounce spill into a room sized Y into ppm, which makes it difficult to know just how dangerous it really is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/en/cicad11.pdf&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/refrigerants/safety.html&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/automobiles/02COOL.html?_r=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="863" RevisionGUID="a7f77cd6-47bf-4066-b666-712f6730a865" CreationDate="2013-05-04T01:15:55.477" UserId="318" Text="This does not attempt to provide a formula but comments on factors involved.  For some jobs it just doesn't work, of course. For example, a commercial cleaner is never going to &quot;work from home&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have largely here just referred to &quot;cost&quot; rather than energy cost except in a few specific cases. While energy cost percentage of a given item or service varies with circumstance, in an open market where other factors have not been purposefully brought to bear (directed taxes and duties, marketing 'spin', cartels,...) , energy cost is a significant and *very roughly* constant proportion of total cost.   &#xD;&#xA;[eg Oil costs nothing when it is in the ground. The major part of its market cost is the cost of exploration, field development, extraction and transportation. These in turn can be broken down into components where energy cost ends up playing a major part. And ultimately you get back to the cost of oil as the main factor in the cost of oil :-).   &#xD;&#xA;The price of diamonds and the cost of diamonds are essentially unrelated.   &#xD;&#xA;The cost of Nike products includes a large &quot;Just do it&quot; factor.]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with just &quot;cost&quot; is often an OK enough proxy for energy costs while a first impression is gained of what other factors are involved. This can then be refined as required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on distance involved.  &#xD;&#xA;Take the two  extremes and you get different answers, indicating that there is a crossover point at some stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At one extreme, if your home was  &quot;just around the corner&quot; from work premises then duplication of facilities would be liable to be inefficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At the other extreme, once work-location and company physical location are separated, you can communicate across a city or across the world just as easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - But as distance rises the cost and time for sending physical objects varies, so the importance and frequency of doing this affects the crossover point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Various factors discussed below modify where this crossover point will be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much distance matters depends on job type and how well you can operate at a large distance. Distance can increase efficiency of telecommuting because of the cost savings of you not having to travel, and increase the cost on the occasions when you do have to travel. Within a city or regional area factors include type of job, traffic densities, distance between the locations, quality of transport infrastructure and more. It is reasonably common in Asia for people to travel for 2 or more hours per day in each direction, but many take far less than this. I do not know the expectations in say the US or Europe but trip times of half an hour to one hour + would be usual here (Auckland, New Zealand's largest city) and two hours would be unusual but not unknown. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have to send papers or equipment or samples or work output then distance and time taken rise in 'steps'. Sending materiel across a city takes hours to a day by courier. Sending by post often next day or two days. Shorter times cost more as distance rises (&quot;1 hour&quot; couriers etc). In most 'developed countries' across a country sending by courier takes maybe a day or two, possibly three (depends on local factors). Sending small items (up to 10 or 20 kg say*) or papers across the world takes 3 days if you are happy to pay between an hour and a day of equivalent salary (depending on what your local earning levels are) or weeks to many weeks at lower but non-trivial cost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your job depends only on &quot;communications&quot; and you seldom or never need to send physical objects then it's more efficient to tele-commute in extreme cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To complicate the mix throw in worker trustability, ability to supervise and ability to obtain assistance or guidance when needed. Ability tos share with others you are working with or for can be critically important or of minimal relevance depending on the job involved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So  while, as noted above , somewhere there will be a &quot;crossover point&quot; it is so influenced by the above factors and many more that a simple (or even quite complex) formula is only going to be a starting point, and a study is likely to be required in each case where factors differ markedly from others already in operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two extreme examples:  &#xD;&#xA;In a recent TV program here the owner managers of a UK based company, who live in New Zealand (12,000 miles and about two days away) were discussing their customer helpline operation. The job requires &quot;only&quot; a 'telephone' connection and computer access.   &#xD;&#xA;Up until 7:59 pm each day, UK time,  this is operated by UK company staff. At 8pm you will be answered by a company employee in New Zealand. The calls are not outsourced. The people who talk to customers are product experts and company employees. They have access to the same company computer databases and resources. Interestingly, while they are 12,000 miles away from the customers, in this instance they still work in an office in NZ, and not at their homes. On the one hand the company has its NZ employees &quot;tele-commute&quot; 12,000 miles, but have not taken the final step of allowing them to take the final step, even though technology would allow it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am close to but not quite at the extreme end. I sit at my desk or workshop in New Zealand. As required I work almost simultaneously at various places elsewhere on earth - at present in USA, Canada, Serbia and China as required. Nobody that I work for or with is in NZ with me. Commuting is fun enough, when I occasionally get to do it, but there is no daily &quot;travelling to work&quot;. When you take the energy costs of travel plus a proportion of accommodation &amp; other costs involved (to allow for their energy costs) it adds up to what would be a modest but significant transportation budget if I travelled within my own city. But the annual travel hours are significantly lower, even allowing for the duration of international travel. Occasionally samples and prototypes do have to be sent across the world (usually NZ-China) costing time and money. But, quite apart from the fact that it would be impossible to be in all the places I need to be if I did not work &quot;remotely&quot;, the cost of 'working from home' is lower than it would be for me to work on the far side of my own city. I think it probable that by any metric that you choose, it is lower cost for me to &quot;telecommute&quot; than not to. I have not discussed the  cost of work premises or equipment or the affects of tax concessions for 'home offices' etc as they further complicate what is essentially a very broad overview. . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Many major international courier companies offer &quot;Jumbo&quot; boxes with 10 kg or 20 kg maximum weight and &quot;all you can fit in&quot; volume constraint. These are often superbly cost effective if you need to send more than about 50% of their weight in the volume provided. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="ec87fcb1-8e16-4013-a872-8eb0bdb56db5" CreationDate="2013-05-04T23:58:25.007" UserId="486" Text="&gt; these are shoes that can't be re-used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without pictures, I can only guess here.  But, if you're (a) in the US, and (b) have the time and internet access to be posting here, there's a good chance you still have a higher standard for *usable* footwear than many people in the world.  *If that's true*, then I would recommend **donating** them.  (If not, consider this answer to be for the benefit of others that read the question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *normal* wear patterns, it will often be the soles that wear holes.  Shoes can often be re-soled multiple times.  Your local shoe repair shop may give you a hard time if the shoes are in bad shape, but if you explain that you want to get them resoled so you can donate them to charity, they might be inclined to be a little more lenient with their policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your bunion holes may not be an issue for others.  If you really want to be generous, you might stop using your shoes **earlier**, just as the bunion hole starts to form.  That would make the shoe much easier to donate.  It would increase your total shoe budget, but might increase the systemic reusability of your shoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where you donate is going to vary by everyone's location, so I'll just post one (US) link here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   http://www.recycledrunners.com/shoe-donation-programs/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with many other sustainability issues, ideally, you could find somewhere relatively local (e.g. same country) to distribute the donations, since shipping old shoes takes energy, and your shoes probably already got shipped across on ocean once." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="d0ce468f-12d0-454f-aa93-cae21f394784" CreationDate="2013-05-05T00:06:17.390" UserId="486" Comment="added summary statement" Text="&gt; these are shoes that can't be re-used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without pictures, I can only guess here.  But, if you're (a) in the US, and (b) have the time and internet access to be posting here, there's a good chance you still have a higher standard for *usable* footwear than many people in the world.  *If that's true*, then I would recommend **donating** them.  (If not, consider this answer to be for the benefit of others that read the question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *normal* wear patterns, it will often be the soles that wear holes.  Shoes can often be re-soled multiple times.  Your local shoe repair shop may give you a hard time if the shoes are in bad shape, but if you explain that you want to get them resoled so you can donate them to charity, they might be inclined to be a little more lenient with their policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your bunion holes may not be an issue for others.  If you really want to be generous, you might stop using your shoes **earlier**, just as the bunion hole starts to form.  That would make the shoe much easier to donate.  It would increase your total shoe budget, but might increase the systemic reusability of your shoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where you donate is going to vary by everyone's location, so I'll just post one (US) link here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   http://www.recycledrunners.com/shoe-donation-programs/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with many other sustainability issues, ideally, you could find somewhere relatively local (e.g. same country) to distribute the donations, since shipping old shoes takes energy, and your shoes probably already got shipped across on ocean once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember: try to reduce first, **reuse second**, and recycle third." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="864" RevisionGUID="bf08eb73-1680-481f-8485-931e12690891" CreationDate="2013-05-05T03:25:09.323" UserId="486" Comment="typo" Text="&gt; these are shoes that can't be re-used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without pictures, I can only guess here.  But, if you're (a) in the US, and (b) have the time and internet access to be posting here, there's a good chance you still have a higher standard for *usable* footwear than many people in the world.  *If that's true*, then I would recommend **donating** them.  (If not, consider this answer to be for the benefit of others that read the question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For *normal* wear patterns, it will often be the soles that wear holes.  Shoes can often be re-soled multiple times.  Your local shoe repair shop may give you a hard time if the shoes are in bad shape, but if you explain that you want to get them resoled so you can donate them to charity, they might be inclined to be a little more lenient with their policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your bunion holes may not be an issue for others.  If you really want to be generous, you might stop using your shoes **earlier**, just as the bunion hole starts to form.  That would make the shoe much easier to donate.  It would increase your total shoe budget, but might increase the systemic reusability of your shoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where you donate is going to vary by everyone's location, so I'll just post one (US) link here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   http://www.recycledrunners.com/shoe-donation-programs/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with many other sustainability issues, ideally, you could find somewhere relatively local (e.g. same country) to distribute the donations, since shipping old shoes takes energy, and your shoes probably already got shipped across an ocean once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember: try to reduce first, **reuse second**, and recycle third." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2539" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="852" RevisionGUID="13cad237-eea9-4da6-a3d4-a7797ed5cf69" CreationDate="2013-05-05T10:58:07.477" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/330999846410518528" />
  <row Id="2540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="865" RevisionGUID="e1f5e383-ee5f-4ac5-9bcf-29cb4dc12fb9" CreationDate="2013-05-05T12:34:11.650" UserId="502" Text="I occasionally need exactly a cup of water boiled for tea.  Whenever I boil the kettle to do so, I wonder if it would be more energy efficient to use the microwave, as then I would have exactly the right amount of water, which pressumably would reduce waste; however I suspect this is actually a complex issue - does anyone have some maths to hang that I can plug numbers into? This does, of course, generalise into: do I ever need a kettle? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="865" RevisionGUID="e1f5e383-ee5f-4ac5-9bcf-29cb4dc12fb9" CreationDate="2013-05-05T12:34:11.650" UserId="502" Text="Tea in the microwave" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="865" RevisionGUID="e1f5e383-ee5f-4ac5-9bcf-29cb4dc12fb9" CreationDate="2013-05-05T12:34:11.650" UserId="502" Text="|energy|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="866" RevisionGUID="15a39e4b-0475-469e-b6ab-d4f0690a0064" CreationDate="2013-05-05T16:56:43.050" UserId="526" Text="According to the [wikipedia][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A typical consumer microwave oven consumes 1100 W of electricity in producing 700 W of microwave power, an efficiency of 64%. The other 400 W are dissipated as heat, mostly in the magnetron tube. Additional power is used to operate the lamps, AC power transformer, magnetron cooling fan, food turntable motor and the control circuits. Such wasted heat, along with heat from the product being microwaved, is exhausted as warm air through cooling vents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, it seems that not all the microwave power is converted directly to the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that, for the good-quality kettle, power efficiency is close to 100%, boiling one cup of tea in a microwave oven requires the same energy as boiling 1.5 (or more) cups of tea in a kettle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you consume the tea in significant quantities, the most efficient way would be to use an [electric water boiler][2]. Heat losses in these are close to zero, so it is okay to boil more water than you need at the moment; and power efficiency is close to 100% (as nearly all the electricity is converted directly to the heat). Additionally, you wouldn't have to waste your time waiting for the water to boil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Heating_efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_water_boiler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="ce200a7e-cb62-4f5c-931c-3cd2005c0581" CreationDate="2013-05-06T04:25:19.533" UserId="89" Text="I am looking for a new place to live and I know the winters will be very cold (-20 C) but coming from a warm climate country, I wanted to learn what to look for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the bit I understand, steam heating looses a lot of energy to the walls and surroundings, but it doesn't need the pumping that water based heating uses (which spends more energy). Is there a clear advantage of one over the other?&#xD;&#xA;Electric heaters don't use the propane usually burnt in furnaces, but then again, it will spend loads of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know insulation will be a great part of the answer. Does the material used to build the walls have a big impact? Brick vs Wood for example?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2547" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="ce200a7e-cb62-4f5c-931c-3cd2005c0581" CreationDate="2013-05-06T04:25:19.533" UserId="89" Text="What is the most sustainable heating strategy for a home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2548" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="ce200a7e-cb62-4f5c-931c-3cd2005c0581" CreationDate="2013-05-06T04:25:19.533" UserId="89" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="f4e09f18-df6c-4c9a-bbfc-c19452de0d41" CreationDate="2013-05-06T10:07:38.300" UserId="99" Comment="added more info on difference between leachate and worm tea" Text="Many sites on the internet mention that the liquid from vermicompost is the ideal fluid for (fertilizing) your garden. However, I haven't seen any scientific evidence on this anywhere so I suspect it doesn't exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a quick google and found [this document](http://www.scribd.com/doc/35270170/40/Vermiliquid) where on page 19 it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The evidence for the nutritional value of vermiliquid products is largely anecdotal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There is a paucity of literature available that has investigated the use and quality of vermiliquids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of [this book](http://books.google.com/books/about/Composting_with_Worms.html?id=szGwPAAACAAJ) goes one step further and claims vermiliquid is just waste water and can go bad quickly so it should not be used on your plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---- &#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;I just found an [interesting article](http://www.wormfarmingrevealed.com/leachate-vs-worm-tea.html) describing the differences between worm tea (aka vermicast tea or [compost tea](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Compost_tea)) and leachate. In short, leachate from you wormbin may contain harmful pathogens. Worm tea you make yourself by puting wormcastings and a food source like malasses in clean water and leaving it for a few days. If the water is air-rich (you'll have place an aquarium pump or something in the water) then the good micro-organisms in the water will multiply. &#xD;&#xA;According to [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Compost_tea) compost tea is very weak in nutrients but can be used for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reducing incidence of harmful phytopathogenic fungi in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phyllosphere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="868" RevisionGUID="4d8dd267-5deb-4b1c-926d-9d2fd14ec287" CreationDate="2013-05-06T10:14:24.027" UserId="15" Text="Method:&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Measure 252g of cold tap water into Frog Mug using electronic kitchen scales, being the amount I'd use to make a cup of tea. Temperature according to my thermometer is 18 degrees C.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Plug microwave in through power meter.&#xD;&#xA; 3. See how long the water in the Frog Mug takes to boil in the microwave, and measure wattage used.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Measure 252g of cold tap water into Dog Mug using electronic kitchen scales, being the amount I'd use to make a cup of tea. Temperature according to my thermometer is 18 degrees C. Add a little extra because otherwise I end up with lime scale from the kettle in my tea. Though I picked this amount roughly, this worked out to be 121g giving 373g altogether. I could've used less.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Pour the 373g of water from the Dog Mug into the electric kettle, and plug it in through the power meter.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Boil the kettle, measure the wattage, and time how long it takes to boil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Microwave and frog mug][1]&#xD;&#xA;![Electric kettle and dog mug][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Results&#xD;&#xA;=======&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Frog Mug, in the microwave:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - My thermometer only goes up to 50 degrees C, so I very briefly took out the Frog Mug at 30s and 50s to measure the temperature, which was 32 degrees and 40 degrees respectively. I put it on for a further 2 minutes after that, for a total of 2 minutes 50 seconds.&#xD;&#xA; - Though it was a little hard to see through the mesh in the microwave while it was running, the water just started to appear to boil after 2m50s.&#xD;&#xA; - The microwave used 1315 watts of power throughout the test, thus using a total of 223550 Watt-seconds of power. If I did my calculations correctly, this is 0.062kWh (which costs a bit under 2 cents here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dog Mug, from the kettle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It took 1m 28s for the water to start to boil in the kettle, however it didn't automatically shut itself off until 1m52s. &#xD;&#xA; - The kettle used 990 Watts of power, which gives a total power usage of 110880 Watt-seconds, or 0.031kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The microwave would also have been heating the Frog Mug as it heated the water, so this gives a hotter cup of tea than the kettle, unless some hot water from the kettle is swirled around the mug and discarded before pouring from the kettle. Water in a lighter (or less thermally conductive) mug would boil quicker.&#xD;&#xA; - The heat lost by my measuring of the temperature of the water in the Frog Mug would probably have been fairly minimal, but still non-zero.&#xD;&#xA; - My Frog Mug weighs 366g, though I have a mug of similar size that only weighs 252g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The water heated by the electric kettle used only about half the energy of the water heated in the microwave, despite a greater quantity of water being heated.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I could have saved a further 23760 Watt-seconds, or 0.007kWh of power if I manually switched off the kettle when it first started boiling.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lu0TY.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/n2sbM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="aef0e49f-8ad6-485f-99fd-8e437211db33" CreationDate="2013-05-06T10:30:01.387" UserId="99" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Many sites on the internet mention that the liquid from vermicompost is the ideal fluid for (fertilizing) your garden. However, I haven't seen any scientific evidence on this anywhere so I suspect it doesn't exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a quick google and found [this document](http://www.scribd.com/doc/35270170/40/Vermiliquid) where on page 19 it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The evidence for the nutritional value of vermiliquid products is largely anecdotal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There is a paucity of literature available that has investigated the use and quality of vermiliquids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of [this book](http://books.google.com/books/about/Composting_with_Worms.html?id=szGwPAAACAAJ) goes one step further and claims vermiliquid is just waste water and can go bad quickly so it should not be used on your plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---- &#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;I just found an [interesting article](http://www.wormfarmingrevealed.com/leachate-vs-worm-tea.html) describing the differences between worm tea (aka vermicast tea or [compost tea](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Compost_tea)) and leachate. In short the article says that leachate from you wormbin may contain harmful pathogens. Worm tea is something you make yourself by puting wormcastings and a food source like malasses in clean water and leaving it for a few days. If the water is air-rich (you'll have place an aquarium pump or something in the water) then the good micro-organisms in the water will multiply. &#xD;&#xA;According to [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Compost_tea) compost tea is very weak in nutrients but can be used for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reducing incidence of harmful phytopathogenic fungi in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phyllosphere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="868" RevisionGUID="e3d2c7d3-e7e0-4906-bc97-5fd5d9027961" CreationDate="2013-05-06T10:39:11.217" UserId="15" Comment="added 310 characters in body" Text="Method:&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Measure 252g of cold tap water into Frog Mug using electronic kitchen scales, being the amount I'd use to make a cup of tea. Temperature according to my thermometer is 18 degrees C.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Plug microwave in through power meter.&#xD;&#xA; 3. See how long the water in the Frog Mug takes to boil in the microwave, and measure wattage used.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Measure 252g of cold tap water into Dog Mug using electronic kitchen scales, being the amount I'd use to make a cup of tea. Temperature according to my thermometer is 18 degrees C. Add a little extra because otherwise I end up with lime scale from the kettle in my tea. Though I picked this amount roughly, this worked out to be 121g giving 373g altogether. I could've used less.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Pour the 373g of water into the electric kettle, and plug it in through the power meter.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Boil the kettle, measure the wattage, and time how long it takes to boil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Microwave and frog mug][1]&#xD;&#xA;![Electric kettle and dog mug][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Results&#xD;&#xA;=======&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Frog Mug, in the microwave:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - My thermometer only goes up to 50 degrees C, so I very briefly took out the Frog Mug at 30s and 50s to measure the temperature, which was 32 degrees and 40 degrees respectively. I put it on for a further 2 minutes after that, for a total of 2 minutes 50 seconds.&#xD;&#xA; - Though it was a little hard to see through the mesh in the microwave while it was running, the water just started to appear to boil after 2m50s.&#xD;&#xA; - The microwave used 1315 watts of power throughout the test, thus using a total of 223550 Watt-seconds of power. If I did my calculations correctly, this is 0.062kWh (which costs a bit under 2 cents here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dog Mug, from the kettle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It took 1m 28s for the water to start to boil in the kettle, however it didn't automatically shut itself off until 1m52s. &#xD;&#xA; - The kettle used 990 Watts of power, which gives a total power usage of 110880 Watt-seconds, or 0.031kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The microwave would also have been heating the Frog Mug as it heated the water, so this gives a hotter cup of tea than the kettle, unless some hot water from the kettle is swirled around the mug and discarded before pouring from the kettle. Water in a lighter (or less thermally conductive) mug would boil quicker.&#xD;&#xA; - The heat lost by my measuring of the temperature of the water in the Frog Mug would probably have been fairly minimal, but still non-zero.&#xD;&#xA; - My Frog Mug weighs 366g, though I have a mug of similar size that only weighs 252g.&#xD;&#xA; - Also bear in mind that boiling water in the microwave can [sometimes be dangerous][3].&#xD;&#xA; - The microwave (a Sharp Carousel) was purchased in approx 2004; I don't know if more recent models are any more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The water heated by the electric kettle used only about half the energy of the water heated in the microwave, despite a greater amount of water being heated.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I could have saved a further 23760 Watt-seconds (21% of the total used), or 0.007kWh of power if I manually switched off the kettle when it first started boiling.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lu0TY.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/n2sbM.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/303/can-microwaved-water-explode/306#306" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="868" RevisionGUID="2a16a8c3-7789-47ec-b63a-8abf7fc9a617" CreationDate="2013-05-06T10:46:55.497" UserId="15" Comment="added 310 characters in body" Text="Use the kettle if you have one, and if you're nearby, switch it off as soon as it boils.&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some evidence to prove it's the best option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method:&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Measure 252g of cold tap water into Frog Mug using electronic kitchen scales, being the amount I'd use to make a cup of tea. Temperature according to my thermometer is 18 degrees C.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Plug microwave in through power meter.&#xD;&#xA; 3. See how long the water in the Frog Mug takes to boil in the microwave, and measure wattage used.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Measure 252g of cold tap water into Dog Mug using electronic kitchen scales, being the amount I'd use to make a cup of tea. Temperature according to my thermometer is 18 degrees C. Add a little extra because otherwise I end up with lime scale from the kettle in my tea. Though I picked this amount roughly, this worked out to be 121g giving 373g altogether. I could've used less.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Pour the 373g of water into the electric kettle, and plug it in through the power meter.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Boil the kettle, measure the wattage, and time how long it takes to boil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Microwave and frog mug][1]&#xD;&#xA;![Electric kettle and dog mug][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Results&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Frog Mug, in the microwave:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - My thermometer only goes up to 50 degrees C, so I very briefly took out the Frog Mug at 30s and 50s to measure the temperature, which was 32 degrees and 40 degrees respectively. I put it on for a further 2 minutes after that, for a total of 2 minutes 50 seconds.&#xD;&#xA; - Though it was a little hard to see through the mesh in the microwave while it was running, the water just started to appear to boil after 2m50s.&#xD;&#xA; - The microwave used 1315 watts of power throughout the test, thus using a total of 223550 Watt-seconds of power. If I did my calculations correctly, this is 0.062kWh (which costs a bit under 2 cents here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dog Mug, from the kettle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It took 1m 28s for the water to start to boil in the kettle, however it didn't automatically shut itself off until 1m52s. &#xD;&#xA; - The kettle used 990 Watts of power, which gives a total power usage of 110880 Watt-seconds, or 0.031kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The microwave would also have been heating the Frog Mug as it heated the water, so this gives a hotter cup of tea than the kettle, unless some hot water from the kettle is swirled around the mug and discarded before pouring from the kettle. Water in a lighter (or less thermally conductive) mug would boil quicker.&#xD;&#xA; - The heat lost by my measuring of the temperature of the water in the Frog Mug would probably have been fairly minimal, but still non-zero.&#xD;&#xA; - My Frog Mug weighs 366g, though I have a mug of similar size that only weighs 252g.&#xD;&#xA; - Also bear in mind that boiling water in the microwave can [sometimes be dangerous][3].&#xD;&#xA; - The microwave (a Sharp Carousel) was purchased in approx 2004; I don't know if more recent models are any more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The water heated by the electric kettle used only about half the energy of the water heated in the microwave, despite a greater amount of water being heated.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I could have saved a further 23760 Watt-seconds (21% of the total used), or 0.007kWh of power if I manually switched off the kettle when it first started boiling.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lu0TY.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/n2sbM.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/303/can-microwaved-water-explode/306#306" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="9f78ea37-047d-41c2-9bd9-faecad8ce9a9" CreationDate="2013-05-06T10:48:30.910" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo" Text="Many sites on the internet mention that the liquid from vermicompost is the ideal fluid for (fertilizing) your garden. However, I haven't seen any scientific evidence on this anywhere so I suspect it doesn't exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a quick google and found [this document](http://www.scribd.com/doc/35270170/40/Vermiliquid) where on page 19 it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The evidence for the nutritional value of vermiliquid products is largely anecdotal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There is a paucity of literature available that has investigated the use and quality of vermiliquids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of [this book](http://books.google.com/books/about/Composting_with_Worms.html?id=szGwPAAACAAJ) goes one step further and claims vermiliquid is just waste water and can go bad quickly so it should not be used on your plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---- &#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;I just found an [interesting article](http://www.wormfarmingrevealed.com/leachate-vs-worm-tea.html) describing the differences between worm tea (aka vermicast tea or [compost tea](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Compost_tea)) and leachate. In short the article says that leachate from a wormbin may contain harmful pathogens. Worm tea is something you make yourself by puting wormcastings and a food source like malasses in clean water and leaving it for a few days. If the water is air-rich (you'll have place an aquarium pump or something in the water) then the good micro-organisms in the water will multiply. &#xD;&#xA;According to [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Compost_tea) compost tea is very weak in nutrients but can be used for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reducing incidence of harmful phytopathogenic fungi in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phyllosphere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2555" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="e7dee1d7-b7be-4e7a-a82c-699543a35796" CreationDate="2013-05-06T10:58:09.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/331362241595191296" />
  <row Id="2556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="869" RevisionGUID="c6263330-fe58-40ce-89a5-379c61c46f7a" CreationDate="2013-05-06T12:12:07.737" UserId="528" Text="I'm trying to calculate the ecological footprint my sexual activity will have on society 40 years into the future. What is the best amount of children to bring to the world to create a sustainable earth? How much is the life time pollution of a human being?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="869" RevisionGUID="c6263330-fe58-40ce-89a5-379c61c46f7a" CreationDate="2013-05-06T12:12:07.737" UserId="528" Text="How many children can I sustainably bring to this world?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="869" RevisionGUID="c6263330-fe58-40ce-89a5-379c61c46f7a" CreationDate="2013-05-06T12:12:07.737" UserId="528" Text="|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="870" RevisionGUID="7f8c521d-008e-4f90-b91d-935c07d41df9" CreationDate="2013-05-06T13:10:15.030" UserId="180" Text="You can only ever get a 1st order approximation to this question, which is something like the average pollution/person in your country.  You can get vastly different answers depending on how you approach it.  You could figure the average person in your state or city or neighborhood, they are all likely to be different.  You could also figure an average for people who posts on this forum, and you might get a negative amount of pollution/person! (if they help other people reduce more pollution than they themselves generate)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many other responses too, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The Earth is already over carrying capacity, have no children&#xD;&#xA;- If all the environmentalists stop having kids, we'll run out of environmentalists in a generation&#xD;&#xA;- Having kids is natural, so its ok&#xD;&#xA;- We're going to have to find a way to deal with over population no matter what, whats one more kid?&#xD;&#xA;- Technology will save us, so have as many as you want/can afford&#xD;&#xA;- We're going to populate space anyway, so who cares?&#xD;&#xA;- We must go back to preagricultural populations and lifestyles, so no more kids&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list goes on ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="871" RevisionGUID="732b0299-9dca-4a8b-9abe-f40fc5d4273c" CreationDate="2013-05-06T13:16:58.537" UserId="143" Text="Apparantly there are some advances in converting heat to electricity such as [here][1] or [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But are there any commercial solutions/devices/DIY projects or is this at the moment (as stated in the article) only available in large scale industrial facilities?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2013/02/22/recycling-heat-into-electricity-is-getting-more-feasible/ &quot;here&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2239830/Cheap-material-DIRT-convert-heat-directly-electricity-New-discovery-revolutionise-power-generation.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="871" RevisionGUID="732b0299-9dca-4a8b-9abe-f40fc5d4273c" CreationDate="2013-05-06T13:16:58.537" UserId="143" Text="Are there any viable DIY or commercial solutions to convert waste heat to electricity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="871" RevisionGUID="732b0299-9dca-4a8b-9abe-f40fc5d4273c" CreationDate="2013-05-06T13:16:58.537" UserId="143" Text="|waste|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="872" RevisionGUID="1a728585-2aee-4789-a9d2-e15ebb408a90" CreationDate="2013-05-06T13:23:38.680" UserId="58" Text="There are too many variables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First: what we mean by sustainability in this case? It could mean &quot;resources will never run out&quot;. If no other factors apply and sustainability is the only meaning of life, no children, collective suicide and controlled extinction of human race seems to be the best solution. This is clearly not what we really want (not only because nuclear warfare and other ways we would probably do to assure controlled extinction are much less sustainable than status quo). &gt;=)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's other definition of sustainability: sustainable society can exist for very long time (even for the rest of humankind's existence) without destroying its environment and running out of all its resources (some may run out if they are completely replaced by other - but it takes time, so they mustn't be depleted very quickly). This is easier with less people, but discipline is much more important than numbers. Many people really trying to live sustainably produce less waste than few who don't care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the social aspect: slightly more than two children are ideal to sustain the society forever. Assuming most children will grow up and have their families (which is often not the case), much more children will lead to overpopulation, while less children will lead to aging of the population, high percentage of old and frail and decreased stability of the society. This doesn't mean that every family should have exactly 2.1 kid, but that it's good to move the average closer to this value. In most rich countries, we have a dilemma between having no/few children and improve the average planetwise (and make the country's society demographically less sustainable), or having many children and improve the average countrywise (but adding to global overpopulation). So it's up to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While we can argue a lot whether it's better to have many or few children, we would certainly all agree that it's important how you raise your kids. Few families can really teach their children to resist the ads and other influences forcing them to buy a lot of things and not to care about sustainability very much. My personal opinion is that ten children with sustainable habits and strong belief that loving family or nice countryside are more important than things and money are much more sustainable than one kid who think that hapiness is a function of money spent on products advertised on TV.  &#xD;&#xA;To conclude, I'd say that the best is as much children as you can raise well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2564" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="865" RevisionGUID="00266de7-06a8-4344-83a8-a732f83f6575" CreationDate="2013-05-06T13:58:09.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/331407541013733376" />
  <row Id="2565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="46edd117-7b2a-4e6f-b6a0-d9ae8b34d624" CreationDate="2013-05-06T14:50:26.770" UserId="234" Text="I am looking for a solution to replace a broken electricity generator I considered using solar panels or a wind turbine. Or even both. I need it for an animal shed and the targeted consumption units would be a couple of light-bulbs (5-10) initially and in the future maybe something more. Unfortunately my know-how related to such things is close to zero but I would like to improve this. I don't mind a little bit of own research and some DYI job. As the animal shelter would be used in winter too. A full recommendation of what I would need would be highly appreciate!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your time! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="46edd117-7b2a-4e6f-b6a0-d9ae8b34d624" CreationDate="2013-05-06T14:50:26.770" UserId="234" Text="Wind turbine vs. solar panel or both?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="46edd117-7b2a-4e6f-b6a0-d9ae8b34d624" CreationDate="2013-05-06T14:50:26.770" UserId="234" Text="|solar-power|wind-power|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2568" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="f0b52807-1890-4794-81ea-0d4ee83b99e1" CreationDate="2013-05-06T16:58:09.470" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/331452838100217856" />
  <row Id="2569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="3e581ff9-8720-4a2b-93ac-244d091ad31b" CreationDate="2013-05-06T17:09:40.393" UserId="48" Comment="removed chatty stuff, added some formatting to make it more readable" Text="I am looking for a solution to replace a broken electricity generator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am considering using solar panels or a wind turbine. Or even both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need it for an animal shed and the targeted consumption units would be a couple of light-bulbs (5-10) initially and in the future maybe something more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately my know-how related to such things is close to zero but I would like to improve this. I don't mind a little bit of own research and some DIY job. The animal shelter would be used in winter too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="874" RevisionGUID="cdec2b69-dadc-4194-8adb-2685df191126" CreationDate="2013-05-06T17:32:07.607" UserId="530" Text="Unfortunately I (still!) have no first-hand experience with this, but I've been thinking about recovering heat from plain household waste water (shower, dishwasher, ...) for a while now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, you can only generate electricity if you have a temperature *difference*, that is, you need both a heat *source* and a heat *sink*. Now I assume this is no problem in your case, since you speak of waste &quot;heat&quot;, hinting that the rest of the environment is *colder*, so you have a difference. Nevertheless, it is something to consider during construction of any such device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use [thermoelectric generators](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator) (or more general, [this link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect), which will convert heat directly into electricity. You can such things pretty much everywhere; they're pretty cheap and come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, allowing you to effectively utilize many sources of waste heat as power source. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are not very efficient though. A much better approach seems to be the [Stirling engine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine). Granted, it's not as elegant as  thermoelectric generators: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it has moving parts, therefore, it sustains losses due to friction&#xD;&#xA; - has steeper maintenance requirements&#xD;&#xA; - it's more complicated so has a steeper learning curve to build yourself&#xD;&#xA; - it needs to be attached to a generator since it doesn't generate electricity itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is so much more efficient (I've seen front-to-back efficiencies in the order of 20% for differences of only a few degrees C). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If ever I have the time and money, I'd put my money on these things. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="875" RevisionGUID="d4f6129b-73f5-493d-bade-2fd13583f670" CreationDate="2013-05-06T17:35:04.180" UserId="48" Text="A specific answer to your very narrow question wouldn't be much use to anyone else; and you haven't given us enough information to give you a specific answer anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what we can do, is give you the types of information you'd need to make a decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I'll restrict it just to PV and wind, as that's what you've asked about; others reading this might want to ask another question, if they were interested in other types of renewables: solar thermal, hydro, geothermal, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. Understand your demand profile.&#xD;&#xA;First you need to know the profile of your electricity use.  Ideally hour-by-hour for a whole year; but at least an understanding of what's likely to be the two underlying cycles:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;1. annual variations - how the load varies by month in a typical year.&#xD;&#xA;2. daily variations - how the load varies by hour in a typical day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the most effective things you can do, is to max out the efficiency of the equipment you want to power: so LED lighting that's over 100 lumens per watt, that sort of thing. That minimises both the generation capacity, and any storage capacity, you might need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Understand the potential supply profile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 2a. Solar&#xD;&#xA;The nature of the solar resource, for photovoltaics, will be influenced by local shading patterns: the exact geometric configuration of buildings; and by the climate of the region you are in. If you can find a big-enough surface area that you can mount PV panels that would slope towards the equator, and almost never be shaded, that removes the local shading from the calculation, and that makes thing a lot simpler.  To get typical PV yield for your region, and to find out the best slope, then use a tool such as [PVGIS][1] or [PVWatts][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 2b. wind&#xD;&#xA;The wind profile is much much more susceptible to local geometry than solar is.  But you should be able to get a decent broadbrush indication from your national meteorological service, or one of the various global wind-resource maps, to get a first estimate.  You can pretty much ignore most roof-mounted turbines: they've such a low yield that many won't generate equivalent energy to that used to make them. Pole-mounted turbines are a better bet, but if you're in an urban area, then it's fairly unlikely that wind will be a contributor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##3. Understand correlations between supply and demand&#xD;&#xA;Some demands are positively correlated with wind or solar; some are negatively correlated. It's important to understand those correlations, otherwise you risk generating power at all the wrong times, and not at the right times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, lighting may be predominantly a night-time demand, so it would be strongly negatively correlated with solar, and that's a bad thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To take some counter examples: solar for air-conditioning would be a good match, because air-conditioning demand is higher when it's very sunny. Wind in the UK is higher in winter than summer, so a demand that is higher in winter than summer would be a positive correlation and a good match: for example, heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##4. Storage&#xD;&#xA;Generally, when many people think about renewables, they usually assume local storage is essential. And in most circumstances, they're wrong. The exception is when the site in question is not grid-connected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such a case, then you'll have two choices: storage, or load disconnection. Storage is usually expensive, so make sure that you know the value of load disconnection, to price the storage correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will then be a trade-off between the amount of storage you need, and the over-supply of generation capacity that you get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="874" RevisionGUID="65e6c1fc-6211-41b7-be3c-c596e2c18622" CreationDate="2013-05-06T17:37:32.300" UserId="530" Comment="added 512 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately I (still!) have no first-hand experience with this, but I've been thinking about recovering heat from plain household waste water (shower, dishwasher, ...) for a while now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, you can only generate electricity if you have a temperature *difference*, that is, you need both a heat *source* and a heat *sink*. Now I assume this is no problem in your case, since you speak of waste &quot;heat&quot;, hinting that the rest of the environment is *colder*, so you have a difference. Nevertheless, it is something to consider during construction of any such device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use [thermoelectric generators](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator) (or more general, [this link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect), which will convert heat directly into electricity. You can such things pretty much everywhere; they're pretty cheap and come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, allowing you to effectively utilize many sources of waste heat as power source. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are not very efficient though. A much better approach seems to be the [Stirling engine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine). Granted, it's not as elegant as  thermoelectric generators: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it has moving parts, therefore, it sustains losses due to friction&#xD;&#xA; - has steeper maintenance requirements&#xD;&#xA; - it's more complicated so has a steeper learning curve to build yourself&#xD;&#xA; - it needs to be attached to a generator since it doesn't generate electricity itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is so much more efficient (I've seen front-to-back efficiencies in the order of 20% for differences of only a few degrees C). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If ever I have the time and money, I'd put my money on these things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also interesting: the [vortex tube](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube). This thing allows you to split a stream of gas into hot and cold components, with 100% efficiency. A version for fluids exists as well, which, when used with waste water, would allow you to increase the temperature difference. But again, I haven't calculated anything; I'm not sure whether this would increase the total power output by the Stirling engine + turbine contraption. Still, it's an interesting thing to keep in mind. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="876" RevisionGUID="3c81abae-b48d-40b1-b11d-0a0d7351974c" CreationDate="2013-05-06T18:39:26.677" UserId="502" Text="Consider a situation in which I live in a fairly cold climate, and I like my house kept at, say, 17 degrees. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a heading system in my house that produces more or less heat depending on the current temperature in the house. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation - is the 'waste heat' given off my things like computer monitors, ovens, power supplys and the like actually wasted? Part of my wants to belive that it's all (in a small way) heating the house - or is this a massive oversimplification..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="876" RevisionGUID="3c81abae-b48d-40b1-b11d-0a0d7351974c" CreationDate="2013-05-06T18:39:26.677" UserId="502" Text="Is it true that if you have a themostat, then there is no such thing as 'waste heat'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="876" RevisionGUID="3c81abae-b48d-40b1-b11d-0a0d7351974c" CreationDate="2013-05-06T18:39:26.677" UserId="502" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="877" RevisionGUID="3f6daddf-3ce0-4359-be7b-2dd734db979a" CreationDate="2013-05-06T18:49:20.830" UserId="462" Text="When you're trying to heat your living space, any heat added to that space is useful. If you would be using those appliances anyway, you are essentially getting a free heat boost. However, I would not recommend using appliances solely for the purpose of generating heat--that *would* be wasteful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="868" RevisionGUID="17b19ca2-407c-41f8-99a7-231591944d5b" CreationDate="2013-05-06T18:53:05.860" UserId="15" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Use the kettle if you have one, and if you're nearby, switch it off as soon as it boils.&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some evidence to prove it's the best option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method:&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Measure 252g of cold tap water into Frog Mug using electronic kitchen scales, being the amount I'd use to make a cup of tea. Temperature according to my thermometer is 18 degrees C.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Plug microwave in through power meter.&#xD;&#xA; 3. See how long the water in the Frog Mug takes to boil in the microwave, and measure wattage used.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Measure 252g of cold tap water into Dog Mug using electronic kitchen scales, being the amount I'd use to make a cup of tea. Temperature according to my thermometer is 18 degrees C. Add a little extra because otherwise I end up with lime scale from the kettle in my tea. Though I picked this amount roughly, this worked out to be 121g giving 373g altogether. I could've used a little less.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Pour the 373g of water into the electric kettle, and plug it in through the power meter.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Boil the kettle, measure the wattage, and time how long it takes to boil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Microwave and frog mug][1]&#xD;&#xA;![Electric kettle and dog mug][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Results&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Frog Mug, in the microwave:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - My thermometer only goes up to 50 degrees C, so I very briefly took out the Frog Mug at 30s and 50s to measure the temperature, which was 32 degrees and 40 degrees respectively. I put it on for a further 2 minutes after that, for a total of 2 minutes 50 seconds.&#xD;&#xA; - Though it was a little hard to see through the mesh in the microwave while it was running, the water just started to appear to boil after 2m50s.&#xD;&#xA; - The microwave used 1315 watts of power throughout the test, thus using a total of 223550 Watt-seconds of power. If I did my calculations correctly, this is 0.062kWh (which costs a bit under 2 cents here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dog Mug, from the kettle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It took 1m 28s for the water to start to boil in the kettle, however it didn't automatically shut itself off until 1m52s. &#xD;&#xA; - The kettle used 990 Watts of power, which gives a total power usage of 110880 Watt-seconds, or 0.031kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The microwave would also have been heating the Frog Mug as it heated the water, so this gives a hotter cup of tea than the kettle, unless some hot water from the kettle is swirled around the mug and discarded before pouring from the kettle. Water in a lighter (or less thermally conductive) mug would boil quicker.&#xD;&#xA; - The heat lost by my measuring of the temperature of the water in the Frog Mug would probably have been fairly minimal, but still non-zero.&#xD;&#xA; - My Frog Mug weighs 366g, though I have a mug of similar size that only weighs 252g.&#xD;&#xA; - Also bear in mind that boiling water in the microwave can [sometimes be dangerous][3].&#xD;&#xA; - The microwave (a Sharp Carousel) was purchased in approx 2004; I don't know if more recent models are any more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The water heated by the electric kettle used only about half the energy of the water heated in the microwave, despite a greater amount of water being heated.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I could have saved a further 23760 Watt-seconds (21% of the total used), or 0.007kWh of power if I manually switched off the kettle when it first started boiling.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lu0TY.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/n2sbM.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/303/can-microwaved-water-explode/306#306" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="877" RevisionGUID="a58f19b6-e9e6-4e1d-a578-5be5e6d1c43f" CreationDate="2013-05-06T18:55:07.317" UserId="462" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="When you're trying to heat your living space, any heat added to that space is useful. If you would be using those appliances anyway, you are essentially getting a free heat boost. You should keep in mind that devices located far from the thermostat will heat rooms above the set temperature, while heat-producing devices near the thermostat will tend to reduce the amount of heat it tells your heating system to generate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would not recommend using appliances solely for the purpose of generating heat--that *would* be wasteful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="878" RevisionGUID="8906003a-4303-49cc-96a2-31ebaf007e0a" CreationDate="2013-05-06T19:06:45.827" UserId="480" Text="Whether or not waste heat from a lamp or appliance provides efficient and &quot;free&quot; heat depends on what kind of heat source your heat your home with. If you have electrical resistance heating, then your computer or a lamp is going to give you nearly identical heating efficiency. A tiny amount of energy will leave your house through magnetic and/or RF fields generated by the appliance as well as light leaving through a window, but this amount is negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you have a heat source that is more efficient or cost effective than electric resistance heating, like Natural Gas or an electric heat pump, then your &quot;waste heat&quot; will be less efficient at heating your house than your regular heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the placement of the heat source matters too -- while a freestanding light inside your room will deliver nearly all of its energy as heat, a ceiling lamp will conduct some of the heat up out of the room through the ceiling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="876" RevisionGUID="9b933486-dd77-4a1f-b172-eea80e206d2d" CreationDate="2013-05-06T19:20:51.007" UserId="462" Comment="minor spelling/grammar corrections" Text="Consider a situation in which I live in a fairly cold climate, and I like my house kept at, say, 17 degrees. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a heating system in my house that produces more or less heat depending on the current temperature in the house. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation - is the 'waste heat' given off my things like computer monitors, ovens, power supplies and the like actually wasted? Part of me wants to believe that it's all (in a small way) heating the house - or is this a massive oversimplification..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2581" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="876" RevisionGUID="9b933486-dd77-4a1f-b172-eea80e206d2d" CreationDate="2013-05-06T19:20:51.007" Comment="Proposed by 462 approved by 48 edit id of 117" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="879" RevisionGUID="65aa8b40-a1e1-434e-964e-6e4596cde5ba" CreationDate="2013-05-06T19:34:56.343" UserId="48" Text="No, it is not true if you have a themostat, then there is no such thing as 'waste heat'. If you have a thermostat, there can still be such a thing as waste heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Space&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The positioning and timing of heaters around the house typically isn't random: heating devices are typically sited in particular places, facing particular directions, for a good reason: we want heat to be some place in particular.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fridge and freezer will typically make one corner of your kitchen quite warm. Now, depending on air circulation and the surfaces behind it, much of that heat might be going out through an external wall. The same goes for the rest of waste heat: an incandescent lamp in the centre of a ceiling might only result in a warm centre of your ceiling that's no use at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Time&#xD;&#xA;Heating systems usually have time controllers on them, because it's rare to want heating on 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Waste heat from other appliances may be there when you don't want it, and may have leaked away by the time you did.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Increased cooling&#xD;&#xA;And anything that dumps heat year-round, in climates and buildings where part of the year is very hot, may be adding to the overheating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2583" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="876" RevisionGUID="475b2a1c-197d-41c4-afde-dbfdf33c7073" CreationDate="2013-05-06T19:58:09.597" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/331498137971732480" />
  <row Id="2585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="878" RevisionGUID="35038efb-de03-4bd3-bd45-3fca2a8216bb" CreationDate="2013-05-06T20:49:48.133" UserId="480" Comment="Clarify my point that waste heat may not be &quot;free&quot; heat" Text="It's true that all waste heat goes into heating the house, but whether or not waste heat from a lamp or appliance provides efficient and &quot;free&quot; heat depends on what kind of heat source your heat your home with (so turning off the appliance when not in-use or buying a more energy efficient appliance could be better overall). If you have electrical resistance heating, then your computer or a lamp is going to give you nearly identical heating efficiency. A tiny amount of energy will leave your house through magnetic and/or RF fields generated by the appliance as well as light leaving through a window, but this amount is negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you have a heat source that is more efficient or cost effective than electric resistance heating, like Natural Gas or an electric heat pump, then your &quot;waste heat&quot; will be less efficient at heating your house than your regular heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the placement of the heat source matters too -- while a freestanding light inside your room will deliver nearly all of its energy as heat, a ceiling lamp will conduct some of the heat up out of the room through the ceiling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="a89bcf4b-8977-4069-af6b-f2edb0bfda80" CreationDate="2013-05-06T21:01:10.107" UserId="91" Text="***Here are some ways you can help protect your plants from insects:***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Fertilize and water your plants regularly. Insects are less likely to infest healthy and well-nourished plants.&#xD;&#xA; - Pull weeds around your plants as well. Insects such as aphids and   &#xD;&#xA;   stinkbugs feed on weeds; if they surround your plants, they're likely to attack them as well.&#xD;&#xA; - Plant herbs and flowers around your plants. Basil helps ward off whiteflies, which are harmful to tomatoes, and oregano can help protect tomato and cucumber plants. Carrots and sunflowers help deter pests from your tomato plants. Nasturtiums and marigolds help protect both tomato and cucumber plants.&#xD;&#xA; - Add natural predators. Soldier beetles, tachinid flies and braconid wasps feed on striped cucumber beetles, which can help protect your cucumber plants. Parasitic wasps will   help eliminate leafminers and stink bugs from your tomato plants.  Bigeyed bugs and minute pirate bugs attack tomato fruitworms that can destroy the fruit and stems of your tomato plants. Attract insect predators by growing plants that feature small flowers, such as daisies, dill and coneflower. These plants will encourage predators of insects and beneficial insects including ladybugs, nematodes, bats and birds.&#xD;&#xA; - Cover your organic vegetables-Spunbound Polyester Rowcover keeps out pests but allows light, air &amp; water to get through.&#xD;&#xA; - Spray neem oil-Oils &amp; seeds from the neem tree have been used in&#xD;&#xA;   India for centuries. It's a great, low-toxicity insecticide &amp;&#xD;&#xA;   fungicide.&#xD;&#xA; - Weed your garden well and regularly to minimize hiding places for&#xD;&#xA;   insect pests and to prevent the weeds from competing with your&#xD;&#xA;   vegetables for water and nutrients.  Spray vinegar-Spray household&#xD;&#xA;   vinegar on your weeds. The acidic water kills them especially on&#xD;&#xA;   sunny days.&#xD;&#xA; - Remove infested plants to prevent the pests from spreading to&#xD;&#xA;   neighboring plants.&#xD;&#xA; - Use botanical insecticide-Pyrethrum spray or dust is made from a&#xD;&#xA;   daisy-like flower grown in Kenya. The flower is ground into powder.&#xD;&#xA;   It protects against ants, aphids, roaches, fleas &amp; flies but is not&#xD;&#xA;   good for cats.&#xD;&#xA; - Place traps around the outside of your garden. Pheromone traps&#xD;&#xA;   attract insects during their mating cycles, and yellow sticky traps&#xD;&#xA;   are effective against flying insects such as aphids, whiteflies and&#xD;&#xA;   fungus gnats." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="874" RevisionGUID="5e7bbe3e-740a-449f-84d2-96f87e8108b4" CreationDate="2013-05-06T21:47:30.950" UserId="530" Comment="added 371 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately I (still!) have no first-hand experience with this, but I've been thinking about recovering heat from plain household waste water for a while now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, you can only generate electricity if you have a temperature *difference*, that is, you need both a heat *source* and a heat *sink*. Now I assume this is no problem in your case, since you speak of waste &quot;heat&quot;, hinting that the rest of the environment is *colder*, so you have a difference. Nevertheless, it is something to consider during construction of any such device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of waste water: the most obvious solution would be to let cold water flow through the (hot) waste water, thus allow the cold water to heat up. The cold water (now warmer) is then used as new clean hot water in the appliance. In the case of showers (or comparable), this would mean you'd have to add less hot water from the boiler, thus saving energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For other applications, you could use [thermoelectric generators](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator) (or more general, [this link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect), which will convert heat directly into electricity. You can buy such things pretty much everywhere; they're pretty cheap and come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, allowing you to effectively utilize many sources of waste heat as power source. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are however not very efficient. A much better approach seems to be the [Stirling engine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine). Granted, it's not as elegant as thermoelectric generators: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it has moving parts, therefore, it sustains losses due to friction&#xD;&#xA; - has steeper maintenance requirements&#xD;&#xA; - it's more complicated so has a steeper learning curve to build yourself&#xD;&#xA; - it needs to be attached to a generator since it doesn't generate electricity itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is so much more efficient (I've seen front-to-back efficiencies in the order of 20% for differences of only a few degrees C). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If ever I have the time and money, I'd put my money on these things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also interesting: the [vortex tube](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube). This thing allows you to split a stream of gas into hot and cold components, with 100% efficiency. A version for fluids exists as well, which, when used with waste water, would allow you to increase the temperature difference. But again, I haven't calculated anything; I'm not sure whether this would increase the total power output by the Stirling engine + turbine contraption. Still, it's an interesting thing to keep in mind. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="845fe77c-ffb7-45c2-9d61-7b7909491c9c" CreationDate="2013-05-06T22:22:23.983" UserId="530" Text="We all know that when it comes to household electrical lighting, LED lights consume the least amount of energy, followed by fluorescent tubes, halogens, and Edison-age tungsten-filament light bulbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also know that roughly the same ordering applies when looking at endurance; LED's will last until the end of the universe, flurescent tubes will last thousands of hours, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've also all seen the graphs that show how much money you'll save for all of these types of electrical lighting. Looking at initial investment (purchase) and energy consumption over a year, the break-even point when compared to tungsten-filament bulbs lies for LED lights somewhere in the order of ~10-15 months, fluorescent tubes ~6 months and halogens ~4 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all very nice, but this all has a nasty sales-pitch/green-washed marketing aftertaste in all of this; way too much focus is on cost for the consumer, and very little is being said on actual overall energy expenditure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to prove to myself and everyone else that LED's are *really* the way to go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean is the following. I would like to create a graph, plotting total energy consumption versus time (so money is *not* considered), with four lines in them (one for each of the aforementioned types), that takes into account: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The energy it takes to create a single bulb. For example, to create a tungsten-filament light bulb, you need tungsten, glass, some metals, some plastics, a mixture of specific gases, ... Extraction/production/transportation of these materials takes an amount of energy per kg. Shaping it into a filament/glass housing/metal fitting/etc. takes an amount of energy, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Replacement time (This is why LED's will probably have a smooth line, and tungsten-filament bulbs-line will probably show frequent upward jumps due to replacement). The nominal amount of burn hours stated on the packages are not really sufficient here; these are averages somehow, and frequently come from calculations or accelerated setups rather than actual real-life experiments (how else would you know that LED's can burn 2 million hours?). A realistic statistical model should be assumed here, which I can't reliably find&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Energy expenditure due to disposal and/or recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Transportation. This is a broad topic and strongly depends on geographical location, but let's assume some worst-case scenario (where tungsten-filament bulbs have the advantage) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - anything else I've forgotten :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, calculations should be done for &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the most energy-efficient, state-of-the-art models for each kind&#xD;&#xA; - specific models with an equal or at least comparable amount of lumens produced&#xD;&#xA; - Daily average use of 5 hours in Winter, 2 hours in Summer, sinusoidal in between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it very hard to find sufficient details on this subject to be able to do this comparison. I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one thinking this, but I'm  just not finding them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have some pointers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="845fe77c-ffb7-45c2-9d61-7b7909491c9c" CreationDate="2013-05-06T22:22:23.983" UserId="530" Text="What form of electrical lighting has the smallest energy-footprint?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="845fe77c-ffb7-45c2-9d61-7b7909491c9c" CreationDate="2013-05-06T22:22:23.983" UserId="530" Text="|energy|electricity|ecological-footprint|energy-efficiency|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="0533de59-0020-4e39-9715-d934ef5ccf10" CreationDate="2013-05-06T22:27:28.087" UserId="530" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="We all know that when it comes to household electrical lighting, LED lights consume the least amount of energy for a given amount of light, followed by fluorescent tubes, halogens, and Edison-age tungsten-filament light bulbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also know that roughly the same ordering applies when looking at endurance; LED's will last until the end of the universe, flurescent tubes will last thousands of hours, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've also all seen the graphs that show how much money you'll save for all of these types of electrical lighting. Looking at initial investment (purchase) and energy consumption over a year, the break-even point when compared to tungsten-filament bulbs lies for LED lights somewhere in the order of ~10-15 months, fluorescent tubes ~6 months and halogens ~4 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all very nice, but this all has a nasty sales-pitch/green-washed marketing aftertaste in all of this; way too much focus is on cost for the consumer, and very little is being said on actual overall energy expenditure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to prove to myself and everyone else that LED's are *really* the way to go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean is the following. I would like to create a graph, plotting total energy consumption versus time (so money is *not* considered), with four lines in them (one for each of the aforementioned types), that takes into account: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The energy it takes to create a single bulb. For example, to create a tungsten-filament light bulb, you need tungsten, glass, some metals, some plastics, a mixture of specific gases, ... Extraction/production/transportation of these materials takes an amount of energy per kg. Shaping it into a filament/glass housing/metal fitting/etc. takes an amount of energy, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Replacement time (This is why LED's will probably have a smooth line, and tungsten-filament bulbs-line will probably show frequent upward jumps due to replacement). The nominal amount of burn hours stated on the packages are not really sufficient here; these are averages somehow, and frequently come from calculations or accelerated setups rather than actual real-life experiments (how else would you know that LED's can burn 2 million hours?). A realistic statistical model should be assumed here, which I can't find a reliable, authorative source for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Energy expenditure due to disposal and/or recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Transportation. This is a broad topic and strongly depends on geographical location, but let's assume some worst-case scenario (where tungsten-filament bulbs have the advantage) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - anything else I've forgotten :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, calculations should be done for &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the most energy-efficient, state-of-the-art models for each kind&#xD;&#xA; - specific models with an equal or at least comparable amount of lumens produced&#xD;&#xA; - Daily average use of 5 hours in Winter, 2 hours in Summer, sinusoidal in between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it very hard to find sufficient details on this subject to be able to do this comparison. I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one thinking this, but I'm  just not finding them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have some pointers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="dd82917d-e485-4875-a8f3-a7c2e297943c" CreationDate="2013-05-07T04:45:39.930" UserId="89" Text="This is a &quot;derived&quot; question from http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/867/what-is-the-most-sustainable-heating-strategy-for-a-home .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When talking about a home that has to withstand cold winters (-20 C), insulation is a big part of keeping this home sustainable. So if I am looking for a new place to live, or if building a new one, what is relevant &quot;insulation wise&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Does the material used to build the walls have a big impact? Brick vs Wood for example?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2593" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="dd82917d-e485-4875-a8f3-a7c2e297943c" CreationDate="2013-05-07T04:45:39.930" UserId="89" Text="What is the most sustainable house insulation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2594" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="dd82917d-e485-4875-a8f3-a7c2e297943c" CreationDate="2013-05-07T04:45:39.930" UserId="89" Text="|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="027ae481-e6d4-45c5-9301-253eb5d97689" CreationDate="2013-05-07T04:47:50.500" UserId="89" Comment="Split question following comments that stated the question was too broad." Text="I am looking for a new place to live and I know the winters will be very cold (-20 C) but coming from a warm climate country, I wanted to learn what to look for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the bit I understand, steam heating looses a lot of energy to the walls and surroundings, but it doesn't need the pumping that water based heating uses (which spends more energy). Is there a clear advantage of one over the other?&#xD;&#xA;Electric heaters don't use the propane usually burnt in furnaces, but then again, it will spend loads of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;Following directions given in comments, I split this question leaving the insulation part to http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/882/what-is-the-most-sustainable-house-insulation&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="bce50df2-65b0-48ec-90c5-080a4015e01c" CreationDate="2013-05-07T05:44:01.490" UserId="530" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="We all know that when it comes to household electrical lighting, LED lights consume the least amount of energy for a given amount of light, followed by fluorescent tubes, halogens, and Edison-age tungsten-filament light bulbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also know that roughly the same ordering applies when looking at endurance; LED's will last until the end of the universe, flurescent tubes will last thousands of hours, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've also all seen the graphs that show how much money you'll save for all of these types of electrical lighting. Looking at initial investment (purchase) and energy consumption over a year, the break-even point when compared to tungsten-filament bulbs lies for LED lights somewhere in the order of ~10-15 months, fluorescent tubes ~6 months and halogens ~4 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all very nice, but this all has a nasty sales-pitch/green-washed marketing aftertaste in all of this; way too much focus is on cost for the consumer, and very little is being said on actual overall energy expenditure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to prove to myself and everyone else that LED's are *really* the way to go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean is the following. I would like to create a graph, plotting total energy consumption versus time (so money is *not* considered), with four lines in them (one for each of the aforementioned types), that takes into account: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The energy it takes to create a single bulb. For example, to create a tungsten-filament light bulb, you need tungsten, glass, some metals, some plastics, a mixture of specific gases, cardboard and plastics for the packaging, ... Extraction/production/transportation of these materials takes an amount of energy per kg. Shaping it into a filament/glass housing/metal fitting/etc. takes an amount of energy, etc. In other words, from the &quot;stuff that's in the ground&quot; to &quot;finished product in the store&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Replacement time (this is why LED's will probably have a smooth line, and tungsten-filament bulbs-line will probably show frequent upward jumps due to replacement). The nominal amount of burn hours stated on the packages are not really sufficient here; these are averages somehow, and frequently come from calculations or accelerated setups rather than actual real-life experiments (how else would you know that LED's can burn 2 million hours?). A realistic statistical model should be assumed here, which I can't find a reliable, authorative source for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Energy expenditure due to disposal and/or recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Transportation. This is a broad topic and strongly depends on geographical location, but let's assume some worst-case scenario (where tungsten-filament bulbs have the advantage) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - anything else I've forgotten :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, calculations should be done for &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the most energy-efficient, state-of-the-art models for each kind&#xD;&#xA; - specific models with an equal or at least comparable amount of lumens produced&#xD;&#xA; - Daily average use of 5 hours in Winter, 2 hours in summer, sinusoidal in between (or some better, comparable model)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it very hard to find sufficient details on this subject to be able to do this comparison. I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one thinking this, but I'm  just not finding them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have some pointers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2597" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="e87f565f-91c7-42fd-aaf9-26b68e5ff8bb" CreationDate="2013-05-07T08:14:48.110" UserId="15" Comment="Updated title to match question details, added cold-climate tag" Text="What is the most sustainable house insulation suitable for a cold climate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2598" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="e87f565f-91c7-42fd-aaf9-26b68e5ff8bb" CreationDate="2013-05-07T08:14:48.110" UserId="15" Comment="Updated title to match question details, added cold-climate tag" Text="|insulation|cold-climate|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="4f0a51fd-e9b1-42ff-822f-fcb9d7b55a71" CreationDate="2013-05-07T08:25:46.857" UserId="530" Comment="added 414 characters in body" Text="We all know that when it comes to household electrical lighting, LED lights consume the least amount of energy for a given amount of light, followed by fluorescent tubes, halogens, and Edison-age tungsten-filament light bulbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also know that roughly the same ordering applies when looking at endurance; LED's will last until the end of the universe, flurescent tubes will last thousands of hours, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've also all seen the graphs that show how much money you'll save for all of these types of electrical lighting. Looking at initial investment (purchase) and energy consumption over a year, the break-even point when compared to tungsten-filament bulbs lies for LED lights somewhere in the order of ~10-15 months, fluorescent tubes ~6 months and halogens ~4 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all very nice, but this all has a nasty sales-pitch/green-washed marketing aftertaste in all of this; way too much focus is on cost for the consumer, and very little is being said on actual overall energy expenditure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to prove to myself and everyone else that LED's are *really* the way to go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean is the following. I would like to create a graph, plotting total energy consumption versus time (so money is *not* considered), with four lines in them (one for each of the aforementioned types), that takes into account: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *The energy it takes to create a single bulb*. For example, to create a tungsten-filament light bulb, you need tungsten, glass, some metals, some plastics, a mixture of specific gases, cardboard and plastics for the packaging, ... Extraction/production/transportation of these materials takes an amount of energy per kg. Shaping it into a filament/glass housing/metal fitting/etc. takes an amount of energy, etc. In other words, from the &quot;stuff that's in the ground&quot; to &quot;finished product in the store&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Replacement time* (this is why LED's will probably have a smooth line, and tungsten-filament bulbs-line will probably show frequent upward jumps due to replacement). The nominal amount of burn hours stated on the packages (mean time before failure, MTBF) is not really sufficient here; these are averages somehow, and frequently come from calculations or laboratory setups rather than actual real-life usage (how else can they claim that LED's can be lit for 10 years continuously?). Also, there is a finite chance that the average user will accidentally drop the bulb, crash into it with a ladder, etc, which is far worse for tungsten-filament bulbs and luminescent tubes than for LED's in protective casings. So, a far more realistic statistical model should be assumed here, which I can't find any reliable, authorative sources for...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Energy expenditure due to *disposal* and/or *recycling*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Transportation*. This is a broad topic and strongly depends on geographical location, but let's assume some worst-case scenario (where tungsten-filament bulbs have the advantage) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - anything else I've forgotten :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, such detailed calculations can only be done when making some assumptions. Let's assume: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the most energy-efficient, state-of-the-art models for each kind&#xD;&#xA; - specific models with an equal or at least comparable amount of lumens produced (say, equivalent to a 40W tungsten bulb)&#xD;&#xA; - Daily average use of 5 hours in Winter, 2 hours in summer, sinusoidal in between (or some better, comparable model)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it very hard to find sufficient details on this subject to be able to do this comparison. I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one thinking this, but I'm  just not finding them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know some sites or papers I should look into?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2600" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="876" RevisionGUID="07638a91-f8e1-4f51-a7da-2fbab6546838" CreationDate="2013-05-07T08:25:48.137" UserId="15" Comment="sp" Text="Is it true that if you have a thermostat, then there is no such thing as 'waste heat'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="874" RevisionGUID="d63b90a2-24c2-401b-8e5d-380dd756f766" CreationDate="2013-05-07T08:52:53.157" UserId="530" Comment="deleted 41 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately I (still!) have no first-hand experience with this, but I've been thinking about recovering heat from plain household waste water for a while now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, you can only generate electricity if you have a temperature *difference*, that is, you need both a heat *source* and a heat *sink*. Now I assume this is no problem in your case, since you speak of waste &quot;heat&quot;, hinting that the rest of the environment is *colder*, so you have a difference. Nevertheless, it is something to consider during construction of any such device. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of waste water: the most obvious solution would be to let cold water flow through the (hot) waste water, thus allow the cold water to heat up. The cold water (now warmer) is then used as new clean hot water in the appliance. In the case of showers (or comparable), this would mean you'd have to add less hot water from the boiler, thus saving energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For other applications, you could use [thermoelectric generators](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator) (or more general, [this link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect), which will convert heat directly into electricity. You can buy such things pretty much everywhere; they're pretty cheap and come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, allowing you to effectively utilize many sources of waste heat as power source. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are however not very efficient. A much more efficient approach seems to be the [Stirling engine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine). Granted, it's not as elegant as thermoelectric generators: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it has moving parts, therefore, it sustains losses due to friction&#xD;&#xA; - has steeper maintenance requirements&#xD;&#xA; - it's more complicated so has a steeper learning curve to build yourself&#xD;&#xA; - it needs to be attached to a generator since it doesn't generate electricity itself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is so much more efficient that if ever I have the time and money, I'd put my money on these things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also interesting: the [vortex tube](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube). This thing allows you to split a stream of gas into hot and cold components, with 100% efficiency (provided you have a pressurized waste product :). A version for fluids exists as well, which, when used with waste water, would allow you to increase the temperature difference. But again, I haven't calculated anything; I'm not sure whether this would increase the total power output by the Stirling engine + turbine contraption. Still, it's an interesting thing to keep in mind. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="4dce4cc7-9fd5-4659-a573-514d26f26898" CreationDate="2013-05-07T08:58:14.773" UserId="530" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="We all know that when it comes to household electrical lighting, LED lights consume the least amount of energy for a given amount of light, followed by fluorescent tubes, halogens, and Edison-age tungsten-filament light bulbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also know that roughly the same ordering applies when looking at endurance; LED's will last until the end of the universe, flurescent tubes will last thousands of hours, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've also all seen the graphs that show how much money you'll save for all of these types of electrical lighting. Looking at initial investment (purchase) and energy consumption over a year, the break-even point when compared to tungsten-filament bulbs lies for LED lights somewhere in the order of ~10-15 months, fluorescent tubes ~6 months and halogens ~4 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all very nice, but this all has a nasty sales-pitch/green-washed marketing aftertaste in all of this; way too much focus is on cost for the consumer, and very little is being said on actual overall energy expenditure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to prove to myself and everyone else that LED's are *really* the way to go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean is the following. I would like to create a graph, plotting total energy consumption versus time (so money is *not* considered), with four lines in them (one for each of the aforementioned types), that takes into account: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **The energy it takes to create a single bulb**. For example, to create a tungsten-filament light bulb, you need tungsten, glass, some metals, some plastics, a mixture of specific gases, cardboard and plastics for the packaging, ... Extraction/production/transportation of these materials takes an amount of energy per kg. Shaping it into a filament/glass housing/metal fitting/etc. takes an amount of energy, etc. In other words, from the &quot;stuff that's in the ground&quot; to &quot;finished product in the store&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Replacement time** (this is why LED's will probably have a smooth line, and tungsten-filament bulbs-line will probably show frequent upward jumps due to replacement). The nominal amount of burn hours stated on the packages (mean time before failure, MTBF) is not really sufficient here; these are averages somehow, and frequently come from calculations or laboratory setups rather than actual real-life usage (how else can they claim that LED's can be lit for 10 years continuously?). Also, there is a finite chance that the average user will accidentally drop the bulb, crash into it with a ladder, etc, which is far worse for tungsten-filament bulbs and luminescent tubes than for LED's in protective casings. So, a far more realistic statistical model should be assumed here, which I can't find any reliable, authorative sources for...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Energy expenditure due to **disposal** and/or **recycling**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Transportation**. This is a broad topic and strongly depends on geographical location, but let's assume some worst-case scenario (where tungsten-filament bulbs have the advantage) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - anything else I've forgotten :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, such detailed calculations can only be done when making some assumptions. Let's assume: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the most energy-efficient, state-of-the-art models for each kind&#xD;&#xA; - specific models with an equal or at least comparable amount of lumens produced (say, equivalent to a 40W tungsten bulb)&#xD;&#xA; - Daily average use of 5 hours in Winter, 2 hours in summer, sinusoidal in between (or some better, comparable model)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it very hard to find sufficient details on this subject to be able to do this comparison. I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one thinking this, but I'm  just not finding them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know some sites or papers I should look into?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="6a9b9955-63f4-470c-80ad-ecced4465d88" CreationDate="2013-05-07T09:22:12.937" UserId="530" Text="This question is a part of [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/881/what-form-of-electrical-lighting-has-the-smallest-energy-footprint). Perhaps it is better suited on the [physics SE](http://physics.stackexchange.com/), but here goes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how much energy it takes, in the modern world, to construct an ordinary, ready-to-buy light bulb, from the raw materials in the ground. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, I would like to know it for the following types of bulbs: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Tungsten-filament &#xD;&#xA; 2. Halogen&#xD;&#xA; 3. Fluorescent tube&#xD;&#xA; 4. LED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, to create a tungsten-filament light bulb, you would need &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - tungsten &#xD;&#xA; - glass&#xD;&#xA; - a few types of metal&#xD;&#xA; - a few types of plastic&#xD;&#xA; - a mixture of gases inside the bulb&#xD;&#xA; - cardboard and plastics for the packaging &#xD;&#xA; - etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These raw materials all require energy input: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Forming/shaping&#xD;&#xA;  - extracting tungsten from the ores, ..., creating filaments, ...&#xD;&#xA;  - creating the right kind of glasses, ..., creating bulb housing, ...&#xD;&#xA;  - etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Transportation &#xD;&#xA;   - of all the materials to their respective factories&#xD;&#xA;   - of all the (half-)products to the bulb factory&#xD;&#xA;   - of the bulb to the distribution centers/shop&#xD;&#xA;   - etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Losses&#xD;&#xA;   - a small percentage of the raw materials will be rejected &#xD;&#xA;   - a small percentage of the finished light bulbs will not work, and get rejected&#xD;&#xA;   - energy expenditure of the robotic components and other tools in the involved factories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize this is virtually impossible to answer accurately for even a specific light bulb from a specific store, let alone make general statements -- there are simply too many steps in between to be able to trace everything &quot;back to the ground&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm looking for, is authorative sources on this subject. Studies done on the energy demands of modern production lines, hopefully, with this type of product in particular. I'd like to come to a more complete list than the one above, and some reasonable estimates on the energy expenditure in each step, ideally for each type of lightbulb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2606" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="6a9b9955-63f4-470c-80ad-ecced4465d88" CreationDate="2013-05-07T09:22:12.937" UserId="530" Text="How much energy does it take to create a single light bulb?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2607" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="6a9b9955-63f4-470c-80ad-ecced4465d88" CreationDate="2013-05-07T09:22:12.937" UserId="530" Text="|energy|electricity|light|building-materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="03e42306-9292-4003-82ee-b13592881cb1" CreationDate="2013-05-07T09:29:29.077" UserId="530" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="We all know that when it comes to household electrical lighting, LED lights consume the least amount of energy for a given amount of light, followed by fluorescent tubes, halogens, and Edison-age tungsten-filament light bulbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also know that roughly the same ordering applies when looking at endurance; LED's will last until the end of the universe, flurescent tubes will last thousands of hours, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've also all seen the graphs that show how much money you'll save for all of these types of electrical lighting. Looking at initial investment (purchase) and energy consumption over a year, the break-even point when compared to tungsten-filament bulbs lies for LED lights somewhere in the order of ~10-15 months, fluorescent tubes ~6 months and halogens ~4 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all very nice, but this all has a nasty sales-pitch/green-washed marketing aftertaste in all of this; way too much focus is on cost for the consumer, and very little is being said on actual overall energy expenditure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to prove to myself and everyone else that LED's are *really* the way to go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean is the following. I would like to create a graph, plotting total energy consumption versus time (so money is *not* considered), with four lines in them (one for each of the aforementioned types), that takes into account: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **The energy it takes to create a single bulb**. See [this related question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/883/how-much-energy-does-it-take-to-create-a-single-light-bulb). For example, to create a tungsten-filament light bulb, you need tungsten, glass, some metals, some plastics, a mixture of specific gases, cardboard and plastics for the packaging, ... Extraction/production/transportation of these materials takes an amount of energy per kg. Shaping it into a filament/glass housing/metal fitting/etc. takes an amount of energy, etc. In other words, from the &quot;stuff that's in the ground&quot; to &quot;finished product in the store&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Replacement time** (this is why LED's will probably have a smooth line, and tungsten-filament bulbs-line will probably show frequent upward jumps due to replacement). The nominal amount of burn hours stated on the packages (mean time before failure, MTBF) is not really sufficient here; these are averages somehow, and frequently come from calculations or laboratory setups rather than actual real-life usage (how else can they claim that LED's can be lit for 10 years continuously?). Also, there is a finite chance that the average user will accidentally drop the bulb, crash into it with a ladder, etc, which is far worse for tungsten-filament bulbs and luminescent tubes than for LED's in protective casings. So, a far more realistic statistical model should be assumed here, which I can't find any reliable, authorative sources for...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Energy expenditure due to **disposal** and/or **recycling**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Transportation**. This is a broad topic and strongly depends on geographical location, but let's assume some worst-case scenario (where tungsten-filament bulbs have the advantage) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - anything else I've forgotten :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, such detailed calculations can only be done when making some assumptions. Let's assume: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the most energy-efficient, state-of-the-art models for each kind&#xD;&#xA; - specific models with an equal or at least comparable amount of lumens produced (say, equivalent to a 40W tungsten bulb)&#xD;&#xA; - Daily average use of 5 hours in Winter, 2 hours in summer, sinusoidal in between (or some better, comparable model)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it very hard to find sufficient details on this subject to be able to do this comparison. I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one thinking this, but I'm  just not finding them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know some sites or papers I should look into?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="884" RevisionGUID="f0eccfb3-260d-4c3a-b762-524dad53f75c" CreationDate="2013-05-07T09:38:39.527" UserId="532" Text="What is a sustainable population growth?   &#xD;&#xA;On the long term, if the population is growth is constant and positive, we will have severe overpopulation at some point in the future (exponential growth). When the growth is constant and negative, the population will decay until there is no one left in the far future. So both a population growth and decay are not sustainable since both cannot continue indefinitely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a first order approach would be to strive for a growth factor such that each generation has as many people as the previous. If you translate that requirement to a single person, that means that everybody must get one exactly child. Since it takes two people to create a new one, as a couple you will be sustainable if you have two children, in which you both have half a share. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This of course neglects the fact that some people die before they have children, so if you want to compensate for that you may choose to have 2.05 children of course. However that still rounds to 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question would then be what is a sustainable population?  &#xD;&#xA;And is that a constant number or does it change due to better use of natural resources?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the world is currently overpopulated. And whether that is in fact true or not doesn't really matter in my opinion. Why should we strive to have as much people as we can feed on this planet? I don't think it makes a better living if we are with 9 billion instead of 6 billion. Actually the quality of life seems to suffer from have the maximum number of people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you want to increase the quality of life, you need to have a slight decline in population. You don't want to decline too fast, since that has severe social and economic consequences. Who will look after you when you are old? Who will invest in new buildings if there is no one to buy them in the future? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think 2 children is a nice figure to aim for. It keeps the population more or less constant, with a slow decline due to the fact that not everybody will have children. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="884" RevisionGUID="1c904049-697c-4f7a-a73c-399c11217aec" CreationDate="2013-05-07T09:46:40.090" UserId="532" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="What is a sustainable population growth?   &#xD;&#xA;On the long term, if the population is growth is constant and positive, we will have severe overpopulation at some point in the future (exponential growth). When the growth is constant and negative, the population will decay until there is no one left in the far future. So both a population growth and decay are not sustainable since both cannot continue indefinitely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a first order approach would be to strive for a growth factor such that each generation has as many people as the previous. If you translate that requirement to a single person, that means that everybody must get one exactly child. Since it takes two people to create a new one, as a couple you will be sustainable if you have two children, in which you both have half a share. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This of course neglects the fact that some people die before they have children, so if you want to compensate for that you may choose to have 2.05 children of course. However that still rounds to 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second question would then be what is a sustainable population?  &#xD;&#xA;And is that a constant number or does it change due to better use of natural resources?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the world is currently overpopulated. And whether that is in fact true or not doesn't really matter in my opinion. Why should we strive to have as much people as we can feed on this planet? I don't think it makes a better living if we are with 9 billion instead of 6 billion. Actually the quality of life seems to suffer from having the maximum number of people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you want to increase the quality of life, you need to have a slight decline in population. You don't want to decline too fast, since that has severe social and economic consequences. Who will look after you when you are old? Who will invest in new buildings if there is no one to buy them in the future? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think 2 children is a nice figure to aim for. It keeps the population more or less constant, with a slow decline due to the fact that not everybody will have children. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="885" RevisionGUID="427b0bd8-d2a0-4c96-9bd9-a02fc69ac876" CreationDate="2013-05-07T12:32:39.867" UserId="28" Text="I've seen mud buildings that use glass bottles as part of the structure of the wall.  Is this for structural stability?  For heating and cooling properties?  What's the purpose? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="885" RevisionGUID="427b0bd8-d2a0-4c96-9bd9-a02fc69ac876" CreationDate="2013-05-07T12:32:39.867" UserId="28" Text="What's the purpose of the air pockets in mud building?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="885" RevisionGUID="427b0bd8-d2a0-4c96-9bd9-a02fc69ac876" CreationDate="2013-05-07T12:32:39.867" UserId="28" Text="|building-materials|building-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="886" RevisionGUID="9f68e607-157c-446d-91c7-bf134b1b086c" CreationDate="2013-05-07T13:03:03.517" UserId="180" Text="My understanding is that it is an easy, cheap and pretty way to let light in.  It avoids the trouble of putting in a larger square window with a frame and trim and everything.  It also can be done with reused materials, which is popular among those who like to build mud houses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="887" RevisionGUID="4be5ae8c-4163-4df5-b869-6a0371fd2ca7" CreationDate="2013-05-07T13:04:02.607" UserId="99" Text="Perhaps [this article](http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2012_LED_Lifecycle_Report.pdf) is what you are looking for? It's a study by the US Department of Energy on &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the life-cycle environmental and resource costs in the manufacturing, transport, use, and disposal of light-emitting diode (LED) lighting products in relation to comparable traditional lighting technologies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a [similar study](http://www.osram.hu/_global/pdf/Consumer/General_Lighting/LED_Lamps/Life_Cycle_Assessment_of_Illuminants.pdf) done by manufacturer OSRAM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion of both studies basically is that currently the life-cycle energy of LED is more or less the same as that of CFL but expectations are that it will become better and that the LED's life-cycle energy will decrease by approximately one half.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="74d4d1b0-665c-45a3-9d4a-8799b31e63fc" CreationDate="2013-05-07T18:57:46.257" UserId="48" Comment="added 601 characters in body" Text="DIY (Do-it-youself) and home improvements: the sustainability issues around mending and improving your home through repairs, renovation, carpentry, plumbing and other building activities that you do yourself, as an alternative to employing a tradesperson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability.SE takes DIY questions that are **primarily** about the sustainability aspects of DIY and home improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there's a dedicated [Home Improvement StackExchange][1] where you can ask DIY and home improvement questions that are **not primarily** about the sustainability aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://diy.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="135" RevisionGUID="e05b5528-70c4-4a0c-a591-576d989911c0" CreationDate="2013-05-07T18:57:46.257" UserId="48" Comment="added 255 characters in body" Text="DIY (Do-it-youself) and home improvements: the sustainability issues around mending and improving your home through repairs, renovation, carpentry, plumbing and other building activities that you do yourself, as an alternative to employing a tradesperson." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="65ea5ec9-12d8-43dc-853a-dbd8b672b437" CreationDate="2013-05-07T19:02:39.633" UserId="48" Text="The sustainability issues around domestic or commercial gardening; the cultivation of plants and fungi; landscaping and garden design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability.SE takes gardening questions that are **primarily** about the sustainability aspects of gardening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there's a dedicated [Gardening StackExchange][1] where you can ask questions about amateur or professional gardening that are **not primarily** about the sustainability aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="889" RevisionGUID="e05af8f6-d344-43df-affc-8d6752858b16" CreationDate="2013-05-07T19:02:39.633" UserId="48" Text="The sustainability aspects of domestic or commercial gardening: the cultivation of plants and fungi, landscaping and garden design." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="890" RevisionGUID="8d7a6754-89a3-4b75-9d72-e76d1c25691a" CreationDate="2013-05-07T19:37:27.133" UserId="404" Text="I'm considering a smart thermostat for my step-dad as a birthday gift.  Here are some characteristics of the home:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 3000 sq ft living with two people&#xD;&#xA; - climate is arid with highs into the 100s (deg F) in the summer, winter nights dropping as low as 20 deg F&#xD;&#xA; - they already use double pane windows, not sure they have ever re-done insulation&#xD;&#xA; - they've already upgraded all of their bulbs to LEDs&#xD;&#xA; - they run a server for a small business in a closet near the kitchen and have two additional computers in the house that are usually idling.  My Mom uses one of these computers to work from home.&#xD;&#xA; - they have two refrigerators - one in the garage and one in the kitchen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know [Nest labs](http://nest.com/) has a popular residential smart meter for $250, that comes with a nice user friendly iPad app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are PG&amp;E customers and I know [oPower](http://opower.com/) has some iPad apps that are pretty nice for looking at your energy usage statistics.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these little gadgets can have some zip that might appeal to some that aren't traditionally as engaged with sustainability issues.  This sort of gift would probably be taken more graciously than evangelizing to them and telling them to reduce to one refrigerator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what kind of useful insight can I expect from a smart meter beyond the obvious - switch to LEDs and reduce to one refrigerator?  Do those insights justify the cost of the device - in terms of economic and environmental savings from reduced energy consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="890" RevisionGUID="8d7a6754-89a3-4b75-9d72-e76d1c25691a" CreationDate="2013-05-07T19:37:27.133" UserId="404" Text="What can a smart thermostat tell me about how to reduce my home energy consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2622" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="890" RevisionGUID="8d7a6754-89a3-4b75-9d72-e76d1c25691a" CreationDate="2013-05-07T19:37:27.133" UserId="404" Text="|home|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2623" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="885" RevisionGUID="59e08157-a318-42f8-a214-a17e01e50280" CreationDate="2013-05-07T19:58:24.850" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/331860589125189634" />
  <row Id="2624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="891" RevisionGUID="edd0c685-906e-45fa-87b0-b6bee3582a9b" CreationDate="2013-05-07T20:28:23.303" UserId="180" Text="A Smart Meter that is compatible with [PlotWatt][1] will be able to tell your step-dad exactly how much each appliance in the house is using.  Even without PlotWatt, a smart meter like the [TED 5000][2] can be interesting for a few exercises:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- try to turn everything in the house off and see how much energy is still being consumed.  As you turn things off, check and see how much your kw rate changes by.  You can find some surprises with this exercise.&#xD;&#xA;- keep an eye on it throughout the day and note how much energy you are using and what causes unusual spikes.  With instant feedback, it is easy to play the use less energy game.  You can also get a sense of which appliances really effect energy consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: I am an employee of PlotWatt.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://plotwatt.com/&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://www.theenergydetective.com/ted5000" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="892" RevisionGUID="53b3a1ca-825e-4ed0-9d56-4c8d112ae7d2" CreationDate="2013-05-07T22:50:42.457" UserId="534" Text="There was a period in my life when I almost only used a freezer, and barely used the fridge. I extensively used the microwave oven. This worked out well, and I did not waste food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2626" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="eed9b48b-5cbf-4703-96f3-a1bdb2e5240b" CreationDate="2013-05-07T22:58:24.523" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/331905887151222784" />
  <row Id="2627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="893" RevisionGUID="9e5e33c5-2413-45c5-8581-ee394ff4525f" CreationDate="2013-05-07T23:35:15.817" UserId="89" Text="I believe you can also find more detailed info through [phys.org][1] (the link throws you in the website with the &quot;incandescent light bulb&quot; tag on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding &quot;state of the art&quot;, I would refer you to [NanoLeaf][2] (formerly NanoLight. They just completed a Kickstarter campaign with a lot more money than they asked for, and have reviews in several renowned magazines and websites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://phys.org/tags/incandescent+light+bulb/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thenanoleaf.com/shop-now/nanoleaf-store/10w-nl-bl-detail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="863" RevisionGUID="3485aa70-3237-45fd-97e0-2288c1476cc6" CreationDate="2013-05-08T03:51:02.517" UserId="318" Comment="added 5169 characters in body" Text="It's notable that the name &quot;Cisco&quot; seems to appear a lot in the literature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mobile Work Exchange site - Teleworking evangelists and aficionados.**  &#xD;&#xA;Much material related to sustainability and advantages of Telework. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Mobile Work Exchange**](http://www.mobileworkexchange.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Report on &quot;The Telework Revolution: Bringing Theory to Practice&#xD;&#xA;3rd Annual Telework Week Report; 2013 Impact and Year-over-Year Benchmarks&quot; . &#xD;&#xA;[TELEWORK WEEK STUDY REPORT DOWNLOAD](http://www.mobileworkexchange.com/teleworkweek/)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On April 30, Mobile Work Exchange, Cisco, and Citrix announced the results of Telework Week 2013, an effort that encouraged employees to telework during the week of March 4-8, 2013. The study finds that Telework Week 2013 participants saved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  A total of 15.1 million miles of commuting;  &#xD;&#xA;- Gained back 665,936 hours;  &#xD;&#xA;- Spared 7,892 tons of pollutants;  &#xD;&#xA;- And collectively saved $5.6 million in commuting costs  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Research reports](http://www.mobileworkexchange.com/our-research/research)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Telework Productivity and Wellbeing Project**](http://www.aut.ac.nz/news/aut-news/2013/february/remote-work-major-study-launched) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in its infant stages but is liable to be of interest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Australasian study - February 2013 announcement - just getting under way. Sustainability not addressed in this summary, but is almost invariably an indivisible part of the ethos of teleworking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An increasing number of workplaces are allowing employees to work remotely (teleworking) but very little is known about the practice in Australasia. A new project involving AUT researchers aims to learn more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Organisations in New Zealand and Australia that use teleworking arrangements, either formally or informally, are being asked to come forward for the Telework Productivity and Wellbeing Project. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The project is a collaboration between   &#xD;&#xA;- AUT’s New Zealand Work Research Institute;   &#xD;&#xA;- University of Melbourne’s Institute for Broadband Enabled Society   &#xD;&#xA;- and Cisco New Zealand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Deloiite 'Virtual Work' Report**](http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/IMOs/Corporate%20Responsibility%20and%20Sustainability/us_ds_workplace%20transformation_11292012.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term &quot;sustainability' is hardly used, but they address the issues we.. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **They note:** Several trends have emerged that are expected to continue to drive the adoption of alternative and virtual work practices over the next few years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; First, while cost reductions and operational improvement pressures are expected to continue in the short term, the imperative for growth is likely to soon replace cost as a driver, as businesses move from a recessionary to a recovering economy. This transition, may surprise many companies waiting in the wings for signs of life in the global economy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Second, an increasingly global workforce may require a strategic approach to mobility and cross-border/cross-functional collaboration. This includes the provision of work arrangement options that engage employees across all demographics, with most employees expecting their employer to offer them more tools, flexibility, and choice. Further, multiple generations in the workplace are already causing friction as work styles shift from status quo to status carpe diem. As younger colleagues step up into management roles, they may likely make decisions that include the use of virtual work practices for their teams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Related:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Usefulness and relevance varies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How Telecommuting Lets Workers Mobilize for Sustainability](http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/02/17/how-telecommuting-lets-workers-mobilize-sustainability?page=0%2C0)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[US Government fuel economy site](http://www.fueleconomy.gov/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Specific sustainability comment](http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/consres.shtml)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[AT&amp;T sustainability report with Telecommuting reference](http://www.att.com/gen/landing-pages?pid=22872)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[USCF sustainability page with links to telecommuting guidelines](http://sustainability.ucsf.edu/1.196)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [USCF telecommuting guidelines](http://ucsfhr.ucsf.edu/index.php/policies/article/telecommuting-guidelines-and-procedures1/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Policies](http://ucsfhr.ucsf.edu/index.php/policies/cat/site/Telecommuting/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Syracuse university sustainability &amp; telecommuting page](http://humanresources.syr.edu/worklife/fws_telecommuting.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Cornell - sadly bare page!!!](http://assembly.cornell.edu/Suggestions/2008FallSustainabilityTelecommuting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[THE TELEWORKER - overview re sustainability &amp; other sectors](http://archive.teleworkexchange.com/teleworker-09-10f.asp)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[UN, global e-sustainability reprot {dated}](http://omec.uab.cat/Documentos/TIC_desenvolupament/0132.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addressing:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... some reasoned arguments about Telecommuting in sustainablity terms - how much of an energy costs in there to working at home compared with commuting X miles in Y minutes by Z mode of transportation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**by commenting on factors involved:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some jobs it just doesn't work, of course. For example, a commercial cleaner is never going to &quot;work from home&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have largely here just referred to &quot;cost&quot; rather than energy cost except in a few specific cases. While energy cost percentage of a given item or service varies with circumstance, in an open market where other factors have not been purposefully brought to bear (directed taxes and duties, marketing 'spin', cartels,...) , energy cost is a significant and *very roughly* constant proportion of total cost.   &#xD;&#xA;[eg Oil costs nothing when it is in the ground. The major part of its market cost is the cost of exploration, field development, extraction and transportation. These in turn can be broken down into components where energy cost ends up playing a major part. And ultimately you get back to the cost of oil as the main factor in the cost of oil :-).   &#xD;&#xA;The price of diamonds and the cost of diamonds are essentially unrelated.   &#xD;&#xA;The cost of Nike products includes a large &quot;Just do it&quot; factor.]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with just &quot;cost&quot; is often an OK enough proxy for energy costs while a first impression is gained of what other factors are involved. This can then be refined as required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on distance involved.  &#xD;&#xA;Take the two  extremes and you get different answers, indicating that there is a crossover point at some stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At one extreme, if your home was  &quot;just around the corner&quot; from work premises then duplication of facilities would be liable to be inefficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - At the other extreme, once work-location and company physical location are separated, you can communicate across a city or across the world just as easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - But as distance rises the cost and time for sending physical objects varies, so the importance and frequency of doing this affects the crossover point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Various factors discussed below modify where this crossover point will be. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much distance matters depends on job type and how well you can operate at a large distance. Distance can increase efficiency of telecommuting because of the cost savings of you not having to travel, and increase the cost on the occasions when you do have to travel. Within a city or regional area factors include type of job, traffic densities, distance between the locations, quality of transport infrastructure and more. It is reasonably common in Asia for people to travel for 2 or more hours per day in each direction, but many take far less than this. I do not know the expectations in say the US or Europe but trip times of half an hour to one hour + would be usual here (Auckland, New Zealand's largest city) and two hours would be unusual but not unknown. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have to send papers or equipment or samples or work output then distance and time taken rise in 'steps'. Sending materiel across a city takes hours to a day by courier. Sending by post often next day or two days. Shorter times cost more as distance rises (&quot;1 hour&quot; couriers etc). In most 'developed countries' across a country sending by courier takes maybe a day or two, possibly three (depends on local factors). Sending small items (up to 10 or 20 kg say*) or papers across the world takes 3 days if you are happy to pay between an hour and a day of equivalent salary (depending on what your local earning levels are) or weeks to many weeks at lower but non-trivial cost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your job depends only on &quot;communications&quot; and you seldom or never need to send physical objects then it's more efficient to tele-commute in extreme cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To complicate the mix throw in worker trustability, ability to supervise and ability to obtain assistance or guidance when needed. Ability tos share with others you are working with or for can be critically important or of minimal relevance depending on the job involved. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So  while, as noted above , somewhere there will be a &quot;crossover point&quot; it is so influenced by the above factors and many more that a simple (or even quite complex) formula is only going to be a starting point, and a study is likely to be required in each case where factors differ markedly from others already in operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two extreme examples:  &#xD;&#xA;In a recent TV program here the owner managers of a UK based company, who live in New Zealand (12,000 miles and about two days away) were discussing their customer helpline operation. The job requires &quot;only&quot; a 'telephone' connection and computer access.   &#xD;&#xA;Up until 7:59 pm each day, UK time,  this is operated by UK company staff. At 8pm you will be answered by a company employee in New Zealand. The calls are not outsourced. The people who talk to customers are product experts and company employees. They have access to the same company computer databases and resources. Interestingly, while they are 12,000 miles away from the customers, in this instance they still work in an office in NZ, and not at their homes. On the one hand the company has its NZ employees &quot;tele-commute&quot; 12,000 miles, but have not taken the final step of allowing them to take the final step, even though technology would allow it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am close to but not quite at the extreme end. I sit at my desk or workshop in New Zealand. As required I work almost simultaneously at various places elsewhere on earth - at present in USA, Canada, Serbia and China as required. Nobody that I work for or with is in NZ with me. Commuting is fun enough, when I occasionally get to do it, but there is no daily &quot;travelling to work&quot;. When you take the energy costs of travel plus a proportion of accommodation &amp; other costs involved (to allow for their energy costs) it adds up to what would be a modest but significant transportation budget if I travelled within my own city. But the annual travel hours are significantly lower, even allowing for the duration of international travel. Occasionally samples and prototypes do have to be sent across the world (usually NZ-China) costing time and money. But, quite apart from the fact that it would be impossible to be in all the places I need to be if I did not work &quot;remotely&quot;, the cost of 'working from home' is lower than it would be for me to work on the far side of my own city. I think it probable that by any metric that you choose, it is lower cost for me to &quot;telecommute&quot; than not to. I have not discussed the  cost of work premises or equipment or the affects of tax concessions for 'home offices' etc as they further complicate what is essentially a very broad overview. . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Many major international courier companies offer &quot;Jumbo&quot; boxes with 10 kg or 20 kg maximum weight and &quot;all you can fit in&quot; volume constraint. These are often superbly cost effective if you need to send more than about 50% of their weight in the volume provided. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="890" RevisionGUID="cba00e12-cd30-43d6-8a5a-25ddf4ad3190" CreationDate="2013-05-08T06:26:20.403" UserId="404" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I'm considering a smart thermostat for my step-dad as a birthday gift.  Here are some characteristics of the home:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 3000 sq ft living with two people&#xD;&#xA; - climate is arid with highs into the 100s (deg F) in the summer, winter nights dropping as low as 20 deg F&#xD;&#xA; - they already use double pane windows, not sure they have ever re-done insulation&#xD;&#xA; - they've already upgraded all of their bulbs to LEDs&#xD;&#xA; - they run a server for a small business in a closet near the kitchen and have two additional computers in the house that are usually idling.  My Mom uses one of these computers to work from home.&#xD;&#xA; - they have two refrigerators - one in the garage and one in the kitchen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know [Nest labs](http://nest.com/) has a popular residential smart thermostat for $250, that comes with a nice user friendly iPad app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are PG&amp;E customers and I know [oPower](http://opower.com/) has some iPad apps that are pretty nice for looking at your energy usage statistics.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these little gadgets can have some zip that might appeal to some that aren't traditionally as engaged with sustainability issues.  This sort of gift would probably be taken more graciously than evangelizing to them and telling them to reduce to one refrigerator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what kind of useful insight can I expect from a smart meter beyond the obvious - switch to LEDs and reduce to one refrigerator?  Do those insights justify the cost of the device - in terms of economic and environmental savings from reduced energy consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="890" RevisionGUID="d5919bb7-73e0-4a40-b83b-c47d275e6e26" CreationDate="2013-05-08T06:34:40.417" UserId="404" Comment="Edited to include smart meters as well." Text="I'm considering a smart thermostat for my step-dad as a birthday gift.  Here are some characteristics of the home:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 3000 sq ft living with two people&#xD;&#xA; - climate is arid with highs into the 100s (deg F) in the summer, winter nights dropping as low as 20 deg F&#xD;&#xA; - they already use double pane windows, not sure they have ever re-done insulation&#xD;&#xA; - they've already upgraded all of their bulbs to LEDs&#xD;&#xA; - they run a server for a small business in a closet near the kitchen and have two additional computers in the house that are usually idling.  My Mom uses one of these computers to work from home.&#xD;&#xA; - they have two refrigerators - one in the garage and one in the kitchen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know [Nest labs](http://nest.com/) has a popular residential smart thermostat for $250, that comes with a nice user friendly iPad app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are PG&amp;E customers and I know [oPower](http://opower.com/) has some iPad apps that are pretty nice for looking at your energy usage statistics.  PG&amp;E also provides smart meters for their customers.  Applications that interface with these smart meters may be more useful if they also include electricity loads, especially with some granularity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think these little gadgets can have some zip that might appeal to some that aren't traditionally as engaged with sustainability issues.  This sort of gift would probably be taken more graciously than evangelizing to them and telling them to reduce to one refrigerator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what kind of useful insight can I expect from a smart thermostat or meter application beyond the obvious - switch to LEDs and reduce to one refrigerator?  Do those insights justify the cost of the device - in terms of economic and environmental savings from reduced energy consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2634" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="890" RevisionGUID="d5919bb7-73e0-4a40-b83b-c47d275e6e26" CreationDate="2013-05-08T06:34:40.417" UserId="404" Comment="Edited to include smart meters as well." Text="What can a smart thermostats and meters tell me about how to reduce my home energy consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="895" RevisionGUID="2d788950-6601-42da-bbc0-cd0dda95b0d5" CreationDate="2013-05-08T09:15:11.280" UserId="99" Text="Vermicomposting is the process of making compost with the use of worms. The worms eat decomposing organic material and produce castings. These castings, also called vermicasts, are considered high quality nutrient-rich fertilizer. Vermicomposting has also been shown to reduce the levels of pathogens present in the organic material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vermicomposting is used on a large scale to process agricultural waste and livestock manure, but is also popular for home use to process kitchen scraps and garden waste. Small scale wormbins can be bought commercially or made as a DIY project by following one of the many tutorials on the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for all questions on composting with worms.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="896" RevisionGUID="8b3c8ef0-a624-49d3-a949-b45634468997" CreationDate="2013-05-08T09:15:11.280" UserId="99" Text="Making compost with the use of worms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2637" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="8682c238-0575-4921-8a25-2c6bd58093ea" CreationDate="2013-05-08T10:58:25.680" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/332087086507253761" />
  <row Id="2638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="28153aba-a160-4e8b-8dff-e85f1b9ada96" CreationDate="2013-05-08T13:53:21.423" UserId="180" Text="This is a deceptively complicated question.  Most of the complications come from your interpretation of sustainable.  Let me give you a quick summary and explain why it isn't enough:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fiberglass** insulation is the most common these days.  It is easy to install.  However, it is not healthy to breath so the installer must wear protection to avoid contact with skin and inhalation.  It has higher embodied energy than cellulose [(970 MJ/m^3)](http://www.victoria.ac.nz/cbpr/documents/pdfs/ee-coefficients.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Blown Cellulose (dry)** insulation is not as common these days since it settles.  This causes the top of the wall over time to become not insulated at all.  For a diligent home owner, and depending on how the wall was constructed, this can be fixed by periodically adding insulation from the top of the wall.  However, this problem is harder to deal with when there is compaction under windows and other places where it is hard to access later.  It has lower embodied energy than fiberglass [(112 MJ/m^3)](http://www.victoria.ac.nz/cbpr/documents/pdfs/ee-coefficients.pdf).  This can easily be used in attics where settling isn't much of a concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wet Cellulose (wet)** insulation is very similar to blown cellulose except that it is blown in wet so that it binds to whatever it hits and doesn't settle over time.  This is fairly standard, but can only be around 4&quot; thick before you have to start embedding some plastic or other support to help hold up the insulation.  It is string enough to not sag, but not when spanning large gaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Styrofoam** insulation is often used under foundations, but also in walls.  It is strong and easy to install, but the manufacture still creates many [harmful chemicals](http://www.earthresource.org/campaigns/capp/capp-styrofoam.html), to both those manufacturing it and the general air quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rice Hulls** can be used in a similar was as blown cellulose and has similar problems.  It can settle, though I haven't been able to find anyone saying how much they settle.  It is also an agricultural waste product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Trade Offs**&#xD;&#xA;Do you consider small amounts of ozone 'unsustainable?'  What are the trade-offs between ozone depletion and embodied energy (styrofoam vs fiberglass)?  What are local labor costs?  If one insulation takes twice as long to install, perhaps you'd have been better off installing the easy/cheap one, and putting the rest of the money in solar panels, organic food or any number of other places.  Extra thick walls to support extra insulation will (depending on your wall construction method) require extra wall material (wider studs in a framed wall).  That could also be factored in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thermal Mass**&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to consider is thermal mass.  It is helpful to have things like concrete, earth, brick and water inside (or a part of your inside wall).  This is most helpful in places which have large temperature swings.  In these places if it is 70 during the day and 20 at night, your thermal mass can hold your house at daytime temperatures all night, without having to turn on the heat (and visa-versa in the summer with cool nights).  In places where the swings are less, thermal mass is less important, though still helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2639" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="7574bd31-ebcf-4e32-8bb2-8ed1b72e83c7" CreationDate="2013-05-08T13:53:21.423" UserId="180" />
  <row Id="2640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="898" RevisionGUID="68ebcae7-7fb9-49cb-aedf-4ae2c7abf13e" CreationDate="2013-05-08T17:49:12.190" UserId="462" Text="**Short answer:**&#xD;&#xA;The average R-value of the building shell is the most important thing to consider whenever the outside temperature is going to be very different from the inside temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long answer:**&#xD;&#xA;In new construction, you can build your walls thick and fill them with insulation, or even use structural insulated panels instead of traditional materials. You can just pick your favorite insulation and make sure the walls are designed to use it effectively. From a heating standpoint, it doesn't really matter if you use fiberglass, foam, insulated concrete forms, or blown-in cellulose as long as the wall assemblies have the R-value your looking for and everything is built and installed correctly. In a cold climate, reducing heating fuel consumption will have a far greater impact over the useful life of the insulation than choosing &quot;green&quot; materials. That said, some materials are clearly more sustainable than others. Refer to [Zach's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/897/462) for more information on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're buying an existing but under-insulated home you might want blown-in cellulose because it can be installed in uninsulated cavities without tearing apart the wall. It's also very simple to add a layer in the attic. If/when you need to replace the siding, you might want to install foam boards between the wall and the new siding. This is also a good option for masonry or concrete walls. Wood-framed structures will probably give you more options for adding insulation than masonry or concrete walls will because wood-framed walls have cavities that can be filled with just about any type of insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also keep in mind that insulation only prevents heat transfer through itself. Studs between insulated cavities will conduct heat better than you'd like no matter what. Ideally, your home will have a continuous &quot;shell&quot; of insulation that is broken only by windows, doors, plumbing penetrations, and exhaust outlets/air intakes. That said, some insulation is better than none, and at some point the cost just isn't worth it unless you have a whole lot of money to throw around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="696737c0-a257-45c5-a5a6-6fce5fcde490" CreationDate="2013-05-08T19:06:12.763" UserId="180" Comment="typo" Text="This is a deceptively simple question.  Most of the complications come from your interpretation of sustainable.  Let me give you a quick summary and explain why it isn't enough:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fiberglass** insulation is the most common these days.  It is easy to install.  However, it is not healthy to breath so the installer must wear protection to avoid contact with skin and inhalation.  It has higher embodied energy than cellulose [(970 MJ/m^3)](http://www.victoria.ac.nz/cbpr/documents/pdfs/ee-coefficients.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Blown Cellulose (dry)** insulation is not as common these days since it settles.  This causes the top of the wall over time to become not insulated at all.  For a diligent home owner, and depending on how the wall was constructed, this can be fixed by periodically adding insulation from the top of the wall.  However, this problem is harder to deal with when there is compaction under windows and other places where it is hard to access later.  It has lower embodied energy than fiberglass [(112 MJ/m^3)](http://www.victoria.ac.nz/cbpr/documents/pdfs/ee-coefficients.pdf).  This can easily be used in attics where settling isn't much of a concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wet Cellulose (wet)** insulation is very similar to blown cellulose except that it is blown in wet so that it binds to whatever it hits and doesn't settle over time.  This is fairly standard, but can only be around 4&quot; thick before you have to start embedding some plastic or other support to help hold up the insulation.  It is string enough to not sag, but not when spanning large gaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Styrofoam** insulation is often used under foundations, but also in walls.  It is strong and easy to install, but the manufacture still creates many [harmful chemicals](http://www.earthresource.org/campaigns/capp/capp-styrofoam.html), to both those manufacturing it and the general air quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rice Hulls** can be used in a similar was as blown cellulose and has similar problems.  It can settle, though I haven't been able to find anyone saying how much they settle.  It is also an agricultural waste product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Spray Foam** is often used to fill in lots of gaps and is great for sealing your walls.  A lot of heat is lost through tiny cracks in walls, around windows, etc.  Spray foam in these places can be especially helpful.  There are many spray foams available, some claiming to be 'green,' which one is most sustainable could be its own question.  Most spray foam is toxic enough that there are warnings on the label saying you shouldn't let it touch your skin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sawdust** was used a long time ago, but has since been replaced by blown cellulose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Trade Offs**&#xD;&#xA;Do you consider small amounts of ozone 'unsustainable?'  What are the trade-offs between ozone depletion and embodied energy (styrofoam vs fiberglass)?  What are local labor costs?  If one insulation takes twice as long to install, perhaps you'd have been better off installing the easy/cheap one, and putting the rest of the money in solar panels, organic food or any number of other places.  Extra thick walls to support extra insulation will (depending on your wall construction method) require extra wall material (wider studs in a framed wall).  That could also be factored in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thermal Mass**&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to consider is thermal mass.  It is helpful to have things like concrete, earth, brick and water inside (or a part of your inside wall).  This is most helpful in places which have large temperature swings.  In these places if it is 70 during the day and 20 at night, your thermal mass can hold your house at daytime temperatures all night, without having to turn on the heat (and visa-versa in the summer with cool nights).  In places where the swings are less, thermal mass is less important, though still helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Air Tight**&#xD;&#xA;Even if you have highly insulated walls, small gaps which let outside air inside and visa-versa can have a huge impact on heating/cooling bills.  Some insulation types are better at preventing these kinds of gaps than others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2642" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="890" RevisionGUID="fef4b30a-20bf-4ffd-bd86-ba0a0feebfbe" CreationDate="2013-05-08T19:58:26.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/332222984095936512" />
  <row Id="2643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="892" RevisionGUID="b63a4f92-06d3-4ef4-b21f-6e0669a6d035" CreationDate="2013-05-08T20:34:45.693" UserId="534" Comment="Answer to a comment" Text="There was a period in my life when I almost only used a freezer, and barely used the fridge. I extensively used the microwave oven. This worked out well, and I did not waste food.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; how [...] freezer and microwave helped you to not waste food?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to the fridge in the freezer foods had a much longer lifetime. Freezing them obviously changed the consistency of many and even the taste of a few kinds. But thawing went quick and easy with the microwave." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="899" RevisionGUID="3ac12ca2-80c0-4514-abe1-bf4f0949b362" CreationDate="2013-05-10T10:00:57.647" UserId="30" Text="Some people who are building straw-bale houses here in Denmark uses mussel shells (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/CornishMussels.JPG/1280px-CornishMussels.JPG) for insulation between the ground and the floor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="900" RevisionGUID="94bf56f2-c608-43f9-add0-f6afe878ba30" CreationDate="2013-05-10T10:17:09.090" UserId="30" Text="In [this TED talk][1] Marcel Dicke mentions that from 10kg of feed you will get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1kg of beef or,&#xD;&#xA; - 3kg of pork or,&#xD;&#xA; - 5kg of chicken or,&#xD;&#xA; - 9kg of locusts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that he talks about locusts emitting less greenhouse gases as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see the chart at about 9:30 into the talk. The whole talk is quite good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ted.com/talks/marcel_dicke_why_not_eat_insects.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2658" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="e44b9cc2-7ca2-41c4-9265-01612b7ce627" CreationDate="2013-05-10T10:28:32.870" UserId="99" Comment="edited title" Text="Meat or fish, which requires more energy to produce?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2659" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="869" RevisionGUID="cb86dd9f-e706-45c3-bad7-bdd10bf4e93d" CreationDate="2013-05-10T10:58:28.873" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/332811874091536387" />
  <row Id="2660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="901" RevisionGUID="7208ff71-d3c0-4e57-be3f-fcfeec2b3a3f" CreationDate="2013-05-10T12:10:28.177" UserId="99" Text="You *can* place cooked food on your heap, it will eventually be turned into compost, but like you said it may attract vermin so you'll probably want to use a [composter](http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-composter.htm) instead of a heap. Also large quantities of some ingredients (e.g. very oily food) may slow down the composting process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Vermicomposting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermicompost) in a wormbin is similar to using a composter. Much of the cooked food can be thrown in, but you'll still have to be careful with some of the things. For example onions and citrus fruit should only be provided in small quantities as large amounts will raise the ph-level too much and the worms may die. Meat, fish and oily stuff can be processed, but often goes bad and stink before the worms have had a chance to process it. In bins without a lid meat and fish may also attract flies and maggots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest solution for cooked food probably is to preprocess it in a [Bokashi bin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Bokashi). Micro-organisms in the bin will break down the things that are more difficult to compost (like meat and oils). After two weeks you can process the Bokashi bin contents further by throwing it on a compost heap, in a vermicompost bin, or simply by burying it in your garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the animal feces, they actually can be placed on a compost heap too but the reason why it is not recommended is that animal feces often contain pathogens that can be dangerous to people if they are not processed in the right manner. Feces from rabbits, hamsters and guinea pigs are rather harmless and can be placed on your heap safely. Feces from dogs and cats are more troublesome. Cat feces for example may contain the Toxoplasma gondii parasite that is dangerous for people with a weak immune system and for pregnant women." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="902" RevisionGUID="be782d6d-20e4-4dee-9217-a845967ff843" CreationDate="2013-05-10T12:30:44.413" UserId="99" Text="Food is any substance consumed to provide nutritional support for humans and animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions on the production or preservation of food in general or the reduction and handling of food waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For sustainability questions on a particular type of food consider using more specific tags like [tag:meat] or [tag:fish] instead.&#xD;&#xA;- For sustainability questions on preparing food by use of heat use [tag:cooking]&#xD;&#xA;- For questions on preparing food that have nothing to do with sustainability you may want to try the [Seasoned Advice SE](http://cooking.stackexchange.com)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="903" RevisionGUID="c099372f-cad9-41ac-9341-66359060aa0e" CreationDate="2013-05-10T12:30:44.413" UserId="99" Text="substance consumed to provide nutritional support for humans and animals. Use this tag for questions on the sustainability aspects of food in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="768" RevisionGUID="1c5ae442-2888-4423-8b49-e20ed2021d91" CreationDate="2013-05-10T17:13:17.167" UserId="404" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="I'm going to focus on the potential for enhanced oil recovery, permanent sequestration and government support for active projects.  Carbon capture technology is a whole other beast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Projects Currently Underway**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[sequestration.mit.edu](http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/antelope_valley.html) has a great database of active and cancelled CCS projects in the US.  I was surprised how many projects are on the burner now.  Here is a summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Including all of the cancelled projects, the US government is spending well into the billions on CCS across the country.  Texas is obviously most active.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Where Conditions Are Favorable to Enhanced Oil Recovery**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [DOE](http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/), CO2 injection accounts for 60% of all EOR in the US.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CO2 injection has been used successfully throughout the Permian Basin of West Texas and eastern New Mexico, and is now being pursued to a limited extent in Kansas, Mississippi, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Alaska, and Pennsylvania.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of this CO2 has come from naturally occurring reservoirs, but increasingly CO2 is coming from industrial processes, such as NG processing, fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One demonstration at the Dakota Gasification Company's plant in Beulah, North Dakota is producing CO2 and delivering it by a 204-mile pipeline to the Weyburn oil field in Saskatchewan, Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Dakota Gasification's website](http://www.dakotagas.com/CO2_Capture_and_Storage/index.html), the CO2 is injected for permanent sequestration.  In fact, Cenovus, who signed a 10 year agreement to purchase ~2740 tonnes CO2/day from the Sask Power project above, currently gets 5,500 tons of CO2 per day from North Dakota.  Sask Power CEO claims they can sell their CO2 for **$15-50 per ton** ([Calgary Herald](http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/calgarybusiness/story.html?id=4af2f49b-831d-4a28-89b6-c8c9b5afc7c7)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why EOR Might Be Thwarted By Production of Shale Gas and Oil**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two maps below show the top 50  largest proved oil reserves in the US and then a map of shale oil and gas formations.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem that our largest oil reserves are in Texas, California, and the Northern Great Plains. However, these reserves coincide greatly with shale gas reserves.  According to a [2012 study in Environmental Science and Technology](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es2040015), 80% of US capacity for CO2 geological sequestration (ie deep saline aquifers) exists in shale gas reserves.  Unfortunately, the fracking process undermines the ability of the aquifer to meaningfully sequester the carbon - the CO2 would escape through the tiny cracks used to extract the natural gas.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cg1wW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Psgyv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CYnHu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="904" RevisionGUID="ee66f6fb-4387-4882-887e-d58028acd8de" CreationDate="2013-05-10T22:41:32.093" UserId="60" Text="Combining wind turbine and solar panel is my favorite (that has not come to reality by now...). Both of them are weather dependent but in an almost anti-correlated way. It means they supplement each other very well most of the time of the year.  &#xD;&#xA;Here in continental Europe, usually when it's a sunny day it's rarely windy. And when the weather is changing or in winter, it's cloudy and windy. So you'd profit from **solar panels during sunny and summer days** and profit from **wind turbine on bad weather and winter/late autumn days**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The points made by [EnergyNumbers][1] are all valid but I'd stress an importance of a storage because you mention an old generator. It probably means you're not grid-connected. You'll have to balance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You'd still need some (back-up) generator - much smaller and much less used than the previous one. The main sources would be PV panels and wind turbine(s).&#xD;&#xA;- Adding some kind of batteries to the system. Storing energy increases the build costs which you want to minimize. But the more you store the smaller and less used generator would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/875/60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2665" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="832" RevisionGUID="fe0977e9-0039-4d3d-8dfb-bf2c722da208" CreationDate="2013-05-11T13:23:00.147" UserId="-1" Comment="3" />
  <row Id="2666" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="873" RevisionGUID="ed6107d1-2b90-4c4a-bb9c-ea81de6965d6" CreationDate="2013-05-11T13:58:32.907" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/333219577259503619" />
  <row Id="2667" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="871" RevisionGUID="cc2ee18b-21ac-4476-8592-6ce7f4bf01de" CreationDate="2013-05-11T19:58:41.943" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/333310213543301121" />
  <row Id="2668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="53def0bf-0772-481c-a24d-6777c9780128" CreationDate="2013-05-11T23:20:29.487" UserId="404" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="**Benefits of Buying Used Clothes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This [article in ecotextiles](http://oecotextiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/what-is-the-energy-profile-of-the-textile-industry/) claims 100-340 MJ energy input per kg of weaved cloth (flax and cotton on the lowest on the list, nylon the highest).  Additionally the textile industry is the number one industrial polluter of fresh water and releases up to 2000 different chemicals into the environment (if someone knows more about these, please elaborate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buying used clothes obviates these manufacturing outputs.  Buying clothes with recycled fabric will obviate much of this as well, though there will be associated energy with actually recycling the fabric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**online vs traditional retail**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be beneftis to purchasing your clothing online as well.  [A life cycle inventory analysis](http://www.ce.cmu.edu/GreenDesign/docs/life-cycle-comparison.pdf) conducted at Carnegie Mellon found that e-commerce options were less energy intensive 80% of the time (30% less energy on average).  However, in their analysis, 65% of traditional retail primary energy was composed of personal transportation to the store, so if that isn't an issue in your shopping, then this analysis might not be that meaningful.  Last mile delivery and packaging composed 32% and 22% of e-commerce energy usage, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**where can i buy used fashion?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there are your local thrift stores, but below is intended to be wiki list of places and websites with high availability of recycled materials or used clothing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [etsy.com](http://www.etsy.com/) has both retail and personal vendors selling used items, clothing as well as craft items.&#xD;&#xA; - [ebay](http://www.ebay.com/) is rather obvious, but it allows you to filter your searches based on their condition, with an option for pre-owned.&#xD;&#xA; - [Threadflip](http://threadflip.com/) is dedicated to re-purposed clothing for women.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2669" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="1eb4f70a-91d3-4a61-8d72-ba38e6dda3f3" CreationDate="2013-05-12T01:58:42.497" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/333400812074172419" />
  <row Id="2670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="905" RevisionGUID="43902058-fee6-4aba-a002-8d5fe2c77372" CreationDate="2013-05-12T21:53:50.110" UserId="35" Text="I see many questions on this site about the sustainability of various products or practices. I also see that some things which are considered sustainable in one context may be *less* sustainable when looked at in another – for instance, [hybrid cars][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of hybrids, the answer appears to lie with close study of [life-cycle assessments][2]. But what about products which don't have a clear life cycle? Or practices like recycling, which is generally sustainable but [not in every case][3]? What about complicated industries and supply chains, like those surrounding biofuels?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that in many cases, whether a system is sustainable or not [depends upon how the system is defined][4]. So who defines the systems in question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general: how is the sustainability of a product or practice determined, and by whom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10/how-to-determine-whether-hybrid-cars-are-really-more-sustainable-than-traditiona&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/453/35&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/460/35&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/586/35" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="905" RevisionGUID="43902058-fee6-4aba-a002-8d5fe2c77372" CreationDate="2013-05-12T21:53:50.110" UserId="35" Text="How is sustainability determined, and by whom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="905" RevisionGUID="43902058-fee6-4aba-a002-8d5fe2c77372" CreationDate="2013-05-12T21:53:50.110" UserId="35" Text="|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="906" RevisionGUID="2b572e87-5475-4d45-bd9f-46d6ba0c2e24" CreationDate="2013-05-13T00:35:36.897" UserId="264" Text="By opposition, what is not sustainable is unsustainable.&#xD;&#xA;So that is what makes, for instance, in a closed system, something uses more energy than it gives some back. (It's like if you were spending more money than your incomes, that can't be sustainable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, at least, sustainability is only defined by us like being the thing the less unsustainable as possible. You could also consider that as some kind of optimization (like in coding).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, this isn't generally something defined officially (even though it's very likely that it has also been defined this way) so that there isn't really some people out there deciding for us what is sustainable or not. It's often pure common sense and abuses of language, otherwise or/and when you feel the need to clarify from which point of view we are talking, just go ahead and precise it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability should be taken as a whole. When it's only from a point of view, just take that for what it is, another point of view to help you to build your own vision of the whole thing (This also depends on which importance you give to this point of view, all don't worth the same from one person to another (a bit like taste and color)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, I know my answer is a bit fuzzy. Apologies. But I had to give it a shot. Hope it helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2674" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="735" RevisionGUID="3d6a60e5-a33b-4601-aae5-1bc3c608e1f6" CreationDate="2013-05-13T04:58:43.020" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/333808500620795905" />
  <row Id="2675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="74186212-680d-491e-af46-6afa716afdbd" CreationDate="2013-05-13T06:06:00.980" UserId="530" Text="My wife and I have been using washable diapers for our two kids. We've made them from old curtains, old bedsheets, etc., pretty much all &quot;recycled&quot; materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They've been working perfectly fine, but every time I wash out the poop I can't help but wonder: compared to disposable, compostable diapers, is the ecological footprint of washable diapers *really* smaller?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a few things to consider here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I hand-wash the diapers in lukewarm water with some detergent, prior to machine washing them. Sometimes I put them in the dryer (I don't live in a climate that always allows air drying, and I kinda *need* the diapers quickly after washing), but let's leave that step out of consideration for now.&#xD;&#xA; - There are these cover-pants things, that you have to put over the actual diaper to make everything watertight. They contain some plastics, and they have to be washed too. However, on like 10 diapers you'd use 1 of these things. They're pretty indestructible, so we got them second-hand, and we plan on selling them on to the next parents when our kids grow out, but at some point they have to be disposed of...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The kids run around bare-butted a lot these days, so we're using like 3 a day or so. Back when they were babies it used to be somewhere around 10 a day. That contrasts with the diapers being *much* easier to wash when they are babies; toddlers tend to produce far more &quot;sticky&quot; material :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway -- we also used disposable ones in the past, made from sustainable materials and compostable, but I really don't know how to start comparing them. So does anyone know how these two compare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="74186212-680d-491e-af46-6afa716afdbd" CreationDate="2013-05-13T06:06:00.980" UserId="530" Text="Washable vs. disposable diapers: which is better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="74186212-680d-491e-af46-6afa716afdbd" CreationDate="2013-05-13T06:06:00.980" UserId="530" Text="|composting|ecological-footprint|home|clothing|family|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="908" RevisionGUID="55c614d8-75ce-42fe-9ea1-5f125e36d0b8" CreationDate="2013-05-13T06:21:05.027" UserId="130" Text="I don't think a definitive answer can exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think we can ever say anything is defined other than from a point of view.  One of the most important books on scientific epistemology (meaning theory of justifying scientific theories and the limitations of such) I can think of, Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenberg (yes, that Heisenberg), basically points out that even in theoretical physics, coming up with a theory involves essentially using unprovable/non-falsifiable assumptions to project meaning onto available data. As he puts it &quot;data does not imply theory&quot; or even one might say that scientific theories are products of our own assumptions at least as much as they are products of the data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's the nature of things in theoretical physics (and I think Heisenberg is right there, and thus science thrives on uncertainty, pun intended), then it is true a even more in complicated questions like this one.  These things are extremely complicated and there are no clearly defined boundaries between systems.  The only really natural boundaries are those of the planet and those aren't very useful ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when we talk about lifecycle analysis or any of the rest of this, we are talking about what are fundamentally simplified models based on unprovable assumptions only some of which we may be aware of (something drilled into my head when studying computational environmental modelling in college).  Thus I think these tools are conversation-starters, but they don't definitively define what is sustainable.  Certain things we can say are probably not (corn ethanol as a fuel source) and other ones have the jury out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the end, what I would propose is that rather than seeing a definitive answer as to who we should trust to make these definitions ourselves, we must be responsible for such definitions ourselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to the extent that an answer is possible, sustainability must be defined by each of us and all the models of the experts must be seen as conversation-starting pieces of the puzzle but in no way the complete picture even of a narrow topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="908" RevisionGUID="fd6f9af8-3a40-45f8-9203-aff899597a78" CreationDate="2013-05-13T06:26:50.270" UserId="130" Comment="edited body" Text="I don't think a definitive answer can exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think we can ever say anything is defined other than from a point of view.  One of the most important books on scientific epistemology (meaning theory of justifying scientific theories and the limitations of such) I can think of, Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenberg (yes, that Heisenberg), basically points out that even in theoretical physics, coming up with a theory involves essentially using unprovable/non-falsifiable assumptions to project meaning onto available data. As he puts it &quot;data does not imply theory&quot; or even one might say that scientific theories are products of our own assumptions at least as much as they are products of the data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's the nature of things in theoretical physics (and I think Heisenberg is right there, and thus science thrives on uncertainty, pun intended), then it is true a even more in complicated questions like this one.  These things are extremely complicated and there are no clearly defined boundaries between systems.  The only really natural boundaries are those of the planet and those aren't very useful ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when we talk about lifecycle analysis or any of the rest of this, we are talking about what are fundamentally simplified models based on unprovable assumptions only some of which we may be aware of (something drilled into my head when studying computational environmental modelling in college).  Thus I think these tools are conversation-starters, but they don't definitively define what is sustainable.  Certain there are things we can say are probably not (corn ethanol as a fuel source) and other ones have the jury out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the end, what I would propose is that rather than seeing a definitive answer as to who we should trust to make these definitions, we must be responsible for such definitions ourselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to the extent that an answer is possible, sustainability must be defined by each of us and all the models of the experts must be seen as conversation-starting pieces of the puzzle but in no way the complete picture even of a narrow topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="909" RevisionGUID="003f6fbb-dd37-4d20-ab3c-5a8c81e4c0b5" CreationDate="2013-05-13T06:32:14.857" UserId="530" Text="These days, there's a lot of them on a lot of different products: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [fair trade](http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/)&#xD;&#xA; - [FSC](https://ic.fsc.org/) (wood)&#xD;&#xA; - [MSC](http://www.msc.org/cook-eat-enjoy/fish-to-eat) (fish)&#xD;&#xA; - [EU energy label](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_energy_label)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a lot more for a lot more different products. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been observing that &quot;the average consumer&quot; is currently greatly overwhelmed by the sheer amount of such labels. The focus of these labels has been to make people more aware of the socio-economic and ecological impact of their choices, in which many have succeeded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my opinion, what is really lacking in the *other* effort of having &quot;the average consumer&quot; make *better decisions*, is a sort of over-arching label that summarizes the ecological footprint, ethics and socio-economical impact of *any* kind of product. A sort of star-rating system that is universally applied to any product, not limited by artificial (and in many senses archaic) things like country borders, companies, product niches, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However impossible it is to make such a system with any degree of accuracy, I think it would be a great push towards reducing the &quot;worst&quot; products while promoting the &quot;best&quot;. To me it is almost axiomatic that consumers shouldn't have to consider *all* these factors when purchasing even a simple product. To be most effective on the largest of scales, consumers just need to take a quick look at the 10-star rating to know whether to buy the product, or purchase the one next to it with 2 stars more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would it take to make such a label, and get it recognized by the right organizations to get it on every product anywhere? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, just to start on a slightly smaller scale, what did it take to start the labels mentioned above? How does one create such a thing when none exists? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="909" RevisionGUID="003f6fbb-dd37-4d20-ab3c-5a8c81e4c0b5" CreationDate="2013-05-13T06:32:14.857" UserId="530" Text="What does it take to create an approbation label?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="909" RevisionGUID="003f6fbb-dd37-4d20-ab3c-5a8c81e4c0b5" CreationDate="2013-05-13T06:32:14.857" UserId="530" Text="|food|ecological-footprint|defining-sustainability|economy|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="909" RevisionGUID="71974206-b234-44ad-beb8-638f491ef35a" CreationDate="2013-05-13T06:44:53.177" UserId="530" Comment="added 241 characters in body" Text="These days, there's a lot of approbation labels for a lot of different products: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [fair trade](http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/)&#xD;&#xA; - [FSC](https://ic.fsc.org/) (wood)&#xD;&#xA; - [MSC](http://www.msc.org/cook-eat-enjoy/fish-to-eat) (fish)&#xD;&#xA; - [EU energy label](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_energy_label)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a lot more for a lot more different products. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been observing that &quot;the average consumer&quot; is greatly overwhelmed by the sheer amount of such labels. The focus of these labels seems to have been on making people more aware of the socio-economic, ethical and ecological impact of their products, in which many have (partially) succeeded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my opinion, what is really lacking in the *other* effort of having &quot;the average consumer&quot; make *better decisions*, is a sort of over-arching label that summarizes the ecological footprint, ethics, socio-economical impact, etc. of *any* kind of product. A sort of star-rating system that is universally applied to all products and is not limited by artificial things like country borders, company specifics, product niches, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However impossible it may sound to make such a system with any degree of accuracy, I still think it would be a great push towards reducing the amount of &quot;worst&quot; products while increasing the &quot;best&quot;, on a global scale. To me it is almost axiomatic that consumers shouldn't have to consider *all* such factors when purchasing even a simple product. No system that demands *that* from their consumers will ever *really* work on a global scale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, to be most effective on the largest of scales, consumers just need to take a quick look at some 10-star rating to know whether to buy the product or buy the one next to it  that costs the same but has 2 stars more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: what would it take to make such a label, and get it recognized by the right organizations/instances/governments/... to get it on *every* product *everywhere*? Where to even get started? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, just to start on a slightly smaller scale, what did it take to start the labels mentioned above? How does one create such a thing where none exists? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="909" RevisionGUID="4d5552ab-2e40-45ec-97a0-f71c3ee690c7" CreationDate="2013-05-13T11:56:53.110" UserId="530" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="These days, there's a lot of approbation labels for a lot of different products: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [fair trade](http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/)&#xD;&#xA; - [FSC](https://ic.fsc.org/) (wood)&#xD;&#xA; - [MSC](http://www.msc.org/cook-eat-enjoy/fish-to-eat) (fish)&#xD;&#xA; - [EU energy label](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_energy_label)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and a lot more for a lot more different products. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been observing that &quot;the average consumer&quot; is greatly overwhelmed by the sheer amount of such labels. The focus of these labels seems to have been on making people more aware of the socio-economic, ethical and ecological impact of their products, in which many have (partially) succeeded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my opinion, what is really lacking in the *other* effort of having &quot;the average consumer&quot; make *better decisions*, is a sort of over-arching label that summarizes the ecological footprint, ethics, socio-economical impact, etc. of *any* kind of product. A sort of star-rating system that is universally applied to all products and is not limited by artificial things that are irrelevant for many modern products, like country borders, company specifics, economic differences between countries, product niches, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However impossible it may sound to make such a system with any degree of accuracy, I still think it would be a great push towards reducing the amount of &quot;worst&quot; products while increasing the &quot;best&quot;, on a global scale. To me it is almost axiomatic that consumers shouldn't have to consider *all* such factors when purchasing even a simple product. No system that demands *that* from their consumers will ever *really* be effective on a global scale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think, to be most effective on the largest of scales, consumers just need to take a quick look at some 10-star rating to know whether to buy the product or buy the one next to it  that costs the same but has 2 stars more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: what would it take to make such a label, and get it recognized by the right organizations/instances/governments/... to get it on *every* product *everywhere*? Where to even get started? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, just to start on a slightly smaller scale, what did it take to start the labels mentioned above? How does one create such a thing where none exists? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="910" RevisionGUID="768b6371-3791-4711-9969-590104b38c4f" CreationDate="2013-05-13T12:32:59.557" UserId="99" Text="First of all, I think there are two very good reasons why there are many different labels that rate only a specific aspect of a product or look at a limited set of products:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. **It is much easier** than taking everything and every product into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  A lot of research is needed to continuously assess products. Products change all the time so your rating should be revised often as well. If you want your rating to be anything more than a very rough estimate, you'll have to limit yourself to certain products, a geographical location, or a small set of features to rate, or else the amount of data may be overwhelming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. **Different people care about different things.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Someone who feels that the well-being of laborers is very important might not care for animal welfare or vice versa, so one specific label may be more interesting to a person than one label covering multiple aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously a global multi-aspect label has to take these two points into account.&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of things I think you will need when you start such a label from scratch: &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  1. **A clear and well-defined set of rules on how you derive the rating of a product.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The question here is how precise do you want to be and what is technologically possible? For example, [LCA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment)s provides a good measure of many (environment-related) sustainability aspects but are only available for 'simple' products like glass bottles, diapers and clothing, not for more complex products. Also LCAs are geographically dependent so that's also something to take into account. A second question is how do you derive the exact score of a product? For example, what will be the overall rating of a product with a good score on ecological footprint but very low on socio-economics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. **Reliable methods to gather the necessary information.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Deciding on a rating system is one thing, using it is another. The difficulty here is from where do you get the information you want and how do you get it? There are many companies that do not disclose information about how a product is made exactly, which raw materials are being used in their products or where they buy the materials. You'll probably want companies to cooperate and provide this information, but what about products from companies that don't cooperate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  3. **People who will reliably assess and rate the products in a uniform manner.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  To rate all products all over the world you will need lots of people doing this. Perhaps some sort of co-creation / [wisdom-of-the-crowds](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds) scheme is the way to go here, but you'll have to be careful for manipulation because if the label is succesful and widely recognised the stakes may be high for certain manufacturers and sellers.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  4. **A way to inform the public about the rating given to products**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  You can try and get a product's rating displayed on the product itself, but manufacturers that make products with low ratings will most likely not cooperate. Alternatively you can try to convince third-party sellers (e.g. supermarkets, shops) to disclose this information and display it on their shelves. Of course you can always put the information online but this is probably less effective as you won't reach spontaneous shoppers and people without internet access.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  5. **Support from the public.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Without public support, your chances of convincing companies, organisations and/or governments to cooperate and getting it certified will most likely fail. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  6. **Funding**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Obviously you need capital to somehow get all of this started.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to getting the label certified globally, I don't really know how you should approach that. Different countries/governments/organisations have different goals and ideas, so I suspect many won't be interested or won't agree with the way you rate products. Also a well-recognized and globally-accepted label won't be in the interest of many manufacturers so it's likely that several companies will start a big lobbying campaign against the label if it becomes succesful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final note, rather than starting a global multi-aspect rating label from scratch, I think it would be much easier to try and cooperate with existing labels and see if you can combine the most reliable and useful labels and use them to derive your own rating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="c249a585-241b-40fd-983a-461ff0dd9106" CreationDate="2013-05-13T13:10:56.063" UserId="99" Text="Recently, the EU has temporarily banned [neonicotinoid pesticides](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid) because there are strong indications that these pesticides are responsible for the decline in bee populations. I've heard that this pesticide is not only used in bug sprays, but also in seemingly innocent products like flower bulbs, plant plugs and certain types of compost. Is this true? If so, how do I make sure I don’t already have this stuff at home? How can I recognise products or brands that contain/use these pesticides?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="c249a585-241b-40fd-983a-461ff0dd9106" CreationDate="2013-05-13T13:10:56.063" UserId="99" Text="How to recognize products with neonicotinoid pesticides?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="c249a585-241b-40fd-983a-461ff0dd9106" CreationDate="2013-05-13T13:10:56.063" UserId="99" Text="|pesticides|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="912" RevisionGUID="fcb033f2-23be-4fb8-afda-234831937db4" CreationDate="2013-05-13T14:46:55.017" UserId="180" Text="I have heard that disposables use less energy than reusables if you also use hot water and they dryer.  But it seems that [many experts disagree][1].  Most of the energy that goes into reusable diapers is in heating the water and the dryer.  So, the colder the water you're using and less often you dry them the better off you are.  Using rain water or solar hot water would also help the energy use be lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the topic of energy use and diapers, we've also had pretty good success teaching our daughter to pee and poo in a little potty rather than in the diaper.  This saves a lot of water (no prewashing poopy diapers) and we use fewer diapers since she doesn't get them dirty every time she wears them.  This works for both reusable and disposable.  She almost never poops in her diapers any more.  She is only 10 months old and we started this around 8 months.  She stopped pooping in her diapers immediately after letting her use the potty.  All we do is every hour or two, when we would normally change her diaper, we take her diaper off and set her on her potty and let her play with a toy or two for a few minutes.  She normally pees right away.  If we hear her making pooping noises, we take her to her potty.  Supposedly, we are actually training babies to be ok with peeing and pooping in their diapers and that most babies would much rather do it in a potty from a very early age.  By the time they get older and we start training them to use the potty, they have already gotten used to their diaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=789465&amp;page=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="912" RevisionGUID="3f829b36-4248-46e6-bf98-ef69bbfc0928" CreationDate="2013-05-13T19:03:00.167" UserId="180" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I have heard that disposables use less energy than reusables if you also use hot water and they dryer.  But it seems that [many experts disagree][1].  Most of the energy that goes into reusable diapers is in heating the water and the dryer.  So, the colder the water you're using and less often you dry them the better off you are.  Using rain water and/or solar hot water would also help the energy use be lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the topic of energy use and diapers, we've also had pretty good success teaching our daughter to pee and poo in a little potty rather than in the diaper.  This saves a lot of water (no prewashing poopy diapers) and we use fewer diapers since she doesn't get them dirty every time she wears them.  This works for both reusable and disposable.  She almost never poops in her diapers any more.  She is only 10 months old and we started this around 8 months.  She stopped pooping in her diapers immediately after letting her use the potty.  All we do is every hour or two, when we would normally change her diaper, we take her diaper off and set her on her potty and let her play with a toy or two for a few minutes.  She normally pees right away.  If we hear her making pooping noises, we take her to her potty.  Supposedly, we are actually training babies to be ok with peeing and pooping in their diapers and that most babies would much rather do it in a potty from a very early age.  By the time they get older and we start training them to use the potty, they have already gotten used to their diaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=789465&amp;page=3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="913" RevisionGUID="cd7ea365-a4cd-4c13-b15c-5fd2c1a7df19" CreationDate="2013-05-14T02:56:55.223" UserId="85" Text="I guess making such a label is something that anyone with a phone and a bit of money can do. Recognition from both manufacturers and customers is really &quot;all you need&quot;, but anyone involved in marketing knows how difficult that is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem I see with an evaluative label is the following&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How do you convince the manufacturer to stick your 2/10-star rating label on their products?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The German consumer organisation &quot;[Stiftung Warentest](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Warentest)&quot; is heavily funded and does just what you want to do with the sustainable aspect removed. They test products for how &quot;good&quot; they are. Products then receive a mark (grade) and these results are published in a magazine (which costs money). If the product gets a good mark, the manufacturer may decide to stick a label on their products. If not, well, then nobody knows how good or bad the product is and the consumer has to find out for himself (e.g. via reviews, personal testing, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The appeal for making labels like FairTrade, MSC, FSC, etc., is obvious: The manufacturer will likely be easy to convince to stick the label on his products. (As long as you can convince him, that you are a label the consumer cares about, that is.) This alone requires a great marketing campaign, preferably with TV spots that explain even to the layman, why your label is something worth paying attention to. Anything more ambitious (like the organic labels) require support from the government and, presumably, a very serious source of funding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a small scale, I think you can already work wonders with marketing products, which you know to be good, never mind whether they have some &quot;organic&quot;, &quot;sustainably produced&quot;, &quot;whatever&quot; label. Telling the customers about the company and the production process is becoming more and more fashionable, but there is an inherent appeal to sustainably produced products. I would say any marketing campaign for these type of products (which are deemed to be successful, if done correctly) will already change consumer behaviour, which of course is your motivation for creating this label in the first place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2694" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="f11c39e9-3739-4df4-9f0d-22018fd285c8" CreationDate="2013-05-14T07:58:45.673" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/334216198151606272" />
  <row Id="2695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="31522ce5-bb1d-45c5-a87e-f1d340d18cdf" CreationDate="2013-05-14T08:56:39.310" UserId="530" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="My wife and I have been using washable diapers for our two kids. We've made them from old curtains, old bedsheets, etc., pretty much all &quot;recycled&quot; materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They've been working perfectly fine, but every time I wash out the poop I can't help but wonder: compared to disposable, compostable diapers, is the ecological footprint of reusable diapers *really* smaller?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a few things to consider here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I hand-wash the diapers in lukewarm water with some detergent, prior to machine washing them. Sometimes I put them in the dryer (I don't live in a climate that always allows air drying, and I kinda *need* the diapers quickly after washing), but let's leave that step out of consideration for now.&#xD;&#xA; - There are these cover-pants things, that you have to put over the actual diaper to make everything watertight. They contain some plastics, and they have to be washed too. However, on like 10 diapers you'd use 1 of these things. They're pretty indestructible, so we got them second-hand, and we plan on selling them on to the next parents when our kids grow out, but at some point they have to be disposed of...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The kids run around bare-butted a lot these days, so we're using like 3 a day or so. Back when they were babies it used to be somewhere around 10 a day. That contrasts with the diapers being *much* easier to wash when they are babies; toddlers tend to produce far more &quot;sticky&quot; material :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway -- we also used disposable ones in the past, made from sustainable materials and compostable, but I really don't know how to start comparing them. So does anyone know how these two compare?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2696" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="31522ce5-bb1d-45c5-a87e-f1d340d18cdf" CreationDate="2013-05-14T08:56:39.310" UserId="530" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Reusable vs. disposable diapers: which is better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2697" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="8c7d95e6-0b34-4467-b4e8-7094ef431c56" CreationDate="2013-05-14T10:46:12.557" UserId="99" Comment="improved title" Text="How to recognize products with neonicotinoid pesticides in them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="c856fdb4-ba99-4fee-bc76-d7fd68d15c5e" CreationDate="2013-05-14T13:13:11.183" UserId="530" Comment="edited body" Text="My wife and I have been using reusable diapers for our two kids. We've made them from old curtains, old bedsheets, etc., pretty much all &quot;recycled&quot; materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They've been working perfectly fine, but every time I wash out the poop I can't help but wonder: compared to disposable, compostable diapers, is the ecological footprint of reusable diapers *really* smaller?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a few things to consider here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I hand-wash the diapers in lukewarm water with some detergent, prior to machine washing them. Sometimes I put them in the dryer (I don't live in a climate that always allows air drying, and I kinda *need* the diapers quickly after washing), but let's leave that step out of consideration for now.&#xD;&#xA; - There are these cover-pants things, that you have to put over the actual diaper to make everything watertight. They contain some plastics, and they have to be washed too. However, on like 10 diapers you'd use 1 of these things. They're pretty indestructible, so we got them second-hand, and we plan on selling them on to the next parents when our kids grow out, but at some point they have to be disposed of...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The kids run around bare-butted a lot these days, so we're using like 3 a day or so. Back when they were babies it used to be somewhere around 10 a day. That contrasts with the diapers being *much* easier to wash when they are babies; toddlers tend to produce far more &quot;sticky&quot; material :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway -- we also used disposable ones in the past, made from sustainable materials and compostable, but I really don't know how to start comparing them. So does anyone know how these two compare?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="914" RevisionGUID="3f133124-cdf1-47eb-8154-601c3e950f13" CreationDate="2013-05-15T03:48:56.600" UserId="400" Text="Ultimately nothing is sustainable.  Entropy increases.  Eventually the sun goes out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecologists refer to the 'carrying capacity'  This is the amount of a resource in an ecological cycle that can be extracted without making a significant difference to the overall system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trick is that word 'significant'  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for example, if you plant a forest on new land, it will initially not sequester carbon very fast.  The trees are small.  Then it will sequester rapidly, tying up carbon in wood mass.  When the forest reaches climax, it no longer increases it's carbon mass. -- wood and leaves are rotting/being eaten as fast as they are growing on a year round scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did the calcuations for my local poplar forest, estimating the total biomass at around 100 tons per acre.  The maturation time of an aspen poplar forest is around 60 years in our climate.  That gives me a 1.6 ton/year gross production over the life cycle of the forest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by one measure, I could extract something like 1 ton of biomass from the forest per acre per year, and do this indefinitely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that could be considered sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But wait:  I take that wood away, and burn it or make chip board or fence posts (bad idea, rots to fast) and with the celluose I'm taking small quantities of Phosphorus and potassium.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed:  places where they have done intensive forestry, after about 3 generations of trees being removed, they have problems with mineral deficiencies.  (That's removing something like half the biomass each time.) (Source Forestry Practices course 40 years ago in college.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I'm burning wood for heat and return the ashes is it sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe.  That wood ash has calcium converted to CaO which reacts with water to make Ca(OH)2 which is quite alkaline.  While sustainable in the sense that I've closed the cycle, it may make some radical changes in the soil chemistry.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is no longer the same ecosystem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it would be better to estimate a 'sustainability' factor.  How many times can this operation be repeated (or years) before the measurable impact occurs.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="915" RevisionGUID="4549771d-5c9f-4884-aa50-0777983137cc" CreationDate="2013-05-15T04:19:07.623" UserId="400" Text="Strawbale is one of the most sustainable methods.  A bale wall runs somewhere between R20 and R40 depending on whose lies you believe.  (Building With Bales) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Straw is a byproduct of grain production. (Wheat, oats, barley, rice,...) and bales can often be had for little more than the price of running a baler and buying the string.  Typical costs when I have bought bales is about $2/bale.  Each bale is about 3 square feet of wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are bale houses in Nebraska that are over a hundred years old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a lot of detail work to a bale house.  The net effect is that commercial houses built this way cost 10-20% more than conventional construction, but use a small fraction of the heating energy.  In many climates the waste heat of human activity will keep the house warm down to below zero temperatures.  (CREST Strawbale mailing list, yahoo group   http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/SB-r-us/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However a large fraction of shell of the house is DIYable after attending a couple of workshops or wall raisings.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that bale roofs do not work well.  At this point blown cellulose is the common practice for attic spaces, and styrofoam, PU foam is used to decouple foundation from ground.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="916" RevisionGUID="081bd922-2196-4fb4-b2fd-4303b2cc2d42" CreationDate="2013-05-15T04:23:37.500" UserId="400" Text="In Alberta my electricity costs me about 15 c per kWh.  That 3.6 megajoules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gigajoule of electricity then is 270 kWh or about $40.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas right now costs $4/gigajoule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, no I don't like to use my computer to heat my house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, you are correct in essence.  The electrical byproduct heat is not waste.  But its an expensive way to heat your house." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2705" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="909" RevisionGUID="c32a0051-e079-4122-8b33-90d6aef03fd9" CreationDate="2013-05-15T07:58:47.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/334578594149965824" />
  <row Id="2706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="849" RevisionGUID="40d11fc8-c57d-424d-bef2-66d044ccac41" CreationDate="2013-05-15T08:38:26.160" UserId="99" Comment="improved formatting, added references and link to post with supporting statements" Text="**Quick answer**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on the circumstances in your bin and your abilities to keep those circumstances ideal for a particular type of worm. Assuming this is no problem, my best bet would be that a mix of Eisenia Fetida and Eisenia Hortensis has the highest throughput rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long answer**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most research on vermicomposting focuses on reproduction and grow rates of different worms species. It is assumed that higher reproduction rates means more juvenile worms which in turn means a higher processing rate. I'm not entirely sure if this assumption is true but since we have nothing else to go on I'll stick with reproduction and grow rates for my answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mixing worm species can be done just fine as long as you can keep the conditions in your bin suited for all species involved. Chances are however that the conditions will be more favorable for one particular type of worm and that this worm will flourish and the population of the other worms will decline, so not all combinations of worm species will result in an effective mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most research on vermicomposting worms favor Eisenia Fetida (a.k.a red worm) for a number of reasons. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Fetida worms have fast reproduction and grow rates, &#xD;&#xA;  2. they tolerate and can survive under a wide range of circumstances, &#xD;&#xA;  3. they don't mind disturbances of their enviroment (at least not so much as other worm species like the Eudrilus Eugeniae). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is for these reasons that the Fetida worm has become [the most popular one](http://www.wormcomposting.ca/worms/red-worms-eisenia-fetida/) for vermicomposting. A bin with only Fetida worms certainly is a good choice to get a good throughput rate under different circumstances. The only problem with Fetida worms is that they tend to stay close to the surface. They don't eat food that is buried deep into a bin. That's why I think you might be able to get a slightly higher throughput rate if you add Eisenia Hortensis (a.k.a. Dendobaena Veneta or European nightcrawler) worms. Hortensis worms like it a bit more wet and colder than Fetida worms, but both species will do ok in circumstances that are a bit less than ideal. Additionally, Hortensis worms like to spread out all over the bin so if you add food both at the top as well as deeper into the bin you'll get a larger surface of active worms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that there has been some discussion about Hortensis worms. Research done in the late 80s and early 90s showed that the Hortensis had a rather low reproduction and grow rate, but in the late 90s this has been questioned by a number of worm farmers. Several people have reported that they found that the Hortensis worm can grow and reproduce just as fast as the Fetida  and claim the different results can be explained by the difference in bin conditions or in the food supplied to the worms (see [here](http://vermicomposters.ning.com/group/eiseniahortensisfarmers), [here](http://www.redwormcomposting.com/worm-composting/european-nightcrawler-cocoons/#comment-3489) and [here](http://vermicomposters.ning.com/profiles/blogs/eisenia-hortensis-european)). AFAIK the high reproduction rate of the Hortensis has not been proven scientifically yet but the fact is that the Hortensis worm has gained quite a bit of popularity in the last 10 years. If the Hortensis worm indeed has a similar reproduction and grow rate then it may outperform the Fetida worm when it comes to throughput rates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said in my quick answer, ultimately it will depend on the circumstances in your bin(s) and your abilities to keep those circumstances ideal for one or more types of worms. If you have a rather wet bin, it might be best just to use only Hortensis worms. If you have a lot of temperature changes the Fetida worm may be better. If your bin is kept at a constant temperature of around 25 Celsius (77 F) a bin with only Eudrilus Eugeniae might be the better choice. The best way to find out what works for you is simply to experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just found this very interesting answer of Robert Moore at the bottom of [this post](http://www.researchgate.net/post/Producing_a_hybrid_species_of_composting_worms) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What I have found is that combined breeding does increase the breadth of microbial species versus that found in single-species breeding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is mainly the saprophytic microbial activity that composts, not the earthworm per se.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The rate of decomposition is therefore a matter of the diversity and density of the microbial community along with how many earthworm mouths are present for a given volume of bedding which should be at C:N of 30:1 for maximum microbial reproduction within newly-prepared bedding, and harvested at 25:1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2707" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="905" RevisionGUID="7efb1ecc-b683-46b7-8106-0bb82fb82555" CreationDate="2013-05-15T16:05:52.020" UserId="35" Comment="clarified the title" Text="How is sustainability determined for a product or system, and by whom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="b4c4e757-0ff5-440b-b11f-2d1c6bd20dab" CreationDate="2013-05-16T08:50:53.757" UserId="99" Comment="added more links to calculators" Text="An ecological footprint estimates how much land and ocean area is required to sustain the consumption pattern of one person of a particular group of people. For example in 2007 it was estimated that mankind's total ecological footprint was 1.5 planet Earths, i.e. humanity uses 1.5 times more of the available resources than the Earth can renew them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Online personal ecological footprint calculators:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Myfootprint.org](http://myfootprint.org/)&#xD;&#xA; - [WWF UK](http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/pt/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/)&#xD;&#xA; - [EPA Australia](http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/calculators/personal/introduction.asp)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2710" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="829" RevisionGUID="ed3fe3b1-d51a-4bbd-8023-aba05c05f315" CreationDate="2013-05-16T11:44:14.413" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|ecological-footprint|transport|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2711" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="605" RevisionGUID="f89c107f-4956-43d4-b1ec-8cf6ca57ae39" CreationDate="2013-05-16T11:44:47.510" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|waste|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="bc6192ee-e429-4878-a243-a8ee0cc0f331" CreationDate="2013-05-16T11:58:57.050" UserId="99" Text="A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor and ozone) that is produced directly and indirectly by a person, an organisation, an event or a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Direct emissions, also called primary footprint, come from sources directly controlled by the person(s) or activity in question, for example heating one's house. Indirect emissions or secondary footprint are emissions that are the consequence of a person(s) actions using sources owned or controlled by someone else, for example fuel that was used to transport a product one bought to the store in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The global average carbon footprint is approximately 4 tons of CO2-equivalent per person per year [[source]](http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_footprint) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the difference between with [tag:ecological-footprint] that measures the total impact (so not only greenhouse gasses) of a person, organisation or activity on the Earth's ecosystems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online carbon footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbonfootprint.com](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx)&#xD;&#xA; - [EPA USA - Household Carbon Footprint Calculator](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/ind-calculator.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [Berkeley.edu - CoolClimate Carbon Footprint Calculator](http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/carboncalculator)&#xD;&#xA; - [Nature.org](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) (for US citizens)&#xD;&#xA; - [Cooltheworld.com - Kid's carbon calculator](http://www.cooltheworld.com/kidscarboncalculator.php)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="918" RevisionGUID="30e7f3f2-d9bc-4a7d-908c-ff461fcf0a2c" CreationDate="2013-05-16T11:58:57.050" UserId="99" Text="a measure of the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced directly and indirectly by a person, an organisation, an event or a product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="f1931f45-3269-48d1-aa90-12131e5bd73e" CreationDate="2013-05-16T12:03:22.160" UserId="99" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="An ecological footprint estimates how much land and ocean area is required to sustain the consumption pattern of one person of a particular group of people. For example in 2007 it was estimated that mankind's total ecological footprint was 1.5 planet Earths, i.e. humanity uses 1.5 times more of the available resources than the Earth can renew them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the difference with [tag:carbon-footprint] that only considers the emission of greenhouse gasses of a person, organisation or activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online personal ecological footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Myfootprint.org](http://myfootprint.org/)&#xD;&#xA; - [WWF UK](http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/pt/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/)&#xD;&#xA; - [EPA Australia](http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/calculators/personal/introduction.asp)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="f2f1e9c7-e357-47cb-8949-9d20e52c2013" CreationDate="2013-05-16T12:04:07.883" UserId="471" Text="I want to know that how can we `ripen fruit` as fast as possible. here fruit sellers using chemicals to do that which is harmful. so i want to have nice idea which is sustainable.and suggest some safe chemicals which is not harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also suggest some natural way to do the same.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2716" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="f2f1e9c7-e357-47cb-8949-9d20e52c2013" CreationDate="2013-05-16T12:04:07.883" UserId="471" Text="how to ripen the fruit fast as possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2717" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="f2f1e9c7-e357-47cb-8949-9d20e52c2013" CreationDate="2013-05-16T12:04:07.883" UserId="471" Text="|food|safe-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="e2dd48e0-f383-473f-b5c5-083daf7bd5a4" CreationDate="2013-05-16T16:51:10.907" UserId="117" Comment="Grammar fixes and focused this on sustainability." Text="I want to know that how I can ripen fruit as fast as possible. Fruit sellers are using chemicals to do that which is harmful. I would like to know if there are any *safe* chemicals or other techniques that can hasten the ripening of fruit sustainably." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2720" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="e2dd48e0-f383-473f-b5c5-083daf7bd5a4" CreationDate="2013-05-16T16:51:10.907" UserId="117" Comment="Grammar fixes and focused this on sustainability." Text="How to ripen fruit fast without chemicals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="8bf6eecf-f564-46a1-81a7-c4eb4c28ff7c" CreationDate="2013-05-16T20:11:50.363" UserId="99" Text="[Ethylene](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene) is a natural plant hormone that can be used to ripen fruit. Bananas give off a small amount of etyhlene, so placing other fruits in a confined space (for example a bag with some air holes) together with some bananas or banana peels will speed up the ripening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know from experience that it works with apples, peaches and other bananas. I'm not sure if it will work with all fruit types." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="62fbd1c7-6466-4474-8e6d-818d20243258" CreationDate="2013-05-16T20:22:01.183" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="[Ethylene](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene) is a natural plant hormone that can be used to ripen fruit. Bananas give off a small amount of etyhlene, so placing other fruits in a confined space (a paper bag works great) together with some ripe bananas or banana peels will speed up the ripening of the other fruits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know from experience that it works for ripening apples, peaches and other bananas. I'm not sure if it will work with all fruit types." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2723" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="50571a26-de3b-40e6-babb-0b3fb76ef1c4" CreationDate="2013-05-16T20:41:06.360" UserId="117" Comment="edited title" Text="How to ripen fruit fast without harmful chemicals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="e4590e2b-71b2-452c-9e7b-63c781e9a6ef" CreationDate="2013-05-17T01:08:29.923" UserId="547" Text="There's a huge carbon footprint just in growing the food you'll eat on the journey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fun fact: An airliner gets roughly 30 mpg/passenger -- the same as a compact car. The compact car only beats the airliner if you make the trip *with* somebody." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="9f348e49-4f67-4daf-91bd-cabd8c75bc32" CreationDate="2013-05-17T01:58:42.673" UserId="486" Text="Dumping recyclable cups (when you forgot your own, or it's dirty) in the public recycle bins seems like an easy decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, I've noticed that the recycle bins at places like Starbucks are absolutely stocked with normal trash.  I watch people dump their cups, lids, soiled napkins, and straws in whichever bin is closest to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our public utility tells us that even a small amount of non-recyclable waste mixed with recyclables can ruin the batch (or cause it all to be dumped in the landfill). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, **is it actually useful to put recyclable cups in these recycle bins?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to admit that I've begun just taking my cups home with me, and recyling there, where I'm confident of their fate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, is this a good decision?  Does anyone have information on how much of these consumer recyclables actually get recycled?  Possibly someone who's worked at places like Starbucks, or at a recycling facility that accepts commercial recycling, could comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be nice not to have to trust the stores' statements that they're taking steps to be *green*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I am in the US, and I can see that maybe this underlying *misbehaviour* by the customers is a somewhat localized phenomenon.  If that's the case, then I guess my question is about the US.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2726" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="9f348e49-4f67-4daf-91bd-cabd8c75bc32" CreationDate="2013-05-17T01:58:42.673" UserId="486" Text="Do Public Recycle Bins (Almost) Always Get Recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2727" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="9f348e49-4f67-4daf-91bd-cabd8c75bc32" CreationDate="2013-05-17T01:58:42.673" UserId="486" Text="|plastic|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2730" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="ecf0acdd-c54f-4e91-908a-c34c2ec40432" CreationDate="2013-05-17T10:58:59.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/335348717152501760" />
  <row Id="2733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="165202a0-465f-4cbb-bdcc-46a710225344" CreationDate="2013-05-17T18:22:36.187" UserId="462" Text="Unfortunately, I think a lot of those heavily contaminated loads of &quot;recycling&quot; do end up in the trash. The only other option in many cases is for whoever manages the facility's waste to sort the good from the bad by hand, and that is generally not feasible. Some recycling centers are more strict than others about contamination, but even single-stream recycling systems won't take a load if there is more than a certain % of food, liquid, and trash. If a load of recycling is determined to be &quot;unrecyclable&quot; at the recycling center, it will be disposed of as trash, often at the expense of the customer (especially if the customer is a school or business that contracts directly with the recycling service). Hence environmentally-aware college students should remind their intoxicated friends to use the trash can because vomit is not recyclable (yes, I have witnessed this). In general, though, I think in the USA it's safe to assume that if the contents of the bins can be recycled, they will be recycled. Most companies won't spend money on recycling bins unless they actually plan to use them. So the answer to your question is yes, but only if you trust the American people to follow directions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="964fd5e3-540c-4138-ab52-d1fd40d4a25e" CreationDate="2013-05-17T18:41:16.697" UserId="548" Text="I want to live in such a way that I can develop open source software full time, find new ways to convert trash into usable products and not charge a dime for my services. Are there any viable means to accomplish this especially since you can't even have a place to sleep without paying the government a monthly fee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="964fd5e3-540c-4138-ab52-d1fd40d4a25e" CreationDate="2013-05-17T18:41:16.697" UserId="548" Text="How can I sustainable live without money when the government charges property tax?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="964fd5e3-540c-4138-ab52-d1fd40d4a25e" CreationDate="2013-05-17T18:41:16.697" UserId="548" Text="|economy|planning|law|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="922" RevisionGUID="b8f71940-f141-4470-961b-0b63d494afcc" CreationDate="2013-05-17T19:15:36.397" UserId="547" Comment="edited body" Text="There's a huge carbon footprint just in growing the food you'll eat on the journey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fun fact: An airliner gets roughly 30 mpg/passenger -- the same as a compact car. The compact car only beats the airliner if you make the trip with passengers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="926" RevisionGUID="7b0b45ba-82f5-40ba-a410-9e62fa7a9985" CreationDate="2013-05-17T19:42:59.297" UserId="15" Text="If the govt offers reduced tax for particular types of ownership (eg non-profit organisation), then you could look at how you could use that as an option to make it easier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that in most developed countries we need a certain minimum amount of money to do various basic things, such as own land. Many would consider that you are still getting the benefits that the govt provides, such as use of roads, police, and even national defense, so taxing every person a certain amount for these is justified. These things are all expensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Leasing:** It might suit you better to try to find someone who will lease you a certain amount of land with some particular business arrangement. For example, if you planted and harvested a supply of firewood each year for the owner, you might have some land left over for your own purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tax optimisation:** Another thing you could look at is finding land that has particularly low taxes (eg if the tax is value based, then find low value land, or if the tax is state-based, move to a state with lower tax).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joining with a community of like minded people may provide a lower tax burden for each individual. In New Zealand, some of the taxes are based on the number of separate dwellings, so having a very large house with several families in would result in lower tax per person (however, if you separated the house into individual units, you'd increase your tax). Other taxes in NZ are based on land value, and whether or not you have a connection to the sewerage system. I remember hearing about one case where a land owner was forced to pay a share of the installation of sewerage pipes down his street when he didn't even want to connect to it, so look out for that kind of activity on residential fringes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Compromise:** If you explain your situation and invite people that you work for to donate an amount that they can afford, you might find you earn enough to cover your tax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** To try to avoid these kind of problems getting worse for your grandkids, get involved in some kind of democratic lobby group to help prevent the problems growing over time and push for improvement instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2739" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="98a54daf-b30e-4b4a-ab6b-6feb8d4e573f" CreationDate="2013-05-17T19:43:56.847" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How can I sustainably live without money when the government charges property tax?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2740" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="98a54daf-b30e-4b4a-ab6b-6feb8d4e573f" CreationDate="2013-05-17T19:43:56.847" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|economy|planning|law|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="927" RevisionGUID="f41d4a45-bd86-4dda-b94a-104eb940fbdd" CreationDate="2013-05-17T19:49:09.590" UserId="549" Text="I think you are asking about plant planted in the Bucket. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually This plants need  Direct sunlight ( But Not So much ) and fresh air as well as water. &#xD;&#xA;you can put it in shadow in terrace.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. And During watering the plant be careful that u are not giving lots of water so that you will make spoil the health of that plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. And Keep as much as possible plants together but different Pots. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Also Plant Healthy plant. Remove Previous unhealthy plants. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="8808e99e-c420-44d4-84b6-ce4b774d8e2d" CreationDate="2013-05-17T21:12:10.913" UserId="486" Comment="made sure to clarify that I'm not only interested in US feedback" Text="Dumping recyclable cups (when you forgot your own, or it's dirty) in the public recycle bins seems like an easy decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, I've noticed that the recycle bins at places like Starbucks are absolutely stocked with normal trash.  I watch people dump their cups, lids, soiled napkins, and straws in whichever bin is closest to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our public utility tells us that even a small amount of non-recyclable waste mixed with recyclables can ruin the batch (or cause it all to be dumped in the landfill). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that in mind, **is it actually useful to put recyclable cups in these recycle bins?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to admit that I've begun just taking my cups home with me, and recyling there, where I'm confident of their fate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, is this a good decision?  Does anyone have information on how much of these consumer recyclables actually get recycled?  Possibly someone who's worked at places like Starbucks, or at a recycling facility that accepts commercial recycling, could comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be nice not to have to trust the stores' statements that they're taking steps to be *green*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I am in the US, and I can see that maybe this underlying *misbehaviour* by the customers is a somewhat localized phenomenon.  If that's the case, then I guess my question is about the US (but, I certainly welcome global feedback!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2743" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="925" RevisionGUID="ce176c57-309a-4834-ad30-06d5d22df88e" CreationDate="2013-05-17T21:37:52.270" UserId="85" Comment="2" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;user1205935&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="927" RevisionGUID="44dc8b0f-9e2c-44d2-83e8-0e718a181429" CreationDate="2013-05-17T21:43:57.950" UserId="486" Comment="grammar and spelling" Text="I think you are asking about plants planted in the **bucket** (?). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually these plants need direct sunlight (but not too much) and fresh air, as well as water. You can put it in shade in a terrace.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. And while watering the plant, be careful that you are not giving too much water, which will spoil the health of that plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. And as much as possible, keep plants together, but in different pots. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Also plant healthy plants. Remove previous unhealthy plants from the pot. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2745" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="927" RevisionGUID="44dc8b0f-9e2c-44d2-83e8-0e718a181429" CreationDate="2013-05-17T21:43:57.950" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 85 edit id of 118" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2746" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="d289a1a0-bb57-4bc1-8ef4-59b75cdd53de" CreationDate="2013-05-17T22:58:59.003" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/335529911316000768" />
  <row Id="2747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="fdb725f9-2397-4c59-8121-4fc732dc5680" CreationDate="2013-05-18T06:46:05.890" UserId="506" Text="it's been so drastic changes in environment all over world. what can an individual contribute to fight against global worming? if it will continue this way world wont'b exist longer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2748" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="fdb725f9-2397-4c59-8121-4fc732dc5680" CreationDate="2013-05-18T06:46:05.890" UserId="506" Text="Worrying about global worming?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2749" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="fdb725f9-2397-4c59-8121-4fc732dc5680" CreationDate="2013-05-18T06:46:05.890" UserId="506" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="5c02f050-e9d5-4f20-ad47-f4a2ee4ed5b9" CreationDate="2013-05-18T08:53:19.217" UserId="486" Comment="some grammar and spelling, to avoid worms being unfairly blamed for environmental disasters" Text="it's been so drastic - changes in environment all over world. what can an individual contribute to fight against global warming? if it will continue this way, the world as we know it won't exist longer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2751" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="5c02f050-e9d5-4f20-ad47-f4a2ee4ed5b9" CreationDate="2013-05-18T08:53:19.217" UserId="486" Comment="some grammar and spelling, to avoid worms being unfairly blamed for environmental disasters" Text="Worrying about global warming?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2752" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="5c02f050-e9d5-4f20-ad47-f4a2ee4ed5b9" CreationDate="2013-05-18T08:53:19.217" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 48 edit id of 119" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="8291cbab-8fb7-466d-ba41-e5b911533b04" CreationDate="2013-05-18T11:07:50.127" UserId="15" Comment="Added tags, minor tify up. Could still do with more tidy up (or maybe asking something more answerable!)" Text="It's been so drastic - changes in environment all over the world. What can an individual contribute to fight against global warming? If it continues this way, the world as we know it won't exist longer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2754" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="8291cbab-8fb7-466d-ba41-e5b911533b04" CreationDate="2013-05-18T11:07:50.127" UserId="15" Comment="Added tags, minor tify up. Could still do with more tidy up (or maybe asking something more answerable!)" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|global-warming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2757" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="ca4477d7-ff64-4929-bfb2-39f5b2188a79" CreationDate="2013-05-18T12:35:13.023" UserId="48" Comment="made the title representative of the question, and cleaned up the tags" Text="What can an individual contribute to the fight against global warming?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2758" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="ca4477d7-ff64-4929-bfb2-39f5b2188a79" CreationDate="2013-05-18T12:35:13.023" UserId="48" Comment="made the title representative of the question, and cleaned up the tags" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="930" RevisionGUID="fe4d52f7-c5e7-4ec1-8ff8-70cfec6ad777" CreationDate="2013-05-18T13:10:54.310" UserId="48" Text="I'll split this answer into two parts: the political and the personal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Political impact&#xD;&#xA;Whatever political system you live in, you have some route to make a political impact. The amount of impact will depend on your exact circumstance, but you will have some impact somewhere: through your elected representative, through a national political party, through a religious body, or through economic influence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you've identified a person of influence in one of those spheres, next find out what motivates them, what sort of language they use to describe problems and solutions, and what their priorities are.  Then, explain to them how catastrophic anthropogenic global warming will worsen some of those problems; and give them three good tactical approaches to preventing that from happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###An example&#xD;&#xA;In a representative democracy, there are routes to power through party-political structures, and through elected members. One can join a political party that is free of policies you find completely unacceptable, and work within it to develop policies to mitigate global warming. If the party's main message is one of protecting the weak and creating an equitable society, then your approach would be to talk about how catastrophic global warming would make the poorest suffer, and how it would divert resources away from tackling wealth inequity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The three tactical approaches might be:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. working with international partners to put in place rapid decarbonisation targets;&#xD;&#xA;2. transferring part of the source of taxation from something that is held to be a good thing, such as employment, onto greenhouse-gas emissions; and combining this with an equivalent import duty on goods and services that contain [embedded carbon][1].&#xD;&#xA;3. introduce capital grants to low-income households, to enable them to buy photovoltaic panels extremely cheaply, and then to sell their surplus power back to the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Personal impact&#xD;&#xA;For almost all of us, our own personal emissions are very small in the scheme of things. And yet, if each of us can take personal actions to halve our total greenhouse gas impact, then global emissions will halve. So together, our impact can be huge. Furthermore, wherever there are some market forces in place, then changing your demand from high-carbon goods and services to low-carbon ones, will incentivise commerce and industry to decarbonise at the margins. The main thing is to work out where your biggest personal impact is, and to start there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###An example&#xD;&#xA;For anyone who flies or drives a lot, their travel is probably a very large part of their personal carbon footprint. If the long trips can be shifted to train, and the shorter drives can be shifted to bus, tram, metro, walking or cycling, then that can have a big impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone living a climate where a large part of the year requires space-heating, and that's done through gas, oil, coal or high-carbon electricity, then investing in insulation and reducing draughts should save you money in the long run, and will reduce your personal emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[If you have a choice of electricity provider, then in some cases, changing provider can make a difference.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/richard-conlin/but-what-about-embedded-carbon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/682/48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2763" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="0e0216a0-8883-4643-8917-989f794778f0" CreationDate="2013-05-18T13:58:59.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/335756404096905216" />
  <row Id="2765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="95e940b4-21ae-4aaf-99ee-9a0201d6067a" CreationDate="2013-05-18T20:16:20.100" UserId="48" Text="Offshore wind is a booming industry, and in particular [the UK has an enormous theoretical potential to generate 2TW mean power from offshore wind][1], as I wrote on my blog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And whereas there's a lot of talk about constraints about funding, and about managing the production of electricity, I've found very little on the medium to long-term physical constraints on the supply side: only measures of the theoretic potential, as I've linked above, and some discussions about the wake effects within and between arrays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, thinking ahead to say 2030, what are the constraining **logistics** on the supply side? Assuming no problems with funding and take-off of the electricity, what is the thing that would cap the amount of new capacity that would be deployed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2030 is far enough away that there would seem to be few meaningful constraints on the number of suitable ships or turbine factories that could be operational by then. So are there any supply-side limiting **logistics** at all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://energynumbers.info/the-uk-is-the-saudi-arabia-of-wind-energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="95e940b4-21ae-4aaf-99ee-9a0201d6067a" CreationDate="2013-05-18T20:16:20.100" UserId="48" Text="What are the biggest supply-side logistical constraints on the expansion of offshore wind?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="95e940b4-21ae-4aaf-99ee-9a0201d6067a" CreationDate="2013-05-18T20:16:20.100" UserId="48" Text="|electricity|wind-power|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="4c613570-46af-4ac0-be00-be4f902bf981" CreationDate="2013-05-18T22:21:07.313" UserId="453" Text="Let's assume that the use of fuel is the key factor to contribute to global warming and identify four ways that an individual can choose to cross the Atlantic ocean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large passenger ships, small passenger ships (sailing boats), large cargo vessels and airplane.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fuel use per transport mode**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the km a given transport mode delivers per one *litre* of fuel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Average airplane: 20.8 km / passenger ([see Wikipedia][1])&#xD;&#xA;- Cruise ship (Queen Elizabeth): 5.9 km / passenger ([see Wikipedia][2])&#xD;&#xA;- Sailing boat¹ (10 m, if engine is used): 13 km / boat ([see source][3])&#xD;&#xA;- Container vessel: well ... 1 *kg* of fuel moves one container 45 km ([according to specifications on Wikipedia][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ I have no idea if you can comfortably cross the Atlantic in a 10 m sailing boat and neither how many passengers (including crew) can be fitted. Just a guess (please correct me here): 5 people.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fuel used and greenhouse gas emission**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Big shipping vessels (cruise ships, cargo vessels) use bunker fuel or heavy fuel oil. CO2 emission = 3.17² kg / kg fuel.&#xD;&#xA;- Small ships (fishing boats, sailing boats) use marine diesel (also &quot;red diesel&quot; / &quot;gas oil&quot;) which is very similar to road diesel. CO2 emission = 3.19² kg / kg fuel.&#xD;&#xA;- Airplanes use kerosene. CO2 emission = 3.15² kg / kg fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are very small methane emissions in the order of less than 0.1% for all modes of transport which are ignored for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;² Source of CO2 and CH4 emissions: [GaBi life cycle assessment software][5] database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**CO2 emissions per kg of fuel and mode of transport**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads us to a CO2 emission per one kg of fuel per km and passenger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Average airplane: 0.15&#xD;&#xA;- Cruise ship: 0.54&#xD;&#xA;- Sailing boat (if engine is used): 0.25&#xD;&#xA;- Cargo vessel: 0.001 - loading each [40 ft container][6] with 56 people, giving them half a square meter of space (seriously?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To conclude**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results depend mainly on your assumptions but to make it simple; If the motivation to cross the Atlantic is not to transport passengers I believe the least environmentally harmful way (in terms of greenhouse gas emissions) is to join here because &quot;they will go anyway&quot;. In case you manage to not use any fuel on a sailing boat to do the crossing this will be the way of choice. Any sailing boat with the given specifications will definitely not use as much fuel as stated because it uses wind energy. This mode of transport will then rank second, before flying and going on a cruise ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider the numbers in here just as a very rough approximation as so many factors are neglected or just one sample per transport mode is considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#Aircraft&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#Queen_Elizabeth&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/fuel.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#Emma_Maersk&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.gabi-software.com/international/index/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#Specifications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2769" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="931" RevisionGUID="214e5361-c50f-411f-bae1-333bf160d070" CreationDate="2013-05-18T22:58:59.587" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/335892300771229696" />
  <row Id="2770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="af26612d-f615-421b-8d6c-7ef42ecb0054" CreationDate="2013-05-19T00:53:08.720" UserId="453" Comment="deleted 70 characters in body" Text="Let's assume that the use of fuel is the key factor to contribute to global warming and identify four ways that an individual can choose to cross the Atlantic ocean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large passenger ships, small passenger ships (sailing boats), large cargo vessels and airplane.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fuel use per transport mode**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the km a given transport mode delivers per one *litre* of fuel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Average airplane: 20.8 km / passenger ([see Wikipedia][1])&#xD;&#xA;- Cruise ship (Queen Elizabeth): 5.9 km / passenger ([see Wikipedia][2])&#xD;&#xA;- Sailing boat¹ (10 m, if engine is used): 13 km / boat ([see source][3])&#xD;&#xA;- Container vessel: well ... 1 *kg* of fuel moves one container 45 km ([according to specifications on Wikipedia][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ I have no idea if you can comfortably cross the Atlantic in a 10 m sailing boat and neither how many passengers (including crew) can be fitted. Just a guess (please correct me here): 5 people.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fuel used and greenhouse gas emission**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Big shipping vessels (cruise ships, cargo vessels) use bunker fuel or heavy fuel oil. CO2 emission = 3.17² kg / kg fuel.&#xD;&#xA;- Small ships (fishing boats, sailing boats) use marine diesel (also &quot;red diesel&quot; / &quot;gas oil&quot;) which is very similar to road diesel. CO2 emission = 3.19² kg / kg fuel.&#xD;&#xA;- Airplanes use kerosene. CO2 emission = 3.15² kg / kg fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are very small methane emissions in the order of less than 0.1% for all modes of transport which are ignored for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;² Source of CO2 and CH4 emissions: [GaBi life cycle assessment software][5] database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**CO2 emissions per kg of fuel and mode of transport**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads us to a CO2 emission per one kg of fuel per km and passenger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Average airplane: 0.15&#xD;&#xA;- Cruise ship: 0.54&#xD;&#xA;- Sailing boat (if engine is used): 0.25&#xD;&#xA;- Cargo vessel: 0.001 - loading each [40 ft container][6] with 56 people, giving them half a square meter of space (seriously?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To conclude**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results depend mainly on your assumptions but to keep it simple; if the motivation for the crossing is to transport cargo I believe it is the way with the least CO2 emissions because &quot;they will go anyway&quot;. In case you manage to not use any fuel on a sailing boat this will be the way of choice. Any sailing boat with the given specifications will definitely not use as much fuel as stated because the sail will be used most of the time. This mode of transport will then rank second, before flying and going by cruise ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the numbers in here as very rough approximation as so many factors are neglected or just one sample per transport mode is taken into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#Aircraft&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#Queen_Elizabeth&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/fuel.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#Emma_Maersk&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.gabi-software.com/international/index/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#Specifications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="933" RevisionGUID="f198e8f6-dbfd-4889-a232-40b1c258adb7" CreationDate="2013-05-19T10:54:11.747" UserId="99" Text="Since nobody answered, I thought I’d post an answer with what I’ve been able to find out myself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Types**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a list of 7 different neonicotinoid insecticides on [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#Available_neonicotinoid_insecticides):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Acetamiprid&#xD;&#xA; - Clothianidin&#xD;&#xA; - Dinotefuran&#xD;&#xA; - Imidacloprid&#xD;&#xA; - Nitenpyram&#xD;&#xA; - Thiacloprid&#xD;&#xA; - Thiamethoxam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neonicotinoid insecticide that is most commonly used is [Imidacloprid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid). I'm not sure if manufacturers are obliged to put the name of these substances on all their products, so these names might not show up on a product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Brands**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bayer is the company that has invented Imidacloprid and also seems to sell the most products that have this stuff in them, so careful when buying stuff from them. Other brand names:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Admire, Advantage (Advocate) (flea killer for pets), Confidor, Conguard, Gaucho, Hachikusan, Intercept, Kohinor, Mallet, Merit, Nuprid, Optrol, Premise, Prothor, Provado, Turfthor, Winner, and Xytect (source [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid#Brand_names))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found [this list](http://www.pan-uk.org/home-garden/list-of-home-and-garden-pesticides-containing-neonicotinoids) with products that contain neonicotinoids, but there is no date so I’m not sure how old the list is and if it is complete (probably not).&#xD;&#xA;The EU has decided that all countries have 1 year to start with the ban, so it’s possible that products with neonicotinoids in them are still being sold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Application**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparentely there are many uses for neonicotinoids:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it can be applied by soil injection, tree injection, application to the skin of the plant, broadcast foliar, ground application as a granular or liquid formulation, or as a pesticide-coated seed treatment. (source: [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid#Authorized_uses))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read that Imidacloprid is taken up by plants and trees and remains present in their flowers or seeds so I suspect there is no way of knowing for sure whether a tree, plant, flower bulb, or seed contains neonicotinoids without labtests. The safest choice is probably to buy organic plants, bulbs and seeds.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="fe95b47f-09fb-4ae9-9809-c587dd251827" CreationDate="2013-05-19T12:06:05.260" UserId="99" Comment="added link to related carbon-footprint tag" Text="Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an established method for quantifying impacts - often environmental - of a product, process or service's total supply chain. This means looking not only at use, but also at production of raw materials (referred to as the cradle), processing and transportation, and eventual disposal (grave). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions with this tag should focus on comparing possible options based on environmental impacts, or how impacts may vary depending on the supply chain choices - say, recycling paper vs. composting it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The method has been formalized by ISO in the 14040 standards, and can include many different impacts, of which [tag:carbon-footprint] is the most well-known. Other impact categories include [ecotoxicity][1], [eutrophication][2], and various human health categories, as well as resource accounting for water or energy consumption. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related but separate fields include life-cycle costing and material flow analysis, which take a similarly wide perspective but a different method, and are used for answering different questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wikipedia.org/ecotoxicity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wikipedia.org/eutrophication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="887b34b6-7d7c-4357-bbc4-53166dcb5bf0" CreationDate="2013-05-19T12:11:16.123" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, explained secondary footprint more clearly" Text="A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor and ozone) that is produced directly and indirectly by a person, an organisation, an event or a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Direct emissions, also called primary footprint, come from sources directly controlled by the person(s) or activity in question, for example heating one's house. Indirect emissions or secondary footprint are emissions that are the consequence of a person(s) actions using sources owned or controlled by someone else, for example fuel that was for transport from the factory to the store for a product one has bought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The global average carbon footprint is approximately 4 tons of CO2-equivalent per person per year [[source]](http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_footprint) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the difference with [tag:ecological-footprint] that measures the total impact (so not only greenhouse gas emissions) of a person, organisation or activity on the Earth's ecosystems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online carbon footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbonfootprint.com](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx)&#xD;&#xA; - [EPA USA - Household Carbon Footprint Calculator](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/ind-calculator.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [Berkeley.edu - CoolClimate Carbon Footprint Calculator](http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/carboncalculator)&#xD;&#xA; - [Nature.org](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) (for US citizens)&#xD;&#xA; - [Cooltheworld.com - Kid's carbon calculator](http://www.cooltheworld.com/kidscarboncalculator.php)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="932" RevisionGUID="48069b6f-5fa1-4984-9ae2-fb8d80d10640" CreationDate="2013-05-19T13:57:00.820" UserId="453" Comment="added note about CO2 emissions at high altitudes" Text="Let's assume that the use of fuel is the key factor to contribute to global warming and identify four ways that an individual can choose to cross the Atlantic ocean:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large passenger ships, small passenger ships (sailing boats), large cargo vessels and airplane.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fuel use per transport mode**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the km a given transport mode delivers per one *litre* of fuel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Average airplane: 20.8 km / passenger ([see Wikipedia][1])&#xD;&#xA;- Cruise ship (Queen Elizabeth): 5.9 km / passenger ([see Wikipedia][2])&#xD;&#xA;- Sailing boat¹ (10 m, if engine is used): 13 km / boat ([see source][3])&#xD;&#xA;- Container vessel: well ... 1 *kg* of fuel moves one container 45 km ([according to specifications on Wikipedia][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ I have no idea if you can comfortably cross the Atlantic in a 10 m sailing boat and neither how many passengers (including crew) can be fitted. Just a guess (please correct me here): 5 people.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fuel used and greenhouse gas emission**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Big shipping vessels (cruise ships, cargo vessels) use bunker fuel or heavy fuel oil. CO2 emission = 3.17² kg / kg fuel.&#xD;&#xA;- Small ships (fishing boats, sailing boats) use marine diesel (also &quot;red diesel&quot; / &quot;gas oil&quot;) which is very similar to road diesel. CO2 emission = 3.19² kg / kg fuel.&#xD;&#xA;- Airplanes use kerosene. CO2 emission = 3.15² kg / kg fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are very small methane emissions in the order of less than 0.1% for all modes of transport which are ignored for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;² Source of CO2 and CH4 emissions: [GaBi life cycle assessment software][5] database.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**CO2 emissions per kg of fuel and mode of transport**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads us to a CO2 emission per one kg of fuel per km and passenger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Average airplane: 0.15³&#xD;&#xA;- Cruise ship: 0.54&#xD;&#xA;- Sailing boat (if engine is used): 0.25&#xD;&#xA;- Cargo vessel: 0.001 - loading each [40 ft container][6] with 56 people, giving them half a square meter of space (seriously?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;³ This number does not take into account the impact of CO2 emitted at high altitude (as @EnergyNumbers pointed out in the comments).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To conclude**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results depend mainly on your assumptions but to keep it simple; if the motivation for the crossing is to transport cargo I believe it is the way with the least CO2 emissions because &quot;they will go anyway&quot;. In case you manage to not use any fuel on a sailing boat this will be the way of choice. Any sailing boat with the given specifications will definitely not use as much fuel as stated because the sail will be used most of the time. This mode of transport will then rank second, before flying and going by cruise ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the numbers in here as very rough approximation as so many factors are neglected or just one sample per transport mode is taken into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#Aircraft&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#Queen_Elizabeth&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/fuel.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#Emma_Maersk&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.gabi-software.com/international/index/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container#Specifications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="74a3bbe5-fc2d-4ee6-9951-6d758f873a3c" CreationDate="2013-05-20T04:11:49.303" UserId="264" Text="I wondered what was the best, in one hand for the health (but I guess the question should be asked somewhere else, shouldn't it?) and in the other hand for the earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one, if there is one, is more (or less) eco-friendly? Which one is more efficient (space used versus productivity)? Also, depending on our location, consuming one type of oil rather than the other might be worth to consider (depending on where they can grow, where they are usually grown and so the fuel needed to deliver them to our location in one form or another). How many energy is required to process each? Is there more useful byproducts coming from sunflowers or from an olive tree? Etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2776" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="74a3bbe5-fc2d-4ee6-9951-6d758f873a3c" CreationDate="2013-05-20T04:11:49.303" UserId="264" Text="Olive oil versus sunflower oil" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2777" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="74a3bbe5-fc2d-4ee6-9951-6d758f873a3c" CreationDate="2013-05-20T04:11:49.303" UserId="264" Text="|food|ecological-footprint|energy-efficiency|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="8a8b8b64-9895-4650-a975-4d5677b05f6d" CreationDate="2013-05-20T10:03:47.203" UserId="453" Text="There is a presentation comparing the environmental impact of different vegetable oils [here][1] (direct download link to pdf!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is shown that olive oil has less impact regarding the output of greenhouse gases and substances that contribute to acidification, eutrophication and the generation of photochemical smog though it requires more space to grow it. The energy demand is roughly the same. Both oils perform worse compared to other vegetable oils.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The presentation seems to compare different publications of life cycle assessments concerning these products. Be *very* careful interpreting these results as differences in the methodology employed among studies make in generally a complex task to draw general conclusions from these kind of comparisons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CC0QFjAA&amp;url=http://www.soci.org/News/~/media/Files/Conference%2520Downloads/Paml%2520Oil%2520Mar%252009/Dumelin.ashx&amp;ei=VvCZUYb6GIeL7AbB2oDwAw&amp;usg=AFQjCNHh2M0yvZXJ-ifUZXCcs5bFPKTLYQ&amp;sig2=n2PB0xhkpWzKTFeFQ1R86w" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="97f37465-bcbe-4c00-a567-45134ce93fab" CreationDate="2013-05-20T10:15:56.730" UserId="453" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="There is a presentation comparing the environmental impact of different vegetable oils [here][1] (direct download link to pdf!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is shown that olive oil has less impact regarding the output of greenhouse gases and substances that contribute to acidification, eutrophication and the generation of photochemical smog though it requires more space to grow it. The energy demand is roughly the same. Both oils perform worse compared to other vegetable oils.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transport is shown to be a less important factor in the life cycle, contributing &lt; 20% to the represented impact categories. Given that an &quot;environmental friendly&quot;  mode is chosen (container ships rather than trucks or airplanes) long distance transport may not be as harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The presentation seems to compare different publications of life cycle assessments concerning these products. Be *very* careful interpreting these results as differences in the methodology employed among studies make in generally a complex task to draw general conclusions from these kind of comparisons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CC0QFjAA&amp;url=http://www.soci.org/News/~/media/Files/Conference%2520Downloads/Paml%2520Oil%2520Mar%252009/Dumelin.ashx&amp;ei=VvCZUYb6GIeL7AbB2oDwAw&amp;usg=AFQjCNHh2M0yvZXJ-ifUZXCcs5bFPKTLYQ&amp;sig2=n2PB0xhkpWzKTFeFQ1R86w" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2781" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="3637b3dc-dabc-431d-ac04-291cbbf20bfa" CreationDate="2013-05-20T10:59:01.290" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/336435888953368576" />
  <row Id="2782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="82527c14-0925-445d-9bb3-ce67792a1798" CreationDate="2013-05-20T11:43:12.687" UserId="264" Comment="Real direct link (I removed the google tracker. Thanks but no)" Text="There is a presentation comparing the environmental impact of different vegetable oils [here][1] (direct download link to pdf!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is shown that olive oil has less impact regarding the output of greenhouse gases and substances that contribute to acidification, eutrophication and the generation of photochemical smog though it requires more space to grow it. The energy demand is roughly the same. Both oils perform worse compared to other vegetable oils.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transport is shown to be a less important factor in the life cycle, contributing &lt; 20% to the represented impact categories. Given that an &quot;environmental friendly&quot;  mode is chosen (container ships rather than trucks or airplanes) long distance transport may not be as harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The presentation seems to compare different publications of life cycle assessments concerning these products. Be *very* careful interpreting these results as differences in the methodology employed among studies make in generally a complex task to draw general conclusions from these kind of comparisons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.soci.org/News/~/media/Files/Conference%20Downloads/Paml%20Oil%20Mar%2009/Dumelin.ashx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2783" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="935" RevisionGUID="82527c14-0925-445d-9bb3-ce67792a1798" CreationDate="2013-05-20T11:43:12.687" Comment="Proposed by 264 approved by 99 edit id of 120" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2784" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="fd55dc9c-d707-4768-b742-d0e0cbf77698" CreationDate="2013-05-20T13:51:43.020" UserId="117" Comment="3" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:117,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="2785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="789b33cf-6341-49c1-a119-b42692bf2c40" CreationDate="2013-05-20T14:07:02.550" UserId="555" Text="Is there a specific type of light source that outperforms others for indoor urban gardens?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2786" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="789b33cf-6341-49c1-a119-b42692bf2c40" CreationDate="2013-05-20T14:07:02.550" UserId="555" Text="Indoor Urban Garden Lighting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2787" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="789b33cf-6341-49c1-a119-b42692bf2c40" CreationDate="2013-05-20T14:07:02.550" UserId="555" Text="|food|gardening|city-living|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="3861389f-725f-4356-aa89-985dcb16d2e7" CreationDate="2013-05-20T21:30:44.527" UserId="555" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Is there a specific type of light source that outperforms others for indoor urban gardens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could be a combination of power usage and its effect on growing plants (i.e. spectrum it produces)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2800" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="936" RevisionGUID="25337ee2-c48c-4d51-8dff-37d834b1e7fe" CreationDate="2013-05-21T13:59:02.717" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/336843581815934976" />
  <row Id="2801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="937" RevisionGUID="28ac6916-2fca-46e2-aac5-27ee64083abd" CreationDate="2013-05-21T20:18:08.887" UserId="180" Text="Both LED and flourescents can produce 'ideal' lighting conditions for plants.  LED Lights are the most efficient measured in lumens per watt, and also in terms of material waste, since they last longer and are smaller.  Their biggest current disadvantage is that they are significantly more expensive upfront.  Depending on the model and how you figure the costs, LEDs can still be cheaper in the long run due to energy efficiency and lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source: [National Geographic][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/fluorescent-vs-led-grow-lights-2440.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="938" RevisionGUID="ef56407e-aa2c-491e-bdb1-046ee6b3c589" CreationDate="2013-05-22T02:48:04.880" UserId="179" Text="In the article [Think big, start small][1], it's claimed that steel bottles are more sustainable than plastic ones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you can drink the water, travel with a refillable water bottle,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preferably made of stainless steel (it's better for you and the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; environment than plastic). If you do buy bottled water or other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drinks, see if you can give your empty bottles to local people to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm slightly distrusting of this advice, as it may be that the author is biased in favour of steel over plastic because the latter is even more &quot;unnatural&quot; than the former.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard that plastics being dumped in the environment can cause problems, but I wouldn't just throw a bottle away in the middle of a rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a steel bottle inherently more sustainable than a plastic one? Or is this piece of advice assuming that a steel bottle will be re-used more times than a plastic bottle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, what is the ratio of the number of times that a plastic bottle is re-used versus the number of times a steel bottle is re-used for the two to have an equivalent impact on the environment (say in terms of energy footprint)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/holiday-type/eco-tourism/think-big-start-small-20130516-2jo6p.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2803" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="938" RevisionGUID="ef56407e-aa2c-491e-bdb1-046ee6b3c589" CreationDate="2013-05-22T02:48:04.880" UserId="179" Text="Sustainability of steel versus plastic bottles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2804" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="938" RevisionGUID="ef56407e-aa2c-491e-bdb1-046ee6b3c589" CreationDate="2013-05-22T02:48:04.880" UserId="179" Text="|plastic-alternatives|plastic-bottles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2829" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="938" RevisionGUID="d7a6ccc0-189c-4870-af9b-e4e92eff3e93" CreationDate="2013-05-22T04:59:02.923" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/337070074324217857" />
  <row Id="2841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="945" RevisionGUID="9587e562-254b-4bac-8732-e53fef8e05e5" CreationDate="2013-05-22T06:45:13.953" UserId="486" Text="First of all, it sounds like there might be some confusion regarding the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*As I read it*, the claim is not that steel is inherently better than plastic.  It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.  The claim is that one **reusable** steel bottle is better than continually buying many *disposable* bottles.  Certainly, one steel bottle has a much bigger impact than one plastic bottle, but if you buy a nice $10 stainless steel water bottle, hopefully it'll get used over and over again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you might suspect, this depends on many factors.  You can probably find many analyses online, but all of them will have to make some assumption about the rate at which bottles are recycled.  That may not be relevant to your decision.  **You** probably know how likely **you** are to recycle plastic bottles, which might be much more than the average person.  For that average person, giving them a shiny possession (the steel bottle) might help discourage them from throwing away a seemingly *cheap* plastic bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reasonable write-up of this issue was [one I found on the NY Times site](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/04/19/opinion/20090419bottle.html?_r=0).  Their conclusion was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What it comes down to is this: if your stainless steel bottle takes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the place of 50 plastic bottles, the climate is better off, and if it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gets used 500 times, it beats plastic in all the environment-impact&#xD;&#xA;&gt; categories studied in a life cycle assessment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you reuse a steel bottle 50 times (the climate change balance point)?  Or do you lose bottles/lids too easily (or do like me and drive off with them on top of your car)?  And, again, do you religiously recycle plastic bottles, or only do so if a recycle bin is convenient?  Also, [I'm going to plug another question I wrote here](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/923/486), as I think it's relevant, if you recycle via public bins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, try to remember than in general, with sustainability, you want to try to **reduce** consumption first, if you can't do that, **reuse** resources second, and only if that's not practical, **recycle** last.  Recycling is an imperfect process, [especially with plastic bottles](http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/no-more-downcycling-breakthrough-organic-catalyst-more-effective-pet-plastic-recycling.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it's worth noting that although not strictly a *sustainability* issue, [many believe stainless steel bottles to be better for your health](http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/plastic-drink-bottles-safe-reuse-drinking-water-3110.html), as a result of fewer harmful substances leaching into your water, compared to plastic bottles.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2842" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="945" RevisionGUID="a82ab31e-9bcf-4e16-8f7a-4bf08bc571cb" CreationDate="2013-05-22T06:51:21.593" UserId="486" Comment="missed an important word, better wording" Text="First of all, it sounds like there might be some confusion regarding the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*As I read it*, the claim is not that steel is inherently better than plastic.  It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.  The claim is that one **reusable** steel bottle is better than continually buying many *disposable* plastic bottles.  Certainly, one steel bottle has a much bigger impact than one plastic bottle, but if you buy a nice $10 stainless steel water bottle, hopefully it'll get used over and over again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you might suspect, this depends on many factors.  You can probably find many analyses online, but all of them will have to make some assumption about the rate at which bottles are recycled.  That may not be relevant to your decision.  **You** probably know how likely **you** are to recycle plastic bottles, which might be much more than the average person.  For that average person, giving them a shiny possession (the steel bottle) might help discourage them from throwing away a seemingly *cheap* plastic bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reasonable write-up of this issue was [one I found on the NY Times site](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/04/19/opinion/20090419bottle.html?_r=0).  Their conclusion was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What it comes down to is this: if your stainless steel bottle takes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the place of 50 plastic bottles, the climate is better off, and if it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gets used 500 times, it beats plastic in all the environment-impact&#xD;&#xA;&gt; categories studied in a life cycle assessment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you reuse a steel bottle 50 times (the climate change balance point)?  Or do you lose bottles/lids too easily (or do like me and drive off with them on top of your car)?  And, again, do you religiously recycle plastic bottles, or only do so if a recycle bin is convenient?  Also, [I'm going to plug another question I asked here](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/923/486), as I think it's relevant, if you recycle via public bins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to remember than in general, with sustainability, you want to try to **reduce** consumption first, if you can't do that, **reuse** resources second, and only if that's not practical, **recycle** last.  Recycling is an imperfect process, [especially with plastic bottles](http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/no-more-downcycling-breakthrough-organic-catalyst-more-effective-pet-plastic-recycling.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it's worth noting that although not strictly a *sustainability* issue, [many believe stainless steel bottles to be better for your health](http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/plastic-drink-bottles-safe-reuse-drinking-water-3110.html), as a result of fewer harmful substances leaching into your water, compared to plastic bottles.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="946" RevisionGUID="87f3d54a-a17a-49ad-b38a-f4f3d7639294" CreationDate="2013-05-22T07:29:49.853" UserId="179" Text="In [Randwick council][1], in Sydney, Australia, more than half of the material that's put in the general rubbish bins are diverted into recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they look for recyclables amongst general rubbish, then some recyclers must have a very high tolerance for contamination!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/Your_Council/Whats_Happening/News/index.aspx?itemDetails=18856" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2844" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="905" RevisionGUID="63054c9d-7b25-425e-9578-11f51763f718" CreationDate="2013-05-22T07:59:02.693" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/337115371721064448" />
  <row Id="2845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="945" RevisionGUID="81749bb6-894d-4c51-836b-3ee7ce79f6eb" CreationDate="2013-05-22T09:41:43.217" UserId="486" Comment="spelling" Text="First of all, it sounds like there might be some confusion regarding the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*As I read it*, the claim is not that steel is inherently better than plastic.  It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.  The claim is that one **reusable** steel bottle is better than continually buying many *disposable* plastic bottles.  Certainly, one steel bottle has a much bigger impact than one plastic bottle, but if you buy a nice $10 stainless steel water bottle, hopefully it'll get used over and over again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you might suspect, this depends on many factors.  You can probably find many analyses online, but all of them will have to make some assumption about the rate at which bottles are recycled.  That may not be relevant to your decision.  **You** probably know how likely **you** are to recycle plastic bottles, which might be much more than the average person.  For that average person, giving them a shiny possession (the steel bottle) might help discourage them from throwing away a seemingly *cheap* plastic bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reasonable write-up of this issue was [one I found on the NY Times site](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/04/19/opinion/20090419bottle.html?_r=0).  Their conclusion was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What it comes down to is this: if your stainless steel bottle takes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the place of 50 plastic bottles, the climate is better off, and if it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gets used 500 times, it beats plastic in all the environment-impact&#xD;&#xA;&gt; categories studied in a life cycle assessment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you reuse a steel bottle 50 times (the climate change balance point)?  Or do you lose bottles/lids too easily (or do like me and drive off with them on top of your car)?  And, again, do you religiously recycle plastic bottles, or only do so if a recycle bin is convenient?  Also, [I'm going to plug another question I asked here](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/923/486), as I think it's relevant, if you recycle via public bins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to remember that in general, with sustainability, you want to try to **reduce** consumption first, if you can't do that, **reuse** resources second, and only if that's not practical, **recycle** last.  Recycling is an imperfect process, [especially with plastic bottles](http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/no-more-downcycling-breakthrough-organic-catalyst-more-effective-pet-plastic-recycling.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it's worth noting that although not strictly a *sustainability* issue, [many believe stainless steel bottles to be better for your health](http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/plastic-drink-bottles-safe-reuse-drinking-water-3110.html), as a result of fewer harmful substances leaching into your water, compared to plastic bottles.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2850" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="b01b4bcf-56f7-4720-a841-49ac3fe15b6a" CreationDate="2013-05-22T10:59:02.367" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/337160670313332736" />
  <row Id="2855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="b47e2d93-f86c-4aff-87b4-2609bfde354e" CreationDate="2013-05-22T11:34:55.927" UserId="48" Comment="removed chatty stuff" Text="Here in the place plants are infected with the insects surrounding it and it affects the leaves and root too so decrease the life of plants.&#xD;&#xA;So I want to know how to prevent this. Please suggest an idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="e7798e35-41f5-4764-8bcd-7f2267aa306a" CreationDate="2013-05-22T19:06:25.533" UserId="484" Text="Lately, I'm getting more or less addicted to oranges and I'm collection way too much orange peel compared to what my starting compost heap can handle.. Is there something I do with it, other than throwing it in the garbage can?&#xD;&#xA;I read about using an dehydrator to dry the peel and use it for air freshening (orange smell), but then you apparently need a dehydrator, what I don't have.&#xD;&#xA;Another thing I found was using it against mosquitos, by rubbing it over your skin.. But there are still no mosquito's and the peel will be green before there are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not looking for pure decorational usages." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="e7798e35-41f5-4764-8bcd-7f2267aa306a" CreationDate="2013-05-22T19:06:25.533" UserId="484" Text="What are useful uses for orange peel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="e7798e35-41f5-4764-8bcd-7f2267aa306a" CreationDate="2013-05-22T19:06:25.533" UserId="484" Text="|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="949" RevisionGUID="1e7c885d-2d52-4cf1-b384-fa7dda243bdb" CreationDate="2013-05-22T20:28:24.793" UserId="85" Text="How about [candied orange peel](http://www.brighteyedbaker.com/confessions101/diy-candied-orange-peel/)? You can't eat too much of it, but if you like oranges, then you should like it. Of course, the saucy version of candied orange peel is marmalade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, you can put the peel into your hot bathwater, which should release some of the essential oils ([popular in Japan](https://www.google.com.br/search?gs_rn=14&amp;gs_ri=psy-ab&amp;tok=G2YtWugJaJBcLHcCJbLsUg&amp;pq=%E3%82%86%E3%81%9A%E3%80%80%E3%81%8A%E9%A2%A8%E5%91%82&amp;cp=2&amp;gs_id=gf&amp;xhr=t&amp;q=%E3%82%86%E3%81%9A%E6%B9%AF&amp;safe=off&amp;client=ubuntu&amp;hs=kLw&amp;channel=fs&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&amp;bvm=bv.46751780,d.dmQ&amp;biw=1309&amp;bih=637&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;hl=en&amp;tbm=isch&amp;source=og&amp;sa=N&amp;tab=wi&amp;ei=eymdUb7RLIje0QGqk4DwAg)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drying the peels and adding them to flavour your black tea, for example, is another option. (For drying a dehydrator works best, but a weak oven works as well: hot enough to speed up the drying process, so they don't get mouldy, but not so hot that you'll bake them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all fails, compost them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="950" RevisionGUID="e7522a1c-4120-4862-9c98-7756b1d479ac" CreationDate="2013-05-22T20:41:02.393" UserId="486" Text="In addition to [@user1205935's suggestion to dry them for use in hot tea](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/949/486), we also save a few of them for use in our **garbage disposer** (inline sink food waste grinder).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I [don't recommend heavy use of a garbage disposer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/684/486) to get rid of food waste that could be composted, but you generally will have *a little* food waste that goes down the drain, and if you have a garbage disposer to take care of that, you might want to maintain the appliance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pushing some orange peel down the disposer, and grinding it up, can help fight bacteria growth, and improve the smell of your disposer unit.  (I also recommend tearing the peel into 5 to 10 pieces before putting down the drain)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="950" RevisionGUID="663ccdfe-82c0-4801-a3de-0a20680acfb0" CreationDate="2013-05-22T21:21:06.393" UserId="486" Comment="better wording" Text="In addition to [@user1205935's suggestion to dry them for use in hot tea](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/949/486), we also save a few of them for use in our **garbage disposer** (inline sink food waste grinder).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I [don't recommend heavy use of a garbage disposer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/684/486) to get rid of food waste that could be composted, but you generally will have *a little* food waste that goes down the drain, and if you have a garbage disposer to take care of that, you might want to maintain the appliance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pushing some orange peel down the disposer, and grinding it up, can help fight bacteria growth, and improve the smell of your disposer unit.  (I also recommend tearing the peel into 5 to 10 pieces before putting down the disposer)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="924" RevisionGUID="bd6ef7e2-375b-457e-986c-f4e686902aa5" CreationDate="2013-05-22T21:36:06.077" UserId="462" Comment="added 1232 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately, I think a lot of those heavily contaminated loads of &quot;recycling&quot; do end up in the trash. The only other option in many cases is for whoever manages the facility's waste to sort the good from the bad by hand, and that is generally not feasible. Some recycling centers are more strict than others about contamination, but even single-stream recycling systems won't take a load if there is more than a certain % of food, liquid, and trash. If a load of recycling is determined to be &quot;unrecyclable&quot; at the recycling center, it will be disposed of as trash, often at the expense of the customer (especially if the customer is a school or business that contracts directly with the recycling service). Hence environmentally-aware college students should remind their intoxicated friends to use the trash can because vomit is not recyclable (yes, I have witnessed this). In general, though, I think in the USA it's safe to assume that if the contents of the bins can be recycled, they will be recycled. Most companies won't spend money on recycling bins unless they actually plan to use them. So the answer to your question is yes, but only if you trust the American people to follow directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Waste Management [sends food-contaminated materials to the landfill](http://www.thinkgreen.com/recycle-what-detail?sec=organics-food-waste&amp;prod=food-waste&amp;tab=resources). The page linked explains the effect of grease and oils on paper recycling, and exploration of the site confirmed that WM sends food-contaminated plastics to the landfill. The site also indicates that food impacts aluminum foil recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As another example of how impurities effect recycling, Pacific Steel &amp; Recycling in Havre, MT has very strict guidelines about sorting papers and cardboard because mixed newsprint/office paper bales are worth much less than pure newsprint or office paper, transport costs are high, and recycling volume is low in a rural town of ~9600 (source: conversation with an employee). And those are impurities that don't completely ruin the material for recycling the way food does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As alluded to above, recycling companies make a profit by turning waste items into raw materials for manufacturing. So as long as what they receive isn't too badly contaminated, they do recycle it. If a business contracts with a recycling company for on-site pick-up, you can be sure that uncontaminated loads will be recycled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="951" RevisionGUID="719e999b-9423-4c1d-a065-e9a480fe59b4" CreationDate="2013-05-23T00:48:39.303" UserId="261" Text="You could eat the peel with the oranges, this adds texture and reduces the sweetness of the orange." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="21c6da8e-0b33-4e9f-afee-46d0c83ea35e" CreationDate="2013-05-23T03:24:36.537" UserId="15" Text="It's clear that firewood that hasn't been well dried is more polluting and less energy efficient, hence the existence of [various][1] [schemes][2] to ensure firewood suppliers provide dry wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to measure the moisture content of my firewood without specialist equipment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.boprc.govt.nz/environment/air/rotorua-air-quality/firewood-moisture-testing/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.hbrc.govt.nz/Services/Environment/Air/HeatSmart/Pages/Dry-Wood-Scheme.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="21c6da8e-0b33-4e9f-afee-46d0c83ea35e" CreationDate="2013-05-23T03:24:36.537" UserId="15" Text="How can I measure the moisture content of my firewood to ensure good efficiency and clean burning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="21c6da8e-0b33-4e9f-afee-46d0c83ea35e" CreationDate="2013-05-23T03:24:36.537" UserId="15" Text="|water|energy-efficiency|firewood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="953" RevisionGUID="7e058391-9662-4f71-bf27-b3fcc999d74b" CreationDate="2013-05-23T08:18:28.403" UserId="471" Text="It can be possible using drying piece of sample wood,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dry pieces of wood in the oven or in another way . Make sure that pieces should be well cut. Logs have varying moisture contents, depending on tree age, time since felling and position in the seasoning pile. The moisture content also varies from the middle of the log to the ends. You should use 3 to 5 pieces logs, of varying cross sections and Densities/”weights”. Cut each piece straight across the middle and split down the length. Discard everything except one small piece from each log.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take the pieces, weigh them on accurate kitchen scales and note the total weight (Weight 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place in a low oven (less than 100 deg c) overnight. Weigh again and note the total weight (Weight 2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calculation for moisture content is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Weight 1 – Weight 2 = Weight of Water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Then: Weight of Water divided by Weight 1 multiplied by 100 (Weight of Water / Weight 1 x 100)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives your answer as a percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a worked example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Weight 1 = 1.7 Kg&#xD;&#xA;     Weight 2 = 1.36 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Therefore 1.7-1.36=0.34&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    0.34/1.7x100=20%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As said elsewhere, you can experiment with moistures from 25% down to 19% and see what works best in your stove, fire or burner. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="6b273fba-3b9a-433f-9392-7a92f33f2b8d" CreationDate="2013-05-23T14:57:57.903" UserId="274" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="My fan takes 3 candelabra (E12) base bulbs; I traditionally use incandescent flame tips, but since they're behind frosted glass, I don't really care.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having just replaced my dimm-able recessed light with Utilitech dimm-able LEDs, and being quite pleased with the results, I want to do the same to this fan.  Unfortunately, I can't find bulbs with equivalent brightness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The light is currently dimm-able, and the bulb slots say 75W - 125V.  Since I can't even get 75W incandescent bulbs anymore, I thought I'd find some appropriate LED or (less-preferably) fluorescent bulbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** at the recommendation of the moderators here at Sustainable Living, I've [replicated this question at DIY Stack Exchange][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/25973/what-can-i-do-to-avoid-incandescent-bulbs-for-my-3-bulb-ceiling-fan-yet-maintai" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="950" RevisionGUID="eaa25c32-3461-4dc1-ac63-6acb8c45dae2" CreationDate="2013-05-23T16:16:05.733" UserId="117" Comment="edited body" Text="In addition to [@user1205935's suggestion to dry them for use in hot tea](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/949/486), we also save a few of them for use in our **garbage disposal** (inline sink food waste grinder).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I [don't recommend heavy use of a garbage disposal](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/684/486) to get rid of food waste that could be composted, but you generally will have *a little* food waste that goes down the drain, and if you have a garbage disposer to take care of that, you might want to maintain the appliance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pushing some orange peel down the disposer, and grinding it up, can help fight bacteria growth, and improve the smell of your disposer unit.  (I also recommend tearing the peel into 5 to 10 pieces before putting down the disposer)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="23135203-4f26-40eb-9e5e-440a80e570aa" CreationDate="2013-05-23T19:13:06.587" UserId="33" Comment="minor formatting changes" Text="***Here are some ways you can help protect your plants from insects:***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Fertilize and water your plants regularly. Insects are less likely to infest healthy and well-nourished plants.&#xD;&#xA; - Pull weeds around your plants as well. Insects such as aphids and   &#xD;&#xA;   stinkbugs feed on weeds; if they surround your plants, they're likely to attack them as well.&#xD;&#xA; - Plant herbs and flowers around your plants. Basil helps ward off whiteflies, which are harmful to tomatoes, and oregano can help protect tomato and cucumber plants. Carrots and sunflowers help deter pests from your tomato plants. Nasturtiums and marigolds help protect both tomato and cucumber plants.&#xD;&#xA; - Add natural predators. Soldier beetles, tachinid flies and braconid wasps feed on striped cucumber beetles, which can help protect your cucumber plants. Parasitic wasps will   help eliminate leafminers and stink bugs from your tomato plants.  Bigeyed bugs and minute pirate bugs attack tomato fruitworms that can destroy the fruit and stems of your tomato plants. Attract insect predators by growing plants that feature small flowers, such as daisies, dill and coneflower. These plants will encourage predators of insects and beneficial insects including ladybugs, nematodes, bats and birds.&#xD;&#xA; - Cover your organic vegetables-Spunbound Polyester Rowcover keeps out pests but allows light, air &amp; water to get through.&#xD;&#xA; - Spray neem oil - Oils &amp; seeds from the neem tree have been used in&#xD;&#xA;   India for centuries. It's a great, low-toxicity insecticide &amp;&#xD;&#xA;   fungicide.&#xD;&#xA; - Spray vinegar - Spray household vinegar on your weeds. The acidic water kills them &#xD;&#xA;   especially on sunny days.&#xD;&#xA; - Use botanical insecticide-Pyrethrum spray or dust is made from a&#xD;&#xA;   daisy-like flower grown in Kenya. The flower is ground into powder.&#xD;&#xA;   It protects against ants, aphids, roaches, fleas &amp; flies but is not&#xD;&#xA;   good for cats.&#xD;&#xA; - Weed your garden well and regularly to minimize hiding places for&#xD;&#xA;   insect pests and to prevent the weeds from competing with your&#xD;&#xA;   vegetables for water and nutrients.  &#xD;&#xA; - Remove infested plants to prevent the pests from spreading to&#xD;&#xA;   neighboring plants.&#xD;&#xA; - Place traps around the outside of your garden. Pheromone traps&#xD;&#xA;   attract insects during their mating cycles, and yellow sticky traps&#xD;&#xA;   are effective against flying insects such as aphids, whiteflies and&#xD;&#xA;   fungus gnats." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2875" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="880" RevisionGUID="23135203-4f26-40eb-9e5e-440a80e570aa" CreationDate="2013-05-23T19:13:06.587" Comment="Proposed by 33 approved by 91 edit id of 121" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2876" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="952" RevisionGUID="4451a031-7ca3-4b2d-9381-1b3efd88d0cb" CreationDate="2013-05-23T19:59:06.210" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/337658969030021121" />
  <row Id="2877" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="950" RevisionGUID="28e1a1a2-70e2-4282-86db-ce6b2e06343a" CreationDate="2013-05-24T01:14:53.883" UserId="486" Comment="Rollback to [663ccdfe-82c0-4801-a3de-0a20680acfb0]" Text="In addition to [@user1205935's suggestion to dry them for use in hot tea](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/949/486), we also save a few of them for use in our **garbage disposer** (inline sink food waste grinder).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I [don't recommend heavy use of a garbage disposer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/684/486) to get rid of food waste that could be composted, but you generally will have *a little* food waste that goes down the drain, and if you have a garbage disposer to take care of that, you might want to maintain the appliance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pushing some orange peel down the disposer, and grinding it up, can help fight bacteria growth, and improve the smell of your disposer unit.  (I also recommend tearing the peel into 5 to 10 pieces before putting down the disposer)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="950" RevisionGUID="2fb4b992-af4c-4781-97a0-a5a65614c3e8" CreationDate="2013-05-24T01:15:33.713" UserId="486" Comment="added aka for common terminology" Text="In addition to [@user1205935's suggestion to dry them for use in hot tea](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/949/486), we also save a few of them for use in our **garbage disposer** (inline sink food waste grinder, *aka* &quot;garbage disposal&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I [don't recommend heavy use of a garbage disposer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/684/486) to get rid of food waste that could be composted, but you generally will have *a little* food waste that goes down the drain, and if you have a garbage disposer to take care of that, you might want to maintain the appliance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pushing some orange peel down the disposer, and grinding it up, can help fight bacteria growth, and improve the smell of your disposer unit.  (I also recommend tearing the peel into 5 to 10 pieces before putting down the disposer)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="953" RevisionGUID="735c27b3-bd6b-473c-a62d-6e362187ad26" CreationDate="2013-05-24T03:27:39.517" UserId="471" Comment="deleted 69 characters in body" Text="It can be possible using drying piece of sample wood,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dry pieces of wood in the oven or in another way . Make sure that pieces should be well cut. Logs have varying moisture contents, depending on tree age, time since felling and position in the seasoning pile. The moisture content also varies from the middle of the log to the ends. You should use 3 to 5 pieces logs, of varying cross sections and Densities/”weights”. Cut each piece straight across the middle and split down the length. Discard everything except one small piece from each log.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    weight 1=Take the pieces, weigh them on accurate kitchen scales and note the total weight &#xD;&#xA;    Weight 2=Place in a low oven (less than 100 deg c) overnight. Weigh again and note the total weight.&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    The calculation for moisture content is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;       Weight of Water=Weight 1 – Weight 2&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Then:  &#xD;&#xA;         Moisture (%) = Weight of Water / Weight 1 x 100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Here is a worked example:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Weight 1 = 1.7 Kg&#xD;&#xA;     Weight 2 = 1.36 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Therefore 1.7-1.36=0.34&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    0.34/1.7x100=20%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As said elsewhere, you can experiment with moisture from 25% down to 19% and see what works best in your stove, fire or burner. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="a1b1cb0f-f1ab-4e88-9495-2d174bece46a" CreationDate="2013-05-24T15:46:43.803" UserId="570" Text="This question is asked in the spirit of &quot;I don't know what I don't know&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have three raised-bed gardens, and I'd like to stop watering them with municipal water and start using collected rain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can a [ahem] garden-variety rain barrel supply an adequate amount of water for [12' x 8' of raised garden beds][1], or would we need to supplement with municipal water anyway? [National Geographic estimates that a rain barrel‡ saves 1,300 gallons of water][2]. But I can't find an estimate for how much water is *consumed* by plants in raised beds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that builds to the real question: **what are large-scale options for storing rainwater?** Are doubled-up rain barrels effective? Cisterns? Some other concept I've never heard of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;‡-We'll assume [65 gal][3], though they don't specify&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thesplatteredapron.com/how-to-build-raised-garden-beds&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/much-water-one-rain-barrel-save-2697.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/rain-barrels/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="a1b1cb0f-f1ab-4e88-9495-2d174bece46a" CreationDate="2013-05-24T15:46:43.803" UserId="570" Text="What are the larger-scale options for storing rainwater?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="a1b1cb0f-f1ab-4e88-9495-2d174bece46a" CreationDate="2013-05-24T15:46:43.803" UserId="570" Text="|gardening|water-management|vertical-gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="65ab281e-81c2-4af3-8a00-b6dbc5623c25" CreationDate="2013-05-24T15:56:25.763" UserId="570" Comment="Illustrating &quot;doubled-up rain barrels&quot;" Text="This question is asked in the spirit of &quot;I don't know what I don't know&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have three raised-bed gardens, and I'd like to stop watering them with municipal water and start using collected rain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can a [ahem] garden-variety rain barrel supply an adequate amount of water for [12' x 8' of raised garden beds][1], or would we need to supplement with municipal water anyway? [National Geographic estimates that a rain barrel‡ saves 1,300 gallons of water][2]. But I can't find an estimate for how much water is *consumed* by plants in raised beds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that builds to the real question: **what are large-scale options for storing rainwater?** Are [doubled-up rain barrels][3] effective? Cisterns? Some other concept I've never heard of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;‡-We'll assume [65 gal][4], though they don't specify&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thesplatteredapron.com/how-to-build-raised-garden-beds&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/much-water-one-rain-barrel-save-2697.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.waterla.org/sites/waterla.org/files/rain_barrel.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/rain-barrels/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2887" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="954" RevisionGUID="d7643aa4-b066-4669-8d25-d9c864ab603d" CreationDate="2013-05-24T22:59:06.113" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/338066654183448576" />
  <row Id="2894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="955" RevisionGUID="4685ca53-08ae-44aa-8df1-fe53e32ec746" CreationDate="2013-05-25T19:03:36.837" UserId="571" Text="My question Is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; What resources &amp; time periods we are spent on facebook &amp; other social sites all over the world. Is it  comes in sustainable use of resource or not ?&#xD;&#xA;for e.g Like I am living in that Place where internet is only used for facebook around of **80-90%** Where There are very limited natural resources are present here.!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So In doubts**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Is this social sites really helped to bring the society together &amp; have a part of meaningful life for all of us..?&#xD;&#xA;           &#xD;&#xA;2) The resources spent on them is can be used for better purpose. ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (Thanks in advance for suggestion's)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="955" RevisionGUID="4685ca53-08ae-44aa-8df1-fe53e32ec746" CreationDate="2013-05-25T19:03:36.837" UserId="571" Text="What is to to be role of socail sites(like facebook) in Sustainable Living?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="955" RevisionGUID="4685ca53-08ae-44aa-8df1-fe53e32ec746" CreationDate="2013-05-25T19:03:36.837" UserId="571" Text="|lifestyle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="770feb6a-155b-4569-a967-d095802f7fa9" CreationDate="2013-05-26T02:05:38.290" UserId="41" Text="From a sustainability perspective. Is it better to let the city handle the organic waste or compost yourself locally when possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd suspect city's larger scale organic waste management facilities (bigger composts?) might be more efficient, but there is of course logistics involved. Is distributed or centralized better here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2898" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="770feb6a-155b-4569-a967-d095802f7fa9" CreationDate="2013-05-26T02:05:38.290" UserId="41" Text="Compost yourself or let the city handle the organic waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2899" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="770feb6a-155b-4569-a967-d095802f7fa9" CreationDate="2013-05-26T02:05:38.290" UserId="41" Text="|composting|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="957" RevisionGUID="b3abb382-dce9-4625-beac-436c1f500fbb" CreationDate="2013-05-26T02:17:41.583" UserId="41" Text="I'd go with a water well - let the earth do the rain water collecting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If well is not a viable option, commercial rain water gathering systems with e.g. underground tanks do a good job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainwater_harvesting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.rainharvest.com/rain-harvesting.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="958" RevisionGUID="c244d35f-c051-413f-9ff2-5e2628707915" CreationDate="2013-05-26T02:55:28.200" UserId="66" Text="From small to large (roughly speaking):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Barrels (usually I see 30 - 65 gal)&#xD;&#xA;* IBCs (usually I see 275 or 330 gal)&#xD;&#xA;* Rain barrels or IBCs in series - this allows you to scale your capacity over time&#xD;&#xA;* Large above- or underground tanks / cisterns (e.g. plastic tanks are widely commercially available from 500 - 2000 gallons, possibly more; ferrocement is supposed to be relatively inexpensive and you can DIY fairly large containers; really, you could build a cistern [as large as you wanted][1] -- millions of gallons if you happen to be an emperor with vast resources and an endless supply of laborers at your disposal)&#xD;&#xA;* Small ponds (a ~20' diameter pond at 6' deep could hold a few thousand gallons)&#xD;&#xA;* Increasing water-holding capacity of the soil of a large area (&quot;Soil scientists report that for every 1 percent of organic matter content, the soil can hold 16,500 gallons of plant-available water per acre of soil down to one foot deep.&quot; - [M. Charles Gould, Michigan State University Extension][2])&#xD;&#xA;* Large ponds (a 100+' diameter pond could hold hundreds of thousands of gallons)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that any of these could really be used in series. If you had a lot of space, you could have a series of ponds, and if you needed to add capacity in the future you could just dig another pond. Substitute tank or cistern for pond if that's what you're using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or mix and match: an IBC at the house to catch the first water, let the overflow drain into an underground tank, and let the overflow from that drain into a pond. Any overflow from the pond could flow through a series of swales into soils with high organic matter content that are ready to accept tens of thousands of gallons of water per acre. Use the water from the IBC on your kitchen garden. Use the tank water for domestic use. Use the pond water for irrigating market crops. Use gravity to your advantage as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_Cistern&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/compost_increases_the_water_holding_capacity_of_droughty_soils" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2902" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="948" RevisionGUID="10501f65-01f5-4795-90e1-07bf8d501811" CreationDate="2013-05-26T04:59:09.173" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/338519651900346368" />
  <row Id="2903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="959" RevisionGUID="29f6d705-0c77-4c0a-ad84-44d15151bb42" CreationDate="2013-05-26T06:47:32.337" UserId="48" Text="Size does make a big difference to compost: once you're into the scale of many cubic metres, you get very hot, very fast composting. That will kill seeds and pathogens, and thus enable composting of a larger proportion of materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Communal handling also gives the opportunity for the wider distribution of low-cost high-quality compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there are advantages to communal waste handling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, composting in your own garden will remove all the communal motorised collection and processing of waste from the equation. In most cases, that will outweigh the advantages of communal waste handling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the communal waste handling is done by very low impact vehicles, or if you've got **very** large amounts of organic matter that won't get broken down in a smaller compost heap, or you simply wouldn't have the space for your own compost heap, then the communal heap might just have the edge.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2904" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="956" RevisionGUID="353a3551-024b-49fa-9f48-569db5ae0a25" CreationDate="2013-05-26T07:59:09.483" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/338564951780257792" />
  <row Id="2905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="86c0201f-2f34-4957-9e49-6ae042bb2609" CreationDate="2013-05-26T09:37:40.970" UserId="15" Text="As I understand it, the bulk compost made by one of our local businesses is produced by using heavy machinery to regularly scoop up and turn the source material and keep it active. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How much fossil fuel tends to be used by the machinery in such an operation to produce, say, 1kg of compost?** It would also be helpful to know the scale of the operation (eg in kg/yr output or input) for any particular measurement, as there may be strong economies of scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there will be a higher environmental impact than just the fuel used, but let's just look at the fuel use aspect for this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related question: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/956/compost-yourself-or-let-the-city-handle-the-organic-waste" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="86c0201f-2f34-4957-9e49-6ae042bb2609" CreationDate="2013-05-26T09:37:40.970" UserId="15" Text="What is the fuel-use of an industrial sized diesel-machinery-based composting business?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="86c0201f-2f34-4957-9e49-6ae042bb2609" CreationDate="2013-05-26T09:37:40.970" UserId="15" Text="|composting|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="961" RevisionGUID="5e19b431-d9aa-4690-8d8a-0e70eb98cf4e" CreationDate="2013-05-26T10:20:56.437" UserId="453" Text="A life cycle assessment of windrow composting systems ([pdf here][1]) shows that fuel consumption by machinery to transport and process compost, next to energy consumption, indeed seems to be the main impact factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this study **0.00502 litre of fuel** (diesel) are being used to process **one kg** of compost. The scale of operations seems to be large with machinery used for turning the compost being able to process around 130 tons per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.recycledorganics.com/infosheets/lca/LCIA.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="961" RevisionGUID="52e9a963-4bce-48f5-aebd-df4a08575cf7" CreationDate="2013-05-26T10:33:35.610" UserId="453" Comment="added 148 characters in body" Text="A life cycle assessment of windrow composting systems ([pdf here][1]) shows that fuel consumption by machinery to transport and process compost, next to energy consumption, indeed seems to be the main impact factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this study **0.005 litre of fuel** (diesel) are being used to process¹ **one kg** of compost. The scale of operations seems to be large with machinery used for turning the compost being able to process around 130 tons per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹ shredding, turning and screening of compost; not included are transport and initial spreading (around 0.011 litre / kg compost if all included)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.recycledorganics.com/infosheets/lca/LCIA.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="955" RevisionGUID="0aff30c3-da93-40c3-bf72-b5621b118002" CreationDate="2013-05-26T11:33:42.587" UserId="48" Comment="clarified question in line with OP's comments" Text="We spend some resources and lots of time on Facebook &amp; other social networking web sites all over the world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I live, it feels like the internet is used for Facebook for around of **80-90%** of its total use. The natural resources where I live are not yet exploited much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To what degree do social networking sites bring society together? Given the use of human and physical resources in building, operating and using these sites, is there a net sustainability gain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2911" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="955" RevisionGUID="0aff30c3-da93-40c3-bf72-b5621b118002" CreationDate="2013-05-26T11:33:42.587" UserId="48" Comment="clarified question in line with OP's comments" Text="What is the role of social websites (such as Facebook) in Sustainable Living?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="962" RevisionGUID="103331a6-a3d8-499a-ad2b-b82a1108166f" CreationDate="2013-05-26T15:30:34.817" UserId="572" Text="(If I have understood your question properly)&#xD;&#xA; The major role of Social Networking sites in the sustainable living is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Spreading awareness** about environmental problems that we are facing today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  **Educating** others and clearing doubts of others as well as ours related to the field of environment and sustainable living. (That's what sustainability.SE does).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Discussing sustainability ideas**, methods, tricks, policies of government to exploit natural resources and other legislation including talks at [UNFCCC][1] and other platforms, lifestyles etc. This discussing can help to conclude which steps to follow to protect environment, whether the policies and methods to exploit natural resources in the certain areas are right or wrong etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Encouraging others to take care of environment** and live responsibly without damaging environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Organizing public opinions, *if needed,*** against any government policy or any industrial plants or undertakings which can have hazardous impact on the environment. ([Arab spring][2] is a lively example of the role social networking sites can play in mobilizing the public opinion).  This can play strong role as a pressure group and will help to pressurize reluctant political leaders to take beneficial steps to protect environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="962" RevisionGUID="166bb5bb-9f90-4df7-9e9c-f49518c882d9" CreationDate="2013-05-26T15:41:40.243" UserId="572" Comment="fixed typos" Text="(If I have understood your question properly)&#xD;&#xA; The major role of Social Networking sites in the sustainable living is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Spreading awareness** about the environmental problems that we are facing today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  **Educating** others and clearing the doubts of others as well as ours related to the field of environment and sustainable living. (That's what sustainability.SE does).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Discussing sustainability ideas**, methods, tricks, policies of government to exploit natural resources and other legislations including talks at [UNFCCC][1] and other platforms, lifestyles etc. This discussions can help to conclude which steps to follow to protect environment, whether the policies and methods to exploit natural resources in the certain areas are right or wrong etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Encouraging others to take care of environment** and live responsibly without damaging the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Organizing public opinions, *if needed,*** against any government policy or any industrial plants or undertakings which can have hazardous impact on the environment. ([Arab spring][2] is a lively example of the role social networking sites can play in mobilizing the public opinion).  This can play strong role as a pressure group and will help to pressurize reluctant political leaders to take beneficial steps to protect environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2914" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="3dca12f8-9bb0-4e2a-8413-d7d40430699f" CreationDate="2013-05-26T22:59:09.283" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/338791443952988161" />
  <row Id="2917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="b089b9c9-67f8-4df6-b9b1-8101c6ba064f" CreationDate="2013-05-27T09:20:46.370" UserId="502" Text="I'm interested in knowing if the metal 'consumption' of consumers has risen over the last, say 30 years (arbitarily choosen number - anything similar scale would be interesting). I'm not (right now) interested in both the amount of metal the average consumer owns (pots, pans, cars) but the amount that passes though their hands (tin cans, foil ect).  I would certainly expect plastic consumption to go up over the time period - but I'm wondering if metal use has gone down proportionally. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="b089b9c9-67f8-4df6-b9b1-8101c6ba064f" CreationDate="2013-05-27T09:20:46.370" UserId="502" Text="Metal use per person" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="b089b9c9-67f8-4df6-b9b1-8101c6ba064f" CreationDate="2013-05-27T09:20:46.370" UserId="502" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="965" RevisionGUID="2294858c-30f7-4f86-940d-6b5d342ea62d" CreationDate="2013-05-27T18:12:27.317" UserId="484" Text="Since a while we have a problem with those little flies, which generally are present near the plants (or flying along your ears when you are reading or working on the computer).&#xD;&#xA;As I do not want to use any spray, because I don't expect it to be sustainable, but just killing them one by one does not seem a solution. I've tried for a while, but I feel each time they become faster (maybe natural selection of the fastest?). Before we had some fruit flies, which were easy as you just had to make sure to keep garbage closed and fruits to be covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are they? And what can I do against them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3s0FF.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2921" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="965" RevisionGUID="2294858c-30f7-4f86-940d-6b5d342ea62d" CreationDate="2013-05-27T18:12:27.317" UserId="484" Text="Getting rid of those little flies without using a spray?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2922" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="965" RevisionGUID="2294858c-30f7-4f86-940d-6b5d342ea62d" CreationDate="2013-05-27T18:12:27.317" UserId="484" Text="|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2923" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="9089df13-747c-44de-a80e-30110b9f5887" CreationDate="2013-05-27T22:59:09.573" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/339153832212852736" />
  <row Id="2924" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="9e274682-1912-4c52-bc89-a73c432593c0" CreationDate="2013-05-27T23:43:40.943" UserId="15" Comment="Added metal tag" Text="|food|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="966" RevisionGUID="3c19e1fd-6d55-4381-9fa4-d4f28eda938f" CreationDate="2013-05-28T01:50:17.777" UserId="555" Text="I did find some hydroponics and lighting supply shops that told me there are spectrums that help different kinds of vegitation grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An LED example here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.advancedledlights.com/products/NEW-%252d-All-Blue-Extreme-Veg-LED-%252d-USA-Made-LEDs.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A cheap Home Depot solution from windowFarms.org:&#xD;&#xA;Compact Fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs in **Daylight Spectrum** (**5500+ Kelvin color temperature**) 100 watt incandescent equivalent or 27 actual watts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="965" RevisionGUID="b8a34f44-f54e-4ef8-b19b-01cb805a379b" CreationDate="2013-05-28T08:13:53.097" UserId="484" Comment="Additional information" Text="Since a while we have a problem with those little flies, which generally are present near the plants (or flying along your ears when you are reading or working on the computer).&#xD;&#xA;As I do not want to use any spray, because I don't expect it to be sustainable, but just killing them one by one does not seem a solution. I've tried for a while, but I feel each time they become faster (maybe natural selection of the fastest?). Before we had some fruit flies, which were easy as you just had to make sure to keep garbage closed and fruits to be covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are they? And what can I do against them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3s0FF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;Additional information: The 'flies' are about 3-4 mm long and I'm living in Belgium." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="967" RevisionGUID="fa45503e-dfdf-4800-8aa8-2fc22be342b7" CreationDate="2013-05-28T14:32:51.523" UserId="577" Text="The amount of fuel consumption increased by using the AC in a car is not worth to consider. It only maters that it loses about 2 - 3 miles per galon. Is this worth to consider? If that bothers anyone, then why having a car in the first place? It involves much more things to worry then if the AC uses more petrol / diesel. The way you drive it make it a greater impact in the consumption then if the AC is on or off. Try to use 4th or 5th gear in town and 3rd when turning around, and you soon will see how much effective the consumption will be. I drive a 2.3 Seat Toledo (Same engine as in the MK 4 Golf V5) all year long with the automatic AC on at 21 C and with most the time using the higher gears in town and get around 35 mpg and mid 40 on a long run. This is a 11 years old 5 cylinder engine, which is less fuel effective then later engines. I do never drive with open windows anywhere, as this is the better way against of getting robed for the keys and car when stationary on red lights in town. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2930" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="965" RevisionGUID="399c8bb3-a503-4d3c-9455-73e0358df6e0" CreationDate="2013-05-29T04:59:10.717" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/339606822472278016" />
  <row Id="2931" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="842" RevisionGUID="eb5dcb85-4fc6-4443-82a0-98b6035af312" CreationDate="2013-05-29T06:21:44.233" UserId="60" Comment="tag [energy] added" Text="|energy|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="7236a48a-3b54-4852-8e8a-7e39d5ce9ed4" CreationDate="2013-05-29T07:25:37.880" UserId="484" Text="Many years ago I was taking some classes about traditional pottery where a lot of attention was given to contact with the earth and sustainability. I remember a few times they told us about traditional painting of those pots with oxides, as a natural method of painting. I never got to the point of really using it in class, but always kept on thinking about what it would be like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody have some experience? How does it work? &#xD;&#xA;I imagine they must use minerals for it, but then I wonder how sustainable it is? Also it must depend on which mineral you would use and how much is needed for a little bit of paint?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2933" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="7236a48a-3b54-4852-8e8a-7e39d5ce9ed4" CreationDate="2013-05-29T07:25:37.880" UserId="484" Text="Is painting ceramic pots with oxide powder sustainable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2934" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="7236a48a-3b54-4852-8e8a-7e39d5ce9ed4" CreationDate="2013-05-29T07:25:37.880" UserId="484" Text="|materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2935" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="aca47b72-0d83-482b-8e57-517582c4b0ef" CreationDate="2013-05-29T07:33:42.113" UserId="15" Comment="Added ceramics tag" Text="|materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="969" RevisionGUID="9ccc4b73-c249-43fa-b566-e170bf462eed" CreationDate="2013-05-29T10:27:24.250" UserId="453" Text="Many ecolabels that certify certain *sustainability* aspects of food products only consider a small portion of the food product's life cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A prominent example may be the MSC label which addresses the environmental impacts caused by fish products during the fishing stage (overfishing, bycatch and more) but not the impacts occurring after the fish is landed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [KRAV ecolabel][1] on the other hand takes at least the processing stage, additionally to the fishing stage, into account.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information about these two labels can be found in a paper by Thrane et al. (2008): [Eco-labelling of wild-caught seafood products][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there more ecolabels (the bigger the more interesting) which consider more than one stage** (which may be identified - but don't have to - as *resource extraction/growing to harvesting*, *processing*, *packaging*, *transport*, *consumer stage*, *waste*) **of food production?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabel/krav&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652608001893" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="969" RevisionGUID="9ccc4b73-c249-43fa-b566-e170bf462eed" CreationDate="2013-05-29T10:27:24.250" UserId="453" Text="Which ecolabels take the whole life cycle of food products into account?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="969" RevisionGUID="9ccc4b73-c249-43fa-b566-e170bf462eed" CreationDate="2013-05-29T10:27:24.250" UserId="453" Text="|food|ecolabel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2939" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="4fc87f7b-8eac-4ca0-a479-aa8f9ca4cec8" CreationDate="2013-05-29T16:59:36.813" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/339788126446817280" />
  <row Id="2940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="970" RevisionGUID="e6b4c721-077d-4fb5-8419-bf4688aed3ea" CreationDate="2013-05-29T22:49:10.497" UserId="581" Text="they are gnats, and breed in plant soil, sink drains, and any moisture anywhere!!!...put some bleach down your sink drains...be vigilant about moisture..(water under the dish drainer...all those places you never think about)....as to the plants, i had to put mine outside for a week and stir the top of the soil with a fork every day....and nooooo sprays do not work on these guys...i also have birds, and the buggies were laying eggs in their water dishes....more vigilance...hope this helps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="970" RevisionGUID="c6248177-01d1-4503-96e0-fa54e2855a8e" CreationDate="2013-05-30T01:36:33.197" UserId="71" Comment="Improve grammar, spelling and formatting." Text="They are gnats, and breed in plant soil, sink drains, and any moisture anywhere! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put some bleach down your sink drains, be vigilant about moisture (water under the dish drainer, all those places you never think about).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the plants, I had to put mine outside for a week and stir the top of the soil with a fork every day, and no, sprays do not work on these guys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also have birds, and the buggies were laying eggs in their water dishes. More vigilance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2942" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="970" RevisionGUID="c6248177-01d1-4503-96e0-fa54e2855a8e" CreationDate="2013-05-30T01:36:33.197" Comment="Proposed by 71 approved by 85 edit id of 122" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2943" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="965" RevisionGUID="000d51d6-535a-4849-9a53-20b107884852" CreationDate="2013-05-30T04:28:57.807" UserId="484" Comment="edited title" Text="Getting rid of those little flies (gnats) without using a spray?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="965" RevisionGUID="2f2069c4-f53f-4e59-9793-bbbee99f7408" CreationDate="2013-05-30T06:13:59.893" UserId="484" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="Since a while we have a problem with those little flies, which generally are present near the plants (or flying along your ears when you are reading or working on the computer).&#xD;&#xA;As I do not want to use any spray, because I don't expect it to be sustainable, but just killing them one by one does not seem a solution. I've tried for a while, but I feel each time they become faster (maybe natural selection of the fastest?). Before we had some fruit flies, which were easy as you just had to make sure to keep garbage closed and fruits to be covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are they? And what can I do against them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional information: The 'flies' are about 3-4 mm long and I'm living in Belgium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They seem to be gnats (or fungus gnats), someone knows its name in Dutch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3s0FF.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="971" RevisionGUID="e91922c3-f0c0-486f-ac7c-b17b5b5512c0" CreationDate="2013-05-30T06:26:12.127" UserId="471" Text="There are many types of gnat like fungal gnat, fruit flies etc... to get rid from gnat it may depends on which plants it is.. e.g plants which need more water , less water.. Remove the top layer of the soil. Since gnats generally lay their eggs on the top layer of soil, take the house plants outside. Using a shovel, remove about one inch of the soil's top layer. If necessary, place new soil in the pot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;first try removing any food sources they have been feeding from. This would include removing any fruit left out on counters. Any houseplants should be ideally planted in containers that can drain since gnats also love wet, standing water on top of soil. Your plant’s soil should be moist but not overwatered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some gnats are develop due to more moisture so be careful to no over water the plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i read some articles on net through which i got some nice solution that i past here..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gnatrol&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a product on the market called Gnatrol. It's a natural bacillus toxin that can be added to the water when you water your plants. Gnatrol will kill the larvae, but the plants have to be treated several times, about six weeks total. This is a very effective method as long as you are not also fertilizing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moth balls&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moth balls are another way to get rid of gnats. Place one to two moth balls in a 12-inch pot and it should get rid of the gnats. The moth balls should also prevent other pesky critters from being attracted to your plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Read more: How to Get Rid of Gnats in House Plants][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ehow.com/how_2305145_rid-gnats-house-plants.html#ixzz2UkokDRya" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="f696bc8e-0987-4d6a-8ad2-adb999aefcab" CreationDate="2013-05-30T10:15:32.030" UserId="471" Text="I heard that died animal can be used as fertilizers and can helpful to make tree grow more and healthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;once i had burried died dog under tree of lemon which not giving more fruits but after burried dog under tree after some years it gives much fruits and better than past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that sustainable to use this type of technique to make plants grow more.and suggest some way to use died animal as fertilizers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="f696bc8e-0987-4d6a-8ad2-adb999aefcab" CreationDate="2013-05-30T10:15:32.030" UserId="471" Text="is it sustainable to burry died animal besides the plants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="f696bc8e-0987-4d6a-8ad2-adb999aefcab" CreationDate="2013-05-30T10:15:32.030" UserId="471" Text="|plants|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2949" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="969" RevisionGUID="5c834d4a-9112-42ce-af64-71bc7b561c9b" CreationDate="2013-05-30T10:59:36.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/340059916200984576" />
  <row Id="2951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="d9981731-7655-4c9a-af8c-0db28f83c77a" CreationDate="2013-05-30T16:15:41.480" UserId="85" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="I heard that dead animals can be used as fertilizers and can be helpful for making a tree grow taller and more healthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once I had buried a dead dog under a lemon tree, which at first did not result in more fruits. But after after some years the tree started bearing more fruit than before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it sustainable to use this type of technique to make plants grow more? Can you use dead animals as fertilizers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2952" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="d9981731-7655-4c9a-af8c-0db28f83c77a" CreationDate="2013-05-30T16:15:41.480" UserId="85" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Is it sustainable to bury dead animals next to plants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2953" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="aec23555-7a46-4334-9a0a-824fba0181dd" CreationDate="2013-05-30T16:59:36.727" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/340150513435824129" />
  <row Id="2954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="23cf7746-bf75-4215-a0c8-10e860573f07" CreationDate="2013-05-30T17:49:22.423" UserId="28" Text="I'd like to set up a solar power system to power a small house.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What equipment do I need to make it happen?  Production and storage are both important.  I'm looking for a full shopping list and ways of estimating the sizing that I'll need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="23cf7746-bf75-4215-a0c8-10e860573f07" CreationDate="2013-05-30T17:49:22.423" UserId="28" Text="What's needed to set up a personal solar power system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="23cf7746-bf75-4215-a0c8-10e860573f07" CreationDate="2013-05-30T17:49:22.423" UserId="28" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="8ba36085-d736-4cca-8922-f734ef9d83e4" CreationDate="2013-05-30T18:16:24.613" UserId="471" Text="For estimating the solar power system requirement it depends on mainly following factor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Your power consumption.&#xD;&#xA;2. Sun light peak value.&#xD;&#xA;3. Your power storing device.&#xD;&#xA;4. How much energy can a Solar panel generate over a period of time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there are many walls solar panel is available lets take one example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The power generation rating of a Solar panel is also given in Watts (eg STP010, 10W). To calculate the energy it can supply to the battery, multiply Watts by the hours exposed to sunshine, then multiply the result by 0.85 (this factor allows for natural system losses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Solar 100W panel in 10 hours* of sunshine, `100 x 10 x 0.85 = 850WH`. This is the amount of energy the Solar panel can supply to the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So according to your requirement 600 kwh per month so you need `600000/850=705` panel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for easy calculation i found one site [Calculate Estimate of solar power system][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.affordable-solar.com/residential-solar-home/Residential-Calculator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="14b95ead-4ba4-4f1a-af0c-2a1737d6e2ba" CreationDate="2013-05-30T18:29:00.493" UserId="471" Comment="added 539 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For estimating the solar power system requirement it depends on mainly following factor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Your power consumption.&#xD;&#xA;2. Sun light peak value.&#xD;&#xA;3. Your power storing device.&#xD;&#xA;4. How much energy can a Solar panel generate over a period of time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there are many walls solar panel is available lets take one example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The power generation rating of a Solar panel is also given in Watts (eg STP010, 10W). To calculate the energy it can supply to the battery, multiply Watts by the hours exposed to sunshine, then multiply the result by 0.85 (this factor allows for natural system losses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Solar 100W panel in 10 hours* of sunshine, `100 x 10 x 0.85 = 850WH`. This is the amount of energy the Solar panel can supply to the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So according to your requirement 600 kwh per month so you need `600000/850=705` panel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for easy calculation i found one site [Calculate Estimate of solar power system][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aqneL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.affordable-solar.com/residential-solar-home/Residential-Calculator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of the PV system basics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     1. Panels&#xD;&#xA;           &#xD;&#xA;     2. Mounting equipment &#xD;&#xA;           &#xD;&#xA;     3. DC-to-AC inverters&#xD;&#xA;                    &#xD;&#xA;     4. Tracking mounts&#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;     5. Disconnect switches&#xD;&#xA;                           &#xD;&#xA;     6. Wiring and fuse box connections&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    7. Utility power meters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information you should contacts to solar system service provider.&#xD;&#xA;                            &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="f3a40437-67ba-45e1-a322-42ecda4cdf29" CreationDate="2013-05-30T19:24:17.923" UserId="471" Comment="added with specification" Text="I'd like to set up a solar power system to power a small house. with power estimation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    probably 20 KwH per day. 600 a month. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What equipment do I need to make it happen?  Production and storage are both important.  I'm looking for a full shopping list and ways of estimating the sizing that I'll need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2960" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="f3a40437-67ba-45e1-a322-42ecda4cdf29" CreationDate="2013-05-30T19:24:17.923" Comment="Proposed by 471 approved by -1 edit id of 123" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="3aae4286-adf6-4ecf-93f0-72a7aefbb4a7" CreationDate="2013-05-30T19:24:17.923" UserId="85" Comment="added with specification" Text="I'd like to set up a solar power system to power a small house, say 20 kWh per day, 600 kWh per month. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What equipment do I need to make it happen?  Production and storage are both important.  I'm looking for a full shopping list and ways of estimating the sizing that I'll need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2962" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="cf984a1d-1e39-4627-8b79-b931959cb07c" CreationDate="2013-05-31T03:07:08.197" UserId="15" Comment="Added burial tag" Text="|gardening|plants|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="3f4bb39e-6fe5-4425-917c-42eb63fb8b7f" CreationDate="2013-05-31T05:22:51.617" UserId="471" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For estimating the solar power system requirement it depends on mainly following factor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Your power consumption.&#xD;&#xA;2. Sun light peak value.&#xD;&#xA;3. Your power storing device.&#xD;&#xA;4. How much energy can a Solar panel generate over a period of time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there are many walls solar panel is available lets take one example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The power generation rating of a Solar panel is also given in Watts (eg STP010, 10W). To calculate the energy it can supply to the battery, multiply Watts by the hours exposed to sunshine, then multiply the result by 0.85 (this factor allows for natural system losses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Solar 100W panel in 4 hours* of sunshine, `100 x 4 x 0.85 = 340WH`. This is the amount of energy the Solar panel can supply to the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So according to your requirement 600 kwh per month so you need `600000/340=1765` panel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for easy calculation i found one site [Calculate Estimate of solar power system][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aqneL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.affordable-solar.com/residential-solar-home/Residential-Calculator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of the PV system basics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     1. Panels&#xD;&#xA;           &#xD;&#xA;     2. Mounting equipment &#xD;&#xA;           &#xD;&#xA;     3. DC-to-AC inverters&#xD;&#xA;                    &#xD;&#xA;     4. Tracking mounts&#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;     5. Disconnect switches&#xD;&#xA;                           &#xD;&#xA;     6. Wiring and fuse box connections&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    7. Utility power meters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information you should contacts to solar system service provider.&#xD;&#xA;                            &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="37dceaa3-cab6-4669-b415-644b3ad89714" CreationDate="2013-05-31T07:56:07.453" UserId="471" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For estimating the solar power system requirement it depends on mainly following factor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Your power consumption.&#xD;&#xA;2. Sun light peak value.&#xD;&#xA;3. Your power storing device.&#xD;&#xA;4. How much energy can a Solar panel generate over a period of time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there are many walls solar panel is available lets take one example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The power generation rating of a Solar panel is also given in Watts (eg STP010, 10W). To calculate the energy it can supply to the battery, multiply Watts by the hours exposed to sunshine, then multiply the result by 0.85 (this factor allows for natural system losses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Solar 100W panel in 4 hours* of sunshine, `100 x 4 x 0.85 = 340WH`. This is the amount of energy the Solar panel can supply to the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As your requirement is 600000 so per day is 20000  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So according to your requirement 20 kwh per day so you need `20000/340=59` panel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for easy calculation i found one site [Calculate Estimate of solar power system][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aqneL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.affordable-solar.com/residential-solar-home/Residential-Calculator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of the PV system basics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     1. Panels&#xD;&#xA;           &#xD;&#xA;     2. Mounting equipment &#xD;&#xA;           &#xD;&#xA;     3. DC-to-AC inverters&#xD;&#xA;                    &#xD;&#xA;     4. Tracking mounts&#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;     5. Disconnect switches&#xD;&#xA;                           &#xD;&#xA;     6. Wiring and fuse box connections&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    7. Utility power meters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information you should contacts to solar system service provider.&#xD;&#xA;                            &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="98a851f5-7dd9-4812-91ba-c507e5221702" CreationDate="2013-05-31T09:07:03.310" UserId="584" Text="I see in France most of the multistory buildings, there is a black stone crush placed on the top of the buildings. I would like to know whether they use it for certain climate or reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please share if you have an idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="98a851f5-7dd9-4812-91ba-c507e5221702" CreationDate="2013-05-31T09:07:03.310" UserId="584" Text="Why they use stone crush on roof of the multistory buildings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="98a851f5-7dd9-4812-91ba-c507e5221702" CreationDate="2013-05-31T09:07:03.310" UserId="584" Text="|building-materials|cold-climate|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="99076be1-e3bb-4dac-8cd7-9e60f991c818" CreationDate="2013-05-31T09:22:04.823" UserId="584" Text="&#xD;&#xA;In my country the maximum temperature reaches to 50 degree Celsius. Normally it is a dry weather but only for two months, July and August very humid. &#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, in winter it is very cold for only two months December and January, when it goes to 2 or 4 degree Celsius.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;So, What is the sustainable house insulation for such regions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="99076be1-e3bb-4dac-8cd7-9e60f991c818" CreationDate="2013-05-31T09:22:04.823" UserId="584" Text="What is the sustainable house insulation suitable for a very hot climate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="99076be1-e3bb-4dac-8cd7-9e60f991c818" CreationDate="2013-05-31T09:22:04.823" UserId="584" Text="|home|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2973" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="977" RevisionGUID="858a99d1-5c3a-43b3-b82b-c264b358c17d" CreationDate="2013-05-31T13:59:37.813" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/340467606932819968" />
  <row Id="2974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="44fd0688-7ba0-45f1-97f1-7a680a04c22f" CreationDate="2013-05-31T15:17:24.950" UserId="462" Text="Insulation doesn't care about directions, so whatever keeps a house warm in a cold climate will help keep it cool in a hot climate. Vapor barriers are different--my understanding is that the vapor barrier should go on the side of the wall that sees the most humidity. But insulation simply slows down heat transfer in all directions, so as long as you have a way to cool off the interior, whether it's AC or a cool night breeze, any insulation will hold the day's heat at bay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consult a local professional about the best insulation and vapor barrier choices for your area, because humidity and local pests can influence the effectiveness and longevity of your system. Make your decision based on factors such as those, because as far as heat transfer goes, an R-value is an R-value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/897/462) gives a good overview of some of the insulating materials you might consider." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="66e62e24-660f-4567-b3ac-9d01c5c4e505" CreationDate="2013-05-31T15:36:42.150" UserId="462" Comment="added 395 characters in body" Text="Insulation doesn't care about directions, so whatever keeps a house warm in a cold climate will help keep it cool in a hot climate. Vapor barriers are different--my understanding is that the vapor barrier should go on the side of the wall that sees the most humidity. But insulation simply slows down heat transfer in all directions, so as long as you have a way to cool off the interior, whether it's AC or a cool night breeze, any insulation will hold the day's heat at bay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consult a local professional about the best insulation and vapor barrier choices for your area, because humidity and local pests can influence the effectiveness and longevity of your system. Make your decision based on factors such as those, because as far as heat transfer goes, an R-value is an R-value. If your energy comes from sustainable sources, the &quot;green&quot; insulating materials will be clear winners for sustainability, but otherwise just get the best insulation your budget allows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/897/462) gives a good overview of some of the insulating materials you might consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have questions regarding the effectiveness and durability of insulating materials, the folks at [Home Improvement](http://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/insulation) can probably help you out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="c203e5be-a5d8-4311-8b5c-b6218b3c125d" CreationDate="2013-05-31T15:37:55.293" UserId="484" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Many years ago I was taking some classes about traditional pottery where a lot of attention was given to contact with the earth and sustainability. I remember a few times they told us about traditional painting of those pots with oxides, as a natural method of painting. I never got to the point of really using it in class, but always kept on thinking about what it would be like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody have some experience? How does it work?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I imagine they must use minerals for it, but then I wonder how sustainable it is? Also it must depend on which mineral you would use and how much is needed for a little bit of paint?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2977" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="c203e5be-a5d8-4311-8b5c-b6218b3c125d" CreationDate="2013-05-31T15:37:55.293" UserId="484" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to paint ceramic pots in a sustainable way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="979" RevisionGUID="666fdb83-137b-4401-be6d-7d50fabbad95" CreationDate="2013-05-31T18:27:26.310" UserId="471" Text="The main advantage of crushed stone is that,Crushed stone grains have different shapes depending on their flakiness. Their surface is coarse, therefore they have good cohesion with cement-and-sand mix in the concrete production process. there for it uses in roofs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Cohesion property:The force of attraction that holds molecules &#xD;&#xA;    of a given substance together. It is strongest in solids, less strong in liquids, &#xD;&#xA;    and least strong in gases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus crush stone binds with cement and sand and provide high strength to roofs and buildings which resist absorbing of water as it tight bind. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="979" RevisionGUID="07d92487-3571-459c-96fe-17a955dca3bc" CreationDate="2013-05-31T18:36:46.217" UserId="471" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="The main advantage of crushed stone is that,Crushed stone grains have different shapes depending on their flakiness. Their surface is coarse, therefore they have good cohesion with cement-and-sand mix in the concrete production process. there for it uses in roofs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Cohesion property:The force of attraction that holds molecules &#xD;&#xA;    of a given substance together. It is strongest in solids, less strong in liquids, &#xD;&#xA;    and least strong in gases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus crush stone binds with cement and sand and provide high strength to roofs and buildings which provide strength to buildings. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="8703de18-cc50-4f25-8d5d-c69e83dd970d" CreationDate="2013-05-31T19:07:12.313" UserId="584" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="I see in France most of the multistory buildings, there is a black stone crush placed on the top of the buildings. I would like to know whether they use it for certain climate or reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Crushed stones, placed without cement, as a raw stones)&#xD;&#xA;Please share if you have an idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="980" RevisionGUID="4ed6e4d9-d01f-4e8d-8df6-1dcaf38da23b" CreationDate="2013-06-01T07:17:22.397" UserId="99" Text="AFAIK the main purpose of stones and pebbles on roofs is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. to keep the roofing material in place &#xD;&#xA;  2. to protect the roofing material from UV radiation and thus prolonging its lifespan (for that the roof must be completely covered with stones and pebbles)&#xD;&#xA;  3.  to prevent snow from sliding off a sloped roof (but for this larger stones are often used)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="d6054822-94e7-4ccb-bd65-c6f8c19a22f8" CreationDate="2013-06-01T07:30:58.510" UserId="484" Comment="added 549 characters in body" Text="Many years ago I was taking some classes about traditional pottery where a lot of attention was given to contact with the earth and sustainability. I remember a few times they told us about traditional painting of those pots with oxides, as a natural method of painting. I never got to the point of really using it in class, but always kept on thinking about what it would be like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody have some experience? How does it work?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I imagine they must use minerals for it, but then I wonder how sustainable it is? Also it must depend on which mineral you would use and how much is needed for a little bit of paint?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edited:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking about the technique to make this (picture), other techniques might be interesting too, as long as they are natural materials and do not need a lot of material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that iron oxides are used for red and yellow colours. Charcoal might be used for black and kaolinite for white. I imagine blue can be generated by copper oxides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1full]&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Jaguar_vase.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [1full]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jaguar_vase.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2983" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="d6fe893b-d641-4919-9432-cd0cabc07fad" CreationDate="2013-06-01T07:59:56.623" UserId="471" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|plants|animals|fertilizer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="981" RevisionGUID="65e5b301-f57b-4c1d-b78c-ccb2d3c52aba" CreationDate="2013-06-01T08:08:30.667" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="982" RevisionGUID="41eb0222-9ae2-4251-bb13-cac8be2e76ff" CreationDate="2013-06-01T08:08:30.667" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="61754427-2ffe-445f-9970-dfb1a9b40118" CreationDate="2013-06-01T11:01:02.617" UserId="5" Text="It's the part of the nature that the corpses of dead animals are becoming recycled by other organisms. But a corpse degraded by bacteria releases many dangerous toxins, for example botulinum toxin, which can contaminate the water and be dangerous for people and other animals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note what happens to the corpse of the animal in the natural environment. Firstly the most part of it is eaten by **scavengers**. The rest is eaten by **insects** and their **larvae**, and only a small of it actually decays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you want to consider a corpse in the most sustainable way, I'd consider to feed it to scavengers (they may be rare in your environment) or feed it to maggots, which would be eaten by other animals, which fecal would fertilize the ground." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="984" RevisionGUID="d9e8a859-a40b-4cf1-ab68-b3b25d2ac77f" CreationDate="2013-06-01T11:27:11.233" UserId="5" Text="The most important role for social media I see is to **provide the alternative solutions** to those that we are bombarded in mass media and advertisements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The promoted model of life is `buy-as-much-as-you-can, throw-as-fast-as-you-are-bored.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can provide the **tips, how to**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) **Save money** by buying more consciously, and therefore less&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) **Repair** things, therefore use them longer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) **Reuse** the things that are broken (for example use parts of old clothes for cleaning up floor or sealing up the roof)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="985" RevisionGUID="58136aaa-1589-4be1-9f06-ee2723fd81bb" CreationDate="2013-06-01T12:06:17.553" UserId="5" Text="The report provides only raw numbers, without the information about the particular reasons of throwing food away. But according to my knowledge about the patterns promoted to the media and the observations how they apply to my acquaintances, only a small part of it id the food that is actually spoiled. Most of that is thrown away because the expiry date is reached, someone has cooked too much or the most trivially is bored with some food and don't want to eat it to the end. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My tips and recommendations are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Never buy too much. Learn how much you are able to eat and how much do you need to buy. Don't improvise in shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Don't throw food away just because expiry date is reached. Note that the expiry date is made only to remove liability from producers and it's calculated for the most pessimistic scenario of keeping the product (too high temperature, exposition to light etc.). I've eaten a lot of products months, and in some cases (products in cans or jars) even years after the expiry date, and I never had problems because of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Be disciplined. If you prepare something, eat it to the end. If you can't eat more, wait an hour. If you still can't eat more, store it in fridge. Never throw something away even if the potato cooked the previous day don't taste as well as that cooked right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) In case of products that spoil very quick in kitchen, such as fruits and vegetables, buy them regularly and in small portions that you can eat within 1- max 3-days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Dry bread can be powdered and used for chops or some other meal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) Sweet fruits that are rotten but not moldy can be used to prepare a hooch. In worst case it can be used as fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) Cheese or sausages that doesn't smell well, but don't stink, can be eaten if you fry them. In outdoor camps if we find something that isn't looking very well after a few days in the rucksack, we fry that in campfire, without negative consequences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2989" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="976" RevisionGUID="36f53b6d-97f6-4a1c-894f-39dd1c898b8d" CreationDate="2013-06-01T16:59:39.300" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/340875300273532928" />
  <row Id="2990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="975" RevisionGUID="a8c222ed-efa7-4a92-8e72-665490c1c195" CreationDate="2013-06-01T18:36:50.327" UserId="471" Comment="added 461 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For estimating the solar power system requirement it depends on mainly following factor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Your power consumption.&#xD;&#xA;2. Sun light peak value.&#xD;&#xA;3. Your power storing device.&#xD;&#xA;4. How much energy can a Solar panel generate over a period of time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there are many walls solar panel is available lets take one example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The power generation rating of a Solar panel is also given in Watts (eg STP010, 10W). To calculate the energy it can supply to the battery, multiply Watts by the hours exposed to sunshine, then multiply the result by 0.85 (this factor allows for natural system losses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Solar 100W panel in 4 hours* of sunshine, `100 x 4 x 0.85 = 340WH`. This is the amount of energy the Solar panel can supply to the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As your requirement is 600000 so per day is 20000  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So according to your requirement 20 kwh per day so you need `20000/340=59` panel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and for easy calculation i found one site [Calculate Estimate of solar power system][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a list of the PV system basics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     1. Panels&#xD;&#xA;           &#xD;&#xA;     2. Mounting equipment &#xD;&#xA;           &#xD;&#xA;     3. DC-to-AC inverters&#xD;&#xA;                    &#xD;&#xA;     4. Tracking mounts&#xD;&#xA;                       &#xD;&#xA;     5. Disconnect switches&#xD;&#xA;                           &#xD;&#xA;     6. Wiring and fuse box connections&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    7. Utility power meters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information you should contacts to solar system service provider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Storage device** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As your electical power usually needs to be available when the sun is not shining, it usually neccessary to store electricity.                 &#xD;&#xA;Now a days there are many types of batteries and generator are available which stores the electricity produced by solar panel.&#xD;&#xA;The normal storage is the Lead-Acid battery.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for more details [follow the link][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aqneL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.affordable-solar.com/residential-solar-home/Residential-Calculator&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/70JJX.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.freesunpower.com/batteries.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="a7eeb031-4a52-447f-80f9-f055f476623d" CreationDate="2013-06-02T09:10:27.113" UserId="234" Text="I the area I am living, there are a lot of sheep, hence enough wool to go around for everybody. I seen a show at some point stating that sheep wool is one of the best natural insulates for homes. My question is whether this is true and what kind of treatment it needs to go through from the natural state to the final product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="a7eeb031-4a52-447f-80f9-f055f476623d" CreationDate="2013-06-02T09:10:27.113" UserId="234" Text="Sheep wool as insulation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="a7eeb031-4a52-447f-80f9-f055f476623d" CreationDate="2013-06-02T09:10:27.113" UserId="234" Text="|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="987" RevisionGUID="223e62bf-b3ce-49da-8aef-23eb3043b1c6" CreationDate="2013-06-02T14:02:50.843" UserId="234" Text="I intend to build a house in the near future and I want it done in a proper way. From my perspective &quot;proper way&quot; means also as much as self sustainable as possible. Hence I intend to generate/produce as much energy as possible. As I intend to use a lot of glazing on the sunny sides of the house I was thinking to have double advantage from this surface and use photo voltaic windows so I can also generate electricity. Unfortunately my time is tight. So any suggestions, comments appropriate links in the right direction would be highly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="987" RevisionGUID="223e62bf-b3ce-49da-8aef-23eb3043b1c6" CreationDate="2013-06-02T14:02:50.843" UserId="234" Text="Photo voltaic windows Pro - Cons. Where to get them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="987" RevisionGUID="223e62bf-b3ce-49da-8aef-23eb3043b1c6" CreationDate="2013-06-02T14:02:50.843" UserId="234" Text="|energy-efficiency|photovoltaics|glazing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2997" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="9631e56f-bd9c-42a0-a946-a4ae33358c4f" CreationDate="2013-06-02T16:59:43.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/341237703045685249" />
  <row Id="2998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="d50f43c9-1a42-4762-88f0-20837ba3b910" CreationDate="2013-06-02T17:28:40.933" UserId="48" Text="Broadly speaking, there are no pros to PV windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of a window is to let light in, and they're usually vertical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of PV is to capture as much light as possible, turn as much of that as possible into electricity, and are angled towards the sky to capture as much light as possible (specific angle will depend on latitude).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's why you'll see various tech news stories about photovoltaic windows, but precious few commercial products. It sounds like it ought to be an interesting market, but it's really a bad mix, and the market just isn't there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="2999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="988" RevisionGUID="952b0e62-4810-40b1-964f-02ecf92a2292" CreationDate="2013-06-02T17:40:10.053" UserId="48" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="Broadly speaking, there are no pros to PV windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of a window is to let light in, and they're usually vertical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point of PV is to capture as much light as possible, turn as much of that as possible into electricity, and are angled towards the sky to capture as much light as possible (specific angle will depend on latitude).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added to that, windows tend to be bespoke, each a custom size; but PV panels are cheap because they are commodity items produced in runs of identical thousands (or more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's why you'll see various tech news stories about photovoltaic windows, but precious few commercial products. It sounds like it ought to be an interesting market, but it's really a bad mix, and the market just isn't there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="26" RevisionGUID="5d737e7a-9aa4-4b4a-b680-315553a6e201" CreationDate="2013-06-02T19:13:37.377" UserId="42" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I'm wanting to produce my own energy, but I live in a condo with no access to the roof. I'd like to produce electricity, so maybe turning that energy into electricity safely. I have windows that have access to some sunlight depending on the angle of the sun and some wind. What are the best ways to produce my own energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="528fcd8a-de60-4f4f-a410-1f542312597d" CreationDate="2013-06-02T23:07:36.433" UserId="5" Comment="Removed 'thank you'. Pointed the question." Text="I the area I am living, there are a lot of sheep, hence enough wool to go around for everybody. I seen a show at some point stating that sheep wool is one of the best natural insulates for homes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true? What kind of treatment it needs to go through from the natural state to the final product?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3002" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="528fcd8a-de60-4f4f-a410-1f542312597d" CreationDate="2013-06-02T23:07:36.433" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by -1 edit id of 126" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="e5a23183-38c4-4243-b2a7-9d736495f652" CreationDate="2013-06-02T23:07:36.433" UserId="85" Comment="Removed 'thank you'. Pointed the question." Text="Where I am living, there are a lot of sheep, hence enough wool to go around for everybody. I saw a show at some point stating that sheep wool is one of the best natural insulates for homes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true? What kind of treatment does it need to go through from the natural state to the final product?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3004" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="e5a23183-38c4-4243-b2a7-9d736495f652" CreationDate="2013-06-02T23:07:36.433" UserId="85" Comment="Removed 'thank you'. Pointed the question." Text="|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="b5c63760-05be-426d-96fd-b158d91dddd4" CreationDate="2013-06-03T00:21:01.997" UserId="164" Text="As I mentioned in [my answer][1] to http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/26/164  photo-voltaic double glazing - a form of [Building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV)][2] may become more popular in the future as the economics of scale improves for low efficiency thin film PV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low cost [thin film PV][3] has the potential to be substantially cheaper than using crystalline silicon cells, but since it generally has a lower efficiency it isn't as interesting. For windows though, low efficiency has its advantages. Since thin films are layered on top of transparent glass, any light not converted into electricity passes through. Many glass fronted buildings already attenuate the incident light anyway, to minimise air-conditioning costs or reduce glare, so converting that light into energy rather then turning it into heat or reflecting it out of the building has a certain appeal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of anyone producing home double glazing units featuring BIPV modules yet, but I know that machines for creating the glass panels for large scale BIPV projects have been around for years (I used to work on them in the mid to late naughties).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is certainly an area I will be keeping an eye on, as the idea of unclipping my existing double glazing units and clipping in replacement double glazing units with integrated PV holds a lot of appear for me personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/299/164&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIPV#Forms&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_film_solar_cell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3006" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="987" RevisionGUID="e384a487-f056-4754-a21d-7f4c7e6ec72f" CreationDate="2013-06-03T04:59:44.023" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/341418901520928769" />
  <row Id="3009" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="974" RevisionGUID="249f7ed9-cca8-459d-86b6-d9a78b1da59c" CreationDate="2013-06-03T07:59:43.907" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/341464198787788800" />
  <row Id="3010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="c084ce3e-30cb-48c6-9213-297e369f9b30" CreationDate="2013-06-03T08:26:14.693" UserId="164" Comment="Added a mention of suppliers." Text="As I mentioned in [my answer][1] to http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/26/164  photo-voltaic double glazing - a form of [Building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV)][2] may become more popular in the future as the economics of scale improves for low efficiency thin film PV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low cost [thin film PV][3] has the potential to be substantially cheaper than using crystalline silicon cells, but since it generally has a lower efficiency it isn't as interesting. For windows though, low efficiency has its advantages. Since thin films are layered on top of transparent glass, any light not converted into electricity passes through. Many glass fronted buildings already attenuate the incident light anyway, to minimise air-conditioning costs or reduce glare, so converting that light into energy rather then turning it into heat or reflecting it out of the building has a certain appeal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of anyone producing home double glazing units featuring BIPV modules yet, but I know that machines for creating the glass panels for large scale BIPV projects have been around for years (I used to work on them in the mid to late naughties).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is certainly an area I will be keeping an eye on, as the idea of unclipping my existing double glazing units and clipping in replacement double glazing units with integrated PV holds a lot of appear for me personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't suggest any specific suppliers&lt;sup&gt;&amp;dagger;&lt;/sup&gt; but the important thing is the term **BIPV**, which should allow you to search out [current suppliers](https://www.google.com/search?q=BIPV).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;dagger;&lt;sub&gt;Even if I knew that information (which I don't, I worked at the [B2B](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business-to-business) end of the industry) that side of the question is a poor fit for stack exchange as the information goes out of date too quickly, so is unlikely to benefit future visitors. For more information, see [Q&amp;A is Hard, Let’s Go Shopping!](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/qa-is-hard-lets-go-shopping/). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/299/164&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIPV#Forms&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_film_solar_cell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="990" RevisionGUID="97357ada-0903-4e75-900d-1c2995a0d514" CreationDate="2013-06-03T09:32:01.403" UserId="471" Text="Here in my place worker who use to sell some soft snack like bread etc. use news paper as wrapper to pack the snack.&#xD;&#xA;As i have read that ink of letters typed in news paper&#xD;&#xA;may mix with food and that may harmfull. Even i told them to not use but they replied that that news paper are cheap to use as wrapper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is it sustainable to use this? And also suggest cheap source to wrap snack.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="990" RevisionGUID="97357ada-0903-4e75-900d-1c2995a0d514" CreationDate="2013-06-03T09:32:01.403" UserId="471" Text="Is it sustainable to use news paper as food wrapper?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="990" RevisionGUID="97357ada-0903-4e75-900d-1c2995a0d514" CreationDate="2013-06-03T09:32:01.403" UserId="471" Text="|food|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="990" RevisionGUID="3ea6f79b-4970-4c4d-9b10-8f6f71c3a18f" CreationDate="2013-06-03T09:41:15.550" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar and spelling" Text="Here where I live a worker who used to sell some soft snacks like bread etc. uses newspaper  to wrap and pack the snacks. I have read that the ink of the letters typed in the newspaper&#xD;&#xA;may mix with the food and that may be harmful. I even told them not to use it but they replied that that newspapers are cheap to use as wrapper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is it sustainable to use this? And also could you suggest cheap alternative sources to wrap snacks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3015" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="990" RevisionGUID="3ea6f79b-4970-4c4d-9b10-8f6f71c3a18f" CreationDate="2013-06-03T09:41:15.550" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar and spelling" Text="Is it sustainable to use newspaper as food wrapper?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="991" RevisionGUID="a44cc1b8-5eeb-40fc-9af8-2eb51a7062d3" CreationDate="2013-06-03T10:01:27.023" UserId="48" Text="Is it one of the best natural insulators? Well, that would depend on your definition of best. But it's certainly an effective insulator, and one with a commercial market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does have the advantage of being much more comfortable to work with than glass fibre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of one installer who describes its comfort as a disadvantage too, because it's far too tempting to curl up in it for a little sleep while installing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Britain, it's sometimes sold as [a blend of wool and recycled plastic][1]. Others produce it as [a 95% wool blend][2]. From [the pdf datasheet for that 95% blend][3], a 250mm layer has a U-value of 0.16 (= an R-value of 6.41)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that sheepswool is flammable, is biodegradable, is attractive to moths, and it does absorb water (without significantly impairing its thermal resistivity). So it will generally need treating to keep out mould and pests, and to give sufficient fire-resistance to be usable as a building material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its advantages (along with the comfort) also include the ability to lock in volatile organic compounds); additionally, most of the supply-chain is both self-reproducing and delicious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as noted in the comments on the question, sheep are rarely farmed primarily for their wool any more, so the wool is a waste product: hence, reusing it for insulation (as long as the transport costs are not prohibitive) can **improve** the sustainability of sheep-farming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.diy.com/nav/build/insulation/loft-insulation/sheeps_wool/homeECO-Sheeps-wool-Insulation-370mm-x-3m-200mm-11127511&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.blackmountaininsulation.com/index.php/products/sheeps-wool-insulation-products&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.blackmountaininsulation.com/images/pdf/sheep%20wool%20insulation%20-%20technical%20sheet.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="e956fe16-6dcc-4c06-af26-66b245da002c" CreationDate="2013-06-03T10:56:23.800" UserId="48" Text="Following on from the question http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/986/48 , where I started my answer with:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &gt;  Is it one of the best natural insulators? Well, that would depend on your definition of best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the OP asked in a comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Maybe you can share your thoughts regarding the best insulation product!?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realised that this isn't a simple question. It's not just about the highest R-value (or equivalently, lowest U-value). In some cases, the answer might be triple-glazing; in some cases, the answer might be aerogel; in others, something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where are the trade-offs in the attributes of insulation? Or, to put it another way, how do the criteria for *best* building insulation change depending on context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="e956fe16-6dcc-4c06-af26-66b245da002c" CreationDate="2013-06-03T10:56:23.800" UserId="48" Text="How do the criteria for 'best' building insulation change depending on context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="e956fe16-6dcc-4c06-af26-66b245da002c" CreationDate="2013-06-03T10:56:23.800" UserId="48" Text="|building-materials|building-physics|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="4057c40d-4b07-40ca-b07e-eaff0eae734d" CreationDate="2013-06-03T18:18:10.460" UserDisplayName="user141" Text="As far as papers go newsprint is probably the most environmentally friendly paper there is.  It can be produced from a wide range of wood pulp, uses the least amount of chemical bleaches or agents to change the consistency or quality.  In the US over 90% of newsprint is created from recycled paper.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition repurposing a newspaper that is bound for the landfill is going to be much more sustainable than using a plastic or laminated paper container that many foods use.  I am sure there are more sustainable options but none of them are likely to be as convenient or easy to attain and use as an old newspaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That does not mean that the newspaper is safe.  Some inks used in printing are quite dangerous  to ingest.  It is not likely to be the most sanitary option either as it may have been handled by many people and thus contaminated by any bacteria on their hands.  It the newsprint was printed and freshly used it is likely as safe as any for wrapping food.  But the paper is very porous so any liquids it comes in contact with are liable to bleed through to your food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3021" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="45c29848-cb8e-4a27-aa61-2bbbc2321815" CreationDate="2013-06-03T19:59:43.973" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/341645393429397504" />
  <row Id="3022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="81bcdddc-e087-4505-8eb4-53ebf700433b" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:07:17.633" UserId="462" Text="**Building style:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing I can think of would be the difference between new construction and retrofits. It simply isn't practical to re-do an existing brick or wood home with straw-bale walls. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing from that, the type of building material used is also a major factor. You can't put loose-fill cellulose in a poured concrete wall, but you can use insulating concrete forms or foam boards. Wood houses have a lot of cavities that make blown-in insulation an attractive option, especially for retrofits. Filling empty cavities with cellulose or fiberglass is a fairly non-invasive strategy for wood structures as it only requires you to drill holes in the wall then plug them again. But if you are already re-siding the house, foam boards under the new siding might be an attractive option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sunlight damages most insulating foams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Climate:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Humidity can damage many types of insulation, and your choice of insulation will affect (or depend on) your strategies for dealing with moisture produced in the home or entering from outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pests:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mice are happy to nest in fiberglass, as reported on the DIY/Home Improvement SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainable materials:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Straw bale construction works well if you can find a contractor in your area familiar with it or if you have the skills to do it yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wool insulation (mentioned in the question) is sustainable if wool is produced in excess near the house in question. If you would have to make special arrangements to have it shipped from a far away place, you should consider other options." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3023" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="7381c641-137a-4c06-b4b3-fe13ef6bc99b" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:07:17.633" UserId="462" />
  <row Id="3024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="b7530ea7-4c20-4c91-861c-4e8f1f794d0f" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:25:01.563" UserId="462" Comment="added 369 characters in body" Text="Insulation can contribute to the sustainability of a home both by being sustainably-sourced and by reducing heating and cooling requirements. The longer the insulation lasts, the greater its contribution to your home's sustainability. It is also important to select insulation that can be installed easily, without tearing out walls and producing unnecessary waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some factors to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Building style:**&#xD;&#xA;Are you building a new home or simply upgrading an existing house? It simply isn't practical to re-do an existing home with straw-bale walls, but you can easily fill an attic with fiberglass, cellulose, denim, or other loose insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing from that, the type of building material used is also a major factor. You can't put loose-fill cellulose in a poured concrete wall, but you can use insulating concrete forms or foam boards. Wood houses have a lot of cavities that make blown-in insulation an attractive option, especially for retrofits. Filling empty cavities with cellulose or fiberglass is a fairly non-invasive strategy for wood structures as it only requires you to drill holes in the wall then plug them again. But if you are already re-siding the house, foam boards under the new siding might be an attractive option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sunlight damages most insulating foams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Climate:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Humidity can damage many types of insulation, and your choice of insulation will affect (or depend on) your strategies for dealing with moisture produced in the home or entering from outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pests:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mice are happy to nest in fiberglass, as reported on the DIY/Home Improvement SE. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainable materials:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Straw bale construction works well if you can find a contractor in your area familiar with it or if you have the skills to do it yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wool insulation (mentioned in the question) is sustainable if wool is produced in excess near the house in question. If you would have to make special arrangements to have it shipped from a far away place, you should consider other options." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="990" RevisionGUID="68298379-6ce3-47c3-992e-005bb806072d" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:29:32.260" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited title" Text="Here where I live a worker who used to sell some soft snacks like bread etc. uses newspaper to wrap and pack the snacks. I have read that the ink of the letters typed in the newspaper may mix with the food and that may be harmful. I even told them not to use it but they replied that that newspapers are cheap to use as wrapper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a cheap and sustainable alternative for wrapping snacks?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3026" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="990" RevisionGUID="68298379-6ce3-47c3-992e-005bb806072d" CreationDate="2013-06-03T20:29:32.260" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 39 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is there a cheap, sustainable alternative to newspapers for wrapping food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="995" RevisionGUID="d531da5a-f755-4b09-b5bd-9de8be749c03" CreationDate="2013-06-04T02:45:24.423" UserId="125" Text="Sustainable Living Stack Exchange is for folks dedicated to a lifestyle that can be maintained indefinitely without depleting available resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for $SiteName, it may be on topic for &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/sites&quot;&gt;another Stack Exchange site&lt;/a&gt;. If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="996" RevisionGUID="a5049c7a-c940-4e99-81b9-3e341a1971aa" CreationDate="2013-06-04T05:29:54.927" UserId="590" Text="Look up dew ponds and air wells.  These use the difference in air temperature to pull water from the atmosphere.  They are very location-dependent, and I've never seen them, but they have been used for thousands of years.  I imagine in most parts of the world, they are not sufficient for anything more than producing drinking water, but not agriculture or clothes washing, which take up a lot of water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="997" RevisionGUID="f92da0e9-79b0-4b49-879b-7e77882900cc" CreationDate="2013-06-04T08:36:23.883" UserId="15" Text="In New Zealand, deep fried fish and chips are a very popular takeaway food, and an icon of NZ culture. The normal way to package them is in a single sheet of blank newsprint paper with newspaper wrapped around the outside for extra strength and insulation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper also helps excess moisture to breathe (often helped by a few holes punched through the paper with a metal skewer) and soak up some of the fat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So perhaps a combination of (more expensive) blank newsprint and used newspaper might be an option, if one sheet of paper is not enough." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="993" RevisionGUID="cc202bd0-a938-4ea9-a10c-cbcb669be164" CreationDate="2013-06-04T12:44:17.063" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="As far as papers go newsprint is probably the most environmentally friendly paper there is.  It can be produced from a wide range of wood pulp, uses the least amount of chemical bleaches or agents to change the consistency or quality.  In the US over 90% of newsprint is created from recycled paper.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition repurposing a newspaper that is bound for the landfill is going to be much more sustainable than using a plastic or laminated paper container that many foods use.  I am sure there are more sustainable options but none of them are likely to be as convenient or easy to attain and use as an old newspaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That does not mean that the newspaper is safe.  Some inks used in printing are quite dangerous  to ingest.  It is not likely to be the most sanitary option either as it may have been handled by many people and thus contaminated by any bacteria on their hands.  It the newsprint was unprinted and freshly used it is likely as safe as any for wrapping food.  But the paper is very porous so any liquids it comes in contact with are liable to bleed through to your food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="ff0af040-d5ce-4f79-85e2-4e94ed35e36a" CreationDate="2013-06-04T13:14:16.857" UserId="234" Comment="added extra information" Text="Where I am living, there are a lot of sheep, hence enough wool to go around for everybody. I saw a show at some point stating that sheep wool is one of the best natural insulates for homes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true? What kind of treatment does it need to go through from the natural state to the final product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness reasons: a follow up question related to this one: [best insulation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also this one: [newspaper insulation][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/992/48&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/998/what-needs-to-be-done-to-reuse-newspapers-for-insulation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="998" RevisionGUID="5aa7ccb2-cf40-4fab-90cc-ca051326dfe1" CreationDate="2013-06-04T13:17:21.370" UserId="234" Text="I seen a couple of shows that were pointing newspaper as a very good insulator, that attracted my interest so I was wondering if any of you have any input on this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3033" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="998" RevisionGUID="5aa7ccb2-cf40-4fab-90cc-ca051326dfe1" CreationDate="2013-06-04T13:17:21.370" UserId="234" Text="What needs to be done to reuse newspapers for insulation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3034" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="998" RevisionGUID="5aa7ccb2-cf40-4fab-90cc-ca051326dfe1" CreationDate="2013-06-04T13:17:21.370" UserId="234" Text="|home|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="999" RevisionGUID="2d2986fb-7dc2-4581-9fa4-09de8c5bed23" CreationDate="2013-06-04T14:54:53.267" UserId="462" Text="If you really want to do it yourself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shred them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fireproof them.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Insulate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is extremely important to treat newsprint with fire-retardants before using them as insulation. Without treatment, newsprint stuffed into wall cavities or attics is a serious fire hazard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better option is to simply **purchase cellulose insulation**. It's made from recycled newspapers and is treated for proper fire resistance by the manufacturer. In my opinion, it's safer and more sustainable to confine the chemical treatments to a factory rather than your personal garage, yard, or workshop." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="f4348404-aab1-475f-bcf5-d63ce6f66175" CreationDate="2013-06-04T16:13:46.473" UserId="462" Text="I live in a &quot;remote&quot; part of the USA, where it is prohibitively expensive to ship glass elsewhere for recycling. Because of the small population (the nearest city over 10k people is 110 miles away), recycling is a relatively new phenomenon here. Paper, cardboard, and some plastics are trucked to a larger city, but glass goes in the landfill because it is too expensive to transport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A friend and I recently purchased a tool for scoring glass bottles so they break evenly for use as drinking glasses or art, but that's only a small-scale solution. Glass recycling won't get off the ground here unless there is a way to use large volumes of glass in a way that either 1) is profitable or 2) generates significant savings. So how can large volumes of intact, crushed, or melted glass bottles and jars be made useful, or at least profitable, enough to be worth the cost of recycling in a small town? Are there any communities that have done this successfully?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: By &quot;large volumes&quot; I mean the amount of glass containers consumed in towns of under 10,000 people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="f4348404-aab1-475f-bcf5-d63ce6f66175" CreationDate="2013-06-04T16:13:46.473" UserId="462" Text="How can glass be recycled for local use in remote areas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="f4348404-aab1-475f-bcf5-d63ce6f66175" CreationDate="2013-06-04T16:13:46.473" UserId="462" Text="|recycling|waste|reuse|economics|localisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3039" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="c065bdfb-e79a-48a5-9fb5-9104b706a621" CreationDate="2013-06-04T20:00:40.403" UserId="462" Comment="edited title" Text="How can glass be recycled for local use in rural communities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="857abb06-5536-42b0-9ecc-1da807a86436" CreationDate="2013-06-04T22:47:23.297" UserId="462" Text="The absolute *most* sustainable heat sources are sunlight and waste heat from your body and the appliances you are already using. However, unless you have the resources to build to [passivhaus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house#Space_heating) standards, these won't be your primary heat sources in the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geothermal heat systems (not to be confused with ground source heat pumps) also take advantage of naturally-available heat, but they are only possible near certain geologic features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, the next most sustainable options are probably in-floor systems using solar-heated water and heat pumps (air-source and ground-source are the most common varieties). Solar water heat generally requires a back-up heat source in cloudy climates and at extreme latitudes, but it might be a good option for cold but sunny regions. Such systems typically require electric pumps to circulate the water through tubing in the floor. Heat pumps also run on electricity, so you can power them using clean sources, but even if you are using grid power from a coal-fired plant, heat pumps are more fuel-efficient than electric resistance heating or even many combustion heaters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3045" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="d6b44a49-1067-4acd-92f2-db0f3db2a891" CreationDate="2013-06-05T05:06:43.337" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|waste|reuse|localisation|glass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3046" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="d8f3ac86-0ace-427c-8aa7-f6827ee1125a" CreationDate="2013-06-05T10:59:44.870" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/342234275799777281" />
  <row Id="3047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1003" RevisionGUID="82083ac3-f9d1-49ea-865f-4d198ca5d1e2" CreationDate="2013-06-05T11:18:50.683" UserId="99" Text="This question is basically a follow-up question on something EnergyNumbers mentioned in [his answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/930/99) to [this now closed question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/928/99). He wrote that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  together, our impact (on fighting global warming) can be huge .... The main thing is to work out where your biggest personal impact is, and to start there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: how do I determine what my biggest personal impact is on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally I would need to calculate the carbon footprint of all products I buy and activities I do, but that doesn't really seem feasible. Or are there any tools or standard calculations that can help here? I know there are carbon footprint calculators and [ecological footprint calculators](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/91/99) freely available on the internet but AFAIK these only show you one single measure as end result. I haven’t been able to find a calculator that identifies a top 5 of worst activities I do or products I buy from a sustainability point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize this is a rather broad question and a lot of factors are probably involved. Perhaps an accurate answer will be too long to provide here. To narrow it down a bit more, my main interest is in tools, tips or starting points for researching my personal impact myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1003" RevisionGUID="82083ac3-f9d1-49ea-865f-4d198ca5d1e2" CreationDate="2013-06-05T11:18:50.683" UserId="99" Text="How do I determine what my biggest personal impact on global warming is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1003" RevisionGUID="82083ac3-f9d1-49ea-865f-4d198ca5d1e2" CreationDate="2013-06-05T11:18:50.683" UserId="99" Text="|carbon-footprint|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="bf78239e-96ea-4505-a053-5ddbd09ee63d" CreationDate="2013-06-05T14:25:51.447" UserId="462" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="The absolute *most* sustainable heat sources are sunlight and waste heat from your body and the appliances you are already using. However, unless you have the resources to build to [passivhaus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house#Space_heating) standards, these won't be your primary heat sources in the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geothermal heat systems (not to be confused with ground source heat pumps) also take advantage of naturally-available heat, but they are only possible near certain geologic features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, the next most sustainable options are probably in-floor systems using solar-heated water and heat pumps (air-source and ground-source are the most common varieties). Solar water heat generally requires a back-up heat source in cloudy climates and at extreme latitudes, but it might be a good option for cold but sunny regions. Such systems typically require electric pumps to circulate the water through tubing in the floor. Heat pumps also run on electricity, so you can power them using clean sources, but even if you are using grid power from a coal-fired plant, heat pumps are more fuel-efficient than electric resistance heating or even many combustion furnaces." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1002" RevisionGUID="3d9c809e-4d23-49b6-8e44-80007ca6cd56" CreationDate="2013-06-05T14:39:47.417" UserId="462" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="The absolute *most* sustainable heat sources are sunlight and waste heat from your body and the appliances you are already using. However, unless you have the resources to build to [passivhaus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house#Space_heating) standards, these won't be your primary heat sources in the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geothermal heat systems (not to be confused with ground source heat pumps) also take advantage of naturally-available heat, but they are only possible near certain geologic features.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, the next most sustainable options are probably in-floor systems using solar-heated water and heat pumps (air-source and ground-source are the most common varieties). Solar water heat generally requires a back-up heat source in cloudy climates and at extreme latitudes, but it might be a good option for cold but sunny regions. Such systems typically require electric pumps to circulate the water through tubing in the floor. Heat pumps also run on electricity, so you can power them using clean sources, but even if you are using grid power from a coal-fired plant, heat pumps are more fuel-efficient than electric resistance heating or even many combustion furnaces[1]. While high-efficiency furnaces compete well with heat pumps for fuel efficiency, they can't take advantage of clean energy sources like the sun or wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Clarification: If 25% of the energy from the fuel makes it to your home as electricity, a heat pump with a coefficient of performance of just 2.5 will be more fuel efficient than a 70% efficient furnace in perfect condition. A COP of 3 will compete with or beat an 80% efficient furnace with a duct system for fuel efficiency. This doesn't account for differences in fuel (coal vs. fuel oil or natural gas), but it also assumes that the furnace is operating at its rated efficiency which is often not true." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="2391b042-f728-498c-81ab-9d82e2c826a9" CreationDate="2013-06-05T20:50:48.737" UserId="28" Text="Where I live, there's an open air market that produces a huge amount of excess cardboard everyday.  The cardboard is pressed into bundles - making large bales of pressed cardboard.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at it, I'm reminded of straw bales, and I'm wondering if these pressed cardboard bales can be used to build in a way similar to straw bales.  Is this reasonable?  What would I look our for in implementing this idea? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="2391b042-f728-498c-81ab-9d82e2c826a9" CreationDate="2013-06-05T20:50:48.737" UserId="28" Text="Can bales of cardboard be used as a building material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="2391b042-f728-498c-81ab-9d82e2c826a9" CreationDate="2013-06-05T20:50:48.737" UserId="28" Text="|building-materials|cardboard|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="372f7683-8d2b-4953-8b12-d2c815d1c919" CreationDate="2013-06-05T22:08:21.503" UserId="486" Text="I share your frustration with some of the online &quot;carbon footprint&quot; calculators, but if you really care about analyzing the components of your impact, you can still get useful information out of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I think a disclaimer is necessary.  Any such calculation is going to have to make quite a few assumptions.  Some assumptions may lead to slightly skewed results in individual cases, but averaged over all cases, they do a reasonable job.  In general, it's still a better way to estimate your impact than it would be to simply rely on **intuition**, which sadly is what most people (even the eco-sensitive among us) do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it's important not to make the *perfect* the enemy of the *good*.  We in the developed world probably need to reduce our carbon footprints by about 80% (or 90% in places like the US, Canada and Australia), so it's better to start cutting now, where you can, than to wait for the perfect data to guide you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Online Calculators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, here's a [list of some online carbon footprint calculators](http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/the-15-best-carbon-calculators) (US-biased, I should note).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the US Environmental Protection Agency's calculator, they actually let you [download the spreadsheet containing their math, directly](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/GHGCalculator.xls).  You can use that to hone in on your family's problem areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This nature.org calculator](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) does actually produce a pie chart at the end of your input, showing relative contributions to your carbon footprint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M6NWB.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Typical Scenarios&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think using a **combination** of online carbon footprint calculators is the best bet to get a pretty good feeling for where you contribute the most to global warming.  But, for many people, these tend to be problem areas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Food** - what type of diet do you have?  Meat, then poultry and fish, and then fruits and veggies tend to have the biggest impacts on greenhouse gas emissions (not just carbon, but methane from agriculture is a big problem, especially in the &quot;short&quot; term of the next 100 years).  Note: *locality* tends to be an overrated aspect of your food's impact, as transportation is a fairly small part of the energy required to produce food (it does matter, but not as much as choice of food types).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Heating** - how do you heat or cool your home?  Homes like apartments or condos are fundamentally easier to keep at a constant temperature, both because they tend to be smaller, and because each unit doesn't have 5 sides that are exposed to the outside air.  Are you using a relatively efficient technology like a heat pump, or an inefficient one like electric baseboard heating?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Local Transport** - do you drive, or take the bus/walk?  If you drive, do you drive electric (most efficient, and best for GHG if you buy green energy), use biodiesel (not as thermodynamically *efficient*, but most of the carbon released was already in the air), drive a hybrid, a petro-diesel or gasoline car?  *For the most part*, that's the order of least to most impact on global warming (with each general technology having a range depending on many factors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Flying** - airline travel is horrible for climate change.  Not only does it consume massive quantities of fossil fuels in a short period of time, but it's going to be much more difficult to *green* commercial aviation than it is to *green* automobiles, because power-to-weight ratio is so critical in airplanes.  There isn't a huge difference in impact between flying and driving to the same remote destination, but the choice really is whether to take those long trips at all.  If you fly, especially across oceans (e.g. regularly for business or vacations), your *raw* carbon footprint will be large, no matter what else you do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **General Consumption** - do you buy a lot of *stuff*?  Toys for kids.  New tools for your home or garden.  New appliances with more features.  Big TVs.  New clothes when old ones are out of style.  Everything we buy takes energy to make.  When we throw it away (or even recycle it), it causes more energy to be used, and greenhouse gases to be produced (e.g. trash decomposing in landfills).  Getting into the mindset of buying only what you **need**, not just what you want, and keeping things you buy for a long time (or fixing them when they break), can reduce your impact substantially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Children** - this isn't going to make people happy, as it's a taboo subject, but the number of children you have has a huge impact on climate change.  It's important not to get lured into the trap of considering only *per capita* carbon footprints, because the environment knows nothing about the number of people ... only the total amount of greenhouse gas we produce.  More people mean more emissions, and at 7 billion and counting, it's simply no longer a reasonable argument to contend that we need to produce 2+ children per couple to sustain the human race.  Parents also frequently fall into the trap of thinking that because they live an eco-friendly lifestyle, their children will, too, when grown.  Kids are influenced by their parents, but also by the society they live in.  Right now, their society is a profoundly negative influence in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Pets** - while this is another issue that ruffles peoples' feathers, choosing to keep pets is a significant part of many families' impacts.  It certainly depends on the animal, its size, and activity level.  But, a large dog can easily produce as much greenhouse gas in a year (mostly due to the fact that it probably consumes a meat-intensive, high-calorie diet) as an SUV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to add some supporting links to this list, as each of the items I mentioned as common *problem* areas could easily be its own topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="570cd876-95c1-409c-ac7d-d810a773c89d" CreationDate="2013-06-05T22:19:54.547" UserId="486" Comment="links to sources" Text="I share your frustration with some of the online &quot;carbon footprint&quot; calculators, but if you really care about analyzing the components of your impact, you can still get useful information out of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I think a disclaimer is necessary.  Any such calculation is going to have to make quite a few assumptions.  Some assumptions may lead to slightly skewed results in individual cases, but averaged over all cases, they do a reasonable job.  In general, it's still a better way to estimate your impact than it would be to simply rely on **intuition**, which sadly is what most people (even the eco-sensitive among us) do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it's important not to make the *perfect* the enemy of the *good*.  We in the developed world probably need to [reduce our carbon footprints by about 80%](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-3.html) (or 90% in places like the [US, Canada and Australia](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/graph-showing-each-countrys.html)), so it's better to start cutting now, where you can, than to wait for the perfect data to guide you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Online Calculators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, here's a [list of some online carbon footprint calculators](http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/the-15-best-carbon-calculators) (US-biased, I should note).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the US Environmental Protection Agency's calculator, they actually let you [download the spreadsheet containing their math, directly](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/GHGCalculator.xls).  You can use that to hone in on your family's problem areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This nature.org calculator](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) does actually produce a pie chart at the end of your input, showing relative contributions to your carbon footprint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M6NWB.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Typical Scenarios&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think using a **combination** of online carbon footprint calculators is the best bet to get a pretty good feeling for where you contribute the most to global warming.  But, for many people, these tend to be problem areas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Food** - what type of diet do you have?  Meat, then poultry and fish, and then fruits and veggies tend to have the biggest impacts on greenhouse gas emissions (not just carbon, but methane from agriculture is a big problem, especially in the &quot;short&quot; term of the next 100 years).  Note: *locality* tends to be an overrated aspect of your food's impact, as transportation is a fairly small part of the energy required to produce food (it does matter, [but not as much as choice of food types](http://psufoodscience.typepad.com/psu_food_science/files/es702969f.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Heating** - how do you heat or cool your home?  Homes like apartments or condos are fundamentally easier to keep at a constant temperature, both because they tend to be smaller, and because each unit doesn't have 5 sides that are exposed to the outside air.  Are you using a relatively efficient technology like a heat pump, or an inefficient one like electric baseboard heating?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Local Transport** - do you drive, or take the bus/walk?  If you drive, do you drive electric (most efficient, and best for GHG if you buy green energy), use biodiesel (not as thermodynamically *efficient*, but most of the carbon released was already in the air), drive a hybrid, a petro-diesel or gasoline car?  *For the most part*, that's the order of least to most impact on global warming (with each general technology having a range depending on many factors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Flying** - airline travel is horrible for climate change.  Not only does it consume massive quantities of fossil fuels in a short period of time, but it's going to be much more difficult to *green* commercial aviation than it is to *green* automobiles, because power-to-weight ratio is so critical in airplanes.  There isn't a huge difference in impact between flying and driving to the same remote destination, but the choice really is whether to take those long trips at all.  If you fly, especially across oceans (e.g. regularly for business or vacations), your *raw* carbon footprint will be large, no matter what else you do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **General Consumption** - do you buy a lot of *stuff*?  Toys for kids.  New tools for your home or garden.  New appliances with more features.  Big TVs.  New clothes when old ones are out of style.  Everything we buy takes energy to make.  When we throw it away (or even recycle it), it causes more energy to be used, and greenhouse gases to be produced (e.g. trash decomposing in landfills).  Getting into the mindset of buying only what you **need**, not just what you want, and keeping things you buy for a long time (or fixing them when they break), can reduce your impact substantially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Children** - this isn't going to make people happy, as it's a taboo subject, but the number of children you have has a huge impact on climate change.  It's important not to get lured into the trap of considering only *per capita* carbon footprints, because the environment knows nothing about the number of people ... only the total amount of greenhouse gas we produce.  More people mean more emissions, and at 7 billion and counting, it's simply no longer a reasonable argument to contend that we need to produce 2+ children per couple to sustain the human race.  Parents also frequently fall into the trap of thinking that because they live an eco-friendly lifestyle, their children will, too, when grown.  Kids are influenced by their parents, but also by the society they live in.  Right now, their society is a profoundly negative influence in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Pets** - while this is another issue that ruffles peoples' feathers, choosing to keep pets is a significant part of many families' impacts.  It certainly depends on the animal, its size, and activity level.  But, a large dog can easily produce as much greenhouse gas in a year (mostly due to the fact that it probably consumes a meat-intensive, high-calorie diet) as an SUV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to add some supporting links to this list, as each of the items I mentioned as common *problem* areas could easily be its own topic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="312e1a4d-bc57-45d1-be60-67fb9bf6af58" CreationDate="2013-06-05T22:32:46.423" UserId="486" Comment="links to sources" Text="I share your frustration with some of the online &quot;carbon footprint&quot; calculators, but if you really care about analyzing the components of your impact, you can still get useful information out of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I think a disclaimer is necessary.  Any such calculation is going to have to make quite a few assumptions.  Some assumptions may lead to slightly skewed results in individual cases, but averaged over all cases, they do a reasonable job.  In general, it's still a better way to estimate your impact than it would be to simply rely on **intuition**, which sadly is what most people (even the eco-sensitive among us) do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it's important not to make the *perfect* the enemy of the *good*.  We in the developed world probably need to [reduce our carbon footprints by about 80%](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-3.html) (or 90% in places like the [US, Canada and Australia](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/graph-showing-each-countrys.html)), so it's better to start cutting now, where you can, than to wait for the perfect data to guide you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Online Calculators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, here's a [list of some online carbon footprint calculators](http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/the-15-best-carbon-calculators) (US-biased, I should note).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the US Environmental Protection Agency's calculator, they actually let you [download the spreadsheet containing their math, directly](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/GHGCalculator.xls).  You can use that to hone in on your family's problem areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This nature.org calculator](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) does actually produce a pie chart at the end of your input, showing relative contributions to your carbon footprint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Typical Scenarios&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think using a **combination** of online carbon footprint calculators is the best bet to get a pretty good feeling for where you contribute the most to global warming.  But, for many people, these tend to be problem areas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Food** - what type of diet do you have?  [Meat, then poultry and fish,][2] and then fruits and veggies tend to have the biggest impacts on greenhouse gas emissions (not just carbon, but methane from agriculture is a big problem, especially in the &quot;short&quot; term of the next 100 years).  Note: *locality* tends to be an overrated aspect of your food's impact, as transportation is a fairly small part of the energy required to produce food (it does matter, [but not as much as choice of food types](http://psufoodscience.typepad.com/psu_food_science/files/es702969f.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Heating** - how do you heat (or cool) your home?  Homes like apartments or condos are fundamentally easier to keep at a constant temperature, both because they tend to be smaller, and because each unit doesn't have 5 sides that are exposed to the outside air.  Are you using a relatively efficient technology like a heat pump, or an inefficient one like electric baseboard heating?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Local Transport** - do you drive, or take the bus/walk?  If you drive, do you drive electric (most efficient, and best for GHG if you buy green energy), use biodiesel (not as thermodynamically *efficient*, but most of the carbon released was already in the air), drive a hybrid, a petro-diesel or gasoline car?  *For the most part*, that's the [order of least to most impact on global warming][3] (with each general technology having a range depending on many factors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Flying** - [airline travel][4] is horrible for climate change.  Not only does it consume massive quantities of fossil fuels in a short period of time, but it's going to be much more difficult to *green* commercial aviation than it is to *green* automobiles, because power-to-weight ratio is so critical in airplanes.  There isn't a huge difference in impact between flying and driving to the same remote destination, but the choice really is whether to take those long trips at all.  If you fly, especially across oceans (e.g. regularly for business or vacations), your *raw* carbon footprint will be large, no matter what else you do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **General Consumption** - do you buy a lot of *stuff*?  Toys for kids.  New tools for your home or garden.  New appliances with more features.  Big TVs.  New clothes when old ones are out of style.  Everything we buy takes energy to make.  When we throw it away (or even recycle it), it causes more energy to be used, and greenhouse gases to be produced (e.g. trash decomposing in landfills).  Getting into the mindset of buying only what you **need**, not just what you want, and keeping things you buy for a long time (or fixing them when they break), can reduce your impact substantially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Children** - this isn't going to make people happy, as it's a taboo subject, but the number of children you have has a huge impact on climate change.  It's important not to get lured into the trap of considering only *per capita* carbon footprints, because the environment knows nothing about the number of people ... only the total amount of greenhouse gas we produce.  More people mean more emissions, and at 7 billion and counting, it's simply no longer a reasonable argument to contend that we need to produce 2+ children per couple to sustain the human race.  Parents also frequently fall into the trap of thinking that because they live an eco-friendly lifestyle, their children will, too, when grown.  Kids are influenced by their parents, but also by the society they live in.  Right now, their society is a profoundly negative influence in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Pets** - while this is another issue that ruffles peoples' feathers, choosing to keep pets is a significant part of many families' impacts.  It certainly depends on the animal, its size, and activity level.  But, a large dog can easily produce as much greenhouse gas in a year (mostly due to the fact that it probably consumes a meat-intensive, high-calorie diet) [as an SUV][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to add some supporting links to this list, as each of the items I mentioned as common *problem* areas could easily be its own topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M6NWB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.zeroghg.com/flight_carbon_calculators.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://phys.org/news176582720.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="0b49cf73-1522-4851-8d6e-46a0f0af93ea" CreationDate="2013-06-05T22:48:04.560" UserId="486" Comment="more links" Text="I share your frustration with some of the online &quot;carbon footprint&quot; calculators, but if you really care about analyzing the components of your impact, you can still get useful information out of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I think a disclaimer is necessary.  Any such calculation is going to have to make quite a few assumptions.  Some assumptions may lead to slightly skewed results in individual cases, but averaged over all cases, they do a reasonable job.  In general, it's still a better way to estimate your impact than it would be to simply rely on **intuition**, which sadly is what most people (even the eco-sensitive among us) do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it's important not to make the *perfect* the enemy of the *good*.  We in the developed world probably need to [reduce our carbon footprints by about 80%](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-3.html) (or 90% in places like the [US, Canada and Australia](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/graph-showing-each-countrys.html)), so it's better to start cutting now, where you can, than to wait for the perfect data to guide you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Online Calculators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, here's a [list of some online carbon footprint calculators](http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/the-15-best-carbon-calculators) (US-biased, I should note).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the US Environmental Protection Agency's calculator, they actually let you [download the spreadsheet containing their math, directly](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/GHGCalculator.xls).  You can use that to hone in on your family's problem areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This nature.org calculator](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) does actually produce a pie chart at the end of your input, showing relative contributions to your carbon footprint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Typical Scenarios&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think using a **combination** of online carbon footprint calculators is the best bet to get a pretty good feeling for where you contribute the most to global warming.  But, for many people, these tend to be problem areas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Food** - what type of diet do you have?  [Meat, then poultry and fish,][2] and then fruits and veggies tend to have the biggest impacts on greenhouse gas emissions (not just carbon, but methane from agriculture is a big problem, especially in the &quot;short&quot; term of the next 100 years).  Note: *locality* tends to be an overrated aspect of your food's impact, as transportation is a fairly small part of the energy required to produce food (it does matter, [but not as much as choice of food types](http://psufoodscience.typepad.com/psu_food_science/files/es702969f.pdf)).  Do you waste food ([1/3 or more of food globally is wasted][3]), or eat more than your body really needs (pleasure eating)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Heating** - how do you heat (or cool) your home?  Homes like apartments or condos are fundamentally easier to keep at a constant temperature, both because they tend to be smaller, and because each unit doesn't have 5 sides that are exposed to the outside air.  Are you using a relatively efficient technology like a heat pump, or an inefficient one like electric baseboard heating? [Is your home well-insulated?][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Local Transport** - do you drive, or take the bus/walk?  If you drive, do you drive electric (most efficient, and best for GHG if you buy green energy), use biodiesel (not as thermodynamically *efficient*, but most of the carbon released was already in the air), drive a hybrid, a petro-diesel or gasoline car?  *For the most part*, that's the [order of least to most impact on global warming][4] (with each general technology having a range depending on many factors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Flying** - [airline travel][5] is horrible for climate change.  Not only does it consume massive quantities of fossil fuels in a short period of time, but it's going to be much more difficult to *green* commercial aviation than it is to *green* automobiles, because power-to-weight ratio is so critical in airplanes.  There isn't a huge difference in impact between flying and driving to the same remote destination, but the choice really is whether to take those long trips at all.  If you fly, especially across oceans (e.g. regularly for business or vacations), your *raw* carbon footprint will be large, no matter what else you do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **General Consumption** - do you buy a lot of *stuff*?  Toys for kids.  New tools for your home or garden.  New appliances with more features.  Big TVs.  New clothes when old ones are out of style.  Everything we buy takes energy to make.  When we throw it away (or even recycle it), it causes more energy to be used, and greenhouse gases to be produced (e.g. trash decomposing in landfills).  Getting into the mindset of buying only what you **need**, not just what you want, and keeping things you buy for a long time (or fixing them when they break), can reduce your impact substantially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Children** - this isn't going to make people happy, as it's a taboo subject, but the number of children you have has a huge impact on climate change.  It's important not to get lured into the trap of considering only *per capita* carbon footprints, because the environment knows nothing about the number of people ... only the total amount of greenhouse gas we produce.  More people mean more emissions, and at 7 billion and counting, it's simply no longer a reasonable argument to contend that we need to produce 2+ children per couple to sustain the human race.  Parents also frequently fall into the trap of thinking that because they live an eco-friendly lifestyle, their children will, too, when grown.  Kids are influenced by their parents, but also by the society they live in.  Right now, their society is a profoundly negative influence in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Pets** - while this is another issue that ruffles peoples' feathers, choosing to keep pets is a significant part of many families' impacts.  It certainly depends on the animal, its size, and activity level.  But, a large dog can easily produce as much greenhouse gas in a year (mostly due to the fact that it probably consumes a meat-intensive, high-calorie diet) [as an SUV][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to add some supporting links to this list, as each of the items I mentioned as common *problem* areas could easily be its own topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M6NWB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/pdf/Global_Food_Losses_and_Food_Waste.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.zeroghg.com/flight_carbon_calculators.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://phys.org/news176582720.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/882/486" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="6a61b98a-bd1f-4cbe-b769-72ee66a2e9ca" CreationDate="2013-06-05T22:53:41.510" UserId="486" Comment="better wording" Text="I share your frustration with some of the online &quot;carbon footprint&quot; calculators, but if you really care about analyzing the components of your impact, you can still get useful information out of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I think a disclaimer is necessary.  Any such calculation is going to have to make quite a few assumptions.  Some assumptions may lead to slightly skewed results in individual cases, but averaged over all cases, they do a reasonable job.  In general, it's still a better way to estimate your impact than it would be to simply rely on **intuition**, which sadly is what most people (even the eco-sensitive among us) do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it's important not to make the *perfect* the enemy of the *good*.  We in the developed world probably need to [reduce our carbon footprints by about 80%](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-3.html) (or 90% in places like the [US, Canada and Australia](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/graph-showing-each-countrys.html)), so it's better to start cutting now, where you can, than to wait for the perfect data to guide you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Online Calculators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, here's a [list of some online carbon footprint calculators](http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/the-15-best-carbon-calculators) (US-biased, I should note).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the US Environmental Protection Agency's calculator, they actually let you [download the spreadsheet containing their math, directly](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/GHGCalculator.xls).  You can use that to hone in on your family's problem areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This nature.org calculator](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) does actually produce a pie chart at the end of your input, showing relative contributions to your carbon footprint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Typical Scenarios&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think using a **combination** of online carbon footprint calculators is the best bet to get a pretty good feeling for where you contribute the most to global warming.  But, for many people, these tend to be problem areas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Food** - what type of diet do you have?  [Meat, then poultry and fish,][2] and then fruits and veggies tend to have the biggest impacts on greenhouse gas emissions (not just carbon, but methane from agriculture is a big problem, especially in the &quot;short&quot; term of the next 100 years).  Note: *locality* tends to be an overrated aspect of your food's impact, as transportation is a fairly small part of the energy required to produce food (it does matter, [but not as much as choice of food types](http://psufoodscience.typepad.com/psu_food_science/files/es702969f.pdf)).  Do you waste food ([1/3 or more of food globally is wasted][3]), or eat more than your body really needs (pleasure eating)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Heating** - how do you heat (or cool) your home?  Homes like apartments or condos are fundamentally easier to keep at a constant temperature, both because they tend to be smaller, and because each unit doesn't have 5 sides that are exposed to the outside air.  Are you using a relatively efficient technology like a heat pump, or an inefficient one like electric baseboard heating? [Is your home well-insulated?][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Local Transport** - do you drive, or take the bus/walk?  If you drive, do you drive electric (most efficient, and best for GHG if you use renewable electricity), use biodiesel (not as thermodynamically *efficient*, but most of the carbon released was already in the air), drive a hybrid, a petro-diesel or gasoline car?  *For the most part*, that's the [order of least to most impact on global warming][4] (with each general technology having a range depending on many factors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Flying** - [airline travel][5] is horrible for climate change.  Not only does it consume massive quantities of fossil fuels in a short period of time, but it's going to be much more difficult to *green* commercial aviation than it is to *green* automobiles, because power-to-weight ratio is so critical in airplanes.  There isn't a huge difference in impact between flying and driving to the same remote destination, but the choice really is whether to take those long trips at all.  If you fly, especially across oceans (e.g. regularly for business or vacations), your *raw* carbon footprint will be large, no matter what else you do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **General Consumption** - do you buy a lot of *stuff*?  Toys for kids.  New tools for your home or garden.  New appliances with more features.  Big TVs.  New clothes when old ones are out of style.  Everything we buy takes energy to make.  When we throw it away (or even recycle it), it causes more energy to be used, and greenhouse gases to be produced (e.g. trash decomposing in landfills).  Getting into the mindset of buying only what you **need**, not just what you want, and keeping things you buy for a long time (or fixing them when they break), can reduce your impact substantially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Children** - this isn't going to make people happy, as it's a taboo subject, but the number of children you have has a huge impact on climate change.  It's important not to get lured into the trap of considering only *per capita* carbon footprints, because the environment knows nothing about the number of people ... only the total amount of greenhouse gas we produce.  More people mean more emissions, and at 7 billion and counting, it's simply no longer a reasonable argument to contend that we need to produce 2+ children per couple to sustain the human race.  Parents also frequently fall into the trap of thinking that because they live an eco-friendly lifestyle, their children will, too, when grown.  Kids are influenced by their parents, but also by the society they live in.  Right now, their society is a profoundly negative influence in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Pets** - while this is another issue that ruffles peoples' feathers, choosing to keep pets is a significant part of many families' impacts.  It certainly depends on the animal, its size, and activity level.  But, a large dog can easily produce as much greenhouse gas in a year (mostly due to the fact that it probably consumes a meat-intensive, high-calorie diet) [as an SUV][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to add some supporting links to this list, as each of the items I mentioned as common *problem* areas could easily be its own topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M6NWB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/pdf/Global_Food_Losses_and_Food_Waste.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.zeroghg.com/flight_carbon_calculators.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://phys.org/news176582720.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/882/486" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3060" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1003" RevisionGUID="40970910-9030-4c2d-9704-5d4c6f660651" CreationDate="2013-06-05T22:59:56.403" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/342415520894705664" />
  <row Id="3061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="79646a3a-7b8e-43bd-883f-de3992e6134a" CreationDate="2013-06-06T00:04:05.330" UserId="486" Comment="some better wording, and a fly vs drive online calculator" Text="I share your frustration with some of the online &quot;carbon footprint&quot; calculators, but if you really care about analyzing the components of your impact, you can still get useful information out of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I think a disclaimer is necessary.  Any such calculation is going to have to make quite a few assumptions.  Some assumptions may lead to slightly skewed results in individual cases, but averaged over all cases, they do a reasonable job.  In general, it's still a better way to estimate your impact than it would be to simply rely on **intuition**, which sadly is what most people (even the eco-sensitive among us) do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it's important not to make the *perfect* the enemy of the *good*.  We in the developed world probably need to [reduce our carbon footprints by about 80%](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-3.html) (or 90% in places like the [US, Canada and Australia](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/graph-showing-each-countrys.html)), so it's better to start cutting now, where you can, than to wait for the perfect data to guide you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Online Calculators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, here's a [list of some online carbon footprint calculators](http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/the-15-best-carbon-calculators) (US-biased, I should note).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the US Environmental Protection Agency's calculator, they actually let you [download the spreadsheet containing their math, directly](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/GHGCalculator.xls).  You can use that to hone in on your family's problem areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This nature.org calculator](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) does actually produce a pie chart at the end of your input, showing relative contributions to your carbon footprint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Typical Scenarios&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think using a **combination** of online carbon footprint calculators is the best bet to get a pretty good feeling for where you contribute the most to global warming.  But, for many people, these tend to be problem areas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Food** - what type of diet do you have?  [Meat, then poultry and fish,][2] and then fruits and veggies tend to have the biggest impacts on greenhouse gas emissions (not just carbon, but methane from agriculture is a big problem, especially in the &quot;short&quot; term of the next 100 years).  Note: *locality* tends to be an overrated aspect of your food's impact, as transportation to market is a fairly small part of the energy required to produce food (it does matter, [but not as much as choice of food types](http://psufoodscience.typepad.com/psu_food_science/files/es702969f.pdf)).  Do you waste food ([1/3 or more of food globally is wasted][3]), or eat more than your body really needs (pleasure eating)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Heating** - how do you heat (or cool) your home?  Homes like apartments or condos are fundamentally easier than houses to keep at a constant temperature, both because they tend to be smaller, and because each unit doesn't have 5 sides that are exposed to the outside air.  Are you using a relatively efficient technology like a heat pump, or an inefficient one like electric baseboard heating? [Is your home well-insulated?][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Local Transport** - do you drive, or take the bus/walk?  If you drive, do you drive electric (most efficient, and best for GHG if you use renewable electricity), use biodiesel (not as thermodynamically *efficient*, but most of the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; released was already in the air), drive a hybrid, a petro-diesel or gasoline car?  *For the most part*, that's the [order of least to most impact on global warming][5] (with each general technology having a range depending on many factors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Flying** - [airline travel][6] is horrible for climate change.  Not only does it consume massive quantities of fossil fuels in a short period of time, but it's going to be much more difficult to *green* commercial aviation than it is to *green* automobiles, because power-to-weight ratio is so critical in airplanes.  [There isn't a huge difference in impact between flying and driving to the same remote destination][7], but the choice really is whether to take those long trips at all.  If you fly, especially across oceans (e.g. regularly for business or vacations), your *raw* carbon footprint will be large, no matter what else you do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **General Consumption** - do you buy a lot of *stuff*?  Toys for kids.  New tools for your home or garden.  New appliances with more features.  Big TVs.  New clothes when old ones are out of style.  Everything we buy takes energy to make.  When we throw it away (or even recycle it), it causes more energy to be used, and greenhouse gases to be produced (e.g. trash decomposing in landfills).  Getting into the mindset of buying only what you **need**, not just what you want, and keeping things you buy for a long time (or fixing them when they break), can reduce your impact substantially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Children** - this isn't going to make people happy, as it's a taboo subject, but the number of children you have has a huge impact on climate change.  It's important not to get lured into the trap of considering only *per capita* carbon footprints, because the environment knows nothing about the number of people ... only the total amount of greenhouse gas we produce.  More people mean more emissions, and at 7 billion and counting, it's simply no longer a reasonable argument to contend that we need to produce 2+ children per couple to sustain the human race.  Parents also frequently fall into the trap of thinking that because they live an eco-friendly lifestyle, their children will, too, when grown.  Kids are influenced by their parents, but also by the society they live in.  Right now, their society is a profoundly negative influence in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Pets** - while this is another issue that upsets people, choosing to keep pets is a significant part of many families' impacts.  It certainly depends on the animal, its size, and activity level.  But, a large dog can easily produce as much greenhouse gas in a year (mostly due to the fact that it probably consumes a meat-intensive, high-calorie diet) [as an SUV][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to add some supporting links to this list, as each of the items I mentioned as common *problem* areas could easily be its own topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M6NWB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/pdf/Global_Food_Losses_and_Food_Waste.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/882/486&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zeroghg.com/flight_carbon_calculators.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.befrugal.com/tools/fly-or-drive-calculator/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://phys.org/news176582720.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="3bf0bb08-3937-4d0e-b362-8111c1dd74ab" CreationDate="2013-06-06T00:09:12.090" UserId="486" Comment="some better wording, and a fly vs drive online calculator" Text="I share your frustration with some of the online &quot;carbon footprint&quot; calculators, but if you really care about analyzing the components of your impact, you can still get useful information out of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I think a disclaimer is necessary.  Any such calculation is going to have to make quite a few assumptions.  Some assumptions may lead to slightly skewed results in individual cases, but averaged over all cases, they do a reasonable job.  In general, it's still a better way to estimate your impact than it would be to simply rely on **intuition**, which sadly is what most people (even the eco-sensitive among us) do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it's important not to make the *perfect* the enemy of the *good*.  We in the developed world probably need to [reduce our carbon footprints by about 80%](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-3.html) (or 90% in places like the [US, Canada and Australia](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/graph-showing-each-countrys.html)), so it's better to start cutting now, where you can, than to wait for the perfect data to guide you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Online Calculators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, here's a [list of some online carbon footprint calculators](http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/the-15-best-carbon-calculators) (US-biased, I should note).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the US Environmental Protection Agency's calculator, they actually let you [download the spreadsheet containing their math, directly](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/GHGCalculator.xls).  You can use that to hone in on your family's problem areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This nature.org calculator](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) does actually produce a pie chart at the end of your input, showing relative contributions to your carbon footprint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Typical Scenarios&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think using a **combination** of online carbon footprint calculators is the best bet to get a pretty good feeling for where you contribute the most to global warming.  But, for many people, these tend to be problem areas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Food** - what type of diet do you have?  [Meat, then poultry and fish,][2] and then fruits and veggies tend to have the biggest impacts on greenhouse gas emissions (not just carbon, but methane from agriculture is a big problem, especially in the &quot;short&quot; term of the next 100 years).  Note: *locality* tends to be an overrated aspect of your food's impact, as transportation to market is a fairly small part of the energy required to produce food (it does matter, [but not as much as choice of food types](http://psufoodscience.typepad.com/psu_food_science/files/es702969f.pdf)).  Do you waste food ([1/3 or more of food globally is wasted][3]), or eat more than your body really needs (pleasure eating)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Heating** - how do you heat (or cool) your home?  Homes like apartments or condos are fundamentally easier than houses to keep at a constant temperature, both because they tend to be smaller, and because each unit doesn't have 5 sides that are exposed to the outside air.  Are you using a relatively efficient technology like a heat pump, or an inefficient one like electric baseboard heating? [Is your home well-insulated?][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Local Transport** - do you drive, or take the bus/walk?  If you drive, do you drive electric (most efficient, and best for GHG if you use renewable electricity), use biodiesel (not as thermodynamically *efficient*, but most of the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; released was already in the air), drive a hybrid, a petro-diesel or gasoline car?  *For the most part*, that's the [order of least to most impact on global warming][5] (with each general technology having a range depending on many factors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Flying** - [airline travel][6] is horrible for climate change.  Not only does it consume massive quantities of fossil fuels in a short period of time, but it's going to be much more difficult to *green* commercial aviation than it is to *green* automobiles, because power-to-weight ratio is so critical in airplanes.  [There isn't a huge difference in impact between flying and driving to the same remote destination][7], but the choice really is whether to take those long trips at all.  If you fly, especially across oceans (e.g. regularly for business or vacations), your *raw* carbon footprint will be large, no matter what else you do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **General Consumption** - do you buy a lot of *stuff*?  Toys for kids.  New tools for your home or garden.  New appliances with more features.  Big TVs.  New clothes when old ones are out of style.  Everything we buy takes energy to make.  When we throw it away (or even recycle it), it causes more energy to be used, and greenhouse gases to be produced (e.g. trash decomposing in landfills).  Getting into the mindset of buying only what you **need**, not just what you want, and keeping things you buy for a long time (or fixing them when they break), can reduce your impact substantially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Children** - this isn't going to make people happy, as it's a taboo subject, but the number of children you have has a huge impact on climate change.  It's important not to get lured into the trap of considering only *per capita* carbon footprints, because the environment knows nothing about the number of people ... only the total amount of greenhouse gas we produce.  More people mean more emissions, and at 7 billion and counting, it's simply no longer a reasonable argument to contend that we need to produce 2+ children per couple to sustain the human race.  Parents also frequently fall into the trap of thinking that because they live an eco-friendly lifestyle, their children will, too, when grown.  Kids are influenced by their parents, but also by the society they live in.  Right now, their society is a profoundly negative influence in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Pets** - while this is another issue that upsets people, choosing to keep pets is a significant part of many families' impacts.  It certainly depends on the animal, its size, and activity level.  But, a large dog can easily add as much greenhouse gas in a year (mostly due to the fact that it probably consumes a meat-intensive, high-calorie diet) [as an SUV][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to add some supporting links to this list, as each of the items I mentioned as common *problem* areas could easily be its own topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M6NWB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/pdf/Global_Food_Losses_and_Food_Waste.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/882/486&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.zeroghg.com/flight_carbon_calculators.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.befrugal.com/tools/fly-or-drive-calculator/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://phys.org/news176582720.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="93039b39-c0c0-4117-9916-91bd8f49b50f" CreationDate="2013-06-06T00:40:42.403" UserId="486" Comment="finished adding links" Text="I share your frustration with some of the online &quot;carbon footprint&quot; calculators, but if you really care about analyzing the components of your impact, you can still get useful information out of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I think a disclaimer is necessary.  Any such calculation is going to have to make quite a few assumptions.  Some assumptions may lead to slightly skewed results in individual cases, but averaged over all cases, they do a reasonable job.  In general, it's still a better way to estimate your impact than it would be to simply rely on **intuition**, which sadly is what most people (even the eco-sensitive among us) do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it's important not to make the *perfect* the enemy of the *good*.  We in the developed world probably need to [reduce our carbon footprints by about 80%](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-3.html) (or 90% in places like the [US, Canada and Australia](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/graph-showing-each-countrys.html)), so it's better to start cutting now, where you can, than to wait for the perfect data to guide you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Online Calculators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, here's a [list of some online carbon footprint calculators](http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/the-15-best-carbon-calculators) (US-biased, I should note).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the US Environmental Protection Agency's calculator, they actually let you [download the spreadsheet containing their math, directly](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/GHGCalculator.xls).  You can use that to hone in on your family's problem areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This nature.org calculator](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) does actually produce a pie chart at the end of your input, showing relative contributions to your carbon footprint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Typical Scenarios&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think using a **combination** of online carbon footprint calculators is the best bet to get a pretty good feeling for where you contribute the most to global warming.  But, for many people, these tend to be problem areas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Food** - what type of diet do you have?  [Meat, then poultry and fish,][2] and then fruits and veggies tend to have the biggest impacts on greenhouse gas emissions (not just carbon, but methane from agriculture is a big problem, especially in the &quot;short&quot; term of the next 100 years).  Note: *locality* tends to be an overrated aspect of your food's impact, as transportation to market is a fairly small part of the energy required to produce food (it does matter, [but not as much as choice of food types](http://psufoodscience.typepad.com/psu_food_science/files/es702969f.pdf)).  Do you waste food ([1/3 or more of food globally is wasted][3]), or eat more than your body really needs (pleasure eating)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Heating** - how do you heat (or cool) your home?  Homes like apartments or condos are fundamentally easier than houses to keep at a constant temperature, both because they tend to be smaller, and because each unit doesn't have 5 sides that are exposed to the outside air.  Are you using a relatively efficient technology like a heat pump, or a [less efficient one like electric baseboard heating][4]? [Is your home well-insulated?][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Local Transport** - do you drive, or take the bus/walk?  If you drive, do you drive electric (most efficient, and best for GHG if you use renewable electricity), use biodiesel (not as thermodynamically *efficient*, but most of the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; released was already in the air), drive a hybrid, a petro-diesel or gasoline car?  *For the most part*, that's the [order of least to most impact on global warming][6] (with each general technology having a range depending on many factors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Flying** - [airline travel][7] is horrible for climate change.  Not only does it consume massive quantities of fossil fuels in a short period of time, but it's going to be much more difficult to *green* commercial aviation than it is to *green* automobiles, because power-to-weight ratio is so critical in airplanes.  [There isn't a huge difference in impact between flying and driving to the same remote destination][8], but the choice really is whether to take those long trips at all.  If you fly, especially across oceans (e.g. regularly for business or vacations), your *raw* carbon footprint will be large, no matter what else you do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **General Consumption** - do you buy a lot of *stuff*?  Toys for kids.  New tools for your home or garden.  New appliances with more features.  Big TVs.  New clothes when old ones are out of style.  Everything we buy takes energy to make.  When we throw it away (or even recycle it), it causes more energy to be used, and greenhouse gases to be produced (e.g. [trash decomposing in landfills][9]).  Getting into the mindset of buying only what you **need**, not just what you want, and keeping things you buy for a long time (or fixing them when they break), can reduce your impact substantially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Children** - this isn't going to make people happy, as it's a taboo subject, but the number of children you have has a huge impact on climate change.  It's important not to get lured into the trap of considering only *per capita* carbon footprints, because the environment knows nothing about the number of people ... only the total amount of greenhouse gas we produce.  More people mean more emissions, and at 7 billion and counting, it's simply no longer a reasonable argument to contend that we need to produce 2+ children per couple to sustain the human race.  Parents also frequently fall into the trap of thinking that because they live an eco-friendly lifestyle, their children will, too, when grown.  Kids are influenced by their parents, but also by the society they live in.  Right now, their society is a profoundly negative influence in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Pets** - while this is another issue that upsets people, choosing to keep pets is a significant part of many families' impacts.  It certainly depends on the animal, its size, and activity level.  But, a large dog can easily add as much greenhouse gas in a year (mostly due to the fact that it probably consumes a meat-intensive, high-calorie diet) [as an SUV][10].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M6NWB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/pdf/Global_Food_Losses_and_Food_Waste.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/electric-resistance-heating&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/882/486&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.zeroghg.com/flight_carbon_calculators.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.befrugal.com/tools/fly-or-drive-calculator/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://phys.org/news176582720.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="b13810a8-1659-4527-82f5-ec8bf918bf6c" CreationDate="2013-06-06T04:00:10.947" UserId="486" Comment="added comment about electrical device use" Text="I share your frustration with some of the online &quot;carbon footprint&quot; calculators, but if you really care about analyzing the components of your impact, you can still get useful information out of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I think a disclaimer is necessary.  Any such calculation is going to have to make quite a few assumptions.  Some assumptions may lead to slightly skewed results in individual cases, but averaged over all cases, they do a reasonable job.  In general, it's still a better way to estimate your impact than it would be to simply rely on **intuition**, which sadly is what most people (even the eco-sensitive among us) do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it's important not to make the *perfect* the enemy of the *good*.  We in the developed world probably need to [reduce our carbon footprints by about 80%](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-3.html) (or 90% in places like the [US, Canada and Australia](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/graph-showing-each-countrys.html)), so it's better to start cutting now, where you can, than to wait for the perfect data to guide you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Online Calculators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, here's a [list of some online carbon footprint calculators](http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/the-15-best-carbon-calculators) (US-biased, I should note).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the US Environmental Protection Agency's calculator, they actually let you [download the spreadsheet containing their math, directly](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/GHGCalculator.xls).  You can use that to hone in on your family's problem areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This nature.org calculator](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) does actually produce a pie chart at the end of your input, showing relative contributions to your carbon footprint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Typical Scenarios&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think using a **combination** of online carbon footprint calculators is the best bet to get a pretty good feeling for where you contribute the most to global warming.  But, for many people, these tend to be problem areas (with links for further reading):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Food** - what type of diet do you have?  [Meat, then poultry and fish,][2] and then fruits and veggies tend to have the biggest impacts on greenhouse gas emissions (not just carbon, but methane from agriculture is a big problem, especially in the &quot;short&quot; term of the next 100 years).  Note: *locality* tends to be an overrated aspect of your food's impact, as transportation to market is a fairly small part of the energy required to produce food (it does matter, [but not as much as choice of food types](http://psufoodscience.typepad.com/psu_food_science/files/es702969f.pdf)).  Do you waste food ([1/3 or more of food globally is wasted][3]), or eat more than your body really needs (pleasure eating)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Heating** - how do you heat (or cool) your home?  Homes like apartments or condos are fundamentally easier than houses to keep at a constant temperature, both because they tend to be smaller, and because each unit doesn't have 5 sides that are exposed to the outside air.  Are you using a relatively efficient technology like a heat pump, or a [less efficient one like electric baseboard heating][4]? [Is your home well-insulated?][5]  Do you keep your home warm in the winter, rather than turning down the thermostat and adding more clothing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Local Transport** - do you drive, or take the bus/walk?  If you drive, do you drive electric (most efficient, and best for GHG if you use renewable electricity), use biodiesel (not as thermodynamically *efficient*, but most of the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; released was already in the air), drive a hybrid, a petro-diesel or gasoline car?  *For the most part*, that's the [order of least to most impact on global warming][6] (with each general technology having a range depending on many factors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Flying** - [airline travel][7] is horrible for climate change.  Not only does it consume massive quantities of fossil fuels in a short period of time, but it's going to be much more difficult to *green* commercial aviation than it is to *green* automobiles, because power-to-weight ratio is so critical in airplanes.  [There isn't a huge difference in impact between flying and driving to the same remote destination][8], but the choice really is whether to take those long trips at all.  If you fly, especially across oceans (e.g. regularly for business or vacations), your *raw* carbon footprint will be large, no matter what else you do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **General Consumption** - do you buy a lot of *stuff*?  Toys for kids.  New tools for your home or garden.  New appliances with more features.  Big TVs.  New clothes when old ones are out of style.  Everything we buy takes energy to make.  When we throw it away (or even recycle it), it causes more energy to be used, and greenhouse gases to be produced (e.g. [trash decomposing in landfills][9]).  Getting into the mindset of buying only what you **need**, not just what you want, and keeping things you buy for a long time (or fixing them when they break), can reduce your impact substantially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Reproduction** - this isn't going to make people happy, as it's a taboo subject, but the number of children you have has a huge impact on climate change.  It's important not to get lured into the trap of considering only *per capita* carbon footprints, because the environment knows nothing about the number of people ... only the total amount of greenhouse gas we produce.  More people mean more emissions, and at 7 billion and counting, it's simply no longer a reasonable argument to contend that we need to produce 2+ children per couple to sustain the human race.  Parents also frequently fall into the trap of thinking that because they live an eco-friendly lifestyle, their children will, too, when grown.  Kids are influenced by their parents, but also by the society they live in.  Right now, their society is a profoundly negative influence in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Pets** - while this is another issue that upsets people, choosing to keep pets is a significant part of many families' impacts.  It certainly depends on the animal, its size, and activity level.  But, a large dog can easily add as much greenhouse gas in a year (mostly due to the fact that it probably consumes a meat-intensive, high-calorie diet) [as an SUV][10].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Home Electricity** (non-HVAC) - I'm going to gloss over this one, both because it's comprised of many small contributors and because I think many who read this will already have taken *obvious* steps, like [using energy-efficient lighting][11].  I think the other issues are more likely to make it into your top 5 list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M6NWB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/pdf/Global_Food_Losses_and_Food_Waste.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/electric-resistance-heating&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/882/486&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.zeroghg.com/flight_carbon_calculators.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.befrugal.com/tools/fly-or-drive-calculator/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://phys.org/news176582720.html&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/343/486" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1006" RevisionGUID="4a620aa6-bd7b-4db6-84fd-e71e7e05e92a" CreationDate="2013-06-06T05:32:14.583" UserId="594" Text="Nothing will beat doing an **audit**, particularly once you have made progress on the really obvious stuff shown by generic calculators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My wife compiled a [spreadsheet][1] of emissions embodied in many activities and products, with a ledger you can fill out as you go.  Measure everything you consume or dispose of for a period, then cut back to tracking unusual items and whatever you found was a big contributor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some data is location dependent (e.g. standard beef in NZ is grass fed but yours may not be) and all data contains a degree of approximation, so she provided extensive notes on sources.  Some of your measurements may also be estimates - we decided to just go with the council estimate for sewage volume.  :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The spreadsheet is provided under a Creative Commons license.  We would love feedback on how it works for other people.  For a contact form and more discussion of background see [this overly purple page][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~thescarletmanuka/carbon/Household%20Embodied%20CO2%20Audit_v2.0.xls&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~thescarletmanuka/carbon/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3066" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="938" RevisionGUID="3ce20b75-f6ae-4771-89ec-a01a1c912bcd" CreationDate="2013-06-06T09:11:07.900" UserId="486" Comment="edited tags" Text="|reuse|plastic-alternatives|plastic-bottles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3067" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="998" RevisionGUID="100ab6db-7512-4701-8893-c902c0248656" CreationDate="2013-06-06T09:14:55.293" UserId="486" Comment="edited tags" Text="|home|reuse|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3068" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1004" RevisionGUID="4c9189a8-5bff-465d-b491-8411031399f3" CreationDate="2013-06-06T10:59:56.597" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/342596714659708929" />
  <row Id="3069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1007" RevisionGUID="940fb6b7-b54f-421b-88dc-4772ea2f5ba7" CreationDate="2013-06-06T16:59:05.610" UserId="462" Text="In theory, it would be possible to build a house out of cardboard. But cardboard is probably more useful as a source of recycled fibers than as a construction material. Building a house out of cardboard would effectively take all of that cardboard out of the recycling loop in order to displace other materials such as wood and straw that can be produced sustainably but are not as easy to recycle. So I think in most cases it isn't a good sustainable building material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to build with the cardboard, for example if it isn't possible to recycle it in your area but you'd like to put it to good use, you'll need to protect it from fire and moisture. You'll probably need to use chemicals for fire protection, but the moisture issue probably just requires some attention to detail when installing vapor and moisture barriers during construction. If the cardboard gets wet, it will weaken and deteriorate, so water protection is very important. It will be nearly impossible to dry the interior of a &quot;solid&quot; cardboard wall if it gets wet. For practical questions about fireproofing and moisture protection, I recommend paying DIY Stack Exchange a quick visit. As far as cardboard's ability to support the weight of a house, I don't think there will be a problem--cardboard is an impressively sturdy material--but it might compress a little bit over time. A *carefully built* cardboard house could be durable and efficient, but you will probably need to get help from construction experts to achieve that goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A cardboard house is possible, but without clever engineering, it's probably not worth building. I strongly encourage you to engage in clever engineering. A durable, efficient cardboard house that beats wood, masonry, concrete, and straw bale in cost, efficient use of materials, and performance would be a truly wonderful invention. But I don't think a straw bale-style cardboard house will do that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="7e4c5abd-925c-44b9-bf1a-41031e9d78c5" CreationDate="2013-06-07T07:56:07.627" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, improved title, changed greenhouse-emissions tag to greenhouse-gas-emissions" Text="There are various schemes offering carbon offsets. What attributes would make such a scheme meaningful? That is, where would my additional money into the scheme lead to lower global emissions than without it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3071" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="7e4c5abd-925c-44b9-bf1a-41031e9d78c5" CreationDate="2013-06-07T07:56:07.627" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, improved title, changed greenhouse-emissions tag to greenhouse-gas-emissions" Text="Are there meaningful ways to offset greenhouse-gas emissions through carbon offset schemes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3072" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="7e4c5abd-925c-44b9-bf1a-41031e9d78c5" CreationDate="2013-06-07T07:56:07.627" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, improved title, changed greenhouse-emissions tag to greenhouse-gas-emissions" Text="|pollution|decarbonisation|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="b7d2f284-8300-4e8b-b4dc-84b0e13a01d4" CreationDate="2013-06-07T08:42:16.750" UserId="99" Comment="added more links to carbon footprint calculators" Text="A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor and ozone) that is produced directly and indirectly by a person, an organisation, an event or a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Direct emissions, also called primary footprint, come from sources directly controlled by the person(s) or activity in question, for example heating one's house. Indirect emissions or secondary footprint are emissions that are the consequence of a person(s) actions using sources owned or controlled by someone else, for example fuel that was for transport from the factory to the store for a product one has bought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The global average carbon footprint is approximately 4 tons of CO2-equivalent per person per year [[source]](http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_footprint) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the difference with [tag:ecological-footprint] that measures the total impact (so not only greenhouse gas emissions) of a person, organisation or activity on the Earth's ecosystems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online carbon footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Personal/Household*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbonfootprint.com](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator1.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [Conservation International](http://www.conservation.org/act/live_green/carboncalc/Pages/default.aspx)&#xD;&#xA; - [EPA USA - Household Carbon Footprint Calculator](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/ind-calculator.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [Berkeley University - CoolClimate Carbon Footprint Calculator](http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/carboncalculator)&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbon Neutral Company](http://www.carbonneutralcalculator.com/householdcalculator.aspx)&#xD;&#xA; - [Earth Lab](https://www.earthlab.com/createprofile/reg.aspx) (requires registration)&#xD;&#xA; - [Nature Conservancy](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) (for US citizens)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Kids*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Cooltheworld.com - Kid's carbon calculator](http://www.cooltheworld.com/kidscarboncalculator.php)&#xD;&#xA; - [Meet the Greens - Zero footprint youth calculator](http://www.meetthegreens.org/features/carbon-calculator.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [ABC Television - Carbon Cops](http://www.abc.net.au/tv/carboncops/calculator.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Business*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Greenhouse Gas Protocols](http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools)&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbonfootprint.com](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/businesscalculator.aspx) (registration required)&#xD;&#xA; - [Energy Star Target Finder](https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=target_finder)&#xD;&#xA; - [Clean Air-Cool Planet - Campus Carbon Calculator](http://campuscarbon.com) (for schools in the US/Canada, registration required)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1008" RevisionGUID="5c022074-303f-4686-bc73-071d8c1147e1" CreationDate="2013-06-07T10:29:58.400" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1009" RevisionGUID="d350fab5-5ce3-4b14-8e4c-d227ebc8b5c4" CreationDate="2013-06-07T10:29:58.400" UserId="99" Text="the process of reducing or removing carbon dioxide (from energy sources)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3076" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="c7382dc7-86bf-479a-9a0c-8ed6773191eb" CreationDate="2013-06-07T10:42:47.267" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1010" RevisionGUID="8b9c9200-ec8a-4345-84f2-d3d2180e85bc" CreationDate="2013-06-07T15:19:20.143" UserId="462" Text="Not all LEDs are the same. [Standard LEDs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-emitting_diode) use various combinations of indium, gallium, arsenic, silicon, phosphorus, zinc, selenium, and a couple other elements. Most of these need to be mined from the earth. [Organic LEDs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED) sound at first like they might be better, but they are only organic in the sense of &quot;organic chemistry,&quot; not &quot;grown without pesticides.&quot; However, in addition to organic compounds they also use indium, tin, barium, calcium, and aluminum so mining is still necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any LED technologies that avoid depleting limited mineral resources either by using only abundant materials or by being fully recyclable? Failing that, are there any LED technologies that are clearly more sustainable to produce than the others in terms of resources and environmental impact? Or do all LEDs effectively have equal impact and only differ in performance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3078" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1010" RevisionGUID="8b9c9200-ec8a-4345-84f2-d3d2180e85bc" CreationDate="2013-06-07T15:19:20.143" UserId="462" Text="Sustainability of LED production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3079" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1010" RevisionGUID="8b9c9200-ec8a-4345-84f2-d3d2180e85bc" CreationDate="2013-06-07T15:19:20.143" UserId="462" Text="|light|life-cycle-analysis|manufacturing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3080" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1010" RevisionGUID="01b7da67-e182-4937-8523-524d63dda766" CreationDate="2013-06-07T19:59:56.970" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/343095000332136448" />
  <row Id="3082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1011" RevisionGUID="d9989aa1-0f7f-4eca-b326-a99bb71d485b" CreationDate="2013-06-07T22:12:57.660" UserId="486" Text="I think this is a great example of how *sustainability* really is multi-faceted.  LED lighting may be great from an energy consumption standpoint, and not as good with respect to finite material usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy Use vs Material Supply&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's important, however, to apply some *weighting* to the different factors.  I don't believe we're **yet** at a critical point with respect to rare earth material supply, but I believe we are already at a critical point with respect to climate change (primarily, that we have already passed the [350 ppm CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;][4] threshold that many climate scientists believe is necessary to preserve the climate that humans have flourished in).  So, in my opinion, it would be poor strategy to pass up energy-saving technologies in favor of technologies that save raw materials that we aren't running out of yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Light bulbs are unique devices, because they're small, but use lots of energy over their lifetimes.  Their relative material footprint isn't that big, compared to their energy footprint.  LED lights are expensive to produce, and use much more scarce material than incandescent bulbs, but they last for years (or decades).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LED lights are already the most energy efficient lighting solution available for most residential applications, and there is good reason to think [they'll soon pass compact fluorescents by a significant margin][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Short Term Supply Constraints&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is a report on GE's website about rare earth supply constraints][1].  It's important to note, however, that current price spikes in these materials are largely an *economic* phenomenon.  95% of these materials are currently supplied by China, because China's policy is heavily influenced by **engineers** who saw this trend coming.  [China is also imposing export quotas][2]. There are significant rare earth material reserves in the [US (e.g. Nevada) and Australia][3], but the higher cost of labor here/there hasn't yet convinced those countries' companies or governments to ramp up production.  It also takes years to bring new mines online.  So, I would expect in the future, as climate problems worsen, and China's economy surpasses that of the US, this **supply** limitation will ease.  Whether it will ease enough to satisfy increased **demand** requires a crystal ball (also a rare earth material).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another issue sometimes brought up is *recylability*.  It's important not to assume that because a material isn't currently recycled, it's not recyclable.  This assumption is [made repeatedly with electric car batteries][6].  Until products like LED lights are getting disposed of in large numbers, economic factors limit the opportunities for recycling them.  That's not a long-term problem though, if LED lights (and other rare earth applications) catch on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Long Term&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that the theoretical potential for renewable energy is enormous.  Just between solar and wind power, there is thousands of times more energy hitting the earth than we need.  We're just not harvesting much of that power now, in favor of harvesting ten million year old sunlight in the form of fossil fuels.  But, in the long term future, we may be able to (once again) use technologies that use more energy, if the energy is *renewable*.  At that point, we may decide to reduce, or reinvent LED lighting.  But for now, I think the large energy saving potential of LED lighting makes it a good *medium term* (0 - 50 years) sustainability choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/rare-earth-elements/downloads/GE_RareEarthPaper_7.20.11.pdf&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://ledsmagazine.com/features/8/2/7&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20021139-54/pay-dirt-why-rare-earth-metals-matter-to-tech-faq/&#xD;&#xA; [4]: http://350.org/en/understanding-350&#xD;&#xA; [5]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/887/486&#xD;&#xA; [6]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/612/486" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1011" RevisionGUID="3728c413-8469-4a23-b0e9-807f0ef09565" CreationDate="2013-06-07T22:37:34.517" UserId="486" Comment="one more link, better wording" Text="I think this is a great example of how *sustainability* really is multi-faceted.  LED lighting may be great from an energy consumption standpoint, and not as good with respect to finite material usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy Use vs Material Supply&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's important, however, to apply some *weighting* to the different factors.  I don't believe we're **yet** at a critical point with respect to rare earth material supply, but I believe we are already at a critical point with respect to climate change (primarily, that we have already passed the [350 ppm CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;][4] threshold that many climate scientists believe is necessary to preserve the climate that humans have flourished in).  So, in my opinion, it would be poor strategy to pass up energy-saving technologies in favor of technologies that save raw materials that we aren't running out of yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Light bulbs are unique devices, because they're small, but use lots of energy over their lifetimes.  Their relative material footprint isn't that big, compared to their energy footprint.  LED lights are expensive to produce, and use much more scarce material than incandescent bulbs, but they last for years (or decades).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LED lights are already the most energy efficient lighting solution available for most residential applications, and there is good reason to think [they'll soon pass compact fluorescents by a significant margin][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Short Term Supply Constraints&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is a report on GE's website about rare earth supply constraints][1].  It's important to note, however, that current price spikes in these materials are largely an *economic* phenomenon.  95% of these materials are currently supplied by China, because China's policy is heavily influenced by **engineers** who saw this trend coming.  [China is also imposing export quotas][2]. There are significant rare earth material reserves in the [US (e.g. Nevada) and Australia][3], but the higher cost of labor here/there hasn't yet convinced those countries' companies or governments to ramp up production.  It also takes years to bring new mines online.  So, I would expect in the future, as climate problems worsen, and China's economy surpasses that of the US, this **supply** limitation will ease.  Whether it will ease enough to satisfy increased **demand** requires a crystal ball (also a rare earth material).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another issue sometimes brought up is *recylability*.  It's important not to assume that because a material isn't currently recycled, it's not recyclable.  This assumption is [made repeatedly with electric car batteries][6].  Until products like LED lights are getting disposed of in large numbers, economic factors limit the opportunities for recycling them.  That's not a long-term problem though, if LED lights (and other rare earth applications) catch on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Long Term&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that the theoretical potential for renewable energy is enormous.  Just between solar and wind power, there is thousands of times more energy hitting the earth than we need ([and even the *harvestable* potential is much more than we need][7]).  We're just not harvesting much of it now, in favor of consuming ten million year old sunlight stored in fossil fuels.  But, in the long term future, we may be able to (once again) use technologies that use more energy, if the energy is *renewable*.  At that point, we may decide to reduce, or reinvent LED lighting.  But for now, I think the large energy saving potential of LED lighting makes it a good *medium term* (0 - 50 years) sustainability choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/rare-earth-elements/downloads/GE_RareEarthPaper_7.20.11.pdf&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://ledsmagazine.com/features/8/2/7&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20021139-54/pay-dirt-why-rare-earth-metals-matter-to-tech-faq/&#xD;&#xA; [4]: http://350.org/en/understanding-350&#xD;&#xA; [5]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/887/486&#xD;&#xA; [6]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/612/486&#xD;&#xA; [7]: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/27/10933.full?sid=0de8da4b-cff2-461f-a2de-e31dced9bda5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="95313f58-8023-438a-a246-1ea7ceb781d9" CreationDate="2013-06-08T07:53:58.067" UserId="486" Comment="grammar and spelling" Text="It's part of nature that the corpses of dead animals are recycled by other organisms. But a corpse degraded by bacteria releases many dangerous toxins, for example botulinum toxin, which can contaminate the water and be dangerous for people and other animals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note what happens to the corpse of the animal in the natural environment. Firstly, most of it is eaten by **scavengers**. The rest is eaten by **insects** and their **larvae**, and only a small portion of it actually decays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you want to dispose of a corpse in the most sustainable way, I'd consider feeding it to scavengers (they may be rare in your environment) or feed it to maggots, which would be eaten by other animals, whose fecal matter would fertilize the ground." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3085" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="983" RevisionGUID="95313f58-8023-438a-a246-1ea7ceb781d9" CreationDate="2013-06-08T07:53:58.067" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 48 edit id of 128" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="c293bb18-f62d-46cd-b967-f7fd92e6d939" CreationDate="2013-06-08T10:56:09.247" UserId="601" Text="I've got a 5v Peltier chip. What kind of and how many solar cells 4.5v 18mA do I need per 1 chip? I found these cells online on dealextreme, but there are also other different types. I'm lacking a basic knowledge in electronics, so I'd like to get an advise on how you make that math. Also if you can point to some quick online learning tutorial on that issue, it would be great. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="c293bb18-f62d-46cd-b967-f7fd92e6d939" CreationDate="2013-06-08T10:56:09.247" UserId="601" Text="Want to build a portable solar refrigerator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="c293bb18-f62d-46cd-b967-f7fd92e6d939" CreationDate="2013-06-08T10:56:09.247" UserId="601" Text="|energy|solar-power|building-materials|cooling|building|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3090" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="998" RevisionGUID="4dd29e69-87c9-4bfc-81d1-cf903ad96d00" CreationDate="2013-06-08T10:59:57.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/343321493108826112" />
  <row Id="3091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="0057bf13-00a1-431d-a4f1-8ea0915e0913" CreationDate="2013-06-08T18:28:51.770" UserId="601" Comment="added 461 characters in body" Text="I've got a 5v Peltier chip. What kind of and how many solar cells 4.5v 18mA do I need per 1 chip? I found these cells online on dealextreme, but there are also other different types. I'm lacking a basic knowledge in electronics, so I'd like to get an advise on how you make that math. Also if you can point to some quick online learning tutorial on that issue, it would be great. Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update.**&#xD;&#xA;Ok, I found online two links, [the video][1] is not very helpful because there is no explanation about what kind of solar cells and controller etc are needed, and the [second one][2] I'm going to read now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But please - if you are reading this - please add your valuable input!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.howcast.com/videos/470062-How-to-Make-a-Beer-Can-Cooler-that-Runs-on-Solar-Power&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thesurvivalistblog.net/dirt-cheap-fridge/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="841cce66-c352-4c7e-95b7-2ae9f0e6d3fd" CreationDate="2013-06-08T18:39:46.153" UserId="601" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="I've got a 5v Peltier chip. What kind of and how many solar cells 4.5v 18mA do I need per 1 chip? I found these cells online on dealextreme, but there are also other different types. I'm lacking a basic knowledge in electronics, so I'd like to get an advise on how you make that math. Also if you can point to some quick online learning tutorial on that issue, it would be great. Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update.**&#xD;&#xA;Ok, I found online two links, [the video][1] is not very helpful because there is no explanation about what kind of solar cells and controller etc are needed, and the [second one][2] where the guy doesn't describe much about the 'solar' part of his hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But please - if you are reading this - please add your valuable input!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.howcast.com/videos/470062-How-to-Make-a-Beer-Can-Cooler-that-Runs-on-Solar-Power&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thesurvivalistblog.net/dirt-cheap-fridge/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1013" RevisionGUID="c574afe3-6cc3-49cd-93d6-9888824da969" CreationDate="2013-06-08T19:27:23.420" UserId="48" Text="**As of May 2013, which solar-electric technology had the highest EROEI?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy Returned On (Energy) Invested, also known as EROI and as EROEI, has become something of a fashionable metric \*&lt;sup&gt;but see footnote&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is calculated by dividing the total energy delivered by the system throughout its whole lifetime, divided by the total energy required to build, operate, maintain (and ideally decommission) the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Within scope for this question:&#xD;&#xA;PV - photovoltaics, CPV - concentrating photovoltaics, and [CSP - Concentrated Solar-thermal Power driving a turbine][1] (pictured below), are in scope, along with anything I haven't heard of that converts sunlight into electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Out of scope:&#xD;&#xA;Attempts at doing it purely through prices do not answer the question: price is emphatically not a useful measure of total energy input, because the factors of production (land, capital, enterprise, labour) are not zero-cost, and because the ratio of energy to other inputs varies hugely by manufacturing technique and by product. So that approach is explicitly out of scope, because it's just plain wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar thermal (to deliver heat rather than electricity), and indirect solar generation such as wind and wave, are also out of scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to specific peer-reviewed energy studies where possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;\* footnote on EROEI: Whether or not EROEI has much significance is disputed:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;sub&gt; some tie the very existence of civilisation as we know it to society achieving some minimum arbitrary level;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;sub&gt;others consider that as long as a generation source has a value greater than one, then the economics matter, and the EROEI does not (except solely for its impact on the economics). IF EROEI is less than one, then it can still be useful: not as a generation source, but as a store or conversion of energy.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://solareis.anl.gov/guide/solar/csp/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/juNgV.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1013" RevisionGUID="c574afe3-6cc3-49cd-93d6-9888824da969" CreationDate="2013-06-08T19:27:23.420" UserId="48" Text="Which solar power technology has the highest energy return on investment (EROI aka EROEI)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1013" RevisionGUID="c574afe3-6cc3-49cd-93d6-9888824da969" CreationDate="2013-06-08T19:27:23.420" UserId="48" Text="|energy|electricity|solar-power|life-cycle-analysis|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3096" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1013" RevisionGUID="c1901cff-059c-49ee-a4e4-4854c5768ecc" CreationDate="2013-06-09T07:59:57.480" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/343638584034746369" />
  <row Id="3097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1014" RevisionGUID="2de7f0c4-43a2-4bd4-b031-fc44f23cc011" CreationDate="2013-06-09T10:30:24.920" UserId="15" Text="If I remember my high school tuition correctly, you need to put 4.5 volts through the chip and measure the current. 5 volts would be better if you can panels that provide it, as the chip will likely function more efficiently at its designed voltage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially what you are measuring is the resistance of the chip. This could be done with a multimeter, but I'm not going to assume that the resistance of such a chip is independent of voltage, so therefore I'm suggesting you're better to measure the current at 4.5 volts. Rigging up 3 fresh AA sized batteries could be an option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you know the current that flows through the chip at 4.5 volts, then you need to divide that value by 18mA if that's what your solar cells provide. Of course, when light on the cells is non-optimal (or when the cells have heated in the sun, which reduces their efficiency), the cells will give less than the desired current, so you may want to compensate for that with extra cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert though, so you may like to double check this on electronics.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1015" RevisionGUID="7a3444ea-20dd-49ff-b503-cbe6609b60af" CreationDate="2013-06-09T11:30:31.700" UserId="571" Text="Can any one suggest some of the Documentary videos like &#xD;&#xA;**Home**, **Story of stuff**, **Inconvenient Truth**&#xD;&#xA; which are to be Documented on the present issue &amp; state  of the Nature, Sustainable living &amp; also Worthily to find out the ways in form of solutions.?&#xD;&#xA;                                *Thanks for your's suggestion in advance.*&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1015" RevisionGUID="7a3444ea-20dd-49ff-b503-cbe6609b60af" CreationDate="2013-06-09T11:30:31.700" UserId="571" Text="Name of Good Documentary video's related to the sustainable living?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3100" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1015" RevisionGUID="7a3444ea-20dd-49ff-b503-cbe6609b60af" CreationDate="2013-06-09T11:30:31.700" UserId="571" Text="|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1014" RevisionGUID="4e047889-a5e3-47cb-9db4-9a0b1e9f6afa" CreationDate="2013-06-09T18:57:13.707" UserId="15" Comment="fixed typo" Text="If I remember my high school tuition correctly, you need to put 4.5 volts through the chip and measure the current. 5 volts would be better if you can get panels that provide it, as the chip will likely function more efficiently at its designed voltage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially what you are measuring is the resistance of the chip. This could be done with a multimeter, but I'm not going to assume that the resistance of such a chip is independent of voltage, so therefore I'm suggesting you're better to measure the current at 4.5 volts. Rigging up 3 fresh AA sized batteries could be an option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you know the current that flows through the chip at 4.5 volts, then you need to divide that value by 18mA if that's what your solar cells provide. Of course, when light on the cells is non-optimal (or when the cells have heated in the sun, which reduces their efficiency), the cells will give less than the desired current, so you may want to compensate for that with extra cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert though, so you may like to double check this on electronics.stackexchange.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1016" RevisionGUID="d9e0f3fb-5773-42f0-a60f-8126a1447b5d" CreationDate="2013-06-09T18:57:21.730" UserId="592" Text="I recommend that you research hemp, being both insulating and moisture-absorbing, as well as non-irritating, and sustainable on all different accounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some info from buydutchseeds.com:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;One of the very common uses of industrial hemp is for insulation in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; buildings…Hemp insulates better than many other materials, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cotton. It is a composite material, in which the hemp fibers are mixed&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with other materials to form a strong bond. Hemp has been known to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have a low U-value, that is, it allows a lower heat levels to pass&#xD;&#xA;&gt; through it. The lower the U-value, the better the insulator a material&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is. It has been proven that Hemp insulation has a U-value of .040,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which compares favorably to the U-value rate of 8-inches of insulation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of fiberglass…Hemp's R-value stands at about R-3.5 per inch of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thickness. The more the material limits the flow of heat through it,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the higher its R-value…Insulation made from hemp is a natural buffer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It helps regulate condensation levels without causing any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deterioration to thermal efficiency. This eliminates mold which is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; major challenge to timber frames. Timber has been known to rot and get&#xD;&#xA;&gt; distorted in shape when exposed to high moisture levels especially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; during storage…Hemp also allow buildings to “breathe”. This has the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fantastic benefit of preventing structural damage and potentially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; serious health issues as a result of poor air circulation.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a couple of links I can post per this forum's limits; other websites are hempcrete.ca, thehempbuilder, and many more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.hempcompany.ie/category-s/1823.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://greenspec.buildinggreen.com/blogs/hemcrete-hemp-lime-composite-insulation-walls&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="be633162-a4ee-4a4b-86dd-086009a9aeb9" CreationDate="2013-06-09T19:07:28.180" UserId="85" Text="I now live in a place with lots of sunlight (and lots of rain) and would like to use a solar cooker. I have seen a number of designs for solar cookers ([Wikipedia has a list](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cooker)), but I am wondering about which design to adopt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Priorities for me are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **usability**  &#xD;&#xA;We have a conventional (gas) stove, which we can use at will. Using the solar cooker can be a little more tedious, but boiling water should not be a one-day project.&#xD;&#xA;- **safety**  &#xD;&#xA;With children around, saving a bit of energy is nice, but not if there is a high risk of going blind. I have seen an experimental design with a satellite dish, where the experimenter ended up with a second degree burn.&#xD;&#xA;- **(sustainable) DIY design**  &#xD;&#xA;Preferably something rain-resistant (i.e. maybe not cardboard and aluminium foil) that can be built from materials available in non-specialist stores, which gives back the energy (and money) spent on materials in a reasonable time-frame." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="be633162-a4ee-4a4b-86dd-086009a9aeb9" CreationDate="2013-06-09T19:07:28.180" UserId="85" Text="Solar cooker design" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="be633162-a4ee-4a4b-86dd-086009a9aeb9" CreationDate="2013-06-09T19:07:28.180" UserId="85" Text="|solar-power|cooking|product-design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="f423ef20-f9cb-4ae5-8434-8c64497f0f80" CreationDate="2013-06-09T20:07:46.533" UserId="48" Text="What sort of cleaning regime should I have for a solar energy system, and do PV and solar-thermal panels need to be treated differently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="f423ef20-f9cb-4ae5-8434-8c64497f0f80" CreationDate="2013-06-09T20:07:46.533" UserId="48" Text="How do I keep my solar panels clean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="f423ef20-f9cb-4ae5-8434-8c64497f0f80" CreationDate="2013-06-09T20:07:46.533" UserId="48" Text="|solar-power|cleaning|photovoltaics|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3109" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1018" RevisionGUID="b973e14f-22b3-454b-a5c0-ddf60bbfa3eb" CreationDate="2013-06-10T02:00:07.327" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/343910415937466368" />
  <row Id="3110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1019" RevisionGUID="bfe45112-4dc7-4d47-bd75-07e93420f9b3" CreationDate="2013-06-10T07:14:55.290" UserId="96" Text="I only have one anecdote and avague idea:&#xD;&#xA; An agrarian schooling center (Haus Düsse) in Germany clean their PV System once a year, and clean/dirty means a difference of 10% effectiveness. However, as this is basically a small farm with lifestock, different grain treatments, lots of diesel vehicles etc. you would expect far more dust there than at a lot of other places. 3 years ago, they were starting to systematically analyze what's the most economic cleaning regime.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1020" RevisionGUID="38219bb6-7620-4c79-988a-66079b4f3703" CreationDate="2013-06-10T16:38:57.137" UserId="607" Text="Depending on the size of the animal, you can try hot composting it.  This should keep any toxins out of the water supply, while also giving you a good fertilizer.  The basic steps are start with lots of wood chips.  You want a base layer of at least 18 inches.  (Again it depends on the size of the animal, larger animals need a larger base.)  Add the animal and build the pile up in a conical shape.  You want at least 18 inches (more is better) of woody material all around the animal.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on what you're growing and what parts you are using (for instance, I deer hunt and eat most of the deer, but I do bury the bones in the garden).  Some plants need more calcium than others.  In the past, people used to plant animal skulls under apple trees to provide calcium for the plant.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="f356d991-8129-4a1b-8b7f-6618f4200a02" CreationDate="2013-06-10T19:58:56.117" UserId="608" Text="Aquaponics - The First 12 Months (2011)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1023" RevisionGUID="054361f4-bf9d-498e-adf8-a86fde4c9670" CreationDate="2013-06-10T21:58:53.327" UserId="303" Text="The easiest design I've ever seen was made from materials obtained from a &quot;Dollar&quot; store. It was a cone shaped design made from:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A windshield reflector&#xD;&#xA; - Velcro&#xD;&#xA; - A cooling rack&#xD;&#xA; - A black enamel pot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The windshield reflector was folded into a cone shape with the indention to fit around the rear view mirror forming the &quot;tip&quot; of the cone. Velcro was applied to the reflector to hold its shape. The &quot;tip&quot; was then bent flat and the reflector positioned so the concave inner part faced the sun. The rack was seated in the center of the reflector on top of the fold and the pot was placed on top of the rack. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the reflective surface of the cooker was flexible it could be adjusted easily to follow the sun throughout the day. It was easy to setup and tear down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's main drawback was that it was less efficient than a cooker with a glass lid to hold in heat. One of it's advantages was also a disadvantage. It's light weight and flexible reflector made it susceptible to wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I never saw anyone attempt to boil water in it but it was pretty good at baking muffins and cinnamon rolls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total material cost was around $5 US." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="53be0f70-367a-420e-9bc4-31e3c7e0b196" CreationDate="2013-06-10T22:02:35.867" UserId="462" Text="Solar PV panels are clearly more efficient at converting sunlight to electricity if they are mounted on racks that rotate to track the sun's apparent travel across the sky. However, tracking mounts are more expensive than static mounts and typically need to be installed on the ground rather than on a roof. Both active and passive tracking systems are available. Both seem to require more maintenance than static mounts because of the moving parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do tracking mounts improve the return-on-investment of a home solar PV system after installation and maintenance costs are factored in? If the answer is &quot;yes&quot; in some cases but &quot;no&quot; in others, under what conditions do tracking systems improve ROI?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="53be0f70-367a-420e-9bc4-31e3c7e0b196" CreationDate="2013-06-10T22:02:35.867" UserId="462" Text="Are tracking mounts cost-effective for home photovoltaic systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="53be0f70-367a-420e-9bc4-31e3c7e0b196" CreationDate="2013-06-10T22:02:35.867" UserId="462" Text="|energy|solar-power|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="c375078b-ed59-4832-908e-46fc7a292721" CreationDate="2013-06-10T22:03:53.943" UserId="608" Comment="added 234 characters in body" Text="Aquaponics - The First 12 Months (2011)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It details from start to finish (over 12 months) the cycling process and starting an aquaponics system.  There is a lot of good information and while I prefer fishless cycling it has some great tips if you want to start with fish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1025" RevisionGUID="c51821c1-a887-4979-a418-6e63ca8b93da" CreationDate="2013-06-11T01:10:19.067" UserId="486" Text="This isn't an *exhaustive* set, but I am a person who watches quite a few documentaries, and consider myself an advocate of more sustainable living.  Here are some that I've watched.  My personal ratings are listed (if they're in my Netflix history), as well as the start of my reviews, if I left one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Describing the Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[The Age of Stupid][1]** (5 of 5 stars):  For everyone who replies that **movies** like this are too one-sided, I have just one question for you ... When was the last time you saw an oil company commercial on TV that let climate scientists mention that the use of fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change and air pollution? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[GasHole][3]** (4 of 5 stars): Good film. Spoiler alert: this is largely about a conspiracy theory. I know that will turn a lot of people off, but you have to realize that if people automatically dismiss all conspiracy theories as false, then you have completely cleared the way for conspiracies to be carried out without limits (what's the phrase about the devil's greatest trick being convincing people that he didn't exist?) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Heat](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/)**: What companies and governments around the world think about tackling climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Poisoned Waters][14]:** An investigation into pollution of US waterways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Who Killed the Electric Car?][5]**: Why did electric cars stopped being produced by major automakers in the mid-2000s?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Food, Inc.][8]**: The environmental and health problems with the way food is produced in the developed world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Describing Solutions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[No Impact Man][9]** (5 of 5 stars): follow a man in New York City as he tries to live for one year with almost no negative environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Fuel][2]** (5 of 5 stars): This is a good layperson's introduction to biofuels. No more, no less. Its not a scientific documentary, so if you're craving proof, pick up a science journal. If you want to learn a bit about a subject that you have only been very casually acquainted with, then watch this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Revenge of the Electric Car][6]**: An examination of 3 automakers (Nissan/GM/Tesla) bringing electric cars to mass markets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Car of the Future][7]**: An entertaining look at emerging alternative fuel vehicle technologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Ones to Avoid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Cool It][4]** (1 of 5 stars): If you don't trust science, or are looking for excuses to not change any of your habits, you'll love this movie. A few facts: first, Lomborg's not a professor of environmental science. He's a political scientist. Half of the experts he interviewed were also not natural scientists, but economists. If you think economists did a good job foreseeing the financial crisis [in 2008], then I recommend you listen to them on climate science ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other Peoples' Opinions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Mother Nature Network's Top Environmental Movies and Documentaries][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Mother Nature Network's Top 10 Environmental Documentaries of 2009][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[TopDocumentaryFilms.com][15] (under **Environment**) - the good and the bad&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Best Overall Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I think PBS Frontline][12] consistently has the best overall documentaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I have to plug Netflix streaming][13], because there really are a lot of documentaries available to watch instantly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-Age-of-Stupid/70117903&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Fuel/70084130&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/GasHole/70119178&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Cool-It/70150999&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Who-Killed-the-Electric-Car/70052424&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/70184161&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Car-of-the-Future-Engineering-for-the-Environment/70098063&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Food-Inc./70108783&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/No-Impact-Man-The-Documentary/70112474&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.mnn.com/family/family-activities/stories/top-environmental-docs-and-movies&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/photos/top-10-environmental-documentaries-of-2009/inspiring-and-shocking&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.netflix.com&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/watch-online/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1025" RevisionGUID="3a6f3819-1fa5-4772-bbd6-d44c4126fd4c" CreationDate="2013-06-11T01:33:37.933" UserId="486" Comment="typos" Text="This isn't an *exhaustive* set, but I am a person who watches quite a few documentaries, and consider myself an advocate of more sustainable living.  Here are some that I've watched.  My personal ratings are listed (if they're in my Netflix history), as well as the start of my reviews, if I left one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Describing the Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[The Age of Stupid][1]** (5 of 5 stars):  For everyone who replies that **movies** like this are too one-sided, I have just one question for you ... When was the last time you saw an oil company commercial on TV that let climate scientists mention that the use of fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change and air pollution? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[GasHole][3]** (4 of 5 stars): Good film. Spoiler alert: this is largely about a conspiracy theory. I know that will turn a lot of people off, but you have to realize that if people automatically dismiss all conspiracy theories as false, then you have completely cleared the way for conspiracies to be carried out without limits (what's the phrase about the devil's greatest trick being convincing people that he didn't exist?) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Heat](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/)**: What companies and governments around the world think about tackling climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Poisoned Waters][14]:** An investigation into pollution of US waterways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Who Killed the Electric Car?][5]**: Why did electric cars stop being produced by major automakers in the mid-2000s?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Food, Inc.][8]**: The environmental and health problems with the way food is produced in the developed world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Describing Solutions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[No Impact Man][9]** (5 of 5 stars): Follow a man in New York City as he tries to live for one year with almost no negative environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Fuel][2]** (5 of 5 stars): This is a good layperson's introduction to biofuels. No more, no less. Its not a scientific documentary, so if you're craving proof, pick up a science journal. If you want to learn a bit about a subject that you have only been very casually acquainted with, then watch this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Revenge of the Electric Car][6]**: An examination of 3 automakers (Nissan/GM/Tesla) bringing electric cars to mass markets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Car of the Future][7]**: An entertaining look at emerging alternative fuel vehicle technologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Ones to Avoid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Cool It][4]** (1 of 5 stars): If you don't trust science, or are looking for excuses to not change any of your habits, you'll love this movie. A few facts: first, Lomborg's not a professor of environmental science. He's a political scientist. Half of the experts he interviewed were also not natural scientists, but economists. If you think economists did a good job foreseeing the financial crisis [in 2008], then I recommend you listen to them on climate science ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other Peoples' Opinions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Mother Nature Network's Top Environmental Movies and Documentaries][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Mother Nature Network's Top 10 Environmental Documentaries of 2009][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[TopDocumentaryFilms.com][15] (under **Environment**) - the good and the bad&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Best Overall Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I think PBS Frontline][12] consistently has the best overall documentaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I have to plug Netflix streaming][13], because there really are a lot of documentaries available to watch instantly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-Age-of-Stupid/70117903&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Fuel/70084130&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/GasHole/70119178&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Cool-It/70150999&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Who-Killed-the-Electric-Car/70052424&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/70184161&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Car-of-the-Future-Engineering-for-the-Environment/70098063&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Food-Inc./70108783&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/No-Impact-Man-The-Documentary/70112474&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.mnn.com/family/family-activities/stories/top-environmental-docs-and-movies&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/photos/top-10-environmental-documentaries-of-2009/inspiring-and-shocking&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.netflix.com&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/watch-online/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1015" RevisionGUID="feee7e65-37fd-4b8e-a33c-567c5fd191ab" CreationDate="2013-06-11T01:47:43.163" UserId="486" Comment="tried to clean up the grammar a bit" Text="Can anyone suggest some documentary videos like &#xD;&#xA;**Home**, **Story of Stuff**, or **Inconvenient Truth**&#xD;&#xA; which document the present issues with and state of Nature and Sustainable Living? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, also ones that help recommend **solutions**?&#xD;&#xA;                                &#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3129" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1015" RevisionGUID="feee7e65-37fd-4b8e-a33c-567c5fd191ab" CreationDate="2013-06-11T01:47:43.163" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 85 edit id of 129" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="bb4fb4db-96f8-4b06-a119-84e770f5070f" CreationDate="2013-06-11T03:42:56.987" UserId="48" Text="Does a building need a equator-facing roof to take advantage of Solar PV systems? That is, in the Northern hemisphere, do I need a south-facing roof? And, conversely, in the Southern hemisphere, do I need a north-facing roof?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the reduction in yield significant if the roof is 22&amp;deg; (SSW or SSE in the Northern hemisphere)  or &amp;45deg; (SW,SE in the Northern hemisphere) off optimal, and does it change the optimal tilt angle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3131" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="bb4fb4db-96f8-4b06-a119-84e770f5070f" CreationDate="2013-06-11T03:42:56.987" UserId="48" Text="Does a building need a equator-facing roof to take advantage of Solar PV systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3132" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="bb4fb4db-96f8-4b06-a119-84e770f5070f" CreationDate="2013-06-11T03:42:56.987" UserId="48" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="c7317b92-6117-47a9-bfd6-0a8fec5067e4" CreationDate="2013-06-11T07:41:50.210" UserId="486" Comment="fixed the degrees sign, and extra chars to meet minimum" Text="Does a building need a equator-facing roof to take advantage of Solar PV systems? That is, in the Northern hemisphere, do I need a south-facing roof? And, conversely, in the Southern hemisphere, do I need a north-facing roof?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the reduction in yield significant if the roof is 22&amp;deg; (SSW or SSE in the Northern hemisphere)  or 45&amp;deg; (SW or SE in the Northern hemisphere) off optimal, and does it change the optimal tilt angle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3134" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="c7317b92-6117-47a9-bfd6-0a8fec5067e4" CreationDate="2013-06-11T07:41:50.210" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 117 edit id of 130" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1027" RevisionGUID="812ad440-0d3b-4cc3-809d-4b3f01096685" CreationDate="2013-06-11T09:02:57.997" UserId="486" Text="##Short Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it **need** an equator-facing roof?  No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it *help* to face the equator?  Yes, but probably not as much as most people might think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Elaboration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar panels are surprisingly productive, even if they're not oriented optimally.  If your primary goal in installing home solar is a desire to produce renewable energy (for environmental reasons), almost any roof will do, **as long as it's not shaded by other buildings or trees**.  If your goal in installing home solar is purely to save money, then you may care more about the modest losses from suboptimally-oriented panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at a typical plot of solar panel output, as a function of roof orientation (e.g. relative to the equator), and panel tilt (relative to horizontal):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Source: http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-panel-tilt-and-orientation-in-australia/&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say your panels are tilted 30 degrees from horizontal.  The graph shows that you get 100% of the maximum energy production if you point the panels North (this is an Australian chart).  But, if you point the panels Northeast or Northwest, at the same tilt angle, you're still easily within the white area indicating 90+% of the maximum energy production of your panels!  And even pointing due East or West, the worst possible orientation &lt;sup&gt;(&amp;#8225;)&lt;/sup&gt;, you're still producing about 85% of the maximum.  That's only a 15% loss, with a *&quot;bad&quot;* roof orientation!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More Locations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's a table showing similar relative calculations at a variety of Latitudes](http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/tilt-angle3.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to get the precise number for your location on Earth, check out the [US NREL's PVWatt tool](http://gisatnrel.nrel.gov/PVWatts_Viewer/index.html). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Pick your location on the world map&#xD;&#xA; - Scroll down in the little popup window and select **Send to PVWatts**&#xD;&#xA; - Pick the **Array Tilt** (pitch) and **Array Azimuth** (direction roof points)&#xD;&#xA; - Press **Calculate** button&#xD;&#xA; - Record the total AC energy (kWh) for this combination&#xD;&#xA; - Go back and change the **Array Azimuth** for a different roof orientation, and see what the total AC energy is now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing this, you can compare the results for the direction (azimuth) your roof points, with the optimum (180&amp;deg; for Northern hemisphere, and 0&amp;deg; for Southern).  That will show more precisely *how much roof orientation matters*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, it's not that much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&amp;#8225;) &lt;sub&gt;Technically, East - West is not the worst roof face to pick.  You could, for example, pick a North-facing roof in the Northern hemisphere.  My friends in California claim that this is somewhat common, as some people will choose to place their solar panels on the side of the roof that faces the street, so they can show off their *green-ness*, rather than the side of the roof that's most efficient&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7QT4P.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1027" RevisionGUID="1e1beb40-6f94-4d5b-a943-df4490585ef1" CreationDate="2013-06-11T09:08:36.353" UserId="486" Comment="degrees" Text="##Short Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it **need** an equator-facing roof?  No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it *help* to face the equator?  Yes, but probably not as much as most people might think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Elaboration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar panels are surprisingly productive, even if they're not oriented optimally.  If your primary goal in installing home solar is a desire to produce renewable energy (for environmental reasons), almost any roof will do, **as long as it's not shaded by other buildings or trees**.  If your goal in installing home solar is purely to save money, then you may care more about the modest losses from suboptimally-oriented panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at a typical plot of solar panel output, as a function of roof orientation (e.g. relative to the equator), and panel tilt (relative to horizontal):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Source: http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-panel-tilt-and-orientation-in-australia/&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say your panels are tilted 32&amp;deg; from horizontal.  The graph shows that you get 100% of the maximum energy production if you point the panels North (this is an Australian chart).  But, if you point the panels Northeast or Northwest, at the same tilt angle, you're still easily within the white area indicating 90+% of the maximum energy production of your panels!  And even pointing due East or West, the worst possible orientation &lt;sup&gt;(&amp;#8225;)&lt;/sup&gt;, you're still producing about 85% of the maximum.  That's only a 15% loss, with a *&quot;bad&quot;* roof orientation!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More Locations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's a table showing similar relative calculations at a variety of Latitudes](http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/tilt-angle3.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to get the precise number for your location on Earth, check out the [US NREL's PVWatt tool](http://gisatnrel.nrel.gov/PVWatts_Viewer/index.html). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Pick your location on the world map&#xD;&#xA; - Scroll down in the little popup window and select **Send to PVWatts**&#xD;&#xA; - Pick the **Array Tilt** (pitch) and **Array Azimuth** (direction roof points)&#xD;&#xA; - Press **Calculate** button&#xD;&#xA; - Record the total AC energy (kWh) for this combination&#xD;&#xA; - Go back and change the **Array Azimuth** for a different roof orientation, and see what the total AC energy is now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing this, you can compare the results for the direction (azimuth) your roof points, with the optimum (180&amp;deg; for Northern hemisphere, and 0&amp;deg; for Southern).  That will show more precisely *how much roof orientation matters*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, it's not that much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&amp;#8225;) &lt;sub&gt;Technically, East - West is not the worst roof face to pick.  You could, for example, pick a North-facing roof in the Northern hemisphere.  My friends in California claim that this is somewhat common, as some people will choose to place their solar panels on the side of the roof that faces the street, so they can show off their *green-ness*, rather than the side of the roof that's most efficient&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7QT4P.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1027" RevisionGUID="d1a64fe5-a073-43b3-aada-00353a6a30df" CreationDate="2013-06-11T09:23:03.377" UserId="486" Comment="added word yearly to clarify which number you're focused on" Text="##Short Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it **need** an equator-facing roof?  No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it *help* to face the equator?  Yes, but probably not as much as most people might think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Elaboration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar panels are surprisingly productive, even if they're not oriented optimally.  If your primary goal in installing home solar is a desire to produce renewable energy (for environmental reasons), almost any roof will do, **as long as it's not shaded by other buildings or trees**.  If your goal in installing home solar is purely to save money, then you may care more about the modest losses from suboptimally-oriented panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at a typical plot of solar panel output, as a function of roof orientation (e.g. relative to the equator), and panel tilt (relative to horizontal):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Source: http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-panel-tilt-and-orientation-in-australia/&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say your panels are tilted 32&amp;deg; from horizontal.  The graph shows that you get 100% of the maximum energy production if you point the panels North (this is an Australian chart).  But, if you point the panels Northeast or Northwest, at the same tilt angle, you're still easily within the white area indicating 90+% of the maximum energy production of your panels!  And even pointing due East or West, the worst possible orientation &lt;sup&gt;(&amp;#8225;)&lt;/sup&gt;, you're still producing about 85% of the maximum.  That's only a 15% loss, with a *&quot;bad&quot;* roof orientation!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More Locations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's a table showing similar relative calculations at a variety of Latitudes](http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/tilt-angle3.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to get the precise number for your location on Earth, check out the [US NREL's PVWatt tool](http://gisatnrel.nrel.gov/PVWatts_Viewer/index.html). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Pick your location on the world map&#xD;&#xA; - Scroll down in the little popup window and select **Send to PVWatts**&#xD;&#xA; - Pick the **Array Tilt** (pitch) and **Array Azimuth** (direction roof points)&#xD;&#xA; - Press **Calculate** button&#xD;&#xA; - Record the total yearly AC energy (kWh) for this combination&#xD;&#xA; - Go back and change the **Array Azimuth** for a different roof orientation, and see what the total yearly AC energy is now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing this, you can compare the results for the direction (azimuth) your roof points, with the optimum (180&amp;deg; for Northern hemisphere, and 0&amp;deg; for Southern).  That will show more precisely *how much roof orientation matters*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, it's not that much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&amp;#8225;) &lt;sub&gt;Technically, East - West is not the worst roof face to pick.  You could, for example, pick a North-facing roof in the Northern hemisphere.  My friends in California claim that this is somewhat common, as some people will choose to place their solar panels on the side of the roof that faces the street, so they can show off their *green-ness*, rather than the side of the roof that's most efficient&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7QT4P.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1027" RevisionGUID="aeab06ee-8aec-45b0-ad8a-be8c92f67751" CreationDate="2013-06-11T10:05:34.167" UserId="486" Comment="added comment about tilt (missed that on first reading)" Text="##Short Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it **need** an equator-facing roof?  No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it *help* to face the equator?  Yes, but probably not as much as most people might think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Elaboration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar panels are surprisingly productive, even if they're not oriented optimally.  If your primary goal in installing home solar is a desire to produce renewable energy (for environmental reasons), almost any roof will do, **as long as it's not shaded by other buildings or trees**.  If your goal in installing home solar is purely to save money, then you may care more about the modest losses from suboptimally-oriented panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at a typical plot of solar panel output, as a function of roof orientation (e.g. relative to the equator), and panel tilt (relative to horizontal):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Source: http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-panel-tilt-and-orientation-in-australia/&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say your panels are tilted 32&amp;deg; from horizontal.  The graph shows that you get 100% of the maximum energy production if you point the panels North (this is an Australian chart).  But, if you point the panels Northeast or Northwest, at the same tilt angle, you're still easily within the white area indicating 90+% of the maximum energy production of your panels!  And even pointing due East or West, the worst possible orientation &lt;sup&gt;(&amp;#8225;)&lt;/sup&gt;, you're still producing about 85% of the maximum.  That's only a 15% loss, with a *&quot;bad&quot;* roof orientation!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Optimal Tilt Angle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look closely at the graph, you can also see that if you are pointed away from the equator, the optimal tilt angle also changes.  For example, on the above chart, if your roof points ENE (about 75&amp;deg;), then you'll get the highest output (90% of the max) with a tilt angle of less than 20&amp;deg;.  Pointing at the equator, the optimal tilt angle was about 32&amp;deg;. So, as your roof points away from the equator, a more shallow tilt angle (flat panel) works better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More Locations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's a table showing similar relative calculations at a variety of Latitudes](http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/tilt-angle3.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to get the precise number for your location on Earth, check out the [US NREL's PVWatt tool](http://gisatnrel.nrel.gov/PVWatts_Viewer/index.html). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Pick your location on the world map&#xD;&#xA; - Scroll down in the little popup window and select **Send to PVWatts**&#xD;&#xA; - Pick the **Array Tilt** (pitch) and **Array Azimuth** (direction roof points)&#xD;&#xA; - Press **Calculate** button&#xD;&#xA; - Record the total yearly AC energy (kWh) for this combination&#xD;&#xA; - Go back and change the **Array Azimuth** for a different roof orientation, and see what the total yearly AC energy is now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing this, you can compare the results for the direction (azimuth) your roof points, with the optimum (180&amp;deg; for Northern hemisphere, and 0&amp;deg; for Southern).  That will show more precisely *how much roof orientation matters*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, it's not that much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can perform the same comparison with **Array Tilt**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(&amp;#8225;) &lt;sub&gt;Technically, East - West is not the worst roof face to pick.  You could, for example, pick a North-facing roof in the Northern hemisphere.  My friends in California claim that this is somewhat common, as some people will choose to place their solar panels on the side of the roof that faces the street, so they can show off their *green-ness*, rather than the side of the roof that's most efficient&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7QT4P.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="1822a519-a18b-42cc-8479-8065b5f2a685" CreationDate="2013-06-11T10:27:15.840" UserId="15" Text="Organic (in the generally-from-an-organism sense of the word) waste can be difficult to dispose of from dwellings with no outdoor space for composting, and (in New Zealand, at least) it is not collected separately from general rubbish without incurring a substantial additional cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means apartment dwellers etc are left with the following choices for disposing of their organic waste:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Mix it in with the general non-recyclable waste&#xD;&#xA; 2. Pay extra for commercial collection&#xD;&#xA; 3. Use an under-sink waste disposal unit to pulverise the waste and dispose of it through the wastewater system, mixed with water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've commonly heard references to the problems caused by mixing it with general waste, which include leachate from landfills, high methane emissions, and odour problems prior to collection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To better understand the environmental impact of people's choices, I'm wondering if measurement has been done of the additional cost incurred by wastewater treatment plants in treatment of the additional waste in the system from the third option above.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both an economic cost and an environmental cost (such as a carbon footprint), would be useful to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth mentioning that other community options may also be a possibility in some cases, such as a local compost facility. This might be something we can all aspire to have in future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="1822a519-a18b-42cc-8479-8065b5f2a685" CreationDate="2013-06-11T10:27:15.840" UserId="15" Text="Additional load of using kitchen sink waste disposal units on municipal wastewater treatment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="1822a519-a18b-42cc-8479-8065b5f2a685" CreationDate="2013-06-11T10:27:15.840" UserId="15" Text="|ecological-footprint|waste-water|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="d1dd452a-b252-4306-a637-6dfb6f747e55" CreationDate="2013-06-11T10:51:10.180" UserId="15" Comment="edited body" Text="Organic (in the generally-from-an-organism sense of the word) waste can be difficult to dispose of from dwellings with no outdoor space for composting, and (in New Zealand, at least) it is not collected separately from general rubbish without incurring a substantial additional cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means apartment dwellers etc are left with the following choices for disposing of their organic waste:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Mix it in with the general non-recyclable waste&#xD;&#xA; 2. Pay extra for commercial collection&#xD;&#xA; 3. Use an under-sink waste disposal unit to pulverise the waste and dispose of it through the wastewater system, mixed with water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've commonly heard references to the problems caused by mixing it with general waste, which include leachate from landfills, high methane emissions, and odour problems prior to collection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To better understand the environmental impact of people's choices, I'm wondering if measurement has been done of the additional cost incurred by wastewater treatment plants in treatment of the additional waste in the system from the third option above.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both an economic cost and an environmental cost (such as a carbon footprint), would be useful to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth mentioning that other options may also be a possibility in some cases, such as a local community compost facility. This might be something we can all aspire to have in future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3144" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="446cc8fe-291d-4e1e-b8d4-4ac00c3b8f6e" CreationDate="2013-06-11T11:00:08.243" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/344408702348038144" />
  <row Id="3145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="1f5bfd3a-7070-49c2-8175-723e80cf781a" CreationDate="2013-06-11T14:39:08.520" UserId="462" Comment="added 437 characters in body" Text="Solar PV panels are clearly more efficient at converting sunlight to electricity if they are mounted on racks that rotate to track the sun's apparent travel across the sky. However, tracking mounts are more expensive than static mounts and typically need to be installed on the ground rather than on a roof. Both active and passive tracking systems are available. Both seem to require more maintenance than static mounts because of the moving parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do tracking mounts improve the return-on-investment of a home solar PV system after installation and maintenance costs are factored in? If the answer is &quot;yes&quot; in some cases but &quot;no&quot; in others, under what conditions do tracking systems improve ROI?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;After reading [this answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1027/462), I played with the [NREL tool](http://gisatnrel.nrel.gov/PVWatts_Viewer/index.html) Nate recommends for a couple of minutes and it looks like 1-axis tracking has more of an advantage over fixed arrays than 2-axis tracking has over 1-axis. So even if one is cost-effective, the other may not be depending on initial and ongoing costs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1029" RevisionGUID="e636c0bb-7f2c-4866-8471-85b035f2d7e1" CreationDate="2013-06-11T15:47:47.250" UserId="610" Text="&#xD;&#xA;**Food Industrial Farming Health**&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;[Forks Over Knives][1] - Tremendous film, also has a panel discussion (both on Netflix)&#xD;&#xA;[Dirt! The Movie][2] ** Very good, don't let the boring title fool you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567233/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1243971/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1030" RevisionGUID="19ad9577-e38f-4ac6-8cf9-e26f4037452e" CreationDate="2013-06-11T15:52:56.280" UserId="610" Text="I can't say that there is one and it would be more difficult to quantify than the specific ones such as Fairtrade or non-GMO.project&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your farmer's market is probably your best bet!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1030" RevisionGUID="2bb881af-e531-4b3e-9c68-b16727c64dd4" CreationDate="2013-06-11T16:02:03.727" UserId="610" Comment="added a couple more certifications, Bolded certs to look clearer" Text="I can't say that there is one and it would be more difficult to quantify than the specific ones such as **Fairtrade** or **non-GMO.project** &#xD;&#xA;There is **Certified Biodegradable** and **Rainforest Ecosystem Alliance** for 'Social responsibility' and for fish and seafood there are 'Low Contaminant Level' certifications by **Seafood Safe**, **Safe Harbor** and **Fishwise**.  Of course there is the **Not tested on Animals** certified label. I know these are all more focused than what you are asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your farmer's market is probably your best bet!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1030" RevisionGUID="26b45fff-2774-46c0-9ce7-c916cc09f1e9" CreationDate="2013-06-11T16:14:32.320" UserId="610" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="I can't say that there is one and it would be more difficult to quantify than the specific ones such as **Fairtrade** or **non-GMO.project** &#xD;&#xA;There is **Certified Biodegradable** and **Rainforest Ecosystem Alliance** for 'Social responsibility' and for fish and seafood there are 'Low Contaminant Level' certifications by **Seafood Safe**, **Safe Harbor** and **Fishwise**.  Of course there is the **Not tested on Animals** certified label. I know these are all more focused than what you are asking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your farmer's market is probably your best bet!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a good resource for ecolabels.  There are such labels that take into account the whole life cycle but they are optional and dependent on where you live.&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ecolabelindex.com/ecolabels/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3150" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="29261d0f-3c97-4fef-9431-e8a79abee3d3" CreationDate="2013-06-11T17:00:08.247" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/344499298970521601" />
  <row Id="3151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1031" RevisionGUID="a27b228e-503f-4d13-9531-e8e79cca1332" CreationDate="2013-06-11T17:12:23.780" UserId="610" Text="Working in Reuse I have heard the 5 R's Mantra:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Refuse**&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. Reduce&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. Reuse&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4. Recycle&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5. Rot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Recycling takes energy and it is a commodity so maybe #5 doesn't have a high demand right now; it could sit for a long time.  We always talked about **Rethink** and **Re-Purpose It** for if you can't Reuse the Tupperware for instance (yes I know who uses that anymore:-)  because the lid is warped or cracked then Rethink and Repurpose it. Maybe it is now your change container or crayons, or the random nuts, washers and screws laying around the garage.  Maybe you have a more creative mind and can repurpose it into art!  You are saving energy of hauling it as well as the recycling process!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, think about plastic bags and your food.  In plastics you have a whole bunch of nasty petrochemicals to make it flexible and we don't know which BPAs? Phthalates? No thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1032" RevisionGUID="cb1ccb05-54da-4d24-826c-14608ea8bfe2" CreationDate="2013-06-11T18:04:29.083" UserId="610" Text="**1** There is a work around for &quot;expired&quot; printer cartridges! Canon and HP printers and their cartridges use the same excuse for the owner to have to go out and buy new ones by a certain date. More than likely there is absolutely nothing wrong with the ink. Doing anything but using them would be a waste on many levels. It has been my experience that when I installed an unopened but expired (date is listed on the packaging) cartridge in either an HP or a Canon printer, it would recognize the date and refuse the cartridge (these companies seemingly think of everything). This sounds like what your printer is doing after limited use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Work around to use expired cartridges in your printer:** Your printer has a time and date which you can change on it's settings.  Simply the date back to before the expiration date of your cartridges.  This works with Canon and HP printers and more than likely any other Brand.  There it is, you have worked around it! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2**There are re-fill kits you can buy for your cartridge.  I have never tried this, it seems as though it could be messy if your not careful. There is a re-toner store that can be found all around (in the states) called cartridgeworld.com. This saves you money as it is at least 50% the cost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3** There is a program called PretonSaver Home Edition that saves your ink by decreasing the pixels in size or number without it being noticeable.  I got it free but can only find a 14 day free trial on cnet.com downloads.  I would guess I'm able to print about double what I would without this.  I don't remember how I came about getting it free maybe it was giveawayoftheday.com's site which offered it up one day?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good Luck on getting the expired cartridges to print until they are out of ink!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1029" RevisionGUID="0a2e7db2-7fb3-4b23-8c2e-878fc4efc8fd" CreationDate="2013-06-11T19:29:14.110" UserId="610" Comment="added 356 characters in body" Text="**Food Industrial Farming Health**&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;[Forks Over Knives][1] - Tremendous film, also has a panel discussion (both on Netflix)&#xD;&#xA;[Dirt! The Movie][2] ** Very good, don't let the boring title fool you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of them that you can find on youtube:&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What in the World are They Spraying?** and it's Sequel **Why in the world are they spraying?**  as is **Flouridegate: An American Tragedy** (2013) and one I haven't scene that I've heard has some fantastic cinematography is **HOME**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567233/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1243971/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1029" RevisionGUID="d9fa2a43-cfe8-45e5-8fae-0949dd336429" CreationDate="2013-06-11T19:38:12.437" UserId="610" Comment="added 356 characters in body" Text="First off I have seen all of the documentaries on Nate's list above except for Heat and I agree with his him Poisoned Waters is a Frontline Exclusive.  &#xD;&#xA;I was Hoping to get enough points to put a list up while hyperlinking them to IMDB's site...I may lose patience and put the other one's up. I still have got a few points to go but have some great recommendations. I'll see if I can answer some questions..and be back to edit:-)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Food Industrial Farming Health**&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;[Forks Over Knives][1] - Tremendous film, also has a panel discussion (both on Netflix)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Dirt! The Movie][2] ** Very good, don't let the boring title fool you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of them that you can find on youtube:&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What in the World are They Spraying?** and it's Sequel **Why in the world are they spraying?**  as is **Flouridegate: An American Tragedy** (2013) and one I haven't scene that I've heard has some fantastic cinematography is **HOME**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567233/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1243971/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3155" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="673" RevisionGUID="ede1246a-c5f0-4ebb-af00-55215063c45f" CreationDate="2013-06-11T20:52:09.377" UserId="15" Comment="Added waste-water tag" Text="|food|waste|waste-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1032" RevisionGUID="f2158388-4dbb-4fc7-ad82-85cbcdcec101" CreationDate="2013-06-11T20:54:29.170" UserId="486" Comment="fixed broken outline, typo" Text="**1.** There is a work around for &quot;expired&quot; printer cartridges! Canon and HP printers and their cartridges use the same excuse for the owner to have to go out and buy new ones by a certain date. More than likely there is absolutely nothing wrong with the ink. Doing anything but using them would be a waste on many levels. It has been my experience that when I installed an unopened but expired (date is listed on the packaging) cartridge in either an HP or a Canon printer, it would recognize the date and refuse the cartridge (these companies seemingly think of everything). This sounds like what your printer is doing after limited use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Work around to use expired cartridges in your printer:** Your printer has a time and date which you can change on its settings.  Simply set the date back to before the expiration date of your cartridges.  This works with Canon and HP printers and more than likely any other Brand.  There it is, you have worked around it! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.** There are re-fill kits you can buy for your cartridge.  I have never tried this, it seems as though it could be messy if you're not careful. There is a re-toner store that can be found all around (in the united states) called cartridgeworld.com. This saves you money as it is at least 50% the cost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.** There is a program called PretonSaver Home Edition that saves your ink by decreasing the pixels in size or number without it being noticeable.  I got it free but can only find a 14 day free trial on cnet.com downloads.  I would guess I'm able to print about double what I would without this.  I don't remember how I came about getting it free maybe it was giveawayoftheday.com's site which offered it up one day?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good Luck on getting the expired cartridges to print until they are out of ink!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3157" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1032" RevisionGUID="f2158388-4dbb-4fc7-ad82-85cbcdcec101" CreationDate="2013-06-11T20:54:29.170" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 610 edit id of 131" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1031" RevisionGUID="34972a4f-e4fb-4423-99c9-14c301d5bca6" CreationDate="2013-06-11T21:38:33.290" UserId="486" Comment="tried to fix formatting as OP originally intended, and cleaned up grammar for readability" Text="Working in Reuse I have heard the 5 R's Mantra:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Refuse**&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. Reduce&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. Reuse&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4. Recycle&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5. Rot &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling takes energy and it is a commodity. Maybe #5 doesn't have a high demand right now; it could sit for a long time.  We always talked about **Rethink** and **Re-Purpose It** if you can't Reuse the Tupperware (yes, I know, who uses that anymore :-). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if the lid is warped or cracked, Rethink and Repurpose it.  Maybe it is now your container for change or crayons, or the random nuts, washers and screws laying around the garage.  Maybe you have a more creative mind and can repurpose it into art!  You are saving energy not hauling it away as well as the recycling process!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, think about plastic bags and your food.  In plastics you have a whole bunch of nasty petrochemicals to make it flexible and we don't know which BPAs? Phthalates? No, thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3160" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1031" RevisionGUID="34972a4f-e4fb-4423-99c9-14c301d5bca6" CreationDate="2013-06-11T21:38:33.290" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 85 edit id of 132" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1029" RevisionGUID="f5a8152e-cab2-44be-aba8-bdcfc2f9906f" CreationDate="2013-06-11T21:39:44.830" UserId="610" Comment="deleted 340 characters in body" Text="First off I have seen all of the documentaries on Nate's list above except for Heat and I agree with his him Poisoned Waters is a Frontline Exclusive.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Food Industrial Farming Health**&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;[Forks Over Knives][1] - Tremendous film, also has a panel discussion (both on Netflix)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Dirt! The Movie][2] ** Very good, don't let the boring title fool you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of them that you can find on youtube:&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Flouridegate: An American Tragedy** (2013)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**HOME**][3] I haven't seen but I've heard it has some fantastic cinematography&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567233/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1243971/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014762/#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1029" RevisionGUID="4b3eaed8-94c1-497e-a02e-7b93ef0418b2" CreationDate="2013-06-11T21:46:09.023" UserId="610" Comment="Deleted HOME as it was in the question. cleaned up made it uniform" Text="First off I have seen all of the documentaries on Nate's list above except for Heat and I agree with his him Poisoned Waters is a Frontline Exclusive.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Food Industrial Farming Health**&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Forks Over Knives][1] - Tremendous film, also has a panel discussion&#xD;&#xA;   (both on Netflix)&#xD;&#xA; - [Dirt! The Movie][2] ** Very good, don't let the boring title fool&#xD;&#xA;   you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find this one on youtube:&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA; - [Flouridegate: An American Tragedy][3] (2013)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567233/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1243971/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2705004/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="68c3f5b8-bf8c-4b11-8544-6e762edce292" CreationDate="2013-06-11T22:17:59.870" UserId="610" Text="I have a memory foam mattress and I've heard of studies finding flame retardants in 85% of cushions in furniture.  I have not heard anything mentioned about memory foam.  Does anyone know if there have been any distinction made?  Does a memory foam mattress carry the same risk?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="68c3f5b8-bf8c-4b11-8544-6e762edce292" CreationDate="2013-06-11T22:17:59.870" UserId="610" Text="A highly toxic flame retardant BPDE has been shown in foam cushions. Does anyone know if the same concerns exist with memory foam?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="68c3f5b8-bf8c-4b11-8544-6e762edce292" CreationDate="2013-06-11T22:17:59.870" UserId="610" Text="|home|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="488" RevisionGUID="6cffdeeb-9a91-40e7-9bb9-75af4780edc1" CreationDate="2013-06-12T01:50:06.980" UserId="85" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Several factors come to mind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Air-conditioning**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Probably one of the bigger factors for saving fuel. At low speeds, open the windows instead (if it's hot); close the windows &amp; wear a jacket (when it's cold). For high speed, close the windows, even when it's hot. At higher speeds the drag created by open windows uses more fuel than the air-conditioning. (See comment by Jay Bazuzi &amp; [reference](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2010/08/natures_air_conditioner.html) by walker below.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Air pressure of your tyres**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Not the biggest factor, but you decrease wear (long-term benefit) and friction, which saves fuel on the day, so to speak (short-term benefit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **&quot;Defensive&quot; (anticipatory) driving**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;... meaning try to drive without having to step on the brakes. Keep your distance from the cars in front of you. Take your foot of the gas when the traffic light turned to red. (But remember, braking is more cost-efficient than having an accident. Safety comes first, also for sustainability.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Avoid traffic**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Like the point above, avoid traffic, because in traffic you'll have to brake (for other cars, cyclists, children, traffic lights), which is necessary, but not fuel efficient. Scheduling a longer route around town may well be more efficient (esp. if you are driving defensively and slowly) and doesn't drive you up the wall. (You said that already, I know.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Reduce weight**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;No reason to drive around with unnecessary heavy objects in your trunk. Only take with you what you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Drive slowly**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Driving twice as fast increases the air resistance 4-fold. Driving faster thus necessarily means you use more fuel for the same distance. (I mean, don't drive faster than everyone else, not drive slower than everyone else, forcing people to have to wait for you. That will result in aggression and risky overtaking manoeuvres of other people, using more net fuel...) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Make your car aerodynamic**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Don't transport anything on the roof (if possible). The air resistance is very high. If you do, drive slowly. (See &quot;Drive slowly&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Don't accelerate too fast**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Give your cylinders a chance to use all the fuel you give to them efficiently. Accelerating too fast results in incomplete combustion and more fuel being used for nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a few obvious ones (for sake of completeness)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Form alliances**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Take your neighbours to the shopping mall and they'll return the favour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Only drive when necessary**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You save the most fuel when you don't drive at all. Take the bus or train or hitch a ride with friends or neighbours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1029" RevisionGUID="52dfc4ee-7b7e-4d71-bb41-d25a522c3f3f" CreationDate="2013-06-12T03:31:22.523" UserId="610" Comment="combined two entries cleaned up and added a few titles" Text="@nate solid list above. I have seen all except for Heat and I agree pretty closely with your ratings. BTW Poisoned Waters is a Frontline Exclusive and can be watched at the PBS website.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Health, Farming sustainably vs. industrialized and More**  &#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA; - [Forks Over Knives][1] - Tremendous film, Solid Science 2 hour panel discussion&#xD;&#xA;   (both stream on Netflix)&#xD;&#xA; - [Dirt! The Movie][2] ** Very good, don't let the title fool you (not a yawner!)&#xD;&#xA; - [Fresh][3] - similar to Food Inc. w/more positive outlook&#xD;&#xA; - [Earthlings][4] - narrator Joaquin Phoenix *warning graphic &amp; powerful&#xD;&#xA; - [The Real Dirt on Farmer John][5] Joel Salinger from Omnivore's Dilemna&#xD;&#xA; - [The Future of Food][6] The first of the Food Documentaries by Jerry Garcia's widow&#xD;&#xA; - [Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days][7] Dr. Gabriel Cousens&#xD;&#xA; - [Vanishing Bees][8] The implications on loss of bees with Ellen Page&#xD;&#xA; - [Food Matters][9] Eat for Health Let Food be thy medicine&#xD;&#xA; - [Know Your Mushrooms][10] funky yet captivating movie truly magic mycellium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Activism**&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA; - [The Yes Men][11] Two guys take on corporate conglomerates funny&#xD;&#xA; - [The Yes Men Fix the World][12] Jack-Ass meets Activism (watch after Earthlings;-)&#xD;&#xA; - [This is What Democracy Looks Like][13] ** The Authentic Story of Seattle WTO protests&#xD;&#xA;   w/out spin &#xD;&#xA; - [Exit Through the Gift Shop][14] If you don't know Banksy here is your intro&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Water**&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA; - [Flow: For the Love of Water][15] dwindling fresh water shows greed as culprit&#xD;&#xA; - [Tapped: The Movie][16] Focus on bottle water what it is, regulation &amp; effect&#xD;&#xA; - [Blue Gold:The World Water Wars][17] Intro to the corporate water grab&#xD;&#xA; - [Bottled Life: Nestle's Business with Water][18] haven't seen but love to despise Nestle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fossil Fuels, Petrochemicals/Plastics**&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA; - [End of Suburbia][19] my intro to peak oil, very good&#xD;&#xA; - [Crude][20] Ecuadoran people Fight back vs. Chevron&#xD;&#xA; - [Crude Impact][21] The destructive force oil demand has around the globe&#xD;&#xA; - [Plastic Planet][22] Another eye-opener on plastics&#xD;&#xA; - [Addicted to Plastic][23] thought provoking, mind-blower&#xD;&#xA; - [Gasland][24]  Intro to Fracking with banjo&#xD;&#xA; - [A Crude Awakening][25] Theatrical Documentary on dwindling oil supply&#xD;&#xA; - [The Eleventh Hour][26] Environmental Look around Globe, better than Gore's offering &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CAN BE SEEN ON YOUTUBE&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA; - [The World According to Monsanto][27] Yes it's one sided but shouldn't it be?&#xD;&#xA; - [Sweet Misery][28] aspartame (Monsanto's 1st release in 1903) damages from diet soda&#xD;&#xA; - [What in the World are they Spraying?][29] 1st doc to catch admission of chemtrails&#xD;&#xA; - [Why In the world are they Spraying?][30]  The Sequel with more science and experts&#xD;&#xA; - [Flouridegate: An American Tragedy][31] 2013 release exposing flouride history damages &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various Docs relating to Sustainability&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The Corporation][32] Shows modern day corporations to current Megacorpconglomerates&#xD;&#xA; - [The Cove][33] Oscar winner exposing a dark secret of dolphin hunting&#xD;&#xA; - [The One Percent][34] Intro to 1% that own more than 50% of the wealth in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA; - [Zeitgeist: Moving Forward][35] 3rd installment more positive provoking ideas to sustainable world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567233/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1243971/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637620/#&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358456/#&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0439774/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427276/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587696/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1521877/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1528734/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1339111/plotsummary#&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379593/?ref_=sr_2&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1352852/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265871/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587707/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1149583/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1344784/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1137439/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2072910/#&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446320/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1326204/&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0932519/#&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1292648/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1572965/#&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1558250/&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1706131712/tt0776794&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0492931/&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1189345/#&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454639/#&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1770768/#&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2264390/#&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2705004/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1313104/&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0819791/plotsummary#&#xD;&#xA;  [35]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1781069/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1035" RevisionGUID="783d3170-55c8-4f36-b756-d9c51051b649" CreationDate="2013-06-12T07:36:14.833" UserId="99" Text="I know that in the past PBDEs were used as flame retardant in all kinds of products like  clothing, computer monitor casings, couches, but also in foam mattrasses, including memory foam. &#xD;&#xA;I suspect manufacturers stopped using them after it became known that PBDEs accumulate in human bodies and may cause cancer. Also, PBDEs have been banned in the EU in 2004 and most types are also banned in the USA (see also [this article](http://toxipedia.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=296))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia article on memory foam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_foam#Hazards) also mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PBDEs are no longer used in most bedding foams, especially in the European Union.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems if your memory foam mattrass is not older than 8 or 9 years then it probably is PBDE free. If not chances are it contain PBDEs. If you want to be sure you should ask your supplier and/or manufacturer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that from a sustainability point of view it's better to buy mattrasses made from (organic) cotton, wool or natural latex since those are biodegradable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1036" RevisionGUID="ebd077b5-2f57-4e71-8716-6e0630d9512f" CreationDate="2013-06-12T10:19:07.187" UserId="48" Text="Various forms of biomass, biofuel and biogas production are already in operation: wood waste, ethanol from sugar cane, primary wood (willow, poplar, pine), miscanthus, anaerobic digestion of organic waste, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to carry out large-scale seaweed cultivation for biomass / biofuel production, or are the technical / economic / regulatory barriers that make it much harder, relative to land-based biomass production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1036" RevisionGUID="ebd077b5-2f57-4e71-8716-6e0630d9512f" CreationDate="2013-06-12T10:19:07.187" UserId="48" Text="Is it possible to carry out large-scale seaweed cultivation for biomass / biofuel production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1036" RevisionGUID="ebd077b5-2f57-4e71-8716-6e0630d9512f" CreationDate="2013-06-12T10:19:07.187" UserId="48" Text="|seawater|biogas|biodiesel|biomass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3173" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="de2969c1-3a36-4d01-b796-45d38aab816f" CreationDate="2013-06-12T10:36:01.637" UserId="15" Comment="It's highly probably that the author meant PBDE instead of BPDE" Text="A highly toxic flame retardant PBDE has been shown in foam cushions. Does anyone know if the same concerns exist with memory foam?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3175" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1036" RevisionGUID="6003583a-a956-4bf3-b698-6036f4f6efe7" CreationDate="2013-06-12T17:00:08.650" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/344861689897959425" />
  <row Id="3176" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="5d66682b-e7e1-4b88-a50b-0fc7d8c716cb" CreationDate="2013-06-12T20:21:50.190" UserId="610" Comment="edited title" Text="Studies have shown that a number of highly toxic flame retardant such as PBDE and chlorinated Tris in foam cushions. Does this include memory foam?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="d311f77e-d55e-4a3c-b1dc-f1ab348b62fc" CreationDate="2013-06-12T20:43:23.173" UserId="610" Comment="edited title" Text="I have a memory foam mattress and I've read studies which have found flame retardants such as PBDEs (Polybrominated diphenyl ethers) and &quot;chlorinated Tris&quot; (TDCPP is one of number of chlorinated Tris) to be in 85% of cushions in furniture.  The flame retardant treated furniture then release these chemicals which are found in the dust in our air on the floors and surfaces in our homes at high levels.  These chemicals have been shown to cause cancer, hormone disruption and nervous system damage. I have not heard anything mentioned regarding memory foam.  Does anyone know if there have been any distinction made in the products?  Does a memory foam mattress carry the same risk?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3178" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="d311f77e-d55e-4a3c-b1dc-f1ab348b62fc" CreationDate="2013-06-12T20:43:23.173" UserId="610" Comment="edited title" Text="Studies have shown toxic flame retardants are found in foam cushions &amp; pollute our living evironments. Does this include memory foam?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3179" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="b4862abe-a423-4dab-a6ab-0c97dff0d227" CreationDate="2013-06-13T14:00:15.520" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/345178807109550080" />
  <row Id="3181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="995" RevisionGUID="afee6f08-c992-4ac0-9ee8-c1f5b35c6ca9" CreationDate="2013-06-13T20:08:22.340" UserId="125" Comment="User toggled feature status. Now: not featured" Text="&lt;p&gt;Sustainable Living Stack Exchange is for folks dedicated to a lifestyle that can be maintained indefinitely without depleting available resources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for $SiteName, it may be on topic for &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/sites&quot;&gt;another Stack Exchange site&lt;/a&gt;. If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more help, see &lt;a href=&quot;/help/dont-ask&quot;&gt;&quot;What types of questions should I avoid asking?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3182" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="4368b25f-d755-445c-983a-a578ac179c67" CreationDate="2013-06-14T02:06:00.613" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/345361448937078784" />
  <row Id="3183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="fcdcae54-e3c1-4c1e-a140-d56329bbaccb" CreationDate="2013-06-14T08:09:58.950" UserId="99" Comment="improved title, added toxic-chemicals tag" Text="I have a memory foam mattress and I've read studies which have found flame retardants such as PBDEs (Polybrominated diphenyl ethers) and &quot;chlorinated Tris&quot; (TDCPP is one of number of chlorinated Tris) to be in 85% of cushions in furniture.  The flame retardant treated furniture then release these chemicals which are found in the dust in our air and on the floors and surfaces in our homes at high levels.  These chemicals have been shown to cause cancer, hormone disruption and nervous system damage. I have not heard anything mentioned regarding memory foam.  Does anyone know if there have been any distinction made in the products?  Does a memory foam mattress carry the same risk?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3184" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="fcdcae54-e3c1-4c1e-a140-d56329bbaccb" CreationDate="2013-06-14T08:09:58.950" UserId="99" Comment="improved title, added toxic-chemicals tag" Text="Studies show that toxic flame retardants in foam cushions pollute our living environments. Does this include memory foam?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3185" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="fcdcae54-e3c1-4c1e-a140-d56329bbaccb" CreationDate="2013-06-14T08:09:58.950" UserId="99" Comment="improved title, added toxic-chemicals tag" Text="|home|pollution|toxic-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3186" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="69914825-9c96-4bd0-bff9-a85769e89496" CreationDate="2013-06-14T08:14:18.640" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|pesticides|safe-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1037" RevisionGUID="be7a2607-e5c9-463c-8631-74c2e171842f" CreationDate="2013-06-14T08:21:08.043" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1038" RevisionGUID="4b480783-7025-4a66-97b7-75513bba301e" CreationDate="2013-06-14T08:21:08.043" UserId="99" Text="process of capture and storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3189" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1015" RevisionGUID="273037f7-c4f4-43aa-9921-8556784b4825" CreationDate="2013-06-14T23:06:09.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/345678576940617729" />
  <row Id="3190" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1017" RevisionGUID="ad2aa179-d4c3-4549-9c38-7b1cb7845e5f" CreationDate="2013-06-15T08:06:09.737" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/345814472054693890" />
  <row Id="3191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="985" RevisionGUID="8c6adac4-77b5-4bea-9a3e-f7536cda92a7" CreationDate="2013-06-15T08:40:18.157" UserId="486" Comment="grammar, and added a link describing &quot;hooch&quot;" Text="The report provides only raw numbers, without the information about the particular reasons for throwing food away. But according to my knowledge about  patterns promoted in the media and observations of my acquaintances, only a small part of it is the food that is actually spoiled. Most of that is thrown away because the *expiry date* is reached, someone has cooked too much or, most trivially, is bored with some food and doesn't want to finish it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My tips and recommendations are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Never buy too much. Learn how much you are able to eat and how much do you need to buy. Don't improvise in shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Don't throw food away just because expiry date is reached. Note that the expiry date is made only to remove liability from producers and it's calculated for the most pessimistic scenario of keeping the product (too high temperature, exposition to light etc.). I've eaten a lot of products months, and in some cases (products in cans or jars) even years after the expiry date, and I never had problems because of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Be disciplined. If you prepare something, eat it to the end. If you can't eat more, wait an hour. If you still can't eat more, store it in fridge. Never throw something away even if the potato cooked the previous day doesn't taste as good as one cooked right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) In case of products that spoil very quickly in kitchen, such as fruits and vegetables, buy them regularly and in small portions that you can eat within 1 - (max) 3 days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Dry bread can be powdered and used for chops or some other meal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) Sweet fruits that are rotten but not moldy can be used to prepare a [hooch][1]. In worst case it can be used as fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7) Cheese or sausages that don't smell well, but don't stink, can be eaten if you fry them. In outdoor camps, if we find something that isn't looking very well after a few days in the rucksack, we fry that in campfire, without negative consequences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3192" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="985" RevisionGUID="8c6adac4-77b5-4bea-9a3e-f7536cda92a7" CreationDate="2013-06-15T08:40:18.157" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 15, 99 edit id of 133" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3193" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="3d539fa8-bc41-4c64-9417-5e7826354604" CreationDate="2013-06-15T11:06:09.737" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/345859769992634368" />
  <row Id="3194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="93f62659-fb6c-4d75-ab63-bbdc0cd7cedb" CreationDate="2013-06-15T18:56:23.910" UserId="610" Comment="incorporating comments into question to make it stronger per recommendation" Text="I have a memory foam mattress and I've read studies (links below) which have found flame retardants such as PBDEs (Polybrominated diphenyl ethers) and &quot;chlorinated Tris&quot; (TDCPP is one of number of chlorinated Tris) to be in 85% of cushions in furniture.  The flame retardant treated furniture then release these chemicals which are found in the dust in our air and on the floors and surfaces in our homes at high levels.  These chemicals have been shown to cause cancer, hormone disruption and nervous system damage. &#xD;&#xA;I have not heard anything mentioned regarding memory foam.  Does anyone know if there have been any distinction made in the products?  Does a memory foam mattress carry the same risk?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [After the PBDE Phase-Out: A Broad Suite of Flame Retardants in Repeat House Dust Samples from California][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; there have been numerous studies on the toxic flame retardant chemicals by Duke University, Cal-Berkeley and the Environmental Working Group to name a few. One study even revealed PBDEs in mothers breast milk and in the blood of babies at 3x's the level of the mother. I would be interested to see a study carried out in Europe because despite bans in the EU in '04 products sold prior to when the ban actually went into effect are still releasing particulates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es303879n" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1034" RevisionGUID="2040d2f1-9562-4a63-afd1-cd75df2976cd" CreationDate="2013-06-15T19:33:36.777" UserId="610" Comment="footnoting hyperlinks to referenced studies, adding linebreak &amp; italicizing to make more visually appealing" Text="I have a memory foam mattress and I've read studies** which have found flame retardants such as PBDEs (Polybrominated diphenyl ethers) and &quot;chlorinated Tris&quot; (TDCPP is one of number of chlorinated Tris) to be in 85% of cushions in furniture.  The flame retardant treated furniture then release these chemicals which are found in the dust in our air and on the floors and surfaces in our homes at high levels.  These chemicals have been shown to cause cancer, hormone disruption and nervous system damage.   &#xD;&#xA;I have not heard anything mentioned regarding memory foam.  Does anyone know if there have been any distinction made in the products?  Does a memory foam mattress carry the same risk?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_There have been numerous studies on the toxic flame retardant chemicals by Duke University, Cal-Berkeley and the Environmental Working Group (ewg.org) in addition to the ones linked below.  It may sound like it's just a California problem, therefore I wanted to point out that CA is one of the more aggressive states when it comes to protecting air, water, food quality, etc.  California phased out PBDEs in 2004 yet as one of the studies from the Silent Spring Institute shows seven years later high levels of PBDEs exist. The second link further supports that the toxic flame retardants as a source of indoor air pollution are not confined to the U.S._ &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- _[Silent Spring Institute's research on flame retardants][1]_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- _[Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in Indoor Dust in Ottawa, Canada:  Implications for Sources and Exposure][2] (abstract further down the page)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.silentspring.org/our-research/everyday-chemical-exposures/flame-retardants&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es050759g" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="51" RevisionGUID="adbf412a-0a52-4088-b456-0c7793c296a0" CreationDate="2013-06-16T20:11:36.753" UserId="60" Comment="image added" Text="Make your own [Sticky Fly Traps][1] using [Tanglefoot’s Tangle-Trap Sticky Coating][2]. Easy to make, cheap and highly non-toxic.  &#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;![Sticky Fly Trap - example][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make it of strips of paper/plastic and hang it around your roses. If you choose the right color you can make them almost invisible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.instructables.com/id/Make-Your-Own-Sticky-Fly-Traps/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B0039CKKCE/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0?ie=UTF8&amp;index=0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jD7ey.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1029" RevisionGUID="a0879d22-f445-47dc-bfa9-712852d77489" CreationDate="2013-06-16T22:51:47.210" UserId="610" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="@nate solid list above. I have seen all except for Heat and I agree pretty closely with your ratings. BTW Poisoned Waters is a Frontline Exclusive and can be watched at the PBS website.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Health, Farming sustainably vs. industrialized and More**  &#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA; - [Forks Over Knives][1] - Tremendous film, Solid Science 2 hour panel discussion&#xD;&#xA;   (both stream on Netflix)&#xD;&#xA; - [Dirt! The Movie][2] ** Very good, don't let the title fool you (not a yawner!)&#xD;&#xA; - [Fresh][3] - similar to Food Inc. w/more positive outlook&#xD;&#xA; - [Earthlings][4] - narrator Joaquin Phoenix *warning graphic &amp; powerful&#xD;&#xA; - [The Real Dirt on Farmer John][5] Joel Salinger from Omnivore's Dilemna&#xD;&#xA; - [The Future of Food][6] The first of the Food Documentaries by Jerry Garcia's widow&#xD;&#xA; - [Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days][7] Dr. Gabriel Cousens&#xD;&#xA; - [Vanishing Bees][8] The implications on loss of bees with Ellen Page&#xD;&#xA; - [Food Matters][9] Eat for Health Let Food be thy medicine&#xD;&#xA; - [Know Your Mushrooms][10] funky yet captivating movie truly magic mycellium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Activism**&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA; - [The Yes Men][11] Two guys take on corporate conglomerates funny&#xD;&#xA; - [The Yes Men Fix the World][12] Jack-Ass meets Activism (watch after Earthlings;-)&#xD;&#xA; - [This is What Democracy Looks Like][13] ** The Authentic Story of Seattle WTO protests&#xD;&#xA;   w/out spin &#xD;&#xA; - [Exit Through the Gift Shop][14] If you don't know Banksy here is your intro&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Water**&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA; - [Flow: For the Love of Water][15] dwindling fresh water shows greed as culprit&#xD;&#xA; - [Tapped: The Movie][16] Focus on bottle water what it is, regulation &amp; effect&#xD;&#xA; - [Blue Gold:The World Water Wars][17] Intro to the corporate water grab&#xD;&#xA; - [Bottled Life: Nestle's Business with Water][18] haven't seen but love to despise Nestle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fossil Fuels, Petrochemicals/Plastics**&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA; - [End of Suburbia][19] my intro to peak oil, very good&#xD;&#xA; - [Crude][20] Ecuadoran people Fight back vs. Chevron&#xD;&#xA; - [Crude Impact][21] The destructive force oil demand has around the globe&#xD;&#xA; - [Plastic Planet][22] Another eye-opener on plastics, (contains some subtitles)&#xD;&#xA; - [Addicted to Plastic][23] thought provoking, mind-blower&#xD;&#xA; - [Gasland][24]  Intro to Fracking with banjo&#xD;&#xA; - [A Crude Awakening][25] Theatrical Documentary on dwindling oil supply&#xD;&#xA; - [The Eleventh Hour][26] Environmental Look around Globe, better than Gore's offering&#xD;&#xA; - [Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars][27] Texans from all walks of life ban together to oppose 19 new coal power-plants being fast-tracked by Governor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CAN BE SEEN ON YOUTUBE&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA; - [The World According to Monsanto][28] Yes it's one sided but shouldn't it be?&#xD;&#xA; - [Sweet Misery][29] aspartame (Monsanto's 1st release in 1903) damages from diet soda&#xD;&#xA; - [What in the World are they Spraying?][30] 1st doc to catch admission of chemtrails&#xD;&#xA; - [Why In the world are they Spraying?][31]  The Sequel with more science and experts&#xD;&#xA; - [Flouridegate: An American Tragedy][32] 2013 release exposing flouride history damages &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various Docs relating to Sustainability&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The Corporation][33] Shows modern day corporations to current corporate-conglomerates&#xD;&#xA; - [The Cove][34] Oscar winner exposing a dark secret of dolphin hunting&#xD;&#xA; - [The One Percent][35] Intro to 1% that own more than 50% of the wealth in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567233/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1243971/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637620/#&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358456/#&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0439774/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427276/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587696/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1521877/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1528734/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1339111/plotsummary#&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379593/?ref_=sr_2&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1352852/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265871/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587707/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1149583/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1344784/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1137439/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2072910/#&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446320/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1326204/&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0932519/#&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1292648/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1572965/#&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1558250/&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1706131712/tt0776794&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0492931/&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1269692/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1189345/#&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454639/#&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1770768/#&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2264390/#&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2705004/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1313104/&#xD;&#xA;  [35]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0819791/plotsummary#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="3dabdd5f-606b-4e08-870f-91e85a2bebce" CreationDate="2013-06-16T23:54:13.783" UserId="164" Comment="Corrected typos." Text="As [Highly Irregular suggests][1] this very much depends on the specifics of your vehicle, conditions outside of your car and your desired conditions inside your vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this question was brought up on [skeptics][2] the best evidence we could find was from Mythbusters which visited this topic in both [episode 22][3] and [episode 38][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Episide 22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PARTLY CONFIRMED *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tests were performed under varying conditions (55 mph versus 45 mph). The 55 mph test used a computer to estimate fuel efficiency based on air intake, not actual fuel consumption, and showed A/C was more efficient. The 45 mph test consisted of running the tank until it was empty, and showed open windows were more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Because the original tests were inconclusive, this &quot;urban puzzle&quot; was revisited in episode 38: It is more fuel efficient to use air conditioning when the car is travelling approximately 50mph or more. Otherwise, windows are more fuel efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Episode 38&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PARTLY CONFIRMED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fundamental flaw in the MythBusters’ test was that the point where the drag becomes powerful enough to inhibit a car’s performance with windows down was inside their 45 – 55mph margin at 50mph. Going less than 50mph it is more efficient to leave your windows down, but going greater than 50mph it is more efficient to use your A/C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly unless you have the same vehicle, are driving in the same conditions and have the same comfort requirements, this tells you little about your own situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next time you fill up, decide on a strategy and stick to it until your next fill up, then calculate your overall fuel efficiency. Then try a different strategy and see if the efficiency changes. From a series of such tests you can build up a body of empirical evidence about how your own vehicle, preferences and environment interact, and thus find out what is most sustainable for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/736/164&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/5661/2772&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode22&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode38" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="bddc516f-00c2-485b-b532-2102d7b75011" CreationDate="2013-06-17T00:45:53.980" UserId="40" Comment="Improve grammar" Text="Does a building need an equator-facing roof to take advantage of Solar PV systems? That is, in the Northern hemisphere, do I need a south-facing roof? And, conversely, in the Southern hemisphere, do I need a north-facing roof?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the reduction in yield significant if the roof is 22&amp;deg; (SSW or SSE in the Northern hemisphere) or 45&amp;deg; (SW or SE in the Northern hemisphere) off optimal, and does it change the optimal tilt angle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3202" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="bddc516f-00c2-485b-b532-2102d7b75011" CreationDate="2013-06-17T00:45:53.980" UserId="40" Comment="Improve grammar" Text="Does a building need an equator-facing roof to take advantage of Solar PV systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3203" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1026" RevisionGUID="bddc516f-00c2-485b-b532-2102d7b75011" CreationDate="2013-06-17T00:45:53.980" Comment="Proposed by 40 approved by 85 edit id of 134" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1039" RevisionGUID="d2d7a71a-e4e9-48d1-b5b2-403e2d2e5c63" CreationDate="2013-06-17T06:58:35.007" UserId="96" Text="It is probably possibly, but may may very well be unsustainable or uneconomical. [This very critical article](http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/04/algae-fuel-biof.html) lists several constraints that are unique to algae biomass:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Water - is obviously needed in great amounts, while seawater is abundant someplace it is not so in deserts. In open pond systems we can expect much evaporation. Because of the competition over soil, deserts would lend themselves, but this would neccesitate long range water transport with the associated energy cost.&#xD;&#xA;* Infrastructure costs - especially in the case of closed bioreactors, there's much embedded energy (and money!) in the infrastructure&#xD;&#xA;* In places where there are renewable energy laws that subsidize or otherwise support renewable energies, they may not acount for algae biomass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue I don't see as a problem is fertilizer - unless the algae are burnt, the leftovers of the downstream process, wether oil production, AD or some other fermentation, will contain all the major nutrients. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1039" RevisionGUID="eccb5c7b-9614-480c-aaa3-9379a94ad9b5" CreationDate="2013-06-17T07:12:19.567" UserId="99" Comment="fixed spelling" Text="It is probably possible, but may very well be unsustainable or uneconomical. [This very critical article](http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/04/algae-fuel-biof.html) lists several constraints that are unique to algae biomass:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Water - is obviously needed in great amounts. While seawater is abundant in some places it is not so in deserts. In open pond systems we can expect much evaporation. Because of the competition over soil, deserts would lend themselves, but this would necessitate long range water transport with the associated energy cost.&#xD;&#xA;* Infrastructure costs - especially in the case of closed bioreactors, there's much embedded energy (and money!) in the infrastructure&#xD;&#xA;* In places where there are renewable energy laws that subsidize or otherwise support renewable energies, they may not account for algae biomass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue I don't see as a problem is fertilizer - unless the algae are burnt, the leftovers of the downstream process, whether oil production, AD or some other fermentation, will contain all the major nutrients. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3206" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="95c493d9-2c95-4858-99d4-3630220f3b02" CreationDate="2013-06-17T08:55:38.363" UserId="4" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:21,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Daniel Bingham&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Shog9&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1040" RevisionGUID="39a66b0e-ec4a-4c55-8534-31cf2622d25f" CreationDate="2013-06-17T09:00:51.480" UserId="96" Text="Consider this answer a draft till I found some numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional waste in wastewater will generate energy costs in two ways:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* additional aeration: Biomass is degraded by pumping air into the wastewater, thus providing aerobic bacteria with the oxygen to digest the waste. The pumping of air is energy intensive&#xD;&#xA;* additional sludge: The aerobic digestion process creates sludge, consisting of non-digested matter and the aerobic bacteria. This has to be treated (de-watered, applied to land, evtl. burnt, ...) - actually a huge part of the costs of any WWTP is the sludge treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get a rough figure, one would do this calculation (this needs some data from the wastes):  &#xD;&#xA;VS content of wastes X conversion factor VS to BOD X energy cost per BOD  &#xD;&#xA;Ash content of wastes X some factor for the sludge yield X energy cost per mass of sludge  &#xD;&#xA;This should account for most (energy costs). To fully understand the impact of the kitchen wastes one needs to know the downstream processes of the WWTP - for example, is the sludge burned, applied as fertilizer or used in some other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the following: If the WWTP has an anaerobic degistion before the aerobic stage, the kitchen wastes wil actually generate energy per methanization. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, landfills are at best just a postponement of the wastes for later generations. I think it's hard to quantify the carbon footprint of a landfill because we don't know yet what will happen to the site in 10 or 50 or 100 years.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1036" RevisionGUID="d1be9489-86a3-4e54-82f1-3775bb756881" CreationDate="2013-06-17T09:40:34.613" UserId="48" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Various forms of biomass, biofuel and biogas production are already in operation: wood waste, ethanol from sugar cane, primary wood (willow, poplar, pine), miscanthus, anaerobic digestion of organic waste, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to carry out large-scale seaweed cultivation for biomass / biofuel production at sea, or are the technical / economic / regulatory barriers that make it much harder, relative to land-based biomass production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1039" RevisionGUID="10ce4838-8fa6-4c04-b0c6-b3ba3147e793" CreationDate="2013-06-17T09:45:26.717" UserId="96" Comment="added 558 characters in body" Text="It is probably possible, but may very well be unsustainable or uneconomical. [This very critical article](http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/04/algae-fuel-biof.html) lists several constraints that are unique to algae biomass:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Water - is obviously needed in great amounts. While seawater is abundant in some places it is not so in deserts. In open pond systems we can expect much evaporation. Because of the competition over soil, deserts would lend themselves, but this would necessitate long range water transport with the associated energy cost.&#xD;&#xA;* Infrastructure costs - especially in the case of closed bioreactors, there's much embedded energy (and money!) in the infrastructure&#xD;&#xA;* In places where there are renewable energy laws that subsidize or otherwise support renewable energies, they may not account for algae biomass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue I don't see as a problem is fertilizer - unless the algae are burnt, the leftovers of the downstream process, whether oil production, AD or some other fermentation, will contain all the major nutrients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit to add - Two other issues, from the comparison with land-based biomass:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There's a huge body of knowledge and established technologies and infrastructure regarding farming - wether for food or other production. Algae biomass will require new inventions and infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;* Likewise there are huge bodies of regulations, subsidies and so on for the production of land-based biomass. Algae biomass may not tie well into these frameworks - this may actually be a good thing if regulations or subsidies push towards less sustainable practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1039" RevisionGUID="9de9dd2f-5696-4ef5-abf9-cdc3a0d65d66" CreationDate="2013-06-17T10:45:59.087" UserId="96" Comment="added 177 characters in body" Text="This answer assumes algae production on land in ponds or similiar structures, the question was about farming algae from the sea - so this answer may not be that interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is probably possible, but may very well be unsustainable or uneconomical. [This very critical article](http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/04/algae-fuel-biof.html) lists several constraints that are unique to algae biomass:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Water - is obviously needed in great amounts. While seawater is abundant in some places it is not so in deserts. In open pond systems we can expect much evaporation. Because of the competition over soil, deserts would lend themselves, but this would necessitate long range water transport with the associated energy cost.&#xD;&#xA;* Infrastructure costs - especially in the case of closed bioreactors, there's much embedded energy (and money!) in the infrastructure&#xD;&#xA;* In places where there are renewable energy laws that subsidize or otherwise support renewable energies, they may not account for algae biomass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue I don't see as a problem is fertilizer - unless the algae are burnt, the leftovers of the downstream process, whether oil production, AD or some other fermentation, will contain all the major nutrients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit to add - Two other issues, from the comparison with land-based biomass:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There's a huge body of knowledge and established technologies and infrastructure regarding farming - wether for food or other production. Algae biomass will require new inventions and infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;* Likewise there are huge bodies of regulations, subsidies and so on for the production of land-based biomass. Algae biomass may not tie well into these frameworks - this may actually be a good thing if regulations or subsidies push towards less sustainable practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="945a37d4-5a24-4ff9-8089-9c01e1fab9ef" CreationDate="2013-06-17T19:41:19.267" UserId="48" Text="I've found the answer by chance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a specific repowering programme from 2001-2003, which caused the 2002 spike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;James Lawson has the full answer, in his article [Repowering Gives New Life to Old Wind Sites][1] published on Renewable Energy World today - Monday, June 17, 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;James writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Denmark's first wind repowering programme ran from 2001 to 2003. Owners of turbines smaller than 100 kW were able to install three times the capacity removed and receive a bonus on top of the normal FiT for the first five years. For units of 100 kW-150 kW, owners could install twice the capacity removed and receive the same treatment. Under this programme 1480 turbines totalling 122 MW were replaced with 272 new turbines of 332 MW in sum. The second Danish repowering scheme ran from 2008-2011 and offered a premium on top of the normal tariff for replacing up to 175 MW of old turbines with new machines that had at least double the capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, one of the reasons for supporting repowering - better use of good wind sites - often did not apply. Owners of old wind farms could decommission their turbines and sell the resulting repowering certificates to other wind developers, who then applied the extra FiT to new projects elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “You just had to show you had decommissioned old turbines somewhere in Denmark,” says Sune Strøm, chief economist at the [Danish Wind Industry Association][2]. “There was no geographical link.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to Strøm, the system distorted the market value of old turbines and made the cost of compensating old investors artificially high. Today there are no specific incentives for repowering in Denmark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/06/repowering-gives-new-life-to-old-wind-sites?cmpid=rss&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.windpower.org/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1042" RevisionGUID="fb1abcb2-97be-4851-aa0a-0fca4fb66729" CreationDate="2013-06-17T19:47:53.597" UserId="623" Text="I have been pursuing this problem for many years and I have come up with a viable solution that I have developed from my 10 years of research and commercial application.  I have developed a system called SSTCS-&quot;Synergistic Sustainable Tumble Culture System&quot; that can take eutophic water from point source pollution from effluent or no point pollution that happens to watersheds influenced by many sources; and clean the water by nutrient stripping the excess nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon dioxide out of the water while increasing dissolved oxygen and generating a HUGE sustainable biomass that could be used food or bio-energy.  I am in the process of trying to find funding so we can truly make steps towards a cleaner environment and reducing global warming.  Anyone interested should go to my site; www.seaplantssolutions.com and see what we could do with a system like this.  Thank you, Tim Visi " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1044" RevisionGUID="c9befc6f-91e3-4870-9029-56b0b89ae2a5" CreationDate="2013-06-18T22:06:51.630" UserId="303" Text="Try planting mullein (verbascum thapsus). It is a pioneer species that will grow in the worst soil conditions and improve the soil over time. It's leaves are large, thick and covered in a soft fuzz. It also has a number of medicinal uses outside of hygiene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to note. Some that have tried it claim the &quot;hairs&quot; on the leaves are an irritant. So if you have sensitive skin you may want to seek an alternative.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1044" RevisionGUID="e999f088-3fd0-4218-9dad-a44c6132199e" CreationDate="2013-06-18T22:51:44.410" UserId="303" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Try planting mullein (verbascum thapsus). It is a pioneer species that will grow in the worst soil conditions and improve the soil over time. It's leaves are large, thick and covered in a soft fuzz which gives them the feel of a high quality 3-ply TP. It also has a number of medicinal uses outside of hygiene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to note. Some that have tried it claim the &quot;hairs&quot; on the leaves are an irritant. So if you have sensitive skin you may want to seek an alternative.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3218" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="167" RevisionGUID="0120a17c-5346-4366-b4a2-e424e282ef2e" CreationDate="2013-06-19T02:06:10.937" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/347173431760019456" />
  <row Id="3219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1031" RevisionGUID="254e97bd-23b0-4d17-9f8b-35e71f12d1f0" CreationDate="2013-06-19T02:29:23.877" UserId="610" Comment="I felt I needed to make a clearer and stronger case for the 5 R Mantra as it is a tool to educate towards sustainability.  as per comments below." Text="Working in Reuse I have heard Rethinking Waste - The 5 R's Mantra:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Refuse**&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. Reduce&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. Reuse&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4. Repurpose &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5. Recycle&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **recycle** any product takes energy.  These recyclable products are seen as a commodity in the market place. Maybe #5 plastics don't have a high demand right now; it could sit for a long time, maybe months, maybe years depending on supply &amp; demand. So to **recycle** things that are not compostable should thus be the last choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for using a two terms that by generalizing could be categorized the same is to stimulate thought, after all this is about rethinking waste.  To **Reuse** something is to use it over and over for the purpose it was intended.  Like a glass jar.  Once it can no longer be **Reused** then it is time to get creative and **Repurpose** it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **repurpose** is to use a tool for use as another tool, usually for a purpose unintended by the original tool-maker.  My example of this would my the wallet which is actually a second generation **repurposed** item.  I can't claim the creativity but it was a person out of Boulder, CO &quot;English Retreads&quot; that thought of **repurposing** the worn-out inner-tubes that were beyond repair from a rafting company that rented them to go down the river on. The rafting business had **repurposed** them from tractors that could no longer use them because they would become deformed after time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **repurpose** can create business, jobs, and income.  UC-Davis has a **Repurpose** store adjacent to their University store which sells ladies handbags made out of the heavy duty high end plastic shopping bags one may find in Sax Fifth Ave., etc. (they are making money doing so!). There are magazines, websites (instructables &amp; many more) and even fair's (the Maker's Fair) that are dedicated to **repurposing** what otherwise would be trash or recycling. By getting creative and thinking a bit out of the box you are cutting down on waste and you are saving energy not hauling it away to the recycling center, dump or incinerator. This is the idea behind adding **Repurpose** in addition to **Reuse**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't feel to **reduce** needs any explanation or examples but let me know if so.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Refuse** is at the very top, to get the consumer to think about what they are buying. I can't stand those hard-plastic &quot;clamshell&quot; designed packages that are impossible to open without a Ginsu and then can not **Reuse** the odd thing and they are not **recyclable**. To stimulate thought of **refusing** to purchase any of the single-use plastics. Water bottles, even if they are recyclable, the lids are not. **Refuse** plastic-ware and plastic straws because they are not recyclable; there are biodegradable alternatives. If you've ever done a beach cleanup you know how many straws are out in the ocean.  **Refuse** these items before you get to reducing other plastics. **Refuse** the junk mail before it wastes the couriers time money, fossil fuels, etc. A very easy **refuse** junk mail packet exists and can be found at [stopwaste.org][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=1193" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1031" RevisionGUID="c0a8ed86-ebd6-46b7-855c-95da07f7ce09" CreationDate="2013-06-19T02:35:50.260" UserId="610" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Working in Reuse I have heard Rethinking Waste - The 5 R's Mantra:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Refuse**&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. Reduce&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. Reuse&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4. Repurpose &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5. Recycle&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **recycle** any product takes energy.  These recyclable products are seen as a commodity in the market place. Maybe #5 plastics don't have a high demand right now; it could sit for a long time, maybe months, maybe years depending on supply &amp; demand. So to **recycle** things that are not compostable should thus be the last choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for using a two terms that by generalizing could be categorized the same is to stimulate thought, after all this is about rethinking waste.  To **Reuse** something is to use it over and over for the purpose it was intended.  Like a glass jar.  Once it can no longer be **Reused** then it is time to get creative and **Repurpose** it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **repurpose** is to use a tool for use as another tool, usually for a purpose unintended by the original tool-maker.  My example of this would my the wallet which is actually a second generation **repurposed** item.  I can't claim the creativity but it was a person out of Boulder, CO &quot;English Retreads&quot; that thought of **repurposing** the worn-out inner-tubes that were beyond repair from a rafting company that rented them to go down the river on. The rafting business had **repurposed** them from tractors that could no longer use them because they would become deformed after time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **repurpose** can create business, jobs, and income.  UC-Davis has a **Repurpose** store adjacent to their University store which sells ladies handbags made out of the heavy duty high end plastic shopping bags one may find in Sax Fifth Ave., etc. (they are making money doing so!). There are magazines, websites (instructables &amp; many more) and even fair's (the Maker's Fair) that are dedicated to **repurposing** what otherwise would be trash or recycling. By getting creative and thinking a bit out of the box you are cutting down on waste and you are saving energy not hauling it away to the recycling center, dump or incinerator. This is the idea behind adding **Repurpose** in addition to **Reuse**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't feel to **reduce** needs any explanation or examples but let me know if so.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Refuse** is at the very top, to get the consumer to think about what they are buying. I can't stand those hard-plastic &quot;clamshell&quot; designed packages that are impossible to open without a Ginsu and then can not **Reuse** the odd thing and they are not **recyclable**. To stimulate thought of **refusing** to purchase any of the single-use plastics. Water bottles, even if they are recyclable, the lids are not. **Refuse** plastic-ware and plastic straws because they are not recyclable; there are biodegradable alternatives. If you've ever volunteered at a beach cleanup (if not check out surfriders) you know how many straws are out in the ocean.  **Refuse** these items before you get to reducing other plastics. **Refuse** the junk mail before it wastes the couriers time money, fossil fuels, etc. A very easy **refuse** junk mail packet exists and can be found at [stopwaste.org][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=1193" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="f854dd07-1956-4906-8ada-3ecbd6e6c1fb" CreationDate="2013-06-19T02:50:06.777" UserId="303" Text="A fire in a fireplace is pretty to look at but is probably the most inefficient way to heat a home. Not because wood is a poor fuel, which it really isn't,  but rather that it is an incredibly poor design for a heating source. A huge amount of the heat goes straight up the chimney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to use wood as a fuel source the most efficient way to burn it would probably be a  rocket mass heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your main concern is decreasing energy consumption you can accomplish this more easily by focusing on heating the people rather than the house. A blanket or a well placed heat lamp can decrease you heating bill far more than lighting up the fireplace." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1046" RevisionGUID="0ee57e61-d5a8-4740-9b9b-f30565bbf8a8" CreationDate="2013-06-19T03:05:16.283" UserId="610" Text="It really depends on your community as to what level of service the recycling and waste companies provide.  This goes into how important it is to the elected officials in choosing who they pay to haul their recycling and trash and where they take them to.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may (well I know) I live in a bubble.  I live in a county in the U.S. that is GMO-Free (no Genetically Engineered crops), that had the first ever County Fair that was 100% compostable (meaning anything sold there beer, food, whatever was served in or on compostable containers). The grass-roots of this county demands it.  I know people in other counties or states would be pretty put-off if they were threatened to be fined for putting stuff in the wrong trash can (trash, recycling and compostable cans). I know they are pretty meticulous where I am but these things are on the front page of the county newspaper (or website).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your community demands so, it will change.  It takes a grass roots effort and maybe some investigative journalists (do you know anyone that has such as a hobby?) because sometimes it can be an uphill battle.  We have passed a law or ordinance banning plastic shopping bags, vote on by the people (a proposition maybe) yet the plastic bag industry is a powerful one. The ban took effect and now they are back to using them but our perseverance will pay off! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1031" RevisionGUID="ef4724e9-1d77-4e0e-aa63-68400b67873f" CreationDate="2013-06-19T03:14:23.447" UserId="610" Comment="added a link I found backing up my case of two more R's" Text="Working in Reuse I have heard Rethinking Waste - The 5 R's Mantra:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Refuse**&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. Reduce&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3. Reuse&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4. Repurpose &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5. Recycle&gt; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **recycle** any product takes energy.  These recyclable products are seen as a commodity in the market place. Maybe #5 plastics don't have a high demand right now; it could sit for a long time, maybe months, maybe years depending on supply &amp; demand. So to **recycle** things that are not compostable should thus be the last choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for using a two terms that by generalizing could be categorized the same is to stimulate thought, after all this is about rethinking waste.  To **Reuse** something is to use it over and over for the purpose it was intended.  Like a glass jar.  Once it can no longer be **Reused** then it is time to get creative and **Repurpose** it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **repurpose** is to use a tool for use as another tool, usually for a purpose unintended by the original tool-maker.  My example of this would my the wallet which is actually a second generation **repurposed** item.  I can't claim the creativity but it was a person out of Boulder, CO &quot;English Retreads&quot; that thought of **repurposing** the worn-out inner-tubes that were beyond repair from a rafting company that rented them to go down the river on. The rafting business had **repurposed** them from tractors that could no longer use them because they would become deformed after time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To **repurpose** can create business, jobs, and income.  UC-Davis has a **Repurpose** store adjacent to their University store which sells ladies handbags made out of the heavy duty high end plastic shopping bags one may find in Sax Fifth Ave., etc. (they are making money doing so!). There are magazines, websites (instructables &amp; many more) and even fair's (the Maker's Fair) that are dedicated to **repurposing** what otherwise would be trash or recycling. By getting creative and thinking a bit out of the box you are cutting down on waste and you are saving energy not hauling it away to the recycling center, dump or incinerator. This is the idea behind adding **Repurpose** in addition to **Reuse**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't feel to **reduce** needs any explanation or examples but let me know if so.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Refuse** is at the very top, to get the consumer to think about what they are buying. I can't stand those hard-plastic &quot;clamshell&quot; designed packages that are impossible to open without a Ginsu and then can not **Reuse** the odd thing and they are not **recyclable**. To stimulate thought of **refusing** to purchase any of the single-use plastics. Water bottles, even if they are recyclable, the lids are not. **Refuse** plastic-ware and plastic straws because they are not recyclable; there are biodegradable alternatives. If you've ever volunteered at a beach cleanup (if not check out surfriders) you know how many straws are out in the ocean.  **Refuse** these items before you get to reducing other plastics. **Refuse** the junk mail before it wastes the couriers time money, fossil fuels, etc. A very easy **refuse** junk mail packet exists and can be found at [stopwaste.org][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A blog further stating the logic of two more R's][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=1193&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.renewablesathome.com/reuse/repurposing-stuff" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1047" RevisionGUID="8936ba67-9bd8-4d1d-a264-a32e05bd5b5a" CreationDate="2013-06-19T07:05:12.390" UserId="96" Text="There's two things to consider when looking at the efficiency of a wood stove:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Clean, complete burning - wood stove rely on natural convection to supply air to the fire. This usually means in practice that the stove is most efficient when it's burning &quot;full throttle&quot;, meaning most of the wood in the fireplace is actually burning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Form of the heat - in an open fire (with flames) most of the thermal energy is conained in the exhaust gases. In most cases, this will go up the chimney - though I don't know your setup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes it hard to efficiently heat a home with fire - though pellet stoves (where a small fire is maintained automatically) or stoves with huge thermal mass (that evens out the heat output over time) are good ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, I would suggest conducting an experiment - assuming you can see and access your gas counter, you can monitor how much gas you use with and without using the stove to augment your heating, at the same time measureing (weighing) your wood consumption. One week with, one week without wood stove (given roughly the same weather and daily/weekly pattern of living) could give you some data to base your decision on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3225" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1015" RevisionGUID="040b2f01-b0bd-4839-8b12-bed2eaabe6ce" CreationDate="2013-06-19T08:57:13.500" UserId="99" />
  <row Id="3226" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="5b9ce8b7-bbdc-480f-9ad4-0c80671b5138" CreationDate="2013-06-19T08:57:13.500" UserId="99" />
  <row Id="3227" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1025" RevisionGUID="1dc1d68e-c8cf-43e5-a728-c935cacc3bf8" CreationDate="2013-06-19T08:57:13.500" UserId="99" />
  <row Id="3228" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1029" RevisionGUID="91ad7552-640e-4c66-bf05-81924d8ef3da" CreationDate="2013-06-19T08:57:13.500" UserId="99" />
  <row Id="3230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1045" RevisionGUID="7526b20a-eeb3-4079-9a8a-0fbf08ac248d" CreationDate="2013-06-19T13:20:25.853" UserId="303" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="A fire in a fireplace is pretty to look at but is probably the most inefficient way to heat a home. Not because wood is a poor fuel, which it really isn't,  but rather that it is an incredibly poor design for a heating source. A huge amount of the heat goes straight up the chimney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to use wood as a fuel source the most efficient way to burn it would probably be a  rocket mass heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your main concern is decreasing energy consumption you can accomplish this more easily by focusing on heating the people rather than the house. A blanket or a well placed heat lamp can decrease your heating bill far more than lighting up the fireplace." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1048" RevisionGUID="8d702fbc-c04a-4da8-8d14-7a3b4ae5ca06" CreationDate="2013-06-19T14:19:08.330" UserId="303" Text="Take a look at a passive [solar heat collector][1]. They work on the principle of [thermosiphoning][2]. The design in the link and the picture below has an additional top vent exposed to the outside so you can close the top interior vent and draw air out of the building during the summer. I've seen more advanced designs that include doors that automatically close at night when there isn't enough heat to push the air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![diagram of a solar heat collector][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A slight modification of this design could draw cool air from outside through the bottom of the collector rather than from in the house. The air would be heated by the time it entered the house. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.alternative-heating.com/window-box-solar-collector.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosiphon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/i5Hmy.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1044" RevisionGUID="97d26571-fe92-40c1-9114-3e6c2ce53ae1" CreationDate="2013-06-19T14:24:27.690" UserId="303" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="Try planting mullein (verbascum thapsus). It is a pioneer species that will grow in the worst soil conditions and improve the soil over time. It's leaves are large, thick and covered in a soft fuzz which gives them the feel of a high quality 3-ply TP. It also has a number of medicinal uses outside of hygiene. (I would advise against reusing &quot;soiled&quot; leaves for medicinal purposes ;-) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to note. Some that have tried it claim the &quot;hairs&quot; on the leaves are an irritant. So if you have sensitive skin you may want to seek an alternative.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="ecaf3ada-c3d6-4ba7-b49a-96ab842691e7" CreationDate="2013-06-19T15:29:07.663" UserId="303" Text="[Paul Wheaton][1] has an interesting [article][2] and several videos on his website that expands on the Mythbusters experiment. He measures the average time it takes to do several common activities for which you'd typically need a light then measures the life span and energy usage of various types of bulbs under those conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His conclusions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - CFLs cost more to manufacture and replace than they are worth in energy savings&#xD;&#xA; - Only turning a light on when you need it is still the best way to save money on lighting costs&#xD;&#xA; - Lighting is such a small percentage of the average electricity bill that you'd save a lot more electricity by buying a clothes line or replacing a water heater than by worrying about which type of light bulb to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inclined to agree with the majority of his conclusions but different usage patterns will have different results. I live in Florida where the primary electrical use is cooling during the summer months. Most of my lights have CFLs in them because they give off less heat (though I usually only use ambient sunlight during the day). Paul lives in Montana and considers the heat given off by incandescent bulbs a bonus during the long winters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until I read his article I can honestly say I didn't realize that CFLs were subsidized. (What isn't these days?) If something requires large subsidies to hide its true cost it's hard to call it sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.richsoil.com/paul-wheaton.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.richsoil.com/CFL-fluorescent-light-bulbs.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3234" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="955" RevisionGUID="199f36f5-6d74-4005-b01a-22ae52879aae" CreationDate="2013-06-19T20:11:33.190" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/347446573556453376" />
  <row Id="3235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="bda1c883-61b5-4fc6-8aa3-8d3bf8ea4c7c" CreationDate="2013-06-20T06:49:18.533" UserId="471" Text="Here in the place where i live, there is food store located besides my home.&#xD;&#xA;Due to that there is problem of rats. Because of that lots of problem occurs. They use to cut so many things even defiled the food. So  i want to get rid from this problem please suggest idea to get rid from this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="bda1c883-61b5-4fc6-8aa3-8d3bf8ea4c7c" CreationDate="2013-06-20T06:49:18.533" UserId="471" Text="Sustainable way to get rid from rats" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="bda1c883-61b5-4fc6-8aa3-8d3bf8ea4c7c" CreationDate="2013-06-20T06:49:18.533" UserId="471" Text="|food|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="47f7c1d0-ff25-49d7-87b1-e3f6812d2317" CreationDate="2013-06-20T07:33:42.377" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, added pest-management tag" Text="Here in the place where I live, there is a food store located beside my home.&#xD;&#xA;Due to that there is a problem with rats and because of the rats lots of other problems occur. They cut so many things and defile the food. So I want to get rid of this problem. Please suggest some ideas how to get rid of these rats without using toxic pesticides." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3239" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="47f7c1d0-ff25-49d7-87b1-e3f6812d2317" CreationDate="2013-06-20T07:33:42.377" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, added pest-management tag" Text="Sustainable way to get rid from rats?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3240" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="47f7c1d0-ff25-49d7-87b1-e3f6812d2317" CreationDate="2013-06-20T07:33:42.377" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, added pest-management tag" Text="|food|pest-management|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1051" RevisionGUID="0082a3b4-3c45-43ca-8904-4e7ab3556ea4" CreationDate="2013-06-20T08:38:47.347" UserId="99" Text="Since the food source that is attracting the rats is the food store next to you, you should talk with the owners of the store about taking one or more of the following measures:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Make sure the rats cannot access any food or leftovers. This may be hard to do as rats can eat their way through various materials. Storing all food and garbage in metal containers will help. Also keep your place as clean as possible, so don't leave and food leftovers on the table and sweep or vacuum the floor regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Locate and seal all holes and entry points to your house to keep the rats out. You'll have to use very sturdy materials for this (metal or very thick wood). Rats are very good climbers so also check for holes at window frames and ceilings. Also check if there are no tree branches or bushes the rats can use to climb on your roof and access the house from there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Get a cat. The cat will catch some of the rats and hopefully drive away the remaining rats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Buy and place [rat traps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_trap). There are traps that kill a rat (snap traps), but also traps that just contain the rat (live traps) so you can release them several miles away from your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Use an eco-friendly rat repellent. I've never tried those myself, but I've heard they may help (a little). Rats can't stand the smell of peppermint, so place peppermint plants around your house or soak some rags with peppermint oil. Rats also don't like moth balls and the smell of predators so dropping cat litter around your house if you have access to it may also help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you take the same measures as your neighbour the rats will hopefully have to go elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't use any poison because it's dangerous for children  and the smell of a decomposing rat somewhere in your wall or ceiling isn't pleasant. Also a poisoned rat may contaminate the enviroment if they die outside or poison cats and dogs if they find and eat the dead rat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="76b32bea-a833-47a2-ab21-c445f6719c9e" CreationDate="2013-06-20T20:05:07.267" UserId="303" Comment="added 1688 characters in body" Text="[Paul Wheaton][1] has an interesting [article][2] and several videos on his website that expands on the Mythbusters experiment. He measures the average time it takes to do several common activities for which you'd typically need a light then measures the life span and energy usage of various types of bulbs under those conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His conclusions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - CFLs cost more to manufacture and replace than they are worth in energy savings&#xD;&#xA; - Only turning a light on when you need it is still the best way to save money on lighting costs&#xD;&#xA; - Lighting is such a small percentage of the average electricity bill that you'd save a lot more electricity by buying a clothes line or replacing a water heater than by worrying about which type of light bulb to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inclined to agree with the majority of his conclusions but different usage patterns will have different results. I live in Florida where the primary electrical use is cooling during the summer months. Most of my lights have CFLs in them because they give off less heat (though I usually only use ambient sunlight during the day). Paul lives in Montana and considers the heat given off by incandescent bulbs a bonus during the long winters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until I read his article I can honestly say I didn't realize that CFLs were subsidized. (What isn't these days?) If something requires large subsidies to hide its true cost it's hard to call it sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The IEEE has an article on [bulb lifespans][3] but doesn't give any concrete results. They do point to a [worksheet][4] published by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute which you can use to do your own analysis. It includes a lamp life multiplier table for fluorescent lamps. Here is the table: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Average hours of lamp                    Lamp life multiplier&#xD;&#xA;    operation per start                      for fluorescent lamps&#xD;&#xA;        continuous                                1.8&#xD;&#xA;            12                                    1.5&#xD;&#xA;             6                                    1.2&#xD;&#xA;             3                                    1.0&#xD;&#xA;             2                                    0.9*&#xD;&#xA;             1                                    0.7*&#xD;&#xA;             0.5                                  0.5*&#xD;&#xA;             0.25                                 0.4*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    For some compact fluorescent&#xD;&#xA;    lamps with &quot;soft start&quot; electronic&#xD;&#xA;    ballasts, the values may be higher&#xD;&#xA;    than those shown in the chart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This table by itself does not give a clear picture but it is obvious as you cycle a fluorescent lamp more frequently it's expect life span drops drastically. For lights that you use infrequently and for only short amounts of time (a closet light for instance) the cost of replacing a prematurely failing CFL can vastly outweigh the savings gained from its use compared to an incandescent bulb, which is affected far less by cycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.richsoil.com/paul-wheaton.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.richsoil.com/CFL-fluorescent-light-bulbs.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/conservation/are-compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs-really-cheaper-over-time&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/publications/lpbh/050Economics.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="22eae3de-7d9c-4f6d-9191-d15e0198bac4" CreationDate="2013-06-20T20:55:02.533" UserId="303" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="[Paul Wheaton][1] has an interesting [article][2] and several videos on his website that expands on the Mythbusters experiment. He measures the average time it takes to do several common activities for which you'd typically need a light then measures the life span and energy usage of various types of bulbs under those conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His conclusions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - CFLs cost more to manufacture and replace than they are worth in energy savings&#xD;&#xA; - Only turning a light on when you need it is still the best way to save money on lighting costs&#xD;&#xA; - Lighting is such a small percentage of the average electricity bill that you'd save a lot more electricity by buying a clothes line or replacing a water heater than by worrying about which type of light bulb to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inclined to agree with the majority of his conclusions but different usage patterns will have different results. I live in Florida where the primary electrical use is cooling during the summer months. Most of my lights have CFLs in them because they give off less heat (though I usually only use ambient sunlight during the day). Paul lives in Montana and considers the heat given off by incandescent bulbs a bonus during the long winters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until I read his article I can honestly say I didn't realize that CFLs were subsidized. (What isn't these days?) If something requires large subsidies to hide its true cost it's hard to call it sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The IEEE has an article on [bulb lifespans][3] but doesn't give any concrete results. They do point to a [worksheet][4] published by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute which you can use to do your own analysis. It includes a lamp life multiplier table for fluorescent lamps. Here is the table: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Average hours of lamp                    Lamp life multiplier&#xD;&#xA;    operation per start                      for fluorescent lamps&#xD;&#xA;        continuous                                1.8&#xD;&#xA;            12                                    1.5&#xD;&#xA;             6                                    1.2&#xD;&#xA;             3                                    1.0&#xD;&#xA;             2                                    0.9*&#xD;&#xA;             1                                    0.7*&#xD;&#xA;             0.5                                  0.5*&#xD;&#xA;             0.25                                 0.4*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    For some compact fluorescent&#xD;&#xA;    lamps with &quot;soft start&quot; electronic&#xD;&#xA;    ballasts, the values may be higher&#xD;&#xA;    than those shown in the chart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This table by itself does not give a clear picture but it is obvious as you cycle a fluorescent lamp more frequently it's expected life span drops drastically. For lights that you use infrequently and for only short amounts of time (a closet light for instance) the cost of replacing a prematurely failing CFL can vastly outweigh the savings gained from its use compared to an incandescent bulb, which is affected far less by cycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.richsoil.com/paul-wheaton.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.richsoil.com/CFL-fluorescent-light-bulbs.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/conservation/are-compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs-really-cheaper-over-time&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/publications/lpbh/050Economics.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1049" RevisionGUID="ea70668c-97b7-449d-8c13-26b22c9269d3" CreationDate="2013-06-20T21:17:53.540" UserId="303" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="[Paul Wheaton][1] has an interesting [article][2] and several videos on his website that expands on the Mythbusters experiment. He measures the average time it takes to do several common activities for which you'd typically need a light then measures the life span and energy usage of various types of bulbs under those conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His conclusions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - CFLs cost more to manufacture and replace than they are worth in energy savings&#xD;&#xA; - Only turning a light on when you need it is still the best way to save money on lighting costs&#xD;&#xA; - Lighting is such a small percentage of the average electricity bill that you'd save a lot more electricity by buying a clothes line or replacing a water heater than by worrying about which type of light bulb to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm inclined to agree with the majority of his conclusions but different usage patterns will have different results. I live in Florida where the primary electrical use is cooling during the summer months. Most of my lights have CFLs in them because they give off less heat (though I usually only use ambient sunlight during the day). Paul lives in Montana and considers the heat given off by incandescent bulbs a bonus during the long winters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until I read his article I can honestly say I didn't realize that CFLs were subsidized. (What isn't these days?) If something requires large subsidies to hide its true cost it's hard to call it sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The IEEE has an article on [bulb lifespans][3] but doesn't give any concrete results. They do point to a [worksheet][4] published by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute which you can use to do your own analysis. It includes a lamp life multiplier table for fluorescent lamps. Here is the table: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Average hours of lamp                    Lamp life multiplier&#xD;&#xA;    operation per start                      for fluorescent lamps&#xD;&#xA;        continuous                                1.8&#xD;&#xA;            12                                    1.5&#xD;&#xA;             6                                    1.2&#xD;&#xA;             3                                    1.0&#xD;&#xA;             2                                    0.9*&#xD;&#xA;             1                                    0.7*&#xD;&#xA;             0.5                                  0.5*&#xD;&#xA;             0.25                                 0.4*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    For some compact fluorescent&#xD;&#xA;    lamps with &quot;soft start&quot; electronic&#xD;&#xA;    ballasts, the values may be higher&#xD;&#xA;    than those shown in the chart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This table by itself does not give a clear picture but it is obvious as you cycle a fluorescent lamp more frequently it's expected life span drops drastically. For lights that you use infrequently and for only short amounts of time (a closet light for instance) the cost of replacing a prematurely failing CFL can vastly outweigh the savings gained from its use compared to an incandescent bulb, which is affected far less by cycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an excerpt from [research][5] published by this same institute back in 1998:&#xD;&#xA;![excerpt][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.richsoil.com/paul-wheaton.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.richsoil.com/CFL-fluorescent-light-bulbs.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/conservation/are-compact-fluorescent-lightbulbs-really-cheaper-over-time&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/publications/lpbh/050Economics.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/resources/pdf/35-1998.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TczDl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="c4b7c3f8-ace1-40b7-a957-a14d093a41d3" CreationDate="2013-06-21T07:29:15.880" UserId="486" Comment="minor grammar cleanup" Text="Here where I live, there is a food store located beside my home.&#xD;&#xA;Due to that, there is a problem with rats and because of the rats, lots of other problems occur. They cut up many things and defile the food. So I want to get rid of this problem. Please suggest some ideas how to get rid of these rats *without using toxic pesticides*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3247" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="c4b7c3f8-ace1-40b7-a957-a14d093a41d3" CreationDate="2013-06-21T07:29:15.880" UserId="486" Comment="minor grammar cleanup" Text="Sustainable way to get rid of rats?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3248" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="c4b7c3f8-ace1-40b7-a957-a14d093a41d3" CreationDate="2013-06-21T07:29:15.880" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 99 edit id of 135" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="87aa6ead-da27-4ab6-8bf2-9dfbeca80914" CreationDate="2013-06-21T15:11:27.977" UserId="303" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Outdoors&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Snakes and owls are the rat's natural predators out doors. If you can encourage their population in or near your yard you will decrease the rat population. Any bird of prey will hunt rats but Owls especially because they are nocturnal so they are most active when the rat is. Rodents are not fond of the smell of mint or citronella. Planting these plants around your home may discourage them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Indoors&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Your number one defense is to make life uncomfortable for them. Getting rid of their food source. This may not be easy since rat's can chew through wood, plastic and even metal. Refrigerated and frozen food is usually safe from rats since they'll avoid the cold if other food sources are more readily available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many rat breeds live outside and only infiltrate a home in search of food. If food is available outside they will have no reason to enter your home. Encouraging them to stay outdoors will expose them to greater attacks from predators. Repair any holes you find in the exterior of your house. Some breeds prefer to live in trees but a warm attic is a tempting offer so check there for holes as well. Cat's have already been mentioned but a ferret may be a better choice. Ferrets will attack and overpower prey much larger than themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rat's will stay hidden if given a choice. If you see rats out in the open then they were probably forced into the open by over population and you or your neighboring food store have an entrenched infestation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1052" RevisionGUID="1ede281f-5bba-4a5e-87d2-749c1d8bc9fb" CreationDate="2013-06-21T15:25:19.047" UserId="303" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Outdoors&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Snakes and owls are the rat's natural predators out doors. If you can encourage their population in or near your yard you will decrease the rat population. Any bird of prey will hunt rats but Owls especially because they are nocturnal so they are most active when the rat is. Rodents are not fond of the smell of mint or citronella. Planting these plants around your home may discourage them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Indoors&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Your number one defense is to make life uncomfortable for them. Getting rid of their food source. This may not be easy since rat's can chew through wood, plastic and even metal. Refrigerated and frozen food is usually safe from rats since they'll avoid the cold if other food sources are more readily available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many rat breeds live outside and only infiltrate a home in search of food. If food is available outside they will have no reason to enter your home. Encouraging them to stay outdoors will expose them to greater attacks from predators. You could try bating them by leaving food scraps for them as far from your house as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Repair any holes you find in the exterior of your house. Some breeds prefer to live in trees but a warm attic is a tempting offer so check there for holes as well. Cat's have already been mentioned for indoors but a ferret may be a better choice. Ferrets will attack and overpower prey much larger than themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rat's will stay hidden if given a choice. If you see rats out in the open then they were probably forced into the open by over population and you or your neighboring food store have an entrenched infestation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1053" RevisionGUID="f21048a4-00c1-4dc5-a3b9-4bdb0adbcb23" CreationDate="2013-06-21T17:55:27.210" UserId="480" Text="Unbleached paper is reported to be [better][1] for the [environment][2], but my local supermarket doesn't carry them at all, and while I can find them at a store like Whole Foods, they tend to cost more than twice as much as the bleached products. Ironically, my supermarket has unbleached napkins available in its take-out food napkin dispensers, but they don't sell them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does unbleached paper really cost more to manufacture, or is it just lack of demand that drives up the cost of unbleached paper? I'm not aware of any drawbacks to unbleached paper other than appearance. Unbleached toilet paper seems even more rare (even in commercial restrooms), and that's a use where you'd think consumers wouldn't be overly concerned with appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since many fast-food restaurants seem to use unbleached paper products, there must be a lot of unbleached paper being manufactured, but it doesn't seem to be trickling down to consumer products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.beyondgourmetcookingandbaking.com/whyunbleached.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.brighthub.com/environment/green-living/articles/16299.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1053" RevisionGUID="f21048a4-00c1-4dc5-a3b9-4bdb0adbcb23" CreationDate="2013-06-21T17:55:27.210" UserId="480" Text="Why are unbleached paper products like napkins so expensive and hard to find?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1053" RevisionGUID="f21048a4-00c1-4dc5-a3b9-4bdb0adbcb23" CreationDate="2013-06-21T17:55:27.210" UserId="480" Text="|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1053" RevisionGUID="66f86a2b-7546-453d-9e66-43b0cdbdb56d" CreationDate="2013-06-21T18:09:01.673" UserId="480" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Unbleached paper is reported to be [better][1] for the [environment][2], but my local supermarket doesn't carry unbleached paper products at all, and while I can find them at a store like Whole Foods, they tend to cost more than twice as much as the bleached products. Ironically, my supermarket has unbleached napkins available in its take-out food napkin dispensers, but they don't sell them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does unbleached paper really cost more to manufacture, or is it just lack of demand that drives up the cost of unbleached paper? I'm not aware of any drawbacks to unbleached paper other than appearance. Unbleached toilet paper seems even more rare (even in commercial restrooms), and that's a use where you'd think consumers wouldn't be overly concerned with appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since many fast-food restaurants seem to use unbleached paper products, there must be a lot of unbleached paper being manufactured, but it doesn't seem to be trickling down to consumer products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.beyondgourmetcookingandbaking.com/whyunbleached.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.brighthub.com/environment/green-living/articles/16299.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="da3d8f06-1e34-4c85-81f6-0ab989019ea9" CreationDate="2013-06-21T20:15:39.623" UserId="48" Text="What are things I should monitor to track a photovoltaic system's performance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not looking for a recommendation for a particular piece of kit, because such a recommendation could quickly go out of date, and then the answers would be of no use to anyone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm asking, what should be monitored, to track a typical home PV system's performance and health: roof-mounted PV peak capacity is 4 kW, and there's an inverter in the loft (attic) connecting it to the home power supply and to the grid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="da3d8f06-1e34-4c85-81f6-0ab989019ea9" CreationDate="2013-06-21T20:15:39.623" UserId="48" Text="How can I monitor a PV system's performance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="da3d8f06-1e34-4c85-81f6-0ab989019ea9" CreationDate="2013-06-21T20:15:39.623" UserId="48" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3258" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1053" RevisionGUID="0d664f8b-9d53-483b-8125-512ce1bf4f9a" CreationDate="2013-06-22T05:11:34.147" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/348307248705048576" />
  <row Id="3259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="dd46b45d-0cc1-4e3c-883b-2a131570fb31" CreationDate="2013-06-22T11:58:21.533" UserId="610" Text="Unfortunately it is due to economics, industry, and the structure of the current production which of course includes politics and the power of lobbyists.  Yes there are companies such as Seventh Generation but they are nowhere near the size nor do they hold the influence as say Georgia-Pacific or Kimberly-Clark.  &#xD;&#xA;If I could draw an analogy your question &amp; what happened pre-2008 in the state of CA with solar and the incentive program which home-owners and businesses were eager to take advantage of and at the same time lower their power bill. The companies that were benefiting were start-up companies because they were sleek &amp; nimble compared to PG&amp;E (Pacific Gas and Energy).  Not only that but it was free power and in many cases PG&amp;E were paying solar customers for the power they were generating as it was less expensive then they could get.  &#xD;&#xA;So, they lobbied the CA Public Utilities commission and lobbied Congress. If I'm not mistaken power was coming from Enron in the early to mid 2000's before that collapse. Not only was PG&amp;E powerful but they had allies with strong lobbying &amp; direct access. George W. does away with the solar incentives which was phased out finally in 08 (even before this it was drastically reduced and rules changed).  The booming solar business all but dried up. Near this time Germany took a commanding lead in the world market for sustainable energy.  &#xD;&#xA;Today solar is on the rebound but with many of the old players involved not the little startups 90% of which went belly up. (Who Killed the Electric Car? same scenario, they literally took every electric car off the streets and grinded up perfectly good cars into the size of egg shells). The pieces were not in place for the leaders in the energy sector (or automobile sector) as big industry moves slowly.  This is exactly why organic products are more expensive or detergents without chemical surfactants (which causes red tide). Any industry leader such as Weyerhauser is not going to sit idly bye and see their profits plummet.  The current economic structure of the capitalist economy puts zero value on natural resources (and by that I mean there is little reason to not exploit and ravage whatever they can).  &#xD;&#xA;However, there is good news. Thanks to authors like Paul Hawkens and William McDonough there is progress. There are a number of think tanks as well such as NEF, Happy Planet Index, Paecon and the Cambridge Trust for New Economic Thinking that are working together to create a new economic model that values nature. These positive points may not pertain to the question but I did not want to leave my answer sounding so pessimistic;-)&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1056" RevisionGUID="ce1097d2-c5fc-4ba5-ae37-b4fbe0688dbf" CreationDate="2013-06-22T12:03:01.800" UserId="85" Text="When making paper from fibres, the fibres are chopped up into pulp, which naturally has a brownish grey colour. Cardboard boxes and packing paper are the natural colour for unbleached paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![unbleached toilet paper](http://images1.pricecheck.co.za/images/objects/hash/product/ee5/36a/5c2/image_big_10923508.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;White paper feels cleaner, so I think that it is simply a case that unbleached paper is more expensive, because it is harder to sell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As recycled paper is usually made from bleached paper, unbleached only means that no extra bleach is added, which is why recycled paper is usually lighter than unbleached paper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1057" RevisionGUID="a4c120ef-cd72-4a3f-b905-60f6a31ecd16" CreationDate="2013-06-22T12:51:26.377" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1058" RevisionGUID="3bc62d22-02dd-4530-be19-9687f7d8abff" CreationDate="2013-06-22T12:51:26.377" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3263" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1054" RevisionGUID="bf3570ee-b9e7-405d-a7ad-395eae46f9a1" CreationDate="2013-06-22T14:11:36.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/348443155638648833" />
  <row Id="3264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1056" RevisionGUID="9f59a477-3fdd-4b2d-8421-22a242b8d7c0" CreationDate="2013-06-22T16:45:18.343" UserId="85" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="When making paper from fibres, the fibres are chopped up into pulp, which naturally has a brownish grey colour. Cardboard boxes and packing paper are the natural colour for unbleached paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![unbleached toilet paper](http://images1.pricecheck.co.za/images/objects/hash/product/ee5/36a/5c2/image_big_10923508.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably white paper feels &quot;cleaner&quot;, so I think that it is simply a case that unbleached paper is more expensive, because it is harder to sell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As recycled paper is usually made from bleached paper, unbleached only means that no extra bleach is added, which is why recycled paper is usually lighter than unbleached paper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1059" RevisionGUID="ff1dfc9a-c23a-4ca0-bbe3-439179ed50e1" CreationDate="2013-06-23T14:49:38.123" UserId="28" Text="I understand that the materials and process of [manufacturing][1] PV cells is similar to standard computer chips.  How hard is it for a standard computer chip fab to output solar PV cells?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Manufacture" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1059" RevisionGUID="ff1dfc9a-c23a-4ca0-bbe3-439179ed50e1" CreationDate="2013-06-23T14:49:38.123" UserId="28" Text="Chip Fab producing PV cells?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1059" RevisionGUID="ff1dfc9a-c23a-4ca0-bbe3-439179ed50e1" CreationDate="2013-06-23T14:49:38.123" UserId="28" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1060" RevisionGUID="07360947-778b-4b53-a868-95bce4fe0e3f" CreationDate="2013-06-23T16:23:59.637" UserId="48" Text="A chip fab has one of the same input materials as some PV cells: very high grade silicon wafers. And each will have a super-clean fabrication area, with staff trained to work in such an environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's about the sum of the similarities: all the tooling, testing, calibration and other materials will be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it would be like asking if a standard car factory could output some bathtubs - they might both have components made from steel sheets, but that's about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, PV cells are getting pretty cheap now, and new PV fabrication plant can be built very quickly; furthermore, conversion from chip fabrication to PV production could be very expensive, so there's not really any market for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3269" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="e76fe4d8-5f02-4602-b9c8-61a967d7c2cd" CreationDate="2013-06-23T16:33:52.773" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/5417/are-electronic-motors-better-for-the-economy-more-efficient-and-versatile-powe" />
  <row Id="3270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="a30f0fa1-4c7c-4acf-9221-fb858bfba4b2" CreationDate="2013-06-23T15:54:31.547" UserDisplayName="user1869" Text="I know this is the wrong place to ask, but I'd like someone here to point me to the right place to ask these sort of questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="a30f0fa1-4c7c-4acf-9221-fb858bfba4b2" CreationDate="2013-06-23T15:54:31.547" UserDisplayName="user1869" Text="Are electronic motors better for the economy, more efficient, and versatile/powerful than internal /external combustion engines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="a30f0fa1-4c7c-4acf-9221-fb858bfba4b2" CreationDate="2013-06-23T15:54:31.547" UserDisplayName="user1869" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="8185e9d3-3a7b-4833-98cc-6730a5905dc2" CreationDate="2013-06-23T16:36:13.930" UserId="48" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited tags" Text="What are the pros and cons of electric engines, compared to internal- or external- combustion engines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3274" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="8185e9d3-3a7b-4833-98cc-6730a5905dc2" CreationDate="2013-06-23T16:36:13.930" UserId="48" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|vehicle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="779fb6df-756e-42fd-9e2d-26f30f2a5714" CreationDate="2013-06-23T16:48:50.073" UserId="48" Text="The domestic Renewable Heat Incentive is about to launch, in different formats, to different constituent countries of the UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an incentive to install particular accredited renewable heat technologies, including solar thermal, air source heat pumps, ground source heat pumps, and biomass heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a domestic (residential) scheme, and a non-domestic one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm on mains gas and live in England: can I be eligible for the domestic RHI, and what do I need to do to be eligible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3276" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="779fb6df-756e-42fd-9e2d-26f30f2a5714" CreationDate="2013-06-23T16:48:50.073" UserId="48" Text="I'm on mains gas and live in England, am I eligible for the domestic RHI?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3277" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="779fb6df-756e-42fd-9e2d-26f30f2a5714" CreationDate="2013-06-23T16:48:50.073" UserId="48" Text="|water-heating|heating|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1063" RevisionGUID="eb6cdeac-4708-49a1-8ef2-53e4ff6e7612" CreationDate="2013-06-23T20:58:55.240" UserId="60" Text="Photovoltaic system's performance parameters belong to two categories: energy generation (electricity units like Volts, Amperes, Watts and Watthours) and supplemental (some other units). Although you don't mention it, to make the answer complete, I add energy storage category (if you had a battery storage attached).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PVE system can be in one of these states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Off** - no energy is produced. No insolation, or the system is stopped manually.&#xD;&#xA;2. **Idle** - panels are insolated but the DC power they produce is too low to output any AC power.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Active** - panels generate DC electricity and the inverter produces and supplies AC power.&#xD;&#xA;4. An **error state** - current break, under/overvoltage etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I. *Energy generation parameters*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Each string of panels has it's **DC voltage** and **DC amperage** in active state. Their product is current **DC power**. [MPPT][1] inverter always tries to gain the maximum power from panels. DC voltage is only monitored in idle state.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The most important performance parameter of the system is the inverter's **current AC power**. In case of a 3-phase inverter the total AC power can be split to more phases.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Because we generate electricity in time, the **total energy produced** in kWh is summing it up. We can aggregate through hours (hourly production), days (daily production), months, years etc. [Beautiful graphs][2] can be made from this (sorry for selfpromotion, but it's similar to the questioned system).&#xD;&#xA; 4. Current **AC power supplying to the grid** or total **energy supplied to the grid** throughout certain period of time are the final measurements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II. *Supplemental parameters*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Temperature of panels**. The higher temperature the lower maximum produced energy and shorter panel life.&#xD;&#xA;2. **Temperature of inverter**. Inverters cool themselves down above certain temperature and consume (some) energy they produce.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Operating time** - sum of the time when inverter operated in active state. We try to maximize the energy produced during active time.&#xD;&#xA;4. Inverter should monitor **AC voltage** for under/overvoltage for safety purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III. *Battery storage parameters*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Energy stored**. Can be in kWh or in % of total capacity.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Battery (bank) **voltage**.&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Time remaining to full charge**. Approximate value based on current rate of charging.&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Time remaining to discharge**. Approximate value based on current rate of discharging.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Number of **charge/discharge cycles**.&#xD;&#xA; 6. **Storage efficiency**, i.e. energy stored/energy released.&#xD;&#xA; 7. **Temperature** of battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPPT&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.piko-solar-portal.de/PlantViewCharts.aspx?plantId=458a3872-8de8-4e85-a1d0-b4787b18d172" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="a75d5dba-a1b3-49e6-ab47-1fc173a6e10f" CreationDate="2013-06-23T21:40:09.900" UserId="486" Text="This is a bit specific to each solar PV installation, but I'll give it a shot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Short Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a 4kW array, the [actual power output you see is likely to be around 3kW][7] if your system is operating properly, assuming the array isn't too old.  For more, read on ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Proprietary Monitoring Software &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, many home solar installations now are done by companies that specialize in putting together packages of the solar panels, the inverter, and a control panel to monitor the system.  If you're in that situation, then you basically get what the company who wrote the control panel's software decides to give you.  It's unlikely that building your own monitoring circuitry or software would be a good use of time, although if you're a DIY type, [I might suggest looking at LabView to create your own monitoring system][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also unlikely that the software features that come with your system are going to be (or should be) a *primary* factor in picking the system.  I personally would rank the kind of panels, the inverter hardware, the experience of the installers, the price, and specific tax incentives as more important than the amount and kind of data you can see on the control panel, or web interface that the system supports.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a couple examples from some systems available where I live:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.greenraysolar.com/sites/default/files/GreenRay-SunTrakMonitoringSystem.pdf&#xD;&#xA;http://documents.locusenergy.com/SolarOS-Site_Owner_App_Product_Sheet.pdf&#xD;&#xA;http://www.civicsolar.com/resource/solar-energy-pv-monitoring-options&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Metrics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of what you should watch, I think solar panels are a bit like a car.  If you only want to watch **one thing** to assess a car engine's health, watch your fuel consumption (e.g. miles per gallon, km/l, etc.).  With solar panels, `kWh` produced per month is probably the equivalent metric.  That number can be affected by a few different factors, but if the number is close to the output when your panels were first installed (adjusted for *expected degradation* &lt;sup&gt;&amp;#8225;&lt;/sup&gt;), that's a good indication that the whole system is functioning reasonably well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Some systems allow you to see the production *per module*][4], which can help identify one bad module in your array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another metric that may be available to you is panel **temperature**.  Excessive temperature can be a sign of problems, and high temperatures can damage photovoltaics, like many electronics.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also be able to see the panel output voltage, or the frequency (Hz) of the power your inverter is producing.  Familiarize yourself with the normal values for your system, and note any deviations from that baseline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, your system may have a separate **status** output that indicates that a particular module's health is Ok, Failed, Degraded, or Unknown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Sunshine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that the solar panels can only convert energy from what the sun gives them.  Variations in weather do make a difference, so if your panel output this month is 5% lower than the output from the same month last year, that doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at the climate data [aggregated at the US National Climatic Data Center](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/mcdw/mcdw.html) (*Note: this isn't just US data ... it's global*).  If you open up the PDF file for a given month (there's a couple month delay in the published data), find a city near you, and look at the far right column to see total hours of sunshine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the row I highlighted, the monthly sunshine was 26% higher than average for that month.  So, in that case, you'd expect your monthly output to be higher than most years.  This is a rough way to assess performance, but it's better than simply comparing to the same month last year, without adjusting for sunshine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some off-the-shelf software monitoring systems do interface with weather and climate data services, and show some measure of sunshine.  The ones I've seen show instantaneous *solar irradiance*, which I don't think is as useful as longer term sunshine data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##(&amp;#8225;) Expected Performance Loss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to know what to expect from a solar PV system.  Panel performance will degrade slowly, and smoothly, over time, so that's to be anticipated.  [From the US National Renewable Energy Lab, 2010][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, depending on the kind of photovoltaics you use, and when they were built, you might *expect* a 1/2% loss in output per year, or it might be 2% per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverter problems may show up more abruptly, and [before the photovoltaics reach their end of life][6].  Of course, physical damage to your panels can **instantly** affect their performance, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Finally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you haven't already had your system installed, or have a maintenance visit coming up, **ask this question of your installer**, who will likely have important experience with the specific failure modes of your hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vSUnm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/47704.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/adFrz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://evaluatesolar.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Enphase-Enlighten.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://sine.ni.com/cs/app/doc/p/id/cs-14872&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.solarenergyexperts.co.uk/buyersguides/solar-panel-problems-troubleshooting/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.homepower.com/articles/solar-electricity/design-installation/potential-pv-problems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="60056eed-3f5a-4271-b5e5-319dfabc0e12" CreationDate="2013-06-23T22:14:56.700" UserId="486" Comment="links to openenergymonitor, clarified a bit on module-level monitoring" Text="This is a bit specific to each solar PV installation, but I'll give it a shot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Short Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a 4kW array, the [actual power output you see is likely to be around 3kW][7] if your system is operating properly, assuming the array isn't too old.  For more, read on ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Proprietary Monitoring Software &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, many home solar installations now are done by companies that specialize in putting together packages of the solar panels, the inverter, and a control panel to monitor the system.  If you're in that situation, then you basically get what the company who wrote the control panel's software decides to give you.  It's unlikely that building your own monitoring circuitry or software would be a good use of time, although if you're a DIY type, [I might suggest looking at LabView][5] or [OpenEnergyMonitor][9] to create your own monitoring system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also unlikely that the software features that come with your system are going to be (or should be) a *primary* factor in picking the system.  I personally would rank the kind of panels, the inverter hardware, the experience of the installers, the price, and specific tax incentives as more important than the amount and kind of data you can see on the control panel, or web interface that the system supports.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few examples from some systems available where I live:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/public/systems/ZHN8479&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.greenraysolar.com/sites/default/files/GreenRay-SunTrakMonitoringSystem.pdf&#xD;&#xA; - http://documents.locusenergy.com/SolarOS-Site_Owner_App_Product_Sheet.pdf&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.civicsolar.com/resource/solar-energy-pv-monitoring-options&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Metrics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of what you should watch, I think solar panels are a bit like a car.  If you only want to watch **one thing** to assess a car engine's health, watch your fuel consumption (e.g. miles per gallon, km/l, etc.).  With solar panels, `kWh` produced per month is probably the equivalent metric.  That number can be affected by a few different factors, but if the number is close to the output when your panels were first installed (adjusted for *expected degradation* &lt;sup&gt;&amp;#8225;&lt;/sup&gt;), that's a good indication that the whole system is functioning reasonably well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Some systems allow you to see the production *per module*][4], which can help identify one bad module in your array.  This helps both with fine-grained monitoring, but also allows a micro-inverter or DC-DC converter on each module to [tune each's module's performance][8] independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another metric that may be available to you is panel **temperature**.  Excessive temperature can be a sign of problems, and high temperatures can damage photovoltaics, like many electronics.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also be able to see the panel output voltage, or the frequency (Hz) of the power your inverter is producing.  Familiarize yourself with the normal values for your system, and note any deviations from that baseline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, your system may have a separate **status** output that indicates that a particular module's health is Ok, Failed, Degraded, or Unknown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Sunshine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that the solar panels can only convert energy from what the sun gives them.  Variations in weather do make a difference, so if your panel output this month is 5% lower than the output from the same month last year, that doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at the climate data [aggregated at the US National Climatic Data Center](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/mcdw/mcdw.html) (*Note: this isn't just US data ... it's global*).  If you open up the PDF file for a given month (there's a couple month delay in the published data), find a city near you, and look at the far right column to see total hours of sunshine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the row I highlighted, the monthly sunshine was 26% higher than average for that month.  So, in that case, you'd expect your monthly output to be higher than most years.  This is a rough way to assess performance, but it's better than simply comparing to the same month last year, without adjusting for sunshine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some off-the-shelf software monitoring systems do interface with weather and climate data services, and show some measure of sunshine.  The ones I've seen show instantaneous *solar irradiance*, which I don't think is as useful as longer term sunshine data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##(&amp;#8225;) Expected Performance Loss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to know what to expect from a solar PV system.  Panel performance will degrade slowly, and smoothly, over time, so that's to be anticipated.  [From the US National Renewable Energy Lab, 2010][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, depending on the kind of photovoltaics you use, and when they were built, you might *expect* a 1/2% loss in output per year, or it might be 2% per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverter problems may show up more abruptly, and [before the photovoltaics reach their end of life][6].  Of course, physical damage to your panels can **instantly** affect their performance, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Finally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you haven't already had your system installed, or have a maintenance visit coming up, **ask this question of your installer**, who will likely have important experience with the specific failure modes of your hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vSUnm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/47704.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/adFrz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://evaluatesolar.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Enphase-Enlighten.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://sine.ni.com/cs/app/doc/p/id/cs-14872&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.solarenergyexperts.co.uk/buyersguides/solar-panel-problems-troubleshooting/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.homepower.com/articles/solar-electricity/design-installation/potential-pv-problems&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_point_tracking&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://openenergymonitor.org/emon/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="2d06d307-eecc-4557-aa82-0bbc219f893e" CreationDate="2013-06-23T23:04:53.200" UserId="486" Comment="just some highlighting and better wording" Text="This is a bit specific to each solar PV installation, but I'll give it a shot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Short Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a 4kW array, the [actual power output you see is likely to be around 3kW][7] if your system is operating properly, assuming the array isn't too old.  For more, read on ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Proprietary Monitoring Software &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, many home solar installations now are done by companies that specialize in putting together packages of the solar panels, the inverter, and a control panel to monitor the system.  If you're in that situation, then you basically get what the company who wrote the control panel's software decides to give you.  It's unlikely that building your own monitoring circuitry or software would be a good use of time, although if you're a DIY type, [I might suggest looking at LabView][5] or [OpenEnergyMonitor][9] to create your own monitoring system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also unlikely that the software features that come with your system are going to be (or should be) a *primary* factor in picking the system.  I personally would rank the kind of panels, the inverter hardware, the experience of the installers, the price, and specific tax incentives as more important than the amount and kind of data you can see on the control panel, or web interface that the system supports.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few examples from some systems available where I live:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/public/systems/ZHN8479&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.greenraysolar.com/sites/default/files/GreenRay-SunTrakMonitoringSystem.pdf&#xD;&#xA; - http://documents.locusenergy.com/SolarOS-Site_Owner_App_Product_Sheet.pdf&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.civicsolar.com/resource/solar-energy-pv-monitoring-options&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Metrics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of what you should watch, I think solar panels are a bit like a car.  If you only want to watch **one thing** to assess a car engine's health, watch your fuel consumption (e.g. miles per gallon, km/l, etc.).  With solar panels, `kWh` produced per month is probably the equivalent metric.  That number can be affected by a few different factors, but if the number is close to the output when your panels were first installed (adjusted for *expected degradation* &lt;sup&gt;&amp;#8225;&lt;/sup&gt;), that's a good indication that the whole system is functioning reasonably well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Some systems allow you to see the production *per module*][4], which can help identify one bad module in your array.  Having electronics on each module helps both with fine-grained monitoring, but also allows micro-inverters or DC-DC converters to [tune each's module's performance][8] independently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another metric that may be available to you is panel **temperature**.  Excessive temperature can be a sign of problems, and high temperatures can damage photovoltaics, like many electronics.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also be able to see the panel **output voltage**, or the **frequency** (Hz) of the power your inverter is producing.  Familiarize yourself with the normal values for your system, and note any deviations from that baseline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, your system may have a separate **status** output that indicates that a particular module's health is Ok, Failed, Degraded, or Unknown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Sunshine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that the solar panels can only convert energy from what the sun gives them.  Variations in weather do make a difference, so if your panel output this month is 5% lower than the output from the same month last year, that doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at the climate data [aggregated at the US National Climatic Data Center](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/mcdw/mcdw.html) (*Note: this isn't just US data ... it's global*).  If you open up the PDF file for a given month (there's a couple month delay in the published data), find a city near you, and look at the far right column to see total hours of sunshine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the row I highlighted, the monthly sunshine was 26% higher than average for that month.  So, in that case, you'd expect your monthly output to be higher than most years.  This is a rough way to assess performance, but it's better than simply comparing to the same month last year, without adjusting for sunshine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some off-the-shelf software monitoring systems do interface with weather and climate data services, and show some measure of sunshine.  The ones I've seen show instantaneous *solar irradiance*, which I don't think is as useful as longer term sunshine data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##(&amp;#8225;) Expected Performance Loss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to know what to expect from a solar PV system.  Panel performance will degrade slowly, and smoothly, over time, so that's to be anticipated.  [From the US National Renewable Energy Lab, 2010][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, depending on the kind of photovoltaics you use, and when they were built, you might *expect* a 1/2% loss in output per year, or it might be 2% per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverter problems may show up more abruptly, and [before the photovoltaics reach their end of life][6].  Of course, physical damage to your panels can **instantly** affect their performance, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Finally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you haven't already had your system installed, or have a maintenance visit coming up, **ask this question of your installer**, who will likely have important experience with the specific failure modes of your hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vSUnm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/47704.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/adFrz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://evaluatesolar.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Enphase-Enlighten.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://sine.ni.com/cs/app/doc/p/id/cs-14872&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.solarenergyexperts.co.uk/buyersguides/solar-panel-problems-troubleshooting/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.homepower.com/articles/solar-electricity/design-installation/potential-pv-problems&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_point_tracking&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://openenergymonitor.org/emon/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1065" RevisionGUID="98c2737c-349d-4ea9-831a-0ebc0c2248a1" CreationDate="2013-06-23T23:30:44.997" UserId="85" Text="![leafcutter ants](http://andresiegmund.de/Picture/LeafCutterAnts_DE-DE3252262952.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The picture says it all. They strip a complete tree in a day of all its leaves. Can't blame them, because they use the leaves to make their own food, but they do attack my fig tree, roses, hibiscus, etc., and I would try anything to stop them, preferably a natural solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The native's strategy is to track them back to their home pour petrol down the nest and set it on fire. I'm neither keen on pouring petrol into nature nor on spraying my plants with heavy chemicals (with does work, I am told). Besides, the nest is not on my property. Is there anything I can do to protect my plants and get rid of the ants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3283" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1065" RevisionGUID="98c2737c-349d-4ea9-831a-0ebc0c2248a1" CreationDate="2013-06-23T23:30:44.997" UserId="85" Text="How to deal with leafcutter ants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3284" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1065" RevisionGUID="98c2737c-349d-4ea9-831a-0ebc0c2248a1" CreationDate="2013-06-23T23:30:44.997" UserId="85" Text="|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3285" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1065" RevisionGUID="54c959f1-5c2e-4904-a416-d1a83414afc2" CreationDate="2013-06-24T05:11:36.673" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/349032035966402562" />
  <row Id="3286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="08ef569f-e38c-4262-a20f-6fb997c091b3" CreationDate="2013-06-24T10:47:45.607" UserId="486" Comment="grammar, and made the title a title, and put the question in the body" Text="What are the pros and cons of electric engines, compared to internal or external combustion engines?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are electric motors better for the economy, more efficient, or more versatile/powerful than internal/external combustion engines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3287" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="08ef569f-e38c-4262-a20f-6fb997c091b3" CreationDate="2013-06-24T10:47:45.607" UserId="486" Comment="grammar, and made the title a title, and put the question in the body" Text="Electric Motors vs. Internal/External Combustion Engines" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3288" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="08ef569f-e38c-4262-a20f-6fb997c091b3" CreationDate="2013-06-24T10:47:45.607" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by -1 edit id of 138" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="e279561e-83a4-49bc-9615-5e9d814c833d" CreationDate="2013-06-24T10:47:45.607" UserId="48" Comment="grammar, and made the title a clear question, and put the question in the body" Text="What are the pros and cons of electric engines, compared to internal or external combustion engines, from a sustainability perspective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are electric motors better for the economy, more efficient, or more versatile/powerful than internal/external combustion engines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3290" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="e279561e-83a4-49bc-9615-5e9d814c833d" CreationDate="2013-06-24T10:47:45.607" UserId="48" Comment="grammar, and made the title a clear question, and put the question in the body" Text="What are the pros and cons of electric vs. internal/external combustion engines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1065" RevisionGUID="04baf342-5a06-4ec7-b5d7-4a68629c87fa" CreationDate="2013-06-24T10:48:04.153" UserId="486" Comment="grammar and a typo" Text="![leafcutter ants](http://andresiegmund.de/Picture/LeafCutterAnts_DE-DE3252262952.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The picture says it all. They strip a complete tree in a day of all its leaves. Can't blame them, because they use the leaves to make their own food, but they do attack my fig tree, roses, hibiscus, etc., and I would try anything to stop them, preferably a natural solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natives' strategy is to track them back to their home, pour petrol down the nest and set it on fire. I'm neither keen on pouring petrol into nature, nor on spraying my plants with heavy chemicals (which does work, I am told). Besides, the nest is not on my property. Is there anything I can do to protect my plants and get rid of the ants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3292" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1065" RevisionGUID="04baf342-5a06-4ec7-b5d7-4a68629c87fa" CreationDate="2013-06-24T10:48:04.153" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 48 edit id of 137" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1065" RevisionGUID="d2413208-d671-4996-a3cd-d563e0e45200" CreationDate="2013-06-24T16:16:20.567" UserId="85" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="![leafcutter ants](http://andresiegmund.de/Picture/LeafCutterAnts_DE-DE3252262952.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The picture says it all. They strip a complete tree in a day of all its leaves. Can't blame them, because they use the leaves to make their own food, but they do attack my fig tree, roses, hibiscus, etc., and I would try anything to stop them, preferably a natural solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natives' strategy is to track them back to their home, pour petrol down the nest and set it on fire. I'm neither keen on pouring petrol into nature, nor on spraying my plants with heavy chemicals (which does work, I am told). Besides, the nest is not on my property. Is there anything I can do to protect my plants and get rid of the ants?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They seem to cut the leaves and then collect them at the bottom of the tree. Are there any physical barriers that one could try, which might be too difficult to overcome whilst carrying the leaf?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1066" RevisionGUID="bf715390-439b-45f4-aa47-c27cca79afad" CreationDate="2013-06-24T18:19:23.177" UserId="634" Text="If you're next to a feed lot of some sort, it's next to impossible to get rid of the rats completely.  I live in a rat infested neighborhood and have done the following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Call the county and asked them to put out poison.  There are two bait stations placed and maintained by the county in the creek that goes through my yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Pick them off one by one. Rat traps and an electric rat zapper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a massive rodent problem, it may require rallying the community and working with the owner of the feed lot to get it under control.  &#xD;&#xA;http://pauledmondson.hubpages.com/hub/kill-rats" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="904" RevisionGUID="9a61edde-b6b5-4caf-8e2a-31316a2e0ec6" CreationDate="2013-06-24T21:45:18.397" UserId="60" Comment="edited body" Text="Combining wind turbine and solar panel is my favorite (that has not come to reality by now...). Both of them are weather dependent but in an almost anti-correlated way. It means they complement each other very well most of the time of the year.  &#xD;&#xA;Here in continental Europe, usually when it's a sunny day it's rarely windy. And when the weather is changing or in winter, it's cloudy and windy. So you'd profit from **solar panels during sunny and summer days** and profit from **wind turbine on bad weather and winter/late autumn days**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The points made by [EnergyNumbers][1] are all valid but I'd stress an importance of a storage because you mention an old generator. It probably means you're not grid-connected. You'll have to balance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You'd still need some (back-up) generator - much smaller and much less used than the previous one. The main sources would be PV panels and wind turbine(s).&#xD;&#xA;- Adding some kind of batteries to the system. Storing energy increases the build costs which you want to minimize. But the more you store the smaller and less used generator would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/875/60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1067" RevisionGUID="9541f7b3-2842-4223-abc6-8d2609612a6a" CreationDate="2013-06-24T22:26:08.947" UserId="486" Text="Per the clarifying [comment below the question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/977/what-is-the-sustainable-house-insulation-suitable-for-a-very-hot-climate#comment1710_977), I think it's also important to note a *non-insulation* solution to the same problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a climate that's hot, keeping sunshine out of your home helps immensely in reducing the need for cooling.  Remember that a building with windows represents the original *greenhouse effect* (letting in visible light, but not letting out infrared radiation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a couple other good solutions to this problem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Window coverings, that you manually pull down when the outside air is less comfortable than the air inside (*i.e.* in the hot summer, you keep coverings closed in the day, and in the cold winter, you keep them closed at night, and vice versa).  I particularly like [light-colored honeycomb window shades](https://www.google.com/search?q=honeycomb+window+shades&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=5MXIUZWHAuLMiQKUqoDQBw&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&amp;biw=1920&amp;bih=830).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Plant bushes and trees outside your home's windows, on the side(s) that face the sun.  If your home is hot in the summer, and cold in the winter, then you should pick [deciduous plants](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deciduous), that will block sun with leaves in the summer, and lose their leaves, allowing sun in during the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using this strategy, I've comfortably kept my house at 80&amp;deg;F or lower at **all** times, with **zero air conditioning**, even as temperatures in my area can approach 100&amp;deg;F on the hottest summer days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="42e6e5f2-5d87-4fa3-a0cb-6b02ce637dea" CreationDate="2013-06-24T23:41:29.413" UserId="486" Comment="a couple minor typos, and clarified a couple acronyms that might not be universally understood" Text="Fuel consumption is typically 70-90% of a vehicle's lifecycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, so there are lots of circumstances where upgrading to a significantly more energy-efficient vehicle makes a lot of sense. See, for details [TRL VR6][1] and [The UK Automotive Sector: Toward Sustainability.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the vehicle being replaced gets a very large proportion of its materials recycled, then that helps even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noticing that despite all the [FUD][3] on the internet, it is pretty clear that when the science is done, [hybrids are better than fossil-fueled internal-combustion engines][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that doesn't make hybrids a sustainable option. If you're putting fossil-fuel in, they're not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other, more sustainable options, and these will depend on your real trip patterns. For many households, an electric-vehicle for the vast majority of daily travel that's less than 120km, and borrowing / hiring / sharing a different vehicle for the occasional longer trip, will do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trade-off will depend a lot on your particular circumstances: if you've got an older biodiesel vehicle, it will depend on the lifecycle emissions of your biodiesel supply, and that will vary hugely around the world.  If you get a hybrid, will it be biodiesel / electric hybrid, or something else?  If biodiesel-electric, then it will almost certainly be better than an older biodiesel vehicle. If fossil-fuel electric, it could be worse, if your current biodiesel supply is pretty clean. Note that in that latter case, there will be trade-offs between local and global pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_sustainability/report_sustainable_resource_use_in_the_motor_industry_a_mass_balance_approach.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/reports/SMMT%20Sixth%20Annual%20Sustainability%20Report.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2007/08/27/201795/prius-easily-beats-hummer-in-life-cycle-energy-use-dust-to-dust-report-has-no-basis-in-fact/?mobile=nc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3298" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="424" RevisionGUID="42e6e5f2-5d87-4fa3-a0cb-6b02ce637dea" CreationDate="2013-06-24T23:41:29.413" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 85 edit id of 139" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1068" RevisionGUID="c5f47dd0-6da6-4a01-9782-418138aa6c4f" CreationDate="2013-06-25T04:59:21.053" UserId="344" Text="If you can get a sticky rat mat, then place it in areas where they are sure to come. You can get scented mats, for e.g peanut butter etc. From your name, it appears you are from India. I was able to get those from local stores in Bangalore. One for your reference http://www.gluetraps.co.uk/rat-glue-trap-boards-2-c.asp&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="278" RevisionGUID="1731e9a1-7664-4c96-a5a0-11d97d7f5650" CreationDate="2013-06-25T08:21:16.190" UserId="99" Comment="added reference to vermicomposting tag" Text="Compost is organic matter that has been decomposed and recycled as a fertilizer and soil amendment. Compost is a key ingredient in organic farming. At the simplest level, the process of composting simply requires making a heap of wetted organic matter (leaves, &quot;green&quot; food waste) and waiting for the materials to break down into humus after a period of weeks or months. Modern, methodical composting is a multi-step, closely monitored process with measured inputs of water, air and carbon- and nitrogen-rich materials. The decomposition process is aided by shredding the plant matter, adding water and ensuring proper aeration by regularly turning the mixture. Worms and fungi further break up the material. Aerobic bacteria manage the chemical process by converting the inputs into heat, carbon dioxide and ammonium. The ammonium is further converted by bacteria into plant-nourishing nitrites and nitrates through the process of nitrification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For composting with worms see [tag:vermicomposting]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="639859e5-5cd4-4131-a58e-f3119f5f88ca" CreationDate="2013-06-25T09:35:09.560" UserId="99" Text="Cooking is the process of preparing food using a heat source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions about preparing food in a sustainable way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions on the production or preservation of food in general or the reduction and handling of food waste see [tag:food]&#xD;&#xA; - For questions on preparing food that have nothing to do with sustainability you may want to try the [Seasoned Advice SE](http://cooking.stackexchange.com/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1070" RevisionGUID="4421f9a7-22e2-49ed-84e5-638226f53d42" CreationDate="2013-06-25T09:35:09.560" UserId="99" Text="Preparing food by use of heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3303" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="692" RevisionGUID="ab36e34b-f7a2-4e1e-827a-99ba5ba3d594" CreationDate="2013-06-25T10:47:28.747" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|decarbonisation|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="29115956-4725-4ca3-8f57-e167b869b8a4" CreationDate="2013-06-25T20:59:43.647" UserId="584" Text="Normally, we see in our garden if there is excess of water for certain plants (e.g. vegetable), they do not survive and their roots rotten because of 24h soaked in water.&#xD;&#xA;The same situation observed when there is continuous raining, the plants support it for certain limit after that rain damage the crop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, i do not understand how these plants can survive in water of an aquaponic system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="29115956-4725-4ca3-8f57-e167b869b8a4" CreationDate="2013-06-25T20:59:43.647" UserId="584" Text="How plants survive in aquaponic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="29115956-4725-4ca3-8f57-e167b869b8a4" CreationDate="2013-06-25T20:59:43.647" UserId="584" Text="|aquaponics|plants|water-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="8f1e7bd4-687c-4d93-89bd-422afdd85c60" CreationDate="2013-06-25T22:23:29.077" UserId="486" Comment="grammar ...." Text="Normally, we see in our garden that if there is an excess of water for certain plants (e.g. vegetable), they do not survive and their roots rot because of being soaked in water 24 hours a day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same situation is observed when there is continuous rain; the plants support it within limits, and after that, rain damages the crop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do these plants survive in water with an aquaponic system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3308" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="8f1e7bd4-687c-4d93-89bd-422afdd85c60" CreationDate="2013-06-25T22:23:29.077" UserId="486" Comment="grammar ...." Text="How plants survive in aquaponics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3309" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="8f1e7bd4-687c-4d93-89bd-422afdd85c60" CreationDate="2013-06-25T22:23:29.077" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 85 edit id of 140" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1072" RevisionGUID="67937789-06fa-4170-8ea6-64a09a5ae4e4" CreationDate="2013-06-25T22:33:44.910" UserId="85" Text="The design may vary, but I am familiar with the following system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vegetable beds are filled with clay pellets (which do not retain much water) and the vegetables are planted inside the pellets. A pump continuously pumps water from the fish tank into the vegetable beds. Only when the beds are almost full with water do the roots touch the water surface. A minute later, the bed is completely filled at which point the bed is drained completely (usually with a system, which works like a toilet flush) and filled anew. This ensures that the roots are only under water for a short amount of time. The clay pellets retain enough moisture so that the roots don't dry up. Roughly once an hour are the roots soaked in water for a couple of minutes. This ensures that the roots don't rot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="2aa6fb0b-492c-4167-97c7-340dec972ce2" CreationDate="2013-06-26T04:38:23.133" UserId="45" Text="There are many different types of systems.  The flood and drain system described by Earthling is one, very popular, style of system.  It success is due to the fact that the grow bed where the plants are living is slowly filled, and then quickly drained.  This quick draining pulls oxygen into the bed.  This effectively is providing three things to the plant in a constant fashion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. An unlimited supply of oxygen&#xD;&#xA; 2. Nutrients from the fish (more on how in a second)&#xD;&#xA; 3. An unlimited supply of water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nutrients that the plants need come somewhat indirectly from the fish.  The fish go the bathroom.  This causes the ammonia levels to build up in the water.  There is a bacteria that will establish itself in the system which will convert this ammonia into nitrites.  Once the water starts to have a certain level of nitrites in it another bacteria will establish itself.  This second set of bacteria convert the nitrites into nitrates.  The nitrates are what feeds the plants.  This bacteria lives in the edges of the substrate/media.  This media is usually a type of rock or manufactured rock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this is the first half of the story.  The process described above feeds the plants.  But it is also helping to clean the water for the fish!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water moving around splashing all over in the system is what cleans out the carbon dioxide that the fish deposit in the water as they breath.  Sometimes there are issues in having enough of this process present in the natural motion of the system in which case a bubbler is also introduced.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only input to a well crafted aquaponics system is the food for the fish.  But clever people have figured out ways around that too using black soldier fly larvae!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other systems you might look at, which are similar in process, are grow towers.  In the towers case you would use a sponge like material similar to what you would find in a bio filter in an aquarium.  The ideas being the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are systems that don't use grow media at all.  NFT and DWC are a couple of examples.  These are closer to hydroponics.  The water is constantly on the roots of the plants without ever having a break.  In this type of system you need two additional concepts.  You need a media based bio filter similar to that of the towers but you wouldn't plant your plants in them.  The water flows through them allowing the bacteria to clean the water.  And immediately after the fish tanks you have some form of solids filter.  In many cases this comes in the form of a swirl filter where the water goes round and round allowing the big poops to fall to the bottom of the tank.  In a system like this you usually would have to remove the big solid waste now and then.  Some folks dump this directly into a grow bed so as not to have a waste being generated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="a2917896-4936-4a95-ad3e-f50abb0c4f83" CreationDate="2013-06-26T07:49:51.683" UserId="48" Comment="added 82 characters in body; edited title" Text="**tl;dr :** For the millions of dwellings that have significant physical constraints imposed by the physical fabric of the building, its configuration and location, that rule out heat pumps, biomass and solar thermal, how can we decarbonise our space and water heating effectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The specifics of my home, for context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the moment there's natural-gas-fuelled central heating, with water-filled pump-driven loop going into wall-mounted radiators that have been sized for an operating temperature of 60-70&amp;deg;C. That's pretty typical for most British homes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The property is solid-wall construction, and there isn't much external wall - it's mostly glazed. Most rooms are generally tall - about 3m. (a fairly standard late-Victorian British terrace, with some subsequent improvements, including secondary glazing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's still quite leaky for air, but we're working on that, and planning to [build tight, ventilate right][1], over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't have much unshaded south-facing surface. And we're nowhere near any district heating schemes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a garden of about 180m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, with access only through the house. We live cheek-by-jowl with our neighbours, so a heating system of 40dB or more would be too loud. So no heat pumps - the defrost cycle alone is unacceptably noisy, let alone the constant throbbing during normal operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our first emphasis is on reducing space-heating needs through good insulation and air-tightness. But there will remain a big chunk of space-heating requirement, as well as water-heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heating season is roughly October to March, and outside temperatures in deepest winter can get as low as -15&amp;deg;Celsius at times. There may be 30 days a year when the temperature goes below 0&amp;deg;Celsius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And although our home is unique, it is in many ways representative of millions of homes. &#xD;&#xA;So I'm not looking for a unique solution for my own home, but a generic solution or set of solutions for the millions of homes that share the significant features with mine: there are severe fabric constraints that rule out air-source heat pumps, ground-source heat-pumps and solar thermal. Biomass seems an unlikely route, given the local pollution impact of millions of homes with individual biomass burners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So how can I decarbonise my domestic water and space heating, given the severe fabric constraints?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/241/48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3313" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="a2917896-4936-4a95-ad3e-f50abb0c4f83" CreationDate="2013-06-26T07:49:51.683" UserId="48" Comment="added 82 characters in body; edited title" Text="How can I decarbonise my domestic heating, given severe physical constraints?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="d3ec5016-3ea0-49b0-b2ce-1f657deba405" CreationDate="2013-06-26T10:25:53.150" UserId="15" Comment="Linked acronyms to help explain" Text="There are many different types of systems.  The flood and drain system described by Earthling is one, very popular, style of system.  It success is due to the fact that the grow bed where the plants are living is slowly filled, and then quickly drained.  This quick draining pulls oxygen into the bed.  This effectively is providing three things to the plant in a constant fashion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. An unlimited supply of oxygen&#xD;&#xA; 2. Nutrients from the fish (more on how in a second)&#xD;&#xA; 3. An unlimited supply of water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nutrients that the plants need come somewhat indirectly from the fish.  The fish go the bathroom.  This causes the ammonia levels to build up in the water.  There is a bacteria that will establish itself in the system which will convert this ammonia into nitrites.  Once the water starts to have a certain level of nitrites in it another bacteria will establish itself.  This second set of bacteria convert the nitrites into nitrates.  The nitrates are what feeds the plants.  This bacteria lives in the edges of the substrate/media.  This media is usually a type of rock or manufactured rock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this is the first half of the story.  The process described above feeds the plants.  But it is also helping to clean the water for the fish!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water moving around splashing all over in the system is what cleans out the carbon dioxide that the fish deposit in the water as they breath.  Sometimes there are issues in having enough of this process present in the natural motion of the system in which case a bubbler is also introduced.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only input to a well crafted aquaponics system is the food for the fish.  But clever people have figured out ways around that too using black soldier fly larvae!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other systems you might look at, which are similar in process, are grow towers.  In the towers case you would use a sponge like material similar to what you would find in a bio filter in an aquarium.  The ideas being the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are systems that don't use grow media at all.  [NFT][1] and [DWC][2] are a couple of examples.  These are closer to hydroponics.  The water is constantly on the roots of the plants without ever having a break.  In this type of system you need two additional concepts.  You need a media based bio filter similar to that of the towers but you wouldn't plant your plants in them.  The water flows through them allowing the bacteria to clean the water.  And immediately after the fish tanks you have some form of solids filter.  In many cases this comes in the form of a swirl filter where the water goes round and round allowing the big poops to fall to the bottom of the tank.  In a system like this you usually would have to remove the big solid waste now and then.  Some folks dump this directly into a grow bed so as not to have a waste being generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://aquaponics.wikia.com/wiki/Nutrient_Film_Technique&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://aquaponics.wikia.com/wiki/Deep_Water_Culture" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="333778c6-ce11-4072-912d-7c8c1e526c33" CreationDate="2013-06-26T18:02:49.567" UserId="20" Comment="typo correction" Text="One related difference between keeping heat in or out relates to the climate.  In very warm and humid areas such as Florida, you place the vapor barrier on the exterior side of the insulation, whereas, in cooler climates that are not so humid, you place the vapor barrier on the interior side of the insulation.  A vapor barrier can be as simple as a sheet of something like plastic or aluminum which water can not pass through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for needing a vapor barrier is that when air passes through the insulation from the warm side to the cool side, it is cooling.  As the temperature drops through the insulation, some of the water vapor will condense causing the insulation to be wet.  Fiber glass insulation that is wet does not insulate as well as dry insulation as the water helps to conduct heat through the insulation.  To make matters worse, the wetness can then reach the cool wall and water condensation can now form on that wall leading it to rot due to bacteria growing in the now damp environment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="318" RevisionGUID="cc1c6117-f1f8-430f-9b24-5f7c1f380ad0" CreationDate="2013-06-26T18:54:09.143" UserId="60" Comment="emphasis added on the main point" Text="One related difference between keeping heat in or out relates to the climate - it's **temperature and humidity**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **In very warm and humid areas** such as Florida, you place the **vapor barrier on the exterior side** of the insulation,&#xD;&#xA; - **In cooler climates that are not so humid, you place the vapor barrier on the interior side** of the insulation.  A vapor barrier can be as simple as a sheet of something like plastic or aluminum which water can not pass through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for needing a vapor barrier is that when air passes through the insulation from the warm side to the cool side, it is cooling.  As the temperature drops through the insulation, some of the water vapor will condense causing the insulation to be wet.  Fiber glass insulation that is wet does not insulate as well as dry insulation as the water helps to conduct heat through the insulation.  To make matters worse, the wetness can then reach the cool wall and water condensation can now form on that wall leading it to rot due to bacteria growing in the now damp environment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1074" RevisionGUID="7e017655-2a30-488b-92c6-c889e3403a0d" CreationDate="2013-06-27T01:12:44.637" UserId="110" Text="**TLDR** - Get a straight edged bucket, put one handful of chicken/rabbit/duck pellets and half fill with water. Put in easy to access area. The greedy buggers will jump and won't be able to climb out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I accidentally discovered this because we had a rat population explosion in our yard due to heavy rain and an abundance of food a few months ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am in the suburbs, but many of my neighbours and myself included have a large variety of animals (rabbits, chickens, ducks etc.), thus there is plenty of scraps around for scavengers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't like using rat poison because I don't want them to drag it into the cage of my animals and we also have a large amount of native wildlife in the area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had a bucket next to our ducks which had a very little bit of feed in the bottom. One day when I was scratching my head about how to deal with the rats, I noticed there were 3 dead rats floating in the rainwater which had pooled in the bucket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I emptied the bucket (fun job!) and tried this again by putting a hand-full of duck pellets in the bottom of the bucket and half filled it with water. Within two days I had another three dead rats. Rinse and repeat!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This works best if you put the buck near where the rats are entering your property and near where they are used to finding other food. You don't want them to have to go out of their way to discover your trap. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also need to make the bucket accessible. They are not going to climb up the side of bucket to get in, if they can't climb up the side of the same bucket to get out. Place it underneath a tree or next to a fence or some rocks, anything they can climb on to get in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, the bucket I used had straight sides, I'm not sure if they can easily climb out of a standard bucket (the type you get at supermarkets). My bucket was also slightly deeper than a traditional bucket." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="1f4c964b-baf0-4def-bc64-94e7c99e968d" CreationDate="2013-06-27T02:08:29.560" UserId="110" Text="There is a possibility you are looking for the wrong thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Australia we have a [reasonable][1] [selection][2] of &quot;not rebleached&quot; 100% recycled toilet papers which are almost identical in whiteness to regular bleached papers. So maybe you are looking for brown when there are white options which fit what you are after (pulp sourced from sustainable options or 100% recycled, not bleached etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use Naturale at home and it is one of the low cost options at the supermarket, is available Australia wide and I would say it matches any other brand in terms of quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also stumbled across this, which may prove helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;How will I know if I am buying unbleached, environmentally safe toilet paper?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The paper industry has recognized the consumers interest in getting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chlorinated chemicals out of the bleaching process. You will be able&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to choose the right paper, made without ANY chlorine, if you remember&#xD;&#xA;&gt; just a few simple terms: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - “UNBLEACHED”- Recycled Papers that have NOT&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been re-bleached &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - “PROCESSED CHLORINE-FREE”- Recycled papers bleached&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with oxygen, ozone or hydrogen peroxide instead of chlorine chemicals&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - “TOTALLY CHLORINE-FREE”- Non-recycled papers bleached with oxygen,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ozone or hydrogen peroxide instead of chlorine chemicals &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - “ELEMENTAL&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CHLORINE-FREE”- Papers bleached with chlorine dioxide instead of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chlorine gas. These chemicals still contain chlorine, so this process&#xD;&#xA;&gt; still produces dioxins!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [The Toilet Paper Encyclopedia][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://products.planetark.org/paproducts/safe.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.naturale.com.au/product.php&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://encyclopedia.toiletpaperworld.com/toilet-paper-history/toilet-paper-and-the-environment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1073" RevisionGUID="a67ee41f-e3f2-4d03-a3ea-77e402319ded" CreationDate="2013-06-27T03:27:03.763" UserId="45" Comment="added NFT and DWC summaries" Text="There are many different types of systems.  The flood and drain system described by Earthling is one, very popular, style of system.  It success is due to the fact that the grow bed where the plants are living is slowly filled, and then quickly drained.  This quick draining pulls oxygen into the bed.  This effectively is providing three things to the plant in a constant fashion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. An unlimited supply of oxygen&#xD;&#xA; 2. Nutrients from the fish (more on how in a second)&#xD;&#xA; 3. An unlimited supply of water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nutrients that the plants need come somewhat indirectly from the fish.  The fish go the bathroom.  This causes the ammonia levels to build up in the water.  There is a bacteria that will establish itself in the system which will convert this ammonia into nitrites.  Once the water starts to have a certain level of nitrites in it another bacteria will establish itself.  This second set of bacteria convert the nitrites into nitrates.  The nitrates are what feeds the plants.  This bacteria lives in the edges of the substrate/media.  This media is usually a type of rock or manufactured rock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this is the first half of the story.  The process described above feeds the plants.  But it is also helping to clean the water for the fish!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water moving around splashing all over in the system is what cleans out the carbon dioxide that the fish deposit in the water as they breath.  Sometimes there are issues in having enough of this process present in the natural motion of the system in which case a bubbler is also introduced.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only input to a well crafted aquaponics system is the food for the fish.  But clever people have figured out ways around that too using black soldier fly larvae!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other systems you might look at, which are similar in process, are grow towers.  In the towers case you would use a sponge like material similar to what you would find in a bio filter in an aquarium.  The ideas being the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are systems that don't use grow media at all.  [NFT][1] and [DWC][2] are a couple of examples.  These are closer to hydroponics.  The water is constantly on the roots of the plants without ever having a break.  In this type of system you need two additional concepts.  You need a media based bio filter similar to that of the towers but you wouldn't plant your plants in them.  The water flows through them allowing the bacteria to clean the water.  And immediately after the fish tanks you have some form of solids filter.  In many cases this comes in the form of a swirl filter where the water goes round and round allowing the big poops to fall to the bottom of the tank.  In a system like this you usually would have to remove the big solid waste now and then.  Some folks dump this directly into a grow bed so as not to have a waste being generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://aquaponics.wikia.com/wiki/Nutrient_Film_Technique&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://aquaponics.wikia.com/wiki/Deep_Water_Culture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NFT: Nutrient Film Technique - the plants sit in a very long and very shallow tube with holes cut in it or tray (much like a rain gutter) that has a top on it also with holes cut in it.  Nutrient rich water is trickled from one end of the tube to the other end in a constant flow - just enough water for the roots to drink from.  Plants sit in the holes every foot or so (depending on what you are growing) with their roots just touching the bottom of the tube.  This allows maximum fresh air to get to the roots as the water pulls it in as it travels.  The roots eventually grow into the tube and lay in the water.  Two immediate down sides to this technique is that 1) without appropriate filtering, solids can get stuck on the roots and eventually cake the root disallowing uptake of nutrients, water, and oxygen and 2) in hot and cold climates the water that enters the tube is at the temperature you specify but can be drastically different once it reaches the other end some 50-100' away.  This can cook the roots or freeze out the roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DWC: Deep Water Culter - this is very much the same thing as NFT in principle but on a totally different scale.  Two big differences with this approach is that rather than planting in a small tube you plant in a huge trough of water.  The trough might be equally long 50-100' (or more) but the trough is also 4-5' wide and at least 12&quot; deep.  The water also enters one end and exits on the other end.  Another major difference is that the plants sit on a foam (usually) raft with holes cut in the raft.  The plants sit in plastic cups and almost their entire root body hands into the water totally submerged.  Filtering is still an issue but in aquaponics there are many that are running their water through a grow bed or grow tower prior to entering the DWC tank.  This way you don't loose the good stuff that is filtered.  And because of the sheer volume of water it doesn't tend to fluctuate in temperature nearly as much.  Also - having that much water means that keeping the chemical balance is usually easier.  One down side in some dwc systems is lack of oxygenation.  You can design bubbling spots in your plumbing and system but many people add additional pumps with bubble stones directly to the grow tank which aids in off gassing. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3323" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="5f3c65ec-2c09-4af5-8af1-b2484caaa85b" CreationDate="2013-06-27T23:11:54.100" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/350391063065804800" />
  <row Id="3324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1076" RevisionGUID="42c7bc25-c5a2-4351-b9c5-eefd2df34f67" CreationDate="2013-06-28T12:42:06.517" UserId="48" Text="Generally, no they're not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a combination of several reasons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the tracking system itself has a high capital cost.&#xD;&#xA; 2. static PV systems are extremely low maintenance. Tracking PV systems are not.&#xD;&#xA; 3. adding a tracker means bigger spacing between groups of panels, so that they don't shadow each other&#xD;&#xA; 3. The net additional energy yield isn't that high: for PV, ambient light is pretty much as useful as direct rays. That's very different to CSP (concentrating solar power), where it's all about the direct rays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These all come together, to mean the economics of a tracker don't work - it's extra capital cost, and extra maintenance cost, for little extra benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panels have dropped much more in price than the rest of a tracking system has, so if you want more power, it's much cheaper just to design the system with more panels, than to get extra yield by adding a tracker.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3326" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1050" RevisionGUID="d66d6c4f-1e35-4165-ab72-25e2bccf6607" CreationDate="2013-06-28T23:11:55.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/350753454941151232" />
  <row Id="3327" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1059" RevisionGUID="5f0f14b9-204c-4c2b-a9e4-4f48710fbc4a" CreationDate="2013-06-29T02:11:54.807" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/350798752421904384" />
  <row Id="3328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1065" RevisionGUID="b2bd2740-739c-439d-ab98-bf677233a086" CreationDate="2013-06-29T04:03:20.663" UserId="85" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="![leafcutter ants](http://andresiegmund.de/Picture/LeafCutterAnts_DE-DE3252262952.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The picture says it all. They strip a complete tree in a day of all its leaves. Can't blame them, because they use the leaves to make their own food, but they do attack my fig tree, roses, hibiscus, etc., and I would try anything to stop them, preferably a natural solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natives' strategy is to track them back to their home, pour petrol down the nest and set it on fire. I'm neither keen on pouring petrol into nature, nor on spraying my plants with heavy chemicals (which does work, I am told). Besides, the nest is not on my property. Is there anything I can do to protect my plants and get rid of the ants?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They seem to cut the leaves and then collect them at the bottom of the tree. Are there any physical barriers that one could try, which might be too difficult to overcome whilst carrying the leaf?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do ants avoid plants with strong smell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="4e428224-cdb3-4b38-a66b-afcae75a333b" CreationDate="2013-06-29T05:35:28.297" UserId="15" Text="I have a (thermal) solar hot water system with electric heating, and I'd like to be able to measure the amount of energy provided by just the solar heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system is set up like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Water runs through glass tube panels on the roof, and heat is conducted back into water in the 250 litre hot water cylinder (HWC) through a coil in the cylinder. More [details on the tubes are here][1].&#xD;&#xA; 2. An electric element is also normally operating in the HWC.&#xD;&#xA; 3. A control panel allows the electric element to only be turned on at specified times of day, and stop heating at a specified temperature.&#xD;&#xA; 4. When the water in the panel is 4 degrees C hotter than the water in the HWC, a pump circulates the water through the HWC and thus heats it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I tried to restrict the electric heating so that we could get the most efficiency from the solar heating, but I had a lot of trouble with running out of hot water sooner than expected. At the moment, the electric element is active all the time but switches off when the water reaches around 60 degrees, however the solar heating will continue heating well past that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do have a power meter for our standard 3 pin sockets, but the HWC is directly wired into the wall despite only using about 2000W maximum, so I can't use the power meter to measure the electricity usage. Unplugging all the appliances in the house would allow me to measure electricity usage with the outdoor meter on the house, but if done for more than a short time food in our fridge may start to spoil!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can temporarily turn off the electric element in the HWC, but that may increase the efficiency of the solar heating to give an inaccurate result (and we need the electric element turned on at least some of the time to have enough hot water).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is a procedure to work through to determine how much heating we get from the solar panels?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.heatingcompany.co.nz/water-heating/solar-water-heating/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="4e428224-cdb3-4b38-a66b-afcae75a333b" CreationDate="2013-06-29T05:35:28.297" UserId="15" Text="How to measure the solar output of a thermal solar hot water system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="4e428224-cdb3-4b38-a66b-afcae75a333b" CreationDate="2013-06-29T05:35:28.297" UserId="15" Text="|energy-efficiency|water-heating|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3332" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="0fd59220-f496-4f97-96e5-66a2d32beb4e" CreationDate="2013-06-29T05:42:19.267" UserId="15" Comment="edited title" Text="How to measure the energy output of a thermal solar hot water system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="0fd59220-f496-4f97-96e5-66a2d32beb4e" CreationDate="2013-06-29T05:42:19.267" UserId="15" Comment="edited title" Text="I have a (thermal) solar hot water system with electric heating, and I'd like to be able to measure the amount of energy provided by just the solar heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system is set up like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Water runs through glass tube panels on the roof, and heat is conducted back into water in the 250 litre hot water cylinder (HWC) through a coil in the cylinder. More [details on the tubes are here][1].&#xD;&#xA; 2. An electric element also exists in the HWC, but turns off once a particular temperature is reached.&#xD;&#xA; 3. A control panel allows restriction of when the electric element is turned on by specified times of day, no matter what temperature the water is.&#xD;&#xA; 4. When the water in the panel is at least 4 degrees C hotter than the water in the HWC, a pump turns on and circulates the water from the panels through the HWC and thus heats it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I tried to restrict the electric heating so that we could get the most efficiency from the solar heating, but I had a lot of trouble with running out of hot water sooner than expected. At the moment, the electric element is active all the time but switches off when the water reaches around 60 degrees, however the solar heating will continue heating well past that, though with what level of efficiency I don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do have a power meter for our standard 3 pin sockets, but the HWC is directly wired into the wall despite only using about 2000W maximum, so I can't use the power meter to measure the electricity usage. Unplugging all the appliances in the house would allow me to measure electricity usage with the outdoor meter on the house, but if done for more than a short time food in our fridge may start to spoil!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can temporarily turn off the electric element in the HWC, but that may increase the efficiency of the solar heating to give an inaccurate result (and we need the electric element turned on at least some of the time to have enough hot water).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is a procedure to work through to determine how much heating we get from the solar panels?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.heatingcompany.co.nz/water-heating/solar-water-heating/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1078" RevisionGUID="574d8658-a2eb-49c2-bc18-4c7cd61b634c" CreationDate="2013-06-29T06:23:49.077" UserId="15" Text="New Zealand doesn't have particularly advanced technology for its railroads, but I have seen pickup trucks that have wheels that can run on railroad tracks as well as a separate set of wheels with tyres for driving on the road. I think they are used for light maintenance, and probably for quick access to hard-to-reach places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the fuel efficiency of a vehicle that size when it operates on the railroad tracks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are similarly sized vehicles that *only* operate on tracks, then they would obviously be lighter and thus more efficient (and cheaper!), so some data on that kind of vehicle would be of interest too (if it exists!)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1078" RevisionGUID="574d8658-a2eb-49c2-bc18-4c7cd61b634c" CreationDate="2013-06-29T06:23:49.077" UserId="15" Text="Efficiency of car-sized vehicles running on train tracks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1078" RevisionGUID="574d8658-a2eb-49c2-bc18-4c7cd61b634c" CreationDate="2013-06-29T06:23:49.077" UserId="15" Text="|vehicle|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1079" RevisionGUID="65af8cac-aa6c-4a40-b550-271f36c47cbf" CreationDate="2013-06-29T06:37:02.423" UserId="48" Text="Very short answer for now: more details with schematic to follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You measure the temperature of the water going in to the solar panel, and the temperature coming out, and the rate of flow through.  The power produced is then a simple calculation of multiplying the specific heat capacity of water, by the rate of flow, by the difference between return and flow temperatures. The energy produced is the integral of power over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are commercially available heat meters that do all of these things in one unit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1080" RevisionGUID="db38157e-d889-409e-80fe-d0319116df7c" CreationDate="2013-06-29T11:39:33.257" UserId="486" Text="There's various options depending on the level of accuracy desired.  To be most useful to a general audience, *not just this question's asker*, I'll mention a couple rough methods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The way you should track your energy choices in general is fairly simple:  monitor your energy bills monthly, **before and after** making the change (in this case, before and after installing the solar hot water system).  Energy utilities are often quite good at giving you detailed information on your bill.   While this method is rough, and fails when you make multiple changes at once (e.g. add a baby at the same time that you add solar hot water), it also has the benefit of encompassing all losses in the system, which you will not get if you only monitor *in situ* at the panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. You could conduct a short experiment, and then extrapolate results to get your monthly, or yearly savings.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The experiment might involve switching off all other electric devices in the house (I recommend doing so at the circuit breakers, not by unplugging appliances individually).  &#xD;&#xA; - Leave your hot water system to operate normally.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With a simple thermometer, take some cold water from your tap to measure its temperature.  Note the hot water setting at your house if you have a fixed *setpoint* (e.g. 60&amp;deg;C), or measure it again by drawing **hot** water from the tank's drain valve, or a nearby faucet.  Now you have your &amp;Delta;T (change in water temperature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Start with the hot water at equilibrium (after the tank temperature is stable ... not right after a shower, or running the clothes washer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Record the initial electricity reading at your home's meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Have your family take your normal daily showers.  Note the exact length of the showers, in seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wait a few hours, or until you're sure that water tank temperature has recovered to the steady state value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You'll need to know the flow rate of your shower.  It should be stamped on the shower head itself, but you may need to calibrate that number with a separate experiment: run the shower into a large bucket of known size and time how long it takes to fill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With this information, you can determine that total water consumed is equal to the total shower time in seconds, times the flow rate in liters per second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Once again, measure electricity consumed at the house meter.  Subtract the initial reading to get total grid electricity consumed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The total heat added to the water is the volume of water used, times &amp;rho; (1 kg/liter), times &amp;Delta;T, times the heat capacity of water (1 calorie / gram / &amp;deg;C).  The heat added by the solar system is approximately the total heat, minus the heat added by the electrical heater.  You measured the **electrical energy** input, so **heat** input from the electric element will be that number, multiplied by the electric water heater's [Energy Factor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_factor).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; 3. If you don't want your food to start spoiling during the experiment, simply get one [plug-in power meter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_A_Watt) to use with your refrigerator, so you can measure and subtract the fridge's energy from the meter reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. If you want to also run through a cycle with your clothes washer, or dish washer, then add them to the experiment.  Again, use a plug-in meter on the appliance when it's being used, so you can separate that energy usage from what you read at the home's meter.  If your dish washer has an option to provide water heat, [which I don't tend to use](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/850/486), you might turn that off for the experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Extrapolating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you just perform this experiment once, it's obviously dependent on how sunny that day was.  Repeating the experiment several times, during different seasons/conditions, can allow you to get an average result.  You could also try to simply determine what the day's sunshine was like, relative to the average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have access to a [Pyranometer](http://www.vernier.com/products/sensors/pyr-bta/), you can measure sunshine during the experiment, and compare it to other days (the other days can simply be to monitor sunshine, without the hot water tests).  You can also lookup [climate data for your location](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/mcdw/mcdw.html) to determine how sunny your area is, month by month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this information, you can determine that during your test, your output might be 10% above normal, or 25% below normal, and use that adjustment when you multiply by 30, or 365 to get monthly and yearly estimates.  Remember that if you add activities like clothes or dish washing, that don't happen *daily*, you'll need to account for that when projecting for the full month, or year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** if you do the experiment, and feel that your hot water temperature is not constant (not recovering all the way between uses), then you can make the results more precise by measuring hot water temperature at each step (each shower, each wash cycle, etc.) and performing the calculation for each hot water consuming activity separately, with a different &amp;Delta;T value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like [EnergyNumbers is going to provide a more precise technique](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1079/486) for measuring output (at the panels?), so I'll leave my answer with just these rough measures for approximating the answer.  For the majority of home users, I think this is more than sufficient to track your energy efficiency improvements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1080" RevisionGUID="a5c3773c-9454-4708-8dad-0e5c164d9926" CreationDate="2013-06-29T11:47:08.763" UserId="486" Comment="added notes about volume measurements for dish and clothes washers" Text="There's various options depending on the level of accuracy desired.  To be most useful to a general audience, *not just this question's asker*, I'll mention a couple rough methods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The way you should track your energy choices in general is fairly simple:  monitor your energy bills monthly, **before and after** making the change (in this case, before and after installing the solar hot water system).  Energy utilities are often quite good at giving you detailed information on your bill.   While this method is rough, and fails when you make multiple changes at once (e.g. add a baby at the same time that you add solar hot water), it also has the benefit of encompassing all losses in the system, which you will not get if you only monitor *in situ* at the panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. You could conduct a short experiment, and then extrapolate results to get your monthly, or yearly savings.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The experiment might involve switching off all other electric devices in the house (I recommend doing so at the circuit breakers, not by unplugging appliances individually).  &#xD;&#xA; - Leave your hot water system to operate normally.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With a simple thermometer, take some cold water from your tap to measure its temperature.  Note the hot water setting at your house if you have a fixed *setpoint* (e.g. 60&amp;deg;C), or measure it again by drawing **hot** water from the tank's drain valve, or a nearby faucet.  Now you have your &amp;Delta;T (change in water temperature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Start with the hot water at equilibrium (after the tank temperature is stable ... not right after a shower, or running the clothes washer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Record the initial electricity reading at your home's meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Have your family take your normal daily showers.  Note the exact length of the showers, in seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wait a few hours, or until you're sure that water tank temperature has recovered to the steady state value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You'll need to know the flow rate of your shower.  It should be stamped on the shower head itself, but you may need to calibrate that number with a separate experiment: run the shower into a large bucket of known size and time how long it takes to fill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With this information, you can determine that total water consumed is equal to the total shower time in seconds, times the flow rate in liters per second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Once again, measure electricity consumed at the house meter.  Subtract the initial reading to get total grid electricity consumed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The total heat added to the water is the volume of water used, times &amp;rho; (1 kg/liter), times &amp;Delta;T, times the heat capacity of water (1 calorie / gram / &amp;deg;C).  The heat added by the solar system is approximately the total heat, minus the heat added by the electrical heater.  You measured the **electrical energy** input, so **heat** input from the electric element will be that number, multiplied by the electric water heater's [Energy Factor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_factor).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; 3. If you don't want your food to start spoiling during the experiment, simply get one [plug-in power meter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_A_Watt) to use with your refrigerator, so you can measure and subtract the fridge's energy from the meter reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. If you want to also run through a cycle with your clothes washer, or dish washer, then add them to the experiment.  Again, use a plug-in meter on the appliance when it's being used, so you can separate that energy usage from what you read at the home's meter.  If your dish washer has an option to provide water heat, [which I don't tend to use](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/850/486), you might turn that off for the experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For a clothes washer, if it drains to a utility sink, you can stop the sink up, and monitor how many times it fills (opening the sink before it overflows, of course), to measure the water consumed during a **hot** cycle.  I'm guessing you have a cold rinse, which you wouldn't want to measure for this test.  Cycles that mix hot and cold might be harder to measure ... I'll have to get back to you on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the dish washer, you might just have to search for manufacturer's data on your model, to see how much hot water per cycle it uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Extrapolating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you just perform this experiment once, it's obviously dependent on how sunny that day was.  Repeating the experiment several times, during different seasons/conditions, can allow you to get an average result.  You could also try to simply determine what the day's sunshine was like, relative to the average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have access to a [Pyranometer](http://www.vernier.com/products/sensors/pyr-bta/), you can measure sunshine during the experiment, and compare it to other days (the other days can simply be to monitor sunshine, without the hot water tests).  You can also lookup [climate data for your location](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/mcdw/mcdw.html) to determine how sunny your area is, month by month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this information, you can determine that during your test, your output might be 10% above normal, or 25% below normal, and use that adjustment when you multiply by 30, or 365 to get monthly and yearly estimates.  Remember that if you add activities like clothes or dish washing, that don't happen *daily*, you'll need to account for that when projecting for the full month, or year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** if you do the experiment, and feel that your hot water temperature is not constant (not recovering all the way between uses), then you can make the results more precise by measuring hot water temperature at each step (each shower, each wash cycle, etc.) and performing the calculation for each hot water consuming activity separately, with a different &amp;Delta;T value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like [EnergyNumbers is going to provide a more precise technique](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1079/486) for measuring output (at the panels?), so I'll leave my answer with just these rough measures for approximating the answer.  For the majority of home users, I think this is more than sufficient to track your energy efficiency improvements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3340" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1077" RevisionGUID="0172a78b-d48c-4670-b8ba-bc92093449f3" CreationDate="2013-06-29T17:11:55.087" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/351025245391556608" />
  <row Id="3341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1079" RevisionGUID="0a1ec610-0ada-4603-96d0-80348ed4de97" CreationDate="2013-06-29T20:11:41.587" UserId="48" Comment="added 374 characters in body" Text="You measure the temperature of the water going in to the solar panel, and the temperature coming out, and the rate of flow through.  The power produced is then a simple calculation of multiplying the specific heat capacity of water, by the rate of flow, by the difference between return and flow temperatures. The energy produced is the integral of power over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other way will be full of assumptions and errors that will make the calculation very very unreliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are commercially available heat meters that do all of these things in one unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are non-invasive ultrasonic flow meters, that would require no plumbing - they clamp on to the outside of the pipes. Here's one from [DMS][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.dmsltd.com/Non_Invasive_Heat_Meter/DMS_Dynamic_Ultrasonic_Clamp-On_Heat_Meter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kD6CG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="25e9ba39-df03-4613-99f8-3447eb29bc49" CreationDate="2013-06-29T20:17:16.320" UserId="610" Comment="It was suggested I ommit my anology to solar power &amp; I may not have drawn the tightest comparison but doing so gutted my answer so I attempted to tackle it head on.  see comments" Text="As the question has inferred, it is logical that by not using bleach in picnic/kitchen napkins, Kleenex, paper towels, toilet paper, sanitary napkins etc. it would cut cost and also save the toxins from the environment.  To find the answer one must look at the bigger picture for it has to do with a number of contributing factors much larger than the bleaching of a piece of paper.   &#xD;&#xA;The outdated economical model currently used today combined with the corporate power in politics (some would argue increasingly fascist over capitalist) plays a large part.  In the case of paper products these corporations are Weyerhauser, Georgia Pacific and Kimberly Clark among others.  This is one of the sectors that peaked in the early stage of the industrial revolution/era with the advent of high tech mills, new machines that could increase production.  Its infrastructure had been built over the century and continues to be maintained.  In the last half of the century their profit margins have fallen considerably due to factors such as reduced viable resources and the public awareness due to investigative journalism (early on black and white pictures of clear cut ancient old growth forest to more recent books like Silent Spring by Rachel Carsons).  &#xD;&#xA;Capitalism (which some liken to a trusty old tractor that we have much to thank for it; yet at the same time is a rusting decrepit machine, rapidly slowing down and on its way to a creeping halt) and its survival of the fittest theory puts profit over all else including the welfare of the ecosystem and natural resources.  I believe we are all aware of the powerful lobbyists in Congress. This system allows largest of corporations (especially in the oldest of sectors i.e. logging, farming, fossil fuels, mining) to receive tax incentives/breaks and have laws (pork barrel spending) written in their best interest.  Their sectors are even subsidized through “tough times” with no end in sight.  &#xD;&#xA;**What does this big picture stuff have to do with unbleached toilet paper you ask?**  Nearly everything.  I have just laid out a summary of how things have been.  The “power brokers” of the logging pulp and paper industry such as Kimberly-Clark have seen their enormous profits dive, have no incentive to change and lobby to stay atop their sector.  Their business model is much more difficult, time consuming and costly to change as this model is not of the information age rather the early industrial age.  On top of that you have large industrial chemical complex that doesn’t want to lose business that will be replaced with nothing.  These corporations have to answer to the board members and stockholders about projected quarterly earnings.&#xD;&#xA;*BTW this is an edit as my first answer attempted to draw an analogy to the start of solar power.  Its success was rapid but mainly for consumers and companies small enough to adapt quickly. Once it was realized the largest, most powerful were ill equipped to handle change so quickly all of the incentives quickly went away.*   &#xD;&#xA;Yes, there are several retail companies such as Seventh Generation and other reputable companies offer unbleached tissue but the price is expensive compared to bleached toilet paper (which is not logical unless you take into consideration the above) .  Seventh Generation is the #1 rated company on the planet based on their overall social and environmental records.  This rating is achieved by a 5 step process which starts with over 20 years worth of data collected from a wide range of public, private and nonprofit sources. To be ethical costs money in a capitalist free-market economy that does not value natural resources and workers rights (hours, wage, age, etc.). This can be applied to many things that seem illogical like organic food.  &#xD;&#xA;But wait, all is not bleak.  There is good news. Thanks to authors like Paul Hawkens and William McDonough there is progress. There are a number of think tanks around the world such as NEF, Happy Planet Index, Paecon and the Cambridge Trust for New Economic Thinking that are working together to create a new economic model that values nature.  There are also more immediate action views like [Kick It Over][1] Although, these positive points may not pertain to the question, I did not want to leave my answer sounding so pessimistic ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://kickitover.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1078" RevisionGUID="dac6c5fe-71db-48a8-9a7c-fc738250693f" CreationDate="2013-06-30T05:33:35.830" UserId="15" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="New Zealand doesn't have particularly advanced technology for its railroads, but I have seen pickup trucks that have wheels that can run on railroad tracks as well as a separate set of wheels with tyres for driving on the road. I think they are used for light maintenance, and probably for quick access to hard-to-reach places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the fuel efficiency of a vehicle that size when it operates on the railroad tracks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are similarly sized vehicles that *only* operate on tracks, then they would obviously be lighter and thus more efficient (and cheaper!), so some data on that kind of vehicle would be of interest too (if it exists!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: The [Aramis personal rapid transit project][1] in France (from 1970 to 1987) appears to have tried to use vehicles similar to what I'm describing. There appear to be some [other projects listed here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramis_%28personal_rapid_transit%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Personal_rapid_transit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1081" RevisionGUID="3ae6857a-1ae6-47b0-9d57-78f31b3ea85a" CreationDate="2013-06-30T10:08:40.927" UserId="48" Text="Electric motors generally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. are easier to maintain&#xD;&#xA; 1. are very efficient (80-90% compared to 20-30% for ICEs)&#xD;&#xA; 1. have a very wide range of operating speed, so need no gears, or fewer gears, to move through their full speed range&#xD;&#xA; 1. make it easy to incorporate regenerative braking.&#xD;&#xA; 1. can provide full torque from stationary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently, heavy-duty applications such as trains and ships, if diesel powered, typically have hybrid diesel-electric drivetrains, with the diesel engine generating electricity that powers the electric motor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, a pure electric system has the advantage that there is no local pollution: one of many problems with combustion engines is the amount and range of pollutants generated: particulates (PM&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt;, PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt;), NO&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;, SO&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;, CO, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity can be generated from a wide range of sources, so using an all-electric transmission makes it much easier to switch to a cleaner supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as a large demand from electric engines improves the economics of electric storage, by providing income for electric-storage providers, economies of scale, and demand-pull for innovation, that makes it even easier to incorporate into the electricity grid exogenously-variable renewables such as run-of-river hydro, PV, CSP, and wind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3345" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1078" RevisionGUID="5672032e-94b8-4ea2-9778-ac4e46cd445d" CreationDate="2013-06-30T17:12:00.377" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/351387656527159297" />
  <row Id="3346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1082" RevisionGUID="3558aae5-b281-45ad-bc85-37d20b2d418a" CreationDate="2013-06-30T17:21:28.950" UserId="584" Text="I see some designs of rocket mass heater on the internet and i found them very interesting for a sustainable hear source.&#xD;&#xA;There is one question in my mind that in normal wood-burning fireplaces with a clogged chimney or a blocked chimney opening needs to clean frequently. But in rocket mass heater the outlet pipe has a several bends so how we can avoid to block the outlet chimney and keep it clean.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1082" RevisionGUID="3558aae5-b281-45ad-bc85-37d20b2d418a" CreationDate="2013-06-30T17:21:28.950" UserId="584" Text="How to manage clogged chimney problem in rocket mass heater?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1082" RevisionGUID="3558aae5-b281-45ad-bc85-37d20b2d418a" CreationDate="2013-06-30T17:21:28.950" UserId="584" Text="|heating|fireplace|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1082" RevisionGUID="cb03ec59-ba40-4a0d-a84d-95dcaedf2d1e" CreationDate="2013-06-30T22:19:21.700" UserId="486" Comment="grammar and link to explain what a rocket mass heater is" Text="I see some designs for [rocket mass heaters][1] on the internet and I found them very interesting as a sustainable heat source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a normal wood-burning fireplace, the chimney needs frequent cleaning. But in a rocket mass heater, the outlet pipe has several bends, so **how we can avoid blocking the chimney outlet and keep it clean?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_mass_heater" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3350" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1082" RevisionGUID="cb03ec59-ba40-4a0d-a84d-95dcaedf2d1e" CreationDate="2013-06-30T22:19:21.700" UserId="486" Comment="grammar and link to explain what a rocket mass heater is" Text="How to manage a clogged chimney problem in a rocket mass heater?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3351" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1082" RevisionGUID="cb03ec59-ba40-4a0d-a84d-95dcaedf2d1e" CreationDate="2013-06-30T22:19:21.700" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by -1 edit id of 141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1082" RevisionGUID="5cc0725e-a27a-4ec0-89e7-4748bcadf371" CreationDate="2013-06-30T22:19:21.700" UserId="48" Comment="grammar and link to explain what a rocket mass heater is" Text="I see some designs for [rocket mass heaters][1] on the internet and I found them very interesting as a sustainable heat source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a normal wood-burning fireplace, the chimney needs frequent cleaning. But in a rocket mass heater, the outlet pipe has several bends, so **how can we avoid blocking the chimney outlet and how can we keep it clean?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_mass_heater" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3353" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1082" RevisionGUID="5cc0725e-a27a-4ec0-89e7-4748bcadf371" CreationDate="2013-06-30T22:19:21.700" UserId="48" Comment="grammar and link to explain what a rocket mass heater is" Text="|heating|fireplace|biomass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1082" RevisionGUID="e8521f1f-2776-4f2d-9b78-f1abf9bdd9f3" CreationDate="2013-06-30T22:24:05.830" UserId="584" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I see some designs for [rocket mass heaters][1] on the internet and I found them very interesting as a sustainable heat source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a normal wood-burning fireplace, the chimney needs frequently cleaning. But in a rocket mass heater, the outlet pipe has several bends, so **how can we avoid blocking the chimney outlet and how can we keep it clean?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_mass_heater" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="203e78b5-0c90-4569-8624-a3932b97ade7" CreationDate="2013-06-30T23:26:25.093" UserId="486" Text="I agree with everything in [EnergyNumbers' answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1081/486), but would like to add some more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##(Other) Advantages of Electric Motors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along the lines of *&quot;easier to maintain&quot;*, **an electric motor is likely to last much longer**, for example, in an automotive application, than an internal combustion engine (ICE).  An EV traction motor may very well last 1,000,000 miles, versus perhaps one quarter of that for most ICEs.  While it's true that current EVs tend to use batteries to power the motors, and batteries may need to be replaced at a comparable interval to an ICE timing belt, an EV with a new battery is going to run much more like a new vehicle than an ICE with a new timing belt.  The regenerative braking associated with the electric motor will also prolong brake life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Electric motors are more quiet than ICEs.**  This is a controversial topic.  I believe noise pollution to be a problem, and thus, a quieter car to be better (especially with respect to *sustainability*).  Some are concerned about pedestrian safety with quieter electric motors.  While this problem can be, and is being, addressed by adding noise makers to electric cars, I believe this solution is actually misguided.  The basis for this aversion to quiet cars partly draws from a [multi-year study][1] in the US concerning pedestrian accidents with hybrid vehicles.  The hybrid vehicles had a 40% higher rate of pedestrian accidents than non-hybrids.  However, the study did not correct for the fact that in the US, hybrids tend to be owned by city-dwellers, and the rate of pedestrian accidents is twice as high in cities vs. rural areas, for all cars.  I believe this factor alone can explain the 40% result.  Also, during this study, which involved thousands of hybrid cars, not a single blind person was killed by a quiet hybrid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Size matters**.  In an application-agnostic answer, it's important to note that for some applications, electric motors are more versatile because of the variety of sizes they come in.  Hopefully, it's obvious that an ICE to make your phone vibrate is not an option, but a motor works quite well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Disadvantages of Electric Motors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without specifying your application, I'll try to discuss multiple transportation applications.  For cars or trains, the excess **weight** of a battery pack that drives an electric motor is not a huge penalty.  The road provides extra normal force to balance the vehicle weight.  However, in aerospace applications, power-to-weight ratio is more critical.  So, for airplanes, using electric motors for propulsion is still not practical.  Liquid fuels have a [higher energy density][4] compared to batteries, which makes petro-fuels or biofuels more attractive for airborne propulsion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is less of a problem for cars, which [do not yet have to levitate][5].  Also, it should be noted that comparisons of energy density for liquid fuels vs. batteries distort the true picture, because **total weight** is what's important, and an ICE system requires a heavy ICE, and a heavy transmission.  When the whole system is considered, battery EVs suffer a noticeable, but acceptable, weight penalty for their lower energy-density fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Battery range** (capacity) is also a problem for EVs.  However, I believe this issue to be exaggerated, as the average US driver (who drives a lot!) still only drives 40 miles on an average day.  In the future, more charging stations will also minimize the range problem for electric cars.  However, for now, range versatility has to be considered an advantage of ICE vehicles.  An interesting compromise is made by Chevy's [Volt EV][3], which is fundamentally an electric car, but which carries an on board generator for recharging with liquid petro-fuel.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Temperature** constraints can be a disadvantage for electric motors, *due to the batteries themselves*.  High temperatures can shorten battery life, and very low temperatures can (temporarily) reduce the useful capacity of the battery.  Note that normal temperatures here on earth are well-suited to battery EVs, so this issue is more a problem if your area has temperature extremes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Economic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is difficult to answer without a more specific question.  Electric motors will draw their fuel from different sources than internal combustion engines.  Each country will have different economics regarding their electric grid, and oil consumption.  If your country has more abundant resources to produce electricity (coal, natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear), you may consider electric motors an economic benefit.  If you're in an oil country, maybe not.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you add biofuels to the mix, you add agriculture as a factor.  Most internal combustion engines can use varying levels of biofuels.  An [Otto cycle engine needs modest engine modifications to run rich ethanol blends][2].  Many modern diesel engines need no modifications to run biodiesel (although winter cold can limit the blend).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, ICEs can provide a domestic economic boost if your country can grow its own biofuel feedstock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that pollution (which includes greenhouse gas) and energy efficiency are the most important factors here, and those favor electric motors for many applications.  EnergyNumbers' answer covers those well.  I simply wanted to add a few more pros *and cons* to round out the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclaimer: biased owner of an electric vehicle, but I've certainly owned ICEs, too :)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A related question about Electric Cars on Sustainable Living](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/612/486)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** more sources coming later ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811204.PDF&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.slideshare.net/sughoshdeshmukh/ethanol-engine-modifications&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm237341696/tt0181689" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="b9611bbc-7652-4a24-882a-ba6ce7eaeb7a" CreationDate="2013-06-30T23:32:43.657" UserId="486" Comment="better wording" Text="I agree with everything in [EnergyNumbers' answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1081/486), but would like to add some more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##(Other) Advantages of Electric Motors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along the lines of *&quot;easier to maintain&quot;*, **an electric motor is likely to last much longer**, for example, in an automotive application, than an internal combustion engine (ICE).  An EV traction motor may very well last 1,000,000 miles, versus perhaps one quarter of that for most ICEs.  While it's true that current EVs tend to use batteries to power the motors, and batteries may need to be replaced at a comparable interval to an ICE timing belt, an EV with a new battery is going to run much more like a new vehicle than an ICE with a new timing belt.  The regenerative braking associated with the electric motor will also prolong brake life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Electric motors are more quiet than ICEs.**  This is a controversial topic.  I believe noise pollution to be a problem, and thus, a quieter car to be better (especially with respect to *sustainability*).  Some are concerned about pedestrian safety with quieter electric motors.  While this can be, and is being, addressed by adding noise makers to electric cars, I believe this solution is actually misguided.  The basis for this aversion to quiet cars partly draws from a [multi-year study][1] in the US concerning pedestrian accidents with hybrid vehicles.  The hybrid vehicles had a 40% higher rate of pedestrian accidents than non-hybrids.  However, the study did not correct for the fact that in the US, hybrids tend to be owned by city-dwellers, and the rate of pedestrian accidents is twice as high in cities vs. rural areas, for all cars.  I believe this factor alone can explain the 40% result.  Also, during this study, which involved thousands of hybrid cars, not a single blind person was killed by a quiet hybrid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Size matters**.  In an application-agnostic answer, it's important to note that for some applications, electric motors are more versatile because of the variety of sizes they come in.  Hopefully, it's obvious that an ICE to make your phone vibrate is not an option, but a motor works quite well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Disadvantages of Electric Motors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without specifying your application, I'll try to discuss multiple transportation applications.  For cars or trains, the excess **weight** of a battery pack that drives an electric motor is not a huge penalty.  The road provides extra normal force to balance the vehicle weight.  However, in aerospace applications, power-to-weight ratio is more critical.  So, for airplanes, using electric motors for propulsion is still not practical.  Liquid fuels have a [higher energy density][4] compared to batteries, which makes petro-fuels or biofuels more attractive for airborne propulsion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is less of a problem for cars, which [do not yet have to levitate][5].  Also, it should be noted that comparisons of energy density for liquid fuels vs. batteries distort the true picture, because **total weight** is what's important, and an ICE system requires a heavy ICE, and a heavy transmission.  When the whole system is considered, battery EVs suffer a noticeable, but acceptable, weight penalty for their lower energy-density fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Battery range** (capacity) is also a problem for EVs.  However, I believe this issue to be exaggerated, as the average US driver (who drives a lot!) still only drives 40 miles on an average day.  In the future, more charging stations will also minimize the range problem for electric cars.  However, for now, range versatility has to be considered an advantage of ICE vehicles.  An interesting compromise is made by Chevy's [Volt EV][3], which is fundamentally an electric car, but which carries an on-board generator for recharging the battery by burning liquid petro-fuel.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Temperature** constraints can be a disadvantage for electric motors, *due to the batteries themselves*.  High temperatures can shorten battery life, and very low temperatures can (temporarily) reduce the useful capacity of the battery.  Note that *normal* temperatures here on earth are well-suited to battery EVs, so this issue is more a problem if your area has temperature extremes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Economic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is difficult to answer without a more specific question.  Electric motors will draw their fuel from different sources than internal combustion engines.  Each country will have different economics regarding their electric grid, and oil consumption.  If your country has more abundant resources to produce electricity (coal, natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear), you may consider electric motors an economic benefit.  If you're in an oil country, maybe not.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you add biofuels to the mix, you add agriculture as a factor.  Most internal combustion engines can use varying levels of biofuels.  An [Otto cycle engine needs modest engine modifications to run rich ethanol blends][2].  Many modern diesel engines need no modifications to run biodiesel (although winter cold can limit the blend).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, ICEs can provide a domestic economic boost if your country can grow its own biofuel feedstock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that pollution (which includes greenhouse gas) and energy efficiency are the most important factors here, and those favor electric motors for many applications.  EnergyNumbers' answer covers those well.  I simply wanted to add a few more pros *and cons* to round out the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclaimer: biased owner of an electric vehicle, but I've certainly owned ICEs, too :)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A related question about Electric Cars on Sustainable Living](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/612/486)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** more sources coming later ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811204.PDF&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.slideshare.net/sughoshdeshmukh/ethanol-engine-modifications&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm237341696/tt0181689" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3357" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1082" RevisionGUID="17f28cf2-4209-4964-ad52-af96231eeb9b" CreationDate="2013-07-01T08:12:01.297" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/351614152139227136" />
  <row Id="3358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1084" RevisionGUID="e5e16faa-bb19-4214-8633-66f481c472d5" CreationDate="2013-07-01T09:50:15.003" UserId="48" Text="I'm in England, and currently on a single-price electricity tariff, that's measured by a (very) old-style electricity meter (mine says &quot;property of Eastern Electricity Board&quot; on it, so it's well over 20 years old).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After my previous question on how to decarbonise my home heating - http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/319/48 - I think my best bet is to to put in electricity storage heaters, and a hot water tank with electric immersion heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to move to a time-of-use tariff, such as Economy Seven, then that would require more sophisticated metering. At the very least, a second old-style meter, which has been standard practice for dwellings on Economy 7 or Economy 10 for 30-odd years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Britain is just starting the process of switching from old-style meters to smart meters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I want to move to a time-of-use electricity tariff, how do I get an appropriate meter fitted, and what should I be looking for, if I want to take part in the forthcoming demand-side response market?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I get my electricity and gas from [Ecotricity][1], if that makes a difference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ecotricity.co.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1084" RevisionGUID="e5e16faa-bb19-4214-8633-66f481c472d5" CreationDate="2013-07-01T09:50:15.003" UserId="48" Text="I'm in England, and want to move to a time-of-use electricity tariff, how do I get an appropriate meter fitted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1084" RevisionGUID="e5e16faa-bb19-4214-8633-66f481c472d5" CreationDate="2013-07-01T09:50:15.003" UserId="48" Text="|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="5afc274a-4f4c-48b9-9d9d-1bbf002272ef" CreationDate="2013-07-01T14:48:34.493" UserId="645" Text="From the general principles outlined in *Sustainable Energy--without the hot air* by David J.C. MacKay (http://www.withouthotair.com/c20/page_118.shtml):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In short-distance travel with lots of starting and stopping, the energy&#xD;&#xA;mainly goes into speeding up the vehicle and its contents. Key strate-&#xD;&#xA;gies for consuming less in this sort of transportation are therefore to&#xD;&#xA;weigh less, and to go further between stops. Regenerative braking,&#xD;&#xA;which captures energy when slowing down, may help too. In addition, it&#xD;&#xA;helps to move slower, and to move less.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In long-distance travel at steady speed, by train or automobile, most&#xD;&#xA;of the energy goes into making air swirl around, because you only&#xD;&#xA;have to accelerate the vehicle once. The key strategies for consuming&#xD;&#xA;less in this sort of transportation are therefore to move slower, and to&#xD;&#xA;move less, and to use long, thin vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. In all forms of travel, there’s an energy-conversion chain, which takes&#xD;&#xA;energy in some sort of fuel and uses some of it to push the vehicle forwards. Inevitably this energy chain has inefficiencies. In a stan-&#xD;&#xA;dard fossil-fuel car, for example, only 25% is used for pushing, and&#xD;&#xA;roughly 75% of the energy is lost in making the engine and radiator&#xD;&#xA;hot. So a final strategy for consuming less energy is to make the&#xD;&#xA;energy-conversion chain more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These observations lead us to six principles of vehicle design and vehi-&#xD;&#xA;cle use for more-efficient surface transport: a) reduce the frontal area per&#xD;&#xA;person; b) reduce the vehicle’s weight per person; c) when travelling, go at&#xD;&#xA;a steady speed and avoid using brakes; d) travel more slowly; e) travel less;&#xD;&#xA;and f) make the energy chain more efficient. We’ll now discuss a variety&#xD;&#xA;of ways to apply these principles.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that a pickup truck operating on railroad tracks would get a benefit from traveling at a steady speed for longer distances, but would still be at a disadvantage compared to trains in that: 1) It is not long and thin (does not pull more people or freight in its wake, after it has already done the work of moving the air in front of it). 2) Its drive train (internal combustion engine) is not efficient as a train's electric drive (powered by a diesel generator, but still more efficient)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1086" RevisionGUID="74575a50-5caf-4029-ac49-269ad79ef881" CreationDate="2013-07-01T15:04:28.963" UserId="646" Text="Paul from Ecotricity here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can certainly arrange for the meter to be exchanged to an Economy-7 meter, enabling you to have both off-peak and on-peak registers to record your electricity usage. If you have night storage heaters and a timed immersion heater, then it would be beneficial to have an off-peak style meter as you will then have the units used by these appliances charged at the lower off-peak tariff. There may be a charge for the meter upgrade though, we'll be able to confirm that before we start the work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding Smart metering, Ecotricity are waiting for the Government to begin the roll out of Smart meters. The Government, through DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) are going through a process of trialling meters and deciding on the final specification before suppliers can begin installing them for their customers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please see this following link for further information on Smart meters; https://www.gov.uk/smart-meters-how-they-work#supplier-led-roll-out &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to talk about the meter upgrade or smart meters, please give us a ring on 08000 302 302&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best regards&#xD;&#xA;Paul" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="374" RevisionGUID="be5048fd-be95-42c9-90a3-37b177aadd3f" CreationDate="2013-07-01T23:01:22.933" UserId="27" Comment="typo" Text="The ideal sustainable ground cover will:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. require minimal watering, once established&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. enrich the soil with nitrogen (for most soils)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. build topsoil, aka green manure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. tolerate foot traffic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Produce food (in lawns; in your case, only in the foot-traffic area)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crimson clover is a popular choice, as it's nitrogen-fixing, soft underfoot, and feeds bees -- if you keep bees, they will pollinate your other plants, and you can harvest honey. However, because its flowers are very low, walking on it barefoot carries a real risk of bee stings (been there!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your dogs pee in the area, a nitrogen fixer may not be a good choice. Already plenty of nitrogen from the pee, so these plants won't thrive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really like grass, there are a few things you can do to make it more sustainable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- pick a slow-growing variety, so you can mow less often&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- set your mower blade high. The grass will be healthier, need less water, and compete with weeds better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- water less often, but more deeply. The trick is to get the water to soak in deep, so the grass roots reach down to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1087" RevisionGUID="5aa631d7-8da9-4d67-ab76-7bc2f1ad5d3a" CreationDate="2013-07-01T23:04:26.307" UserId="27" Text="Chimneys almost never **clog** from soot/creosote buildup, so your assumption is flawed, but thick buildup is dangerous because of the potential chimney fire. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A well-designed, well-managed rocket mass heater will produce a tiny fraction of the buildup of a conventional woodstove. So the concern is minimized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can build a cleanout at each corner to let you reach in with cleaning tools.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="373f6208-12b5-419a-86ce-0f66804eba24" CreationDate="2013-07-02T02:59:21.720" UserId="486" Comment="fixed outline formatting for readability, hyphenated line breaks and a typo" Text="From the general principles outlined in *Sustainable Energy--without the hot air* by David J.C. MacKay (http://www.withouthotair.com/c20/page_118.shtml):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In short-distance travel with lots of starting and stopping, the energy&#xD;&#xA;mainly goes into speeding up the vehicle and its contents. Key strategies for consuming less in this sort of transportation are therefore to&#xD;&#xA;weigh less, and to go further between stops. Regenerative braking,&#xD;&#xA;which captures energy when slowing down, may help too. In addition, it&#xD;&#xA;helps to move slower, and to move less.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In long-distance travel at steady speed, by train or automobile, most&#xD;&#xA;of the energy goes into making air swirl around, because you only&#xD;&#xA;have to accelerate the vehicle once. The key strategies for consuming&#xD;&#xA;less in this sort of transportation are therefore to move slower, and to&#xD;&#xA;move less, and to use long, thin vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. In all forms of travel, there’s an energy-conversion chain, which takes&#xD;&#xA;energy in some sort of fuel and uses some of it to push the vehicle forwards. Inevitably this energy chain has inefficiencies. In a standard fossil-fuel car, for example, only 25% is used for pushing, and&#xD;&#xA;roughly 75% of the energy is lost in making the engine and radiator&#xD;&#xA;hot. So a final strategy for consuming less energy is to make the&#xD;&#xA;energy-conversion chain more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These observations lead us to six principles of vehicle design and vehicle use for more-efficient surface transport:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) reduce the frontal area per person; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) reduce the vehicle’s weight per person; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c) when traveling, go at a steady speed and avoid using brakes; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d) travel more slowly; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; e) travel less;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; f) make the energy chain more efficient. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We’ll now discuss a variety of ways to apply these principles.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that a pickup truck operating on railroad tracks would get a benefit from traveling at a steady speed for longer distances, but would still be at a disadvantage compared to trains in that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. It is not long and thin (does not pull more people or freight in its wake, after it has already done the work of moving the air in front of it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Its drive train (internal combustion engine) is not efficient as a train's electric drive (powered by a diesel generator, but still more efficient)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3366" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="373f6208-12b5-419a-86ce-0f66804eba24" CreationDate="2013-07-02T02:59:21.720" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 15, 85 edit id of 142" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3367" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="0db14ae0-3fc2-4290-b1f2-502c121c3508" CreationDate="2013-07-02T03:48:16.023" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/5493/atmospheric-levels-of-co2-nox-in-ppm" />
  <row Id="3368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="fdfd8bb0-4632-4ce8-b2f2-c4e6f6ae0e54" CreationDate="2013-07-01T01:42:53.797" UserId="648" UserDisplayName="stackOverFlew" Text="What would a well ventilated port city such as Honolulu, Hawaii, USA have for the PPM of any of the aforementioned gasses versus a city like Linfen, China which is the site of a large coal industry? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By how much would concentration change between different regions in the same city? That is, what range of concentrations are we looking at when it comes to NO2, for example?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3369" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="fdfd8bb0-4632-4ce8-b2f2-c4e6f6ae0e54" CreationDate="2013-07-01T01:42:53.797" UserId="648" UserDisplayName="stackOverFlew" Text="atmospheric levels of CO2 , NOx in PPM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3370" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="fdfd8bb0-4632-4ce8-b2f2-c4e6f6ae0e54" CreationDate="2013-07-01T01:42:53.797" UserId="648" UserDisplayName="stackOverFlew" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3371" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="f02bd977-05b4-4cc2-b1fb-156069607e7b" CreationDate="2013-07-02T04:00:45.267" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="|pollution|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="f02bd977-05b4-4cc2-b1fb-156069607e7b" CreationDate="2013-07-02T04:00:45.267" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="What would a well ventilated port city such as Honolulu, Hawaii, USA have for the concentrations (in parts per million) of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; or NO&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;, compared to a city like Linfen, China which is the site of a large coal industry? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By how much would concentration change between different regions in the same city? That is, what range of concentrations are we looking at when it comes to NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, for example?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3373" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="f02bd977-05b4-4cc2-b1fb-156069607e7b" CreationDate="2013-07-02T04:00:45.267" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="How do atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and NOx vary by city and within cities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3374" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1084" RevisionGUID="e1ccd94b-af5b-4602-9f4f-a65f7660f3de" CreationDate="2013-07-02T08:12:00.563" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/351976537773453312" />
  <row Id="3375" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="e78e0406-2ec5-43e9-98f7-783d9d20f3f6" CreationDate="2013-07-02T11:12:01.333" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/352021838697725954" />
  <row Id="3376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="846" RevisionGUID="8f92b2db-4149-43fb-a37d-da48719d08d5" CreationDate="2013-07-02T12:56:21.960" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="edited body" Text="It is going to depend on the size of fire you need.  If you need a camp or bonfire, then using  a drill and plough [method as described here][1] is probably your best bet. It can be done with scrap wood and the amount of waste is negligible.  Sure it takes a lot of effort, but most of us can use extra the calorie burn. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you just need a small fire, like for lighting incense or a candle, then not only is it a lot of work, but it is a huge waste.  A cardboard match is probably going to come in first since it has a smaller waste footprint.  Wooden matches should come next.  A lighter is going be the least friendly since they burn hydrocarbons and most of them are byproducts of natural gas/oil refinement. If you use plastic then then you have more waste that is not recyclable.  The refillable lighters like Zippos tend to waste a lot of fuel.  So for small fires, matches are the way to go.  As for the tip, it's usually [sulfur based][2], and sulfur is the byproduct of many processes, and the small amounts mean that in limited use there is little danger of toxicity.  And the strike strip is usually basically fine grit sand paper.  Nothing too dangerous there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/04/29/9-ways-to-start-a-fire-without-matches/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ehow.com/facts_5948585_match-head-made-of_.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1090" RevisionGUID="6423faa3-ab09-4010-8a99-a516db012402" CreationDate="2013-07-02T15:11:02.183" UserId="645" Text="Some plants I am trying/have thought about trying in Colorado (very dry):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Turkish veronica (Veronica liwanensis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Creeping, wooly, or mother-of-thyme&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Periwinkle (Vinca minor)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are all short and drought-resistant. I am less sure about dog-durability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1091" RevisionGUID="2b4815ce-5259-48bb-8e3c-b73721dd2883" CreationDate="2013-07-03T02:25:55.460" UserId="645" Text="My front yard consists of five vegetable beds surrounded by gravel. There are no fences, and we do not want to put any in. Most years, my main wildlife problem is with deer that wander through and browse on many of the plants. Thus, I routinely spray deer repellent (this year, Liquid Fence). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the repellent does not seem to keep the local fox family from digging in my beds. This year, two or three mornings in a row I awoke to new large holes, especially in my most sparsely planted bed. A number of transplants were lost. For now I have addressed the problem by filling the holes, planting more plants, putting some large rocks on top of the bed (it seems like their presence would make for less pleasant digging), and putting some old wire fencing over part of the bed. This seems to have deterred them for now, but I am interested in hearing about other ideas and experiences (preferably those that do not involve electronic gadgets)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1091" RevisionGUID="2b4815ce-5259-48bb-8e3c-b73721dd2883" CreationDate="2013-07-03T02:25:55.460" UserId="645" Text="How can I keep foxes from digging in my garden beds?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3382" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1091" RevisionGUID="2b4815ce-5259-48bb-8e3c-b73721dd2883" CreationDate="2013-07-03T02:25:55.460" UserId="645" Text="|gardening|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3383" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1091" RevisionGUID="20325ea4-9d77-41d4-b941-ee5109e0be00" CreationDate="2013-07-03T08:12:02.253" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/352338932467384322" />
  <row Id="3385" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="c3fd39a2-53dd-4092-b676-1e9ec3655268" CreationDate="2013-07-03T11:12:02.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/352384232145944576" />
  <row Id="3387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="de682bc3-c928-4e4c-acc3-ed6d7631af7c" CreationDate="2013-07-03T13:39:10.617" UserDisplayName="user141" Comment="added paragraph breaks to improve readablity.  And removed the edit note" Text="As the question has inferred, it is logical that by not using bleach in picnic/kitchen napkins, Kleenex, paper towels, toilet paper, sanitary napkins etc. it would cut cost and also save the toxins from the environment.  To find the answer one must look at the bigger picture for it has to do with a number of contributing factors much larger than the bleaching of a piece of paper.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The outdated economical model currently used today combined with the corporate power in politics (some would argue increasingly fascist over capitalist) plays a large part.  In the case of paper products these corporations are Weyerhauser, Georgia Pacific and Kimberly Clark among others.  This is one of the sectors that peaked in the early stage of the industrial revolution/era with the advent of high tech mills, new machines that could increase production.  Its infrastructure had been built over the century and continues to be maintained.  In the last half of the century their profit margins have fallen considerably due to factors such as reduced viable resources and the public awareness due to investigative journalism (early on black and white pictures of clear cut ancient old growth forest to more recent books like Silent Spring by Rachel Carsons).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Capitalism (which some liken to a trusty old tractor that we have much to thank for it; yet at the same time is a rusting decrepit machine, rapidly slowing down and on its way to a creeping halt) and its survival of the fittest theory puts profit over all else including the welfare of the ecosystem and natural resources.  I believe we are all aware of the powerful lobbyists in Congress. This system allows largest of corporations (especially in the oldest of sectors i.e. logging, farming, fossil fuels, mining) to receive tax incentives/breaks and have laws (pork barrel spending) written in their best interest.  Their sectors are even subsidized through “tough times” with no end in sight.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What does this big picture stuff have to do with unbleached toilet paper you ask?**  Nearly everything.  I have just laid out a summary of how things have been.  The “power brokers” of the logging pulp and paper industry such as Kimberly-Clark have seen their enormous profits dive, have no incentive to change and lobby to stay atop their sector.  Their business model is much more difficult, time consuming and costly to change as this model is not of the information age rather the early industrial age.  On top of that you have large industrial chemical complex that doesn’t want to lose business that will be replaced with nothing.  These corporations have to answer to the board members and stockholders about projected quarterly earnings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there are several retail companies such as Seventh Generation and other reputable companies offer unbleached tissue but the price is expensive compared to bleached toilet paper (which is not logical unless you take into consideration the above) .  Seventh Generation is the #1 rated company on the planet based on their overall social and environmental records.  This rating is achieved by a 5 step process which starts with over 20 years worth of data collected from a wide range of public, private and nonprofit sources. To be ethical costs money in a capitalist free-market economy that does not value natural resources and workers rights (hours, wage, age, etc.). This can be applied to many things that seem illogical like organic food.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But wait, all is not bleak.  There is good news. Thanks to authors like Paul Hawkens and William McDonough there is progress. There are a number of think tanks around the world such as NEF, Happy Planet Index, Paecon and the Cambridge Trust for New Economic Thinking that are working together to create a new economic model that values nature.  There are also more immediate action views like [Kick It Over][1] Although, these positive points may not pertain to the question, I did not want to leave my answer sounding so pessimistic ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://kickitover.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3388" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="de682bc3-c928-4e4c-acc3-ed6d7631af7c" CreationDate="2013-07-03T13:39:10.617" Comment="Proposed by 141 approved by 48 edit id of 143" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1085" RevisionGUID="33139c4a-8827-44b3-b829-00b58c2f57b2" CreationDate="2013-07-03T14:09:47.940" UserId="645" Comment="Adding to the answer, as requested by a commenter." Text="From the general principles outlined in *Sustainable Energy--without the hot air* by David J.C. MacKay (http://www.withouthotair.com/c20/page_118.shtml):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. In short-distance travel with lots of starting and stopping, the energy&#xD;&#xA;mainly goes into speeding up the vehicle and its contents. Key strategies for consuming less in this sort of transportation are therefore to&#xD;&#xA;weigh less, and to go further between stops. Regenerative braking,&#xD;&#xA;which captures energy when slowing down, may help too. In addition, it&#xD;&#xA;helps to move slower, and to move less.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. In long-distance travel at steady speed, by train or automobile, most&#xD;&#xA;of the energy goes into making air swirl around, because you only&#xD;&#xA;have to accelerate the vehicle once. The key strategies for consuming&#xD;&#xA;less in this sort of transportation are therefore to move slower, and to&#xD;&#xA;move less, and to use long, thin vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. In all forms of travel, there’s an energy-conversion chain, which takes&#xD;&#xA;energy in some sort of fuel and uses some of it to push the vehicle forwards. Inevitably this energy chain has inefficiencies. In a standard fossil-fuel car, for example, only 25% is used for pushing, and&#xD;&#xA;roughly 75% of the energy is lost in making the engine and radiator&#xD;&#xA;hot. So a final strategy for consuming less energy is to make the&#xD;&#xA;energy-conversion chain more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These observations lead us to six principles of vehicle design and vehicle use for more-efficient surface transport:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a) reduce the frontal area per person; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; b) reduce the vehicle’s weight per person; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; c) when traveling, go at a steady speed and avoid using brakes; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; d) travel more slowly; &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; e) travel less;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; f) make the energy chain more efficient. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We’ll now discuss a variety of ways to apply these principles.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that a pickup truck operating on railroad tracks would get a benefit from traveling at a steady speed for longer distances, but would still be at a disadvantage compared to trains in that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. It is not long and thin (does not pull more people or freight in its wake, after it has already done the work of moving the air in front of it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Its drive train (internal combustion engine) is not efficient as a train's electric drive (powered by a diesel generator, but still more efficient).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also an advantage of using railroad wheels on rails instead of rubber on concrete. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance, the railroad wheels have a coefficient of rolling resistance of 0.0010 to 0.0024; while car tires on concrete get 0.010 to 0.015. The resistive force is proportional to this coefficient, and various websites list rolling resistance as about 5% of the energy loss in on-road vehicles, so by my calculations, this aspect of running a truck on rails rather than on the road might save you 4-5%." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="3f2521f1-dc3a-4a15-bac1-98ba84031e56" CreationDate="2013-07-03T20:44:34.403" UserId="610" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="As the question has inferred, it is logical that by not using bleach in picnic/kitchen napkins, Kleenex, paper towels, toilet paper, sanitary napkins etc. it would cut cost and also save the toxins from the environment.  To find the answer one must look at the bigger picture for it has to do with a number of contributing factors much larger than the bleaching of a piece of paper.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The outdated economical model currently used today combined with the corporate power in politics (some would argue increasingly fascist over capitalist) plays a large part.  In the case of paper products these corporations are Weyerhauser, Georgia Pacific and Kimberly Clark among others.  This is one of the sectors that peaked in the early stage of the industrial revolution/era with the advent of high tech mills, new machines that could increase production.  Its infrastructure had been built over the century and continues to be maintained.  In the last half of the century their profit margins have fallen considerably due to factors such as reduced viable resources and the public awareness due to investigative journalism (early on black and white pictures of clear cut ancient old growth forest to more recent books like Silent Spring by Rachel Carsons).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Capitalism (which some liken to a trusty old tractor that we have much to thank for it; yet at the same time is a rusting decrepit machine, rapidly slowing down and on its way to a creeping halt) and its survival of the fittest theory puts profit over all else including the welfare of the ecosystem and natural resources.  I believe we are all aware of the powerful lobbyists in Congress. This system allows largest of corporations (especially in the oldest of sectors i.e. logging, farming, fossil fuels, mining) to receive tax incentives/breaks and have laws (pork barrel spending) written in their best interest.  Their sectors are even subsidized through “tough times” with no end in sight.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What does this big picture stuff have to do with unbleached toilet paper you ask?**  Nearly everything.  I have just laid out a summary of how things have been.  The “power brokers” of the logging pulp and paper industry such as Kimberly-Clark have seen their enormous profits dive, have no incentive to change and lobby to stay atop their sector.  Their business model is much more difficult, time consuming and costly to change as this model is not of the information age rather the early industrial age.  On top of that you have large industrial chemical complex that doesn’t want to lose business that will be replaced with nothing.  These corporations have to answer to the board members and stockholders about projected quarterly earnings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there are several retail companies such as Seventh Generation and other reputable companies offer unbleached tissue but the price is expensive compared to bleached toilet paper (which is not logical unless you take into consideration the above) .  [Seventh Generation is the #1 rated company on the planet][1] based on their overall social and environmental records.  This rating is achieved by a [5 step process which starts with over 20 years worth of data collected][2] from [a wide range of public, private and nonprofit sources.][3] To be ethical costs money in a capitalist free-market economy that does not value natural resources and workers rights (hours, wage, age, etc.). This can be applied to many things that seem illogical like organic food.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But wait, all is not bleak.  There is good news. Thanks to authors like Paul Hawkens and William McDonough there is progress. There are a number of think tanks around the world such as NEF, Happy Planet Index, Paecon and the Cambridge Trust for New Economic Thinking that are working together to create a new economic model that values nature.  There are also more immediate action views like [Kick It Over][4] Although, these positive points may not pertain to the question, I did not want to leave my answer sounding so pessimistic ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.betterworldshopper.com/topten.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.betterworldshopper.com/rankings.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.betterworldshopper.org/research.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://kickitover.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1093" RevisionGUID="ac4cc523-f5ef-48da-bec9-771b97952549" CreationDate="2013-07-03T23:51:50.783" UserId="645" Text="Some of the steps or inputs may be missing for light bulbs in particular, but in general the U.S. Life cycle Inventory Database (http://www.nrel.gov/lci/) has this sort of data." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="ec14e9b8-1309-4cf2-85cf-7329167e5b04" CreationDate="2013-07-03T23:55:09.383" UserId="610" Comment="I will continue to revise per comments. My new firefox won't allow me to click on certain things..." Text="As the question has inferred, it is logical that by not using bleach in picnic/kitchen napkins, Kleenex, paper towels, toilet paper, sanitary napkins etc. it would cut cost and also save the toxins from the environment.  To find the answer one must look at the bigger picture for it has to do with a number of contributing factors much larger than the bleaching of a piece of paper.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The outdated economical model currently used today combined with the corporate power in politics (some would argue increasingly fascist over capitalist) plays a large part.  In the case of paper products these corporations are Weyerhauser, Georgia Pacific and Kimberly Clark among others.  This is one of the sectors that peaked in the early stage of the industrial revolution/era with the advent of high tech mills, new machines that could increase production.  Its infrastructure had been built over the century and continues to be maintained.  In the last half of the century their profit margins have fallen considerably due to factors such as reduced viable resources and the public awareness due to investigative journalism (early on black and white pictures of clear cut ancient old growth forest to more recent books like Silent Spring by Rachel Carsons).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Capitalism (which some liken to a trusty old tractor that we have much to thank for it; yet at the same time is a rusting decrepit machine, rapidly slowing down and on its way to a creeping halt) and its survival of the fittest theory puts profit over all else including the welfare of the ecosystem and natural resources.  I believe we are all aware of the powerful lobbyists in Congress. This system allows largest of corporations (especially in the oldest of sectors i.e. logging, farming, fossil fuels, mining) to receive tax incentives/breaks and have laws (pork barrel spending) written in their best interest.  Their sectors are even subsidized through “tough times” with no end in sight.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What does this big picture stuff have to do with unbleached toilet paper you ask?**  Nearly everything.  I have just laid out a summary of how things have been.  The “power brokers” of the logging pulp and paper industry such as Kimberly-Clark have seen their enormous profits dive, have no incentive to change and lobby to stay atop their sector.  Their business model is much more difficult, time consuming and costly to change as this model is not of the information age rather the early industrial age.  On top of that you have large industrial chemical complex that doesn’t want to lose business that will be replaced with nothing.  These corporations have to answer to the board members and stockholders about projected quarterly earnings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there are several retail companies such as Seventh Generation and other reputable companies offer unbleached tissue but the price is expensive compared to bleached toilet paper (which is not logical unless you take into consideration the above) .  [Seventh Generation is the #1 rated company on the planet][1] based on their overall social and environmental records.  This rating is achieved by a [5 step process which starts with over 20 years worth of data collected][2] from [a wide range of public, private and nonprofit sources.][3] To be ethical costs money in a capitalist free-market economy that does not value natural resources and workers rights (hours, wage, age, etc.). This can be applied to many things that seem illogical like organic food.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But wait, all is not bleak.  There is good news. Thanks to authors like Paul Hawkens and William McDonough there is progress. There are a number of think tanks around the world such as [NEF][4], [Happy Planet Index][5], [Paecon][6] and the Cambridge Trust for New Economic Thinking that are working together to create a new economic model that values nature.  There are also more immediate action views like [Kick It Over][7] Although, these positive points may not pertain to the question, I did not want to leave my answer sounding so pessimistic ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.betterworldshopper.com/topten.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.betterworldshopper.com/rankings.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.betterworldshopper.org/research.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.neweconomics.org/our-work/entry/environment&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://kickitover.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="35995bb7-ad38-4d78-a075-eb8b9db5ae55" CreationDate="2013-07-04T00:18:42.843" UserId="486" Comment="added link to explain economic reference" Text="The question's fundamental premise, that our economy needs growth and that a steady-state economy wouldn't work, is a fallacy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also a fallacy to assume that ongoing economic growth requires depletion of finite resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also true, incidentally, that we don't have any good measures of economic growth. The lazy proxy is usually taken to be GDP, but increase in real GDP is not the same thing as economic growth.  You might have come across the [broken window fallacy][1], which illustrates the point rather well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3394" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="240" RevisionGUID="35995bb7-ad38-4d78-a075-eb8b9db5ae55" CreationDate="2013-07-04T00:18:42.843" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 85 edit id of 144" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3395" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="3095c127-b743-418b-a04d-cd1e847b0f49" CreationDate="2013-07-04T02:12:03.183" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/352610726889795585" />
  <row Id="3396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1094" RevisionGUID="7e421d42-2991-406a-ae2d-c859844b4b01" CreationDate="2013-07-04T05:28:35.527" UserId="486" Text="## CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't have time to fully address this now, but here's an interesting [plot of results from Boston, USA][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from this graph, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels can vary quite a bit over time simply within **one city**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see a seasonal amplitude of +/- ~12 ppm that's due to plant photosynthesis speeding up (reducing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) in summer, and slowing down (allowing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to increase) in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, you can imagine that areas with different levels of sun or vegetation would then also experience different *average* CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels as well.  From the previous web page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The CO2 concentration level in Boston is almost always several ppm&#xD;&#xA;&gt; higher than the global average, because cities, with their buildings&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and vehicles burning natural gas, gasoline, and oil, are relatively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; large sources of CO2.  For example, in May 2011 the monthly average&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CO2 level at Mauna Loa was 394 ppm; at BU (Boston University), it was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 405.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is a source with a collection of CO2 data from several different weather stations][2], including a couple in Hawaii.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZIeNO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1094" RevisionGUID="270a2e2c-9c61-4227-8694-326608d3d8c5" CreationDate="2013-07-04T05:43:22.320" UserId="486" Comment="added more data from NOAA and UCSD" Text="## CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't have time to fully address this now, but here's an interesting [plot of results from Boston, USA][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![BU CO2 Plot][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from this graph, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels can vary quite a bit over *time* simply within **one city**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see a seasonal amplitude of +/- ~12 ppm that's due to plant photosynthesis speeding up (reducing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) in summer, and slowing down (allowing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to increase) in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, you can imagine that areas with different levels of sun or vegetation would then also experience different *average* CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels as well.  From the previous web page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The CO2 concentration level in Boston is almost always several ppm&#xD;&#xA;&gt; higher than the global average, because cities, with their buildings&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and vehicles burning natural gas, gasoline, and oil, are relatively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; large sources of CO2.  For example, in May 2011 the monthly average&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CO2 level at Mauna Loa was 394 ppm; at BU (Boston University), it was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 405.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Here is a source with a collection of CO2 data from several different weather stations][2], including a couple in Hawaii.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you want a visual plot, the US Nat'l Oceanic &amp; Atmospheric Association publishes an online tool that displays CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration in the **free troposphere** [here][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![NOAA CarbonTracker][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it's displaying CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; 1 to 5 km above the ground, it's going to smooth out the variations due to local forests, or power plants.   But, you certainly can see areas of high CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration over eastern Europe / Black Sea and also China / Korea / Japan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZIeNO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/CT2011_oi/co2wx/glb/co2wx_hammer-glb_20100104.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/co2weather.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1094" RevisionGUID="4795742b-6055-4782-8bd1-27c97a31177a" CreationDate="2013-07-04T05:51:09.033" UserId="486" Comment="note about where wind caries co2" Text="## CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't have time to fully address this now, but here's an interesting [plot of results from Boston, USA][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![BU CO2 Plot][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from this graph, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels can vary quite a bit over *time* simply within **one city**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see a seasonal amplitude of +/- ~12 ppm that's due to plant photosynthesis speeding up (reducing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) in summer, and slowing down (allowing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to increase) in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, you can imagine that areas with different levels of sun or vegetation would then also experience different *average* CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels as well.  From the previous web page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The CO2 concentration level in Boston is almost always several ppm&#xD;&#xA;&gt; higher than the global average, because cities, with their buildings&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and vehicles burning natural gas, gasoline, and oil, are relatively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; large sources of CO2.  For example, in May 2011 the monthly average&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CO2 level at Mauna Loa was 394 ppm; at BU (Boston University), it was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 405.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Here is a source with a collection of CO2 data from several different weather stations][2], including a couple in Hawaii.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you want a visual plot, the US Nat'l Oceanic &amp; Atmospheric Association publishes an online tool that displays CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration in the **free troposphere** [here][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![NOAA CarbonTracker][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it's displaying CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; 1 to 5 km above the ground, it's going to smooth out the variations due to local forests, or power plants.   But, you certainly can see areas of high CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration over eastern Europe / Black Sea (downwind from central Europe) and also China / Korea / Japan (downwind from China's industrial hubs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZIeNO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/CT2011_oi/co2wx/glb/co2wx_hammer-glb_20100104.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/co2weather.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1094" RevisionGUID="ab1a809d-64e3-42a3-a9f1-0e781f54f27e" CreationDate="2013-07-04T06:05:51.113" UserId="486" Comment="added more NOx links" Text="## CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't have time to fully address this now, but here's an interesting [plot of results from Boston, USA][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![BU CO2 Plot][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from this graph, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels can vary quite a bit over *time* simply within **one city**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see a seasonal amplitude of +/- ~12 ppm that's due to plant photosynthesis speeding up (reducing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) in summer, and slowing down (allowing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to increase) in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, you can imagine that areas with different levels of sun or vegetation would then also experience different *average* CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels as well.  From the previous web page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The CO2 concentration level in Boston is almost always several ppm&#xD;&#xA;&gt; higher than the global average, because cities, with their buildings&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and vehicles burning natural gas, gasoline, and oil, are relatively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; large sources of CO2.  For example, in May 2011 the monthly average&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CO2 level at Mauna Loa was 394 ppm; at BU (Boston University), it was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 405.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Here is a source with a collection of CO2 data from several different weather stations][2], including a couple in Hawaii.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you want a visual plot, the US Nat'l Oceanic &amp; Atmospheric Association publishes an online tool that displays CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration in the **free troposphere** [here][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![NOAA CarbonTracker][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it's displaying CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; 1 to 5 km above the ground, it's going to smooth out the variations due to local forests, or power plants.   But, you certainly can see areas of high CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration over eastern Europe / Black Sea (downwind from central Europe) and also China / Korea / Japan (downwind from China's industrial hubs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##NOx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US Environmental Protection Agency has a [report on NOx here][5] (see page 6 for a US &quot;heat map&quot; of local NOx concentrations).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [University of Washington report][6] also contains a **global** NOx map, for both surface and 5km altitudes (page 10).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZIeNO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/CT2011_oi/co2wx/glb/co2wx_hammer-glb_20100104.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/co2weather.php&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/fnoxdoc.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://faculty.washington.edu/jaegle/558/ozone_NOx.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="79ce7d06-2dc2-4c8c-84b0-08e00637c590" CreationDate="2013-07-05T06:20:28.630" UserId="649" Text="I would like to find the best way to filter 2 cubic meters of water which is full of water-based paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This water is used in a closed-loop circuit in a **Spray booth**.&#xD;&#xA;The water does not need to be drinkable but just **clear**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recycling company comes twice a year to pump out the 2 cubic meters of dirty water. If I could find a filtering system, they could just pickup for example few kg of semi-dry paint/mud. We are based in Asia, the solution needs to be easy to implement and cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider few options : &#xD;&#xA;Using steel drums to make whool or sand-based filtering system. (Either with a pumping system which would run once a week, or by manually filling them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using distillation process, using steel drums and gas to heat it up. (I need to make the calculus on gas consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using centrifuge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole point if to keep the water as clear as possible for the longest time before the company comes to pump it up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="79ce7d06-2dc2-4c8c-84b0-08e00637c590" CreationDate="2013-07-05T06:20:28.630" UserId="649" Text="Filter water mixed with water-based paint" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="79ce7d06-2dc2-4c8c-84b0-08e00637c590" CreationDate="2013-07-05T06:20:28.630" UserId="649" Text="|recycling|building-materials|diy|manufacturing|filtration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3404" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="e2875f99-b361-454b-8f81-cb3ecebb8c7f" CreationDate="2013-07-05T06:26:50.673" UserId="649" Comment="edited title" Text="How to filter water mixed with water-based paint" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3405" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1036" RevisionGUID="32f5c781-87c9-4083-a7fd-fe4cd0e33ffe" CreationDate="2013-07-05T10:21:31.280" UserId="486" Comment="added (new) ethanol tag, since seaweed biofuel may be ethanol, not necessarily oily biodiesel" Text="|seawater|biomass|biogas|biodiesel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3406" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1036" RevisionGUID="32f5c781-87c9-4083-a7fd-fe4cd0e33ffe" CreationDate="2013-07-05T10:21:31.280" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 48 edit id of 145" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="f1e9d36e-648d-4c29-a6e6-e2b563816252" CreationDate="2013-07-05T13:09:49.023" UserId="206" Text="I have had an interest in local currencies for a while, but was wondering if any studies had been done into those that have been running for some time, as to what their effects on the local market have been. Do they really drive down food-miles, for instance? Can anyone point out research materials on the topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just in case I need to clarify, by 'local currencies' I mean media of exchange such as BerkShares and the Lewes Pound." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="f1e9d36e-648d-4c29-a6e6-e2b563816252" CreationDate="2013-07-05T13:09:49.023" UserId="206" Text="Use of localised currencies to drive purchases from local suppliers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="f1e9d36e-648d-4c29-a6e6-e2b563816252" CreationDate="2013-07-05T13:09:49.023" UserId="206" Text="|ecological-footprint|energy-efficiency|economy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3410" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="caa8ba4b-5e2a-4f50-837f-77d7407cd5a7" CreationDate="2013-07-05T23:12:04.283" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/353290208894136320" />
  <row Id="3411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="262" RevisionGUID="2443cd44-fe8d-426c-bf4b-fc251ed4161e" CreationDate="2013-07-06T08:42:52.053" UserId="486" Comment="grammar and spelling" Text="If you want to be more energy efficient in your apartment, you should look to the past. How were people living before?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are quite different living patterns in big cities and in small cities or villages. When I first came to a big city and I was living with other people, I was shocked how much water was used! The average usage of 6 cubic meters per person per month is almost 10 times more than by my family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, you don't have to take a shower or bath! You can wash yourself in a basin. The average water usage will be between 5 and 10 liters. While on camp, where water has to be taken from a very small spring, I've managed to wash myself completely in about 2 liters of water, using a bottle. The basin water you can use to flush the toilet 1 or 2 times. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't always have to flush with a full tank. You can use a small pot, about 1-2 liters. This would in most cases be sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being more social is being more energy efficient. If everyone sits in their own room with lights and TV on, the energy consumption is high. When people are sitting together in one room, talking or playing board games, the energy consumption is much lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the biggest energy consumers is transport. Eat mostly the things that grow in your environment. Buy potatoes from your neighbor instead of rice from Thailand, eat apples instead of bananas (example from Europe, you can modify it to fit your specific locale).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buy warm clothes. Don't make your apartment too warm in winter. Years ago it was obvious that you have to wear a warm sweater in winter in your apartment, now people seem to be unhappy they can't be naked all the year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3412" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="262" RevisionGUID="2443cd44-fe8d-426c-bf4b-fc251ed4161e" CreationDate="2013-07-06T08:42:52.053" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 85 edit id of 146" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1098" RevisionGUID="30389ee7-7ef8-4fbd-806d-1e7d0079fbd0" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:17:48.060" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1099" RevisionGUID="32afe606-053e-433c-9ba4-485f20978d20" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:17:48.060" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1100" RevisionGUID="1c5df7ea-eb15-46f2-8c75-42a716b105b4" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:24:13.697" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1101" RevisionGUID="94ce8a8a-1745-4dcd-8809-b3b91b2f1937" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:24:13.697" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1102" RevisionGUID="64fba865-0e31-4211-97c6-db3ab5855a88" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:26:40.880" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1103" RevisionGUID="c2293c79-747b-44af-96bc-5ce7f6993f0a" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:26:40.880" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1099" RevisionGUID="2d31ef3c-9b80-409f-8350-db598e5138c8" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:29:21.090" UserId="5" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="Question about protecting food (and other sensitive products) from spoiling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3424" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1099" RevisionGUID="2d31ef3c-9b80-409f-8350-db598e5138c8" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:29:21.090" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by -1 edit id of 148" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1099" RevisionGUID="4c296499-f9e6-471b-86b6-9cabec9d6c26" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:29:21.090" UserId="48" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="Protecting food (and other sensitive products) from spoiling, by slowing down or stopping decay; through freezing, salting, curing or other methods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1104" RevisionGUID="570fe82f-89ca-4bbb-8f0d-e27cf21f3b64" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:31:28.013" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1105" RevisionGUID="1462953b-c678-4abe-9bba-f0a3df30a345" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:31:28.013" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1103" RevisionGUID="91e54342-45e6-4b6c-81ff-7f13858e495a" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:35:34.987" UserId="5" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="Permaculture is the concept of sustainable agriculture, modeled on the base of observations how natural ecosystems work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3429" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1103" RevisionGUID="91e54342-45e6-4b6c-81ff-7f13858e495a" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:35:34.987" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by -1 edit id of 150" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1103" RevisionGUID="9fffad25-4ecd-4673-9b8d-5c84607c4d5a" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:35:34.987" UserId="48" Comment="added 239 characters in body" Text="Permaculture (originally a contraction of &quot;permanent agriculture&quot;) is a school of sustainable agriculture modeled on observations of how natural ecosystems work. It was instigated by Bill Mollison in the early 1970s, and is founded on three principles: care of ecosystems, care of people, and closing cycles so that waste is returned to the land as nutrients." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1104" RevisionGUID="dd6e9a36-1bf4-42f6-9106-afd956948057" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:45:00.247" UserId="5" Comment="added 299 characters in body" Text="Housing is the art of practice of building (or utilizing existing) shelters for protection of one or many people (and/or their belongings) from harsh environment, wild animals or other people. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This category applies to large group of shelters, such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - buildings&#xD;&#xA; - huts&#xD;&#xA; - tents&#xD;&#xA; - caves" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3432" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1104" RevisionGUID="dd6e9a36-1bf4-42f6-9106-afd956948057" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:45:00.247" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by -1 edit id of 151" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1104" RevisionGUID="baee582f-80df-4edb-a7ae-2c60fd5d3d60" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:45:00.247" UserId="48" Comment="deleted 140 characters in body" Text="Housing covers dwellings for people. It also covers the design, build and allocation of dwellings. Such dwellings can include buildings, huts, tents and caves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1101" RevisionGUID="979bd924-718e-4be1-98ed-723b7130e7a8" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:48:48.113" UserId="5" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="Invertebrate animals such as snails, octopus, clams and squids. Many species of mollusca are consumed by people in many regions. They can provide a sustainable alternative to land-grown food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3435" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1101" RevisionGUID="979bd924-718e-4be1-98ed-723b7130e7a8" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:48:48.113" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by 48 edit id of 149" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1098" RevisionGUID="7e376ce6-cd13-4a95-9cc2-38c02845c2b2" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:49:09.710" UserId="5" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="Preservation is the name for the techniques for protecting of food and other sensitive products from spoiling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3437" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1098" RevisionGUID="7e376ce6-cd13-4a95-9cc2-38c02845c2b2" CreationDate="2013-07-07T06:49:09.710" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by 48 edit id of 147" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1105" RevisionGUID="611dad66-fb30-4185-a8af-0ef1b71738c7" CreationDate="2013-07-07T08:16:24.150" UserId="5" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="The art of practice of building (or utilizing existing) shelters for protection of one or many people (and/or their belongings) from harsh environment, wild animals or other people. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3439" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1105" RevisionGUID="611dad66-fb30-4185-a8af-0ef1b71738c7" CreationDate="2013-07-07T08:16:24.150" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by 99 edit id of 152" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1106" RevisionGUID="419522b3-774f-4288-900c-8e5c78be1e84" CreationDate="2013-07-07T11:27:43.483" UserId="99" Text="I was googling using the terms 'certification full life cycle product' because this question appears in the [site self-evaluation](http://meta.sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/156/99) and I one of the first hits I found is the [Environmentally Preferable &#xD;&#xA;Product (EPP) certification](http://farm-check.com/media/doc/environmentally-preferable-product-certification.pdf). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never heard of it and am not sure if it is used for food and how common it is, but they claim to do the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; examines the entire lifecycle of a product and identifies key areas of improvement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1106" RevisionGUID="b0c797ed-7d11-4bab-a07c-9ed0a51ecc4a" CreationDate="2013-07-07T11:34:02.027" UserId="99" Comment="added 452 characters in body" Text="I was googling using the terms 'certification full life cycle food' because this question appears in the [site self-evaluation](http://meta.sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/156/99) and I one of the first hits I found is the [**Environmentally Preferable &#xD;&#xA;Product (EPP) certification**](http://farm-check.com/media/doc/environmentally-preferable-product-certification.pdf). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never heard of it and am not sure if it is indeed used for food product and how common it is, but they claim to do the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; examines the entire lifecycle of a product and identifies key areas of improvement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another one I found using google is [**The Green Seal Standard for Restaurants and Food Services, GS-46**](http://www.greenseal.org/GreenBusiness/Standards.aspx?vid=ViewStandardDetail&amp;cid=0&amp;sid=27)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The standard is based on life cycle research and focuses on leadership environmental improvement in the key impact areas — food, waste, and energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I've never heard of it myself and don't know anything about it's popularity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3442" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="909" RevisionGUID="f5374b0f-c4fe-448d-be7e-d2d178d7285b" CreationDate="2013-07-07T11:40:42.773" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|ecological-footprint|economy|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="971" RevisionGUID="6c2ee62d-37e1-43ea-88ca-de5c635724c5" CreationDate="2013-07-07T12:13:21.930" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="There are many types of gnats like fungal gnat, fruit flies, etc. How exactly you can get rid of gnats may depend on which plant it is (if the plant needs a lot of water or not). Remove the top layer of the soil, because gnats generally lay their eggs on the top layer. Take the plants outside, use a shovel and remove about one inch of the soil's top layer. If necessary, place new soil in the pot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First try removing any food sources they have been feeding from. This would include removing any fruit left out on counters. Any houseplants should be ideally planted in containers that can drain since gnats also love wet, standing water on top of soil. Your plant’s soil should be moist but not overwatered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some gnats can develop due to excessive moisture so be careful not to over-water the plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read some articles on the internet from which I got some nice solutions that fit here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Gnatrol**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a product on the market called Gnatrol. It's a natural bacillus toxin that can be added to the water when you water your plants. Gnatrol will kill the larvae, but the plants have to be treated several times, about six weeks total. This is a very effective method as long as you are not also fertilizing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Moth balls**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moth balls are another way to get rid of gnats. Place one to two moth balls in a 12-inch pot and it should get rid of the gnats. The moth balls should also prevent other pesky critters from being attracted to your plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Read more: How to Get Rid of Gnats in House Plants][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ehow.com/how_2305145_rid-gnats-house-plants.html#ixzz2UkokDRya" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="958" RevisionGUID="51b3b76e-3a3d-4bba-a413-afde8ed9eea0" CreationDate="2013-07-07T14:58:50.793" UserId="227" Comment="Clarification, metrification." Text="From small to large (roughly speaking):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Barrels (usually I see 30‒65 U.S. gal (110‒250 L))&#xD;&#xA;* Plastic [Intermediate bulk containers][1] (IBC; usually I see 275 to 330 gal (1000‒1250 L))&#xD;&#xA;* Rain barrels or IBCs in series — this allows you to scale your capacity over time&#xD;&#xA;* Large above- or underground tanks / cisterns (e.g. plastic tanks are widely commercially available from 500‒2000 gallons, possibly more; ferrocement is supposed to be relatively inexpensive and you can DIY fairly large containers; really, you could build a cistern [as large as you wanted][2] — millions of gallons if you happen to be an emperor with vast resources and an endless supply of laborers at your disposal)&#xD;&#xA;* Small ponds (a ~20' (6 m) diameter pond at 6' (2 m) deep could hold a few thousand gallons)&#xD;&#xA;* Increasing water-holding capacity of the soil of a large area (“Soil scientists report that for every 1 percent of organic matter content, the soil can hold 16,500 gallons of plant-available water per acre of soil down to one foot deep.” — [M. Charles Gould, Michigan State University Extension][3])&#xD;&#xA;* Large ponds (a 100+' (30 m) diameter pond could hold hundreds of thousands of gallons)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that any of these could really be used in series. If you had a lot of space, you could have a series of ponds, and if you needed to add capacity in the future you could just dig another pond. Substitute tank or cistern for pond if that’s what you’re using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or mix and match: an IBC at the house to catch the first water, let the overflow drain into an underground tank, and let the overflow from that drain into a pond. Any overflow from the pond could flow through a series of swales into soils with high organic matter content that are ready to accept tens of thousands of gallons of water per acre. Use the water from the IBC on your kitchen garden. Use the tank water for domestic use. Use the pond water for irrigating market crops. Use gravity to your advantage as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_bulk_container&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_Cistern&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/compost_increases_the_water_holding_capacity_of_droughty_soils" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3445" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="958" RevisionGUID="51b3b76e-3a3d-4bba-a413-afde8ed9eea0" CreationDate="2013-07-07T14:58:50.793" Comment="Proposed by 227 approved by 48 edit id of 153" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="79c743ba-ebdc-4a19-8f9b-292235f4feba" CreationDate="2013-07-07T19:17:19.287" UserId="60" Comment="clarified water unusability" Text="Use a common (commercially available) electric pump. Home made ones can be problematic, as [Chris][1] writes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solar pumps are available in various power. Even with a very small pump you'd want to install a controller with (at least) two temperature probes on the panel and in the tank to turn the pump on and off.   &#xD;&#xA;I'm using a 45W pump with throughput of 2 litres/minute on a panel with area of 1.2 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. During sunny summer it runs almost all the day and it's stopped by the controller if the heat gain is too low.  &#xD;&#xA;The pump installed in a polystyrene box to silence it and it works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll always have a high pressure (1 bar) in a closed system with varying temperatures. The panel can easily reach 100°C if the pump stops and the pressure will rise. An expansion tank is a must and water is not &lt;strike&gt;to go&lt;/strike&gt; usable because it would boil out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility would be a [bubble pump system or Geyser Pump][2]. It's very simple, passive and innovative - but you'll have to find some references to existing installations. There is a [comparison of solar hot water systems][3] to consider your requirements.  &#xD;&#xA;The system is underpressurized and the medium boils when heated in the panel easily. While bubbles move to a (some) higher place, they move the loop of medium toward the water tank. After doing their work, the bubbles condensate back and preheat the returning medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/380/60 &quot;Chris' answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sunnovations.com/content/how-sunnovations-system-works&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_hot_water#A_rough_comparison_of_solar_hot_water_systems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1107" RevisionGUID="f60f0da5-5154-4e2b-a4fe-4e45b8177d0e" CreationDate="2013-07-07T20:58:12.923" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="1fce9a60-16cc-4738-8e06-81c1de56da2a" CreationDate="2013-07-07T20:58:12.923" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1109" RevisionGUID="7466b4b1-ab87-4554-aa00-07c04671255a" CreationDate="2013-07-07T20:59:22.193" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="a709a125-41ad-4963-b176-37f473e0e36a" CreationDate="2013-07-07T20:59:22.193" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1111" RevisionGUID="24a0d07c-c74e-43bb-ae1b-c8451015b470" CreationDate="2013-07-07T21:00:10.480" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1112" RevisionGUID="ba018e3c-91c7-440c-b79a-6ba25fa9e496" CreationDate="2013-07-07T21:00:10.480" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="e50d82f2-41f0-45c1-9690-0e61d5e86078" CreationDate="2013-07-08T04:49:05.580" UserId="649" Comment="added 175 characters in body; edited title" Text="I would like to find the best way to filter 2 cubic meters of water which is full of water-based paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This water is used in a closed-loop circuit in a **Spray booth**.&#xD;&#xA;The water does not need to be drinkable but just **clear**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recycling company comes twice a year to pump out the 2 cubic meters of dirty water. If I could find a filtering system, they could just pickup for example few kg of semi-dry paint/mud. We are based in Asia, the solution needs to be easy to implement and cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling company **make you pay per kilograms of waste**. 2 cubic meters makes 2000kg... If I would somehow filter the water and get the dry bits, I would pay much less. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider few options : &#xD;&#xA;Using steel drums to make whool or sand-based filtering system. (Either with a pumping system which would run once a week, or by manually filling them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using distillation process, using steel drums and gas to heat it up. (I need to make the calculus on gas consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using centrifuge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole point if to keep the water as clear as possible for the longest time before the company comes to pump it up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3454" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="e50d82f2-41f0-45c1-9690-0e61d5e86078" CreationDate="2013-07-08T04:49:05.580" UserId="649" Comment="added 175 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to filter/dewater water mixed with water-based paint" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="ba508a12-54bb-4217-8539-525febdbd954" CreationDate="2013-07-08T05:33:48.583" UserId="5" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="Questions about minimizing the energy usage and producing renewable energy. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3456" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="ba508a12-54bb-4217-8539-525febdbd954" CreationDate="2013-07-08T05:33:48.583" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by -1 edit id of 154" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="a30d3c27-b1b1-4839-a746-612390b159d2" CreationDate="2013-07-08T05:33:48.583" UserId="48" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="The sustainable use of energy, through efficiency and renewables," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1112" RevisionGUID="f316beb4-eb92-4651-b77a-c3087704b7ae" CreationDate="2013-07-08T05:34:57.013" UserId="5" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="Questions about the ways to reuse the resources and materials, instead of throwing them away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3459" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1112" RevisionGUID="f316beb4-eb92-4651-b77a-c3087704b7ae" CreationDate="2013-07-08T05:34:57.013" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by -1 edit id of 156" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1112" RevisionGUID="c69682c5-f593-4f85-bf82-a0d4b7d0ae97" CreationDate="2013-07-08T05:34:57.013" UserId="48" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Giving materials and objects an additional life by using them again, rather than recycling or discarding them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="84f2ee02-e06d-49e7-b96a-dbc25bb6130e" CreationDate="2013-07-08T05:36:40.257" UserId="5" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="Questions about recycling the waste or utilizing it in the most sustainable way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3462" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="84f2ee02-e06d-49e7-b96a-dbc25bb6130e" CreationDate="2013-07-08T05:36:40.257" Comment="Proposed by 5 approved by -1 edit id of 155" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="d3f6219e-9695-41a8-aa32-2e845c8c81c6" CreationDate="2013-07-08T05:36:40.257" UserId="48" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="The handling of materials after they've reached the end of their useful life; and the discard of materials that are surplus to requirements" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1113" RevisionGUID="6b99c775-2b36-46f3-8b49-0457d240bd0e" CreationDate="2013-07-08T06:58:37.863" UserId="96" Text="(Consider this answer a draft till I do aome more searching)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned a few option that might work, that is centrifuge, sand bed or coal filter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggeste taking a largish sample of your water and doing bench scale tests with each sand bed and coal filters.  &#xD;&#xA;I also would try to let the material settle - just leave a batch undisturbed in a clear container for a few days or weeks, and see if the material settles. If it does, a centrifuge might work - or you simply build a settling tank.  &#xD;&#xA;But I think you need to start with experiments, those will tell you mroe than the internet ever can." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1113" RevisionGUID="6e01ff08-0cfd-43fb-926f-05bf8a287cb2" CreationDate="2013-07-08T07:46:05.700" UserId="96" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="(Consider this answer a draft till I do aome more searching)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding Distillation, the [most efficient sea-water distillation plants](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-stage_flash_distillation) need 23-27 kWh/m³, a small scale batch system will probably be far worse. Distillation plants are also pretty expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned a few option that might work, that is centrifuge, sand bed or coal filter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggeste taking a largish sample of your water and doing bench scale tests with each sand bed and coal filters.  &#xD;&#xA;I also would try to let the material settle - just leave a batch undisturbed in a clear container for a few days or weeks, and see if the material settles. If it does, a centrifuge might work - or you simply build a settling tank.  &#xD;&#xA;But I think you need to start with experiments, those will tell you more than the internet ever can.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3466" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="1c4cc09e-c0d3-41b1-89d2-55096fa608ca" CreationDate="2013-07-08T08:12:18.020" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/354150938136682496" />
  <row Id="3467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="f2c50f57-e578-44f2-aec0-6748c9b915ba" CreationDate="2013-07-08T08:12:54.507" UserId="649" Comment="added 264 characters in body" Text="I would like to find the best way to filter 2 cubic meters of water which is full of water-based paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This water is used in a closed-loop circuit in a **Spray booth**.&#xD;&#xA;The water does not need to be drinkable but just **clear**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recycling company comes twice a year to pump out the 2 cubic meters of dirty water. If I could find a filtering system, they could just pickup for example few kg of semi-dry paint/mud. We are based in Asia, the solution needs to be easy to implement and cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling company **make you pay per kilograms of waste**. 2 cubic meters makes 2000kg... If I would somehow filter the water and get the dry bits, I would pay much less. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider few options : &#xD;&#xA;Using steel drums to make whool or sand-based filtering system. (Either with a pumping system which would run once a week, or by manually filling them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using distillation process, using steel drums and gas to heat it up. (I need to make the calculus on gas consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using centrifuge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using belt press filter or press filter (they are widely used in the process of converting dirty water, to semi-dry sludges). In my case it is to expensive to buy this machine, just to use it once a year. The solution of my problem will be some **DIY genius**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole point if to keep the water as clear as possible for the longest time before the company comes to pump it up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="5ff80b44-0100-47f7-8bdc-38228bd2ebf3" CreationDate="2013-07-08T08:14:03.090" UserId="206" Comment="re-wrote entire question, listed more examples to avoid comments just suggesting names" Text="Have any research studies been published looking into localised alternative currencies, as to what their effects on the local market have been? For instance, do they really drive down food-miles, and increase trade at independent retailers at the expense of national and multi-nationals?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples I know of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * The Wörgl scrip, 1932-3, Austria, an attempt to take the idea of company scrip (wages that can only be spent in the employer's own shop) and apply it to a whole community.&#xD;&#xA; * Swiss WIR, 1930s-present, electronic settlement and accounting unit, cannot be used for full transaction payment. This currency is national and business-to-business only, so is not really of interest to sustainable living.&#xD;&#xA; * Thousands of Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS) worldwide, probably the best known being Ithaca Hours, of New York state. Usually time-based e.g. one unit of currency represents one hour of work. Many systems have printed notes with anti-counterfeiting features.&#xD;&#xA; * BerkShares, 2006-present, paper-based, no electronic settlement facility&#xD;&#xA; * Various &quot;Pound&quot; currencies in the UK, 2006-present, paper-based with optional electronic point-of-payment facility" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3469" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="5ff80b44-0100-47f7-8bdc-38228bd2ebf3" CreationDate="2013-07-08T08:14:03.090" UserId="206" Comment="re-wrote entire question, listed more examples to avoid comments just suggesting names" Text="Research conducted into local / regional currencies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="ebf2c11d-bd62-4e56-9882-e3c1715436b2" CreationDate="2013-07-08T09:46:08.290" UserDisplayName="user655" Text="In my work and study, I have a lot of printouts - many of which re drafts and redrafts.  Is there are a way to recycle printed paper (standard printer paper) without using harsh chemicals and minimal waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3471" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="ebf2c11d-bd62-4e56-9882-e3c1715436b2" CreationDate="2013-07-08T09:46:08.290" UserDisplayName="user655" Text="How do I recycle my own paper with ink on them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3472" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="ebf2c11d-bd62-4e56-9882-e3c1715436b2" CreationDate="2013-07-08T09:46:08.290" UserDisplayName="user655" Text="|recycling|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3473" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="e6a20717-372e-4da2-ac29-b7a53270678e" CreationDate="2013-07-08T10:18:35.520" UserDisplayName="user655" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How to recycle paper with ink on it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3474" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="e6a20717-372e-4da2-ac29-b7a53270678e" CreationDate="2013-07-08T10:18:35.520" UserDisplayName="user655" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|recycling|diy|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1115" RevisionGUID="5baabcfa-1805-4f1f-aef0-89469c93329c" CreationDate="2013-07-08T11:00:10.543" UserId="85" Text="Most areas do collect paper for recycling. The paper gets chopped up into pulp. Air is introduced and the ink sticks to the air bubbles, which rise to the top. The ink bubbles are then skimmed of the top and the fibres are processed into recycled paper (newspaper, for example). This might be a nice little project, but I doubt anyone has the stamina to make recycled paper at home. The outcome will be pretty, but certainly not printable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, paper can be composted as well, but the fibres are usually bleached, which already introduces some chemicals into the paper. Most inks also contain harmful chemicals, so composting might not be the best idea. In a sense, composting paper could also be seen to be a waste. It takes a lot to get trees into paper form. Ending the life-cycle of the fibres by composting reduces the availability of recycled paper, and is at least partly responsible for chopping down more trees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3476" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="134d9273-73bb-41d4-b555-d780d37359fd" CreationDate="2013-07-08T12:52:16.160" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|ecological-footprint|economy|localisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="898" RevisionGUID="f9dbf466-6406-4645-bc63-35402d544925" CreationDate="2013-07-08T14:29:51.387" UserId="462" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="**Short answer:**&#xD;&#xA;The average R-value of the building shell is the most important thing to consider whenever the outside temperature is going to be very different from the inside temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long answer:**&#xD;&#xA;In new construction, you can build your walls thick and fill them with insulation, or even use structural insulated panels instead of traditional materials. You can just pick your favorite insulation and make sure the walls are designed to use it effectively. From a heating standpoint, it doesn't really matter if you use fiberglass, foam, insulated concrete forms, or blown-in cellulose as long as the wall assemblies have the R-value your looking for and everything is built and installed correctly. In a cold climate, reducing heating fuel consumption will have a far greater impact over the useful life of the insulation than choosing &quot;green&quot; materials. That said, some materials are clearly more sustainable than others. Refer to [Zach's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/897/462) for more information on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're buying an existing but under-insulated home you might want blown-in cellulose because it can be installed in uninsulated cavities without tearing apart the wall. It's also very simple to add a layer in the attic. If/when you need to replace the siding, you might want to install foam boards between the wall and the new siding. Foam boards are also a good option for masonry or concrete walls. Wood-framed structures will probably give you more options for adding insulation than masonry or concrete walls will because wood-framed walls have cavities that can be filled with just about any type of insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also keep in mind that insulation only prevents heat transfer through itself. Studs between insulated cavities will conduct heat better than you'd like no matter what. Ideally, your home will have a continuous &quot;shell&quot; of insulation that is broken only by windows, doors, plumbing penetrations, and exhaust outlets/air intakes. That said, some insulation is better than none, and at some point the cost just isn't worth it unless you have a whole lot of money to throw around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3479" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="45d0ffc4-693c-4582-9307-47f1940f432d" CreationDate="2013-07-08T20:12:18.647" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/354332133235499009" />
  <row Id="3480" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="23" RevisionGUID="b7f8fbc4-4b32-4bd5-a61c-030511bf0575" CreationDate="2013-07-08T23:12:18.360" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/354377431135698945" />
  <row Id="3481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1116" RevisionGUID="2aeaa7df-0028-4572-aa3c-4892fff10aa1" CreationDate="2013-07-09T01:43:11.207" UserId="659" Text="I've worked in screen printing using water-based inks, and all we did there was a settling tank and cloth filters. By cloth, I mean we printed t shirts and used scrap t shirts to make the filters - just wrap 3-4 layers of t shirts around a screen printing screen and that's the filter (6-8 layers of cloth, one layer of ~0.5mm mesh). We had effectively a split tank with the filter at the top of the separating barrier, so water flowed through the filter into the &quot;clean&quot; side. It definitely was never drinkable, the hydrocarbons from the inks stayed in the water and made it smell bad forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the settling tank did 90% of the work, what was left was very fine ink particles and some floating debris. The cloth filter got that out very effectively, and we changed that when it was obviously holding the water back - the level on the &quot;clean&quot; side was much lower than on the dirty side. Or when we had a pile of discarded t shirts. I'd just roughly cut the sleeves and printed front off, then use the clean back sections on the filter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our system was smaller than yours, our tank was only about 300 litres. But if you already have a 2 cubic metre tank and can get another one I suggest trying a setup like the one we used. Put the &quot;clean&quot; tank a little lower than the existing dirty one, have the overflow from the dirty tank run over/through the filter, and see how it goes. If you're using cloth I suggest a frame with cloth resting on wire mesh, so it's easy to see how clean the cloth is and change it when required. Make sure the overflow from that filter is able to take the full flow out of the dirty tank, because the filter will get blocked at some point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the settling/dirty tank got too full of &quot;gunk&quot; that had settled out we would drain most of the water out using a syphon, then when the siphon was sucking up dirty water we'd stop it and dispose of the rest. We usually let that build up until it was about half full - so there was only ~20cm of water on top of 20cm of sediment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1118" RevisionGUID="76c77f67-b6f0-407b-887d-bd45161baa7e" CreationDate="2013-07-09T22:45:52.440" UserId="462" Text="There are a number of &quot;eco-friendly&quot; pens and pencils on the market advertising recycled content and other &quot;green&quot; features, but are they really as good as they look? Many standard wooden pencils use wood from fairly well-managed sources, and &quot;green&quot; pens still seem to use fairly standard disposable ink cartridges. So is there really enough of a difference to justify the advertising and premium prices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3484" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1118" RevisionGUID="76c77f67-b6f0-407b-887d-bd45161baa7e" CreationDate="2013-07-09T22:45:52.440" UserId="462" Text="Are &quot;eco-friendly&quot; pens and pencils actually more sustainable than the conventional models?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3485" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1118" RevisionGUID="76c77f67-b6f0-407b-887d-bd45161baa7e" CreationDate="2013-07-09T22:45:52.440" UserId="462" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|ecolabel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1119" RevisionGUID="78cc7b85-8021-4978-a080-4713fee2f24e" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:01:35.023" UserId="85" Text="I would be surprised if any pen would be more sustainable than a sustainably sourced pencil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of sustainability, I still think that &quot;green&quot; pens should come after refillable pens, pencils and fountain pens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also refillable cartridges for standard fountain pens, which usually come with plastic cartridges. For example, this middle one looks (and is) a plastic cartridge for a fountain pen, but the red end twists and is able to suck in ink from an inkwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![cartridges](http://nerdsyndicate.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/222img_4210.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At one point I used such a model for many years, which should be more sustainable than any other type of pen (feathers aside, I guess). Now I use almost exclusively mechanical pencils (and chalk on a blackboard).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my verdict for your green pens:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Green&quot;? Maybe more so than others.&#xD;&#xA;Sustainable? Not really." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1115" RevisionGUID="bfc5cd27-1b94-468a-bc47-55347c23156e" CreationDate="2013-07-10T01:04:14.330" UserId="85" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="Most areas do collect paper for recycling. The paper gets chopped up into pulp. Air is introduced and the ink sticks to the air bubbles, which rise to the top. The ink bubbles are then skimmed of the top and the fibres are processed into recycled paper (newspaper, for example). This might be a nice little project, but I doubt anyone has the stamina to make recycled paper at home. The outcome will be pretty, but certainly not printable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle, paper can be composted as well, but the fibres are usually bleached, which already introduces some chemicals into the paper. Most inks also contain harmful chemicals, so composting might not be the best idea. In a sense, composting paper could also be seen to be a waste. It takes a lot to get trees into paper form. Ending the life-cycle of the fibres by composting reduces the availability of recycled paper, and is at least partly responsible for chopping down more trees. (On a side note, greasy paper, like pizza boxes, should be composted, because oil is very hard to remove in the recycling process.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="7ae1dbd9-97ab-42bf-8039-35b4c65fd3ca" CreationDate="2013-07-10T04:56:50.390" UserId="610" Comment="Trying to take out the &quot;editorial&quot; &amp; I'm hardly an economist.  I will look at comments sorry have been away from board trying to find employment!" Text="As the question has inferred, it is logical that by not using bleach in paper products (in this case the household consumer type) it would cut cost and also save the toxins from the environment. To find the answer one must look at the bigger picture for it has to do with a number of contributing factors much larger than the bleaching of a piece of paper.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of these contributing factors is the fact that our current economic model puts zero value in nature or ecosystems.  It is based on a business mentality of survival of the fittest with “survival” meaning those that can make money in the economic conditions.  There is no benefit in conservation in a model that has no way of equating such with cost, profit, ROI, etc.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Another contributing factor is that the corporations had been given an exorbitant amount of power back in the late 1800’s.  Since this time, corporate power has increasingly gained traction in the political arena through (among other things) the power of lobbying, the landmark decision that  a corporation is a person and the filling out of the Cabinet by corporate VPs, CEOs, Board Members etc.  This ensures that the corporations’ best interests are looked out for when drafting and revising new bills. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the controlling powers in the tissue industry (wood pulp) are long-standing corporations that first made their mark in logging old growth forests such as Weyerhauser, GP and Kimberly Clark.  They like all corporations that profit off the exploitative harvesting of a natural resource that is exhaustible go through a boom and bust cycle.  When they run out of the natural resource their profit margins go down.  However, they maintain a high degree of power and influence in the political arena.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet another factor is that the pulp and paper business is what one may consider an old sector of the economy such as the railroads, mining, etc.  In such large corporations that began so long ago they are adverse to change and when they do it is much slower in comparison to say, nanotechnology.  They do not adapt well like the new sectors because their infrastructure has basically stayed the same for more than a century.  In contrast computers, chips, etc. have been made to adapt because their marketplace changes virtually overnight.       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What does this big picture stuff have to do with unbleached toilet paper you ask?**&#xD;&#xA;Nearly everything. I have just laid out a number of factors and to summarize: The “power brokers” of the logging pulp and paper industry have no incentive to change. Their business model is adverse to change. The early industrial age business model was not designed like that of today's information age companies. Not previously mentioned there is also a large, powerful industrial chemical complex that doesn’t want to lose business that will be replaced with nothing. These corporations have to answer to the board members and stockholders about projected quarterly earnings. (However, we as consumers have the power to change this through our buying habits). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there are several retail companies such as Seventh Generation and other reputable companies offer unbleached tissue but the price is expensive compared to bleached toilet paper (which is illogical unless you take into consideration the above and the next statements) .  [Seventh Generation is the #1 rated company on the planet][1] based on their overall social and environmental records.  This rating is achieved by a [5 step process which starts with over 20 years worth of data collected][2] from [a wide range of public, private and nonprofit sources.][3] To be ethical costs money in a capitalist free-market economy that does not value natural resources and workers rights (hours, wage, age, etc.). This can be applied to many things that seem illogical like organic food.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is good news. Thanks to authors like Paul Hawkens and William McDonough there is progress. There are a number of think tanks around the world such as [NEF][4], [Happy Planet Index][5], [Paecon][6] and the Cambridge Trust for New Economic Thinking that are working together to create a new economic model that values nature.  There are also more immediate action views like [Kick It Over][7] Although, these positive points may not pertain to the question, I did not want to leave my answer sounding so pessimistic ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.betterworldshopper.com/topten.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.betterworldshopper.com/rankings.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.betterworldshopper.org/research.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.neweconomics.org/our-work/entry/environment&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://kickitover.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1096" RevisionGUID="b967057b-3279-4097-96c1-7f271e3b99e8" CreationDate="2013-07-10T07:01:30.357" UserId="206" Comment="appease @EnergyNumbers" Text="Have any research studies been published looking into localised alternative currencies, as to what their effects on the local market have been? For instance, do they really drive down food-miles, and increase trade at independent retailers at the expense of national and multi-nationals?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples I know of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * The Wörgl scrip, 1932-3, Austria, an attempt to take the idea of company scrip (wages that can only be spent in the employer's own shop) and apply it to a whole community.&#xD;&#xA; * Swiss WIR, 1930s-present, electronic settlement and accounting unit, cannot be used for full transaction payment. This currency is national and business-to-business only, so is not really of interest to me for this question.&#xD;&#xA; * Thousands of Local Exchange Trading Systems (LETS) worldwide, probably the best known being Ithaca Hours, of New York state. Usually time-based e.g. one unit of currency represents one hour of work. Many systems have printed notes with anti-counterfeiting features.&#xD;&#xA; * BerkShares, 2006-present, paper-based, no electronic settlement facility&#xD;&#xA; * Various &quot;Pound&quot; currencies in the UK, 2006-present, paper-based with optional electronic point-of-payment facility" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3491" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1118" RevisionGUID="e5332888-439c-4a09-9959-e030ae0e7952" CreationDate="2013-07-10T14:12:19.840" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/354966318228832258" />
  <row Id="3492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1120" RevisionGUID="a2a760e7-06ff-4d97-8ba6-9026f0529eb4" CreationDate="2013-07-12T02:43:25.453" UserId="85" Text="I have been harvesting and processing bamboo for crafts (mainly household items) and am interesting in [rattan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattan), which is more flexible than bamboo and can be used where otherwise one might use plastic rope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is rattan something that can be grown and harvested in a garden (temperate to tropical climate)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1120" RevisionGUID="a2a760e7-06ff-4d97-8ba6-9026f0529eb4" CreationDate="2013-07-12T02:43:25.453" UserId="85" Text="Growing and harvesting rattan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1120" RevisionGUID="a2a760e7-06ff-4d97-8ba6-9026f0529eb4" CreationDate="2013-07-12T02:43:25.453" UserId="85" Text="|craft|crop|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3497" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1120" RevisionGUID="eeda3abc-838b-4088-97b2-3eb651bc4c39" CreationDate="2013-07-12T09:53:42.987" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|craft|crop|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="971" RevisionGUID="f102dc51-1140-4a57-b4e6-8dd98270232e" CreationDate="2013-07-12T19:29:10.880" UserId="99" Comment="removed part that was obviously copied from http://askannamoseley.com/2013/03/how-to-get-rid-of-gnats-in-the-house/ without any citation" Text="There are many types of gnats like fungal gnat, fruit flies, etc. How exactly you can get rid of gnats may depend on which plant it is (if the plant needs a lot of water or not). Remove the top layer of the soil, because gnats generally lay their eggs on the top layer. Take the plants outside, use a shovel and remove about one inch of the soil's top layer. If necessary, place new soil in the pot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First try removing any food sources they have been feeding from. This would include removing any fruit left out on counters. Any houseplants should be ideally planted in containers that can drain since gnats also love wet, standing water on top of soil. Your plant’s soil should be moist but not overwatered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some gnats can develop due to excessive moisture so be careful not to over-water the plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read some articles on the internet from which I got some nice solutions that fit here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Read more: How to Get Rid of Gnats in House Plants][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ehow.com/how_2305145_rid-gnats-house-plants.html#ixzz2UkokDRya" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1121" RevisionGUID="62be81a2-1cd7-45df-9566-897e1c01f013" CreationDate="2013-07-12T20:02:38.457" UserId="56" Text="I agree with the suggestions of Yadav and Kat, though I had a similar looking bug that turned out not be gnats (though this was in the US, so I'm sure we have some different bugs)  In any case, if your plants can tolerate a small drought, letting the soil dry out as long as possible (especially if you can put them in direct sunlight for a while) helped take care of most of them for me.  Then I went ahead a removed the top layer of soil, like someone suggested above, and they were basically gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if it was related, but I also started washing my fruit a vegetables right when I bought it, instead of right before I ate it, just to be sure there weren't any eggs I was letting hatch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1122" RevisionGUID="47b06a46-a5bf-4ec1-8c68-5381f699554f" CreationDate="2013-07-12T20:15:22.520" UserId="56" Text="You need to provide a little more information about where you are located and which direction your windows face.  While the list provided by Linger is good in just about any case, they generally only save minor amounts of energy.  If you are in a location that supports it, I would just turn off all heating and cooling.  For example, I used to live in an apartment in Boulder, CO with south facing windows that didn't even have AC, and we never turned the heat on, even when the temperature fell well below freezing.  This was possible because we opened and closed the shades correctly to take advantage of the Southern exposure, and kept the windos open at night during the Summer to try to &quot;night flush&quot; the air.  But this is only applicable to moderate climates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For very hot and dry climates, getting a smaller portable swamp cooler will save lots of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hot wet climates are a little unfortunate however (probably a reason humans haven't really developed in these places, since sweating, the same mechanism swamp coolers use, is ineffective).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In really cold climates, the best option is to attempt to take advantage of sunlight when it is out, and when it is not, close all the windows as much as possible with insulating (or just thick cloth) shades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One interesting way to test your potential for passive heating and cooling is to turn off all heating and cooling for a period of time, say a week or two (unless it gets below freezing often, then have the heating on just enough so you don't freeze pipes...) and try to figure out what works best for your apartment at your location as far as operating shades and windows, and wearing heavier clothes and blankets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a side note, you mentioned that you cannot install a programmable thermostat, but in many apartments that have older, simpler thermostats, the wires are actually all there to replace it with a programmable one, so you may want to check.  You can always remove it when you leave and the landlord will never know, if they care." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1123" RevisionGUID="8c56c3a2-3278-4401-9fa3-9d1c6cde7fd3" CreationDate="2013-07-12T20:26:05.487" UserId="664" Text="I have seen broken glass (+/- 1&quot; square pieces) used effectively as the drainage backfill around a residential foundation. The owner reported that it worked very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A google search shows other situations where the crushed glass is used as aggregate in construction, including some cases where the aesthetics are used to an advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.howtopedia.org/wiki/How_to_Use_Crushed_Recycled_Glass_as_Aggregate_for_Construction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1124" RevisionGUID="3c1f3047-d8b7-43b0-8c02-97745c1f48ef" CreationDate="2013-07-12T21:54:59.450" UserId="664" Text="The comments in this discussion looked helpful, including discussion of why standard ant control techniques don't work with leaf cutter ants.&#xD;&#xA;http://crphotos.blogspot.com/2009/05/leaf-cutter-ants-and-biological.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the link that is referenced in the comments no longer works directly. It looks like the resource has been moved to the publications section of:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.echocommunity.org/&#xD;&#xA;And it requires you to create an account before accessing the information in their &quot;Amaranth to Zai Holes&quot; publication." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1123" RevisionGUID="59237dda-e424-4bd1-85d3-dc596abbea73" CreationDate="2013-07-13T01:57:23.233" UserId="227" Comment="Formatting." Text="I have seen broken glass (± 1&quot; (~25 mm) square pieces) used effectively as the drainage backfill around a residential foundation. The owner reported that it worked very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An internet search shows other situations where the crushed glass is used as aggregate in construction, including some cases where the aesthetics are used to an advantage. See [HowToPedia article][1], for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.howtopedia.org/wiki/How_to_Use_Crushed_Recycled_Glass_as_Aggregate_for_Construction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3511" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1123" RevisionGUID="59237dda-e424-4bd1-85d3-dc596abbea73" CreationDate="2013-07-13T01:57:23.233" Comment="Proposed by 227 approved by 85 edit id of 160" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1088" RevisionGUID="2e50fe7f-9c77-4233-a06e-b2f51bcd024f" CreationDate="2013-07-13T06:16:55.743" UserId="648" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="What would a well ventilated port city such as Honolulu, Hawaii, USA have for the concentrations (in parts per million) of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; or NO&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;, compared to a city like Linfen, China which is the site of a large coal industry? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By how much would concentration change between different regions in the same city? That is, what range of concentrations are we looking at when it comes to NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, for example? Feel free to post information on other gasses such as O&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; and general pollutants. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3513" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1120" RevisionGUID="3cec2e1f-787b-4419-8a66-d2881236dd9b" CreationDate="2013-07-13T11:12:26.163" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/356008208923496448" />
  <row Id="3514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1125" RevisionGUID="aaed5b56-a47e-4af2-8411-9ce48df79892" CreationDate="2013-07-15T08:44:12.573" UserId="15" Text="Over time the range of products using carbon fibre appears to be increasing. Carbon by itself is probably quite environmentally friendly, but manufacturing of carbon fibre is probably quite expensive so it may be worth recycling if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other substances tend to be mixed with the fibre in consumer products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can carbon fibre be reused, perhaps with some kind of processing?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3515" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1125" RevisionGUID="aaed5b56-a47e-4af2-8411-9ce48df79892" CreationDate="2013-07-15T08:44:12.573" UserId="15" Text="Can carbon fibre be recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3516" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1125" RevisionGUID="aaed5b56-a47e-4af2-8411-9ce48df79892" CreationDate="2013-07-15T08:44:12.573" UserId="15" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3517" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1000" RevisionGUID="970531dc-2bf2-444a-a6ce-b507522e8f70" CreationDate="2013-07-15T15:35:17.450" UserId="462" Comment="edited title" Text="How can glass be recycled/reused locally in rural communities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3518" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1125" RevisionGUID="907f1e34-d9d2-4414-aa2a-d0cc3217b1ad" CreationDate="2013-07-15T23:12:33.937" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/356914212418748418" />
  <row Id="3519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1123" RevisionGUID="f111453b-2da8-45fa-b8a2-b007e5ff55bd" CreationDate="2013-07-16T05:11:38.813" UserId="48" Comment="added 840 characters in body" Text="I have seen broken glass (± 1&quot; (~25 mm) square pieces) used effectively as the drainage backfill around a residential foundation. The owner reported that it worked very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An internet search shows other situations where the crushed glass is used as aggregate in construction, including some cases where the aesthetics are used to an advantage. See [HowToPedia article][1], for example, which suggests the following uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crush to sand size which removes sharp edges:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* use as bedding in place of sand&#xD;&#xA;&gt;* use as aggregate instead of sand&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*  add to plaster for decorative shine &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crush to pebble size which removes sharp edges, use as decoration in concrete plaster. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more, see [Studies of Glass in Construction Applications][2], (CWC, Ref BP-GL4-01-01, Nov 96) which refers to the following (relatively old, now) studies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Clean Washington Center ... glass as a construction aggregate.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Florida Institute of Technology ... Waste Glass and Waste-to-Energy Bottom Ash as Highway Fill Materials&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Schmucker, Bruce O., and Buffalini, Rick J: Pulverized Glass and Landfill Liner Systems&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; University of Missouri - Rolla; Glasphalt Paving Handbook&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.howtopedia.org/wiki/How_to_Use_Crushed_Recycled_Glass_as_Aggregate_for_Construction&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cwc.org/gl_bp/4-01-01.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1126" RevisionGUID="8012663a-da1a-4543-b49b-1d8ed8bf1cb2" CreationDate="2013-07-16T14:15:30.367" UserId="674" Text="In addition to the energy efficiency benefits of multi-unit buildings, they also give you access to a large group of people with common interests. While these actions are less direct and more involved, they are arguably more impactful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Educate other residents. If you can convince them to also switch all their bulbs to CFLs/LEDs and use power strips as you've described, then the building as a whole uses far less energy. This could also impact the heating/cooling load on a macro scale depending on your climate and the existing bulbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If successful, you could grow this into a larger group of influencers, spread your message to other buildings nearby, or get involved politically to ensure energy efficiency is built in to our society from the ground up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll get off my pedestal now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="e8f0a06d-d6b9-431e-8b2d-db4b40aa3a90" CreationDate="2013-07-17T02:28:37.877" UserId="486" Text="Like many substances, carbon fiber **can** be recycled, but it may (currently) be better described as *downcycling*, vs. *recycling*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon fiber composite materials, for example, are being used increasingly in aircraft manufacture.  Although this has been the case in more expensive *military* aircraft for decades, only recently have large commercial aircraft started using more composite materials than aluminum (the new [Boeing 787 is about 50% composites vs. 20% aluminum][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [this article about Boeing][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... use a process called pyrolysis, whereby heat removes the resin&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from shredded raw composite material, rendering what Carberry&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described as a kind of fluffy fiber.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carberry explained that physical properties of recycled composites&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limit their use to nonstructural parts. Only new material–made of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virgin carbon fiber–is strong enough for fabrication of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flight-critical components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The carbon composites are [heated to around 400 &amp;deg;C - 600 &amp;deg;C][5], so the epoxy resin can be separated, and the fibers reclaimed.  Although the end result is not a fiber of the same length as the original, the [process only uses about 5% of the energy that the original process did.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like when paper is recycled, the resulting fibers get shorter and shorter, and this reduces the strength of the recycled composite material.  They are still usable, but not for all the same applications (e.g. aircraft structure) as the original material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An early, lower-tech recycling process for carbon fiber simply involved grinding it up, and using it as filler material for applications like road building.  Less demanding applications like laptop cases are also current recipients of recycled carbon fiber.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is a link for a company developing a different carbon fiber recycling process][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Another link discussing the general state of the art, and future directions][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclaimer: in a former life, was a Boeing structures engineer, and did my Master's in Aero/Astro structures*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/787family/programfacts.page&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-air-transport-perspective/2012-11-05/composites-go-green-through-recycling&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.adherent-tech.com/recycling_technologies/carbon_fiber_reclamation_faqs&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/carbon-fiber-reclamation-going-commercial&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.swrtec.de/swrtec/team/recyclingposter.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="73559419-88d2-4637-8ccf-b41f0f2b9550" CreationDate="2013-07-17T02:43:13.567" UserId="486" Comment="clarified that epoxy is not recycled, and added section about non-aerospace applications" Text="Like many substances, carbon fiber **can** be recycled, but it may (currently) be better described as *downcycling*, vs. *recycling*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Aerospace &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon fiber composite materials, for example, are being used increasingly in aircraft manufacture.  Although this has been the case in more expensive *military* aircraft for decades, only recently have large commercial aircraft started using more composite materials than aluminum (the new [Boeing 787 is about 50% composites vs. 20% aluminum][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [this article about Boeing][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... use a process called pyrolysis, whereby heat removes the resin&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from shredded raw composite material, rendering what Carberry&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described as a kind of fluffy fiber.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carberry explained that physical properties of recycled composites&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limit their use to nonstructural parts. Only new material–made of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virgin carbon fiber–is strong enough for fabrication of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flight-critical components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The carbon composites are [heated to around 400 &amp;deg;C - 600 &amp;deg;C][5], so the epoxy resin can be burned off (and lost), and the fibers reclaimed.  Although the end result is not a fiber of the same length as the original, the [process only uses about 5% of the energy that the original manufacturing process did.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like when paper is recycled, the resulting fibers get shorter and shorter, and this reduces the strength of the recycled composite material.  They are still usable, but not for all the same applications (e.g. aircraft structure) as the original material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An early, lower-tech recycling process for carbon fiber simply involved grinding it up, and using it as filler material for applications like road building.  Less demanding applications like laptop cases are also current recipients of recycled carbon fiber.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Consumer Products&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, the material performance demands are highest for aerospace applications, then automotive applications, then sporting goods, and finally consumer electronics.  So, this is likely to be the *downcycling* flow for carbon fiber (although I don't have evidence that recycled aerospace fibers are being used in car frames yet).  It's also the case that aerospace consumption of carbon fiber composites is vastly greater than smaller consumer products, so that's the most important place to start innovating in fiber recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Check out this article, though, on Trek Bicycles recycling carbon fiber from bike frames][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is a link for a company developing a different carbon fiber recycling process][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Another link discussing the general state of the art, and future directions][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclaimer: in a former life, was a Boeing structures engineer, and did my Master's in Aero/Astro structures*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/787family/programfacts.page&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-air-transport-perspective/2012-11-05/composites-go-green-through-recycling&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.adherent-tech.com/recycling_technologies/carbon_fiber_reclamation_faqs&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/carbon-fiber-reclamation-going-commercial&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.swrtec.de/swrtec/team/recyclingposter.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://bicycling.com/blogs/thestraightdirt/2011/04/26/props-trek-institutes-novel-carbon-fiber-recycling-program/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1128" RevisionGUID="b851f76d-bf4d-4e99-a996-3a6846c96a38" CreationDate="2013-07-17T03:37:34.593" UserId="15" Text="The web has probably thousands of pages with instructions on how to build solar devices for heating air, water, and probably things I've never even thought of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia describes][1] different types of thermal solar collectors, but really has a commercial focus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when it comes to choosing an affordable design that might be useful for a DIY project at home (or for a small business), it's unclear exactly where to start looking and how to compare designs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any websites that act like a hub for this information and index or categorise the different techniques and devices? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this question I'd like to focus, if possible, on finding a site that compares and rates different designs, as well as possibly providing instructions on building them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_collector" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1128" RevisionGUID="b851f76d-bf4d-4e99-a996-3a6846c96a38" CreationDate="2013-07-17T03:37:34.593" UserId="15" Text="Instructions for making, and comparisons of, *small* solar thermal collectors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1128" RevisionGUID="b851f76d-bf4d-4e99-a996-3a6846c96a38" CreationDate="2013-07-17T03:37:34.593" UserId="15" Text="|solar-power|home|diy|solar-thermal|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3526" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1128" RevisionGUID="721d1058-dcc1-4787-84a5-d2c0cd4fbdf4" CreationDate="2013-07-17T08:17:19.317" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/357413692087865344" />
  <row Id="3527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1129" RevisionGUID="e812c2f4-77fd-455b-bdaa-c13b637cdcc1" CreationDate="2013-07-17T15:36:25.600" UserId="570" Text="My county requires rainwater management to be incorporated into lot plans for new construction if a certain percentage of the lot is impervious. This seems a sensible measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are under the impression that [rain gardens][1] are the only approved method for managing runoff (if a percolation study determines that the site's soil can support one). Rain gardens benefit the community by reducing erosion and filtering pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems to me that rain barrels can achieve the same benefits. The only significant differences between the mechanisms that I can think of are &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the storage capacity and &#xD;&#xA; 2. retention time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rain gardens &quot;store&quot; water temporarily and have a much higher capacity; [rain barrels store only about 55 gallons][2] but can hold that water indefinitely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because [I'm an avid gardener][3], I'd much rather have rainwater available for watering my garden and reduce my reliance on municipal water. [There is also some concern that rain garden performance degrades over time unless well-maintained.][4] I don't think there's a similar risk to rain barrels, but if there were I imagine it'd be much easier to rectify a failing rain barrel than a failing rain garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Should municipalities consider rain barrels to be suitable substitutes for rain gardens? Why or why not? Under what conditions?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/nvswcd/raingardenbk.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/nvswcd/rainbarrels.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.thesplatteredapron.com/how-to-build-raised-garden-beds&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/nvswcd/raingardenstudy.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1129" RevisionGUID="e812c2f4-77fd-455b-bdaa-c13b637cdcc1" CreationDate="2013-07-17T15:36:25.600" UserId="570" Text="Should municipalities consider rain barrels to be suitable substitutes for rain gardens? (Rain barrel vs rain garden)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1129" RevisionGUID="e812c2f4-77fd-455b-bdaa-c13b637cdcc1" CreationDate="2013-07-17T15:36:25.600" UserId="570" Text="|pollution|water-management|water-conservation|construction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3530" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1129" RevisionGUID="41b174f5-a630-461c-b448-95b35337d18f" CreationDate="2013-07-17T23:22:53.427" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/357641585585963009" />
  <row Id="3531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1130" RevisionGUID="d21ad8af-741a-49f4-bd4d-a3c0f48733fb" CreationDate="2013-07-18T00:25:18.690" UserId="15" Text="**There is a conflict of interest between gardening requirements and stormwater requirements.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though a rain barrel or tank could make a useful water retention device, it loses its value as a stormwater load-reduction mechanism when you retain the water for gardening or other purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To function effectively for stormwater load reduction, a system should be empty at the start of a heavy rain event, and avoid releasing any substantial amount of water during the peak load on the storm water system. The peak load occurs with a certain lag after a certain amount of rain within a limited period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To function effectively for gardening, a water storage system should retain the maximum amount of water at any given point, which conflicts with the stormwater requirements. This means if you keep your barrel full when possible, then a heavy rain event will quickly cause an overflow and increase the load on the stormwater system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A compromise could potentially be achieved if the heavy rain events for the region in question mostly tend to occur during winter when water isn't required for the garden. For example, an automatic release valve that very slowly empties the stored water while temperatures are low would mean that water could be retained during summer without manual intervention. In my experience, a system that required manual intervention would be abused (people would commonly either forget to change the setting, or disregard their obligation to do so), so an automatic system would be essential." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1130" RevisionGUID="03ca22d2-f03e-4d05-9c98-a6fc4cfb94b0" CreationDate="2013-07-18T01:14:08.130" UserId="15" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="**There is a conflict of interest between gardening requirements and stormwater requirements:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Stormwater barrels should be kept empty, garden barrels should be kept full.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though a rain barrel or tank could make a useful water retention device, it loses its value as a stormwater load-reduction mechanism when you retain the water for gardening or other purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To function effectively for stormwater load reduction, a system should be empty at the start of a heavy rain event, and avoid releasing any substantial amount of water during the peak load on the storm water system. The peak load occurs with a certain lag after a certain amount of rain within a limited period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To function effectively for gardening, a water storage system should retain the maximum amount of water at any given point, which conflicts with the stormwater requirements. This means if you keep your barrel full when possible, then a heavy rain event will quickly cause an overflow and increase the load on the stormwater system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A compromise could potentially be achieved if the heavy rain events for the region in question mostly tend to occur during winter when water isn't required for the garden. For example, an automatic release valve that very slowly empties the stored water while temperatures are low would mean that water could be retained during summer without manual intervention. In my experience, a system that required manual intervention would be abused (people would commonly either forget to change the setting, or disregard their obligation to do so), so an automatic system would be essential." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1131" RevisionGUID="6071725f-7c58-4ae2-b22a-52660e15c4b2" CreationDate="2013-07-18T01:24:19.900" UserId="486" Text="##Short Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, let me say that I *love* rain barrels, and have them installed at both homes I've owned (both older homes that are already fully landscaped).  I think rain barrels are great water saving devices, and can provide *some* buffer against run-off.  They're also cheap and easy to install, and can often repurpose existing containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would still answer **&quot;No, they should not be considered substitutes for rain gardens in building codes&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Why&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, we need to understand what the purpose of a building code is.  It's not a way to create the **best** possible residential units.  It's a means to provide sort of a *lowest-common-denominator* solution.  A *minimum* acceptable standard for something - in this case, stormwater management.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone such as yourself, who's in tune with these issues, an active gardener, and motivated to consider sustainability, might very well be able to improve upon the building code's solutions.  But, the code isn't so much for **you**, as it is for those who don't care about this stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For rain barrels to perform a stormwater management function, requires some active management on your part.  As [Highly Irregular said][1], you have to watch the fill level of your barrels constantly.  Most residents won't do this reliably.   A 55 gallon rain barrel can fill up fast, so it's easy to envision that in a short time, it might have *zero* benefit for stormwater management.  If the barrel is full, and has to drain via the overflow tube, you get absolutely no drainage benefit.  The rain garden is much more work to setup, but in my opinion, once it's working, it should continue to function with less intervention, compared to the rain barrel.  If the right native species are planted, once established, you should only have to make sure somebody doesn't completely mow over the garden.  Any other maintenance should be few and far between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, building codes primarily serve to govern plans for **new** buildings.  When you have an empty lot that's yet to be landscaped, it's less work to install a good rain garden.  After the home/building and yard are complete, and you want to add *additional* water management, I think rain barrels offer a reasonable retrofit solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Parallels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, this also reminds me of *geoengineering* solutions, which I generally tend to be opposed to.  For example, a proposal to combat global warming by injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere.  True, this would block sunlight, which would have a cooling effect.  But, sun is a good thing.  Blocking it would have other detrimental effects, and this &quot;*solution*&quot; does nothing to fight the non-warming problems associated with increasing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels (e.g. ocean acidification).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actively managed rain barrels might serve the purpose of stormwater management, but a plastic barrel isn't a plant.  Rain gardens are also good because they involve planting native species, keeping greenspace green instead of turning it into concrete, patio or deck area, and they also promote good biodiversity.  Rain barrels by themselves don't do these things.  The only thing they're assured of doing is saving some water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saving water is good.  I use rain barrels, and especially recommend them for retrofits, where the yard is already planted (with or without rain garden).  I just don't think they're a *substitute* for rain gardens in building codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1130/486" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1132" RevisionGUID="778c2b0c-27fd-425c-891f-e3ec456e1e4f" CreationDate="2013-07-18T14:23:57.043" UserId="680" Text="Even when melted/burned in a place with lots of ventilation, plastics can produce many toxic chemicals. These are then breathed in or attach themselves to soil, where they can stay for years and years. Therefore, I really wouldn't suggest trying to reuse plastics at home by melting or heating them, as the health implications can be really dangerous and damaging in the long run. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1134" RevisionGUID="cc77c48b-7344-4cac-9d31-a44bd644e269" CreationDate="2013-07-19T06:11:31.127" UserId="682" Text="I suppose as with most things it depends (climate,precip,erosion factors,season,etc.) But I cant imagine a scenario in which i would rather have rain-barrels instead of say a rain-garden with water absorbing swails on contour. Or better yet a [&quot;Natural Swimming Pool&quot; or &quot;Plunge Pool&quot;!][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JoQthEBl6U" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1135" RevisionGUID="9c34fb3d-5ca5-4540-a3f0-269246ca5fef" CreationDate="2013-07-19T07:50:17.040" UserId="682" Text="Lots of ideas..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dark Side&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Diatomaceous Earth][1] (Fossilized organisms so small it scratches them up inside and out)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Build a hot compost pile on top of it ([ If it ca get rid of Comfrey ants don't stand a chance)][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Entomopathogenic Fungi][3] (but it requires you to morph the fungal Escovopsis culture into a non-sporulating form yourself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful what you wish for though they do have the benifit of keeping fire ants away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Light Side&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sacrificial plants - (If [Lepiota][4] is what your ants are cultivating then Nettles may be a good plant to cultivate along their route to your fruit trees) Once your sacrificial plants are established hose down the pheromone trail leading to your trees until they find another source of food. It is believed they tend to stick to one type of foliage at a time in an attempt feed the fungi they are harvesting a consistent diet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Cultivate them for fun &amp; profit!][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.richsoil.com/diatomaceous-earth.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEHc_UzeT9w&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomopathogenic_fungus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepiota&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.antweb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=1&amp;tag=leaf-cutter%20ants&amp;limit=20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1134" RevisionGUID="e858a5bb-795a-4a8b-87d1-bc8c095d17c3" CreationDate="2013-07-19T08:31:20.663" UserId="48" Comment="incorporating OP's comments into the answer" Text="I suppose as with most things it depends (climate, precipitation, erosion factors, season, etc.) But I can't imagine a scenario in which I would rather have rain-barrels instead of say a rain-garden with water absorbing swails on contour. Or better yet a [&quot;Natural Swimming Pool&quot; or &quot;Plunge Pool&quot;!][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the **advantages of a rain garden** over rain barrels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Storage capacity&#xD;&#xA; - Polyculture ecosystem&#xD;&#xA; - teaching/training tool&#xD;&#xA; - nutrient accumulator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the **disadvantages of rain barrels**, factory-made water-storage tanks that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - may or may not ever be used in any kind of gardening/landscaping,&#xD;&#xA; - may or may not become a stagnant pool of mosquito larvae,&#xD;&#xA; - And even with moderate rainfall the number of barrels needed (6-8 per small home) approches serious eyesore levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If pools &amp; rain gardens on contour is too far a leap for &quot;The Decider&quot; to make you may consider building a [Stealth Pond][2] instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JoQthEBl6U&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.permies.com/t/24290/ponds/Stealth-ponds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1135" RevisionGUID="b8812f0f-31b2-4095-9510-38836d6b927d" CreationDate="2013-07-19T08:49:24.863" UserId="486" Comment="formatting, grammar, typos" Text="Lots of ideas..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Dark Side&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Diatomaceous Earth][1] (Fossilized organisms so small it scratches them up, inside and out)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Build a hot compost pile on top of it ([If it can get rid of Comfrey, ants don't stand a chance][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Entomopathogenic Fungi][3] (but it requires you to morph the fungal Escovopsis culture into a non-sporulating form yourself)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful what you wish for, though they do have the benefit of keeping fire ants away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Light Side&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sacrificial plants - (If [Lepiota][4] is what your ants are cultivating, then Nettles may be a good plant to cultivate along their route to your fruit trees) Once your sacrificial plants are established, hose down the pheromone trail leading to your trees until they find another source of food. It is believed they tend to stick to one type of foliage at a time in an attempt feed the fungi they are harvesting a consistent diet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Cultivate them for fun &amp; profit!][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.richsoil.com/diatomaceous-earth.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEHc_UzeT9w&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomopathogenic_fungus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepiota&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.antweb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=1&amp;tag=leaf-cutter%20ants&amp;limit=20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="149" RevisionGUID="4964ecfc-9fda-4d24-883b-8b9f47504abb" CreationDate="2013-07-20T00:44:57.927" UserId="486" Comment="minor grammar fixes, ... there's good ideas in here" Text="In the era of *material* money the interest was bound with resource consumption growth. But now we have a virtual economy, and money that you have in the bank in reality doesn't exist. The interest is the increase of value, that doesn't exist in the real world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also the *inflation*. When money was &quot;real&quot;, inflation means at least an increase in money printing; yet even that isn't necessary. So you can have a deep crisis and high inflation, and still have interest; but, the value of your money will decrease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking into account non-material goods, there's also the possibility that the growth of virtual money could be paired with a growth in non-material goods volume, while the usage of resources will remain constant or **decrease**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, it is possible that the prices will go higher, and the people eat less. This is how a virtual economy works. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, the direct relation between money and resource consumption doesn't exist anymore. There's still a correlation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1136" RevisionGUID="b65a317d-0096-4862-a869-dede0b784697" CreationDate="2013-07-20T12:59:23.437" UserId="111" Text="The internet contains answers to this question that don't take into account sustainability. This [Mother Nature Network article][1] probably comes the closest I've found. The last resort method they propose is shoot all the squirrels and notes that it's temporary at best and I presume is not the most ecologically/sustainable way to solve the problem. One method they mention is caging your tomatoes which seems sustainable but is not practical in our case. Their sixth method is just plant so many that all the critters can have their share and there are still tomatoes left for you. Besides being impractical in our case (as well as too late for this season), I'm not sure oversupply is the most sustainable answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another method they mention is getting a cat. We have a cat but we have a really lot of squirrels and our cat does not live in our garden so that is not working. They also mention getting a border collie but is not practical since I am allergic to dogs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to focus this question among their remaining choices, or any other solutions not mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Predator urine. Assuming this is bought (since I'm not going to run around after a wild fox with a dixie cup), what is the sustainability of this solution? Ie how do I know impact of the product in its upstream manufacture? What is the impact on my property? Will that scare away my own cat as well as the squirrels? This seems like the logical choice but I'm a neophyte so wanted input&#xD;&#xA; - Pepper cocktail. Mix a spicy pepper mix that squirrels won't like the taste of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both the preferred (in my case) answers, besides not knowing their efficacy, I'm resorting to using outside agents (albeit I could grow my own peppers for next year's squirrel cocktail) and am not sure if the net effect is not negative instead of positive (ie would I have been more sustainable to just buy organic tomatoes at the market)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best sustainable way to keep squirrels from eating our tomatoes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/stories/7-ways-to-keep-squirrels-from-eating-your-tomatoes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3543" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1136" RevisionGUID="b65a317d-0096-4862-a869-dede0b784697" CreationDate="2013-07-20T12:59:23.437" UserId="111" Text="Best sustainable way to keep squirrels from eating our tomatoes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3544" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1136" RevisionGUID="b65a317d-0096-4862-a869-dede0b784697" CreationDate="2013-07-20T12:59:23.437" UserId="111" Text="|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1137" RevisionGUID="0a5438ae-d08b-4be9-a94b-04760f6be199" CreationDate="2013-07-20T15:03:01.190" UserId="685" Text="I bring some plastic bags to my flat almost everyday. I do not throw them out, instead I reuse them on a daily basis until they wear out. But I have a problem organising them and I am yet to find a way to store them efficiently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean by effective? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I want constant insertion time. For example, [container like this one][1] has this property - all you need is to squeeze bag in it. Simple folding a bag is also perfectly ok with me.&#xD;&#xA; - I want random access to my bags. That's because there are quite a lot of different types of bags (tiny to large, easy to break to strong ones, etc.) and I want to get a bag I want easily and fast. The container from previous point does not have this property. If I want to get a bag from the middle or the bottom of it, I need to take out all bags above the one I want. That's just irritating and it's the drawback of the vast majority of bag containers.&#xD;&#xA; - I want to have all bags visible - that's similar to previous one, I want to see all the bags, so I can quickly spot and then take the one I want.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought of using a few containers, each one for different type of a bag, but after some time I discarded this idea - there are too many types and I would need to have ~10 containers in order to compensate for their drawbacks mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hadn't yet tried it, but I found an [interesting video][2] which shows a flag-like folding method. It seems to fit all my needs, but may be also quite time consuming. I would be more than happy to see some other ideas!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ikea.com/ca/en/catalog/products/80010222/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p7-P6l2fus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3546" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1137" RevisionGUID="0a5438ae-d08b-4be9-a94b-04760f6be199" CreationDate="2013-07-20T15:03:01.190" UserId="685" Text="How to store plastic bags for easy access?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3547" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1137" RevisionGUID="0a5438ae-d08b-4be9-a94b-04760f6be199" CreationDate="2013-07-20T15:03:01.190" UserId="685" Text="|reuse|plastic|bags|storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3548" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1136" RevisionGUID="bced0020-366f-4b13-80e3-c75b00c3c953" CreationDate="2013-07-20T17:32:11.397" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/358640492826738688" />
  <row Id="3549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1138" RevisionGUID="88aafb58-a0ee-41e0-a765-a7579c77960e" CreationDate="2013-07-20T22:14:19.007" UserId="486" Text="I know this isn't the answer you're hoping for, but since you do mention it toward the bottom of your question, I think it's still *on-topic*;  **yes, you would (probably) be more sustainable to just buy organic tomatoes at the market**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Inefficiency of Do-It-Yourself (DIY)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a recurring theme I see a lot: people mistaking *sustainability* for DIY.  The two are not the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reason is kind of a corollary to an argument that's common [in economics][1].  The argument is that an economy works better when each of us specialize in what we're good at, and leave the other work for people with different talents.  If you're really great at growing tomatoes, I suggest you take up tomato farming.  If you're better at something else, do that for a living.  In economics, you do have different priorities (vs. sustainability).  However, they're not completely unrelated.  Economic efficiency focuses on costs.  Sustainability focuses on energy, pollution and finite resources.  But energy and resources cost money, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The organic tomato farmer is *also* trying to run a successful business.  They don't want to use more energy, water, organic fertilizer, or land than they need to.  They'll try to minimize those things, and given their experience, will likely do a better job than you do.  Economies of scale matter.  It's hard to have economies of scale in a backyard garden.  Do it if you love to garden, or want the freshest possible food.  But, don't assume it's most sustainable.  You should plant the kind of plants in your yard that are native to your area, or provide habitat for birds, insects or animals we **do** need more of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's also a link about the relative importance of &quot;food miles&quot;][2] in the energy equation, which I think tends to be overrated.  For example, if transportation to market represents only 4% of greenhouse gas emissions for a certain food, are you sure your home farming won't be more than 4% less efficient than the professional farmer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Misconceptions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There also appear to be a few assumptions in the question that I'd challenge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Using a cat or dog *would* be sustainable** (if not for allergies, or lazy cat syndrome).  If a dog or cat is active enough to be any good at chasing squirrels (and probably only when they're young), then they'll need a high-energy diet.  Such a pet, pound-for-pound, is going to consume much more food energy than a human.  Food takes energy, land, water, and soil to grow.  Pets can have a [large negative environmental impact][3], even though they're &quot;natural&quot;.  Keeping one just to protect your tomatoes would be like buying a schoolbus to drive to the grocery store, but claiming it's sustainable because it's a hybrid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Shooting squirrels would *not* be sustainable**.  I vehemently defend species under threat from human activity, but not all animals fall into this category.  Mankind has generally chased away the squirrel's natural predators, so in many areas people live, squirrel populations have increased.  Thus, killing squirrels isn't necessarily unsustainable (especially if you, or local birds, eat them).  Yes, squirrels do help propagate trees, but where you live, there's a good chance that humans decide which trees get planted, and which are removed.  If humans perform this function, we can probably tolerate a reduction in the number of squirrels doing so as well.  [For balance, I'll link to PETA's defense of squirrels][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Growing your own peppers would be better**.  This is really just about the *specialization* argument again, and how doing everything yourself isn't the point of sustainability, and usually isn't efficient.  The relative sustainability gains you might achieve in growing your own peppers are likely small compared to the losses of growing crops that are eaten by overpopulated rodents.  Worry about the tomato problem first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If you really need a narrow answer to this question ...&#xD;&#xA;You might need to provide more information.  **Why** are tomato cages not practical for you?  We may need to understand this is in order to give you another recommendation.  Cages would have been my suggestion, and in general, I think the MNN article covers most good alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/divisionoflaborspecialization.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://psufoodscience.typepad.com/psu_food_science/files/es702969f.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://phys.org/news176582720.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.peta.org/issues/wildlife/squirrels.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1139" RevisionGUID="3b300356-3564-4a10-be30-7424474ce203" CreationDate="2013-07-20T23:15:27.873" UserId="686" Text="It's interesting that you say &quot;I can't install solar panels&quot;. You're right of course, you can't install them directly on your own roof when you are renting an apartment but you could join an energy co-operative and put your money towards investing in new solar or wind farms. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3551" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1137" RevisionGUID="827d19d4-e57b-44ff-81f8-a65e52998f74" CreationDate="2013-07-21T07:56:20.170" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1140" RevisionGUID="e73bd168-c7f6-4a83-ad6d-b1794ac6e6b5" CreationDate="2013-07-21T12:56:02.183" UserId="687" Text="Excellent question, and I agree that much of the information is too focused on the commercial aspects. The best site I've found is &lt;http://www.builditsolar.com&gt;, which has extensive information on DIY solar thermal, along with a lot of project photos and links. The site organization may not be the best, but the content is outstanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="b2c90377-9524-4a2b-b2b8-2fe9c2f51b59" CreationDate="2013-07-21T13:32:25.640" UserId="96" Text="[Duckweeds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duckweed) are among the fastest growing higher plants, edible and rich in protein. They grow in lakes that are rich in nutrients, for example from fertilizer runoff. They have been used as tests for water contamination or for the treatment of certain industrial wastewaters. Now, I wonder if one could raise duckweed at home, using wastes or wastewater as fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suitable wastewater sources could be water from dishwashing, compost tea or possibly even urine. Wastes might be kitchen scraps, coffee grounds or the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When using waste water, most relevant parameters for contamination can be expected to decrease. Still, I'm right now not thinking about &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there are some experiences with raising duckweed for feeding fish or turtles, the ones I found all use bought fertilizer or even fish food - no wastes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the following questions should be answered by a success story:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* when wastewater was used, any special consideration regarding cleaning agents/detergents?&#xD;&#xA;* when kitchen wastes where used, what kind, what treatment&#xD;&#xA;* Was there any problem with odour or modges or other pests&#xD;&#xA;* was there any need for micronutrients&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="b2c90377-9524-4a2b-b2b8-2fe9c2f51b59" CreationDate="2013-07-21T13:32:25.640" UserId="96" Text="Are there any experiences with small-scale duckweed farming using domestic wastes or wastewater?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="b2c90377-9524-4a2b-b2b8-2fe9c2f51b59" CreationDate="2013-07-21T13:32:25.640" UserId="96" Text="|food|gardening|waste|plants|waste-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3556" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1136" RevisionGUID="2bd2e1a9-40b3-4c7f-886b-1020e2572821" CreationDate="2013-07-22T01:35:49.380" UserId="15" Comment="Added pest-management tag" Text="|gardening|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="5184dab4-9d4a-4d9f-87d4-4839ebc2c8da" CreationDate="2013-07-22T07:11:05.210" UserId="96" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="[Duckweeds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duckweed) are among the fastest growing higher plants, edible and rich in protein. They grow in lakes that are rich in nutrients, for example from fertilizer runoff. They have been used as tests for water contamination or for the treatment of certain industrial wastewaters. Now, I wonder if one could raise duckweed at home, using wastes or wastewater as fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suitable wastewater sources could be water from dishwashing, compost tea or possibly even urine. Wastes might be kitchen scraps, coffee grounds or the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When using waste water, most relevant parameters for contamination can be expected to decrease. Still, I'm right now not focusing on generating clean water but on food production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there are some experiences with raising duckweed for feeding fish or turtles, the ones I found all use bought fertilizer or even fish food - no wastes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the following questions should be answered by a success story:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* when wastewater was used, any special consideration regarding cleaning agents/detergents?&#xD;&#xA;* when kitchen wastes where used, what kind, what treatment&#xD;&#xA;* Was there any problem with odour or modges or other pests&#xD;&#xA;* was there any need for micronutrients&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1142" RevisionGUID="0947e096-b321-4c1d-b098-008ead42830b" CreationDate="2013-07-22T09:03:24.760" UserId="60" Text="*I'm answering only the estimating part of your question, the other answers cover the rest of the question satisfactorily.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I estimated your future system by your requirements in [African PV GIS][1] for Haifa (you can elaborate more for yourself).  &#xD;&#xA;You'll need at least **PV grid of 7kW&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt;**. The area of the PV grid would be approx. 40 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.  &#xD;&#xA;The optimized setup would be inclination=28°, orientation=-15° (15° from South towards East). The yearly approx. total energy production would be 11100 kWh with a daily average of 30.4 kWh. The critical month is December with only average 19.00 kWh per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This catch can be partly avoided by raising the PV inclination to let's say 45° (orientation=-15°). The total energy production would then be 4% lower, but average daily production in December would be 20.70 kWh (9% more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To backup your system from [batteries for 3 days][2] would mean at least 60 kWh of storage capacity. It would mean **at least 1500 Ah of 12 V batteries**. Not to damage the batteries too quickly one usually doubles the storage capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an important remark on this:  &#xD;&#xA;To disconnect this relatively big energy demand (20 kWh a day) from grid will be rather expensive. You should try to optimize your energy consumption as mentioned in many answers on this site. If your consumption was average too, the number would be lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php?map=africa&amp;lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.civicsolar.com/battery-sizing-tool" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1142" RevisionGUID="8b9e8bf1-3114-45db-83d9-9f37a5883853" CreationDate="2013-07-22T10:28:09.127" UserId="60" Comment="voltage of betteries corrected" Text="*I'm answering only the estimating part of your question, the other answers cover the rest of the question satisfactorily.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I estimated your future system by your requirements in [African PV GIS][1] for Haifa (you can elaborate more for yourself).  &#xD;&#xA;You'll need at least **PV grid of 7kW&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt;**. The area of the PV grid would be approx. 40 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.  &#xD;&#xA;The optimized setup would be inclination=28°, orientation=-15° (15° from South towards East). The yearly approx. total energy production would be 11100 kWh with a daily average of 30.4 kWh. The critical month is December with only average 19.00 kWh per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This catch can be partly avoided by raising the PV inclination to let's say 45° (orientation=-15°). The total energy production would then be 4% lower, but average daily production in December would be 20.70 kWh (9% more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To backup your system from [batteries for 3 days][2] would mean at least 60 kWh of storage capacity. It would mean **at least 1500 Ah of &lt;strike&gt;12 V&lt;/strike&gt; 48 V batteries**. Not to damage the batteries too quickly one usually doubles the storage capacity (3000 Ah of 48 V batteries).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an important remark on this:  &#xD;&#xA;To disconnect this relatively big energy demand (20 kWh a day) from grid will be rather expensive. You should try to optimize your energy consumption as mentioned in many answers on this site. If your consumption was average too, the number would be lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php?map=africa&amp;lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.civicsolar.com/battery-sizing-tool" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1143" RevisionGUID="6329b204-621b-416f-98df-253ce746a5f8" CreationDate="2013-07-22T10:51:35.593" UserId="679" Text="I've got used to the idea that very white office paper (usable for office printing for example) is always made of cropped trees while paper made of recycled materials is always grayish and so is not suitable for office printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now a local retailer offers [Mondi NAUTILUS® SuperWhite][1] which is claimed to be *100% recycled premium paper* with *high whiteness*. I suspect that I never saw white recycled paper before for a reason - perhaps it takes a lot of chemicals to whiten recycled paper and it's quite likely it takes more chemicals compared to whitening fiber made of fresh cropped trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can this &quot;super white 100 percent recycled&quot; paper be greener than comparably white paper made of cropped trees?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mondigroup.com/products/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-85" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3562" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1143" RevisionGUID="6329b204-621b-416f-98df-253ce746a5f8" CreationDate="2013-07-22T10:51:35.593" UserId="679" Text="Is &quot;100 percent recycled super white paper&quot; greener than paper made of trees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3563" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1143" RevisionGUID="6329b204-621b-416f-98df-253ce746a5f8" CreationDate="2013-07-22T10:51:35.593" UserId="679" Text="|recycling|paper|toxic-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1143" RevisionGUID="95bc196c-fc95-4cbd-9d6f-048206d5900d" CreationDate="2013-07-22T10:57:56.480" UserId="679" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="I've got used to the idea that very white office paper (usable for office printing for example) is always made of cropped trees while paper made of recycled materials is always grayish and so is not suitable for office printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now a local retailer offers [Mondi NAUTILUS® SuperWhite][1] which is claimed to be *100% recycled premium paper* with *high whiteness*. I suspect that I never saw white recycled paper before for a reason - perhaps it takes a lot of chemicals to whiten recycled paper and it's quite likely it takes more chemicals compared to whitening fiber made of fresh cropped trees and then perhaps extra chemicals cancel out the whole recycling positive effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So can this &quot;super white 100 percent recycled&quot; paper be greener than comparably white paper made of cropped trees?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mondigroup.com/products/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-85" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3566" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1143" RevisionGUID="c683f0bc-fd58-4910-a6cc-608867b4cad1" CreationDate="2013-07-22T23:35:56.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/359456810488438787" />
  <row Id="3567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1142" RevisionGUID="bcf36248-c2df-406e-9cbd-5c33162ce458" CreationDate="2013-07-23T06:47:31.660" UserId="60" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="*I'm answering only the estimating part of your question, the other answers cover the rest of the question satisfactorily.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I estimated your future system by your requirements in [African PV GIS][1] for Haifa (you can elaborate more for yourself).  &#xD;&#xA;You'll need at least **PV grid of 7kW&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt;**. The area of the PV grid would be approx. 40 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.  &#xD;&#xA;The optimized setup would be inclination=28°, orientation=-15° (15° from South towards East). The yearly approx. total energy production would be 11100 kWh with a daily average of 30.4 kWh. The critical month is December with only average 19.00 kWh per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This catch can be partly avoided by raising the PV inclination to let's say 45° (orientation=-15°). The total energy production would then be 4% lower, but average daily production in December would be 20.70 kWh (9% more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To backup your system from [batteries for 3 days][2] would mean at least 60 kWh of storage capacity. It would mean **at least 1500 Ah of &lt;strike&gt;12 V&lt;/strike&gt; 48 V batteries**. Not to damage the batteries too quickly one usually doubles the storage capacity (3000 Ah of 48 V batteries).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an important remark on this:  &#xD;&#xA;To disconnect this relatively big energy demand (20 kWh a day) from grid will be rather expensive. You should try to optimize your energy consumption as mentioned in many answers on this site. If your consumption was a maximum estimate, the number would be lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php?map=africa&amp;lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.civicsolar.com/battery-sizing-tool" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="748" RevisionGUID="abe8e5ab-f750-45b0-bba0-19e461a17800" CreationDate="2013-07-23T07:45:11.970" UserId="486" Comment="sorry, I went to Stanford and felt compelled to fix this one :)" Text="According to [Stanford University][1], soiled food packaging should not be recycled like unstained paper and cardboard waste:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Q: Why can't pizza boxes be recycled?&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A: Pizza boxes are made from corrugated cardboard, however the cardboard becomes soiled with grease, cheese, and other foods once the pizza has been placed in the box. Once soiled, the paper cannot be recycled because the paper fibers will not be able to be separated from the oils during the pulping process. Food is a major source of contamination in the various paper categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://bgm.stanford.edu/pssi_faq_contamination" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="419" RevisionGUID="a6fb0afd-f0dc-4348-9915-8bf421d214ad" CreationDate="2013-07-23T07:49:07.507" UserId="486" Comment="minor typo" Text="&quot;No&quot; is a pretty safe answer in general to the question &quot;Can a behaviour be polluting while still being sustainable?&quot;, just from any reasonable definitions of &quot;pollution&quot; and &quot;sustainable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's look at some corner cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, broadly speaking, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is both a local and a global pollutant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anthropogenic CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions were only 1-2% of what they are now, and not happening within urban areas, then natural carbon sinks could absorb those emissions sustainably, as long as those sinks are allowed to grow, rather than being shrunk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And scientists such as Columbia University's Klaus Lackner have developed means of extracting atmospheric CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and we have the chemistry to turn CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; into other chemicals, including methane. So there are round trips which would involve CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions, but which could be sustainable. Obviously the round trip would be a net consumer of energy, but the price of energy differs by time, place and form, so this can still be economically viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, one way to look at the relationship between pollution and sustainability is this:  &#xD;&#xA;**if there are procedures in place to reverse the pollution; and / or if the rate of release of pollutants is less than the sink rate of the environment, and if the pollutants' pathways from source to sink does not cause collateral harm on the way, then it could be sustainable. Otherwise, it is unsustainable.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3570" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1141" RevisionGUID="9b41fb38-ebd8-4306-a5e1-bba3688429d0" CreationDate="2013-07-23T14:37:36.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/359683722750066689" />
  <row Id="3571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="52bfb65a-2ba7-4017-b7c2-fc5111141770" CreationDate="2013-07-23T23:08:42.100" UserId="645" Comment="corrected spelling and grammar" Text="I was told some months ago that paper and cardboard recycling processes need clean raw material. In particular, paper stained with oil may be inappropriate to recycle, and should rather be thrown away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I live we separate our waste between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. glass&#xD;&#xA; 2. paper, cardboard, recyclable plastic containers, metal cans&#xD;&#xA; 3. garbage, that is, everything else  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I happen to have a used pizza box, it is often stained with oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I am not aware of the chemistry that is at stake for paper/cardboard recycling, I don't know if I should throw the oily pizza cardboard in the recycling or the trash. More finely, how oily can the cardboard be and still be a good candidate for recycling?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3572" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="740" RevisionGUID="52bfb65a-2ba7-4017-b7c2-fc5111141770" CreationDate="2013-07-23T23:08:42.100" Comment="Proposed by 645 approved by 48 edit id of 161" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1144" RevisionGUID="ccb00365-d88f-4398-8f30-04409624d60f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T23:37:21.863" UserId="651" Text="I want to start a roof garden project and wanted to know what process I can follow in order to meet these requirements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;low maintenance (could be easily automated),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;low resource waste (water, nutrients, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aquaponics, aeroponics, fogponics? any other?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1144" RevisionGUID="ccb00365-d88f-4398-8f30-04409624d60f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T23:37:21.863" UserId="651" Text="What process can I follow for my roof garden project?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1144" RevisionGUID="ccb00365-d88f-4398-8f30-04409624d60f" CreationDate="2013-07-23T23:37:21.863" UserId="651" Text="|aquaponics|green-roof|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1145" RevisionGUID="fd3f2358-0ffe-4733-8383-fff432c4cf89" CreationDate="2013-07-24T02:11:24.087" UserId="659" Text="You can buy lids with seals and a bunch more stuff in NZ, from [Mapau Country Trading Company in Nelson][1] or [3BucketsFull][2] for example. I did a search using these terms &quot;buy preserving jar lid with seal nz&quot; to find those results. I would not be surprised to find them in some of the more rural supermarkets as well, but the easy place to start is online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I grew up in a horticultural area in NZ and we did a lot of preserving because fruit was cheap in season. Mostly we used what the posters above are calling &quot;Mason jars&quot;, but the brand names are different in NZ and my extended family didn't refer to them by brand name, just as preserving jars and preserving lids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For seals I've used wax extensively in the past when we used to make a lot of fruit preserve and it worked well. The main failure mode was content shrinkage pulling the wax down out of the neck of the jar. The solution is to put the wax where the sides are parallel (which limits the jars you can use, and you usually have a fair bit of airspace, but IMO better that waste than spoiled preserves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I was starting to collect jars now I would be very tempted by the coffee jars with glass lids and low-quality plastic seals (Moccona is one brand that's available in NZ). Use wax for the real seal, only put the lid on once the jar is cool. But first, get a couple of jars and make sure they will cope with the heat of preserving. The reason for this is that the jars are pretty readily available second hand/free. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wax, by the way, can be collected and reused with a little effort. Or keep bees and get it free :) Since we had a beekeeper visit us every spring to pollinate fruit we used to buy wax and honey off him at the same time. But we still re-used the wax, either for preserving or in candles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I commented above but decided 300 words of comments was enough to make this an answer, so sorry for the duplication).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.countrytrading.co.nz/collections/country-home-4preserving-supplies/products/ageescrewbands-gold&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://3bucketsfull.com/collections/glassware-preserving" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1145" RevisionGUID="6574b269-76ac-41ed-a6fe-7cbe24c47041" CreationDate="2013-07-24T02:16:46.137" UserId="659" Comment="more on wax reuse" Text="You can buy lids with seals and a bunch more stuff in NZ, from [Mapau Country Trading Company in Nelson][1] or [3BucketsFull][2] for example. I did a search using these terms &quot;buy preserving jar lid with seal nz&quot; to find those results. I would not be surprised to find them in some of the more rural supermarkets as well, but the easy place to start is online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I grew up in a horticultural area in NZ and we did a lot of preserving because fruit was cheap in season. Mostly we used what the posters above are calling &quot;Mason jars&quot;, but the brand names are different in NZ and my extended family didn't refer to them by brand name, just as preserving jars and preserving lids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For seals I've used wax extensively in the past when we used to make a lot of fruit preserve and it worked well. The main failure mode was content shrinkage pulling the wax down out of the neck of the jar. The solution is to put the wax where the sides are parallel (which limits the jars you can use), and you usually have a fair bit of airspace, but IMO better that waste than spoiled preserves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I was starting to collect jars now I would be very tempted by the coffee jars with glass lids and low-quality plastic seals (Moccona is one brand that's available in NZ). Use wax for the real seal, only put the lid on once the jar is cool. But first, get a couple of jars and make sure they will cope with the heat of preserving. The reason for this is that the jars are pretty readily available second hand/free. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wax, by the way, can be collected and reused with a little effort. Or keep bees and get it free :) Since we had a beekeeper visit us every spring to pollinate fruit we used to buy wax and honey off him at the same time. But we still re-used the wax, either for preserving or in candles. The trick is to use a metal fish slice to cut a little groove into the wax without breaking the seal, invert the jar to tip the wax shavings out, then push down to crack it into two pieces that can be lifted out of the jar whole. That way you don't end up mixing lots of little fragments into the jam (my little sisters preferred the &quot;hulk smash&quot; approach that made the top few centimetres of jam quite waxy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I commented above but decided 300 words of comments was enough to make this an answer, so sorry for the duplication).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.countrytrading.co.nz/collections/country-home-4preserving-supplies/products/ageescrewbands-gold&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://3bucketsfull.com/collections/glassware-preserving" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="102d446c-ed53-4791-a8fb-2cbe6cb7aafa" CreationDate="2013-07-24T03:40:49.070" UserId="649" Comment="added 847 characters in body" Text="I would like to find the best way to filter 2 cubic meters of water which is full of water-based paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This water is used in a closed-loop circuit in a **Spray booth**.&#xD;&#xA;The water does not need to be drinkable but just **clear**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recycling company comes twice a year to pump out the 2 cubic meters of dirty water. If I could find a filtering system, they could just pickup for example few kg of semi-dry paint/mud. We are based in Asia, the solution needs to be easy to implement and cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling company **make you pay per kilograms of waste**. 2 cubic meters makes 2000kg... If I would somehow filter the water and get the dry bits, I would pay much less. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider few options : &#xD;&#xA;Using steel drums to make whool or sand-based filtering system. (Either with a pumping system which would run once a week, or by manually filling them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using distillation process, using steel drums and gas to heat it up. (I need to make the calculus on gas consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using centrifuge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using belt press filter or press filter (they are widely used in the process of converting dirty water, to semi-dry sludges). In my case it is to expensive to buy this machine, just to use it once a year. The solution of my problem will be some **DIY genius**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole point if to keep the water as clear as possible for the longest time before the company comes to pump it up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT 24/07/2013**&#xD;&#xA;I tried the filtering system with mesh wire and clothes suggested by Ӎσᶎ. Unfortunately it did not work, the dilution between paint and water being very high.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I have chosen the sand filtering solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made three different designs of filters, with gravity, pump and pressurized. I would like to get your advices about it. Even if its not drawn, all the pump have valves in order to regulate the throughput.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Using gravity for the throughput][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Using pump for the throughput][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the filter below, since its pressurized, maybe the sand level should be higher ?&#xD;&#xA;![Tank is closed and therefore pressurized][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help, **I will keep you up to date**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qABNE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IYidF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9AEMw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1146" RevisionGUID="f5d53389-e341-4d8a-9405-6f1914c79f12" CreationDate="2013-07-24T06:41:53.803" UserId="30" Text="I live in Denmark, so no leafcutter ants here. There are, however, some ants that wants to live under my house, which is fine, and enter my house to search for food, which is not fine. I've tried sprinkling cinnamon around their point of entry (a doorsill) and they didn't like it. They stopped entering my house. I used the ground, powder-like cinnamon not the sticks. Perhaps making a circle of cinnamon around the attacked tree will discourage the ants from stripping that tree.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1147" RevisionGUID="b12076cd-77ad-41b1-99fb-1aa966b15220" CreationDate="2013-07-24T06:51:06.673" UserId="30" Text="They are called &quot;Sørgemyg&quot; in Danish (http://plante-doktor.dk/soergemyg.htm). I have them as well. Nematodes kill their larvae in the ground. There is a Danish website that sells the nematodes: http://www.nyttedyr.dk/produkt/nematoder-mod-soergemyg.aspx That site says it is possible to catch the adult flies with yellow, sticky papertraps as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="7be5a65d-3fc5-4578-ac06-6713907a126d" CreationDate="2013-07-24T08:28:51.253" UserId="649" Comment="added 915 characters in body" Text="I would like to find the best way to filter 2 cubic meters of water which is full of water-based paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This water is used in a closed-loop circuit in a **Spray booth**.&#xD;&#xA;The water does not need to be drinkable but just **clear**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recycling company comes twice a year to pump out the 2 cubic meters of dirty water. If I could find a filtering system, they could just pickup for example few kg of semi-dry paint/mud. We are based in Asia, the solution needs to be easy to implement and cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling company **make you pay per kilograms of waste**. 2 cubic meters makes 2000kg... If I would somehow filter the water and get the dry bits, I would pay much less. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider few options : &#xD;&#xA;Using steel drums to make whool or sand-based filtering system. (Either with a pumping system which would run once a week, or by manually filling them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using distillation process, using steel drums and gas to heat it up. (I need to make the calculus on gas consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using centrifuge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using belt press filter or press filter (they are widely used in the process of converting dirty water, to semi-dry sludges). In my case it is to expensive to buy this machine, just to use it once a year. The solution of my problem will be some **DIY genius**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole point if to keep the water as clear as possible for the longest time before the company comes to pump it up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT 24/07/2013**&#xD;&#xA;I tried the filtering system with mesh wire and clothes suggested by Ӎσᶎ. Unfortunately it did not work, the dilution between paint and water being very high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried Moz solution again today with 10 gallons tank (big water tank for water fountain). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moz - experiment 1&#xD;&#xA;At the neck, I putted 6 layers of clothes. Filled the tank with water : just went through. Even if I made the opening smaller with a valve at the end.&#xD;&#xA;Then I switched for 6 layers of silk (used to print logos on wood). Same result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I kept the 6 layers of silk at the end of the bottle, Added a mesh wire inside and some stones. Finished with some sand. The flow was completely blocked, the sand was stuck in the neck of the bottle... I think it is because the sand can go through the mesh wire. Tomorrow, in the inside I ll swap the mesh wire for silk (sand does not go through). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I have chosen the sand filtering solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made three different designs of filters, with gravity, pump and pressurized. I would like to get your advices about it. Even if its not drawn, all the pump have valves in order to regulate the throughput.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem of the filter below is that the pump has to stop sometimes to prevent overflow... Is is a slow solution. But once again, I will run the filter only few times every 6 months. So why not.&#xD;&#xA;![Using gravity for the throughput][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Using pump for the throughput][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the filter below, since its pressurized, maybe the sand level should be higher ?&#xD;&#xA;![Tank is closed and therefore pressurized][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help, **I will keep you up to date**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qABNE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IYidF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9AEMw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="2231cebb-180d-438d-99dc-7cd4a9958c8f" CreationDate="2013-07-24T08:47:46.340" UserId="649" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="# PROBLEM #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to find the best way to filter 2 cubic meters of water which is full of water-based paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This water is used in a closed-loop circuit in a **Spray booth**.&#xD;&#xA;The water does not need to be drinkable but just **clear**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recycling company comes twice a year to pump out the 2 cubic meters of dirty water. If I could find a filtering system, they could just pickup for example few kg of semi-dry paint/mud. We are based in Asia, the solution needs to be easy to implement and cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling company **make you pay per kilograms of waste**. 2 cubic meters makes 2000kg... If I would somehow filter the water and get the dry bits, I would pay much less. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider few options : &#xD;&#xA;Using steel drums to make whool or sand-based filtering system. (Either with a pumping system which would run once a week, or by manually filling them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using distillation process, using steel drums and gas to heat it up. (I need to make the calculus on gas consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using centrifuge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using belt press filter or press filter (they are widely used in the process of converting dirty water, to semi-dry sludges). In my case it is to expensive to buy this machine, just to use it once a year. The solution of my problem will be some **DIY genius**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole point if to keep the water as clear as possible for the longest time before the company comes to pump it up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# MOZ Filtering System #&#xD;&#xA;Moz suggested in his answer to use some clothing, as he was doing in his company. see comment below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Classic Moz ##&#xD;&#xA;I tried the filtering system with mesh wire and clothes suggested by Ӎσᶎ. Unfortunately it did not work, the dilution between paint and water being very high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Sand filter, gravity based ##&#xD;&#xA;I tried Moz solution again today with 10 gallons tank (big water tank for water fountain). &#xD;&#xA;At the neck, I putted 6 layers of clothes. Filled the tank with water : just went through. Even if I made the opening smaller with a valve at the end.&#xD;&#xA;Then I switched for 6 layers of silk (used to print logos on wood). Same result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Filter with sand, stones, silk &amp; meshwire][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I kept the 6 layers of silk at the end of the bottle, Added a mesh wire inside and some stones. Finished with some sand. The flow was completely blocked, the sand was stuck in the neck of the bottle... therefore **no throughput**. I think it is because the sand can go through the mesh wire. Tomorrow, in the inside I ll swap the mesh wire for silk (sand does not go through), and it **might work much better**. The very low (nonexistent) throughput could be because I am experimenting on a small tank -&gt; not much pressure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See schematic above, its a classic gravity filter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Pump-assisted Sand Filter #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made three different designs of filters, with gravity, pump and pressurized. I would like to get your advices about it. Even if its not drawn, all the pump have valves in order to regulate the throughput.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem of the filter below is that the pump has to stop sometimes to prevent overflow... Is is a slow solution. But once again, I will run the filter only few times every 6 months. So why not.&#xD;&#xA;![Using gravity for the throughput][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Using pump for the throughput][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the filter below, since its pressurized, maybe the sand level should be higher ?&#xD;&#xA;![Tank is closed and therefore pressurized][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help, **I will keep you up to date**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ESQou.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qABNE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IYidF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9AEMw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1148" RevisionGUID="f8fa819a-63af-4850-bcab-a67a08c96210" CreationDate="2013-07-24T08:48:44.373" UserId="99" Text="I don't know much about aquaponics, aeroponics or fogponics, but I from what I've read on wikipedia I think those require more maintenance and resources than a simple vegetation-covered roof. Therefore I will focus my answer on the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most low-maintance, low resources solution probably is to build a green roof covered with sedumplants. Sedum can survive under many circumstances. In warm climates you may need to water the plants occasionally, but this is not necessary in moderate climates. The only maintance required is to check your water drains once or twice a year and unclog them if needed. You might want to take out the weeds once every year, but this is not strictly necessary. Basic instructions on how to build a sedum-covered roof can be found [here](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/94/99). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of sedum you can grow herbs and/or grasses on your roof, but these require a sturdier roof, more maintenance, more water and possibly also some fertilizer (depending on the types of plants). It's even possible to grow bushes and trees on your roof, but you'll need an even stronger roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Requirements:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - All vegetation-covered roofs&#xD;&#xA;   - a good waterproof and root resistant layer, preferably not older than 10 years.&#xD;&#xA;   - good drainage&#xD;&#xA;   - slope preferably less than 15 degrees. Depending on the type of roof, a bigger slope may be possible, but this will make construction and maintenance more complicated&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sedum&#xD;&#xA;   - the roof has to support an extra 40-80 kg/m2&#xD;&#xA;   - roof edge must be at least 10cm high&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Grass/herbs&#xD;&#xA;   - the roof has to support an extra 100-150 kg/m2&#xD;&#xA;   - roof edge must be at least 15-20cm high&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bushes/trees&#xD;&#xA;   - the roof has to support over 250kg/m2 extra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1095" RevisionGUID="1cc734f0-b9bd-48c8-8586-0397cdebfacb" CreationDate="2013-07-24T08:56:16.570" UserId="649" Comment="edited body" Text="# PROBLEM #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to find the best way to filter 2 cubic meters of water which is full of water-based paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This water is used in a closed-loop circuit in a **Spray booth**.&#xD;&#xA;The water does not need to be drinkable but just **clear**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recycling company comes twice a year to pump out the 2 cubic meters of dirty water. If I could find a filtering system, they could just pickup for example few kg of semi-dry paint/mud. We are based in Asia, the solution needs to be easy to implement and cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling company **make you pay per kilograms of waste**. 2 cubic meters makes 2000kg... If I would somehow filter the water and get the dry bits, I would pay much less. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider few options : &#xD;&#xA;Using steel drums to make whool or sand-based filtering system. (Either with a pumping system which would run once a week, or by manually filling them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using distillation process, using steel drums and gas to heat it up. (I need to make the calculus on gas consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using centrifuge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using belt press filter or press filter (they are widely used in the process of converting dirty water, to semi-dry sludges). In my case it is to expensive to buy this machine, just to use it once a year. The solution of my problem will be some **DIY genius**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole point if to keep the water as clear as possible for the longest time before the company comes to pump it up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# MOZ Filtering System #&#xD;&#xA;Moz suggested in his answer to use some clothing, as he was doing in his company. see comment below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Classic Moz ##&#xD;&#xA;I tried the filtering system with mesh wire and clothes suggested by Ӎσᶎ. Unfortunately it did not work, the dilution between paint and water being very high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Sand filter, gravity based ##&#xD;&#xA;I tried Moz solution again today with 10 gallons tank (big water tank for water fountain). &#xD;&#xA;At the neck, I putted 6 layers of clothes. Filled the tank with water : just went through. Even if I made the opening smaller with a valve at the end.&#xD;&#xA;Then I switched for 6 layers of silk (used to print logos on wood). Same result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Filter with sand, stones, silk &amp; meshwire][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I kept the 6 layers of silk at the end of the bottle, Added a mesh wire inside and some stones. Finished with some sand. **The flow was completely blocked, the sand was stuck in the neck of the bottle...** therefore no throughput. I think it is because the sand can go through the mesh wire. Tomorrow, in the inside I ll swap the mesh wire for silk (sand does not go through), and it **might work much better**. The very low (nonexistent) throughput could be because I am experimenting on a small tank -&gt; not much pressure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See schematic above, its a classic gravity filter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Pump-assisted Sand Filter #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made three different designs of filters, with gravity, pump and pressurized. I would like to get your advices about it. Even if its not drawn, all the pump have valves in order to regulate the throughput.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem of the filter below is that the pump has to stop sometimes to prevent overflow... Is is a slow solution. But once again, I will run the filter only few times every 6 months. So why not.&#xD;&#xA;![Using gravity for the throughput][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Using pump for the throughput][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the filter below, since its pressurized, maybe the sand level should be higher ?&#xD;&#xA;![Tank is closed and therefore pressurized][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help, **I will keep you up to date**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ESQou.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qABNE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IYidF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9AEMw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1149" RevisionGUID="f4b04cd4-b6ec-46fa-a9e7-4d82742bca8a" CreationDate="2013-07-25T03:35:24.587" UserId="15" Text="It's widespread knowledge that paper or cardboard contaminated with oil can cause problems in the recycling process, and an often stated rule is that contaminated material should not be recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it would make sense that low levels of contamination are ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there any widely accepted tolerance levels for contamination by oil, or does it differ depending on the recycler (or worse, do they not even define it)?** What are the acceptable levels, if there are any?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If information is available on acceptable levels of contamination with other substances, that would also be of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhat related questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/740/are-pizza-cardboards-stained-with-oil-still-recyclable&#xD;&#xA; - http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/242/is-it-better-to-recycle-or-compost-brown-paper-bags?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1149" RevisionGUID="f4b04cd4-b6ec-46fa-a9e7-4d82742bca8a" CreationDate="2013-07-25T03:35:24.587" UserId="15" Text="When recycling paper or cardboard, what level of contamination with (food) oils is still ok?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1149" RevisionGUID="f4b04cd4-b6ec-46fa-a9e7-4d82742bca8a" CreationDate="2013-07-25T03:35:24.587" UserId="15" Text="|recycling|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3588" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1149" RevisionGUID="fc0b4b8d-af82-4bf1-b329-eb0fa8a494f1" CreationDate="2013-07-25T03:51:36.967" UserId="15" Comment="edited title" Text="When recycling paper or cardboard, what level of contamination with (food) oils is ok?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3589" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="1137" RevisionGUID="9a32139d-99f0-4ae0-9076-af53c7d07748" CreationDate="2013-07-25T13:44:06.890" UserId="99" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:15,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Highly Irregular&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:486,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nate&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:106,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;gerrit&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3590" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1137" RevisionGUID="890938e5-3b1c-4ccf-98e7-786bf766da71" CreationDate="2013-07-25T14:39:04.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/360408865046675457" />
  <row Id="3591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1150" RevisionGUID="2dd947de-b8ed-45b9-bd53-78ab4c4cb604" CreationDate="2013-07-25T16:58:27.650" UserId="695" Text="Many Aquaponic farmers will grow duckweed to supplement the food they provide to the fish.  Since they are interested in the fish waste to feed the plants, the duckweed will not grow fast enough to be the only thing to feed to the fish.  I am in the phase of my aquaponics project where we are just getting the Nitrate and Nitrite levels to start to increase.  We will soon have fish in the system and duckweed will follow...  Best of luck with your research!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3592" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1149" RevisionGUID="4cc1f685-a4cb-43c0-99d0-7810613eeae3" CreationDate="2013-07-25T17:39:39.453" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/360454311999848448" />
  <row Id="3593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1151" RevisionGUID="d5f7abdf-e59b-4ae1-a8c5-b9fa1e3615fa" CreationDate="2013-07-25T19:32:50.230" UserId="5" Text="I have a problem during waste segregation with a small, but often used product, namely teabags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a bit of organic matter wrapped in paper, with a thread and staple. The organic part is easy - it belongs to compost. Paper is a bit more difficult, but compost bags in Germany are made of paper anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what with thread? It should compost as well, it's an organic matter to. But the stable makes things problematic. Should I simply remove them and throw the rest into composting matter, or can I simply ignore it because it will corrode anyway?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1151" RevisionGUID="d5f7abdf-e59b-4ae1-a8c5-b9fa1e3615fa" CreationDate="2013-07-25T19:32:50.230" UserId="5" Text="Composting teabags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1151" RevisionGUID="d5f7abdf-e59b-4ae1-a8c5-b9fa1e3615fa" CreationDate="2013-07-25T19:32:50.230" UserId="5" Text="|recycling|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1152" RevisionGUID="e56c0c9c-9d3a-400d-b174-cb98f3ca29de" CreationDate="2013-07-25T20:39:27.330" UserId="645" Text="In my household, we tear off the staples before composting. Happily, many teabags are made without them, so you can also only buy from manufacturers that have eliminated that little item." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1151" RevisionGUID="29a3bc9c-2d7c-4389-8827-b70a4a123463" CreationDate="2013-07-25T22:53:54.450" UserId="486" Comment="small typo, grammar" Text="I have a problem during waste segregation with a small, but often used product, namely teabags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a bit of organic matter wrapped in paper, with a thread and staple. The organic part is easy - it belongs in compost. Paper is a bit more difficult, but compost bags in Germany are made of paper anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what with thread? It should compost as well, it's an organic matter to. But the staple makes things problematic. Should I simply remove them and throw the rest into composting matter, or can I simply ignore it because it will corrode anyway?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="bcd3638e-09b5-4371-80d1-995246a0570a" CreationDate="2013-07-25T23:54:51.533" UserId="45" Text="I am interested in generating barley fodder for my farm animals to feed on.  How long should they soak and at what frequency should they be soaked for creating the best fodder?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="bcd3638e-09b5-4371-80d1-995246a0570a" CreationDate="2013-07-25T23:54:51.533" UserId="45" Text="How long should a tray of 1/2&quot; deep barley seeds be left to soak for creating fodder?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="bcd3638e-09b5-4371-80d1-995246a0570a" CreationDate="2013-07-25T23:54:51.533" UserId="45" Text="|fodder|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1154" RevisionGUID="b1bdcc89-341c-4599-b342-b10f45be8511" CreationDate="2013-07-26T01:33:38.023" UserId="697" Text="As I know so far, none oil on paper... when you separate the materials, ]I learn to put the papaer napkins, paper bags with sauce and others dirty oily paper in the organic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3602" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="6c1f0beb-d21a-4a2b-9a08-8d52908e4985" CreationDate="2013-07-26T04:34:21.073" UserId="45" Comment="Added the tag of fodder" Text="|food|permaculture|animals|husbandry|fodder|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3603" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="6c1f0beb-d21a-4a2b-9a08-8d52908e4985" CreationDate="2013-07-26T04:34:21.073" Comment="Proposed by 45 approved by 15, 85 edit id of 162" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1154" RevisionGUID="49be8a57-d3e8-4999-8fa4-a51a7a2621c2" CreationDate="2013-07-26T19:55:34.177" UserId="486" Comment="grammar, spelling" Text="As I know so far, no oil on paper... when you separate the materials, I've learned to put the paper napkins, paper bags with sauce, and other dirty oily paper in the organic waste." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3606" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1151" RevisionGUID="6f745885-97b4-455d-abdd-b8e2d7ae8373" CreationDate="2013-07-27T14:41:32.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/361134261006376960" />
  <row Id="3607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1155" RevisionGUID="3628c71d-6acf-4f4b-8765-1614ba4ace65" CreationDate="2013-07-28T01:27:33.723" UserId="15" Text="Interestingly, it appears that **teabag paper [commonly includes &quot;food-grade&quot; polypropylene][1]**, which doesn't readily decompose. The link contains a quote from Tetley, amongst others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The material used to make the actual tea bag is a mixture of mainly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cellulose fibres and a small amount of polypropylene fibres to give&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the heat seal. Under normal composting conditions the cellulose fibres&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will break down, as will the tea, leaving the very small polypropylene&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fibres which are normally so small they are not seen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Learning the above isn't going to stop me composting teabags, but the brand of tea may make a difference as to the severity of the problem. I found [this description][2] of substantial frustration with the remaining fibres left after composting (please ignore the advice from the tea company to burn them instead! Burning plastic is a terrible idea). I would also draw the line at composting nylon teabags (I wouldn't buy them either), which thankfully doesn't appear to have caught on since [this 2007 article discussing the concept][3] was published.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I wouldn't worry too much about a few steel staples in my compost**; I'm confident they will readily corrode and won't make any significant difference to the chemical composition of my garden, or my health (after eating the harvest). Iron oxides are [already generally abundant in soil][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leaves the paper tag and a piece of thread to consider.  The paper tag, provided it's not coated with plastic, should be ok in small quantities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the thread is cotton, it will easily decompose. After a few careful web searches, I didn't manage to find evidence that anything else is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia notes][5] that corn starch (&quot;[Soilon][6]&quot;) and silk are also used for tea bags, which don't appear to include polypropylene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, I can taste the difference between tea bag tea and loose leaf tea; the **loose leaf tea tastes better, and is easy to handle with a one-serving strainer**. Just don't gulp the dregs at the bottom of the cup!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.recyclethis.co.uk/20110602/composting-teabags&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://alice-in-blogland.blogspot.co.nz/2007/05/composting-tea-bags.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568610/Nylon-teabags-set-to-let-the-flavour-flood-out.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.research.vt.edu/resmag/sciencecol/iron.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_bag&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soilon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1151" RevisionGUID="e6499d50-3f32-4724-83c5-fdf2106b50b7" CreationDate="2013-07-28T04:45:42.853" UserId="486" Comment="missed a small typo " Text="I have a problem during waste segregation with a small, but often used product, namely teabags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a bit of organic matter wrapped in paper, with a thread and staple. The organic part is easy - it belongs in compost. Paper is a bit more difficult, but compost bags in Germany are made of paper anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what with thread? It should compost as well; it's organic matter, too. But the staple makes things problematic. Should I simply remove them and throw the rest into composting matter, or can I simply ignore it because it will corrode anyway?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="30" RevisionGUID="b28ab805-3db9-4213-b37a-97489aa1848f" CreationDate="2013-07-28T04:49:52.093" UserId="486" Comment="grammar, spelling" Text="In Belgium and the Netherlands there are still quite a few houses with thatched roofs. They are usually houses with higher segments. Making such a roof is quite time consuming (hence the high installation costs, due to labor costs.) The climate is quite similar, if not identical, to the British Islands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over here the roofs are made out of [common reed][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2] (Source: WikiCommons)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phragmites&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IVRWN.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="3ddb973e-aa35-48e6-8ea3-2e1104eb7594" CreationDate="2013-07-28T04:54:57.883" UserId="486" Comment="added link to define GWP" Text="Ok (1.5 hours later).&#xD;&#xA;Going by [this reference][1] for bag [GWP][4] and [EPA values][2] for burning petrol, I've got 1.57 kg CO2-eq per plastic bag, 271 kg CO2-eq for cloth bags, and 2.35 kg CO2-eq per L of petrol. Putting those together with variables for how much gas is saved by delivery and how many total trips you want to consider, here's the data I come up with: &#xD;&#xA;![Calculation of GWP for groceries with plastic bags delivered or driving with canvas bags][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assumes you use the same cloth bags that whole time (totally doable), that each trip requires 4 cloth or 6 plastic bags, and that the bags end up occasionally reused (as per the original data). The results are mixed, and I'd need information on how much petrol would be saved by delivery to give a final answer. This does, however, provide some guidance - I'd say saving more than 1 L per trip becomes increasingly unlikely, and reusing a bag 200 times is reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: One more note - you could do the same calculation for any number of other impacts, as the sources above have the numbers for many of them. I just tend to settle on GWP because carbon is often what people refer to when they say 'more sustainable'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/SCHO0711BUAN-E-E.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kzAex.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3611" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="4094eaa0-0d56-4940-94d4-4fe974276154" CreationDate="2013-07-28T05:41:45.123" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/361360807600209921" />
  <row Id="3614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1156" RevisionGUID="586a4de4-1bf5-4c12-ac1a-9c4c8ffb5c2d" CreationDate="2013-07-29T09:16:22.873" UserId="96" Text="I used jam jars without rubber seals, with success (meaning the goods kept) for vegetable bases pastes. The pastes were put into tha jar cooking, after cooling you could hear a &quot;pop&quot; when opening, meaning the seal was adequate. To find out if your local jam jars are ok without a rubber seal, consider putting some boiling water into the jar, close it, wait for it to cool, and listen if you hear the &quot;pop&quot; when opening." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="420" RevisionGUID="580923a9-5ede-4713-a5f9-c133b17df2f7" CreationDate="2013-07-29T15:22:41.833" UserId="33" Comment="Added file links" Text="Ok (1.5 hours later).&#xD;&#xA;Going by [this reference][1] for bag [GWP][2] and [EPA values][3] for burning petrol, I've got 1.57 kg CO2-eq per plastic bag, 271 kg CO2-eq for cloth bags, and 2.35 kg CO2-eq per L of petrol. Putting those together with variables for how much gas is saved by delivery and how many total trips you want to consider, here's the data I come up with: &#xD;&#xA;![Calculation of GWP for groceries with plastic bags delivered or driving with canvas bags][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assumes you use the same cloth bags that whole time (totally doable), that each trip requires 4 cloth or 6 plastic bags, and that the bags end up occasionally reused (as per the original data). The results are mixed, and I'd need information on how much petrol would be saved by delivery to give a final answer. This does, however, provide some guidance - I'd say saving more than 1 L per trip becomes increasingly unlikely, and reusing a bag 200 times is reasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: One more note - you could do the same calculation for any number of other impacts, as the sources above have the numbers for many of them. I just tend to settle on GWP because carbon is often what people refer to when they say 'more sustainable'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit2: The original spreadsheet can be found as a Numbers file [here][5] or as an exported XLS file [here][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/SCHO0711BUAN-E-E.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kzAex.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1IHd4iCrFo1RGZ1SWljSmJfU1U/edit?usp=sharing&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlIHd4iCrFo1dFVtLUh4ckxoLWZzY3lBbkdmWlBtaEE&amp;usp=sharing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="12a1c9bd-fe7d-4316-9340-8f53e7208f50" CreationDate="2013-07-29T18:55:13.887" UserId="486" Comment="I don't think husbandry necessarily involves encasing animals in bread :)" Text="The practice of breeding and raising livestock. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3618" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="12a1c9bd-fe7d-4316-9340-8f53e7208f50" CreationDate="2013-07-29T18:55:13.887" Comment="Proposed by 486 approved by 85 edit id of 163" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1157" RevisionGUID="9f6468b4-6327-4760-ace6-31672a2ea381" CreationDate="2013-07-30T06:10:33.670" UserId="703" Text="THere actually are 60 watt equivalent LED candelabra bulbs now, I bought 12 of them and they are working awesome. Only use 7 watts! http://store.earthled.com/products/feit-performanceled-chandelier-candelabra-omni-directional-8-watt-500-lumens-60-watt-equal-e12-base" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="1eb48ba1-8418-45b5-a580-bab32d09aea5" CreationDate="2013-07-30T07:45:42.430" UserId="471" Text="we have underground tanks for water storing but it is affected by algae and small water &#xD;&#xA;insect. i want to protect water from that. please suggest some sustainable way to get rid from this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3621" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="1eb48ba1-8418-45b5-a580-bab32d09aea5" CreationDate="2013-07-30T07:45:42.430" UserId="471" Text="How to protect underground tank water from insects and Algae?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3622" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="1eb48ba1-8418-45b5-a580-bab32d09aea5" CreationDate="2013-07-30T07:45:42.430" UserId="471" Text="|water|algae|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="d6f35440-ed33-4c22-bd16-9fc502b9367f" CreationDate="2013-07-30T08:23:34.337" UserId="486" Comment="grammar" Text="We have underground tanks for water storage, but they are affected by algae and small water insects.  I want to protect the water from these. Please suggest some sustainable ways to get rid of the algae and insects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1157" RevisionGUID="b2470337-4d6a-45d4-b388-95daaefc6a67" CreationDate="2013-07-30T17:26:50.253" UserId="274" Comment="revision and link cleanup" Text="There are now 60 watt equivalent LED candelabra bulbs available, which use only 7 watts.&#xD;&#xA;I bought 12 of them and they are working awesome. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Feit PerformanceLED Chandelier / Candelabra Bulbs @ Earth LED][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://store.earthled.com/products/feit-performanceled-chandelier-candelabra-omni-directional-8-watt-500-lumens-60-watt-equal-e12-base" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3626" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1157" RevisionGUID="b2470337-4d6a-45d4-b388-95daaefc6a67" CreationDate="2013-07-30T17:26:50.253" Comment="Proposed by 274 approved by 48 edit id of 164" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="3f87e8bf-9757-4ab4-9912-616cea6abc87" CreationDate="2013-07-31T02:38:16.103" UserId="45" Comment="found an image with soak/sprout times for each type of seed" Text="I am interested in generating barley fodder for my farm animals to feed on.  How long should they soak and at what frequency should they be soaked for creating the best fodder?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly helpful but not entirely the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.fodderfeed.org/424967_494228087287446_2003384989_n.jpg&quot; /&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1153" RevisionGUID="3fbccadb-27c4-442f-add0-a6c3213fd492" CreationDate="2013-07-31T21:01:15.950" UserId="486" Comment="added comment into question" Text="I am interested in generating barley fodder for my farm animals to feed on.  How long should they soak and at what frequency should they be soaked for creating the best fodder?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are a few people that soak their seeds, then keep the seeds in buckets/cups for the next couple of days to induce the sprouting process...then go to trays.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly helpful, but not entirely the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.fodderfeed.org/424967_494228087287446_2003384989_n.jpg&quot; /&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3630" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="04815e31-1bd7-4d12-8170-6a38048a370f" CreationDate="2013-08-01T17:48:05.393" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/362993148101799936" />
  <row Id="3634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="4ab3451b-20ba-44db-9aa9-b313cfcd86a9" CreationDate="2013-08-03T02:51:42.217" UserId="486" Comment="grammar" Text="With ordinary bulbs, I was used to turning the lights off even when I left the room for a few minutes (mostly because I know that I'll find other business and forget to return :-) ), but I've heard that for [compact fluorescent lamps][1] it's better to turn the light on/off much less frequently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if we calculate not just energy, but also ecological footprint from production and disposal of the lamps, where is the threshold for &quot;dark interval&quot; that saves energy and ecological footprint? For how long must the light be off until I start saving energy (in comparison to having the light on all the time)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are bigger differences between models/subtypes, please send a range and add which lamps are best/average/worst. If there are significant differences between estimates of certain on/off-switching patterns' impact on durability of the lamps, please give the *range* too. I assume that energy costs or ecological footprint of production and disposal of a compact fluorescent lamp are well known; if not, consider it while computing the range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I don't need it to be extra exact, just to have a good idea whether (and how) I should change my light-switching habits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="14" RevisionGUID="e24f7b6f-6298-482d-b76a-808687b20b0c" CreationDate="2013-08-03T03:07:03.713" UserId="486" Comment="minor grammar" Text="You'd be surprised how much you can achieve with a piece of cotton, clean water and much patience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While camping, we're cleaning all pots with water and a piece of grass or leaves. It requires more time than using detergents and hot water, but it is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fats don't dissolve in water, so you can use a bit of alcohol for them. *Home-made*, of course :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="468" RevisionGUID="192e5e2a-434c-41a9-8a0b-1b9760a98ac7" CreationDate="2013-08-04T02:54:47.167" UserId="486" Comment="fixed broken link" Text="While wood-burning fireplaces have a shorter carbon cycle than coal and gas derived heating and help you to get off-the-grid, they are in no way &quot;clean&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pollution emitted from a domestic fireplace is much worse than the equivalent pollution emitted from dedicated power generation plant for the same amount of heating.  The pollution is also local to your environment, which means you will personally breathe much more of it than if you used electricity supplied from the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your goal is sustainability, a wood burning fireplace is not the best solution.  Investing in [passive solar heating ][1] and [heat storage and release][2] would be a cleaner use of your time (although this really needs to be done when designing the house, not after it's built).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some references:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/woodsmoke/#pollution&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://burningissues.org/car-www/index.html&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;http://woodsmoke.3sc.net/wood-vs-cigarette-smoke&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar_building_design&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storage_%28STES%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3637" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1144" RevisionGUID="37b07335-066b-48e8-a283-68cadba63cc9" CreationDate="2013-08-04T08:51:58.617" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/363945394667290624" />
  <row Id="3638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="333" RevisionGUID="6f7c89dd-1855-48c1-a6eb-e5231f39a67c" CreationDate="2013-08-05T03:58:26.763" UserId="20" Comment="typo" Text="I found [a comparison here](http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/energy-recycle-glass-bottles-vs-aluminum-cans-vs-plastic-2376.html).  My take on reading that is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Aluminum is the most efficient in terms of energy saved in making a new can taking only 5% that compared to working from scratch.&#xD;&#xA;* Glass comes in second saving 20-30% of the energy in making new glass.&#xD;&#xA;* Plastic is a distant third since you keep degenerating to a lower quality plastic formula. (e.g. PET (type 1) soda bottles becomes carpeting and jackets)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm not sure if glass beats aluminum in a total energy consumed to make say a 12 ounce container in that perhaps the amount of energy required for glass is so much less than aluminum that using 70% of the glass number still beats 5% of the aluminum number.  However, with no facts to back this up, my intuition tells me aluminum would still win in a side by side comparison." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="9e455ba9-7c70-4b3e-b2b7-9a7e73aa6252" CreationDate="2013-08-05T07:43:08.000" UserId="92" Text="Is it more sustainable to do your wash using the delicate or permanent press modes?&#xD;&#xA;I can tell from observing the different kind of washes is that the machine spins less and spins more gently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, will your clothes still be just as clean? Do clothes need to be washed aggressively to be clean?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="9e455ba9-7c70-4b3e-b2b7-9a7e73aa6252" CreationDate="2013-08-05T07:43:08.000" UserId="92" Text="Washing on delicate or permanent press...is this more sustainable and also gets your clothes clean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="9e455ba9-7c70-4b3e-b2b7-9a7e73aa6252" CreationDate="2013-08-05T07:43:08.000" UserId="92" Text="|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1161" RevisionGUID="61966eb3-22fc-4d35-8f33-496381e0a6f7" CreationDate="2013-08-05T21:38:28.443" UserId="303" Text="Try placing mint around your tomato plants. Most rodents are not fond of mint and will actively avoid it. The strong smell of mint can also distract/dissuade other garden pests of the insect variety (not pollinators thankfully).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether to keep the mint potted or to inter-plant directly in the bed is up to you. Mint doesn't grow taller than about a foot so it shouldn't interfere with most tomato varieties once they're established but it does spread rapidly through runners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3644" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1160" RevisionGUID="dafbfe28-0bc9-463a-af5b-fabf5ba1b846" CreationDate="2013-08-06T14:53:37.767" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/364761182910939140" />
  <row Id="3645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1162" RevisionGUID="796b537b-47a9-4f7e-9b79-356d2e8583ab" CreationDate="2013-08-07T09:13:27.083" UserId="96" Text="[Here's an example](http://www.conrad.de/ce/de/product/100842/VOLTCRAFT-FM-200-Material-Feuchtigkeitsmessgeraet-Holz-und-Baufeuchtemessgeraet-Baufeuchte-02-2-vol-Holzfeuchte-6?queryFromSuggest=true) of a device that measures the moisture of wood electrically, via resistance. While the electrical measurement will bequick, I'm sure that the procedure described by Yadav Chetan provides a far more representative result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="cec26f3a-7eaf-4873-9d2a-dd8c52c34074" CreationDate="2013-08-08T03:38:29.453" UserId="15" Text="Their website states that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it is *rated as &quot;excellent&quot; on the WWF Check Your Paper platform* ([see here][1])&#xD;&#xA; - it is *FSC® Recycled certified*&#xD;&#xA; - it is *Chlorine-free bleached*&#xD;&#xA; - their *producing mills are ISO 14001 (environmental management) certified*&#xD;&#xA; - it is *CO2 neutral optional* (it looks like some of their paper supports [a hydro electricity project in Indonesia][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to measure how green this might be compared with new paper made from sustainable plantations, but perhaps in this case price is a reasonable measure of efficiency provided that you're comparing it with paper with a similar environmental track record. After all, it's greener to not build a hydro dam if you can just grow, manufacture, and recycle more efficiently so that carbon emissions don't need to be offset in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [WWF website referred to above][3] has many other types of paper [with a higher environmental rating][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://checkyourpaper.panda.org/papers/search/keyword_1/mondi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.mondigroup.com/products/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1825/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://checkyourpaper.panda.org/papers&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://checkyourpaper.panda.org/papers/search/use_1/2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1163" RevisionGUID="413514e0-c0bf-4aa8-94c8-ed29d8ed1650" CreationDate="2013-08-08T05:00:47.913" UserId="15" Comment="Expanded on ratings" Text="Their website states that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it is *rated as &quot;excellent&quot; on the WWF Check Your Paper platform* ([see here][1])&#xD;&#xA; - it is *FSC® Recycled certified*&#xD;&#xA; - it is *Chlorine-free bleached*&#xD;&#xA; - their *producing mills are ISO 14001 (environmental management) certified*&#xD;&#xA; - it is *CO2 neutral optional* (it looks like some of their paper supports [a hydro electricity project in Indonesia][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to measure how green this might be compared with new paper made from sustainable plantations, but perhaps in this case price is a reasonable measure of efficiency provided that you're comparing it with paper with a similar environmental track record. After all, it's greener to not build a hydro dam if you can just grow, manufacture, and recycle more efficiently so that carbon emissions don't need to be offset in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [WWF website referred to above][3] has many other types of paper [with a higher environmental rating][4]. The Mondi SuperWhite rates at 90%, whereas the top brand/type rates at 98%, and there are many others higher than 90%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://checkyourpaper.panda.org/papers/search/keyword_1/mondi&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.mondigroup.com/products/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1825/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://checkyourpaper.panda.org/papers&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://checkyourpaper.panda.org/papers/search/use_1/2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="478" RevisionGUID="f0e4ac77-1037-4f83-bc89-42944e7a80d4" CreationDate="2013-08-09T07:52:54.387" UserId="99" Comment="added link to answer about composting feces" Text="Moulds help break down organic matter. They are part of a good compost heap and there is no reason why food with moulds cannot be placed on your heap. However, your heap can become too mouldy but that is usually the result of the heap being too wet and/or containing to much nitrogen. It is true that moulds can be toxic, so you should not let your pets eat any compost heap material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the decomposition process is done, the moulds will be gone and the risk of pathogens is very small. This is due to a number of things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - during the composting process the temperature in the heap rises, killing most of the pathogens&#xD;&#xA; - other micro-organisms will kill and eat pathogens&#xD;&#xA; - in time the pathogens will die by natural causes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reduce the risk of pathogens even further you can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - make sure you have the correct C:N balance, the correct moisture balance and enough air in your heap. This is all to ensure the heap reaches a good temperature. &#xD;&#xA; - turn and mix your heap regularly so stuff on the edges of the heap (where it is less warm) are also heated.&#xD;&#xA; - don't throw cat and dog feces on the heap (see also [this answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/901/99))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1164" RevisionGUID="8fb24051-3fd9-4b94-8ab7-874d54266c47" CreationDate="2013-08-09T18:16:12.903" UserId="714" Text="Not close to any conventional methods, but might help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setup a audio speaker system that can play a sound of the animal which foxes in your region are afraid of (eagles, coyotes, wolves etc).  Let this system automatically play the noise periodically (every 30 mins between mid night and moning).  Or if you could some how detect motion using a webcamera/audio and the use that as a trigger to play the sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might potentially affect your sleep, but might help in creating a permanent fear on the foxes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="108" RevisionGUID="6308b18a-9d0e-4174-ae80-67f66511068d" CreationDate="2013-08-09T22:42:45.577" UserId="486" Comment="minor grammar and spelling" Text="Long question, short answer: No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is nothing like an *universal database on carbon footprints* or similar. Of course there are a lot of websites which allow you to calculate the impact of - for example - travelling by plane or by car. But the actual calculation of such values is very complex and always comes along with a lot of research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned the example of trains (Deutsche Bahn). Let's dig into it. What do we need to know for an objective estimation of your ecological impact?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Model and size of train (ICE, IC, EC, RE, RB, S-Bahn, Tram, ...)&#xD;&#xA; - Type of energy used (diesel, electricity, ...)&#xD;&#xA; - Quantity of energy used&#xD;&#xA; - Average speed, number of stops&#xD;&#xA; - Number of passengers (occupancy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these accurate numbers you could calculate your ecological impact (*carbon footprint*) for traveling by train. I doubt that the *Deutsche Bahn* for instance is able to provide you with all these data. And even if they could, it's getting more complex. For example - if a train uses electricity - how do you know how the electricity was produced? It's a huge difference on the ecological impact if the train is powered by coal power plants or by renewable energy sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All you get is always some vague estimations. Let's have a look at flights. This is a very hot topic and a lot of sites on the internet offer some sort of calculators. Let's compare some.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One-way-flight Berlin (TXL) to Tel Aviv (TLV) - ca. 3,000km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Carbon Footprint][1]: 280kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- [Terra Pass][2]: 315kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- [Carbon Neutral][3]: 340kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- [Travel Nav][4]: 372kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- [Atmosfair][5]: 820kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numbers above already tell you a lot about the &quot;objective&quot; nature of this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a look at [this one][6]. This one allows you to adjust more parameters, for example type of plane and overall occupancy of the plane. Maybe a better resource. But still no full *objective* resource to estimate your travel impacts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, I hope this is enough to answer your question and explained why I said &quot;No&quot; in the beginning. Calculating carbon footprints takes a lot of time for research or else you will only get very rough - sometimes unusable - estimates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.terrapass.com/carbon-footprint-calculator-2/#air&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.carbonneutralcalculator.com/flightcalculator.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.travelnav.com/flight-emissions/from/Berlin,+Germany/to/Tel+Aviv,+Israel&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.atmosfair.de/emissionsrechner/rechner/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.chooseclimate.org/flying/mf.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="e015593f-e977-49b7-b0e6-320a46172ec6" CreationDate="2013-08-11T11:19:46.037" UserId="30" Text="I believe i saw Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall tying little portions of his off-cut hair in nylon stockings in regular intervals on a fence, in one of his shows. If I recall correctly, it was around his chicken coop to deter the foxes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1166" RevisionGUID="13ab9736-4419-45f4-ae36-2bbf68da7368" CreationDate="2013-08-11T21:48:27.500" UserId="486" Comment="reference to what this answer is referring to" Text="I believe i saw Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall [tying little portions of his off-cut hair][1] in nylon stockings in regular intervals on a fence, in one of his shows. If I recall correctly, it was around his chicken coop to deter the foxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.countrylife.co.uk/countryside/article/122097/Top-tips-on-keeping-chickens.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1167" RevisionGUID="bf7446bb-8b52-4e96-9db5-d3ff70c79757" CreationDate="2013-08-11T22:47:16.057" UserId="659" Text="Peltier coolers typically use quite a lot of power, and their performance is poor when underpowered (they often don't work at all, or act as heaters). [Your second link above][1] is to a cooler that uses 13 Vdc @ 5 Amps = 65Watts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your 4.5v 18mA cells put out 4.5 * 0.018 = 0.081 Watts each. In theory, if the panels were running at 100% of rated capacity and could be arranged to power that cooler directly, you'd need about 800 of them (65W/0.018W=802). More realistically, assume 80% efficiency in the electronics (PV controller, voltage converter) and cell output of 75% (typical peak performance) you'd need 802 panels / 0.8 / 0.75 = 1337 cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If instead you bought a single conventional 100W 12V panel you could use a simple linear regulator to run the peltier cooler. You'd be paying someone else to assemble and test the panel, but IMO that would be sensible - the chances of you successfully assembling 1300 components onto a sheet of glass are low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.allelectronics.com/make-a-store/item/PJT-10/LARGE-THERMOELECTRIC-DEVICE/1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="b982396f-f816-4f96-878b-574a8c8b2130" CreationDate="2013-08-12T07:07:38.227" UserId="659" Comment="added actual part reference" Text="I've got a 5v Peltier chip. What kind of and how many solar cells 4.5v 18mA do I need per 1 chip? I found these cells online on dealextreme, but there are also other different types. I'm lacking a basic knowledge in electronics, so I'd like to get an advise on how you make that math. Also if you can point to some quick online learning tutorial on that issue, it would be great. Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update.**&#xD;&#xA;Ok, I found online two links, [the video][1] is not very helpful because there is no explanation about what kind of solar cells and controller etc are needed, and the [second one][2] where the guy doesn't describe much about the 'solar' part of his hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But please - if you are reading this - please add your valuable input!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: [The cooler][3] is a 12 Vdc heater / cooler assembly utilizes a Peltier device to create heat on one side and cold on the other. Driven by a 40 mm square Peltier thermoelectric heat pump, it operates on 13 Vdc @ 5 Amps. Operating at 13 Vdc, we measured the hot side at 190 Deg. F and the cold side at 55 Deg F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.howcast.com/videos/470062-How-to-Make-a-Beer-Can-Cooler-that-Runs-on-Solar-Power&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thesurvivalistblog.net/dirt-cheap-fridge/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.allelectronics.com/make-a-store/item/PJT-10/LARGE-THERMOELECTRIC-DEVICE/1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3660" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1012" RevisionGUID="b982396f-f816-4f96-878b-574a8c8b2130" CreationDate="2013-08-12T07:07:38.227" Comment="Proposed by 659 approved by 486, 99 edit id of 165" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1168" RevisionGUID="05da1881-4b8b-42eb-9d66-a5320984c7e6" CreationDate="2013-08-13T20:11:35.650" UserId="719" Text="I just came across this page as I was looking for a list of products with neonicotinoids in them.  I found for the UK: http://www.pan-uk.org/home-garden/list-of-home-and-garden-pesticides-containing-neonicotinoids and for the US http://www.xerces.org/wings-magazine/neonicotinoids-in-your-garden/.  The Xerces Society link includes links to additional articles with slightly different lists of products.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also heard nurseries use potting soil with neonicotinoids in the potted plants they sell.  Haven't been able to track that down since nurseries I ask have no idea what is in their potting soil.  Since neonicotinoids in soil is even more toxic, I suggest buying smaller plants, thereby getting less possible contaminants (saves money too!)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1169" RevisionGUID="3a6e4281-666b-4946-ac39-5c12524f9f3a" CreationDate="2013-08-14T05:39:41.630" UserId="686" Text="It depends on your motivation for producing your own energy. If you simply like the engineering challenge then it doesn't look like you have many choices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If however it's because you want &quot;to do your bit&quot; and transition to using renewable energy as much as possible then I'd suggest a shift in mindset away from owning the means of producing energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Half a dozen solar panels on your own roof produce just as much clean electricity as half a dozen solar panels on a school roof round the corner or on the barn of a local farmer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my suggestion is to figure out a budget, spend as much of that on making your home as energy efficient as possible. It's not very sexy I know, but every unit of energy you save, probably reduces the need to create electricity by 10 because of the amount of energy loss in transmission ( depends where you live ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Switch to a green electricity provider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want something tangible and visible, buy a solar charger for batteries, your phone or a solar keyboard for your computer. I say visible, because although it may not be the best use of money, it turns you into an advocate for renewable energy amongst people you come across in your daily life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then take the remaining money and invest it in renewable energy on someone else's land or roof. You can do that through local energy co-ops, sometimes your local electricity provider or a crowdfunding project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1171" RevisionGUID="f6f9db26-775f-4fa7-9e3f-ee25079aff14" CreationDate="2013-08-14T14:44:26.247" UserId="462" Text="The &quot;low-hanging fruit&quot; or washing machine energy usage is water heating. Washing with cold water (as in the delicate mode) is by far the easiest step you can take toward sustainable clothes-washing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But does it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert on clothes, but I do wear and wash them and I've found that washing with cold water works fine even for sweaty athletic clothes or slightly dirty hiking clothes. The delicate cycle on most washing machines uses cold water, and it will clean anything you wear around town, to the gym, or to work (unless you wear suits or work with oily and greasy stuff). You can usually get very muddy clothes down to an acceptable level of dirt by allowing the mud to dry and shaking it off or by doing a quick pre-wash by hand in a sink or bathtub. Also, cold water doesn't make dyes bleed the way hot water does, so you can usually mix dark and light-colored clothes. Combining loads when possible is an easy way to be more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, it is more sustainable to wash on the delicate cycle and your clothes will still be clean when the machine finishes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="f3347f7d-507d-4678-8740-e9c37553ad13" CreationDate="2013-08-15T01:14:11.773" UserId="486" Comment="insect tag" Text="Recently, the EU has temporarily banned [neonicotinoid pesticides](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid) because there are strong indications that these pesticides are responsible for the decline in bee populations. I've heard that this pesticide is not only used in bug sprays, but also in seemingly innocent products like flower bulbs, plant plugs and certain types of compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true? If so, how do I make sure I don’t already have this stuff at home? How can I recognise products or brands that contain/use these pesticides?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3670" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="911" RevisionGUID="f3347f7d-507d-4678-8740-e9c37553ad13" CreationDate="2013-08-15T01:14:11.773" UserId="486" Comment="insect tag" Text="|insects|pesticides|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="abde2c43-dc1c-461f-8b6f-bf8944ba8518" CreationDate="2013-08-17T07:16:24.877" UserId="728" Text="I'm very curious, why hasn't anyone done this ? &#xD;&#xA;In most places on earth, the temperature gets 25 degrees higher (celsius) for every kilometer in depth. How hard would it be to drill 4-5km, put a U shaped pipe, and push cold water at one end, and get hot water at the other ? It would definitely be cheaper on the long term than all of the other solutions that are in use right now.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="abde2c43-dc1c-461f-8b6f-bf8944ba8518" CreationDate="2013-08-17T07:16:24.877" UserId="728" Text="Water heating / electricity production by using earth's warmth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="abde2c43-dc1c-461f-8b6f-bf8944ba8518" CreationDate="2013-08-17T07:16:24.877" UserId="728" Text="|heating|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1173" RevisionGUID="685ae8c3-abd8-4e2f-b334-d5531647d401" CreationDate="2013-08-17T10:18:51.403" UserId="486" Text="Someone *has* done it.  A majority of the electricity [I buy comes from geothermal energy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I live in the Pacific Northwest of North America, which puts me close to a tectonic plate boundary.  This presents good conditions for extracting geothermal heat ([since the earth's crust is thinner at such boundaries][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of *why* it isn't more widely used, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that at least some of the following factors apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's new.  Give it time.  This recent estimate predicts a [13% annual growth rate in geothermal production][4] in coming years.&#xD;&#xA; - Political reasons contribute to the status quo (fossil fuels) maintaining market share as long as possible.&#xD;&#xA; - Building the plants can involve hydraulic fracturing, somewhat like shale gas extraction does.  There are environmental issues associated with that (although for the geothermal application, I believe they're far outweighed by the low carbon footprint per kWh of geothermal energy)&#xD;&#xA; - As I alluded to before, not all sites are equally desirable, geologically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this source][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The major impediments which this industry faces include initial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; financing of large scale projects, resource development risks like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; failure of drilling wells and insufficient productivity, lack of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; skilled labor to work on the projects, issues related to drilling rigs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and market and network issues like proximity to the market and network&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capital costs. Also, there are some environmental problems in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; producing geothermal energy like release of hydrogen sulfide and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposal of toxic geothermal fluids while extraction.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Challenges to this industry are carrying out efficient programs for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; land leasing where reserves of geothermal energy are located, better&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drilling assistance in terms of accurate positioning of the site and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its viability, and significant financial support needed to establish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plants at the desired locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I'm certainly a proponent of geothermal energy, and I think its future looks bright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.seattle.gov/light/Green/greenPower/Statrpt1.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/geothermal-energy-market-global-industry-analysis-size-share-growth-trends-and-forecast-2012-2018-262290.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.asdreports.com/news.asp?pr_id=156" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="a214e9c6-7fe2-40d8-96ce-fb4fad4da006" CreationDate="2013-08-17T17:32:36.737" UserId="322" Comment="Clarification pulled from OP comment. Converted last sentence into question." Text="We have underground tanks for water storage, but they are affected by algae and small water insects.  I want to protect the water from these. The water is for general life use, except drinking, like washing clothes gardening etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there some sustainable ways to get rid of the algae and insects?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3677" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1158" RevisionGUID="a214e9c6-7fe2-40d8-96ce-fb4fad4da006" CreationDate="2013-08-17T17:32:36.737" Comment="Proposed by 322 approved by 48 edit id of 166" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1173" RevisionGUID="9df0ea83-f6f6-4ab5-8c7d-11373ab7d68f" CreationDate="2013-08-17T21:54:57.893" UserId="486" Comment="added table of costs" Text="Someone *has* done it.  A majority of the electricity [I buy comes from geothermal energy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I live in the Pacific Northwest of North America, which puts me close to a tectonic plate boundary.  This presents good conditions for extracting geothermal heat ([since the earth's crust is thinner at such boundaries][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of *why* it isn't more widely used, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that at least some of the following factors apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's new.  Give it time.  This recent estimate predicts a [13% annual growth rate in geothermal production][4] in coming years.&#xD;&#xA; - Political reasons contribute to the status quo (fossil fuels) maintaining market share as long as possible.&#xD;&#xA; - Building the plants can involve hydraulic fracturing, somewhat like shale gas extraction does.  There are environmental issues associated with that (although for the geothermal application, I believe they're far outweighed by the low carbon footprint per kWh of geothermal energy)&#xD;&#xA; - As I alluded to before, not all sites are equally desirable, geologically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this source][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The major impediments which this industry faces include initial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; financing of large scale projects, resource development risks like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; failure of drilling wells and insufficient productivity, lack of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; skilled labor to work on the projects, issues related to drilling rigs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and market and network issues like proximity to the market and network&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capital costs. Also, there are some environmental problems in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; producing geothermal energy like release of hydrogen sulfide and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposal of toxic geothermal fluids while extraction.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Challenges to this industry are carrying out efficient programs for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; land leasing where reserves of geothermal energy are located, better&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drilling assistance in terms of accurate positioning of the site and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its viability, and significant financial support needed to establish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plants at the desired locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One factor that should **not** be considered a primary factor limiting deployment of geothermal power is *cost*.  From [the US Energy Information Association][5], the cost of new power plants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Plant type                        Total system levelized cost (2011 $/MWh)&#xD;&#xA;    ----------                        ----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Conventional Coal                                   100.1&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Coal                                       123.0&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Coal with CCS                              135.5&#xD;&#xA;    Natural Gas&#xD;&#xA;      Conventional Combined Cycle                        67.1&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced Combined Cycle                            65.6&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced CC with CCS                               93.4&#xD;&#xA;      Conventional Combustion Turbine                   130.3&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced Combustion Turbine                       104.6&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Nuclear                                    108.4&#xD;&#xA;    Geothermal                                           89.6&#xD;&#xA;    Biomass                                             111.0&#xD;&#xA;    Wind                                                 86.6&#xD;&#xA;    Wind (Offshore)                                     221.5&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV                                            144.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar Thermal                                       261.5&#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectric                                        90.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geothermal is *already* a cost-competitive technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certainly a proponent of geothermal energy, and I think its future looks bright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.seattle.gov/light/Green/greenPower/Statrpt1.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/geothermal-energy-market-global-industry-analysis-size-share-growth-trends-and-forecast-2012-2018-262290.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.asdreports.com/news.asp?pr_id=156&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1173" RevisionGUID="d2cbe193-c261-4c21-ad98-e373cd1ee75a" CreationDate="2013-08-17T22:08:58.917" UserId="486" Comment="explanation of &quot;political&quot; factors" Text="Someone *has* done it.  A majority of the electricity [I buy comes from geothermal energy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I live in the Pacific Northwest of North America, which puts me close to a tectonic plate boundary.  This presents good conditions for extracting geothermal heat ([since the earth's crust is thinner at such boundaries][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of *why* it isn't more widely used, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that at least some of the following factors apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's new.  Give it time.  This recent estimate predicts a [13% annual growth rate in geothermal production][4] in coming years.&#xD;&#xA; - Political reasons contribute to the status quo (fossil fuels) maintaining market share as long as possible (this includes both *lobbying* by existing fossil fuel business interests, and [general ideological leanings by the political Right][6]).&#xD;&#xA; - Building the plants can involve hydraulic fracturing, somewhat like shale gas extraction does.  There are environmental issues associated with that (although for the geothermal application, I believe they're far outweighed by the low carbon footprint per kWh of geothermal energy)&#xD;&#xA; - As I alluded to before, not all sites are equally desirable, geologically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this source][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The major impediments which this industry faces include initial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; financing of large scale projects, resource development risks like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; failure of drilling wells and insufficient productivity, lack of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; skilled labor to work on the projects, issues related to drilling rigs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and market and network issues like proximity to the market and network&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capital costs. Also, there are some environmental problems in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; producing geothermal energy like release of hydrogen sulfide and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposal of toxic geothermal fluids while extraction.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Challenges to this industry are carrying out efficient programs for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; land leasing where reserves of geothermal energy are located, better&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drilling assistance in terms of accurate positioning of the site and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its viability, and significant financial support needed to establish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plants at the desired locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One factor that should **not** be considered a primary factor limiting deployment of geothermal power is *cost*.  From [the US Energy Information Association][5], the cost of new power plants (excluding externalities like pollution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Plant type                        Total system levelized cost (2011 $/MWh)&#xD;&#xA;    ----------                        ----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Conventional Coal                                   100.1&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Coal                                       123.0&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Coal with CCS                              135.5&#xD;&#xA;    Natural Gas&#xD;&#xA;      Conventional Combined Cycle                        67.1&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced Combined Cycle                            65.6&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced CC with CCS                               93.4&#xD;&#xA;      Conventional Combustion Turbine                   130.3&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced Combustion Turbine                       104.6&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Nuclear                                    108.4&#xD;&#xA;    Geothermal                                           89.6&#xD;&#xA;    Biomass                                             111.0&#xD;&#xA;    Wind                                                 86.6&#xD;&#xA;    Wind (Offshore)                                     221.5&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV                                            144.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar Thermal                                       261.5&#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectric                                        90.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geothermal is *already* a cost-competitive technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certainly a proponent of geothermal energy, and I think its future looks bright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.seattle.gov/light/Green/greenPower/Statrpt1.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/geothermal-energy-market-global-industry-analysis-size-share-growth-trends-and-forecast-2012-2018-262290.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.asdreports.com/news.asp?pr_id=156&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.livescience.com/29195-conservatives-energy-efficient-bulbs.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3680" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="5ea4156e-e36a-4bb1-bd7e-9ebcefa73d40" CreationDate="2013-08-17T22:18:39.997" UserId="486" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|electricity|heating|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="5ea4156e-e36a-4bb1-bd7e-9ebcefa73d40" CreationDate="2013-08-17T22:18:39.997" UserId="486" Comment="edited tags" Text="I'm very curious, why hasn't anyone done this?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In most places on earth, the temperature gets 25 degrees higher (celsius) for every kilometer in depth. How hard would it be to drill 4-5km, put a U-shaped pipe, and push cold water at one end, and get hot water at the other? It would definitely be cheaper in the long term than all of the other solutions that are in use right now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1173" RevisionGUID="ff742969-46a1-4637-a7e1-8bd50fa2945d" CreationDate="2013-08-17T22:22:06.263" UserId="486" Comment="notes about home geothermal" Text="Someone *has* done it.  A majority of the electricity [I buy comes from geothermal energy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I live in the Pacific Northwest of North America, which puts me close to a tectonic plate boundary.  This presents good conditions for extracting geothermal heat ([since the earth's crust is thinner at such boundaries][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of *why* it isn't more widely used, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that at least some of the following factors apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's new.  Give it time.  This recent estimate predicts a [13% annual growth rate in geothermal production][4] in coming years.&#xD;&#xA; - Political reasons contribute to the status quo (fossil fuels) maintaining market share as long as possible (this includes both *lobbying* by existing fossil fuel business interests, and [general ideological leanings by the political Right][6]).&#xD;&#xA; - Building the plants can involve hydraulic fracturing, somewhat like shale gas extraction does.  There are environmental issues associated with that (although for the geothermal application, I believe they're far outweighed by the low carbon footprint per kWh of geothermal energy)&#xD;&#xA; - As I alluded to before, not all sites are equally desirable, geologically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this source][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The major impediments which this industry faces include initial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; financing of large scale projects, resource development risks like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; failure of drilling wells and insufficient productivity, lack of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; skilled labor to work on the projects, issues related to drilling rigs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and market and network issues like proximity to the market and network&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capital costs. Also, there are some environmental problems in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; producing geothermal energy like release of hydrogen sulfide and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposal of toxic geothermal fluids while extraction.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Challenges to this industry are carrying out efficient programs for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; land leasing where reserves of geothermal energy are located, better&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drilling assistance in terms of accurate positioning of the site and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its viability, and significant financial support needed to establish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plants at the desired locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One factor that should **not** be considered a primary factor limiting deployment of geothermal power is *cost*.  From [the US Energy Information Association][5], the cost of new power plants (excluding externalities like pollution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Plant type                        Total system levelized cost (2011 $/MWh)&#xD;&#xA;    ----------                        ----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Conventional Coal                                   100.1&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Coal                                       123.0&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Coal with CCS                              135.5&#xD;&#xA;    Natural Gas&#xD;&#xA;      Conventional Combined Cycle                        67.1&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced Combined Cycle                            65.6&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced CC with CCS                               93.4&#xD;&#xA;      Conventional Combustion Turbine                   130.3&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced Combustion Turbine                       104.6&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Nuclear                                    108.4&#xD;&#xA;    Geothermal                                           89.6&#xD;&#xA;    Biomass                                             111.0&#xD;&#xA;    Wind                                                 86.6&#xD;&#xA;    Wind (Offshore)                                     221.5&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV                                            144.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar Thermal                                       261.5&#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectric                                        90.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geothermal is *already* a cost-competitive technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certainly a proponent of geothermal energy, and I think its future looks bright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.  I read your question to be about **large-scale** energy production, but [geothermal is also a legitimate small-scale solution, too][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.seattle.gov/light/Green/greenPower/Statrpt1.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/geothermal-energy-market-global-industry-analysis-size-share-growth-trends-and-forecast-2012-2018-262290.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.asdreports.com/news.asp?pr_id=156&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.livescience.com/29195-conservatives-energy-efficient-bulbs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3683" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1172" RevisionGUID="3d353981-04c6-4db4-85ce-447643cd6019" CreationDate="2013-08-18T09:07:47.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/369022806089924608" />
  <row Id="3684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="e0ae6124-eea7-477e-8ac7-f8e071fe1f24" CreationDate="2013-08-18T18:57:27.947" UserId="733" Text="For the last couple weeks, I've been hearing a lot of talk surrounding Tesla and &quot;the electric car&quot;. What I'm curious of is whether or not it is more efficient to actually power an electric car (the power produced by the power plant) over a typical gas powered car. Obviously there are a lot of variables, where you drive, how, gas mileage, etc. Which is more sustainable in terms of , electric cars or gas-powered ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3685" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="e0ae6124-eea7-477e-8ac7-f8e071fe1f24" CreationDate="2013-08-18T18:57:27.947" UserId="733" Text="Are power plants more efficient than typical gas-powered car?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3686" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="e0ae6124-eea7-477e-8ac7-f8e071fe1f24" CreationDate="2013-08-18T18:57:27.947" UserId="733" Text="|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1175" RevisionGUID="5528f092-430d-400d-abeb-9434866f4e04" CreationDate="2013-08-18T22:45:37.223" UserId="659" Text="There are [several pilot projects (wikipedia)][3] in Australia which have been stopping and starting for a while. They suffer from a shortage of funds - drilling holes 2km or more deep is expensive. Even once they have the hole, they have to pump water down it and see what happens. Other companies are trying to reuse existing fossil fuel wells to avoid that cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Australian Government minerals department (BREE) have a useful summary report. [3.9 Geothermal technology options][1] ... &quot;There are two types of geothermal resource available in Australia: Hot Sedimentary Aquifer (HSA), and Engineered Geothermal System (EGS). A Hot Sedimentary Aquifer (HSA) system is characterised by hydrothermal groundwater &#xD;&#xA;resources in a sedimentary basin. This setting is typical of some of the low temperature &#xD;&#xA;resources in the USA, particularly Nevada, which were developed in the 1980s.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Capital Costs from that report  (AUS$/kW net)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On-shore Wind $2,530 &#xD;&#xA; - Off-shore Wind $4,451&#xD;&#xA; - HSA $7,000 &#xD;&#xA; - EGS $10,600&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So geothermal is not being used right now because it's significantly more expensive than wind power (which is fairly cheap by renewable energy standards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) Stationary Energy Plan looked at geothermal energy because people kept suggesting it. We said &quot;[only existing commercial solutions are specified][2] &#xD;&#xA;as deployment of the ZCA2020 Stationary Energy &#xD;&#xA;Plan needs to start right away. However, if other &#xD;&#xA;technologies become commercial during the roll-out at &#xD;&#xA;a competitive cost they could also form part of the &#xD;&#xA;future energy mix.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclosure: I was one of the researchers who helped write the BZE report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bree.gov.au/documents/publications/aeta/Australian_Energy_Technology_Assessment.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://media.bze.org.au/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Australia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1175" RevisionGUID="ae30d77d-a1eb-4f2a-b19a-9a971fd35275" CreationDate="2013-08-18T22:57:17.543" UserId="659" Comment="added 561 characters in body" Text="There are [several pilot projects (wikipedia)][3] in Australia which have been stopping and starting for a while. They suffer from a shortage of funds - drilling holes 2km or more deep is expensive. Even once they have the hole, they have to pump water down it and see what happens. Other companies are trying to reuse existing fossil fuel wells to avoid that cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Australian Government minerals department (BREE) have a useful summary report. [3.9 Geothermal technology options][1] ... &quot;There are two types of geothermal resource available in Australia: Hot Sedimentary Aquifer (HSA), and Engineered Geothermal System (EGS). A Hot Sedimentary Aquifer (HSA) system is characterised by hydrothermal groundwater &#xD;&#xA;resources in a sedimentary basin. This setting is typical of some of the low temperature &#xD;&#xA;resources in the USA, particularly Nevada, which were developed in the 1980s.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Capital Costs from that report  (AUS$/kW net)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On-shore Wind $2,530 &#xD;&#xA; - Off-shore Wind $4,451&#xD;&#xA; - HSA $7,000 &#xD;&#xA; - EGS $10,600&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So geothermal is not being used right now because it's significantly more expensive than wind power (which is fairly cheap by renewable energy standards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) Stationary Energy Plan looked at geothermal energy because people kept suggesting it. We said &quot;[only existing commercial solutions are specified][2] &#xD;&#xA;as deployment of the ZCA2020 Stationary Energy &#xD;&#xA;Plan needs to start right away. However, if other &#xD;&#xA;technologies become commercial during the roll-out at &#xD;&#xA;a competitive cost they could also form part of the &#xD;&#xA;future energy mix.&quot; There are a wide range of cheaper options than deep geothermal, and the most promising (cost-wise) is well re-use as fossil fuel wells fall out of use. But none of those are ready for commercial production yet, while many other technologies have mature markets (ie, multiple suppliers, multiple installations, 10 year grid-connected production records). Geothermal looks promising and if practical would be competitive with hydro in terms of reliablity and flexibility (specifically, it would need to have those properties to justify the somewhat higher cost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclosure: I was one of the researchers who helped write the BZE report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bree.gov.au/documents/publications/aeta/Australian_Energy_Technology_Assessment.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://media.bze.org.au/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Australia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3691" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="d0b31e76-80bc-4a4f-b343-cc7bb9982dcc" CreationDate="2013-08-19T06:27:30.807" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1173" RevisionGUID="91f4ce55-e7f0-4a2e-9f14-b19e2418cfe6" CreationDate="2013-08-19T09:42:13.677" UserId="486" Comment="comment about $/KW vs $/KWh, note about green energy credits, better wording to clarify pro-rated vs initial cost" Text="Someone *has* done it.  A majority of the electricity [I buy comes from geothermal energy][1] &amp;dagger;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I live in the Pacific Northwest of North America, which puts me close to a tectonic plate boundary.  This presents good conditions for extracting geothermal heat ([since the earth's crust is thinner at such boundaries][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of *why* it isn't more widely used, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that at least some of the following factors apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's new.  Give it time.  This recent estimate predicts a [13% annual growth rate in geothermal production][4] in coming years.&#xD;&#xA; - Political reasons contribute to the status quo (fossil fuels) maintaining market share as long as possible (this includes both *lobbying* by existing fossil fuel business interests, and [general ideological leanings by the political Right][6]).&#xD;&#xA; - Building the plants can involve hydraulic fracturing, somewhat like shale gas extraction does.  There are environmental issues associated with that (although for the geothermal application, I believe they're far outweighed by the low carbon footprint per kWh of geothermal energy)&#xD;&#xA; - As I alluded to before, not all sites are equally desirable, geologically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this source][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The major impediments which this industry faces include initial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; financing of large scale projects, resource development risks like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; failure of drilling wells and insufficient productivity, lack of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; skilled labor to work on the projects, issues related to drilling rigs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and market and network issues like proximity to the market and network&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capital costs. Also, there are some environmental problems in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; producing geothermal energy like release of hydrogen sulfide and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposal of toxic geothermal fluids while extraction.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Challenges to this industry are carrying out efficient programs for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; land leasing where reserves of geothermal energy are located, better&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drilling assistance in terms of accurate positioning of the site and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its viability, and significant financial support needed to establish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plants at the desired locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One factor that should **not** be considered a primary factor limiting deployment of geothermal power is *cost*.  From [the US Energy Information Association][5], the pro-rated cost of new power plants (excluding externalities like pollution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Plant type                        Total system levelized cost (2011 $/MWh)&#xD;&#xA;    ----------                        ----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Conventional Coal                                   100.1&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Coal                                       123.0&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Coal with CCS                              135.5&#xD;&#xA;    Natural Gas&#xD;&#xA;      Conventional Combined Cycle                        67.1&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced Combined Cycle                            65.6&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced CC with CCS                               93.4&#xD;&#xA;      Conventional Combustion Turbine                   130.3&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced Combustion Turbine                       104.6&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Nuclear                                    108.4&#xD;&#xA;    Geothermal                                           89.6&#xD;&#xA;    Biomass                                             111.0&#xD;&#xA;    Wind                                                 86.6&#xD;&#xA;    Wind (Offshore)                                     221.5&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV                                            144.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar Thermal                                       261.5&#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectric                                        90.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this data is an estimate for cost, including well / plant development, averaged over the electricity produced (kWh).  While I can't speak to the metrics used in board rooms, I believe this to be fundamentally better than the $/kW *capacity* data [featured in the other answer][8].  That data cannot provide a basis for comparison between sources like wind and geothermal, because geothermal plants can run at 90%+ capacity continually, while wind farms do not (wind is inherently variable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, geothermal is *already* a cost-competitive technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certainly a proponent of geothermal energy, and I think its future looks bright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.  I read your question to be about **large-scale** energy production, but [geothermal is also a legitimate small-scale solution, too][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;dagger; &lt;sub&gt;- of course, as with most green energy utility programs, my electricity is the same as that of my neighboor, who doesn't participate in the program.  My utility payments simply subsidize renewable projects (such as Raft River geothermal).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.seattle.gov/light/Green/greenPower/Statrpt1.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/geothermal-energy-market-global-industry-analysis-size-share-growth-trends-and-forecast-2012-2018-262290.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.asdreports.com/news.asp?pr_id=156&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.livescience.com/29195-conservatives-energy-efficient-bulbs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1175/486" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1177" RevisionGUID="b38848a6-51e2-4689-b9d4-1b3d96ff167b" CreationDate="2013-08-19T12:40:28.707" UserId="642" Text="What are the (easiest) sustainable ways of getting rid of immature (windfallen) apples?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is it OK to put them into a compost?&#xD;&#xA; - What part of compost can they make?&#xD;&#xA; - Is it good to crush them before putting them to the compost?&#xD;&#xA; - Are partially or fully rotten apples good for composting too?&#xD;&#xA; - What part of compost can the rotten apples make?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already read some suggestions ([Apples in compost][1]) and it is probably good to mix them in compost with dry leaves, sawdust, paper etc. The problem is that at this time there is a lot of windfallen apples but almost no leaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forums2.gardenweb.com/forums/load/soil/msg0903012114573.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1177" RevisionGUID="b38848a6-51e2-4689-b9d4-1b3d96ff167b" CreationDate="2013-08-19T12:40:28.707" UserId="642" Text="Getting rid of immature windfallen apples" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1177" RevisionGUID="b38848a6-51e2-4689-b9d4-1b3d96ff167b" CreationDate="2013-08-19T12:40:28.707" UserId="642" Text="|composting|gardening|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3696" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="c8c87d04-f50d-4f99-9ca8-be4c807b8533" CreationDate="2013-08-19T15:09:25.240" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/369476200126611458" />
  <row Id="3697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1178" RevisionGUID="73e1f8e1-54d3-4696-9458-50b55971a960" CreationDate="2013-08-19T17:18:58.833" UserId="85" Text="Apples, like practically all other organic waste, are ideal for composting. You can cover the apples with leaves, sawdust, other soil, etc., to prevent them being eaten by birds &amp; insects and carried away from your compost pile. But in principle you need nothing but a little patience and soon your apples, whether windfallen, stormfallen or hand-picked, will turn into compost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3698" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1177" RevisionGUID="3c6cf09d-8aaa-48c1-8f36-a5c416c544e7" CreationDate="2013-08-19T18:09:31.220" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/369521522735452160" />
  <row Id="3700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1178" RevisionGUID="efa98096-82a3-4e7c-acbe-99a45f393977" CreationDate="2013-08-20T12:02:33.480" UserId="85" Comment="added 557 characters in body" Text="Apples, like practically all other organic waste, are ideal for composting. You can cover the apples with leaves, sawdust, other soil, etc., to prevent them being eaten by birds &amp; insects and carried away from your compost pile. But in principle you need nothing but a little patience and soon your apples, whether windfallen, stormfallen or hand-picked, will turn into compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as you aren't trying to compost apples only, or a ridiculous quantity of apples (more than 100kg in one spot), there should be no problem. Even hard apples will rot and get soft very soon. Moulds are part of the composting process and most often come from yeasts already present on the skin of the fruit. These moulds might even be &quot;intended&quot; to help break down the apples and provide rich soil for the seeds, which is probably why the apple tree provided the flesh in the first place. Once the composting process has taken its course, these moulds will probably have been decomposed themselves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1180" RevisionGUID="75735546-8f92-4a31-9f9f-f7524c668bed" CreationDate="2013-08-20T21:51:24.690" UserId="686" Text="For simple water heating which can then be used for other purposes it is already quite common. And you don't have to go so far down into the Earth as you suggest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This video shows a working example in a football stadium in Germany. The video is a mix of English and German ( always subtitled in English ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsZSTc-rYBw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3703" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2" RevisionGUID="5de0fd03-f923-4c04-aefd-3d70e818ef44" CreationDate="2013-08-21T12:11:57.180" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/370156315169284097" />
  <row Id="3704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1173" RevisionGUID="e6a7680f-0edd-407c-b339-bfd8da5328a8" CreationDate="2013-08-22T09:30:59.697" UserId="486" Comment="better wording, more factors, another link" Text="Someone *has* done it.  A majority of the electricity [I buy comes from geothermal energy][1] &amp;dagger;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I live in the Pacific Northwest of North America, which puts me close to a tectonic plate boundary.  This presents good conditions for extracting geothermal heat ([since the earth's crust is thinner at such boundaries][2] ... making shallower wells productive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of *why* it isn't more widely used, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that at least some of the following factors apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's new.  Give it time.  This recent estimate predicts a [13% annual growth rate in geothermal production][4] in coming years.&#xD;&#xA; - Political reasons contribute to the status quo (fossil fuels) maintaining market share as long as possible (this includes both *lobbying* by existing fossil fuel business interests, and [general ideological leanings by the political Right][6]).&#xD;&#xA; - Building the plants can involve hydraulic fracturing, somewhat like shale gas extraction does.  There are environmental issues associated with that (although for the geothermal application, I believe they're far outweighed by the low carbon footprint per kWh of geothermal energy)&#xD;&#xA; - As I alluded to before, not all sites are equally desirable, geologically.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't want to get into regulations here, because they vary with every location, but in some places, utilities have been required to buy the very cheapest electricity, with no regard to pollution/carbon-neutrality.  This could rule out geothermal, even if it's cost-competitive, so long as there's one available source with lower cost.&#xD;&#xA; - You didn't limit your question to one particular region, but [here's a link discussing some regional issues in my corner of the world][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this source][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The major impediments which this industry faces include initial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; financing of large scale projects, resource development risks like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; failure of drilling wells and insufficient productivity, lack of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; skilled labor to work on the projects, issues related to drilling rigs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and market and network issues like proximity to the market and network&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capital costs. Also, there are some environmental problems in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; producing geothermal energy like release of hydrogen sulfide and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposal of toxic geothermal fluids while extraction.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Challenges to this industry are carrying out efficient programs for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; land leasing where reserves of geothermal energy are located, better&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drilling assistance in terms of accurate positioning of the site and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its viability, and significant financial support needed to establish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plants at the desired locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue that should **no longer** be considered a primary factor limiting deployment of geothermal power is *cost*.  From [the US Energy Information Association][5], the pro-rated cost of new power plants (excluding externalities like pollution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Plant type                        Total system levelized cost (2011 $/MWh)&#xD;&#xA;    ----------                        ----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Conventional Coal                                   100.1&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Coal                                       123.0&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Coal with CCS                              135.5&#xD;&#xA;    Natural Gas&#xD;&#xA;      Conventional Combined Cycle                        67.1&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced Combined Cycle                            65.6&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced CC with CCS                               93.4&#xD;&#xA;      Conventional Combustion Turbine                   130.3&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced Combustion Turbine                       104.6&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Nuclear                                    108.4&#xD;&#xA;    Geothermal                                           89.6&#xD;&#xA;    Biomass                                             111.0&#xD;&#xA;    Wind                                                 86.6&#xD;&#xA;    Wind (Offshore)                                     221.5&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV                                            144.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar Thermal                                       261.5&#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectric                                        90.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this data is an estimate for cost, including well / plant development, averaged over the electricity produced (kWh).  While I can't speak to the metrics used in board rooms, I believe this to be fundamentally better than the $/kW *capacity* data [featured in the other answer][8].  That data cannot provide a basis for comparison between sources like wind and geothermal, because geothermal plants can run at 90%+ capacity continually, while wind farms do not (wind is inherently variable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, geothermal is *already* a cost-competitive technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certainly a proponent of geothermal energy, and I think its future looks bright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.  I read your question to be about **large-scale** energy production, but [geothermal is also a legitimate small-scale solution, too][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;dagger; &lt;sub&gt;- of course, as with most green energy utility programs, my electricity is the same as that of my neighboor, who doesn't participate in the program.  My utility payments simply subsidize renewable projects (such as Raft River geothermal).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.seattle.gov/light/Green/greenPower/Statrpt1.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/geothermal-energy-market-global-industry-analysis-size-share-growth-trends-and-forecast-2012-2018-262290.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.asdreports.com/news.asp?pr_id=156&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.livescience.com/29195-conservatives-energy-efficient-bulbs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1175/486&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.usgeothermal.com/faq.aspx#8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1173" RevisionGUID="e6047f79-e316-4290-b79c-78119d0549f7" CreationDate="2013-08-22T09:41:44.407" UserId="486" Comment="Some headings, expansion on drilling issues" Text="Someone *has* done it.  A majority of the electricity [I buy comes from geothermal energy][1] &amp;dagger;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I live in the Pacific Northwest of North America, which puts me close to a tectonic plate boundary.  This presents good conditions for extracting geothermal heat ([since the earth's crust is thinner at such boundaries][2] ... making shallower wells productive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Limitations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of *why* it isn't more widely used, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that at least some of the following factors apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's new.  Give it time.  This recent estimate predicts a [13% annual growth rate in geothermal production][4] in coming years.&#xD;&#xA; - Political reasons contribute to the status quo (fossil fuels) maintaining market share as long as possible (this includes both *lobbying* by existing fossil fuel business interests, and [general ideological leanings by the political Right][6]).&#xD;&#xA; - Building the plants can involve hydraulic fracturing, somewhat like shale gas extraction does.  There are environmental issues associated with that, or any type of drilling, especially in earthquake zones (although for the geothermal application, I believe they're far outweighed by the low carbon footprint per kWh of geothermal energy)&#xD;&#xA; - As I alluded to before, not all sites are equally desirable, geologically.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't want to get into regulations here, because they vary with every location, but in some places, utilities have been required to buy the very cheapest electricity, with no regard to pollution/carbon-neutrality.  This could rule out geothermal, even if it's cost-competitive, so long as there's one available source with lower cost.&#xD;&#xA; - You didn't limit your question to one particular region, but [here's a link discussing some regional issues in my corner of the world][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Another Opinion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this source][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The major impediments which this industry faces include initial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; financing of large scale projects, resource development risks like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; failure of drilling wells and insufficient productivity, lack of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; skilled labor to work on the projects, issues related to drilling rigs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and market and network issues like proximity to the market and network&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capital costs. Also, there are some environmental problems in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; producing geothermal energy like release of hydrogen sulfide and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposal of toxic geothermal fluids while extraction.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Challenges to this industry are carrying out efficient programs for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; land leasing where reserves of geothermal energy are located, better&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drilling assistance in terms of accurate positioning of the site and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its viability, and significant financial support needed to establish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plants at the desired locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The &quot;Cost&quot; Thing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue that should **no longer** be considered a primary factor limiting deployment of geothermal power is *cost*.  From [the US Energy Information Association][5], the pro-rated cost of new power plants (excluding externalities like pollution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Plant type                        Total system levelized cost (2011 $/MWh)&#xD;&#xA;    ----------                        ----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Conventional Coal                                   100.1&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Coal                                       123.0&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Coal with CCS                              135.5&#xD;&#xA;    Natural Gas&#xD;&#xA;      Conventional Combined Cycle                        67.1&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced Combined Cycle                            65.6&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced CC with CCS                               93.4&#xD;&#xA;      Conventional Combustion Turbine                   130.3&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced Combustion Turbine                       104.6&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Nuclear                                    108.4&#xD;&#xA;    Geothermal                                           89.6&#xD;&#xA;    Biomass                                             111.0&#xD;&#xA;    Wind                                                 86.6&#xD;&#xA;    Wind (Offshore)                                     221.5&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV                                            144.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar Thermal                                       261.5&#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectric                                        90.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this data is an estimate for cost, including well / plant development, averaged over the electricity produced (kWh).  While I can't speak to the metrics used in board rooms, I believe this to be fundamentally better than the $/kW *capacity* data [featured in this answer][8].  That data cannot provide a basis for comparison between sources like wind and geothermal, because geothermal plants can run at 90%+ capacity continually, while wind farms do not (wind is inherently variable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, geothermal is *already* a cost-competitive technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certainly a proponent of geothermal energy, and I think its future looks bright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.  I read your question to be about **large-scale** energy production, but [geothermal is also a legitimate small-scale solution, too][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;dagger; &lt;sub&gt;- of course, as with most green energy utility programs, my electricity is the same as that of my neighboor, who doesn't participate in the program.  My utility payments simply subsidize renewable projects (such as Raft River geothermal).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.seattle.gov/light/Green/greenPower/Statrpt1.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/geothermal-energy-market-global-industry-analysis-size-share-growth-trends-and-forecast-2012-2018-262290.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.asdreports.com/news.asp?pr_id=156&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.livescience.com/29195-conservatives-energy-efficient-bulbs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1175/486&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.usgeothermal.com/faq.aspx#8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1181" RevisionGUID="a0d8461e-c13a-4cfd-ba53-5a68c60f599b" CreationDate="2013-08-22T22:56:56.237" UserId="746" Text="I have a fenced in back yard and I am thinking about building a rotary composter.  What is a good and proven design?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1181" RevisionGUID="a0d8461e-c13a-4cfd-ba53-5a68c60f599b" CreationDate="2013-08-22T22:56:56.237" UserId="746" Text="How can I build an effective rotary composter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1181" RevisionGUID="a0d8461e-c13a-4cfd-ba53-5a68c60f599b" CreationDate="2013-08-22T22:56:56.237" UserId="746" Text="|composting|construction|product-design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3709" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="16" RevisionGUID="09418eb9-9888-4263-a315-11257f06f491" CreationDate="2013-08-23T12:15:05.443" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/370881879324770304" />
  <row Id="3710" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1181" RevisionGUID="34ae9bc8-c73d-45e9-b37d-ae0f763a160b" CreationDate="2013-08-24T00:15:10.120" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/371063093520240640" />
  <row Id="3712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1181" RevisionGUID="ebdcddfe-7fc1-4f7b-8d68-005a1fa5c0af" CreationDate="2013-08-24T22:02:41.220" UserId="486" Comment="added comment into question" Text="I have a fenced in back yard and I am thinking about building a rotary composter.  What is a good and proven design?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I would like it to be big enough for a 4 person house)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1182" RevisionGUID="14b968d9-5d88-4c0e-b0bc-cfe27ee4ba95" CreationDate="2013-08-25T06:02:33.123" UserId="749" Text="I have a large wolf-dog hybrid who sheds, a lot! I have to brush him every day.  A friend came by, saw the massive amount of fur he's shedding and remarked that it would be great for spinning into yarn.  I looked into it and the cheapest spinning wheels I could find were $225 and made of pvc pipe.  Because I have more time than money, I thought &quot;I can make one of those!&quot; but I still haven't found any plans for one. How do I build a spinning wheel for spinning yarn?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1182" RevisionGUID="14b968d9-5d88-4c0e-b0bc-cfe27ee4ba95" CreationDate="2013-08-25T06:02:33.123" UserId="749" Text="How can I build a spinning wheel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3715" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1182" RevisionGUID="14b968d9-5d88-4c0e-b0bc-cfe27ee4ba95" CreationDate="2013-08-25T06:02:33.123" UserId="749" Text="|permaculture|reuse|diy|pets|upcycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1183" RevisionGUID="e711eb44-945a-405a-8275-da3fd7460818" CreationDate="2013-08-25T14:26:43.723" UserId="749" Text="After looking at the rosemary knits spinning wheel (from the comments) I found a wheel called the dodec spinning wheel.  It makes a fully functional wheel with pedal out of a ten foot board.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://www.spinningdaily.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/spinoff/5661.Dodec-Spinning-Wheel-Brochure.pdf&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1184" RevisionGUID="6e1757fc-493d-4b73-b340-5eb24b895fae" CreationDate="2013-08-26T06:18:14.677" UserId="227" Text="Indeed, hot dry rock geothermal may not be widely utilized, but it may be so not only because of novelty and cost, but also because there are plenty of water-based geothermal resources that are still underutilized, and those could be a lot easier to get to. As an example, let’s look at Idaho — state in north-western US in the Rocky mountain region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2008 the [Raft River project][1] began providing power commercially. It was one of the first GT power-generating plants in the Pacific North-West, according to PBS documentary. Built by private company, utilizing the former geothermal site of US Department of Energy (in the early 80s there was built and run 7MW demonstration project, allegedly first commercial-sized binary liquid GT power plant), it produces 13 MW, and is accessing surveyed water source that is theoretically capable of giving out 110 MW of energy. To access the water at the temperatures of 135 to 148 °C they only need to drill 1300 to 1800 m (4500 to 6000 feet) — which is a lot less drilling than HDR geothermal would require to achieve the same temperature difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Idaho Department of Water Resources provides [overview of geothermal][2] in the state, including definitions (sources of 30 to 100 °C are classified as low temperature geothermal (LTG), and those over 100 °C — as high temperature geothermal (HTG)), and the link to the map of geothermal resources. Map shows quite a few sources surveyed, including a decent number of those with temperatures of over 50 °C, and while the use of those resources is increasing (downtown Boise and recently connected Boise State University campus have many buildings already heated by geothermal systems), there are still many of them untapped, and most of them require a lot less work than HDR geothermal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it is understandable that specific geological situation on the border of tectonic plates provides for abundance of sources, and those areas deep inside plate boundaries may not have these resources so easily accessible, but there is a lot of potential for the exploitation of the more traditional GT sources in many areas of the world, before the need for the more costly methods arises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.usgeothermal.com/RaftRiverProject.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/WaterInformation/GeothermalResources/geo_default.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1185" RevisionGUID="e49f4a37-99c2-4e72-8ca8-7e4e65b941fc" CreationDate="2013-08-26T08:31:42.433" UserId="15" Text="In New Zealand, &quot;bamboo&quot; fabric is marketed as being environmentally friendly because it uses bamboo as a raw material. However, my understanding is that the end product is a completely different substance from bamboo, thanks to a chemical process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How sustainable is the production process, and how safe is the manufacturing and end product?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1185" RevisionGUID="e49f4a37-99c2-4e72-8ca8-7e4e65b941fc" CreationDate="2013-08-26T08:31:42.433" UserId="15" Text="Is bamboo fabric environmentally friendly and safe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1185" RevisionGUID="e49f4a37-99c2-4e72-8ca8-7e4e65b941fc" CreationDate="2013-08-26T08:31:42.433" UserId="15" Text="|manufacturing|fabric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="69acfebc-39b5-4cf8-9ab0-4910845f8360" CreationDate="2013-08-26T09:52:24.697" UserId="751" Text="Do a search for the [Doorknob spinning wheel][1] free plans - it works great for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOJr5GxLGSU&amp;feature=c4-overview&amp;list=UU5hptEqVH66-y6Xu5yDJUtQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1185" RevisionGUID="c3619fe4-de9b-4966-a7eb-03c9ba8e5fbd" CreationDate="2013-08-26T10:08:24.053" UserId="15" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="In New Zealand, &quot;bamboo&quot; fabric is marketed as being environmentally friendly because it uses bamboo as a raw material. However, my understanding is that the end product is a completely different substance from whatever it is they extract out of bamboo, thanks to a chemical process being applied to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How sustainable is the production process, and how safe and is the manufacturing and end product? Does it biodegrade readily?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="0e0265c9-27c1-47f1-b1f2-a067cae312fe" CreationDate="2013-08-26T10:22:09.863" UserId="751" Comment="More background information on how I developed my spinning wheel plans" Text="That's great to have a constant source of yarn - from your pet. I saw a lady who knitted items for sale using her dog's fur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been studying about spinning wheels and how to spin only in the past few months.  I've come to the conclusion that a spinning wheel is actually a sped up version of a drop spindle and it's also a lot of fun to spin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I'm not really great with wood I searched for an easy wheel that could work just as well as the expensive brand name types. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After several experiments, I came across Joy of Weaving's Doorknob Spinning wheel and made a variation of it, using a chopping board, door knobs, bits of wood and mostly strong glue and a few bolts. Perhaps a couple of nails along the way. It works really well and spins superfast and smoothly. You can print out the photo pdf plans as well as watch how I spin with it on Vimeo&#xD;&#xA;Do a search for the [Doorknob spinning wheel][1] free plans - it works great for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOJr5GxLGSU&amp;feature=c4-overview&amp;list=UU5hptEqVH66-y6Xu5yDJUtQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1187" RevisionGUID="9adfd353-42b8-4739-8307-a37f7e7afd85" CreationDate="2013-08-26T14:31:56.470" UserId="96" Text="It is basically possible to upgrade Biogas to something very close to natural gas, and then use it to replace said gas. While Biogas to grid is a mature technology now, with about 100 active plants in Germany alone. It is also often discussed to use the upgraded biogas as a vehicle fuel, replacing compressed natural gas (CNG). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the fueling station is taking the gas from the grid, it does not make a difference if it is  natural gas or biomethane. I'm looking for isntallations for the gas is produced, stored, upgraded and filled into vehicles on site. As we are talking about gas pressures upwards of 200 bar, an energy efficient handling of the gas is not trivial. Any pointer to reference material that goes into the gas management would be greatly appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1187" RevisionGUID="9adfd353-42b8-4739-8307-a37f7e7afd85" CreationDate="2013-08-26T14:31:56.470" UserId="96" Text="Where can I find a somewhat detailed technical description of a system to use Biogas as a Vehcle fuel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1187" RevisionGUID="9adfd353-42b8-4739-8307-a37f7e7afd85" CreationDate="2013-08-26T14:31:56.470" UserId="96" Text="|vehicle|biogas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1188" RevisionGUID="a9027da5-282e-43fc-bfc0-9a5c38a6e0e0" CreationDate="2013-08-26T15:10:10.230" UserId="753" Text="You can check the intentional community forum at &quot;Permies&quot; - a site devoted to permaculture. While the discussion may not be strictly about &quot;eco-villages&quot; - there are many kinds of group living situations discussed -  its all about sustainability and ecological awareness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://www.permies.com/forums/f-6/community&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3728" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1187" RevisionGUID="6c28174c-e141-47f0-90d7-01d8886376a3" CreationDate="2013-08-26T21:16:34.297" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/372105312784113665" />
  <row Id="3729" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1185" RevisionGUID="9d7935dd-173a-4d82-87bd-110c233bf677" CreationDate="2013-08-27T06:16:36.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/372241218199359488" />
  <row Id="3730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1187" RevisionGUID="3f24df13-6c06-4ff0-93f5-afc0e295df12" CreationDate="2013-08-27T07:42:07.893" UserId="486" Comment="grammar, spelling" Text="It is basically possible to upgrade Biogas to something very close to natural gas, and then use it to replace said gas. Biogas to grid is a mature technology now, with about 100 active plants in Germany alone. It is also often discussed to use the upgraded biogas as a vehicle fuel, replacing compressed natural gas (CNG). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the fueling station is taking the gas from the grid, it does not make a difference if it is natural gas or biomethane. I'm looking for installations where the gas is produced, stored, upgraded and filled into vehicles on site. As we are talking about gas pressures upwards of 200 bar, energy efficient handling of the gas is not trivial. Any pointer to reference material that goes into the gas management would be greatly appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3731" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1187" RevisionGUID="3f24df13-6c06-4ff0-93f5-afc0e295df12" CreationDate="2013-08-27T07:42:07.893" UserId="486" Comment="grammar, spelling" Text="Where can I find a detailed technical description of a system to use Biogas as a Vehicle fuel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3732" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1182" RevisionGUID="46d338ae-3976-4ee0-8098-654897f01792" CreationDate="2013-08-28T09:17:30.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/372649132080766976" />
  <row Id="3734" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4" RevisionGUID="cd8cf288-d6e1-4f48-9b7e-26a4e256940e" CreationDate="2013-08-29T15:17:31.810" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/373102119152521216" />
  <row Id="3738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1190" RevisionGUID="39717975-eff0-409d-a402-66e9e9c320bc" CreationDate="2013-08-31T10:58:32.983" UserId="144" Text="Batteries are known to be the most unsustainable and expensive part of system exploiting renewable energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am wondering, are there any alternatives to storing energy in batteries? Here I am especially interested in **household** power supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How Stuff Works lists a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One of the oldest techniques people have used is the falling weight. You lift the weight to store the energy in it and then let the weight fall to extract the energy. Many grandfather clocks and cuckoo clocks use this technique. By running the string attached to the weights through a gear train, you can use a heavy weight and let it fall over a long period of time. (See How Pendulum Clocks Work.) This approach doesn't work very well in an electric car, but it has worked well in clocks for hundreds of years.&#xD;&#xA; - Many power plants use the &quot;falling weight&quot; approach in the form of water. The water is pumped uphill to a lake at night when the power plant has excess capacity. During high-demand daytime periods, the water runs through a turbine on its way downhill to a lower lake.&#xD;&#xA; - Another way to store energy is in some form of repeatable mechanical deformation. This is the idea behind a spring used in a wind-up clock or a rubber band used in a wind-up airplane. You store the energy by bending (deforming) the material in a spring, and the material releases the energy as it returns to its original shape. At the scale of a car, this technology has problems because of the weight of the spring, but at smaller scales (like a wristwatch) it works great. See also this page for an interesting example.&#xD;&#xA; - Nature has been storing energy for a long time, and if you want to think about it in this way, gasoline is really a form of stored energy. Plants absorb sunlight and turn it into carbohydrates (see How Food Works for a discussion of carbohydrates). Over millions of years, these carbohydrates can turn into oil or coal. On a more human time scale, we burn wood (which is a carbohydrate) to release stored energy, or turn corn into alcohol and burn the alcohol.&#xD;&#xA; - Another technique that nature uses to store energy is fat, which many of us are familiar with in a personal way. It is interesting to think about a car that somehow eats grass or some other carbohydrate and stores it as fat!&#xD;&#xA; - You can take energy and split water into its hydrogen and oxygen atoms using electrolysis. By storing the hydrogen and oxygen in tanks, you can later create energy by burning it, or (more efficiently) by running it through a fuel cell (see How Fuel Cells Work).&#xD;&#xA; - You can use the energy to spin up a flywheel and then later extract the energy by using the flywheel to run a generator. This patent has lots of information.&#xD;&#xA; - You can store heat directly and later convert the heat to another form of energy like electricity. This page discusses some of NASA's experiments in this area.&#xD;&#xA; - You can use compressed air to store energy. Toys like the Air Hog store energy in this way. Compressing gases like nitrogen enough produces liquid nitrogen, and this page talks about how you can use liquid nitrogen to power a car.&#xD;&#xA; - One of the new technologies that may become available in the future involves antimatter. When you combine normal matter with antimatter, you get energy. You store the energy by creating the antimatter. This page talks about it a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find the compressed air or water an interesting idea. Is it possible to compress air or water during the day using photo-voltaic power and then generating power at night by decompressing air or water? Water especially can be interesting in combination with rainwater harvesting. But is that efficient? Are any of the above more efficient and cost effective than batteries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3739" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1190" RevisionGUID="39717975-eff0-409d-a402-66e9e9c320bc" CreationDate="2013-08-31T10:58:32.983" UserId="144" Text="Cost-effective alternative to rechargeable batteries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3740" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1190" RevisionGUID="39717975-eff0-409d-a402-66e9e9c320bc" CreationDate="2013-08-31T10:58:32.983" UserId="144" Text="|energy|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3748" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1190" RevisionGUID="34c5240e-c1c4-4cf9-ad12-b1a685585875" CreationDate="2013-09-01T00:17:43.810" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/373962841424158720" />
  <row Id="3749" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="a5a6a867-18bf-46d1-b15e-5721770563d1" CreationDate="2013-09-01T18:17:55.350" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/374234680658509824" />
  <row Id="3750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="5408b91f-09cd-4119-ab7a-e611a18a8435" CreationDate="2013-09-01T23:01:23.540" UserId="227" Comment="Addressed concerns about electrical loads replenishment." Text="I’ve already touched on this topic on the sister SE site [once][1] or [twice][2]. To summarize what is told there (check for more detail), there would be several considerations as related to energy use and sustainability:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Idling in itself wastes fuel for no good reason, and that adds up. In US (country whose residents drive probably more than anyone else on Earth, to put it in perspective) the average cars idles 16 minutes a day (including warming up, waiting, and sitting in traffic). Even 2.0 L compact car would burn (at a rate of 1 L per hour) almost 100 L of fuel a year. Obviously, some idling is unavoidable, but even half of that saved and multiplied by the number of all the cars in the world would amount to significant impact.&#xD;&#xA;* Idling negatively affects the engine internals due to incomplete combustion (glazing of the combustion chamber, fouling of the spark plugs) which further decreases fuel efficiency for all other regimes of operation.&#xD;&#xA;* What’s more, excessive idling affects other components (burning up of the catalytic converter, increased corrosion of exhaust system, increased engine wear due to higher vibration etc.), whose premature wear and replacement lead to increased use of raw materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What one can do (and what I do) is to turn off engine during long traffic lights, railway crossings and so forth. Anything more than 10 to 15 seconds (very generously) would save fuel, because car that is already warm does not need that much effort to re-start, as it is at the proper operating temperature, and oil is distributed around the engine and at a high lubricity. Motor stays within the efficient range of temperatures for more than few minutes, and takes several hours to completely cool down (depending on the weather), so there is definitely no need to keep the car running during short errand (never mind someone could simply run off with the vehicle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any concerns about premature wear of the starting infrastructure are moot considering savings on fuel and other engine components (one could afford to replace starters every 3-4 years at the worst). See the linked posts for detailed arithmetic. And any energy losses that occur during starting, and keeping the electrical loads going during the time the engine is off are minuscule compared to energy used by petrol combustion while idling. See [relevant question][3] at Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/a/3428/1764&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/a/3566/1764&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57794/16432" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1190" RevisionGUID="fa124fe1-55b8-410e-8ab9-ad57f92a5c51" CreationDate="2013-09-02T01:36:20.397" UserId="144" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Batteries are known to be the most unsustainable and expensive part of system exploiting renewable energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I am wondering, are there any alternatives to storing energy in batteries? Here I am especially interested in **household** power supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How Stuff Works][1] lists a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One of the oldest techniques people have used is the falling weight. You lift the weight to store the energy in it and then let the weight fall to extract the energy. Many grandfather clocks and cuckoo clocks use this technique. By running the string attached to the weights through a gear train, you can use a heavy weight and let it fall over a long period of time. (See How Pendulum Clocks Work.) This approach doesn't work very well in an electric car, but it has worked well in clocks for hundreds of years.&#xD;&#xA; - Many power plants use the &quot;falling weight&quot; approach in the form of water. The water is pumped uphill to a lake at night when the power plant has excess capacity. During high-demand daytime periods, the water runs through a turbine on its way downhill to a lower lake.&#xD;&#xA; - Another way to store energy is in some form of repeatable mechanical deformation. This is the idea behind a spring used in a wind-up clock or a rubber band used in a wind-up airplane. You store the energy by bending (deforming) the material in a spring, and the material releases the energy as it returns to its original shape. At the scale of a car, this technology has problems because of the weight of the spring, but at smaller scales (like a wristwatch) it works great. See also this page for an interesting example.&#xD;&#xA; - Nature has been storing energy for a long time, and if you want to think about it in this way, gasoline is really a form of stored energy. Plants absorb sunlight and turn it into carbohydrates (see How Food Works for a discussion of carbohydrates). Over millions of years, these carbohydrates can turn into oil or coal. On a more human time scale, we burn wood (which is a carbohydrate) to release stored energy, or turn corn into alcohol and burn the alcohol.&#xD;&#xA; - Another technique that nature uses to store energy is fat, which many of us are familiar with in a personal way. It is interesting to think about a car that somehow eats grass or some other carbohydrate and stores it as fat!&#xD;&#xA; - You can take energy and split water into its hydrogen and oxygen atoms using electrolysis. By storing the hydrogen and oxygen in tanks, you can later create energy by burning it, or (more efficiently) by running it through a fuel cell (see How Fuel Cells Work).&#xD;&#xA; - You can use the energy to spin up a flywheel and then later extract the energy by using the flywheel to run a generator. This patent has lots of information.&#xD;&#xA; - You can store heat directly and later convert the heat to another form of energy like electricity. This page discusses some of NASA's experiments in this area.&#xD;&#xA; - You can use compressed air to store energy. Toys like the Air Hog store energy in this way. Compressing gases like nitrogen enough produces liquid nitrogen, and this page talks about how you can use liquid nitrogen to power a car.&#xD;&#xA; - One of the new technologies that may become available in the future involves antimatter. When you combine normal matter with antimatter, you get energy. You store the energy by creating the antimatter. This page talks about it a bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find the compressed air or water an interesting idea. Is it possible to compress air or water during the day using photo-voltaic power and then generating power at night by decompressing air or water? Water especially can be interesting in combination with rainwater harvesting. But is that efficient? Are any of the above more efficient and cost effective than batteries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question247.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1193" RevisionGUID="0bd57984-fa99-44e4-a509-215a1cc83539" CreationDate="2013-09-02T07:38:15.890" UserId="48" Text="###Constraints&#xD;&#xA;There are several aspects to energy storage, that can make one form better than another for a given set of circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost is usually the biggest driver. Energy can be stored at pretty much any scale you like, and cost is typically the constrainer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are additional constraints for within-household energy storage: in particular, safety, space and noise. Safety and space will rule out most forms of energy storage: high-energy-density solutions tend to be prone to bad accidents, precisely because they have high energy density.  And low energy density solutions need a lot of space, which is typically limited in households.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Electricity is hard&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Storing electricity, to use as electricity, is a pain at the household level. The constraints above, rule out most of the energy storage solutions proposed in the question. It either takes too much space, or is too highly concentrated, creating a major safety risk.  There are some forms of highly concentrated energy that we have proven means of safe storage: but the capital costs for the round trip from electricity to storage to electricity are high, and the efficiencies are low, making the whole exercise very expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**These constraints rule out pretty much all the suggested methods in the question.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Towards a solution: start with the biggest energy uses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First look at your biggest energy uses. They are likely to be either heating, or cooling, or both. The good news is that they are easy to store, as low-grade heat or coolth, for 24-48 hours. Possibly more, if you can build some large underground storage.  Rich ancient Romans managed year-round thermal storage with large underground ice houses and heat stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your biggest energy uses are also the place to start looking for energy efficiencies too. If you're planning energy storage, then the business case for efficiencies starts looking much better, because you get two sets of savings: the reduced energy costs, and reduced cost of your energy storage capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Virtual storage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the timing of energy use can be shifted, then that acts as virtual storage, with 100% efficiency. It may also require little capital investment - maybe a timer or two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Storage efficiency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficiency in and of itself isn't necessarily a meaningful number: it has a direct impact on costs, which do matter. But in its own right, higher is not always better. If all other things are equal (and they rarely are), then higher is generally better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Forms of energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all forms of energy are equal. Some, such as low-grade heat or coolth, are easy to store, but can't do much work. Others, such as electricity, are capable of doing a lot of work (electricity is a high-exergy vector), but are very expensive to store directly (supercapacitors). Converting between forms of energy is always less than 100% efficient, and can be expensive.  Similarly, DC electricity and AC electricity are different: conversion each way is less than 100% efficient, and requires dedicated equipment that can be bulky, expensive, noisy, etc. Batteries convert DC electricity to chemical energy for storage, and back again for use; but most household appliances run on AC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###One sketch of a solution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Do as much energy-efficiency measures as are practicable: LED lights yielding over 100 lumens per watt, lots of thermal insulation, high-efficiency white goods, making the most of natural ventilation, solar gain, and night-time cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. run all your heating through a large thermal store, which you charge up whenever energy is readily available. Do the same, as far as possible, with a large ice store, for your cooling needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Find someone who's converted their household electricity distribution system to DC as much as possible, and has worked out which devices can be run direct off DC. Then copy their successes, and learn from their failures. Find the cheapest chemical batteries (probably lead-acid car batteries as of 2013), and use for round-trip electricity storage. If you have to, get a rectifier and an inverted to do the DC/AC two wa conversion too. I don't know if this is at all practicable, but it looks possible on paper, so someone mut have tried it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1194" RevisionGUID="27f8d82b-a07f-469b-b6e0-dc5bf6491eab" CreationDate="2013-09-02T14:48:25.010" UserId="96" Text="[Do the math once estimated different energy storage scenarios](http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/09/got-storage-how-hard-can-it-be/). The gist is that batteries and compressed air fare comparably well in terms of space needs, weight, etc. Since you want to look at costs and at alternatives to batteries, I suggest the following system: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* PV or wind powered compressor with a larger than usual storage tank &#xD;&#xA;* There exist systems to rtegain electrical power from compressed air for industry use, but they would add headaches with grid synchronization etc, so ...&#xD;&#xA;* The stored energy is used to drive air-powered tools directly&#xD;&#xA;* The compressor can additionally be supplied off the grid, yo your workshop is not dependeant on wind or sun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I can't give you a decent cost estimate now, my gut feeling is that this system could be interesting cost wise because you can use mass produced, readily available tools. However, this supposes that power tools are a major part of your electricity demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative would be to have lots of equipment that runs of 12V or 24V DC, and have air powered generators, thus avoiding the headaches of grid synchronisation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1195" RevisionGUID="de110e55-2828-454e-b011-c9d03ae10708" CreationDate="2013-09-05T07:37:55.483" UserId="471" Text="Here where i am living in rainy season road get damage due to high rain i know the quality of road is low its made up of Damara but though i want to protect it from the damage.so suggest some easy way to protect it and can suggest cheap way to rebuild it. here i am attaching road damage image example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![road damage example][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bTGWK.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3756" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1195" RevisionGUID="de110e55-2828-454e-b011-c9d03ae10708" CreationDate="2013-09-05T07:37:55.483" UserId="471" Text="How to protect road damage from rain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3757" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1195" RevisionGUID="de110e55-2828-454e-b011-c9d03ae10708" CreationDate="2013-09-05T07:37:55.483" UserId="471" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1196" RevisionGUID="4f26f474-9dfa-4d5f-a025-48289bf114cd" CreationDate="2013-09-05T09:25:42.337" UserId="765" Text="I tried this for three months (turning off the engine at traffic lights).  The result is that my car battery stopped working and there was smoke coming from under the bonnet.  I then had to arrange to have the car towed to a garage.  I was told that I would need a new starter motor at a cost of £150.  It certainly doesn't represent a saving." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1197" RevisionGUID="9e7fec60-09f2-4ef5-8006-baae388beaf8" CreationDate="2013-09-05T09:45:46.417" UserId="15" Text="As a vehicle travels over a wet road, the tyres push the water into the surface. Depending on the type of surface, it can either push water through the top layer (eg with a chip seal), or wash away away some of the fine material which binds the surface together (eg with an unsealed road). In both cases, this can cause damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the key ways of preventing damage is to provide a slope ([cross-fall][1] or camber) for the water to drain away. Also search for the word camber in the [wikipedia article on gravel roads][2]. It seems to state that a gravel (ie unsealed) road requires a higher camber than a sealed road, which makes some sense (the material tends to shift around more, so could more easily puddle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another issue is that the water needs to be able to drain away from the side of the road without eroding it or softening it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Limiting speed of traffic over a wet or damaged road should reduce further damage. A neat psychological trick for doing this is to provide lanes that feel narrow for traffic to drive through. The narrower it feels, the slower people driver. You can make it feel narrower by using taller and more conspicuous sides (eg like the movable barriers in the photo rather than just road cones).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to understand what damage has been done from a photo taken in such wet weather. Also, it would be useful to know what it was previously like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that the most cost effective way to repair or rebuild can depend heavily on how you measure the cost (if you're the government, then increased productivity essentially offsets cost, for example), what labour and machinery costs, and what materials are available (and how far away they are, and their transportation costs). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a high level, optimising the benefits of the road for affordable cost is called Road Asset Management, which also fall under the category of [Infrastructure Asset Management][3]. An example of what's involved, for sealed roads, [is available here][4] from the New Zealand Transport Agency (which looks after NZ's State Highways).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_slope&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_road&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure_asset_management&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/chipsealing-new-zealand-manual/docs/05-road-asset-management.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1197" RevisionGUID="9b7c7fdb-d6e3-4952-a279-3a75dceefff1" CreationDate="2013-09-05T10:28:50.020" UserId="15" Comment="simplified" Text="As a vehicle travels over a wet road, the tyres push the water into the surface. Depending on the type of surface, it can either push water through the top layer (eg with a chip seal), or wash away away some of the fine material which binds the surface together (eg with an unsealed road). In both cases, this can cause damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the key ways of preventing damage is to provide a slope ([cross-fall][1]) for the water to drain away. I think a gravel (ie unsealed) road requires a higher cross-fall than a sealed road, which makes some sense (the material tends to shift around more, so could more easily puddle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another issue is that the water needs to be able to drain away from the side of the road without eroding it or softening it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Limiting speed of traffic over a wet or damaged road should reduce further damage. A neat psychological trick for doing this is to provide lanes that feel narrow for traffic to drive through. The narrower it feels, the slower people driver. You can make it feel narrower by using taller and more conspicuous sides (eg like the movable barriers in the photo rather than just road cones).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to understand what damage has been done from a photo taken in such wet weather. Also, it would be useful to know what it was previously like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that the most cost effective way to repair or rebuild can depend heavily on how you measure the cost (if you're the government, then increased productivity essentially offsets cost, for example), what labour and machinery costs, and what materials are available (and how far away they are, and their transportation costs). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a high level, optimising the benefits of the road for affordable cost is called Road Asset Management, which also fall under the category of [Infrastructure Asset Management][3]. An example of what's involved, for sealed roads, [is available here][4] from the New Zealand Transport Agency (which looks after NZ's State Highways).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I understand it correctly, the first step in managing an asset is to start recording measurements about the asset so that you understand how it's changing, how much is being spent to maintain it, and in what way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_slope&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_road&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure_asset_management&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/chipsealing-new-zealand-manual/docs/05-road-asset-management.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1195" RevisionGUID="4a6550bf-b267-4c20-b90d-a80acd84ae4c" CreationDate="2013-09-05T10:31:03.497" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Here where I am living in the rainy season the roads are damaged due to the large amount of rainfall. I know the quality of the roads is low, they are made of Damara. I want to protect my road and reduce the damage. Could you suggest some easy way to protect it and suggest a cheap way to rebuild it? I've attached an image example of the road damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![road damage example][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bTGWK.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="7c053527-eb08-4837-82ec-3a590a828df6" CreationDate="2013-09-05T19:09:50.880" UserId="48" Text="###exploring the problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've asked around on the Claverton Energy Group without a great deal of success on the specifics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best I've got for you, courtesy of John Baldwin, is that biogas tends to be about 65% methane, with a lot of carbon dioxide, and some oxygen and hydrogen sulphide. Whereas gas as supplied for industrial, commercial and residential use is 90%+ methane, plus gases such as propane and butane to boost the energy density, and very very low levels of oxygen and hydrogen sulphide,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To replace CNG, biomethane needs to go through **purification**, to bring it up to similar levels of quality. That means raising the methane quantity to 90%+, removing almost all of the oxygen and hydrogen sulphide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also be necessary to add a tracer scent, as methane is odorless and colourless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Landfill gas has to undergo similar treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###towards finding the technical solution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The keywords for searches in the technical literature seem to be: **H2S CO2 methane purification**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that, the most accessible documents I've found so far are these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This draft document from British Columbia's Environmental Protection Division (in the Ministry of the Environment) (pdf)][3] deals with the cleaning (purification) of biogas produces from [on-farm anaerobic digestion][4]; the next chapter in the same document deals with [biogas upgrading (pdf)][5], to boost the energy density and raise its quality to the specification required for CNG and for injection into the gas grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've questions on the specifics of the chemistry, please do ask over on the [Chemistry Stack Exchange][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###important caveat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do bear in mind that methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, and that leakages, even at a small percentage rate, can make biogas a damaging global pollutant.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://Chemistry.StackExchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/industrial/agriculture/pdf/adg/adg-chapter6.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/industrial/agriculture/digestion.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/industrial/agriculture/pdf/adg/adg-chapter7.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="ed36bd15-9d02-4ac0-9b04-d3dc4282e0b2" CreationDate="2013-09-05T19:25:31.663" UserId="48" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="###exploring the problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've asked around on the [Claverton Energy Group][1] for some help on this. Thanks to John Baldwin, I learnt that biogas tends to be about 65% methane, with a lot of carbon dioxide, and some oxygen and hydrogen sulphide. Whereas gas as supplied for industrial, commercial and residential use is 90%+ methane, plus gases such as propane and butane to boost the energy density, and very very low levels of oxygen and hydrogen sulphide,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To replace CNG, biomethane needs to go through **purification**, to bring it up to similar levels of quality. That means raising the methane quantity to 90%+, removing almost all of the oxygen and hydrogen sulphide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also be necessary to add a tracer scent, as methane is odorless and colourless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Landfill gas has to undergo similar treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###towards finding the technical solution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The keywords for searches in the technical literature seem to be: **H2S CO2 methane purification**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that, the most accessible documents I've found so far are these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This draft document from British Columbia's Environmental Protection Division (in the Ministry of the Environment) (pdf)][2] deals with the cleaning (purification) of biogas produces from [on-farm anaerobic digestion][3]; the next chapter in the same document deals with [biogas upgrading (pdf)][4], to boost the energy density and raise its quality to the specification required for CNG and for injection into the gas grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've questions on the specifics of the chemistry, please do ask over on the [Chemistry Stack Exchange][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###important caveat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Do bear in mind that methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, and that leakages, even at a small percentage rate, can make biogas a damaging global pollutant.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.claverton-energy.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/industrial/agriculture/pdf/adg/adg-chapter6.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/industrial/agriculture/digestion.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/industrial/agriculture/pdf/adg/adg-chapter7.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://Chemistry.StackExchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1185" RevisionGUID="fa45c269-3eb3-4f81-bfd9-96905ba22e58" CreationDate="2013-09-09T08:58:47.107" UserId="674" Comment="Refinement of questions to avoid getting bogged down in all the aspects of &quot;sustainability&quot; when it comes to manufacturing i.e. natural resources, energy, machinery safety, etc." Text="In New Zealand, &quot;bamboo&quot; fabric is marketed as being environmentally friendly because it uses bamboo as a raw material. However, my understanding is that the end product is a completely different substance from whatever it is they extract out of bamboo, thanks to a chemical process being applied to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What chemicals are used in the process of converting bamboo into fabric?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How toxic are they to the environment and workers during production?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Is the bamboo fabric itself toxic to humans once it has been manufactured?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Will it biodegrade without adding toxins to the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. How long will it take to biodegrade?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3766" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1185" RevisionGUID="fa45c269-3eb3-4f81-bfd9-96905ba22e58" CreationDate="2013-09-09T08:58:47.107" UserId="674" Comment="Refinement of questions to avoid getting bogged down in all the aspects of &quot;sustainability&quot; when it comes to manufacturing i.e. natural resources, energy, machinery safety, etc." Text="Is bamboo fabric toxic? What about its manufacture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3767" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1185" RevisionGUID="fa45c269-3eb3-4f81-bfd9-96905ba22e58" CreationDate="2013-09-09T08:58:47.107" Comment="Proposed by 674 approved by -1 edit id of 167" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3768" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1185" RevisionGUID="2fb44ec4-d48a-4dfc-9156-02c086f821cf" CreationDate="2013-09-09T08:58:47.107" UserId="15" Comment="Refinement of questions to avoid getting bogged down in all the aspects of &quot;sustainability&quot; when it comes to manufacturing i.e. natural resources, energy, machinery safety, etc." Text="Is bamboo fabric safe? What about its manufacture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1199" RevisionGUID="a222eb40-a668-4439-8893-20fe547f3f8f" CreationDate="2013-09-09T09:48:35.257" UserId="15" Text="I think this calculation uses the specific heat capacity for water, which is from memory a bit over 4. Can someone please do the math?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if we assume electricity costs $0.30 per kilowatt hour, what is the cost of heating a full 180 litre hot water cylinder?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3770" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1199" RevisionGUID="a222eb40-a668-4439-8893-20fe547f3f8f" CreationDate="2013-09-09T09:48:35.257" UserId="15" Text="How many kilowatt hours of electricity does it take to heat 180 litres of water from 15 to 60 degrees C?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3771" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1199" RevisionGUID="a222eb40-a668-4439-8893-20fe547f3f8f" CreationDate="2013-09-09T09:48:35.257" UserId="15" Text="|water|electricity|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1200" RevisionGUID="05b763ce-082b-4dfd-80fb-f1ba0350143c" CreationDate="2013-09-09T13:28:36.543" UserId="48" Text="Let's look at how much electricity and money can be saved by using solar thermal to heat a cylinder of hot water, rather than by using an electrical resistance heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming a 100% efficient resistance heater (that's near enough to real values), and ignoring tank losses during the heating period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;180 litres of water is near enough 180kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific heat capacity of water is approx 4.2 J / g.K&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The increase in temperature is 45 Kelvin (60-15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the energy needed is 180,000 x 45 x 4.2 = 34MJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1kWh = 1000W x 3600s = 3.6MJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, the energy needed is 34/3.6 = **9.5 kWh**. At $0.30/kWh that's **$2.85**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1202" RevisionGUID="2ddd088d-d390-4540-a506-de8d9547f148" CreationDate="2013-09-10T13:09:16.013" UserId="778" Text="My home is 750 Square Feet and also has radiant heating. I'm considering replacing my large, inefficient Garrison wood stove with the Bun Baker, and curious about the potential of using it as an equivalent replacement. I'm concerned how much heat it will actually put off and I do not intend to use the soapstone veneer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3776" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1202" RevisionGUID="2ddd088d-d390-4540-a506-de8d9547f148" CreationDate="2013-09-10T13:09:16.013" UserId="778" Text="Has anyone been using the Vermont Bun Baker Wood Stove?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3777" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1202" RevisionGUID="2ddd088d-d390-4540-a506-de8d9547f148" CreationDate="2013-09-10T13:09:16.013" UserId="778" Text="|woodstove|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3778" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1202" RevisionGUID="8d64c859-e67e-4b7e-b7b4-e63a8c638161" CreationDate="2013-09-11T06:39:02.890" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to match the content of the question" Text="How much heat will a Vermont Bun Baker wood stove put off?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1203" RevisionGUID="3c1ed8e1-b44c-45f7-a60c-be80f08ddbda" CreationDate="2013-09-11T20:39:08.627" UserId="624" Text="In my experience, windfall apples can turn into serious slime unless you prepare them for composting by adding plenty of drier ingredients to the mix.  Crushing them, and then adding dried fall leaves - shredded if possible - in a ratio of 1:3 or 4 would probably make some pretty decent compost, depending on how green they are.  If you don't have any dried fall leaves at the moment, you should be able to just rake all the fallen apples to the side into a pile and deal with them once you do.  I know most of the windfall apples we've had under our trees lasted several weeks in a more-or-less whole condition unless we did something to them.  If the weather there is cooling off, that should help keep them in mostly non-rotted condition until you have all of your &quot;browns&quot; together to make the compost pile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1204" RevisionGUID="6f2d2592-bd09-45f3-9cf3-5746145171bc" CreationDate="2013-09-11T20:44:31.067" UserId="624" Text="Our local recycling center now takes food-soiled paper products for use in their composting program.  You might look into that and see if there is anything like this in operation where you live.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1186" RevisionGUID="daa5b6b4-4206-430b-8020-ec005de055e0" CreationDate="2013-09-12T08:15:19.347" UserId="751" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="That's great to have a constant source of yarn - from your pet. I saw a lady who knitted items for sale using her dog's fur. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been studying about spinning wheels and how to spin only in the past few months.  I've come to the conclusion that a spinning wheel is actually a sped up version of a drop spindle and it's also a lot of fun to spin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I'm not really great with wood I searched for an easy wheel that could work just as well as the expensive brand name types. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After several experiments, I came across Joy of Weaving's Doorknob Spinning wheel and made a variation of it, using a chopping board, door knobs, bits of wood and mostly strong glue and a few bolts. Perhaps a couple of nails along the way. It works really well and spins superfast and smoothly. You can print out the photo pdf plans as well as watch how I spin with it on Vimeo&#xD;&#xA;Do a search for the [Doorknob spinning wheel][1] free plans - it works great for me.&#xD;&#xA;![Spindle Doorknob Spinning Wheel][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOJr5GxLGSU&amp;feature=c4-overview&amp;list=UU5hptEqVH66-y6Xu5yDJUtQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BHDF7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1206" RevisionGUID="6214f815-496b-4bef-9ae0-fdd60909a924" CreationDate="2013-09-12T09:27:51.997" UserId="706" Text="I am currently reviewing a paper estimating the payback period for different building renovation strategies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calculations I see typically go something like this: you pay (say) USD 3000 today, save USD 300 per year in energy savings, ergo there is a 10 year payback period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, shouldn't future energy savings be discounted according to the [Time Value of Money][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1206" RevisionGUID="6214f815-496b-4bef-9ae0-fdd60909a924" CreationDate="2013-09-12T09:27:51.997" UserId="706" Text="Should payback periods take the time value of money into account?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1206" RevisionGUID="6214f815-496b-4bef-9ae0-fdd60909a924" CreationDate="2013-09-12T09:27:51.997" UserId="706" Text="|energy|building|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1207" RevisionGUID="b5e1292b-82ab-45c0-83f7-691f835a5f91" CreationDate="2013-09-12T10:11:29.097" UserId="48" Text="Yes, in developing business cases for renovation strategies, it is normal to include a cost of money, to calculate the Net Present Value. It gets slightly difficult when trying to create a standard business case, because different households have different time values of money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can also calculate a Net Present Value by discount future benefits and non-cash costs, and that may differ from the current cost of money. Be aware that this can be controversial: see, for example, the discussion around the Stern Review's choice of discount rate for future harm from climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the calculation you've presented, in the paper you are reviewing, looks naive. It's missing out on the cost of money. It's also missing out on likely changes in the value of future energy savings, as the cost of energy is likely to change in the future. It might be that the author/s assumed that the two effects would cancel out (i.e. real increases in future energy prices would match the cost of money), but that's quite a hefty simplifying assumption, and I'd expect to see a statement of the assumption in the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Warmth-taking&#xD;&#xA;How much energy is actually saved by renovation varies hugely, and almost never matches the energy savings predicted in advance. There's a phenomenon that's been called variously: comfort-takeback, rebound, warmth-taking, the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate, the Jevons paradox. Essentially, after renovation designed to prevent heat loss, energy used for heating doesn't drop as much as was expected. There are a bunch of putative explanations for this, and there isn't a single right explanation, nor is there a reliable estimate of how large the effect will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;###Non-cash benefits&#xD;&#xA;And that lack of clarity over warmth-taking brings me to another element usually missed from calculations of the value of renovation: the changes to quality of life that ensue from the renovation. Those can go either way, and might include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - higher security (against crime);&#xD;&#xA; - lower exposure to noise pollution and air pollution from outside;&#xD;&#xA; - higher exposure to pollutants sourced in or under the home (e.g. smoke, radon)&#xD;&#xA; - changes to internal CO2 levels&#xD;&#xA; - changes to risk and prevalence of mould and dust mites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3787" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1206" RevisionGUID="80509b2d-ec3c-4166-8c68-48038e47a615" CreationDate="2013-09-12T12:19:30.803" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/378130751084318720" />
  <row Id="3790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="459ecd4e-0ddc-4caf-aac4-09741505edd7" CreationDate="2013-09-12T18:16:21.660" UserId="642" Text="I have found the article [How to Dispose of Cooking Oil][1] where are these suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **reuse:** filter and put into a freezer or a fridge for later reuse&#xD;&#xA; - **different purpose reuse:** lava lamp, snow shovel lubrication, oil lamp, shaving&#xD;&#xA; - **industrial reuse:** base material for biodiesel&#xD;&#xA; - **animal feeding**&#xD;&#xA; - **practical disposal into a waste** - soaking into some materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **composting** of small quantities of oil&#xD;&#xA; - **cosmetics** - use of good quality oils (like expired olive oil)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What are the other ways of the oil reusing, recycling or disposal?&#xD;&#xA; - Which types of oils are suitable for various use: used / expired; liquid oils / solid fats; vegetable (various sorts) / animal.&#xD;&#xA; - What are the important things to know when reusing, recycling or disposing of the oil?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wikihow.com/Dispose-of-Cooking-Oil" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="459ecd4e-0ddc-4caf-aac4-09741505edd7" CreationDate="2013-09-12T18:16:21.660" UserId="642" Text="Reusing, recycling or disposal of used or expired cooking oil" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="459ecd4e-0ddc-4caf-aac4-09741505edd7" CreationDate="2013-09-12T18:16:21.660" UserId="642" Text="|recycling|reuse|oil|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1209" RevisionGUID="74a5b875-aca2-4c1d-bf33-1298c41640b5" CreationDate="2013-09-12T21:34:42.223" UserId="782" Text="We decided to start composting without doing any research on how to do it. Thus we began filling an old painters bucket with food scraps. No meat or milk or anything, but veggie and fruit scraps , egg shells, some coffee grounds, etc. We put a piece of plywood on top as a lid with a brick to keep it on, and left it slightly askew to allow air inside. Anyway we haven't really been turning it, or adding anything to it other than the food scraps. After sitting there for a couple of months, it is now a mass of black slime with maggots woven through it. It smells like sewer. My question is, is it salvageable for use in a good compost pile? Or have we botched the experiment so badly that we need to somehow dispose of this very stinky quagmire?  I realize we should have educated ourselves before filling the bucket, but we went about it a bit backwards. I have since been told that we need to have a bin or structure that allows for air to move through the pile, we need to add dirt or sawdust or leaves, and we need to tend it and turn it. But tell me, given where we are now, can we redeem our muck from here, or do we need to educate ourselves and then start over?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;Sara" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1209" RevisionGUID="74a5b875-aca2-4c1d-bf33-1298c41640b5" CreationDate="2013-09-12T21:34:42.223" UserId="782" Text="Complete composting novice with a bucket of stinky black slime--toss or keep?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3795" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1209" RevisionGUID="74a5b875-aca2-4c1d-bf33-1298c41640b5" CreationDate="2013-09-12T21:34:42.223" UserId="782" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1210" RevisionGUID="0a1a10e5-f803-4411-b945-50f1d14a93f0" CreationDate="2013-09-12T21:51:29.833" UserId="771" Text="You have created an anaerobic compost, that is, without air.  There are two basic kinds of composting microbes: the ones that need oxygen and the ones that don't.  Aerobic composting is what you were going for, with plenty of air for the oxygen loving microbes, and the right blend of carbon to nitrogen in the pile.  This generally decomposes without smelling bad.  If there's too much water in the stuff you add to the pile, or the pile is too dense and there's not enough air, the anaerobic microbes take over, and they make foul smelling waste as they eat the compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a decent description of what's going on here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://organicgardening.about.com/od/compost/f/smellycompost.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you just leave the pile alone for a long time (six months to a year), all of the organic breakdown will complete, the smell will go away, and you'll still have rich compost to work with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="e235ef6c-91dd-4da8-b7fc-05dae093dbfb" CreationDate="2013-09-13T00:23:25.707" UserId="486" Text="This only addresses *part* of your question, but this question *could* be answered with volumes of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do want to clarify that biodiesel is not **only** a potential &quot;industrial&quot; reuse for used cooking oils.  Used cooking oil can be processed into biodiesel by a modestly savvy do-it-yourselfer at home, with a simple processor that you can build yourself out of parts you'll find at most hardware stores (plus maybe a pump from an industrial supply store like [Harbor Freight in the US](http://www.harborfreight.com/)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The complete plans are beyond the scope of this question, but [you can find good information online here][1].  Basically, someone who drives a diesel vehicle can turn an electric hot water heater and a 55-gallon (rinse) barrel into a biodiesel processor for cooking oil.  The recipe would usually involve adding some methanol, and a catalyst like KOH.  You would make batches of *about* 50 gallons of fuel at a time.  Certainly, your own cooking oil would not be enough to provide feedstock on this scale, but if you added your own oil to that collected from local, independently-operated restaurants, you can have a more sustainable way to reuse the oil, compared with consuming gasoline or petro-diesel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This type of process can supply biodiesel that can be run in most diesel engine vehicles, with little or no modifications (older diesel vehicles will probably need new synthetic rubber fuel lines if they had natural rubber lines before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to have to add to your supply with used restaurant oil, another option for people with diesel vehicles is to buy/install a conversion kit that allows you to use actual (filtered) waste vegetable oil directly in the vehicle.  Basically, the car starts on normal diesel or biodiesel.  Once the engine comes up to temperature, you flip a switch, and the fuel is then drawn from an auxiliary waste veggie oil (WVO) tank.  You normally would switch back to diesel/biodiesel before shutting down just to purge the lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of diesel vehicles eligible for WVO conversions is a bit smaller, though, and as opposed to using biodiesel, which has superior *cleansing* properties to petro-diesel, using WVO needs to be done more carefully, because you can gunk up your engine.  Older Mercedes diesels (1970s - 1990s) seem to do best running WVO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you use cooking oil to power a diesel engine, you do want to pick good oils.  Generally, [that turns out to be the same kinds of oils that are more healthy for people][2].  Veggie oils are better than animal oils.  No solid fats.  Cooking oil can be reused, and restaurants do reuse it.  The more it's reused for cooking, the more rancid and more contaminated with food stuffs, the less desirable it is for fuel feedstock.  A part of the process is [to test your oil before using][3] (for example, to see if one restaurant's product is typically usable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not at home, but I'll try to add some more sources and info later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: http://make-biodiesel.org/The-Appleseed-Biodiesel-Processor/&#xD;&#xA;   [2]: http://make-biodiesel.org/Ingredients/biodiesel-feedstock-oils.html&#xD;&#xA;   [3]: http://make-biodiesel.org/Quality-Testing/titrating-wvo.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1209" RevisionGUID="ea0baf66-8c0f-466e-bf73-b2cf7946b153" CreationDate="2013-09-13T01:39:01.770" UserId="486" Comment="minor formatting for readability" Text="We decided to start composting without doing any research on how to do it. Thus we began filling an old painters bucket with food scraps. No meat or milk or anything, but veggie and fruit scraps , egg shells, some coffee grounds, etc. We put a piece of plywood on top as a lid with a brick to keep it on, and left it slightly askew to allow air inside. Anyway we haven't really been turning it, or adding anything to it other than the food scraps. After sitting there for a couple of months, it is now a mass of black slime with maggots woven through it. It smells like sewer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, is it salvageable for use in a good compost pile? Or have we botched the experiment so badly that we need to somehow dispose of this very stinky quagmire?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize we should have educated ourselves before filling the bucket, but we went about it a bit backwards. I have since been told that we need to have a bin or structure that allows for air to move through the pile, we need to add dirt or sawdust or leaves, and we need to tend it and turn it. But tell me, given where we are now, can we redeem our muck from here, or do we need to educate ourselves and then start over?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="a30df236-54e8-4357-ae11-d52f5ca24aac" CreationDate="2013-09-13T02:24:06.693" UserId="486" Comment="note about common rail diesels, and DPF incompatibility" Text="This only addresses *part* of your question, but this question *could* be answered with volumes of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do want to clarify that biodiesel is not **only** a potential &quot;industrial&quot; reuse for used cooking oils.  Used cooking oil can be processed into biodiesel by a modestly savvy do-it-yourselfer at home, with a simple processor that you can build yourself out of parts you'll find at most hardware stores (plus maybe a pump from an industrial supply store like [Harbor Freight in the US](http://www.harborfreight.com/)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The complete plans are beyond the scope of this question, but [you can find good information online here][1].  Basically, someone who drives a diesel vehicle can turn an electric hot water heater and a 55-gallon (rinse) barrel into a biodiesel processor for cooking oil.  The recipe would usually involve adding some methanol, and a catalyst like KOH.  You would make batches of *about* 50 gallons of fuel at a time.  Certainly, your own cooking oil would not be enough to provide feedstock on this scale, but if you added your own oil to that collected from local, independently-operated restaurants, you can have a more sustainable way to reuse the oil, compared with consuming gasoline or petro-diesel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This type of process can supply biodiesel that can be run in *most* (&amp;dagger;) diesel engine vehicles, with little or no modifications (older diesel vehicles will probably need new synthetic rubber fuel lines if they had natural rubber lines before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to have to add to your supply with used restaurant oil, another option for people with diesel vehicles is to buy/install a conversion kit that allows you to use actual (filtered) waste vegetable oil directly in the vehicle.  Basically, the car starts on normal diesel or biodiesel.  Once the engine comes up to temperature, you flip a switch, and the fuel is then drawn from an auxiliary waste veggie oil (WVO) tank.  You normally would switch back to diesel/biodiesel before shutting down just to purge the lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of diesel vehicles eligible for WVO conversions is a bit smaller, though, and as opposed to using biodiesel, which has superior *cleansing* properties to petro-diesel, using WVO needs to be done more carefully, because you can gunk up your engine.  Older Mercedes diesels (1970s - 1990s) seem to do best running WVO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you use cooking oil to power a diesel engine, you do want to pick good oils.  Generally, [that turns out to be the same kinds of oils that are more healthy for people][2].  Veggie oils are better than animal oils.  No solid fats.  Cooking oil can be reused, and restaurants do reuse it.  The more it's reused for cooking, the more rancid and more contaminated with food stuffs, the less desirable it is for fuel feedstock.  A part of the process is [to test your oil before using][3] (for example, to see if one restaurant's product is typically usable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not at home, but I'll try to add some more sources and info later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&amp;dagger; Note that newer, &quot;Common Rail&quot; diesel engines may no longer be &quot;tuned&quot; properly to run rich biodiesel blends, ironically because of new emissions requirements (that are driven primarily by petro-diesel exhaust!).  So, do some research (or ask another question) about biodiesel blends appropriate for your vehicle.*&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: http://make-biodiesel.org/The-Appleseed-Biodiesel-Processor/&#xD;&#xA;   [2]: http://make-biodiesel.org/Ingredients/biodiesel-feedstock-oils.html&#xD;&#xA;   [3]: http://make-biodiesel.org/Quality-Testing/titrating-wvo.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="d8d43d7c-b6ba-4d1b-b7f5-2dd387e7c071" CreationDate="2013-09-13T09:06:26.163" UserId="486" Comment="many more links, notes about engine compatibility, formatting, oil handling" Text="This only addresses *part* of your question, but this question *could* be answered with a whole book.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Homebrewing Biodiesel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do want to clarify that biodiesel is not **only** a potential *&quot;industrial&quot;* reuse for used cooking oils.  Used cooking oil can be processed into biodiesel by a modestly savvy do-it-yourselfer at home, with a simple processor that you can build yourself out of parts you'll find at most hardware stores (plus maybe a pump from an industrial supply store like [Harbor Freight in the US](http://www.harborfreight.com/)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The complete plans are beyond the scope of this question, but [you can find good information online here][1].  Basically, someone who drives a diesel vehicle can turn an electric hot water heater and a 55-gallon (rinse) barrel into a biodiesel processor for cooking oil.  The recipe would usually involve adding some methanol, and a catalyst like KOH.  You would make batches of *about* 50 gallons of fuel at a time.  Certainly, your own cooking oil would not be enough to provide feedstock for this, but if you added your oil to that collected from local, independently-operated (&amp;dagger;) restaurants, you can have a more sustainable way to reuse the oil, compared with consuming gasoline or petro-diesel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This type of process can supply biodiesel that can be run in [*most* (&amp;Dagger;) diesel engine vehicles][6], with little or no modifications (older diesel vehicles will probably need new synthetic rubber fuel lines if they had natural rubber lines before).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Waste Vegetable Oil (not biodiesel) as Fuel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to have to add to your supply with used restaurant oil, another option for people with diesel vehicles is to [buy/install a conversion kit][4] that allows you to use (filtered) waste vegetable oil **directly** in the vehicle.  Basically, the car starts on normal diesel or biodiesel.  Once the engine comes up to temperature, you flip a switch, and the fuel is then drawn from an auxiliary waste veggie oil (WVO) tank.  You normally would switch back to diesel/biodiesel before shutting down just to purge the lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of diesel vehicles eligible for WVO conversions is a bit smaller, though, and as opposed to using biodiesel, which has superior *cleansing* properties to petro-diesel, using WVO needs to be done more carefully, because you can gunk up your engine.  Older Mercedes diesels (1970s - 1990s) seem to do the best on WVO, compared to other cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Oil Criteria&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you use cooking oil to power a diesel engine, you do want to pick good oils.  Generally, [that turns out to be the same kinds of oils that are more healthy for people][2].  Veggie oils are better than animal oils.  No solid fats.  Cooking oil can be reused, and restaurants do reuse it.  The more it's reused for cooking, the more rancid and more contaminated with food stuffs, the less desirable it is for fuel feedstock.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Oil Handling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll want to collect it in clean metal or HDPE containers (5 gallon &quot;carboys&quot; work well).  At home, you need [to test your oil before using][3] (for example, to see if one restaurant's product is typically usable).  The oil then [needs to be filtered][5] with a 5 micron filter.  After you process the oil into biodiesel, make sure you have it stored safely.  Unlike gasoline, diesel doesn't ignite without high pressures.  However, your area may have storage regulations to be considered (for example, I seem to remember that California limited storage to 55 gallons or less of fuel, without a special license).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&amp;dagger; Large, chain restaurants will have rigid oil disposal contracts with rendering companies, so don't waste your time with them.  Deal directly with smaller restaurants, preferably ones you already go to, to save driving!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&amp;Dagger; Note that newer, &quot;Common Rail&quot; diesel engines with diesel particulate filters may no longer be able to run rich biodiesel blends; ironically, partly because of new emissions requirements (that are driven primarily by petro-diesel exhaust!).  So, do some research (or ask another question) about biodiesel blends appropriate for your engine.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://make-biodiesel.org/The-Appleseed-Biodiesel-Processor/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://make-biodiesel.org/Ingredients/biodiesel-feedstock-oils.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://make-biodiesel.org/Quality-Testing/titrating-wvo.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-convert-your-diesel-to-run-on-vegetable-oil&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.greasecar.com/article/one-mans-trash-another-mans-fuel&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.utahbiodieselsupply.com/blog/best-diesel-vehicles-for-biodiesel/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1212" RevisionGUID="fcf62fd9-a854-488e-9acd-9b0f30b61017" CreationDate="2013-09-13T20:24:30.100" UserId="514" Text="Categorise the bags into a maximum of four categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.G. &quot;Standard Bag&quot;, &quot;Large Bag&quot;, &quot;Small Bag&quot;, &quot;Strong Bag&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bags must then be stored consistently in your clothes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i.e. A &quot;standard bag&quot; must always be present in the front left-hand corner of your trousers. A &quot;large bag&quot; will always be present in the front right-hand corner etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So clearly they will not be visible; but this criteria will not be necessary as you will always know where they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3803" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1209" RevisionGUID="285036f9-ea9b-4e08-a83d-448baa62f797" CreationDate="2013-09-14T03:19:52.570" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/378719721124007936" />
  <row Id="3804" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1208" RevisionGUID="d499b7c5-dbc9-424b-a026-d555a77097af" CreationDate="2013-09-17T09:20:11.763" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/379897563383877632" />
  <row Id="3805" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1195" RevisionGUID="993e4670-8dbe-4807-b749-2480e8096a0c" CreationDate="2013-09-18T03:20:16.653" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/380169375405572096" />
  <row Id="3808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="86deb0ce-49e6-4507-abc0-9415561d08b3" CreationDate="2013-09-18T12:50:25.280" UserId="792" Text="We live in a house that has a heat pump system, for AC and heat, with a second-stage heating coil for aux/emergency heat.  It frequently gets down to below 30 degrees in our climate, at which point the heat pump is essentially ineffective and the electric coils switch on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being the case, I'd like to set up space heaters in one or more rooms in our 2-story house, possibly a quartz infrared heater like you see on the market nowadays, to supplement our central heat and to get the heat where it needs to be.  I hear a lot about how space heaters are a waste and don't save you any money, but that seems to be a generalization, and I'd like to hear from someone who HAS used supplemental heat such as space heaters to keep their home warm without over-taxing the heat pump or racking up a huge electric bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would a space heater help us in the winter months, or would it be wasteful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="86deb0ce-49e6-4507-abc0-9415561d08b3" CreationDate="2013-09-18T12:50:25.280" UserId="792" Text="Is it practical to use an infrared space heater along with a heat pump system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="86deb0ce-49e6-4507-abc0-9415561d08b3" CreationDate="2013-09-18T12:50:25.280" UserId="792" Text="|heating|heat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3811" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="d5213a44-fccc-4012-af17-1e51007e332e" CreationDate="2013-09-18T13:56:33.853" UserId="117" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:117,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robert Cartaino&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="2927f020-f5e2-45bb-986d-429802a4ada4" CreationDate="2013-09-19T00:05:57.787" UserId="486" Comment="rephrase to satisfy site &quot;scope&quot;" Text="We live in a house that has a heat pump system, for AC and heat, with a second-stage heating coil for aux/emergency heat.  It frequently gets down to below 30 degrees in our climate, at which point the heat pump is essentially ineffective and the electric coils switch on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being the case, I'd like to set up space heaters in one or more rooms in our 2-story house, possibly a quartz infrared heater like you see on the market nowadays, to supplement our central heat and to get the heat where it needs to be.  I hear a lot about how space heaters are a waste and don't save you any money/energy, but that seems to be a generalization, and I'd like to hear from someone who HAS used supplemental heat such as space heaters to keep their home warm without over-taxing the heat pump or using a huge amount of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would a space heater help us in the winter months, or would it be wasteful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3813" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="2927f020-f5e2-45bb-986d-429802a4ada4" CreationDate="2013-09-19T00:05:57.787" UserId="486" Comment="rephrase to satisfy site &quot;scope&quot;" Text="|energy-efficiency|heating|heat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1214" RevisionGUID="90a07ecb-ad97-417e-870e-ba963e806546" CreationDate="2013-09-19T04:09:20.890" UserId="794" Text="This isn't a complete answer but I would avoid buying PV panels built in countries with poor environmental regulations.  That would be a good place to start.  For example China.  Then if possible avoid companies that mine the materials they're built from in places like China or Africa.  Again, the regulations allow much more pollution than places like Europe and North America.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally I'd get a panel with a long life expectancy, is efficient at producing energy and is more likely to be repairable or recyclable when it does quit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1215" RevisionGUID="8d536d56-8ee7-497c-a4ad-cb9876894c43" CreationDate="2013-09-19T04:23:02.390" UserId="794" Text="The one(s) that survive/thrive in your orchard.  I don't know the specific answer to this and I don't know that anyone does.  The reason being that &quot;apple tree&quot; and mycorrhizae are not the only variables in this equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example,&#xD;&#xA;What variety of apple tree?  Are the trees healthy?  How old are they?  Is the orchard neglected or intensively maintained?  Is it an orchard or a single tree?  What other species/organisms are nearby?  Are the trees tightly spaced or well spaced?  What is the weather like Hi temps?  Lo temps?  How deep is the freeze?  How long does the freeze last?  What other organisms including fungi live in the soil already?  What does the soil consist of?  How's the drainage? How much rain does the site get?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just the tip of the iceberg and only an example of the factors that may play a role in which fungi establish a symbiotic relationship with the trees. So when you buy mycorrhizae, to my knowledge, you get a great variety.  You introduce them all and the best ones are the varieties that thrive survive multiply and get the job done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This probably isn't the answer you were looking for and if not I apologize.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3816" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="b437bfd6-af51-42ff-a349-b3f7037b0c1d" CreationDate="2013-09-19T08:44:50.310" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy-efficiency|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3817" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="6067ab10-87fa-4217-951d-0a5f21ef113a" CreationDate="2013-09-19T08:44:50.763" UserId="85" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:486,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nate&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthling&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="3818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1216" RevisionGUID="f3d4826d-d0d4-4e0a-9553-7b51038c6bd2" CreationDate="2013-09-19T15:29:59.253" UserId="462" Text="Space heaters (yes, even those fancy quartz ones) use electric resistance to generate heat. If your home's HVAC system is switching to resistance heating when it's cold outside, replacing it with space heaters should, in an ideal world, neither increase nor decrease your energy usage. If you drop the whole house temperature by 5 degrees and use a weak space heater to make up those 5 degrees just in the room you are currently using, you might see slightly lower energy usage. However, the cheapest and most sustainable way to do this is with warm clothes and blankets instead of a space heater. A side benefit of the sweater approach is that you get to avoid the fire hazards often associated with space heaters. The expensive but most comfortable solution would be to install a better HVAC system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3820" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1213" RevisionGUID="4bc80af1-e58d-4abc-a6f0-aac57fd0a888" CreationDate="2013-09-22T03:20:53.037" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/381619077749690368" />
  <row Id="3821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1217" RevisionGUID="97bb81e4-dd37-4e17-b5a6-aa1f4965f6f1" CreationDate="2013-09-23T22:44:42.153" UserId="664" Text="A place to start would be the heat output rating. The Vermont Bun Baker is rated at 30,000 Btu/hr. The Garrison wood stove (1976 model 2) is rated at 37,000 Btu/hr. But these are hard to compare since the newer oven is likely the EPA rating and the older one is likely a maximum output rating. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you need to consider how fast your home looses heat, outside temperatures, etc. The manufacturer claims the Bun Baker will heat 700-900 sq. ft. The comments from owners seem to agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://woodstoves.net/cookstoves/vermontbunbaker.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/garrison-wood-stove-baffle-warping-problem.104162/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://chimneysweeponline.com/hobtucmp.htm&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1218" RevisionGUID="31367ce0-7cd3-476b-8140-124682d68342" CreationDate="2013-09-23T22:54:01.923" UserId="664" Text="Plastic bags can be cut into strips and made into rope of various thicknesses and durability. You could then tie the bottles together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.instructables.com/id/Useful-Rope-or-Cord-from-Plastic-Shopping-Bags/&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KiZXRK5h44" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1219" RevisionGUID="dc9ac261-b74d-487a-bf4f-2264ad6b6aa7" CreationDate="2013-09-24T13:49:10.397" UserId="778" Text="What a great question. It really got me interested in this. I have a biology background and even now as a forester, apples are still among my absolute favorite trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a little bit of digging and found what may be some good information for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This one cites Pitholithus tinctorious.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[And this is from the Journal of American Society of horticultural sciences and the authors being some of our Quebec neighbors.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This and the previous link both refer to Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae][3]. This is a master's these UBC. Note you can download the PDF.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A third study from our friends in NZ.][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A fourth study from the venerable OSU and was a test of 6 specific fungal species.][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here is a casual conversation over at [holistic Orchard Network][6] and talks about utilizing your local mycorrhizae, this might be your winner. Shout-out to Vermont!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, and you may be aware of this, the USDA's Agricola database/catalog of ag literature is always a great resource and I wouldn't be shy about contacting someone at Cornell's field research station in Geneva, NY! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ibiblio.org/london/orgfarm/fruit/apple--trees-and-mycorrhizae&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://journal.ashspublications.org/content/119/3/578.full.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/27453?show=full&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.nzpps.org/journal/61/nzpp_610480.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://scholarsarchive.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/23643?show=full&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://groworganicapples.com/phorum/read.php?15,615" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3824" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1202" RevisionGUID="460a12c7-21d8-48f7-a42d-bb91d481bfa6" CreationDate="2013-09-24T18:21:29.837" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/382570500360519680" />
  <row Id="3825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1220" RevisionGUID="3cb430e3-4004-411b-91f9-85992e0f099c" CreationDate="2013-09-24T19:09:29.213" UserId="462" Text="The [United States Federal Trade Commission](http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0122-bamboo-fabrics) reports that many &quot;bamboo&quot; fabrics are simply rayon that had been produced using bamboo as a raw source material. This appears to be the prevalent method of producing fabrics from bamboo, and several companies in the USA [have been penalized for false advertising](http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/01/bamboo.shtm) as a result of claims they made regarding &quot;bamboo&quot; textiles. Based on this and the Wikipedia article linked in the question comments, I am inclined to say that you need to do very careful research to avoid purchasing &quot;bamboo&quot; products that (1) were processed using harsh chemicals, (2) present possible environmental risks due to the use of those chemicals, and (4) won't readily biodegrade. The answers to (3) and (5) can probably be found by researching rayon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, I think it's best to avoid &quot;bamboo&quot; textiles unless you have found convincing evidence that they were produced in an environmentally-friendly and sustainable way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1221" RevisionGUID="069ac99c-e65d-4af8-9ee4-435a429eb2b2" CreationDate="2013-09-25T15:05:51.483" UserId="624" Text="FYI - you don't have to have a spinning wheel to spin small to moderate amounts of yarn.  A hand-spinning spindle will work great, is much less expensive to buy and far less complicated to make, and is also very portable. I spun great yarn using a top whorl drop spindle for a couple of years or so before I finally (mostly) moved on to using a spinning wheel.  However, I still spin my dog's hair this way as well as other specialty fibers, because I find it easier to manage fine fibers with a hand spindle than with a spinning wheel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you haven't looked into drop spindle hand-spinning, you might want to do that before investing a lot of time and effort into trying to make a spinning wheel.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1222" RevisionGUID="b099ff63-d658-47b7-a678-c6729b56bf80" CreationDate="2013-09-25T15:34:51.140" UserId="624" Text="Another option is to add enough &quot;browns&quot; (dry leaves, grass, paper, etc) to attempt to tip it back over into aerobic decomposition.  Yes, this will still smell, but it might get you out of the slime stage a bit faster.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good book for beginning composters, btw, is Let It Rot.  You can often find these used for not too much in bookstores.  Your local Ag Extension Service may also have classes and handouts for you to use to get up to speed on the different techniques.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1223" RevisionGUID="eef20cb0-eb6d-4186-bfcb-025d4771a6b2" CreationDate="2013-09-25T20:45:34.477" UserId="804" Text="Want to build one of those old-style water wheels powered by a waterfall. Is there a better way than the ones that were around since the start of the industrial revoloution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1223" RevisionGUID="eef20cb0-eb6d-4186-bfcb-025d4771a6b2" CreationDate="2013-09-25T20:45:34.477" UserId="804" Text="How to build a waterfall powered electric generator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3830" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1223" RevisionGUID="eef20cb0-eb6d-4186-bfcb-025d4771a6b2" CreationDate="2013-09-25T20:45:34.477" UserId="804" Text="|water|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1224" RevisionGUID="faed10bc-c228-4eff-8b9c-db18cff4a671" CreationDate="2013-09-25T22:42:41.557" UserId="85" Text="I guess it depends on what you mean by &quot;better&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional way needs a pipe, the [penstock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penstock), feeding as much clean water as possible from as high as possible directly onto a [pelton turbine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelton_wheel), which is connected to a generator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The drawbacks are that the water must be a clean a possible and you should use all water for maximum efficiency. You also have to source a decent pelton turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the ecosystem of your stream/river, this setup usually prevents fish travelling past your power plant. It seems to be general permaculture knowledge that the nutrients, which get washed out into the sea travel back up in form of small snails, crayfish and the like, which, it is believed, play an important part in keeping a land healthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fairly new (about 10 years) system is known under the cumbersome name &quot;[gravitation water vortex power plant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_water_vortex_power_plant)&quot;, where water is fed into a pool tangentially to the edge of the pool. The water forms a vertex, as in your bathtub, and blades are inserted into the vertex to slow down the rotation. The blades are connected to a generator and give you the electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![vortex power plant](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Wasserwirbelkraftwerk.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The picture explains everything, but you can also [watch it in action](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAuX8I2zgmA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the water is fastest at the edges and slowest near the centre, fish and other freshwater creatures can travel past your power plant. (Also, not really applicable when you already have a waterfall, you don't need a large &quot;head&quot;, i.e. a large difference in height.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a very rough estimate, a small stream (maybe 2-3 meters wide) can provide electricity for several households." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1224" RevisionGUID="bd81b22d-6a18-4923-8a87-15bbb7dc6dac" CreationDate="2013-09-26T02:12:41.240" UserId="486" Comment="vertex -&gt; vortex, minor grammar" Text="I guess it depends on what you mean by &quot;better&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional way needs a pipe, the [penstock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penstock), feeding as much clean water as possible from as high as possible directly onto a [pelton turbine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelton_wheel), which is connected to a generator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The drawbacks are that the water must be as clean as possible and you should use all water for maximum efficiency. You also have to source a decent pelton turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the ecosystem of your stream/river, this setup usually prevents fish traveling past your power plant. It seems to be general permaculture knowledge that the nutrients, which get washed out into the sea, travel back up in the form of small snails, crayfish and the like, which, it is believed, play an important part in keeping a land healthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fairly new (about 10 years) system is known under the cumbersome name &quot;[gravitation water vortex power plant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_water_vortex_power_plant)&quot;, where water is fed into a pool tangential to the edge of the pool. The water forms a vortex, as in your bathtub, and blades are inserted into the vortex to slow down the rotation. The blades are connected to a generator and give you the electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![vortex power plant](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Wasserwirbelkraftwerk.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The picture explains everything, but you can also [watch it in action](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAuX8I2zgmA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the water is fastest at the edges and slowest near the centre, fish and other freshwater creatures can travel past your power plant. (Also, not really applicable when you already have a waterfall, you don't need a large &quot;head&quot;, i.e. a large difference in height.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a very rough estimate, a small stream (maybe 2-3 meters wide) can provide electricity for several households." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1227" RevisionGUID="b7045825-f250-4f5d-a5f3-26a103dc5604" CreationDate="2013-09-26T19:40:53.017" UserId="5" Text="I have a problem what to do with used cotton clothing (socks etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I leave in Germany, I have the following choice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - glass - obviously not the case&#xD;&#xA; - paper - could cotton be converted into maculature?&#xD;&#xA; - valuable materials - designed for plastics, metal etc. - not sure what with textiles&#xD;&#xA; - compost - well, it's organic matter, anyway&#xD;&#xA; - WC - well, theoretically the bacteria in wastewater plant could deal with it as well" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1227" RevisionGUID="b7045825-f250-4f5d-a5f3-26a103dc5604" CreationDate="2013-09-26T19:40:53.017" UserId="5" Text="To which container do the cotton things belong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1227" RevisionGUID="b7045825-f250-4f5d-a5f3-26a103dc5604" CreationDate="2013-09-26T19:40:53.017" UserId="5" Text="|recycling|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1228" RevisionGUID="a2d24103-dc8c-4b67-8feb-c958356fba94" CreationDate="2013-09-26T21:21:31.377" UserId="85" Text="I think there are textile recycling collection points in Germany. E.g. http://www.altkleider.net/. Maybe ask at your local city office for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, composting is better than land-fill or burning, but recycling the fibres would turn out to be much more sustainable (just as for paper)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1227" RevisionGUID="72ab872d-9f4f-4c66-a53d-ad1072fda5cd" CreationDate="2013-09-26T21:35:55.317" UserId="486" Comment="spelling, clarified acronym for readability, link for unusual terminology" Text="I have a problem what to do with used cotton clothing (socks etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in Germany, I have the following choices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - glass - obviously not the case&#xD;&#xA; - paper - could cotton be converted into [maculature][1]?&#xD;&#xA; - valuable materials - designed for plastics, metal etc. - not sure what with textiles&#xD;&#xA; - compost - well, it's organic matter, anyway&#xD;&#xA; - WC (toilet) - well, theoretically the bacteria in wastewater plant could deal with it as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maculature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1229" RevisionGUID="4052aae2-c13c-49bb-b94c-b051090a359a" CreationDate="2013-09-27T13:17:13.300" UserId="803" Text="**Biogas**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not for DIY (as far as I know), but I know that it can be turned into biogas through fermentation. In my city (Zurich, Switzerland) food scraps are collected and they specifically request for fats and cooking oil (also liquid ones soaked up by a paper towel). Of course it's up to debate how sustainable that is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1230" RevisionGUID="03cca480-3c2a-497b-bd64-749d443c85f5" CreationDate="2013-09-27T15:15:56.397" UserId="810" Text="As for the generator, scavenging a permanent magnet DC motor off an old treadmill is a good start. There a LOT of treadmills out there. When I got my camper I thought it would be nice to have some additional power from the wind to supplement my solar panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put a listing on CraigsList asking for free treadmills for parts. The next day I had one with a good DC motor. Cost me nothing. I still have to complete that project, I would like to be able to put a water wheel on it, mount it on stakes in a creek or river in addition to putting it on a mast with wind blades instead if wind is more plentiful at a given site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1231" RevisionGUID="b976f4d2-4c14-47cc-826b-02064b73e3b8" CreationDate="2013-09-28T16:08:29.600" UserId="814" Text="I have a HP Deskjet printer that does not allows me to use refilled cartridges, therefore every time it runs out of ink I need to buy a new cartridge, which implies a lot of waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how to buy a printer that does not present this issue, and in general that has a low enviromental impact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1231" RevisionGUID="b976f4d2-4c14-47cc-826b-02064b73e3b8" CreationDate="2013-09-28T16:08:29.600" UserId="814" Text="How to buy an ecofriendly printer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1231" RevisionGUID="b976f4d2-4c14-47cc-826b-02064b73e3b8" CreationDate="2013-09-28T16:08:29.600" UserId="814" Text="|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1232" RevisionGUID="b6a58240-7da3-4194-9b50-6c2e2f55581c" CreationDate="2013-09-28T16:10:54.413" UserId="815" Text="Here's the simplest way to do conversions like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;180 liters * 45 degrees Celsius = 8100 kilo-calories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google knows how to do conversions: [9.41400 kilowatt hours][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it knows how to do arithmetic: [2.8242][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=8100%20kilocalories%20to%20killwatt%20hours&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=9.41400%20*%20.30" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="f29ab50a-37e1-40ae-b0e9-0599f6fcd27c" CreationDate="2013-09-28T23:02:13.350" UserId="674" Text="While you may not be able to get them refilled yourself, HP does run a recycling program for them, free of charge: https://h30248.www3.hp.com/recycle/supplies/index-hpe.asp?__cc=us&amp;__la=en&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Didn't look in to whether they simply refill and resell them or if they actually melt the cartridges down and start from scratch...either way it's better than the landfill. Unfortunately, you're still stuck buying new cartridges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lexmark runs a similar program that rewards you with a free cartridge for every 5 you send in to be recycled...better than getting nothing in return. They also give you a free one for every 5 you buy: http://www.lexmarkrewards.com/home_us.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as companies go, HP appears to be near setting the bar for environmentally friendly electronics: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/cool-it/Campaign-analysis/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1234" RevisionGUID="c349f425-713c-4883-b5db-4db8f49b0f84" CreationDate="2013-09-29T20:19:34.460" UserId="60" Text="I'm considering to have my car engine chip tuned. I'd like to increase the fuel efficiency of the engine. Increasing the power of the engine would be only a secondary advantage of doing so. Most of the chip tuning companies in my country offer tuning for max power or for max fuel economy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is this: **is there anything like economy car engine chip tuning that really works? How much improvement can I expect or what are your real-life results (if any)?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are [other ways of increasing fuel economy (mileage)][1], but this is an important one. There is a general consensus that bigger and especially diesel (turbo) engines are better to tune. My car is a 2007 VW Golf 1.9 TDI, but I wouldn't limit answers by that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/486/how-to-drive-to-be-the-most-fuel-efficient" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1234" RevisionGUID="c349f425-713c-4883-b5db-4db8f49b0f84" CreationDate="2013-09-29T20:19:34.460" UserId="60" Text="Can chip tuning make a car more fuel-effective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1234" RevisionGUID="c349f425-713c-4883-b5db-4db8f49b0f84" CreationDate="2013-09-29T20:19:34.460" UserId="60" Text="|cars|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1187" RevisionGUID="9c6ea3e3-48c2-43e4-a97d-17c9953b446c" CreationDate="2013-09-30T08:39:57.433" UserId="96" Comment="added 1158 characters in body" Text="It is basically possible to upgrade Biogas to something very close to natural gas, and then use it to replace said gas. Biogas to grid is a mature technology now, with about 100 active plants in Germany alone. It is also often discussed to use the upgraded biogas as a vehicle fuel, replacing compressed natural gas (CNG). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the fueling station is taking the gas from the grid, it does not make a difference if it is natural gas or biomethane. I'm looking for installations where the gas is produced, stored, upgraded and filled into vehicles on site. As we are talking about gas pressures upwards of 200 bar, energy efficient handling of the gas is not trivial. Any pointer to reference material that goes into the gas management would be greatly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit to add (after Energy Numbers Answer):  &#xD;&#xA;Gas upgrading to grid-qualioty is to me an understood problem. The headaches arise with the vehicle fuel application. While a gas to grid installation can basically feed gs into the grid as it is produced, an installation for vehicle fuel would face a very uneven demand (the production is always very steady).  &#xD;&#xA;Depending on gas upgrading technology, the gas is delvered at practically air pressure to 5-15 bar. Vehicle fuel needs 200-250 bar. Compressed Natural Gas fueling stations do an interesting juggling act with 3 banks of gas tanks (hih-, mid-, ow pressure) to minimise the energy expenditure in gas compression - and they have the gas grid that delivers on demand.  &#xD;&#xA;With a constant supply (that can't be switched off), you'd need to store that gas between the tanking either at low pressure (and we may be talking 1000 m³/h), or compress it and store it at high pressure - and then minimize the loss of energy when the compressed gas is expanded into a vehicle tank. Also, high pressure storage costs serious money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is a cost- and energy-effcient way to match supply and demand here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="cc2cfea4-5bbe-4278-9965-82d5d28e6759" CreationDate="2013-09-30T14:44:53.433" UserId="817" Text="There are some printers which are compatible with a [Continuous Ink System][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today I've buy one of this systems to my printer. So I cant tell you right know if this systems relay works or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to make any publicity to any product, but I think if you [google][2] a bit you will find some stores and see in which printers this can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_ink_system&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=cis%20#q=buy%20ink%20ciss%20system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1235" RevisionGUID="225f7be1-8deb-42ba-9426-5d0ac955d57f" CreationDate="2013-09-30T17:28:36.460" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="There are some printers which are compatible with a [Continuous Ink System][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today I bought one of these for my printer, so I can't tell you right know if this system works or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't want to make publicity for a particular product, but I think if you [google][2] a bit you will find some stores and see in which printers this can be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_ink_system&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=cis%20#q=buy%20ink%20ciss%20system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3860" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1234" RevisionGUID="aa37a4d6-d0ab-4042-9736-7ce70afa26e0" CreationDate="2013-09-30T21:22:13.807" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/384790310397968384" />
  <row Id="3861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="f2bf18ed-e2b6-437e-806c-f15095c76a7a" CreationDate="2013-10-01T03:21:40.613" UserId="659" Comment="change link that was not displaying usefully in raw form" Text="While you may not be able to get them refilled yourself, [HP does run a recycling program for them][1], free of charge: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Didn't look in to whether they simply refill and resell them or if they actually melt the cartridges down and start from scratch...either way it's better than the landfill. Unfortunately, you're still stuck buying new cartridges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lexmark runs a similar program that rewards you with a free cartridge for every 5 you send in to be recycled...better than getting nothing in return. They also give you a free one for every 5 you buy: http://www.lexmarkrewards.com/home_us.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as companies go, HP appears to be near setting the bar for environmentally friendly electronics: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/cool-it/Campaign-analysis/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://h30248.www3.hp.com/recycle/supplies/index-hpe.asp?__cc=us&amp;__la=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3862" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="f2bf18ed-e2b6-437e-806c-f15095c76a7a" CreationDate="2013-10-01T03:21:40.613" Comment="Proposed by 659 approved by -1 edit id of 168" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="b7de0875-9951-4886-96ab-2e92f1558597" CreationDate="2013-10-01T03:21:40.613" UserId="674" Comment="correct link that was not displaying usefully in raw form" Text="While you may not be able to get them refilled yourself, HP does run a recycling program for them, free of charge: http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-information/environment/product-recycling.html?jumpid=re_r138_eco_product-recycling#.Uko_h4aZem4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Didn't look in to whether they simply refill and resell them or if they actually melt the cartridges down and start from scratch...either way it's better than the landfill. Unfortunately, you're still stuck buying new cartridges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lexmark runs a similar program that rewards you with a free cartridge for every 5 you send in to be recycled...better than getting nothing in return. They also give you a free one for every 5 you buy: http://www.lexmarkrewards.com/home_us.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as companies go, HP appears to be near setting the bar for environmentally friendly electronics: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/cool-it/Campaign-analysis/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://h30248.www3.hp.com/recycle/supplies/index-hpe.asp?__cc=us&amp;__la=en" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1236" RevisionGUID="a3b0050c-dbd0-41e0-a825-7a822bfb9339" CreationDate="2013-10-02T07:59:38.227" UserId="96" Text="I just stumbled across the concept of the [pulser pump] - a pump that uses water flow with a small head to pump part of the water to a higher head. Simiar to a ram pump, but without any moving parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could be interesting as an alternative to small scale hydro, as an irrigation system and - since the pump also aerates the water - even for water treatment. At least, those are the [claims that the inventor makes](http://www.altenergymag.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=03.10.01&amp;article=pulser) and I find them plausible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On google scholar I found no articles about the pulser pump, but I may have missed something. I'd be interested in Articles that answer one or more of these questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How can such a pump be modelled mathematically, how efficient is it?&#xD;&#xA;* How effective is it at aerating water?&#xD;&#xA;* Does the pump still work with slurries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1236" RevisionGUID="a3b0050c-dbd0-41e0-a825-7a822bfb9339" CreationDate="2013-10-02T07:59:38.227" UserId="96" Text="Where can I find an in-depth treatment of a Pulser Pump?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1236" RevisionGUID="a3b0050c-dbd0-41e0-a825-7a822bfb9339" CreationDate="2013-10-02T07:59:38.227" UserId="96" Text="|water|water-management|waste-water|pump-capacity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1237" RevisionGUID="9cb3c56b-9d46-401f-a1e9-b288e68935ba" CreationDate="2013-10-02T14:31:31.180" UserId="96" Text="[The Banki Turnine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banki_turbine) is often mentioned in connection with small cale hydro and DIY projects, because it's reasonable efficient (no numbers) but far easier to build than a pelton turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This document](http://www.cd3wd.com/cd3wd_40/vita/bankitur/EN/BANKITUR.HTM) seems to contain detailed instructions for building on, including the welding of the turbine itself. Ossberger seems to be the biggest name in supplying these turbines, if you want to buy one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: I'm not in hydro and have never built such a system, so I can't really vouch for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1237" RevisionGUID="22ccdce6-34e5-4e0d-a25a-3a0f9312e07d" CreationDate="2013-10-02T14:51:58.943" UserId="96" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="[The Banki Turnine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banki_turbine) is often mentioned in connection with small cale hydro and DIY projects, because it's far easier to build than a pelton turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ossberger](http://www.ossberger.de/cms/en/hydro/the-ossberger-turbine-for-asynchronous-and-synchronous-water-plants/), one major supplier, claim 80% efficiency for a small scale turbine over a wide range of flows - this will, of course, be lower for a home built one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This document](http://www.cd3wd.com/cd3wd_40/vita/bankitur/EN/BANKITUR.HTM) seems to contain detailed instructions for building on, including the welding of the turbine itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: I'm not in hydro and have never built such a system, so I can't really vouch for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3871" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1236" RevisionGUID="dafc1d01-d52c-49de-a8be-0229e4305084" CreationDate="2013-10-02T15:22:28.343" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/385424550076633088" />
  <row Id="3872" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1231" RevisionGUID="a0b605bd-12c2-454a-9020-fb83c0de6898" CreationDate="2013-10-03T03:22:30.097" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/385605751441731584" />
  <row Id="3873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1238" RevisionGUID="ac60e591-e751-47d0-b10c-690ac0845581" CreationDate="2013-10-03T07:23:47.190" UserId="99" Text="I found [this page](http://www.instructables.com/community/Pulser-pump-research-from-Loughborough-University/) that contains a link to a [MSc dissertation on the Pulser pump](http://www.instructables.com/files/orig/F7X/LHV7/HHS9LEIB/F7XLHV7HHS9LEIB.pdf). The dissertation describes 2 experiments with Pulser pumps and shows that the efficiency is around 1% at best (page 56) and that the author found&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...inflow, pumping height and the number of riser pipes to be critical variables. It was also discovered that there is potential for the Pulser Pump but that it suffered in practicality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dissertation does mention aerating and slurries but it doesn't say anything more than the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...it has been used to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Aerate water (Removes Sulphur, Nitrogen and Phosphorous compounds) which provides &#xD;&#xA;a better environment for marine life. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Decompose  animal  slurry  faster,  also  removing  the  threat  of  hydrogen  sulphide  gas build-up by pumping air into the waste. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1239" RevisionGUID="e797d7f1-9e3b-43b0-a809-c54e4d210844" CreationDate="2013-10-03T22:19:03.183" UserId="824" Text="I have been using a CISS (Continuous Ink Supply System) for some time on my Epson RX610. Purchased through eBay it is a cheap investment. Be aware of this regarding inks: http://www.cnet.com.au/photo-printing-when-inks-aint-inks-240004041.htm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally the printer &quot;Cannot recognise&quot; the non-genuine ink cartridge, but remove and re-insert fixes that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having had the success with the Epson, I purchased a CISS for the HP Oficejet we have at our Men's Shed. It too works fine, although the printer recognises that &quot;counterfeit&quot; cartridges have been fitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before rushing out and buying a CISS, please view a Youtube video showing the installation of one - preferably into your printer model.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1239" RevisionGUID="04dabdf3-19e5-4806-9553-1a7f45148995" CreationDate="2013-10-04T08:20:24.937" UserId="99" Comment="add summary of the link in case the link breaks " Text="I have been using a CISS (Continuous Ink Supply System) for some time on my Epson RX610. Purchased through eBay it is a cheap investment. Be aware of the following regarding inks: [the most important part of the whole printing system is really the quality of the inks and not so much the hardware](http://www.cnet.com.au/photo-printing-when-inks-aint-inks-240004041.htm.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally the printer &quot;Cannot recognise&quot; the non-genuine ink cartridge, but remove and re-insert fixes that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having had the success with the Epson, I purchased a CISS for the HP Officejet we have at our Men's Shed. It too works fine, although the printer recognises that &quot;counterfeit&quot; cartridges have been fitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before rushing out and buying a CISS, please view a Youtube video showing the installation of one - preferably into your printer model.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3881" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="9d6c4efb-bbc8-4177-99b3-707a10575e85" CreationDate="2013-10-04T09:07:48.563" UserId="99" Comment="4" />
  <row Id="3882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1241" RevisionGUID="30422cbd-cfe6-40f0-960a-1590fb232a36" CreationDate="2013-10-04T21:37:28.573" UserId="392" Text="I'm finding seemingly contradictory information with a normal search (forums).  Many sources say that their own goats love pine needles and there's nothing wrong with letting them eat them.  Occasionally somebody jumps in to say that pine needles can cause a miscarriage in bred does.  I suppose both can be true.  Any reliable source of info out there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1241" RevisionGUID="30422cbd-cfe6-40f0-960a-1590fb232a36" CreationDate="2013-10-04T21:37:28.573" UserId="392" Text="Are pine needles poisonous to goats?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1241" RevisionGUID="30422cbd-cfe6-40f0-960a-1590fb232a36" CreationDate="2013-10-04T21:37:28.573" UserId="392" Text="|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1242" RevisionGUID="c539636b-8b52-4f13-8ef7-a05fddfefd39" CreationDate="2013-10-06T12:59:25.033" UserId="827" Text="I'm looking to offset the carbon footprint of my wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to do it by helping out some local community solar projects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've calculated that the weddings footprint will be about 23,000 KG of CO2, and that this would be offset by about 37,000 kWh of solar generation (if 1kg of CO2 = 1.64 kWh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But over what period do I measure those kWH to calculate how much of a contribution to community solar is meaningful?&#xD;&#xA;Over 1 year? Over 5 years? And how do I estimate what would be generated over that time period - I know peak will be far from actual, and how many sunny days do you estimate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's an appropriate way to calculate the appropriate contribution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1242" RevisionGUID="c539636b-8b52-4f13-8ef7-a05fddfefd39" CreationDate="2013-10-06T12:59:25.033" UserId="827" Text="Offsetting with Solar, over what period do you measure the carbon offset" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1242" RevisionGUID="c539636b-8b52-4f13-8ef7-a05fddfefd39" CreationDate="2013-10-06T12:59:25.033" UserId="827" Text="|solar-power|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="67bdf778-545c-47c0-824a-83f82649cea4" CreationDate="2013-10-06T13:40:48.293" UserId="48" Text="There isn't an easy answer on offsetting time: in theory, the sooner the better, because every year that passes with higher greenhouse gas levels. increases the heat content of the Earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted it just to come out net zero addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, over the PV's whole lifetime, then reckon on 20 years if it's monocrystalline. Maybe 15 years if it's thin film. We don't have a lot of experience of the latest thin-film tech, so lifetimes are a bit uncertain, but 15-20 years won't be too far from the end result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for average production, [there are sites like PVGIS to help you calculate that][1]; here in Britain, and in Germany, average capacity factors are 9-10%, so you might reckon on say 800 full-load hours equivalent, per year. So if a system was 1kW peak, that would be 800 kWh each year. Accumulated over 20 years, that's 16,000 kWh. You might want to reduce that by 10-15% to account for the greenhouse-gas footprint of manufacture of the PV system itself: specifics would vary, depending on the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/155/48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="51e2a65a-741a-4d82-9e3f-a83bed2ef5c3" CreationDate="2013-10-06T17:26:56.860" UserId="601" Text="I left rechargeable AA batteries in the charger for 3 times as much as it's recommended, that is for 36 hours. &#xD;&#xA;Can I still use them?&#xD;&#xA;Did it damage them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="51e2a65a-741a-4d82-9e3f-a83bed2ef5c3" CreationDate="2013-10-06T17:26:56.860" UserId="601" Text="Forgot rechargeable batteries in the charger" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="51e2a65a-741a-4d82-9e3f-a83bed2ef5c3" CreationDate="2013-10-06T17:26:56.860" UserId="601" Text="|reuse|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1245" RevisionGUID="7c444a32-d5a9-4908-a1e2-d81c624f1895" CreationDate="2013-10-06T18:54:20.103" UserId="48" Text="It's very unlikely: all the modern chargers I've seen have an automatic cutout that prevents over-charging, by monitoring the batteries' voltage, and stopping the current when it reaches a certain level. As rechargeable batteries reach fully charged, the voltage rises relatively quickly, and the cutout gets activated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the batteries were exceptionally warm when you removed them from the charger, that could indicate a problem: but that problem would be shortened battery life, rather than anything more dramatic. Otherwise, you'll be fine. (as long as there's no visible signs of damage, such as a cracked casing or leakage of electrolyte)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3894" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1244" RevisionGUID="960267e6-a6f3-4884-91cb-3ecc7b2282ac" CreationDate="2013-10-07T00:22:48.537" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/387010081843597312" />
  <row Id="3895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1246" RevisionGUID="1c7cfcd0-e0a5-4318-a0d0-36d6ce685540" CreationDate="2013-10-07T21:54:58.150" UserId="664" Text="The answer you are looking for would be contained in a **Life Cycle Assessment** (LCA). For an LCA you first want to determine the **boundaries** that are important to your question. Are you considering cradle to grave (disposal)? Cradle to cradle (recycling after use)? What are the boundaries for recycled source materials if used to make the light bulbs? The boundaries are a *subjective choice*, but you will want to be aware that different manufacturers may give you data with different boundaries and you will need to account for that when possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Side note: energy is just one of many environmental performance indicators that may be included in an LCA.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The different industries are in the process of developing **Product Category Rules** (PCR) which set guidelines for how to measure environmental impacts appropriate to their product. These rules are developed by consensus of industry experts in accordance with several ISO standards (14025, 14040-14043, 21930, etc.) and allow for fair comparisons between the products of different manufacturers. The PCRs are just being developed, so they can be hard to find. Here is an example for [LED lighting](http://pcr-library.edf.org.tw/data/taiwan/201212_EPD-PCR_%20Electronics%20_%20LED%20Luminaries%20For%20General%20Lighting.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the PCR has been developed, manufacturers can produce **Environmental Product Declarations** (EPD) for their products, which are then verified by a third party (an organization like UL, appropriate to the product). The [US Lifecycle Inventory Database](http://www.nrel.gov/lci/) is one organization that is trying to compile the EPDs from various manufacturers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all a long way of saying that your question may be even more complex than you realize. There are lots of people working towards not just an answer, but a structure to give that answer relevant context. The terminology above will help you find that answer when it becomes available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1247" RevisionGUID="7dbe80f2-c4b3-4ea4-8fc5-b10d56cd9813" CreationDate="2013-10-07T22:27:58.590" UserId="664" Text="The regulations are still in flux as recently as 23 September 2013, with the [Renewable Heat Payment Plan](http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generating-energy/Getting-money-back/Renewable-Heat-Premium-Payment-Phase-2) (RHPP) extended to offer one-time grants to households through spring 2014.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [ofgam website](https://www.ofgem.gov.uk//environmental-programmes/renewable-heat-incentive-rhi) and [RHI website](http://www.rhincentive.co.uk/RHI/regulation/residential/) provide good resources on the latest regarding the RHI domestic programme. The eligibility guidelines are quite long to cover the variety of cases, so they recommend calling the Energy Savings Advice Service, telephone 0300 123 1234, for queries regarding specific households." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="b2c33677-ff45-445e-b3f6-f3c12275bd53" CreationDate="2013-10-08T15:18:36.000" UserId="519" Text="There is a valid fuss and concern about palm oil for a few reasons. To myself the main concern is the destruction of ecology and habitat for species in the countries which are increasingly producing palm oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I have the same concern about coco oil and other coco products or do they have a lesser impact ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(I would have tagged this as 'non-mineral-oil' but lack reputation)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3898" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="b2c33677-ff45-445e-b3f6-f3c12275bd53" CreationDate="2013-10-08T15:18:36.000" UserId="519" Text="palm oil vs coco oil" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3899" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="b2c33677-ff45-445e-b3f6-f3c12275bd53" CreationDate="2013-10-08T15:18:36.000" UserId="519" Text="|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3900" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="19336a5b-3359-42dd-b9f0-73da08891318" CreationDate="2013-10-09T18:22:53.673" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/388006669760086017" />
  <row Id="3901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1249" RevisionGUID="0660adf3-35e7-45fc-bae0-010df01944ac" CreationDate="2013-10-10T05:23:08.167" UserId="836" Text="What is the most efficient way to deal with electronic wastes like old computers, tvs,etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically, there are some old CD's and DVD's with me. I don't want to just dump them in soil. What should I do with old CD's,DVD's and ancient floppy disks?       " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3902" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1249" RevisionGUID="0660adf3-35e7-45fc-bae0-010df01944ac" CreationDate="2013-10-10T05:23:08.167" UserId="836" Text="What is the most efficient way to deal with electronic wastes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3903" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1249" RevisionGUID="0660adf3-35e7-45fc-bae0-010df01944ac" CreationDate="2013-10-10T05:23:08.167" UserId="836" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1250" RevisionGUID="5e09114b-0cd0-4455-a4e5-2ed15c07bd74" CreationDate="2013-10-10T12:09:30.800" UserId="99" Text=" There is a lot of information and research on how the production of palm oil has severe negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (for example [this paper](http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/19109/InTech-The_impact_of_oil_palm_expansion_on_environmental_change_putting_conservation_research_in_context.pdf), [this paper](http://www.ecology.ethz.ch/publications/2010/2010/Wilcove_2010_BiodiversityConservation.pdf) and [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_palm_oil)). However, I have found that reliable information on how coconut oil is produced is rather scarce. There are several claims about why oil from coconut trees (cocos nucifera) is more sustainable than oil from oil palms (elaeis guineensis), but if have not been able to find any scientific evidence for those claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reasoning seems to be that many coconut palms are not grown in large plantations, so no rain forests have removed for them. Although coconut plantations exists, I haven't been able to find any reports that rainforests have been cleared to create those coconut plantations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people also report other benefits of coco trees over palm trees, but most of these claims are difficult to prove. For example on [this page](http://www.ecos.com/sustainabilitychemsub.html) it is claimed that coconut trees: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. are considerably easy to replace&#xD;&#xA;2. grow in almost any kind of soil, even sandy beaches&#xD;&#xA;3. live and bear fruit for up to more than sixty years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the author doesn't really compare coco oil with palm oil and according to the [Malaysian Palm Oil Board](http://www.palmoilworld.org/about_malaysian-industry.html) oil palm has a much higher oil yield per hectare per year than coconut palms, so that would actually be in favor of palm oil from a sustainability viewpoint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:** there are indications that coconut oil is more sustainable than palm oil, mainly because no rainforests have been cleared for the production of coconut oil, but it is difficult to find any hard evidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3905" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="463fb38e-e205-4c14-9f12-3814373fe0de" CreationDate="2013-10-10T12:11:44.950" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|ecological-footprint|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3906" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1249" RevisionGUID="38ce538f-29f7-416c-8421-a0eb37a49496" CreationDate="2013-10-10T21:23:02.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/388414393983463424" />
  <row Id="3907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1251" RevisionGUID="d49aac88-8336-436d-a6c6-66dff3eef213" CreationDate="2013-10-10T22:38:35.513" UserId="624" Text="I don't know of any wide-spread recycling programs that actually melt CDs and DVDs down and reuse the materials, and, as you said putting them into the landfill is a problem.  Therefore, I would look into recycling them myself into new useful tools or objects.  You can do many things with them that are not only useful, but somewhat ornamental as well. I'll give some ideas and some links below to get you started. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make hand-spinning spindles from them and use them to learn how to hand-spin fibers, or donate them to a fiber guild for their beginner's classes.  http://danielson.laurentian.ca/qualityoflife/Fulltext/Textiles/Making_a_cd_drop_spindle.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can tie them to your fruit trees and shrubs with recycled twine to keep birds out of your fruit. http://organicgardening.about.com/od/fruits/a/birdsberries.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can weave them together with yarn, wire or ribbon and make reflective curtains for your windows.  http://www.interweavestore.com/cool-cd-curtain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also make decent coasters.  http://www.wikihow.com/Design-a-CD-Coaster&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, if you are more into the artsy side of things, this page has some pretty cool ideas!  http://theverybesttop10.com/2013/03/13/uses-of-old-compact-discs/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3908" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1242" RevisionGUID="d61b9ee4-fabb-4ec9-8da8-00c4cac7b1be" CreationDate="2013-10-11T00:23:02.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/388459692240166913" />
  <row Id="3909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1252" RevisionGUID="0ef606f0-47c2-4fe4-8eda-78f7c75d28c3" CreationDate="2013-10-11T02:23:22.773" UserId="674" Text="Best Buy accepts many electronics and accessories for recycling, free of charge.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Global-Promotions/Recycling-Electronics/pcmcat149900050025.c?id=pcmcat149900050025&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are convenient drop boxes for things like CDs, DVDs, and their cases, rechargeable batteries, etc. in the entryway to most stores. Should be pretty quick and painless to stop by a nearby location. For larger things like televisions, you need to actually take it into the store to the customer service desk and fill out a quick form about the item and your consenting to have it recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also organizations that accept items via the mail, such as http://www.cdrecyclingcenter.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, I'd suggest selling or giving away any worthy items via eBay, Half.com, Craigslist, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a bit of a risk though, no way to be sure the next person to use it will dispose of it responsibly...but its useful life is being extended...take your pick!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3910" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="63b4a88d-30c2-466d-bcfd-34bf1bfd7ab7" CreationDate="2013-10-11T07:02:55.057" UserId="99" Comment="4" />
  <row Id="3911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="a9d4ffc9-5346-4748-9b84-66ce9b74f11c" CreationDate="2013-10-11T07:33:11.893" UserId="99" Text="In [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/666/99) it was asked how economic it is to turn your car's engine off when waiting for a traffic light. In the [accepted answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/670/99) it is said that it becomes more economical to turn it off if you are waiting for more than 10-15 seconds (in a comments someone says it's more likely 9-12 seconds, but still). If I understood correctly, this number applies to turning your engine off yourself manually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: what is the threshold when using a built-in start-stop system? Would it be much lower than 10 seconds or not? How can I calculate this threshold myself for my own car? More specifically, I drive a [Skoda Fabia Greenline](http://new.skoda-auto.com/en/models/fabia-greenline/) and want to know how long I should keep my engine turned off before it is more economical than leaving it running when stopped." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="a9d4ffc9-5346-4748-9b84-66ce9b74f11c" CreationDate="2013-10-11T07:33:11.893" UserId="99" Text="When does using a car's start-stop system become more economical?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="a9d4ffc9-5346-4748-9b84-66ce9b74f11c" CreationDate="2013-10-11T07:33:11.893" UserId="99" Text="|cars|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1254" RevisionGUID="1956891e-7db9-4d6f-8e2e-5d9babe9362a" CreationDate="2013-10-11T09:09:23.507" UserId="803" Text="Another point that is noteworthy is the transport factor. Assuming you live in the Belgium both coco oil and palm oil have a fairly long distance to travel before reaching the store. From this perspective coco oil probably still has a fairly high impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coconut_distribution.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This being said I don't know much about production of oil grown in temperate climate (sunflower, rapeseed etc.), it might be that the energy in transport is offset by less energy consumption in the production process. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1255" RevisionGUID="203d43b5-2f97-494a-83f9-1729568a6dc9" CreationDate="2013-10-11T10:15:08.983" UserId="679" Text="Suppose I'm replacing batteries in some powerful device like a flashlight - the flashlight will not even run on those batteries but some low power device like a TV remote or a wall clock will continue running on them for months. So there's a lot of usable energy in those batteries, just the flashlight can't make use of it anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides using those batteries in wall clock (the problem is you run out of wall clock faster than you run out of half-drained batteries) what else can be done to give them a second life?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen some marketing projects like [this one from Duracell][1] which I personally find incredibly stupid because they wasted a ton of wire and a gazillion of LEDs just to build a stupid sculpture but not a working battery management system that would allow to actually prevent half-drained batteries from being disposed (recycled) prematurely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any known practically working solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JglYXZgP740" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1255" RevisionGUID="203d43b5-2f97-494a-83f9-1729568a6dc9" CreationDate="2013-10-11T10:15:08.983" UserId="679" Text="What can I do to give second life to half-drained batteries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1255" RevisionGUID="203d43b5-2f97-494a-83f9-1729568a6dc9" CreationDate="2013-10-11T10:15:08.983" UserId="679" Text="|waste|reuse|batteries|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3920" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="6c96e596-d6c9-4581-b144-c35580dcc072" CreationDate="2013-10-11T15:23:04.610" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/388686193124446208" />
  <row Id="3921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1256" RevisionGUID="c92d0446-bdb6-474c-ac32-16dc6e947821" CreationDate="2013-10-11T15:36:25.713" UserId="642" Text="To partially understand the process of draining batteries it is important to know some technical parameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **voltage** - Battery operated electric devices need certain minimal voltage level and current to work correctly. As the battery is being drained the voltage drops down. In some batteries the voltage goes down very slowly during most of the cycle but rapidly at the end (NiMH accumulators) in some the voltage goes down more evenly (Alkaline batteries). For illustration below are discharge curves (showing the voltage going down) from this page: [Batteries and Battery packs][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **current** - When the device needs more power it either takes higher current or needs higher voltage (batteries connected in series). As the current rises the voltage drops down. See the internal resistance below.&#xD;&#xA; - **internal resistance** - Higher internal resistance causes larger voltage drop and also higher energy loss (the energy transforms to heat inside the battery). The internal resistance is higher in older and lower-quality batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this information you can see that if some of the following conditions are fulfilled you will be able to use the battery in a second device after it is unusable in the first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1st device drains high current&#xD;&#xA; - 1st device needs high voltage to operate&#xD;&#xA; - battery has an even discharge curve&#xD;&#xA; - battery has a high internal resistance&#xD;&#xA; - 2nd device drains low current&#xD;&#xA; - 2nd device needs low voltage to operate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So lower the current and voltage the second device needs - more power it can utilize from a partially discharged battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the following device types can satisfy the conditions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - clocks (both digital and electro-mechanical)&#xD;&#xA; - digital thermometers, pocket digital games with simple graphics&#xD;&#xA; - digital thermostats&#xD;&#xA; - remote commands, wireless keyboards, mouses&#xD;&#xA; - pocket radios and digital audio players&#xD;&#xA; - bicycle led lights, led head lamps, cyclocomputers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding sustainability it is best to avoid using batteries as much as possible. If you use them, prefer low self-discharge and rechargeable batteries (accumulators) with minimum of dangerous substances. Also prefer low power devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.philohome.com/batteries/bat.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M2j2O.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1256" RevisionGUID="d6bff050-7694-4b7e-aaa5-f0c38830f830" CreationDate="2013-10-11T18:09:36.527" UserId="642" Comment="extended" Text="Technical terms&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;To partially understand the process of draining batteries it is important to know some technical parameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **voltage** - Battery operated electric devices need certain minimal voltage level and current to work correctly. As a battery is being drained the voltage drops down. In some batteries the voltage goes down very slowly during most of the discharge cycle but rapidly at the end (NiMH accumulators) in some the voltage goes down more evenly (Alkaline batteries). For illustration below are discharge curves (showing the voltage going down) from this page: [Batteries and Battery packs][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **current** - When a device needs more power it takes higher current. (or needs higher voltage -&gt; batteries connected in series) As the current rises the voltage drops down. See the internal resistance which contributes to the voltage drop below.&#xD;&#xA; - **internal resistance** - Higher internal resistance causes larger voltage drop and also higher energy loss. (The energy transforms to heat inside the battery.) The internal resistance is higher in older and lower-quality batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conditions to reuse partially discharged battery&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;From this information you can see that if some of the following conditions are fulfilled you will be able to use the battery in a second device after it is unusable in the first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1st device drains relatively high current&#xD;&#xA; - 1st device needs relatively high voltage from a single cell to operate&#xD;&#xA; - battery has an even discharge curve&#xD;&#xA; - battery has high internal resistance&#xD;&#xA; - 2nd device drains lower current&#xD;&#xA; - 2nd device needs lower voltage from a single cell to operate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So lower the current and voltage the second device needs - more power it can utilize from a partially discharged battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of suitable devices which can be powered by partially discharged batteries&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I think that the following device types can satisfy the conditions stated above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - clocks (both digital and electro-mechanical)&#xD;&#xA; - digital thermometers, pocket digital games with simple graphics&#xD;&#xA; - digital thermostats&#xD;&#xA; - remote commands, wireless keyboards, mouses&#xD;&#xA; - pocket radios and digital audio players&#xD;&#xA; - bicycle led lights, led head lamps, cyclocomputers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other solutions&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Other possibility is to build a power source which will need relatively low voltage per single battery cell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact some modern devices use more and more efficient power management circuits. The devices need low voltage inside which also helps low power consumption. The low voltage is produced by a power efficient switching voltage stabilizer/regulator which can possibly operate with wide range of input voltage so that batteries can be efficiently discharged to a low voltage and more energy can be retrieved from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is certainly possible to construct a power source which will generate stabilized electrical power from a possibly large number of half-discharged batteries by using a switching regulator. I have never seen a mention of such a device. The procedure of replacing the batteries would be probably annoying. Because of dependability of such a power source (varying run-time) I would imagine its use for example for charging of other batteries e.g. in cell phones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion it is practical to use half-discharged batteries in a low power demanding devices mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More for sustainability&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Regarding sustainability it is best to avoid using batteries as much as possible. If you use them, prefer low self-discharge and rechargeable batteries (accumulators) with minimum of dangerous substances. Also prefer low power devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.philohome.com/batteries/bat.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M2j2O.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1257" RevisionGUID="6b2fb5a4-3c99-41c9-8fab-bb638de58e18" CreationDate="2013-10-12T11:36:46.290" UserId="840" Text="I just found yesterday a [youtube video][1] related to this topic (also in german). Of course the video is a kind of investigative journalism and maybe doesn't mention all important facts. But if this is the truth, all people who throw away their clothes in container of social organisations like the red cross in germany (also called `Altkleidersammlung`) should think about changing their behavior and bring them somewhere else, helping people in their area and don't help any companies making money with all the old clothes by selling them again to poorer countries. The problem with this is, these companies destroy parts of the industry in the countries they sell the old clothes. Maybe these clothes go back again to countries they had been produced before, which really would be crazy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer to upcycle the clothes by myself. I started to cut t-shirts and trousers to a cord with which I can crochet again something new. Even `Urban Knitting` might be a very interesting option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If somebody has information if the facts of the video are not true or maybe further facts that proof the truth I'm waiting for comments!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djXkFedpTrE&amp;feature=youtu.be" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3925" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1255" RevisionGUID="79e5558e-66bd-4497-96d2-702cc9e5ee6d" CreationDate="2013-10-12T18:23:07.997" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/389093893637419008" />
  <row Id="3928" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1223" RevisionGUID="77bbb955-31c4-42e2-b745-dc73b4064310" CreationDate="2013-10-14T15:23:08.633" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/389773373683015681" />
  <row Id="3929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1258" RevisionGUID="8b4b6d48-e20d-4e77-8ba7-d1488f2253db" CreationDate="2013-10-14T21:30:09.410" UserId="406" Text="In the fall there does seem to be a lag between having too many &quot;greens&quot; (rotting fruit like windfall apples) and not yet enough &quot;browns&quot; (dead fallen leaves) to make compost. I try mixing in some dry mulch with the apples and layers of cardboard under and over the apples in the compost pile. Mostly try to keep the apples covered and from getting damp. Eventually the leaves will fall and you can add them in your compost. Sometimes you can help your neighbors get a headstart on autumn cleanup by gathering up their leaves and taking them to your compost pile, especially helpful if you have any elderly neighbors with a garden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3931" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1241" RevisionGUID="6d77ba60-5c24-484e-bdcf-d6da7a8859bb" CreationDate="2013-10-16T18:25:29.353" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/390544037981483008" />
  <row Id="3932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1259" RevisionGUID="0408c6c2-4bc3-4e6a-bb2d-a7bcd8186230" CreationDate="2013-10-16T23:39:14.047" UserId="844" Text="It depends on the exact climate. There are many hot climates... In some cases reflective insulation is a good option. But thermal insulation may also be important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, home sustainability in hot climates depends largely on shade, natural ventilation and home design. See the shade issue, for instance: you need to shade your windows, roof and walls, and also the ground around your house, by using trees and shrubs but also devices awnings, shades and pergolas. It’s important to reduce the temperatures around the house. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more details, see these links to *House-Energy* pages: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural Cooling Guide: http://www.house-energy.com/Cooling/Natural-Cooling.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatives to Air Conditioning: http://www.house-energy.com/Air-Conditioning/Air-Conditioning-Alternatives.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1260" RevisionGUID="2f4ae6dd-261e-41e2-bba3-ec6c44399d4c" CreationDate="2013-10-17T07:48:02.013" UserId="827" Text="I'm in the need for a new suit - several actually, I'm getting married.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want the suit to be made sustainably, but living in Singapore there are no tailors that I can find that use sustainable fabric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found a tailor who's happy to use fabric that I find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I find a sustainable fabric manufacturer that would be prepared to sell fabric in small enough quantity for only 5 suits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3934" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1260" RevisionGUID="2f4ae6dd-261e-41e2-bba3-ec6c44399d4c" CreationDate="2013-10-17T07:48:02.013" UserId="827" Text="Sustainable suit fabric" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3935" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1260" RevisionGUID="2f4ae6dd-261e-41e2-bba3-ec6c44399d4c" CreationDate="2013-10-17T07:48:02.013" UserId="827" Text="|fabric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3936" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1260" RevisionGUID="29abd6f7-d977-4b50-ae94-1f3996409a99" CreationDate="2013-10-17T21:27:50.117" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/390952314670161922" />
  <row Id="3937" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1227" RevisionGUID="61e5bb8c-2f1a-45b9-aa22-661c7570c9a3" CreationDate="2013-10-18T09:28:22.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/391133642439016448" />
  <row Id="3938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1261" RevisionGUID="9b7f5b92-3033-4b31-a44f-170c7809d4d7" CreationDate="2013-10-20T20:44:37.790" UserId="282" Text="It would help if you mentioned what type of fabric you are planning to use since there are several types of fabric. In the U.S., wool is pretty common and can be purchased through small websites. Since you are in Asia, perhaps you can look into cashmere or silk and look for &quot;organic&quot; producers, probably very difficult since certification is not as organized there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I am guessing polyester would be too cheap for a wedding and whether that is sustainable depends on how you view the plastics industry. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1262" RevisionGUID="a9d0ad6e-94d3-477f-9917-427eaeea1538" CreationDate="2013-10-20T22:57:14.490" UserId="60" Text="Making a good compost requires the [right Carbon-Nitrogen ratio][1] of the mixture. But most of the compostable household wastes don't have an ideal 25-30:1 ratio and we call them [&quot;greens&quot; or &quot;browns&quot;][2]. And each of those has a different C:N ratio and that's why a different amount of each material is needed to achieve the same balancing effect. What are the Carbon-Nitrogen ratios of most common household &quot;greens&quot; and &quot;browns&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The C:N ratio is always some kind of average but I'd like to see some scale of strong &quot;browns/greens&quot;, medium and week ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/56/60&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/290/60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1262" RevisionGUID="a9d0ad6e-94d3-477f-9917-427eaeea1538" CreationDate="2013-10-20T22:57:14.490" UserId="60" Text="What are the Carbon-Nitrogen ratios of common household wastes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1262" RevisionGUID="a9d0ad6e-94d3-477f-9917-427eaeea1538" CreationDate="2013-10-20T22:57:14.490" UserId="60" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3942" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1262" RevisionGUID="099a56a2-c97a-45e8-8166-ff418c1fadc0" CreationDate="2013-10-21T12:33:09.060" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/392267308561088512" />
  <row Id="3943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1263" RevisionGUID="bb992e90-3b6c-40dd-bf2d-13e2d99b8bf0" CreationDate="2013-10-21T20:05:44.440" UserId="282" Text="Built in start-stop systems work differently than manually shutting off and turning back on. I am more familiar with American vehicles. For example, the Toyota Prius has this auto start-stop feature but you can't hear the engine start or stop. Not being a engine technical person, I still assume that this sort of on/off is more efficient than manual on/off and thus a shorter time is ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I drive a regular sedan and turn off my car as soon as I stop and if I think the wait will be over 1 minute. I only do this in areas where I am familiar with the traffic patterns or when it is very obvious that there will be a long wait, i.e. traffic accident." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1256" RevisionGUID="b19b5070-1986-435a-9ca5-88dddcaf2b28" CreationDate="2013-10-22T03:03:44.530" UserId="642" Comment="extended" Text="Technical terms&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;To partially understand the process of draining batteries it is important to know some technical parameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **voltage** - Battery operated electric devices need certain minimal voltage level and current to work correctly. As a battery is being drained the voltage drops down. In some batteries the voltage goes down very slowly during most of the discharge cycle but rapidly at the end (NiMH accumulators) in some the voltage goes down more evenly (Alkaline batteries). For illustration below are discharge curves (showing the voltage going down) from this page: [Batteries and Battery packs][1]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA; - **current** - When a device needs more power it takes higher current. (or needs higher voltage -&gt; batteries connected in series) As the current rises the voltage drops down. See the internal resistance which contributes to the voltage drop below.&#xD;&#xA; - **internal resistance** - Higher internal resistance causes larger voltage drop and also higher energy loss. (The energy transforms to heat inside the battery.) The internal resistance is higher in older and lower-quality batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conditions to reuse partially discharged battery&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;From this information you can see that if some of the following conditions are fulfilled you will be able to use the battery in a second device after it is unusable in the first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1st device drains relatively high current&#xD;&#xA; - 1st device needs relatively high voltage from a single cell to operate&#xD;&#xA; - battery has an even discharge curve&#xD;&#xA; - battery has high internal resistance&#xD;&#xA; - 2nd device drains lower current&#xD;&#xA; - 2nd device needs lower voltage from a single cell to operate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So lower the current and voltage the second device needs - more power it can utilize from a partially discharged battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of suitable devices which can be powered by partially discharged batteries&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I think that the following device types can satisfy the conditions stated above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - clocks (both digital and electro-mechanical)&#xD;&#xA; - digital thermometers, pocket digital games with simple graphics&#xD;&#xA; - digital thermostats&#xD;&#xA; - remote commands, wireless keyboards, mouses&#xD;&#xA; - pocket radios and digital audio players&#xD;&#xA; - bicycle led lights, led head lamps, cyclocomputers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other solutions&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Other possibility is to build a power source which will need relatively low voltage per single battery cell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact some modern devices use more and more efficient power management circuits. The devices need low voltage inside which also helps low power consumption. The low voltage is produced by a power efficient switching voltage stabilizer/regulator which can possibly operate with wide range of input voltage so that batteries can be efficiently discharged to a low voltage and more energy can be retrieved from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is certainly possible to construct a power source which will generate stabilized electrical power from a possibly large number of half-discharged batteries by using a switching regulator. I have never seen a mention of such a device. The procedure of replacing the batteries would be probably annoying. Because of dependability of such a power source (varying run-time) I would imagine its use for example for charging of other batteries e.g. in cell phones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because partially discharged batteries have various properties they cannot be effectively used connected in series. On fully discharged cells connected into the circuit there would be unnecessary losses and they can even leak the electrolyte. For this reason there should be a separate regulator for each cell which makes the device more expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion it is practical to use half-discharged batteries in a low power demanding devices mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More for sustainability&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Regarding sustainability it is best to avoid using batteries as much as possible. If you use them, prefer low self-discharge and rechargeable batteries (accumulators) with minimum of dangerous substances. Also prefer low power devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.philohome.com/batteries/bat.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M2j2O.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="41b79bf4-3d79-4ba7-9625-f0344903cd83" CreationDate="2013-10-22T17:33:50.130" UserId="857" Text="My wife likes to freeze bananas by removing their skin, wrapping them in aluminum foil, and placing them in the freezer.  She eats a couple of bananas per day.  So, this is using up a lot of aluminum foil.  She tries to reuse the foil as much as possible.  But, they get easily ripped after a couple of uses and we have to waste water washing them.  Is there a way to freeze bananas that isn't so wasteful?  For her to try it out, it will have to produce the same effect as using foil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="41b79bf4-3d79-4ba7-9625-f0344903cd83" CreationDate="2013-10-22T17:33:50.130" UserId="857" Text="Freezing Bananas With Less Waste" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="41b79bf4-3d79-4ba7-9625-f0344903cd83" CreationDate="2013-10-22T17:33:50.130" UserId="857" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1265" RevisionGUID="daa4bf22-4011-4955-8e6e-212626f69ea9" CreationDate="2013-10-22T23:00:47.490" UserId="85" Text="I freeze bananas in a plastic container, which I wash and reuse. I also wash and reuse Ziploc-type plastic bags, which work equally well, but don't last quite as long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your wife prefers aluminium, you can probably find an aluminium container (e.g. in an outdoor store), which should last you for several decades." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1266" RevisionGUID="c6be4b1e-4aff-489a-b4b8-9e839d0c4afa" CreationDate="2013-10-22T23:28:23.193" UserId="659" Text="We just freeze bananas in their skins. But I do that when they're getting a bit old and when I thaw them it's for cooking, so I'm not sure how edible they are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3950" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1266" RevisionGUID="8fd6236e-3d5c-48cd-9865-af6a0102aaa9" CreationDate="2013-10-22T23:28:23.193" UserId="659" />
  <row Id="3951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1267" RevisionGUID="176be395-8ca5-4aee-a2d8-086b41954884" CreationDate="2013-10-23T00:38:12.573" UserId="641" Text="I'm actually unaware about how an Air Conditioner (A/C) works. In our office, our A/C's residue (?) pipe is coming out to the toilet floor, and when the A/C is used there tiny droplets come out continuously. Sometimes I jut put a container under the pipe, and could collect a serious amount of water, and the water is damn cold. But for any health risk, we can't use the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Is the water coming out from an A/C clean and hygienic?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1267" RevisionGUID="176be395-8ca5-4aee-a2d8-086b41954884" CreationDate="2013-10-23T00:38:12.573" UserId="641" Text="Is the Air Conditioner water clean and hygienic if I want to collect and reuse the water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1267" RevisionGUID="176be395-8ca5-4aee-a2d8-086b41954884" CreationDate="2013-10-23T00:38:12.573" UserId="641" Text="|water|waste-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3954" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="cf1efe5c-b764-4cad-9882-8d4e84b73837" CreationDate="2013-10-23T02:07:40.557" UserId="15" Comment="Added extra tags" Text="|waste|storage|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="70e5753a-92a6-4498-a102-dccfe76be004" CreationDate="2013-10-23T04:20:14.180" UserId="480" Text="If you kept the coils clean, filtered the air blowing over them,  and captured the water immediately before it had a chance to pool and potentially grow bacteria, then yes, the water is very clean and pure. Probably as pure as distilled water (if not for all of the dust and other contaminants that blow through it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Legionnaires Disease is an examble of a disease that can be spread through be spread through aerosolizd water from air conditioning systems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.medicinenet.com/legionnaire_disease_and_pontiac_fever/article.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The bacterium thrives in the mist that is sprayed from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; air-conditioning ducts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the best thing to do with water collected from an air conditioning system is use it to water plants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="cb09069d-4ea7-4a8d-8dbe-650f4ce6d369" CreationDate="2013-10-23T04:47:16.070" UserId="659" Comment="fix spelig grammer and" Text="If you kept the coils clean, filtered the air blowing over them,  and captured the water immediately before it had a chance to pool and potentially grow bacteria, then yes, the water is very clean and pure. Probably as pure as distilled water (if not for all of the dust and other contaminants that blow through it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Legionnaires Disease is an example of a disease that can be spread through aerosolizd water from air conditioning systems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.medicinenet.com/legionnaire_disease_and_pontiac_fever/article.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The bacterium thrives in the mist that is sprayed from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; air-conditioning ducts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the best thing to do with water collected from an air conditioning system is use it to water plants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3957" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="cb09069d-4ea7-4a8d-8dbe-650f4ce6d369" CreationDate="2013-10-23T04:47:16.070" Comment="Proposed by 659 approved by 480 edit id of 169" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="3fb81566-ba94-4d01-9ba1-85add01b1c2a" CreationDate="2013-10-23T07:20:38.213" UserId="641" Comment="linkification" Text="If you kept the coils clean, filtered the air blowing over them,  and captured the water immediately before it had a chance to pool and potentially grow bacteria, then yes, the water is very clean and pure. Probably as pure as distilled water (if not for all of the dust and other contaminants that blow through it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Legionnaires Disease is an example of a disease that can be spread through aerosolizd water from air conditioning systems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**[Legionnaires' Disease and Pontiac Fever (Legionellosis)](http://www.medicinenet.com/legionnaire_disease_and_pontiac_fever/article.htm):**&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The bacterium thrives in the mist that is sprayed from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; air-conditioning ducts.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the best thing to do with water collected from an air conditioning system is use it to water plants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3959" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1268" RevisionGUID="3fb81566-ba94-4d01-9ba1-85add01b1c2a" CreationDate="2013-10-23T07:20:38.213" Comment="Proposed by 641 approved by 99 edit id of 170" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1269" RevisionGUID="919098fc-806c-4b24-9b51-b12e9fcee53a" CreationDate="2013-10-23T07:33:08.100" UserId="642" Text="Like other fruits and vegetables I would just put them into a plastic container. It is practical to separate the pieces by plastic foil so that they can be easily separated in the frozen state." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1269" RevisionGUID="6024d812-6451-4932-9cf5-a791cc86a61c" CreationDate="2013-10-23T07:39:11.017" UserId="642" Comment="extended" Text="Like other fruits and vegetables I would just put them into a plastic container. It is practical to separate the pieces by plastic foil so that they can be easily separated in the frozen state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both the boxes and foils can be reused without washing for a limited time when kept in cold. Later they can be washed and reused again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="75ccc140-0eb8-4f0e-808e-726d6133f6fa" CreationDate="2013-10-23T08:04:17.587" UserId="99" Comment="rephrased question a bit, added some background info about the problem" Text="In [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/666/99) it was asked how economic it is to turn your car's engine off when waiting for a traffic light. In the [accepted answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/670/99) it is said that it becomes more economical to turn it off if you are waiting for more than 10-15 seconds (in a comment someone said it's more likely 9-12 seconds, but still). If I understood correctly, this number applies to turning your engine off yourself manually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: **what is the break-even point when using a built-in start-stop system? How can I calculate this threshold for my own car?** More specifically, I drive a [Skoda Fabia Greenline](http://new.skoda-auto.com/en/models/fabia-greenline/) and want to know how long I should keep my engine turned off before it is more economical than leaving it running when stopped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that start-stop systems for non-hybrid engines only work when the motor is already warm and that such engines are usually able to restart within half a second, so if you only consider fuel a start-stop restart is more efficiently than a manual restart. But start-stop restarting still costs extra battery power. I suspect that if I only stop the car for 1 second and then restart I will have used more power than if I kept it running, but I don't know if that's really the case and if so where the break-even point is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="c4f8fce5-32e5-4628-89db-b1af747d1a70" CreationDate="2013-10-23T22:09:37.277" UserId="737" Text="I've had good success with the following system.  All you need are two stronger plastic bags with handles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#bag one: non-handled bags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'roll and rip' style produce bags from the market&#xD;&#xA; - bread bags&#xD;&#xA; - ziploc bags&#xD;&#xA; - anything else without a handle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#bag two: handled bags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - plastic grocery bags&#xD;&#xA; - mall shopping bags (think h&amp;m or something - attached handles rather than one piece of plastic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#in a drawer: paper bags&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - old flour bags&#xD;&#xA; - paper lunch bags&#xD;&#xA; - anything else that will fold flat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been saving nearly every bag I use for over a year and have never struggled to find the right size/kind.  Also the handled/non-handled breakdown works well without being over-organized.  As long as you are using them and not just saving them, this should work for you.  Also, a bag of bags stuffed into a pillowcase is surprisingly comfortable.      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3964" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="0f0a4055-8b41-4667-846e-8706595481c0" CreationDate="2013-10-23T22:09:37.277" UserId="737" />
  <row Id="3966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="6f427e9b-ad99-4cbf-8cca-4547495083d5" CreationDate="2013-10-26T22:06:33.347" UserId="60" Text="I've rebuilt two battery operated appliances in our home to a &quot;battery juicer&quot;. I'll describe one of them here to explain the idea, the other one is remade in a similar way to this one. Both of them operate happily with half-drained batteries and I've reached the balance of incoming half-drained batteries and draining them almost totally in those appliances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The appliance (thermometer) was originally run by one AAA battery (1.5V) and would operate to about 1 Volt. I replaced the battery holder with two AAA batteries holder and attached it through a simple voltage regulator. A blue double switch is visible in the picture (rear side of the appliance):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Rear side of the appliance][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two switches and three diodes added to the circuit. Those are [germanium diodes][2] taken from an old HDD (reused :), each with 0.3V potential drop in [forward bias][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Circuit diagram][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When the **batteries have enough power I turn off both of the switches**, which lowers the voltage of the bank by 0.9V.&#xD;&#xA;- With **less powerful batteries I switch on switches 1 or 2** to shortcut the diodes. The decrease is 0.3V or 0.6V.&#xD;&#xA;- **In the last stadium I switch both switches on** and 1V is reached by two 0.5V batteries.&#xD;&#xA;- When I want to **deplete the batteries to 0V, I replace one of the almost empty (0.5V) batteries with a half-depleted one (1V)** and run them until the death of the weaker one. This is in fact the most common situation because once you have not equally drained batteries, one of them is going to die earlier and will be replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I started with resistors, not diodes, but their voltage drop depends on the current - when the current fluctuates, the voltage drop changes too. This is not wanted, diodes provide a constant voltage drop to the bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xry1m.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%E2%80%93n_junction#Forward_bias&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cjten.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="cbc2f669-1355-493d-ade7-d4fbc8b188d1" CreationDate="2013-10-26T22:13:52.623" UserId="60" Comment="Tweaks added" Text="I've rebuilt two battery operated appliances in our home to a &quot;battery juicer&quot;. I'll describe one of them here to explain the idea, the other one is remade in a similar way to this one. Both of them operate happily with half-drained batteries and I've reached the balance of incoming half-drained batteries and draining them almost totally in those appliances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The appliance (thermometer) was originally run by one AAA battery (1.5V) and would operate to about 1 Volt. I replaced the battery holder with two AAA batteries holder and attached it through a simple voltage regulator. A blue double switch is visible in the picture (rear side of the appliance):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Rear side of the appliance][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two switches and three diodes added to the circuit. Those are [germanium diodes][2] taken from an old HDD (reused :), each with 0.3V potential drop in [forward bias][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Circuit diagram][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When the **batteries have enough power I turn off both of the switches**, which lowers the voltage of the bank by 0.9V.&#xD;&#xA;- With **less powerful batteries I switch on switches 1 or 2** to shortcut the diodes. The decrease is 0.3V or 0.6V.&#xD;&#xA;- **In the last stadium I switch both switches on** and 1V is reached by two 0.5V batteries.&#xD;&#xA;- When I want to **deplete the batteries to 0V, I replace one of the almost empty (0.5V) batteries with a half-depleted one (1V)** and run them until the death of the weaker one. This is in fact the most common situation because once you have not equally drained batteries, one of them is going to die earlier and will be replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I started with resistors, not diodes, but their voltage drop depends on the current - when the current fluctuates, the voltage drop changes too. This is not wanted, diodes provide a constant voltage drop to the bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweaks: more batteries can be grouped to reach a better use of used batteries. But then more switches are needed to regulate the wider scale of voltages. My other appliance is using a bank of 3 batteries, but they are external, because they wouldn't fit inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xry1m.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%E2%80%93n_junction#Forward_bias&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cjten.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3968" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1267" RevisionGUID="9ecc48b5-0458-487e-ad17-a410d63518a3" CreationDate="2013-10-28T12:43:21.900" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/394806593831067648" />
  <row Id="3969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1272" RevisionGUID="80867ba9-ee60-498d-8ba6-8757932f3d53" CreationDate="2013-10-29T18:39:28.433" UserId="868" Text="I already have a composting bin in my kitchen, and I'd like to upscale it to my whole building, which has 32 apartments. This is about a hundred people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've explained why and how to my neighbors and got a favorable vote so now I can use the common parts of the building to enable worm composting for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then I considered the scale of the thing and got scared. At 2kg/day/apartment, that's 2 tons per month... Even if we only get 1kg/day/apartment, and only half my neighbors contribute, I still get an industrial half a ton per month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway I have two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Centralize the thing and put one big bin somewhere&#xD;&#xA; 2. Put one bin per story, alongside the usual trash bins, each serving 4 apartments (10-15 people)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way I don't really know how big the bins/bin stacks should be for such quantities of raw material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find anything of that scale. [Duckduckgo][1]ing it gives off either individual-scale solutions, up to 4 people, of industrial, hundreds of thousands of kilos per month, automated things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be glad to hear from anyone who has done something on a similar scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://duckduckgo.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3970" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1272" RevisionGUID="80867ba9-ee60-498d-8ba6-8757932f3d53" CreationDate="2013-10-29T18:39:28.433" UserId="868" Text="How can I manage ton-per-month worm composting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3971" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1272" RevisionGUID="80867ba9-ee60-498d-8ba6-8757932f3d53" CreationDate="2013-10-29T18:39:28.433" UserId="868" Text="|composting|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1273" RevisionGUID="2e2ba447-1bc7-49a3-97dd-396f39b3b136" CreationDate="2013-10-30T04:23:21.127" UserId="674" Text="I can't offer anything by way of vermicomposting advice, but an opinion to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You are likely to get greater participation by putting &quot;one bin per story, alongside the usual trash bins, each serving 4 apartments (10-15 people).&quot; The more convenient you make participating, the more people will do so. This option requires minimal change in routine on the part of users, so you should get more material with this strategy. But it's also a more modest upscale per bin, which could be more manageable...perhaps you could recruit one person per floor to update you on the state of the bin each week? Minimize your time/effort spent checking multiple bins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you centralize the thing, the bin will be a more serious upscale from what you're used to, but you're also likely to get less material overall because it requires greater effort from its users. This may be more manageable logistically and will also show you who in your building is committed to composting by going out of their way to do so...identifying potential allies for a future per-floor management strategy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Admirable undertaking, best of luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1274" RevisionGUID="0f0833bc-3e0a-4c00-b0b7-acbb2717def2" CreationDate="2013-10-30T09:28:24.947" UserId="659" Text="In Australia [Wheely Bin Worm Farms][1] are fairly common. They're usually built into a 140 litre wheely bin. We had one with 6 students living in a house but at times struggled to keep it fed because we also had chickens and a composting system. We used to raid the local fruit and vege shop's rubbish bins for extra stuff to feed them, and also used that green waste for general compost in our garden. But it sounds as though you have the opposite problem - too much compostable material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Ceres worm farms][2] ![cut-away view of worm farm][3] ![inside view of wheely bin worm farm][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're easy to make but the bins are expensive (here ~$AUS100 each). If there is a local user of them it would be worth asking whether you can get some from them as bulk purchase prices tend to be lower. Or look for any kind of large plastic container - I bought a number of 200 litre plastic barrels for ~$AUS15 each (under 10 euro) from a local recycle/reuse merchant (he dealt only in second hand food grade bulk containers). We used them as rainwater barrels, but they would also work as worm farms. Also, the plastic bread trays used to deliver bread are a good source of gratings for the worm farms (ask the local bread factory as they will have a supply of broken ones).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That design would easily scale up to a 220 litre wheely bin, and the advantage is that you can move them easily. You can assemble them and get them started somewhere easy for you, and if people are not using one, or one fails (and gets stinky), you can just wheel it down to the garage and deal with it there. You could also easily swap the bins between high-use and low-use groups of people so they all get about the same level of input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another advantage is that by having mobile worm farms that are fairly easy to build you can start with one or two and build more as you need them. That also avoids having to buy worms (fed properly worms will double in number every month or so, and any excess will escape much to the delight of any chickens in the area)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ceres.org.au/nursery/worm-bins.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/64eui.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uYOOA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VRpaz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1275" RevisionGUID="6bfc1daa-3191-4194-96a9-d882a3f888e4" CreationDate="2013-10-30T10:40:03.537" UserId="453" Text="A presentation about the environmental costs of oil production (by Dr. Dumelin, [here][1] - direct download!) reveals that coconut oil performs worse than palm oil in some commonly assessed impact categories (namely energy requirement, global warming potential and land use) while it performs better in others (namely acidification and eutrophication impact):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*PO = palmoil; CN = coconut oil*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a separate report by the same author it is revealed that the agriculture and processing stage, rather than transport, contribute most to the total environmental burden of palm and coconut oil in nearly all impact categories (with the exception of photochemical smog).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be aware that the selection of impact categories is up to the author of a life cycle study (as is also pointed out in the presentation)! That means that some impact categories with a surprisingly high contribution may have been (accidentally) excluded from analysis. It is further subjective on how much value is assigned to each category and if, for example, the clearance of rain forest is rated to be more harmful than the clearance of temperate forest (as THelper mentioned). This problem however is valid for all life cycle assessments. The most commonly analysed impact categories (global warming, energy requirements, acidification and eutrophication impact and land use) are presented in this study, so it seems fairly reliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In short**, the production of palm oil seems to require less energy, emits less greenhouse gases and uses less space than the production of coconut oil. However, more substances are emitted that contribute to acidification and eutrophication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.soci.org/News/~/media/Files/Conference%20Downloads/Paml%20Oil%20Mar%2009/Dumelin.ashx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rh7Dh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1275" RevisionGUID="da1cb3c4-fc4e-4e8f-b4e8-5daedea50af0" CreationDate="2013-10-30T11:01:58.387" UserId="453" Comment="added 743 characters in body" Text="A presentation about the environmental costs of oil production (by Dr. Dumelin, [here][1] - direct download!) reveals that coconut oil performs worse than palm oil in some commonly assessed impact categories (namely energy requirement, global warming potential and land use) while it performs better in others (namely acidification and eutrophication impact):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*PO = palmoil, CN = coconut oil; for these two oils data originates from Malaysian farms*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a separate report by the same author it is revealed that the agriculture and processing stage, rather than transport, contribute most to the total environmental burden of palm and coconut oil in nearly all impact categories (with the exception of photochemical smog).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*[The] very high yields per hectare that are obtained from palm plantations*&quot; (Dumelin 2009) are the reason why this oil performs so well overall. Compared to other oils also &quot;*coconut oil has very low impacts because very low levels of pesticides are used and most farm operations are carried out by hand so very little fuel is consumed*&quot; (Dumelin 2009).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be aware that the selection of impact categories is up to the author of a life cycle study (as is also pointed out in the presentation)! That means that some impact categories with a surprisingly high contribution may have been (accidentally) excluded from analysis. It is further subjective on how much value is assigned to each category and if, for example, the clearance of rain forest is rated to be more harmful than the clearance of temperate forest (as *THelper* mentioned). This problem however is valid for all life cycle assessments. The most commonly analysed impact categories (global warming, energy requirements, acidification and eutrophication impact and land use) are presented in this study, so it seems fairly reliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In short**, the production of palm oil seems to require less energy, emits less greenhouse gases and uses less space than the production of coconut oil. However, more substances are emitted that contribute to acidification and eutrophication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reference**&lt;br&gt;&lt;small&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Dumelin E 2009: The Environmental Impact of&#xD;&#xA;Palm Oil and Other Vegetable&#xD;&#xA;Oils** (**	Reproduced from the paper presented at&#xD;&#xA;the SCI (Society of Chemical Industry)&#xD;&#xA;Conference on ‘Palm Oil–the Sustainable&#xD;&#xA;21st Century Oil - Food, Fuel &amp; Chemicals’&#xD;&#xA;at London, 23-24 March 2009.)&lt;/small&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.soci.org/News/~/media/Files/Conference%20Downloads/Paml%20Oil%20Mar%2009/Dumelin.ashx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rh7Dh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1275" RevisionGUID="7fe463b4-2d19-4559-874b-a4542eec5e2d" CreationDate="2013-10-30T11:07:12.487" UserId="453" Comment="added 743 characters in body" Text="A presentation about the environmental costs of oil production (by Dr. Dumelin, [here][1] - direct download!) reveals that coconut oil performs worse than palm oil in some commonly assessed impact categories (namely energy requirement, global warming potential and land use) while it performs better in others (namely acidification and eutrophication impact):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*PO = palmoil, CN = coconut oil; for these two oils data originates from Malaysian farms*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Importance of the product stages.**&#xD;&#xA;In a separate report by the same author it is revealed that the agriculture and processing stage, rather than transport, contribute most to the total environmental burden of palm and coconut oil in nearly all impact categories (with the exception of photochemical smog). (Dumelin 2009)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why have both oils comparatively small impacts?**&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*[The] very high yields per hectare that are obtained from palm plantations*&quot; (Dumelin 2009) are the reason why this oil performs so well overall. Compared to other oils also &quot;*coconut oil has very low impacts because very low levels of pesticides are used and most farm operations are carried out by hand so very little fuel is consumed*&quot; (Dumelin 2009).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A note about life cycle assessments.**&#xD;&#xA;Please be aware that the selection of impact categories is up to the author of a life cycle study (as is also pointed out in the presentation)! That means that some impact categories with a surprisingly high contribution may have been (accidentally) excluded from analysis. It is further subjective on how much value is assigned to each category and if, for example, the clearance of rain forest is rated to be more harmful than the clearance of temperate forest (as *THelper* mentioned). This problem however is valid for all life cycle assessments. The most commonly analysed impact categories (global warming, energy requirements, acidification and eutrophication impact and land use) are presented in this study, so it seems fairly reliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In short**, the production of palm oil seems to require less energy, emits less greenhouse gases and uses less space than the production of coconut oil. However, more substances are emitted that contribute to acidification and eutrophication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reference**&lt;br&gt;&lt;small&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Dumelin E 2009: The Environmental Impact of&#xD;&#xA;Palm Oil and Other Vegetable&#xD;&#xA;Oils** (**	Reproduced from the paper presented at&#xD;&#xA;the SCI (Society of Chemical Industry)&#xD;&#xA;Conference on ‘Palm Oil–the Sustainable&#xD;&#xA;21st Century Oil - Food, Fuel &amp; Chemicals’&#xD;&#xA;at London, 23-24 March 2009.)&lt;/small&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.soci.org/News/~/media/Files/Conference%20Downloads/Paml%20Oil%20Mar%2009/Dumelin.ashx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rh7Dh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1274" RevisionGUID="eeea8b3e-c549-4481-a9e7-f6bb6ad64dbb" CreationDate="2013-10-30T20:22:48.740" UserId="659" Comment="added cheaper, easier option that doesn't work as well." Text="In Australia [Wheely Bin Worm Farms][1] are fairly common. They're usually built into a 140 litre wheely bin. We had one with 6 students living in a house but at times struggled to keep it fed because we also had chickens and a composting system. We used to raid the local fruit and vege shop's rubbish bins for extra stuff to feed them, and also used that green waste for general compost in our garden. But it sounds as though you have the opposite problem - too much compostable material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Ceres worm farms][2] ![cut-away view of worm farm][3] ![inside view of wheely bin worm farm][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're easy to make but the bins are expensive (here ~$AUS100 each). If there is a local user of them it would be worth asking whether you can get some from them as bulk purchase prices tend to be lower. Or look for any kind of large plastic container - I bought a number of 200 litre plastic barrels for ~$AUS15 each (under 10 euro) from a local recycle/reuse merchant (he dealt only in second hand food grade bulk containers). We used them as rainwater barrels, but they would also work as worm farms. Also, the plastic bread trays used to deliver bread are a good source of gratings for the worm farms (ask the local bread factory as they will have a supply of broken ones).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That design would easily scale up to a 220 litre wheely bin, and the advantage is that you can move them easily. You can assemble them and get them started somewhere easy for you, and if people are not using one, or one fails (and gets stinky), you can just wheel it down to the garage and deal with it there. You could also easily swap the bins between high-use and low-use groups of people so they all get about the same level of input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another advantage is that by having mobile worm farms that are fairly easy to build you can start with one or two and build more as you need them. That also avoids having to buy worms (fed properly worms will double in number every month or so, and any excess will escape much to the delight of any chickens in the area)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: if you want something that is cheap but takes little to no construction expertise you could use polystyrene vegetable boxes (you can see two between the bins in the top left photo above). At least in Australia vegetables that need to be chilled are often transported in polystyrene boxes that are about 25cm wide, 30cm high and 70cm long. And they have a fitting lid, also polystyrene. Those are often available cheap or free from fruit and vege shops. We used those as worm farms for a while since they're cheap and easy. Just poke some holes in the bottom, add worms and food, cover the top with a layer of newspaper and put the lid on. Cut another one down so it's about 10cm high and put that underneath to catch the liquid that runs through the holes you made. You can stack these two high. The problem is that they're somewhat messy to deal with since they don't have handles and you have to life them up to extract the liquid (take the lid off, put it upside down on a few sheets of paper next to the worm farm, lift the top box off and put it on the lid, put the bottom box on top of that, then use a cup to bail out the liquid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ceres.org.au/nursery/worm-bins.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/64eui.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uYOOA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VRpaz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1274" RevisionGUID="57d9c454-220d-49d9-9737-18dfcac08d3f" CreationDate="2013-10-30T20:29:09.517" UserId="659" Comment="edited body" Text="In Australia [Wheely Bin Worm Farms][1] are fairly common. They're usually built into a 140 litre wheely bin. We had one with 6 students living in a house but at times struggled to keep it fed because we also had chickens and a composting system. We used to raid the local fruit and vege shop's rubbish bins for extra stuff to feed them, and also used that green waste for general compost in our garden. But it sounds as though you have the opposite problem - too much compostable material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Ceres worm farms][2] ![cut-away view of worm farm][3] ![inside view of wheely bin worm farm][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're easy to make but the bins are expensive (here ~$AUS100 each). If there is a local user of them it would be worth asking whether you can get some from them as bulk purchase prices tend to be lower. Or look for any kind of large plastic container - I bought a number of 200 litre plastic barrels for ~$AUS15 each (under 10 euro) from a local recycle/reuse merchant (he dealt only in second hand food grade bulk containers). We used them as rainwater barrels, but they would also work as worm farms. Also, the plastic bread trays used to deliver bread are a good source of gratings for the worm farms (ask the local bread factory as they will have a supply of broken ones).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That design would easily scale up to a 220 litre wheely bin, and the advantage is that you can move them easily. You can assemble them and get them started somewhere easy for you, and if people are not using one, or one fails (and gets stinky), you can just wheel it down to the garage and deal with it there. You could also easily swap the bins between high-use and low-use groups of people so they all get about the same level of input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another advantage is that by having mobile worm farms that are fairly easy to build you can start with one or two and build more as you need them. That also avoids having to buy worms (fed properly worms will double in number every month or so, and any excess will escape much to the delight of any chickens in the area)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: if you want something that is cheap but takes little to no construction expertise you could use polystyrene vegetable boxes (you can see one between the bins in the top left photo above). At least in Australia vegetables that need to be chilled are often transported in polystyrene boxes that are about 25cm wide, 30cm high and 70cm long. And they have a fitting lid, also polystyrene. Those are often available cheap or free from fruit and vege shops. We used those as worm farms for a while since they're cheap and easy. Just poke some holes in the bottom, add worms and food, cover the top with a layer of newspaper and put the lid on. Cut another one down so it's about 10cm high and put that underneath to catch the liquid that runs through the holes you made. You can stack these two high. The problem is that they're somewhat messy to deal with since they don't have handles and you have to life them up to extract the liquid (take the lid off, put it upside down on a few sheets of paper next to the worm farm, lift the top box off and put it on the lid, put the bottom box on top of that, then use a cup to bail out the liquid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ceres.org.au/nursery/worm-bins.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/64eui.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uYOOA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VRpaz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1276" RevisionGUID="98d5695c-8819-4287-8c61-cea3291e9712" CreationDate="2013-10-30T21:14:53.683" UserId="749" Text="I want to build a website that will estimate the cost of going solar.  Are building permits for installing solar done by County, City, or State?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1276" RevisionGUID="98d5695c-8819-4287-8c61-cea3291e9712" CreationDate="2013-10-30T21:14:53.683" UserId="749" Text="Building permits for solar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1276" RevisionGUID="98d5695c-8819-4287-8c61-cea3291e9712" CreationDate="2013-10-30T21:14:53.683" UserId="749" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1276" RevisionGUID="229aef01-d4a5-456a-be9a-cf08b595e60d" CreationDate="2013-10-30T22:00:07.877" UserId="749" Comment="Clarified" Text="I want to build a website that will estimate the cost of going solar.  Are building permits for installing solar in the united states done by County, City, or State? or does it vary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="b310d92b-87a8-4be7-8b32-29e69b27a74a" CreationDate="2013-10-31T08:56:23.070" UserId="99" Comment="improved title, change oil tag to vegetable oil" Text="There is a valid fuss and concern about palm oil for a few reasons. To myself the main concern is the destruction of ecology and habitat for species in the countries which are increasingly producing palm oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I have the same concern about coconut oil and other coconut products or do they have a lesser impact?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3985" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="b310d92b-87a8-4be7-8b32-29e69b27a74a" CreationDate="2013-10-31T08:56:23.070" UserId="99" Comment="improved title, change oil tag to vegetable oil" Text="Palm oil vs coconut oil, which has the smallest ecological impact?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3986" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="b310d92b-87a8-4be7-8b32-29e69b27a74a" CreationDate="2013-10-31T08:56:23.070" UserId="99" Comment="improved title, change oil tag to vegetable oil" Text="|ecological-footprint|vegetable-oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3987" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1272" RevisionGUID="cd3cb3d5-c12e-42d2-839a-4231d3e5ab98" CreationDate="2013-10-31T09:47:15.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/395849439849771008" />
  <row Id="3988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1277" RevisionGUID="49e46e6d-86d6-4d64-b45b-bc775af51e5c" CreationDate="2013-10-31T12:08:56.817" UserId="679" Text="I've seen a couple of offers of very white office papers that are claimed to have the same usability but slightly lower grammage (grams per square meter). One example is *UPM Kymmene Yes Paper* - they offer [*Yes Light*][1] with 70 gsm grammage and [*Yes Bronze copy/print*][2] with 80 gsm grammage. Looks like the two papers are very similar in everything except grammage and brightness (and 70 gsm paper even has better whiteness):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                Grammage  Thickness  Opacity  CIE Whiteness&#xD;&#xA;    Yes Light    70 gsm    0,105 mm    92%       165%&#xD;&#xA;    Yes Bronze   80 gsm    0,104 mm    93%       150%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the manufactures further says that 70 gsm paper has *10 % smaller environmental load per sheet compared to the same paper in 80 gsm*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logic I suspect is as follows: they somehow produce same thickness and opacity paper from less fiber and so it requires less raw material. They also produce less mass of paper for the same number of sheets and so transportation of paper requires less resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks like just everyone should license their technology and start such win-win paper. There should be some catch here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is such paper indeed better for the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.yes-paper.com/index.php?yespaper=yespaper-yes-light&amp;ch_nav_eb2=yespaper-yes-light&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.yes-paper.com/index.php?yespaper=yespaper-yes-bronze-copy-print&amp;ch_nav_eb2=yespaper-yes-bronze-copy-print" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1277" RevisionGUID="49e46e6d-86d6-4d64-b45b-bc775af51e5c" CreationDate="2013-10-31T12:08:56.817" UserId="679" Text="Is lower grammage paper with same thickness indeed greener?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1277" RevisionGUID="49e46e6d-86d6-4d64-b45b-bc775af51e5c" CreationDate="2013-10-31T12:08:56.817" UserId="679" Text="|ecological-footprint|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1277" RevisionGUID="a1968bcc-08c4-4e61-96b1-acea960e9cdd" CreationDate="2013-10-31T12:15:28.593" UserId="679" Comment="added 136 characters in body" Text="I've seen a couple of offers of very white office papers that are claimed to have the same usability but slightly lower grammage (grams per square meter). One example is *UPM Kymmene Yes Paper* - they offer [*Yes Light*][1] with 70 gsm grammage and [*Yes Bronze copy/print*][2] with 80 gsm grammage. Looks like the two papers are very similar in everything except grammage and brightness (and 70 gsm paper even has better whiteness):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                Grammage  Thickness  Opacity  CIE Whiteness&#xD;&#xA;    Yes Light    70 gsm    0,105 mm    92%       165%&#xD;&#xA;    Yes Bronze   80 gsm    0,104 mm    93%       150%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the manufactures further says that 70 gsm paper has *10 % smaller environmental load per sheet compared to the same paper in 80 gsm*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logic I suspect is as follows: they somehow produce same thickness and opacity paper from less fiber and so it requires less raw material. They also produce less mass of paper for the same number of sheets and so transportation of paper requires less resources. That's just great - less materials and fuel means higher efficiency and lower costs. So it looks like just everyone should license their technology and start producing such win-win paper instead of plain old boring 80 gsm paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There should be some catch here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is such paper indeed better for the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.yes-paper.com/index.php?yespaper=yespaper-yes-light&amp;ch_nav_eb2=yespaper-yes-light&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.yes-paper.com/index.php?yespaper=yespaper-yes-bronze-copy-print&amp;ch_nav_eb2=yespaper-yes-bronze-copy-print" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1278" RevisionGUID="f42c33ad-2ebe-442b-bd7c-ee8a388aafcf" CreationDate="2013-10-31T15:35:19.333" UserId="624" Text="In the U.S., building permits are generally administered and controlled by the county. Contact your local county planning office to get more information on what their requirements are for solar.  If you are really lucky, you may even find you are eligible for a rebate of some sort for going &quot;green.&quot;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1279" RevisionGUID="e39665de-1904-4875-bf9c-a9a975a7a979" CreationDate="2013-10-31T15:37:18.327" UserId="624" Text="Be sure to put easy to read instructions above each bin, detailing what to put in the bins and how to do it.  Otherwise, there is no telling what people will be putting in there and you could end up with a putrid mess instead of compost.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3994" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1277" RevisionGUID="38e498af-41e1-48da-9cd0-22efa3fc10cb" CreationDate="2013-10-31T18:47:15.483" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/395985334137552896" />
  <row Id="3996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1280" RevisionGUID="8fdbf9d9-fcba-4d80-82db-2035bff1a4dd" CreationDate="2013-11-01T09:19:38.653" UserId="99" Text="I've compiled a small list of common household wastes and their reported C:N ratio's with links to the various sources. A difficulty is that different sources sometimes list  different C:N ratio's for the same material. This probably has to with differences in samples (e.g. one batch of fruit wastes versus another), but if you look at some of the bigger differences it may just be that some numbers are plain wrong (perhaps the 150 of newspaper?). When I found multiple conflicting numbers for a food source I placed what I think is the most credible value at the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Waste               Amount of C to 1N   Source&#xD;&#xA;    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Urine               0.8               	http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Fish wastes         2.5 - 5.5         	http://www.norganics.com/applications/cnratio.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Soybean meal        4 - 6             	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	General food waste  14 - 16           	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						17                	http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;						20                	http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;    Vegetable wastes    11 - 19           	http://oregonbd.org/Class/ftp/CtoN%20Ratios.pdf &#xD;&#xA;                        25                	http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio			&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Grass clippings     9 - 25, avg 17    	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Coffee grounds      20					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;						25					http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Garden weeds        20					http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;						30					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Nut shells          35					http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;	Fruit wastes        20 - 49, avg 40		http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html &#xD;&#xA;						15					http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Shrub trimmings     53					http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;	Garden leaves       40 - 80, avg 54		http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						60 - 80				http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;		  &#xD;&#xA;	Pine needles        80:1				http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Paper               125 - 180			http://www.norganics.com/applications/cnratio.pdf&#xD;&#xA;					  					   &#xD;&#xA;	Sawdust             200 - 750, avg 442	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;	Newspaper           398 - 852			http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						170					http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;						175					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Cardboard           563					http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						350					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;						150					http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;	Hardwood chips      451 - 819, avg 560	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html &#xD;&#xA;						400					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;						300					http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Softwood chips      212 - 1313, avg 641 http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1280" RevisionGUID="cce3e2e2-0877-4810-959d-735e95411f81" CreationDate="2013-11-01T13:45:38.063" UserId="99" Comment="I mentioned newspaper, where I actually ment cardboard" Text="I've compiled a list of common household wastes and their reported C:N ratio's with links to the various sources. A difficulty is that different sources sometimes list  different C:N ratio's for the same material. This probably has to with differences in samples (e.g. one batch of fruit wastes versus another), but if you look at some of the bigger differences it may just be that some numbers are plain wrong (perhaps the 150 of cardboard?). When I found multiple conflicting numbers for a food source I placed what I think is the most credible value at the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Waste               Amount of C to 1N   Source&#xD;&#xA;    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Urine               0.8               	http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Fish wastes         2.5 - 5.5         	http://www.norganics.com/applications/cnratio.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Soybean meal        4 - 6             	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	General food waste  14 - 16           	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						17                	http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;						20                	http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;    Vegetable wastes    11 - 19           	http://oregonbd.org/Class/ftp/CtoN%20Ratios.pdf &#xD;&#xA;                        25                	http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio			&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Grass clippings     9 - 25, avg 17    	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Coffee grounds      20					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;						25					http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Garden weeds        20					http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;						30					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Nut shells          35					http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;	Fruit wastes        20 - 49, avg 40		http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html &#xD;&#xA;						15					http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Shrub trimmings     53					http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;	Garden leaves       40 - 80, avg 54		http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						60 - 80				http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;		  &#xD;&#xA;	Pine needles        80:1				http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Paper               125 - 180			http://www.norganics.com/applications/cnratio.pdf&#xD;&#xA;					  					   &#xD;&#xA;	Sawdust             200 - 750, avg 442	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;	Newspaper           398 - 852			http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						170					http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;						175					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Cardboard           563					http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						350					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;						150					http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;	Hardwood chips      451 - 819, avg 560	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html &#xD;&#xA;						400					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;						300					http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Softwood chips      212 - 1313, avg 641 http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3998" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1272" RevisionGUID="72b9e02c-dccc-4d10-bc97-42f1fd18531e" CreationDate="2013-11-01T20:31:11.030" UserId="868" Comment="Copyedit" Text="How can I manage a ton-per-month worm composting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="3999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1281" RevisionGUID="b268a24c-a5b9-401b-82b2-d7c90a6410c9" CreationDate="2013-11-01T21:18:36.027" UserId="869" Text="I would be wondering if you help me if you know about algae lamps please give me detail about it and answer my questions This is my questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;how the algae will charge the battery in day?(process)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; how the algae will take his energy from the battery in night?(process) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; is algae able to fill the battery?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is the algae's glow as the lamp we use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;how long the lamp can stay without repairing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;how the algae will stay in life in a cold or hot place? I think it needs a particular temperature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; how can we connect the 30 nanometre-wide gold electrodes to each cell of liquid algae ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4000" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1281" RevisionGUID="b268a24c-a5b9-401b-82b2-d7c90a6410c9" CreationDate="2013-11-01T21:18:36.027" UserId="869" Text="algae lamp questions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4001" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1281" RevisionGUID="b268a24c-a5b9-401b-82b2-d7c90a6410c9" CreationDate="2013-11-01T21:18:36.027" UserId="869" Text="|algae|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4002" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1276" RevisionGUID="d483bb13-d735-45f2-aeac-d31a8a8e4386" CreationDate="2013-11-02T12:49:56.207" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/396620186906017792" />
  <row Id="4003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1282" RevisionGUID="45275ee0-cf66-4544-85b6-e564773c36ea" CreationDate="2013-11-03T10:25:45.870" UserId="48" Text="Although most of the renewable energy currently consumed by the world can be turned on and off at will pretty easily (hydro and biomass), there are two potentially huge supplies, wind and PV, that are more restrictive: the variations in their output are mostly caused by external factors: the weather, and the time of day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On an electricity grid, power generation and consumption are pretty much simultaneous: there's virtually no capacitance, and transmission happens at the speed of light (in copper, aluminium,...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind and solar are pretty easy to incorporate into the grid, if they form a relatively small (long-term average) proportion of generation. As a crude rule-of-thumb, that's a value at or below their capacity factors, so say 25% for onshore wind, 45% for offshore wind, and 10-20% for PV depending on latitude. At those levels, the challenge might be just that we need to build some extra transmission infrastructure to bypass bottlenecks that arise because the old grid configuration was built around old unsustainable generation sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can higher proportions of exogenously-variable renewables, say 30%+ for onshore wind, 45%+ for offshore, 15%+ for PV, be accommodated onto the electricity grid cost-effectively?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1282" RevisionGUID="45275ee0-cf66-4544-85b6-e564773c36ea" CreationDate="2013-11-03T10:25:45.870" UserId="48" Text="How can electricity grids successfully incorporate high (50%+) penetrations of PV and wind?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1282" RevisionGUID="45275ee0-cf66-4544-85b6-e564773c36ea" CreationDate="2013-11-03T10:25:45.870" UserId="48" Text="|electricity|photovoltaics|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1283" RevisionGUID="a5d9ce9c-cf14-41dd-8490-2989d9d4ed8a" CreationDate="2013-11-03T10:25:45.870" UserId="48" Text="There are two parts to the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is enlarging the geographic area of capture of wind and solar across diverse climates, to smooth out the exogenous variations. The other is is storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Span more climates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back in the early noughties, Gregor Czisch built a massive optimisation model to look at how to balance a 100% renewables grid at lowest cost, across various geographic areas, as part of his Dipl.Ing degree. His thesis is [freely available in German][1], and the [English translation can be bought from the IET][2]. His other papers (some in English, some in German) are [freely downloadable][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The model found that increasing the area across which solar and wind were captured, and transmitting that power anywhere across the enlarged area, was one of the cheapest ways to incorporate very high levels of wind and solar into the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, the concept that he and Gregor Giebel developed, of an international supergrid, has really caught on, and the number and size of international electricity connectors (aka interconnectors) has been growing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of Czisch's scenarios, and most subsequent 100% renewables scenarios developed by others, combine this supergrid with storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Energy Storage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of people immediately think of grid storage as being something where you put electricity in, and that later get almost all that electricity out again. But that round-trip electricity storage is only one type of useful storage for the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Storage balances the grid by time-shifting *something* to match supply and demand moment-by-moment. Having storage *somewhere* in the chain between the capture of the primary energy, and delivery of the energy service demand, achieves that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Storing energy somewhere in the electricity supply chain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at the electricity supply chain. I'll tag each of the links in the chain with a number, for reference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Capture of primary energy  &#xD;&#xA; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;darr;  **1**  &#xD;&#xA;Primary electricity generation  &#xD;&#xA; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;darr;  **2**  &#xD;&#xA;Electricity delivery  &#xD;&#xA; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;darr;  **3**  &#xD;&#xA;Consumption of the energy service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can introduce storage at any of those links, to balance the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Biomass in a silo sits at link **1**. The primary energy has been captured from the sun, locked up in carbohydrates in the plant matter, and that plant matter is then stored until electricity is needed, at which point it is burnt, and the heat is used to drive a turbine. Similarly, water in the upper reservoir of a storage hydro plant is also energy storage at link **1**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Round-trip electricity storage, such as pumped hydro storage, chemical batteries, flywheels, and ultra-capacitors, sits at link **2**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Once the electricity has been delivered, it has to be consumed. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the end-use of the energy has to happen at that time. It does in some cases - for example if you want light, it's no easier to store pure light than it is to store pure electricity, so electricity consumption and use of light happen pretty much simultaneously. However, most of our domestic energy consumption is for space heating, space cooling, water heating, and water cooling. And it's very easy to store warmth or coolth, for use later. So it's pretty easy to build lots of storage at link **3**. Particulary when heating (and maybe cooling) services are provided by shared infrastructure, such as a district heating scheme, where mutli-fuel sources including electricity can be harnessed, and storage of hot water and cold water can be centralised, reaping huge economies of scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Some different types of energy storage for the grid, illustrated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4] ![enter image description here][5] ![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;sources: [\[1\]][7],[\[2\]][8],[\[3\]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://kobra.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/handle/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34-200604119596&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.theiet.org/resources/books/renewable/scenarios.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://transnational-renewables.org/Gregor_Czisch/veroeffentlichungen.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gqb2v.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CzoDm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZeoV4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gordon_Dam.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pimlico_accumulator_tower_1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pellets_hand.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1281" RevisionGUID="2f7e2b57-fe14-4248-aaef-741271ee04c1" CreationDate="2013-11-03T10:31:10.313" UserId="737" Comment="fixed grammar and spelling" Text="I have some questions about algae lamps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How does the algae charge the battery during the day?(process)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How does the algae use energy from the battery at night?(process) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is algae able to fill the battery?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the algae's glow used as the light source?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How long does the lamp last without maintenance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How does temperature affect the algae?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How can we connect the 30 nanometre-wide gold electrodes to each cell of liquid algae ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4008" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1281" RevisionGUID="2f7e2b57-fe14-4248-aaef-741271ee04c1" CreationDate="2013-11-03T10:31:10.313" Comment="Proposed by 737 approved by 99 edit id of 171" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4010" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1282" RevisionGUID="8ed4a88d-09de-468a-adc2-83f019fb145e" CreationDate="2013-11-04T00:52:09.250" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/397164326727200769" />
  <row Id="4013" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1276" RevisionGUID="9207a70e-f16b-4ee3-8e9d-23a0251149a9" CreationDate="2013-11-04T02:27:02.353" UserId="15" Comment="Updated title to better reflect question, added law tag" Text="Building permits for solar in the USA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4014" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1276" RevisionGUID="9207a70e-f16b-4ee3-8e9d-23a0251149a9" CreationDate="2013-11-04T02:27:02.353" UserId="15" Comment="Updated title to better reflect question, added law tag" Text="|solar-power|law|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4015" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1281" RevisionGUID="39c68bf8-4256-4c64-8303-b580f2e5c3e0" CreationDate="2013-11-04T03:52:09.243" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/397209625315250177" />
  <row Id="4017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="482c3dfa-5758-4abd-9364-fabc6354591b" CreationDate="2013-11-04T11:45:30.583" UserId="99" Text="This algae lamp idea is a bit of a strange story. If you watch [this 2013 TedX video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KPdA-qWNdQ), at 9:35 you see what seems to be algae in a tank giving light. However, never in the video did the inventor use the words 'algae lamp' or did he say that the algae are providing energy. Instead he says that he wants to use these **street** lamps for carbon sequestration, so not for lighting! I suspect in the movie they use an external light source to provide light to the algae (they need light and CO2 to grow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This all is in contrast to [this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuWDex5mh5Y) published in april 2012. Here they say that they've used a first prototype of an algae lamp in a parking lot in Bordeaux, France. At 0:38 and 0:57 in the movie they briefly show what seems to be an algae lamp, but strangely I haven't been able to find any other pictures of an algae lamp anywhere. Why aren't there any other pictures on the net other than some stills from this video and some clearly fake pictures?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the end of the second movie the inventor explains that he had trouble finding investors and that he doesn't think people are ready for it yet. Personally, I think that the reason that he is saying this is that the lamp doesn't quite work as they intended. I think that either the prototype lamp was a fake, or it was real but turned out to be impractical. Perhaps the parking lot was too dark and the algae died. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you search [the inventor's company website](http://www.fermentalg.com) for the keyword 'lamp' you get 0 hits. This all leads me to believe that they first tried to develop algae lamps but failed and are now pursuing a different approach and that is using algae for carbon sequestration.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="0679cdeb-c26b-4557-a213-2bda63c7d5cf" CreationDate="2013-11-04T12:07:56.117" UserId="99" Comment="The second movie I referred to earlier also didn't really say 'algae powered lamp'" Text="This algae lamp idea is a bit of a strange story. If you watch [this 2013 TedX video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KPdA-qWNdQ), at 9:35 you see what seems to be algae in a tank giving light. However, never in the video did the inventor use the words 'algae lamp' or did he say that the algae are providing energy. Instead he says that he wants to use these **street** lamps for carbon sequestration, so the algae are not for lighting! I suspect in the movie they use an external light source to provide light to the algae (they need light and CO2 to grow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this page](http://www.inspirationgreen.com/algae-co2-scrubber-and-streetlamp.html) in 2007 Pierre Calleja patented an idea about an algae lamp where a battery would be charged via photosynthesis. However, &#xD;&#xA;If you search [the inventor's company website](http://www.fermentalg.com) for the keyword 'lamp' you get 0 hits. This all leads me to believe that they first tried to develop algae lamps but failed and are now pursuing a different approach and that is using algae for carbon sequestration.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1287" RevisionGUID="e1683e19-80cb-4aa7-8cda-a01aecc20f90" CreationDate="2013-11-04T22:58:19.920" UserId="878" Text="Regarding the environmental impact of vegetable oils vs butter, I would have liked to agree (and my stomach as well) but the [research disagrees][1]. Butter gets a lower environmental score than oil based fats, even when butter from France is compared to the &quot;worse case scenario&quot; for Palm Oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two important quotes from the study:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;For palm oil the impact of a worst case scenario including&#xD;&#xA;potential contributions from direct land use change (assuming&#xD;&#xA;transformed forest land, 50% in Malaysia and 50% in&#xD;&#xA;Indonesia, using data from PAS 2050 (2008)), cultivation on&#xD;&#xA;peat soils (assuming that approximately 4% of palm is&#xD;&#xA;cultivated on peat, Schmidt 2007) and contributions from the&#xD;&#xA;POME waste fraction (Schmidt 2007) in the palm oil and&#xD;&#xA;palm kernel oil data was analysed. In this scenario the GWP&#xD;&#xA;of the margarine products still does not exceed 50% of the&#xD;&#xA;GWP from the “best” butter (French).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;In summary, two major factors determine the environmental&#xD;&#xA;impact of the butters and margarines:&#xD;&#xA;1. The origin of the fat (milk or vegetable and for the&#xD;&#xA;latter which type of vegetable oil)&#xD;&#xA;2. The fat content.&#xD;&#xA;This is because for all impact categories and all products, the&#xD;&#xA;agricultural stage contributes most to the overall impact of the&#xD;&#xA;product (with the exception of POCP for margarine). The&#xD;&#xA;environmental impact of milk at the farm gate is higher than the&#xD;&#xA;impact of producing oil crops, mainly due to the impact of&#xD;&#xA;methane emissions from enteric fermentation in cows’ digestive&#xD;&#xA;systems, the production or feed for dairy cows and also the&#xD;&#xA;emissions from manure handling.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-010-0220-3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1288" RevisionGUID="d0185f47-4165-4eb0-86c8-700734a75c85" CreationDate="2013-11-05T21:38:17.053" UserId="812" Text="There are three broad approaches to dealing with variable generation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Diversity of supply:** Both through building a grid covering a wide area (see EnergyNumbers' answer for details) and by using different sources of generation. As an example of the latter, consider a grid powered by both wind and solar sources: these are likely to provide peak output at different times, since sunny and windy conditions do not tend to go together[1], and will thus suffer less from the variability of each than a grid powered entirely from either one. Wind and wave are also an interesting combination, since one tends to precede the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Storage:** See EnergyNumbers' excellent answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Demand response:** Do you care which exact times your fridge is on, or do you just care that it stays below a given temperature? Do you need your electric car's battery charged *right now*, or do you just need it to be ready before morning? When you put a load of washing in the washing machine to run overnight, do you care whether it runs immediately, or would you be content for it to run &quot;sometime during the night&quot;, with a &quot;finished by&quot; time? There could be a lower electricity cost associated with the latter options, and the network operator could activate your fridge/car/washing machine when there is spare capacity in the system. Demand response is in its infancy, and systems are currently much cruder than that, but this sort of concept could be possible in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Spinning standby:** Of course, while these measures can be sufficient most of the time, it is not possible to guarantee that supply will always be able to meet demand, and so it will still be normal to have a &quot;spinning standby&quot; of generation that can be quickly activated when the storage runs out, most likely from thermal generators powered by gas or biofuels. Such capacity that can be rapidly powered up or down is known as &quot;dispatchable&quot; generation. &#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that this is not a new concept associated with renewables; already, there must be sufficient standby capacity available to cope with the largest single generator on the grid unexpectedly disconnecting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically asks about cost-effectiveness, and that is difficult to comment on. All of the measures mentioned have their costs, as well as their benefits, and these should be considered when evaluating the optimum mix of generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] I'm sure there are some climates where they do. But the general point remains that diversity in sources is good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1289" RevisionGUID="4c8b64e6-1d1a-468e-853e-5910e29b8f2a" CreationDate="2013-11-05T21:42:02.223" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="e7d0dbc2-2d8f-4dd8-af94-f30f880b0fd0" CreationDate="2013-11-05T21:42:02.223" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1291" RevisionGUID="c46e5fed-7fcd-4b4b-8d66-200504eff8bc" CreationDate="2013-11-05T21:42:55.570" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1292" RevisionGUID="e503bef1-8e3c-498b-a4ca-c91c37772f84" CreationDate="2013-11-05T21:42:55.570" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="0a9180f1-ec36-4568-8aff-45a81cb812e7" CreationDate="2013-11-05T21:47:06.197" UserId="812" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="Sustainable sources of and use of light, whether natural or artificial." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4026" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1290" RevisionGUID="0a9180f1-ec36-4568-8aff-45a81cb812e7" CreationDate="2013-11-05T21:47:06.197" Comment="Proposed by 812 approved by 85 edit id of 172" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1292" RevisionGUID="f026a9c2-eac2-414c-8640-4d43fe3bb80b" CreationDate="2013-11-05T21:47:22.917" UserId="812" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Solar panels that convert light directly to electricity. Does not include the use of sunlight to heat water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4028" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1292" RevisionGUID="f026a9c2-eac2-414c-8640-4d43fe3bb80b" CreationDate="2013-11-05T21:47:22.917" Comment="Proposed by 812 approved by 85 edit id of 173" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1293" RevisionGUID="8a99babe-9055-4d42-9155-d476a0c9ddde" CreationDate="2013-11-06T07:28:40.227" UserId="872" Text="These look suitable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.wikihow.com/Build-a-Tumbling-Composter&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.instructables.com/id/compost-bin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one is insufficient, you can always add another." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1288" RevisionGUID="fceea547-f502-4768-b01e-766ef86a90c1" CreationDate="2013-11-06T08:09:17.030" UserId="812" Comment="Added link to Wiki article on load management,and note that implementation of it varies by country." Text="There are three broad approaches to dealing with variable generation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Diversity of supply:** Both through building a grid covering a wide area (see EnergyNumbers' answer for details) and by using different sources of generation. As an example of the latter, consider a grid powered by both wind and solar sources: these are likely to provide peak output at different times, since sunny and windy conditions do not tend to go together[1], and will thus suffer less from the variability of each than a grid powered entirely from either one. Wind and wave are also an interesting combination, since one tends to precede the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Storage:** See EnergyNumbers' excellent answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Demand response:** Do you care which exact times your fridge is on, or do you just care that it stays below a given temperature? Do you need your electric car's battery charged *right now*, or do you just need it to be ready before morning? When you put a load of washing in the washing machine to run overnight, do you care whether it runs immediately, or would you be content for it to run &quot;sometime during the night&quot;, with a &quot;finished by&quot; time? There could be a lower electricity cost associated with the latter options, and the network operator could activate your fridge/car/washing machine when there is spare capacity in the system. Demand response is in its infancy, and while the implementations do vary from country to country, most systems are currently much cruder than the possibilities described (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_management#Examples_of_schemes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Spinning standby:** Of course, while these measures can be sufficient most of the time, it is not possible to guarantee that supply will always be able to meet demand, and so it will still be normal to have a &quot;spinning standby&quot; of generation that can be quickly activated when the storage runs out, most likely from thermal generators powered by gas or biofuels. Such capacity that can be rapidly powered up or down is known as &quot;dispatchable&quot; generation. &#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that this is not a new concept associated with renewables; already, there must be sufficient standby capacity available to cope with the largest single generator on the grid unexpectedly disconnecting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically asks about cost-effectiveness, and that is difficult to comment on. All of the measures mentioned have their costs, as well as their benefits, and these should be considered when evaluating the optimum mix of generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] I'm sure there are some climates where they do. But the general point remains that diversity in sources is good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1294" RevisionGUID="faa892e5-4b5f-4440-82e9-708f3a41823d" CreationDate="2013-11-06T08:40:48.220" UserId="883" Text="Most of the people say its not good to decompose plastic materials by burning, but anyway it has to be decomposed after its use. Is it safe to burn plastics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not how can we decompose plastic wastes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4032" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1294" RevisionGUID="faa892e5-4b5f-4440-82e9-708f3a41823d" CreationDate="2013-11-06T08:40:48.220" UserId="883" Text="Is it good to decompose plastic waste by burning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4033" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1294" RevisionGUID="faa892e5-4b5f-4440-82e9-708f3a41823d" CreationDate="2013-11-06T08:40:48.220" UserId="883" Text="|plastic|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1295" RevisionGUID="3e28b582-b863-4682-a014-35798a0a8f6c" CreationDate="2013-11-06T08:41:58.537" UserId="737" Text="I think I agree with [THelper](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/99/thelper) that the term `algae lamp` is a bit of a misnomer, however...it's complicated.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make a 'lamp' from bio-luminescent algae - but this is a much different thing than the photosynthesis process charging a battery and then running a regular light off of that store energy.  If you could do this (and I'm not saying you can't, but I suspect it would be awfully difficult), why not use grass?  Or bamboo?  Or tomatoes?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I think the only thing that's limiting you from having an algae lamp (as opposed to an [algae nightlight](http://hackaday.com/2013/04/18/living-night-light-with-glowing-algae/)) is the amount of area you're willing to devote to the project.  Bio-luminescent algae in natural conditions can illuminate entire shorelines - but that's a *lot* of algae.  Not to say it's impossible, as you can [purchase](http://empco.org/edu/index.php/pyrocystis-fusiformis-11.html) and culture this algae.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After culturing your giant algae bed, you'd also need a way to mechanically stimulate it, as this is where the light comes from, but I think after the work needed to culture a large amount of algae, this would be trivial.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1296" RevisionGUID="ab4ed85a-51d1-4e02-aff5-a21697164a58" CreationDate="2013-11-06T11:41:11.687" UserId="737" Text="You should not burn plastic.  Besides the environmental impact, you're wasting resources.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should recycle plastic - [here](http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/plastics-rubber/plastic-recycling-equipment) is how that's done:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#the plastic is sorted &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sorting and grouping plastic materials according to resin type is an important first step in the recycling process because contamination can render a batch of material un-reusable. The most frequently recycled resins, including polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), must be carefully separated from one another in order to enable further processing. Contaminants within each type of plastic must also be removed from the base resin to ensure stock purity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#the plastic is cut into flakes and foreign objects are removed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Plastic materials usually need to be cut into smaller sizes in order to allow further processing and to provide easier packaging, transportation, and distribution of recycled stock.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;After the plastic has been cut into smaller pieces, or “flakes,” the stock usually needs to be washed in order to remove lingering dirt or attachments. Paper, glue, sand, and grit are some of the common elements targeted in the washing process, which can be accomplished using water baths, friction washers, or a washing line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To reduce the potential for stock contamination most recycled plastic undergoes separation treatments, which work to remove any attachments or non-reusable materials that may be present in a batch of flakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#the plastic is formed into pellets to be sold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pelletizing reclaimed plastic is the final step in most recycling processes. Converting post-consumer plastic into pellets allows for easier distribution and remanufacturing, and ultimately benefits the speed and effectiveness of reintroducing recycled plastic into industrial manufacturing. After sorting, drawing, separating, and drying the reclaimed material, the flake stock is ready to be extruded into pellets.  Once the reclaimed plastic has been pelletized, it is ready for distribution and remanufacturing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could (possibly) do this yourself, although it seems like a better idea to buy the plastic pellets - if you have something to do with them, that is.  Otherwise you can participate in the collection part of the process.  Plastic can be sold to collection agencies just like any other material (like aluminum cans, copper wire or junked cars).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1297" RevisionGUID="9146a28e-e07f-4caf-8731-04ba75df1bb3" CreationDate="2013-11-06T12:17:07.083" UserId="642" Text="Most of plastic materials when burning in a conventional fire decompose to toxic substances which have bad health effect on many living organisms including humans. Many of the substances are carcinogenic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dangerous substances are mainly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dioxins][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [furans][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [styrenes][3]&#xD;&#xA; - some plastics can produce extremely and acutely toxic [hydrogen cyanide][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [carbon monooxide][5]&#xD;&#xA; - [aldehydes][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [heavy metals][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... and a lot of other dangerous substances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As dax wrote the best solution is to re-cycle the plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another solution is to perform safe decomposition. This incorporates controlled burning at high temperatures with filtering the produced substances or [pyrolysis][8]. At high temperatures the dangerous organic compounds are further decomposed to less dangerous substances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxins_and_dioxin-like_compounds&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furan&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styrenes&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldehyde&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_%28chemistry%29&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis#Plastic_waste_disposal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1288" RevisionGUID="e01600f8-7878-4816-85b5-3f02ed97cbeb" CreationDate="2013-11-06T13:47:15.823" UserId="812" Comment="Clarified the part on demand response again, inresponse to comments." Text="There are three broad approaches to dealing with variable generation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Diversity of supply:** Both through building a grid covering a wide area (see EnergyNumbers' answer for details) and by using different sources of generation. As an example of the latter, consider a grid powered by both wind and solar sources: these are likely to provide peak output at different times, since sunny and windy conditions do not tend to go together[1], and will thus suffer less from the variability of each than a grid powered entirely from either one. Wind and wave are also an interesting combination, since one tends to precede the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Storage:** See EnergyNumbers' excellent answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Demand response:** Do you care which exact times your fridge is on, or do you just care that it stays below a given temperature? Do you need your electric car's battery charged *right now*, or do you just need it to be ready before morning? When you put a load of washing in the washing machine to run overnight, do you care whether it runs immediately, or would you be content for it to run &quot;sometime during the night&quot;, with a &quot;finished by&quot; time? There could be a lower electricity cost associated with the latter options, and the network operator could activate your fridge/car/washing machine when there is spare capacity in the system. Demand response has existed for some time in cruder forms, sometimes limited to heavy industry, but modern technology may allow its further development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Spinning standby:** Of course, while these measures can be sufficient most of the time, it is not possible to guarantee that supply will always be able to meet demand, and so it will still be normal to have a &quot;spinning standby&quot; of generation that can be quickly activated when the storage runs out, most likely from thermal generators powered by gas or biofuels. Such capacity that can be rapidly powered up or down is known as &quot;dispatchable&quot; generation. &#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that this is not a new concept associated with renewables; already, there must be sufficient standby capacity available to cope with the largest single generator on the grid unexpectedly disconnecting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question specifically asks about cost-effectiveness, and that is difficult to comment on. All of the measures mentioned have their costs, as well as their benefits, and these should be considered when evaluating the optimum mix of generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] I'm sure there are some climates where they do. But the general point remains that diversity in sources is good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1296" RevisionGUID="e9f48c49-4676-4b53-89af-092fb0869c98" CreationDate="2013-11-06T13:57:50.663" UserId="737" Comment="numbers" Text="You should not burn plastic.  Besides the environmental impact, you're wasting resources.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should recycle plastic - [here](http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/plastics-rubber/plastic-recycling-equipment) is how that's done:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#1. The plastic is sorted &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Sorting and grouping plastic materials according to resin type is an important first step in the recycling process because contamination can render a batch of material un-reusable. The most frequently recycled resins, including polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), must be carefully separated from one another in order to enable further processing. Contaminants within each type of plastic must also be removed from the base resin to ensure stock purity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#2. The plastic is cut into flakes and foreign objects are removed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Plastic materials usually need to be cut into smaller sizes in order to allow further processing and to provide easier packaging, transportation, and distribution of recycled stock.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;After the plastic has been cut into smaller pieces, or “flakes,” the stock usually needs to be washed in order to remove lingering dirt or attachments. Paper, glue, sand, and grit are some of the common elements targeted in the washing process, which can be accomplished using water baths, friction washers, or a washing line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;To reduce the potential for stock contamination most recycled plastic undergoes separation treatments, which work to remove any attachments or non-reusable materials that may be present in a batch of flakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#3. The plastic is formed into pellets to be sold&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Pelletizing reclaimed plastic is the final step in most recycling processes. Converting post-consumer plastic into pellets allows for easier distribution and remanufacturing, and ultimately benefits the speed and effectiveness of reintroducing recycled plastic into industrial manufacturing. After sorting, drawing, separating, and drying the reclaimed material, the flake stock is ready to be extruded into pellets.  Once the reclaimed plastic has been pelletized, it is ready for distribution and remanufacturing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could (possibly) do this yourself, although it seems like a better idea to buy the plastic pellets - if you have something to do with them, that is.  Otherwise you can participate in the collection part of the process.  Plastic can be sold to collection agencies just like any other material (like aluminum cans, copper wire or junked cars).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1297" RevisionGUID="4522a143-bbb8-458c-98a8-0efd5963375b" CreationDate="2013-11-06T14:12:55.227" UserId="642" Comment="extended" Text="Dangers&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Most of plastic materials when burning in a conventional fire decompose to toxic substances which have bad health effect on many living organisms including humans. Many of the substances are carcinogenic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dangerous substances are mainly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dioxins][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [furans][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [styrenes][3]&#xD;&#xA; - some plastics can produce extremely and acutely toxic [hydrogen cyanide][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [carbon monooxide][5]&#xD;&#xA; - [aldehydes][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [heavy metals][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... and a lot of other dangerous substances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;As [dax wrote][8] the best solution is to recycle the plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different solutions are based on various techniques of safe decomposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incineration&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[Incineration][9] is controlled burning of various waste at high temperatures with filtering of the produced substances. At high temperatures the dangerous organic compounds are further decomposed to less dangerous substances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pyrolysis&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[Pyrolysis][10] is a decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in absence of oxygen. The products of pyrolysis can be used for example as a fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bacterial decomposition and biodegradable plastics&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Certain bacteria can help decomposition of plastics. See for example: [In what new ways can bacteria help shrink our landfills?][11] -- [Plastic-eating bacteria found in 'ocean desert,' scientist says][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also special plastics being produced which can be easily decomposed by common bacteria - [biodegradable plastics][13]. Unfortunately they can be [ecologically harmful][14].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxins_and_dioxin-like_compounds&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furan&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styrenes&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldehyde&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_%28chemistry%29&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1296/642&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/bacteria-landfill1.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/30/plastic-eating-bacteria-found-in-ocean-desert-scientist-says/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/18/greenwash-biodegradeable-plastic-bags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1286" RevisionGUID="7bfba83a-8724-499f-8a64-083677db2846" CreationDate="2013-11-06T15:31:10.683" UserId="99" Comment="added links to paper on current state of the art in research" Text="This algae lamp idea is a bit of a strange story. If you watch [this 2013 TedX video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KPdA-qWNdQ), at 9:35 you see what seems to be algae in a tank giving light. However, never in the video did the inventor use the words 'algae lamp' or did he say that the algae are providing energy. Instead he says that he wants to use these **street** lamps for carbon sequestration, so the algae are not for lighting! I suspect in the movie they use an external light source to provide light to the algae (they need light and CO2 to grow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this page](http://www.inspirationgreen.com/algae-co2-scrubber-and-streetlamp.html) in 2007 Pierre Calleja patented an idea about an algae lamp where a battery would be charged via photosynthesis. However, &#xD;&#xA;If you search [the inventor's company website](http://www.fermentalg.com) for the keyword 'lamp' you get 0 hits. This all leads me to believe that they first tried to develop algae lamps but failed and are now pursuing a different approach and that is using algae for carbon sequestration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was able to find [a paper](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl903141j) that describes how scientists from Stanford University and Yonsei University in Seoul managed to attach the gold electrodes to the&#xD;&#xA;cells of an algae. Unfortunately I don't have access to the full paper, but [this 2010 Stanford news release](http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2010/pr-electric-current-plants-041310.html) provides some additional information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Stanford research team developed a unique, ultra-sharp nanoelectrode made of gold, specially designed for probing inside cells. They gently pushed it through the algal cell membranes, which sealed around it, and the cell stayed alive. From the photosynthesizing cells, the electrode collected electrons that had been energized by light and the researchers generated a tiny electrical current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The news article also describes the problems: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...they were able to draw from each cell just one picoampere, an amount of electricity so tiny that they would need a trillion cells photosynthesizing for one hour just to equal the amount of energy stored in a AA battery. In addition, the cells die after an hour. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1298" RevisionGUID="1af5f606-e757-4ff7-81da-9216cb9255d8" CreationDate="2013-11-06T20:04:01.323" UserId="885" Text="I simply freeze them, they don't need a container if you're going to eat them soonish (within a month, perhaps).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you take one out if you run it under water for a few seconds the skin loosens up and they just pop out.  I squeeze them into my smoothies.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your wife eats them as a whole fruit, rather than in a smoothie, you can improve the condition a bit by putting them inside a slightly insulated container so they freeze more slowly.  If you can slow down the speed of freezing they will crystallize less, making them seem a bit fresher when they thaw (the crystallization harms the cells and makes them mushy).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1299" RevisionGUID="1ff39060-1f95-476d-908e-29a29d0f7402" CreationDate="2013-11-07T13:10:19.797" UserId="888" Text="I would chop them into suitable chunks and pop into a freezer bag, making sure the bags are not over filled and freeze only a few bags at a time on a clear bit of freezer shelf. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once frozen then can be stacked as normal in your freezer. Now I can grab the quantity I need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1300" RevisionGUID="a81a7809-ce47-46b8-9dbb-10e89db5e23d" CreationDate="2013-11-07T13:28:46.953" UserId="888" Text="I took over a garden in an old house, which was completely infested with slugs, my solution was many-fold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to remove the places for them to hide during the day, this certainly  worked, but the population then settled at a reduced (but still there) level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was really only when I found a hedge-hog on the road outside my house one winter, and preventing it from being run over, I took it into the garden and placed him near the shed so it could run for cover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A year later, we had hedge hog kittens and they came up to the back door in the snow. For the following years the slug populations was drastically reduced not only in my garden but also neighbours, one in-fact even insisted that it was &quot;her hedgehog&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1301" RevisionGUID="2c886c6b-d624-427e-bff4-10909d59a4f8" CreationDate="2013-11-07T13:42:32.110" UserId="888" Text="In designing an allotment to fit in with permaculture principles how does crop rotation work with the 7 levels especially since canopy and sub canopy plants tend to be trees/shrubs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should one not rotate crops at all ? Is it that when planting vegetables, the densities are so low and the variety of plants so great that reasons for rotation are eliminated ? ie. The build up of pests, depletion of key nutrients, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely it makes sense to move the planting around into some sort of rotation scheme ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also when incorporating a no-dig principle, adding mulch/manure/compost, this doesn't work with potatoes and root crops ? So if I have my allotment, some of it growing roots/potatoes the other part no-dig how does that work ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I mixing too many ideas here ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4046" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1301" RevisionGUID="2c886c6b-d624-427e-bff4-10909d59a4f8" CreationDate="2013-11-07T13:42:32.110" UserId="888" Text="Permaculture and crop rotation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4047" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1301" RevisionGUID="2c886c6b-d624-427e-bff4-10909d59a4f8" CreationDate="2013-11-07T13:42:32.110" UserId="888" Text="|permaculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1302" RevisionGUID="7ea52807-711c-4022-a485-90879e4b62ae" CreationDate="2013-11-07T20:10:53.723" UserId="85" Text="I understand that the main principle in permaculture and related (e.g. Fukuoka) is that of planting a garden, which is more or less a perpetual motion machine, self-sustaining and strong enough to support a person/family/community living off it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In accordance to this principle, the most important point is to design a garden that self-sustains. For example, one idea is the fruit forest, which is supposed to be like an abandoned orchard, with plants at seven levels, as you say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Root crops are not in one particular place, but &quot;crop up&quot; all over the garden. You should only dig, when you want to harvest. And you should only harvest so much that a couple of plants flower and &quot;crop up&quot; in the next season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that sense, I think that traditional permaculture à la Morrison doesn't deal much with crops that are rotational in nature. In particular, Morrison suggests in several places that potatoes should be the staple for any gardener.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fukuoka, however, has developed a method to rotate rice and wheat (by sowing the grain in form of clay pellets to protect them from birds and insects) which is much in line with permaculture principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the basic idea is to not rotate crops, because you don't really have &quot;crops&quot;. You have a big and abundant garden, which produces fruit &amp; vegetables all year round, without having to have a sowing and harvesting season. The extent to which this works out is, of course, dependent on your climate. The reason this can work at all, according to permaculture, is good design." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1303" RevisionGUID="b03872f8-3195-4040-8333-243828149ca4" CreationDate="2013-11-07T21:52:37.807" UserId="624" Text="&quot;Surely it makes sense to move the planting around into some sort of rotation scheme ?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The backbone of most permaculture plantings are perennials, including trees and shrubs. These, being more or less permanent plantings, do not lend themselves to rotational schemes.  You could, however, as mentioned, rotate some of the plantings in the herbs layer under them if you wanted to.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Also when incorporating a no-dig principle, adding mulch/manure/compost, this doesn't work with potatoes and root crops ? So if I have my allotment, some of it growing roots/potatoes the other part no-dig how does that work ?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potatoes can be grown using no-dig methods.  Ruth Stout apparently pulls her mulch aside, throws chunks of potatoes on top of the ground and then pulls the mulch back over them to cover them.  Later, as the vines grow, she adds more.  So it can work.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can grow root crops in a no till garden as well - just be sure that you start out with shorter varieties until the soil begins to loosen up enough for the longer root crops to dig themselves in properly.  For example, depending on how your soil is to begin with, you could grow &quot;thumbelina&quot; or short fingerling type carrots the first couple of years instead of the foot-long type. Things like turnips and round beets should do okay in a new no-till garden as well, just be sure to draw the mulch up around the top of their bulbs so they don't turn green.  (same with carrots, btw.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Am I mixing too many ideas here ?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think you are mixing too many ideas, but I think you don't yet have a good feel for the differences between traditional rotational and no-till permaculture gardening.  Time and experimentation will take care of that.  And remember - you don't have to do just one or the other, you can always incorporate both types of gardening into your plot.  It's your garden, it's your choice. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1303" RevisionGUID="cf388393-e8ff-4aca-8fec-59ad03220740" CreationDate="2013-11-07T23:06:28.327" UserId="85" Comment="improved formatting" Text="&gt; Surely it makes sense to move the planting around into some sort of rotation scheme?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The backbone of most permaculture plantings are perennials, including trees and shrubs. These, being more or less permanent plantings, do not lend themselves to rotational schemes.  You could, however, as mentioned, rotate some of the plantings in the herbs layer under them if you wanted to.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also when incorporating a no-dig principle, adding mulch/manure/compost, this doesn't work with potatoes and root crops? So if I have my allotment, some of it growing roots/potatoes the other part no-dig how does that work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potatoes can be grown using no-dig methods.  Ruth Stout apparently pulls her mulch aside, throws chunks of potatoes on top of the ground and then pulls the mulch back over them to cover them.  Later, as the vines grow, she adds more.  So it can work.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can grow root crops in a no till garden as well - just be sure that you start out with shorter varieties until the soil begins to loosen up enough for the longer root crops to dig themselves in properly.  For example, depending on how your soil is to begin with, you could grow &quot;thumbelina&quot; or short fingerling type carrots the first couple of years instead of the foot-long type. Things like turnips and round beets should do okay in a new no-till garden as well, just be sure to draw the mulch up around the top of their bulbs so they don't turn green.  (same with carrots, btw.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Am I mixing too many ideas here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think you are mixing too many ideas, but I think you don't yet have a good feel for the differences between traditional rotational and no-till permaculture gardening.  Time and experimentation will take care of that.  And remember - you don't have to do just one or the other, you can always incorporate both types of gardening into your plot.  It's your garden, it's your choice. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4051" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1301" RevisionGUID="f31ec309-59dc-44ae-b643-2e376f003b8f" CreationDate="2013-11-07T23:10:55.083" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|permaculture|crop|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4052" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1301" RevisionGUID="cdeeecea-2e56-4eb0-a7d5-6f21ebdd1e1d" CreationDate="2013-11-08T03:58:22.980" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/398660744528818176" />
  <row Id="4053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1304" RevisionGUID="ef5be7b0-5c15-4aff-89e6-ab09f4fb5144" CreationDate="2013-11-08T14:03:58.073" UserId="888" Text="I often batch up my greens into a bucket or two until I am ready to process the compost heap. This way, I have enough to make a few layers of the slimy green stuff, between layers of straw preferably but other browns as suggested in other replies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it is best to batch up the greens straw and chicken manure to try and aim for a cubic yard/meter, because this gives the heap enough mass to really heat up in the centre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will want to remix a heap after a heat surge, this adds oxygen back into the mix and it will heat again, 2 -3 good burns, then it can be left to process anaerobic and cooler, and the 2-ndary creatures move into the pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't chuck it, just mix it with browns and don't leave it in a bucket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a great [Playlist of short videos][1], &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE93959E0F8886682" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="c12181d4-fc06-4bd2-b1b9-9c37bb1faf70" CreationDate="2013-11-09T10:42:45.057" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="After watching [this video][1] I felt really inspired and started thinking that it would be a great idea if we could research the same idea more and develop a way to make it easy enough for anyone to build and good quality enough for anyone to live in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the video above, they use 5 layers to achieve what I'm convinced can be achieved with 2 - but I'm not sure how or what the 1 of those 2 would be. In the video, they used Concrete, Sticky-back plastic, polystyrene, anti-moisture layer and soil. Now I don't know much about construction or architecture but I've seen entire buildings and houses made of glass which would already be insulated, strong (if you got the right kind), environment-friendly (we find that nature sometimes makes [&quot;glass&quot; with lightning][2]) and moisture resistant (if you built it correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know what the main downsides to this would be and if there is a better alternative(s) than glass? With the main criteria being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Modularity/Maintainability&#xD;&#xA; 2. Environment Friendly&#xD;&#xA; 3. DIY Friendly&#xD;&#xA; 4. Strong/Resistant enough to stand firm for a long period of time&#xD;&#xA; 5. Insulated enough to keep out hot/cool air and moisture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If massive glass structures could just be produced/made and stuffed underground in a similar way to the above video then homesteading could be quite simple from there on out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-O2ggn29fI&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgurite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4055" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="c12181d4-fc06-4bd2-b1b9-9c37bb1faf70" CreationDate="2013-11-09T10:42:45.057" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="Open Source DIY Homestead Architecture" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4056" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="c12181d4-fc06-4bd2-b1b9-9c37bb1faf70" CreationDate="2013-11-09T10:42:45.057" UserDisplayName="anon" Text="|home|diy|construction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4057" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="be48aa3f-4d76-463a-be70-be2cef713254" CreationDate="2013-11-09T10:55:22.277" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="edited title" Text="Open Source DIY Homestead Architecture Alternatives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="0b6c5121-4377-4094-8c0b-6169f1acdbd7" CreationDate="2013-11-09T11:06:11.877" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="After watching [this video][1] I felt really inspired and started thinking that it would be a great idea if we could research the same idea more and develop a way to make it easy enough for anyone to build and good quality enough for anyone to live in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the video above, they use 5 layers to achieve what I'm convinced can be achieved with 2 - but I'm not sure how or what the 1 of those 2 would be. In the video, they used Concrete, Sticky-back plastic, polystyrene, anti-moisture layer and soil. Now I don't know much about construction or architecture but I've seen entire buildings and houses made of glass which would already be insulated, strong (if you got the [right kind][2]), environment-friendly (we find that nature sometimes makes [&quot;glass&quot; with lightning][3]) and moisture resistant (if you built it correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know what the main downsides to this would be and if there is a better alternative(s) than glass? With the main criteria being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Modularity/Maintainability&#xD;&#xA; 2. Environment Friendly&#xD;&#xA; 3. DIY Friendly&#xD;&#xA; 4. Strong/Resistant enough to stand firm for a long period of time&#xD;&#xA; 5. Insulated enough to keep out hot/cool air and moisture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If massive glass structures could just be produced/made and stuffed underground in a similar way to the above video then homesteading could be quite simple from there on out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-O2ggn29fI&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwXaxyE0ezo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="3ce77986-4cae-4850-ab5f-0f1a4a9302fd" CreationDate="2013-11-09T11:53:46.890" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="After watching [this video][1] I felt really inspired and started thinking that it would be a great idea if we could research the same idea more and develop a way to make it easy enough for anyone to build and good quality enough for anyone to live in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the video above, they use 5 layers to achieve what I'm convinced can be achieved with 2 - but I'm not sure how or what the 1 of those 2 would be. In the video, they used Concrete, Sticky-back plastic, polystyrene, anti-moisture layer and soil. Now I don't know much about construction or architecture but I've seen entire buildings and houses made of glass which would already be insulated, strong (if you got the [right kind][2]), environment-friendly (we find that nature sometimes makes [&quot;glass&quot; with lightning][3]) and moisture resistant (if you built it correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know what the main downsides to this would be and if there is a better alternative(s) than glass? With the main criteria being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Modularity/Maintainability&#xD;&#xA; 2. Environment Friendly&#xD;&#xA; 3. DIY Friendly&#xD;&#xA; 4. Strong/Resistant enough to stand firm for a long period of time&#xD;&#xA; 5. Insulated enough to keep out hot/cool air and moisture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If massive glass cubes/structures could just be produced/made and stuffed underground in a similar way to the above video then homesteading could be quite simple from there on out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-O2ggn29fI&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwXaxyE0ezo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="acbd4978-8cd3-4d88-a570-29835f1ec48d" CreationDate="2013-11-09T12:35:17.867" UserId="812" Text="When one is buying a portable electric heater, there are at least three different types available:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Radiative halogen heaters&#xD;&#xA;2. Fan heaters&#xD;&#xA;3. Oil-filled radiators and similar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Images of examples of each are shown at the bottom of the question, in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that any of these has the same electrical input power, and given that they must all eventually be 100% efficient at converting electricity to heat, any advantage or disadvantage must relate to the way that they transfer the heat to the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is one type clearly better? If not, what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Picture of radiative halogen heater][1]&#xD;&#xA;![Picture of a cheap fan heater][2]&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3TSoG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LK3K4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kY2st.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4061" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="acbd4978-8cd3-4d88-a570-29835f1ec48d" CreationDate="2013-11-09T12:35:17.867" UserId="812" Text="Which type of portable electric heater is better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4062" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="acbd4978-8cd3-4d88-a570-29835f1ec48d" CreationDate="2013-11-09T12:35:17.867" UserId="812" Text="|energy|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1307" RevisionGUID="27c64155-43eb-40f7-8ca3-26f22ffbe15b" CreationDate="2013-11-09T12:43:14.390" UserId="737" Text="Have you ever heard of [Concrete Canvas](http://www.concretecanvas.com/)?  I think this is a really good solution that ticks all of your boxes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Can be added to (although maybe this is the weakest point) probably it's easier to make additional structures in a group than add to an existing structure, although when you set it up you *could* make holes in the cloth that would be &quot;doors&quot; to connect to existing structures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - very friendly!  really limited resources involved&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - All it takes is a way to haul it where you want to set it up and a leaf blower to put it up&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Way strong.  So strong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Way insulated. So insulated.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="bb3593fa-74d0-4228-871e-d26f9b2c1c87" CreationDate="2013-11-09T13:57:27.567" UserId="164" Comment="Shrank images to a reasonable size." Text="When one is buying a portable electric heater, there are at least three different types available:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Radiative halogen heaters&#xD;&#xA;2. Fan heaters&#xD;&#xA;3. Oil-filled radiators and similar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Images of examples of each are shown at the bottom of the question, in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that any of these has the same electrical input power, and given that they must all eventually be 100% efficient at converting electricity to heat, any advantage or disadvantage must relate to the way that they transfer the heat to the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is one type clearly better? If not, what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3TSoG.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot; alt=&quot;Picture of radiative halogen heater&quot; title=&quot;Picture of radiative halogen heater&quot;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/LK3K4.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot; alt=&quot;Picture of a cheap fan heater&quot; title=&quot;Picture of a cheap fan heater&quot;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/kY2st.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot; alt=&quot;Picture of radiative halogen heater&quot; title=&quot;Picture of radiative halogen heater&quot;&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4065" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="bb3593fa-74d0-4228-871e-d26f9b2c1c87" CreationDate="2013-11-09T13:57:27.567" Comment="Proposed by 164 approved by 812 edit id of 174" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="c17262e5-c9d6-4df4-8b1c-54ea151ff9d1" CreationDate="2013-11-09T14:36:21.283" UserId="164" Comment="Sorry, got the last pictures alt text wrong first time." Text="When one is buying a portable electric heater, there are at least three different types available:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Radiative halogen heaters&#xD;&#xA;2. Fan heaters&#xD;&#xA;3. Oil-filled radiators and similar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Images of examples of each are shown at the bottom of the question, in order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that any of these has the same electrical input power, and given that they must all eventually be 100% efficient at converting electricity to heat, any advantage or disadvantage must relate to the way that they transfer the heat to the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is one type clearly better? If not, what are the advantages and disadvantages of each?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/3TSoG.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot; alt=&quot;Picture of radiative halogen heater&quot; title=&quot;Picture of radiative halogen heater&quot;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/LK3K4.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot; alt=&quot;Picture of a cheap fan heater&quot; title=&quot;Picture of a cheap fan heater&quot;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/kY2st.jpg&quot; height=&quot;200&quot; alt=&quot;Picture of an Oil-filled radiator&quot; title=&quot;Picture of an Oil-filled radiator&quot;&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4067" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="c17262e5-c9d6-4df4-8b1c-54ea151ff9d1" CreationDate="2013-11-09T14:36:21.283" Comment="Proposed by 164 approved by 812 edit id of 175" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1308" RevisionGUID="ddebb269-1d06-43fc-81b3-4756a85aa1f9" CreationDate="2013-11-09T14:37:30.520" UserId="164" Text="### General principals&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important thing here is to realise *what* these heaters heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Fan heaters primarily heat the air, and conduct that heat to you.&#xD;&#xA;* Radiative heaters radiate infra-red light which strikes objects and heats them directly, heating the intervening air less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are heating a space with ventilation but no heat recovery (you open a door or window regularly, or have a draught) then a fan heater would be less useful than a radiative heater. Much of the heat you generate will escape with the air which escapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in a space where there is little likelihood of hot air escaping, but where the walls are thin and poorly insulated, then a fan heater might be better. While some of the heat from the radiative heater will strike you and heat you directly, the energy which hits the walls will be divided between radiating back into the room and escaping through the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a well insulated room with little escape of air, there would be negligible differences between the different methods other than perceptual ones. From personal experience, I always *feel* warmer in front of a radiative heater, and they certainly produce less noise pollution than fan heaters, so are more pleasant to be around. Both are more controllable than oil frilled radiators, so you get heat out of them sooner after you need it and waste little heat when you no longer need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Personal experience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find infra-red heaters particularly useful in bathrooms. Heaters like the following are (or were) common in UK bathrooms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Dimplex IRX120N - 1200 Watt Infra Red Wall Heater - Image used without permission, but with attribution][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to use a heater like this is on demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't normally heat my bathroom, but I turn on my bathroom IR wall heater before I get in the shower so it is up to full heat by the time I get out of the shower. The infra-red heat keeps me nice and warm in those those crucial moments between stopping the hot water flow and towelling off the rapidly cooling water. I then turn off the heater as I leave the bathroom, having wasted little electricity unnecessarily heating it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never understood why people replace IR wall heaters in bathrooms with fan heaters. I find that they can never warm up the air in the bathroom enough during the time you are showering that you don't feel cold during the towelling. I know that IR heaters are seen as *old technology*, but they work very well, are as 'efficient' as every other electric heater and are far more reliable than fan heaters. I have never had a fan heater last more than a decade, the IR heater in my bathroom has been working for over three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Images/Products/size_3/DXIRX120N.JPG&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/DXIRX120N.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1308" RevisionGUID="ab8c821a-d79a-4145-a799-99ac30db7a59" CreationDate="2013-11-09T16:51:26.677" UserId="812" Comment="Changed the summary of how fan heaters work to avoid using the word &quot;conduct&quot; - since that has a specialised meaning in this context." Text="### General principals&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important thing here is to realise *what* these heaters heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Fan heaters primarily heat the air, and blow that warm air towards you.&#xD;&#xA;* Radiative heaters radiate infra-red light which strikes objects and heats them directly, heating the intervening air less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are heating a space with ventilation but no heat recovery (you open a door or window regularly, or have a draught) then a fan heater would be less useful than a radiative heater. Much of the heat you generate will escape with the air which escapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in a space where there is little likelihood of hot air escaping, but where the walls are thin and poorly insulated, then a fan heater might be better. While some of the heat from the radiative heater will strike you and heat you directly, the energy which hits the walls will be divided between radiating back into the room and escaping through the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a well insulated room with little escape of air, there would be negligible differences between the different methods other than perceptual ones. From personal experience, I always *feel* warmer in front of a radiative heater, and they certainly produce less noise pollution than fan heaters, so are more pleasant to be around. Both are more controllable than oil frilled radiators, so you get heat out of them sooner after you need it and waste little heat when you no longer need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Personal experience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find infra-red heaters particularly useful in bathrooms. Heaters like the following are (or were) common in UK bathrooms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Dimplex IRX120N - 1200 Watt Infra Red Wall Heater - Image used without permission, but with attribution][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to use a heater like this is on demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't normally heat my bathroom, but I turn on my bathroom IR wall heater before I get in the shower so it is up to full heat by the time I get out of the shower. The infra-red heat keeps me nice and warm in those those crucial moments between stopping the hot water flow and towelling off the rapidly cooling water. I then turn off the heater as I leave the bathroom, having wasted little electricity unnecessarily heating it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never understood why people replace IR wall heaters in bathrooms with fan heaters. I find that they can never warm up the air in the bathroom enough during the time you are showering that you don't feel cold during the towelling. I know that IR heaters are seen as *old technology*, but they work very well, are as 'efficient' as every other electric heater and are far more reliable than fan heaters. I have never had a fan heater last more than a decade, the IR heater in my bathroom has been working for over three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Images/Products/size_3/DXIRX120N.JPG&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/DXIRX120N.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4070" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1308" RevisionGUID="ab8c821a-d79a-4145-a799-99ac30db7a59" CreationDate="2013-11-09T16:51:26.677" Comment="Proposed by 812 approved by 48 edit id of 176" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="4071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="1309" RevisionGUID="1d40c2b9-c025-4da4-8555-4af3a4eb2f04" CreationDate="2013-11-09T17:56:15.600" UserId="48" Text="I'll take a slightly different line to Mark Booth's excellent answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**fan heater:** If you've got a lot of still air, and / or if you only want the heater on for short bursts, then the fan heater is probably best, because it will get the warm air circulating in the room, and it will respond quickly to being turned on and off. However, dust can settle on the heating element, and you can't reach it to clean it, so you get the smell of burnt dust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**oil-filled radiatior:** If you want a slow-to-respond heater that will have a lot of thermal mass, so it will warm up slowly, and cool down slowly, that will give comfort advantages, but if you turn it off when you no longer need the heat, it will continue to radiate for some time, as the oil in it cools down, and that could be a waste of energy. If part of the heater's duty will be to help dry clothes, this radiator might be your best option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**inrfa-red lamp:** If it's for a room where you'll spend a time with a lot of skin exposed, and if you're ok with the air being relatively cold but your skin feeling warm (like being in full sun on a winter's day), then the infra-red heater is the thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1252" RevisionGUID="d93216a4-f47c-4307-81ca-829180947770" CreationDate="2013-11-09T20:31:39.093" UserId="674" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="If you're willing to put some effort in, then check out http://www.e-stewards.org/ to look for a third-party certified e-waste recycler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, Best Buy accepts many electronics and accessories for recycling, free of charge.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Global-Promotions/Recycling-Electronics/pcmcat149900050025.c?id=pcmcat149900050025&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are convenient drop boxes for things like CDs, DVDs, and their cases, rechargeable batteries, etc. in the entryway to most stores. Should be pretty quick and painless to stop by a nearby location. For larger things like televisions, you need to actually take it into the store to the customer service desk and fill out a quick form about the item and your consenting to have it recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also organizations that accept items via the mail, such as http://www.cdrecyclingcenter.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, I'd suggest selling or giving away any worthy items via eBay, Half.com, Craigslist, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a bit of a risk though, no way to be sure the next person to use it will dispose of it responsibly...but its useful life is being extended...take your pick!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1308" RevisionGUID="45f69fcd-dddb-4924-96ec-975e0a5349f8" CreationDate="2013-11-09T21:47:37.343" UserId="164" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="### General principals&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important thing here is to realise *what* these heaters heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Fan heaters primarily heat the air, and thus warm you indirectly.&#xD;&#xA;* Radiative heaters radiate infra-red light which strikes objects and heats them directly, heating the intervening air less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are heating a space with ventilation but no heat recovery (you open a door or window regularly, or have a draught) then a fan heater would be less useful than a radiative heater. Much of the heat you generate will escape with the air which escapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in a space where there is little likelihood of hot air escaping, but where the walls are thin and poorly insulated, then a fan heater might be better. While some of the heat from the radiative heater will strike you and heat you directly, the energy which hits the walls will be divided between radiating back into the room and escaping through the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a well insulated room with little escape of air, there would be negligible differences between the different methods other than perceptual ones. From personal experience, I always *feel* warmer in front of a radiative heater, and they certainly produce less noise pollution than fan heaters, so are more pleasant to be around. Both are more controllable than oil frilled radiators, so you get heat out of them sooner after you need it and waste little heat when you no longer need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Personal experience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find infra-red heaters particularly useful in bathrooms. Heaters like the following are (or were) common in UK bathrooms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Dimplex IRX120N - 1200 Watt Infra Red Wall Heater - Image used without permission, but with attribution][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to use a heater like this is on demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't normally heat my bathroom, but I turn on my bathroom IR wall heater before I get in the shower so it is up to full heat by the time I get out of the shower. The infra-red heat keeps me nice and warm in those those crucial moments between stopping the hot water flow and towelling off the rapidly cooling water. I then turn off the heater as I leave the bathroom, having wasted little electricity unnecessarily heating it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never understood why people replace IR wall heaters in bathrooms with fan heaters. I find that they can never warm up the air in the bathroom enough during the time you are showering that you don't feel cold during the towelling. I know that IR heaters are seen as *old technology*, but they work very well, are as 'efficient' as every other electric heater and are far more reliable than fan heaters. I have never had a fan heater last more than a decade, the IR heater in my bathroom has been working for over three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Images/Products/size_3/DXIRX120N.JPG&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/DXIRX120N.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2309" RevisionGUID="86daa5fb-1043-4b65-9418-9bede71e4518" CreationDate="2013-11-10T13:55:54.983" UserId="894" Text="My father's goats love pine, not just the needles but the young and flexible twigs too. So much so that most of the pinetrees in the feeding area lost the branches under 1,5 meters or so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They never had a miscarriage, but had a lot of false pregnancies. I do not know if those have anything to do with pine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2310" RevisionGUID="dae1ac21-202b-478b-80e7-5ab8cbea0925" CreationDate="2013-11-10T21:46:37.197" UserId="15" Text="## Safety ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to safety (eg for a heater used in a child's bedroom, or someone sleeping), I would never use a fan heater or bar heater because of the fire risk should the device be knocked over, covered, or an item put in front. I'm reasonably comfortable using an oil filled heater or [wall-panel heater][1] though, but I wouldn't go without having a smoke alarm in the room that's been tested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately oil heaters are terribly inefficient, as much of the heat rises to the ceiling where it is lost with little benefit. It would be sensible if they were painted black to help them radiate more heat!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, twice I've had fan heaters fail where the fan stopped working but the heater part continued to operate. If I wasn't there, perhaps they would have caught fire? I would never leave one running unattended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that when I'm working on a computer in a cold house, occasional use of a fan heater pointing under my desk/table seems by far the most efficient. Usually it only needs to be run on half power, and even then only sporadically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.econo-heat.co.nz/electric-wall-heater-faq.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2310" RevisionGUID="e49fd09d-8b39-4f6e-9b4c-30c54d062635" CreationDate="2013-11-10T23:23:04.190" UserId="15" Comment="deleted 79 characters in body" Text="## Safety ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to safety (eg for a heater used in a child's bedroom, or someone sleeping), I would never use a fan heater or bar heater because of the fire risk should the device be knocked over, covered, or an item put in front. I'm reasonably comfortable using an oil filled heater or [wall-panel heater][1] though, but I wouldn't go without having a smoke alarm in the room that's been tested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately oil heaters are terribly inefficient, as much of the heat rises to the ceiling where it is lost with little benefit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, twice I've had fan heaters fail where the fan stopped working but the heater part continued to operate. If I wasn't there, perhaps they would have caught fire? I would never leave one running unattended.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that when I'm working on a computer in a cold house, occasional use of a fan heater pointing under my desk/table seems by far the most efficient. Usually it only needs to be run on half power, and even then only sporadically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.econo-heat.co.nz/electric-wall-heater-faq.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2311" RevisionGUID="b5888956-ed30-4a62-a7c1-50cfe9e4a115" CreationDate="2013-11-10T23:30:14.600" UserId="15" Text="Firework boxes seem to have a thin layer of metal foil on the outside, presumable to assist in fireproofing. Does this mean they can't be easily recycled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are probably some differences in capability between different recycling techniques, but perhaps the answer is a simple yes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5077" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2311" RevisionGUID="b5888956-ed30-4a62-a7c1-50cfe9e4a115" CreationDate="2013-11-10T23:30:14.600" UserId="15" Text="Is the cardboard from a firework box recyclable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5078" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2311" RevisionGUID="b5888956-ed30-4a62-a7c1-50cfe9e4a115" CreationDate="2013-11-10T23:30:14.600" UserId="15" Text="|recycling|paper|cardboard|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1308" RevisionGUID="f7ff5845-2ce5-49d3-881c-f1629ece8cb9" CreationDate="2013-11-11T00:20:19.913" UserId="164" Comment="added 1021 characters in body" Text="### General principals&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important thing here is to realise *what* these heaters heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Radiative heaters radiate infra-red light which strikes objects and heats them directly, heating the intervening air less.&#xD;&#xA;* Fan heaters primarily heat the air in the room by [forced convection][1].&#xD;&#xA;* Oil filled radiators, work like ordinary central heating radiators, primarily heating the air in the room by [convention][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are heating a space with ventilation but no heat recovery (you open a door or window regularly, or have a draught) then a fan heater or radiator would be less useful than a radiative heater. Much of the heat you generate will escape with the air which escapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in a space where there is little likelihood of hot air escaping, but where the walls are thin and poorly insulated, then a fan heater might be better. While some of the heat from the radiative heater will strike you and heat you directly, the energy which hits the walls will be divided between radiating back into the room and escaping through the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a well insulated room with little escape of air, there would be negligible differences between the different methods other than perceptual ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Safety&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is usually recommended that radiative and fan heaters are not left running when unattended. Even when an Oil filled radiator is rated for unattended operation, care should be taken, as with any heating device, that nothing flammable is left close to or in contact with the heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Care should also be taken with these heaters when used in a room where people are sleeping. If there is **any** chance that they could be knocked over or bedding/clothes could fall on them and pose fire risk, they should not be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, only used appliances rated for kitchen/bathroom use in those rooms. Moisture in the air could cause a heater not rated for those environments to fail, posing an additional fire risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Personal experience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From personal experience, I always *feel* warmer in front of a radiative heater, and they certainly produce less noise pollution than fan heaters, so are more pleasant to be around. Both are more controllable than oil frilled radiators, so you get heat out of them sooner after you need it and waste little heat when you no longer need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find infra-red heaters particularly useful in bathrooms. Heaters like the following are (or were) common in UK bathrooms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Dimplex IRX120N - 1200 Watt Infra Red Wall Heater - Image used without permission, but with attribution][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to use a heater like this is on demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't normally heat my bathroom, but I turn on my bathroom IR wall heater before I get in the shower so it is up to full heat by the time I get out of the shower. The infra-red heat keeps me nice and warm in those those crucial moments between stopping the hot water flow and towelling off the rapidly cooling water. I then turn off the heater as I leave the bathroom, having wasted little electricity unnecessarily heating it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never understood why people replace IR wall heaters in bathrooms with fan heaters. I find that they can never warm up the air in the bathroom enough during the time you are showering that you don't feel cold during the towelling. I know that IR heaters are seen as *old technology*, but they work very well, are as 'efficient' as every other electric heater and are far more reliable than fan heaters. I have never had a fan heater last more than a decade, the IR heater in my bathroom has been working for over three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Forced_convection&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Natural_convection&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Images/Products/size_3/DXIRX120N.JPG&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/DXIRX120N.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="d0d0e450-c582-4fab-b897-21c577330aa9" CreationDate="2013-11-11T07:14:30.740" UserId="264" Comment="Added a useful links towards potentialy interesting related ressources" Text="I wondered what was the best, in one hand for the health (but I guess the question should be asked somewhere else, shouldn't it?) and in the other hand for the earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one, if there is one, is more (or less) eco-friendly? Which one is more efficient (space used versus productivity)? Also, depending on our location, consuming one type of oil rather than the other might be worth to consider (depending on where they can grow, where they are usually grown and so the fuel needed to deliver them to our location in one form or another). How many energy is required to process each? Is there more useful byproducts coming from sunflowers or from an olive tree? Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Just putting that here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sunflower+oil+versus+olive+oil&amp;t=canonical" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5081" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="5b493e34-99f8-40f1-b769-152afc2a8e2d" CreationDate="2013-11-11T08:18:05.947" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|ecological-footprint|energy-efficiency|vegetable-oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5083" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2311" RevisionGUID="8607e034-a972-4c05-85be-0e3304912dfb" CreationDate="2013-11-11T16:02:24.350" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/399930114580185088" />
  <row Id="5084" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="503d38b6-0b26-4f8f-8209-df8f8ab02a30" CreationDate="2013-11-12T18:10:52.100" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="edited title" Text="Open Source DIY Architecture Alternatives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2312" RevisionGUID="531d0673-52cb-43ad-a49f-5d858ca8a6b3" CreationDate="2013-11-12T21:14:42.733" UserId="822" Text="My roof will likely need new shingles within the next few years.  Should I consider getting solar panels installed now, or should I wait until after the roof is taken care of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5086" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2312" RevisionGUID="531d0673-52cb-43ad-a49f-5d858ca8a6b3" CreationDate="2013-11-12T21:14:42.733" UserId="822" Text="Should solar panels be installed before or after re-shingling the roof?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5087" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2312" RevisionGUID="531d0673-52cb-43ad-a49f-5d858ca8a6b3" CreationDate="2013-11-12T21:14:42.733" UserId="822" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5088" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1306" RevisionGUID="f1498895-1892-465e-a11a-485931656c6b" CreationDate="2013-11-12T22:02:27.403" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/400383112980733952" />
  <row Id="5089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="5aedd7c5-4275-49a8-8054-eb32bde76322" CreationDate="2013-11-12T22:37:10.267" UserId="822" Comment="spelling and clarity" Text="I am looking for a new place to live and I know the winters will be very cold (-20 C).  Coming from a warm climate country, I want to learn what to look for from a heating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the bit I understand, steam heating loses a lot of energy to the walls and surroundings, but it doesn't need the pumping that water based heating uses (which spends more energy). Is there a clear advantage of one over the other?&#xD;&#xA;Electric heaters don't use the propane usually burnt in furnaces, but then again, it will spend loads of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;Following directions given in comments, I split this question leaving the insulation part to http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/882/what-is-the-most-sustainable-house-insulation&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5090" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="5aedd7c5-4275-49a8-8054-eb32bde76322" CreationDate="2013-11-12T22:37:10.267" Comment="Proposed by 822 approved by -1 edit id of 177" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="9f34db35-4bc4-4f3d-8d04-5eded78aecb3" CreationDate="2013-11-12T22:37:10.267" UserId="85" Comment="spelling and clarity" Text="I am looking for a new place to live and I know the winters will be very cold (-20 C).  Coming from a warm climate country, I want to learn what to look for in a heating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the bit I understand, steam heating loses a lot of energy to the walls and surroundings, but it doesn't need the pumping that water based heating uses (which spends more energy). Is there a clear advantage of one over the other?&#xD;&#xA;Electric heaters don't use the propane usually burnt in furnaces, but then again, it will spend loads of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;Following directions given in comments, I split this question leaving the insulation part to http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/882/what-is-the-most-sustainable-house-insulation&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2313" RevisionGUID="06596678-a9e7-48c3-b18b-7e09da442083" CreationDate="2013-11-13T01:22:36.013" UserId="164" Text="It looks to me like you have three choices:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Re-roof your property now, then buy solar panels and have them fitted.&#xD;&#xA;* Buy and install your solar panels now, then in a few years remove all of the solar panels, re-roof your property and re-fit the panels.&#xD;&#xA;* Wait until your property needs re-roofing, re-roof it and *then* buy and install solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, you need to consider the cost and environmental impact of these options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re-roofing now means that you are not getting the full lifetime from your roof shingles. They will have cost more than they should have cost, in both environmental terms and in their monetary cost amortised over their lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removing and later refitting those panels will obviously have a monetary cost, but may also have an environmental cost. Panels and their fittings are far more likely to be damaged or broken and require replacement when being fitted or removed than when sat on the roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By putting off buying solar panels until after your roof is replaced you waste none of the lifetime of your roof and avoid the risk and waste of money on having panels removed and replaced. You could also benefit from a lower cost solar panels in the future, but you would also be losing the environmental benefits of having that system installed for those few years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Calculating the specifics of your situation is beyond the scope of a Stack Exchange question, but hopefully this should give you some hints as to how you can make an informed decision yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2313" RevisionGUID="eeabc459-c891-42a4-b097-e68de9c4bddf" CreationDate="2013-11-13T11:23:34.203" UserId="164" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="It looks to me like you have three choices:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Re-roof your property now, then buy solar panels and have them fitted.&#xD;&#xA;* Buy and install your solar panels now, then in a few years remove all of the solar panels, re-roof your property and re-fit the panels.&#xD;&#xA;* Wait until your property needs re-roofing, re-roof it and *then* buy and install solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As such, you need to consider the cost and environmental impact of these options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re-roofing now means that you are not getting the full lifetime from your roof shingles. They will have cost more than they should have cost, in both environmental terms and in their monetary cost amortised over their lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removing and later refitting those panels will obviously have a monetary cost, but may also have an environmental cost. Panels and their fittings are far more likely to be damaged or broken and require replacement when being fitted or removed than when sat on the roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By putting off buying solar panels until after your roof is replaced you waste none of the lifetime of your roof and avoid the risk and waste of money on having panels removed and replaced. You could also benefit from the possibility of lower cost/higher energy efficiency solar panels in the future, but you would also be losing the environmental benefits of having that system installed for those few years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Calculating the specifics of your situation is beyond the scope of a Stack Exchange question, but hopefully this should give you some hints as to how you can make an informed decision yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5094" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2312" RevisionGUID="2d24d077-2cc5-4f21-8043-402cba1d146e" CreationDate="2013-11-14T01:02:30.343" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/400790811354603520" />
  <row Id="5099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2315" RevisionGUID="66767440-dc97-4b6f-8aa4-c3be351cff5b" CreationDate="2013-11-15T02:14:08.980" UserId="21" Text="Are heavy blankets effective insulation when used over drafty windows as curtains or when hung in doors to shut off an unused space?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it more effective to seal the windows with plastic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5100" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2315" RevisionGUID="66767440-dc97-4b6f-8aa4-c3be351cff5b" CreationDate="2013-11-15T02:14:08.980" UserId="21" Text="Is Using Blankets to Insulate Doors and Windows Effective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5101" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2315" RevisionGUID="66767440-dc97-4b6f-8aa4-c3be351cff5b" CreationDate="2013-11-15T02:14:08.980" UserId="21" Text="|heating|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5102" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="e60899dc-9bbf-43cf-8511-512cb7ce60b2" CreationDate="2013-11-15T04:02:35.073" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/401198517743796224" />
  <row Id="5103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2316" RevisionGUID="df40c71c-d472-4174-ad4c-3092274bae3b" CreationDate="2013-11-15T05:36:13.833" UserId="48" Text="**Yes, heavy blankets can be effective insulation over draughty windows; or in open doorways to shut off an unused space**: over both, they will hinder heat loss through convection (air currents), and over windows they will add a bit of a conduction barrier too. Castles used to hang tapestries over all the walls, partly to keep some heat it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, they should be floor-to-ceiling, which helps cut out [convection bypasses][1]. The convection bypass of concern here is the air rotation by natural convention around insulation, the third image below. If the thermally insulating curtains (blankets) don't go floor-to-ceiling, then air will get cooled by the window, drop down to the floor, pass under the bottom of the curtain into the room, and warm air will pass from the room, over the top of the curtain, and get cooled by the external wall and window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Image source: [Mark Sidall, “Thermal bypass- the impact of natural and forced convection upon building performance” in Green Building Magazine (summer 2009 issue)][3]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether they're more or less effective than clear plastic film over windows, will depend on a bunch of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Will you keep the blankets over windows even during daytime, or will you open them? If you'll be opening them, then the clear film may be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the main heat loss through the window due to conduction or convection? Are they draughty, or are just leaking heat conducted through the glass? If the latter, the blanket may be more effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, do both: put the clear film over the glass, and hang floor-to-ceiling blankets over them as curtains. That way, you'll benefit from the air tightness and reduce conduction losses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Warning**: as ever, when increasing the air tightness of a room or building, remember that one of the things the draughts had been doing, was taking away excess moisture (from breathing, washing, cooking). If you don't ensure that that moisture is taken away, you risk condensation, mould, and consequential damage to property and health. So think about your ventilation strategy. Ventilation in infrequent bursts - i.e. just opening windows or doors once a day to exchange the air completely - may not be enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greenspec.co.uk/thermal-bypass.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1HnN0.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.building.co.uk/passivhaus-diaries-part-six-thermal-bypass/3145769.article" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2316" RevisionGUID="f4e280df-89e0-4712-a355-15eb3cdfc0cf" CreationDate="2013-11-15T07:53:10.970" UserId="48" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="**Yes, heavy blankets can be effective insulation over draughty windows; or in open doorways to shut off an unused space**: over both, they will hinder heat loss through convection (air currents), and over windows they will add a bit of a conduction barrier too. Castles used to hang tapestries over all the walls, partly to keep some heat it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, they should be floor-to-ceiling, which helps cut out [convection bypasses][1]. The convection bypass of concern here is the air rotation by natural convention around insulation, the third image below. If the thermally insulating curtains (blankets) don't go floor-to-ceiling, then air will get cooled by the window, drop down to the floor, pass under the bottom of the curtain into the room, and warm air will pass from the room, over the top of the curtain, and get cooled by the external wall and window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Image source: [Mark Sidall, “Thermal bypass- the impact of natural and forced convection upon building performance” in Green Building Magazine (summer 2009 issue)][3]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for whether they're more or less effective than clear plastic film over windows, will depend on a bunch of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Will you keep the blankets over windows even during daytime, or will you open them? If you'll be opening them, then the clear film may be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is the main heat loss through the window due to conduction or convection? Are they draughty, or are just leaking heat conducted through the glass? If it's mostly through the glass, then the clear film may be most effective: it will trap a layer of insulating air next to the glass. But if a lot of heat is going out through the window frames too, then the blankets may be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, do both: put the clear film over the glass, and hang floor-to-ceiling blankets over them as curtains. That way, you'll benefit from the air tightness and reduce conduction losses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Warning**: as ever, when increasing the air tightness of a room or building, remember that one of the things the draughts had been doing, was taking away excess moisture (from breathing, washing, cooking). If you don't ensure that that moisture is taken away, you risk condensation, mould, and consequential damage to property and health. So think about your ventilation strategy. Ventilation in infrequent bursts - i.e. just opening windows or doors once a day to exchange the air completely - may not be enough. Some peopel use silica gel in pouches, next to the window, to trap the moisture, to deter mould.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greenspec.co.uk/thermal-bypass.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1HnN0.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.building.co.uk/passivhaus-diaries-part-six-thermal-bypass/3145769.article" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5106" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="24bd115c-6219-4431-84e8-8b6ecd29fa21" CreationDate="2013-11-15T18:45:07.163" UserId="99" Comment="5" />
  <row Id="5108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2317" RevisionGUID="8c5231db-10e0-4d65-abe6-5f973b23795d" CreationDate="2013-11-16T17:03:28.200" UserId="903" Text="I have some under-cabinet lighting that uses Xenon G8 bulbs. I didn't even know this type of light bulb existed until recently. One of the bulbs has stopped working and I want to get rid of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the right/best way to dispose of Xenon light bulbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5109" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2317" RevisionGUID="8c5231db-10e0-4d65-abe6-5f973b23795d" CreationDate="2013-11-16T17:03:28.200" UserId="903" Text="How do I dispose of Xenon light bulbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5110" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2317" RevisionGUID="8c5231db-10e0-4d65-abe6-5f973b23795d" CreationDate="2013-11-16T17:03:28.200" UserId="903" Text="|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2318" RevisionGUID="e016021f-ba2c-426b-80fe-e9113ff43024" CreationDate="2013-11-18T00:10:52.633" UserId="87" Text="I think that you can assume, worst case, that your car will be no worse than the 10-15 seconds break-even given in the linked answer.  Since your car is engineered for start-stop, if there are easy improvements to be made to minimize the cost of restarting then the manufacturer may have made them, but in any case it should be no worse than average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electrical energy used to re-start is miniscule compared to the gasoline energy wasted by idling.  In [this link][1] on the physics SE it was estimated to be 1 / 4000 of a gallon of gasoline to re-start the motor.  The number given there for idling of .3 gal / hour is consistent with my observation of .24 gal / hour in my Prius.  Given those numbers they calculated a break-even point of only 3 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I don't have hard data to provide an exact break-even point, my conclusion would be to take advantage of your vehicle's start-stop at every opportunity where you don't actually know that you will be moving off immediately - and don't worry if you guess wrong, the cost of one restart is much smaller than what you are saving from having the system for the much longer stops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57794/calculating-engine-starters-energy-use/75572#75572 &quot;this link&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5112" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2317" RevisionGUID="81025e14-4ecc-4a94-b5b4-6da24a258e10" CreationDate="2013-11-18T01:03:00.347" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/402240488549662721" />
  <row Id="5113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="90c43711-9c2c-4dea-b4f3-c35d6a4f20ef" CreationDate="2013-11-18T16:54:35.573" UserId="822" Comment="spelling, format instructions as a list for clarity" Text="Avoid sulfer rich foods in addition to the normal vermicomposting no-nos.  The best way to prevent odor is to ensure adequate air circulation and proper hydration.  Most odor comes as a consequence of too much moisture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the fruit flies, you can try placing cups of vinegar in the bin, but this will probably only reduce the quantity of flies rather than eliminate them.  Some kind of predator may work, but you're better off starting over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. dump the bin&#xD;&#xA; 2. pick out the worms&#xD;&#xA; 3. wash them like you would a basket of root vegetables&#xD;&#xA; 4. clean the bin thoroughly&#xD;&#xA; 5. start composting again from scratch  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll lose some worms to stress, but you'll ditch the flies, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5114" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="542" RevisionGUID="90c43711-9c2c-4dea-b4f3-c35d6a4f20ef" CreationDate="2013-11-18T16:54:35.573" Comment="Proposed by 822 approved by 99 edit id of 180" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1217" RevisionGUID="c5f890fb-8950-447b-ac1e-49ae9da5cc02" CreationDate="2013-11-18T16:54:52.577" UserId="822" Comment="spelling, added link titles so that you know what you get before you click" Text="A place to start would be the heat output rating. The Vermont Bun Baker is rated at 30,000 Btu/hr. The Garrison wood stove (1976 model 2) is rated at 37,000 Btu/hr. But these are hard to compare since the newer oven is likely the EPA rating and the older one is likely a maximum output rating. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you need to consider how fast your home loses heat, outside temperatures, etc. The manufacturer claims the Bun Baker will heat 700-900 sq. ft. The comments from owners seem to agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Vermont Bun Baker Wood Cook Stove](http://woodstoves.net/cookstoves/vermontbunbaker.htm)&#xD;&#xA; - [Garrison Wood Stove Baffle warping Problem](http://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/garrison-wood-stove-baffle-warping-problem.104162/)&#xD;&#xA; - [EPA efficiency &amp; heat output ratings:&#xD;&#xA;Why do they differ from what I see on manufacturers' brochures?](http://chimneysweeponline.com/hobtucmp.htm)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5116" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1217" RevisionGUID="c5f890fb-8950-447b-ac1e-49ae9da5cc02" CreationDate="2013-11-18T16:54:52.577" Comment="Proposed by 822 approved by 99 edit id of 179" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5119" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2315" RevisionGUID="931174ff-b887-4c45-b582-9b81f923d644" CreationDate="2013-11-18T19:03:01.870" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/402512287082487811" />
  <row Id="5120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2319" RevisionGUID="d2889b80-02d6-4211-92fc-0097b138e58a" CreationDate="2013-11-18T20:01:01.750" UserId="907" Text="I want an analysis of daily water usage that breaks out the data by family type and size.  For instance, the sort of thing I would like to know is water usage for a married couple in their 40's with no kids versus, say, elderly couples and singles.  I would also like to know about differences in usage between professional couples (i.e. not home a lot) versus couples and families that spend most nights at home.  Some of this I can adjust mathematically, but there are no baseline numbers, other than overly broad averages, that I can find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I generally find are averages that either state daily usage for an archetypical &quot;family of four&quot; or others that appear to use that sort of data to start and give a single &quot;average use for one person&quot; number.  These numbers are overly influenced by default families that do not make up any portion of the population I am analyzing.  I believe that family type and size will affect usage significantly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A chart or EPA report or something with some connection between water usage and demographic composition of a (housing) community would be ideal.  (Just to be clear, when I say community I mean a small clump of homes or condominiums, not cities or towns.)  It is really important for the case that is being made here that the information be neutral, that is, not data provided by companies trying to sell water savings products and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2319" RevisionGUID="d2889b80-02d6-4211-92fc-0097b138e58a" CreationDate="2013-11-18T20:01:01.750" UserId="907" Text="Analysis of Water Usage by Family Demographics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2319" RevisionGUID="d2889b80-02d6-4211-92fc-0097b138e58a" CreationDate="2013-11-18T20:01:01.750" UserId="907" Text="|water|water-management|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2320" RevisionGUID="52c2394d-5db2-4b48-a64a-aa9a57d999d3" CreationDate="2013-11-18T20:19:03.297" UserId="908" Text="RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH THIS ANSWER. Sounds like I myself asked the question. U described my home, my heat pump, my climate, an therefore my problem, exactly! YES, the infrared heaters make ALL the difference. Worth every penny of which I am not spending more. Each winter is different so Im not going to claim a savings. But, we have never exceeded our highest winter bill since purchasing the heaters and most importantly, we are WARM!!! Wearing sweaters, sweat pants, 2 pair of socks, and donning a blanket, while paying out the nose and still being cold is a thing of the past. Problem solved!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2319" RevisionGUID="6af5270f-1ece-473e-a81a-5eac1cbabc45" CreationDate="2013-11-18T22:18:40.090" UserId="907" Comment="Added specific country reference to question." Text="I want an analysis of daily water usage that breaks out the data by family type and size in the United States.  (Although I am happy to get usage data by demographics for any part of the world if that is all that is available!)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, the sort of thing I would like to know is water usage for a married couple in their 40's with no kids versus, say, elderly couples and singles.  I would also like to know about differences in usage between professional couples (i.e. not home a lot) versus couples and families that spend most nights at home.  Some of this I can adjust mathematically, but there are no baseline numbers, other than overly broad averages, that I can find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I generally find are averages that either state daily usage for an archetypical &quot;family of four&quot; or others that appear to use that sort of data to start and give a single &quot;average use for one person&quot; number.  These numbers are overly influenced by default families that do not make up any portion of the population I am analyzing.  I believe that family type and size will affect usage significantly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A chart or (U.S.) EPA report or something with some connection between water usage and demographic composition of a (housing) community would be ideal.  (Just to be clear, when I say community I mean a small clump of homes or condominiums, not cities or towns.)  It is really important for the case that is being made here that the information be neutral, that is, not data provided by companies trying to sell water savings products and the like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2321" RevisionGUID="28fef787-340f-41e1-b4cf-6aafd2fa699f" CreationDate="2013-11-19T00:46:30.997" UserId="893" Text="I've recently inherited the responsibilities of taking care of a vermicomposting box. We used two of these plastic bins to make the composting box:&#xD;&#xA;http://torontobestmoving.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/basic-plastic-bin2.png&#xD;&#xA;The handles on the sides make it easy to move around. But we would like to not move it a lot, because its very heavy already.&#xD;&#xA;The box has been sitting outdoors till the end of last month when we moved it indoors. I'm concerned about mold or some kind of fungal buildup because of the humidity. How can I either control or lock the humidity in the box " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2321" RevisionGUID="28fef787-340f-41e1-b4cf-6aafd2fa699f" CreationDate="2013-11-19T00:46:30.997" UserId="893" Text="Controling humidity of Vermicomposter in winter to prevent mold" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2321" RevisionGUID="28fef787-340f-41e1-b4cf-6aafd2fa699f" CreationDate="2013-11-19T00:46:30.997" UserId="893" Text="|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2320" RevisionGUID="3d7f6798-279d-41db-8959-d8e20ab195e8" CreationDate="2013-11-19T09:14:29.313" UserId="99" Comment="added link to answer, no need to shout" Text="I respectfully disagree with [this answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1216/99). Sounds like I myself asked the question. You described my home, my heat pump, my climate, an therefore my problem, exactly! YES, the infrared heaters make ALL the difference. Worth every penny of which I am not spending more. Each winter is different so Im not going to claim a savings. But, we have never exceeded our highest winter bill since purchasing the heaters and most importantly, we are WARM!!! Wearing sweaters, sweat pants, 2 pair of socks, and donning a blanket, while paying out the nose and still being cold is a thing of the past. Problem solved!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5131" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2321" RevisionGUID="5a6fec16-7b1e-4eb4-b8d8-55f6d11a8c2d" CreationDate="2013-11-19T10:03:10.830" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/402738816483868672" />
  <row Id="5132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2323" RevisionGUID="d7a77ce6-ae24-4d84-8e7a-4334f8bd78f1" CreationDate="2013-11-19T13:06:19.877" UserId="99" Text="You don't have to worry too much about molds or fungi in a worm bin. Molds are useful and help decomposing the bin contents. However, you do have to regulate the moisture level of your worm bin! If a worm bin is too wet it will start to smell and the worms won't like a lot of water. If a bin becomes excessively wet your worms may even die and/or drown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most worm bins have a draining system for draining superfluous liquid. It is not very hard to add such a system to your bin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Option1:** Add a raised floor to the inside of your bin, for example made from the bottom of a similar-sized container. You'll have to make some small holls in the second floor so the water can seep through. If you then add a small tap at the outside bottom, you can drain the water every now and then. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Option2:** Alternatively you can make some small holls directly in the floor of your bin. It's best to place the bin in a raised position in another open container so you can catch any fluid when it drips out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the first option you still have a closed system, so there is no worry of smell. A drawback is that it may not be easy to add a tap that doesn't leak around the edges.&#xD;&#xA;The second option is easier to achieve, but any water dripping out is right in the open, so there may be a smell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from adding a drainage system, there is another alternative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Option3:** Carefully regulate the moisture content of your bin. This may not be easy, but it is doable. You'll probably have to dry wet materials like fruit peelings a bit before you can add them to your bin. If the bin still is becoming too wet, add dry cardboard or paper to get back to the correct moisture level. If you've dried your materials too much and the bin is not wet enough, simply spray with a bit of water.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5133" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2319" RevisionGUID="722268cc-b540-44ef-b326-da4b054cb924" CreationDate="2013-11-19T16:03:12.387" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/402829419427135488" />
  <row Id="5134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2324" RevisionGUID="3b74364b-9635-4645-9365-620b881bed66" CreationDate="2013-11-20T09:57:50.023" UserId="803" Text="There is [this report][1] that explores the water usage in the Sidney area. Especially the statistical tables in the appendix might give you the answers that you are looking for. They categorise the different groups of people into bins depending on their water usage in kL per year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of categories that fit your questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - single person, single parent, couple with children, couple without children&#xD;&#xA; - pensioner concession card (and thus probably retired)&#xD;&#xA; - number of persons/kids/adults per household&#xD;&#xA; - number of persons working full-time/part-time/staying at home&#xD;&#xA; - income classes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not on the US and you'd have to compile the charts yourself, but I think this should give you a pretty good idea what different households use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data comes from the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sfaq.ipart.nsw.gov.au/files/RP26.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2324" RevisionGUID="1568bc9e-3736-4a25-8ce1-16cff4587a0f" CreationDate="2013-11-20T10:33:49.590" UserId="803" Comment="edited body" Text="There is [this report][1] that explores the water usage in the Sydney area. Especially the statistical tables in the appendix might give you the answers that you are looking for. They categorise the different groups of people into bins depending on their water usage in kL per year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of categories that fit your questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - single person, single parent, couple with children, couple without children&#xD;&#xA; - pensioner concession card (and thus probably retired)&#xD;&#xA; - number of persons/kids/adults per household&#xD;&#xA; - number of persons working full-time/part-time/staying at home&#xD;&#xA; - income classes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not on the US and you'd have to compile the charts yourself, but I think this should give you a pretty good idea what different households use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data comes from the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sfaq.ipart.nsw.gov.au/files/RP26.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2320" RevisionGUID="2b2c2db9-a387-45a7-bcb9-a5797d84d1a0" CreationDate="2013-11-20T10:50:44.987" UserId="822" Comment="spelling and broke into paragraphs" Text="I respectfully disagree with [this answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1216/99). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like I myself asked the question. You described my home, my heat pump, my climate, an therefore my problem, exactly! YES, the infrared heaters make ALL the difference. Worth every penny of which I am not spending more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each winter is different so I'm not going to claim a savings. But, we have never exceeded our highest winter bill since purchasing the heaters and most importantly, we are WARM! Wearing sweaters, sweat pants, 2 pair of socks, and donning a blanket, while paying out the nose and still being cold is a thing of the past. Problem solved!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5137" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2320" RevisionGUID="2b2c2db9-a387-45a7-bcb9-a5797d84d1a0" CreationDate="2013-11-20T10:50:44.987" Comment="Proposed by 822 approved by 48 edit id of 181" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2325" RevisionGUID="cd1cb114-b067-45b3-b40a-18ea8407486a" CreationDate="2013-11-20T14:42:08.190" UserId="812" Text="I have not used the system that you describe, so I do not have direct experience. However, at a high level:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, in the scenario that you describe, the heat pump is not doing anything useful, and the question simply boils down to &quot;Is it best to use a resistive electric heater through a central heating system, or to use radiative (infra-red) heaters in the rooms that are occupied&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's quite a simple one to answer: Either system is 100% efficient at converting electricity to heat, but the radiative heaters do it in the room where the heat is wanted, while the central system does it somewhere else and moves the heat to the rooms where it is wanted, losing some along the way. Therefore, individual heaters in the rooms to be warmed must be more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three important caveats here, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If the heat pump is not totally ineffectual, but is still working with a reduced performance factor that is still &gt;1, then using this with some &quot;top-up&quot; from the resistive coil may be the best option.&#xD;&#xA;2. If the central heating is needed for another purpose (e.g. hot water) then this may interact favourably with the heating.&#xD;&#xA;3. What is best in energy terms may not be best in economic terms, depending on your electricity tariff. For instance, it could be that the central heating's coil heater runs on a cheaper rate per unit of electricity than a heater plugged into a wall socket. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2325" RevisionGUID="0eb926f9-7693-4e39-8d0a-9d98fe779d72" CreationDate="2013-11-20T16:30:41.683" UserId="812" Comment="deleted 111 characters in body" Text="As I understand it, in the scenario that you describe, the heat pump is not doing anything useful, and the question simply boils down to &quot;Is it best to use a resistive electric heater through a central heating system, or to use radiative (infra-red) heaters in the rooms that are occupied&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's quite a simple one to answer: Either system is 100% efficient at converting electricity to heat, but the radiative heaters do it in the room where the heat is wanted, while the central system does it somewhere else and moves the heat to the rooms where it is wanted, losing some along the way. Therefore, individual heaters in the rooms to be warmed must be more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three important caveats here, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If the heat pump is not totally ineffectual, but is still working with a reduced performance factor that is still &gt;1, then using this with some &quot;top-up&quot; from the resistive coil may be the best option.&#xD;&#xA;2. If the central heating is needed for another purpose (e.g. hot water) then this may interact favourably with the heating.&#xD;&#xA;3. What is best in energy terms may not be best in economic terms, depending on your electricity tariff. For instance, it could be that the central heating's coil heater runs on a cheaper rate per unit of electricity than a heater plugged into a wall socket. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2326" RevisionGUID="67802a77-3adb-475b-ba6e-c036ebd9e1a0" CreationDate="2013-11-20T22:11:59.197" UserId="885" Text="Your question is a little ambiguous- do you want a prefab home you can plop in a hole, or an open source DIY plan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some in progress in open source architecture, such as wikihouse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wikihouse.cc/about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it is early stages and not often focused sustainability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this DIY example (blueprints included) might interest you:  http://simondale.net/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I disagree with your glass assessment.  Glass is made of friendly natural materials, but it takes a lot of energy to produce (it has to be melted!).  Shipping glass is tricky, raising the footprint.  Worst of all, though, glass is a poor insulator.  If you're going to bury it underground then there really is no point, there are many other options which are inexpensive and very locally sourced, such as straw bales or rammed earth.  Glass should be used to allow light (and heat) into the home, often at a sacrifice to insulation (which can be made up for during the day with correct planning).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for prefab homes there are a variety of items which already exist, such as shipping containers, which have a small footprint in that nothing new need be constructed.  Otherwise, as dax mentioned, there are several methods of frame+cover construction which are available with little skill and footprint. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2327" RevisionGUID="d0deb315-a500-452b-aa1b-8d7215fdef42" CreationDate="2013-11-20T23:35:57.690" UserId="913" Text="With an indoor worm bin, we're very strict about just putting vegetable and fruit matter into the bin. Much of it comes from our juicing. This kind of matter doesn't put off much of a smell as long as we don't over feed the worms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We learned how much our worms could eat by trial and error. It'll be obvious if they're getting too much food because they'll be hard to find. We have the five tray system so once once the last tray is full, the first tray is hungry again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We put thick damp newspaper on top of the worm bin. This really helps avoid the fruit flies. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2324" RevisionGUID="f78babc9-e9df-4377-b0da-c539a795800a" CreationDate="2013-11-21T06:40:38.913" UserId="659" Comment="question is not specific to the US" Text="There is [this report][1] that explores the water usage in the Sydney area. Especially the statistical tables in the appendix might give you the answers that you are looking for. They categorise the different groups of people into bins depending on their water usage in kL per year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of categories that fit your questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - single person, single parent, couple with children, couple without children&#xD;&#xA; - pensioner concession card (and thus probably retired)&#xD;&#xA; - number of persons/kids/adults per household&#xD;&#xA; - number of persons working full-time/part-time/staying at home&#xD;&#xA; - income classes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this should give you a pretty good idea what different households use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data comes from the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of New South Wales.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sfaq.ipart.nsw.gov.au/files/RP26.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5143" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2324" RevisionGUID="f78babc9-e9df-4377-b0da-c539a795800a" CreationDate="2013-11-21T06:40:38.913" Comment="Proposed by 659 approved by 803 edit id of 182" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5144" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="b66fb5c5-f7f3-434a-894a-a6efd2492864" CreationDate="2013-11-22T19:12:40.740" UserId="99" Comment="5" />
  <row Id="5146" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1294" RevisionGUID="16882269-5d71-40dc-a7f2-e9f47de77b57" CreationDate="2013-11-22T22:04:01.657" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/404007387193176064" />
  <row Id="5147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2328" RevisionGUID="a7f44629-69ba-4bb6-98af-21186521fd0a" CreationDate="2013-11-22T22:30:42.573" UserId="885" Text="I can't find any focusing on USA data in a short search, but if you're looking for general use patters based on factors there are a number of data driven models available.  They may be a good place to start looking- after all, they rely on data!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Household water use behavior: An integrated model][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Classifying households for water demand forecasting using physical property characteristics][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Urbanisation and Water Consumption: Influencing Factors in the Metropolitan Region of Barcelona][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479709002850&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837708000884&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/43/9/1605.short&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general there are a lot of factors contributing to water use.  You need to control for things like gardens, swimming pools, and water price variations before you can really compare demographics.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2329" RevisionGUID="b4c6a7e0-1e7d-4c15-b2d0-e26d9b3d5099" CreationDate="2013-11-23T09:14:11.643" UserId="917" Text="If you do a little digging, you should find a study of duckweed farming in Vietnam. One of the NGOs looked into it several years ago." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2330" RevisionGUID="0ac4bafa-3b98-4f22-9706-7b031385213e" CreationDate="2013-11-23T09:40:09.367" UserId="917" Text="There are several factors to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) How efficient is the generating station? In general, if any attempt is made to capture &quot;waste&quot; heat and use it for domestic heating or some industrial process, the answer is &quot;very&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) How efficient is the transmission system? This can vary quite a bit, both from location to location and over time. For example, a system under heavy load is less efficient than one under less of a load. As load increases, you get more heating of the cables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) How efficient is the charging system? Modern battery chargers are more efficient, but any time you change voltages or convert alternating current to direct current (or vice versa) you have losses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) How much is lost as the battery sits there? NiMh batteries are far better than lead-acid. Some of the newer technologies promise to be better still.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) How efficient is the motor and drivetrain of the car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) And last, but certainly not least, how much energy went into building the car? The least impactful product is the one that has already been produced!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, ultimately, the best answer is to ride mass transit, if you really must travel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2332" RevisionGUID="4e842316-a5ed-410e-8e17-31787b2d453a" CreationDate="2013-11-23T10:35:36.817" UserId="917" Text="I can think of one big advantage, in certain instances, to using PV to drive a resistance heating element: ease of transmission. I can run a cable up, down, sideways, etc. with little difficulty, provided that it is large enough for the anticipated current. To do the same thing with pipe can be tricky, especially where you have to deal with extreme temperatures. Also, if the panel is on the roof, and the water is needed on the first floor of an 8-story building, you need quite a pump to get your heat-transfer fluid up there, and it's under quite a bit of pressure near the bottom, and the plumbing has to be capable of handling that. Fortunately, electrons aren't very heavy, so you don't have similar issues with electric cables; it's a matter of length only, not length and orientation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I'd consider something more efficient than resistance heating, too, like an air-to-water heat pump. Generally better to use less than to generate more!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5152" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1264" RevisionGUID="2d1eac99-cbf1-40b5-bd3d-d3d9a8809048" CreationDate="2013-11-23T16:04:02.853" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/404279183037464576" />
  <row Id="5153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2333" RevisionGUID="113c2b3c-405b-4c52-bf06-3850ffece59b" CreationDate="2013-11-24T14:50:23.337" UserId="87" Text="Can anyone provide a method to estimate the gas flow rate to sustain a pilot light, using just the apparent size (flame width and length) and reasonable assumptions for things like gas line pressure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that we have our gas (propane) delivered, not continuously metered, so no response that amounts to &quot;don't use any other gas, and see how much is used&quot; is going to work.  I can't go days or weeks not using gas :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once I have a flow rate for the pilot light, in addition to determining the actual gas use per time period, I will convert it to equivalent energy units with electricity and compare it to other &quot;vampire&quot; or continuous baseline loads." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5154" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2333" RevisionGUID="113c2b3c-405b-4c52-bf06-3850ffece59b" CreationDate="2013-11-24T14:50:23.337" UserId="87" Text="How can I estimate the gas usage of a pilot light?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5155" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2333" RevisionGUID="113c2b3c-405b-4c52-bf06-3850ffece59b" CreationDate="2013-11-24T14:50:23.337" UserId="87" Text="|heating|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5156" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2333" RevisionGUID="2f168b7d-0008-4544-aaa3-bf3aea2e1344" CreationDate="2013-11-25T01:43:13.067" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/404787323336130560" />
  <row Id="5157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2334" RevisionGUID="7385f596-8184-49e8-8715-57a8958bcf8f" CreationDate="2013-11-25T14:51:30.683" UserId="48" Text="Some options for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Flyto][1]'s suggestion in the comments of assuming that pilot lights are similar, and have somebody with a metered supply do the measurement, is very good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Install a gas meter. Not only will it allow you to answer your question about pilot lights, but will give you data that you can use to assess the efficiency of each of the uses of your propane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Measure the heat flux out of the boiler, after it's been on only the pilot light for many hours. If you know the heat flux through the boiler case per unit area, then you can multiply that by the surface area of the boiler, to calculate the heat lost by the boiler per unit time. Assuming the boiler is in thermal equilibrium, the rate of heat loss will equal the rate of heat input from the pilot light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/812/flyto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2333" RevisionGUID="db6588bf-f826-4821-b717-d68bca91a2c7" CreationDate="2013-11-25T20:40:23.347" UserId="87" Comment="respond to comments" Text="Can anyone provide a method to estimate the gas flow rate to sustain a pilot light, using just the apparent size (flame width and length) and reasonable assumptions for things like gas line pressure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that we have our gas (propane) delivered, not continuously metered, so no response that amounts to &quot;don't use any other gas, and see how much is used&quot; is going to work.  I can't go days or weeks not using gas :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once I have a flow rate for the pilot light, in addition to determining the actual gas use per time period, I will convert it to equivalent energy units with electricity and compare it to other &quot;vampire&quot; or continuous baseline loads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit to answer comments: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some good ideas there, but unfortunately not applicable.  HighlyIrregular's suggestion is not feasible because there is always a safety to shut off gas flow if the flame is out, and it is not accessible enough otherwise.  As to weighing, I have a 500 gal underground tank!  And for EnergyNumbers, unfortunately it is not a water boiler but just heating air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best solution may be inspired by Flyto, along the lines of the &quot;I'll trade the barometer to the building superintendent in exchange for the building plans&quot; solution to &quot;how high is the building&quot; - i.e., try to look up some specs for the device and see if there is burn rate info." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2335" RevisionGUID="ab850604-3897-4c36-94a9-ddcd4083068e" CreationDate="2013-11-25T20:48:29.497" UserId="885" Text="In general: &quot;Various sources report that a pilot light burns from 5 to 12 therms of a gas per month depending on the particular appliance and how the pilot is adjusted.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your purposes:  Flame size does indicate fuel use but it isn't a simple or 100% accurate measurement.  If you know the pressure of your propane in the line and can measure the width of your pilot orifice.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out some flow rate calculators here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.pipeflowcalculations.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also if you are worried about wasted energy keep in mind:  in the winter most of the waste is dumped into your house as heat for many appliances, such as the stove and water heater.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2336" RevisionGUID="6206b28d-d4fb-4555-b5b7-acc7a9afd9d3" CreationDate="2013-11-26T23:59:04.207" UserId="927" Text="I live with roomates, and am only a renter not owner.  I'm looking for any ways to help with conservation despite this.  We have one roomate who is wasteful about leaving lights on and, in particular, leaving the bahtroom window open in a heated house for some reason, and I try to address that.  general tips for helping my roomates to save on power use are always good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, my main concern is in heat.  My room is smaller then the rest and as a side effect grows warm much faster.  I'm very hot and wake up with a dry throuaght, and can only think how much energy is being wasted on something I don't want.  However, we don't have individual thermostats or any way to close my floor vent; and my roomates don't want to lower the heat any since they are comfortable where they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good way for me to divert the heat away from my room, both for my own comfort and for saving of energy.  The obvious iea would be to cover the vent with a blanket or something, but I think I read this is bad for the heating system as a whole due to the build up of preassure on the closed off vent?  Any other tips for diverting the heat?  or convincing the roomates to just lower it lol." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5161" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2336" RevisionGUID="6206b28d-d4fb-4555-b5b7-acc7a9afd9d3" CreationDate="2013-11-26T23:59:04.207" UserId="927" Text="how to save on electric waste on heater with roomates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5162" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2336" RevisionGUID="6206b28d-d4fb-4555-b5b7-acc7a9afd9d3" CreationDate="2013-11-26T23:59:04.207" UserId="927" Text="|electricity|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2337" RevisionGUID="6485673a-c9f5-4870-8f21-80332e6458b1" CreationDate="2013-11-27T00:47:15.373" UserId="659" Text="Your second question is the easy one: it's fine to [block off one register][1], partly or completely. The problem comes when too many of them are blocked off (the furnace can't push enough air to work effectively). If you also have an exit vent in your room a [door snake][2] will help keep the warm air from the rest of the house out, once you've partly closed off the register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first question is much harder. I've lived in share houses for 20 years or so, and have not found a reliable answer. Which is especially odd given that most of those houses have been full of explicitly eco-friendly folk. The answers are the same as any political campaign or social change movement, but applied to a very small group of people (your roommates).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds as though you've already done the &quot;ask them&quot; step, and probably the &quot;explain why&quot; step. If not, do that. Saving money is usually the big win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'd probably be better addressing the highest cost areas first. Lights are usually minor, especially if you're using compact fluorescent bulbs or LEDs already. Heat loss is where the money goes, and leaving a window open when the heating on is going to really hurt you. I suspect you will find they do it to get rid of the steam, and the usual solution is an extractor fan linked to the light switch. But it's not your house so that's not an option. If you have a mould prblem you could speak to your landlord about that, and see if they will install a fan. But regardless, the real solution is to persuade the roommate not to leave the window open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First make sure the roommates, especially the window-opening one, understand the problem of heat loss, that it costs money, and makes the house colder in that area. Ideally get some of them on side, because peer pressure works. In the worst case, if everyone except that person is annoyed enough you can kick the problem person out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next you just have to work on the behaviour change. There's lots of [tips for behaviour change][3] around (it's a whole major area of scientific research as well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a group called [Green Renters in Melbourne][4] but I can't find anything similar in the US (Australia is mostly a cooling climate so GR don't have much on heating).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091210221945AARsXAw&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/draft-stoppers-door-snakes&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=tips%20for%20activist%20green%20behaviour%20change&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.greenrenters.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5164" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2336" RevisionGUID="a8481972-3d52-4dee-a3a1-61fac2a6e2fb" CreationDate="2013-11-27T01:43:29.247" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/405512167530983424" />
  <row Id="5165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2338" RevisionGUID="2d3af109-28e6-4a21-9dcc-f5e4383bda48" CreationDate="2013-11-27T02:09:00.597" UserId="15" Text="Regarding the bathroom window, if there's no ventilation fan or equivalent then it's not a simple task to get a balance between avoiding dampness/mould and losing heat. As a general rule, I go by this: if the condensation has evaporated off the walls and ceiling, then it's time to close the window (at least, mostly close it). If you keep an eye on how long this takes, you (or your roommate) could use a timer to remember to shut it, though it will differ somewhat depending on weather conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, a ventilation fan may cause even more heat loss than an open window, but you might feel it elsewhere depending on where it draws in cold air from. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Running a dehumidifier and leaving the window shut might be a good compromise? The waste heat from it will help heat the house too!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2336" RevisionGUID="5912083d-f1fa-4454-9663-d289b324eb79" CreationDate="2013-11-27T09:34:56.997" UserId="659" Comment="spelling (lots)" Text="I live with roommates, and am only a renter not owner.  I'm looking for any ways to help with conservation despite this.  We have one roommate who is wasteful about leaving lights on and, in particular, leaving the bathroom window open in a heated house for some reason, and I try to address that.  General tips for helping my roommates to save on power use are always good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, my main concern is in heat.  My room is smaller then the rest and as a side effect grows warm much faster.  I'm very hot and wake up with a dry throat, and can only think how much energy is being wasted on something I don't want.  However, we don't have individual thermostats or any way to close my floor vent; and my roommates don't want to lower the heat any since they are comfortable where they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good way for me to divert the heat away from my room, both for my own comfort and for saving of energy.  The obvious idea would be to cover the vent with a blanket or something, but I think I read this is bad for the heating system as a whole due to the build up of pressure on the closed off vent?  Any other tips for diverting the heat?  or convincing the roommates to just lower it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5167" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2336" RevisionGUID="5912083d-f1fa-4454-9663-d289b324eb79" CreationDate="2013-11-27T09:34:56.997" Comment="Proposed by 659 approved by 15, -1 edit id of 185" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2336" RevisionGUID="a07b8c59-c703-496f-9bbf-f2b316534e22" CreationDate="2013-11-27T09:34:56.997" UserId="99" Comment="spelling (lots)" Text="I live with roommates, and am only a renter not owner.  I'm looking for ways to help with energy conservation despite this.  We have one roommate who is wasteful about leaving lights on and, in particular leaving the bathroom window open in a heated house for some reason, and I try to address that.  General tips for helping my roommates to save power use are always good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, my main concern is in heat.  My room is smaller then the rest and as a side effect grows warm much faster.  I'm very hot and wake up with a dry throat, and can only think how much energy is being wasted on something I don't want.  However, we don't have individual thermostats or any way to close my floor vent; and my roommates don't want to lower the heat since they are comfortable where they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good way for me to divert the heat away from my room, both for my own comfort and for saving energy.  The obvious idea would be to cover the vent with a blanket or something, but I think I read this is bad for the heating system as a whole due to the build up of pressure on the closed off vent?  Any other tips for diverting the heat?  Or convincing the roommates to just lower it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5169" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2336" RevisionGUID="a07b8c59-c703-496f-9bbf-f2b316534e22" CreationDate="2013-11-27T09:34:56.997" UserId="99" Comment="spelling (lots)" Text="How to save heating energy with roommates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5170" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="2339" RevisionGUID="7f08575e-ee27-4804-889f-fd1e5f571661" CreationDate="2013-11-27T13:24:40.363" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87896/how-much-of-the-emitted-co2-is-human-caused" />
  <row Id="5172" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="2341" RevisionGUID="ce658bd3-e5b2-437a-a6e4-cb4e93262941" CreationDate="2013-11-27T13:24:40.363" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87896/how-much-of-the-emitted-co2-is-human-caused/87944#87944" />
  <row Id="5174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2341" RevisionGUID="49a0fd54-7e2b-46ae-a9ae-f8e3afb62a12" CreationDate="2013-11-26T08:54:40.757" UserId="931" UserDisplayName="user6972" Text="Fossil fuels contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12 (and no carbon-14), compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere.  This ratio doesn't directly correspond to world ppm or even relate directly to the quantity released because they are just looking at the ratio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This change in ratio is only tracked to show there is a correlation between human activity and $CO_2$.  The same can be said about the relative drop in carbon-14 as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The carbon cycle is complex and different sink absorption times and source release times make it hard to separate from the current ppm measurements.  It is probably impossible to say 10% is from X, 15% is from Y and 75% is from Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is well tracked is the industrial and human sources which have climbed.  The question still out there is how well do the sinks work?  What are their limits/tradeoffs?  What new sources might arise in a warmer climate?  It's possible a small amount of man-made $CO_2$ could cause a larger release of natural $CO_2$ and create a domino effect of warming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general the human related output of 29 gigatons of $CO_2$ is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, but it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra $CO_2$. [About 40% of this additional $CO_2$ is absorbed][1]. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric $CO_2$ is at its [highest level in 15 to 20 million years][2]. A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [predictive models of the temperate cycle based on greenhouse gases and energy input/outputs][3] can be tested against observations to see what might contribute to the temperature rise.&#xD;&#xA;![models][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;In one of the links I provided was from the IPCC.  Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are reviewed by representatives from all the governments, with a Summary for Policymakers being subject to line-by-line approval by all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [their report linked above][5] (which you must read completely if you're serious about this subject) they summarize the increase of greenhouse gases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For about a thousand years before the Industrial Revolution, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere remained relatively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; constant. Since then, the concentration of various greenhouse gases&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has increased. The amount of carbon dioxide, for example, has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increased by more than 30% since pre-industrial times and is still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increasing at an unprecedented rate of on average 0.4% per year,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mainly due to the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation. We&#xD;&#xA;&gt; know that this increase is anthropogenic because the changing isotopic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; composition of the atmospheric CO2 betrays the fossil origin of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increase. The concentration of other natural radiatively active&#xD;&#xA;&gt; atmospheric components, such as methane and nitrous oxide, is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increasing as well due to agricultural, industrial and other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activities. The concentration of the nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2) and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of carbon monoxide (CO) are also increasing. Although these gases are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not greenhouse gases, they play a role in the atmospheric chemistry&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and have led to an increase in tropospheric ozone, a greenhouse gas,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by 40% since pre-industrial times (Chapter 4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is that over decades we can measure our human based output and then measure the increase in the sinks vs atmosphere.  Then we can estimate how much contributes to the overall atmosphere.  Since sinks can sources all have different carbon time cycles you can not say &quot;this year x% of the ppm increase is anthropomorphic&quot;.  You can say that over the decades we see that x% produced leads to y% absorbed and a corresponding z% increase in the atmosphere.  But as the sinks saturate and temperatures change they change too, so it is not a rule but a dynamic system which we try to model to understand it.  We model these complex systems **so that we can answer the types of abstract questions you are asking**.  &quot;What does this measured ppm increase mean exactly?  What are the possible contributors?  What happens yearly?  What happens monthly?  Why is the average temperature increasing by x?  What happens if XX process doubles, or halves?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Given that CO2 has such a major role in the natural greenhouse effect,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it makes intuitive sense that changes in its concentration because of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; human activities might significantly enhance the greenhouse effect.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, calculating the impact of a change in CO2 is very different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from calculating the current role with respect to water vapor and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clouds. This is because both of these other substances depend on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temperatures and atmospheric circulation in ways that CO2 does not.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For instance, as temperature rises, the maximum sustainable water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vapor concentration increases by about 7% per degree Celsius. Clouds&#xD;&#xA;&gt; too depend on temperature, pressure, convection and water vapor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amounts. So a change in CO2 that affects the greenhouse effect will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also change the water vapor and the clouds. Thus, the total greenhouse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effect after a change in CO2 needs to account for the consequent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; changes in the other components as well. If, for instance, CO2&#xD;&#xA;&gt; concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4&#xD;&#xA;&gt; W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increases by almost 20 W/m2 — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; model, at least) the &quot;feedbacks&quot; are amplifying the effects of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone. Past climate data suggests&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that this is what happens in the real world as well. (from [nasa][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/044.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394.abstract&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LRh2V.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/044.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2339" RevisionGUID="4573107f-2e4f-4f6b-bc5f-5c2dee61fd40" CreationDate="2013-11-25T21:32:03.660" UserId="930" UserDisplayName="Ondřej Čertík" Text="Looking at the atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration measurements, e.g. from [Mauna Loa](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), the table there says that the increase of CO$_2$ concentration in the year 2012 was 2.66 ppm/yr.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How many percent of this 2.66 ppm/yr in 2012 is human caused (from fossil fuels, deforestation, etc.)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How does this percentage change in the years 1960-2012 (if it changes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't able to find literature that would answer this in percent. The closest reference I was able to find is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ghosh, P., &amp; Brand, W. a. (2003). Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 228(1), 1–33. [doi:10.1016/S1387-3806(03)00289-6](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1387-3806(03)00289-6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning, the $^{13}$C/$^{12}$C ratio of CO$_2$ in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand (from about 0.0111073 to 0.0110906).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 1.5 parts per thousand is 0.15%. Does it follow from this that human caused CO$_2$ increase is on the order of 0.15% (in the last 200 years)? Update: it doesn't, as nicely answered by user6972 below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update/Clarification: In this question I am only asking about CO$_2$ concentrations/emissions (how much is natural and how much is human caused), either measured or best estimate. The answer might be complicated, but I am specifically not asking about any possible influences on temperature (or climate change), that's a completely separate question, which I might ask later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further clarification: various [estimates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions) agree that the total human caused CO$_2$ emissions are around 30 gigatons/year.&#xD;&#xA;The [carbon cycle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle) explains, among other things, how CO$_2$ is [circulated in the atmosphere](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_carbon_cycle). Is there a scientific consensus (based on evidence, not opinion) whether or not the 30 gigatons/year contribute majority (i.e. 50% or more) of the 2.66 ppm/yr increase in 2012 of the atmospheric CO$_2$ concentrations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5176" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2339" RevisionGUID="4573107f-2e4f-4f6b-bc5f-5c2dee61fd40" CreationDate="2013-11-25T21:32:03.660" UserId="930" UserDisplayName="Ondřej Čertík" Text="How much of the emitted CO2 is human caused" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5177" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2339" RevisionGUID="4573107f-2e4f-4f6b-bc5f-5c2dee61fd40" CreationDate="2013-11-25T21:32:03.660" UserId="930" UserDisplayName="Ondřej Čertík" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2339" RevisionGUID="9909eebf-8a5a-489e-b47f-9d6b322b3b70" CreationDate="2013-11-27T13:47:06.393" UserId="99" Comment="changed latex formatting to markup" Text="Looking at the atmospheric CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration measurements, e.g. from [Mauna Loa](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/), the table there says that the increase of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration in the year 2012 was 2.66 ppm/yr.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How many percent of this 2.66 ppm/yr in 2012 is human caused (from fossil fuels, deforestation, etc.)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How does this percentage change in the years 1960-2012 (if it changes)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't able to find literature that would answer this in percent. The closest reference I was able to find is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ghosh, P., &amp; Brand, W. a. (2003). Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 228(1), 1–33. [doi:10.1016/S1387-3806(03)00289-6](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1387-3806(03)00289-6)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Owing mainly to antropogenic activities including land use change and fossil fuel burning, the &lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;C/&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;C ratio of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; in the atmosphere has changed over the last 200 years by 1.5 parts per thousand (from about 0.0111073 to 0.0110906).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 1.5 parts per thousand is 0.15%. Does it follow from this that human caused CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; increase is on the order of 0.15% (in the last 200 years)? Update: it doesn't, as nicely answered by user6972 below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update/Clarification: In this question I am only asking about CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentrations/emissions (how much is natural and how much is human caused), either measured or best estimate. The answer might be complicated, but I am specifically not asking about any possible influences on temperature (or climate change), that's a completely separate question, which I might ask later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further clarification: various [estimates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions) agree that the total human caused CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions are around 30 gigatons/year.&#xD;&#xA;The [carbon cycle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle) explains, among other things, how CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is [circulated in the atmosphere](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_carbon_cycle). Is there a scientific consensus (based on evidence, not opinion) whether or not the 30 gigatons/year contribute majority (i.e. 50% or more) of the 2.66 ppm/yr increase in 2012 of the atmospheric CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentrations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5179" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2339" RevisionGUID="9909eebf-8a5a-489e-b47f-9d6b322b3b70" CreationDate="2013-11-27T13:47:06.393" UserId="99" Comment="changed latex formatting to markup" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2341" RevisionGUID="0a062960-baac-42f3-8f62-1ff50163fa55" CreationDate="2013-11-27T13:54:53.403" UserId="99" Comment="changed latex formatting to markup" Text="Fossil fuels contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12 (and no carbon-14), compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere.  This ratio doesn't directly correspond to world ppm or even relate directly to the quantity released because they are just looking at the ratio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This change in ratio is only tracked to show there is a correlation between human activity and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.  The same can be said about the relative drop in carbon-14 as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The carbon cycle is complex and different sink absorption times and source release times make it hard to separate from the current ppm measurements.  It is probably impossible to say 10% is from X, 15% is from Y and 75% is from Z.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is well tracked is the industrial and human sources which have climbed.  The question still out there is how well do the sinks work?  What are their limits/tradeoffs?  What new sources might arise in a warmer climate?  It's possible a small amount of man-made CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; could cause a larger release of natural CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and create a domino effect of warming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general the human related output of 29 gigatons of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, but it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. [About 40% of this additional CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is absorbed][1]. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is at its [highest level in 15 to 20 million years][2]. A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [predictive models of the temperate cycle based on greenhouse gases and energy input/outputs][3] can be tested against observations to see what might contribute to the temperature rise.&#xD;&#xA;![models][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;In one of the links I provided was from the IPCC.  Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC) to writing and reviewing reports, which are reviewed by representatives from all the governments, with a Summary for Policymakers being subject to line-by-line approval by all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [their report linked above][5] (which you must read completely if you're serious about this subject) they summarize the increase of greenhouse gases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For about a thousand years before the Industrial Revolution, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere remained relatively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; constant. Since then, the concentration of various greenhouse gases&#xD;&#xA;&gt; has increased. The amount of carbon dioxide, for example, has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increased by more than 30% since pre-industrial times and is still&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increasing at an unprecedented rate of on average 0.4% per year,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mainly due to the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation. We&#xD;&#xA;&gt; know that this increase is anthropogenic because the changing isotopic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; composition of the atmospheric CO2 betrays the fossil origin of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increase. The concentration of other natural radiatively active&#xD;&#xA;&gt; atmospheric components, such as methane and nitrous oxide, is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increasing as well due to agricultural, industrial and other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; activities. The concentration of the nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2) and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of carbon monoxide (CO) are also increasing. Although these gases are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not greenhouse gases, they play a role in the atmospheric chemistry&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and have led to an increase in tropospheric ozone, a greenhouse gas,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by 40% since pre-industrial times (Chapter 4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is that over decades we can measure our human based output and then measure the increase in the sinks vs atmosphere.  Then we can estimate how much contributes to the overall atmosphere.  Since sinks can sources all have different carbon time cycles you can not say &quot;this year x% of the ppm increase is anthropomorphic&quot;.  You can say that over the decades we see that x% produced leads to y% absorbed and a corresponding z% increase in the atmosphere.  But as the sinks saturate and temperatures change they change too, so it is not a rule but a dynamic system which we try to model to understand it.  We model these complex systems **so that we can answer the types of abstract questions you are asking**.  &quot;What does this measured ppm increase mean exactly?  What are the possible contributors?  What happens yearly?  What happens monthly?  Why is the average temperature increasing by x?  What happens if XX process doubles, or halves?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Given that CO2 has such a major role in the natural greenhouse effect,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it makes intuitive sense that changes in its concentration because of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; human activities might significantly enhance the greenhouse effect.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, calculating the impact of a change in CO2 is very different&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from calculating the current role with respect to water vapor and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clouds. This is because both of these other substances depend on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temperatures and atmospheric circulation in ways that CO2 does not.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For instance, as temperature rises, the maximum sustainable water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vapor concentration increases by about 7% per degree Celsius. Clouds&#xD;&#xA;&gt; too depend on temperature, pressure, convection and water vapor&#xD;&#xA;&gt; amounts. So a change in CO2 that affects the greenhouse effect will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; also change the water vapor and the clouds. Thus, the total greenhouse&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effect after a change in CO2 needs to account for the consequent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; changes in the other components as well. If, for instance, CO2&#xD;&#xA;&gt; concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4&#xD;&#xA;&gt; W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increases by almost 20 W/m2 — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; model, at least) the &quot;feedbacks&quot; are amplifying the effects of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone. Past climate data suggests&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that this is what happens in the real world as well. (from [nasa][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/044.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394.abstract&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LRh2V.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/044.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2343" RevisionGUID="993f79b8-2743-461d-8528-fc15c2b98b93" CreationDate="2013-11-27T14:20:22.980" UserId="827" Text="Are you talking in terms of use and disposal per person, or life cycle of metal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference being are you interested in how much metal a person consumes and disposes of? Or how much metal gets to land fill and averaging that out over the population?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not all metal disposed of will make it to land fill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect you're question is the first (disposal per person), which I would say (without researching figures directly) yes it has gone up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason being, in general, society is consuming (and disposing of) more, which would imply that the metals contained within are also being disposed of more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The average consumer changes cell phone every 2 years - 30 years ago, we didn't even have cell phones.&#xD;&#xA; - Similarly, computers last about 3 to 5 years, they also didn't exist 30 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two items until recently, largely went to landfill when done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The US sends about 2 billion disposable razors to landfill each year (there's a lot more men on the planet now than 30 years ago, so it stands to reason that's increased)&#xD;&#xA;http://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/apr/04/ethicalmoney.leohickmanonethicalliving&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you tried the Worldbank Databank - they may have some overall stats of metal consumed by nation. ( http://data.worldbank.org )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe also The World Beaurea of Metal Statistics - http://www.world-bureau.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2344" RevisionGUID="8022ef40-b3df-4399-bfb7-90af1ac1dfdf" CreationDate="2013-11-27T19:35:40.353" UserId="929" Text="There is a xenon (Xe 54) gas inside the bulb and this is inert. Does not harm anything in so tiny amount and it is environment friendly. Bigger xenon lamp should not be breached, because the pressure inside the lamp is different and this they could shatter/explode, but G8 does absolutely nothing, if that happen, but don't do it. To throw it away could be OK. Some countries have a possibility to separate electronic material waste in some disposal companies. They can handle it for you, if you feel hyper-sustainable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2344" RevisionGUID="684a9902-1be8-4c8e-ab9a-cb1b6e818a28" CreationDate="2013-11-27T19:41:23.967" UserId="929" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="There is a xenon (Xe 54) gas inside the bulb and this is inert. Does not harm anything in so tiny amount and it is environment friendly. Bigger xenon lamp should not be breached, because the pressure inside the lamp is different and this they could shatter/explode, but G8 does absolutely nothing, if that happen, but don't do it. To throw it away could be OK. Some countries have a possibility to separate electronic material waste in some disposal companies. They can handle it for you, if you feel hyper-sustainable. Read something about it here: http://renewablekinabalu.blogspot.sk/2013/04/xenon-lighing-another-environmentally.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5188" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2339" RevisionGUID="32f7df57-24b4-4264-84ec-1f3eb2d734cf" CreationDate="2013-11-28T04:43:43.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/405919911375294464" />
  <row Id="5189" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="355" RevisionGUID="f7366cbb-1f05-424e-94fe-1abc71534263" CreationDate="2013-11-28T07:43:42.957" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/405965208843472896" />
  <row Id="5190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2345" RevisionGUID="7c32897a-4e8a-4430-a4b6-b3fce1e145e6" CreationDate="2013-11-28T08:17:50.017" UserId="933" Text="Females can certainly reduce their TP use by using cut up cloth to wipe after #1. Small cotton cloths take up hardly any space in a load of laundry and can be reused over and over. Reduce your use of precious tree fibres, and save $, girls!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2345" RevisionGUID="7fa8621d-24cc-479c-89c0-d76d831d3c0f" CreationDate="2013-11-28T08:23:24.957" UserId="933" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="Females can certainly reduce their TP use by using cut up cloth to wipe after #1. Using the cut off tops of old cotton socks works really well too. They have a good amount of thickness for absorption. Small cotton cloths &amp; sock tops take up hardly any space in a load of laundry and can be reused over and over. Reduce your use of precious tree fibres, and save $, girls!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2346" RevisionGUID="f9b9aeb6-e762-4cad-820e-b0e8e6e3b668" CreationDate="2013-11-28T11:31:26.013" UserId="803" Text="I know of some people (mainly older generation) who would use cut up newspaper stripes. I've never actually tried it myself though. The problem I see is that you'd have to flush more often because newspaper may clog your toilet. This would of course then offset much of the potential ecological gain.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2347" RevisionGUID="d9b9524b-cd2e-4ff9-a81c-ca8097d937bd" CreationDate="2013-11-28T15:00:38.170" UserId="913" Text="If you were to put that box in the recycling bin in our town, it would be taken out and pout with the cardboard. Technically, I see your point about the foil being valuable metal. But from a US recycling standpoint, the effort it would take to take out the foil by hand is too great. If you could separate the two elements, then that would solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A great book just came out about Chinese recycling: http://tinyw.in/8aR7&#xD;&#xA;They get all our waste that we cant afford to bother with. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2348" RevisionGUID="61188024-5fe2-43f2-9c3b-8a74c1af6581" CreationDate="2013-11-28T15:03:43.357" UserId="913" Text="We have a community well that stores its water in underground tanks. Every three years, we empty the tanks and clean the algae out. Also, we add a tiny amount of chlorine to the water through an automated system to help kill any dangerous bacteria. Tiny trace amounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you aren't drinking this water, do the bugs and algae really matter? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="4f3b9b57-cee9-4ed7-a689-98aee77a028f" CreationDate="2013-11-30T14:56:11.133" UserId="936" Text="[This product][1] which has recently launched in India claims to provide a stench free alternative to home composting with little hassle. I had a discussion with its founder and he says its similar to [bokashi][2] composting. I wanted to know about the microbes used , its availability and does it really work to create a good compost without any stench emanating in the process as it claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover is it really feasible composting method for someone who has a family of two and would not generate enough organic waste? and can be done DIY without subscribing to this commercial product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://greentechlife.in/organic-composter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://bokashicomposting.com/?cat=2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="4f3b9b57-cee9-4ed7-a689-98aee77a028f" CreationDate="2013-11-30T14:56:11.133" UserId="936" Text="Microbes used for home composting and cost effectiveness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="4f3b9b57-cee9-4ed7-a689-98aee77a028f" CreationDate="2013-11-30T14:56:11.133" UserId="936" Text="|composting|home|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="85509590-9210-446b-b053-f44fda7ef9d9" CreationDate="2013-11-30T17:55:45.220" UserId="936" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="[This product][1] which has recently launched in India claims to provide a stench free alternative to home composting with little hassle. I had a discussion with its founder and he says its similar to [bokashi][2] composting, the difference being the microbe powder the product provides. I wanted to know about the microbes used , its availability and does it really work to create a good compost without any stench emanating in the process as it claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover is it really feasible composting method for someone who has a family of two and would not generate enough organic waste? and can be done DIY without subscribing to this commercial product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://greentechlife.in/organic-composter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://bokashicomposting.com/?cat=2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2350" RevisionGUID="5d8411b4-d537-4a12-b097-b524adfbfe29" CreationDate="2013-12-02T01:59:21.820" UserId="87" Text="I am aware that heat pumps are able to move more heat into a building per unit of energy input (the &quot;coefficient of performance&quot; or COP) when the source (outside) temperature is higher.  My question is whether I should set my programmable thermostat to bring the house to a warmer temperature during the warmer afternoon, or whether this increase in efficiency will be outweighed by the additional heat loss during the extra hours of increased temperature differential with the outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a two-zone heat pump system.  For the upstairs I currently have the thermostat set to increase the temperature by about 4 degrees a few hours before bedtime; this is about 3 hours after sunset.  I also have the downstairs thermostat set to increase the temperature by a few degrees at sunset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I noted recently how quickly the outside temperature falls after sunset on these sunny but colder days.  Since the heat pump COP is higher when it is warmer outside, would I use less energy by running the heat pump to create the temperature increases before sunset rather than later when it is colder?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For concrete numbers, let's assume that the temperature is 10 degrees Fahrenheit colder three hours after sunset than 1 hour before sunset.  (On a warm winter day, it would be 50 in the afternoon and 40 after dark; on a colder day it might be 10 or 20 degrees colder in both instances.)  Let's also use 64 degrees inside for computing the heat loss, and assume I am raising the temperature by 4 degrees 4 hours earlier.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a significant savings possible, I could also raise the temperature by even more during the day to delay the time when the house cools to the nighttime indoor setting and starts running the heat pump at the less efficient nighttime temperatures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5203" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2350" RevisionGUID="5d8411b4-d537-4a12-b097-b524adfbfe29" CreationDate="2013-12-02T01:59:21.820" UserId="87" Text="Should I take advantage of the higher heat pump COP during the warmest part of the day and &quot;bank&quot; heat in the house?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5204" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2350" RevisionGUID="5d8411b4-d537-4a12-b097-b524adfbfe29" CreationDate="2013-12-02T01:59:21.820" UserId="87" Text="|heating|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1308" RevisionGUID="b995f132-ceda-40af-8375-8ed9bf4fffe1" CreationDate="2013-12-02T06:20:51.437" UserId="938" Comment="Improved spelling. Also slight copyediting and clarification." Text="### General principles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important thing here is to realise *what* these heaters heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Radiative heaters radiate infra-red light which strikes objects and heats them directly, heating the intervening air less.&#xD;&#xA;* Fan heaters primarily heat the air in the room by [forced convection][1].&#xD;&#xA;* Oil filled radiators, work like ordinary central heating radiators, primarily heating the air in the room by [natural convection][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are heating a space with ventilation but no heat recovery (you open a door or window regularly, or have a draught) then a fan heater or radiator would be less useful than a radiative heater. Much of the heat you generate will escape with the air which escapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in a space where there is little likelihood of hot air escaping, but where the walls are thin and poorly insulated, then a fan heater might be better. While some of the heat from the radiative heater will strike you and heat you directly, the energy which hits the walls will be divided between radiating back into the room and escaping through the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a well insulated room with little escape of air, there would be negligible differences between the different methods other than perceptual ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Safety&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is usually recommended that radiative and fan heaters are not left running when unattended. Even when an oil filled radiator is rated for unattended operation, care should be taken, as with any heating device, that nothing flammable is left close to or in contact with the heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Care should also be taken with these heaters when used in a room where people are sleeping. If there is **any** chance that they could be knocked over, or bedding/clothes could fall on them and pose fire risk, do not use the heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, in kitchens and bathrooms, only use appliances rated for use in those rooms. Moisture in the air could cause a heater not rated for those environments to fail, posing an additional fire risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Personal experience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From personal experience, I always *feel* warmer in front of a radiative heater, and they certainly produce less noise pollution than fan heaters, so are more pleasant to be around. Both are more controllable than oil frilled radiators, so you get heat out of them sooner after you need it and waste little heat when you no longer need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find infra-red heaters particularly useful in bathrooms. Heaters like the following are (or were) common in UK bathrooms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Dimplex IRX120N - 1200 Watt Infra Red Wall Heater - Image used without permission, but with attribution][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to use a heater like this is on demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't normally heat my bathroom, but I turn on my bathroom IR wall heater before I get in the shower so it is up to full heat by the time I get out of the shower. The infra-red heat keeps me nice and warm in those those crucial moments between stopping the hot water flow and towelling off the rapidly cooling water. I then turn off the heater as I leave the bathroom, having wasted little electricity unnecessarily heating it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never understood why people replace IR wall heaters in bathrooms with fan heaters. I find that they can never warm up the air in the bathroom enough during the time you are showering that you don't feel cold during the towelling. I know that IR heaters are seen as *old technology*, but they work very well, are as 'efficient' as every other electric heater and are far more reliable than fan heaters. I have never had a fan heater last more than a decade, the IR heater in my bathroom has been working for over three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Forced_convection&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Natural_convection&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Images/Products/size_3/DXIRX120N.JPG&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/DXIRX120N.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5206" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1308" RevisionGUID="b995f132-ceda-40af-8375-8ed9bf4fffe1" CreationDate="2013-12-02T06:20:51.437" Comment="Proposed by 938 approved by 48 edit id of 186" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2351" RevisionGUID="9cdf66d8-388c-4db3-806a-819b51e57abb" CreationDate="2013-12-02T10:11:58.523" UserId="812" Text="Strictly speaking, your heat pump's CoP is not affected by the outside temperature, but by the difference between inside and outside temperatures. Given that there is a fairly narrow range of interior temperatures that we might want, that is nearly equivalent, but it does mean that there is only a limited extent to which this &quot;pre-heating&quot; approach can work - once you warm the house a certain amount above your normally preferred temperature, the CoP of the pump will be reduced in the same way as it is when it is cold outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, as you have identified, whether this strategy is worthwhile will depend very much upon the house and the heat pump: if the house is very well insulated, and thus heat loss from it is small, then the suggested scheme ought to work. If not, then the additional heat loss from the house being at a higher temperature may be greater than the benefit gained from the higher CoP. It may be possible for others to give a rule of thumb or an answer from experience, but the only way that I think you can sure is to test it, and even that is tricky:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a period of time (perhaps a week) try this &quot;pre-heating&quot; strategy. Record the exterior temperature that day and evening, and the amount of energy used by your heating system, each day.&#xD;&#xA;For another similar period of time use a more conventional strategy (have the heating on when you want the warmth), making sure that the thermostat is set to the same level at the same time except for the pre-heat period. Record the same items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Identify similar days between the two data sets, and compare the energy use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Difficulties that may be faced:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Depending on your metering arrangements, isolating the energy used by the heating system from other load in the house.&#xD;&#xA;2. If the house is well-insulated, having the same exterior temperature on two days does not necessarily mean that the house starts at the same interior temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I've assumed an air-source heat pump. As Energynumbers has noted, if it's ground source then this strategy is almost certainly unnecessary, as the ground temperature should change little on an hour-to-hour timescale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1237" RevisionGUID="6f1441bf-cb1b-4a63-aa0a-b343d1777f3e" CreationDate="2013-12-02T10:27:04.597" UserId="96" Comment="added yet another technology." Text="[The Banki Turnine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banki_turbine) is often mentioned in connection with small cale hydro and DIY projects, because it's far easier to build than a pelton turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ossberger](http://www.ossberger.de/cms/en/hydro/the-ossberger-turbine-for-asynchronous-and-synchronous-water-plants/), one major supplier, claim 80% efficiency for a small scale turbine over a wide range of flows - this will, of course, be lower for a home built one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This document](http://www.cd3wd.com/cd3wd_40/vita/bankitur/EN/BANKITUR.HTM) seems to contain detailed instructions for building on, including the welding of the turbine itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: I'm not in hydro and have never built such a system, so I can't really vouch for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An additional possibility would be to use a hydrodynamic screw - working principle:  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The german wikipedia article](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserkraftschnecke) states effiencies of typically 70%, 90% is possible. Apparantly, screws handle load changes and part load operation very well, but are surprisingly noisy. Typically they turn quite slowly, 20-60 rpm. Also they are described as beeing fish-friendly, though I can't say how much so in regards to which fish.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/q7j2Z.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5209" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="25b9b453-dc8c-43e8-88d5-4e251639bfa2" CreationDate="2013-12-02T10:44:04.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/407460151915208704" />
  <row Id="5210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2352" RevisionGUID="629ec582-1c4a-4840-9ebb-c1a2a439e44d" CreationDate="2013-12-02T11:27:20.697" UserId="99" Text="I have no experience with this Indian Smartbin system myself, but it looks like it is a Bokashi system. I suspect that the only difference with other commercial systems is that they sell their own mix of [Effective Microorganisms (EM)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_Microorganisms). This mix is probably slightly different from the already existing and trademarked mixes, but the principle of how to use it is still the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I've gathered on the website the Smartbins are airtight (this is necessary when composting with EM). This means that if the bin is closed, there is no chance of any odors coming out. However there probably is a soury smell if the bin is opened, for example when you add more food scraps or when you add the compost at the end of stage one. Usually the smell is nothing too bad, but if you dislike it you may want to open it outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see no reason why the Smartbin cannot be used by a family of two, or by a single person for that matter. You just gather all your food scraps until the bin is full (or half full is you leave space for adding compost later). If you don't generate much food waste just make sure you use a small bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to DIY, you'll have to buy your own airtight bins. There are many tutorials on the internet, for example [this one is very easy to DIY](http://snapguide.com/guides/make-a-bokashi-bin/) or you can create [one with a tap to drain fluids more easily](http://www.underthechokotree.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=181:making-your-own-bokashi-bucket&amp;catid=51:keeping-the-place-fertile&amp;Itemid=37).&#xD;&#xA;Besides a bin, you need to create an EM starter culture. Again there are many tutorials on the internet, [here](http://newspaperbokashi.wordpress.com/tag/diy-bokashi-starter-recipe/) is an example. Note that creating a EM culture will take about 3 weeks and you'll have to create new EM every now and then when you run out of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2353" RevisionGUID="9713ae16-ce73-4010-a571-3c9c706a42df" CreationDate="2013-12-02T16:16:03.930" UserId="404" Text="Caffeine has a stimulating effect on the central nervous system - as most coffee drinkers will attest, it provides a boost to our productivity and creativity. It has also been associated with lower risk to Alzheimers and other forms of dementia ([NIH](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20182054)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, especially, as a US citizen (to where these products must be shipped overseas), coffee and tea have high water footprints environment - I'm less concerned about their Carbon footprint, which is on the order of 10 kg CO2eq per year per person that drinks a cup a day ([the Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/jun/17/carbon-footprint-of-tea-coffee)). [Waterfootprint.org](http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/CoffeeTea) estimates a standard cup of coffee to require 140 L in the Netherlands, compared to 35 L for tea. On a per unit mass basis, it even beats meat in terms of its water consumption - 18,900 L/kg compared to 15,400 L/kg for beef ([Virtual Water](http://bit.ly/1efvnww)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yerba Mate markets itself to environmentally and socially conscious caffeine drinkers. How does it compare to coffee and tea in terms of carbon and water footprint? Less relevantly, but if information equally accessible, how does it compare in terms of health and caffeine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2353" RevisionGUID="9713ae16-ce73-4010-a571-3c9c706a42df" CreationDate="2013-12-02T16:16:03.930" UserId="404" Text="How does yerba mate stack up against tea and coffee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2353" RevisionGUID="9713ae16-ce73-4010-a571-3c9c706a42df" CreationDate="2013-12-02T16:16:03.930" UserId="404" Text="|food|water|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2354" RevisionGUID="804128a0-eed3-4005-9963-3be19e662d8c" CreationDate="2013-12-02T17:30:35.820" UserId="885" Text="Mate has one huge advantage that it's mostly grown (and consumed) in the region it comes from- but as popularity grows that may change. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mate is also processed pretty minimally - it is dried on a (traditionally wood) fire for less than a minute and left to cure for months then ground.  Typically it is even left with most the twigs present in South American consumption.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as health- any Uruguayan will tell you a long list of supposed benefits, I can't find things proving them.  Although there are definitely caffeine (and other xanthines) and anti-oxidants. The xanthines in mate are thought to prove relaxing to muscles unlike in coffee (reference, anyone?).  But folklore about 'mateine' instead of caffeine is false- the caffeine present is the same chemical as in coffee and tea.  Some of the chemicals thought to be negative in coffee aren't present, though. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2355" RevisionGUID="edda640c-47b1-4530-85cf-5c5b6ebeef41" CreationDate="2013-12-03T01:03:25.807" UserId="927" Text="I have a landlord who is very interested in saving money.  I wanted to suggest options to her to help her save money while reducing environmental footsteps.  however, she is not motivated to save the environment and is trying to pay off medical bills so is oppose to large upfront costs; so anything I suggest must be an obvious cost savings, not too expensive, and not inconvenience to do or for her tenets (for instance she nixed a programmable thermostat due to the effort of figuring out times to program in that worked with everyone's schedules).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens I donate a...pretty large sum of money to charity anyways, which means I have money to spare, and I both trust my landlord and have an easy collateral (I pay for x months in advance, you can't kick me out till the), so I'm actually willing to help finance some larger investments if she isn't.  I don't need to make any profit if it helps her and the environment, however, I make pretty good interest in my charitable fund so any money I contribute to help her has to provide sufficient savings to make up for my opportunity cost of not earning interest on that money until I'm refunded while slowly working towards refunding my initial investment and *still* giving her some sort of savings to make it worth her while; in other words we can do larger expenditures but only if they give fairly substantial savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone suggest which options are best to suggest to my landlord?  I know in the long run a solar panels would be a good option, but they are large enough of an upfront investment that it may be hard to convince her to look into; However, I would love more details about them, in particular any hidden expense (for instance, extra effort to maintain them, clear them off, etc) which I may not be aware of but she deserves to know going in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other good options to recommend to her are welcome.  I need things that aren't asking for too heavy a time investment from her to do, I'm happy to invest some of my time but I don't own the house so only so much I can do there; plus I'm pretty disorganized myself lol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We live in Maryland with 3 adults and one child living in the house.  The house is a somewhat older house with two stories plus a furnished underground basement used as a playroom.  just in case any of that matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ps. if we do something that would warrant tax credits is there any way I can pay for it and claim the tax credit as a resident but not home owner?  My tax bracket is a bit higher then hers so I would get a larger savings.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2355" RevisionGUID="edda640c-47b1-4530-85cf-5c5b6ebeef41" CreationDate="2013-12-03T01:03:25.807" UserId="927" Text="options to suggest to landloard for cost savings via renewable energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2355" RevisionGUID="edda640c-47b1-4530-85cf-5c5b6ebeef41" CreationDate="2013-12-03T01:03:25.807" UserId="927" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2356" RevisionGUID="3566cdad-4f39-49d3-a168-731872e462e7" CreationDate="2013-12-03T04:15:10.303" UserId="885" Text="As for federal tax credits, I believe they only apply to ['principal residence][1]' so you must both own and live in it.  However the landlord may be able to write it off as a cost if she pays the bill, for some relief.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check the energystar.gov site for details on what qualifies for tax credits:  http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index .   You may not be able to get them but they are an indication of what the government has deemed important and wants to invest in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maryland has several options:  http://mdcleanenergy.org/programs_and_incentives/residential_financial_incentives  including some for rental properties.  However you may be above the target income/neighborhood for those.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Insulation**:  Many of these can be a DIY project.  Check the attic, restore old windows, add storm windows, weather stripping to doors.  It may be the least exciting but most important.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Heating**:  Some very expensive replacements, such as geothermal, receive tax credits towards 30% of cost.  More efficient traditional units can get breaks too if upgrading.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may consider augmenting your traditional furnace with biomass.  Pellet stoves can be fairly affordable.  If you pay for your own utilities you may not concern your landlord with the price, but you will need to cut a hole in the house for the ventilation.  There are attractive models, even, which could improve the house value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Appliances**: Some inefficient devices can be replaced, such as old water heaters.  More efficient models are available and also alternative systems, such as on-demand (not popular in the US, though).  There are also solar models available, if you have the sun and budget.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Power Generation**:  Small solar projects can be easy to add on, but there are other options such smaller wind turbines which may get more bang with a smaller installation.  Especially nice if you have a constant breeze from the water.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://energystar.supportportal.com/ics/support/kbanswer.asp?deptID=23018&amp;task=knowledge&amp;questionID=22032" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2357" RevisionGUID="bf6392fa-08f5-4ac7-8723-246480a4e050" CreationDate="2013-12-03T09:49:00.700" UserId="942" Text="******I believe electric cars are much more efficient than the classic combustion engine, they do not give off polutants like the combustion engine cars. But they do produce ill wanted chemicals producing the electricity.******" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2358" RevisionGUID="4012dd04-5ebd-4dad-afe1-3e58474d82d4" CreationDate="2013-12-03T10:35:47.150" UserId="812" Text="On the financing front: You don't mention where in the world you are, but some countries have schemes whereby grants or favourable loans are available for improving the energy efficiency of housing stock. For example, in the UK there is the &quot;Green Deal&quot;. These schemes will vary in their usefulness versus the amount of bureaucracy involved, but are worth looking into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also don't mention too much about the finance arrangements around your tenancy; from what you've written, it sounds as though your landlady lives in the house with you. It's not clear whether she pays the energy bills or whether they are shared? Obviously in the first case she has a better financial incentive to improve matters, but either way you are far better off than the more usual case where the landlord is not present, and has no incentive to reduce the tenant's energy bills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also haven't mentioned what climate you live in, and specifically whether your house has air conditioning. I'm going to assume not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The measures that you and she could consider fall broadly into two categories: Firstly in reducing the home's energy use, and secondly in making sure that that energy that *is* required is delivered in the most efficient and/or cost-effective way that it can. Some of these things will not be applicable to your home, and some may already have been done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing demand&#xD;&#xA;===============&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Light&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;This is potentially a quick, cheap and easy area for improvement. Except for specialist types such as those in ovens, you should not be using any plain tungsten incandescent light bulbs. For general lighting, look to compact fluorescent (CFL). For spotlighting, for low output requirements, or for areas that are switched on and off very frequently, look at LED. If you really cannot stand to move away from an incandescent glow, or you need a light to be dimmable, use tungsten halogen lamps - preferably the low voltage variety, which are substantially more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all of these technology types, it is worth paying for a reputable brand (e.g. Osram, Philips, GE). CFLs and LEDs have gained a bad reputation with some people due to cheap versions failing early. The same applies to the transformers in low voltage halogen fixtures. If moving to LEDs, buy one first to check that you are happy with the colour - the quality of &quot;white&quot; varies widely. If moving to CFL or LED, don't trust the manufacturers' claims on &quot;equivalent wattage&quot; - instead, look at the number of lumens that they produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is slightly less cheap and easy, but some measures are still straightforward. If you are in even a moderately cold climate, heat will probably account for about half of your domestic energy use, so reducing this is potentially a big saving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Make sure that there is a good amount (up to 200-300mm) of modern loft insulation in your roof. This is quick and cheap to install, and without it all of your heat rises straight out the top of the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you get draughts under doors, etc., fit draught excluders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Make sure windows are double (or even triple) glazed. Moving from single to double glazing in particular is a major improvement in insulation. Potentially expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Wall insulation depends very much upon the walls. If you have cavity walls, get them filled with insulating foam. If you have solid walls, there are insulating panels that you can fit on the inside, but this does reduce the size of your rooms. As an alternative, take inspiration from medieval times and put wool hangings on the inside of the walls. Make sure there are flame-retardant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other measures&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* When replacing electrical appliances in the future, get ones with high energy efficiency ratings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Turn down the heating in rooms that are not being used for some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to instil a culture of people turning things off when they leave the room - especially lights, but also avoid leaving televisions playing to nobody, and so forth. Depending on what people are like to start with, this can potentially be a huge saving, and it has no cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another cultural change: If people can be happy wearing a jumper, rather than expecting to be comfortable year-round in a thin sleeveless top, you can make major savings in heating. Get thicker duvets and turn down bedroom temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improving energy delivery&#xD;&#xA;=========================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Renewable sources&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should consider,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Photovoltaics (i.e. solar panels that produce electricity)&#xD;&#xA;* Solar thermal water heating (pipes on the roof that provide &quot;free&quot; hot water)&#xD;&#xA;* *Possibly* a small wind turbine (although very small household ones are perhaps of dubious worth)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The value of all of these will depend on many factors, including the design and orientation of the building, where in the world you are, the wind speeds that you experience, etc. Each might be the subject of a good question here in its own right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The economics of some of these may be strongly influenced by any subsidies or other measures that your government offers to encourage them - for example, the feed-in tariff scheme in the UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heating&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With insulation, you have already minimised the amount of heat that the property needs. Now you can think about reducing the cost of providing the heat that is needed. Much will depend on the design of the house, and on the relative costs and availability of fuel where you are located. The costs will also depend greatly on the system that is installed at present. The most energy-efficient approach is likely to be a heat pump, preferably a ground-source one if possible. The most *economic* approach may be a heat pump, or it may be a modern, efficient gas-fired central heating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an overview; there are a number of topics in there that might make good SE questions in their own right. I hope that it is helpful when considering what to investigate further." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2355" RevisionGUID="34faaa57-abf7-4e5e-af6a-b9f81a551523" CreationDate="2013-12-03T22:19:36.887" UserId="927" Comment="added 294 characters in body" Text="I have a landlord who is very interested in saving money.  I wanted to suggest options to her to help her save money while reducing environmental footsteps.  however, she is not motivated to save the environment and is trying to pay off medical bills so is oppose to large upfront costs; so anything I suggest must be an obvious cost savings, not too expensive, and not inconvenience to implement or for her tenets (for instance she nixed a programmable thermostat due to the effort of figuring out times to program in that worked with everyone's schedules).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens I donate a...pretty large sum of money to charity anyways, which means I have money to spare, and I both trust my landlord and have an easy collateral (I pay for x months in advance, you can't kick me out till the), so I'm actually willing to help finance some larger investments if she isn't.  I don't need to make any profit if it helps her and the environment, however, I make pretty good interest in my charitable fund so any money I contribute to help her has to provide sufficient savings to make up for my opportunity cost of not earning interest on that money until I'm refunded while slowly working towards refunding my initial investment and *still* giving her some sort of savings to make it worth her while; in other words we can do larger expenditures but only if they give fairly substantial savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone suggest which options are best to suggest to my landlord?  I know in the long run a solar panels would be a good option, but they are large enough of an upfront investment that it may be hard to convince her to look into; However, I would love more details about them, in particular any hidden expense (for instance, extra effort to maintain them, clear them off, etc) which I may not be aware of but she deserves to know going in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other good options to recommend to her are welcome.  I need things that aren't asking for too heavy a time investment from her to do, I'm happy to invest some of my time but I don't own the house so only so much I can do there; plus I'm pretty disorganized myself lol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We live in Maryland with 3 adults and one child living in the house.  The house is a somewhat older house with two stories plus a furnished underground basement used as a playroom.  just in case any of that matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ps. if we do something that would warrant tax credits is there any way I can pay for it and claim the tax credit as a resident but not home owner?  My tax bracket is a bit higher then hers so I would get a larger savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;I should have said this sooner since it's obviously relevant; I sort of took it for granted.  Our utilities are included in our rent, so she is paying the full cost for all utilities.  She also lives in, and owns, the house; so maybe 'landlord' is a slightly misleading title :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The house is both heated in the winter and cooled (AC) in the winter.  since were in MD we probably are a little north, probably spend more of the year heating the AC etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2358" RevisionGUID="16dcd1bc-4fae-46dc-ab38-10f918bd384f" CreationDate="2013-12-04T09:23:55.990" UserId="812" Comment="Edit: Added a couple of references to air con and removed the &quot;you haven't told me where you live&quot; bit, aftersomebody pointed out that they had!" Text="On the financing front: I don't know about the situation in the US, but some countries have schemes whereby grants or favourable loans are available for improving the energy efficiency of housing stock. For example, in the UK there is the &quot;Green Deal&quot;. These schemes will vary in their usefulness versus the amount of bureaucracy involved, but are worth looking into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also don't mention too much about the finance arrangements around your tenancy; from what you've written, it sounds as though your landlady lives in the house with you. It's not clear whether she pays the energy bills or whether they are shared? Obviously in the first case she has a better financial incentive to improve matters, but either way you are far better off than the more usual case where the landlord is not present, and has no incentive to reduce the tenant's energy bills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not familiar with what the climate is like in Maryland, but I'll assume temperate. You mention that you use a little air conditioning - I probably won't cover that much as I know little about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The measures that you and she could consider fall broadly into two categories: Firstly in reducing the home's energy use, and secondly in making sure that that energy that *is* required is delivered in the most efficient and/or cost-effective way that it can. Some of these things will not be applicable to your home, and some may already have been done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing demand&#xD;&#xA;===============&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Light&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;This is potentially a quick, cheap and easy area for improvement. Except for specialist types such as those in ovens, you should not be using any plain tungsten incandescent light bulbs. For general lighting, look to compact fluorescent (CFL). For spotlighting, for low output requirements, or for areas that are switched on and off very frequently, look at LED. If you really cannot stand to move away from an incandescent glow, or you need a light to be dimmable, use tungsten halogen lamps - preferably the low voltage variety, which are substantially more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all of these technology types, it is worth paying for a reputable brand (e.g. Osram, Philips, GE). CFLs and LEDs have gained a bad reputation with some people due to cheap versions failing early. The same applies to the transformers in low voltage halogen fixtures. If moving to LEDs, buy one first to check that you are happy with the colour - the quality of &quot;white&quot; varies widely. If moving to CFL or LED, don't trust the manufacturers' claims on &quot;equivalent wattage&quot; - instead, look at the number of lumens that they produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is slightly less cheap and easy, but some measures are still straightforward. If you are in even a moderately cold climate, heat will probably account for about half of your domestic energy use, so reducing this is potentially a big saving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Make sure that there is a good amount (up to 200-300mm) of modern loft insulation in your roof. This is quick and cheap to install, and without it all of your heat rises straight out the top of the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you get draughts under doors, etc., fit draught excluders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Make sure windows are double (or even triple) glazed. Moving from single to double glazing in particular is a major improvement in insulation. Potentially expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Wall insulation depends very much upon the walls. If you have cavity walls, get them filled with insulating foam. If you have solid walls, there are insulating panels that you can fit on the inside, but this does reduce the size of your rooms. As an alternative, take inspiration from medieval times and put wool hangings on the inside of the walls. Make sure there are flame-retardant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other measures&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* When replacing electrical appliances in the future, get ones with high energy efficiency ratings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Turn down the heating and/or air con in rooms that are not being used for some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Try to instil a culture of people turning things off when they leave the room - especially lights, but also avoid leaving televisions playing to nobody, and so forth. Depending on what people are like to start with, this can potentially be a huge saving, and it has no cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Another cultural change: If people can be happy wearing a jumper, rather than expecting to be comfortable year-round in a thin sleeveless top, you can make major savings in heating. Get thicker duvets and turn down bedroom temperatures. The same is true with air con, of course, although there's perhaps a limited extent to which you can expect folk to wear less... ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Improving energy delivery&#xD;&#xA;=========================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Renewable sources&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should consider,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Photovoltaics (i.e. solar panels that produce electricity)&#xD;&#xA;* Solar thermal water heating (pipes on the roof that provide &quot;free&quot; hot water)&#xD;&#xA;* *Possibly* a small wind turbine (although very small household ones are perhaps of dubious worth)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The value of all of these will depend on many factors, including the design and orientation of the building, where in the world you are, the wind speeds that you experience, etc. Each might be the subject of a good question here in its own right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The economics of some of these may be strongly influenced by any subsidies or other measures that your government offers to encourage them - for example, the feed-in tariff scheme in the UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heating&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With insulation, you have already minimised the amount of heat that the property needs. Now you can think about reducing the cost of providing the heat that is needed. Much will depend on the design of the house, and on the relative costs and availability of fuel where you are located. The costs will also depend greatly on the system that is installed at present. The most energy-efficient approach is likely to be a heat pump, preferably a ground-source one if possible. The most *economic* approach may be a heat pump, or it may be a modern, efficient gas-fired central heating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an overview; there are a number of topics in there that might make good SE questions in their own right. I hope that it is helpful when considering what to investigate further." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2355" RevisionGUID="80eb83cf-e8a6-4a23-8e03-7f54d7ddd693" CreationDate="2013-12-04T22:56:08.357" UserId="15" Comment="Tidy up grammar, spelling. Add energy-efficiency and renting tags" Text="I have a landlord who is very interested in saving money.  I wanted to suggest options to her to help her save money while reducing environmental footsteps.  however, she is not motivated to save the environment and is trying to pay off medical bills so is oppose to large upfront costs; so anything I suggest must be an obvious cost savings, not too expensive, and not inconvenient for her or for her tenants to implement (for instance she nixed a programmable thermostat due to the effort of figuring out times to program in that worked with everyone's schedules).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens I donate a...pretty large sum of money to charity anyways, which means I have money to spare, and I both trust my landlord and have an easy collateral (I pay for x months in advance, you can't kick me out till the), so I'm actually willing to help finance some larger investments if she isn't.  I don't need to make any profit if it helps her and the environment, however, I make pretty good interest in my charitable fund so any money I contribute to help her has to provide sufficient savings to make up for my opportunity cost of not earning interest on that money until I'm refunded while slowly working towards refunding my initial investment and *still* giving her some sort of savings to make it worth her while; in other words we can do larger expenditures but only if they give fairly substantial savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone suggest which options are best to suggest to my landlord?  I know in the long run a solar panels would be a good option, but they are large enough of an upfront investment that it may be hard to convince her to look into; However, I would love more details about them, in particular any hidden expense (for instance, extra effort to maintain them, clear them off, etc) which I may not be aware of but she deserves to know going in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other good options to recommend to her are welcome.  I need things that aren't asking for too heavy a time investment from her to do, I'm happy to invest some of my time but I don't own the house so only so much I can do there; plus I'm pretty disorganized myself lol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We live in Maryland with 3 adults and one child living in the house.  The house is a somewhat older house with two stories plus a furnished underground basement used as a playroom, just in case any of that matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ps. if we do something that would warrant tax credits is there any way I can pay for it and claim the tax credit as a resident but not home owner?  My tax bracket is a bit higher then hers so I would get a larger savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;I should have said this sooner since it's obviously relevant; I sort of took it for granted.  Our utilities are included in our rent, so she is paying the full cost for all utilities.  She also lives in, and owns, the house, so maybe 'landlord' is a slightly misleading title :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The house is both heated in the winter and cooled (AC) in the winter. Since we're in MD we probably are a little north, probably spend more of the year heating the AC etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5225" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2355" RevisionGUID="80eb83cf-e8a6-4a23-8e03-7f54d7ddd693" CreationDate="2013-12-04T22:56:08.357" UserId="15" Comment="Tidy up grammar, spelling. Add energy-efficiency and renting tags" Text="Options to suggest to landlord for cost savings via renewable energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5226" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2355" RevisionGUID="80eb83cf-e8a6-4a23-8e03-7f54d7ddd693" CreationDate="2013-12-04T22:56:08.357" UserId="15" Comment="Tidy up grammar, spelling. Add energy-efficiency and renting tags" Text="|solar-power|energy-efficiency|renting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5227" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="119" RevisionGUID="cb389d2d-7ed6-427a-a18a-3b2a4f3b46a2" CreationDate="2013-12-05T08:25:52.023" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="2c5af80c-08a6-40f0-90a9-bf864adf2f12" CreationDate="2013-12-05T09:15:33.577" UserId="99" Comment="added references to related and often-used tags" Text="The sustainability issues around domestic or commercial gardening; the cultivation of plants and fungi; landscaping and garden design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability.SE takes gardening questions that are **primarily** about the sustainability aspects of gardening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there's a dedicated [Gardening StackExchange][1] where you can ask questions about amateur or professional gardening that are **not primarily** about the sustainability aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions on (edible) plants please use [tag:plants] or [tag:food]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions on composting use [tag:composting].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2359" RevisionGUID="442ebf4a-68bf-4e92-a6ca-fa903672418b" CreationDate="2013-12-05T09:41:45.400" UserId="99" Text="Use this tag for questions asking about a more sustainable alternative for a particular product or activity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2360" RevisionGUID="dd873e1e-154c-4d4b-91a5-9d7e42bd783d" CreationDate="2013-12-05T09:41:45.400" UserId="99" Text="more sustainable alternative for a particular product or activity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5231" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="363" RevisionGUID="92e7e11d-dd38-48cf-a55e-c56bc66c5612" CreationDate="2013-12-05T09:43:29.210" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5232" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="363" RevisionGUID="a76cd19d-2000-4885-9153-bd0d5c901564" CreationDate="2013-12-05T10:21:02.920" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|diy|construction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5233" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="b60b5881-79d3-42d8-b432-820642f2db99" CreationDate="2013-12-05T10:22:17.897" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2361" RevisionGUID="be5705a7-ffa7-403c-b6fc-bb4d23353d5f" CreationDate="2013-12-05T19:50:43.753" UserId="954" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Can centrifugal forces be created in a enclosed Pelton Turbine when it's rotating at higher speeds?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water striking out of the buckets of a Pelton turbine is left with diminished energy but because the wheel is rotating continuously at high speeds due to very high velocity water jet then, is there any possibility of development of centrifugal forces that may lift up the water through a discharge pipe connected to the casing of the turbine which actually happens in centrifugal pumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PI explain on the possibility of it, even if this happens to the much retarded degree.&#xD;&#xA;I have the perception that due to high jet velocity runner will rotate at high speeds and will create centrifugal forces and lift the water functioning as pump and turbine simultaneously. Pls suggest some other means by which we could manage to pump the discharged water from pelton turbine.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2361" RevisionGUID="be5705a7-ffa7-403c-b6fc-bb4d23353d5f" CreationDate="2013-12-05T19:50:43.753" UserId="954" Text="Can centrifugal forces be created in a enclosed Pelton Turbine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2361" RevisionGUID="be5705a7-ffa7-403c-b6fc-bb4d23353d5f" CreationDate="2013-12-05T19:50:43.753" UserId="954" Text="|energy|water|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2361" RevisionGUID="2b8ceb2a-7ef9-4364-a950-fe1dc39a84b4" CreationDate="2013-12-06T11:01:32.153" UserId="48" Comment="added 31 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can an enclosed Pelton Turbine be used as a pump, perhaps through the centrifugal forces created in a enclosed Pelton Turbine when it rotates at speed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![GNU Free Documentation Licence 1.2 or later][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water striking out of the buckets of a Pelton turbine is left with diminished energy but because the wheel is rotating continuously at high speeds due to very high velocity water jet then, is there any possibility of development of centrifugal forces that may lift up the water through a discharge pipe connected to the casing of the turbine which actually happens in centrifugal pumps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any possibility of this, even if this happens to a small degree? Can create centrifugal forces lift the water, so it functions as pump and turbine simultaneously?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please suggest any means by which we could pump the discharged water via a pelton turbine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kqBxK.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5240" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2361" RevisionGUID="2b8ceb2a-7ef9-4364-a950-fe1dc39a84b4" CreationDate="2013-12-06T11:01:32.153" UserId="48" Comment="added 31 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can an enclosed Pelton Turbine be used as a pump?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2362" RevisionGUID="18ab099a-cedd-42ba-9676-d8713c931904" CreationDate="2013-12-06T14:23:12.190" UserId="96" Text="See  one way of using [pumps as turbines](http://www.ksb.com/ksb-en/Products_and_Services/Water/water_transport/PAT) is an old hat in some applications.  &#xD;&#xA;In fact, some go the other way and use a [centrifugal pump as a turbine](http://www.pumpfundamentals.com/pumps_as_turbines.htm), there's some [guidance](http://www.ki4u.com/webpal/b_recovery/3_alternate_energy/electricity/water/pumps/xftpfiles/pumps_as_turbines-a_users_guide.pdf) (that may be dated) available on that subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a pelton turbine as a pump, on the other, I'm highly sceptical about that: The shape of the turbine is so that flow from one side would not reach the other sides. So I'd expect a load of water that's moved around at low rpm, cavitation at high rpm, and a bad performance overall. Not however that this is more an answer coming from intuition than from actual knowledge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2363" RevisionGUID="d0728936-6f21-44f4-be96-3203781ae56a" CreationDate="2013-12-07T10:49:13.693" UserId="48" Text="Many turbines can be switched round to be pumps of some kind. But to try to do both at the same time, is going to hit efficiency badly. There is no free energy - it's all got to come from somewhere, and it's all got to end up somewhere else: the same quantity, just in different forms. So if you're turning some of the incoming water's kinetic energy into increased gravitational potential, there will be much less work generated by the turbine that is available for other purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And equipment tends to be most efficient, when it's used for the purpose that it's designed for. So, one option might be to use some of the energy captured by the turbine to drive a separate pump: one that is designed for the operation you intend of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2364" RevisionGUID="816dfd56-8ccd-467a-b640-95681f5b465c" CreationDate="2013-12-07T12:43:54.503" UserId="48" Text="In terms of energy for movement, the electric car is more sustainable. There are two main resons for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, when hydrocarbons are burnt to provide movement, local pollution is released: NOx, particulates, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And secondly, it's much easier to clean electricity, than to clean hydrocarbons. That's because the clean electricity resource is affordable and plentiful: solar, hydro and wind can together power the world many many times over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficiency turns out to be a useful proxy, occasionally. But often it's misleading - it doesn't really get to the core of what we need to know. Electric engines are about four times as efficient as internal combustion engines. The efficiency of any wider system, would depend on where you draw the system boundary. And then you're adding up efficiencies that may or may not make sense. Wind, water and sunlight are free: does it make sense to include the efficiencies at which they are harvested? Efficiency is one of many things that affects the economics: but there are sufficient other factors that can more than make up for low efficiency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2365" RevisionGUID="ae1912a8-bdb8-4109-8566-a398432df268" CreationDate="2013-12-08T07:56:02.353" UserId="959" Text="1 take temp of water going int tank. let a hot water tap run after sundown when solar panel inactive, until temp stable at intake. to measure this t buy one of thos digital outdoor t thermometer that have a sensor with a cable, tape the sensor to the incoming water pipe. put some insulation on top of sensor an extending a few inches along pipe and around it (to ensure sensor measures the t of the outside wall of pipe, which will be essentially the same as the water t).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;let the tap run and measure also the t of water coming out of tap until it stabilizes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;write down also the t inside the tank as indicated by sensor you already have set up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;now write time down and turn resistance on for one hour or whatever time it takes to rise the t of the water inside tank by about 15 degrees celsius or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;make sure nobody opens any tap, including cold water ones during the heating period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;then shut the resistance off and open the hot water tap note the highest t (at first will come out cold-warm as the pipes warm up). then water gradually hotter until a maximum and will start to drop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;now repeat the process on a sunny day when sun is about highest point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but this time make sure resistance is always off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;start counting time. once the same time it took the resistance rise the t is reached note the t inside tank and the highes t coming out of hot water tap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the incoming cold water t should have been the same in both cases but if it is not because somehow the cold water pipe that brings water to the tank somehow pics up daytime heat and the incominc t is higher than after sunset, do not worry, you just have to make a different calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;now there ar two ways to estimate the power output of solar unit and you should use both because they should match.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;now divide the time it took the solar to increase the t 15 degrees iinto the time it took the resistance. the result you multiply it by 2000, the result will be the wattage of the solar panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the other calculation to verify is a bit more elaborate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the idea is to calculate the energy required to heat whatever kg of water the tank holds from the cold water t to the hot water t, the result you divide it by the time, first the resistance time and then by the solar system time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this calculation must be made by someone who knows how to work with mass, energy and power units to also end up with watts for the resistance and tle solar system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if the resistance is in the innards of tle tank, as is normally the case thes second set of calculations should confirm the first&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i am assuming your resistance is really putting out 2000 watts as some are made of two elements and one could fail or be inactive. you can verify this withe an ammeter. multiplying amps times volts (115-120 or 230-240 depending on how the resistance is wired up)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;you should no have a fairly good idea of the peak wattage your solar panel puts out on the type of sunny day you took the measurements. on less sunny days and off noon power will be less. if you want to know how much less you will have to repeat tle measurements for the panel, no need to measureeagain for the resistance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you want to measure average power of solar panel it gets a bit more complicated but on a sunnyeday it will be the result of taking how many degrees the tank water t increases each sunny hour until noon. after noon the power will mirror before noon even if the t starts to drop later in the afternoon it does not mean the panel is not putting out power, it does, otherwise the cooling would be faster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i have not done these calculations on my panel but your question got me thinking and i will now. thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;hope it helps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5247" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2355" RevisionGUID="3cd37d17-af8d-4698-9917-8f6dc2208105" CreationDate="2013-12-08T10:44:53.160" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/409634681727254528" />
  <row Id="5248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2365" RevisionGUID="a73125d6-0773-4302-8257-f52b71af9e8e" CreationDate="2013-12-09T08:50:40.207" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos and improved layout" Text="1. Take the temperature of water going into the tank. Let a hot water tap run after sundown when the solar panel is inactive and until the temperature is stable at intake. To measure this you'll have to buy one of those digital outdoor thermometers that have a sensor with a cable. Tape the sensor to the incoming water pipe. Put some insulation on top of the sensor extending a few inches along pipe and around it (to ensure the sensor measures the temperature of the outside wall of the pipe, which will essentially be the same as the water). Let the tap run and measure also the temperature of water coming out of tap until it stabilizes. Write down also the temperature inside the tank as indicated by the sensor you already have set up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Now write down the time and turn resistance on for one hour or whatever time it takes to rise the temperature of the water inside the tank by about 15 degrees celsius or so. Make sure nobody opens any tap, including cold water ones during the heating period. Then shut the resistance off and open the hot water tap. Note the highest temperature (at first the water will come out cold-warm as the pipes warm up). Then the water gradually gets hotter until a maximum and will start to drop again. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Now repeat the process on a sunny day when the sun is at the highest point but this time make sure the resistance is always off. Wait the same time it took the resistance to rise the temperature and note the temperature inside the tank and the highest temperature coming out of the hot water tap (the incoming cold water temperature should have been the same in both cases but if it is not because somehow the cold water pipe that brings water to the tank somehow picks up daytime heat and the incominc temperature is higher than after sunset, do not worry, you just have to make a different calculation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now there are two ways to estimate the power output of the solar unit and you should use both because they should match.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Divide the time it took the solar unit to increase the temperature 15 degrees into the time it took the resistance. The result you multiply it by 2000, the result will be the wattage of the solar panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other calculation to verify is a bit more elaborate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The idea is to calculate the energy required to heat whatever kg of water the tank holds from the cold water temperature to the hot water temperatur, the result you divide it by the time, first the resistance time and then by the solar system time. This calculation must be made by someone who knows how to work with mass, energy and power units to also end up with watts for the resistance and the solar system. If the resistance is in the innards of the tank, as is normally the case the second set of calculations should confirm the first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am assuming your resistance is really putting out 2000 watts as some are made of two elements and one could fail or be inactive. You can verify this with an ammeter, multiplying amps times volts (115-120 or 230-240 depending on how the resistance is wired up)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should now have a fairly good idea of the peak wattage your solar panel puts out on the type of sunny day you took the measurements. On less sunny days and off noon, power will be less. If you want to know how much less you will have to repeat the measurements for the panel. No need to measure again for the resistance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to measure the average power of the solar panel it gets a bit more complicated but on a sunny day it will be the result of taking how many degrees the tank water temperature increases each sunny hour until noon. After noon the power will mirror before noon. Even if the temperature starts to drop later in the afternoon it does not mean the panel is not putting out power. It does, otherwise the cooling would be faster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not done these calculations on my panel but your question got me thinking and I will now.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2362" RevisionGUID="e939b673-7879-47d9-8dab-7e102790c244" CreationDate="2013-12-09T13:08:54.140" UserId="96" Comment="added 300 characters in body" Text="See  one way of using [pumps as turbines](http://www.ksb.com/ksb-en/Products_and_Services/Water/water_transport/PAT) is an old hat in some applications.  &#xD;&#xA;In fact, some go the other way and use a [centrifugal pump as a turbine](http://www.pumpfundamentals.com/pumps_as_turbines.htm), there's some [guidance](http://www.ki4u.com/webpal/b_recovery/3_alternate_energy/electricity/water/pumps/xftpfiles/pumps_as_turbines-a_users_guide.pdf) (that may be dated) available on that subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a pelton turbine as a pump, on the other, I'm highly sceptical about that: The shape of the turbine is so that flow from one side would not reach the other sides. So I'd expect a load of water that's moved around at low rpm, cavitation at high rpm, and a bad performance overall. Not however that this is more an answer coming from intuition than from actual knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit to add**  &#xD;&#xA;If you look at the impeller of a centrifugal pump, you see this spiral form - the fluid is gradually acceleated as it travels outward. With the pelton turbine, you have a smooth inner section and then the blades. I'd expect turbulence, and thus energy loss, at the interface." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2366" RevisionGUID="b73252fc-2654-4106-9267-dc6c2f568546" CreationDate="2013-12-09T19:33:12.597" UserId="812" Text="For old computers: In some countries there are charities who accept old computers for use by charities, export to the third world, etc. Note that they usually have a limit on *how* old, as they must be useful to the beneficiaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For old TVs: In the UK at least, some charity shops take old flat screens (mostly the larger charities ones such as British Heart Foundation that have &quot;furniture stores&quot;, as they have the resources to safety test electrical goods&quot;. In my experience, however, nobody will take CRTs any more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2366" RevisionGUID="3b7e1625-1f66-487e-b1d8-49d9fa9309a2" CreationDate="2013-12-10T11:38:42.787" UserId="812" Comment="Fixed tyops." Text="For old computers: In some countries there are charities who accept old computers for use by charities, export to the third world, etc. Note that they usually have a limit on *how* old, as they must be useful to the beneficiaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For old TVs: In the UK at least, some charity shops take old flat screens (mostly the larger charities such as British Heart Foundation that have &quot;furniture stores&quot;, as they have the resources to safety test electrical goods). In my experience, however, nobody will take CRTs any more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2367" RevisionGUID="e98ff5b9-23cf-4832-bc2e-6ff5d35cca47" CreationDate="2013-12-10T15:53:03.067" UserId="963" Text="We have just brought a Buffalo K711 4.25L Electric Airpot that is great for my wife as she is disabled and can find a kettle hard to pour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was expecting it to be well insulated, however its sides feels very warm while it is running, so making me think it is wasting lots of power.   We don’t need to fill it up completely, I am planning on putting 1l of water in it and topping it up a few times a day with 0.5l at a time, so reducing the amount of water that is heated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to decide quickly if I am going to send it back, and don’t have an plug in energy meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In the UK there are very few Electric Airpots on the market and the counter top “instant” water dispensers are very slow at filling a teapot.   The under counter systems are very expensive.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5254" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2367" RevisionGUID="e98ff5b9-23cf-4832-bc2e-6ff5d35cca47" CreationDate="2013-12-10T15:53:03.067" UserId="963" Text="How much power does an Electric Airpot use while on standby?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5255" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2367" RevisionGUID="e98ff5b9-23cf-4832-bc2e-6ff5d35cca47" CreationDate="2013-12-10T15:53:03.067" UserId="963" Text="|electricity|energy-efficiency|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2368" RevisionGUID="d85e112f-e44d-48ae-835a-41091e56b07e" CreationDate="2013-12-10T16:16:20.910" UserId="963" Text="Cost is a big advantage; if you already have a hot water tank with space for an immersion heater then it is a lot cheaper to add a small photovoltaic panel then a full solar thermal system.  The payback time can be very short for this.   No control system is needed, as the immersion heater will just cut out when the tank gets too hot – the GCH can be set to heat to tank to say 60c and the immersion heater to 80c.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is hard to make a solar thermal systems work well without having a big risk of legionnaires disease, as you  need the bottom of the tank cold for the solar thermal to work well, but you must heat the COMPLETE tank to very hot to kill the legionnaires disease.   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2369" RevisionGUID="618bf8aa-4229-4211-8391-7c9c71ec8889" CreationDate="2013-12-10T16:41:01.817" UserId="963" Text="As I understand it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Yes for Solar water heating.&#xD;&#xA;- No for Heat pumps, wood burners etc&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2370" RevisionGUID="7ca04bd8-71cb-4296-bc17-e14bf3cf8500" CreationDate="2013-12-10T16:56:30.097" UserId="963" Text="I let the city take my cooked food waist as it is hard to compost myself without issues with rats etc.    I compost my own grass clipping etc, as they are easy to compost and are most of the volume. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transport always uses power, composting at home does not, so if you have the space it is clearly best to compost most items at home when practical. &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;If you have the space just keep a pile of brown leafs and mix them into your grass cutting, then put the mix into a big “builders bag” to sit for a few years.   If compost has enough “browns” in it, then it does not need turning etc unless you wish to speed up the process.  Too much greens (grass clippings) give issues with smell etc, too much browns just slows down the composting process.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2371" RevisionGUID="bc2ffdc9-8c63-4c3a-86e1-f1110a463332" CreationDate="2013-12-10T17:29:11.457" UserId="963" Text="Positive input ventilation (PIV) is a lot cheaper to install then a heat recovery system; it pushes some of the air from the loft into the house.   The air in the loft tends to be warmer then the outside air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a dryer house feels warmer, by improving the ventilation you may be able to reduce you heating needs, therefore often a PIV system will reduce heating costs.   (Not what you expect from the thermal maths!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have put a HVHR system in our bungalow, as we had so many issues with ventilation, it is great!  Being a bungalow the ducts were easy to install.   In a property we rent out, I put in a PIV system, as it is good enough to stop mould, putting in a better system would not have got any more rent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5262" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2367" RevisionGUID="6730f170-dd15-4256-9f2c-aaf06d94a932" CreationDate="2013-12-10T19:44:57.653" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/410495370503127042" />
  <row Id="5263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2367" RevisionGUID="02a7956b-bbb6-48af-b1fe-271445a4c49d" CreationDate="2013-12-11T01:41:31.450" UserId="659" Comment="added link and image" Text="We have just brought a [Buffalo K711 4.25L Electric Airpot][1] that is great for my wife as she is disabled and can find a kettle hard to pour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Airpot][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was expecting it to be well insulated, however its sides feels very warm while it is running, so making me think it is wasting lots of power.   We don’t need to fill it up completely, I am planning on putting 1l of water in it and topping it up a few times a day with 0.5l at a time, so reducing the amount of water that is heated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to decide quickly if I am going to send it back, and don’t have an plug in energy meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In the UK there are very few Electric Airpots on the market and the counter top “instant” water dispensers are very slow at filling a teapot.   The under counter systems are very expensive.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Electric-Airpot-4-25-litre-capacity/dp/B001XMJ7UI&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KAsVm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5264" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2367" RevisionGUID="02a7956b-bbb6-48af-b1fe-271445a4c49d" CreationDate="2013-12-11T01:41:31.450" Comment="Proposed by 659 approved by 48 edit id of 189" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5265" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2372" RevisionGUID="b555b957-cea4-4f0a-bcfe-0dcc86211f3f" CreationDate="2013-12-11T16:26:57.400" UserId="967" Text="what are the main challenges Ireland faces as regards providing sustainable energy sources to meet future energy demand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5266" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2372" RevisionGUID="b555b957-cea4-4f0a-bcfe-0dcc86211f3f" CreationDate="2013-12-11T16:26:57.400" UserId="967" Text="Challenges of providing sustainable energy sources to meet future demand in Ireland" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5267" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2372" RevisionGUID="b555b957-cea4-4f0a-bcfe-0dcc86211f3f" CreationDate="2013-12-11T16:26:57.400" UserId="967" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5268" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2350" RevisionGUID="d98c4652-922b-41a6-8030-b793fcb6f428" CreationDate="2013-12-11T16:45:04.620" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/410812489686061056" />
  <row Id="5269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2373" RevisionGUID="aca6c8db-536a-460e-9806-ff965cb4e7ab" CreationDate="2013-12-11T18:59:25.153" UserId="624" Text="Reducing the amount of water being heated will also reduce the mass of water that is storing heat within the unit, and possible make it even less efficient.  You might actually get better results keeping it full.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way to answer your question is with one of those plugin energy meters, but you say you don't have one.  Does anyone you know, or perhaps your utility company, have a meter you could borrow for a day?  Otherwise, the best any of us can do is guess how much the kettle is using when in standby mode. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5270" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2372" RevisionGUID="a65e5463-fd7c-43d0-a001-b619acebdaa3" CreationDate="2013-12-11T19:45:17.970" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/410857844637188096" />
  <row Id="5271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2374" RevisionGUID="a27f8ae3-861b-4b0d-b37d-b5146f7fa799" CreationDate="2013-12-12T03:52:05.823" UserId="970" Text="As there isn't currently any sustainable biofules that can cost competitively compete with other energy sources, I'm going to forgo discussing it and focus on carbon free energy sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that since Ireland has access to all carbon free forms of sustainable energy sources, there are is nothing particularly different between the Ireland challenges Ireland would face vs. the rest of the world.  That being said; all non-carbon based sustainable energy thus far, aside from geothermal, runs into the major problem of energy storage.  Tidal, solar, and wind based energy generation is cyclic at best, and completely unpredictable and unreliable at worst.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most current solutions seem to point toward better developing electro-fules, hydrogen generation, and fly-wheel technology.  But past solutions have involved such things as flooding mounting mine tunnels and then draining them though turbines to recapture some energy when it's at peak demand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2375" RevisionGUID="faf9938a-2675-4927-855d-16b6ea06b4fe" CreationDate="2013-12-12T08:02:26.313" UserId="48" Text="#Challenges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Political vision&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the biggest problem for most countries right now, and Ireland is no exception. We already have all the technology we need for 100% renewable electricity grids combined with the electrification of urban transport and heating. And for most countries, that's more economic than any alternative, once the externalities (pollution, liability cover) are priced in. What's missing is political will and vision. And that is, in part, driven by ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Industrial incumbents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like most countries, Ireland has industrial incumbents with a lot of fixed assets (with sunk costs) that are dedicatd to highly-polluting ways to do things. So they carry a lot of economic weight, and consequentially political weight too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###One much larger neighbour&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For most countries, large-capacity interconnectors to several neighbours provide the best option for balancing a grid with a high (&gt;50%) proportion of exogenously-variable renewables such as wind, wave, tidal and solar: and Ireland's potential renewables are mostly of that kind, with relatively little scope for geothermal or storage hydro.  However, Ireland, being on the continental periphery, has just one close neighbour, that is much larger than it. And that means the bigger the interconnectors, the more that prices on the all-Ireland grid would get driven largely by what's happening on the British grid, which makes it politically and economically challenging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Balancing the grid at the scale of quarter-cycle to seconds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exogenously-variable renewables such as wind don't necessarily bring much inertia to the grid, unlike thermal plant (and in particular coal). So the sort of balancing of supply and demand (aka balancing) that happens very easily on a grid with lots of fossil plant, at the scale of quarter-cycle (5ms on a 50Hz grid) to a few seconds, needs more planning and realigned incentives on a wind-rich grid. Technically, it's a solved problem - Quebec's grid, and others, have incentivised the innovation of within-turbine grid-balancing services at these time scales. What's missing, is a successful model for economic incentivisation to ensure the best balance of the maximisation of generated electricity, with sufficient balancing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Rural, water and air transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rural, water and air transport remain challenges for most countries. Hydrocarbons provide a very high ratio of energy per unit mass, and per unit volume, and those are incredibly valuable for motorised transport. There are a bunch of options: biogenic hydrocarbons, synthetic hydrocarbons, hydrogen, some putative new chemical battery - but as yet there are no clear winners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Things which had looked like challenges, but now have known solutions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Size of the available renewable resource&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It used to be thought that that might be an issue, and some people got worried because energy per unit land area seemed to be low. That turned out to be a non-issue, once people did the maths. The island of Ireland's total energy consumption (electricity, heat, transport, etc) is about 21.5GW ([15GW][1] for Eire, 6.5GW for Northern Ireland). Its land area is 84&amp;nbsp;421&amp;nbsp;km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, and its sea area is well over 400&amp;nbsp;000&amp;nbsp;km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, meaning that even at the 2W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; that non-optimised onshore wind gives, sufficiency of the available resource is not a challenge: only a tiny fraction of Ireland's land and waters would need renewables, to meet all current energy consumption, and that's without any energy efficiency measures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(I've no intention of causing conflict by considering the island as a whole: the grids of Eire and Northern Ireland are combined, and the same wind, sun, tides and waves reach both parts of the island. So it's just technically easier to analyse the island of Ireland as one whole entity)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Balancing the grid at the scale of minutes to days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, this used to be a problem, but now we're spoilt for solutions. Electricity interconnectors to neighbours do raise challenges of political economics, but in terms of capital investment they're very affordable, and provide a technical solution for most of the problem. The rest can be taken care of through sustainable biomass and power-to-gas. There has been a project to lobby for extensive pumped hydro storage in Eire, but the economics don't currently look favourable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Forecastability of the weather&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are no countries immediately to the west or south-west of Ireland; and that's the direction that most of the weather comes in from. That means that Ireland has fewer opportunities than most of the rest of Europe to gather free weather information for 4-hour and 24-hour ahead forecasts. However, with the growing use of weather buoys, weather masts and floating LiDAR, complemented by satellite data, this is a solved problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wellandwarm.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/EPSSU_Publications/Energy_in_Ireland_Key_Statistics/Energy_in_Ireland_Key_Statistics_2012.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2374" RevisionGUID="37bfa246-c274-4831-ac2b-3f942cfbf0db" CreationDate="2013-12-12T08:09:31.877" UserId="99" Comment="fixed multiple typos" Text="As there currently aren't any sustainable biofuels that can cost competitively compete with other energy sources, I'm going to forgo discussing it and focus on carbon free energy sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that since Ireland has access to all carbon free forms of sustainable energy sources, there is nothing particularly different between the challenges Ireland would face vs. the rest of the world. That being said; all non-carbon based sustainable energy thus far, aside from geothermal, runs into the major problem of energy storage.  Tidal, solar, and wind based energy generation is cyclic at best, and completely unpredictable and unreliable at worst.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most current solutions seem to point toward better developing electro-fuels, hydrogen generation, and fly-wheel technology.  But past solutions have involved such things as flooding mounting mine tunnels and then draining them though turbines to recapture some energy when it's at peak demand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2376" RevisionGUID="16f2bfad-91fe-430d-a1c8-200c88be5250" CreationDate="2013-12-13T17:36:03.480" UserId="96" Text="We have a baby and use tissues often to wipe him after feeding, cleaning his nose etc. The alternative would be to use cloth and wash it on a regular basis. My gut feeling is that cloth is more sustainable, but I had the same gut feeling about disposable vs. reusable diapers, and they apparantly come up even.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tissues are not from recycled paper, they just claim to treat their forests &quot;responsible&quot;. Our Washing machine has A+++ efficiency rating, we wash tissues at 40°C&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, given these conditions, would be using cloth be more sustainable than tissues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.s. When thinking about the issue, I came upon an interesting question - how to compare different use cases, on will use a cloth far more often than a tissue but how often? How dirty will it be, how dirty will a tissue be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5275" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2376" RevisionGUID="16f2bfad-91fe-430d-a1c8-200c88be5250" CreationDate="2013-12-13T17:36:03.480" UserId="96" Text="Tissues or cloth to clean a baby - what's more sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5276" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2376" RevisionGUID="16f2bfad-91fe-430d-a1c8-200c88be5250" CreationDate="2013-12-13T17:36:03.480" UserId="96" Text="|paper|home|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5280" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="af4a1599-e611-49ea-9ad7-54db50008067" CreationDate="2013-12-14T12:04:14.947" UserId="812" Comment="Added country tag" Text="|furniture|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5281" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="af4a1599-e611-49ea-9ad7-54db50008067" CreationDate="2013-12-14T12:04:14.947" Comment="Proposed by 812 approved by 99 edit id of 192" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5282" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2376" RevisionGUID="1c222670-dcf6-4c84-83b1-3f751bd0528f" CreationDate="2013-12-14T13:45:24.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/411854437314228224" />
  <row Id="5283" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2353" RevisionGUID="597bb56f-c402-417f-97f1-3b63b9854040" CreationDate="2013-12-15T19:45:46.933" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/412307516912328704" />
  <row Id="5287" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2361" RevisionGUID="72156c01-b6a9-48d4-9173-db6e3e6d0304" CreationDate="2013-12-16T22:45:47.453" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/412715204930461696" />
  <row Id="5288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2378" RevisionGUID="7377384e-88f8-47f3-8a2f-460b4b100de5" CreationDate="2013-12-17T15:38:31.060" UserId="986" Text="My beloved bedside lamp fell down, on the carpet, so it wasn't a big hit, and stopped working. Now, I tried to replace the bulb, but it doesn't change anything. &#xD;&#xA;Since this had happened to me another time in the recent past, I thought it would be useful to ask here a few things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) What is the best way to make my lamp re-usable not spending more than the cost of a new lamp?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Is there a website, a forum, a youtube channel or anything similar that could help in this sort of cases? [By 'help' I mean that could make me learn how to repair things in a relatively simple and home-possible way]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2378" RevisionGUID="7377384e-88f8-47f3-8a2f-460b4b100de5" CreationDate="2013-12-17T15:38:31.060" UserId="986" Text="Repair a bedside Lamp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5290" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2378" RevisionGUID="7377384e-88f8-47f3-8a2f-460b4b100de5" CreationDate="2013-12-17T15:38:31.060" UserId="986" Text="|electricity|home|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2379" RevisionGUID="021f6de1-e677-4e14-8b8a-c3b2fce34625" CreationDate="2013-12-17T15:58:47.103" UserId="987" Text="I found a similar product that uses 700 watts while heating but you can select the temp setting if want water .  I presume that the heater is just on/off depending on the temp of the water.  I would select temperature to be at 140 degrees F, which would save even more or crank only to HI when wanting a cup of 205 degree water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Product DESCRIPTION:  Always have hot water ready at your fingertips with the new Sunpentown Hot Water Dispenser. It features one-touch dispensing, auto re-boil and micro-computerized dry-boil protection. Its multi-temperature function allows you to select and maintain one of three temperature settings. It has a stainless steel body with black trimmings for a sophisticated look. It is ideal for tea lovers or anyone who needs hot water handy. Simply add drinking water and the unit automatically starts to heat the water to the boiling point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sunpentown 3.2 Liter Hot Water Dispenser with Multi-Temp Function, Stainless Steel:&#xD;&#xA;1-touch auto dispense&#xD;&#xA;3 temperature selection (**208 degrees F, 185 degrees F, 140 degrees F)**&#xD;&#xA;Stainless steel inner pot&#xD;&#xA;Safety lock feature&#xD;&#xA;Micro-computerized dry-boil function&#xD;&#xA;120V/60 Hz/700W&#xD;&#xA;Dimensions: 10.24&quot;W x 10.24&quot;D x 13&quot;H&#xD;&#xA;Model# SP-3203&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2378" RevisionGUID="1baa2879-8f97-4d32-9043-7aa70c57d600" CreationDate="2013-12-18T08:47:24.500" UserId="99" Comment="removed off-topic second question" Text="My beloved bedside lamp fell down, on the carpet so it wasn't a big hit, and it stopped working. Now, I tried to replace the bulb, but it doesn't change anything. &#xD;&#xA;Since this had happened to me another time in the recent past, I thought it would be useful to ask a few things here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best way to make my lamp re-usable, not spending more than the cost of a new lamp?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5294" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2378" RevisionGUID="1baa2879-8f97-4d32-9043-7aa70c57d600" CreationDate="2013-12-18T08:47:24.500" UserId="99" Comment="removed off-topic second question" Text="Repair a bedside lamp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="a00a208e-2380-4232-b351-3e66955ccbeb" CreationDate="2013-12-18T09:39:08.223" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added links to well-known DIY sites" Text="DIY (Do-It-Yourself) and home improvements: the sustainability issues around mending and improving your home through repairs, renovation, carpentry, plumbing and other building activities that you do yourself, as an alternative to employing a tradesperson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability.SE takes DIY questions that are **primarily** about the sustainability aspects of DIY and home improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there's a dedicated [Home Improvement StackExchange][1] where you can ask DIY and home improvement questions that are **not primarily** about the sustainability aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other DIY websites include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Green upgrader](http://greenupgrader.com/category/diy-green/)&#xD;&#xA;  - [DIY network](http://www.diynetwork.com/)&#xD;&#xA;  - [Instructables](http://www.instructables.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://diy.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="135" RevisionGUID="dc50fffe-6128-4ff2-826c-06de076eeaca" CreationDate="2013-12-18T09:39:08.223" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added links to well-known DIY sites" Text="DIY (Do-It-Yourself) and home improvements: the sustainability issues around mending and improving your home through repairs, renovation, carpentry, plumbing and other building activities that you do yourself, as an alternative to employing a tradesperson." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2381" RevisionGUID="fcb5d127-2a2d-4aa1-b5ff-7d8abdf7e10a" CreationDate="2013-12-18T16:36:56.587" UserId="69" Text="In my opinion, fixing rather than repurchasing is part of sustainability. Of course others believe otherwise, and that's okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends upon the type of lamp, e.g., touch-to-light, mechanical switch, other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is there is a problem with the lamp socket. The first thing I'd do is use my trusty voltage detector (VD) to verify there was voltage in the socket. Make sure you try the VD with the switch in every position. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![voltage detector][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Silly test: verify the outlet is hot (the VD's tip fits in the socket for that very reason), then verify the VD registers voltage where lamp's cord enters the lamp's body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there _was_ voltage, then I'd check the contacts to verify they're not bent/etc so they are making good contact with the bulb (**DO NOT TOUCH THE CONTACTS IF THE LAMP IS PLUGGED IN**). They can be bent back to where they should be with a small screwdriver/pencil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The VD should point you to the problem: outlet, cord, socket, switch. All of these parts can be found in your local hardware store. **Make sure you ask for help when you are there.** If you pull the &quot;real guys (or gals) don't ask for directions&quot; card, you can seriously injure or kill someone (or yourself!) by using a part that is not designed for what you are trying to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When in doubt, get an electrician's help. Even if you have to fork out $500, that's far cheaper than replacing a burned-down house or an injured loved one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wqWMk.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5299" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2378" RevisionGUID="64a93525-c584-41db-a56b-de2138eba3f0" CreationDate="2013-12-19T13:45:58.993" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/413666521651875840" />
  <row Id="5304" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="1280" RevisionGUID="7a56af5a-e36e-42a3-90a1-76d7eb8f9bfe" CreationDate="2013-12-20T11:22:11.997" UserId="99" />
  <row Id="5305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2383" RevisionGUID="c01d1026-1e3a-444e-8e2c-491fdd188307" CreationDate="2013-12-21T10:41:13.407" UserId="99" Text="I've heard that in some countries (e.g. Germany) christmas trees are sprayed with pesticides and fungicides to make the trees look better and to make them bug-free. I've also heard that this may be harmful to your health, especially if you keep your christmas tree indoors and don't open the windows for fresh air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried googling for more information but could hardly find anything on this topic.&#xD;&#xA;So are these just rumours or is it true? &#xD;&#xA;And if it is true, how do I know if my Christmas tree is non-toxic? Is there a way to test this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2383" RevisionGUID="c01d1026-1e3a-444e-8e2c-491fdd188307" CreationDate="2013-12-21T10:41:13.407" UserId="99" Text="Toxic christmas trees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5307" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2383" RevisionGUID="c01d1026-1e3a-444e-8e2c-491fdd188307" CreationDate="2013-12-21T10:41:13.407" UserId="99" Text="|pesticides|toxic-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5308" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2383" RevisionGUID="f3b2bfa4-f7e2-4647-9ba4-7572b8b9e595" CreationDate="2013-12-21T19:46:20.923" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/414481986271838208" />
  <row Id="5309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2384" RevisionGUID="46d515ce-fa2f-4aa3-ae5e-c0ae701d9e4b" CreationDate="2013-12-23T13:37:28.107" UserId="315" Text="Many 'tree farmers' spray trees to increase the shelf-life. We know bugs and fungi will attack organic matter such as the Christmas trees once there is the opportunity to. There are pesticides and herbicides used throughout the life of the tree and these are all known to have residual effects that can last many years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surveys carried out by Dr. Steve Toth, Pesticide Impact Specialist with North Carolina State University found the use of many pesticides and herbicides such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pesticides&#xD;&#xA; 1. Di-Syston&#xD;&#xA; 2. Lindane&#xD;&#xA; 3. Dimethoate&#xD;&#xA; 4. Asana&#xD;&#xA; 5. Lorsban&#xD;&#xA; 6. Savey&#xD;&#xA; 7. Morestan&#xD;&#xA; 8. Talstar&#xD;&#xA; 9. Thiodan&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Herbicides&#xD;&#xA; 1. Roundup&#xD;&#xA; 2. Simazine&#xD;&#xA; 3. Goal&#xD;&#xA; 4. Stinger&#xD;&#xA; 5. Garlon&#xD;&#xA; 6. Crossbow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These help greatly to increase the shelf lives of the trees but we have some idea as the the kind of effects these chemicals can have especially after long-term exposure. It can be argued that the kind of exposure we undergo from the short period of owning the these trees would not necessarily be cause for concern. However, it is my guess and many other people's that anything designed to kill bugs and weeds is usually toxic to humans. Therefore there ought to be some concern there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can always ask who you purchase the tree from about their chemical usage and this sort of information should be readily available to the customer. If you want to get trees that are not exposed to such chemicals, you can purchase certified organic trees. Organic farming reduces and in most cases eliminates the use of such chemicals. These methods are a bit more expensive but it helps in reducing or limiting our exposure to chemicals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2385" RevisionGUID="c1f040fe-55ea-4611-bdd3-ce64694bdcac" CreationDate="2013-12-23T13:51:57.717" UserId="315" Text="Depends on the type of cloth. Natural fibres such as cotton and wool often make sustainable materials, especially if they are certified organic as this adds a greater level of sustainability to the product. Wiping cloths for babies can be washed by hand to reduce the water use and increase the sustainability of its usage rather than using a washing machine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My wife and I use natural fabrics like cotton and wool (all organic) for both our children then we wash them by hand. It is a bit easier than you think to wash by hand since they are small and require minimal agitation once they are stored properly after usage. They can be soaked in water until it is time to wash them, we usually purchase enough so we won't have to wash more than once or in worse cases twice per week." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="f8798e46-2ec4-4f56-a827-ed8befa46386" CreationDate="2013-12-24T03:41:10.623" UserId="1000" Comment="typo, punctuation" Text="From http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/meat-eaters-guide-get-to-know-the-carbon-footprint-of-your-diet-lamb-beef-cheese-are-the-worst.html we have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I find pretty fascinating — certainly I would have put pork much closer to beef than either salmon or Turkey... really interesting stuff. I'd like to see as well the same graph but per calorie rather than per kg&amp;nbsp;— certainly that would make an interesting relationship between things like rice and tuna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S9Oub.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5320" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="838" RevisionGUID="f8798e46-2ec4-4f56-a827-ed8befa46386" CreationDate="2013-12-24T03:41:10.623" Comment="Proposed by 1000 approved by 48 edit id of 194" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1022" RevisionGUID="93d5da98-ce40-4eee-8b44-8ecb7ed27f12" CreationDate="2013-12-25T00:29:19.697" UserId="1000" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="*Aquaponics — The First 12 Months* (2011)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It details from start to finish (over 12 months) the cycling process and starting an aquaponics system.  There is a lot of good information and while I prefer fishless cycling it has some great tips if you want to start with fish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1015" RevisionGUID="b52805f5-ca8c-4537-870a-dab7d464aace" CreationDate="2013-12-25T00:30:10.230" UserId="1000" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can anyone suggest some documentary videos like &#xD;&#xA;*Home, Story of Stuff*, or *Inconvenient Truth*&#xD;&#xA; which document the present issues with and state of Nature and Sustainable Living? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, any that help recommend *solutions*?&#xD;&#xA;                                &#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5327" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1015" RevisionGUID="b52805f5-ca8c-4537-870a-dab7d464aace" CreationDate="2013-12-25T00:30:10.230" UserId="1000" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body; edited title" Text="Good documentary videos related to the sustainable living?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5329" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="352" RevisionGUID="827bcc7f-46d6-403a-b830-97de398030c7" CreationDate="2013-12-27T01:47:27.987" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/416384805165867009" />
  <row Id="5330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2391" RevisionGUID="f3bba878-547d-4664-8510-d84345b568de" CreationDate="2013-12-27T13:33:46.653" UserId="99" Text="I found more information about these 'rumours'. [An expert on forests working for the German WWF has told the German 'Taz' newspaper](http://www.taz.de/Pestizide-an-vielen-Weihnachtsbaeumen/!107479/)  that many Christmas trees grown in Germany are full of pesticides. The German growers claim the use of pesticides is necessary due to the widespread use of monocultures (to keep the prices low). In monocultures diseases and bugs spread more quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Environmental protection organisations in Germany recommend 'Ökobäume' as well as the Naturland, Bioland, Demeter and FSC labels. Apparently their prices are about 5-10 euros higher compared to other trees. The  newspaper article also says that not all environment labels are ok and criticizes the Fairforest label for using potentially cancer-inducing chemicals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2383" RevisionGUID="4a680e12-df96-4d19-8bb9-c645c3fcfac7" CreationDate="2013-12-27T13:37:21.407" UserId="99" Comment="added 261 characters in body" Text="I've heard that in some countries (e.g. Germany) christmas trees are sprayed with pesticides and fungicides to make the trees look better and to make them bug-free. I've also heard that this may be harmful to your health, especially if you keep your christmas tree indoors and don't open the windows for fresh air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried google for more information but could hardly find anything on this topic.&#xD;&#xA;So are these just rumours or is it true? &#xD;&#xA;And if it is true, how do I know if my Christmas tree is non-toxic? Is there a way to test this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: the source apparently is an article in a German newspaper (see also [this answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2391/99)). I'm still curious whether this is a problem only in Germany (probably not), or also in other (European) countries.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2392" RevisionGUID="85dc07c5-7c50-4578-a875-29bbeb08c7e7" CreationDate="2013-12-28T03:52:07.400" UserId="1009" Text="My 40 gal electric HW heater was dying (18 years old - time to go, even for a Sears Kenmore). I had EIGHT 220 watt PV panels left from an installation (at my office), and I wanted to use them to heat water (much more efficient use than sitting in my shed for a year! Right? &lt;grin&gt;). 220 x 8 is only 1760 watts. I found a new &quot;Brand X&quot; 50 Gal Electric HW heater locally for $315 (no delivery - had to fetch it - UGH!).  Was 1760 watts enough to heat my tank to 130 or preferably even higher (say 170F), in 4 hours of full sun???  That was the MAIN question - and would the thermostats work right? (they ARE mechanical and heat is the key, so it should be OK).&lt;br/&gt; I get a little over 4 hours of sun in winter where I wanted to put the panels - almost 5 hrs in summer (flat on porch roof - can't be seen except by Google Sats or planes from the air).  They say that normal tank recovery to 140F was 1.25 hours at 3300 watts from 68 degree cold water (it seems too long a time - I didn't do the calculations, but I will - eventually) - takes longer for colder water - luckily I'm in Fla. Cold water temp is fairly stable 65 to 70.  A 50 gal tank will last my small family (3 of us) 3 to 4 days (I HOPE), but only if I set it 165 or 170 and use a cold water mixer also called an &quot;infuser&quot; I think (it mixes cold with hot on the output and keeps water from being dangerously hot in the shower, or for kids at a faucet, etc.).  The infuser is a trick I learned some years ago with a smaller 30 gal tank from my brother-in-law (thanks RICK!).&lt;br/&gt; I had just enough 8 AWG wire - 10 AWG would have worked, but I had 8 so that's OK - another volt or two not dropped on the way in, I guess. After 7 days and 4 problems (all not directly related to the project itself, but a PAIN nonetheless), I got it installed (the tank was last). &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;And the answer turns out to be YES - and NO. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it works. But on the NO side,&lt;br/&gt; The CONS:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1) I am only getting 221 VDC at 7.4 amps - should be 230 or so under full sun (29VDC at max output x 8 panels in series). What happened to my 10 volts or so? Not that big a deal, I suppose. The coils are so low a resistance they are MAXING out the panels as I thought they would. Top coil comes on first, and an hour and a half to 2 hours later, CLICK - the lower one is on.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2) It does not always get hot enough - not even a full hour of clouds half-way through the heating cycle messes it up (pretty badly) - lots of warm water! (&lt;b&gt;Note to self: Wife says &quot;warm&quot; is 100% FAILURE.&lt;/b&gt; Ooooo-Kay. HOT it must become... somehow &lt;sigh&gt;).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3) I only get two days of hot water after 1 full day of sun (4.5 to 5 hours), instead of a minimum of 3 as I want (and need), maybe because I only have it set to 135-140.  170 was WAY too hot since the infuser does not come on right away and with the first burst of hot water you can get scalded pretty badly if you are not careful (thankfully - he have no small kids). I need a faster acting infuser - this one is some type of bi-metal switch that mounts around/against the hot-out-bound copper pipe right out of the tank and it reacts too slow (looks like a WW-II or maybe a WW-I surplus thing). I need an Electric sensor/switch of some kind, or maybe adjustable-pressure based unit of some kind. I am searching for one. Something MUCH faster, anyway.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4) If they were not spare panels - cost might be be prohibitive.  We paid 68 cents/watt (per whole palette of 25) - 220 x 8 was $1760 plus $315+tax for the 50 gal &quot;el-cheapo&quot;  electric tank, $45 for small breaker box and DC beaker for PV panel supply). No mounting costs - they just lay flat on the porch roof with one bolt as a tie down (protected from wind, great drainage, slightly tilted up toward west - better for the afternoon sun, too).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5) Payback right now is 3.5 years + possible alimony for life if not made HOT-HOT-HOT (about 20% to 22% of electric bill - $550/year). Too long to suit me (but not too bad, really - panels will surely outlast the new tank unless we get a bad hail storm (very rare down here, BUT...I still worry about it). I PRAY a new infuser and going up to 170F will give me the extra day I want (and make my WIFE happy... it HAS to... no choice in the matter.)&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;NOW for the PROS:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1) Super EASY to install. Bozo the clown could do it, except for &quot;sweating&quot; the copper pipes for the new tank (torch soldering). Adding them to an existing tank installation would be a NO brain-er.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2) No (leaky) pipes to run - no heat exchanger, no &quot;Fred &amp; Ethel Glycol&quot; (old fluid mechanics joke) or other fluid heat carrying medium, or not pushing the cold up, and hot water down from a direct concentrator system. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3) GREAT use for spare PV panels. Actually a good deal if you can get panels for less than about 65 cents/watt any time (without having to buy a train load of them).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4) We have always had AT LEAST a warm shower in 6 months of use - Never cold - (I do warm, OK - &lt;b&gt;My WIFE does NOT - NEVER WILL - EVER - even if H**L freezes over... EVER, NEVER EVER. PERIOD OVER AND OUT! Got it?? I got it.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;And did I mention mt WIFE does not like WARM showers. NEVER, EVER? ok? ok.).&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5) Also, make sure to check with your wife BEFORE you do this. To be on the safe side - that is. ALWAYS check with your wife!  OK? GOT THAT? ok. Me too. I GOT that. And I hear about it often... even 6 months later... once a week at least... &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt; YIKES! I need that NEW, FASTER infuser - (anyone have one?). &lt;b&gt;I wonder who gets the dog in a divorce?&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;  I KNOW for a fact that I will get the NEW hot water heating system. &lt;b&gt;And I may even have to wear it out of the house - around my neck someday.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;If you try it out, GOOD LUCK!&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;THE FINAL ANALYSIS:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SUN POWER! PV direct for hot water - It works!!!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;(If warm showers once a month, or so, are OK for you --&lt;b&gt;AND YOUR WIFE...&lt;/b&gt; that is).&lt;/i&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2392" RevisionGUID="f8311b8d-177f-4dd3-bd22-b5cd89022ad0" CreationDate="2013-12-28T04:25:42.040" UserId="1009" Comment="added 974 characters in body" Text="My 40 gal electric HW heater was dying (18 years old - time to go, even for a Sears Kenmore). I had EIGHT 220 watt PV panels left from an installation (at my office), and I wanted to use them to heat water (much more efficient use than sitting in my shed for a year! Right? &lt;grin&gt;). 220 x 8 is only 1760 watts. I found a new &quot;Brand X&quot; 50 Gal Electric HW heater locally for $315 (no delivery - had to fetch it - UGH!).  Was 1760 watts enough to heat my tank to 130 or preferably even higher (say 170F), in 4 hours of full sun???  That was the MAIN question - and would the thermostats work right? (they ARE mechanical and heat is the key, so it should be OK).&lt;br/&gt; I get a little over 4 hours of sun in winter where I wanted to put the panels - almost 5 hrs in summer (flat on porch roof - can't be seen except by Google Sats or planes from the air).  They say that normal tank recovery to 140F was 1.25 hours at 3300 watts from 68 degree cold water (it seems too long a time - I didn't do the calculations, but I will - eventually) - takes longer for colder water - luckily I'm in Fla. Cold water temp is fairly stable 65 to 70.  A 50 gal tank will last my small family (3 of us) 3 to 4 days (I HOPE), but only if I set it 165 or 170 and use a cold water mixer also called an &quot;infuser&quot; I think (it mixes cold with hot on the output and keeps water from being dangerously hot in the shower, or for kids at a faucet, etc.).  The infuser is a trick I learned some years ago with a smaller 30 gal tank from my brother-in-law (thanks RICK!).&lt;br/&gt; I had just enough 8 AWG wire - 10 AWG would have worked, but I had 8 so that's OK - another volt or two not dropped on the way in, I guess. After 7 days and 4 problems (all not directly related to the project itself, but a PAIN nonetheless), I got it installed (the tank was last). &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;And the answer turns out to be YES - and NO. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it works. But on the NO side,&lt;br/&gt; The CONS:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1) I am only getting 221 VDC at 7.4 amps - should be 230 or so under full sun (29VDC at max output x 8 panels in series). What happened to my 10 volts or so? Not that big a deal, I suppose. The coils are so low a resistance they are MAXING out the panels as I thought they would. Top coil comes on first, and an hour and a half to 2 hours later, CLICK - the lower one is on.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2) It does not always get hot enough - not even a full hour of clouds half-way through the heating cycle messes it up (pretty badly) - lots of warm water! (&lt;b&gt;Note to self: Wife says &quot;warm&quot; is 100% FAILURE.&lt;/b&gt; Ooooo-Kay. HOT it must become... somehow &lt;sigh&gt;).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3) I only get two days of hot water after 1 full day of sun (4.5 to 5 hours), instead of a minimum of 3 as I want (and need), maybe because I only have it set to 135-140.  170 was WAY too hot since the infuser does not come on right away and with the first burst of hot water you can get scalded pretty badly if you are not careful (thankfully - he have no small kids). I need a faster acting infuser - this one is some type of bi-metal switch that mounts around/against the hot-out-bound copper pipe right out of the tank and it reacts too slow (looks like a WW-II or maybe a WW-I surplus thing). I need an Electric sensor/switch of some kind, or maybe adjustable-pressure based unit of some kind. I am searching for one. Something MUCH faster, anyway.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4) If they were not spare panels - cost might be be prohibitive.  We paid 68 cents/watt (per whole palette of 25) - 220 x 8 was $1760 plus $315+tax for the 50 gal &quot;el-cheapo&quot;  electric tank, $45 for small breaker box and DC beaker for PV panel supply). No mounting costs - they just lay flat on the porch roof with one bolt as a tie down (protected from wind, great drainage, slightly tilted up toward west - better for the afternoon sun, too).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5) Payback right now is 3.5 years + possible alimony for life if not made HOT-HOT-HOT (about 20% to 22% of electric bill - $550/year). Too long to suit me (but not too bad, really - panels will surely outlast the new tank unless we get a bad hail storm (very rare down here, BUT...I still worry about it). I PRAY a new infuser and going up to 170F will give me the extra day I want (and make my WIFE happy... it HAS to... no choice in the matter.)&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;NOW for the PROS:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1) Super EASY to install. Bozo the clown could do it, except for &quot;sweating&quot; the copper pipes for the new tank (torch soldering). Adding them to an existing tank installation would be a NO brain-er.&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2) No (leaky) pipes to run - no heat exchanger, no &quot;Fred &amp; Ethel Glycol&quot; (old fluid mechanics joke) or other fluid heat carrying medium, or not pushing the cold up, and hot water down from a direct concentrator system. &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3) GREAT use for spare PV panels. Actually a good deal if you can get panels for less than about 65 cents/watt any time (without having to buy a train load of them).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4) We have always had AT LEAST a warm shower in 6 months of use - Never cold - (I do warm, OK - &lt;b&gt;My WIFE does NOT - NEVER WILL - EVER - even if H**L freezes over... EVER, NEVER EVER. PERIOD OVER AND OUT! Got it?? I got it.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;And did I mention mt WIFE does not like WARM showers. NEVER, EVER? ok? ok.).&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5) Also, make sure to check with your wife BEFORE you do this. To be on the safe side - that is. ALWAYS check with your wife!  OK? GOT THAT? ok. Me too. I GOT that. And I hear about it often... even 6 months later... once a week at least... &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt; YIKES! I need that NEW, FASTER infuser - (anyone have one?). &lt;b&gt;I wonder who gets the dog in a divorce?&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;  I KNOW for a fact that I will get the NEW hot water heating system. &lt;b&gt;And I may even have to wear it out of the house - around my neck someday.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;If you try it out, GOOD LUCK!&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;THE FINAL ANALYSIS:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;SUN POWER! PV direct for hot water - It works!!!&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;(If warm showers once a month, or so, are OK for you --&lt;b&gt;AND YOUR WIFE...&lt;/b&gt; that is).&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;One other thing - if you try this, for health reasons, make sure your tank switches elements and both the top and bottom get fully heated a minimum of every 96 hours. If you have a 3 to 4 day period of clouds, let the tank get up to full temp before you use it again (make sure both elements come on  - get out the Volt meter). I really don't have to worry about this since 4 days of warm water will put me in the hospital where they will be removing shards of glass from all over my body and aluminum solar panel frame parts from various wounds inflicted from flying PV panels...  HOT IS GOOD! WARM IS BAD.  In my future... I can see a 240 Volt 3 pole double throw relay/switch lifting all DC and applying AC after 2 days of clouds...  I'm physic like that. It's a sort of sixth sense - a survival instinct in all of us from thousands of years of marriage evolution - I'm pretty sure that's what causes it. Like a bird's Fright-n-Flight instinct. Yeah... that's it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2393" RevisionGUID="52b69ec1-833b-4f9f-b1ba-d047f0033029" CreationDate="2013-12-28T07:42:44.247" UserId="48" Text="How long does it take to construct a new port suitable for offshore wind construction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking about the whole period: the design and planning, construction, and commissioning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd value real-world examples, to back up any numbers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2393" RevisionGUID="52b69ec1-833b-4f9f-b1ba-d047f0033029" CreationDate="2013-12-28T07:42:44.247" UserId="48" Text="How long does it take to construct a new port suitable for offshore wind construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2393" RevisionGUID="52b69ec1-833b-4f9f-b1ba-d047f0033029" CreationDate="2013-12-28T07:42:44.247" UserId="48" Text="|wind-power|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2394" RevisionGUID="85b21c14-a472-40e6-a1b7-1624898767f3" CreationDate="2013-12-28T07:54:40.497" UserId="48" Text="How many vessel-days does it take to build an offshore wind farm, per turbine or per megawatt? I notice that when an offshore wind farm is being built, there are quite a few vessels milling around: vessels for shuttling crew, surveying, heavy-lifting cranes, cable-layers, accommodation, pile-drivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at all those vessels, and the total capacity, is there a typical number of vessel-days (i.e the number of days spent, per vessel, summed across all vessels) per unit of installation - per turbine, or per megawatt?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been watching the vessels move on [marinetraffic.com][1], and keeping an eye on the [4C Offshore register of vessels used on offshore wind farms][2]: even on completed wind farms such as the London Array, there's a lot of ongoing boat activity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://marinetraffic.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/vessels.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dv4xB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5338" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2394" RevisionGUID="85b21c14-a472-40e6-a1b7-1624898767f3" CreationDate="2013-12-28T07:54:40.497" UserId="48" Text="How many vessels does it take to build an offshore wind farm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5339" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2394" RevisionGUID="85b21c14-a472-40e6-a1b7-1624898767f3" CreationDate="2013-12-28T07:54:40.497" UserId="48" Text="|wind-power|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2393" RevisionGUID="39312b0a-1e44-4e3f-ada8-b7771bf98a03" CreationDate="2013-12-28T08:12:16.443" UserId="48" Comment="added 302 characters in body" Text="How long does it take to construct a new port suitable for offshore wind construction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking about the whole period: the design and planning, construction, and commissioning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd value real-world examples, to back up any numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the proposed new [Able Humber port][1], an example of a not-yet-built offshore wind port, which has just received planning approval:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/Humber-Port---Able-pid50.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hAFzK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2395" RevisionGUID="c1bd413d-a9cf-4258-831e-ae2f6810a5c0" CreationDate="2013-12-28T09:04:51.660" UserId="48" Text="To date, there were until recently just a few players in the manufacture of multi-megawatt scale offshore-wind turbines, though with the entrance of new Chinese manufacturers, that's been expanding quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How quickly can the supply of offshore wind turbines expand? If a company wanted to a whole new manufacturing chain for blades, nacelles, tower, etc, let's say for 500 MW per year manufacturing capacity, how long would that take, including planning and construction of the manufacturing plant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]  &#xD;&#xA;(source: [ZZ2; CC-BY-SA; wikipedia][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IfWZ5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Wind_Power" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2395" RevisionGUID="c1bd413d-a9cf-4258-831e-ae2f6810a5c0" CreationDate="2013-12-28T09:04:51.660" UserId="48" Text="How quickly can the offshore-turbine supply chain expand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2395" RevisionGUID="c1bd413d-a9cf-4258-831e-ae2f6810a5c0" CreationDate="2013-12-28T09:04:51.660" UserId="48" Text="|wind-power|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5344" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="39" RevisionGUID="da7bf881-4ffa-43db-829a-5f49005e345e" CreationDate="2013-12-29T07:48:49.170" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/417200518201868289" />
  <row Id="5345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1025" RevisionGUID="f025e039-381c-4f37-9cad-49ea69cfd3be" CreationDate="2013-12-29T14:50:03.877" UserId="1000" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="This isn't an *exhaustive* set, but I am a person who watches quite a few documentaries, and consider myself an advocate of more sustainable living.  Here are some that I've watched.  My personal ratings are listed (if they're in my Netflix history), as well as the start of my reviews, if I left one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Describing the Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[The Age of Stupid][1]** (5 of 5 stars):  For everyone who replies that **movies** like this are too one-sided, I have just one question for you: When was the last time you saw an oil company commercial on TV that let climate scientists mention that the use of fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change and air pollution? &#xD;&#xA;* **[GasHole][3]** (4 of 5 stars): Good film. Spoiler alert: this is largely about a conspiracy theory. I know that will turn a lot of people off, but you have to realize that if people automatically dismiss all conspiracy theories as false, then you have completely cleared the way for conspiracies to be carried out without limits. (What's the phrase about the devil's greatest trick being convincing people that he didn't exist?)&#xD;&#xA;* **[Heat](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/)**: What companies and governments around the world think about tackling climate change.&#xD;&#xA;* **[Poisoned Waters][14]:** An investigation into pollution of US waterways.&#xD;&#xA;* **[Who Killed the Electric Car?][5]**: Why did electric cars stop being produced by major automakers in the mid-2000s?&#xD;&#xA;* **[Food, Inc.][8]**: The environmental and health problems with the way food is produced in the developed world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Describing Solutions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[No Impact Man][9]** (5 of 5 stars): Follow a man in New York City as he tries to live for one year with almost no negative environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;* **[Fuel][2]** (5 of 5 stars): This is a good layperson's introduction to biofuels. No more, no less. Its not a scientific documentary, so if you're craving proof, pick up a science journal. If you want to learn a bit about a subject that you have only been very casually acquainted with, then watch this.&#xD;&#xA;* **[Revenge of the Electric Car][6]**: An examination of 3 automakers (Nissan/GM/Tesla) bringing electric cars to mass markets.&#xD;&#xA;* **[Car of the Future][7]**: An entertaining look at emerging alternative fuel vehicle technologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Ones to Avoid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Cool It][4]** (1 of 5 stars): If you don't trust science, or are looking for excuses to not change any of your habits, you'll love this movie. A few facts: first, Lomborg's not a professor of environmental science. He's a political scientist. Half of the experts he interviewed were also not natural scientists, but economists. If you think economists did a good job foreseeing the financial crisis [in 2008], then I recommend you listen to them on climate science...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other Peoples' Opinions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Mother Nature Network's Top Environmental Movies and Documentaries][10]&#xD;&#xA;* [Mother Nature Network's Top 10 Environmental Documentaries of 2009][11]&#xD;&#xA;* [TopDocumentaryFilms.com][15] (under **Environment**) — the good and the bad&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Best Overall Resources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [I think PBS Frontline][12] consistently has the best overall documentaries.&#xD;&#xA;* [I have to plug Netflix streaming][13], because there really are a lot of documentaries available to watch instantly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-Age-of-Stupid/70117903&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Fuel/70084130&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/GasHole/70119178&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Cool-It/70150999&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Who-Killed-the-Electric-Car/70052424&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/70184161&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Car-of-the-Future-Engineering-for-the-Environment/70098063&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Food-Inc./70108783&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/No-Impact-Man-The-Documentary/70112474&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.mnn.com/family/family-activities/stories/top-environmental-docs-and-movies&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/photos/top-10-environmental-documentaries-of-2009/inspiring-and-shocking&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.netflix.com&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/watch-online/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="876b618e-db19-4cd9-9f7c-431c6ff0c60b" CreationDate="2013-12-29T14:50:52.993" UserId="1000" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Insulation can contribute to the sustainability of a home both by being sustainably-sourced and by reducing heating and cooling requirements. The longer the insulation lasts, the greater its contribution to your home's sustainability. It is also important to select insulation that can be installed easily, without tearing out walls and producing unnecessary waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some factors to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Building style:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you building a new home or simply upgrading an existing house? It simply isn't practical to re-do an existing home with straw-bale walls, but you can easily fill an attic with fiberglass, cellulose, denim, or other loose insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing from that, the type of building material used is also a major factor. You can't put loose-fill cellulose in a poured concrete wall, but you can use insulating concrete forms or foam boards. Wood houses have a lot of cavities that make blown-in insulation an attractive option, especially for retrofits. Filling empty cavities with cellulose or fiberglass is a fairly non-invasive strategy for wood structures as it only requires you to drill holes in the wall then plug them again. But if you are already re-siding the house, foam boards under the new siding might be an attractive option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sunlight damages most insulating foams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Climate:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Humidity can damage many types of insulation, and your choice of insulation will affect (or depend on) your strategies for dealing with moisture produced in the home or entering from outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pests:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mice are happy to nest in fiberglass, as reported on the [DIY/Home Improvement](http://diy.stackexchange.com/) sister site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainable materials:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Straw bale construction works well if you can find a contractor in your area familiar with it or if you have the skills to do it yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wool insulation (mentioned in the question) is sustainable if wool is produced in excess near the house in question. If you would have to make special arrangements to have it shipped from a far away place, you should consider other options." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1280" RevisionGUID="41b6868e-8470-4729-9cb4-b32e908ec339" CreationDate="2013-12-29T14:51:20.120" UserId="1000" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I've compiled a list of common household wastes and their reported C:N ratios with links to the various sources. A difficulty is that different sources sometimes list  different C:N ratios for the same material. This probably has to with differences in samples (e.g. one batch of fruit wastes versus another), but if you look at some of the bigger differences it may just be that some numbers are plain wrong (perhaps the 150 of cardboard?). When I found multiple conflicting numbers for a food source I placed what I think is the most credible value at the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Waste               Amount of C to 1N   Source&#xD;&#xA;    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Urine               0.8               	http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Fish wastes         2.5 - 5.5         	http://www.norganics.com/applications/cnratio.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Soybean meal        4 - 6             	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	General food waste  14 - 16           	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						17                	http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;						20                	http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;    Vegetable wastes    11 - 19           	http://oregonbd.org/Class/ftp/CtoN%20Ratios.pdf &#xD;&#xA;                        25                	http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio			&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Grass clippings     9 - 25, avg 17    	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Coffee grounds      20					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;						25					http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Garden weeds        20					http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;						30					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Nut shells          35					http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;	Fruit wastes        20 - 49, avg 40		http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html &#xD;&#xA;						15					http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Shrub trimmings     53					http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;	Garden leaves       40 - 80, avg 54		http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						60 - 80				http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;		  &#xD;&#xA;	Pine needles        80:1				http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Paper               125 - 180			http://www.norganics.com/applications/cnratio.pdf&#xD;&#xA;					  					   &#xD;&#xA;	Sawdust             200 - 750, avg 442	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;	Newspaper           398 - 852			http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						170					http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;						175					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Cardboard           563					http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						350					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;						150					http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;	Hardwood chips      451 - 819, avg 560	http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html &#xD;&#xA;						400					http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;						300					http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;	Softwood chips      212 - 1313, avg 641 http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1266" RevisionGUID="0ea1a76f-dfd8-408b-8375-d64670cd1301" CreationDate="2013-12-29T14:51:39.323" UserId="1000" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="We just freeze bananas in their skins. But I do that when they're getting a bit old, and when I thaw them it's for cooking, so I'm not sure how edible they are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="719" RevisionGUID="7b3d4422-1f5d-4aca-81ac-14b7536cd529" CreationDate="2013-12-29T14:52:22.063" UserId="1000" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I'm going to focus on energy and carbon emissions because that's what I know best.  Anyone wanting to add waste generation and other considerations please feel free. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chad is right that the question depends first on how your kids live and where you decide to live. Geography and economy are very important variables.  A study by [Chris Jones](http://www.stanford.edu/group/peec/cgi-bin/docs/events/2009/becc/presentations/1F%20Jones%20BECC%20Final.pdf) at UC Berkeley broke the average carbon footprints of the US and world as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Science Daily](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm) has the total figures as 20 and 4 tons for the US and world respectively.  I suggest this has to do with Jones accounting of indirect supply chain emissions he calculated using [lifecycle input output analysis](http://www.eiolca.net/), so I tend to trust his figures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [paper Jones published](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es102221h) in Environmental Science and Technology showed, using the same methodologies, that these distributions can vary substantially.  For instance, a comparison of San Francisco vs St. Louis showed the following differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - transportation emissions 2x as high in SF compared to SL&#xD;&#xA; - housing emissions over 2x as high in SL compared to SF&#xD;&#xA; - food emissions twice as high in SL compared to SF&#xD;&#xA; - goods emissions ~30% higher in SF compared to SL&#xD;&#xA; - service emissions ~40% higher in SF compared to SL&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because I'm not sure which locations you are choosing between, I can't say what categories will be most important to you, so I'll use the average US case.  Based on Jones' analysis we see that transportation, electricity and heating are good place to start to look at reducing your carbon impact.  The first consideration you should therefore make is your traveling habits at the two different places:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As a retired person will you be traveling on vacation a lot?  Using&#xD;&#xA;   [EPA Climate Leaders'](http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/documents/resources/commute_travel_product.pdf) figures, we can crudely estimate that a 6000 mi flight * .185 kg / passenger-mi results in over one metric ton of direct CO2 emissions&amp;nbsp;— roughly 10% of the average American's direct transportation emissions&amp;nbsp;— not insignificant.&#xD;&#xA; - What will your daily commute look like?  If you're staying at home wiping the grand kids' ass then score some points for sustainability!  However, if you are going to need to drive your car for entertainment, volunteering, work in either situation, you'll need to exploit opportunities to carpool or use a low emission vehicle (think electric with solar).&#xD;&#xA; - What will the building situation look like?  If you can't directly compare electric and heating bills, consider the natural lighting, the climate (a more extreme climate leads to increased HVAC loads), insulation and air leakiness of the house.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now more specific to your question, let's hold these factors constant and just consider how adding an additional person to a house can contribute to sustainability.  Every four years the EIA conducts a [residential energy consumer survey](http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/index.cfm?view=consumption#summary).  Now here is some data I love and think would be very interesting to you  (there is a bunch of other great stuff in there for any data junkies):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are substantial energy savings from increasing the number of members per household. However *there are diminishing returns* to adding another member to the house.  So the first person would contribute 30% per capita energy savings, the second 20%, the third 10%.  This is important from a macro-perspective.  Let's say you have 30 people and developers are considering design occupancy.  The improvement from going from six 5-person units to five 6-person units is not as significant as moving from fifteen 2-person units to ten 3-person units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your perspective as an individual (or couple), there will be significant advantages to living in 5+ person house compared to a house for one or two people.  Let's say you are considering a two person house vs a six person house.  Moving into the two person house, you would be responsible for 50% of the 2-person house's primary energy (45 MBtu).  If you were the sixth person in a five person house, you would be responsible for 4MBtu margin of going from 5 person to six person house.  **A huge difference!**  These gains are mostly from shared energy sources, such as a refrigerator, shared lighting, shared air temperature etc.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Obviously energy consumption is very different outside US, but the principles should hold. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ipXsv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/blWi7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="fca79401-f05f-4ebd-bb8d-e7faf04fcdd6" CreationDate="2013-12-29T14:52:50.427" UserId="1000" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I've had good success with the following system.  All you need are two stronger plastic bags with handles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Bag one: non-handled bags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 'roll and rip' style produce bags from the market&#xD;&#xA; - bread bags&#xD;&#xA; - ziploc bags&#xD;&#xA; - anything else without a handle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Bag two: handled bags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - plastic grocery bags&#xD;&#xA; - mall shopping bags (think h&amp;m or something&amp;nbsp;— attached handles rather than one piece of plastic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#In a drawer: paper bags&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - old flour bags&#xD;&#xA; - paper lunch bags&#xD;&#xA; - anything else that will fold flat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been saving nearly every bag I use for over a year and have never struggled to find the right size/kind.  Also the handled/non-handled breakdown works well without being over-organized.  As long as you are using them and not just saving them, this should work for you.  Also, a bag of bags stuffed into a pillowcase is surprisingly comfortable.      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1029" RevisionGUID="8f40cf6c-1d9e-4452-b081-20be3a4200a0" CreationDate="2013-12-29T14:53:36.147" UserId="1000" Comment="added 1 characters in body" Text="@nate solid list above. I have seen all except for Heat and I agree pretty closely with your ratings. BTW Poisoned Waters is a Frontline Exclusive and can be watched at the PBS website.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Health, Farming sustainably vs. industrialized and More**  &#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------&#xD;&#xA; - [Forks Over Knives][1] — Tremendous film, Solid Science 2 hour panel discussion&#xD;&#xA;   (both stream on Netflix)&#xD;&#xA; - [Dirt! The Movie][2] ** Very good, don't let the title fool you (not a yawner!)&#xD;&#xA; - [Fresh][3] — similar to Food Inc. w/more positive outlook&#xD;&#xA; - [Earthlings][4] — narrator Joaquin Phoenix, warning: graphic &amp; powerful&#xD;&#xA; - [The Real Dirt on Farmer John][5] Joel Salinger from Omnivore's Dilemna&#xD;&#xA; - [The Future of Food][6] The first of the Food Documentaries by Jerry Garcia's widow&#xD;&#xA; - [Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 30 Days][7] Dr. Gabriel Cousens&#xD;&#xA; - [Vanishing Bees][8] The implications on loss of bees with Ellen Page&#xD;&#xA; - [Food Matters][9] Eat for Health Let Food be thy medicine&#xD;&#xA; - [Know Your Mushrooms][10] funky yet captivating movie truly magic mycellium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Activism**&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA; - [The Yes Men][11] Two guys take on corporate conglomerates funny&#xD;&#xA; - [The Yes Men Fix the World][12] Jack-Ass meets Activism (watch after Earthlings;-)&#xD;&#xA; - [This is What Democracy Looks Like][13] ** The Authentic Story of Seattle WTO protests&#xD;&#xA;   w/out spin &#xD;&#xA; - [Exit Through the Gift Shop][14] If you don't know Banksy here is your intro&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Water**&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA; - [Flow: For the Love of Water][15] dwindling fresh water shows greed as culprit&#xD;&#xA; - [Tapped: The Movie][16] Focus on bottle water what it is, regulation &amp; effect&#xD;&#xA; - [Blue Gold:The World Water Wars][17] Intro to the corporate water grab&#xD;&#xA; - [Bottled Life: Nestle's Business with Water][18] haven't seen but love to despise Nestle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fossil Fuels, Petrochemicals/Plastics**&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA; - [End of Suburbia][19] my intro to peak oil, very good&#xD;&#xA; - [Crude][20] Ecuadoran people Fight back vs. Chevron&#xD;&#xA; - [Crude Impact][21] The destructive force oil demand has around the globe&#xD;&#xA; - [Plastic Planet][22] Another eye-opener on plastics, (contains some subtitles)&#xD;&#xA; - [Addicted to Plastic][23] thought provoking, mind-blower&#xD;&#xA; - [Gasland][24]  Intro to Fracking with banjo&#xD;&#xA; - [A Crude Awakening][25] Theatrical Documentary on dwindling oil supply&#xD;&#xA; - [The Eleventh Hour][26] Environmental Look around Globe, better than Gore's offering&#xD;&#xA; - [Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars][27] Texans from all walks of life ban together to oppose 19 new coal power-plants being fast-tracked by Governor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CAN BE SEEN ON YOUTUBE&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA; - [The World According to Monsanto][28] Yes it's one sided but shouldn't it be?&#xD;&#xA; - [Sweet Misery][29] aspartame (Monsanto's 1st release in 1903) damages from diet soda&#xD;&#xA; - [What in the World are they Spraying?][30] 1st doc to catch admission of chemtrails&#xD;&#xA; - [Why In the world are they Spraying?][31]  The Sequel with more science and experts&#xD;&#xA; - [Flouridegate: An American Tragedy][32] 2013 release exposing flouride history damages &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various Docs relating to Sustainability&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [The Corporation][33] Shows modern day corporations to current corporate-conglomerates&#xD;&#xA; - [The Cove][34] Oscar winner exposing a dark secret of dolphin hunting&#xD;&#xA; - [The One Percent][35] Intro to 1% that own more than 50% of the wealth in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567233/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1243971/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1637620/#&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0358456/#&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0439774/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427276/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587696/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1521877/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1528734/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1339111/plotsummary#&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379593/?ref_=sr_2&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1352852/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265871/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1587707/&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1149583/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1344784/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1137439/&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2072910/#&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446320/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1326204/&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0932519/#&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1292648/?ref_=sr_1&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1572965/#&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1558250/&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1706131712/tt0776794&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0492931/&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1269692/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1189345/#&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454639/#&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1770768/#&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2264390/#&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2705004/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1313104/&#xD;&#xA;  [35]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0819791/plotsummary#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="695" RevisionGUID="11f9590a-ee87-4805-b98a-5a48332bdbc9" CreationDate="2013-12-29T14:54:04.183" UserId="1000" Comment="edited body" Text="I haven't seen a comprehensive list.  In fact all the sea mineral products I've seen on the net are for home gardening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [ag-usa](http://ag-usa.net/Four_Wonderful_Sea_Mineral_Products.htm) has a list of four home gardening mineral products they say make up the market.&#xD;&#xA; - [seamazing](http://www.seamazing.net/) offers a similar product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds like this list will grow, along with the sea mineral products offered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't rush to the conclusion, however, that because these products use sea minerals, they are more sustainable.  From a land use perspective, of course they will be.  However, mining minerals from the sea can be very energy intensive, according to a lot of sources, [mdpi](http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/4/980/pdf) for instance.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High energy intensity, depending on the energy source used, could actually lead to more air pollution, including GHGs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="897" RevisionGUID="965eb603-1144-469d-826c-99ee753d035d" CreationDate="2013-12-29T14:54:53.953" UserId="1000" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="This is a deceptively simple question.  Most of the complications come from your interpretation of *sustainable*.  Let me give you a quick summary and explain why it isn't enough:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fiberglass** insulation is the most common these days.  It is easy to install.  However, it is not healthy to breath, so the installer must wear protection to avoid contact with skin and inhalation.  It has higher embodied energy than cellulose [(970 MJ/m^3)](http://www.victoria.ac.nz/cbpr/documents/pdfs/ee-coefficients.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Blown Cellulose (dry)** insulation is not as common these days since it settles.  This causes the top of the wall over time to become not insulated at all.  For a diligent home owner, and depending on how the wall was constructed, this can be fixed by periodically adding insulation from the top of the wall.  However, this problem is harder to deal with when there is compaction under windows and other places where it is hard to access later.  It has lower embodied energy than fiberglass [(112 MJ/m^3)](http://www.victoria.ac.nz/cbpr/documents/pdfs/ee-coefficients.pdf).  This can easily be used in attics where settling isn't much of a concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wet Cellulose (wet)** insulation is very similar to blown cellulose except that it is blown in wet so that it binds to whatever it hits and doesn't settle over time.  This is fairly standard, but can only be around 4&quot; thick before you have to start embedding some plastic or other support to help hold up the insulation.  It is string enough to not sag, but not when spanning large gaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Styrofoam** insulation is often used under foundations, but also in walls.  It is strong and easy to install, but the manufacture still creates many [harmful chemicals](http://www.earthresource.org/campaigns/capp/capp-styrofoam.html), to both those manufacturing it and the general air quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rice Hulls** can be used in a similar was as blown cellulose and has similar problems.  It can settle, though I haven't been able to find anyone saying how much they settle.  It is also an agricultural waste product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Spray Foam** is often used to fill in lots of gaps and is great for sealing your walls.  A lot of heat is lost through tiny cracks in walls, around windows, etc.  Spray foam in these places can be especially helpful.  There are many spray foams available, some claiming to be 'green,' which one is most sustainable could be its own question.  Most spray foam is toxic enough that there are warnings on the label saying you shouldn't let it touch your skin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sawdust** was used a long time ago, but has since been replaced by blown cellulose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Trade Offs**&#xD;&#xA;Do you consider small amounts of ozone 'unsustainable?'  What are the trade-offs between ozone depletion and embodied energy (styrofoam vs fiberglass)?  What are local labor costs?  If one insulation takes twice as long to install, perhaps you'd have been better off installing the easy/cheap one, and putting the rest of the money in solar panels, organic food or any number of other places.  Extra thick walls to support extra insulation will (depending on your wall construction method) require extra wall material (wider studs in a framed wall).  That could also be factored in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thermal Mass**&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to consider is thermal mass.  It is helpful to have things like concrete, earth, brick and water inside (or a part of your inside wall).  This is most helpful in places which have large temperature swings.  In these places if it is 70 during the day and 20 at night, your thermal mass can hold your house at daytime temperatures all night, without having to turn on the heat (and visa-versa in the summer with cool nights).  In places where the swings are less, thermal mass is less important, though still helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Air Tight**&#xD;&#xA;Even if you have highly insulated walls, small gaps which let outside air inside and visa-versa can have a huge impact on heating/cooling bills.  Some insulation types are better at preventing these kinds of gaps than others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2396" RevisionGUID="f83f5d1f-1bed-450f-8f85-d574972a2f5d" CreationDate="2013-12-30T09:45:12.657" UserId="476" Text="Wikipedia defines ecological footprint as [the amount of biologically productive land and sea area necessary to supply the resources a human population consumes][1]. Which overshoot can I talk about if I consume even a bit of non-renewable resources? How much biologically productive land and sea area are necessary to supply 1 barrel of oil or one tonne of alumnium?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2396" RevisionGUID="f83f5d1f-1bed-450f-8f85-d574972a2f5d" CreationDate="2013-12-30T09:45:12.657" UserId="476" Text="Ecological foot pring accounting of non-renewable resources" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2396" RevisionGUID="f83f5d1f-1bed-450f-8f85-d574972a2f5d" CreationDate="2013-12-30T09:45:12.657" UserId="476" Text="|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2396" RevisionGUID="8e6aa613-ddb1-45ac-8a6a-88fa88844aa5" CreationDate="2013-12-30T09:52:09.433" UserId="476" Comment="faq" Text="Wikipedia defines ecological footprint as [the amount of biologically productive land and sea area necessary to supply the resources a human population consumes][1]. Which overshoot can I talk about if I consume even a bit of non-renewable resources? How much biologically productive land and sea area are necessary to supply 1 barrel of oil or one tonne of alumnium?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The footprint [FAQ][2] says [something about carbon][3] which I cannot understand. What can carbon do if I need a kilo of alumnium while I have none? How can carbon be used to produce the alumnium?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/frequently_asked_technical_questions/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/frequently_asked_technical_questions/#pn2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2396" RevisionGUID="cab75914-1c58-4ba8-a601-7680ca231d8e" CreationDate="2013-12-30T10:21:01.733" UserId="659" Comment="rewrod title, spelling" Text="Wikipedia defines ecological footprint as [the amount of biologically productive land and sea area necessary to supply the resources a human population consumes][1]. Which overshoot can I talk about if I consume even a bit of non-renewable resources? How much biologically productive land and sea area are necessary to supply 1 barrel of oil or one tonne of aluminium?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The footprint [FAQ][2] says [something about carbon][3] which I cannot understand. What can carbon do if I need a kilo of aluminium while I have none? How can carbon be used to produce the aluminium?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/frequently_asked_technical_questions/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/frequently_asked_technical_questions/#pn2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5359" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2396" RevisionGUID="cab75914-1c58-4ba8-a601-7680ca231d8e" CreationDate="2013-12-30T10:21:01.733" UserId="659" Comment="rewrod title, spelling" Text="Accounting for ecological foot print of non-renewable resources" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5360" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2396" RevisionGUID="cab75914-1c58-4ba8-a601-7680ca231d8e" CreationDate="2013-12-30T10:21:01.733" Comment="Proposed by 659 approved by 476 edit id of 195" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2397" RevisionGUID="5ffaacd0-a058-4950-88a4-57df99462589" CreationDate="2013-12-30T10:40:56.640" UserId="659" Text="I think you have the right idea. Your question addresses exactly what the ecological footprint does not measure, and the question you link to is trying to explain that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fundamentally, ecological footprint is about energy. Sunlight arrives and is used by plants (or a tiny amount is used directly by people via PV or other solar power systems), which use it to convert CO2 out of the air into more complex carbon molecules. So you can take a complicated cycle like &quot;plants plus time to coal, coal plus iron to steel becomes car&quot; and work backwards to say that the car took X amount of coal, or X amount of energy, to make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As the Ecological Footprint measures the area required to produce a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; material or absorb carbon dioxide emissions, materials such as mercury&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that are not created by biological processes nor absorbed by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biological systems do not have a defined Ecological Footprint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use aluminium as you do, what they're saying is that aluminium as a metal does not have an ecological footprint, since nothing in the earthly environment makes aluminium. We have a finite supply of aluminium-containing rocks that we can refine the metal out of. Aluminium is not really a good example, since it's very common and not very toxic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no direct ecological process that takes aluminium out of the environment. Nothing eats it, in other words. What happens is that it eventually oxidises and breaks up, forming inert compounds, in other words sand/rocks. This is perhaps most obvious with iron/steel, where parts of the world have naturally occurring iron ore right on the surface. In a lot of Western Australia they call it &quot;dirt&quot;, because the soil is 99% iron ore. It's called haematite as a rock, or rust if you see it on an iron object. That cycle is fairly obvious: take rust (haematite), heat it and remove the oxygen and you get iron. Expose iron to air and water and it breaks back down to rust. Most chemicals have more complex pathways and are often toxic through the whole pathway - dioxins and plutonium, for example, take a very long time to break down and are nasty at almost every step. And there's really no way to express that in terms of carbon dioxide emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the ecological footprint can measure is the cost of finding aluminium ore (rocks), and turning those into useful aluminium metal objects. Or recycling them, or immobilising them to make them less poisonous. In essence, the processes are only about energy, and energy is relatively easy to express in carbon footprint terms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2398" RevisionGUID="24585056-3e6b-4cda-aaf0-01fd62fe8dda" CreationDate="2013-12-30T14:01:55.133" UserId="476" Text="The neighbours. The first insulator you must struggle for are the neighbours. I know that what I say is the a socialist (i.e. antihuman and anti-natural) blasphemy but you must live compactly in one house with many many people must live in your house and you must consume the leaks of each other through the walls. It is a common misconception that you do greener if you take some territory in suburbs or wild forest where you build a house, stick American flag there, and start polishing the grass lawn. It must be better since you use better materials than the multifloor block of flats does. Right? Though this trick is typical, let's be fair and assume that we use the same good insulation everywhere. So, instead of using a lot insulation materials (it is greener to use more materials, right?), you should start by minimizing the perimeter of contact surface between temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that bees do not freeze in their hive without any heater and poor insulation when there is -20 around. Furthermore, insulation-by-neighbours reduces all other factors of your ecological footprint and allows for additional efficiency of heaters: densely populated city can be supplied with efficient public transport in place of private cars, which is 10x more efficient alone when there is a lot of people to use it. Furthermore, cars will not fit there because city has shrunk 10-100 times and thus, distance has shrunk correspondingly. This means that you need to maintain orders less communications: roads, water, electricity, other cables, and nullify the light pollution accordingly. Shorter distances also make [heat electropower stations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_heat_and_power_plant) practical, which further increases efficiency by 30%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can downvote now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2398" RevisionGUID="c2a2fa92-feed-4bb0-9a7a-11e90972be4b" CreationDate="2013-12-30T14:38:08.883" UserId="476" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="The neighbours. The first insulator you must struggle for are the neighbours. I know that what I say is the a socialist (i.e. antihuman and anti-natural) terror but you must live compactly in one house with many many people must live in your house and you must consume the leaks of each other through the walls. It is a common misconception that you do greener if you take some territory in suburbs or wild forest where you build a house, stick American flag there, and start polishing the grass lawn. It must be better since you use better materials than the multifloor block of flats does. Right? Though this trick is typical, let's be fair and assume that we use the same good insulation everywhere. So, instead of using a lot insulation materials (it is greener to use more materials, right?), you should start by minimizing the perimeter of contact surface between temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that bees do not freeze in their hive without any heater and poor insulation when there is -20 around. Furthermore, insulation-by-neighbours reduces all other factors of your ecological footprint and allows for additional efficiency of heaters: densely populated city can be supplied with efficient public transport in place of private cars, which is 10x more efficient alone when there is a lot of people to use it. Furthermore, cars will not fit there because city has shrunk 10-100 times and thus, distance has shrunk correspondingly. This means that you need to maintain orders less communications: roads, water, electricity, other cables, and nullify the light pollution accordingly. Shorter distances also make [heat electropower stations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_heat_and_power_plant) practical, which further increases efficiency by 30%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can downvote now. I understand that what you actually looking for is something different, the isolation from the neigbhours. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2399" RevisionGUID="ef39838d-570d-4523-a627-50f9c7284189" CreationDate="2013-12-30T16:11:38.553" UserId="888" Text="I push them into the gap between a cupboard and a wall, the cupboard is about 6 foot tall so there's plenty of space and I can put/take from the gap as I want. Maybe I'm a bit of a cheap skate but didn't want to buy something to solve this problem. Sometimes two come out, but hey, it's not difficult to pop the extra one back in. When I moved house, I had to select a different gap, so I push them into gap between washing machine and kitchen unit, not as tall (can't hold so many) but simple and effective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2400" RevisionGUID="a0f2a92b-cbfa-4b81-9284-a8beab7a816d" CreationDate="2013-12-30T17:37:32.767" UserId="1015" Text="I heard that tuna is disseaparing, I &quot;verified&quot; on the Greenpeace [link](http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/tuna). It seems hard to believe it, is this for real? The &quot;pig&quot; of the oceans, one of the most common, one of the favourites? Or it's about some subspiecies? If so, what cans to avoid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2400" RevisionGUID="a0f2a92b-cbfa-4b81-9284-a8beab7a816d" CreationDate="2013-12-30T17:37:32.767" UserId="1015" Text="Avoid eating tuna?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2400" RevisionGUID="a0f2a92b-cbfa-4b81-9284-a8beab7a816d" CreationDate="2013-12-30T17:37:32.767" UserId="1015" Text="|food|meat|fish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="97880a0c-6c33-4bc5-bad0-1b3a8d6fe4d5" CreationDate="2013-12-31T05:07:56.313" UserId="1000" Comment="lifted the update from the comments to the answer proper" Text="If your main goal is keeping your compostable waste out of landfill (as opposed to producing compost for your own use), consider using a pickup service like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newyorkcompost.com/&quot;&gt;New York Compost&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** It looks like New York Compost is not around anymore, but the city is piloting an ambitious compost pickup program: http://nyc.gov/html/nycwasteless/html/compost/collections_ocp.shtml " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5369" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="97880a0c-6c33-4bc5-bad0-1b3a8d6fe4d5" CreationDate="2013-12-31T05:07:56.313" Comment="Proposed by 1000 approved by 48 edit id of 196" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2401" RevisionGUID="6185ab74-747a-43bc-8169-7b7bed73ed44" CreationDate="2013-12-31T05:58:08.687" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="Laptops are ubiquitous, but like most consumer electronics, they have a failing - they quite simply, fail.  The 'normal' thing to do, is to take the memory out and simply throw out the rest - I find this notion horribly wasteful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From experience, when I handed over a laptop to a scrap metal merchant, they gave me some money (by weight) and alluded to the fact that there are some valuable and useful parts that can be retrieved economically.  This also suggests a sustainable recycling of the parts of the machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than the battery, what else can be retrieved from a broken laptop? and how?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2401" RevisionGUID="6185ab74-747a-43bc-8169-7b7bed73ed44" CreationDate="2013-12-31T05:58:08.687" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="What is a feasible method to recycle parts of a broken laptop?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2401" RevisionGUID="6185ab74-747a-43bc-8169-7b7bed73ed44" CreationDate="2013-12-31T05:58:08.687" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2402" RevisionGUID="dfa473f2-5cd2-4902-b72b-dcd092835dab" CreationDate="2013-12-31T14:39:51.453" UserId="476" Text="The answer is [waste sorting][1]. I mean that there must be no such thing as garbage in the world at all. Everything must be recicled and biowaste is not anyhow different. I do not understand why you rasise the questions so selective: I will separate only the bio-waste from the rest of my waste? Why not to separate the rest also?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I argue that [appartment is utmost ecofriendly system in the world.][2] It leaves 10-100 times less footprint in the nature and composting is not a problem when it is a social system, like electricity. I live in appartment city, Tallinn in Estonia where since 2005 compost container was mandatory in front of every block of flats. Waste sorting is what you need in New York. I use a pretty small separate compost container, wrapped with a thin disposable plastic bags in the flat and carry the bag over into the public container once a while. I do not buy the plastic bags. They are given for free in our all-about-packaging economy when buy the fruits or vegetables. It is thin and mandatorily disposable since 2005 in Estonia. And it does not smell because what I compost is mostly vegetable rather than animal organics and vegan diet does not smell at all (neither as compost nor when you fart). There are other containers plastic/metal packaging, glass and paper. These do not smell at all. The food packaging could but you rinse them to avoid smell and improve the quality of the recicling materials that you deliver. We should also reduce the amount of detergents when washing anything so that we could safely head the sewage on our crop fields. I mean that liquid fraction should also be composted efficiently but our owners head us to poison the waters with their products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, if you want everything to do individually, as consumerist, why do you care about resource conservation and don't you want to grow the electricity by your personal generator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_sorting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2398/476" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2403" RevisionGUID="0275c03b-22bd-485c-9a19-00a7fe63aab0" CreationDate="2013-12-31T18:58:59.417" UserId="310" Text="Electronics contain precious metals (gold, silver, copper, palladium) and these are the main sources of value to a scrapper.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Batteries, lasers from optical drives, sensors, lenses, and other components may be retrievable for re-use or remanufacturing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For sustainable recycling, look for a recycler who uses a demanufacturing process, rather than a shredding process.  Demanufacturing removes individual components and reclaims materials from each component individually.  Shredding processes, which are popular in the e-waste industry because they require lower levels of labor and provide efficient space-reduction, do reclaim most of the precious materials but create a higher level of waste.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, ask your recycler where the materials will be processed.  There continues to be significant export of e-waste to China and developing countries, and many investigations have found that exported e-waste is often handled in ways that are harmful to the environment and the health of those who work on them.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5375" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2401" RevisionGUID="04127d8f-3a24-481d-939c-5413b8c02fd7" CreationDate="2013-12-31T19:49:09.450" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/418106570757926912" />
  <row Id="5376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="7281c712-59f1-4585-b202-5c220239c11c" CreationDate="2013-12-31T21:24:06.750" UserId="651" Text="I want to install some solar panels around 1 kWp. All the suppliers nearby offers me a central inverter solution. Should I look for a micro inverter solution? Or is something that I shouldn't bother?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="7281c712-59f1-4585-b202-5c220239c11c" CreationDate="2013-12-31T21:24:06.750" UserId="651" Text="Central or Micro inverter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="7281c712-59f1-4585-b202-5c220239c11c" CreationDate="2013-12-31T21:24:06.750" UserId="651" Text="|electricity|solar-power|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5379" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2395" RevisionGUID="3387445a-dfaa-4ff3-bc74-6cdcd2508cd8" CreationDate="2014-01-01T04:49:06.233" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/418242453968543744" />
  <row Id="5380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2405" RevisionGUID="d748e66a-1233-48e5-8215-6cd3feafe27f" CreationDate="2014-01-01T05:12:15.417" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="This is a part answer to your query as there seems to be a lot of challenges and variables that make it difficult to determine the total vessel hours.  Below is some detail that *approximates* the number of vessels per turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Crown Estate document [A Guide to an Offshore Wind Farm][1] provides in detail the ships required from the planning to maintenance phases, and their running costs in both a handy table and diagram. Specifically, and relevant to the issue of vessel-days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is no single way to build and &#xD;&#xA;operate an offshore wind farm, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main challenges being&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;scale, water &#xD;&#xA;depth and distance from shore &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These factors as well as conditions, seasonality etc would have a major effect on the amount of vessel-days, as you have described.  The document provides an approximation of the cost per 500 MW segment per ship for each stage, listed below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Survey stage:** Geophysical survey vessel; Ornithological and mammalian survey vessel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Foundation stage:** Foundation &#xD;&#xA;installation vessel, Array cable-laying vessel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Turbine and substation stage:**  Substation &#xD;&#xA;installation vessel, Turbine &#xD;&#xA;installation vessel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Operation and Maintenance:** Maintenance vessels&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The [European Offshore Wind][2] report suggests that the costs per vessel should decrease as new specialised wind-turbine-specific vessels are developed and used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/211144/guide_to_offshore_windfarm.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cleanenergypipeline.com/Resources/CE/ResearchReports/European_Offshore_Wind_INI.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2406" RevisionGUID="27bcc209-aa08-4992-9642-712a318b5fb4" CreationDate="2014-01-01T07:15:52.590" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="Mobile phones (or cellphones) are developing very fast, it almost seems that every time an advertisement comes on - it shows yet a new upgraded version of the phone that is in use.  This applied to all brands.  Now, once a new upgraded phone is acquired, the old superseded one needs to be disposed of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling programs specifically for phones have been around for a while.  Around here, a recycling bag is included in the new phone box.  However, it is not clear just how effective these recycling programs are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question is, **from a global perspective, are phone recycling programs keeping pace with the rate of phone upgrades?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By 'keeping pace', I am referring to for every phone that is upgraded, the superseded phone is recycled, rather than sent to landfill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5382" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2406" RevisionGUID="27bcc209-aa08-4992-9642-712a318b5fb4" CreationDate="2014-01-01T07:15:52.590" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="Are mobile phone recycling programs keeping pace with the rate of phone upgrades? A global perspective" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5383" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2406" RevisionGUID="27bcc209-aa08-4992-9642-712a318b5fb4" CreationDate="2014-01-01T07:15:52.590" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2407" RevisionGUID="0659c14c-dfb0-46ee-a024-5fda212744e6" CreationDate="2014-01-01T17:29:26.247" UserId="48" Text="For small systems, go with the central inverter, assuming it's lower cost (they usually are, at the moment), **unless** your system is going to suffer from partial shading during various parts of the day, in which case micro-inverters are probably the way to go. PV system suppliers should be able to offer you simulations of the options, but bear in mind they'll be optimising their profit, rather than optimising the deal for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at why micro inverters are interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of power generated by a panel, given a particular level of light on it, is determined by the voltage put across the panel. The voltage is set by the inverter, which tracks the maximum power point (*P&lt;sub&gt;mpp&lt;/sub&gt;* in the graph below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intechopen.com/books/sustainable-energy-recent-studies/an-optimized-maximum-power-point-tracking-method-based-on-pv-surface-temperature-measurement&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/F4Rch.jpg&quot; width=&quot;300&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But each panel is slightly different, so for any given level of light, different panels will have slightly different voltages at which they produce maximum power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way this has been dealt with to date, is by provided panels in batches that are closely matched in performance characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But additionally, if there's partial shade across just some of the panels, either from nearby trees or buildings, or from bird droppings on the panel, that can really drop the power generated by that panel: and if that panel shares an inverter with others, the output from all will be affected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And inverters can chuck out a lot of heat, and can get large: the central inverter is a monolith, and running hot will shorten its life, which means big central inverters need cooling (doesn't need to be air-con, but might be).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So one solution to tackle all this is is to optimise the voltage on each panel separately, using micro-inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's been a bit of a debate for several years about the relative maintenance scheedules of micro- versus central inverters. It's too early to tell, really, which has the lower whole-life cost; and the industry is moving so fast, that what we learn about inverters made 5 years ago, has to be adjusted in the light of rapidly changing prices, which changes the proportion of total system cost represented by the panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The string inverter sits halfway betwen the two: rather than one inverter for the whole system, or one per panel, there's one per string of panels, which offers advantages of each: not really applicable to smaller (in the kilowatts) system, but important for very large ones (megawatts)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5385" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2404" RevisionGUID="723f37cd-720a-4f18-9dcb-d587652793ca" CreationDate="2014-01-01T19:49:06.597" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/418468947688951809" />
  <row Id="5386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2407" RevisionGUID="b5a5f251-c91e-4378-8095-0937f20a05a2" CreationDate="2014-01-02T08:12:07.380" UserId="48" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="For small systems, go with the central inverter, assuming it's lower cost (they usually are, at the moment), **unless** your system is going to suffer from partial shading during the day, in which case micro-inverters are probably the way to go. PV system suppliers should be able to offer you simulations of the options, but bear in mind they'll be optimising their profit, rather than optimising the deal for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at why micro inverters are interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of power generated by a panel, given a particular level of light on it, is determined by the voltage put across the panel. The voltage is set by the inverter, which tracks the maximum power point (*P&lt;sub&gt;mpp&lt;/sub&gt;* in the graph below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.intechopen.com/books/sustainable-energy-recent-studies/an-optimized-maximum-power-point-tracking-method-based-on-pv-surface-temperature-measurement&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/F4Rch.jpg&quot; width=&quot;300&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But each panel is slightly different, so for any given level of light, different panels will have slightly different voltages at which they produce maximum power (*V&lt;sub&gt;mpp&lt;/sub&gt;*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way this has been dealt with to date, is by provided panels in batches that are closely matched in performance characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But additionally, if there's partial shade across just some of the panels, either from nearby trees or buildings, or from bird droppings on the panel, that can really drop the power generated by that panel: and if that panel shares an inverter with others, the output from all will be affected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And inverters can chuck out a lot of heat, and can get large: the central inverter is a monolith, and running hot will shorten its life, which means big central inverters need cooling (doesn't need to be air-con, but might be).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So one solution to tackle all this is is to optimise the voltage on each panel separately, using micro-inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's been a bit of a debate for several years about the relative maintenance schedules of micro- versus central inverters. It's too early to tell, really, which has the lower whole-life cost; and the industry is moving so fast, that what we learn about inverters made 5 years ago, has to be adjusted in the light of rapidly changing prices, which changes the proportion of total system cost represented by the panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The string inverter sits halfway betwen the two: rather than one inverter for the whole system, or one per panel, there's one per string of panels, which offers advantages of each: not really applicable to smaller (in the kilowatts) system, but important for very large ones (megawatts)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5387" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2406" RevisionGUID="1020f522-3c04-4be9-b36e-5b41cfbd319b" CreationDate="2014-01-02T10:49:07.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/418695444777406464" />
  <row Id="5388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2408" RevisionGUID="0317bd83-53d3-4770-983a-e79972200282" CreationDate="2014-01-02T13:13:06.457" UserId="99" Text="Here in The Netherlands we have the '[Viswijzer](http://www.goedevis.nl/project/userfiles/PapierenviswijzerUitknipDownload2013.pdf)' (link is to Dutch version only). &#xD;&#xA;It is an index where you can lookup which types of fish you can buy just fine and which types you should not buy because they are endangered and/or not caught sustainably. I'm not sure about the exact criteria they have but according to this index:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **CERTIFIED/GREEN (ok)**: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Albacore Tuna (white) from the Pacific with MSC-certification&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Skipjack Tuna from the Pacific with MSC-certification&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Skipjack Tuna caught by handline&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; in the Pacific&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ORANGE (poor choice)**: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - White Tuna caught by handline&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; in the Atlantic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Yellowfin Tuna caught by handline&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Ocean&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Skipjack Tuna caught by handline&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; in the Pacific and Indian Ocean and Indonesia&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **RED (don't buy)**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - White Tuna caught (other methods) in the Atlantic, Pacific or Mediterranean&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Yellowfin Tuna caught (other methods) in the Atlantic, Pacific or Indian Ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Skipjack Tuna caught (other methods) in the Indian and Eastern Atlantic Ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; with 'handline' they mean small-scale and selective fishing using fishing rod, [jigging](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigging) or [trolling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5389" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2400" RevisionGUID="09785bcb-41b8-423e-9444-3e2a619991b5" CreationDate="2014-01-02T13:49:10.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/418740757072461824" />
  <row Id="5390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2409" RevisionGUID="2c635c5b-007a-4f98-8ab5-1c11d465b98b" CreationDate="2014-01-02T14:15:25.280" UserId="1024" Text="You could retrieve the hard drive, screen, CD/Optical drives, keyboard, processor and heat sink/fan, wifi board, bluetooth board, motherboard and more. All one needs is a microdriver set and anti-static wristband. I would suggest offering it to a disadvantaged child or an aspiring programmer. Remember to wipe the drive clean of any personal info before handing it off, by either reformatting the drive or better yet using an external USB device loaded with an drive (wiping) erasing program for a thorough erasing of data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2355" RevisionGUID="98896a19-0cb8-4b45-886d-168e2ba25285" CreationDate="2014-01-03T09:12:05.097" UserId="99" Comment="improved typos, added usa tag" Text="I have a landlord who is very interested in saving money.  I wanted to suggest options to her to help her save money while reducing environmental footsteps.  However she is not motivated to save the environment and is trying to pay off medical bills so is opposed to large upfront costs; so anything I suggest must be an obvious cost savings, not too expensive, and not inconvenient for her or for her tenants to implement (for instance she nixed a programmable thermostat due to the effort of figuring out times to program in that worked with everyone's schedules).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it happens I donate a pretty large sum of money to charity anyways, which means I have money to spare, and I both trust my landlord and have an easy collateral (I pay for x months in advance, you can't kick me out till ...), so I'm actually willing to help finance some larger investments if she isn't.  I don't need to make any profit if it helps her and the environment, however, I make pretty good interest in my charitable fund so any money I contribute to help her has to provide sufficient savings to make up for my opportunity cost of not earning interest on that money until I'm refunded while slowly working towards refunding my initial investment and *still* giving her some sort of savings to make it worth her while; in other words we can do larger expenditures but only if they give fairly substantial savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone suggest which options are best to suggest to my landlord?  I know in the long run solar panels would be a good option, but they are large enough of an upfront investment that it may be hard to convince her to look into. However, I would love more details about them, in particular any hidden expense (for instance, extra effort to maintain them, clear them off, etc) which I may not be aware of but she deserves to know going in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other good options to recommend to her are welcome.  I need things that aren't asking for too heavy a time investment from her to do, I'm happy to invest some of my time but I don't own the house so only so much I can do there, plus I'm pretty disorganized myself (lol).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We live in Maryland with 3 adults and one child living in the house.  The house is a somewhat older house with two stories plus a furnished underground basement used as a playroom, just in case any of that matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. If we do something that would warrant tax credits is there any way I can pay for it and claim the tax credit as a resident but not as a home owner?  My tax bracket is a bit higher then hers so I would get a larger savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;I should have said this sooner since it's obviously relevant; I sort of took it for granted.  Our utilities are included in our rent, so she is paying the full cost for all utilities.  She also lives in and owns the house, so maybe 'landlord' is a slightly misleading title :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The house is both heated in the winter and cooled (AC) in the winter. Since we're in MD we probably are a little north, probably spend more of the year heating the AC etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5393" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2355" RevisionGUID="98896a19-0cb8-4b45-886d-168e2ba25285" CreationDate="2014-01-03T09:12:05.097" UserId="99" Comment="improved typos, added usa tag" Text="|solar-power|energy-efficiency|renting|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2410" RevisionGUID="f366d823-c2b0-4423-b674-ef481acb3aef" CreationDate="2014-01-03T14:43:39.877" UserId="1029" Text="Gingko Biloba has high pollution tolerance! (speaking from a biology perspective, it's also my favorite)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2411" RevisionGUID="a2080307-d8ab-4379-b37a-a0268ea7792a" CreationDate="2014-01-05T03:26:41.390" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2412" RevisionGUID="25d6a1df-bb38-45c2-ac30-d12b7d30e627" CreationDate="2014-01-05T03:26:41.390" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2412" RevisionGUID="80205e5b-f739-4bff-9cdd-1c55be5876c5" CreationDate="2014-01-05T07:17:02.857" UserId="1030" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="Material, usually derived from wood and produced into thin sheets.&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability of using paper: possible recycling methods or ways to minimize paper waste." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5398" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2412" RevisionGUID="80205e5b-f739-4bff-9cdd-1c55be5876c5" CreationDate="2014-01-05T07:17:02.857" Comment="Proposed by 1030 approved by 48 edit id of 199" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2411" RevisionGUID="96426e5c-c354-4c74-9709-554b17b5f9bf" CreationDate="2014-01-05T07:17:17.153" UserId="1030" Comment="added 400 characters in body" Text="Material, usually derived from wood and produced into thin sheets.&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability of using paper: possible recycling methods or ways to minimize paper waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Use this tag for questions on using this material resource in general,&#xD;&#xA;- [tag:recycling] used paper or [tag:composting] it;&#xD;&#xA;- reducing paper [tag:waste] or using paper instead of other less eco-friendly materials (like [tag:plastic])." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5400" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2411" RevisionGUID="96426e5c-c354-4c74-9709-554b17b5f9bf" CreationDate="2014-01-05T07:17:17.153" Comment="Proposed by 1030 approved by 48 edit id of 198" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1109" RevisionGUID="26be39d4-dfc1-4c84-917a-e8957f93a2fa" CreationDate="2014-01-05T16:40:18.167" UserId="1030" Comment="Correction (waste was described as a 'process of handling' - corrected to 'materials') + interwikis." Text=" * Materials, which *the initial user* wants to dispose. The term might be inaccurate, because *waste* to one person is not waste to another.&#xD;&#xA; * The handling of materials after they've reached the end of their useful life - managing waste and waste recovery (see [tag:reuse] and [tag:recycling]) help to minimize environmental and economic costs resulting from wastes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5402" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1109" RevisionGUID="26be39d4-dfc1-4c84-917a-e8957f93a2fa" CreationDate="2014-01-05T16:40:18.167" Comment="Proposed by 1030 approved by 48 edit id of 201" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1111" RevisionGUID="d9017039-d3ce-4790-8f34-80458e9241f4" CreationDate="2014-01-05T16:40:26.493" UserId="1030" Comment="interwiki" Text="Giving materials and objects an additional life by using them again, rather than [tag:recycling] or discarding them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5404" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1111" RevisionGUID="d9017039-d3ce-4790-8f34-80458e9241f4" CreationDate="2014-01-05T16:40:26.493" Comment="Proposed by 1030 approved by 48 edit id of 203" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1112" RevisionGUID="49aa890e-5dcc-44e5-b7dc-55b1102b0448" CreationDate="2014-01-05T16:40:31.260" UserId="1030" Comment="interwiki" Text="Giving materials and objects an additional life by using them again, rather than [tag:recycling] or discarding them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5406" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1112" RevisionGUID="49aa890e-5dcc-44e5-b7dc-55b1102b0448" CreationDate="2014-01-05T16:40:31.260" Comment="Proposed by 1030 approved by 48 edit id of 200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="cf7993c4-3b29-4c61-8b0a-51472aa2ccc4" CreationDate="2014-01-05T16:40:37.340" UserId="1030" Comment="Correction (waste was described as a 'process of handling' - corrected to 'materials') + interwikis." Text="Materials, which the initial user wants to dispose. &quot;The term can be described as subjective and inaccurate because waste to one person is not waste to another&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5408" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="cf7993c4-3b29-4c61-8b0a-51472aa2ccc4" CreationDate="2014-01-05T16:40:37.340" Comment="Proposed by 1030 approved by 48 edit id of 202" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2413" RevisionGUID="60978423-5938-48e2-8994-0a62b32658c3" CreationDate="2014-01-05T19:46:37.563" UserId="737" Text="When frying food, what's a good alternative to paper towels for soaking up/draining excess oil?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2413" RevisionGUID="60978423-5938-48e2-8994-0a62b32658c3" CreationDate="2014-01-05T19:46:37.563" UserId="737" Text="Alternative to paper towels for draining fried food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2413" RevisionGUID="60978423-5938-48e2-8994-0a62b32658c3" CreationDate="2014-01-05T19:46:37.563" UserId="737" Text="|food|paper|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="91c9e7fa-cd13-4ed9-aad3-054042ac26bd" CreationDate="2014-01-06T06:51:00.700" UserId="1035" Text="I like to use primarily newsprint to drain cooking grease from food. If I'm concerned about the cleanliness of the newspaper, I use a single layer of towel on top." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2415" RevisionGUID="3f63ba0a-a851-483b-8815-470dfadc8e03" CreationDate="2014-01-06T11:54:50.017" UserId="1036" Text="there is the possibility for hot composting. I read if you use the Johanna Green bin that you can put everything in this bin. Temperature get so high that it decomposes everything." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2418" RevisionGUID="53bc6b4e-fb1c-47e3-adb6-cb96f80e85d4" CreationDate="2014-01-07T02:10:31.210" UserId="1040" Text="I tried this method on my old 323 manual early last year for about 3 months with no issues but then that car went in for a normal service and I was forced to borrow my mothers smaller Jazz auto for a few days. It broke down the 2nd day of this use, the battery had gone dead. This car had a good history and the battery wasn't that old. In fact the battery was able to be recharged and is still in use today. My uncle who's a mechanic said this method was bad for the car (no specifics). I also stopped using this method with my old 323 manual as I wanted to sell it soon in good working order (although it did gain an unknown motor issue about this time that fast forwarded its my selling it for, a mechanic bought it). I wont using this method with my new auto. I cant risk breaking down on my way to work again and I don't want to damage my nice new i30. I would like to be convinced otherwise if you have good evidence, I want to save fuel and reduce my carbon footprint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2419" RevisionGUID="7cf6c4cf-b07b-4278-9aa2-5aa6d6e5b6b6" CreationDate="2014-01-07T02:43:10.803" UserId="1030" Text="What if you take the situation to the extremes:&#xD;&#xA;**Last drops of clean water** on the planet - vs. the only left **plant** producing electricity. I would go for clean water in this case (I can find other sources of energy). If I won't have water, I will most probably *die*. If I won't have electricity I will not use *my computer*. See?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would go for water in any case, actually. (&quot;saving a massive proportion of water&quot; vs &quot;very little extra electricity&quot;). When in doubt (like, counting small percentage variations of some method vs another), I prefer using common sense!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2420" RevisionGUID="01d312d0-4cc9-435f-86c6-2ddf0698b9ff" CreationDate="2014-01-07T03:44:35.493" UserId="1042" Text="Personally I use a wire rack over a cookie sheet to drain fried or greasy foods. The oil drips to the pan below and I can pour the oil into a container or dispose of it however I need to. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2421" RevisionGUID="e9c7ac6d-791a-41bd-b3ac-ead9e2a5f822" CreationDate="2014-01-07T09:09:06.493" UserId="1044" Text="As you've defined &quot;keeping pace,&quot; the answer is inevitably no. All one has to find to prove it is an image of a fairly new phone in a landfill, or in a sculpture by [Thomas Hirschhorn](http://www.openideo.com/open/e-waste/inspiration/thomas-hirschhorn-e-waste-in-art/), e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looser definitions of keeping pace might be more realistic and informative, such as whether recycling programs are growing enough to match the pace of change in phone waste, or whether the rate of recycling for brand new phones (i.e., disregarding upgrades from phones that were purchased in used condition) is anywhere near 100%. My hunch is pessimistic even for these questions, but I don't have any actual statistics in hand, so I'd encourage anyone else who might to post another answer describing whatever progress has been made, even if it's short of keeping pace with every phone upgrade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ktBaL.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2422" RevisionGUID="1a481d02-300d-4283-8a65-ea6aabe38519" CreationDate="2014-01-07T12:21:01.547" UserId="476" Text="I am sure that washing machine is a waste of everything. You hardly ever need hot water and toxic washing substances to contaminate the sewage. But stupid machine does not understand that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[At first, you should live in a block of flats][1]. This means that you consume 100 times less energy than individual cottage villager. Here we speak about 1 vs 100 energy (and other) savings is much more substantial than 211 vs 220, ok? But, you cannot afford for so much savings, right? This accounts for thermal electricity, which means that the [power plants that produce electricity also heat your buildings][2] and supply the hot water for free - you do not need neither additional heater nor heating in the washing machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, the machines are stupid. As human, you can see that most of the meals are not fat (yougurt is not fatty). Only pan after heavy fried pork needs some dishwashing liquids. Everything else (including yogurt) can be washed by the cool water, without dishwashing liquids. Such clean sewage is worth supplied on the fields, for crops growing as opposed to dishwashing liquid contaminated toxins and wastes 0 calories. The washing machines are expensive to produce, waste space and stupid - they do not see that 95% (and 100% for those who do not eat pork) of dishes do not need neither water contamination, nor energy. You just live your dishes in the water to soak for a while. The soaked dishes are easy to rinse with water to clean up. This is the same time you place the dishes into the washing machine and extract them afterwards. But machine is worse - it is stupid and treats all you dishes as absolutely fat. It wastes tons of electricity, dishwashing liquids and contaminates the waters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking which dishwaser to use for sustainability is a mockery over the sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2402/476&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2398/476" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2422" RevisionGUID="a8e7cb10-a89c-40f0-9586-92b949b00f21" CreationDate="2014-01-07T12:26:15.507" UserId="476" Comment="yougurt is not fatty" Text="I am sure that washing machine is a waste of everything. You hardly ever need hot water and toxic washing substances to contaminate the sewage. But stupid machine does not understand that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[At first, you should live in a block of flats][1]. This means that you consume 100 times less energy than individual cottage villager. Here we speak about 1 vs 100 energy (and other) savings is much more substantial than 211 vs 220, ok? But, you cannot afford for so much savings, right? This accounts for thermal electricity, which means that the [power plants that produce electricity also heat your buildings][2] and supply the hot water for free - you do not need neither additional heater nor heating in the washing machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, the machines are stupid. As human, you can see that most of the meals are not fat (yougurt is not fatty, just put your dish under the jet of cool water, help it with your had and see that the dish has cleaned up completely). Only pan after heavy fried pork needs some dishwashing liquids. Everything else (including yogurt) can be washed by the cool water, without dishwashing liquids. Such clean sewage is worth supplied on the fields, for crops growing as opposed to dishwashing liquid contaminated toxins and wastes 0 calories. The washing machines are expensive to produce, waste space and stupid - they do not see that 95% (and 100% for those who do not eat pork) of dishes do not need neither water contamination, nor energy. You just live your dishes in the water to soak for a while. The soaked dishes are easy to rinse with water to clean up. This is the same time you place the dishes into the washing machine and extract them afterwards. But machine is worse - it is stupid and treats all you dishes as absolutely fat. It wastes tons of electricity, dishwashing liquids and contaminates the waters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking which dishwaser to use for sustainability is a mockery over the sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2402/476&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2398/476" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2422" RevisionGUID="b1d81033-58c5-48e9-aa46-d03783c5d9d7" CreationDate="2014-01-07T17:00:56.733" UserId="476" Comment="reusing the gray water" Text="I am sure that washing machine is a waste of everything. You hardly ever need hot water and toxic washing substances to contaminate the sewage. But stupid machine does not understand that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[At first, you should live in a block of flats][1]. This means that you consume 100 times less energy than individual cottage villager. Here we speak about 1 vs 100 energy (and other) savings is much more substantial than 211 vs 220, ok? But, you cannot afford for so much savings, right? This accounts for thermal electricity, which means that the [power plants that produce electricity also heat your buildings][2] and supply the hot water for free - you do not need neither additional heater nor heating in the washing machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, the machines are stupid. As human, you can see that most of the meals are not fat (yougurt is not fatty, just put your dish under the jet of cool water, help it with your had and see that the dish has cleaned up completely). Only pan after heavy fried pork needs some dishwashing liquids. Everything else (including yogurt) can be washed by the cool water, without dishwashing liquids. Such clean sewage is worth supplied on the fields, for crops growing as opposed to dishwashing liquid contaminated toxins and wastes 0 calories. The washing machines are expensive to produce, waste space and stupid - they do not see that 95% (and 100% for those who do not eat pork) of dishes do not need neither water contamination, nor energy. You just live your dishes in the water to soak for a while. The soaked dishes are easy to rinse with water to clean up. This is the same time you place the dishes into the washing machine and extract them afterwards. But machine is worse - it is stupid and treats all you dishes as absolutely fat. It wastes tons of electricity, dishwashing liquids and contaminates the waters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking which dishwaser to use for sustainability is a mockery over the sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS** You need clean water only to wash the dirt away at the last stage of washing. The water is not clean anymore after you do that. However, you can reuse it to soak new dishes you want to wash later. (Remember, you need to soak in order the dirt to wash away effortlessly). I often do it. Additionally, I save my time. It takes time to wash and fill some container with water to soak. But, if I combine two processes, I save the environment and time simultaneously. Hardly, washing machine can reuse the gray water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2402/476&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2398/476" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5429" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2413" RevisionGUID="b84d1469-1e20-4d22-ab44-948c493475dc" CreationDate="2014-01-07T23:26:29.167" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/420697979277037568" />
  <row Id="5436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2425" RevisionGUID="542096a5-ff31-4677-8012-fab86cbda962" CreationDate="2014-01-10T01:48:45.347" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="After reading the article [Super-zeppelin: Revolutionary airship may become cargo-carrying champion][1], where the authors describe the progress in research and development in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A functioning prototype of revolutionary airship is undergoing tests south of Los Angeles. A US company is developing a series of gigantic heavy-payload dirigibles with an innovative ballast system that mimics that of a submarine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there are significant advantages to using an airship over cargo planes, how sustainable would this technology be compared to current cargo shipping?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rt.com/news/aeroscraft-revolutionary-airship-cargo-187/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5437" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2425" RevisionGUID="542096a5-ff31-4677-8012-fab86cbda962" CreationDate="2014-01-10T01:48:45.347" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="How sustainable are cargo airships compared to current cargo shipping methods?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5438" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2425" RevisionGUID="542096a5-ff31-4677-8012-fab86cbda962" CreationDate="2014-01-10T01:48:45.347" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5439" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2425" RevisionGUID="d7c1d26b-a8bc-49fa-b5ba-27d71a52d70a" CreationDate="2014-01-10T08:33:56.000" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/421560525076836353" />
  <row Id="5440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2426" RevisionGUID="2de818a1-9c6e-459c-a012-7d7227ed1504" CreationDate="2014-01-10T09:40:20.840" UserId="659" Text="Not sustainable at all because they use helium for lift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently we can't manufacture helium in meaningful quantities, so the helium we get [comes from fossil fuel extraction][1] (&quot;natural gas&quot; as it comes out of the ground contains all sorts of gases including helium. The US government has long funded some gas extraction/purification plants collect and purify the helium for sale ([wikipedia][2]), because it's expensive to do that and hence not profitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Movement Efficiency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air propellers can be more efficient than water ones [80%+][3] vs [~70%][4] in both cases increasing with diameter and decreasing with speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the airship has to push a lot more air out of the way for a given cargo weight than a water vessel has to push water. A ship gets 1 tonne of lift for every cubic metre of water it displaces, while a helium airship gets about [1kg per cubic metre][5]. So roughly speaking an airship will have a thousand times the volume of an equivalent water ship (at this level we can assume both ships have no mass). That's enough that we can ignore air drag on the water ship and just look at water drag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At low speeds with laminar flow the drag equations are fairly simple and the dominant factor is the viscosity of the fluid. Both airship and water ship designers work quite hard to stay in this zone. [Wikipedia has a list][6], with air typically about 18μPa.s and water 1000 μPa.s (50x as high). Since the airship is 1000x the volume it'll be about 10x as large in each dimension. Drag here is determined by frontal area (basically, how much fluid has to be shoved out of the way) so the airship has 100x the frontal area and 100x the drag, but air is only 1/50th the viscosity. Overall, the airship faces twice the drag of the water ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fluid Movement**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a global scale air moves less predictably than water, and faster. Ocean currents just don't change as much as winds do. That means that airships face more vigorous weather, less predictably and hence have less ability to avoid it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also means that the airship, being both really big and really lightweight, usually can't just be tied down in a storm - the wind would tear it apart. So airships need to be docked inside a hangar. A [really, really big hangar][7]. Or they need to be semi-rigid so they can land, deflate, and park in a smaller hangar. Or just fly with the storm and come back afterwards, from wherever they got blown to. None of these is cheap, and make the airships less reliable than modern transport systems prefer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Loading and Unloading**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both types of ship require docks, and the docks have to be large and strong. But again, the difference in lift means that an airship has to be 1000x as big for the same cargo capacity. Even if the dock is just a post with a rope in the middle of a circular clearing, the airship is 10x as long so the clearing has to be 100x as large. For temporary sites, the airship can hover and winch things down. Similarly, a water ship can use a crane to unload itself. Water ships generally don't do this because they carry so much more than an airship does (a &quot;medium sized&quot; water ship might carry [100,000 tonnes of cargo][8]) while a really [big airship carries 160 tonnes][9] - note the absent &quot;000&quot; on the second number). That factor of 1000 conveniently means that an airship is likely to be about the same size as a water ship. So they could use the same docking areas. But with a thousand times more cargo in the water ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/where-does-helium-come-from-2-8230/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium#Extraction_and_use&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.jefflewis.net/aviation_theory-theo_prop_eff.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.psychosnail.com/boatingarticles/boatpropellers&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://science.howstuffworks.com/helium2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity#Air&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.oobject.com/category/giant-airship-hangars/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/ship-sizes/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/cargolifter/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2426" RevisionGUID="a5c2e766-0034-4d1f-95d0-d2a45aa38b7f" CreationDate="2014-01-10T09:53:19.123" UserId="659" Comment="added aircraft comparison" Text="Not sustainable at all because they use helium for lift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently we can't manufacture helium in meaningful quantities, so the helium we get [comes from fossil fuel extraction][1] &quot;natural gas&quot; as it comes out of the ground contains all sorts of gases including helium. The US government has long funded some gas extraction/purification plants collect and purify the helium for sale ([wikipedia][2]), because it's expensive to do that and hence not profitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More generally, they compare very poorly to the main method of moving cargo: ships. The bulk of my answer in the headings below compares airships to waterships. The short answer is: airships do badly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Compared to other aircraft** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Helicopters are crazily inefficient in energy terms and their lift capacity and range is a joke. A truck can carry more, further, faster, cheaper and more reliably.  Carrying 10 tonnes 100 kilometres is not really &quot;cargo carrying&quot; in modern terms, it's more of a specialised lifting task. Fixed wing aircraft are better on both counts, using less fuel and travelling both further and faster. But again, 200 tonnes for 10,000 kilometres is missing a lot of zeros compared to cargo ships, where the high end is 120,000 tonnes for 20,000 kilometres (and the energy cost is at least a thousand times lower). So an airship that can match fixed-wing aircraft lift capacity and range is useful, but bulk cargo handling is not the reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Movement Efficiency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air propellers can be more efficient than water ones [80%+][3] vs [~70%][4] in both cases increasing with diameter and decreasing with speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the airship has to push a lot more air out of the way for a given cargo weight than a water vessel has to push water. A ship gets 1 tonne of lift for every cubic metre of water it displaces, while a helium airship gets about [1kg per cubic metre][5]. So roughly speaking an airship will have a thousand times the volume of an equivalent water ship (at this level we can assume both ships have no mass). That's enough that we can ignore air drag on the water ship and just look at water drag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At low speeds with laminar flow the drag equations are fairly simple and the dominant factor is the viscosity of the fluid. Both airship and water ship designers work quite hard to stay in this zone. [Wikipedia has a list][6], with air typically about 18μPa.s and water 1000 μPa.s (50x as high). Since the airship is 1000x the volume it'll be about 10x as large in each dimension. Drag here is determined by frontal area (basically, how much fluid has to be shoved out of the way) so the airship has 100x the frontal area and 100x the drag, but air is only 1/50th the viscosity. Overall, the airship faces twice the drag of the water ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fluid Movement**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a global scale air moves less predictably than water, and faster. Ocean currents just don't change as much as winds do. That means that airships face more vigorous weather, less predictably and hence have less ability to avoid it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also means that the airship, being both really big and really lightweight, usually can't just be tied down in a storm - the wind would tear it apart. So airships need to be docked inside a hangar. A [really, really big hangar][7]. Or they need to be semi-rigid so they can land, deflate, and park in a smaller hangar. Or just fly with the storm and come back afterwards, from wherever they got blown to. None of these is cheap, and make the airships less reliable than modern transport systems prefer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Loading and Unloading**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both types of ship require docks, and the docks have to be large and strong. But again, the difference in lift means that an airship has to be 1000x as big for the same cargo capacity. Even if the dock is just a post with a rope in the middle of a circular clearing, the airship is 10x as long so the clearing has to be 100x as large. For temporary sites, the airship can hover and winch things down. Similarly, a water ship can use a crane to unload itself. Water ships generally don't do this because they carry so much more than an airship does (a &quot;medium sized&quot; water ship might carry [100,000 tonnes of cargo][8]) while a really [big airship carries 160 tonnes][9] - note the absent &quot;000&quot; on the second number). That factor of 1000 conveniently means that an airship is likely to be about the same size as a water ship. So they could use the same docking areas. But with a thousand times more cargo in the water ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/where-does-helium-come-from-2-8230/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium#Extraction_and_use&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.jefflewis.net/aviation_theory-theo_prop_eff.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.psychosnail.com/boatingarticles/boatpropellers&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://science.howstuffworks.com/helium2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity#Air&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.oobject.com/category/giant-airship-hangars/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/ship-sizes/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/cargolifter/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2426" RevisionGUID="9ce946da-6d7c-471b-b5a4-94d1889a0935" CreationDate="2014-01-10T09:59:41.593" UserId="659" Comment="added aircraft comparison" Text="Not sustainable at all because they use helium for lift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently we can't manufacture helium in meaningful quantities, so the helium we get [comes from fossil fuel extraction][1] &quot;natural gas&quot; as it comes out of the ground contains all sorts of gases including helium. The US government has long funded some gas extraction/purification plants collect and purify the helium for sale ([wikipedia][2]), because it's expensive to do that and hence not profitable, but the government wanted the helium initially for airships and later as a strategic resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cargo Carrying**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question seems to focus on bulk cargo movement, which today is shipping containers or bulk fluids (coal and ore are handled as fluids in this context). In terms of both mass and volume the overwhelming majority is moved by sea. On [this graph][3] just note that the air axis goes to 200, the sea axis to 18,000 - 90x as much. The bulk of my answer in the headings below compares airships to waterships. The short answer is: airships do badly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Compared to other aircraft** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Helicopters are crazily inefficient in energy terms and their lift capacity and range is a joke. A truck can carry more, further, faster, cheaper and more reliably.  A big helicopter can carry about 10 tonnes about 100 kilometres which is not really &quot;cargo carrying&quot; in modern terms, it's more of a specialised lifting task. Fixed wing aircraft are better on both counts, using less fuel and travelling both further and faster. A large fixed wing aircraft can carry about 300 tonnes for 15,000 kilometres, where the high end for watercraft is 120,000 tonnes for 20,000 kilometres (and the energy cost is at least a thousand times lower). An airship that can match fixed-wing aircraft lift capacity and range is useful, but bulk cargo capacity is not the advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Movement Efficiency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air propellers can be more efficient than water ones [80%+][4] vs [~70%][5] in both cases increasing with diameter and decreasing with speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the airship has to push a lot more air out of the way for a given cargo weight than a water vessel has to push water. A ship gets 1 tonne of lift for every cubic metre of water it displaces, while a helium airship gets about [1kg per cubic metre][6]. So roughly speaking an airship will have a thousand times the volume of an equivalent water ship (at this level we can assume both ships have no mass). That's enough that we can ignore air drag on the water ship and just look at water drag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At low speeds with laminar flow the drag equations are fairly simple and the dominant factor is the viscosity of the fluid. Both airship and water ship designers work quite hard to stay in this zone. [Wikipedia has a list][7], with air typically about 18μPa.s and water 1000 μPa.s (50x as high). Since the airship is 1000x the volume it'll be about 10x as large in each dimension. Drag here is determined by frontal area (basically, how much fluid has to be shoved out of the way) so the airship has 100x the frontal area and 100x the drag, but air is only 1/50th the viscosity. Overall, the airship faces twice the drag of the water ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fluid Movement**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a global scale air moves less predictably than water, and faster. Ocean currents just don't change as much as winds do. That means that airships face more vigorous weather, less predictably and hence have less ability to avoid it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also means that the airship, being both really big and really lightweight, usually can't just be tied down in a storm - the wind would tear it apart. So airships need to be docked inside a hangar. A [really, really big hangar][8]. Or they need to be semi-rigid so they can land, deflate, and park in a smaller hangar. Or just fly with the storm and come back afterwards, from wherever they got blown to. None of these is cheap, and make the airships less reliable than modern transport systems prefer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Loading and Unloading**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both types of ship require docks, and the docks have to be large and strong. But again, the difference in lift means that an airship has to be 1000x as big for the same cargo capacity. Even if the dock is just a post with a rope in the middle of a circular clearing, the airship is 10x as long so the clearing has to be 100x as large. For temporary sites, the airship can hover and winch things down. Similarly, a water ship can use a crane to unload itself. Water ships generally don't do this because they carry so much more than an airship does (a &quot;medium sized&quot; water ship might carry [100,000 tonnes of cargo][9]) while a really [big airship carries 160 tonnes][10] - note the absent &quot;000&quot; on the second number). That factor of 1000 conveniently means that an airship is likely to be about the same size as a water ship. So they could use the same docking areas. But with a thousand times more cargo in the water ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/where-does-helium-come-from-2-8230/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium#Extraction_and_use&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ejoiner.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/23/2006_01_05.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.jefflewis.net/aviation_theory-theo_prop_eff.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.psychosnail.com/boatingarticles/boatpropellers&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://science.howstuffworks.com/helium2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity#Air&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.oobject.com/category/giant-airship-hangars/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/ship-sizes/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/cargolifter/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2428" RevisionGUID="cf2b46b2-c476-45a4-bab5-8a4487f7994f" CreationDate="2014-01-11T22:54:22.283" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="According to the European Wind Energy Association report [Wind in our Sails: The coming of Europe’s offshore wind energy industry][1] executive summary, the physical constraints for a &#xD;&#xA;wind energy construction port are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Channels or a harbour with a depth of 10 metres or greater, the waterways must be able to accommodate the rotors (which according to the report, can be up to 200m long).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Storage area of at least 25ha - presumably larger, depending on capacity - associated with this are requirements for electricity, transport infrastructure, water, sanitation, waste removal etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Quayside length:bearing of up to 20 tonnes per square metre&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is elaborated further in the report [Port and Infrastructure Analysis for&#xD;&#xA;Offshore Wind Energy Development][2], prepared for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Centre, with a set of physical criteria for any such port:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Conditions at Ports and Wind Farm Locations, due to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wave height, water depth and wind speed impose limitations on at-sea construction operations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also applying to the port and the transport channels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Vessel Constraints and Requirements, the number and accommodation of these vessels is critical.  Additionally, repair facilities are required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Navigational Access and Transit Distances - the key questions related to this are - what obstructions are there (both natural and artificial) including barriers, bridges (this constrains the height of the cargo) and channel width.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Staging Port Facility Requirements - the same as the second point written above for the European report, however, consideration is needed for expansion of any operations, specifically&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a port &#xD;&#xA;would have a 1000-ton crane on rolling tracks, which would carry components from a delivery vessel to a storage &#xD;&#xA;location; sufficient linear footage to efficiently load/unload one vessel at a time, with a preference for multiple &#xD;&#xA;deepwater berths to unload several vessels simultaneously; a secondary 80-ft berth; and about 200 acres for &#xD;&#xA;assembly and storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Rail and Highway Access - this is to transport components and people over land, from the report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Highway and rail delivery modes appear unlikely options for turbine or foundation delivery to port facilities. &#xD;&#xA;However, highway and rail access is desirable for delivery of related products such as aggregate for scour &#xD;&#xA;protection and component pieces. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/reports/23420_Offshore_report_web.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://images.masscec.com.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachments/Port%20and%20Infrastructure%20Analysis%20for%20Offshore%20Wind%20Energy%20Development/MA%20Port%20Study%20Final%20Report_4-20-10.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5449" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2396" RevisionGUID="ce6a3ca7-d73f-42dd-a380-798705fa4e63" CreationDate="2014-01-11T23:59:50.197" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/422155924883927040" />
  <row Id="5451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2414" RevisionGUID="d8282082-a6db-4ef0-8e1e-f8f2d75c1046" CreationDate="2014-01-12T06:08:26.690" UserId="1035" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I like to use wire cooling racks, brown paper bags, and cloth dishtowels dedicated to this endeavor would work for draining. Paper towels you do use might be compostable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="63aa109c-5d74-4ed8-b493-89de8e86deb4" CreationDate="2014-01-12T06:29:23.840" UserId="1058" Text="Some people, like myself, made a conscious decision to exclude various animal products from their diets, believing that this is an inevitable requirement if our species intends to live on Earth sustainably in the numbers we exist today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of the following ways how veganism benefits the Earth and humans who inhabit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. it reduces our carbon footprint and contributes towards tackling the climate change.&#xD;&#xA; 2. due to a significant energy loss when moving up the food chain (about 90% is lost), consuming the primary producers of food (photosynthesizing plants, algae, etc.) seems to be an effective way of solving the global food crisis, which is caused by a rapid growth of human population that consumes at an ever faster rate the limited resources of the Earth.&#xD;&#xA; 3. it reduces the amount of pollution associated with livestock, such as air and water pollution. For example, agricultural runoff, among other things, causes eutrophication of water bodies and death of marine organisms. This can be viewed as a conservation and biodiversity issue.&#xD;&#xA; 4. it reduces deforestation, because large areas of forests are being destroyed to grow crops that are eaten by livestock.&#xD;&#xA; 5. it reduces soil erosion associated with overgrazing by cattle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I want to answer the question whether practices of vegetariansim or veganism, if implemented by the majority of the world population, could conceivably have a significant and positive effect on the issues outlined above or even solve them altogether.** Secondly, I also want to make sure that the list of issues above includes the most important points and doesn't miss any crucial pieces of information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="63aa109c-5d74-4ed8-b493-89de8e86deb4" CreationDate="2014-01-12T06:29:23.840" UserId="1058" Text="Would global shift toward vegetarianism / veganism be a big step towards solving global food, water, ecological, and economical crises?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="63aa109c-5d74-4ed8-b493-89de8e86deb4" CreationDate="2014-01-12T06:29:23.840" UserId="1058" Text="|ecological-footprint|economy|meat|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="3ad1bc48-2abb-4b21-bc5a-77691487ff97" CreationDate="2014-01-12T06:40:19.027" UserId="1058" Comment="suggestions how to answer this question" Text="Some people, like myself, made a conscious decision to exclude various animal products from their diets, believing that this is an inevitable requirement if our species intends to live on Earth sustainably in the numbers we exist today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of the following ways how veganism benefits the Earth and humans who inhabit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. it reduces our carbon footprint and contributes towards tackling the climate change.&#xD;&#xA; 2. due to a significant energy loss when moving up the food chain (about 90% is lost), consuming the primary producers of food (photosynthesizing plants, algae, etc.) seems to be an effective way of solving the global food crisis, which is caused by a rapid growth of human population that consumes at an ever faster rate the limited resources of the Earth.&#xD;&#xA; 3. it reduces the amount of pollution associated with livestock, such as air and water pollution. For example, agricultural runoff, among other things, causes eutrophication of water bodies and death of marine organisms. This can be viewed as a conservation and biodiversity issue.&#xD;&#xA; 4. it reduces deforestation, because large areas of forests are being destroyed to grow crops that are eaten by livestock.&#xD;&#xA; 5. it reduces soil erosion associated with overgrazing by cattle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I want to answer the question whether practices of vegetariansim or veganism, if implemented by the majority of the world population, could conceivably have a significant and positive effect on the issues outlined above or even solve them altogether.** Secondly, I also want to make sure that the list of issues above includes the most important points and doesn't miss any crucial pieces of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid making it an opinion-based question, I suggest you to base your answer around existing surveys and modeling, data that we could use to answer this question, or at least use opinions of respected scientists in this field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="1d8edb28-0f51-4a48-acc8-652510289427" CreationDate="2014-01-12T06:46:32.223" UserId="1058" Comment="title shortened" Text="Some people, like myself, made a conscious decision to exclude various animal products from their diets, believing that this is an inevitable requirement if our species intends to live on Earth sustainably in the numbers we exist today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of the following ways how vegetarianism / veganism benefits the Earth and humans who inhabit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. it reduces our carbon footprint and contributes towards tackling the climate change.&#xD;&#xA; 2. due to a significant energy loss when moving up the food chain (about 90% is lost), consuming the primary producers of food (photosynthesizing plants, algae, etc.) seems to be an effective way of solving the global food crisis, which is caused by a rapid growth of human population that consumes at an ever faster rate the limited resources of the Earth.&#xD;&#xA; 3. it reduces the amount of pollution associated with livestock, such as air and water pollution. For example, agricultural runoff, among other things, causes eutrophication of water bodies and death of marine organisms. This can be viewed as a conservation and biodiversity issue.&#xD;&#xA; 4. it reduces deforestation, because large areas of forests are being destroyed to grow crops that are eaten by livestock.&#xD;&#xA; 5. it reduces soil erosion associated with overgrazing by cattle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I want to answer the question whether practices of vegetariansim or veganism, if implemented by the majority of the world population, could conceivably have a significant and positive effect on the issues outlined above or even solve them altogether.** Secondly, I also want to make sure that the list of issues above includes the most important points and doesn't miss any crucial pieces of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid making it an opinion-based answer, I suggest you focus around existing surveys and modeling, data that we could use to answer this question, or at least use opinions of respected scientists in this field." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5457" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="1d8edb28-0f51-4a48-acc8-652510289427" CreationDate="2014-01-12T06:46:32.223" UserId="1058" Comment="title shortened" Text="Would global shift toward vegetarianism be a big step in solving food, water, ecological, and economical crises?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="b49ae62d-2763-4f16-baac-6260bf1557ee" CreationDate="2014-01-12T07:13:16.493" UserId="1058" Comment="answer suggestions" Text="Some people, like myself, made a conscious decision to exclude various animal products from their diets, believing that this is an inevitable requirement if our species intends to live on Earth sustainably in the numbers we exist today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of the following ways how vegetarianism / veganism benefits the Earth and humans who inhabit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. it reduces our carbon footprint and contributes towards tackling the climate change.&#xD;&#xA; 2. due to a significant energy loss when moving up the food chain (about 90% is lost), consuming the primary producers of food (photosynthesizing plants, algae, etc.) seems to be an effective way of solving the global food crisis, which is caused by a rapid growth of human population that consumes at an ever faster rate the limited resources of the Earth.&#xD;&#xA; 3. it reduces the amount of pollution associated with livestock, such as air and water pollution. For example, agricultural runoff, among other things, causes eutrophication of water bodies and death of marine organisms. This can be viewed as a conservation and biodiversity issue.&#xD;&#xA; 4. it reduces deforestation, because large areas of forests are being destroyed to grow crops that are eaten by livestock.&#xD;&#xA; 5. it reduces soil erosion associated with overgrazing by cattle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I want to answer the question whether practices of vegetariansim or veganism, if implemented by the majority of the world population, could conceivably have a significant and positive effect on the issues outlined above or even solve them altogether.** Secondly, I also want to make sure that the list of issues above includes the most important points and doesn't miss any crucial pieces of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid making your answer an opinion, let me suggest you to focus on existing surveys and modeling, data that we could use to answer this question, or use opinions of respected scientists in this field to support your views." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5459" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="ae9bf5d9-6a0d-4936-aeeb-3f9cd81fcd98" CreationDate="2014-01-12T07:18:42.843" UserId="1058" Comment="title paraphrasing" Text="Could global shift toward vegetarianism be a big step in solving food, water, ecological, and economical crises?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5460" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="6a714f35-3d68-4208-906f-27312abaa89b" CreationDate="2014-01-12T09:24:48.177" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/422298103358971904" />
  <row Id="5461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2430" RevisionGUID="e1698df9-b799-4cf1-903a-4bee29cbb37b" CreationDate="2014-01-12T09:53:43.140" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="This is a partial answer, based on some research.  Many web searches on this topic are difficult, as many sites have a bias one way or another.  This answer will include names of researchers and links to articles when I can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: a lot of articles are based on the American situation; however, these studies can be used as a 'measuring stick' for much of the meat-eating world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some statistics are presented in the article  [Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment.][1] (Pimentel and Pimentel, 2003) stating that globally, as of about 2003:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- About 2 billion people have a meat based diet, the remaining having a plant based diet, due to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shortages of cropland, fresh water, and energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In a comparison (for the US), all food production was considered by the authors as being unsustainable - utilising 50% of the land, 80% of the fresh water and critically (according to the authors), 17% of the fossil fuels.  **However**, having said that, when they compared &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The use of land and energy resources devoted to an average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian (plant-based) diet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;comparing the resources required for the same amount of calorie intake, they found that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in terms ofland and water use and fossil fuel requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further data is presented in the article [How Does Meat in the Diet Take an Environmental Toll?][2], stating that studies by the [Environmental Working Group][3] indicated that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; red meat such as beef and lamb is responsible for 10 to 40 times as many greenhouse gas emissions as common vegetables and grains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another critical point the article reported states is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” reports ecologist David Pimentel of Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that is a single country example, but it does provide an indication of statistically how a change to a vegetarian/vegan diet could be of benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article [Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter?][4] (Marlow et al. 2009), describes a key statisical measure, using California as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or the combined differential production of 11 food items for which consumption differs among vegetarians and nonvegetarians, the nonvegetarian diet required 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more primary energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticides than did the vegetarian diet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://tier-im-fokus.ch/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pimentelpimentel03.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=meat-and-environment&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ewg.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1699S.full" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2430" RevisionGUID="a22da063-3821-4fbe-914b-19c685edcc8b" CreationDate="2014-01-12T10:02:12.377" UserDisplayName="user1017" Comment="added 987 characters in body" Text="This is a partial answer, based on some research.  Many web searches on this topic are difficult, as many sites have a bias one way or another.  This answer will include names of researchers and links to articles when I can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: a lot of articles are based on the American situation; however, these studies can be used as a 'measuring stick' for much of the meat-eating world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some statistics are presented in the article  [Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment.][1] (Pimentel and Pimentel, 2003) stating that globally, as of about 2003:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- About 2 billion people have a meat based diet, the remaining having a plant based diet, partly due to &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shortages of cropland, fresh water, and energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In a comparison (for the US), all food production was considered by the authors as being unsustainable - utilising 50% of the land, 80% of the fresh water and critically (according to the authors), 17% of the fossil fuels.  **However**, having said that, when they compared &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The use of land and energy resources devoted to an average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian (plant-based) diet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;comparing the resources required for the same amount of calorie intake, they found that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in terms of land and water use and fossil fuel requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further data is presented in the article [How Does Meat in the Diet Take an Environmental Toll?][2], stating that studies by the [Environmental Working Group][3] indicated that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; red meat such as beef and lamb is responsible for 10 to 40 times as many greenhouse gas emissions as common vegetables and grains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another critical point the article reported states is that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” reports ecologist David Pimentel of Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that is a single country example, but it does provide an indication of statistically how a change to a vegetarian/vegan diet could be of benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article [Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter?][4] (Marlow et al. 2009), describes a key statisical measure, using California as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or the combined differential production of 11 food items for which consumption differs among vegetarians and nonvegetarians, the nonvegetarian diet required 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more primary energy, 13 times more fertilizer, and 1.4 times more pesticides than did the vegetarian diet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A final global statistic (estimate) reported in the article [UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet][5] (Carus, 2010), states that a UN report determined that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Agriculture, **particularly meat and dairy products**, accounts for 70% of global freshwater consumption, 38% of the total land use and 19% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL:DR** Given that *statistically*, many studies at local, state, national and global levels have shown that meat product agriculture is a major consumer of not only water and land, and not only are a significant contributor to environmental problems, they are also are a great consumer of grains that could be used as food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, many studies indicate that as modern agriculture is not all that sustainable, changes would be needed to be made to agricultural practices to make a global shift towards vegetarianism truly sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://tier-im-fokus.ch/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pimentelpimentel03.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=meat-and-environment&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ewg.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1699S.full&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="b19839d1-44ac-4960-8ef4-f44b7aeadff0" CreationDate="2014-01-12T22:25:37.973" UserId="1058" Comment="added issue with antibiotics" Text="Some people, like myself, made a conscious decision to exclude various animal products from their diets, believing that this is an inevitable requirement if our species intends to live on Earth sustainably in the numbers we exist today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of the following ways how vegetarianism / veganism benefits the Earth and humans who inhabit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. it reduces our carbon footprint and contributes towards tackling the climate change.&#xD;&#xA; 2. due to a significant energy loss when moving up the food chain (about 90% is lost), consuming the primary producers of food (photosynthesizing plants, algae, etc.) seems to be an effective way of solving the global food crisis, which is caused by a rapid growth of human population that consumes at an ever faster rate the limited resources of the Earth.&#xD;&#xA; 3. it reduces the amount of pollution associated with livestock, such as air and water pollution. For example, agricultural runoff, among other things, causes eutrophication of water bodies and death of marine organisms. This can be viewed as a conservation and biodiversity issue.&#xD;&#xA; 4. it reduces deforestation, because large areas of forests are being destroyed to grow crops that are eaten by livestock.&#xD;&#xA; 5. it reduces soil erosion associated with overgrazing by cattle.&#xD;&#xA; 6. there is a growing concern in the growth of antibiotic-resistant strains of human pathogens, which is associated with the use of antibiotics for livestock, compromising its effectiveness for humans. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I want to answer the question whether practices of vegetariansim or veganism, if implemented by the majority of the world population, could conceivably have a significant and positive effect on the issues outlined above or even solve them altogether.** Secondly, I also want to make sure that the list of issues above includes the most important points and doesn't miss any crucial pieces of information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid making your answer an opinion, let me suggest you to focus on existing surveys and modeling, data that we could use to answer this question, or use opinions of respected scientists in this field to support your views." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="7846fda3-7261-46ea-8370-c70146f83cbe" CreationDate="2014-01-12T22:47:21.847" UserId="1058" Comment="question clarified" Text="Some people, like myself, made a conscious decision to exclude various animal products from their diets, believing that this is an inevitable requirement if our species intends to live on Earth sustainably in the numbers we exist today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of the following ways how vegetarianism / veganism benefits the Earth and humans who inhabit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. it reduces our carbon footprint and contributes towards tackling the climate change.&#xD;&#xA; 2. due to a significant energy loss when moving up the food chain (about 90% is lost), consuming the primary producers of food (photosynthesizing plants, algae, etc.) seems to be an effective way of solving the global food crisis, which is caused by a rapid growth of human population that consumes at an ever faster rate the limited resources of the Earth.&#xD;&#xA; 3. it reduces the amount of pollution associated with livestock, such as air and water pollution. For example, agricultural runoff, among other things, causes eutrophication of water bodies and death of marine organisms. This can be viewed as a conservation and biodiversity issue.&#xD;&#xA; 4. it reduces deforestation, because large areas of forests are being destroyed to grow crops that are eaten by livestock.&#xD;&#xA; 5. it reduces soil erosion associated with overgrazing by cattle.&#xD;&#xA; 6. there is a growing concern in the growth of antibiotic-resistant strains of human pathogens, which is associated with the use of antibiotics for livestock, compromising its effectiveness for humans. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I want to answer the question whether practices of vegetariansim or veganism, if implemented by the majority of the world population, could conceivably have a significant and positive effect on the issues outlined above or even solve them altogether. I am particularly interested in evaluating the consequences that such a change might have -- are there any potential negatives in moving entirely to plant farming?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid making your answer an opinion, let me suggest you to focus on existing surveys and modeling, data that we could use to answer this question, or use opinions of respected scientists in this field to support your views." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="7fcb228f-5b27-4196-bce4-086bf4f071eb" CreationDate="2014-01-12T22:58:04.807" UserId="1058" Comment="answer suggestions clarified" Text="Some people, like myself, made a conscious decision to exclude various animal products from their diets, believing that this is an inevitable requirement if our species intends to live on Earth sustainably in the numbers we exist today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of the following ways how vegetarianism / veganism benefits the Earth and humans who inhabit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. it reduces our carbon footprint and contributes towards tackling the climate change.&#xD;&#xA; 2. due to a significant energy loss when moving up the food chain (about 90% is lost), consuming the primary producers of food (photosynthesizing plants, algae, etc.) seems to be an effective way of solving the global food crisis, which is caused by a rapid growth of human population that consumes at an ever faster rate the limited resources of the Earth.&#xD;&#xA; 3. it reduces the amount of pollution associated with livestock, such as air and water pollution. For example, agricultural runoff, among other things, causes eutrophication of water bodies and death of marine organisms. This can be viewed as a conservation and biodiversity issue.&#xD;&#xA; 4. it reduces deforestation, because large areas of forests are being destroyed to grow crops that are eaten by livestock.&#xD;&#xA; 5. it reduces soil erosion associated with overgrazing by cattle.&#xD;&#xA; 6. there is a growing concern in the growth of antibiotic-resistant strains of human pathogens, which is associated with the use of antibiotics for livestock, compromising its effectiveness for humans. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I want to answer the question whether practices of vegetariansim or veganism, if implemented by the majority of the world population, could conceivably have a significant and positive effect on the issues outlined above or even solve them altogether. I am particularly interested in evaluating the consequences that such a change might have -- are there any potential negatives in moving entirely to plant farming?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid making your answer an opinion, let me suggest you to focus on existing surveys and modeling, or back-up your opinion with data. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="f3156c83-7f77-408e-8b6a-80dd2a31f994" CreationDate="2014-01-12T23:03:18.960" UserId="1058" Comment="answer suggestions clarified, title edited to include public health" Text="Some people, like myself, made a conscious decision to exclude various animal products from their diets, believing that this is an inevitable requirement if our species intends to live on Earth sustainably in the numbers we exist today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of the following ways how vegetarianism / veganism benefits the Earth and humans who inhabit it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. it reduces our carbon footprint and contributes towards tackling the climate change.&#xD;&#xA; 2. due to a significant energy loss when moving up the food chain (about 90% is lost), consuming the primary producers of food (photosynthesizing plants, algae, etc.) seems to be an effective way of solving the global food crisis, which is caused by a rapid growth of human population that consumes at an ever faster rate the limited resources of the Earth.&#xD;&#xA; 3. it reduces the amount of pollution associated with livestock, such as air and water pollution. For example, agricultural runoff, among other things, causes eutrophication of water bodies and death of marine organisms. This can be viewed as a conservation and biodiversity issue.&#xD;&#xA; 4. it reduces deforestation, because large areas of forests are being destroyed to grow crops that are eaten by livestock.&#xD;&#xA; 5. it reduces soil erosion associated with overgrazing by cattle.&#xD;&#xA; 6. it addresses the growing concern in increase of antibiotic-resistant strains of human pathogens, which is associated with the use of antibiotics for livestock, compromising its effectiveness for humans. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I want to answer the question whether practices of vegetariansim or veganism, if implemented by the majority of the world population, could conceivably have a significant and positive effect on the issues outlined above or even solve them altogether. I am particularly interested in evaluating the consequences that such a change might have -- are there any potential negatives in moving entirely to plant farming?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid making your answer an opinion, let me suggest you to focus on existing surveys and modeling, or back-up your opinion with data. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5467" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2429" RevisionGUID="f3156c83-7f77-408e-8b6a-80dd2a31f994" CreationDate="2014-01-12T23:03:18.960" UserId="1058" Comment="answer suggestions clarified, title edited to include public health" Text="Could global shift toward vegetarianism be a big step in solving food, water, health, ecological, and economical crises?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2431" RevisionGUID="7f25f0d6-e38b-4a8e-b1b3-a7715b2d7176" CreationDate="2014-01-13T13:15:08.560" UserId="1015" Text="Please eat tuna only from the cans with [MSC](http://www.msc.org) (Marine Stewardship Council) label, avoid pizzas or sandwiches that cannot provide such certification. (See the approved answer of @THelper (and the comments) for more details, this is the short answer!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2432" RevisionGUID="a52b6945-22f6-4385-882b-3f0fd05c9360" CreationDate="2014-01-13T13:45:00.347" UserId="1063" Text="I was wondering, what area space (m²) do I need to plant rice/bean in order to sustain one person for a year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5472" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2432" RevisionGUID="a52b6945-22f6-4385-882b-3f0fd05c9360" CreationDate="2014-01-13T13:45:00.347" UserId="1063" Text="What area is needed to sustain a person for a year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5473" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2432" RevisionGUID="a52b6945-22f6-4385-882b-3f0fd05c9360" CreationDate="2014-01-13T13:45:00.347" UserId="1063" Text="|food|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2433" RevisionGUID="12c28c8f-3c65-41fc-a20f-7f33be97beb7" CreationDate="2014-01-13T14:39:25.010" UserId="85" Text="That very much depends on how good a gardener you are. At least the following factors come into play&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- soil fertility&#xD;&#xA;- weather (esp. sun &amp; rain)&#xD;&#xA;- length of planting season&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember a quote from Bill Morrison I heard from a recorded lecture that, with permaculture methods, one can sustain a family (2 adults, 2 children) on 50m² (with around 2 hours of gardening per week). I'd say, try it to see if it's true!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Permaculture usually plants high-carbs in form of potatoes. Rice certainly will require more time and more space (and more water)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2434" RevisionGUID="aea548c5-58be-40c0-a3e1-98d300d948bc" CreationDate="2014-01-13T15:38:37.507" UserId="1065" Text="In *How to Grow More Vegetables*, John Jeavons claims you can sustain one person on 4,000 sf, with 60% of that space dedicated to interplanted grains and legumes. The rest of the space would be taken up by high calorie root crops (30%) and vegetables (10%). That's with high soil fertility and in a climate with at least a six month growing season, so you can get in 3 plantings in the space. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've used some of his methods with good results, but have never tried to grow all of my grains and legumes. I suspect in my climate, with a 3 1/2 month growing season, it would take significantly more space." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2434" RevisionGUID="a074a981-0033-40e1-bed3-9495d0010b39" CreationDate="2014-01-13T18:02:53.030" UserId="106" Comment="added SI units" Text="In *How to Grow More Vegetables*, John Jeavons claims you can sustain one person on 4,000 sf (372 m²), with 60% of that space dedicated to interplanted grains and legumes. The rest of the space would be taken up by high calorie root crops (30%) and vegetables (10%). That's with high soil fertility and in a climate with at least a six month growing season, so you can get in 3 plantings in the space. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've used some of his methods with good results, but have never tried to grow all of my grains and legumes. I suspect in my climate, with a 3 1/2 month growing season, it would take significantly more space." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5477" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2434" RevisionGUID="a074a981-0033-40e1-bed3-9495d0010b39" CreationDate="2014-01-13T18:02:53.030" Comment="Proposed by 106 approved by 1065 edit id of 204" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5480" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2400" RevisionGUID="3533f847-a6ae-4751-8fc5-0ffa6cca5514" CreationDate="2014-01-13T21:04:21.857" UserId="1015" Comment="avoid it because it is endangered species" Text="Avoid eating tuna (as it is endangered)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5481" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2432" RevisionGUID="1019921e-618e-44b0-97c5-38f82db98483" CreationDate="2014-01-13T21:36:06.480" UserId="812" Comment="Altered the title to make it specific to food - otherwise it could include a lot of other things including energy, clothes, etc." Text="What area is needed to grow enough food to sustain a person for a year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5482" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2432" RevisionGUID="1019921e-618e-44b0-97c5-38f82db98483" CreationDate="2014-01-13T21:36:06.480" Comment="Proposed by 812 approved by 99 edit id of 205" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="157f71ce-685b-4bfe-9ad3-c7958bdf5735" CreationDate="2014-01-14T19:54:49.977" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="fc1f03e0-47d4-4ae8-807d-99b6c30a27eb" CreationDate="2014-01-14T19:54:49.977" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2437" RevisionGUID="8428dc2b-c10d-4243-8d54-13aa51bda936" CreationDate="2014-01-14T23:58:00.070" UserId="1073" Text="In north america we have Seachoice.org. They make a handy pocket guide. Yellowfin tuna is on the red (bad) list. But they say canned Albacore is ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.seachoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/SC_card_2012_5panel_web.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="ef726531-5836-41a1-8a5b-da7a20d2f48d" CreationDate="2014-01-15T06:28:44.223" UserId="975" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="Includes cars, trucks, buses, aircraft, watercraft, as well as non-fuel-intensive transportation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5487" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="ef726531-5836-41a1-8a5b-da7a20d2f48d" CreationDate="2014-01-15T06:28:44.223" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by 48 edit id of 207" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5488" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="494d5d98-be41-4840-99a3-7cae5f911472" CreationDate="2014-01-15T06:28:56.097" UserId="975" Comment="added transport tag (new tag, but very important issue)" Text="|cars|fuel-efficiency|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5489" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="494d5d98-be41-4840-99a3-7cae5f911472" CreationDate="2014-01-15T06:28:56.097" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by 48 edit id of 210" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5490" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2336" RevisionGUID="950d0762-649c-4466-8e81-9d05671c9e9c" CreationDate="2014-01-15T06:29:18.630" UserId="975" Comment="added building tag" Text="|electricity|heating|building|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5491" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2336" RevisionGUID="950d0762-649c-4466-8e81-9d05671c9e9c" CreationDate="2014-01-15T06:29:18.630" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by 48 edit id of 209" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="b2293765-d673-4333-b3ac-3fe88f4a7cc7" CreationDate="2014-01-15T06:29:32.523" UserId="975" Comment="added 240 characters in body" Text="Transportation is one of the leading consumers of energy and greenhouse gases.  Fuel-intensive transportation includes cars, trucks, buses, aircraft, and watercraft.  Non-fuel-intensive transportation includes biking, walking and sailing.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5493" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="b2293765-d673-4333-b3ac-3fe88f4a7cc7" CreationDate="2014-01-15T06:29:32.523" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by 48 edit id of 206" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2438" RevisionGUID="2a747a1f-bf16-45e2-a141-e4fa46ee73e5" CreationDate="2014-01-15T18:52:29.060" UserId="1030" Text="What I've personally noticed, people often seem to call a notebook &quot;broken&quot; when all the machine needs is **a really small fix** (e.g., keyboard/hard-drive fail), see the many trash picked laptops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First I would suggest checking whether the laptop **can be fixed** *within reasonable costs*. If you personally can't fix it (or **have it fixed** somewhere cheaply), only then I'd recommend giving the laptop (when **really** broken) to a recycle centre or the like (e.g., in my country the electronics shops are required to collect and responsibly recycle electronic devices, free of charge for customers). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I *hope*, these centralized methods of recycling provide a better way to recycle laptops than what you can personally do (at least, after you uninstall memory sticks and HDD, remove the battery and CMOS battery)..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5495" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="bff29ba8-cc8d-4cbe-a201-001573780793" CreationDate="2014-01-15T21:44:33.050" UserId="975" Comment="added transport tag" Text="|ecological-footprint|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5496" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="bff29ba8-cc8d-4cbe-a201-001573780793" CreationDate="2014-01-15T21:44:33.050" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by 99 edit id of 213" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5497" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="987b65bf-c23c-4e5f-aaf8-5dd3147aa2c1" CreationDate="2014-01-15T21:45:07.947" UserId="975" Comment="added tags to question" Text="|cars|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5498" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="987b65bf-c23c-4e5f-aaf8-5dd3147aa2c1" CreationDate="2014-01-15T21:45:07.947" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by 99 edit id of 215" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="be96115c-5928-4b13-997e-4335aaf7035d" CreationDate="2014-01-15T21:52:20.113" UserId="975" Comment="changed sentence structure to make more sense; transportation consumes energy but produces GHG's " Text="Transportation is one of the leading consumers of energy and contributors of greenhouse gases.  Fuel-intensive transportation includes cars, trucks, buses, aircraft, and watercraft.  Non-fuel-intensive transportation includes biking, walking and sailing.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5500" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="be96115c-5928-4b13-997e-4335aaf7035d" CreationDate="2014-01-15T21:52:20.113" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by -1 edit id of 211" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2435" RevisionGUID="5971e01c-ec9e-4299-b1a4-64b4ca01031d" CreationDate="2014-01-15T21:52:20.113" UserId="99" Comment="changed sentence structure to make more sense; transportation consumes energy but produces GHG's " Text="Transportation is one of the leading consumers of energy and a contributor to greenhouse gases. Fuel-intensive transportation includes cars, trucks, buses, aircraft, and watercraft.  Non-fuel-intensive transportation includes biking, walking and sailing.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5502" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="829" RevisionGUID="c0176701-252b-408d-8293-70b0aae22b7c" CreationDate="2014-01-15T21:52:55.240" UserId="975" Comment="added transport tag" Text="|ecological-footprint|carbon-footprint|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5503" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="829" RevisionGUID="c0176701-252b-408d-8293-70b0aae22b7c" CreationDate="2014-01-15T21:52:55.240" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by 99 edit id of 214" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2439" RevisionGUID="0fd6e180-e28b-4685-a890-aad84203bcb3" CreationDate="2014-01-16T08:15:27.590" UserId="812" Text="If we diverge slightly from the request for CO_2 per passenger km, and look at energy use per passenger km, then David MacKay's book &quot;[Without Hot Air][1]&quot; has a rather good [chart][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pulling from that the methods by which one might plausibly cross the atlantic (figures are approximate, as I'm reading them off the vertical scale):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A Boeing 747: 52 kWh per 100 passenger km (42 if absolutely full)&#xD;&#xA;* An ocean liner: 120kWh per 100 passenger km (102 if full)&#xD;&#xA;* A private jet: 150kWh per 100 passenger km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a little unfair to compare a cruise ship to aeroplanes, because the energy used by the ship is not just for propulsion but also the passengers' hotel needs for a number of days - but the majority of it does go into moving the vessel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in pure energy terms, out of those options, one must choose the large airliner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where do freight ships fit into this? They're not shown on MacKay's chart, presumably because they're not normally a means of transporting passengers. However, one of the reasons that passenger ships burn a lot of fuel is that they go fast - because people want to get places quickly. By contrast, sea freight tends to be carried at something much closer to the most economical speed (and getting ever closer to this, as rising fuel costs prompt shipping lines to introduce &quot;[slow steaming][3]&quot;). The very fact that most freight is carried by sea rather than by air suggests that it must be more energy efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact MacKay does cover freight transport with [another chart][4], this time in terms of energy use per tonne-km of freight. From this chart,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Sea: 0.02-0.15 kWh/tonne-km&#xD;&#xA;* Air: 1.65 kWh/tonne-km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this book is some years old, and that the figures for sea freight do *not* allow for slow steaming; if produced today, it would look even more advantageous for the ships.&#xD;&#xA;It's reasonable to conclude, then, that taking passage on board a freight ship across the atlantic requires at least an order of magnitude less energy than flying - so long as you're not in a hurry!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If thinking about CO_2 rather than energy use, then air travel is further disadvantaged. Jet fuel is a lighter oil than heavy fuel oil, and so probably produces a little less CO_2 per joule of energy provided, but what it does produce is delivered straight into the upper atmosphere, as noted in comments to another answer that link to [this paper][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have the expertise to quantify those effects, but in energy terms the methods of crossing the atlantic from the least energy required to the most are,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Freight vessel&#xD;&#xA;2. Fully laden airliner&#xD;&#xA;3. Passenger ship&#xD;&#xA;4. Private jet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://withouthotair.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://withouthotair.com/c20/page_128.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.withouthotair.com/c15/page_92.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.06.005" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2440" RevisionGUID="c9ca7879-918b-4270-86a9-ecea8a3cb245" CreationDate="2014-01-16T08:24:48.523" UserId="812" Text="While this doesn't fully answer the question in terms of ecological impact, David MacKay provides a good chart of the energy use of various modes of transport, [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll extract some figures from it (they're approximate, from me reading off the vertical axis). They refer to typical occupancy unless otherwise stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cycling: 2 kWh per passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Walking: 4 kWh per passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Tram: 10 kWh per passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Electric train: 15 kWh per passenger km (2 if full)&#xD;&#xA;* Bus: 31 kWh per passenger km (6 if full)&#xD;&#xA;* Turboprop aircraft (full): 39 kWh per passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Boeing 747: 52 kWh per passenger km (42 if full)&#xD;&#xA;* Car (single occupant): 80 kWh per passenger km (20 if full)&#xD;&#xA;* Range Rover: 112 kWh per passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Helicopter or private jet: 150 kWh per passenger km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://withouthotair.com/c20/page_128.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2439" RevisionGUID="86e730bf-feec-4b70-9444-98d2cf1f86db" CreationDate="2014-01-16T09:24:55.350" UserId="812" Comment="Added note about other pollutants." Text="If we diverge slightly from the request for CO_2 per passenger km, and look at energy use per passenger km, then David MacKay's book &quot;[Without Hot Air][1]&quot; has a rather good [chart][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pulling from that the methods by which one might plausibly cross the atlantic (figures are approximate, as I'm reading them off the vertical scale):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A Boeing 747: 52 kWh per 100 passenger km (42 if absolutely full)&#xD;&#xA;* An ocean liner: 120kWh per 100 passenger km (102 if full)&#xD;&#xA;* A private jet: 150kWh per 100 passenger km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a little unfair to compare a cruise ship to aeroplanes, because the energy used by the ship is not just for propulsion but also the passengers' hotel needs for a number of days - but the majority of it does go into moving the vessel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in pure energy terms, out of those options, one must choose the large airliner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where do freight ships fit into this? They're not shown on MacKay's chart, presumably because they're not normally a means of transporting passengers. However, one of the reasons that passenger ships burn a lot of fuel is that they go fast - because people want to get places quickly. By contrast, sea freight tends to be carried at something much closer to the most economical speed (and getting ever closer to this, as rising fuel costs prompt shipping lines to introduce &quot;[slow steaming][3]&quot;). The very fact that most freight is carried by sea rather than by air suggests that it must be more energy efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact MacKay does cover freight transport with [another chart][4], this time in terms of energy use per tonne-km of freight. From this chart,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Sea: 0.02-0.15 kWh/tonne-km&#xD;&#xA;* Air: 1.65 kWh/tonne-km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this book is some years old, and that the figures for sea freight do *not* allow for slow steaming; if produced today, it would look even more advantageous for the ships.&#xD;&#xA;It's reasonable to conclude, then, that taking passage on board a freight ship across the atlantic requires at least an order of magnitude less energy than flying - so long as you're not in a hurry!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If thinking about CO_2 rather than energy use, then air travel is further disadvantaged. Jet fuel is a lighter oil than heavy fuel oil, and so probably produces a little less CO_2 per joule of energy provided, but what it does produce is delivered straight into the upper atmosphere, as noted in comments to another answer that link to [this paper][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that there are many other aspects that are relevant to just the pollution from these modes of travel, let alone the broader sustainability, such as NO_x, SO_2 and particulate emissions, which vary between transport types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have the expertise to quantify those effects, but in energy terms the methods of crossing the atlantic from the least energy required to the most are,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Freight vessel&#xD;&#xA;2. Fully laden airliner&#xD;&#xA;3. Passenger ship&#xD;&#xA;4. Private jet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://withouthotair.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://withouthotair.com/c20/page_128.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_steaming&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.withouthotair.com/c15/page_92.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.06.005" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5507" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="903722f1-4d45-41ab-9b7d-aaaa5566fb46" CreationDate="2014-01-16T12:45:36.880" UserId="975" Comment="added transport tag" Text="|cars|fuel-efficiency|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5508" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="903722f1-4d45-41ab-9b7d-aaaa5566fb46" CreationDate="2014-01-16T12:45:36.880" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by 48 edit id of 217" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2441" RevisionGUID="d827b15f-18ed-4826-a195-d1d1d3f6da77" CreationDate="2014-01-16T13:33:08.983" UserId="975" Text="Please consider using an economic input-output model.  Alternative (other-than-process-based) methods of calculating net product impact can provide [quick, cost effective, and yet comprehensive life-cycle assessments](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1162/108819899569449/abstract). **A free economic input-output LCA is available via the [Green Design Institute at Carnegie Mellon.](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/LCA_Primer.html.)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some background: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LCA can currently be performed 2 ways: 1) Process-based or 2) economic input-output based.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Process-based&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LCA**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/LCAapproaches.html) [O]ne needs to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identify the inputs, such as pulp, water, and dyes to make the paper,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the trees and machinery to make the pulp, and the forestry practices&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to grow and harvest the trees.  Similarly, one needs to include inputs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and outputs for packaging the cup for shipment to the store, the trip&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the store to purchase the cups, and that result from throwing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cup in the trash and eventually being landfilled or incinerated.  Even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for a very simple product, this process-based LCA method can quickly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spiral into an overwhelming number of inputs and outputs to include. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now, imagine doing this same process-based LCA for a product such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an automobile that has over 20,000 individual parts, or a process such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as electricity generation.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Advantages:**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/Limitations.html) detailed, process specific; allows for product specific comparison&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Disadvantages:**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/Limitations.html) time-intensive; system boundary is subjective; *proprietary*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An internet search brings several reputable vendors, but as mentioned, these processes are usually very thorough and rather expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Economic Input-Output:** ](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/LCAapproaches.html)Inputs to the automobile manufacturing industry sector include the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outputs from the industry sectors that produce sheet metal, plate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; glass windshields, tires, carpeting, as well as computers (for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; designing the cars), electricity (to operate the facilities), etc.  In&#xD;&#xA;&gt; turn, the sheet metal, plate glass windshield tire, etc. industry&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sectors require inputs for their operations that are outputs of other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sectors, and so on.  Each of these requirements for goods or services&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between industry sectors is identified in an EIO model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Advantages:**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/Limitations.html) results are economy-wide, comprehensive assessments; allows for systems-level comparisons; uses public data; reproducible; *generally quicker* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Disadvantages:**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/Limitations.html) product assessments contain aggregate data; process assessments are difficult; must link monetary values with physical units&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI: Economic Input-Output LCA models are founded on [Wassily Leontief's](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/references.html) Nobel [Prize winning theory.](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1973/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2441" RevisionGUID="e2bf1042-e6d2-446a-8723-4d08537aacdc" CreationDate="2014-01-16T13:48:12.500" UserId="975" Comment="added country-specific note" Text="Please consider using an economic input-output model.  Alternative (other-than-process-based) methods of calculating net product impact can provide [quick, cost effective, and yet comprehensive life-cycle assessments](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1162/108819899569449/abstract). **A free economic input-output LCA is available via the [Green Design Institute at Carnegie Mellon.](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/LCA_Primer.html.)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some background: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LCA can currently be performed 2 ways: 1) Process-based or 2) economic input-output based.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Process-based&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LCA**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/LCAapproaches.html) [O]ne needs to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; identify the inputs, such as pulp, water, and dyes to make the paper,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the trees and machinery to make the pulp, and the forestry practices&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to grow and harvest the trees.  Similarly, one needs to include inputs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and outputs for packaging the cup for shipment to the store, the trip&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the store to purchase the cups, and that result from throwing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cup in the trash and eventually being landfilled or incinerated.  Even&#xD;&#xA;&gt; for a very simple product, this process-based LCA method can quickly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spiral into an overwhelming number of inputs and outputs to include. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now, imagine doing this same process-based LCA for a product such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an automobile that has over 20,000 individual parts, or a process such&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as electricity generation.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Advantages:**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/Limitations.html) detailed, process specific; allows for product specific comparison&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Disadvantages:**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/Limitations.html) time-intensive; system boundary is subjective; *proprietary*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An internet search brings several reputable vendors, but as mentioned, these processes are usually very thorough and rather expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Economic Input-Output:** ](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/LCAapproaches.html)Inputs to the automobile manufacturing industry sector include the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outputs from the industry sectors that produce sheet metal, plate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; glass windshields, tires, carpeting, as well as computers (for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; designing the cars), electricity (to operate the facilities), etc.  In&#xD;&#xA;&gt; turn, the sheet metal, plate glass windshield tire, etc. industry&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sectors require inputs for their operations that are outputs of other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sectors, and so on.  Each of these requirements for goods or services&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between industry sectors is identified in an EIO model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Advantages:**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/Limitations.html) results are economy-wide, comprehensive assessments; allows for systems-level comparisons; uses public data; reproducible; *generally quicker* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [**Disadvantages:**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/Limitations.html) product assessments contain aggregate data; process assessments are difficult; must link monetary values with physical units&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to note that many of the data sets here are US, but the site also provides links to [Canadian, German, and French data](http://www.eiolca.net/Models/index.html).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI: Economic Input-Output LCA models are founded on [Wassily Leontief's](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/references.html) Nobel [Prize winning theory.](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1973/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5511" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="82bfba86-4cd5-4ad9-8473-5b8aa0c5db04" CreationDate="2014-01-16T14:16:25.737" UserId="975" Comment="added transport tag" Text="|electricity|cars|fuel-efficiency|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5512" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="82bfba86-4cd5-4ad9-8473-5b8aa0c5db04" CreationDate="2014-01-16T14:16:25.737" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by 48 edit id of 219" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5513" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="90159f4c-9908-4b39-a96c-fbd959170d78" CreationDate="2014-01-16T14:16:28.847" UserId="975" Comment="added transport tag" Text="|cars|life-cycle-analysis|transport|externalities|hybrid-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5514" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10" RevisionGUID="90159f4c-9908-4b39-a96c-fbd959170d78" CreationDate="2014-01-16T14:16:28.847" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by 48 edit id of 218" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5515" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="11a1d17b-e654-4c2d-9003-892488e268f0" CreationDate="2014-01-16T14:16:32.863" UserId="975" Comment="added transport tag" Text="|cars|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5516" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="486" RevisionGUID="11a1d17b-e654-4c2d-9003-892488e268f0" CreationDate="2014-01-16T14:16:32.863" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by 48 edit id of 221" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5517" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="390" RevisionGUID="89069081-5de5-48a2-a137-46bf907561c2" CreationDate="2014-01-16T14:16:35.973" UserId="975" Comment="added transport tag" Text="|cars|vehicle|fuel-efficiency|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5518" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="390" RevisionGUID="89069081-5de5-48a2-a137-46bf907561c2" CreationDate="2014-01-16T14:16:35.973" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by 48 edit id of 220" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5519" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="85031eef-7382-4fb6-a572-9453f9fb0770" CreationDate="2014-01-16T15:11:08.990" UserId="975" Comment="added building tag" Text="|energy|home|heating|building|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5520" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="85031eef-7382-4fb6-a572-9453f9fb0770" CreationDate="2014-01-16T15:11:08.990" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by 48 edit id of 222" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2442" RevisionGUID="4b8234f4-028b-40bb-b99d-1552c4ee12d8" CreationDate="2014-01-16T18:52:38.693" UserId="1077" Text="Jon Seymour, in his book `The Complete Book of Self-Sufficiency` mentiones that 5 acres (about 2 Ha) of good quality, well drained land could sustain a familiy of 6 persons. The answer to the question will for a part depend on wether or not one chooses to consume meat and dairy products and whether or not the land should also provide timber for energy. Seymours five acre plan includes grazing and hey pastures, barley, beets and carrots for animal fodder, some woodland, a large vegetable garden, lots of beans and so forth. For a complete description of how such a farm would work, see Seymours book which can be found online. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estimates from Morrison and Jeavons thus seem rather optimistic but differences are probably in part due to the choices that are being made. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="0cac41be-1d66-4da3-8ebe-511c4020ce00" CreationDate="2014-01-16T23:20:57.907" UserId="110" Text="I've tried searching and looking at videos on youtube but all I can find is people storing and preparing food scraps but none of people actually placing food in the worm farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if worms will eat the scraps quicker if I dig the scraps in a few inches, but I am also worried that I may injure a worm while I am trying to bury the food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also concerned that because they prefer to be slightly below the surface they may not want to crawl up and out of the ground to get the top food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So do people normally just put the scraps on top and let the worms make their way up and the food break down or is it good to put the food under the surface dirt?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="0cac41be-1d66-4da3-8ebe-511c4020ce00" CreationDate="2014-01-16T23:20:57.907" UserId="110" Text="Where should I place food in a worm farm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="0cac41be-1d66-4da3-8ebe-511c4020ce00" CreationDate="2014-01-16T23:20:57.907" UserId="110" Text="|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="779ec291-8e2e-4dec-b7ca-b9bfabdc8afb" CreationDate="2014-01-16T23:26:09.797" UserId="110" Text="I want to know if it is necessary to move a worm population to a second container with fresh soil after a period of time? If so, how often does this need to be done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I followed a DIY video from a popular gardening program and they said to have three containers, one for collecting the runoff / castings, one for the current population to live in and then a third container which you would place on top after a period of time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The video said once food runs out in the second container they would climb up into the new container and you could switch out the old container and place that mixture into your garden. Then repeat this process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5526" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="779ec291-8e2e-4dec-b7ca-b9bfabdc8afb" CreationDate="2014-01-16T23:26:09.797" UserId="110" Text="Do I need to change the soil inside a worm farm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5527" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="779ec291-8e2e-4dec-b7ca-b9bfabdc8afb" CreationDate="2014-01-16T23:26:09.797" UserId="110" Text="|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="86daf73d-0864-4328-ab15-490561a00dbc" CreationDate="2014-01-16T23:39:38.170" UserId="110" Text="When we installed our solar PV system in 2010 there were several reasons it wasn't feasible at that time to store and use the power we were generating instead of feeding into the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reasons I can remember were:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Apparently some part of the system was noisy, not sure if was the inverter or that battery or what, but I was told that something hummed and may be a nuisance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The cost was not worth it at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The technology was not mature and solar batteries have a poor lifetime and often break.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only 3 or 4 years ago there was hardly any reliable information available and not many people had systems installed so we just had to stick with what we were told was &quot;the way to go&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know if it is now a viable option to install a solar PV system and use the electricity rather than feeding it back to the grid or are there still good reasons not to do this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5529" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="86daf73d-0864-4328-ab15-490561a00dbc" CreationDate="2014-01-16T23:39:38.170" UserId="110" Text="If I can create enough electricty from solar should I store and use it rather than feed back to the grid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5530" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="86daf73d-0864-4328-ab15-490561a00dbc" CreationDate="2014-01-16T23:39:38.170" UserId="110" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5531" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="6016c713-58be-4ce9-80c6-4b0af0553a55" CreationDate="2014-01-17T04:12:09.787" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/424031363541770240" />
  <row Id="5532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2446" RevisionGUID="f433ea0c-6df0-47be-aed0-2ccb0e32c9a6" CreationDate="2014-01-17T04:21:37.927" UserId="659" Text="If your goal is to save money you'll need to do the calculations based on your exact location and costs. In Australia the main use of small battery-backed solar systems is for off-grid locations but people are increasingly looking at going off-grid as the cost of the grid keeps rising (mostly due to cheap air-conditioners) while the cost of PV systems drops. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're trying to reduce your total environmental impact the calculations become much more complex because you need to first decide what counts as &quot;environmental impact&quot; and how you're going to compare different sorts ([see this question, for example][1]), then for each option work out what the impact actually is. I'm going to assume you're just using money as your measure since the method is the same but the process is simpler. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To do the calculations you really must know not just how much electricity you use, but how much of that use can be eliminated, reduced, substituted or time-shifted. The value proposition for all of those changes when you're looking at off-grid power because of the cost of generating and storing it. You can get extremely efficient fridges, for example, but they're expensive. But off-grid the reduction in power consumption is often cheaper than generating the extra power using PV and storing it in batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sort of battery technology used for houses hasn't changed significantly in the last 20 years, it's still lead-acid based. There are a few lithium battery systems just starting to enter the market now, but if you are not happy with lead-acid batteries I would not suggest buying a lithium one until that market matures. It's still very &quot;version one&quot; right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way to save money and reduce your environmental impact is to reuse materials. If you're in an urban area you may be able to get &quot;ready to recycle&quot; lead-acid traction batteries, for example, that no longer work in their original application but are fine for you (an electric forklift that only runs for half a day is effectively useless, but a 50kWh rated battery that's down to 20kWh actual capacity is excellent value for $500). Similarly, buying second hand panels and supports might save you money and significantly reduce your environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you're in Australia I suggest you join the [Alternative Technology Association][2] and read the relevant issues of their Renew magazine as this the viability of opting off the grid has been discussed recently. They've been talking about off-grid power system in Australia since they were founded (20-odd years IIRC).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2396/accounting-for-ecological-foot-print-of-non-renewable-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ata.org.au" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2447" RevisionGUID="97fcf150-f0fe-479e-941c-dfff7d208730" CreationDate="2014-01-17T05:45:41.207" UserId="794" Text="If your bin has a lid and the container is nice and dark the worms will come to the surface for the food.  The worms have no problem coming out of the medium for a variety of reasons but they run from the light.  Keep it dark and placing food on the surface shouldn't be a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said I think it depends on how you've processed the scraps.  If it's moist food that's easy for them to munch on that's not a problem but if it's a cracker or a piece of green wood (just trying to make a point) you're going to need some decomposition time for worms to be able to work with it.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2448" RevisionGUID="d4e72b80-1c3d-4258-a670-6db6bdb0e9d5" CreationDate="2014-01-17T05:49:17.803" UserId="794" Text="Sounds like the video was pretty good.  This sounds like a stackable system.  They seem to be the least labor intensive.  Eventually you would want the worms to move from the lowest level because you should harvest the worm castings.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may still have some stragglers in the lower level of castings so if you're making tea or anything other than top dressing plants with the castings you might want to spread the castings out on a tarp under a bright light or the sun.  The worms will work their way to the bottom to avoid the light and you can collect them and add them back to the working bin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2449" RevisionGUID="199dfd3a-ec19-47f0-bee3-04f9749c64c3" CreationDate="2014-01-17T08:43:24.967" UserId="99" Text="There is no need to add or change soil in a stackable worm farm. If a tray is full you just start placing food in an empty tray above. The material in the new tray will decompose and turn into soil eventually. After a while, when the top tray starts to fill, the worms will move there provided the conditions in the bin are right and the worms have good access to the top tray (obviously the lower tray should be completely filled for this). If you wait a bit longer all eggs in the lower tray will have hatched, so the baby worms can move to the top as well and you can start harvesting vermicompost from the bottom tray. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that tray systems work well with the most-used and popular [Eisenia Fetida](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenia_fetida) worms that like to live just below the surface so tend to crawl up, but less well with other species like [Eisenia Hortensis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_nightcrawler) that tend to crawl all over the place. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2450" RevisionGUID="bebf01b9-5f0d-4ebd-9f11-4b459c813ada" CreationDate="2014-01-17T09:39:08.040" UserId="99" Text="Either way (dumping on top or burying) is fine, but both methods may have some influence on the processing speed of the food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worms don't eat fresh material. First microorganisms need to soften the food and start decomposing it, only then will the worms eat it. Most people don't care much about how fast food is processed and simply dump it on top of the bin. This will work fine, but there are two things you can do to speed up the decomposition process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Chop up the food in smaller pieces. Some people even blend the food into a puree, but personally I think that's a waste of energy.&#xD;&#xA;2. Create pockets or holes in the top layer and fill those with fresh food. The idea is that by using pockets, a larger surface of fresh food comes into contact with microbes already living in the bin and the material will decompose quicker (not sure if this have been scientifically proven).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burying food is similar to creating pockets, but in this case more food is exposed to microbes so decomposition should be a bit faster even. However, if you bury food you may disturbe the worms and cause them stress which may slow decomposition down. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I don't like to bury food. I'm not sure how much worms will suffer from stress, but for me it is mainly because I'm not convinced it will speed things up much, plus I'm just don't care much about speed. Most of the time I just dump chopped food on top, but occasionally a create a few pockets with some top material and use those into they are full. The only time I will bury food is when I have a fruit fly infestation, but then I bury wet fresh material under dry fresh material (e.g.paper towels or cardboard)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2451" RevisionGUID="d0a2e328-0df0-4eee-aa5e-ad5f9471958a" CreationDate="2014-01-17T12:20:28.563" UserId="975" Text="As [user141] alludes to, [books have been written about this subject](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful).  From Wikipedia's Summary of EF Schumacher's **Small is Beautiful**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the first chapter, &quot;The Problem of Production&quot;, Schumacher argues&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the modern economy is unsustainable. Natural resources (like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fossil fuels), are treated as expendable income, when in fact they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should be treated as capital, since they are not renewable, and thus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subject to eventual depletion. He further argues that nature's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resistance to pollution is limited as well. He concludes that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; government effort must be concentrated on sustainable development,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because relatively minor improvements, for example, technology&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transfer to Third World countries, will not solve the underlying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; problem of an unsustainable economy [. . . ]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He faults conventional economic thinking for failing to consider the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most appropriate scale for an activity, blasts notions that &quot;growth is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good,&quot; and that &quot;bigger is better,&quot; and questions the appropriateness&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of using mass production in developing countries, promoting instead&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;production by the masses.&quot; Schumacher was one of the first economists&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to question the appropriateness of using gross national product to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measure human well-being, emphasizing that &quot;the aim ought to be to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain the maximum amount of well being with the minimum amount of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consumption.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted in the above article, it's also quite interesting to note that EF Schumacher was academically linked to John Kenneth Galbraith, who posited the proposal in [**American Capitalism**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Capitalism) that an economy can exist in a steady state equilibrium (as EnergyNumbers alludes to). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of whether or not interest is sustainable is covered pretty well in Joseph Schumpeter's [**Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism,_Socialism_and_Democracy) (short answer- according to him- no).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2451" RevisionGUID="0b36640e-bcf4-44f6-b405-9c76cb3fac68" CreationDate="2014-01-17T12:26:58.103" UserId="975" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="As [user141] alludes to, [books have been written about this subject](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful).  From Wikipedia's Summary of EF Schumacher's **Small is Beautiful**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the first chapter, &quot;The Problem of Production&quot;, Schumacher argues&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the modern economy is unsustainable. Natural resources (like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fossil fuels), are treated as expendable income, when in fact they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should be treated as capital, since they are not renewable, and thus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subject to eventual depletion. He further argues that nature's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resistance to pollution is limited as well. He concludes that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; government effort must be concentrated on sustainable development,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because relatively minor improvements, for example, technology&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transfer to Third World countries, will not solve the underlying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; problem of an unsustainable economy [. . . ]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He faults conventional economic thinking for failing to consider the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most appropriate scale for an activity, blasts notions that &quot;growth is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good,&quot; and that &quot;bigger is better,&quot; and questions the appropriateness&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of using mass production in developing countries, promoting instead&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;production by the masses.&quot; Schumacher was one of the first economists&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to question the appropriateness of using gross national product to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measure human well-being, emphasizing that &quot;the aim ought to be to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain the maximum amount of well being with the minimum amount of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consumption.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted in the above article, it's also interesting to note that EF Schumacher was academically linked to John Kenneth Galbraith, who posited the proposal in [**American Capitalism**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Capitalism) that an economy can exist in a steady state equilibrium (as EnergyNumbers alludes to). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of whether or not interest is sustainable is covered pretty well in Joseph Schumpeter's [**Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism,_Socialism_and_Democracy) (short answer- according to him- &quot;no&quot;).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2451" RevisionGUID="e26a81d3-8328-4bdf-bebe-32a1dec0d839" CreationDate="2014-01-17T12:52:40.200" UserId="975" Comment="added section on Prestowitz" Text="As [user141] alludes to, [books have been written about this subject](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful).  From Wikipedia's Summary of EF Schumacher's **Small is Beautiful**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the first chapter, &quot;The Problem of Production&quot;, Schumacher argues&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that the modern economy is unsustainable. Natural resources (like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fossil fuels), are treated as expendable income, when in fact they&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should be treated as capital, since they are not renewable, and thus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; subject to eventual depletion. He further argues that nature's&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resistance to pollution is limited as well. He concludes that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; government effort must be concentrated on sustainable development,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; because relatively minor improvements, for example, technology&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transfer to Third World countries, will not solve the underlying&#xD;&#xA;&gt; problem of an unsustainable economy [. . . ]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; He faults conventional economic thinking for failing to consider the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most appropriate scale for an activity, blasts notions that &quot;growth is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; good,&quot; and that &quot;bigger is better,&quot; and questions the appropriateness&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of using mass production in developing countries, promoting instead&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;production by the masses.&quot; Schumacher was one of the first economists&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to question the appropriateness of using gross national product to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measure human well-being, emphasizing that &quot;the aim ought to be to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obtain the maximum amount of well being with the minimum amount of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consumption.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted in the above article, it's also interesting to note that EF Schumacher was academically linked to John Kenneth Galbraith, who posited the proposal in [**American Capitalism**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Capitalism) that an economy can exist in a steady state equilibrium (as EnergyNumbers alludes to). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of whether or not interest is sustainable is covered pretty well in Joseph Schumpeter's [**Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism,_Socialism_and_Democracy) (short answer- according to him- &quot;no&quot;).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book that most directly answers your question is *possibly* the most contentious and least academic of the books listed here: Clyde Prestowitz's [**The Betrayal of American Prosperity**](http://www.amazon.com/The-Betrayal-American-Prosperity-Post-Dollar/dp/B0048ELCUQ), however it should be noted that the author is heavily credentialed and the book is rated a full 5 stars (from 20 reviewers) on Amazon.com." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5540" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2443" RevisionGUID="594cf52f-a143-45a0-91fa-852c5d468785" CreationDate="2014-01-18T10:12:46.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/424484503655305216" />
  <row Id="5541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2452" RevisionGUID="3cfa6c10-ea91-4de4-8e15-e525fa6c2db4" CreationDate="2014-01-19T09:33:08.813" UserId="1086" Text="CFCs friendly to ozone layer that protect the earth from UV rays and which do not contributes to the greenhouse effect are being developed. The chlorine free R-134a, a recent finding, is presently replacing R-12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2408" RevisionGUID="eb6e91fa-9720-45a1-8652-7ab9cb70586a" CreationDate="2014-01-19T11:35:21.957" UserId="99" Comment="added alternative (fishless tuna)" Text="Here in The Netherlands we have the '[Viswijzer](http://www.goedevis.nl/project/userfiles/PapierenviswijzerUitknipDownload2013.pdf)' (link is to Dutch version only). &#xD;&#xA;It is an index where you can lookup which types of fish you can buy just fine and which types you should not buy because they are endangered and/or not caught sustainably. I'm not sure about the exact criteria they have but according to this index:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **CERTIFIED/GREEN (ok)**: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Albacore Tuna (white) from the Pacific with MSC-certification&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Skipjack Tuna from the Pacific with MSC-certification&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Skipjack Tuna caught by handline&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; in the Pacific&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ORANGE (poor choice)**: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - White Tuna caught by handline&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; in the Atlantic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Yellowfin Tuna caught by handline&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Ocean&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Skipjack Tuna caught by handline&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; in the Pacific and Indian Ocean and Indonesia&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **RED (don't buy)**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - White Tuna caught (other methods) in the Atlantic, Pacific or Mediterranean&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Yellowfin Tuna caught (other methods) in the Atlantic, Pacific or Indian Ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Skipjack Tuna caught (other methods) in the Indian and Eastern Atlantic Ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; with 'handline' they mean small-scale and selective fishing using fishing rod, [jigging](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigging) or [trolling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** An alternative to MSC-certified tuna is ['fishless tuna'](http://www.vegetarianbutcher.com/fish-free-tuna). In The Netherlands it is made by a company called 'Vegetarian Butcher'. I just tried it this week. It's soy-based, tastes suprisingly good, very much like tuna. Not sure if something similar is also sold in other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2408" RevisionGUID="4d406b1a-18bb-4e6f-932e-f0cff2e800db" CreationDate="2014-01-19T11:47:12.910" UserId="99" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="Here in The Netherlands we have the '[Viswijzer](http://www.goedevis.nl/project/userfiles/PapierenviswijzerUitknipDownload2013.pdf)' (link is to Dutch version only). &#xD;&#xA;It is an index where you can lookup which types of fish you can buy just fine and which types you should not buy because they are endangered and/or not caught sustainably. I'm not sure about the exact criteria they have but according to this index:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **CERTIFIED/GREEN (ok)**: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Albacore Tuna (white) from the Pacific with MSC-certification&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Skipjack Tuna from the Pacific with MSC-certification&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Skipjack Tuna caught by handline&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; in the Pacific&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **ORANGE (poor choice)**: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - White Tuna caught by handline&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; in the Atlantic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Yellowfin Tuna caught by handline&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Ocean&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Skipjack Tuna caught by handline&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; in the Pacific and Indian Ocean and Indonesia&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; **RED (don't buy)**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - White Tuna caught (other methods) in the Atlantic, Pacific or Mediterranean&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Yellowfin Tuna caught (other methods) in the Atlantic, Pacific or Indian Ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Skipjack Tuna caught (other methods) in the Indian and Eastern Atlantic Ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; with 'handline' they mean small-scale and selective fishing using fishing rod, [jigging](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigging) or [trolling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_(fishing))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** An alternative to MSC-certified tuna is ['fishless tuna'](http://www.vegetarianbutcher.com/fish-free-tuna). In The Netherlands it is made by a company called 'Vegetarian Butcher'. I just tried it this week. It's soy-based, tastes suprisingly good, very much like tuna. A quick google search showed that there are also [other companies](http://atlanticnaturalfoods.com/product/vegetarian-fishless-tuna/) who sell something similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5544" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2350" RevisionGUID="248171f3-8bae-48a1-83cd-a1d69e209565" CreationDate="2014-01-19T19:49:05.177" UserId="975" Comment="added building tag" Text="|heating|energy-efficiency|building-physics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5545" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2350" RevisionGUID="248171f3-8bae-48a1-83cd-a1d69e209565" CreationDate="2014-01-19T19:49:05.177" Comment="Proposed by 975 approved by 48 edit id of 223" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5548" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2432" RevisionGUID="c403b224-acfc-493d-99fd-5d08f0fa3e6a" CreationDate="2014-01-20T07:13:04.883" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/425164057252204544" />
  <row Id="5552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2455" RevisionGUID="c4861282-dfba-47e8-a51f-b4fe914ff6b5" CreationDate="2014-01-21T01:55:50.500" UserId="1090" Text="I believe **wool** is one of the best insulation materials available. It does not affect your indoor air quality, it is available in batts and can be installed as easily as fiberglass insulation (without compromising the health of the installer!). Wool will not settle like cellulose, it will continue to insulate even if it gets damp, and it has a natural resistance to fire, mold and pests (many insulation types contain chemical additives for these purposes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many areas have a source of local wool, however there are currently few companies producing wool insulation. Currently, transportation may add to the embodied energy of using wool insulation in your home. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2456" RevisionGUID="1c9cd823-84af-4bc0-a9ba-587a70c5f3b1" CreationDate="2014-01-21T05:42:23.330" UserId="1091" Text="I've read a lot about diatomaceous earth being useful for organic gardening, animal raising, pest control, intestinal parasite treatment, etc. However I am somewhat conflicted about the material itself - from what I understand it's essentially ground plankton fossil. How sustainable is this? Will there be &quot;peak diatomaceous earth&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomaceous_earth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2456" RevisionGUID="1c9cd823-84af-4bc0-a9ba-587a70c5f3b1" CreationDate="2014-01-21T05:42:23.330" UserId="1091" Text="How renewable is diatomaceous earth? (How much is left on earth?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2456" RevisionGUID="1c9cd823-84af-4bc0-a9ba-587a70c5f3b1" CreationDate="2014-01-21T05:42:23.330" UserId="1091" Text="|alternatives|renewables|materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5556" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2393" RevisionGUID="01ba4fcd-80bb-4023-a548-f9322e25f4d3" CreationDate="2014-01-21T07:13:28.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/425526541842644992" />
  <row Id="5560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2458" RevisionGUID="9ef4c7fe-e2f7-43de-a9f5-ba835265b71f" CreationDate="2014-01-21T09:30:57.670" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="A similar question was raised on Australia's [Garden Web][1] forum, with one poster making a pertinent point that they do not believe that the&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use of any natural resource that's not renewable in our lifetime can be considered sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the key point, from a supplier website information page [Diatomaceous Earth online][2] describes that the formation of the parent rock Diatomite takes several millions of years, specifically&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; DE, or fresh water amorphous silica, was formed from the remains of Diatoms which lived in ancient freshwater lakes. These tiny ancient algae had a glassy cylindrical structure which were deposited on the lake bottom **over millions of years** to form Diatomite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, a report from the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, [Diatomite][3] indicate that there are plentiful resources in several countries, suggesting the 'peak-diatomaceous earth&quot; is not a major concern at this stage.  Also, there are many abundant alternatives for the uses of diatomaceous earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, having said all that, the fact that the material is the fossilised remains from up to 65 million years ago (according to the above website) that undergo a geochemical process that takes considerable time (compared to a human lifespan), then it is not truly sustainable, especially as stated by the [International Diatomite Producers Association][4] website:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are many diatomite deposits throughout the world, **but those of high-purity which are commercially viable are rare**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.au.gardenweb.com/forums/load/cornucop/msg032349136935.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://diatomaceousearthonline.com.au/what-is-diatomaceous-earth/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.resources.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/237818/Diatomite.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.diatomite.org/Diatomite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2459" RevisionGUID="caa540e3-74c3-41fe-99ba-8c4ef4b28733" CreationDate="2014-01-22T23:44:36.567" UserId="1098" Text="I've always just put scraps on top. It works perfectly fine and the worms eat it without drama, but I do notice a few slaters, cockroaches and spiders gathering in the worm farm and I'm wondering whether digging the scraps in would discourage these critters from taking up residence in the worm farm. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2459" RevisionGUID="55beff89-c93a-4bb5-bbe7-365fee38a1bf" CreationDate="2014-01-24T01:04:07.607" UserId="1098" Comment="Additional info." Text="I've always just put scraps on top. It works perfectly fine and the worms eat it without drama, but I do notice a few slaters, cockroaches and spiders gathering in the worm farm and I'm wondering whether digging the scraps in would discourage these critters from taking up residence in the worm farm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An update on this; our worm farm had soooo many red-backs, slaters and roaches that I emptied the whole lot into the compost bin (worms and all,) cleaned out the worm farm and started again. My hope is that the worms in the compost bin will help with my constant mass of grass clippings and I'll split vegie waste between worm farm and compost bin from now on. The worms may have had too much food before, hence the pests.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2460" RevisionGUID="4cff46d6-16c7-48bb-8005-54d2041e3439" CreationDate="2014-01-24T07:58:38.677" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="I'm using the example of Tokyo, Japan, as it is a massive megacity and also, from personal experience having lived there for 4 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only are the public rubbish bins across the city segregated into trash and recyclables (as is the case for many cities), such as in the image below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Image source and further information][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Household rubbish is also segregated, usually if you live in an apartment building, such as shown below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Image source][4] * Even though the website discusses Manila, Philippines waste disposal, the image is taken from Meguro-ku, which is part of Tokyo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How sustainable is this type of waste segregation and recycling program?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actual data would be appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Puac4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.dannychoo.com/en/post/1314/Waste+disposal+in+Japan.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/g7YfD.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://travelfoodguru.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/waste-not-want-not-know-and-follow-3rs-greening-your-garbage/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2460" RevisionGUID="4cff46d6-16c7-48bb-8005-54d2041e3439" CreationDate="2014-01-24T07:58:38.677" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="How sustainable is Tokyo's city-wide garbage separation and recycling programs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2460" RevisionGUID="4cff46d6-16c7-48bb-8005-54d2041e3439" CreationDate="2014-01-24T07:58:38.677" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="|recycling|waste|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2461" RevisionGUID="83e55ade-206b-4b13-86b6-5e6022fe0c72" CreationDate="2014-01-24T13:21:56.877" UserId="1104" Text="I just need some convincing before I start unplugging everything.&#xD;&#xA;I kind of assumed that usb type computer, phone, or printer chargers would use electricity. And obviously my computer, sound system, and modem/router do. I cant imagine the lamps, toaster, TV or coffee grinder would. Those are just some examples, but I am ready to move on from assumptions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5569" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2461" RevisionGUID="83e55ade-206b-4b13-86b6-5e6022fe0c72" CreationDate="2014-01-24T13:21:56.877" UserId="1104" Text="What types of plugged in electronics use energy even when turned off?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5570" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2461" RevisionGUID="83e55ade-206b-4b13-86b6-5e6022fe0c72" CreationDate="2014-01-24T13:21:56.877" UserId="1104" Text="|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2462" RevisionGUID="64802c3a-cd50-46bd-9798-71ee0bffae7e" CreationDate="2014-01-24T14:39:32.430" UserId="812" Text="You are broadly correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can divide appliances into three broad categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Items that run off external low-voltage power supplies**: Examples might include laptops (when connected to mains power), printers, etc. These devices depend upon [external power supplies][1] (nowadays usually switch-mode power supplies) to convert mains-voltage AC current to DC at the correct voltage for the device. Even when the appliance is turned off the power supply itself is still powered, and so a small amount of electricity is used by the internal electronics. This applies to USB adapters as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Items with low-voltage electronics that have internal power supplies**: Examples include many things in today's home, from computers and televisions to alarm clocks and radios. This category of equipment can go either way: If you turn it off using a physical switch that isolates the power supply from the mains, then it will not draw any power when off. If you turn it off using a &quot;soft&quot; button that interacts with the electronics, then some power will still be required by the electronics to monitor that button for when you turn it on again. Anything with a &quot;standby&quot; mode falls into this category, as does anything that can turn itself on at a particular time and anything that can be activated by a remote control. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Many PCs draw a substantial amount of power (sometimes up to ~15W) to not only monitor their power button but to allow wake-on-LAN, wake-on-keyboard, wake at a specified time, etc. Some computers have both a soft power button on the front, and a &quot;hard&quot; power switch on the rear. In this case, turning off the rear power switch will usually mean that no power is drawn while off, at the expense of disabling all the auto-on features just mentioned. Some televisions work in a similar fashion with &quot;soft&quot; off by the remote control, and &quot;hard&quot; off by a physical power button or switch - but some use a soft off either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Items that run directly off mains power**: A simple example is a toaster: it works by passing mains current through wires to heat them; when it is off, the circuit is broken and no power is used. Equally with most bedside lamps - there is no power supply, internal or external; the bulb is connected straight to the mains and the switch that you use physically breaks the circuit, meaning that no power is used. With more complex appliances, such as washing machines, the same complication as with the low-voltage items can apply: it is not always obvious whether you are physically breaking the circuit when you turn it off, or whether you are merely instructing some electronics to turn off the lights on the front panel. Once again one can often make a good guess from the design of the switch: a &quot;hard&quot; off switch must physically break the electrical circuit and will thus usually have a more defined mechanical action than one that does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_adapter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5572" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2461" RevisionGUID="df440a33-f5ad-4cf3-ab02-4a08938b75ed" CreationDate="2014-01-24T16:13:54.857" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/426749713770364928" />
  <row Id="5573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2463" RevisionGUID="8d0393dc-11c5-400a-8794-5fd0563dfdd4" CreationDate="2014-01-24T16:41:28.353" UserId="1104" Text="Generally, is it better to let laptop and cellphone batteries fully die before recharging, to leave them plugged in constantly even when charged and not in use, or to unplug them once they are fully charged and leave unplugged until you notice the battery needs a reasonable amount of charging?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I know usage and specs differ greatly person to person, device to device.&#xD;&#xA;So I am just looking for some general feedback on the lifespan of a battery vs keeping it charged/letting it die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have struggled through the years deciding when to plug my phone and laptop in.&#xD;&#xA;I came to a decided perspective that it is better for the batteries lifespan to be plugged in all the time when not in use (not in use means I will use it later today or tomorrow and it will need juice). This maintains a full charge, while minimally using the battery thus increasing lifespan. Is this also optimal for minimizing power consumption? I have my doubts.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2463" RevisionGUID="8d0393dc-11c5-400a-8794-5fd0563dfdd4" CreationDate="2014-01-24T16:41:28.353" UserId="1104" Text="Should I keep laptop and cellphone batteries fully charged, let them die before charging, or something in between?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2463" RevisionGUID="8d0393dc-11c5-400a-8794-5fd0563dfdd4" CreationDate="2014-01-24T16:41:28.353" UserId="1104" Text="|electricity|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2464" RevisionGUID="f5eb01f5-c297-4aa6-9651-34c4ecb510d1" CreationDate="2014-01-24T19:27:37.137" UserId="85" Text="Of course that depends on the battery, but Lithium Ion batteries were the standard for laptop/cellphone batteries last time I checked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A battery feels most happy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. being neither too full nor too empty,&#xD;&#xA;2. being not too hot,&#xD;&#xA;3. being not charged/recharged too often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't need the battery, remove it from the battery pack (at about 60%) and store it dry and cool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use the battery, make sure your laptop doesn't get too hot. Usually the processor is located near the &quot;top&quot; of the keyboard, away from your hands, but so is the batter y.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is power management software for many laptops, which ensures that your battery only gets charged once the charge falls under a certain threshold (e.g. 40%) and then charges up to 80%. This allows you to plug in/unplug your laptop (to move location) without initiating a new charge cycle and thereby lowering the life span of the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A friend of mine had a broken adapter, so the battery was charged/discharged every time someone bumped into the chord. After a few months, the 2-year old battery now lasts at most 2 minutes!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cellphones, it's inconvenient to keep them plugged into the wall all the time, so the general guideline is usually to charge it once it falls under, say, 30% and discharge it fully, followed after a full recharge, about once a month. The same holds true for laptop batteries, of course, but I usually find myself discharging them fully more than once a month anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this means that the rule (myth?) &quot;fully discharge before charging&quot;, which applied to old nickel-cadmium rechargeable batteries, does not apply to modern laptop/cellphone batteries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5579" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2463" RevisionGUID="b9c9183e-0d1e-4dc5-a6bb-43cbe1471ec7" CreationDate="2014-01-25T01:13:55.047" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/426885608821506049" />
  <row Id="5580" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2460" RevisionGUID="15590b3a-9a45-4a4f-a91b-a98c15b1b931" CreationDate="2014-01-25T04:13:54.770" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/426930907392774144" />
  <row Id="5581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2466" RevisionGUID="f3cce206-0aac-4ab7-a3ff-164bb4916521" CreationDate="2014-01-25T17:14:38.910" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5582" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2467" RevisionGUID="2c38408a-50ea-4fba-b6a6-11cecc9a20ce" CreationDate="2014-01-25T17:14:38.910" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2468" RevisionGUID="7f311555-d57f-411f-931b-31fc80948a81" CreationDate="2014-01-25T17:15:56.727" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2469" RevisionGUID="1e079c2f-bd40-440a-ae1c-561e796183d7" CreationDate="2014-01-25T17:15:56.727" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2470" RevisionGUID="74997962-8afe-41db-9f0f-f953b7c63c3a" CreationDate="2014-01-25T17:18:41.570" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2471" RevisionGUID="4d5485b1-88c4-4d60-baa7-cd953258b512" CreationDate="2014-01-25T17:18:41.570" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2472" RevisionGUID="583af55c-d81d-47d8-8552-ac66bb0606a7" CreationDate="2014-01-25T17:21:52.100" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2473" RevisionGUID="c0f74eec-6157-4126-a0ec-0eaecedbc37a" CreationDate="2014-01-25T17:21:52.100" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2469" RevisionGUID="15afedbf-6ecf-4b16-afbd-d6646786fb82" CreationDate="2014-01-25T18:35:48.737" UserDisplayName="user1017" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="The percentage ratio of energy produced to energy supplied to a system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5590" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2469" RevisionGUID="15afedbf-6ecf-4b16-afbd-d6646786fb82" CreationDate="2014-01-25T18:35:48.737" Comment="Proposed by 1017 approved by -1 edit id of 225" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2469" RevisionGUID="067a0d0a-5a3c-4eb4-b351-d0ca7143d8f2" CreationDate="2014-01-25T18:35:48.737" UserId="48" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="The percentage ratio of energy produced to energy supplied to a system; or a measure of minimum energy required relative to energy actually consumed; or a measure of relative energy consumed to provide the same energy service." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2467" RevisionGUID="a2010876-93c8-4085-8b89-5649ee2a367d" CreationDate="2014-01-25T18:37:03.883" UserDisplayName="user1017" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="Electric energy produced through the photovoltaic conversion of solar energy, through mostly silicon based cells." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5593" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2467" RevisionGUID="a2010876-93c8-4085-8b89-5649ee2a367d" CreationDate="2014-01-25T18:37:03.883" Comment="Proposed by 1017 approved by -1 edit id of 224" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2467" RevisionGUID="ab290fc0-f294-47c5-8f45-865f34a55290" CreationDate="2014-01-25T18:37:03.883" UserId="48" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="Electric energy produced from sunlight. This could be via semiconductors, in photovoltaics; or through the concentration of solar heat to drive a turbine, as in concentrating solar power." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2471" RevisionGUID="fd084834-6c85-4792-8bab-8a9e7909cbaa" CreationDate="2014-01-25T18:41:47.597" UserDisplayName="user1017" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="Energy derived from the conversion of the kinetic energy from moving air into usable electrical energy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5596" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2471" RevisionGUID="fd084834-6c85-4792-8bab-8a9e7909cbaa" CreationDate="2014-01-25T18:41:47.597" Comment="Proposed by 1017 approved by -1 edit id of 226" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2471" RevisionGUID="386b3fcb-c787-4c2c-810a-eb5ee36804e4" CreationDate="2014-01-25T18:41:47.597" UserId="48" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="The conversion of the kinetic energy from moving air into usable electrical energy. This is almost always through three-blade horizontal-axis wind turbines, though there are variants that include two blades, or a vertical axis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2473" RevisionGUID="9477d43c-c659-4752-94bf-301288feba37" CreationDate="2014-01-25T18:42:09.237" UserDisplayName="user1017" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="Extraction of rock or mineral resources from the ground, either by open cut or underground methods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5599" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2473" RevisionGUID="9477d43c-c659-4752-94bf-301288feba37" CreationDate="2014-01-25T18:42:09.237" Comment="Proposed by 1017 approved by 48 edit id of 227" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2474" RevisionGUID="536cdb6e-e758-4851-ac16-86e525e0fd67" CreationDate="2014-01-25T19:37:13.163" UserId="1057" Text="Figures for land area have been stated, it is perhaps important to consider where that land is, its inherent soil quality and type, inclination towards the sun, altitude and longitude, precipitation - or available atmospheric moisture to be extracted - and short, medium and long term long term climate conditions. That's one heck of a lot of variables to ponder. A single figure can relate to one year at one place but be hugely different the next year, or at a different place. To give a single figure - a &quot;One size fits all&quot; approach is just plane silly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it is vitally important to consider varying protein requirements.&#xD;&#xA;For your basic protein requirements legumes and plant growth tips will go some way to&#xD;&#xA;providing basic requirements for those lucky enough to posses the requisite genes to allow their immune system to function correctly with this input. [See: for clarification.][1] (The question as to protein requirements in human populations is moot, after all we clean our fruit and vegetables before eating, getting rid of insects, slugs, a variety of eggs from those etc, which would have been part of our pre-historic diet) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Manual workers, the young and expectant mothers I suggest that waste foliage can be converted by gastropods (A type of molluscan commonly known as snail). The Roman Snail as it is known in Britain used to be considered a staple part of the diet, it's efficient at producing compostable waste and is a good source of the full range of amino-acids required by growing humans from womb to adulthood, the shells can be crushed and added to reduce soil acidity and increase calcium content where necessary. [Here's the preparation and a recipe for the giant African version.][2] (Generally free-range.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supplementary protein and alternatives such as those insects found in rotting wood are considered tasty when cooked. See the bushcraftuk.com website archives for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no opinion as to the flavor of the above protein supplements having never tried them myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/665.full&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2009/jul/03/african-land-snails-video" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2474" RevisionGUID="be658436-cd50-4fc6-b0e6-d097ce2e4e66" CreationDate="2014-01-25T19:45:30.407" UserId="1057" Comment=" To add a warning about the graphic nature of snail prep. not being for everyone in one of my links." Text="Figures for land area have been stated, it is perhaps important to consider where that land is, its inherent soil quality and type, inclination towards the sun, altitude and longitude, precipitation - or available atmospheric moisture to be extracted - and short, medium and long term long term climate conditions. That's one heck of a lot of variables to ponder. A single figure can relate to one year at one place but be hugely different the next year, or at a different place. To give a single figure - a &quot;One size fits all&quot; approach is just plane silly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it is vitally important to consider varying protein requirements.&#xD;&#xA;For your basic protein requirements legumes and plant growth tips will go some way to&#xD;&#xA;providing basic requirements for those lucky enough to posses the requisite genes to allow their immune system to function correctly with this input. [See: for clarification.][1] (The question as to protein requirements in human populations is moot, after all we clean our fruit and vegetables before eating, getting rid of insects, slugs, a variety of eggs from those etc, which would have been part of our pre-historic diet) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Manual workers, the young and expectant mothers I suggest that waste foliage can be converted by gastropods (A type of molluscan commonly known as snail). The Roman Snail as it is known in Britain used to be considered a staple part of the diet, it's efficient at producing compostable waste and is a good source of the full range of amino-acids required by growing humans from womb to adulthood, the shells can be crushed and added to reduce soil acidity and increase calcium content where necessary. [Here's the preparation and a recipe for the giant African version. * Not for the faint of heart][2] (Generally free-range.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supplementary protein and alternatives such as those insects found in rotting wood are considered tasty when cooked. See the bushcraftuk.com website archives for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no opinion as to the flavor of the above protein supplements having never tried them myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/665.full&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2009/jul/03/african-land-snails-video" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2474" RevisionGUID="9c29d249-7fbc-4957-b5bb-7b1af2dd84c3" CreationDate="2014-01-25T19:55:37.223" UserId="1057" Comment="Additional plant protein I forgot about." Text="Figures for land area have been stated, it is perhaps important to consider where that land is, its inherent soil quality and type, inclination towards the sun, altitude and longitude, precipitation - or available atmospheric moisture to be extracted - and short, medium and long term long term climate conditions. That's one heck of a lot of variables to ponder. A single figure can relate to one year at one place but be hugely different the next year, or at a different place. To give a single figure - a &quot;One size fits all&quot; approach is just plane silly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it is vitally important to consider varying protein requirements.&#xD;&#xA;For your basic protein requirements legumes and plant growth tips and the germ part of things such as corn will go some way to&#xD;&#xA;providing basic requirements for those lucky enough to posses the requisite genes to allow their immune system to function correctly with this input. [See: for clarification.][1] (The question as to protein requirements in human populations is moot, after all we clean our fruit and vegetables before eating, getting rid of insects, slugs, a variety of eggs from those etc, which would have been part of our pre-historic diet) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Manual workers, the young and expectant mothers I suggest that waste foliage can be converted by gastropods (A type of molluscan commonly known as snail). The Roman Snail as it is known in Britain used to be considered a staple part of the diet, it's efficient at producing compostable waste and is a good source of the full range of amino-acids required by growing humans from womb to adulthood, the shells can be crushed and added to reduce soil acidity and increase calcium content where necessary. [Here's the preparation and a recipe for the giant African version. * Not for the faint of heart][2] (Generally free-range.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supplementary protein and alternatives such as those insects found in rotting wood are considered tasty when cooked. See the bushcraftuk.com website archives for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no opinion as to the flavor of the above protein supplements having never tried them myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/71/3/665.full&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2009/jul/03/african-land-snails-video" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2475" RevisionGUID="1ac29f30-0a07-408c-a6a5-ccf546736ef1" CreationDate="2014-01-26T01:36:59.023" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2476" RevisionGUID="cbf53bec-1480-4e9c-ba2a-0e29284f6b54" CreationDate="2014-01-26T01:36:59.023" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2476" RevisionGUID="af101f22-f1d0-4d42-bec9-5431ff6b4444" CreationDate="2014-01-26T08:00:57.000" UserDisplayName="user1017" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="Questions about the management of fresh and usable water resources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5606" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2476" RevisionGUID="af101f22-f1d0-4d42-bec9-5431ff6b4444" CreationDate="2014-01-26T08:00:57.000" Comment="Proposed by 1017 approved by -1 edit id of 228" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2476" RevisionGUID="053defd3-affe-4135-b9c8-f5b8b0ac7398" CreationDate="2014-01-26T08:00:57.000" UserId="48" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="The management of fresh and usable water resources, desalination, waste-water handling and purification." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2477" RevisionGUID="9c1249b2-1482-4f9c-92c1-ee4d66104834" CreationDate="2014-01-26T12:00:12.750" UserId="450" Text="I read somewhere that one issue (of several) that tends to shorten the lifetime of laptop batteries is heat from other components inside the laptop. So, if you happen to not be &quot;on the move&quot; with your laptop all the time, but instead end up using your laptop at the same desk for several days/weeks in a row, then you should remove the battery (don't forget to turn off your laptop before you do that), and run your laptop from the mains. Then, obviously, put back in the batter when you need to take your laptop on a trip. I did that with one laptop and it seemed to prolong the life of its battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My most recent laptop has a battery-lifetime-extending mode in the BIOS, which, if enabled, prevents the battery from recharging more than 80%. The instruction manual claims that it is the final 20% charging of the battery that causes the most damage to the battery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2478" RevisionGUID="06d639cb-006d-4847-82a3-36696bea27e8" CreationDate="2014-01-27T06:12:27.660" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2479" RevisionGUID="fcfba911-a269-4a77-bbdd-22b84e75f0b9" CreationDate="2014-01-27T06:12:27.660" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2480" RevisionGUID="93ed63a6-ff26-463e-bd76-1b190534e350" CreationDate="2014-01-27T06:14:09.760" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="907cb83a-f13d-4d9b-8b62-5f035d42f7fa" CreationDate="2014-01-27T06:14:09.760" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2479" RevisionGUID="82d7db7d-319a-4cfe-b593-162ed81caa83" CreationDate="2014-01-27T08:10:49.957" UserDisplayName="user1017" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="The study of sustainable production of trees for use as wood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5614" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2479" RevisionGUID="82d7db7d-319a-4cfe-b593-162ed81caa83" CreationDate="2014-01-27T08:10:49.957" Comment="Proposed by 1017 approved by -1 edit id of 229" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2479" RevisionGUID="564cbe59-bc49-4147-a488-9e9edef8a92c" CreationDate="2014-01-27T08:10:49.957" UserId="48" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="The study of sustainable production of trees for wood, fuel, or other uses; silviculture; maintenance of forest ecosystems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="57ed2cf8-57a0-401a-9d94-d2266235f8c6" CreationDate="2014-01-27T08:11:03.223" UserDisplayName="user1017" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="The United States of America, a country on the North American continent between Canada and Mexico." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5617" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="57ed2cf8-57a0-401a-9d94-d2266235f8c6" CreationDate="2014-01-27T08:11:03.223" Comment="Proposed by 1017 approved by 48 edit id of 230" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2482" RevisionGUID="6350fab1-3db6-4e0f-ab04-c0ecf57396ba" CreationDate="2014-01-27T23:20:46.243" UserId="842" Text="I highly suggest buying a **[Kill-a-Watt type device][1]** which measure how much energy is used on an outlet. Test each appliance separately, and see which one is really sucking energy in your home and requires unplugging. It's the fastest and easiest solution to test precisely the devices you use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(Note: This is a repeat of my comment, but I'm not getting any reputation for the votes up)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?rh=n:228013,k:kill%20a%20watt&amp;keywords=kill%20a%20watt&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1390614859&amp;rnid=2941120011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2483" RevisionGUID="aab87b37-7189-4a8d-b7e6-29a5122168b2" CreationDate="2014-01-28T07:12:50.777" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2484" RevisionGUID="507d2244-33b9-4b34-b7ff-2a1a0fb511a4" CreationDate="2014-01-28T07:12:50.777" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2484" RevisionGUID="36900449-818a-4a3b-93ef-7727029f3d03" CreationDate="2014-01-28T07:16:36.957" UserDisplayName="user1017" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="Paying a regular stipend to live in a property that is not one's own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5622" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2484" RevisionGUID="36900449-818a-4a3b-93ef-7727029f3d03" CreationDate="2014-01-28T07:16:36.957" Comment="Proposed by 1017 approved by 99 edit id of 231" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2485" RevisionGUID="7ebfa902-07ba-4af1-bd00-bc6f544b4a04" CreationDate="2014-01-28T11:02:55.753" UserId="476" Text="I hear from alarmists that 1 food calorie costs 10 oil calories. Thereby, [to produce 10 calories of biodisel, you need to spend 1 calorie of oil.][1] Is it all right? It seems contradictory to me. It tells that you spend 1 calorie of biodisel to produce 10 calories of biodisel and spend those to produce 1 calory of food. But, why producing food is 10 times less efficient than producing food calories? How many extra agricultural biofuel lands do we need to produce the crops sustainably? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.berkeleybiodiesel.org/efficiency-biodiesel-fuel.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2485" RevisionGUID="7ebfa902-07ba-4af1-bd00-bc6f544b4a04" CreationDate="2014-01-28T11:02:55.753" UserId="476" Text="Biofuel efficiency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2485" RevisionGUID="7ebfa902-07ba-4af1-bd00-bc6f544b4a04" CreationDate="2014-01-28T11:02:55.753" UserId="476" Text="|biodiesel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2486" RevisionGUID="549eba72-2194-4925-84aa-b964f8f254e6" CreationDate="2014-01-28T13:08:25.443" UserId="476" Text="Instead of buying [Kill-a-Watt type device][1], I advise to share it with your neighbours since you do not need it all the time - you measure how much everything consumes in different modes of use only once and then keep results in mind. You better share the power meter with the others than support the capitalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **simplest method to measure the energy is with your hands**. The power is lost when it is translated into the heat! The devices that produce heat consume more. That is why you can be sure that &quot;sleep&quot; and power-off your PC makes no difference. Just put a hand on the device and it is safe if it is cold. Use Kill-a-Watt-like power meter to check that I am right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one thing bothers me. There are different modes of load ([power factor][2]) and it may happen that though there is no effective load (and Kill-a-Watt indicates 0), the electrical grid (or some types of electricity meter) are severely loaded. My father says that our summer house is inhabitable during winter but electricity meter counts 1 KWh in month and blames the switching power supplies. I am not sure. I would make this a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2482/476&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5628" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2456" RevisionGUID="5c5fcb9b-ebc7-4caf-aa96-542b4b1760e3" CreationDate="2014-01-28T13:33:25.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/428158878250201089" />
  <row Id="5630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2487" RevisionGUID="e81a8653-7b16-481f-9a0a-244a852ce342" CreationDate="2014-01-28T20:54:23.800" UserId="1115" Text="Wood can be &quot;too dry&quot; . It loses waxes and esthers that contribute heat (energy)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2489" RevisionGUID="7d848a70-df25-4e56-94d1-bea45cd51877" CreationDate="2014-01-29T00:56:21.663" UserId="1118" Text="First you have to rinse the dishes before you put them in the dishwasher. This is like washing them without soap. We are whole food/plant based, which means no grease or oil. It's quicker and more efficient for us to hand wash our dishes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="727" RevisionGUID="b9096d83-0b93-49ae-9e70-c15566730cd4" CreationDate="2014-01-29T07:12:16.080" UserId="60" Comment="fixed grammar, improved readibility" Text="Interestingly the cashew fruits are edible and some people do cook them.  Permaculturalists also eat the young leaves cooked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think yield of nuts is the only issue.  The other issues must include long-term soil issues and the like.  While higher yields can in theory support larger populations, that's only one long-term variable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, nuts are probably more sustainable as a class than beans because beans are typically grown as [pioneer species][1] on disturbed soil while nuts are grown as longish term trees.  While beans fix nitrogen, the fact that they are pioneer species works against them in the long run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why permaculturalists disfavor pioneer species for long-term sustainability is that they grow in disturbed soil, which requires ploughing, and this leads to both depletion of nutrients and erosion of soil.  This requires strategies for mitigating both pests and nutrient depletion.  Trees are considered more sustainable because they represent an ecological niche closer to the apex of ecological succession and are thus can be grown in ways which require, long term, far fewer inputs. Of course this is only one factor and how the trees are grown is critically important too. For more on this, see Toby Hemenway's [Gaia's Garden](http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-Second-Home-Scale-Permaculture/dp/1603580298).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short there are a very large number of variables.  Some that I think you should consider are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  How useful are the rest of the parts of the tree?  With cashews, the &quot;apples&quot; can be cooked and eaten (mildly astringent fruit resembling the Indonesian jambu air). With walnuts, the wood is useful. We don't use as much hazelwood as we used to (it's good for bows and for tally sticks). And so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  What is the impact long-term on the soil as it is typically grown?  How much fertilizer goes in?  How much in the way of pesticides?  This is a real issue and it may differ so much from region to region that it makes a clear comparison difficult.  In general organically grown nuts as a class will do better than non-organic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  What is the embodied energy of the labor?  Does it require a lot of migrant labor which comes in via car and moves around (in small groups by car) around a large area every year?  Or does it support more sendantary labor?  Tropical nuts will do better than temperate nuts in this regard, but....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Are you growing them yourself?  There is no more sustainable food than the food you grow and harvest yourself without chemical fertilizers or pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_species" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5642" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2485" RevisionGUID="40a07ae2-b0b6-4b98-ba4d-3912c1f7c468" CreationDate="2014-01-30T04:35:06.250" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/428748180063535104" />
  <row Id="5644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2490" RevisionGUID="1b31f421-4274-4d5e-b10d-0b47a9e4cb72" CreationDate="2014-01-30T11:54:04.847" UserId="106" Text="[Halophytes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halophyte) that can be grown in deserts have been [researched for biofuel production](http://www.miracosta.edu/home/kmeldahl/writing/..%5Carticles/crops.pdf), among other applications, [in aviation](http://www.energypost.eu/exclusive-report-boeing-reveals-biggest-breakthrough-biofuels-ever/).  Such biofuels would not compete with food production and not deplete fresh water resources, which sounds like a highly beneficial situation.  On the other hand, deserts have an important role in ecology and climate.  I would imagine changing large surface areas of desert into croplands would lower the planetary albedo and therefore accelerate heating (although I think it would be small compared to equivalent fossil fuel burning), and [Saharan dust provides essential nutrients to the Amazon rainforest](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100809/full/news.2010.396.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the potential downsides, from a sustainability point of view, of large-scale halophyte biofuel production?  Is it really the revolution that Boeing and co. want us to believe?  Or is there some major catch that the articles are not addressing, that would make this possibility a lot less promising than we might hope?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2490" RevisionGUID="1b31f421-4274-4d5e-b10d-0b47a9e4cb72" CreationDate="2014-01-30T11:54:04.847" UserId="106" Text="What are the risks, sustainability speaking, of halophytes as biofuel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2490" RevisionGUID="1b31f421-4274-4d5e-b10d-0b47a9e4cb72" CreationDate="2014-01-30T11:54:04.847" UserId="106" Text="|biofuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2491" RevisionGUID="76eeb62c-487d-4817-8dd9-551e716fd246" CreationDate="2014-01-30T15:23:58.100" UserId="1126" Text="I have the same problem and I think you should build your system as like double jack thermosephon system and that's I will do know I hope it's work rite choice&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5648" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2491" RevisionGUID="c223d7c7-718c-4b9c-bd01-bbf033e35c7e" CreationDate="2014-01-30T15:49:58.470" UserId="99" Comment="6" />
  <row Id="5649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2491" RevisionGUID="94e682a6-fa78-4686-a8c9-dc6c38a286f5" CreationDate="2014-01-30T16:10:19.193" UserId="1126" Comment="edited body" Text="I have the same problem and I think you should build your system as like double jackrt thermosephon system and that's I will do know I hope it's work rite choice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5652" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2490" RevisionGUID="87f4c829-5396-4f16-9928-4bd5b10818f9" CreationDate="2014-01-30T22:35:03.380" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/429019958631088129" />
  <row Id="5653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2493" RevisionGUID="d9d5bbf3-ce46-43e5-a64a-09865cb598ea" CreationDate="2014-01-31T01:02:08.787" UserId="1128" Text="If you have the property, and resources, make sure your house is tight.  Then, dig a four foot trench that zigzags across a suitable part of your yard, taking care to call Mis Dig for location of underwater electrical, water, and gas lines.  Lay PVC pipe into the trench, making sure it's water tight.  Bring one end up from the ground, above the maximum snow depth, with a u fitting that points the pipe toward the ground.  The other end of the pipe is brought inside your home, with an airtight fitting around the entry point.  Place no-see-em proof screen on the outside pipe end.  Install a wind-tubine driven, whole house fan to expell old air.  The lower inside pressure will cause to outside air to travel through the buried pipe, and pre-warm it before it enters the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I most of the nation, even up where I live in U.P. Michigan, the temperature 4 foot underground remains at about 45 degrees F.  It may not be toasty warm, but the fresh air will be much warmer than the direct, above ground air.  As a bonus, hot supper air is replaced by cooler fresh air that again flows through the underground pipe in summer.  You get free air conditioning, and air heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another very good product is the Evacuated Tube Solar Collector.  It works at any outside temperature.  It's used to heat water, which can surround a heat exchanger through which your outside air gains access to your home, or run the hot water through room radiators to directly heat your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeeeeya; Chief Longwind of the North" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5654" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2444" RevisionGUID="e4b777f5-5465-46ef-b2c9-1ab9a53310ca" CreationDate="2014-01-31T01:35:03.467" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/429065256443588608" />
  <row Id="5655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2493" RevisionGUID="ec74f0c5-3e76-4afe-8471-912a0cabf56c" CreationDate="2014-01-31T03:11:00.363" UserId="48" Comment="Removed signature, as it's automatically displated as a &quot;user card&quot; anyway." Text="If you have the property, and resources, make sure your house is tight.  Then, dig a four foot trench that zigzags across a suitable part of your yard, taking care to call Mis Dig for location of underwater electrical, water, and gas lines.  Lay PVC pipe into the trench, making sure it's water tight.  Bring one end up from the ground, above the maximum snow depth, with a u fitting that points the pipe toward the ground.  The other end of the pipe is brought inside your home, with an airtight fitting around the entry point.  Place no-see-em proof screen on the outside pipe end.  Install a wind-tubine driven, whole house fan to expell old air.  The lower inside pressure will cause to outside air to travel through the buried pipe, and pre-warm it before it enters the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I most of the nation, even up where I live in U.P. Michigan, the temperature 4 foot underground remains at about 45 degrees F.  It may not be toasty warm, but the fresh air will be much warmer than the direct, above ground air.  As a bonus, hot supper air is replaced by cooler fresh air that again flows through the underground pipe in summer.  You get free air conditioning, and air heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another very good product is the Evacuated Tube Solar Collector.  It works at any outside temperature.  It's used to heat water, which can surround a heat exchanger through which your outside air gains access to your home, or run the hot water through room radiators to directly heat your home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5657" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2489" RevisionGUID="47f968eb-d3b4-4721-947e-592ccbf4f620" CreationDate="2014-01-31T08:45:09.290" UserId="99" Comment="7" />
  <row Id="5658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2494" RevisionGUID="ab175f0e-9b36-4e20-9a54-99261dc1bd74" CreationDate="2014-01-31T09:15:27.383" UserId="96" Text="This is an incomplete answer, as I can't go into the ecological value of a patch of desert. But as always you need to take a look at the inputs and outputs of a process. First, you need a lot of infrastructure in the desert:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Tanks and greenhouses for the plants&#xD;&#xA;* pipes to pump the seawaer there&#xD;&#xA;* roads and other infrastructure&#xD;&#xA;* processing equipment for the plants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what will be the inputs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Seawater, consisting of salt and water&#xD;&#xA;* Air, sunlight&#xD;&#xA;* fertilizer&#xD;&#xA;* Diesel or similiar, for transportation and possibly for energy on site&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The outputs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Oil&#xD;&#xA;* other plant matter, containing organic carbon and nutrients&#xD;&#xA;* water evaporation, if you don't build greenhouses&#xD;&#xA;* salty brine (the plants will bind water, leading to a higher concentration of salt)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in the worst case, you bring in chemical fertilizer and water, and produce oil, heaps of rotting plants and a salty desert around your greenhouses, because you have to dump your brine somewhere. You mopve a lot of moisture into  the desert, changing the local microclimate.&#xD;&#xA;In the best case, you use the non-oily plant matter for biogas and fertilizer, and use sunlight and waste heat to further produce usable salt from your brine. Excess plant matter is used to create topsoil, thus fighting desertification. &#xD;&#xA;Either way, you need to build artificial infrastructure with embedded energy and maintain it. Farming is always large scale, so you'll need large scale ponds and possibly large greenhouses. You will certainly change a part of the desert. The questions to ask, then, are: Can this be a change for the better, in some way? Am I willing to expand the effort in energy and money to actually control this change I will make?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2495" RevisionGUID="cc8c23d5-0a25-4596-9bbf-c6f2cae26666" CreationDate="2014-01-31T09:29:04.443" UserId="961" Text="(This is not really an answer, more a mixed bag of additional background information, but it got a bit too much for a comment.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Previously, in Tokyo, we used to split waste into burnable and non-burnable, with the latter going into landfill; that was stopped a few years ago because it was &quot;too expensive&quot;. So now it all gets burnt. (I.e. both categories got combined into what is now called &quot;combustible waste&quot; in your diagram.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another category called &quot;sodai-gomi&quot; (bulky rubbish). The definition of this is over 30cm in any dimension. (See http://www.city.toshima.lg.jp/kankyo/9316/009383.html in Japanese) You have to book the pick-up in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But they won't collect motorbikes, bikes, TVs (cathode-ray, LCD or plasma), air conditioners, fridges, freezers, washing machines, dryers or computers. Those are normally collected by private individuals, who drive around in trucks. They claim they will take stuff for free, and might if it was in really good condition, but generally you pay them a few hundred yen. Stuff in really good condition they will sell, some stuff gets shipped overseas (the Japanese are snobbish consumers, S.E. Asia are not), I imagine scrap metal gets melted down, and the rest is dumped. China made rare metals are political issue a couple of years ago, so recycling is being done as much to avoid blackmail as for economic reasons. Here is one company: http://www.suzuki-industry.co.jp/eng/system/  (sadly, their English is straight out of Google Translate)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way you can get big electronic goods recycled is by contacting the shop that sold it to you. This may be greener (they will find it harder to get away with illegal dumping), but is more expensive; there are some prices halfway down this (English) page: http://www.realestate-tokyo.com/news/garbage-collection-in-tokyo/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most recycling shops will only take goods in excellent condition, or only in a certain category. They pay a few ten or a few hundred yen per item, generally about 10% of what they think they can sell it for. My favourite shop is: http://kingfamily.co.jp/  (sorry, Japanese only). They *will* take everything (though clothes only). They pay 100-150 yen/kg for items they think they can sell, and 1 yen/kg for everything else. The unsellable clothes either get sold to factories (for &quot;sofa filling&quot; when I asked), or shipped overseas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should also point out book recycling. Lots of small 2nd hand book shops, but there is enough profit for a big business: http://www.bookoff.co.jp/en/  (corporate site, but at least it is in English). Book Off are a delight in that they will buy everything (usually at around 10 yen a book); the smaller shops have limited space so just take the pickings. 2nd hand books sell at between 100 and 1000 yen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to the theme of &quot;sustainable&quot;, the real potential is at the other end: the Japanese obsession with packaging. It is no exaggeration to say it is typical to buy individually-wrapped sweets or biscuits, which will be in a box, which is covered in plastic wrap, which will then be put in a bag unless you beg the shop not to give you a bag. Given the very low nutritional value of the food, this is around 99% waste. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supermarkets now either charge 5 yen or so per plastic bag, or give you a 2 yen or so rebate if you say you don't need a bag. Convenience stores do not do this currently.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2496" RevisionGUID="eb949e87-bc43-443b-a07b-e95f1aab5669" CreationDate="2014-01-31T15:16:01.620" UserId="1104" Text="I am looking for a source for info on how effective their recycling programs are, how much gas they use based on spread of trucks to garages, their greening efforts etc.  I live in New York, so even hearing about California or Germany would be useful as a comparison to motivate me to suggest changes locally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5661" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2496" RevisionGUID="eb949e87-bc43-443b-a07b-e95f1aab5669" CreationDate="2014-01-31T15:16:01.620" UserId="1104" Text="Source of comparison of garbage companies sustainability efforts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5662" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2496" RevisionGUID="eb949e87-bc43-443b-a07b-e95f1aab5669" CreationDate="2014-01-31T15:16:01.620" UserId="1104" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5663" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2496" RevisionGUID="05c1fb64-ba5a-4f67-819e-93e28e413b22" CreationDate="2014-01-31T15:21:30.283" UserId="1104" Comment="edited title" Text="Source for comparison of garbage companies sustainability efforts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5664" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2496" RevisionGUID="f9f1195b-ac01-4e43-88f8-c7e65b805ced" CreationDate="2014-02-01T19:35:09.867" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/429699462483968000" />
  <row Id="5665" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2496" RevisionGUID="850acb5e-a980-464b-aeb8-9829ad6d8ce4" CreationDate="2014-02-01T21:19:40.970" UserId="1104" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2498" RevisionGUID="29744000-6908-4268-9c20-bb1094492b34" CreationDate="2014-02-03T06:25:59.083" UserId="659" Text="Expanding on my comment above, but not completely answering the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US airlines alone use about [18 billion gallons/430 million barrels of fuel a year][1] (worldwide? Link is not clear on exactly what they include), which at 6.9 lbs/gallon is about 124 billion pounds or 56Tg. From your link above, &quot;Salicornia produced an average annual crop of 1.7 kilograms per square meter of total biomass and 0.2 kilogram per square meter of oilseed&quot;. Assuming that all energy inputs come from the non-seed biomass and a conversion efficiency of 100% for the oil seeds (since I have no idea), 56Tg at 200g/m2 means 278G m^2 which is 278,000 square kilometres compared to [3 million square kilometres of total farmland][5]. So in the best case the USA could get it's airline fuel from desert covering about 1/10th of it's current farmed area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality those ratios will be worse, [possibly much worse][2]. There is [some discussion here][3] with on-farm consumption numbers anywhere from 1% to 30% (the 1% number is speculative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air transport is about [12% of the total in the USA][4], so you could divide the numbers above by 12% and say that the USA would need at least 2,500,000 square kilometres of farmed desert for its transport needs which is roughly the same as the current farmed area (note that on-farm use is implicitly included here, but not indirect inputs like fertiliser).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I expect the major risk is that biofuels will turn out to be a diversionary tactic used by industries that can't otherwise become sustainable. By pointing at small-scale sustainable biofuel production they can keep burning fossil fuels while they work on the trials, rather than working to become sustainable. That's why it's important to look at what would happen if the current systems were scaled up to provide the complete requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.airlines.org/Pages/Airline-Energy-QA-.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2485/biofuel-efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://energy.edu.pl/oil-5345.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2499" RevisionGUID="6c6f1cfd-ca73-4d1b-a1aa-0bd4f8c2cded" CreationDate="2014-02-03T12:27:58.653" UserId="1136" Text="I live in a 3 bedroom, two bath, large den, kitchen, attached garage Patio home. I live alone except for when my kids are in from college which is rare.I am hot natured so I keep my heat usually set at 60 degrees. However if it is extra cold like zero, i may turn it up a couple or 3  notches and it goes into Aux/emergency mode. I went outside yesterday and looked at my Kentucky Utility's Meter and it was circling as fast as roadrunner running...(in Aux emergency mode), and it was 38 degrees outside...so i went back in and turned the heat off and went back outside and it was barely moving(which was amazing).Im hot natured so the cool house doesn't really bother me.However, since I only use One room in my place would an IHEATER(infrared heater)better serve me? I wonder how fast the meter would turn with one of those plugged in or would it really make a difference. I would of course have the heat turned completely off if I used an iheater.....I'd still keep it set at 60 to 64 degrees...does anyone know for sure? please advise.Thank you," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5670" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2499" RevisionGUID="6c6f1cfd-ca73-4d1b-a1aa-0bd4f8c2cded" CreationDate="2014-02-03T12:27:58.653" UserId="1136" Text="Which is more &quot;meter&quot; efficient? I would like my utility bill to significantly cheaper" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5671" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2499" RevisionGUID="6c6f1cfd-ca73-4d1b-a1aa-0bd4f8c2cded" CreationDate="2014-02-03T12:27:58.653" UserId="1136" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5672" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2499" RevisionGUID="420d873b-7ca1-4bcd-90e7-20e56b25a41c" CreationDate="2014-02-03T13:35:21.777" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/430333691324551168" />
  <row Id="5673" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2499" RevisionGUID="17461762-7bcd-4e1d-a47c-5baccac47373" CreationDate="2014-02-03T14:07:47.277" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy-efficiency|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2500" RevisionGUID="bb3c901a-5afa-4cf6-88bc-479d76389818" CreationDate="2014-02-03T16:32:10.377" UserId="812" Text="You don't make clear what type of heating system you have at present, or what the Kentucky Utility Meter measures (electricity? Gas?). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it sounds as though it may be some sort of heat pump system where &quot;aux / emergency&quot; mode turns on a resistive electrical heater. If this is the case, then you may find the answers to [this question][1] useful, and perhaps [this one][2] in particular. If this is not the type of system that you have, then it would be worth clarifying for people to better help you :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1213/is-it-practical-to-use-an-infrared-space-heater-along-with-a-heat-pump-system&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2325/812" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2501" RevisionGUID="8d53c8f4-82fc-4bfa-936c-d1ad8c92c333" CreationDate="2014-02-03T16:56:39.083" UserId="1104" Text="Are they recyclable at all? can you pull them apart and recycle parts of them?&#xD;&#xA;Are there recyclable alternatives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many offices including mine are using these to brew coffee in the USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally use a [Clever Dripper][1] at work. Which I can pour hot water over steep and throw away the filter/coffee (all compostable).   It is incredibly mess free and *almost* as easy as pushing the kurig machine button.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that don’t know, Clever steeps the coffee like a French press and then has release valve to drain the coffee through a coffee filter into your cup. This gives benefits of Pour over without standing around actually pouring for 5 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sweetmarias.com/clevercoffeedripperpictorial.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2501" RevisionGUID="8d53c8f4-82fc-4bfa-936c-d1ad8c92c333" CreationDate="2014-02-03T16:56:39.083" UserId="1104" Text="Can you recycle Keurig K-Cups?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2501" RevisionGUID="8d53c8f4-82fc-4bfa-936c-d1ad8c92c333" CreationDate="2014-02-03T16:56:39.083" UserId="1104" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2501" RevisionGUID="a7626e72-af8b-4201-b765-f03de6d8e61b" CreationDate="2014-02-03T17:01:45.117" UserId="1104" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="Are they recyclable at all? can you pull them apart and recycle parts of them?&#xD;&#xA;Are there recyclable alternatives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many offices including mine are using these to brew coffee in the USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally use a [Clever Dripper][1] at work. Which I can pour hot water over steep and throw away the filter/coffee (all compostable).   It is incredibly mess free and *almost* as easy as pushing the kurig machine button.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that don’t know, Clever steeps the coffee like a French press and then has release valve to drain the coffee through a coffee filter into your cup. This gives benefits of Pour over without standing around actually pouring for 5 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sweetmarias.com/clevercoffeedripperpictorial.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2498" RevisionGUID="c8730558-d9b0-4292-aa15-2add66b7659e" CreationDate="2014-02-04T01:37:06.953" UserId="659" Comment="removed comment and reference to it, since the question duplicates it." Text="US airlines alone use about [18 billion gallons/430 million barrels of fuel a year][1] (worldwide? Link is not clear on exactly what they include), which at 6.9 lbs/gallon is about 124 billion pounds or 56Tg. From your link above, &quot;Salicornia produced an average annual crop of 1.7 kilograms per square meter of total biomass and 0.2 kilogram per square meter of oilseed&quot;. Assuming that all energy inputs come from the non-seed biomass and a conversion efficiency of 100% for the oil seeds (since I have no idea), 56Tg at 200g/m2 means 278G m^2 which is 278,000 square kilometres compared to [3 million square kilometres of total farmland][5]. So in the best case the USA could get it's airline fuel from desert covering about 1/10th of it's current farmed area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality those ratios will be worse, [possibly much worse][2]. There is [some discussion here][3] with on-farm consumption numbers anywhere from 1% to 30% (the 1% number is speculative).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air transport is about [12% of the total in the USA][4], so you could divide the numbers above by 12% and say that the USA would need at least 2,500,000 square kilometres of farmed desert for its transport needs which is roughly the same as the current farmed area (note that on-farm use is implicitly included here, but not indirect inputs like fertiliser).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I expect the major risk is that biofuels will turn out to be a diversionary tactic used by industries that can't otherwise become sustainable. By pointing at small-scale sustainable biofuel production they can keep burning fossil fuels while they work on the trials, rather than working to become sustainable. That's why it's important to look at what would happen if the current systems were scaled up to provide the complete requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.airlines.org/Pages/Airline-Energy-QA-.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2485/biofuel-efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://energy.edu.pl/oil-5345.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5680" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2501" RevisionGUID="b90867cd-309a-4b9d-8b59-22fcb39e3d92" CreationDate="2014-02-04T14:57:29.677" UserId="1104" Comment="Rephrased Title" Text="Can you recycle single serve coffee pods like K-Cups?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2502" RevisionGUID="7c7042cf-09a7-4759-8a34-045c53f05574" CreationDate="2014-02-04T23:28:01.940" UserId="110" Text="I followed a video on building my own worm farm using styrofoam boxes. The video suggested having a box underneath the main box to collect the worm castings, so it required I put holes in the base of the main box and have an empty box underneath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The instructions also suggested placing fly screen at the base of the top box to stop worms leaving and other insects from infesting from below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have added my worms and everything has been going smoothly and the worms are processing a large tub full of scraps every week, however the lower box is completely empty?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The boxes I am using are about 1 - 1.5 foot deep. I filled the top box with about 3/4 of soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wanting to know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is the bottom box even necessary if I [stack a box on top][1] once the bottom one is full? I can empty out the bottom soil and use in the garden etc, right?&#xD;&#xA;- If it is a good thing to do, is it maybe either the fly screen or I put in too much soil to start with?&#xD;&#xA;- Was it even necessary to put that much soil in to begin with? I am curious because when the container is completely full and I add a top container do I need to semi-fill it with soil?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2449/110" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2502" RevisionGUID="7c7042cf-09a7-4759-8a34-045c53f05574" CreationDate="2014-02-04T23:28:01.940" UserId="110" Text="Purpose of a bottom container beneath a worm farm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2502" RevisionGUID="7c7042cf-09a7-4759-8a34-045c53f05574" CreationDate="2014-02-04T23:28:01.940" UserId="110" Text="|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2503" RevisionGUID="25b6c19a-729f-43a4-bc82-0d7beeb9b490" CreationDate="2014-02-04T23:41:07.270" UserId="659" Text="I think you have ample soil, and that soil is still filling up with castings. But if it's been a couple of weeks and you're not seeing anything, your worms are probably too dry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Australia it's often necessary to water your worm farm as the heat dries them out too much. It's like a pot plant - you have a small amount of soil that doesn't have the thermal mass of your garden, so it gets hotter and colder than the ground does. The polystyrene helps, but when it's really hot (as it has been lately) the soil can dry out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should have newspaper on the top to reduce evaporation. Lift that up and poke around. The active part of the worm farm should be moist. Not soaking wet, but squelchy and moist. The paper on top should be soaked, though, and that will dry out over time. Like many insulation setups, this is all about layers. You have a layer of wet newspaper, then a layer of moist air above it, then the lid of the worm farm, then hot, dry air. Well, &quot;air that's not cool and wet&quot;, because it's cool, wet air that worms like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally vegetables have enough water content that this isn't an issue. But in hot dry weather like Melbourne heatwaves (days of 45°C with 10% humidity) we were watering our worms twice a day, and they were still trying to escape the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That water is what percolates through and gives you &quot;worm juice&quot;. If you're not getting that I suspect your worms are too dry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5685" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2502" RevisionGUID="d99c5a41-7cc4-471b-9157-42d09f513dfd" CreationDate="2014-02-05T04:35:22.927" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/430922576928722944" />
  <row Id="5686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2504" RevisionGUID="2447f035-791b-4a65-b036-144f304649e3" CreationDate="2014-02-05T09:36:56.440" UserId="99" Text="- An extra box below a main box with holes can be used for 2 purposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. Capturing fluids. The holes make sure that a surplus of fluids can escape and your box doesn't get too wet. Usually holes used for draining only are small.&#xD;&#xA;   2. Harvesting compost. When using a continuous flow approach (a.k.a. flow-through approach), you regularly remove compost that is ready to be used from the bottom of your box. In this case there are usually large holes or a mesh at the bottom of your box, optionally with a bar for scraping. More info on [different continuous flow systems here](http://www.wormfarmingrevealed.com/continuous-flow-through-bins.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you use a stacked approach and have a good method of draining fluids (e.g. a tap), then an extra box below your main box is not necessary. Like you said yourself, if you stack you can empty the bottom box once the worms have moved to the upper box. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your approach seems fine. Just make sure the conditions in the bin remain ok (not too moist and not too dry). When you start composting, you can add a little bit of soil so the worms have some space to roam around. There is no need to start a bin with lots of soil but it won't harm the worms either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your third question has already been answered [here](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2449/99). There is no need to add new soil when adding a new box on top." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2505" RevisionGUID="a5bccc90-c527-48c9-83a4-0f1a9de5fd17" CreationDate="2014-02-05T20:21:04.060" UserId="476" Text="[Mertiants say][1] that I can have 1 watt of energy per every 1,5$ invested. Yet, I have heard from people &quot;from the business&quot; that the installation alone (forget mining the ores and smelting the parts) takes so much energy that the wind will never pay it back. I could not figure out the costs from [huge wikipedia article at all][2] at all. Can you expose the balance? How much is it different than one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that there is [a similar question regarding the Solar Power][3]. It introduces &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Energy Returned On (Energy) Invested, also known as EROI and as EROEI.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is calculated by dividing the total energy delivered by the system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; throughout its whole lifetime, divided by the total energy required to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; build, operate, maintain (and ideally decommission) the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I also want answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1013" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2505" RevisionGUID="a5bccc90-c527-48c9-83a4-0f1a9de5fd17" CreationDate="2014-02-05T20:21:04.060" UserId="476" Text="What is investment/outcome ratio for the wind energy (in termis of energy, aka EROEI)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2505" RevisionGUID="a5bccc90-c527-48c9-83a4-0f1a9de5fd17" CreationDate="2014-02-05T20:21:04.060" UserId="476" Text="|energy-efficiency|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2505" RevisionGUID="8ba164dc-d27d-4388-a216-40008100442b" CreationDate="2014-02-05T20:57:12.547" UserId="85" Comment="fixed spelling" Text="[Merchants say][1] that I can have 1 watt of energy per every $1.5 invested. Yet, I have heard from people &quot;from the business&quot; that the installation alone (forget mining the ores and smelting the parts) takes so much energy that the wind will never pay it back. I could not figure out the costs from [this huge Wikipedia article at all][2] at all. Can you expose the balance? How much is it different than one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that there is [a similar question regarding the Solar Power][3]. It introduces &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Energy Returned On (Energy) Invested, also known as EROI and as EROEI.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is calculated by dividing the total energy delivered by the system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; throughout its whole lifetime, divided by the total energy required to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; build, operate, maintain (and ideally decommission) the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I also want answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1013" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5691" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2505" RevisionGUID="8ba164dc-d27d-4388-a216-40008100442b" CreationDate="2014-02-05T20:57:12.547" UserId="85" Comment="fixed spelling" Text="What is investment/outcome ratio for wind energy in terms of energy (EROEI)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2506" RevisionGUID="e945ef45-eabe-4021-8e03-98e3615cf4ca" CreationDate="2014-02-06T02:22:42.170" UserId="1142" Text="General recycling typically won't recycle anything that isn't labeled as such, especially when it comes to synthetic materials like plastic. Even then some recycling labels require you to bring the material to special facilities to have recycled. In fact, only resin number 1 and 2 are common materials that will be picked up curbside. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2507" RevisionGUID="8a33cd63-3259-4dcb-b67e-b66460ad65b0" CreationDate="2014-02-06T08:56:46.867" UserId="188" Text="I keep a lot of my stuff organized in normal disposable plastic bags I have left after shopping at various markets. And it works fine, except after a couple years I often find a bag in shreds, simply falling apart. Biodegradable - reaching their end of life, making a mess in my stuff and not serving their purposes. I'd be better off disposing of them or not getting them in the first place. Sometimes they are labeled, but sometimes there is nothing to signify whether they can last years or will fall apart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a reliable way to distinguish these from non-degradable plastic bags before they start falling apart? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2507" RevisionGUID="8a33cd63-3259-4dcb-b67e-b66460ad65b0" CreationDate="2014-02-06T08:56:46.867" UserId="188" Text="How can I tell biodegradable plastic bags apart from non-biodegradable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2507" RevisionGUID="8a33cd63-3259-4dcb-b67e-b66460ad65b0" CreationDate="2014-02-06T08:56:46.867" UserId="188" Text="|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2508" RevisionGUID="95189267-d1cd-492a-9f22-f253b9d159e0" CreationDate="2014-02-06T09:28:30.640" UserId="99" Text="Most 'regular' plastic bags are made of [Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene_terephthalate) and often have a marking or logo like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bags that are biodegradable usually have a logo on it containing the words 'biodegradable' and/or 'compostable', e.g. something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]![enter image description here][3]![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no logo or description it's most likely PET, but I don't think you can know for sure unless you get the bag tested in a lab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, all types of plastic will degrade very slowly. I don't think biodegradable plastics degrade any faster than 'regular' plastics. Most biodegradable plastics are made from corn-based materials like Polyactic Acid (PLA) and to degrade (in a reasonable timeframe) PLA needs to be heated to very high temperatures for several days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RUmwp.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7TWjJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hL8Vv.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xSIl.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2508" RevisionGUID="1792acfd-03b7-4e44-8f57-dd49e9fe97d4" CreationDate="2014-02-06T09:43:09.087" UserId="99" Comment="added links for more info and more possible types of plastic and markings" Text="Most non-biodegradable plastic bags are made of [Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene_terephthalate) and often have a marking or logo like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may also be a marking that say 'LDPE' or 'PE-LD'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bags that are biodegradable usually have a logo on it containing the words 'biodegradable' and/or 'compostable', e.g. something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]![enter image description here][4]![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no logo or description it's most likely PET, but I don't think you can know for sure unless you get the bag tested in a lab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, all types of plastic will degrade very slowly. I don't think biodegradable plastics degrade much faster than non-biodegradable plastics. that is under normal circumstances. Most biodegradable plastic bags are made from [Polythene film](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_polythene_film) or corn-based materials like [Polyactic Acid (PLA)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid). For biodegradable plastics to degrade (in a reasonable timeframe) they need to be heated to very high temperatures for several days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RUmwp.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CGaoU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7TWjJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hL8Vv.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xSIl.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="f3354a3f-6e62-44c6-ae5d-87466106f6a6" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:06:06.643" UserId="476" Text="I look at the questions here and see what is taught to us by the mainstream propaganda: non-degradable plastic is unsustainable and, thus, we must prefer the biodegradable one. But let us consider the full cycle. What are biodegradable plastics made of? Are they made of the oil, as non-biodegradable? If so, then what is the benefit of degrading more oil? Is turning the oil into biocompost considered sustainable now? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RRR stands for Reduce Reuse Recycle. Is there any cycle there to stick the cycle stickers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1] ![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RUmwp.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7TWjJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5699" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="f3354a3f-6e62-44c6-ae5d-87466106f6a6" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:06:06.643" UserId="476" Text="Why do we think of biodegradable as recycled and sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5700" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="f3354a3f-6e62-44c6-ae5d-87466106f6a6" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:06:06.643" UserId="476" Text="|recycling|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5701" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2507" RevisionGUID="af2ae2e7-9bc5-4c46-8e16-c3d6f9f30a7c" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:35:26.847" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/431511474088198144" />
  <row Id="5702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2505" RevisionGUID="b468206a-5ae4-4f52-9829-cfb68e8acc4f" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:38:32.940" UserId="476" Comment="added 709 characters in body" Text="[Merchants say][1] that I can have 1 watt of energy per every $1.5 invested. Yet, I have heard from people &quot;from the business&quot; that the installation alone (forget mining the ores and smelting the parts) takes so much energy that the wind will never pay it back. I could not figure out the costs from [this huge Wikipedia article at all][2] at all. Can you expose the balance? How much is it different than one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that there is [a similar question regarding the Solar Power][3]. It introduces &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Energy Returned On (Energy) Invested, also known as EROI and as EROEI.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is calculated by dividing the total energy delivered by the system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; throughout its whole lifetime, divided by the total energy required to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; build, operate, maintain (and ideally decommission) the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I also want answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The expert says][4] that [EROEI of 18 for the wind][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumes that the lifespan of of 30 years whereas true lifespan is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10-20 years, which trims the EROEI 12. Furthermore, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the constant wind, which is not true and EROEI of 12 is more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; realistic. Next, the wind does not blow all the time, so your EROEI is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only 5.5. Next, dismantling costs reduce EROEI to 3.0. It is not known&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if concrete production (it is very energy-consuming), used in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; basement, is accounted or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it right correction? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1013&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://crustgroup.livejournal.com/79199.html?thread=10792799#t10792799&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2510" RevisionGUID="1fd183a1-eb96-46f9-88eb-9196cfd9746b" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:42:39.940" UserId="48" Text="Summary&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For offshore wind, we typically get about twenty to thirty times as much energy out as energy in. More for onshore wind. The range in the literature is wide: 4.6-40.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overview&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ratio of energy generated to energy invested will vary, depending on a lot of issues. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, I'll only consider grid-scale wind power, i.e. turbines of 0.5MW rated capacity upwards. That's because they represent the overwhelming majority (by generated power and by economic value) of existing and of potential installation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a case where total energy input is higher (such as offshore wind), and total energy output is low (nearshore, downwind from land), you might get **18** times as much energy generated as put in. But as we only have one commercial offshore wind farm in the world that's reached the end of its design life (Vindeby, built 1991-2), it's still generating electricity (beyond its expected 20-year life), and is quite different to more modern wind farms (a lower-capacity onshore turbine installed very close to shore), these are best estimates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lenzen (1) looked at the quality of deployment site, as well as variations in transport and country of manufacture, and found a range of **4.6-40** for a relatively small turbine of 500-600 kW&lt;sub&gt;peak&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cases where total energy input is low (easy onshore wind site), and total energy output is high (no obstructions, few turbines downwind from other turbines, high wind speeds), you might get &lt;b&gt;40&lt;/b&gt; times as much generated as put in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the literature, you find quite a few references to EPBT, rather than EROEI. EPBT is Energy Pay Back Time: the amount of time, from the start of generation, until the input energy is paid back. As a crude rule of thumb, you can divide this into the expected lifetime to get the ratio of energy out to energy in (EROEI aka EROI).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  **4.6-40** [Lenzen, M. (2004). *Wind turbines in Brazil and Germany: an example of geographical variability in life-cycle assessment.* Applied Energy, 77(2), 119–130.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **23** [Crawford, R. H. (2009). *Life cycle energy and greenhouse emissions analysis of wind turbines and the effect of size on energy yield*. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2653–2660.][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **36** Vestas (2006). *An environmentally friendly investment: Lifecycle Assessment of a V90-3.0 MW onshore wind turbine.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **35-36** Vetas (2006) *Life cycle assessment of offshore and onshore sited wind power plants based on Vestas V90-3.0 MW turbines.* 2nd edition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0306-2619%2803%2900105-3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1013" RevisionGUID="a765189d-3571-431c-a681-ee55bc000be3" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:52:58.600" UserId="48" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="**Which solar-electric technology had the highest EROEI?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy Returned On (Energy) Invested, also known as EROI and as EROEI, has become something of a fashionable metric \*&lt;sup&gt;but see footnote&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is calculated by dividing the total energy delivered by the system throughout its whole lifetime, divided by the total energy required to build, operate, maintain (and ideally decommission) the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Within scope for this question:&#xD;&#xA;PV - photovoltaics, CPV - concentrating photovoltaics, and [CSP - Concentrated Solar-thermal Power driving a turbine][1] (pictured below), are in scope, along with anything I haven't heard of that converts sunlight into electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Out of scope:&#xD;&#xA;Attempts at doing it purely through prices do not answer the question: price is emphatically not a useful measure of total energy input, because the factors of production (land, capital, enterprise, labour) are not zero-cost, and because the ratio of energy to other inputs varies hugely by manufacturing technique and by product. So that approach is explicitly out of scope, because it's just plain wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar thermal (to deliver heat rather than electricity), and indirect solar generation such as wind, wave and biomass, are also out of scope, as are tidal, geothermal and nuclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to specific peer-reviewed energy studies where possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;\* footnote on EROEI: Whether or not EROEI has much significance is disputed:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;sub&gt; some tie the very existence of civilisation as we know it to society achieving some minimum arbitrary level;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;sub&gt;others consider that as long as a generation source has a value greater than one, then the economics matter, and the EROEI does not (except solely for its impact on the economics). IF EROEI is less than one, then it can still be useful: not as a generation source, but as a store or conversion of energy.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://solareis.anl.gov/guide/solar/csp/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/juNgV.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2505" RevisionGUID="87dd1db0-ad45-4291-b287-d9fb4b12e088" CreationDate="2014-02-06T19:59:22.740" UserId="476" Comment="EROEI for wind is more 3 than 18" Text="[Merchants say][1] that I can have 1 watt of energy per every $1.5 invested. Yet, I have heard from people &quot;from the business&quot; that the installation alone (forget mining the ores and smelting the parts) takes so much energy that the wind will never pay it back. I could not figure out the costs from [this huge Wikipedia article at all][2] at all. Can you expose the balance? How much is it different than one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that there is [a similar question regarding the Solar Power][3]. It introduces &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Energy Returned On (Energy) Invested, also known as EROI and as EROEI.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is calculated by dividing the total energy delivered by the system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; throughout its whole lifetime, divided by the total energy required to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; build, operate, maintain (and ideally decommission) the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I also want answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The expert says][4] that [EROEI of 18 for the wind][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumes turbine lifespan of 30 years whereas it is 10-20 years indeed,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which trims the EROEI at 12. Furthermore, the constant wind is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumed, which is not true and EROEI is only 5.5. Next, dismantling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; costs reduce EROEI to 3.0. It is not known if concrete production (it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is very energy-consuming), used in the basement, is accounted or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it right correction? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1013&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://crustgroup.livejournal.com/79199.html?thread=10792799#t10792799&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2511" RevisionGUID="66750eb9-b6cb-41b7-ba21-26d980a6f981" CreationDate="2014-02-06T20:25:33.340" UserId="659" Text="I see two main aspects to the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, for a disposable object it's better to use a biodegradable plastic than one that is effectively permanent so that after the disposable object is used it doesn't stick around. That's true even if the biodegradable plastic is made from equally unsustainable materials. Our seas are already full of [disposable plastic items][1], and this is a way to reduce the scale of that problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, there's the question of how the biodegradable plastics are made. Many are made from non-renewable materials, mostly oil, but there's a growing industry making them from renewable materials. Those are often called bioplastics in the industry. See for example http://www.biodegradableplastics.org/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, not all plastic substitutes are plastic. It's possible to buy many disposable items made from wood (often bamboo, like the ubiquitous [plates and cutlery][2]) or buy a non-disposable alternative (like a pottery coffee cup).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/plastic-ocean/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.restaurantware.com/bamboo-disposables/?sort=bestselling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="472daaf0-1c48-4fad-b519-4b8d40809ba7" CreationDate="2014-02-06T20:38:26.280" UserId="476" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="I look at the questions here and see what is taught to us by the mainstream propaganda: non-degradable plastic is unsustainable and, thus, we must prefer the biodegradable one. But let us consider the full cycle. What are biodegradable plastics made of? Are they made of the oil, as non-biodegradable? If so, then what is the benefit of degrading more oil? Is turning the oil into biocompost considered sustainable now? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RRR stands for Reduce Reuse Recycle. Is there any cycle there to stick the cycle stickers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1] ![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean that we should have the garbage sorting and recycling facilities used everywhere, which can recycle non-biodegradable materials as well. Should we still make everything of biodegradable materials?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RUmwp.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7TWjJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2511" RevisionGUID="b1520b6f-7a8d-48d9-8bb2-f2351f9c888b" CreationDate="2014-02-06T21:35:37.313" UserId="659" Comment="added note on recycling" Text="I see two main aspects to the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, for a disposable object it's better to use a biodegradable plastic than one that is effectively permanent so that after the disposable object is used it doesn't stick around. That's true even if the biodegradable plastic is made from equally unsustainable materials. Our seas are already full of [disposable plastic items][1], and this is a way to reduce the scale of that problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, there's the question of how the biodegradable plastics are made. Many are made from non-renewable materials, mostly oil, but there's a growing industry making them from renewable materials. Those are often called bioplastics in the industry. See for example http://www.biodegradableplastics.org/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, not all plastic substitutes are plastic. It's possible to buy many disposable items made from wood (often bamboo, like the ubiquitous [plates and cutlery][2]) or buy a non-disposable alternative (like a pottery coffee cup).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit: &quot;recycling&quot; plastics often means down-cycling them significantly, and recycling often means shipping them to China to be sorted and cleaned in horrible conditions. So (as usual) there's a hierarchy of best to worst for each use, and some uses can be substituted (the best disposable coffee cup is not as good as the best reused one, for example). And often the behaviour of the user is a key part of it (buying new &quot;reusable&quot; bags at the supermarket every time you shop defeats the point).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three R's are the basis of this, and the main point is that recycling is the last, least favoured option. Reduce, reuse, then if you can't do anything else, recycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/plastic-ocean/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.restaurantware.com/bamboo-disposables/?sort=bestselling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="d72da2aa-90ee-482c-a975-a0fdc7539a6e" CreationDate="2014-02-06T22:14:27.000" UserId="1148" Text="First - claimed &quot;translation&quot; is not a translation. I said nothing about &quot;constant wind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;2-nd. If you calculate EROEI of standalone wind turbine on the island in the middle of the Pacific ocean, you can get 30 or 40.&#xD;&#xA;If you place 100000 of wind turbines into middle of USA and connect them to the grid, you need to take into account that you need to have equivalent reserve capacity provided by the traditional power stations. Big chunk of that reserve should be &quot;hot&quot; as in running at reduced power (meaning much lower fuel efficiency). Rest should be provided by power stations with short cold startup meaning natural gas turbines. Which are 1) expensive and 2) not as efficient as traditional steam turbines. Denmark is extremely lucky in this respect - they can use hydro power from Sweden and Norway and don't have to have reserve capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another concern is dismantling costs. (you remember 14000 abandoned broken turbines in California?) You need to get crane big enough to the &quot;big&quot; wind turbine. Then you need to work for 3 days to 4 weeks, as you need low wind conditions in high wind area to operate crane reaching to 100-150m and capable of lifting 75-100 tonnes. Then there are additional costs of experienced workers to do the dismantling at 150m off the ground. Resulting cost of just getting generator from the top of the mast will easily reach $1M.&#xD;&#xA;So just to pay for it's dismantling 2MW turbine needs to work for more than 7 years out of its 20 years of the lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;Yes, then if you are lucky you can reuse foundation (1000+ tonnes of reinforced concrete) and mast (150 tonnes of steel). Or you will need to remove them too.&#xD;&#xA;If you add recycling of the turbine, foundation and mast you probably will need additional funding over what turbine earned during it's lifetime. (you remember 14000 of abandoned turbines? They never earned enough to even pay for proper maintenance!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding the fact that EROEI for turbines is usually based on 30 years at utilization greater than 0.3, while actual turbine life is less than 20 years and actually closer to 15 years, and actual average utilization is under 0.2, just this two things drop the EROEI of wind turbines from 18 to 6. Add reserve grid capacity and you will be lucky to get over 1. Add dismantling - and you will be firmly under 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that probably there are some factors I don't know regarding wind turbines. So there could be mistakes in my calculations. But still even if any one of the angles proves to be reasonable - wind power EROEI is greatly exaggerated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Just couple of weeks ago one of the biggest wind farm operators in Europe announced that they are not able to pay their investors: http://laroucheirishbrigade.com/2014/01/24/germanys-biggest-wind-energy-operator-goes-bust/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5714" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="9b1ef096-969d-4d17-8687-0f9ed38d5979" CreationDate="2014-02-06T22:35:27.303" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/431556773217329152" />
  <row Id="5716" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="c238bd98-5be0-406d-b371-27d032379a3b" CreationDate="2014-02-07T03:23:54.060" UserId="15" Comment="Clarified title as the question seems to exclude other biodegradable options like corn starch" Text="Why do we think of biodegradable plastic as recycled and sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="1fcd0751-9bb3-48e5-8bdc-774c02bafbab" CreationDate="2014-02-07T03:45:01.837" UserId="961" Comment="Fixed the years (it started in 2011, not 2012, according to Kickstarter page, but then took 18 months to start shipping(?) ) and also added a link to the news of shipping." Text="To contribute to the options offered by Elssar's answer, here is an interesting thing I read about just a few days ago:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Filabot** is a project of compact 3D printer that directly recycles plastic objects at home to create new shapes. It was launched for funding on the 19th of December 2011 [on Kickstarter][1] and tripled its goal by the 23rd of January 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the homepage of the project: http://filabot.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They [apparently shipped the devices][2] to the project backers during 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rocknail/filabot-plastic-filament-maker&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rocknail/filabot-plastic-filament-maker/posts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5718" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="1fcd0751-9bb3-48e5-8bdc-774c02bafbab" CreationDate="2014-02-07T03:45:01.837" Comment="Proposed by 961 approved by 15, -1 edit id of 233" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="324" RevisionGUID="8a2b064c-f2b5-4ec1-a6b1-684a92c124fc" CreationDate="2014-02-07T03:45:01.837" UserId="48" Comment="Fixed the years (it started in 2011, not 2012, according to Kickstarter page, but then took 18 months to start shipping(?) ) and also added a link to the news of shipping." Text="To contribute to the options offered by Elssar's answer, here is an interesting thing I read about just a few days ago:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Filabot** is a project of compact 3D printer that directly recycles plastic objects at home to create new shapes. It was launched for funding on the 19th of December 2011 [on Kickstarter][1] and tripled its goal by the 23rd of January 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the homepage of the project: http://filabot.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They [apparently shipped the devices][2] to at least some of the project backers during 2013.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rocknail/filabot-plastic-filament-maker&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rocknail/filabot-plastic-filament-maker/posts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2499" RevisionGUID="fe29f974-e52b-4084-8c2a-54af5ba61a51" CreationDate="2014-02-07T03:50:53.500" UserId="15" Comment="clarified that heating is electric. Tidied up." Text="I live in a 3 bedroom, two bath, large den, kitchen, attached garage Patio home. I live alone except for when my kids are in from college which is rare. I am hot natured so I keep my electric heating usually set at 60 degrees. However if it is extra cold like zero, I may turn it up 2 or 3 notches and it goes into Aux/emergency mode. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went outside yesterday and looked at my Kentucky Utility's Meter and it was circling as fast as roadrunner running...(in Aux emergency mode), and it was 38 degrees outside...so I went back in and turned the heat off and went back outside and it was barely moving (which was amazing). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm hot natured so the cool house doesn't really bother me. However, since I only use one room in my place would an IHEATER (infrared heater) better serve me? I wonder how fast the meter would turn with one of those plugged in or would it really make a difference. I would of course have the heat turned completely off if I used an iheater.....I'd still keep it set at 60 to 64 degrees... does anyone know for sure? Please advise. Thank you," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2510" RevisionGUID="20c0f3b0-1562-4c6a-bfae-a9366c0f92c6" CreationDate="2014-02-07T04:47:06.020" UserId="48" Comment="added 885 characters in body" Text="Summary&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We typically get about **20-30** times as much energy out as energy in. The range in the literature is wide: **4.6-40**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overview&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ratio of energy generated to energy invested will vary, depending on a lot of issues. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, I'll only consider grid-scale wind power, i.e. turbines of 0.5MW rated capacity upwards. That's because they represent the overwhelming majority (by generated power and by economic value) of existing and of potential installation. The Lifecycle assessments in the references include materials, construction, foundations and decommissioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source: (4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a case where total energy input is higher (such as offshore wind), and total energy output is low (nearshore, downwind from land), you might get **18** times as much energy generated as put in. But as we only have one commercial offshore wind farm in the world that's reached the end of its design life (Vindeby, built 1991-2), it's still generating electricity (beyond its expected 20-year life), and is quite different to more modern wind farms (a lower-capacity onshore turbine installed very close to shore), these are best estimates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lenzen (1) looked at the quality of deployment site, as well as variations in transport and country of manufacture, and found a range of **4.6-40** for a relatively small turbine of 500-600 kW&lt;sub&gt;peak&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cases where total energy input is low (easy onshore wind site), and total energy output is high (no obstructions, few turbines downwind from other turbines, high wind speeds), you might get &lt;b&gt;40&lt;/b&gt; times as much generated as put in. We don't have many years experience of modern 3MW turbines, so it's unclear whether the lifetime is more likely to be 20 years, or 30. Standard calculations assume 20 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Larger turbines make for a lower environmental impact per unit energy generated (2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the literature, you find quite a few references to EPBT, rather than EROEI. EPBT is Energy Pay Back Time: the amount of time, from the start of generation, until the input energy is paid back. As a crude rule of thumb, you can divide this into the expected lifetime to get the ratio of energy out to energy in (EROEI aka EROI).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  **4.6-40**, Capacity factors 18-70% , [Lenzen, M. (2004). *Wind turbines in Brazil and Germany: an example of geographical variability in life-cycle assessment.* Applied Energy, 77(2), 119–130.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Caduff, M., Huijbregts, M. a J., Althaus, H.-J., Koehler, A., &amp; Hellweg, S. (2012). *Wind power electricity: the bigger the turbine, the greener the electricity?* Environmental Science &amp; Technology, 46(9), 4725–33.][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **21-23** 850kW &amp; 3MW, 20-year design-life, capacity factor 33-34% [Crawford, R. H. (2009). *Life cycle energy and greenhouse emissions analysis of wind turbines and the effect of size on energy yield*. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2653–2660.][4] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **36**, 20-year design-life, capacity factor 30%. Vestas (2006). *An environmentally friendly investment: Lifecycle Assessment of a V90-3.0 MW onshore wind turbine.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **35-36** 20-year design-life, onshore capacity factor 30%, offshore 54%. Vestas (2006) *Life cycle assessment of offshore and onshore sited wind power plants based on Vestas V90-3.0 MW turbines.* 2nd edition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iaBfH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0306-2619%2803%2900105-3&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es204108n&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.008" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="4d0198c2-355b-428f-896c-d8b921bf34f9" CreationDate="2014-02-07T20:08:30.730" UserId="48" Comment="added 1549 characters in body" Text="First - claimed &quot;translation&quot; is not a translation. I said nothing about &quot;constant wind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;2-nd. If you calculate EROEI of standalone wind turbine on the island in the middle of the Pacific ocean, you can get 30 or 40.&#xD;&#xA;If you place 100000 of wind turbines into middle of USA and connect them to the grid, you need to take into account that you need to have equivalent reserve capacity provided by the traditional power stations. Big chunk of that reserve should be &quot;hot&quot; as in running at reduced power (meaning much lower fuel efficiency). Rest should be provided by power stations with short cold startup meaning natural gas turbines. Which are 1) expensive and 2) not as efficient as traditional steam turbines. Denmark is extremely lucky in this respect - they can use hydro power from Sweden and Norway and don't have to have reserve capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another concern is dismantling costs. (you remember 14000 abandoned broken turbines in California?) You need to get crane big enough to the &quot;big&quot; wind turbine. Then you need to work for 3 days to 4 weeks, as you need low wind conditions in high wind area to operate crane reaching to 100-150m and capable of lifting 75-100 tonnes. Then there are additional costs of experienced workers to do the dismantling at 150m off the ground. Resulting cost of just getting generator from the top of the mast will easily reach $1M.&#xD;&#xA;So just to pay for it's dismantling 2MW turbine needs to work for more than 7 years out of its 20 years of the lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;Yes, then if you are lucky you can reuse foundation (1000+ tonnes of reinforced concrete) and mast (150 tonnes of steel). Or you will need to remove them too.&#xD;&#xA;If you add recycling of the turbine, foundation and mast you probably will need additional funding over what turbine earned during it's lifetime. (you remember 14000 of abandoned turbines? They never earned enough to even pay for proper maintenance!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding the fact that EROEI for turbines is usually based on 30 years at utilization greater than 0.3, while actual turbine life is less than 20 years and actually closer to 15 years, and actual average utilization is under 0.2, just this two things drop the EROEI of wind turbines from 18 to 6. Add reserve grid capacity and you will be lucky to get over 1. Add dismantling - and you will be firmly under 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that probably there are some factors I don't know regarding wind turbines. So there could be mistakes in my calculations. But still even if any one of the angles proves to be reasonable - wind power EROEI is greatly exaggerated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Just couple of weeks ago one of the biggest wind farm operators in Europe announced that they are not able to pay their investors: http://laroucheirishbrigade.com/2014/01/24/germanys-biggest-wind-energy-operator-goes-bust/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I'm an author of that LJ post.&#xD;&#xA;Regarding parts that are not EROEI - They actually should be accounted for in EROEI. You need to spend lots of energy to build crane capable of lifting 100 tonnes to 100 meters. You need to spend lots of energy to build fleet of concrete mixers capable to deliver 1000+ tonnes of concrete to the remote mountain. Add concrete pumps, rebar, fuel, new roads to remote mountains, and all of the building machines required to comission wind turbine. It all will come to loads of energy.&#xD;&#xA;There is no easy direct way to account for that energy. But it could be roughly estimated from the monetary cost. As money are a common denominator for everything.&#xD;&#xA;So we can try to convert money into energy. 20 to 30% of price goes to profits. 40 to 50% goes into taxes. Rest we can divide by price of kWh and get rough total energy estimate. So 1000 USD which is usual price for tonn of steel will come to be roughly equivalent to more than 5000 kWh of electrical energy @ $0.04 per kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the estimates and calculations were done by me based on numbers from Wikipedia or from the links on the first page of Google search. I'm not paid to do this research so I can't spend thousands of dollars to purchase original scientific studies that can contain any additional substantiation for my estimates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. Just in case, I've designed power and cooling for couple of the supercomputers that are still present in the Top500.org list after several years. So my estimates tend to be accurate enough most of the time..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2513" RevisionGUID="5a5efdce-c42b-4b03-b40f-b29b39c1a02d" CreationDate="2014-02-07T20:28:05.420" UserId="1148" Comment="added 714 characters in body" Text="First - claimed &quot;translation&quot; is not a translation. I said nothing about &quot;constant wind&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;2-nd. If you calculate EROEI of standalone wind turbine on the island in the middle of the Pacific ocean, you can get 30 or 40.&#xD;&#xA;If you place 100000 of wind turbines into middle of USA and connect them to the grid, you need to take into account that you need to have equivalent reserve capacity provided by the traditional power stations. Big chunk of that reserve should be &quot;hot&quot; as in running at reduced power (meaning much lower fuel efficiency). Rest should be provided by power stations with short cold startup meaning natural gas turbines. Which are 1) expensive and 2) not as efficient as traditional steam turbines. Denmark is extremely lucky in this respect - they can use hydro power from Sweden and Norway and don't have to have reserve capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another concern is dismantling costs. (you remember 14000 abandoned broken turbines in California?) You need to get crane big enough to the &quot;big&quot; wind turbine. Then you need to work for 3 days to 4 weeks, as you need low wind conditions in high wind area to operate crane reaching to 100-150m and capable of lifting 75-100 tonnes. Then there are additional costs of experienced workers to do the dismantling at 150m off the ground. Resulting cost of just getting generator from the top of the mast will easily reach $1M.&#xD;&#xA;So just to pay for it's dismantling 2MW turbine needs to work for more than 7 years out of its 20 years of the lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;Yes, then if you are lucky you can reuse foundation (1000+ tonnes of reinforced concrete) and mast (150 tonnes of steel). Or you will need to remove them too.&#xD;&#xA;If you add recycling of the turbine, foundation and mast you probably will need additional funding over what turbine earned during it's lifetime. (you remember 14000 of abandoned turbines? They never earned enough to even pay for proper maintenance!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding the fact that EROEI for turbines is usually based on 30 years at utilization greater than 0.3, while actual turbine life is less than 20 years and actually closer to 15 years, and actual average utilization is under 0.2, just this two things drop the EROEI of wind turbines from 18 to 6. Add reserve grid capacity and you will be lucky to get over 1. Add dismantling - and you will be firmly under 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that probably there are some factors I don't know regarding wind turbines. So there could be mistakes in my calculations. But still even if any one of the angles proves to be reasonable - wind power EROEI is greatly exaggerated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Just couple of weeks ago one of the biggest wind farm operators in Europe announced that they are not able to pay their investors: http://laroucheirishbrigade.com/2014/01/24/germanys-biggest-wind-energy-operator-goes-bust/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, I'm an author of that LJ post.&#xD;&#xA;Regarding parts that are not EROEI - They actually should be accounted for in EROEI. You need to spend lots of energy to build crane capable of lifting 100 tonnes to 100 meters. You need to spend lots of energy to build fleet of concrete mixers capable to deliver 1000+ tonnes of concrete to the remote mountain. Add concrete pumps, rebar, fuel, new roads to remote mountains, and all of the building machines required to comission wind turbine. It all will come to loads of energy.&#xD;&#xA;There is no easy direct way to account for that energy. But it could be roughly estimated from the monetary cost. As money are a common denominator for everything.&#xD;&#xA;So we can try to convert money into energy. 20 to 30% of price goes to profits. 40 to 50% goes into taxes. Rest we can divide by price of kWh and get rough total energy estimate. So 1000 USD which is usual price for tonn of steel will come to be roughly equivalent to more than 5000 kWh of electrical energy @ $0.04 per kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the estimates and calculations were done by me based on numbers from Wikipedia or from the links on the first page of Google search. I'm not paid to do this research so I can't spend thousands of dollars to purchase original scientific studies that can contain any additional substantiation for my estimates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS. Just in case, I've designed power and cooling for couple of the supercomputers that are still present in the Top500.org list after several years. So my estimates tend to be accurate enough most of the time...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS. I don't understand how comment/answer system works on this site. So probably in couple of days I will forget this discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPPS. To add to this answer/discussion I would say that many of the links provided in other answers show data &quot;aquired&quot; by wind turbine manufacturers. I was unable so far to find actual raw data on what is the actual price of wind turbine per mW of capacity? What is actual price of wind turbine _installation_ per MW of capacity?&#xD;&#xA;PPPPS. Don't forget that sustainability is not only about fossil fuels. (it is still unproven that crude oil is fossil fuel...) Sustainability is also about if you actually can provide more &quot;sustainable&quot; energy than is available by other means." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2515" RevisionGUID="075d0c70-3588-42ed-a64d-ebb409cb2fcc" CreationDate="2014-02-07T21:04:01.730" UserId="1148" Text="One of the most efficient insulation materials I know is foamed polyethylene with aluminum foil on one of the sides. It provides good heat insulation while providing sound insulation.&#xD;&#xA;In any case you need to calculate actual heat transfer ratio of the insulation, cost of insulation upgrade, how much you will save taking into account cost of the insulation upgrade and risk of breaking your neck while upgrading insulation.&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, if there is any kind of risk that you'll break your neck while upgrading insulation, &#xD;&#xA;you need to hire someone to risk their lives, so allow for additional insurance costs :-) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="b336940d-6dc8-4e92-aa64-b5742bb38c5e" CreationDate="2014-02-07T21:10:23.640" UserId="277" Text="Many people do their weekly groceries at large supermarkets and consume a lot of plastic bags. However, given the fact that I already know that I am going to buy a-week worth of food and supplies what can I do to avoid plastic bags? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="b336940d-6dc8-4e92-aa64-b5742bb38c5e" CreationDate="2014-02-07T21:10:23.640" UserId="277" Text="What does it take to stop the use of plastic bags in big grocery stores?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="b336940d-6dc8-4e92-aa64-b5742bb38c5e" CreationDate="2014-02-07T21:10:23.640" UserId="277" Text="|recycling|waste|plastic|plastic-alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2518" RevisionGUID="170ec6ae-b456-4b6f-a59e-feedd11a9b81" CreationDate="2014-02-07T21:23:29.063" UserId="277" Text="Reusable bags, mesh bags and a personal shopping cart! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can use the mesh bags for fresh produce and loose items that needs to be scanned and the reusable bags to group the rest. A shopping cart comes handy because it is much easier to roll the reusable bags. It also provides a second option if any of the items don't fit the reusable bags, one can always toss them in his/her own shopping cart instead of any plastic bags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a personal cart also saves time from finding/ returning the store's cart back properly if not leaving it buy the side of the parking lot and contributing to a messy clutter of shopping carts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tip: A knitted mesh bag with large holes works great for loose items like apples and oranges that needs to be scanned at the cashier...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I answered my own question, but please let me know if you have any comments, suggestions, other opinions. You can also vote up if you think it is a good solution. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2520" RevisionGUID="81be6d12-dbfa-4898-b817-a6e0ad3dc71e" CreationDate="2014-02-07T23:27:22.330" UserId="1151" Text="I live in Mexico and use only water collected from the roof during the 3 month rainy season - we soap the dishes first, no runnning water, then rinse them all at the same time. For two people, mixed diet (some meat and fish) this rarely takes more than 2 gallons at a time, often less for a day's worth of dishes. Dishwashers are way to costly (purchase cost wise) to consider and hard to get - I'd have to drive 40k to look at one, and in any case, a cash expenditure like that is a heavy opportunity loss on it's own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say stay with handwashing and practice getting to minimum water use using pre-soap and scrub method followd by rinse unless you have already spent the money on an up-to-date dishwasher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I come to the US quite often. Here I see folks pre-rinse under running water more often than no, just because that's their habit (maybe from having earlier dishwahers??). And I think - hey dude - you should try living with 40.000 liters for the year and see what happens then! You'd be out of water before 4 months is up! And, consider this too - half your potable water goes down the toilet too!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I guess it is a little contextual, no?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2511" RevisionGUID="afe5ccb1-9a49-4a22-9049-3bb80a963740" CreationDate="2014-02-08T00:55:45.657" UserId="659" Comment="expanded on why recycling bioplastics is still the least favoured option." Text="I see two main aspects to the answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, for a disposable object it's better to use a biodegradable plastic than one that is effectively permanent so that after the disposable object is used it doesn't stick around. That's true even if the biodegradable plastic is made from equally unsustainable materials. Our seas are already full of [disposable plastic items][1], and this is a way to reduce the scale of that problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, there's the question of how the biodegradable plastics are made. Many are made from non-renewable materials, mostly oil, but there's a growing industry making them from renewable materials. Those are often called bioplastics in the industry. See for example http://www.biodegradableplastics.org/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, not all plastic substitutes are plastic. It's possible to buy many disposable items made from wood (often bamboo, like the ubiquitous [plates and cutlery][2]) or buy a non-disposable alternative (like a pottery coffee cup).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit: &quot;recycling&quot; plastics often means down-cycling them significantly (eg food-grade plastic to a park bench), and recycling often means shipping them to China to be sorted and cleaned in horrible conditions. So (as usual) there's a hierarchy of best to worst for each use, and some uses can be substituted (the best disposable coffee cup is not as good as the best reused one, for example). And often the behaviour of the user is a key part of it (buying new &quot;reusable&quot; bags at the supermarket every time you shop defeats the point).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even biodegradable items generally need something in order to biodegrade, whether that's sunlight, water, or some living thing to eat them. Generally rubbish is buried or incinerated, which means that biodegradable stuff quite likely will not get the chance to do that (methane emissions from landfills come from biodegradable stuff breaking down long after it's buried, for example). So unless your recycler collects and separates the biodegradable items and either sends them to someone who can recycle them (in which case them being biodegradable doesn't actually matter) or else composts them, they're likely to be considered non-recyclable and sent to landfill. I fear that composting counts as recycling to many people, but IMO it's an examplar of why &quot;recycling&quot; is the worst option in the three R's. In some ways it's a nice clean cycle: plants to bioplastic to useful thing to compost to more plants. Hooray! Unfortunately every step along that path probably involves consuming non-renewable resources (farms use oil, for example). It's much better to make something once and use it for as long as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three R's are the basis of this, and the main point is that recycling is the last, least favoured option. Reduce, reuse, then if you can't do anything else, recycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/plastic-ocean/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.restaurantware.com/bamboo-disposables/?sort=bestselling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2521" RevisionGUID="5b6d576d-4dcf-4d79-ac95-6e02d7f4ff45" CreationDate="2014-02-08T08:05:56.620" UserId="450" Text="Some countries have introduced a tax on plastic shopping bags. For example, in Ireland the tax is 0.15 EURO (about 12p in English money or $0.20 in American money). Within a short space of time, shops offered customers a choice between: (1) free paper bags, or (2) heavy-duty reusable bags (usually made of cloth, but sometimes made from thick plastic) for 1 or 2 EURO per bag. The traditional thin, disposable plastic bag virtually disappeared from shops. I suspect that the financial incentive of &quot;I don't want to have to pay a few EURO for bags to take my shopping home&quot; caused lots of people to remember to take reusable bags with them whenever they went shopping. And I also suspect that that is the goal the government had been hoping to achieve (rather than to raise lots of money from the new tax).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, one way to solve the problem on a large scale is for the government of a country to introduce a tax on plastic shopping bags. If your country does not already have such a scheme in place to give you a motivation to remember to take reusable bags with you when you go shopping, then you could introduce something akin to a &quot;swear box&quot; in your household. Whenever you return home with a newly acquired plastic bag, you pay a fine (say, 1 EURO/dollar/pound) per bag into the swear box, and periodically you donate the contents of the swear box to a charity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2522" RevisionGUID="62837229-cb25-4bc4-94db-541b25e95580" CreationDate="2014-02-08T11:26:19.460" UserId="659" Text="What does the slogan/sticker &quot;reduce reuse recycle&quot; mean? Some people seem to use it as a list of options, others as a hierarchy. But the symbol is of a cycle, so is the order really important?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![reduce-reuse-recyle][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rJ1Lo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2522" RevisionGUID="62837229-cb25-4bc4-94db-541b25e95580" CreationDate="2014-02-08T11:26:19.460" UserId="659" Text="What does &quot;reduce reuse recycle&quot; actually mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2522" RevisionGUID="62837229-cb25-4bc4-94db-541b25e95580" CreationDate="2014-02-08T11:26:19.460" UserId="659" Text="|recycling|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2523" RevisionGUID="93835a03-9d6f-4eb7-94cf-2aa0d8df1628" CreationDate="2014-02-08T14:10:56.490" UserId="164" Text="The [*mantra*][1] of ***Reduce - Reuse - Recycle*** is one of the most common in environmentalism/sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mantra and thus logo distils the essence of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reduce what you use, reuse what you can, recycle what you can't [reuse]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, your primary responsibility to the environment and to the generations to come is to minimise your use of the worlds resources (*Reduce*). An example of this is turning off the lights in rooms you aren't using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where you cannot avoid using those resources in the first place, your secondary responsibility is to get maximum utility out of those resources (*Reuse*). For example, if you forget to take your reusable shopping bag to the supermarket and have to take a new bag, then reuse those shopping bags as bin liners. Reusing effectively reduces your need for replacements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, where you cannot maximise the utility of those resources yourself, you should facilitate others to maximise their utility (*Recycle*). For example, you may not be able to make further use of your old coke bottles, but if they are correctly recycled then the plastic can be melted down or shredded to form [new products][2] made of plastic. Recycling is effectively passing on items to other people for them to reuse and can prevent materials from ending up in landfill (just big holes in the ground).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three have an effect of sustainability, since all three aim to ultimately minimise the need for raw materials, however they are ordered because not everything which can be reused can be recycled, and not everything can be recycled, so it is better to *Reduce* than *Reuse* and it is better to *Reuse* than to *Recycle*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2524" RevisionGUID="7dbe0346-3ad0-489e-9990-0a2e5b78f7c0" CreationDate="2014-02-08T14:42:25.257" UserId="130" Text="Having already looked at more sustainable ways of preventing mosquitos, this is a question on living with the remaining ones without getting bitten so much.  What methods are there to avoid getting bitten.  I have tried Zodia.  This is big around Jakarta.  Contrary to popular belief, mosquitos don't seemed to be bothered by the presence of the plant.  However, when I lightly dust the leaves against my skin, I don't get bit and the effect lasts all night.  In other words, the plant does *not* appear to drive away mosquitos but it does appear to interfere with their feeding on blood.  The big downside is that I can smell it all night long.  So far this has been the best success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other plants I should be looking at (preferably that are available in tropical areas)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2524" RevisionGUID="7dbe0346-3ad0-489e-9990-0a2e5b78f7c0" CreationDate="2014-02-08T14:42:25.257" UserId="130" Text="More sustainable mosquito repellants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2524" RevisionGUID="7dbe0346-3ad0-489e-9990-0a2e5b78f7c0" CreationDate="2014-02-08T14:42:25.257" UserId="130" Text="|pets|insects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2525" RevisionGUID="b8f9d1c1-a31a-425f-89b3-eb35b60d9eaa" CreationDate="2014-02-08T18:14:07.033" UserId="476" Text="You are right, the logo is not accurate. Rs chain one after another but they do not close the loop. The second (reuse) and third (recycle) are two loops in themselves. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine a glass cup. At first you Reduce (the top of hierarchy) - you do not buy any. Suddenly you need one. This means you cannot reduce anymore. You go to shop and buy one. The reuse loop comes into play. In this loop no work is done, no materials wasted to produce a new cup. You just take and use existing one. Once you cannot reuse it (neither yourself or share with friends/neighbours/relatives) you Recycle it - pass the outer, larger loop. In this loop, the material rather the product is reused (and some energy is also saved when new good (of another shape) is produced since reusing materials is easier than mining the ores or processing a fresh wood for paper). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the correct logo would like as two loops, Reuse inside Recycle and the Reduce at the center. You save more staying as close to the center as possible and you should never exceed the Recycle loop." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2525" RevisionGUID="2eca6cd3-43cc-4e46-967e-21c10e805489" CreationDate="2014-02-08T18:19:46.257" UserId="476" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="You are right, the logo is not accurate. Rs chain one after another but they do not close the loop. The second (reuse) and third (recycle) are two loops in themselves. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine a glass cup. At first you Reduce (the top of hierarchy) - you do not buy any. Suddenly you need one. This means you cannot reduce anymore. You go to shop and buy one. The reuse loop comes into play. In this loop no work is done, no materials wasted to produce a new cup. You just take and use existing one. Once you cannot reuse it (neither yourself or share with friends/neighbours/relatives) you Recycle it - pass the outer, larger loop. In this loop, the material rather the product is reused (and some energy is also saved when new good (of another shape) is produced since reusing materials is easier than mining the ores or processing a fresh wood for paper). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the proper logo would look like as two loops, Reuse inside Recycle with the Reduce in the center. You save more staying as close to the center as possible and you should never exceed the Recycle loop." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2525" RevisionGUID="f117bc34-c946-4f8e-a998-edf4f1e982f5" CreationDate="2014-02-08T18:30:11.433" UserId="476" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="You are right, the logo is not accurate. Rs chain one after another but they do not close the loop. The second (reuse) and third (recycle) are two loops in themselves. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine a glass cup. At first you Reduce (the top of hierarchy) - you do not buy any. Suddenly you need one. This means you cannot reduce anymore. You go to shop and buy one. You now started reusing the cup instead of reducing (avoiding) it. In reuse loop, no work is done, no materials wasted to produce a new cup. You just take and use existing one. Once you cannot reuse it (neither yourself or share with friends/neighbours/relatives) you Recycle it - pass it to the outer, larger loop. In this loop, the material rather the product is reused (and some energy is also saved when new good (of another shape) is produced since reusing materials is easier than mining the ores or processing a fresh wood for paper). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the proper logo would look like as two loops, Reuse inside Recycle with the Reduce in the center. You are greener in the center when closer to the center and should never exceed the Recycle loop." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5752" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2522" RevisionGUID="ac38872f-cb2f-4e4e-ba47-432b3381b196" CreationDate="2014-02-08T19:35:47.177" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/432236333856489472" />
  <row Id="5756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2526" RevisionGUID="d50a1115-bdad-4ac2-95eb-075311355060" CreationDate="2014-02-08T22:53:28.297" UserId="48" Text="Summary&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a great many ways to produce biofuels, and a vast and fast-growing amount of literature on the subject. Ratios of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) are typically in the range 1.6-6, with some particular authors putting corn ethanol at below 1.0, and others putting ethanol from wheat straw at around 35.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introduction&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of this answer, I'll just use &quot;biofuels&quot; in the sense of liquid fuels. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Biomass&quot; or &quot;bioenergy&quot; are the terms usually used to refer to wider uses of biological energy sources, although some authors (e.g. ref 1) use &quot;biofuel&quot; to include biological sources of electricity and heat. I've excluded their results that are not for liqud-fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Net energy balance and EROEI&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of energy you get out, compared to the amount of energy you get out, is usually referred to as the ratio EROEI (or EROI), Energy Returned on (Energy) Invested. Given the particular value of liquid fuels with high energy density, an EROEI (aka a net negative energy balance) isn't a deal breaker for biomass: it could still be a valuable means of energy storage, and a valuable economic good, though it would no longer be a net energy source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the original article&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your linked article says that for one hectare, 82 litres of fuel produces 1029-1356 litres of biofuel. That would be an EROEI of 13-16. Except that not all litres of fuel have the same energy content - it will vary, depending on the specific composition of the fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Values from the scientific literature&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The challenge is the overwhelming *volume* of literature on the subject. [This literature search][1] found over 1000 results, and was for biofuel energy balance reviews since 2014, and I did it when 2014 was only six weeks old. [Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews][2] is pretty well respected, has a high impact factor, and is bang on target, so I searched there in particular, where I found (2), a review of methods. And from GCB Bioenergy, I found (3), a systematic review. I did find (1) from 2004, one of the earlier reviews of different biofuels. I've taken the extremes from each study. In the biofuels literature, values seem to be commonly given as the ratio of energy in to energy out: that's the reciprocal of EROEI. I've converted to EROEI here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    EROEI  Ref  Biofuel&#xD;&#xA;     35     1   Ethanol from lignocellulosics (wheat straw)&#xD;&#xA;      2.0   1   Ethanol from sugar beet&#xD;&#xA;     24     2   oilseed rape with biomass co-firing&#xD;&#xA;      1.1   2   (1999, Automotive fuels for the future—the search for alternatives, IEA)&#xD;&#xA;     25     3   Bioethanol, energy-grasses, credits for surplus electricity &amp; acetic acid&#xD;&#xA;      1.4   3   Bioethanol from wheat, no co-production credits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are outliers such as Pimental and Patzak's estimates for corn ethanol, which give an EROEI of below 1.0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also values that are negative: that is, there is no energy in, because the other waste biomass products give more energy than is needed to create the biofuel. These negative values, if valid, would have an effective EROEI higher than any of the positive values above. I've left those out, for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other thoughts&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't need **any** oil to make biofuel. You can use oil, but you can use other sources of energy too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB Food calories are not the same as biofuel calories. There are biomass sources that are inedible for humans, fast-growing, and don't compete with food crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Elsayed, M. A., Matthews, R., &amp; Mortimer, N. D. (2003). *Carbon and Energy Balances for a Range of Biofuels Options.* Sheffield.][3] (pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [Malça, J., &amp; Freire, F. (2011). Life-cycle studies of biodiesel in Europe: A review addressing the variability of results and modeling issues. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(1), 338–351.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [Whitaker, J., Ludley, K. E., Rowe, R., Taylor, G., &amp; Howard, D. C. (2010). *Sources of variability in greenhouse gas and energy balances for biofuel production: a systematic review*. GCB Bioenergy.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [Patzek, T. W. (2004). Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences (Vol. 23, pp. 519–567).][6] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=990&amp;q=biofuel%20energy%20balance%20review&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0,5&amp;as_ylo=2014&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13640321&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.northenergy.co.uk/c/pdf/Resources_Research_Unit-Resources_Research_Unit-3.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.013&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01047.x&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352680490886905" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2518" RevisionGUID="5f5e7771-3fc0-4dd7-bce1-077f8d049c9e" CreationDate="2014-02-09T06:19:48.133" UserId="659" Comment="deleted request to start a discussion" Text="Reusable bags, mesh bags and a personal shopping cart! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can use the mesh bags for fresh produce and loose items that needs to be scanned and the reusable bags to group the rest. A shopping cart comes handy because it is much easier to roll the reusable bags. It also provides a second option if any of the items don't fit the reusable bags, one can always toss them in his/her own shopping cart instead of any plastic bags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a personal cart also saves time from finding/ returning the store's cart back properly if not leaving it buy the side of the parking lot and contributing to a messy clutter of shopping carts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tip: A knitted mesh bag with large holes works great for loose items like apples and oranges that needs to be scanned at the cashier...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5759" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2518" RevisionGUID="5f5e7771-3fc0-4dd7-bce1-077f8d049c9e" CreationDate="2014-02-09T06:19:48.133" Comment="Proposed by 659 approved by 130, 48 edit id of 235" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2527" RevisionGUID="252ba333-fe27-40ba-89d5-418cd3ef0f44" CreationDate="2014-02-09T16:47:42.923" UserId="1156" Text="Check this link to this new K cup company that has developed a new technology to be able to recycle their K cups&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.crazycups.com/index.php/crazy-cups/peppermint-chocolate-mocha.html " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2526" RevisionGUID="233e1608-8874-4d4c-a1dc-45143275dc36" CreationDate="2014-02-09T18:26:33.850" UserId="48" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Summary&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a great many ways to produce biofuels, and a vast and fast-growing amount of literature on the subject. Ratios of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) are typically in the range 1.6-6, with some particular authors putting corn ethanol at below 1.0, and others putting ethanol from wheat straw at around 35.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introduction&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of this answer, I'll just use &quot;biofuels&quot; in the sense of liquid fuels. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Biomass&quot; or &quot;bioenergy&quot; are the terms usually used to refer to wider uses of biological energy sources, although some authors (e.g. ref 1) use &quot;biofuel&quot; to include biological sources of electricity and heat. I've excluded their results that are not for liqud-fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Net energy balance and EROEI&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of energy you get out, compared to the amount of energy you get out, is usually referred to as the ratio EROEI (or EROI), Energy Returned on (Energy) Invested. Given the particular value of liquid fuels with high energy density, an EROEI (aka a net negative energy balance) isn't a deal breaker for biomass: it could still be a valuable means of energy storage, and a valuable economic good, though it would no longer be a net energy source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the original article&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your linked article says that for one hectare, 82 litres of fuel produces 1029-1356 litres of biofuel. That would be an EROEI of 13-16. Except that not all litres of fuel have the same energy content - it will vary, depending on the specific composition of the fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Values from the scientific literature&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The challenge is the overwhelming *volume* of literature on the subject. [This literature search][1] found over 1000 results, and was for biofuel energy balance reviews since 2014, and I did it when 2014 was only six weeks old. [Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews][2] is pretty well respected, has a high impact factor, and is bang on target, so I searched there in particular, where I found (2), a review of methods. And from GCB Bioenergy, I found (3), a systematic review. I did find (1) from 2004, one of the earlier reviews of different biofuels. **Note that I've taken the extremes - the highest and lowest values - from each study.** In the biofuels literature, values seem to be commonly given as the ratio of energy in to energy out: that's the reciprocal of EROEI. I've converted to EROEI here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    EROEI  Ref  Biofuel&#xD;&#xA;     35     1   Ethanol from lignocellulosics (wheat straw)&#xD;&#xA;      2.0   1   Ethanol from sugar beet&#xD;&#xA;     24     2   oilseed rape with biomass co-firing&#xD;&#xA;      1.1   2   (1999, Automotive fuels for the future—the search for alternatives, IEA)&#xD;&#xA;     25     3   Bioethanol, energy-grasses, credits for surplus electricity &amp; acetic acid&#xD;&#xA;      1.4   3   Bioethanol from wheat, no co-production credits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are outliers such as Pimental and Patzak's estimates for corn ethanol, which give an EROEI of below 1.0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also values that are negative: that is, there is no energy in, because the other waste biomass products give more energy than is needed to create the biofuel. These negative values, if valid, would have an effective EROEI higher than any of the positive values above. I've left those out, for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a chart from (2) of all of their studies. Note that the x-axis is the reciprocal of the EROEI, so an x-value of 0.5 is an EROEI of 2, and an x-value of 0.2 is an EROEI of 5. The lines joins together an individual study's findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other thoughts&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't need **any** oil to make biofuel. You can use oil, but you can use other sources of energy too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB Food calories are not the same as biofuel calories. There are biomass sources that are inedible for humans, fast-growing, and don't compete with food crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Elsayed, M. A., Matthews, R., &amp; Mortimer, N. D. (2003). *Carbon and Energy Balances for a Range of Biofuels Options.* Sheffield.][4] (pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [Malça, J., &amp; Freire, F. (2011). Life-cycle studies of biodiesel in Europe: A review addressing the variability of results and modeling issues. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(1), 338–351.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [Whitaker, J., Ludley, K. E., Rowe, R., Taylor, G., &amp; Howard, D. C. (2010). *Sources of variability in greenhouse gas and energy balances for biofuel production: a systematic review*. GCB Bioenergy.][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [Patzek, T. W. (2004). Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences (Vol. 23, pp. 519–567).][7] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=990&amp;q=biofuel%20energy%20balance%20review&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0,5&amp;as_ylo=2014&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13640321&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e3gab.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.northenergy.co.uk/c/pdf/Resources_Research_Unit-Resources_Research_Unit-3.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.013&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01047.x&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352680490886905" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5763" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2527" RevisionGUID="2390b23f-8fd3-4422-a49a-034692d07328" CreationDate="2014-02-09T21:21:09.417" UserId="99" Comment="8" />
  <row Id="5764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2528" RevisionGUID="7b387807-b5c8-4cd1-97a1-e799c8265618" CreationDate="2014-02-09T21:32:30.590" UserId="15" Text="When purchasing fresh fruit and veges and other foods from the supermarket that are weighed during check out, I have tended to use the very thin plastic bags provided because if I use my own cotton bags I'll pay extra for the privilege due to the heavier weight of the cotton. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a realistic option in this case to zero the scales first with the empty bag sitting on the scales. The extra cost of using my existing cotton bags would be substantial when the produce has a high price per kilogram. eg if the bag weighs 20 grams, and I'm purchasing something at $5/kg, I'll pay about an extra 10 cents for each bag used, assuming the weight of the thin plastic bags is negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also not a realistic option to reuse the thin plastic bags; they simply aren't very durable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which reusable materials/fabrics could be used for replacing these bags to minimise any extra cost?** Silk is pretty light, but I'm not sure how long it would last, and there might be other options that are cheaper or more sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5765" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2528" RevisionGUID="7b387807-b5c8-4cd1-97a1-e799c8265618" CreationDate="2014-02-09T21:32:30.590" UserId="15" Text="When bringing your own reusable bags for produce that needs weighing, what's the lightest option?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5766" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2528" RevisionGUID="7b387807-b5c8-4cd1-97a1-e799c8265618" CreationDate="2014-02-09T21:32:30.590" UserId="15" Text="|reuse|bags|plastic-alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2528" RevisionGUID="36efeadd-75e8-479c-aad3-0c6b3eb19be3" CreationDate="2014-02-09T21:45:33.473" UserId="15" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="When purchasing fresh fruit and veges and other foods from the supermarket that are weighed during check out, I have tended to use the very thin plastic bags provided (when it's necessary to use a bag at all) because if I use my own cotton bags I'll pay extra for the privilege due to the heavier weight of the cotton. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a realistic option in this case to zero the scales first with the empty bag sitting on the scales. The extra cost of using my existing cotton bags would be substantial when the produce has a high price per kilogram. eg if the bag weighs 20 grams, and I'm purchasing something at $5/kg, I'll pay about an extra 10 cents for each bag used, assuming the weight of the thin plastic bags is negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also not a realistic option to reuse the thin plastic bags; they simply aren't very durable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which reusable materials/fabrics could be used for replacing these bags to minimise any extra cost?** Silk is pretty light, but I'm not sure how long it would last, and there might be other options that are cheaper or more sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2529" RevisionGUID="9a666d7c-4e5e-462b-ae08-129154a575e5" CreationDate="2014-02-09T22:16:49.117" UserId="659" Text="I prefer to cheat - I use the disposable bags brought home by my housemates. One way or another our household seems to accumulate enough plastic bags that there's rarely a shortage, and if there is my workmates could easily fill it. So the simple option would be to look for a source of plastic bags that you can re-use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My local supermarket will happily weigh most larger things without bags at all, as long as there's only a few of them. So I can buy 3-4 onions, 3-4 apples, and so on without bags. So I often do that. Likewise, for less perishable items (rice, beans, potatoes) I buy a larger bag rather than bulk (to be honest, I do this because it's cheaper), and those bags are often usable in the garden afterwards, or can be returned or recycled (the rice co-op recycles the bags into new bags).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What our food co-op does is encourage people to weigh their containers before they fill them so that a net weight can be established. This works because it's a fairly small shop and (almost) everyone plays fair. I suspect that a supermarket would not do this, except perhaps with things like peanut butter that really have to go into a jar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're going to make the bags, I suggest ripstop nylon. It's almost as light as silk but more durable. You could also optimise the shape somewhat by making triangular or rectangular prism shaped bags rather than simple pouches. Also, don't put drawstrings or anything on them and keep the hem widths small." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5769" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2524" RevisionGUID="72e9756f-10b4-452c-beba-6e5e8be20840" CreationDate="2014-02-09T22:35:48.767" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/432644026349920256" />
  <row Id="5770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2530" RevisionGUID="a19fca7d-c3d1-42b2-a880-5ff27d2c4345" CreationDate="2014-02-10T05:37:32.307" UserId="794" Text="Due to an accident our family needs to replace our car of 10 years. Normally we would make it last longer.  The car needs to be big enough to transport the entire family.  The only options meeting our requirements and near our price range either get poor gas mileage or are a more expensive Japanese made hybrid that gets 2x the mileage of the rest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to the dolphin harvests, the Fukushima issue, and other reasons not universally relevant to the ethical aspect, I'd prefer to avoid a Japanese product.  (Before anyone justifies the dolphin slaughter with a comparison to other CAFOs around the world the family is vegan so please don't bother.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So essentially the questions is...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;use almost half the gas over the life of the car, which in our case is usually beyond 10 years and indirectly support/ endorse inhumane practices and the worst nuclear disaster in history of planet...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use almost 2x the gas over the life of the car and buy a product (at least assembled) somewhat locally?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What were talking about here is a difference of saving maybe 3000-5000 gallons of fuel depending on how long the car lasts.  While that may get expensive over the next 10= years the financial cost will almost cancel itself out by the difference in vehicle price depending on how much gas goes up.  Cost itself doesn't need to be considered for what I'm asking though.  Just the burning of 3000-5000 gallons of fossil fuel vs behaviour I find conflicts with my ethics/ideology/sustainability principals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any thoughts or suggestions to formulas (official or your own) that might make this consideration easier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2530" RevisionGUID="a19fca7d-c3d1-42b2-a880-5ff27d2c4345" CreationDate="2014-02-10T05:37:32.307" UserId="794" Text="Is there a formula for weighing ethical vs sustainable considerations when making a purchase decision?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2530" RevisionGUID="a19fca7d-c3d1-42b2-a880-5ff27d2c4345" CreationDate="2014-02-10T05:37:32.307" UserId="794" Text="|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2531" RevisionGUID="e6532648-0784-4893-85f5-c39a75470468" CreationDate="2014-02-10T06:43:56.530" UserId="48" Text="There isn't a single mathematical formula, because the ethical dimension isn't easily quantifiable, and because people have different priorities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for both the ethical and the sustainability dimensions, you can look at what the net impact of your choice would be. Now, each impact might be very small; it may help, to do the maths, to scale up to a million decisions, work out the impact, and then scale it back down again. For economic decisions in a functional market, this is a reasonable starting point: your decision is the marginal consumer, and all change happens at the margins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fuel consumption issue is pretty clear-cut: emissions from fuel consumption over the life of a car far outweigh the embodied emissions from the car's manufacture and disposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the ethical issue of buying Japanese, well, it might be worth looking at how closely the car manufacturer is connected to the Japanese industries you object to. For example, if there's no problematic link between Tepco and Toyota (the only link that I know of is a wind-farm joint venture, which would seem to be ok), then there's no causal connection between buying a Toyota and encouraging the nuclear malpractices of Tepco. So zero marginal impact there, even for buying a million Toyota cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the UK, we do have [Ethical Consumer][1], an organisation whose consumer listings do try to identify the ethical and sustainability issues around particular purchase decisions: [here's a quick summary of their rankings for cars][2]. They tackle the two barriers I mentioned to start with, by ranking performance within each criterion and applying a linear scale; and by applying a customisable weighting between criteria. You can change the weightings of their individual criteria to reflect your own priorities. They've got 23 criteria, in five groups: environment, animals, people, politics, product sustainability. **At time of writing, using the default weightings, the top-ranked car manufacturer is Citroen, followed by: Peugot, Kia, Hyundai, Suzuki.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/traveltransport/cars.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2532" RevisionGUID="7914cbfc-f5c7-410b-9a50-5a2f2c6a814e" CreationDate="2014-02-10T14:34:42.347" UserId="1161" Text="It depends on the plastic you're using. Plastics often come in the thermoplastic and thermosetting categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the plastic is a thermosetting plastic then it is not able to melted (Most, if not all thermosetting plastics burn rather than melt).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a thermoplastic plastic can be melted and remoulded as much as you want (quality of plastic is likely to degrade after each phase melting and remoulding however)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2533" RevisionGUID="8a49399d-c572-4a5f-9b2b-5ed809600b0d" CreationDate="2014-02-11T05:43:59.280" UserId="318" Text="Many so-called biodegradable plastics, perhaps the majority, are essentially no more so longer term than are conventional plastics. Any plastic which does not have its molecule, as opposed to its mechanical structure fully broken down by natural processes is mainly a cosmetic illusion and so is not 'sustainable' at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is little acknowledged that many so called biodegradable plastics are not genuinely biodegradable. When eg starch is used as a component of the plastic film the film will breakdown over time. Months to a few years depending on UV level and other factors. But, all that is happening, is that the film is being mechanically decomposed - much as if it had been mechanically 'granu;lated'. The plastic remains in fine powder form and, if enough of out plastic was produced in this manner many of the existing problems would remain. You will not get gross choking of animals or blockage of drains etc from large portions once the breakdown has occurred, but the passive bulk of plastic remains. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Truly biodegradable plastics exist, where the actual plastic molecule or long chain is engineered to have weak spots which are broken so the plastic material ceases to exist in its original form. What it becomes depends on the design of the material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even plastics that do decompose fully are hardly sustainable in anything other than the ultra long term. As hydrocarbons form the feedstock for most plastics, a product is not truly sustainable until a cycle is achieved where the decomposed products again become part of the cycle of production. Having decomposed plastics start to form oil deposits by natural means is not something anyone alive will ever see. Means exist to artificially produce hydrocarbons from selected plastics, and this process may be sustainable in some cases. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2526" RevisionGUID="f91cc541-7fd7-4e80-b8ae-ad891fa20828" CreationDate="2014-02-11T08:40:55.930" UserId="48" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="Summary&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a great many ways to produce biofuels, and a vast and fast-growing amount of literature on the subject. Ratios of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) are typically in the range 1.6-6, with some particular authors putting corn ethanol at below 1.0, and others putting ethanol from wheat straw at around 35. All the figures here are presented on a well-to-pump basis: that is, everything involved in their production up to the point of delivery, but not including the end-use efficiency of whatever purpose they're put to (because that can vary a lot, depending on the purpose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introduction&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of this answer, I'll just use &quot;biofuels&quot; in the sense of liquid fuels. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Biomass&quot; or &quot;bioenergy&quot; are the terms usually used to refer to wider uses of biological energy sources, although some authors (e.g. ref 1) use &quot;biofuel&quot; to include biological sources of electricity and heat. I've excluded their results that are not for liqud-fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Net energy balance and EROEI&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of energy you get out, compared to the amount of energy you get out, is usually referred to as the ratio EROEI (or EROI), Energy Returned on (Energy) Invested. Given the particular value of liquid fuels with high energy density, an EROEI (aka a net negative energy balance) isn't a deal breaker for biomass: it could still be a valuable means of energy storage, and a valuable economic good, though it would no longer be a net energy source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the original article&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your linked article says that for one hectare, 82 litres of fuel produces 1029-1356 litres of biofuel. That would be an EROEI of 13-16. Except that not all litres of fuel have the same energy content - it will vary, depending on the specific composition of the fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Values from the scientific literature&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The challenge is the overwhelming *volume* of literature on the subject. [This literature search][1] found over 1000 results, and was for biofuel energy balance reviews since 2014, and I did it when 2014 was only six weeks old. [Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews][2] is pretty well respected, has a high impact factor, and is bang on target, so I searched there in particular, where I found (2), a review of methods. And from GCB Bioenergy, I found (3), a systematic review. I did find (1) from 2004, one of the earlier reviews of different biofuels. **Note that I've taken the extremes - the highest and lowest values - from each study.** In the biofuels literature, values seem to be commonly given as the ratio of energy in to energy out: that's the reciprocal of EROEI. I've converted to EROEI here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    EROEI  Ref  Biofuel&#xD;&#xA;     35     1   Ethanol from lignocellulosics (wheat straw)&#xD;&#xA;      2.0   1   Ethanol from sugar beet&#xD;&#xA;     24     2   oilseed rape with biomass co-firing&#xD;&#xA;      1.1   2   (1999, Automotive fuels for the future—the search for alternatives, IEA)&#xD;&#xA;     25     3   Bioethanol, energy-grasses, credits for surplus electricity &amp; acetic acid&#xD;&#xA;      1.4   3   Bioethanol from wheat, no co-production credits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are outliers such as Pimental and Patzak's estimates for corn ethanol, which give an EROEI of below 1.0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also values that are negative: that is, there is no energy in, because the other waste biomass products give more energy than is needed to create the biofuel. These negative values, if valid, would have an effective EROEI higher than any of the positive values above. I've left those out, for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a chart from (2) of all of their studies. Note that the x-axis is the reciprocal of the EROEI, so an x-value of 0.5 is an EROEI of 2, and an x-value of 0.2 is an EROEI of 5. The lines joins together an individual study's findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other thoughts&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't need **any** oil to make biofuel. You can use oil, but you can use other sources of energy too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB Food calories are not the same as biofuel calories. There are biomass sources that are inedible for humans, fast-growing, and don't compete with food crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Elsayed, M. A., Matthews, R., &amp; Mortimer, N. D. (2003). *Carbon and Energy Balances for a Range of Biofuels Options.* Sheffield.][4] (pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [Malça, J., &amp; Freire, F. (2011). Life-cycle studies of biodiesel in Europe: A review addressing the variability of results and modeling issues. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(1), 338–351.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [Whitaker, J., Ludley, K. E., Rowe, R., Taylor, G., &amp; Howard, D. C. (2010). *Sources of variability in greenhouse gas and energy balances for biofuel production: a systematic review*. GCB Bioenergy.][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [Patzek, T. W. (2004). Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences (Vol. 23, pp. 519–567).][7] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=990&amp;q=biofuel%20energy%20balance%20review&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0,5&amp;as_ylo=2014&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13640321&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e3gab.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.northenergy.co.uk/c/pdf/Resources_Research_Unit-Resources_Research_Unit-3.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.013&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01047.x&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352680490886905" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2526" RevisionGUID="e28fc90c-1e0a-49ce-83b6-50234461fd2d" CreationDate="2014-02-11T16:49:50.160" UserId="1162" Comment="Author accidentally repeated himself when he meant to contrast" Text="Summary&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a great many ways to produce biofuels, and a vast and fast-growing amount of literature on the subject. Ratios of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) are typically in the range 1.6-6, with some particular authors putting corn ethanol at below 1.0, and others putting ethanol from wheat straw at around 35. All the figures here are presented on a well-to-pump basis: that is, everything involved in their production up to the point of delivery, but not including the end-use efficiency of whatever purpose they're put to (because that can vary a lot, depending on the purpose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introduction&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of this answer, I'll just use &quot;biofuels&quot; in the sense of liquid fuels. &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Biomass&quot; or &quot;bioenergy&quot; are the terms usually used to refer to wider uses of biological energy sources, although some authors (e.g. ref 1) use &quot;biofuel&quot; to include biological sources of electricity and heat. I've excluded their results that are not for liqud-fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Net energy balance and EROEI&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of energy you get out, compared to the amount of energy you put in, is usually referred to as the ratio EROEI (or EROI), Energy Returned on (Energy) Invested. Given the particular value of liquid fuels with high energy density, an EROEI (aka a net negative energy balance) isn't a deal breaker for biomass: it could still be a valuable means of energy storage, and a valuable economic good, though it would no longer be a net energy source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the original article&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your linked article says that for one hectare, 82 litres of fuel produces 1029-1356 litres of biofuel. That would be an EROEI of 13-16. Except that not all litres of fuel have the same energy content - it will vary, depending on the specific composition of the fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Values from the scientific literature&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The challenge is the overwhelming *volume* of literature on the subject. [This literature search][1] found over 1000 results, and was for biofuel energy balance reviews since 2014, and I did it when 2014 was only six weeks old. [Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews][2] is pretty well respected, has a high impact factor, and is bang on target, so I searched there in particular, where I found (2), a review of methods. And from GCB Bioenergy, I found (3), a systematic review. I did find (1) from 2004, one of the earlier reviews of different biofuels. **Note that I've taken the extremes - the highest and lowest values - from each study.** In the biofuels literature, values seem to be commonly given as the ratio of energy in to energy out: that's the reciprocal of EROEI. I've converted to EROEI here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    EROEI  Ref  Biofuel&#xD;&#xA;     35     1   Ethanol from lignocellulosics (wheat straw)&#xD;&#xA;      2.0   1   Ethanol from sugar beet&#xD;&#xA;     24     2   oilseed rape with biomass co-firing&#xD;&#xA;      1.1   2   (1999, Automotive fuels for the future—the search for alternatives, IEA)&#xD;&#xA;     25     3   Bioethanol, energy-grasses, credits for surplus electricity &amp; acetic acid&#xD;&#xA;      1.4   3   Bioethanol from wheat, no co-production credits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are outliers such as Pimental and Patzak's estimates for corn ethanol, which give an EROEI of below 1.0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also values that are negative: that is, there is no energy in, because the other waste biomass products give more energy than is needed to create the biofuel. These negative values, if valid, would have an effective EROEI higher than any of the positive values above. I've left those out, for now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a chart from (2) of all of their studies. Note that the x-axis is the reciprocal of the EROEI, so an x-value of 0.5 is an EROEI of 2, and an x-value of 0.2 is an EROEI of 5. The lines joins together an individual study's findings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other thoughts&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't need **any** oil to make biofuel. You can use oil, but you can use other sources of energy too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB Food calories are not the same as biofuel calories. There are biomass sources that are inedible for humans, fast-growing, and don't compete with food crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Elsayed, M. A., Matthews, R., &amp; Mortimer, N. D. (2003). *Carbon and Energy Balances for a Range of Biofuels Options.* Sheffield.][4] (pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [Malça, J., &amp; Freire, F. (2011). Life-cycle studies of biodiesel in Europe: A review addressing the variability of results and modeling issues. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15(1), 338–351.][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [Whitaker, J., Ludley, K. E., Rowe, R., Taylor, G., &amp; Howard, D. C. (2010). *Sources of variability in greenhouse gas and energy balances for biofuel production: a systematic review*. GCB Bioenergy.][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [Patzek, T. W. (2004). Thermodynamics of the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences (Vol. 23, pp. 519–567).][7] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=990&amp;q=biofuel%20energy%20balance%20review&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0,5&amp;as_ylo=2014&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13640321&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e3gab.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.northenergy.co.uk/c/pdf/Resources_Research_Unit-Resources_Research_Unit-3.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.013&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01047.x&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352680490886905" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5778" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2526" RevisionGUID="e28fc90c-1e0a-49ce-83b6-50234461fd2d" CreationDate="2014-02-11T16:49:50.160" Comment="Proposed by 1162 approved by 48 edit id of 236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5779" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2530" RevisionGUID="6f503171-0b88-48ff-9592-790f48d94adf" CreationDate="2014-02-11T19:35:50.487" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/433323510870446081" />
  <row Id="5780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2529" RevisionGUID="c9fa266f-fdb5-480e-9ae5-1535361de152" CreationDate="2014-02-11T21:43:23.407" UserId="659" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="I prefer to cheat - I use the disposable bags brought home by my housemates. One way or another our household seems to accumulate enough plastic bags that there's rarely a shortage, and if there is my workmates could easily fill it. So the simple option would be to look for a source of plastic bags that you can re-use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My local supermarket will happily weigh most larger things without bags at all, as long as there's only a few of them. So I can buy 3-4 onions, 3-4 apples, and so on without bags. I often do that. Likewise, for less perishable items (rice, beans, potatoes) I buy a larger bag rather than loose items (to be honest, I do this because it's cheaper), and those bags are often usable in the garden afterwards, or can be returned (reused) or recycled (the rice co-op recycles the bags into new bags).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What our food co-op does is encourage people to weigh their containers before they fill them so that a net weight can be established. This works because it's a fairly small shop and (almost) everyone plays fair. I suspect that a supermarket would not do this, except perhaps with things like peanut butter that really have to go into a jar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're going to make the bags, I suggest rip-stop nylon. It's almost as light as silk but more durable. You could also optimise the shape somewhat by making triangular or rectangular prism shaped bags rather than simple pouches. Also, don't put drawstrings or anything on them and keep the hem widths small. But the question there is whether you'd use more resources with the nylon that you'd save by re-using other people's plastic bags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2534" RevisionGUID="ce95f5ac-0b85-47ef-8c2c-721505096f37" CreationDate="2014-02-12T05:37:19.257" UserId="1166" Text="You can seal a pond by putting pigs in it. They'll compact the bottom so much that it stops leaking. It may take a few years though. See http://www.makeitmissoula.com/2012/07/paul-wheaton-can-pigs-build-ponds/ " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="5e43e8a1-2b5a-41d2-afec-98b48c85fe83" CreationDate="2014-02-13T09:43:24.900" UserId="28" Comment="spelling error" Text="My community compost pile is incredibly buggy.  It's a ~30 gallon bucket, with a closed lid and ventilation holes.   It has hundreds of flying bugs swarming in it.  As soon as the lid is open they're all over the place.  They strike me as being similar to fruit flies, but perhaps more active.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like the compost is getting a decent amount of dry material, but it's hard to know, with all sorts of different people contributing to it on a daily basis.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that people are refraining from composting, rather than dealing with the bugs.  What can be done to make the pile a nicer place? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2533" RevisionGUID="68f59a26-8b29-495e-bf0e-64daab62485c" CreationDate="2014-02-13T11:53:49.857" UserId="659" Comment="spelling fixes" Text="Truly biodegradable plastics exist, where the actual plastic molecule or long chain is engineered to have weak spots which are broken so the plastic material ceases to exist in its original form. What it becomes depends on the design of the material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many so-called biodegradable plastics, perhaps the majority, are essentially no more so longer term than are conventional plastics. Any plastic which does not have its molecule, as opposed to its mechanical structure fully broken down by natural processes is mainly a cosmetic illusion and so is not 'sustainable' at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is little acknowledged that many so called biodegradable plastics are not genuinely biodegradable. When e.g. starch is used as a component of the plastic film the film will breakdown over time. Months to a few years depending on UV level and other factors. But, all that is happening, is that the film is being mechanically decomposed - much as if it had been mechanically 'granulated'. The plastic remains in fine powder form and, if enough of out plastic was produced in this manner many of the existing problems would remain. You will not get gross choking of animals or blockage of drains etc from large portions once the breakdown has occurred, but the passive bulk of plastic remains. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even plastics that do decompose fully are hardly sustainable in anything other than the ultra long term. As hydrocarbons form the feedstock for most plastics, a product is not truly sustainable until a cycle is achieved where the decomposed products again become part of the cycle of production. Having decomposed plastics start to form oil deposits by natural means is not something anyone alive will ever see. Means exist to artificially produce hydrocarbons from selected plastics, and this process may be sustainable in some cases. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5786" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2533" RevisionGUID="68f59a26-8b29-495e-bf0e-64daab62485c" CreationDate="2014-02-13T11:53:49.857" Comment="Proposed by 659 approved by 15, 85 edit id of 237" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5787" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="2535" RevisionGUID="3c3b2031-7b35-4d06-b8f5-c04e5bd6c04b" CreationDate="2014-02-13T15:48:00.593" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/99696/are-there-types-of-solar-panels-that-can-be-made-completely-locally-and-independ" />
  <row Id="5788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2535" RevisionGUID="70ade1cc-9839-4658-ba43-8c8f9d6102b8" CreationDate="2014-02-13T15:45:12.160" UserId="1181" UserDisplayName="user37143" Text="I want to know if there are any kinds of solar panels that can be produced completely locally, from gathering materials to manufacturing to installing, without fossil fuel inputs anywhere in the process.  Are there any kinds of electricity-generating solar panels that meet these requirements?  Any references to people who have tried to do this would be appreciated.  All the DIY references I’ve found still require buying components that are dependent on fossil fuel-driven manufacturing and mining processes.  Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2535" RevisionGUID="70ade1cc-9839-4658-ba43-8c8f9d6102b8" CreationDate="2014-02-13T15:45:12.160" UserId="1181" UserDisplayName="user37143" Text="Are there types of solar panels that can be made completely locally and independent of fossil fuels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2535" RevisionGUID="70ade1cc-9839-4658-ba43-8c8f9d6102b8" CreationDate="2014-02-13T15:45:12.160" UserId="1181" UserDisplayName="user37143" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2536" RevisionGUID="41e55978-f45f-4e21-9cf5-97e06699b4a1" CreationDate="2014-02-13T15:52:44.647" UserId="318" Text="Test&#xD;&#xA;aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa&#xD;&#xA;sssssssssssssssssssssss" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2536" RevisionGUID="b477970c-cb6e-41aa-a016-cb50c5dd009d" CreationDate="2014-02-13T16:06:09.463" UserId="318" Comment="added 1763 characters in body" Text="Yes.  &#xD;&#xA;But saying where &quot;locally&quot; is would help.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Requiring 'non-fossil' mining and transport etc is a matter of economics and choice. ie you can mine by hand - and in some countries this is what is indeed often done.Doing this would not be deemed economic in almost any system. This does not mean that it should not be done - just that you need to establish what you are trying to achieve and what the values and costs are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common solar panels use a sandwich of glass + bonder + silicon PV cells + bonder + backsheet. The bonder is usually &quot;EVA&quot; plastic which is crosslinked into long chains under temperature and pressure. EVA is a hydrocarbon product but others are possible and a non hydrocarbon alternative is possible. BUT EVA is exceptionally good at this task and in the last 50years or so no better alternative has managed to displace it. There are many challengers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people buy doped silicon wafers - which have been made from silica sand using highly advanced metalurgical processes. There is no obvious reason why this whole process could not be hyrdrocarbon free (except perhaps trace chemicals used in the doping processes. but maybe not even then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The glass used is rather special BUT any glass making process that can make an essentially flat smooth sheet would be able to make panels that worked.  &#xD;&#xA;The backsheet can be glass if desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frames are usually aluminum but other materials could be used.   &#xD;&#xA;Aluminum requires immense energy levels during refining. A solar concentrator could probably be used for energy if use of aluminum was desired.\&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall it's doable but hard and cost would be very high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other processes probably have no portion which absolutely must use hydrocarbons EXCEPT if they are used as dopants in the semiconductors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2538" RevisionGUID="46733483-9570-4730-a762-ea08e297e262" CreationDate="2014-02-13T16:34:59.623" UserId="1104" Text="I am not asking for specific diets or reducing plastic waste. Many people may not want to change their diets. How do people buy food so that they throw away as little food as possible? There must be people out there with systems or calendars that facilitate as little going bad in the fridge as possible. In America we throw away 40% of our food or something. This is not sustainable for many obvious reasons. Many people don’t have coops nearby, can't afford them, or can only go to the grocery store once a month due to lack of transportation or distance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It gets more complicated with buying organic and local food because it typically doesn't last as long. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any system or cultural practice (non-dietary) that might reduce this food waste could be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5797" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2538" RevisionGUID="46733483-9570-4730-a762-ea08e297e262" CreationDate="2014-02-13T16:34:59.623" UserId="1104" Text="Any food and grocery buying systems that lead to less food waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5798" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2538" RevisionGUID="46733483-9570-4730-a762-ea08e297e262" CreationDate="2014-02-13T16:34:59.623" UserId="1104" Text="|food|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5799" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2535" RevisionGUID="8aad39b5-0bd9-4460-b52a-a836963cde55" CreationDate="2014-02-13T16:36:35.397" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/434003176472461312" />
  <row Id="5800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2538" RevisionGUID="fc8d5b9b-8493-42f1-a9aa-d252a3a1c741" CreationDate="2014-02-13T16:54:19.917" UserId="1104" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="I am not asking for specific diets or reducing plastic waste. Many people may not want to change their diets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do people buy food so that they throw away as little food as possible? There must be people out there with systems or calendars that facilitate as little going bad in the fridge as possible. In America we throw away 40% of our food or something. This is not sustainable as food production and transportation accounts for 10% of energy use, and 25% of methane emitted from landfills. Many people don’t have coops nearby, can't afford them, or can only go to the grocery store once a month due to lack of transportation or distance. It gets more complicated with buying organic and local food because it typically doesn't last as long. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any system or cultural practice (non-dietary) that might reduce this food waste could be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2539" RevisionGUID="02b2f471-40c8-4e2f-87c5-a779e0f01125" CreationDate="2014-02-13T17:25:05.663" UserId="1171" Text="[Dye-sensetised solar cells][1] are probably the best bet, but that still requires ITO glass. At least it doesn't require silicon wafers, cadmium, or anything aggresively toxic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's likely that in the future those parts of the chemical industry that use FF inputs will start running off biological hydrocarbon inputs. There's no reason why you can't do metal refining with charcoal, the way it used to be done - other than the difficulties of obtaining and transporting enough charcoal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www3.nd.edu/~pkamat/pdf/solarcell.pdf%E2%80%8E" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5802" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2535" RevisionGUID="5973b1f5-bcfc-4944-9c7c-8fec5c9be58f" CreationDate="2014-02-13T20:39:23.513" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|solar-power|diy|localisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2540" RevisionGUID="8642a008-048c-4243-bc05-97a903937f10" CreationDate="2014-02-14T00:22:38.620" UserId="961" Text="In [this answer][1] Russel says solar panels are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a sandwich of glass + bonder + silicon PV cells + bonder + backsheet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got me wondering how much of those materials are needed to make the solar cells easy to transport and/or install. Assuming (for the sake of this question) that I invent a robot that will 3D-print solar cells directly on to my roof, how could such a machine work, and would it still need all those layers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, and especially as this is the Sustainable Living site, how might their overall energy cost compare? E.g. we have solar cars, so a robot crawling over my roof using only solar-power seems reasonable. Assume I have a good source of sand within 1km. Can I just pour sand in to get the silicon, or is making silicon from sand in your own back-yard not reasonable, and is always going to require a big facility?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2536/961" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5804" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2540" RevisionGUID="8642a008-048c-4243-bc05-97a903937f10" CreationDate="2014-02-14T00:22:38.620" UserId="961" Text="If made on-site, what is needed for a solar panel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5805" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2540" RevisionGUID="8642a008-048c-4243-bc05-97a903937f10" CreationDate="2014-02-14T00:22:38.620" UserId="961" Text="|solar-power|ecological-footprint|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2540" RevisionGUID="64c40f04-1126-492d-8b81-2615d8a8130c" CreationDate="2014-02-14T00:28:09.007" UserId="961" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="In [this answer][1] Russel says solar panels are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a sandwich of glass + bonder + silicon PV cells + bonder + backsheet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got me wondering how much of those materials are needed to make the solar cells easy to transport and/or install. Assuming (for the sake of this question) that I invent a robot that will 3D-print solar cells directly on to my roof, how could such a machine work, and would it still need all those layers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, and especially as this is the Sustainable Living site, how might their overall energy cost compare? E.g. we have solar cars, so a robot crawling over my roof using only solar-power seems reasonable. Assume I have a good source of sand within 1km. Can I just pour sand in to get the silicon, or is making silicon from sand in your own back-yard not reasonable, and is always going to require a big facility?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I'm not asking how to do the above *today*. I'm wondering with say 5-20 years of direct R&amp;D effort, what kind of product might be possible. (And I'm thinking not just roofs, but also robots that paint solar panels on top of deserts, or over radioactive areas of Fukushima, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2536/961" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2541" RevisionGUID="9819122f-ebc6-44e2-8a2d-419a3ea92834" CreationDate="2014-02-14T02:13:41.627" UserId="1174" Text="The line &quot;All the DIY references I’ve found still require buying components that are dependent on fossil fuel-driven manufacturing and mining processes.&quot; makes it sound like you are hoping to build a solar cell with materials you pick up off the ground. Fortunately, there is such a cell. You can [make Cuprous oxide solar cells][1] using nothing but copper, heat, and salt water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they are not practical for power generation on any serious scale. They produce very little current, and at least in the linked example, require a wet cell for one contact. You would have to make the wet cell container out of something, but assuming you are near a source of salt water, there may be beach sand to melt into glass. Since you're not using fossil fuels to heat the copper or melt the sand, might I suggest chopping down and burning a lot of trees?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are about the only cells I'm aware of that can be produced somewhere where there is native copper available, with minimal energy input. You would still have to smelt the copper, but that doesn't exactly require fossil fuels, so much as it is made easier by them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/echem2.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2542" RevisionGUID="b83e12e7-faec-42f0-8e83-40316fa2a1d1" CreationDate="2014-02-14T06:40:10.290" UserId="1177" Text="There are a lot of buzz about algal biofuel. I'd like to use algae as a clean source for space heating. I wonder if there are technologies out there that convert algae directly to heat without having to extract oil first. I need something like an enzyme-catalyzed fermentation process that slowly releases the heat without polluting the air." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2542" RevisionGUID="b83e12e7-faec-42f0-8e83-40316fa2a1d1" CreationDate="2014-02-14T06:40:10.290" UserId="1177" Text="Are there technologies that convert algae directly to heat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2542" RevisionGUID="b83e12e7-faec-42f0-8e83-40316fa2a1d1" CreationDate="2014-02-14T06:40:10.290" UserId="1177" Text="|heating|algae|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5811" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2540" RevisionGUID="39e6e73f-2d4d-4e2f-bbcf-532ed7741caf" CreationDate="2014-02-14T07:36:35.883" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/434229671790903296" />
  <row Id="5812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2539" RevisionGUID="f967e40e-3006-40ba-9de3-d90197d777cf" CreationDate="2014-02-14T07:52:52.807" UserId="961" Comment="URL was broken (garbage characters at the end)" Text="[Dye-sensetised solar cells][1] are probably the best bet, but that still requires ITO glass. At least it doesn't require silicon wafers, cadmium, or anything aggresively toxic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's likely that in the future those parts of the chemical industry that use FF inputs will start running off biological hydrocarbon inputs. There's no reason why you can't do metal refining with charcoal, the way it used to be done - other than the difficulties of obtaining and transporting enough charcoal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www3.nd.edu/~pkamat/pdf/solarcell.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5813" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2539" RevisionGUID="f967e40e-3006-40ba-9de3-d90197d777cf" CreationDate="2014-02-14T07:52:52.807" Comment="Proposed by 961 approved by 99 edit id of 238" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2542" RevisionGUID="9a31dfcc-2503-427c-8f04-c1344b1d19da" CreationDate="2014-02-14T08:31:34.520" UserId="1177" Comment="improved meaning" Text="There are a lot of buzz about algal biofuel. I'd like to use algae as a clean fuel for space heating. I wonder if there are technologies out there that convert algae directly to heat without having to extract oil first. I need something like an enzyme-catalyzed fermentation process that slowly releases the heat without polluting the air." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2543" RevisionGUID="bfbede7f-72b7-4daf-a1d4-688c61d177cd" CreationDate="2014-02-14T09:40:46.930" UserId="96" Text="Combustion. Algae will need to be dried first, of course, and you will need to adjust an oven to cleanly burn algae. Or you extract the oil first and combust that, but then you have a complicated process for a relativly simpe task.  &#xD;&#xA;As you asked for fermentation, I doubt that's a way to go: While all or most fermentative processes produce some waste heat, most of the energy in the feedstock is used for cell growth. &#xD;&#xA;Alternativly you can digest the algae anaerobicyll, produce biogas, use the digestate as fertilizer for your algae, and heat your house with the gas. Again a complicated process for simple problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Algae are grown for oil because oil is a high grade fuel, easier transportable than gas and suitable for vehicles. I doubt that algae are a good option for space heating, as a far wider range of fuels and energy sources can be used here and a lot can be achieved with simple insulation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2535" RevisionGUID="55ee4966-d233-4eb8-bded-09ae9b3bc58b" CreationDate="2014-02-14T14:00:02.337" UserId="1181" Comment="Clarfied purpose of the question and what 'local' means." Text="I want to know if there are any kinds of solar panels that can be produced completely locally, from gathering materials to manufacturing to installing, without fossil fuel inputs anywhere in the process.  Are there any kinds of electricity-generating solar panels that meet these requirements?  Any references to people who have tried to do this would be appreciated.  All the DIY references I’ve found still require buying components that are dependent on fossil fuel-driven manufacturing and mining processes.  Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Thanks for the responses!  Local does mean wherever I am, in my town or surrounding towns (say, a 15 mile radius).  I'm not talking about any particular location, so I'm interested in solar panels that can be made from materials widely available around the country.  The purpose of the question is to determine whether solar panels can be made after fossil fuels are widely unavailable and long-distance supply chains are extremely expensive or unavailable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2545" RevisionGUID="084457c9-19bf-4eae-bb22-7764eebc8101" CreationDate="2014-02-14T16:48:57.807" UserId="624" Text="I would like to suggest you also look into recycling very light, maybe sheer, window curtains as the material for your own homemade bags.  Just one from a yard sale could make enough bags to last you for quite a while, and if you do a good job of hemming them and finishing the edges, you could probably machine wash them in a protective mesh bag, as you would lingerie.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5820" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2538" RevisionGUID="9b4bd584-2e8d-46de-9591-68d167a30266" CreationDate="2014-02-14T19:36:36.080" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/434410865476263936" />
  <row Id="5822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2543" RevisionGUID="fe2681ed-3982-445f-8bc5-bf9d2a75ebd6" CreationDate="2014-02-15T07:09:57.270" UserId="659" Comment="spelling fixes" Text="Combustion. Algae will need to be dried first, of course, and you will need to adjust an oven to cleanly burn algae. Or you extract the oil first and combust that, but then you have a complicated process for a relatively simple task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you asked for fermentation, I doubt that's a way to go: While all or most fermentative processes produce some waste heat, most of the energy in the feedstock is used for cell growth. Alternatively you can digest the algae anaerobically, produce biogas, use the digestate as fertilizer for your algae, and heat your house with the gas. Again a complicated process for simple problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Algae are grown for oil because oil is a high grade fuel, easier transportable than gas and suitable for vehicles. I doubt that algae are a good option for space heating, as a far wider range of fuels and energy sources can be used here and a lot can be achieved with simple insulation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5823" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2543" RevisionGUID="fe2681ed-3982-445f-8bc5-bf9d2a75ebd6" CreationDate="2014-02-15T07:09:57.270" Comment="Proposed by 659 approved by 48 edit id of 239" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5825" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2542" RevisionGUID="3c598c41-8390-459e-9d3d-5b0317b3dfd5" CreationDate="2014-02-15T13:37:07.067" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/434682786361122816" />
  <row Id="5826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2371" RevisionGUID="4750153d-c601-4507-b987-1ca4c4b20ae5" CreationDate="2014-02-15T15:36:19.163" UserId="963" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="[Positive input ventilation][1] (PIV) is a lot cheaper to install then a heat recovery system; it pushes some of the air from the loft into the house.   The air in the loft tends to be warmer then the outside air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a dryer house **feels** warmer, by improving the ventilation you may be able to reduce the temperature you heat to, therefore often a PIV system will reduce heating costs.   (Not what you expect from the thermal maths!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have put a [MVHR][2] system in our bungalow, as we had so many issues with ventilation, it is great!  Being a bungalow the ducts were easy to install.   In a property we rent out, I put in a PIV system, as it is good enough to stop mould, putting in a better system would not have got any more rent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nuaire.co.uk/our-products/Residential/products?pt=1685&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2546" RevisionGUID="20e754ca-dd84-4a4a-9dd9-e019ac38f3ff" CreationDate="2014-02-15T20:12:10.570" UserId="400" Text="This is a very open ended question.  Much of this depends on the scale of operation, and your climate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You specifically said grey water, so I'm assuming this means laundry, dishwater and bathwater.  The chief grey components are going to be food waste, body dirt, and soap.  There will be a minor component of oil or grease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good system would have a float separation of grease.  Run the effluent into a large tank.  Both input and output should be several inches below the surface.  The tank should be sized to hold several day's waste water.   Inlet and outlets should be designed to not stir up the water much.  Using 4&quot; pipe with lots of 3/4&quot; holes is a good way to do this.  (2 feet of pipe with 6 holes every 3 inches.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check if you need this by taking some samples of grey water in a bucket, and see if a film of grease forms on the surface.  If no grease forms, then you don't need this step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the grease separation, run it through a straw column.  Build this with a couple of plastic barrels.  Every 6&quot; in height run 3 chunks of small diameter ABS sewer line through the barrel, alterting direction each level.  These fit loosely into holes in the barrel, as you need to remove them periodically to add straw.  On one side drill 3/4 inch holes every 2.5 inches.  Fill the column, inserting the pipes as needed, hole side down.  This keeps the column from collapsing into a sodden mess, and allows air into the column.  Your effluent is sprayed onto the top of the straw collumn at the rate of a couple gallons a minute.  You will need a small storage tank -- enough for a day's use, and a float switch to operate the pump.  You will have to replace the straw in the column a couple times a year.  Add to the compost pile.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternative way:  Pile of straw on 4 pallets.  Pallets are on a tarp.  Tarp drains into edge of pond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Run it to long, narrow shallow pond.  The pond should be between 12 and 18&quot; deep.  Plant the pond with cattails.  They will remove most of the phosphates from the soap, and generally remove harmful bacteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second pond that acts as storage until you need the water.  Having duckweed in this pond will act as a secondary biofilter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use the water first you need to filter it.  Do this in several stages.  First stage is a trash filter.  This is a coarse mesh filter that keeps chunks out of the plumbing.  Availalbe at any farm store.  This filter should be on a float, with the filter itself about a foot to two feet under the surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondary filter is a screen filter.  These are availble in mesh sizes from about 40 to about 150.  You may need several in series with progressively finer meshes.  Get ones that you don't have to disassemble to clean, but that you can just back flush.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tertiary filtering can be either a sand filter or a disk filter.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point you need to start taking water samples and send them off for checks for bacterial contamination.  Most pubic health offices in rural locations can do this for you.  Contact them for sampling technique.  If the bacteria count is too high, you can either use bleach or UV or ozone as a purifying step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the water is clean enough at the end of the cattails to use as water for your lawn and garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveats:  Pond based filters don't work when they are frozen.  If you live in a climate with consistend sub freezing or near freezing conditions, then you need to size your ponds to hold a year's water supply.  You will also need to add a pump to circulate the water during the good part of the year.  It doesn't have to circulate very fast.  Once a week will do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numbers:  Family of 4.  1 load of dishes (20 gal) 4 baths (150 gal) 2 batches of laundry (50 gal).  Misc other 30 gal.  Total 200 gallons.  That's about 25 cubic feet.  A 1 year pond then will need 400 x 25 (rounding days per year up) = 10,000 cubic feet.  If the pond is 2 feet deep that's 5000 square feet.  If you make the pond 10 feet wide it's 500 feet long.  You can make the pond serpentine, so it fits into an area 50 x 100 feet.  Or you can make it wander around the edge of your property as a water feature.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To circulate the water on a once a week basis during the thawed season you need to move 10,000 cubic feet / 600,000 seconds -- about a half a quart per second, or about 6 gallons a minute.  You can use larger flows for the sunny part of the day and run it off a PV cell.  There is very little height difference between one end and the other.  Main power loss will be friction in the piping.  You want low head pumps. Heating system circulation pumps, or aquarium pumps are candidates.  Take the time to calcuate the power usage.  It's going to run a LOT of hours.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a moderate climate, you can put the water based bio filter in a green house.  This will keep it active all year, or at most a much shorter down time.  This means you don't need to store a year's worth of pond, but only a week or two.   Make the green house twice as large as necessary, and attach it to the house as a sun room.  This will provide some heat for the house, and give a pleasant place on a winter's day.  Plastic sheathed hoop houses are inexpensive to build." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2547" RevisionGUID="3dce03a2-da99-4c9b-b8fc-ade9c241c692" CreationDate="2014-02-15T20:22:51.780" UserId="400" Text="&#xD;&#xA;1.  Tune your fridge.  We keep ours just barely above freezing.  Enough that if we get a package of hamburger out of the freezer it takes several days to thaw in the fridge.  We don't throw much away -- about a 2 gallon compost bucket a week, and that includes all the peels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Plan your meals to use leftovers.  We routinely make twice as much rice as that meal needs.  Then the rest is used two days later in another meal.  My mom made &quot;Everything Soup&quot; once a week.  All the leftovers went in it, sometimes as is, sometimes after a pass through the food processor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Use a freezer.  We have two outside on the porch where they barely run in winter.  If you use a chest freezer, use crates to keep stuff in the bottom accessible.  Do not believe the times claimed for how long stuff keeps. That's only true for the cling film packaged stuff.  And it doesn't go bad, it just gets freezer burned.  Soup stock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Feed small amounts of leftovers to pets.  Be aware of what's harmful.  Not all things good for people are good for fur faces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.  Buy in bulk and freeze.  This reduces the amount of package waste per portion, and with experience it aslo reduces leftovers -- or you can cook the right amount for 2 meals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2549" RevisionGUID="146c5e09-de30-4c33-8556-5c06ff423b43" CreationDate="2014-02-16T00:11:24.003" UserId="659" Text="An interesting option would be to convert the algae to oil in the current manner, then to burn it for electricity, then use the electricity to power a heat pump. This is a form of [co-generation][1], where the heat that would normally be wasted is treated as a useful output, but the electricity is directly used to generate (more) heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for the added complexity is the gain in the heat pump. Roughly, the co-gen plant will put out 1/3 electricity and 2/3 heat. The heat pump will have a gain of 3-6, so you'll get between 3/3 heat and 6/3 heat from the electricity, for a total output of 5/3 to 8/3. In other words, for each kWh of combustable oil you get from your algae, you get between 1.6kWh and 2.6kWh of heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question then is how much heat energy you lose by converting the algae to oil. [This article][2] suggests nearly 30% usable hydrocarbon by weight, but there's considerable heating required to extract them. [HowStuffWorks][3] discusses other methods, but it seems likely that 30% oil by weight will be an upper limit for a while yet. But the 70% remaining can probably be burnt or composted. The hydrocarbon content is likely to be the most energy-dense, so even though it's only 30% of the mass it'll probably have more than half the energy content (for example, even dry algae has some water content, and water doesn't burn).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking a guess at the overall cycle efficiency is hard, especially if we want to consider the energy cost of all the equipment. It's even more complicated because you wouldn't do this for one house, you'd do it on a municipal or national level. One honking great refinery, co-gen plants around the city and heat pumps in houses with piped steam to distribute the co-gen heat to nearby consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if we assume the energy cost of the equipment is low compared to the total energy involved, we could say 30% of the mass/50% of the energy becomes oil which is used at an overall efficiency of about 200%, and the remaining 50% of the energy is used at 100% (ie, burnt) that still gives an overall efficiency of 150%. Which is enough that it's likely to be better than just burning the algae at home (where you will have significant heat loss up the chimney)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852413019147?np=y&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/biofuels/convert-algae-to-biofuel.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2550" RevisionGUID="d1be0c23-2d28-4c75-82f4-efdabf0a79b7" CreationDate="2014-02-16T01:15:37.227" UserId="1096" Text="Sustainability seems to be a term that is used at different scales for policies for large businesses right down to individuals doing small things around the house. What does sustainability mean in these two different contexts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5832" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2550" RevisionGUID="d1be0c23-2d28-4c75-82f4-efdabf0a79b7" CreationDate="2014-02-16T01:15:37.227" UserId="1096" Text="What is the difference between sustainable living for an individual and a sustainability policy for a company?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5833" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2550" RevisionGUID="d1be0c23-2d28-4c75-82f4-efdabf0a79b7" CreationDate="2014-02-16T01:15:37.227" UserId="1096" Text="|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2551" RevisionGUID="eeab25b0-20ef-439c-bb02-0a3c8f677957" CreationDate="2014-02-16T02:05:53.273" UserId="659" Text="I don't think it's as simple as two contexts. Just taking &quot;sustainable&quot; in the sense used by environmentalists, corporate &quot;sustainability policy&quot; covers everything from the goals of an organic farming co-op through to the greenwash applied by the nuclear industry. These days almost every company has a sustainability policy, just as they have a policy against sexual harassment and an equal opportunity policy (even the [Catholic Church][1] has them). Similarly, at a personal level sustainability covers the range from eco-survivalists to a billionaire telling the media that they run one of their private jets on biofuel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But broadly, personal sustainability means someone is trying to move towards using only renewable resources in their personal life and minimising the amount of resources they consume. There are so many ways of doing this, and our current consumption is so high that most people who have internet access have a huge range of choices for living more sustainably. This site is full of examples so I won't go further into that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Corporate sustainability policies** can be broadly divided in those designed to make the company look better, and ones that are simply the goals of the owners written down. In between are policies written by smart accountants (ie, going green to save money), and those pushed by people within the organisation who are not entirely focussed on the &quot;amoral money making&quot; aspect of corporate lore. But one aspect of sustainability is not getting prosecuted for breaking the law or persecuted for violating the expectations of the company owners. So there's a limit - you're not going to see [&quot;Beyond Petroleum&quot;][2] getting out of the oil business [regardless of their marketing slogans][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Sustainability Policies&quot; often operate at the easy end of that scale and tap into the enthusiasm of their staff. I've worked for a 30k+ employee company that had &quot;green teams&quot; made up of volunteers, and those teams produced policy proposals for all sorts of little changes, and when they were accepted all the teams worked to get people in the company to accept and comply with the policies. It's hard but important work, there's a lot of inertia in companies and it's very hard to be &quot;that one guy who prints double sided&quot; in a department. That kind of cultural change is important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same companies often have top-down sustainability policies too. They'll have a &quot;VP of Green&quot; or something similar who has enough power to push for bigger changes. From them you get &quot;this company only buys 100% post-consumer recycled paper&quot; and so on, which means someone has gone out and found suppliers, verified the products, made sure the required quantities can be supplied and so on, then done a budget and gone to the board to say &quot;it will cost/save $X to change&quot;. Then they put it in the annual report and do press releases, which is why verification is so important - they really don't want the follow-up to that press release to be a demolition of some of the claims in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the even-more-greenwash level, companies also engage in &quot;pure marketing&quot; sustainability operations. They'll [put a 10kW wind turbine][4] on the top of their corporate headquarters so everyone can see it, even though the top of a skyscraper is [a stupid place to put one][5]. They'll rename themselves &quot;Great Environmentalists&quot; instead of &quot;General Electric&quot; and trumpet stuff like putting PV panels on top of their nuclear reactors. Then a couple of years later go back to being General Electric and hope the little boost in &quot;green credibility&quot; they got sticks around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=21756&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/01/15/beyond-petroleum-pays-off-for-bp/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.talentzoo.com/news/How-BP-s-Beyond-Petroleum-Branding-Strategy-Became-an-Epic-Failure/7587.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.anz.com/about-us/corporate-responsibility/environment/targets-performance/energy/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1841305" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2552" RevisionGUID="effe3640-e182-4011-8830-28a2fbf8cb1c" CreationDate="2014-02-16T04:31:27.597" UserId="1177" Text="I'm treating the internet as a think tank. Please include all steps including political ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Harbin][1] is a northern Chinese city made it to the headline for its toxic smog. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Harbin_smog" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2552" RevisionGUID="effe3640-e182-4011-8830-28a2fbf8cb1c" CreationDate="2014-02-16T04:31:27.597" UserId="1177" Text="What are the steps needed to fix Harbin's smog problem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2552" RevisionGUID="effe3640-e182-4011-8830-28a2fbf8cb1c" CreationDate="2014-02-16T04:31:27.597" UserId="1177" Text="|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2552" RevisionGUID="659644fb-a40b-4d0e-bc47-850d528f795d" CreationDate="2014-02-16T04:39:39.983" UserId="1177" Comment="improved grammar" Text="I'm treating the internet as a think tank. Please include all steps including political ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Harbin][1] is a northern Chinese city famous for its toxic smog. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Harbin_smog" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5840" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="2552" RevisionGUID="4898cc73-67af-48dc-8f5d-a20833b26f49" CreationDate="2014-02-16T08:13:13.443" UserId="1177" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1177,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George Chen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2553" RevisionGUID="efaadda2-0c48-4038-b269-414e49939efe" CreationDate="2014-02-16T15:58:03.423" UserId="400" Text="Sprouting is very dependent on temperature, the age of the seed, the species, and likely things that otherwise would only affect the flavour of pizza.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get a series of pails.  Make screen lids for them.  (Take the regular lid, cut an 8&quot; hole in it. Stick on 1/8 screen wire using silicon seal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put grain in the bucket.  Soak for X minutes.  Invert the bucket to drain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Twice a day fill and drain the bucket.  This is all just standard sprouting.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The buckets take up less room than trays, and you don't need the trays until the seeds sprout.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One you start to see sprouts, transfer the seeds to trays, and put in light.  Again, you will need an easy way to fill and drain. A simple way is to put a hole in the bottom of the tray, and stuff it with a chunk of sponge.  Add water to the tray.  The water will slowly drain through the sponge.  The size of the hole and how tight you pack the sponge controls the drip rate.  This water may have nutrients for your livestock. A sponge is far less likely to block.  A hole small enough to give soaking time will block with the first loose floaty that comes along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Look into self starting syphons.  Try on the marijuana hydroponic  web pages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to optimum time -- that's tricky.  My thought:  When the sead leaves look ready to fall off the plant has converted most of the seed mass into young plant, but the amount of simple celluose is still at a minimum.  Better than this would require nutrient testing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5842" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="2552" RevisionGUID="31ffa5e5-5592-4f85-810c-64cce24d454d" CreationDate="2014-02-17T00:11:09.023" UserId="1177" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1177,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;George Chen&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5843" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2552" RevisionGUID="4905876f-f0a3-4c85-81ac-3a38de5cc119" CreationDate="2014-02-17T08:22:03.017" UserId="99" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2554" RevisionGUID="ddadc485-f95e-4bda-906e-d9ab6ba53765" CreationDate="2014-02-17T08:40:17.200" UserId="96" Text="[Ӎσᶎ summed up what corporate sustainability is about](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2551/96). I want to try a different angle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, at all scales the basic question is the same: What goes into your system (stuff, energy), what comes out (stuff, waste), where does is all come from and go to? What does this mean for sustainability? What can I change (choosing different inputs, avoiding some outputs) to improve sustainability? How much do I, do we care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, on a personal scale (you, your household or familiy, the group of friends with whom you travel/have a soccer club/share a makerspace ...) it's all about sharing the enthusiasm for improving sustainability and finding ways to changea and improve the same. You don't have toanalyze avery change in light of monetary costs. Maybe you'll look at the cost and benefit of changing lightbulbs to more efficient ones, but you probably won't put a money value on the time you spend separating waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a moneymaking scale, the entitiy (big or small) has to do this. Every additional hour of working time will have to be justified. That's why, even if there are well meaning people within a company, the policies that get implemented are typically the ones that cost nothing or bring a public relations boost - as described in Ӎσᶎ answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2552" RevisionGUID="b05cfe07-3fc1-4613-8d0a-f2e4e8cfb901" CreationDate="2014-02-17T11:26:34.987" UserId="48" Comment="added 369 characters in body" Text="[Harbin][1] is a north-eastern Chinese city famous for its toxic smog. The smog has been caused by a combination of the weather, stubble being burnt in fields, coal being burnt for the municipal heating system, and other sources of smoke. [In 2013, the smog forced the closure of schools and airports for several days][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nor is Harbin unique - similar problems are seen in many cities in China, and around the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is needed to fix this problem sustainably?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Harbin_smog&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-24579101" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5846" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="2552" RevisionGUID="32fad463-d286-46d4-91f6-01a7435b163f" CreationDate="2014-02-17T11:45:12.647" UserId="99" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="5847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2555" RevisionGUID="c9b6cfd1-ba28-4bd6-944a-ed9fccbce69a" CreationDate="2014-02-17T14:01:20.407" UserId="85" Text="This has become too long for a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can imagine a similar question like this: &quot;Heffingbourne has a problem with all sorts of rubbish being disposed in lakes, forests and the town centre. How can we solve this problem _sustainably_?&quot; I think the question has very little to do with sustainability. Answers to this hypothetical question are of course &quot;Make sure all rubbish is disposed of sustainably&quot; and &quot;Make sure that no unsustainable rubbish is produced in the first place&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solutions for Harbin is similar in nature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Make sure that no field stubble is burnt.&#xD;&#xA;- Make sure that everything producing smoke (cars, factories, fossil-fuel power stations) has up-to-scratch filters installed.&#xD;&#xA;- Get rid of as many cars/factories/power stations as possible.&#xD;&#xA; - Replace cars by an affordable and reliable transport system (safe bicycle paths, bus/train network with special offers for commuters).&#xD;&#xA; - Make factories produce products that last and don't depend on consuming energy.&#xD;&#xA; - Replace fossil-fuel power stations by (sustainable) wind/water/biogas/whatever power stations.&#xD;&#xA;- Plant as much forest as possible (and make sure it isn't cut down) to help filter the air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this can be encouraged/enforced by taxing unsustainable behaviour (providing tax relief for sustainable solutions), marketing campaigns, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone can solve this problem theoretically, but in practice it is much harder to achieve." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2556" RevisionGUID="d5057bcd-c989-4350-95f6-e80a06ce58e8" CreationDate="2014-02-17T14:10:20.363" UserId="48" Text="###the problem&#xD;&#xA;Smog is a combination of smoke and fog. So some might think that a solution might be to address the fog, rather than the smoke. But the fog is just making visible the pollution that's around all the time. There will be many incidents of toxic levels of pollution, even when there's no smog. So addressing the smoke is fundamental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smoke comes about from burning complex hydrocarbons. In the case of Harbin, and in many similar cases around the world, that's coming from burning coal, and from burning stubble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###technicals&#xD;&#xA;There are two ways to drastically reduce particulate emissions: stop burning the things that release particulates, or trap the particulates straight after combustion. The latter is more expensive, and only addresses part of the problem: particulates are just one of the pollutants: SOx, NOx, CO and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; are associated pollutants also released by combustion that will not be caught by a particulate trap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Stubble-burning** used to be common in lots of the world, but has been stopped in many places because of the pollution impact. Ploughing stubble back in prevents the loss of trace nutrients, and can reduce soil erosion. [See this pdf report from the US DoE for more about this.][1]. Changing this behaviour will need education for the farmers - there is a common belief that burning kills all pathogens (it doesn't). [The Saskatchewan government proposes several alternatives to burning][2], including chaff spreading, chaff collection, post-harvesting harrowing, and turning surplus straw into an economically useful commodity, selling it as forage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Coal-burning** is also in decline in most of the world, as a nineteenth-century relic that has long past its useful life. It's a major source of greenhouse gases, as well as of particulate pollution. The good news for Harbin, is that because a lot of its heating is provided through the municipal heating system, it's relatively easy to clean up the heating supply for the city. Much easier than it would be for a city such as London, in Europe, where almost of the heating systems are in the individual buildings of the users of the heat, so cleaning up London's heating would mean gaining access to millions of buildings to replace millions of boilers. There are several options for Harbin, and the right answer will be a combination of these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a very large thermal store (a gigantic hot-water tank)&#xD;&#xA; - electric ground-source heat-pumps with a large area of exposed ground to collect from: note that this is effectively harvesting solar power stored as ground heat, so the rate of extraction of heat mustn't exceed the average annual rate of insolation onto the ground.&#xD;&#xA; - electric resistance heating for meeting peak demands, and for helping to provide balancing services to the electricity grid.&#xD;&#xA; - solar thermal collectors&#xD;&#xA; - possibly biomass boilers with particulate traps&#xD;&#xA; - [geothermal power may be an option, depending on the local geology][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###economics&#xD;&#xA;Coal is a cheap fuel, because the buyer of the coal doesn't have to pay for the pollution caused. Burning stubble is a cheap way to clear fields after harvest. One way to tackle this is to change relative prices, so that a cleaner alternative is cheaper: this has had very mixed results around the world. It can be done through a combination of subsidising cleaner options (less public objections, but then energy-efficiency measures no long look as attractive) and through the polluter-pays principle, whereby a tax is added to the polluting process, to internalise the damage costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###politics&#xD;&#xA;Prices are not the only way to change behaviour. Regulation is another route: enforced regulations to drastically reduce or prevent the destructive choice. This has historically had much higher success in tackling pollution than price mechanisms, but in cultures where belief in the efficiency of markets dominates, it may be more difficult to establish. A change in relative prices can help establish an environment of support for subsequent regulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you have to identify who the agents of change are: who is it who can change what's happening now. These will often be people with economic and/or political power. Then you have to work out how to motivate them to bring the change about. What do they want, and can you find a way to link the change you are seeking, with the thing they want. Alternatively, what do they want to avoid, and can you find a way to link the status-quo, with the thing they want to avoid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Harbin does have advantages, and making the most of those advantages could be crucial to success. The municipal power plant makes technology-switch faster and easier. There is money available, including [a 10 billion yuan fund to reward efforts to curb air pollution][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And [there are national policy initiatives happening right now to curb particulates emission][5], as part of the **Airborne Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###next steps for Harbin&#xD;&#xA;Engage the people. Engage the Party. Engage Academia: this sort of problem will need the input of engineers and social scientists - just the sort of thing that multi-disciplinary university energy departments do. (disclosure - that's what I do)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/aginfo/research_pdf_files/DOE_Final_Report_CropRotation.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=ed3929f8-46fe-46c1-87b2-fe47f22b87cb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1598&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.energy-enviro.com/index.php?PAGE=5&amp;NODE_ID=7&amp;LANG=1&amp;ID=4947&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.energy-enviro.com/index.php?PAGE=5&amp;NODE_ID=7&amp;LANG=1&amp;ID=4946&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2557" RevisionGUID="0b3b6d6f-25d4-4307-a4c2-83c2f228d7c1" CreationDate="2014-02-17T14:49:33.257" UserId="1065" Text="The 40% figure includes not just food thrown out by the end consumer, but also food that spoiled between the time it left the farm and made it to consumers' houses. From what I've read, most of the waste actually happens before the consumer purchases the food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am blessed to live in an area with a lot of CSAs and wonderful farmers' markets. It takes a little more work to track down, but we can also find farmers who sell a side of beef, lamb, chickens and fresh eggs. If you're purchasing from a responsible producer who knows the market and is growing based on demand, you have a greater chance of reducing the amount of waste, because you the consumer have the food straight out of the field. If CSAs are an option for you, using one combined with the tips others have given for using everything you buy would make a difference. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5850" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2550" RevisionGUID="bf552216-9eb4-4b80-8bec-716133a79068" CreationDate="2014-02-17T19:39:45.310" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/435498824283717632" />
  <row Id="5851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2546" RevisionGUID="98f2034a-471c-40fc-b4d4-28083ec15ea8" CreationDate="2014-02-18T00:02:53.630" UserId="400" Comment="necesity of filteration before pumps." Text="This is a very open ended question.  Much of this depends on the scale of operation, and your climate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You specifically said grey water, so I'm assuming this means laundry, dishwater and bathwater.  The chief grey components are going to be food waste, body dirt, and soap.  There will be a minor component of oil or grease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good system would have a float separation of grease.  Run the effluent into a large tank.  Both input and output should be several inches below the surface.  The tank should be sized to hold several day's waste water.   Inlet and outlets should be designed to not stir up the water much.  Using 4&quot; pipe with lots of 3/4&quot; holes is a good way to do this.  (2 feet of pipe with 6 holes every 3 inches.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check if you need this by taking some samples of grey water in a bucket, and see if a film of grease forms on the surface.  If no grease forms, then you don't need this step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the grease separation, run it through a straw column.  Build this with a couple of plastic barrels.  Every 6&quot; in height run 3 chunks of small diameter ABS sewer line through the barrel, alterting direction each level.  These fit loosely into holes in the barrel, as you need to remove them periodically to add straw.  On one side drill 3/4 inch holes every 2.5 inches.  Fill the column, inserting the pipes as needed, hole side down.  This keeps the column from collapsing into a sodden mess, and allows air into the column.  Your effluent is sprayed onto the top of the straw collumn at the rate of a couple gallons a minute.  You will need a small storage tank -- enough for a day's use, and a float switch to operate the pump.  You need to either use a pump that can handle solids, or you need to put a filter before the pump. You will have to replace the straw in the column a couple times a year.  Add to the compost pile.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternative way:  Pile of straw on 4 pallets.  Pallets are on a tarp.  Tarp drains into edge of pond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Run it to long, narrow shallow pond.  The pond should be between 12 and 18&quot; deep.  Plant the pond with cattails.  They will remove most of the phosphates from the soap, and generally remove harmful bacteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second pond that acts as storage until you need the water.  Having duckweed in this pond will act as a secondary biofilter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use the water first you need to filter it.  Do this in several stages.  First stage is a trash filter.  This is a coarse mesh filter that keeps chunks out of the plumbing.  Availalbe at any farm store.  This filter should be on a float, with the filter itself about a foot to two feet under the surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondary filter is a screen filter.  These are availble in mesh sizes from about 40 to about 150.  You may need several in series with progressively finer meshes.  Get ones that you don't have to disassemble to clean, but that you can just back flush.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tertiary filtering can be either a sand filter or a disk filter.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point you need to start taking water samples and send them off for checks for bacterial contamination.  Most pubic health offices in rural locations can do this for you.  Contact them for sampling technique.  If the bacteria count is too high, you can either use bleach or UV or ozone as a purifying step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the water is clean enough at the end of the cattails to use as water for your lawn and garden.  Filter enough for whatever pumping system you use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveats:  Pond based filters don't work when they are frozen.  If you live in a climate with consistend sub freezing or near freezing conditions, then you need to size your ponds to hold a year's water supply.  You will also need to add a pump to circulate the water during the good part of the year.  It doesn't have to circulate very fast.  Once a week will do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numbers:  Family of 4.  1 load of dishes (20 gal) 4 baths (150 gal) 2 batches of laundry (50 gal).  Misc other 30 gal.  Total 200 gallons.  That's about 25 cubic feet.  A 1 year pond then will need 400 x 25 (rounding days per year up) = 10,000 cubic feet.  If the pond is 2 feet deep that's 5000 square feet.  If you make the pond 10 feet wide it's 500 feet long.  You can make the pond serpentine, so it fits into an area 50 x 100 feet.  Or you can make it wander around the edge of your property as a water feature.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To circulate the water on a once a week basis during the thawed season you need to move 10,000 cubic feet / 600,000 seconds -- about a half a quart per second, or about 6 gallons a minute.  You can use larger flows for the sunny part of the day and run it off a PV cell.  There is very little height difference between one end and the other.  Main power loss will be friction in the piping.  You want low head pumps. Heating system circulation pumps, or aquarium pumps are candidates.  Take the time to calcuate the power usage.  It's going to run a LOT of hours.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a moderate climate, you can put the water based bio filter in a green house.  This will keep it active all year, or at most a much shorter down time.  This means you don't need to store a year's worth of pond, but only a week or two.   Make the green house twice as large as necessary, and attach it to the house as a sun room.  This will provide some heat for the house, and give a pleasant place on a winter's day.  Plastic sheathed hoop houses are inexpensive to build." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2558" RevisionGUID="ecdd1879-516a-4487-be43-f35a40f58071" CreationDate="2014-02-18T02:42:39.050" UserId="400" Text="If you think of algae as heat engines -- turning sunlight into algae -- they will produce waste heat.  The problem with the waste heat is the temperature.  You will end up with a lot of low temperature algae soup.  Indeed, the gain in temperature just from the sunlight is much larger than the waste heat of the algae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Algae are a large fraction water.  80-90 percent at a guess.  Let's look at the dry weight:  Oils and fats are all about 9 kcal/gram.  Carbohydrates and proteins both run about 4 kcal/gram.  The fraction of ash in algae is very small. Under 1%.  So if 10% of the dry weight is oil, then that accounts for close 10 20% of the energy value.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to calculate: Consider a 100 gram sample.  If 20% is oil, that 20 grams at 9 kcal/gram = 180 kcal, and 80 grams of carbohydrate and protein at 4 kcal/gram = 320 kcal.  Total is 500 kcal.  So the 20% oil accounts for 36% of the energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For conventional use, algae are selected for high oil production.  Unfortunately high oil production means that the algae are making oil, instead of more algae.  A mutation back to the original form will outstrip the population of the oil variant very quickly.  Serious energy production from algae will require cleaning out a loop, and restocking it on a regular basis.  This will become a technical management issue with journals and conferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get energy out of algae there are several alternatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Blend it, separate out the oil, use the rest as a feed stock for the algae loop.  This oil can then be used as a feed stock for whatever fuel fantasies you can conjure up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Dry it.  As a powder it is the equivalent of greasy sawdust.  Burning this could be done using the same technology as coal fired generating stations that use powdered coal.  This last one seems quite attractive to me.  I wonder if the waste heat from the generating station is sufficient to dry the algae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    One of the issues here is that with the loss of protein with the burned algae, you lose the nitrogen that the algae need to make more algae.  In an ideal system you are only &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Compost it.  The decompostion reaction produces heat.  Done right this can supply water at temperataures up to 140 F.  With suitable breeding of composting bacteria it may be possible to raise this some.  This also has the nitrogen loss issue, as bacteria convert the nitrogen either to ammonia or to nitrous oxides, or to plain nitrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;removing CH chains from the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yu are willing to settle for common algae, then you may be able to grow the algae in the cooling pond of the power plant.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, however using algae as fuel is not a great idea.  Far better to use it to make chicken feed, or rabbit feed. Or maybe as the coloring agent in Soylent Green.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2559" RevisionGUID="7022e4ad-fac9-4212-a14f-ec6bbdcb3631" CreationDate="2014-02-18T02:55:49.287" UserId="400" Text="Firstly the plastic grocery bags that the stores give/sell you are awfully light.  I just weighted 4 on my kitchen scale.  They average 6 grams each.  This means if you buy stuff a pound at a time, it's just over 1% extra.  At a kilogram you are down to 0.6% extra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly:  the bags are tough enough to get home, and we often reuse them for other things.  So, as long as you aren't hauling rocks in them, I would expect to get a half dozen uses each.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly:  They only have to last long enough to go over the scales.  You can transfer them to your cloth bags as you bag your groceries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For stuff that is either sharper or you want to buy in larger quantities, recycle the red mesh onion bags.  (Obviously a bad idea for split peas or bulk couscous...)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally for stuff that keeps, buy it prepackaged in the largest size you can store.  We buy flour in 10 Kg bags, and store in a non-operating chest freezer in a shed. (Old freezers are great mouse proof storage.) Ditto sugar.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One local chain has bins outside where you can return your plastic bags to be turned into fence posts.  No reason you can use them for another round trip first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2560" RevisionGUID="78eefbca-8cdc-4160-8d55-203ffa58f491" CreationDate="2014-02-18T13:55:24.210" UserId="400" Text="Yes it is more efficient, but there may be better ways.  As Flyto comments, there is a limit to how warm you run the house.  You don't want to live in a Heat Battery.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you assume a 10 degree C fluctuation in temperature outside, and an average of 30 C colder outside than inside, then yes, a chunk of heat pulled in during the warm part of the day would cost about 1/3 less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be effective as a co-strategy to run the house cooler.  If you are willing to wear a sweater during the morning chill, you will have more 'room' to warm the house during the warm part of the day.  It may also be effective to reduce heat to some parts of the house.  If you don't have zoned heat, you can put old phone books on top of the heat registers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Increasing the thermal mass in your house can also help.  This gives you more heat per degree of temperature increase.  It is difficult to retrofit large amounts of mass into an existing structure, but if your house is already slab on grade, it may be as simple as changing from carpet to tile or painted concrete.  Dark colours where the floor is sunny can help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are willing to make a major committment, consider radiant heat in the floor. This requires exposing the concrete floor, laying down tubes, and casting another 1.5&quot; or so of concrete on top.  Now the entire slab is thermal mass, and it has enough mass that you can heat it through the warm part of the day. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is to figure out a way to pre-heat the air reaching the heat pump.  Some clever work with a thousand feet of black plastic pipe, and a PV water pump may do wonders.  If the heat pump can be converted to using water as it's source, then coils of pipe on the roof to heat a tank of water with the heat pump pulling your house heat out of the tank could be very effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However some local experience:  I live in Alberta.  We have a 2500 square foot house with 2 bathrooms. The house is conventional 2x6 construction, not especially tight. The bathrooms are heated with ciculating hot water.  The rest of the house is heated with wood.  Yesterday the outside temperature ranged from -10 to 0 C.  It was a sunny day.  We have most of our windows on the sunny side.  No fires yesterday.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2561" RevisionGUID="d09bc091-0e9b-4ceb-9d00-d6851ea3a7a9" CreationDate="2014-02-18T14:04:40.897" UserId="400" Text="Other possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your local building code allows, go to metal roofing.  Locally it costs about half again more than shingles, but it lasts three times as long.  Often metal roofing can be put on over shingles if they haven't started to curl badly.  We can get metal roofing in about 20 colors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:  Put metal clading on the part of the roof where the PV will go.  The rest of the roof can wait until later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2562" RevisionGUID="6631e2fd-1d08-45d8-a9e8-e9d7c9a3e28e" CreationDate="2014-02-18T14:09:40.187" UserId="400" Text="In terms of sustainability concrete, glass, and polystyrene are not the way to go. The first two have very high embodied energy, the last is made from natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of DIY, look at Strawbale, COB, leichtlehm, earthships.  Couple this with lime/earth based plasters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You lose on modularity. You gain on sustainability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5860" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2552" RevisionGUID="07f25c05-555d-4dcf-848d-a3c66186e83f" CreationDate="2014-02-18T22:40:11.727" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/435906621030797312" />
  <row Id="5861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="3d4edcf3-93c2-44e6-a6c3-b79b57519a1b" CreationDate="2014-02-19T00:49:46.610" UserId="480" Text="My region is experiencing a drought and I'd like to know how much water my household is using so we can be sure that we're minimizing our water use (which is good to do even in normal conditions). However, my home is in a multiple unit development, where none of the dwellings have an individual water meter, all units get water from the central meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to make or buy a clamp-on meter for home use that I could just clamp on my copper inlet pipe to give me a sense of how much water I'm using? Ideally something electronic that I could read and record automatically, but even a local display would be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked around a bit online and found a number of products that are oriented toward the industrial market, with prices to match (~$1000 and higher).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd rather not go through the hassle and expense of having a plumber install an in-line water meter (and I'm not even sure the HOA would agree to allow me install it since the most accessible part of the water line is in a common area), so I'm looking for something that doesn't need to be permanently installed.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="3d4edcf3-93c2-44e6-a6c3-b79b57519a1b" CreationDate="2014-02-19T00:49:46.610" UserId="480" Text="Clamp-on water meter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="3d4edcf3-93c2-44e6-a6c3-b79b57519a1b" CreationDate="2014-02-19T00:49:46.610" UserId="480" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5864" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="51c3cf24-44aa-4dd9-b3be-83239e1704cd" CreationDate="2014-02-19T10:40:13.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/436087819749302273" />
  <row Id="5865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2563" RevisionGUID="23d74625-900f-468d-a812-05a83ef2abba" CreationDate="2014-02-19T16:18:02.010" UserId="480" Comment="add links to an industrial ultrasonic flow meter" Text="My region is experiencing a drought and I'd like to know how much water my household is using so we can be sure that we're minimizing our water use (which is good to do even in normal conditions). However, my home is in a multiple unit development, where none of the dwellings have an individual water meter, all units get water from the central meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to make or buy a clamp-on meter for home use that I could just clamp on my copper inlet pipe to give me a sense of how much water I'm using? Ideally something electronic that I could read and record automatically, but even a local display would be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've looked around a bit online and found a number of products that are oriented toward the industrial market, with prices to match (~$1000 and higher), like [these][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Ultrasonic Flow Meters** Ultrasonic flow meters utilize sound waves to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measure the velocity of a fluid from which the volumetric flow rate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; can be calculated. Unlike most flow meters, ultrasonic meters do not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; include any moving parts and thus are more reliable, accurate and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; provide maintenance free operation. Since ultrasonic signals can also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; penetrate solid materials, the transducers can be mounted onto the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; outside of the pipe offering completely non-invasive measurement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; eliminating chemical compatibility issues, pressure restrictions, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pressure loss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd rather not go through the hassle and expense of having a plumber install an in-line water meter (and I'm not even sure the HOA would agree to allow me install it since the most accessible part of the water line is in a common area), so I'm looking for something that doesn't need to be permanently installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.instrumart.com/categories/4141/ultrasonic-flow-meters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5873" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2528" RevisionGUID="33019fc3-7333-4de4-a202-af3821bdf983" CreationDate="2014-02-20T01:40:13.690" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/436314315445264384" />
  <row Id="5875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2566" RevisionGUID="d02c77d9-4dcb-4b41-a554-b1c48770dd7b" CreationDate="2014-02-20T09:23:14.707" UserId="130" Text="Unfortunately, the real answers are rarely as easy as one might think.  Let's discuss a couple of major sources of smog in Harbin in turn and why they are hard to address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burnt Field Stubble**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being from a rural area myself, for the most part, I tend to wince when people decide that burnt field stubble is the root of all the problems.  This tends to be (usually) at most a seasonable problem and rarely something which is a major, ongoing source of smog.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the way this is dealt with in Eastern Washington is to require farmers to coordinate field burns with local authorities.  The idea is that burning stubble isn't necessarily bad and it can in fact be important for certain kinds of crops, but that when combined with certain weather patterns it can be a bad thing.  Therefore, wait for good weather, let the authorities help coordinate when this can be done (i.e. not during an inversion) and this makes a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Coal in Steel Production**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal in Harbin is used in two things:  electrical production and steel smelting.  Now, the former has renewable possibilities, but the latter does not at scale.  While one can recycle steel in a relatively lossy way using just electricity, smelting and new steel production requires a carbon-rich reducing agent, which generally leaves you with the choice of coal or charcoal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently 12% of worldwide coal production is used for steel production and there is no real substitute.  Now, the obvious answer here would be to move the steel mills so that they are well downwind of the city.  That helps solve the city's smog problem, but mostly by just moving the problem somewhere else.  Moreover in terms of toxic smog, metal smelting is particularly bad and this does include iron smelting.  This is due to the fact that all kinds of other stuff from the ore often ends up in the exhaust as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consequently it is simply not true that burning coal has no real purpose.  We don't have a way to supply world demand for metals like copper or steel without burning coal and there's no reason to expect that this will change in the reasonably foreseeable future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So unfortunately for the worst part, it seems unlikely that there is a simple, sustainable solution here.  The best answer here is to move the steel production plants downwind of the city far enough that this issue is resolved locally and shifted to someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Transportation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transportation is one of the major contributing factors to air pollution in just about every city I have been in, from Jakarta to Seattle.  The worst offenders are large, commercial diesel vehicles, which often burn cheap fuel in poorly tuned engines (particularly in developing countries).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer here is somewhat complex but you have to pay attention to a couple of factors, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Diesel quality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Engine maintenance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Commercial vehicle costs and where these cascade to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just improving the diesel quality by itself can significantly reduce tailpipe particulate emissions, at least based on my experience.  Also see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15180069 for an abstract of a paper discussing the impact of fuel formula on particulate emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say that my experience seeing Jakarta's air quality improve significantly in the last decade has been mostly due to improved diesel fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So the answer is**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.  Move the steel plants downwind of town&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.  Look for energy reduction strategies and/or changing the coal-fired plant to something better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.  Ensure higher grade diesel fuel is used in and around the city&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4.  If possible don't allow field stubble to be burned on days when there is an inversion weather-wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now these don't solve many of the problems globally and often amount to pushing problems around.  However, unless we stop using steel in industrial quantities, it seems hard to see how the worst offenders (steel production) are going to be addressed globally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2567" RevisionGUID="02a563ba-ca30-462b-aa39-77bea83bab26" CreationDate="2014-02-20T09:27:25.577" UserId="96" Text="I think the cheapest option would be acalrimetric flow meter. [Description from engineering toolbox](http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flow-meters-d_493.html)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The calorimetric principle for fluid flow measurement is based on two temperature sensors in close contact with the fluid but thermal insulated from each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Calorimetric Flowmeter][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One of the two sensors is constantly heated and the cooling effect of the flowing fluid is used to monitor the flowrate. In a stationary (no flow) fluid condition there is a constant temperature difference between the two temperature sensors. When the fluid flow increases, heat energy is drawn from the heated sensor and the temperature difference between the sensors are reduced. The reduction is proportional to the flow rate of the fluid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Response times will vary due the thermal conductivity of the fluid. In general lower thermal conductivity require higher velocity for proper measurement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The calorimetric flowmeter can achieve relatively high accuracy at low flow rates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In you case, you would have two sensors clamped on the pipe (maybe a band). The thermal conduction of the pipe would distort your measurement.  &#xD;&#xA;You could build one yourself, and test it on a pipe exactly like the one you clamp it on with a mechanical inline flowmeter (that you would have to buy, but those are cheap). The nice thing is that the exact flow regime is irrelevant, as you measure the mass flow and not a pressure drop or similiar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm convinced that this is the most doable clamp-on flow-meter for a DIY project, it may still not be very doable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3wIcT.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2568" RevisionGUID="b7d9238f-cfa5-4330-a3ca-65bf55414c20" CreationDate="2014-02-21T01:52:34.610" UserId="400" Text="Not reasonable to do.  Firstly, what you describe is only the final assembly.  I don't see any advantage to doing that on site instead of at a plant.  And I see considerable disadvantages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paint on PV while demonstrated in the lab, has serious issues with longevity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even at the household scale the infra-structure is now more expensive than the PV panels themselves.  Supporting frameworks, DC-AC converter, intertie so that if the grid goes down so does your system (otherwise your system can kill a lineworker who thinks that the lines are de-energiesed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Implementing this on a large scale runs up against system issues -- you need the right sized wires to each panel, you need to aggragate the lines together, you need to keep all the AC in phase.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing it by robot on abandoned land?  The present state of robot art barely allows vehicles that drive themselves on a road network.  Doing this on land that makes service calls impossible is a non-starter.  Get it to work in someplace tolerable, like the Sonoran Desert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;DIY is quite practical for solar hot water, especially if you have a use such as a swimming pool that can use large quantities of not very hot water.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2569" RevisionGUID="330ca53a-2c8c-434d-b781-0b4ff520d768" CreationDate="2014-02-21T02:04:39.563" UserId="400" Text="One method that I've found very effective here in Alberta:  Permanent wetlands.  Mosquitoes here tend to lay their eggs in whatever body of water they find.  Wetlands attract them.  If a wetland is wet year round it soon establishes a population of mosquito predataors.  I had occasion to add a 1/3 acre pond.  My mosquito population dropped by 90%.  We went from it being insufferable to be in the yard after supper to it being only a minor nuisance, easily controlled with citronella." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2570" RevisionGUID="9f971bac-8f8b-4ecf-a43e-8f9846520ce7" CreationDate="2014-02-21T02:14:50.643" UserId="400" Text="Firstly:  Reuse of the oil for food use isn't a good one.  Oil goes rancid.  This is why you change the oil in the fryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternataive uses:  Here most restaurants have a grease and oil bin in back.  It's collected to make soap.  No reason you can't make your own soap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use solid fat to make bird food blocks.  The school I get it from changes the grease frequently.  Mix with slow oatmeal, and cast in yogurt tubs.  But I can only do with with about 5 gallons a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biodiesel is potentially a good use.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potentially you could use liquid fats for patio lighting in tiki torches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also makes reasonable firestarter.  Melt, dip cardboard into the grease, hang to cool.  Freeze or leave hanging. (They will stick together on a warm summer day.  If you fold  a strip of cardboard in half, and dip the ends in, you can hang the non-greasy middle over a string.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be possible to render solid fats into tallow, and use them for making candles.  My guess is that they would smoke abomidably. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2540" RevisionGUID="6d28d005-3e28-450f-b4e6-5b0797baaa7f" CreationDate="2014-02-21T02:28:07.090" UserId="961" Comment="Tried to clarify the gist of my question" Text="In [this answer][1] Russel says solar panels are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a sandwich of glass + bonder + silicon PV cells + bonder + backsheet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got me wondering how much of those materials are needed to make the solar cells easy to transport and/or install. Assuming (for the sake of this question) that I invent a robot that will 3D-print solar cells directly on to my roof, how could such a machine work, and would it still need all those layers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: to clarify, the main thrust of my question is: isn't the backsheet (and its bonder) just needed for ease of transportation? And isn't the glass needed for protection? (e.g. so if I am putting silicon PV cells directly on the roof, and not needing to transport/install big panels, can this glass be much, much thinner, or even done away with completely, and some simple waterproof spray used instead?). I.e. do the backsheet and glass layers do anything beyond make the panels easier to transport and install?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, and especially as this is the Sustainable Living site, how might their overall energy cost compare? E.g. we have solar cars, so a robot crawling over my roof using only solar-power seems reasonable. Assume I have a good source of sand within 1km. Can I just pour sand in to get the silicon, or is making silicon from sand in your own back-yard not reasonable, and is always going to require a big facility?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I'm not asking how to do the above *today*. I'm wondering with say 5-20 years of direct R&amp;D effort, what kind of product might be possible. (And I'm thinking not just roofs, but also robots that paint solar panels on top of deserts, or over radioactive areas of Fukushima, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2536/961" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2571" RevisionGUID="44fa5ce2-8179-4c47-9ede-2c7378407a01" CreationDate="2014-02-21T02:30:28.097" UserId="400" Text="You are trying to separate the paint from the water.  This is difficult since the paint particles are very very small. (sub micron).  You may be able to do this with ceramic filters, but I suspect that the filters will clog so fast, that instead of shipping off 2000 kg of water, you will ship off 2000 kg of filters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why not evaporate the water?  Put a batch in a large shallow pan with enough roof to keep off the rain.  Let it dry.  Keep adding water.  At some point, you let the pan dry completely, scrape what you can out of it, and start again.  Even in Alberta our ponds are subject to about 4 feet of evaporation per summer.  Two square meters of evaporation trays would only need to evaporate 1 meter of water over the course of a year.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed:  If you make something like a swamp cooler, you may be able to get a degree of air conditioning out of it too.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your climate is too hot, then you need to raise the temperature to get the air dry enough to make evaporation happen.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Paint the bottom of the tray black.  OR put several layers of black plastic screen wire suspended above the bottom of the tray.  The latter will be easier to clean off, and keep the bottom black.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Insulate the bottom of the tray. The insulation can be high tech foam plastic, or it can be a few old blankets folded up.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Put up reflectors to put more sunlight on the tray.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another method of dealing with the waste water is to use it to water ornamental plants.  The paint will eventually affect the soil, but I'm assuming you aren't using pigments with lead or cadmium in them.  Many paints use mineral pigments. (E.g. TiO2 is the most common white pigment used now.)  Mineral pigments will do little harm to potted plants.  You may eventually have to discard the soil, but I bet that a plant in a 5 gallon pot can use a good fraction of a cubic meter of water in a year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2572" RevisionGUID="a0779ac4-5a07-4344-aba6-e724f328eb81" CreationDate="2014-02-21T02:44:09.977" UserId="400" Text="This is one of those economics things.  Small towns often have very cheap landfills.  Glass in the landfill is not particularly harmful, it's just bulky.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The uses mentioned above glass is essentially competing with either gravel or sand.  So it has to be roughly the same price.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a reasonable dumping fee at the landfill then glass doesn't have to be cheaper than gravel, the avoidance of the dumping fee pays for crushing the glass.  Then the use of it as aggregate is icing on the cake.  That is Dumping Fee &gt; (Crushing cost + price charged as aggregate)  And price charged as aggregate &lt; local market for aggregate.  If you have $50/ton dumping fees this gets quite feasable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ideal use for glass is one that uses some characteristic other than it's bulk.  The two obvious characateristics are it's color, and it's transparancy.  One that occurs to me is to use it as an aggregate to make breeze blocks (Normally made of concrete 4&quot; x 12 x 12 square, with various patterns of holes in them.  About 3/4 of the block is holes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A suitable process might flash heat the surface of the crushed cullet, then mold them together.  This bypasses the need to heat the entire mass of glass.  Or there may be some suitable glue that could be used.  In either case you would get breeze blocks that sparkled in the sun.  With enough glass this might become an export from your town." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2573" RevisionGUID="13266bc1-0268-4646-84fa-cf2faaedca01" CreationDate="2014-02-21T02:45:59.660" UserId="400" Text="Mayonaise works on most solvents -- any oil emulsion works.   Put on and let soak.  For the 10% or so of stuborn labels I find that mineral spirits or diesel fuel work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5885" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2505" RevisionGUID="2141ac97-ef7e-40cf-aa4c-ee0325de06e9" CreationDate="2014-02-21T04:40:28.733" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/436722065815896064" />
  <row Id="5886" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2516" RevisionGUID="0e8ee181-f3d5-4300-b04e-128dc5639ff8" CreationDate="2014-02-21T16:46:11.203" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/436904695010189312" />
  <row Id="5887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2574" RevisionGUID="46a8e5c9-10d0-4bf3-9e20-d2c9de999351" CreationDate="2014-02-22T11:17:36.367" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="A friend is building his house (in a subtropical environment), an is endeavouring to make it as sustainable and practical as possible.  In our chat, it occurred to me that the guttering around the edge of a roof could potentially be means of hydroponically growing plants, particularly fruit bearing varieties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to my question - what are practical and sustainable methods for using the guttering of a house to hydroponically grow produce?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, what other potential benefits would there be in such a project?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2574" RevisionGUID="46a8e5c9-10d0-4bf3-9e20-d2c9de999351" CreationDate="2014-02-22T11:17:36.367" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="What are practical and sustainable methods of using guttering for growing hydroponic produce?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2574" RevisionGUID="46a8e5c9-10d0-4bf3-9e20-d2c9de999351" CreationDate="2014-02-22T11:17:36.367" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="|home|vertical-gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2536" RevisionGUID="8e989fc8-3f01-406e-8ab6-9c064f944f14" CreationDate="2014-02-22T12:00:33.027" UserId="318" Comment="added 3236 characters in body" Text="**Added:**&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the added comment that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The purpose of the question is to determine whether solar panels can be made after fossil fuels are widely unavailable and long-distance supply chains are extremely expensive or unavailable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't address the assumptions made re unavailability of supply chain, and will just assume that it is true in this case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numerous semiconductor material exist. Many of these are suitable to some extent for making &quot;solar cells&quot; but practical considerations usually result in extremely low efficiencies - typically far far below 1%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One material that would be available in moderate quantities s a byproduct of past applications would be Copper, and in some areas copper could be smelted locally. &quot;Copper Oxide&quot; (of which there are a number of forms) is a semiconductor and solar cells can be made from it. Efficiencies and power levels are usually 'pitiful' but researchers continue to improve results and it is possible that in time a product may be avail;able which is not as efficient as Silicon, but which is low enough in cost as to make the cells competitive in some cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Link - [This 2006 paper - full version available here for free](http://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar_url?hl=en&amp;q=http://www.researchgate.net/publication/234892247_Heterojunction_solar_cell_with_2_efficiency_based_on_a_Cu2O_substrate/file/e0b495149d4a1e738d.pdf&amp;sa=X&amp;scisig=AAGBfm0rEn9I-Rl64Y4Yo8It_csPkdCW9g&amp;oi=scholarr&amp;ei=6YcIU6zzLYbekgXAmICIDA&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCcQgAMoADAA) - &quot;Heterojunction solar cell with 2% efficiency based on a Cu2O substrate&quot; claims 2% conversion efficiency and a current output of 6.8 mA per cm^2 short circuit at about 0.6V per cell open circuit. The &quot;fill factor&quot; is about 50% which means that the output droops under load such that the cell makes about 50% x Voc x Isc. The 2% efficiency is about 10%- - 12% of typical top end commercial silicon cells and about 9% of the best silicon cells. That's an encouraging figure if replicable. They seem to be using some high tech fabrication gear (ion beam sputtering) but easier methods can probably be evolved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Link -** [2009 nanowire version - relevant](http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/pdygrp/pub_files/pubpdf/181.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Link -** [2013 - ORNL - the 'big boys' at play](http://www.ornl.gov/ornl/news/features/2013/ornl-researchers-make-strides-toward-a-copper-oxide-solar-cell)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can produce your own &quot;DIY&quot; cells starting with not much more than copper metal.  &#xD;&#xA;Results are very poor but they do work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Link -** [**Make a solar cell in your kitchen**](http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/echem2.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ugly truck:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A different version of the above.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Link -** [A flat panel solar cell](http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/echem3.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Link -** [Making a PV cell](http://www.energyeducation.tx.gov/pdf/53bainv.pdf) - school experiment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Link -** [Instructables - home made solar cell step by step](http://www.instructables.com/id/My-home-made-solar-cell-1/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**__________________________________**&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.  &#xD;&#xA;But saying where &quot;locally&quot; is would help.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Requiring 'non-fossil' mining and transport etc is a matter of economics and choice. ie you can mine by hand - and in some countries this is what is indeed often done.Doing this would not be deemed economic in almost any system. This does not mean that it should not be done - just that you need to establish what you are trying to achieve and what the values and costs are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common solar panels use a sandwich of glass + bonder + silicon PV cells + bonder + backsheet. The bonder is usually &quot;EVA&quot; plastic which is crosslinked into long chains under temperature and pressure. EVA is a hydrocarbon product but others are possible and a non hydrocarbon alternative is possible. BUT EVA is exceptionally good at this task and in the last 50years or so no better alternative has managed to displace it. There are many challengers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people buy doped silicon wafers - which have been made from silica sand using highly advanced metalurgical processes. There is no obvious reason why this whole process could not be hyrdrocarbon free (except perhaps trace chemicals used in the doping processes. but maybe not even then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The glass used is rather special BUT any glass making process that can make an essentially flat smooth sheet would be able to make panels that worked.  &#xD;&#xA;The backsheet can be glass if desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frames are usually aluminum but other materials could be used.   &#xD;&#xA;Aluminum requires immense energy levels during refining. A solar concentrator could probably be used for energy if use of aluminum was desired.\&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall it's doable but hard and cost would be very high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other processes probably have no portion which absolutely must use hydrocarbons EXCEPT if they are used as dopants in the semiconductors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jTF0U.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8YaYg.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2575" RevisionGUID="3fa7ca61-a48c-429e-a29b-64aef966f024" CreationDate="2014-02-22T12:25:22.407" UserId="1203" Text="I am living by myself since the end of last year. When grocery shopping, I've noticed that canned food (beans, peas, salsas, etc.) is usually 500g or more, which is too much to eat for one seat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've noticed that canned food is somewhat designed to last for long periods of time, but I am not sure if things change when they are opened. Leaving an opened can of something in the fridge doesn't sound like a great idea, but I was wondering: is there was something I could do to extend the life of canned foods once they're opened?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5892" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2575" RevisionGUID="3fa7ca61-a48c-429e-a29b-64aef966f024" CreationDate="2014-02-22T12:25:22.407" UserId="1203" Text="Preserving opened canned food" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5893" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2575" RevisionGUID="3fa7ca61-a48c-429e-a29b-64aef966f024" CreationDate="2014-02-22T12:25:22.407" UserId="1203" Text="|food|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2576" RevisionGUID="58888edb-e4f1-440a-a342-cf86268f39cb" CreationDate="2014-02-22T18:31:24.083" UserId="1205" Text="What are the advantages and disadvantages of using cylindrical Fresnel lenses as PV concentrators?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2576" RevisionGUID="58888edb-e4f1-440a-a342-cf86268f39cb" CreationDate="2014-02-22T18:31:24.083" UserId="1205" Text="Solar Energy concentration using fresnell lenses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2576" RevisionGUID="58888edb-e4f1-440a-a342-cf86268f39cb" CreationDate="2014-02-22T18:31:24.083" UserId="1205" Text="|energy|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5897" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2576" RevisionGUID="0d532d8f-dfd4-4d81-8f16-40dd3c94fa1d" CreationDate="2014-02-23T02:55:19.267" UserId="659" Comment="fixed spelling in title" Text="Solar Energy concentration using cylindrical Fresnel lenses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5898" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2576" RevisionGUID="0d532d8f-dfd4-4d81-8f16-40dd3c94fa1d" CreationDate="2014-02-23T02:55:19.267" Comment="Proposed by 659 approved by 48 edit id of 240" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2577" RevisionGUID="b9fee04f-888e-4e17-ac04-983cb2f3aaff" CreationDate="2014-02-23T08:10:16.450" UserId="812" Text="This is a rather broad question, but in the comments the OP has specified that they are comparing cylindrical Fresnel lenses to &quot;normal&quot; Fresnel lenses. We can get some insight by considering things at a high level, and considering why lenses might be used on PV at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within its normal operating range, the relationship between the amount of light falling on a PV cell and the amount of electricity produced is roughly linear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/e0EPL.jpg&quot; width=400 height=431 alt=&quot;Power curve for a PV cell&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of electricity produced also scales linearly with the area of the PV panel: more panel = more electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we put a concentrating lens above a PV panel, what we are effectively doing is collecting the light from a wide area and focussing it on a small bit of PV material. Given the two linear relationships above, all else being equal this should give a similar output to just covering the wider area with concentrated PV and doing away with the optics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advantage or disadvantage to concentrating optics must, then, lie in more detailed factors. For instance, it might be worth using optics to allow the use of a smaller quantity of more expensive PV material. On the other hand, concentrating the light on a small area also concentrates the heat, which must then be dealt with... there's an engineering optimisation to be done there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This allows us to come back to the question of cylindrical (linear) vs spherical lenses. Cylindrical lenses concentrate the incoming light in only one dimension. As such, they can be considered as a compromise between unconcentrated PV and full spherical lens arrays. They may also be cheaper to manufacture and install than large numbers of spherical lenses (but I have no evidence for this, and if microlens arrays are used for the spherical version, it may not be true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the exact intent of the question, you may also find the answers to [this question][2] on physics.SE to be of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78846/are-fresnel-lenses-widely-used-for-solar-electricity-if-not-why-not" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2577" RevisionGUID="4a491af0-7a28-4aba-889d-be4ea7d27a70" CreationDate="2014-02-23T08:16:01.673" UserId="812" Comment="Second attempt to fix image ;-)" Text="This is a rather broad question, but in the comments the OP has specified that they are comparing cylindrical Fresnel lenses to &quot;normal&quot; Fresnel lenses. We can get some insight by considering things at a high level, and considering why lenses might be used on PV at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within its normal operating range, the relationship between the amount of light falling on a PV cell and the amount of electricity produced is roughly linear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/e0EPL.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; alt=&quot;Power curve for a PV cell&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of electricity produced also scales linearly with the area of the PV panel: more panel = more electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we put a concentrating lens above a PV panel, what we are effectively doing is collecting the light from a wide area and focussing it on a small bit of PV material. Given the two linear relationships above, all else being equal this should give a similar output to just covering the wider area with concentrated PV and doing away with the optics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advantage or disadvantage to concentrating optics must, then, lie in more detailed factors. For instance, it might be worth using optics to allow the use of a smaller quantity of more expensive PV material. On the other hand, concentrating the light on a small area also concentrates the heat, which must then be dealt with... there's an engineering optimisation to be done there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This allows us to come back to the question of cylindrical (linear) vs spherical lenses. Cylindrical lenses concentrate the incoming light in only one dimension. As such, they can be considered as a compromise between unconcentrated PV and full spherical lens arrays. They may also be cheaper to manufacture and install than large numbers of spherical lenses (but I have no evidence for this, and if microlens arrays are used for the spherical version, it may not be true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the exact intent of the question, you may also find the answers to [this question][2] on physics.SE to be of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78846/are-fresnel-lenses-widely-used-for-solar-electricity-if-not-why-not" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2578" RevisionGUID="fef2ccc1-04ba-410b-a705-4705e9957c3a" CreationDate="2014-02-24T02:15:15.087" UserId="15" Text="Though locally &quot;canned&quot; food is always in a metal can, I understand that in the USA the term &quot;canning&quot; is also used for preserving food in glass jars. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the can is made of metal, the metal can start to corrode (ie react with oxygen) soon after the can is opened. For this reason, when I have left over food from a metal can, I always move it into a different (usually glass) container to avoid any contamination, and store it in the fridge. It will last a few days in the fridge. Cover it to avoid accidental contamination and drying out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also no reason why you can't freeze the left over food; again, I would move it into a different container to prevent corrosion. Personally, I do this with tomato paste and crushed pineapple (I make ice cubes of tomato paste for use on pizza, and of pineapple for use in toasted sandwiches), surplus pasta sauce, chick peas.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2578" RevisionGUID="7621864c-2111-4678-98f8-ddf87a1ac5a0" CreationDate="2014-02-24T02:20:29.280" UserId="15" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="Though locally &quot;canned&quot; food refers to food in a metal can, I understand that in the USA the term &quot;canning&quot; is also used for preserving food in glass jars. I suspect you're talking about metal cans anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the can is made of metal, the metal can start to corrode (ie react with oxygen) soon after the can is opened. For this reason, when I have left over food from a metal can, I always move it into a different (usually glass) container to avoid any contamination, and store it in the fridge. It will last a few days in the fridge. Cover it to avoid accidental contamination and drying out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canned foods are (always?) cooked, and in my understanding cooked foods tend to spoil reasonably quickly because they are easily digestible to both us and microbes. I would probably discard the food after about 3 days if it was still uneaten, unless it was a good high in sugar or was acidic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also no reason why you can't freeze the left over food; again, I would move it into a different container to prevent corrosion. Personally, I do this with tomato paste and crushed pineapple (I make ice cubes of tomato paste for use on pizza, and of pineapple for use in toasted sandwiches), surplus pasta sauce, chick peas. I tend to use spare glass jars for things that need defrosting in the microwave, as defrosting in plastic is likely to lead to overheated plastic (and the health risks that come with that). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2578" RevisionGUID="11de438c-0dfc-4318-a363-09f2100f0a43" CreationDate="2014-02-24T02:25:34.567" UserId="15" Comment="added 191 characters in body" Text="Though locally &quot;canned&quot; food refers to food in a metal can, I understand that in the USA the term &quot;canning&quot; is also used for preserving food in glass jars. I suspect you're talking about metal cans anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the can is made of metal, the metal can start to corrode (ie react with oxygen) soon after the can is opened, especially since salt in the food can act as a catalyst. For this reason, when I have left over food from a metal can, I always move it into a different (usually glass) container to avoid any contamination, and store it in the fridge. It will last a few days in the fridge. Cover it to avoid accidental contamination and drying out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canned foods are (always?) cooked, and in my understanding cooked foods tend to spoil reasonably quickly because they are easily digestible to both us and microbes. I would discard uneaten food after about 3 days, unless it was high in sugar or was acidic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also no reason why you can't freeze the left over food; again, I would move it into a different container to prevent corrosion. Personally, I do this with tomato paste and crushed pineapple (I make ice cubes of tomato paste for use on pizza, and of pineapple for use in toasted sandwiches), surplus pasta sauce, chick peas. I tend to use spare glass jars for things that need defrosting in the microwave, as defrosting in plastic is likely to lead to overheated plastic (and the health risks that come with that). &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2579" RevisionGUID="fe7292af-df04-4f69-bd1f-60afea1df4bb" CreationDate="2014-02-24T04:40:19.297" UserId="15" Text="Environmental benefits of PVC are touted on what appears to be [an industry funded website][1] but there is also some serious [criticism of PVC][2] claiming that the manufacture produces dioxin and that additives contained in the material leach out during use, with toxic effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do current PVC production methods tend to have issues with toxic pollution? Is there any balanced research on this that is not likely to be one-sided? (in comparison to industry or, say, Greenpeace funded research)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During use, is there evidence PVC is toxic (to people, or perhaps aquatic life) when used in typical ways?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When disposing of PVC (ie after it can no longer be recycled), is there a safe way to destroy it, such as through incineration? Note I'm aware that currently it likely mostly ends up as landfill, but there may be room for improvement if it can be safely destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware this is a somewhat broad question, so a broad answer is appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pvc.org/en/p/sustainability&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/PVC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2579" RevisionGUID="fe7292af-df04-4f69-bd1f-60afea1df4bb" CreationDate="2014-02-24T04:40:19.297" UserId="15" Text="How safe it is to produce, use, and dispose of PVC?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2579" RevisionGUID="fe7292af-df04-4f69-bd1f-60afea1df4bb" CreationDate="2014-02-24T04:40:19.297" UserId="15" Text="|recycling|plastic|pollution|toxic-chemicals|safety|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2580" RevisionGUID="23f967f0-7389-4f5d-90b0-8250953197c7" CreationDate="2014-02-24T04:44:03.070" UserId="1209" Text="Toothpaste works reasonably well with a little elbow grease and an mildly abrasive pad. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2576" RevisionGUID="dade2448-98ef-4907-b72d-b03b11c493b5" CreationDate="2014-02-24T09:50:20.403" UserId="99" Comment="added comment from OP to further explain the question" Text="What are the advantages and disadvantages of using cylindrical Fresnel lenses as PV concentrators?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My goal is to do some research and see which kind of Fresnel lenses are better to concentrate light on a PV cell. So I am comparing normal Fresnel lenses (found on overhead projectors/TVs) to cylindrical ones which are one dimensional and linear. I just can't find much info on the net on cylindrical Fresnel lenses other than they are heavier than the traditional lenses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5909" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2576" RevisionGUID="dade2448-98ef-4907-b72d-b03b11c493b5" CreationDate="2014-02-24T09:50:20.403" UserId="99" Comment="added comment from OP to further explain the question" Text="Solar energy concentration using cylindrical Fresnel lenses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5910" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2574" RevisionGUID="8c997726-90c8-42eb-beda-bb9f0e714f1f" CreationDate="2014-02-24T10:46:32.223" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/437901350161375232" />
  <row Id="5911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2581" RevisionGUID="d6e509f7-a6e4-4035-8294-f6144cd24523" CreationDate="2014-02-24T19:42:43.953" UserId="1211" Text="I'm sure some of you will have already taken classes on Solar.&#xD;&#xA;The reason I am posting this question is to help out two Farmers in Kauai. They are currently creating an extension program through their farm to help teach children and others that visit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, even though they have solar on the Farm, the one doing the classes does not have experience and is not sure how to start explaining how all of this works. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have good (maybe with illustrated examples) resources for teaching primarily children about solar. &#xD;&#xA;I will post more information about what type of panels and such when I have it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will be other subjects also taught on the farm. But I will post separate questions for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2581" RevisionGUID="d6e509f7-a6e4-4035-8294-f6144cd24523" CreationDate="2014-02-24T19:42:43.953" UserId="1211" Text="Teaching Children About Solar Panels In Kauai, Hawaii" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2581" RevisionGUID="d6e509f7-a6e4-4035-8294-f6144cd24523" CreationDate="2014-02-24T19:42:43.953" UserId="1211" Text="|energy|solar-power|electricity|green-it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2582" RevisionGUID="98182c6e-2616-415c-9ec5-371d85979107" CreationDate="2014-02-24T20:58:06.363" UserId="96" Text="The [German Wikipedia page on PVC](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvinylchlorid) contains some of the information you seek. I'll paraphrase:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Soft-PVC emits hazardous substances (BPA). I *recall* but don't know from where that PVC is no longer allowed in Germany for drinking water.&#xD;&#xA;* Most PVC is used in buildings (pipes, window-parts...) and separated gathering is easier than with other plastics.&#xD;&#xA;* PVC *can* be melted and reused, but this will severly degrade the quality unless you collect material of very homogenous quality (PVC is a group of similiar materials). In Germany, there's a system to collect old PVC pipes, my understanding is that there's also an industry standard on material that allows recycling (but I'm not quite sure)&#xD;&#xA;* There's a push to use low-grade PVC specifically to have a use for recycled, or rather downcycled PVC, the keyword is VinylPlus&#xD;&#xA;* There's a pyrolytic process that turns PVC into a sort of tar, syngas or other (potentially) useful polymers. This also requires a clean collection, as above&#xD;&#xA;* Landfill: Hard PVC does not degrade as far as is known so far. It is assumed that soft PVC leak hazardous substances&#xD;&#xA;* Incineration creates dioxines. A state of the art waste incineration plant is equipped to destroy dioxines (by a sort of afterburner) in the flue gas, at least to a large degree.&#xD;&#xA;* From my professional experience, PVC is used for piping because PVC pipes can be easily connected by glue, by persons with little training and with little equipment compared to PE. The handling of the glue is also a possible &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary: Technically, some recycling is possible but depends strongly on industry wide standards and infrastructure, possibly a regulatory pressure on the industry to adopt these.  &#xD;&#xA;If you need more info on a specific point, maybe ask a new question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2581" RevisionGUID="bf6b619c-2185-4f14-923f-89434db098f0" CreationDate="2014-02-25T01:35:37.370" UserId="15" Comment="Changed the title to a more generic one. Moved the mention of Hawaii to the question body so that it's not lost." Text="I'm sure some of you will have already taken classes on Solar.&#xD;&#xA;The reason I am posting this question is to help out two Farmers in Kauai, Hawaii. They are currently creating an extension program through their farm to help teach children and others that visit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, even though they have solar on the Farm, the one doing the classes does not have experience and is not sure how to start explaining how all of this works. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have good (maybe with illustrated examples) resources for teaching primarily children about solar. &#xD;&#xA;I will post more information about what type of panels and such when I have it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will be other subjects also taught on the farm. But I will post separate questions for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5916" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2581" RevisionGUID="bf6b619c-2185-4f14-923f-89434db098f0" CreationDate="2014-02-25T01:35:37.370" UserId="15" Comment="Changed the title to a more generic one. Moved the mention of Hawaii to the question body so that it's not lost." Text="Resources for Teaching Children About Solar Panels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5917" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2579" RevisionGUID="ebb31196-6e86-4374-a316-3657a24fe6ca" CreationDate="2014-02-25T04:46:32.243" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/438173141027028992" />
  <row Id="5918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="b54b16d7-7112-42e0-8a50-13f2b4e8fab4" CreationDate="2014-02-25T07:40:05.240" UserId="1177" Text="This seems to be a good start: [Chinese man becomes first to sue government over smog][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-china-pollution-idINBREA1J18E20140225&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I daresay, if legal action fails, revolution will ensue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="217e5411-a306-4f4c-a264-ec60720e7014" CreationDate="2014-02-25T09:11:04.057" UserId="1210" Text="I'm faced with the prospect of wanting to improve the insulation of a 4-storey Victorian (c1890) house in the UK that has solid stone walls and a top floor that is within the non-insulated roof space.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that this work *could* take a period of some years as we refurbish the interior (exterior cladding is not an option) is it better to start with insulating the lower floors or the upper floors?  From an amateur's perspective it would seem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Starting at the top would reduce the heat escape, but if heat input&#xD;&#xA;   is still needed at the bottom that might just make the top floors uncomfortably&#xD;&#xA;   hot.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Starting at the bottom would reduce the need for heat input there,&#xD;&#xA;   but the energy would be easily lost from the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which approach would be better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5920" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="217e5411-a306-4f4c-a264-ec60720e7014" CreationDate="2014-02-25T09:11:04.057" UserId="1210" Text="Retrofitting insulation in a 4-storey home. Top down or bottom up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5921" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="217e5411-a306-4f4c-a264-ec60720e7014" CreationDate="2014-02-25T09:11:04.057" UserId="1210" Text="|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="e993399b-033f-4c02-905e-5202f9c7ac00" CreationDate="2014-02-25T13:24:23.950" UserId="1177" Comment="Added explanation" Text="This seems to be a good start: [Chinese man becomes first to sue government over smog][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-china-pollution-idINBREA1J18E20140225&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate how outside-the-box I am thinking, here are some of the options I come up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Overthrow the communist government;&#xD;&#xA;2. Elect Ban Ki-moon for Chinese president;&#xD;&#xA;3. Secede Manchuria to South Korea;&#xD;&#xA;4. Declare independence;&#xD;&#xA;5. Elect Lien Chan for Chinese president;&#xD;&#xA;6. Secede Manchuria to Russia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5923" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="ee2f2ccf-0f5a-4d68-98ec-e27e19a799e5" CreationDate="2014-02-25T19:46:32.873" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/438399635489820672" />
  <row Id="5924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2585" RevisionGUID="dcdd0534-ef09-46d3-92bc-487f4b3996d4" CreationDate="2014-02-25T22:00:23.777" UserId="1053" Text="For us there are three aspects to it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - meal planning. This reduces the &quot;I bought it, but it went bad before I cooked it&quot; waste, and as a side effect makes it simple to know just how old leftovers are&#xD;&#xA; - buying non-supermarket food. My CSA food is not packaged at all, and nor has it been washed for me or otherwise used up resources. (I bring egg cartons to the farm for the days I get eggs.) I also happen to know my farmer uses horses instead of tractors and doesn't use chemical fertilizers. My butcher wraps my meat in paper, and it comes into the shop in animal or half-animal pieces, so they aren't getting plastic-wrapped stuff and throwing that wrapping out. I also know they make soup and pies from the trimmings.&#xD;&#xA; - eat more home-made food. This reduces our packaging tremendously, and also our food waste, because we can make any given meal a little larger or a little smaller according to who is eating it and how hungry we are. It also gives us a way to use things that have only a small amount left - two stalks of asparagus or half an onion - just as a matter of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think also that my attitude to food has changed since I joined the CSA and started shopping at the butcher. I feel worse about wasting food now, so I waste less of it. My  garbage has gone to essentially zero and my recycling is less than it was (less cans and jars) while my compost is far more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A side note that probably applies only to me - the closest supermarket is about 20 miles away, and my regular supermarket is 40 miles away. The CSA is only 2 miles as the crow flies, 5 miles round trip on our bikes. For me I actually go to the supermarket less often, especially in the summer, than I used to so the CSA is also saving gasoline.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5925" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2575" RevisionGUID="2c63c593-7a50-46e7-a850-3a9f6fb1c98a" CreationDate="2014-02-26T01:46:33.000" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/438490234154938369" />
  <row Id="5927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2574" RevisionGUID="9c2f87a8-369c-48e7-a5cd-2596ca1f857b" CreationDate="2014-02-26T06:45:00.397" UserDisplayName="user1017" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="A friend is building his house (in a subtropical urban environment), an is endeavouring to make it as sustainable and practical as possible.  In our chat, it occurred to me that the guttering around the edge of a roof could potentially be means of hydroponically growing plants, particularly fruit bearing varieties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads me to my question - what are practical and sustainable methods for using the guttering of a house to hydroponically grow produce?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, what other potential benefits and risks would there be in such a project?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5928" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="1b4e41b8-2166-40e1-a2dc-11ad7242fc6a" CreationDate="2014-02-26T09:17:09.213" UserId="1210" Comment="extending tags" Text="|energy|home|building-physics|insulation|building|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2586" RevisionGUID="6323e714-b13d-47c4-92f8-8c814e946e5f" CreationDate="2014-02-26T10:51:12.923" UserId="812" Text="I'm not an expert in this area, but: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this depends a little on the layout of the house. Certainly insulating the top first will improve the overall efficiency much sooner than starting at the bottom, but as you identify it does mean increasing the temperature difference between floors, which might not be desirable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have an open staircase anywhere, this leaves you little choice. In this case warmth downstairs will disappear straight up the stairs and leave you just as cold.&#xD;&#xA;If this isn't the case - if you are able to heat downstairs rooms and close the doors - then there is more flexibility, and hopefully people with more expertise can chime in on how to judge things then." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2584" RevisionGUID="be4fbedc-2068-4d96-8598-6cc11ec9c869" CreationDate="2014-02-26T12:04:59.020" UserId="1210" Comment="adding details." Text="I'm faced with the prospect of wanting to improve the insulation of a 4-storey Victorian (c1890) house in the UK that has solid stone walls and a top floor that is within the non-insulated roof space.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that this work *could* take a period of some years as we refurbish the interior (exterior cladding is not an option) is it better to start with insulating the lower floors or the upper floors?  From an amateur's perspective it would seem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Starting at the top would reduce the heat escape, but if heat input&#xD;&#xA;   is still needed at the bottom that might just make the top floors uncomfortably&#xD;&#xA;   hot.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Starting at the bottom would reduce the need for heat input there,&#xD;&#xA;   but the energy would be easily lost from the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which approach would be better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More detail in response to points raised by answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A significant part of the layout (say 20% of the footprint) is an open staircase top to bottom, but most rooms onto it have doors that could be closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2585" RevisionGUID="8f0c2064-df4d-4b0e-b273-50dbe14b7db8" CreationDate="2014-02-26T13:59:46.200" UserId="1053" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="For us there are three aspects to it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - meal planning. This reduces the &quot;I bought it, but it went bad before I cooked it&quot; waste, and as a side effect makes it simple to know just how old leftovers are&#xD;&#xA; - buying non-supermarket food. My Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) food is not packaged at all, and nor has it been washed for me or otherwise used up resources. (I bring egg cartons to the farm for the days I get eggs.) I also happen to know my farmer uses horses instead of tractors and doesn't use chemical fertilizers. My butcher wraps my meat in paper, and it comes into the shop in animal or half-animal pieces, so they aren't getting plastic-wrapped stuff and throwing that wrapping out. I also know they make soup and pies from the trimmings.&#xD;&#xA; - eating more home-made food. This reduces our packaging tremendously, and also our food waste, because we can make any given meal a little larger or a little smaller according to who is eating it and how hungry we are. It also gives us a way to use things that have only a small amount left - two stalks of asparagus or half an onion - just as a matter of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think also that my attitude to food has changed since I joined the CSA and started shopping at the butcher. I feel worse about wasting food now, so I waste less of it. My  garbage has gone to essentially zero and my recycling is less than it was (less cans and jars) while my compost is far more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A side note that probably applies only to me - the closest supermarket is about 20 miles away, and my regular supermarket is 40 miles away. The CSA is only 2 miles as the crow flies, 5 miles round trip on our bikes. For me I actually go to the supermarket less often, especially in the summer, than I used to so the CSA is also saving gasoline.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2557" RevisionGUID="99505947-5ee8-4ddc-b978-7e9167e83682" CreationDate="2014-02-26T14:22:07.380" UserId="99" Comment="added link that explains what CSA is" Text="The 40% figure includes not just food thrown out by the end consumer, but also food that spoiled between the time it left the farm and made it to consumers' houses. From what I've read, most of the waste actually happens before the consumer purchases the food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am blessed to live in an area with a lot of [CSA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community-supported_agriculture)s and wonderful farmers' markets. It takes a little more work to track down, but we can also find farmers who sell a side of beef, lamb, chickens and fresh eggs. If you're purchasing from a responsible producer who knows the market and is growing based on demand, you have a greater chance of reducing the amount of waste, because you the consumer have the food straight out of the field. If CSAs are an option for you, using one combined with the tips others have given for using everything you buy would make a difference. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2587" RevisionGUID="c7e87cf0-ea4b-42e4-b837-e634337cb970" CreationDate="2014-02-26T15:20:02.993" UserId="1053" Text="For many things, just don't use a bag. I watched a man struggling to get a bunch of bananas into a plastic bag at the supermarket yesterday. There was no reason for it: the peels protect the bananas and they are collected into a bunch already. If I buy two or three of something, I don't need to put them in a bag. The cashier can put your three tomatoes on the scale together without difficulty. Then they can go in a big bag with other vegetables. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you do need a bag, you can reuse the ones from the supermarket dozens of times. I get home, put the fruit or veggies where they belong, and put the bags in with the larger cloth bags I am taking to the supermarket anyway. Done. If whatever I bought is going to stay in the plastic bag till I use it, fine, and then off it goes to the &quot;bag of bags&quot;. I can't imagine ever running out even when I occasionally recycle one (we can recycle film plastic where I live) for being hopelessly shredded, but if I do, I can pick up another at the supermarket at the moment I realize I need it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5934" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2581" RevisionGUID="4577e652-c5d5-402d-8731-bff076a79f90" CreationDate="2014-02-26T19:46:33.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/438762027843350529" />
  <row Id="5935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="4f356248-42a6-464c-844b-0b0778745ab2" CreationDate="2014-02-26T20:20:42.653" UserId="89" Text="I would like to know which kind of cooling will be the most sustainable, that is, will use the less energy and cooling agents.&#xD;&#xA;I am considering summers with temperatures in the high 90's, and about 800 square feet of apartment to cool, in two bedrooms and a large living room &quot;slash&quot; dining room and kitchen.&#xD;&#xA;Would it be better to have a central unit cooling everything or 3 window A/C's for the large central room and bedrooms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="4f356248-42a6-464c-844b-0b0778745ab2" CreationDate="2014-02-26T20:20:42.653" UserId="89" Text="Which one is more sustainable: central A/C or window A/C?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="4f356248-42a6-464c-844b-0b0778745ab2" CreationDate="2014-02-26T20:20:42.653" UserId="89" Text="|energy-efficiency|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2589" RevisionGUID="de58030a-ec85-4904-b979-c4d51632e340" CreationDate="2014-02-26T21:06:44.383" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="Okay, given that the age of children is not known, here are some general teaching resources about solar energy that may be useful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Energy teaching resources][1] from the New South Wales Department of Environment and Heritage, this web page contains many links to specific teaching resources, particularly, the scaffolded education resource [Solar power farm in space][2], which could be adapted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Science Education][3] page from the US Department of Energy has links to 2 videos about solar power, including one where 4th graders discuss and explore how to take their class 'off the grid'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar Energy International have a resourceful web page [Resources for Educators][4], as does DTE Energy with their resource-link page [Teachers' Solar Power Resource Guide][5], the latter has about a dozen or so more annotated links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sustainableschools/teach/energyteach.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://splash.abc.net.au/media?id=29970&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://energy.gov/science-innovation/science-education&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.solarenergy.org/resources-educators&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.dteenergy.com/pdfs/solarTeachers.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="72a0c5d0-4576-4540-b25a-6a385999f2b7" CreationDate="2014-02-26T21:21:28.977" UserId="99" Comment="added temperature in celsius for international readers" Text="I would like to know which kind of cooling will be the most sustainable, that is, will use the least energy and cooling agents.&#xD;&#xA;I am considering summers with temperatures in the high 90's (35-37 Celsius), and about 800 square feet of apartment to cool, in two bedrooms and a large living room &quot;slash&quot; dining room and kitchen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be better to have a central unit cooling everything or 3 window A/C's for the large central room and bedrooms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5940" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2588" RevisionGUID="45f5f50f-ebc6-4937-86a0-db556e12f62b" CreationDate="2014-02-26T22:46:47.250" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/438807381888471041" />
  <row Id="5942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2590" RevisionGUID="738101dc-11b0-4055-a580-dca6f5d2d11c" CreationDate="2014-02-27T01:39:17.737" UserId="1216" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying this out just now, car in question 1.2 carburetor astra mk 4/ astra g estate/caravan/station.  Thus far I seem to be making a saving, (as long as I allow the engine to warm up a little) but it's entirely possible my general fuel conscious driving is making more of a difference than turning off the engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*related though another matter...   Coasting down hills is probably saving more fuel than shutting off at traffic lights, and though not very safe certainly avoids premature starter wear by virtue of leaving the ignition on and bump starting when I reach the bottom of the hill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5943" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2576" RevisionGUID="69184105-43ba-4eff-82bf-6aeb3f658bb6" CreationDate="2014-02-27T04:46:45.770" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/438897973989482496" />
  <row Id="5944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2591" RevisionGUID="967c2968-2da8-4636-be20-4b47e1a94ba6" CreationDate="2014-02-27T05:26:42.613" UserId="130" Text="In general, one thing that is a huge factor is energy usage.  Here in Indonesia central AC is not really used at all.  Air conditioning is done room by room with wall-mounted split units (more units for large rooms than small ones).  Coolant runs between the external component and the internal component.  People don't build homes with central air in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general if you only have to cool the parts of your house you are using at the moment, you are going to use less energy to do it.  If energy is the most important issue sustainability-wise, the multiple unit approach will win out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know about coolant leaks in comparison to the two approaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the general point is that smaller units allow you to cool less.  Central air requires that you cool your whole house at once and so my view is that it would be less sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1013" RevisionGUID="69c9330f-b593-493d-b150-9b24ca6b6720" CreationDate="2014-02-27T08:24:34.890" UserId="48" Comment="added 272 characters in body" Text="**Which solar-electric technology had the highest EROEI?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy Returned On (Energy) Invested, also known as EROI and as EROEI, has become something of a fashionable metric \*&lt;sup&gt;but see footnote&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is calculated by dividing the total energy delivered by the system throughout its whole lifetime, divided by the total energy required to build, operate, maintain (and ideally decommission) the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please refer to specific peer-reviewed energy studies where possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Within scope for this question:&#xD;&#xA;- PV - the different and distinct types of photovoltaics:&#xD;&#xA; - Cadmium Telluride&#xD;&#xA; - Polycrystalline silicon&#xD;&#xA; - Monocrystalline silicon&#xD;&#xA; - Amorphous silicon&#xD;&#xA; - CIGS&#xD;&#xA; - organic solar cells (perovskites etc)&#xD;&#xA;- CPV - concentrating photovoltaics&#xD;&#xA;- [CSP - Concentrated Solar-thermal Power driving a turbine][1] (pictured below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are all in scope, along with anything I haven't heard of that converts sunlight into electricity, without going through convolutions such as biomass, wind or wave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Out of scope:&#xD;&#xA;Attempts at doing it purely through prices do not answer the question: price is emphatically not a useful measure of total energy input, because the factors of production (land, capital, enterprise, labour) are not zero-cost, and because the ratio of energy to other inputs varies hugely by manufacturing technique and by product. So that approach is explicitly out of scope, because it's just plain wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also out of scope:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Solar thermal (that delivers heat but no electricity)&#xD;&#xA;- indirect solar generation such as wind, wave and biomass&#xD;&#xA;- tidal and geothermal&#xD;&#xA;- coal, gas, oil, nuclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;\* footnote on EROEI: Whether or not EROEI has much significance is disputed:&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;sub&gt; some tie the very existence of civilisation as we know it to society achieving some minimum arbitrary level;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;sub&gt;others consider that as long as a generation source has a value greater than one, then the economics matter, and the EROEI does not (except solely for its impact on the economics). IF EROEI is less than one, then it can still be useful: not as a generation source, but as a store or conversion of energy.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://solareis.anl.gov/guide/solar/csp/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/juNgV.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5946" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2501" RevisionGUID="420fde8b-36c0-42fc-b603-f76698bb3966" CreationDate="2014-02-27T10:46:45.723" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/438988570326761472" />
  <row Id="5947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2592" RevisionGUID="67619ac9-bfec-4fb9-901e-efda64b7b235" CreationDate="2014-02-28T03:03:46.647" UserId="961" Text="The scientific approach would be to turn on all the heating and use heat cameras to see where most heat is escaping. Otherwise just guess it is the roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would start with the roof/top floor, then do the ground floor. Then the middle floors last. If you do find that heating living areas makes the top floors unbearably hot, consider moving your living area upstairs; you might need to do this anyway while renovating the ground floor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2593" RevisionGUID="71334cdc-ad0a-434d-b698-79da5e47c67a" CreationDate="2014-02-28T08:48:52.223" UserId="48" Text="###First, draught-proofing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Close the gaps around windows, doors, between floorboards, gaps where pipes go into walls and floors. It's a cheap and relatively easy way to stop a lot of heat escaping, and to cut down on the convection currents that will take a lot of heat from the bottom to the top of the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Curtains around the stairwell?&#xD;&#xA;Can you put a curtain around the bottom of the stairwell, and one just past the top of it? They should be floor-to-ceiling, and wall-to-wall. That will help reduce vertical convection. Do take into account safety; and, as with any work, check with Building Regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Thermal imaging camera&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Darren Cook that going round with a thermal imaging camera would be a great way to diagnose the biggest problems, and that in the absence of that, the roof is prime suspect (once you've got rid of the worst draughts). Do it in winter. You may be able to borrow a thermal imaging camera from your local library (some do this), or see if your council offers the service through other routes. If you've got a local college that teaches architecture or building-energy, see if they want to use your house as a research project: ideally, they'd come round in winter and do a blower-door test (to measure air-tightness) and go round with the thermal camera during decompression: that will suck in air from the outside through all cracks, and you'll see blue plumes on the camera where the leaks are. Run around putting post-it notes on the leaky bits, to go back and fix later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Look for mould or condensation&#xD;&#xA;If you see mould, or an area that repeatedly gets condensation on it (most noticeable after cooking or bathing) that will become mouldy, start there. The condensation is indicating that those places are colder than anywhere else in the house (i.e. fastest rate of heat loss per unit surface area), and mould can be a threat to health too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###All other things being equal, start at the top&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you start at the bottom, you'll still have cold draughts coming down the stairwell anyway, and heat will just go straight up and out the downstairs living area. Insulating lofts is fairly easy (compared to insulating walls or double/triple glazing windows), cheap, and has big big savings. You might be able to turn off heating at the very top of the house, and just let rising heat do the job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Do floors when you replacing the carpets.&#xD;&#xA;If you're going to put down new carpets, get the floor under them insulated first. Once you've got new carpets in, you probably won't want to pull them up for years, so insulate before they get laid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2594" RevisionGUID="5fa5c556-38c4-4954-96fe-3914a2504f68" CreationDate="2014-02-28T09:53:50.210" UserId="99" Text="There often is confusion about compostable plastics (see for example [this question on greenware items](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/55/99) or [this gardening question on plastic bags](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/8985/1916)).&#xD;&#xA;'Compostable' suggests that you can compost the plastic yourself, but most compostable plastics are made of [PLA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid) and that can only be composted in industrial composting facilities. This is because PLA requires high temperatures for several days to decompose. If you throw the plastic on your home compost pile it most likely won't degrade (or else very slowly) because the temperatures are often too low. However, plastics that can be composted at home do exist. I'd like to compile a list of plastics types that can be composted in home compost piles so we can refer people with questions about it to this post. Since I'm asking for a list of things, I've made this question community-wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What plastic types can you compost safely at home. Or which labels/certification schemes guarantee that you can compost it yourself? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please only answer if the label explicitly mentions that the plastic will break down in **home** compost piles, or if you've verified yourself that the plastic does break down. Please also include the method of composting (hot/cold composting).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5950" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2594" RevisionGUID="5fa5c556-38c4-4954-96fe-3914a2504f68" CreationDate="2014-02-28T09:53:50.210" UserId="99" Text="Which compostable plastic types can be composted at home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5951" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2594" RevisionGUID="5fa5c556-38c4-4954-96fe-3914a2504f68" CreationDate="2014-02-28T09:53:50.210" UserId="99" Text="|composting|plastic|compostable-plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5952" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2594" RevisionGUID="dbdbf019-8993-44c7-acdd-1748bf023211" CreationDate="2014-02-28T09:53:50.210" UserId="99" />
  <row Id="5953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="f6b5655c-b93e-430c-9376-c6ab56f7351c" CreationDate="2014-02-28T09:53:50.210" UserId="99" Text="There are several standards that are often mentioned on compostable plastics that guarantee that the plastic can be composted safely (with low levels of heavy metals and toxic substances in the resulting compost). Less strict first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The [US ASTM D6400](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/ASTM_D6400)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; degradation by biological processes during composting to yield CO2, water, inorganic compounds and biomass at a rate consistent with other compostable materials and leaves no visible, distinguishable or toxic residue.... 60% biodegradation within 180 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [European EN 13432](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/EN_13432) / Seedling logo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A biodegradation level of at least 90% must be reached in less than 6 months... fragmentation and loss of visibility in the final compost (absence of visible pollution)... absence of negative effects on the composting process... Low levels of heavy metals (below given max values) and absence of negative effects on the final compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The [Australian AS4736](http://bioplastics.org.au/faq/what-is-the-as4736-standard-for-biodegradable-plastics) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Minimum of 90% of plastic materials should disintegrate into less than 2mm pieces in compost within 12 weeks. No toxic effect of the resulting compost on plants and earthworms. Hazardous substances such as heavy metals should not be present above the maximum allowed levels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, all **these standards do not guarantee under which circumstances** (temperature) the plastic will compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only two labels I know of that do guarantee that you can compost it in your home compost pile are the [Vinçotte OK compost HOME label](http://www.okcompost.be/en/recognising-ok-environment-logos/ok-compost-amp-ok-compost-home/) and the [AfOR Home Compostable Logo](http://www.organics-recycling.org.uk/page.php?article=1921&amp;name=AfOR+'Home+Compostable'+certification%3A+Introduction+) (UK only).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Vinçotte OK compost HOME label][1]&#xD;&#xA;![AfOR Home Compostable Logo][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the Vincotte logo must have the word 'HOME' on the left. Without it, the logo only guarantees that is is compostable in an industrial facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/whT8j.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ToLv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5954" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="3bb0d06b-8917-4d93-a6ee-277f141d4355" CreationDate="2014-02-28T09:53:50.210" UserId="99" />
  <row Id="5955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="ec1d12c0-4bf4-490c-8cb3-a9047623cd94" CreationDate="2014-02-28T10:16:18.137" UserId="99" Comment="added AS 5810 standard + Din Certco logo" Text="There are several standards that are often mentioned on compostable plastics that guarantee that the plastic can be composted safely (with low levels of heavy metals and toxic substances in the resulting compost). Less strict first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The [US ASTM D6400](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/ASTM_D6400)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; degradation by biological processes during composting to yield CO2, water, inorganic compounds and biomass at a rate consistent with other compostable materials and leaves no visible, distinguishable or toxic residue.... 60% biodegradation within 180 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [European EN 13432](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/EN_13432) / Seedling logo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A biodegradation level of at least 90% must be reached in less than 6 months... fragmentation and loss of visibility in the final compost (absence of visible pollution)... absence of negative effects on the composting process... Low levels of heavy metals (below given max values) and absence of negative effects on the final compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The [Australian AS 4736](http://bioplastics.org.au/faq/what-is-the-as4736-standard-for-biodegradable-plastics) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Minimum of 90% of plastic materials should disintegrate into less than 2mm pieces in compost within 12 weeks. No toxic effect of the resulting compost on plants and earthworms. Hazardous substances such as heavy metals should not be present above the maximum allowed levels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **these standards do not guarantee under which circumstances** (temperature) the plastic will compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK, the only standard that does guarantee composting at low temperatures is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The [Australian AS 5810](http://bioplastics.org.au/news/home-composting-standard-as-5810-2010-verify-your-product-conforms-now) which has it's own logo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![ABA AS 5810 logo ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are tree other logos I know of that also guarantee that you can compost it in your home compost pile and these are the [Vinçotte OK compost HOME label](http://www.okcompost.be/en/recognising-ok-environment-logos/ok-compost-amp-ok-compost-home/) (in Europe), the [AfOR Home Compostable Logo](http://www.organics-recycling.org.uk/page.php?article=1921) (UK only) and the [DIN-Geprüft](http://www.tuv.com/dincertco/en/products_made_of_compostable_materials_for_home_and_garden_composting.html) (also Europe) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Vinçotte OK compost HOME label][2]&#xD;&#xA;![AfOR Home Compostable Logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;![DIN CERTCO Geprüft logo][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the Vincotte logo must have the word 'HOME' on the left. Without it, the logo only guarantees that is is compostable in an industrial facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BReGk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/whT8j.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ToLv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dwzCc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2593" RevisionGUID="77732955-0715-46bd-9fc2-bc46e7914162" CreationDate="2014-02-28T10:17:29.463" UserId="48" Comment="added 767 characters in body" Text="##First, draught-proofing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Close the gaps around windows, doors, between floorboards, gaps where pipes go into walls and floors. It's a cheap and relatively easy way to stop a lot of heat escaping, and to cut down on the convection currents that will take a lot of heat from the bottom to the top of the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Curtains around the stairwell?&#xD;&#xA;Can you put a curtain around the bottom of the stairwell, and one just past the top of it? They should be floor-to-ceiling, and wall-to-wall. That will help reduce vertical convection. Do take into account safety; and, as with any work, check with Building Regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Thermal imaging camera&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Darren Cook that going round with a thermal imaging camera would be a great way to diagnose the biggest problems, and that in the absence of that, the roof is prime suspect (once you've got rid of the worst draughts). Do it in winter. You may be able to borrow a thermal imaging camera from your local library (some do this), or see if your council offers the service through other routes. If you've got a local college that teaches architecture or building-energy, see if they want to use your house as a research project: ideally, they'd come round in winter and do a blower-door test (to measure air-tightness) and go round with the thermal camera during decompression: that will suck in air from the outside through all cracks, and you'll see blue plumes on the camera where the leaks are. Run around putting post-it notes on the leaky bits, to go back and fix later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Look for mould or condensation&#xD;&#xA;If you see mould, or an area that repeatedly gets condensation on it (most noticeable after cooking or bathing) that will become mouldy, start there. The condensation is indicating that those places are colder than anywhere else in the house (i.e. fastest rate of heat loss per unit surface area), and mould can be a threat to health too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##All other things being equal, start at the top&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you start at the bottom, you'll still have cold draughts coming down the stairwell anyway, and heat will just go straight up and out the downstairs living area. Insulating lofts is fairly easy (compared to insulating walls or double/triple glazing windows), cheap, and has big big savings. You might be able to turn off heating at the very top of the house, and just let rising heat do the job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Attic room&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, there's no loft to insulate, so insulating the roof becomes an altogether messier job. Assuming it's plasterboard on rafters, you could make a couple of small holes in the plasterboard and shine a light through, to look at the state of the insulation between the rafters. If it's not good, you might have to take the ceiling down, pack new insulation in (eg [Kingspan K7 [pdf]][1]), then stick some insulated plasterboard over the top (e.g. [Kingspan K18 [pdf]][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Do floors when you replace the carpets.&#xD;&#xA;If you're going to put down new carpets, get the floor under them insulated first. Once you've got new carpets in, you probably won't want to pull them up for years, so insulate before they get laid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kingspaninsulation.co.uk/getattachment/78f5cba0-5188-4b8a-a9ec-a0708ccc61be/Kooltherm-K7-Pitched-Roof-Board.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kingspaninsulation.co.uk/getattachment/39da3ae9-8f6c-4b8e-9220-7ae813d51603/Kooltherm-K18-Insulated-Plasterboard.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="dd5a2153-3c3c-4ff6-b096-837bfb3c8d1a" CreationDate="2014-02-28T10:21:29.730" UserId="99" Comment="added AS 5810 standard + Din Certco logo" Text="There are several standards that are often mentioned on compostable plastics that guarantee that the plastic can be composted safely (with low levels of heavy metals and toxic substances in the resulting compost). Less strict first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The [US ASTM D6400](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/ASTM_D6400)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; degradation by biological processes during composting to yield CO2, water, inorganic compounds and biomass at a rate consistent with other compostable materials and leaves no visible, distinguishable or toxic residue.... 60% biodegradation within 180 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [European EN 13432](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/EN_13432) / Seedling logo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A biodegradation level of at least 90% must be reached in less than 6 months... fragmentation and loss of visibility in the final compost (absence of visible pollution)... absence of negative effects on the composting process... Low levels of heavy metals (below given max values) and absence of negative effects on the final compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The [Australian AS 4736](http://bioplastics.org.au/faq/what-is-the-as4736-standard-for-biodegradable-plastics) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Minimum of 90% of plastic materials should disintegrate into less than 2mm pieces in compost within 12 weeks. No toxic effect of the resulting compost on plants and earthworms. Hazardous substances such as heavy metals should not be present above the maximum allowed levels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **these standards do not guarantee under which circumstances** (temperature) the plastic will compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK, the only standard that does guarantee composting at low temperatures is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The [Australian AS 5810](http://bioplastics.org.au/news/home-composting-standard-as-5810-2010-verify-your-product-conforms-now) which has it's own logo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![ABA AS 5810 logo ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are tree other logos I know of that also guarantee that you can compost it in your home compost pile and these are the [Vinçotte OK compost HOME label](http://www.okcompost.be/en/recognising-ok-environment-logos/ok-compost-amp-ok-compost-home/) (in Europe), the [AfOR Home Compostable Logo](http://www.organics-recycling.org.uk/page.php?article=1921) (UK only) and the [DIN-Geprüft Home Compostable logo](http://www.tuv.com/dincertco/en/products_made_of_compostable_materials_for_home_and_garden_composting.html) (also Europe) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Vinçotte OK compost HOME label][2]&#xD;&#xA;![AfOR Home Compostable Logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;![DIN CERTCO Geprüft logo][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the Vincotte logo must have the word 'HOME' on the left. Without it, the logo only guarantees that is is compostable in an industrial facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BReGk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/whT8j.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ToLv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dwzCc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2593" RevisionGUID="afd10ef3-838e-4702-a9a0-d90179b25507" CreationDate="2014-02-28T10:22:34.443" UserId="48" Comment="added 767 characters in body" Text="##First, draught-proofing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Close the gaps around windows, doors, between floorboards, gaps where pipes go into walls and floors. It's a cheap and relatively easy way to stop a lot of heat escaping, and to cut down on the convection currents that will take a lot of heat from the bottom to the top of the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Curtains around the stairwell?&#xD;&#xA;Can you put a curtain around the bottom of the stairwell, and one just past the top of it? They should be floor-to-ceiling, and wall-to-wall. That will help reduce vertical convection. Do take into account safety; and, as with any work, check with Building Regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Glazing&#xD;&#xA;As you've currently got single glazing, then double- or triple-glazing offer lots of energy savings, as well as making it much quieter, and more secure. Not all double-glazing is equal: look for very low U-values, and try to avoid the national branded installers advertised on TV, which tend to be complete sharks. If the building is listed or in a conservation area, you may need to consider secondary glazing, which can offer the same improvements to air-tightness, quietness and physical security, but typically with higher U-values (i.e. higher heat loss).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Thermal imaging camera&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Darren Cook that going round with a thermal imaging camera would be a great way to diagnose the biggest problems, and that in the absence of that, the roof is prime suspect (once you've got rid of the worst draughts). Do it in winter. You may be able to borrow a thermal imaging camera from your local library (some do this), or see if your council offers the service through other routes. If you've got a local college that teaches architecture or building-energy, see if they want to use your house as a research project: ideally, they'd come round in winter and do a blower-door test (to measure air-tightness) and go round with the thermal camera during decompression: that will suck in air from the outside through all cracks, and you'll see blue plumes on the camera where the leaks are. Run around putting post-it notes on the leaky bits, to go back and fix later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Look for mould or condensation&#xD;&#xA;If you see mould, or an area that repeatedly gets condensation on it (most noticeable after cooking or bathing) that will become mouldy, start there. The condensation is indicating that those places are colder than anywhere else in the house (i.e. fastest rate of heat loss per unit surface area), and mould can be a threat to health too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##All other things being equal, start at the top&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you start at the bottom, you'll still have cold draughts coming down the stairwell anyway, and heat will just go straight up and out the downstairs living area. Insulating lofts is fairly easy (compared to insulating walls or double/triple glazing windows), cheap, and has big big savings. You might be able to turn off heating at the very top of the house, and just let rising heat do the job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Attic room&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, there's no loft to insulate, so insulating the roof becomes an altogether messier job. Assuming it's plasterboard on rafters, you could make a couple of small holes in the plasterboard and shine a light through, to look at the state of the insulation between the rafters. If it's not good, you might have to take the ceiling down, pack new insulation in (eg [Kingspan K7 [pdf]][1]), then stick some insulated plasterboard over the top (e.g. [Kingspan K18 [pdf]][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Do floors when you replace the carpets.&#xD;&#xA;If you're going to put down new carpets, get the floor under them insulated first. Once you've got new carpets in, you probably won't want to pull them up for years, so insulate before they get laid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kingspaninsulation.co.uk/getattachment/78f5cba0-5188-4b8a-a9ec-a0708ccc61be/Kooltherm-K7-Pitched-Roof-Board.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kingspaninsulation.co.uk/getattachment/39da3ae9-8f6c-4b8e-9220-7ae813d51603/Kooltherm-K18-Insulated-Plasterboard.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="17dac35b-4776-4b93-b86e-4d971507dcd3" CreationDate="2014-02-28T10:53:47.997" UserId="99" Comment="separated into standards, logos and plastic types, added link to pdf with home compostable plastics" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Standards&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several standards that are often mentioned on compostable plastics that guarantee that the plastic can be composted safely (with low levels of heavy metals and toxic substances in the resulting compost). Less strict first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The [US ASTM D6400](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/ASTM_D6400)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; degradation by biological processes during composting to yield CO2, water, inorganic compounds and biomass at a rate consistent with other compostable materials and leaves no visible, distinguishable or toxic residue.... 60% biodegradation within 180 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [European EN 13432](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/EN_13432) / Seedling logo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A biodegradation level of at least 90% must be reached in less than 6 months... fragmentation and loss of visibility in the final compost (absence of visible pollution)... absence of negative effects on the composting process... Low levels of heavy metals (below given max values) and absence of negative effects on the final compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The [Australian AS 4736](http://bioplastics.org.au/faq/what-is-the-as4736-standard-for-biodegradable-plastics) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Minimum of 90% of plastic materials should disintegrate into less than 2mm pieces in compost within 12 weeks. No toxic effect of the resulting compost on plants and earthworms. Hazardous substances such as heavy metals should not be present above the maximum allowed levels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **these standards do not guarantee under which circumstances** (temperature) the plastic will compost. AFAIK, the only standard that does guarantee composting at low temperatures is the [Australian AS 5810](http://bioplastics.org.au/news/home-composting-standard-as-5810-2010-verify-your-product-conforms-now) which has it's own logo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![ABA AS 5810 logo][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Logos&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the AS 5810 standard logo, there are tree other logos I know of that also guarantee that you can compost it in your home compost pile and these are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Vinçotte OK compost HOME label](http://www.okcompost.be/en/recognising-ok-environment-logos/ok-compost-amp-ok-compost-home/) (in Europe)&#xD;&#xA;- [AfOR Home Compostable Logo](http://www.organics-recycling.org.uk/page.php?article=1921) (UK only) &#xD;&#xA;- [DIN-Geprüft Home Compostable logo](http://www.tuv.com/dincertco/en/products_made_of_compostable_materials_for_home_and_garden_composting.html) (also Europe) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Vinçotte OK compost HOME label][2]&#xD;&#xA;![AfOR Home Compostable Logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;![DIN CERTCO Geprüft logo][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the Vincotte logo must have the word 'HOME' on the left. Without it, the logo only guarantees that is is compostable in an industrial facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Plastic types&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vincotte lists plastic types that are certified home compostable in [this PDF](http://www.okcompost.be/data/pdf-document/okh-matf.pdf) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BReGk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/whT8j.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ToLv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dwzCc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="2322fbd9-d636-4551-872c-50e692b0af23" CreationDate="2014-02-28T13:00:37.610" UserId="99" Comment="more info about AS 5810 standard" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Standards&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several standards that are often mentioned on compostable plastics that guarantee that the plastic can be composted safely (with low levels of heavy metals and toxic substances in the resulting compost). Less strict first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The [US ASTM D6400](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/ASTM_D6400)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; degradation by biological processes during composting to yield CO2, water, inorganic compounds and biomass at a rate consistent with other compostable materials and leaves no visible, distinguishable or toxic residue.... 60% biodegradation within 180 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [European EN 13432](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/EN_13432) / Seedling logo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A biodegradation level of at least 90% must be reached in less than 6 months... fragmentation and loss of visibility in the final compost (absence of visible pollution)... absence of negative effects on the composting process... Low levels of heavy metals (below given max values) and absence of negative effects on the final compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The [Australian AS 4736](http://bioplastics.org.au/faq/what-is-the-as4736-standard-for-biodegradable-plastics) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Minimum of 90% of plastic materials should disintegrate into less than 2mm pieces in compost within 12 weeks. No toxic effect of the resulting compost on plants and earthworms. Hazardous substances such as heavy metals should not be present above the maximum allowed levels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    However, these 3 standards **do not guarantee** under which circumstances (temperature) the plastic will compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. The [Australian AS 5810](http://bioplastics.org.au/news/home-composting-standard-as-5810-2010-verify-your-product-conforms-now) is **currently the only standard that does guarantee composting at low temperatures** is. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heavy metals and plant toxicity requirements are similar to those for industrial compostability (AS 4736) Biodegradation and disintegration however need to be performed at ambient temperature instead of at elevated temperature ([source](http://www.ows.be/tests/home-compostability/)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The AS 5810 standard has has it's own logo &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ![ABA AS 5810 logo][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Logos&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides the AS 5810 standard logo, there are tree other logos I know of that also guarantee that you can compost the plastic in your home compost pile and these are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Vinçotte OK compost HOME label](http://www.okcompost.be/en/recognising-ok-environment-logos/ok-compost-amp-ok-compost-home/) (in Europe)&#xD;&#xA;- [AfOR Home Compostable Logo](http://www.organics-recycling.org.uk/page.php?article=1921) (UK only) &#xD;&#xA;- [DIN-Geprüft Home Compostable logo](http://www.tuv.com/dincertco/en/products_made_of_compostable_materials_for_home_and_garden_composting.html) (also Europe) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Vinçotte OK compost HOME label][2]&#xD;&#xA;![AfOR Home Compostable Logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;![DIN CERTCO Geprüft logo][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the Vincotte logo must have the word 'HOME' on the left. Without it, the logo only guarantees that it is compostable in an industrial facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Plastic types&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vincotte lists plastic types that are certified home compostable in [this PDF](http://www.okcompost.be/data/pdf-document/okh-matf.pdf) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BReGk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/whT8j.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ToLv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dwzCc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5961" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2594" RevisionGUID="69cfa716-5c5a-4747-97fa-fe1b396985ee" CreationDate="2014-02-28T13:46:45.890" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/439396257204019201" />
  <row Id="5962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2596" RevisionGUID="0e7abbc4-2d90-48f3-a227-72ff7a0b065a" CreationDate="2014-02-28T16:25:13.633" UserId="1222" Text="I think EnergyNumbers' answer is pretty comprehensive! Basically, do 'low hanging fruit first' - i.e. the things that have a quick result such as draught proofing (sealing around gaps/cracks/skirtings/windows etc); install heavy curtains and if you can loft insulation, which you should be able to do yourself fairly easily and cheaply. Then you can start with the top more thoroughly. Having said that, even if you cannot afford to do all of the works now, I think it will still pay of to have someone give you professional advice for a ' whole house ' solution/approach so that if you do things one-by-one you don't neglect any important overlapping or interconnecting issues.( if you are going much more airtight, you might need to look at ventilation issues etc). We are after all going on very basic information and a site-visit from someone may immediately throw up better strategies/more low hanging fruit and would give you a good list of priorities and 5 year plan to work towards,...This would also be helpful if you want to do some internal re-modelling of the layout,...And if you cannot afford professional fees, you may be able to pay less to a less experienced new graduate,....  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="2242d875-d58c-463f-9c58-0228e4b4402d" CreationDate="2014-02-28T18:47:28.277" UserId="888" Text="##Solar shower could be a fun project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Plastic bag, on a black sheet, on a white sheet, on metal sheet, tin foil, black plastic ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Plenty of fun making and creating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Put them out in the morning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Come back after lunch and test them, compared to a control. Take a show (probably a bad idea) wash your hands, feel how &quot;We've made hot water, with no power, fire electricity, gas, ... ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Write up the project." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5964" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2394" RevisionGUID="4556d4ca-f3ad-4f61-aa4a-dad5074d4e2a" CreationDate="2014-03-01T04:46:45.583" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/439622749259309056" />
  <row Id="5965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="cd65044f-8841-4dde-9e09-4a778438aff9" CreationDate="2014-03-01T06:53:20.237" UserId="1224" Text="There is a big advantage to cylindrical lenses. If you arrange PV cells in vertical stripes (e.g. covering 20% of the surface) and put vertically aligned cylindrical Fresnel lenses, as the sun moves from east to west (or west to east in the southern hemisphere) you just need to move the Fresnel lenses (or probably more easily the PV panel behind it) in the horizontal direction. What's more, this movement is a sinusoidal movement which can be done mechanically with a simple clock-driven gearing and with little power since it only requires movement in the X axis. So you have a PV that can receive highly concentrated sunlight in a small surface covered with high-efficiency cells, without needing complicated sun tracking (the Y axis is irrelevant, as at worse you lose a small fraction of the light at the top or bottom of your panel).&#xD;&#xA;This is all ideal of course, and there are other factors to consider:&#xD;&#xA;1) Heat accumulation. This shouldn't be a tough one since you still have the same amount of light falling in your total panel, so if you mount the cells on a thermally conductive plate, you should be able to dissipate the energy just as with unconcentrated solar panels. Even more, if you make the space between the PV columns a grooved surface (like a radiator grid or a typical cooler) you can probably cool it much better than in a fully PV covered surface. So unless dissipating between the PV and the backing plate is a big challenge, I would say this probably has better thermal characteristics than non-concentrated PVs.&#xD;&#xA;2) Losses through the lens. Some lens materials might not be highly transparent to the frequencies that your PV is optimized for, so the lens and the PV need to be matched. Also, the lens has some loses due to reflection and imperfections in the surface.&#xD;&#xA;3) A Fresnel lens offers only near ideal characteristics from a straight-on angle. So when light shines on it at a low angle (e.g. sideways in a vertically oriented cylindrical lens) much higher loses can be expected. &#xD;&#xA;But all in all, especially on high latitudes, this design should be much more cost efficient than a traditional fully-covered PV panel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="b75d8083-cd29-4396-ae63-612af3062d96" CreationDate="2014-03-01T08:47:09.523" UserId="812" Comment="Formatting." Text="There is a big advantage to cylindrical lenses. If you arrange PV cells in vertical stripes (e.g. covering 20% of the surface) and put vertically aligned cylindrical Fresnel lenses, as the sun moves from east to west (or west to east in the southern hemisphere) you just need to move the Fresnel lenses (or probably more easily the PV panel behind it) in the horizontal direction. What's more, this movement is a sinusoidal movement which can be done mechanically with a simple clock-driven gearing and with little power since it only requires movement in the X axis. So you have a PV that can receive highly concentrated sunlight in a small surface covered with high-efficiency cells, without needing complicated sun tracking (the Y axis is irrelevant, as at worse you lose a small fraction of the light at the top or bottom of your panel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all ideal of course, and there are other factors to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Heat accumulation. This shouldn't be a tough one since you still have the same amount of light falling in your total panel, so if you mount the cells on a thermally conductive plate, you should be able to dissipate the energy just as with unconcentrated solar panels. Even more, if you make the space between the PV columns a grooved surface (like a radiator grid or a typical cooler) you can probably cool it much better than in a fully PV covered surface. So unless dissipating between the PV and the backing plate is a big challenge, I would say this probably has better thermal characteristics than non-concentrated PVs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Losses through the lens. Some lens materials might not be highly transparent to the frequencies that your PV is optimized for, so the lens and the PV need to be matched. Also, the lens has some loses due to reflection and imperfections in the surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. A Fresnel lens offers only near ideal characteristics from a straight-on angle. So when light shines on it at a low angle (e.g. sideways in a vertically oriented cylindrical lens) much higher loses can be expected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But all in all, especially on high latitudes, this design should be much more cost efficient than a traditional fully-covered PV panel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5967" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2598" RevisionGUID="b75d8083-cd29-4396-ae63-612af3062d96" CreationDate="2014-03-01T08:47:09.523" Comment="Proposed by 812 approved by 48 edit id of 241" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="5f464747-4c52-45c7-8a67-5bb0e0bab7ce" CreationDate="2014-03-01T12:04:37.200" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="I live in a subtropical region (central Queensland coast) and have been looking at the same thing, being eaten alive by mosquitos and I really are not a fan of chemical based repellents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Australia's ABC Gardening Australia fact sheet [Fact Sheet: Pest-Management Plants][1], there are 3 main functions that pest/mosquito repelling plants can possess:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Plants that mask scents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; include thyme, lavender and scented geranium. These produce strong, volatile oils and scent that actually masks the plants the insects might be looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Plants that actively repel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such as cotton lavender or santolina, tansy and wormwood. These plants produce a scent or taste that is so bitter or putrid it drives insects away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Plants that contain substances toxic to the insects&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the dried flower of pyrethrum or chopped chilli, which can be used as insect sprays. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One popular natural repellent that comes up quite often on the internet is oil derived Citronella grasses, according to the [Oil of Citronella][2] fact sheet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.abc.net.au/gardening/stories/s1872509.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/citronellagen.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="37fb0515-d949-4584-9d2f-e82f89330eab" CreationDate="2014-03-01T12:47:29.693" UserId="-1" Comment="Added an option." Text="This seems to be a good start: [Chinese man becomes first to sue government over smog][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-china-pollution-idINBREA1J18E20140225&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate how outside-the-box I am thinking, here are some of the options I come up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Overthrow the communist government;&#xD;&#xA;2. Elect Ban Ki-moon for Chinese president;&#xD;&#xA;3. Secede Manchuria to South Korea;&#xD;&#xA;4. Declare independence;&#xD;&#xA;5. Elect Lien Chan for Chinese president;&#xD;&#xA;6. Secede Manchuria to Russia;&#xD;&#xA;7. Divert atmospheric rivers to create precipitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5970" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="37fb0515-d949-4584-9d2f-e82f89330eab" CreationDate="2014-03-01T12:47:29.693" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 85 edit id of 242" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="2490d966-ee44-4deb-aeaf-917f5e15c82c" CreationDate="2014-03-02T10:37:46.533" UserId="1177" Comment="crossed out an option." Text="This seems to be a good start: [Chinese man becomes first to sue government over smog][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-china-pollution-idINBREA1J18E20140225&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate how outside-the-box I am thinking, here are some of the options I come up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Overthrow the communist government;&#xD;&#xA;2. Elect Ban Ki-moon for Chinese president;&#xD;&#xA;3. Secede Manchuria to South Korea;&#xD;&#xA;4. Declare independence;&#xD;&#xA;5. Elect Lien Chan for Chinese president;&#xD;&#xA;6. Secede Manchuria to Russia; This solution will make things worse, because the Chinese is a blight of the earth and Manchuria contains more than 100 million Chinese.Seceding Manchuria to Russia will devastate Siberia.&#xD;&#xA;7. Divert atmospheric rivers to create precipitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="f289c742-f58c-4db7-84cf-ecfdc4ec8658" CreationDate="2014-03-03T01:13:48.717" UserId="1177" Comment="improved punctuation" Text="This seems to be a good start: [Chinese man becomes first to sue government over smog][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-china-pollution-idINBREA1J18E20140225&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate how outside-the-box I am thinking, here are some of the options I come up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Overthrow the communist government;&#xD;&#xA;2. Elect Ban Ki-moon for Chinese president;&#xD;&#xA;3. Secede Manchuria to South Korea;&#xD;&#xA;4. Declare independence;&#xD;&#xA;5. Elect Lien Chan for Chinese president;&#xD;&#xA;6. Secede Manchuria to Russia; (This step will make things worse, because the Chinese is a blight of the earth and Manchuria contains more than 100 million of them. Seceding Manchuria to Russia would devastate Siberia.)&#xD;&#xA;7. Divert atmospheric rivers to create precipitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="5c1e8a25-48f2-4d9f-842c-f6d071a75e5c" CreationDate="2014-03-03T04:44:42.867" UserId="1177" Comment="Added speculation" Text="This seems to be a good start: [Chinese man becomes first to sue government over smog][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-china-pollution-idINBREA1J18E20140225&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate how outside-the-box I am thinking, here are some of the options I come up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Overthrow the communist government;&#xD;&#xA;2. Elect Ban Ki-moon for Chinese president;&#xD;&#xA;3. Secede Manchuria to South Korea;&#xD;&#xA;4. Declare independence;&#xD;&#xA;5. Elect Lien Chan for Chinese president;&#xD;&#xA;6. Secede Manchuria to Russia; (This step will make things worse, because the Chinese is a blight of the earth and Manchuria contains more than 100 million of them. Seceding Manchuria to Russia would devastate Siberia.)&#xD;&#xA;7. Divert atmospheric rivers to create precipitation;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I speculate that any retired software engineer would have the brains to solve this problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2583" RevisionGUID="d581787c-3880-4b56-a47d-b1e70e4d7984" CreationDate="2014-03-03T05:51:20.053" UserId="1177" Comment="improved meaning" Text="This seems to be a good start: [Chinese man becomes first to sue government over smog][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-china-pollution-idINBREA1J18E20140225&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To demonstrate how outside-the-box I am thinking, here are some of the options I come up with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Overthrow the communist government;&#xD;&#xA;2. Elect Ban Ki-moon for Chinese president;&#xD;&#xA;3. Secede Manchuria to South Korea;&#xD;&#xA;4. Declare independence;&#xD;&#xA;5. Elect Lien Chan for Chinese president;&#xD;&#xA;6. Secede Manchuria to Russia; (This step will make things worse, because the Chinese is a blight of the earth and Manchuria contains more than 100 million of us. Seceding Manchuria to Russia would devastate Siberia.)&#xD;&#xA;7. Divert atmospheric rivers to create precipitation;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I speculate that any retired software engineer would have the brains to solve this problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2593" RevisionGUID="bb44a8b1-655b-4056-97b0-a82bfe3b38b4" CreationDate="2014-03-03T13:33:13.400" UserId="48" Comment="added 354 characters in body" Text="##First, draught-proofing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Close the gaps around windows, doors, between floorboards, gaps where pipes go into walls and floors. It's a cheap and relatively easy way to stop a lot of heat escaping, and to cut down on the convection currents that will take a lot of heat from the bottom to the top of the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Curtains around the stairwell?&#xD;&#xA;Can you put a curtain around the bottom of the stairwell, and one just past the top of it? They should be floor-to-ceiling, and wall-to-wall. That will help reduce vertical convection. Do take into account safety; and, as with any work, check with Building Regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Glazing&#xD;&#xA;As you've currently got single glazing, then double- or triple-glazing offer lots of energy savings, as well as making it much quieter, and more secure. Not all double-glazing is equal: look for very low U-values, and try to avoid the national branded installers advertised on TV, which tend to be complete sharks. If the building is listed or in a conservation area, you may need to consider secondary glazing, which can offer the same improvements to air-tightness, quietness and physical security, but typically with higher U-values (i.e. higher heat loss).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Thermal imaging camera&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Darren Cook that going round with a thermal imaging camera would be a great way to diagnose the biggest problems, and that in the absence of that, the roof is prime suspect (once you've got rid of the worst draughts). Do it in winter. You may be able to borrow a thermal imaging camera from your local library (some do this), or see if your council offers the service through other routes. If you've got a local college that teaches architecture or building-energy, see if they want to use your house as a research project: ideally, they'd come round in winter and do a blower-door test (to measure air-tightness) and go round with the thermal camera during decompression: that will suck in air from the outside through all cracks, and you'll see blue plumes on the camera where the leaks are. Run around putting post-it notes on the leaky bits, to go back and fix later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Look for mould or condensation&#xD;&#xA;If you see mould, or an area that repeatedly gets condensation on it (most noticeable after cooking or bathing) that will become mouldy, start there. The condensation is indicating that those places are colder than anywhere else in the house (i.e. fastest rate of heat loss per unit surface area), and mould can be a threat to health too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##All other things being equal, start at the top&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you start at the bottom, you'll still have cold draughts coming down the stairwell anyway, and heat will just go straight up and out the downstairs living area. Insulating lofts is fairly easy (compared to insulating walls or double/triple glazing windows), cheap, and has big big savings. You might be able to turn off heating at the very top of the house, and just let rising heat do the job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Attic room&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, there's no loft to insulate, so insulating the roof becomes an altogether messier job. Assuming it's plasterboard on rafters, you could make a couple of small holes in the plasterboard and shine a light through, to look at the state of the insulation between the rafters. If it's not good, you might have to take the ceiling down, pack new insulation in (eg [Kingspan K7 [pdf]][1]), then stick some insulated plasterboard over the top (e.g. [Kingspan K18 [pdf]][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Do floors when you replace the carpets.&#xD;&#xA;If you're going to put down new carpets, get the floor under them insulated first. Once you've got new carpets in, you probably won't want to pull them up for years, so insulate before they get laid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;##But be warned!&#xD;&#xA;A lot of old British houses contain [decades of botch jobs, which creates lots and lots of work when you start renovation, as Jack Kelly found out][3] (warning - contains images that anyone contemplating retrofitting a UK Victorian dwelling may find harrowing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kingspaninsulation.co.uk/getattachment/78f5cba0-5188-4b8a-a9ec-a0708ccc61be/Kooltherm-K7-Pitched-Roof-Board.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kingspaninsulation.co.uk/getattachment/39da3ae9-8f6c-4b8e-9220-7ae813d51603/Kooltherm-K18-Insulated-Plasterboard.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://jack-kelly.com/insulating_our_victorian_living_room" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="0b1c2261-8dcc-41d0-8e37-d9b7fd43504b" CreationDate="2014-03-03T18:41:43.313" UserId="888" Comment="added 816 characters in body" Text="##Solar shower could be a fun project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Plastic bag, on a black sheet, on a white sheet, on metal sheet, tin foil, black plastic ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Plenty of fun making and creating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Put them out in the morning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Come back after lunch and test them, compared to a control. Take a show (probably a bad idea) wash your hands, feel how &quot;We've made hot water, with no power, fire electricity, gas, ... ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Write up the project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit 1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for the feedback DTDev, your comments have inspired me to add some further notes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There could be 2 controls. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1st filled same time as the others (but kept in the dark), so it picks up only ambient air temp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 2nd filled at measurement time from cold source. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1st should be warmer than 2nd, only slightly, but hopefully big jump in temp to sun soaked bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Part two&#xD;&#xA;Also like your idea about *battery affect* and *latency*, so a 2nd half/part could demonstrate drain down, which could be added/combined as a part two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two jars one with water one without each with thermometer, kept in shade both pick up ambient temperature. Put the lids back on and remove both to the cold (fridge), air filled should drop faster than water jar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought the first would appeal to younger students, the 2nd experiment can be added for older students." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2601" RevisionGUID="af1f332e-fa48-4734-b6e2-088838464d24" CreationDate="2014-03-03T19:06:47.160" UserId="1227" Text="From a sustainability perspective, what is a method by which a city can set priorities regarding pollution.  In other words, which pollutants are the most important to reduce.  So many pollutants are in the air, water and ground, it is difficult to know what to do first.  Thanks for any examples from other cities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2601" RevisionGUID="af1f332e-fa48-4734-b6e2-088838464d24" CreationDate="2014-03-03T19:06:47.160" UserId="1227" Text="From a sustainability perspective, what is a method by which a city can set priorities regarding pollution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2601" RevisionGUID="af1f332e-fa48-4734-b6e2-088838464d24" CreationDate="2014-03-03T19:06:47.160" UserId="1227" Text="|pollution|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2602" RevisionGUID="742ada7f-d244-45fe-a2c1-cde773e236e1" CreationDate="2014-03-03T19:14:53.237" UserId="1227" Text="The Vulcan Project at the University of Arizona provides GHG emissions by geography and source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://vulcan.project.asu.edu/research.php&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5984" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2602" RevisionGUID="76ca17a8-9d01-438d-9260-a81b6b37ccab" CreationDate="2014-03-03T19:45:54.003" UserId="99" Comment="10" />
  <row Id="5985" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2601" RevisionGUID="18ea4a22-75f9-44f9-9a4d-1a100e86be6b" CreationDate="2014-03-03T19:47:49.387" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/440574284621426688" />
  <row Id="5988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2604" RevisionGUID="90d8121f-9680-4667-99d1-4fe8893d69d3" CreationDate="2014-03-05T12:53:55.013" UserId="1233" Text="I guess that the question is quite self-explanatory. I am hoping to invest in a solar panel soon, but I am a little worried about it getting inefficient once government subsidies run out and the generated energy is not obligatorily paid-off by governments anymore.&#xD;&#xA;Any other suggestions to cope with the peaks? Heating water in a tank for instance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2604" RevisionGUID="90d8121f-9680-4667-99d1-4fe8893d69d3" CreationDate="2014-03-05T12:53:55.013" UserId="1233" Text="How efficient is the attempt to create a synergy by combining an electric car with a solar panel to cope with energy inflow peaks during sun hours?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2604" RevisionGUID="90d8121f-9680-4667-99d1-4fe8893d69d3" CreationDate="2014-03-05T12:53:55.013" UserId="1233" Text="|solar-power|electricity|cars|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5991" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2604" RevisionGUID="367e0c74-3f49-46e7-8734-14560427458d" CreationDate="2014-03-05T13:33:46.117" UserId="1233" Comment="edited title" Text="How efficient is it to use an electric car as storage for the energetic overload generated during sun hours (peaks) by solar panels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2585" RevisionGUID="e06f091a-3bd7-48e1-b839-5ac876767bf6" CreationDate="2014-03-05T18:49:59.337" UserId="1053" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="For us there are three aspects to it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - meal planning. This reduces the &quot;I bought it, but it went bad before I cooked it&quot; waste, and as a side effect makes it simple to know just how old leftovers are. My planning is a piece of paper with 7 horizontal areas on it marked Saturday through Friday, and in each I write that night's meal in as much detail as I feel like (eg once in a while it says Takeout.) Everyone knows what we'll be eating tomorrow, or what to cook tonight, or when this mac and cheese is from.&#xD;&#xA; - buying non-supermarket food. My Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) food is not packaged at all, and nor has it been washed for me or otherwise used up resources. (I bring egg cartons to the farm for the days I get eggs.) I also happen to know my farmer uses horses instead of tractors and doesn't use chemical fertilizers. My butcher wraps my meat in paper, and it comes into the shop in animal or half-animal pieces, so they aren't getting plastic-wrapped stuff and throwing that wrapping out. I also know they make soup and pies from the trimmings.&#xD;&#xA; - eating more home-made food. This reduces our packaging tremendously, and also our food waste, because we can make any given meal a little larger or a little smaller according to who is eating it and how hungry we are. It also gives us a way to use things that have only a small amount left - two stalks of asparagus or half an onion - just as a matter of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think also that my attitude to food has changed since I joined the CSA and started shopping at the butcher. I feel worse about wasting food now, so I waste less of it. My  garbage has gone to essentially zero and my recycling is less than it was (less cans and jars) while my compost is far more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A side note that probably applies only to me - the closest supermarket is about 20 miles away, and my regular supermarket is 40 miles away. The CSA is only 2 miles as the crow flies, 5 miles round trip on our bikes. For me I actually go to the supermarket less often, especially in the summer, than I used to so the CSA is also saving gasoline.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5993" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2604" RevisionGUID="c4f62153-14a8-4dbb-a89f-fe9afa74f24d" CreationDate="2014-03-05T19:48:15.350" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/441299168968331264" />
  <row Id="5995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2605" RevisionGUID="1b8e2b12-8875-4aa4-865b-eabdcab55418" CreationDate="2014-03-06T11:18:58.267" UserId="812" Text="I think this is best answered as two questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How efficient is it to use a battery as storage when excess electricity is generated by solar panels?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using an electric car's battery for this purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll take a stab at both, but there are probably others around who can answer each one better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question 1: whether it's worth using a battery&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good modern batteries have a round-trip efficiency of 85-90%[1]. Average grid losses in the UK are in the region of 7%, although it is not clear that this figure is applicable for distributed generation - possibly it should be lower. From a pure efficient-use-of-electricity perspective, then, it will nearly always be better to export energy to the grid to be used than to store it locally[2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you have asked about a future where feedin tarrifs and the like no longer apply, so presumably you are interested in what makes economic rather than purely energetic sense. In this case yes, it makes sense to store excess energy locally and use it later. Whether it is best to do this with a battery or to use the energy to heat water depends a lot on your circumstances, and in particular on your need for heat. A well-insulated water tank probably has a higher round-trip efficiency, at least over moderate timescales, and large capacities will certainly be more affordable than with batteries, but you lose flexibility in what the energy can be used for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question 2: Whether an electric car is a good way to provide this battery&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a &quot;solution&quot; beloved of many, simply because if there is a large takeup of electric cars there will be high-capacity batteries plugged into many homes for a large proportion of the time. Advantages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Assuming that you need a new car, and that an electric one will suit your needs, then the marginal cost of an electric car over a ICE car is probably less than the cost of buying the equivalent batteries and associated electronics separately. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* No installation is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disadvantages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The car is not always connected. With solar power in particular, as others have pointed out in comments to the question, for somebody with a daily commute to work the car will not normally be connected when solar power output is greatest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Unless you know in advance that you will not need to drive your car for x hours, you can only allow the top n% of the battery capacity to be used for solar power smoothing. This puts a damper on the first advantage above, in that the marginal cost of an electric over an ICE car is probably *greater* than the cost of the relatively small battery capacity that you will actually be using with the solar system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Linked to the last point, unless you can plan your journeys far ahead, in order to make the system useful for solar smoothing you must accept a reduction in your car's range - it may not be fully charged when you want to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In a practical sense, I don't know whether current electric cars support smart use of the batteries in this way in software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My conclusion from this is that it's probably better to install dedicated batteries for the solar system than to rely on using a car. However, if you already *have* an electric car for other reasons, and you don't need it to be at 100% charge all the time, then it may be worth investigating use it with your solar system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Source: http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/technology_today/2011_i1/energy_storage.html, section on lithium ion batteries. They might not be the type used in a house, but they are the type used by electric cars, so they seem relevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] There are a number of scenarios in which storage may help with efficiency, e.g. to deal with choke points in the grid layout, or where storage is more efficient than running a thermal power plant at a low capacity factor, but these are all best managed by the utilities and are not really applicable to a home generator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="5996" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="751" RevisionGUID="e8323dce-44d0-4fef-ba16-859089e46c6e" CreationDate="2014-03-06T20:59:33.867" UserId="169" Comment="edited tags" Text="|toxic-chemicals|usa|furniture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="498" RevisionGUID="2d470336-7a91-4de3-9046-cb1167a3c2dd" CreationDate="2014-03-07T08:24:43.917" UserId="264" Comment="Caution about recycling" Text="I don't have the perfect answer but as you said, even though it's not really fuel-efficient, it might be more ecological than creating a brand new car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Especially if we consider that it could be used occasionally by someone who wouldn't need to drive a lot, this could always help that person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Maybe it could be recycled, could it be?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Remember than recycling isn't the holy-solution that many people want us to think, it takes a lot of energy/pollution to recycle. Durability or second-life should always be chosen first and recycling if no other choice IMO." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2606" RevisionGUID="8936b46e-b53e-4833-b6c9-9329a313604e" CreationDate="2014-03-07T09:26:10.083" UserId="963" Text="A company that does not make a profit, it not sustainable regardless of how little damage it does.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However a individual can decide to use options that cost a lot more then what other individuals are doing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="d7c98705-0c81-4860-a4fb-5f9b0a04ef25" CreationDate="2014-03-07T10:25:35.260" UserId="99" Comment="added link that explains what earthbag construction is, added relevant tags, fixed typos" Text="Given that Polypropylene bags are still a plastic product and not very biodegradable or earth friendly, if [Earthbag construction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthbag_construction) became widely used how could this method be improved upon even further?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming a scenario where every single house in the world is made using Earthbag construction with Polypropylene bags and although it is a lot less wasteful than say cement and wood it is still wasteful.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6008" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="d7c98705-0c81-4860-a4fb-5f9b0a04ef25" CreationDate="2014-03-07T10:25:35.260" UserId="99" Comment="added link that explains what earthbag construction is, added relevant tags, fixed typos" Text="What alternatives to Polypropylene bags could be used in Earthbag construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6009" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="d7c98705-0c81-4860-a4fb-5f9b0a04ef25" CreationDate="2014-03-07T10:25:35.260" UserId="99" Comment="added link that explains what earthbag construction is, added relevant tags, fixed typos" Text="|construction|plastic-alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2607" RevisionGUID="e09fcbbd-b792-461e-b762-7f6d15c03d19" CreationDate="2014-03-07T10:36:26.697" UserId="99" Text="I know that you need industrial facilities to compost compostable plastics within a reasonable timeframe. But how does this process work exactly? How long does it take? Is it simply a matter of doing hot composting and maintaining high temperatures? Are any extra resources (e.g. water or energy) needed? Is the end product ready-to-be used compost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the exact method may depend on the type of compostable plastic. I'm mainly interested in composting PLA-based plastic since they form the majority of all compostable plastics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2607" RevisionGUID="e09fcbbd-b792-461e-b762-7f6d15c03d19" CreationDate="2014-03-07T10:36:26.697" UserId="99" Text="How is compostable plastic recycled industrially?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2607" RevisionGUID="e09fcbbd-b792-461e-b762-7f6d15c03d19" CreationDate="2014-03-07T10:36:26.697" UserId="99" Text="|recycling|compostable-plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2608" RevisionGUID="5d6ae122-0876-4e1b-b135-7c465e8d17a0" CreationDate="2014-03-07T10:47:06.100" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Compostable plastic is a plastic that can degrade using biological processes in a rate consistent with other organic materials and without leaving any visible, distinguishable or toxic residue. Most compostable plastics today can only be composted within a reasonable timeframe in industrial composting facilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Compostable plastics 101](http://compostingcouncil.org/admin/wp-content/plugins/wp-pdfupload/pdf/8095/Compostable%20Plastics%20101%20Paper.pdf)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2609" RevisionGUID="d12dd573-d071-46e0-9548-6f65953cf9f7" CreationDate="2014-03-07T10:47:06.100" UserId="99" Text="plastic that can degrade using biological processes in a rate consistent with other organic materials and without leaving any visible, distinguishable or toxic residue. Usually an industrial facility is needed to compost it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2606" RevisionGUID="030a92d4-cbd5-430a-8338-f26082bdb738" CreationDate="2014-03-07T12:37:53.837" UserId="963" Comment="added 396 characters in body" Text="A company that does not make a profit, it not sustainable regardless of how little damage it does.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However a individual can decide to use options that cost a lot more then what other individuals are doing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thats say company &quot;a&quot; dose 10 “units of damage” while making the product, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Company b could choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Make the product doing 5 “units of damage” and also make a profit so leting them expend hence takingaover from company “a”.&#xD;&#xA;- Or make the product doing 3 “units of damage”, but not make any profit, so leaving company “a” making 99.999% of the items doing 10 “units of damage”&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="b3590c9f-2e73-4158-b6e6-56cb60b26d3a" CreationDate="2014-03-07T13:07:32.177" UserId="963" Text="The point of compostable plastics is that they can be processed in the same way as the rest of the garbage stream they are mixed in with.       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a fast food outlet uses 100% compostable packing and cups etc, then they can compost everything in their bins without having to separate.   The process start off with a fine shedding and mixing of everything, so if the plastic is still only 50% composted at the end of the process, it will keep braking down when the compost is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is by giving out compostable plastic bags so as to make it more likely that people will put their food garbage in the compostable collection bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some area there are now composting all garbage that cannot be separated to reduce its size before the compost gets dumped – the “compost” the is produced is only good for landfall, but at least it takes up a lot less landfall then the uncomposted garbage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Also when compostable plastic gets into the environment, at least it does not remain there for tens of thousands of year.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6017" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="26bdb32b-2c25-4aff-ae82-101b32b37d66" CreationDate="2014-03-07T14:58:42.967" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|embodied-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2611" RevisionGUID="019d9b8e-ffa8-4060-9129-e179076a43e9" CreationDate="2014-03-07T16:23:25.867" UserId="1053" Text="One approach is to look at what changes in behavior your electronics enable, and compare the benefits of those changes (typically per unit time) to the cost (overall) of the device. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a person with a Kindle may stop buying paper books and causing paper books to be shipped to them or their nearest store&#xD;&#xA; - a person with a GPS may stop buying paper maps or may drive around lost less often&#xD;&#xA; - a person who can get email (on a phone, laptop, or at the library) can eliminate paper bills being sent in the mail&#xD;&#xA; - a person who can watch TV on a tablet may refrain from buying a full sized TV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This raises some possible equivalances. How many hardbacks have the same energy footprint as the production and purchase of the Kindle? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It all depends what you use the electronics for. A TV is probably never going to be balanced out. A smartphone that replaces larger and more expensive devices may constitute an immediate savings. A smartphone for someone who already owns and uses larger and more expensive devices, and continues to buy and replace those large devices, will also never balance out. So this gives you a framework for thinking about that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2612" RevisionGUID="8a5541fb-b1aa-4fe9-bc2e-ff1243c29321" CreationDate="2014-03-07T19:04:10.750" UserId="1013" Text="I live in an apartment in an urban area that doesn't offer municipal compost.  I store my food waste in a paper bag in my freezer.  When the bag is full, I run it over to Whole Foods and dispose of the whole bag in their compost bin.  This bin is probably meant to only take food waste from people eating in their cafeteria and I don't want to feel like I'm taking advantage of them, so I'm looking for other options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option might be to throw the bag in the large river that flows through our city.  Would this be bad for the river?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along a similar vein, I walk my dog along the river daily and I'm considering buying compostable poop bags.  Instead of throwing the poop bags in garbage cans along the walk (where they will end up in a landfill), would it be better to toss them in the river too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2612" RevisionGUID="8a5541fb-b1aa-4fe9-bc2e-ff1243c29321" CreationDate="2014-03-07T19:04:10.750" UserId="1013" Text="Is it a good idea to throw compost in a river?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2612" RevisionGUID="8a5541fb-b1aa-4fe9-bc2e-ff1243c29321" CreationDate="2014-03-07T19:04:10.750" UserId="1013" Text="|waste|city-living|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6022" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2612" RevisionGUID="c58d9e66-88fb-4267-b70e-f8932abfc038" CreationDate="2014-03-07T22:33:54.893" UserId="1013" Comment="changed title from compost to organic waste" Text="Is it a good idea to throw organic waste in a river?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2613" RevisionGUID="eea2236b-2eec-4afe-8556-5e00e78d6868" CreationDate="2014-03-08T01:43:38.440" UserId="1238" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, if you throw things in the river, especially waste, you'll likely be cited for dumping and/or littering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, there are definite environmental concerns to doing so.  Dog waste is quite unhealthy; there are definitely bad bacteria and potentially bad parasites in there.  Dogs don't poop in rivers naturally; do not put it in there.  Also, adding any kind of organic waste is going to contribute to algae blooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For household food processing, have you considered vermicompost?  That can be compact enough for an apartment.  I know there are enzyme kits for safely composting dog poop, but I don't know much about them.  Flushing it down the toilet might be an option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2614" RevisionGUID="83bb91dc-5447-4e61-992c-6d9e345662eb" CreationDate="2014-03-08T03:34:37.717" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="To grow and harvest rattan in a garden, there are several aspects to consider, which are related to the care needed to cultivate and grow a healthy crop, including soil, conditions and especially space considerations - these are all outlined below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the document [Rattan: production and processing][1], the first and foremost consideration is to select land that is similar to the plant's natural habitat, which according to the article, should contain characteristics of tropical and swampy environments.  Rattan does okay as either a mixed crop or as a single crop in fire-cleared land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article advises that it is best grown following these steps (summarised below):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sowing**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be done in a small hand made nursery, where large and small seeds should be spaced with spacings of 5cm and 2.5cm respectively, in humus rich soil - the authors advise adding sawdust. The seeds should be planted to a depth of 10cm an watered lightly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Germination is best done in partial shade - which the article suggests can be achieved by palm leaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Transplanting**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After several of the leaves open, about 2 months after germination, the seedlings need to be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- watered&#xD;&#xA;- placed in polyethylene bags, 2 thirds full of the same soil as they have been sown in.&#xD;&#xA;- placed in pots, that will need to be tended to for watering and weeding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Replanting**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To grow properly, rattan requires full sunlight and climbing support, the article advises that replanting should take place in the wet season.  When replanting, care must be taken to not damage any part of the plant - the plant needs to be planted in a hole 20cm wide and 30cm deep, in a 7m by 3m cropping pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All going well, the rattan will be ready for harvesting in 5 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Harvesting**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article authors advice that caution is needed when harvesting, to prevent (as much as possible), insect stings and snares from the plants themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The criteria for rattan ready for harvesting are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The skin colour has turned brown;&#xD;&#xA;- The thorns on the stem and the leaves are drying out &#xD;&#xA;and beginning to fall;&#xD;&#xA;- Flowers or fruits have already appeared;&#xD;&#xA;- The stem is more than 20-25 cm long&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A key aspect of harvesting is to always cut the shoots 10cm above the ground, cut off the crown and cut to size, bundle it up and you're there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://publications.cta.int/media/publications/downloads/1714_PDF.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2615" RevisionGUID="3c213bc8-6553-4dba-a37c-0b6f1675d622" CreationDate="2014-03-08T14:26:40.287" UserId="169" Text="[This brochure][1] from greensciencepolicy.org provides the following guidance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  **Foam-Free Furniture**: **Polyester-**, **down-**, or **wool** filled furniture is unlikely to contain added flame retardants. Furniture without filling (e.g. **wood**, **wicker**) is also a good option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  **Flame-Retardant-Free Furniture**: More flame retardantfree options should become available to consumers in the US and Canada as manufacturers switch to the new TB117-­‐2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These more expensive options already provide foam furniture options free of added  ame retardants. Check with producers and retailers before purchasing to verify that furniture is  flame retardant free: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cisco Home (http://www.ciscohome.net)&#xD;&#xA;- EcoTerric (http://www.ecoterric.com)&#xD;&#xA;- EcoBalanza (http://www.greenerlifestyles.com)&#xD;&#xA;- Ekla Home (http://www.eklahome.com)&#xD;&#xA;- Furnature (http://www.furnature.com)&#xD;&#xA;- GreenSofas (http://www.greensofas.com)&#xD;&#xA;- Viesso (http://www.viesso.com)&#xD;&#xA;- The Futon Shop (http://www.thefutonshop.com) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://greensciencepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/TB117-2013_ConsumerSheet_V12.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2616" RevisionGUID="7c5f62c5-68f3-45b3-80fc-681c8067925f" CreationDate="2014-03-09T00:56:39.630" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="Absolutely not&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To expand on Adam Miller's excellent answer, consider that there are precedents of the consequences of dumping organic waste in rivers - even if the river is polluted already.  Consequences beyond legalities (which could be very severe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Information from the World Health Organisation document, [Waste disposal and landfill: Information needs][1] (Taylor and Allen) suggest that, in regards to dog poop:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The main health concern with human &#xD;&#xA;and animal wastes is the high concentrations of pathogenic organisms associated with this &#xD;&#xA;type of waste, and the potential it has to spread disease. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and in regards to organic waste - in itself, is not toxic, but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decomposition of organic matter can alter the physico-chemical quality of groundwater and &#xD;&#xA;enhance the mobility of hazardous chemicals including metals and solvents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, asides from polluting the river and all aquatic systems downstream, such disposal can also result in primary and mobilised contaminants leaching into surrounding soil, disrupting nutrient cycles and degrading the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/resourcesquality/en/groundwater12.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="450" RevisionGUID="d47e6717-c2a0-4252-bc7b-cfb3232f9d57" CreationDate="2014-03-09T08:30:04.417" UserId="130" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="**Scope of Answer and Safety Information (please read)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer assumes that &quot;preserves&quot; refer to fruit preserved with sugar.  It does not apply to vegetables or meat, or to cases where large amounts of sugar are not added.  If canning in those environment, please use more conservative approaches, or better yet from a sustainability perspective use more traditional means of preserving these foods for later, such as sauerkraut and salami.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fruit is not considered to be a particular risk when canning and if you go back a thousand years or so fruit preserved in sugar was stored open.  The acidity and sugar together combine to prevent harmful bacteria from growing, and white sugar is considered, at least by archaeologists, to be better at preserving fruit than honey is (see &quot;Anglo-Saxon Food and Drink&quot; by Ann Hagen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally there are a few fruit which have fallen out of favor which are traditionally preserved with citrus added, most notably the quince (&quot;marmalade&quot; comes from a word meaning &quot;quince jelly&quot;).  If going outside of the common fruit used for such preserves, you may want to test pH (which may be a good idea anyway).  If in doubt, add some extra lemon juice or other acidic fruit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, even in the Middle Ages, such preserves were cooked, both before bottling and after bottling, so you can't omit the water bath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For fruit preserves, a pH of 4 gives you extra room in case the pH rises due to any number of factors.  Also note that fermented foods generally (that includes either lactic fermented foods like sauerkraut and alcoholic fermented foods like beer) are not botulism risks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more on safety, please see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/ill-intox/botu-eng.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.publichealthgreybruce.on.ca/communicable/fact-sheets/botulism-food-borne.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, defence in depth is important  and canning is a part of that depth today when making fruit preserves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Main answer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old traditional method of sealing was to use wax.  There's no reason why a &quot;float&quot; of beeswax won't get you where you need to go along with jars which cannot themselves be sealed.  While this often works it is not perfect and the seal can break.  This being said there isn't any reason why this can't be used as one aspect of a seal.  It may not be perfect, but it is simple to do, and if the product is used within a few months, it is likely sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would prefer beeswax to paraffin not only for sustainability reasons regarding the material itself but also because beeswax is softer stickier, and less brittle and so I would expect that it would be less likely to come loose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option, as you mention, is to re-use existing jam jars and lids.  I have done this with herbal medicine concoctions.  This usually works pretty well but some sorts of jars and lids I have learned to avoid not because they won't seal but because sometimes the seals end up locked and the jars impossible to open.  Jars to avoid include baby food jars.  I would assume that other similar jars should be avoided too.  Note you can test a seal with these by virtue of the fact that the button pops down.  If this doesn't happen, try a wax seal on these, and use first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2615" RevisionGUID="8096c6c7-5d4f-434b-b33c-0749bc295220" CreationDate="2014-03-09T14:34:08.957" UserId="169" Comment="added 350 characters in body" Text="[This brochure][1] from greensciencepolicy.org provides the following guidance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  **Foam-Free Furniture**: **Polyester-**, **down-**, or **wool** filled furniture is unlikely to contain added flame retardants. Furniture without filling (e.g. **wood**, **wicker**) is also a good option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  **Flame-Retardant-Free Furniture**: More flame retardantfree options should become available to consumers in the US and Canada as manufacturers switch to the new TB117-­‐2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These more expensive options already provide foam furniture options free of added flame retardants. Check with producers and retailers before purchasing to verify that furniture is  flame retardant free: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cisco Home (http://www.ciscohome.net)&#xD;&#xA;- EcoTerric (http://www.ecoterric.com)&#xD;&#xA;- EcoBalanza (http://www.greenerlifestyles.com)&#xD;&#xA;- Ekla Home (http://www.eklahome.com)&#xD;&#xA;- Furnature (http://www.furnature.com)&#xD;&#xA;- GreenSofas (http://www.greensofas.com)&#xD;&#xA;- Viesso (http://www.viesso.com)&#xD;&#xA;- The Futon Shop (http://www.thefutonshop.com) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About half of the sofas that Room and Board carry are manufactured by McCreary and are on display at their showrooms.  Crate and Barrel carries a few of their couches as well.  Both stores confirm they can special order McCreary sofas without flame retardant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the other sofas at this time are not on display in showrooms nationwide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://greensciencepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/TB117-2013_ConsumerSheet_V12.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="ff01c928-6245-406a-b75e-5f4e5cf69a23" CreationDate="2014-03-09T14:48:06.340" UserId="1116" Text="The heating system at our home is set to auto. I guess this means that our boiler will automatically operate as to maintain the temperature of the home. How much should we set the temperature of the hot water used for the radiator, to save energy? For example, if we set the home temperature to be 20 degree Celsius, how much should we set the temperature of the hot water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6032" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="ff01c928-6245-406a-b75e-5f4e5cf69a23" CreationDate="2014-03-09T14:48:06.340" UserId="1116" Text="Setting radiator temperature to save energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6033" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="ff01c928-6245-406a-b75e-5f4e5cf69a23" CreationDate="2014-03-09T14:48:06.340" UserId="1116" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2618" RevisionGUID="91dfa5cf-035f-47d9-a586-5c60b3ed0fd8" CreationDate="2014-03-09T18:55:51.090" UserId="963" Text="I am assuming you have a condensing gas boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a hot water tank that is heated by the same system, then you need the boiler set to 70c, so that the hot water tank can get up to 60c, unless you have a very advance system that lets you let the boiler flow temperature to a different value for the radiators and the hot water tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a combi, you don’t have the above limitations as the boiler heats the hot water direction on demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the radiators, it is best to set the boiler to the lowest flow temperature that provides you with enough heat, as the boiler will then condense more.   Ideally you want the water returning to the boiler to be below 30c, given that most radiators systems are designed from a temperature drop of 20c, then you need the flow temp below 50.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However systems are designed to cope with very code days, on other days you can set the flow temperature lower, to get more condensing and turn it up on the few days in the year that are really code.   A weather compensation system automates this process.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="d36b1152-f033-41d3-8966-375cf676c9a2" CreationDate="2014-03-10T13:24:23.613" UserId="1116" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="The heating system at our home is set to auto. I guess this means that our boiler will automatically operate as to maintain the temperature of the home. How much should we set the temperature of the hot water used for the radiator, to save energy? For example, if we set the home temperature to be 20 degree Celsius, how much should we set the temperature of the hot water?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Our boiler is a [combi boiler][1] with [this control][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.vaillant.co.uk/products/domestic-boilers/combi-boilers/ecotec-pro/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vaillant.co.uk/products/domestic-boilers/controls/vrc-470f/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2619" RevisionGUID="2c06f406-24e5-48e0-85cf-2a779ba4a3b3" CreationDate="2014-03-10T15:47:19.630" UserId="929" Text="**Not at all**. And stop to put any organic waste into the freezer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you throw it into the river, you re just as in India, there is not possible to touch the water of the river without being infected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Freezing the waste is another anti-pattern for sustainable living. You spending energy to freeze something what you want to throw away. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please find another way how to handle the waste. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2620" RevisionGUID="469b9069-78fa-476e-984c-52455a49f667" CreationDate="2014-03-10T16:32:28.050" UserId="96" Text="The opther answers are all basically ok, but I want to add some details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first issue is nutrients: By adding your leftovers to the river, you practically add fertilizer that can lead to algae blooms and, ultimately, [eutrophication](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication). Of course, fish also poop in the river, but they also eat from the river, so they don't add much nutrients. Soil ecosystems have different problems with too much nutrients, but generally you have to watch out for surface water far more. Also consider [this question and it's answers](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/414/how-are-pollution-and-sustainability-related) for more background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second issue is health and parasites. You can add and spread pathogens with your waste. Proper composting, done by you or others, will destroy most pathogens. But based on your amounts I would not stress this point too much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Stop freezing your waste. This costs serious energy, find another solution to avoid smell in your flat - look around this site, and maybe ask another question&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* Consider to keep using the Whole Foods compost bin. You don't cost them much, and it seems to be the easiest way for you to properly compost your wastes. And always remeber: Sometimes it's easier to ask forgiveness than seek permission." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2618" RevisionGUID="72d6a90c-8592-4ec8-acb1-7094b9afd3e4" CreationDate="2014-03-10T18:17:42.087" UserId="963" Comment="edited body" Text="I am assuming you have a condensing gas boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a hot water tank that is heated by the same system, then you need the boiler set to 70c, so that the hot water tank can get up to 60c, unless you have a very advance system that lets you let the boiler flow temperature to a different value for the radiators and the hot water tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a combi, you don’t have the above limitations as the boiler heats the hot water direction on demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the radiators, it is best to set the boiler to the lowest flow temperature that provides you with enough heat, as the boiler will then condense more.   Ideally you want the water returning to the boiler to be below 30c, given that most radiators systems are designed from a temperature drop of 20c, then you need the flow temp below 50.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However systems are designed to cope with very cold days, on other days you can set the flow temperature lower, to get more condensing and turn it up on the few days in the year that are really code.   A weather compensation system automates this process.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="893" RevisionGUID="63ebfbb9-113a-4796-bf69-a56877db9539" CreationDate="2014-03-10T18:38:22.717" UserId="89" Comment="fixed typo" Text="I believe you can also find more detailed info through [phys.org][1] (the link throws you in the website with the &quot;incandescent light bulb&quot; tag on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding &quot;state of the art&quot;, I would refer you to [NanoLeaf][2] (formerly NanoLight). They just completed a Kickstarter campaign with a lot more money than they asked for, and have reviews in several renowned magazines and websites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://phys.org/tags/incandescent+light+bulb/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thenanoleaf.com/shop-now/nanoleaf-store/10w-nl-bl-detail" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2621" RevisionGUID="0d4ca7cc-4f48-49b4-abeb-469f95b302df" CreationDate="2014-03-11T02:24:50.590" UserId="130" Text="In addition to what the other answers said I want to add some details about historical problems of organic waste and rivers, as well as issues here in Indonesia today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have basically a number of problems that come with throwing waste into the river.  These include downstream:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Downstream effects on water quality&#xD;&#xA;2. current and downstream effects on water flow&#xD;&#xA;3. pathogen issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the third I don't have anything to add that hasn't been said before by others.  I will say that water tends to be assumed to be contaminated before treatment, but greater turbidity interferes with water treatment and so the effects on water quality generally also make it harder to treat the water and make it safe to drink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downstream effects on water quality have been a problem that has long been known and where prevention strategies have long been required by law.  For example, linen production requires underwater rotting of flax to separate the fibers and while running river water is supposed to provide the best water for this process, it was known that this would foul the water, leading to fines for anyone who retted linen in a river.  The alternative was basically small man-made ponds specifically for this purpose even back into the middle ages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So water quality is a big issue, and this is particularly the case when you start dumping nitrogen-rich waste into rivers.  While this is anecdotal, I found the water in my fish pond cleared up when I added stuff to start soaking up nitrates.  I assume aquaculture folks here can probably attest to the role of nitrogen in water clarity/lack of turbidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that people downstream may try to effectively sanitize and drink what you throw into the river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second big issue is that of waste and river flow.  One thing that makes flooding worse in Jakarta is that the rivers and storm drains get clogged with sediment and garbage.  Adding waste to the river is never a good thing and sediment resulting, as well as pieces not yet decomposed, can settle to the bottom, ensuring that when water levels rise, they rise further than they have before such dumping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the short answer is no, and in fact this is a really bad idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6045" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2617" RevisionGUID="6b88b05c-2fd4-4129-ab08-d7aaaaf4f743" CreationDate="2014-03-11T04:48:37.810" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/443247097174040577" />
  <row Id="6047" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2612" RevisionGUID="15958941-2bd0-4299-ba96-265398e8dc4b" CreationDate="2014-03-11T13:48:37.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/443382993202475008" />
  <row Id="6048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2622" RevisionGUID="ed44af32-e47c-4137-a0eb-e798c28d2c66" CreationDate="2014-03-11T14:18:27.230" UserId="1248" Text="This can actually be more advantageous if you have a surplus power diversion manager. During hot seasons or sunny weather conditions, solar PV panels collect more energy nevertheless any surplus to be exported to the grid. The [Solar PV surplus][1] diversion manager uses it to heat up water instead of letting it to be exported to the grid and without affecting the Feed-In-Tariff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://solarimmersion.co.uk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="125a8473-4f1a-497e-89a0-a43f1811d17f" CreationDate="2014-03-12T06:44:14.537" UserId="92" Text="I have 2003 Honda Accord. It gets ~20 MPG CITY. I'm trying to figure out if it is more sustainable in the long run to:&#xD;&#xA;- continue to drive the Accord until it dies (it's still in great shape right now). I will continue to use gas and get below avg MPG.&#xD;&#xA;- buy a fuel efficient gas engine car. I will continue to use gas and get better gas mileage&#xD;&#xA;- buy a fuel efficient hybrid car. I will use less gas and get a lot better gas mileage&#xD;&#xA;- but an electric car (my daily commute is ~20 miles round trip). I will NOT use gas (MPG does not apply here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing I don't know how to factor in is the environmental cost that goes into producing a new car. If I buy a new car, I should factor this cost into how sustainable my decision is.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="125a8473-4f1a-497e-89a0-a43f1811d17f" CreationDate="2014-03-12T06:44:14.537" UserId="92" Text="What has a lesser carbon footprint? Continue to drive my current car until it is no longer useful or to buy a new car?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="125a8473-4f1a-497e-89a0-a43f1811d17f" CreationDate="2014-03-12T06:44:14.537" UserId="92" Text="|cars|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="99f5f9b7-1459-4ac7-8458-d0ae0159c73d" CreationDate="2014-03-12T07:39:28.717" UserId="99" Comment="fixed layout, added numbers in metric system" Text="I have 2003 Honda Accord. It gets ~20 MPG CITY (8.5 km/liter). I'm trying to figure out if it is more sustainable in the long run to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- continue to drive the Accord until it dies (it's still in great shape right now). I will continue to use gas and get below avg MPG.&#xD;&#xA;- buy a fuel efficient gas engine car. I will continue to use gas and get better gas mileage&#xD;&#xA;- buy a fuel efficient hybrid car. I will use less gas and get a lot better gas mileage&#xD;&#xA;- but an electric car (my daily commute is ~20 miles (32 km) round trip). I will NOT use gas (MPG does not apply here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing I don't know how to factor in is the environmental cost that goes into producing a new car. If I buy a new car, I should factor this cost into how sustainable my decision is.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2607" RevisionGUID="c16f6205-9793-44db-947e-14205117b02d" CreationDate="2014-03-12T07:47:13.133" UserId="99" Comment="add question if compostable plastic is recycled" Text="I know that you need industrial facilities to compost compostable plastics within a reasonable timeframe. But how does this process work exactly? How long does it take? Is it simply a matter of doing hot composting and maintaining high temperatures? Are any extra resources (e.g. water or energy) needed? Is the end product ready-to-be used compost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the exact method may depend on the type of compostable plastic. I'm mainly interested in composting PLA-based plastic since they form the majority of all compostable plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** I've learned that here in The Netherlands compostable plastic isn't recycled, but incinerated instead. Perhaps this is the same elsewhere and no compostable plastic is recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2624" RevisionGUID="cf5e37b3-b512-4d2c-9f7f-a6a4c839a4b9" CreationDate="2014-03-12T11:20:08.387" UserId="85" Text="I don't know an answer to your question, but I think it depends on how much you drive. I would imagine that a car that is in good shape is best used by someone, who needs a car, but doesn't drive very often and not for very long distances. Like an elderly person, who only uses the car to go shopping at the store 3 miles away, maybe twice a week. If that's you, you should probably keep the car ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you drive every day, then it might be better to sell the car to someone, who will not use it everyday and for long distances. Of course, once you sell it, you have no control over how the car is used, but it's probably worth using the car to the end of its life-cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also try to increase your fuel efficiency. Until recently I drove a usually fully loaded 2001 Renault Clio (Limousine) with twice the efficiency (5.5l/100km = 42MPG) (only city as well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have discussed some strategies here: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/486/how-to-drive-to-be-the-most-fuel-efficient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2625" RevisionGUID="636dfdc1-5e65-401d-8f86-a42aa22393f8" CreationDate="2014-03-12T13:00:49.117" UserId="111" Text="I presume the answer is a shorter period than the point where they are economical, but couldn't find anything on their production. It seems like home windmills in windy enough areas have an economic prove-in around 5-7 years (ie their initial investment will have been paid back in energy savings and credits). Do windmills use any rare components or are they particularly egregious in how they are produced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2625" RevisionGUID="636dfdc1-5e65-401d-8f86-a42aa22393f8" CreationDate="2014-03-12T13:00:49.117" UserId="111" Text="At what point are home windmills sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2625" RevisionGUID="636dfdc1-5e65-401d-8f86-a42aa22393f8" CreationDate="2014-03-12T13:00:49.117" UserId="111" Text="|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2626" RevisionGUID="551a3d9d-23df-434f-90d8-070b85cba3ef" CreationDate="2014-03-12T13:14:55.900" UserId="277" Text="Milk has come in cartoon boxes for ages, but water has not been available in cartoons until very recently and only at limited locations. What are the pros and cons of sing cartoon boxes for water instead of plastic bottles? Although the paths for recycling must be quite different from each other, in the end paper is much more biodegradable than plastic. Shipping long distances in cartoon boxes may be challenging since the plastic bottles might be more durable, but then again there is the question of how long your water in plastic water been exposed to direct sunlight and overheating during that longer period of shelf life?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what are the challenges that keep us from switching to using cartoon boxes instead of plastic bottles for water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6061" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2626" RevisionGUID="551a3d9d-23df-434f-90d8-070b85cba3ef" CreationDate="2014-03-12T13:14:55.900" UserId="277" Text="What are the challenges for using cartoon boxes instead of plastic bottles for water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6062" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2626" RevisionGUID="551a3d9d-23df-434f-90d8-070b85cba3ef" CreationDate="2014-03-12T13:14:55.900" UserId="277" Text="|recycling|water|plastic-alternatives|plastic-bottles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2626" RevisionGUID="8aec2d32-f048-4497-83e2-7a449e79d1fc" CreationDate="2014-03-12T13:20:44.477" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="Milk has come in carton boxes for ages, but water has not been available in cartons until very recently and only at limited locations. What are the pros and cons of using carton boxes for water instead of plastic bottles? Although the paths for recycling must be quite different from each other, in the end paper is much more biodegradable than plastic. Shipping long distances in carton boxes may be challenging since the plastic bottles might be more durable, but then again there is the question of how long your water in plastic water been exposed to direct sunlight and overheating during that longer period of shelf life?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what are the challenges that keep us from switching to using carton boxes instead of plastic bottles for water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6064" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2626" RevisionGUID="8aec2d32-f048-4497-83e2-7a449e79d1fc" CreationDate="2014-03-12T13:20:44.477" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="What are the challenges for using carton boxes instead of plastic bottles for water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2627" RevisionGUID="510699b5-6067-4c33-90b3-5d89c7c16c09" CreationDate="2014-03-12T15:53:55.963" UserId="1250" Text="I would like to start a sustainable ecovillage, but am worried about the ad-hoc nature of so many previous attempts that often assume we will just all &quot;get along&quot; without a formal structure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While &quot;business model&quot; may seem oxymoronic to such a venture, I hope to find what it will take to make sure the participants can continue to be productive and successful without the entire organization either withering into insignificance or morphing into yet another typical corporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also view the cooperative approach as hardly any different from capitalism, so would rather not just hand the thinking over to that tired approach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2627" RevisionGUID="510699b5-6067-4c33-90b3-5d89c7c16c09" CreationDate="2014-03-12T15:53:55.963" UserId="1250" Text="Are there any truly sustainable business models?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2627" RevisionGUID="510699b5-6067-4c33-90b3-5d89c7c16c09" CreationDate="2014-03-12T15:53:55.963" UserId="1250" Text="|permaculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6068" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2626" RevisionGUID="db1c6d3a-7a36-4117-bb2f-80b9f9bac232" CreationDate="2014-03-12T19:48:42.477" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/443835999366709248" />
  <row Id="6069" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2625" RevisionGUID="e80fbbcc-c3e5-4c78-a164-71d7f6f67c70" CreationDate="2014-03-12T22:48:42.687" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/443881297132658689" />
  <row Id="6070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2628" RevisionGUID="f7e510c0-45b8-4d0c-8571-02bc458d74de" CreationDate="2014-03-12T23:20:00.123" UserId="1251" Text="As EnergyNumbers pointed out as a comment, it is a bit unclear what you are actually asking. My understanding is that you are trying to understand what needs to be done in order to develop a 'sustainable' community. I can provide you with a few examples of successful sustainable solution examples: two through sustainable water system designs and one through a business model that encourages environmental and social values.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the business aspect, my advice is that you read into the triple bottom line (wikipedia) concept of a business: that's how to bring in social and environmental aspects as part of the accountability and value-generation of a business. There are many [examples][4] (the linked document explains some aspects of stakeholder participation) of ways in which sustainable solutions can be brought within a community to ensure their success (you can have a read through some of [USA's EPA sustainable water][3] papers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding sustainable business models, a good example of this is riversimple (riversimple.com), a company that is working on developing a new type of hydrogen-fuelled vehicle. They bring in the incentive to accommodate for social and environmental aspects as part of their profit-making strategy in their business model. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their concept is to sell their cars on a monthly contract scheme, just like that of mobile phones. That is: the company (riversimple) pays all the vehicle costs and all fuel costs, just like a mobile phone contract provider provides the handset as part of the contract and pays for all communications cost. All the user has to do is to pay a monthly fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way this business model enhances environmental and social values is by leveraging the market forces:&#xD;&#xA;1. Environmentally&#xD;&#xA;The company is forced into designing very efficient vehicles, that use very small quantities of fuel in order to reduce their costs (and increase profits) otherwise they go bankrupt very quickly.&#xD;&#xA;2. Socially&#xD;&#xA;There is currently much difficulty in creating a market for electrical/hybrid/hydrogen cell vehicles, and this is partly because of the majority of the public not being confident in the technology. The way riversimple would tackle this is by making it very simple and easy to use their vehicles in an urban environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great if you could explain better what you wish to achieve with your ecovillage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/green/upload/lid-gi-programs_report_8-6-13_combined.pdf&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://web.mit.edu/colab/pdf/tools/gedi-green-infrastructure-economic-development.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2629" RevisionGUID="113601df-a511-4342-85b5-2e460b655c12" CreationDate="2014-03-12T23:48:44.937" UserId="1238" Text="I have a small aquafarm, and I have a couple of danios and a cory in it.  When I started out, I put some wheatgrass in it, and that grew like crazy.  I want to put some variety into it.  Does anyone have recommendations for edible plants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6072" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2629" RevisionGUID="113601df-a511-4342-85b5-2e460b655c12" CreationDate="2014-03-12T23:48:44.937" UserId="1238" Text="What are good food plants in a small aquaponics system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6073" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2629" RevisionGUID="113601df-a511-4342-85b5-2e460b655c12" CreationDate="2014-03-12T23:48:44.937" UserId="1238" Text="|aquaponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2630" RevisionGUID="48cbb558-d310-4060-b8f9-66f12f3417a6" CreationDate="2014-03-13T00:16:38.270" UserId="659" Text="A short, brutal answer is that a small unit in an urban area is unlikely to generate enough electricity to cover maintenance costs, so it's not sustainable. The [ATA did a desktop study][1] in 2007 ([pdf here][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The desktop study concluded that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the urban environment is too complex to model with any accuracy; therefore &#xD;&#xA; - the use of anemometers would be advised to check the wind resource at any &#xD;&#xA;potential site &#xD;&#xA; - urban turbines have performed poorly overseas and payback periods are likely &#xD;&#xA;to be long &#xD;&#xA; - bird strike and electromagnetic interference are unlikely to be significant &#xD;&#xA; - turbines are still expensive, with installation and grid connection costs adding &#xD;&#xA;around $10,000 to the cost of the turbine &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note this key point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In order to gather case study information for this report, a number of small wind &#xD;&#xA;turbine owners were contacted to take part in an online survey. The survey was &#xD;&#xA;designed to learn about several aspects relating to installation of small turbines, &#xD;&#xA;including costs, output, planning, noise and siting issues. Nine respondents described &#xD;&#xA;their experience with 10 turbines. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the respondents to this survey live in windy rural areas and have purchased &#xD;&#xA;turbines that are readily available in Australia. Typically the turbines have been sited &#xD;&#xA;on hills or raised areas and away from houses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the study did include actual experience from people who have small wind turbines on their properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anecdotally, there's this [slightly cynical thread on Whirlpool][3] where a number of people observe that the turbines on an office building rarely rotate. I've done a &quot;sustainability tour&quot; of that building and another where in both buildings the power output of the turbines was under 1% of capacity. For comparison in a wind farm the [capacity factor is typically over 30%.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/409&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esc.vic.gov.au/getattachment/2c104e6c-6cc9-47f2-9e08-c50f712b64bb/ATA-Viability-of-domestic-Wind-Turbines-for-Urban.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1841305&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Capacity_factor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2630" RevisionGUID="27e95d06-3af8-4fb6-8a94-7859e13b7a2e" CreationDate="2014-03-13T00:23:17.510" UserId="659" Comment="added &quot;what you need to do&quot;" Text="A short, brutal answer is that a small unit in an urban area is unlikely to generate enough electricity to cover maintenance costs, so it's not sustainable. The [ATA did a desktop study][1] in 2007 ([pdf here][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The desktop study concluded that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the urban environment is too complex to model with any accuracy; therefore &#xD;&#xA; - the use of anemometers would be advised to check the wind resource at any &#xD;&#xA;potential site &#xD;&#xA; - urban turbines have performed poorly overseas and payback periods are likely &#xD;&#xA;to be long &#xD;&#xA; - bird strike and electromagnetic interference are unlikely to be significant &#xD;&#xA; - turbines are still expensive, with installation and grid connection costs adding &#xD;&#xA;around $10,000 to the cost of the turbine &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note this key point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In order to gather case study information for this report, a number of small wind &#xD;&#xA;turbine owners were contacted to take part in an online survey. The survey was &#xD;&#xA;designed to learn about several aspects relating to installation of small turbines, &#xD;&#xA;including costs, output, planning, noise and siting issues. Nine respondents described &#xD;&#xA;their experience with 10 turbines. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the respondents to this survey live in windy rural areas and have purchased &#xD;&#xA;turbines that are readily available in Australia. Typically the turbines have been sited &#xD;&#xA;on hills or raised areas and away from houses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the study did include actual experience from people who have small wind turbines on their properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anecdotally, there's this [slightly cynical thread on Whirlpool][3] where a number of people observe that the turbines on an office building rarely rotate. I've done a &quot;sustainability tour&quot; of that building and another where in both buildings the power output of the turbines was under 1% of capacity. For comparison in a wind farm the [capacity factor is typically over 30%.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer seems to be that you would need to do this for the exact site you're considering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. establish how big and how high your turbine can be&#xD;&#xA; 2. install a tower that high with anemometers at intervals up the tower&#xD;&#xA; 3. log the wind speed, direction and variability over at least a year&#xD;&#xA; 4. work out from that what power output you can expect from the turbine(s) you are considering, at the heights you're allowed to put them.&#xD;&#xA; 5. negotiate with the power company to establish a connection regime&#xD;&#xA; 6. install the wind turbine&#xD;&#xA; 7. negotiate with the neighbours if any problems arise (in Australia [&quot;wind turbine syndrome&quot;][5] is a real problem for turbine owners, even if the medical issues are contested)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you've got the turbine up and running you can calculate the payback period for your installation based on actual output, real running costs, and how much (if any) payment you get from the power company for what you feed in to the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/409&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esc.vic.gov.au/getattachment/2c104e6c-6cc9-47f2-9e08-c50f712b64bb/ATA-Viability-of-domestic-Wind-Turbines-for-Urban.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1841305&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Capacity_factor&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Noise_annoyance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2630" RevisionGUID="5b0b3e9a-ca4b-4c13-ab8a-73275a1917f9" CreationDate="2014-03-13T08:03:12.990" UserId="659" Comment="reworded into to focus on profit." Text="In what sense of sustainable? I assume you mean profitable, since you use &quot;economical&quot; as a synonym in the text.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A short, brutal answer is that a small unit in an urban area is unlikely to generate enough electricity to even cover maintenance costs, so it's not ever going to be profitable. The problem is that smaller turbines are more expensive ($/watt), wind in urban areas is more erratic and people tend not to live in exposed areas (a city will be built in a valley rather than on a hilltop). Urban planning rules make it difficult to build a decent tower so generally an urban turbine will have to be low which makes all those problems worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [ATA did a desktop study][1] in 2007 ([pdf here][2]) The study concluded that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the urban environment is too complex to model with any accuracy; therefore &#xD;&#xA; - the use of anemometers would be advised to check the wind resource at any &#xD;&#xA;potential site &#xD;&#xA; - urban turbines have performed poorly overseas and payback periods are likely &#xD;&#xA;to be long &#xD;&#xA; - bird strike and electromagnetic interference are unlikely to be significant &#xD;&#xA; - turbines are still expensive, with installation and grid connection costs adding &#xD;&#xA;around $10,000 to the cost of the turbine &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note this key point:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In order to gather case study information for this report, a number of small wind &#xD;&#xA;turbine owners were contacted to take part in an online survey. The survey was &#xD;&#xA;designed to learn about several aspects relating to installation of small turbines, &#xD;&#xA;including costs, output, planning, noise and siting issues. Nine respondents described &#xD;&#xA;their experience with 10 turbines. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most of the respondents to this survey live in windy rural areas and have purchased &#xD;&#xA;turbines that are readily available in Australia. Typically the turbines have been sited &#xD;&#xA;on hills or raised areas and away from houses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the study did include actual experience from people who have small wind turbines on their properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anecdotally, there's this [slightly cynical thread on Whirlpool][3] where a number of people observe that the turbines on an office building rarely rotate. I've done a &quot;sustainability tour&quot; of that building and another where in both buildings the power output of the turbines was under 1% of capacity. For comparison in a wind farm the [capacity factor is typically over 30%.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer seems to be that you would need to do this for the exact site you're considering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. establish how big and how high your turbine can be&#xD;&#xA; 2. install a tower that high with anemometers at intervals up the tower&#xD;&#xA; 3. log the wind speed, direction and variability over at least a year&#xD;&#xA; 4. work out from that what power output you can expect from the turbine(s) you are considering, at the heights you're allowed to put them.&#xD;&#xA; 5. negotiate with the power company to establish a connection regime&#xD;&#xA; 6. install the wind turbine&#xD;&#xA; 7. negotiate with the neighbours if any problems arise (in Australia [&quot;wind turbine syndrome&quot;][5] is a real problem for turbine owners, even if the medical issues are contested)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At step 6 you should have some idea of profitability, but you will have spent quite a lot of money to get there. Assuming it looks profitable, you can then install the turbine and test your assumptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you've got the turbine up and running you can calculate the payback period for your installation based on actual output, real running costs, and how much (if any) payment you get from the power company for what you feed in to the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/409&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esc.vic.gov.au/getattachment/2c104e6c-6cc9-47f2-9e08-c50f712b64bb/ATA-Viability-of-domestic-Wind-Turbines-for-Urban.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1841305&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Capacity_factor&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Noise_annoyance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="87" RevisionGUID="a0904182-4020-4ceb-b08f-e36599e08877" CreationDate="2014-03-13T09:21:54.787" UserId="48" Comment="updating multipliers from IPCC5" Text="Yes, anthropogenic emissions of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; are a real threat: the scientific evidence for this is overwhelming. The IPCC summaries provide, every 6 or 7 years, an overview of all the science. The most recent completed one is AR4; AR5 is being finalised now, for publication over 2013-2014. The physical science basis is summarised by [IPCC Working Group 1][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yes, some other anthropogenic emissions are, gramme-for-gramme, worse than CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. Their total levels of emissions are all lower than CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and they have different lifetimes, which means that you need to pick a particular time horizon to calculate their relative global warming potential (GWP).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a 100-year horizon, methane (CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;) is about 34 times as damaging as CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, weight for weight. Whereas at a 20-year horizon, that factor is about 86.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water vapour is more prevalent, and has a higher net feedback effect. However, we don't *directly* change the net amount of water vapour in the atmosphere: it regulates itself very quickly (days to months, rather than the years to centuries that methane and carbon dioxide take), so is considered a feedback rather than a forcing. Warmer air can hold more water vapour, so global warming from other greenhouse gases may increase the warming from water vapour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To effectively fight catastrophic climate change, we need to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, **and** the other greenhouse gases: industrialised nations have to cut their annual emissions by about 80% (on a CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-equivalent basis), and fast (within 2-4 decades, with front-loaded cuts).  That doesn't leave much room for any emissions. So it's about cutting CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;, N&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O, HFC-23, HFC-134a, SF&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt;, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6078" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2629" RevisionGUID="1f4aec38-4fbb-4f66-b10e-2ce6e9412dcf" CreationDate="2014-03-13T10:48:42.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/444062492084699136" />
  <row Id="6079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2631" RevisionGUID="11b065bc-80f0-4483-adf2-9a6d6aae005a" CreationDate="2014-03-13T18:46:34.037" UserId="651" Text="As this is hard to ask... is hard to have an answer but I think there is a couple of things we can discuss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First we may agree that sustainability is in terms of the resources we directly need to live. We don't eat money right? The profit is related to the scarcity of a product/service. That's why it is a oxymoron (maybe on purpose) this word in business models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, building an ecovillage(permaculture)... I've seen so far two general approaches that actually practices sustainability(or a part of it):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Residents sacrifice some of the standard quality of living in order to gain sustainability. (i.e. maybe eating less meat, reducing variety of food, trying alternatives or spending time looking for new ones). The people I met that fits this profile are great! With a global culture with a lot of creativity. This approach tend to isolate great alternatives and some parts of the living because it is contrasting with the standard living. You may find some practitioners in your community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Residents apply technology to gain sustainability. Usually this approach focus only on one or two resources(i.e. water, energy). It is hard to cover all the resources (we actually don't have a measure for sustainability). I've seen great efforts creating a new formal strucutre in the Venus project community(thevenusproject.com) and you should be able to get more info about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building an ecovillage should mean experimentation before we could get a complete formal social structure. And maybe will be formed from incomplete approaches." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6080" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2623" RevisionGUID="e5f946dc-e9a3-4b9f-9376-112e092e606e" CreationDate="2014-03-14T01:48:43.377" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/444288986115473408" />
  <row Id="6081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2632" RevisionGUID="d5460a68-7a69-4071-8d1f-9c4ef7ba54ba" CreationDate="2014-03-14T13:26:27.593" UserId="48" Text="Noble gases such as argon, krypton and xenon are used to fill the gap between panes in some double- and triple-glazing sealed units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the embodied energy, and carbon-footprint, of such gases? Aren't they by-products of the industrial production of oxygen and nitrogen from the fractional distillation of air? Given that, and if we assign the energy &amp; carbon costs of that (first stage of) production to the nitrogen and oxygen, do the additional steps needed to purify the noble gases have a significant energy and/or carbon footprint?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6082" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2632" RevisionGUID="d5460a68-7a69-4071-8d1f-9c4ef7ba54ba" CreationDate="2014-03-14T13:26:27.593" UserId="48" Text="Carbon footprint and embodied energy of argon, krypton, xenon?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6083" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2632" RevisionGUID="d5460a68-7a69-4071-8d1f-9c4ef7ba54ba" CreationDate="2014-03-14T13:26:27.593" UserId="48" Text="|carbon-footprint|gases|embodied-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2625" RevisionGUID="d4a34c42-26ae-4fb6-b8d4-2677d20e8f5c" CreationDate="2014-03-14T18:00:52.380" UserId="111" Comment="clarificatons based on comments" Text="Do home windmills have a 'prove in' curve for sustainability like they do for economics? I presume they are sustainable sooner than the point where they are economical, but couldn't find anything on what their production does to enviroment (eg like the rare materials in cell phones or production of hybrid car batteries). Assume home windmill is in a rural area with sufficient wind to have an economic prove-in around 5-7 years (ie their initial investment will have been paid back in energy savings and credits). Assume 'home' sized windmill, not a windmill to provide commercial power. Assume electricity in the area is provided by burning natural gas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do windmills use any rare components or are they particularly egregious in how they are produced? I assume the carbon footprint reduction (of the energy produced by wind instead of electric company burning fossil fuels) offsets any production sustainability issues - but I'm asking for hard data." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2633" RevisionGUID="5cdae45c-a6c5-4bb5-8f70-78ba112778b2" CreationDate="2014-03-14T20:57:23.093" UserId="1077" Text="You can try lots of things but Swiss chard, lettuce, pickles / cucumbers, tomatoes, strawberries and chilis should all be relatively easy. Leafy vegetables should generally be easy but do experiment as in part the question of what crops work with your system will depend on the specifics of what you build and how it is positioned..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="5e49d734-0e94-41c7-aa1b-287c387099d1" CreationDate="2014-03-14T21:16:04.883" UserId="57" Text="I've been hearing a lot in the news about artificial photosynthesis processes that can use energy from sunlight to split water and produce synthetic fuel. Sounds pretty exciting, but being a non-physicist, I'm having some trouble separating the science from the hype. So I'm hoping somebody can set me straight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does this technology exist in any form at anything beyond a proof-of-concept stage?&#xD;&#xA;* Is it possible, at the present time, to produce renewable fuel in a sustainable/environmentally friendly way (i.e. one that doesn't require the use of scarce, toxic catalysts?) I've heard the term &quot;solar fuel&quot; tossed around, but I'm not clear on what that means: Hydrogen? Methanol? Something else?&#xD;&#xA;* Would this offer any advantages over just using batteries/fuel cells to store the electricity produced by PV systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6087" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="5e49d734-0e94-41c7-aa1b-287c387099d1" CreationDate="2014-03-14T21:16:04.883" UserId="57" Text="What is the current state of &quot;artifical photosynthesis&quot; technology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6088" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="5e49d734-0e94-41c7-aa1b-287c387099d1" CreationDate="2014-03-14T21:16:04.883" UserId="57" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2635" RevisionGUID="bb22d961-a077-461a-b1e6-3f7d3b6fcc52" CreationDate="2014-03-15T00:16:30.250" UserDisplayName="user1017" Text="According to the [Joint Centre for Artificial Photosynthesis][1] (JCAP), research is ongoing.  Very recently, according to the JCAP's News and Events page, [researchers have been researching and testing][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; energetics and efficiency analysis of a material capable of harnessing solar energy into fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the stages that JCAP appears to be at, according to their [research page][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; spans efforts ranging from the fundamental discovery of new light absorbing materials to the design and testing of fully functional prototypes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where the prototyping is focussed on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the design of prototype models that use dual-light absorber (tandem) configuration cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A list of their research is [on their publications page][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of what solar fuels are, the Royal Society of Chemistry article [Solar Fuels][5] illustrates the process as well as defining 'solar fuels' as being hydrogen gas, methane, carbon monoxide and methanol - these are used in both industrial processes as well as generating electricity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several infographics are also provided by the Royal Society of Chemistry's page [Solar fuels and artificial photosynthesis][7] (an example is above).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some benefits of artificial photosynthesis is, according to the article [The Promise of Artificial Photosynthesis][8], include that while PV cells can produce electricity, artificial photosynthesis can also provide fuels and industrial chemicals (as seen in the diagram above).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://solarfuelshub.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://today.lbl.gov/2014/02/18/presentation-award-for-jcap-postdoc-at-photosynthesis-conference/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://solarfuelshub.org/research/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://solarfuelshub.org/research/publications.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/Documents/solar-fuels.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O0kd5.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Policy/Documents/solar-fuels-production-infographics.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.energybiosciencesinstitute.org/sites/default/files/upload/2013winter_Photosynthesis.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2636" RevisionGUID="ae06dc05-fd76-4777-9c89-f8c2be94df72" CreationDate="2014-03-15T05:46:51.863" UserId="400" Text="In most situations, they are a toy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing comes up over and over on various other sites:  Height is critical.  The minimum height you should consider is 30 meters.  50 meters is better. This is likely to get you noticed by your neighbors.  Ideally you want to be 30 meters above the surrounding wind deflecting obstacles such as other houses and trees.  Google &quot;Wind Atlas&quot;  Both the US government and the Canadian government publish wind maps of your region. At one point the Canadian one had de-ratings for various heights under 50 meters.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; For use in urban areas add the height of the local houses &amp; trees to the height above ground values.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, for small units, the price of the mast and base is as much as that of the windmill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a windmill.  It pumps air into a pond.  It can't saturate the generator so it doesn't need a furl mechanism.  The air pump is a simple diaphram pump.  The return on investment was about 5 years (compared to an electrically operated air pump)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of one other wind generator that was worth it.  Was in a fly-in fish camp. (Careen Lake, Saskatchuwan -- nice folks) They used a windmill to charge the batteries used to operate the radios during the day, and on a breezy day it would also power the lights for the evening.  But every gallon of gas for the generators had to be flown in, or towed in by skidoo in winter.  This made the effective cost of gasoline $15/gallon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At present small scale wind is not economic unless you have both open space (several hundred feet) a good site, and a good reason to not be connected to the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2637" RevisionGUID="13807940-0959-4fe8-9b5b-709d4ea07ba3" CreationDate="2014-03-15T05:57:56.323" UserId="400" Text="Milk is shipped in cartons which in turn are in plastic crates.  The crates make the round trip.  Milk is usually not tranported long distances.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water bottles are on cardboard flats, shrink wrapped with more plastic.  Most of them end up in the land fill.  A water truck goes the other way with a new cargo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Milk cartons are heavily waxed.  This makes them difficult if not impossible to recycle.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At one point you could get 'bag' milk.  1 liter in a polyethylene bag.  This was the most sustainable way possible.  A small amount of PE.  PE is one of the most recycleable plastics.  The current use of PE milk jugs is close behind, and is certainly better than cardboard cartons.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting water in containers is where the non-sustainability starts.  Why should water cost more than gasoline?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2637" RevisionGUID="55423646-626d-46f3-b610-7441c79fda93" CreationDate="2014-03-15T06:14:14.460" UserId="400" Comment="better answer" Text="Challenges:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Recycling the cartons.  Even Milk doesn't do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Milk cartons are heavily waxed.  This makes them difficult if not impossible to recycle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Overcoming the costs of two way transport for the carton containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Milk is shipped in cartons which in turn are in plastic crates.  The crates make the round trip.  Milk is usually not tranported long distances.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Water bottles are on cardboard flats, shrink wrapped with more plastic.  Most of them end up in the land fill.  A water truck goes the other way with a new cargo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Overcoming the bad press of replacing a bad packaging system with one even less sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At one point you could get 'bag' milk.  1 liter in a polyethylene bag.  This was the most sustainable one-way packaging possible.  A small amount of PE.  PE is one of the most recycleable plastics.  The current use of PE milk jugs is close behind, and is certainly better than cardboard cartons.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a case to be made for glass bottles.  With milk especially, as the crates go back anyway, and washing bottles on a large scale works quite well.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting water in containers is where the non-sustainability starts.  Why should water cost more than gasoline?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2638" RevisionGUID="45053778-1473-4317-b685-f2a7f9aa5348" CreationDate="2014-03-15T06:43:21.707" UserId="400" Text="You ask a very open ended question.  You could refine it somewhat by stating what you see as the pollutants and their problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Decide on what your priorities are, and how you will make tradeoffs between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Is global warming more important that local health?  Is local health more important that a clean river?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  One way is to decide on the externalized cost of each pollutant.  This is tough. Search the literture for the externalized cost of Carbon dioxide.  You have to take into account the cost of displaced people, extinction, loss of habitat.  Various estimates have averaged about $40/ton, but the standard deviation was $80, so the range is pretty wild.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  One way is to put an imaginary bubble over your city.  Everything you put out there is going to stay there.  Indefinately. This limits the scope of calculating external costs, and will distort the results (air pollution becomes relatively more important)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  When devising policy consider how it will be enforced?  Unenforcable laws are bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.  Where you can do so, encourage the right behaviour/discourage the wrong behaviour with a tax rather than a rule.  Taxes make money.  Rules cost money.  So for example:  Make the registration fee for all electric vehicles zero.  One city has free parking at all city meters for all electric vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.  When you start a tax, add it slowly so that people can figure out how to do things better.  E.g. If you want to decrease smog, and you think that it is primarily caused by motor vehicles, than put a 25 cent a gallon tax on gasoline, and tell everyone that it will be going up 25 cents a year.  Get the municipalities around you on side.  A gas tax is hard to enforce if you can fill up outside city limits.   (If the won't cooperated, tax entering the city, on the basis that you are driving there with untaxed gas.)  Anyone with out of state plates gets in free.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.  Go after the low hanging fruit.  Things that are bad your health, bad for your river, bad for your fishery and bad for tourism get priority over ones that only endanger the Lesser Frog Newt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.  Go after the ones that are easy to enforce. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9.  Generate revenue by taxing excess.  E.g. vehicle registration is proportional to the square of the vehicle weight.  A F250 pickup (at 5000 lbs) costs 25 times as much to register as a Smart Car (at 1000 lbs)  The first can of garbage each week is $5.  The second one is $10.  The third one is $20 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10.  Examine other cities to see if they have policies that can help.  E.g. Vancouver supports Go Cars -- a car share company where you can rent a car as needed.  Edmonton has the most efficient garbage recycling program in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11. Change your zoning laws. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Require any major industry to create housing for at least half it's work force on the same plot of land.  &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; * Requiring people to live near the factory will put pressure on the factory to be quiet and tidy.  B:  Many of them can walk to work.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Allow small business to take over residential blocks. Perhaps zone one block in 6 as a business block.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Encourage multiple use buildings where the bottom floor is shops, the next floor professional use, next floor residences, top floor park.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a more specific set of recommendations, be more specific in your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2639" RevisionGUID="398b52c2-3922-4b53-8126-82995ec6b582" CreationDate="2014-03-15T06:50:32.880" UserId="400" Text="Many mineral bases are in essence ground rock.  You can find some of them in 50 pound bags at any shop that deals with brick mortar and concrete colorants.  Ferrous oxide, and ferric oxide give you reds and pinks.  (See Grand Canyon) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the metal oxides are very toxic.  Lead oxide produces a lovely white.  cadmium a school bus yellow.  But Titanium oxide is white, non-poisonous, easily mined, and cheap.  It's the colorant used in all white paint now.  Lot of interesting colors come from copper compounds, some poisonous, some not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;waterglass -- sodium silicate -- I think can be used as a carrier for powders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google pottery mineral pigments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2640" RevisionGUID="3af594cf-7038-4a9b-9316-6ce35cdbe83e" CreationDate="2014-03-15T07:17:24.270" UserId="400" Text="I disagree with Helios's answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are going to rule out anything non-renewable in our lifetime, then we are constrained to a wood and plant society.  Can't even chip flint arrowheads by that standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have trouble when a resource whose transport costs more than the material itself is called 'rare' and whose primary use is filtering beer, pool water, and making kitty litter. (Diatomite in the US at the mine gate goes for about 10 cents a pound)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be like iron.  The easily accessed high grade ore in the Mesabi range is worked out.  Now we make iron (and make it cheaper) with 10% ore than we did with the nearly pure Hematite ore a hundred years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Commercially viable* also is linked to location.  A deposit 50 miles from the nearest paved road is not  viable.  (The total US market was under $200,000,000.  If you got 10% of the market it will take a looooonnnnnnnnnng time to pay for your road.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally while the present deposits were made X million years ago, diatoms still thrive in both fresh and ocean waters.  They still die, and their shells stack up on the water's bottom.  You can't see the diatomaceous earth that formed last week.  But you can't see America drifting away from England either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overview:&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.mineralseducationcoalition.org/minerals/diatomite][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a substitute for it's use as a water filter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.intheswim.com/Pool-Equipment/Pool-Pump-and-Pool-Filter-Accessories/Aqua-Perl/][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a general search for alternatives try googling **diatomite alternatives**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mineralseducationcoalition.org/minerals/diatomite&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.intheswim.com/Pool-Equipment/Pool-Pump-and-Pool-Filter-Accessories/Aqua-Perl/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2641" RevisionGUID="937e56a0-79e2-4535-ad44-2372a9abd3f9" CreationDate="2014-03-15T07:36:04.030" UserId="400" Text="You can work out an approximation based on percentage components and the energy  cost to liquify air.  Assume that the energy comes from electricity and you can derive your figures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives you a first approximation.  However it gets messier than that, as in cleverly designed plants, you can recover much of the energy used by using the chill to precool the next batch of air.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual energy cost should be the same as that of making liquid nitrogen or liquid oxygen.  As a very crude estimate about the same as to evaporate an equal mass of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;As a side issue, most argon windows do not keep their argon for more than 5 years.  Using the solar gain simulator on Lawrence Livermore's website, I found that in my climate (northern Alberta 10,000 degree heating days per year) that a south facing double glazed window was more efficient than a triple glazed window.  You lost more heating from sunlight than you gained by it insulating better.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of energy, a better strategy for a heating climate is to have your windows on the south side, token windows on east and west, and closets, bathrooms, and mechanical spaces on the north side.  South facing windows should have adjustable awnings to shade them when desired when not in the heating season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The price differential of argon triple pane windows will pay for a good set of insulating window covers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6097" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="8a1f35d8-03bb-41fc-be9b-250e927c1e70" CreationDate="2014-03-15T08:31:35.950" UserId="15" Comment="The &quot;Current&quot; part of the question will cause the answers to become outdated, so I've changed it to a specific date" Text="What is the state of &quot;artifical photosynthesis&quot; technology, as at March 2014?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6100" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2634" RevisionGUID="fa5e627b-bc5a-4567-81c1-23eb13993747" CreationDate="2014-03-16T16:59:18.093" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/445242917536677888" />
  <row Id="6101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="93c219bd-10cd-40a8-a47f-ddef8b85f869" CreationDate="2014-03-17T02:36:04.743" UserId="15" Text="I see that www.buyaerogel.com has begun to offer various insulating blankets, though it seems targeted for industrial use rather than consumer use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does Aerogel look like a suitable technology for home insulation in its current form, assuming it could be manufactured more cheaply, or would it not be up to the task (perhaps due to durability, or toxicity)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does its insulation performance compare with something more standard, say, polyester blanket?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="93c219bd-10cd-40a8-a47f-ddef8b85f869" CreationDate="2014-03-17T02:36:04.743" UserId="15" Text="Aerogel as home insulation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="93c219bd-10cd-40a8-a47f-ddef8b85f869" CreationDate="2014-03-17T02:36:04.743" UserId="15" Text="|insulation|safety|durability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="9e26755a-2972-4fd6-8f45-5184e340366d" CreationDate="2014-03-17T03:04:36.720" UserId="1255" Comment="fix link, tweak grammar" Text="I see that [www.buyaerogel.com][1] has begun to offer various insulating blankets, though it seems targeted for industrial use rather than consumer use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this aerogel look like a suitable technology for home insulation in its current form? Or would it not be up to the task (perhaps due to durability, or toxicity)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does its insulation performance compare with something more standard, say, polyester blanket?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.buyaerogel.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6105" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="9e26755a-2972-4fd6-8f45-5184e340366d" CreationDate="2014-03-17T03:04:36.720" Comment="Proposed by 1255 approved by 15 edit id of 243" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2643" RevisionGUID="24260361-fdd3-42a7-a0a9-1a80e188e87b" CreationDate="2014-03-17T04:26:47.777" UserId="1259" Text="Although they do not last as long, perhaps use crayons which work well on the terracottas and I have seen some lovely work. No baking of course. Do check the compounds used in the crayons first. They also age and give that ancient look." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="7f732fc2-1c16-4cbb-80d2-bb0d75ab5a8f" CreationDate="2014-03-17T11:19:12.353" UserId="164" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="I have been considering installing secondary double glazing units in my home in an attempt to turn my double glazed windows into triple glazed windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the [law of diminishing returns][1], and the fact that sealed units are inherently more efficient, but is this a practical solution to reducing energy bills?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amongst my concerns are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How I avoid condensation between the secondary glazing and the existing double glazing.&#xD;&#xA;* Whether I can find secondary glazing units which won't prevent the existing windows being opened and or cleaned easily.&#xD;&#xA;* Whether I should try to fit the secondary glazing unit as close as possible to the current double glazing unit, or whether a larger air gap would be preferable.&#xD;&#xA;* If close placement is better, whether I can fit a secondary pane to the existing frame (i.e. fitting it so that it opens with the existing glass).&#xD;&#xA;* If frame placement is possible, whether inside or out would be preferable or even allowed&lt;sup&gt;&amp;dagger;&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&amp;dagger; I could see that bolting an extra pane of glass onto the outside of an existing double glazing unit may pose a risk of the pane falling out and thus might this be banned under planning regulations&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2644" RevisionGUID="fd9fbd76-86e2-4774-8b8f-bfe6f2dba981" CreationDate="2014-03-17T11:21:10.640" UserId="1077" Text="It is also possible to use clay of different colors than the object you wish to paint (there is clay in many different colors: blackish, grey, yellow, red etc). You add water untill the clay becomes liquid and then simply paint it with a brush. I once painted a white vase with red clay like this ... unfortunately I don't have a picture of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="cc55daaa-b39d-4b3a-87d8-33a18bdb508e" CreationDate="2014-03-17T11:24:44.850" UserId="164" Comment="added 43 characters in body" Text="I have been considering installing secondary double glazing units in my home in an attempt to turn my double glazed windows into triple glazed windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the [law of diminishing returns][1], and the fact that sealed units are inherently more efficient, but is this a practical solution to reducing energy bills?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amongst my concerns are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How I avoid condensation between the secondary glazing and the existing double glazing.&#xD;&#xA;* Whether I can find secondary glazing units which won't prevent the existing windows being opened and or cleaned easily.&#xD;&#xA;* Whether I should try to fit the secondary glazing unit as close as possible to the current double glazing unit, or whether a larger air gap would be preferable.&#xD;&#xA;* If close placement is better, whether I can fit a secondary pane to the existing frame (i.e. fitting it so that it opens with the existing glass).&#xD;&#xA;* If frame placement is possible, whether inside or out would be preferable or even allowed&lt;sup&gt;&amp;dagger;&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it makes any difference, my current double glazed windows have [Trickle Vents][2]&lt;sup&gt;&amp;ddagger;&lt;/sup&gt;, so the windows are not as sealed as one might hope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&amp;dagger; I could see that bolting an extra pane of glass onto the outside of an existing double glazing unit may pose a risk of the pane falling out and thus might this be banned under planning regulations.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&amp;ddagger; These appear to be required in my block of flats, though I'm not sure whether this is due to local building codes or something specified in the lease for the block, and I'm not sure why we seem to like them so much in the UK.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle_vent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6111" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="5361e1ad-af70-4e0d-99d9-e69e98d272a1" CreationDate="2014-03-17T16:59:18.260" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/445605305301630976" />
  <row Id="6112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2645" RevisionGUID="60bc7be4-0436-4c9c-8dc3-e611a5671a23" CreationDate="2014-03-17T21:46:14.710" UserId="1255" Text="Your question is very broad and can't be easily answered. There are no existing products, so the answer is also speculative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Aerogels][1] are a form of material, like foam or dust. It's very likely that a suitable house insulation could be made with an aerogel, almost regardless of the detailed requirements that you have in mind (barring contradictory requirements, like &quot;cheap&quot; and &quot;aerogel&quot;), since a wide range of aerogels already exist and some could be used this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current aerogels are typically made from silica gel or carbon particles partly fused together, but could in theory be made from almost anything. You could conceivably replace the aluminium in an alumina aerogel with another metal to get different characteristics, since those are essentially just fused dust (in the same way as humans are essentially just bags of dirty water). The difference between a sintered metal and a metallic aerogel is largely density if we ignore the difficulty of producing it. Silica aerogels turn to dust when crushed, as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since aerogels typically have a much lower thermal conductivity and density than their parent materials, they can be used as insulators. Flammability will typically be higher due to the larger surface area and likely oxygen infiltration over time, even if oxygen was not present when the aerogel was made. Toxicity depends almost entirely on the constituent materials, with silica aerogels being largely inert and minimally contaminated. But carbon aerogels typically burn, and if you made an aerogel with fused plutonium dust it would be dangerous in all the ways that plutonium is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For home insulation with current technologies, silica aerogels are the best candidate. They are ridiculously expensive, and somewhat fragile, putting them out of reach for almost everyone. Unfortunately the [current methods for producing them][2] are inherently expensive (supercritical drying at high pressure and temperature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's more likely that an affordable aerogel will be made from a carbon lattice, since we have a multitude of different techniques for working with carbon already. Current carbon aerogel thermal insulation (see link below) is made via pyrolysis (combustion) so is usually fragile and chemically reactive, limiting it to specialised applications (most vacuum-related). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem with using aerogels for home insulation is the variety of low-cost solutions already in the market. At the extreme are things like straw-bale insulation, where the raw material is a low-cost byproduct. Many cellulose-based insulators use similar source products, making them equally cheap. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is also the problem - to be cost-competitive with existing insulation products the aerogel would have to be better in some way and not significantly more expensive. Many parts of homes don't have significant thickness limitations - it's quite reasonable to have 200mm or 300mm of insulation in walls, and if an aerogel competitor was available that allowed that R value to be achieved in 50mm that would not be a huge advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I can only put in two links with my low rep, but here's a presentation on carbon aerogel thermal insulation: www.colorado.edu/engineering/ASEN/asen5519/1999-Files/presentations/john-creasey.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.aerogel.org/?p=4&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2637" RevisionGUID="4de24dd9-1cb2-402e-a321-8cd245352221" CreationDate="2014-03-17T22:03:30.073" UserId="400" Comment="correction about waxed cartons." Text="Challenges:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Recycling the cartons.  Even Milk doesn't do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *&quot;Milk cartons are heavily waxed.  This makes them difficult if not impossible to recycle.&quot;*  Correction: Milk cartons are a layer of low density polyethylene on both faces of cardboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Overcoming the costs of two way transport for the carton containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Milk is shipped in cartons which in turn are in plastic crates.  The crates make the round trip.  Milk is usually not tranported long distances.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Water bottles are on cardboard flats, shrink wrapped with more plastic.  Most of them end up in the land fill.  A water truck goes the other way with a new cargo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Overcoming the bad press of replacing a bad packaging system with one even less sustainable.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2011/03/disoriented_in_the_dairy_aisle.html][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;points out that a plastic milk jug is 4 oz, a cardboard carton is 5 oz.  The plastic is an easier recycle.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Glass is your best option.  Apparently even with the high energy cost of fusing silica and lime into glass, it's still about half the energy cost of either plastic or cardboard.  But it may be as much as 1/3 of the shipping weight.  Slate's article claimed that over the life of a milk bottle the energy cost was about 1/2 of the other two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now Slate's article was about milk -- much better re-use rate generally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At one point you could get 'bag' milk.  1 liter in a polyethylene bag.  This was the most sustainable one-way packaging possible.  A small amount of PE.  PE is one of the most recycleable plastics.  The current use of PE milk jugs is close behind, and is certainly better than cardboard cartons.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a case to be made for glass bottles.  With milk especially, as the crates go back anyway, and washing bottles on a large scale works quite well.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting water in containers is where the non-sustainability starts.  Why should water cost more than gasoline?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2011/03/disoriented_in_the_dairy_aisle.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="fbe8150c-e3cc-4694-bf03-a738877d1053" CreationDate="2014-03-18T01:57:00.483" UserId="1259" Text="This question is important because all to often what we understand what is sustainable only if we are told. This approach demands marketing of ideas and takes time for ideas to disperse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know how people discover new and unique sustainable practices (If they do at all) because I want to give them tools to do more. For Example maybe you use Life Cycle Analysis ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6115" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="fbe8150c-e3cc-4694-bf03-a738877d1053" CreationDate="2014-03-18T01:57:00.483" UserId="1259" Text="How do you identify what is sustainable without reverting to lists and other peoples ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6116" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="fbe8150c-e3cc-4694-bf03-a738877d1053" CreationDate="2014-03-18T01:57:00.483" UserId="1259" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2647" RevisionGUID="215cb009-4ba4-4cb8-8e7c-5438e9326fed" CreationDate="2014-03-18T02:08:07.170" UserId="48" Text="###Available products&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aerogels in composites are typically two to four times more thermally insulating than the next-best alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And since the recent expiry of some aerogel patents, the number of suppliers of these products has started to increase. The **Space Loft** and **Thermal Wrap** products at the site linked in the question are indeed aimed at the residential market, as well as the industrial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The RockWool company now offer **Aerowolle**, a hybrid of aerogels and rockwool, as well as aerorock id-vpk - **internal wall insulation (IWI)** which combines aerogel with a plasterboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Britain, the [ThermaBlok][1] range includes **self-adhesive aerogel strips for fitting on studs and joists**, to prevent thermal bridging; **wall boards**, **ceiling boards**, **floor boards**, and an **insulating blanket**..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also get **aerogel-composite tiles**, for retrofitting insulation on the reveals around windows: one of many cases where very narrow spaces require a material with particularly high thermal-insulation characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are **aerogel particles**, which can be blended into paints and plasters, for a wide range of applications: suppliers include Sto (StoTherm In Aevero), Fixit (222), Tnemec (Aerolon), Birdair (Tensotherm), Wasco (Lumira aerogel **Skylights**) and TGP (Profilit **channel glass system**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given planning-permission constraints (e.g. in Britain), and given the high unit cost of land in many cities, aerogels and other super-insulators have a key role to play: internal space is at a premium, so the space-saving offered by super-insulators can be very valuable. That high pressure on the demand-side, together with an industry that was until recently constrained by patents, means that aerogel composites are (as of early 2014) more expensive, per unit of heating energy saved, than materials such as PIR. When you take into account the economic value of lost space, aerogel products are often cheaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Suitability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wherever space is a constraint, and you've got the budget, aerogel products offer some interesting opportunities. The supply chain is best-developed in and around Germany at present, but is growing elsewhere. Like fibreglass, it can in some forms be dusty and unpleasant to work with: see the material data sheets and take appropriate safety precautions when installing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thermablok.co.uk/products" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2647" RevisionGUID="86436682-856c-4402-9170-6b9e5aeeacc7" CreationDate="2014-03-18T02:31:30.510" UserId="15" Comment="Didn't know what PIR was, so I linked to it to help others learn too" Text="###Available products&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aerogels in composites are typically two to four times more thermally insulating than the next-best alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And since the recent expiry of some aerogel patents, the number of suppliers of these products has started to increase. The **Space Loft** and **Thermal Wrap** products at the site linked in the question are indeed aimed at the residential market, as well as the industrial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The RockWool company now offer **Aerowolle**, a hybrid of aerogels and rockwool, as well as aerorock id-vpk - **internal wall insulation (IWI)** which combines aerogel with a plasterboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Britain, the [ThermaBlok][1] range includes **self-adhesive aerogel strips for fitting on studs and joists**, to prevent thermal bridging; **wall boards**, **ceiling boards**, **floor boards**, and an **insulating blanket**..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also get **aerogel-composite tiles**, for retrofitting insulation on the reveals around windows: one of many cases where very narrow spaces require a material with particularly high thermal-insulation characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are **aerogel particles**, which can be blended into paints and plasters, for a wide range of applications: suppliers include Sto (StoTherm In Aevero), Fixit (222), Tnemec (Aerolon), Birdair (Tensotherm), Wasco (Lumira aerogel **Skylights**) and TGP (Profilit **channel glass system**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given planning-permission constraints (e.g. in Britain), and given the high unit cost of land in many cities, aerogels and other super-insulators have a key role to play: internal space is at a premium, so the space-saving offered by super-insulators can be very valuable. That high pressure on the demand-side, together with an industry that was until recently constrained by patents, means that aerogel composites are (as of early 2014) more expensive, per unit of heating energy saved, than materials such as [PIR][2]. When you take into account the economic value of lost space, aerogel products are often cheaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Suitability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wherever space is a constraint, and you've got the budget, aerogel products offer some interesting opportunities. The supply chain is best-developed in and around Germany at present, but is growing elsewhere. Like fibreglass, it can in some forms be dusty and unpleasant to work with: see the material data sheets and take appropriate safety precautions when installing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thermablok.co.uk/products&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyisocyanurate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2645" RevisionGUID="df4b8db4-1bdd-41e3-9695-0e02cc73c98f" CreationDate="2014-03-18T03:06:21.453" UserId="1255" Comment="added 475 characters in body" Text="Your question is very broad and can't be easily answered. There are few existing products, so the answer is also somewhat speculative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Aerogels][1] are a form of material, like foam or dust. It's very likely that a suitable house insulation could be made with an aerogel, almost regardless of the detailed requirements that you have in mind (barring contradictory requirements, like &quot;cheap&quot; and &quot;aerogel&quot;), since a wide range of aerogels already exist and some could be used this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current aerogels are typically made from silica gel or carbon particles partly fused together, but could in theory be made from almost anything. You could conceivably replace the aluminium in an alumina aerogel with another metal to get different characteristics, since those are essentially just fused dust (in the same way as humans are essentially just bags of dirty water). The difference between a sintered metal and a metallic aerogel is largely density if we ignore the difficulty of producing it. Silica aerogels turn to dust when crushed, as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since aerogels typically have a much lower thermal conductivity and density than their parent materials, they can be used as insulators. Flammability will typically be higher due to the larger surface area and likely oxygen infiltration over time, even if oxygen was not present when the aerogel was made. Toxicity depends almost entirely on the constituent materials, with silica aerogels being largely inert and minimally contaminated. But carbon aerogels typically burn, and if you made an aerogel with fused plutonium dust it would be dangerous in all the ways that plutonium is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For home insulation with current technologies, silica aerogels are the best candidate. They are expensive, and somewhat fragile. Unfortunately the [current methods for producing them][2] are inherently expensive (supercritical drying at high pressure and temperature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This product][3] from the site above sells for $2.30 a square foot when 5mm thick, with an R value of about R2.8 W/K/m² (if I've done the maths correctly from 14 mW m-1 K-1), compared to R1.3 foil+bubblewrap for $0.40/square foot here in Australia. The aerogel is also fragile and dusty, where the foil product is not. A layer of foil plus a layer of &quot;earthwool&quot; R2 for a total of $0.70/sq foot and ~50mm thick gives better insulation for a significantly lower price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's more likely that an affordable aerogel will be made from a carbon lattice, since we have a multitude of different techniques for working with carbon already. Current carbon aerogel thermal insulation (see link below) is made via pyrolysis (combustion) so is usually fragile and chemically reactive, limiting it to specialised applications (most vacuum-related). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem with using aerogels for home insulation is the variety of low-cost solutions already in the market. At the extreme are things like straw-bale insulation, where the raw material is a low-cost byproduct. Many cellulose-based insulators use similar source products, making them equally cheap. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is also the problem - to be cost-competitive with existing insulation products the aerogel would have to be better in some way and not significantly more expensive. Many parts of homes don't have significant thickness limitations - it's quite reasonable to have 200mm or 300mm of insulation in walls, and if an aerogel competitor was available that allowed that R value to be achieved in 50mm that would not be a huge advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I can only put in two links with my low rep, but here's a presentation on carbon aerogel thermal insulation: www.colorado.edu/engineering/ASEN/asen5519/1999-Files/presentations/john-creasey.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.aerogel.org/?p=4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.buyaerogel.com/product/spaceloft/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2645" RevisionGUID="6e09cf01-3c59-41df-9f21-e5d09343bdff" CreationDate="2014-03-18T03:14:41.123" UserId="1255" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Your question is very broad and can't be easily answered. There are few existing products, so the answer is also somewhat speculative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Aerogels][1] are a form of material, like foam or dust. It's very likely that a suitable house insulation could be made with an aerogel, almost regardless of the detailed requirements that you have in mind (barring contradictory requirements, like &quot;cheap&quot; and &quot;aerogel&quot;), since a wide range of aerogels already exist and some could be used this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current aerogels are typically made from silica gel or carbon particles partly fused together, but could in theory be made from almost anything. You could conceivably replace the aluminium in an alumina aerogel with another metal to get different characteristics, since those are essentially just fused dust (in the same way as humans are essentially just bags of dirty water). The difference between a sintered metal and a metallic aerogel is largely density if we ignore the difficulty of producing it. Silica aerogels turn to dust when crushed, as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since aerogels typically have a much lower thermal conductivity and density than their parent materials, they can be used as insulators. Flammability will typically be higher due to the larger surface area and likely oxygen infiltration over time, even if oxygen was not present when the aerogel was made. Toxicity depends almost entirely on the constituent materials, with silica aerogels being largely inert and minimally contaminated. But carbon aerogels typically burn, and if you made an aerogel with fused plutonium dust it would be dangerous in all the ways that plutonium is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For home insulation with current technologies, silica aerogels are the best candidate. They are expensive, and somewhat fragile. Unfortunately the [current methods for producing them][2] are inherently expensive (supercritical drying at high pressure and temperature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This product][3] from the site above sells for $2.30 a square foot when 5mm thick, with an R value of about R2.8 W/K/m² (if I've done the maths correctly from 14 mW m-1 K-1), compared to a similar thickness R1.3 foil+bubblewrap for $0.40/square foot here in Australia. The aerogel is also fragile and dusty, where the foil product is not. A layer of foil plus a layer of &quot;earthwool&quot; R2 for a total of $0.70/sq foot and ~50mm thick gives better insulation for a significantly lower price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's more likely that an affordable aerogel will be made from a carbon lattice, since we have a multitude of different techniques for working with carbon already. Current carbon aerogel thermal insulation (see link below) is made via pyrolysis (combustion) so is usually fragile and chemically reactive, limiting it to specialised applications (most vacuum-related). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem with using aerogels for home insulation is the variety of low-cost solutions already in the market. At the extreme are things like straw-bale insulation, where the raw material is a low-cost byproduct. Many cellulose-based insulators use similar source products, making them equally cheap. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is also the problem - to be cost-competitive with existing insulation products the aerogel would have to be better in some way and not significantly more expensive. Many parts of homes don't have significant thickness limitations - it's quite reasonable to have 200mm or 300mm of insulation in walls, and if an aerogel competitor was available that allowed that R value to be achieved in 50mm that would not be a huge advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I can only put in two links with my low rep, but here's a presentation on carbon aerogel thermal insulation: www.colorado.edu/engineering/ASEN/asen5519/1999-Files/presentations/john-creasey.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.aerogel.org/?p=4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.buyaerogel.com/product/spaceloft/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2645" RevisionGUID="ab49ffa4-3e18-4617-bc76-c7dfc5f81101" CreationDate="2014-03-18T10:06:17.660" UserId="48" Comment="linkified the pdf presentation on carbon aerogel thermal insulation" Text="Your question is very broad and can't be easily answered. There are few existing products, so the answer is also somewhat speculative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Aerogels][1] are a form of material, like foam or dust. It's very likely that a suitable house insulation could be made with an aerogel, almost regardless of the detailed requirements that you have in mind (barring contradictory requirements, like &quot;cheap&quot; and &quot;aerogel&quot;), since a wide range of aerogels already exist and some could be used this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current aerogels are typically made from silica gel or carbon particles partly fused together, but could in theory be made from almost anything. You could conceivably replace the aluminium in an alumina aerogel with another metal to get different characteristics, since those are essentially just fused dust (in the same way as humans are essentially just bags of dirty water). The difference between a sintered metal and a metallic aerogel is largely density if we ignore the difficulty of producing it. Silica aerogels turn to dust when crushed, as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since aerogels typically have a much lower thermal conductivity and density than their parent materials, they can be used as insulators. Flammability will typically be higher due to the larger surface area and likely oxygen infiltration over time, even if oxygen was not present when the aerogel was made. Toxicity depends almost entirely on the constituent materials, with silica aerogels being largely inert and minimally contaminated. But carbon aerogels typically burn, and if you made an aerogel with fused plutonium dust it would be dangerous in all the ways that plutonium is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For home insulation with current technologies, silica aerogels are the best candidate. They are expensive, and somewhat fragile. Unfortunately the [current methods for producing them][2] are inherently expensive (supercritical drying at high pressure and temperature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This product][3] from the site above sells for $2.30 a square foot when 5mm thick, with an R value of about R2.8 W/K/m² (if I've done the maths correctly from 14 mW m-1 K-1), compared to a similar thickness R1.3 foil+bubblewrap for $0.40/square foot here in Australia. The aerogel is also fragile and dusty, where the foil product is not. A layer of foil plus a layer of &quot;earthwool&quot; R2 for a total of $0.70/sq foot and ~50mm thick gives better insulation for a significantly lower price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's more likely that an affordable aerogel will be made from a carbon lattice, since we have a multitude of different techniques for working with carbon already. Current carbon aerogel thermal insulation (see link below) is made via pyrolysis (combustion) so is usually fragile and chemically reactive, limiting it to specialised applications (most vacuum-related). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem with using aerogels for home insulation is the variety of low-cost solutions already in the market. At the extreme are things like straw-bale insulation, where the raw material is a low-cost byproduct. Many cellulose-based insulators use similar source products, making them equally cheap. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is also the problem - to be cost-competitive with existing insulation products the aerogel would have to be better in some way and not significantly more expensive. Many parts of homes don't have significant thickness limitations - it's quite reasonable to have 200mm or 300mm of insulation in walls, and if an aerogel competitor was available that allowed that R value to be achieved in 50mm that would not be a huge advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a pdf presentation (from 1999) on carbon aerogel thermal insulation][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerogel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.aerogel.org/?p=4&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.buyaerogel.com/product/spaceloft/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/ASEN/asen5519/1999-Files/presentations/john-creasey.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2649" RevisionGUID="c40bdadc-0c7e-4ec4-8b6c-6e616f5d0c1b" CreationDate="2014-03-18T10:46:12.433" UserId="1254" Text="Aerogels show some promise for use in buildings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;conductivity is around 0.013 W/mK for commercially available aerogels compared to&#xD;&#xA;around 0.04 W/mK for glassfibre quilt and 0.025 W/mK for eps/styrofoam type insulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toxicity would probably not be an issue due to the generally unreactive nature of silica aerogels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most likely health issue seems to be from dust production. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified it as not carcinogenic to humans&#xD;&#xA;and there's been no evidence of problems from people with long-term exposure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its hard to say what durability will be like in buildings as this will take some time to determine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As well as opaque insulation translucent aerogels can be used in windows and solar collectors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;summarised from:&#xD;&#xA;Baetens, Ruben, Bjørn Petter Jelle, and Arild Gustavsen. “Aerogel Insulation for Building Applications: A State-of-the-Art Review.” Energy and Buildings 43, no. 4 (April 2011): 761–69. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.12.012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2650" RevisionGUID="52554f8a-2db8-45e2-ab30-6af8b458c4dd" CreationDate="2014-03-18T11:45:09.147" UserId="1251" Text="I think this is a good question. From my experience, developing an understanding for sustainability is best done via &quot;criticism, questioning, discussion, and voting&quot; as Highly Irregular mentioned. The reason for this is that the definition of sustainability can vary greatly (depending on the scope with which you analyze something, or the domain you specialize in). For example, you can assess the environmental sustainability of a new 'eco-house' and that will give you different results whether you then decide to expand your analysis at a street or city level, by bringing in other metrics of analysis (social, economic, political).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Identifying the 'degree of sustainability of something' is best done by comparing with other similar things. That's what a life cycle assessment does. It is a tool that, given a particular process or product, it gives you its environmental and pollution impact from the source of the materials right till their disposal. The LCA returns a series of numbers, which, by themselves are generally quite meaningless since these numbers are calculated using Global averages (and as such, your product might have a different impact in your country compared to the global average). The value of an LCA comes when it is used to COMPARE similar products/processes and assess their **relative** benefits. So in response to your question, it is very difficult to identify what is sustainable without any comparison with other products/processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of marketing ideas, Highly Irregular is right in saying that in many cases Marketing can be used to push the wrong ideas. The best example is the marketing of electric/hybrid vehicles. Often manufacturers claim that their cars are 0 CO2 emissions. Although this may be true on the car itself, these claims don't take into consideration where the electricity comes from in the first place. An electric vehicle is charged using the mains electricity. The mains electricity is generated using a mixture of power sources: coal, gas, renewables and nuclear (in countries with nuclear power). The CO2 emissions of your car strongly depend on **when** and **where** you charge your vehicle. If you charge it at peak demand hours, the likelihood is that a large portion of that electricity comes from coal, leading to tremendous CO2 impact of your electric vehicle. If you were to use such a vehicle in Australia for example, you would be [releasing more CO2/km](http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green) than using an internal combustion engine car.  All of these issues are unknown to the general public, and marketers make sure to paint a nicer picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What has worked best for me in terms of discovering new and unique sustainable practices is to attend conferences, read papers and discuss ideas with many people who are either developing 'sustainable' products or carrying out research into the field. Often many interesting insights into sustainability can come about in this way. A curious fact: I met with a PhD who is researching methods to analyze the sustainability of homes. One of his 'assessment tools/evaluation tools' is a 'break things up' test. They suggest that when you design something, you'd want random people to try and break it in any way possible as those are the kind of unexpected things that happen during the lifetime of a product. His link with sustainability: &quot;it isn't very sustainable for things to break unexpectedly, as that means that you'd have to replace them, thus increasing your environmental burden with your product&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this answers your question in part!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6136" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="183ddf79-bea3-4796-a15f-4f698219aacc" CreationDate="2014-03-20T01:59:30.617" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/446466027686494208" />
  <row Id="6137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2653" RevisionGUID="7682bf25-0251-40c3-b6a8-892dc126f119" CreationDate="2014-03-20T03:39:09.760" UserId="130" Text="This is an interesting question.  The way I read your question is, &quot;how can a sustainable economy in an ecovilage?&quot;  Obviously the modern economy which is based on excessive consumption is not sustainable.  However I think one can look to the past (and other places today) for insight in what to do differently.  I don't expect also that EnergyNumbers and I see eye to eye on this issue so maybe he can post a different alternative too.  I think you have to reduce both consumption and production to make this work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general you have to things that make sustainability a problem.  The first is complexity costs.  The more complexity is involved in the production of things, the more resources you have to consume to produce them.  This is one area where Capitalism causes problems, because you have a significant number of people involved in administering an enterprise which are not actually producing anything.  This is also a problem with complex governments as well.  If a government eats up 40% of GDP, that means that you have to nearly double per capita production in order to meet the needs of the civil servants.  Extensive, complex governmental structures, like extensive complex corporate structures are ways to avoid overproduction crises by throttling production.  Management and government eat up your excess and demand more in the future.  So the key thing here is to control your excess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the industrial revolution, and in countries like Indonesia today, you have low complexity costs.  Governance is local and close to home, and families are essentially mini-states.  Most people were self-employed.  In fact in Indonesia today, 70% of the population is self-employed and my experience is that there is actually less actual poverty (in terms of homelessness and food insecurity) than there is in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem of course is waste management.  Traditionally instead of throwing something away you sell it to someone who needs it.  A broken shovel might be repaired, or it might be sold as scrap.  Planning for waste management in a way that channels as much waste back into production is an important aspect of what you are doing.  Fortunately with less production, this is a little easier to do, and frugality is a little easier to justify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to implement this I would suggest a few things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Widespread distribution of private property (which is the rule in Indonesia, and was the rule in the late Middle Ages).  The ecovillage should be private instead of fully communal.  This puts people in charge of their own lives and productive aspirations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Integration of work and living spaces.  This throttles production by ensuring that family and work are not separate, and it helps foster self-employment, where the individual bears the complexity costs directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Community upcycling events to help ensure waste gets recycled into more useful roles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Infrastructure (roads, electrical generation, etc) however should be socialized by the local community.  This helps protect the wide distribution of private property." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2653" RevisionGUID="a3857f76-85cb-496f-91ef-8bd67d157ffb" CreationDate="2014-03-20T08:10:46.870" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="This is an interesting question. The way I read your question is, &quot;how can we create a sustainable economy in an ecovilage?&quot;  Obviously the modern economy which is based on excessive consumption is not sustainable.  However I think one can look to the past (and other places today) for insight in what to do differently.  I don't expect also that EnergyNumbers and I see eye to eye on this issue so maybe he can post a different alternative too.  I think you have to reduce both consumption and production to make this work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general you have several things that make sustainability a problem.  The first is complexity costs.  The more complexity is involved in the production of things, the more resources you have to consume to produce them.  This is one area where Capitalism causes problems, because you have a significant number of people involved in administering an enterprise which are not actually producing anything.  This is also a problem with complex governments as well.  If a government eats up 40% of GDP, that means that you have to nearly double per capita production in order to meet the needs of the civil servants.  Extensive, complex governmental structures, like extensive complex corporate structures are ways to avoid overproduction crises by throttling production.  Management and government eat up your excess and demand more in the future.  So the key thing here is to control your excess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the industrial revolution, and in countries like Indonesia today, you have low complexity costs.  Governance is local and close to home, and families are essentially mini-states.  Most people were self-employed.  In fact in Indonesia today, 70% of the population is self-employed and my experience is that there is actually less poverty (in terms of homelessness and food insecurity) than there is in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem of course is waste management.  Traditionally instead of throwing something away you sell it to someone who needs it.  A broken shovel might be repaired, or it might be sold as scrap.  Planning for waste management in a way that channels as much waste back into production is an important aspect of what you are doing.  Fortunately with less production, this is a little easier to do, and frugality is a little easier to justify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to implement this I would suggest a few things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Widespread distribution of private property (which is the rule in Indonesia, and was the rule in the late Middle Ages).  The ecovillage should be private instead of fully communal.  This puts people in charge of their own lives and productive aspirations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Integration of work and living spaces.  This throttles production by ensuring that family and work are not separate, and it helps foster self-employment, where the individual bears the complexity costs directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Community upcycling events to help ensure waste gets recycled into more useful roles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Infrastructure (roads, electrical generation, etc) however should be socialized by the local community.  This helps protect the wide distribution of private property." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="263" RevisionGUID="c74350ee-14b6-4b29-af7a-88903da59a72" CreationDate="2014-03-20T10:17:30.777" UserId="99" Comment="added link to Gaia's Garden book" Text="reduce, re-use, recycle, in that order.  Get the uses you can out of the bags first.  When that's done we get to the recycling bit.  This includes basically three things you can do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Official recycling.  This is probably the best thing to do with bags you have no other specific uses for.  However in addition you can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  papermaking (there are good how-tos on this on the internet).  You can make your own paper or cardboard for craft uses.  Fun and 100% post-consumer recycled ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Mulching.  I am not a fan of just throwing paper in the compost heap unless you are trying to shift the C-N balance towards C (treat paper as &quot;brown&quot;) but it can make a very good lower level for sheet mulching.  See &quot;[Gaia's Garden](http://books.google.nl/books?id=gxW0MGXha6cC)&quot; for more information on this technique of soil building.  Here the purpose of the paper would be as much to act as a temporary mulching barrier as it would be to feed into the compost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6141" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2632" RevisionGUID="377fd5b7-2bde-430e-aafc-9e5c49f0a3f0" CreationDate="2014-03-20T10:59:30.767" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/446601923723296768" />
  <row Id="6142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="728" RevisionGUID="25440712-9620-494e-bbc6-396ccc154e54" CreationDate="2014-03-20T15:04:11.517" UserId="975" Comment="deleted 1st sentence." Text=" As an answer to your 2nd question, I would cite the [Jevons Paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) as a very real and well-documented set of circumstances wherein increased efficiency of a product or process actually leads to increased consumption due to price elasticity.  The whole article is well worth reading, but I would like to draw note to one of the last sentences as a way to account for this effect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ecological economists Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees have suggested that any cost &#xD;&#xA;&gt; savings from efficiency gains be &quot;taxed away or otherwise removed from further economic &#xD;&#xA;&gt; circulation&quot;. . . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2655" RevisionGUID="69049dab-e09b-4f45-8683-675cdf11cdcc" CreationDate="2014-03-21T04:07:40.487" UserId="961" Text="I am surprised no-one has mentioned bidets yet, which in Japan is your high-tech toilet.  (Though, it sounds like in India it is a shower!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;eco sums&quot; will get quite complicated, as you are trading some electricity and water to save a few sheets of paper. If you reduce from say 8 sheets of 1-ply down to 2 sheets, I imagine that is an overall saving: less paper in the waste, meaning you need less water for the flush (?) and lower water treatment energy needed (?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also an advantage to sensitive skin, where *rubbing* and *scrubbing* is much worse than simply *dabbing* (to dry). :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As this site is all about the holistic viewpoint, it is worth mentioning the effect of diet. As a side-effect of our hedonistic Western lifestyle, we've all had good days and bad days... but a bit more fibre, and a few spoonfuls of yoghurt, could save a few sheets each day! &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2461" RevisionGUID="35a5b215-c991-44eb-ae2f-baae94187458" CreationDate="2014-03-21T04:32:09.733" UserId="288" Comment="Great question, will be featured at Lifehacker this weekend. A few minor grammar edits &amp; concluding statement to tie it all together." Text="I just need some convincing before I start unplugging everything. I kind of assumed that USB type computer, phone, or printer chargers would use electricity. And obviously my computer, sound system, and modem/router do. I can't imagine the lamps, toaster, TV or coffee grinder would use electricity, though. Those are just some examples, but I am ready to move on from assumptions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I consider unplugging?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6148" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2461" RevisionGUID="35a5b215-c991-44eb-ae2f-baae94187458" CreationDate="2014-03-21T04:32:09.733" Comment="Proposed by 288 approved by 659, 48 edit id of 244" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2658" RevisionGUID="ba87b84a-089b-4fd1-8e28-f484fe11be76" CreationDate="2014-03-22T00:15:53.270" UserId="1278" Text="Some questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can LED light provide same amount of energy as sunlight?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can humanity get rid of the sun and charge solar panels from LED light alone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is feasible, this would be truly sustainable energy. Have two panels of the same size, bottom one made of solar panel and the top panel made up LED light. Two panels facing each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the LED light panel provide light source, the solar panel produces energy to make the LED light shine, the excess energy the LED bulbs doesn't need can be immediately consumed or stored in a battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This idea would be ideal for places that cannot reached by sunlight, like underground parking spaces and during evening hours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2658" RevisionGUID="ba87b84a-089b-4fd1-8e28-f484fe11be76" CreationDate="2014-03-22T00:15:53.270" UserId="1278" Text="Solar energy without the sun: Super LED light on top of solar panels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2658" RevisionGUID="ba87b84a-089b-4fd1-8e28-f484fe11be76" CreationDate="2014-03-22T00:15:53.270" UserId="1278" Text="|solar-power|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2659" RevisionGUID="9505745c-b07a-43ee-ab62-d66ac72af90b" CreationDate="2014-03-22T00:54:09.340" UserId="130" Text="Obviously you are not going to get a net return on investment on the energy you put into your LED.  If you could, you'd have a perpetual motion machine which is impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are cases where doing this makes sense, and where you probably have such devices around.  For example, some small portable electronics (calculators, for example) will use amorphous solar cells to power them in place of batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the LED is not a replacement for the sun but it may be fine as a way to use light you are already using in place of batteries for some light work.  Think of it as energy recycling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2660" RevisionGUID="54bfa764-d802-401e-b5fe-d3b68cdbc3de" CreationDate="2014-03-22T08:56:08.830" UserId="812" Text="There are a number of questions there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Can LED light provide same amount of energy as sunlight?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In total, no, at least with humanity's available resources. The sun is kinda big. Per unit area? Sure, if you use enough LEDs and focus them tightly enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Can humanity get rid of the sun&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably not, within our currently available technology ;-) Even destroying the Earth is a [hard problem][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...and charge solar panels from LED light alone? If this is feasible, this would be &#xD;&#xA;&gt; truly sustainable energy. Have two panels of the same size, bottom one made of solar &#xD;&#xA;&gt; panel and the top panel made up LED light. Two panels facing each other.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. What you are suggesting is a perpetual motion machine (only without the motion). The efficiency of photovoltaic panels is somewhere in the region of 15%, so about 85% of the light energy is lost rather than being converted to electricity. The efficiency of the LEDs is also far short of 100%, so not all of the electricity is converted back to light.&#xD;&#xA;Morover, the [second law of thermodynamics][2] means that no matter how good technology gets, neither of these devices will *ever* be 100% efficient, so this will never work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In this context, a simple and helpful way in which to think of the 2nd law is perhaps: &quot;You can't get back what you put in. In fact, you can't *even* get back what you put in&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(apologies to anybody who finds this answer too flippant. I'm in that sort of mood!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://qntm.org/destroy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2660" RevisionGUID="0c0ff71e-ece2-443c-97ee-e0d6dd4c559a" CreationDate="2014-03-22T09:13:21.767" UserId="659" Comment="the second law." Text="There are a number of questions there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Can LED light provide same amount of energy as sunlight?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In total, no, at least with humanity's available resources. The sun is kinda big. Per unit area? Sure, if you use enough LEDs and focus them tightly enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Can humanity get rid of the sun&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably not, within our currently available technology ;-) Even destroying the Earth is a [hard problem][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;...and charge solar panels from LED light alone? If this is feasible, this would be &#xD;&#xA;&gt; truly sustainable energy. Have two panels of the same size, bottom one made of solar &#xD;&#xA;&gt; panel and the top panel made up LED light. Two panels facing each other.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. What you are suggesting is a perpetual motion machine (only without the motion). The efficiency of photovoltaic panels is somewhere in the region of 15%, so about 85% of the light energy is lost rather than being converted to electricity. The efficiency of the LEDs is also far short of 100%, so not all of the electricity is converted back to light.&#xD;&#xA;Morover, the [second law of thermodynamics][2] means that no matter how good technology gets, neither of these devices will *ever* be 100% efficient, so this will never work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In this context, a simple and helpful way in which to think of the 2nd law is perhaps: &quot;You can't get back more than what you put in. In fact, you can't *even* get back what you put in&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(apologies to anybody who finds this answer too flippant. I'm in that sort of mood!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://qntm.org/destroy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2661" RevisionGUID="535a266b-8d78-4a5a-85db-cf42c0711e0e" CreationDate="2014-03-22T16:08:07.050" UserId="1282" Text="1) Is it warm?  If it generates heat it draws power, so you should consider anything that is warm as a potential energy eater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Auto-shutdown your computer.  This works for MOST people.  You can create a scheduled task that performs a shutdown of the computer at a specific time. Task scheduler has an option to not execute if the computer is in use as well, in case you're up late.  Yes, there some people who this would be incompatible with, but for most it works fine. Most computers have a &quot;wake up&quot; function in the bios, so the computer can automagically come on later if needed.  Of course, if it can wake itself up then it too is drawing some small amount of power from somewhere to pull that off, possibly the RTC battery. The command for task scheduler to use is &quot;shutdown.exe /s&quot;.  *nix systems have essentially the same command, but if I have to explain cron to you then you don't need to be messing with it :).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) My understanding is that Satellite dish boxes are big power eaters, as are many HDTV set-top boxes, and game consoles. I don't do this, but perhaps a lamp timer to remove power an hour or two after normal bed time and cut back on around the time you'd normally watch TV?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Water heaters are notorious energy eaters.  I have mine on a timer, it comes on about an hour before wake-up, cuts off about an hour after I leave the house for work, and cuts back on near the end of the day for a few hours to allow for laundry, end of day showers, etc.  The good part is the water stays hot for a while, so you can still get some hot water even after the timer has cut off.  Most have an over-ride button in case you need it on at odd times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6162" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2627" RevisionGUID="1dc405c9-0710-4271-97ec-b47088852cf5" CreationDate="2014-03-23T14:00:02.287" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/447734518305521664" />
  <row Id="6163" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2607" RevisionGUID="8f82bb35-208d-4acd-be96-a2508f8af508" CreationDate="2014-03-23T23:00:05.503" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/447870427155927041" />
  <row Id="6183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="75978ff7-c138-4078-85a5-58f935b0b0b9" CreationDate="2014-03-26T06:16:09.390" UserId="130" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Some concerns I would have about putting meat in the composter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Attracting rodents, dogs, and cats&#xD;&#xA; - Things like bones aren't going to compost well (whether very heavily boiled chicken bones might compost is another matter entirely)&#xD;&#xA; - Meat is going to be very high in nitrogen and consequently may pose problems unless you mix in low-carbon mixtures as well&#xD;&#xA; - There is the theoretical concern over pathogens.  However unlike the fecal-oral transmission cycle, I think the risk of this getting spread back via food is pretty low.   Also I treat this as theoretical because all kinds of other stuff we compost (read:  anything that you'd want to refridgerate if saving to eat again!) could also grow bacteria that are pathogenic to humans...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just concerns.  Like all concerns they mean that you can plan for them and overcome them with a little bit of effort.  Keep it enclosed to ensure critters can't access.  Add low-nitrogen material to compensate (straw might be good), and accept that the bones are going to still be in large pieces when youa are done.  Adding meat to the compost pile adds maintenance.  It is not a hard rule to avoid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This being said, trimming what you serve, and recycling the meat products in the kitchen as much as you can first, is where I would start.  Reduce and re-use first, then recycle (compost) what is left." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1280" RevisionGUID="343e9665-c781-4405-a892-27eb683598b8" CreationDate="2014-03-26T08:14:06.907" UserId="99" Comment="added straw c:n ratio, fixed layout" Text="I've compiled a list of common household wastes and their reported C:N ratios with links to the various sources. A difficulty is that different sources sometimes list  different C:N ratios for the same material. This probably has to with differences in samples (e.g. one batch of fruit wastes versus another), but if you look at some of the bigger differences it may just be that some numbers are plain wrong (perhaps the 150 of cardboard?). When I found multiple conflicting numbers for a food source I placed what I think is the most credible value at the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Waste               Amount of C to 1N   Source&#xD;&#xA;    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Urine               0.8                 http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Fish wastes         2.5 - 5.5           http://www.norganics.com/applications/cnratio.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Soybean meal        4 - 6               http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    General food waste  14 - 16             http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;                        17                  http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;                        20                  http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;    Vegetable wastes    11 - 19             http://oregonbd.org/Class/ftp/CtoN%20Ratios.pdf &#xD;&#xA;                        25                  http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio			&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Grass clippings     9 - 25, avg 17      http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Coffee grounds      20                  http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;                        25                  http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Garden weeds        20                  http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;                        30                  http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nut shells          35                  http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;    Fruit wastes        20 - 49, avg 40     http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html &#xD;&#xA;						15					http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Shrub trimmings     53                  http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;    Garden leaves       40 - 80, avg 54     http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;                        60 - 80				http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Straw               48-150, avg 80      http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html &#xD;&#xA;    		  &#xD;&#xA;    Pine needles        80                  http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Paper               125 - 180           http://www.norganics.com/applications/cnratio.pdf&#xD;&#xA;					  					   &#xD;&#xA;    Sawdust             200 - 750, avg 442  http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;    Newspaper           398 - 852           http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;                        170                 http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;                        175                 http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Cardboard           563                 http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;                        350                 http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;                        150                 http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;    Hardwood chips      451 - 819, avg 560  http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html &#xD;&#xA;                        400                 http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;                        300                 http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Softwood chips      212 - 1313, avg 641 http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2666" RevisionGUID="02f5ac2e-4766-4b71-ba47-1a7d66ccb160" CreationDate="2014-03-26T12:59:48.453" UserId="99" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="The use of sunlight to generate heat, usually in water. Heated water can be used directly or it can drive a turbine to generate electricity. For questions on generating electricity using semiconductors see [tag:photovoltaics]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2667" RevisionGUID="6c0374d5-dd42-41cb-be94-361c9ccf6a3c" CreationDate="2014-03-26T12:59:48.453" UserId="99" Text="The use of sunlight to generate heat, usually in water. Heated water can be used directly or it can drive a turbine to generate electricity. For questions on generating electricity using semiconductors see [photovoltaics]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1292" RevisionGUID="6bf68a3c-b32c-4c3b-958f-f1720f07d63f" CreationDate="2014-03-26T13:01:47.730" UserId="99" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Solar panels that convert light directly to electricity. For questions on using sunlight to to heat water use [solar-thermal]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2466" RevisionGUID="7b6af695-e2ab-4c7f-b602-aaa19190e8e9" CreationDate="2014-03-26T13:03:17.393" UserId="99" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="Solar power is electric energy produced from sunlight. This could be via semiconductors, as in [tag:photovoltaics], or through the concentration of solar heat to drive a turbine, as in [tag:solar-thermal]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2467" RevisionGUID="16b1f0a7-521e-4173-b3b7-714d49532799" CreationDate="2014-03-26T13:03:17.393" UserId="99" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="Electric energy produced from sunlight. This could be via semiconductors, in [photovoltaics]; or through the concentration of solar heat to drive a turbine, as in concentrating solar power [solar-thermal]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2668" RevisionGUID="7dd38137-cce0-4641-a540-d0c18f96d5ce" CreationDate="2014-03-26T14:00:00.313" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2669" RevisionGUID="3f5575dc-9cdf-40f8-9add-ea721b4aa686" CreationDate="2014-03-26T14:00:00.313" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2670" RevisionGUID="581179b9-b825-413c-bd32-35c902b39800" CreationDate="2014-03-26T14:10:26.110" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="34005925-d24f-48bc-952c-70ff93439a52" CreationDate="2014-03-26T14:10:26.110" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="f3b5ff59-f0e8-4426-8861-77a53bf4435a" CreationDate="2014-03-26T14:21:07.377" UserId="803" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="Question about aspects of sustainability in the context of living in a city." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6195" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="f3b5ff59-f0e8-4426-8861-77a53bf4435a" CreationDate="2014-03-26T14:21:07.377" Comment="Proposed by 803 approved by 99 edit id of 248" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2669" RevisionGUID="778a754a-f458-453e-b01e-f38360f88de7" CreationDate="2014-03-26T14:21:48.067" UserId="803" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="Questions concerning the production or use of electricity in a sustainable way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6197" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2669" RevisionGUID="778a754a-f458-453e-b01e-f38360f88de7" CreationDate="2014-03-26T14:21:48.067" Comment="Proposed by 803 approved by 99 edit id of 247" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2672" RevisionGUID="bfc22986-0395-4d4e-9ae0-995f957bc985" CreationDate="2014-03-26T14:25:52.137" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2673" RevisionGUID="8edde5f8-72fd-4330-9f9d-197ce935254a" CreationDate="2014-03-26T14:25:52.137" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2673" RevisionGUID="ea43a543-02c7-47e1-b859-731de2e6f67a" CreationDate="2014-03-26T14:39:13.763" UserId="803" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="Question elated to the definition of sustainability in a specific area or situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6201" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2673" RevisionGUID="ea43a543-02c7-47e1-b859-731de2e6f67a" CreationDate="2014-03-26T14:39:13.763" Comment="Proposed by 803 approved by -1 edit id of 249" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2673" RevisionGUID="e2545e11-310d-4c33-8da6-4b1641cec01e" CreationDate="2014-03-26T14:39:13.763" UserId="99" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Questions that define the concept of sustainability by discussing its relationship with other related concepts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2672" RevisionGUID="41b661f8-e97a-44da-b506-7ea3dbaefc44" CreationDate="2014-03-26T14:39:46.830" UserId="99" Comment="added 233 characters in body" Text="Questions that define the concept of sustainability by discussing its relationship with other related concepts (more info about the rationale behind this idea in [this meta post](http://meta.sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/73/99))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1280" RevisionGUID="0600361d-f4b1-4adc-ada3-51763f2db83a" CreationDate="2014-03-26T15:00:27.373" UserId="48" Comment="make links clickable, by taking the URLs out of the table, and using indices to refer to them" Text="I've compiled a list of common household wastes and their reported C:N ratios with links to the various sources. A difficulty is that different sources sometimes list  different C:N ratios for the same material. This probably has to with differences in samples (e.g. one batch of fruit wastes versus another), but if you look at some of the bigger differences it may just be that some numbers are plain wrong (perhaps the 150 of cardboard?). When I found multiple conflicting numbers for a food source I placed what I think is the most credible value at the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Waste               Amount of C to 1N   Reference&#xD;&#xA;    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Urine               0.8                 [1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Fish wastes         2.5 - 5.5           [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Soybean meal        4 - 6               [3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    General food waste  14 - 16             [3]&#xD;&#xA;                        17                  [4]&#xD;&#xA;                        20                  [5]&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;    Vegetable wastes    11 - 19             [6] &#xD;&#xA;                        25                  [5]	&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Grass clippings     9 - 25, avg 17      [3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Coffee grounds      20                  [5]&#xD;&#xA;                        25                  [4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Garden weeds        20                  [4]&#xD;&#xA;                        30                  [5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Nut shells          35                  [4]&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;    Fruit wastes        20 - 49, avg 40     [3] &#xD;&#xA;                        15                  [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Shrub trimmings     53                  [3]&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;    Garden leaves       40 - 80, avg 54     [3]&#xD;&#xA;                        60 - 80             [4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Straw               48-150, avg 80      [3] &#xD;&#xA;    		  &#xD;&#xA;    Pine needles        80                  [5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Paper               125 - 180           [2]&#xD;&#xA;					  					   &#xD;&#xA;    Sawdust             200 - 750, avg 442  [3]&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;    Newspaper           398 - 852           [3]&#xD;&#xA;                        170                 [1]&#xD;&#xA;                        175                 [5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Cardboard           563                 [3]&#xD;&#xA;                        350                 [5]&#xD;&#xA;                        150                 [1]&#xD;&#xA;						&#xD;&#xA;    Hardwood chips      451 - 819, avg 560  [3]&#xD;&#xA;                        400                 [5]&#xD;&#xA;                        300                 [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Softwood chips      212 - 1313, avg 641 [3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/pdf/foodwasterecovery.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] http://www.norganics.com/applications/cnratio.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] http://compost.css.cornell.edu/OnFarmHandbook/apa.taba1.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4] http://www.homecompostingmadeeasy.com/carbonnitrogenratio.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[5] http://www.organicgardeningguru.com/composting-101/carbon-nitrogen-ratio&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[6] http://oregonbd.org/Class/ftp/CtoN%20Ratios.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6205" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="139" RevisionGUID="e7a015b5-fa52-4efd-897c-78e84e01913a" CreationDate="2014-03-26T23:00:34.830" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/448957713549361152" />
  <row Id="6206" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="6a701089-fa4c-4a0c-b0ea-6a7acb49fab7" CreationDate="2014-03-27T02:43:49.140" UserId="1295" Text="I am planning to double major in computer science and Physics for my undergraduate degree. Then get my MBA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to incorporate physical things with computer science: what gets me excited is the advancements in cars and sustainable energy like Tesla and SolarCity. Is this a good sounding plan, does the Physics degree add any value to my computer science degree? Would the high workload be of any benefit in the future, and would this be the most effective use of my time, effort and money, as a way to make the transition into these industries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6207" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="6a701089-fa4c-4a0c-b0ea-6a7acb49fab7" CreationDate="2014-03-27T02:43:49.140" UserId="1295" Text="Is this a good plan?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6208" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="6a701089-fa4c-4a0c-b0ea-6a7acb49fab7" CreationDate="2014-03-27T02:43:49.140" UserId="1295" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6209" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="e0d2c99d-e72f-49e4-99f4-d0ef4f7a4640" CreationDate="2014-03-27T08:07:45.267" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="f596a6bb-cf42-4d13-9b5b-4a94fad45300" CreationDate="2014-03-27T09:27:58.490" UserId="99" Comment="added 122 characters in body; edited body" Text="the sustainable use of energy, through efficiency and renewables. Use this tag for questions on energy in general. For more questions on a specific energy type see [electricity] or [heat]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6211" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="f70ce7d3-4635-4d8c-88e5-a1a061785011" CreationDate="2014-03-27T09:40:43.037" UserId="48" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="0b324c53-8de1-4d97-8735-9a648bf9a96e" CreationDate="2014-03-27T09:42:14.623" UserId="48" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="I am planning to double major in computer science and Physics for my undergraduate degree. Then get my MBA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to incorporate physical things with computer science: what gets me excited is the advancements in cars and sustainable energy like Tesla and SolarCity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a good sounding plan, does the Physics degree add any value to my computer science degree? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does a successful transition path to a career in a sustainable industry look like: what are the essential elements?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6213" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="0b324c53-8de1-4d97-8735-9a648bf9a96e" CreationDate="2014-03-27T09:42:14.623" UserId="48" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2675" RevisionGUID="0a812b2d-8c74-440b-aabc-45157f17c33b" CreationDate="2014-03-27T09:55:13.460" UserId="48" Text="###Routes into sustainable industries&#xD;&#xA;Analytic skills are very valuable in many sustainability industries, as are knowledge of engineering and physics principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have traditionally been two routes into what we now call the low-carbon industries: one route has been via NGOs and lots of volunteering. The other has been engineers and scientists who care about the impact of their work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who come through the former route have been very good at the lobbying, building social networks and grass-roots movements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People who come through the latter route have been very good at the innovation and implementation side of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;###University research projects as a route to industry&#xD;&#xA;When looking at the migration from academic study to sustainable industries, I strongly advise looking to your research projects: many undergraduate courses, and all the Masters courses I'm aware of, involve some research project.  Many industry bodies are interested in co-operating with universities on these research projects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the companies, they sometimes get useful work out of it, they build useful links with academic research departments, and the research project itself can form an extended internship / dress-rehearsal for a job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the student, they get chance to see whether the company would be a good fit for them, as well as doing real-world research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Skills above knowledge&#xD;&#xA;It's far more important that you develop the right skills, than look to particular areas of knowledge. A bright student with the right skills will quickly pick up the appropriate knowledge when they start in an industry. Whereas someone who ends their formal studies with knowledge but no significant skills in research, self-motivation or independent thought, isn't much use to any employer, beyond doing repetitive grunt work. That's valuable work, and someone's got to do it, but I don't think that's what you're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;###Choice of subject&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as to Physics vs Computer Science, focus on wherever your skills are best placed: pick the one you'll excel at. And take into account any links that each department has with particular companies - ask around in the department, to find out where people get employed after leaving, and which companies people have done research with in the past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;###Choice of Masters&#xD;&#xA;You can also apply those criteria if you choose to do a Masters. A Masters degree can be a great way to build links with a particular company or industry, and to specialise in your skills and knowledge. Choose a university course that already has links to your target company: so, for example, if you want to work with Tesla, find out which universities they co-operate with currently, and which universities their staff went to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6215" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="3b55501f-552d-4bc2-954a-c918fb73e279" CreationDate="2014-03-27T09:56:59.777" UserId="48" Comment="edited title" Text="Moving into a career in sustainability" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="3190eb78-e977-4072-ba03-9826314ab5ee" CreationDate="2014-03-27T10:13:34.970" UserId="99" Comment="removed energy tag, removed subjective part of the question" Text="I am planning to double major in Computer Science and Physics for my undergraduate degree. Then get my MBA. I want to incorporate physical things with computer science: what gets me excited is the advancements in cars and sustainable energy like Tesla and SolarCity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the Physics degree add any value to my Computer Science degree? &#xD;&#xA;What does a successful transition path to a career in a sustainable industry look like: what are the essential elements?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6217" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="3190eb78-e977-4072-ba03-9826314ab5ee" CreationDate="2014-03-27T10:13:34.970" UserId="99" Comment="removed energy tag, removed subjective part of the question" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2676" RevisionGUID="1839f589-1ac9-4681-90b6-e539dfa8cb3e" CreationDate="2014-03-27T11:05:05.373" UserId="1297" Text="I am a believer that industrialization is a root of unsustainable practices. I was pondering on what can be considered as a genuine sustainable living. When I try to understand how can mankind change their ways to be truly sustainable, I feel the ways of living of indigenous peoples can be considered as a showcase of how we have to adapt ourselves to the simple ways of living alongside nature. But again, if such a living was to be practiced throughout the world, will indigenous living materials such as bamboo and wood be sufficient for the construction of houses of such a world? Whereas, concrete is a industrialized material and is the most used material in the world for building houses, mainly due to its availability and cheap price. So is using concrete more sustainable than building a house say with wood? Bamboo is an alternate choice which is very sustainable but again bamboo constructions need to be renewed every few years, which is kind of a hassle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2676" RevisionGUID="1839f589-1ac9-4681-90b6-e539dfa8cb3e" CreationDate="2014-03-27T11:05:05.373" UserId="1297" Text="Is concrete a sustainable material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2676" RevisionGUID="1839f589-1ac9-4681-90b6-e539dfa8cb3e" CreationDate="2014-03-27T11:05:05.373" UserId="1297" Text="|housing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2677" RevisionGUID="c367e3fa-7803-4fbe-a2fb-01aca149f9a6" CreationDate="2014-03-27T13:20:35.680" UserId="48" Text="Concrete is made from sand, grit and (portland) cement; portland cement is made primarily of clinker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost all concrete at the time of writing is unsustainable. The extractive industries that provide the aggregates are very destructive, and the clinker manufacturing process releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide: about half a tonne just from the chemical reaction, for every tonne of cement. In addition, the high (1500&amp;deg;C) temperatures needed are usually generated by burning fossil fuels, releasing more CO2. ([source - the Dean et al paper mentioned below][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that's a product of the way it's currently manufactured: it doesn't need to be this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot of research going on into making concrete sustainable, by looking both at the manufacturing, and at the end-of-life handling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Dean, Dugwell and Fennell have investigated potential synergies between power generation, cement manufacture and CO2 abatement using the calcium looping cycle][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the end of its life, uncontaminated concrete can be crushed or ground, and [reused as aggregate in construction][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Timber has the advantage of locking up carbon: we need a lot more sinks for carbon, and a lot fewer sources, so locking up carbon in structures is definitely a plus. As long as the timber is sourced sustainably, but a lot isn't. There are various accreditation schemes in place that are working towards more sustainable wood sourcing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c1ee01282g&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c1ee01282g&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.concreterecycling.org/markets.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2678" RevisionGUID="33c6f9ed-a26e-4791-a68f-208c84b7ba0e" CreationDate="2014-03-27T15:28:16.930" UserId="1298" Text="For those who wish to replace the air in a room during a cold day with active heating: Given that the purpose of opening the windows is to exchange as much of the air in the room as possible with the least amount of heat lost – is it more efficient to either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. open all windows wide for a few minutes&#xD;&#xA; 2. crack all or some of the windows open a bit for a somewhat longer period of time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– or are both approaches equally efficient?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2678" RevisionGUID="33c6f9ed-a26e-4791-a68f-208c84b7ba0e" CreationDate="2014-03-27T15:28:16.930" UserId="1298" Text="Is opening windows wide or opening them slightly more efficient for exchanging air in a room on a cold day?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2678" RevisionGUID="33c6f9ed-a26e-4791-a68f-208c84b7ba0e" CreationDate="2014-03-27T15:28:16.930" UserId="1298" Text="|energy|home|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2679" RevisionGUID="a1046c45-864e-4421-b46b-3b402de8681d" CreationDate="2014-03-27T17:04:44.100" UserId="48" Text="You will probably lose less energy from a very short burst of high-rate ventilation, than slow ventilation over a long period. That's because you'll probably lose more hot air in a long, slow ventilation: it will take some time to notice that the air really is fresh now, whereas with all the windows open for a few seconds, you'll notice the fresher air immediately, and then close all the windows. If you over-ventilate in this case, the heating system will have had very little time to warm the incoming air which then leaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is better to do this when the outside temperatures are warmer, rather than colder, and that's probably about half an hour before the sun goes down. And do turn the heating off some time before you do this, so that the air you expel is at the bottom end of the range of acceptable internal air temperatures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2680" RevisionGUID="ea863eef-8778-4b73-81fc-abb9c32a5d40" CreationDate="2014-03-27T18:44:19.157" UserId="1301" Text="I have an aquaponic system.  My herbs sprout and grow to about 3 inches, then wilt and fall over.  Is there something lacking, or is this a result of root rot?  Should I lower the water level?  I have them growing under a 50 watt grow light, could the amount of light be a problem as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6227" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2680" RevisionGUID="ea863eef-8778-4b73-81fc-abb9c32a5d40" CreationDate="2014-03-27T18:44:19.157" UserId="1301" Text="Why do my plants sprout and die in my aquaponic system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6228" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2680" RevisionGUID="ea863eef-8778-4b73-81fc-abb9c32a5d40" CreationDate="2014-03-27T18:44:19.157" UserId="1301" Text="|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6229" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2680" RevisionGUID="1efe268b-6b2b-49f1-b208-1d5f0e54679b" CreationDate="2014-03-27T20:29:11.193" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|aquaponics|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="903" RevisionGUID="93c4758f-cd1a-4fac-82c9-55e7dfee0fa9" CreationDate="2014-03-28T09:25:54.810" UserId="99" Comment="added related tags to excerpt" Text="substance consumed to provide nutritional support for humans and animals. Use this tag for questions on the sustainability aspects of food in general. See also [meat],[fish],[cooking]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2681" RevisionGUID="e2d3797d-d1ab-4dbb-af4b-3e5eba26c3c5" CreationDate="2014-03-28T11:07:35.170" UserId="1300" Text="I have had a Panasonic Aquarea ASHP installed. The manual talks about a &quot;water temperature thermal shift setting&quot; which can be set to -5oC to 5oC. It doesn't make it clear at all what a &quot;thermal shift&quot; actually is or does!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody know what this shift setting refers to?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2681" RevisionGUID="e2d3797d-d1ab-4dbb-af4b-3e5eba26c3c5" CreationDate="2014-03-28T11:07:35.170" UserId="1300" Text="With regards to a Air Source Heat Pump, what is a &quot;thermal shift setting&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2681" RevisionGUID="e2d3797d-d1ab-4dbb-af4b-3e5eba26c3c5" CreationDate="2014-03-28T11:07:35.170" UserId="1300" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="71947dcf-d84e-4c08-a8af-b51aa73cb4b9" CreationDate="2014-03-28T12:18:59.780" UserId="1303" Text="In Argentina on weekends we cook barbecue with fire generated with woods and paperboard. We don't use gas like in the USA. I know there are some things that cause cancer and other illness like OSB wood because it has glues. So I would like to know which wood, paperboard, paper, etc. is not healthy. I'm thinking about painted paper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="71947dcf-d84e-4c08-a8af-b51aa73cb4b9" CreationDate="2014-03-28T12:18:59.780" UserId="1303" Text="Which paperboard/wood is not healthy for cooking barbecue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="71947dcf-d84e-4c08-a8af-b51aa73cb4b9" CreationDate="2014-03-28T12:18:59.780" UserId="1303" Text="|paper|cooking|firewood|cardboard|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="9e1a766d-8b10-4a72-a9fe-a9c70e594466" CreationDate="2014-03-28T12:29:47.063" UserId="1303" Text="I have batteries and I want to know what is the best way to dispose them. Here in Argentina there is almost nowhere to take them. We just pull it in the garbage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="9e1a766d-8b10-4a72-a9fe-a9c70e594466" CreationDate="2014-03-28T12:29:47.063" UserId="1303" Text="How to dispose batteries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="9e1a766d-8b10-4a72-a9fe-a9c70e594466" CreationDate="2014-03-28T12:29:47.063" UserId="1303" Text="|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2684" RevisionGUID="51c5d078-edcc-4dcf-8392-6a4ac6fc4952" CreationDate="2014-03-28T12:31:44.620" UserId="48" Text="The &quot;thermal shift&quot; setting is a control that allows you to change the temperature of the water leaving the heat pump, up or down by 5&amp;deg;C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shifting the temperature **up** will enable your radiators to pump out more heat, which may be necessary in very cold weather, or if your home isn't well insulated, or if your radiators are of the standard design that are sized to be run at higher (~50-60&amp;deg;C) temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shifting the temperature **down** will mean that there is less on-off cycling of the heat pump, which should improve its efficiency, reduce noise, and extend its life. In addition, the lower temperature should improve its efficiency in and of itself, too. This would be appropriate in a very well-insulated dwelling, with radiators sized to be run at lower temperatures (~35-40&amp;deg;C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, you want the heating-system temperature to be as low as it can be, while keeping you warm enough: so that the radiators are releasing low-level heat all the time, rather than being high temperature part of the time, and then getting switched off by their thermostatic valves for some of the time. That way, the ASHP will run at the best efficiency it can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the heat pump can be used in a wide variety of systems and under a big range of conditions, there isn't a single &quot;ideal&quot; temperature for the water it heats: the thermal-shift setting allows you to customise the water temperature to best fit your own heating system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2685" RevisionGUID="b57068b6-f03d-401d-981c-4a7fe28fc137" CreationDate="2014-03-28T13:22:52.950" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="eb2c3ed3-f60c-4bdd-b2e8-b7356477c7a6" CreationDate="2014-03-28T13:22:52.950" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="4c86e425-3207-4426-95f5-723c7ea59509" CreationDate="2014-03-28T13:23:38.033" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2688" RevisionGUID="444bbb68-6156-4e27-b1ea-bd63dfe31528" CreationDate="2014-03-28T13:23:38.033" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2685" RevisionGUID="21d5936e-7344-47e5-b276-549054a20f67" CreationDate="2014-03-28T13:25:30.420" UserId="812" Comment="added 248 characters in body" Text="Recycling is where items are treated or processed into a mass raw material to be manufactured into a new product (whether or not the new material is the same as the original one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is distinct from *reuse*, where items are simply used again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6249" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2685" RevisionGUID="21d5936e-7344-47e5-b276-549054a20f67" CreationDate="2014-03-28T13:25:30.420" Comment="Proposed by 812 approved by 48 edit id of 251" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6250" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="813baa69-6d64-4ddf-a068-97c8e0d071fd" CreationDate="2014-03-28T13:25:38.410" UserId="812" Comment="Added recycling tag" Text="|recycling|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6251" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="813baa69-6d64-4ddf-a068-97c8e0d071fd" CreationDate="2014-03-28T13:25:38.410" Comment="Proposed by 812 approved by 48 edit id of 250" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="be0ef9d7-3ca3-447c-9e4c-97a4f4485ba1" CreationDate="2014-03-28T13:25:45.753" UserId="812" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="Using materials that would otherwise be waste to manufacture new materials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6253" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="be0ef9d7-3ca3-447c-9e4c-97a4f4485ba1" CreationDate="2014-03-28T13:25:45.753" Comment="Proposed by 812 approved by 48 edit id of 252" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2688" RevisionGUID="b1bcd9db-e656-4ef2-9cee-d56abed4a1c2" CreationDate="2014-03-28T13:25:51.050" UserId="812" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Questions regarding sustainable use of water, or water's impact on sustainability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6255" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2688" RevisionGUID="b1bcd9db-e656-4ef2-9cee-d56abed4a1c2" CreationDate="2014-03-28T13:25:51.050" Comment="Proposed by 812 approved by 48 edit id of 253" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6257" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="e0b09d23-af7e-4b24-808d-b852cf5c714e" CreationDate="2014-03-29T05:00:40.237" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/449773108917190656" />
  <row Id="6258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2684" RevisionGUID="4d073631-b8cd-41ca-87ee-d85683cb626d" CreationDate="2014-03-29T09:30:54.223" UserId="48" Comment="added 993 characters in body" Text="The &quot;thermal shift&quot; setting is a control that allows you to change the temperature of the water that's output from the air-source heat pump (ASHP) into the house's heating circuit up or down by 5&amp;deg;C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shifting the output temperature **up** will enable your radiators to pump out more heat, which may be necessary in very cold weather, or if your home isn't well insulated, or if your radiators are of the standard design that are sized to be run at higher (~50-60&amp;deg;C) temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shifting the output temperature **down** will mean that there is less on-off cycling of the heat pump, which should improve its efficiency, reduce noise, and extend its life. In addition, the lower temperature should improve its efficiency in and of itself, too. This would be appropriate in a very well-insulated dwelling, with radiators sized to be run at lower temperatures (~35-40&amp;deg;C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, you want the output temperature to be as low as it can be, while keeping you warm enough: so that the radiators are releasing low-level heat all the time, rather than being high temperature part of the time, and then getting switched off by their thermostatic valves for some of the time. That way, the ASHP will run at the best efficiency it can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the heat pump can be used in a wide variety of systems and under a big range of conditions, there isn't a single &quot;ideal&quot; temperature for the water it heats: the thermal-shift setting allows you to customise the output water temperature to best fit your own heating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;###So why is it called a thermal shift, rather than just &quot;output water temperature&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Modern ASHPs have adaptive controls that automatically adjust the output water temperature, based on external air temperature. When the outside air is warmer, then the house needs less heating, and so the ASHP control reduces the output water temperature. When it's colder, the house needs more heating, so the ASHP control increases the water temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That results in an output curve like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    |&#xD;&#xA;    |    ____             Where the y-axis is output water temperature,&#xD;&#xA;    |        \&#xD;&#xA;    |         \           and the x-axis is external air temperature.&#xD;&#xA;    |          \____&#xD;&#xA;    |_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you change the &quot;thermal shift&quot; setting, it shifts the whole curve down or up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    |    ____ &#xD;&#xA;    |   ^____\&#xD;&#xA;    |        \\&#xD;&#xA;    |         \\____&#xD;&#xA;    |          \____^&#xD;&#xA;    |_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="8c7675a6-6684-480b-83a3-01fdf285ba98" CreationDate="2014-03-29T10:08:10.563" UserId="1255" Comment="clean up english, copy recycling from comment/tag into title" Text="I have dead batteries and I want to know the best way to dispose of them, ideally by recycling. Here in Argentina there is almost nowhere to take them. We just put them in the garbage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6260" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="8c7675a6-6684-480b-83a3-01fdf285ba98" CreationDate="2014-03-29T10:08:10.563" UserId="1255" Comment="clean up english, copy recycling from comment/tag into title" Text="How do I recycle batteries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6261" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="8c7675a6-6684-480b-83a3-01fdf285ba98" CreationDate="2014-03-29T10:08:10.563" Comment="Proposed by 1255 approved by 48 edit id of 254" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6262" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2681" RevisionGUID="dd79b61f-f5d7-4377-b03e-db511bd9b5ff" CreationDate="2014-03-29T11:00:39.960" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/449863705686441984" />
  <row Id="6264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="152fbd72-ece5-4e87-8b75-f4390f6f491a" CreationDate="2014-04-02T02:29:15.307" UserId="1312" Text="I smoke in my home office room which is 20x30 feet. I have a wall mounted 12000btu aircon in the wall, and want to put a window fan, one of those 10 inch high and as wide as the window with twin fans to suck some of the smoke out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I vaguely remember getting lectured as a kid that running aircon with an open window is like trying to aircon the world. But I just can't remember what exactly the drawback is besides the room not being as cold as it can possibly be? Power bill increase or Damage to aircon or something toxic oozing out of the aircon?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to explain this to a non native english speaker who never lived around aircons and Googling for this answer only produces results for ceiling fans, since I guess everybody knows not to do it, so need to write about the reasons...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="152fbd72-ece5-4e87-8b75-f4390f6f491a" CreationDate="2014-04-02T02:29:15.307" UserId="1312" Text="Running aircon and window fan to blow cigarette smoke out, consequences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="152fbd72-ece5-4e87-8b75-f4390f6f491a" CreationDate="2014-04-02T02:29:15.307" UserId="1312" Text="|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2690" RevisionGUID="a5655c55-41aa-49b1-8edb-2370c0a43f97" CreationDate="2014-04-02T03:43:27.460" UserId="1255" Text="The main disadvantage is that you are sucking the cold air out of the room. If the aircon currently runs continuously the room will get warmer, but if it gets to your target temperature and the thermostat switches it off, the vent will make that happen less often so your power bill will go up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How bad that is depends on how hot the replacement air is. The hotter it is the less effective the air conditioner will be, and the more air it sucks out the hotter the room will be. Also, you need to seal around the outside edges of the extractor fan otherwise it will just be sucking air in around the outside and blowing it out through the middle. That makes it less effective at clearing the air  (but means you lose less cool).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally you'd have a vent coming into the room from somewhere cool, like under the house, so that the air coming in is as cool as possible. But if you're in an apartment chances are that air is coming in under the front door or leaking in around the windows. There's nothing you can really do to make that air cooler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost all the damage to the aircon will happen from the cigarette smoke, and the result of the extractor fan will be cleaner air inside, so there will be less overall damage to the air conditioner. I suggest cleaning the filters in the aircon much more often than the manual suggests because of the smoking, as the smoke will make those filters dirty much more quickly than expected. If not, you might get toxic cigarette sludge collecting in the aircon and eventually oozing out, but that will be reduced if you install an extractor fan, rather than made worse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6268" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2682" RevisionGUID="aa1440da-a9cd-4a62-b184-31cfe4ded597" CreationDate="2014-04-02T04:58:17.427" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2691" RevisionGUID="8c3d694e-65cf-42ed-9310-443608f057bf" CreationDate="2014-04-02T06:19:57.213" UserId="803" Text="The more sealed off a room is, the more efficient a AC is going to work. An ideal room would be 100% isolated and the aircon would only have to cool it down once and then it would stay cold. (This is very simplified, obviously that would mean that you don't have any fresh air).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now in reality there is always some heat leaking out and the AC has to work to compensate that. By introducing a fan into your window, or by opening your window you are making a lot more heat leak out and the AC has to work a lot more to compensate for that leaked air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So from a energy point of view it is a very bad idea to leave the window open or to install window fans. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know how much the difference is, I would suggest (provided it is a plug-in AC) to buy a [device that can determine how much power is used][1] and compare between a day where the window is open and one day where the window is closed. (At days of similar outside temperature of course). I would guess that you could save quite a substantial amount of money over the year by just going out to smoke. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Weanas-Energy-Voltage-Electricity-Monitor/dp/B00DTMQ1S6/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1396419567&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=electricity%20meter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2691" RevisionGUID="2ee647ce-2649-4f94-bf46-686288cc6386" CreationDate="2014-04-02T07:52:23.803" UserId="803" Comment="deleted 1 characters in body" Text="The more sealed off a room is, the more efficient a AC is going to work. An ideal room would be 100% isolated and the aircon would only have to cool it down once and then it would stay cold. (This is very simplified, obviously that would mean that you don't have any fresh air).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now in reality there is always some heat leaking in and the AC has to work to compensate that. By introducing a fan into your window, or by opening your window you are making a lot more heat leak out and the AC has to work a lot more to compensate for that leaked air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So from a energy point of view it is a very bad idea to leave the window open or to install window fans. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know how much the difference is, I would suggest (provided it is a plug-in AC) to buy a [device that can determine how much power is used][1] and compare between a day where the window is open and one day where the window is closed. (At days of similar outside temperature of course). I would guess that you could save quite a substantial amount of money over the year by just going out to smoke. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Weanas-Energy-Voltage-Electricity-Monitor/dp/B00DTMQ1S6/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1396419567&amp;sr=8-3&amp;keywords=electricity%20meter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6271" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2689" RevisionGUID="d64e2dc0-36f5-418c-ba63-5616e5890dc1" CreationDate="2014-04-02T08:00:53.787" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/451268017025191936" />
  <row Id="6272" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2680" RevisionGUID="497e794d-5f6d-4532-9aa7-6147955acca9" CreationDate="2014-04-02T12:42:18.370" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="995" RevisionGUID="9461f08e-6011-4ddb-90dc-9de79704837e" CreationDate="2014-04-02T13:39:47.960" UserId="99" Comment="Moderator edits article" Text="&lt;p&gt;Sustainable Living Stack Exchange is for folks dedicated to a lifestyle that can be maintained indefinitely without depleting available resources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for $SiteName, it may be on topic for &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/sites&quot;&gt;another Stack Exchange site&lt;/a&gt;. For example if your question has &lt;b&gt;no direct relation with sustainability&lt;/b&gt; and is about...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;gardening, ask on &lt;a href=&quot;http://gardening.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Gardening and Landscaping&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;do-it-yourself, ask on &lt;a href=&quot;http://diy.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Home Improvement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;money or finances, ask on &lt;a href=&quot;http://money.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Personal Finance &amp; Money&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;physics, ask on &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more help, see &lt;a href=&quot;/help/dont-ask&quot;&gt;&quot;What types of questions should I avoid asking?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6274" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="995" RevisionGUID="9461f08e-6011-4ddb-90dc-9de79704837e" CreationDate="2014-04-02T13:39:47.960" UserId="99" Comment="Moderator edits article" Text="What topics can I ask about here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2692" RevisionGUID="cb380072-d7fe-4baa-838f-16e778283290" CreationDate="2014-04-02T16:04:49.477" UserId="400" Text="You are correct.  It is greener, all other things being equal.  E.g. fiber is produced in similar ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 10% instead of the 12.5 percent may be because they include the box and the ream wrappings as part of the total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that lower weight comes from somewhere.  Usually it would be because the paper is thinner.  Thinner paper may be less opaque, which may in turn mean that double sided printing will show through under certain lighting conditions.  Thinner paper may require higher quality wood pulp.  It may not be strong enough if it uses low grade short fibers, or recycled fibers.  Hence my caveat, &quot;All other things being equal&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claim is for the same thickness, then the paper density is lower.  This implies stiffer cellulose fibers that resist compression better.  Not sure how that would be done.  Or perhaps they don't squeeze it as hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A third possibility:  The claim is untrue.  Buy a ream and weigh it alongside a ream of the other stuff.  Wouldn't be the first time that a marketing 'droid made a claim that he expected no one to actually check.  (As in a certain shaving cream that claimed to be able to shave the sand off of sand paper.  It did.  With a half hour soak.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paper is more that just wood pulp.  Many papers have small amounts of various minerals (kaolin clay, chalk,...) added.  This controls the way ink is absorbed, can add brightness to the paper, and the surface feel.  Newsprint is about as close as you come to a pure pulp paper.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's good that you are skeptical.  Steps you can take to check this out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0.  Weigh the paper.  Measure the thickness of the stack.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Ask the maker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Ask a sales rep of a company that doesn't offer such a product what the downside is of whatever process there competition is using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  I'm sure there is an umbrella organization, something like &quot;International Association of Paper Manufacturers&quot; that may have information about the process being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Green actions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Best:  Don't print it.  The page you don't use at all is the greenest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Next:  Print using the appropriate paper.  Can you use unbleached/recycled paper for internal use or for temporary documents?  Note that some papers are not good for printers/photocopiers.  Saving a ream of paper that cuts the life of your printer by a year is not a win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may mean having multiple printers on your local network with various grades of paper, or alternately having a sophisticated printer with multiple feed trays.  These are often not an unreasonable choice for any operation larger than a home office.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;80 gram paper that is 30% recycled fiber seems to me to be greener than 70 gram paper that has to be made from all new pulp to be strong enough.  (I don't know that this is the case.  It's just a possibility.)  Much depends on the recycle process compared to the new process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Next:  Use some thought in document layout.  With spread sheets I've often found that changing the page orientation, adjusting margins, etc can turn a 20 page document into a 6 page one.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Finally: Do you need to print the whole document?  Can you print just a page here and there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2693" RevisionGUID="8738fb84-107d-44fb-a197-8b83cfef9c50" CreationDate="2014-04-02T16:27:36.747" UserId="400" Text="It doesn't depend on how much you drive, although it may depend on where and how you drive.  I would argue that the best use for almost any vehicle is to use it until it is worn out. If it is running when you sell it, the next person is going to drive it, not scrap it.  There is a very large 'embodied energy' in a car.  Energy used to make the steel, run the factory, ship it to you.  SOMEONE is going to finish using that car up.  If it is to your economic advantage to be that someone, do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are comfortable with this, then the next concept is that it's better to own or at least use the most appropriate vehicle for the task at hand.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:  Right now our household owns a subaru outback and a chevy silverado.  The subaru gets almost 8 times the yearly miles on it that the truck does.  But the truck can haul a lift of plywood or 100 trees in #2 pots.  (I'm a tree farmer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have room, then your best strategy may be to keep the accord as being a roomy enough car for holidays, buy a hybrid for the daily commute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Medium efficient car vs small inefficient car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at the total lifespan of the vehicle.  Depending on the numbers, the Medium car may be overall cheaper.  Or not.  As a rule of thumb buy the smallest car that will do the job. But don't blind yourself to a used car.  Also look at the lifespan of the car.  A cheap small car that has to be replaced at 100,000 km is not a win.  Consumer Reports is THE goto for this sort of information.  They have figures for TCO for the first 5 years of ownership of almost every make out there.  While there is a difference between 5 years and TCO the first is a good indicator of the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hybrids vs Diesel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Europeans are getting good at making small diesel cars that get better gas milage than hybrids.  This is a multifold win:  Diesel is easier and less energy intensive to make than gasoline.  Diesel gets better mileage = less carbon burned.  Diesel engines tend to last forever.  Unfortunately these cars are not marketed in North America, mostly because they require lower sulfur diesel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hybrids vs All electric&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where does your power come from?  If you are using coal fired generators to charge your car, you are only exporting your carbon footprint.  And over all coal is worse than oil this way.  In addition at this point the technology used for all electric isn't sustainable.  There isn't enough lithium to make all the required batteries.  The hybrid uses batteries only as a load leveling device.  Overall the engine runs more efficiently at a more constant speed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2694" RevisionGUID="1e9d6ccd-f4a8-42ae-a253-eed06356ee4b" CreationDate="2014-04-02T16:31:28.320" UserId="400" Text="1.  If you are in a large city, drywall can be recycled into drywall.  Check with your local agency.  The grey stuff in drywall is mostly gypsum -- Calcium magnesium sulfate.  Yes it can be used as a soil amendment if you have neutral or acidic soils.  Read up before you do it.  It rototils reasonably easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Wood:  See above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Carpet.  Works great upside down as weed barrier cloth.  Cut in widths to fit the aisles in your garden, use around trees.  Decorate with wood chips if you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2690" RevisionGUID="f90fa152-e9dd-4351-8b76-b249f38c8be4" CreationDate="2014-04-02T21:52:00.693" UserId="1255" Comment="split a couple of really long run on sentences that just kept going and going because I don't really like using full stops, I prefer to use commas, as that's the way I talk." Text="The main disadvantage is that you are sucking the cold air out of the room. If the aircon currently runs continuously the room will get warmer, but if it gets to your target temperature and the thermostat switches it off, the vent will make that happen less often so your power bill will go up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How bad that is depends on how hot the replacement air is. The hotter it is the less effective the air conditioner will be, and the more air it sucks out the hotter the room will be. Also, you need to seal around the outside edges of the extractor fan otherwise it will just be sucking air in around the outside and blowing it out through the middle. That makes it less effective at clearing the air  (but means you lose less cool).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally you'd have a vent coming into the room from somewhere cool, like under the house, so that the air coming in is as cool as possible. But if you're in an apartment chances are that air is coming in under the front door or leaking in around the windows. There's nothing you can really do to make that air cooler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost all the damage to the aircon will happen from the cigarette smoke. Adding the extractor fan will make the air inside cleaner so there will be less overall damage to the air conditioner. I suggest cleaning the filters in the aircon much more often than the manual suggests because of the smoking. The smoke will make those filters dirty much more quickly than expected. If not, you might get toxic cigarette sludge collecting in the aircon and eventually oozing out. That problem will be reduced if you install an extractor fan." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2695" RevisionGUID="8ac80026-9c27-4325-a35d-3b88cd05d3e9" CreationDate="2014-04-03T05:16:03.277" UserId="450" Text="You could try to pass on whatever you don't want to other people, free-of-charge, via the [Freecycle Network][1]. The [Wikipedia article][2] provides an overview of that organization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.freecycle.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freecycle_Network" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2696" RevisionGUID="91ec209a-1c1c-4c7f-83ac-ad0be3a1af16" CreationDate="2014-04-03T08:05:38.587" UserId="99" Text="The original K-Cups are made from plastic [resin 7](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code), a type that is hard to recycle and may contain unhealthy materials like polystyrene. Also the cup consists of several materials that need to be recycled separately but cannot be separated easily (e.g. foil lid, plastic cup, filter, used coffee grounds). So the answer is &quot;No, K-Cups are not recyclable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;On [their website](http://www.keurig.com/customer-service/k-cups-and-beverages-support/frequently-asked-questions) Keurig confirms this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are very sensitive about the waste created by the K-Cup® packs and are investigating alternative materials. Finding a solution for this is a priority for us, and one we hope to have before long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keurig does have a slightly better system, the [Vue capsules that can be recycled](http://www.singleservecoffee.com/archives/039866.php) more easily provided your local waste processing facility recycles plastic resin nr5. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, according to [this treehugger blog](http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/even-recyclable-coffee-pods-arent.html), all cups, event the onces that call themselves recycable, usually end up on landfills because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cups are then recyclable — in theory. The problem is the cups are too small to be captured in most recycling facilities where machinery separates objects by size and density" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2696" RevisionGUID="8283958b-731b-46aa-8028-d1fb058efdc3" CreationDate="2014-04-03T10:16:30.027" UserId="99" Comment="more info on resin 7, fixed typo" Text="The original K-Cups are made from plastic [resin 7](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code), the catch-all 'other' plastics category. This means that the precise composition of the plastic is known only to the manufacturer. This category is also the most unsafe plastic healthwise. Plastic resin 7 is hard to recycle and usually goes to landfills. A second problem is that the K-Cups consists of several materials that need to be recycled separately but cannot be separated easily (e.g. foil lid, plastic cup, filter, used coffee grounds). So in short the answer is &quot;No, K-Cups are not recyclable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;On [their website](http://www.keurig.com/customer-service/k-cups-and-beverages-support/frequently-asked-questions) Keurig confirms this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are very sensitive about the waste created by the K-Cup® packs and are investigating alternative materials. Finding a solution for this is a priority for us, and one we hope to have before long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keurig does have a slightly better system, the [Vue capsules that can be recycled](http://www.singleservecoffee.com/archives/039866.php) more easily, that is if your local waste processing facility recycles plastic resin 5 (Polypropylene).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, according to [this treehugger blog](http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/even-recyclable-coffee-pods-arent.html), all cups, even the onces that call themselves recyclable, usually end up on landfills because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cups are then recyclable — in theory. The problem is the cups are too small to be captured in most recycling facilities where machinery separates objects by size and density" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="b2dd9551-4561-4b45-b9f7-4a517c3c1ab6" CreationDate="2014-04-04T06:51:46.457" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="the sustainable use of energy, through efficiency and renewables. Use this tag for questions on energy in general. For questions on a specific energy type see [electricity] or [heat]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="9927c84b-ae19-4714-9c8e-7031bae31814" CreationDate="2014-04-04T07:00:19.497" UserId="99" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="the process of creating compost: organic matter that has been decomposed and recycled as a fertilizer and soil amendment. For composting with worms see [vermicomposting]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2697" RevisionGUID="54512a18-7c5c-43a4-b6c2-12b2774a80d1" CreationDate="2014-04-04T07:05:18.657" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2698" RevisionGUID="e8bb7585-6c43-4d3e-a6e6-c5249b0f9944" CreationDate="2014-04-04T07:05:18.657" UserId="99" Text="the sum of all energy that was spent to create an object or deliver a service" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2699" RevisionGUID="e970f35c-0ec3-4476-b983-e9e60127a3b4" CreationDate="2014-04-05T00:15:19.237" UserId="1317" Text="Can standard light bulbs be recycled? If so, what is the best way to recycle them? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By standard, I mean non-energy-efficient bulbs that you find in most home light fixtures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2699" RevisionGUID="e970f35c-0ec3-4476-b983-e9e60127a3b4" CreationDate="2014-04-05T00:15:19.237" UserId="1317" Text="Are light bulbs recyclable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2699" RevisionGUID="e970f35c-0ec3-4476-b983-e9e60127a3b4" CreationDate="2014-04-05T00:15:19.237" UserId="1317" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2700" RevisionGUID="538c2f27-8b02-497e-bfac-62996d1029c4" CreationDate="2014-04-05T01:52:15.343" UserId="1317" Text="Any type of micro-green is generally very easy to grow, but I have seen people grow tomatoes, squash, peppers, etc. As long as you have the room and the light required otherwise, you shouldn't have a problem growing food in an aquaponic system that you wouldn't otherwise have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6293" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2699" RevisionGUID="5d05179d-d18e-475c-bcdc-69692e287878" CreationDate="2014-04-05T20:06:45.280" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/452537847749558272" />
  <row Id="6294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2702" RevisionGUID="17484473-53a5-4eea-8223-f5f78cd9dbeb" CreationDate="2014-04-06T08:37:17.590" UserId="80" Text="I assume you are talking here about [incandescent light bulbs][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From looking around the Internet and from my personal experience, here is what I can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In the countries I have lived in (France and Australia), I have always read that incandescent light bulbs should be thrown in the general waste bins.&#xD;&#xA; - These kinds of specific recycling streams really depend on what is&#xD;&#xA;   available locally. Search for organisations specialised in recycling&#xD;&#xA;   less &quot;conventional&quot; kinds of waste in your area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I understand that, at least in developed countries, this kind of technology is getting replaced by more efficient light bulbs, which means that the availability of such recycling services is deemed to decrease over time.&#xD;&#xA; - The glass part of the bulb is so thin that the appeal to recycle it is low. I am not sure about the cap (metal) part and the wires, but again, it might be too little an amount to justify the inclusion of a separate stream in the existing recycling schemes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is the option of recycling at home: a search with the terms &quot;light bulb upcycling&quot; on any search engine will yield a number of great ideas to achieve that (including nice-looking flower vases). However, the glass might be dangerous to manipulate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2704" RevisionGUID="44a63b5d-46f6-4303-bd55-8043763335e4" CreationDate="2014-04-07T05:48:31.957" UserId="1326" Text="Are there any resources or databases that catalog how companies perform along ethical or sustainable lines? I'm particularly interested in things like workers rights and pay, affect on the environment, etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6299" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2704" RevisionGUID="44a63b5d-46f6-4303-bd55-8043763335e4" CreationDate="2014-04-07T05:48:31.957" UserId="1326" Text="Sustainable and ethical business resources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6300" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2704" RevisionGUID="44a63b5d-46f6-4303-bd55-8043763335e4" CreationDate="2014-04-07T05:48:31.957" UserId="1326" Text="|energy|ecological-footprint|economy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2705" RevisionGUID="d04c153f-8963-430f-ae19-d5e4276a987e" CreationDate="2014-04-07T09:24:14.267" UserId="99" Text="There are several databases like this online. Just google on 'sustainability OR csr database companies' and you’ll find a lot of hits. However, I have found that very few are easy to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the [Sustainability Disclosure Database](http://database.globalreporting.org/) lists data on thousands of companies on sustainability and environmental and social and governance transparency. I did try to use it once, but I quickly gave up because I didn't really understand how it works and what everything means. The site is too complicated for me (a non-professional) to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example that seems easier to use is [CSRHUB](http://www.csrhub.com/csrhub/) but it requires a subscription to access in-depth information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A site I am familiar with and often use is [rankabrand.org](http://www.rankabrand.org). It ranks brands (so not companies) according to information found on a company website and in their annual reports. Rankabrand assesses brands on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their environmental performances, climate change efforts and labour conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no information is present on a particular topic, the brand gets 0 points so it is indirectly ranking transparency as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6307" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2704" RevisionGUID="fb757b8a-13d8-49e9-abe4-19d1c78d23f1" CreationDate="2014-04-07T11:07:07.013" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|ecological-footprint|economy|csr|cs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2706" RevisionGUID="6fcdeaad-26bb-459b-a747-80fdce5cc684" CreationDate="2014-04-07T11:11:02.913" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2707" RevisionGUID="e5caadf3-3fbf-4150-9236-b38639debcfd" CreationDate="2014-04-07T11:11:02.913" UserId="99" Text="corporate sustainability; strategies and practices of a company to provide added value and long-term growth by taking into account the sustainability, environmental and social issues of their business. This includes [csr]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2708" RevisionGUID="8dfdbc56-7dc2-4adc-b770-75dd95b73374" CreationDate="2014-04-07T11:55:26.400" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2709" RevisionGUID="03603c47-c562-4bf4-9b95-8bc8bb5130e5" CreationDate="2014-04-07T11:55:26.400" UserId="99" Text="Corporate Social Responsibility; strategies and policies of a company to improve the economic, social and environmental impact of it's activities. See also [CS]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2710" RevisionGUID="790973c2-e817-42b8-a16c-460267095245" CreationDate="2014-04-07T20:29:19.270" UserId="57" Text="If you're a gardener, you can [use them as slug bait][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another use I've found for them is making infused vinegar for cleaning. Stuff a few peels into the bottom of a big jar and fill it up with any kind of cheap vinegar (I use apple cider,) then let it sit for a day or two and you've got a non-toxic cleaner with a comparatively bearable smell. Apparently you can also [make vinegar from scratch with it][2] by combining it with water and yeast. You might be able to use it for cooking, but as jkj pointed out, be wary of pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Citrus peels make cute serving containers for sherbet, but since most people don't eat the peel this really only defers the re-use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more preserving fun you might also consider making [orange marmalade or an orange version of limoncello][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://lifehacker.com/5583176/draft-keep-your-yard-and-garden-pest-free-without-harsh-chemicals&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.homepreservingbible.com/tag/orange-peel/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2712" RevisionGUID="f83cddca-6e85-4a60-9e20-f06ae510ac0c" CreationDate="2014-04-07T22:23:19.337" UserId="15" Text="Silicone seems to be used in more and more products over time. At home, I have a silicone oven mitt, silicone bakeware, (partly) silicone tongs, and a silicone bowl-scraper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like a very inert substance, and I haven't seen any deterioration of the above items in the time I've owned them. However, very little lasts forever, and I've been wondering what happens to silicone when it starts to break down, especially when it's in contact with food. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it start to release potentially-toxic chemicals like plastic does when it breaks down?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, are there any particularly nasty chemicals used or released in its manufacture?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it helps: I had one re-usable container lid that may have been lined with silicone, and it seemed to break down after about 4 years of regular use. It became weak (started to get small tears along the edge) and sticky to touch. I'm not sure it was silicone, but it may have been." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6315" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2712" RevisionGUID="f83cddca-6e85-4a60-9e20-f06ae510ac0c" CreationDate="2014-04-07T22:23:19.337" UserId="15" Text="How safe is it to manufacture and use silicone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6316" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2712" RevisionGUID="f83cddca-6e85-4a60-9e20-f06ae510ac0c" CreationDate="2014-04-07T22:23:19.337" UserId="15" Text="|food|toxic-chemicals|safety|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2713" RevisionGUID="0a4bd311-a8d7-4d31-b476-ad45d9d2b013" CreationDate="2014-04-08T17:53:25.393" UserId="1091" Text="I read [this beauty-oriented article][1] claiming that canned fish is more sustainable than fresh fish. Is this true? Listed below is a brief energy/sustainability brain dump on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canned fish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- does not have to be refrigerated&#xD;&#xA;- fuel to build, fit and run the factory that makes the cans and transports them&#xD;&#xA;- fuel to build, fit and run the canning factory&#xD;&#xA;- sourcing and transport of oil to factory (for fish in oil) OR use of clean water (for fish in water, and the energy to make water used potable)&#xD;&#xA;- energy to recycle the can, or zero if it just rusts somewhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fresh fish:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- could be smoked (energy of fire, CO2 released from fire)&#xD;&#xA;- could to be refrigerated (energy of refrigerator, its manufacture)&#xD;&#xA;- could be put on ice (energy to create the ice and energy to make water potable, or energy to make bag to put fish on non-potable ice, or no energy if it's winter)&#xD;&#xA;- could be salted (energy to mine the salt, transport it)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are probably factors I haven't taken into account.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.xovain.com/skin/greasy-canned-fish-for-better-skin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2713" RevisionGUID="0a4bd311-a8d7-4d31-b476-ad45d9d2b013" CreationDate="2014-04-08T17:53:25.393" UserId="1091" Text="Is canned fish more sustainable than fresh?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2713" RevisionGUID="0a4bd311-a8d7-4d31-b476-ad45d9d2b013" CreationDate="2014-04-08T17:53:25.393" UserId="1091" Text="|energy|ecological-footprint|fish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2714" RevisionGUID="26e219b9-6b34-4aff-9706-391127e03531" CreationDate="2014-04-09T03:04:59.013" UserId="1317" Text="I want to set up a rain barrel to collect water to use in my garden. Any ideas on how I can do this using only or mostly upcycled materials (cheaply)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2714" RevisionGUID="26e219b9-6b34-4aff-9706-391127e03531" CreationDate="2014-04-09T03:04:59.013" UserId="1317" Text="What items can I reuse to make my own homemade rain barrel on the cheap?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2714" RevisionGUID="26e219b9-6b34-4aff-9706-391127e03531" CreationDate="2014-04-09T03:04:59.013" UserId="1317" Text="|water|gardening|water-management|upcycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6326" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="9ef2263c-33ab-4bef-8ddb-403180c9a93c" CreationDate="2014-04-09T06:53:34.403" UserId="80" Comment="I thought I would make the title and the tagging more specific according to the question... ?" Text="How do I recycle batteries in Argentina?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6327" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="9ef2263c-33ab-4bef-8ddb-403180c9a93c" CreationDate="2014-04-09T06:53:34.403" UserId="80" Comment="I thought I would make the title and the tagging more specific according to the question... ?" Text="|recycling|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6328" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2683" RevisionGUID="9ef2263c-33ab-4bef-8ddb-403180c9a93c" CreationDate="2014-04-09T06:53:34.403" Comment="Proposed by 80 approved by 96, 48 edit id of 255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6329" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2714" RevisionGUID="f4bbb918-571c-46c4-a498-cc555b372f80" CreationDate="2014-04-09T08:27:24.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/453811402369937408" />
  <row Id="6330" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2713" RevisionGUID="8db14dfe-cc4f-49f4-8acb-8e3589a95261" CreationDate="2014-04-09T11:27:24.170" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/453856700718940160" />
  <row Id="6331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2715" RevisionGUID="787700f3-eee4-49d6-805a-890839a29f78" CreationDate="2014-04-09T14:57:51.150" UserId="778" Text=" I've found an abundance of ~50 gal. food grade barrels which I use for rain barrels on Craigslist and other local papers etc. I certainly consider this up-cycled and by the time you spend making another type of container water tight, the small cost far outweighs this in my experience. Further, these containers come with a threaded, 2-piece screw type lid. Basically the same as a mason jar works. you can then either modify the center 'lid' to accommodate your downspout, or you can do what I do and just lay over a piece of screen, and then screw down the 'ring' over it. This keeps debris and mosquito out.&#xD;&#xA;The plastic is generally HDPE and easily accommodates a tap with some simple drilling. This is the only way to go in my opinion.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2717" RevisionGUID="4cf9bcca-1a76-443d-91fc-435e1288e1a2" CreationDate="2014-04-09T22:56:46.543" UserId="659" Text="I went through this a few years ago and [wrote it up on my website][1]. Prices and links are all Australian, but the idea stands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![DIY rainwater tanks][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big discovery for me was that there are people who are in the business of finding waterproof drums and reselling them. If you can find one of those in your area they will offer a range of shapes and sizes, and possibly trade-off a little bit of extra expense for a lot of time. Or maybe they'll be cheaper, you won't know until you try. The one I found was cheaper than any other source. But mostly they had about 20 different size and shapes of barrels, and had some hard-to-sell ones they were willing to give me even cheaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From talking to people I found that the open-top barrels were somewhat painful to deal with as they had a bit top opening for relatively little storage capacity. The sealed barrels with a tap fitting at the bottom worked better, and it's easy to cut whatever size hole you want in the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot depends on what tools you have or are willing to buy. I had a battery drill, so buying a cheap holesaw meant I could make holes to fit the pipe I bought. That made linking everything up very easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to buy new material, linking to the guttering is going to be tricky. I spent a lot of time and effort (not documented above) trying to get a header tank above our toilet window to fill from the gutter. I gave up, it was easier just to fill the tanks on the ground and pump or bucket water around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest buying decent taps for the tanks, filling buckets from the top of the tank is hard work (I do it because I'm impatient, everyone else in the house waits for the tap to fill the bucket. But taps have to go at the bottom of the tank, so if they leak your tank empties. Buy some flexible silicon sealant and decent taps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://moz.net.nz/photo/2008/11/19-rainwater-tanks/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CrTlw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2717" RevisionGUID="4af235fa-2c7e-4ab0-bdd9-5930dff6bb98" CreationDate="2014-04-10T00:11:12.373" UserId="659" Comment="spelling!" Text="I went through this a few years ago and [wrote it up on my website][1]. Prices and links are all Australian, but the idea stands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![DIY rainwater tanks][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big discovery for me was that there are people who are in the business of finding waterproof drums and reselling them. If you can find one of those in your area they will offer a range of shapes and sizes, and possibly trade-off a little bit of extra expense for a lot of time. Or maybe they'll be cheaper, you won't know until you try. The one I found was cheaper than any other source. But mostly they had about 20 different sizes and shapes of barrels, and had some hard-to-sell ones they were willing to give me even cheaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From talking to people I found that the open-top barrels were somewhat painful to deal with as they had a big top opening for relatively little storage capacity. The sealed barrels with a tap fitting at the bottom worked better, and it's easy to cut whatever size hole you want in the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot depends on what tools you have or are willing to buy. I had a battery drill, so buying a cheap holesaw meant I could make holes to fit the pipe I bought. That made linking everything up very easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to buy new material, linking to the guttering is going to be tricky. I spent a lot of time and effort (not documented above) trying to get a header tank above our toilet window to fill from the gutter. I gave up, it was easier just to fill the tanks on the ground and pump or bucket water around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest buying decent taps for the tanks, filling buckets from the top of the tank is hard work (I do it because I'm impatient, everyone else in the house waits for the tap to fill the bucket. But taps have to go at the bottom of the tank, so if they leak your tank empties. Buy some flexible silicon sealant and decent taps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://moz.net.nz/photo/2008/11/19-rainwater-tanks/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CrTlw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2718" RevisionGUID="1def4f8a-7769-49e2-9862-91098c7f3703" CreationDate="2014-04-10T04:07:40.873" UserId="794" Text="Your question is slightly vague so I'm sorry of my answer is.  Since corporate and capitalistic models don't work for you, I tend to agree, look into WSDEs or  worker self directed enterprises.  You might find a model that works for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.rdwolff.com/content/who-needs-boss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.democracyatwork.info/learn/?topic=form" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2508" RevisionGUID="36a2874b-5641-4cd7-bf2c-5000264ca3dc" CreationDate="2014-04-10T07:22:28.183" UserId="99" Comment="it's actually LDPE from which the most plastic bags are made, not PET" Text="Most non-biodegradable plastic bags are made of [Polyethylene (PE)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene) and often have a marking or logo like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may also be a marking that say 'PE-HD', 'LDPE' or 'PE-LD'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bags that are biodegradable usually have a logo on it containing the words 'biodegradable' and/or 'compostable', e.g. something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]![enter image description here][4]![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no logo or description it's most likely PE, but I don't think you can know for sure unless you get the bag tested in a lab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, all types of plastic will degrade very slowly under normal circumstances. I don't think biodegradable plastics degrade much faster than non-biodegradable plastics. Most biodegradable plastic bags are made from [Polythene film](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_polythene_film) or corn-based materials like [Polyactic Acid (PLA)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid). For biodegradable plastics to degrade (in a reasonable timeframe) they need to be heated to very high temperatures for several days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Dd155.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CGaoU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7TWjJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hL8Vv.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xSIl.gif&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6341" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2712" RevisionGUID="708460d6-8f67-456b-bb0b-e6d15d3c50d6" CreationDate="2014-04-10T08:27:33.010" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/454173826377871360" />
  <row Id="6342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2721" RevisionGUID="36eead23-1758-479c-aaf2-0a94b2c01f26" CreationDate="2014-04-10T11:12:02.450" UserId="803" Text="I think you are referring to forgetting to bring the reusable bags when you go shopping. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the same problem and I think the easiest solution is to always have one or several bags on you. For me this means that my reusable bag always stays in my bag pack, which I take out everyday anyway. Depending on your situation, that might mean to put them into your handbag or into your car, depending on what you always take with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may seem stupid to carry around an item which you might not use, but a bag or two is really lightweight and if folded correctly takes up almost no space at all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me this made really the difference of not using any plastic/paper bags any more. In the event that I do forget the bag, I &quot;punish&quot; myself by carrying all the items awkwardly on my hands, which usually makes me remember to take it next time. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2629" RevisionGUID="0279eed5-84f7-45d6-b101-2fcc0e6530c9" CreationDate="2014-04-10T17:24:49.150" UserId="1238" Comment="reword title" Text="I have a small aquafarm, and I have a couple of danios and a cory in it.  When I started out, I put some wheatgrass in it, and that grew like crazy.  I want to put some variety into it.  Does anyone have recommendations for edible plants?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I revised the title to get more informative answers on what attributes a plant should have to thrive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6345" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2629" RevisionGUID="0279eed5-84f7-45d6-b101-2fcc0e6530c9" CreationDate="2014-04-10T17:24:49.150" UserId="1238" Comment="reword title" Text="What makes a food plant good for a small aquaponics system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2722" RevisionGUID="3dd779fe-fca8-4a25-9de2-ad70853a8d4c" CreationDate="2014-04-10T17:55:11.637" UserId="1238" Text="It depends on where you need to get your fish from.  If you live in a town that has an active fishing industry, or you have local fish farms, I would say your local fresh fish is the best option.  Eat it as soon as possible so you don't have to waste energy keeping it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have no local fish options, canned or otherwise preserved fish may be a more sustainable, if less healthy, alternative to having fish packed in ice/freezers flown in from wherever it's caught/harvested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2723" RevisionGUID="4402c8ab-cc1a-4dba-a3e3-5d91712d4730" CreationDate="2014-04-10T21:16:28.757" UserId="1182" Text="We (my family) consume good amounts of bacon which produce a lot of bacon grease. I don't like wasting anything that I could reuse or repurpose, including this.  &#xD;&#xA;I use this byproduct in many different ways, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **cooking**. Filtered it can be used in cooking other foods or greasing the pans.&#xD;&#xA; - **pet food**. Mixed with other foods, it is a good addition to the animals' diet.&#xD;&#xA; - **lubricant**. Good for certain tools, or snow sleds.&#xD;&#xA; - **candles**. Good source of light while camping or in the back yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to find out more uses, if any, of this &quot;unwanted&quot; byproduct, the bacon grease.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6348" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2723" RevisionGUID="4402c8ab-cc1a-4dba-a3e3-5d91712d4730" CreationDate="2014-04-10T21:16:28.757" UserId="1182" Text="More uses of bacon grease" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6349" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2723" RevisionGUID="4402c8ab-cc1a-4dba-a3e3-5d91712d4730" CreationDate="2014-04-10T21:16:28.757" UserId="1182" Text="|waste|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6350" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2723" RevisionGUID="99375f27-59fd-488a-90e0-1ead0ca32031" CreationDate="2014-04-10T21:54:08.113" UserId="1182" Comment="edited title" Text="More uses for bacon grease" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6353" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2723" RevisionGUID="ce470482-16d1-4337-8b1f-f971170ab352" CreationDate="2014-04-11T08:32:55.827" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/454537568248664064" />
  <row Id="6354" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2704" RevisionGUID="f20cdd0f-098e-4b8d-8ed3-6c888f08e942" CreationDate="2014-04-11T11:32:55.583" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/454582866081759232" />
  <row Id="6355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2724" RevisionGUID="65cecefa-09b2-4df4-a70a-d8750ed3e0d9" CreationDate="2014-04-11T16:02:32.057" UserId="1091" Text="I keep a vermicompost bin and I sometimes worry that I haven't given the worms enough food or if it's not wet enough. How can I keep track of the worm's general health?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6356" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2724" RevisionGUID="65cecefa-09b2-4df4-a70a-d8750ed3e0d9" CreationDate="2014-04-11T16:02:32.057" UserId="1091" Text="How can I tell whether my earthworms are healthy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6357" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2724" RevisionGUID="65cecefa-09b2-4df4-a70a-d8750ed3e0d9" CreationDate="2014-04-11T16:02:32.057" UserId="1091" Text="|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2725" RevisionGUID="1ee5a144-c328-43b2-9f99-8d20a47b41b2" CreationDate="2014-04-11T19:47:05.437" UserId="624" Text="If the worms are growing (dig down and check on this every now and then), eating (new food should disappear from the surface in just a few days), pooping (leaving casings on the top of the worm bin soil) and reproducing (really healthy bins get so full of worms that some of them need to be &quot;re-homed&quot; on a regular basis), then they are doing well.  If food left on top doesn't show signs of being eaten, if the worm bed smells, or the worms stay small and don't multiply, then you need to check on how you are feeding them and how warm and moist the contents of the worm bin are.  &#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2726" RevisionGUID="2cf3acf4-c8ea-4257-8eb6-fba3d1979da0" CreationDate="2014-04-11T20:10:23.107" UserId="64" Text="I received a similar question on my own website a while back, and was surprised when I researched the answer. I thought it was mostly newer technology light bulbs that were recycled to avoid ewaste, etc, but my research indicated that some places will recycle incandescent bulbs as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're in the United States and looking to put them in your curbside bin, the answer is almost definitely &quot;no,&quot; but you might look for a home improvement store in the area. Try searching [Earth911][1] for CFL recycling, and you'll get a list of the ones in the area that accept those bulbs. I made a few calls regionally to places that accepted them, and they said they also accept incandescent bulbs. That said, who knows what they do with them, and if they'll just throw them away when they sort the bulbs or not. But you might call one in your area and find out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://search.earth911.com/?what=light%20bulbs&amp;where=Los%20Angeles,%20CA&amp;list_filter=all&amp;max_distance=25&amp;family_id=&amp;latitude=&amp;longitude=&amp;country=&amp;province=&amp;city=" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2727" RevisionGUID="c4a02985-5bfb-4639-8eb3-7ecced4551ab" CreationDate="2014-04-12T01:06:24.587" UserId="453" Text="A study of **canned** mackerel and herring shows that the production of the aluminium can is responsible for most of the products carbon footprint (Buchspies et al. 2011). Impacts associated to transport are slightly smaller compared to frozen codfish. Storage of frozen fish obviously requires more energy than storage of canned products, however it doesn't seem to be enough to shift the balance (see figure below). Keep in mind that we are comparing different fish here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Buchspies et al. 2011][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you mentioned **fresh** fish may require additional energy in the form of ice and packaging material production. A while ago I conducted a life cycle assessment of fresh sardines that, occasionally, when the market was saturated were also canned. The canning didn't take place close to the landing site. So either way frozen or chilled transport was necessary. Furthermore, the fresh sardines were marketed within hours, essentially eliminating storage. Judging from that I cannot imagine that the benefits of canned products (energy free and unlimited storage, condensed transport) outweigh the vast processing effort, especially regarding the production of aluminium cans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Buchspies, B., Tölle, S.J., and Jungbluth, N. (2011). Life Cycle Assessment of High-Sea Fish and Salmon Aquaculture. ESU-Services Ltd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/umxA6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6362" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2724" RevisionGUID="48c954dc-0172-4a2e-abdf-e85be28aa9d6" CreationDate="2014-04-12T02:33:19.220" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/454809457198112768" />
  <row Id="6363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2699" RevisionGUID="700ebb30-ace9-4a2c-86d8-064733793f95" CreationDate="2014-04-13T00:11:25.313" UserId="-1" Comment="clarify that it's incandescent bulbs" Text="Can standard incandescent (i.e., non-energy-efficient) light bulbs be recycled? If so, what is the best way to recycle them? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6364" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2699" RevisionGUID="700ebb30-ace9-4a2c-86d8-064733793f95" CreationDate="2014-04-13T00:11:25.313" UserId="-1" Comment="clarify that it's incandescent bulbs" Text="Are incandescent light bulbs recyclable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6365" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2699" RevisionGUID="700ebb30-ace9-4a2c-86d8-064733793f95" CreationDate="2014-04-13T00:11:25.313" UserId="-1" Comment="clarify that it's incandescent bulbs" Text="|recycling|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6366" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2699" RevisionGUID="700ebb30-ace9-4a2c-86d8-064733793f95" CreationDate="2014-04-13T00:11:25.313" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 659, 1317 edit id of 256" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2728" RevisionGUID="9b965491-cc3f-40b8-a31b-60d66ee47077" CreationDate="2014-04-13T00:38:07.483" UserId="872" Text="Ecovillages and other intentional communities sometimes have a member application or selection process where (for example) prospective members answer set questions on a form, are interviewed by a selection panel and perhaps even asked to undergo a criminal history check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, how effectively does this help attract valuable members and weed out undesirable members?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2728" RevisionGUID="9b965491-cc3f-40b8-a31b-60d66ee47077" CreationDate="2014-04-13T00:38:07.483" UserId="872" Text="How effective is an ecovilage/intentional community member selection process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2728" RevisionGUID="9b965491-cc3f-40b8-a31b-60d66ee47077" CreationDate="2014-04-13T00:38:07.483" UserId="872" Text="|lifestyle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6370" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2728" RevisionGUID="4af65163-a1fb-4a11-8034-d36f21500d3a" CreationDate="2014-04-13T11:38:02.373" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/455308928151453696" />
  <row Id="6371" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2676" RevisionGUID="89a1428d-3547-4f3f-9091-c003d13165ff" CreationDate="2014-04-13T23:39:49.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/455490569901723648" />
  <row Id="6376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2730" RevisionGUID="f69d7fcb-3f87-4285-8e18-7b4967bae79d" CreationDate="2014-04-14T10:39:15.603" UserId="99" Text="A general rule is if you dig around carefully in your bin and you see worms of all sizes, ranging from tiny baby worms to large adult worms, as well as worm cocoons (small white-brown eggs that look like seeds), then the worms are procreating fine and should be ok and healthy. Just don't check this too often, because worms don't like to be disturbed.&#xD;&#xA;Other clues that you are doing ok are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - bin has an earthy smell&#xD;&#xA;  - worms have a glistening skin&#xD;&#xA;  - there is sufficient air in the bedding&#xD;&#xA;  - bedding is disappearing over time&#xD;&#xA;  - worm castings are accumulating&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;A clue that something is wrong is if you only see adult worms, or if worms are trying to escape your bin (unless you have a dark bin where the walls get moist, then worms may try to escape even if conditions are fine). Other bad clues are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - bin is smelling sour&#xD;&#xA;  - worms look dry&#xD;&#xA;  - material is becoming a soggy clump, leaving little air for the worms to breath&#xD;&#xA;  - one particular critter species seems to be taking over the bin (e.g. fruit flies, mites, maggots, ants).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Moisture:**&#xD;&#xA;To check the moisture level, take a bit of material from the bin and squeeze it in your hand. If one or two drops of water come out then it is just moist enough (for most worm types). If more comes out, your bin is probably too wet. Another clue that the bin is too wet is if it is starting to smell sour. Some worm types such as the [Eisenia Hortensis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_nightcrawler) like it a bit more wet.&#xD;&#xA;Personally I almost never add water because my kitchen scraps will contain enough water already and my bin will retain that water very well (because it's plastic).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Feeding:**&#xD;&#xA;How much food to give depends on a lot of factors. How many worms you have, the available surface in your bin, the temperature in the bin (below a certain temperature worms stop eating), the type of food.&#xD;&#xA;Worms won't eat fresh scraps immediately (they don't have teeth), instead they suck up the parts that are decomposing. If you see a lot of decomposing or still fresh-looking food then don't feed them yet. Wait until it has disappeared a bit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good strategy for feeding is to create several 'pockets' in your bin. Fill a pocket with food and check if the worms are starting to eat from it. As soon as they do, start filling another pocket. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, if you really want to keep your worms healthy, try to feed them organic foods as much as possible. Many non-organic fruit and vegetables contain pesticides that are bad for the worms and the microorganisms in the compost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6377" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2678" RevisionGUID="40dace79-9c1a-4b53-b731-0d4da1aa5253" CreationDate="2014-04-14T23:43:58.143" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/455854002128060416" />
  <row Id="6382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2732" RevisionGUID="032eff2c-a469-421e-8ee9-4c48041167d6" CreationDate="2014-04-15T20:08:45.303" UserId="624" Text="You can also &quot;wash&quot; the grease to remove meat bits and smoke flavor and use it for soapmaking. Even if you can't get all the smoke scent out, bacon-scented anything is in style these days, so the bars might still make good gifts.  ;-)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is [a link to a process for rendering tallow][1] that should also work for bacon grease.  The basic process works by placing the grease into a pot (crockpots work especially well) and covering it with enough water to submerge the fat chunks or grease.  Let it cook on low for a time, cool it off, lift the fat from the top of the pan, pour out the remaining water and meat bits, and repeat until you get a product that's clean enough for your uses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/soap-making-with-tallow-zmaz72jfzfre.aspx#axzz2yzIEoMf9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2733" RevisionGUID="6dc93848-178d-4f31-adef-edd05773cfdb" CreationDate="2014-04-16T16:17:34.490" UserId="1358" Text="No you wont save any fuel You should remember that it takes a lot of energy to start the engine, this intially comes from the battery,however, as soon as the engine starts this energy must be replenished by the engine, and this is more than is required to crank engine,(because the battery is only 70% efficient)also all electrical loads are supplied by the battery when engine is stopped, when engine is running these loads are from alternator,(less losses). When you start engine,you have to drive something like 5-8 miles to recharge,so if you are stopped at traffic lights for 5 minuites you have to add this to the 5 mile equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;So in reality it can take more fuel! People are stupid thinking they can get something for nothing,like the high MPG of hybrid cars where the diesel or petrol engine is driving an alternator,loss 70%. rectifier,controller and motor loss 30%,instead of the engine driving the wheels directly, owners have discovered this, agaist all the Manufactures blub!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2734" RevisionGUID="2d536e17-bd1e-45ab-a196-2bb5db6d6836" CreationDate="2014-04-16T19:43:33.320" UserId="1178" Text="what exactly do you wish to contribute to ? do you want to improve existing technology used in electric cars or solar panels? then an mba would serve no purpose,  imho. &#xD;&#xA;or do you want to help increase the production, marketing and sales of electric cars or solar panels and maybe manage and help grow the business of a company dedicated to sustainability like Tesla Motors or Solar City? then an mba would fit in.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2733" RevisionGUID="118a4f7f-cf20-43a5-81ea-f84f492689b7" CreationDate="2014-04-16T19:47:10.970" UserId="99" Comment="fixed spelling" Text="No, you won't save any fuel. You should remember that it takes a lot of energy to start the engine. This intially comes from the battery. However as soon as the engine starts this energy must be replenished by the engine and this is more than is required to crank the engine (because the battery is only 70% efficient). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also all electrical loads are supplied by the battery when the engine is stopped. When the engine is running these loads are from the alternator (less losses). When you start your engine, you have to drive something like 5-8 miles to recharge. So if you are stopped at traffic lights for 5 minutes you have to add this to the 5 mile equivalent. So in reality it can cost more fuel! People are wrong thinking they can get something for nothing, like the high MPG of hybrid cars where the diesel or petrol engine is driving an alternator, loss 70%. rectifier, controller and motor loss 30%, instead of the engine driving the wheels directly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2735" RevisionGUID="f5632900-3f4f-4f0f-8a87-dab8c010f9d8" CreationDate="2014-04-16T22:27:00.617" UserId="1349" Text="Any check is better than no check. But people are very good at selling themselves. They can say one thing and have intentions you do not suspect. For instance, they may agree to rules about dogs, loud music, working bees, but in the back of their mind know that once they're in, they will do whatever they like—build a meth lab, perhaps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have heard enough stories to fill five books about people who were &quot;ideal candidates&quot; but ended up being nightmare neighbors, often refusing to leave and turning into squatters. I know people who are dealing with such issues at the very moment. It is not easy. You want to be optimistic and believe in people, but reality says otherwise, again and again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best check you can have is a probation period, preferably a long one. Over the course of a year, you can start to get a sense of what someone is made of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even so, there is no way to ensure yourself against bad surprises. People change partners. They have children. Children become teenagers who do not embrace their parents' values. And on and on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, the communities that work the best are those with an ideological or spiritual component: for instance, people with the same Guru or Christian or Buddhist faith. This spiritual or ideological component acts as a glue, a &quot;greater purpose&quot; that keep people together. Of course this is only an observation—I am not advocating this as a solution for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2736" RevisionGUID="fdecd99a-8ea1-4b6f-9515-8b3873dccf09" CreationDate="2014-04-17T01:13:06.357" UserId="453" Text="I cannot give an answer for your car specifically but I found an interesting study (Spielmann &amp; Althaus 2006) exploring the options of buying a new car or continue on using an older model for Swiss passenger cars. It is concluded that a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  &quot;prolonged car use [is] the environmentally better option. As a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consequence of the continuous use of the car representing 2000 average&#xD;&#xA;&gt; technology, the components ‘vehicle travel’ [includes &quot;exhaust and abrasion emissions&quot;] and ‘fuel chain’ [&quot;supply of fuels&quot;]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; show a 10% and 9% [worse] performance, respectively. This effect is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compensated by savings in ‘car infrastructure’ [manufacturing, maintenance and disposal of cars] (26%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm surprised that there is not more of a difference. In simple words; it is more &quot;sustainable&quot; to use your car until the end of its lifetime (15 years of use as opposed to replacing after 5 years - as defined in the study).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: Spielmann M &amp; Althaus HJ 2006: Can a prolonged use of a passenger car reduce environmental burdens? Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 1122-1134. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652606002514&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="4958b6af-02be-431c-b7e8-b9ba5caa13e4" CreationDate="2014-04-17T17:27:20.847" UserId="1091" Text="I bought some biodegradable/natural dish soap from the brand BioVert. I put it in a squeeze bottle left over from some other dish soap, and after some time (maybe 2 months?) there started to be blue dots inside the bottle and the soap itself turned cloudy and tinted blue. How do I keep this from happening in the future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6391" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="4958b6af-02be-431c-b7e8-b9ba5caa13e4" CreationDate="2014-04-17T17:27:20.847" UserId="1091" Text="How can I keep my natural dish soap from going bad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6392" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="4958b6af-02be-431c-b7e8-b9ba5caa13e4" CreationDate="2014-04-17T17:27:20.847" UserId="1091" Text="|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2718" RevisionGUID="207db2a6-9a79-4200-b133-402a2b34f532" CreationDate="2014-04-18T01:58:50.960" UserId="794" Comment="added 456 characters in body" Text="Your question is slightly vague so I'm sorry of my answer is.  Since corporate and capitalistic models don't work for you, I tend to agree, look into WSDEs or  worker self directed enterprises.  You might find a model that works for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.rdwolff.com/content/who-needs-boss&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.democracyatwork.info/learn/?topic=form&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worker self directed enterprise is basically employee owned business.  The employees are the stock holders, they direct the company and split the profits, decide when more employees are needed etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During hard times a company like this may choose to cut hours or have everyone work four days a week rather than lay some people off.  There's a great deal of info out there on it with a search and this little I've added doesn't do the system justice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2735" RevisionGUID="5eb152f0-b4af-47ec-95dc-12e9984355ec" CreationDate="2014-04-18T05:57:29.433" UserId="1349" Comment="Expanded answer." Text="Any check is better than no check. But people are very good at selling themselves. They can say one thing and have intentions you do not suspect. For instance, they may agree to rules about dogs, loud music, working bees, but in the back of their mind know that once they're in, they will do whatever they like—build a meth lab, perhaps. This happened to a friend by the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have heard enough stories to fill five books about people who were &quot;ideal candidates&quot; but ended up being nightmare neighbors, refusing to leave, turning into squatters. I know people who are dealing with such issues at the very moment. It is not easy. You want to be optimistic and believe in people, but reality says otherwise, again and again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best check you can have is a probation period, preferably a long one. Over the course of a year, you can start to get a sense of what someone is made of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even so, there is no way to ensure yourself against bad surprises. People change partners. They have children. Children become teenagers who do not embrace their parents' values. And on and on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience, the communities that work the best are those with an ideological or spiritual component: for instance, people with the same Guru or Christian or Buddhist faith. This spiritual or ideological component acts as a glue, a &quot;greater purpose&quot; that brings people together, gives them a certain discipline and reasons to respect the group. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this is only an observation—I'm not saying it's a solution for everyone. But it raises question: What will be our &quot;glue&quot;? What is it that will prevent us from getting at one another's throats in hard times?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A friend who has been trying to convert his large organic farm to a community told me that a couple who were on his place for a test period and were asked to leave have put locks on one of his dwellings and have gone to the police claiming that they were tenants, even though they had never paid him a dime. It's not simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people are really good at reading others. Maybe someone on your committee has this gift. If not, it's not a bad idea, if it can be organized, to take your candidate to a market or a neighboring community and to gather impressions from people you trust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, maybe you can convince the dad in *Meet the Parents* to lend you his lie detector." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2504" RevisionGUID="f1c90383-f7f5-4bc0-8705-169332318496" CreationDate="2014-04-18T06:55:15.270" UserId="99" Comment="better wording of some sentences" Text="- An extra box below a main box with holes can be used for 2 purposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. **Capturing fluids**. The holes make sure that a surplus of fluids can escape and your box doesn't get too wet. Holes used for draining only are usually small.&#xD;&#xA;   2. **Harvesting compost**. When using a continuous flow approach (a.k.a. flow-through approach), you regularly remove compost that is ready to be used from the bottom of your box. In this case there are usually large holes or a mesh at the bottom of your box, optionally with a bar for scraping. More info on [different continuous flow systems here](http://www.wormfarmingrevealed.com/continuous-flow-through-bins.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you use a stacked approach and have a good method of draining fluids (e.g. a tap), then an extra box below your main box is not necessary. Like you said yourself, if you stack you can empty the bottom box once the worms have moved to the upper box. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your approach seems fine. Just make sure the conditions in the bin remain ok (not too wet and not too dry). When you start composting, you can add a little bit of soil so the worms have some space to roam around. There is no need to start a bin with lots of soil but it won't harm the worms either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your third question has already been answered [here](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2449/99). There is no need to add new soil when adding a new box on top." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6402" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="2f13ad78-626c-42b8-b727-79ce5d10445e" CreationDate="2014-04-18T07:01:08.353" UserId="1255" Comment="fix numbering" Text="I live in a subtropical region (central Queensland coast) and have been looking at the same thing, being eaten alive by mosquitos and I really are not a fan of chemical based repellents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Australia's ABC Gardening Australia fact sheet [Fact Sheet: Pest-Management Plants][1], there are 3 main functions that pest/mosquito repelling plants can possess:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: Plants that mask scents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; include thyme, lavender and scented geranium. These produce strong, volatile oils and scent that actually masks the plants the insects might be looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: Plants that actively repel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; such as cotton lavender or santolina, tansy and wormwood. These plants produce a scent or taste that is so bitter or putrid it drives insects away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: Plants that contain substances toxic to the insects&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the dried flower of pyrethrum or chopped chilli, which can be used as insect sprays. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One popular natural repellent that comes up quite often on the internet is oil derived Citronella grasses, according to the [Oil of Citronella][2] fact sheet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.abc.net.au/gardening/stories/s1872509.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/citronellagen.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6403" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2599" RevisionGUID="2f13ad78-626c-42b8-b727-79ce5d10445e" CreationDate="2014-04-18T07:01:08.353" Comment="Proposed by 1255 approved by 659, 99 edit id of 257" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2739" RevisionGUID="460ba2cb-93a9-437d-ac14-c4bba0498102" CreationDate="2014-04-18T07:12:01.873" UserId="1325" Text="The big issue I see with such a &quot;sustainable ecovillage&quot; is what I call the long term impedance mismatch between the village and the external environment. So while I am pessimistic (and I think you are right to be &quot;worried&quot;), [lots of people are trying it](http://www.ic.org/directory/ecovillages/). Many are in the US. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In what way could we seek to establish a sustainable ecovillage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Ecological sustainability**  &#xD;&#xA;The village uses only those resources it produces. Production can be primary, secondary, or tertiary.  &#xD;&#xA;**If the village is to be sustainable at the primary level**, it needs about [1.5 hectares per person](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint). The amount can vary according to the natural fertility of the land. Primary production includes crops for food and raw materials (examples could include cotton, flax, timber), animals (perhaps fish, cattle, sheep, goats, silk worms), and timber. Notice that I have excluded minerals; although we might like to use clay and other minerals, they are a finite exhaustible resource.  &#xD;&#xA;**The secondary level of production** may include clothing and housing. We could imagine clothing made from leather, wool, silk, cotton, or linen. We could imagine timber furniture.  &#xD;&#xA;**The tertiary level** is services. We can imagine everyone turning out to help with seasonal activities, providing their services to plant or harvest crops. Other more specialized services could be provided by teachers, midwives, etc.  &#xD;&#xA;**The issue** is that without external inputs, for example steel artifacts, we don't have horse shoes, axes, plows, knives, etc. Perhaps we can make substitutes for some items, but what do we do without glass, and other manufactured items requiring heavy industry? This is a rhetorical question. The answer, of course, is that the village must **trade with the outside world**.&#xD;&#xA;* **Economic sustainability**  &#xD;&#xA;We have established that the village must trade for articles it cannot produce. (This opens a different question: do those articles come from sustainable sources, or do they use finite resources? Clearly, at some level, they use finite resources.)   &#xD;&#xA;**In the short term**, We might imagine that the village operates a [farmers' market](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_market), where the surrounding population could trade with the villagers for primary (and also secondary) produce. In the short term, we could imagine that this could achieve an economic balance.  &#xD;&#xA;**But in the long term** we must consider that people age, become unwell, relocate, commit crimes, have children, and all of life's non-ideal issues. We must provide health services, and deal with the lazy, the crazy, the criminal. These services are costly in our current society. It is not clear (to me) how these costs can be sustained by the village, unless it is fully engaged in the wider economy.  &#xD;&#xA;**Further more**, as people age, will they stay? As children age, will they stay? How will the village maintain it's population? This has been the Achilles heel of such attempts, and is an ongoing problem for rural populations. How will we ensure that the future population follows our &quot;rules&quot;? We cannot, because our rules cannot be complete and cater to all possible contingencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there are significant challenges. We have not even mentioned the question of what technological level the village will use. If we use high-tech items such as computers, mobile phones, solar cells, or even lower tech items such as wind generators, tractors and other machinery, we extend the question of **what is sustainable?** No matter how good our recycling efforts, finite resources become depleted. This, of course, is the world-wide problem that Sustainability.SE serves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big issue, it seems to me, is that this is being analyzed as a self-contained entity. It cannot work that way, any more than any other village does. Any village has it's rich, poor, workaholic, lazy, more ideological and less ideological. People move in and out. Land is bought, sold and rented. Some people have cars, trucks, and tractors, others use bikes and draught animals. Kids grow up and move on. Some return. But **every village has it's own character**. It is made up of the sum of the character of the inhabitants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My advice** is to just do it. Find an existing community or just a few like-minded people, and get started. Add your weight to theirs. Actively promote the sustainable culture. Lead by example. **Be inclusive rather than prescriptive.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Australia many villages have collectively chosen a particular focus, mostly to project a clear identity that can attract like minded people and tourist trade. While these are not Intentional Communities or focused on ecological sustainability, they are economically sustainable; a few of the many examples of where this is working include [Nimbin](http://www.visitnimbin.com.au/), [Milawa](http://www.milawagourmet.com.au/), [Yarragon](http://www.yarragon.com.au/Yarragon_Village/Welcome.html), [Darnum](http://www.cv.vic.gov.au/organisations/3685/darnum-musical-village/), and many parts of [Tasmania](http://www.discovertasmania.com.au/). You'll notice I've used tourism links, that emphasize the character of these places.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6405" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2627" RevisionGUID="46ab3cb8-39f7-41ad-a36e-be40a7251795" CreationDate="2014-04-18T07:50:01.293" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|permaculture|ecovillage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6406" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="646" RevisionGUID="679a7e90-6056-426e-be4b-d8d3f0cb66ec" CreationDate="2014-04-18T07:50:41.697" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|balanced-ecosystems|ecovillage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6407" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2728" RevisionGUID="e1d0ca3c-0b5e-4d98-9fa6-b3b354e8d4b1" CreationDate="2014-04-18T07:51:11.667" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|lifestyle|ecovillage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2740" RevisionGUID="5e438519-023f-47c9-b7b2-8aeede65c620" CreationDate="2014-04-18T09:08:46.950" UserId="1365" Text="some useful suggestions here. i think understanding  how it all started is important in finding the right solution to today's emission problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if we go back in time when the planet was inhospitable. all the early living organisms that came into existence eventual died and became trapped somewhere underground cos the planet was unstable at that time. in time they become fossil fuel loaded with Carbon and Hydrogen. this was ideal because all the excess CO2 was removed from the atmosphere (early living organisms on the planet were different from what we are today). anyway, this cooled the planet and it became more hospitable for our kind to thrive and flourish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but in the last couple of centuries, human found an ingenious way to release all that CO2 trapped in the fossil fuel back into the atmosphere. so if we do not reverse this trend, then  we will be the next store of fossil fuel for a different kind of life form on the planet. planting trees definitely helps, but its hardly the global solution we need. more research into harvesting hydrogen and using it as a substitute will be the solution i feel. if not we have to find ways to trap CO2 underground somehow. the kyoto protocol was a good global response, but nobody gives a damn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;recently, i was in the maldives. from the air, the horizon is no longer the picture perfect destination that travel brochures sell. for hundreds of miles all around, i could only see haze. its sad. the blue skies we were used to seeing as a child will be just a myth to our children and grandchildren." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2740" RevisionGUID="bd25dfe3-d897-46f3-8a54-dd1defadcfa7" CreationDate="2014-04-18T09:16:49.410" UserId="1365" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="some useful suggestions here. i think understanding  how it all started is important in finding the right solution to today's emission problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if we go back in time when the planet was inhospitable. all the early living organisms that came into existence eventual died and became trapped somewhere underground cos the planet was unstable at that time. in time they become fossil fuel loaded with Carbon and Hydrogen. this was ideal because all the excess CO2 was removed from the atmosphere (early living organisms on the planet were different from what we are today). anyway, this cooled the planet and it became more hospitable for our kind to thrive and flourish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but in the last couple of centuries, human found an ingenious way to release all that CO2 trapped in the fossil fuel back into the atmosphere. so if we do not reverse this trend, then  we will be the next store of fossil fuel for a different kind of life form on the planet. planting trees definitely helps, but its hardly the global solution we need. more research into harvesting hydrogen and using it as a substitute will be the solution i feel. if not we have to find ways to trap CO2 underground somehow. the kyoto protocol was a good global response, but nobody gives a damn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;recently, i was in the maldives. from the air, the horizon is no longer the picture perfect destination that travel brochures sell. for hundreds of miles all around, i could only see haze. its sad. the blue skies we were used to seeing as a child will be just a myth to our children and grandchildren.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;check this out&#xD;&#xA;http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/installing-plastic-trees-help-environment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2741" RevisionGUID="846973be-5650-4827-b747-b9880cfb1da5" CreationDate="2014-04-18T13:57:25.923" UserId="453" Text="I would like to add GaBi to the list. It is a fully suited life cycle assessment program and therefore quite complex. [It is free for students (up to Master level) and phd students in non-OECD countries][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.gabi-software.com/international/software/gabi-education/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.gabi-software.com/international/software/gabi-education/who-can-get-a-gabi-education-license/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6416" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2737" RevisionGUID="e2316780-2ab9-4550-b176-47c14772fd64" CreationDate="2014-04-19T09:15:17.887" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/457447334214123520" />
  <row Id="6418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2745" RevisionGUID="dcab5363-b2c4-4f40-823c-618614d81774" CreationDate="2014-04-20T05:36:25.860" UserId="179" Text="In a restaurant I'm in, there's a fish tank where at least some species are from &quot;Finding Nemo&quot;. There's some clownfish, regal teals (Dory), and a couple of other species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are clownfish, or regal tangs, or any species from the movie that'd be plausibly found in a fish tank (eg not sharks) inherently unsustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2745" RevisionGUID="dcab5363-b2c4-4f40-823c-618614d81774" CreationDate="2014-04-20T05:36:25.860" UserId="179" Text="Sustainability of &quot;Finding Nemo&quot; species as pets" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2745" RevisionGUID="dcab5363-b2c4-4f40-823c-618614d81774" CreationDate="2014-04-20T05:36:25.860" UserId="179" Text="|pets|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2746" RevisionGUID="361bce36-b625-442f-82b4-ba4193a49110" CreationDate="2014-04-20T22:52:47.467" UserId="1098" Text="Occelaris clowns are easy to breed in captivity and in Australia are regularly advertised as 'tank bred' and not 'wild caught.'&#xA;&#xA;Some species of shrimp are also easy to breed but not necessarily cleaner shrimp as in the movie. I'd suggest that the rest of the fish and invertebrates in the fn tank could only ever be wild caught.&#xA;&#xA;The effect of the aquarium industry on reefs is anyone's guess with compelling arguments for and against.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6423" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2745" RevisionGUID="f6a1490f-7ee5-4998-b3ae-1f8dca815f99" CreationDate="2014-04-21T00:15:19.343" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/458036220401307649" />
  <row Id="6424" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="0308fd7e-9404-4c1e-9bae-208caaaf5e97" CreationDate="2014-04-21T18:26:06.903" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/458310727699550209" />
  <row Id="6425" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="310" RevisionGUID="1f6f3635-1a14-4f82-80f3-bdb44e8e19ec" CreationDate="2014-04-22T06:27:51.243" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/458492358578163713" />
  <row Id="6426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2747" RevisionGUID="9a001054-9fd4-4c33-98a4-e0dab6e010d5" CreationDate="2014-04-22T07:14:07.707" UserId="471" Text="I have many small shrubs mostly `flowers, ginger,onions and chilli` etc. i want to add some natural fertilizers to it make more growth. So please let me know the efficient natural `fertilizers`." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2747" RevisionGUID="9a001054-9fd4-4c33-98a4-e0dab6e010d5" CreationDate="2014-04-22T07:14:07.707" UserId="471" Text="What type of natural fertilizer should use to make shrubs healthier?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2747" RevisionGUID="9a001054-9fd4-4c33-98a4-e0dab6e010d5" CreationDate="2014-04-22T07:14:07.707" UserId="471" Text="|plants|fertilizer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="1c7cff3f-d0b1-4e2b-8f1d-d01b128fc23a" CreationDate="2014-04-22T07:42:53.543" UserId="1375" Text="As with virtually anything in Permaculture the answer is going to be, &quot;It depends.&quot; What resources do you have on hand? What are you willing to do? Are you wanting a fix for &quot;right now&quot; or are you wanting something more long term?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer, in general, is going to be compost. Depending upon how it's made, what is in it and where it's from that's potentially the &quot;best&quot; fertilizer for the plants you are wanting to grow. Leaf mold comes in a close second in my book though I generally use that for the more woody/perennial plants and only occasionally on my annuals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is worm castings from worm farms. Once you get a worm farm or two going they are fairly easy to maintain and produce 2 kinds of fertilizer; Worm juice, the runoff (leachate) from the maintenance of the moisture levels of the casting substrate and the finished worm castings. Both are fantastic for upping fertility of virtually any growing area, indoors or out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would like other alternatives or ideas then you're going to need to give some more details about your particular setup and needs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2747" RevisionGUID="8000cc90-66c8-45c0-9dc7-cfd672ab5b35" CreationDate="2014-04-22T11:52:09.593" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar and spelling" Text="I have many small shrubs mostly flowers, ginger, onions and chili etc. I want to add some natural fertilizers to make them grow more. What is an efficient natural fertilizer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6431" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="137" RevisionGUID="e92501be-5b2d-45fa-ab7a-5a6d7ab0331d" CreationDate="2014-04-22T12:27:50.957" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/458582955313881088" />
  <row Id="6432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2749" RevisionGUID="cc217bef-2742-49ba-b13d-8b18439268f3" CreationDate="2014-04-22T14:42:58.583" UserId="1375" Text="I realize you were specifically asking about using an infrared heater but that still is an electricity consumer and depending upon where and what your electricity comes from, may or may not be sustainable. Have you considered utilizing something along the lines of a [Tea Light Heater](http://www.instructables.com/id/Flower-Pots-Tea-Lights-Heater/)? It may not be viable given your particular situation but it's possible it might be just what the doctor ordered for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="28045361-4c01-42bd-9cdb-87cb96d9fc68" CreationDate="2014-04-22T16:56:54.393" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="After watching [this video][1] I felt really inspired and started thinking that it would be a great idea if we could research the same idea more and develop a way to make it easy enough for anyone to build and good quality enough for anyone to live in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the video above, they use 5 layers to achieve what I'm convinced can be achieved with 2 - but I'm not sure how or what the 1 of those 2 would be. In the video, they used Concrete, Sticky-back plastic, polystyrene, anti-moisture layer and soil. Now I don't know much about construction or architecture but I've seen entire buildings and houses made of glass which would already be insulated, strong (if you got the [right kind][2]), environment-friendly (we find that nature sometimes makes [&quot;glass&quot; with lightning][3]) and moisture resistant (if you built it correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know what the main downsides to this would be and if there is a better alternative(s) than glass? With the main criteria being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Modularity/Maintainability&#xD;&#xA; 2. Environment Friendly&#xD;&#xA; 3. DIY Friendly&#xD;&#xA; 4. Strong/Resistant enough to stand firm for a long period of time&#xD;&#xA; 5. Insulated enough to keep out hot/cool air and moisture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If massive glass cubes/structures could just be produced/made and stuffed underground in a similar way to the above video then homesteading could be quite simple from there on out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Glass Houses under Grass (Taken from Recycled Island)][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mixed with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Electric Privacy Glass][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-O2ggn29fI&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwXaxyE0ezo&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZGrpf.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INvttjIMGxY" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6434" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2747" RevisionGUID="ff896992-6536-419e-9bfd-c6d07bae2c32" CreationDate="2014-04-23T06:36:16.080" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/458856864890245120" />
  <row Id="6437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="995" RevisionGUID="b22d319b-bc83-4f0c-bd9a-4cf32c7866d3" CreationDate="2014-04-23T14:01:41.243" UserId="-1" Comment="Migration of MSO links to MSE links" Text="&lt;p&gt;Sustainable Living Stack Exchange is for folks dedicated to a lifestyle that can be maintained indefinitely without depleting available resources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for $SiteName, it may be on topic for &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/sites&quot;&gt;another Stack Exchange site&lt;/a&gt;. For example if your question has &lt;b&gt;no direct relation with sustainability&lt;/b&gt; and is about...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;gardening, ask on &lt;a href=&quot;http://gardening.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Gardening and Landscaping&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;do-it-yourself, ask on &lt;a href=&quot;http://diy.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Home Improvement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;money or finances, ask on &lt;a href=&quot;http://money.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Personal Finance &amp; Money&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;physics, ask on &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more help, see &lt;a href=&quot;/help/dont-ask&quot;&gt;&quot;What types of questions should I avoid asking?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2750" RevisionGUID="1ef7c213-8286-46d3-b350-15025bac4c34" CreationDate="2014-04-24T07:16:52.427" UserId="96" Text="While wood can - in theory - be a carbon neutral fuel, in practice burning wood creates a huge carbon debt and it may take a long time for all the carbon released by logging, soil degradation and so on to be reabsorbed. Additionally, one has to take into account how fast the wood will regrow (though the absolute regrowth will probably be faster than forming of new soil etc. for any given forest) and habitat destruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, say I have a healthy forest of x size (I don't) in a temperate climate zone, how much wood can I log and burn so that ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I don't release $CO_2$ faster than my forest can reabsorb it&#xD;&#xA;* I don't burn wood faster than it regrows&#xD;&#xA;* The carrying capacity of my forest for the various animals and so on stays roughly constant, there's no long term decline in habitats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The background of the question is the following: Biomass is sometimes heralded as a green energy source, a claim that is highly dubious given the prevalent industry practices. So I wonder: How much energy could we actually gain from biomass from a given forest size if it was actually green? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2750" RevisionGUID="1ef7c213-8286-46d3-b350-15025bac4c34" CreationDate="2014-04-24T07:16:52.427" UserId="96" Text="How much wood can I burn sustainibly, carbon neutral and in an ecological responsible way from a forest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2750" RevisionGUID="1ef7c213-8286-46d3-b350-15025bac4c34" CreationDate="2014-04-24T07:16:52.427" UserId="96" Text="|energy|carbon-footprint|firewood|forestry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2750" RevisionGUID="0e78b9cc-8363-493a-be75-ba1797ada9b3" CreationDate="2014-04-24T11:24:25.030" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="While wood can - in theory - be a carbon neutral fuel, in practice burning wood creates a huge carbon debt and it may take a long time for all the carbon released by logging, soil degradation and so on to be reabsorbed. Additionally, one has to take into account how fast the wood will regrow (though the absolute regrowth will probably be faster than forming of new soil etc. for any given forest) and habitat destruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, say I have a healthy forest of x size (I don't) in a temperate climate zone, how much wood can I log and burn so that ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I don't release CO₂ faster than my forest can reabsorb it&#xD;&#xA;* I don't burn wood faster than it regrows&#xD;&#xA;* The carrying capacity of my forest for the various animals and so on stays roughly constant, there's no long term decline in habitats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The background of the question is the following: Biomass is sometimes heralded as a green energy source, a claim that is highly dubious given the prevalent industry practices. So I wonder: How much energy could we actually gain from biomass from a given forest size if it was actually green? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6442" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2750" RevisionGUID="0e78b9cc-8363-493a-be75-ba1797ada9b3" CreationDate="2014-04-24T11:24:25.030" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="How much wood can I burn sustainably, carbon neutral and in an ecologically responsible way from a forest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6443" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2750" RevisionGUID="7aa0fc09-198f-4e0a-94de-6a37889afd00" CreationDate="2014-04-24T12:37:36.203" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/459310184675164162" />
  <row Id="6444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="bc92efdf-d48e-4552-92ce-78a17c2fee91" CreationDate="2014-04-25T05:01:06.807" UserId="1091" Text="I have a tupperware of old cooking oil in the fridge that I've been debating throwing away - but I would rather re-use it than just toss it. Can I render it and make it into jar candles? It's basically just multiple layers of &quot;waste&quot; cooking oil with impurities from whatever I was making at the time. Could I render it like tallow/lard and just strain out the solids?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="bc92efdf-d48e-4552-92ce-78a17c2fee91" CreationDate="2014-04-25T05:01:06.807" UserId="1091" Text="How can I clean old cooking oil for use in candles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="bc92efdf-d48e-4552-92ce-78a17c2fee91" CreationDate="2014-04-25T05:01:06.807" UserId="1091" Text="|food|waste|reuse|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2752" RevisionGUID="a228d300-532d-4367-8f59-775f08fabab9" CreationDate="2014-04-25T17:41:22.013" UserId="1375" Text="Sure you can. Bring it up to heat and let it bubble and simmer for a bit, skim off any scum that floats to the top. Then break out a good sized funnel and some cheesecloth or paper towels, line the funnel, and slowly strain the still-warm oil into a holding container. You can then use this oil for survival candles. Just remember to keep a decent supply of shallow metal or glass containers and wicking material onhand. [Here's a link](http://www.instructables.com/id/using-USED-COOKING-OIL-for-survival-candles/) to an Instructable page talking about the process and how to best adjust the &quot;candle&quot; so that you get no soot/smoke. Best of luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6448" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2751" RevisionGUID="6f40a7c4-9004-42bc-b575-5d0e3ef66af9" CreationDate="2014-04-25T18:37:36.307" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/459763169825521664" />
  <row Id="6450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2753" RevisionGUID="aa990855-ed7d-49b0-8008-59853a8affc0" CreationDate="2014-04-26T08:11:51.943" UserId="1375" Text="Well, I'm by no means an expert on giving this answer, and yet I'll take a go at providing something reasonable. Assuming a 1ha biodiverse, properly hydrated, young stage forest with optimal leaf coverage that gives us a solar catchment area of 10,000 square metres. Subtract say 20% to account for immature trees amongst the larger growth, another 20% for damaged trees and other incidental issues like leaf blight or whatever else might go wrong and you're at 6,000 square metres of catchment. A single mid-stage growth tree can capture and sequester 48kg of carbon per year. Assuming a mid-stage tree head diameter of 2m that means that you have 3000 trees sequestering 144,000kg of carbon per hectare per annum. Using techniques like coppicing and pollarding in the forest increases the efficiency of aboveground tree growth which means a more rapid turnaround to go from a bare patch to a tree catching sunlight. As such we can probably up that 48kg per year figure to in the realm of say 60kg/yr pushing us up to 180,000kg per annum unless I've totally gone wrong with my maths somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That 180,000kg is largely bound up in the form of cellulose and lignin. When you have good, seasoned wood ready for use in a furnace/fireplace it ends up representing about half of the weight of the wood as much of that is still bound up as water/sap and other compounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, a single hectare can supply about 9m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;/hectare according to [this](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/467/1375) answer here on this site. That's enough firewood to supply about 3 families with 3m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; each of wood for home heating and cooking needs, or 9 families 1m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; provided they are using fuel efficient heating like Rocket Mass Heaters or Kachelofens for heating and rocket stoves for cooking. Assuming we are talking moderately efficient kinds of woods dehydrated to 12% moisture content, that averages out to be in the ballpark of 600kg/cu.m which works out to be 5,400kg. Assuming a carbon content of 49.5% for the wood, that works out to be 2673kg of carbon re-released per year. This means in net, a single sustainably harvested 1ha forest will affix 67 times the amount of carbon that is released from the burning of the wood that comes from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2754" RevisionGUID="f8529254-661b-4c56-aa8e-5c08683acae9" CreationDate="2014-04-26T17:44:55.507" UserId="1388" Text="Humic acid is the ultimate organic fertilizer. Google it also under Humates.&#xD;&#xA;It's not actually fertilizer but it is that which makes rich black earth black and rich. All plants love it. It is what they have been using for hundreds of million years to transport nutrients from the soil and into their roots. Most of the humic acid used here in Vancouver comes from a 20 million year old deposit on the Canadian great plains ( Saskatchewan Province )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2755" RevisionGUID="7cffa814-4874-4aae-8f9a-ce4fa4725f4d" CreationDate="2014-04-27T03:02:58.140" UserId="1390" Text="Is there a portable water recycling unit that one could install in their studio apartment to recycle grey water ? Or which is the smallest grey water recycling unit ? And can't someone just pass the grey water thru their reverse-osmosis filter and reuse the water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2755" RevisionGUID="7cffa814-4874-4aae-8f9a-ce4fa4725f4d" CreationDate="2014-04-27T03:02:58.140" UserId="1390" Text="Is there a portable water recycling unit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2755" RevisionGUID="7cffa814-4874-4aae-8f9a-ce4fa4725f4d" CreationDate="2014-04-27T03:02:58.140" UserId="1390" Text="|recycling|water|electricity|apartment|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6458" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2755" RevisionGUID="6604856e-952b-4924-a8df-db5c51444cf9" CreationDate="2014-04-28T00:41:33.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/460579538313834496" />
  <row Id="6459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="4b253948-31d3-4ac9-80c6-392873eb2d85" CreationDate="2014-04-28T05:44:58.467" UserId="1395" Text="I want to built a composting toilet. What are the main construction aspects to be considered? Does anyone have a manual to share? I am especially interested in construction schemes which include the excreta on site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="4b253948-31d3-4ac9-80c6-392873eb2d85" CreationDate="2014-04-28T05:44:58.467" UserId="1395" Text="How to construct a composting toilet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="4b253948-31d3-4ac9-80c6-392873eb2d85" CreationDate="2014-04-28T05:44:58.467" UserId="1395" Text="|construction|composting|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2759" RevisionGUID="644c5dbc-e07d-49fa-b2b5-ad5b588cd01a" CreationDate="2014-04-28T13:07:52.650" UserId="1396" Text="You can make your own filter,I think. When I was kid me and me father constructed or own filter, everything you need is some sand, 'dust coal' and a couple of stones and wool. You can use a bottle of soda, or something like that. Put the wool on the 'mouth' of the bottle (I'm not a native english speaker, and I don't know some words, I will put inside a quote), then put the coal, stones and sand. Put a another bottle under the will to extract the clean water. &#xA;If you want, I can make a draw, to make it more clear to understand. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2748" RevisionGUID="b4d28193-161f-4695-a91d-6ba88d9375b9" CreationDate="2014-04-28T23:09:33.550" UserId="1375" Comment="Added addendum restating position on vermicompost lechate and provided alternative method for utilization." Text="As with virtually anything in Permaculture the answer is going to be, &quot;It depends.&quot; What resources do you have on hand? What are you willing to do? Are you wanting a fix for &quot;right now&quot; or are you wanting something more long term?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer, in general, is going to be compost. Depending upon how it's made, what is in it and where it's from that's potentially the &quot;best&quot; fertilizer for the plants you are wanting to grow. Leaf mold comes in a close second in my book though I generally use that for the more woody/perennial plants and only occasionally on my annuals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is worm castings from worm farms. Once you get a worm farm or two going they are fairly easy to maintain and produce 2 kinds of fertilizer; Worm juice, the runoff (leachate) from the maintenance of the moisture levels of the casting substrate (*see addendum below*) and the finished worm castings. Both are fantastic for upping fertility of virtually any growing area, indoors or out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would like other alternatives or ideas then you're going to need to give some more details about your particular setup and needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Addendum - After some research thanks to the comments by THelper I'm now in agreement that the so-called Worm Juice (lechate) that comes from maintaining the moisture levels is not a good fertilizer. That said, it still can be used to boost fertility, just a bit more indirectly than dumping it straight on soil around your plants. Apparently one needs to pour the lechate over a highly carbonaceous material like sawdust or shredded cardboard/newspapers and allow it to break down for a period of time. Another method is to just dump it on your compost piles. Once that breaks down you can then use the resulting compost to fertilize your plants. Basically you just add an extra step and a bit of time and you get the second fertility booster of vermicomposting, just in a safe and healthy way. Also, one can utilize worm castings in the production of Worm Tea, which is not the same thing as the runoff that comes from maintaining your worm farms. Hope that clears things up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6466" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2757" RevisionGUID="d55b64c8-6306-440f-b9ab-bd0be5921e81" CreationDate="2014-04-30T09:41:34.117" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/461440212007419905" />
  <row Id="6467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2760" RevisionGUID="9c92b8c1-9f1f-4bcc-848f-75b820efe4ba" CreationDate="2014-04-30T19:06:25.170" UserId="1308" Text="I happen to break some nylon tights(pantyhose) each season, is there any alternative to just throw them in the garbage? I keep a couple of them for wearing under the jeans in exceptionally cold days, but besides that I don't have any idea. I guess they are not even recyclable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2760" RevisionGUID="9c92b8c1-9f1f-4bcc-848f-75b820efe4ba" CreationDate="2014-04-30T19:06:25.170" UserId="1308" Text="What to do with broken nylon tights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2760" RevisionGUID="9c92b8c1-9f1f-4bcc-848f-75b820efe4ba" CreationDate="2014-04-30T19:06:25.170" UserId="1308" Text="|reuse|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2761" RevisionGUID="d3e49a90-2525-4a82-9d69-ab63d28894d1" CreationDate="2014-04-30T20:18:24.527" UserId="1375" Text="I've used them as ties to fasten tomato bushes to trellises. They work pretty good for that. Curious to see what others come up with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2762" RevisionGUID="48ce417f-662b-47c5-bccb-132e6862e21c" CreationDate="2014-04-30T21:04:12.440" UserId="1401" Text="Yes, there is a recyclable answer, it is called the iFill Cup, it is all polypropylene (PP, #5 plastic, all recyclable including the filter).  The foil lid is also recyclable.  It can be found at www.ifillcup.com, it is brand new, it was a HUGE hit at the recent Specialty Coffee Association show in Seattle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2763" RevisionGUID="36b8933a-e54f-4db4-a03a-223b7a9781e5" CreationDate="2014-05-01T08:16:32.497" UserId="99" Text="You can use old nylons as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Stuffing for pillows/cushions&#xD;&#xA;* Polishing or cleaning cloth (no worry that you'll make scratches, plus it's great for attracting dog and cat hair).&#xD;&#xA;* Hanging storage to dry unions&#xD;&#xA;* As a filter in a drainpipe (e.g. to keep any leaves out of your rain barrel)&#xD;&#xA;* Protection cover for fruit (this one is not from personal experience, but I've heard from other people that it helps protect their fruit growing in the garden from bugs)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2764" RevisionGUID="f7942469-80bb-40ec-af82-96ddbf802f5d" CreationDate="2014-05-01T13:31:33.590" UserId="1065" Text="Along the lines of m.w.jacobsen's suggestion, if you've planted a new tree, they are great for tying the tree to stakes while its roots develop. They are also great for cleaning walls in your house, because they don't leave any lint behind. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2765" RevisionGUID="e92b01f9-65dc-4c42-a963-47f755e96f24" CreationDate="2014-05-01T14:40:09.637" UserId="1091" Text="I use old tights for jar covers while [sprouting lentils][1] - they provide enough air while not letting flies or pests in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you brew kombucha or water kefir you could use tights for the same purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CCoQFjAA&amp;url=http://www.theleangreenbean.com/how-to-sprout-lentils/&amp;ei=glxiU5i5I4iXyASV-oCAAw&amp;usg=AFQjCNHlfYirs0m7-0jcl0sCtud0lSKsug&amp;bvm=bv.65636070,d.aWw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2765" RevisionGUID="02c60d0a-1211-43f2-b179-9edbe7b92ed3" CreationDate="2014-05-01T16:15:17.180" UserId="1091" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="I use old tights for jar covers while [sprouting lentils][1] - they provide enough air while not letting flies or pests in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you brew kombucha or water kefir you could use tights for the same purpose (for first fermentation stage or if you don't care about carbonation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0CCoQFjAA&amp;url=http://www.theleangreenbean.com/how-to-sprout-lentils/&amp;ei=glxiU5i5I4iXyASV-oCAAw&amp;usg=AFQjCNHlfYirs0m7-0jcl0sCtud0lSKsug&amp;bvm=bv.65636070,d.aWw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6477" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1275" RevisionGUID="80f6badf-12a9-40d6-8f92-13a392ffad26" CreationDate="2014-05-01T19:25:17.230" UserId="1403" Comment="replaced link for article with one that works" Text="A presentation about the environmental costs of oil production (by Dr. Dumelin, [here][1] - direct download!) reveals that coconut oil performs worse than palm oil in some commonly assessed impact categories (namely energy requirement, global warming potential and land use) while it performs better in others (namely acidification and eutrophication impact):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*PO = palmoil, CN = coconut oil; for these two oils data originates from Malaysian farms*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Importance of the product stages.**&#xD;&#xA;In a separate report by the same author it is revealed that the agriculture and processing stage, rather than transport, contribute most to the total environmental burden of palm and coconut oil in nearly all impact categories (with the exception of photochemical smog). (Dumelin 2009)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why have both oils comparatively small impacts?**&#xD;&#xA;&quot;*[The] very high yields per hectare that are obtained from palm plantations*&quot; (Dumelin 2009) are the reason why this oil performs so well overall. Compared to other oils also &quot;*coconut oil has very low impacts because very low levels of pesticides are used and most farm operations are carried out by hand so very little fuel is consumed*&quot; (Dumelin 2009).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A note about life cycle assessments.**&#xD;&#xA;Please be aware that the selection of impact categories is up to the author of a life cycle study (as is also pointed out in the presentation)! That means that some impact categories with a surprisingly high contribution may have been (accidentally) excluded from analysis. It is further subjective on how much value is assigned to each category and if, for example, the clearance of rain forest is rated to be more harmful than the clearance of temperate forest (as *THelper* mentioned). This problem however is valid for all life cycle assessments. The most commonly analysed impact categories (global warming, energy requirements, acidification and eutrophication impact and land use) are presented in this study, so it seems fairly reliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In short**, the production of palm oil seems to require less energy, emits less greenhouse gases and uses less space than the production of coconut oil. However, more substances are emitted that contribute to acidification and eutrophication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reference**&lt;br&gt;&lt;small&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Dumelin E 2009: The Environmental Impact of&#xD;&#xA;Palm Oil and Other Vegetable&#xD;&#xA;Oils** (**	Reproduced from the paper presented at&#xD;&#xA;the SCI (Society of Chemical Industry)&#xD;&#xA;Conference on ‘Palm Oil–the Sustainable&#xD;&#xA;21st Century Oil - Food, Fuel &amp; Chemicals’&#xD;&#xA;at London, 23-24 March 2009.)&lt;/small&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://palmoilis.mpob.gov.my/publications/POD/pod51-erich.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rh7Dh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6478" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1275" RevisionGUID="80f6badf-12a9-40d6-8f92-13a392ffad26" CreationDate="2014-05-01T19:25:17.230" Comment="Proposed by 1403 approved by 453 edit id of 259" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2765" RevisionGUID="885052ea-90a7-4424-8f88-cfcca8d98363" CreationDate="2014-05-01T21:03:28.967" UserId="99" Comment="cleaned up link url" Text="I use old tights for jar covers while [sprouting lentils][1] - they provide enough air while not letting flies or pests in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you brew kombucha or water kefir you could use tights for the same purpose (for first fermentation stage or if you don't care about carbonation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theleangreenbean.com/how-to-sprout-lentils" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1250" RevisionGUID="d7dc6ca1-b19f-4c4e-a24b-91c43d83e9d1" CreationDate="2014-05-01T21:06:36.733" UserId="99" Comment="fixed missing word" Text="There is a lot of information and research on how the production of palm oil has severe negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (for example [this paper](http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/19109/InTech-The_impact_of_oil_palm_expansion_on_environmental_change_putting_conservation_research_in_context.pdf), [this paper](http://www.ecology.ethz.ch/publications/2010/2010/Wilcove_2010_BiodiversityConservation.pdf) and [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_palm_oil)). However, I have found that reliable information on how coconut oil is produced is rather scarce. There are several claims about why oil from coconut trees (cocos nucifera) is more sustainable than oil from oil palms (elaeis guineensis), but if have not been able to find any scientific evidence for those claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reasoning seems to be that many coconut palms are not grown in large plantations, so no rain forests have been removed for them. Although coconut plantations exists, I haven't been able to find any reports that rainforests have been cleared to create those coconut plantations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people also report other benefits of coco trees over palm trees, but most of these claims are difficult to prove. For example on [this page](http://www.ecos.com/sustainabilitychemsub.html) it is claimed that coconut trees: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. are considerably easy to replace&#xD;&#xA;2. grow in almost any kind of soil, even sandy beaches&#xD;&#xA;3. live and bear fruit for up to more than sixty years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the author doesn't really compare coco oil with palm oil and according to the [Malaysian Palm Oil Board](http://www.palmoilworld.org/about_malaysian-industry.html) oil palm has a much higher oil yield per hectare per year than coconut palms, so that would actually be in favor of palm oil from a sustainability viewpoint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:** there are indications that coconut oil is more sustainable than palm oil, mainly because no rainforests have been cleared for the production of coconut oil, but it is difficult to find any hard evidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6481" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2760" RevisionGUID="cd241d2d-db36-44d6-8313-3a92712f49c1" CreationDate="2014-05-02T00:48:26.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/462030819797004288" />
  <row Id="6482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2766" RevisionGUID="cb9a1475-5355-48a2-a12a-806b6a1c963e" CreationDate="2014-05-02T04:59:28.570" UserId="15" Text="I've heard that washing machine motors ([in particular, the Fisher &amp; Paykel branded ones][1] which are local to me in New Zealand) are quite suitable for repurposing for generation use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other types of motors which might typically be spare include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Fans from old computers&#xD;&#xA; - Fan heaters (I've had at least two of these fail, though I'm not sure whether it was the heating or fan part that failed)&#xD;&#xA; - Pedestal fans&#xD;&#xA; - Ceiling fans&#xD;&#xA; - Kitchen extractor fans&#xD;&#xA; - Electric lawnmower motors&#xD;&#xA; - Washing machine motors&#xD;&#xA; - Dryer motors&#xD;&#xA; - Alternators from cars&#xD;&#xA; - Motors from power tools&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How can I determine which motors might be the most appropriate for a particular use, with regards to repurposing as a generator?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electricity generated might be used to charge batteries, or with larger motors, even contribute towards a household. I want to keep this question general with regards to the type of use, so I can understand how to choose a motor to work with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.yourgreendream.com/diy_fisher_paykel.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6483" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2766" RevisionGUID="cb9a1475-5355-48a2-a12a-806b6a1c963e" CreationDate="2014-05-02T04:59:28.570" UserId="15" Text="Which types of spare electric motors from common consumer appliances are suitable to repurpose as generators?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6484" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2766" RevisionGUID="cb9a1475-5355-48a2-a12a-806b6a1c963e" CreationDate="2014-05-02T04:59:28.570" UserId="15" Text="|electricity|wind-power|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1112" RevisionGUID="20a276ea-f066-4a54-a2c2-3fa89a93a7af" CreationDate="2014-05-02T09:33:43.640" UserId="99" Comment="removed 'tag:'" Text="Giving materials and objects an additional life by using them again, rather than [recycling] or discarding them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2685" RevisionGUID="266aee0a-476c-4657-aeec-d876bc0bf251" CreationDate="2014-05-02T09:36:14.677" UserId="99" Comment="added link to reuse" Text="Recycling is where items are treated or processed into a mass raw material to be manufactured into a new product (whether or not the new material is the same as the original one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is distinct from [tag:reuse], where items are simply used again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="b09f95b6-8333-4d34-a12e-719b893ddd0f" CreationDate="2014-05-02T09:36:14.677" UserId="99" Comment="added link to reuse; edited body" Text="using materials that would otherwise be waste to manufacture new materials. For questions on reuse please use that tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="278" RevisionGUID="5b6e26d0-f2bb-42fd-a7ba-27a417828bab" CreationDate="2014-05-02T09:47:50.380" UserId="99" Comment="improved layout and added part about potential to reduce carbon footprint" Text="Compost is organic matter that has been decomposed and recycled as a fertilizer and soil amendment. It is a key ingredient in organic farming. When done locally (e.g. at home) composting may also reduce one's carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Composting process**: At the simplest level, the process of composting simply requires making a heap of wetted organic matter (leaves, &quot;green&quot; food waste) and waiting for the materials to break down into humus after a period of weeks or months. Modern, methodical composting is a multi-step, closely monitored process with measured inputs of water, air and carbon- and nitrogen-rich materials. The decomposition process is aided by shredding the plant matter, adding water and ensuring proper aeration by regularly turning the mixture. Worms and fungi further break up the material. Aerobic bacteria manage the chemical process by converting the inputs into heat, carbon dioxide and ammonium. The ammonium is further converted by bacteria into plant-nourishing nitrites and nitrates through the process of nitrification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For composting with worms see [tag:vermicomposting]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1271" RevisionGUID="1929d03f-83c6-434b-84fd-329b6e198161" CreationDate="2014-05-02T22:06:03.023" UserId="60" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I've rebuilt two single-battery operated appliances in our home to a &quot;battery juicer&quot;. I'll describe one of them here to explain the idea, the other one is remade in a similar way to this one. Both of them operate happily with half-drained batteries and I've reached the balance of incoming half-drained batteries and draining them almost totally in those appliances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The appliance (thermometer) was originally run by one AAA battery (1.5V) and would operate to about 1 Volt. I replaced the battery holder with two AAA batteries holder and attached it through a simple voltage regulator. A blue double switch is visible in the picture (rear side of the appliance):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Rear side of the appliance][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two switches and three diodes added to the circuit. Those are [germanium diodes][2] taken from an old HDD (reused :), each with 0.3V potential drop in [forward bias][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Circuit diagram][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When the **batteries have enough power I turn off both of the switches**, which lowers the voltage of the bank by 0.9V.&#xD;&#xA;- With **less powerful batteries I switch on switches 1 or 2** to shortcut the diodes. The decrease is 0.3V or 0.6V.&#xD;&#xA;- **In the last stadium I switch both switches on** and 1V is reached by two 0.5V batteries.&#xD;&#xA;- When I want to **deplete the batteries to 0V, I replace one of the almost empty (0.5V) batteries with a half-depleted one (1V)** and run them until the death of the weaker one. This is in fact the most common situation because once you have not equally drained batteries, one of them is going to die earlier and will be replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first I started with resistors, not diodes, but their voltage drop depends on the current - when the current fluctuates, the voltage drop changes too. This is not wanted, diodes provide a constant voltage drop to the bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweaks: more batteries can be grouped to reach a better use of used batteries. But then more switches are needed to regulate the wider scale of voltages. My other appliance is using a bank of 3 batteries, but they are external, because they wouldn't fit inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xry1m.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diode&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%E2%80%93n_junction#Forward_bias&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cjten.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6492" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2766" RevisionGUID="003d0255-f372-4cff-9013-e05953e45f32" CreationDate="2014-05-03T09:56:19.313" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/462531088293056512" />
  <row Id="6493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="e20b02f1-4812-4e94-a408-c6b2de928c13" CreationDate="2014-05-03T10:52:16.020" UserId="48" Text="We've covered [Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR)][1] before here, and it's been the ventilation method of choice for [Passivhaus][2] buildings for many years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I heard something interesting recently: that some Nordic countries, having been concentrating on MVHR in super-insulated dwellings for some time, were now moving to Positive Input Ventilation (PIV), whereby a fan in the roof space brings fresh air into the building, and the increased pressure pushes out stale air elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true, and if so, what's behind the shift?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/241/48&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.passivehouse-international.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="e20b02f1-4812-4e94-a408-c6b2de928c13" CreationDate="2014-05-03T10:52:16.020" UserId="48" Text="MVHR no longer the ventilation of choice in some Nordic countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="e20b02f1-4812-4e94-a408-c6b2de928c13" CreationDate="2014-05-03T10:52:16.020" UserId="48" Text="|energy-efficiency|building-physics|insulation|ventilation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6496" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="114" RevisionGUID="9a729488-bdac-4a04-865a-cbe21a3bf073" CreationDate="2014-05-03T10:52:40.993" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|heating|home|building|ventilation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6497" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="a8ea3c57-6a3c-46fb-9588-9f8c21d37ee9" CreationDate="2014-05-05T01:01:49.040" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/463121351700938752" />
  <row Id="6498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2769" RevisionGUID="88bec478-8d74-4ead-a7d9-36c4b77c6eb9" CreationDate="2014-05-05T11:32:30.797" UserId="1408" Text="I'll give the specifics of my set up, but I ask this in the hope of getting a more general answer too, because it's more helpful to more people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in the UK, and a typical central heating set up is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a boiler, with some settings - typically on, off, and perhaps a timer&#xD;&#xA;* the timer itself, it can be separate&#xD;&#xA;* the thermostat, usually located in a hallway&#xD;&#xA;* radiators, each with their own heat setting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've just moved into a flat with another person. Bills are included so it seems they've been running the boiler a lot, but it's starting to get warm outside so there should be less need, and it's in my room and noisy!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Enough hot water for 2 hot showers in the morning (one for me, one for him).&#xD;&#xA;* Any other hot water needed, like washing up or the washing machine.&#xD;&#xA;* The radiator in the bathroom to be able to get warm, as it's where towels hang and closes are dried.&#xD;&#xA;* all the above with the boiler doing as little as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What's the best combination of settings to achieve this?** I'd say this is a fairly normal set of wishes, and the available settings are complex, so it'd be good to get a general idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wish to be more specific, here are some extra details of my set up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Boiler &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;an *Ideal isar* (I can't find the model number). It has an on/off button, two dials, one marked for water and one for radiators, I've set both to *min*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Timer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Danfoss 103E7. It has 4 settings, on/off/auto/all-day, and 3 other buttons: a select button for the previous settings, a *+1 hour*, and a *MAN*. It's set to *auto*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Thermostat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've put this below 18˚C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Radiators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They all have a 0-5 on them. I've put the bathroom on 3, and the rest to 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all that, the boiler still seems to be making a lot of effort during the day and night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any help or insights are much appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2769" RevisionGUID="88bec478-8d74-4ead-a7d9-36c4b77c6eb9" CreationDate="2014-05-05T11:32:30.797" UserId="1408" Text="Boiler, timer, thermostat, radiators - how to set to minimum in summer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2769" RevisionGUID="88bec478-8d74-4ead-a7d9-36c4b77c6eb9" CreationDate="2014-05-05T11:32:30.797" UserId="1408" Text="|home|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2770" RevisionGUID="de3e9945-f048-4659-af43-babb5d5236cb" CreationDate="2014-05-05T12:09:45.690" UserId="48" Text="It will vary, depending on the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there's a hot water tank, then outside the heating season (i.e. this applies to May-September) normally you want the boiler on just long enough to give you enough hot water, when you need it. That might mean having the timer set to put the boiler on for an hour or two each day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water temperature should be set to high (above 55 &amp;deg;C). Maybe just set it to max, unless you've got some old-fashioned non-mixer taps, in which case, set the temp to around 55 &amp;deg;C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then set the central thermostat to its lowest value (probably 10 &amp;deg; C). Then the boiler shouldn't turn on for central heating at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *Ideal Isar* seems to have a bad reputation for circuit-board failures, so it may not behave as you expect. This should be picked up by the annual inspection - ask to see the most recent inspection log.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have a hot-water tank, experiment with the timer.  Turn it off, wait 20 minutes, and then see if the boiler still kicks in when you run a tap for hot water. The timer probably only controls the central heating, so you can have it turned off for all of May to September.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many boilers cycle - that is they'll run for a few seconds every half-hour or so - as part of their maintenance regime. It's annoying, but it uses little energy and is a sign of normal operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having the bills included can lead to frivolous use of energy: I've seen many people just open windows rather than turn the heating down! That will need careful and tactful negotiation with your flatmate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2771" RevisionGUID="b12c9ef5-d948-4331-a004-c5cabe12935e" CreationDate="2014-05-05T13:03:29.290" UserId="812" Text="OK, given the clarifications in comments (that there's no hot water tank, so this is presumably a combi boiler doing &quot;instant&quot; water heating, and that the bathroom has a radiator and no towel rail):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hot water&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no hot water storage - the boiler warms it at the time that you run the tap - so timings are irrelevant to this. The only variable left is the temperature that you would like hot water to be provided at, which is probably the dial marked for water on the boiler is. This is partly down to personal taste, but as a starting point I usually tune it so that the thing that I use the hottest water for - in my case, washing up - can be done with water straight from the hot tap. But, it probably makes little difference in energy terms. Be careful about setting it too high, or you may be able to scald yourselves on tapwater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One question that I forgot to ask in comments was whether the shower actually uses hot water from the boiler, or whether it does its own electric water heating - many do - but this doesn't make much practical difference, because there's little you can do about it either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heating&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;You have a few more controls to play with here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Set the timer for when you would like the heating to be on; this will presumably require negotiation.&#xD;&#xA;If you both go out during the day then I suggest a period in the evening (for comfort, and for having a warm bedroom when you go to bed) and a period just before you get up in the morning (so you're not shivering when leaving your duvet!). There's no point in heating a house when nobody is there, and unless you've in a very cold climate (or there are health reasons), no point in heating a house when everybody is asleep. When choosing the times, bear in mind that the house will take some time to warm up from the start time that you set - perhaps anywhere between 10 and 60 minutes, depending on many factors. Some experimentation will be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that contrary to myth, it is *not* more energy-efficient to keep a house warm throughout the day than to let it cool off when unoccupied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dial for heating on the boiler will control the temperature that water is heated to when sent to the radiators. Think of this as the rate at which the boiler can transfer heat into your rooms. The higher this is, the more &quot;power&quot; the system will have, the faster it will respond, and the better it will cope with cold days, but the less energy efficient it will be (because heat leaks faster from hotter pipes). &#xD;&#xA;You may find that having this set high causes a &quot;cycling&quot; behaviour where the boiler runs for many short periods with gaps inbetween, and that having it set lower means that it is on more constantly, at a lower power. This may be important when you're considering the noise in your bedroom, and so long as you don't put it so low that the system can't heat the house, you can probably tweak this without your housemate even noticing! See also this question: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2617/setting-radiator-temperature-to-save-energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third control that you have here is the overall house thermostat. If this instrument thinks that the house is warm enough, then the heating will be switched off - regardless of what the individual thermostats on the radiators reckon. If it's been sited well this shouldn't be a problem. You should use this to set the overall temperature that you would like your house to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fourth control that you have here is the individual thermostats on the radiators. You can use these to control the *relative* temperatures between different rooms, allowing some variation from the setting of the main thermostat. You'll only get these right through experimentation and (in shared areas) negotiation, but as a starting point I would have the bedrooms slightly cooler than the living areas. Sometimes these devices are labelled with temperatures (Fahrenheit or Celsius) and sometimes just with numbers. If you have temperatures, ignore them - these things aren't usually very well calibrated - and just go with trial and error :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in summer, you *could* just rely on the thermostats to keep the heating off... but if the temperature dropped slightly below the hall thermostat's setting, it would fire up the boiler and burn a load of fuel to raise it back again, when you or I would know that the sun would do that in half an hour anyway. So you may choose to turn the heating off completely. If you want to do this, do it by turning the heating dial to minimum, and then it will probably never come on. Do not use the boiler's overall &quot;off&quot; switch, as that will probably turn off water heating as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Towel-drying&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the tricky bit. In winter, it's easy, as the bathroom radiator will be warm. In summer it's trickier. You *could* leave the heating on, set the house thermostat high, and set every other radiator thermostat to minimum so that only the bathroom radiator comes on. But that would be quite wasteful. Instead, remember that you don't always need heat to dry things - airflow can be helpful too. Can you hang your towel up by an open window or something :-)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2772" RevisionGUID="2860a639-dc62-4b83-9b3d-5680c4558a81" CreationDate="2014-05-05T21:25:48.560" UserId="277" Text="There is this method, which is using not entirely upcycled materials, but somewhat cheaper alternatives to industrial parts...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rutgers NJAES Cooperative Extension: Building a Rain Barrel](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geSuRr3Xbaw)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1305" RevisionGUID="c3a0865b-fcd5-4c8f-a9ec-6cddf98483a6" CreationDate="2014-05-06T20:33:59.073" UserDisplayName="anon" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="After watching [this video][1] I felt really inspired and started thinking that it would be a great idea if we could research the same idea more and develop a way to make it easy enough for anyone to build and good quality enough for anyone to live in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the video above, they use 5 layers to achieve what I'm convinced can be achieved with 2 - but I'm not sure how or what the 1 of those 2 would be. In the video, they used Concrete, Sticky-back plastic, polystyrene, anti-moisture layer and soil. Now I don't know much about construction or architecture but I've seen entire buildings and houses made of glass which would already be insulated, strong (if you got the [right kind][2]), environment-friendly (we find that nature sometimes makes [&quot;glass&quot; with lightning][3]) and moisture resistant (if you built it correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know what the main downsides to this would be and if there is a better alternative(s) than glass? With the main criteria being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Modularity/Maintainability&#xD;&#xA; 2. Environment Friendly&#xD;&#xA; 3. DIY Friendly&#xD;&#xA; 4. Strong/Resistant enough to stand firm for a long period of time&#xD;&#xA; 5. Insulated enough to keep out hot/cool air and moisture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If massive glass cubes/structures could just be produced/made and stuffed underground in a similar way to the above video then homesteading could be quite simple from there on out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Glass Houses under Grass (Taken from Recycled Island)][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mixed with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Electric Privacy Glass][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd bet that it'd look a lot [better][6] than it [does now][7] from above as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-O2ggn29fI&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwXaxyE0ezo&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZGrpf.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INvttjIMGxY&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.alajwah.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/green-hills-cool-high-1600x1200-resolutions-green-hill-nature-picture-hill-hd-wallpaper.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02022/city-pollution_2022795i.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2773" RevisionGUID="ee3ae2cc-f6e0-45d6-841d-6dad1ab180d5" CreationDate="2014-05-08T02:11:09.473" UserId="1415" Text="I think you might've heard of the progress of a Santa Barbara, CA company called HyperSolar and their photosynthesis-inspired design for an underwater electrolysis application of nano-scale electrodes that are mass produced from copper or copper-coated material (or something like that).  Fantastic technology, if it ever gets to market....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here they are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.hypersolar.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enjoy!  :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2775" RevisionGUID="a91c8669-ce90-4d07-8492-cc310cdcb750" CreationDate="2014-05-08T12:33:05.230" UserId="1417" Text="Propane is unsustainable? Propane is a natural gas liquid. Not going away any time in the next few hundred years. Is as sustainable as electricity which is produced mostly by coal or natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you covered the great planes with wind power you will never generated a replacement of fossil fuels and you will eventually kill every bird in North America." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2777" RevisionGUID="9a87a680-bc88-4ed1-9076-cb06c90c92ca" CreationDate="2014-05-09T14:46:30.850" UserId="803" Text="There is a nice and quite detailed tutorial on how to do this on [Instructables][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are solving the problem of holding the raft together by using garden mesh. If you have a garden, or know somebody who has a garden, it shouldn't be hard to get your hands on some of this and I'm pretty sure you can use it again as garden mesh once you don't use your raft anymore (so no resources lost there)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Bottles held together by garden mesh][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also their design is somewhat different from the one on your picture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.instructables.com/id/Project-rRaft-Building-a-Raft-out-of-Water-Bottl/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oGqsw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2778" RevisionGUID="d656e78e-9d6c-4dbe-acf2-9aa874f76399" CreationDate="2014-05-10T12:33:47.017" UserId="1421" Text="You can recycle the screen&#xD;&#xA;Here is an How-to in French&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://korben.info/transformer-ecran-portable-en-ecran-pc-fixe.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="edf75034-20ab-42f4-a68b-b0029bee0c8e" CreationDate="2014-05-10T12:36:14.740" UserId="1421" Text="Adu!!!!!&#xD;&#xA;There are so many things to fix in Indonesia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So. My friend have a fridge with a broken door. Impossible to fix the door as the whole base is eaten by rust.&#xD;&#xA;I thought about lying the fridge horizontally and then just put the door on top of it, but would the pump/compressor survive that way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="edf75034-20ab-42f4-a68b-b0029bee0c8e" CreationDate="2014-05-10T12:36:14.740" UserId="1421" Text="Use a broken fridge horizontally" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="edf75034-20ab-42f4-a68b-b0029bee0c8e" CreationDate="2014-05-10T12:36:14.740" UserId="1421" Text="|craft|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2780" RevisionGUID="c6f359c4-52c7-4f97-ae5e-fe6647c046da" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:26:08.417" UserId="1421" Text="Here is a method that work for Indonesian sand flies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)tear a plastic bag to get 2 sheets of plastic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)dip them in any oily substance (to make it sticky). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)Attach them next to a outdoor light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) re-oil the plastic every weeks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of this trap easily kill hundreds of of monsters each night. By setting 4 similar traps we reduced the (very) local population by about 90% in matter of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Too bad it doesn't works for mosquitoes. And it looks ugly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2781" RevisionGUID="ea7ffe15-8b5f-492e-afe9-e1a29132841c" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:38:03.647" UserId="1421" Text="My friend is managing a bungalow hamlet on an otherwise desert island in Indonesia and, as you could expect, have big problems with mosquitoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to make some test one of those days using PET bottle as trap as desccribed here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.instructables.com/id/Quick-and-easy-homestead-uses-for-Plastic-Bottles-/step1/MosquitoInsect-Trap/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get it wrong: I do not plan to put it in the room (it is not efficient enough), but in the nearby swamp. It is supposed to kill slowly but steadily, so i hope that laying 2 such trap would make a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem is that sugar is expensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am planning to try with compost instead. Do you have any other idea/ experience?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2781" RevisionGUID="ea7ffe15-8b5f-492e-afe9-e1a29132841c" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:38:03.647" UserId="1421" Text="mosquito control with plastic bottle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2781" RevisionGUID="ea7ffe15-8b5f-492e-afe9-e1a29132841c" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:38:03.647" UserId="1421" Text="|pest-management|insects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2781" RevisionGUID="384fb3f8-a733-41bc-8547-b6fdb4a488f2" CreationDate="2014-05-10T13:48:37.473" UserId="1421" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="My friend is managing a tiny guesthouse on an otherwise desert island in Indonesia and, as you could expect, have big problems with mosquitoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to make some test one of those days using PET bottle as trap as described here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.instructables.com/id/Quick-and-easy-homestead-uses-for-Plastic-Bottles-/step1/MosquitoInsect-Trap/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get it wrong: I do not plan to put it in the room (it is not efficient enough), but in the nearby swamp. It is supposed to kill slowly but steadily, so i hope that laying 2 such trap would make a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem is that sugar is expensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am planning to try with compost instead. Do you have any other idea/ experience?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2782" RevisionGUID="9cc9608d-9622-42d9-8323-ab99b80cef13" CreationDate="2014-05-10T14:13:37.873" UserId="1421" Text="One possible problem: plastic is usually photo-degradable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter when you keep a plastic bottle in your house, but if your raft stay 12 hours/day in plain sunshine, it may leak within months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had similar experience: the cheap plastic hose I bought lasted only 2 month under Indonesian sun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2780" RevisionGUID="294748e3-0829-4613-8aad-0bf1cc3d1b83" CreationDate="2014-05-10T17:24:59.583" UserId="99" Comment="fixed spelling and list layout" Text="Here is a method that works for Indonesian sand flies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Tear a plastic bag to get 2 sheets of plastic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Dip them in any oily substance (to make it sticky). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Attach them next to an outdoor light&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Re-oil the plastic every week&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of this trap easily kills hundreds of monsters each night. By setting 4 similar traps we reduced the (very) local population by about 90% in matter of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Too bad it doesn't work for mosquitoes. And it looks ugly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2782" RevisionGUID="e9d9a02b-f9d9-4da2-8df7-151131ef5b98" CreationDate="2014-05-10T20:04:13.453" UserId="1421" Comment="grammar fixes" Text="One possible problem: plastic is usually photo-degradable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It doesn't matter when you keep a plastic bottle in your house, but if your raft stays 12 hours/day in plain sunshine, it may leak within months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had similar experience: the cheap plastic hose I bought lasted only 2 months under Indonesian sun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6530" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="01ad1aa4-32c2-4626-8b5f-560da97f0b19" CreationDate="2014-05-11T13:30:09.950" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/465484005803311104" />
  <row Id="6531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2783" RevisionGUID="531afd55-38ea-4ce2-9bfc-68fb3674c33e" CreationDate="2014-05-11T22:25:52.150" UserId="15" Text="Not sure about whether the pump/compressor will be ok, but I can say that you may have trouble with (gravity) drainage of condensation going to places it shouldn't, such as into electronic components or other metal components that will be damaged or corroded by it. It may also leave a wet patch on the floor (which may or may not matter, depending on the situation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may differ between models of fridge, but all fridges I have owned have a shallow evaporation tray at the back where condensation can drain to and evaporate. Clearly, when a fridge isn't upright, this system will not work as designed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2783" RevisionGUID="96a5f2b9-5d83-4c0e-9694-7a4f5428f357" CreationDate="2014-05-11T22:42:26.983" UserId="15" Comment="added 233 characters in body" Text="Not sure about whether the pump/compressor will be ok, but I can say that you may have trouble with (gravity) drainage of condensation going to places it shouldn't, such as into electronic components or other metal components that will be damaged or corroded by it. It may also leave a wet patch on the floor (which may or may not matter, depending on the situation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also have trouble with water accumulating inside the fridge if it can't drain away?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may differ between models of fridge, but all fridges I have owned have a shallow evaporation tray at the back where condensation can drain to and evaporate. Clearly, when a fridge isn't upright, this system will not work as designed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ps: I don't actually know where the water comes from that is channeled to the evaporation tray. If anyone else can explain, please do!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2784" RevisionGUID="f2d8fd34-3563-42e3-8dd6-7ad8852dcefa" CreationDate="2014-05-11T23:43:42.747" UserId="15" Text="Compost probably won't work, as you need something that emits carbon dioxide. Something starchy (eg potato, flour), chopped into small pieces, and mixed with some yeast and water may still work as well as sugar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as @THelper says in his comment directly against the question, the swamp is probably the wrong place to put a trap to get an effective result. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2785" RevisionGUID="026111fc-ae57-44dd-b35f-3236f6e35d2c" CreationDate="2014-05-12T05:05:07.700" UserId="1325" Text="I would suggest a combination of methods to control the mosquitoes. The [Lethal ovitrap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_ovitrap) is one approach, but if we look at the [mosquito](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito) life cycle, we see multiple points of attack.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Adult breeding.**  &#xD;&#xA;**Government and Aid Agencies breed and release** huge numbers of sterile male mosquitoes to interrupt breeding in some parts of the world. I assume that such an endeavour is not feasible for a private individual, and I have doubts about it's long term effectiveness.  &#xD;&#xA;**Mosquitoes require standing water** to breed. While the swamp you mention is an obvious source, *any* still water that lasts for more the 3 days can support breeding mosquitoes. That includes any puddles or pools formed by rain. Examples include the roof guttering of buildings, bromeliads (plants that catch water), pot-plant bases, old car tires, plastic containers, and more. Look around after rain to see the *many* places that mosquitoes can breed. When those places are identified, make changes so that the water can drain away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Eggs, Larvae, and Pupae**. The mosquito larvae and pupae live in water, and can possibly survive in very moist soil. Different species develop at different rates, but temperature also has an effect. Some species can develop from eggs to adults in [five days](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito#Adult).  &#xD;&#xA;**The Larvae and Pupae need to breathe.** So one control method is to spread an [oil film](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_control#Oil_drip) on stagnant water.  &#xD;&#xA;**A more ecologically sustainable solution** is to create conditions where [predators](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito#Natural_predators) can do the work for you. While draining the swamp may not be feasible, making changes so that all the pools of water are connected will allow any predator fish that are present to find and feed on the larvae and pupae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Female Mosquito Bites.** The female bites animals to draw blood that is used for the development of her eggs. So killing the females or just repelling them has a long-term effect. I have found that [Citronella](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citronella_oil) and also [Mosquito coils](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_coil) are very effective. Wikipedia lists many [natural repellents](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_repellent#Insect_repellents_from_natural_sources) that could be considered. [Pyrethrin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrethrin) is a naturally derived insecticide that also acts as a repellent in lower doses. In my understanding, Pyrethrin can be applied to surfaces as a long-lasting deterrent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many options, but I suggest the first thing to do is to take some measurements. Count how many mosquitoes are attracted to you in, say, 30 minutes before you start any counter-measures. After implementing one or more counter-measures, repeat your counting experiment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2786" RevisionGUID="af15cd3e-d0aa-4447-8a32-b874c91a4fb6" CreationDate="2014-05-12T09:24:43.600" UserId="1421" Text="Those cockroach are unable to exit from an aluminium can. The only problem is to get them in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Cut open a can&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Paint the outside with anything that would give foot traction. You can also glue some paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Put some bait inside. Stale beer is possibly the best. Any leftover would do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not nearly as efficient as chemicals as those are designed to poison the colony itself. But spreading several of those inexpensive and low-maintenance trap would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it means that you would have dozen of starving roaches scratching the wall of their aluminium prison at night. I can live with it, but you may wish to put some water inside to drawn them. Just know that an apparently drawn cockroach could revive within minutes while out of the water.&#xD;&#xA;Rule #4: double tap&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2778" RevisionGUID="847a1d8d-afbc-4ca9-a800-b8da814cddd3" CreationDate="2014-05-12T09:42:53.220" UserId="1421" Comment="Add a link in English. Just in case" Text="You can recycle the screen.&#xD;&#xA;But you need to buy a controller to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an how-to in English:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Convert-a-Laptop-LCD-into-an-External-Monit/step1/Getting-Started/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As always, French do it better. So here is a video for the true elite :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWyX8VZilXs#t=191" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="b8d4fc80-036f-4d2a-aa84-21f1b396eb13" CreationDate="2014-05-13T11:28:52.717" UserId="257" Comment="fluff removal" Text="My friend have a fridge with a broken door. Impossible to fix the door as the whole base is eaten by rust.&#xD;&#xA;I thought about lying the fridge horizontally and then just put the door on top of it, but would the pump/compressor survive that way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6539" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2779" RevisionGUID="b8d4fc80-036f-4d2a-aa84-21f1b396eb13" CreationDate="2014-05-13T11:28:52.717" Comment="Proposed by 257 approved by 1421 edit id of 264" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6540" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2781" RevisionGUID="b19ead78-9025-47e1-a12c-e862b0fd5b89" CreationDate="2014-05-13T16:32:17.503" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/466254615768346625" />
  <row Id="6541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2787" RevisionGUID="62d61515-1370-41d2-b997-b474313dcb32" CreationDate="2014-05-14T08:33:33.617" UserId="1430" Text=" why are not Fresnel Lenses commercially used in the production of steam to run a turbine and produce electricity ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2787" RevisionGUID="62d61515-1370-41d2-b997-b474313dcb32" CreationDate="2014-05-14T08:33:33.617" UserId="1430" Text="why Fresnel Lenses are not widely used in the production of solar electricity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2787" RevisionGUID="62d61515-1370-41d2-b997-b474313dcb32" CreationDate="2014-05-14T08:33:33.617" UserId="1430" Text="|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2787" RevisionGUID="da67c2c8-5932-47f9-b350-3f92d16a9726" CreationDate="2014-05-14T09:01:13.963" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, added link to explain what a Fresnel lens is" Text="Why are [Fresnel lenses](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_lens) not commercially used in the production of steam to run a turbine and produce electricity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6545" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2787" RevisionGUID="da67c2c8-5932-47f9-b350-3f92d16a9726" CreationDate="2014-05-14T09:01:13.963" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, added link to explain what a Fresnel lens is" Text="Why are Fresnel lenses not widely used in the production of solar electricity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2787" RevisionGUID="da67c2c8-5932-47f9-b350-3f92d16a9726" CreationDate="2014-05-14T09:01:13.963" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, added link to explain what a Fresnel lens is" Text="|solar-power|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2788" RevisionGUID="9b68f841-35d8-448a-93e1-0121c72eab37" CreationDate="2014-05-14T09:52:12.253" UserId="48" Text="This is built on, and directly quotes from, [my answer][1] and user26165's [answer][2] to [a similar question over on Physics.SE][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, fresnel lenses are not widely used for solar power. Occasionally, but rarely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issues are engineering and economics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other solar competitors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big economic story is the amazing speed at which ordinary photovoltaics have reduced their unit costs. This means that the economics of all the competing solar technologies - trackers, concentrating PV, concentrating solar thermal electric, all have got much more to prove now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The economic problem that comes from depending on direct rays&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concentrated solar power (CSP) that work by concentrating the sun on a heat-transfer fluid, to drive a turbine, depend on **direct** rays. Ordinary photovoltaics do not; they generate electricity from light however it comes in; reflected off snow, or scattered by the atmosphere and by clouds. And there's light like that all around the world (I've designed and sold PV systems for locations in Northern Europe, sub-tropics, Mount Everest, the tropics, and the South Pole). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas if you need high-intensity direct rays for a lot of the year, you're pretty much confined to the tropics and near the tropics. And those are places where clean water is precious - and these sort of plants can be large consumers of clean water. These plants can be sited further away (and there are indeed concentrating solar power stations further from the equator), but then you've got an economic problem - it will be the same capital costs, but much lower generation to spread those costs over, so unit energy costs will be higher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Maintenance challenges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As user26165's [answer][2] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fresnel lenses are inherently single surface lenses; all of the optical power is on the serrated surface.  The grooved structure of this surface is easily contaminated , needing frequent cleaning.  They are expensive to make in glass, and most moldable optical plastics are UV degradable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The surface contamination problem can be overcome by putting the grooved side on the inside, towards the focus.    This is the worst possible way to use a single surface refracting lens; the lens aberration are extremely large, whereas they are not too bad, with the grooved side out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The axial edges of the grooves scatter a lot of light, greatly reducing the transmission efficiency.  You already have an 8-10% Fresnel reflection loss from the surfaces anyway, so Fresnel lenses are inefficient compared to reflector mirrors, and even with plastic molded lenses the costs are high.  Numbers like 500 x concentration are not possible with linear (one directional trough) Fresnels, and even with rotationally symmetrical lenses, achieving 500 x is difficult because of the scattering from the non active edges of the grooves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/78848/4066&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/78918/4066&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/78846/4066&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2790" RevisionGUID="6c79c139-baf6-456a-a49e-a40710044c53" CreationDate="2014-05-14T15:28:09.240" UserId="1421" Text="The very reason solar energy is exciting is that it is not scarce at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, instead of making the best use of any photon, we use twice the surface area and cover it with cheap solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pros&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* cheaper&#xD;&#xA;* higher output&#xD;&#xA;* better scalability&#xD;&#xA;* minimum need for structure. Otherwise, you need to elevate a very heavy lenses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* if you leave in Monaco, you want to save each m²&#xD;&#xA;* less satisfying for engineers&#xD;&#xA;* When each square meter on earth will have been used, we'll need to come to that " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2791" RevisionGUID="07cd4b6a-7885-4558-820c-d38c7eca5726" CreationDate="2014-05-14T17:21:24.680" UserId="547" Text="The Naval Research Lab has also done some interesting work on extracting CO2 and water from seawater and fabricating fuel from that: http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2793" RevisionGUID="219a6b18-8ed7-4868-a197-817edb108bae" CreationDate="2014-05-14T22:19:46.550" UserId="1053" Text="My position on mosquitos is that they are welcome to live where they belong, and to serve their purpose there. I just don't want them biting me. Therefore I would not try to kill them in the swamp. I would instead try to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - keep them out of the guesthouse&#xD;&#xA; - keep them away from guests if they do get inside the guesthouse&#xD;&#xA; - keep them away from guests in the vicinity of the guesthouse&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would do this with a variety of approaches all at once:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - check for stagnant water around the guesthouse (say, 50 feet.)&#xD;&#xA; - learn what eats mosquitoes where you live (bats, for example) and how to encourage them (build a bat box on a tree near the guesthouse.)&#xD;&#xA; - install screens in the windows and doors of the guesthouse&#xD;&#xA; - install sleeping nets over the bed in the guesthouse&#xD;&#xA; - provide citronella coils or candles (and matches!) for use outdoors. These aren't safe indoors - tell your guests this.&#xD;&#xA; - encourage your guests to bring insect repellant and clothing (very lightweight long pants and long sleeved shirts for example) in an email you send them before they arrive. &#xD;&#xA; - teach your guests when the mosquitos are worst. In Ontario, it's July and August, and it's worst in the early evening when the air is still. Encourage them to wear the clothes and repellent then, to use the citronella outside, and to keep the screens closed to keep the bugs out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While mosquitos don't carry diseases where I live, they can spoil a summer evening or make gardening almost impossible. I've learned how to minimize the biting without killing them all for miles around me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2790" RevisionGUID="d2189dec-19bf-4620-8ece-81d9473ef0a9" CreationDate="2014-05-15T06:55:37.147" UserId="1325" Comment="Capitalization and spelling." Text="The very reason solar energy is exciting is that it is not scarce at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, instead of making the best use of any photon, we use twice the surface area and cover it with cheap solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pros&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cheaper&#xD;&#xA;* Higher output&#xD;&#xA;* Better scalability&#xD;&#xA;* Minimum need for structure. Otherwise, you need to elevate a very heavy lenses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cons&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you live in Monaco, you want to save each m²&#xD;&#xA;* Less satisfying for engineers&#xD;&#xA;* When each square meter on earth will have been used, we'll need to come to that " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6555" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2790" RevisionGUID="d2189dec-19bf-4620-8ece-81d9473ef0a9" CreationDate="2014-05-15T06:55:37.147" Comment="Proposed by 1325 approved by 99 edit id of 266" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="933" RevisionGUID="b6170031-2640-46af-9254-a3dcef33fbf0" CreationDate="2014-05-15T11:37:23.937" UserId="99" Comment="added Sulfoxaflor as neonicotinoid insecticide no 8" Text="Since nobody answered, I thought I’d post an answer with what I’ve been able to find out myself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Types**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a list of 8 different neonicotinoid insecticides on [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#Available_neonicotinoid_insecticides):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Acetamiprid&#xD;&#xA; - Clothianidin&#xD;&#xA; - Dinotefuran&#xD;&#xA; - Imidacloprid&#xD;&#xA; - Nitenpyram&#xD;&#xA; - Sulfoxaflor&#xD;&#xA; - Thiacloprid&#xD;&#xA; - Thiamethoxam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neonicotinoid insecticide that is most commonly used is [Imidacloprid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid). I'm not sure if manufacturers are obliged to put the name of these substances on all their products, so these names might not show up on a product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Brands**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bayer is the company that has invented Imidacloprid and also seems to sell the most products that have this stuff in them, so careful when buying stuff from them. Other brand names:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Admire, Advantage (Advocate) (flea killer for pets), Confidor, Conguard, Gaucho, Hachikusan, Intercept, Kohinor, Mallet, Merit, Nuprid, Optrol, Premise, Prothor, Provado, Turfthor, Winner, and Xytect (source [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid#Brand_names))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found [this list](http://www.pan-uk.org/home-garden/list-of-home-and-garden-pesticides-containing-neonicotinoids) with products that contain neonicotinoids, but there is no date so I’m not sure how old the list is and if it is complete (probably not).&#xD;&#xA;The EU has decided that all countries have 1 year to start with the ban, so it’s possible that products with neonicotinoids in them are still being sold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Application**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparentely there are many uses for neonicotinoids:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it can be applied by soil injection, tree injection, application to the skin of the plant, broadcast foliar, ground application as a granular or liquid formulation, or as a pesticide-coated seed treatment. (source: [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid#Authorized_uses))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read that Imidacloprid is taken up by plants and trees and remains present in their flowers or seeds so I suspect there is no way of knowing for sure whether a tree, plant, flower bulb, or seed contains neonicotinoids without labtests. The safest choice is probably to buy organic plants, bulbs and seeds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2794" RevisionGUID="dcf4ddff-fbbe-4078-a227-bf9e6f57a306" CreationDate="2014-05-15T12:24:32.013" UserId="1436" Text="My girlfriend just started knitting and she got really good at it. I like the idea of producing your own clothes a lot since they seem to have a lot more (also emotional) value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that my grandmother had a knitting machine which made work a lot easier / faster. Now we are living in the 21th century and I was wondering whether there is something like computer programmable knitting machines that are really up to date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was searching the web a bit and I figured out there are .. somehow. Just I don't know where to start, which companies are still producing? Where to order them? There are really many companies producing different types ... What would be realistic prices? What are important things to keep in mind? Does anyone here as experience he/she could share? Maybe a website as a good starting point? Is there a model you could recommend?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much for your help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2794" RevisionGUID="dcf4ddff-fbbe-4078-a227-bf9e6f57a306" CreationDate="2014-05-15T12:24:32.013" UserId="1436" Text="Which knitting machine should I buy, where can I get information on this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2794" RevisionGUID="dcf4ddff-fbbe-4078-a227-bf9e6f57a306" CreationDate="2014-05-15T12:24:32.013" UserId="1436" Text="|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2795" RevisionGUID="10465d2e-bce8-47a2-94ca-a7de672c2ec0" CreationDate="2014-05-15T13:22:53.110" UserId="1065" Text="I am a hand knitter who occasionally toys with buying a knitting machine. I have not used one personally, but I do know of the following forums with machine knitters who can help you find the right machine:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ravelry.com is an online knitting forum that most of the knitters I know use to find patterns and yarn and share work. It also has a machine knitting forum, with lots of helpful, experienced machine knitters who can answer your questions.&#xD;&#xA;- aboutknittingmachines.com is another site with tons of information on all of the machine knitting options out there. It is a good place to figure out what all of the options are (because there are a LOT of options - most of them very expensive ;)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to understand that machine knitting is a completely different skillset than hand knitting. There is a steep learning curve for machine knitting, even for people who are skilled hand knitters. You need to spend a lot of time practicing on the machine, learning how to adjust it so stitches aren't dropped and how to set it up to do different stitches. The machines are very expensive, and so are the add-ons. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen two types of knitting machines - ones that produce a tube and ones that produce a flat piece of knitting. If you get the tube kind, all you'll be able to produce are things that have a tube shape (socks, double-fabric scarves, etc.) If you buy a flat machine, you'll be able to produce flat pieces quickly, but then you will need to spend time finishing the garment by sewing them all together. Finishing is a skill in itself, and may knitters like myself learn to knit it the round just to avoid having to do too much of it! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2794" RevisionGUID="5d186d7a-1db1-49da-b7d7-bd6277b38396" CreationDate="2014-05-15T13:37:19.770" UserId="48" Comment="fixed question to be a suitable fit for our Q&amp;A format" Text="My girlfriend just started knitting and she got really good at it. I like the idea of producing your own clothes a lot since they seem to have a lot more (also emotional) value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I remember that my grandmother had a knitting machine which made work a lot easier / faster. Now we are living in the 21th century and I was wondering whether there is something like computer programmable knitting machines that are really up to date.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was searching the web a bit and I figured out there are .. somehow. Just I don't know where to start. What are important things to keep in mind? What features should I look for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6564" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2794" RevisionGUID="5d186d7a-1db1-49da-b7d7-bd6277b38396" CreationDate="2014-05-15T13:37:19.770" UserId="48" Comment="fixed question to be a suitable fit for our Q&amp;A format" Text="What should I look for in a knitting machine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2772" RevisionGUID="7525d111-a2ad-41ad-a384-8050dbab4037" CreationDate="2014-05-15T15:20:11.313" UserId="277" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="There is this method by NJ Agricultural Experiment Station, which is using not entirely upcycled materials, but somewhat cheaper alternatives to industrial parts. You can find the link to the video below...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Rutgers NJAES Cooperative Extension: Building a Rain Barrel](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geSuRr3Xbaw)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2796" RevisionGUID="04195e03-99d7-4802-819e-737c8d417252" CreationDate="2014-05-17T22:25:21.707" UserId="1238" Text="A lot of municipalities will also offer subsidized or free rain barrels to residents; it helps lessen the load on the local storm water collection infrastructure during heavy rains.  Check with your local city hall." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6567" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2794" RevisionGUID="c64fc04b-e61c-406b-a471-7882e5c0dbce" CreationDate="2014-05-18T07:08:14.403" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/467924605681008641" />
  <row Id="6568" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2787" RevisionGUID="93f59273-2e94-4805-9690-64478e903675" CreationDate="2014-05-18T13:08:15.163" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/468015202990968832" />
  <row Id="6570" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2769" RevisionGUID="6e0de2be-cb6d-4107-8379-0fbbc9414075" CreationDate="2014-05-19T04:14:05.860" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/468243168467484672" />
  <row Id="6571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2797" RevisionGUID="55ed2d74-d5c1-42f9-be86-29f9c48c2e12" CreationDate="2014-05-19T21:19:40.437" UserId="1442" Text="Marcal on the East Coast of the US is a reasonably priced napkin, paper towel and t.p. manufacturer that can be found in supermarkets.  Their slogan used to be &quot;Marcalculate and save :)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2798" RevisionGUID="89d88f42-7963-4680-81c8-39cd9eb5d7ac" CreationDate="2014-05-20T00:27:39.477" UserId="1443" Text="You could use some food grade DE on your compost pile this will help dry it out and will most certainly kill all the fruit flies. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2799" RevisionGUID="01bbeeb4-7f4f-4c24-b93f-4535952077e0" CreationDate="2014-05-20T10:59:38.323" UserId="1444" Text="I think that, as you suggested, an [ultrasonic flow meter][1] would be great. They simply &quot;clamp on&quot; to what you want to measure, no interruptions. Ultrasonic flow meters do not move and therefore should be the most accurate and reliable option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://micronicsflowmeters.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2800" RevisionGUID="9fdae5f0-934b-4983-9ef5-09f47a231daa" CreationDate="2014-05-20T18:51:54.670" UserId="1211" Text="I would check out biolite. I know this isn't a complete answer. &#xD;&#xA;https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/biolite/biolite-basecamp-stove-turn-fire-into-electricity&#xD;&#xA;   http://www.biolitestove.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="4675142d-6194-4795-8f54-a900c77b3888" CreationDate="2014-05-21T22:40:37.783" UserId="1378" Text="There is a small pond next to my house and I observed that dragonflies spawn there. Probably so do mosquitoes, at least the location in general is plagued by mosquitoes. Standing water is a suitable breeding ground for mosquitoes, but the dragonflies are an [efficient predator][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to estimate if the pond with its presence is contributing to mosquito growth or extermination?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito#Natural_predators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="4675142d-6194-4795-8f54-a900c77b3888" CreationDate="2014-05-21T22:40:37.783" UserId="1378" Text="Dragonflies vs. mosquitoes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="4675142d-6194-4795-8f54-a900c77b3888" CreationDate="2014-05-21T22:40:37.783" UserId="1378" Text="|water|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2802" RevisionGUID="11ca9136-e709-454a-b45c-3016308a1413" CreationDate="2014-05-21T23:08:56.817" UserId="659" Text="[From your link][1] it seems likely that you're seeing a net increase in mosquitoes:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dense populations can be useful in reducing mosquito problems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I take that to mean that you need a lot of dragonflies to see a small reduction in mosquito population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience is that having a vigorous frog population eliminated mosquito larvae from the ponds the frogs were in, but we still got mosquitoes from surrounding areas. Comparatively few, but enough that we still needed screens and nets. Since flying mosquitoes have no effective predators, those seem to be the two effective approaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest either frogs or insectivorous fish in the pond, or if that's not practical, cover or remove the pond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito#Natural_predators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="56e2314d-fc88-49d8-ad25-c532ac985ec5" CreationDate="2014-05-22T00:58:05.780" UserId="1325" Text="At best, **the pond is a local source of mosquitoes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Predators such as dragonflies can only achieve a balance: if the mosquito numbers decline, so will the dragonflies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Frogs**  &#xD;&#xA;If the pond cannot be covered or drained, I would encourage you to consider frogs, as [Mσᶎ suggested](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2802/1325). Worldwide, [frogs are in decline](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_amphibian_populations), so introducing local species to the pond would seem to be a positive in sustainability terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But nothing comes for free: the dragonfly larvae will also be eaten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Goldfish**  &#xD;&#xA;While a few ordinary goldfish (or, as the Wikipedia article you linked says, guppies) will enthusiastically eat the larvae, they too will only achieve a balance. The total number of mosquitoes will be lower, but they will still be present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Goldfish](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfish) are omnivorous, so when they cannot find mosquito larvae, small crustaceans, or zooplankton, they'll eat vegetation and detritus. So they will not decline when the mosquitoes are eaten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, any predator will also eat the dragonfly larvae, frogspawn, and tadpoles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other fish?**  &#xD;&#xA;You do not mention your location, so we cannot know what indigenous fish could be introduced to the pond. It would have to be a species that copes well with still water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**  &#xD;&#xA;In order of preference: frogs, local fish, cover or drain the pond. Avoid goldfish, since they are an introduced species and could escape." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2804" RevisionGUID="2c1dc4fa-9dd9-4381-a2d8-c223ba9b8112" CreationDate="2014-05-22T01:46:07.590" UserId="15" Text="Butcher's paper was suggested to me as a sustainable material for [storing food in the freezer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I found [this site][2] that suggests it is sometimes oiled or waxed. Perhaps it coated in plastic sometimes too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My goal in the other question linked above was to find a material suitable for freezer use that would be recyclable, compostable, or at least reusable many times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm going to compost butcher's paper, then it's clear I would need to find out whether the supplier of the paper treats the paper with wax (food oil would probably be ok though), or plastic. Can anyone tell me what the norm is for treatment of butcher paper?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/652/15&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ehow.com/how_7436396_recycle-butcher-paper.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2804" RevisionGUID="2c1dc4fa-9dd9-4381-a2d8-c223ba9b8112" CreationDate="2014-05-22T01:46:07.590" UserId="15" Text="Is butcher's paper typically waxed, oiled, or plastic coated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2804" RevisionGUID="2c1dc4fa-9dd9-4381-a2d8-c223ba9b8112" CreationDate="2014-05-22T01:46:07.590" UserId="15" Text="|composting|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2805" RevisionGUID="8ca9a7a2-c079-4422-addf-a87a011dd66b" CreationDate="2014-05-22T05:32:41.467" UserId="318" Text="**DC motors:** The most suitable motors are those which have permanent magnets in their rotors.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally these were pure DC motors - where DC was fed into the motor rather than AC such as is obtained from AC mains or via a transformer, but the boundary has become blurred as a BLDC motor or BLDCM = &quot;Brushless DC Motor&quot; uses electronics to take supplied DC and create required AC fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Alternators and generators:**  Also suitable are devices intended originally for power generation rather than as motors. A car alternator is in this class. Due to industry attempts to lower cost a car alternator is harder to use in some applications than eg a BLDCM. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Induction motors:**  These are the majority of appliance motors in the 1/4HP (200 Watt) to several HP (2000 W +) range.  These are generally NOT considered suitable but in many cases could be used with suitable expertise. There are usually enough alternatives available to make the use of induction motors unattractive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the list you provided the following are DC motors which can be used either directly or with minor changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fans from old computers - need modification&#xD;&#xA;Electric lawnmower motors - some&#xD;&#xA;Washing machine motors&#xD;&#xA;Dryer motors - some&#xD;&#xA;Alternators from cars - yes but need battery feed&#xD;&#xA;Motors from power tools - Usually&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also   &#xD;&#xA;any BLDCMs (require minor modificatons (washing machines and others),   &#xD;&#xA;motors from battery powered tools,    &#xD;&#xA;'stepper motors' from computer equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The details can be complex so this is a quick summary. I can provide as much information as desired if more questions are asked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MORE LATER ...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2806" RevisionGUID="41f7bd55-b877-4efe-aed4-01d28a4e3126" CreationDate="2014-05-22T12:07:58.717" UserId="1454" Text="Filling in the pond seems excessive. Mosquito's like stagnant water, rather than flowing.&#xD;&#xA;Install a solar powered fountain or fall. &#xD;&#xA;May not help but more attractive than a filled in pond." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1168" RevisionGUID="19ebbec5-0c80-4287-8802-cc4e83ddc60c" CreationDate="2014-05-22T13:07:38.983" UserId="569" Comment="Fixed formatting (had to reformulate a little bit to do so)." Text="I just came across this page as I was looking for a list of products with neonicotinoids in them. I found a list [for the UK](http://www.pan-uk.org/home-garden/list-of-home-and-garden-pesticides-containing-neonicotinoids) and another one [for the US](http://www.xerces.org/wings-magazine/neonicotinoids-in-your-garden/). The Xerces Society link includes links to additional articles with slightly different lists of products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also heard nurseries use potting soil with neonicotinoids in the potted plants they sell. Haven't been able to track that down since nurseries I ask have no idea what is in their potting soil. Since neonicotinoids in soil is even more toxic, I suggest buying smaller plants, thereby getting less possible contaminants (saves money too!)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6586" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1168" RevisionGUID="19ebbec5-0c80-4287-8802-cc4e83ddc60c" CreationDate="2014-05-22T13:07:38.983" Comment="Proposed by 569 approved by 99 edit id of 268" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="51e3d523-c9bc-4c39-a067-51a972d59175" CreationDate="2014-05-22T14:38:47.817" UserId="1456" Text="Methane (CH4) is available naturally.  Propane (C3H8) is derived from Methane.  Is there a process for synthesizing propane applicable to a micro-farm environment?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="51e3d523-c9bc-4c39-a067-51a972d59175" CreationDate="2014-05-22T14:38:47.817" UserId="1456" Text="Synthetic Propane Manufacture" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="51e3d523-c9bc-4c39-a067-51a972d59175" CreationDate="2014-05-22T14:38:47.817" UserId="1456" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2808" RevisionGUID="3fc10e89-8f36-4e68-9b97-9f73bab643b4" CreationDate="2014-05-23T11:35:09.273" UserId="1378" Text="**Firewood.** So cheap, so safe and so available. Forests are totally sustainable in many climates. Decent energy density: 1/4 that of the oil, which is the king of the hill. Firewood=**11 MJ/kg**, oil=**44 Mj/kg**. Of course, you need a range, which is also simple, reliable and time-tested. For electricity extraction you also need a **turbine** ([about 90% of all electricity generation in the United States (1996) is by use of steam turbines][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are considering antimatter, you might as well consider getting a **bull**. It is equally advanced, but so much more sustainable, even self-sustaining and self-replicating (depending on climate). Not so useful for washing the dishes, but excellent for transporting weights, tilling the earth and extracting the solar energy from weeds (cellulose). And cow-dung is an excellent resource, including as a fuel, antiseptic, isolator, fertilizer, mulch and other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6595" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="c642ab01-53e1-4968-8ea1-dc64226c8f6b" CreationDate="2014-05-24T13:30:55.183" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/470195236279713792" />
  <row Id="6596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2810" RevisionGUID="832accb6-578d-4e37-b504-3df6335ca80e" CreationDate="2014-05-25T03:39:14.587" UserId="1461" Text="I trench the apples. I make a trench 12 inches deep if the crop I will be planting there has roots that go down that far. I then fill the trench four inches with windfall apples, and top it off with soil. I am not concerned with quick results. It will take two years before the apples get broken down under those conditions. You need to consider this if, for example, you rotate what you plant in that row each year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can fill a 12 inch trench halfway or more with apples if you are tight for space, but then you will have a lot of fill dirt to find a place for afterwards, and, as the apples break down, there will be a more noticeable drop in the level of the trench (mature apples are 84% water)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2811" RevisionGUID="e139eb96-9a36-4771-8d92-d1c82a31ba9a" CreationDate="2014-05-25T17:10:15.037" UserId="1462" Text="I live in the tropics, and during the summer it is very hot here. Today the air temp was low-mid 30C with 80% Relative Humidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live close to a stream, which I'd like to use for free-cooling. Today I went out to the stream to check the temperature, and the stream was running at about 20C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By my back of envelope calculations I can see that with a flow rate of 0.1l/s I would have about 418W/K change in the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, how close can I expect to be able to get my indoor air temp to the outflowing water temperature? How effective is my setup likely to be if I pull in the water and run the water through as a &quot;once through cooling&quot; system, through a fan coil? I am missing some parameters to effectively size the system. But I do know that I want to be able to draw in the order of 1hp (750W) out of my home at 25C indoor air temperature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6598" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2811" RevisionGUID="e139eb96-9a36-4771-8d92-d1c82a31ba9a" CreationDate="2014-05-25T17:10:15.037" UserId="1462" Text="How effective is free cooling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6599" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2811" RevisionGUID="e139eb96-9a36-4771-8d92-d1c82a31ba9a" CreationDate="2014-05-25T17:10:15.037" UserId="1462" Text="|water|cooling|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2812" RevisionGUID="b86663d9-7241-4dde-bded-b9ff4388d02f" CreationDate="2014-05-26T07:47:35.097" UserId="99" Text="AFAIK there is no sustainable method to turn methane into propane, but I must admit I'm no expert on this topic. I do know that it is possible to use  use CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, water and electricity to generate methane on a small scale. When the electricity comes from (the spare capacity of) sustainable energy sources then this process is sustainable and can be used to  reduce CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. More info on this [on this site](http://www.etogas.com/en/the-challenge).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in [this article](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/407312/a-portable-refinery-powered-by-garbage/) they claim they built a small portable refinary that turns &#xD;&#xA;&gt; plastics, paper, and other residual waste into methane and low-grade propane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, from the article it isn't clear to me how the process works exactly and how sustainable it really is. The article does say that the refinery requires diesel fuel for the first hours to run." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6601" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2811" RevisionGUID="6d3a00f9-db21-47d8-994f-5ce7ccb7a779" CreationDate="2014-05-26T10:46:49.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/470878717385146368" />
  <row Id="6602" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2807" RevisionGUID="184f2cfa-f131-4033-bb3f-fc9cc9c27a5a" CreationDate="2014-05-27T16:46:54.010" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/471331719316926464" />
  <row Id="6603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2813" RevisionGUID="e7aae5c1-f2a8-471d-9bb4-881bb4991fc3" CreationDate="2014-05-27T17:46:19.707" UserId="1456" Text="Previous owners of our property used pressure-treated wood for their raised-bed vegetable patch.  I have seen warnings about chemicals from PTW going into foods.  How real is the danger? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2813" RevisionGUID="e7aae5c1-f2a8-471d-9bb4-881bb4991fc3" CreationDate="2014-05-27T17:46:19.707" UserId="1456" Text="Chemicals From Pressure-Treated Wood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2813" RevisionGUID="e7aae5c1-f2a8-471d-9bb4-881bb4991fc3" CreationDate="2014-05-27T17:46:19.707" UserId="1456" Text="|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6607" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2801" RevisionGUID="152fa58f-ea26-41a3-a638-fc7a8161648a" CreationDate="2014-05-28T12:34:42.153" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2800" RevisionGUID="f0943868-ec02-4099-a196-028b7f86103b" CreationDate="2014-05-28T18:43:30.707" UserId="1211" Comment="added 376 characters in body" Text="![enter image description here][1]I would check out biolite. I know this isn't a complete answer. &#xD;&#xA;https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/biolite/biolite-basecamp-stove-turn-fire-into-electricity&#xD;&#xA;   http://www.biolitestove.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TFDrU.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heat is generated in the &quot;Heat&quot; chamber(right pic) usually with burning wood/twigs. You can only charge usb devices while the pot is burning. There is an external fan,that I first assumed generated the electricity. However that is used to help generate the heat by moving oxygen.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6609" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="189" RevisionGUID="517c6a9e-a5d1-433c-bf6a-f643fe6d65d3" CreationDate="2014-05-29T13:23:27.777" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|diy|plastic|building-materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="023dded8-bda3-46f0-a7ce-319e6bdf4d33" CreationDate="2014-05-29T13:26:02.833" UserId="85" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="Values for [virtual water content][1], that is, all water used in the production of whatever product you are analyzing, are usually available for a meal, a piece of clothing, a fruit, but not very easily accessible for electronics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the amount expended in the production of a cell phone will depend on the model, but I can't seem to find even a gross (but reliable) estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would anyone know where I can find such values or how one can estimate them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/home" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6611" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="023dded8-bda3-46f0-a7ce-319e6bdf4d33" CreationDate="2014-05-29T13:26:02.833" UserId="85" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|water|virtual-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2814" RevisionGUID="171cc3de-447c-4df9-87cf-b845a175be89" CreationDate="2014-05-29T15:09:22.247" UserId="1053" Text="I have a number of small devices that can be charged in my car (using a charger that plugs into the car's electrical system and is powered by the car's gasoline engine) or my home (using electricity supplied by my local grid.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does charging a phone or other device in the car change the amount of gasoline the car uses, or is the charging done using energy that would otherwise be wasted? If it does use gasoline, is the process of making electricity like this more or less efficient than whatever my provider uses (where I live, this is a mix of nuclear, fossil, and hydro-electric plants, supplemented with some insanely expensive wind and solar)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the choice between charging while I'm driving home (say I'm at 20% battery) or leaving it until I get home and charging with a wall unit, which is cheaper for me or better for the planet? To what extent does this depend on how my home electricity is generated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6614" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2814" RevisionGUID="171cc3de-447c-4df9-87cf-b845a175be89" CreationDate="2014-05-29T15:09:22.247" UserId="1053" Text="Does it matter where I charge my device?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6615" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2814" RevisionGUID="171cc3de-447c-4df9-87cf-b845a175be89" CreationDate="2014-05-29T15:09:22.247" UserId="1053" Text="|energy-efficiency|cars|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2815" RevisionGUID="814124cd-c0dc-40d7-ac08-3317e7c670ef" CreationDate="2014-05-29T21:43:13.290" UserId="15" Text="**Yes, it matters, a little, but it also depends on your location.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your car, the process of converting fuel to movement is pretty inefficient (about 25% to 30%, [according to this][1]). That movement (kinetic energy, if you're a physicist) is then converted to electrical energy with an [efficiency of 75% to 80%][2], giving you an overall efficiency of 18.75% to 24%. You might also consider the inefficiency of getting the fuel to the service station that you bought it from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your home, electricity is generated with varying efficiencies depending on the generation that supplies it. Transmission losses in the US are [apparently about 6.5%][4] (ie 93.5% efficient). It looks like an average for generation efficiency [would be around 39%][3]. This last link also says the efficiency for the consumer is about 33%, which seems about right. It's somewhat higher than when you use electricity from your car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It's better to charge your phone from home.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it very much depends on how your electricity for your home is generated. If you use an electricity retailer that leans towards renewable energy, it's going to be much better for the planet. It's clear there would be very few cases where the electricity grid generation was so inefficient that your car did a better job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All that said, cellphones don't use much power. It's probably not worth worrying about too much.** For most people, there are much bigger energy efficiency improvements that can be made through actions like improving home insulation and heating/cooling systems, reducing use of hot water, and analysis of home appliance electricity use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Internal_combustion_engines&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternator_%28automotive%29#Field_regulation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Production&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2815" RevisionGUID="8d8c554f-4842-4145-86a7-192c176c00de" CreationDate="2014-05-30T04:19:32.397" UserId="15" Comment="Clarified wording" Text="**Yes, it matters, a little, but it also depends on your location.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your car, the process of converting fuel to movement is pretty inefficient (about 25% to 30%, [according to this][1]). That movement (kinetic energy, if you're a physicist) is then converted to electrical energy with an [efficiency of 75% to 80%][2], giving you an overall efficiency of 18.75% to 24%. You might also consider the inefficiency of getting the fuel to the service station that you bought it from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your home, electricity is generated with varying efficiencies depending on the generation that supplies it. Transmission losses in the US are [apparently about 6.5%][4] (ie 93.5% efficient). It looks like an average for generation efficiency [would be around 39%][3]. This last link also says the overall efficiency of getting power to the consumer is about 33%, which seems about right, given the previous two figures. The efficiency is somewhat higher than when you use electricity from your car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It's better to charge your phone from home.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it very much depends on how your electricity for your home is generated. If you use an electricity retailer that leans towards renewable energy, it's going to be much better for the planet. It's clear there would be very few cases where the electricity grid generation was so inefficient that your car did a better job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All that said, cellphones don't use much power. It's probably not worth worrying about too much.** For most people, there are much bigger energy efficiency improvements that can be made through actions like improving home insulation and heating/cooling systems, reducing use of hot water, and analysis of home appliance electricity use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Internal_combustion_engines&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternator_%28automotive%29#Field_regulation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Production&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6619" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2814" RevisionGUID="f8ebaec1-b66f-427c-a75d-483b709f49f6" CreationDate="2014-05-30T19:59:31.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/472467358762561536" />
  <row Id="6620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2815" RevisionGUID="83956ba3-0e09-4cb9-bb30-4b39cdf9ec56" CreationDate="2014-05-31T09:12:39.040" UserId="15" Comment="Explained link between electricity in your car, and fuel consumption." Text="**Yes, it matters, a little, but it also depends on your location.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your car, the process of converting fuel to movement is pretty inefficient (about 25% to 30%, [according to this][1]). That movement (kinetic energy, if you're a physicist) is then converted to electrical energy with an [efficiency of 75% to 80%][2], giving you an overall efficiency of 18.75% to 24%. You might also consider the inefficiency of getting the fuel to the service station that you bought it from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using more electricity in your car means a higher physical resistance experienced by the engine when it tries to turn the core of the alternator. ie it's harder to turn the alternator when more electricity is being drawn from it, and thus more fuel is used to keep the vehicle at the same speed, unless the vehicle is idling, or [overrunning the engine][3] downhill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your home, electricity is generated with varying efficiencies depending on the generation that supplies it. Transmission losses in the US are [apparently about 6.5%][4] (ie 93.5% efficient). It looks like an average for generation efficiency [would be around 39%][5]. This last link also says the overall efficiency of getting power to the consumer is about 33%, which seems about right, given the previous two figures. The efficiency is somewhat higher than when you use electricity from your car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It's better to charge your phone from home.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it very much depends on how your electricity for your home is generated. If you use an electricity retailer that leans towards renewable energy, it's going to be much better for the planet. It's clear there would be very few cases where the electricity grid generation was so inefficient that your car did a better job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All that said, cellphones don't use much power. It's probably not worth worrying about too much.** For most people, there are much bigger energy efficiency improvements that can be made through actions like improving home insulation and heating/cooling systems, reducing use of hot water, and analysis of home appliance electricity use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Internal_combustion_engines&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternator_%28automotive%29#Field_regulation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/a/3610/1761&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Production" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2816" RevisionGUID="8bb63feb-b7bd-4b89-a336-d4f4bcf9292b" CreationDate="2014-06-02T04:15:32.803" UserId="1446" Text="I can understand why it's still important to [pasteurize dairy products][raw-milk], especially if I'm simultaneously trying to reduce my reliance on refrigeration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Assumptions ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - that pasteurizing is a given&#xD;&#xA; - that the dairy-animals in question are for local-family-subsistence (not for show) **and**&#xD;&#xA; - that as a result of the organic approach, we are willing to accept a reduction in dairy output&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Concerns ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, by not using preventative antibiotics, the dairy animals are at increased risk.  However, much of that has to be mitigated because this is not a commercial farming operation.  There are a minimal amount of goats, for instance, enough to support a family and maybe trade with neighbors.  Not taking the animals to competitions will reduce the risk as well as having a decent-sized pasture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there risks that are not already accounted for in our assumption model? So besides reduced dairy output, **what are the risks to an organic dairy activity? Are available mitigation strategies sufficient to prevent loss of livelihood?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [raw-milk]: http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2816" RevisionGUID="8bb63feb-b7bd-4b89-a336-d4f4bcf9292b" CreationDate="2014-06-02T04:15:32.803" UserId="1446" Text="Are there reasons to avoid organic dairy farming even if the milk or cheese is still pasteurized?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2816" RevisionGUID="8bb63feb-b7bd-4b89-a336-d4f4bcf9292b" CreationDate="2014-06-02T04:15:32.803" UserId="1446" Text="|permaculture|husbandry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2817" RevisionGUID="54c4a2e7-e6ca-4550-a7ac-571c5e2bb7e3" CreationDate="2014-06-02T04:53:29.617" UserId="1446" Text="The danger is real enough for so-called &quot;ground contact&quot; applications, such as in your garden case.  Over time, the constant exposure to moisture leaches out the chemicals from the lumber and into the soil or ground water (especially in soils high in clay).&#xA;&#xA;Much before 2000, many pressure treating processes within the US involved some form of arsenic. As a heavy metal, arsenic is quite toxic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2816" RevisionGUID="1671662f-3469-4703-9215-596c3dd1c0f6" CreationDate="2014-06-02T11:29:12.610" UserId="1446" Comment="attempt at removing bias" Text="I can understand why it's still important to [pasteurize dairy products][raw-milk], especially if I'm simultaneously trying to reduce my reliance on refrigeration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Assumptions ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - that pasteurizing is a given&#xD;&#xA; - that the dairy-animals in question are for local-family-subsistence (not for show) **and**&#xD;&#xA; - that as a result of the organic approach, we are willing to accept a reduction in dairy output&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Concerns ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some may argue that, by not using preventative antibiotics and wormers, the dairy animals are at increased risk.  However, much of that has to be mitigated because this is not a commercial farming operation.  There are a minimal amount of goats, for instance, enough to support a family and maybe trade with neighbors.  Not taking the animals to competitions will reduce the risk as well as having a decent-sized pasture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there risks that are not already accounted for in our assumption model? So besides reduced dairy output, **what are the risks to an organic dairy activity? Are available mitigation strategies sufficient to prevent loss of livelihood?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [raw-milk]: http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2817" RevisionGUID="d73fa338-6cc2-4366-acc0-276cb6baaf39" CreationDate="2014-06-02T17:17:26.603" UserId="1446" Comment="Elaborated and added citations." Text="The danger is real enough for so-called &quot;ground contact&quot; applications, such as in your garden case.  Over time, the constant exposure to moisture leaches out the chemicals from the lumber and into the soil or ground water (especially in soils high in clay).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much before 2000, many pressure treating processes within the US involved some form of arsenic. Arsenic is *still permitted* in commercial and industrial applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Health Risks: ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Arsenic ###&#xD;&#xA;As a heavy metal, arsenic is quite toxic. Arsenic contamination of ground water (or well water) is not easily mitigated and will likely require long-term or *permanent* **reverse-osmosis** to be potable. [{Reference CDC article}][CDC-DW]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, your **greatest risks** from Arsenic exposure is from *handling or working with treated lumber* or from burning pressure treated wood (PTW) and *inhaling the smoke*. [The CDC has pages dedicated to toxic substances like Arsenic: exposure, symptoms, and recommendations.][CDC-Arsenic]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Chromated copper arsenate (CCA) ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In CCA treatment, copper is the primary fungicide, arsenic is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; secondary fungicide and an insecticide, and chromium is a fixative&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which also provides ultraviolet (UV) light resistance. Recognized for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the greenish tint it imparts to timber, CCA is a preservative that was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extremely common for many decades....On 1 January 2004, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a voluntary agreement with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; industry began restricting the use of CCA in treated timber in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; residential and commercial construction, with the exception of shakes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and shingles, permanent wood foundations, and certain commercial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; applications. [{Wiki - Wood preservation}, accessed 2-Jun-14.][Wiki-CCA]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CCA's health risks include Arsenic (see above) as well as Chromium. [Chromium is a known carcinogen, and can also cause Immune, Renal, and Respiratory damage.][CDC-Chromium]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Copper ###&#xD;&#xA;Other wood preservation techniques involved copper. [Copper released into the environment usually attaches to particles made of organic matter, clay, soil, or sand.][CDC-Copper] Low-levels of copper and actually required for good health. But high concentrations of copper can cause serious health problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [CDC-DW]: http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/private/wells/disease/arsenic.html&#xD;&#xA; [CDC-Arsenic]: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=19&amp;tid=3&#xD;&#xA; [Wiki-CCA]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_preservation#Chromated_copper_arsenate_.28CCA.29&#xD;&#xA; [CDC-Chromium]: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=17&#xD;&#xA; [CDC-Copper]: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=205&amp;tid=37" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2818" RevisionGUID="3450084d-c656-4b77-9c7a-3a0860d7ea1e" CreationDate="2014-06-02T17:45:09.887" UserId="1446" Text="I'm considering dairy-goat farming, principally in either Northern Arizona or Wyoming (USA). This will be small-scale, for subsistence and perhaps agritourism as a Hobby Farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many recommend keeping either a dog, donkey, or llama with the goat herd to provide protection and companionship. Donkeys eat much of the same food as the goats. The dog might be better if the predator is human. **If the primary concerns are wolves and coyotes, what factors should be taken into account when deciding which guardian to provide (if any)?** Perhaps an electric fence run off of solar might be a workable solution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2818" RevisionGUID="3450084d-c656-4b77-9c7a-3a0860d7ea1e" CreationDate="2014-06-02T17:45:09.887" UserId="1446" Text="What animal should I pen with my goat herd overnight to protect them from wolves and coyotes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2818" RevisionGUID="3450084d-c656-4b77-9c7a-3a0860d7ea1e" CreationDate="2014-06-02T17:45:09.887" UserId="1446" Text="|permaculture|animals|husbandry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2819" RevisionGUID="838d65d4-8802-4a36-aabc-4cc4b24817f3" CreationDate="2014-06-02T19:07:42.157" UserId="1053" Text="I would use a donkey. The dairy and sheep farmers I visited in the UK as a child used them, and there's a field of cows near me that has a pair of donkeys in it. When I go by on my bike, the donkeys clearly and obviously arrange themselves protectively between me and the cows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you had ever been kicked or bitten by a donkey, you would not so quickly say &quot;The dog might be better if the predator is human.&quot; They'll do a great job against a variety of predators, and can also help out (if you have the right equipment and temperament) with tasks that require strength, like pulling something heavy. A dog isn't going to do that for you. And as you've mentioned, they don't need separate food or shelter from their guardees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6638" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2813" RevisionGUID="580001be-2f56-4ce5-9b2b-2b3715a15353" CreationDate="2014-06-03T06:02:12.440" UserId="1446" Comment="added [toxic-chemicals]" Text="|gardening|toxic-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6639" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2813" RevisionGUID="580001be-2f56-4ce5-9b2b-2b3715a15353" CreationDate="2014-06-03T06:02:12.440" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 659, 99 edit id of 270" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1058" RevisionGUID="f33f2ef5-37ec-4b48-9290-0f1327a8c1c5" CreationDate="2014-06-03T06:03:04.363" UserId="1446" Comment="Created excerpt and base from Wikipedia and EPA websites." Text="Chemical toxicants include *inorganic substances* such as lead, mercury, hydrofluoric acid, and chlorine gas, and *organic compounds* such as methyl alcohol, most medications, and poisons from living things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6641" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1058" RevisionGUID="f33f2ef5-37ec-4b48-9290-0f1327a8c1c5" CreationDate="2014-06-03T06:03:04.363" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 99 edit id of 272" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1057" RevisionGUID="ab854e39-efbd-4ab5-9e10-111686efb25b" CreationDate="2014-06-03T06:03:22.920" UserId="1446" Comment="Created excerpt and base from Wikipedia and EPA websites." Text="**Toxic Chemicals** is one of three general categories of **toxic substances** (the other two being: *Biological toxicants* {such as bacteria} and *Physical toxicants* {such as coal dust}.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chemical toxicants include *inorganic* substances such as lead, mercury,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hydrofluoric acid, and chlorine gas, and *organic compounds* such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; methyl alcohol, most medications, and poisons from living things.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Wiki-Toxicity, accessed 2-Jun-14.][Wiki-Toxicity] [emphasis mine]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some toxic chemicals are naturally occurring in nature, such as Arsenic, but are dangerous in higher concentrations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Radioactive chemicals are not poisonous because of their chemical nature, and are not to be included within this tag.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Toxicity,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Substances and Toxics Science Resources,&quot; EPA Article, &lt;http://www2.epa.gov/science-and-technology/substances-and-toxics-science-resources&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Wiki-Toxicity]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6643" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1057" RevisionGUID="ab854e39-efbd-4ab5-9e10-111686efb25b" CreationDate="2014-06-03T06:03:22.920" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 99 edit id of 271" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1057" RevisionGUID="c7a4717c-7dfa-49b5-aff3-d3edae80738a" CreationDate="2014-06-03T06:05:11.403" UserId="99" Comment="edited body" Text="**Toxic Chemicals** is one of three general categories of **toxic substances** (the other two being: *Biological toxicants* (such as bacteria) and *Physical toxicants* (such as coal dust).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chemical toxicants include *inorganic* substances such as lead, mercury,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hydrofluoric acid, and chlorine gas, and *organic compounds* such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; methyl alcohol, most medications, and poisons from living things.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Wiki-Toxicity, accessed 2-Jun-14.][Wiki-Toxicity] [emphasis mine]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some toxic chemicals are naturally occurring in nature, such as Arsenic, but are dangerous in higher concentrations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Radioactive chemicals are not poisonous because of their chemical nature, and are not to be included within this tag.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Toxicity,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Substances and Toxics Science Resources,&quot; EPA Article, &lt;http://www2.epa.gov/science-and-technology/substances-and-toxics-science-resources&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Wiki-Toxicity]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1058" RevisionGUID="8cb197ac-3816-4d78-9e11-b747a11e63e5" CreationDate="2014-06-03T06:05:11.403" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Chemical toxicants include *inorganic substances* such as lead, mercury, hydrofluoric acid, and chlorine gas, and *organic compounds* such as methyl alcohol, most medications, and poisons for living things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="c0aa10cc-290d-46f7-9054-3365289ace7d" CreationDate="2014-06-03T06:06:02.800" UserId="1446" Comment="make excerpt more precise and added definitional qualities to the body." Text="The management and care of farm animals (livestock) by humans for profit, in which genetic qualities and behaviour, considered to be advantageous to humans, are further developed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6647" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="256" RevisionGUID="c0aa10cc-290d-46f7-9054-3365289ace7d" CreationDate="2014-06-03T06:06:02.800" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 99 edit id of 274" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="f7ad3bd3-dce2-4ffb-bb07-50eddcc3156e" CreationDate="2014-06-03T06:06:14.957" UserId="1446" Comment="make excerpt more precise and added definitional qualities to the body." Text="&gt; The term can refer to the practice of *selectively breeding* and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; raising livestock to promote desirable traits in animals for utility,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sport, pleasure, or research, but also refers to the efficient&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exploitation of a species in agriculture advantageous to humans.[{from Wiki-Animal Husbandry}][Wiki-Husbandry]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This tag should not be used for domestic 'pets' unless the animal provides a service or agricultural labor.* (i.e. a question about your pet Sheltie might not be appropriate, but a sheltie that herds your sheep deserves the [tag:husbandry] tag.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Animal Husbandry,&quot; Wiki Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Livestock and Animal Production,&quot; FAO.org, &lt;http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/animal_production.html&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Wiki-Husbandry]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6649" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="255" RevisionGUID="f7ad3bd3-dce2-4ffb-bb07-50eddcc3156e" CreationDate="2014-06-03T06:06:14.957" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 99 edit id of 273" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6650" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="34" RevisionGUID="8f7fa0a7-d1e5-47ad-9948-af54145d0862" CreationDate="2014-06-03T07:01:46.343" UserId="15" Comment="Changed warming tag to heating" Text="|heating|housing|survival|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6651" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6" RevisionGUID="46aed365-f377-4073-9f20-ef0268bfcc0f" CreationDate="2014-06-03T12:10:56.750" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|water|water-management|construction|planning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="caa8915e-f9d7-48d9-977b-d623f381caef" CreationDate="2014-06-03T12:14:51.007" UserId="85" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="What is the best option that's going to be safe for children/pets and require the least amount of reapplication?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for something that has little to no phytotoxicity between plant species." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6653" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="156" RevisionGUID="caa8915e-f9d7-48d9-977b-d623f381caef" CreationDate="2014-06-03T12:14:51.007" UserId="85" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|home|gardening|pest-management|pesticides|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="fdd9cbb5-6807-4e5a-9d7d-c3268810b99a" CreationDate="2014-06-03T12:17:35.777" UserId="85" Comment="edited body" Text="This is a really difficult question to answer but I might give this a try. As you already noticed, the WWF formula is quite strange and the results are intransparent. You always have to be careful with calculators like this. Mostly the footprints are too complex to simply calculate them on some website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, I guess 1.7 planets refers to the ecological footprint of the whole mankind if *every single human would live like you do*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to calculate your own ecological footprint I would recommend a little excercise for school teachers and students &quot;*How big is my ecological footprint?*&quot; by Tim Turner. It can be found [here][1] (PDF) and takes about 1 hour. You have to answer 50 questions on the following topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Water usage&#xD;&#xA; - Food&#xD;&#xA; - Transportation&#xD;&#xA; - Shelter&#xD;&#xA; - Energy usage&#xD;&#xA; - Clothing&#xD;&#xA; - ... and some fun facts to keep the students motivated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is your ecological footprint measured in hectars/acres. But this is by far **not scientific**. It only helps you to understand the complexity of calculating footprints and might point out some of the most important influences on your ecological footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also be interested in the complexity of calculating carbon footprints of various transportation options as discussed in this thread: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/93/103&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.earthrangers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/how_big_is_my_ecological_footprint.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2818" RevisionGUID="f2c4c873-ae1c-494b-b7fe-575bbdc1060b" CreationDate="2014-06-03T12:19:34.653" UserId="1446" Comment="Edited question to emphasize what might make an answer better." Text="What animal should I pen with my goat herd overnight to protect them from wolves and coyotes?&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm considering dairy-goat farming, principally in either Northern Arizona or Wyoming (USA). This will be small-scale, for subsistence and perhaps agritourism as a Hobby Farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many recommend keeping either a dog, donkey, or llama with the goat herd to provide protection and companionship. Donkeys eat much of the same food as the goats. The dog might be better if the predator is human. Perhaps an electric fence powered by solar might be a workable solution?  **If the primary concerns are wolves and coyotes, what factors should be taken into account when deciding which guardian to provide (if any)?** Great answers will attempt to provide an animal recommendation *and* justify (perhaps proposing additional evaluation criteria).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Possible Evaluation Criteria ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Can I obtain additional products from my guardian animal *(such as hair/fiber/wool)*?&#xD;&#xA; - Cost to purchase and maintain&#xD;&#xA; - Training period *(dogs may have to be trained not to attack the goats, breed dependent)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2822" RevisionGUID="7807aac3-6b5e-4e9c-8dd9-bb5c91cc6abf" CreationDate="2014-06-03T12:49:33.590" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="49cfcf5b-3475-4302-8499-ad7f26ff3fc9" CreationDate="2014-06-03T12:49:33.590" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6658" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2818" RevisionGUID="1a05f3c6-41d3-4d35-9e7f-fdc560db6674" CreationDate="2014-06-03T12:52:49.797" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/473809530980012032" />
  <row Id="6659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2464" RevisionGUID="58620808-f9a4-4bf6-ba54-2d7285ed05e5" CreationDate="2014-06-03T13:52:06.987" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="Of course that depends on the battery, but Lithium Ion batteries were the standard for laptop/cellphone batteries last time I checked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A battery feels most happy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. being neither too full nor too empty,&#xD;&#xA;2. being not too hot,&#xD;&#xA;3. being not charged/recharged too often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't need the battery, remove it from the battery pack (at about 60%) and store it dry and cool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use the battery, make sure your laptop doesn't get too hot. Usually the processor is located near the &quot;top&quot; of the keyboard, away from your hands, but so is the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is power management software for many laptops, which ensures that your battery only gets charged once the charge falls under a certain threshold (e.g. 40%) and then charges up to 80%. This allows you to plug in/unplug your laptop (to move location) without initiating a new charge cycle, which would lower the life span of the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(A friend of mine had a broken adapter, so the battery was charged/discharged every time someone bumped into the chord. After a few months, the 2-year old battery now lasts at most 2 minutes!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cellphones, it's inconvenient to keep them plugged into the wall all the time, so the general guideline is usually to charge it once it falls under, say, 30% and discharge it fully, followed after a full recharge, about once a month. The same holds true for laptop batteries, of course, but I usually find myself discharging them fully more than once a month anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular, this means that the rule (myth?) &quot;fully discharge before charging&quot;, which applied to old nickel-cadmium rechargeable batteries, does not apply to modern laptop/cellphone batteries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2822" RevisionGUID="a0fa3fcd-4080-42f1-b21b-d6605c7ec3c8" CreationDate="2014-06-03T13:52:49.620" UserId="1446" Comment="added 1324 characters in body" Text="# Heating Concepts #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A **heater** is an object that emits heat or causes another body to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; achieve a higher temperature. In a household or domestic setting,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; heaters are usually appliances whose purpose is to generate heating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i.e. warmth). [{from Wiki-Heating Article}, accessed 3-Jun-2014][Wiki-Heating] [emphasis mine]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other types of heaters might be dual-purpose (i.e. wood stove that cooks and heats).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Heat Sources ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three categories of heat-transfer: *conduction*, *convection*, and *radiation*. Heating methods will be different variations (or even combinations) of these three categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Convection ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Article Stub]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Radiation ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Article Stub]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conduction ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of environmental heating, conduction doesn't deserve that much attention. For the sake of completeness, however, a brief overview follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earlier example of the wood stove provides two sources of heat: **conduction** and **convection**. The stove heats your pan, which in turn cooks your food through *conduction*. A thorough, scientific treatment of conduction can be found in [Wiki's &quot;Thermal conduction&quot; article][Wiki-Thermal].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Wiki-Heating]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating#Heating&#xD;&#xA; [Wiki-Thermal]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduction_%28heat%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6661" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2822" RevisionGUID="a0fa3fcd-4080-42f1-b21b-d6605c7ec3c8" CreationDate="2014-06-03T13:52:49.620" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 85 edit id of 275" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="c595ce4e-af94-4f3e-aa93-0a454d0eaf1e" CreationDate="2014-06-03T13:53:02.607" UserId="1446" Comment="added 351 characters in body" Text="Heating is one common element in many environmental conditioning systems. The environment to be conditioned is oftentimes a home or a vehicle, but the concept isn't exclusive to those. Conditioning systems are often collectively called &quot;HVAC&quot; (Heating Ventilation and Air-Conditioning). But stand-alone heaters are also common, depending upon climate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6663" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="c595ce4e-af94-4f3e-aa93-0a454d0eaf1e" CreationDate="2014-06-03T13:53:02.607" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 85 edit id of 276" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2824" RevisionGUID="96d38b11-8f99-4d6c-a59f-be7cd27ab72f" CreationDate="2014-06-04T09:23:09.807" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="fb535f55-e32e-46a9-994f-d85b1e5fcffb" CreationDate="2014-06-04T09:23:09.807" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="90fdb86f-109b-4738-ac0a-961ee4866803" CreationDate="2014-06-04T09:24:03.010" UserId="1446" Comment="added 143 characters in body" Text="A home is a dwelling-place used as a permanent or semi-permanent residence for an individual, family, household or several families in a tribe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6670" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="90fdb86f-109b-4738-ac0a-961ee4866803" CreationDate="2014-06-04T09:24:03.010" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 85 edit id of 278" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2824" RevisionGUID="b96f186b-5277-4d56-b9ce-5d6046dd319d" CreationDate="2014-06-04T09:24:33.133" UserId="1446" Comment="added 1158 characters in body" Text="&gt; A home is a dwelling-place used as a permanent or semi-permanent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; residence for an individual, family, household or several families in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a tribe. It is often a house, apartment, or other building, or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; alternatively a mobile home, houseboat, yurt or any other portable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shelter. {[Wiki's &quot;Home&quot; Article][Wiki-Home], *accessed 4-Jun-14.*}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of sustainability, a **home** is a dwelling that is for personal use and where the individual is *likely* legally permitted to make modifications (to varying degrees) to improve efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [tag:home] tag is used to differentiate use-purpose, and is exclusionary from **commercial**, **industrial**, or **agricultural** purposes. **Notably excepted** is the *homestead* which, in US-English, denotes a family (or extended-family) dwelling co-located with farmland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, a question with this tag likely has *scale*, *cost*, or other suitability assumptions. **Ideal answers** for these questions may often need to demonstrate or list how they might not be appropriate for larger-scale, commercial, or industrial applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Wiki-Home]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6672" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2824" RevisionGUID="b96f186b-5277-4d56-b9ce-5d6046dd319d" CreationDate="2014-06-04T09:24:33.133" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 85 edit id of 277" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2826" RevisionGUID="f68d2741-160a-4b54-9698-6ab172e0049d" CreationDate="2014-06-04T09:36:59.633" UserId="85" Text="As I've been trying various strategies, the following helped me overcome the problem with the ants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaf-cutter ants invariably carve out a highway for carrying the leaves from the source plant to their home. The ants may do so for distances of several metres, but they seem to only cut down grass that's shorter than about 15cm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been growing grass around and on my property, which is maybe 40cm high. Ever since, my trees have been free from leaf-cutter ant attacks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2827" RevisionGUID="dac83c66-f628-4f1a-a167-fd4825da6cd8" CreationDate="2014-06-04T10:11:55.830" UserId="1446" Text="# Great Pyrenees (Pyrenean Mountain Dog) #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're in area with a high-threat of animal attack (bear, wolf, coyote), consider 1-2 dogs specifically bred for the purpose of protecting livestock. This breed, specifically, has deeply-bred territorial instincts - which make it a desirable watchdog. They are capable of long-term, independent action and are capable of guarding large open spaces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of these same attributes are also liabilities. Their intelligence can make them willful or difficult-to-train. Their territorial breeding means that they will roam if not on a lead or in a **secure** fence. They must be intensely socialized toward the livestock to be guarded and the family members, especially during the first 2-3 years of age. Great Pyrenees have been known to attack bear, wolves, and other dogs within their territory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### References ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In lazy-random order)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Great Pyrenees,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyrenees&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Amundson, Carol (2013). *&quot;How to Raise Goats: Everything you need to know.&quot;* &lt;http://ow.ly/xBAAp&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2828" RevisionGUID="efd6054e-dd9e-4e95-8f0b-70c499115af6" CreationDate="2014-06-04T10:30:04.303" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2829" RevisionGUID="863b7623-d2e4-4c90-977f-735c84acde3c" CreationDate="2014-06-04T10:30:04.303" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2829" RevisionGUID="4f3a98d9-7058-4df2-a878-58371e41bf25" CreationDate="2014-06-04T11:02:01.550" UserId="1446" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="A plastic material is any of a wide range of synthetic or semi-synthetic organic solids that are moldable. They are usually synthetic, most commonly derived from petrochemicals, but many are partially natural." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6678" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2829" RevisionGUID="4f3a98d9-7058-4df2-a878-58371e41bf25" CreationDate="2014-06-04T11:02:01.550" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 85 edit id of 280" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2828" RevisionGUID="7a49e88d-4efe-4bd7-a63e-202f06b7f482" CreationDate="2014-06-04T11:02:29.927" UserId="1446" Comment="added 1236 characters in body" Text="## Composition ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the controversies associated with plastics are associated with the additives. Organotin compounds are particularly toxic, but are not found in US-approved food-plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Triorganotins are very toxic. Tri-n-alkyltins are phytotoxic and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; therefore cannot be used in agriculture. Depending on the organic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; groups, they can be powerful bactericides and fungicides. Tributyltins&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are used as industrial biocides, e.g. as antifungal agents in textiles&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and paper, wood pulp and paper mill systems, breweries, and industrial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cooling systems. Tributyltins are also used in marine anti-fouling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paint. Triphenyltins are used as active components of antifungal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paints and agricultural fungicides. Other triorganotins are used as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; miticides and acaricides. [{From &quot;Organotin&quot; article in footnote}][Wiki-toxicity]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## For more information ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. &quot;Lifecycle of a Plastic Product,&quot; &lt;http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Life-Cycle&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 2. &quot;Plastic,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 3. &quot;Organotin Chemistry,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organotin_chemistry&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Wiki-toxicity]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organotin_chemistry#Use_and_toxicity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6680" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2828" RevisionGUID="7a49e88d-4efe-4bd7-a63e-202f06b7f482" CreationDate="2014-06-04T11:02:29.927" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 85 edit id of 279" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2827" RevisionGUID="67abbdd2-52df-40d4-acec-37cf69cb6732" CreationDate="2014-06-04T12:57:26.633" UserId="1446" Comment="grammar" Text="# Great Pyrenees (Pyrenean Mountain Dog) #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're in an area with a high-threat of animal attack (bear, wolf, coyote), consider 1-2 dogs specifically bred for the purpose of protecting livestock. This breed, specifically, has deeply-bred territorial instincts - which make it a desirable watchdog. They are capable of long-term, independent action and are capable of guarding large open spaces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of these same attributes are also liabilities. Their intelligence can make them willful or difficult-to-train. Their territorial breeding means that they will roam if not on a lead or in a **secure** fence. They must be intensely socialized toward the livestock to be guarded and the family members, especially during the first 2-3 years of age. Great Pyrenees have been known to attack bear, wolves, and other dogs within their territory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### References ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In lazy-random order)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Great Pyrenees,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyrenees&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Amundson, Carol (2013). *&quot;How to Raise Goats: Everything you need to know.&quot;* &lt;http://ow.ly/xBAAp&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6682" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2816" RevisionGUID="27341083-83dc-43a7-abc0-2b6dc5d9d769" CreationDate="2014-06-05T03:53:56.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/474398691650830338" />
  <row Id="6683" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2816" RevisionGUID="c47eec7c-ad39-472f-a505-cb91514d7fea" CreationDate="2014-06-05T11:23:17.230" UserId="1446" Comment="13" />
  <row Id="6684" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2816" RevisionGUID="59270f9d-2058-4425-b0ca-88087b353eb2" CreationDate="2014-06-05T13:12:45.003" UserId="1446" Comment="Added [biosecurity] tag" Text="|permaculture|husbandry|biosecurity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2830" RevisionGUID="728ee8e2-7d35-40d5-ba3f-b2c665e306ca" CreationDate="2014-06-05T13:27:32.237" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2831" RevisionGUID="11705c4b-dca5-49bb-b41b-09c1f74fc39e" CreationDate="2014-06-05T13:27:32.237" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2831" RevisionGUID="4207604a-da0c-4367-b91f-827305fa704d" CreationDate="2014-06-05T13:59:06.620" UserId="1446" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="a set of preventive measures designed to reduce the risk of transmission of infectious diseases in crops and livestock, quarantined pests, invasive alien species, and living modified-organisms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6688" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2831" RevisionGUID="4207604a-da0c-4367-b91f-827305fa704d" CreationDate="2014-06-05T13:59:06.620" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 85 edit id of 282" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2830" RevisionGUID="77c0145a-d106-41f2-ac89-53772d034c2a" CreationDate="2014-06-05T13:59:18.980" UserId="1446" Comment="added 1725 characters in body" Text="# Overview #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Biosecurity** is a growing concept that is sometimes used to include concerns about bioterrorism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Biosecurity** has multiple meanings and is defined differently according&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to various disciplines. The original definition of biosecurity started&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out as a set of preventive measures designed to reduce the risk of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; transmission of infectious diseases in crops and livestock,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quarantined pests, invasive alien species, and living modified&#xD;&#xA;&gt; organisms. The term was first used by the agricultural and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; environmental communities. [...] The most inclusive definition of all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would be biosecurity as &quot;security against the inadvertent,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inappropriate, or intentional malicious or malevolent use of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; potentially dangerous biological agents or biotechnology, including&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the development, production, stockpiling, or use of biological weapons&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as well as outbreaks of newly emergent and epidemic disease&quot; as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; defined by The National Academies of Science (Koblentz, 2010). {[See Wiki's Article on &quot;Biosecurity&quot;][Wiki-Biosecurity], accessed 5-Jun-14}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Sustainable living context ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within the context of sustainable living, *biosecurity* can be thought of as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*any combination of systems and practices put into place to prevent the spread of biological agents, pathogens, or toxins in natural and managed environments.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the homestead, it can mean prevention of fertilizer or agricultural waste contamination of drinking water. For pets and livestock, we can refer to concerns and associated risk-management around viruses, fungi, bacteria, and disease prevention **especially** if it can be passed to people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Wiki-Biosecurity]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosecurity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6690" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2830" RevisionGUID="77c0145a-d106-41f2-ac89-53772d034c2a" CreationDate="2014-06-05T13:59:18.980" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 85 edit id of 281" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2833" RevisionGUID="cd1aa377-4919-4d1f-836b-2fb72f0eaf34" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:28:37.470" UserId="1479" Text="I am based in the UK and am thinking about installing solar panels on my roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem I am having is actually finding some resources which I can use to get some objective information. The only information I seem to be able to find is coming from Solar Panel installation companies, who of course have a vested interest in my buying a bunch of panels from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see quite general advice that this is a good investment (e.g. Which?), which has sparked my interest, but I want to get hold of more specific information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two things I'm trying to find out in particular. One is quite generic - to learn about the mechanism by which one sells solar electricity back to the grid, any grants, tax breaks etc. The second question is far more specific to me - essentially to get ballpark estimates of the kind of revenue I can expect to generate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any idea how I can go about answering these questions (the second in particular), but from an unbiased source?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2833" RevisionGUID="cd1aa377-4919-4d1f-836b-2fb72f0eaf34" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:28:37.470" UserId="1479" Text="Investing in Solar Panels in the UK" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2833" RevisionGUID="cd1aa377-4919-4d1f-836b-2fb72f0eaf34" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:28:37.470" UserId="1479" Text="|solar-power|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="09a3af0b-215e-4763-8d3d-675bba344bd3" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:36:12.353" UserId="99" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="The United States of America, a country on the North American continent between Canada and Mexico. Use this tag for questions about situations specific for the USA and not applicable to other countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6697" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2833" RevisionGUID="39fbf19f-d5d2-4289-af2e-e5d09db16231" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:40:14.130" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|solar-power|home|uk|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6698" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1062" RevisionGUID="da945308-9558-4a1b-8795-94e597f798f0" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:40:31.343" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|heating|water-heating|renewables|uk|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6699" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="37" RevisionGUID="b92f47fe-9449-4fa0-914f-715b1373b29e" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:40:46.163" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|solar-power|electricity|photovoltaics|uk|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2834" RevisionGUID="4c65c25a-8103-454b-b969-3c6ff43feb91" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:43:04.637" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2835" RevisionGUID="b8478c48-dbc5-4c32-b4e6-d8157b818451" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:43:04.637" UserId="99" Text="United Kingdom, a country in the North-Eastern part of Europe. Use this tag for questions that are specific for UK and not applicable to other countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2481" RevisionGUID="a96584fc-29e7-4dd2-96a6-d939fbc7a1d1" CreationDate="2014-06-06T12:43:29.860" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="The United States of America, a country on the North American continent between Canada and Mexico. Use this tag for questions that are specific for the USA and not applicable to other countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6703" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2833" RevisionGUID="229ab3a7-1897-46fd-94ec-bd8e1e0a6216" CreationDate="2014-06-06T15:53:57.180" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/474942276578201600" />
  <row Id="6704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2836" RevisionGUID="210a6e94-6700-4baa-b5f4-40023b29ad84" CreationDate="2014-06-07T09:56:30.360" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2837" RevisionGUID="b8777ad9-a98a-4963-9f08-6e9c884d6364" CreationDate="2014-06-07T09:56:30.360" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2838" RevisionGUID="6661561d-88fc-4817-83d6-b98c2d0f5e54" CreationDate="2014-06-07T10:52:11.443" UserId="1446" Text="# Overview #&#xD;&#xA;If you own livestock, even on the small-scale such as for family subsistence or a hobby-farm, the death of livestock is inevitable.  In cases where you are raising animals for meat or hide, their death is even predictable.  The most severe cases for [tag:biosecurity] concern dead animal disposal when the animals have to be destroyed for reasons of infectious-disease control.  **Improper disposal of animal remains can easily lead to a pest-management problem, or worse, disease outbreak.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Disposal #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to limit pests, prevent the spread of disease, and minimize the smell - what is the most sustainable way to dispose of animal or livestock remains?  To be sustainable, a proposed solution should address:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - pest potential&#xD;&#xA; - cost&#xD;&#xA; - availability&#xD;&#xA; - environmental impact&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2838" RevisionGUID="6661561d-88fc-4817-83d6-b98c2d0f5e54" CreationDate="2014-06-07T10:52:11.443" UserId="1446" Text="With increasing emphasis on biosecurity, how do I properly dispose of livestock remains?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2838" RevisionGUID="6661561d-88fc-4817-83d6-b98c2d0f5e54" CreationDate="2014-06-07T10:52:11.443" UserId="1446" Text="|composting|permaculture|pest-management|animals|biosecurity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2839" RevisionGUID="ecbe3578-be6a-4e55-aed8-d678b897f056" CreationDate="2014-06-07T10:52:11.443" UserId="1446" Text="# Methods #&#xD;&#xA;There are several methods of livestock disposal to choose from, each has its own benefits and drawbacks. While there may be no *correct* answer for everyone, there are *better* approaches - especially as we factor in sustainability.  Inspiration for this Q&amp;A layout is drawn primarily from Amundson (2013).  While this book concerns husbandry (see [tag:husbandry]) of goats, I have tried to fill out her proposals to make them more applicable to a general audience (to include pet-disposal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*No part of this answer shall be construed as providing legal advice.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Incineration ##&#xD;&#xA;This solution is often preferred where there has been large-scale contamination or infection by disease (see &quot;Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease&quot; in OP above).  This method often results in an undesirable smell, and can be noxious to neighbors.  Has low biosecurity risks, but true incineration must occur at high temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within sustainable-frameworks, incineration could be combined with some type of energy-recovery from the waste-heat.  Wikipedia offers some suggestions, but they seem more suited to industrial incinerators:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Incineration with energy recovery is one of several waste-to-energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (WtE) technologies such as gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; digestion. While incineration and gasification technologies are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; similar in principle, the energy product from incineration is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; high-temperature heat whereas combustible gas is often the main energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; product from gasification. Incineration and gasification may also be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; implemented without energy and materials recovery. {[Wikipedia article, &quot;Incinerate&quot;][Wiki-Incinerate]}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In many jurisdictions, open-burning is prohibited.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Composting ##&#xD;&#xA;[A terrific treatment of meat-scrap composting has already been presented by @Jay-Bazuzi][1] on this site for the question: &quot;&lt;http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/38/why-shouldnt-meat-be-placed-in-my-compost-pile&gt;&quot; I will attempt to expand upon this answer to cover a larger scale (entire animal at-a-time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sawdust, straw, or other carbon should be increased to at least one foot *(0.3 meter)* underneath and surrounding the animal corpse.  Straw is convenient because it might already be on-hand for animal bedding or plant insulation (to help a plant &quot;winter&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting methods are often prescribed by law within the US, to include: primary and secondary composting (decomposition) bins, structural impermeability, setback distances from established water-sources, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livestock that perish from suspect neurological concerns are prohibited (at least in Illinois) from being composted and must be incinerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Burial ##&#xD;&#xA;Another least-desirable method of animal disposal, second in my opinion to rendering, is burial. Burial is the unscientific dumping of an animal corpse beneath the ground.  This method has a high potential for ground-water or well-water contamination.  If buried too shallow, scavengers or pests will come to visit and potentially spread disease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Rendering plants ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rendering is a process that converts waste animal tissue into stable,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; value-added materials. Rendering can refer to any processing of animal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; products into more useful materials, or more narrowly to the rendering&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of whole animal fatty tissue into purified fats like lard or tallow.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rendering can be carried out on an industrial, farm, or kitchen scale.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The majority of tissue processed comes from slaughterhouses, but also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes restaurant grease and butcher shop trimmings, expired meat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from grocery stores, and the carcasses of euthanized and dead animals&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from animal shelters, zoos and veterinarians. This material can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; include the fatty tissue, bones, and offal, as well as entire&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carcasses of animals condemned at slaughterhouses, and those that have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; died on farms, in transit, etc. The most common animal sources are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; beef, pork, sheep, and poultry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While at first-glance, rendering might be seen as the embodiment of the *reduce-reuse-recycle* motto, biosecurity concerns have made rendering one of the least-sustainable disposal methods (*in my opinion*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the most widely-covered, biosecurity events in recent times was the &quot;Mad-Cow&quot; disease outbreak.  Properly called **[Bovine spongiform encephalopathy][Wiki-BSE]**, this disease was spread to humans through contaminated beef which could not be rendered safe through cooking.  When passed to humans, it is referred to as **&quot;variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease&quot;**. The wiki article extract is below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease or CJD is a degenerative neurological&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disorder that is incurable and invariably fatal. CJD is at times&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called a human form of mad cow disease (bovine spongiform&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encephalopathy or BSE). However, **given that BSE is believed to be the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cause of variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob (vCJD) disease in humans**, the two&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are often confused. {[excerpt from Wikipedia][Wiki-CJD]} [emphasis mine]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### References ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Amundson, Carol (2013). *&quot;How to Raise Goats: Everything you need to know.&quot;* &lt;http://ow.ly/xBAAp&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [Bazuzi, Jay][@Jay-Bazuzi]. Untitled response. *&quot;&lt;http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/38/why-shouldnt-meat-be-placed-in-my-compost-pile&gt;&quot;*. Last accessed 7-Jun-2014.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Bovine spongiform encephalopathy,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_cow_disease&gt;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt%E2%80%93Jakob_disease&gt;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Illinois Dead Animal Disposal Act,&quot; Title 8 of the Illinois State Code (CH. I, '90 SUBCHAPTER b), as retrieved from &lt;http://web.extension.illinois.edu/clmt/Workbook/WK_FILES/DEAD_A_W.DOC&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Incinerate,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incinerate&gt;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Rendering,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendering_%28industrial%29&gt;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Specified risk material,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_risk_materials&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/48/1446&#xD;&#xA;  [@Jay-Bazuzi]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/27/jay-bazuzi&#xD;&#xA;  [Wiki-BSE]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_cow_disease&#xD;&#xA;  [Wiki-CJD]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt%E2%80%93Jakob_disease&#xD;&#xA;  [Wiki-Incinerate]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incinerate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2836" RevisionGUID="fea38b14-dd49-4408-97d7-a137d10f4d47" CreationDate="2014-06-07T11:43:45.820" UserId="1446" Comment="added 539 characters in body" Text="[Wikipedia provides an extensive overview of different pest-management strategies][Wiki-Pests].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within the context of sustainability, pest-management does NOT NORMALLY include the use of pesticides or chemicals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag stub needs improvement]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;[tag:pest-management] **excerpt** has been copied in its entirety from &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_management&gt;. Quotation marks were omitted for tag-readability and to avoid confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [Wiki-Pests]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_management#Types_of_pest_control" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6711" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2836" RevisionGUID="fea38b14-dd49-4408-97d7-a137d10f4d47" CreationDate="2014-06-07T11:43:45.820" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 99 edit id of 283" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2837" RevisionGUID="d1fb4dbc-911f-40d6-b760-0e69602926a6" CreationDate="2014-06-07T11:44:06.497" UserId="1446" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="Pest-management (or control) refers to the regulation or management of a species defined as a pest, usually because it is perceived to be detrimental to a person's health, the ecology or the economy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6713" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2837" RevisionGUID="d1fb4dbc-911f-40d6-b760-0e69602926a6" CreationDate="2014-06-07T11:44:06.497" Comment="Proposed by 1446 approved by 99 edit id of 284" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6714" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="0478dd48-d9f9-4da0-bda7-1c22632e81be" CreationDate="2014-06-08T00:25:59.847" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|wind-power|batteries|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="664" RevisionGUID="0478dd48-d9f9-4da0-bda7-1c22632e81be" CreationDate="2014-06-08T00:25:59.847" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="I have a [Shimano Hub Dynamo][1] wheel from an old bike, I intend on turning into a small wind-turbine, probably starting off [like this][2] but being modded further when I have the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My modest aim is to charge a battery for a light in my shed (I am unsure what I can expect to get from such a turbine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is a good option for a trickle charging unit, ideally one which won't mind a bit of frost, and won't cost the earth. Is there something I can re-purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not afraid of soldering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing I have found to what I want is a thinkbiologic ReeCharge for ~£25 presumably the &quot;1600 mAh lithium-polymer battery&quot; would be ok if suitably insulated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a more conventional solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cycle.shimano-eu.com/publish/content/global_cycle/en/nl/index/components/city___comfort_bike/inter-l__hub_dynamo/product.-code-DH-3NB1.-type-..html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwK1UsaphSM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="d3a7e833-0262-497a-b1c2-8eb93257c02a" CreationDate="2014-06-08T00:35:59.780" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="Disclosure: Doing things such as this is my 'day job'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use a bicycle dynamo to recharge a suitable battery at very little expense and with minimal effort. Use of something like the &quot;*Reecharger*&quot; that you mention is not essential, does extremely little for you and, if their description of their own products are accurate, the Reecharger is a badly designed piece of equipment that has major problems. Brief notes justifying this rather unlikely sounding claim are at the end of this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any rechargeable battery with a voltage of up to about 6 Volts will be usable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The SHD (Shimano Hub Dyno) makes about 3 Watts - 6V x 0.5A at rated output. This is at relatively low RPM due to bicycle use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any battery that can tolerate a charge rate of up to 0.5A is acceptable - and any modern rechargeable battery from about AA size on up would be suitable. You need some additional simple circuitry which I'll describe below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read my answer here on Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange [Building a new dynamo bike light](http://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/58718/building-a-new-dynamo-bike-light/58728#58728).  From there you will find an indirect link to this [PDA / GPS bike mounted USB charger](http://www.arenddeboer.com/bike-mounted-usb-charger). This doubles the voltage from the hub dyno to allow low speed operation. His circuit (shown below) may be somewhat daunting if you have never built such but he discusses what is involved and you can get advice on the Electrical Engineering SE page if you decide to pursue this. Cost of this is probably a few GBP - if you pursue this people on the EE site (including me) would be happy to comment on what is needed for battery charging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bicycle electronics site:**  Here is an [***excellent*** site with mini projects relating to bicycle electronics including bicycle alternator circuits](http://www.pilom.com/BicycleElectronics/BicycleElectronics.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________&#xD;&#xA;**How fast does it need to be turned?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine we have a 26&quot; diameter wheel with 1&quot; of tyre thickness so total diameter ~~~= 28&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA; At 30 mph = 44 feet/second the dynamo should be at full output - possibly so at half that.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circumference of a wheel is about 28&quot; x Pi / 12 feet = 7.3 feet.  &#xD;&#xA; 30 mph = 44 feet per second. &#xD;&#xA; So at 30 mph the wheel will turn 44/7.3 = 6 turns per second&#xD;&#xA;= 60 seconds/minute x  6 revs/second = 360 RPM  &#xD;&#xA;Or 180 RPM at 15 mph.     &#xD;&#xA;This is &quot;nice and slow&quot; by wind turbine standards and makes it much more usable than many alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Output is AC so you will need a &quot;bridge rectifier&quot; - this has 4 diodes in it and allows DC to be produced from 2 wire AC. Any small modern silicon bridge rectifier from a hobby electronics shop with a rating of 0.5A or more will do. Voltage rating of any bridge rectifier being sold will be &gt; 6VAC so is unimportant. You MAY find some very very very (decades) old Germanium or copper oxide or selenium rectifiers. Do not use them. A suitable modern bridge rectifier should cost well under 1 GBP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bridge rectifier has 4 terminals - two AC inputs (connect either way to the dynamo output wires) and a positive and negative output. Positive goes to battery positive, negative to battery negative, 2 x AC input go to dynamo. Adding a filter capacitor would help if you were powering other equipment rather than battery charging, but for battery charging it is not strictly necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use a &quot;regulator&quot; between the battery and dynamo but, for initial investigation, the most that is strictly essential is a means of limiting maximum voltage applied to the battery. The simplest and most effective means in this context is a &quot;clamp regulator&quot;. This has 2 wires, connects directly to the battery and usually does nothing whatsoever. If the battery ever rises to a certain present voltage under charge the clamp regulator will &quot;shunt&quot; current to limit the battery voltage to the desired maximum. The regulator can be more complex than that, but that will do well enough in this context in many cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Battery types:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Anything rechargeable&quot; :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**LiIon or Lithium Polymer.**   &#xD;&#xA;OK&#xD;&#xA;MUST have a voltage clamp at 4.2V or perhaps a little lower.    &#xD;&#xA;MUST have.    &#xD;&#xA;A zener diode is &quot;too soft&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Ask if more information needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiFePO4 similar to LiIon but lower clamp voltage needed. A superb battery type but not necessary here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NimH x 3.**  (Or NiCd x 3) &#xD;&#xA;Need about 4.5V.  &#xD;&#xA;NimH x 4 may be a good choice as they will charge when &quot;flat&quot; but never get to full capacity in most cases so will self limit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 3 cells a battery voltage clamp is a good idea but not totally necessary. Under most wind conditions yo are liable to get, if you use the light daily Vbattery may be OK uncontrolled.&#xD;&#xA;Worst case you cook your NimH early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Reecharger you mention probably looks after battery management for you but is very very dear for what you get. Buying a bare battery and playing is advised. Note voltage warning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Lead Acid** - 6V a bit marginally high - need to check dyno and see what voltage it REALLY makes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4V Lead Acid OK. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BioLogic ReCharge Power Pack** ([home page here](http://www.thinkbiologic.com/products/reecharge-power-pack)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Dynamo powered battery charger should&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Work with a wide range of typical dynamos &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Tolerate usual dynamo input conditions regardless of battery state or battery presence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Not be damaged by over voltage, under loading, overloading, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ideally would have a replaceable battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Be described in technical terms that demonstrate that the seller or manufacturer understands the product and which give confidence that the product meets the specs given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Be priced at a fair market price for what it does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ReeCharge unit fails on all these points.   &#xD;&#xA;[Here in their FAQ](https://thinkbiologic.zendesk.com/forums/20189876-reecharge-power-pack) they explicitly say that you may damage it if you ride too fast. They say    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot; ... For a 20&quot; wheel, sustaining speeds over 25km/h (~15.5mph) for long periods may overload the power regulator so we discourage riding above this speed with the power regulator engaged. 3W hubs can also generate more power than 2.4W ones under the same speed. The 20&quot;-25km/h rating is for a 2.4W hub.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For larger wheels, proportionately greater speeds can be sustained. Our tests show that a standard 26&quot; wheel can go up to 35~40km/hr (21~25mph) without any problem for the power regulator.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My 26&quot; where example noted that 30 mph gave 360 RPM - so their safe max speed is about say 300 RPM. Achievable RPM with a wind turbine will depend on design or happenstance, but 300 RPM is an unusually low expected maximum RPM for a wind turbine - possible even for one with bicycle wheel rotor with duct-tape blades (I like it). You can certainly limit the speed by various means BUT you should not need to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When they say &quot; ... If your hub outputs *the 6V current* that is standard for most dynamo hubs ...&quot; we all know what they mean, but one would be wise to wonder about their technical abilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say &quot;The power regulator should be disconnected from the hub when it’s not charging the ReeCharge Power Pack to prevent overloading the power regulator.&quot; - which is wholly unacceptable for something made to be used on we dark windswept nights or sudden unexpected exhilarating downhills. The unloaded voltages encountered are modest by any reasonable design standards. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think thrice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I8h3x.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6717" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="618" RevisionGUID="275733d7-b5d9-4358-aad5-de3227fc9c1a" CreationDate="2014-06-08T00:36:46.663" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|composting|vermicomposting|biodegradable-waste|compostable-plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="622" RevisionGUID="24aa6cd8-53e2-43b2-aab5-086b3b7c6a85" CreationDate="2014-06-08T00:39:36.013" UserId="85" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The general rule of thumb that I have heard is no. I can't seem to find a good resource at this time that breaks it out conclusively, but the logic that I have heard goes as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting happens at different speeds and different heat levels. Your typical worm bin tends to operate at a low temperature (otherwise the worms would bake!). This would be slower normally, but the worms speed up the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the overall heat increases (usually as a result of the proper mix of materials and frequent turning), the speed of the material breakdown increases. (For example a commercial system like this - http://www.hotrotsolutions.com/ - can yield compost in as little as 10-14 days according to their site.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, you need a hotter, more active system to really break down a lot of biodegradable plastics. Not that they won't eventually break down in your regular compost systems, but they likely won't break down as quickly as the other materials, leaving plastic pieces mixed in the compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other consideration would be whether this adds any value to the worms. I have found vermicomposting to be like raising a pet, allows having to make sure that they have the right amount of food and water. Much of the material that you put in the system breaks down quickly because the worms are either eating it or using it as bedding. I guess that the plastic could be a form of bedding (this is pure speculation) but because I would assume that it would break down much slower than the newspaper that it more commonly used, it is likely to end up gumming up your system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6719" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="635" RevisionGUID="dec318e0-bb55-4d20-a3dd-d4467d48d231" CreationDate="2014-06-08T00:46:38.563" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|composting|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="56acd85c-76fc-4917-9868-7843ee058e91" CreationDate="2014-06-08T01:04:05.320" UserId="85" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Reading some comments on the [question comparing various materials from which bottles are made][1], the thought arose: indeed, what prevents large scale collection and reuse of glass tare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was growing up in the Soviet Union, there was a standard 0.5l bottle which was used nationwide for anything from lemonade to beer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could turn in those bottles for cash refund in any store, and later they would be cleaned (steam cleaning, perhaps?) and reused with new tags. Likewise, bottles and jars for dairy (milk, sour cream, quarks etc.) were all standard and could be returned to a local dairy shop or a larger market where they would be cleaned and reused, sealed by colour-coded aluminium foil, much like Yoplait yoghurt containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, centrally planned and operated Soviet economy allowed for streamlined collection and return: shops would send the bottles back to regional distributor, which, in turn, would relay them back to manufacturers. In the market economy with fragmented distribution of retailers and bottlers, and with countless variations on bottle shape in lieu of preposterous “brand-recognition” concept (if everyone is “unique” I still cannot tell them apart), organizing such concerted effort would be undoubtedly difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, European [Green Dot system][3], seems to yield some results, even in the face of packaging industry opposition it initially endured. And so there are ways to reuse glass tare by returning it all the way to the manufacturer from the consumer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is the European system successful, can it be replicated and are there better alternatives? Given the push back by special interests, is it viable to promote standardised containers to simplify the logistics? Are there other concerns, such as health or enforcement of food safety, or if the manufacturer has to disinfect the new bottles anyway, does it make any difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/326/227&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nzaUe.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Dot_%28symbol%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6721" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2838" RevisionGUID="cd3efc00-77c3-4afd-9a65-40b1678517b0" CreationDate="2014-06-08T10:24:08.420" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/475584051542507521" />
  <row Id="6722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2839" RevisionGUID="57793666-7050-4ee9-a123-03fbedf455a9" CreationDate="2014-06-08T20:34:53.257" UserId="1446" Comment="Minor edit to reference mad cow disease in another section. " Text="# Methods #&#xD;&#xA;There are several methods of livestock disposal to choose from, each has its own benefits and drawbacks. While there may be no *correct* answer for everyone, there are *better* approaches - especially as we factor in sustainability.  Inspiration for this Q&amp;A layout is drawn primarily from Amundson (2013).  While this book concerns husbandry (see [tag:husbandry]) of goats, I have tried to fill out her proposals to make them more applicable to a general audience (to include pet-disposal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*No part of this answer shall be construed as providing legal advice.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Incineration ##&#xD;&#xA;This solution is often preferred where there has been large-scale contamination or infection by disease (see &quot;Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease&quot; in *Rendering* below).  This method often results in an undesirable smell, and can be noxious to neighbors.  Has low biosecurity risks, but true incineration must occur at high temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within sustainable-frameworks, incineration could be combined with some type of energy-recovery from the waste-heat.  Wikipedia offers some suggestions, but they seem more suited to industrial incinerators:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Incineration with energy recovery is one of several waste-to-energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (WtE) technologies such as gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; digestion. While incineration and gasification technologies are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; similar in principle, the energy product from incineration is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; high-temperature heat whereas combustible gas is often the main energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; product from gasification. Incineration and gasification may also be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; implemented without energy and materials recovery. {[Wikipedia article, &quot;Incinerate&quot;][Wiki-Incinerate]}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In many jurisdictions, open-burning is prohibited.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Composting ##&#xD;&#xA;[A terrific treatment of meat-scrap composting has already been presented by @Jay-Bazuzi][1] on this site for the question: &quot;&lt;http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/38/why-shouldnt-meat-be-placed-in-my-compost-pile&gt;&quot; I will attempt to expand upon this answer to cover a larger scale (entire animal at-a-time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sawdust, straw, or other carbon should be increased to at least one foot *(0.3 meter)* underneath and surrounding the animal corpse.  Straw is convenient because it might already be on-hand for animal bedding or plant insulation (to help a plant &quot;winter&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting methods are often prescribed by law within the US, to include: primary and secondary composting (decomposition) bins, structural impermeability, setback distances from established water-sources, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livestock that perish from suspect neurological concerns are prohibited (at least in Illinois) from being composted and must be incinerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Burial ##&#xD;&#xA;Another least-desirable method of animal disposal, second in my opinion to rendering, is burial. Burial is the unscientific dumping of an animal corpse beneath the ground.  This method has a high potential for ground-water or well-water contamination.  If buried too shallow, scavengers or pests will come to visit and potentially spread disease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Rendering plants ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rendering is a process that converts waste animal tissue into stable,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; value-added materials. Rendering can refer to any processing of animal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; products into more useful materials, or more narrowly to the rendering&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of whole animal fatty tissue into purified fats like lard or tallow.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rendering can be carried out on an industrial, farm, or kitchen scale.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The majority of tissue processed comes from slaughterhouses, but also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes restaurant grease and butcher shop trimmings, expired meat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from grocery stores, and the carcasses of euthanized and dead animals&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from animal shelters, zoos and veterinarians. This material can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; include the fatty tissue, bones, and offal, as well as entire&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carcasses of animals condemned at slaughterhouses, and those that have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; died on farms, in transit, etc. The most common animal sources are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; beef, pork, sheep, and poultry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While at first-glance, rendering might be seen as the embodiment of the *reduce-reuse-recycle* motto, biosecurity concerns have made rendering one of the least-sustainable disposal methods (*in my opinion*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the most widely-covered, biosecurity events in recent times was the &quot;Mad-Cow&quot; disease outbreak.  Properly called **[Bovine spongiform encephalopathy][Wiki-BSE]**, this disease was spread to humans through contaminated beef which could not be rendered safe through cooking.  When passed to humans, it is referred to as **&quot;variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease&quot;**. The wiki article extract is below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease or CJD is a degenerative neurological&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disorder that is incurable and invariably fatal. CJD is at times&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called a human form of mad cow disease (bovine spongiform&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encephalopathy or BSE). However, **given that BSE is believed to be the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cause of variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob (vCJD) disease in humans**, the two&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are often confused. {[excerpt from Wikipedia][Wiki-CJD]} [emphasis mine]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### References ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Amundson, Carol (2013). *&quot;How to Raise Goats: Everything you need to know.&quot;* &lt;http://ow.ly/xBAAp&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [Bazuzi, Jay][@Jay-Bazuzi]. Untitled response. *&quot;&lt;http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/38/why-shouldnt-meat-be-placed-in-my-compost-pile&gt;&quot;*. Last accessed 7-Jun-2014.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Bovine spongiform encephalopathy,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_cow_disease&gt;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt%E2%80%93Jakob_disease&gt;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Illinois Dead Animal Disposal Act,&quot; Title 8 of the Illinois State Code (CH. I, '90 SUBCHAPTER b), as retrieved from &lt;http://web.extension.illinois.edu/clmt/Workbook/WK_FILES/DEAD_A_W.DOC&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Incinerate,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incinerate&gt;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Rendering,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendering_%28industrial%29&gt;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Specified risk material,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_risk_materials&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/48/1446&#xD;&#xA;  [@Jay-Bazuzi]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/27/jay-bazuzi&#xD;&#xA;  [Wiki-BSE]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_cow_disease&#xD;&#xA;  [Wiki-CJD]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt%E2%80%93Jakob_disease&#xD;&#xA;  [Wiki-Incinerate]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incinerate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2840" RevisionGUID="f63afcd8-e7ca-483b-baf1-e5c79c79b84e" CreationDate="2014-06-09T12:24:27.693" UserId="522" Text="We live in a household of 5, and have 2 composting toilets. Whatever solution you choose, the biggest hurdle we have found is the cost of heating the waste to increase the evaporation rate. As we live off grid, having heaters and fans running 24/7 does consume a fair amount of the power produced by our PV system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The waste pile must be aerated every couple of days to avoid anaerobic decomposition, we add about two parts lucerne straw to one part faeces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The peat produced is very good and we have been using it for years to fertilize our vegetable gardens. We take the waste from the toilets every couple of months and put it into our green waste pile for about 12 months before digging it into the garden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2841" RevisionGUID="63a5e01e-804a-4945-8f91-d41e1af09bc0" CreationDate="2014-06-09T13:19:49.837" UserId="1053" Text="When you live in the country and have hoses that are kept outside, they will occasionally get chewed on. I fix them when that happens, with a hose repair kit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you haven't used one of these, you basically cut the hose on either side of the hole, losing a few inches, then put the metal couplings in each new end, use the hose clamps to hold the hose onto the couplings and then screw the couplings together. There are several styles with varying amounts of metal and plastic but they all work essentially the same way. They cost $5-$10 and are often sold packed in bubble packs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you imagine a formerly 50-foot hose that has been patched like this say 50 times, with 6 inches or so between patches, it would be ridiculous as a hose and also the money, energy and packaging that has gone into making hose patches would exceed those of a new hose. So clearly there is some number of patches that is the limit, and on reaching that I should buy a new hose, and then remove the patch kits from the old hose and save them to use for patching the new one when it is inevitably chewed, (Note: inevitably means once or twice a year across all the hoses I use - three or four are typically out at a time. Putting the hose away after each use is impractical and besides, my shed gets more critters than my lawn does.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I calculate (other than the ease of coiling, uncoiling and using the hose) the number of patches at which I should just switch to a new hose? Keep in mind I will reuse the patches from hose to hose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/r3STo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2841" RevisionGUID="63a5e01e-804a-4945-8f91-d41e1af09bc0" CreationDate="2014-06-09T13:19:49.837" UserId="1053" Text="Deciding when to stop patching a hose" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2841" RevisionGUID="63a5e01e-804a-4945-8f91-d41e1af09bc0" CreationDate="2014-06-09T13:19:49.837" UserId="1053" Text="|gardening|consumption|repair|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="8bc28aba-1e5a-402d-bc67-55d9492eeba9" CreationDate="2014-06-09T14:37:52.067" UserId="1053" Text="In Canada we reuse wine and beer bottles and beer cans, and the super large water bottles you see used in water coolers. You pay a deposit when you buy them, and you return them to the place you bought them (mostly; wine bottles are returned to [a place that sells beer][1], not wine, because they have the contract.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Time was, the beer bottles were all the same and were reused. I can't easily discover what fraction of the returns are reused and what are recycled, but the claim is that 95% of the packaging for wine, beer and spirits (including corks, bottle caps, and boxes) is returned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I grew up returning 4 quart milk jugs for reuse in Ontario; we consider it normal to take stuff back. We also have extensive recycling options with home pickup, but you don't put returnable stuff in the blue box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thebeerstore.ca/about-us/environmental-leadership/better-returns" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="5a57ae42-6f92-4536-b5c2-77dcf4aa5c2f" CreationDate="2014-06-09T16:31:35.190" UserId="1053" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="In Canada we reuse wine and beer bottles and beer cans, and the super large water bottles you see used in water coolers. You pay a deposit when you buy them, and you return them to the place you bought them (mostly; wine bottles are returned to [a place that sells beer][1], not wine, because [they have the contract][2].) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Time was, the beer bottles were [all the same][3] and were reused. Now every beer seems to have its own shape and colour. I can't easily discover what fraction of the returns are reused and what are recycled, but the claim is that 95% of the packaging for wine, beer and spirits (including corks, bottle caps, and boxes) is returned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I grew up returning 4 quart milk jugs for reuse in Ontario; we consider it normal to take stuff back. We also have extensive recycling options with home pickup, but you don't put returnable stuff in the blue box. (Apparently if you do, the municipality will extract it and return it - I guess they get the deposit in that case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thebeerstore.ca/about-us/environmental-leadership/better-returns&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Deposit_Return_Program&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_bottle#Stubby_and_steinie" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="ecfe4a2a-9c23-4214-be7d-e77119d4ff79" CreationDate="2014-06-09T16:39:08.730" UserId="1053" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In Canada we return wine and beer bottles and beer cans, and the super large water bottles you see used in water coolers. You pay a deposit when you buy them, and you return them to the place you bought them (mostly; wine bottles are returned to [a place that sells beer][1], not wine, because [they have the contract][2].) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Time was, the beer bottles were [all the same][3] and were reused. Now every beer seems to have its own shape and colour. I can't easily discover what fraction of the returns are reused and what are recycled, but the claim is that 95% of the packaging for wine, beer and spirits (including corks, bottle caps, and boxes) is returned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I grew up returning 4 quart milk jugs for reuse in Ontario; we consider it normal to take stuff back. We also have extensive recycling options with home pickup, but you don't put returnable stuff in the blue box. (Apparently if you do, the municipality will extract it and return it - I guess they get the deposit in that case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thebeerstore.ca/about-us/environmental-leadership/better-returns&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Deposit_Return_Program&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_bottle#Stubby_and_steinie" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2843" RevisionGUID="9147cca9-e1e3-41b5-8a3e-9db03a26c53d" CreationDate="2014-06-09T22:37:12.723" UserId="15" Text="Let's keep things practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If two of your hoses get too short, then you would be able to patch them together to get a longer hose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your most-patched hose has 6 patches on it (which cost $5 each) and the cost of a new hose is $30, then it's probably about time to retire the patched hose so that you can reclaim the patches for re-use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the patches won't be evenly distributed, so it may be worth patching longer parts of hose another patched hose to extend its life (and length) without needing too many patches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if it was me, I'd investigate where I could purchase a bulk pack of patches so that my total costs were reduced, and my environmental impact (on wasting pieces of hose) was reduced too. I'd guess that metal patches are likely to be more environmentally friendly to manufacture and dispose of, and easier to recycle, than hose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also find that patched hoses are less useful than unpatched ones; eg they may more easily scratch cars, catch on posts, or burst. Patches also are unlikely to be reusable indefinitely. It's not going to be an exact science." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2844" RevisionGUID="282e2f9f-80e6-48db-a973-26db1827c27c" CreationDate="2014-06-10T01:21:08.780" UserId="1446" Text="# The cost of &quot;Organic&quot; dairy #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least within the United States, certifying something as *organic* requires time, effort, and paperwork. There does exist an additional administrative burden for farmsteads wishing to market their products as organic, but if we are invested in the organic method as part of a greater commitment to increasing sustainability, then the label *might not* matter. Organic labeling concerns will affect the price that a dairy product can fetch in the market ([people will pay more for organic][1]), but if the dairy is for private consumption then marketing won't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Administration ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned earlier, organic dairy certification is a process. It's probably easier to start initially as organic than it is to transition over an existing dairy. In the US, the USDA has set up requirements for organic certification and then accredits certifying authorities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Organic Inputs (Feed) ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that organic feed costs for dairy cattle to be approximately US$11.58 in Minnesota versus US$10.91 for conventional feed inputs as one example {[from 2010 Commodity Costs and Returns][2], in dollars per hundredweight (cwt) sold}.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these numbers presume a minimum of 30% feed input from organically certified pastures {[percentages from Univ. of MN][3]}. During times of drought, farms purchase a higher percentage of feed and will realize a greater cost disparity from their conventional counterparts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Other overhead costs were also studied, but I'm not convinced that I could translate these costs to a small size operation with any fairness - so they were omitted for simplicity.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Organic Output ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Production quantity is lower for organic dairy cattle than for conventional dairy practices (which includes approximately 30% of cattle receiving [bST hormone treatment][4]). Keeping with Minnesota figures, output per cow is 12,880lbs organic versus 20,675lbs conventional. Organic milk must therefore be priced high enough to recoup the additional costs even at a lower volume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the industry has this to say about antibiotics in non-organic milk:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The U.S. dairy industry tests all milk entering dairy plants to ensure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that antibiotics are kept out of the milk supply. According to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data, less than one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tanker in 1,000 tests positive for any animal drug residues, including&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antibiotics. In those rare cases, any milk that tests positive is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposed of immediately and does not get into the food supply. &lt;https://www.drink-milk.com/media/32334/organicmilk.pdf&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Non-monetary Costs #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are you willing to expand your genetics beyond production to other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; considerations or are you a registered cattle operation that likes to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; show cattle? Many organic farmers have opted for hardier but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not-so-fancy, multicolored crossbred cattle. {Johnson &amp; Moynihan}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I asked the question, I mainly had in mind dairy goats (and not cattle) for personal consumption. For completeness, however, I think it should be noted organic animals don't always make the best show. I think that genetic resistance to disease and drought should be preferred over show-quality and aesthetics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the inability to have registered livestock could be a problem. Registries and associations are a major source of support for farmers. Marketing opportunities for products, avenues to sell livestock, etc. are some of the *opportunity costs* for genetic advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my own scenario, considering dairy farming with Nigerian Dwarf goats, this is still a potential problem. To register these animals as dairy goats with the American Dairy Goat Association &lt;http://www.adga.org/&gt;, the goats would have to qualify under the breed requirements (being disbudded or polled - dehorned as one example). Custom breeds pose some difficulty, but aren't impossible (as far as I can tell).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Health Risks #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If herd density per acreage is allowed to be variable (decreasing density to compensate for not using preventative antibiotics), I could find nothing to support the idea that organic farming practices were more dangerous or risky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In health risks that don't pass to the dairy-consumer, and that have nothing to do with *organic* processes, is pasteurization of milk to be given to newborn goats (kids). It can be argued that pasteurizing animal-milk rather than allowing for 'natural' kid-rearing is *less sustainable.* I think we can concede this point, regardless of whether or not we find it trivial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In goats, pasteurizing the milk and then bottle-feeding is a method of CAE prevention. This could be achieved through other means, such as testing animals before they enter the herd. For more information on CAE, [see the Wiki article][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary, I could not find any evidence to suggest that organic farming was *riskier* than conventional farming methods.** As might be expected, organic dairy farming was more expensive - but as of the writing of this, profit margins still existed for organic dairy products (at least in medium-to-large sized farming operations involving dairy cattle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone finds additional, or contradictory information, please feel free to comment or post another answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Works Referenced ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In no special order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;Is organic dairying for me?,&quot; Johnson &amp; Moynihan 2007, &lt;http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/dairy/organic/is-organic-dairying-for-me/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - USDA, &lt;http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/organic-prices.aspx&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - USDA, &lt;http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns/organic-costs-and-returns.aspx&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;Becoming a certified organic dairy,&quot; University of MN, &lt;http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/dairy/organic/becoming-a-certified-organic-dairy/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;Bovine somatotropin,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;Caprine arthritis encephalitis,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprine_Arthritis_Encephalitis&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/organic-prices.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns/organic-costs-and-returns.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/dairy/organic/becoming-a-certified-organic-dairy/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprine_Arthritis_Encephalitis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2819" RevisionGUID="b41f93ca-a784-4e2f-b18d-99fc354848fc" CreationDate="2014-06-10T19:12:13.560" UserId="1053" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="I would use a donkey. The dairy and sheep farmers I visited in the UK as a child used them, and there's a field of cows near me that has a pair of donkeys in it. When I go by on my bike, the donkeys clearly and obviously arrange themselves protectively between me and the cows. (We have coyotes and wolves near us - you can hear them howl at night and a neighbor saw a wolf once.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you had ever been kicked or bitten by a donkey, you would not so quickly say &quot;The dog might be better if the predator is human.&quot; They'll do a great job against a variety of predators, and can also help out (if you have the right equipment and temperament) with tasks that require strength, like pulling something heavy. A dog isn't going to do that for you. And as you've mentioned, they don't need separate food or shelter from their guardees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2844" RevisionGUID="fa2c60dc-e3b9-4e34-bcb5-04ac8b4a46ef" CreationDate="2014-06-11T12:57:49.757" UserId="1446" Comment="added reference." Text="# The cost of &quot;Organic&quot; dairy #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least within the United States, certifying something as *organic* requires time, effort, and paperwork. There does exist an additional administrative burden for farmsteads wishing to market their products as organic, but if we are invested in the organic method as part of a greater commitment to increasing sustainability, then the label *might not* matter. Organic labeling concerns will affect the price that a dairy product can fetch in the market ([people will pay more for organic][1]), but if the dairy is for private consumption then marketing won't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Administration ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned earlier, organic dairy certification is a process. It's probably easier to start initially as organic than it is to transition over an existing dairy. In the US, the USDA has set up requirements for organic certification and then accredits certifying authorities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Organic Inputs (Feed) ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that organic feed costs for dairy cattle to be approximately US$11.58 in Minnesota versus US$10.91 for conventional feed inputs as one example {[from 2010 Commodity Costs and Returns][2], in dollars per hundredweight (cwt) sold}.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these numbers presume a minimum of 30% feed input from organically certified pastures {[percentages from Univ. of MN][3]}. During times of drought, farms purchase a higher percentage of feed and will realize a greater cost disparity from their conventional counterparts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Other overhead costs were also studied, but I'm not convinced that I could translate these costs to a small size operation with any fairness - so they were omitted for simplicity.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Organic Output ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Production quantity is lower for organic dairy cattle than for conventional dairy practices (which includes approximately 30% of cattle receiving [bST hormone treatment][4]). Keeping with Minnesota figures, output per cow is 12,880lbs organic versus 20,675lbs conventional. Organic milk must therefore be priced high enough to recoup the additional costs even at a lower volume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the industry has this to say about antibiotics in non-organic milk:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The U.S. dairy industry tests all milk entering dairy plants to ensure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that antibiotics are kept out of the milk supply. According to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; most recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data, less than one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tanker in 1,000 tests positive for any animal drug residues, including&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antibiotics. In those rare cases, any milk that tests positive is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposed of immediately and does not get into the food supply. &lt;https://www.drink-milk.com/media/32334/organicmilk.pdf&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Non-monetary Costs #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are you willing to expand your genetics beyond production to other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; considerations or are you a registered cattle operation that likes to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; show cattle? Many organic farmers have opted for hardier but&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not-so-fancy, multicolored crossbred cattle. {Johnson &amp; Moynihan}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I asked the question, I mainly had in mind dairy goats (and not cattle) for personal consumption. For completeness, however, I think it should be noted organic animals don't always make the best show. I think that genetic resistance to disease and drought should be preferred over show-quality and aesthetics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the inability to have registered livestock could be a problem. Registries and associations are a major source of support for farmers. Marketing opportunities for products, avenues to sell livestock, etc. are some of the *opportunity costs* for genetic advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my own scenario, considering dairy farming with Nigerian Dwarf goats, this is still a potential problem. To register these animals as dairy goats with the American Dairy Goat Association &lt;http://www.adga.org/&gt;, the goats would have to qualify under the breed requirements (being disbudded or polled - dehorned as one example). Custom breeds pose some difficulty, but aren't impossible (as far as I can tell).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Health Risks #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If herd density per acreage is allowed to be variable (decreasing density to compensate for not using preventative antibiotics), I could find nothing to support the idea that organic farming practices were more dangerous or risky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In health risks that don't pass to the dairy-consumer, and that have nothing to do with *organic* processes, is pasteurization of milk to be given to newborn goats (kids). It can be argued that pasteurizing animal-milk rather than allowing for 'natural' kid-rearing is *less sustainable.* I think we can concede this point, regardless of whether or not we find it trivial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In goats, pasteurizing the milk and then bottle-feeding is a method of CAE prevention. This could be achieved through other means, such as testing animals before they enter the herd. {Amundson 2013} For more information on CAE, [see the Wiki article][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In summary, I could not find any evidence to suggest that organic farming was *riskier* than conventional farming methods.** As might be expected, organic dairy farming was more expensive - but as of the writing of this, profit margins still existed for organic dairy products (at least in medium-to-large sized farming operations involving dairy cattle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone finds additional, or contradictory information, please feel free to comment or post another answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Works Referenced ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In no special order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Amundson, Carol (2013). *&quot;How to Raise Goats: Everything you need to know.&quot;* &lt;http://ow.ly/xBAAp&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;Is organic dairying for me?,&quot; Johnson &amp; Moynihan 2007, &lt;http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/dairy/organic/is-organic-dairying-for-me/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - USDA, &lt;http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/organic-prices.aspx&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - USDA, &lt;http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns/organic-costs-and-returns.aspx&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;Becoming a certified organic dairy,&quot; University of MN, &lt;http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/dairy/organic/becoming-a-certified-organic-dairy/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;Bovine somatotropin,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  - &quot;Caprine arthritis encephalitis,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprine_Arthritis_Encephalitis&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/organic-prices.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-and-returns/organic-costs-and-returns.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/dairy/organic/becoming-a-certified-organic-dairy/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caprine_Arthritis_Encephalitis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="2778a917-cc76-419c-936c-90d2e01b07ac" CreationDate="2014-06-11T16:36:00.453" UserId="1486" Text="Is it a bad idea to throw garbage down the public garbage chute? Sustainably speaking, garbage &quot;dumps&quot; &amp; toxic incinerators don't seem like a sustainable method over time. Although maybe someone will invent a carbon zero incinerator/power generator one day and they can fuel it with all the junk from the dump. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if I am trying to live sustainably currently, do I just have to avoid buying anything that will one day turn into &quot;garbage&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="2778a917-cc76-419c-936c-90d2e01b07ac" CreationDate="2014-06-11T16:36:00.453" UserId="1486" Text="How to sustainably deal with garbage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="2778a917-cc76-419c-936c-90d2e01b07ac" CreationDate="2014-06-11T16:36:00.453" UserId="1486" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2846" RevisionGUID="8ed5c843-3a1a-449b-a64c-2fa3c635edd1" CreationDate="2014-06-11T21:48:43.047" UserId="85" Text="In general most collected garbage will be either incinerated or end up in land fills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The garbage that is &quot;recycled&quot; (like PET bottles, say) is usually [downcycled](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling) (into carpets, say).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A well-known motto is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Reduce &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Reuse &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Recycle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (in that order)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for point one, there are more and more products, which are sold with a lifetime warranty. This might be primarily for marketing purposes, but the warranty at least keeps the manufacturer partially accountable for their product. Disposable or low-quality products are never sold with a lifetime warranty, because they're expected to be &quot;chucked&quot; rather sooner than later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For point two, there are initiatives which try to help consumers reuse certain packaging. Second-hand books/clothes/furniture is one obvious aspect. Another would be [large-scale reuse of glass bottles](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/592/large-scale-reuse-of-glass-bottles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For point three, the &quot;last resort&quot; is to buy and throw away products which are recyclable. Organic materials (food, in particular) can be composted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, the consumer has the power of choosing more sustainable products and **less waste is always more sustainable than more waste**..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2847" RevisionGUID="cb84c223-b77d-4e31-9248-383983e3fdf6" CreationDate="2014-06-11T22:17:51.493" UserId="1445" Text="A 50m garden hose weighs about 5-6kg (e.g [this one](http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0001IWLMQ/ref=s9_simh_gw_p79_d0_i4?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&amp;pf_rd_s=center-2&amp;pf_rd_r=189SWMBFXCP98QAVHKTR&amp;pf_rd_t=101&amp;pf_rd_p=455344027&amp;pf_rd_i=468294)).  That's largely PVC.  So a 30ft hose will be about 1kg of PVC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic hose repair connectors are (according to [Amazon](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Draper-89383-2-inch-Garden-Connector/dp/9800551506)) 18g of polypropylene.  A [brass one](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Draper-68434-Expert-2-inch-Connector/dp/B0001KA0G8/ref=pd_sim_lp_5?ie=UTF8&amp;refRID=0M795V4YVS2V5JWY22SY) is around 100g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brass, PVC and Polypropylene all have similar embodied energy - around 60-70MJ/kg (reference [here](http://www.converge.org.nz/atla/new-11-98-p4.html)) and hence similar CO2 emissions per kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in terms of CO2 emissions from embodied energy in raw materials, you're about 5x better off with plastic connectors.  Plastic, being much lighter, will also incur lower emissions from transport.  We can also say that the point at which connectors equal the 30ft hose in terms of embodied energy is at about 55 plastic connectors or 10 metal ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since you're re-using the connectors from hose to hose, your choice will always be to add just one more new connector or buy a whole new hose.  One new connector will be 1.2MJ (plastic) or 6.5MJ (brass) and a new hose will be 65MJ.  The connector wins every time.  From an embedded energy (roughly = CO2 emissions) point of view you should keep patching your hoses for as long as you can stand it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Of course I've simplified a lot: effectively assuming packaging is negligible; that you were going past the store anyway so no extra trips to pick up hose connectors; that the plastic and metal ones last the same (long) time; and also I've ignored other environmental impacts like pollution and water use.  But this gives you a rough idea!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2847" RevisionGUID="87dc1272-d362-4481-bef8-12ed10dc09e0" CreationDate="2014-06-12T08:48:24.440" UserId="1445" Comment="Expanded slightly" Text="A 50m garden hose weighs about 5-6kg (e.g [this one](http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0001IWLMQ/ref=s9_simh_gw_p79_d0_i4?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&amp;pf_rd_s=center-2&amp;pf_rd_r=189SWMBFXCP98QAVHKTR&amp;pf_rd_t=101&amp;pf_rd_p=455344027&amp;pf_rd_i=468294)).  That's largely PVC.  So a 30ft hose will be about 1kg of PVC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic hose repair connectors are (according to [Amazon](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Draper-89383-2-inch-Garden-Connector/dp/9800551506)) 18g of polypropylene.  A [brass one](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Draper-68434-Expert-2-inch-Connector/dp/B0001KA0G8/ref=pd_sim_lp_5?ie=UTF8&amp;refRID=0M795V4YVS2V5JWY22SY) is around 100g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brass, PVC and Polypropylene all have similar embodied energy - around 60-70MJ/kg (reference [here](http://www.converge.org.nz/atla/new-11-98-p4.html)) and hence similar CO2 emissions per kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in terms of CO2 emissions from embodied energy in raw materials, you're about 5x better off with plastic connectors.  Plastic, being much lighter, will also incur lower emissions from transport.  We can also say that the point at which connectors equal the 30ft hose in terms of embodied energy is at about 55 plastic connectors or 10 metal ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since you're re-using the connectors from hose to hose, your choice will always be to add just one more new connector or buy a whole new hose.  One new connector will be 1.2MJ (plastic) or 6.5MJ (brass) and a new hose will be 65MJ.  The connector wins every time.  From an embedded energy (roughly = CO2 emissions) point of view you should keep patching your hoses for as long as you can stand it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Of course I've simplified a lot: effectively assuming packaging is negligible; that you were going past the store anyway so no extra trips to pick up hose connectors; that the plastic and metal ones last the same (long) time; and also I've ignored other environmental impacts like pollution and water use.  But this gives you a rough idea!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But best of all is to try and reduce the number of holes your hose gets!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2848" RevisionGUID="0f88e6f2-f935-47b0-b61b-5a76881165f0" CreationDate="2014-06-12T15:01:29.540" UserId="80" Text="The city of Ottawa [apparently][1] composts butcher's paper without distinction.&#xD;&#xA;Both Oakland and Berkeley include butcher's paper in their [compostable lists][2] (and Berkeley's even includes &quot;Brown Waxed Paper Sheets&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;The town of Sherborn also says that &quot;wax paper and butcher paper&quot; [can go][3] in your compost pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the city of Portland [does not want][4] butcher's paper in their compost, &quot;because they contain plastic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I have read on the Internet, there is a huge diversity of products called &quot;butcher's paper&quot;, but plastic-coated papers seem to be referred to as &quot;freezer paper&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess I do not really have an answer for you, and I believe there is no such &quot;norm&quot;. I would only recommend you to make sure you know what the paper is made of when you buy it, and make sure it is entirely plant-based if you are to compost it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/ottawas-green-bin-municipal-composting-program-is-about-to-take-off.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.rockridgemarkethall.com/pasta-shop/recycle-compost-guide&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sherbornma.org/Pages/SherbornMA_BComm/Recycling/how%20to&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.fhhoa.com/news/curbside-composting-revisited/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="bd218f30-8793-4ed9-8d77-e1f5700fe9f4" CreationDate="2014-06-12T15:18:36.347" UserId="-1" Comment="hotlinked image not on the web anymore" Text="In Germany there is a system, just the way you describe it. It is something like, anything container that contains a drink, which is not a milk product has to charge extra money for the container (e.g. bottle), which is to be refunded on return of the container. (Aluminium cans are also exempt.) There is a special word for this amount of money, which at the moment is 0.25€ for plastic bottles and 0.08€ for glass bottles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the Coca-Cola company wasn't happy about their customers having to pay extra money for just the bottle, and having to bring the bottle back somewhere, so the German Coca-Cola contains fractional amount of whey, which allowed them to classify Coca-Cola as milk product...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, other than that the recycling system seems to work quite well. Glass bottles are being reused. Even plastic bottles for water are manufactured to be stronger and are being reused. There are a number of standard bottles for manufacturers to choose from. The picture shows the standard glass bottle for (weakly carbonated) mineral water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the customer is done, he can bring the bottles to his nearest supermarket. Likely they will have a machine, where you put all your bottles in (full cases 1-by-1, bottles 2 at a time). The machine then gives you a voucher over the refunded money, which you can either turn into cash at the till, or use against your next shopping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Returning used bottles](http://www.express.de/image/view/2012/10/5/20791326,16331438,highRes,i0jqthar.bmp.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past 20 years I haven't heard of any health issues associated with reused bottles. The caps are always new and I don't think it is very difficult to sterilize bottles large scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a last point, the Green dot system you mention does endure, at least in Germany, but is about _recycling_ and not _reusing_ a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It hasn't always been this way, but now my family's separated trash is (by weight)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. organic waste that is to be composted,&#xD;&#xA;2. bottles/jars that are to be reused,&#xD;&#xA;3. paper that is to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;3. jars that are to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;4. plastics that are to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;5. waste that is not to be reused or recycled (usually land-fill).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6742" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="bd218f30-8793-4ed9-8d77-e1f5700fe9f4" CreationDate="2014-06-12T15:18:36.347" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 96, -1 edit id of 286" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="a527d982-5d71-4c39-a0f2-62f9d9dd883a" CreationDate="2014-06-12T15:18:36.347" UserId="85" Comment="hotlinked image not on the web anymore" Text="In Germany there is a system, just the way you describe it. It is something like, anything container that contains a drink, which is not a milk product has to charge extra money for the container (e.g. bottle), which is to be refunded on return of the container. (Aluminium cans are also exempt.) There is a special word for this amount of money, which at the moment is 0.25€ for plastic bottles and 0.08€ for glass bottles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the Coca-Cola company wasn't happy about their customers having to pay extra money for just the bottle, and having to bring the bottle back somewhere, so the German Coca-Cola contains fractional amount of whey, which allowed them to classify Coca-Cola as milk product...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, other than that the recycling system seems to work quite well. Glass bottles are being reused. Even plastic bottles for water are manufactured to be stronger and are being reused. There are a number of standard bottles for manufacturers to choose from. The picture shows the standard glass bottle for (weakly carbonated) mineral water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![water bottle](http://de-pic1.ciao.com/de/262618746.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the customer is done, he can bring the bottles to his nearest supermarket. Likely they will have a machine, where you put all your bottles in (full cases 1-by-1, bottles 2 at a time). The machine then gives you a voucher over the refunded money, which you can either turn into cash at the till, or use against your next shopping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Returning used bottles](http://www.express.de/image/view/2012/10/5/20791326,16331438,highRes,i0jqthar.bmp.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past 20 years I haven't heard of any health issues associated with reused bottles. The caps are always new and I don't think it is very difficult to sterilize bottles large scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a last point, the Green dot system you mention does endure, at least in Germany, but is about _recycling_ and not _reusing_ a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It hasn't always been this way, but now my family's separated trash is (by weight)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. organic waste that is to be composted,&#xD;&#xA;2. bottles/jars that are to be reused,&#xD;&#xA;3. paper that is to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;3. jars that are to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;4. plastics that are to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;5. waste that is not to be reused or recycled (usually land-fill).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2849" RevisionGUID="d74f8cd3-49cf-4952-ab39-415184d0bbaf" CreationDate="2014-06-12T20:38:36.433" UserId="1053" Text="I decided to make a spreadsheet. The rows are the number of holes over which you are going to run the strategy. The columns are your strategy: buy a new hose every time, patch one hole and then on the next buy a new hose, patch 5 holes, 10 holes etc. Here's the result:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for example if you get 10 holes, all the strategies that replace after less than 10 patches have the original hose, one or more replacements, and however many patches are acquired until the limit was reached. All the other strategies have the original hose, and 10 patches, which are worth one hose. (Worth here might be money, carbon footprint, embedded energy or whatever. It's a variable in the spreadsheet.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you think you might get 30 holes, the 10 strategy has 3 hoses and a hose's worth of patches, while the 15 strategy has 2 hoses and 1.5 hoses worth of patches. The 20 strategy also has 2 hoses, but 2 hoses worth of patches (not all of which are being used at the moment, but all have been bought and used on previous iterations.) Not until 40 holes is the &quot;every 20&quot; strategy ahead again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I think 10 patches is more than enough in a 50 foot hose, I will probably limit myself to that.  But it's interesting to see that there is an optimum. I expect that 40 holes is a good lifetime limit, so 20-year-olds could consider investing in 20 patches, acquired over the first half of their life, then replace the hose and spend their golden years using up the existing patches for a second time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZGbs3.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6746" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1084" RevisionGUID="6f793c2b-d2a6-4f3a-9cbe-cb6dbd47835c" CreationDate="2014-06-13T07:21:44.233" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|electricity|uk|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2850" RevisionGUID="821f9911-832e-4046-b9bf-5fd187c0b020" CreationDate="2014-06-13T10:33:10.147" UserId="812" Text="The [Energy Saving Trust][1] (EST) is an organisation that has no vested interest in selling you things (although their mission is certainly to encourage takeup of renewables). They have a lot of good advice on their website - I suggest having a read from [this starting page][2]. Make sure you're looking at the page relevant to the right part of the UK, as the rules can be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your specific questions very loosely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mechanism by which you get money back for electricity that you generate is [Feed-In Tariffs][3] (FITs). I'm not sure whether there are also any tax breaks or the like for installing generating equipment. I'm deliberately not going to give the actual FIT rates that are paid here, since they vary fairly frequently with political whims. Best to check the linked page. &#xD;&#xA;Note that once you have a system installed, the rates that you receive are fixed for a fairly long period (in the order of decades), so you can plan ahead - the variation is purely in terms of what the rates are when you start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the amount of money you could earn, or the payback time: This is dependant on a lot of factors, including,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Your latitude&#xD;&#xA;* The amount of sunshine vs cloud that you get in your part of the country&#xD;&#xA;* The angle of your roof&#xD;&#xA;* Any trees, hills, or other shading&#xD;&#xA;* The technology used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get an answer that you'd want to base an investment decision on you may want to speak to a consultant. However, the EST has a calculator [here][4] that can hopefully give a rough idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generating-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generating-energy/Getting-money-back/Feed-In-Tariffs-scheme-FITs&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Generating-energy/Getting-money-back/Solar-Energy-Calculator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6748" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="2816" RevisionGUID="8312ee45-124e-401a-98dd-284f3a33e954" CreationDate="2014-06-13T12:58:13.513" UserId="-1" Comment="13" />
  <row Id="6749" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="065b8ea1-ad47-424d-ac32-59da6749d487" CreationDate="2014-06-13T16:26:52.613" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/477487276859990019" />
  <row Id="6750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2851" RevisionGUID="f216d58a-7d66-4cdf-a942-1b57e0d41029" CreationDate="2014-06-13T20:51:50.820" UserId="1492" Text="Although I have not made my own composting toilet, I have been interested in the idea. I've heard that waste can be collected in a bucket (typically a 5-gallon) beneath the toilet hole. Peat moss makes a great compost material- just use it as an additive to the waste. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have heard you can also use sawdust or woodchips to eliminate odors. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2852" RevisionGUID="df37ae9b-1a34-4611-9b93-554f56c39b62" CreationDate="2014-06-14T09:59:10.407" UserId="706" Text="I often hear a claim saying that reducing the thermostat's setpoint by one degree C will reduce the overall yearly energy consumption by 7%. I've heard heating control manufacturers, energy consultants, and heating installers repeat this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I have not been able to find out where this number comes from, and indeed I suspect that this number may vary a lot from building to building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know where this number comes from? And how reliable it really is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2852" RevisionGUID="df37ae9b-1a34-4611-9b93-554f56c39b62" CreationDate="2014-06-14T09:59:10.407" UserId="706" Text="Reducing the setpoint by 1 degree C will save 7% energy: what's the origin of that claim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2852" RevisionGUID="df37ae9b-1a34-4611-9b93-554f56c39b62" CreationDate="2014-06-14T09:59:10.407" UserId="706" Text="|energy|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2853" RevisionGUID="8d6d2121-2296-47aa-9040-af7301ac70b8" CreationDate="2014-06-14T18:17:22.910" UserId="1053" Text="Your first priority when living sustainably is to reduce the extent to which you rely on others for anything, since they may not share your priorities. If you get your food or energy from others you have to worry about how they got it. If you give your garbage to others to dispose of, you have to worry about how they will dispose of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing your garbage comes in three broad areas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - replace large things (cars, furniture, electronics, clothes) less often, try to buy used, repair things instead of replacing them&#xD;&#xA; - reduce, reuse and recycle in your day to day life (buy things with less packaging, compost and recycle what you can, use yogurt tubs to store leftovers instead of throwing yogurt tubs away and buying Tupperware, etc&#xD;&#xA; - change the way you get rid of things when you're finished with them - such as taking things apart to enable recycling, selling or giving away instead of dumping, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to consider the lifetime impact of some things. A new couch every 5 years vs every 10 years means 5 extra couches over 50 years - this far outweighs what you do with your egg cartons and yogurt tubs. That said, the list above contains items that don't conflict with each other. You can expect your car or couch to last longer (my couch is over 20 years old at the moment) AND reuse your yogurt tubs AND buy local food that was sustainably raised and delivered to you without packaging. It all adds up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, some choices naturally reinforce others. When I go to the farm to pick up my vegetable share and buy eggs, I'm reusing the plastic bags and egg cartons from the previous visit. That's easy to do there, harder to do at the supermarket, harder still at a restaurant where you don't see what they throw away on your behalf. Thinking about the big picture changes a lot of behaviors at once." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2833" RevisionGUID="aeb72a59-ffb3-4d1a-b1dd-511f7cc5bca3" CreationDate="2014-06-15T09:14:45.390" UserId="1479" Comment="added that I live in England - as I have discovered that the rules can be different for different parts of the uk" Text="I am based in the UK (in England) and am thinking about installing solar panels on my roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem I am having is actually finding some resources which I can use to get some objective information. The only information I seem to be able to find is coming from Solar Panel installation companies, who of course have a vested interest in my buying a bunch of panels from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see quite general advice that this is a good investment (e.g. Which?), which has sparked my interest, but I want to get hold of more specific information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two things I'm trying to find out in particular. One is quite generic - to learn about the mechanism by which one sells solar electricity back to the grid, any grants, tax breaks etc. The second question is far more specific to me - essentially to get ballpark estimates of the kind of revenue I can expect to generate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any idea how I can go about answering these questions (the second in particular), but from an unbiased source?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2805" RevisionGUID="c62c766c-0af1-4779-a63f-ab50718e3aeb" CreationDate="2014-06-16T14:02:48.800" UserId="318" Comment="added 3051 characters in body" Text="**DC motors:** The most suitable motors are those which have permanent magnets in their rotors.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditionally these were pure DC motors - where DC was fed into the motor rather than AC such as is obtained from AC mains or via a transformer, but the boundary has become blurred as a BLDC motor or BLDCM = &quot;Brushless DC Motor&quot; uses electronics to take supplied DC and create required AC fields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Alternators and generators:**  Also suitable are devices intended originally for power generation rather than as motors. A car alternator is in this class. Due to industry attempts to lower cost a car alternator is harder to use in some applications than eg a BLDCM. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Induction motors:**  These are the majority of appliance motors in the 1/4HP (200 Watt) to several HP (2000 W +) range.  These are generally NOT considered suitable but in many cases could be used with suitable expertise. There are usually enough alternatives available to make the use of induction motors unattractive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the list you provided the following are DC motors which can be used either directly or with minor changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fans from old computers - need modification  &#xD;&#xA;Electric lawnmower motors - some  &#xD;&#xA;Washing machine motors  - BLDC with magnets - yes. Induction motors - not really.   &#xD;&#xA;Dryer motors - some  &#xD;&#xA;Alternators from cars - yes but need battery feed  &#xD;&#xA;Motors from power tools - Usually  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also     &#xD;&#xA;any BLDCMs (require minor modificatons (washing machines and others),     &#xD;&#xA;motors from battery powered tools,      &#xD;&#xA;'stepper motors' from computer equipment.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The details can be complex so this is a quick summary. I can provide as much information as desired if more questions are asked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. &quot;Brushed&quot; DC motors are easiest to use to create DC as DC appears at their terminals when they are rotated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Battery powered appliances are often in this class.   &#xD;&#xA;Some appliances with brushed DC motors have a speed controller between the terminals and motor which may isolate the motor when used as a generator. &#xD;&#xA;eg a battery powered electric drill will almost always be speed controlled so you need to access the motor wires directly to use it as a generator.  &#xD;&#xA;Whereas a battery powered line trimmer which operates at a single (full) speed may provide direct access from battery terminals via a switch to the motor terminals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Treadmill motor are often large brushed DC motors - you'll need to access their terminals directly. Power ratings up to several horsepower are possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Small &quot;stepper motors&quot; such as are found in older floppy disk drives and older hard disk drives and some printers will produce AC at their terminals when the shaft is rotated. This sort of motor usually &quot;announces itself&quot; by having a jerky &quot;cogging&quot; action when turned as the stator successively try to trap each rotor magnet as it passes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Large &quot;BLCDM&quot;s are found in some washing machines. One such are the Fisher &amp; Paykel &quot;Smartdrive&quot; motors - originally made in NZ but sold in many countries and bought by Haier a year or so ago. Well known by wind turbine makers.  Also used in some hydro systems.  [Many photos of them here](https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=smart+drive+windmill&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=PPOeU5O6PMTJkgXmxgE&amp;ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&amp;biw=1920&amp;bih=1032).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of s Smart Drive motor on its way to becoming a windmill alternator. [**From here**](http://archive.siliconchip.com.au/cms/A_103664/article.html)  &#xD;&#xA;Note magnets in rotor and many coils of wire on stator. These are wound as 3 phases and there is much discussion on web re reconnecting these to achieve various desired results. The magnets are relatively low grade ferrite due to the low cost - F&amp;P evidently decided they could get value for money performance wise with lower cost magnetics and more effort in overall size, laminations, copper used etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Search for eg ... smart drive windmill ... for many pages related.   &#xD;&#xA;[**Some useful discussion here**](http://newbiblicalunderstanding.info/diy.wind.generators.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Back Shed](http://www.thebackshed.com/windmill/Contents.asp) has much on wind power and power generation. [Their older pages]((http://www.thebackshed.com/windmill/assemblya.asp) )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(http://www.thebackshed.com/windmill/images/118-1804_img.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using an older style (5.25&quot;) floppy disk drive stepper-motor directly.  &#xD;&#xA;Power output is only a few Watts.  &#xD;&#xA;Stepper motor is &quot;coggy&quot; due to magnetic attraction to stator poles and does not start well in low wind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zRL16.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rmO6X.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6757" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2852" RevisionGUID="738afbf7-c015-4c5a-a4d6-66a0519cb427" CreationDate="2014-06-17T13:35:20.757" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/478893661166370817" />
  <row Id="6758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2854" RevisionGUID="3ad90f44-29bb-41a7-a4b4-911ea5cd2b7e" CreationDate="2014-06-17T14:37:41.440" UserId="85" Text="I've seen tea tree oil been advertized as powerful anti-fungal &amp; anti-bacterial agent, which people seem to use for practically anything:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- laundry (in particular cloth diapers)&#xD;&#xA;- room freshener&#xD;&#xA;- bathroom cleaner&#xD;&#xA;- insect deterrent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can attest that tea tree oil really works wonders. Old T-shirts (5+ years) that have become smelly even after washing and sun-drying smell like new (2-3 drops in the washing); bathroom mold disappears; fleas (I live next to a cow pasture) leave never to return.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently bought a bottle of tea tree oil in Germany. On the bottle it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![umweltgefährlich](http://www.bgbau-medien.de/html/bau/g_hanlhbau/18_8.gif)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Umweltgefährlich_ (pollutant) and **Xn** _Gesundheitsschädlich_ (health hazard).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Xn** basically means &quot;don't ingest&quot;, but concerning the &quot;pollutant&quot; label, I seriously wonder what exactly the effects are and why it is being advertised by manufacturers as a natural alternative to chemical solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I don't customarily use chemical cleaners, so I don't know, but it might just say the same thing for other &quot;conventional&quot; products...?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any information on how detrimental using tea tree oil is to the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus question, my waste water is &quot;bio-digested&quot; on-site. What would be the effects of 2-3 drops of tea tree oil per day (diluted in hundreds of litres of grey water) on the anaerobic tank and on the ground water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2854" RevisionGUID="3ad90f44-29bb-41a7-a4b4-911ea5cd2b7e" CreationDate="2014-06-17T14:37:41.440" UserId="85" Text="Tea tree oil and water organisms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6760" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2854" RevisionGUID="3ad90f44-29bb-41a7-a4b4-911ea5cd2b7e" CreationDate="2014-06-17T14:37:41.440" UserId="85" Text="|water|cleaning|alternatives|waste-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2855" RevisionGUID="fe6f00e0-8cc9-40b9-8eb8-00e9bc7aa0d4" CreationDate="2014-06-17T15:03:02.013" UserId="48" Text="In Britain, the important bit is to make sure that your installer is [MCS registered][1], and that the equipment they supply will be MCS registered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will ensure that you are eligible for the [Feed-in Tariff][2] (aka the FIT)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FIT is untaxed. The amount you receive will be determined by the date of commissioning. A system that is commissioned in a year's time, will receive less per unit than one commissioned now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount you'll actually generate is very much determined by local circumstances. It's also driven by the climate - levels of sunlight, cloudiness, and temperatures. The [PVWatts calculator][3] gives a rough estimate of local generation potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that different PV technologies will produce different amounts of power - some panels perform better for a given level of ambient (indirect) light. And different systems have different internal losses, and those might be of the order of 2-10%. NB those losses will typically manifest as heat in the inverter: if that heat isn't vented away, then you shorten the life of the inverter. But all being well, you might expect to replace the inverter only after ten years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.microgenerationcertification.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/feed-tariff-fit-scheme/tariff-tables&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="aa25f841-6912-4579-bec0-da3e4d7dd1ba" CreationDate="2014-06-18T01:17:11.597" UserId="1495" Text="I am looking for some good vegetables which will produce enough biomass that, once the main crop is harvested, the plants can be composted and returned to the soil, and will leave the soil better than they found it, in terms of organic matter content. are there such plants? If so, what are the most effective ones? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="aa25f841-6912-4579-bec0-da3e4d7dd1ba" CreationDate="2014-06-18T01:17:11.597" UserId="1495" Text="What vegetable plants (if any) will produce enough organic matter to replenish the soil through compost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="aa25f841-6912-4579-bec0-da3e4d7dd1ba" CreationDate="2014-06-18T01:17:11.597" UserId="1495" Text="|composting|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6770" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2854" RevisionGUID="9aab550e-842e-49db-8fe6-a602da05e232" CreationDate="2014-06-18T04:40:55.230" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/479121556262494208" />
  <row Id="6771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2857" RevisionGUID="8dd6f0a9-19e3-4d1b-9b3a-65dcd7ff45ff" CreationDate="2014-06-18T12:05:13.233" UserId="1496" Text="I had an argument how bad global economic trade flows really are. The question was in particular how bad worldwide transports on cargo vessels (containers, ...) are in terms of CO2 production as well as contamination of oceans, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess there must be an estimation out there what percentage of the CO2 emission could be saved would we have more regional economic circulations, but I cannot find it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2857" RevisionGUID="8dd6f0a9-19e3-4d1b-9b3a-65dcd7ff45ff" CreationDate="2014-06-18T12:05:13.233" UserId="1496" Text="What is the share of global human CO2 emission of cargo transport by ship?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2857" RevisionGUID="8dd6f0a9-19e3-4d1b-9b3a-65dcd7ff45ff" CreationDate="2014-06-18T12:05:13.233" UserId="1496" Text="|ecological-footprint|transport|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2858" RevisionGUID="e84cf98b-55ec-4311-a66d-5495c3352733" CreationDate="2014-06-18T17:53:49.567" UserId="1498" Text="I have 14-year old Mephisto leather hiking boots I've worn for daily 4-8 mile hikes, around town, travel, and yard work. Have had them treated and re-soled, including by Mephisto. But they're done. They even hurt my feet now as my feet have expanded from wearing hiking sandals recently. As I don't see a good way to repurpose or recycle them now, I'll keep them around for doing really dirty work on the property so I'm not ruining my next hiking boots by using them as work boots the way I did with these." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="efd3e0cb-7d45-432f-b378-3fef4b27a1eb" CreationDate="2014-06-18T19:51:05.707" UserId="1495" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="I am looking for some good vegetables which will produce enough biomass that, once the main crop is harvested, the plants can be composted and returned to the soil, and will leave the soil better than they found it, in terms of organic matter content. are there such plants? If so, what are the most effective ones? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I know that the soil will be left with fewer nutrients after cropping. This question solely asks about building humus levels in the soil through composting leftover plant material." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2859" RevisionGUID="3db86a8c-5905-49ae-8f60-418997ea0a46" CreationDate="2014-06-18T22:48:49.020" UserId="1091" Text="I have some hair ties that have been stretched so much that they aren't stretchy anymore. I'm talking about ones that look like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![hair tie][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's basically thread wrapped around elastic. The elastic inside stretched to the point of breaking, and the thread is inelastic and doesn't go anywhere. So basically I have these bracelet-sized thread loops. What can I do with them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0YRly.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6777" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2859" RevisionGUID="3db86a8c-5905-49ae-8f60-418997ea0a46" CreationDate="2014-06-18T22:48:49.020" UserId="1091" Text="What can I do with used up hair elastics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6778" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2859" RevisionGUID="3db86a8c-5905-49ae-8f60-418997ea0a46" CreationDate="2014-06-18T22:48:49.020" UserId="1091" Text="|reuse|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2860" RevisionGUID="c71f014b-8dc9-4da6-a322-bbece8627d15" CreationDate="2014-06-19T01:27:54.600" UserId="659" Text="From the [first search I tried the first result][1] says:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to the Second IMO GHG Study 2009, which is the most comprehensive and authoritative assessment of the level of GHG emitted by ships, international shipping was estimated to have emitted 870 million tonnes, or about 2.7% of the global man-made emissions of CO2 in 2007. Exhaust gases are the primary source of GHG emissions from ships and carbon dioxide is the most important GHG, both in terms of quantity and of global warming potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's [a comparison here][2] with this graph:&#xD;&#xA;![graph of CO2 emissions by cargo transport mode][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has a page specifically on the &quot;[water pollution from sea transport][4]&quot; question that covers several aspects with links to other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your question is impossible to answer with any certainty unless you're willing to spend a lot of money funding the study. There are a lot of marginal costs that would change and among other complexities [it's likely that the total impact of international trade is significantly positive][5] (pdf link). It follows that removing it would reduce economic growth and effectively lower global GDP. The whole &quot;is trade good&quot; question is the subject of considerable research and your question could be seen as &quot;trade is good economically, but is it also good under the triple bottom line approach?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To take **one specific example**: there are a very small number of computer chip producing plants, and generally only one or two producing &quot;current generation&quot; chips. Mostly because those plants are extremely expensive to build. So they are built to run the key parts of the process as fast as possible all the time. The resulting chips are shipped all over the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are only a couple of these plants, and they're expensive. De-globalising those plants would mean we'd need more of them, and they don't scale down very well. So rather than one, $10B plant we'd probably need 10, $2B plants to get the same production. Even if it's only $1.5B that's still quite a lot of money, plus of course all the supporting people and supply chains (we'd need 9 more silicon refineries, for example). It's going to cost a lot of money just to regionalise chip production to 10 parts of the globe, and that's not very &quot;regional&quot; to most people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As well, we have a smaller plant that is probably not able to run at full capacity all the time because it serves a smaller group of people (so random variations in demand are proportionally larger as well as more likely). This pushes the cost up further. The need to finance it locally means that most of those plants will need to pay higher interest rates on the money they borrow to build. And so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also need to consider **the demand side of the equation**. What those plants produce will now be more expensive. That means they will sell fewer of them (would you buy a new smartphone every two years if it was $5000 instead of $1000? Would everyone?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This pattern will reproduce itself** across everything that's not already locally produced to some extent, and even to some things that are due to reduced competition. Some things will get dramatically more expensive due to the wide range of global labour prices affecting labour-intensive goods. In countries with a high minimum wage and effective prohibitions on slavery (much of Europe, Australia) that shift will be especially pronounced. Australia will also be hit very badly by the loss of its huge food exports (with corresponding loss of population in countries no longer able to import food).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could probably get a better idea of how that would pan out by reading about the early 20th century when international trade tariffs were high, import quotas low, and many industries completely protected at a national level. As free trade was introduced things changed, usually in the direction of more money. Assuming your unit of &quot;local&quot; is the national-state, of course. If it's more local, like the local food people who often use 100km or 100 miles, you would prevent production of anything electronic that's more complex than a calculator. But to enforce that you'd need unrealistic levels of political power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/GHG-Emissions.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/environment/air-emissions/carbon-emissions&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mMLNz.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/Does%20Trade%20Cause%20Growth%20%28causality%29.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6780" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2857" RevisionGUID="0d03dfb0-7808-446e-8262-71a996e5da52" CreationDate="2014-06-19T01:41:01.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/479438671297265664" />
  <row Id="6781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2861" RevisionGUID="3f5d1f96-f92c-4a0b-82ed-459e0f4ac3ce" CreationDate="2014-06-19T15:11:17.757" UserId="1065" Text="The best option, as you probably know, would be to grow a cover crop right after your main crop. The cover crop should have a mix of plants that produce nutrients and biomass. Generally, this means a mix of legumes and grains. I like to use fava, oats or wheat and an annual vetch. The cover crop should be left on for the winter, then dug in to the soil in the spring. This helps to prevent erosion during the season when you aren't planting. I live in an area with a very short growing season, so I make do with planting a cover crop over only 1/4 of the garden in any given year. When I turn the cover crop over in the spring, I don't plant spring veggies in that 1/4 of the garden. This way the cover crop can break down a bit before I start planting. One important thing to note is that you should not let the legumes bear fruit - I cut them back when they start flowering. When the beans develop, the nitrogen is being pulled from the roots into the legumes. You don't want that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you don't think a cover crop will work for you, the suggestion of legumes is a good one. You won't get all of the nitrogen benefits if you are allowing them to set fruit, but you will get some biomass. French sorrel is another good one. It is a perennial vegetable that you can use first thing in the spring. After that, I cut mine back to the ground once or twice during the growing season, and let the leaves lay on the soil. You probably already do this, but other plant parts like onion and garlic tops and squash plants can be added back, as well. The only ones I'd avoid adding back to the soil would be brassicas, tomatoes and potatoes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6782" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2856" RevisionGUID="d903393a-7870-413c-a9ec-42cc59e1cd4d" CreationDate="2014-06-19T16:46:31.383" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/479666547904888832" />
  <row Id="6783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2862" RevisionGUID="6affd770-d262-4050-b5fb-5a22ca501431" CreationDate="2014-06-19T22:04:06.730" UserId="1182" Text="Not much I'd do with those. My first thought, and past reaction, was to throw them in the trash. But now that I'm thinking about it, here are a few ideas. Most of them are decorative ideas:  &#xD;&#xA;- put them on a toilet paper or paper towel inner tube, or a tree branch, or anything cylindrical with a close enough diameter.   &#xD;&#xA;- cut them and braid them into bracelets or some sort of rope.  &#xD;&#xA;- use them as ties (small ones, though).  &#xD;&#xA;- use them as key rings.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all I could think about right now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2860" RevisionGUID="491f53d6-585d-4300-b81d-cfc89d08f89f" CreationDate="2014-06-20T01:45:25.397" UserId="659" Comment="added more on local food" Text="From the [first search I tried the first result][1] says:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to the Second IMO GHG Study 2009, which is the most comprehensive and authoritative assessment of the level of GHG emitted by ships, international shipping was estimated to have emitted 870 million tonnes, or about 2.7% of the global man-made emissions of CO2 in 2007. Exhaust gases are the primary source of GHG emissions from ships and carbon dioxide is the most important GHG, both in terms of quantity and of global warming potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's [a comparison here][2] with this graph:&#xD;&#xA;![graph of CO2 emissions by cargo transport mode][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has a page specifically on the &quot;[water pollution from sea transport][4]&quot; question that covers several aspects with links to other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second part of your question is impossible to answer with any certainty unless you're willing to spend a lot of money funding the study. There are a lot of marginal costs that would change and among other complexities [it's likely that the total impact of international trade is significantly positive][5] (pdf link). It follows that removing it would reduce economic growth and effectively lower global GDP. The whole &quot;is trade good&quot; question is the subject of considerable research and your question could be seen as &quot;trade is good economically, but is it also good under the triple bottom line approach?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To take **one specific example**: there are a very small number of computer chip producing plants, and generally only one or two producing &quot;current generation&quot; chips. Mostly because those plants are extremely expensive to build. So they are built to run the key parts of the process as fast as possible all the time. The resulting chips are shipped all over the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are only a couple of these plants, and they're expensive. De-globalising those plants would mean we'd need more of them, and they don't scale down very well. So rather than one, $10B plant we'd probably need 10, $2B plants to get the same production. Even if it's only $1.5B that's still quite a lot of money, plus of course all the supporting people and supply chains (we'd need 9 more silicon refineries, for example). It's going to cost a lot of money just to regionalise chip production to 10 parts of the globe, and that's not very &quot;regional&quot; to most people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As well, we have a smaller plant that is probably not able to run at full capacity all the time because it serves a smaller group of people (so random variations in demand are proportionally larger as well as more likely). This pushes the cost up further. The need to finance it locally means that most of those plants will need to pay higher interest rates on the money they borrow to build. And so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also need to consider **the demand side of the equation**. What those plants produce will now be more expensive. That means they will sell fewer of them (would you buy a new smartphone every two years if it was $5000 instead of $1000? Would everyone?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This pattern will reproduce itself** across everything that's not already locally produced to some extent, and even to some things that are due to reduced competition. Some things will get dramatically more expensive due to the wide range of global labour prices affecting labour-intensive goods. In countries with a high minimum wage and effective prohibitions on slavery (much of Europe, Australia) that shift will be especially pronounced. Australia will also be hit very badly by the loss of its huge food exports (with corresponding loss of population in countries no longer able to import food).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could probably get a better idea of how that would pan out by reading about the early 20th century when international trade tariffs were high, import quotas low, and many industries completely protected at a national level. As free trade was introduced things changed, usually in the direction of more money. Assuming your unit of &quot;local&quot; is the national-state, of course. If it's more local, like the local food people who often use 100km or 100 miles, you would prevent production of anything electronic that's more complex than a calculator. But to enforce that you'd need unrealistic levels of political power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;edit in response to comment: locally grown is more mixed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The greenhouse-grown salads in the UK are a classic example where it's better to grow them in Africa and fly them to the UK than grow them locally. But trucking food around inside the USA so that your locally-grown salad might have been shipped 1000 miles to be processed then shipped back? Not so much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are centralisation/resilience risks that come into play as well. If the only source of something breaks things can get difficult while it's being fixed. The &quot;[cities are three days from starvation][6]&quot; idea is kind of true but it's not a great way to look at it (that link explains why). And food is a bad example - people can go 30 days without food, but only 3 without water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why governments (especially) pay such a huge premium for distributed, redundant supplies of critical things like water, electricity and transport. The grid failure in NE USA in 2003 is a great example of the cost of not having resilience - electricity turns out to be more important than many people thought, and the extra cost of secure supply turns out to lower than the cost of having it fail. But from a pure financial return point of view it makes no sense to spend the extra money now for a problem that probably wont happen this quarter. Which is why governments would ideally own those things and operate on longer timescales.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that applies to individuals as well. Paying the premium to buy locally will help create resilience in your city. Whether you can afford that, whether the extra is worth while, whether that even works are questions that have local answers. If there's a local farmers market or food co-op those are more likely to achieve that goal than &quot;local&quot; or &quot;organic&quot; labels in the supermarket, simply because supermarkets often make it hard to investigate the sincerity of the label while a co-op should have researchers who do that for you, and at the farmers market you can ask the seller directly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might make more sense to invest in food storage and buy in bulk. That way you save money or can afford to shop with other than pure price in mind (for example, may be able to buy local rather than imported), plus you have the security of having a couple of weeks food on hand if there is a disaster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, if you can do some gardening you gain a local supply of food that is less likely to be affected by disasters, plus if you're lucky with your location and plan well it may be less environmentally costly than buying that food. Community or guerilla gardening is a cheap option in many places for people who don't have their own land. Plants in boxes on your balcony are unlikely to meet a triple bottom line analysis, unfortunately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.imo.org/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Pages/GHG-Emissions.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/environment/air-emissions/carbon-emissions&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mMLNz.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/Does%20Trade%20Cause%20Growth%20%28causality%29.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.patternliteracy.com/419-fear-and-the-three-day-food-supply-3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="a516c234-38c3-43aa-a408-21279da9eb0c" CreationDate="2014-06-20T12:53:15.837" UserId="1210" Text="*We are moving house from one side of the UK to the other.  The financial costs of doing so have raised the facetious question would it not be cheaper to sell everything here and buy it again, there?  Of course that's not going to happen for all sorts of reasons, but it caused me to wonder about the environmental compromise.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to know of any sustainability analysis of house moving.  Trading off of the energy of moving stuff around vs. disposal and potential re-acquisition.  Are there things that are better transported than replaced (say, DVD collection - lightweight and high packaging overhead in replacing) and things that are best left behind (say large pot plants - heavy and maybe unsuitable).  What about big things like beds and freezers?  Where's the balance point?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for so many sub-questions but I'm hoping they will shepherd the answers towards analytical ones, rather than discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Take it as read that we shouldn't have so much stuff in the first place :-)  We have already re-purposed a large volume of items via Emmaaus; sold many items to our buyers, and recycled vast quantities of paper records etc.*  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6788" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="a516c234-38c3-43aa-a408-21279da9eb0c" CreationDate="2014-06-20T12:53:15.837" UserId="1210" Text="What are the sustainability issues in moving house?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6789" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="a516c234-38c3-43aa-a408-21279da9eb0c" CreationDate="2014-06-20T12:53:15.837" UserId="1210" Text="|home|energy-efficiency|transport|furniture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2862" RevisionGUID="9cf490ec-3c3d-4ed8-b95a-41c7d8601c3a" CreationDate="2014-06-20T14:19:51.923" UserId="1182" Comment="reformat" Text="Not much I'd do with those. My first thought, and past reaction, was to throw them in the trash. But now that I'm thinking about it, here are a few ideas. Most of them are decorative ideas:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - put them on a toilet paper or paper towel inner tube, or a tree&#xD;&#xA;   branch, or anything cylindrical with a close enough diameter.&#xD;&#xA; - cut them and braid them into bracelets or some sort of rope.&#xD;&#xA; - use them as ties (small ones, though).&#xD;&#xA; - use them as key rings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all I could think about right now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6791" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2863" RevisionGUID="718afde3-0fee-44e4-927c-8edcff2ace7f" CreationDate="2014-06-20T19:46:31.363" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/480074234228510721" />
  <row Id="6792" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2859" RevisionGUID="3fc961aa-4bd0-459c-866f-0c15a0b91143" CreationDate="2014-06-21T01:46:31.920" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/480164833070157824" />
  <row Id="6793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2864" RevisionGUID="2ad35696-6e6d-436d-b776-012b1943dedf" CreationDate="2014-06-21T07:35:01.620" UserId="812" Text="Inspired by [this question][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the current UK (2014) generation mix, would changing a house from gas to electric heating increase or decrease its carbon footprint? The original question was about resistive storage heating, but I'd be interested in a 3-way comparison that included heat pumps as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1084/im-in-england-and-want-to-move-to-a-time-of-use-electricity-tariff-how-do-i-g" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2864" RevisionGUID="2ad35696-6e6d-436d-b776-012b1943dedf" CreationDate="2014-06-21T07:35:01.620" UserId="812" Text="Relative carbon footprint of gas or electric heating (UK)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6795" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2864" RevisionGUID="2ad35696-6e6d-436d-b776-012b1943dedf" CreationDate="2014-06-21T07:35:01.620" UserId="812" Text="|energy|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="b88e46a6-9929-42d7-836f-8d8819aa36ad" CreationDate="2014-06-21T10:15:54.843" UserId="48" Text="As we're looking at carbon footprints, it's important that the scope of the consequences we look at (aka our system boundary), goes out to the global level, and to the long term. We would get different answers with a smaller scope: if we only looked at short-term impacts, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Britain, given the current generation mix, any required additional electricity production will come from either coal or gas, depending on total level of grid generation, the forecastability of the additional demand, and the relative prices of coal and gas. It will also depend on the efficiency of heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for gas, the carbon impact will depend on the amount of additional gas leakage from the network, and the source of the gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relative global warming potential for different supplies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- electricity, coal as the marginal producer: 1&#xD;&#xA;- electricity, gas as the marginal producer: 0.5&#xD;&#xA;- gas: 0.2-0.3, depending on leakage rates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To calculate short-term relative impact, ignoring the wider implications for the grid and generating infrastructure, simply divide those by the approximate efficiency (Seasonal performance factors, SPF, for heat pumps):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Resistance heaters with storage: 90%&#xD;&#xA;- Air-source heat pumps: 200%&#xD;&#xA;- Water-source heat pumps: 250%&#xD;&#xA;- Ground-source heat pumps: 400%&#xD;&#xA;- Gas boiler: 60-90%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Example calculation**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal as the marginal producer, with air-source heat pump. Relative carbon footprint = 1 / 200% = 0.5. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###With infrastructure changes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a supplier that increases its investment in clean energy when its revenue increases (i.e., in the UK, that's [Ecotricity][1] - no connection except as a very happy customer), then the hierarchy of lowest carbon footprint will depend on those patterns. In this case, resistance heating with storage heaters starts to look very attractive, because the bill income enables higher investment in renewables; because coming onto the market now are smart controllers that will switch the heaters on and off to match exogenously varying renewables such as PV and wind, which enables higher integration of those supplies into the grid. In those cases, then the likely hierarchy, from lowest to highest carbon footprint, considering the long-term infrastructure impacts as well as the short-term marginal emissions, will be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. resistance heating with storage heaters&#xD;&#xA;1. ground-source heat-pump&#xD;&#xA;2. water-source heat pump&#xD;&#xA;2. air-source heat pump&#xD;&#xA;4. gas heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gas heating comes at the bottom, even if the supplier will inject biogas or synethetic gas into the network, because the network leakages of gas have a significant global warming impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Without infrastructure changes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a supplier that just takes electricity and gas as they come, from the network, and their revenue doesn't change the pattern of their infrastructure investment, and if gas is the marginal electricity fuel, then the likely hierarchy, from lowest to highest carbon footprint, will be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ground-source heat-pump&#xD;&#xA;2. water-source heat pump&#xD;&#xA;2. air-source heat pump&#xD;&#xA;3. gas heating&#xD;&#xA;3. resistance heating with storage heaters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but the position of gas heating will depend on the coal/gas blend in the electricity mix: The more coal, the higher that gas heating will come in that list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Future uncertainties&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are big questions about how smart controls will play with heat pumps. I've yet to see anything convincing, but it is imaginable that combining storage with heat pumps will allow such systems to provide valuable balancing services to the grid, in just the same way as resistance heating with storage does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also, to my knowledge, no estimates of the impact of a marginal increase in gas consumption, on gas leakage rates. But that gas leakage can have a huge impact on the carbon footprint, because the gas is methane, and that has a very high global warming potential, molecule-for-molecule, relative to carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Optimal configuration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the Danes have discovered, the optimal system configuation is one that considers technology choices at the level of the system, rather than dwelling by dwelling. From that perspective, district heating offers the optimal solution, for several reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- it can economically operate with multiple different renewable heaters: solar thermal, heat pumps, biomass CHP, and resistance heating. This enables it to provide balancing services to the grid as well as providing clean heat.&#xD;&#xA;- Equipment can be specified, designed, installed, commissioned, operated and maintained to professional standards, ensuring it performs at top efficiency: thus avoiding the under performance experienced for example by UK domestic heat pumps.&#xD;&#xA;- District heating can incorporate heat storage that spans days or weeks: in-dwelling heat storage is limited to 1-2 days, because of space constraints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###In conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, clean district heating speeds up the complete decarbonisation of heating and of electricity supply, so has the lowest long-term carbon footprint. At the moment, the next-best long-term option is probably smart-controlled resistance heaters going into storage heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ecotricity.co.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2866" RevisionGUID="7a32fe8d-623f-4a88-bbee-3e11b613e69a" CreationDate="2014-06-21T12:42:56.560" UserId="659" Text="The key thing is: what can you buy second hand at your destination. Not just &quot;what is available&quot;, but &quot;what are you actually willing to buy second hand&quot; and &quot;what about the other people involved&quot;. It's all very well saying &quot;I will buy a second hand couch&quot; but if your mother disowns you for throwing out the couch she gave you, or your partner refuses to buy anything contaminated by other people's posteriors, you've just traded a second hand couch for a whole heap of problems. Replacing it with a new one is environmentally a loss with very, very few exceptions (if you replace a solid gold or termite infested couch with a new Ikea one and recycle the gold/kill the termites, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we moved 1000km in Australia the basic rule we used was that anything where the cost of transport was more than 20% of the item cost was better left. We also shed most of our big furniture because that's easily and cheaply replaced[1], even for the few items we had paid for. The things we kept were our king size mattress (pricey), my workbench (difficult to replace) and a few items that the movers said they could fit in for no extra cost (we left a fair pile on the side of the road... most of it gone in a couple of hours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What to take is in some ways less important that going through everything you own and thinking &quot;do I need that&quot; and &quot;how hard is it to replace this&quot;. Now is a good time to downsize since you're going to have to go through everything anyway (unless you just blindly box everything up, which is a very bad idea... do you really want to pay to ship that box of old newspapers you forgot to throw out?) Ripping CDs, dumping that tatty collection of comics, &quot;losing&quot; the giant stuffed giraffe your first love won for you at a fair, whatever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plants are a much harder question. Small distances within an ecosystem, fine. And when the plant(s) are common at the destination and likely to survive both there and the journey, maybe. Shipping plants is hard, and some inevitably seem to die. There's questions about moving pathogens and pests around that have local and specific answers (someone introduced carnivorous earthworms from NZ to the UK and your moles are not happy about that, for example). So I count plants as &quot;sentimental value or leave&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing: years ago I arranged access to an A3 size scanner and scanned all my photo albums and other souvenirs then dumped the decaying paper remnants (photos fade!). Plus all my letters from high school and university (I'm old, ok). Those things are now much more accessible than they used to be (I sent copies of the photos to my parents, for example). That's a 20kg box of stuff I'll never move again. By comparison, my partner has a similar box that contains every laptop and phone she's ever owned. Most of them don't work and at least one of the batteries has leaked. But she will not let me recycle them because they're precious (even though she has copies of all the data on our current computers). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there is emotional pain in dumping stuff, but most people have stuff they only ever think about when they refuse to let it go. The physical stuff is easy... get someone else to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] in Australia people put large rubbish on the side of the road in the cities and there's a tradition of taking it if it's useful. So stuff like couches and shelving is easily obtained without paying for it. That makes the economics of paying to ship it around the country very easy: don't. Unfortunately the price of scrap copper is now high enough that people make a living driving round cutting the cords of electrical appliances that are put out, so it's now hard to get anything electrical this way. Which is environmentally a bad thing as well as being really annoying." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6798" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2864" RevisionGUID="b4bb1733-a88c-43fd-822a-2ffb28f330d5" CreationDate="2014-06-21T16:47:07.123" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/480391474161680384" />
  <row Id="6799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="8cd5b614-7783-4ec5-aa55-fe0bd4aa6d53" CreationDate="2014-06-22T01:36:53.983" UserId="1503" Text="The city recycling bins in Denver don't allow plastic caps but some other cities do so it is possible to recycle them.  Does anyone have any ideas where or how I could recycle the caps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="8cd5b614-7783-4ec5-aa55-fe0bd4aa6d53" CreationDate="2014-06-22T01:36:53.983" UserId="1503" Text="Where can I recycle plastic caps in the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="8cd5b614-7783-4ec5-aa55-fe0bd4aa6d53" CreationDate="2014-06-22T01:36:53.983" UserId="1503" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6802" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="bf089ee1-25d4-40d6-8fd3-27cda5b76140" CreationDate="2014-06-23T01:48:49.723" UserId="85" Comment="added tags" Text="|recycling|plastic|plastic-bottles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6803" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="ce7141b3-f3d7-4ef3-a269-154a507705e9" CreationDate="2014-06-23T07:58:14.130" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/480983151108685824" />
  <row Id="6806" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="2869" RevisionGUID="7c1fb405-532a-4d76-971c-623103cc86b0" CreationDate="2014-06-24T03:52:28.627" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/9478/composting-paper-versus-recycling-it-which-one-is-more-environment-friendly" />
  <row Id="6807" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="2870" RevisionGUID="edeff85a-248b-4a67-8c1f-284ffce40388" CreationDate="2014-06-24T03:52:28.627" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/9478/composting-paper-versus-recycling-it-which-one-is-more-environment-friendly/9481#9481" />
  <row Id="6808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2870" RevisionGUID="f060af55-e30a-4c4c-b617-4af6217f9748" CreationDate="2014-04-29T12:05:47.813" UserDisplayName="Bamboo" Text="It's hard to say for sure, so I think I'd take a practical, half and half approach. You have 'sensitive' paperwork which you shred - don't shred it, tear it up a bit and put that in your compost. You're not then using electricity to shred the documents, and since you don't need a huge amount of paper in the compost, you can add some more from newspaper if you want, and recycle the rest. You're recyling your paperwork yourself by composting it, and that doesn't need any processing or transport or use any power - nature does it for you without much assistance, and you then use the compost you've produced. Seems like a perfect, carbon free cycle to me..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2869" RevisionGUID="0c932fb1-daf7-4ba1-a963-aac7fa50baa0" CreationDate="2014-04-28T22:16:04.387" UserDisplayName="user871199" Text="As the title suggests, the question boils down to which one is more environment friendly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started composting few weeks back. After reading about composting on various internet resources, I tried using some paper in my compost bin. This is non glossy paper such as news paper (Yes, I still get it and like to read in paper format) and various bills/statements. While my composting efforts are getting to its desired state, I was thinking if composting paper makes sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the community where we reside, we have three bins in different colours for waste disposal. Normal garbage, recycle and green bin for garden refuse. Before composting, all paper would normally end up in recycle bin, sensitive documents in shredded form along with other recyclables as recommended by service provider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to decide which one will be more environment friendly? Commercial recycle operations can be much more efficient for environment as they might use paper waste to create recycled paper products. The paper gets another life and is put to use again. Little less number of trees are needed because of recycled paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there might be costs in terms of energy (transportation, creating new paper etc.) involved in creating the paper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2869" RevisionGUID="0c932fb1-daf7-4ba1-a963-aac7fa50baa0" CreationDate="2014-04-28T22:16:04.387" UserDisplayName="user871199" Text="Composting paper versus recycling it, which one is more environment friendly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2869" RevisionGUID="0c932fb1-daf7-4ba1-a963-aac7fa50baa0" CreationDate="2014-04-28T22:16:04.387" UserDisplayName="user871199" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2871" RevisionGUID="8884664e-96a7-4915-9939-b04f98a39aa0" CreationDate="2014-06-24T16:01:29.907" UserId="406" Text="Most cities do not want you to put both the plastic bottle and its plastic cap together in the recycling bin. One reason for this is the two items are usually made of different types of plastic material, so they cannot be recycled together. Find out if there is any recycling of plastic caps only in your area. Unfortunately, even after decades of plastic bottle recycling, plastic caps are still not recycled because there is no mechanism to do it and most go into landfill. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2872" RevisionGUID="acfecdce-e69e-487f-857c-431a24d15ba5" CreationDate="2014-06-24T23:07:21.623" UserId="1495" Text="Given the choice to adjust a new furnace to either propane or natural gas (?), is one better than the other? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6814" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2872" RevisionGUID="acfecdce-e69e-487f-857c-431a24d15ba5" CreationDate="2014-06-24T23:07:21.623" UserId="1495" Text="Is it better to use propane or natural gas as a heating fuel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6815" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2872" RevisionGUID="acfecdce-e69e-487f-857c-431a24d15ba5" CreationDate="2014-06-24T23:07:21.623" UserId="1495" Text="|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2872" RevisionGUID="02398b90-3920-428f-8bdf-d8125f3a95f3" CreationDate="2014-06-25T00:41:16.563" UserId="659" Comment="clarified question" Text="Given the choice to adjust a new furnace to either propane or natural gas (?), is one less unsustainable than the other? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2873" RevisionGUID="10d398dc-05b5-42db-9406-5fc0f1f762e5" CreationDate="2014-06-25T12:51:12.240" UserId="1516" Text="I found what looks to be a fairly comprehensive (and easily printable!) list of products to avoid here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.beyondpesticides.org/pollinators/documents/pesticide_list_final.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="04db52d2-d73f-4405-88a5-eaffaaf2989b" CreationDate="2014-06-26T10:04:07.573" UserId="706" Text="I've heard some very conflicting information regarding the effect of lowering the house thermostat at night. On one hand there are academic papers (such as *Thermostat strategies impact on energy consumption in residential buildings*, Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 338–346) that mention &quot;significant&quot; energy savings. On the other hand there are myth-busting sites such as https://campusops.uoregon.edu/utilities-services/energy-conservation-myths that dismiss the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which is correct? Does lowering the room thermostat at night (by, say, 5 C) really help save energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="04db52d2-d73f-4405-88a5-eaffaaf2989b" CreationDate="2014-06-26T10:04:07.573" UserId="706" Text="Lowering the thermostat at night: is it really worth it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="04db52d2-d73f-4405-88a5-eaffaaf2989b" CreationDate="2014-06-26T10:04:07.573" UserId="706" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2875" RevisionGUID="302887e5-45c8-49fe-bb50-82bc2cc89b21" CreationDate="2014-06-26T12:22:01.180" UserId="48" Text="**tl;dr: Yes, lowering the room thermostat at night will generally help save energy**, assuming we are in the heating season (winter), rather than the cooling season (summer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take two points in time, one before the night, one after it. Let's choose them so that the dwelling has the same amount of heat energy contained within it at each point, so all the heat lost, has been regained from the heating (and sun, and ambient gains). So if more energy has been lost in the night, then more energy has had to be put in by the heating. And if less energy has been lost in the night, then less energy has had to be put in the heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the rate of heat loss at any one moment is roughly speaking proportional to the temperature difference between inside and outside, assuming it's colder outside. The bigger the temperature difference, the faster the heat loss rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we lower the thermostat at night, then that will allow the internal temperature to drop lower. That means that the temperature difference between inside and outside will be less. And that means the rate of heat loss will be lower. And that means the energy required from the heating system, to bring it back up to full warmth, will be less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, lowering the room thermostat at night will generally help save energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="6903c532-d8ed-4089-8a28-42178b1f9bfb" CreationDate="2014-06-26T13:03:10.063" UserId="706" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="I've heard some very conflicting information regarding the effect of lowering the house thermostat at night. On one hand there are academic papers (such as *Thermostat strategies impact on energy consumption in residential buildings*, Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 338–346) that mention &quot;significant&quot; energy savings. There's also https://campusops.uoregon.edu/utilities-services/energy-conservation-myths that confirms the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there are back-of-the-envelope calculations such as http://www.ahok.de/en/night-set-back.html that tend to minimize the effect of night setback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which is correct? Does lowering the room thermostat at night (by, say, 5 C) really help save energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6823" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="fd96bf4a-49e8-458f-8c08-b25d71d02fbb" CreationDate="2014-06-26T20:04:49.670" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/482253167812698113" />
  <row Id="6824" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2872" RevisionGUID="63a1eb9c-e4f7-42e9-b85e-03f1b518d62d" CreationDate="2014-06-27T05:04:50.757" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/482389067901194240" />
  <row Id="6825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="2331f155-568c-49b3-af22-d95433d839f5" CreationDate="2014-06-27T14:01:22.160" UserId="1325" Comment="Add clarifying word heater/ing to title and body" Text="I've heard some very conflicting information regarding the effect of lowering the house heating thermostat at night. On one hand there are academic papers (such as *Thermostat strategies impact on energy consumption in residential buildings*, Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 338–346) that mention &quot;significant&quot; energy savings. There's also https://campusops.uoregon.edu/utilities-services/energy-conservation-myths that confirms the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there are back-of-the-envelope calculations such as http://www.ahok.de/en/night-set-back.html that tend to minimize the effect of night setback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which is correct? Does lowering the heater thermostat at night (by, say, 5 C) really help save energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6826" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="2331f155-568c-49b3-af22-d95433d839f5" CreationDate="2014-06-27T14:01:22.160" UserId="1325" Comment="Add clarifying word heater/ing to title and body" Text="Lowering the heater thermostat at night: is it really worth it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6827" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="2331f155-568c-49b3-af22-d95433d839f5" CreationDate="2014-06-27T14:01:22.160" Comment="Proposed by 1325 approved by -1 edit id of 287" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="8d583832-0b72-4ecc-8e66-6c81521e9d01" CreationDate="2014-06-27T14:01:22.160" UserId="48" Comment="Add clarifying word heater/ing to title and body" Text="I've heard some very conflicting information regarding the effect of lowering the house heating thermostat at night. On one hand there are academic papers (such as *Thermostat strategies impact on energy consumption in residential buildings*, Energy and Buildings 43 (2011) 338–346) that mention &quot;significant&quot; energy savings. There's also https://campusops.uoregon.edu/utilities-services/energy-conservation-myths that confirms the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, there are back-of-the-envelope calculations such as http://www.ahok.de/en/night-set-back.html that tend to minimize the effect of night setback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which is correct? Does lowering the heating thermostat at night (by, say, 5&amp;deg;C) really help save energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6829" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="8d583832-0b72-4ecc-8e66-6c81521e9d01" CreationDate="2014-06-27T14:01:22.160" UserId="48" Comment="Add clarifying word heater/ing to title and body" Text="Lowering the heating thermostat at night: is it really worth it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6830" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2874" RevisionGUID="8d583832-0b72-4ecc-8e66-6c81521e9d01" CreationDate="2014-06-27T14:01:22.160" UserId="48" Comment="Add clarifying word heater/ing to title and body" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|building-physics|heating|energy-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2876" RevisionGUID="1f57c4fd-9318-477c-bec0-9dd8422c9f4a" CreationDate="2014-06-28T17:24:40.033" UserId="318" Text="There is probably not a lot in the choice but some considerations are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrocarbon gases are slightly more energetic the shorter the carbon chain. So in order of decreasing energy per volume the gases are   &#xD;&#xA;Methane, Ethane, Propane, Butane, ... .    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas is a mix of hydrocarbons - but usually principally Propane + Butane.  &#xD;&#xA;Butane has a lower calorific output per volume than Propane, takes about 30% more air to burn and releases about 33% more CO2 per volume burnt.  &#xD;&#xA;As Butane and thus natural gas have a lower calorific value you'll burn more to get a given amount of heat - so the CO2 released is perhaps 40%+ higher for a given heat output. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When burnt with Oxygen hydrocarbons produce CO2 and H2O (water) as end products.  &#xD;&#xA;If you want to reduce CO2 per volume of gas burnt you want a shorter chain hydrocarbon and Propane is shorter than Butane.   &#xD;&#xA;Hydrocarbons have formula CnHn+2 as there are two Hydrogens per carbon + 1 extra at each end of the chain.   &#xD;&#xA;So the shortest is Methane = CH4, Propane = C3H8 and Butane is C4H10.    &#xD;&#xA;So Methane has 4:1 H:C, Propane has 8:3 = 2.666:1 and Butane has 10:4 = 2.5:1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burning with Oxygen:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Propane:  2.C3H8b + 10.O2 = 6.CO2 + 8.H2O  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Butane:   2.C4H10 + 13.O2 = 8.CO2 + 10.H2O&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, per volume of gas, Butane makes 33% more CO2 and 25% more water vapor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If CO2 production was your major concern then Propane is significantly superior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas usually consists of a mix of gases. As Propane is easily liquefied and has a higher calorific value when burnt it is often extracted and sold separately.   &#xD;&#xA;This means that the remaining product has higher Butane content, lower heating value and makes more CO2. Removing some Propane downgrades the gas generally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When mixed NG is burnt from a tank the more volatile Propane tends to exit preferentially leaving the bottle Butane enhanced, Propane reduced and generally less nice to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More soon ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2876" RevisionGUID="9bbb3bec-2f82-4481-9410-1145644d2665" CreationDate="2014-06-28T18:12:17.827" UserId="318" Comment="added 1387 characters in body" Text="There is probably not a lot in the choice but some considerations are listed below.  A significant consideration is that while Propane is superior environmentally, individual purchasing decisions are not likely to alter the overall Propane to natural gas mix overall. If users encourage Propane separation because it is popular they effectively degrade the quality of the remaining &quot;natural gas&quot; so that overall user experience is worse and more of the inferior product may have to be consumed to meet user needs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrocarbon gases are slightly more energetic the shorter the carbon chain. So in order of decreasing energy per volume the gases are   &#xD;&#xA;Methane, Ethane, Propane, Butane, ... .    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas is a mix of hydrocarbons - but usually principally Propane + Butane.  &#xD;&#xA;Butane has a lower calorific output per volume than Propane, takes about 30% more air to burn and releases about 33% more CO2 per volume burnt.  &#xD;&#xA;As Butane and thus natural gas have a lower calorific value you'll burn more to get a given amount of heat - so the CO2 released is perhaps 40%+ higher for a given heat output. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When burnt with Oxygen hydrocarbons produce CO2 and H2O (water) as end products.  &#xD;&#xA;If you want to reduce CO2 per volume of gas burnt you want a shorter chain hydrocarbon and Propane is shorter than Butane.   &#xD;&#xA;Hydrocarbons have formula CnHn+2 as there are two Hydrogens per carbon + 1 extra at each end of the chain.   &#xD;&#xA;So the shortest is Methane = CH4, Ethane = C2H6, Propane = C3H8 and Butane is C4H10.    &#xD;&#xA;So   &#xD;&#xA;Methane has 4:1 H:C,   &#xD;&#xA;Ethane has 3: H:C  &#xD;&#xA;Propane has 8:3 = 2.666:1 &#xD;&#xA;Butane has 10:4 = 2.5:1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burning with Oxygen:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Propane:  2.C3H8  + 10.O2 = 6.CO2 + 8.H2O  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Butane:   2.C4H10 + 13.O2 = 8.CO2 + 10.H2O&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, per volume of gas, Butane makes 33% more CO2 and 25% more water vapor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If CO2 production was your major concern then Propane is significantly superior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas usually consists of a mix of gases. As Propane is easily liquefied and has a higher calorific value when burnt it is often extracted and sold separately.   &#xD;&#xA;This means that the remaining product has higher Butane content, lower heating value and makes more CO2. Removing some Propane downgrades the gas generally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When mixed NG is burnt from a tank the more volatile Propane tends to exit preferentially leaving the bottle Butane enhanced, Propane reduced and generally less nice to use. If the tank is not fully emptied before refilling it tends to always be Butane rich and increasingly so. Emptying the tank completely sometimes &quot;resets&quot; the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some centres Propane can be bought specifically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So - Overall:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all the Propane and all the Butane available are used up then choices re which to burn do not influence its overall impact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely - if excess Butane is used as feedstock for a manufacturing process (plastic etc) so that more Propane and less Butane are burned, then its adverse aspects are reduced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Propane should cost more than NG - how much so can depend on marketing issues rather than just energy content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, overall, it's hard to say. Propane is best or you and the environment if its use means Butane rich NG is not used instead. But as Propane and Butane may exist in fixed ratios, using Propane may cause a worse net overall environmental effect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2876" RevisionGUID="caeceba8-2775-4d7d-a543-9b0fc814b0f3" CreationDate="2014-06-29T08:24:48.867" UserId="318" Comment="added 398 characters in body" Text="There is probably not a lot in the choice but some considerations are listed below.  A significant consideration is that while Propane is superior environmentally, individual purchasing decisions are not likely to alter the overall Propane to natural gas mix overall. If users encourage Propane separation because it is popular they effectively degrade the quality of the remaining &quot;natural gas&quot; so that overall user experience is worse and more of the inferior product may have to be consumed to meet user needs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrocarbon gases are slightly more energetic the shorter the carbon chain. So in order of decreasing energy per volume the gases are   &#xD;&#xA;Methane, Ethane, Propane, Butane, ... .    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas is a mix of hydrocarbons - but usually principally Propane + Butane.  &#xD;&#xA;Butane has a lower calorific output per volume than Propane, takes about 30% more air to burn and releases about 33% more CO2 per volume burnt.  &#xD;&#xA;As Butane and thus natural gas have a lower calorific value you'll burn more to get a given amount of heat - so the CO2 released is perhaps 40%+ higher for a given heat output. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When burnt with Oxygen hydrocarbons produce CO2 and H2O (water) as end products.  &#xD;&#xA;If you want to reduce CO2 per volume of gas burnt you want a shorter chain hydrocarbon and Propane is shorter than Butane.   &#xD;&#xA;Hydrocarbons have formula CnHn+2 as there are two Hydrogens per carbon + 1 extra at each end of the chain.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in increasing carbon chain length:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Methane = CH4 =  H-CH2-H   &#xD;&#xA; - Ethane  = C2H6 = H-CH2-CH2-H  &#xD;&#xA; - Propane = C3H8 = H-CH2-CH2-CH2-H  &#xD;&#xA; - Butane  = C4H10 = H-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-H&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;So&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Methane has 4:1 H:C,   &#xD;&#xA; - Ethane has 3: H:C  &#xD;&#xA; - Propane has 8:3 = 2.666:1   &#xD;&#xA; - Butane has 10:4 = 2.5:1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burning with Oxygen:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Propane:  2.C3H8  + 10.O2 = **6**.CO2 + 8.H2O  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Butane:   2.C4H10 + 13.O2 = **8**.CO2 + 10.H2O&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, per volume of gas, Butane makes 33% more CO2 and 25% more water vapor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If lowest CO2 production was your major concern then Propane is significantly superior.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**However:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas usually consists of a mix of gases. As Propane is easily liquefied and has a higher calorific value when burnt it is often extracted and sold separately.   &#xD;&#xA;This means that the remaining product has higher Butane content, lower heating value and makes more CO2. Removing some Propane downgrades the gas generally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When mixed NG is burnt from a tank the more volatile Propane tends to exit preferentially leaving the bottle Butane enhanced, Propane reduced and generally less nice to use. If the tank is not fully emptied before refilling it tends to always be Butane rich and increasingly so. Emptying the tank completely sometimes &quot;resets&quot; the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some centres Propane can be bought specifically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So - Overall:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all the Propane and all the Butane available are consumed by burning then choices re which to burn do not influence its overall impact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely - if excess Butane is used as feedstock for a manufacturing process (plastic etc) so that more Propane and less Butane are burned, then its adverse aspects are reduced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Propane should cost more than NG - how much so can depend on marketing issues rather than just energy content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, overall, it's hard to say. Propane is best or you and the environment if its use means Butane rich NG is not used instead. But as Propane and Butane may exist in fixed ratios, using Propane may cause a worse net overall environmental effect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: If Propane is made by &quot;cracking&quot; longer length hydrocarbons then the ratio of available Propane to Butane will vary on demand, but odds are the Propane you get has been separated from naturally occurring Propane+Butane + other mix. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6834" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2841" RevisionGUID="b1297388-dda5-4096-870f-e9b17938a886" CreationDate="2014-06-30T05:18:16.937" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/483479612794871808" />
  <row Id="6835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="f3e8105d-09f7-4185-a30e-7087b60c342c" CreationDate="2014-06-30T06:44:54.110" UserId="51" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Yeasts are used to produce &quot;alcoholic beverages&quot; / beer / wine, to bake, yogurt/cheese, etc....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going to a shop and buy some baker's yeast is easy but not a long term solution, at least the ones I know (and have access) have a short expiration date. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a situation where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - going to a shop&quot; is not an option&#xD;&#xA; - trying to &quot;freeze/preserve&quot; some backup batch is not an option&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to &quot;obtain/grow&quot; yeasts for this uses at &quot;home&quot; easily? &#xD;&#xA;Which kind? And how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I want to know how easy/hard it is to obtain this kind of yeasts in the &quot;nature&quot; (from &quot;nothing&quot;.... )?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6836" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2867" RevisionGUID="7ccb0660-68c9-4dda-a754-80eec0bad130" CreationDate="2014-06-30T07:50:54.383" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|plastic|plastic-bottles|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6837" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2869" RevisionGUID="1a977c06-e263-4026-89e4-5ce88a62723e" CreationDate="2014-06-30T07:52:38.360" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|composting|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2877" RevisionGUID="4785f7de-3bdd-4e0b-8dea-ea5ccf211e68" CreationDate="2014-07-01T03:15:59.420" UserId="1527" Text="I have been a great fan with this technology, however after some thought, I find that there are some drawbacks with this tech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The part that made this work is a special starter that starts faster.  So I assume it draws more power than normsl starter.  So, I think this will eventually kill a battery faster unless thr battery is more powerful, which in turn becomes more expensive... meh...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there's the problem when starter reliability fails.  It would cost more to replace this powerful starter.. meh..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is doubt on the actual savings once you take in the recharging cost of fuel to power this start stop.  Conventional cars only charge after the start of a car once in it's journey.. how much fuel used?  I'm not sure.. but if you keep restarting the engine surly it will need to recharge more.. so, probably the savings wont be as much..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2878" RevisionGUID="f21c995e-2e95-4cf3-9a83-adcfcf8ca9ad" CreationDate="2014-07-01T09:40:25.490" UserId="1528" Text="Very interesting question. It would be interesting to have a life cycle assessment of the impacts of the recycling versus the composting. Here is an interesting text on LCA: http://www.michaeldbaker.com/MDB_WP_live_site/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Guidance-on-Life-Cycle-Thinking-031014.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting will be less energy intensive than recycling, but it is a good idea to keep track of any chemicals that might get back to you depending on how you plan to use your compost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2879" RevisionGUID="7a9e7558-1c90-4034-a987-fd3a662e3e17" CreationDate="2014-07-01T14:13:54.653" UserId="1528" Text="Free cooling benefits depends on your climate zone and building use. Humid areas may benefit less from free cooling because of the extra humidity added to the indoor air.&#xA;&#xA;If you are asking about a house, free cooling is easily available by simply opening windows." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2879" RevisionGUID="70d8880e-a60e-47c8-89d3-fb3d0242e216" CreationDate="2014-07-03T05:14:45.457" UserId="1528" Comment="added 670 characters in body" Text="It would be good to have a more detailed description of your HVAC equipment for a better answer in what would be free cooling for you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a system that mixes return air with outside air for cooling and ventilation, free cooling could be shutting off the cooling equipment while keeping the fans on. This could be done by simply opening windows as well. The excessive humidity (and the energy included in it must be considered). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you have a stream near your house, a chilling beam could be a possible solution. The stream water would used in its natural state, or chilled before flowing into the chilling beams. The advantage of using chilling beams is that the heat lost though radiation is felt differently from the air temperature, and a slightly higher temperature would be considered comfortable. 28 degrees Celsius instead of 26 degrees Celsius (this number depends on your clothing and activity level though)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6842" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2601" RevisionGUID="a7fe6525-6394-4c66-819a-3d883a154b8c" CreationDate="2014-07-03T11:06:19.560" UserId="99" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2880" RevisionGUID="7219008c-6eb1-4852-bc65-7739c38bd464" CreationDate="2014-07-03T14:35:51.637" UserId="99" Text="The Ocean Cleanup project uses &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; long floating barriers which - being at an angle - capture and concentrate &#xD;&#xA;the plastic, making mechanical extraction possible  [[source](http://www.theoceancleanup.com/fileadmin/media-archive/theoceancleanup/press/downloads/TOC_Feasibility_study_executive_summary.pdf)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system is fixed to the sea bed and passively catches the debris that floats by in the natural circulation &#xD;&#xA;of the ocean water ([gyres](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_gyre)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK there are no plans or other initiatives that apply this technique to lakes. I suspect that the passive approach used in the ocean cleanup project would be less effective in lakes where currents usually are not as strong as in the ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think what comes closest to a 'lake cleanup project' are the floating trash and oil containing booms that you can buy or hire from several companies (e.g. [this one](http://www.solhutec.com/trashboom.html), no affiliation just the first website I found using google)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2882" RevisionGUID="06102152-6e9f-4afa-bf0e-2f5b01fbe2f0" CreationDate="2014-07-04T06:26:24.903" UserId="812" Text="There is something that is moderately similar in use on the Thames - the difference being that it collects only floating rubbish, and does not extend to the riverbed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Picture of floating rubbish trap on River Thames. Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: CC-BY-SA 3.0][1]&#xD;&#xA;Photo by DAVID ILIFF. License: [CC-BY-SA 3.0][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently there is also a more active version of a similar concept, also on the Thames, where a filter is moved through the water by a powered vessel - shown in [this video][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pd8Wt.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/learningzone/clips/filtering-rubbish-and-debris-from-the-river-thames/2204.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2883" RevisionGUID="13292456-d3bb-49d8-8fc5-00925fa8420c" CreationDate="2014-07-04T17:07:24.913" UserId="1210" Text="Like many I have a large pile of redundant VCR tapes. We're moving house so I'm having to landfill them as the local recycling facilities won't take them.  Does anyone know of a recycling (or bulk re-purposing) scheme in the UK?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside I am recycling the card outer case into the dry recyclables; my artist son is re-purposing a fair number artistically (one [example][1]) and also has made pencil cases out of them, and I myself have used them as the substrate of garden railway buildings ([here][2]) where wood, resin or concrete is more typical, but supply is exceeding the demand somewhat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.blipfoto.com/entry/2050383&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.blipfoto.com/entry/1674885" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2883" RevisionGUID="13292456-d3bb-49d8-8fc5-00925fa8420c" CreationDate="2014-07-04T17:07:24.913" UserId="1210" Text="Recycling video (VCR) tapes in the UK" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2883" RevisionGUID="13292456-d3bb-49d8-8fc5-00925fa8420c" CreationDate="2014-07-04T17:07:24.913" UserId="1210" Text="|recycling|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2884" RevisionGUID="5ede5085-0c10-434d-8883-4f539a3c051f" CreationDate="2014-07-04T23:44:29.983" UserId="1540" Text="I use them to close bags in the kitchen and I use them to tidy up my cords behind the TV." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6851" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2883" RevisionGUID="b323b432-deb5-4584-befa-70206248b805" CreationDate="2014-07-05T11:34:53.533" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/485386328813871104" />
  <row Id="6852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2885" RevisionGUID="5c11c7cb-5527-49ca-8814-0111f4e53c99" CreationDate="2014-07-07T17:43:05.893" UserId="1470" Text="My main line of thinking would be that you would build tall skinny housing that would allow the heat to gather in the upper levels in the winter and the cooler air would gather in the basement/lowest levels during the summer. Perhaps a dummy construction could be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          |   toplevel  |&#xD;&#xA;          ---------------&#xD;&#xA;          | groundlevel |&#xD;&#xA;    ---------------------------&#xD;&#xA;          |   basement  |&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where the toplevel and basement are essentially mirrors of each other and double as storage/bedrooms depending on the season. In the winter you would fashion the top level as the bedrooms and the basement would then serve as storage space and vice versa in the winter. The groundlevel has a kitchen, living space, bathroom and whatever other types of rooms you want to inhabit year round.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal would be to reduce the energy usage by only having to heat the top bedrooms and main level in the winter and only having to cool the basement (perhaps not) and the main level in the summer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would you be able trap enough heat in the winter and stay cool enough in the summer to justify building your house like this or is it more energy efficient to heat individual rooms on one main living level?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2885" RevisionGUID="5c11c7cb-5527-49ca-8814-0111f4e53c99" CreationDate="2014-07-07T17:43:05.893" UserId="1470" Text="Is building vertically instead of horizontally in climate with large seasonal temperature changes more sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2885" RevisionGUID="5c11c7cb-5527-49ca-8814-0111f4e53c99" CreationDate="2014-07-07T17:43:05.893" UserId="1470" Text="|energy|heating|building|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2886" RevisionGUID="efc7ec3c-cf09-49ba-878b-12424e340252" CreationDate="2014-07-08T04:30:59.897" UserId="522" Text="There are different types of chips, some increase the pressure in the fuel rail to gain power, this are not looked on favorably by vehicle manufactures as they are increasing pressures beyond factory specifications. Alternate chips optimize the air to fuel ratios and other settings using the vehicle original ecu. These chips will not void your new car warranty as they are using the safe guards on the original computer. Any gain in power can be used to you advantage, if you drive economically, the vehicle will use less fuel for the same speed prior to adding the chip, on the other hand, you now have more power, so you can also use more fuel if you don't drive efficiently." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6856" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2885" RevisionGUID="19bac47d-dd20-400a-abf2-a96e2b5be7b4" CreationDate="2014-07-08T08:35:34.200" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/486428365428379648" />
  <row Id="6857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2887" RevisionGUID="a5dd4af7-cca3-41b1-ba51-8f32775e09fa" CreationDate="2014-07-08T23:46:49.607" UserId="1325" Text="A complex question. But overall: **No, it would not be more sustainable**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, such a design requires more materials. How much more depends upon the ratio of the wall area to the floor area. Building materials tend to have high energy costs; the above-ground part will use 25-50% more materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building underground is also more energy intense: digging out the basement and constructing non-permeable walls is not easy. But once constructed, sub-surface dwellings offer good energy savings, especially if well insulated. In the long term, *perhaps* the higher initial energy cost would be recouped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But over-all, we would just have a bigger house for the same number of people, requiring more energy to build, and because of greater surface area, more energy to operate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2888" RevisionGUID="d4a560c6-6129-41ef-bdd1-06248cf18049" CreationDate="2014-07-08T23:47:47.230" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="When factors like emissions, renewability, and heat / energy efficiency are all taken into account, what would be the very best fuel source(s) to use for camping cooking, with sustainability and environmental impact in mind?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in the case of alcohols (such ethanol), you might assume I produce my own - as in grow my own sugar cane (sustainably), harvest the sugar, or, use an alternative biomass like my own wood waste, produce my own brewer's yeast and brew my own (efficient-burning) ethanol myself. Or if wood, I would gather fallen wood from the natural environment around me. Even in the case of coal, (though I don't assume it the most sustainable fuel), there are actually natural open-air coal seams in places I frequent that I could technically gather and burn, as opposed to buying it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume though that some fuels are out of the scope of self-production / sustainable gathering such as highly-processed petroleum-based fuels (like industrial kerosene).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for each case I would like to compare their very best (sustainably DIY) possibilities in their own right (where growing or sustainably gathering obviously is much more sustainable than purchasing ready-made materials), within practical reason such as the examples above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what would be the best one(s)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2888" RevisionGUID="d4a560c6-6129-41ef-bdd1-06248cf18049" CreationDate="2014-07-08T23:47:47.230" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="What is the most environmentally-friendly fuel source (e.g. wood, coal, oils, alcohols) for campfire cooking?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2888" RevisionGUID="d4a560c6-6129-41ef-bdd1-06248cf18049" CreationDate="2014-07-08T23:47:47.230" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="|heating|fuel-efficiency|greenhouse-gas-emissions|cooking|biofuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2888" RevisionGUID="59d7a627-e9ee-4424-a083-5f0741bb1701" CreationDate="2014-07-09T01:46:39.417" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="edited body" Text="When factors like emissions, renewability, and heat / energy efficiency are all taken into account, what would be the very best fuel source(s) to use for camping cooking, with sustainability and environmental impact in mind?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in the case of alcohols (such ethanol), you might assume I produce my own - as in grow my own sugar cane (sustainably), harvest the sugar, or, use an alternative biomass like my own wood waste, produce my own brewer's yeast and brew my own (efficient-burning) ethanol myself. Or if wood, I would gather fallen wood from the natural environment around me. Even in the case of coal, (though I don't assume it the most sustainable fuel), there are actually natural open-air coal seams in places I frequent that I could technically gather and burn, as opposed to buying it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume though that some fuels are out of the scope of self-production / sustainable gathering such as highly-processed petroleum-based fuels (e.g. industrial kerosene).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for each case I would like to compare their very best (sustainably DIY) possibilities in their own right (where growing or sustainably gathering obviously is much more sustainable than purchasing ready-made materials), within practical reason such as the examples above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what would be the best one(s)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2889" RevisionGUID="940b3311-1430-4abc-be26-e70e57e3b75a" CreationDate="2014-07-09T07:08:47.167" UserId="1462" Text="**Solar thermal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is semi-mockery. But I wanted to highlight that you didn't include enough information. Given your limited criteria, solar thermal is in fact the ideal solution. I assume you say that &quot;[solar] heating is so inefficient and the materials for solar panels introduce a can of worms sustainability&quot;, you refer to PhotoVoltaic panels, and not solar concentrators (mirrors and lens), which are silly cheap and sustainable. A large parabolic dish is also potentially extremely portable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of efficiency. The amount of fuel you actually need to acquire and use per use is minimal to none, hence has almost infinite efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to sustainability of materials. A simple solar concentrator could be built by coating the inside of a large umbrella with tin foil, and hanging the food from the umbrella stem. Given the extremely limited materials required to make this, and the HUGE lifetime of the equipment, I would have to say that such a setup would have a minimal sustainability footprint (especially amortized over its lifetime).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one downside to this setup is of course, extreme cooking times (in order of hours). But of course, that was not on your requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cooker" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="b8f81447-11dc-4be3-befe-7851bd2932ef" CreationDate="2014-07-09T07:33:00.437" UserId="1552" Text="We used wool. Waterproof, fireproof and very warm " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6865" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2890" RevisionGUID="e96379ec-d38d-4d8d-9cf0-a05d101b37fa" CreationDate="2014-07-09T07:43:47.617" UserId="99" Comment="14" />
  <row Id="6866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2889" RevisionGUID="047810d5-c3c6-45b0-ad25-4d98bbd48529" CreationDate="2014-07-09T10:47:52.323" UserId="1462" Comment="deleted 90 characters in body" Text="**Solar thermal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given your limited criteria, solar thermal is in fact the ideal solution. I assume you say that &quot;[solar] heating is so inefficient and the materials for solar panels introduce a can of worms sustainability&quot;, you refer to PhotoVoltaic panels, and not solar concentrators (mirrors and lens), which are silly cheap and sustainable. A large parabolic dish is also potentially extremely portable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of efficiency. The amount of fuel you actually need to acquire and use per use is minimal to none, hence has almost infinite efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to sustainability of materials. A simple solar concentrator could be built by coating the inside of a large umbrella with tin foil, and hanging the food from the umbrella stem. Given the extremely limited materials required to make this, and the HUGE lifetime of the equipment, I would have to say that such a setup would have a minimal sustainability footprint (especially amortized over its lifetime).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one downside to this setup is of course, extreme cooking times (in order of hours). But of course, that was not on your requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cooker" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2885" RevisionGUID="c46c1e51-22bf-41d9-bdc5-1b1c97711ec0" CreationDate="2014-07-09T13:45:58.010" UserId="1470" Comment="brought clarity to the question I want answered" Text="My main line of thinking would be that you would build tall skinny housing that would allow the heat to gather in the upper levels in the winter and the cooler air would gather in the basement/lowest levels during the summer. Perhaps a dummy construction could be something like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;          |   toplevel  |&#xD;&#xA;          ---------------&#xD;&#xA;          | groundlevel |&#xD;&#xA;    ---------------------------&#xD;&#xA;          |   basement  |&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where the toplevel and basement are essentially mirrors of each other and double as storage/bedrooms depending on the season. In the winter you would fashion the top level as the bedrooms and the basement would then serve as storage space and vice versa in the winter. The groundlevel has a kitchen, living space, bathroom and whatever other types of rooms you want to inhabit year round.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal would be to reduce the energy usage by only having to heat the top bedrooms and main level in the winter and only having to cool the basement (perhaps not) and the main level in the summer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would you be able trap enough heat in the winter and stay cool enough in the summer to justify building your house like this or is it more energy efficient to heat individual rooms on one main living level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally:&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way I see the advantages of this house is that all heat whether it be from your furnace or fireplace or stove or human body would move upward through the house and into the spaces that you would be living in the winter. In the summer all of that same heat is still gathering in those same places but because you are now sleeping in the basement the temperature of the upstairs level doesn't matter too much. You can open the windows and let the heat escape while you stay relatively cool in the basement or on the main level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a feeling that given a seasonal temperature range of +/-35°C that reducing the heating/cooling needs over the life of the house will far out weigh any sustainability gained in the construction of a more traditional home but I am more than willing to be proven wrong in that regard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6868" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2888" RevisionGUID="e7656493-d5d6-4ddb-ac31-81000da27114" CreationDate="2014-07-09T17:36:38.570" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/486926918194061312" />
  <row Id="6869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2891" RevisionGUID="f9320bdf-14a1-4b6e-99e0-34bf8aebcad8" CreationDate="2014-07-09T17:38:33.980" UserId="1496" Text="I made a literature search and just present here all the significant results I could find with small excerpts from the abstracts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Growing green money? Mapping community currencies for sustainable development** [Link](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800912004259) - 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Parallel sustainable monetary systems are being developed [..] to promote sustainable development by localising economic development, building social capital and substituting for material consumption, valuing work which is marginalised in conventional labour markets, and challenging the growth-based monetary system. [..] This paper [..] identifies the diversity, scale, geography and development trajectory of these initiatives, discusses the implications of these findings for efforts to achieve sustainable development, and identifies future research needs, to help harness the sustainability potential of these initiatives.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means there are local currencies designed to enable sustainable living but if they really reach this goal? One would at least need to read the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Working for the Fenland Dollar: An Evaluation of Local Exchange Trading Schemes as an Informal Employment Strategy to Tackle Social Exclusion** [Link](http://wes.sagepub.com/content/15/3/581) - 2001&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[..] Local Exchange Trading Scheme (LETS) [..] have been growing throughout the UK in recent years. [..] LETS was found to be successful at delivering new informal employment opportunities to socially excluded groups, boosting their income, and providing a forum for social interaction and community-building. However, there is scope for much greater participation. [..]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Means that informal employment and income (of socially excluded groups) can be boosted. However there are also problems of scale and adverse state policies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Defending Communities: Local Exchange Trading Systems From an Environmental Perspective** [Link](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1759-5436.1999.mp30003010.x/abstract) - 1999&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[..] I consider the environmental credentials of local exchange trading systems (LETS) and assess their potential to build an alternative economic model at the local level. I conclude by discussing some of the obstacles which face LETS development and consider how they may be addressed.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reading a bit in the article I gather that users of local currencies often are convinced that they fight globalisation and enhance sustainability. But if this is true...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Selective Spatial Closure and Local Economic Development: What Do We Learn from the Argentine Local Currency Systems?** [Link](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X08001794) - 2008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[..]local currency systems as an instrument of selective spatial closure to mitigate impacts of externally induced changes and to promote endogenous local economic development. [..] local currency systems provided relatively protected economic spaces, thus enabling poor households—and especially women—to launch micro-enterprises and diversify income sources. They also supported existing enterprises by offering an emergency market outlet and, when combined with other measures, by building local trading and production networks. [..]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to strongly support a possible link between local currency systems and local economies (especially offering chances for poor households) by a wall-like effect of local currencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Moral Economy of Parallel Currencies** [Link](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1536-7150.2006.00491.x/abstract) - 2006&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[..]I show (1) how strongly oriented LETS are to the formal market economy, from which, it is held, they detach themselves, and (2) that they do not effect a return to barter or an abolition of money, as is sometimes claimed. [..] LETS' members are motivated less by pecuniary gain than by the desire to build community and realize certain values. Participants have little motivation to expand LETS, which are therefore destined to remain small and ineffectual in offering an alternative to the unemployed and less well-off. Indeed, were LETS to grow in size, the moral commitment required of members would come into conflict with the growing financial interests at stake.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words: people who use LETS have certain values (which might for example include sustainability) but the more people use the same LETS the more difficult it is to keep the vision clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Community currency in the United States: the social environments in which it emerges and survives** [Link](http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=a37172) - 2005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[..]The major findings indicate that cities with local currencies are characterized by populations with lower household incomes, higher poverty rates, higher unemployment rates, and larger self-employment sectors. Evidence is also presented indicating that community currencies tend to survive in places with younger populations, higher educational attainment, fewer married people, and less residential stability. Implications concerning the future of the community currency movement and its ability to empower the marginalized are drawn.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again it seems to be helpful for empowering the marginalized. Surely this takes place by adding some local not global economic activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Local currencies for purposive degrowth? A quality check of some proposals for changing money-as-usual** [Link](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652613001820) - 2013&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[..]LETS have been found to support alternative livelihoods under quite uncommon conditions, and contribute indirectly to eco-localization by moderately facilitating informal resale, repair, and sharing of commercially produced goods, although their burdensome management and confinement to small memberships limit their usefulness. Time banks help expand social networks, and are best at reaching the socially excluded. However, they are confined to unskilled personal services and dependent on grant funding. HOUR currencies do not stand out with regard to any criteria, but may have a minor capacity to promote local purchasing. CLCs are best at attracting local businesses, but no significant evidence of their said capacity to localize supply chains has surfaced as yet, and their business-friendly design works to the detriment of other criteria. In sum, existing research provides a very weak basis for advocating local currencies as tools for purposive degrowth.[..]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is even rather about de-growth, but also only finds small effects of local currencies on anything. The author seems to prefer government-centred ecological reforms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all a clear positive or negative impact of local currencies on local economic development does not seem to be sure. A certain amount of locality by improving the situation of marginalized people however seems to be included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for not finding more explicit articles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6871" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2859" RevisionGUID="09325f17-906a-401d-8f80-2caf76a6e754" CreationDate="2014-07-10T13:57:59.657" UserId="1091" Comment="edited title" Text="Are there any uses for used up hair elastics so they don't end up in landfill?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2892" RevisionGUID="dd263d8d-8536-4386-a49f-d4c657e9edc1" CreationDate="2014-07-12T09:58:16.397" UserId="48" Text="I see there's now over 1GW of installed PV capacity in tracking systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What have been the economic factors behind this? I'd pretty much written off both 1-axis and 2-axis tracking in my mind, because of the maintenance issues, and the increased land requirements: together, these meant that fixed mounting would be superior to trackers. And even more so, given how cheap the PV panels themselves have become.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yet lots of tracking PV capacity has now been built. What are the economic drivers behind this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Solar Professsional][1] claims lower levelised cost of energy for trackers in various US states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the [IRENA figures][3] for increase in capacity factor in tracking systems is part of the story:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how did tracking PV get so cost-competitive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://solarprofessional.com/articles/finance-economics/levelized-cost-of-energy?v=disable_pagination&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WFUo5.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://costing.irena.org/charts/solar-photovoltaic.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/W8PES.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2892" RevisionGUID="dd263d8d-8536-4386-a49f-d4c657e9edc1" CreationDate="2014-07-12T09:58:16.397" UserId="48" Text="What have been the economic factors behind the build of tracking PV systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2892" RevisionGUID="dd263d8d-8536-4386-a49f-d4c657e9edc1" CreationDate="2014-07-12T09:58:16.397" UserId="48" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|economics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6876" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2892" RevisionGUID="7439fe36-2d5f-40bd-9d10-40d0f645495e" CreationDate="2014-07-13T14:42:54.123" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/488332752266473473" />
  <row Id="6877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2893" RevisionGUID="6ad7eea9-20eb-4ea8-b335-9e314b3b194a" CreationDate="2014-07-13T17:26:20.357" UserId="1053" Text="Although they aren't stretchy any more they still hold together and they come in a variety of colours: bright ones are easy to spot, darker may be easier to hide. Or they can match what you attach them to. You can attach them to any loop by putting it halfway through the loop, then pulling it through itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replace a fallen-off or too small zipper pull, for example. Turn a very small loop on an article of clothing (for example the label in most bathing suits, or the label at the back of the neck of a jacket) that will only fit over a small metal hook into a larger loop that will hang over a small knob or the upright of a chair. Once you realize you have a pocket full of insta-handles or insta-loops, uses will come to you. While they may not save you buying anything, they will probably make the things you own more pleasant to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wWNTR.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6878" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2813" RevisionGUID="b17f2711-3f05-400d-8c05-fcdc8a3d9ffc" CreationDate="2014-07-13T17:43:04.093" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/488378093384777730" />
  <row Id="6879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="934" RevisionGUID="d051f4bb-536b-4ed5-a8d2-2e157d91bf95" CreationDate="2014-07-14T11:11:56.530" UserId="264" Comment="Some oils aren't good to cook!" Text="I wondered what was the best, in one hand for the health (but I guess the question should be asked somewhere else, shouldn't it?) and in the other hand for the earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which one, if there is one, is more (or less) eco-friendly? Which one is more efficient (space used versus productivity)? Also, depending on our location, consuming one type of oil rather than the other might be worth to consider (depending on where they can grow, where they are usually grown and so the fuel needed to deliver them to our location in one form or another). How many energy is required to process each? Is there more useful byproducts coming from sunflowers or from an olive tree? Etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Just putting that here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sunflower+oil+versus+olive+oil&amp;t=canonical&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Also, please never forget to check if the oil you are using can be used for cooking or not. Some are very unhealthy to cook. For instance, my sunflower oil says that it shouldn't be cooked over 175 C°. Always check!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2894" RevisionGUID="7bab5671-566d-4732-adb8-471841a1e8e6" CreationDate="2014-07-14T14:58:42.977" UserId="1561" Text="Much has been made lately of the growing prospect &quot;water shortages&quot;. The impression is given that we must all conserve, lest we run out of usable water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my understanding, the planet earth is a &quot;closed loop&quot;. Isn't it true that, barring a tiny amount of sublimation off into space and natural/man-made conversion to/from its component hydrogen and oxygen, the planet has always, and will always contain pretty much the same amount of water? Obviously, the form it takes - liquid, solid, vapor - will vary but in the end, the actual quantity available to humanity shouldn't change much? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, is the issue **really** the possibility of actually &quot;running out&quot;, or is the problem the expense or the difficulty of finding viable technologies to *recover* or *clean* or *convert* all of that existing water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2894" RevisionGUID="7bab5671-566d-4732-adb8-471841a1e8e6" CreationDate="2014-07-14T14:58:42.977" UserId="1561" Text="Is it actually possible to have a global &quot;water shortage&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2894" RevisionGUID="7bab5671-566d-4732-adb8-471841a1e8e6" CreationDate="2014-07-14T14:58:42.977" UserId="1561" Text="|water|water-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6883" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2894" RevisionGUID="faa874f2-0047-42f5-a308-4b0800cbee8b" CreationDate="2014-07-14T23:50:13.960" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/488832871256588289" />
  <row Id="6884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2895" RevisionGUID="727b3d0c-5803-4c30-9f84-831480400335" CreationDate="2014-07-15T03:40:45.137" UserId="659" Text="As you surmise, the problem is in cleaning/purifying the water we want to use. Desalination is extremely expensive, to the point where it's cheaper to have a war rather than build a desalination plant. This is currently most obvious in the middle east but changes to the Indian Ocean monsoon could have dramatic effects all around that area. [India is working to mitigate the likely effects][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Desalinating Seawater** is expensive. To give you some idea of numbers, they built a [desalination plant in Victoria (Australia)][2] recently, and that cost about $5 billion to build and another $150 million a year to run. That produces about 150 gigalitres of drinking water per year. By comparison, the adjacent Powlett River is part of a [group of 10 short rivers][3] that drain the surrounding area with a flow of 900Gl/year and [Melbourne city (pop 4 million) uses about 360 gigalitres/year][4]. So they'd need three of those $5 billion plants to supply Melbourne with drinking water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't cover irrigating farmland, which is done on a relatively small scale in Victoria, but in the Murray-Darling basic (Australia's foodbowl) they use about [3500Gl/year to irrigate about 1.4 million hectares][5]. That's 25 desalination plants, going on $3 billion a year in electricity to run them, and the build cost would be astronomical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously using desalination plants to water crops, especially the broad-acre irrigation that Australia uses, is insane. With water that expensive it would be economical to completely change farming techniques to reduce water use, as is done in the middle east and other places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mining Water**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many countries use aquifers for irrigation and there are two problems. Often that water is heavily mineralised and sometimes the minerals are poisonous (arsenic for example), but mostly they use them at non-sustainable levels. Either they draw more water from an aquifer than is going in (exceed the replenishment rate) or there's no detectable replenishment and the aquifer is [fossil water][6]. Once you've mined out that water, it's gone. Many countries have ongoing problems with wells needing to be drilled ever deeper as the water level drops, or seawater flowing into the aquifer (seawater intrusion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Water Wars**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With numbers like that, you can see why going to war is a attractive strategy (to an economist, anyway). And for people who don't have the money to build desalination plants, that's often the only option. It's likely that one aspect of the current conflict(s) in Syria and Iraq is a contest for control of water sources. There a similar war shaping up between [Ethiopia and Egypt over dams on the Nile][7] (Ethiopia will shortly be able to turn the Nile off, which is obviously a concern for Egypt).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/05/28/in-india-reducing-the-dependency-on-monsoon-precipitation/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Desalination_Plant&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://environmentvictoria.org.au/lifeblood/south-gippsland-rivers&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.melbournewater.com.au/waterdata/wateruse/Pages/default.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4618.0main+features52011-12&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_water&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26679225" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2896" RevisionGUID="603f0dd8-761d-42f0-bf55-89e8bdc00e88" CreationDate="2014-07-15T08:14:20.360" UserId="1564" Text="I think this is such a complex topic, the general person on the street (without sufficient background, education etc.) doesn't understand the impact of both oils.&#xD;&#xA;When coconut oil was first cultivated, a lot of natural habitat was destroyed (as every type of agricultural process).  But there wasn't such an awareness of ecological impacts via social media etc.&#xD;&#xA;It seems that people have jumped on a band-wagon that palm fruit oil is unacceptable without actually understanding where coconut oil comes from.&#xD;&#xA;Information, articles and photos of deforestation is readily available that created an informed consumer, but when coconut plantations were being cultivated there wasn't yet social media to point out the impact.&#xD;&#xA;Not all coconut plantations are sustainable, very few agricultural practices are sustainable.  &#xD;&#xA;The best option is to promote sustainable farming, both of the coconut and palm fruit plantations.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2895" RevisionGUID="69d420f7-3bb1-413f-90f1-d31cdc256e73" CreationDate="2014-07-15T11:02:59.023" UserId="659" Comment="emphasise energy cost per comment" Text="As you surmise, the problem is in cleaning/purifying the water we want to use. Desalination is extremely expensive, to the point where it's cheaper to have a war rather than build a desalination plant. This is currently most obvious in the middle east but changes to the Indian Ocean monsoon could have dramatic effects all around that area. [India is working to mitigate the likely effects][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Desalinating Seawater** is expensive. To give you some idea of numbers, they built a [desalination plant in Victoria (Australia)][2] recently, and that cost about $5 billion to build and another $150 million a year to run. That produces about 150 gigalitres of drinking water per year. By comparison, the adjacent Powlett River is part of a [group of 10 short rivers][3] that drain the surrounding area with a flow of 900Gl/year and [Melbourne city (pop 4 million) uses about 360 gigalitres/year][4]. So they'd need three of those $5 billion plants to supply Melbourne with drinking water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(edit based on Simon's comment below) **The cost of desalination is mostly energy** - desalination is very energy-intensive. Usually that's electricity to run pumps for reverse osmosis systems, but distillation could be used (has been in the past). The worldwide implications from energy use if lots of people used desalination on a large scale would be significant - those giant solar electricity schemes proposed to supply Europe could instead provide electricity to desalinate... not enough water for North Africa. Energy and water tend to be quite closely linked (most methods of obtaining one require the other), and both are becoming increasingly scarce. If you add a renewable energy plant to feed the desalination plant you're probably adding a billion dollars to the cost. Money that most water-short nations don't have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't cover **irrigating farmland**, which is done on a relatively small scale in Victoria, but in the Murray-Darling basic (Australia's foodbowl) they use about [3500Gl/year to irrigate about 1.4 million hectares][5]. That's 25 desalination plants, going on $3 billion a year in electricity to run them, and the build cost would be astronomical. Obviously using desalination plants to water crops, especially the broad-acre irrigation that Australia uses, is insane. With water that expensive it would be economical to completely change farming techniques to reduce water use, as is done in the middle east and other places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mining Water**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many countries use aquifers for irrigation and there are two problems. Often that water is heavily mineralised and sometimes the minerals are poisonous (arsenic for example), but mostly they use them at non-sustainable levels. Either they draw more water from an aquifer than is going in (exceed the replenishment rate) or there's no detectable replenishment and the aquifer is [fossil water][6]. Once you've mined out that water, it's gone. Many countries have ongoing problems with wells needing to be drilled ever deeper as the water level drops, or seawater flowing into the aquifer (seawater intrusion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Water Wars**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With numbers like that, you can see why going to war is a attractive strategy (to an economist, anyway). And for people who don't have the money to build desalination plants, that's often the only option. It's likely that one aspect of the current conflict(s) in Syria and Iraq is a contest for control of water sources. There a conflict shaping up between [Ethiopia and Egypt over dams on the Nile][7] (Ethiopia will shortly be able to turn the Nile off, which is obviously a concern for Egypt).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/05/28/in-india-reducing-the-dependency-on-monsoon-precipitation/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Desalination_Plant&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://environmentvictoria.org.au/lifeblood/south-gippsland-rivers&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.melbournewater.com.au/waterdata/wateruse/Pages/default.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4618.0main+features52011-12&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_water&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26679225" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2897" RevisionGUID="5b095541-4f20-44ec-8577-bf72a69a55d2" CreationDate="2014-07-15T16:09:00.780" UserId="1565" Text="I am currently in the market for Ovens and i wanted to know which kind of oven electric or steam is Eco-friendly,non expensive and reliable etc. I want a oven that not only benefits me but the planet as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2897" RevisionGUID="5b095541-4f20-44ec-8577-bf72a69a55d2" CreationDate="2014-07-15T16:09:00.780" UserId="1565" Text="The Best Eco-Friendly &amp; Non Expensive Ovens" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2897" RevisionGUID="5b095541-4f20-44ec-8577-bf72a69a55d2" CreationDate="2014-07-15T16:09:00.780" UserId="1565" Text="|home|electricity|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2897" RevisionGUID="5459b0d6-4751-4edf-887e-d492c3f53a5b" CreationDate="2014-07-15T20:14:44.360" UserId="48" Comment="edited to make it answerable here" Text="I am currently in the market for ovens and I wanted to know what makes on oven eco-friendly, whether it's electric or steam, without compromising reliability. I want a oven that not only benefits me but the planet as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6891" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2897" RevisionGUID="5459b0d6-4751-4edf-887e-d492c3f53a5b" CreationDate="2014-07-15T20:14:44.360" UserId="48" Comment="edited to make it answerable here" Text="What Makes an Oven Eco-Friendly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="89216d70-1b35-46f8-8d41-8c9ab9efc111" CreationDate="2014-07-16T01:05:21.490" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="Provisos:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assume there is no licence to grow the hemp. (in your respective country, there may, but I want to take out money from the equation and the sustainability impact of that factor.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assume one has no legal requirement to denature the ethanol (as in many countries this is true), or filter it with 15% minimum regular gasoline (like in the USA). This is pure ethanol, only including and requiring what is needed to make 100% pure, and efficient, automobile burning ethanol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assume scalability issues are not there. Maybe it is for the purposes of small-scale, personal production, where time isn't an issue, except when comparing time per energy output between different ethanol feedstocks - so economic viability needs not matter, except where it affects even small-scale sustainability comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Also assume that all feedstocks could be grown effectively in your area. (So that they can be compared on an equal playing field.) You have a patch of suitable land, and are ready to grow any of them, requiring whatever inputs they respectively need, in the most sustainable way possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I have read that sugar (cane) is way more efficient than corn, (and that Brazil leads the way in taking initiative to actually bother with this advance in biofuels sustainability), and that, based on multiple independent sources, they produce EIGHT times the energy than what they put in to produce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But could the little-mentioned hemp (via any of its relevant ethanol production methods), be even better than sugar? Or could something else (on a small scale if necessary), actually be the most sustainable feedstock?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6893" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="89216d70-1b35-46f8-8d41-8c9ab9efc111" CreationDate="2014-07-16T01:05:21.490" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="What would be the most sustainable biomass source for (100%) ethanol production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6894" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="89216d70-1b35-46f8-8d41-8c9ab9efc111" CreationDate="2014-07-16T01:05:21.490" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="|ecological-footprint|energy-efficiency|fuel-efficiency|biomass|biofuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="f282732c-1b23-4159-a92d-06ad9cd013ac" CreationDate="2014-07-16T01:18:33.647" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="I am not sure if I am asking how long a piece of string is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also hope I am not opening a can of worms that is too complex to be contained within a Q&amp;A on this site. (If so, it should be closed, and I understand. I hope it won't be downvoted though as I have made much effort to write it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it is a thing I wonder about all the time when weighing up the sustainability of doing something in a certain way, vs. another way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does buying something that 'costs less' than another thing (that was produced in the same way), really translate into environmental sustainability, or does it just mean you merely more money and thus doesn't really have any impact on the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the latter, what typical factors would *make it such* that financial economy is better for the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the two are themselves mutually exclusive, given by the example that something which is more environmentally sustainable (such as you producing something from raw materials yourself), may actually cost you more than buying a ready-made product itself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll give another example, which I think is part of the same concept, but from a slightly different angle (though I realise this particular angle has already been discussed [here][1] and if others suggest, perhaps this half of my question should be removed and I stick to economy of finances and not economy of energy consumption, and I will change the title to 'financial' instead of 'economical' to remove that broader / more ambiguous term):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*John Doe subsistence farmer chooses to grow feedstock A of something for biodiesel production, which outputs less fuel / burns at lower efficiency than feedstock B, which for some reason he would prefer not to grow. However, choosing either crop does not necessarily make a difference to the environmental footprint; one crop merely produces less energy than the other, and John Doe has simply decided to use less fuel as a result of producing less fuel (although inputting greater fuel source) anyway.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this is an example of 'economy' not affecting 'environmental sustainability', but should crop B *still* be considered a more sustainable option due to the simple fact of giving more [ERoEI][2], no matter its use or actual impact on the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a big concept, and I hope it can be tackled here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main question, once again, is, how much (and when), does financial sustainability translate into *environmental* sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/457/what-is-the-relationship-between-energy-efficiency-and-sustainability/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="f282732c-1b23-4159-a92d-06ad9cd013ac" CreationDate="2014-07-16T01:18:33.647" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="How much does 'economic sustainability' translate into 'environmental sustainability'?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="f282732c-1b23-4159-a92d-06ad9cd013ac" CreationDate="2014-07-16T01:18:33.647" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="|defining-sustainability|economy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="63119f1c-3434-48c0-ba9c-fc759ac32d47" CreationDate="2014-07-16T02:36:54.537" UserId="659" Comment="removed chatty bits, cleaned up grammar" Text="Does buying something that 'costs less' money (but that was produced in the same way) really translate into better environmental sustainability, or does it just mean you have more money without changing the environmental impact?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the latter, what typical factors would *make it such* that financial economy is better for the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps this can't happen, it may be that something which is more environmentally sustainable (such as you producing something from raw materials yourself) will always cost you more than buying a ready-made product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A slightly different example (which has already been discussed [here][1] and perhaps this half of my question should be removed and I stick to economy of finances):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a subsistence farmer John Doe chooses to grow feedstock A for biodiesel production, which outputs less fuel / burns at lower efficiency than feedstock B. However, choosing either crop does not necessarily make a difference to the environmental footprint; one crop merely produces less energy than the other, and John Doe has simply decided to use less fuel as a result of producing less fuel (although inputting greater fuel source) anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this is an example of 'economy' not affecting 'environmental sustainability', but should crop B *still* be considered a more sustainable option due to the simple fact of giving more [ERoEI][2], no matter its use or actual impact on the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main question, once again, is, how much (and when), does financial sustainability translate into *environmental* sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/457/what-is-the-relationship-between-energy-efficiency-and-sustainability/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="2f6658ac-4c3e-4a47-8e05-eef53a0c3778" CreationDate="2014-07-16T02:52:41.087" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="Does buying a product that costs less money (but being produced in the same way), really translate into better environmental sustainability, or does it just mean you have more money without changing your environmental impact?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the latter, what typical factors would *make it such* that financial economy (for either a buyer *or* the producer of a product), is better for the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the two concepts are not necessarily correlative, shown by the example of making something yourself, despite it being more environmentally sustainable, actually costing you more than the costs of a ready-made product made by someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A slightly different example (which has already been discussed [here][1], and perhaps this half of my question should be removed and I stick to 'financial' economy instead of energy):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A subsistence farmer John Doe chooses to grow feedstock A for biodiesel production, which outputs less fuel / burns at lower efficiency than feedstock B. However, choosing either crop does not necessarily make a difference to the environmental footprint; one crop merely produces less energy than the other, and John Doe has simply decided to use less fuel as a result of producing less fuel (although inputting greater fuel source) anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe this is an example of 'economy' not affecting 'environmental sustainability', but should crop B *still* be considered a more sustainable option due to the simple fact of giving more [ERoEI][2], no matter its use or actual impact on the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main question, once again, is, how much (and when), does financial sustainability translate into *environmental* sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/457/what-is-the-relationship-between-energy-efficiency-and-sustainability/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2900" RevisionGUID="6548afe5-e5f9-4a52-94c9-d104262fcc74" CreationDate="2014-07-16T03:11:45.787" UserId="659" Text="Broadly speaking the two are orthogonal. That is, financial sustainability isn't related directly or consistently to environmental sustainability. Specifically, there are examples that swing strongly in both directions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At one extreme, you have subsistence farmers or hunter-gatherers who don't use value-based exchange at all, and different groups of those people have environmental impact ranging from barely perceptible to devastating (the widespread megafauna extinctions as humans arrived, for example, or the expansion of deserts through grazing and firewood gathering).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a fully monetary level you have profitable companies who build nuclear weapons (one extreme of the &quot;environmental impact&quot; spectrum) and similarly profitable companies who revegetate artificial deserts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're embedded in a market-based society (as most of us are), the theory behind that is that given a complex set of requirement, a market is the best way to find some optimum solutions (specifically, that there will probably be more than one depending on how people weight different factors). So for a single product or commodity, as long as the production mechanisms are equivalent price is an excellent way to select (that's the justification for a market economy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately it's extremely unlikely that &quot;all things are equal&quot;. It's trivial to buy financially unsustainable things in most countries (made by slaves or prisoners, for example), but deciding that you won't buy slave products is effectively impossible. Either because there are no competing products (cellphones, for example) or because the manufacturers try very hard to conceal that problem (clothing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Environmentally the problem is the same. Even if you just consider superficial impacts, the cost of biofuels varies dramatically depending on apparently trivial things. Consider corn-based ethanol, since that's common, and think about trying to buy it if you want to avoid, say, pesticide resistance. Some corn farmers will grow the required pest reservoirs and use pesticides as suggested, but others won't. Unfortunately there's no auditing of that, and definitely no labelling at a retail level. And that is only considering one tiny aspect of what makes a single biofuel sustainable. Realistically your &quot;sustainability choice&quot; becomes &quot;does this seem less unsustainable than that?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Solutions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**At a societal level** the way that externalities are monetised is critical. Viz, pollution and other unsustainable activities must have a price attached to them, either through a tax, regulation, a counter-subsidy, or a ban. So we ban slavery, tax carbon emissions, regulate pesticide use and subsidise green electricity. All of those things work to a greater or lesser extent, and which option is chosen is often as much politics (political or social sustainability) as science (ecological sustainability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**At a personal level**, you have to decide how much effort you're willing to put into discovery, and then again into minimisation. Economic theory tends to assume that everyone has perfect, complete knowledge of everything (with the exception of anything using terms like &quot;discovery costs&quot;). The simplest cases are where there's only one or two options. With cellphones it's often &quot;my friends all have iPhones, I'll buy an iPhone. They're all using WobblyTel, I'll use them so I get the free Wobbly2Wobbly messaging&quot;. Your choice then is between a new iPhone and a second hand one. Environmentally that's an easy choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anything more complex the question is how much work you're willing to put in researching every aspect of everything you consume. To some extent you can rely on secondary sources (other people's research) and tertiary sources (summaries and guides assembled by non-researchers), which is where things like the Greenpeace shopping guides come in. But to have any confidence in those you need to do more research... it gets ugly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then when it comes to buying things, you need to decide whether you're willing to (say) travel across town to buy a better product rather than just buying whatever is closest. In other words, even the &quot;cost&quot; of an item is more than just the money you hand over to the retailer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**One common solution** that's fairly effective is to shop at a local co-op, commonly a food co-op. That way someone else does the research, and you go to one place for most of your food shopping. Simple and direct. Often you can do similar things with other purchases, or rely on certifications, but usually within a fairly narrow range. There's no &quot;fair trade smartphone&quot;, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2901" RevisionGUID="ccdc9238-fc5a-4b5c-950c-d8007040e456" CreationDate="2014-07-16T06:29:26.480" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="For sustainable food freezer storage to replace plastic bags and the like, try **leather**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could buy ready-made leather storage bags like [these][1] or [these][2] if you can source some locally enough, or maybe make your own bags from leather sheets (or recycled leather (which you strip yourself) from used sofas left for pickup on the streets in your nearest suburbia or given away on community recycling networks like Freecycle), like I am planning to do myself for things such as bread storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leather's reliable non-permeability (from both air and water - so long as it is air-tight / water-tight which is possible if you wrap/tie it enough, or in the right way, and so long as it is thick enough leather in question) makes it one of the only all-natural / fairly sustainable replacements to plastic for freezer storage, eliminating freezer burn and allowing just as long-life a storage for your food as plastic allows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would actually be a neat solution in your case as the leather is merely a by-product of the meat you are consuming yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My case is bread, but in your case of raw meat I would guess that wrapping the (excess blood-drained) meat a couple of times in natural butcher's paper in the sealed leather bag, would solve any hygiene issues with permanent reuse of this storage solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.green-shopping.co.uk/leather-storage-bag-small.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bakerandbell.com/product/large-reindeer-leather-storage-bag_bb000021" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6903" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2897" RevisionGUID="3cc6b869-f001-4fbc-83fe-7ccbd9c0682e" CreationDate="2014-07-16T07:37:25.557" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|home|electricity|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2902" RevisionGUID="44039450-241f-4e62-9a6d-eb52bc1c1076" CreationDate="2014-07-16T07:49:52.800" UserId="99" Text="Space heating is warming a (usually) confined space for human comfort by using a space heater or central heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions about heat for preparing food use [tag:cooking]. &#xD;&#xA;For question on heating water use [tag:water-heating]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2903" RevisionGUID="4d761e0f-cc09-45e0-b0da-f3dc63af59ee" CreationDate="2014-07-16T07:49:52.800" UserId="99" Text="warming a (usually) confined spaces for human comfort by using a space heater or central heating.&#xD;&#xA;For questions about heat for preparing food use the [cooking] tag. For heating water use the [water-heating] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6906" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2888" RevisionGUID="daf0b028-702d-4258-9d78-623b73e55a18" CreationDate="2014-07-16T07:54:19.817" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|fuel-efficiency|greenhouse-gas-emissions|cooking|biofuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2903" RevisionGUID="d74dcc04-60bd-4d18-bd0d-feef0638995d" CreationDate="2014-07-16T08:07:10.713" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 44 characters in body" Text="warming a (usually) confined space for human comfort.&#xD;&#xA;For questions about heat for preparing food use the [cooking] tag. For heating water use the [water-heating] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="693fbbe0-b4d8-4583-b3c8-1dbeb08d1f82" CreationDate="2014-07-16T08:25:07.810" UserId="986" Text="What are, in your opinion or according to your direct experience, the easiest and most convenient way to recycle and re-use paper at home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6909" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="693fbbe0-b4d8-4583-b3c8-1dbeb08d1f82" CreationDate="2014-07-16T08:25:07.810" UserId="986" Text="Recycling paper at home" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6910" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="693fbbe0-b4d8-4583-b3c8-1dbeb08d1f82" CreationDate="2014-07-16T08:25:07.810" UserId="986" Text="|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2901" RevisionGUID="952a426a-50e4-4bbb-9cc3-cef1b7fcbbaa" CreationDate="2014-07-16T08:44:06.207" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="For sustainable food freezer storage to replace plastic bags and the like, try **leather**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could buy ready-made leather storage bags like [these][1] or [these][2] if you can source some locally enough, or maybe make your own bags from leather sheets (or recycled leather (which you strip yourself) from used sofas left for pickup on the streets in your nearest suburbia or given away on community recycling networks like Freecycle), like I am planning to do myself for things such as bread storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leather's reliable non-permeability (from both air and water - so long as it is air-tight / water-tight which is possible if you wrap/tie it enough, or in the right way, and so long as it is thick enough leather in question) makes it one of the only all-natural / fairly sustainable replacements to plastic for freezer storage, eliminating freezer burn and allowing just as long-life a storage for your food as plastic allows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would actually be a neat solution in your case as the leather is merely a by-product of the meat you are consuming yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My case is bread, but in your case of raw meat I would guess that wrapping the (excess blood-drained) meat a couple of times in natural butcher's paper in the bag, would solve any hygiene issues with permanent reuse of this storage solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.green-shopping.co.uk/leather-storage-bag-small.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bakerandbell.com/product/large-reindeer-leather-storage-bag_bb000021" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2905" RevisionGUID="cb96124e-0379-4164-bbb2-9833afc417f5" CreationDate="2014-07-16T13:25:47.403" UserId="812" Text="Many free-market advocates would say that the two *should* be equivalent. One can reasonably argue that they would be equivalent if every consequence of a given action were reflected fairly in its financial cost. An example of this is that producing electricity from coal is currently cheaper than producing electricity from wind farms, but this might not be true if there were a financial cost to putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is what economists call an &quot;externality&quot; - in that the carbon dump is external to the system, and has no effect on the cost - and the various proposals for carbon taxes or carbon cap-and-trade schemes are attempts to rectify this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, such attempts to define everything in terms of economic value will never be perfect. In the example above, we could define a cost for emitting CO2 and other pollutants, and we could perhaps even define a cost to a national economy from the public health issues surrounding poor air quality... but will we be able to agree on the monetary value of the lives lost in coal mining? On the other side, can we agree on a price for the visual impact of a wind farm? And even if we *did* have a method for doing this, we can never *know* exactly what all the future effects of an action will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we can never get all the externalities reflected correctly in the economic reality, economic sustainability can never match environmental sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another way of looking at it, if one takes a sufficiently long-term perspective: that is that the financial costs of an environmental collapse are vast, and that therefore something that is not environmentally sustainable *cannot* be economically sustainable in the long term. I'm not sure that many economists would subscribe to this view :-/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6913" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="7514d94e-fb9a-4167-8590-0a81c90a18f4" CreationDate="2014-07-16T21:03:03.060" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/489515576859963393" />
  <row Id="6914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="dbedd1a3-fd69-4a18-96f7-a2a206b4dcc1" CreationDate="2014-07-16T21:37:02.237" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="removed second half as answers are focusing on financial side of the question which I agree now is the best one as the 'energy efficiency' question had already been well-fleshed out and I perceive is a different matter, now." Text="Does buying a product that costs less money (though being produced in the same way), really translate into better environmental sustainability, or does it just mean you have more money without changing your environmental impact?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the latter, what typical factors would *make it such* that financial economy (for either a buyer *or* the producer of a product, indeed), is better for the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the two concepts are not necessarily correlative, shown by the example where if you make something yourself, despite it being more environmentally sustainable, it actually costs you more than if you bought a ready-made product made by someone else, where by economy of scale they were able to produce the same product for a lessor price (but it involved more pollution in the process, including that caused by distribution).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what are examples and basic guidelines that one can use, to determine whether cost savings to the consumer / user of a given product, vs. another alternative, translate into *environmental* sustainability - and if so, how much, and why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/457/what-is-the-relationship-between-energy-efficiency-and-sustainability/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="5d655ef9-082e-469a-bf0a-96c770b24f20" CreationDate="2014-07-16T22:30:25.893" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="fixed several spelling errors :)" Text="Ultimately, it is a question of system boundaries. To be sustainable, a process must not ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use energy faster than it can be replenished&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use material resources faster then they can be replenished. Note that you could see most forms of energy also as material (fuel)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pollute faster than the polluted system can clean itself. Note that most energy generation also pollutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at almost any chemical plant, you will see some effort (and energy expenditure, and often material expenditure) to clean exhaust gases or waste water. Obviously the *energy efficiency* of the whole plant would be better without the cleaning effort, but the sustainability is worse due to pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you only compare highly similar processes, where matter input/output and pollution are basically the same, you have to look at the energy sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you use an energy source that does not get depleted (direct sun), might not matter.&#xD;&#xA;* If you use a finite energy source that does not replenish itself on interesting timescales (fossil coal), your process will never be sustainable in the strictest sense - but changing towards better energy efficiency (all else being equal) may mean less pollution, so you improve sustainability on that end.&#xD;&#xA;* If you use a regrowing energy source (wood), one question is wether you use it faster than it does regrow. All else being equal, the difference between an energy-efficient process and an inefficient on may mean the difference between sustainability or unsustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that, as you change towards more efficient processes, more sources of energy might become viable. LED lighting powered off batteries charged with photovoltaics come to mind, this would not have been possible on the same scale with bulbs. Not that I think LED toys to be particular sensible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I speak of &quot;improving sustainability&quot; on one occasion, while some will argue that something is either sustainable or not, no gray areas. This view would dismiss any improvements in sustainability for processes using fossil fuels. This view ignores the pollution side of almost any process, where a hard yes/no on the sustainability of one single specific process cannot be given. Consider the question [about sustainability and pollution](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/414/how-are-pollution-and-sustainability-related)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6916" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="5d655ef9-082e-469a-bf0a-96c770b24f20" CreationDate="2014-07-16T22:30:25.893" Comment="Proposed by 487 approved by 85 edit id of 288" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6917" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="40edfeaa-a27f-4d9c-9d44-a1ed85c52574" CreationDate="2014-07-16T23:29:23.650" UserId="44" />
  <row Id="6918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="136" RevisionGUID="40edfeaa-a27f-4d9c-9d44-a1ed85c52574" CreationDate="2014-07-16T23:29:23.650" UserId="44" Comment="Removed potentially incorrect information and replaced it with potentially relevant info." Text="The yeast you are interested in is saccharomyces cerevisiae, also called &quot;baker's yeast&quot; and &quot;ale yeast&quot;. The process you are looking for is called &quot;spontaneous fermentation&quot; in the context of brewing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When brewing beer through spontaneous fermentation, you aren't starting out with yeast so there is no competition for the potentially unsavoury microbes that eat the same food source (sugar). In some styles (e.g. lambics and berliner weisse) this is desirable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For bread making the turn around time is faster and is definitely worth it. What you are looking to create is a &quot;sour dough starter&quot; which will be a mixture of water, flour, lactobacillus (responsible for the sour flavor in sour dough), and saccharomyces cerevisiae. You set out a certain amount of water and flour, feed it flour and water, and wait. When you make bread, you use just a portion of it so that you can continue your starter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you search for instructions on creating a sour dough starter from scratch or from (as they call it) &quot;wild yeast&quot;, you will be baking bread in no time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2901" RevisionGUID="b5e08146-990b-4e3c-aff9-b74b11314395" CreationDate="2014-07-17T22:55:30.907" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="added 799 characters in body" Text="For sustainable food freezer storage to replace plastic bags and the like, try **leather**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could buy ready-made leather storage bags like [these][1] or [these][2] if you can source some locally enough, or maybe make your own bags from leather sheets (or recycled leather [which you strip yourself] from used sofas left for pickup on the streets in your nearest suburbia or given away on community recycling networks like Freecycle), like I am planning to do myself for things like bread storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leather's reliable non-permeability (from both air and water) - so long as it is air-tight / water-tight which is possible if you wrap or tie it well enough, in the right way, and so long as it is thick enough leather in question - makes it one of the only all-natural / fairly sustainable replacements to plastic for freezer storage, eliminating freezer burn and allowing just as long-life a storage for your food as plastic does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would actually be a fitting solution in your case as the leather is merely a by-product of the meat you are consuming yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the case of raw meat I would guess that wrapping the (excess blood-drained) meat a couple of times in natural butcher's paper inside the bag, would solve any hygiene issues with permanent reuse of the bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do note though, depending on the thickness / quality / animal source of the leather etc., it may start to sustain damage (like cracking) from drying out from long-term freezer usage - I have not actually tested it out yet but the precaution to take here is to moisturise the leather in a reliable way - the best way may be applying a solid layer of natural wax (like soy, palm, bees) to the leather surface (and that will only possibly make it even more 'non-permeable', especially in the case of thinner leather).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Another solution** may be some sort of air-tight, and heavily-waxed cotton/hemp heavy-duty canvas etc., but I have not tried that either. My goals are to avoid freezer storage altogether but it is great to know of these solutions for those times when you (or others close to you) do have to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.green-shopping.co.uk/leather-storage-bag-small.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bakerandbell.com/product/large-reindeer-leather-storage-bag_bb000021" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2906" RevisionGUID="fc87d3dd-a009-4dd3-8024-738de0983e23" CreationDate="2014-07-18T13:54:53.297" UserId="1091" Text="You could either make your own or buy pre-made beeswax cloth. It behaves like plastic wrap and can be washed with cold water and soap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][1] is a link on how to make your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theartofdoingstuff.com/beeswax-fabric-food-wrap/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6921" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2897" RevisionGUID="2b374e6a-b678-488f-af90-3b70c0ba391f" CreationDate="2014-07-18T15:09:09.150" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/490151291252117505" />
  <row Id="6922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2907" RevisionGUID="d22e7092-0958-4464-a83d-ed7bb1287f84" CreationDate="2014-07-19T02:46:15.803" UserId="183" Text="Common sense is telling me to try to do things like vacuuming, laundry and cooking at times of maximal sunlight during the day so that more of the electricity I use comes from solar power generators rather than from sources like coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any ideas about how somehow quantify how beneficial (or not) this approach is? I'd like to also take into account that doing energy-intensive activities during the evening may increase peak load that is largely going to be met by non-renewable energy sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the benefit is quantifiable it may be easier to convince others to do the same. It may also tell me that this idea is actually rather pointless." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2907" RevisionGUID="d22e7092-0958-4464-a83d-ed7bb1287f84" CreationDate="2014-07-19T02:46:15.803" UserId="183" Text="How worthwhile is it to use energy during daylight to take advantage of grid-based solar power?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2907" RevisionGUID="d22e7092-0958-4464-a83d-ed7bb1287f84" CreationDate="2014-07-19T02:46:15.803" UserId="183" Text="|solar-power|electricity|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2908" RevisionGUID="69a69b07-f649-4bf2-923c-21bea16d7283" CreationDate="2014-07-19T08:12:24.303" UserId="812" Text="You're being quite specific with regard to solar... but in principle, it is possible to move your electricity consumption to minimise its carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecotricity (a UK &quot;green&quot; energy supplier) have a [web page][1] that shows the current carbon intensity of UK generation&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt;, and gives a red/amber/green indication of whether you should turn stuff on now. If you can find something similar for wherever you live, that's a decent guide as to whether you should turn stuff on now, or wait for a higher proportion of renewables in your generation mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] A number of other people have similar web pages - the raw data for the UK is available at [www.bmreports.com][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/uk-grid-live&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bmreports.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2909" RevisionGUID="5fe15561-bcc5-40dd-86c6-acba109ccb0d" CreationDate="2014-07-19T12:34:33.207" UserId="659" Text="In the purist sense of &quot;the electricity I use was actually generated by a wind farm&quot;, your idea is broadly correct. However, unless you actually have solar panels or a wind turbine on your house, that's not how the system actually works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Broadly, all the electricity generators feed into the national grid (which in Australia covers only Qld-NSW-Vic-SA, but that's 90% of the population). From the grid power gets distributed to whoever needs it and there's a lot of fussing to make sure it all works correctly. But one thing that doesn't happen is segregation of renewable energy to renewable energy customers. Then everyone has an electricity meter, and different retails compete to be the one who bills you for what you use. They buy generated electricity and it's metered on the way in, and they have to balance that against the electricity that they sell. It's no more direct than that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of it like a communal water tank - there's a well, some rooftop collection and a creek all feeding into one tank. Then everyone draws water out of it. If you add your rooftop to the collection there will be more rainwater in the tank and less river water, but there's no way for you to draw just rainwater out of it. The electricity grid works the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Then how are you &quot;broadly correct&quot;?** What you shifting your electricity demand to daytime does is push up demand during the day, and reduce it during the night. This does mean that you're helping a tiny bit to push demand towards daylight hours, making solar more suitable. Unfortunately, only a tiny bit unless you get a big campaign going so thousands of people do the same thing. Which doesn't mean that it's pointless, any more than any other single action you can do is. Especially since the cost of doing it is pretty low - a small amount of effort on your part. But it's a small step and most electricity still comes from fossil fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **there are better ways**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have PV panels, the way to make sure you're using renewable energy is to pay for it. Almost everyone in the first world has the option of paying a little extra on their power bill to get renewable electricity. We chose our electricity provider specifically because they have a &quot;100% wind power&quot; option (and they're not one of the awful companies who are busy fracking and starting up mothballed brown coal plants. Ahem). You can do the same. What that means is that for every unit of electricity you use, your retailer buys one unit from a renewable energy provider. The more you use, the more they buy, and overall, the more renewable energy gets generated. I have friends who really do say &quot;I leave the lights on because buy green power, so the more we use the better&quot;. Which is not really correct if you're talking about overall environmental impact, because even &quot;green power&quot; takes resources to build and operate. If you do feel like putting money into building more green power, you're better off donating/investing in the companies directly or buying and keeping Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs - assuming you're in Australia).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing you can do, even if you're renting ([green renters][1]), is work to **reduce your electricity consumption**. The lowest impact electricity is the electricity that doesn't get generated in the first place. LED or compact fluorescent light bulbs, when you replace your whitegoods buy for electricity consumption (and turn them off at the wall when not in use), if you have a PVR or computer that's on all the time, again, when replacing it buy for power consumption. If you're not downloading during the day, turn the modem etc off when you go out. Those things all add up, especially the [parasitic loads][2] (our washing machine is very low usage when it's washing, but draws 10W if it's turned on at the wall, even when it's &quot;off&quot; at that machine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of **persuading other people to help**, you're on the right track - ask people like sustainability.SE for tips, do some research, then focus on things that you know are likely to be effective. If you can persuade people you know to change their behaviour, great (and there are [places online][3] to get [tips for that][4]). Or join one of the many groups doing that on a larger scale, from local like the [Marrickville Green Living Centre][5] to national organisations of local groups like [Clean Up Australia][6] (there will be one in your area!) to straight up activist groups like [GetUp][7] or research-activist groups like [Beyond Zero Emissions][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greenrenters.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_load&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.saveonenergy.com/energy-saving-tips/tips-for-getting-your-kids-to-save-energy/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.uswitch.com/energy-saving/guides/free-energy-saving-tips/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.marrickville.nsw.gov.au/en/environment/in-your-community/green-living-centre/volunteer/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.cleanupaustraliaday.org.au/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.getup.org.au/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://beyondzeroemissions.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2908" RevisionGUID="b96d01b8-3ed4-4e37-b01c-d62f08a40061" CreationDate="2014-07-20T07:22:50.807" UserId="812" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="You're being quite specific with regard to solar... but in principle, it is possible to move your electricity consumption to minimise its carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecotricity (a UK &quot;green&quot; energy supplier) have a [web page][1] that shows the current carbon intensity of UK generation&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;/sup&gt;, and gives a red/amber/green indication of whether you should turn stuff on now. If you can find something similar for wherever you live, that's a decent guide as to whether you should turn stuff on now, or wait for a higher proportion of renewables in your generation mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] A number of other people have similar web pages - the raw data for the UK that I think they are calculated from is available at [www.bmreports.com][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/uk-grid-live&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bmreports.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6929" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2907" RevisionGUID="ccf1f0e1-98c6-4e69-8699-49827a424500" CreationDate="2014-07-20T09:16:37.450" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/490787350382133249" />
  <row Id="6930" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2899" RevisionGUID="09641ed0-849d-4194-89ca-57d4193c0365" CreationDate="2014-07-21T09:19:37.540" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/491150493629296640" />
  <row Id="6932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2910" RevisionGUID="a9aa506e-dcef-464f-9b03-962257410c36" CreationDate="2014-07-22T01:17:44.080" UserId="1578" Text="I ask my colleagues to keep the papers they print and do not use anymore, and I pile them up, cut them in half and make two holes at the top. I bind them together with a binder ring and I have a new notepad! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the paper is soiled, I compost it (bakery paper bags, tissues). &#xD;&#xA;If it is office paper, after I wrote on both sides, I use it in my garden to layer the bottom of my pots and planters. I also use them at the bottom of the litter box for my cat, it makes cleaning up easier and I can compost everything at once. &#xD;&#xA;If the paper looks nice or if it has colorful pictures on it (old magazines, Christmas catalogues), I use it to wrap gifts, with a bit of burlap ribbon. &#xD;&#xA;Finally, I use it to wrap fragile items when I put away seasonal decorations: Christmas ornaments, holiday dishes etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also re-use it and make papier mâché sculptures if you have children, you just need water and flour and a bit of patience. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2911" RevisionGUID="1fac8309-3600-4cef-8cbe-5ebb59d64829" CreationDate="2014-07-22T08:53:50.153" UserId="1582" Text="If you have fruits like Strawberries, Mangos, Bananas, put them in the freezer before they go bad. You can use them to make delicious Milk Shakes and Fruit Smoothies any time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/N174c.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2912" RevisionGUID="fb2bbb05-ec8a-4015-81ae-a910c36838f1" CreationDate="2014-07-22T08:57:44.277" UserId="1581" Text="If you care about the consumption of primary energy, a gas stove is best, as long electic energy comes not at least to 70% from renewable sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2913" RevisionGUID="6a0b332a-4d3c-4af4-b808-017a38694b8e" CreationDate="2014-07-22T09:25:31.120" UserId="1581" Text="You should find the best time to lower/raise the thermostat. The more thermal inertia your house has (the better it is thermally isolated), the earlier you should lower the thermostat. The faster the heating gets the room warm, the later you can raise the thermostat. Bith should actually be done automatically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2912" RevisionGUID="254bb8b3-921b-41b5-8df0-bd3b1bcae368" CreationDate="2014-07-22T15:30:25.540" UserId="812" Comment="Improved the English." Text="If you care about the consumption of primary energy, a gas stove is best, as long as less than 70% of electricity comes from renewable sources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2913" RevisionGUID="ace6de93-647e-48ad-8a14-1b1ac95b62f1" CreationDate="2014-07-22T20:06:09.993" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="You should find the best time to lower/raise the thermostat. The more thermal inertia your house has (the better it is thermally isolated), the earlier you should lower the thermostat. The faster the heating gets the room warm, the later you can raise the thermostat. Both are best done automatically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6938" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="45b6a9b5-2d2c-41ed-9fda-1ed0b9a89ee8" CreationDate="2014-07-23T04:02:59.750" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2914" RevisionGUID="7fe6d459-76bb-4991-aa53-31be79a65cc3" CreationDate="2014-07-23T20:51:30.730" UserId="1586" Text="I think Western kitchens have a much different focus on foods, as well.  Meat is often the center of many meals, for instance.  I find efficiently storing (freezing, thawing, cooking, storing prepared meat) to be difficult to manage without waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your choice of foods can dramatically decrease your waste.  I recommend using more curries (stored as curry pastes with a long refrigerated life), soup stocks (dry bullion, frozen stock from previous vegetables), and high nutrition grains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These can be prepared in batches of varying size so you can accommodate those days where you're just peckish, have guests, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also have the benefit of being &quot;catch all&quot; dishes where you can toss in any leftover vegetables that are close to their demise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as increasing your efficiency with meats I would recommend buying in bulk from a local, sustainable source (half a hog, for instance) and immediately dividing it into individual meal  portions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As a side note - I was introduced to using curries regularly by Jamie Oliver's books.  His focus is on delicious meals for common households, where economy really counts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2822" RevisionGUID="651db0e0-77f0-42c9-8269-07f387b3641e" CreationDate="2014-07-24T07:46:45.170" UserId="99" Comment="revised excerpt so it is clear when to use this tag" Text="Heating is one common element in many environmental conditioning systems. The environment to be conditioned is oftentimes a home or a vehicle, but the concept isn't exclusive to those. Conditioning systems are often collectively called &quot;HVAC&quot; (Heating Ventilation and Air-Conditioning). But stand-alone heaters are also common, depending upon climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Heating Concepts #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A **heater** is an object that emits heat or causes another body to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; achieve a higher temperature. In a household or domestic setting,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; heaters are usually appliances whose purpose is to generate heating&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (i.e. warmth). [{from Wiki-Heating Article}, accessed 3-Jun-2014][Wiki-Heating] [emphasis mine]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other types of heaters might be dual-purpose (i.e. wood stove that cooks and heats).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Heat Sources ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three categories of heat-transfer: *conduction*, *convection*, and *radiation*. Heating methods will be different variations (or even combinations) of these three categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Convection ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Article Stub]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Radiation ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Article Stub]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conduction ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of environmental heating, conduction doesn't deserve that much attention. For the sake of completeness, however, a brief overview follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The earlier example of the wood stove provides two sources of heat: **conduction** and **convection**. The stove heats your pan, which in turn cooks your food through *conduction*. A thorough, scientific treatment of conduction can be found in [Wiki's &quot;Thermal conduction&quot; article][Wiki-Thermal].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [Wiki-Heating]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating#Heating&#xD;&#xA; [Wiki-Thermal]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conduction_%28heat%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2823" RevisionGUID="dc4e6b4a-c2bf-4401-bbdd-02edc2066a6e" CreationDate="2014-07-24T07:46:45.170" UserId="99" Comment="revised excerpt so it is clear when to use this tag" Text="Heating is warming a space for human comfort. Use this tag for questions on space heating and central heating.&#xD;&#xA;For questions about heat for preparing food use the [cooking] tag. For heating water use the [water-heating] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6942" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2904" RevisionGUID="dd359431-224e-4c86-9f4e-7a38e0b6df0b" CreationDate="2014-07-24T09:40:01.447" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/492242790320201729" />
  <row Id="6943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="40814774-28f3-4503-b120-21a293f89bb9" CreationDate="2014-07-24T09:42:47.083" UserId="99" Comment="added relevant related tags" Text="Chemical formula: H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions on [tag:waste-water], [tag:greywater], [tag:seawater] or [tag:virtual-water] please use that tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2688" RevisionGUID="28eb4c6f-579d-4005-8d75-89ba272509f3" CreationDate="2014-07-24T09:42:47.083" UserId="99" Comment="added relevant related tags" Text="Questions regarding sustainable use of water, or water's impact on sustainability in general.&#xD;&#xA;For questions on [waste-water], [greywater], [seawater] or [virtual-water] please use that tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2915" RevisionGUID="4428075e-ebf9-4683-bbfc-9baaf5e8259f" CreationDate="2014-07-24T14:46:25.953" UserId="1053" Text="My solution is meal planning. I found there were three reasons I was throwing food away:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it was leftovers that I didn't get around to eating because I had made a meal when there were already leftovers in the fridge, until there was just too much to eat before it was too old to eat&#xD;&#xA; - it was a raw ingredient that I had bought on a whim, that spoiled while I continued to make meals that didn't &quot;go with&quot; that raw ingredient&#xD;&#xA; - it was a raw ingredient that needed long cooking or pre-preparation, and it spoiled while I went through a stretch of &quot;I'm hungry now, what's quick to cook&quot; days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now I plan the meals for the week and post the plan near the fridge. If on Monday, I plan to cook something that I know produces leftovers, then Tuesday dinner is those leftovers (or something specific based on them) and I actually write that on the plan. For example Tuesday: Slow Roasted Pork, Wednesday: Pulled Pork Sandwiches. And on Monday it will say &quot;pork to marinate&quot; because there's a &quot;night before&quot; step to that roast. The meal list goes to the grocery store with me. If I see wonderful asparagus, that's fine, I'll buy it, but a meal in the next few days get &quot;and asparagus&quot; written onto the end of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was surprised how freeing this was. It's like a fairy godmother has helped me out. I'm hungry, it's 5pm, I check the list and there's a good solid idea for a meal I know how to cook and know that I like. And everything I need for it is in the house. That isn't the reason I started doing it - I wanted to throw out less food. I now essentially never throw out raw ingredients that I bought (I sometimes compost CSA veg that I just could not get through due to volume) and rarely throw out leftovers. It's working for me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2916" RevisionGUID="501fd468-18d0-4bc3-88c4-d35a64ac12a4" CreationDate="2014-07-24T18:29:03.970" UserId="746" Text="The two methods I have used recently is:  &#xD;&#xA; 1. smoke - I have worked with a cigar which helped keep mosquitoes away. I have also had a controlled burning with much smoke which will help very much depending on the environmental conditions.  I was working down in a swampy area and the smoke dropped into the swamp bottom and helped much.  &#xD;&#xA; 2. onion - I take one bite of an onion and chew it until it is liquid.  I then swallow it.  This seemed to work well for me.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I encourage  experimentation.  If you are going to do an experiment - then go into the area without any repellent.  Pay attention to the number of mosquitoes that land on you.  Then try out your repellent and compare the differences." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2917" RevisionGUID="6c81277f-572a-414d-ae71-04a67e631e39" CreationDate="2014-07-24T19:08:08.107" UserId="746" Text="Carbon matter decomposes into carbon dioxide (CO2) in the presence of oxygen (aerobic) and decomposes into methane (CH4) without the presence of oxygen (anaerobic).  It is interesting to study the difference between CO2 and CH4 as they relate to greenhouse effect.  My research indicates that CO2 is a better greenhouse gas than CH4.  And CH4 turns into CO2 when it is burned.  It seems that it is better to burn CH4 and prevent it from escaping into the atmosphere.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The decomposition process occurs all of the time.  Imagine that we intend to decrease aerobic decomposition and increase anaerobic decomposition while capturing all of the methane from our intentional anaerobic decomposition.  This practice has the potential to be more sustainable because we are now extracting fuel from the decomposition process.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My vision of a sustainable lifestyle includes capturing and using methane from biological anaerobic decomposition systems (feces).  I also believe we should be collecting carbon matter and extracting CH4 from it.  Help prevent forest fires.  Capture CH4 through anaerobic decomposition.  And get your energy from your local &quot;waste&quot; processing center.  Note that &quot;waste&quot; is all &quot;decomposing carbon matter&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="7f2c6ed1-5329-4c69-b473-e762f77d1c83" CreationDate="2014-07-24T19:17:57.380" UserId="746" Text="All living things die.  I will die.  What are some sustainable options for handling dead bodies?  I would like my dead body to be eaten.  Maybe sharks could eat my dead body and sharks could be fed to hungry people.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope answers to this question increase and change over time as people provide new ways of dealing with dead bodies.  Is there a place where a dead body can be fed to sharks?  Is there a place where methane could be extracted from dead bodies?  Am I mistaken that graves and cremation are not sustainable?  Is being buried more sustainable than being cremated?  Please compare different ways of dealing with dead bodies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="7f2c6ed1-5329-4c69-b473-e762f77d1c83" CreationDate="2014-07-24T19:17:57.380" UserId="746" Text="sustainable after life" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="7f2c6ed1-5329-4c69-b473-e762f77d1c83" CreationDate="2014-07-24T19:17:57.380" UserId="746" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6952" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="225" RevisionGUID="b17894fa-5353-4eaf-99b7-3d5e0ff65229" CreationDate="2014-07-25T07:40:02.237" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2920" RevisionGUID="c90412aa-0238-4ed4-9218-fe081c9e2360" CreationDate="2014-07-25T07:47:58.070" UserId="1581" Text="Some people make briquettes from paper to burn them in their oven for heating, see for example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki8OsYh0ksA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is quite tediuos work. Also, the exhaust fumes and the remaining ashes are toxic, since paper consists up to 30% of filler, like calcium carbonate, cement and other. Therefore, in germany it is forbidden to burn paper briquettes in home fireplaces, since these don't have a special filtering of the exhaust fumes and a proper disposal of the ashes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6956" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2524" RevisionGUID="5b27d50d-3600-44d5-b0f4-dbc1cb2ae3ec" CreationDate="2014-07-25T13:32:12.103" UserId="746" Comment="I am guessing that &quot;pets&quot; should be &quot;pest&quot; - typo..." Text="|pest-management|insects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6957" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2524" RevisionGUID="5b27d50d-3600-44d5-b0f4-dbc1cb2ae3ec" CreationDate="2014-07-25T13:32:12.103" Comment="Proposed by 746 approved by 99 edit id of 289" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6958" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="ecc90aab-ca7a-42d0-9369-5a25ca78b1b4" CreationDate="2014-07-25T13:33:25.457" UserId="99" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="a4812b33-f72d-41d4-86ae-85a49b7e974e" CreationDate="2014-07-25T13:59:15.163" UserId="746" Comment="trying to get my question off of hold" Text="All living things die.  I will die.  What are some sustainable options for handling dead bodies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6960" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2804" RevisionGUID="5ebec171-7055-4ea7-9ecc-f266b256d672" CreationDate="2014-07-25T21:45:33.917" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/492787767056031744" />
  <row Id="6961" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="74684266-dd17-4314-861b-87031fde303a" CreationDate="2014-07-26T05:42:00.783" UserId="99" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="6962" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="8e02b01f-24cc-49ea-84c4-a226a0f481a8" CreationDate="2014-07-27T00:45:33.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/493195452435955713" />
  <row Id="6963" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2869" RevisionGUID="6a0383ba-312e-44cc-abe9-7a7ff9c43d68" CreationDate="2014-07-27T12:46:16.427" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/493376825641664512" />
  <row Id="6964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="c6bb8282-1bfb-467d-b3c9-4fab2d128374" CreationDate="2014-07-28T09:59:36.447" UserId="99" Text="&#xD;&#xA;There are two alternatives that are more sustainable than traditional burials or cremation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [**Resomation** a.k.a Alkaline Hydrolysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resomation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Resomation is a patented process in which a body is broken down into its chemical components by placing it into a mixture of water and lye and then heating it at high pressure. This will desolved the soft tissue and make the bones porous, so they can be crushed afterwards. The resulting &quot;ash&quot; can then be returned to the next of kin.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    The advantage is that metals or toxic chemicals in the body (e.g. mercury used in tooth fillings)  can be separated and that this process reduces [emissions of greenhouse gases by approximately 35%](http://www.resomation.com/index_files/Page369.htm) compared to cremation. AFAIK it is legal only in the UK and some states in the US and Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [**Cryomation** a.k.a promession](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promession)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    During cryomation a body is frozen solid by immersing it into liquid nitrogen. Then vibration or pressure is used to shatter the now brittle body. The remains are then placed in a vacuum and turned to powder. This powder can then be buried for further decomposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As with resomation, the benefits are lower CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and toxic emissions and the possibility to separate metals.&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK cryomation is legal only in Sweden, Scotland and South Korea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information about how sustainable these methods are can be found in [this report drawn up by a Dutch research institution](https://www.tno.nl/downloads/TNO%20report%20Environmental%20impact%20of%20different%20funeral%20technologies.pdf). The exact numbers may be different in other countries, since they are based on funeral regulations and customs in the Netherlands (e.g. coffin required for burials)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3 other options that are sometimes mentioned as being more sustainable (than burial and cremation), but that AFAIK have never been researched as how sustainable they really are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [Sky burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial): a traditional Tibetan and Mongolian custom where a body is taken to a mountain top, cut into pieces and then fed to vultures or other birds of prey. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [Sea burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_at_sea): disposing a body into the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. [Natural burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_burial) a.k.a. green burial: like a traditional burial, but then with a biodegradable coffin or shroud, allowing the body to decompose quickly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="fa0944cb-b2b8-4150-a8d9-774b2a8e09a2" CreationDate="2014-07-28T10:33:05.033" UserId="99" Comment="added 223 characters in body" Text="There are two alternatives that are more sustainable than traditional burials or cremation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [**Resomation** a.k.a Alkaline Hydrolysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resomation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Resomation is a patented process in which a body is broken down into its chemical components by placing it into a mixture of water and lye and then heating it at high pressure. This will desolved the soft tissue and make the bones porous, so they can be crushed afterwards. The resulting &quot;ash&quot; can then be returned to the next of kin.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    The advantage is that metals or toxic chemicals in the body (e.g. mercury used in tooth fillings)  can be separated and that this process reduces [emissions of greenhouse gases by approximately 35%](http://www.resomation.com/index_files/Page369.htm) compared to cremation. AFAIK it is legal only in the UK and some states in the US and Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [**Cryomation** a.k.a promession](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promession)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    During cryomation a body is frozen solid by immersing it into liquid nitrogen. Then vibration or pressure is used to shatter the now brittle body. The remains are then placed in a vacuum and turned to powder. This powder can then be buried for further decomposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As with resomation, the benefits are lower CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and toxic emissions and the possibility to separate metals.&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK cryomation is legal only in Sweden, Scotland and South Korea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information about how sustainable these methods are can be found in [this report drawn up by a Dutch research institution](https://www.tno.nl/downloads/TNO%20report%20Environmental%20impact%20of%20different%20funeral%20technologies.pdf). The exact numbers may be different in other countries, since they are based on funeral regulations and customs in the Netherlands (e.g. coffin required for burials)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3 other options that are sometimes mentioned as being more sustainable (than burial and cremation), but that AFAIK have never been researched as how sustainable they really are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [Sky burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial): a traditional Tibetan and Mongolian custom where a body is taken to a mountain top, cut into pieces and then fed to vultures or other birds of prey. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [Sea burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_at_sea): disposing a body into the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. [Natural burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_burial) a.k.a. green burial: like a traditional burial, but then with a biodegradable coffin or shroud, allowing the body to decompose quickly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final note; I've read somewhere that the biggest environmental impact of funerals comes from the people who are driving or flying there to attend. I'm not sure if it is true, but it certainly is something to consider.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="095c3fda-c8b0-48d9-9d13-31adf7db95f8" CreationDate="2014-07-28T10:55:50.687" UserId="99" Comment="added note about comparison with 2005 study" Text="There are two alternatives that are more sustainable than traditional burials or cremation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [**Resomation** a.k.a Alkaline Hydrolysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resomation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Resomation is a patented process in which a body is broken down into its chemical components by placing it into a mixture of water and lye and then heating it at high pressure. This will desolved the soft tissue and make the bones porous, so they can be crushed afterwards. The resulting &quot;ash&quot; can then be returned to the next of kin.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    The advantage is that metals or toxic chemicals in the body (e.g. mercury used in tooth fillings)  can be separated and that this process reduces [emissions of greenhouse gases by approximately 35%](http://www.resomation.com/index_files/Page369.htm) compared to cremation. AFAIK it is legal only in the UK and some states in the US and Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [**Cryomation** a.k.a promession](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promession)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    During cryomation a body is frozen solid by immersing it into liquid nitrogen. Then vibration or pressure is used to shatter the now brittle body. The remains are then placed in a vacuum and turned to powder. This powder can then be buried for further decomposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As with resomation, the benefits are lower CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and toxic emissions and the possibility to separate metals.&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK cryomation is legal only in Sweden, Scotland and South Korea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information about how sustainable these methods are can be found in [this report drawn up by a Dutch research institution in 2011](https://www.tno.nl/downloads/TNO%20report%20Environmental%20impact%20of%20different%20funeral%20technologies.pdf). Note that the results of this study are rather different compared to an earlier Dutch study performed in 2005. In that earlier study burial, cremation and resomation were considered more or less equivalent sustainability-wise, but cryomation was found to have a big environmental impact. The 2011 study uses different weighing factors; it includes recycling of metals and toxic chemicals (not included in the 2005 study), but it also uses a relatively big impact factor (perhaps bigger than necessary?) for ground use in burials. Also note that the exact numbers may be different in other countries, since they are based on funeral regulations and customs in the Netherlands (e.g. coffin required for burials)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3 other options that are sometimes mentioned as being more sustainable (than burial and cremation), but that AFAIK have never been researched as how sustainable they really are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [Sky burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial): a traditional Tibetan and Mongolian custom where a body is taken to a mountain top, cut into pieces and then fed to vultures or other birds of prey. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [Sea burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_at_sea): disposing a body into the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. [Natural burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_burial) a.k.a. green burial: like a traditional burial, but then with a biodegradable coffin or shroud, allowing the body to decompose quickly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final note; the 2005 study I mentioned earlier also found that the biggest environmental impact of funerals comes from the people who are driving (or flying?) there to attend ([source: this article in Dutch](http://www.groeneuitvaart.nl/page_1754.html)):&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6967" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="91" RevisionGUID="a62cb90e-41ce-4e1f-b3dd-1b3f3fd78c5f" CreationDate="2014-07-28T15:47:50.807" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/493784907882434560" />
  <row Id="6968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2922" RevisionGUID="ba32301c-5467-49ea-903c-0f547e55f8d2" CreationDate="2014-07-28T19:25:31.413" UserId="1594" Text="Perhaps storing the soap in the refrigerator or freezer will slow the degradation of the soap. I am not familiar with the biodegrading process for BioVert, but in many cases, chilling a material slows the chemical reactions that take place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The soap is designed to biodegrade... It just seems like it's degrading too fast for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2923" RevisionGUID="a70c7b8b-6f7b-41ee-b6a6-383556603c11" CreationDate="2014-07-28T19:55:42.183" UserId="1594" Text="The effectiveness you are asking for is the end result of a heat exchanger analysis (of the level engineering schools assign in the junior year--somewhat complex). You would have to provide much more information to even be able to approach this problem. This web page demonstrates some of the equations needed to solve a problem like this:   &#xD;&#xA;http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/12-13/Domestic_flue_gas/technical-analysis/heat-exchanger-analysis/crossflow-air-hx.html.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely, your design will end up being a cross-flow heat exchanger. Your best bet at finding out how well the air conditioner will work is to look at the results of someone else's prior design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for how close you can expect to get the air temperature to the water temperature in a cross flow heat exchanger: I would estimate your maximum cooling would be less than half the difference between cold water temperature and warm air temperature ((30 degC - 20 degC)/2 = 5 degC). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you could cool outside air to 25 degC at the coolest. More likely you would end up at 27 degC with a simple cross flow heat exchanger made with a fan and cooling coil of flowing water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2924" RevisionGUID="2ef3c1a8-b64b-4bda-ab54-c0c7659a44c4" CreationDate="2014-07-29T15:24:25.493" UserId="1594" Text="I would recommend building a rainwater collection system (http://www.wikihow.com/Build-a-Rainwater-Collection-System) that feeds into a ground level hydroponic garden system. This will be easier to access and maintain, and will run no risk of flooding the house in the event of actual gutter clogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This setup lets you use any sort of hydroponic system you want using the rain barrel as your water supply. Don't grow plants in your gutter on your roof... grow them in gutters that are easy to reach, but are fed by free rainwater." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="30fe6c25-3a0d-4864-b51f-1876c0e5a41b" CreationDate="2014-07-29T18:40:16.037" UserId="1297" Text="I am looking to replace my laptop. Being in a conscious path of my own, I want to choose a laptop which is a product of good and sustainable procedures. I am saying good because most popular brands like Lenovo have factories in China where the labor conditions are inhumane I have read and I am not sure if they follow proper environmental protocol there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, are there any brands of laptop which are in the niche genre of enhancing sustainability and eco-friendliness of their products? For example, one brand I came across is iameco (www.iameco.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look forward to your inputs!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="30fe6c25-3a0d-4864-b51f-1876c0e5a41b" CreationDate="2014-07-29T18:40:16.037" UserId="1297" Text="Need help with Eco friendly laptops!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="30fe6c25-3a0d-4864-b51f-1876c0e5a41b" CreationDate="2014-07-29T18:40:16.037" UserId="1297" Text="|green-it|ecolabel|product-design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2926" RevisionGUID="3803511c-3a74-49ae-b068-b5069a13d91e" CreationDate="2014-07-29T20:30:21.097" UserId="1599" Text="It may cost a lot of green, but Macs and Apple are particularly green. Apple has many protocols an material regulations they use in their products. That's one of the reasons they cost so much, is the good materials they source. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2927" RevisionGUID="373577ba-0c3b-469e-be59-78744b6a3003" CreationDate="2014-07-30T07:53:40.177" UserId="99" Text="There are 3 websites I recommend visiting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. **[Rankabrand.org](http://rankabrand.org)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This site rankes brands of all kinds of products, [including electronics](http://www.rankabrand.org/electronics). &#xD;&#xA;  Rankings are based on all information that can be found on a company's website and in their annual reports. Rankabrand assesses brands on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;   their environmental performances, climate change efforts and labour conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If no information is present on a particular topic, the brand gets 0 points so it is indirectly ranking transparency as well. A drawback is that small companies/brands are often not included. Also a ranking is for the company/brand as a whole so not specific for a product type such as laptops. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. **[Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/cool-it/Campaign-analysis/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/)**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This site is similar to Rankabrand.org, but only for electronics and Greenpeace does use a different rating mechanism. They only include&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Energy and Climate, Greener Products, and Sustainable Operations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  in their calculations. Labour conditions and other social responsibilities are not included. The Greenpeace list does include one or two smaller companies, but still not the very small ones. Unfortunately the site hasn't been updated for a while (last update was November 2012)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  3. **[Conflict minerals company rankings](http://www.raisehopeforcongo.org/content/conflict-minerals-company-rankings)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This site rates the largest electronics companies on their usage of what they call &quot;conflict-free&quot; minerals in their products.&#xD;&#xA;  I'm not sure how accurate the list still is, the last update was in August 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the 3 lists you'll see that HP is the only company that is in the top 5 on all 3 lists. Apple does score better on the latest Rankabrand rating (done a few months ago), but not on the other two lists. I'm not sure why that is, it could be that they improved their production process recently. Nokia also scores relatively good on Rankabrand and Greenpeace, but less so on conflict-minerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I have no affiliation with any of the sites or brands mentioned in this post. The only exception is that I do give a small donation to Greenpeace every month." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6976" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="00366b06-6ef8-4f70-8710-983927ec086a" CreationDate="2014-07-30T07:56:56.217" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title" Text="How do I find an eco-friendly laptop?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6977" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="62367e4c-fa38-4dd6-9b3e-9bbc0d174384" CreationDate="2014-07-30T09:57:51.560" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/494421606031450112" />
  <row Id="6978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2928" RevisionGUID="00c8b4ce-5e64-409a-98ce-6f3a0860f3d6" CreationDate="2014-07-30T19:49:01.140" UserId="405" Text="I think it is also worth noting that as human population grows, significant ammounts of water are 'locked up' in the body itself. If the body is roughly 94% water by weight (a figure I've heard thrown around.. but you get the point), and the average person 150lbs, that is 141lbs of water per person on the planet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2929" RevisionGUID="1335dda2-e5f9-49fd-bd36-754adabb707b" CreationDate="2014-07-31T11:28:56.227" UserId="99" Text="First of all, if you really want to cook green you should buy neither and instead go for a solar oven or solar cooker (more info on this [on Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cooker)). However, if you live in a place where it is often cold and clouded then this isn't very practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, back to your question about ovens. There are two ways of looking at this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. How much energy and other resources are used to manufacture the oven&#xD;&#xA;  2. How much energy does the oven use when cooking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the first point; I don't know much about how ovens are manufactured. I suspect that the manufactering process isn't that different for the different types of ovens (electric, gas or steam), but I may be wrong. Perhaps someone else here can provide more information about this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Energy efficiency**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First thing to consider is the size of the oven. Bigger ovens tend to consume more energy, so it's important to buy just the right size for your needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The type of oven is more complicated; it's difficult to find evidence that a certain type of oven uses less energy than another.&#xD;&#xA;One of the few numbers I found is the following table in [this pdf about cooking efficiency for restaurants](http://www.aps-solutionsforbusiness.com/ProjectCenter/Portals/54/Cooking.pdf). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                                       | Cooking  | Energy&#xD;&#xA;    Cooking method                                     |efficiency| factor&#xD;&#xA;    -------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Microwave                                          |  57.5%   |  57.5%&#xD;&#xA;    Electric, self cleaning, convection                |  17.1%   |  13.4%&#xD;&#xA;    Electric, self cleaning                            |  13.9%   |  10.2%&#xD;&#xA;    Electric, standard                                 |  12.1%   |  10.9%&#xD;&#xA;    Gas, electric ignition, self cleaning, convection  |   8.7%   |   7.4%&#xD;&#xA;    Gas, electric ignition, self cleaning              |   7.1%   |   5.8%&#xD;&#xA;    Gas, electric ignition                             |   6.1%   |   5.8%&#xD;&#xA;    Gas, pilot light                                   |   5.9%   |   3.5%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Cooking efficiency is the fraction of the energy supplied to the unit that heats food&#xD;&#xA;    during a typical cooking cycle. Energy factor is the ratio of energy that is effectively&#xD;&#xA;    used to heat food to the total energy used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how exactly they drew up these numbers and if it also applies to home usage. Sadly, there is no information here about steam ovens. I've heard that steam ovens are more energy efficient than electric ovens, but the only references I can find at the moment are the claims of appliance manufacturers (e.g. [this one](http://newsroom.electrolux.com/uk/2010/08/30/cooking-with-steam-more-efficient-better-results/)) and they don't provide any proof for this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="63870cce-fb93-44f8-a424-f5ffb0fbd1b3" CreationDate="2014-07-31T11:52:43.497" UserId="99" Comment="removed that resomation is legal in the UK" Text="There are two alternatives that are more sustainable than traditional burials or cremation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [**Resomation** a.k.a Alkaline Hydrolysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resomation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Resomation is a patented process in which a body is broken down into its chemical components by placing it into a mixture of water and lye and then heating it at high pressure. This will desolved the soft tissue and make the bones porous, so they can be crushed afterwards. The resulting &quot;ash&quot; can then be returned to the next of kin.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    The advantage is that metals or toxic chemicals in the body (e.g. mercury used in tooth fillings)  can be separated and that this process reduces [emissions of greenhouse gases by approximately 35%](http://www.resomation.com/index_files/Page369.htm) compared to cremation. AFAIK it is legal only some states in the US and Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [**Cryomation** a.k.a promession](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promession)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    During cryomation a body is frozen solid by immersing it into liquid nitrogen. Then vibration or pressure is used to shatter the now brittle body. The remains are then placed in a vacuum and turned to powder. This powder can then be buried for further decomposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As with resomation, the benefits are lower CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and toxic emissions and the possibility to separate metals.&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK cryomation is legal only in Sweden, Scotland and South Korea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information about how sustainable these methods are can be found in [this report drawn up by a Dutch research institution in 2011](https://www.tno.nl/downloads/TNO%20report%20Environmental%20impact%20of%20different%20funeral%20technologies.pdf). Note that the results of this study are rather different compared to an earlier Dutch study performed in 2005. In that earlier study burial, cremation and resomation were considered more or less equivalent sustainability-wise, but cryomation was found to have a big environmental impact. The 2011 study uses different weighing factors; it includes recycling of metals and toxic chemicals (not included in the 2005 study), but it also uses a relatively big impact factor (perhaps bigger than necessary?) for ground use in burials. Also note that the exact numbers may be different in other countries, since they are based on funeral regulations and customs in the Netherlands (e.g. coffin required for burials)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3 other options that are sometimes mentioned as being more sustainable (than burial and cremation), but that AFAIK have never been researched as how sustainable they really are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [Sky burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial): a traditional Tibetan and Mongolian custom where a body is taken to a mountain top, cut into pieces and then fed to vultures or other birds of prey. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [Sea burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_at_sea): disposing a body into the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. [Natural burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_burial) a.k.a. green burial: like a traditional burial, but then with a biodegradable coffin or shroud, allowing the body to decompose quickly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final note; the 2005 study I mentioned earlier also found that the biggest environmental impact of funerals comes from the people who are driving (or flying?) there to attend ([source: this article in Dutch](http://www.groeneuitvaart.nl/page_1754.html)):&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2930" RevisionGUID="cedb80d2-2b32-49c5-a432-e1cb8dd99a6c" CreationDate="2014-07-31T12:44:32.923" UserId="1594" Text="I will be living in an unfurnished apartment for my final year of college. I'm a pretty handy guy with access to power tools and experience with designing my own basic (cheap) furniture. However, I'd love to save some money this year as I go to furnish my apartment by most any means possible (that are both sanitary and classy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll be looking to find or build chairs, a table or two, a TV stand, and a bed frame at a minimum. So far in college, my default furniture acquisition methods have been building with store-bought materials or buying IKEA style furniture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would you all recommend? If I want to be economical and eco-friendly, what types of places should I look to to buy materials or furniture? Is building my own bed frame with 2 x 6's actually sustainable, or is there a better solution out there I haven't yet considered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6982" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2930" RevisionGUID="cedb80d2-2b32-49c5-a432-e1cb8dd99a6c" CreationDate="2014-07-31T12:44:32.923" UserId="1594" Text="What are some ways to affordably furnish a temporary apartment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6983" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2930" RevisionGUID="cedb80d2-2b32-49c5-a432-e1cb8dd99a6c" CreationDate="2014-07-31T12:44:32.923" UserId="1594" Text="|reuse|building-materials|building|furniture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2931" RevisionGUID="95a69d8a-6aed-4a87-9502-fdc3f83ee5fc" CreationDate="2014-07-31T23:35:09.397" UserId="659" Text="Your best bet is already-made second hand furniture, both on environmental grounds and cost. I've been building my own furniture using basic DIY skills for quite a long time and it is rarely cheaper than Ikea-level new stuff. That's mostly because I can't bring myself to build with MDF or other cardboard-like materials, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your first choice should always be free stuff that people are giving or throwing away, balanced against the cost of moving it to your place. If you can arrange to be around a university town at the end of an academic year you can generally furnish your apartment just from stuff that's being thrown out nearby. But failing that freecycle, craigslist and so on are good sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For building things, I find that construction sites and especially demolition sites are great places to look around. Many of them are paying to have waste removed so if you unofficially steal it from the skip they can avoid paying to have it removed without being responsible for what you do with it. If you ask they may have to say no just for liability reasons. I have obtained a lot of useful stuff from skips over the years, and on smaller sites they're often very accessible (ie, on the street). Note that legally it's still theft in most jurisdictions but if you're white and well-spoken you're unlikely to have a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The health issues with **second hand mattresses** and soft furnishings mean that it's usually worthwhile either buying one off someone you know or just buying new. Since you seem to be at a university in the US midwest somewhere resistant bedbugs are possibly an issue, and if there's even a chance of those I'd buy a new mattress and bedding purely to avoid them. The same applies to fleas, unfortunately - if you see pet hair on a second hand couch it's worth avoiding it. At the very least take it home carefully, leave it outside until daylight then check it over when you can see what condition it's in. Getting rid of insecticide-resistant fleas or bedbugs is difficult, and often they will migrate into your clothes and apartment very quickly, meaning that once you touch it it's your problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Borer and termites in wooden furniture might also be a problem. It's worth buying a decent torch (easy these days) so you can investigate things on the side of the road before getting too excited about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, our apartment is largely furnished with stuff that is either second hand or home made. Most of the second hand stuff was free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One tip is to make your own bed base, so you can make it thinner and higher than standard. That gives you a lot more storage space under it than a normal bed has. You mentioned welding in one answer, and if you can weld an angle iron frame with flooring ply plate sitting in it has worked really well for us for several years now. It has 2&quot; angle with 1x2&quot; square tube welded underneath for strength (so there are only 4 legs on a king size bed) and it's got about 500mm of clear space underneath. Flooring ply for the joining strip and strength - the bed is 2m wide and ply comes in 1.2m wide sheets, so there care two pieces. Also, the legs must be unboltable or you can't move it (trust me on this). We have a long drawer on wheels that runs up the middle of the bed because otherwise there's a dead space in the middle of the bed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6985" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="71a3badb-1e03-483a-a70d-85d77f908af4" CreationDate="2014-08-01T06:45:54.200" UserId="99" Comment="changed title to better reflect the question" Text="Which funeral methods are more sustainable than burial or cremation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6986" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2918" RevisionGUID="71a3badb-1e03-483a-a70d-85d77f908af4" CreationDate="2014-08-01T06:45:54.200" UserId="99" Comment="changed title to better reflect the question" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2932" RevisionGUID="e1d43f14-fb2d-453e-9782-caa23432feeb" CreationDate="2014-08-01T10:14:33.600" UserId="99" Text="I found [this webpage](http://www.ems-europe.co.uk/services/domestic-tape-disc/) of a company in Bristol called &quot;Environmental Media Solutions&quot; where they say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Environmental Media Solutions are able to recycle 78% of tapes, 100% of CD’s and DVD’s and their cases, leaving just 22% being sent to waste to energy. The service is free of charge for households and is subsidised through the revenues made from our B2B services, though unfortunately we can’t cover postage or shipping costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [this form](http://www.ems-europe.co.uk/wp-content/documents/Domestic_Disposal_Form.pdf) they say the first 100 VCR tapes are free, after that they charge £0.30+VAT per unit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2933" RevisionGUID="3e6d6515-0323-4244-be8c-26fa066e84d8" CreationDate="2014-08-01T18:34:43.943" UserId="1606" Text="I never had any luck in creating a sourdough starter, but the dried flakes I got from Friends of Carl served me well for a year. I dried it into flakes when I temporarily stopped baking, and was not able to revive the starter, though that may have been due to the whole-house heat treatment for bedbugs. Note that sourdough starter can contain several species of yeasts (not just *Saccharomyces cerevisiae*) and *Lactobacillus.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6990" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2930" RevisionGUID="f2c86a85-c021-4413-8c11-a713ddd50bf8" CreationDate="2014-08-03T09:58:45.960" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/495871385768845312" />
  <row Id="6991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="7a798188-2c04-43d5-a3fd-62363598ca89" CreationDate="2014-08-03T17:18:45.280" UserId="1610" Text="You must read The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Kieth:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bookdepository.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Lierre-Keith/9781604860801&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an excellent book, well cited and rich in information, presenting a factual viewpoint that my vegetarian-of-17-years self had to stand up and take notice of. Such a complicated topic, this book really opened my eyes. Needless to say i am no longer a vegetarian. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6992" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="81" RevisionGUID="20474618-ac8a-430e-a00f-714a65965af4" CreationDate="2014-08-04T13:00:34.833" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/496279528713760768" />
  <row Id="6993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2935" RevisionGUID="12a4cede-8cef-44ee-ac7c-9df1edb4c667" CreationDate="2014-08-05T16:43:21.583" UserId="1578" Text="I know that tea tree oil is poisonous when ingested, just like you said, but it is also toxic for animals upon contact. It must go into the blood stream by penetrating the skin. Because it exists in the composition of insect-repellents and plant fungicids, I presume that it is toxic to insects too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are discussions at the European Union parliament as to ban tea tree oil, or as to ban products that contain a high concentration of it. New studies think that over-using it may cause hormonal damage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But everything I read concerning its toxicity or danger talked about dosage. Are you sure the bottle you bought contains 100% tea tree oil? What country is the oil from? Sometimes, the same plant but from another country actually has a different chemical composition. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2936" RevisionGUID="a09245d9-ac58-424c-81b9-5ad9bdc0a218" CreationDate="2014-08-05T17:03:04.377" UserId="1470" Text="City/Rural Relationship&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - High concentration of humans and low concentration of agriculture that are largely fed by areas outside the city that are very low in human population but are very high in agriculture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Lots of humans together means that there are a lot of commonalities between them and so they can share the energy burden (public transport, shared climate in apartments, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Lack of space typically will mean a lack of gardens/storage so that a lot of things will have to be transported from somewhere else to be used/consumed by the population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Nearly all Plants and Animals, with the exception of small animals and some trees, are completely removed from the population's living area and instead live within areas of agriculture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suburban/Rural Relationship&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The population needs a significantly larger area per person area than the City/Rural Relationship and only slightly less rural area for food production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Humans are still living densely enough to use some of the energy sharing techniques enjoyed by the City/Rural Relationship (public transportation, close proximity to day-to-day activities, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Because of the increased living space in suburbia there is often space for people to have gardens and other larger operations that can decrease the need for rural farm land and food transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - More diverse plants and animals can live in the suburbs with the human population. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rural/Rural Relationship&#xD;&#xA;=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Medium concentration of humans mixed in with a medium concentration of agriculture. More space is needed for living than in the Suburban/Rural Relationship but not as much space is needed for Agriculture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Humans are no longer living densely enough to take advantage of the energy sharing benefits of the City/Rural Relationship and will often have to travel relatively long distances for their day-to-day activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Large gardens/animal farming operations can take place on an individual scale significantly reducing the need for external food, however, the need will still remain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Nearly all animals and plants, with the exception of very large animals, can live within the human population. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2936" RevisionGUID="a09245d9-ac58-424c-81b9-5ad9bdc0a218" CreationDate="2014-08-05T17:03:04.377" UserId="1470" Text="What kind of population-to-agriculture relationship is the most sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2936" RevisionGUID="a09245d9-ac58-424c-81b9-5ad9bdc0a218" CreationDate="2014-08-05T17:03:04.377" UserId="1470" Text="|energy|city-living|transport|planning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6997" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2936" RevisionGUID="85aeb78e-a2d5-4e3f-8805-db4682005689" CreationDate="2014-08-05T19:03:24.263" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/496733224291561472" />
  <row Id="6998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2937" RevisionGUID="01cb9a8d-a5bb-40bf-a4a9-0a7179de3dcf" CreationDate="2014-08-06T01:31:08.610" UserId="1614" Text="I am somewhat biased.  The Chromebook lines are extremely low battery usage and typically built from low-end hardware which is cheaper to manufacture and has less environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as labor practices, the Samsung Chromebooks are assembled in Japan.  The Acer Chromebooks are assembled in Taiwan.  Both countries have relatively good records for labor practices and fair pay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google has extensive initiatives to reduce their GHG impact and has invested something like a billion dollars in solar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="6999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2938" RevisionGUID="a8bed7fd-91b0-4ec9-9b5d-467e7761044d" CreationDate="2014-08-06T02:17:45.760" UserId="1614" Text="I had a painful full-body hives reaction to Tea Tree Oil when applied topically. I suppose this was an allergic reaction or some kind of hyper-sensativity.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there has been some research indicating tea tree oil is an endocrine disruptor, even when applied topically, which means it has unpredictable effects on the human hormone system. (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa064725) Definitely, don't use it in your house if you have kids. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative might be borax, which is available in bulk as a laundry detergent in most grocery stores. Borax also has anti-fungal properties and can be used safely as a cleaning agent.  Chemically, Borax is just a salt and has no known impact on humans (although it still shouldn't be taken internally). It can be used as a house cleaning agent or laundry detergent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2939" RevisionGUID="9a4d2da1-6c38-44a5-8c58-2ac9ab5c2bce" CreationDate="2014-08-06T02:30:52.903" UserId="1614" Text="In traditional homebrewing, the yeast was derived from natural sources, such as the unwashed fruit rinds or skins.  Since store-bought fruit comes pre-washed, this won't work quite as well today. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another source of yeast for homebrewing is simply using a starter.  After a batch has finished fermenting, transfer about half a cup of the (unsterilized, undistilled) completed batch to the next batch.  If you have a bad batch, obviously, don't try to re-use it as a starter; discard the whole batch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2940" RevisionGUID="79b079e0-307e-48a9-9299-2f45cb971eaa" CreationDate="2014-08-06T02:47:06.753" UserId="1614" Text="I lived in the tropics for a year. The three repellants that seem to work well are either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Permetherin - a common insecticide and repellant.  It's safe enough to use on your clothes and camping gear, but not directly on skin.  It's also effective as a general insecticide around the house. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Citronella incense - very easy to get a hold of and it'll keep your house clear of mosquitoes as long as it's burning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) DEET - the most common active ingredient in commercial insect repellants. It can be bought in a variety of concentrations, upto 100%, but anything above  5% is plenty to ward off mosquitoes in my experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't found any homeopathic or natural insect repellants that have any effect at all.  Slather it on and 2 minutes later, mosquitos are landing right on top of it. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2941" RevisionGUID="27e2f58c-3420-409d-ba65-b211a3680c24" CreationDate="2014-08-06T03:12:52.500" UserId="1614" Text="As for mattresses, I personally find air mattresses an excellent substitute. They are easy to move, dirt cheap, and a well-made air mattress will last for 6 to 12 months if you don't abuse it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also find bean-bag chairs and end tables for around $10 each at IKEA. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2938" RevisionGUID="6ca71333-2678-4321-a392-c9641028bfd6" CreationDate="2014-08-06T03:28:32.413" UserId="1614" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="I had a painful full-body hives reaction to Tea Tree Oil when applied topically. I suppose this was an allergic reaction or some kind of hyper-sensativity.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, there has been some research indicating tea tree oil is an endocrine disruptor, even when applied topically, which means it has unpredictable effects on the human hormone system. (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa064725) Definitely, don't use it in your house if you have kids. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative might be borax, which is available in bulk as a laundry detergent in most grocery stores. Borax also has anti-fungal properties and can be used safely as a cleaning agent.  Chemically, Borax is just a salt and has no known impact on humans (although it still shouldn't be taken internally). It is also an insecticide, sometimes used to treat wood to protect against both mold and termites. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2927" RevisionGUID="fc741dca-7757-48a9-818d-7a52f891c22f" CreationDate="2014-08-06T08:07:47.910" UserId="99" Comment="added part that Greenpeace isn't going to update their guide anytime soon" Text="There are 3 websites I recommend visiting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. **[Rankabrand.org](http://rankabrand.org)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This site rankes brands of all kinds of products, [including electronics](http://www.rankabrand.org/electronics). &#xD;&#xA;  Rankings are based on all information that can be found on a company's website and in their annual reports. Rankabrand assesses brands on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;   their environmental performances, climate change efforts and labour conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If no information is present on a particular topic, the brand gets 0 points so it is indirectly ranking transparency as well. A drawback is that small companies/brands are often not included. Also a ranking is for the company/brand as a whole so not specific for a product type such as laptops. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. **[Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/cool-it/Campaign-analysis/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/)**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This site is similar to Rankabrand.org, but only for electronics and Greenpeace does use a different rating mechanism. They only include&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Energy and Climate, Greener Products, and Sustainable Operations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  in their calculations. Labour conditions and other social responsibilities are not included. The Greenpeace list does include one or two smaller companies, but still not the very small ones. Unfortunately the site hasn't been updated for a while (last update was November 2012)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  3. **[Conflict minerals company rankings](http://www.raisehopeforcongo.org/content/conflict-minerals-company-rankings)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This site rates the largest electronics companies on their usage of what they call &quot;conflict-free&quot; minerals in their products.&#xD;&#xA;  I'm not sure how accurate the list still is, the last update was in August 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the 3 lists you'll see that HP is the only company that is in the top 5 on all 3 lists. Apple does score better on the latest Rankabrand rating (done a few months ago), but not on the other two lists. I'm not sure why that is, it could be that they improved their production process recently. Nokia also scores relatively good on Rankabrand and Greenpeace, but less so on conflict-minerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I have no affiliation with any of the sites or brands mentioned in this post. The only exception is that I do give a small donation to Greenpeace every month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**: I've emailed Greenpeace and asked if they are going to update their guide. Their reponse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... Greenpeace will not be producing a Guide to Greener Electronics in 2014. If you are looking for updated information regarding the purchasing of green electronics please try the EPEAT registry: http://www.epeat.net/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EPEAT site certainly looks interesting, but I haven't looked at it carefully yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="407" RevisionGUID="fbb235ca-c224-47a7-8fb3-c9905400ddc4" CreationDate="2014-08-07T12:03:25.913" UserId="99" Comment="fixed two typos" Text="Compost heaps tend to have a lot of bugs. Most of them are good, they help in the decomposition process. &#xD;&#xA;However, when there are too many of one specific type you might want to take measures. The appropriate measures depend on the type of bug that is dominant. Most often the heap is too wet (damp is good, soggy is not), too compact and/or has not enough browns. The result is a sour-smelling bin and a lot of flies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Fruitflies**: heap is too wet, if possible turn over the heap to help aerate it, then add a dry layer of browns on top (e.g. shredded cardboard boxes or newspapers). Do not add new material until the problem is reduced.&#xD;&#xA; - **Maggots/houseflies**: either too wet or too much meat or fish on the heap, take the same measures as with fruitflies but also make sure that all animal products are buried well within the heap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Covering existing air holes with a fine mesh will prevent (or at least reduce the number of) unwanted insects from entering the bin in the future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7006" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="405" RevisionGUID="0b136405-4098-4f5a-aadb-ddbf268b5a24" CreationDate="2014-08-07T12:04:28.583" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|composting|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2942" RevisionGUID="194bec71-a121-4983-9bd3-06635cb3f70f" CreationDate="2014-08-07T15:01:14.193" UserId="253" Text="Yes, many tuning stations offer a range of options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most popular is to offer power upgrades, usually at the expense of fuel economy, for example improving fuel/air/compression balance at low speeds for high acceleration, or altering tuning at high revs to increase top speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the tuning techniques to improve fuel consumption is to alter your car's mapping to give a much flatter torque curve, this allows a driver to control the fuel usage, and manage predictable gear shifts earlier than they otherwise would (short-shifting)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality, though, you can get the same (or better) gains from just changing your driving style. Coasting, short-shifting, avoiding braking where possible, limiting your top speed, over pressuring your tyres etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7008" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2936" RevisionGUID="4e217701-feea-421a-ad14-2cc4b38fb5fd" CreationDate="2014-08-08T06:50:45.753" UserId="99" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7009" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2507" RevisionGUID="2730316e-f49e-44cf-a450-0253a098ce42" CreationDate="2014-08-08T06:56:43.390" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|plastic|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7010" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2509" RevisionGUID="21b5ce61-9a03-41e2-b27a-19d052f552f7" CreationDate="2014-08-08T06:58:09.030" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|plastic|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7011" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="bf954865-7983-4f72-bf8d-dd8f7b34303e" CreationDate="2014-08-08T07:26:38.500" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|toxic-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="2ec2bf39-9892-4e21-abce-fa56c4de7e0c" CreationDate="2014-08-08T08:14:12.553" UserId="99" Comment="heat tag is now synonym for heating, added reference to energy-efficiency tag; added 1 character in body" Text="the sustainable use of energy, through efficiency and renewables. Use this tag for questions on energy in general. For questions on a specific energy type see [electricity] or [heating]. For questions specificially about efficiency use [energy-efficiency]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="fa63a6c4-9e55-41f3-a25f-a2fbf2758274" CreationDate="2014-08-09T01:50:28.637" UserId="330" Text="Photovoltaic panels can have 20 or 25 year underwritten warranties with a guaranteed remaining efficiency of 80 % of the new panel. That means, that photovoltaic panels seem to degrade somehow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Why do they degrade? What exactly is reducing their efficiency?&#xD;&#xA; 2. How can this process of degrading be slowed down? E.g. if you don’t need your PV panels, is it possible to conserve them by covering them with a black, opaque coverage like tarp? If not, what else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7014" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="fa63a6c4-9e55-41f3-a25f-a2fbf2758274" CreationDate="2014-08-09T01:50:28.637" UserId="330" Text="reason for degradation of photovoltaics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7015" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="fa63a6c4-9e55-41f3-a25f-a2fbf2758274" CreationDate="2014-08-09T01:50:28.637" UserId="330" Text="|photovoltaics|durability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2944" RevisionGUID="32c84fea-180d-4a9d-b34e-6087d418d2ff" CreationDate="2014-08-09T09:14:28.667" UserId="48" Text="The rate and types of degradation differ a bit depending on the panels. Common to all types is water ingress within the panel itself, causing corrosion of the wiring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Monocrystalline silicon** (aka mono-Si) is very stable, chemically and mechanically; so, to a slightly lesser extent, is polycrystalline silicon (aka multi-Si). The individual cells can have the encapsulant stripped off, and then be used in a new module. That gives a clue as to where part of the degradation is: the encapsulant gets scuffed and marked, reducing its transparency, meaning less light reaches the cells. You can occasionally get cracking across some cells as well, either through violent mechanical disruption or thermal stress - high rapid changes in temperature causing differential changes in size of cell and surrounding materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thin film panels** seem more prone to higher rates (&gt; 1% per year) of degradation, and this is in part due to chemical changes in the PV material itself. Back in the 1990s, amorphous silicon panels were expected to have quite short life times, experiencing significant degradation in less than ten years. That seems to have improved since 2000. Here's a chart from Jordan &amp; Kurtz 2012 on reported annual performance degradation rates, by type of panel, for installations pre and post 2000:![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more, see [PV Education on panel degradation][2], and [this pdf of NREL's analytic study of PV degradation (Jordan &amp; Kurtz 2012)][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Economics**: going out of your way to reduce the very slow rate of degradation is generally not worth it, given the ongoing cost reductions, and the increasing availability of panel recycling. And even if a panel at 80% of its output isn't as much use to you, it could well be to someone else, so you may be able to find someone else to reuse it, postponing the time when it is recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If a panel really isn't going to be used for a while**, you could consider arranging for it to be away from large temperature changes, closed off from water and water vapour, and protected from mechanical impacts such as bird strikes and hail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in general, **there are things you can do to extend the performance and life of your system**. Avoid heavy mechanical stress on the panel. Clean the surface every six months or so; don't ues a scourer; avoid anything which might causing browning of the surface. Ideally, just use a soft damp cloth to wipe the surface. Attach bird spikes to the top edges of the panels if there's a recurring issue of birds defecating on the panel surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gYtU4.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/modules/degradation-and-failure-modes&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="d82087d3-fa10-4cb8-bdce-d3e4b196f0d6" CreationDate="2014-08-10T16:56:55.220" UserId="1013" Text="I noticed my pet food back has a recycling symbol with a new number in it, #81:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Package with #81 recycling symbol][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only resource I've found about this symbol is the [Wikipedia page on recycling codes][2], which describes it as Paper/Plastic composite material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dose anywhere in the US recycle this material? Is there any more information about this (new?) recycling category?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cTkZA.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_codes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7019" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="d82087d3-fa10-4cb8-bdce-d3e4b196f0d6" CreationDate="2014-08-10T16:56:55.220" UserId="1013" Text="Where can I recycle #8 (or #81) composite materials?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7020" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="d82087d3-fa10-4cb8-bdce-d3e4b196f0d6" CreationDate="2014-08-10T16:56:55.220" UserId="1013" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7021" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="3eae87c5-b6a6-4d2e-8297-13844a2c539b" CreationDate="2014-08-11T01:29:39.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/498642366421803009" />
  <row Id="7022" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="42c320b5-52f0-4d03-9024-13ee341ca9b4" CreationDate="2014-08-11T04:29:39.367" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/498687665630609408" />
  <row Id="7023" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1195" RevisionGUID="ed14b08e-87fd-4566-8162-8589d0a9fbd0" CreationDate="2014-08-11T11:21:08.170" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|repair|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2946" RevisionGUID="079fe85e-8d93-4d43-8aa0-c42f24a4035d" CreationDate="2014-08-11T12:45:58.807" UserId="99" Text="I know that spray polyurethane foam is difficult to remove and separate from other building materials. Also, dust particules containing toxins can be released when applying or removing it. What is a greener and healthier alternative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know for insulation purposes there are good alternatives such as cotton/denim insulation or mineral wool, but I'm actually looking for a material that can be sprayed or glued on and is fairly strong when hardened. Any insulation value is a bonus, but not strictly required. Does something like this exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7025" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2946" RevisionGUID="079fe85e-8d93-4d43-8aa0-c42f24a4035d" CreationDate="2014-08-11T12:45:58.807" UserId="99" Text="Is there a green alternative for spray polyurethane foam?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7026" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2946" RevisionGUID="079fe85e-8d93-4d43-8aa0-c42f24a4035d" CreationDate="2014-08-11T12:45:58.807" UserId="99" Text="|diy|building-materials|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7027" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2946" RevisionGUID="38d65074-4494-4a71-8ad9-606a549937dd" CreationDate="2014-08-11T22:29:44.550" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/498959478239535104" />
  <row Id="7028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="bfde6545-828d-43d5-bca1-1fb6a8527d13" CreationDate="2014-08-12T06:18:36.870" UserId="421" Text="So, is driving and EV actually sustainable? Does it not matter *how* the actual power/energy was created? Does this matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just don't see how much of a difference it actually makes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7029" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="bfde6545-828d-43d5-bca1-1fb6a8527d13" CreationDate="2014-08-12T06:18:36.870" UserId="421" Text="Is buying an electric vehicle like the Tesla model S considered more sustainable by the mere fact that it runs on batteries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7030" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="bfde6545-828d-43d5-bca1-1fb6a8527d13" CreationDate="2014-08-12T06:18:36.870" UserId="421" Text="|transport|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="6668308a-4539-4fd4-b097-577ad3941986" CreationDate="2014-08-12T13:02:18.117" UserId="48" Text="**short answer: yes, it's better than driving a fossil-fuel car.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: it may seem to make less sense if you only consider a very small range of impacts, where all of the costs are visible, but only some of the benefits. Only when you zoom out to the long-term system level do you capture all of the benefits. And there are even better alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###carbon in motion&#xD;&#xA;Even if the extra electricity is provided by coal, an electric vehicle is so much more efficient than a fossil car, that there will carbon savings: electric cars are typically 80-90% efficient, compared to about 20% for a fossil car. So even with a coal plant at 33% efficiency, there' still a carbon saving from the electric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###embodied energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric vehicles tend to be lighter, too (except the Rolls Royce Electric Phantom), so there can be lower impact on materials for the chassis.  The batteries are materials-intensive; they are currently so valuable that a lot of attention is paid to end-of-life reuse and recycling of the materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###big picture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric vehicles can help with the market penetration of exogenously-variable renewables such as wind and PV. They release some of the stranglehold that oil companies have on the economy and politics. They make for quieter streets, and quieter car journeys. They eliminate the local pollution from car exhausts (tail pipes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###bigger picture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patterns both of car ownership and use have changed hugely in the last 4 decades. And the change in the 4 decades before that was huge too. 4 decades is enough for really big changes in transport patterns. For several reasons. It's 1.5-2 generations, giving plenty of time for cultural attitudes to shift.  It's long enough for disruptive technological innovations to gain big market share. And it's long enough for a sufficient amount of land-use to be reshaped around new transport patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current car ownership doesn't make a lot of sense, from lots of perspectives. Most cars spend almost all their time stationary. Quite a lot of dwellings have different cars for different purposes. Most cars are able to drive hundreds of miles on a single refuelling, but very rarely if ever do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible we will see completely different patterns of ownership in the future, with various different forms of shared ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also possible that the growing obesity epidemic in parts of the developed world, the internalising of negative externalities into energy prices, and a better public understanding of the prerequisites for and importance of a vibrant public realm, lead to a resurgence in walking and cycling, negating the need for a big proportion of current car ownership and use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7032" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="0f0fbf4e-9d5a-43c3-8f1d-76144b849b31" CreationDate="2014-08-12T13:29:44.187" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/499185969195937792" />
  <row Id="7034" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="f406d683-d478-442b-a172-2bcfb3d49dc0" CreationDate="2014-08-12T22:06:07.067" UserId="659" Comment="shortened the title because it was very long and not really a great way to phrase what seems like quite a good question and it did go on a bit" Text="Is an electric vehicle like the Tesla Model S more sustainable just because it runs on batteries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7035" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="0056ab7a-0d58-4968-8f40-417e79467c95" CreationDate="2014-08-13T08:37:52.747" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[612],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7036" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9" RevisionGUID="47522c6d-5a21-4994-a96a-4b676002318b" CreationDate="2014-08-13T10:35:23.573" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/499504482011873280" />
  <row Id="7037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="613" RevisionGUID="b7573911-a601-4f9e-b393-5f2deeb88305" CreationDate="2014-08-13T17:34:44.797" UserId="48" Comment="merged in the things  I wrote on the duplicate question" Text="EVs offer some definite advantages, and lots of advantages that depend on the specifics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**short answer: yes, it's better than driving a fossil-fuel car.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: it may seem to make less sense if you only consider a very small range of impacts, where all of the costs are visible, but only some of the benefits. Only when you zoom out to the long-term system level do you capture all of the benefits. And there are even better alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of their quantified advantages over petrol (gasoline) &amp; diesel, it will depend on just how your electricity is generated, and what the full lifecycle costs are of each vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###carbon in motion&#xD;&#xA;Even if the extra electricity is provided by coal, an electric vehicle is so much more efficient than a fossil car, that there will carbon savings: electric cars are typically 80-90% efficient, compared to about 20% for a fossil car. So even with a coal plant at 33% efficiency, there' still a carbon saving from the electric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They definitely reduce local pollution - unlike fossil cars, they don't emit NOx, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, CO or particulates.  And they are much easier to decarbonise than fossil cars - they just need renewable electricity to recharge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I wrote [over on skeptics.SE][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars are about 4x as efficient as fossil-fuelled combustion engines, tank-to-wheel: [ICE engine efficiency][1] is around 20%. Electric engines tend to be [around 80-90%][2].  For the whole-cycle energy-efficiency, then well-to-wheel would be the efficiency you were after, and then it would be very sensitive to how your electricity would be generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that pretty much all electric cars benefit from regenerative braking, and very few fossil-cars do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficiencies do depend on the drive cycle: and whereas ICEs tend to be optimised for speeds around 85km/h, the efficiency of electric cars decreases with increasing speed, just as the core physics would lead you to expect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[(source)][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on efficiencies power-station to wheel of electric vehicles, see the [US Gov Fuel Economy][6] site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###embodied energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chassis of an electric vehicle is usually lighter, too (except the Rolls Royce Electric Phantom), so there can be lower impact on materials for the chassis.  The batteries are materials-intensive; they are currently so valuable that a lot of attention is paid to end-of-life reuse and recycling of the materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###big picture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric vehicles can help with the market penetration of exogenously-variable renewables such as wind and PV. They release some of the stranglehold that oil companies have on the economy and politics. They make for quieter streets, and quieter car journeys. They eliminate the local pollution from car exhausts (tail pipes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in general, yes, electric cars are a significant improvement over their fossil-fuel guzzling competitors. I've seen no evidence that the batteries end up at a landfill after just 3 years of life - that seems to be a bizarre and unsupported claim.  Such a practice would not be remotely sustainable. I have seen evidence that some manufactures are seeking to recover the batteries: presently, at least here in the UK, a lot of electric-car suppliers are leasing, rather than selling, the batteries, which means that they'll go back to the manufacturer at the end of their life for complete recycling. After all, a dead battery contains all the ingredients needed to make a brand-new battery - the thing that needs doing, is reversing all the decay chemistry, which is just a question of energy inputs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###bigger picture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patterns both of car ownership and use have changed hugely in the last 4 decades. And the change in the 4 decades before that was huge too. 4 decades is enough for really big changes in transport patterns. For several reasons. It's 1.5-2 generations, giving plenty of time for cultural attitudes to shift.  It's long enough for disruptive technological innovations to gain big market share. And it's long enough for a sufficient amount of land-use to be reshaped around new transport patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current car ownership doesn't make a lot of sense, from lots of perspectives. Most cars spend almost all their time stationary. Quite a lot of dwellings have different cars for different purposes. Most cars are able to drive hundreds of miles on a single refuelling, but very rarely if ever do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible we will see completely different patterns of ownership in the future, with various different forms of shared ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also possible that the growing obesity epidemic in parts of the developed world, the internalising of negative externalities into energy prices, and a better public understanding of the prerequisites for and importance of a vibrant public realm, lead to a resurgence in walking and cycling, negating the need for a big proportion of current car ownership and use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://courses.washington.edu/me341/oct22v2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.claverton-energy.com/?dl_name=nazisharks1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9tHTr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/15013/6236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="4fadd5fe-1b73-4fce-9014-59be3d378d86" CreationDate="2014-08-13T17:48:16.663" UserId="1630" Text="How can I take advantage of freezing winter cold to cool my servers without exposing them to humidity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7039" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="4fadd5fe-1b73-4fce-9014-59be3d378d86" CreationDate="2014-08-13T17:48:16.663" UserId="1630" Text="Taking advantage of winter cold" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7040" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="4fadd5fe-1b73-4fce-9014-59be3d378d86" CreationDate="2014-08-13T17:48:16.663" UserId="1630" Text="|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2950" RevisionGUID="3cdc2161-2b10-4ec1-962d-8da43487e702" CreationDate="2014-08-13T21:53:13.740" UserId="659" Text="That may be as easy as turning off the humidifier or blocking it from the room that the servers are in. If you've got a central heating system just blocking the vent(s) and returns for that and slightly opening a window will give you a slow transition. How much outside air you need depends on how many servers you have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that your next problem may well be the lack of thermal insulation between the server room and the rest of the building. If the server room is at a comfy 1°C and someone in the next room is trying to stay above 10°C, the thin, uninsulated internal wall between the rooms will do little more than stop the draft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you just have a server rack in a room normally they are designed to be sealed off to some extent so you can can pipe cold air through them. Rigging up some ductwork from an outside window to the bottom of that rack, and more from the top back out would be the next best thing. But again, you will possibly want to insulate the rack and ducts so you're not sucking heat out of the building. With a little thought about the duct runs you should be able to keep water and snow out of the servers - mostly make sure that ducts enter the room then go up a metre or so, rather than straight to the server.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you are already using heat pumps to cool the server room, you're better off making sure that the hot side of the heat pumps has a good supply out cold outside air (this sounds obvious but is often not done).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if you're trying to heat the building all of this will just push your heating costs up. Right now your servers are part of the heating system, so while you might want them to run cooler, doing that at the expense of losing building heat is going to cost someone money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7042" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="ef26b20f-b597-469f-8c1a-c382d9d21736" CreationDate="2014-08-13T22:35:23.363" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/499685675072245761" />
  <row Id="7043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2951" RevisionGUID="694fecee-4645-420e-afdc-c03d475e779e" CreationDate="2014-08-14T05:15:08.223" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="I've had the epiphany that my body is a living vessel of energy production (*and* consumption), just like all other energy sources and associated forms of consumption or re-allocation around me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any sustainability considerations when thinking about how I expend or use energy from my body, whether in the form of harnessing kinetic energy, heat, or other forms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there no significant consequence to how we use our own bodies' energy from a sustainability point of view?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is of course healthy for our own bodies, to expend energy (i.e. to exercise), and no doubt more sustainable to use our *own* energy to power production of other things (like transport in the way of riding a bike instead of burning fuel, so long as what we ate was more sustainable to produce than the fuel we might consume in an automobile).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what further ways can one use one's own body energy wisely, and what principles can one apply to put this into practice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some advantage in being mindful of *not taking* too much energy into your body in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps eating more efficiently (energy absorption-wise, in terms of good diet for nutrient, protein and carbohydrate absorption rates, including getting good sleep), be an important factor here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2951" RevisionGUID="694fecee-4645-420e-afdc-c03d475e779e" CreationDate="2014-08-14T05:15:08.223" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="How can I think about ways to use my own body energy more sustainably?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2951" RevisionGUID="694fecee-4645-420e-afdc-c03d475e779e" CreationDate="2014-08-14T05:15:08.223" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2951" RevisionGUID="939d2586-5230-47c1-b100-9a88df7602e1" CreationDate="2014-08-14T23:10:59.227" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="added 548 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I've had the epiphany that my body is a living vessel of energy production (*and* consumption), just like all other energy sources and associated forms of consumption or re-allocation around me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My body produces sometimes a huge amount of energy (in one form or another - [kinetic][1], [heat][2], even [electrical][3]), but it's not being put to use to power other things and quite a bit of energy wastage is often occurring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there no significant consequence to how we use our own bodies' generated energy from a resources sustainability point of view, or are there considerations one can put into use in terms of harnessing one's own body energy for external consumption?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is of course healthy for our own bodies, to expend energy (i.e. to exercise), and no doubt more sustainable to use our *own* energy to power production of other things (like transport in the way of riding a bike instead of burning fuel, so long as what we ate was more sustainable to produce than the fuel we might consume in an automobile).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what further ways can one use one's own body energy wisely, and what principles / themes can one explore to put this into practice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some advantage in being mindful of *not taking* too much energy into your body in the first place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps eating more efficiently (energy absorption-wise, in terms of good diet for nutrient, protein and carbohydrate absorption rates, including getting good sleep), be an important factor here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/161079-kinetic-energy-harvesting-everyday-human-activity-could-power-the-internet-of-things&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/07/nanotech-body-heat-technology-breakthroughs-devices.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/human-body-make-electricity.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7047" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2951" RevisionGUID="939d2586-5230-47c1-b100-9a88df7602e1" CreationDate="2014-08-14T23:10:59.227" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="added 548 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|ecological-footprint|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2951" RevisionGUID="bb445cd5-0e97-4515-b6b7-e893855ce4cc" CreationDate="2014-08-14T23:24:54.577" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="added 548 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I've had the epiphany that my body is a living vessel of energy production (*and* consumption), just like all other energy sources and associated forms of consumption or re-allocation around me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My body produces sometimes a huge amount of energy (in one form or another - [kinetic][1], [heat][2] - even [electrical][3]), but it's not being put to use for other things a lot of the time and quite a bit of energy wastage is occurring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there no significant consequence to *how* we use our bodies' own generated energy - from a resources sustainability point of view - or are there considerations one can put into use in terms of harnessing one's body energy for external power consumption purposes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is of course healthy for our own bodies, to expend energy (i.e. to exercise), and no doubt more sustainable to use our *own* energy to power production of other things like transport (in the way of riding a bike instead of burning fuel, so long as what we ate was more sustainable to produce than the fuel we would consume in the automobile).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what other ways can one use one's own body energy wisely, and in general what principles / themes can one explore to put it into practice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there even some advantage in being mindful of *not taking in* too much energy (coming into your body) in the first place? (I.e., not consuming too much biomass resource in the first place?) And to extend that, maybe even more mindful diet and lifestyle (*eating* more efficiently energy absorption-wise, i.e. having a smart diet for better nutrient, protein and carbohydrate absorption rates, as well as getting good sleep and probably better-balanced exercise), is a relevant factor here? (A poor diet and lifestyle meaning you are a poorer - i.e. less efficient - medium of energy production/consumption?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/161079-kinetic-energy-harvesting-everyday-human-activity-could-power-the-internet-of-things&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/07/nanotech-body-heat-technology-breakthroughs-devices.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-system/human-body-make-electricity.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7049" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2951" RevisionGUID="bb445cd5-0e97-4515-b6b7-e893855ce4cc" CreationDate="2014-08-14T23:24:54.577" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="added 548 characters in body; edited tags" Text="How can I use my own body's energy for greater environmental sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7050" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2951" RevisionGUID="6f46d044-e541-4c98-bc1a-3fa34b2198b9" CreationDate="2014-08-14T23:40:24.097" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="edited title" Text="How can I use my own body as an energy source for greater environmental sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7051" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2951" RevisionGUID="86c46c62-abd7-4baf-bc0b-897620dceb9d" CreationDate="2014-08-15T01:36:40.523" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/500093685032579072" />
  <row Id="7052" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="833b598c-d042-430e-9a49-88a9436d52e6" CreationDate="2014-08-15T06:53:30.563" UserId="99" Comment="improved question, added green-it tag" Text="How can I take advantage of winter cold to cool servers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7053" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2949" RevisionGUID="833b598c-d042-430e-9a49-88a9436d52e6" CreationDate="2014-08-15T06:53:30.563" UserId="99" Comment="improved question, added green-it tag" Text="|cooling|green-it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2952" RevisionGUID="52aa8900-ff8b-4e0d-977c-eeb892cacc41" CreationDate="2014-08-15T16:31:45.233" UserId="1634" Text="Some years ago I rented a house that had a wood burning fire place in the rear of the home it was a fairly smart layout as the fireplace was in the family room and there was a 3 step up area to the kitchen then small raise in each ceiling as you went through the home then the stairway going up to the bedrooms in the front of the home this allowed heat to rise then flow from room to room while new cooler air would sink and slowly move back to the room being heated.. The rear where the fire place was would still get to hot when we tried to heat most the home using the fire place even with a fair amount of brick built in around the fireplace.&#xD;&#xA;My solution at the time was a cheap temporary fix, we had a couch and love seat along 2 of the walls in the family room and by moving them out less than 4 inches more from the wall I started to save round 3 liter bottled water bottles we bough a fair amount of for the water itself.. they would stack on top of one another so I started lining the wall behind the love seat and couch with them stacked 2 high and by the time I was finished filling the area with refilled water bottles The temperature would stay reasonable an extra 4+ hours after the fire went out and we didn't feel over heated like we did before adding them to the room so we could run the fireplace all day if we wanted then let it go out and maintain a decent temperature most the night.. All cheap and hidden out of site and with the weight distributed.. added bonus was the dogs could no longer hide behind the couch which we was trying to break them from anyway.. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2953" RevisionGUID="2cc8ab44-52f0-416d-8482-a9072a2ab98e" CreationDate="2014-08-16T18:16:31.370" UserId="1636" Text="Here is a helpful and more general listing for athletic shoes:  http://www.recycledrunners.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Portland, OR also has a shoe recycling program for non-athletic shoes, although you cannot include them in your curbside bin you can bring them to Far West Fibers recycling centers.  So it seems worth checking with your local recycling center to see if they are also accepting shoes.  If not, get some friends to together and write letters to the retailers where you shop, asking them to start accepting shoes for recycling.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2952" RevisionGUID="28336237-17f3-4440-b9af-c1b6ac938b8f" CreationDate="2014-08-17T06:49:35.190" UserId="99" Comment="fixed punctuation and some typos" Text="Some years ago I rented a house that had a wood burning fire place in the rear of the home. It was a fairly smart layout as the fireplace was in the family room and there was a 3 step up area to the kitchen, then small raise in each ceiling as you went through the home, then the stairway going up to the bedrooms in the front of the home. This allowed heat to rise, then flow from room to room while new cooler air would sink and slowly move back to the room being heated. The rear where the fire place was would still get too hot when we tried to heat most of the home using the fire place, even with a fair amount of brick built-in around the fireplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My solution at the time was a cheap temporary fix. We had a couch and love seat along 2 of the walls in the family room and by moving them out less than 4 inches more from the wall I started to save round 3 liter bottled water bottles we bough a fair amount of for the water itself. They would stack on top of one another so I started lining the wall behind the love seat and couch with them stacked 2 high. By the time I was finished filling the area with refilled water bottles the temperature would stay reasonable an extra 4+ hours after the fire went out and we didn't feel overheated like we did before adding them to the room. So we could run the fireplace all day if we wanted, then let it go out and maintain a decent temperature most the night. All cheap and hidden out of sight and with the weight distributed. An added bonus was that the dogs could no longer hide behind the couch which we were trying to keep them from anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2954" RevisionGUID="a17129fe-3356-458a-a83c-9d46c6be6098" CreationDate="2014-08-18T17:04:51.647" UserId="1642" Text="1.use what's in the fridge first, then the freezer, and finally canned or dried goods.&#xD;&#xA;2. eat what you can, and what you can't, can. (drying is better, solar dried is best.)&#xD;&#xA;3. we call it &quot;kitchen sink soup&quot;, same idea, once a week make soup with all the little bits of this and that.&#xD;&#xA;4. I don't know if this applies, but many things you might compost can be planted instead , i.e. potatoes, celery, onions. and those herbs you can buy at the grocery store now with the roots still on them, we have planted many of those successfully." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2954" RevisionGUID="fd30e20c-663b-4548-8152-a2645cfd534e" CreationDate="2014-08-18T18:07:51.007" UserId="99" Comment="fixed list layout" Text="1. Use what's in the fridge first, then the freezer, and finally canned or dried goods.&#xD;&#xA;2. Eat what you can, and what you can't, can. (drying is better, solar dried is best.)&#xD;&#xA;3. We call it &quot;kitchen sink soup&quot;, same idea, once a week make soup with all the little bits of this and that.&#xD;&#xA;4. I don't know if this applies, but many things you might compost can be planted instead , i.e. potatoes, celery, onions. and those herbs you can buy at the grocery store now with the roots still on them, we have planted many of those successfully." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="31ecec71-45a9-49f0-bef2-69f79e127c83" CreationDate="2014-08-18T18:14:29.217" UserId="836" Text="Recently I saw a documentary in youtube ['Home'][1]. It point out that in America for feeding cattle a lot of wheat and other food products are used and these animals are then killed for food. What are the aftereffects of this? How does this affect nature? If it have any serious side effects, does vegetarianism help in protecting the our home earth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/movie/home-english-with-subtitles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7060" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="31ecec71-45a9-49f0-bef2-69f79e127c83" CreationDate="2014-08-18T18:14:29.217" UserId="836" Text="Does vegetarianism help in protecting the nature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7061" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="31ecec71-45a9-49f0-bef2-69f79e127c83" CreationDate="2014-08-18T18:14:29.217" UserId="836" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="3a5c0083-670f-4f52-aba7-876f205b26e1" CreationDate="2014-08-18T18:21:02.070" UserId="836" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Recently I saw a documentary in youtube ['Home'][1]. It point out that in America for feeding cattle a lot of wheat and other food products are used and these animals are then killed for food. What are the aftereffects of this? How does this affect nature? If it have any serious side effects, does vegetarianism help in protecting our home earth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/movie/home-english-with-subtitles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7063" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="3a5c0083-670f-4f52-aba7-876f205b26e1" CreationDate="2014-08-18T18:21:02.070" UserId="836" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="af5e1ce4-e903-4c94-bdff-f86a14792b83" CreationDate="2014-08-18T22:07:41.750" UserId="15" Comment="Tidied up grammar, added some extra tags" Text="Recently I saw a documentary in youtube ['Home'][1]. It points out that in America, for feeding cattle, a lot of wheat and other food products are used and these animals are then killed for food. What are the side effects of this? How does this affect nature? If it does cause any serious side effects, does vegetarianism help in protecting our home earth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.youtube.com/movie/home-english-with-subtitles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7065" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="af5e1ce4-e903-4c94-bdff-f86a14792b83" CreationDate="2014-08-18T22:07:41.750" UserId="15" Comment="Tidied up grammar, added some extra tags" Text="Does vegetarianism help in protecting nature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7066" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="af5e1ce4-e903-4c94-bdff-f86a14792b83" CreationDate="2014-08-18T22:07:41.750" UserId="15" Comment="Tidied up grammar, added some extra tags" Text="|food|meat|vegetarianism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2956" RevisionGUID="e76a2af1-0308-4dd4-b5dd-32a0dc68f905" CreationDate="2014-08-18T22:22:01.167" UserId="1642" Text="I can't remember the source, but some folks in Germany are making porn and using the proceeds to save the rainforest. Sooooo...., &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also, in okanawa, they practice hara hachi bu, which means only eating til you are 80% full, and they are very productive and really old(and are therefore using too many resources?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2957" RevisionGUID="996e10df-6b08-4319-877c-40f004827277" CreationDate="2014-08-19T12:23:55.070" UserId="1644" Text="I would like to convert my downlights to LED. However, the LEDs I've found have holes around them to let the air though. I've been told this is for ventilation purposes and blocking these holes or putting insulation over them will cause the LED to overheat and shorten their lifespan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changing from a halogen to LED, I'm going from about 35W to about 5W so there's certainly benefit there but I'm wondering whether it's still worth it because these holes are going to create drafts and increase my heating costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much heat is generally lost due to unsealed downlights? Is it a negligible amount or is it comparable to the energy savings from converting to LED? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7069" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2957" RevisionGUID="996e10df-6b08-4319-877c-40f004827277" CreationDate="2014-08-19T12:23:55.070" UserId="1644" Text="How much heat loss occurs due to unsealed downlights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7070" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2957" RevisionGUID="996e10df-6b08-4319-877c-40f004827277" CreationDate="2014-08-19T12:23:55.070" UserId="1644" Text="|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2958" RevisionGUID="a8195408-cfd4-48fb-9676-733679fa62d3" CreationDate="2014-08-19T16:02:40.923" UserId="106" Text="**Yes, being a vegetarian is more environmentally-friendly than otherwise**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question has been asked and answered on Skeptics Stack Exchange, based on a claim by PETA to that point.  [Full details are in this answer](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/6848/5337).  To summarise the summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Production of meat is a major source of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.  A vegetarian diet therefore leads to less emissions&#xD;&#xA; * [80% of deforestation is to grow more crops for feeding livestock](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/12330/5337), so a wide adoption of vegetarian diets would reduce deforestation significantly&#xD;&#xA; * There are other factors as well, such as use of water sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes, vegetarianism does help to protect the environment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2959" RevisionGUID="6ceb328f-9bb8-4ee5-b2cc-1c263736a07c" CreationDate="2014-08-19T19:38:35.590" UserId="1013" Text="Many recycling programs don't accept #2 plastic bags (only #2 rigid plastic).  Does the same apply to #4 plastic?  I've seen it both in rigid and film form and I'm wondering if the reasons for not accepting #2 film apply to #4 film.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if I can return #2 plastic bags to a grocery store, can I also reliably return #4 plastic bags to a grocery store?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2959" RevisionGUID="6ceb328f-9bb8-4ee5-b2cc-1c263736a07c" CreationDate="2014-08-19T19:38:35.590" UserId="1013" Text="Do #4 plastic bags need to be recycled at grocery stores like #2 plastic bags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2959" RevisionGUID="6ceb328f-9bb8-4ee5-b2cc-1c263736a07c" CreationDate="2014-08-19T19:38:35.590" UserId="1013" Text="|recycling|plastic|bags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2959" RevisionGUID="3a2b914d-0a0b-48af-8ada-e204ca768d73" CreationDate="2014-08-19T22:58:38.757" UserId="1013" Comment="Added recycling symbols" Text="Many recycling programs don't accept #2 (♴) plastic bags (only #2 rigid plastic).  Does the same apply to #4 (♶) plastic?  I've seen it both in rigid and film form and I'm wondering if the reasons for not accepting #2 film apply to #4 film.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if I can return #2 plastic bags to a grocery store, can I also reliably return #4 plastic bags to a grocery store?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7077" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2959" RevisionGUID="3a2b914d-0a0b-48af-8ada-e204ca768d73" CreationDate="2014-08-19T22:58:38.757" UserId="1013" Comment="Added recycling symbols" Text="Do #4 (♶) plastic bags need to be recycled at grocery stores like #2 (♴) plastic bags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2961" RevisionGUID="100596a6-e135-4adb-9597-5644ac202839" CreationDate="2014-08-20T04:14:10.730" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="It varies greatly, depending on where *and* what you are looking at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: In most developed countries, petrol/gasoline are taxed very heavily, so economic sustainability ≈ environmental sustainability in this case. So in these countries, when it comes to filling up your car, you just need to worry about saving money, and you'll be doing your part in saving the planet. ([The big exception being of course as usual the US.][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal of economists is to equate the two (or in Econspeak: equate marginal private costs with marginal social costs). This can be done (albeit imperfectly) by e.g. imposing taxes on pollutants. This has a clear advantage: when making any decision, consumers, firms, and governments need not worry about BOTH their wallets and the environment; instead, they need only worry about their wallets and the environment will automatically be taken care of. E.g. when buying a plane ticket, instead of taking into consideration BOTH the airfare and the carbon emissions, you can just worry about the airfare, if and when the airfare fully accounts for the damage done to the environment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But politically this has usually not proven feasible, and hence, for the most part economic sustainability ≠ environmental sustainability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fuel_tax_in_OECD_countries,_2010..png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2962" RevisionGUID="09ad7626-0de5-46af-91c7-8263dbe6d468" CreationDate="2014-08-20T04:42:35.433" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="P. 136 of this [pdf][1] tells us that the *average* internal winter temperature of homes in Great Britain in 2010 was 16.9°C (62.4°F).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am interested in finding the corresponding figures for other developed countries (e.g. US, Japan, Germany), where can I find these?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My anecdotal experience in the US is that the standard winter thermostat setting is 70°F (21.1°C). Reducing it to say 68°F (20°C) tends to require a concerted campaign, even at a [*liberal* arts college][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My belief and hope is that if people in the US were made aware that people from equally rich countries are able to suffer much lower temperatures, then so can they. But first I'd like to know where such statistics/data can be found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quote that inspired me to look for these data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I recall the English (now American) economist Ronald Coase telling me that until he visited the United States he did not know it was possible to be warm. ([NYT, 2012][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/345141/uk_housing_fact_file_2013.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://middleburycampus.com/article/two-degrees-campaign-warms-midds-heart/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/books/review/how-much-is-enough-by-robert-skidelsky-and-edward-skidelsky.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2962" RevisionGUID="09ad7626-0de5-46af-91c7-8263dbe6d468" CreationDate="2014-08-20T04:42:35.433" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="Where to find cross-country data on winter thermostat (temperature) settings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2962" RevisionGUID="09ad7626-0de5-46af-91c7-8263dbe6d468" CreationDate="2014-08-20T04:42:35.433" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2961" RevisionGUID="6fe90095-3ce8-46cb-a4e8-dfa95c301807" CreationDate="2014-08-20T07:46:27.413" UserDisplayName="user1631" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="It varies greatly, depending on where *and* what you are looking at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: In most developed countries, petrol/gasoline are taxed very heavily, so economic sustainability ≈ environmental sustainability in this case. So in these countries, when it comes to filling up your car, you just need to worry about saving money, and you'll be doing your part in saving the planet. ([The big exception being of course as usual the US.][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal of economists is to equate the two (or in Econspeak: equate marginal private costs with marginal social costs). This can be done (albeit imperfectly) by e.g. imposing taxes on pollutants. This has a clear advantage: when making any decision, consumers, firms, and governments need not worry about BOTH their wallets and the environment; instead, they need only worry about their wallets and the environment will automatically be taken care of. E.g. when buying a plane ticket, instead of taking into consideration BOTH the airfare and the carbon emissions, you can just worry about the airfare, if and when airfares fully account for the damage done to the environment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But politically this has usually not proven feasible, and hence, for the most part economic sustainability ≠ environmental sustainability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fuel_tax_in_OECD_countries,_2010..png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2963" RevisionGUID="9ebbc7df-bd3f-4fcc-9e6a-1d2d15ebf556" CreationDate="2014-08-20T11:49:41.907" UserId="99" Text="I think what is accepted at stores or recycling centers is very much local policy and depends on the way collection and recycling schemes are setup. Where I live (The Netherlands), all types of **packaging** plastics including bags, but excluding other plastic objects and biodegradable plastics, are collected via communal collection schemes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The types of plastic you are referring to are #2 [High-Density PolyEthylene (HDPE)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-density_polyethylene) and #4 ([Low-Density PolyEthylene (LDPE)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene). HDPE is relatively easy to recycle and is also the most recycled type of plastic. LDPE on the other hand often isn't recycled. How difficult it is to recycle a plastic depends on the resin type, but also on if it's contaminated with dyes and other chemicals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to recycle a plastic properly you do need to separate the different types of plastic. I suspect that in your case policy is to gather only 1 specific type of plastic object so separating is less of an issue for the recycling center. Whether or not you can safely return #4 plastic bags to a shop very much depends on what the shops do with it and if the plastic types are properly separated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2963" RevisionGUID="8b16193f-246b-4a81-a055-4dce153644d1" CreationDate="2014-08-20T12:06:08.980" UserId="99" Comment="added bit about local laws that may have an effect" Text="I think what is accepted at stores or recycling centers is very much local policy and depends on both regulations (local law) and the way collection and recycling schemes are setup. In the Netherlands where I live for example, all types of **packaging** plastics including bags, but excluding other plastic objects and biodegradable plastics, are collected via communal collection schemes. The reason why they choose for all packaging plastics is that manufacturers are required by law to recycle this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The types of plastic you are referring to are #2 [High-Density PolyEthylene (HDPE)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-density_polyethylene) and #4 ([Low-Density PolyEthylene (LDPE)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene). HDPE is relatively easy to recycle and is also the most recycled type of plastic. LDPE on the other hand often isn't recycled. How difficult it is to recycle a plastic depends on the resin type, but also on if it's contaminated with dyes and other chemicals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to recycle a plastic properly you do need to separate the different types of plastic. I suspect that in your case policy is to gather only 1 specific type of plastic object so separating is less of an issue for the recycling center. Whether or not you can safely return #4 plastic bags to a shop very much depends on what the shops do with it and if the plastic types are properly separated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7085" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2962" RevisionGUID="1a81fb43-635a-4531-bed8-a8a18d77304f" CreationDate="2014-08-21T04:35:12.667" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/502312941979721728" />
  <row Id="7087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2963" RevisionGUID="b7098cb5-ea59-4fa5-ac2a-548f5618c2de" CreationDate="2014-08-21T07:40:47.457" UserId="99" Comment="added bit about financial aspects, added new part about why plastic bags and #4 plastics aren't recycled" Text="I think what is accepted at stores or recycling centers is very much local policy and depends on both regulations (local law) and the way collection and recycling schemes are setup and funded. In the Netherlands where I live for example, all types of **packaging** plastics including bags, but excluding other plastic objects and biodegradable plastics, are collected via communal collection schemes. The reason why they choose for all packaging plastics is that manufacturers are required by law to collect this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The types of plastic you are referring to are #2 [High-Density PolyEthylene (HDPE)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-density_polyethylene) and #4 ([Low-Density PolyEthylene (LDPE)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene). HDPE is relatively easy to recycle and is also the most recycled type of plastic. LDPE on the other hand often isn't recycled. How difficult it is to recycle a plastic depends on the resin type, but also on if it's contaminated with dyes and other chemicals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to recycle a plastic properly you need to separate the different types of plastic and remove contaminations as much as possible. I suspect that in your case policy is to gather only 1 specific type of plastic object so separating is less of an issue for the recycling center (to reduce costs). Whether or not you can safely return #4 plastic bags to a shop depends on what the shops do with it and if the plastic types are properly separated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: according to [this curbside recycling program](http://gjcri.com/faq/why-don2019t-you-accept-plastic-bags-some-of-them-are-2-hdpe.-where-can-i-recycle-them) they don't accept plastic bags because their equipment can't handle it properly. On a different webpage they also say that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Don’t be fooled into thinking that all (or even most) of the plastic collected by those programs is actually recycled!  There are very few domestic (U.S.) markets for plastics numbered 3 through 7.  China, one of the principal foreign markets for U.S. plastics, has recently undertaken measures to stem the influx of non-recyclable and contaminated materials hitting their shores.  At least for now, “the markets for #’s 3-7 plastics have dried up!” ......&#xD;&#xA;The bulk of post consumer plastics #3-7 collected in this country have always gone oversees, primarily to third world countries where environmental controls and worker safety standards are far inferior to those in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;([source](http://gjcri.com/faq/plastics-1-2-5))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my guess is that most #4 plastic, no matter the form is either shipped oversees, dumped on landfills or burned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2828" RevisionGUID="a6f11f42-fed7-4064-b962-eda5d1c15175" CreationDate="2014-08-21T10:53:01.943" UserId="99" Comment="fixed links, added part about degradation; added 1 character in body" Text="A plastic material is any of a wide range of synthetic or semi-synthetic organic solids (polymer) that are moldable. They are usually synthetic, most commonly derived from petrochemicals, but many are partially natural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Composition ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the controversies associated with plastics are associated with the additives. Organotin compounds are particularly toxic, but are not found in US-approved food-plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Triorganotins are very toxic. Tri-n-alkyltins are phytotoxic and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; therefore cannot be used in agriculture. Depending on the organic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; groups, they can be powerful bactericides and fungicides. Tributyltins&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are used as industrial biocides, e.g. as antifungal agents in textiles&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and paper, wood pulp and paper mill systems, breweries, and industrial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cooling systems. Tributyltins are also used in marine anti-fouling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paint. Triphenyltins are used as active components of antifungal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; paints and agricultural fungicides. Other triorganotins are used as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; miticides and acaricides. ([source: Wikipedia article on Organotin article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organotin_chemistry#Use_and_toxicity))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Degradation ##&#xD;&#xA;Another controversy surrounding plastics is that most plastics manufactured today don't biodegrade to any significant degree, instead they photodegrade slowly. This means that the the plastics fall apart under the influence of sunlight but the plastic molecules themselves remain intact. Not only does photodegradation of plastics release the toxic chemicals within the plastic, tiny plastic particles are also eaten by animals which can cause them to die. This is especially a problem for marine animals as many plastics now polute the oceans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## For more information ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Wikipedia article on Plastic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic)&#xD;&#xA; - [Wikipedia article on Organotin Chemistry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organotin_chemistry)&#xD;&#xA; - [Wikipedia article on Marine debris](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_debris)&#xD;&#xA; - [American Chemistry Council's article on &quot;Lifecycle of a Plastic Product&quot;](http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Life-Cycle). Note that the ACC is very much a pro-plastic organisation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7092" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2955" RevisionGUID="226badec-1cc9-4c24-bde9-7134ee2bcd74" CreationDate="2014-08-22T07:41:47.533" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/502722284696899584" />
  <row Id="7093" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2959" RevisionGUID="6c678933-1542-4a7c-82c5-c7766b246b64" CreationDate="2014-08-23T01:43:46.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/502994575540383744" />
  <row Id="7094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2965" RevisionGUID="6ae71773-4b3a-4d5e-bb69-b4c675dd407e" CreationDate="2014-08-23T03:18:59.527" UserId="610" Text="To answer this portion of your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;But what other ways can one use one's own body energy wisely, and in general what principles / themes can one explore to put it into practice?&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You made mention of using your body for transportation but you can go beyond just transportation. You can use peddle power or a rowing machine to power your cell phone, to operate a washing machine, to charge batteries.  [The Solar Living Institute][1] in Hopland, CA is one place I've seen stationary bikes set up to charge batteries.&#xD;&#xA;Just a couple of examples of using your &quot;own body as an energy source for greater environmental sustainability&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use your creative brain energy to think of more!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.solarliving.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2966" RevisionGUID="be3428eb-5b8d-40b4-8782-ac5c90caf47a" CreationDate="2014-08-23T03:57:10.160" UserId="610" Text="The Better World Shopper is a good source.  I got the book from my mother for Christmas one year and found it amazingly enlightening (and at the same time shocking).  It's small enough to keep with you as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[BETTER WORLD SHOPPER][1] is a site dedicated to providing people with a comprehensive, up-to-date, reliable account of the social and environmental responsibility of every company on the planet AND making it available in practical forms that individuals can use in their everyday lives. Coming out of more than 5 years of intensive research, this work is based on a comprehensive database of over 1000 companies and utilizes 25+ reliable sources of data to cover everything from the environment to human rights, community development to animal protection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**5 key issues**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HUMAN RIGHTS: sweatshops, 3rd world community exploitation, international health issues, divestment, child labor, code of conduct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;THE ENVIRONMENT: global warming, rainforest destruction, pollution, recycling, renewable energy, greenwashing, toxic waste, eco-innovations, illegal dumping, sustainable farming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ANIMAL PROTECTION: factory farming, animal testing, humane treatment, wild animal habitat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: family farms, local business support, volunteer efforts, sustainable growth, philanthropic donations, nonprofit alliances, establishing foundations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SOCIAL JUSTICE : fair wages, fatalities, union busting efforts, health &amp; safety records, discrimination based on: race, gender, age, ability, religion, sexuality, ethnicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A second resource* would be [Green America's Responsible Shopper][2] &quot;Your Guide To Promoting a Responsible Economy&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best of Luck. In our consumer based society every dollar is a vote!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://betterworldshopper.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.greenamerica.org/programs/responsibleshopper/index.cfm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2967" RevisionGUID="88897873-af67-4078-bb9c-07c8eab5cbc2" CreationDate="2014-08-23T04:46:09.853" UserId="1654" Text="I'd been looking for a 60W equivalent candelabra base bulb for a while too. For the past few years the highest equivalent available to consumers was 40W. Now it looks like the 60's are finally making their way to market.  This one claims 700 lumens which, if true, would be very close to the brightness of a 60W incandescent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wholesaleled.com/products/60w-equivalent-7-watt-joshua-series-round-top-clear-silver-base-led-candelabra&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2968" RevisionGUID="eb33a41a-dca4-4967-8085-5dce1a5758f5" CreationDate="2014-08-25T01:06:27.880" UserId="1495" Text="From mining/harvesting materials to altering them into useful manufacturing materials to making actual products, and then packaging them and shipping them to retail stores, or directly to customers, and then the time and energy it takes to mount them (especially on larger scales eg. fields), do they really put out enough energy to outweigh all that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7098" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2968" RevisionGUID="eb33a41a-dca4-4967-8085-5dce1a5758f5" CreationDate="2014-08-25T01:06:27.880" UserId="1495" Text="Is the energy used to manufacture and install solar panels in proper balance with the energy output from them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7099" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2968" RevisionGUID="eb33a41a-dca4-4967-8085-5dce1a5758f5" CreationDate="2014-08-25T01:06:27.880" UserId="1495" Text="|solar-power|energy-efficiency|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2969" RevisionGUID="57c47965-1885-4cbd-a3ec-77320adce5c4" CreationDate="2014-08-25T01:19:04.393" UserId="1495" Text="I've found that, if you aren't apposed to something genetically engineered, the [Mosquito Shoo Geranium][1] has some use. It doesn't drive away mosquitoes, as advertised, but it does contain citronella, and when rubbed over bare skin it works well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: Those with a lot of allergies shouldn't try this, or perhaps on only a small area at first. Also, be aware that this is a genetically altered plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I am (southeastern Pennsylvania) they must be brought indoors overwinter; they're more of a warm climate plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.farmerseed.com/detail.asp?pid=1099&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0vRuD.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="aafd09b7-59e8-44f9-9c14-cb2885c24e29" CreationDate="2014-08-25T03:09:50.640" UserId="1495" Text="[I'm][1] a professional landscaper/horticulturist from the [Gardening and Landscaping][2] site. There are some differences between fertilizing shrubs and other plants, generally, and between different individual shrubs. But one thing I've noticed is that in your question, the plants you listed were:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Flowers&#xD;&#xA; - Ginger&#xD;&#xA; - Onions&#xD;&#xA; - Chili&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which are, for the most part, annuals or herbaceous perennials, not so much shrubs, although there are some shrubs in the flowers category. Anyway, I'll take the listed plants one by one and give my recommendations for organic/natural fertilizers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Flowers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very general, but I'm going to assume that most of yours are annuals. It is good to know what the biggest nutrients (by volume uptake) that plants use are: Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). This is called the NPK ratio in fertilizers, even processed  organic fertilizers. But in my opinion, the best thing for soil is decomposed organic matter (eg compost). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flowering uses lots of the nutrient potassium, so whatever you use, make sure plenty of this is supplied. Nitrogen stimulates top growth, so too much of this (ie, straight poultry manure or blood meal) will cause good, green growth, but will decrease flowering. Phosphorus is needed for the root growth, and for building up storage areas. Don't use huge amounts on most flowers, but it is necessary to use at least some.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some fertilizers you can use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Homemade compost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is mostly for an increase in microbial soil life, and the organic matter (humus) content of your soil. The nutrient and mineral levels are extremely variable, and depend on what was put into the compost, but a good compost is usually a great micronutrient complex. It does not usually contain high levels of npk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bone meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The npk is 3-15-0, on average, so it's a great root-feeder. You only need to apply once a year, as it breaks down and feeds slowly. It may attract neighborhood dogs, so keep that in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hoof and horn meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This has an npk of 12-0-0, so it promotes strong green growth, but should be used in reasonable amounts. This stuff is awesome, because it is slow-release, and adds nitrogen to the soil over a long period of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Fish emulshion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [**Sustainability**][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Sustainability is a real concern for anything made from living ocean organisms these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;The world’s oceans are in a state of near-collapse due to overfishing, destructive harvesting practices, and changing environmental conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;This doesn’t mean everything that’s harvested from the sea is necessarily causing further environmental damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Some fish products are more sustainable than others, so it’s worth checking out the specifics of the one you’re thinking about buying. If the seller can’t tell you where it comes from, I’d think twice about buying it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;It’s also worth checking whether fish is the only ingredient in a product you’re considering using, since not only beneficial organic additions like seaweed and crab shells, but also non-organic materials are sometimes added to boost NPK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The npk is usually about 5-1-1, but very fast acting, so use moderately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wood ashes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; They have an npk ratio of 0-1-3, so it is a great flower-booster, but should be used carefully, noting that wood ashes are extremely alkaline, and will raise the pH of soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ginger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a root (storage function) plant, these need a good bit of phosphorus, with lower amounts of potassium and nitrogen as compared with flowers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some fertilizers that will be good for ginger:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Homemade compost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is mostly for an increase in microbial soil life, and the organic matter (humus) content of your soil. The nutrient and mineral levels are extremely variable, and depend on what was put into the compost, but a good compost is usually a great micronutrient complex. It does not usually contain high levels of npk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cottonseed meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; npk: 6-1-1.5. This is a good, neutral, balanced, general fertilizer that suits ginger. It is a byproduct of the textile industry, and be aware that depending where you source, it may be genetically altered, or contain trace amounts of sprayed pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Alfalfa meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It has an npk ratio of 2-1-2, and is a super soil builder. You can even use it as a mulch, with amazing results. Be aware that it can be expensive, because of high production costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bone meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The npk is 3-15-0, on average, so it's a great root-feeder. You only need to apply once a year, as it breaks down and feeds slowly. It may attract neighborhood dogs, so keep that in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Onions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are also root crops, and require similar fertilization that ginger does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some important fertilizers you might be able to use for onions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Homemade compost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ![enter image description here][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is mostly for an increase in microbial soil life, and the organic matter (humus) content of your soil. The nutrient and mineral levels are extremely variable, and depend on what was put into the compost, but a good compost is usually a great micronutrient complex. It does not usually contain high levels of npk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Alfalfa meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It has an npk ratio of 2-1-2, and is a super soil builder. You can even use it as a mulch, with amazing results. Be aware that it can be expensive, because of high production costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bone meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The npk is 3-15-0, on average, so it's a great root-feeder. You only need to apply once a year, as it breaks down and feeds slowly. It may attract neighborhood dogs, so keep that in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wood ashes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][16]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; They have an npk ratio of 0-1-3, so it is a great flower-booster, but should be used carefully, noting that wood ashes are extremely alkaline, and will raise the pH of soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chili peppers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are fruit crops, and as such, require a good bit of potassium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My fertilizer recommendations below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Homemade compost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ![enter image description here][17]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is mostly for an increase in microbial soil life, and the organic matter (humus) content of your soil. The nutrient and mineral levels are extremely variable, and depend on what was put into the compost, but a good compost is usually a great micronutrient complex. It does not usually contain high levels of npk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bone meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][18]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The npk is 3-15-0, on average, so it's a great root-feeder. You only need to apply once a year, as it breaks down and feeds slowly. It may attract neighborhood dogs, so keep that in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hoof and horn meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This has an npk of 12-0-0, so it promotes strong green growth, but should be used in reasonable amounts. This stuff is awesome, because it is slow-release, and adds nitrogen to the soil over a long period of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wood ashes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][20]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; They have an npk ratio of 0-1-3, so it is a great flower-booster, but should be used carefully, noting that wood ashes are extremely alkaline, and will raise the pH of soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Animal manure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][21]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This shouldn't be used on root crops unless thoroughly broken down, but it makes a great fertilizer for peppers. The npk is usually high, but extremely variable, depending on species, gender, age of the manure, the animals diet, etc. Side dress the plants at any time for great results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/419/j-musser&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mSiwm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CGMX2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UEveu.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zDa1E.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.gardenerspantry.ca/blog/fish-fertilizer.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ib5Zo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mSiwm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CtVq4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jafUw.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CGMX2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mSiwm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jafUw.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CGMX2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ib5Zo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mSiwm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CGMX2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UEveu.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ib5Zo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9TCNK.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="89d1cd47-b494-4660-abf1-293f5516acae" CreationDate="2014-08-25T04:35:14.440" UserId="15" Text="I'm aware there are fire safety and other regulations that ensure the various types of ceiling insulation on the market are safe to use. If I was to cut unwanted polystyrene packaging material into a flat-ish shape and spread it around the ceiling space, would there be any safety issues? How about with the loose chip-sized pieces that are sometimes used for packaging?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to installing it, there would be gaps between the pieces that would need to be filled with something to avoid convection reducing the effectiveness. Using some polyester, wool or fibreglass insulation to fill the gaps might help resolve this. Are there any other obvious (and safe and economical) options?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="89d1cd47-b494-4660-abf1-293f5516acae" CreationDate="2014-08-25T04:35:14.440" UserId="15" Text="Repurposing polystyrene packaging material as ceiling insulation; safety and techniques" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="89d1cd47-b494-4660-abf1-293f5516acae" CreationDate="2014-08-25T04:35:14.440" UserId="15" Text="|recycling|insulation|upcycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7105" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2968" RevisionGUID="5300b523-93a0-4052-9b33-3662c9bf8078" CreationDate="2014-08-25T14:06:30.757" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/503906266344079361" />
  <row Id="7106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2747" RevisionGUID="e90beb9d-5999-4a8c-b823-1dcab7b71147" CreationDate="2014-08-25T20:28:40.120" UserId="85" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="I have many small shrubs, mostly flowers, ginger, onions and chili etc. I want to add some natural fertilizers to make them grow more. What is an efficient natural fertilizer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7107" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2747" RevisionGUID="e90beb9d-5999-4a8c-b823-1dcab7b71147" CreationDate="2014-08-25T20:28:40.120" UserId="85" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="What type of natural fertilizer should I use for shrubs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2972" RevisionGUID="75cfee10-ff0b-45c0-a015-5c64baeee4b7" CreationDate="2014-08-26T08:38:48.533" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="When nobody is watching the TV, my practice is to turn it off, so as to save electricity, even if I know that someone will want to watch it in the next 10 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is claimed that turning it off and then on again 10 minutes later is somehow &quot;bad&quot; for the TV, and it would be better to just leave it on continuously. Is there any truth to this claim?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Other appliances for which a similar situation arises frequently include air-conditioners, fans, computers. Note though that it may well be that the answer to this question varies from appliance to appliance.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7109" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2972" RevisionGUID="75cfee10-ff0b-45c0-a015-5c64baeee4b7" CreationDate="2014-08-26T08:38:48.533" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="Does repeatedly turning on and off an appliance tend to damage it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7110" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2972" RevisionGUID="75cfee10-ff0b-45c0-a015-5c64baeee4b7" CreationDate="2014-08-26T08:38:48.533" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2973" RevisionGUID="ad5a57bd-eea0-4078-9a9a-02bbd4c1b172" CreationDate="2014-08-26T13:16:30.723" UserId="245" Text="I live in a small flat and my only place to grow things is in window boxes on my generously sized window ledges. I would like to be able do a small amount of composting with things like leaves from my plants, teabags and so forth. If I do it needs to be safe, nearly odorless and very efficient in space usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a set up that would allow me to do this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7112" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2973" RevisionGUID="ad5a57bd-eea0-4078-9a9a-02bbd4c1b172" CreationDate="2014-08-26T13:16:30.723" UserId="245" Text="Indoor composting with limited space" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7113" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2973" RevisionGUID="ad5a57bd-eea0-4078-9a9a-02bbd4c1b172" CreationDate="2014-08-26T13:16:30.723" UserId="245" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2974" RevisionGUID="bc2b8c97-2698-474c-9cf8-022b62e11a39" CreationDate="2014-08-26T14:29:28.843" UserId="1662" Text="http://globalsilicones.org  -----  /sustainability/  and  /silicones-chemistry/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;'Alot has to do with type of silicone. All silicones are sensitive to uv light and will break down eventually. Some will leach oil over time and some will become brittle. My suggestion is to find out the type of silicone and the manufacturer and check the specs. I have silicone molds that are 17 years old and still going strong, the secret is to keep them in an air tight bag in total darkness and at room temperature' - minieffects @http://www.therpf.com/f9/how-long-would-silicone-last-22046/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I did a little bit of research, using the links above, and basically silicones will not last forever, but all respond differently.  The first two links are very positive on silicone, they view silicone as a way to extend duration and thus sustainability.  Maybe someone who knows a bit more chemistry than me can chime in, but the chemical chains they are talking about seem to just be silicon and oxygen, which doesn't seems to be fairly stable to me.  What are the byproducts in the laboratory and are they sustainable?  That requires more research.  Also, some people have silicon allergies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7116" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2972" RevisionGUID="0dfe851f-c5be-475a-a1fd-7f2c7ef2c281" CreationDate="2014-08-26T17:13:07.933" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/504315618615902210" />
  <row Id="7120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2976" RevisionGUID="4b95d194-fe27-48a2-8cab-f9d3401bf71b" CreationDate="2014-08-26T21:40:25.183" UserId="1053" Text="I asked my late father (an electrical engineer) this very question years ago and he said that essentially, the entire cost of a solar panel is the cost of the energy to make it. You dig dirt out of the ground and apply energy to turn that into metal, glass, etc, then you use energy to ship parts around and to assemble them into a panel and ship the panel, etc. The cost of the true raw material is very low indeed and the cost of the factory is again the cost of the energy to make the factory, and so on down the line. The possible exception may be a retail markup and a labour cost when you finally acquire and install it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, consider that solar panels &quot;pay for themselves&quot; in the end. You pay $X for a panel and after some number of years, you have saved $X in energy bills. It therefore follows that it has generated at least as much energy as it cost to make it. This logic would only fail if you pay a wildly different cost for energy than everyone before you in the chain. Aluminum smelters do locate near dams to get cheap power, but I don't think you'll find that cheap means &quot;1/10th the price&quot; or even &quot;1/2 the price&quot; so the logic holds. Any panel that is economically worthwhile has produced more power than it took to smelt and refine its materials and to make it, as measured in dollars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2977" RevisionGUID="3a9f162d-75a2-4dbf-ad88-17abbe0d49ff" CreationDate="2014-08-26T21:57:48.370" UserId="15" Text="[&quot;NatureMill&quot; composting machines][1] are designed for composting indoors, with an electric motor for turning the material and an air filter. I get the impression it's also insulated, which would be necessary for it to heat up to the temperature required to break down quickly. It looks like you can purchase a special power supply for running it outdoors (not sure what the acceptable temperature range would be, or whether heavy rain/humidity would be a problem).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't used one of these myself, or known someone who has, so I looked at some reviews of it. The verdict is mixed. You may experience [problems with noise and odour][2]. However, with careful use and some understanding of how to make compost, you may be able to turn your scraps into compost in [as little as a week][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.naturemill.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gizmodo.com/5423358/naturemill-pro-xe-composter-review-the-miracle-of-decay-at-home&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.treehugger.com/lawn-garden/nature-mill-indoor-composter-review.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2978" RevisionGUID="f1bed8e6-db7e-41fa-894e-fd7acac7ce83" CreationDate="2014-08-27T01:50:03.200" UserId="659" Text="Old tube TVs suffered from this a lot, especially the really old ones that used thermionic valves for the high voltage stages. Since everything heated up when you turned the TV on, then cooled down when you turned it off, the thermal cycling would eventually lead to failure. The more you turned it on and off, in other words, the sooner it would fail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This effect is much less of a problem with LCD or plasma TVs, mostly because they're so much more efficient that the amount of heating/cooling is greatly reduced. And despite what you hear about &quot;disposable society&quot;, modern devices tend to be more reliable than older ones. Unfortunately people have adjusted to that by using things more, and in harsher ways (ever see an old tube TV hung over a bath or jacuzzi?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also a big difference between using the remote to put the thing into standby, and turning it off at the wall. The standby mode will still draw power, so that's less damaging than turning it off at the wall. For a short period of non-use I'd definitely use standby. Overnight I'd want to power it off at the wall, but note that many smart devices have prolonged and often power-hungry start-up routines that are a lot more involved than just &quot;turn the screen on&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2442" RevisionGUID="7e1d6ac5-1aee-46c9-9ddf-893f158035e4" CreationDate="2014-08-27T09:09:02.033" UserId="1495" Comment="corrected spelling, fixed grammar." Text="Jon Seymour, in his book `The Complete Book of Self-Sufficiency`, mentions that 5 acres (about 2 hectares) of good quality, well drained land could sustain a family of 6 persons. The answer to the question will partly depend on whether or not one chooses to consume meat and dairy products and whether or not the land should also provide timber for energy. Seymour's five acre plan includes grazing and hay pastures, barley, beets and carrots for animal fodder, some woodland, a large vegetable garden, lots of beans, and so forth. For a complete description of how such a farm would work, see Seymour's book which [can be found online][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estimates from Morrison and Jeavons thus seem rather optimistic but differences are probably in part due to the choices that are being made. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/The-Complete-Book-Self-Sufficiency/dp/0751304263#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7124" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2442" RevisionGUID="7e1d6ac5-1aee-46c9-9ddf-893f158035e4" CreationDate="2014-08-27T09:09:02.033" Comment="Proposed by 1495 approved by 659, 15 edit id of 291" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2979" RevisionGUID="e5b8340b-4975-4aca-8b30-650e439494c5" CreationDate="2014-08-27T16:31:45.790" UserId="1666" Text="Maybe try a small version of a worm compost. I don't know how much odor it will produce, but every sustainable solution (for me: f.e. not using a lot of extra energy) will have odors. Advantage of this is, that you can choose the size on your own (if it's warm enough at least, which needs a minimum size :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worms also produces some liquid that can be used as dung, but it probably depends on the sort of worms you choose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="090e2244-28c5-49e8-89a8-1d231c9b3303" CreationDate="2014-08-27T17:29:13.000" UserId="1662" Text="Cats are one of the top problems for bird biodiversity in the tropics and bird populations worldwide.  The most sustainable way might be to eat them, but no one in my community seems to care for that solution.  Spay and neuter - ing could work, but we need to vastly increase the number of vets and the education level in the rural populations.  What are some possible solutions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7127" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="090e2244-28c5-49e8-89a8-1d231c9b3303" CreationDate="2014-08-27T17:29:13.000" UserId="1662" Text="What is a sustainable solution to cats in the tropics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7128" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="090e2244-28c5-49e8-89a8-1d231c9b3303" CreationDate="2014-08-27T17:29:13.000" UserId="1662" Text="|biosecurity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2981" RevisionGUID="cc2896cd-7749-4680-b343-83f0787772b6" CreationDate="2014-08-27T21:37:34.953" UserId="315" Text="Culling helps, may sound harsh but if an apex predator such as the cat begins to predominate or explode in numbers you will have reduction in populations of species that this predator preys on so reduction in the population of the apex predator will see an improvement in the species being affected." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2981" RevisionGUID="24fe8c8f-3a39-4b2a-a7cd-2a05fb125ee5" CreationDate="2014-08-27T21:46:31.547" UserId="315" Comment="added 214 characters in body" Text="Culling helps, may sound harsh but if an apex predator such as the cat begins to predominate or explode in numbers you will have reduction in populations of species that this predator preys on so reduction in the population of the apex predator will see an improvement in the species being affected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A less unsavoury approach is to carry out non-lethal thinning of the population by trapping them and taking them to a shelter. That way if they can't find homes then the shelter will be forced to put them down." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2983" RevisionGUID="b432d404-ac81-4d01-90cb-66dc80f75295" CreationDate="2014-08-27T23:52:35.700" UserId="642" Text="Another possibility is to use bokashi composting. This process ferments the organic scraps in an enclosed bucket with addition of microorganisms. The process is fast and you can put almost any organic scraps to the bucket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For details se:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Bokashi Composting][1] on Sustainable America&#xD;&#xA; - [Bokashi][2] on Wikipedia&#xD;&#xA; - [bokashicomposting.com][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sustainableamerica.org/blog/bokashi-composting/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokashi_composting#Bokashi&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://bokashicomposting.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2984" RevisionGUID="d3c22060-f4b8-49e4-8a98-e58c32fa4291" CreationDate="2014-08-28T00:16:42.753" UserId="1667" Text="This [NASA article][1] states that the ISS crew members will use 4 liters of water or less for bathing, in comparison to 50 liters which they claim is the average used by earth's citizens in developed countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a practical example of how you can bathe yourself while using the least amount of water efficiently?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast02nov_1/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2984" RevisionGUID="d3c22060-f4b8-49e4-8a98-e58c32fa4291" CreationDate="2014-08-28T00:16:42.753" UserId="1667" Text="How to conserve water while bathing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2984" RevisionGUID="d3c22060-f4b8-49e4-8a98-e58c32fa4291" CreationDate="2014-08-28T00:16:42.753" UserId="1667" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2985" RevisionGUID="e9f950e9-f7cd-4603-be5c-f76571ede110" CreationDate="2014-08-28T01:04:12.417" UserId="1667" Text="[Vermicomposting][1] can be performed indoors and it is space efficient and doesn't require sunlight, which allows you to allocate parts of your living quarters which aren't suitable for growing produce otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can manufacture your own vermicompost using cheap, accessible materials and the initial batch of earthworms can be harvested from the soil where outdoor composts are in contact with the soil or from a store that procures them as bait for fishing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've only seen two vermicomposts to date, both of which have been kept in a dry room with ample natural ventilation. There is some smell released by decomposing organic material on the top which quickly dissipates as you step away from the vermicompost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm still researching before my attempt to start my own in my apartment and I would like to address the issue with the smell to make it more appealing to visitors to consider starting their own, since I will be keeping my own in a small enclosed room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worms are sensitive to light and the compost still produces some heat, keeping it above the average room temperature. I believe it would be possible to use something similar to an enclosed growing bag, where fresh air comes from the top and deposits of active carbon or a filter at the bottom can be placed to fully deodorize the air before it escapes into circulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://journeytoforever.org/compost_worm.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2986" RevisionGUID="8b9e6192-73e3-4c96-b9ed-27817884ac8e" CreationDate="2014-08-28T02:15:15.253" UserId="85" Text="When I want to be really efficient, my strategy for showering is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. rinse the body from head to toe (15 seconds)  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;just so that everything gets wet&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2. stop the water and apply soap from head to toe&#xD;&#xA;3. rinse again head to toe to wash off all the soap (45 seconds)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just took a shower (including washing my hair!) to get these times, without particularly hurrying. I measured that the shower strength I adjusted corresponds to 500 ml per 20 seconds. That is, **I just took a shower using only 1.5 litres of water**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(When I leave the water running, I use about 3-4 litres.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have to &quot;wait&quot; for warm water, use this water to wash your feet first. You'll feel warmer moving and your hands and feet won't really mind the cold water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you sell my strategy to NASA, please consider donating 80% of your gains to a sustainability project of your choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. If you're serious about showering efficiency in general, wipe of excess water on your body with your hands before you dry yourself with your towel (only takes 5 seconds). This helps the towel dry faster, last longer, need less frequent washings and allows your bathroom to dry faster, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="964b17eb-f30d-4d2f-8db0-3c58d5260e91" CreationDate="2014-08-28T14:52:32.997" UserId="1053" Text="Step 1: shower rather than filling a hot bath. If you happen to shower in a bathtub, leave the plug in next time and compare the final water level to how deep it is when you run a bath. For most people showers use 1/4 to 1/2 the water of baths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 2: shower less often. Your hair adjusts its oil production to your washing frequency, a fact you can easily confirm in a week's experiment. Every other day should be fine unless you are a manual labourer or construction worker. You might benefit from wearing deodorant on non-shower days. Showering every other day will cut your water use in half. If you're convinced you reek, a quick wipe with a warm facecloth for the parts of you that you believe are the problem will use almost no water, and it's ok that your elbows are going unrinsed for a day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 3: turn the shower off while you do anything that takes time (shaving, applying hair conditioner, etc) in the shower. This has the smallest impact but could cut water use in half depending on the things you do in the shower. Also consider doing less in the shower: do you need to soap and then rinse every square inch of skin from head to toe? How did your elbows or the tops of your feet get so filthy they need soap? Surely they get clean enough just with the water running over them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 4: cut your hair super short (but don't shave your head) so you don't need to do so much to it in the shower. Grow a beard so you don't need water to shave your face. Most people would reject these choices because they affect life outside the shower too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 5: wash your hair in the sink (using about 2L of water) every other day, and clean yourself with a washcloth and warm water at the same time. Takes a little longer but could get water use down dramatically. Think of showers and baths as recreational activities rather than for cleaning yourself, and &quot;spend&quot; water when you want that experience. Probably what I would choose before Step 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 6: install some sort of greywater system so the water you shower and wash with is used for another purpose before you dispose of it. Ironically the more you concentrate the soap (and possibly dirt) in a smaller and smaller amount of water the less desirable your greywater is. But look into it anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2987" RevisionGUID="094feda4-a0fd-4020-852d-f84d8dfc1cc1" CreationDate="2014-08-28T19:28:30.227" UserId="1053" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Step 1: shower rather than filling a hot bath. If you happen to shower in a bathtub, leave the plug in next time and compare the final water level to how deep it is when you run a bath. For most people showers use 1/4 to 1/2 the water of baths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 2: shower less often. Your hair adjusts its oil production to your washing frequency, a fact you can easily confirm in a week's experiment. Every other day should be fine unless you are a manual labourer or construction worker. You might benefit from wearing deodorant on non-shower days. Showering every other day will cut your water use in half. If you're convinced you reek, a quick wipe with a warm facecloth for the parts of you that you believe are the problem will use almost no water, and it's ok that your elbows are going unrinsed for a day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 3: turn the shower off while you do anything that takes time (shaving, applying hair conditioner, etc) in the shower. This has the smallest impact but could cut water use in half depending on the things you do in the shower. Also consider doing less in the shower: do you need to soap and then rinse every square inch of skin from head to toe? How did your elbows or the tops of your feet get so filthy they need soap? Surely they get clean enough just with the water running over them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 4: cut your hair super short (but don't shave your head) so you don't need to do so much to it in the shower. Grow a beard so you don't need water to shave your face. Stop shaving or removing any body hair. Most people would reject these choices because they affect life outside the shower too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 5: wash your hair in the sink (using about 2L of water) every other day, and clean yourself with a washcloth and warm water at the same time. Takes a little longer but could get water use down dramatically. Think of showers and baths as recreational activities rather than for cleaning yourself, and &quot;spend&quot; water when you want that experience. Probably what I would choose before Step 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 6: install some sort of greywater system so the water you shower and wash with is used for another purpose before you dispose of it. Ironically the more you concentrate the soap (and possibly dirt) in a smaller and smaller amount of water the less desirable your greywater is. But look into it anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="9e0bd9b8-ba73-4d3c-893b-1a160ee5bcdb" CreationDate="2014-08-28T21:12:58.257" UserId="99" Text="In [this article](http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/) the authors claim that solar PV has an EROI of 1.6 and 3.9 when you can store (buffer) excess energy. They also say solar CSP (in a desert) has an EROI of 9 and 19 with buffer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the [original article](http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf) on which they've based these numbers. To be more precise in that article they say:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;                                                    EROI     EROI buffered&#xD;&#xA;    ----------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Poly-Si Rooftop                         4.0      2.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Poly-Si Field (extra steel frame)       3.8      2.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Amorphous Rooftop                       2.3      1.6&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Amorphous Field                         2.1      1.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Solar thermal (CSP) parabolic (phenyl coolant)  21.0      9.6&#xD;&#xA;    Solar thermal (CSP) Fresnel (steam coolant)     17.0      8.2&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="2fb3fd1e-0212-4090-886b-5ea32dab696f" CreationDate="2014-08-28T21:50:00.623" UserId="99" Comment="mixed up the buffered/unbuffered numbers" Text="In [this article](http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/) the author claims that solar PV has an EROI of 3.9 (and 1.6 when you buffer excess energy). He also says solar CSP (in a desert) has an EROI of 19 (and 9 with buffer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the [original article](http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf) on which these numbers are based. To be more precise in that article they say:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;                                                    EROI     EROI buffered&#xD;&#xA;    ----------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Poly-Si Rooftop                         4.0      2.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Poly-Si Field (extra steel frame)       3.8      2.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Amorphous Rooftop                       2.3      1.6&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Amorphous Field                         2.1      1.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Solar thermal (CSP) parabolic (phenyl coolant)  21.0      9.6&#xD;&#xA;    Solar thermal (CSP) Fresnel (steam coolant)     17.0      8.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2989" RevisionGUID="b135e246-4605-40b2-8a6f-de5539c5f6fa" CreationDate="2014-08-28T23:04:40.147" UserId="659" Text="The simple answer is a sponge bath, much like the astronauts do. I do this when I'm camping and need to bathe in icy cold water. Grab a handkerchief or small towel and wet it, then wipe yourself down with it. If you're using soap, I find s small bowl with 2-3 cups of water and a bar of soap makes a useful addition. Foam up the soap on your (wet) hands to make soapy water, then put the soap back in the plastic bag it lives in. Dip cloth in water, wipe yourself with soapy water. Then discard the water and add a cup of clean water. Wipe yourself off, and when the &quot;clean&quot; water is too dirty, change it. You should be able to bathe using less than four litres of water this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's time-consuming and I don't necessarily feel very clean afterwards, just less dirty. To save water when showering I turn the shower on, then without waiting for the hot water to come through I jump under the water, rapidly wipe water onto myself, then turn the water off. The water being cold helps me focus on being quick :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm wet I can soap up. Then when I turn the shower water back on the warm water will come through more quickly and I can wash off in 30 seconds or less, with warm water arriving at the end. Assuming a low-flow shower head and not washing my hair (I have a buzz cut) that's 2-5 litres of water used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give you some idea, during a drought we had a share house with 6 people using less than 155 litres a day between us. That's average consumption over several months, not the one day we all made an effort, BTW." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="fae0ecc2-68db-43da-82d3-9fc7ed4eaa1d" CreationDate="2014-08-29T09:06:26.530" UserId="99" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="In [this article](http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/) the (apparently pro-nuclear energy) author claims that solar PV has an EROI of 3.9 (and 1.6 when you buffer excess energy). He also says solar CSP in a desert has an EROI of 19 (and 9 with buffer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the [original article](http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf) on which these numbers are based. To be more precise in that article they say:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;                                                    EROI     EROI buffered&#xD;&#xA;    ----------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Poly-Si Rooftop                         4.0      2.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Poly-Si Field (extra steel frame)       3.8      2.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Amorphous Rooftop                       2.3      1.6&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Amorphous Field                         2.1      1.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Solar thermal (CSP) parabolic (phenyl coolant)  21.0      9.6&#xD;&#xA;    Solar thermal (CSP) Fresnel (steam coolant)     17.0      8.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how reliable the numbers are, but perhaps this can function as (a start of) a rough estimate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7147" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2984" RevisionGUID="5d0183ca-2921-4a9a-b2d5-21828adaf6aa" CreationDate="2014-08-29T11:19:22.337" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/505313755648233472" />
  <row Id="7148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2990" RevisionGUID="0f32c321-2825-4a27-adf6-6bb017ff5bb1" CreationDate="2014-08-29T20:06:28.520" UserId="1667" Text="Silicone itself is not biodegradable and is tolerant to heat and UV exposure. In polymers, such as the manufacturing of utensils, tableware and kitchen appliances that are exposed to heat (think water heaters), the silicone is usually bound with other compounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most significant danger from all polymers comes from combustion. The gases that are released will almost always contain compounds which are bioacumulative. With respect to silicone, this will create deposits in the soft tissue around the neck and in the lungs from inhaling, even from brief exposure. It will lead to increased levels of potassium, an inflammatory process in the lymph nodes and tissues surrounding the neck and lung, it will impede lymph circulation and cause inflammation and calcification of the neck bones and the rib cartilage. Given that it will trigger an immune responses, when certain conditions are met, it will cascade to autoimmune diseases and neurological disorders first and to rheumatic diseases in the long term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, accidental exposure to silicone fumes or ingestion of silicone would trigger a number of pathological processes and collection of, seemingly unrelated, medical conditions. One could say, with confidence, that it would be impossible for a healthcare professional to correlate these back to silicone, unless the amounts of silicone introduce would be acute, causing an obvious lung or skin reaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it would only be acceptable to use silicon when, under no possible circumstances, it can come in contact with heat sources or food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7149" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2980" RevisionGUID="53799f32-700d-4af4-a3ae-152a004bfc3d" CreationDate="2014-08-29T20:19:40.297" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/505449726398189568" />
  <row Id="7150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2990" RevisionGUID="c7c1e12e-b79a-4e44-ac83-d7c144473a51" CreationDate="2014-08-30T09:43:32.820" UserId="1667" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Silicon itself is not biodegradable and is tolerant to heat and UV exposure. In polymers, such as the manufacturing of utensils, tableware and kitchen appliances that are exposed to heat (think water heaters), the silicon is usually bound with other compounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most significant danger from all polymers comes from combustion. The gases that are released will almost always contain compounds which are inert and bioacumulative. With respect to silicon, this will create deposits in the soft tissue around the neck and in the lungs from inhaling, even from brief exposure. It will lead to increased levels of potassium, an inflammatory process in the lymph nodes and tissues surrounding the neck and lung, it will impede lymph circulation and cause inflammation and calcification of the neck bones and the rib cartilage. Given that it will trigger an immune responses, when certain conditions are met, it will cascade to autoimmune diseases and neurological disorders first, early onset of rheumatic disorders later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, accidental exposure to silicon fumes or ingestion of silicon would trigger a number of pathological processes and collection of, seemingly unrelated, medical conditions. One could say, with confidence, that it would be impossible for a healthcare professional to correlate these back to silicon, unless the amounts of silicon introduced would be acute, causing an obvious lung or skin reaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe it would only be acceptable to use silicon when, under no possible circumstances, it can come in contact with heat sources or food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7151" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2973" RevisionGUID="080e5812-00d5-408a-942e-9b31d1ef2103" CreationDate="2014-08-30T11:19:42.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/505676228188463104" />
  <row Id="7152" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2971" RevisionGUID="12e36755-cd5a-423d-ae69-d1e9d16c92dc" CreationDate="2014-08-30T17:22:00.953" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/505767405797519360" />
  <row Id="7153" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2957" RevisionGUID="164544d0-0e1c-4927-94bb-4ee998a0e604" CreationDate="2014-09-01T23:28:04.143" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/506584301845356544" />
  <row Id="7154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2991" RevisionGUID="4c94c866-b2e3-4a22-9a90-eac00f6ca251" CreationDate="2014-09-02T06:19:33.713" UserId="836" Text="Modern science has gone a lot way farther and the medical field we can see the reflection of these advantages. Amazing inventions in modern medicine helps in saving a lot of lives daily. But AFIK it do have some side effects too. Even though these modern medicines helps in suppressing or curing particular diseases, most of the modern medicines have long term side effects on human body. The more researches scientist conduct, the more side effects are revealed. These side effects again compelling people to use such medicines again and again and thus making the conditions much worse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a sustainable living culture which is close to nature, modern medicine may not be suitable. I have heard about many traditional way of treatments which are far more effective in case of some of the common diseases and having no side effects on human body as well on the nature. Many people still follow their traditional way of treatments. Actually nature has resources which help to cure different diseases.  What are all the examples of  such treatments which are close to nature and proven effective and suitable for a sustainable living? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2991" RevisionGUID="4c94c866-b2e3-4a22-9a90-eac00f6ca251" CreationDate="2014-09-02T06:19:33.713" UserId="836" Text="What are the natural alternatives for modern medicine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2991" RevisionGUID="4c94c866-b2e3-4a22-9a90-eac00f6ca251" CreationDate="2014-09-02T06:19:33.713" UserId="836" Text="|nature|treatment|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2991" RevisionGUID="c214778b-1256-4972-9c07-077849a55ce3" CreationDate="2014-09-02T06:38:33.660" UserId="836" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="Modern science has gone a lot way farther and in the medical field we can see the reflection of these advantages. Amazing inventions in modern medicine helps in saving a lot of lives daily. But AFIK it do have some side effects too. Even though these modern medicines helps in suppressing or curing particular diseases, most of the modern medicines have long term side effects on human body. The more researches scientist conduct, the more side effects are revealed. These side effects again compelling people to use such medicines again, thus making the conditions much worse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a sustainable living culture which is close to nature, modern medicine may not be suitable. I have heard about many traditional way of treatments which are far more effective in case of some of the common diseases and having no side effects on human body as well on the nature. Many people still follow their traditional way of treatments. Actually nature has resources which help to cure different diseases.  What are all the examples of  such treatments which are close to nature and proven effective and suitable for a sustainable living? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2992" RevisionGUID="c0a3bb3e-227d-49c7-8981-a5833c4a8731" CreationDate="2014-09-02T07:34:15.077" UserId="48" Text="There is a name for natural medicines that work and are effective, and have undergone rigorous testing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That name is: modern medicine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several reasons why a lot of things you call modern medicines are highly refined, purified versions of naturally-occurring chemicals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting aside for one moment the temporary issue of patenting (as most medicines are already out of patent, and all are after 20-25 years), there are lots of naturally-occurring chemicals that have medicinal properties. Unfortunately, nature being what it is, those chemicals come, in nature, bundled up with a bunch of other chemicals which do not contribute to the medicinal effect, and may impair it, or introduce other side effects. In addition, their concentration levels in nature varies hugely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process of refining and purification removes those excess chemicals, and leaves only the bit that we want: the bit that's effective, and has the least side effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of side effects in synthesised or artificial medicines is by no means reason to use &quot;natural&quot; medicines: that's just self-defeating; it's just choosing to make yourself worse off than you need to be; it's wilfully ignoring the evidence, in favour of superstition. Natural medicines also have side effects. There are key differences between modern and natural medicines, but the existence of side-effects is not one of them. The key differences are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- it is much easier to regulate the dosage levels with modern medicines;&#xD;&#xA;- the effects, indications and contra-indications are far more closely studied in modern medicines;&#xD;&#xA;- the additional chemicals present are quantified, well-understood, and chosen to be non-harmful to the patient in modern medicines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2992" RevisionGUID="2d13409d-fee8-445e-b252-3c6307c51dff" CreationDate="2014-09-02T08:50:40.153" UserId="48" Comment="added 302 characters in body" Text="There is a name for natural medicines that work and are effective, and have undergone rigorous testing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That name is: modern medicine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several reasons why a lot of things you call modern medicines are highly refined, purified versions of naturally-occurring chemicals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting aside for one moment the temporary issue of patenting (as most medicines are already out of patent, and all are after 20-25 years), there are lots of naturally-occurring chemicals that have medicinal properties. Unfortunately, nature being what it is, those chemicals come, in nature, bundled up with a bunch of other chemicals which do not contribute to the medicinal effect, and may impair it, or introduce other side effects. In addition, their concentration levels in nature varies hugely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process of refining and purification removes those excess chemicals, and leaves only the bit that we want: the bit that's effective, and has the least side effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existence of side effects in synthesised or artificial medicines is by no means reason to use &quot;natural&quot; medicines: that's just self-defeating; it's just choosing to make yourself worse off than you need to be; it's wilfully ignoring the evidence, in favour of superstition. Natural medicines also have side effects. There are key differences between modern and natural medicines, but the existence of side-effects is not one of them. The key differences are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- it is much easier to regulate the dosage levels with modern medicines;&#xD;&#xA;- the effects, indications and contra-indications are far more closely studied in modern medicines;&#xD;&#xA;- the additional chemicals present are quantified, well-understood, and chosen to be non-harmful to the patient in modern medicines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not to say that all is well in the world of modern medicine. There are huge problems there, with pharma companies cherry-picking evidence, concealing trial failures, putting profiteering before above human civilisation, and so on; but none of these give any net benefit to natural medicines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2993" RevisionGUID="1f253d35-b7c7-4819-b78c-062038c2a2a4" CreationDate="2014-09-02T09:01:57.207" UserId="15" Text="Let thy food be thy medicine. And prevention!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much of the medicine people require is only needed because of an underlying lack of understanding of what's required to be healthy, or an inability to obtain it. If I understand correctly, most diabetes and heart disease, and much cancer too, is preventable through a healthy diet and regular exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with @EnergyNumbers that modern scientific techniques, through research and processing, can accentuate the benefits of naturally occurring substances. However, the pharmaceutical industry is mostly profit-making, which gives a conflict of interest to the research and marketing of it. This means there's a tendency to focus research on something patentable rather than, say, a simple plant extract. Thus, even when the science is done well, we're more likely to have a good understanding of synthetic rather than natural medicine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If people were to fund research into cheaper, more readily available, minimally processed medicines, then we may find that we get good medicines for many ailments that are far more sustainable than highly-processed synthetic medicines. Synthetic medicines are sure to still remain important though! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand there are non-profit pharmaceutical organisations; perhaps someone would like to edit this to list a few?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2991" RevisionGUID="7736322f-a7e3-4be0-b6e0-145f094e3905" CreationDate="2014-09-02T09:49:57.720" UserId="659" Comment="tidied language, hopefully without changing the question too much." Text="Modern science has gone a lot way farther and in the medical field we can see the reflection of these advantages. Amazing inventions in modern medicine helps in saving a lot of lives daily. But AFAIK many medicines have side effects too. Even though these modern medicines help in suppressing or curing particular diseases, most of the modern medicines have long term side effects on human body. The more research scientist conduct, the more side effects are revealed. These side effects are compelling some people to use other medicines to deal with them, thus making the conditions much worse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a sustainable living culture which is close to nature modern medicine may not be suitable. I have heard about many traditional treatments which are far more effective in case of some of the common diseases and have no side effects on human body as well as on  nature. Many people still follow their traditional way of treatments. Actually nature has resources which help to cure different diseases.  What are all the examples of such treatments which are close to nature and proven effective and suitable for a sustainable living? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7162" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2991" RevisionGUID="7736322f-a7e3-4be0-b6e0-145f094e3905" CreationDate="2014-09-02T09:49:57.720" UserId="659" Comment="tidied language, hopefully without changing the question too much." Text="What are the natural alternatives to modern medicine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2993" RevisionGUID="3b87d9c7-6a22-4333-afbe-84617d6797be" CreationDate="2014-09-02T10:46:12.820" UserId="15" Comment="minor change to wording" Text="Let thy food be thy medicine. Especially thy preventive medicine!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much of the medicine people require is only needed because of an underlying lack of understanding of what's required to be healthy, or an inability to obtain it. If I understand correctly, most diabetes and heart disease, and much cancer too, is preventable through a healthy diet and regular exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with @EnergyNumbers that modern scientific techniques, through research and processing, can accentuate the benefits of naturally occurring substances. However, the pharmaceutical industry is mostly profit-making, which gives a conflict of interest to the research and marketing of it. This means there's a tendency to focus research on something patentable rather than, say, a simple plant extract. Thus, even when the science is done well, we're more likely to have a good understanding of synthetic rather than natural medicine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If people were to fund research into cheaper, more readily available, minimally processed medicines, then we may find that we get good medicines for many ailments that are far more sustainable than highly-processed synthetic medicines. Synthetic medicines are sure to still remain important though! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand there are non-profit pharmaceutical organisations; perhaps someone would like to edit this to list a few?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2991" RevisionGUID="7986a954-3384-4f4e-b1f7-8c2ef0912f6e" CreationDate="2014-09-02T16:41:36.493" UserId="836" Comment="added 741 characters in body" Text="Modern science has gone a lot way farther and in the medical field we can see the reflection of these advantages. Amazing inventions in modern medicine helps in saving a lot of lives daily. But AFAIK many medicines have side effects too. Even though these modern medicines help in suppressing or curing particular diseases, most of the modern medicines have long term side effects on human body. The more research scientist conduct, the more side effects are revealed(I am not sure about the percentage of researches they conduct to study about the side effects). These side effects are compelling some people to use other medicines to deal with them, thus making the conditions much worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also as @Highly irregular has pointed, the pharmaceutical giants are aiming at profit rather than considering the effect of new medicines in the long term run. Actually they are not ready to wait, because they need to get the patents before their competitor. There can be thousands of medicines in medicinal market which are not undergone proper testing.    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For a sustainable living culture which is close to nature modern medicine may not be suitable. I have heard about many traditional treatments which are far more effective in case of some of the common diseases and have no side effects on human body as well as on  nature. Many people still follow their traditional way of treatments. Actually nature has resources which help to cure different diseases.  What are all the examples of such treatments which are close to nature and proven effective and suitable for a sustainable living? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Modern medicines are also made from nature I agree with the answer @EnergyNumbers has given. But by 'close to nature' I want to emphasize on the plants and trees. So actually I was asking about the traditional treatments which are directly related to plants, trees, water, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2994" RevisionGUID="3bd01132-5050-4741-9f7e-82047b380215" CreationDate="2014-09-02T17:43:33.753" UserId="836" Text="I hope Ayurveda is one of it's kind. Most of the medicines used in Ayurveda are readily available from nature and it is based on Hindu Vedas. The ancient yogis and teachers have prepared these basic texts for Ayurveda.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting major points from [wikipedia][1] about this treatment technique,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ayurveda (Sanskrit Āyurveda आयुर्वेद, &quot;life-knowledge&quot;; English pronunciation /ˌaɪ.ərˈveɪdə/) or Ayurvedic medicine is a system of Hindu traditional medicine, is native to the Indian subcontinent, and is a form of alternative medicine. The oldest known Ayurvedic texts are the Suśrutha Saṃhitā and the Charaka Saṃhitā. These Classical Sanskrit texts are among the foundational and formally compiled works of Ayurveda.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;By the medieval period, Ayurvedic practitioners developed a number of medicinal preparations and surgical procedures for the treatment of various ailments.[3] Practices that are derived from Ayurvedic medicine are regarded as part of complementary and alternative medicine, and along with Siddha Medicine and Traditional Chinese medicine, forms the basis for systems medicine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ayurveda is at present well integrated into the Indian National health care system, with state hospitals for Ayurveda established across the country. In the United States, the practice of Ayurveda is licensed in complementary heath care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ayurvedic doctors regard physical and mental existence as well as personality as a unit, each element having the capacity to influence the others. One of the fundamental aspects of Ayurvedic medicine is to take this holistic approach into account during diagnosis and therapy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Treatment and health protection**&#xD;&#xA;While two of the eight branches of classical Ayurveda deal with surgery (Śalya-cikitsā, Śālākya-tantra), contemporary Ayurvedic theory tends to emphasise that building a healthy metabolic system, attaining good digestion and proper excretion lead to vitality.Ayurveda also focuses on exercise, yoga, and meditation. To maintain health, a Sattvic diet can be prescribed to the patient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Concepts of Dinacharya are followed in Ayurveda; dinacharya stresses the importance of natural cycles (waking, sleeping, working, meditation etc.) for a healthy living. Hygiene, too, is a central practice of Ayurvedic medicine. Hygienic living involves regular bathing, cleansing of teeth, skin care, and eye washing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Natural medical substances used**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ayurveda stresses the use of plant-based medicines and treatments. Plant-based medicines are derived from roots, leaves, fruits, barks and seeds such as cardamom and cinnamon. William Dymock and co-authors summarized hundreds of plant-derived medicines in 19th century, along with the prevalent myth, stories, uses, microscopic structure, chemical composition, toxicology and commerce in British India. Some animal products may also be used, for example milk, bones, and gallstones. In addition, fats are used both for consumption and for external use. Minerals, including sulphur, arsenic, lead, copper sulfate and gold are also consumed as prescribed.This practice of adding minerals to herbal medicine is known as rasa shastra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In some cases, alcohol was used as a narcotic for patients undergoing operation. The advent of Islam introduced opium as a narcotic.Both oil and tar were used to stop bleeding.Traumatic bleeding was said to be stopped by four different methods: ligation of the blood vessel; cauterisation by heat; using different herbal or animal preparations locally which could facilitate clotting; and different medical preparations which could constrict the bleeding or oozing vessels. Various oils could be used in a number of ways, including regular consumption as a part of food, anointing, smearing, head massage, prescribed application to affected areas,[24] and oil pulling. Also, liquids may be poured on the patient's forehead, a technique which is called shirodhara.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to some sources, up to 80 percent of people in India use some form of traditional medicine, a category which includes Ayurveda. There are many Ayurvedic hospitals in India . This is widely used in countries like Nepal and Srilanka.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The doctors in this field is known as 'Vaidya' and most of them have followed this profession traditionally from their family. I am residing in Kerala- south of India, which is one of the major state where these Vaidyas are active. Many people visits Kerala only for getting this treatment from these traditional doctors who are studying human values from their father or grandfather rather than making profits out of the service. Also there are not much competitions among them. Here in India, the most competitions are taking place among the modern hospitals who are running behind the profit without considering human values. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example, for fever(fever is not a disease though), I prefer to drink boiled water with leaves of holy basil(one of the major herb in the Ayurvedic treatment) rather than modern medicinal tablets like 'paracetamol','Anacin',etc. (Also one doubt, why so many tablets for fever if one is perfect). There are many such practices using herbs in here but I can't list all of them. I will try to include some of them if I get a chance, but not sure whether such plants or herbs are available outside Kerala or India.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to introduce the Ayurveda to the community as it is so close to nature and suitable for sustainable living. It include not only the treatment, but also instructions about the prevention methods of diseases and food habits to be followed. Modern medicines is good for many diseases, but rather than emphasizing on the prevention methods, it mainly focus on treatment and the case is different with Ayurveda. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more additional info about Ayurveda, first plastic surgery in the history of medicine was done by [Susrutha][2], one of the guru(teacher) who wrote the books for Ayurveda.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushruta_Samhita" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2994" RevisionGUID="caf3677b-5372-4bfd-a343-8bad8276ccd4" CreationDate="2014-09-02T17:54:58.267" UserId="836" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="I hope Ayurveda is one of it's kind. Most of the medicines used in Ayurveda are readily available from nature and it is based on Hindu Vedas. The ancient yogis and teachers have prepared these basic texts for Ayurveda.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting major points from [wikipedia][1] about this treatment technique,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ayurveda (Sanskrit Āyurveda आयुर्वेद, &quot;life-knowledge&quot;; English pronunciation /ˌaɪ.ərˈveɪdə/) or Ayurvedic medicine is a system of Hindu traditional medicine, is native to the Indian subcontinent, and is a form of alternative medicine. The oldest known Ayurvedic texts are the Suśrutha Saṃhitā and the Charaka Saṃhitā. These Classical Sanskrit texts are among the foundational and formally compiled works of Ayurveda.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;By the medieval period, Ayurvedic practitioners developed a number of medicinal preparations and surgical procedures for the treatment of various ailments.[3] Practices that are derived from Ayurvedic medicine are regarded as part of complementary and alternative medicine, and along with Siddha Medicine and Traditional Chinese medicine, forms the basis for systems medicine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ayurveda is at present well integrated into the Indian National health care system, with state hospitals for Ayurveda established across the country. In the United States, the practice of Ayurveda is licensed in complementary heath care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ayurvedic doctors regard physical and mental existence as well as personality as a unit, each element having the capacity to influence the others. One of the fundamental aspects of Ayurvedic medicine is to take this holistic approach into account during diagnosis and therapy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Treatment and health protection**&#xD;&#xA;While two of the eight branches of classical Ayurveda deal with surgery (Śalya-cikitsā, Śālākya-tantra), contemporary Ayurvedic theory tends to emphasise that building a healthy metabolic system, attaining good digestion and proper excretion lead to vitality.Ayurveda also focuses on exercise, yoga, and meditation. To maintain health, a Sattvic diet can be prescribed to the patient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Concepts of Dinacharya are followed in Ayurveda; dinacharya stresses the importance of natural cycles (waking, sleeping, working, meditation etc.) for a healthy living. Hygiene, too, is a central practice of Ayurvedic medicine. Hygienic living involves regular bathing, cleansing of teeth, skin care, and eye washing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Natural medical substances used**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ayurveda stresses the use of plant-based medicines and treatments. Plant-based medicines are derived from roots, leaves, fruits, barks and seeds such as cardamom and cinnamon. William Dymock and co-authors summarized hundreds of plant-derived medicines in 19th century, along with the prevalent myth, stories, uses, microscopic structure, chemical composition, toxicology and commerce in British India. Some animal products may also be used, for example milk, bones, and gallstones. In addition, fats are used both for consumption and for external use. Minerals, including sulphur, arsenic, lead, copper sulfate and gold are also consumed as prescribed.This practice of adding minerals to herbal medicine is known as rasa shastra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In some cases, alcohol was used as a narcotic for patients undergoing operation. The advent of Islam introduced opium as a narcotic.Both oil and tar were used to stop bleeding.Traumatic bleeding was said to be stopped by four different methods: ligation of the blood vessel; cauterisation by heat; using different herbal or animal preparations locally which could facilitate clotting; and different medical preparations which could constrict the bleeding or oozing vessels. Various oils could be used in a number of ways, including regular consumption as a part of food, anointing, smearing, head massage, prescribed application to affected areas,[24] and oil pulling. Also, liquids may be poured on the patient's forehead, a technique which is called shirodhara.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to some sources, up to 80 percent of people in India use some form of traditional medicine, a category which includes Ayurveda. There are many Ayurvedic hospitals in India . This is widely used in countries like Nepal and Srilanka.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The doctors in this field is known as 'Vaidya' and most of them have followed this profession traditionally from their family. I am residing in Kerala- south of India, which is one of the major state where these Vaidyas are active. Many people visits Kerala only for getting this treatment from these traditional doctors who are studying human values from their father or grandfather rather than making profits out of the service. Also there are not much competitions among them. Here in India, the most competitions are taking place among the modern hospitals who are running behind the profit without considering human values. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example, for fever(fever is not a disease though), I prefer to drink boiled water with leaves of holy basil(one of the major herb in the Ayurvedic treatment) rather than modern medicinal tablets like 'paracetamol','Anacin',etc. (Also one doubt, why so many tablets for fever if one is perfect). There are many such practices using herbs in here but I can't list all of them. I will try to include some of them if I get a chance, but not sure whether such plants or herbs are available outside Kerala or India.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to introduce the Ayurveda to the community as it is so close to nature and suitable for sustainable living. It include not only the treatment, but also instructions about the prevention methods of diseases and food habits to be followed. Modern medicines is good for many diseases, but rather than emphasizing on the prevention methods, it mainly focus on treatment and the case is different with Ayurveda. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more additional info about Ayurveda, first plastic surgery in the history of medicine was done by [Susrutha][2], one of the guru(teacher) who wrote the books for Ayurveda.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P:S: I am not an expert in this field, just sharing the a little bit of information I know, which is one of the aim of SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushruta_Samhita" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7167" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2991" RevisionGUID="56f1661b-5ae5-4804-981d-27c1c7fa1ceb" CreationDate="2014-09-03T07:47:27.997" UserId="836" Comment="edited title" Text="What are the natural treatment techniques which can be used as alternatives to modern medicinal treatments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2991" RevisionGUID="56f1661b-5ae5-4804-981d-27c1c7fa1ceb" CreationDate="2014-09-03T07:47:27.997" UserId="836" Comment="edited title" Text="Modern science has gone a lot way farther and in the medical field we can see the reflection of these advantages. Amazing inventions in modern medicine helps in saving a lot of lives daily. But AFAIK many medicines have side effects too. Even though these modern medicines help in suppressing or curing particular diseases, most of the modern medicines have long term side effects on human body. The more research scientist conduct, the more side effects are revealed(I am not sure about the percentage of researches they conduct to study about the side effects). These side effects are compelling some people to use other medicines to deal with them, thus making the conditions much worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also as @Highly irregular has pointed, the pharmaceutical giants are aiming at profit rather than considering the effect of new medicines in the long term run. Actually they are not ready to wait, because they need to get the patents before their competitor. There can be thousands of medicines in medicinal market which are not undergone proper testing.    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For a sustainable living culture which is close to nature modern medicine may not be suitable. I have heard about many traditional treatments which are far more effective in case of some of the common diseases and have no side effects on human body as well as on  nature. Many people still follow their traditional way of treatments. Actually nature has resources which help to cure different diseases.  What are all the examples of such treatments which are close to nature and proven effective and suitable for a sustainable living? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Modern medicines are also made from nature I agree with the answer @EnergyNumbers has given. But by 'close to nature' I want to emphasize on the plants and trees. So actually I was asking about the treatment techniques which are directly related to plants, trees, water, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2994" RevisionGUID="7e58ebef-806c-4156-853d-689f426fae62" CreationDate="2014-09-03T07:50:29.057" UserId="836" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="I hope Ayurveda is one of it's kind. Most of the medicines used in Ayurveda are readily available from nature and it is based on Hindu Vedas. The ancient yogis and teachers have prepared these basic texts for Ayurveda.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting major points from [wikipedia][1] about this treatment technique,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ayurveda (Sanskrit Āyurveda आयुर्वेद, &quot;life-knowledge&quot;; English pronunciation /ˌaɪ.ərˈveɪdə/) or Ayurvedic medicine is a system of Hindu traditional medicine, is native to the Indian subcontinent, and is a form of alternative medicine. The oldest known Ayurvedic texts are the Suśrutha Saṃhitā and the Charaka Saṃhitā. These Classical Sanskrit texts are among the foundational and formally compiled works of Ayurveda.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;By the medieval period, Ayurvedic practitioners developed a number of medicinal preparations and surgical procedures for the treatment of various ailments.[3] Practices that are derived from Ayurvedic medicine are regarded as part of complementary and alternative medicine, and along with Siddha Medicine and Traditional Chinese medicine, forms the basis for systems medicine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ayurveda is at present well integrated into the Indian National health care system, with state hospitals for Ayurveda established across the country. In the United States, the practice of Ayurveda is licensed in complementary heath care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ayurvedic doctors regard physical and mental existence as well as personality as a unit, each element having the capacity to influence the others. One of the fundamental aspects of Ayurvedic medicine is to take this holistic approach into account during diagnosis and therapy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Treatment and health protection**&#xD;&#xA;While two of the eight branches of classical Ayurveda deal with surgery (Śalya-cikitsā, Śālākya-tantra), contemporary Ayurvedic theory tends to emphasise that building a healthy metabolic system, attaining good digestion and proper excretion lead to vitality.Ayurveda also focuses on exercise, yoga, and meditation. To maintain health, a Sattvic diet can be prescribed to the patient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Concepts of Dinacharya are followed in Ayurveda; dinacharya stresses the importance of natural cycles (waking, sleeping, working, meditation etc.) for a healthy living. Hygiene, too, is a central practice of Ayurvedic medicine. Hygienic living involves regular bathing, cleansing of teeth, skin care, and eye washing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Natural medical substances used**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ayurveda stresses the use of plant-based medicines and treatments. Plant-based medicines are derived from roots, leaves, fruits, barks and seeds such as cardamom and cinnamon. William Dymock and co-authors summarized hundreds of plant-derived medicines in 19th century, along with the prevalent myth, stories, uses, microscopic structure, chemical composition, toxicology and commerce in British India. Some animal products may also be used, for example milk, bones, and gallstones. In addition, fats are used both for consumption and for external use. Minerals, including sulphur, arsenic, lead, copper sulfate and gold are also consumed as prescribed.This practice of adding minerals to herbal medicine is known as rasa shastra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In some cases, alcohol was used as a narcotic for patients undergoing operation. The advent of Islam introduced opium as a narcotic.Both oil and tar were used to stop bleeding.Traumatic bleeding was said to be stopped by four different methods: ligation of the blood vessel; cauterisation by heat; using different herbal or animal preparations locally which could facilitate clotting; and different medical preparations which could constrict the bleeding or oozing vessels. Various oils could be used in a number of ways, including regular consumption as a part of food, anointing, smearing, head massage, prescribed application to affected areas,[24] and oil pulling. Also, liquids may be poured on the patient's forehead, a technique which is called shirodhara.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to some sources, up to 80 percent of people in India use some form of traditional medicine, a category which includes Ayurveda. There are many Ayurvedic hospitals in India . This is widely used in countries like Nepal and Srilanka.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The doctors in this field is known as 'Vaidya' and most of them have followed this profession traditionally from their family. I am residing in Kerala- south of India, which is one of the major state where these Vaidyas are active. Many people visits Kerala only for getting this treatment from these traditional doctors who are studying human values from their father or grandfather rather than making profits out of the service. Also there are not much competitions among them. Here in India, the most competitions are taking place among the modern hospitals who are running behind the profit without considering human values. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example, for fever(fever is not a disease though), I prefer to drink boiled water with leaves of holy basil(one of the major herb in the Ayurvedic treatment) rather than modern medicinal tablets like 'paracetamol','Anacin',etc. (Also one doubt, why so many tablets for fever if one is perfect). There are many such practices using herbs in here but I can't list all of them. I will try to include some of them if I get a chance, but not sure whether such plants or herbs are available outside Kerala or India.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just wanted to introduce the Ayurveda to the community as it is so close to nature and suitable for sustainable living. It include not only the treatment, but also instructions about the prevention methods of diseases and food habits to be followed. Modern medicines is good for many diseases, but rather than emphasizing on the prevention methods, it mainly focus on treatment and the case is different with Ayurveda. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One more additional info about Ayurveda, first plastic surgery in the history of medicine was done by [Susrutha][2], one of the guru(teacher) who wrote the books for Ayurveda.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P:S: I am not an expert in this field, just sharing the a little bit of information I know, which is one of the aim of SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another such example can be urine therapy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushruta_Samhita" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2995" RevisionGUID="697801a7-8415-4224-b733-bda4ff62340e" CreationDate="2014-09-03T21:37:46.667" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="We are advised by our various governments that the most environmentally-friendly way to dispose of a battery is to give it in to a designated battery recycling plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But could the process of doing all that (due to the many resources needed to perform such an intensive task, like the power consumed and polluting emissions) make it actually less sustainable than simply letting it break down (however long it takes) in a tip under the ground somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it *is* less sustainable if you're looking at one battery - but if scaled, might the processing plant system end up being the winner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="2995" RevisionGUID="697801a7-8415-4224-b733-bda4ff62340e" CreationDate="2014-09-03T21:37:46.667" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="What's the most sustainable way of disposing with a used battery?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="2995" RevisionGUID="697801a7-8415-4224-b733-bda4ff62340e" CreationDate="2014-09-03T21:37:46.667" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="|recycling|batteries|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7173" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="2995" RevisionGUID="dae28b56-5995-4061-ad12-b00492784284" CreationDate="2014-09-04T11:33:09.880" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/507491553775214592" />
  <row Id="7174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2833" RevisionGUID="e4f60cb2-4d52-4766-99f7-5f4230339568" CreationDate="2014-09-04T18:33:18.757" UserId="1479" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="I am based in the UK (in England) and am thinking about installing solar panels on my roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem I am having is actually finding some resources which I can use to get some objective information. The only information I seem to be able to find is coming from Solar Panel installation companies, who of course have a vested interest in my buying a bunch of panels from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see quite general advice that this is a good investment (e.g. Which?), which has sparked my interest, but I want to get hold of more specific information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two things I'm trying to find out in particular. One is quite generic - to learn about the mechanism by which one sells solar electricity back to the grid, any grants, tax breaks etc. The second question is far more specific to me - essentially to get ballpark estimates of the kind of revenue I can expect to generate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any idea how I can go about answering these questions (the second in particular), but from an unbiased source?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update: Panels now installed, using my accepted answer as a great start point.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2995" RevisionGUID="b161bdb6-55a5-4bec-a553-c10ea64f923c" CreationDate="2014-09-04T20:39:03.803" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="added 535 characters in body" Text="We are advised by our various governments that the most environmentally-friendly way to dispose of a battery is to give it in to a designated battery recycling plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But could the process of doing all that (due to the many resources needed to perform such an intensive task, like the power consumed and emissions polluted) make it actually less sustainable than simply tossing it in the trash, letting it be taken to the designated local tip, where it will, assumedly underground in time, break down in time there anyway? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe there's a third more sustainable method, such as burying it yourself (as far underground as possible, away from water sources or aquifers and with the assumption that eventually, microbes in the earth [will break down][1] its toxins and even heavy metal compounds, even if that might take a long time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the recycling system *is* less sustainable than the above two alternatives if you're looking at one battery, but if scaled to a mass level, will *then* end up being the winner?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/waste/how-microbes-will-clean-up-our-messes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="8fa7a5f9-a163-4153-8a96-108300f7f4f8" CreationDate="2014-09-07T09:16:21.113" UserId="1479" Text="I was quite surprised by the number of upvotes the question got, and as I've now gone ahead and had the panels installed, I'll add a few more details of what I did, in case it is of use to anyone going forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First stop was the MCS web site. (this is an absolute necessity, since as @EnergyNumbers says, to qualify for the feed-in tariff the installer has to be MCS-registered)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this site it was simply a question of calling some local firms and having them come around. I had 6 companies visit, of which 5 gave quotes. (I find it strange that one guy didn't even bother quoting, but I do tend to find this happens with tradesmen.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the exception of one guy, who advised to only install as many panels as were required, everyone else said to install the largest array possible. The upper limit to qualify for the feed-in tariff is 4kW, which equates to 16 panels. (Panels seemed to be a standard 250W, regardless of manufacturer.) So I have ended up with 16 panels on the roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference in the quotes was the brand of panels, plus whether to use inverters or micro-inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the difference between the panels, it wasn't something I could particularly rationalise - the closest I got was the difference between driving a Mercedes and a Toyota. A big difference in price, but both will get you from A to B. In particular I looked at guarantees of performance levels (i.e. there will only be an x% drop in efficiency over y years) and basically discovered that the panels were much of a muchness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was advised by several of the fitters to avoid the generic Chinese panels, simply because there is no comeback if there is a problem. And in fact, when people were talking about the different brands, a lot of them were household names. Panasonic, Hyundai, Benq, for example. The more expensive quotes were with German panels (supposedly the best quality, hence my Mercedes comparison).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverters was something I learned about along the way. Each fitter had a preference and I noticed early on that they would be happy to give me all the &quot;pros&quot; of their preferred choice, without mentioning the &quot;cons&quot;. So I really felt the benefit of speaking to half a dozen people here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I could summarise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - with inverters, there is one of them in the system, it is generally located indoors (making maintenance easier), but the panels basically act in series - so one shaded panel will limit the output of the other fifteen sunlit panels. Also, inverters are not guaranteed as long as micro-inverters, so presumably have a shorter lifetime.&#xD;&#xA; - micro-inverters are a newer technology, exist one-per-panel, and sit next to the panels on the roof, so there are 16 of them and if any require maintenance, its up on the roof. However, because of this each panel acts on a standalone basis. So if one panel is shaded, it won't affect the output of the other fifteen sunlit panels. The telemetry options look good on these too, apparently you can monitor each micro-inverter via the internet. My experience was that an array of 16 micro-inverters added around £1k to the cost of a single inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So obviously there's a bit to think about in this area. For me, my roof has absolutely no shading - the panels will all get the same light - so this drove my decision to go for the cheaper inverter solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last but not least, the price. The lowest quote (and the one I ended up going for) was around £4800. I went through the contract with a fine tooth-comb on this one, as it was quite a bit less than the other quotes. But having gone for it, the installation went very smoothly and the system is working well (Benq panels), so I am a happy bunny.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next lowest quote was around £6k (give or take), with a couple more at £7k. The most expensive came in at over £8k. As I say, they were all offering different panels and inverter solutions, but nothing really so different as to justify a £3k price difference. So the moral here is that it definitely pays to shop around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2833" RevisionGUID="c350293a-e5c7-4a17-9a95-b9328339c170" CreationDate="2014-09-07T09:19:43.033" UserId="1479" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="I am based in the UK (in England) and am thinking about installing solar panels on my roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem I am having is actually finding some resources which I can use to get some objective information. The only information I seem to be able to find is coming from Solar Panel installation companies, who of course have a vested interest in my buying a bunch of panels from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see quite general advice that this is a good investment (e.g. Which?), which has sparked my interest, but I want to get hold of more specific information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two things I'm trying to find out in particular. One is quite generic - to learn about the mechanism by which one sells solar electricity back to the grid, any grants, tax breaks etc. The second question is far more specific to me - essentially to get ballpark estimates of the kind of revenue I can expect to generate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any idea how I can go about answering these questions (the second in particular), but from an unbiased source?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update: Panels now installed, using my accepted answer as a great start point.** I've also added an answer below to share my expereince, hopefully it'll help people going forward." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="c947f811-9c0f-44ea-9cdd-0b375074ca48" CreationDate="2014-09-07T09:41:34.767" UserId="1479" Comment="added 302 characters in body" Text="I was quite surprised by the number of upvotes the question got, and as I've now gone ahead and had the panels installed, I'll add a few more details of what I did, in case it is of use to anyone going forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First stop was the MCS web site. (this is an absolute necessity, since as @EnergyNumbers says, to qualify for the feed-in tariff the installer has to be MCS-registered)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this site it was simply a question of calling some local firms and having them come around. I had 6 companies visit, of which 5 gave quotes. (I find it strange that one guy didn't even bother quoting, but I do tend to find this happens with tradesmen.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the exception of one guy, who advised to only install as many panels as were required, everyone else said to install the largest array possible. The upper limit to qualify for the feed-in tariff is 4kW, which equates to 16 panels. (Panels seemed to be a standard 250W, regardless of manufacturer.) So I have ended up with 16 panels on the roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quotes were all quite good in terms of projected returns etc., but you do realise that these are &quot;finger in the air&quot; numbers. Nominally, my system will pay for itself in 7 years, which sounded great to me. But how accurate that number is...there are a lot of variables and a lot of assumptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference in the quotes was the brand of panels, plus whether to use inverters or micro-inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the difference between the panels, it wasn't something I could particularly rationalise - the closest I got was the difference between driving a Mercedes and a Toyota. A big difference in price, but both will get you from A to B. In particular I looked at guarantees of performance levels (i.e. there will only be an x% drop in efficiency over y years) and basically discovered that the panels were much of a muchness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was advised by several of the fitters to avoid the generic Chinese panels, simply because there is no comeback if there is a problem. And in fact, when people were talking about the different brands, a lot of them were household names. Panasonic, Hyundai, Benq, for example. The more expensive quotes were with German panels (supposedly the best quality, hence my Mercedes comparison).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverters was something I learned about along the way. Each fitter had a preference and I noticed early on that they would be happy to give me all the &quot;pros&quot; of their preferred choice, without mentioning the &quot;cons&quot;. So I really felt the benefit of speaking to half a dozen people here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I could summarise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - with inverters, there is one of them in the system, it is generally located indoors (making maintenance easier), but the panels basically act in series - so one shaded panel will limit the output of the other fifteen sunlit panels. Also, inverters are not guaranteed as long as micro-inverters, so presumably have a shorter lifetime.&#xD;&#xA; - micro-inverters are a newer technology, exist one-per-panel, and sit next to the panels on the roof, so there are 16 of them and if any require maintenance, its up on the roof. However, because of this each panel acts on a standalone basis. So if one panel is shaded, it won't affect the output of the other fifteen sunlit panels. The telemetry options look good on these too, apparently you can monitor each micro-inverter via the internet. My experience was that an array of 16 micro-inverters added around £1k to the cost of a single inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So obviously there's a bit to think about in this area. For me, my roof has absolutely no shading - the panels will all get the same light - so this drove my decision to go for the cheaper inverter solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last but not least, the price. The lowest quote (and the one I ended up going for) was around £4800. I went through the contract with a fine tooth-comb on this one, as it was quite a bit less than the other quotes. But having gone for it, the installation went very smoothly and the system is working well (Benq panels), so I am a happy bunny.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next lowest quote was around £6k (give or take), with a couple more at £7k. The most expensive came in at over £8k. As I say, they were all offering different panels and inverter solutions, but nothing really so different as to justify a £3k price difference. So the moral here is that it definitely pays to shop around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2997" RevisionGUID="6db47b55-a90f-471a-ad59-0db0b18ec5e9" CreationDate="2014-09-07T17:06:31.173" UserId="1684" Text="Nike grinds up old shoes and makes them into sport field surfaces.  Sounds like good program.  Unfortunately, though, the drop off locations are not plentiful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.nike.com/us/en_us/c/better-world/reuse-a-shoe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2995" RevisionGUID="eff15f96-35b3-4589-bfb2-d52064eff0f9" CreationDate="2014-09-07T20:58:16.090" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="added 413 characters in body" Text="We are advised by our various governments that the most environmentally-friendly way to dispose of a battery is to give it in to a designated battery recycling plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But could the process of doing all that (due to the many resources needed to perform such an intensive task - even if it outputs resources from the batter for re-use - such as the resources (other consumable materials) and energy (power) consumed to mechanise the process, and also emission contribution to long-term ecological strain), make it actually less sustainable than simply tossing it in the trash and letting it be taken to the designated local tip, where it will, assumedly underground, in time, break down there anyway? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or maybe there's a third more sustainable method, such as burying it yourself (as far underground as possible, away from water sources or aquifers and with the assumption that eventually, microbes in the earth [will break down][1] its toxins and heavy metal compounds, even if that might take a long time)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in other words, which alternative, when pros and cons of battery materials reusability, and resources consumption of each alternative are weighed up, is the most sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps it depends on how efficient the battery recycling operation is, and requires consideration of scalability when comparing the methods (whereby if done in large numbers it does end up being the winner, but certainly not on smaller scales)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/waste/how-microbes-will-clean-up-our-messes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2998" RevisionGUID="c9136647-e45b-482f-88f5-27232f11677a" CreationDate="2014-09-08T05:56:45.253" UserId="1685" Text="I see the human body as an energy consumer rather than producer. I would agree that controlling your diet (quantity and quality) will have energy benefit on the overall system by making him run smoothly and more efficiently, so that will be a definite gain of energy, but not a way to harvest the body energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To simply exercise is I think a waste of energy, yes it helps to be fit as said above but you are actually burning energy for nothing (not to mention those who run on a treadmill...). If, like me, you have a lifestyle that is simply not physical enough to ensure fitness by itself, I would rather here advocate for the usage of machine that would actually output electricity, you basically burn your extra calories and transform them in electricity (rather than just heat). You can as well equip yourself with smart appliances such as hand crank flashlights rather than battery operated ones,...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except that, I see only one thing, it would be to put the body heat at work. I did not see many successful work on that so far, but that is, in my mind, the only interesting direction, just because the heat is the energy we lose, the one that is so far just burned away. In that regard, staying warm would then be a way to limit our energy consumption by not burning to much. Almost all other energy consumption is already put at use for transportation, thinking, working, ... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="2999" RevisionGUID="d1de5684-0fde-4635-8267-38277164129a" CreationDate="2014-09-08T20:09:09.343" UserId="1686" Text="&gt;My body produces sometimes a huge amount of energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;False. Even a very active person typically doesn't need to consume more than 3,000 kcal a day. This is equivalent to about 3.5 kilowatt hours. This is equivalent to the average solar insolation over about 4 square feet (not considering weather), or 1/10th a gallon of gasoline. It's not a particularly significant amount; the US per capita daily electricity use is [over 10 times higher][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But still, how can that energy be used effectively? Looking at transport, running takes somewhere around 100 calories per mile. This comes out to 285 MPGe. Biking takes somewhere roughly around half that, so 570 MPGe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether either of those is &quot;green&quot; and comes out ahead of hopping in your car depends on the input of those calories. There are some fairly rough estimates of input energy efficiency [here][2] that range from 4% efficiency for beef to 102% efficiency for corn. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6252" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3000" RevisionGUID="16094e96-558f-4dcc-8c79-d76d10b00351" CreationDate="2014-09-08T20:36:05.237" UserId="1687" Text="Lots of UK supermarkets have recently started selling chopped tomatoes in tetrapaks, rather than the tins they were always in. My first thought was that this was environmentally bad - given recycling facilities for tetrapaks are much harder to come by, compared to tins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are also obvious positives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I imagine far more energy is needed to form/recycle a metal can, than a tetrapack.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Tetrapaks tessellate far more neatly - less space between cans on a lorry = less lorries.&#xD;&#xA; 1. Tetrapaks would be lighter than cans, therefore, again, less fuel used to transport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, would this appear to be an environmental decision from the supermarkets, or a financial one, for the supermarkets margins? (I'd imagine tetrapacks are definitly cheaper to produce than cans.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3000" RevisionGUID="16094e96-558f-4dcc-8c79-d76d10b00351" CreationDate="2014-09-08T20:36:05.237" UserId="1687" Text="Are tetrapack tomatos more sustainable than tinned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3000" RevisionGUID="16094e96-558f-4dcc-8c79-d76d10b00351" CreationDate="2014-09-08T20:36:05.237" UserId="1687" Text="|recycling|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3001" RevisionGUID="4d56754f-a938-40d7-aa9b-62a55e4414c4" CreationDate="2014-09-08T20:53:20.213" UserId="1687" Text="My former local council (Leicestershire) used to take these by the skip loads at the tips. [[Reference][1]] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your home council doesn't, perhaps it might be worth looking into neighbouring councils?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/environment/waste/recycling_sites_and_permits/recycling_household_waste_sites/recycling_information.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7189" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2951" RevisionGUID="5e64936d-17d8-41bc-8a5f-d063cc06d7b5" CreationDate="2014-09-09T01:00:22.217" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|ecological-footprint|energy-management|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7191" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2883" RevisionGUID="9bbc2769-f2d8-453a-a340-f6d5bd44db07" CreationDate="2014-09-09T06:04:42.560" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|reuse|uk|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3002" RevisionGUID="405910ca-4633-47f3-b0c6-91133a85c29c" CreationDate="2014-09-09T07:49:07.547" UserId="60" Text="I moved my whole composting site to another place of my garden. Before the place was on a mild slope, now it's much more level. The shading is similar, maybe a bit more shady now. The inputs didn't change radically. I mostly compost grass clippings with added torn cardboard to improve the [C/N ratio][1]. It seems the degradation process is still OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I've noticed **much more liquid is produced from the compost**. Is it only weather caused (this summer was rather rainy in Europe) or **is there some problem with the process of composting?** There surely must be some liquid coming from the compost but I hadn't noticed the amount of it before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've thought about putting some gravel below the composting bin and digging some drain canal filled with gravel to let the waste water to drain more easily. Would it be a good and lasting solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1262/what-are-the-carbon-nitrogen-ratios-of-common-household-wastes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3002" RevisionGUID="405910ca-4633-47f3-b0c6-91133a85c29c" CreationDate="2014-09-09T07:49:07.547" UserId="60" Text="Why is there much more liquid draining from compost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7194" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3002" RevisionGUID="405910ca-4633-47f3-b0c6-91133a85c29c" CreationDate="2014-09-09T07:49:07.547" UserId="60" Text="|composting|waste-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3003" RevisionGUID="df725a4f-2d36-4dc4-a4e8-e95726f3ab2c" CreationDate="2014-09-09T08:18:20.177" UserId="60" Text="Recently I've heard of people in our region (central Europe) traveling around to buy used cell batteries for a moderate price. Thinking about the price, the batteries can be and should be recycled, but no official recycling site in our country would pay anybody to bring the batteries there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any motivation to gather used batteries other than recycling them?**  &#xD;&#xA;(I have some ideas but don't want to influence the possible answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to gather more information on this topic here because I don't like people doing this only for profit and (maybe) harming the environment carelessly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.silverinstitute.org/site/silver-in-industry/batteries/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3003" RevisionGUID="df725a4f-2d36-4dc4-a4e8-e95726f3ab2c" CreationDate="2014-09-09T08:18:20.177" UserId="60" Text="Is recycling cell batteries (highly) profitable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3003" RevisionGUID="df725a4f-2d36-4dc4-a4e8-e95726f3ab2c" CreationDate="2014-09-09T08:18:20.177" UserId="60" Text="|recycling|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7198" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3000" RevisionGUID="1c2ad75a-f23f-4cda-8c66-a8e2ea82dce8" CreationDate="2014-09-09T11:58:14.530" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/509309803597135872" />
  <row Id="7199" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3003" RevisionGUID="57313415-4072-4f2d-aeed-3905886659ae" CreationDate="2014-09-09T14:58:14.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/509355101446619138" />
  <row Id="7200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3004" RevisionGUID="77244769-ff97-4cf0-8c77-fdd2e19bc6c6" CreationDate="2014-09-09T20:22:21.853" UserId="1688" Text="I'm in the process of building my first Rocket Stove, that will give me highly sustainable energy (if one considers burning wood to be sustainable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the heat riser I'm looking for heat resistant materials. Must I choose a metal or a mineral heat riser?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would be nice to have a few references. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3004" RevisionGUID="77244769-ff97-4cf0-8c77-fdd2e19bc6c6" CreationDate="2014-09-09T20:22:21.853" UserId="1688" Text="Material For Heat Riser" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3004" RevisionGUID="77244769-ff97-4cf0-8c77-fdd2e19bc6c6" CreationDate="2014-09-09T20:22:21.853" UserId="1688" Text="|building-materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3005" RevisionGUID="5ae4a045-245f-4496-bcaa-c2b824741a5d" CreationDate="2014-09-09T20:54:34.487" UserId="1688" Text="I consider the Rocket Stove design as described below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Design&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;               |    |&#xD;&#xA;               |    |&#xD;&#xA;               |    |&#xD;&#xA;      feed     |    |  heat riser&#xD;&#xA;     |    |    |  ^ |&#xD;&#xA;     | *  ======  | |&#xD;&#xA;     |* * --------| |&#xD;&#xA;     ================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     * fire, - air flow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The feed is in an upright position&lt;sup&gt;(1)&lt;/sup&gt;. The air flow is being created by the extra combustion of the solid particles released at the feed, in the heat riser, thus creating an under pressure. Of all the videos I've seen, I estimate a feed to heat riser ratio of 1:5 or 1:6    &#xD;&#xA;The distance between the heat riser and the feed can't be too far apart, as the temperature will be too low to efficiently burn the remainder of the un-burned particles. If it is to short, the air flow will be too much which will increase an in-efficient burning of wood. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;All is to be build with fire resistant materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Explanation of Vertical Feed (and very nice introduction video on Rocket Stoves)][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://youtu.be/Sqznv5GDSWc?t=1m47s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3006" RevisionGUID="36ecebe3-67c3-437e-8800-bcfc1f8676e1" CreationDate="2014-09-09T20:54:58.157" UserId="1688" Text="Is burning wood considered sustainable if the efficiency can be improve up to 90% compared to the 50% of conventional burning stoves?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3006" RevisionGUID="36ecebe3-67c3-437e-8800-bcfc1f8676e1" CreationDate="2014-09-09T20:54:58.157" UserId="1688" Text="Burning Wood Efficiently via Rocket Stove" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3006" RevisionGUID="36ecebe3-67c3-437e-8800-bcfc1f8676e1" CreationDate="2014-09-09T20:54:58.157" UserId="1688" Text="|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3007" RevisionGUID="92653ada-c452-4c2e-83b5-47b66ad2878d" CreationDate="2014-09-10T02:32:13.350" UserId="283" Text="Foregon, I don't know where you are, but where I live, conserving body heat  (especially at night) can be a big contributor towards reduced fossil fuel consumption. Many homes are heated with fossil fuels (or with wood that might otherwise be left standing). Given that we have to eat and produce ~100 W waste heat anyway, why not use that heat to remain comfortable during the heating season, instead of heating the whole house? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a word, my answer is: Blankets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sorry if that sounds overly North American. :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7208" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3006" RevisionGUID="363c0ca2-4d60-4b8a-8607-729aa24a5ae7" CreationDate="2014-09-10T05:58:14.560" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/509581595129696256" />
  <row Id="7209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3003" RevisionGUID="e878b0e6-6b3d-4615-b969-33e50cd9b5d9" CreationDate="2014-09-10T07:08:37.673" UserId="60" Comment="making more clear which batteries are meant" Text="Recently I've heard of people in our region (central Europe) traveling around to buy used [button cell batteries][1] of all sizes and types for a moderate price. Thinking about the price, the batteries can be and should be recycled, but no official recycling site in our country would pay anybody to bring the batteries there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any motivation to gather used batteries other than recycling them?**  &#xD;&#xA;(I have some ideas but don't want to influence the possible answers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to gather more information on this topic here because I don't like people doing this only for profit and (maybe) harming the environment carelessly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button_cell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3008" RevisionGUID="17ae5463-9400-4017-8777-a3195dfc37fd" CreationDate="2014-09-10T07:40:23.193" UserId="60" Text="Composting is a great way of turning common wastes into a usable product. The compost should be wet enough to allow the composting process to happen. But when composting wet wastes there is some excess of liquid which drains out.  &#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't usually care much about it unless [there was too much draining liquid][1] (making the vicinity of compost muddy and slippery).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How much excess liquid is produced when composting common household and garden wastes?&#xD;&#xA;- Is it advisable to try to lower the excess liquid somehow? If yes, what would be a good strategy to do so?&#xD;&#xA;- Is there any connection between excess liquid and [C/N ratio][2] in the compost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3002/why-is-there-much-more-liquid-draining-from-compost&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1262/what-are-the-carbon-nitrogen-ratios-of-common-household-wastes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7211" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3008" RevisionGUID="17ae5463-9400-4017-8777-a3195dfc37fd" CreationDate="2014-09-10T07:40:23.193" UserId="60" Text="How much liquid is produced when composting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7212" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3008" RevisionGUID="17ae5463-9400-4017-8777-a3195dfc37fd" CreationDate="2014-09-10T07:40:23.193" UserId="60" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3009" RevisionGUID="85034b9b-8a21-44ab-9943-ae055bc55717" CreationDate="2014-09-10T09:00:12.183" UserId="99" Text="To be clear water is not 'produced' by composting. If we don't consider water from rainfall, then all water coming out was present in the materials you placed on your heap or in your bin. Generally speaking greens (e.g. grass clippings, fruit and vegetable wastes) contain the most water, and browns (e.g. leaves, cardboard, coffee filters) not as much. &#xD;&#xA;Since greens contain the most nitrogen and browns the most carbon the C:N ratio is related to the amount of water, unless you add extra water or dry materials before adding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A moisture content of 40-60% is ideal for a compost pile. A handful of compost should feel like a wrung out sponge, moist is good, soggy is not (unless you want [anaerobic composting](http://www.planetnatural.com/composter-connection/compost-digesters/anaerobic/)). Theoretically moisture contents can be over 90% and still allow aerobic composting, but in practice once you are over 70% moisture, the heap/bin contents start to become soggy and not enough oxygen is present for the organisms that are doing the aerobic composting. How much water is ok does depend a bit on the type of materials you put in there. Grass clippings, cardboard and saw dust can quickly become a soggy lump, but if you mix it with stronger materials such as straw and twigs then this will happen less fast and the heap/bin will be better aerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your heap or bin is too wet, you can reduce the amount of water by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - temporarily stop throwing in greens, or dry them first before adding. &#xD;&#xA; - turn and aerate the contents regularly (if you put the most wet stuff on top, water can evaporate more quickly)&#xD;&#xA; - add dry pieces of cardboard (in the most wet places)&#xD;&#xA; - add a draining system, e.g. put your heap/bin on a small platform with holes in it&#xD;&#xA; - shelter your heap from rain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your question I take it that you've already got some draining system, but the amount of water that you drain is much less important that the moisture level in your heap or bin. You'll have to check that before deciding on taking measures.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3009" RevisionGUID="6e02ef68-2e99-410c-8c5a-d2cb67e8fff3" CreationDate="2014-09-10T09:22:14.037" UserId="99" Comment="added possible causes of more drained liquids" Text="To be clear water is not 'produced' by composting. If we don't consider water from rainfall, then all water coming out was present in the materials you placed on your compost heap or in your bin. Generally speaking greens (e.g. grass clippings, fruit and vegetable wastes) contain the most water, and browns (e.g. leaves, cardboard, coffee filters) not as much. &#xD;&#xA;Since greens contain the most nitrogen and browns the most carbon the C:N ratio is related to the amount of water, unless you add extra water or dry materials before adding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A moisture content of 40-60% is ideal for a compost pile. A handful of compost should feel like a wrung out sponge; moist is good, soggy is not (unless you want [anaerobic composting](http://www.planetnatural.com/composter-connection/compost-digesters/anaerobic/)). This means that only 1 or 2 waterdrops should come out if you sqeeze the compost in your hand. Theoretically moisture contents can be over 90% and still allow aerobic composting, but in practice once you are over 70% moisture, the heap/bin contents start to become soggy and not enough oxygen is present for the organisms that are doing the aerobic composting. How much water is ok does depend a bit on the type of materials you put in there. Grass clippings, cardboard and saw dust can quickly become a soggy lump, but if you mix it with stronger materials such as straw and twigs then this will happen less fast and the heap/bin will be better aerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your heap or bin is too wet, you can reduce the amount of water by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - temporarily stop throwing in greens, or dry them first before adding. &#xD;&#xA; - turning and aerating the contents regularly (if you put the most wet stuff on top, water can evaporate more quickly)&#xD;&#xA; - adding dry pieces of cardboard (in the most wet places)&#xD;&#xA; - adding a draining system, e.g. put your heap/bin on a small platform with holes in it&#xD;&#xA; - sheltering your heap from rain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your question I take it that you've already got some draining system. You can't say if the drained liquids are a problem, just by looking at the amount. It could be that your draining system is working too well and your heap isn't wet enough, or that you've added very wet materials, or that perhaps it's just more rainwater than usual. It's the moisture level of the compost in your bin that counts, so you'll have to check that before deciding on taking measures.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3009" RevisionGUID="2886cdd8-5f32-4025-aac4-55487355a173" CreationDate="2014-09-10T10:22:22.097" UserId="99" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="To be clear, water is not 'produced' by composting. If we don't consider water from rainfall, then all water coming out was present in the materials you placed on your compost heap or in your bin. Generally speaking greens (e.g. grass clippings, fruit and vegetable wastes) contain the most water, and browns (e.g. leaves, cardboard, coffee filters) not as much. &#xD;&#xA;Since greens contain the most nitrogen and browns the most carbon the C:N ratio is related to the amount of water, unless you add extra water or dry materials before adding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A moisture content of 40-60% is ideal for a compost pile. A handful of compost should feel like a wrung out sponge; moist is good, soggy is not (unless you want [anaerobic composting](http://www.planetnatural.com/composter-connection/compost-digesters/anaerobic/)). This means that only 1 or 2 waterdrops should come out if you sqeeze the compost in your hand. Theoretically moisture contents can be over 90% and still allow aerobic composting, but in practice once you are over 70% moisture, the heap/bin contents becomes soggy and not enough oxygen is present for the organisms that are doing the aerobic composting. How much water is ok does depend a bit on the type of materials you put in there. Grass clippings, cardboard and saw dust can quickly become a soggy lump, but if you mix it with stronger materials such as straw and twigs then this will happen less fast and the heap/bin will be better aerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your heap or bin is too wet, you can reduce the amount of water by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - temporarily stop throwing in greens, or dry them first before adding. &#xD;&#xA; - turning and aerating the contents regularly (if you put the most wet stuff on top, water can evaporate more quickly)&#xD;&#xA; - adding dry pieces of cardboard (in the most wet places)&#xD;&#xA; - adding a draining system, e.g. put your heap/bin on a small platform with holes in it&#xD;&#xA; - sheltering your heap from rain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your question I take it that you've already got some draining system. You can't say if the drained liquids are a problem just by looking at the amount. It could be that your draining system is working too well and your heap isn't wet enough or that you've added a lot of very wet materials. Or if you have an open heap or bin, perhaps there has just been more rain than usual. It's the moisture level of the compost in your bin that counts, so you'll have to check that before deciding on taking measures.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7216" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3008" RevisionGUID="deb0d10c-041f-4c97-a1e1-67262666fd9e" CreationDate="2014-09-10T17:59:52.747" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/509763200812711936" />
  <row Id="7217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3010" RevisionGUID="21c8c4b1-7753-4a25-ac20-762969ec3842" CreationDate="2014-09-10T19:06:07.130" UserId="1692" Text="The most sustainable way to do anything is by following the three R's: Reduce, reuse, and recycle, and in that order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you want to find high-quality shoes that last a long time. This **Reduces** the number of shoes you have to buy/throw away. We've been conditioned to believe that shoes &quot;just wear out&quot; after a couple of years by companies highly interested in making us buy shoes over and over again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I have a pair of Aldo work shoes that I bought roughly 10 years ago, with rubber soles that are stitched onto the uppers. The stitching can be removed and the soles replaced by any shoe repair shop. In fact, come to think of it, you should perhaps find a shoe repair shop and ask them about what to look for in shoes that are repairable. It's *their* business to do this, after all, and are interested in your repeat business the same way that Nike is. My wife has had several pairs of boots that they've rejected because &quot;all we can do is just glue it back on and hope for the best (and it will probably only last as long as they did the first time)&quot;, because the heels/soles were not stitched down, but glued instead. She didn't pay enough for proper repairable boots, while mine were built to last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you can expect to pay almost twice what you're used to paying for shoes. However, if they last 10x as long, then you easily save money in the long run. This goes for lots of consumer goods. People in North America are conditioned to believe that cheaper is always better, but that almost always results in paying 40% less for something that has to be replaced over and over again, quickly wiping out the savings over a product that lasts many times as long. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other people have suggested repurposing your shoes into something else, but that only ever works for artistic works (specifically, ones protesting the amount of junk we throw away), because really, your garden is going to fill up with old shoes pretty fast. The same goes for old mayonnaise jars, unless you're hardcore about sorting your massive Lego collection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling is your last resort, but one you're probably going to end up doing with your old runners. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Really. Start by buying a few pairs of Real Shoes (because we all have a need for different styles sometimes) and the problem basically takes care of itself.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3011" RevisionGUID="2d0b7a05-650f-4c64-b676-b51f314a9a95" CreationDate="2014-09-10T19:40:31.947" UserId="1692" Text="I wanted to add that in addition to these methods, that when you're done with the water, give it to your plants. They really don't care if there's a little extra dirt and oil in it, and normal shampoo and soap don't affect the plants either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your agriculture (household or industrial, it doesn't matter) uses many times more water than the entire rest of your house, even at our most wasteful. So your efforts would be more useful if you didn't have to keep your grass green, like if you had a rock garden or other ground cover that wasn't turf. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3012" RevisionGUID="21169629-d057-49ce-bbe9-534d4f889880" CreationDate="2014-09-10T22:22:55.280" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="When pulling out weeds in the vege patch, I want to think of more ways that I can put it to good use that might be even better than merely letting it break down above the ground on its own (assuming you are on a property where you are responsible for for the green matter disposal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I can think of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Eating them if they are edible** (meaning you don't have to plant so many intended garden greens / buy as many seeds from elsewhere, with all the sustainability considerations that that entails) - many field weeds such as dandelion [are edible][1] (including even the root), the greens of which is actually extremely nutritious unbeknownst to most.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Contributing them to green manure compost** to put back into the garden once microbes have broken the weed down into highly beneficial humus / organic matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what might be other ways? The more ideas the better. I am sure there are many.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://www.incrediblesmoothies.com/green-smoothies/10-reasons-you-should-use-dandelion-greens-in-your-green-smoothie/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7220" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3012" RevisionGUID="21169629-d057-49ce-bbe9-534d4f889880" CreationDate="2014-09-10T22:22:55.280" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="How can I can sustainably use the biomass of garden weeds?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7221" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3012" RevisionGUID="21169629-d057-49ce-bbe9-534d4f889880" CreationDate="2014-09-10T22:22:55.280" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="|gardening|biomass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3013" RevisionGUID="b982bed2-0223-4174-8ce3-e73cee7cb0e4" CreationDate="2014-09-10T23:08:50.963" UserId="400" Text="1.  For certain materials, you can use them to make bug hotels with the material.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Fine materials (hair grass, small twigs, seed fluff) can be left as nest making materials. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Fine materials can also be used as firestarter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Some material, such as prunings, can be used in various crafts: for winter decoration, basket weaving, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.  If you are in the right city, you can separate green stuff and the city will compost it, either for reuse or resale.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.  In some cases you may have a neighbor who can use it.  Ask around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bulk of this material, however is best used in your compost pile.  A well run compost heap will kill all the seeds and most of the pathogens (fungi, bacteria, etc).  Turn it into humus and put it in your garden next year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3014" RevisionGUID="c47cd7f5-851c-4617-82d3-a68f7b02be34" CreationDate="2014-09-10T23:16:55.107" UserId="400" Text="Yes.  Moz's comment is correct.  When burning wood, you are in essence just shortcutting the rot process.  Which means that instead of fungi and bacteria and bugs getting lunch, you get warm.  These critters have their place, so it's not a good idea to intercept all of the production of a given forest.  For this reason a high efficiency stove can be more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I heat largely with wood, using about 4 cords a year in a low efficiency wood range, and a medium efficiency wood heater.  I have 15 acres of forest.  Doing some rough calculations I'm using the net production of about 4 acres, so I'm using roughly 1/4 of the available harvestable energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Figuring net production:  An aspen forest reaches climax conditions in aobut 50 years in Alberta's climate.  Doing a wood survey on that forest shows something like 50 to 100 tons of wood per acre, ignoring branches smaller than 2&quot;.  So that forest produces about a ton of wood per year per acre.  In actual fact the biomass increase rate is fastest when the trees are between 1 and 2&quot; in diameter, so by harvesting some of a grove, then I will be increasing the net productivity 10 years down the line.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3015" RevisionGUID="feae1ec6-8f1e-4cb9-ae61-9d2712dcca91" CreationDate="2014-09-10T23:26:04.707" UserId="400" Text="Part of it may be the stage in composting.  In moving the pile, you had to aerate it well which would speed things up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that much plant material is cellulose and lignan.  Cellulose has the same molar forumula as sugar -- it's really just thousands of sugar molecules chained together, so in essence it's CHO.  The net reaction is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 CHO + 3 O2 =&gt; 4 CO2 + 2H2O&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does not count water as free water in the plant tissue that you put on the pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The liquid that comes out is full of good things, but may also be full of plant pathogens.  Google &quot;compost tea&quot;  You may want to divert it to a kids wading pool where it can sit in the sun for a day or three, then use it for watering your garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Me, I wouldn't worry about it, unless it's unsightly or smelly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7225" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="76" RevisionGUID="e4dc313b-ea10-49c9-a308-36d57f7df3d6" CreationDate="2014-09-11T07:10:43.517" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="eb1b559a-674b-407e-ba41-215d13152f96" CreationDate="2014-09-11T07:12:15.357" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo" Text="Many sites on the internet mention that the liquid from vermicompost is the ideal fluid for (fertilizing) your garden. However, I haven't seen any scientific evidence on this anywhere so I suspect it doesn't exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did a quick google and found [this document](http://www.scribd.com/doc/35270170/40/Vermiliquid) where on page 19 it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The evidence for the nutritional value of vermiliquid products is largely anecdotal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;There is a paucity of literature available that has investigated the use and quality of vermiliquids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author of [this book](http://books.google.com/books/about/Composting_with_Worms.html?id=szGwPAAACAAJ) goes one step further and claims vermiliquid is just waste water and can go bad quickly so it should not be used on your plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---- &#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;I just found an [interesting article](http://www.wormfarmingrevealed.com/leachate-vs-worm-tea.html) describing the differences between worm tea (aka vermicast tea or [compost tea](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Compost_tea)) and leachate. In short the article says that leachate from a wormbin may contain harmful pathogens. Worm tea is something you make yourself by puting wormcastings and a food source like malasses in clean water and leaving it for a few days. If the water is air-rich (you'll have to place an aquarium pump or something in the water) then the good micro-organisms in the water will multiply. &#xD;&#xA;According to [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Compost_tea) compost tea is very weak in nutrients but can be used for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; reducing incidence of harmful phytopathogenic fungi in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; phyllosphere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7227" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2864" RevisionGUID="bbffb33a-ef4f-40d4-a382-2b441ce53041" CreationDate="2014-09-11T13:48:52.213" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|heating|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3016" RevisionGUID="e3336f02-bfc4-4a79-bdd4-c9ac988762e6" CreationDate="2014-09-11T18:42:22.930" UserId="1479" Text="Earlier in the year I had a wood burner (stove) installed. I bought a small quantity of kiln-dried wood, to get myself going. Because of the small quantity, I was able to store it indoors (in the garage). On the several occasions we have used the wood burner, the wood was great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am in the UK and we are getting to the time of year where the woodburner will once again come into use. I need to stock up on wood, most likely a larger amount than I bought last time, with a view to seeing me through the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, with that kind of quantity, it would need to be stored outside. I can get a Log Store, to protect the wood from direct contact with the elements, but ultimately still outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is basically whether it is worth getting kiln-dried wood again, of will the fact that it is being stored outside nullify the kiln-dried effect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any experience of whether wood stored outside, in a Log Store, will stay dry?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3016" RevisionGUID="e3336f02-bfc4-4a79-bdd4-c9ac988762e6" CreationDate="2014-09-11T18:42:22.930" UserId="1479" Text="Can kiln-dried wood be stored outside?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3016" RevisionGUID="e3336f02-bfc4-4a79-bdd4-c9ac988762e6" CreationDate="2014-09-11T18:42:22.930" UserId="1479" Text="|firewood|woodstove|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3016" RevisionGUID="b727baac-614b-47aa-849c-05f44c640e33" CreationDate="2014-09-11T19:48:22.770" UserId="1479" Comment="edited body" Text="Earlier in the year I had a wood burner (stove) installed. I bought a small quantity of kiln-dried wood, to get myself going. Because of the small quantity, I was able to store it indoors (in the garage). On the several occasions we have used the wood burner, the wood was great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am in the UK and we are getting to the time of year where the woodburner will once again come into use. I need to stock up on wood, most likely a larger amount than I bought last time, with a view to seeing me through the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, with that kind of quantity, it would need to be stored outside. I can get a Log Store, to protect the wood from direct contact with the elements, but ultimately still outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is basically whether it is worth getting kiln-dried wood again, or will the fact that it is being stored outside nullify the kiln-dried effect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any experience of whether wood stored outside, in a Log Store, will stay dry?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2996" RevisionGUID="30baf008-95bf-4e43-a5b6-17b3b605fea1" CreationDate="2014-09-11T20:33:30.127" UserId="1479" Comment="added a bit of detail about the inverter" Text="I was quite surprised by the number of upvotes the question got, and as I've now gone ahead and had the panels installed, I'll add a few more details of what I did, in case it is of use to anyone going forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First stop was the MCS web site. (this is an absolute necessity, since as @EnergyNumbers says, to qualify for the feed-in tariff the installer has to be MCS-registered)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this site it was simply a question of calling some local firms and having them come around. I had 6 companies visit, of which 5 gave quotes. (I find it strange that one guy didn't even bother quoting, but I do tend to find this happens with tradesmen.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the exception of one guy, who advised to only install as many panels as were required, everyone else said to install the largest array possible. The upper limit to qualify for the feed-in tariff is 4kW, which equates to 16 panels. (Panels seemed to be a standard 250W, regardless of manufacturer.) So I have ended up with 16 panels on the roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quotes were all quite good in terms of projected returns etc., but you do realise that these are &quot;finger in the air&quot; numbers. Nominally, my system will pay for itself in 7 years, which sounded great to me. But how accurate that number is...there are a lot of variables and a lot of assumptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference in the quotes was the brand of panels, plus whether to use inverters or micro-inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the difference between the panels, it wasn't something I could particularly rationalise - the closest I got was the difference between driving a Mercedes and a Toyota. A big difference in price, but both will get you from A to B. In particular I looked at guarantees of performance levels (i.e. there will only be an x% drop in efficiency over y years) and basically discovered that the panels were much of a muchness. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was advised by several of the fitters to avoid the generic Chinese panels, simply because there is no comeback if there is a problem. And in fact, when people were talking about the different brands, a lot of them were household names. Panasonic, Hyundai, Benq, for example. The more expensive quotes were with German panels (supposedly the best quality, hence my Mercedes comparison).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverters was something I learned about along the way. Each fitter had a preference and I noticed early on that they would be happy to give me all the &quot;pros&quot; of their preferred choice, without mentioning the &quot;cons&quot;. So I really felt the benefit of speaking to half a dozen people here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I could summarise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - with inverters, there is one of them in the system, it is generally located indoors (making maintenance easier), but the panels basically act in series - so one shaded panel will limit the output of the other fifteen sunlit panels. Also, inverters are not guaranteed as long as micro-inverters, so presumably have a shorter lifetime.&#xD;&#xA; - micro-inverters are a newer technology, exist one-per-panel, and sit next to the panels on the roof, so there are 16 of them and if any require maintenance, its up on the roof. However, because of this each panel acts on a standalone basis. So if one panel is shaded, it won't affect the output of the other fifteen sunlit panels. The telemetry options look good on these too, apparently you can monitor each micro-inverter via the internet. My experience was that an array of 16 micro-inverters added around £1k to the cost of a single inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So obviously there's a bit to think about in this area. For me, my roof has absolutely no shading - the panels will all get the same light - so this drove my decision to go for the cheaper inverter solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last but not least, the price. The lowest quote (and the one I ended up going for) was around £4800. I went through the contract with a fine tooth-comb on this one, as it was quite a bit less than the other quotes. But having gone for it, the installation went very smoothly and the system is working well (Benq panels, Samil inverter, which actually has an ethernet port and provides good telemetry both via the lan and the web), so I am a happy bunny.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next lowest quote was around £6k (give or take), with a couple more at £7k. The most expensive came in at over £8k. As I say, they were all offering different panels and inverter solutions, but nothing really so different as to justify a £3k price difference. So the moral here is that it definitely pays to shop around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3006" RevisionGUID="304766b8-3940-4a4d-a2ca-f37edc2168b0" CreationDate="2014-09-12T09:09:46.457" UserId="99" Comment="removed unrelated tag, added better ones, fixed typo" Text="Is burning wood considered sustainable if the efficiency can be improved up to 90% compared to the 50% of conventional burning stoves?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7234" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3006" RevisionGUID="304766b8-3940-4a4d-a2ca-f37edc2168b0" CreationDate="2014-09-12T09:09:46.457" UserId="99" Comment="removed unrelated tag, added better ones, fixed typo" Text="Burning wood efficiently via rocket stove" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7235" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3006" RevisionGUID="304766b8-3940-4a4d-a2ca-f37edc2168b0" CreationDate="2014-09-12T09:09:46.457" UserId="99" Comment="removed unrelated tag, added better ones, fixed typo" Text="|fuel-efficiency|firewood|woodstove|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7236" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="54" RevisionGUID="a420996d-ae37-4e48-896c-7f5b4fba3c45" CreationDate="2014-09-12T11:00:11.383" UserId="99" Comment="changed question title so hopefully this question will get more google hits (as views are rather low for such a high-rated question)" Text="What’s the best strategy for turning off CFLs that will save energy but not reduce lifespan so much" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7238" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3016" RevisionGUID="6e5e018e-c7ad-4c37-bb2c-53ea5992fa05" CreationDate="2014-09-12T15:12:51.933" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/510445945985568769" />
  <row Id="7239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3017" RevisionGUID="156b1f17-4a40-4a84-afa2-5465685381a3" CreationDate="2014-09-12T19:35:40.747" UserId="1695" Text="I try to use NiMH rechargeables in place of regular disposables. The obvious benefit of rechargeables is that not as many wind up in a landfill, but what if you recycle all your batteries anyway? Are there other environmental benefits to rechargeables in term of fewer resources or less energy used overall when considering production, lifetime, and recycling costs? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7240" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3017" RevisionGUID="156b1f17-4a40-4a84-afa2-5465685381a3" CreationDate="2014-09-12T19:35:40.747" UserId="1695" Text="Are rechargeable batteries better for the environment than disposables even if the batteries are recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7241" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3017" RevisionGUID="156b1f17-4a40-4a84-afa2-5465685381a3" CreationDate="2014-09-12T19:35:40.747" UserId="1695" Text="|recycling|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="fa856a3c-92f7-4133-a73c-69e6f5f62540" CreationDate="2014-09-12T23:44:16.923" UserId="1687" Comment="Update link" Text="Nike grinds up worn-out athletic shoes to make sports surfaces. They even use the fabric parts: http://www.nike.com/us/en_us/c/better-world/reuse-a-shoe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leather shoes are a bit different, but many modern dress shoes use rubber and plastics in the soles. In theory, those soles are recyclable but it looks like Nike only takes athletic shoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find any other companies that take old shoes for recycling with my (admittedly not very thorough) Google searching, but it looks like most shoe companies are using recycled materials in at least some of their products." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7243" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="770" RevisionGUID="fa856a3c-92f7-4133-a73c-69e6f5f62540" CreationDate="2014-09-12T23:44:16.923" Comment="Proposed by 1687 approved by 85 edit id of 292" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7244" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3017" RevisionGUID="5ade0591-78dc-4aaf-93cb-172644e3ac1b" CreationDate="2014-09-13T12:17:18.427" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/510764151661027329" />
  <row Id="7245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3018" RevisionGUID="fb519ef2-f0fe-4db2-8a40-036db2217b05" CreationDate="2014-09-14T03:02:43.727" UserId="1662" Text="I am having a discussion on the permies forum here: http://www.permies.com/t/37761/south-america-central-america-mexico/Wood-Protector-Costa-Rica&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;about a sustainable wood protector.  I have been using burnt motor oil from several neighbors' small engines.  This can contain heavy metals, but I laquer over it hoping that it won't then affect my health.  This proves to be a very effective way to protect wood from insect damage, which is so destructive in the tropics.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am helping reuse a hazardous waste that is not being disposed of properly, are my actions sustainable even though they involve petroleum products?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3018" RevisionGUID="fb519ef2-f0fe-4db2-8a40-036db2217b05" CreationDate="2014-09-14T03:02:43.727" UserId="1662" Text="How does one judge the sustainability of using burnt motor oil for termite protection?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3018" RevisionGUID="fb519ef2-f0fe-4db2-8a40-036db2217b05" CreationDate="2014-09-14T03:02:43.727" UserId="1662" Text="|defining-sustainability|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3018" RevisionGUID="3d9a741d-41b7-4705-9333-985c12fa9d74" CreationDate="2014-09-14T07:11:32.450" UserId="99" Comment="removed 'defining-sustainability' tag, added 'pest management' tag" Text="I am having a discussion on the permies forum [here](http://www.permies.com/t/37761/south-america-central-america-mexico/Wood-Protector-Costa-Rica) about a sustainable wood protector.  I have been using burnt motor oil from several neighbors' small engines.  This can contain heavy metals, but I laquer over it hoping that it won't then affect my health.  This proves to be a very effective way to protect wood from insect damage, which is so destructive in the tropics.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am helping reuse a hazardous waste that is not being disposed of properly, are my actions sustainable even though they involve petroleum products?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7249" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3018" RevisionGUID="3d9a741d-41b7-4705-9333-985c12fa9d74" CreationDate="2014-09-14T07:11:32.450" UserId="99" Comment="removed 'defining-sustainability' tag, added 'pest management' tag" Text="|pest-management|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7253" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3018" RevisionGUID="72ced234-f68e-4aac-bf17-39f6464b7b37" CreationDate="2014-09-15T12:25:20.353" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/511490950502567936" />
  <row Id="7254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3020" RevisionGUID="71d3f832-dca0-451e-8254-a788743c420e" CreationDate="2014-09-16T15:45:58.740" UserId="1210" Text="We now have a large house (a guesthouse) with capacity for generating a lot of compostable waste.  At our previous house we used a number of static compost bins, turning between them.  In the new house we'd like to accelerate the process for some proportion of the waste.  This has led us to think of getting a rotary composter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read the answers to [this question][1], but that's about *building* one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone advise us about the reality of speed-of-composting of a rotary composter vs. a static heap?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in the UK if that affects things (I can see that it might - ambient temperature etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1181/how-can-i-build-an-effective-rotary-composter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7255" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3020" RevisionGUID="71d3f832-dca0-451e-8254-a788743c420e" CreationDate="2014-09-16T15:45:58.740" UserId="1210" Text="How effective are rotary composters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7256" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3020" RevisionGUID="71d3f832-dca0-451e-8254-a788743c420e" CreationDate="2014-09-16T15:45:58.740" UserId="1210" Text="|composting|uk|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3021" RevisionGUID="3e6c6cd3-9d2b-4c67-bd3a-e5610ad144c7" CreationDate="2014-09-16T20:41:26.397" UserId="1687" Text="According to [this study][1] by Uniross, yes - rechargables are beneficial overall. Up to 32 times more beneficial! This is mainly due to reducing the amount of energy required to manufacture - as well as reducing the amount of waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on each kwh produced, the study states that rechargable batteries produce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 23 times less potential impact on non-renewable natural resources &#xD;&#xA; - 28 times less potential impact on global warming&#xD;&#xA; - 30 times less potential impact on air pollution (ozone pollution)  &#xD;&#xA; - 9 times less potential impact on air acidification&#xD;&#xA; - 2 times less potential impact on water pollution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uniross also provides some advice to reduce the environmental impact of your batteries as much as possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Maximising lifetime&#xD;&#xA;   - Avoid High Temperatures &#xD;&#xA;   - Charge Regularly&#xD;&#xA;   - Don't overcharge&#xD;&#xA; - Recycle end product&#xD;&#xA;   - Allows reuse of metals/prevent toxic metals entering environment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- Be aware rechargables have a much higher energy leakage rate than standard batteries. Only charge when required, and consider storing charged batteries in a fridge/freezer, which can dramatically reduce the leakage rate. [[source][2]]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt; - N.B. Uniross are rechargable battery manufacturers - I would expect an element of bias in their study. But the overall idea seems right!&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;[[Additional Source][3]]&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fraw.org.uk/files/tech/uniross_2007.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.treehugger.com/gadgets/ask-pablo-why-do-rechargeable-batteries-suck.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/disposable-vs-rechargeable-batteries.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7258" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3020" RevisionGUID="6d1ae735-3fb7-46b1-81a6-b52338d529ce" CreationDate="2014-09-16T21:32:49.073" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/511991115902636032" />
  <row Id="7260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3022" RevisionGUID="3015e736-0eee-46a9-a8b5-f0046fd6944d" CreationDate="2014-09-17T12:45:29.630" UserId="400" Text="The advantage of a rotary mixer is the ease of keeping the compost moving.  A static pile that is never moved takes around a year, and the top 6&quot; doesn't decompose well.  Turn the pile a few times, cut that down to a couple months.  With a rotary composter, you can easily turn it each time you add material to it.  The time required will still be measured in weeks, but it is MUCH faster than a compost pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also keeps the dogs, cats, rats and racoons out of the refuse..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note however that the compost pile wins on volume.  You will likely require several rotary composters to keep up with the demand.  Paint them bright colors and call them Art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because you are constantly adding stuff, you need at least two.  Many composters are divided into two compartments for this reason.  One side can be finishing while you are getting things going in the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rotary composter has more difficulty getting hot -- the air has access to all sizes.  Put your composters out of the wind, and in the sun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3023" RevisionGUID="06e23f4b-8223-46dd-89ae-d0bbc06ea960" CreationDate="2014-09-17T13:22:19.377" UserId="400" Text="I'm going to be politically incorrect and say yes.  &quot;The solution to pollution is dilutions&quot;  Toxicity is in the dose. The amount of heavy metals and PAH's (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) is significant.  This is likely causing the anti-termite effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 1980 paper  www.researchgate.net/profile/Rafael_Vazquez-Duhalt/publication/20506788_Environmental_impact_of_used_motor_oil/links/09e4150722fe824907000000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reports lead content of around 7500 ppm Zinc at 1500 ppm.  (Note that zinc is a micronutrient.) and much smaller amounts of copper and chromium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PAH content varies from 2 to 300 ppm depending on both the source and the particular PAH involved. Some PAH's are carcinogens, but the health effects paper didn't note higher cancer rates among the mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Denmark study of mechanics in 10 autoshops in Denmark found minor problems, but the exposure is chronic, and is likely to be both by skin contact and inhalation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other studies have found cancers with exposures of 60 to 1600 mg/kg body weight/day.  For a human that higher limit amounts to slathering on 100 grams of used motor oil on your skin every day for your life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Respiratory effects occur at 40-80 mg/cubic meter of air.  This is likely an immediate effect of the oil, and not due to the crap in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Environmental effects are significant when there are large spills of oil.  This is largely due to the mechanical effect of the oil:  It blocks the soil pores.  At low exposures the oil part in biologically active top soil is degraded in a period of months to a year or so.  You can test this your self by mixing dirty oil with soapy water and spraying it on the ground.  It will initially kill vegetation, but by the following year it will be difficult to tell where you sprayed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your particular use, you are immobilizing it.  Overall, I would regard your practice as being no more harmful than purpose made chemicals for this same purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't inhale it.  I would suggest taking some precautions about that, but it can be as simple as wearing a mask, and being clever about your technique.  If there is significant airborne oil you will notice it first as an eye irritant.  In this way, it is toxic the same way paint is toxic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do note, however that wood so treated will be extremely flammable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3024" RevisionGUID="3e5991ae-01d5-4430-94c2-7d72e9d4d734" CreationDate="2014-09-17T13:35:41.083" UserId="400" Text="Yes you can store it outside.  That said, your practice is less than optimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;KD wood is normally dried to something like 12% moisture content.  Air dried wood will eventually reach a level between 15 and 20% depending on how humid your climate is. The 12% figure corresponds to the equilibrium moisture level of wood used in a house assuming the house is kept at normal temperatures and humidity levels. This may be higher in the UK, than in drier western Canada where I live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;KD wood stored in humid air, will eventually reach equilibrium with the higher humidity, so the money and energy you spent on drying the wood beyond equilibrium will be wasted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You notice this sort of humidity changes with wood in your house now.  Doors and drawers that stick in the wet season, warp in the dry season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recoverable energy content of wood depends on the water content.  Green logs (water is half the weight) are almost useless for heating unless you can recover latent heat from steam in the chimney.  However the difference between kiln dried wood, and air dried wood is not huge.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Better practice for you would be to buy 1 season air dried wood, then store it for 1 to 2 more years.  By letting the woodcutter dry it for a year, you aren't paying him to haul water to your door step, and you have one less year to store it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a wood shed that will store a 4 year supply of wood.  Generally I cut wood in the winter and stack it in the bush.  Then in summer I use the tractor and trailer to move it to the wood shed.  After two years it is dry enough that a couple sheets of newspaper between two chunks will start them burning merrily with no kindling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7263" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3012" RevisionGUID="af88aeeb-2f4e-4301-b3d1-c017d3d629c8" CreationDate="2014-09-17T18:38:38.807" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/512309671835992064" />
  <row Id="7264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2970" RevisionGUID="87eda369-81fe-4caf-869c-dffad509e5af" CreationDate="2014-09-17T20:13:38.453" UserId="1495" Comment="unnecessary stuff removed" Text="There are some differences between fertilizing shrubs and other plants, generally, and between different individual shrubs. But one thing I've noticed is that in your question, the plants you listed were:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Flowers&#xD;&#xA; - Ginger&#xD;&#xA; - Onions&#xD;&#xA; - Chili&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which are, for the most part, annuals or herbaceous perennials, not so much shrubs, although there are some shrubs in the flowers category. Anyway, I'll take the listed plants one by one and give my recommendations for organic/natural fertilizers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Flowers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very general, but I'm going to assume that most of yours are annuals. It is good to know what the biggest nutrients (by volume uptake) that plants use are: Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). This is called the NPK ratio in fertilizers, even processed  organic fertilizers. But in my opinion, the best thing for soil is decomposed organic matter (eg compost). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flowering uses lots of the nutrient potassium, so whatever you use, make sure plenty of this is supplied. Nitrogen stimulates top growth, so too much of this (ie, straight poultry manure or blood meal) will cause good, green growth, but will decrease flowering. Phosphorus is needed for the root growth, and for building up storage areas. Don't use huge amounts on most flowers, but it is necessary to use at least some.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some fertilizers you can use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Homemade compost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is mostly for an increase in microbial soil life, and the organic matter (humus) content of your soil. The nutrient and mineral levels are extremely variable, and depend on what was put into the compost, but a good compost is usually a great micronutrient complex. It does not usually contain high levels of npk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bone meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The npk is 3-15-0, on average, so it's a great root-feeder. You only need to apply once a year, as it breaks down and feeds slowly. It may attract neighborhood dogs, so keep that in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hoof and horn meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This has an npk of 12-0-0, so it promotes strong green growth, but should be used in reasonable amounts. This stuff is awesome, because it is slow-release, and adds nitrogen to the soil over a long period of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Fish emulshion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [**Sustainability**][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Sustainability is a real concern for anything made from living ocean organisms these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;The world’s oceans are in a state of near-collapse due to overfishing, destructive harvesting practices, and changing environmental conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;This doesn’t mean everything that’s harvested from the sea is necessarily causing further environmental damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;Some fish products are more sustainable than others, so it’s worth checking out the specifics of the one you’re thinking about buying. If the seller can’t tell you where it comes from, I’d think twice about buying it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt;It’s also worth checking whether fish is the only ingredient in a product you’re considering using, since not only beneficial organic additions like seaweed and crab shells, but also non-organic materials are sometimes added to boost NPK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The npk is usually about 5-1-1, but very fast acting, so use moderately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wood ashes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; They have an npk ratio of 0-1-3, so it is a great flower-booster, but should be used carefully, noting that wood ashes are extremely alkaline, and will raise the pH of soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ginger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a root (storage function) plant, these need a good bit of phosphorus, with lower amounts of potassium and nitrogen as compared with flowers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some fertilizers that will be good for ginger:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Homemade compost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ![enter image description here][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is mostly for an increase in microbial soil life, and the organic matter (humus) content of your soil. The nutrient and mineral levels are extremely variable, and depend on what was put into the compost, but a good compost is usually a great micronutrient complex. It does not usually contain high levels of npk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cottonseed meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; npk: 6-1-1.5. This is a good, neutral, balanced, general fertilizer that suits ginger. It is a byproduct of the textile industry, and be aware that depending where you source, it may be genetically altered, or contain trace amounts of sprayed pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Alfalfa meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][11]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It has an npk ratio of 2-1-2, and is a super soil builder. You can even use it as a mulch, with amazing results. Be aware that it can be expensive, because of high production costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bone meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The npk is 3-15-0, on average, so it's a great root-feeder. You only need to apply once a year, as it breaks down and feeds slowly. It may attract neighborhood dogs, so keep that in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Onions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are also root crops, and require similar fertilization that ginger does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some important fertilizers you might be able to use for onions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Homemade compost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ![enter image description here][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is mostly for an increase in microbial soil life, and the organic matter (humus) content of your soil. The nutrient and mineral levels are extremely variable, and depend on what was put into the compost, but a good compost is usually a great micronutrient complex. It does not usually contain high levels of npk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Alfalfa meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It has an npk ratio of 2-1-2, and is a super soil builder. You can even use it as a mulch, with amazing results. Be aware that it can be expensive, because of high production costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bone meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][15]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The npk is 3-15-0, on average, so it's a great root-feeder. You only need to apply once a year, as it breaks down and feeds slowly. It may attract neighborhood dogs, so keep that in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wood ashes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][16]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; They have an npk ratio of 0-1-3, so it is a great flower-booster, but should be used carefully, noting that wood ashes are extremely alkaline, and will raise the pH of soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Chili peppers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are fruit crops, and as such, require a good bit of potassium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My fertilizer recommendations below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Homemade compost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ![enter image description here][17]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This is mostly for an increase in microbial soil life, and the organic matter (humus) content of your soil. The nutrient and mineral levels are extremely variable, and depend on what was put into the compost, but a good compost is usually a great micronutrient complex. It does not usually contain high levels of npk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bone meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][18]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The npk is 3-15-0, on average, so it's a great root-feeder. You only need to apply once a year, as it breaks down and feeds slowly. It may attract neighborhood dogs, so keep that in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hoof and horn meal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][19]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This has an npk of 12-0-0, so it promotes strong green growth, but should be used in reasonable amounts. This stuff is awesome, because it is slow-release, and adds nitrogen to the soil over a long period of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wood ashes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][20]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; They have an npk ratio of 0-1-3, so it is a great flower-booster, but should be used carefully, noting that wood ashes are extremely alkaline, and will raise the pH of soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Animal manure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][21]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; This shouldn't be used on root crops unless thoroughly broken down, but it makes a great fertilizer for peppers. The npk is usually high, but extremely variable, depending on species, gender, age of the manure, the animals diet, etc. Side dress the plants at any time for great results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/users/419/j-musser&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mSiwm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CGMX2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UEveu.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zDa1E.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.gardenerspantry.ca/blog/fish-fertilizer.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ib5Zo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mSiwm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CtVq4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jafUw.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CGMX2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mSiwm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jafUw.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CGMX2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ib5Zo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mSiwm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CGMX2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UEveu.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ib5Zo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9TCNK.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7265" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3002" RevisionGUID="bac1523e-060d-425d-92bf-6845f2b5d4d9" CreationDate="2014-09-17T21:38:38.613" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/512354969589006336" />
  <row Id="7266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3023" RevisionGUID="a8cac8d7-3f96-438f-864a-894618d96ca5" CreationDate="2014-09-18T07:09:39.463" UserId="1662" Comment="I added the link to the study in an embedded link, this looks neater.  Great answer." Text="I'm going to be politically incorrect and say yes.  &quot;The solution to pollution is dilutions&quot;  Toxicity is in the dose. The amount of heavy metals and PAH's (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) is significant.  This is likely causing the anti-termite effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [1980 paper][1] reports lead content of around 7500 ppm Zinc at 1500 ppm.  (Note that zinc is a micronutrient.) and much smaller amounts of copper and chromium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PAH content varies from 2 to 300 ppm depending on both the source and the particular PAH involved. Some PAH's are carcinogens, but the health effects paper didn't note higher cancer rates among the mechanics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Denmark study of mechanics in 10 autoshops in Denmark found minor problems, but the exposure is chronic, and is likely to be both by skin contact and inhalation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other studies have found cancers with exposures of 60 to 1600 mg/kg body weight/day.  For a human that higher limit amounts to slathering on 100 grams of used motor oil on your skin every day for your life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Respiratory effects occur at 40-80 mg/cubic meter of air.  This is likely an immediate effect of the oil, and not due to the crap in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Environmental effects are significant when there are large spills of oil.  This is largely due to the mechanical effect of the oil:  It blocks the soil pores.  At low exposures the oil part in biologically active top soil is degraded in a period of months to a year or so.  You can test this your self by mixing dirty oil with soapy water and spraying it on the ground.  It will initially kill vegetation, but by the following year it will be difficult to tell where you sprayed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your particular use, you are immobilizing it.  Overall, I would regard your practice as being no more harmful than purpose made chemicals for this same purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't inhale it.  I would suggest taking some precautions about that, but it can be as simple as wearing a mask, and being clever about your technique.  If there is significant airborne oil you will notice it first as an eye irritant.  In this way, it is toxic the same way paint is toxic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do note, however that wood so treated will be extremely flammable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rafael_Vazquez-Duhalt/publication/20506788_Environmental_impact_of_used_motor_oil/links/09e4150722fe824907000000" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7267" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3023" RevisionGUID="a8cac8d7-3f96-438f-864a-894618d96ca5" CreationDate="2014-09-18T07:09:39.463" Comment="Proposed by 1662 approved by 659, 99 edit id of 293" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3025" RevisionGUID="a0838ce4-642b-413c-bff6-1bea3154a3e6" CreationDate="2014-09-18T07:10:37.883" UserId="108" Text="Outside my apartment, there are 3 rubbish bins. One for `glass`, another for `metals, paper and plastics` and a third without a label, for bio-waste I guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I wonder what are some guidelines for when a package goes to number 2 or 3? If there is still chocolate on the inside of my waffle package, where does it go? What about a plastic box or glass jar of mayonnaise? What about a plastic widget with some rubber on it? What about wet paper, handkerchiefs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3025" RevisionGUID="a0838ce4-642b-413c-bff6-1bea3154a3e6" CreationDate="2014-09-18T07:10:37.883" UserId="108" Text="How clean a package goes to recycling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3025" RevisionGUID="a0838ce4-642b-413c-bff6-1bea3154a3e6" CreationDate="2014-09-18T07:10:37.883" UserId="108" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3026" RevisionGUID="7af7b9b5-63cd-4822-aa4a-5f9e4968833f" CreationDate="2014-09-18T07:30:56.420" UserId="99" Text="The exact guidelines differ from place to place and depend on how the local recycling process is setup. Where I live for example, it's ok to leave metal caps on glass bottles because all metals are automatically filtered out, whereas in other countries people are asked to remove the caps. The same goes for plastic, some places recycle only specific plastic types and all plastics should be clean, and others collect all plastics and it isn't a problem if there are stains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, it's best to separate the different types of material as much as possible (if they belong to different bins). For plastics it's best to leave as little food leftovers or other materials as possible because the more leftovers there are, the more the plastic quality goes down when it is recycled. Also biodegradable plastics are better not collected with regular plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bio-waste is generally everything that is organic and can be composted; food leftovers, grass clippings, egg shells, cardboard, paper handkerchiefs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are general guidelines. Your local recycling facility may have slightly different guidelines so it's best to check with them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3027" RevisionGUID="7454e08f-9896-4d52-a38e-bb8013abce54" CreationDate="2014-09-18T07:33:23.050" UserId="99" Text="Apparantly [Icynene](http://www.icynene.com/builders/sustainability/green-your-next-building-project) is more environmentally friendly than traditional spray polyurethane foam, but it is more expensive and needs to be applied by professionals. Icynene still is a polyurethane foam, but it is PBDE free and isn't as unhealthy in use and removal. More info on the different types of Icynene also [here](http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/heating-and-cooling/icynene2.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ended up using [paper mache][1] myself, made from old newspapers and wallpaper glue. I used it to close a small hole in our concrete floor provisionally. I created a layer of approximately 2cm (about 0.8 inches) and after the paper dried it was fairly strong. Then I added a thin layer of concrete on top of it (only thin because I wasn't sure about the strength of the paper layer). Once the thin concrete layer dried I added more concrete and closed the gap entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papier-m%C3%A2ch%C3%A9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="933" RevisionGUID="6c42c58a-714c-4169-b8c7-e2d8a89fbf15" CreationDate="2014-09-18T19:44:53.173" UserId="99" Comment="added remark about Sulfoxaflor and updated brand list as found on wikipedia" Text="Since nobody answered, I thought I’d post an answer with what I’ve been able to find out myself&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Types**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a list of 7 different neonicotinoid insecticides on [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid#Available_neonicotinoid_insecticides):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Acetamiprid&#xD;&#xA; - Clothianidin&#xD;&#xA; - Dinotefuran&#xD;&#xA; - Imidacloprid&#xD;&#xA; - Nitenpyram&#xD;&#xA; - Thiacloprid&#xD;&#xA; - Thiamethoxam&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some say that [Sulfoxaflor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfoxaflor) is also a neonicotinoid, but not everyone agrees with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The neonicotinoid insecticide that is most commonly used is [Imidacloprid](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid). I'm not sure if manufacturers are obliged to put the name of these substances on all their products, so these names might not show up on a product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Brands**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bayer is the company that has invented Imidacloprid and also seems to sell the most products that have this stuff in them, so careful when buying stuff from them. Other brand names:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Admire, Advantage (Advocate) (flea killer for pets), Confidor, Conguard, Gaucho, Hachikusan, Intercept, Kohinor, Mallet, Maxforce Quantum, Merit, Nuprid, Optrol, Premise, Prothor, Provado, Turfthor, Temprid (Bayer), Winner, and Xytect (source [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid#Brand_names))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found [this list](http://www.pan-uk.org/home-garden/list-of-home-and-garden-pesticides-containing-neonicotinoids) with products that contain neonicotinoids, but there is no date so I’m not sure how old the list is and if it is complete (probably not).&#xD;&#xA;The EU has decided that all countries have 1 year to start with the ban, so it’s possible that products with neonicotinoids in them are still being sold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Application**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparentely there are many uses for neonicotinoids:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; it can be applied by soil injection, tree injection, application to the skin of the plant, broadcast foliar, ground application as a granular or liquid formulation, or as a pesticide-coated seed treatment. (source: [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imidacloprid#Authorized_uses))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read that Imidacloprid is taken up by plants and trees and remains present in their flowers or seeds so I suspect there is no way of knowing for sure whether a tree, plant, flower bulb, or seed contains neonicotinoids without labtests. The safest choice is probably to buy organic plants, bulbs and seeds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3028" RevisionGUID="30c0a197-610a-4b4a-b52c-d839c68c7a76" CreationDate="2014-09-19T09:21:03.317" UserId="15" Text="Further to @THelper's answer, it's also worth considering that (in many recycling plants) most materials put out for recycling are handled at least to a small degree by real people, even if they just go past on a conveyor belt. As a gesture of respect, it's nice to avoid anything that smells completely rotten. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not a job I would want to do, so I like to think I can at least make the job more pleasant for those that do it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7276" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3025" RevisionGUID="b4a59406-f3ec-4301-b815-a06cec55b30f" CreationDate="2014-09-19T11:17:37.897" UserId="99" Comment="improved title" Text="How 'clean' should something be for recycling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3029" RevisionGUID="fcfd5088-52ef-477b-88af-cd1d3c743e5d" CreationDate="2014-09-19T14:17:06.623" UserId="1053" Text="The most important reason for cleaning your recycles is for your own comfort and safety before they are picked up by the recycler. If you have a small blue bin in your kitchen, and you toss a sticky jammy jam jar into it and leave it there for a week or more, you may end up with ants or other insects or vermin attracted by the jam. So you give it a quick rinse before you put it in there. If you take individual items outside and put them in a communal bin, there is still the matter of wasps, ants, rats and whatnot getting very interested in whatever food scraps you have left in your recycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I rinse cans and jars under the tap. Plastic and foil that are too sticky and messy to clean, I put into the garbage. I don't take labels off anything (our instructions from the municipality say we don't need to.) I do take things apart a little: for example a tissue box is cardboard with a little plastic where the actual tissues come out, and I take that plastic off and put it in the bag I use to collect film plastic, then put the cardboard in the box for cardboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, if you make it clean enough that you don't mind it hanging around inside your home, or very near the door to your home, for two weeks, then it will likely be clean enough for your recycler." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3030" RevisionGUID="b47106c4-5eb0-4c94-bef2-77f390000e77" CreationDate="2014-09-19T14:40:54.313" UserId="1704" Text="I'm trying to find a leak-proof reusable water bottle and have had a lot of difficulty with this task.  So far, the best I've been able to do as far as strictly the leak-proof issue is a Nalgeen water bottle with a screw on cap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've been starting to wonder about the negative long term effects on my health of using a plastic water bottle for a long period of time.  Which has me back to using my old Kleen Kanteen, which does leak occasionally.  Thus, I'm back to the issue of trying to find a good water bottle that won't leak on me occasionally.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if anyone knows of any caps bottle caps that I could buy for my current Kleen Kanteen which would eliminate the leaking issue, I'd love to just buy a new bottle cap for my existing bottle rather than an entirely new water bottle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3030" RevisionGUID="b47106c4-5eb0-4c94-bef2-77f390000e77" CreationDate="2014-09-19T14:40:54.313" UserId="1704" Text="Leak proof water bottles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3030" RevisionGUID="b47106c4-5eb0-4c94-bef2-77f390000e77" CreationDate="2014-09-19T14:40:54.313" UserId="1704" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3031" RevisionGUID="0c8d81dc-ccfc-4e23-9a6c-59a6ea24ec62" CreationDate="2014-09-19T15:50:31.887" UserId="1704" Text="&quot;Is there no significant consequence to how we use our bodies' own generated energy - from a resources sustainability point of view - or are there considerations one can put into use in terms of harnessing one's body energy for external power consumption purposes?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel like this one question you asked fairly neatly sums up your entire overall question.  So I am going to answer this in terms of body inputs and outputs, ie, what you eat and how you burn your calories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as eating goes, eating lower down on the food chain is better for the environment.  (Full disclosure: I'm an omnivore.)  So if you want to do the best thing you can for the environment as far as inputs (what you're eating) and outputs (how you exercise), I'll take this to the logical extreme and explain how you can do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Go vegan.  Eating meat &amp; dairy is pretty bad for the environment.  People talk about CO2 emissions a lot, and methane emissions not nearly as often.  Cows emit a large quantity of methane - cow farts, and methane is orders of magnitude worse for the environment than CO2 as far as a greenhouse gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Ride a bicycle or take the bus when the distance is too long for bike travel to be practical.  While walking is great for your body and the environment, from a calorie expenditure perspective, you will get a lot more out of your energy by biking places instead of walking.  But there's a cost to this: avid bicyclists tend to burn a lot more calories than the rest of us.  You'll need to eat 3,000 - 4,000 calories a day to maintain your body weight if you become a serious bicyclist.  See also point one for reducing the impact of this decision.  (Alternatively, eating lower on the food chain is also much better for the environment in general.  Fried grasshoppers, anyone?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Ditch your car.  If anything, this is a harder decision to make than one or two, potentially.  I don't drive, and it impacts the whole way I live.  But on the whole, I find it to be worthwhile.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the benefits to not driving:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) If you aren't sitting around reading all the time, you'll never need to go to the gym.  I walk everywhere I can, and when this isn't possible, I take the bus.  It means arranging my life somewhat around the bus schedule (occasionally) or trying to live in a city that's walking friendly so you don't have to worry about buses.  Or, better yet, living a city like Davis, CA, that has Class I bike paths throughout the city so you can bike all over the place and not worry about getting hit by a car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) You'll save hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of your life in gas money, car insurance, car payments, etc that you won't have to pay.  If you invest the money well you save by not owning a car, you could easily retire a decade earlier than the standard retirement age, if not earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c) Never needing to worry about the price of gasoline.  This one's really a nice subset of point b, but it's a fun addition for me personally.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downsides are probably obvious so I won't go into them here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3032" RevisionGUID="2e2657de-fcdf-4b9d-8066-366bc1f0f903" CreationDate="2014-09-19T17:57:05.697" UserId="85" Text="I've been using a Nalgene bottle, which is leak-proof. The material is BPA-free (BPA is by now well-known to have adverse health effects). Unfortunately, we don't know if the other components in the plastic have similar effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for naming a particular brand, Sigg (https://www.sigg.com/) has been making water bottles for over a hundred years. Their traditional model uses aluminium with a protective, elastic layer on the inside. Unfortunately, I don't know what this layer is made of (which is most likely a trade secret).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option would be a thermos flask (they keep water cool as well!). Most thermos flasks are made from stainless steel with a very small seal with minimal contact with the contents. In high-end thermos flasks, this seal is often made from silicone. High-end thermos flasks may also be made from glass, although usually for keeping office coffee warm and not for travelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know, all these options are leak-proof. I have never bought a water bottle/drink container that was not leak-proof..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3033" RevisionGUID="24e2eeda-0061-4b42-ae29-43d787aeafdf" CreationDate="2014-09-19T21:45:10.393" UserId="812" Text="I tend to buy an ordinary bottle of bottled water, and reuse the bottle for weeks or months (with some washing!) Most of them are pretty strong and leak-proof, and they are ultimately recyclable in most areas too. I'm not sure whether there are any issues of contamination from the bottle in the long term. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7284" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3030" RevisionGUID="1459bb23-f797-4dc5-9df9-00be86405797" CreationDate="2014-09-20T06:46:49.390" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/513217699229343744" />
  <row Id="7285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3034" RevisionGUID="27363cc8-949e-4076-a6db-30db848640cf" CreationDate="2014-09-20T08:39:28.817" UserId="1706" Text="I recently found this article by EWG, putting limonene-containing cleaners on the bad list of toxic household cleaners:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ewg.org/cleaners/hallofshame/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claim is that limonene reacts with trace levels of indoor ozone to produce formaldehyde.  Yet, citrus oils can be around 90% limonene or d-limonene.  Does this mean that everything citrus or pine is dangerous now?  Including orange essential oils, orange juice, orange scented diffusers and room sprays, candles with citrus oils, etc?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3034" RevisionGUID="27363cc8-949e-4076-a6db-30db848640cf" CreationDate="2014-09-20T08:39:28.817" UserId="1706" Text="Does orange essential oil create formaldehyde when exposed to ozone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3034" RevisionGUID="27363cc8-949e-4076-a6db-30db848640cf" CreationDate="2014-09-20T08:39:28.817" UserId="1706" Text="|home|toxic-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3030" RevisionGUID="692ddd2d-8acc-4d4b-94d5-dbd7cb8cb306" CreationDate="2014-09-20T10:59:03.080" UserId="642" Comment="added links to illustrate the mentioned bottles" Text="I'm trying to find a leak-proof reusable water bottle and have had a lot of difficulty with this task.  So far, the best I've been able to do as far as strictly the leak-proof issue is a [Nalgeen][1] water bottle with a screw on cap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've been starting to wonder about the negative long term effects on my health of using a plastic water bottle for a long period of time.  Which has me back to using my old [Kleen Kanteen][2], which does leak occasionally.  Thus, I'm back to the issue of trying to find a good water bottle that won't leak on me occasionally.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if anyone knows of any caps bottle caps that I could buy for my current Kleen Kanteen which would eliminate the leaking issue, I'd love to just buy a new bottle cap for my existing bottle rather than an entirely new water bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nalgene.com/product/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kleankanteen.com/products/klean-kanteens.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7289" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3030" RevisionGUID="692ddd2d-8acc-4d4b-94d5-dbd7cb8cb306" CreationDate="2014-09-20T10:59:03.080" Comment="Proposed by 642 approved by 99 edit id of 294" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7290" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3034" RevisionGUID="a10ec8cd-0cd3-4689-8771-1c25fc7812a5" CreationDate="2014-09-20T15:47:31.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/513353772438159360" />
  <row Id="7291" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3035" RevisionGUID="c31c9f77-a50e-4da8-ad25-c44e763f662c" CreationDate="2014-09-21T20:35:49.383" UserId="245" Text="I was wondering what the limits were to planting into organic pre-compost material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an experiment my father has grown a few things be simply planting them in a pile of used tea bags. This seems to work and teabags are amazingly swift become new compost if placed on the top of potted plants. (They also keep the moisture in the soil when it gets hot).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an indoor only apartment what sort of limits can I run into by allowing any composting to take place while the material is already host to the plant(s)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to make my own compost and use the compostable material my home generates which is why I asked about http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2973/indoor-composting-with-limited-space and have started to wonder about letting the growing roots of the plants do some of the work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously I do not want to risk disease to my plants or a bad smell to my home but cannot find much information online about using this approach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7292" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3035" RevisionGUID="c31c9f77-a50e-4da8-ad25-c44e763f662c" CreationDate="2014-09-21T20:35:49.383" UserId="245" Text="What are the limits of planting directly into pre-compost material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7293" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3035" RevisionGUID="c31c9f77-a50e-4da8-ad25-c44e763f662c" CreationDate="2014-09-21T20:35:49.383" UserId="245" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7295" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3035" RevisionGUID="5b855a9c-3dae-4022-a6da-dded47670429" CreationDate="2014-09-22T12:59:15.503" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/514036201603727360" />
  <row Id="7297" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3025" RevisionGUID="f408c276-af84-447f-9134-20de7f6b478f" CreationDate="2014-09-22T15:59:14.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/514081494978265088" />
  <row Id="7298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3036" RevisionGUID="c12a8fac-ec5a-4127-813e-cea13fd6daf8" CreationDate="2014-09-23T15:43:20.040" UserId="1701" Text="Disease to plants and bad smells are both concerns. Additionally, nitrogen and possibly heat could become a problems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bacteria breaking down your compostable materials are much better at locking up nitrogen than the plants are, and if your inputs are low in nitrogen to begin with, the bacteria can starve the plants of nitrogen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if your inputs are too high in nitrogen, heat could theoretically become a problem. Bacteria produce quite a bit of heat as they break down material. Bacterial activity, and the amount of heat produced, is often limited by nitrogen availability in the compost inputs. Users of cold-frames can keep the frames a bit warmer by adding some green compost inside, and compost piles can, in some circumstances, spontaneously combust due to this process. It is possible, at least theoretically, that you could literally cook your plant roots by adding too much uncomposted,high-nitrogen material to your plants or put plants in unfinished compost. High bacterial activity is also likely to be &quot;stinky.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the two concerns, the heat would be the lesser in the case of indoor plants. The smaller containers should be able to shed any heat generated before it can build to troublesome levels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be best to compost first, then plant. Or if you just have to add uncomposted materials to plants, to do so in limited quantities at any one time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3037" RevisionGUID="8fad10d2-603e-46f5-80d5-0e0ec03ed81d" CreationDate="2014-09-23T22:04:00.343" UserId="400" Text="Kate is correct, and it is a good example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turn it around the other way: 7% for a 1 degree setback amounts to an average heating regime of 14 degrees C.  Multiply by 365 days a year, this corresponds to a 5100 degree day heating climate.  That's about a 9000 F degree days.  That corresponds to a very cold climate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worse:  A house has to be badly designed to no solar heat to some degree.  My house, not anywhere close to R-2000 standards doesn't require us to turn on the furnace until the outside temperature is close to freezing.  In addition internal waste energy gives the house a nudge.  Lights, cooking, domestic hot water, all help warm the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EnergyNumbers has another good example.  As the climate gets closer to inside temps, the benefit of lowering the set point increases.  Since a 5100Cdegreeday heating season is at the cold end, the claim is actually quite conservative.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3022" RevisionGUID="593a1d5d-22b7-4e2e-ae63-7eb40e374729" CreationDate="2014-09-24T06:19:58.257" UserId="659" Comment="spelling" Text="The advantage of a rotary mixer is the ease of keeping the compost moving.  A static pile that is never moved takes around a year, and the top 6&quot; doesn't decompose well.  Turn the pile a few times, cut that down to a couple months.  With a rotary composter, you can easily turn it each time you add material to it.  The time required will still be measured in weeks, but it is MUCH faster than a compost pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also keeps the dogs, cats, rats and raccoons out of the refuse..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note however that the compost pile wins on volume.  You will likely require several rotary composters to keep up with the demand.  Paint them bright colors and call them Art.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because you are constantly adding stuff, you need at least two.  Many composters are divided into two compartments for this reason.  One side can be finishing while you are getting things going in the other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rotary composter has more difficulty getting hot -- the air has access to all sides.  Put your composters out of the wind, and in the sun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3037" RevisionGUID="c3a7c825-daef-4abf-b6c5-5914be9e0250" CreationDate="2014-09-24T06:45:38.130" UserId="99" Comment="added links to referred comments" Text="[Kate is correct](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2852/reducing-the-setpoint-by-1-degree-c-will-save-7-energy-whats-the-origin-of-th#comment3396_2852), and it is a good example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turn it around the other way: 7% for a 1 degree setback amounts to an average heating regime of 14 degrees C.  Multiply by 365 days a year, this corresponds to a 5100 degree day heating climate.  That's about a 9000 F degree days.  That corresponds to a very cold climate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worse:  A house has to be badly designed to no solar heat to some degree.  My house, not anywhere close to R-2000 standards doesn't require us to turn on the furnace until the outside temperature is close to freezing.  In addition internal waste energy gives the house a nudge.  Lights, cooking, domestic hot water, all help warm the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[EnergyNumbers has another good example](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2852/reducing-the-setpoint-by-1-degree-c-will-save-7-energy-whats-the-origin-of-th#comment3395_2852).  As the climate gets closer to inside temps, the benefit of lowering the set point increases.  Since a 5100C degree day heating season is at the cold end, the claim is actually quite conservative.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3038" RevisionGUID="af7f394a-8c4b-49ff-9a87-4557f3c9f8d6" CreationDate="2014-09-24T08:37:28.443" UserId="1713" Text="Its more a question of basic hygiene I think. Do you want rats / wild animals rummaging in your recycling bins for leftover bits of food?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would you want, as a recycling operative, to pick up a box of clean glass jars, or jars with bits of Dolmio, brine or Mayo left in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its common decency I think to keep things clean, but here in the UK there is no steadfast law that says things should be cleaned out. Its simply manners." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3039" RevisionGUID="8b4c77d4-045d-44fe-9e83-ccab8db37744" CreationDate="2014-09-24T11:08:40.220" UserId="108" Text="My local recycling bins look somewhat like these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, the opening can facilitate a single item at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is one supposed to dump a large sack of plastic packages in the plastics bin? How is one supposed to throw a medium-sized plastic object, like a baby's 3-wheel plastic bike?  &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tAvZL.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3039" RevisionGUID="8b4c77d4-045d-44fe-9e83-ccab8db37744" CreationDate="2014-09-24T11:08:40.220" UserId="108" Text="Why the tiny input openings on recycle bins?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3039" RevisionGUID="8b4c77d4-045d-44fe-9e83-ccab8db37744" CreationDate="2014-09-24T11:08:40.220" UserId="108" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3040" RevisionGUID="31af3b7e-0c68-4341-ae20-a2df83ba34e3" CreationDate="2014-09-24T11:21:37.993" UserId="291" Text="Depending on your municipality, you've _probably_ got other options for recycling of a greater quantity of materials, or materials that are simply too large to place in the appropriate bin. _Ideally_, these items are routinely collected from your home, or can at least be scheduled for collection, in order to make the practice more convenient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The public bins are sometimes designed like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - To avoid people simply dumping a bunch of rubbish in them, most of which probably doesn't belong in them (but perhaps the others)&#xD;&#xA; - To avoid one or two people filling them up with their haul of stuff, and everyone else piling stuff up around them between scheduled pickups of the materials. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mine are actual converted square rubbish bins. While the lids aren't large, the opening is sufficient to accept something around the size of a sack of fast food. Twice weekly, I see folks from sanitation sorting it all out prior to hauling it off because people consolidate their stuff into a bag, then plop it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A smaller opening would be less convenient for depositors, but more optimal for the folks that have to actually handle the stuff. It encourages (and sort of forces) folks to take the time to put a predictable quantity of things in (hopefully) the right places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not ideal, but I suppose a compromise most can live with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3041" RevisionGUID="1b8e0a73-76e9-4e31-bf55-f1cd6887676d" CreationDate="2014-09-24T12:59:13.730" UserId="99" Text="From the picture, it looks like your municipality ordered the same bin type but in different colors for different types of waste. The small openings seems sufficient for dumping glass, plastic bottles and perhaps also metals depending on which metals are allowed in there. However, if your municipality allows all plastic types in the plastic bin, then I'd say they made a mistake by not making the opening of the plastic bin larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I live, people usually collect all plastic wastes in a plastic bag and toss that in the plastic bin once or twice a week. Such a bag full of plastic wouldn't fit in the bin in your country, but here we've got much bigger bin openings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Plastic container as used in The Netherlands][1]&#xD;&#xA;Picture taken from: http://www.bce-containers.nl/images/groot/plastic_hero.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TvgZ0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3042" RevisionGUID="abde5a00-16c0-4355-b45d-88ad27d99f17" CreationDate="2014-09-24T13:41:59.183" UserId="400" Text="On campus they are just large enough to pass a pop can.  They are designed this way to reduce theft.  Once you have the bins in place, the contents are tempting targets.  A bin made from a  steel drum will hold several hundred cans.  That's about 30 bucks worth at the bottle depot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also reduces casual use for paper disposal.  In particular the openings are too small for most cardboard coffee cups.  There is usually a garbage bin with a larger opening nearby, but even those bins have only a 6-8&quot; opening in them.  THAT keeps the crows out.  The crows will tend to scatter garbage.  Doesn't stop the sparrows and wrens snerkling about looking for bread and cookie crumbs.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3043" RevisionGUID="df10c507-507e-4f4d-980d-f6896e95f724" CreationDate="2014-09-24T13:57:37.823" UserId="400" Text="In terms of the impact on the waste stream, don't get in a swivit about it.  Example:  Our dump takes ALL plastic pails, and they go through a shredder. Then a magnetic separator to remove shredded metal handles,  Then they go through a series of washing cycles, with hot soapy water and various solvents.  This removes most food items.  The solvents remove left over oil and grease.  Then they are packed in to 4 foot cube nylon bags and sold as feed stock to other uses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3044" RevisionGUID="51ef4dae-d3a6-4cb9-b9bc-c6da830b050f" CreationDate="2014-09-24T14:09:22.937" UserId="400" Text="Another potential issue:  Pre compost materials don't pack well.  Sure teabags do, but consider corn husks, cabbage leaves, asparagus butts orange peels.  They are too spacious for a good root system.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Living in an apartment, I'd suggest starting a vermiculture bin.  (red wrigglers) The worms and the bacteria together do a much faster job.  A pair of the 10&quot; rubbermade totes work well for this with minor modifications:  You need to make some air holes, but the air holes need to be screened to keep out fruit flies.  You can duct tape scraps of screen or mosquito netting.  a pair of 4 square inch openings is sufficient.  These can be in either the base or the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my experience two shallow ones work better than one deep one.  With a deep one, the bottom tends to get soggy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having two also means you can move material between bins to mix it up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water is one of the breakdown products of the decomposition, so you will get water collecting in the bottom.  Drain off and use to water your plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a warm climate you can keep the worm bin on the patio or balcony.  Once temps are getting below 50 F (10 C) The worms are unhappy when cold, or at least inactive.   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3045" RevisionGUID="b5556b72-123d-441a-a2f0-6422cdcd10d5" CreationDate="2014-09-24T14:17:12.950" UserId="400" Text="A trick I've seen used for repairing drywall holes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cut a piece of wood that is roughly elliptical with the narrow dimension being just under the widest dimension of the hole.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drill two holes in the center and string a loop of cord through it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check that the wood will go through the hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apply a bead of constrution adhesive to the wood, then re-insert, and use the string to pull it against the back side of the hole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place a bar across the hole, and tie the string to the bar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can put a pencil through the two strands, and winch it tight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For walls, you'd use scraps of drywall.  For floors, scraps of OSB, plywood, paneling work.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3046" RevisionGUID="b51fa88e-441d-409a-b502-5435c8e6802e" CreationDate="2014-09-24T15:07:02.723" UserId="400" Text="Let's assume that you are composting mostly plant material.  Some water comes in with that.  As the structure of the plant material breaks down, that water is free to move to the bottom of the container.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However plant structure is mostly cellulose. (C6H10O5)n&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When munched this reacts with air to create CO2 and H20.&#xD;&#xA;Ten pounds of dry cellulose will produce roughly 4 pounds of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plant sugars and starches have similar breakdown ratios.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most fresh plant material -- grass clippings, say -- will be 60 to 80% water to start with.  For the sake of easy math suppose it's 2/3 water.  That means that 10 lbs of dry plant material started out as 30 lbs of fresh material.  So now you've got 24 lbs of water coming out of the bottom of your pile.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3047" RevisionGUID="b0f3a15a-30df-4f7b-893d-6691b9c4ca13" CreationDate="2014-09-24T15:17:02.367" UserId="400" Text="For casual use, have the feed come in at a slope to the burn chamber allows the stove to self feed as the ends burn off.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The burn chamber has to be large enough for the heat to start pyrolizing the wood chunks.  If the chimney is the same diameter as the feed tube it's harder to get a balance of air speeds that will keep the fire from moving up the feed tube, and still get enough heat up the chimney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having the chamber have some depth below the feed tube entrance gives you a place for ash, so that stove does't need to be cleaned as often.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ball park guesses:  Feed tube should be 4-8 times the diameter of the typical fuel inserted.  Fire chamber should be 1.5 to 2 times feed tube diameter.  Feed tube should come in 1 diameter above base of chimney.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start work using a 6&quot; to 4&quot; Y duct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3046" RevisionGUID="7098d25b-1c97-470b-9c9b-fe5a4e6fe2cd" CreationDate="2014-09-25T06:56:34.907" UserId="60" Comment="improved formatting and added emphasis" Text="Let's assume that you are composting mostly plant material.  Some water comes in with that.  As the structure of the plant material breaks down, that water is free to move to the bottom of the container.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However plant structure is mostly cellulose (C&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt;H&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt;O&lt;sub&gt;5&lt;/sub&gt;)&lt;sub&gt;n&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When munched this reacts with air to create CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;0.&#xD;&#xA;Ten pounds of dry cellulose will produce roughly 4 pounds of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plant sugars and starches have similar breakdown ratios.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most fresh plant material -- grass clippings, say -- will be 60 to 80% water to start with.  For the sake of easy math suppose it's 2/3 water.  That means that 10 lbs of dry plant material started out as **30 lbs of fresh material**.  So now you've got **24 lbs of water** coming out of the bottom of your pile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3009" RevisionGUID="1ec4b480-8486-4ddf-993e-4e7a60e7a409" CreationDate="2014-09-25T07:02:39.240" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="If we don't consider water from rainfall, then all water coming out was present in the materials you placed on your compost heap or bin, in one form or the other. Generally speaking greens (e.g. grass clippings, fruit and vegetable wastes) contain the most water, and browns (e.g. leaves, cardboard, coffee filters) not as much. &#xD;&#xA;Since greens contain the most nitrogen and browns the most carbon the C:N ratio is related to the amount of water, unless you add extra water or dry materials before adding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A moisture content of 40-60% is ideal for a compost pile. A handful of compost should feel like a wrung out sponge; moist is good, soggy is not (unless you want [anaerobic composting](http://www.planetnatural.com/composter-connection/compost-digesters/anaerobic/)). This means that only 1 or 2 waterdrops should come out if you sqeeze the compost in your hand. Theoretically moisture contents can be over 90% and still allow aerobic composting, but in practice once you are over 70% moisture, the heap/bin contents becomes soggy and not enough oxygen is present for the organisms that are doing the aerobic composting. How much water is ok does depend a bit on the type of materials you put in there. Grass clippings, cardboard and saw dust can quickly become a soggy lump, but if you mix it with stronger materials such as straw and twigs then this will happen less fast and the heap/bin will be better aerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your heap or bin is too wet, you can reduce the amount of water by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - temporarily stop throwing in greens, or dry them first before adding. &#xD;&#xA; - turning and aerating the contents regularly (if you put the most wet stuff on top, water can evaporate more quickly)&#xD;&#xA; - adding dry pieces of cardboard (in the most wet places)&#xD;&#xA; - adding a draining system, e.g. put your heap/bin on a small platform with holes in it&#xD;&#xA; - sheltering your heap from rain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From your question I take it that you've already got some draining system. You can't say if the drained liquids are a problem just by looking at the amount. It could be that your draining system is working too well and your heap isn't wet enough or that you've added a lot of very wet materials. Or if you have an open heap or bin, perhaps there has just been more rain than usual. It's the moisture level of the compost in your bin that counts, so you'll have to check that before deciding on taking measures.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3048" RevisionGUID="6066c4f4-ef02-40c0-a7a9-78998376d429" CreationDate="2014-09-25T11:43:50.153" UserId="1715" Text="I suggest to use a U-value kit from greenTEG (www.greenTEG.com). It is easy to use, very aqurate and you get the U-value of any position of your wall or glass within a few days of measurement. I tested it on my new hous and it resulted in the same value as predicted by the energy engineer. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7318" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3049" RevisionGUID="252d2b88-f8e2-427b-9852-f16563034159" CreationDate="2014-09-25T13:04:16.413" UserId="1716" Text="I don't know about the specifics for the recycling bins in the question, but in Sweden, the openings have been shrunk twice, due to accidents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first time in 1997, two children climbed into a paper recycling bin and were lost as a car came to pick the bin up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite that a similar accident has occurred more recently, and the openings are now even smaller, or on older bins, they have had bars welded across the openings to make climbing into the impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does make it significantly harder to get large quantities of material into the bins, but I think the benefits make it worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia image of bins for paper: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85tervinningsstation#mediaviewer/File:%C3%85tervinningsplats.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7319" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3039" RevisionGUID="586bbe6f-c5eb-42f9-a620-1da83bd7105c" CreationDate="2014-09-25T13:12:17.223" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/515126643560833024" />
  <row Id="7320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3049" RevisionGUID="7b4c8ccc-316f-4b1a-816f-17b2752f6690" CreationDate="2014-09-25T23:27:51.200" UserId="85" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I don't know about the specifics for the recycling bins in the question, but in Sweden, the openings have been shrunk twice, due to accidents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first time in 1997, two children climbed into a paper recycling bin and were lost as a car came to pick the bin up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite that a similar accident has occurred more recently, and the openings are now even smaller, or on older bins, they have had bars welded across the openings to make climbing into the impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does make it significantly harder to get large quantities of material into the bins, but I think the benefits make it worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Wikipedia image of bins for paper](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/%C3%85tervinningsplats.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3048" RevisionGUID="f98149aa-239a-4542-a0eb-115053ebbec0" CreationDate="2014-09-26T06:29:59.737" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="I suggest you use a U-value kit from [greenTEG](http://www.greenTEG.com). It is easy to use, very accurate and you get the U-value of any position of your wall or glass within a few days of measurement. I tested it on my new house and it resulted in the same value as predicted by the energy engineer. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3050" RevisionGUID="2df3c1e1-e579-428c-93cb-a81ef6de437b" CreationDate="2014-09-26T16:40:18.247" UserId="1697" Text="I was wondering about a sustainable chemical free way of dealing with house flies. Specifically, I thought to keep this from having too many possible answers and evolving into a discussion I am interested in how to work with Carnivorous plants; Like the Venus Fly Trap and pitcher plants designed to lure in insects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which are best at catching flies?  &#xD;&#xA;Which can survive in far less tropical locations with reduced humility and near freezing temperatures during long winters?  &#xD;&#xA;Which requite less attention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3050" RevisionGUID="2df3c1e1-e579-428c-93cb-a81ef6de437b" CreationDate="2014-09-26T16:40:18.247" UserId="1697" Text="Dealing with Flies indoors: Carnivorous Plants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3050" RevisionGUID="2df3c1e1-e579-428c-93cb-a81ef6de437b" CreationDate="2014-09-26T16:40:18.247" UserId="1697" Text="|pest-management|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3051" RevisionGUID="85d6117f-805a-42a9-9cc5-e91582b6769c" CreationDate="2014-09-26T20:24:13.003" UserId="1701" Text="You should figure out why you have so many flies in the first place. If they are reproducing indoors, addressing that source would be far more effective than plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they are coming in from the outside, plants might not be your answer either. They are likely to &quot;lure in&quot; as many new flies as they eat, giving you no net benefit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you are bent on the idea of carnivorous plants, there are a number of [cold hardy options][1] out there. I grow pitcher plants outdoors in NY, and leave them out all winter. They like a lot of sun and need to be wet, but other than that they need very little attention - and they kill a helluva lot of bugs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.growcarnivorousplants.com/Cold-Hardy-Carnivorous-Plants-s/1814.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3052" RevisionGUID="fb09c4ed-3f2a-408a-ac11-1308f2965efd" CreationDate="2014-09-26T22:29:07.637" UserId="15" Text="**Sundew Plants**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was a teenager I grew a lot of [Sundew plants][1]. To give you a good idea of the usefulness of these, I can say they can catch tiny flies (fruit flies, perhaps, and smaller) and perhaps mosquitoes but they won't catch larger house flies. I don't think their efficiency would be high enough to make a noticeable difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They managed to survive outdoors in a very mild winter climate (Auckland, New Zealand; no snow, frosts rare) in a sheltered sunny spot, but may die off in cold temperatures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosera" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3050" RevisionGUID="a989d04a-4445-4f46-af64-da25af9d4838" CreationDate="2014-09-27T02:17:44.587" UserId="1697" Comment="edited body" Text="I was wondering about a sustainable chemical free way of dealing with house flies. Specifically, I thought to keep this from having too many possible answers and evolving into a discussion I am interested in how to work with Carnivorous plants; Like the Venus Fly Trap and pitcher plants designed to lure in insects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which are best at catching flies?  &#xD;&#xA;Which can survive in far less tropical locations with reduced humility and near freezing temperatures during long winters?  &#xD;&#xA;Which require less attention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3053" RevisionGUID="d8608266-465e-403d-91a7-04a8570b2eb2" CreationDate="2014-09-27T20:11:13.983" UserId="400" Text="You cannot possibly keep up with the fly population with carnivorous plants.  Your typical venus flytrap will handle 2-3 flies a month.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I raised carnivorous plants as a kid.  Managed to get my flytraps to bloom and produce seed.  In fall I would catch 30-40 flies, and freeze them for winter use.  HI is correct.  Some of the largest ones could handle a fly, but most would not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the pitcher plants have larger appetites, but are larger plants too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carnivorous plants aren't really feeding on bugs.  They extract nitrogen from them.  Their native bogs have very little nitrogen.  N requirements are very small for these plants. It would be a more appropriate analogy to consider flies as being their source of vitamins." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="4f961cfa-b475-4fad-87f0-a9e23cd90100" CreationDate="2014-09-27T20:45:49.960" UserId="400" Text="First order approximation:  R-1 (british units BTU/hr/sqft/DegF) per sheet of glass.&#xD;&#xA;So double pane is R2, triple pane R3. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second order approximation depends on the frame material, and to some degree on coatings, and gas fills, and years since the gas fill; also depends on your heating system, exterior wind exposure.  It gets complicated enough that I have never bothered beyond the first order approximation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that financially, replacing existing non broken windows does not pay off in terms of saving on your heating bill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:  Let's talk about a 1 square meter window -- 10 square feet.  Suppose that the replacement window costs $100 and you install it yourself.  Suppose that you found a wonder window that was rated as R-5, and that your old windows are R-2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in my climate you have a 10,000 degree day heating season.  That's 240,000 degree hours.  The old window:  10 square feet * 240000 degree hours/2 = 1.2 million BTUs per year.  That's about 1/8 gigajoule or about 1.25 therms.  Last year at peak winter rates, my gas bill was running $6/Gigajoule.  So the old window cost me 75c per year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the new window was PERFECT, it would save me 75 cents per year.  So the minimum payback is 133 years at zero percent interest.  If I have to borrow money at even 1% the new window will never pay for itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flaws in this reasoning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  If the old window is also a serious air leak, then it has a much smaller effective R value, and a correspondingly higher cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Windows such as aluminum sliders have a lower R value, often being effectively R-1.  This would double the annual cost.  Still not enough to warrant replacement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  While replacing the windows may not be cost effective they will make the house more comfortable. They will also make it easier to sell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Window replacement is one of the LAST steps in making a house more energy efficient.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A much better strategy is to put shrink film plastic on the inside of your windows.  This is only a few bucks per window, adds an R to the window, and also stops air leaks around the edges of the any windows that open.  For a bit more you can get systems where you make frames of thin wood with magnets that stick to washers screwed to the existing frames.  These are easy to remove for summer use.  With more clever you make the add on frames 'double pane' with plastic on both faces, turning your R-2 window into an R4 window.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In winter when it is very cold out, the radiation through the window is significant.  Having double layer window coverings can make a significant difference.  In addition having a surface window treatment that reduces air circulation near the window allows the creation of a thicker boundary layer near the window, which will cool off, thus reducing the effective temperature differential between inside and outside.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3055" RevisionGUID="fcff5520-c168-45ed-8f9a-957311a07307" CreationDate="2014-09-28T01:46:14.570" UserId="1720" Text="I've had a few KOR water bottles since they started and they're BPA free but I've switched over to the [CamelBak eddy insulated stainless steel water bottle][1] - dropped it so many times and still going while backpacking and out and about in the world. Keeps drinks cool for hours, best thing ever. Just make sure to keep the bite valve clean and inner straw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://shop.camelbak.com/eddy-stainless-insulated-5l/d/1181_cl_1326" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7332" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3050" RevisionGUID="05af093c-6046-43ef-98ab-addee7288dc8" CreationDate="2014-09-29T13:17:17.957" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/516577456648892416" />
  <row Id="7333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3056" RevisionGUID="91f60e46-0ae0-4bd0-9b73-9dc867cbaf82" CreationDate="2014-09-30T14:20:21.123" UserId="1685" Text="I have plenty of millipedes in my garden, I am planning an aquaponics system (starting to build it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are millipedes suitable food for Tilapia? I worry that the hard shell will damage their intestine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am talking about those millipedes&#xD;&#xA; ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QfQwY.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7334" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3056" RevisionGUID="91f60e46-0ae0-4bd0-9b73-9dc867cbaf82" CreationDate="2014-09-30T14:20:21.123" UserId="1685" Text="Can I feed Tilapia with Millipedes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7335" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3056" RevisionGUID="91f60e46-0ae0-4bd0-9b73-9dc867cbaf82" CreationDate="2014-09-30T14:20:21.123" UserId="1685" Text="|aquaponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3057" RevisionGUID="cbf5654c-7191-4a97-9a8d-39c6bd7d9e80" CreationDate="2014-09-30T14:45:28.550" UserId="1685" Text="The different organic waste should be tested, one by one, feeding them to the fish in small quantities and processing it before to have it edible by the fsh (maybe dedicate an old blender to pre-chew it). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other direction would be to compost it and use them in an other beneficial way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution of the compost tower in the middle of grow beds is a good one though it comes with other issues such as :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - potential increase in nitrates in the water (it will all depends on grow beds total volume)&#xD;&#xA; - organic matter coming in the grow beds and potentially clogging it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative solution would be to get a worms or a BSF-larvae composting bin that would produce compost for your other grow beds (the traditional ones, not the aquaponics ones) then find a way to gather the worms or BSF larvae to feed them to the fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, for the non-organic food waste (left over of meat, eggs, bread,...) I wonder whether it would be suitable to feed the fish too (given it would be &quot;pre-chewed&quot; too), tilapias and catfish are omnivorous, they can eat meat (what about the cooked one?). Those won't be OK for composting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2959" RevisionGUID="ed1d813f-9f5b-4139-9b8f-81a188bb8cd8" CreationDate="2014-10-01T08:10:25.503" UserId="642" Comment="explained the polymers" Text="Many recycling programs don't accept #2 (♴ - [high-density polyethylene][1] - HDPE) plastic bags (only #2 rigid plastic).  Does the same apply to #4 (♶ - [low-density polyethylene][2] - LDPE) plastic?  I've seen it both in rigid and film form and I'm wondering if the reasons for not accepting #2 film apply to #4 film.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if I can return #2 plastic bags to a grocery store, can I also reliably return #4 plastic bags to a grocery store?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-density_polyethylene&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7338" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2959" RevisionGUID="ed1d813f-9f5b-4139-9b8f-81a188bb8cd8" CreationDate="2014-10-01T08:10:25.503" UserId="642" Comment="explained the polymers" Text="Do #4 (♶ LDPE) plastic bags need to be recycled at grocery stores like #2 (♴ HDPE) plastic bags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7339" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2959" RevisionGUID="ed1d813f-9f5b-4139-9b8f-81a188bb8cd8" CreationDate="2014-10-01T08:10:25.503" Comment="Proposed by 642 approved by 99 edit id of 295" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3058" RevisionGUID="56e2e368-9283-4312-bf27-3161a16b5888" CreationDate="2014-10-01T11:52:31.067" UserId="1701" Text="This looks like the [yellow spotted millipede][1], which exudes cyanide as a self defense. [Some people][2] will smell the cyanide, which smells almonds when handling these millipedes, though not everyone is able detect it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what the exposure would be to a fish eating one of these, but [studies have been conducted on the effects on tilapia of environmental exposure to cyanide][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The risk might be a moot point, however. The black and yellow markings signal potential predators that this &quot;bug&quot; might not be good to eat - the fish might avoid them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, it doesn't seem like it would be a good idea to feed these the tilapia in your aquaponics system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpaphe_haydeniana&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/cyanide/basics/facts.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://recent-science.com/index.php/rrst/article/viewfile/5201/2663" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3059" RevisionGUID="686c9ba2-2895-454f-847a-712178ab6fcf" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:14:45.380" UserId="400" Text="I prefer to use bottles that had soda pop in them.  They are somewhat heavier, and tolerate abuse.  When backpacking I carry 2 two liter (two quart) bottles to fill at the base of dry passes. I've yet to have problems with leakage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In winter I fill one up with hot sweet, milky coffee, and pull a heavy sock over the outside.  This goes in my daypack surrounded by my spare fleece. It doesn't keep it as hot as a thermos does, but it doesn't have the weight penalty of a thermos, and even at the end of a long day at -20 it's still luke warm.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3060" RevisionGUID="55e8f52a-a31a-4da5-bfca-671c4ba0de5c" CreationDate="2014-10-01T15:31:00.190" UserId="400" Text="Film has the following issues for recycling:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  It's not well labeled.  (Which bin should it go into?)&#xD;&#xA;2.  It's irregular in shape.  (Makes automated separation difficult)&#xD;&#xA;3.  The weight per piece is small.  (It takes about the same time/energy/computer power to pull a small chunk from a waste stream as a large chunk)&#xD;&#xA;4.  The ratio of dirt to plastic tends to be high.  A milk carton is easy to rinse.  Getting the bread crumbs out of the bag is tougher.  (Think in terms of automated equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the more common uses of mixed plastic feed stocks is to make synthetic fence posts.  Mix up wood chips and molten plastic, and extrude.  The resulting product is not as strong as an all wood post, but is considerably more rot resistant.  If the source material is chipped pallets then the entire product is recycled.  The resulting product is about 1/4 to 1/3 plastic, is not noted for its beauty, and is difficult to paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There have been attempts to make decking out of this blodge material, but I've read of problems with warping, surface finish.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This should be a comment, but it is too long, and comments do not allow formatting.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3058" RevisionGUID="64418b89-71f2-4158-b892-fa168a7df8a5" CreationDate="2014-10-01T19:34:13.327" UserId="1701" Comment="fix grammar" Text="This looks like the [yellow spotted millipede][1], which exudes cyanide as a self defense. [Some people][2] will smell the cyanide, which smells like almonds when handling these millipedes, though not everyone is able detect it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what the exposure would be to a fish eating one of these, but [studies have been conducted on the effects on tilapia of environmental exposure to cyanide][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The risk might be a moot point, however. The black and yellow markings signal potential predators that this &quot;bug&quot; might not be good to eat - the fish might avoid them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, it doesn't seem like it would be a good idea to feed these to the tilapia in your aquaponics system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpaphe_haydeniana&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/cyanide/basics/facts.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://recent-science.com/index.php/rrst/article/viewfile/5201/2663" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3061" RevisionGUID="b134fa4d-2534-4bf4-a595-a31f4ed40531" CreationDate="2014-10-01T19:57:29.520" UserId="1701" Text="If I start with the unit half full of shredded cardboard and 5lbs of red wigglers, how long should it take for the system to be running full tilt, and how much (in lbs, say) material should it be able to deal with? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, should I be looking to fill it nearly to the top with bedding over time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7345" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3061" RevisionGUID="b134fa4d-2534-4bf4-a595-a31f4ed40531" CreationDate="2014-10-01T19:57:29.520" UserId="1701" Text="How much garden waste can a 4x2x2 worm bin process each week?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7346" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3061" RevisionGUID="b134fa4d-2534-4bf4-a595-a31f4ed40531" CreationDate="2014-10-01T19:57:29.520" UserId="1701" Text="|composting|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7347" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3061" RevisionGUID="402b7259-34b9-4734-9825-b02253f7953a" CreationDate="2014-10-01T21:37:00.350" UserId="1701" Comment="clarifying units.; edited title" Text="How much garden waste can a 4x2x2 (feet) worm bin process each week?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7348" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3056" RevisionGUID="b1a3ba81-28f6-48e4-85a0-e130f09c62df" CreationDate="2014-10-02T04:34:11.717" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/517532976528097280" />
  <row Id="7349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3061" RevisionGUID="2350c0f5-4b63-4f97-9815-5090efd6fcab" CreationDate="2014-10-02T07:26:55.213" UserId="99" Comment="added metrics for international users" Text="If I start with a 4x2x2 feet (122x61x61 cm) unit half full of shredded cardboard and 5lbs (2.3 kg) of red wigglers, how long should it take for the system to be running full tilt, and how much (in lbs, say) material should it be able to deal with? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, should I be looking to fill it nearly to the top with bedding over time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3062" RevisionGUID="b47ef81c-af7f-46e3-b589-b207a2aa7903" CreationDate="2014-10-02T08:07:08.540" UserId="99" Text="First of all, shredded cardboard is rather dry so you have to make sure that you are not starting with too little moisture. Also cardboard doesn't have much bacteria to start decomposition and preprocess the material for the worms (worms only eat material that's already decomposing), so I'd add a little bit of dirt and a few greens at the start as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I think it's better to start with less initial bedding material. Processing a lot of carbon in one go is more difficult than spreading it out over time, because you want to keep a [C:N ratio of 25](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/5762/1916) and a steady flow of decomposing material. Also lots of wet cardboard may clog up your draining system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much material worms can process depend on various factors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - amount of surface available (red wigglers like to stay just below the surface)&#xD;&#xA; - amount of worms (this will regulate itself over time if conditions are right)&#xD;&#xA; - preferred temperature for the worms (for red wigglers this is [55–77 degrees Fahrenheit (13–25 degrees Celsius)](http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-help-your-composting-worms-thrive.html)).&#xD;&#xA; - preferred moisture level (about 60-70% is ideal)&#xD;&#xA; - ph level / type of food (don't add too much citrus fruits at a time)&#xD;&#xA; - amount of air (make sure the contents don't turn into a soggy lump)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Red wiggler worms can eat about [half of their weight in food every day](http://home.howstuffworks.com/vermicomposting1.htm), but there has to be already decomposing material available, so you need to feed regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read that in an up-and-running bin there generally are around 1.5-2 lbs of worms per square feet, so with 2 x 2 = 4 square feet and 5 lbs of worms you are already approaching maximum processing speed. This means that you'll be running at maximum processing speed in a few weeks, provided the conditions in your bin are right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much bedding you pile up over time depends on what your goal is. Personally I'd remove already finished compost once or twice a year and keep the bin between 1/4 and 3/4 full. There is little point to stacking it to the top." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3062" RevisionGUID="d5e38155-1923-44df-a42d-e6a08396294e" CreationDate="2014-10-02T08:17:09.007" UserId="99" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="First of all, shredded cardboard is rather dry so you have to make sure that you are not starting with too little moisture. Also cardboard doesn't have much bacteria to start decomposition and preprocess the material for the worms (worms only eat material that's already decomposing), so I'd add a little bit of dirt and a few greens at the start as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I think it's better to start with less initial bedding material. Processing a lot of carbon in one go is more difficult than spreading it out over time, because you want to keep a [C:N ratio of 25](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/5762/1916) and a steady flow of decomposing material. Also lots of wet cardboard may clog up your draining system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much material worms can process depend on various factors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - amount of surface available (red wigglers like to stay just below the surface)&#xD;&#xA; - amount of worms (this will regulate itself over time if conditions are right)&#xD;&#xA; - preferred temperature for the worms (for red wigglers this is [55–77 degrees Fahrenheit (13–25 degrees Celsius)](http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-help-your-composting-worms-thrive.html)).&#xD;&#xA; - preferred moisture level (about 60-70% is ideal)&#xD;&#xA; - ph level / type of food (don't add too much citrus fruits at a time)&#xD;&#xA; - amount of air (make sure the contents don't turn into a soggy lump)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Red wiggler worms can eat about [half of their weight in food every day](http://home.howstuffworks.com/vermicomposting1.htm), but there has to be already decomposing material available, so you need to feed regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read that in an up-and-running bin there generally are around 1.5-2 lbs of worms per square feet (7-10 kg per m2), so with 2 x 2 = 4 square feet and 5 lbs of worms you are already approaching maximum processing speed. This means that you'll be running at maximum processing speed in a few weeks, provided the conditions in your bin are right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much bedding you pile up over time depends on what your goal is. Personally I'd remove already finished compost once or twice a year and keep the bin between 1/4 and 3/4 full. There is little point to stacking it to the top." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3063" RevisionGUID="9df06c44-155b-4503-84ba-a84f7d2aeaf8" CreationDate="2014-10-02T12:05:35.447" UserId="1727" Text="Its a little niggling annoyance that always gets me in my office that when I work overtime and leave the office after everyone else I see row upon row of little orange lights where people have turned off their computers but left the monitor switched on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering; are there any estimates for how much power a monitor left in this condition uses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing it is not so much power. But surely more than if you actually turn it off? Or else why is there an off button....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I can get some solid proof of it using energy then I can bravely and anonymously make a poster to remind people to save the planet by turning their screen off!...or if I get proof that it makes no difference then I can have a load off my mind&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7353" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3063" RevisionGUID="9df06c44-155b-4503-84ba-a84f7d2aeaf8" CreationDate="2014-10-02T12:05:35.447" UserId="1727" Text="How much power does a computer monitor left switches on use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7354" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3063" RevisionGUID="9df06c44-155b-4503-84ba-a84f7d2aeaf8" CreationDate="2014-10-02T12:05:35.447" UserId="1727" Text="|electricity|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7355" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3061" RevisionGUID="54051364-3d37-4185-8088-275693e03f2c" CreationDate="2014-10-02T12:38:57.880" UserId="1701" Comment="added clarification on the type of worm bin." Text="How much garden waste can a 4x2x2 (feet) flow-through worm bin process each week?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3062" RevisionGUID="0f83849f-ba12-49cd-a4c8-d33fae702388" CreationDate="2014-10-02T13:49:54.337" UserId="99" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="First of all, shredded cardboard is rather dry so you have to make sure that you are not starting with too little moisture. Also cardboard doesn't have much bacteria to start decomposition and preprocess the material for the worms (worms only eat material that's already decomposing), so I'd add a little bit of dirt and a few greens at the start as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I think it's better to start with less initial bedding material. Processing a lot of carbon in one go is more difficult than spreading it out over time, because you want to keep a [C:N ratio of 25](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/5762/1916) and a steady flow of decomposing material. Also lots of wet cardboard may clog up your draining system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much material worms can process depend on various factors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - amount of surface available (red wigglers like to stay just below the surface)&#xD;&#xA; - amount of worms (this will regulate itself over time if conditions are right)&#xD;&#xA; - preferred temperature for the worms (for red wigglers this is [55–77 degrees Fahrenheit (13–25 degrees Celsius)](http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-help-your-composting-worms-thrive.html)).&#xD;&#xA; - preferred moisture level (about 60-70% is ideal)&#xD;&#xA; - ph level / type of food (don't add too much citrus fruits at a time)&#xD;&#xA; - amount of air (make sure the contents don't turn into a soggy lump)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Red wiggler worms can eat about [half of their weight in food every day](http://home.howstuffworks.com/vermicomposting1.htm), but there has to be already decomposing material available, so you need to feed regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read that in an up-and-running bin there generally are around 1.5-2 lbs of worms per square feet (7-10 kg per m2), so with 2 x 2 = 4 square feet and 5 lbs of worms you are already approaching maximum processing speed. This means that you'll be running at maximum processing speed in a few weeks, provided the conditions in your bin are right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much bedding/compost you pile up over time depends on what your goal is. Personally I'd remove already finished compost once or twice a year (or more regularly in case of a flow through bin) and keep the bin between 1/4 and 3/4 full. There is little point to filling it to the top." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3064" RevisionGUID="067e9e7f-95dd-4ff0-9711-8cd5f7fcc633" CreationDate="2014-10-02T14:49:00.573" UserId="1728" Text="Usually its around .5-10 Watts depending on the make/model/size etc. I would recommend getting a kill-a-watt meter and checking a variety of monitors to get a rough idea of the average. Then you could bring that up with regard to yearly savings. A 3 Watts average across 20 monitors per year is not nothing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3065" RevisionGUID="036514b3-869e-47f7-95b0-1d0a5741a47b" CreationDate="2014-10-03T13:40:25.847" UserId="1662" Text="Currently, tin or aluminum cans are easier and more environmentally recycled than tetrapaks.  That said, Tetrapak is working had to improve their product.  One issue is that they mix many materials in the tetrapak, while a tin can has a relatively simple recycling process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metals have also been recycled for a longer amount of time, so there are more places to take them and more people familiar with the process and prepared to process them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion tetrapak is more accurately comparable with other polymer packages.  It has a harder time competing with metal cans, glass bottles, and the like where tradition helps recycling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3063" RevisionGUID="8947f134-2b6f-4ad1-b1b7-46715aed073b" CreationDate="2014-10-03T13:47:05.323" UserId="1728" Comment="title typo" Text="Its a little niggling annoyance that always gets me in my office that when I work overtime and leave the office after everyone else I see row upon row of little orange lights where people have turned off their computers but left the monitor switched on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering; are there any estimates for how much power a monitor left in this condition uses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing it is not so much power. But surely more than if you actually turn it off? Or else why is there an off button...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I can get some solid proof of it using energy then I can bravely and anonymously make a poster to remind people to save the planet by turning their screen off! ... or if I get proof that it makes no difference then I can have a load off my mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7360" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3063" RevisionGUID="8947f134-2b6f-4ad1-b1b7-46715aed073b" CreationDate="2014-10-03T13:47:05.323" UserId="1728" Comment="title typo" Text="How much power does a computer monitor left switched on use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7361" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3063" RevisionGUID="8947f134-2b6f-4ad1-b1b7-46715aed073b" CreationDate="2014-10-03T13:47:05.323" Comment="Proposed by 1728 approved by 99 edit id of 296" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3066" RevisionGUID="6f2f4e9f-8295-4c62-beff-a139f69e8a3c" CreationDate="2014-10-03T22:33:18.910" UserId="1733" Text="I read in a couple places that researchers at Sheffield University have made spray-on perovskite cells at efficiencies of 11%. I was interested in this because its lightweight and could fit more unusual shapes. I was also looking into regular perovskite cells which are at a max of 19%, and are usually bendy, but I thought this may still be constrained to certain shapes. I might be able to cut it, but I feel like I'd probably sever wires, and therefore the current flow. The shape I'd need to fit is more or less an isosceles triangle. I could also make a design sort of pixelated (for lack of better word)&#xD;&#xA;sorta like how these panels are staggered near the edge:&#xD;&#xA;https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608002404026549315&amp;pid=15.1&amp;P=0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I don't think that would use the surface area as efficiently.&#xD;&#xA;            Thanks in advance for any help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7363" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3066" RevisionGUID="6f2f4e9f-8295-4c62-beff-a139f69e8a3c" CreationDate="2014-10-03T22:33:18.910" UserId="1733" Text="Have spray-on solar cells hit the market yet? What other lightweight cell can I use for unusual shapes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7364" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3066" RevisionGUID="6f2f4e9f-8295-4c62-beff-a139f69e8a3c" CreationDate="2014-10-03T22:33:18.910" UserId="1733" Text="|solar-power|electricity|energy-efficiency|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3050" RevisionGUID="4db4f21d-03f7-45de-b788-7c1e6b789f0b" CreationDate="2014-10-04T07:29:25.470" UserId="1728" Comment="typo/formatting" Text="I was wondering about a sustainable chemical free way of dealing with house flies. Specifically, I thought to keep this from having too many possible answers and evolving into a discussion I am interested in how to work with Carnivorous plants; Like the Venus Fly Trap and pitcher plants designed to lure in insects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Which are best at catching flies?  &#xD;&#xA; - Which can survive in far less tropical locations with reduced humidity and near freezing temperatures during long winters?  &#xD;&#xA; - Which require less attention?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7366" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3050" RevisionGUID="4db4f21d-03f7-45de-b788-7c1e6b789f0b" CreationDate="2014-10-04T07:29:25.470" UserId="1728" Comment="typo/formatting" Text="Dealing with flies indoors: Carnivorous Plants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7367" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3050" RevisionGUID="4db4f21d-03f7-45de-b788-7c1e6b789f0b" CreationDate="2014-10-04T07:29:25.470" Comment="Proposed by 1728 approved by 659, 812 edit id of 297" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3067" RevisionGUID="ce22a2e4-fa76-41f1-b8d6-32cd93d747c8" CreationDate="2014-10-04T15:23:59.597" UserId="48" Text="I suspect the problem here is expense: PV is cheap because the modules are commodity items made by the million. Fancy bespoke things will remain very expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perovskites look interesting, but are still at the lab stage,as far as I know, though I see DyeSol say that are doing perovskite precursor manufacture for PV. Oxford Photovoltaics look like they'll be one of the first to commercialise perovskites, and they and others have made impressive progress on efficiency, but that will be a year or two away. And although higher efficiency is nice and gets trade headlines, what really matters is cost per watt and lifetime; and currently both of those are unknown for perovskites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3069" RevisionGUID="6e9108a2-b2a9-46c5-b8ce-de7907289ea4" CreationDate="2014-10-04T16:03:31.980" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="I use Fage yogurt as an example, but if possible, I'd like a general answer that can apply to products that are similarly packaged (ice cream tubs, detergent, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume the consumer consumes 1kg of yogurt a week. Assume the consumer tosses everything into the recycle bin. Does he do more harm (to the environment) buying his yogurt in the 1kg tubs or in the 200g containers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3069" RevisionGUID="6e9108a2-b2a9-46c5-b8ce-de7907289ea4" CreationDate="2014-10-04T16:03:31.980" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="One big container vs multiple small containers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3069" RevisionGUID="6e9108a2-b2a9-46c5-b8ce-de7907289ea4" CreationDate="2014-10-04T16:03:31.980" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3070" RevisionGUID="72366338-d85a-4b3d-b351-922a280d2dab" CreationDate="2014-10-05T07:30:03.617" UserId="812" Text="Almost certainly the 200g containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine a cube of yoghurt (ugh!). Think about the amount of material that will required to fully encompass that cube. That is the 1kg container.&#xD;&#xA;Now imagine that that cube is partitioned into five parts, and think about the amount of additional material required to accomplish this. That is 5x 200g containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only caveat that I can think of, in terms of straightforward material use, is that the 1kg container may be thicker - but I'm sure that in the vast majority of cases it is the more economical option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does assume that all other factors are equal: that the full 1kg is eaten every week, that having a larger container doesn't lead to the consumer having larger portions, and so forth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7374" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3069" RevisionGUID="03c18757-78c1-4436-92c6-1feaf8dea7d1" CreationDate="2014-10-05T16:46:21.497" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/518804395233140738" />
  <row Id="7376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3071" RevisionGUID="65852dda-c0c6-41c9-aaf6-71471a7fb052" CreationDate="2014-10-05T20:38:11.603" UserId="1737" Text="If the lights are orange, as you've said, then the monitors are in standby, and are using a minimal amount of power (power to light the amber LED, and power to wait for a wake signal)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7377" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3069" RevisionGUID="f9a485e7-67a1-4880-82c3-1ff557e71cc5" CreationDate="2014-10-06T08:17:25.327" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|waste-minimisation|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2946" RevisionGUID="6d06c1ff-e8a4-4514-851b-7b68bdeb367b" CreationDate="2014-10-06T10:34:57.550" UserId="99" Comment="added link for more info about insulation alternatives" Text="I know that spray polyurethane foam is difficult to remove and separate from other building materials. Also, dust particules containing toxins can be released when applying or removing it. What is a greener and healthier alternative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know for insulation purposes there are good alternatives [such as cotton/denim insulation, cellulose insulation or mineral wool](http://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/greener-alternatives-spray-foam-insulation.html), but I'm actually looking for a material that can be sprayed or glued on and is fairly strong when hardened. Any insulation value is a bonus, but not strictly required. Does something like this exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3027" RevisionGUID="e144d4fb-9cc2-48fc-b029-ee473f15e83d" CreationDate="2014-10-06T10:37:20.300" UserId="99" Comment="added sentence of soy-based sprays" Text="Apparantly [Icynene](http://www.icynene.com/builders/sustainability/green-your-next-building-project) is more environmentally friendly than traditional spray polyurethane foam, but it is more expensive and needs to be applied by professionals. Icynene still is a polyurethane foam, but it is PBDE free and isn't as unhealthy in use and removal. More info on the different types of Icynene also [here](http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/heating-and-cooling/icynene2.htm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another alternative is [soy-based spray foam](http://www.horizonbuildersinc.net/archtip-issue1-tip3.html), but [critics say that those aren't very well tested yet and contain very little soy (15%) and still much polyurethane](http://www.dura-foam.com/resources/foam-roofing/soy-based-foam/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ended up using [paper mache][1] myself, made from old newspapers and wallpaper glue. I used it to close a small hole in our concrete floor provisionally. I created a layer of approximately 2cm (about 0.8 inches) and after the paper dried it was fairly strong. Then I added a thin layer of concrete on top of it (only thin because I wasn't sure about the strength of the paper layer). Once the thin concrete layer dried I added more concrete and closed the gap entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papier-m%C3%A2ch%C3%A9" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7380" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2943" RevisionGUID="706a4a36-f4ca-4688-8d6c-8eec421bf73b" CreationDate="2014-10-06T10:41:48.263" UserId="99" Comment="improved title for seo" Text="What causes photovoltaic (solar) cells to degrade?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7381" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3063" RevisionGUID="c8c57a7b-5047-4a51-aff3-0414163824c0" CreationDate="2014-10-06T23:03:09.093" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/519261605905723392" />
  <row Id="7382" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3066" RevisionGUID="57ec109f-eb29-4ac3-83ea-5110f846cb16" CreationDate="2014-10-07T05:04:01.313" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/519352422138122241" />
  <row Id="7383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3072" RevisionGUID="f6b843ac-3024-4156-a2b9-e402d1030f6d" CreationDate="2014-10-07T21:27:14.833" UserId="1733" Text="One thing I've found fun is Snap Circuits. Though they have both an educational version, and a renewables kit, it is kind of broad (electronics in general), and doesn't just do solar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3074" RevisionGUID="9c3a9774-94b9-4e88-badc-3206fa0499b1" CreationDate="2014-10-08T08:42:16.980" UserId="1713" Text="Plant bamboo. Its also an excellent biofuel. Pines and evergreens collect pollutants on their leaves/spines/firs but are unable to drop them and assist in decomposition. this is why the bottom of a pine forest is always devoid of other plants. Bamboo is an excellent &quot;growth&quot; plant in terms of CO2 absorption as well as allowing pollutants to biodegrade within the lower level detritus." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3075" RevisionGUID="8b0ba85b-7373-45df-8732-e007cc66334c" CreationDate="2014-10-08T13:57:46.237" UserId="1746" Text="Since winter is near, can some one suggest some practical way to get warm at home without speding too much in gas or electricity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3075" RevisionGUID="8b0ba85b-7373-45df-8732-e007cc66334c" CreationDate="2014-10-08T13:57:46.237" UserId="1746" Text="Best practicals and cheapest ways to get warm this winter at home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3075" RevisionGUID="8b0ba85b-7373-45df-8732-e007cc66334c" CreationDate="2014-10-08T13:57:46.237" UserId="1746" Text="|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3076" RevisionGUID="c192fa97-3165-4574-9398-f92c936a4b88" CreationDate="2014-10-08T15:07:08.623" UserId="1739" Text="I've been looking at a commercial composting toilet for a mobile, off-grid application (&quot;boondocking rv&quot;). I've done a power budget and the toilet is coming out as the biggest user of energy. Power is provided via solar PV panels, and the system needs to work in the winter when there's 3x less sun than summer (at 48 deg N, Montana, USA). Are there any tips or tricks to make the energy consumption smaller, or the supporting electrical system less expensive? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specs are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 120W heater element, thermostatically controlled, nominally 50% duty cycle&#xD;&#xA; - 12VDC, 4W fan, continuous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that the heater's energy is 100% devoted to evaporating liquid, this amounts to 1.5 kWh evaporating about 2.4 L daily. Would insulating help, or are the primary losses due to evaporative cooling (and hence, fixed)? What are the consequences of unplugging the heater at night (and reducing battery size)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3076" RevisionGUID="c192fa97-3165-4574-9398-f92c936a4b88" CreationDate="2014-10-08T15:07:08.623" UserId="1739" Text="How to improve energy efficiency of composting toilet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3076" RevisionGUID="c192fa97-3165-4574-9398-f92c936a4b88" CreationDate="2014-10-08T15:07:08.623" UserId="1739" Text="|composting|solar-power|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3077" RevisionGUID="0e063bec-0549-44ff-85bc-ab7688f9de96" CreationDate="2014-10-08T20:52:33.157" UserId="400" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Possible options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A.  Reduce the amount of liquid to evaporate.  This can be done as easily as running pee to  whatever route your greywater uses.  Urine is moderately salty (various salts in addtion to sodium chloride) and has urea in it from protein breakdown, but is not a health hazard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B1.  Reconfigure/rebuild your toilet using principles of the SunnyJohn solar powered composting toilet (http://www.sunnyjohn.com)  This uses the heat of the sun directly.  Not sure how feasible it would be to do this in an RV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B2.  Use a solar water heater panel on the side of the RV to collect thermal heat instead of electricity.  For your application this is about three times as efficient, and there are many DIY plans for it.  See http://www.builditsolar.com.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C.  Introduce a more active component, such as composting worms (NO idea if they can deal with this) The worms contribute heat of their metabolism to the mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D.  If you are in a fixed place for most of this time, dig an outdoor privy.  Use the RV internal toilet for night and fowl weather use only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.  Get some cheap aluminum covered panels, and arrange them to concentrate more light on the solar panels.  I bet you could triple the output of the panels without crisping them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3078" RevisionGUID="3240134d-f193-42e5-9751-9659d7cabe1a" CreationDate="2014-10-08T20:57:11.993" UserId="400" Text="A:  Insulate your attic.  This can be done in an afternoon.  Put 12-16&quot; total in that space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B:  Seal the leaks:  Weatherstrip the doors and openable windows.  All electrical outlets are punctures in the outside wall.  You can buy gaskets for them, or you can make them out of the styrofoam meat trays you get from the grocery store.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C:  Heat shrink plastic the windows.  This is another kit.  Each layer of plastic adds 1 R unit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that the changes get more expensive. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3079" RevisionGUID="50334de5-c734-4fc4-aa80-eb8213d97fe5" CreationDate="2014-10-09T02:13:06.360" UserId="400" Text="Monitors typically have 3 power levels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On -- you're looking at one.&#xD;&#xA;Standby -- screen is black, but the electronics are active.&#xD;&#xA;Sleep -- circuits are off except for a small one to monitor the line to the computer&#xD;&#xA;Off -- it turns into a fancy cookie tray.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm using a Dell U2412 21&quot; monitor.  I went to their web site and looked up the specs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Max 72 watts,  Typical 38 watts, Sleep/Standby Under .5 watts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look up your monitor model online to check.  Your mileage may vary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the average North American household uses about 1000 kWh/month, if your monitor were in actual use all month (720 hours) at 40 watts it would use 28800 watt hours or 28 kWh.  About $3  to $5 depending on your power rates.  Most monitors are set to go to sleep after a few minutes of inattention.  You are talking about cents per month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In passing:  Turning your computer off is a bad idea too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My computer right now in active use (Mac Pro, 4 processor 6 drives, 3 monitors) is drawing under 200 watts.  Half that is the monitors, half the computer.  If it doesn't sleep at all when I'm away it uses 2.4 kWh/day -- about 40 cents at my power rates.  That's $240 per year.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ouch! you say.  But the flip side is my computers don't break down.  When I was sysadmin for a university math department, I averaged three disk failures per year -- out of 300 computers.  With the standards of the time I should have had 15 failures per year.  How much is your time worth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3080" RevisionGUID="df31c321-cfe6-4ed6-8426-6f6bd1d2b941" CreationDate="2014-10-09T02:24:43.463" UserId="400" Text="Simon W is overall correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While when the size gets large enough the walls have to be thicker because of the weight involved, for small products, the problem is that they have to be strong enough for the handling machinery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there is an easy way to test this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weigh them.  Empty of course.  For each container wash it and weigh it.  Don't forget the plastic sealer under the lid.  There are good kitchen scales now that are accurate to about 5 mg (1/200 of a gram)  Weigh each and do the arithmetic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take into account too the variability in materials.  Some materials, like tetrapaks are very hard to recycle.  (Tetrapaks have a layer of aluminum foil, two layer of paper, and I think a layer of plastic.)  The easiest container to recycle is a plastic polyethylene milk jug.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7399" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3076" RevisionGUID="f054d937-302d-4844-a1ce-7775df70218c" CreationDate="2014-10-09T05:11:42.147" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/520079130809741312" />
  <row Id="7400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3075" RevisionGUID="ffb76f12-1afa-4657-bf66-080cf8843df0" CreationDate="2014-10-09T06:49:29.933" UserId="1746" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="Since winter is near, can some one suggest some practical way to get warm at home without speding too much in gas or electricity?&#xD;&#xA;Also for every solution will be usefull and indication if it can be done homemade and costs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3075" RevisionGUID="92836db8-0c0a-4acf-8bc4-340cff3757e1" CreationDate="2014-10-09T07:28:30.313" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar and spelling" Text="Since winter is near, can someone suggest some practical ways to get warm at home without spending too much in gas or electricity?&#xD;&#xA;Also for every solution, please add if it can be done homemade and what the approximate costs are?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7402" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3075" RevisionGUID="92836db8-0c0a-4acf-8bc4-340cff3757e1" CreationDate="2014-10-09T07:28:30.313" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar and spelling" Text="Practical and cheap ways to get warm at home this winter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7403" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3075" RevisionGUID="e9c5a36b-27fc-4f92-8788-0ec1194c0cfd" CreationDate="2014-10-09T09:40:35.633" UserId="812" Comment="Added heating tags (although not all answers will necessarily be about heating)" Text="|energy-efficiency|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3081" RevisionGUID="f293ad8c-d19c-4568-a0c3-9bb6849dee78" CreationDate="2014-10-09T10:05:51.770" UserId="812" Text="There are two main categories to consider here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is to improve the efficiency of how your home is kept warm - either by increasing the efficiency of the heating system, or by reducing the rate at which warmth is lost to the outside. If your home is quite &quot;leaky&quot; then major gains can be made this way quite cheaply. Other answers to this and other questions have given some guidance on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is to think about ways to reduce the need for heating your home. Things that you could consider (some of which are probably obvious):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Wear warmer clothing at home.&#xD;&#xA;* If you use heating in your bedroom during the night, turn it off. If you find yourself waking up due to the cold, invest in warmer blankets or duvet, or warm pyjamas. Only in the coldest and leakiest houses, in harsh climates, is bedroom heating strictly necessary - although using some &quot;comfort&quot; heating in the mornings certainly makes it easier to get out of bed! A hot water bottle can help to alleviate the discomfort of a cold bed until your body heat warms it up.&#xD;&#xA;* If you do want to heat your bedroom, then use an electric blanket to heat the bed, and your body, rather than warming the whole room. *NB ensure that this is in good condition and observe safety instructions*.&#xD;&#xA;* Don't heat rooms that you don't use (depending on climate, you may want to keep a background level of heating to prevent mould or freezing). If you live in many rooms, consider whether you can live in fewer.&#xD;&#xA;* Don't heat corridors or hallways - instead, close the door of the room that you're in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that being cold at home can be detrimental to your physical and mental health. None of the above should be construed as &quot;live with being uncomfortably cold&quot; - instead, think of it as suggestions on how to remain comfortable while using less energy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3075" RevisionGUID="d0511fc7-4379-4897-8c36-2399092106b9" CreationDate="2014-10-09T10:20:25.467" UserId="1746" Comment="added 250 characters in body" Text="Since winter is near, can someone suggest some practical ways to get warm at home without spending too much in gas or electricity?&#xD;&#xA;Also for every solution, please add if it can be done homemade and what the approximate costs are?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information:&#xD;&#xA;the problem of my home now is that it is using gas-water heating system, but this consumes a lot of gas and the actual walls are not very isolated against external.&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to avoid the use of gas or find any better solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7406" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3075" RevisionGUID="01df3b16-f52a-46b0-9d22-dc184083d1d0" CreationDate="2014-10-09T11:11:42.270" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/520169728556687360" />
  <row Id="7407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3082" RevisionGUID="68138a64-087e-4f50-b138-503539a9fafd" CreationDate="2014-10-09T15:50:38.510" UserId="1751" Text="**Backstory:** &#xD;&#xA;I dream everyday of running from society, setting up a little farm with my husband, and being free to enjoy nature. However, I love the internet and don't want to lose access. It's much better than owning 100+ books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My only obstacle is generating electricity to run the computer. I don't want a power line going to my future home. I don't even want people be able to find my house from the highway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The region I live in is not very windy, and has winter conditions basically 4-5 months of the year. I've been doing tons of research and both solar panels and those wind fan things won't do that well here. The area I'm interested in has several rivers that I'm not sure how to harness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** &#xD;&#xA;Is there any way to generate energy that would do well in a wind-free valley setting with long winters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3082" RevisionGUID="68138a64-087e-4f50-b138-503539a9fafd" CreationDate="2014-10-09T15:50:38.510" UserId="1751" Text="What method is best to gather energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3082" RevisionGUID="68138a64-087e-4f50-b138-503539a9fafd" CreationDate="2014-10-09T15:50:38.510" UserId="1751" Text="|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3083" RevisionGUID="fc15ee90-1bfb-4488-a86d-a4986d49ef94" CreationDate="2014-10-09T21:56:13.967" UserId="1210" Text="We've bought a house and found half a large tub of bokashi bran in the basement.  This puzzled us a while as we'd never heard of the process, but a little Googling enlightened us.  We've also got some bins, also left by the previous owners so we're interested in giving it a go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've no idea how old the kit is.  Given the state of the bins (found under an archaeological layer of rubbish) and the wormery (well past it and the wooden lid rotted) I'd say it's probably been some years since any composting method was tried here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the bran expire?  It's been kept in cool dry conditions in a reasonable tub with a lid (loosely) on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7411" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3083" RevisionGUID="fc15ee90-1bfb-4488-a86d-a4986d49ef94" CreationDate="2014-10-09T21:56:13.967" UserId="1210" Text="Does bokashi bran expire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7412" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3083" RevisionGUID="fc15ee90-1bfb-4488-a86d-a4986d49ef94" CreationDate="2014-10-09T21:56:13.967" UserId="1210" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3084" RevisionGUID="6e5dd122-ee53-4228-afe2-0c05798ad460" CreationDate="2014-10-10T01:02:18.450" UserId="480" Text="Why did you rule out Solar? Solar is effective even in the state of Alaska.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this article][1] a 16 panel 2.5KW system in Fairbanks Alaska can provide you with around 500KWh/month of power during the summer, and 10KWh/month during the dark winter months (when daylight only lasts 3 or 4 hours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A laptop that consumes 40W of power would use around 7.5KWh/month if used for 6 hours/day. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You say that there are several rivers in the area, if you can purchase property with one of those rivers (and can get a permit from whatever agency (or agencies) are in charge of it), you may be able to use a waterwheel to extract power. However, those 6 months of winter conditions may get in the way when the ice and snow come (even if the river itself doesn't freeze, freezing may still inhibit the free operation of the waterwheel), so you may find that solar is still a better solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can provide information about your location and more details about the kind of waterway you might want to extract power from, someone may be able to give you more details on the feasibility of using water power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.newsminer.com/features/our_town/ask_a_builder/ask-a-builder-how-well-do-solar-panels-work-in/article_cf6aa162-8114-562e-8c0b-00c5195e06c7.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7414" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3085" RevisionGUID="1d3b9765-34db-40d0-8806-f01bfb745cc7" CreationDate="2014-10-10T23:32:50.053" UserId="1753" Text="I recently saw a poster somewhere staying that some type of emission or byproduct that comes out of cattle production is extremely wasteful and harmful to the environment, what exactly is this byproduct and how can we find alternatives and more efficient ways to handle this unfortunately undermined issue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7415" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3085" RevisionGUID="1d3b9765-34db-40d0-8806-f01bfb745cc7" CreationDate="2014-10-10T23:32:50.053" UserId="1753" Text="Why is eating beef unsustainable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7416" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3085" RevisionGUID="1d3b9765-34db-40d0-8806-f01bfb745cc7" CreationDate="2014-10-10T23:32:50.053" UserId="1753" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3086" RevisionGUID="e7b08e72-d42b-4f41-ae3d-fc291001fcb8" CreationDate="2014-10-11T10:13:14.193" UserId="15" Text="Methane emissions from livestock make up about 50% of the greenhouse gases (weighted by the effect they have) from New Zealand, so it's a big problem. For those interested, it seems it's [mainly burped out][1] of cows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link in the previous sentence also discussed measurement technology so that a better understanding can be gained on what exactly causes higher levels to be emitted from some animals. It may be possible to solve, or reduce, the problem by using different feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.niwa.co.nz/atmosphere/research-projects/agricultural-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3087" RevisionGUID="3eefd7a8-ba39-4042-a150-d0e46347c9f7" CreationDate="2014-10-11T10:52:25.127" UserId="1754" Text="  We have a very old property that has secondary glazing as it is close to the M6.We want to have new double glazed windows fitted. Can they be fitted from the outside and retain the secondary glazing with no problems. Can you please advise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      Mrs Y McHugh " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3087" RevisionGUID="3eefd7a8-ba39-4042-a150-d0e46347c9f7" CreationDate="2014-10-11T10:52:25.127" UserId="1754" Text="Secondary Glazing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3087" RevisionGUID="3eefd7a8-ba39-4042-a150-d0e46347c9f7" CreationDate="2014-10-11T10:52:25.127" UserId="1754" Text="|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7421" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3085" RevisionGUID="695955e5-0076-42d1-a3c8-05cc31565849" CreationDate="2014-10-11T11:11:42.993" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/520894507722997760" />
  <row Id="7422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3066" RevisionGUID="3f34667a-45a1-4c32-ac72-822bac76c01e" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:08:32.567" UserId="842" Comment="Made the image inline, fixed some English too." Text="I have read in a couple places that researchers at Sheffield University made spray-on perovskite cells at efficiencies of 11%. I was interested in this because its lightweight and could fit more unusual shapes. I was also looking into regular perovskite cells which are at a max of 19%, and are usually bendy, but I thought this may still be constrained to certain shapes. I might be able to cut it, but I feel like I'd probably sever wires, and therefore the current flow. The shape I'd need to fit is more or less an isosceles triangle. I could also make a design sort of pixelated (for lack of a better word), just like how these panels are staggered near the edge (see the picture below) but I don't think that would use the surface area as efficiently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][1]&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any help!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpT1g.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7423" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3066" RevisionGUID="3f34667a-45a1-4c32-ac72-822bac76c01e" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:08:32.567" Comment="Proposed by 842 approved by -1 edit id of 298" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3066" RevisionGUID="5abd4b01-2cb4-432a-9397-53ab3239187a" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:08:32.567" UserId="99" Comment="Made the image inline, fixed some English too." Text="I read in a couple of places that researchers at Sheffield University have made spray-on perovskite cells at efficiencies of 11%. I was interested in this because it is lightweight and could fit more unusual shapes. I was also looking into regular perovskite cells which are at a max of 19% and are usually bendy, but I thought this may still be constrained to certain shapes. I might be able to cut it, but I feel like I'd probably sever wires and therefore the current flow. The shape I'd need to fit is more or less an isosceles triangle. I could also make the design sort of pixelated (for lack of a better word), just like how these panels are staggered near the edge (see the picture below) but I don't think that would use the surface area as efficiently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][1]&#xD;&#xA;            &#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any help!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dpT1g.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3085" RevisionGUID="a0a058f2-6fcf-4c53-a849-37b505dc98be" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:10:50.697" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, added meat tag" Text="I recently saw a poster somewhere saying that some type of emission or byproduct that comes out of cattle production is extremely wasteful and harmful to the environment. What exactly is this byproduct and how can we find alternatives and more efficient ways to handle this unfortunately undermined issue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7426" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3085" RevisionGUID="a0a058f2-6fcf-4c53-a849-37b505dc98be" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:10:50.697" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, added meat tag" Text="Is eating beef unsustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7427" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3085" RevisionGUID="a0a058f2-6fcf-4c53-a849-37b505dc98be" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:10:50.697" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, added meat tag" Text="|food|meat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3087" RevisionGUID="53f251ca-2284-4ec8-8f17-d304c2efe18c" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:13:39.420" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to better reflect contents, added glazing tag" Text="We have a very old property that has secondary glazing as it is close to the M6.We want to have new double glazed windows fitted. Can they be fitted from the outside and retain the secondary glazing with no problems? Can you please advise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7429" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3087" RevisionGUID="53f251ca-2284-4ec8-8f17-d304c2efe18c" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:13:39.420" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to better reflect contents, added glazing tag" Text="Can you fit double glazing with secondary glazing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7430" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3087" RevisionGUID="53f251ca-2284-4ec8-8f17-d304c2efe18c" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:13:39.420" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to better reflect contents, added glazing tag" Text="|home|glazing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3088" RevisionGUID="b47925cf-44d3-4d9f-bc0e-5a0ee81342ae" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:32:45.943" UserId="1755" Text="&#xD;&#xA;It looks like I will have the opportunity to add a few (probably only 5) questions to a questionnaire to get an indication of the persons carbon footprint. The questions I am think of are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) How many individual aircraft flights have you taken in the last year? (A return trip counts as 2, a return with a stop off would be 4).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0, 1-2, 3-4, 5-8, 8+&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) On how many days in the last week did you travel by private car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) On how many days in the last week did you travel by ground based public transport (bus, train, tram)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) On how many days in the last week did you eat meat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Do you live in a flat/apartment or in a house?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be aimed at people in Edinburgh but might work in other developed world areas. The intention is not to produce a personal carbon audit for the individual but to produce a measure for correlation with other measures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flat vs house is an attempt at getting a heating/cooling estimate without resorting to asking about thermostat settings etc. Very generally apartment living is less impactful than house living and includes elements of transport/delivery, garbage etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions need to be answered in under about a minute and without opportunities for prevaricating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I re-inventing the wheel here? Is there something out there already that does a similar job?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there better questions I could ask?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3088" RevisionGUID="b47925cf-44d3-4d9f-bc0e-5a0ee81342ae" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:32:45.943" UserId="1755" Text="5 Questions to indicate carbon impact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3088" RevisionGUID="b47925cf-44d3-4d9f-bc0e-5a0ee81342ae" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:32:45.943" UserId="1755" Text="|transport|carbon-footprint|vegetarianism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3089" RevisionGUID="7331c130-3b5f-4261-af7a-add8e83dfc75" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:32:49.083" UserId="48" Text="Yes, it can be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fitters might need to temporarily remove the secondary glazing in order to get sufficient room to manouevre when installing the double glazing. So you will have to check with the fitters before placing the order. The sales people won't know, and will just say whatever it takes to get the order, so do get a fitter round. Local suppliers tend to be better at this: the *national* double-glazing companies in Britain are pretty much the worst for shady sales practices (but some of the local ones are sharks too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There'd be no point in putting in trickle ventilation in the double-glazing (that's assuming your secondary glazing has no trickle ventilation - it usually doesn't), so make sure it comes without that. After all, the trickle vents would just be another route for the noise to get in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will need someone to check compliance with Part F (the Building Regulations regarding ventilation). The trickle vents have been used as a lazy way to ensure compliance, even when they haven;t been necessary. Sometimes, when air-tightening is done, you can make a place so airtight that it becomes unhealthy. This is not often a problem in Britain, because our buildings are so leaky, but check it anyway, otherwise you could get problems with mould, and (if you're in a radon are) with trapped radon or other pollutants - I've seen it happen. [We have another question that deals with ventilation strategies - check out the answers][1], as well as the answers to this other question about using [secondary glazing with double-glazing][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/114/48&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/310/48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3076" RevisionGUID="97d9290a-0953-4186-bd63-c3e28def31f9" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:35:29.560" UserId="1739" Comment="clarification of scope" Text="I've been looking at a commercial composting toilet for a mobile, off-grid application (&quot;boondocking rv&quot;). I've done a power budget and the toilet is coming out as the biggest user of energy. Power is provided via solar PV panels, and the system needs to work in the winter when there's 3x less sun than summer (at 48 deg N, Montana, USA). Are there any tips or tricks to make the energy consumption smaller, or the supporting electrical system less expensive? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specs are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 120W heater element, thermostatically controlled, nominally 50% duty cycle&#xD;&#xA; - 12VDC, 4W fan, continuous&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that the heater's energy is 100% devoted to evaporating liquid, this amounts to 1.5 kWh evaporating about 2.4 L daily. Would insulating help, or are the primary losses due to evaporative cooling (and hence, fixed)? What are the consequences of unplugging the heater at night (and reducing battery size)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** To clarify, I'm looking for the kinds of tips and tricks which wouldn't violate the warranty on a commercial product or suggestions about alternative commercial products which have different operating principles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3090" RevisionGUID="d232a70c-27b4-4a05-b295-b1907fda8f53" CreationDate="2014-10-11T12:46:28.483" UserId="812" Text="There are two relevant disadvantages to beef: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cattle produce a lot of methane, which is a greenhouse gas.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The amount of land (and energy, and fertiliser) needed to grow enough grass to feed enough cattle to provide enough beef to feed a human is many times more than that required to grow crops to feed the human directly. This is generally true for eating animals, but is worse for cows than for sheep or pigs. However, this is not to say that it is best to eat *no* meat - for there is some land that is unsuitable for crops, but fine for grazing sheep on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3089" RevisionGUID="3a8abf75-f341-4981-89f1-bf54d0cb682d" CreationDate="2014-10-11T17:23:23.477" UserId="812" Comment="added an important letter &quot;a&quot; :-)" Text="Yes, it can be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fitters might need to temporarily remove the secondary glazing in order to get sufficient room to manouevre when installing the double glazing. So you will have to check with the fitters before placing the order. The sales people won't know, and will just say whatever it takes to get the order, so do get a fitter round. Local suppliers tend to be better at this: the *national* double-glazing companies in Britain are pretty much the worst for shady sales practices (but some of the local ones are sharks too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There'd be no point in putting in trickle ventilation in the double-glazing (that's assuming your secondary glazing has no trickle ventilation - it usually doesn't), so make sure it comes without that. After all, the trickle vents would just be another route for the noise to get in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will need someone to check compliance with Part F (the Building Regulations regarding ventilation). The trickle vents have been used as a lazy way to ensure compliance, even when they haven;t been necessary. Sometimes, when air-tightening is done, you can make a place so airtight that it becomes unhealthy. This is not often a problem in Britain, because our buildings are so leaky, but check it anyway, otherwise you could get problems with mould, and (if you're in a radon area) with trapped radon or other pollutants - I've seen it happen. [We have another question that deals with ventilation strategies - check out the answers][1], as well as the answers to this other question about using [secondary glazing with double-glazing][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/114/48&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/310/48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3086" RevisionGUID="663e8584-8a86-418e-9d4e-60b8250f9f69" CreationDate="2014-10-11T22:00:51.740" UserId="15" Comment="Removed unnecessary word" Text="Methane emissions from livestock make up about 50% of the greenhouse gases (weighted by severity of the impact that each type of greenhouse gas makes) from New Zealand, so it's a big problem. For those interested, it seems it's [mainly burped out][1] of cows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link in the previous sentence also discussed measurement technology so that a better understanding can be gained on what causes higher levels to be emitted from some animals. It may be possible to solve, or reduce, the problem by using different feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.niwa.co.nz/atmosphere/research-projects/agricultural-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7439" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3082" RevisionGUID="97808ab5-9752-433d-b220-57ae32336527" CreationDate="2014-10-11T22:07:36.363" UserId="15" Comment="Added 2 more tags" Text="|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3081" RevisionGUID="50aa8683-5cc6-40f7-8610-a213c3b56de6" CreationDate="2014-10-12T09:19:26.207" UserId="812" Comment="Added link to the &quot;don't live below 16C&quot; athsma site." Text="There are two main categories to consider here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is to improve the efficiency of how your home is kept warm - either by increasing the efficiency of the heating system, or by reducing the rate at which warmth is lost to the outside. If your home is quite &quot;leaky&quot; then major gains can be made this way quite cheaply. Other answers to this and other questions have given some guidance on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is to think about ways to reduce the need for heating your home. Things that you could consider (some of which are probably obvious):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Wear warmer clothing at home.&#xD;&#xA;* If you use heating in your bedroom during the night, turn it off. If you find yourself waking up due to the cold, invest in warmer blankets or duvet, or warm pyjamas. Except in the coldest and leakiest houses, in harsh climates, bedroom heating is often not strictly necessary - although using some &quot;comfort&quot; heating in the mornings certainly makes it easier to get out of bed! A hot water bottle can help to alleviate the discomfort of a cold bed until your body heat warms it up.&#xD;&#xA;* If you do want to heat your bedroom, then use an electric blanket to heat the bed, and your body, rather than warming the whole room. *NB ensure that this is in good condition and observe safety instructions*. Note, however, that [some sources][1] do not recommend living at below 16C - although it is not clear whether this applies to sleeping as well as waking conditions.&#xD;&#xA;* Don't heat rooms that you don't use (depending on climate, you may want to keep a background level of heating to prevent mould or freezing). If you live in many rooms, consider whether you can live in fewer.&#xD;&#xA;* Don't heat corridors or hallways - instead, close the door of the room that you're in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bear in mind that being cold at home can be detrimental to your physical and mental health. None of the above should be construed as &quot;live with being uncomfortably cold&quot; - instead, think of it as suggestions on how to remain comfortable while using less energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://asthmafoundation.org.nz/your-health/living-with-asthma/healthy-homes/#Warm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3077" RevisionGUID="1ffe4e6d-49cf-4ce3-abbc-c5576bbf6f16" CreationDate="2014-10-12T14:04:55.443" UserId="400" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="This answer does not generally meet the edited requirement of commercial, non warranty violating modifications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A.  Reduce the amount of liquid to evaporate.  This can be done as easily as running pee to  whatever route your greywater uses.  Urine is moderately salty (various salts in addtion to sodium chloride) and has urea in it from protein breakdown, but is not a health hazard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B1.  Reconfigure/rebuild your toilet using principles of the SunnyJohn solar powered composting toilet (http://www.sunnyjohn.com)  This uses the heat of the sun directly.  Not sure how feasible it would be to do this in an RV. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B2.  Use a solar water heater panel on the side of the RV to collect thermal heat instead of electricity.  For your application this is about three times as efficient, and there are many DIY plans for it.  In addition there are commercial solar heater panels. See http://www.builditsolar.com. In addition there are commercial solar heater panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C.  Introduce a more active component, such as composting worms (NO idea if they can deal with this) The worms contribute heat of their metabolism to the mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D.  If you are in a fixed place for most of this time, dig an outdoor privy.  Use the RV internal toilet for night and foul weather use only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.  Get some cheap aluminum covered panels, and arrange them to concentrate more light on the solar panels.  I bet you could triple the output of the panels without crisping them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3077" RevisionGUID="6565ce65-9bc6-4b27-8f81-f447d8ef59b1" CreationDate="2014-10-12T14:22:02.700" UserId="400" Comment="Added some additional solutions, and recognized new commercial requirement." Text="&#xD;&#xA;Options fall in 3 categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A:  Reduce the amount of water to evaporate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*    This can be done as easily as running pee to  whatever route your greywater uses.  Urine is moderately salty (various salts in addition to sodium chloride) and has urea in it from protein breakdown, but is not a health hazard.  It does smell, but if mixed with greywater, and discharged a reasonable distance away, it should not be objectionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  If you are in a fixed place for most of this time, dig an outdoor privy.  Use the RV internal toilet for night and foul weather use only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B:  Restructure your toilet to use heat from another source.  These violate your commercial solution criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reconfigure/rebuild your toilet using principles of the SunnyJohn solar powered composting toilet (http://www.sunnyjohn.com)  This uses the heat of the sun directly.  Not sure how feasible it would be to do this in an RV. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use a solar water heater panel on the side of the RV to collect thermal heat instead of electricity.  For your application this is about three times as efficient, and there are many DIY plans for it. See http://www.builditsolar.com. In addition there are commercial solar heater panels.  While panels are commercially available, you would need to put some form of heating coil in the toilet.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Add a counterflow heat exchanger to the vent system.  This uses the outgoing warm moist air to preheat the makeup air. Potentially this cuts the amount of energy needed in half.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Draw the air from a solar air heating panel.  By bringing air in at 90 to 120 degrees you are reducing the demand on the heating coil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C: Generate more electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Add more solar cells to your array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Get some cheap aluminum covered panels, and arrange them to concentrate more light on the solar panels.  I bet you could triple the output of the panels without crisping them.&#xD;&#xA;(A product called fyrestop consists of 1/2&quot; sheets of fused rock wool with foil on one face and white plastic on the other.  Sheets are easy to cut.  Seal the edges with foil tape.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You may want a separate sub system for the toilet.  This could run directly off a solar cell.  It would mean that the unit's duty cycle would be longer -- run in daytime only.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3091" RevisionGUID="68915862-950d-436f-86a9-129e3ffbe859" CreationDate="2014-10-13T13:34:37.163" UserId="1760" Text="It has occurred to me that no one has thought about this issue, so I thought I would pose the question. Why, in the modern electronic age are we still using paper? Just to give you an idea, at my company they have some things in electronic form, until they have to hand that off to someone else, at which point it gets physically printed, handed off, and then re-entered on the other parties electronic system. The reasons for this are numerous. Sometimes it's a way to give superficial authority status to the document. Other times someone's signature needs to be put on the document, and then it gets scanned back in in order to be emailed. Why not electronically sign the document instead? It's far more secure than a hand written signature. Sometimes the government regulations say that we have to have a &quot;paper trail&quot;. Why does it have to be a paper trail? Why is it not an electronic trail? I see it as a simple two step process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Encrypt the information, to ensure that no one can access it unless you want them to.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Use a hashing-based network like bitcoin to ensure that the information, though encrypted, is public record. If there was a court order, the authorities could then demand that the documents be decrypted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To say nothing about the wasted man hours that are used in printing only to have data re-entered electronically, clearly the wasted time/energy/money in labor, fighting the printer to print the way you want, the ink, the paper itself, transporting documents in paper across the world when email and file compression would have done just as well at a fraction of the price, must be in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this not an issue that everyone could agree upon?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7444" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3091" RevisionGUID="68915862-950d-436f-86a9-129e3ffbe859" CreationDate="2014-10-13T13:34:37.163" UserId="1760" Text="Move to electronic documents" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7445" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3091" RevisionGUID="68915862-950d-436f-86a9-129e3ffbe859" CreationDate="2014-10-13T13:34:37.163" UserId="1760" Text="|composting|ecological-footprint|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3093" RevisionGUID="577649f0-3260-4771-9c52-bc46f59dd433" CreationDate="2014-10-14T09:25:23.413" UserId="812" Text="This is quite a broad question, but here are a few thoughts towards an answer. Some are more opinion-based than others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Some people prefer to read some things on paper.&#xD;&#xA;* There was, for a long time, a shortage of open standards for documents that could be adopted by all; instead, companies and individuals were incentivised to adopt proprietary formats. To a degree, this is still the case. This harms interoperability, and also raises justified fears about whether documents will still be readable in the future.&#xD;&#xA;* Physical signatures, headed notepaper, etc., provide some appearance of authentication (however easily forged they might be). While technical (cryptographic) methods of authentication and signature have existed for a long time, these have never been made comprehensible or usable to the average office worker, or understood to those who would have to put trust in them.&#xD;&#xA;* To most practical purposes, sending paper through the post is far less open to eavesdropping than sending it by email. Similarly to the previous point, while secure methods for transmitting information over the internet have existed for a long time, they have never been made useful for most people.&#xD;&#xA;* Rationally or otherwise, some people are worried about entrusting certain information to computers - usually out of fear of losing the information, or the information being stolen, or both.&#xD;&#xA;* Even where none of the above applies, many large organisations have a lot of intertia - i.e. they are slow to change and to adopt new ideas. Government is an example of a very large organisation, in this context. And since interoperability is key for this application, *society* inherits this inertia from the organisations within it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3094" RevisionGUID="7329a8e9-bead-4e6d-9140-00d312dd9d30" CreationDate="2014-10-14T10:35:44.500" UserId="1763" Text="I shared a google slide presentation on Rainwater Harvesting. It's an intro course. I hope you'll find helpful.&#xD;&#xA;[http://tinyurl.com/cme2f2][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to check out the collection/storage/use sizing chart slide. Calculator is also here in case the url isn't working in the sizing slide linked above: &#xD;&#xA;[https://docs.google.com/a/greencollartech.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkTmAYUM4GL5cFExWnUwakhSS3FrM3lsak9GelNWT3c&amp;usp=drive_web&amp;pli=1#gid=0][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tips**&#xD;&#xA;Use at least one first flush diverter. The idea is to collect the cleanest water possible before storage. Then you want to &quot;use&quot; the cleanest water from the tank. So build a floating intake yourself. Bad for gravity use but good for quality. I use gravity for a backup distribution system so I flow from the bottom of the tank. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to risk getting sick, consider a 9 and 3 micron dual-stage filter with uv light. Use large, sturdy screen at the in and out flow of the tank to keep critters out. Chlorine at 1 part per million will kill pretty much everything and I think most instructors recommend some combination of all this stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend using everything. Especially if you use pesticides that could be ingested by critters. When they get sick, they look for clean water supplies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feelin' lucky?&#xD;&#xA;Get a part per million meter to gauge how close to &quot;perfect water&quot; you can get. &#xD;&#xA;Get a ph meter to gauge the acidity of the water.&#xD;&#xA;Radiation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Addendum for the pluviophiles:*&#xD;&#xA;I live about 7 miles from an active volcano. My metal roof flows into plastic gutters and pvc pipe is used to convey the water to my food-grade holding tank. It has crud on the bottom ie; life. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My water has a slight yellow tinge from the Ohia tree leaves that collect in the gutter. I give the water a bunch of positive intention, specifically love and gratitude and the color will change, sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use a first and a second flush diverter. I don't use filters and do very little mainteance on the system. I have a close connection with the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ultimately, I believe the connection you develop with your water is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; big health factor. It's worked well for the during the last 5 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some folks see rainwater harvesting as owning their own water supply. I see it as a gift to be able to attract from the sky, one of the things I need most. I REALLY love my water. It's the only water that quenches my thirst. Bottle water makes me thirsty, tap water smells and tastes too much like chlorine and eh, I forgot what else I had to add. Did I miss anything?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also watch the &quot;Rainwater Harvesting TED Talk&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ka Wai O Kane!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://tinyurl.com/cme2f2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://docs.google.com/a/greencollartech.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkTmAYUM4GL5cFExWnUwakhSS3FrM3lsak9GelNWT3c&amp;usp=drive_web&amp;pli=1#gid=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7451" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="3091" RevisionGUID="a48ce49f-45ee-453a-95c4-15e530439506" CreationDate="2014-10-15T06:24:56.977" UserId="48" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3095" RevisionGUID="f461da61-21bc-46f7-9a06-8029950500b7" CreationDate="2014-10-16T21:56:12.897" UserId="1768" Text="It's not an all-or-nothing scenario.  It depends on how beef is raised.  Poorly fed (e.g., corn fed) cattle and cattle on an open range will have negative effects on greenhouse gas levels and land quality.  In contrast, managed grazing of cattle can have a positive effect in both regards.  Here is a starter link for more info on [why beef production can help the environment][1] if managed wisely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/in-defense-of-the-cow-how-eating-meat-could-help-slow-climate-change.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A search on the topic of management-intensive grazing should yield even more helpful insights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3095" RevisionGUID="a093e4cc-9a74-490f-927d-e2385f53ceb8" CreationDate="2014-10-16T22:02:07.707" UserId="1768" Comment="Added more info" Text="It's not an all-or-nothing scenario.  It depends on how beef is raised.  Poorly fed (e.g., corn fed) cattle and cattle on an open range will have negative effects on greenhouse gas levels and land quality.  In contrast, managed grazing of cattle can have a positive effect in both regards.  Here is a starter link for more info on [why beef production can help the environment][1] if managed wisely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/in-defense-of-the-cow-how-eating-meat-could-help-slow-climate-change.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A search on the topics of sustainable grazing or management-intensive grazing should yield even more helpful insights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="98e4bfc5-0827-4e0c-a9e9-273c65dced38" CreationDate="2014-10-17T07:52:36.287" UserId="99" Comment="added information about Italian UNI standard, revised order" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Home compostable standards&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The [Australian AS 5810](http://bioplastics.org.au/news/home-composting-standard-as-5810-2010-verify-your-product-conforms-now) is a standard that guarantees composting at low temperatures. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heavy metals and plant toxicity requirements are similar to those for industrial compostability (AS 4736). Biodegradation and disintegration however need to be performed at ambient temperature instead of at elevated temperature ([source](http://www.ows.be/tests/home-compostability/)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The AS 5810 standard has it's own logo &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ![ABA AS 5810 logo][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [UNI 11183:2006](http://store.uni.com/magento-1.4.0.1/index.php/uni-11183-2006.html?___store=en) is an Italian standard that defines: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the requirements of the plastic materials used to make products that can be disposed by aerobic biodegradation at room temperature . The term &quot;room temperature identify the range of temperature of temperate regions excluding the high temperatures these ones typical for composting. The requirements of ecotoxicity of the plastic materials are also considered in the standard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The UNI 11183:2006 doesn't seem to be used much (outside of Italy?) and doesn't seem to have a logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Logos&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides official government standards, there are 3 logo's that guarantee that you can compost a plastic in your home compost pile and these are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Vinçotte OK compost HOME label](http://www.okcompost.be/en/recognising-ok-environment-logos/ok-compost-amp-ok-compost-home/) (in Europe)&#xD;&#xA;- [AfOR Home Compostable Logo](http://www.organics-recycling.org.uk/page.php?article=1921) (UK only) &#xD;&#xA;- [DIN-Geprüft Home Compostable logo](http://www.tuv.com/dincertco/en/products_made_of_compostable_materials_for_home_and_garden_composting.html) (also Europe) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Vinçotte OK compost HOME label][2]&#xD;&#xA;![AfOR Home Compostable Logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;![DIN CERTCO Geprüft logo][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the Vincotte logo must have the word 'HOME' on the left. Without it, the logo only guarantees that it is compostable in an industrial facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Plastic types&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vincotte lists plastic types that are certified home compostable in [this PDF](http://www.okcompost.be/data/pdf-document/okh-matf.pdf) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Compostable standards&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several standards that are often mentioned on compostable plastics that guarantee that the plastic can be composted safely (with low levels of heavy metals and toxic substances in the resulting compost). These can theoretically be used in home composting but only when doing hot-composting for a longer period of time, so this won't work on the average home compost heap. Less strict standard first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The [US ASTM D6400](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/ASTM_D6400)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; degradation by biological processes during composting to yield CO2, water, inorganic compounds and biomass at a rate consistent with other compostable materials and leaves no visible, distinguishable or toxic residue.... 60% biodegradation within 180 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [European EN 13432](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/EN_13432) / Seedling logo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A biodegradation level of at least 90% must be reached in less than 6 months... fragmentation and loss of visibility in the final compost (absence of visible pollution)... absence of negative effects on the composting process... Low levels of heavy metals (below given max values) and absence of negative effects on the final compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The [Australian AS 4736](http://bioplastics.org.au/faq/what-is-the-as4736-standard-for-biodegradable-plastics) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Minimum of 90% of plastic materials should disintegrate into less than 2mm pieces in compost within 12 weeks. No toxic effect of the resulting compost on plants and earthworms. Hazardous substances such as heavy metals should not be present above the maximum allowed levels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, these 3 standards **do not guarantee** under which circumstances (temperature) the plastic will compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BReGk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/whT8j.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ToLv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dwzCc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7456" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3087" RevisionGUID="45b1ef97-9808-40b0-8ebd-e2ca7b061e0f" CreationDate="2014-10-19T08:54:43.250" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/523759134513299456" />
  <row Id="7457" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3082" RevisionGUID="764f879a-929b-4b5e-a3b7-638c58b3c240" CreationDate="2014-10-19T14:54:42.583" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/523849730632454144" />
  <row Id="7458" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3061" RevisionGUID="5eb060a4-ca4f-4993-afd8-1eee9168c0b1" CreationDate="2014-10-20T03:06:25.233" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/524033869377306624" />
  <row Id="7459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3096" RevisionGUID="ae7feb46-d056-4a7e-bd1a-f07592105b11" CreationDate="2014-10-20T19:50:52.867" UserId="48" Text="I suspect the public transport question doesn't give significant carbon variations, so I'd replace it with a different question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The research question itself will affect what you might ask. In the comments, you mention you're interested in the links between beliefs and behaviours with regard to carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some good existing work on beliefs and behaviours re environment, and specifically on energy &amp; carbon, that you will want to build upon. A quick lit review should pick it up. See works by [Christian Brand][1], [Jillian Anable][2], [Tim Schwanen][3], and [Elizabeth Shove][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=sAOvvKwAAAAJ&amp;hl=en&amp;oi=sra&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=bqLLtSkAAAAJ&amp;hl=en&amp;oi=sra&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=FgxLv8gAAAAJ&amp;hl=en&amp;oi=sra&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/sociology/profiles/elizabeth-shove#publications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2898" RevisionGUID="19294ecb-10dd-46ae-9e84-d9d93fe04295" CreationDate="2014-10-21T07:48:18.353" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="So I have read that **sugar** (cane) is way more efficient than corn, (and that Brazil leads the way in taking initiative to actually bother with this advance in biofuels sustainability), and that, based on multiple independent sources, they produce EIGHT times the energy than what they put in to produce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But could the little-mentioned [**hemp**][1], (via any of its relevant ethanol production methods), be even better than sugar? Or could something *else* (let's limit it to a small scale if necessary) actually be the most sustainable feedstock for ethanol?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Provisos:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assume there is no licence to grow particular crops like industrial hemp. (In your respective country, there may, but I want to take out money from the equation and the sustainability impact of that licensing factor per se.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assume one has no legal requirement to denature the ethanol (as in many countries this is the case), or filter it with 15% minimum regular gasoline (like in the USA). This is pure ethanol, only including and requiring what is needed to make 100% pure, and efficient, automobile burning fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assume scalability issues are not there. Maybe this is for the purposes of small-scale, personal production, where time isn't an issue, except when comparing time per energy output between different ethanol feedstocks - so economic viability needs not matter, except where the difference affects even small-scale sustainability comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Also assume that all feedstocks can be grown effectively in your area. (So that they can be compared on an equal playing field.) You have a patch of suitable land, and are ready to grow any of them, requiring whatever inputs they respectively need, in the most sustainable way possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3098" RevisionGUID="2a4e2540-17db-433a-88b0-8b4b50a0dee8" CreationDate="2014-10-23T09:20:04.630" UserId="99" Text="Yes, limonene is a terpene and [terpenes react with ozone to form formaldehyde and other micro-particle pollutants](http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/01-336.pdf). Limonene itself isn’t toxic and hasn’t been found to be harmful, but some people are sensitive to it’s various oxidation products [causing skin irriation or respiratory problems](http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredient/702113/LIMONENE/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research has shown that:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; when people use the [terpene-based cleaning] products under ordinary circumstances, their exposure to ethylene-based glycol ethers, formaldehyde and fine particles will normally not reach guideline values ([source](http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/05/22_householdchemicals.shtml))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the same study also says that under certain circumstances it is possible that levels of formaldehyde or microparticles exceed legal limits. Examples of such circumstances are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- using ozone-generating devices in combination with terpene-based air fresheners&#xD;&#xA;- being a professional cleaner with prolonged contact to (reactants of) terpene products&#xD;&#xA;- being exposed to other sources emitting formaldehyde (e.g. building materials, some furniture, glues, burning wood or gas).&#xD;&#xA;- bad ventilation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently [many daycare-centers in California were found to have levels of formaldehyde above the state's legal limit](http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/10/25/formaldehyde-in-daycare-centers/), but I’m not sure how strict Californian guidelines are. AFAIK there haven’t been studies on how harmful this is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to why exactly EWG placed the mentioned product on their Hall of Shame 'Greenwashing' list, my guess is that it is because of the rather high level of d-limonene." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3099" RevisionGUID="8862cff3-c9af-4c10-b973-f2d4929719db" CreationDate="2014-10-24T12:22:24.060" UserId="836" Text="What are the major methods to be followed to minimize the effect of pesticides on vegetables? Does it differ according to the vegetables? If so I want to be specific in the case of vegetables like tomatoes, brinjal,etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually we follow this method: Putting vegetables in salt water for hours before cooking. Please let me know if there are other effective methods for the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7470" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3099" RevisionGUID="8862cff3-c9af-4c10-b973-f2d4929719db" CreationDate="2014-10-24T12:22:24.060" UserId="836" Text="What are the best methods to minimize the effect of pesticides on vegetables?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7471" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3099" RevisionGUID="8862cff3-c9af-4c10-b973-f2d4929719db" CreationDate="2014-10-24T12:22:24.060" UserId="836" Text="|pesticides|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3100" RevisionGUID="cd20e50f-5098-4825-89a6-403f1b7e012b" CreationDate="2014-10-24T19:15:29.617" UserId="85" Text="Your question is quite broad, but I've been following the following practice for non-organic **apples**, once recommended to me by a bio-chemist. Apparently, apples are usually sprayed with oil/wax-based pesticides. The oil &quot;protects&quot; the apples from yeasts/pests and &quot;keeps the face pretty&quot;. You can use normal soap (e.g. dish-washing liquid) to remove the oil/wax layer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might have noticed that washing non-organic apples only with water usually leaves the apples sticky. The soap removes the oil/wax layer (including the pesticides in this layer) leaving the apple smooth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As soap is water-soluble, a good rinse should get rid of all the soap. Even if you end up eating a little bit of soap, you should consider washing non-organic apples with soap, because the oil/wax will most likely be indigestible (never mind the toxins still contained in this layer), whereas soap is biodegradable and certainly easily digested (and especially harmless if you use &quot;normal&quot; &quot;organic&quot; soap).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine this generalizes easily to other fruits &amp; vegetables, especially those treated with oil/wax-based pesticides." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7473" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3099" RevisionGUID="10599d56-0a0b-4aaf-88a8-f0c90b1ee97a" CreationDate="2014-10-25T00:11:44.970" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/525801851472470017" />
  <row Id="7474" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3083" RevisionGUID="977fb1dd-ba2d-4621-b244-3e2bc29fe8b0" CreationDate="2014-10-25T03:15:43.057" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/525848149475069952" />
  <row Id="7475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3004" RevisionGUID="79fedfbc-3eae-4787-9527-acfe1667a889" CreationDate="2014-10-25T11:36:21.290" UserId="1688" Comment="added reference" Text="I'm in the process of building my first Rocket Stove, that will give me highly sustainable energy (if one considers burning wood to be sustainable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the heat riser I'm looking for heat resistant materials. Must I choose a metal or a mineral heat riser?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would be nice to have a few references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the following post for a Rocket Stove design: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/3005/1688" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3101" RevisionGUID="92d398f9-ff13-4ef2-867a-e4cd700535b0" CreationDate="2014-10-25T16:05:34.480" UserId="1781" Text="My flat is fitted with switchable sockets as per below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![British socket][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please settle an argument a friend and I are having: if a socket is switched &quot;on&quot;, is it wasting electricity if nothing is actually plugged into it? If so, any idea how much?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lF0Uz.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3101" RevisionGUID="92d398f9-ff13-4ef2-867a-e4cd700535b0" CreationDate="2014-10-25T16:05:34.480" UserId="1781" Text="Do switchable sockets left &quot;on&quot; use electricity if there's nothing plugged in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3101" RevisionGUID="92d398f9-ff13-4ef2-867a-e4cd700535b0" CreationDate="2014-10-25T16:05:34.480" UserId="1781" Text="|energy|electricity|energy-efficiency|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3102" RevisionGUID="9c7cc088-4963-4d90-a657-31af54752273" CreationDate="2014-10-25T23:47:38.507" UserId="812" Text="No. With nothing plugged in there is no circuit, so no current can flow. &#xA;&#xA;An exception to this is if the socket or the switch has an indicator light - usually a neon one - that is illuminated when the switch is on. In that case the light will use a (very small) amount of power. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3099" RevisionGUID="86879e98-8b2a-4cf8-b423-1e936d6e6399" CreationDate="2014-10-28T07:36:43.077" UserId="836" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="What are the major methods to be followed to minimize the effect of pesticides on vegetables? Does it differ according to the vegetables? If so I want to be specific in the case of vegetables like tomatoes, brinjal, bittergourd, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually we follow this method: Putting vegetables in salt water for some hours before cooking. Please let me know if there are other effective methods for the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3105" RevisionGUID="7f5ffda7-5dcd-4cff-87c2-9cfb855595cb" CreationDate="2014-10-29T05:18:58.980" UserId="1788" Text="As i read about eco friendly laptop Dell is very eco friendly from their manufacturing to products to their packaging (they fit everything in to minimal boxing and use very little non-recycleable materials) &#xD;&#xA;And you get to fully customize the computer ,processor, ram,hard drive and video card very easily" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3106" RevisionGUID="f5ab1bc9-e184-46ed-8cfd-7f452d0d904f" CreationDate="2014-10-29T06:56:51.700" UserId="1788" Text="People certainly still meet others at social venues like clubs and parties, but it is easier than ever to discover people who share our interests through social media, whether that means via groups on Facebook or following people twitter " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2926" RevisionGUID="82677193-0fc2-4921-9a2a-0e0df48bdff3" CreationDate="2014-10-29T11:16:45.927" UserId="99" Comment="added comment to answer so it's more complete." Text="It may cost a lot of green, but Macs and Apple are particularly green. Apple has many protocols and material regulations they use in their products. That's one of the reasons they cost so much, is the good materials they source. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will agree with the labor problem, but they have good materials. See the model you might want, they have [PDFs discussing the carbon footprint](https://www.apple.com/environment/reports/).  This is [the report for the model I own](https://www.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/13inch_MacBookPro_wRetina_PER_July2014.pdf). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also they offer [recycling programs in most countries](http://www.apple.com/recycling). Regardless of the brand, they will recycle your old computer. And if you recycle your Mac while it has value, they give you store credit- a nice perk. Some apple stores do it, or it's free online." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7489" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2937" RevisionGUID="c3c67dd1-7f3d-4f4c-84ce-b7cd4fd5fe35" CreationDate="2014-10-29T12:06:26.217" UserId="99" Comment="18" />
  <row Id="7490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3107" RevisionGUID="f510872f-2c69-4e36-b7bd-342e120194c1" CreationDate="2014-10-29T14:00:37.750" UserId="99" Text="There isn't one general sustainability metric that can easily be derived to compare the various options, so this makes this question rather difficult to answer. The choice of feedstock for producing any type of product from biomass has an influence on:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  - GHG emissions (the method and amount of energy required for harvesting and processing)&#xD;&#xA;  - use of resources (amount of arable land and fresh water required, use of fertilizer)&#xD;&#xA;  - social effects (does the crop compete with food, effects on local agriculture)&#xD;&#xA;  - ecological effects (effect on biodiversity, water and soil quality)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First generation feedstock such as sugar cane and corn are easy to process as they have readily available sugars and little (pre)processing is needed to create ethanol. As such they have a relatively high EROI, but a problem is that they compete with food. It’s been suggested that [increases in food prices in the last decade are the result of government policy that a part of the gasoline mix has to be from biomass](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678410004863). Use of biomass and increasing food prices has even been [linked to the Arab spring revolts](http://necsi.edu/research/social/food_crises.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second generation feedstock such as switchgrass and hemp, residues from food crops and biomass from waste streams are more difficult to process. AFAIK there aren't any realistic EROI calculations for these as they are mostly in the experimental or research phase, but EROI is likely to be lower than that of first generation feedstock. The big advantage of second generation feedstock however is that it does not directly compete with food crops. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the real question here is what do you find more important; EROI or food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="239" RevisionGUID="464af766-1677-4516-b688-daaf1ac98d64" CreationDate="2014-10-29T14:05:33.837" UserId="1445" Comment="Fixed broken link for EU LCA database." Text="Yes, there are such databases. These are Lifecycle Cost Assessment (LCA) databases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are very difficult and expensive to build, and expensive to maintain. And they exist. You'll need to do a web search for LCA database and your region, but they are out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EU has several, for different purposes. Here's [the LCA database from the EU Joint Research Centre][1]. And this is a [US one from NREL][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that it's rather difficult for air travel, because of the high uncertainties around the multipliers that should be applied to aviation emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for public transport generally, there's the rather vexing question of whether you should use short-run marginal cost, or long-run average cost.  If it's a journey you are going to make frequently, then it's definitely average cost. If it's a one-off trip, and the provider has historically shown very few changes in supply in response to changes in demand, then maybe, just maybe, short-run marginal cost is relevant (but there are plenty of experts who'd disagree with me on that point, so take it with a large pinch of salt).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ELCD3/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.nrel.gov/lci/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7492" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="239" RevisionGUID="464af766-1677-4516-b688-daaf1ac98d64" CreationDate="2014-10-29T14:05:33.837" Comment="Proposed by 1445 approved by 99 edit id of 299" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3107" RevisionGUID="7fc3db58-c54d-43b5-b9ca-1c76346f37be" CreationDate="2014-10-29T18:57:42.210" UserId="99" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="There isn't one general sustainability metric that can easily be calculated or derived to compare the various options, so this question is rather difficult to answer. The choice of feedstock for producing any type of product from biomass has an influence on:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  - GHG emissions (the method and amount of energy required for harvesting and processing)&#xD;&#xA;  - use of resources (amount of arable land and fresh water required, use of fertilizer)&#xD;&#xA;  - social effects (does the crop compete with food, effects on local agriculture)&#xD;&#xA;  - ecological effects (effect on biodiversity, water and soil quality)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First generation feedstock such as sugar cane and corn are easy to process as they have readily available sugars and little (pre)processing is needed to create ethanol. As such they have a relatively high EROI, but a problem is that they compete with food. It’s been suggested that [increases in food prices in the last decade are the result of government policy that a part of the gasoline mix has to be from biomass](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678410004863). Use of biomass and increasing food prices has even been [linked to the Arab spring revolts](http://necsi.edu/research/social/food_crises.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second generation feedstock such as switchgrass and hemp, residues from food crops and biomass from waste streams are more difficult to process. AFAIK there aren't any realistic EROI calculations for these as they are mostly in the experimental or research phase, but EROI is likely to be lower than that of first generation feedstock. The big advantage of second generation feedstock however is that it does not directly compete with food crops. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the real question here is what do you find more important; EROI or food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3108" RevisionGUID="67fb48f2-d620-42d6-b21c-d99b03d1a56e" CreationDate="2014-10-29T20:43:58.983" UserId="1792" Text="Dunno if it's the good Stack site for this but I give a try:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My prescription glasses has felt on the ground... it's a Oakley Shifter 2.0 Black Smoke. Lens are still good but frame has broken when falling on the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there any way to fix it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried glue but it's not though enough, and tape, but it folds on itself... nothing to do. I heard about dipping it in Acetone to make them glue together, but will it work or will it just broke them more than they are?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and sorry for my english, I usually talk french!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are my glasses : ![Glasses taken from the web][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OzOnG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7496" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3108" RevisionGUID="67fb48f2-d620-42d6-b21c-d99b03d1a56e" CreationDate="2014-10-29T20:43:58.983" UserId="1792" Text="Fix Oakley Snifter 2.0 frame... how to?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7497" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3108" RevisionGUID="67fb48f2-d620-42d6-b21c-d99b03d1a56e" CreationDate="2014-10-29T20:43:58.983" UserId="1792" Text="|glass|repair|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3107" RevisionGUID="fa469ae6-d0c7-4ee9-8620-adb4ac9de1b6" CreationDate="2014-10-29T21:52:30.450" UserId="99" Comment="added short explanation why 2nd gen is more difficult to process" Text="There isn't one general sustainability metric that can easily be calculated or derived to compare the various options, so this question is rather difficult to answer. The choice of feedstock for producing any type of product from biomass has an influence on:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  - GHG emissions (the method and amount of energy required for harvesting and processing)&#xD;&#xA;  - use of resources (amount of arable land and fresh water required, use of fertilizer)&#xD;&#xA;  - social effects (does the crop compete with food, effects on local agriculture)&#xD;&#xA;  - ecological effects (effect on biodiversity, water and soil quality)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First generation feedstock such as sugar cane and corn are easy to process as they have readily available sugars and little (pre)processing is needed to create ethanol. As such they have a relatively high EROI, but a problem is that they compete with food. It’s been suggested that [increases in food prices in the last decade are the result of government policy that a part of the gasoline mix has to be from biomass](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678410004863). Use of biomass and increasing food prices has even been [linked to the Arab spring revolts](http://necsi.edu/research/social/food_crises.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second generation feedstock such as switchgrass and hemp, residues from food crops and biomass from waste streams are more difficult to process compared to first generation feedstock. This is because more preprocessing is needed to release the sugars from the cellulose. AFAIK there aren't any realistic EROI calculations for ethanol from second generation biomass as this is mostly in the experimental or research phase, but EROI is likely to be lower than that of first generation feedstock. The big advantage of second generation feedstock however is that it does not directly compete with food crops. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the real question here is what do you find more important; EROI or food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3099" RevisionGUID="a8783a6c-1b03-4523-a5aa-876aafc45e36" CreationDate="2014-10-30T18:04:53.363" UserId="836" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="What are the major methods to be followed to minimize the effect of pesticides on vegetables as a consumer? Does it differ according to the vegetables? If so I want to be specific in the case of vegetables like tomatoes, brinjal, bittergourd, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually we follow this method: Putting vegetables in salt water for some hours before cooking. Please let me know if there are other effective methods for the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7500" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3099" RevisionGUID="a8783a6c-1b03-4523-a5aa-876aafc45e36" CreationDate="2014-10-30T18:04:53.363" UserId="836" Comment="added 14 characters in body; edited title" Text="What are the best methods to minimize the effect of pesticides on vegetables as a consumer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3109" RevisionGUID="3774bd4f-bde8-48ac-8858-cd197b729ef6" CreationDate="2014-10-30T23:36:35.873" UserId="1786" Text="To give you an idea of costs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're in the UK, you can often get grants for insulating your loft and walls, so each should cost about £100. You will make that back in savings pretty quickly. I didn't do this, and paid for loft insulation, which cost about £250, which still gives you savings in heating quite rapidly. Basically it's the equivalent of wearing a jumper on a cold day (compared with not wearing one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can buy a seal for about £5 to go around doors and windows to plug any gaps. This will stop draughts so that you can keep the warm air in for longer. You can also buy 'window film' which is a clear plastic that you can put over windows to make them like double-glazed windows. This also costs about £5 and covers 2-3 windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To buy an electric blanket costs about £20 and it can cost as little as 1p per hour to run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are other suggestions such as closing the curtains when it gets dark, which can also help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also in the UK there is the 'green deal' which means that you may be able to make improvements to the house - such as putting in a new boiler - and the cost is covered by the reduction in your energy bills. Your bills themselves won't reduce, but the money you're saving will go to pay back the company which fitted the improvement in the first place. You may need to pay around £100-£150 for a survey though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7502" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3108" RevisionGUID="c0b2a112-d5f4-4231-a7eb-7a66c17d63da" CreationDate="2014-10-31T13:07:35.300" UserId="1792" Comment="edited title" Text="Fix Oakley Snifter 2.0 frame... how?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2440" RevisionGUID="4ae33a03-c987-4634-8ac7-c82ba98b146d" CreationDate="2014-10-31T13:51:42.240" UserId="812" Comment="Added caveats re accuracy" Text="While this doesn't fully answer the question in terms of ecological impact, David MacKay provides a good chart of the energy use of various modes of transport, [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll extract some figures from it (they're approximate, from me reading off the vertical axis). They refer to typical occupancy unless otherwise stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that, as pointed out by a commenter here, the first two figures are far too high - this may be a problem with reading off the very bottom of a linear y-axis scale. The others should be considered as approximate (but useful) estimates, rather than accurate results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cycling: 2 kWh per passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Walking: 4 kWh per passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Tram: 10 kWh per passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Electric train: 15 kWh per passenger km (2 if full)&#xD;&#xA;* Bus: 31 kWh per passenger km (6 if full)&#xD;&#xA;* Turboprop aircraft (full): 39 kWh per passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Boeing 747: 52 kWh per passenger km (42 if full)&#xD;&#xA;* Car (single occupant): 80 kWh per passenger km (20 if full)&#xD;&#xA;* Range Rover: 112 kWh per passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Helicopter or private jet: 150 kWh per passenger km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://withouthotair.com/c20/page_128.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3108" RevisionGUID="90493e9a-0384-472a-8ba9-7aa993415aea" CreationDate="2014-10-31T14:05:05.410" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to better reflect question contents, fixed grammar" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My prescription glasses has fallen on the ground... it's an Oakley Shifter 2.0 Black Smoke. Lenses are still good but the frame has broken when falling on the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there any way to fix it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried glue but it's not though enough, and tape, but it folds on itself... nothing to do. I heard about dipping it in Acetone to make them glue together, but will it work or will it just break them more than they are?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a picture of a similar pair of glasses : ![Glasses taken from the web][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OzOnG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7505" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3108" RevisionGUID="90493e9a-0384-472a-8ba9-7aa993415aea" CreationDate="2014-10-31T14:05:05.410" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to better reflect question contents, fixed grammar" Text="How to fix plastic glasses frame?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3108" RevisionGUID="957a2999-ca1b-4ad5-8beb-ca0db921a989" CreationDate="2014-10-31T16:41:38.853" UserId="1792" Comment="Specified exactly what type of plastic it is. And specified how it has broken" Text="My prescription glasses has fallen on the ground... it's an Oakley Shifter 2.0 Black Smoke. Lenses are still good but the frame has broken when falling on the ground (a clean cut directly where the support of the nose is, in the middle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is there any way to fix it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried glue but it's not though enough, and tape, but it folds on itself... nothing to do. I heard about dipping it in Acetone to make them glue together, but will it work or will it just break them more than they are?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a picture of a similar pair of glasses : ![Glasses taken from the web][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OzOnG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7507" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3108" RevisionGUID="957a2999-ca1b-4ad5-8beb-ca0db921a989" CreationDate="2014-10-31T16:41:38.853" UserId="1792" Comment="Specified exactly what type of plastic it is. And specified how it has broken" Text="How to fix plastic (acetate) glasses frame?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7509" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3101" RevisionGUID="16b6fc7f-eb85-4044-b916-4ce4737ac5c8" CreationDate="2014-11-01T09:31:56.910" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/528479544911491072" />
  <row Id="7510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3110" RevisionGUID="04eed819-9dc2-4794-8f84-2ee46033994c" CreationDate="2014-11-02T08:49:16.257" UserId="15" Text="I'm wondering if grass (or something else) straw was ever used for making drinking straws before plastic ones were made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My daughter loves having a straw in her drink but it irks me to have to throw a piece of plastic in the rubbish each time she gets one. I know there are paper ones on the market, but it would be neat to be able to make our own out of real straw if it was safe and effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has anyone tried doing this? If so, is it as simple as just cutting a mature stalk of grass and drying it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that there are glass straws for sale too if you look hard enough, but I imagine they would be difficult to clean, fragile, as well as being expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3110" RevisionGUID="04eed819-9dc2-4794-8f84-2ee46033994c" CreationDate="2014-11-02T08:49:16.257" UserId="15" Text="Can real straw be used as a natural drinking straw?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3110" RevisionGUID="04eed819-9dc2-4794-8f84-2ee46033994c" CreationDate="2014-11-02T08:49:16.257" UserId="15" Text="|water|food|reduce|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3111" RevisionGUID="b37c6603-20e7-4663-8a42-0be2c89672ce" CreationDate="2014-11-02T23:53:40.467" UserId="400" Text="I've done this to get a drink from a very shallow spring (seep really)  Most grasses stems are small in diameter, and you have to suck pretty hard to get fluid through them.  In addition, you have to cut the stem with an eye on the nodes (fat bits) in the stem.  They aren't hollow there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are serious about this, look at some the varieties of bamboo, which grows much the same way as grasses do.  You need a variety for your climate that has enough distance between nodes to make a usable straw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic straws can be reused.  Wash in hot soapy water, and rinse well.  Rinse promptly when they have been used for something like OJ that has bits of pulp in it.  These tend to stick and be hard to remove if left to dry.  I don't see any reason you couldn't get several dozen uses per straw.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3112" RevisionGUID="34064a2c-953b-4c0a-ac93-e7cfc42414c3" CreationDate="2014-11-03T00:02:27.060" UserId="400" Text="I would answer this as a comment, but comments don't accept multiple paragraphs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the face of it this is a bad idea.  Better to pull air OUT of the house, and let it sneak in where it can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario 1.  The building vapour barrier is perfect.  Air put into the house can only escape through faulty weatherstripping at doors and windows.  Net result.  Too low an air exchange.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario 2.  The building vapour barrier is badly detailed.  This allows air to escape around electrical outlets, window edges, the joint between wall and floor or wall and ceiling etc.  Interior air carries more water. That water is moved into the chilled wall space and condenses.  Now you have a problem with wet walls, increasing chance of mildew, and lower insulation values.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually for a house in a cold climate there is a natural stack effect.  The warmer is lower density and so tends to exit the building through cracks in the top half of the building, and enter through openings in the bottom half of the building.  In my house I heat with wood, so there is always some air flow up the wood stove chimneys even when the stoves are not in use.  Our makeup air comes through an opening in the basement, keeping it cool enough for storage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3113" RevisionGUID="b3e89ac0-633a-4e7b-82b5-01b45383d1c0" CreationDate="2014-11-03T10:10:48.420" UserId="642" Text="Example of two edible plants growing in Europe which can be used as a drinking straw:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [**lovage**][1] - This plant is being used in salads and soups. The stem could be about 30 cm long and 2 cm in diameter. The plant has a pleasant aroma somewhat similar to celery. Here is an [example of lovage as a drinking straw][2].&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;[![lovage][3]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&quot;Liebstöckel&quot; by 4028mdk09 - Own work. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons&lt;/sup&gt;][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [**impatiens glandulifera**][5] - This is an invasive plant in Europe. The plant contains a high amount of [calcium oxalate][6] so it is not recommended to eat it in large quantities. I guess that not much of the oxalate will get into the drink. The stem could be more than 2 m long and 5 cm in diameter. Here is a short text about [edibility of himalayan balsam][7] and an [example of himalayan balsam as a drinking straw][8].&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;[![impatiens glandulifera][9]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&quot;Impatiens glandulifera Royle (7677059600)&quot; by Udo Schmidt from Deutschland - Impatiens glandulifera RoyleUploaded by Amada44. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons&lt;/sup&gt;][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both plants will add some aroma to the drink which could be used as an advantage. Also I think both plants are usable only fresh (not dried) as a drinking straw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovage&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.agardenforthehouse.com/2011/05/a-great-herb-lovage/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gGin9.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liebst%C3%B6ckel.JPG#mediaviewer/File:Liebst%C3%B6ckel.JPG&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impatiens_glandulifera&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_oxalate&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.celtnet.org.uk/recipes/ancient/wild-food-entry.php?term=Himalayan%20Balsam&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.wildplantforager.com/blog/edible-weed-how-to-eat-himalayan-balsam-flower-and-use-the-stem-as-a-straw&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1jvzg.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Impatiens_glandulifera_Royle_(7677059600).jpg#mediaviewer/File:Impatiens_glandulifera_Royle_(7677059600).jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3114" RevisionGUID="8e300228-45bd-4d52-b916-507b1918428b" CreationDate="2014-11-03T17:57:40.210" UserId="1792" Text="After reading carefully about the question on internet and how other have fix their glass' frame, It is known that acetate frames (or any other thing made of Acetate) can be &quot;melt&quot; using Acetone. You must be sure that your frame are made of pure acetate, which was my case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I dipped both broken parts into acetone for about 2 minutes&#xD;&#xA;2. I sticked them together with little bit of hand pressure during 1 minute or so&#xD;&#xA;3. Then, I carefully placed my frame on a flat surface&#xD;&#xA;4. 24 hour late, it has stick and really, it's hard as it was.&#xD;&#xA;5. With my finger, I just flattered surface to make it soft and TADAM!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu9v5UffIJ0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7517" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3108" RevisionGUID="ab062df6-7857-414e-8bf6-ec2a4d0ea361" CreationDate="2014-11-03T18:00:09.833" UserId="1792" Comment="edited tags" Text="|reuse|diy|glass|repair|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3114" RevisionGUID="46d29238-391b-4642-a8ab-56cd73dca3d5" CreationDate="2014-11-03T18:04:28.540" UserId="1792" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="After reading carefully about the question on internet and how other have fix their glass' frame, It is known that acetate frames (or any other thing made of Acetate) can be &quot;melt&quot; using Acetone. You must be sure that your frame are made of pure acetate, which was my case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I dipped both broken parts into acetone for about 2 minutes&#xD;&#xA;2. I sticked them together with little bit of hand pressure during 1 minute or so&#xD;&#xA;3. Then, I carefully placed my frame on a flat surface&#xD;&#xA;4. 24 hour late, it has stick and really, it's hard as it was.&#xD;&#xA;5. With my finger, I just flattered surface to make it soft and TADAM!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **Warning** : Be careful because in my case, because it was related to glasses, it is really not recommended to do this for a long time usage. Do this for a &quot;temporary&quot; repair until you buy some glasses back really soon. Angles are really important in case of prescription glasses can until you are a professional, you wouldn't be able to replicate the exact angle as your frame had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu9v5UffIJ0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3114" RevisionGUID="d4a49815-b901-4c4f-b613-e0be362bb40d" CreationDate="2014-11-03T21:42:52.283" UserId="1792" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="After reading carefully about the question on internet and how other have fix their glass' frame, It is known that acetate frames (or any other thing made of Acetate) can be &quot;melt&quot; using Acetone. You must be sure that your frame are made of pure acetate, which was my case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I dipped both broken parts into acetone for about 2 minutes&#xD;&#xA;2. I sticked them together with little bit of hand pressure during 1 minute or so&#xD;&#xA;3. Then, I carefully placed my frame on a flat surface&#xD;&#xA;4. 24 hour late, it has stick and really, it's hard as it was.&#xD;&#xA;5. With my finger, I just flattered surface to make it soft and TADAM!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **Warning** : Be careful because in my case, because it was related to glasses, it is really not recommended to do this for a long time usage. Do this for a &quot;temporary&quot; repair until you buy some glasses back really soon. Angles are really important in case of prescription glasses. Unless you are a professional and/or you have correct tools, you are not able to replicate the exact angle as your frame had for your very needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu9v5UffIJ0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3115" RevisionGUID="1af00aa0-c072-4335-8c44-823308d4ac76" CreationDate="2014-11-05T17:29:46.717" UserId="1806" Text="I have been using this method for years, on both my Toyota and my Ford Explorer. I save lots of gas, nothing has ever happened to my batteries, and have never had a mechanical problem. You need to use common sense. I typically shut it off when it's a long light and I'm in a long line, railroad crossings, and any other situation where it's going to be at least a minute wait. People seem to panic when shutting off their car in traffic, thinking some mechanical issue is going to happen, the battery will all of a sudden go bad, etc., what's the difference when shutting the car off at the mall? Then going to the grocery store and shutting it off there? The responders in this article make me laugh when they say they tried it and all of a sudden the battery went bad and there were mechanical problems. I'm pretty sure if the battery went bad in a parking lot somewhere or if a mechanical problem developed, that it was just normal wear and tear. Listen up folks, starting a car in the roadway is not different than starting it in your driveway or the parking lot of a grocery store. Use your head. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3117" RevisionGUID="faf9be33-a142-40b3-8149-c83c718d8378" CreationDate="2014-11-06T08:11:48.490" UserId="1788" Text="2 best ways are &#xD;&#xA;*Photovoltaic (solar electric) &#xD;&#xA;*Small, home-sized, wind turbines &#xD;&#xA;Use a solar charger to green your MP3 player, laptop, PDA, cell phone, and camera. &#xD;&#xA;The typical electronic device takes less than 10 watts of power when off or in standby. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7524" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3110" RevisionGUID="fecc4299-9802-409e-bf49-8300254ea493" CreationDate="2014-11-06T10:02:57.843" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/530299290216710144" />
  <row Id="7525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3118" RevisionGUID="e87beece-d789-4e0b-aba5-1cf867c4648b" CreationDate="2014-11-06T12:07:47.650" UserId="1808" Text="In our office toilets at work we have paper towels and a hand dryer. Is it better for the environment to use the towels or the dryer? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7526" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3118" RevisionGUID="e87beece-d789-4e0b-aba5-1cf867c4648b" CreationDate="2014-11-06T12:07:47.650" UserId="1808" Text="Best way to dry hands" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7527" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3118" RevisionGUID="e87beece-d789-4e0b-aba5-1cf867c4648b" CreationDate="2014-11-06T12:07:47.650" UserId="1808" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3119" RevisionGUID="3acd002d-39e9-43d6-9166-361c6ef985da" CreationDate="2014-11-06T20:09:59.497" UserId="1773" Text="I think it really depends. For instance, for the towels, are they recycled, composted or what? Are the trees used for the paper easily regrown? For the hand dryer, is it solar powered, or does it rely on something worse for the environment? Hand dryers can be loud and produce more noise pollution than paper towels, but some are quieter. Some paper towel dispensers use electricity, too. Paper towels require disposal, which requires some work from humans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's pretty tough to tell which is better in the average scenario. Using paper towels actually has the potential to be good for the environment (if the towels are made and disposed of well), however, they also have the potential to be bad. For instance, if they're cutting down rain forests to get paper, that's really bad, because rain forests are said to be difficult to renew. If they're growing poplar trees for paper, that's pretty good and sustainable. Poplars grow like weeds if you let them. Just stick of piece of a branch under the ground and it should grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes energy to mass produce paper, as they do today, I assume, but I'm not sure how much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As solar power gets more popular and effective, I would think the hand dryer would be more sustainable, so long as the solar power is, but I think paper isn't necessarily a bad option even then, if they do it right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3119" RevisionGUID="3c1a2c54-2542-41b9-ab34-af8591593d6f" CreationDate="2014-11-06T20:15:27.123" UserId="1773" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="I think it really depends. For instance, for the towels, are they recycled, composted or what? Are the trees used for the paper easily regrown? For the hand dryer, is it solar powered, or does it rely on something worse for the environment? Hand dryers can be loud and produce more noise pollution than paper towels, but some are quieter. Some paper towel dispensers use electricity, too. Paper towels require disposal, which requires some work from humans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's pretty tough to tell which is better in the average scenario. Using paper towels actually has the potential to be good for the environment (if the towels are made and disposed of well), however, they also have the potential to be bad. For instance, if they're cutting down rain forests to get paper, that's really bad, because rain forests are said to be difficult to renew. If they're growing poplar trees for paper, that's pretty good and sustainable. Poplars grow like weeds if you let them. Just stick of piece of a branch under the ground and it should grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes energy to mass produce paper, as they do today, I assume, but I'm not sure how much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As solar power gets more popular and effective, I would think the hand dryer would be more sustainable, so long as the solar power is, but I think paper isn't necessarily a bad option even then, if they do it right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually just dry my hands on my pants, personally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3120" RevisionGUID="0320cd8d-5c32-4b3a-897e-fd5aa5f603da" CreationDate="2014-11-08T17:02:48.673" UserId="1815" Text="and thank you for reading my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm getting ready to build my first rocket mass heater. I have access to free quartz stone and granite. Could I use this type of material to build my &quot;J Tube&quot; instead of fire brick? Not really sure if the granite would work very well but the quartz stone seems to be very tough and could absorb the heat. Or should I just build it out of fire brick to be safe? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3120" RevisionGUID="0320cd8d-5c32-4b3a-897e-fd5aa5f603da" CreationDate="2014-11-08T17:02:48.673" UserId="1815" Text="Rocket Mass Heater Build" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3120" RevisionGUID="0320cd8d-5c32-4b3a-897e-fd5aa5f603da" CreationDate="2014-11-08T17:02:48.673" UserId="1815" Text="|heating|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7535" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="3120" RevisionGUID="bba711b0-1be7-49ef-8e15-cb87456b3d7c" CreationDate="2014-11-08T17:05:22.910" UserId="1815" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1815,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Edward&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7536" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="3120" RevisionGUID="4f867728-d557-4a1e-984e-563478eb9492" CreationDate="2014-11-08T17:22:40.457" UserId="1815" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1815,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Edward&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="7537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3120" RevisionGUID="ddaa9635-9699-4d94-8a1e-bbd4aad2038a" CreationDate="2014-11-08T17:23:08.600" UserId="1815" Comment="fixed grammer" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm getting ready to build my first rocket mass heater. I have access to free quartz stone and granite. Could I use this type of material to build my &quot;J Tube&quot; instead of fire brick? Not really sure if the granite would work very well but the quartz stone seems to be very tough and could absorb the heat. Or should I just build it out of fire brick to be safe? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3121" RevisionGUID="df980988-a68c-45eb-b41e-78e651a2ce76" CreationDate="2014-11-09T14:04:49.280" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="Some perhaps unusual ideas that I use myself, the principle being that it's not your home that wants to be warm, it's your human body that wants to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Drink lots of hot water (I drink tea myself, but probably hot water or any other hot drink is just as good).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Exercise frenetically for 5-10 minutes every time you get cold, to get heated up. You get healthier, you save heating bills, and the environment takes a little bit less of a hit. Win-win all around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="7deb8f38-b7a1-40cd-9dad-6f56c83823df" CreationDate="2014-11-10T10:19:16.743" UserId="99" Comment="completely revised excerpt and tag description because the previous version was copied from wikipedia" Text="Aquaponics is the combination of aquaculture (keeping fish or other aquatic animals) and hydroponics (growing plants in water). Together these two systems complement each other. The fish wastes provide nutrients for the plants and the plants filter the water. Additionally bacteria break down by-products such as ammonia excreted by fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions about fish as sustainble food source see [tag:fish]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions mainly about the used plants see [Gardening StackExchange](http://gardening.stackexchange.com). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions mainly about keeping fish for fun see [Pets StackExchange](http://pets.stackexchange.com)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="2a199a31-af49-4266-9a1c-d82f6c05d96a" CreationDate="2014-11-10T10:19:16.743" UserId="99" Comment="completely revised excerpt and tag description because the previous version was copied from wikipedia" Text="growing fish or other aquatic animals (aquaculture) and plants (hydroponics) together in one integrated system. The fish wastes provide nutrients for the plants and the plants filter the water. Additionally bacteria break down by-products such as ammonia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3119" RevisionGUID="601a7436-b35e-4e5e-a8e8-bfd19bf421d8" CreationDate="2014-11-10T20:40:36.533" UserId="1773" Comment="added 410 characters in body" Text="I think it really depends. For instance, for the towels, are they recycled, composted or what? Are the trees used for the paper easily regrown? For the hand dryer, is it solar powered, or does it rely on something worse for the environment? Hand dryers can be loud and produce more noise pollution than paper towels, but some are quieter. Some paper towel dispensers use electricity, too. Paper towels require disposal, which requires some work from humans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's pretty tough to tell which is better in the average scenario. Using paper towels actually has the potential to be good for the environment (if the towels are made and disposed of well), however, they also have the potential to be bad. For instance, if they're cutting down rain forests to get paper, that's really bad, because rain forests are said to be difficult to renew. If they're growing poplar trees for paper, that's pretty good and sustainable. Poplars grow like weeds if you let them. Just stick of piece of a branch under the ground and it should grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes energy to mass produce paper, as they do today, I assume, but I'm not sure how much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As solar power gets more popular and effective, I would think the hand dryer would be more sustainable, so long as the solar power is, but I think paper isn't necessarily a bad option even then, if they do it right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually just dry my hands on my pants, personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: In light of THelper's comment to your question, I would think that hand dryers are generally more sustainable, however, if they're solar powered, I would say so for sure, so long as the paneling didn't need to be replaced frequently. Solar power is getting better regularly, these days. If you invest in some panels, I would advise looking for newer technology, since it should be a whole lot better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3122" RevisionGUID="3d48f66a-2600-4528-9ece-283b5a6eb39d" CreationDate="2014-11-11T20:24:34.743" UserId="15" Text="Many children's toys and other items come with a box or package made of cardboard with a thin plastic coating. How does this affect the recycling process? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can paper recycling facilities generally process this material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7547" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3122" RevisionGUID="3d48f66a-2600-4528-9ece-283b5a6eb39d" CreationDate="2014-11-11T20:24:34.743" UserId="15" Text="In general, is cardboard with a plastic coating acceptable for recycling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7548" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3122" RevisionGUID="3d48f66a-2600-4528-9ece-283b5a6eb39d" CreationDate="2014-11-11T20:24:34.743" UserId="15" Text="|recycling|plastic|paper|cardboard|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3122" RevisionGUID="b6f45952-04d0-4e2d-8710-05b727f2bbf5" CreationDate="2014-11-11T20:48:21.047" UserId="15" Comment="added 219 characters in body" Text="Many children's toys and other items come with a box or package made of cardboard with a thin plastic coating. How does this affect the recycling process? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can paper recycling facilities generally process this material?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think some cardboard packaging for food is using this material too, and in some cases the plastic layer seems to be so thin it's hard to tell whether it's actually plastic, or whether it's just a glossy cardboard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7550" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3004" RevisionGUID="c5dbefc2-af5d-45e0-917a-c95c3250daab" CreationDate="2014-11-11T22:31:11.390" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/532299525931540480" />
  <row Id="7551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3123" RevisionGUID="edae075d-e78e-46d9-9317-c025498b2dab" CreationDate="2014-11-11T22:58:39.823" UserId="1123" Text="I don't have a reference to quote, but I took a Rocket Mass Heater workshop recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short version: Use fire bricks if possible because you want the J Tube to not absorb heat, rather to reflect it back at the wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long version: The workshop instructor emphasized that (in the case of a Mass Heater, at least) you want the J Tube to be as insulated as possible. The idea is to make the fire as hot as possible in the fire box (J Tube), ideally by reflecting the fire's heat back at itself. The hotter the wood in the fire box, the more efficiently it burns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, he had several bricks made from a material similar to the Space Shuttle tiles, kind of like ceramic foam. We built two demonstration J Tubes with nearly identical dimensions, one with traditional bricks (**not** fire bricks), and another using the few fancy ceramic foam bricks with the remainder built from fire brick. Burning small fires in them side by side, the foam brick J Tube fire burned faster and hotter, making a more noticeable &quot;rocket&quot; roar from the draft it created.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3119" RevisionGUID="debd97f7-5339-4311-9833-71768b9f0340" CreationDate="2014-11-11T23:16:15.520" UserId="1773" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="I think it really depends. For instance, for the towels, are they recycled, composted or what? Are the trees used for the paper easily regrown? For the hand dryer, is it solar powered, or does it rely on something worse for the environment? Hand dryers can be loud and produce more noise pollution than paper towels, but some are quieter. Some paper towel dispensers use electricity, too. Paper towels require disposal, which requires some work from humans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's pretty tough to tell which is better in the average scenario. Using paper towels actually has the potential to be good for the environment (if the towels are made and disposed of well), however, they also have the potential to be bad. For instance, if they're cutting down rain forests to get paper, that's really bad, because rain forests are said to be difficult to renew. If they're growing poplar trees for paper, that's pretty good and sustainable. Poplars grow like weeds if you let them. Just stick of piece of a branch under the ground and it should grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes energy to mass produce paper, as they do today, I assume, but I'm not sure how much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As solar power gets more popular and effective, I would think the hand dryer would be more sustainable, so long as the solar power is, but I think paper isn't necessarily a bad option even then, if they do it right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually just dry my hands on my pants, personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: In light of THelper's comment to your question, I would think that hand dryers are generally more sustainable than paper towels. However, if they're solar powered, I would say so for sure, so long as the paneling didn't need to be replaced frequently. Solar power is getting better regularly, these days. If you invest in some panels, I would advise looking for newer technology, since it should be a whole lot better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3124" RevisionGUID="0ff00d4a-d708-4851-8f70-a6ae489b8bfc" CreationDate="2014-11-12T00:21:36.797" UserId="1773" Text="One of the best ways to minimize the impact of pesticides on vegetables as a consumer is to plant a garden (or buy from someone with growing practices you trust and understand). That way you know most of what's going into it (other than environmental pollution and such, which is probably present in the others in equivalent amounts anyway). Growing indoors in another option. Make sure your soil has the right things in it to produce nutritious plants. Some basalt rockdust in compost shouldn't hurt to help your outdoor garden out. Other people may have other recommendations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With apples, if your area is like mine, your major problem will probably be worms (some kind of caterpillar, probably) getting black holes in your apples. Treating that without pesticides may be a challenge, but just for the record, wormy apples are still edible (you just have to cut the part out that the worm eats through).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend experimenting with tomatoes a lot. Try to grow some inside. It might be easier than you think. I've got a tomato in my bedroom windowsill (which does not get a whole lot of light) in a very small jar with a mixture of clay-type topsoil and potting soil, and it's still growing flowers after a few months. I did use a little fertilize after it looked like it needed it, though. So, I imagine with a grow light and more and better soil things would be a whole lot better. I just planted some new tomato seeds fresh from the tomato after soaking them in water with hydrogen peroxide for hours (longer than I meant to), and they germinated in just a few days. I guess hydrogen peroxide must help! I'm not experienced with eggplants or bittergourds, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some seed sites that I enjoy (there are lots more out there), in no particular order, and which may help you if you want to garden (free printed catalogs are also a plus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://www.gurneys.com/&#xD;&#xA;* http://www.reimerseeds.com/&#xD;&#xA;* http://www.rareseeds.com/ (everything here is heirloom)&#xD;&#xA;* http://www.burpee.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for sticking to the supermarkets, washing is going to be good for some chemicals. Some chemicals might permeate the whole fruit, to some degree, though. However, even then, washing is probably better than nothing. What you use to wash may have a considerable impact, but it probably won't be a great help in every case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's good to know that even organic alternatives to synthetic chemicals are still sometimes problematic. For example, with apples, they might use copper to protect or treat the trees. You may get more copper in your diet as a result. The trees probably absorb more copper, too (so, washing it off won't be entirely effective). However, maybe you need extra copper in your diet (it depends on your levels and how much is in the fruit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also be concerned about such as fungicides and anti-bacterial agents for plants, rather than just pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One alternative to trying to wash all the pesticides off your fruit would be to rinse the fruits off and then peel them. That way, you know you're not eating wax and chemicals stuck in the wax. Some food waxes may actually be healthy, but the chemicals mixed in them may not be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sending requests to the businesses who grow, process and sell the food is a good idea, too, I think. It may not immediately solve the problem, but it should help everyone at least a little bit in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, avoiding the chemicals may not always be practical. So, being healthy enough to withstand them is a very good idea. Make sure your liver and kidneys are healthy (this should help you to get rid of the chemicals when you eat them). Milk thistle and other herbs may be good for your liver if it needs help. Avoid alcohol/drugs. Get enough sunlight, fresh clean air, exercise, and other good stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you could try instead of just salt water is food grade diatomaceous earth mixed with water. That chelates a lot of stuff and detoxifies considerably. It would probably help with your fruit (and maybe help to remove the wax, too, due to its texture). Just rinse it off afterward (it rinses right off with water). I've never tried this, and I doubt anyone else has either, but I think it might help, and it should be safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, there are lots of chemicals out there that people might use, and new ones arise. You could become an expert on every single one, or you could grow your own garden, even if it has to be indoors and become an expert in something a little more cheery instead (gardening is good for you). However, if you have to get it from the supermarket, washing and peeling is probably a good idea. Live healthfully (not just as it pertains to pesticides). Maybe consider food grade diatomaceous earth with water for washing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3124" RevisionGUID="a3e095bb-f8d3-41d8-8df8-a697a8af6109" CreationDate="2014-11-12T00:31:07.287" UserId="1773" Comment="edited body" Text="One of the best ways to minimize the impact of pesticides on vegetables as a consumer is to plant a garden (or buy from someone with growing practices you trust and understand). That way you know most of what's going into it (other than environmental pollution and such, which is probably present in the others in equivalent amounts anyway). Growing indoors is another option. Make sure your soil has the right things in it to produce nutritious plants. Some basalt rockdust in compost shouldn't hurt to help your outdoor garden out. Other people may have other recommendations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With apples, if your area is like mine, your major problem will probably be worms (some kind of caterpillar, probably) getting black holes in your apples. Treating that without pesticides may be a challenge, but just for the record, wormy apples are still edible (you just have to cut the part out that the worm eats through).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend experimenting with tomatoes a lot. Try to grow some inside. It might be easier than you think. I've got a tomato in my bedroom windowsill (which does not get a whole lot of light) in a very small jar with a mixture of clay-type topsoil and potting soil, and it's still growing flowers after a few months. I did use a little fertilize after it looked like it needed it, though. So, I imagine with a grow light and more and better soil things would be a whole lot better. I just planted some new tomato seeds fresh from the tomato after soaking them in water with hydrogen peroxide for hours (longer than I meant to), and they germinated in just a few days. I guess hydrogen peroxide must help! I'm not experienced with eggplants or bittergourds, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some seed sites that I enjoy (there are lots more out there), in no particular order, and which may help you if you want to garden (free printed catalogs are also a plus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://www.gurneys.com/&#xD;&#xA;* http://www.reimerseeds.com/&#xD;&#xA;* http://www.rareseeds.com/ (everything here is heirloom)&#xD;&#xA;* http://www.burpee.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for sticking to the supermarkets, washing is going to be good for some chemicals. Some chemicals might permeate the whole fruit, to some degree, though. However, even then, washing is probably better than nothing. What you use to wash may have a considerable impact, but it probably won't be a great help in every case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's good to know that even organic alternatives to synthetic chemicals are still sometimes problematic. For example, with apples, they might use copper to protect or treat the trees. You may get more copper in your diet as a result. The trees probably absorb more copper, too (so, washing it off won't be entirely effective). However, maybe you need extra copper in your diet (it depends on your levels and how much is in the fruit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also be concerned about such as fungicides and anti-bacterial agents for plants, rather than just pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One alternative to trying to wash all the pesticides off your fruit would be to rinse the fruits off and then peel them. That way, you know you're not eating wax and chemicals stuck in the wax. Some food waxes may actually be healthy, but the chemicals mixed in them may not be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sending requests to the businesses who grow, process and sell the food is a good idea, too, I think. It may not immediately solve the problem, but it should help everyone at least a little bit in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, avoiding the chemicals may not always be practical. So, being healthy enough to withstand them is a very good idea. Make sure your liver and kidneys are healthy (this should help you to get rid of the chemicals when you eat them). Milk thistle and other herbs may be good for your liver if it needs help. Avoid alcohol/drugs. Get enough sunlight, fresh clean air, exercise, and other good stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you could try instead of just salt water is food grade diatomaceous earth mixed with water. That chelates a lot of stuff and detoxifies considerably. It would probably help with your fruit (and maybe help to remove the wax, too, due to its texture). Just rinse it off afterward (it rinses right off with water). I've never tried this, and I doubt anyone else has either, but I think it might help, and it should be safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, there are lots of chemicals out there that people might use, and new ones arise. You could become an expert on every single one, or you could grow your own garden, even if it has to be indoors and become an expert in something a little more cheery instead (gardening is good for you). However, if you have to get it from the supermarket, washing and peeling is probably a good idea. Live healthfully (not just as it pertains to pesticides). Maybe consider food grade diatomaceous earth with water for washing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3125" RevisionGUID="fc7ba42a-e821-4dd9-a5f6-f6280395e099" CreationDate="2014-11-12T05:53:37.133" UserId="1811" Text="Different groups have put forward different lists of foods one should always buy organic and foods one does not need to buy organic. To make it catchy, some have created a Dirty Dozen list and a Clean 15 list. Different groups have assembled different lists, with some overlap. Here are items I've found on various Dirty Dozen lists that have some of the highest pesticide content, and which one is advised to always buy organic. Notice there is some apparent duplication because some lists say grapes whereas others say only imported grapes are problematic for pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blueberries (Domestic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Celery&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cherries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cherry Tomatoes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collard Greens&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cucumbers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grapes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grapes (Imported)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hot Peppers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kale&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lettuce&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nectarines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nectarines (Imported)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peaches&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pears&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potatoes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Snap Peas (Imported)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spinach&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strawberries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sweet Bell Peppers&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3126" RevisionGUID="80f8eeb0-777c-4d41-bc93-b7b107874ca5" CreationDate="2014-11-12T06:06:13.813" UserId="1811" Text="Check out Sugru&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sugru.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a self setting silicone that cures in 24 hours. I have used it to perform a number of repairs, and it is pretty amazing stuff. I repaired a pair of sunglasses with Sugru when the arm broke. The arm remained in a fixed open position, but it worked until my wife folded the fixed arm and broke it again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most useful pack to start with is the multicolor 8 pack of 5 gram packets. Store it in your refrigerator to extend it's life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has the consistency of Play Doh or modeling clay, but once it cures it's very solid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Sugru pack][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cmjdx.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3128" RevisionGUID="875534cf-73b9-429b-8c55-6e2266e6b11f" CreationDate="2014-11-12T16:32:52.300" UserId="1828" Text="I wash vegetables under tap water. For leafy vegetables I use potassium permanganate solution. That's all, no complicated processes :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3129" RevisionGUID="e930d28b-3775-45f0-9970-ea4895da3049" CreationDate="2014-11-13T07:08:08.070" UserId="1829" Text="I tried chewing on some just now, chewed it for about a minute.  took it out of my mouth and tried pulling at it, pulling it apart, and it responded much like regular paper.  &#xD;&#xA;I am absolutely going to compost it. shred it, then compost it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am referring to waxed paper wrappers from fast food restaurants, Burger King and Taco Bell burrito wrapping papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;also big thanks to chtfn for the great information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3128" RevisionGUID="705d02c9-8183-4f88-b800-8f01247376d5" CreationDate="2014-11-13T08:56:34.583" UserId="1828" Comment="added web links for explanation" Text="I wash vegetables under tap water. For leafy vegetables I use potassium permanganate solution. That's all, no complicated processes :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: Following explanatory para taken from [HERE][1] Also have a look at [THIS][2] website for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Potassium permanganate solutions effectively remove a variety of chemical pesticide residues from fruits and vegetables, making them safer to consume. Dilute solutions will degrade chlorinated solvents, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, phenolics, organo-pesticides and substituted aromatics. As one example, AGRIS, the International Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and Technology, an information management program started by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, reported in 2010 that Leafy Chinese-Kale treated with a 0.001 percent potassium permanganate solution effectively removed pesticide residues. Washing vegetables in potassium permanganate removed more pesticide residue than washing in water alone.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.livestrong.com/article/303623-potassium-permanganate-to-wash-vegetables/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esvasa.com/?q=clean_fruits_and_vegetables" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3130" RevisionGUID="db86aacb-29a0-4f0a-8947-856d2e4fcfc6" CreationDate="2014-11-13T11:10:34.080" UserId="1830" Text="I would like to dispose of a plastic cup:&#xA;&#xA;![ECO CUP][1]&#xA;&#xA;Bottom view:&#xA;&#xA;![ECO CUP bottom][2]&#xA;&#xA;Markings on the cup say:&#xA;&#xA;- 100% COMPOSTABLE &amp; BIODEGRADABLE&#xA;- MADE FROM 100% RENEWABLE RESOURCE&#xA;- ECO-CUP® Made from plant&#xA;- NatureWorks®&#xA;- Type 7 plastic PLA&#xA;&#xA;I think I should toss it in our city-provided compostables collection bin. However, the [city's guidelines][3] say&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Unaccepted items:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - Plastic bags, wrap, or containers&#xA;&gt; - Compostable or biodegradable plastic bags&#xA;&gt; - …&#xA;&#xA;[Curbside recycling won't take it either][4]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Not accepted:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - Packaging labelled biodegradable or compostable&#xA;&#xA;So, do I have to toss it as garbage?  That seems like an unfortunate and ironic waste. Is there a better alternative?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/td6HR.jpg&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TW2bo.jpg&#xA;  [3]: http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/what-food-scraps-and-yard-waste-go-in-green-bins.aspx&#xA;  [4]: http://recyclinginbc.ca/program/can-recycled/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7563" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3130" RevisionGUID="db86aacb-29a0-4f0a-8947-856d2e4fcfc6" CreationDate="2014-11-13T11:10:34.080" UserId="1830" Text="How to dispose of a plant-based plastic ECO-CUP" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7564" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3130" RevisionGUID="db86aacb-29a0-4f0a-8947-856d2e4fcfc6" CreationDate="2014-11-13T11:10:34.080" UserId="1830" Text="|recycling|waste-minimisation|compostable-plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3131" RevisionGUID="cbe01bf9-39dd-459c-b71d-b95550965477" CreationDate="2014-11-13T11:24:30.893" UserId="1830" Text="I have a paper-based take-out container from a restaurant take-home meal:&#xA;&#xA;![bottom of container][1]&#xA;&#xA;The inside is lined with some waterproof coating. I can't tell if it is wax or plastic.&#xA;&#xA;&quot;Please recycle this container&quot;, it says.  Would it be OK to recycle it as paper along with the usual curbside recycling? Or should I treat it like a Tetra Pak container?&#xA;&#xA;(Location is Vancouver, Canada, if it makes a difference.)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x6Aoj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3131" RevisionGUID="cbe01bf9-39dd-459c-b71d-b95550965477" CreationDate="2014-11-13T11:24:30.893" UserId="1830" Text="How to dispose of coated paper take-out container" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3131" RevisionGUID="cbe01bf9-39dd-459c-b71d-b95550965477" CreationDate="2014-11-13T11:24:30.893" UserId="1830" Text="|recycling|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3128" RevisionGUID="60dcbbc5-ddf9-47b9-8b37-28f82eccc973" CreationDate="2014-11-13T11:36:43.330" UserId="642" Comment="formatting" Text="I wash vegetables under tap water. For leafy vegetables I use potassium permanganate solution. That's all, no complicated processes :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following explanatory paragraph was taken from article [Potassium Permanganate to Wash Vegetables][1]. Also have a look at [How to clean Fruits and Vegetables][2] for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Potassium permanganate solutions effectively remove a variety of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chemical pesticide residues from fruits and vegetables, making them&#xD;&#xA;&gt; safer to consume. Dilute solutions will degrade chlorinated solvents,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polyaromatic hydrocarbons, phenolics, organo-pesticides and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substituted aromatics. As one example, AGRIS, the International&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and Technology, an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; information management program started by the Food and Agriculture&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Organization of the United Nations, reported in 2010 that Leafy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chinese-Kale treated with a 0.001 percent potassium permanganate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solution effectively removed pesticide residues. Washing vegetables in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; potassium permanganate removed more pesticide residue than washing in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; water alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.livestrong.com/article/303623-potassium-permanganate-to-wash-vegetables/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.esvasa.com/?q=clean_fruits_and_vegetables" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7570" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3128" RevisionGUID="60dcbbc5-ddf9-47b9-8b37-28f82eccc973" CreationDate="2014-11-13T11:36:43.330" Comment="Proposed by 642 approved by 1828 edit id of 300" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3132" RevisionGUID="17617276-bc25-42b8-9b65-b152602a7514" CreationDate="2014-11-13T11:41:31.460" UserId="99" Text="The problem with PLA-based plastic is that it requires high temperatures for a longer period to actually degrade and turn into compost. Theoretically it is possible to compost it along with all other compostables (food leftovers, garden wastes), but PLA takes much longer to fully decompose than other compostables and it seems most municipal composting centers don't bother doing this. Instead they filter out any plastics or large objects and incinerate them (at least that's what they do where I live).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 things you can do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Throw it in the 'general' waste. The plastic either gets either dumped in a landfill which would be unfortunate, or it gets incinerated in which case it may be useful as an energy source.&#xD;&#xA;2. You can try and compost it yourself using hot composting. However, proper hot composting isn't easy as you need to monitor the temperatures in your compost pile and turn the material regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information about compostable plastic can be found [in this community-wiki question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2594/99)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3131" RevisionGUID="c2d39f86-5475-4383-8deb-a4db26f5424b" CreationDate="2014-11-13T11:50:09.493" UserId="1830" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="I have a paper-based take-out container from a restaurant take-home meal:&#xA;&#xA;![bottom of container][1]&#xA;&#xA;The inside is lined with some waterproof coating. I can't tell if it is wax or plastic.&#xA;&#xA;&quot;Please recycle this container&quot;, it says.  Would it be OK to recycle it as paper along with the usual curbside recycling? Or should I treat it like a Tetra Pak container?  Or maybe I could toss it in the city compost?&#xA;&#xA;(Location is Vancouver, Canada, if it makes a difference.)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x6Aoj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3124" RevisionGUID="f9b874b1-808e-46f8-ae46-bc2fc4a6d8d9" CreationDate="2014-11-13T18:11:23.123" UserId="1773" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="One of the best ways to minimize the impact of pesticides on vegetables as a consumer is to plant a garden (or buy from someone with growing practices you trust and understand). That way you know most of what's going into it (other than environmental pollution and such, which is probably present in the others in equivalent amounts anyway). Growing indoors is another option. Make sure your soil has the right things in it to produce nutritious plants. Some basalt rockdust in compost shouldn't hurt to help your outdoor garden out. Other people may have other recommendations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With apples, if your area is like mine, your major problem will probably be worms (some kind of caterpillar, probably) getting black holes in your apples. Treating that without pesticides may be a challenge, but just for the record, wormy apples are still edible (you just have to cut the part out that the worm eats through).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend experimenting with tomatoes a lot. Try to grow some inside. It might be easier than you think. I've got a tomato in my bedroom windowsill (which does not get a whole lot of light) in a very small jar with a mixture of clay-type topsoil and potting soil, and it's still growing flowers after a few months. I did use a little fertilize after it looked like it needed it, though. So, I imagine with a grow light and more and better soil things would be a whole lot better. I just planted some new tomato seeds fresh from another tomato after soaking them in water with hydrogen peroxide for hours (longer than I meant to), and they germinated in just a few days. I guess hydrogen peroxide must help! I'm not experienced with eggplants or bittergourds, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some seed sites that I enjoy (there are lots more out there), in no particular order, and which may help you if you want to garden (free printed catalogs are also a plus):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://www.gurneys.com/&#xD;&#xA;* http://www.reimerseeds.com/&#xD;&#xA;* http://www.rareseeds.com/ (everything here is heirloom)&#xD;&#xA;* http://www.burpee.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for sticking to the supermarkets, washing is going to be good for some chemicals. Some chemicals might permeate the whole fruit, to some degree, though. However, even then, washing is probably better than nothing. What you use to wash may have a considerable impact, but it probably won't be a great help in every case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's good to know that even organic alternatives to synthetic chemicals are still sometimes problematic. For example, with apples, they might use copper to protect or treat the trees. You may get more copper in your diet as a result. The trees probably absorb more copper, too (so, washing it off won't be entirely effective). However, maybe you need extra copper in your diet (it depends on your levels and how much is in the fruit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also be concerned about such as fungicides and anti-bacterial agents for plants, rather than just pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One alternative to trying to wash all the pesticides off your fruit would be to rinse the fruits off and then peel them. That way, you know you're not eating wax and chemicals stuck in the wax. Some food waxes may actually be healthy, but the chemicals mixed in them may not be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sending requests to the businesses who grow, process and sell the food is a good idea, too, I think. It may not immediately solve the problem, but it should help everyone at least a little bit in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, avoiding the chemicals may not always be practical. So, being healthy enough to withstand them is a very good idea. Make sure your liver and kidneys are healthy (this should help you to get rid of the chemicals when you eat them). Milk thistle and other herbs may be good for your liver if it needs help. Avoid alcohol/drugs. Get enough sunlight, fresh clean air, exercise, and other good stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you could try instead of just salt water is food grade diatomaceous earth mixed with water. That chelates a lot of stuff and detoxifies considerably. It would probably help with your fruit (and maybe help to remove the wax, too, due to its texture). Just rinse it off afterward (it rinses right off with water). I've never tried this, and I doubt anyone else has either, but I think it might help, and it should be safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, there are lots of chemicals out there that people might use, and new ones arise. You could become an expert on every single one, or you could grow your own garden, even if it has to be indoors and become an expert in something a little more cheery instead (gardening is good for you). However, if you have to get it from the supermarket, washing and peeling is probably a good idea. Live healthfully (not just as it pertains to pesticides). Maybe consider food grade diatomaceous earth with water for washing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3134" RevisionGUID="aee30df2-4144-4074-90f9-ef077eb951ed" CreationDate="2014-11-14T10:01:32.900" UserId="1828" Text="Well, I know the question is more about outdoor plants (Trees) but I found a Wiki page on NASA's study about Indoor plants, which help remove toxic agents like benzene, ammonia etc. from air. [NASA Clean Air Study][1] has the details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Clean_Air_Study" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3136" RevisionGUID="d9a20fef-b73f-46ca-9bf9-98ae83000198" CreationDate="2014-11-15T14:42:02.663" UserId="1688" Text="If I were to build a Rocket Stove for the long run, then I would go for a mineral. Not just a mineral, but a fire resistant composition such as _Grog, also known as fire sand and chamotte&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;_. The reason for me to choose so, stems from the experience the following two YouTube pages had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bigelow Brook Farm&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;The following screenshot is taken from the last post of _Bigelow Brook Farms&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;_ YouTube page, which covers the build (and re-build) of a Rocket Stove in detail and shows a totally corroded iron heat riser:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has happened over a course of a winter and intensive usage. Nonetheless it shows that intense heat can even corrode the toughest material. Bigelow Brook Farm has re-build the heat riser with fire bricks and will post an update on that in due time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zero Fossil Fuel&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;Has made as a very detailed series on how to build a Rocket Stove. At 1'18&quot; in the _video&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;_, he makes reference to the fact that he was strongly advised against used steel.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Grog (clay)][3]&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Bigelow Brook Farm][4]&#xD;&#xA; 3. [Zero Fossil Fuel][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;I'm not affiliated to either of the YouTube pages mentioned in this post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IMPoK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tbOtl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grog_(clay)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://youtu.be/7RyvsZD1_CU&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://youtu.be/-rcJ_lp-bYI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7582" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3130" RevisionGUID="5c240f87-d86d-4fdd-b9b6-e9b0459d80d4" CreationDate="2014-11-15T22:44:05.007" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/533752322174636032" />
  <row Id="7583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3136" RevisionGUID="6771b581-023d-4466-8567-1cbfd5734565" CreationDate="2014-11-16T13:36:32.550" UserId="1688" Comment="grammar" Text="If I were to build a Rocket Stove for the long run, then I would go for a mineral. Not just a mineral, but a fire resistant composition such as _Grog, also known as fire sand and chamotte&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;_. The reason for me to choose so, stems from the experience the following two YouTube pages had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bigelow Brook Farm&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;The following screenshot is taken from the last post of _Bigelow Brook Farms&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;_ YouTube page, which covers the build (and re-build) of a Rocket Stove in detail and shows a totally corroded iron heat riser:&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has happened over a course of a winter and intensive usage. Nonetheless it shows that intense heat can even corrode the toughest material. Bigelow Brook Farm has re-build the heat riser with fire bricks and will post an update on that in due time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zero Fossil Fuel&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;Has made as a very detailed series on how to build a Rocket Stove. At 1'18&quot; in the _video&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;_, he makes reference to the fact that he was strongly advised against the use of steel.&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Grog (clay)][3]&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Bigelow Brook Farm][4]&#xD;&#xA; 3. [Zero Fossil Fuel][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;I'm not affiliated to either of the YouTube pages mentioned in this post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IMPoK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tbOtl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grog_(clay)&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://youtu.be/7RyvsZD1_CU&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://youtu.be/-rcJ_lp-bYI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3137" RevisionGUID="f9af9770-d18d-41b0-a6ea-083ebeb707d4" CreationDate="2014-11-16T16:05:03.987" UserId="1053" Text="If it was easy to remove any pesticide or residue from a large variety of fruits and vegetables, by rinsing or soaking them in some easily-available harmless product, then there would be far less need for activists to try to get companies to stop using such products on our food. (Not zero need: the effect on farm workers, on bees, and on the ground where the products are grown add up quite severely.) But one of the reasons people buy organic food or grow their own is that it's often very difficult to remove the pesticides. Washing and peeling only work for certain applications - those that leave a film on the surface, for example - and in some cases the peel is an important part of the food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you didn't ask how to remove the pesticides. You asked how to avoid bad effects on you. I suggest, in order of importance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - try to source organic vegetables. They will not have had pesticides applied to them.&#xD;&#xA; - if you can only afford (or find) certain vegetables without pesticides, make sure you choose the ones you eat the most and cannot peel. For example, greens like spinach or kale can't be peeled and can be hard to wash.&#xD;&#xA; - investigate the particular vegetables you buy a lot and learn whether pesticides are even used on them where yours are grown. Some plants don't need to be treated with pesticides. Adjust your eating patterns to eat more of those. If some of the produce you buy is imported at certain times of the year, investigate whether the imported produce is more or less likely to have been treated with pesticides. Consider not eating that item again until it is in season locally if you have a local non-treated source.&#xD;&#xA; - wash produce in plain water, or possibly with a little vinegar. Both bleach and hydrogen peroxide can be dangerous if you don't dilute enough or rinse enough, and there is no evidence they help. The same applies to salt water and to commercially available vegetable washes&#xD;&#xA; - peel non organic produce even if you normally wouldn't (eg apples, cucumber)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the long run, your most effective strategies are to stop buying produce that has been treated with pesticides (by growing your own or buying organic) and to join movements that try to encourage producers to use less pesticides. You may have to give up certain foods, or give them up at certain times of the year, if you want to take in less pesticide residue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, you could decide to trust your government. The world over, there are standards for how much pesticide residue can remain in food, and inspectors who check to see the standards are being met. If you live somewhere where such rules are generally set with safety in mind (rather than profit), where most producers comply with the rules, and where inspectors operate honestly and with public safety in mind, then you may decide that you are worrying about nothing and you can eat purchased produce with no more concerns. I understand that not all governments and cultures meet these standards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3099" RevisionGUID="e52089b0-58d3-44b2-b36a-bcaca37dfb31" CreationDate="2014-11-16T21:35:34.163" UserId="1053" Comment="clarified ambiguous title and body based on comment from OP" Text="What are the major methods to be followed to minimize the effect of pesticides or their residues  that may be in or on vegetables I buy? Does it differ according to the vegetables? If so, I am specifically interested in vegetables like tomatoes, brinjal, bittergourd, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually we put the vegetables in salt water for some hours before cooking. Please let me know if there are other effective methods to prevent the pesticide residues from affecting me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7586" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3099" RevisionGUID="e52089b0-58d3-44b2-b36a-bcaca37dfb31" CreationDate="2014-11-16T21:35:34.163" UserId="1053" Comment="clarified ambiguous title and body based on comment from OP" Text="What are the best methods to minimize the effect (on me) of possible pesticides in or on vegetables I buy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7587" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3099" RevisionGUID="e52089b0-58d3-44b2-b36a-bcaca37dfb31" CreationDate="2014-11-16T21:35:34.163" Comment="Proposed by 1053 approved by 99 edit id of 301" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3138" RevisionGUID="9d8abee7-085c-4fd6-bf0f-ddd6b204f954" CreationDate="2014-11-17T21:23:44.727" UserId="99" Text="What does science say about the expected growth of the human population in the next decades?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3138" RevisionGUID="9d8abee7-085c-4fd6-bf0f-ddd6b204f954" CreationDate="2014-11-17T21:23:44.727" UserId="99" Text="How much is the world population expected to grow in the next decades?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3138" RevisionGUID="9d8abee7-085c-4fd6-bf0f-ddd6b204f954" CreationDate="2014-11-17T21:23:44.727" UserId="99" Text="|population|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3139" RevisionGUID="5ec1bd7a-5853-4429-8249-cd7515b3f430" CreationDate="2014-11-17T21:23:44.727" UserId="99" Text="Currently we have [over 7 billion people in the world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population). In 2010 the UN made several projections for world population growth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Picture from \[wikipedia\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;*World population estimates from 1800 to 2100, based on &quot;high&quot;, &quot;medium&quot; and &quot;low&quot; United Nations projections in 2010. [source wikipedia](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/World-Population-1800-2100.svg/640px-World-Population-1800-2100.svg.png)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worst case scenario (red line) is that the world population will continue to grow and we’ll have about 10.5 billion people in 2050. The best case scenario (green line) is that the population will stop growing soon and we’ll have a peak of 8 billion people somewhere around 2045.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The UN scenario that is generally thought to be the most plausible is that the world population will continue to grow to around 10 billion people at the end of the 21st century and then remain stable (the yellow line).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [a recent statistical study](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/09/17/science.1257469) says that this 'most likely' UN projection is incorrect and claims that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion people, will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion in 2100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1cCXQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3139" RevisionGUID="39725d66-29e8-4075-8992-80bb35e8db12" CreationDate="2014-11-17T21:33:18.637" UserId="99" Comment="added 300 characters in body" Text="Currently we have [over 7 billion people in the world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population). In 2010 the UN made several projections for world population growth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Picture from \[wikipedia\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;*World population estimates from 1800 to 2100, based on &quot;high&quot;, &quot;medium&quot; and &quot;low&quot; United Nations projections in 2010. [source wikipedia](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/World-Population-1800-2100.svg/640px-World-Population-1800-2100.svg.png)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worst case scenario (red line) is that the world population will continue to grow and we’ll have about 10.5 billion people in 2050. The best case scenario (green line) is that the population will stop growing soon and we’ll have a peak of 8 billion people somewhere around 2045.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The UN scenario that is generally thought to be the most plausible is that the world population will continue to grow to around 10 billion people at the end of the 21st century and then remain stable (the yellow line).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [a recent statistical study](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/09/17/science.1257469) says that this 'most likely' UN projection is incorrect and claims that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion people, will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion in 2100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [critics on this new study](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26231-global-population-may-boom-well-beyond-the-year-2050.html#.VGpo_PmG-So) say that it doesn't take improvements to female education in Africa into account, which is a key driver in (slowing) population growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1cCXQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3140" RevisionGUID="424e91f9-19d1-428b-9e57-106c910fd3b8" CreationDate="2014-11-18T07:42:19.647" UserId="99" Text="Population refers to the size of a particular species in a defined habitat. The population may grow or decline which can have consequences for the amount of used resources and ultimately for the survival of the species." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3141" RevisionGUID="6ebe71b2-a551-4c52-9998-2ff486cd659e" CreationDate="2014-11-18T07:42:19.647" UserId="99" Text="the size of a particular species in a defined habitat and the consequences for it's sustainability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3142" RevisionGUID="96103fb3-16d7-4ddb-bb33-4c5c922137a1" CreationDate="2014-11-18T11:11:46.943" UserId="48" Text="A few years ago, the IPAT identity was all the rage when talking about the aggregate human impact on the global ecosystem. What is the IPAT identity exactly, and is it still relevant, or has it been superseded?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3142" RevisionGUID="96103fb3-16d7-4ddb-bb33-4c5c922137a1" CreationDate="2014-11-18T11:11:46.943" UserId="48" Text="What is the IPAT identity, and does it still matter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3142" RevisionGUID="96103fb3-16d7-4ddb-bb33-4c5c922137a1" CreationDate="2014-11-18T11:11:46.943" UserId="48" Text="|ecological-footprint|population|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3143" RevisionGUID="4947dbcd-a9a2-4f3d-b08e-ff45a9a3ccf2" CreationDate="2014-11-18T18:17:12.673" UserId="1210" Text="We're considering a biomass boiler for our guesthouse (1820 vintage with corresponding energy issues).  The opportunity to reduce gas usage and the economics of the RHI scheme in the UK (a sort-of feed-in tariff for logs) would seem to make this a no-brainer choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, word-of-mouth comments question whether the *source* of wood pellets for the boiler is itself very sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any **reliable** references or pointers where I can learn more about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*PS. We have considered wood chip, and log, variants of biomass boilers which avoids the pellet manufacturing process and would offer better chances of a geographical local source.  There are various logistical issues with these in our particular circumstances.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7599" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3143" RevisionGUID="4947dbcd-a9a2-4f3d-b08e-ff45a9a3ccf2" CreationDate="2014-11-18T18:17:12.673" UserId="1210" Text="Sustainability of wood pellet sources for biomass boiler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7600" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3143" RevisionGUID="4947dbcd-a9a2-4f3d-b08e-ff45a9a3ccf2" CreationDate="2014-11-18T18:17:12.673" UserId="1210" Text="|energy|heating|uk|biomass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3144" RevisionGUID="a376fd70-975b-4084-aea0-08eb0ad7855f" CreationDate="2014-11-18T23:13:55.160" UserId="1842" Text="I just purchased a consumer product.  It was packaged in a clear plastic 'disposable' container.  This shipping container is not marked in any way.  There is no material designation or recycling code marking any where on the plastic.   I called the manufacturer of the product to complain, and they told me there there is no requirement for them to do so.  They told me in the USA, this is dictated by state law.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure I believe them.  I can find lots and lots of stuff on what the identification markings mean, but virtually nothing on if manufacturers are REQUIRED to place them there in the first place.  I've been wading through my state's published laws with extensive searches and I'm coming up totally empty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Unmarked Plastic Packaging][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can find some info on the European Union requirements but I'm not seeing much on USA consumer goods, either at a US federal level or state level.  Note I do see a whole lot of stuff on plastic bottles...  (And on a funny side note, the best overview of EU laws comes from the US Commercial service, www.export.gov, an organization that helps US businesses sell products in the EU.  What's funny about that? I can use a US government website to find about laws in other countries, but I can't find anything about the rules/ laws in the US.  So yeah, I find that funny.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anybody know where to look to find out if consumer products and shipping material are REQUIRED to be marked for recycling in the USA?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R8Fsm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3144" RevisionGUID="a376fd70-975b-4084-aea0-08eb0ad7855f" CreationDate="2014-11-18T23:13:55.160" UserId="1842" Text="When are manufacturers required to mark products and packaging with recycling codes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3144" RevisionGUID="a376fd70-975b-4084-aea0-08eb0ad7855f" CreationDate="2014-11-18T23:13:55.160" UserId="1842" Text="|recycling|waste|plastic|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3145" RevisionGUID="287cd6e6-d3a1-4ba0-a78a-ab05062973e0" CreationDate="2014-11-19T11:32:40.460" UserId="99" Text="I can’t find proof in any legal documentation, but I did find several documents online that say that 39 US states require a SPI code (or Resin Identification Code or RIC as it is also called) on plastic bottles and containers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[One document I found](http://www.natureworksllc.com/~/media/The_Ingeo_Journey/EndofLife_Options/plastic_codes/2008_04_10_plastic_code_guidelines_pdf.pdf) has the following table:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Table with SPI Labeling Requirements in the United States][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the name of the document I suspect that it was created in 2008, so things may have changed. The same document also gives some examples of non-containers for which the SPI code apparently is not mandatory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The SPI code is not required for non-containers, such as plastic films, bags, trays, etc. per use of the SPI code on such packaging as a voluntary labeling method is currently permitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Texc5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7605" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3144" RevisionGUID="6960bd4b-e975-4e34-bbd8-64dabf5d3f44" CreationDate="2014-11-19T13:51:25.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/535067824985608192" />
  <row Id="7606" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3142" RevisionGUID="3e87844b-e31d-49cf-a1d5-99e4ff3d4fc8" CreationDate="2014-11-19T16:51:24.767" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/535113122592587776" />
  <row Id="7607" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3138" RevisionGUID="cc406b4a-0626-46f3-94bf-bc5a48c67ab3" CreationDate="2014-11-20T01:51:29.810" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/535249038942420992" />
  <row Id="7608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3143" RevisionGUID="4d8746e4-5e8e-4137-bd22-7c4ef6be0344" CreationDate="2014-11-20T13:13:36.157" UserId="1210" Comment="added link" Text="We're considering a biomass boiler for our guesthouse (1820 vintage with corresponding energy issues).  The opportunity to reduce gas usage and the economics of the RHI scheme in the UK (a sort-of feed-in tariff for logs) would seem to make this a no-brainer choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, word-of-mouth comments question whether the *source* of wood pellets for the boiler is itself very sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any **reliable** references or pointers where I can learn more about this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Edit: have found this one from Ethical Consumer. http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/energy/biomassboilers.aspx &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;*PS. We have considered wood chip, and log, variants of biomass boilers which avoids the pellet manufacturing process and would offer better chances of a geographical local source.  There are various logistical issues with these in our particular circumstances.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7609" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="8ac18f43-6dcd-4fff-a472-7132a49cf1c4" CreationDate="2014-11-20T14:52:31.667" UserId="1780" Comment="Added tag." Text="|defining-sustainability|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7610" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="8ac18f43-6dcd-4fff-a472-7132a49cf1c4" CreationDate="2014-11-20T14:52:31.667" Comment="Proposed by 1780 approved by -1 edit id of 302" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="0e5af747-d9f9-4df8-8fa3-5d941804ae4e" CreationDate="2014-11-20T14:52:31.667" UserId="99" Comment="Added cooking tag, removed 'defining-sustainability' tag" Text="What are the most sustainable options for cooking &quot;appliances.&quot;  Obviously any appliance or cooking device that utilizes petroleum-based gas to fuel their heat source is going to be unsustainable.  But what are the best options that are sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7612" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="584" RevisionGUID="0e5af747-d9f9-4df8-8fa3-5d941804ae4e" CreationDate="2014-11-20T14:52:31.667" UserId="99" Comment="Added cooking tag, removed 'defining-sustainability' tag" Text="|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7613" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3143" RevisionGUID="573e071c-ad1b-4794-94fa-de23cdbf76d6" CreationDate="2014-11-20T16:51:25.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/535475511733268480" />
  <row Id="7614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="585" RevisionGUID="df02cdbc-4505-4ad1-ad10-22435016f46a" CreationDate="2014-11-21T11:33:53.020" UserId="48" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="If you live remotely, and have lots of wood or other biomass growing out back that you can harvest by hand, and that will grow at least as fast as you harvest it, then that is probably the most sustainable cooking fuel. However, this sort of cooking is typically 30-40% efficient, so high inputs are needed for a given output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For everyone else, then induction hobs, well-insulated convection ovens and microwave ovens powered by electricity generated from renewable sources are the most sustainable cooking media, as long as the cooking devices are sent for repair or recycling at the end of their lives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As usual, a life-cycle assessment database would be needed to assess the full cradle-to-cradle impact of particular devices.  Publications such as [Ethical Consumer][1] do audits, including sustainability, of [various consumer devices including cookers][2]. Espresso fans like me will be reassured to see that [the classic Bialetti stove-top scores well on sustainability][3] (if you can live with having that much steel or aluminium dedicated to a single wonderful purpose.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/appliances.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/appliances/coffeemakers.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0H2Sq.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3146" RevisionGUID="a70573a7-6585-4625-87a5-da8e9d054547" CreationDate="2014-11-21T19:03:18.737" UserId="1210" Text="This is a partial self-answer. While I'm generally happy with EC's information some of the linked sites are not ones that strike me as 'reliable' sources of facts, so I am am still rather hoping more answers will follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Ethical Consumer: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/energy/biomassboilers.aspx " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7617" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3118" RevisionGUID="2075cde7-d353-41a9-909c-df67666d4c28" CreationDate="2014-11-23T07:52:53.183" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/536427148702384130" />
  <row Id="7618" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3131" RevisionGUID="e3630cc6-ea95-4867-9178-3bc6678061e7" CreationDate="2014-11-23T13:57:41.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/536518956245602304" />
  <row Id="7619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3148" RevisionGUID="bb1a5094-cb31-459d-89d6-5b30faa8bb2b" CreationDate="2014-11-24T03:33:50.077" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="I currently use Mac OS X on a Retina Macbook Pro. Apple is known to be quite a green company, in terms of its hardware and the power required to manufacture, sell, and market it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I think I can do much better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be some much more sustainable computing solutions out there, and/or what practices and principles could I employ towards this goal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assume these are my minimum hardware requirements:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- CPU, RAM and graphics chips (whether soldered on to hardware or not)&#xD;&#xA;- ability for a screen, to use UI graphics (whether connected or in-built)&#xD;&#xA;- ability for either in-built audio speaker and/or headphone jack for sound&#xD;&#xA;- ability for Ethernet networking for Internet connection&#xD;&#xA;- ability for USB keyboard and mouse for navigating the software UI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And in general, minimum software requrements:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (ongoing) standards-compatible Internet research (via via the World Wide Web)&#xD;&#xA;- (ongoing) standards-compatible Internet communication (via services such as Email and Facebook)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am thinking that using an open-source board like [Raspberry Pi][1], combined with a Linux distribution like [Ubuntu][2], is about as good as you can go (without having to literally engineer your own hardware, or code your own software, from scratch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But perhaps a modern all-in-one (power-efficient device), such as a self-contained, green-as-possible laptop (or even a powerful smartphone with peripherals keyboard and mouse attached), is better, all things considered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for *usage* of the computer (which no doubt affects how much the hardware/software is strained and thus its sustainability performance comparison with other hardware/software), I can only give a very non-scientific figure that the usage would be 'average web use' (at most), which you could gather from statistics / existing studies on computing impact if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.raspberrypi.org&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ubuntu.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3148" RevisionGUID="bb1a5094-cb31-459d-89d6-5b30faa8bb2b" CreationDate="2014-11-24T03:33:50.077" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="How can I change my computing hardware and software for greater sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3148" RevisionGUID="bb1a5094-cb31-459d-89d6-5b30faa8bb2b" CreationDate="2014-11-24T03:33:50.077" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="|ecological-footprint|computing|technology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3149" RevisionGUID="db8b271c-0ed8-4939-99ba-65d1f7c29ea6" CreationDate="2014-11-24T07:13:32.200" UserId="1850" Text="I would like to know what is the % of energy produced per year which is renewable energy (including hydropower, biomass, wind, geothermal, solar) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in the United States&#xD;&#xA;- in the entire world  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also: in the ranking of countries with the greatest proportion of produced energy being renewable energy, how does the United States fare? Is the United States n°1?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3149" RevisionGUID="db8b271c-0ed8-4939-99ba-65d1f7c29ea6" CreationDate="2014-11-24T07:13:32.200" UserId="1850" Text="What is the % of energy produced per year which is renewable energy (including hydropower, biomass, ...) in the U.S. and in the whole world?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3149" RevisionGUID="db8b271c-0ed8-4939-99ba-65d1f7c29ea6" CreationDate="2014-11-24T07:13:32.200" UserId="1850" Text="|renewables|usa|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3150" RevisionGUID="5c16a619-1d3b-4be8-a748-154903bca997" CreationDate="2014-11-24T08:42:00.647" UserId="1850" Text="In the following graph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference between &quot;hydro&quot; and &quot;tidal/wave&quot;?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what is the difference between &quot;solar (heat)&quot; and &quot;solar panels&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hazrd.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7626" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3150" RevisionGUID="5c16a619-1d3b-4be8-a748-154903bca997" CreationDate="2014-11-24T08:42:00.647" UserId="1850" Text="What is the difference between &quot;hydro&quot; and &quot;tidal/wave&quot;? And what is the difference between &quot;solar (heat)&quot; and &quot;solar panels&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7627" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3150" RevisionGUID="5c16a619-1d3b-4be8-a748-154903bca997" CreationDate="2014-11-24T08:42:00.647" UserId="1850" Text="|energy|solar-power|water|electricity|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3151" RevisionGUID="cc572c40-4e5b-4653-83a9-733bf483102f" CreationDate="2014-11-24T09:16:53.670" UserId="1850" Text="In the following graph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see that China surpassed every single country in wind energy production, except the United States.  &#xD;&#xA;But these statistics are up to 2009 only.  &#xD;&#xA;So my question is: what about today in 2014?  &#xD;&#xA; Did China equal or maybe even surpassed the United States?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mty6i.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3151" RevisionGUID="cc572c40-4e5b-4653-83a9-733bf483102f" CreationDate="2014-11-24T09:16:53.670" UserId="1850" Text="What is the number 1 country by global installed wind capacity: the United States or China?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3151" RevisionGUID="cc572c40-4e5b-4653-83a9-733bf483102f" CreationDate="2014-11-24T09:16:53.670" UserId="1850" Text="|energy|electricity|wind-power|renewables|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3152" RevisionGUID="8bbb2627-a9e9-45cb-870b-9400019e01cb" CreationDate="2014-11-24T09:55:39.367" UserId="15" Text="**Hydro power uses dams** (or at least a pipe where one end is as much higher as possible than the other) **to use the pressure of water at the bottom to turn a turbine and generate electricity** (or occasionally, do some other work such turn a mill). They are often located on the edge of a large lake in a mountainous area so that even when there hasn't been much rainfall recently there is still a good amount of water to use. For those interested, the power able to be generated is based on a simple formula which is: the flow multiplied multiplied by the &quot;head&quot; (the height difference between the surface of the water and the outlet where the turbine generates the power).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tidal/wave power uses the flow of the tides or the back and forth motion of individual swells to generate electricity.** These tend to be located in the narrow entrance/exit of a bay or other land form with a strong tidal flow (for tidal power), or in a location exposed to strong swells or waves (for wave power).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Solar refers to power from the sun, which can be collected as heat simply through heating of a collector (this is thermal/heat solar), or as electricity through photovoltaic solar panels.** In general, examples include coiled black hose to warm water for a pool (solar thermal), silicon photovoltaic panels on the roof of a building to supply electricity, or even a parabolic mirror which concentrates sunlight into a small spot for providing a much more intense heat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The graph provided specifically use the unit of dollars per kilowatt, so presumably is considering industrially sized electricity generation techniques. This means it won't be including the use of a black hose to heat your pool for solar thermal, but would include something like a solar tower with many mirrors that concentrate the heat enough to run a steam turbine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3153" RevisionGUID="b48b796f-4bd6-4213-9b1d-2c5318d56452" CreationDate="2014-11-24T10:30:02.273" UserId="812" Text="Beware that chart - it is from 2004, and hence is very out of date! In particular, photovoltaics (&quot;solar panels&quot;) have become cheaper much faster than anybody expected a decade ago, and wave and tidal power have proved more difficult and costly than some had projected.&#xD;&#xA;Here's some more up to date info on costs: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydro&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Hydro&quot; power conventionally refers to the use of a height difference between two bodies of water to generate electricity as water falls from one to the other. Typically this is achieved by damming a river, or running a pipe (&quot;penstock&quot;) from a high lake to a lower lake, river or sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tidal&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Tidal power refers to generating electricity from the flow of the tides. There are two approaches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Exploiting the vertical rise and fall of the water level over a tidal cycle. A barrage is constructed with gates that close at high water, to retain the water inside the barrage while the water level outside goes down. Once a height difference has developed, the water inside is allowed to run out through turbines, operating much like the traditional hydro systems described above, but with a relatively small height difference. There are variations on this approach, but all exploit the cyclic change in water level in a similar way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Exploiting the *speed* of a fast tidal flow. Some places in the world have exceptionally fast flows for various reasons, and this approach puts turbines in the water to extract energy from them, analogous to underwater wind farms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wave&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Wave power aims to extract energy (usually electricity) from the periodic motions of swell waves - the large waves that you can see breaking offshore from a beach. There are a lot of different methods being developed as prototypes, and there is no clear leading approach as yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Solar panels&quot; on the chart probably refer to photovoltaic panels, which produce electricity from sunlight. This is what is commonly thought of when people refer to solar power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Solar (heat)&quot; probably refers to the the use of rooftop panels that use sunlight to heat water for domestic use. However, the term could also be used to describe Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) plants, where sunlight is focussed on a large scale to heat steam (or another fluid), and that steam is used to drive a turbine to produce electricity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3154" RevisionGUID="05e0bf0d-894a-49c3-a20d-1880557e6858" CreationDate="2014-11-24T10:40:50.177" UserId="48" Text="There is some ambiguity in the table. If it's only about electricity generation, that helps a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###solar&#xD;&#xA;The two types of solar could get split in different ways. &quot;Solar panels&quot; usually refers to photovoltaic generation of electricity from semiconductors. Solar thermal could mean the directly supply of hot water from solar thermal panels or other thermal harvesting mechanisms. OR it could refer to what's also called concentrating solar power, CSP, whereby sunlight is concentrated - either by a huge array of tracking mirros onto a central tower, or by parabolic troughs onto pipes - and that heat is then used to drive a turbine to generate electricity. PV panels are nearing maturity now; CSP is still at the grid-scale commercial prototypes. There's **low uncertainty on costs of PV**, and on the rate of decline of PV costs - it's called Swanson's Law, and works similarly to Moore's Law for computers.  The IEA have famously been rather inept on predicting how quickly deployment would occur, and how quickly costs would come down. There's **high uncertainty on the costs of CSP**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###hydro&#xD;&#xA;Hydro refers either to storage hydro, where the water is held in an upper reservoir, and released through turbines embedded in a dam or in the flow channels downstream from it, to generate electricity; or to run-of-river hydro, where electricity is generated as the water flows down a river and is channeled through a turbine. Both are well-established technologies. There's **very low uncertainty over costs of both run-of-river and storage hydro**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###wave&#xD;&#xA;Wave power is a nascent technology, and harvests the kinetic energy of the waves through pneumatics or other mechanisms. There are a few prototypes in the water. There's **very high uncertainty over costs of wave power**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###tidal&#xD;&#xA;Tidal stream is also a nascent technology, and uses the kinetic energy of the daily or twice-daily (depending on where you are in the world) to drive a turbine. There are some prototypes in the water, and there's **very high uncertainty over costs of tidal stream**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tidal barrages and lagoons use the height differences between high and low tides to drive water through turbines to generate electricity. **Barrages are well-established, and have medium uncertainty of costs. Tidal lagoons are a bit of a fad at the moment in some places, unproven, with high uncertainty on costs**. This also applies to tidal reefs and other variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tidal is distinct in one curious way from all the others above. All the others are solar power, either directly or indirectly. Tidal comes from gravitational energy, not solar energy. (wind is also indirect solar energy. Geothermal is different again, being partly a product of nuclear reactions in the crust, and partly the reservoir of heat from the creation of the Earth)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7634" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3149" RevisionGUID="d727ac99-acdf-4634-b1f3-8538230e76af" CreationDate="2014-11-24T10:57:38.007" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/536836029647683584" />
  <row Id="7635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3155" RevisionGUID="78140b87-5f73-456f-a70e-d978ee6dc658" CreationDate="2014-11-24T15:00:36.847" UserId="48" Text="Let's first distinguish energy and electricity, as they are different things. Electricity is only a small part of all energy. There are countries such as Norway where 99.x% of electricity is from renewables, but renewables form a much smaller proportion of total Norwegian energy consumption. And there are places where biomass forms a big proportion of overall energy supply, but renewables form a small proportion of electricity supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity generated and electricity consumed tend to be very similar numbers - the latter is 5-15% lower, due to losses in transmission, and electricity consumption at the generators themselves. Whereas energy generated and consumed tend to be very different - conversion losses and energy-supply-chain consumption tend to be of the order of 30-40% of total energy generated. For technologies where a lot of the energy is wasted, you get huge differences between the quantity of energy produced and quantity of electricity generated; for example, only a third of nuclear &quot;energy produced&quot; is useful electricity - the rest os heat dissipated in cooling, and some consumption by the plants themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Globally, the International Energy Agency tend to produce the most cited figures, but usually have a lag of a couple of years in publishing the numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the IEA's World Energy Balances 2014, the figures for 2012 (expressed as mean power for the year):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global all-energy produced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 17.8 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 2.3 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 13%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA all energy produced&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.4 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.17 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 7%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.6 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.5 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 21%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 0.49 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables:  0.058 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 12%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, the USA is nowhere near the top of the rankings for renewables, either on an all-energy or an electricity-only basis. It's well below the global average in each case.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="53fe9efc-9fd8-481b-afd1-2e735854c5cd" CreationDate="2014-11-24T15:11:42.230" UserId="48" Text="According to the [REN21 Renewables Global Status Report 2014][1], China had 91.4 GW of installed wind capacity by the end of 2013, more than any other country in the world, of which 75.5 GW was in commercial operation.  The USA had 61.6 GW of installed wind capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Caveats&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting trustworthy statistics out of China is very difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, China does things differently to a lot of other countries, including the USA. In China, wind plants often get built before there's a suitable grid connection available for them: they build the transmission network once the windfarms are built. It usually works the other way around in the USA and many other countries. So GW of wind capacity installed can be measured on a different basis in different countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, capacity factors vary over time (due to inter-annual variations in weather) and by country, so just because one country had a higher installed capacity, does not always mean that it generated more electricity from wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ren21.net/gsr" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3155" RevisionGUID="fe3dac5f-3688-4cc3-9937-48a06c69fee1" CreationDate="2014-11-24T15:23:33.167" UserId="48" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="Let's first distinguish energy and electricity, as they are different things. Electricity is only a small part of all energy. There are countries such as Norway where 99.x% of electricity is from renewables, but renewables form a much smaller proportion of total Norwegian energy consumption. And there are places where biomass forms a big proportion of overall energy supply, but renewables form a small proportion of electricity supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity generated and electricity consumed tend to be very similar numbers - the latter is 5-15% lower, due to losses in transmission, and electricity consumption at the generators themselves. Whereas energy generated and consumed tend to be very different - conversion losses and energy-supply-chain consumption tend to be of the order of 30-40% of total energy generated. For technologies where a lot of the energy is wasted, you get huge differences between the quantity of energy produced and quantity of electricity generated; for example, only a third of nuclear &quot;energy produced&quot; is useful electricity - the rest is heat dissipated in cooling, and some consumption by the plants themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Globally, the International Energy Agency tend to produce the most cited figures, but usually have a lag of a couple of years in publishing the numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the IEA's World Energy Balances 2014, the figures for 2012 (expressed as mean power for the year, 2 significant figures, and converted to mean TW):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global all-energy produced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 17.8 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 2.3 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 13%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA all energy produced&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.4 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.17 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 7%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.6 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.54 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 21%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 0.49 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables:  0.058 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 12%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, the USA is nowhere near the top of the rankings for renewables, either on an all-energy or an electricity-only basis. It's well below the global average in each case.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3155" RevisionGUID="2ed05b9e-006c-47c2-af3e-3c3f04aeb6ca" CreationDate="2014-11-24T15:33:46.447" UserId="48" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Let's first distinguish energy and electricity, as they are different things. Electricity is only a small part of all energy. There are countries such as Norway where 99.x% of electricity is from renewables, but renewables form a much smaller proportion of total Norwegian energy consumption. And there are places where biomass forms a big proportion of overall energy supply, but renewables form a small proportion of electricity supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity generated and electricity consumed tend to be very similar numbers - the latter is 5-15% lower, due to losses in transmission, and electricity consumption at the generators themselves. Whereas energy generated and consumed tend to be very different - conversion losses and energy-supply-chain consumption tend to be of the order of 30-40% of total energy generated. For technologies where a lot of the energy is wasted, you get huge differences between the quantity of energy produced and quantity of electricity generated; for example, only a third of nuclear &quot;energy produced&quot; is useful electricity - the rest is heat dissipated in cooling, and some consumption by the plants themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Globally, the International Energy Agency tend to produce the most cited figures, but usually have a lag of a couple of years in publishing the numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the IEA's World Energy Balances 2014, the figures for 2012 (expressed as mean power for the year, 2 significant figures, and converted to mean TW):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global all-energy produced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 17.8 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 2.3 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 13%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA all energy produced&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.4 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.17 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 7%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.6 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.54 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 21%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 0.49 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables:  0.058 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 12%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, the USA is nowhere near the top of the rankings for renewables as a share of supply, either on an all-energy or an electricity-only basis. It's well below the global average in each case.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="d44f72b3-ba01-4622-9419-ad034449d232" CreationDate="2014-11-24T15:39:37.053" UserId="48" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="According to the [REN21 Renewables Global Status Report 2014][1], China had 91.4 GW of installed wind capacity by the end of 2013, more than any other country in the world, of which 75.5 GW was in commercial operation.  The USA had 61.6 GW of installed wind capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2] REN21 GSR 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Caveats&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting trustworthy statistics out of China is very difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, China does things differently to a lot of other countries, including the USA. In China, wind plants often get built before there's a suitable grid connection available for them: they build the transmission network once the windfarms are built. It usually works the other way around in the USA and many other countries. So GW of wind capacity installed can be measured on a different basis in different countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, capacity factors vary over time (due to inter-annual variations in weather) and by country, so just because one country had a higher installed capacity, does not always mean that it generated more electricity from wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ren21.net/gsr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kyPP4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3155" RevisionGUID="eaee6d87-a334-4cb0-abab-441d4dbd1109" CreationDate="2014-11-24T15:48:39.507" UserId="48" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="Let's first distinguish energy and electricity, as they are different things. Electricity is only a small part of all energy. There are countries such as Norway where 99.x% of electricity is from renewables, but renewables form a much smaller proportion of total Norwegian energy consumption. And there are places where biomass forms a big proportion of overall energy supply, but renewables form a small proportion of electricity supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity generated and electricity consumed tend to be very similar numbers - the latter is 5-15% lower, due to losses in transmission, and electricity consumption at the generators themselves. Whereas energy generated and consumed tend to be very different - conversion losses and energy-supply-chain consumption tend to be of the order of 30-40% of total energy generated. For technologies where a lot of the energy is wasted, you get huge differences between the quantity of energy produced and quantity of electricity generated; for example, only a third of nuclear &quot;energy produced&quot; is useful electricity - the rest is heat dissipated in cooling, and some consumption by the plants themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Globally, the International Energy Agency tend to produce the most cited figures, but usually have a lag of a couple of years in publishing the numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the IEA's World Energy Balances 2014, the figures for 2012 (expressed as mean power for the year, 2 significant figures, and converted to mean TW):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global all-energy produced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 17.8 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 2.3 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 13%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA all energy produced&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.4 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.17 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 7%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.6 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.54 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 21%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 0.49 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables:  0.058 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 12%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, the USA is nowhere near the top of the rankings for renewables as a **share** of supply, either on an all-energy or an electricity-only basis. It's well below the global average in each case. Note that because of the sheer scale of its energy production, the USA is near (but not at) the top of the table for *absolute* renewables generation (on an all-energy basis, it was third behind China and India), but very low down the table for renewables *share*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="e3519d37-61fa-4f57-b4e1-c6acbe692872" CreationDate="2014-11-24T16:02:12.667" UserId="48" Comment="added 759 characters in body" Text="According to the [REN21 Renewables Global Status Report 2014][1], China had 91.4 GW of installed wind capacity by the end of 2013, more than any other country in the world, of which 75.5 GW was in commercial operation.  The USA had 61.6 GW of installed wind capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2] REN21 GSR 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Caveats&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is installed capacity, not electricity generated. Capacity factors (the ratio of mean power generated to installed capacity) vary over time, due to inter-annual variations in weather; they also vary by country. So just because one country had a higher installed capacity, does not always mean that it generated more electricity from wind. The IEA data (Renewables Information 2014) for 2012 says that the USA generated about 50% more electricity from wind, in absolute terms, than China did (USA 16 GW mean power, China 11 GW mean power). **So in absolute numbers, of amount of electricity generation from wind, the USA was the world leader in 2012** (the most recent year for which comparable data is available). Higher capacity factors, less curtailment from transmission bottlenecks and grid controllers, and more readily available transmission infrastructure, are all parts of the explanation for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting trustworthy statistics out of China is very difficult: in many reports, you'll often find that the statistics from China come from personal correspondence with specific Chinese bureaucrats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, China does things differently to a lot of other countries, including the USA. In China, wind plants often get built before there's a suitable grid connection available for them: they build the transmission network once the windfarms are built. It usually works the other way around in the USA and many other countries. So GW of wind capacity installed can be measured on a different basis in different countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ren21.net/gsr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kyPP4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3153" RevisionGUID="7ef9d845-eda9-4fff-ba63-3236b357f8fa" CreationDate="2014-11-24T16:11:41.763" UserId="812" Comment="Added solar updraught towers." Text="Beware that chart - it is from 2004, and hence is very out of date! In particular, photovoltaics (&quot;solar panels&quot;) have become cheaper much faster than anybody expected a decade ago, and wave and tidal power have proved more difficult and costly than some had projected.&#xD;&#xA;Here's some more up to date info on costs: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydro&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Hydro&quot; power conventionally refers to the use of a height difference between two bodies of water to generate electricity as water falls from one to the other. Typically this is achieved by damming a river, or running a pipe (&quot;penstock&quot;) from a high lake to a lower lake, river or sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tidal&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Tidal power refers to generating electricity from the flow of the tides. There are two approaches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Exploiting the vertical rise and fall of the water level over a tidal cycle. A barrage is constructed with gates that close at high water, to retain the water inside the barrage while the water level outside goes down. Once a height difference has developed, the water inside is allowed to run out through turbines, operating much like the traditional hydro systems described above, but with a relatively small height difference. There are variations on this approach, but all exploit the cyclic change in water level in a similar way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Exploiting the *speed* of a fast tidal flow. Some places in the world have exceptionally fast flows for various reasons, and this approach puts turbines in the water to extract energy from them, analogous to underwater wind farms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wave&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Wave power aims to extract energy (usually electricity) from the periodic motions of swell waves - the large waves that you can see breaking offshore from a beach. There are a lot of different methods being developed as prototypes, and there is no clear leading approach as yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Solar panels&quot; on the chart probably refer to photovoltaic panels, which produce electricity from sunlight. This is what is commonly thought of when people refer to solar power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Solar (heat)&quot; probably refers to the the use of rooftop panels that use sunlight to heat water for domestic use. However, the term could also be used to describe Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) plants, where sunlight is focussed on a large scale to heat steam (or another fluid), and that steam is used to drive a turbine to produce electricity. As noted in the comments, it could also refer to a few less common solar power techniques, such as solar updraught towers, but this is less likely as these technologies are poorly developed at present." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3154" RevisionGUID="3273ea20-1683-455f-90fc-6d90f1dea40c" CreationDate="2014-11-24T16:39:42.590" UserId="48" Comment="added 266 characters in body" Text="There is some ambiguity in the table. If it's only about electricity generation, that helps a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###solar&#xD;&#xA;The two types of solar could get split in different ways. &quot;Solar panels&quot; usually refers to photovoltaic generation of electricity from semiconductors. Solar thermal could mean the directly supply of hot water from solar thermal panels or other thermal harvesting mechanisms. OR it could refer to what's also called concentrating solar power, CSP, whereby sunlight is concentrated - either by a huge array of tracking mirros onto a central tower, or by parabolic troughs onto pipes - and that heat is then used to drive a turbine to generate electricity. PV panels are nearing maturity now; CSP is still at the grid-scale commercial prototypes. There's **low uncertainty on costs of PV**, and on the rate of decline of PV costs - it's called Swanson's Law, and works similarly to Moore's Law for computers.  The IEA have famously been rather inept on predicting how quickly deployment would occur, and how quickly costs would come down. There's **high uncertainty on the costs of CSP**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###hydro&#xD;&#xA;Hydro refers either to storage hydro, where the water is held in an upper reservoir, and released through turbines embedded in a dam or in the flow channels downstream from it, to generate electricity; or to run-of-river hydro, where electricity is generated as the water flows down a river and is channeled through a turbine. Both are well-established technologies. There's **very low uncertainty over costs of both run-of-river and storage hydro**. &lt;sub&gt;(NB storage hydro is different to pumped-storage hydro; storage hydro is a source of primary generation; pumped-storage hydro is a means of storing surplus electricity as gravitational potential, and converting it back to electricity later, when needed.)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###wave&#xD;&#xA;Wave power is a nascent technology, and harvests the kinetic energy of the waves through pneumatics or other mechanisms. There are a few prototypes in the water. There's **very high uncertainty over costs of wave power**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###tidal&#xD;&#xA;Tidal stream is also a nascent technology, and uses the kinetic energy of the daily or twice-daily (depending on where you are in the world) to drive a turbine. There are some prototypes in the water, and there's **very high uncertainty over costs of tidal stream**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tidal barrages and lagoons use the height differences between high and low tides to drive water through turbines to generate electricity. **Tidal barrages are established, and have medium uncertainty of costs. Tidal lagoons are a bit of a fad at the moment in some places, unproven, with high uncertainty on costs**. This also applies to tidal reefs and other variants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tidal is distinct in one curious way from all the others above. All the others are solar power, either directly or indirectly. Tidal comes from gravitational energy, not solar energy. (wind is also indirect solar energy. Geothermal is different again, being partly a product of nuclear reactions in the crust, and partly the reservoir of heat from the creation of the Earth)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3157" RevisionGUID="b6a4a9c0-8685-4cc5-88f2-fefc2f20048d" CreationDate="2014-11-24T16:46:37.467" UserId="1852" Text="**Hydro Power**:Power generated via potential energy of water as it flows from a high to low area. This is the concept behind dams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tidal Power**:Power generated by the movement of water according to tides. This is used in areas where the tide moves water in or out of a specific area, and that movement can be converted to electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Solar(Photovoltaic)**:Power generated when light hits a panel containing semiconductors that create electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Solar(Heat)**:Power generated when light is used to heat water and produce steam, which rotates a turbine to generate electricity. This is usually done using fields of mirrors that refl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3155" RevisionGUID="173120aa-fcfd-45a6-a747-9a2f0d470d45" CreationDate="2014-11-24T18:16:28.943" UserId="48" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="Let's first distinguish energy and electricity, as they are different things. Electricity is only a small part of all energy. There are countries such as Norway where 99.x% of electricity is from renewables, but renewables form a much smaller proportion of total Norwegian energy consumption. And there are places where biomass forms a big proportion of overall energy supply, but renewables form a small proportion of electricity supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity generated and electricity consumed tend to be very similar numbers - the latter is 5-15% lower, due to losses in transmission, and electricity consumption at the generators themselves. Whereas energy generated and consumed tend to be very different - conversion losses and energy-supply-chain consumption tend to be of the order of 30-40% of total energy generated. For technologies where a lot of the energy is wasted, you get huge differences between the quantity of energy produced and quantity of electricity generated; for example, only a third of nuclear &quot;energy produced&quot; is useful electricity - the rest is heat dissipated in cooling, and some consumption by the plants themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Globally, the International Energy Agency tend to produce the most cited figures, but usually have a lag of a couple of years in publishing the numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the IEA's World Energy Balances 2014, the figures for 2012 (expressed as mean power for the year, 2 significant figures, and converted to mean TW):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global all-energy produced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 17.8 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 2.3 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 13%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA all energy produced&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.4 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.17 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 7%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On renewables as a share of all-energy supply, the USA was 99th out of 141 countries in 2012. As a share of production, it was 107th out of 141 countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.6 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.54 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 21%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 0.49 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables:  0.058 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 12%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, the USA is nowhere near the top of the rankings for renewables as a **share** of supply, either on an all-energy or an electricity-only basis. It's well below the global average in each case. Note that because of the sheer scale of its energy production, the USA is near (but not at) the top of the table for *absolute* renewables generation (on an all-energy basis, it was third behind China and India), but very low down the table for renewables *share*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3155" RevisionGUID="31599db5-0ccf-4937-aac4-126c7f0c8672" CreationDate="2014-11-24T18:27:46.453" UserId="48" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="Let's first distinguish energy and electricity, as they are different things. Electricity is only a small part of all energy. There are countries such as Norway where 99.x% of electricity is from renewables, but renewables form a much smaller proportion of total Norwegian energy consumption. And there are places where biomass forms a big proportion of overall energy supply, but renewables form a small proportion of electricity supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity generated and electricity consumed tend to be very similar numbers - the latter is 5-15% lower, due to losses in transmission, and electricity consumption at the generators themselves. Whereas energy generated and consumed tend to be very different - conversion losses and energy-supply-chain consumption tend to be of the order of 30-40% of total energy generated. For technologies where a lot of the energy is wasted, you get huge differences between the quantity of energy produced and quantity of electricity generated; for example, only a third of nuclear &quot;energy produced&quot; is useful electricity - the rest is heat dissipated in cooling, and some consumption by the plants themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Globally, the International Energy Agency tend to produce the most cited figures, but usually have a lag of a couple of years in publishing the numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the IEA's World Energy Balances 2014, the figures for 2012 (expressed as mean power for the year, 2 significant figures, and converted to mean TW):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global all-energy produced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 17.8 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 2.3 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 13%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA all energy produced&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.4 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.17 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 7%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On renewables as a share of all-energy supply, the USA was 99th out of 141 countries in 2012. As a share of production, it was 107th out of 141 countries.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.6 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.54 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 21%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 0.49 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables:  0.058 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 12%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The USA was 84th out 141 in the table of countries sorted by descending share of renewables in electricity generation.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, the USA is nowhere near the top of the rankings for renewables as a **share** of supply, either on an all-energy or an electricity-only basis. It's well below the global average in each case. Note that because of the sheer scale of its energy production, the USA is near (but not at) the top of the table for *absolute* renewables generation (on an all-energy basis, it was third behind China and India), but very low down the table for renewables *share*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3155" RevisionGUID="1abf28b9-cfac-4a84-977d-ff9ef8b1ec86" CreationDate="2014-11-24T18:50:14.747" UserId="48" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Let's first distinguish energy and electricity, as they are different things. Electricity is only a small part of all energy. There are countries such as Norway where 99.x% of electricity is from renewables, but renewables form a much smaller proportion of total Norwegian energy consumption. And there are places where biomass forms a big proportion of overall energy supply, but renewables form a small proportion of electricity supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity generated and electricity consumed tend to be very similar numbers - the latter is 5-15% lower, due to losses in transmission, and electricity consumption at the generators themselves. Whereas energy generated and consumed tend to be very different - conversion losses and energy-supply-chain consumption tend to be of the order of 30-40% of total energy generated. For technologies where a lot of the energy is wasted, you get huge differences between the quantity of energy produced and quantity of electricity generated; for example, only a third of nuclear &quot;energy produced&quot; is useful electricity - the rest is heat dissipated in cooling, and some consumption by the plants themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Globally, the International Energy Agency tend to produce the most cited figures, but usually have a lag of a couple of years in publishing the numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the IEA's World Energy Balances 2014, the figures for 2012 (expressed as mean power for the year, 2 significant figures, and converted to mean TW):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global all-energy produced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 17.8 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 2.3 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 13%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA all energy produced&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.4 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.17 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 7%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On renewables as a share of all-energy supply, the USA was 99th out of 141 countries in 2012. As a share of production, it was 107th out of 141 countries.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.6 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.54 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 21%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 0.49 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables:  0.058 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 12%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The USA was 84th out 141 in the table of countries sorted by descending share of renewables in electricity generation.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, the USA is nowhere near the top of the rankings for renewables as a **share** of supply, either on an all-energy or an electricity-only basis. It's well below the global average in each case. Note that because of the sheer scale of its energy production, the USA is near (but not at) the top of the table for *absolute* renewables supply (on an all-energy basis, it was third behind China and India), but very low down the table for renewables *share*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3155" RevisionGUID="e8651461-00a9-4383-8ada-b483b4da325a" CreationDate="2014-11-24T19:07:05.040" UserId="48" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="###Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the USA is nowhere near the top of the rankings for renewables as a *proportion* of supply, either on an all-energy supply (where it was 91st out of 141 countries in 2012) or an electricity-only basis (where it was 84th out of 141 countries in 2012). It's well below the global average in each case. Note that because of the sheer scale of its energy supply, the USA is very close to (but not at) the top of the table for *absolute* renewables supply: on an all-energy basis, it was third behind China and India; for electricity it was second behind China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###data&#xD;&#xA;Globally, the International Energy Agency tend to produce the most cited figures, but usually have a lag of a couple of years in publishing the numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the IEA's World Energy Balances 2014, the figures for 2012 (expressed as mean power for the year, 2 significant figures, and converted to mean TW):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global all-energy produced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 17.8 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 2.3 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 13%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA all energy produced&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.4 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.17 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 7%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**On renewables as a share of all-energy supply, the USA was 99th out of 141 countries in 2012. As a share of production, it was 107th out of 141 countries.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### global electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 2.6 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables: 0.54 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 21%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### USA electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- all sources: 0.49 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables:  0.058 TW&#xD;&#xA;- renewables share: 12%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The USA was 84th out 141 in the table of countries sorted by descending share of renewables in electricity generation.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###footnotes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's distinguish energy and electricity, as they are different things. Electricity is only a small part of all energy. There are countries such as Norway where ~99% of electricity is from renewables, but renewables form a much smaller proportion of total Norwegian energy consumption. And there are places where biomass forms a big proportion of overall energy supply, but renewables form a small proportion of electricity supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity generated and electricity consumed tend to be very similar numbers - the latter is 5-15% lower, due to losses in transmission, and electricity consumption at the generators themselves. Whereas energy generated and consumed tend to be very different - conversion losses and energy-supply-chain consumption tend to be of the order of 30-40% of total energy generated. For technologies where a lot of the energy is wasted, you get huge differences between the quantity of energy produced and quantity of electricity generated; for example, only a third of nuclear &quot;energy produced&quot; is useful electricity - the rest is heat dissipated in cooling, and some consumption by the plants themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="d6cf56e1-0f10-4dbb-beb2-2feb2ce9ee1b" CreationDate="2014-11-24T20:24:56.223" UserId="48" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="According to the [REN21 Renewables Global Status Report 2014][1], China had 91.4 GW of installed wind capacity by the end of 2013, more than any other country in the world, of which 75.5 GW was in commercial operation.  The USA had 61.6 GW of installed wind capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of actual generation from wind, the USA was world leader in 2012 (the latest year for which data was available).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2] REN21 GSR 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Caveats&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is installed capacity, not electricity generated. Capacity factors (the ratio of mean power generated to installed capacity) vary over time, due to inter-annual variations in weather; they also vary by country. So just because one country had a higher installed capacity, does not always mean that it generated more electricity from wind. The IEA data (Renewables Information 2014) for 2012 says that the USA generated about 50% more electricity from wind, in absolute terms, than China did (USA 16 GW mean power, China 11 GW mean power). **So in absolute numbers, of amount of electricity generation from wind, the USA was the world leader in 2012** (the most recent year for which comparable data is available). Higher capacity factors, less curtailment from transmission bottlenecks and grid controllers, and more readily available transmission infrastructure, are all parts of the explanation for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting trustworthy statistics out of China is very difficult: in many reports, you'll often find that the statistics from China come from personal correspondence with specific Chinese bureaucrats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, China does things differently to a lot of other countries, including the USA. In China, wind plants often get built before there's a suitable grid connection available for them: they build the transmission network once the windfarms are built. It usually works the other way around in the USA and many other countries. So GW of wind capacity installed can be measured on a different basis in different countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ren21.net/gsr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kyPP4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3158" RevisionGUID="47b7357e-4e9c-446c-8613-e4097b94912f" CreationDate="2014-11-24T21:27:38.960" UserId="1851" Text="One answer I did not see here, that I often do, is to use it as a fining agent to clarify your homemade (white) wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You first sterilize them by putting in the oven (preferably while using it for other things) so it kills any nasty's removes any remaining moisture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crush them until they are fine dust (very small pieces are OK)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then add them to your wine if it wont clear on it's own. (this is for about 1 month before bottling your wine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The science behind this is that the shells will move up and down in the wine grabbing on to small particle that are preventing it from clearing. After a month, the shells will stay at the bottom and your wine is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know the OP probably doesn't make wine but this might help others with the same question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Originally got the idea from this site many years ago: [Finishing Your Wine][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/finishin.asp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7657" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3148" RevisionGUID="4a3b9321-3b49-43ff-a30f-6126ce6ab84e" CreationDate="2014-11-25T19:59:27.687" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/537334772503420930" />
  <row Id="7658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3162" RevisionGUID="d8ae6170-1e29-496f-a69b-2fbfd36d65c2" CreationDate="2014-11-25T22:23:09.297" UserId="1852" Text="Paper recycling facilities usually can handle the small amount of plastic that's on a lot of boxes, but the plastic cannot be recycled in the same facility, so cardboard of that type is overall less sustainable than pure paper cardboard. &#xD;&#xA;Usually, the paper/cardboard is ground up and mixed with some chemicals, and then centrifuged to make new paper. Tiny bits of plastic end up in the recycled paper, but it's usually not noticeable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3163" RevisionGUID="dfd62b8a-8a48-47fd-80f4-f0fbfd5b611e" CreationDate="2014-11-26T09:36:45.907" UserId="99" Text="The IPAT equation can be useful as a tool to describe the high-level factors involved in assessing sustainability world wide or for a particular good or service. The letters stem from the I=PAT equation which says that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here affluence is the consumption of goods or services of a person in the population, and technology is a measure of how resource intensive the production of consumed goods are. So a bit more verbose the formula says &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Impact on the environment = Number of people  x  average consumption per person  x  impact per unit of consumption`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which is sometimes rewritten as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`I  = P x C/P x I/C`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the simplicity of the I=PAT formula is also it’s problem. The formula assumes that the terms P, A and T are independent, which in reality isn’t true. For example, when new technological developments allow us to use less resources to produce the same good or service, the formula says that the impact for this good or service goes down correspondingly. In reality, less resources means lower prices which results in more consumption. This effect, that increasing efficiency results in more consumption is also called [‘Jevons paradox’](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) or the [‘rebound effect’](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)). Similarly, a doubling of the population doesn't necesarily mean a doubling of the impact, because the average consumption may actually go down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The I=PAT formula was invented in the 70s and at the time it was used to emphasize the role of a growing global population on the environment, but also to indicate that multiple factors are involved in improving sustainability. The paper ['The IPAT equation and its variants' by Marian Chertow](http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/articles/jiec_4_4_13_0.pdf) describes how this view has changed and the focus is now often on the T factor as that is the most easiest to modify.&#xD;&#xA;It seems IPAT in it's original form is hardly used in research and policy-making anymore, but revised forms of IPAT, such as the the [Kaya equation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity) are still being developed and used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="e3440a75-af41-4cfe-b45f-bd29ca792b50" CreationDate="2014-11-26T11:36:50.663" UserId="48" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="According to the [REN21 Renewables Global Status Report 2014][1], China had 91.4 GW of installed wind capacity by the end of 2013, more than any other country in the world, of which 75.5 GW was in commercial operation.  The USA had 61.6 GW of installed wind capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of actual generation from wind, the USA was world leader in 2013, with 19.4 GW mean power (170 TWh, IEA Energy Balances 2014); China was second, with 16.0 GW (140 TWh, REN21 Global Status Report 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2] REN21 GSR 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Caveats&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is installed capacity, not electricity generated. Capacity factors (the ratio of mean power generated to installed capacity) vary over time, due to inter-annual variations in weather; they also vary by country. So just because one country had a higher installed capacity, does not always mean that it generated more electricity from wind. The IEA data (Renewables Information 2014) for 2012 says that the USA generated about 50% more electricity from wind, in absolute terms, than China did (USA 16 GW mean power, China 11 GW mean power). **So in absolute numbers, of amount of electricity generation from wind, the USA was the world leader in 2012** (the most recent year for which comparable data is available). Higher capacity factors, less curtailment from transmission bottlenecks and grid controllers, and more readily available transmission infrastructure, are all parts of the explanation for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting trustworthy statistics out of China is very difficult: in many reports, you'll often find that the statistics from China come from personal correspondence with specific Chinese bureaucrats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, China does things differently to a lot of other countries, including the USA. In China, wind plants often get built before there's a suitable grid connection available for them: they build the transmission network once the windfarms are built. It usually works the other way around in the USA and many other countries. So GW of wind capacity installed can be measured on a different basis in different countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ren21.net/gsr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kyPP4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7665" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3122" RevisionGUID="8d3baf38-eccd-445a-b3de-f9c86d63d790" CreationDate="2014-11-26T16:59:23.617" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/537651845205098496" />
  <row Id="7666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3164" RevisionGUID="c434ca3e-4d1e-4f12-8979-fc06f9c26833" CreationDate="2014-11-26T17:54:14.640" UserId="1851" Text="I have been thinking for a long time about building a Passive Solar Window Heater similar to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in northern - North America which during the winter ranges from 30°F during the day to 0°F at night (on average).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am note sure if it will help but it seems like an easy and inexpensive project I can do but the thing holding me back is this; what happens at night? How much heat will I loose out this &quot;open window&quot; during the 16 hours the sun is not shinning on it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if someone else with similar conditions could weight in on how it has worked for them. The last thing I want to do is take it out every night and back in every morning. I know that won't last long. The other option I thought of was a way to close/seal/insulate the opening at night. That twice a day task might be possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kDWqz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7667" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3164" RevisionGUID="c434ca3e-4d1e-4f12-8979-fc06f9c26833" CreationDate="2014-11-26T17:54:14.640" UserId="1851" Text="Solar Window Heater at Night" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7668" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3164" RevisionGUID="c434ca3e-4d1e-4f12-8979-fc06f9c26833" CreationDate="2014-11-26T17:54:14.640" UserId="1851" Text="|heating|diy|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3165" RevisionGUID="9f643f52-36e3-425e-8c68-8585724ecb51" CreationDate="2014-11-26T20:15:25.200" UserId="48" Text="The trick is to capture the heat in a fluid that circulates through the system only when the sun is heating the fluid. That way, you get the heating with very little cooling. It makes for a more complicated system, but it's worth it; otherwise, your daytime heat collector will become a night-time heat radiator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Domestic solar thermal panels are a well-established technology: there's a lot to be learnt from how they're designed and operated. There's no need to ignore all that experience and learning - make the most of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="d2e4acd0-949d-4620-b943-3c9a21ffd39e" CreationDate="2014-11-27T16:10:40.710" UserId="48" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="According to the [REN21 Renewables Global Status Report 2014][1], China had 91.4 GW of installed wind capacity by the end of 2013, more than any other country in the world, of which 75.5 GW was in commercial operation.  The USA had 61.6 GW of installed wind capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of actual generation from wind, the USA was world leader in 2013, with 19.4 GW mean power (170 TWh, IEA Energy Balances 2014); China was second, with 16.0 GW (140 TWh, REN21 Global Status Report 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2] REN21 GSR 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Caveats&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is installed capacity, not electricity generated. Capacity factors (the ratio of mean power generated to installed capacity) vary over time, due to inter-annual variations in weather; they also vary by country. So just because one country had a higher installed capacity, does not always mean that it generated more electricity from wind. The IEA data (Renewables Information 2014) for 2013 says that the USA generated about more electricity from wind, in absolute terms, than China did (USA 19.4 GW mean power, China 16 GW mean power - the latter figure is from the REN21 GSR2014). **So in absolute numbers, of amount of electricity generation from wind, the USA was the world leader in 2013** (the most recent year for which comparable data is available). Higher capacity factors, less curtailment from transmission bottlenecks and grid controllers, and more readily available transmission infrastructure, are all parts of the explanation for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting trustworthy statistics out of China is very difficult: in many reports, you'll often find that the statistics from China come from personal correspondence with specific Chinese bureaucrats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, China does things differently to a lot of other countries, including the USA. In China, wind plants often get built before there's a suitable grid connection available for them: they build the transmission network once the windfarms are built. It usually works the other way around in the USA and many other countries. So GW of wind capacity installed can be measured on a different basis in different countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ren21.net/gsr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kyPP4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3166" RevisionGUID="21ceeef5-8278-457b-89fd-e52747c3e81a" CreationDate="2014-11-27T23:44:08.323" UserId="1852" Text="Since there is no such thing as #8, #81 composite paper/plastic can only be recycled by separating the plastic from the paper, and in the U.S., many recycling companies accept this material, but I was unable to find out the method that they use, if they even use one. However, Canada may have different regulations, and I would doubt that the material is accepted for recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look here for the different materials:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_codes][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_codes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3167" RevisionGUID="83100fec-5d82-43d7-a822-fe92cff25039" CreationDate="2014-11-27T23:51:47.970" UserId="1852" Text="I found a report from the German Municipal Solid Waste management system. Here are some of their acheivements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling has increased from 48 % of MSW generated in 2001 to 62 % in 2010. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EU target for 50 % recycling by 2020 has therefore already been met; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was no increase in the recycling level of MSW between 2006 and 2010, whereas incineration has increased; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2016 target for biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill was met in 2006; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long tradition of national waste strategies and waste management plans in the federal states;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A ban on landfilling un-pretreated MSW, producer responsibility and a focus on separate collection have proven to be important policy initiatives; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latest initiative is the introduction of the so-called recycling bin that aims to increase recycling of plastics and metals from households, and mandatory separate collection of bio-waste by 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have also had a net reduction of MSW from 2006-2010." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7674" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3150" RevisionGUID="41a22baa-229f-4e14-ba6d-bd5e7ad93fa8" CreationDate="2014-11-28T04:59:23.770" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/538195427615850497" />
  <row Id="7675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3167" RevisionGUID="b1440fc6-5040-4082-81fe-8e795ea2e0b0" CreationDate="2014-11-28T09:12:05.467" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, explained MSW, improved answer layout" Text="I found a report from the German Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) management system. Here are some of their achievements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Recycling has increased from 48 % of MSW generated in 2001 to 62 % in 2010;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The EU target for 50 % recycling by 2020 has therefore already been met; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There was no increase in the recycling level of MSW between 2006 and 2010, whereas incineration has increased; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The 2016 target for biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill was met in 2006; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is a long tradition of national waste strategies and waste management plans in the federal states;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A ban on landfilling un-pretreated MSW, producer responsibility and a focus on separate collection have proven to be important policy initiatives; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The latest initiative is the introduction of the so-called recycling bin that aims to increase recycling of plastics and metals from households, and mandatory separate collection of bio-waste by 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- They have also had a net reduction of MSW from 2006-2010." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3167" RevisionGUID="f38f9394-cbf5-412b-a1ad-f88d7cf2f28c" CreationDate="2014-11-28T12:20:45.143" UserId="1852" Comment="added 196 characters in body" Text="I found a report from the German Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) management system. Here are some of their achievements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Recycling has increased from 48 % of MSW generated in 2001 to 62 % in 2010;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The EU target for 50 % recycling by 2020 has therefore already been met; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There was no increase in the recycling level of MSW between 2006 and 2010, whereas incineration has increased; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The 2016 target for biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill was met in 2006; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There is a long tradition of national waste strategies and waste management plans in the federal states;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A ban on landfilling un-pretreated MSW, producer responsibility and a focus on separate collection have proven to be important policy initiatives; and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The latest initiative is the introduction of the so-called recycling bin that aims to increase recycling of plastics and metals from households, and mandatory separate collection of bio-waste by 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- They have also had a net reduction of MSW from 2006-2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the link. I'm on a mobile device so I don't know if it will display properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-municipal-solid-waste/germany-municipal-waste-management" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3168" RevisionGUID="3b4040f5-af06-4887-a7fb-7df5f1e73db9" CreationDate="2014-11-28T12:37:17.530" UserId="1852" Text="I know that the legislature for the project was not passed, but only by one vote in the senate. If it were to pass, would the pipeline just wipe out miles of nature, or do politicians have any concern for the environmental impacts of not only the pipes themselves, but also the construction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3168" RevisionGUID="3b4040f5-af06-4887-a7fb-7df5f1e73db9" CreationDate="2014-11-28T12:37:17.530" UserId="1852" Text="How would keystone pipeline affect nature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3168" RevisionGUID="3b4040f5-af06-4887-a7fb-7df5f1e73db9" CreationDate="2014-11-28T12:37:17.530" UserId="1852" Text="|construction|nature|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7680" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="605aca7c-adda-414d-9119-288766fe457f" CreationDate="2014-11-28T20:17:10.880" UserId="1013" Comment="removed reference to #8 recyclables " Text="Where can I recycle #81 composite materials?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="f1c8484a-c5f2-4403-be76-4da6196ddd5d" CreationDate="2014-11-28T20:34:41.963" UserId="1013" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I noticed my pet food bag has a recycling symbol with a new number in it, #81:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Package with #81 recycling symbol][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only resource I've found about this symbol is the [Wikipedia page on recycling codes][2], which describes it as Paper/Plastic composite material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dose anywhere in the US recycle this material? Is there any more information about this (new?) recycling category?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cTkZA.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_codes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7682" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3168" RevisionGUID="905d1078-8e57-4bda-bc20-b3561e320f87" CreationDate="2014-11-29T08:02:37.883" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/538603928133570560" />
  <row Id="7683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3169" RevisionGUID="30359398-dd04-421b-981a-c14427173fb7" CreationDate="2014-11-30T05:25:53.570" UserId="1865" Text="I traveled to many countries in the world and I found that generally meat, shrimes, vegetable, fruit in the past (like 30 years ago) were more delicious than they are now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that cos people try to mass produce in bulk them and that is why their quality dropped significantly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How human kind can do something to keep the quality of meat, shrimes, vegetable, fruit is the same as the the past but keep the quantity as high enough for all of us?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7684" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3169" RevisionGUID="30359398-dd04-421b-981a-c14427173fb7" CreationDate="2014-11-30T05:25:53.570" UserId="1865" Text="Why meat, shrimes, vegetable, fruit in the past were more delicious than they are now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7685" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3169" RevisionGUID="30359398-dd04-421b-981a-c14427173fb7" CreationDate="2014-11-30T05:25:53.570" UserId="1865" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3170" RevisionGUID="e64257cb-11a4-4375-a0e9-55dbb6089210" CreationDate="2014-11-30T12:59:05.797" UserId="1053" Text="There are several reasons for this. Some are subjective and some are objective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- producers use different breeds of animals and different strains of plants. Instead of selecting for taste, they may select for fast growth, disease resistance, appearance, transportability (eg an apple or tomato that stays hard and won't bruise) and so on. If you have access to a producer who uses heirloom seeds or breeds, you can test this theory. The heirloom pork I buy from my butcher tastes like the pork I remember from 40 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;- producers feed animals different food (cheaper, easier to get, easier to give them) and use different fertilizers on plants. They tend to put all the same plant together and use a spacing that's convenient for machines. They often restrict animals from moving and developing muscles, or finding their own food. These choices can affect food's taste.&#xD;&#xA;- the food may be less fresh, if it has been transported thousands of miles to you, than if it was sourced locally. You may think of potatoes, for example, as being a boring vegetable that don't taste of anything. The first time I ate one from my own garden I was astonished. It tasted great!&#xD;&#xA;- people remember the amazing food they ate once but not all the boring food in between. Then they eat something boring and compare it. Today's so-so peach has to compete with the memory of a peach on a hot summer day when you were in love for the first time and had just gone swimming&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look around for different sources of food, those oriented to flavour, and you may be able to eat a lot happier. I predict that choosing more sustainable food will reward you with more satisfying food. That is what happened for me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7687" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3169" RevisionGUID="750913e6-b573-434a-a432-ae39db715e9a" CreationDate="2014-11-30T17:06:21.383" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/539103149592936448" />
  <row Id="7688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3171" RevisionGUID="66c5b8ad-db94-4aab-900b-eaaade558d92" CreationDate="2014-11-30T19:16:31.930" UserId="1208" Text="As you probably know, the whole tech industry is not very sustainable. Actually far from it.&#xD;&#xA;Most manufacturers obviously don't really care but even for the rare concerned company it's very hard to make any significant steps. (Mines…)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer you question: For your requirements I would say it's the most sustainable option to use a **second hand laptop** and use it as long as possible.&#xD;&#xA;Most laptops (older ones as well) are quite energy efficient.&#xD;&#xA;Buying something new is not a sustainable option atm. and many people sell (or toss) their old hardware, so you might also keep it from the landfill.  &#xD;&#xA;*Name it, take good care of it and dare to repair it.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(btw. there are versions of Linux that play especially well with old hardware.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7689" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3164" RevisionGUID="56b1f03a-1012-4e38-94cc-aed56e0630ff" CreationDate="2014-12-01T02:10:32.657" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/539240099100524544" />
  <row Id="7690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3172" RevisionGUID="51689657-7907-4ed6-b12a-d9cde311945f" CreationDate="2014-12-01T05:30:06.350" UserId="1581" Text="There is a HRV without ducts, which can relatively easily be installed after constructing the house, the OEM name is &quot;inventer&quot;. Works like back and forth cross ventilation. It is of course less efficient than a ducted HRV, but better than open windows. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7691" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3151" RevisionGUID="cfece72f-ecc5-46e3-877b-0de2d5b82d5e" CreationDate="2014-12-01T11:10:25.800" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/539375965718470656" />
  <row Id="7692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3172" RevisionGUID="cae90644-9f57-4264-9117-1d6282b883e1" CreationDate="2014-12-01T13:50:07.083" UserId="1581" Comment="more details given" Text="There is a HRV without ducts, which can relatively easily be installed after constructing the house, the first OEM name is &quot;inventer&quot;, but there are cheaper alternatives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It works like this: There are two holes with fans in the wall at markedly different placs in the house. The two ducts contain heat storage units. The fans realize a cross ventilation, which changes every minute the direction, such that the storage which is heated up during outflow gives its heat back to the inflowing air during inflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big problem with such a system is the acoustic isolation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7693" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3120" RevisionGUID="b75ebae2-d7cf-4fc7-870f-266902a67742" CreationDate="2014-12-01T14:10:28.880" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/539421276314820608" />
  <row Id="7694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3172" RevisionGUID="9c19f797-75c9-464a-8b8f-641b0b26a2e2" CreationDate="2014-12-01T21:21:18.180" UserId="1581" Comment="minor changes, spelling" Text="There is a HRV without ducts, which can be installed relatively easy in houses without HRV. The first OEM name is &quot;inventer&quot;, but there are cheaper alternatives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It works like this: There are two ducts in the outer walls of the house at markedly different places in the house. The short ducts contain a fan and a heat storage unit. The fans realize a cross ventilation, which changes every minute the direction. Thus, the heat storage heats up during outflow, and gives the heat back to the fresh air during inflow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One problem with such a system is the acoustic isolation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3173" RevisionGUID="40f3e907-100a-4577-8037-c2cc5fbc30c7" CreationDate="2014-12-02T15:00:24.373" UserId="1865" Text="I ask this question all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am living in Southeast Asia &amp; the temperature there is always 30-32 C in almost every day of the year. So, houses in Southeast Asia normally are pretty hot. However, people there tried many way to make their home cooler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you come to Southeast Asian countries, you often see &quot;&lt;b&gt;Roof Turbine Vents&lt;/b&gt;&quot; (http://www.askthebuilder.com/roof-turbine-vents/) installed on top of the roof. The wind will make the turbine spin, and when it is spinning it will withdraw the hot air out of the roof. It is not a complete solution but the house is less hot if it uses Roof Turbine Vents than if it does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, they also install the solar panel on top of the roof to get the hot water, and generally the Solar Hot Water system is quite effective as it can give the hot water all the time without spending any cent for electricity bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, come back with the cooling system. Even my house got a Roof Turbine Vents installed on top, we still have to use electricity air conditioner to cool the rooms, which cost a lot of energy bill. Also, for electricity air conditioner, we can only afford to cool a few rooms like the bed room. If I walk out the bed room then it is very hot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can we build a very effective cooling system for house or apartment&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using solar or wind power?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, we can a cooling system on top of the roof. The cooling system can use the solar power from the sun, and then somehow use that energy to cool entirely the roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, for example, when building a house, instead of making the brick walls like the traditional house, we can use the wall that made of  a lot of tiny hot-to-cold material. When the hot sun light triggers the wall the tiny hot-to-cold material on the wall will convert hot energy to cold energy or something like that to cool of the entirely the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I belies that the technical issue is not too difficult but it is just way too expensive to build. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7696" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3173" RevisionGUID="40f3e907-100a-4577-8037-c2cc5fbc30c7" CreationDate="2014-12-02T15:00:24.373" UserId="1865" Text="Can we build a very effective cooling system for house or apartment using solar or wind power?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7697" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3173" RevisionGUID="40f3e907-100a-4577-8037-c2cc5fbc30c7" CreationDate="2014-12-02T15:00:24.373" UserId="1865" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3173" RevisionGUID="5eb3920b-37a2-4f5c-aeb5-5fc16e7fbd82" CreationDate="2014-12-02T15:06:44.330" UserId="1865" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I ask this question all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am living in Southeast Asia &amp; the temperature there is always 30-32 C in almost every day of the year. So, houses in Southeast Asia normally are pretty hot. However, people there tried many way to make their home cooler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you come to Southeast Asian countries, you often see &quot;&lt;b&gt;Roof Turbine Vents&lt;/b&gt;&quot; (http://www.askthebuilder.com/roof-turbine-vents/) installed on top of the roof. The wind will make the turbine spin, and when it is spinning it will withdraw the hot air out of the roof. It is not a complete solution but the house is less hot if it uses Roof Turbine Vents than if it does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, they also install the solar panel on top of the roof to get the hot water, and generally the Solar Hot Water system is quite effective as it can give the hot water all the time without spending any cent for electricity bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, come back to the cooling system. Even my house got a Roof Turbine Vents installed on top, we still have to use electricity air conditioner to cool the rooms, which cost a lot of energy bill. Also, for electricity air conditioner, we can only afford to cool a few rooms like the bed room. If I walk out the bed room then it is very hot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can we build a very effective cooling system for house or apartment&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using solar or wind power?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, we can install a cooling system on top of the roof. The cooling system can use the solar power from the sun, and then somehow use that energy to cool entirely the roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, for example, when building a house, instead of making the brick walls like the traditional house, we can use the wall that made of  a lot of tiny hot-to-cold material. When the hot sun light triggers the wall, the tiny hot-to-cold material on the wall will convert hot energy to cold energy or something like that to cool off entirely the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that the technical issue is not too difficult but it is just too expensive to build. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3174" RevisionGUID="132c88a1-5825-4511-b74d-26741db0f102" CreationDate="2014-12-02T15:39:04.720" UserId="1851" Text="A common thing to do is use the cooler temperature of the ground to reduce the temperature of your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. If building a new home, you can simply build it into a hillside or completely underground. [For Example][1], this house is built into the hillside and one of the key features is that it is covered with grass (vegetation) which will significantly reduce the temperature of your roof, along with the lower temperature of the ground, your house will be cooler than you could make it with an air conditioner, and it's free.&#xD;&#xA; 2. But more likely, you are not building a new house and need something to help cool an existing house. This can be done by using some of the same concepts, just in a different way. Try running a couple hundred feet of tubing about 5 feet underground, throughout your yard where one end is outside and the other end is inside. The heat rising inside your home will cause air to be brought in through the tube which will be cooled by the ground. Simple, free, cool air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check out [this][2] site for some other ideas as well. Good info throughout this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.trendir.com/house-design/house-built-into-a-hill.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.motherearthnews.com/green-homes/cool-your-home-naturally-zmaz07aszgoe.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3175" RevisionGUID="a63314de-0a90-47a9-91e6-f315e0570f3f" CreationDate="2014-12-03T02:34:44.107" UserId="400" Text="Kate has good answers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll add to this:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For meat in particular, animals that are raised quickly tend to have less flavour.  Part of what we call flavour is just the age of the animal.  This is true of shrimp.  A large shrimp tastes much shrimpier.  It's also true of Jackfish.  A 16&quot; jack tastes mildly fishy  A 36&quot; jack is almost inedible it tastes so strong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grass fed beef tends to be more flavour full, but mostly I think that grass takes longer to get the cow to a sellable weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food is less local.  When I was a kid, peaches were in the grocery store for only a few weeks, and they all came from under 200 miles away.  A producer could pick Tuesday evening and have it in the store on Wednesday Morning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, they tend to pick fruit less ripe, and ship it thousands of miles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A final effect: As we get older our tastebuds and sense of smell get less acute.  All flavours become more muted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3176" RevisionGUID="fbe2d1b5-4bcd-412e-b0b9-a45b3d61dfcd" CreationDate="2014-12-03T02:43:07.617" UserId="400" Text="I'm assuming that you are in part of the world that has a monsoon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the dry season, the evaporation of water can make a significant temperature difference.  Google &quot;Swamp cooler&quot;  or &quot;evaporative cooler&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the rainy season, your humidity tends to be absolute.  Evaporation doesn't help much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much depends on how cold it gets at night. If nights are cooler, then you can circulate water over a very shallow pond (1/8&quot; thick)  It will cool to ambient temperature quickly.  The cooler water can be stored until the hot part of the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a supply of cooler water can be used to make a conventional air conditioner more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3177" RevisionGUID="498dbd14-8f02-4c05-bcc0-c1bca48a25ca" CreationDate="2014-12-03T02:53:47.837" UserId="400" Text="The problem is not the pipeline itself.  Large pipelines are standard engineering.  The disruption is fairly short term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that it would make a ready market for Canadian Oilsand oil to get to the gulf coast refineries.  This drops the price of oil on a long range basis.  (The Athabasca tar sands have more oil in them than ALL of the known recoverable reserves in the world.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worse: Because the oilsand oil takes so much energy to extract, the net CO2 released is about 1.5 times the CO2 from a similar amount of conventional crude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some concern about the possibility of a spill.  There is some justification for this fear.  See the response to other oil pipeline leaks.  One way around this would be to require the pipeline company to post a bond to cover a spill.  They would receive the interest on the bond, but the bond would be available to finance recovery.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3168" RevisionGUID="8dff41dd-c0c6-4bcb-ad22-268064e69c07" CreationDate="2014-12-03T12:54:12.553" UserId="48" Comment="transferring the OP's clarification from their comment to the body of the question" Text="I know that the legislature for the project was not passed, but only by one vote in the senate. If it were to pass, would the pipeline just wipe out miles of nature, or do politicians have any concern for the environmental impacts of not only the pipes themselves, but also the construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a comparison of the economic benefits and the environmental impacts, and also if there would be relatively permanent damage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3178" RevisionGUID="856570d5-a0c6-4fa4-b607-dd0773dca48d" CreationDate="2014-12-03T19:26:04.423" UserId="1874" Text="Bats and dragonflies seem to be the most effective mosquito control agents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7705" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="3178" RevisionGUID="4af0ee21-873d-43a5-bd2c-a42d8df914d6" CreationDate="2014-12-03T19:31:23.173" UserId="99" Comment="20" />
  <row Id="7706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3177" RevisionGUID="b2ae8e9b-67d5-4bf1-9b40-be535e39f904" CreationDate="2014-12-04T14:27:39.193" UserId="400" Comment="added 867 characters in body" Text="The problem is not the pipeline itself.  Large pipelines are standard engineering.  The disruption is fairly short term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that it would make a ready market for Canadian Oilsand oil to get to the gulf coast refineries.  This drops the price of oil on a long range basis.  (The Athabasca tar sands have more oil in them than ALL of the known recoverable reserves in the world.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worse: Because the oilsand oil takes so much energy to extract, the net CO2 released is about 1.5 times the CO2 from a similar amount of conventional crude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some concern about the possibility of a spill.  There is some justification for this fear.  See the response to other oil pipeline leaks.  One way around this would be to require the pipeline company to post a bond to cover a spill.  They would receive the interest on the bond, but the bond would be available to finance recovery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@THelper points out a wiki article with lists of spills in the US.   [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Propane and natural gas however have little immediate environmental impact. (NG is a greenhouse gas.) Many of the spills listed don't say how much spilled. If the safety systems work properly, the line should come to a halt with only the contents of a mile or two of pipe spilled. A million gallons is about 3 acre feet. Big nuisance. Expensive cleanup. But still a local problem.  Pipeline companies need to be held accountable to a greater extent than they are now, so that spills are more expensive than running safe lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall a large pipeline has far less impact than transporting that same oil by rail or truck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7707" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3173" RevisionGUID="e0c89cc8-b955-4a6b-8286-ce8f7f1357a4" CreationDate="2014-12-04T17:29:32.497" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/540558535118315520" />
  <row Id="7708" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3168" RevisionGUID="bbbf9884-63ac-4ce8-b904-4871748a03de" CreationDate="2014-12-04T20:52:03.087" UserId="1238" Comment="added some tags for reference" Text="|construction|oil|energy-management|nature|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7709" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3168" RevisionGUID="bbbf9884-63ac-4ce8-b904-4871748a03de" CreationDate="2014-12-04T20:52:03.087" Comment="Proposed by 1238 approved by 85 edit id of 303" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7710" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3108" RevisionGUID="80d4775a-9430-429f-8d3c-737c32ad5a8a" CreationDate="2014-12-05T14:32:40.187" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/540876412308455424" />
  <row Id="7713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3180" RevisionGUID="cae2d60b-fab8-4dff-b7fc-7f114e6992c8" CreationDate="2014-12-07T00:20:58.597" UserId="1878" Text="Does it make sense to keep electrical appliances turned on, or at least not turned off, during the winter as a partial replacement for traditional heating?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking in particular of computers, screens, audio and video equipment and home entertainment systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems to me there is no difference between heat from electrical resistance in a wasteful gadget and heat from the same process in a regular space heating system. And if the heating system is fossil-powered, there is presumably a chance that replacing some of it by &quot;energy inefficiency&quot; would end up a greener solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this reasonable, and if so what factors could determine the calculation?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3180" RevisionGUID="cae2d60b-fab8-4dff-b7fc-7f114e6992c8" CreationDate="2014-12-07T00:20:58.597" UserId="1878" Text="Use waste heat of electrical appliances in place of traditional heating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7715" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3180" RevisionGUID="cae2d60b-fab8-4dff-b7fc-7f114e6992c8" CreationDate="2014-12-07T00:20:58.597" UserId="1878" Text="|heating|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3181" RevisionGUID="712e72ab-531a-428b-8d42-6e3f6384e1ee" CreationDate="2014-12-07T03:43:33.747" UserId="1865" Text="Each city must have a Sanitary sewer System and there are thousands of households in a city.  So we will have a lot of methane air generated from Sanitary sewer System which can be ultilised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is there any way to capture the methane air from the Sanitary sewer System of a city so that we can have free energy? or are there any company that has a technology to do that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3181" RevisionGUID="712e72ab-531a-428b-8d42-6e3f6384e1ee" CreationDate="2014-12-07T03:43:33.747" UserId="1865" Text="Are there any company that has a system that can be able to capture the methane air from the Sanitary sewer System of a city?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3181" RevisionGUID="712e72ab-531a-428b-8d42-6e3f6384e1ee" CreationDate="2014-12-07T03:43:33.747" UserId="1865" Text="|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3181" RevisionGUID="d7356ab6-e0d5-4d12-87f9-68f4a36b95d2" CreationDate="2014-12-07T04:50:58.350" UserId="1865" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Each city must have a Sanitary sewer System and there are thousands of households in a city.  So we will have a lot of methane air generated from Sanitary sewer System which can be ultilised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is there any way to capture the methane air from the Sanitary sewer System of a city so that we can have free energy? or are there any company that has a technology for doing that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3182" RevisionGUID="f10c7e83-9cc5-4e29-9084-6deb13ad8c43" CreationDate="2014-12-07T21:08:16.733" UserId="15" Text="Generally, it makes sense to save power, even during the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between space heating and waste heat&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference between home heating systems and waste heat from electrical appliances is the way the heat is released, and where it's released. Many types of home heating systems are designed to provide heat in a specific way, such as a fan heater pointing in the general direction of someone feeling cold, a radiant heater pointing towards a family while they watch TV, or a fireplace in the living area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heating that is well targeted at the recipients uses less energy than heating that just increases the ambient temperature of the building. This is very much the case in a poorly insulated building where there's not really much point trying to heat the whole building; the heat is lost very quickly anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Insulation, and the type of heating system, makes a big difference&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a well insulated building that runs thermostat-controlled space heating, waste heat from appliances would tend to reduce the load on the space heating system. In that case, one needs to also consider the type of space heating system; if it's efficient or environmentally friendly (like a heat pump, or a system using clean burning renewable fuel), then it's almost certainly better to use the heating system rather than appliances. It is possible though that electricity may be more renewable than the space heating, in which case more detail would be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other factors&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also bear in mind that appliances don't last forever. Depending on the appliance, and the profile of its use, the life of the appliance may be longer if switched off each time or if left on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A good general rule would be to switch off anything not being used that consumes more a negligible amount of power** (such as lighting, televisions or computers), but it's not so bad to leave on standby appliances that only use a Watt or two. You can use a power meter to work out which ones don't matter so much. You'd probably find some tvs, computers, stereos etc use lots of power on standby and others use very little, so it's worth checking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3183" RevisionGUID="945089b6-46ef-467e-afbc-06ced157f13f" CreationDate="2014-12-08T04:10:01.930" UserId="400" Text="While some sewer gas is present most of the time in the pipes, the time it takes crap to get from the house to the sewage processing plant is short relative to the amount of gas given off.  It would make more sense to limit your operations to the sewage treatment plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly.  Two major components of sewer gas are methane, and hydrogen sulfide.  H2S is present, has some energy, and is very poisonous.  This is the 'rotten egg' smell.  Human noses detect it at 1 ppm.  They go numb to it a a few ppm later.  At 15 ppm, it's toxic, although it takes a while.  At 1000 ppm, you take 1 breath and fall unconscious.  That's 0.1%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's not a lot of energy in H2S.  If you burn it you get a mix of sulfur acids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's look at the methane.  Overall you are looking at the partial decomposition of food scraps and crap.  The roman Legion figured on about 2 lbs of grain per man per day in the field.  Probably 1.5 pounds after the rats got their share.  You start with 1.5 pounds at 450 g/lb = 675 grams.  x 4 calories per gram (average for cereals) = 2500 calories per day.  80% of that is extracted in the gut.  500 calories get exported with your crap. Suppose that 1/2 the energy is converted into methane. That's 250 calories per person per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;City of 1 million people.  250 million calories  = about 300,000 kWh = 300 MWh or about $9000 a day.  On the other hand that's 1/3 of a kWh per person per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By comparison that same 1 million people are already using 5 to 80 kWh/day.  So the methane is small potatoes.  And that's not counting industry and office space.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the money can be better spent on mass transist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3184" RevisionGUID="876deaf6-0fe0-4d6d-bc3b-b6164458cedf" CreationDate="2014-12-08T04:17:09.547" UserId="400" Text="Off hand, no.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately your choices are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Find a way to recharge them.  Unlikely, although for some batteries you can partially reverse the discharge and give them a few percent of their original charge.  This would be in essence a scam. This is reuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Take them apart for their components.  This is recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Come up with a new use.  Tiddly-winks. Introduce them as coins in a sufficiently gullible/primitive society.  Use them as counters to teach young children math facts.  Beat them into fishing spoons.  Put holes in them and make them into Christmas decorations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3185" RevisionGUID="d6dcffdd-caeb-4f96-8ee9-760810e40706" CreationDate="2014-12-08T04:30:07.033" UserId="400" Text="You are track of a useful idea here, but the ceiling space is not the place to use it.  I have actually asked our local waste management municipality if it's realistic to pull a stream of waste styrofoam from the landfill sorting process. While they haven't asnwered me, because of styrofoam's low density, separating it should be straight forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ceiling space is open.  Styrofoam burns obnoxiously, as the comments above point out.  When it is used in a building, most codes require that it have a fire protection barrier equivalent to 1/2&quot; gyprock, and that's using it as a sheet material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few ideas. Run with them, and remember me when you get rich.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Chop to a uniform size, and use as an adjuvant to lightweight concrete.  This would essentially replace vermiculite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Similar to above but use it as a spray on insulation on the outside of a foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Chop, clean and quickly mix it with acetone, possibly diluted with water, and press into sheets.  These would have drainage built in, but despite the air circulation would still be several times the insulation value of dirt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Fuse the chips together with heat, and press into 1 x 1 x 4 foot lego blocks.  While not code for houses, they may work very well for utility buildings.  In the block making process score grooves in them, so a stucco coat can be sprayed directly on them without the need of mesh.  Stock piling a million such blocks near New Orleans may help for emergency shelter next time a hurricane catches them with their shorts around their ankles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.  Similar, but as part of the fusing process coat them with sand, or finely ground beer bottles.  This would protect the block from UV, possibly give them an attractive finish, and because of the sharp edges discourage rodents and small children from messing around with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3186" RevisionGUID="81bac5e8-ed77-4a43-a731-4b320044e5e8" CreationDate="2014-12-08T04:35:11.790" UserId="400" Text="Pretty open ended question.  I would suggest that you look at historical examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most recently:  Look at present suppliers, and see how long it took them to go from venture capital to production capable.  When doing this ignore companies based on a major innovation, as that takes longer.  Look at ones that implement more or less standard technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another measure is to look at the maximum growth rate of such companies.  If the number of players is increasing, it indicates that the present companies cannot meet the demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A third measure, harder to interpret is to look at similar expansions for other energy linked industries.  Say the expansion of steam use in the Industrial revolution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3187" RevisionGUID="1d3c3c69-9d22-44c5-bdbb-da8197d14c92" CreationDate="2014-12-08T04:46:08.617" UserId="400" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I don;t think that ports are a limiting factor here.  Unless you are planning on making millions of turbines all made from one port near a manufacturing facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider   Let's suppose that you are building 100 meter turbines.  That is 100 meter diameter air flow, on a 100 meter tower, plus foundation.  You've got a large tube 100+ meters long, and 3 blades 50 meters long.  This is a large but common size ocean barge.  Indeed, it would likely carry several.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's suppose that you do the final assembly in a factory with a straight line to a single dock.  Now your loading facility is much like any facility for handling large components.  (How do companies load pre-formed refinery towers.)  While it would not be as quick as loading containers, I bet with practice you would be able to load one component every 30 minutes. 4 major components = 2 hours per turbine.  This would mean that one dock can handle 12 turbines per day, or about 4000 per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, your bigger problem is going to be getting them TO the dock, which is why a purpose build dock next to the factory makes sense.  The dock facility can be build in tandem with the factory.  Typical factory construction times are 1-3 years, depending on whether it's standard off the shelf tools, or high tech engineering. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7726" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3180" RevisionGUID="5feaad1d-56e4-4ed0-ada7-94c1646c2548" CreationDate="2014-12-08T08:40:51.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/541875039080304640" />
  <row Id="7727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3188" RevisionGUID="af5323ad-b351-4fa8-813a-066d93981ae8" CreationDate="2014-12-08T15:02:30.937" UserId="927" Text="I wanted to add a sort of laymen-term answer to your specific question.  Other addressed in general the practicality of using a stove to heat the house, but you specifically asked about after cooking, ie once the oven is already hot and you need to know how best to utilize that heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most efficient approach is to keep the oven door closed, in fact the better you could insulate the oven the more efficient it is.  The reason comes down to what Highly Irregular already said.  If you leave the door open so much heat released at once will tend to rise straight up and out of the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you allow the door to be closed the heat will dissipate much slower.  This will allow more time for the warm air to circulate and spread throughout the house.  Thus more of the heat will be kept in the house to warm it rather then immediately escaping.  The better insulated the stove was the better this conversion would be.  Of course a metal pipe running from the stove to your room would do an even better job heating your room, but would probably be a bit of a hazard so I don't really recommend it :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally like to turn my oven off *before* the recipe says to.  For the last 5-10 minutes I let the oven cool, but it will still be almost the right temperature for the recipe.  Your food will come out the same, but you avoid a few minutes of heating the oven with heat that will be partially-wasted.  Though rather or not this helps depends on rather your oven happens to be heating at the end of your recipe (the oven will turn on and off intermittently to keep the ideal temperature, so half the time you won't notice any difference turning the stove off early." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3189" RevisionGUID="0750bfa7-b5db-4b12-86af-0c5969c36fec" CreationDate="2014-12-08T15:04:17.660" UserId="927" Text="Just a random curiosity question here.  How much of an affect do all the holiday lights and other such decorations affect the enviroment?  relative to the footprint of a house a set of outdoor lights is probably pretty minimal, but if you add up all the decorations of all the houses, what does it come up to?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7729" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3189" RevisionGUID="0750bfa7-b5db-4b12-86af-0c5969c36fec" CreationDate="2014-12-08T15:04:17.660" UserId="927" Text="What is the global enviromental imapct of holiday decorations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7730" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3189" RevisionGUID="0750bfa7-b5db-4b12-86af-0c5969c36fec" CreationDate="2014-12-08T15:04:17.660" UserId="927" Text="|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="b056a275-0350-4e37-a144-0f62b81cb397" CreationDate="2014-12-08T15:12:44.697" UserId="927" Text="I'm currently driving a suzuki SX4 2008.  It gets (supposedly) 30 MPG on highways, though I suspect it's much lower now because of the beating I have given the poor car and lack of proper maintenance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I regret the choice because I turned down a cheaper more fuel-efficient vehicle for it when I purchased it.  At the time I had not anticipated how much driving I would be doing (a side effect of volunteering).  I did over 15 hours of driving last week, almost exclusively highway.  My usual week isn't quite that bad, but I do 30 minutes per day for work, and probably at least 3-5 hours a week for volunteer activities, likely more.  A more fuel-efficient vehicle will definitely help.  I'm considering either an electric or a tiny two-seater for my next vehicle, depending on how much they actual cost to purchase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, replacing a car has an environmental impact as well.  The cost of building a new car releases a significant amount of pollution.  I'm trying to figure out how the harm of purchasing a new car weighs against the harm of the pollution of an older, less fuel efficient, and poorly maintained vehicle.  I figure keeping the old car would likely work out as environmentally better, but by how much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7732" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="b056a275-0350-4e37-a144-0f62b81cb397" CreationDate="2014-12-08T15:12:44.697" UserId="927" Text="Enviromental impact of replacing a vehicle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7733" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="b056a275-0350-4e37-a144-0f62b81cb397" CreationDate="2014-12-08T15:12:44.697" UserId="927" Text="|vehicle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3189" RevisionGUID="5a295083-d715-4588-a667-2b1ec53a2438" CreationDate="2014-12-08T15:38:53.967" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo's, added ecological footprint tag" Text="Just a random curiosity question here.  How much do all the holiday lights and other such decorations affect the environment?  Relative to the footprint of a house a set of outdoor lights is probably pretty minimal, but if you add up all the decorations of all the houses, what does it come up to?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7735" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3189" RevisionGUID="5a295083-d715-4588-a667-2b1ec53a2438" CreationDate="2014-12-08T15:38:53.967" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo's, added ecological footprint tag" Text="What is the global environmental impact of holiday decorations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7736" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3189" RevisionGUID="5a295083-d715-4588-a667-2b1ec53a2438" CreationDate="2014-12-08T15:38:53.967" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo's, added ecological footprint tag" Text="|electricity|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3191" RevisionGUID="3e51adb4-da4e-4f0d-9986-bba1ff67f0a1" CreationDate="2014-12-08T20:14:42.163" UserId="863" Text="I am a grad student who can't stand reading pdfs on a laptop. Combined with my minor ADD, I always end up on reddit or stackexchange websites wasting time. Also, when I present my research to my supervisor, he wants me to print everything out. However, I always chicken out printing pdfs, my lecture notes, research material because I want to save on paper. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, my question is how sustainable is paper? Paper obviously comes from trees and trees can be replanted, but are we cutting down more trees then we are replanting? Also, what is the recycling situation of paper? How much paper does actually get recycled? If we are recycling a high percentage of paper into new paper, then I don't have to &quot;feel bad&quot; printing my material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for answers with sources (I've tried googling, but not found the information I need). I am based in Toronto, Ontario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3191" RevisionGUID="3e51adb4-da4e-4f0d-9986-bba1ff67f0a1" CreationDate="2014-12-08T20:14:42.163" UserId="863" Text="How much of paper gets recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3191" RevisionGUID="3e51adb4-da4e-4f0d-9986-bba1ff67f0a1" CreationDate="2014-12-08T20:14:42.163" UserId="863" Text="|recycling|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7740" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="abdccd6d-f399-42be-ba86-695973e22fff" CreationDate="2014-12-09T05:43:00.253" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/542192668613558272" />
  <row Id="7741" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3191" RevisionGUID="2a5e1442-e1d6-4404-84e4-0725c6dd2c35" CreationDate="2014-12-09T14:43:00.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/542328563530481665" />
  <row Id="7742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3192" RevisionGUID="09d4d02c-70a8-4f71-8561-e2292ab68acc" CreationDate="2014-12-09T16:11:36.437" UserId="1882" Text="You could do that. It'd raise the temperature a little bit. However, it's certainly not optimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're attempting to lower your overall energy use and still be warm, your best bet is to not try to keep the whole house at 70 degrees. Turn down your heat to 60, turn off your appliances, and then use a space heater / heat blanket / etc to heat just the immediate area you're using at the time. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7743" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3189" RevisionGUID="bb44107b-b4b0-408e-9852-fa557e81772c" CreationDate="2014-12-09T17:43:00.103" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/542373862315667456" />
  <row Id="7744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3192" RevisionGUID="29691245-50a5-474e-9d60-d79cad24dac4" CreationDate="2014-12-09T19:59:02.227" UserId="99" Comment="added degrees in Celsius for international users" Text="You could do that. It'd raise the temperature a little bit. However, it's certainly not optimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're attempting to lower your overall energy use and still be warm, your best bet is to not try to keep the whole house at 70 degrees Fahrenheit (21 Celsius). Turn down your heat to 60 F (16 C), turn off your appliances, and then use a space heater / heat blanket / etc to heat just the immediate area you're using at the time. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7745" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3181" RevisionGUID="833b2fbc-57d1-4405-84e3-af1adb3d7124" CreationDate="2014-12-10T20:45:02.993" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/542782063385251840" />
  <row Id="7752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3194" RevisionGUID="27c0afa5-4002-4adb-8f64-30d500c80139" CreationDate="2014-12-11T08:38:00.490" UserId="99" Text="In [this question on an alternative way of heating](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/3180/99) a [comment]( http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3180/use-waste-heat-of-electrical-appliances-in-place-of-traditional-heating/3192?noredirect=1#comment3900_3192) was made that  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are significant potential health risks with lowering a house to 16 degrees C &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What kind of potential health risks are we talking about here? And under which conditions would they occur?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this question a bit more concrete: in our home we tend to only heat the living room, kitchen and bathroom. The bed rooms, hallway and toilet are hardly ever heated and temperatures there may drop to 15-16 degrees in winter time (about 60 degrees Fahrenheit). Could this cause health problems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3194" RevisionGUID="27c0afa5-4002-4adb-8f64-30d500c80139" CreationDate="2014-12-11T08:38:00.490" UserId="99" Text="Potential health risks with keeping temperature in a house low?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3194" RevisionGUID="27c0afa5-4002-4adb-8f64-30d500c80139" CreationDate="2014-12-11T08:38:00.490" UserId="99" Text="|heating|health|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="6f53ed17-ae99-4dab-b2ce-8ba3a4961e24" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:28:57.330" UserId="99" Comment="removed dead link, added new link" Text="An ecological footprint estimates how much land and ocean area is required to sustain the consumption pattern of one person of a particular group of people. For example in 2007 it was estimated that mankind's total ecological footprint was 1.5 planet Earths, i.e. humanity uses 1.5 times more of the available resources than the Earth can renew them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the difference with [tag:carbon-footprint] that only considers the emission of greenhouse gasses of a person, organisation or activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online personal ecological footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Myfootprint.org](http://myfootprint.org/)&#xD;&#xA; - [WWF UK](http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/pt/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Islandwood.org](https://islandwood.org/footprint-calculator/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="926e2008-755f-48a7-908d-5e81c26ef90a" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:29:49.700" UserId="99" Comment="edited body" Text="The sustainability issues around domestic or commercial gardening; the cultivation of plants and fungi; landscaping and garden design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability.SE takes gardening questions that are **primarily about the sustainability aspects** of gardening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there's a dedicated [Gardening StackExchange][1] where you can ask questions about amateur or professional gardening that are **not primarily** about the sustainability aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions on (edible) plants please use [tag:plants] or [tag:food]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions on composting use [tag:composting].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="134" RevisionGUID="759a5a45-0b56-49a6-b7a1-bd42bc89f1dd" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:30:36.373" UserId="99" Comment="edited body" Text="DIY (Do-It-Yourself) and home improvements: the sustainability issues around mending and improving your home through repairs, renovation, carpentry, plumbing and other building activities that you do yourself, as an alternative to employing a tradesperson.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability.SE takes DIY questions that are **primarily about the sustainability aspects** of DIY and home improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there's a dedicated [Home Improvement StackExchange][1] where you can ask DIY and home improvement questions that are **not primarily** about the sustainability aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other DIY websites include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [Green upgrader](http://greenupgrader.com/category/diy-green/)&#xD;&#xA;  - [DIY network](http://www.diynetwork.com/)&#xD;&#xA;  - [Instructables](http://www.instructables.com/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://diy.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="23f7c82f-4a93-46ff-87b6-33a516c9d13a" CreationDate="2014-12-11T10:32:18.370" UserId="99" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Aquaponics is the combination of aquaculture (keeping fish or other aquatic animals) and hydroponics (growing plants in water). Together these two systems complement each other. The fish wastes provide nutrients for the plants and the plants filter the water. Additionally bacteria break down by-products such as ammonia excreted by fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions about fish as sustainble food source see [tag:fish]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions mainly about keeping fish for fun see [Pets StackExchange](http://pets.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions mainly about the plants used in aquaponics (not-specifically about sustainability) see [Gardening StackExchange](http://gardening.stackexchange.com). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3195" RevisionGUID="60c4fa38-7a91-43e7-88e3-43862e5e3309" CreationDate="2014-12-11T13:03:16.147" UserId="48" Text="###Humidity is a funny thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The warmer that air gets, the more water it can hold as vapour. When that air cools down, it can no longer hold as much water vapour; if its humidity was high, then some of that water will condense out onto the coldest surface first. So air that has a healthy, comfortable relative humidity of 50%, when cooled, will have a relative humidity that increases as it cools, without any additional water vapour going into that air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A room's temperature is also a funny thing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's common in a lot of energy modelling of dwellings to assume that a room has **a** temperature. Studies looking at thermal comfort have to be a lot more sophisticated, because things like different radiant temperatures of different surfaces, and a big temperature difference between ankle-height and head height, can be uncomfortable. Most rooms don't have a single temperature - they have lots of different temperatures, clustered around the room's mean temperature. So if a room has a mean temperature of 16&amp;deg;C, there will be spots in that room where the temperature is warmer, and places where it's cooler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ch...ch...ch...ch...changes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say you've got the bathroom at a nice comfy temperature when you're in it. And the kitchen's a nice comfy temperature when you're there. Maybe the bedroom, when you're not in it, gets down to 16&amp;deg;C. Now here's the thing - air moves around the dwelling. So of that lovely warm air in the bathroom or the kitchen, some of it will find its way through to the bedroom. Now, we put a fair bit of water vapour into the air just by breathing. Add in more water vapour from cooking and bathing, and the relative humidity in the kitchen or bathroom might get pretty high. And after all, relative humidity below 40% or so starts getting uncomfortably dry. Now, as that air gets to the bedroom, it's going to hit some surfaces that are colder than 16&amp;deg;C - 16 was just the average. Windows and window frames, external walls - particularly corners. It will often be the same spots, day after day after day - where there are thermal bridges: spots where heat has an easier route to the cold outdoors; spots that are a degree or three Celsius colder than other places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Mould and Mites&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, because those spots I mentioned above will be repeated sites of condensation, then mould will take hold, and flourish. It will keep coming back, again and again. And mould spores are not nice - exacerbating asthma and other respiratory diseases. Additionally, persistent high humidity allows dust mites to flourish, and their waste products also create and exacerbate breathing difficulties: they are *&quot;one of the best-documented environmental causes of asthma&quot;* (Peat et al 1998). Furthermore, people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) benefit from additional warming, and suffer in cold rooms (Osman et al 2008)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###References and further reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oreszczyn, T., Ridley, I., Hong, S. H., &amp; Wilkinson, P. (2006). Mould and winter indoor relative humidity in low income households in England. Indoor Built Environment, 15(2), 125–135. doi:[10.1177/1420326X06063051][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preval, N., Chapman, R., Pierse, N., &amp; Howden-Chapman, P. (2010). Evaluating energy, health and carbon co-benefits from improved domestic space heating: a randomised community trial. Energy Policy, 38(8), 3965–3972. doi:[10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.020][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Home warmth and health status of COPD patients. Liesl M. Osman, Jon G. Ayres, Carole Garden, Karen Reglitz, Janice Lyon, J. Graham Douglas doi:[10.1093/eurpub/ckn015][3]  Volume 18, Issue 4, 01 August 2008 p399-405&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Effects of damp and mould in the home on respiratory health: a review of the literature&#xD;&#xA;Allergy. 1998 Feb;53(2):120-8. Peat JK1, Dickerson J, Li J. doi: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1420326X06063051&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.020&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn015" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7760" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3194" RevisionGUID="a9787791-3a9b-4d31-a8eb-e47d114c75a9" CreationDate="2014-12-11T14:46:18.753" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/543054171940085760" />
  <row Id="7761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3196" RevisionGUID="f5cb0379-0a1e-4a11-b6a4-335186593764" CreationDate="2014-12-11T19:43:18.737" UserId="427" Text="The [Gardening StackExchange][1] question [Renovating mature pear trees][2]&#xD;&#xA;asks about the techniques for keeping existing old (75-100 years) trees alive.&#xD;&#xA;How does the choice between renovating old trees vs removing them and buying new trees effect &#xD;&#xA;&quot;a lifestyle that can be maintained indefinitely without depleting available resources&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;What are the issues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/14841/renovating-mature-pear-trees" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7762" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3196" RevisionGUID="f5cb0379-0a1e-4a11-b6a4-335186593764" CreationDate="2014-12-11T19:43:18.737" UserId="427" Text="Renovating old pears tress vs removal and replacement with new trees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7763" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3196" RevisionGUID="f5cb0379-0a1e-4a11-b6a4-335186593764" CreationDate="2014-12-11T19:43:18.737" UserId="427" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7764" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3196" RevisionGUID="523ad6db-517e-4076-baeb-29c9cecbc93e" CreationDate="2014-12-11T19:49:56.733" UserId="427" Comment="typo" Text="Renovating old pears trees vs removal and replacement with new trees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7765" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3196" RevisionGUID="ac0a84e9-eb3d-46d7-916a-cf7498bf498c" CreationDate="2014-12-11T21:20:15.240" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|repair|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3196" RevisionGUID="ac0a84e9-eb3d-46d7-916a-cf7498bf498c" CreationDate="2014-12-11T21:20:15.240" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="The [Gardening StackExchange][1] question [Renovating mature pear trees][2]&#xD;&#xA;asks about the techniques for keeping existing old (75-100 years) trees alive.&#xD;&#xA;How does the choice between renovating old trees vs removing them and buying new trees affect &#xD;&#xA;&quot;*a lifestyle that can be maintained indefinitely without depleting available resources*&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;What are the issues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/14841/renovating-mature-pear-trees" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3195" RevisionGUID="8dc820f8-de14-445d-b46a-15897e44bbc9" CreationDate="2014-12-12T00:14:53.773" UserId="48" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="###Humidity is a funny thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The warmer that air gets, the more water it can hold as vapour. When that air cools down, it can no longer hold as much water vapour; if its humidity was high, then some of that water will condense out onto the coldest surface first. So air that has a healthy, comfortable relative humidity of 50%, when cooled, will have a relative humidity that increases as it cools, without any additional water vapour going into that air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A room's temperature is also a funny thing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's common in a lot of energy modelling of dwellings to assume that a room has **a** temperature. Studies looking at thermal comfort have to be a lot more sophisticated, because things like different radiant temperatures of different surfaces, and a big temperature difference between ankle-height and head height, can be uncomfortable. Most rooms don't have a single temperature - they have lots of different temperatures, clustered around the room's mean temperature. So if a room has a mean temperature of 16&amp;deg;C, there will be spots in that room where the temperature is warmer, and places where it's cooler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ch...ch...ch...ch...changes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say you've got the bathroom at a nice comfy temperature when you're in it. And the kitchen's a nice comfy temperature when you're there. Maybe the bedroom, when you're not in it, gets down to 16&amp;deg;C. Now here's the thing - air moves around the dwelling. So of that lovely warm air in the bathroom or the kitchen, some of it will find its way through to the bedroom. Now, we put a fair bit of water vapour into the air just by breathing. Add in more water vapour from cooking and bathing, and the relative humidity in the kitchen or bathroom might get pretty high. And after all, relative humidity below 40% or so starts getting uncomfortably dry. Now, as that air gets to the bedroom, it's going to hit some surfaces that are colder than 16&amp;deg;C - 16 was just the average. Windows and window frames, external walls - particularly corners. It will often be the same spots, day after day after day - where there are thermal bridges: spots where heat has an easier route to the cold outdoors; spots that are a degree or three Celsius colder than other places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Mould and Mites&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, because those spots I mentioned above will be repeated sites of condensation, then mould will take hold, and flourish. It will keep coming back, again and again. And mould spores are not nice - exacerbating asthma and other respiratory diseases. Additionally, persistent high humidity allows dust mites to flourish, and their waste products also create and exacerbate breathing difficulties: they are *&quot;one of the best-documented environmental causes of asthma&quot;* (Peat et al 1998). Furthermore, people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) benefit from additional warming, and suffer in cold rooms (Osman et al 2008)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###References and further reading&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oreszczyn T, Ridley I, Hong SH, &amp; Wilkinson P (2006). *Mould and winter indoor relative humidity in low income households in England.* Indoor Built Environment, 15(2), 125–135. doi:[10.1177/1420326X06063051][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preval N, Chapman R, Pierse N, &amp; Howden-Chapman P (2010).  *Evaluating energy, health and carbon co-benefits from improved domestic space heating: a randomised community trial.* Energy Policy, 38(8), 3965–3972. doi:[10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.020][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Osman LM, Ayres JG, Garden C, Reglitz K, Lyon J, Douglas JG (2008). *Home warmth and health status of COPD patients.* The European Journal of Public Health Volume 18, Issue 4, 01 August 2008 p399-405. doi:[10.1093/eurpub/ckn015][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peat JK, Dickerson J, Li J (1998). *Effects of damp and mould in the home on respiratory health: a review of the literature*. Allergy. 1998 Feb;53(2):120-8. doi:[10.1111/j.1398-9995.1998.tb03859.x][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1420326X06063051&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.020&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn015&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.1998.tb03859.x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3169" RevisionGUID="c8ed71fb-5fac-40ad-8135-3315030cc71f" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:56:56.777" UserId="1890" Comment="Spelling and grammar" Text="I traveled to many countries in the world and I found that generally meat, shrimps, vegetable, fruit in the past (like 30 years ago) were more delicious than they are now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that because people try to mass produce in bulk them and that is why their quality dropped significantly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can humankind keep the quality of meat, shrimps, vegetable, fruit the same as in the past but keep the quantity high enough for all of us?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7769" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3169" RevisionGUID="c8ed71fb-5fac-40ad-8135-3315030cc71f" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:56:56.777" UserId="1890" Comment="Spelling and grammar" Text="Why were meat, shrimps, vegetable, fruit in the past more delicious than they are now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7770" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3169" RevisionGUID="c8ed71fb-5fac-40ad-8135-3315030cc71f" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:56:56.777" Comment="Proposed by 1890 approved by 99 edit id of 306" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="59d26de9-97c3-4ae0-9e16-4c939424664b" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:57:40.257" UserId="1890" Comment="Grammar and capitalisation" Text="I'm currently driving a Suzuki SX4 2008.  It gets (supposedly) 30 MPG on highways, though I suspect it's much lower now because of the beating I have given the poor car and lack of proper maintenance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I regret the choice because I turned down a cheaper more fuel-efficient vehicle for it when I purchased it.  At the time I had not anticipated how much driving I would be doing (a side effect of volunteering).  I did over 15 hours of driving last week, almost exclusively highway.  My usual week isn't quite that bad, but I do 30 minutes per day for work, and probably at least 3-5 hours a week for volunteer activities, likely more.  A more fuel-efficient vehicle will definitely help.  I'm considering either an electric or a tiny two-seater for my next vehicle, depending on how much they actual cost to purchase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, replacing a car has an environmental impact as well.  The cost of building a new car releases a significant amount of pollution.  I'm trying to figure out how the harm of purchasing a new car weighs against the harm of the pollution of an older, less fuel efficient, and poorly maintained vehicle.  I figure keeping the old car would likely work out as environmentally better, but by how much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7772" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="59d26de9-97c3-4ae0-9e16-4c939424664b" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:57:40.257" UserId="1890" Comment="Grammar and capitalisation" Text="What is the environmental impact of replacing a vehicle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7773" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="59d26de9-97c3-4ae0-9e16-4c939424664b" CreationDate="2014-12-13T06:57:40.257" Comment="Proposed by 1890 approved by 99 edit id of 305" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7774" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3196" RevisionGUID="9fe05157-7836-49cc-8558-97a7e652631f" CreationDate="2014-12-14T03:01:03.413" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/543963852338397184" />
  <row Id="7777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3198" RevisionGUID="78c420c7-57ef-4b5d-aecc-575f463b0077" CreationDate="2014-12-14T22:42:59.063" UserId="400" Text="So the problem is NOT low temperataure, but high humidity.  High humidity will be a problem at any temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A badly insulated house will encounter problems at lower humidities, since there will be more cold spots:  places where the temperature is below the dew point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tightly sealed house with long air exchange times may have more problems due to accumulation of excess moisture from cooking and bathing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A house in a humid climate will have more problems because of the higher humidity of replacement air in the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A house with fairly rapid air exchange (&lt; 3 hours) whether from air leaks or forced ventilation is less likely to have problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A house in a dry climate is less likely to have problems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't worry about it here in central Alberta.  We have a dry climate, and generally have to keep adding water to the air to make it comfortable.  We heat with wood, and the house is frequently as cold as 50 F or as warm as 75 F.  Sometimes at the same time if we are running only one stove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Determining which of the above applies can be daunting.  Easy way:  Measure the humidity.  Have several instruments scattered through the house.  You are looking for rooms that have humidity levels above 80% for extended periods of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also check rooms that are closed off.  Closets on outside walls especially, and see if there are traces of mold and mildew.  Crawl spaces are another place to check.  Remove exterior switch covers, and use a fiber optic scope and look thorugh the holes in the outlet box.  Peer under siding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3199" RevisionGUID="f2b2836e-fae0-4b60-85b0-7bf2b05f2721" CreationDate="2014-12-14T22:52:42.233" UserId="400" Text="Trees have a finite life span.  Commercially apples and pears are usually replaced after about 40 years.  A private tree isn't under the same pressure to produce, so it can be used for a longer period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removing the tree is difficult, especially the stump.  Sustainably you could cut it flush, let it rot, use the top for firewood.  Move over a few feet to plant the new tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rejuvinating the tree may or may not be possible depending on the condition of the root system and lower trunk.  If it is just the top that is in trouble, you may be able to cut it down to 3-4 feet, and tongue graft several scions to the trunk.  My uncle recently converted a 40 acre orchard from, I think, winesap to fuji apples this way.  He was producing apples in 2 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other option at this point is to use scions from multiple varieties of pear, and grow a chimera tree.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rejuvenating this way is quite cheap.  Scions are typically $2 per section.  The grafting would take 10-15 minutes from someone experienced.  Ask around in your gardening circles for a fruit nut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replacing the tree depends on your access.  I sell 3 year pear trees, about 7 feet high, in a #10 pot for $75.  Add to that your costs to come pick it up.  1 year old grafts are typically about 4 feet high and run about$40 retail.  Wholesale, bare root, $3-10 each in lots of 100-500.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3201" RevisionGUID="b0c93fe9-00e8-4e13-9c4e-6c4ad1ca34f1" CreationDate="2014-12-15T09:10:28.227" UserId="99" Text="Generally, to compare two choices from a sustainability viewpoint you want to identify how much non-renewable resources are being used by either option, or how much pollution is created. Since you often don't know this kind of information from products you buy, you either need to do research and/or do some guesswork.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this answer I'll make various assumptions and purely look at the impact of both actions, so I won't be discussing the end result (if you will get more peaches again).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Option 1: renovating**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assumption 1: Trimming the tree is enough to renovate it&#xD;&#xA;- Assumption 2: The energy used to trim the tree is renewable (so no petrol-powered chainsaw will be used for example)&#xD;&#xA;- Assumption 3: The cut-off branches will be left to rot and not burned ([burning releases approximately the same amount of CO2 as rotting, but burning also releases nitrogen dioxide, a strong greenhouse gas, as well as particulates](http://transitionculture.org/2008/05/19/is-burning-wood-really-a-long-term-energy-descent-strategy/))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these assumptions this option has little to no impact. There will be CO2 emissions caused by the decay of the cut-off branches, but this will always happen eventually when trees die.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Option2: removing and buying new**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Assumption 1: The new trees are grown organically and no synthetic fertilizers were used (otherwise there may be a negative impact due to the use of pesticides or use of non-renewable resources) &#xD;&#xA;- Assumption 2: You will be replacing the removed trees with the same amount of new trees (otherwise the net effect is more CO2 emissions)&#xD;&#xA;- Assumption 3: The trees are transported by a petrol-powered vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;- Assumption 4: The energy used to remove the tree is renewable.&#xD;&#xA;- Assumption 5: The removed trees will be left to rot and not burned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these assumptions there is a small impact for transport, so this option is slightly worse from a sustainability viewpoint compared to option 1." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3202" RevisionGUID="3c3a4fed-488f-45cf-b6d8-1de96fb3a226" CreationDate="2014-12-16T10:26:03.913" UserId="99" Text="E-mail is often regarded as cheap and more environmentally friendly than paper. But is this really the case? I suspect that loads more emails are sent nowadays than paper letters were sent before the Internet became popular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the carbon footprint of an email, including drafting, sending, and reading it? And how much does adding a large attachment contribute?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3202" RevisionGUID="3c3a4fed-488f-45cf-b6d8-1de96fb3a226" CreationDate="2014-12-16T10:26:03.913" UserId="99" Text="What’s the carbon footprint of an email?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3202" RevisionGUID="3c3a4fed-488f-45cf-b6d8-1de96fb3a226" CreationDate="2014-12-16T10:26:03.913" UserId="99" Text="|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3203" RevisionGUID="64df55d8-ef65-41c2-bd94-ae41221c46d7" CreationDate="2014-12-16T11:15:03.113" UserId="1901" Text="I guess the sustainability depends strongly on how the pellets are produced. Often pellets are made from bi-product from other forest industry which makes it trickier to calculate emission and carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took a quick look at IEA (International Energy Agency) and they had a general article about bio-energy:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.iea.org/techinitiatives/renewableenergy/bioenergy/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also refer to a book about pellets &quot;The Pellet Handbook&quot;, haven't bought or read it thou:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9781844076314/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3203" RevisionGUID="f1d5d446-7012-4c3b-8809-03cc4b7a8b46" CreationDate="2014-12-16T11:57:08.850" UserId="1901" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="I guess the sustainability depends strongly on how the pellets are produced. Often pellets are made from by-product from other forest industry which makes it trickier to calculate emission and carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took a quick look at IEA (International Energy Agency) and they had a general article about bio-energy:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.iea.org/techinitiatives/renewableenergy/bioenergy/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also refer to a book about pellets &quot;The Pellet Handbook&quot;, haven't bought or read it thou:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9781844076314/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="050fce95-6b3f-4389-98c9-91c1812fea51" CreationDate="2014-12-17T11:29:10.553" UserId="1177" Text="Specifically, is it worth it to ship 100 tons of cut beef every day by air?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="050fce95-6b3f-4389-98c9-91c1812fea51" CreationDate="2014-12-17T11:29:10.553" UserId="1177" Text="When transporting high-end food stuff from Chita to Moscow, which method is more more fuel efficient, by rail or by air?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="050fce95-6b3f-4389-98c9-91c1812fea51" CreationDate="2014-12-17T11:29:10.553" UserId="1177" Text="|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="ec00b2fb-f9d9-413c-baec-40e6f6f4e805" CreationDate="2014-12-17T11:53:05.197" UserId="1177" Comment="Added more info" Text="Specifically, is it worth it to ship 100 tons of cut beef every day by air? Assuming that, for five months a year, no fridge is needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="db611807-3ea7-4fbd-8ea7-02cc55607415" CreationDate="2014-12-17T13:54:39.453" UserId="85" Comment="added 124 characters in body; edited title" Text="When transporting high-end food stuff from China to Moscow, which method is more more fuel efficient, by rail or by air?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, is it worth it to ship 100 tons of cut beef every day by air? Assuming that, for five months a year, no fridge is needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7793" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="db611807-3ea7-4fbd-8ea7-02cc55607415" CreationDate="2014-12-17T13:54:39.453" UserId="85" Comment="added 124 characters in body; edited title" Text="When transporting high-end food stuff from China to Moscow, which method is more more fuel efficient, by rail or by air?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7794" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="a6cec9d0-683a-482e-b238-d4b1de73b871" CreationDate="2014-12-17T13:55:33.023" UserId="85" Comment="Rollback to [ec00b2fb-f9d9-413c-baec-40e6f6f4e805]" Text="Specifically, is it worth it to ship 100 tons of cut beef every day by air? Assuming that, for five months a year, no fridge is needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7795" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="a6cec9d0-683a-482e-b238-d4b1de73b871" CreationDate="2014-12-17T13:55:33.023" UserId="85" Comment="Rollback to [ec00b2fb-f9d9-413c-baec-40e6f6f4e805]" Text="When transporting high-end food stuff from Chita to Moscow, which method is more more fuel efficient, by rail or by air?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="c5095715-eee1-4c74-a1ba-1a1c0641002a" CreationDate="2014-12-17T14:08:19.237" UserId="1177" Comment="Added more info" Text="Chita is a Russian city nestled between Mongolia and Manchuria on trans-siberian railway. But I wonder if it is more energy efficient to ship 100 tons of cut beef every day by air? Assuming that, for five months a year, no fridge is needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7797" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="c5095715-eee1-4c74-a1ba-1a1c0641002a" CreationDate="2014-12-17T14:08:19.237" UserId="1177" Comment="Added more info" Text="When transporting high-end food stuff from Chita republic to Moscow, which method is more more fuel efficient, by rail or by air?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="6bfdae57-997c-4403-bca2-ed9ad55516e8" CreationDate="2014-12-17T15:20:36.587" UserId="1177" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Chita is a Russian city nestled between Mongolia and Manchuria. Although Chita is on trans-siberian railway, I wonder if it is more energy efficient to ship 100 tons of cut beef every day by air, assuming that, for five months a year, no fridge is needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7800" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="9f4c7778-479d-45e8-9b4c-e9b9e3f463dd" CreationDate="2014-12-17T18:12:08.617" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/545280299392040961" />
  <row Id="7801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="a5c752ab-7176-4410-bb27-a88779fee275" CreationDate="2014-12-17T19:07:01.100" UserId="1177" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="[Chita][1] is a Russian city nestled between Mongolia and Manchuria. Although Chita is located on the trans-siberian railway, I wonder if it is more energy efficient to ship 100 tons of cut beef every day by air, assuming that, for five months a year, no fridge is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chita,_Zabaykalsky_Krai" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7802" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="a5c752ab-7176-4410-bb27-a88779fee275" CreationDate="2014-12-17T19:07:01.100" UserId="1177" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="When transporting high-end food stuff from Chita to Moscow, which method is more fuel efficient, by rail or by air?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3205" RevisionGUID="8eece414-6231-4ce8-b8de-863af8738983" CreationDate="2014-12-17T20:04:31.243" UserId="48" Text="Air is much more energy intensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gucwa and Schaefer looked at [the impact of scale on energy intensity in freight transportation][1], and the chart below is taken from that paper. They looked at varying loads, across four modes - the line in the lower left is trucks, the cluster above it is air, the long spread-out light grey dots in the bottom-right is ships, and the small dark cluster just below ships, centred around an average load of 1000 tonnes, is rail. The y-axis is the energy intensity: how much energy is required to move one tonne, one kilometre. As you can see, rail-freight is much lower on the chart than air freight: (NB both axes are logarithmic). Air is 10-100 times more energy-intensive than rail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add in all the additional environmental costs of air travel, and compare with the simplicity of decarbonising rail travel, and rail is a clear winner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't include the comparative energy costs of refrigeration, nor the impact of any differences in weight of packing materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.03.008&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xmCOH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7804" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3204" RevisionGUID="6192a97b-7803-4c47-bc62-65ff18791a77" CreationDate="2014-12-17T20:04:53.920" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|food|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7805" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3202" RevisionGUID="a72a9e7f-a0f6-4476-b377-89769c0a33f2" CreationDate="2014-12-18T03:13:51.620" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/545416626884313089" />
  <row Id="7807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3206" RevisionGUID="74fc9a04-5440-4a1a-a9c0-f41c6dcbe9b4" CreationDate="2014-12-18T13:56:13.170" UserId="1908" Text="I've had this idea for a few years and wonder if it would be feasible. Rather than simply recycling bottles and bags in blue bins, if there could be a way to melt down all types of plastic and mold into large bricks, like big Lego. It sounds silly, but these could be used to build or insulate jusdry t about anything. Is this idea remotely possible? Even if there was one machine at each recycling Depot where you would normally dump plastic, you go and make a brick once you have enough to melt. Then you can either take them home and collect them, or donate them to be used for charitable projects. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3206" RevisionGUID="74fc9a04-5440-4a1a-a9c0-f41c6dcbe9b4" CreationDate="2014-12-18T13:56:13.170" UserId="1908" Text="anyone have input on sustainable at home plastic recycling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3206" RevisionGUID="74fc9a04-5440-4a1a-a9c0-f41c6dcbe9b4" CreationDate="2014-12-18T13:56:13.170" UserId="1908" Text="|recycling|ecological-footprint|reuse|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3206" RevisionGUID="404824de-aea6-4725-92e3-1e6fcb818ec7" CreationDate="2014-12-18T19:46:04.970" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to better reflect content, fixed typo, removed inappropriate tags and added more relevant ones" Text="I've had this idea for a few years and wonder if it would be feasible. Rather than simply recycling bottles and bags in blue bins, if there could be a way to melt down all types of plastic and mold them into large bricks, like big Lego. It sounds silly, but these could be used to build or insulate just about anything. Is this idea remotely possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if there was one machine at each recycling depot where you would normally dump plastic, you go and make a brick once you have enough to melt. Then you can either take them home and collect them, or donate them to be used for charitable projects. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7811" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3206" RevisionGUID="404824de-aea6-4725-92e3-1e6fcb818ec7" CreationDate="2014-12-18T19:46:04.970" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to better reflect content, fixed typo, removed inappropriate tags and added more relevant ones" Text="Would it be possible to recycle all plastic into bricks and use them for building or insulation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7812" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3206" RevisionGUID="404824de-aea6-4725-92e3-1e6fcb818ec7" CreationDate="2014-12-18T19:46:04.970" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to better reflect content, fixed typo, removed inappropriate tags and added more relevant ones" Text="|recycling|plastic|insulation|construction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7813" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="29136410-73de-4477-b95e-6b5c1c07f09e" CreationDate="2014-12-18T19:56:45.710" UserId="99" Comment="21" />
  <row Id="7814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3207" RevisionGUID="347469ca-d79e-4407-b3f4-c02434b3bffd" CreationDate="2014-12-18T20:21:47.613" UserId="48" Text="Wind turbines just seem to keep growing. Predictions a few years ago that a 120-metre diameter rotor was going to be the maximum, have turned out to be wrong, and [154-metre rotors][1] are being installed now, with [180-metre ones being designed][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a bigger rotor means longer blades; and more force being applied to a longer lever - the tower. At what point do the physical properties of the materials, or the changes in wind speeds at different heights off the ground, limit the maximum physical dimensions of a wind turbine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.energy.siemens.com/br/en/renewable-energy/wind-power/platforms/d6-platform/wind-turbine-swt-6-0-154.htm#content=Technical%20specification&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1223157/areva-launches-8mw-turbine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3207" RevisionGUID="347469ca-d79e-4407-b3f4-c02434b3bffd" CreationDate="2014-12-18T20:21:47.613" UserId="48" Text="What are the physical limits on wind turbine size?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3207" RevisionGUID="347469ca-d79e-4407-b3f4-c02434b3bffd" CreationDate="2014-12-18T20:21:47.613" UserId="48" Text="|electricity|wind-power|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7817" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3206" RevisionGUID="ceb14c24-8602-44d0-a15b-7fb5aa7ab454" CreationDate="2014-12-19T00:20:10.060" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/545735303869509632" />
  <row Id="7818" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3207" RevisionGUID="4b88132a-4493-45d7-8f21-6ac7a0e509cf" CreationDate="2014-12-19T09:20:10.350" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/545871199113596928" />
  <row Id="7819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3208" RevisionGUID="1bffc9d0-d109-4a52-a436-2568c2ed1372" CreationDate="2014-12-19T10:28:53.730" UserId="48" Text="In almost all of the world (except the USA, which has specific local cost challenges), system photovoltaic (PV) costs have come down a lot, to about €2 per installed watt.  A large part of the reduction in system costs has come about through Swanson's Law, which is the Moore's Law of PV modules: module prices reduce by 20% for each doubling of shipped capacity. PV module costs continue to come down, and that puts more pressure on the balance-of-system costs (everything else that goes into the system) - inverters, wiring, support structures, labour costs, compliance costs and business overheads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverter costs are now a large part of non-module costs - around €0.50 per continuous Watt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sounded out an academic expert in the field, who said he thought inverters could still halve in price from here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is, what will it take to get inverter prices down from here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific elements of this question that might help clarify an anwer, would include things like: how much prices come down, for each doubling of installed capacity; and whether the PV market (about 40GW this year) is a large proportion of the inverter market, in the range of a few kilowatts to megawatts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7820" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3208" RevisionGUID="1bffc9d0-d109-4a52-a436-2568c2ed1372" CreationDate="2014-12-19T10:28:53.730" UserId="48" Text="What scope is there for price reductions in photovoltaic inverter costs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7821" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3208" RevisionGUID="1bffc9d0-d109-4a52-a436-2568c2ed1372" CreationDate="2014-12-19T10:28:53.730" UserId="48" Text="|electricity|photovoltaics|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3208" RevisionGUID="c41f4b3d-727e-4084-83de-6c1ae7826579" CreationDate="2014-12-19T12:15:03.800" UserId="48" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="In almost all of the world (except the USA, which has specific local cost challenges), system photovoltaic (PV) costs have come down a lot, to about €2 per installed watt.  A large part of the reduction in system costs has come about through Swanson's Law, which is the Moore's Law of PV modules: module prices reduce by 20% for each doubling of shipped capacity. PV module costs continue to come down, and that puts more pressure on the balance-of-system costs (everything else that goes into the system) - inverters, wiring, support structures, labour costs, compliance costs and business overheads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverter costs are now a large part of non-module costs - around €0.50 per continuous Watt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I sounded out an academic expert in the field, who said he thought inverters could still halve in price from here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is, what will it take to get inverter prices down from here? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specific elements of this question that might help clarify an anwer, would include things like: how much prices come down, for each doubling of installed capacity; and whether the PV market (about 40GW this year) is a large proportion of the inverter market, where individual inverters are in the range of a few kilowatts to megawatts continuous?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3209" RevisionGUID="b80df9b8-4ec3-4042-8900-b7de83808228" CreationDate="2014-12-19T21:29:09.123" UserId="1701" Text="According to [this reference][1], up to 12 - 28% of the carbon emissions associated with a vehicles life cycle come from its manufacture and delivery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So starting right now, of the two vehicles, the new one has a much larger impact than the old one. It would take a considerable amount of &quot;better mileage&quot; to overcome that impact. And that doesn't even factor in the impact of disposing the old vehicle - or that if you don't dispose of it it will continue to have an impact when driven by someone else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're driving an oil burning, coolant leaking beater the argument might be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://environment.about.com/od/environmentfriendlyautos/a/new_old_cars.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7824" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3208" RevisionGUID="a2e6769f-53f1-405f-b34e-cc16f89081c7" CreationDate="2014-12-20T06:21:02.910" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/546188509401604096" />
  <row Id="7825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3210" RevisionGUID="5466cd86-e62a-4dd7-a4ec-f7d767b6d8fc" CreationDate="2014-12-21T11:12:25.047" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="I suddenly had to write a packing list for a trip I'm going to make (a *really* sustainable one), scribbling it off the top of my head while it was on my mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had the choice of writing the list with pencil on the unused back of a piece of paper from the scrap pile that I slowly go through, or waking up my MacBook Pro from sleep/hibernation and writing it on the computer instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given those two *rough* candidates for the one compared to the other, which would generally be a better choice to make environmentally, or what factors should one at least be mindful of in trying to weigh up this decision?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And with both alternatives - what would be 'best practices' to make *either* alternative more attractive sustainability-wise? There's obviously a lot of variables in the equation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3210" RevisionGUID="5466cd86-e62a-4dd7-a4ec-f7d767b6d8fc" CreationDate="2014-12-21T11:12:25.047" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="How do word processing on a laptop and writing with pen and paper stack up together sustainability-wise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3210" RevisionGUID="5466cd86-e62a-4dd7-a4ec-f7d767b6d8fc" CreationDate="2014-12-21T11:12:25.047" UserDisplayName="user487" Text="|ecological-footprint|paper|alternatives|computing|recording|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7828" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3210" RevisionGUID="23b870ce-4c71-406a-9f1a-055a36c62196" CreationDate="2014-12-21T11:24:14.973" UserDisplayName="user487" Comment="edited title" Text="How do word processing on a laptop and writing with pen and paper stack up sustainability-wise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7829" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="487" RevisionGUID="37497cae-4fdb-49b3-b5d8-f0c77b77aa30" CreationDate="2014-12-21T11:44:56.897" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to better reflect content" Text="Reading on paper vs. screen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3211" RevisionGUID="24c443e0-61e3-4bc6-bfde-449728d3674b" CreationDate="2014-12-21T20:54:15.237" UserId="99" Text="Here is an answer based on [this 2010 Guardian article I found](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/21/carbon-footprint-email). Not sure how accurate it (still?) is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 4g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; for a 'normal' email.&#xD;&#xA; - 50g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; for an email with a long attachment&#xD;&#xA; - 0.3g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; for a spam email (that is filtered out by a spam-filter, or deleted quickly)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These calculations are based on&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; a typical year of incoming mail for a business user – including sending, filtering and reading – creates a carbon footprint of around 135kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and on research by McAfee that found that &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; 62 trillion spam messages are sent every year, requiring the use of 33bn kilowatt hours (KWh) of electricity and causing around 20 million tonnes of CO2e per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article also provides a rough estimate that the average email has 1/60th the footprint of an old-fashioned paper letter.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7831" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3210" RevisionGUID="c70b6c3c-a1d4-4c6a-9608-b866bc831689" CreationDate="2014-12-22T09:29:24.953" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/546960688779100160" />
  <row Id="7832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3212" RevisionGUID="70f0d087-403e-444e-9f44-9f1833a2a183" CreationDate="2014-12-22T21:34:05.223" UserId="48" Text="Are there maps of the global resource for wave power? I know that the UK has a particularly good resource - the kinetic energy in the waves in UK waters amounts to an estimated 80 GW. And I think Portugal has a good resource too - they've been pushing innovation in wave-generated electricity, and have a long Atlantic coast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where else has suitable waves for harnessing for electricity? Is there a global map of the potential wave-electricity resource?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7833" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3212" RevisionGUID="70f0d087-403e-444e-9f44-9f1833a2a183" CreationDate="2014-12-22T21:34:05.223" UserId="48" Text="Where are the world's wave resources, beyond the UK and Portugal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7834" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3212" RevisionGUID="70f0d087-403e-444e-9f44-9f1833a2a183" CreationDate="2014-12-22T21:34:05.223" UserId="48" Text="|electricity|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3212" RevisionGUID="f84cebc0-343d-4317-bf34-a2bf65147167" CreationDate="2014-12-22T21:44:19.570" UserId="48" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Are there maps of the global resource for near-coast (&lt;200km or so) wave power? I know that the UK has a particularly good resource - the kinetic energy in the waves in UK waters amounts to an estimated 80 GW. And I think Portugal has a good resource too - they've been pushing innovation in wave-generated electricity, and have a long Atlantic coast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where else has suitable waves for harnessing for electricity? Is there a global map of the potential wave-electricity resource?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3213" RevisionGUID="f51612d8-71d8-450e-bd28-404a8d4ee9fb" CreationDate="2014-12-22T23:27:01.070" UserId="1208" Text="OK, writing on a used piece of paper is hard to beat. Because you own the laptop already and the paper is from the waste I would say the remaining factors are the pencil vs. the energy (ignoring the minimal computers wear).&#xD;&#xA;Then it starts: How is your energy produced? What kind of pencil?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I'm quite sure there is no definite answer to your question I'll give you an opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use green electricity there is probably very little difference between the two options.&#xD;&#xA;So little in fact, that I believe posting this question was not the most sustainable option you had : )  &#xD;&#xA;*Unfortunately the internet is a coal burning monster at the moment.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next time just do what you prefer and spend the saved time *planting something nice* on the side of the street. (and that's probably what I should have done)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3214" RevisionGUID="d0371a84-d688-4046-8d77-e4a887dcc04a" CreationDate="2014-12-23T09:43:27.597" UserId="96" Text="Actually, it's quite a good idea to utilize the gas potential of sewage. As mentioned in Sherwood's answer, this will happen at the treatment plant, not in the sewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ways to do this are not trivial, but doable. Look at the [wikipedia page for anaerobic digestion for an overview](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion). The biggest challenge in AD of sewage is that sewage is highly diluted, with lots of water. So you need different concepts than with a anaerobic digester handling manure, or foodwastes or energy crops. But, as I said, it's doable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the energy generated maybe small potatoes compared to the energy demand of the population supplying the sewage, it can be significant for the treatment plant. There's also another benefit, less obvious: In traditional wastewater treatment, a large step is the aerobic degradation of the organic contents, by bacteria. Aerobic bacteria can gain far more energy from the matter than anaerobic species, so they grow far faster. The sludge from aerobic digesters is mostly made up of the 'excess' bacteria. Sludge treatment and disposal is a major cost in treatment plants. Anaerobic digesters produce far less sludge. As an example, [upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upflow_anaerobic_sludge_blanket_digestion) are said to ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With UASB, the whole process of settlement and digestion occurs in one or more large tank(s). Only the post UASB liquids, which have a much reduced BOD concentration, needs to be aerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads to a halving of the aeration energy and doubling of the power generated from digestion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in the technical challenges, I advise you to look at the most excellent and free book [Anaerobic Digestion](http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Articles/DevelopingCountriesTitlesfromIWAPublishingFreetoDownload/Anaerobic.pdf) ([and maybe skim the other free IWA titles](http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/DevelopingCountriesTitlesfromIWAPublishingFreetoDownload))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't answer why AD is not the standard treatment for wastewater. My guess is that many treatment plants in the developed world where built before the AD technolgoy was mature, and it's a huge headache to change a plant to a completly different process. Apparently, UASB seem to be far more common in Brazil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3181" RevisionGUID="e046278c-d288-49c4-bd86-fd4543ab24c0" CreationDate="2014-12-23T10:23:28.210" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar and spelling" Text="Each city must have a sanitary sewer system and there are thousands of households in a city.  So we will have a lot of methane generated from these sanitary sewer systems which can be utilised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is there any way to capture the methane gas from the sewer system of a city so that we can have free energy? Is there a company that has the technology for doing that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7839" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3181" RevisionGUID="e046278c-d288-49c4-bd86-fd4543ab24c0" CreationDate="2014-12-23T10:23:28.210" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar and spelling" Text="Are there companies that have a system for capturing methane from a city's sewer system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3213" RevisionGUID="68e6ab9c-bd29-4cfc-abee-86b8b10b30ce" CreationDate="2014-12-23T12:15:30.477" UserId="1208" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="OK, writing on a used piece of paper is hard to beat. Because you own the laptop already and the paper is from the waste I would say the remaining factors are the pencil vs. the energy and the computers wear.&#xD;&#xA;Then it starts: How is your energy produced? What kind of pencil? What's the livespan of your computer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I'm quite sure there is no definite answer to your question I'll give you an opinion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use green electricity there is probably very little difference between the two options.&#xD;&#xA;So little in fact, that I believe posting this question was not the most sustainable option you had : )  &#xD;&#xA;*Unfortunately the internet is a coal burning monster at the moment.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next time just do what you prefer and spend the saved time *planting something nice* on the side of the street. (and that's probably what I should have done)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7841" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3212" RevisionGUID="3b4f6921-022a-4539-b372-5725c9154449" CreationDate="2014-12-23T12:39:19.933" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/547370870487138306" />
  <row Id="7842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3215" RevisionGUID="7c154da7-ec52-4e10-b58b-0cf740767999" CreationDate="2014-12-25T05:37:48.727" UserId="1924" Text="Recycling paper is more environmentally friendly based on scale, reach, and results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is best to compare these at a macro level as well as the populations that are able to compost vs. recycle. Recycling paper at scale has a greater cumulative effect on the environment by helping to offset the use of trees for virgin paper manufacturing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US EPA found that recycling causes 35% less water pollution and 74% less air pollution than making virgin paper. While trees are often considered a renewable resource, harvesting creates a negative impact on wildlife and the majority of trees are sourced from old-growth and primary forests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pool of individuals that can successfully and repeatedly compost is a tiny fraction of those that can contribute to recycling. Even where organized or curbside neighborhood compost collection exists, it is dwarfed by the extent of recycling programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper conundrum is also a first-world problem: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.atlas.d-waste.com/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Global Charts &gt; Economic &gt; Paper Content vs GNI per Capita&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting generally ends the cycle unless it is collected and contributes physically or monetarily to a mulch product that is used municipally or re-sold, not necessarily contributing to any environmental friendliness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you certainly shouldn't worry if you have a good use for papers as ground cover, worm cover, weed barrier or if you are able to reuse a paper bag. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3216" RevisionGUID="c758fbea-4f72-4556-90e1-860d76353c37" CreationDate="2014-12-25T16:37:42.737" UserId="1238" Text="I thought about looking at your problem focusing on airships, not airplanes, as they've been very much in vogue lately.  I found [`this opinion piece`][1] at Scientific American.  It discusses efficiency of various transportation models, and it affirms the other answer that train is definitely better than air!&#xD;&#xA;If you're looking to transport from somewhere inaccessible from normal ground transport, though, airships might be a viable alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/05/27/helium-hokum-why-airships-will-never-be-part-of-our-transportation-infrastructure/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3217" RevisionGUID="f38d74dd-308a-49c9-a859-c8a5707d8c5a" CreationDate="2014-12-26T18:16:18.423" UserId="1925" Text="These bulbs are 60 watt equivalent and they work great in my ceiling fan. The color temperature is 5000k daylight and this is exactly what I needed for my dining room area, because I work on on my computer there, so I need brightness and clarity of light: &#xD;&#xA;[http://www.candelabrabulb.com/60-watt-led-candelabra-bulbs-5000k/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.candelabrabulb.com/60-watt-led-candelabra-bulbs-5000k/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3218" RevisionGUID="9c249dc8-b3f2-4c8b-929c-f4402cd13524" CreationDate="2014-12-26T19:13:46.510" UserId="1924" Text="Depsite all the data below (may require further calculation), I think your various questions indicate that you would like to get a feel for the latest big picture view of paper recycling in your area and how it will affect your feelings about printing documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 2008 data from a report in Statistics Canada (updated in 2012) indicated (their data, my calculation) **approx. 3.74 million tons of mixed paper is diverted from municipal solid waste for recycling per year**. I believe your printed materials would fall in this category.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stages of feeling good or bad could correlate to various techniques of paper usage. Conservation is ideal but some balance should be struck with usage despite how much paper is recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US EPA found that recycling causes 35% less water pollution and 74% less air pollution than making virgin paper, but there are other concerns like the VOCs/heavy metals/non-renewable oils in the ink, recycling energy costs, transportation, et al.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paper mills and timber industries provide a great deal of public information and statistics around paper recycling, virgin manufacturing and trees as a renewable resource but they have a vested interest and often avoid mentioning the impacts on wildlife and that nearly all harvesting occurs from old-growth or primary forests. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make a decision it's best to consider all of this and realize that not using a resource is generally better than having to rely on reuse or recycle to recoup the costs mentioned above. You could also go a bit further by calculating energy costs et al for paperless alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Source of extremely crude calculation above:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Satistics Canada &gt; Publications 16-201-X Human Activity and the Environment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Municipal Solid Waste: 34 Million Tons (Major categories of solid waste, various years; Municipal Solid Waste data are for 2008) (Chart 2.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mixed Paper: 11% (Solid waste Chart 3.3 Material prepared for recycling, by weight, 2008)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By weight, organic materials accounted for the largest proportion of waste diversion in 2008, with 2,439,223 tonnes diverted, 29% of total waste diversion, followed by cardboard and boxboard (17%) and newsprint (13%) (Table 3.3 and Chart 3.3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-201-x/2012000/ct006-eng.htm (Chart 3.3)&#xD;&#xA;http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-201-x/2012000/ct001-eng.htm (Chart 2.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other paper recycling quantity sources and figures...**&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thad McIlroy cites a Canadian Encyclopedia entry (that seems to no longer contain these same figures): &quot;About 95% of their fiber comes from wood from forests, the balance from wastepaper and a very small quantity of linen and cotton rags.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Source: http://thefutureofpublishing.com/industries/the-future-of-paper/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generic non-dated industry stats quoted include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paper and paper products accounts for more than&#xD;&#xA;1/3 of all Canada’s waste.&#xD;&#xA;Source: Environment Canada&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canada uses 6 million tonnes of paper and&#xD;&#xA;paperboard annually. Only 1/4 of Canada’s waste&#xD;&#xA;paper and paperboard is recycled.&#xD;&#xA;Source: Environment Canada&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Uncited excerpts from: http://www.id2.ca/downloads/eco-design-paper-facts.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other interesting facts from Publication 16-001-M, no. 13 Recycling by Canadian Households, 2007 published to Statistics Canada in 2010:&#xD;&#xA;(Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-001-m/16-001-m2010013-eng.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given access to recycling programs, households were more likely to report that they had recycled all of their glass waste (74%) than all of their paper waste (62%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;QUOTE: The Environmental Paper Network (EPN) has some sobering figures on paper recycling, including this: “After more than 30 years of recycled-paper market development, recycled content has reached the dizzying height of 6 per cent of the overall fibre that goes into printing and writing papers.” And only 3 per cent of that is post-consumer recycled content. In their article for Resource Recycling (June 2009), Pam Blackledge (of EPN) and Susan Kinsella (of Conservatree) write, “Put another way, more than 90 per cent of the printing and office paper available in North America still has no recycled content at all.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/inadequate-paper-recycling-programs-canada#sthash.st7DRhDN.dpuf &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Posted: July 04, 2012&#xD;&#xA;Original: By Joyce Nelson Nov-Dec-2010-Vol20-No5 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canadian Waste Generation Per Capita (kg/yr) 894.0&#xD;&#xA;- The average amount of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generated annually per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canadian Recycling Rate: 26.8%&#xD;&#xA;- The amount of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) recycled as a proportion of total MSW generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canadian Paper and Cardboard: 26.0%&#xD;&#xA;- The percentage of the paper/cardboard fraction in the country's waste composition:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Waste Atlas &gt; Visualizations&#xD;&#xA;From: http://www.atlas.d-waste.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other interesting related information:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper#Recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.globalforestwatch.org/country/CAN&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.urbanimpact.com/resources/green-tips/RecyclingFacts.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/pulp-and-paper-industry/ (mentions Domtar)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.paperbecause.com/paper-is-sustainable/paper-truth-or-fiction (info presented by Domtar)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://greenschools.net/article.php?id=75&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://paper-newt.org/paper-facts/the-impacts-of-paper-use/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://c.environmentalpaper.org/home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://environmentalpaper.org/our-resources/fact-sheets/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://environmentalpaper.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://thepaperlifecycle.org/frequently-asked-questions/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.psprint.com/resources/recycled-paper-stocks/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7846" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="f55bb270-e47b-4a43-91cd-5dee0e09f22d" CreationDate="2014-12-26T21:52:23.293" UserId="-1" Comment="21" />
  <row Id="7848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3219" RevisionGUID="e4b44bd5-4260-468f-bc10-015a1b1ad12a" CreationDate="2014-12-28T03:46:33.553" UserId="1930" Text="I am building a set of greenhouses. they will be 2700 sq.ft. each. I intend to grow year round in one and extend the season in the other two with them being dormant for 6 weeks mid winter. We will be using underbed pex tubing under the grow beds and perhaps may run two separate layers, one deep and the other below it to supercharge the soil with increased temperature, beginning in late summer.the goal is to maintain growing bed temperature at 5 - 15 degrees above the air temperature in the greenhouse to facilitate continued growth and production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see three individual systems working for each greenhouse with an optional &quot;super tank&quot; filled and heated if feasible and needed to satisfy demand. I realize that heat stored in tanks leads to stratification so I am hoping to position a set of heat exchangers in the tanks to facilitate temperature rise from various sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there will be a long solar hot water collector, about 600 sqft oriented S.&#xD;&#xA;there will be a number of biochar retorts in a row using common flues for exhaust with a heat exchanger in the flue.&#xD;&#xA;there will be wood stoves with water jackets and air heat exchangers for quick warm up and use of available resources. and &#xD;&#xA;there will be a ceiling header running the length of each green house to collect and preheat water in this heat cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;with multiple retort biomass barrel type processors, and the wide range of temperatures that a heat exchanger will experience inside of the exhaust flue from pyrolysis to wood degassing and combusting those products, what would be a simple way to capture these product of combustion temperatures and put them to good use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I intend to use 3/4&quot; pex in the under bed systems of less than 400 feet per run.&#xD;&#xA;I intend to run the return from each return header in each house to its own tank for pumping.&#xD;&#xA;I am at 37 Degrees North Latitude in Missouri. thank you for your thoughtful consideration.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3219" RevisionGUID="e4b44bd5-4260-468f-bc10-015a1b1ad12a" CreationDate="2014-12-28T03:46:33.553" UserId="1930" Text="Heat scavengers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3219" RevisionGUID="e4b44bd5-4260-468f-bc10-015a1b1ad12a" CreationDate="2014-12-28T03:46:33.553" UserId="1930" Text="|heating|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3219" RevisionGUID="da2c5af0-dfc6-4f01-adec-c8c3e783c9b7" CreationDate="2014-12-28T10:06:54.653" UserId="15" Comment="Reworded title" Text="I am building a set of greenhouses. they will be 2700 sq.ft. each. I intend to grow year round in one and extend the season in the other two with them being dormant for 6 weeks mid winter. We will be using underbed pex tubing under the grow beds and perhaps may run two separate layers, one deep and the other below it to supercharge the soil with increased temperature, beginning in late summer.the goal is to maintain growing bed temperature at 5 - 15 degrees above the air temperature in the greenhouse to facilitate continued growth and production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see three individual systems working for each greenhouse with an optional &quot;super tank&quot; filled and heated if feasible and needed to satisfy demand. I realize that heat stored in tanks leads to stratification so I am hoping to position a set of heat exchangers in the tanks to facilitate temperature rise from various sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;there will be a long solar hot water collector, about 600 sqft oriented S.&#xD;&#xA;there will be a number of biochar retorts in a row using common flues for exhaust with a heat exchanger in the flue.&#xD;&#xA;there will be wood stoves with water jackets and air heat exchangers for quick warm up and use of available resources. and &#xD;&#xA;there will be a ceiling header running the length of each green house to collect and preheat water in this heat cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**With multiple retort biomass barrel type processors, and the wide range of temperatures that a heat exchanger will experience inside of the exhaust flue from pyrolysis to wood degassing and combusting those products, what would be a simple way to capture these product of combustion temperatures and put them to good use?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I intend to use 3/4&quot; pex in the under bed systems of less than 400 feet per run.&#xD;&#xA;I intend to run the return from each return header in each house to its own tank for pumping.&#xD;&#xA;I am at 37 Degrees North Latitude in Missouri. thank you for your thoughtful consideration.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7852" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3219" RevisionGUID="da2c5af0-dfc6-4f01-adec-c8c3e783c9b7" CreationDate="2014-12-28T10:06:54.653" UserId="15" Comment="Reworded title" Text="|heating|reuse|greenhouse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7853" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3219" RevisionGUID="da2c5af0-dfc6-4f01-adec-c8c3e783c9b7" CreationDate="2014-12-28T10:06:54.653" UserId="15" Comment="Reworded title" Text="Scavenging heat from exhaust flues" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3220" RevisionGUID="e649578f-ecbb-41c7-b6c5-971b14173aef" CreationDate="2014-12-28T17:19:28.147" UserId="1932" Text="Seeking advice, wondering if there is any advantage to building a concrete (cinder blocks filled) mantle around my would stove?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would look something like below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _____   _____&#xD;&#xA;    | ___| |___ |&#xD;&#xA;    | |	      | |&#xD;&#xA;    | |	      | |&#xD;&#xA;    | |	      | |&#xD;&#xA;    |_|	      |_|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The house is a split thats about 2300 sq/ft and the stove is in the basement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this add any value, if not is there anything thats DIY and not ugly (married) that  is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3220" RevisionGUID="e649578f-ecbb-41c7-b6c5-971b14173aef" CreationDate="2014-12-28T17:19:28.147" UserId="1932" Text="Thermal Mass Mantle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3220" RevisionGUID="e649578f-ecbb-41c7-b6c5-971b14173aef" CreationDate="2014-12-28T17:19:28.147" UserId="1932" Text="|woodstove|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7857" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3219" RevisionGUID="587874ad-62f9-4fcc-b100-182a61432f90" CreationDate="2014-12-28T22:07:00.457" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/549325670493724672" />
  <row Id="7858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3220" RevisionGUID="93c94354-0d42-48e9-8425-9d0e68292a9f" CreationDate="2014-12-29T02:02:30.727" UserId="15" Comment="Tidied up, added thermal-mass tag" Text="Seeking advice, wondering if there is any advantage to building a concrete (cinder blocks filled) mantle around my wood stove?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would look something like below&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    _____   _____&#xD;&#xA;    | ___| |___ |&#xD;&#xA;    | |	      | |&#xD;&#xA;    | |	      | |&#xD;&#xA;    | |	      | |&#xD;&#xA;    |_|	      |_|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The house is a split that's about 2300 sq/ft and the stove is in the basement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this add any value, if not is there anything that's DIY and not ugly? (I have others in the house to consider)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7859" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3220" RevisionGUID="93c94354-0d42-48e9-8425-9d0e68292a9f" CreationDate="2014-12-29T02:02:30.727" UserId="15" Comment="Tidied up, added thermal-mass tag" Text="Adding a mantle to a wood stove to add thermal mass" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7860" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3220" RevisionGUID="93c94354-0d42-48e9-8425-9d0e68292a9f" CreationDate="2014-12-29T02:02:30.727" UserId="15" Comment="Tidied up, added thermal-mass tag" Text="|woodstove|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3221" RevisionGUID="8127a450-4fc1-460d-9c39-78449cff9542" CreationDate="2014-12-29T10:35:11.963" UserId="99" Text="Estimates of the shelf life of Bokashi vary from [1 year](http://ecolivingbokashi.com/faq-about-bokashi.html) to [more than 5 years](http://store.bokashicycle.com/Bokashi-Culture-Mix_p_20.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case the color of the bran should be light brown, optionally with some white patches, and have a slightly sweet smell. Also, it needs to be stored dry, cool and out of sunlight. If it has been exposed to sunlight (UV) the microorganisms in the bran may have died and the bran doesn't work anymore." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7862" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3083" RevisionGUID="2966ac79-9a45-45d4-9630-ec444467e868" CreationDate="2014-12-29T10:36:44.703" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|composting|bokashi|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3222" RevisionGUID="6aae2577-e89c-49f7-abe8-5e20cb270df9" CreationDate="2014-12-29T17:42:35.520" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="&quot;If it's yellow, let it mellow.&quot; clearly helps to save some water. But what problems of hygiene (if any) may arise from adhering to this policy? (Say I'm doing this at home and everyone is known to be generally healthy.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3222" RevisionGUID="6aae2577-e89c-49f7-abe8-5e20cb270df9" CreationDate="2014-12-29T17:42:35.520" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="Hygiene issues with &quot;If it's yellow, let it mellow.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3222" RevisionGUID="6aae2577-e89c-49f7-abe8-5e20cb270df9" CreationDate="2014-12-29T17:42:35.520" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3223" RevisionGUID="9914b859-a696-490e-8565-9c169a4fb4a1" CreationDate="2014-12-29T19:32:34.577" UserId="1937" Text="There are two very obvious answers to this.  First, which no one has mentioned, is that the sense of taste deteriorates with age*.  The meat &amp;c probably hasn't changed, YOU have.  (In much the same way that I sometimes think gravity is quite a bit stronger than it was a few decades ago :-)) Here's one reference, of many: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.Itgov/pmc/articles/PMC2579627/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second reason is that a lot of people tend to remember their past as better than it objectively was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I think this is the reason for the oft-quoted meme about older people eating cat food.  It's not because they're poor - have you priced cat food vs equal amounts of human food? - it's because their sense of taste/smell has deteriorated to the point that the strong cat food seems tasty, while human food is bland &amp; tasteless." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3223" RevisionGUID="9dbd2d75-b510-4b32-8b18-47c4e710d141" CreationDate="2014-12-29T21:26:21.227" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo in link" Text="There are two very obvious answers to this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, which no one has mentioned, is that the sense of taste deteriorates with age.  The meat &amp;c probably hasn't changed, YOU have.  (In much the same way that I sometimes think gravity is quite a bit stronger than it was a few decades ago :-)) Here's one reference, of many: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2579627/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second reason is that a lot of people tend to remember their past as better than it objectively was.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I think this is the reason for the oft-quoted meme about older people eating cat food.  It's not because they're poor - have you priced cat food vs equal amounts of human food? - it's because their sense of taste/smell has deteriorated to the point that the strong cat food seems tasty, while human food is bland &amp; tasteless." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3224" RevisionGUID="709e061c-c7d9-4c24-ad56-35ecf51b8512" CreationDate="2014-12-29T21:38:34.467" UserId="15" Text="&quot;Letting it mellow&quot; may lead to an earlier need to clean the toilet. If the toilet is cleaned using toilet cleaner, you may find that the ecological impact of the additional toilet cleaner used means that more water is used overall, due to water use from manufacturing. Other resources are also consumed during manufacturing, and waste may be generated too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll leave it to others to comment on any other hygiene related issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="d011a057-a531-40ca-b37d-b32d8d6e3624" CreationDate="2014-12-30T10:43:59.047" UserId="1912" Text="Could biochar ever be produced more cheaply than how expensive coal is to be extracted? Is the thermal potential good enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen articles (sorry no link) that point its applicability for sugar cane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it work for corn properly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At what moment could we produce biochar for industrial application? Isn't it nonsense to even think of using biochar to trap carbon,when we're still using coal power plants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7870" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="d011a057-a531-40ca-b37d-b32d8d6e3624" CreationDate="2014-12-30T10:43:59.047" UserId="1912" Text="What's the applicability of biochar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7871" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="d011a057-a531-40ca-b37d-b32d8d6e3624" CreationDate="2014-12-30T10:43:59.047" UserId="1912" Text="|renewables|decarbonisation|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3226" RevisionGUID="ac5e7ddb-d9ee-4908-9880-1a69cd4b3b90" CreationDate="2014-12-30T14:02:17.117" UserId="99" Text="Renewables is an umbrella term for resources that can be created and used without depleting the materials from which it is made. Examples are crops (provided it doesn't erode the soil) or wind, geothermal and solar energy. Water can also be a renewable resource but in many places on Earth it is used unsustainably by removing more water than can be replenished naturally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3227" RevisionGUID="159b0a08-8174-45ce-80d3-9b24f39181e5" CreationDate="2014-12-30T14:02:17.117" UserId="99" Text="a resource that can be created or used over and over again without depleting the materials from which it is made." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2508" RevisionGUID="4da557ad-fd80-463b-a94e-cc703f3b30c8" CreationDate="2014-12-30T14:10:01.390" UserId="99" Comment="added logo descriptions, removed potentially confusing logo" Text="Most non-biodegradable plastic bags are made of [Polyethylene (PE)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene) and often have a marking or logo like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![High-Density Polyethylene resin identification logo][1]![Low-Density Polyethylene resin identification logo][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may also be a marking that say 'PE', 'PE-HD', 'LDPE' or 'PE-LD'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bags that are biodegradable usually have a logo on it containing the words 'biodegradable' and/or 'compostable', e.g. something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Oxo-biodegradable plastic logo][3]![Compostable plastic logo][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no logo or description it's most likely PE, but I don't think you can know for sure unless you get the bag tested in a lab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, all types of plastic will degrade very slowly under normal circumstances. I don't think biodegradable plastics degrade much faster than non-biodegradable plastics. Most biodegradable plastic bags are made from [Polythene film](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_polythene_film) or corn-based materials like [Polyactic Acid (PLA)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid). For biodegradable plastics to degrade (in a reasonable timeframe) they need to be heated to very high temperatures for several days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Dd155.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CGaoU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7TWjJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hL8Vv.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xSIl.gif&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="a232137f-fd78-4813-b5ea-f091b7d4dea8" CreationDate="2014-12-30T14:12:53.807" UserId="99" Comment="fixed broken link, fixed typos" Text="[This product][1] which has recently launched in India claiming to provide a stench free alternative to home composting with little hassle. I had a discussion with its founder and he says its similar to [bokashi][2] composting, the difference being the microbe powder the product provides. I wanted to know about the microbes used, its availability and does it really work to create a good compost without any stench emanating in the process as it claims?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover is it really a feasible composting method for someone who has a family of two and would not generate enough organic waste? And can it be done DIY without subscribing to this commercial product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greentechlife.in/smartbins/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://bokashicomposting.com/?cat=2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7876" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2349" RevisionGUID="a232137f-fd78-4813-b5ea-f091b7d4dea8" CreationDate="2014-12-30T14:12:53.807" UserId="99" Comment="fixed broken link, fixed typos" Text="|composting|home|diy|bokashi|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7877" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="958b35fc-dc99-4341-9d64-78ea02ddf31f" CreationDate="2014-12-31T13:08:24.260" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/550277290463350785" />
  <row Id="7878" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3222" RevisionGUID="e311cbf0-635c-4551-a102-158dd15effaa" CreationDate="2015-01-02T04:10:48.547" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/550866775823646722" />
  <row Id="7879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3228" RevisionGUID="902de08b-1d36-47b2-90ca-ec25a0c2e7cf" CreationDate="2015-01-02T10:30:43.783" UserId="1944" Text="My question is to know about using the water which comes out from the air conditioners. Can this water be treated with RO plants and UV and use it? How pure this water will be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this water can be used for bathing, washing clothes, washing cars,.... then we can save more land water currents!! All the more can we drink? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some thread says it is not safe to drink but what happens and how pure will be after reverse osmosis? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please advise. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3228" RevisionGUID="902de08b-1d36-47b2-90ca-ec25a0c2e7cf" CreationDate="2015-01-02T10:30:43.783" UserId="1944" Text="Atmospheric water generator using air conditioners" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3228" RevisionGUID="902de08b-1d36-47b2-90ca-ec25a0c2e7cf" CreationDate="2015-01-02T10:30:43.783" UserId="1944" Text="|water|treatment|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3228" RevisionGUID="dda8a7ff-4dc1-4ce3-9626-aa354823c5ca" CreationDate="2015-01-03T16:31:17.243" UserId="1325" Comment="Heading reflects question, small improvements to English in body" Text="My question is to know about using the condensed water from the air conditioners. Can this water be treated with reverse osmosis plants and ultraviolet and use it? How pure this water will be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this water can be used for bathing, washing clothes, washing cars, ... then we can save more land water currents! All the more can we drink? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some thread says it is not safe to drink but what happens and how pure will be after reverse osmosis? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7885" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3228" RevisionGUID="dda8a7ff-4dc1-4ce3-9626-aa354823c5ca" CreationDate="2015-01-03T16:31:17.243" UserId="1325" Comment="Heading reflects question, small improvements to English in body" Text="Atmospheric water condensation using air conditioners" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7886" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3228" RevisionGUID="dda8a7ff-4dc1-4ce3-9626-aa354823c5ca" CreationDate="2015-01-03T16:31:17.243" Comment="Proposed by 1325 approved by -1 edit id of 308" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3228" RevisionGUID="f63753ac-a53c-473e-b61d-c65dc4540bad" CreationDate="2015-01-03T16:31:17.243" UserId="99" Comment="Heading reflects question, improvements to English in body" Text="My question is about using condensed water from air conditioners. Can this water be treated with reverse osmosis plants and ultraviolet so you can use it? How pure will this water be?&#xD;&#xA;If this water can be used for bathing, washing clothes, washing cars, etc... then we can save more land water currents! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And can we drink it? Some threads I found say it is not safe to drink but what happens and how pure will it be after reverse osmosis? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7888" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3228" RevisionGUID="f63753ac-a53c-473e-b61d-c65dc4540bad" CreationDate="2015-01-03T16:31:17.243" UserId="99" Comment="Heading reflects question, improvements to English in body" Text="Water condensation using air conditioners" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3230" RevisionGUID="637cf5fa-eae9-4828-9856-b31a61f65e30" CreationDate="2015-01-03T18:42:59.423" UserId="400" Text="There are some issues with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Internally the drip catcher tray is exposed to the air currents running through the compressor.  As such, it will have dust, pollen, and general crud -- Pretty much what you find on your swiffer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Sometimes these catch trays are designed cheaply, so the water doesn't drain until it gets to be 1/8 to 3/4&quot; deep.  So you have dirt soup.  All kinds of stuff find this a happy place to live.  (Wasn't Legionnaires Disease traced to mold in water in an air conditioner?)  This damp tray of stuff is responsible for some of the odd smells that come out of an air conditioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall I would prefer to drink from a fresh mud puddle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:  The amount of water isn't huge. Not having lived with an air conditioner, I can't say for sure, but I'd be surprised it it were more than a few gallons a day. This is too much work to salvage a couple of toilet flushes a day in the cooling season.  Direct the drain hose to your favorite tree.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For water conservation, you have much better targets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Grey water -- everything but the toilet and kitchen sink/dishwasher drain.  This water is unfit to drink, and contains soap and dirt.  Neither of these harm plants.  It is quite reasonable to internally divert this, and either drop into a cistern taht you use for watering in your yard, or run to a tiny wetland where it can soak into the earth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this process is  trickier in climates where you have extended periods of frozen ground." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3231" RevisionGUID="12f0c20f-4a14-4e41-85b1-f6ee215ea478" CreationDate="2015-01-03T18:55:22.910" UserId="400" Text="No, and no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current production costs of biochar are in the hundreds of dollars per tonne.  (It shouldn't be **that** expensive.)  By comparison the mining costs for coal at my neighbor, the coal mine, run about 90 cents (canadian) per ton.  It will be a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are going to burn it, there is little point in converting to biochar.  Just burn the starting material.  I read one study that in Tennessee it would be possible to raise enough hardwood on the area they were strip mining to power the generators indefinitely.  But not as cheaply, but it's much newer tech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for sugar cane, it is quite reasonable to extract the juice from the cane, spread the crushed cane out to dry as much as reasonable for your climate, then use that cane for process heat to dry the sap, or to generate power.  The most efficient use would probably be to generate power and use the waste heat from power generation to dry the sap.  Some of these options would require long term storage of either the raw sap, or the cane.  This might make the process uneconomical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big win on biochar is to plough it back into the ground.  The evidence is still unclear as to all of it's advantages, but first looks:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's a sponge for water.  In climates where late rain means no crop this may make a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's a sponge of nutrients.  In climates with heavy rainfall, this can reduce nutrient leaching from the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It is stable in the soil.  Where compost turns back into fungi food in months to years, charcoal seems to be stable for centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle it should be possible to produce biochar as a byproduct of aggricultural waste power generation.  (Make the char, use the syngas as the process heat for making the char, and for heating livestock barns.  Use surplus syngas to generate power.)  In practice, I've not seen units for sale that were automatic enough for practical use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3232" RevisionGUID="78ce9980-5f76-4401-8415-5ea52c3c8e74" CreationDate="2015-01-03T18:58:52.603" UserId="400" Text="Urine has enough digestible stuff in it that bacteria will breed, however most of these will be harmless.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have lived in houses wehre this was the practice, and there was no need to clean the toilet more often.  In general pee compared to crap was something like 4-5 to one, so the toilet still got flushed frequently enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A water conserving toilet has the best of both worlds.  This has 2 buttons.  A &#xD;&#xA;&quot;piss flush&quot; that uses a liter (quart) and a &quot;crap flush&quot; that uses a gallon.  Compare to the 3-5 gallons of a conventional non-conserving toilet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3233" RevisionGUID="c5ae8a9f-0d35-43ba-9dc2-2b693426e69d" CreationDate="2015-01-04T11:31:19.053" UserId="812" Text="The simplest way to approach this is to consider the mean wave energy flux in terms of the power per unit length of wavefront, usually expressed in kW/m. In other words, if I could built a perfect wave energy converter, then that is the amount of power that I could get, on average, per metre of device. That's somewhat simplistic, and it ignores many factors such as storminess, depth, accessibility, and so forth. But, answering that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short answer is &quot;the exposed west coasts of most continents&quot;, as these have the greatest fetch, or distance across an ocean for swell waves to develop in prevailing Westerly winds.&#xD;&#xA;There are unsourced maps on the websites of a few wave energy device developers (e.g. [Pelamis][1]). I'll not reproduce them here as I have no idea of the copyright situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An academic evaluation, based on global wave modelling, is in [this conference paper][2] (DOI: [10.1115/OMAE2010-20473][3]). Figure 4 shows their estimate of the annual average power per unit length along all coasts, except where it's very low or where there's ice.&#xD;&#xA;Hotspots are,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Western Europe&#xD;&#xA;* South Africa&#xD;&#xA;* South and West coasts of Australian and New Zealand&#xD;&#xA;* West coast of Canada&#xD;&#xA;* West coast of Chile. The southern part of this probably has the highest incoming wave power in the world, as it's the only interruption in the fetch around the Southern Ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pelamiswave.com/global-resource&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.oceanor.com/related/59149/paper_OMAW_2010_20473_final.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2010-20473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3231" RevisionGUID="42994e0f-15e8-444c-a8bd-e34e7a40df49" CreationDate="2015-01-04T14:33:06.907" UserId="400" Comment="Added link to sample production system and costs." Text="No, and no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current production costs of biochar are in the hundreds of dollars per tonne.  (It shouldn't be **that** expensive.)  By comparison the mining costs for coal at my neighbor, the coal mine, run about 90 cents (canadian) per ton.  It will be a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General paper about biochar with nominal $200/ton wholesale price from a unit that processes 2000 tons per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.trmiles.com/Presentations/Biochar/TRMiles%2005%2020%2009%20PNWBiochar.pdf][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are going to burn it, there is little point in converting to biochar.  Just burn the starting material.  I read one study that in Tennessee it would be possible to raise enough hardwood on the area they were strip mining to power the generators indefinitely.  But not as cheaply, but it's much newer tech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for sugar cane, it is quite reasonable to extract the juice from the cane, spread the crushed cane out to dry as much as reasonable for your climate, then use that cane for process heat to dry the sap, or to generate power.  The most efficient use would probably be to generate power and use the waste heat from power generation to dry the sap.  Some of these options would require long term storage of either the raw sap, or the cane.  This might make the process uneconomical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big win on biochar is to plough it back into the ground.  The evidence is still unclear as to all of it's advantages, but first looks:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's a sponge for water.  In climates where late rain means no crop this may make a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's a sponge of nutrients.  In climates with heavy rainfall, this can reduce nutrient leaching from the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It is stable in the soil.  Where compost turns back into fungi food in months to years, charcoal seems to be stable for centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle it should be possible to produce biochar as a byproduct of aggricultural waste power generation.  (Make the char, use the syngas as the process heat for making the char, and for heating livestock barns.  Use surplus syngas to generate power.)  In practice, I've not seen units for sale that were automatic enough for practical use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.trmiles.com/Presentations/Biochar/TRMiles%2005%2020%2009%20PNWBiochar.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3230" RevisionGUID="f556e6c6-483d-432a-8df1-30eeb1c3c4ef" CreationDate="2015-01-04T14:39:51.093" UserId="400" Comment="added osmosis" Text="There are some issues with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Internally the drip catcher tray is exposed to the air currents running through the compressor.  As such, it will have dust, pollen, and general crud -- Pretty much what you find on your swiffer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Sometimes these catch trays are designed cheaply, so the water doesn't drain until it gets to be 1/8 to 3/4&quot; deep.  So you have dirt soup.  All kinds of stuff find this a happy place to live.  (Wasn't Legionnaires Disease traced to mold in water in an air conditioner?)  This damp tray of stuff is responsible for some of the odd smells that come out of an air conditioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall I would prefer to drink from a fresh mud puddle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you run it through reverse osmosis?  Yes.  I'd want to run it through a good filter first to get out the crud.   Indeed:  If you know that there is nothing toxic on the tray liner (galvanized steel say) then filtering may be enough before UV treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:  The amount of water isn't huge. Not having lived with an air conditioner, I can't say for sure, but I'd be surprised it it were more than a few gallons a day. This is too much work to salvage a couple of toilet flushes a day in the cooling season.  Direct the drain hose to your favorite tree.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For water conservation, you have much better targets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Grey water -- everything but the toilet and kitchen sink/dishwasher drain.  This water is unfit to drink, and contains soap and dirt.  Neither of these harm plants.  It is quite reasonable to internally divert this, and either drop into a cistern taht you use for watering in your yard, or run to a tiny wetland where it can soak into the earth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this process is  trickier in climates where you have extended periods of frozen ground." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3231" RevisionGUID="2b3fd45a-603d-4a9a-b511-ae7de42d703c" CreationDate="2015-01-04T14:58:00.683" UserId="400" Comment="reread question and modified answer." Text="No, and no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current production costs of biochar are in the hundreds of dollars per tonne.  (It shouldn't be **that** expensive.)  By comparison the mining costs for coal at my neighbor, the coal mine, run about 90 cents (canadian) per ton.  It will be a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General paper about biochar with nominal $200/ton wholesale price from a unit that processes 2000 tons per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.trmiles.com/Presentations/Biochar/TRMiles%2005%2020%2009%20PNWBiochar.pdf][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are going to burn it, there is little point in converting to biochar.  Just burn the starting material.  I read one study that in Tennessee it would be possible to raise enough hardwood on the area they were strip mining to power the generators indefinitely.  But not as cheaply, but it's much newer tech.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for sugar cane, it is quite reasonable to extract the juice from the cane, spread the crushed cane out to dry as much as reasonable for your climate, then use that cane for process heat to dry the sap, or to generate power.  The most efficient use would probably be to generate power and use the waste heat from power generation to dry the sap.  Some of these options would require long term storage of either the raw sap, or the cane.  This might make the process uneconomical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For corn it would be reasonable to harvest, let the stalks dry in the field, then bale them until ready to be burned.  The problem:  A 1 GW power plant takes a LOT of agricultural waste to fuel.  Lots of short haul transport.  Even with coal with it's higher density is expensive enough to haul, that where possible they put the power plant next to the mine wherever possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corn is a high nutrient crop. Some of those nutrients stay in the leaves.  Ecologically  expensive biomass.  Switchgrass is one that is promoted as a biofuel crop.  In fall the plant salvages most of the minerals back out of the grass.  Little there but cellulose and lignan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big win on biochar is to plough it back into the ground.  The evidence is still unclear as to all of it's advantages, but first looks:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's a sponge for water.  In climates where late rain means no crop this may make a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's a sponge of nutrients.  In climates with heavy rainfall, this can reduce nutrient leaching from the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It is stable in the soil.  Where compost turns back into fungi food in months to years, charcoal seems to be stable for centuries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In principle it should be possible to produce biochar as a byproduct of agricultural waste power generation.  (Make the char, use the syngas as the process heat for making the char, and for heating livestock barns.  Use surplus syngas to generate power.)  This minimises the hauling problem, but means you are stuck with smaller less efficient power plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, I've not seen units for sale that were automatic enough for practical use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's some indication that soot in dust may not be good for you.  Also that with sufficient charcoal in the soil, the very soil can burn.  (Even in fire succession forests such as our lodgepole pine, seem to be on mineral soils.  Every few fires you get one hot enough to burn the soil.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.trmiles.com/Presentations/Biochar/TRMiles%2005%2020%2009%20PNWBiochar.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3234" RevisionGUID="038b59eb-643f-46ea-aeb8-20207e576eec" CreationDate="2015-01-04T15:07:44.370" UserId="400" Text="Yes, but not that way.  You need *far* more mass than that. You need 2-5 tons of brick around the stove.  This will require extra support underneath.  6x6 beams under the affected part of the stove with teleposts should be sufficient.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google &quot;Russian Stove&quot;; &quot;Masonry stove&quot; kachelofen &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://heatkit.com/docs/course.PDF  describes using a steel insert into a kachelofen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is a 'rocket stove'  These are made of clay instead of brick, and generally are easier for an amateur to build." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3235" RevisionGUID="684ef455-4d57-4312-b44c-feb9778db2e5" CreationDate="2015-01-04T15:16:29.497" UserId="400" Text="You may be barking up the wrong tree.  You are making life way too complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google  rocket stove greenhouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rocket stove is a high efficiency stove that burns very hot for a short period of time, and heats up a large mass (tons) of clay by a small amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly:  A better way is described here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sunnyjohn.com/indexpages/shcs.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Briefly, you bury 3 layers of drain tile below your greenhouse space.  During the day warm humid air is pulled out of hte greenhosue and blown through the drain tile.  half the water condenses releasing it's latent heat.  The net effect is to warm the top 3 feet of soil by about 15-20 degrees.  Works in zone 4, from what I've heard.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3233" RevisionGUID="31fb9a8e-78f4-4588-ba2d-1b4fde383377" CreationDate="2015-01-04T15:21:07.830" UserId="812" Comment="tyop." Text="The simplest way to approach this is to consider the mean wave energy flux in terms of the power per unit length of wavefront, usually expressed in kW/m. In other words, if I could build a perfect wave energy converter, then that is the amount of power that I could get, on average, per metre of device. That's somewhat simplistic, and it ignores many factors such as storminess, depth, accessibility, and so forth. But, answering that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short answer is &quot;the exposed west coasts of most continents&quot;, as these have the greatest fetch, or distance across an ocean for swell waves to develop in prevailing Westerly winds.&#xD;&#xA;There are unsourced maps on the websites of a few wave energy device developers (e.g. [Pelamis][1]). I'll not reproduce them here as I have no idea of the copyright situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An academic evaluation, based on global wave modelling, is in [this conference paper][2] (DOI: [10.1115/OMAE2010-20473][3]). Figure 4 shows their estimate of the annual average power per unit length along all coasts, except where it's very low or where there's ice.&#xD;&#xA;Hotspots are,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Western Europe&#xD;&#xA;* South Africa&#xD;&#xA;* South and West coasts of Australia and New Zealand&#xD;&#xA;* West coast of Canada&#xD;&#xA;* West coast of Chile. The southern part of this probably has the highest incoming wave power in the world, as it's the only interruption in the fetch around the Southern Ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pelamiswave.com/global-resource&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.oceanor.com/related/59149/paper_OMAW_2010_20473_final.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2010-20473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3236" RevisionGUID="311d1aac-5f41-470d-924e-ef1bc94ac9eb" CreationDate="2015-01-04T15:24:30.917" UserId="400" Text="With any given engineering field there is a learning curve.  With wind turbines there is a big incentive to go big.  The higher up you are, the more wind.  In addition in many cases, it's easier to get permission to redevelop an existing wind farm with larger turbines than to get permission to build a new one.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also higher air is less gusty, and taller masts get them out of hte way of low level birds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flip side is that as machines get bigger the strength of a beam increases with the square of the size, but the stress increases as the cube.  You don't see elephants with the proportions of an antelope.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differential wind speed isn't that big of an issue.  I suspect they will change the pitch of the blade.  This will also allow them to keep running in severe wind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3237" RevisionGUID="316d374e-1787-4b4b-9292-8eaf9881d200" CreationDate="2015-01-04T15:40:38.417" UserId="400" Text="At present the plastic waste stream can be diverted into multi-color goo mixed with wood chips and be extruded into synthetic fence posts.  Ugly as sin, but better than nothing, and I think that for sheet goods (bags) this is pretty good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your idea would work well for styrofoam.  You would work it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Styrofoam is separated from the waste stream by density.  You would also get used grocery bags.  Don't think that will matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Material is shredded to a uniform size, and cleaned of food residue.  Dirt is ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Material is sprayed with a solution of acetone and water.  Acetone is a solvent (may be other better or cheaper ones) This dissolves a surface layer of the styrofoam, leaving it sticky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Chips are pressed into a continuous molder that molds the knobs and sockets into the block.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  In the molding process 3/8&quot; x 3/8&quot; (size needs testing) grooves 2&quot; apart on the long faces, parallel to the long dimension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  The blocks are cut into full and half length blocks.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point the blocks can be used for building.  The grooves allow stucco or plaster to be sprayed on for fireproofing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional features:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Predrill vertical holes 2&quot; in from the surface.  This will allow vertical wire runs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Put horizontal groove 2&quot; in from the side, also for wiring use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest compacting the blocks enough to get the density up to about 10 lbs per cubic foot.  This would still leave them at about R3 per inch.  Mold the blocks 16&quot; tall x 12&quot; wide x 4 feet long.  This would make for a 5+ cubic foot block taht would weigh about 50 lbs.  This would be easy to work with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would need a make a different slab structure for roofs.  May be better to put conventional roof on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The building trade is very conservative.  Mistakes tend to be expensive and stick around.  The initial use for these blocks would be for utility sheds.  Market them through farm supply stores, as in many areas farm buildings are not subject to building code.  The other market, once you work out the techniques, would be to cities to build up a supply for emergency housing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ideal production facility would fit on a train.  This would allow municipalities to build up a small mountain of styrofoam, then the train would come in and process it.  This removes long distance trucking from the equation, and lets any municipality that can afford to the garbage sorters to play." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3238" RevisionGUID="67d19fcb-4ec0-41b4-9c71-8a2a2232bd0e" CreationDate="2015-01-04T16:10:28.637" UserId="400" Text="The guardian article mentioned by THelper to me is suspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It cites McCaffey that claims that 62 trillion spam messages take 33 billion kWh of power.&#xD;&#xA;That's 2000 messages per kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hmm.  Let's suppose that the average message is a megabyte.  Typical internet connection at the consumer level is aobut 5 Mbit/s  So a megabyte takes about 1.3 seconds to send.  Ignore the computer for now.  The household router uses 8 watts.  As you go up the internet food chain, both the power and speed go up.  My bet is that the larger ones are more efficient, but lets pretend they aren't.  Let's also say that the message takes 2 seconds.  There are 3600 seconds in an hour, so a message takes 2/3600 * 8 watt hours.  This time we will round the other way 1/2000 * 8 watt hours or 1/250 of a watt hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From me to gmail.com is 15 hops.  Assume this is typical.  So 30 hops gets my email to my destination.  So 30 * 1/250 = 1/8 of a watt hour.  So a kWh will handle 8000 messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further:  Lets take another look at that average message size.  I currently have 30,000 messages in Gmail, using about 3 GB.  So 10000 messages per GB or about 1/7 of a megabyte each.  So our kWh could transport 80,000 messages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok.  Look at the electricity to make the message.  I'm in front of my mac pro.  It takes me 10 minutes to write 500 words to a friend.  My computer with it's 3 monitors uses 200 watts.  So 10/60 * 200/1000 = 1/30 kWh.  Writing it is by FAR the big energy cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But:  How many do I write? According to gmail, 2000 last year, so about 6 a day.  (If I wrote it, I keep it.)Not counting spam, I receive about 60 a day.  Writing *still* dominates.  I use a fifth of a kWh to write.  Reading most messages takes under 30 seconds.  If we assume 1 minute each, then it works out that reading and writing are about equal.  Both are monsters compared to moving the data around the net.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So since the average message is written once and read once, we have 2/5 of a kWh per message.  So that works out to only 2.5 messages per kWh.  Ouch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hmm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something to think about.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I started to write this expecting to blow the numbers out of the water as being way too large.  Now I see them as being too small.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7902" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3228" RevisionGUID="fd63ca67-5654-4f07-8493-bc7a575a62a6" CreationDate="2015-01-04T19:30:28.670" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/551822993555730432" />
  <row Id="7903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3239" RevisionGUID="2d7b5b43-8815-43db-b22d-5d01a07f5334" CreationDate="2015-01-04T20:23:03.093" UserId="1878" Text="What is the best existing non-interactive comparison of the ecological impacts of different personal choices? The obvious domains might be housing, transport, food, personal consumption and waste. Perhaps it could be by dollar spent, or dollar saved, or hour spent, or year of commitment. A good carbon-impact comparison would be a second-best alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The public debate on these issues is full of sweeping generalizations supported by absolute figures (usually tons, sometimes hectares), which are meaningless to most people. What is most needed is relative figures, if possible with a graphical component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly there is a huge knowledge gap on this subject, and as a result at least some people are focusing their efforts in the wrong areas. The net outcome may not be positive if consumers make trivial changes, sometimes involving real effort, and then consider themselves absolved of further responsibility for the global ecological crisis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious example is low-energy lightbulbs, but there are plenty of others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - recycling household plastic&#xD;&#xA; - passing up meat more often&#xD;&#xA; - replacing a car or electrical appliance with a more efficient version&#xD;&#xA; - taking shorter showers or turning down heating or aircon&#xD;&#xA; - postponing the replacement of a mobile phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such &quot;micro&quot; gestures can certainly add up to something significant. But how significant? Together, can they ever become as significant as a single &quot;macro&quot; choice? Such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - becoming vegetarian&#xD;&#xA; - moving to an urban apartment&#xD;&#xA; - not flying&#xD;&#xA; - cycling to work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How many avoided hamburgers does it take a suburbanite to cancel out the SUV? Roughly. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ecological footprint&quot; – the amount of land required to support an individual lifestyle – is supposed to measure these things. Calculators include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/&#xD;&#xA; - http://ecologicalfootprint.com/&#xD;&#xA; - http://myfootprint.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general these are either unusably ugly or extremely simplistic, and more importantly (1) they require fastidious form-filling and (2, as pointed out in a [similar question][1] here) they do not detail the figures behind their algorithms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/91/how-do-i-estimate-my-personal-ecological-footprint" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3239" RevisionGUID="2d7b5b43-8815-43db-b22d-5d01a07f5334" CreationDate="2015-01-04T20:23:03.093" UserId="1878" Text="The best comparison of the relative ecological impact of personal choices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3239" RevisionGUID="2d7b5b43-8815-43db-b22d-5d01a07f5334" CreationDate="2015-01-04T20:23:03.093" UserId="1878" Text="|ecological-footprint|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3239" RevisionGUID="607d5259-4ba4-4827-913d-d503f997237d" CreationDate="2015-01-04T23:24:39.863" UserId="1878" Comment="Clarification" Text="What is the best existing non-interactive comparison of the ecological impacts of different personal lifestyle choices? The obvious domains might be housing, transport, food, personal consumption and waste. Perhaps it could be by dollar spent, or dollar saved, or hour spent, or year of commitment. A good carbon-impact comparison would be a second-best alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The public debate on these issues is full of sweeping generalizations supported by absolute figures (usually tons, sometimes hectares), which are meaningless to most people. What is most needed is relative figures, if possible with a graphical component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly there is a huge knowledge gap on this subject, and as a result at least some people are focusing their efforts in the wrong areas. The net outcome may not be positive if consumers make trivial changes, sometimes involving real effort, and then consider themselves absolved of further responsibility for the global ecological crisis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious example of a &quot;micro&quot; choice is low-energy lightbulbs, but there are plenty of others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - recycling household plastic&#xD;&#xA; - passing up meat more often&#xD;&#xA; - replacing a car or electrical appliance with a more efficient version&#xD;&#xA; - taking shorter showers or turning down heating or aircon&#xD;&#xA; - postponing the replacement of a mobile phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such deeds can certainly add up to something significant. But how significant? Together, can they ever become as significant as a single &quot;macro&quot; choice? Such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - becoming vegetarian&#xD;&#xA; - moving to an urban apartment&#xD;&#xA; - not flying&#xD;&#xA; - cycling to work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How many avoided hamburgers does it take a suburbanite to cancel out the SUV? Roughly. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ecological footprint&quot; – the amount of land required to support an individual lifestyle – is supposed to measure these things. Calculators include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/&#xD;&#xA; - http://ecologicalfootprint.com/&#xD;&#xA; - http://myfootprint.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general these are either unusably ugly or extremely simplistic, and more importantly (1) they require fastidious form-filling and (2, as pointed out in a [similar question][1] here) they do not detail the figures behind their algorithms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/91/how-do-i-estimate-my-personal-ecological-footprint" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3240" RevisionGUID="430e4595-39bf-4ada-a394-e15c0b17bb9e" CreationDate="2015-01-05T14:18:39.797" UserId="99" Text="Bokashi is a composting method were food scraps or other organic materials are placed in an airtight container and exposed to microorganisms. The microorganisms need a few weeks to ferment the material, after which the fermented waste can be buried in the ground to decompose fully.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most-well known mix of microorganisms for bokashi composting are the commercially sold ['Effective Microorganisms' (EM1)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_microorganism). It is also possible to [create your own microorganisms](https://bocashi.wordpress.com/newspaper-bokashi-instead-of-expensive-bran/)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3241" RevisionGUID="97b6cbb2-ff24-4822-b66f-0ee563ef1ee4" CreationDate="2015-01-05T14:18:39.797" UserId="99" Text="form of anaerobic composting using (effective) microorganisms&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="278" RevisionGUID="e306594f-84ff-4170-9557-ebe2f1b5f1ae" CreationDate="2015-01-05T14:21:05.490" UserId="99" Comment="added link to bokashi tag" Text="Compost is organic matter that has been decomposed and recycled as a fertilizer and soil amendment. It is a key ingredient in organic farming. When done locally (e.g. at home) composting may also reduce one's carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Composting process**: At the simplest level, the process of composting simply requires making a heap of wetted organic matter (leaves, &quot;green&quot; food waste) and waiting for the materials to break down into humus after a period of weeks or months. Modern, methodical composting is a multi-step, closely monitored process with measured inputs of water, air and carbon- and nitrogen-rich materials. The decomposition process is aided by shredding the plant matter, adding water and ensuring proper aeration by regularly turning the mixture. Worms and fungi further break up the material. Aerobic bacteria manage the chemical process by converting the inputs into heat, carbon dioxide and ammonium. The ammonium is further converted by bacteria into plant-nourishing nitrites and nitrates through the process of nitrification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For composting with worms see [tag:vermicomposting]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anaerobic composting with microorganisms see [tag:bokashi]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="279" RevisionGUID="5033de89-6745-46cc-a6e0-28905db5e316" CreationDate="2015-01-05T14:21:05.490" UserId="99" Comment="added link to bokashi tag" Text="the process of creating compost: organic matter that has been decomposed and recycled as a fertilizer and soil amendment. For composting with worms see [vermicomposting], for anaerobic composting with microorganisms see [bokashi]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3226" RevisionGUID="4d8a57e5-1dac-45ca-9e66-9089fcee55fe" CreationDate="2015-01-05T14:36:43.357" UserId="99" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Renewables is an umbrella term for resources that can be created and used without depleting the materials from which it is made. Examples are crops (provided growing them doesn't erode the soil) or wind energy, geothermal energy and solar energy. Water can also be a renewable resource but in many places on Earth it is used unsustainably by removing more water than can be replenished naturally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2671" RevisionGUID="0b8a28cb-8656-4cb1-9e6b-799e96bfabad" CreationDate="2015-01-05T14:41:38.533" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="aspects of sustainability that are specific to living in a city." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3233" RevisionGUID="9649c978-c83d-4ecb-b4e9-7d635d2cb916" CreationDate="2015-01-05T16:02:31.150" UserId="812" Comment="Added the section about the GIS tool, away from coastlines." Text="The simplest way to approach this is to consider the mean wave energy flux in terms of the power per unit length of wavefront, usually expressed in kW/m. In other words, if I could build a perfect wave energy converter, then that is the amount of power that I could get, on average, per metre of device. That's somewhat simplistic, and it ignores many factors such as storminess, depth, accessibility, and so forth. But, answering that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coastlines&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short answer is &quot;the exposed west coasts of most continents&quot;, as these have the greatest fetch, or distance across an ocean for swell waves to develop in prevailing Westerly winds.&#xD;&#xA;There are unsourced maps on the websites of a few wave energy device developers (e.g. [Pelamis][1]). I'll not reproduce them here as I have no idea of the copyright situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An academic evaluation, based on global wave modelling, is in [this conference paper][2] (DOI: [10.1115/OMAE2010-20473][3]). Figure 4 shows their estimate of the annual average power per unit length along all coasts, except where it's very low or where there's ice.&#xD;&#xA;Hotspots are,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Western Europe&#xD;&#xA;* South Africa&#xD;&#xA;* South and West coasts of Australia and New Zealand&#xD;&#xA;* West coast of Canada&#xD;&#xA;* West coast of Chile. The southern part of this probably has the highest incoming wave power in the world, as it's the only interruption in the fetch around the Southern Ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deep ocean&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving away from the coastlines, today I happened to come across [this GIS tool][4] which, among other things, has a layer showing the average annual specific wave power in kW/m. This data is based on wind modelling / hindcasting and modelled wind-wave interaction.&#xD;&#xA;The image below shows this layer at a worldwide scale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![World map showing annual average specific wave power][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give an idea as to scale, the deep red colour in the Southern ocean is &quot;over 90kW/m&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;The layer cites the following two conference papers as its source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - WorldWaves wave energy resource assessments from the deep ocean to&#xD;&#xA;   the coast (by Stephen Barstow, Gunnar Mørk, Lasse Lønseth and Jan&#xD;&#xA;   Petter Mathisen). Proceedings of the 8th European Wave and Tidal&#xD;&#xA;   Energy Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, 2009, 149-159.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Assessing the global wave energy potential (by Gunnar Mørk and&#xD;&#xA;   Stephen Barstow (Fugro OCEANOR), Alina Kabuth and Teresa Pontes (IST,&#xD;&#xA;   Portugal)). Proc. of OMAE2010, 29th International Conference on&#xD;&#xA;   Ocean, Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering June 6-11, 2010,&#xD;&#xA;   Shanghai, China; OMAE2010 – 20473.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pelamiswave.com/global-resource&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.oceanor.com/related/59149/paper_OMAW_2010_20473_final.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2010-20473&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ocean-energy-systems.org/ocean-energy-in-the-world/gis-map/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BVWXh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3242" RevisionGUID="45e79891-4123-4b49-8738-f7e8bf84b122" CreationDate="2015-01-05T17:16:38.823" UserId="1208" Text="**Cleaning**  &#xD;&#xA;Urine breaks down into ammonia, which can be used for cleaning ([More on Wikipedia][1]).   &#xD;&#xA;But urine scale might form faster (reaction between the urine and the lime in the water).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Health**  &#xD;&#xA;It is quite hard to find good sources, but since there are people who [drink urine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urophagia) and since it was used to disinfect wounds I would guess *being in a room* with it should be quite save.  &#xD;&#xA;Watch out for bacterial infections and if it smells funny send it on it's way (maybe s.o. can come up with a good rhyme?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine#Cleaning " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3243" RevisionGUID="c4ecb76a-4ae8-40c6-a02d-9c72818b6af2" CreationDate="2015-01-06T05:52:20.030" UserId="1951" Text="Everyday we cook something and produce naturally decomposable wastes. For example unused chopped onions, potato , tomato , or roots , some old food. This almost create waste of 200-500 gram daily. I was thinking of how can we reduce this or recycle it to create some garden soil. &#xD;&#xA;What are the ways to reduce or recycle this kind of waste. I am already trying to use less plastic bags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3243" RevisionGUID="c4ecb76a-4ae8-40c6-a02d-9c72818b6af2" CreationDate="2015-01-06T05:52:20.030" UserId="1951" Text="How can we reduce producing waste in Kitchen for vegetarian family?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3243" RevisionGUID="c4ecb76a-4ae8-40c6-a02d-9c72818b6af2" CreationDate="2015-01-06T05:52:20.030" UserId="1951" Text="|gardening|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3244" RevisionGUID="35c58536-3824-466c-af45-d4a6930b97be" CreationDate="2015-01-06T14:11:49.227" UserId="99" Text="I'm going to focus my answer on 'recycling' the wastes and let someone else answer how to reduce kitchen waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your municipality doesn't collect and process kitchen and garden wastes then you can start composting (a lot of) the kitchen waste yourself. Basically you have 3 options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **'Regular' composting:** create a compost pile or setup a compost bin in your garden. It's easy to do, but with regular composting it will take a while before the wastes are fully decomposed and you have good compost. Also some materials are less suited to be placed on a compost pile, for example greasy foods and large batches of citrus fruits because that will slow the decompositing process down. Also meat is less suitable (see [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/38/99) for an explanation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vermicomposting**: similar to regular composting, but then you use a compost bin in which you place specific types of earthworms that speed up decomposition and excrete castings that improve the quality of the compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Bokashi composting**: buy two airtight bins and fill 1 with food scraps and add a bokashi bran (bought in a store or made yourself) regularly. When the bin is full, leave it closed for 2-3 weeks to ferment all material. During this period you can use and fill your second bin. Once fermentation is done bury the waste in the ground. The main advantage is that you can process more materials (also cooked and greasy foods), but the drawback is that you'll need to buy or create new microorganisms regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on this you can browse the questions and answers of the following tags [tag:composting], [tag:vermicomposting] and [tag:bokashi]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3245" RevisionGUID="18b0ea18-f478-4127-b445-75659214fffe" CreationDate="2015-01-06T19:44:48.470" UserId="1952" Text="Minimalism (aka [Simple Living][1]) is a great way to live an ecologically-sustainable life, but is there a way to make it sustainable from a pysochological standpoint as well? That is, how does one reduces one's feeling of deprivation while reducing one's material possessions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_living" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7921" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="3245" RevisionGUID="18b0ea18-f478-4127-b445-75659214fffe" CreationDate="2015-01-06T19:44:48.470" UserId="1952" Text="Is there a method for psychologically-sustainable minimalism?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7922" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="3245" RevisionGUID="18b0ea18-f478-4127-b445-75659214fffe" CreationDate="2015-01-06T19:44:48.470" UserId="1952" Text="|reduce|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="7923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="3246" RevisionGUID="dd36f9ee-50b5-4373-ab83-84d92f5381e4" CreationDate="2015-01-06T22:17:04.897" UserId="1937" Text="Don't know if it'll work for everyone, but my solution - and indeed, the way I arrived at living a (somewhat and in some respects) minimalist lifestyle - is to not think of things as deprivations, but as advantages.  So my not owning a TV is not depriving me of TV viewing, it's giving me lots of free time to do other (IMHO more interesting) things; not flying commercial is not deprivation of travel, but frees me from TSA indignities &amp; seating discomfort; driving a small car gives me agility rather than depriving me of comfort &amp; status; biking instead of driving gives me healthy exercise &amp; recreation..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8923" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3243" RevisionGUID="87523a24-1f10-4657-b9f2-56e4db17386a" CreationDate="2015-01-07T07:37:13.933" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/552730662646853632" />
  <row Id="8924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3244" RevisionGUID="d6c0ff09-1182-4eb4-903d-8440c48f5220" CreationDate="2015-01-07T08:16:35.570" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, some minor improvements" Text="I'm going to focus my answer on 'recycling' the wastes and let someone else answer how to reduce kitchen waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your municipality doesn't collect and process kitchen and garden wastes then you can start composting (a lot of) the kitchen waste yourself. Basically you have 3 options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **'Regular' composting:** create a compost pile or setup a compost bin in your garden. It's easy to do, but with regular composting it will take a while before the wastes are fully decomposed and you have good compost. Also some materials are less suited to be placed on a compost pile, for example greasy foods and large batches of citrus fruits because that will slow the decomposition process down. Also meat is less suitable (see [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/38/99) for an explanation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vermicomposting**: similar to regular composting, but then you use a compost bin in which you put specific types of earthworms that speed up decomposition. The worms also excrete castings that improve the quality of the compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Bokashi composting**: buy two airtight bins and start filling one bin with food scraps and a bokashi bran (bought in a store or made yourself). When the bin is full, leave it closed for 2-3 weeks to ferment all material. During this period you can use and fill your second bin. Once fermentation is done bury the waste in the ground. The main advantage is that you can process more materials (also cooked and greasy foods), but the drawback is that you'll need to buy or create new microorganisms regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on this you can browse the questions and answers of the following tags [tag:composting], [tag:vermicomposting] and [tag:bokashi]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3243" RevisionGUID="9a86aa59-707f-4d35-8b0d-26d6f91bf6e8" CreationDate="2015-01-07T08:19:23.980" UserId="99" Comment="fixed " Text="Everyday we cook something and produce naturally decomposable wastes. For example unused chopped onions, potatos, tomatos, roots, or old food. This creates waste of 200-500 gram daily. I was thinking, how can we reduce this or recycle it to create some garden soil? &#xD;&#xA;What are the ways to reduce or recycle this kind of waste? I am already trying to use less plastic bags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8926" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3243" RevisionGUID="9a86aa59-707f-4d35-8b0d-26d6f91bf6e8" CreationDate="2015-01-07T08:19:23.980" UserId="99" Comment="fixed " Text="How can we reduce kitchen waste for vegetarian family?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="88" RevisionGUID="6db39d8a-3b0e-49b8-9882-443fac45d803" CreationDate="2015-01-07T10:17:54.807" UserId="99" Comment="added 4th option" Text="1. Make sure your roses are not in a location with strong winds, if so relocate them. The best place is a sunny area with at least 4 hours of sun and only slightly windy.&#xD;&#xA;2. Use an organic fertilizer so the roses have enough nutrients. Usually you need to do this twice a year (early spring and after the first flush of bloom) but check the instructions on the fertilizer for more information.&#xD;&#xA;3. Once the greenflies appear spray the roses every day with water, preferably early in the morning so the plant can dry during the day. If there are lots of greenflies add some soap and/or vinegar to the water before spraying. &#xD;&#xA;4. Alternatively you can try to attract or buy ladybugs that eat the aphids and/or [try to get rid of any ants](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/412/99) that feed on the greenflies and fend of ladybugs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also read somewhere that lavender, thyme, sage or garlic plants planted between the roses may also help. I've tried lavender last year myself but didn't notice any effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4246" RevisionGUID="5427709e-f0d8-40d3-ae48-a2b2626ca4ae" CreationDate="2015-01-07T10:42:39.270" UserId="99" Text="An externality is a cost or benefit associated with an action that is not borne by the person who chooses to take that action. Costs are also called **negative externalities** and benefits are called **positive externalities**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of a negative externality is air pollution caused by driving a car powered by fossil fuel, an example of a positive externality is a rainbarrel which not only holds water for the owner, but also reduces the amount of runoff water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both positive and negative externalities lead to less than optimal outcomes in economic terms. A negative externality for a common good may also cause a '[Tragedy of the commons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)'.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4247" RevisionGUID="ae29dc10-5de0-4f4c-b88f-7c858df40cf8" CreationDate="2015-01-07T10:42:39.270" UserId="99" Text="cost or benefit of an action that is not borne by the person who chooses to take that action" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3244" RevisionGUID="875ead36-acd5-40f4-b44b-20a3ea0f8b34" CreationDate="2015-01-07T14:47:24.950" UserId="99" Comment="added bit more info about what to do with fermented materials" Text="I'm going to focus my answer on 'recycling' the wastes and let someone else answer how to reduce kitchen waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your municipality doesn't collect and process kitchen and garden wastes then you can start composting (a lot of) the kitchen waste yourself. Basically you have 3 options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **'Regular' composting:** create a compost pile or setup a compost bin in your garden. It's easy to do, but with regular composting it will take a while before the wastes are fully decomposed and you have good compost. Also some materials are less suited to be placed on a compost pile, for example greasy foods and large batches of citrus fruits because that will slow the decomposition process down. Also meat is less suitable (see [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/38/99) for an explanation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vermicomposting**: this is similar to regular composting, but then you use a compost bin in which you put specific types of earthworms that speed up decomposition. The worms also excrete castings that improve the quality of the compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Bokashi composting**: buy two airtight bins and start filling one bin with food scraps and a bokashi bran (bought in a store or made yourself). When the bin is full, leave it closed for 2-3 weeks to ferment all material. During this period you can use and fill your second bin. Once fermentation is done you can bury the waste in the ground for a few weeks so it turns into soil, or you can apply it slowly to a compost heap or wormbin. The main advantage is that you can process more materials (also cooked and greasy foods), but the drawback is that you'll need to buy or create new microorganisms regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on this you can browse the questions and answers of the following tags [tag:composting], [tag:vermicomposting] and [tag:bokashi]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4248" RevisionGUID="c958e154-864e-4424-8853-11b0079269b9" CreationDate="2015-01-07T18:12:58.620" UserId="1952" Text="I believe the key lies in refining the few things that you decide to keep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such an approach is described at [less.best][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://less.best" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4249" RevisionGUID="ab556fa7-3b3f-4731-a240-5694df4dde06" CreationDate="2015-01-07T20:00:26.853" UserId="1955" Text="Another idea is to reuse your wasted veggies and turn them into the food source for more food for yourself. We own chickens, who will eat almost anything. [Here is a good chart][1] to figure out how to recycle your table scraps into food for something that in return provides food for yourself. There are several types of fish you can also grow in small(er) ponds (Google: Backyard Fish Farming). The best benefit of both is the soluble wastes of both make amazing fertilizer which is much easier to break down than the table scraps you've started out with. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.backyardchickens.com/a/chicken-treat-chart-the-best-treats-for-backyard-chickens" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="5a60db90-4c32-4316-af6e-0c814bead7da" CreationDate="2015-01-08T04:48:50.890" UserId="1956" Text="I'm planning to make some $$ with the land i have(more than 60 hectares) i live on Brazil so yeah water &amp; sun and wind is readily avaible and i wan't to make aeroponic vertical plantation inside an close environment for optimal performance/quality/disease control.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some research on google and i know i need an industrial vaporizer and etc but it still don't feel confident on my knowledge and can't build a list of all things i need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume i have $15. 000 dollares for the whole closed environment + the machinery and workers aren't an problem and want to start small for testing proof of concept and etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My aim is to sell organic food by an fair price and high quality and perfomance and if possible without spend too much(atleast at the start remember i'm doing that to gather capital).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the best way to start this out ? If possible an list of all items required ? With prices? If possible how to integrate sustainable on my business in order also to decrease operational cost and to have a lower impact on environment(like using solar power or the water from the lake and river i have inside my propriety)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope i was clear on my thoughts and also that some expert can help me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8937" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="5a60db90-4c32-4316-af6e-0c814bead7da" CreationDate="2015-01-08T04:48:50.890" UserId="1956" Text="What do i need for an vertical aeroponic farm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8938" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="5a60db90-4c32-4316-af6e-0c814bead7da" CreationDate="2015-01-08T04:48:50.890" UserId="1956" Text="|building-materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8940" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="b919ea49-8f6a-4d0e-93f5-181c8e5c1b7b" CreationDate="2015-01-08T09:26:47.247" UserId="15" Comment="Added aeroponics tag" Text="|building-materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="e9c6a788-1914-48e6-a2e5-8ed51f5d77ed" CreationDate="2015-01-08T12:26:11.887" UserId="85" Comment="fixed typos" Text="I'm planning to make some money with the land I own (more than 60 hectares). I live in Brazil so water, sun and wind are readily available. I want to make an aeroponic vertical plantation inside a closed environment for optimal performance/quality/disease control.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some research on google and I know that I need an industrial vaporizer (among other things), but I still don't feel confident what I know and I can't make a list of all the things I need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume I have $15000 dollars for the whole closed environment + the machinery and workers aren't a problem and I want to start small for testing proof of concept etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My aim is to sell organic food for a fair price and high quality and performance, if possible without spending too much (at least in the beginning – remember I'm doing it to gather capital).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the best way to start this out? If possible a list of all items required? With prices? I also need information on how to apply sustainability to my business in order to decrease operational costs and to have a lower impact on the environment (like using solar power or the water from the lake and river I have inside my property).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope I was clear on my thoughts and also that some expert can help me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="921" RevisionGUID="13185941-a5f7-468e-b229-44f548cef6a3" CreationDate="2015-01-08T12:41:55.027" UserId="99" Comment="more explanation, add list of fruits that produce relatively much ethylene" Text="All fruits and vegetables give off [ethylene](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene), a harmless, natural plant hormone that stimulates ripening. Ripe bananas give off a relatively large amount of etyhlene, so placing other fruits in a confined space (a paper bag works great) together with some ripe bananas or banana peels will speed up the ripening of the other fruits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of fruits that produce relatively much ethylene are:&#xD;&#xA;apples, apricots, avocados, ripe bananas, cantaloupe, kiwifruit, mangos, melons, nectarines, papayas, peaches, pears, plums and tomatoes.&#xD;&#xA;If you bruise a fruit or vegetable it generally will produce more ethylene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that not all fruits and vegetables are equally sensitive to ethylene." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="27be0e39-feb1-4ead-8144-6c83f651809e" CreationDate="2015-01-08T12:46:41.963" UserId="1956" Comment="deleted 228 characters in body" Text="I'm planning to make some money with the land I own (more than 60 hectares). I live in Brazil so water, sun and wind are readily available. I want to make an aeroponic vertical plantation inside a closed environment for optimal performance/quality/disease control.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some research on google and I know that I need an industrial vaporizer (among other things), but I still don't feel confident what I know and I can't make a list of all the things I need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume I have $15000 dollars for the whole closed environment + the machinery and workers aren't a problem and I want to start small for testing proof of concept etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My aim is to sell organic food for a fair price and high quality and performance, if possible without spending too much (at least in the beginning – remember I'm doing it to gather capital).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the best way to start this out? If possible a list of all items required to build a small environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope I was clear on my thoughts and also that some expert can help me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4252" RevisionGUID="b0df3361-9a57-4857-a45a-e0093dd15b2a" CreationDate="2015-01-08T12:50:03.580" UserId="99" Text="Reduce is the first step in the 3R's mantra of sustainability; Reduce, [tag:reuse] and [tag:recycling]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4253" RevisionGUID="b7ecbff1-0c31-4e67-bb46-1b970edf13b5" CreationDate="2015-01-08T12:50:03.580" UserId="99" Text="reduction of a particular resource or waste material to improve sustainability. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4255" RevisionGUID="795bbb98-8200-489d-bd60-53f92d5e1ee2" CreationDate="2015-01-08T21:06:50.763" UserId="400" Text="I believe you are wasting your money.  If you already have 60 hectares, you have more land than you can develope with $15,000.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything vertical costs more money. You need more substantial frameworks.  You need ways to get materials to the upper levels.  Your employees spend more time on ladders and stools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This additional spending can make sense in a northern community, as a vertical farm can take advantage of the low solar angle of winter, can be more efficient for heating, and can be built where land is expensive, and can be more productive per man hour where labour is expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Brazil, you have cheap land, abundant sun, cheap labour.  Farm the 60 hectares you have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4256" RevisionGUID="83d750e6-141d-473d-bca2-5d929452bd9c" CreationDate="2015-01-08T21:40:49.050" UserId="400" Text="In general these are non-trivial questions.  I don't know of a single source of answers, other that possibly the SL branch of StackExchange &lt;grin&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best option, I think, is to learn how to reason about such things.  For this you will need to do a bit of digging:  Most of the carbon cost is really the energy cost.  So you learn how to convert kWh to pounds of CO2.  This one is fairly easy to find.  You will also need BTU (as in house and water heating) to pounds natural gas used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you have the energy units nailed down, the rest is fairly easy, athough it's good to seek several points of view.  All of these tend to be rough calculations, and different people will make differing assumptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some are not obvious.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Example:  Recycling household plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one is full of pitfalls:  Can you drop the plastic off when you shop?  If you have to make a separate trip, it might be better to throw it away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is your community set up to recycle plastic.  If most of it ends up in the garbage, you aren't ahead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling plastic may not be a benefit in terms of greenhouse gasses.  It may reduce oil use,but tehre may not be any net gain in energy efficiency.  Sure, you don't have to make the feed stock, but there is a lot of transportation tied up in  recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First approximation:  It's a wash, unless you have a local market for the plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Passing up meat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;North Americans eat too much meat. But there is some evidence that we should not be complete vegetarians.  However you did say *more often*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are talking about cow fed on grain, then yes, you could make the argument that a pound of cow takes about 6-10 lbs of grain, and that it would be cheaper in terms of energy to eat the grain.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of the first world, grain fed beef is uncommon. Most of the meat is raised on grass.  Much of that grassland is unsuitable for agriculture.  Even where I live, west of Edmonton, locally about half the cleared land is pasture, either with grazing cattle, or managed for hay production for winter feed.  A few miles to the west grain farming vanishes, and it's all cattle or sheep country.  There isn't a reliable enough growing season to grow annual crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With climate warming and increasing variability more land may become unsuitable for annual cropping.  The optimum choice may go the other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Replacing a car or appliance with a more efficient one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depends greatly on the use pattern.  Unless the vehicle is a junker, when you trade your car in, someone else will buy it and use it.  The costs to make it are a sunk cost, and the amount of embodied energy in a car is considerable.  If you are a high mileage user, then replacing the car may be a net win.  Let someone else putter around a few thousand km per year for 10 years to finish wearing it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But another option is to keep it and buy a highly efficient but different optimization vehicle.  E.g.  Suppose at present you have that classic family vehicle, a Dodge Caravan.  Intead of trading it in on whatever new hybrid would replace it, perhaps it would be better to get a Mercedes Smartcar, or a Focus, and use that when you could, and use the Caravan only when you must.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With cars, the waste comes from under utilization. A Caravan carrying a soccer team gets more passenger miles per gallon than a Prius taking a single commuter to work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For appliances a good rule of thumb is to compare the lifespan energy use.  Something like a refrigerator uses 1500 - 2000 kWh/year.  For me that 200-300 dollars worth of energy per year.  Suppose I could replace it with one that used half the power.  The new unit however cost $1000.  Suppose in addition that ALL of that thousand bucks represents energy.  So the new reefer costs 6000 kWh.  So a new reefer pays for itself in 6-10 years under this simplified energy model.  (While not terribly accurate, I think you will find that the errors when comparing similar items will cancel out.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same argument for a toaster oven would probably result in you keeping the old one.  You don't use it that often, so the time to pay back the power use is much longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, I took oddball stances on these.  You will need to develop your own criteria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4257" RevisionGUID="579f6f6e-9abd-4557-9a83-231c00c57f72" CreationDate="2015-01-08T21:54:53.560" UserId="400" Text="Demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverters are mostly wire wrapped transformer and electronics.  Electronics typically have enormous up front costs to set up the plant, and fairly cheap costs per unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good example of this can be found by tracking the per chip cost of memory.  For a given technology, the price will start high, and as more factories come on line, it drops, then as the next level of tech comes on line, the old tech will rise again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would expect that inverters will follow a similar path, possibly not following it quite as hard due to the transformer costs.  (Transformers are very well established technology)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, some of the design efficiencies will take longer to establish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A:  Houses purpose built with room for 3-10 kW of solar cells, so that installation is trivial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B:  Standardization of mounting systems so that houses are built with standard mounting points, and conduit for wires in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C:  Code reform that all new housing must have power isolation built in.  This is MUCH cheaper to put in when the service is installed rather than as a retrofit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D:  Standards for communication so that inverters can be mixed and matched at will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These factors alone could cut the installation costs of PV substantially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One change we are already seeing is the modularization of inverters.  The inverter is sized to handle some small number of panels.  So you may put up 12 panels and have 4 inverters.  They have a single lead that keeps them all in sync.  This makes it easy to replace one that goes bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next big drop will be the permission to do it yourself with a single electrical inspection.  PV isn't rocket science.  Anyone who is comfortable wiring their bathroom should be able to do it.  Not covered in the how-to books, nor the Alberta Electrical Code Simplified just yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8951" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4251" RevisionGUID="c0e3870c-8e6b-455c-a1c6-1602008f7a9d" CreationDate="2015-01-09T19:57:05.510" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/553641630285438977" />
  <row Id="8953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4258" RevisionGUID="8df3d17b-7403-4792-b2ad-610c376ef3d8" CreationDate="2015-01-10T02:35:25.867" UserId="400" Text="I think you could do this basically by weight, coupled with embodied energy costs of the principle materials.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.  Christmas Lights.  The bulk of the material of concern is the PVC insulation.  My guess is that the environmental footprint of a string of outdoor lights is on par with a single section of PVC house siding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic ornaments:  Plastic, but they will last for years.  Considering that there is probably less plastic in a couple dozen ornaments than there is a plastic milk jug, I suspect that transport is the main environmental cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Glass ornaments:  Glass has higher emboddied energy, but glass is endlessly recyclable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Artificial trees:  Higher initial cost in terms of oil, energy, but they are re-usable for a decade or two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a &quot;Re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic&quot; question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4259" RevisionGUID="e0e85d7d-9a13-4a13-aa22-b08c82a4f870" CreationDate="2015-01-10T02:42:51.230" UserId="400" Text="Lots of tracking PV has NOT been build.  Recently I read a story that current PV installations are running about 1 GW/week.  Yes, WEEK.  That is about the same amount as all of the 20th century.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PV tracking made sense when the price of PV was very high compared to the price of tracking.  Tracking doesn't drop very fast.  As PV costs come down it becomes cheaper just to install more racks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4260" RevisionGUID="6002ffa1-54c6-4deb-a25e-50ccf10e7258" CreationDate="2015-01-10T02:50:41.740" UserId="400" Text="Read your local electrical code carefully.  Usual requirement is that a recessed ceiling fixture must have no flamalable material in X inches.  If in a ceiling/attic space there is supposed to be an air seal box around the fixture enclosure itself.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The code may also allow lower clearances for lower wattage lamps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concern is that waste heat will gradually char wood that is nearby.  As wood chars it's ignition temperature lowers.  You can get a situation where a lamp put in today will start a fire in 5 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since hot air moves upward, a recessed fixture tends to collect a LOT of heat.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both LED and fluorescent lights are so much lower wattage that fire hazards are usually minimal.  You may be able to either block the holes, or replace the recessed fixture with one that doesn't permit air flow.  At this point you may be able to increase the insulation at in that space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caution:  Maintain the integrity of the vapour barrier.  If you don't, you will get warm humid air moving up through the lamp, and condensing in the attic space potentially causing mildew and rot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8956" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3245" RevisionGUID="20691ca7-481f-4461-9c21-8994bebdac3e" CreationDate="2015-01-10T19:57:05.033" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/554004017517707265" />
  <row Id="8959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1148" RevisionGUID="7705cd22-acde-4f0c-848a-3867ac738418" CreationDate="2015-01-12T12:29:28.640" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="I don't know much about aquaponics, aeroponics or fogponics, but I from what I've read on wikipedia I think those require more maintenance and resources than a simple vegetation-covered roof. Therefore I will focus my answer on the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most low-maintenance, low-resources solution probably is to build a green roof covered with sedum plants. Sedum can survive under many circumstances. In warm climates you may need to water the plants occasionally, but this is not necessary in moderate climates. The only maintenance required is to check your water drains once or twice a year and unclog them if needed. You might want to remove the weeds once every year, but this is not strictly necessary. Basic instructions on how to build a sedum-covered roof can be found [here](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/94/99). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of sedum you can grow herbs and/or grasses on your roof, but these require a sturdier roof, more maintenance, more water and possibly also some fertilizer (depending on the types of plants). It's even possible to grow bushes and trees, but you'll need an even stronger roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Requirements:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - All vegetation-covered roofs&#xD;&#xA;   - a good waterproof and root-resistant layer, preferably not older than 10 years.&#xD;&#xA;   - good drainage&#xD;&#xA;   - slope preferably less than 15 degrees. Depending on the type of roof, a bigger slope may be possible, but this will make construction and maintenance more complicated&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sedum&#xD;&#xA;   - the roof has to support an extra 40-80 kg/m2&#xD;&#xA;   - roof edge must be at least 10cm high&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Grass/herbs&#xD;&#xA;   - the roof has to support an extra 100-150 kg/m2&#xD;&#xA;   - roof edge must be at least 15-20cm high&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bushes/trees&#xD;&#xA;   - the roof has to support over 250kg/m2 extra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="06e4ab60-01d9-4433-9109-0b02b98b5680" CreationDate="2015-01-12T12:30:48.477" UserId="99" Text="Is it possible to recognize products that have been designed and manufactured with [built-in or programmed obsolescenc](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence) in mind, before I buy them? Are there guidelines how to recognize such products? Or can I find a list of typical products/brands to avoid somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of products I am currently aware of that have planned obsolescence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - some ink cartridge manufacturers program their cartridges to stop printing after a certain number of pages.&#xD;&#xA; - many cell phone manufacturers regularly change the plug for recharging the battery or connecting other accessories such as earphones, making old chargers/earphones obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am not interested in 'perceived or style obsolescence' here, but only in products that somehow cannot be used anymore after a certain time, which could be avoided if those products were designed a little better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8961" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="06e4ab60-01d9-4433-9109-0b02b98b5680" CreationDate="2015-01-12T12:30:48.477" UserId="99" Text="How to avoid buying planned-obsolescence products?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8962" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="06e4ab60-01d9-4433-9109-0b02b98b5680" CreationDate="2015-01-12T12:30:48.477" UserId="99" Text="|manufacturing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4262" RevisionGUID="d0072d69-2770-4fc4-b24a-85e2da53e477" CreationDate="2015-01-12T12:38:57.193" UserId="1701" Text="The service station next to my office saves the used oil from oil changes to burn in a special heater in the colder months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is my understanding that used motor oil can be recycled in a number of ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. refined to create new lubricants&#xD;&#xA; 2. used to make asphalt&#xD;&#xA; 3. burned to generate electricity&#xD;&#xA; 4. refined to create heating oil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning on site avoids all the transportation impacts associated with recycling and redistributing recycled material as well as the energy inputs required for the recycling itself. But burning in so many potentially poorly maintained heaters could cause much greater carbon and other emissions than processing in a regulated facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do the benefits of recycling outweigh those costs in terms of environmental impact or sustainability. Should this used motor oil be collected and managed in a single facility rather than burned on site in many facilities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4262" RevisionGUID="d0072d69-2770-4fc4-b24a-85e2da53e477" CreationDate="2015-01-12T12:38:57.193" UserId="1701" Text="Does burning used motor oil to generate heat on-site have a lower impact than sending it for recycling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4262" RevisionGUID="d0072d69-2770-4fc4-b24a-85e2da53e477" CreationDate="2015-01-12T12:38:57.193" UserId="1701" Text="|recycling|heating|pollution|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="cd53fb4e-ca67-4741-8499-fe3bcfe46996" CreationDate="2015-01-12T15:00:37.597" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo" Text="Is it possible to recognize products that have been designed and manufactured with [built-in or programmed obsolescence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence) in mind, before I buy them? Are there guidelines how to recognize such products? Or can I find a list of typical products/brands to avoid somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of products I am currently aware of that have planned obsolescence:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - some ink cartridge manufacturers program their cartridges to stop printing after a certain number of pages.&#xD;&#xA; - many cell phone manufacturers regularly change the plug for recharging the battery or connecting other accessories such as earphones, making old chargers/earphones obsolete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I suspect the list of products isn't limited to electronics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I am not interested in 'perceived or style obsolescence' here, but only in products that somehow cannot be used anymore after a certain time, which could be avoided if those products were designed a little better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4263" RevisionGUID="1ba63b58-cda9-4f2d-88df-06de2d95c5be" CreationDate="2015-01-12T20:55:48.207" UserId="400" Text="There are two issues with used motor oil. One is that PCAH forms  Thats Poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.  Benzene like rings with odds and ends attached.  Many are biologically active, some are carcinogenic.  If burned at high temp, with sufficient oxygen, they aren't a problem.  Incompletely burned they are serious problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second issue are the very fine metal particles -- stuff fine enough to go through a normal oil filter.  Depending on the engine, this can include babbit metal (used for bearings which has some lead in it) or elements other than iron that were alloyed with the steel.  (Can include vanadium, chromium, manganese...)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use a centrifugal separator you can get these out of the oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transport kills.  As far as possible deal with the mess locally.  Designing a good used oil burner is not rocket science.  And I would rather that it be burned, than used as asphalt where the PCAH and metal is out there for the rain to leach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling into new oil is viable, but if you have to ship it significant distances, the damage of the shipping outweighs the gain from re-using it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="72609259-37d8-4f3e-a4f4-5f3af0ac4325" CreationDate="2015-01-13T05:41:01.470" UserId="1912" Text="Which are the companies fighting the good fight when it comes to sustainability, that have a large IT branch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know about Tesla Motors, and I know that many NGOs also have IT needs, but I've yet come across a proper list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking forward to a more sustainable life by supporting the proper industries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="72609259-37d8-4f3e-a4f4-5f3af0ac4325" CreationDate="2015-01-13T05:41:01.470" UserId="1912" Text="sustainable companies - IT" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="72609259-37d8-4f3e-a4f4-5f3af0ac4325" CreationDate="2015-01-13T05:41:01.470" UserId="1912" Text="|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="08613596-9d4b-41bb-9500-5fb06d5f5d15" CreationDate="2015-01-13T06:54:58.830" UserId="1912" Text="I want to focus solar energy on a solar cell with the use of mirrors(that I already have) and maybe some aluminum foil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I not go overboard on the focusing? How can I detect if the focused solar is too much?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background information: I live at 45 latitude, the sun is not that strong here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="08613596-9d4b-41bb-9500-5fb06d5f5d15" CreationDate="2015-01-13T06:54:58.830" UserId="1912" Text="Can solar energy be too focused on a solar cell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="08613596-9d4b-41bb-9500-5fb06d5f5d15" CreationDate="2015-01-13T06:54:58.830" UserId="1912" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4266" RevisionGUID="a141ee6a-5a20-4c05-8daa-2ce16b4a01fb" CreationDate="2015-01-13T08:01:30.023" UserId="48" Text="Yes, if the photovoltaics aren't designed for operating as concentrated PV, it can shorten the life of the cell: the additional thermal stress can be huge; the cell will operate at a higher temperature, as it can't dissipate heat that quickly. This can crack the encapsulant, leading to moisture ingress and the corroding of the cell and/or its contacts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Higher operating temperatures also reduce the efficiency of the cell during the period of raised temperatures. The panel's datasheet will normally have a coefficient for this: the rate at which efficiency or peak power drops off per degree change in temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'd have to find positions for your reflectors that would adequately bounce sun off onto the panel, without shading the panel - that might not be easy, particularly at your latitude, where the position of the sun in the sky can vary a lot over the year. And the maintenance and wind-loading on the reflectors should be taken into consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar panels have become so cheap now, that concentrating the sun is rarely worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even at 45&amp;deg; latitude, there will be periods of hours of intense sunlight. If I were to try the reflectors, I'd put a temperature sensor on it (it may already have one), and get an idea of normal cell rear-surface temperatures at 3 or 4 continuous hours of peak summer sun without the reflectors; then I'd keep an eye on that temperature when operating with reflectors over the same sort of exposure period. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="ce9413bd-08e1-4f7e-8f2a-174e2a394c72" CreationDate="2015-01-13T08:02:52.977" UserId="48" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot; (greetings and sign-offs are discouraged here)" Text="I want to focus solar energy on a solar cell with the use of mirrors (that I already have) and maybe some aluminum foil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I not go overboard on the focusing? How can I detect if the focused solar is too much?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background information: I live at 45&amp;deg; latitude, the sun is not that strong here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8976" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="ce9413bd-08e1-4f7e-8f2a-174e2a394c72" CreationDate="2015-01-13T08:02:52.977" UserId="48" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot; (greetings and sign-offs are discouraged here)" Text="Can solar energy be too focused onto a solar cell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8977" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="ce9413bd-08e1-4f7e-8f2a-174e2a394c72" CreationDate="2015-01-13T08:02:52.977" UserId="48" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot; (greetings and sign-offs are discouraged here)" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="bfec9917-ff57-4149-85a5-8521c3c090a7" CreationDate="2015-01-13T11:55:55.853" UserId="48" Comment="clarifying thanks to OP's comments" Text="Which are the companies fighting the good fight when it comes to sustainability, that have a large IT branch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know about Tesla Motors, and I know that many NGOs also have IT needs, but I've yet come across a proper list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking forward to a more sustainable life by working in the proper industries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8980" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="bfec9917-ff57-4149-85a5-8521c3c090a7" CreationDate="2015-01-13T11:55:55.853" UserId="48" Comment="clarifying thanks to OP's comments" Text="Working in Information Technology at sustainable companies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8981" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="bfec9917-ff57-4149-85a5-8521c3c090a7" CreationDate="2015-01-13T11:55:55.853" UserId="48" Comment="clarifying thanks to OP's comments" Text="|ecological-footprint|careers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="05523be6-66a2-44fb-8021-53000a2dfeca" CreationDate="2015-01-14T08:53:41.363" UserId="15" Text="**Warranties**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep an eye out for products that have long warranties. When the warranty is short you can expect a short average time until failure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Parts**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look for products that have generic parts, especially when the part is expected to fail sooner than the rest of the device. One good example I can think of is cordless landline phones by Panasonic that use rechargeable AAA batteries in the handsets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fashion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Industries designing for fashion essentially try to promote particular styles of product as fashionable for a season, knowing full well that it leads to increased sales but also leads to items being discarded before their useful life is up. When it comes to clothing, furniture and other products designed with attention to their appearance, look for classic styles that have been around for years, and for durability and function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Books**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paperback books are cheaper to buy, but are not particularly durable and have a much shorter life than hardcover ones. If when purchasing a book, you believe it is likely to be used heavily or be of value for more than say 10 years, then consider spending extra to purchase a hardcover." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="51cfb60c-6ad1-4a3e-989d-bce4068136fc" CreationDate="2015-01-14T09:14:29.870" UserId="15" Comment="Questions asking for a list to be created within the site are generally closed, so added a brief request for an existing list. Maybe this will allow the question to remain open." Text="Which are the companies fighting the good fight when it comes to sustainability, that have a large IT branch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know about Tesla Motors, and I know that many NGOs also have IT needs, but I've yet come across a proper list. Is there one available?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking forward to a more sustainable life by working in the proper industries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8984" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4262" RevisionGUID="123cb683-452a-4c46-a9af-4d0ea9f8e6f7" CreationDate="2015-01-15T05:03:37.597" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/555591108961767424" />
  <row Id="8985" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4261" RevisionGUID="80970f49-68c7-43c6-aebf-28f5de11285e" CreationDate="2015-01-16T05:03:37.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/555953497087434752" />
  <row Id="8986" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="d64c2be3-0606-4115-b156-14138f47c541" CreationDate="2015-01-16T17:03:37.087" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/556134689430573056" />
  <row Id="8991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="892dc2e4-daad-4ddc-9a1e-efab7089503c" CreationDate="2015-01-18T15:16:23.890" UserId="48" Text="Clinker is a major component of cement, which is a major component of concrete. Which means the production of clinker, globally, is huge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But currently, clinker production releases very large amounts of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know [Stuart Licht's group at George Washington University][1], and others, have been looking at alternative production methods for clinker that would decarbonise the production of cement and concerete; others are looking at substitutes for clinker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the most promising routes for decarbonising this sector, in terms of preserving as much as possible of the best qualities of cement and concrete, including the economics and scalability? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://home.gwu.edu/~slicht/Solar.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="892dc2e4-daad-4ddc-9a1e-efab7089503c" CreationDate="2015-01-18T15:16:23.890" UserId="48" Text="Most promising decarbonisation routes for clinker, cement and concrete?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="892dc2e4-daad-4ddc-9a1e-efab7089503c" CreationDate="2015-01-18T15:16:23.890" UserId="48" Text="|decarbonisation|industrial-production|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="4701f5b2-536d-45f0-ba9f-b7f6d42ebfd3" CreationDate="2015-01-18T15:20:37.403" UserId="48" Text="At the moment, a very large proportion of steel production relies on coke. So even though blast furnaces have been electrified, and are reasonably energy-efficient (Professor Julian Allwood says that the best blast furnaces run at about 50% of the theoretical maximum efficiency, which isn't too bad for a real-world process), even if the supplied electricity was from clean renewable sources, steel production would still be carbon-intensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the most promising alternatives for coke-fed blast furnaces, in terms of the economics and scalability, to decarbonise steel production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="4701f5b2-536d-45f0-ba9f-b7f6d42ebfd3" CreationDate="2015-01-18T15:20:37.403" UserId="48" Text="Best options for decarbonising steel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="4701f5b2-536d-45f0-ba9f-b7f6d42ebfd3" CreationDate="2015-01-18T15:20:37.403" UserId="48" Text="|decarbonisation|industrial-production|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4271" RevisionGUID="07de015a-2ac0-4f8d-8239-0e39285bf13b" CreationDate="2015-01-18T15:25:08.100" UserId="48" Text="The green revolution produced a step change in crop yields. Although nitrogen-based fertilisers have been produced without fossil fuels, a very large proportion of global fertiliser production depends on fossil-fuel production?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the best alternatives to fossil-fuel-based fertilisers, for optimising crop yields? Can fertiliser production be decarbonised? Does organic farming offer a scalable opportunity to maintain nutrient yields - and if so, what are the industrial-scale routes to replenish the nutrients extracted in food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4271" RevisionGUID="07de015a-2ac0-4f8d-8239-0e39285bf13b" CreationDate="2015-01-18T15:25:08.100" UserId="48" Text="Optimising crop yields without using fossil-fuel-manufactured fertiliser" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="8999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4271" RevisionGUID="07de015a-2ac0-4f8d-8239-0e39285bf13b" CreationDate="2015-01-18T15:25:08.100" UserId="48" Text="|food|decarbonisation|industrial-production|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="cde53bdf-a3e9-4d30-b0ab-dda4c8a9ff00" CreationDate="2015-01-19T01:05:17.573" UserId="48" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="At the moment, a very large proportion of steel production relies on coke. So even though electric-arc furnaces are reasonably energy-efficient (Professor Julian Allwood says that the best ones run at about 50% of the theoretical maximum efficiency, which isn't too bad for a real-world process), even if the supplied electricity was from clean renewable sources, steel production would still be carbon-intensive: in large part from the reduction of iron oxide to iron, but also from the iron-to-steel part of the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the most promising alternatives, in terms of the economics and scalability, to decarbonise steel production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9001" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="2141cda0-26df-4985-a124-dd9e971303c9" CreationDate="2015-01-19T08:01:04.573" UserId="579" Comment="original title looks like OP wants to remove carbon from steel, not from its production, which the question clarifies" Text="Best options for decarbonising steel production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9002" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="2141cda0-26df-4985-a124-dd9e971303c9" CreationDate="2015-01-19T08:01:04.573" Comment="Proposed by 579 approved by 48 edit id of 309" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9003" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="f812d350-4111-4c75-9cae-426960a4a955" CreationDate="2015-01-19T11:09:03.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/557132624503013376" />
  <row Id="9004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4272" RevisionGUID="4643100c-5a62-41fc-9f4f-39b219398498" CreationDate="2015-01-19T16:04:08.460" UserId="1956" Text="I wanted to comment but since i can't...&#xA;&#xA;Are you talking about the energy generation to produce fertilizer ? Then of course you can go non-fossil sources...you can use the sun the wind the water i think that if it is a closed environment you can even use the methane you generate to generate your own power&#xA;&#xA;But what you should ask yourself is do you really need industrialized fertilizer at all? Look to the nature plants have been there in abundance for a long time you can get all you need free from the nature.&#xA;&#xA;The overall fertility and viability of the soil, rather than the application of fertilizers as quick fixes, is at the very heart of organic gardening.&#xA;&#xA;Many organic materials serve as both fertilizers and soil conditioners—they feed both soils and plants. This is one of the most important differences between a chemical approach and an organic approach toward soil care and fertilizing. Soluble chemical fertilizers contain mineral salts that plant roots can absorb quickly. However, these salts do not provide a food source for soil microorganisms and earthworms, and will even repel earthworms because they acidify the soil. Over time, soils treated only with synthetic chemical fertilizers lose organic matter and the all-important living organisms that help to build a quality soil. As soil structure declines and water-holding capacity diminishes, more and more of the chemical fertilizer applied will leach through the soil. In turn, it will take ever-increasing amounts of chemicals to stimulate plant growth. When you use organic fertilizers, you avoid throwing your soil into this kind of crisis condition.&#xA;&#xA;Use earthworms they are really good for the health of any soil and they are a free infinite fertilizer productor.&#xA;&#xA;Also you can try to plant a few spare leguminous plants on your farm because they take the nitrogen from air and put it on the ground avaible for other plant's to use if did right you won't  need to add nitrogen never again just le the nature do the job!&#xA;&#xA;I will stop here you can find much more about organics fertilizer and how to organic care not only your plants but your soil too on google" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4271" RevisionGUID="f0d660f8-04ac-4762-894b-8266587f5a6a" CreationDate="2015-01-19T16:58:56.437" UserId="48" Comment="edited body" Text="The green revolution produced a step change in crop yields. Although nitrogen-based fertilisers have been produced without fossil fuels, a very large proportion of global fertiliser production depends on fossil-fuel production: natural gas is burnt in the presence of steam, to create the ammonia at the heart of fertilisers: so it's not just the fossil-fuel inputs for energy, which are easily replaceable; it's the chemistry that creates the ammonia. Natural gas has provided a cheap, hugely-scalable means of creating ammonia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the best alternatives to fossil-fuel-based fertilisers, for optimising crop yields? Can fertiliser production be decarbonised? Does organic farming offer a scalable opportunity to maintain nutrient yields - and if so, what are the industrial-scale routes to replenish the nutrients extracted in food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9007" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="7de8599b-9bbd-4d9f-9f6c-433360efed42" CreationDate="2015-01-20T20:20:07.507" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/557633693976903681" />
  <row Id="9008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="5f6ca022-fa4c-4f96-943b-9adfdde4d95b" CreationDate="2015-01-20T21:44:39.717" UserId="96" Text="(Draft answer till I get around to find some figures)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Principally, we're talking about replacing N-fertilizer from Haber Bosch or similiar plants with other N sources. There's principallytwo routes, N fixing plants in crop rotation + organic fertilizer and reusing N-rich wastes and wastewater. The key difference beeing that the first is basically happening within one or a few farms, while the second version involves municipalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crop rotation + organic fertilizers:  &#xD;&#xA;needs a side by side comparision of conventional/intensive planting and extensive planting without. Even when fertilizers are used, the farmer wil have to follow some crop rotation to replenish topsoil, protect the ground from winter erosion etc. This means we cannot look at just plant yields with different fertilizer applications, but we must look at complete crop rotations.  &#xD;&#xA;According to wikipedia, [fixing 30-40kg N/ha](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%BCnd%C3%BCngung) is possible. Typical fertilizer application is in the range 100-170kg N/ha, for high yield crops. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using municipal wastes and wastewater  &#xD;&#xA;... is not always doable. Sewage sludge from municipal wastewater is sometimes contaminated with heavy metals and not usable for land application.  &#xD;&#xA;Most Wastewater treatment plants are desoigned for N-elemination (turning nitrate into athmospheric N), not for fixing nitrogen in a usable form. But apparently there are promising tests with MAP precipitation or duckweed for municipal wastewater. To my knowledge, technologies established for high strength wastewater (like ANA strip or Dekastrp) cannot be used economically for municipal wastewater.&#xD;&#xA;Source separated organic wastes can be composted (or fermented) and applied to land. This depends heavily on the behaviour of the households doing the separation. I've seen compost from SSO that looked pretty good, and I've seen some with lots of visible plastic contaminants.  &#xD;&#xA;I think one key to close nutrient cycles between city and countryside is cleaner waste, meaning better separation, separation between industrial and household wastewaters (and maybe between gray and black and yellow wastewaters),&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9009" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4271" RevisionGUID="27f24ea5-cffd-43a9-9bcd-2ab5372c9844" CreationDate="2015-01-21T02:20:07.747" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/557724291027206146" />
  <row Id="9010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="4ead62e5-92c0-4139-b53f-28e7fb38ea87" CreationDate="2015-01-21T11:32:24.893" UserId="96" Comment="added 795 characters in body" Text="(Draft answer till I get around to find some figures)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Principally, we're talking about replacing N-fertilizer from Haber Bosch or similiar plants with other N sources. There's principallytwo routes, N fixing plants in crop rotation + organic fertilizer and reusing N-rich wastes and wastewater. The key difference beeing that the first is basically happening within one or a few farms, while the second version involves municipalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crop rotation + organic fertilizers:  &#xD;&#xA;needs a side by side comparision of conventional/intensive planting and extensive planting without. Even when fertilizers are used, the farmer wil have to follow some crop rotation to replenish topsoil, protect the ground from winter erosion etc. This means we cannot look at just plant yields with different fertilizer applications, but we must look at complete crop rotations.  &#xD;&#xA;According to wikipedia, [fixing 30-40kg N/ha](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%BCnd%C3%BCngung) is possible. Typical fertilizer application is in the range 100-170kg N/ha, for high yield crops.   &#xD;&#xA;[This meta study](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X) states that on average organic farming practices (which in thiscontext mainly means no fossils based nitrogen fertilizer) yield about 20% less than conventional agriculure - at the field level. The authors themselves stress that whole crop rotations have to be looked at. Also there'S a huge span, in some cases organic practices outperformed conventional agriculture.  &#xD;&#xA;While the question may still be open wether organic agriculture can feed the world (and this will depend on meat consumption, biofuels etc.), organic farming is scalable with one caveat: Manure is not always available in the quantities neccessary. Solutions that utilize waste and or wastewater will beimportant in the years to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using municipal wastes and wastewater  &#xD;&#xA;... is not always doable. Sewage sludge from municipal wastewater is sometimes contaminated with heavy metals and not usable for land application.  &#xD;&#xA;Most Wastewater treatment plants are desoigned for N-elemination (turning nitrate into athmospheric N), not for fixing nitrogen in a usable form. But apparently there are promising tests with MAP precipitation or duckweed for municipal wastewater. To my knowledge, technologies established for high strength wastewater (like ANA strip or Dekastrp) cannot be used economically for municipal wastewater.&#xD;&#xA;Source separated organic wastes can be composted (or fermented) and applied to land. This depends heavily on the behaviour of the households doing the separation. I've seen compost from SSO that looked pretty good, and I've seen some with lots of visible plastic contaminants.  &#xD;&#xA;I think one key to close nutrient cycles between city and countryside is cleaner waste, meaning better separation, separation between industrial and household wastewaters (and maybe between gray and black and yellow wastewaters),&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4274" RevisionGUID="63243913-cf16-4218-8350-f53f7910c53d" CreationDate="2015-01-21T16:42:51.657" UserId="1988" Text="Papercrete would be your answer&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4275" RevisionGUID="ac214f8e-d490-4ee6-b63d-0989d754cbaa" CreationDate="2015-01-22T02:49:19.220" UserId="1990" Text="Sir,&#xD;&#xA;I think that for the most part of our daily use sea water can be used directly ( of course after proper filtering ) Except for drinking why do we need fresh water, cannot saline water serve the same purpose. If there is a proper filtering set up ( just the same that we use for our city water supply ) then we can use sea water ( filtered ) for almost most of our daily use. Use a small desalination unit only for getting water for drinking and cooking. For all other use sea water can serve the same purpose. It is more our mental thinking that sea water in not pure that prevents its use for general purpose. Only precaution to be taken is to use PVC or other plastic for piping to prevent corrosion. Why cant even Municipal corporations use sea water ( filtered properly ) for even town supply using plastic pipes for transporting the water.&#xD;&#xA;I want to start a fresh thinking in this direction and invite suggestions from others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kamath&#xD;&#xA;22 January 2015" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4275" RevisionGUID="dc4bc7b6-b667-4d3d-9dda-c0fe4986fe8c" CreationDate="2015-01-22T05:10:47.987" UserId="48" Comment="removed greetings, sign-off, and invitation to discussion, all of which are discouraged here. Added line-breaks for easier reading." Text="I think that for the most part of our daily use sea water can be used directly ( of course after proper filtering ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except for drinking why do we need fresh water, cannot saline water serve the same purpose. If there is a proper filtering set up ( just the same that we use for our city water supply ) then we can use sea water ( filtered ) for almost most of our daily use. Use a small desalination unit only for getting water for drinking and cooking. For all other use sea water can serve the same purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is more our mental thinking that sea water in not pure that prevents its use for general purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only precaution to be taken is to use PVC or other plastic for piping to prevent corrosion. Why cant even Municipal corporations use sea water ( filtered properly ) for even town supply using plastic pipes for transporting the water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4276" RevisionGUID="b744ff0c-cbd1-475c-9d9d-557d98481e46" CreationDate="2015-01-22T05:16:39.067" UserId="48" Text="Cars have large overheads in terms of energy, materials, physical space requirements, accident casualties, and local &amp; global pollution. But, particularly in anglophone countries, few interventions seem to have had significant impact in mitigating this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the **documented research** on best practice for encouraging behaviour change towards more sustainable transport, particularly in urban areas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4276" RevisionGUID="b744ff0c-cbd1-475c-9d9d-557d98481e46" CreationDate="2015-01-22T05:16:39.067" UserId="48" Text="documented research on best practice for encouraging behaviour change towards more sustainable transport?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4276" RevisionGUID="b744ff0c-cbd1-475c-9d9d-557d98481e46" CreationDate="2015-01-22T05:16:39.067" UserId="48" Text="|cars|transport|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9017" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4274" RevisionGUID="71de89f4-6044-4c3c-8c1f-166eee264890" CreationDate="2015-01-22T08:13:33.647" UserId="99" Comment="22" />
  <row Id="9018" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4275" RevisionGUID="94785547-eb43-43e0-8f0c-d76b181f9606" CreationDate="2015-01-22T08:14:34.877" UserId="99" Comment="23" />
  <row Id="9019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="2f14ad82-da6a-49a0-8e46-a96b11633be1" CreationDate="2015-01-22T17:50:27.843" UserId="1992" Text="[This page][1] at energy.gov says the following about geothermal (or ground-source) heat pumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Geothermal heat pumps (GHPs), sometimes referred to as GeoExchange, earth-coupled, ground-&#xD;&#xA;&gt; source, or water-source heat pumps, have been in use since the late 1940s. They use the &#xD;&#xA;&gt; constant temperature of the earth as the exchange medium instead of the outside air &#xD;&#xA;&gt; temperature. This allows the system to reach fairly high efficiencies (300% to 600%) on the &#xD;&#xA;&gt; coldest winter nights, compared to 175% to 250% for air-source heat pumps on cool days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In normal parlance (as in the fields of physics or engineering), a device's efficiency cannot be greater than 100%.  Therefore, I am at a loss to understand what energy.gov is trying to tell me here.  What do the numbers mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/geothermal-heat-pumps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="2f14ad82-da6a-49a0-8e46-a96b11633be1" CreationDate="2015-01-22T17:50:27.843" UserId="1992" Text="How to interpret the efficiency of ground-source heat pumps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="2f14ad82-da6a-49a0-8e46-a96b11633be1" CreationDate="2015-01-22T17:50:27.843" UserId="1992" Text="|electricity|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4278" RevisionGUID="eaab7626-ef75-49aa-aee4-658476067add" CreationDate="2015-01-22T18:48:21.630" UserId="48" Text="There are several ways to measure a Heat Pump's performance, which doesn't help. There are several different flavours of Seasonal Performance Factor, SPF, which incorporate differing elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The COP - coefficient of performance - ignores all these complexities, and simply looks at how much heat is moved; and how much energy was required to move it. That's all a heat pump does: it moves heat around. A ground-source heat pump moves heat from the earth into a building. And we can move a lot of heat around, with a small amount of energy. So when we divide the amount of heat by the amount of energy required to move it, that number can come out bigger than 100%. For a ground-source heat pump delivering low-grade heat, you might expect COPs of 3-5, i.e. 300-500%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a theoretical limit on the COP, which is determined by ratio of the absolute temperature of the body that you are taking it from, to the differences between that and the absolute temperature that you are raising the other body to: this is the Carnot limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's completely different to what, say, an electrical resistance heater does: that simply converts electricity into heat, and does indeed have a maximum theoretical efficiency of 100%." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4278" RevisionGUID="ddb304e5-48c4-4186-a8c5-f656c2831f32" CreationDate="2015-01-22T18:54:26.857" UserId="48" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="There are several ways to measure a Heat Pump's performance, which doesn't help. There are several different flavours of Seasonal Performance Factor, SPF, which incorporate differing elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The COP - coefficient of performance - ignores all these complexities, and simply looks at how much heat is moved; and how much energy was required to move it. That's all a heat pump does: it moves heat around. A ground-source heat pump moves heat from the earth into a building. And we can move a lot of heat around, with a small amount of energy. So when we divide the amount of heat by the amount of energy required to move it, that number can come out bigger than 100%. For a ground-source heat pump delivering low-grade heat, you might expect COPs of 3-5, i.e. 300-500%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a theoretical limit on the COP, which is determined by ratio of the absolute temperature of the body that you are taking it from, to the difference between that and the absolute temperature that you are raising the other body to: this is the Carnot limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's completely different to what, say, an electrical resistance heater does: that simply converts electricity into heat, and does indeed have a maximum theoretical efficiency of 100%." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4279" RevisionGUID="d3e973d6-1e6b-4dc1-9b05-6e46df089bb1" CreationDate="2015-01-22T20:07:54.117" UserId="1210" Text="We've bought a huge Georgian B&amp;B in the UK. It has vast single-glazed windows.  The house is *not* listed however we want to retain as much fabric as possible.  Therefore we are looking at secondary glazing rather than double glazing for the windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the style of some windows I've some flexibility in how far I separate the original and secondary panes.  Is there an optimum distance, or some algorithm for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Historically I recall that a wide separation can set up circulation within the gap, thus transferring the heat; however, current hearsay is that wide is better.  They can't both be right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some windows we are employing a carpenter to remake the windows to take double-glazed units - so I do know that can be an option.  However, with the expense it's one I'll use selectively.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9025" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4279" RevisionGUID="d3e973d6-1e6b-4dc1-9b05-6e46df089bb1" CreationDate="2015-01-22T20:07:54.117" UserId="1210" Text="What's the optimal glass separation for secondary glazing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9026" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4279" RevisionGUID="d3e973d6-1e6b-4dc1-9b05-6e46df089bb1" CreationDate="2015-01-22T20:07:54.117" UserId="1210" Text="|insulation|glazing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4274" RevisionGUID="79d1e0ce-2360-46f0-a684-c560bf5afb5e" CreationDate="2015-01-23T07:31:03.930" UserId="60" Comment="Added link" Text="[Papercrete][1] would be your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papercrete" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4280" RevisionGUID="3f077bae-11c1-429b-b664-63e780f30081" CreationDate="2015-01-24T00:45:24.453" UserId="1995" Text="I am renting a unit in an older building that has a lot of gaps in the doors and windows and poor insulation in the walls. Is there a way to make the landlord fix this? Some sort of property codes or something? Is it wrong to think that it’s the Landlord’s responsibility to upkeep various aspects of the house to improve its heating efficiency? I'm living in Cincinnati Ohio btw. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9029" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4280" RevisionGUID="3f077bae-11c1-429b-b664-63e780f30081" CreationDate="2015-01-24T00:45:24.453" UserId="1995" Text="How can I get my landlord to improve my apartments heating efficiency?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9030" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4280" RevisionGUID="3f077bae-11c1-429b-b664-63e780f30081" CreationDate="2015-01-24T00:45:24.453" UserId="1995" Text="|electricity|heating|renting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4280" RevisionGUID="3afda52c-db26-48f1-bad8-cd7e2a42b6d2" CreationDate="2015-01-24T00:57:34.993" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am renting a unit in an older building that has a lot of gaps in the doors and windows and poor insulation in the walls. Is there a way to make the landlord fix this? Some sort of property codes or something? Is it wrong to think that it’s the Landlord’s responsibility to upkeep various aspects of the house to improve its heating efficiency? I'm living in Cincinnati Ohio." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9032" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4280" RevisionGUID="3afda52c-db26-48f1-bad8-cd7e2a42b6d2" CreationDate="2015-01-24T00:57:34.993" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 28 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|electricity|heating|usa|renting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9033" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4279" RevisionGUID="9e567cbf-37d3-4da8-a500-4ce060d601d9" CreationDate="2015-01-24T02:25:36.717" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/558812834847809537" />
  <row Id="9034" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4280" RevisionGUID="d45ad947-1df0-4101-bd66-aa6549f06e02" CreationDate="2015-01-24T06:51:38.540" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[306],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9035" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4277" RevisionGUID="22961464-5130-417a-b9c3-de1948e148e2" CreationDate="2015-01-24T11:25:39.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/558948743694000128" />
  <row Id="9036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="ea935526-b6ea-4f62-af29-fdd5e782e93c" CreationDate="2015-01-25T03:44:18.163" UserId="1956" Text="I live in a city that is going to rationalize water so i want to be nearly independent with my water and only needs to add more water on the system eventually. The water i get from the grid is already potable i belive but there is no harm in a system capable of getting the water potable before the use.&#xA;&#xA;So i need an system that can :&#xA;&#xA;1. It can treat all the sewage my house generate and make it usable again for non-potable needs and potable needs.&#xA;&#xA;2. It can store that water for later use.&#xA;&#xA;I tried to google but i'm not familiar with that concepts i see no difference between an water treatment plant and an sewage treatment plant or etc so i expect someone can point me on what i really are looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="ea935526-b6ea-4f62-af29-fdd5e782e93c" CreationDate="2015-01-25T03:44:18.163" UserId="1956" Text="How to achieve 85-95% efficiency on residential water treatment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="ea935526-b6ea-4f62-af29-fdd5e782e93c" CreationDate="2015-01-25T03:44:18.163" UserId="1956" Text="|water-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="914d3dba-8909-4c66-968c-ec4ba5b89b8d" CreationDate="2015-01-25T16:33:03.903" UserId="1696" Text="Vegans argue, that most of the grain goes for livestock fattening. How many people can feed field/pasturage (having the same area)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some references with opposite view:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.lierrekeith.com/book-ex_the-vegetarian-myth.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://adaptt.org/veganism.html# in section Animal Ag and Environmental Destruction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="914d3dba-8909-4c66-968c-ec4ba5b89b8d" CreationDate="2015-01-25T16:33:03.903" UserId="1696" Text="Veganism and enviroment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="914d3dba-8909-4c66-968c-ec4ba5b89b8d" CreationDate="2015-01-25T16:33:03.903" UserId="1696" Text="|vegetarianism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="9f6ac098-3cf8-4f57-b1f8-31df2584f2dd" CreationDate="2015-01-25T20:08:48.097" UserId="1956" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I live in a city that is going to rationalize water so i want to be nearly independent with my water and only needs to add more water on the system eventually. The water i get from the grid is already potable i belive but there is no harm in a system capable of getting the water potable before the use.&#xA;&#xA;So i need an system that can :&#xA;&#xA;1. It can treat all the sewage my house generate and make it usable again for non-potable needs and potable needs.&#xA;&#xA;2. It can store that water for later use.&#xA;&#xA;I tried to google with and i found some systems but they only get an maximum 30% of efficiency and only generate non potable water thats is not enough for me i expect someone can point me on what i really are looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="569c8ac8-d49f-42bc-87f3-78b5454c14c2" CreationDate="2015-01-26T00:12:31.733" UserId="15" Comment="Tidied up question" Text="Vegans argue that most of the grain grown worldwide is used for livestock fattening. How many people could be fed using those fields if they were no longer used for growing livestock feed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some references with opposing views:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.lierrekeith.com/book-ex_the-vegetarian-myth.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://adaptt.org/veganism.html# in section Animal Ag and Environmental Destruction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9045" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="569c8ac8-d49f-42bc-87f3-78b5454c14c2" CreationDate="2015-01-26T00:12:31.733" UserId="15" Comment="Tidied up question" Text="How many people could be fed using the land currently used to grow feed for livestock?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9046" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="569c8ac8-d49f-42bc-87f3-78b5454c14c2" CreationDate="2015-01-26T00:12:31.733" UserId="15" Comment="Tidied up question" Text="|animals|vegetarianism|farming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9047" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="b6cb71a7-dd29-4072-84bd-d6cfeb5a00db" CreationDate="2015-01-26T02:40:11.550" UserId="1956" Comment="edited title" Text="The most efficient residential water treatment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="4237510f-aaf5-4f8d-8e19-9c6012806998" CreationDate="2015-01-26T08:07:11.780" UserId="1956" Comment="added 192 characters in body" Text="I live in a city that is going to rationalize water so i want to be nearly independent with my water and only needs to add more water on the system eventually. The water i get from the grid is already potable i belive but there is no harm in a system capable of getting the water potable before the use.&#xA;&#xA;So i need an system that can :&#xA;&#xA;1. It can treat all the sewage my house generate and make it usable again for non-potable needs and potable needs.&#xA;&#xA;2. It can store that water for later use.&#xA;&#xA;I tried to google with and i found some systems but they only get an maximum 30% of efficiency and only generate non potable water thats is not enough for me i expect someone can point me on what i really are looking for.&#xA;&#xA;I do understand that i do not need to treat all water to be potable so i can have one system that treat water for non-potable needs and another for potable needs (like drink ,  cook and etc)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="25fd047e-d7e4-41bf-adc8-4dd269c96d1d" CreationDate="2015-01-26T10:17:29.603" UserId="96" Comment="added 722 characters in body" Text="(Draft answer till I get around to find some figures)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's three ways I see to go about this: Running a Haber Bosch process or similiar with a non-fossile source for energy and $H_2$, or finding other N sources. There's principally two routes, N fixing plants in crop rotation + organic fertilizer and reusing N-rich wastes and wastewater. The key difference beeing that the first is basically happening within one or a few farms, while the second version involves municipalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-fossil Haber Bosch:&#xD;&#xA;Haber Bosch (HB) uses Methane. One could use Biogas. HB yields a bit less than one mole $NH_3$ per mole $CH_4$. One ha of corn yields about 47t/y, that amounts to roundabout 9400Nm³ Biogas at 52%methane. So we have ~220kmol methane, a slightly smaller amount of ammonia that amounts to maybe 2500kg/a of nitrogen fixed. This actually a lot. This number needs checking with more understanding of the HB process. This approach is scalable if there's a gas grid in place: Biogas plants can feed the (upgraded) Biogas into the grid, where it is transported to the HB plant.&#xD;&#xA;(Other approaches to non fossile HB: Solar/Wind electricity, electrolysis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crop rotation + organic fertilizers:  &#xD;&#xA;needs a side by side comparision of conventional/intensive planting and extensive planting without. Even when fertilizers are used, the farmer wil have to follow some crop rotation to replenish topsoil, protect the ground from winter erosion etc. This means we cannot look at just plant yields with different fertilizer applications, but we must look at complete crop rotations.  &#xD;&#xA;According to wikipedia, [fixing 30-40kg N/ha](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%BCnd%C3%BCngung) is possible. Typical fertilizer application is in the range 100-170kg N/ha, for high yield crops.   &#xD;&#xA;[This meta study](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X) states that on average organic farming practices (which in thiscontext mainly means no fossils based nitrogen fertilizer) yield about 20% less than conventional agriculure - at the field level. The authors themselves stress that whole crop rotations have to be looked at. Also there'S a huge span, in some cases organic practices outperformed conventional agriculture.  &#xD;&#xA;While the question may still be open wether organic agriculture can feed the world (and this will depend on meat consumption, biofuels etc.), organic farming is scalable with one caveat: Manure is not always available in the quantities neccessary. Solutions that utilize waste and or wastewater will beimportant in the years to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using municipal wastes and wastewater  &#xD;&#xA;... is not always doable. Sewage sludge from municipal wastewater is sometimes contaminated with heavy metals and not usable for land application.  &#xD;&#xA;Most Wastewater treatment plants are desoigned for N-elemination (turning nitrate into athmospheric N), not for fixing nitrogen in a usable form. But apparently there are promising tests with MAP precipitation or duckweed for municipal wastewater. To my knowledge, technologies established for high strength wastewater (like ANA strip or Dekastrp) cannot be used economically for municipal wastewater.&#xD;&#xA;Source separated organic wastes can be composted (or fermented) and applied to land. This depends heavily on the behaviour of the households doing the separation. I've seen compost from SSO that looked pretty good, and I've seen some with lots of visible plastic contaminants.  &#xD;&#xA;I think one key to close nutrient cycles between city and countryside is cleaner waste, meaning better separation, separation between industrial and household wastewaters (and maybe between gray and black and yellow wastewaters),&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="0e85cbcd-67af-4d1f-a0b9-2d941d2c0d0a" CreationDate="2015-01-26T10:34:20.847" UserId="96" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="(Draft answer till I get around to find some figures)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's three ways I see to go about this: Running a Haber Bosch process or similiar with a non-fossile source for energy and H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, or finding other N sources. There's principally two routes, N fixing plants in crop rotation + organic fertilizer and reusing N-rich wastes and wastewater. The key difference beeing that the first is basically happening within one or a few farms, while the second version involves municipalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-fossil Haber Bosch:&#xD;&#xA;Haber Bosch (HB) uses Methane. One could use Biogas. HB yields a bit less than one mole NH&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; per mole CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;. One ha of corn yields about 47t/y, that amounts to roundabout 9400Nm³ Biogas at 52%methane. So we have ~220kmol methane, a slightly smaller amount of ammonia that amounts to maybe 2500kg/a of nitrogen fixed. This actually a lot. This number needs checking with more understanding of the HB process. This approach is scalable if there's a gas grid in place: Biogas plants can feed the (upgraded) Biogas into the grid, where it is transported to the HB plant.&#xD;&#xA;(Other approaches to non fossile HB: Solar/Wind electricity, electrolysis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crop rotation + organic fertilizers:  &#xD;&#xA;needs a side by side comparision of conventional/intensive planting and extensive planting without. Even when fertilizers are used, the farmer wil have to follow some crop rotation to replenish topsoil, protect the ground from winter erosion etc. This means we cannot look at just plant yields with different fertilizer applications, but we must look at complete crop rotations.  &#xD;&#xA;According to wikipedia, [fixing 30-40kg N/ha](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%BCnd%C3%BCngung) is possible. Typical fertilizer application is in the range 100-170kg N/ha, for high yield crops.   &#xD;&#xA;[This meta study](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X) states that on average organic farming practices (which in thiscontext mainly means no fossils based nitrogen fertilizer) yield about 20% less than conventional agriculure - at the field level. The authors themselves stress that whole crop rotations have to be looked at. Also there'S a huge span, in some cases organic practices outperformed conventional agriculture.  &#xD;&#xA;While the question may still be open wether organic agriculture can feed the world (and this will depend on meat consumption, biofuels etc.), organic farming is scalable with one caveat: Manure is not always available in the quantities neccessary. Solutions that utilize waste and or wastewater will beimportant in the years to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using municipal wastes and wastewater  &#xD;&#xA;... is not always doable. Sewage sludge from municipal wastewater is sometimes contaminated with heavy metals and not usable for land application.  &#xD;&#xA;Most Wastewater treatment plants are desoigned for N-elemination (turning nitrate into athmospheric N), not for fixing nitrogen in a usable form. But apparently there are promising tests with MAP precipitation or duckweed for municipal wastewater. To my knowledge, technologies established for high strength wastewater (like ANA strip or Dekastrp) cannot be used economically for municipal wastewater.&#xD;&#xA;Source separated organic wastes can be composted (or fermented) and applied to land. This depends heavily on the behaviour of the households doing the separation. I've seen compost from SSO that looked pretty good, and I've seen some with lots of visible plastic contaminants.  &#xD;&#xA;I think one key to close nutrient cycles between city and countryside is cleaner waste, meaning better separation, separation between industrial and household wastewaters (and maybe between gray and black and yellow wastewaters),&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9052" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="d9e74905-7e11-45e0-992c-6527b9d04c0c" CreationDate="2015-01-26T15:42:59.417" UserId="1912" Comment="24" />
  <row Id="9053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4283" RevisionGUID="17543e3e-c3a5-4141-b3e0-9e298e60ea79" CreationDate="2015-01-27T09:08:00.520" UserId="48" Text="Small particulate matter (PM&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt;, PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt;) is a nasty pollutant that is prevalent in a lot of cities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these emissions come from exhausts (tailpipes); regulation has spurred on technological developments, and modern clean fossil-fuel engines have much lower particulate emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, particulate levels are still high, and a large part of the problem is that [transport causes a lot of these][1], from abrasion of tyres, road surface, brakes and clutch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can imagine lots of possible routes to curbing these, from changes to materials used in making the sources of the particulates to suppress their creation, to cleaning / scrubbing regimes to prevent their atmospheric suspension. And presumably curbing vehicle flows is a very effective mechanism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond curbing vehicle flows, What is best practice in reducing the pollution of non-exhaust transport-sourced particulates?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.iapsc.org.uk/document/0605_P_Boulter.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9054" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4283" RevisionGUID="17543e3e-c3a5-4141-b3e0-9e298e60ea79" CreationDate="2015-01-27T09:08:00.520" UserId="48" Text="Curbing non-exhaust (non-tailpipe) transport emissions of particulates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9055" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4283" RevisionGUID="17543e3e-c3a5-4141-b3e0-9e298e60ea79" CreationDate="2015-01-27T09:08:00.520" UserId="48" Text="|cars|transport|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4284" RevisionGUID="7cb41d92-eef7-4e09-95e0-21abfe4f527d" CreationDate="2015-01-27T09:45:05.007" UserId="96" Text="Animal leftovers can be used as a substrate for anaerobic digestion, to generate biogas. They are high in fat in protein and thus very energy rich. However, There are severyl considerations that will, in all likelyhood, place AD out of the range of a small operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Process considerations**  &#xD;&#xA;I use the European biowaste directive as a guideline. Animal leftovers need to be heat treated to reduce pathogens. Before heat treatment, the leftovers need to be crushed to bits smaller than 12mm. There are several ways to do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Dedicated equipment: a heated tank where the leftovers are either heated to 70° and held at that temp. for one hour, or to 120°C and held for 20 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* thermophilic AD: If the digester temperature is higher than 50°C and a minimum retention time can be guaranteed, this can be sufficient&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Composting: The digestate of the AD stage can somtimes be composted for heat treatment. Typically, one will need to add carbon rich substrate and the digestate is often too moist for composting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter two approaches will need to be tested on a plant by plant base to prove that actual hygienization does occur.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main advantage of AD is the actual energy generation: One ton of chicken heads will get you about 250m³ biogas at 58% methane. This is about 1200-1300 kWh of energy. This is easily more than the heat and power needed for the process itself.  &#xD;&#xA;Also, animal leftovers have a high fertilizer value and can replace fossile fuel based fertilizers. After the heat treatment the leftovers are safe for land application.  &#xD;&#xA;The high nutrient content is also a downside, as too high nutrients (especially nitrogen) will poison the bacteria. So you will need additional substrates (manure, plant based stuff) and possibly water to balance them.&#xD;&#xA;Another problem is that handling animal leftovers can be dangerous due to pathogens, so the operator needs equipment to mitigate these risks. Waste plants are typically expensive.  &#xD;&#xA;I find it hard to give an actual number for a size, but I don't think a dedicated plant for less than a few hundred tons a year makes sense, economically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to go would be to have a rendering plant and use the product not as fodder but as an energy rich substrate in AD. You would solve the preparation, heat treatment etc centrally. This is more economical and safer. In germany, using leftovers as fodders has been outlawd in many instances. At least one renderer started selling his animal derived hog fodder to biogas plants (still under the name &quot;porky power&quot;). This is a sensible approach, but happened due to unique market conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While AD is a good way to get some value from animal elftovers, it is probably out of reach of most small scale operations. However, I think several small scale farmers that use biogas for manure disposal could band together to share heat treatment and other equipment. Ultimately, this can be one stepping stone in closing local nutrient cycles and supplanting fossile energy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4284" RevisionGUID="c5051e84-385e-4956-be67-285a99906627" CreationDate="2015-01-27T09:51:08.613" UserId="96" Comment="added 355 characters in body" Text="Note: This still needs info on when carcasses should only be incinertaed, and when which heat tgreatment is neccessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Animal leftovers can be used as a substrate for anaerobic digestion, to generate biogas. They are high in fat in protein and thus very energy rich. However, There are severyl considerations that will, in all likelyhood, place AD out of the range of a small operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Process considerations**  &#xD;&#xA;I use the European biowaste directive as a guideline. Animal leftovers need to be heat treated to reduce pathogens. Before heat treatment, the leftovers need to be crushed to bits smaller than 12mm. There are several ways to do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Dedicated equipment: a heated tank where the leftovers are either heated to 70° and held at that temp. for one hour, or to 120°C and held for 20 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* thermophilic AD: If the digester temperature is higher than 50°C and a minimum retention time can be guaranteed, this can be sufficient&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Composting: The digestate of the AD stage can somtimes be composted for heat treatment. Typically, one will need to add carbon rich substrate and the digestate is often too moist for composting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latter two approaches will need to be tested on a plant by plant base to prove that actual hygienization does occur.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main advantage of AD is the actual energy generation: One ton of chicken heads will get you about 250m³ biogas at 58% methane. This is about 1200-1300 kWh of energy. This is easily more than the heat and power needed for the process itself.  &#xD;&#xA;Also, animal leftovers have a high fertilizer value and can replace fossile fuel based fertilizers. After the heat treatment the leftovers are safe for land application.  &#xD;&#xA;The high nutrient content is also a downside, as too high nutrients (especially nitrogen) will poison the bacteria. So you will need additional substrates (manure, plant based stuff) and possibly water to balance them.&#xD;&#xA;Another problem is that handling animal leftovers can be dangerous due to pathogens, so the operator needs equipment to mitigate these risks. Waste plants are typically expensive.  &#xD;&#xA;I find it hard to give an actual number for a size, but I don't think a dedicated plant for less than a few hundred tons a year makes sense, economically. It will be also hard to build and operate such a plant on small scale within the legislative framework usually found in industrialized countries, as there are several health &amp; safety as well as public health concerns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to go would be to have a rendering plant and use the product not as fodder but as an energy rich substrate in AD. You would solve the preparation, heat treatment etc centrally. This is more economical and safer. In germany, using leftovers as fodders has been outlawd in many instances. At least one renderer started selling his animal derived hog fodder to biogas plants (still under the name &quot;porky power&quot;). This is a sensible approach, but happened due to unique market conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While AD is a good way to get some value from animal leftovers, it is probably out of reach of most small scale operations. However, I think several small scale farmers that use biogas for manure disposal could band together to share heat treatment and other rendering equipment. Ultimately, this can be one stepping stone in closing local nutrient cycles and supplanting fossile energy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9058" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4283" RevisionGUID="984dbb74-0dba-484a-9a3e-cef9236b32e2" CreationDate="2015-01-27T23:32:25.313" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/560218801879670785" />
  <row Id="9059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4285" RevisionGUID="f6b975d5-edef-4718-aa2e-4a952951575e" CreationDate="2015-01-28T09:07:50.877" UserId="15" Text="Creating a [Personal Rapid Transit][1] (PRT) system that uses rails would heavily reduce the amount of particulates from tyres, and probably from braking too (more heavily used vehicles can justify higher tech components). They also are well suited to electric propulsion. PRT systems haven't been built on a large scale yet, but I do remember reading that when subjected to computer traffic modelling they scaled better than other modes of transport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one that runs on rails in Suncheon, South Korea, named SkyCube. [It opened in 2014 by the look of it][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://globalblog.posco.com/koreas-first-personal-rapid-transit-prt-skycube/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4286" RevisionGUID="79bc789d-7892-4b94-9eaa-720eadcd3dd2" CreationDate="2015-01-29T13:09:23.610" UserId="2006" Text="Sticky Fly Traps are great in greenhouses, but rapidly overwhelmed outdoor. And ladybirds are inefficient in face of an herd of green flies protected by ant shepherds (the ants protect the greenflies from which they eat some secretion). Having tried several solutions, the best thing for me is to spray a mix of black soap and water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic recipe is to pour 5-10 % of liquid black soap (pure, made of potash, without perfume, then totally biodegradable. You should be able to find it in garden store or drug store) in tepid water and black soap and oil. Let it cool down and then spray the plant (especially under the leaves). Be careful to do this in the morning, so the plants are dry when the sun is high up in the sky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally add an arbitrary amount (+- 2 teaspoon in 1l water) of linseed oil. This to have a quite thick mixture (not too thick unless you want to clog your spray). Be careful to spray even the back of the leaves, and the mixture cover insects body and asphyxiate them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, you should tie glue tape around the base of the trunk to avoid ants bringing back flies (see above).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4287" RevisionGUID="591d4d8b-f1b5-45e2-8ef2-237f9e52e9f8" CreationDate="2015-01-29T15:01:54.343" UserId="99" Text="Perhaps not entirely what you are looking for, but it's the best I can think of. You can search for companies on the [B(enefit) Corporation website](http://www.bcorporation.net/). B Corp is an international label that certifies that a company &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meet[s] rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency [[source](http://www.bcorporation.net/what-are-b-corps)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their [search engine](http://www.bcorporation.net/community/find-a-b-corp) has a few filtering options; country, state, city and industry. One of the industry categories is 'IT Software &amp; Services/Web Design' with currently 91 companies listed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you cannot search for sizes of companies or companies with large IT departments so it may still be difficult to find those.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="c98496cf-61e8-4bc4-9631-0d7310a17f7c" CreationDate="2015-01-30T13:26:39.017" UserId="1343" Text="I'm trying to decide if it's worth buying all my beer in reusable growlers (32-64oz. reusable glass containers). I live in New York, so doing so requires me to go out of my way but is easy compared to some other places: you can buy a growler at some of the bigger Duane Reades (a drug store chain) and take it home, then bring it back for a refill whenever you want. Some bars in the area will also fill growlers. But would doing so make a difference versus recycling the cans and glass bottles I use otherwise? My household drinks at most about one six-pack per week (72oz.), but that could probably be cut back to the 64oz. in a single growler. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also interested in what this would look like on a large scale, i.e. if it became a common practice. It's worth it in my eyes even if I'm doing something that would only be useful on a community scale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9063" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="c98496cf-61e8-4bc4-9631-0d7310a17f7c" CreationDate="2015-01-30T13:26:39.017" UserId="1343" Text="Is it worth getting beer in growlers to avoid bottles and cans?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9064" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="c98496cf-61e8-4bc4-9631-0d7310a17f7c" CreationDate="2015-01-30T13:26:39.017" UserId="1343" Text="|recycling|food|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2696" RevisionGUID="21fb9665-bcc5-4358-9ac6-1cc72a41796c" CreationDate="2015-01-30T14:40:54.077" UserId="99" Comment="removed statement about potential health problems associated with resin 7 (because cannot be proven)" Text="The original K-Cups are made from plastic [resin 7](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code), the catch-all 'other' plastics category. This means that the precise composition of the plastic is known only to the manufacturer. Because of this, plastic resin 7 is hard to recycle and usually goes to landfills. A second problem is that the K-Cups consists of several materials that need to be recycled separately but cannot be separated easily (e.g. foil lid, plastic cup, filter, used coffee grounds). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in short the answer is **&quot;No, K-Cups are not recyclable&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [their website](http://www.keurig.com/customer-service/k-cups-and-beverages-support/frequently-asked-questions) Keurig confirms this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are very sensitive about the waste created by the K-Cup® packs and are investigating alternative materials. Finding a solution for this is a priority for us, and one we hope to have before long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keurig does have a slightly better system, the [Vue capsules that can be recycled](http://www.singleservecoffee.com/archives/039866.php) more easily, that is if your local waste processing facility recycles plastic resin 5 (Polypropylene).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, according to [this treehugger blog](http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/even-recyclable-coffee-pods-arent.html), all cups, even the onces that call themselves recyclable, usually end up on landfills because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cups are then recyclable — in theory. The problem is the cups are too small to be captured in most recycling facilities where machinery separates objects by size and density" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4289" RevisionGUID="95d1a7f2-6e76-4ad8-a414-2186cbb2a46a" CreationDate="2015-01-30T15:58:14.890" UserId="2010" Text="I would also suggest vermicomposting. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have a vermicomposting system right in our kitchen. It usually does not smell at all. It is a plastic container, the base is 40*25 cm and the height is maybe 40 cm. You avoid smell by digging the fresh materials when you add them, not adding too much at once, and by good airing: our bin is open-lid and there are really many holes in the sides of the box. Only very rarely do we find an escaped worm, usually after I've been digging around in the wormbin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use the compost for the window boxes. Even after sieving the compost very carefully, removing all worms, letting it sit for a month so that the cocoons (eggs) have time to hatch and removing all worms once again, worms end up in my window boxes - and they multiply there just as anywhere else! However, they do not escape from the window boxes and most of the plants seem to be unaffected. You probably could avoid introducing worms into your flower boxes by creating &quot;worm tea&quot;; a simplified explanation is that you would soak your compost in water and then use just the water for fertilizing your plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main danger of a wormbin is that it will attract flies and fungus gnats. They are difficult to get rid of!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a good source of information about vermicomposting: [redwormcomposting.com][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.redwormcomposting.com/getting-started/ &quot;redwormcomposting.com&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4286" RevisionGUID="87a40328-fa09-41dc-b22f-ecd49ac45a1d" CreationDate="2015-01-30T20:41:38.847" UserId="2006" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="Sticky Fly Traps are great in greenhouses, but rapidly overwhelmed outdoor. And ladybirds are inefficient in face of an herd of green flies protected by ant shepherds (the ants protect the greenflies from which they eat some secretion). Having tried several solutions, the best thing for me is to spray a mix of black soap and water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic recipe is to pour 5-10 % of liquid black soap (pure, made of potash, without perfume, then totally biodegradable. You should be able to find it in garden store or drug store) in tepid water. Let it cool down and then spray the plant (especially under the leaves). Be careful to do this in the morning, so the plants are dry when the sun is high up in the sky. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally add an arbitrary amount (+- 2 teaspoon in 1l water) of linseed oil. This to have a quite thick mixture (not too thick unless you want to clog your spray). Be careful to spray even the back of the leaves, and the mixture cover insects body and asphyxiate them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, you should tie glue tape around the base of the trunk to avoid ants bringing back flies (see above).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4290" RevisionGUID="4449e7a6-3159-4c58-9e32-090117dcc97a" CreationDate="2015-02-01T18:08:47.937" UserId="1210" Text="We're investigating fitting solar PV to our large guesthouse in the UK. We can fit around a dozen panels on the south-facing roof (sadly this is one of the smaller roofs). Some installers are advocating higher-efficiency panels (say 18% rather than the more common 14%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The price of these panels is higher than the increase in efficiency would seem to warrant (say and increase cost of 40% for an energy improvement of 30%). There are other subtle differences in the specs but nothing that even in the installer's figures suggest any significant financial logic in buying the more expensive panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It *looks* like a no-brainer to get the lower-efficiency panels that pay back in the same timeframe, and indeed more profitably; but **are we missing something?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9069" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4290" RevisionGUID="4449e7a6-3159-4c58-9e32-090117dcc97a" CreationDate="2015-02-01T18:08:47.937" UserId="1210" Text="Solar PV panels - Worth the cost of more efficient panels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9070" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4290" RevisionGUID="4449e7a6-3159-4c58-9e32-090117dcc97a" CreationDate="2015-02-01T18:08:47.937" UserId="1210" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|uk|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4291" RevisionGUID="c631e69d-0db7-4504-a1ea-25216b10559b" CreationDate="2015-02-01T19:56:58.213" UserId="48" Text="Rooftops are pretty much the only place where efficiency matters for PV panels, because surface area is typically a constraint there, but almost nowhere else. And the structure of UK feed-in tariffs usually means it's best to go for the maximum ~3.86 kW installation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a 40% cost increase (I'm assuming that's the increase in price of the total system cost; not just the increase in price for the PV modules themselves) for a 30% improvement in yield doesn't look like a good investment, all other things being equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the only question is, are all other things equal? Are the warranties the same on the panels?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the economics don't stack up for the higher-powered system, you could try to use that as a bargaining tool, to see if they'll lower the cost of the higher-powered system. Or find a different supplier - I think the hybrid Panasonic (was Sanyo) HIT panels have even higher efficiency, and are MCS accredited, so you could see if you could get a price on those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9072" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4290" RevisionGUID="5b072f53-e603-4b34-b55d-a4e9effc9969" CreationDate="2015-02-01T23:38:20.000" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/562032228142940161" />
  <row Id="9073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4292" RevisionGUID="6d8d58e7-546d-46cf-80ad-68fedec3712d" CreationDate="2015-02-03T05:44:27.463" UserId="400" Text="Expand the effective roof area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  A:  Extend the slope of the south facing roof with beams that are flat to the south roof but overhang the slope of the north roof.  You should be able to do one more row of collectors, and possibly 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  B:  Look at alternate mounting points:   Can you mount collectors in the position of window awnings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  C:  Is your exposure such that you can use wall mounted collectors to advantage. (These are less efficient in summer but more efficient in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  D:  Can you use collectors at the base of the walls?  I've seen solar air heaters done this way.  Limits your use of the garden next to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The price of PV is coming down constantly.  My advice would be to buy the system that gives you the biggest bang for your buck today.  If, in 10 years a different system makes more sense then sell your present system to someone who has lots of room, and put up the more efficient one.  Note:  This works best if you do most of the installation work yourself.  It also requires a modular inverter system.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4293" RevisionGUID="35d6d132-7786-4f03-b93e-89712937fff7" CreationDate="2015-02-03T05:50:25.407" UserId="400" Text="1/4 to 3/8 inch.  Smaller spaces than this means fewer collision between gas molecules so heat transfers faster.  Larger spaces than this allow convection cells to form.  For residential use, lean toward 1/4&quot;   Large buildings often use large windows.  They often have thicker glass with larger air spaces for structural reasons, but in big buildings the problem even in winter is getting rid of heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4294" RevisionGUID="826bd734-a864-4cfa-99b9-bcb5b187b15a" CreationDate="2015-02-03T06:07:30.047" UserId="1912" Text="What's the best way to find out how much less energy we would use if we would quit fossil fuel usage altogether?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the percentage that that entails?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that's easy to find out with electrical energy sources, but I was also wondering about cars, and heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any opinions and suggestions are appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4294" RevisionGUID="826bd734-a864-4cfa-99b9-bcb5b187b15a" CreationDate="2015-02-03T06:07:30.047" UserId="1912" Text="Total relative energy output of fossil fuels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4294" RevisionGUID="826bd734-a864-4cfa-99b9-bcb5b187b15a" CreationDate="2015-02-03T06:07:30.047" UserId="1912" Text="|energy|cars|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="d5567290-27e6-452d-8dbe-0493693a86b4" CreationDate="2015-02-03T06:15:16.213" UserId="400" Text="You are working at the wrong end of the economies of scale, and you will run into serious permit, zoning, and financial issues.  A better tack to take is to figure out ways to reduce your water use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Get/build a composting toilet.  This eliminates roughly 1/2 your domestic water use.  For the males, have a urinal that connects directly to waste line.  Composting toilets can have issues with too much pee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Create a grey water system.  Showers and sinks go to a tank.  Taht water can be used to wash clothes.  That water is dumped to a tank.  That water can be used in the garden, and for flushing the urinal, water for washing floors and the car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Collect your rain water.  Run this through a simple demand type UV sterilizer for one sink in the house.  This is where you get your drinking water.  Another branch of this circuit is your bath water. It is not as critical about being sterile?  (Would you swim in a rain filled pond?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not run the kitchen sink or the dishwasher to the greywater system.  It has too much crud.  You may need to choose bath soap with care.  (bath oil residue may cling to clothes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even this system is non-trivial.  You have to have ways to deal with both surpluses and shortages at any point in the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Xeriscape.  Replace all ornamentals in your yard with plants that do not require supplemental water in your climate.  (In parts of Arizona this means you grow rocks and cactus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Install navy style shower controls:  Punch the button once.  You get 30 seconds of water to get wet.  Soap up.  Punch again, you have 30 seconds of water to rinse.  If you have teens in your house they will hate you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Make cleaning your plate with a piece of bread a family tradition.  A clean plate may not need washing but may be sanitized directly with a UV lamp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Use UV lamps with appropriate eye protection instead of hand washing unless there is actual dirt on hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Take fewer baths.  Bathe at work.  Tell the kids to do a good job in the PE showers because there is no hot water at home on school days.  (Your spouse may have a differing point of view about this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Never wash the car, but do park it on the driveway on rainy days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  If it rains hard, call the kids and hand each one a towel and a bar of soap and send them into the back yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Install a solar heated hot tub.  This can win you back some of the points you lost with the navy shower.  Clean off before hot tubbing.  The hot tub is equipped with a cover replaced after use to reduce evaporation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or move to a place where you don't have to worry about rationed water.  I used roughly 5 million liters of water last year. Cost me a few hundred dollars for the power to pump it.  (I own a tree farm in Canada) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4296" RevisionGUID="817c48e3-8513-4871-a7b7-3e24a153fe99" CreationDate="2015-02-03T06:31:30.533" UserId="400" Text="The Wikipedia article on world energy use is a good place to start.  It gives the breakdown by various sources.   You will also have to read the electricity generation article to figure out what fraction of electricity is fossil origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While a nice thought, what are you going to replace that energy with?  Grocery shopping is going to be a much more time consuming activity if I have to take the dog team to town to get my food.  (Even now we typically shop once a month for all but bread and milk)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you going to heat your house with wood.  (I do, but I live in the country.  Read about coal heat in London)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What will you fuel your cars with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the long run a carbon tax is the way to deal with all of these problems.  Administered at the point it comes out of the ground, it's easy to implement.  By scheduling the rate increases people have a predictable cost of energy for the next 10 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A $50/ton carbon tax would add about 30 cents per kWh to the price of coal generated electricity.  Start at $20 and increase it by $10 per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="d01bf23c-a106-4de0-bed1-5f5da5cc31b7" CreationDate="2015-02-03T08:33:45.137" UserId="15" Text="Our shower has 2 plastic walls and 3 (smaller) glass walls, and a plastic floor. My family prefers to squeegee it to remove at least the water from the glass so that minerals from the water don't build up on the glass (making it rough and spoiling its appearance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the season, and the building, and the habits of the inhabitants, I'm sure the effects of leaving additional moisture would be varied, but I'd be interested to know how the amount of residual shower moisture compares with other moisture sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much moisture is left on a shower after use (if not squeegee'd or otherwise dried)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When would it be most important to reduce moisture in a bathroom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="d01bf23c-a106-4de0-bed1-5f5da5cc31b7" CreationDate="2015-02-03T08:33:45.137" UserId="15" Text="How much moisture is left on the walls and floors of a shower after use? Is it significant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="d01bf23c-a106-4de0-bed1-5f5da5cc31b7" CreationDate="2015-02-03T08:33:45.137" UserId="15" Text="|water|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="8fa7da85-f187-4524-897a-666579b88196" CreationDate="2015-02-03T08:47:20.247" UserId="15" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="Our shower has 2 plastic walls and 3 (smaller) glass walls, and a plastic floor. My family prefers to squeegee it to remove at least the water from the glass so that minerals from the water don't build up on the glass (making it rough and spoiling its appearance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the season, and the building, and the habits of the inhabitants, I'm sure the effects of leaving additional moisture would be varied, but I'd be interested to know how the amount of residual shower moisture compares with other moisture sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much moisture is left on a shower after use (if not squeegee'd or otherwise dried)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When would it be most important to reduce moisture in a bathroom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How might it affect the life expectancy of the shower and or bathroom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4296" RevisionGUID="b39a4f35-4c5b-40b2-b65c-47221e3094a3" CreationDate="2015-02-03T08:57:14.973" UserId="1912" Comment="added link to wikipedia article" Text="The [Wikipedia article on world energy][1] use is a good place to start.  It gives the breakdown by various sources.   You will also have to read the electricity generation article to figure out what fraction of electricity is fossil origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While a nice thought, what are you going to replace that energy with?  Grocery shopping is going to be a much more time consuming activity if I have to take the dog team to town to get my food.  (Even now we typically shop once a month for all but bread and milk)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you going to heat your house with wood.  (I do, but I live in the country.  Read about coal heat in London)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What will you fuel your cars with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the long run a carbon tax is the way to deal with all of these problems.  Administered at the point it comes out of the ground, it's easy to implement.  By scheduling the rate increases people have a predictable cost of energy for the next 10 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A $50/ton carbon tax would add about 30 cents per kWh to the price of coal generated electricity.  Start at $20 and increase it by $10 per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9085" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4296" RevisionGUID="b39a4f35-4c5b-40b2-b65c-47221e3094a3" CreationDate="2015-02-03T08:57:14.973" Comment="Proposed by 1912 approved by 15, 99 edit id of 310" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="748af651-db13-4014-b853-1ac48d3d265d" CreationDate="2015-02-03T09:18:26.437" UserId="48" Text="I'll start by noting that energy efficiency is just a side perk of getting rid of fossil fuels: the primary goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, let's look at how much less energy would we waste. I've got 2011 figures to hand easily, so let's use those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary of savings:&#xD;&#xA;    2 340 GW from coal- &amp; oil- fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      540 GW from gas-fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      420 GW from cars  &#xD;&#xA;    ========.&#xD;&#xA;    3 300 GW saved for starters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's relative to a global energy consumption of about 19 000 GW per year, so ~17%. Actual savings could be a lot higher, depending on what we did with water &amp; space heating, cooking, heavy transport (trucks, planes, boats), industrial processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal and oil plants are really inefficient - about 35% or so. The best ones go higher, but for a world-average, 35% is good enough. So if we replaced all that with non-thermal power (wind, water, pv), we'd save twice as much energy as coal &amp; oil electricity actually delivers. It delivers around 37 EJ per year, let's call that 1170 GW: so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **2300 GW from coal &amp; oil-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gas is about 50% efficient, so replacing gas-generated electricity with wind-water-sun would save as much energy as gas electricity actually delivers. It delivers about 17 EJ per year, that's 540 GW; so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **540 GW from gas-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internal combustion engines for cars tend to be about 20% efficient. Electric cars are more like 80%. So, 60% of all energy use for cars would be saved through electrification. Call it 22 EJ per year total car use, equivalent to 700 GW - so **420 GW savings from cars**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's much harder to calculate for other transport - trucks, water, air - because we don't know what the best non-fossil substitute is. If it's just burning stuff (biomass, biogas, synthetic hydrocarbons) then the energy efficiency will be about the same as now, so no energy savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###space and water heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tricky to get a handle on the typical efficiency of fossil heating systems: here in Britan, it's probably 80% or so. Elsewhere it could be very different. In theory, heat pumps could do almost all of the work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###industrial energy use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For high-grade heat, many industrial processes are already electrifying, so there are shrinking energy savings there" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="24a3a4d7-4454-449c-8d89-627227c39ec6" CreationDate="2015-02-03T09:30:46.023" UserId="48" Comment="added 534 characters in body" Text="I'll start by noting that energy efficiency is just a side perk of getting rid of fossil fuels: the primary goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, let's look at how much less energy would we waste. I've got 2011 figures to hand easily, so let's use those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary of savings:&#xD;&#xA;    2 340 GW from coal- &amp; oil- fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      540 GW from gas-fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      420 GW from cars  &#xD;&#xA;    ========.&#xD;&#xA;    3 300 GW saved for starters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then 110 - 570 GW from heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's relative to a global energy consumption of about 19 000 GW per year, so ~17% without heating, and an additional 0.6-3% from heating. Actual savings could be a lot higher, depending on what we did with water &amp; space heating, cooking, heavy transport (trucks, planes, boats), industrial processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal and oil plants are really inefficient - about 35% or so. The best ones go higher, but for a world-average, 35% is good enough. So if we replaced all that with non-thermal power (wind, water, pv), we'd save twice as much energy as coal &amp; oil electricity actually delivers. It delivers around 37 EJ per year, let's call that 1170 GW: so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **2300 GW from coal &amp; oil-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gas is about 50% efficient, so replacing gas-generated electricity with wind-water-sun would save as much energy as gas electricity actually delivers. It delivers about 17 EJ per year, that's 540 GW; so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **540 GW from gas-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internal combustion engines for cars tend to be about 20% efficient. Electric cars are more like 80%. So, 60% of all energy use for cars would be saved through electrification. Call it 22 EJ per year total car use, equivalent to 700 GW - so **420 GW savings from cars**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's much harder to calculate for other transport - trucks, water, air - because we don't know what the best non-fossil substitute is. If it's just burning stuff (biomass, biogas, synthetic hydrocarbons) then the energy efficiency will be about the same as now, so no energy savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###space and water heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tricky to get a handle on the typical efficiency of fossil heating systems: here in Britan, it's probably 80% or so. Elsewhere it could be very different. In theory, heat pumps could do almost all of the work. In practice, there are serious questions about what actually gets delivered - particularly here in the UK for domestic installations. Global heating demand is around 34 EJ per year, so around 1080 GW. Electrifying that might save 10% (going from 80% efficient to 90%), i.e 110 GW, or it might save 50% (putting half of it on heatpumps with an SPF of 3), i.e. 570 GW. So, **savings from heating could be somewhere in the range 110 - 570 GW**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Calculation breakdown:**  &#xD;&#xA;Current demand 1080 GW. Assume this is met at 80% efficiency, so it requires 1350 GW supply. Take half of demand, and meet it at 90% efficiency - requires 600 GW. Take the other half, and meet it at 300% efficiency (a very ambitious global average SPF 3 for heat pumps), requires 180 GW supply. Total supply is now 780 GW, saving 570 GW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###industrial energy use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For high-grade heat, many industrial processes are already electrifying, so there are shrinking energy savings there" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="af74e807-ae18-4730-ae64-5b89d47a9dd5" CreationDate="2015-02-03T09:40:34.100" UserId="48" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="I'll start by noting that energy efficiency is just a side perk of getting rid of fossil fuels: the primary goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, let's look at how much less energy would we waste. I've got 2011 figures to hand easily (IEA &amp; UK DECC Global Calculator), so let's use those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary of savings:&#xD;&#xA;    2 340 GW from coal- &amp; oil- fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      540 GW from gas-fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      420 GW from cars  &#xD;&#xA;    ========.&#xD;&#xA;    3 300 GW saved for starters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then 110 - 570 GW from heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's relative to a global energy consumption of about 19 000 GW per year, so ~17% without heating, and an additional 0.6-3% from heating. Actual savings could be higher, depending on what we did with cooking, heavy transport (trucks, planes, boats), and industrial processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal and oil plants are really inefficient - about 35% or so. The best ones go higher, but for a world-average, 35% is good enough. So if we replaced all that with non-thermal power (wind, water, pv), we'd save twice as much energy as coal &amp; oil electricity actually delivers. It delivers around 37 EJ per year, let's call that 1170 GW: so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **2300 GW from coal &amp; oil-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gas is about 50% efficient, so replacing gas-generated electricity with wind-water-sun would save as much energy as gas electricity actually delivers. It delivers about 17 EJ per year, that's 540 GW; so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **540 GW from gas-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internal combustion engines for cars tend to be about 20% efficient. Electric cars are more like 80%. So, 60% of all energy use for cars would be saved through electrification. Call it 22 EJ per year total car use, equivalent to 700 GW - so **420 GW savings from cars**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's much harder to calculate for other transport - trucks, water, air - because we don't know what the best non-fossil substitute is. If it's just burning stuff (biomass, biogas, synthetic hydrocarbons) then the energy efficiency will be about the same as now, so no energy savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###space and water heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tricky to get a handle on the typical efficiency of fossil heating systems: here in Britan, it's probably 80% or so. Elsewhere it could be very different. In theory, heat pumps could do almost all of the work. In practice, there are serious questions about what actually gets delivered - particularly here in the UK for domestic installations. Global heating demand is around 34 EJ per year, so around 1080 GW. Electrifying that might save 10% (going from 80% efficient to 90%), i.e 110 GW, or it might save 50% (putting half of it on heatpumps with an SPF of 3), i.e. 570 GW. So, **savings from heating could be somewhere in the range 110 - 570 GW**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Calculation breakdown:**  &#xD;&#xA;Current demand 1080 GW. Assume this is met at 80% efficiency, so it requires 1350 GW supply (1080 / 0.8).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario: half resistance heating, half heat-pumps. Take half of demand (540 GW), and meet it at 90% efficiency - requires 600 GW (540 / 0.9). Take the other half (540 GW), and meet it at 300% efficiency (a very ambitious global average SPF 3 for heat pumps), requires 180 GW supply (540 / 3). Total supply is now 780 GW (600 + 180), saving 570 GW (1350 - 570).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###industrial energy use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For high-grade heat, many industrial processes are already electrifying, so there are shrinking energy savings there" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="cfdbc562-c97e-454e-88b1-31c065f37208" CreationDate="2015-02-03T09:46:56.627" UserId="48" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="**tl;dr - it would save ~17-20% of current total global energy consumption.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll start by noting that energy efficiency is just a side perk of getting rid of fossil fuels: the primary goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, let's look at how much less energy would we waste. I've got 2011 figures to hand easily (IEA &amp; UK DECC Global Calculator), so let's use those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary of savings:&#xD;&#xA;    2 340 GW from coal- &amp; oil- fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      540 GW from gas-fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      420 GW from cars  &#xD;&#xA;    ========.&#xD;&#xA;    3 300 GW saved for starters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then 110 - 570 GW from heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's relative to a global energy consumption of about 19 000 GW per year, so ~17% without heating, and an additional 0.6-3% from heating. Actual savings could be higher, depending on what we did with cooking, heavy transport (trucks, planes, boats), and industrial processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal and oil plants are really inefficient - about 35% or so. The best ones go higher, but for a world-average, 35% is good enough. So if we replaced all that with non-thermal power (wind, water, pv), we'd save twice as much energy as coal &amp; oil electricity actually delivers. It delivers around 37 EJ per year, let's call that 1170 GW: so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **2300 GW from coal &amp; oil-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gas is about 50% efficient, so replacing gas-generated electricity with wind-water-sun would save as much energy as gas electricity actually delivers. It delivers about 17 EJ per year, that's 540 GW; so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **540 GW from gas-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internal combustion engines for cars tend to be about 20% efficient. Electric cars are more like 80%. So, 60% of all energy use for cars would be saved through electrification. Call it 22 EJ per year total car use, equivalent to 700 GW - so **420 GW savings from cars**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's much harder to calculate for other transport - trucks, water, air - because we don't know what the best non-fossil substitute is. If it's just burning stuff (biomass, biogas, synthetic hydrocarbons) then the energy efficiency will be about the same as now, so no energy savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###space and water heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tricky to get a handle on the typical efficiency of fossil heating systems: here in Britan, it's probably 80% or so. Elsewhere it could be very different. In theory, heat pumps could do almost all of the work. In practice, there are serious questions about what actually gets delivered - particularly here in the UK for domestic installations. Global heating demand is around 34 EJ per year, so around 1080 GW. Electrifying that might save 10% (going from 80% efficient to 90%), i.e 110 GW, or it might save 50% (putting half of it on heatpumps with an SPF of 3), i.e. 570 GW. So, **savings from heating could be somewhere in the range 110 - 570 GW**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Calculation breakdown:**  &#xD;&#xA;Current demand 1080 GW. Assume this is met at 80% efficiency, so it requires 1350 GW supply (1080 / 0.8).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario: half resistance heating, half heat-pumps. Take half of demand (540 GW), and meet it at 90% efficiency - requires 600 GW (540 / 0.9). Take the other half (540 GW), and meet it at 300% efficiency (a very ambitious global average SPF 3 for heat pumps), requires 180 GW supply (540 / 3). Total supply is now 780 GW (600 + 180), saving 570 GW (1350 - 570).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###industrial energy use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For high-grade heat, many industrial processes are already electrifying, so there are shrinking energy savings there" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="527ea46b-7686-4fb0-ba66-5a49086d24ec" CreationDate="2015-02-03T12:18:43.050" UserId="48" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="**tl;dr - it would save ~17-20% of current total global energy consumption.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll start by noting that energy efficiency is just a side perk of getting rid of fossil fuels: the primary goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, let's look at how much less energy would we waste. I've got 2011 figures to hand easily (IEA &amp; UK DECC Global Calculator), so let's use those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary of savings:&#xD;&#xA;    2 340 GW from coal- &amp; oil- fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      540 GW from gas-fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      420 GW from cars  &#xD;&#xA;    ========.&#xD;&#xA;    3 300 GW saved for starters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then 110 - 570 GW from heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's relative to a global energy consumption of about 19 000 GW per year, so ~17% without heating, and an additional 0.6-3% from heating. Actual savings could be higher, depending on what we did with cooking, heavy transport (trucks, planes, boats), and industrial processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal and oil plants are really inefficient - about 35% or so. The best ones go higher, but for a world-average, 35% is good enough. So if we replaced all that with non-thermal power (wind, water, pv), we'd save twice as much energy as coal &amp; oil electricity actually delivers. It delivers around 37 EJ per year, let's call that 1170 GW: so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **2300 GW from coal &amp; oil-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gas is about 50% efficient, so replacing gas-generated electricity with wind-water-sun would save as much energy as gas electricity actually delivers. It delivers about 17 EJ per year, that's 540 GW; so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **540 GW from gas-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Just to be explicit about this: 100% efficiency is in effect what you get with wind, PV, hydro, as there is no fuel to waste. Primary energy and generated electricity are taken to be the same number for these generation sources. That's standard practice as well as best practice. I'm putting aside transmission and distribution losses in the case of both fossil and renewable generation - that is, they're assumed to be the same in each case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internal combustion engines for cars tend to be about 20% efficient. Electric cars are more like 80%. So, 60% of all energy use for cars would be saved through electrification. Call it 22 EJ per year total car use, equivalent to 700 GW - so **420 GW savings from cars**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's much harder to calculate for other transport - trucks, water, air - because we don't know what the best non-fossil substitute is. If it's just burning stuff (biomass, biogas, synthetic hydrocarbons) then the energy efficiency will be about the same as now, so no energy savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###space and water heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tricky to get a handle on the typical efficiency of fossil heating systems: here in Britan, it's probably 80% or so. Elsewhere it could be very different. In theory, heat pumps could do almost all of the work. In practice, there are serious questions about what actually gets delivered - particularly here in the UK for domestic installations. Global heating demand is around 34 EJ per year, so around 1080 GW. Electrifying that might save 10% (going from 80% efficient to 90%), i.e 110 GW, or it might save 50% (putting half of it on heatpumps with an SPF of 3), i.e. 570 GW. So, **savings from heating could be somewhere in the range 110 - 570 GW**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Calculation breakdown:**  &#xD;&#xA;Current demand 1080 GW. Assume this is met at 80% efficiency, so it requires 1350 GW supply (1080 / 0.8).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario: half resistance heating, half heat-pumps. Take half of demand (540 GW), and meet it at 90% efficiency - requires 600 GW (540 / 0.9). Take the other half (540 GW), and meet it at 300% efficiency (a very ambitious global average SPF 3 for heat pumps), requires 180 GW supply (540 / 3). Total supply is now 780 GW (600 + 180), saving 570 GW (1350 - 570).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###industrial energy use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For high-grade heat, many industrial processes are already electrifying, so there are shrinking energy savings there" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="67804276-0335-4ac1-8060-56a672575098" CreationDate="2015-02-03T14:15:38.743" UserId="48" Comment="added 772 characters in body" Text="**tl;dr - it would save ~17-20% of current total global energy consumption.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll start by noting that energy efficiency is just a side perk of getting rid of fossil fuels: the primary goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, let's look at how much less energy would we waste. Fossil fuels are very wasteful of energy - most of the energy from fossil fuels burnt in power stations gets wasted through cooling towers; in cars, most of the oil energy also goes into waste heat. Depending on what we used to replace them, we could save a lot of waste energy, as well as reducing pollution. For cars, the most energy-efficient route is to electrify them. For electricity, the most energy-efficient routes are wind, PV, hydro, tidal, wave: that's because none of those have fuels, so there is no wasted fuel energy in the process of generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've got 2011 figures to hand easily (IEA &amp; UK DECC Global Calculator), so let's use those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary of savings:&#xD;&#xA;    2 340 GW from coal- &amp; oil- fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      540 GW from gas-fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      420 GW from cars  &#xD;&#xA;    ========.&#xD;&#xA;    3 300 GW saved for starters&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    +110 to 570 GW from heating (large uncertainty range - see below for details)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's relative to a global energy consumption of about 19 000 GW per year, so ~17% without heating, and an additional 0.6-3% from heating. Actual savings could be higher, depending on what we did with cooking, heavy transport (trucks, planes, boats), and industrial processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal and oil plants are really inefficient - about 35% or so. The best ones go higher, but for a world-average, 35% is good enough. So if we replaced all that with non-thermal power (wind, water, pv), we'd save twice as much energy as coal &amp; oil electricity actually delivers. It delivers around 37 EJ per year, let's call that 1170 GW: so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **2300 GW from coal &amp; oil-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gas is about 50% efficient, so replacing gas-generated electricity with wind-water-sun would save as much energy as gas electricity actually delivers. It delivers about 17 EJ per year, that's 540 GW; so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **540 GW from gas-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Just to be explicit about this: 100% efficiency is in effect what you get with wind, PV, hydro, as there is no fuel to waste. Primary energy and generated electricity are one and the same thing for these generation sources. That's standard practice as well as best practice. I'm putting aside transmission and distribution losses in the case of both fossil and renewable generation - that is, they're assumed to be the same in each case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internal combustion engines for cars tend to be about 20% efficient. Electric cars are more like 80%. So, 60% of all energy use for cars would be saved through electrification. Call it 22 EJ per year total car use, equivalent to 700 GW - so **420 GW savings from cars**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's much harder to calculate for other transport - trucks, water, air - because we don't know what the best non-fossil substitute is. If it's just burning stuff (biomass, biogas, synthetic hydrocarbons) then the energy efficiency will be about the same as now, so no energy savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###space and water heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tricky to get a handle on the typical efficiency of fossil heating systems: here in Britan, it's probably 80% or so. Elsewhere it could be very different. In theory, heat pumps could do almost all of the work. In practice, there are serious questions about what actually gets delivered - particularly here in the UK for domestic installations. Global heating demand is around 34 EJ per year, so around 1080 GW. Electrifying that might save 10% (going from 80% efficient to 90%), i.e 110 GW, or it might save 50% (putting half of it on heatpumps with an SPF of 3), i.e. 570 GW. So, **savings from heating could be somewhere in the range 110 - 570 GW**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Calculation breakdown:**  &#xD;&#xA;Current demand 1080 GW. Assume this is met at 80% efficiency, so it requires 1350 GW supply (1080 / 0.8).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario: half resistance heating, half heat-pumps. Take half of demand (540 GW), and meet it at 90% efficiency - requires 600 GW (540 / 0.9). Take the other half (540 GW), and meet it at 300% efficiency (a very ambitious global average SPF 3 for heat pumps), requires 180 GW supply (540 / 3). Total supply is now 780 GW (600 + 180), saving 570 GW (1350 - 570).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###industrial energy use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For high-grade heat, many industrial processes are already electrifying, and there are many different processes with different waste profiles and different substitution issues, so I'm going to leave those for now, to stop this answer becoming any longer than it already is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="1a3643f7-4f28-49f4-aee1-0190acaa1806" CreationDate="2015-02-03T14:24:45.397" UserId="48" Comment="edited body" Text="**tl;dr - it would save ~17-20% of current total global energy consumption.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll start by noting that energy efficiency is just a side perk of getting rid of fossil fuels: the primary goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, let's look at how much less energy would we waste. Fossil fuels are very wasteful of energy - most of the energy from fossil fuels burnt in power stations gets wasted through cooling towers; in cars, most of the oil energy also goes into waste heat. Depending on what we used to replace them, we could save a lot of waste energy, as well as reducing pollution. For cars, the most energy-efficient route is to electrify them. For electricity, the most energy-efficient routes are wind, PV, hydro, tidal, wave: that's because none of those have fuels, so there is no wasted fuel energy in the process of generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've got 2011 figures to hand easily (IEA &amp; UK DECC Global Calculator), so let's use those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary of savings:&#xD;&#xA;      420 GW from cars  &#xD;&#xA;    2 340 GW from coal- &amp; oil- fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      540 GW from gas-fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;    ========.&#xD;&#xA;    3 300 GW saved for starters&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    +110 to 570 GW from heating (large uncertainty range - see below for details)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's relative to a global energy consumption of about 19 000 GW per year, so ~17% without heating, and an additional 0.6-3% from heating. Actual savings could be higher, depending on what we did with cooking, heavy transport (trucks, planes, boats), and industrial processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internal combustion engines for cars tend to be about 20% efficient. Electric cars are more like 80%. So, 60% of all energy use for cars would be saved through electrification. Call it 22 EJ per year total car use, equivalent to 700 GW - so **420 GW savings from cars**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's much harder to calculate for other transport - trucks, water, air - because we don't know what the best non-fossil substitute is. If it's just burning stuff (biomass, biogas, synthetic hydrocarbons) then the energy efficiency will be about the same as now, so no energy savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal and oil plants are really inefficient - about 35% or so. The best ones go higher, but for a world-average, 35% is good enough. So if we replaced all that with non-thermal power (wind, water, pv), we'd save twice as much energy as coal &amp; oil electricity actually delivers. It delivers around 37 EJ per year, let's call that 1170 GW: so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **2300 GW from coal &amp; oil-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gas is about 50% efficient, so replacing gas-generated electricity with wind-water-sun would save as much energy as gas electricity actually delivers. It delivers about 17 EJ per year, that's 540 GW; so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **540 GW from gas-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Just to be explicit about this: 100% efficiency is in effect what you get with wind, PV, hydro, as there is no fuel to waste. Primary energy and generated electricity are one and the same thing for these generation sources. That's standard practice as well as best practice. I'm putting aside transmission and distribution losses in the case of both fossil and renewable generation - that is, they're assumed to be the same in each case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###space and water heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tricky to get a handle on the typical efficiency of fossil heating systems: here in Britan, it's probably 80% or so. Elsewhere it could be very different. In theory, heat pumps could do almost all of the work. In practice, there are serious questions about what actually gets delivered - particularly here in the UK for domestic installations. Global heating demand is around 34 EJ per year, so around 1080 GW. Converting that to electrical resistance heating might save 10% (going from 80% efficient to 90%), i.e 110 GW. On the other hand, using heatpumps, it might save 50% (putting half of it on heatpumps with an SPF of 3 - see calculation breakdown below), i.e. 570 GW. So, **savings from heating could be somewhere in the range 110 - 570 GW**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Calculation breakdown:**  &#xD;&#xA;Current demand 1080 GW. Assume this is met at 80% efficiency, so it requires 1350 GW supply (1080 / 0.8).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario: half resistance heating, half heat-pumps. Take half of demand (540 GW), and meet it at 90% efficiency - requires 600 GW (540 / 0.9). Take the other half (540 GW), and meet it at 300% efficiency (a very ambitious global average SPF 3 for heat pumps), requires 180 GW supply (540 / 3). Total supply is now 780 GW (600 + 180), saving 570 GW (1350 - 570).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###industrial energy use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For high-grade heat, many industrial processes are already electrifying, and there are many different processes with different waste profiles and different substitution issues, so I'm going to leave those for now, to stop this answer becoming any longer than it already is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9093" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="cb0b26b3-0be7-4c4b-a021-03b9f28c51ba" CreationDate="2015-02-03T16:55:55.953" UserId="-1" Comment="24" />
  <row Id="9094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4299" RevisionGUID="d3c033b9-c999-46b4-a9d7-f69b25f6109b" CreationDate="2015-02-04T03:28:05.883" UserId="1013" Text="I bought a vacuum cleaner that came wrapped in several plastic bags. The bags only have one recycling code printed on them, the Japanese *pura* *māku*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![The Japanese recycling symbol: pura māku][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can these bags be recycled with ♴ or ♶ plastic film in the US?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/csScG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9095" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4299" RevisionGUID="d3c033b9-c999-46b4-a9d7-f69b25f6109b" CreationDate="2015-02-04T03:28:05.883" UserId="1013" Text="Can plastic with only the Japanese recycling symbol be recycled in the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9096" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4299" RevisionGUID="d3c033b9-c999-46b4-a9d7-f69b25f6109b" CreationDate="2015-02-04T03:28:05.883" UserId="1013" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="c6fad1a2-29ab-4247-9627-bad2b2abbb0f" CreationDate="2015-02-04T07:06:59.933" UserId="48" Comment="added 489 characters in body" Text="**tl;dr - it would save ~17-20% of current total global energy consumption.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll start by noting that energy efficiency is just a side perk of getting rid of fossil fuels: the primary goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, let's look at how much less energy would we waste: that is to say, how much total annual energy produced would reduce, if total demand stayed the same, but sources other than fossil fuels were used to meet that demand. Fossil fuels are very wasteful of energy - most of the energy from fossil fuels burnt in power stations gets wasted through cooling towers; in cars, most of the oil energy also goes into waste heat. Depending on what we used to replace them, we could save a lot of waste energy, as well as reducing pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cars, the most energy-efficient route is to electrify them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For electricity, the most energy-efficient routes are wind, PV, hydro, tidal, wave: that's because none of those have fuels, so there is no wasted fuel energy in the process of generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For heating, the most energy-efficient route would be wide-scale deployment of heat-pumps. However, as that may not be feasible, I'll give an alternative scenario too, where it's met by electrical resistance heating. This would give about the same figure i a proportion of that was met by solar thermal instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've got 2011 figures to hand easily (IEA &amp; UK DECC Global Calculator), so let's use those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary of savings:&#xD;&#xA;      420 GW from cars  &#xD;&#xA;    2 340 GW from coal- &amp; oil- fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      540 GW from gas-fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;    ========.&#xD;&#xA;    3 300 GW saved for starters&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    +110 to 570 GW from heating (large uncertainty range - see below for details)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's relative to a global energy consumption of about 19 000 GW per year, so ~17% without heating, and an additional 0.6-3% from heating. Actual savings could be higher, depending on what we did with cooking, heavy transport (trucks, planes, boats), and industrial processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internal combustion engines for cars tend to be about 20% efficient. Electric cars are more like 80%. So, 60% of all energy use for cars would be saved through electrification. Call it 22 EJ per year total car use, equivalent to 700 GW - so **420 GW savings from cars**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's much harder to calculate for other transport - trucks, water, air - because we don't know what the best non-fossil substitute is. If it's just burning stuff (biomass, biogas, synthetic hydrocarbons) then the energy efficiency will be about the same as now, so no energy savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal and oil plants are really inefficient - about 35% or so. The best ones go higher, but for a world-average, 35% is good enough. So if we replaced all that with non-thermal power (wind, water, pv), we'd save twice as much energy as coal &amp; oil electricity actually delivers. It delivers around 37 EJ per year, let's call that 1170 GW: so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **2300 GW from coal &amp; oil-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gas is about 50% efficient, so replacing gas-generated electricity with wind-water-sun would save as much energy as gas electricity actually delivers. It delivers about 17 EJ per year, that's 540 GW; so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **540 GW from gas-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Just to be explicit about this: 100% efficiency is in effect what you get with wind, PV, hydro, as there is no fuel to waste. Primary energy and generated electricity are one and the same thing for these generation sources. That's standard practice as well as best practice. I'm putting aside transmission and distribution losses in the case of both fossil and renewable generation - that is, they're assumed to be the same in each case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###space and water heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tricky to get a handle on the typical efficiency of fossil heating systems: here in Britan, it's probably 80% or so. Elsewhere it could be very different. In theory, heat pumps could do almost all of the work. In practice, there are serious questions about what actually gets delivered - particularly here in the UK for domestic installations. Global heating demand is around 34 EJ per year, so around 1080 GW. Converting that to electrical resistance heating might save 10% (going from 80% efficient to 90%), i.e 110 GW. On the other hand, using heatpumps, it might save 50% (putting half of it on heatpumps with an SPF of 3 - see calculation breakdown below), i.e. 570 GW. So, **savings from heating could be somewhere in the range 110 - 570 GW**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Calculation breakdown:**  &#xD;&#xA;Current demand 1080 GW. Assume this is met at 80% efficiency, so it requires 1350 GW supply (1080 / 0.8).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario: half resistance heating, half heat-pumps. Take half of demand (540 GW), and meet it at 90% efficiency - requires 600 GW (540 / 0.9). Take the other half (540 GW), and meet it at 300% efficiency (a very ambitious global average SPF 3 for heat pumps), requires 180 GW supply (540 / 3). Total supply is now 780 GW (600 + 180), saving 570 GW (1350 - 570).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###industrial energy use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For high-grade heat, many industrial processes are already electrifying, and there are many different processes with different waste profiles and different substitution issues, so I'm going to leave those for now, to stop this answer becoming any longer than it already is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="4d120ee7-afe5-416b-9ffc-1a170664b457" CreationDate="2015-02-04T07:40:17.460" UserId="48" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="**tl;dr replacing fossil fuels with clean, sustainable alternatives would save ~17-20% of current total global energy consumption.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll start by noting that energy efficiency is just a side perk of getting rid of fossil fuels: the primary goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, let's look at how much less energy would we waste: that is to say, how much total annual energy produced would reduce, if total demand stayed the same, but sources other than fossil fuels were used to meet that demand. Fossil fuels are very wasteful of energy - most of the energy from fossil fuels burnt in power stations gets wasted through cooling towers; in cars, most of the oil energy also goes into waste heat. Depending on what we used to replace them, we could save a lot of waste energy, as well as reducing pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cars, the most energy-efficient route is to electrify them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For electricity, the most energy-efficient routes are wind, PV, hydro, tidal, wave: that's because none of those have fuels, so there is no wasted fuel energy in the process of generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For heating, the most energy-efficient route would be wide-scale deployment of heat-pumps. However, as that may not be feasible, I'll give an alternative scenario too, where it's met by electrical resistance heating. This would give about the same figure i a proportion of that was met by solar thermal instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've got 2011 figures to hand easily (IEA &amp; UK DECC Global Calculator), so let's use those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Summary of savings:&#xD;&#xA;      420 GW from cars  &#xD;&#xA;    2 340 GW from coal- &amp; oil- fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;      540 GW from gas-fired electricity  &#xD;&#xA;    ========.&#xD;&#xA;    3 300 GW saved for starters&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    +110 to 570 GW from heating (large uncertainty range - see below for details)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's relative to a global energy consumption of about 19 000 GW per year, so ~17% without heating, and an additional 0.6-3% from heating. Actual savings could be higher, depending on what we did with cooking, heavy transport (trucks, planes, boats), and industrial processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internal combustion engines for cars tend to be about 20% efficient. Electric cars are more like 80%. So, 60% of all energy use for cars would be saved through electrification. Call it 22 EJ per year total car use, equivalent to 700 GW - so **420 GW savings from cars**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's much harder to calculate for other transport - trucks, water, air - because we don't know what the best non-fossil substitute is. If it's just burning stuff (biomass, biogas, synthetic hydrocarbons) then the energy efficiency will be about the same as now, so no energy savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal and oil plants are really inefficient - about 35% or so. The best ones go higher, but for a world-average, 35% is good enough. So if we replaced all that with non-thermal power (wind, water, pv), we'd save twice as much energy as coal &amp; oil electricity actually delivers. It delivers around 37 EJ per year, let's call that 1170 GW: so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **2300 GW from coal &amp; oil-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gas is about 50% efficient, so replacing gas-generated electricity with wind-water-sun would save as much energy as gas electricity actually delivers. It delivers about 17 EJ per year, that's 540 GW; so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **540 GW from gas-fired electricity**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Just to be explicit about this: 100% efficiency is in effect what you get with wind, PV, hydro, as there is no fuel to waste. Primary energy and generated electricity are one and the same thing for these generation sources. That's standard practice as well as best practice. I'm putting aside transmission and distribution losses in the case of both fossil and renewable generation - that is, they're assumed to be the same in each case)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###space and water heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very tricky to get a handle on the typical efficiency of fossil heating systems: here in Britan, it's probably 80% or so. Elsewhere it could be very different. In theory, heat pumps could do almost all of the work. In practice, there are serious questions about what actually gets delivered - particularly here in the UK for domestic installations. Global heating demand is around 34 EJ per year, so around 1080 GW. Converting that to electrical resistance heating might save 10% (going from 80% efficient to 90%), i.e 110 GW. On the other hand, using heatpumps, it might save 50% (putting half of it on heatpumps with an SPF of 3 - see calculation breakdown below), i.e. 570 GW. So, **savings from heating could be somewhere in the range 110 - 570 GW**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Calculation breakdown:**  &#xD;&#xA;Current demand 1080 GW. Assume this is met at 80% efficiency, so it requires 1350 GW supply (1080 / 0.8).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario: half resistance heating, half heat-pumps. Take half of demand (540 GW), and meet it at 90% efficiency - requires 600 GW (540 / 0.9). Take the other half (540 GW), and meet it at 300% efficiency (a very ambitious global average SPF 3 for heat pumps), requires 180 GW supply (540 / 3). Total supply is now 780 GW (600 + 180), saving 570 GW (1350 - 570).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###industrial energy use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For high-grade heat, many industrial processes are already electrifying, and there are many different processes with different waste profiles and different substitution issues, so I'm going to leave those for now, to stop this answer becoming any longer than it already is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4297" RevisionGUID="05f049a5-8d8e-45a6-9880-7abbd72a8ba7" CreationDate="2015-02-04T09:06:54.497" UserId="15" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="Our shower has 2 plastic walls and 3 (smaller) glass walls, and a plastic floor. My family prefers to squeegee it to remove at least the water from the glass so that minerals from the water don't build up on the glass (making it rough and spoiling its appearance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the season, and the building, and the habits of the inhabitants, I'm sure the effects of leaving additional moisture would be varied, but I'd be interested to know how the amount of residual shower moisture compares with other moisture sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much moisture is left on a shower after use (if not squeegee'd or otherwise dried)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When would it be most important to reduce moisture in a bathroom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How might it affect the life expectancy of the shower and or bathroom? I think it's common to have to replace a shower after as little as 10 yrs, so improving the lifespan by even 10% would save a substantial amount of money and resources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9100" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4299" RevisionGUID="8e843d4b-0cba-4f9b-ba0f-81189b625380" CreationDate="2015-02-04T11:48:06.323" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/562940657107750913" />
  <row Id="9102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4295" RevisionGUID="cc161aed-8b6d-4b43-a91b-ac472661c16a" CreationDate="2015-02-04T18:34:12.450" UserId="400" Comment="Added options." Text="You are working at the wrong end of the economies of scale, and you will run into serious permit, zoning, and financial issues.  A better tack to take is to figure out ways to reduce your water use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Get/build a composting toilet.  This eliminates roughly 1/2 your domestic water use.  For the males, have a urinal that connects directly to waste line.  Composting toilets can have issues with too much pee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Create a grey water system.  Showers and sinks go to a tank.  Taht water can be used to wash clothes.  That water is dumped to a tank.  That water can be used in the garden, and for flushing the urinal, water for washing floors and the car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Collect your rain water.  Run this through a simple demand type UV sterilizer for one sink in the house.  This is where you get your drinking water.  Another branch of this circuit is your bath water. It is not as critical about being sterile?  (Would you swim in a rain filled pond?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not run the kitchen sink or the dishwasher to the greywater system.  It has too much crud.  You may need to choose bath soap with care.  (bath oil residue may cling to clothes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even this system is non-trivial.  You have to have ways to deal with both surpluses and shortages at any point in the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Xeriscape.  Replace all ornamentals in your yard with plants that do not require supplemental water in your climate.  (In parts of Arizona this means you grow rocks and cactus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Install navy style shower controls:  Punch the button once.  You get 30 seconds of water to get wet.  Soap up.  Punch again, you have 30 seconds of water to rinse.  If you have teens in your house they will hate you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Make cleaning your plate with a piece of bread a family tradition.  A clean plate may not need washing but may be sanitized directly with a UV lamp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Use UV lamps with appropriate eye protection instead of hand washing unless there is actual dirt on hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Take fewer baths.  Bathe at work.  Tell the kids to do a good job in the PE showers because there is no hot water at home on school days.  (Your spouse may have a differing point of view about this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Never wash the car, but do park it on the driveway on rainy days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  If it rains hard, call the kids and hand each one a towel and a bar of soap and send them into the back yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Install a solar heated hot tub.  This can win you back some of the points you lost with the navy shower.  Clean off before hot tubbing.  The hot tub is equipped with a cover replaced after use to reduce evaporation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have room look into using a biofilter.  The first stage is a bacteria culture growing on gravel in a tank.  This eats most of the solids.  The second stage is whatever the brazilian equivalent of a catail bog.  This will use up nitrates, phosphates.  You will get evaporation loss from this pool, but, you may be able to make that up with rainfall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="8145e205-b036-4c1f-a18d-b67d23fef8a6" CreationDate="2015-02-04T20:13:24.993" UserId="1343" Text="Are there any significant differences to the ecological impact of flying based on which airline you choose? [this article](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/06/aviation-q-and-a) from The Guardian seems to suggest that maximizing economy seats per plane could help determine the best airline, though I don't know whether such information is available. Has anyone heard of other ways of determining this or if any airlines have any other promising initiatives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the ideal would be to eliminate air travel, but I'm sure I'm not the only one for whom this would have serious professional ramifications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="8145e205-b036-4c1f-a18d-b67d23fef8a6" CreationDate="2015-02-04T20:13:24.993" UserId="1343" Text="Comparative impact of individual airlines" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="8145e205-b036-4c1f-a18d-b67d23fef8a6" CreationDate="2015-02-04T20:13:24.993" UserId="1343" Text="|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9106" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="c3bb2cf1-6975-40b4-bf5d-205c71c16430" CreationDate="2015-02-05T11:52:27.670" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/563304141674774528" />
  <row Id="9107" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="4629c521-4ba6-4a14-9187-3ad0d962416f" CreationDate="2015-02-06T07:55:14.663" UserId="1013" Comment="clarified title" Text="Does Waste in Public Recycle Bins (Almost) Always Get Recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9108" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="4629c521-4ba6-4a14-9187-3ad0d962416f" CreationDate="2015-02-06T07:55:14.663" Comment="Proposed by 1013 approved by 812, 99 edit id of 311" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4301" RevisionGUID="d68ff274-87f0-4246-8293-65a7d6deec91" CreationDate="2015-02-06T16:51:53.927" UserId="1692" Text="If your question is really &quot;Should I buy a gasoline car or a diesel&quot; then the answer is &quot;buy an electric&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is that using any kind of oil for fuel is the single least sustainable thing that humans can do. Oil is not only a finite resource that doesn't renew itself, the reserves of oil on this planet compared to consumption cannot be sustained for more than a human lifetime, and quite possibly a whole lot less than that. As a natural resource, renewable or not, it's the one in shortest supply (and thus the least sustainable). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what happens when we actually run out of oil, regardless of the environmental impacts of not giving it up before that happens? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, we're all going to have to give some serious thought to the somewhat less convenient (but still quite viable) options to oil. Like electric vehicles of all stripes. It's probably better for everyone if we just start buying them now, because that money spent goes to making the cars better in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen isn't feasible because 1) [there's only a scant few cars you *can* buy][1], 2) [there's even fewer refuelling stations by far][2], and 3) moving the whole  infrastructure to hydrogen is a pipe dream anyway. (this handy [infographic and video][3] explains why) And if your desire for sustainability is rooted in environmentalism, hydrogen [isn't a clean fuel source at all][4], it's largely based on the use of natural gas, and as a result Toyota's Mirai is only [just barely cleaner than a Toyota Prius][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not even going to go into the costs of hydrogen, which are higher than any other mode of transport. Electric cars on the other hand, have the benefit of [being cheap to fuel][6] and cheap to maintain, which in the medium to long term, can actually make up the difference in the initial purchase price (or at least come close).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.toyota.com/fuelcell/fcv.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://insideevs.com/just-12-public-hydrogen-stations-united-states/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://insideevs.com/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-compared-electric-cars-video/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/04/hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-about-not-clean/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://cleantechnica.com/files/2014/06/FCV_low_power.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://gis.its.ucdavis.edu/evexplorer/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4302" RevisionGUID="c8ab3d39-67df-4d55-9784-c29319a8ab69" CreationDate="2015-02-06T17:06:09.913" UserId="1692" Text="I think you've lost sight of the forest for the trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The production and distribution of beer (or pretty much any consumer goods) is one of those things where *everybody* doing it one way or another at the consumer end is going to have very little impact. What actually needs to change isn't your way of consuming it, but the system of production and distribution. You can effect this change by lobbying to change the rules all the producers and distributors to live by, or you can find a source that does things sustainably, and encouraging your friends and family to do the same. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4303" RevisionGUID="deb91b8c-9de5-4949-ab81-062951871a48" CreationDate="2015-02-06T17:19:34.923" UserId="1692" Text="Even if they were, would it make a difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's probably more sustainable to get your coffee from a coffee shop, in no small part because they have a proper espresso machine into which only coffee grounds go into and come out of. The 1 cup coffee makers are built for disposability and convenience. It's completely Keurig's intention that they're producing millions of little plastic bits that are going through consumers and straight into landfills. That kind of mentality doesn't need to be supported by people who want to live sustainably." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="6cc3726b-843b-44dc-bf56-03cfd0494609" CreationDate="2015-02-06T21:17:05.790" UserId="40" Comment="Improve capitalization " Text="Are there any significant differences to the ecological impact of flying based on which airline you choose? [The Guardian](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/06/aviation-q-and-a) seems to suggest that maximizing economy seats per plane could help determine the best airline, though I don't know whether such information is available. Has anyone heard of other ways of determining this or if any airlines have any other promising initiatives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the ideal would be to eliminate air travel, but I'm sure I'm not the only one for whom this would have serious professional ramifications." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9113" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="6cc3726b-843b-44dc-bf56-03cfd0494609" CreationDate="2015-02-06T21:17:05.790" UserId="40" Comment="Improve capitalization " Text="|transport|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9114" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4300" RevisionGUID="6cc3726b-843b-44dc-bf56-03cfd0494609" CreationDate="2015-02-06T21:17:05.790" Comment="Proposed by 40 approved by 1343 edit id of 312" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4294" RevisionGUID="60db4a4e-5d54-4e84-8e2e-847292ba9354" CreationDate="2015-02-07T07:28:02.967" UserId="40" Comment="Avoid awkward &quot;that that&quot;" Text="What's the best way to find out how much less energy we would use if we would quit fossil fuel usage altogether?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the percentage entailed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know it's easy to find out with electrical energy sources, but I was also wondering about cars, and heating.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9118" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4294" RevisionGUID="60db4a4e-5d54-4e84-8e2e-847292ba9354" CreationDate="2015-02-07T07:28:02.967" Comment="Proposed by 40 approved by 48 edit id of 313" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3234" RevisionGUID="821e4e93-00f0-43fb-b096-f1ae901d8919" CreationDate="2015-02-07T16:53:57.043" UserId="60" Comment="improved punctuation" Text="Yes, but not that way. You need *far* more mass than that. You need 2-5 tons of brick around the stove.  This will require extra support underneath. 6x6 beams under the affected part of the stove with teleposts should be sufficient.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google &quot;Russian Stove&quot;; &quot;Masonry stove&quot; or kachelofen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://heatkit.com/docs/course.PDF  describes using a steel insert into a kachelofen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is a 'rocket stove'. These are made of clay instead of brick, and generally are easier for an amateur to build." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4305" RevisionGUID="c3d5f8c7-8a11-4625-bd02-e9c9306f431f" CreationDate="2015-02-07T19:02:22.907" UserId="60" Text="Tracking PV means (by it's definition) a more complex construction. It means more complex servicing and installation. But why not add features to reach a much **better solar gain** and **lower price per Watt**? The pros can outweigh the cons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I give you one example for all, a concentrating PV [ZenithSolar Z20][1] (just acquired by [SunCore][2]). The advantages it features are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Better land use** (not fixed installation)&#xD;&#xA;- **Combined Heat and Power** generation&#xD;&#xA;- Much **more efficient PV cells** (claimed 72%). Thanks to cooling the PV cell works at a lower temperature (better efficiency).&#xD;&#xA;- Many times **less silicone** (**cheaper**, less material to recycle)&#xD;&#xA;- Much **higher solar gain in hot climates** than fixed installation (sun path is changing significantly during day and seasons). It's supported by the stated [IRENA figures][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.zenithsolar.com/product.aspx?id=287&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.suncorepv.com/index.php?m=content&amp;c=index&amp;a=lists&amp;catid=125&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://costing.irena.org/charts/solar-photovoltaic.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3187" RevisionGUID="7480cecf-f144-4490-ad94-e823a49f13ed" CreationDate="2015-02-07T19:12:31.160" UserId="60" Comment="Corrected mistypings" Text="I don't think that ports are a limiting factor here.  Unless you are planning on making millions of turbines all made from one port near a manufacturing facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's suppose that you are building 100 meter turbines.  That is 100 meter diameter air flow, on a 100 meter tower, plus foundation.  You've got a large tube 100+ meters long, and 3 blades 50 meters long.  This is a large but common size ocean barge.  Indeed, it would likely carry several.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's suppose that you do the final assembly in a factory with a straight line to a single dock.  Now your loading facility is much like any facility for handling large components.  (How do companies load pre-formed refinery towers.)  While it would not be as quick as loading containers, I bet with practice you would be able to load one component every 30 minutes. 4 major components = 2 hours per turbine.  This would mean that one dock can handle 12 turbines per day, or about 4000 per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, your bigger problem is going to be getting them TO the dock, which is why a purpose build dock next to the factory makes sense.  The dock facility can be build in tandem with the factory.  Typical factory construction times are 1-3 years, depending on whether it's standard off the shelf tools, or high tech engineering. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="91bb7c8d-8bc6-482c-b083-97bc245e99a0" CreationDate="2015-02-08T00:10:03.830" UserId="1780" Text="Are there any eco-friendly substitutes of wood?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With similar attributes (such as strength, biodegradability, etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9124" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="91bb7c8d-8bc6-482c-b083-97bc245e99a0" CreationDate="2015-02-08T00:10:03.830" UserId="1780" Text="What are eco-friendly substitutes of wood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9125" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="91bb7c8d-8bc6-482c-b083-97bc245e99a0" CreationDate="2015-02-08T00:10:03.830" UserId="1780" Text="|building-materials|forestry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="6fe3af51-5ca3-4c4b-9559-82aee15210a7" CreationDate="2015-02-08T12:16:09.407" UserId="1780" Comment="Added safe for the environment." Text="Are there any eco-friendly substitutes of wood?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With similar attributes (such as strength, rate of biodegradability, safe for the environment, etc.)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="a152263f-1bd1-4f64-a0fc-8a8567c788cc" CreationDate="2015-02-08T16:48:34.683" UserId="279" Comment="rationalize means to justify or explain. ration means conserve. " Text="I live in a city that is going to ration water so i want to be nearly independent with my water and only needs to add more water on the system eventually. The water i get from the grid is already potable i belive but there is no harm in a system capable of getting the water potable before the use.&#xA;&#xA;So i need an system that can :&#xA;&#xA;1. It can treat all the sewage my house generate and make it usable again for non-potable needs and potable needs.&#xA;&#xA;2. It can store that water for later use.&#xA;&#xA;I tried to google it and i found some systems but they only get an maximum 30% of efficiency and only generate non potable water thats is not enough for me i expect someone can point me on what i really are looking for.&#xA;&#xA;I do understand that i do not need to treat all water to be potable so i can have one system that treat water for non-potable needs and another for potable needs (like drink ,  cook and etc)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9128" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4281" RevisionGUID="a152263f-1bd1-4f64-a0fc-8a8567c788cc" CreationDate="2015-02-08T16:48:34.683" Comment="Proposed by 279 approved by 48 edit id of 314" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9129" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4265" RevisionGUID="ccec1db7-4aba-413f-a158-7780bedee704" CreationDate="2015-02-08T18:01:06.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/564484076997181440" />
  <row Id="9130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4307" RevisionGUID="e1580c81-a470-4d05-a90d-186470dbbfe8" CreationDate="2015-02-08T23:30:28.603" UserId="2029" Text="The question has the carbon-footprint tag so this answer will focus on this aspect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that the great majority of an airline's total fuel consumption is driven by the aircraft consumption we can probably ignore the other operations (maintenance, vehicules, building efficiency, ...) since they are relatively small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a great [wikipedia page on aircraft efficiency][1]. In short, an airline needs to manage it's booking to have planes as full as possible (maximum seat occupancy) on all trip legs, encourage people to travel lighter (0.75% fuel economy per 1% reduction) and have a fleet of larger newer planes (best fuel economy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So fly in a full 787, economy class, with a budget airline with less leg room and restrictive baggage policy. (low-cost airlines however typically use smaller less efficient aircraft)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4308" RevisionGUID="547da427-1aee-4bd3-a790-f78f712c1a23" CreationDate="2015-02-08T23:49:27.023" UserId="2029" Text="Another angle to it is to see if the condensate quantity can be reduced. While some is expected to lower the humidity level, some operating conditions (low temperature setting with low fan speed) promote additional condensation. In effect, sucking outside humidity so that we can chill-it and throw it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The saving in energy from proper operation outweight the value of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the other extreme end, some condensers are sold on the market to supply water for remote construction sites. Coastal deserts in the middle east are very humid in the morning making.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4307" RevisionGUID="31d04268-eb52-4f18-9ecc-83742684d2ca" CreationDate="2015-02-09T01:49:59.020" UserId="2029" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The question has the carbon-footprint tag so this answer will focus on this aspect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that the great majority of an airline's total fuel consumption is driven by the aircraft consumption we can probably ignore the other operations (maintenance, vehicules, building efficiency, ...) since they are relatively small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a great [wikipedia page on aircraft efficiency][1]. In short, an airline needs to manage it's booking to have planes as full as possible (maximum seat occupancy) on all trip legs, encourage people to travel lighter (0.75% fuel economy per 1% weight reduction) and have a fleet of larger newer planes (best fuel economy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So fly in a full 787, economy class, with a budget airline with less leg room and restrictive baggage policy. (low-cost airlines however typically use smaller less efficient aircraft)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3199" RevisionGUID="05a7dea2-e20f-4611-9b32-81ba6542e97c" CreationDate="2015-02-09T08:40:22.203" UserId="279" Comment="minor typos " Text="Trees have a finite life span.  Commercially apples and pears are usually replaced after about 40 years.  A private tree isn't under the same pressure to produce, so it can be used for a longer period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removing the tree is difficult, especially the stump.  Sustainably you could cut it flush, let it rot, use the top for firewood.  Move over a few feet to plant the new tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rejuvenating the tree may or may not be possible depending on the condition of the root system and lower trunk.  If it is just the top that is in trouble, you may be able to cut it down to 3-4 feet, and tongue graft several scions to the trunk.  My uncle recently converted a 40-acre orchard from, I think, winesap to fuji apples this way.  He was producing apples in 2 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other option at this point is to use scions from multiple varieties of pear, and grow a chimera tree.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rejuvenating this way is quite cheap.  Scions are typically $2 per section.  The grafting would take 10-15 minutes from someone experienced.  Ask around in your gardening circles for a fruit nut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replacing the tree depends on your access.  I sell 3 year old pear trees, about 7 feet high, in a #10 pot for $75.  Add that to your costs to come pick it up.  1 year old grafts are typically about 4 feet high and run about $40 retail.  Wholesale, bare root, are $3-10 each in lots of 100-500.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9136" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3199" RevisionGUID="05a7dea2-e20f-4611-9b32-81ba6542e97c" CreationDate="2015-02-09T08:40:22.203" Comment="Proposed by 279 approved by 99 edit id of 316" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9137" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="b0f405f7-055e-4fcc-b759-223963d0ec9b" CreationDate="2015-02-09T12:35:35.747" UserId="96" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="(Draft answer till I get around to find some figures)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a fewways I see to go about this: Running a Haber Bosch process or similiar with a non-fossile source for energy and H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, or finding other N sources. There's principally two routes, N fixing plants in crop rotation + organic fertilizer and reusing N-rich wastes and wastewater. The key difference beeing that the first is basically happening within one or a few farms, while the second version involves municipalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Non-fossil Haber Bosch:**  &#xD;&#xA;Haber Bosch (HB) uses Methane. One could use Biogas. HB yields a bit less than one mole NH&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; per mole CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;. One ha of corn yields about 47t/y, that amounts to roundabout 9400Nm³ Biogas at 52%methane. So we have ~220kmol methane, a slightly smaller amount of ammonia that amounts to maybe 2500kg/a of nitrogen fixed. This actually a lot. This number needs checking with more understanding of the HB process. This approach is scalable if there's a gas grid in place: Biogas plants can feed the (upgraded) Biogas into the grid, where it is transported to the HB plant.&#xD;&#xA;(Other approaches to non fossile HB: Solar/Wind electricity, electrolysis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Crop rotation + organic fertilizers:**  &#xD;&#xA;needs a side by side comparision of conventional/intensive planting and extensive planting without. Even when fertilizers are used, the farmer wil have to follow some crop rotation to replenish topsoil, protect the ground from winter erosion etc. This means we cannot look at just plant yields with different fertilizer applications, but we must look at complete crop rotations.  &#xD;&#xA;According to wikipedia, [fixing 30-40kg N/ha](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%BCnd%C3%BCngung) is possible. Typical fertilizer application is in the range 100-170kg N/ha, for high yield crops.   &#xD;&#xA;[This meta study](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X) states that on average organic farming practices (which in thiscontext mainly means no fossils based nitrogen fertilizer) yield about 20% less than conventional agriculure - at the field level. The authors themselves stress that whole crop rotations have to be looked at. Also there'S a huge span, in some cases organic practices outperformed conventional agriculture.  &#xD;&#xA;While the question may still be open wether organic agriculture can feed the world (and this will depend on meat consumption, biofuels etc.), organic farming is scalable with one caveat: Manure is not always available in the quantities neccessary. Solutions that utilize waste and or wastewater will beimportant in the years to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Using municipal wastes and wastewater**   &#xD;&#xA;... is not always doable. Sewage sludge from municipal wastewater is oftencontaminated with heavy metals and not usable for land application. These contaminants usually come from industrial wastewater. Banning untreated industrial wastewater from municipal  sewer lines could help.   &#xD;&#xA;Most Wastewater treatment plants are designed for N-elemination (turning nitrate into athmospheric N), not for fixing nitrogen in a usable form. But apparently there are promising tests with MAP precipitation or duckweed for municipal wastewater. To my knowledge, technologies established for high strength wastewater (like ANA strip or Dekastrip) cannot be used economically for municipal wastewater.&#xD;&#xA;Source separated organic wastes can be composted (or fermented) and applied to land. This depends heavily on the behaviour of the households doing the separation. I've seen compost from SSO that looked pretty good, and I've seen some with lots of visible plastic contaminants.  &#xD;&#xA;I think one key to close nutrient cycles between city and countryside is cleaner waste, meaning better separation, separation between industrial and household wastewaters (and maybe between gray and black and yellow wastewaters),&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="fda1eaa8-175b-44ab-9825-8301460de9c0" CreationDate="2015-02-09T22:21:17.040" UserId="1956" Text="I have four things that need to be heated on my house :&#xA;&#xA;1. Pool (28.000 liters solar thermal heated)&#xA;&#xA;2. Jacuzzi ( i think that is like 400-600 liters is gas heated)&#xA;&#xA;3. Showers (actually they are all eletric ) &#xA;4. Sauna (  not sure here but i think its gas heated)&#xA;&#xA;So thinking about eletric and water requirements what would be better? I already saw studies saying that eletric showers use less water and energy than gas showers but i don't know about pools and others.&#xA;&#xA;I'm thinking on just change everything to eletric + solar panels woud be that more sustainable and economize on my bills? &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9139" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="fda1eaa8-175b-44ab-9825-8301460de9c0" CreationDate="2015-02-09T22:21:17.040" UserId="1956" Text="Eletric heating + solar panels vs Gas heating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9140" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="fda1eaa8-175b-44ab-9825-8301460de9c0" CreationDate="2015-02-09T22:21:17.040" UserId="1956" Text="|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4311" RevisionGUID="cf23ef0c-571c-4661-888d-fce856a1fe7b" CreationDate="2015-02-10T05:31:33.983" UserId="400" Text="Wood is close to the most eco-friendly building material around:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  It's renewable.&#xD;&#xA;*  It's production overall pulls carbon out of the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;*  Material tied up in construction is carbon that isn't in the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;*  A lower fraction  of it's cost is transport since the building grade wood is sourced locally when possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issues people have with the growth and harvest of wood:&#xD;&#xA;*  Logging is ugly.&#xD;&#xA;*  Done badly on steep slopes it causes erosion.&#xD;&#xA;*  It's disruptive to the local wildlife.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's take your question at face value:  To be be more eco-friendly that wood, it requires the following attributes:&#xD;&#xA;*  Even more local than your neighbourhood forest.&#xD;&#xA;*  Renewable, or be from a very large resource not currently in signficant demand.&#xD;&#xA;*  Low in energy to gather, process and use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Wall Construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Option 1.  Dirt.&#xD;&#xA;You are digging a hole for the basement anyway.   Use that dirt to make adobe, or cinva-ram blocks, or cob.   These materials give you high thermal mass, which in hot dry climates averages out the high daytime and low night time temperature swings.  All of these have to be protected from rain.  See option 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Option 2.  Strawbale.&#xD;&#xA;Pioneered in Nebraska shortly after the first horse drawn balers appeared, the oldest strawbale buildings are over a century old.  Currently big in the alternative construction crowd, it is the easiest and best (IMHO) construction method for small buildings in  dry climates. In much of North America building material is within 50 miles. Walls are coated with lime, earth, or cement based plasters on inside and outside walls.  Google 'strawbale construction' for details.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Option 3.  Leichtlehm.  &#xD;&#xA;This is a sensible infill system for post and beam construction, so it doesn't eliminate wood, but reduces both the amount, and the processing required.  Leichtlehm uses straw dampened with a clay slip, and packed into forms made between the posts.  Traditionally a small amount of barley is added when filling the forms.   The process is fairly rapid.  The forms can be moved to the next bay immediately.  One level a day is easily done.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The barley sprouts, drawing water out of the straw.  Eventually the barley dies, but it's mat of roots helps hold the straw together.  The wall is finished with lime plaster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Option 4  Stone&#xD;&#xA;Go look at Scotland, especially the highlands.  These people take a nuisance (stones in field) and turn it into a resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stone construction is slow, requires mortar (high embodied energy) but the buildings last.&#xD;&#xA;Stone is also a bad insulator.  Even a 2 foot wall does little more than average a chill day with a cold night.  Most stone buildings have an interior wood lining which uses nearly as much wood as a conventional stick built house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Floor construction&#xD;&#xA;While we pride ourselves on no longer living with dirt floors, a earth based floor can be quite workable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Option 1.  Clay on grade.  Mix up using typical adobe mixes.  Mix as dry as possible, and pack HARD into place.  Screed, and fill to get a flat surface.  Allow to dry. This can take a couple of months.  Oil with boiled linseed oil. Repeat, allowing each coat to polymerize before adding the next coat.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases the floor has cracked -- too much clay in the mix.  Apply a contrasting colour of clay mix as a liquid slurry and wipe.  The net effect will be of an incredibly even job of laying grouted flagstone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Option 2.  Clay on on insulated slab.&#xD;&#xA;The above doesn't work well in cold climates.  The floor stays too cold.&#xD;&#xA;Lay down 2-6&quot; of closed cell foamboard first, followed by 4&quot; of crushed stone &quot;road&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4311" RevisionGUID="df40eb55-ffeb-4d5c-9635-67bee74e8fca" CreationDate="2015-02-10T08:44:08.847" UserId="99" Comment="improved layout, fixed typos" Text="Wood is close to the most eco-friendly building material around:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  It's renewable.&#xD;&#xA;*  It's production overall pulls carbon out of the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;*  Material tied up in construction is carbon that isn't in the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;*  A lower fraction  of its cost is transport since the building grade wood is sourced locally when possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issues people have with the growth and harvest of wood:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Logging is ugly.&#xD;&#xA;*  Done badly on steep slopes it causes erosion.&#xD;&#xA;*  It's disruptive to the local wildlife.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's take your question at face value:  To be be more eco-friendly than wood, it requires the following attributes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Even more local than your neighbourhood forest.&#xD;&#xA;*  Renewable, or be from a very large resource not currently in signficant demand.&#xD;&#xA;*  Low in energy to gather, process and use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Wall Construction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Option 1.  Dirt.&#xD;&#xA;You are digging a hole for the basement anyway.   Use that dirt to make adobe, or cinva-ram blocks, or cob.   These materials give you high thermal mass, which in hot dry climates averages out the high daytime and low night time temperature swings.  All of these have to be protected from rain.  See option 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Option 2.  Strawbale.&#xD;&#xA;Pioneered in Nebraska shortly after the first horse drawn balers appeared, the oldest strawbale buildings are over a century old.  Currently big in the alternative construction crowd, it is the easiest and best (IMHO) construction method for small buildings in  dry climates. In much of North America building material is within 50 miles. Walls are coated with lime, earth, or cement based plasters on inside and outside walls.  Google 'strawbale construction' for details.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Option 3.  Leichtlehm.  &#xD;&#xA;This is a sensible infill system for post and beam construction, so it doesn't eliminate wood, but reduces both the amount, and the processing required.  Leichtlehm uses straw dampened with a clay slip, and packed into forms made between the posts.  Traditionally a small amount of barley is added when filling the forms.   The process is fairly rapid.  The forms can be moved to the next bay immediately.  One level a day is easily done.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The barley sprouts, drawing water out of the straw.  Eventually the barley dies, but its mat of roots helps hold the straw together.  The wall is finished with lime plaster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Option 4  Stone&#xD;&#xA;Go look at Scotland, especially the highlands.  These people take a nuisance (stones in field) and turn it into a resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stone construction is slow, requires mortar (high embodied energy) but the buildings last.&#xD;&#xA;Stone is also a bad insulator.  Even a 2 foot wall does little more than average a chill day with a cold night.  Most stone buildings have an interior wood lining which uses nearly as much wood as a conventional stick built house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Floor construction&#xD;&#xA;While we pride ourselves on no longer living with dirt floors, a earth based floor can be quite workable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Option 1.  Clay on grade.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mix up using typical adobe mixes.  Mix as dry as possible, and pack HARD into place.  Screed, and fill to get a flat surface.  Allow to dry. This can take a couple of months.  Oil with boiled linseed oil. Repeat, allowing each coat to polymerize before adding the next coat.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases the floor has cracked -- too much clay in the mix.  Apply a contrasting colour of clay mix as a liquid slurry and wipe.  The net effect will be of an incredibly even job of laying grouted flagstone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Option 2.  Clay on on insulated slab.&#xD;&#xA;The above doesn't work well in cold climates.  The floor stays too cold.&#xD;&#xA;Lay down 2-6&quot; of closed cell foamboard first, followed by 4&quot; of crushed stone &quot;road&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="5dc809e1-1674-415a-b24d-7a435dbf2971" CreationDate="2015-02-10T08:45:58.113" UserId="1878" Comment="spelling, grammar, clarity" Text="I have four things that need to be heated on my house :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Pool (28.000 liters solar thermal heated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Jacuzzi (I think that is like 400-600 liters is gas heated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Showers (actually they are all electric)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;4. Sauna (not sure here but I think it's gas heated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, thinking about electric and water requirements, what would be better? I already saw studies saying that electric showers use less water and energy than gas showers but i don't know about pools and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would just changing everything to electric and solar panels be more sustainable and economize on my bills? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9145" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="5dc809e1-1674-415a-b24d-7a435dbf2971" CreationDate="2015-02-10T08:45:58.113" UserId="1878" Comment="spelling, grammar, clarity" Text="Electric heating and solar panels vs gas heating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9146" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="5dc809e1-1674-415a-b24d-7a435dbf2971" CreationDate="2015-02-10T08:45:58.113" Comment="Proposed by 1878 approved by 400, 99 edit id of 317" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9147" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="494f1c2d-4a7e-4c24-88fd-133571cb6ef4" CreationDate="2015-02-10T09:47:14.080" UserId="1878" Comment="question to sentence case, like every other on the site " Text="Does waste in public recycle bins (almost) always get recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9148" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="923" RevisionGUID="494f1c2d-4a7e-4c24-88fd-133571cb6ef4" CreationDate="2015-02-10T09:47:14.080" Comment="Proposed by 1878 approved by 96, 812 edit id of 315" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4312" RevisionGUID="2fa6e61d-7745-4244-9de6-257b14579bfb" CreationDate="2015-02-10T13:46:47.760" UserId="1445" Text="I also do this, but more because it's easier to remove the water than to later clean up the limescale and mould resulting from leaving it wet.  Hadn't considered the sustainability angle - my gut feel was that this would be small, but you piqued my curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a long answer, but the summary is: it might make a bit of difference but it's going to be pretty small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some unscientific experimentation in my shower (keep your mind on the issue at hand please) indicates that you get roughly 20-30ml water per m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; left on vertical surfaces after a shower.  That's equivalent to an even layer of 30&amp;mu;m which sounds plausible, if on the low side.  It's probably safe to say the true value will lie between 10-100ml/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effect of leaving this water in place rather than pushing it down the drain is that it will slowly evaporate.  Evaporating water takes energy (in the form of heat), and you are then going to need to remove the damp air by ventilation, which will waste further heat - unless you have heat recovery ventilation installed.  How much heat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [latent heat of evaporation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization) of water is 2260 kJ/kg.  Let's say we have 6m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of shower surface.  That gives 180ml of water; evaporating that will cost about 400kJ or 0.1 kWh (all rough numbers).  One shower a day for year then gives 400k * 365 = 146MJ per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for the extra ventilation.  From experience I guess that you might need to have a 0.1 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; window open for an extra hour to dry the shower if not squeegeed.  Converting the formula on [this site](http://www.ehow.com/how_11373329_calculate-energy-loss-through-open-window.html) to sensible units, that's about 2kJ per deg C difference in inside/outside temp.  Let's say it's 10 degrees colder outside than in; then ventilation loses 20kJ per shower or about 7MJ per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total is roughly 150MJ per year for each daily shower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the heat for that comes from natural gas at approx [63 kg CO2e per GJ](http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,163182&amp;_dad=portal&amp;_schema=PORTAL) then that's equivalent to about 9 kg CO2 per year.  For context that's roughly equivalent to driving 70km in [an average family car](http://www.nextgreencar.com/view-car/53716/FORD-Focus-1.6-Style-105PS-S6-Petrol-Manual-5-speed), or **about 0.1% of the average UK carbon footprint**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a really rough guess and could well be an order of magnitude out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice I suspect this is an overestimate: during the Summer months the heat is unlikely to come from your heating; even in winter some of the heat will come from the already warm water rather than space heating; some of the water vapour will condense elsewhere thus releasing the heat back into the house; some of the water would eventually trickle down the drain anyway even if not squeegeed; you need ventilation anyway to remove the (vastly greater) quantity of water evaporated from the actual shower; etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question mentioned effects on the lifespan of the shower.  Water is unlikely to have any effect on durability of the glass:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Glass is one of the most durable construction materials, substantially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; resisting the effects of normal weathering for decades...monolithic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; glass, [which,] if not physically damaged, has an infinite lifespan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(http://www.wbdg.org/design/env_fenestration_glz.php)&#xD;&#xA;Plastic sanitary ware is generally made of acrylic (PMMA) over a glass-reinforced polyester or polypropylene former.  I couldn't find any data on how water affects longevity of PMMA, but again acrylic is specficially designed and used for applications involving contact with water so the small additional immersion time from not removing excess water seems unlikely to make any difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where the extra water *will* make a difference is in more porous materials such as silicone sealant, grout and plaster and wallpaper nearby.  Extended periods of damp conditions will cause mould growth which, once it has set in, is often impossible to clean off.  That said, these are all materials used in relatively small quantities: e.g. replacing a couple of metres of silicone sealant is a negligible amount of additional material over the total amounts involved in a whole bathroom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one area I can think of where leaving a shower wet could significantly affect longevity is where non corrosion-resistant fixings (screws, brackets etc) are used.  If these corrode it may mean large items have to be replaced.  Hard to quantify though, and very dependent on the quality of the bathroom and how well it was installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, I would say that removing this excess water will make *some* difference to environmental impact, but not a huge amount.  I think the real choice is between a little bit of maintenance every shower (squeegee) vs. a lot of maintenance (scraping off limescale, scrubbing grout, replacing sealant) at longer intervals.  I know which I prefer!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4313" RevisionGUID="c51f32d1-d17e-49e5-8f92-3d03f2469675" CreationDate="2015-02-10T14:28:53.597" UserId="2029" Text="Depends on where you live but heating with electrical heating is likely the worst thing to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Odds are some portion of grid's power comes from thermal sources and typical efficiency from heat to electrical power are around 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the source is near 100% thermal energy free, heating with electricity is a double whammy: It takes twice as much thermal heat from gas or coal to produce heat by electricity down the line. Even if only 5% of the power came from thermal source, that thermal energy would be best used by heating things directly. Electricity is best for mechanical work (machines) and any heating should be done by other sources to avoid this waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a sustainability point of view, the first thing to consider is energy conservation and consumption reduction. It is well worth investigating if all 4 of these hot wonders are equally used and valued to see where the overall energy footprint can be reduced. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4308" RevisionGUID="6c6dc735-0146-43ba-b460-e0cb5d55146e" CreationDate="2015-02-10T14:35:32.457" UserId="2029" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="Another angle to it is to see if the condensate quantity can be reduced. While some is expected to lower the humidity level, some operating conditions (low temperature setting with low fan speed) promote additional condensation. In effect, drawing outside humidity in and then discharging the cold condensate. This is quite frequent when a cooling unit is set to both low temperature and low fan, increasing the condensate quantity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The saving in energy from proper operation outweigh the value of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the other extreme end, some condensers are sold on the market to supply water for remote construction sites. Coastal deserts in the middle east are very humid in the morning making.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="e865229f-5359-47f1-bcea-ee4cfa4eb674" CreationDate="2015-02-10T14:57:32.717" UserId="2029" Text="Refining is done by heating and cracking petrol and then sorting out the different components in a tall distillation column. Diesel is heavier than gasoline so it is overall easier to refine. There is a nice simplified figure [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, the differences are not as important as those in the engine.&#xD;&#xA;As [EnergyNumbers][2] pointed out in another answer, diesel is more efficient, at the cost of higher emissions. This is true especially on older engines. On modern engines, from petrol to wheel, diesel is about [20% more efficient][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/oil-refining4.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/48/energynumbers&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Fuel_economy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4313" RevisionGUID="38700f2e-1266-4101-9763-10646b1027f1" CreationDate="2015-02-11T01:56:46.443" UserId="2029" Comment="added 362 characters in body" Text="Depends on where you live but heating with electrical heating is likely the worst thing to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Odds are some portion of grid's power comes from thermal sources and typical efficiency from heat to electrical power are around 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the source is near 100% thermal energy free, heating with electricity is a double whammy: It takes twice as much thermal heat from gas or coal to produce heat by electricity down the line. Even if only 5% of the power came from thermal source, that thermal energy would be best used by heating things directly. Electricity is best for mechanical work (machines) and any heating should be done by other sources to avoid this waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a sustainability point of view, the first thing to consider is energy conservation and consumption reduction. It is well worth investigating if all 4 of these hot wonders are equally used and valued to see where the overall energy footprint can be reduced. &#xA;&#xA;Finally, regarding the shower water consuption, the direct heaters (no tanks) do consume less water simply because the heating coil inside the unit restricts the flow of water. The same water savings can be done with any kind of system by simply restricting the water flow. Both gas and electrical direct heat wall unit are very common hera  in Southeast Asia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4313" RevisionGUID="9688c6d5-70ff-4159-94d5-d31635f3ad51" CreationDate="2015-02-11T02:34:08.653" UserId="2029" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Depends on where you live but heating with electrical heating is likely the worst thing to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Odds are some portion of grid's power comes from thermal sources and typical efficiency from heat to electrical power are around 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the source is near 100% thermal energy free, heating with electricity is a double whammy: It takes twice as much thermal heat from gas or coal to produce heat by electricity down the line. Even if only 5% of the power came from thermal source, that thermal energy would be best used by heating things directly. Electricity is best for mechanical work (machines) and any heating should be done by other sources to avoid this waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a sustainability point of view, the first thing to consider is energy conservation and consumption reduction. It is well worth investigating if all 4 of these hot wonders are equally used and valued to see where the overall energy footprint can be reduced. &#xA;&#xA;Finally, regarding the shower water consuption, the direct heaters (no tanks) do consume less water simply because the heating coil inside the unit restricts the flow of water. The same water savings can be done with any kind of system by simply restricting the water flow. Both gas and electrical direct heat wall unit are very common her  in Southeast Asia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9155" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="4a9bbda7-df58-4030-a314-ceeb2f576f2c" CreationDate="2015-02-11T07:06:55.703" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="|electricity|heating|water-heating|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3139" RevisionGUID="be12e5a1-b3e0-4970-a482-109c4975d074" CreationDate="2015-02-11T11:49:50.450" UserId="99" Comment="added part about 2012 UN revision" Text="Currently we have [over 7 billion people in the world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population). In 2010 the UN made several projections for world population growth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Picture from \[wikipedia\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;*World population estimates from 1800 to 2100, based on &quot;high&quot;, &quot;medium&quot; and &quot;low&quot; United Nations projections in 2010. [source wikipedia](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/World-Population-1800-2100.svg/640px-World-Population-1800-2100.svg.png)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worst case scenario (red line) is that the world population will continue to grow and we’ll have about 10.5 billion people in 2050. The best case scenario (green line) is that the population will stop growing soon and we’ll have a peak of 8 billion people somewhere around 2045.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The UN scenario that is generally thought to be the most plausible is that the world population will continue to grow to around 9.3 in 2050 and 10.1 billion people at the end of the 21st century and then remain stable (the yellow line). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the [2012 revision of these figures](http://esa.un.org/wpp/documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf) changed these 'most likely' numbers to 9.6 billion in 2050 and 10.9 billion in 2100. Also, [a recent statistical study](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/09/17/science.1257469) says that the UN projections are incorrect and claims that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion people, will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion in 2100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [critics on this new study](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26231-global-population-may-boom-well-beyond-the-year-2050.html#.VGpo_PmG-So) say that it doesn't take improvements to female education in Africa into account, which is a key driver in (slowing) population growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1cCXQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="bedf923f-a509-428a-b1c4-9ef67f67f852" CreationDate="2015-02-12T00:18:28.453" UserId="2041" Text="What is the fastest growing plant by amount of carbon stored in the wood? Bamboo is one of the fastest growing woody plants (by height), but it is mostly hollow, and so I'm not sure that it stores that much carbon, relative to other plants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9158" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="bedf923f-a509-428a-b1c4-9ef67f67f852" CreationDate="2015-02-12T00:18:28.453" UserId="2041" Text="What's the fastest growing plant by carbon density?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9159" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="bedf923f-a509-428a-b1c4-9ef67f67f852" CreationDate="2015-02-12T00:18:28.453" UserId="2041" Text="|plants|decarbonisation|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9160" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="162bc03d-f47c-407f-a788-614e7fdccf9a" CreationDate="2015-02-12T09:21:51.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/565802956109672449" />
  <row Id="9161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="4fb48f4d-3877-4844-b767-00fc509fb7d4" CreationDate="2015-02-12T10:18:42.913" UserId="15" Text="Magnesium alloy wheels (aka mag wheels) are desirable to car enthusiasts due to an increase in performance, but with reduced weight there would also be a fuel saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously prices and fuel efficiency varies for different cars and parts, but has anyone calculated whether the purchase cost could be justified through fuel savings in some cases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="4fb48f4d-3877-4844-b767-00fc509fb7d4" CreationDate="2015-02-12T10:18:42.913" UserId="15" Text="Can alloy wheels (for a car) pay for themselves through fuel savings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="4fb48f4d-3877-4844-b767-00fc509fb7d4" CreationDate="2015-02-12T10:18:42.913" UserId="15" Text="|cars|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4317" RevisionGUID="b9272e40-1dfb-4184-a58f-72730038ec42" CreationDate="2015-02-12T12:03:45.960" UserId="2029" Text="One way to look at it to compare like with like is too look at the [photosynthetic efficiency][1] since carbon is fixed through photosynthesis.&#xA;&#xA;By this measure, sugar cane comes on top, converting about 8% of the incomming sunlight energy into stored carbon energy.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4317" RevisionGUID="2f002ebe-78d2-4481-a950-49a2091c3d1f" CreationDate="2015-02-12T13:25:46.640" UserId="2029" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="One way to look at it to compare like with like is to look at the [photosynthetic efficiency][1] since carbon is fixed through photosynthesis.&#xA;&#xA;By this measure, sugar cane comes on top, converting about 8% of the incomming sunlight energy into stored carbon energy.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="97009062-891b-40dd-8b84-af1385ec873b" CreationDate="2015-02-12T16:24:56.257" UserId="400" Text="A quick look doesn't show a clearcut weight difference.  The claim is more for a 'rounder' wheel and a 'stiffer wheel'  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First order approximation fuel economy depends on the weight of the vehicle, given the same engine.  Suppose that your vehicle weighs 1 metric ton -- 1000 kg -- 2200 lbs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that an alloy wheel was 5 kg lighter.  That would be 20 kg (25 if you have a full size alloy spare) lighter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;20 kg is 1/50 of 1000, so 2% lighter vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you get 2% better fuel economy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So each $100 worth of wheel set cost  requires the use of $5000 (2% of 5000 = $100) fuel to offset it's cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a typical midsize car gets 30 mpg, and gas cost $3 per gallon, then your fuel cost is 10 cents per mile.  $5000 worth of gas is 50,000 miles.  If your car lasts 6 times as long -- 300,000 miles, then a 2% fuel savings would pay for an expenditure of $600 for a set of alloy wheels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the costs I saw at Tiretown, this is a non starter.  Prices were over that per wheel, let alone per set.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A higher mileage car would take even longer to pay off.  But even a 10 mpg muscle car would require 100,000 miles to get to this same point -- which still isn't enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="2f1e720a-95cc-43d0-9ae2-34c133528955" CreationDate="2015-02-12T17:48:46.383" UserId="400" Text="Ecologists refer to this as 'gross productivity' and define it to be dry weight plant matter per area per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In temperate climates this is likely to be a grass.  Switchgrass has been proposed as a bio feedstock, both because it's highly productive, and the plant pulls most of the necessary trace nutrients back into the roots in fall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poplar and willow are two other bio feedstocks.  They reach maximum productivity when coppice grown, and harvested when stems are about 1&quot; thick.  (Grow on about 6&quot; spacing)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4320" RevisionGUID="4b0ea61f-a435-451b-8de1-0e3b00a21f29" CreationDate="2015-02-12T22:27:56.217" UserId="1692" Text="What's best is if you pipe the water into your house, making for huge savings in transport costs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, while this doesn't really apply to fancy things like pop and beer, it's really, really better to not drink bottled water at all. Systemically speaking, the rate that bottles and cans are actually recycled is dismal at around 15%. So in the end the difference in recycling costs don't really matter that much anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4321" RevisionGUID="7f674691-8062-4a3a-8385-32cd53491166" CreationDate="2015-02-12T22:36:45.130" UserId="1692" Text="For heating water, you're far better off looking at solar water heaters, which take thermal energy from the sun to heat water. The power conversion formulae for converting sunshine into electricity and then electricity into heat is about 80% less efficient than just taking heat from the sun and putting it directly into the water. This is in no small part because solar panels are only around 15% efficient, then you lose at least another 10% of *that* in converting it to heat. I don't know the efficiency for solar hot water heaters, but it has *got* to be way better than that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="63e3eef1-aefc-4d1a-9196-c2365a32df77" CreationDate="2015-02-13T04:50:04.233" UserId="2035" Text="in case it can live near your place, i recommend bamboo and/or coconut tree. they grow fast and can reproduce easily&#xA;&#xA;well atleast half of the earth met that requirement i think&#xA;&#xA;and guess what? all of coconut tree can be used for a lot of other use. i can say that i can live with just two of them and some food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="b625e425-f05c-49e0-87d7-d5c50e8a1926" CreationDate="2015-02-13T07:38:34.493" UserId="2035" Comment="even more explanation" Text="Coconut tree and Bamboo are two alternatives of timber i can think of, if you want it wood's characteristics you mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it only work if it's near your place, and it can live in your environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bamboo**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advantages over wood:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Bamboo is fastest growing plant, it was so fast that cutting some to make a small all-bamboo building just like weeding your lawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Certain species of bamboo can grow 35 inches within a 24-hour period,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at a rate of 0.00003 km/h (0.00002 mph)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. It spreads it's root, so you can get even more bamboo without replanting it.&#xD;&#xA; 3. More elastic than wood, and hollow, so you can make pipe out of it (or water container). Just search &quot;bamboo structure&quot; and be amazed&#xD;&#xA; 4. Bamboo shoots are yummy&#xD;&#xA; 5. Can be used for lots of stuff starting from basket to wall. It's easier to process than wood, you just need a machete and knife to make it into **ANYTHING**, except composite bamboo.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Cost less energy in processing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;disadvantages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. weaker in supporting weight. However can resolved by adding the quantity or use coconut tree's wood instead for support&#xD;&#xA; 2. small in size, so you need to do workaround to make flat structure, like making &quot;gedeg&quot; (javanese).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Coconut Tree**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advantages over wood: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Relatively fast-growing, easy to plant.&#xD;&#xA; 2. You can use every inch of the tree, literally&#xD;&#xA; 3. You can get other resources while waiting it to grow, like coconut, leaves, young leaves, palm sugar, etc. (ask me later if you interested in this section)&#xD;&#xA; 4. strength wise, it's getting more strong overtime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disadvantages:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. Very heavy, harder to process than bamboo, or small-caliber woods&#xD;&#xA; 2. Bad processing may hurt you, since its needle like part of the log can pierce and stuck beneath your outer skin (trust me hurts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually both material are more widely used in my country (at least my ethnicity - javanese) since it's a lot cheaper than using wood, and have a lot of alternative use rather than just as building material. Sorry if there's some unclear stuff because i can't easily explain some part that i don't know the English word of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="413bf056-6063-4f5f-b2f5-1039e9b08cf6" CreationDate="2015-02-13T07:43:41.753" UserId="2035" Comment="even more explanation" Text="Coconut tree and Bamboo are two alternatives of timber i can think of, if you want wood's characteristics you mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;strength - acceptable, rate of biodegradability - you'll worry about how to preserve it instead, safe for the environment - just chop em up and burn (as fuel)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it only work if the source is near your place (plant them yourself or with your neighborhood), and it can live in your environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bamboo**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advantages over wood:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Bamboo is fastest growing plant, it was so fast that cutting some to make a small all-bamboo building just like weeding your lawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Certain species of bamboo can grow 35 inches within a 24-hour period,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at a rate of 0.00003 km/h (0.00002 mph)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. It spreads it's root, so you can get even more bamboo without replanting it.&#xD;&#xA; 3. More elastic than wood, and hollow, so you can make pipe out of it (or water container). Just search &quot;bamboo structure&quot; and be amazed&#xD;&#xA; 4. Bamboo shoots are yummy&#xD;&#xA; 5. Can be used for lots of stuff starting from basket to wall. It's easier to process than wood, you just need a machete and knife to make it into **ANYTHING**, except composite bamboo.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Cost less energy in processing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;disadvantages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. weaker in supporting weight. However can resolved by adding the quantity or use coconut tree's wood instead for support&#xD;&#xA; 2. small in size, so you need to do workaround to make flat structure, like making &quot;gedeg&quot; (javanese).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Coconut Tree**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advantages over wood: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Relatively fast-growing, easy to plant.&#xD;&#xA; 2. You can use every inch of the tree, literally&#xD;&#xA; 3. You can get other resources while waiting it to grow, like coconut, leaves, young leaves, palm sugar, etc. (ask me later if you interested in this section)&#xD;&#xA; 4. strength wise, it's getting more strong overtime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disadvantages:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. Very heavy, harder to process than bamboo, or small-caliber woods&#xD;&#xA; 2. Bad processing may hurt you, since its needle like part of the log can pierce and stuck beneath your outer skin (trust me hurts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually both material are more widely used in my country (at least my ethnicity - javanese) since it's a lot cheaper than using wood, and have a lot of alternative use rather than just as building material. Sorry if there's some unclear stuff because i can't easily explain some part that i don't know the English word of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4322" RevisionGUID="9ce0dd1c-e786-469a-a214-f745909382e2" CreationDate="2015-02-13T08:29:02.690" UserId="85" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Coconut tree and Bamboo are two alternatives of timber i can think of, if you want wood's characteristics you mentioned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **strength**  &#xD;&#xA;acceptable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **rate of biodegradability**  &#xD;&#xA;you'll worry about how to preserve it instead&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **safe for the environment**  &#xD;&#xA;just chop em up and burn (as fuel)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it only work if the source is near your place (plant them yourself or with your neighborhood), and it can live in your environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bamboo**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Advantages over wood:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Bamboo is fastest growing plant, it was so fast that cutting some to make a small all-bamboo building just like weeding your lawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Certain species of bamboo can grow 35 inches within a 24-hour period,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; at a rate of 0.00003 km/h (0.00002 mph)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. It spreads its root, so you can get even more bamboo without replanting it.&#xD;&#xA; 3. More elastic than wood, and hollow, so you can make pipe out of it (or water container). Just search &quot;bamboo structure&quot; and be amazed&#xD;&#xA; 4. Bamboo shoots are yummy&#xD;&#xA; 5. Can be used for lots of stuff starting from basket to wall. It's easier to process than wood, you just need a machete and knife to make it into **ANYTHING**, except composite bamboo.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Costs less energy in processing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disadvantages:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. weaker in supporting weight. However can resolved by adding the quantity or use coconut tree's wood instead for support&#xD;&#xA; 2. small in size, so you need to do workaround to make flat structure, like making &quot;gedeg&quot; (javanese).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Coconut Tree**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Advantages over wood:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Relatively fast-growing, easy to plant.&#xD;&#xA; 2. You can use every inch of the tree, literally&#xD;&#xA; 3. You can get other resources while waiting it to grow, like coconut, leaves, young leaves, palm sugar, etc. (ask me later if you interested in this section)&#xD;&#xA; 4. strength wise, it's getting more strong overtime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disadvantages:*&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; 1. Very heavy, harder to process than bamboo, or small-caliber woods&#xD;&#xA; 2. Bad processing may hurt you, since its needle like part of the log can pierce and stuck beneath your outer skin (trust me hurts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually both material are more widely used in my country (at least my ethnicity - javanese) since it's a lot cheaper than using wood, and have a lot of alternative use rather than just as building material. Sorry if there's some unclear stuff because i can't easily explain some part that i don't know the English word of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9174" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4315" RevisionGUID="ed21acad-0b1d-4b53-abaa-4e74861ed06b" CreationDate="2015-02-13T12:23:58.147" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/566211173138595840" />
  <row Id="9175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="c3c14cea-ed94-4150-8d2e-fd2f74b0072f" CreationDate="2015-02-13T15:22:37.360" UserId="1780" Comment="Added more info." Text="Are there any eco-friendly substitutes of wood?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With similar attributes (such as strength, rate of biodegradability, safe for the environment, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My long-term intend is to save our environment from pollution (e.g. by using plastic) and the Rainforest [devastation][1] (including wildlife) by using alternatives eco-friendly substitutes of wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.rainforestconcern.org/rainforest_facts/why_are_they_being_destroyed/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3234" RevisionGUID="6fbe6c0f-1091-4c7e-98cb-21af694c7f53" CreationDate="2015-02-13T22:24:35.020" UserId="400" Comment="Additional material inspired by Matt's comment." Text="Yes, but not that way. You need *far* more mass than that. You need 2-5 tons of brick around the stove.  This will require extra support underneath. 6x6 beams under the affected part of the stove with teleposts should be sufficient.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google &quot;Russian Stove&quot;; &quot;Masonry stove&quot; or kachelofen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://heatkit.com/docs/course.PDF  describes using a steel insert into a kachelofen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is a 'rocket stove'. These are made of clay instead of brick, and generally are easier for an amateur to build.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mart has a good point about basement, although, not quite the right reasons.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard of cases where people have put a wood stove in the basement, expecting the heat to rise thorugh the house.  This *sort* of  works, but often results in the basement being way too warm, and the top floor way too cold.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The house my mom grew up in was heated with a wood stove on the main floor, and grated holes in the floor to allow the heat to circulate.  (She describes standing over a grate in her night dress getting everything toasty before getting into bed.)  But the wash basin on the night stand would freeze some nights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A thermal mass stove functions in multiple ways:&#xD;&#xA;1.  As a radiator. This will not be like the radiators used in lobbies between the inner and outer doors in stores, or like the glowing dull red electric heater, but far more like the oil filled steam-radiator shaped electric heaters, but more so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These stoves typically have an outer surface between 80 and 100 degrees F -- cool enough that you can put your hand on the outside.  Yes there is some radiation, but it's on the order of a hundred watts per square meter.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conventional iron stove is a much better radiator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the heat will leave the stove by convection. Air in contact with the stove, warms and rises. This works well for a single well insulated room.  It does not work well generally for a house. although an uninsulated partition wall will drop the temp by about half the difference between room and outside.  E.g. A bedroom with the door closed when it's 0 outside, and 70 inside will reach equilibrium in the 30's.  (the exact temp will depend on proportions of exterior wall, window size, insulation....)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open designs work well, especially if the thermal mass stove is roughly in the middle of the space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A ceiling fan moves the heat around faster, and reduces puddles of cold air at the base of windows.  Left on low all the time they are frugal with power -- 8-15 watts.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a more evenly distributed form of heat, apply the rocket stove concept, but use it to heat a large mass of water instead of a pile of masonry.  Hot water can be kept in an insulated tank until needed, then used the same way hydronic systems are.  This has the advantage that it also can heat your domestic hot water, and during part of the year, the heating can be done with solar thermal collectors.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9179" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3239" RevisionGUID="87829382-eca6-4a44-bbf8-af6ad71e92cc" CreationDate="2015-02-14T00:23:58.857" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/566392369986412544" />
  <row Id="9181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4325" RevisionGUID="b8cd9d08-ce81-4bc5-b205-0da282c2790f" CreationDate="2015-02-14T21:14:18.193" UserId="96" Text="No, in all likelyhood not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you achieve with adding thermal mass: Wood stoves are cleanest and most efficient when they burn 'at full throttle.' Thermal mass allows you to have short intervals of high heat in the oven, that you store and give to the room in a smooth way. For this to really work, you need a lot of mass - see [Sherwoods anser](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/3234/96). But you only profit from your stored heat when the thermal mass is where you are. Unless you live in the basement, addin mass to your stove there won't help.  &#xD;&#xA;Without knowing more about your house and your goals, it's impossible to say what you could or should do with the stove in your basement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="db25f32b-3472-416e-afd6-01c58f1f710d" CreationDate="2015-02-16T09:07:59.463" UserId="1912" Text="I find that it's difficult to associate with other sustainable thinkers, especially with the biggest sustainability challenge of them all - global warming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some really famous green social media network / plug-in that I could use to associate with nearby sustainable/green thinkers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would really like to make my carbon footprint as small as possible, and nearby people would help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost all of the websites in this [list found on Google][1] are dead or dying...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://gigaom.com/2008/04/11/10-green-social-networks-you-should-know/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="db25f32b-3472-416e-afd6-01c58f1f710d" CreationDate="2015-02-16T09:07:59.463" UserId="1912" Text="Green Social Media" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="db25f32b-3472-416e-afd6-01c58f1f710d" CreationDate="2015-02-16T09:07:59.463" UserId="1912" Text="|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="9d75df8e-07ee-463d-ac3d-01932b74dbe0" CreationDate="2015-02-16T11:46:01.270" UserId="99" Comment="added that 3.9 is for Germany" Text="In [this article](http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/) the (apparently pro-nuclear energy) author claims that solar PV has an EROI of 3.9 (in Germany) and 1.6 when you buffer excess energy. He also says solar CSP in a desert has an EROI of 19 (and 9 with buffer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the [original article](http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf) on which these numbers are based. To be more precise in that article they say:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;                                                    EROI     EROI buffered&#xD;&#xA;    ----------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Poly-Si Rooftop                         4.0      2.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Poly-Si Field (extra steel frame)       3.8      2.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Amorphous Rooftop                       2.3      1.6&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Amorphous Field                         2.1      1.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Solar thermal (CSP) parabolic (phenyl coolant)  21.0      9.6&#xD;&#xA;    Solar thermal (CSP) Fresnel (steam coolant)     17.0      8.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how reliable the numbers are, but perhaps this can function as (a start of) a rough estimate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="43fda2df-4fba-4685-94e7-b209bb19295e" CreationDate="2015-02-16T11:58:32.490" UserId="99" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="In [this article](http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/) the (apparently pro-nuclear energy) author claims that solar PV has an EROI of 3.9 (in Germany) and 1.6 when you buffer excess energy. He also says solar CSP in a desert has an EROI of 19 (and 9 with buffer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the [original article](http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf) on which these numbers are based. To be more precise in that article they've calculated the following numbers:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**EROIs of Solar PVs with 1,000 peak hours per year in Germany**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                                    EROI     EROI buffered&#xD;&#xA;    ----------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Poly-Si Rooftop                         4.0      2.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Poly-Si Field (extra steel frame)       3.8      2.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Amorphous Rooftop                       2.3      1.6&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Amorphous Field                         2.1      1.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EROIs of Solar CSP based on proposed plant in Marocco with a solar radiation constant of 2340 kWh/m2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Solar thermal (CSP) parabolic (phenyl coolant)  21.0      9.6&#xD;&#xA;    Solar thermal (CSP) Fresnel (steam coolant)     17.0      8.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how reliable the numbers are, but perhaps this can function as (a start of) a rough estimate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="40623f53-b06e-4839-9691-8388884e57a1" CreationDate="2015-02-16T12:12:34.467" UserId="99" Comment="added 407 characters in body" Text="In [this article](http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/) the (apparently pro-nuclear energy) author claims that solar PV has an EROI of 3.9 (in Germany) and 1.6 when you buffer excess energy. He also says solar CSP in a desert has an EROI of 19 (and 9 with buffer). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the [original article](http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf) on which these numbers are based. To be more precise in that article they've calculated the following numbers:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**EROIs of Solar PVs with 1,000 peak hours per year in Germany**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                                    EROI     EROI buffered&#xD;&#xA;    ----------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Poly-Si Rooftop                         4.0      2.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Poly-Si Field (extra steel frame)       3.8      2.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Amorphous Rooftop                       2.3      1.6&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Amorphous Field                         2.1      1.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EROIs of Solar CSP based on proposed plant in Marocco with a solar radiation constant of 2340 kWh/m2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Solar thermal (CSP) parabolic (phenyl coolant)  21.0      9.6&#xD;&#xA;    Solar thermal (CSP) Fresnel (steam coolant)     17.0      8.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, in [this paper written by a director of a PV research center](http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf) they've calculated EPBT values for mono-Si, multi-Si and Cadmium Telluride photovoltaics and based on this the EROIs are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV mono-Si    25&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV multi-Si   25&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV CdTe       50&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;for the Southwest of the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how reliable any of the mentioned numbers are, but perhaps this can function as (a start of) a rough estimate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4321" RevisionGUID="cad86cf3-f645-454e-9e42-ce2374973107" CreationDate="2015-02-16T22:30:36.153" UserId="1692" Comment="added 299 characters in body" Text="For heating water, you're far better off looking at solar water heaters, which take thermal energy from the sun to heat water. The power conversion formulae for converting sunshine into electricity and then electricity into heat is about 80% less efficient than just taking heat from the sun and putting it directly into the water. This is in no small part because solar panels are only around 15% efficient, then you lose at least another 10% of *that* in converting it to heat. I don't know the efficiency for solar hot water heaters, but it has *got* to be way better than that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, solar water heaters are tremendously cheaper than photovoltaics. At their most basic, they're mostly just a black pipe exposed to sunlight, without modern wizardry for extracting electrons. We have more efficient ways to make it happen of course, but the basic principle is pretty simple. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4327" RevisionGUID="e92117da-a7ff-4efc-a077-d883b6b25af8" CreationDate="2015-02-17T07:03:50.493" UserId="480" Text="Even ignoring energy used in transporting canned/bottled beer to stores, you can save significant amounts of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since a growler is reusable many times, I'll ignore the energy cost of making it (if making a growler consumes 10 times more energy  than to make a bottle and you use it 20 times, it's roughly equivalent in energy to making one half of a bottle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this [article at Wired](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/03/wear_green_drink_greenly.html), making a &quot;virgin&quot; aluminum can consumes around 2.1KWh of electricity, but making a new can from recycled aluminum consumes 96% less energy, 0.084KWh. Making a new glass bottle consumes around 1.1KWh of energy, while a recycled glass bottle consumes 26% less energy, or .81KWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;45% of cans are recycled, so average energy to create a can is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 0.084KWh * .45 + 2.1 KWh * .55 = 1.19KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;25% of bottles are recycled, so average energy to create a bottle is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .81KWh * .25 + 1.1Kwh * .75 = 1.03 KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so they work out to about the same, let's split the difference and call it 1.1KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since your household goes through 1 six pack a week, that's 312 bottles/year, or around 343KWh of energy went into making those bottles (the numbers would be a bit less if you're diligent about recycling)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find average household energy consumption numbers for NYC, but the average energy consumption for [NY state](http://www.pointclickswitch.com/household-energy-consumption/) is 603KWh/month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, by consuming beer from growlers instead of bottles or cans, you're saving around 17 days worth of your household electrical consumption. (If you live in NYC in multi-unit housing, your  monthly energy consumption is likely to be lower than average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like all recycling/reuse efforts, the effect becomes much more more significant if many people make the switch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2012, [cans had 52% of the market, and bottles had 36% of the market ](https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/the-beer-industrys-new-can-do-attitude-2013-05-31) -- the rest is draft beer &#xD;&#xA;*(these same numbers quoted [here](http://www.businessinsider.com/why-canned-beer-is-better-2013-8))*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The annual beer consumption in the USA is [24186 x 10^6 liters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_beer_consumption_per_capita), or [8.2e11](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=24186e6%20liters%20in%20fluid%20ounces) ounces. I don't know the mix between 12oz, 16oz and other odd sizes, but based on what I see at the store, I will guess 75% 12oz, 25% 16oz and ignore the less common sizes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I'll estimate that each can/bottle contains an average of .25 * 16 + .75 * 12 = 13 ounces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, that's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8.2 * 10^11 / 13 = [63 billion](https://www.google.com/#q=8.17826e11++%2F+13) bottles and cans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the 1.1KWh per container energy costs from above, that's 69.3 * 10^9 KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2012, annual residential energy consumption was [1.3 million thousand MWh](http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_02.html), or 1.3 * 10^12 KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if everyone stopped using bottles/cans and used growlers, that would save around [5%](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=69.3e09%20%2F%201.3e12) of the residential energy used in the USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's much higher than I expected, someone should check my math. Bulk pricing (1000+ bottles) for beer bottles seems to be around 50 - 60 cents/bottle excluding shipping, so I suppose it's reasonable that 15 cents of the price goes toward electricity to make the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there's no way that 100% of consumers would switch to growlers, so adjust the numbers accordingly (i.e. if 25% people switch,then the energy savings would account for around  1.3% of residential energy usage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And other factors would come into play, right now around 90% of recycled glass goes into making bottles, with fewer bottles being made, some of that glass would need to be diverted into other, possibly less suitable uses. At least initially, it might be less convenient, and people might use more energy traveling farther to find beer in a growler, but eventually they'd be refillable everywhere. Perhaps spoilage  would become more significant if grocery stores had to discard beer that expired before the keg was empty, and if consumers didn't always drink the entire growler before it expired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4327" RevisionGUID="dbf8fb8e-5116-4872-b2b9-cde15139baec" CreationDate="2015-02-17T07:12:35.493" UserId="480" Comment="added 382 characters in body" Text="Even ignoring energy used in transporting canned/bottled beer to stores, you can save significant amounts of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since a growler is reusable many times, I'll ignore the energy cost of making it (if making a growler consumes 10 times more energy  than to make a bottle and you use it 20 times, it's roughly equivalent in energy to making one half of a bottle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this [article at Wired](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/03/wear_green_drink_greenly.html), making a &quot;virgin&quot; aluminum can consumes around 2.1KWh of electricity, but making a new can from recycled aluminum consumes 96% less energy, 0.084KWh. Making a new glass bottle consumes around 1.1KWh of energy, while a recycled glass bottle consumes 26% less energy, or .81KWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;45% of cans are recycled, so the average energy to create a can is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 0.084KWh * .45 + 2.1 KWh * .55 = 1.19KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;25% of bottles are recycled, so the average energy to create a bottle is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .81KWh * .25 + 1.1Kwh * .75 = 1.03 KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They work out to about the same, let's split the difference and call it 1.1KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since your household goes through 1 six pack a week, that's 312 bottles/year, or around 343KWh of energy went into making those bottles (the energy consumption would be a bit lower if you're diligent about recycling -- though much higher if you don't recycle cans)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find average household energy consumption numbers for NYC, but the average energy consumption for [NY state](http://www.pointclickswitch.com/household-energy-consumption/) is 603KWh/month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, by consuming beer from growlers instead of bottles or cans, you're saving around 17 days worth of your household electrical consumption (or around [4.7%](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=343%20%2F%20(603%20*%2012)) of your annual consumption). (If you live in NYC in multi-unit housing, your  monthly energy consumption is likely to be lower than average so your percentage energy savings may be higher).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like all recycling/reuse efforts, the effect becomes much more more significant if many people make the switch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2012, [cans had 52% of the market, and bottles had 36% of the market ](https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/the-beer-industrys-new-can-do-attitude-2013-05-31) -- the rest is draft beer &#xD;&#xA;*(these same numbers quoted [here](http://www.businessinsider.com/why-canned-beer-is-better-2013-8))*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The annual beer consumption in the USA is [24186 x 10^6 liters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_beer_consumption_per_capita), or [8.2e11](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=24186e6%20liters%20in%20fluid%20ounces) ounces. I don't know the mix between 12oz, 16oz and other odd sizes, but based on what I see at the store, I will guess 75% 12oz, 25% 16oz and ignore the less common sizes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I'll estimate that each can/bottle contains an average of .25 * 16 + .75 * 12 = 13 ounces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, that's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8.2 * 10^11 / 13 = [63 billion](https://www.google.com/#q=8.17826e11++%2F+13) bottles and cans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the 1.1KWh per container energy costs from above, that's 69.3 * 10^9 KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2012, annual residential energy consumption was [1.3 million thousand MWh](http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_02.html), or 1.3 * 10^12 KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if everyone stopped using bottles/cans and used growlers, that would save around [5%](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=69.3e09%20%2F%201.3e12) of the residential energy used in the USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's much higher than I expected, someone should check my math (I tried to reasonably preserve significant digits, but I cut some corners here and there while cutting and pasting). Bulk pricing (1000+ bottles) for beer bottles seems to be around 50 - 60 cents/bottle excluding shipping, so I suppose it's reasonable that 15 cents of the price goes toward electricity to make the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there's no way that 100% of consumers would switch to growlers, so adjust the numbers accordingly (i.e. if 25% people switch,then the energy savings would account for around  1.3% of residential energy usage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And other factors would come into play, right now around 90% of recycled glass goes into making bottles, with fewer bottles being made, some of that glass would need to be diverted into other, possibly less suitable uses. At least initially, it might be less convenient, and people might use more energy traveling farther to find beer in a growler, but eventually they'd be refillable everywhere. Perhaps spoilage  would become more significant if grocery stores had to discard beer that expired before the keg was empty, and if consumers didn't always drink the entire growler before it expired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4327" RevisionGUID="dd7ec3e2-c15c-41a1-b519-1a89616da399" CreationDate="2015-02-17T07:21:20.180" UserId="480" Comment="Highlight conclusions since they get lost in the wall of text and numbers" Text="Even ignoring energy used in transporting canned/bottled beer to stores, you can save significant amounts of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since a growler is reusable many times, I'll ignore the energy cost of making it (if making a growler consumes 10 times more energy  than to make a bottle and you use it 20 times, it's roughly equivalent in energy to making one half of a bottle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to this [article at Wired](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/03/wear_green_drink_greenly.html), making a &quot;virgin&quot; aluminum can consumes around 2.1KWh of electricity, but making a new can from recycled aluminum consumes 96% less energy, 0.084KWh. Making a new glass bottle consumes around 1.1KWh of energy, while a recycled glass bottle consumes 26% less energy, or .81KWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;45% of cans are recycled, so the average energy to create a can is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 0.084KWh * .45 + 2.1 KWh * .55 = 1.19KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;25% of bottles are recycled, so the average energy to create a bottle is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; .81KWh * .25 + 1.1Kwh * .75 = 1.03 KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They work out to about the same, let's split the difference and call it 1.1KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since your household goes through 1 six pack a week, that's 312 bottles/year, or around 343KWh of energy went into making those bottles (the energy consumption would be a bit lower if you're diligent about recycling -- though much higher if you don't recycle cans)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find average household energy consumption numbers for NYC, but the average energy consumption for [NY state](http://www.pointclickswitch.com/household-energy-consumption/) is 603KWh/month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, in conclusion,  by consuming beer from growlers instead of bottles or cans, you're saving around 17 days worth of your household electrical consumption (or around [4.7%](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=343%20%2F%20(603%20*%2012)) of your annual consumption). (If you live in NYC in multi-unit housing, your  monthly energy consumption is likely to be lower than average so your percentage energy savings may be higher).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like all recycling/reuse efforts, the effect becomes much more more significant if many people make the switch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2012, [cans had 52% of the market, and bottles had 36% of the market ](https://secure.marketwatch.com/story/the-beer-industrys-new-can-do-attitude-2013-05-31) -- the rest is draft beer &#xD;&#xA;*(these same numbers quoted [here](http://www.businessinsider.com/why-canned-beer-is-better-2013-8))*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The annual beer consumption in the USA is [24186 x 10^6 liters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_beer_consumption_per_capita), or [8.2e11](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=24186e6%20liters%20in%20fluid%20ounces) ounces. I don't know the mix between 12oz, 16oz and other odd sizes, but based on what I see at the store, I will guess 75% 12oz, 25% 16oz and ignore the less common sizes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I'll estimate that each can/bottle contains an average of .25 * 16 + .75 * 12 = 13 ounces&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, that's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8.2 * 10^11 / 13 = [63 billion](https://www.google.com/#q=8.17826e11++%2F+13) bottles and cans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the 1.1KWh per container energy costs from above, that's 69.3 * 10^9 KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2012, annual residential energy consumption was [1.3 million thousand MWh](http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_02.html), or 1.3 * 10^12 KWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In conclusion, if everyone stopped using bottles/cans and used growlers, that would save around [5%](https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&amp;ion=1&amp;espv=2&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=69.3e09%20%2F%201.3e12) of the residential energy used in the USA.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's much higher than I expected, someone should check my math (I tried to reasonably preserve significant digits, but I cut some corners here and there while cutting and pasting). Bulk pricing (1000+ bottles) for beer bottles seems to be around 50 - 60 cents/bottle excluding shipping, so I suppose it's reasonable that 15 cents of the price goes toward electricity to make the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there's no way that 100% of consumers would switch to growlers, so adjust the numbers accordingly (i.e. if 25% people switch,then the energy savings would account for around  1.3% of residential energy usage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And other factors would come into play, right now around 90% of recycled glass goes into making bottles, with fewer bottles being made, some of that glass would need to be diverted into other, possibly less suitable uses. At least initially, it might be less convenient, and people might use more energy traveling farther to find beer in a growler, but eventually they'd be refillable everywhere. Perhaps spoilage  would become more significant if grocery stores had to discard beer that expired before the keg was empty, and if consumers didn't always drink the entire growler before it expired." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4328" RevisionGUID="dbb3ac44-634c-4817-8c43-57e81210b69b" CreationDate="2015-02-18T05:56:43.520" UserId="1912" Text="I want to plant some trees so that I end up having a negative carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for a tree that can be used for carbon sequestration, which is not very tempting for illegal deforesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does such a tree species exist? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOTE: Initially I was thinking about planting walnut trees, but then I heard that they're exquisite for furniture. I'm sure most trees are great for building fires, though...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4328" RevisionGUID="dbb3ac44-634c-4817-8c43-57e81210b69b" CreationDate="2015-02-18T05:56:43.520" UserId="1912" Text="tree for carbon sequestration in temperate climate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9194" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4328" RevisionGUID="dbb3ac44-634c-4817-8c43-57e81210b69b" CreationDate="2015-02-18T05:56:43.520" UserId="1912" Text="|carbon-footprint|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4329" RevisionGUID="56f06517-27f5-49dd-b005-5888ad08e093" CreationDate="2015-02-18T07:24:54.887" UserId="48" Text="[Gail Taylor's team at the University of Southampton][1] is looking at almost exactly this question. Their primary focus is on fastest-growing bioenery crops, but the answer is going to be pretty much the same as for your question, as carbon sequestration is roughly the same as bioenergy accumulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are concetrating on three species currently: poplar, willow and miscanthus. There are preliminary results already, and further work is going on into, among other things, the genetics behind different growth rates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Local variants will usually grow fastest in their own locale: so find a poplar or willow variant that's local to you, and grow that.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much has been talked about miscanthus, and it does look like it should be a good crop; however, at least in the UK, large-scale cultivation of it hasn't really succeeded yet. And you're looking for a tree, and miscanthus is a grass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If bioenergy has a value in your area, then I'm afraid any fast grower is going to have some commercial value. But in terms of the value of the timber itself, fast growers will have low-density soft wood (horse chestnut is a fast grower, and very soft wood), so that should reduce the temptation for illegal logging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.taylorlab.co.uk/projects/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="898d7dcd-b7f8-4e3a-9dfb-7de0addbecff" CreationDate="2015-02-18T09:17:16.337" UserId="2029" Text="You can invert the logic and argue that any valuable wood used for making things is the best storage. &#xA;&#xA;A cleared area will have greater opportunity for photosynthesis, using solar energy to store carbon. Having a low value forest means that it will either one day be logged for burning or will live until a forest fire does nature's will. Either way, the carbon get's back into the atmosphere.&#xA;&#xA;Storing carbon means using it for ends other that energy production, or trapping it underground. For the later, I think peat bogs where best at storing hydrocarbons underground.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="fdc34d6f-bb00-491a-85d1-c54b688334c1" CreationDate="2015-02-18T11:19:20.983" UserId="2029" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="You can invert the logic and argue that any valuable wood used for making things is the best storage. &#xA;&#xA;A cleared area will have greater opportunity for photosynthesis, using solar energy to store carbon. &#xA;&#xA;A low value tree or forest will either one day be logged for burning or will live until a forest fire does nature's will. Either way, the carbon get's back into the atmosphere.&#xA;&#xA;Storing carbon means using it for ends other that energy production, or trapping it underground. For the later, peat bogs are have been best at storing hydrocarbons underground.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="bd7519a8-e1ba-4d72-adfe-9d0deaa5664c" CreationDate="2015-02-18T12:44:09.170" UserId="2029" Comment="added 159 characters in body; added 37 characters in body" Text="You can invert the logic and argue that any valuable wood used for making things is the best storage. &#xA;&#xA;A cleared area will have greater opportunity for photosynthesis, using solar energy to store carbon. &#xA;&#xA;A low value tree or forest will either one day be logged for burning or will live until a forest fire does nature's will. Either way, the carbon get's back into the atmosphere.&#xA;&#xA;Storing carbon means using it for ends other that energy production, or trapping it underground. For the later, peat bogs have been best at storing hydrocarbons underground providing they ultimately get sealed by a rock formation to store the coal, oil or gas within. &#xA;&#xA;Making building, furniture or other bioproduct for long term use is just an easier way to store carbon.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="a3982e6f-2570-4d8b-8b1e-ac2080ace63d" CreationDate="2015-02-18T12:50:30.447" UserId="2029" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="You can invert the logic and argue that any valuable wood used for making things is the best storage. &#xA;&#xA;A cleared area will have greater opportunity for photosynthesis, using solar energy to store carbon. &#xA;&#xA;A low value tree or forest will either one day be logged for burning or will live until a forest fire does nature's will. Either way, the carbon get's back into the atmosphere.&#xA;&#xA;Storing carbon means using it for ends other that energy production, or trapping it underground. For the later, peat bogs have been best at storing hydrocarbons underground providing they ultimately get sealed by a rock formation to store the coal, oil or gas within. Carbon sequestration also relies on rock formation to trap the carbon away.&#xA;&#xA;Making building, furniture or other bioproduct for long term use is just an easier way to store carbon. All else being equal, it should not be discouraged.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="a6cd6fd5-eeeb-41d4-a3b5-b7c63e42c3c6" CreationDate="2015-02-18T20:15:41.587" UserId="2029" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="You can invert the logic and argue that any valuable wood used for making things is the best storage. &#xA;&#xA;A cleared area will have greater opportunity for photosynthesis, using solar energy to store carbon. &#xA;&#xA;A low value tree or forest will either one day be logged for burning or will live until a forest fire does nature's will. Either way, the carbon get's back into the atmosphere.&#xA;&#xA;Storing carbon means using it for ends other that energy production, or trapping it underground. For the later, peat bogs have been best at storing hydrocarbons underground providing they ultimately get sealed by a rock formation to store the coal, oil or gas within. Carbon sequestration also relies on rock formation to trap the carbon away.&#xA;&#xA;Making building, furniture or other bioproduct for long term use is just an easier way to store some carbon. All else being equal, growing useful wood should not be discouraged.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="1e62c2e9-222f-4182-936f-6b3f67c1f032" CreationDate="2015-02-18T20:45:52.790" UserId="2029" Comment="shorter and more to the question" Text="An unexploited forest may have many benefits but carbon sequestration is not a major factor. You can invert the logic and argue that any valuable wood used for making beautiful things is relatively a better storage than an ephemeral low value forest. &#xA;&#xA;To capture carbon, plant growth must be sustained while preventing burning or decay in the open. Some clearing is required to foster growth and the product must be stored away for as long as possible.&#xA;&#xA;A low value tree or forest will either one day be logged for burning or will live until a forest fire does nature's will. Either way, the carbon get's back into the atmosphere.&#xA;&#xA;Storing carbon means using it for ends other that energy production, or trapping it underground.&#xA;&#xA;Making building, furniture or other bioproduct for long term use is just an easier way to store some carbon if that is the goal.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9202" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="738d7f19-d956-4d69-904b-2e9d69aef0a7" CreationDate="2015-02-19T09:37:21.187" UserId="1912" Comment="25" />
  <row Id="9203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4331" RevisionGUID="8109781d-9da4-47d0-9b32-bfb8b0f54ca1" CreationDate="2015-02-19T18:58:52.610" UserId="400" Text="As soon as you plant a forest it starts to decay.  Initially the growth rate is faster than the decay rate.  At some point it reaches equilibrium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To maximize carbon capture you want to plant something that adds biomass quickly.  To keep it sequestered, you need long life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best strategy is to plant fast growth trees for your area, coupled with shade tolerant long lived trees to take over.  You are createing your own plant succession.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible candidates: (I'm speaking from experience mostly in USDA zone 3, but this is pretty applicable to zone 5.  Once you get warmer than that you need to check out your hardy plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fast growth:  the entire poplar family grows at some 3-6 feet a year depending on water, and length of growing season.  (I get about 3.5 feet per year with Hill Poplar unirrigated, in central Alberta with about 120 frost free days per year.)  There are some tree form willows that do well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the conifer side, siberian larch and eastern white pine do well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your second layer, look at the maples.  Most are moderately shade tolerant.  Red maple, and sugar maple are fairly long lived and get quite large.  If your climate has the right temperature regime in spring, the maples may have good value as a source of sap for making maple syrup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If white pine grows there, it can become part of your long range plan.  Where I grew up in northern Idaho 400 year old 200 foot high pines while not common, weren't exactly rare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4332" RevisionGUID="5977276e-2bfc-4cf5-b984-08475379d8d5" CreationDate="2015-02-19T19:09:18.567" UserId="400" Text="Jamesq is correct, particularly if the hotwater use is for space heating, which usually requires hotter water (130-160 f)  This requires sealed unit heat pipe type collectors which aren't much cheaper than PV.  In addition PV gets more efficient with cold (.38% per kelvin) while solar hot water gets less efficient.  Soon you get to the point where  collecting electrons and running a heat pump is a better bet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Brazil, the need for heating is small, the need for domestic hot water then becomes the dominant use.  This is almost trivial to do with a large coil of black plastic pipe laid flat on a roof.  In use, you actually need to use PEX pipe.  YOu can melt standard black poly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest 1000 feet of black PEX pipe, split into 100 or 83 foot chunks, and  a manifold at each end.  This reduces the resistance of trying to push water 1000 feet.  (10 pipes will each be 1/10 as long, which gives 1/10 the drop.  In addition the flow velocity will be 1/10 as much.  Net effect:  1/100 the pressure needed to get the same flow.  Ball park figures.  Even 5 pipes of 200 would likely be enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now a small solar powered pump circulates water between the pool, jacuzzi.  I'd suggest having some form of spill from the jacuzzi to the pool, and pump from the pool to the jacuzzi.  This gives you the freshest hottest water in the jacuzzi.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You also should have a large display thermometer for the current temperature.  I've heard of people getting their entire pool too hot to swim in. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9205" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="8f3576c8-e40c-4c6f-8a86-528f31fac84e" CreationDate="2015-02-19T23:12:57.310" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/568548823112544256" />
  <row Id="9206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4330" RevisionGUID="32f7bde5-a75f-433d-9714-4b585a50d79f" CreationDate="2015-02-20T01:45:53.027" UserId="2029" Comment="further nuances to clarify that this answer is in the context of carbon storage only" Text="An unexploited forest has many benefits but carbon sequestration is not an exclusive driver. You can invert the logic and argue that any wood used for making durable things is an additional carbon storage opportunity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To capture carbon, plant growth must be sustained while preventing burning or decay in the open. Once the growth/decay equilibrium is reached, some clearing will foster growth while the excess carbon is stored in durable products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Storing carbon means using it for ends other that energy production, or trapping it underground. Any forest zone will either one day be logged for burning or will live until a forest fire does nature's will. Either way, the above ground carbon get's back into the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making buildings, furniture or other bioproducts for long term use is an other way to store some carbon if that is the goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9207" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="a583fec8-7851-41dc-8ec8-903aeef39263" CreationDate="2015-02-20T17:15:07.433" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/568821159871062016" />
  <row Id="9208" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4328" RevisionGUID="f328eac2-e8da-413c-9139-15cb69d39fa7" CreationDate="2015-02-21T05:22:52.930" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/569004306394963969" />
  <row Id="9209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="470aeeed-b463-4cb1-9035-bc19aee5252d" CreationDate="2015-02-21T22:19:05.883" UserId="2064" Text="Are there neonicotinoids in dahlia flower bulbs?&#xD;&#xA;I am starting to keep bees and I am concerned about the pesticides in my bulbs. Can you help me?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="470aeeed-b463-4cb1-9035-bc19aee5252d" CreationDate="2015-02-21T22:19:05.883" UserId="2064" Text="How can I tell if the flower bullbs I buy contain neonicotinoids?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="470aeeed-b463-4cb1-9035-bc19aee5252d" CreationDate="2015-02-21T22:19:05.883" UserId="2064" Text="|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9212" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="6ded7a8c-c752-4563-b0c7-b56731c485a7" CreationDate="2015-02-22T14:30:36.213" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/569504532721487873" />
  <row Id="9213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4334" RevisionGUID="da8552ef-83ff-4dd9-9746-dd113a19c0cb" CreationDate="2015-02-23T09:37:50.787" UserId="99" Text="It's common practice for professional growers to use pesticides when cultivating flower bulbs. Greenpeace investigated the use of pesticides in commercially sold flowering plants in Europe and found that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Only 2% of the samples contained no detectable residues. Insecticides regarded as of particular toxicological significance to bees were found frequently. In 68 of the 86 tested ornamental &#xD;&#xA;plants (79% of the samples) bee-harming pesticides were detected. [[source: Greenpeace study held in 2014](http://www.greenpeace.de/files/publications/20140423-a-toxic-eden-gpi.pdf)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In september 2013 a ban was placed in Europe on the use of 3 types of neonicotinoids for certain agricultural use, but due to loopholes in the legislation many plants still contain the banned neonics. According to the same Greenpeace study I mentioned above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The three neonicotinoid pesticides ... were found &#xD;&#xA;in almost half of the samples: 43% of the samples contained Imidacloprid, &#xD;&#xA;8% Thiamethoxam and Clothianidin was found in 7% of the total, partly in &#xD;&#xA;high concentrations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to conclude, if the bulbs aren't labelled as being organic it's likely that they contain pesticides. I suspect that the only way to know for sure is to get the bulbs tested in a laboratory. Alternatively you can try to find out where exactly the bulbs came from and contact the grower for more information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9214" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="03a4ac14-2b36-4452-b19e-dd4bbfd152c8" CreationDate="2015-02-23T09:39:10.877" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added pesticides tag" Text="How can I tell if the flower bulbs I buy contain neonicotinoids?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9215" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="03a4ac14-2b36-4452-b19e-dd4bbfd152c8" CreationDate="2015-02-23T09:39:10.877" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added pesticides tag" Text="|gardening|pesticides|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="94ccfaa8-72af-40a2-b440-f7827d336cd7" CreationDate="2015-02-23T09:47:26.887" UserId="2066" Text="I live in India where most of the building roofs are made of concrete. In summer during night, the roof emits too much of heat that are absorbed during day time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I prevent concrete roof from absorbing too much heat or prevent emitting excessive heat during night?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9217" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="94ccfaa8-72af-40a2-b440-f7827d336cd7" CreationDate="2015-02-23T09:47:26.887" UserId="2066" Text="Prevent concrete roof from absorbing too much heat or prevent emitting excessive heat during summer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9218" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="94ccfaa8-72af-40a2-b440-f7827d336cd7" CreationDate="2015-02-23T09:47:26.887" UserId="2066" Text="|home|building|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9219" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4333" RevisionGUID="a2b9c026-67a6-40d1-9cdc-3a69d6402ed6" CreationDate="2015-02-23T09:51:30.010" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|pesticides|insects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="b8d42497-b92a-453f-8517-cb4ac598cfd2" CreationDate="2015-02-23T10:48:47.990" UserId="2066" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I live in India where most of the building roofs are made of concrete. In summer during night, the roof emits too much of heat that were absorbed during day time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I prevent concrete roof from absorbing too much heat or prevent emitting excessive heat during night?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="2d84adda-8a3c-4d69-9104-2377045a78c7" CreationDate="2015-02-23T12:08:42.387" UserId="2066" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="I live in India where most of the building roofs are made of concrete. In summer during night, the roof emits too much of heat that were absorbed during day time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I prevent concrete roof from absorbing too much heat or prevent emitting excessive heat during night?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As, I was aware of other options like having good ventilation, trees etc, I want to be very specific with concrete roofs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** This question is primarily to save Air condition costs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4336" RevisionGUID="a678802e-fab5-4cfc-865a-d6b71009cf95" CreationDate="2015-02-23T13:23:27.700" UserId="96" Text="In theory, you could take a box, coat the inside with a mirroring material and have a smallish black object inside. Then cut a hole in one wall. Theoretically, a big part of the light entering the box would (after a few reflections) be absorbed by the object. If the abject is smaller than the hole, we a have a solar concentrator that works without tracking. Of course we loose power to the multiple reflections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if anyone went to the trouble and optimised the shape of the box for this purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4336" RevisionGUID="a678802e-fab5-4cfc-865a-d6b71009cf95" CreationDate="2015-02-23T13:23:27.700" UserId="96" Text="Are there solar concentrator builds that work without tracking?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4336" RevisionGUID="a678802e-fab5-4cfc-865a-d6b71009cf95" CreationDate="2015-02-23T13:23:27.700" UserId="96" Text="|solar-power|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="1d79eba2-0559-4238-bd5c-4b554c58a921" CreationDate="2015-02-24T08:52:15.070" UserId="279" Text="Our Houston area HOA does not allow roof top solar panels and I doubt they would survive our hurricanes too. I discovered NRG Energy sells [these portable solar panels][1] under their goal zero brand. &#xA;&#xA;If we used these solar panel kits to simply charge our phones everyday, how much energy would we take off the grid?&#xA;&#xA;Our monthly utility bill is about $40 while gas is about $90. How much money would buying one kit or several kits save?&#xA;&#xA;[Related SL question][2] &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.goalzero.com/mobile/solar-kits&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/1242/279" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9226" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="1d79eba2-0559-4238-bd5c-4b554c58a921" CreationDate="2015-02-24T08:52:15.070" UserId="279" Text="How much energy costs do portable solar panels save in a house?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9227" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="1d79eba2-0559-4238-bd5c-4b554c58a921" CreationDate="2015-02-24T08:52:15.070" UserId="279" Text="|solar-power|energy-efficiency|carbon-footprint|photovoltaics|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="dedc9b02-69a4-4a28-8be1-b4115653bda6" CreationDate="2015-02-24T09:23:54.633" UserId="2066" Comment="added 119 characters in body; edited title" Text="I live in India where most of the building roofs are made of concrete. In summer during night, the roof emits too much of heat that were absorbed during day time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was aware of the options like having good ventilation, insulation, trees etc. But I want to be very specific with concrete roof top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inside roof is painted with white cement.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for some kind of paint or any other material that can be applied on top (outside) of the roof so that heat is reflected back instead of concrete absorbing it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9229" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="dedc9b02-69a4-4a28-8be1-b4115653bda6" CreationDate="2015-02-24T09:23:54.633" UserId="2066" Comment="added 119 characters in body; edited title" Text="Prevent concrete roof from absorbing too much heat during summer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4338" RevisionGUID="2acc189a-9afa-49fc-b6a7-172a8aabe253" CreationDate="2015-02-24T13:56:02.733" UserId="812" Text="I'm afraid these little mini solar kits are *much* smaller in scale than rooftop panels. They can be great for charging gadgets when away from mains electricity, but they're not an economic substitute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's make some assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You have three mobile phones in your household.&#xD;&#xA;2. Each phone has a battery with a capacity of 2Ah (2000mAh) at 5V&#xD;&#xA;3. One of these solar chargers allows you to keep all of those phones fully charged without having to use the mains.&#xD;&#xA;4. If you were charging from the mains, the efficiency of that charge would be 80% (I've plucked this figure out of thin air; it may well be wrong).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The total amount of energy that the three batteries can hold is 2Ah x 5V x 3 phones = 30Wh.&#xD;&#xA;The total amount of electricity that you would use to charge these from the mains is 30/0.8 = 37.5Wh. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most countries, electricity is paid for by the kilowatt-hour (kWh). The amount of electricity that you'd be saving is 0.0375kWh/day. Assuming that the cost of electricity where you are is 20 cents/kWh (I have no idea whether this is realistic), then you would save 0.75 cents/day, or about $2.70/year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the assumptions above may be way out but I think it's safe to assume that, since the solar charger costs $100, it would never pay for itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9231" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="bd1cf90d-77ea-4a7f-9d2a-fc0c337eacbc" CreationDate="2015-02-24T14:37:15.290" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/570230981585543168" />
  <row Id="9232" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="3220" RevisionGUID="2fec6546-f92c-4f2c-ac1c-060828a57d5d" CreationDate="2015-02-24T23:38:01.557" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/570367071046934528" />
  <row Id="9233" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="8d156654-0630-4061-b1ae-01d2ff8b370c" CreationDate="2015-02-25T11:42:52.650" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/570549486214189056" />
  <row Id="9235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4340" RevisionGUID="41943375-b2aa-415c-bf32-a6a8496e8dfb" CreationDate="2015-02-26T20:13:24.127" UserId="2076" Text="Regarding directly feeding a tank with a series string of panels. Don't have the figures at hand but basically figured the math on this once (maybe it was 3400 btu's per kwhr?) and remember that 1500 watts of panels will put same amount of btu's in tank as a 22 sguare foot evacuated tube collector which came out to the pv panels requiring about 5 times as much space on your roof or lawn for the same heat output. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost was actually less with pv at $1.00/watt) or at least similar with the big plus of the PV setup being much more durable over time, less hassle in the present, plus don't have to hear a pump so if you have the space it may be the smarter choice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be an issue with PV not working as well when cloudy but not sure about that. Something to look into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two important things come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Use dc rated thermostat, not the stock AC ones on tank, especially if running high volts from series string. Dc is single minded and when a switch is thrown wants to keep jumping gap, producing an arc that will ruin contacts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Using AC resistor is fine but if use the ones tank comes with you will probably lose a lot of power. Are articles available that will show you how to do math on this. listen to the people that discuss using AC elements as diversion or dump loads maybe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4340" RevisionGUID="3ae0e558-8918-4bb8-a8d3-bbd5b0c658bd" CreationDate="2015-02-26T20:25:29.733" UserId="2076" Comment="added 347 characters in body" Text="Regarding directly feeding a tank with a series string of panels. Don't have the figures at hand but basically figured the math on this once (maybe it was 3400 btu's per kwhr?) and remember that 1500 watts of panels will put same amount of btu's in tank as a 22 sguare foot evacuated tube collector which came out to the pv panels requiring about 5 times as much space on your roof or lawn for the same heat output. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost was actually less with pv at $1.00/watt) or at least similar with the big plus of the PV setup being much more durable over time, less hassle in the present, plus don't have to hear a pump so if you have the space it may be the smarter choice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be an issue with PV not working as well when cloudy but not sure about that. I.e, if you put a suitably sized pv system next to a solar thermal whereby both perform equally in good sun the pv will not do as well when clouds comes out. Uncertain about this as I mostly just read stuff without doing and not even sure I read that but perhaps someone here can knowledgeably comment. Something to look into for sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two important things come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Use dc rated thermostat, not the stock AC ones on tank, especially if running high volts from series string. Dc is single minded and when a switch is thrown wants to keep jumping gap, producing an arc that will ruin contacts. A real safety issue here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Using AC resistor with DC is fine but if use the ones tank comes with you will probably lose a lot of power. Are articles available that will show you how to do math on this. listen to the people that discuss using AC elements as diversion or dump loads maybe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4340" RevisionGUID="60868358-8fda-4e48-afb2-751efa60a10f" CreationDate="2015-02-26T20:32:51.187" UserId="2076" Comment="added 347 characters in body" Text="Regarding directly feeding a tank with a series string of panels. Don't have the figures at hand but basically figured the math on this once (maybe it was 3400 btu's per kwhr?) and remember that 1500 watts of panels will put same amount of btu's in tank as a 22 sguare foot evacuated tube collector which came out to the pv panels requiring about 5 times as much space on your roof or lawn for the same heat output. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost was actually less with pv at $1.00/watt) or at least similar with the big plus of the PV setup being much more durable over time, less hassle in the present, plus don't have to hear a pump so if you have the space it may be the smarter choice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be an issue with PV not working as well when cloudy but not sure about that. I.e, if you put a suitably sized pv system next to a solar thermal whereby both perform equally in good sun the pv will not do as well when clouds comes out. Uncertain about this as I mostly just read stuff without doing and not even sure I read that but perhaps someone here can knowledgeably comment. Something to look into for sure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two important things come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Use dc rated thermostat, not the stock AC ones on tank, especially if running high volts from series string. Dc is single minded and when a switch is thrown wants to keep jumping gap, producing an arc that will ruin contacts. A real safety issue here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Using AC element with DC voltage is fine but if use the ones tank comes with you will probably lose a lot of power. Are articles available that will show you how to do math on this. listen to the people that discuss using AC elements as diversion or dump loads maybe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="26fdac26-73c0-4d92-b24c-ad5134008cb5" CreationDate="2015-02-27T03:39:00.607" UserId="1848" Text="So the long debated question of which system is better has already been argued and fought for a while now. This isn't that. See the end of this post for the direct question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In trying to determine the types of water systems used in Aquaponics, I've come across more types than I originally thought existed. In the hope that we can have some sort of community wiki here which outlines all of the types of systems, I ask my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Most of these systems can be thrown into the primary categories of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Constant Flow (Continuous Flow or Constant Flood)&#xD;&#xA;* Flood and Drain&#xD;&#xA;* Floating Raft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what I've recently found is that there are several subtypes. And a technical terminology difference that catches me off guard. What I'd really like is for people to use the correct terminology of whether they're referring to Constant Flow vs Constant Flood. They are VERY different beasts and I'll explain why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Constant Flow - Quite simply the water will continuously flow over the roots through the grow media and the water leaves the grow bed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Constant Flood - Not unlike Constant Flow, but with a significant difference in how the water drains (or lack thereof). There is a standpipe introduced which means now the media will always be flooded with water, usually at a predetermined height.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, there are TWO more subtypes of the subtypes mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How you introduce the water into the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Surface - The water comes through a pipe and usually lays on top of the grow media.&#xD;&#xA; * Sub-surface - The water comes through the a pipe under the grow media which eliminated a potential problem of sunlight hitting the water, creating algae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it correct in thinking that Constant (Continuous) Flow is NOT the same as Constant Flood?**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="26fdac26-73c0-4d92-b24c-ad5134008cb5" CreationDate="2015-02-27T03:39:00.607" UserId="1848" Text="Is it correct in thinking that Constant (Continuous) Flow is NOT the same as Constant Flood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="26fdac26-73c0-4d92-b24c-ad5134008cb5" CreationDate="2015-02-27T03:39:00.607" UserId="1848" Text="|aquaponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="3898708d-8517-4796-85c6-f8218d75de56" CreationDate="2015-02-27T10:15:13.020" UserId="2079" Text="@techjerk I too live in India and have the same problem. I don't want to use aircon because it consumes too much energy by local standards. I have so far considered: (1) painting the concrete roof white (2) Adding a layer of roof tiles (placed directly on floor of roof) which allow air to circulate under and over, but keep convectional heating of the roof slab to a minimum). This layer of roof tiles is fragile inherently and roof cannot be used for walking, etc (3) Building another sloped tiled roof over current flat concrete roof supported by metal columns. [roof is usable] Like [here][1]. Image shown is for a factory but imagine the same for a mid sized home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something needs to be done about west facing walls too. Mid-day to evening is when the house seems to absorb most heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was also thinking about contacting The/Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TERI) who have done a lot of studies/work in sustainable housing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;imho, the paint/material of inner side of roof will not make any difference. The heating must be managed on the outer side of roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thane.all.biz/industrial-trusses-g376134#.VPBBB-JocxU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9242" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="5ba8a77b-9195-42ae-a768-c759f93c7958" CreationDate="2015-02-27T11:27:54.950" UserId="-1" Comment="25" />
  <row Id="9243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4343" RevisionGUID="2f8bd3f6-6308-49bb-8a84-339ab0dc152d" CreationDate="2015-02-27T23:05:40.240" UserId="2083" Text="Try the simple answer before looking for more complicated solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apply a white coating. They should be much more durable than a simple white paint, and a good quality coating will return nearly 90% of solar energy to the atmosphere. This should make a big difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternately, cover your roof with solar panels. Since they transform energy rather than returning it to the atmosphere, they have a slight geo-engineering benefit. Specifically they reduce atmospheric heat and they don't drive away clouds the way white roofs do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4344" RevisionGUID="43658e88-4584-4a20-9680-80bb320b185f" CreationDate="2015-03-01T18:54:37.483" UserId="2089" Text="To store the energy from a fireplace you need mass. &lt;Br&gt;Solids like concrete can store   0.88 kJ/kgK, &lt;B&gt;Water can store 4.18 kJ/kgK. &lt;Br&gt;So water can store 4.75 times more energy than concrete. Therefore a modern waterbased heating system combined with a waterbased stove can store much more energy and deliver it to any places further away in your house /apartment. Modern stoves have also very low emissions. &#xD;&#xA;Another advantage: the mass of concrete you need may overload the ceiling - the water is already in your house.&lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For those interested in calculating the amount of energy which is inside different kinds of firewood look at this [fireplace-app](http://www.normatherm.com/Fireplace-WebApp/ &quot;free kaminofen app&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="5724adc0-f7fe-4cc0-8ee9-142ffd798a66" CreationDate="2015-03-01T20:48:38.020" UserId="1878" Text="The power of brands in consumer culture has been much criticized, for encouraging needless consumption and masking the environmental and social costs of production. But branded goods surely have some redeeming qualities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- They tend to last longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In the case of items like watches and electronics and cars, the higher price of prestigious brands is usually dictated by costs such as craftsmanship, design and marketing – in other words, job creation in fields with low direct impact on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With food and clothing, it could be argued that a well-known brand creates a link between the consumer and the producer, thereby exposing the producer to consumer boycott in the case of environmental or social abuses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all cases, any reasonable comparison in this area must take into account the opportunity cost of avoiding &quot;overpriced&quot; branded goods – that is, what the brand-avoiding consumer would do with the money saved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which is more sustainable? Buy cheap clothes or electronics and spend the savings elsewhere? Or support the design and marketing budgets of multinational corporations and have no money left to do damage with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="5724adc0-f7fe-4cc0-8ee9-142ffd798a66" CreationDate="2015-03-01T20:48:38.020" UserId="1878" Text="Are luxury goods more sustainable than supermarket brands?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="5724adc0-f7fe-4cc0-8ee9-142ffd798a66" CreationDate="2015-03-01T20:48:38.020" UserId="1878" Text="|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4346" RevisionGUID="03a16335-3903-4a3d-a2af-f4529830eeec" CreationDate="2015-03-02T19:50:36.827" UserId="1701" Text="Throw a bunch of large potted plants up there - maybe even something edible. They'll shade the roof and help feed you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4344" RevisionGUID="76e05d2f-4c70-4a8c-b83b-8f30fb0b387f" CreationDate="2015-03-02T20:36:31.613" UserId="99" Comment="removed self-promotion link since it does not add any value to the given answer" Text="To store the energy from a fireplace you need mass. &lt;Br&gt;Solids like concrete can store   0.88 kJ/kgK, &lt;B&gt;Water can store 4.18 kJ/kgK. &lt;Br&gt;So water can store 4.75 times more energy than concrete. Therefore a modern waterbased heating system combined with a waterbased stove can store much more energy and deliver it to any places further away in your house /apartment. Modern stoves have also very low emissions. &#xD;&#xA;Another advantage: the mass of concrete you need may overload the ceiling - the water is already in your house.&lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="cb4a3fd5-a2a0-44e4-b4c1-c77e24e6cb6c" CreationDate="2015-03-04T11:43:39.030" UserId="96" Text="No. Someteimes yes, but often enough no - so that looking at wether a brand is 'luxury' or 'supermarket' is no good replacement for looking at the actual sustainability of the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't cite a single, unified source, but when I read indipendent test reports of a variety of products, price or the fact there's a recognised brand is a poor indicator of actual quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of using brands as guidelines, look at the factors that actually indicate how sustainable a product is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* With food, how is it grown?&#xD;&#xA;* with large electrical devices, how is power consumption?&#xD;&#xA;* with small gadgets, how long do they last?&#xD;&#xA;* etc ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may well be that more often than not big brands win this race. But you make a smarter decision when you don't take 'expensive/branded' as a proxy for sustainability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="a997ffa2-0862-4e9f-8621-6b0f6bb1b31c" CreationDate="2015-03-04T17:01:05.853" UserId="1701" Text="And is there any reason to think that the replacement is any better than BPA itself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="a997ffa2-0862-4e9f-8621-6b0f6bb1b31c" CreationDate="2015-03-04T17:01:05.853" UserId="1701" Text="What did &quot;they&quot; replace BPA in plastics with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="a997ffa2-0862-4e9f-8621-6b0f6bb1b31c" CreationDate="2015-03-04T17:01:05.853" UserId="1701" Text="|plastic|toxic-chemicals|manufacturing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4349" RevisionGUID="782c2a58-641d-45ba-b00e-4c838527d6e1" CreationDate="2015-03-04T20:43:11.090" UserId="1937" Text="Re &quot;...the higher price of prestigious brands is usually dictated by costs such as craftsmanship, design and marketing...&quot;, I have to disagree, at least as a general rule.  Perhaps more is spent on marketing to convince the gullible that say a Cadillac Escalade is more &quot;prestigious&quot; than the virtually identical Chevy Tahoe, but will it really last longer or perform better?  You judge: http://carsort.com/compare/Cadillac-Escalade-vs-Chevrolet-Tahoe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or take jeans: will an expensive pair with some designer's logo on the butt really last longer or fit better than a pair of Levis or Wranglers?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="9319fe87-de7a-4f55-a7bc-aafc41fc2356" CreationDate="2015-03-04T20:46:38.833" UserId="1878" Comment="spelling, clarity" Text="No. Sometimes yes, but often enough no - so that looking at whether a brand is 'luxury' or 'supermarket' is not a good replacement for looking at the actual sustainability of the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't cite a single, unified source, but when I read independent test reports of a variety of products, price or the fact there's a recognised brand is a poor indicator of actual quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of using brands as guidelines, look at the factors that actually indicate how sustainable a product is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* With food, how is it grown?&#xD;&#xA;* with large electrical devices, how is power consumption?&#xD;&#xA;* with small gadgets, how long do they last?&#xD;&#xA;* etc ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may well be that more often than not big brands win this race. But you make a smarter decision when you don't take 'expensive/branded' as a proxy for sustainability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9256" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4347" RevisionGUID="9319fe87-de7a-4f55-a7bc-aafc41fc2356" CreationDate="2015-03-04T20:46:38.833" Comment="Proposed by 1878 approved by 96 edit id of 319" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="a8352b1a-1ccf-45e6-ab11-dbc3029e750d" CreationDate="2015-03-04T23:03:46.297" UserId="48" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="According to the [REN21 Renewables Global Status Report 2014][1], China had 91.4 GW of installed wind capacity by the end of 2013, more than any other country in the world, of which 75.5 GW was in commercial operation.  The USA had 61.6 GW of installed wind capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of actual generation from wind, the USA was world leader in 2013, with 19.4 GW mean power (170 TWh, IEA Energy Balances 2014); China was second, with 16.0 GW (140 TWh, REN21 Global Status Report 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for generation in 2014, the figures were:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [USA 20.75 GW (181.791 TWh)][2]&#xD;&#xA;- [China 18 GW (estimated, see my blog for more)][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4] REN21 GSR 2014&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Caveats&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is installed capacity, not electricity generated. Capacity factors (the ratio of mean power generated to installed capacity) vary over time, due to inter-annual variations in weather; they also vary by country. So just because one country had a higher installed capacity, does not always mean that it generated more electricity from wind. The IEA data (Renewables Information 2014) for 2013 says that the USA generated about more electricity from wind, in absolute terms, than China did (USA 19.4 GW mean power, China 16 GW mean power - the latter figure is from the REN21 GSR2014). **So in absolute numbers, of amount of electricity generation from wind, the USA was the world leader in 2013** (the most recent year for which comparable data is available). Higher capacity factors, less curtailment from transmission bottlenecks and grid controllers, and more readily available transmission infrastructure, are all parts of the explanation for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting trustworthy statistics out of China is very difficult: in many reports, you'll often find that the statistics from China come from personal correspondence with specific Chinese bureaucrats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, China does things differently to a lot of other countries, including the USA. In China, wind plants often get built before there's a suitable grid connection available for them: they build the transmission network once the windfarms are built. It usually works the other way around in the USA and many other countries. So GW of wind capacity installed can be measured on a different basis in different countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ren21.net/gsr&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_17_b&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://energynumbers.info/another-booming-year-chinese-renewables&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kyPP4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9258" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4336" RevisionGUID="2df90570-7ca6-4cb4-b522-e8c003d928f1" CreationDate="2015-03-04T23:59:09.853" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/573271494559715328" />
  <row Id="9261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4350" RevisionGUID="012fab4a-4edb-473e-b54f-0f1e747c2ac1" CreationDate="2015-03-05T01:03:52.460" UserId="2072" Text="As there are already two excellent answers I would just like to add what I found useful to monitor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Nate's answer suggests the energy produced per month is a good metric for keeping track of the PV systems status (supplemented by information provided by the inverter). And as the amount of energy is depending on multiple parameters and could not just be compared to the initial values of the system the comparison with other PV systems seems to be the most easy way. So if output data is made available by other PV owners and operators of the respective region this is a very simple yet pretty accurate estimate. The more PV systems contribute data to such a collection the more variations and degradation of single systems over time are averaged. (So this definitely calls for a citizen science project.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If those values are not available for the region of interest I'd prefer to use global solar radiation (global irradiance) as a monthly aggregated value that's a more meaningful number than just the hours of sunshine per month. (In Germany such data is reported by the [Deutscher Wetterdienst](http://www.dwd.de), but maybe they are also available from the US National Climatic Data Center or other national institutions.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4351" RevisionGUID="47ebbc92-a17d-499f-b6d9-33f9fc5739ab" CreationDate="2015-03-05T04:51:28.927" UserId="2089" Text="In addition to the tips from Evan:&#xD;&#xA;it is possible to combine water based heating systems with modern high efficient wood furnaces and stoves. The modern heating systems have an efficiency of about 80% or more and wood as fuel is ecological &amp; economic as well.&#xD;&#xA;The water is needed to store a high amount of heat (and to have hot water for your bathroom), but there exists also systems that have an integrated water - air heat exchanger so the heat is transferred to the air. The air is delivered by a the ventilation to all rooms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4352" RevisionGUID="2fff840d-11fa-462c-a129-b6aa7dfd6651" CreationDate="2015-03-05T06:19:09.850" UserId="2089" Text="I suggest the following:&lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1) Take a jug with a scale and fill it with water water. Measure the amount of water. That's the starting value.&lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2) Put a piece of wood inside the jug and let it swim. Measure at the scale the new volume. That value minus the starting value is the weight of the peace of wood.&lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3) Press the piece of wood under water an measure again the value at the scale. Thats the volume of the peace of wood.&lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4) Divide the weight and the volume to calculate the density. The density is directly connected to the content of moisture. &lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So let the water games begin :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="89c58498-81fe-415d-af81-4121b25908b8" CreationDate="2015-03-05T09:51:44.580" UserId="15" Text="My wife recently replaced the soap dish in our kitchen (and the soap on it) with a liquid soap dispenser. Within about a week, we've used about half the bottle of liquid soap, whereas solid bars of soap would tend to last a month or two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly the liquid soap is going to be far more expensive (unless we find a very cheap supply of it), but I'm interested in comparing other whole-of-life impacts that the two options have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume the liquid soap doesn't contain the common anti-bacterial agent &quot;triclosan&quot; (which has [it's own set of problems][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does one biodegrade better, or have a lower embodied energy, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-reasons-why-you-should-probably-stop-using-antibacterial-soap-180948078/?no-ist" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="89c58498-81fe-415d-af81-4121b25908b8" CreationDate="2015-03-05T09:51:44.580" UserId="15" Text="Whole-of-life impact of liquid soap vs solid bars of soap" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="89c58498-81fe-415d-af81-4121b25908b8" CreationDate="2015-03-05T09:51:44.580" UserId="15" Text="|cleaning|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2577" RevisionGUID="2e452d27-6d48-4d0e-aaa1-31f3768440aa" CreationDate="2015-03-05T10:50:51.220" UserId="812" Comment="oops." Text="This is a rather broad question, but in the comments the OP has specified that they are comparing cylindrical Fresnel lenses to &quot;normal&quot; Fresnel lenses. We can get some insight by considering things at a high level, and considering why lenses might be used on PV at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within its normal operating range, the relationship between the amount of light falling on a PV cell and the amount of electricity produced is roughly linear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/e0EPL.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; alt=&quot;Power curve for a PV cell&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of electricity produced also scales linearly with the area of the PV panel: more panel = more electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we put a concentrating lens above a PV panel, what we are effectively doing is collecting the light from a wide area and focussing it on a small bit of PV material. Given the two linear relationships above, all else being equal this should give a similar output to just covering the wider area with unconcentrated PV and doing away with the optics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advantage or disadvantage to concentrating optics must, then, lie in more detailed factors. For instance, it might be worth using optics to allow the use of a smaller quantity of more expensive PV material. On the other hand, concentrating the light on a small area also concentrates the heat, which must then be dealt with... there's an engineering optimisation to be done there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This allows us to come back to the question of cylindrical (linear) vs spherical lenses. Cylindrical lenses concentrate the incoming light in only one dimension. As such, they can be considered as a compromise between unconcentrated PV and full spherical lens arrays. They may also be cheaper to manufacture and install than large numbers of spherical lenses (but I have no evidence for this, and if microlens arrays are used for the spherical version, it may not be true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the exact intent of the question, you may also find the answers to [this question][2] on physics.SE to be of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78846/are-fresnel-lenses-widely-used-for-solar-electricity-if-not-why-not" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4354" RevisionGUID="4bd06f48-26da-406c-91b9-8cfc5eec157a" CreationDate="2015-03-05T14:11:32.767" UserId="2072" Text="While I have no clue which one does biodegrade better I'd like to focus on some other life-cycle aspects of liquid soap vs solid bars. But of course it's certain that liquid soaps (need to) contain substances that are simply not required for a bar of soap - such as emulsifying agents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Liquid soap contains added water and is therefore **heavier**. Transportation footprint is worse than solid bar - just to ship some water. (The same holds true for laundry detergents which are used in even greater amounts.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added packaging** for the liquid soap compared to simple wrapping for the bar. This is an issue with respect to weight (again for shipping), resource consumption for making plastic bottles (use of non-renewable petrol) and also considering necessary recycling efforts or disposal measures (landfills, ocean dumps).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4355" RevisionGUID="f0ffcb96-c99a-4329-8690-97f512833a5e" CreationDate="2015-03-05T21:18:34.473" UserId="1878" Text="Liquid soap can and should **be diluted**. As with toothpaste, manufacturers profit from consumers inadvertently using too much – often far too much. Dish soap in particular is usually sold explicitly as &quot;concentrated&quot;, but the sustainability gain from less bulk is lost unless consumers take great care to use tiny quantities. Dilution is much easier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Packaging can be reduced by opting for **refill bags** where available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, a couple of comparisons are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- between bar soap and bottled soap used carelessly&#xD;&#xA;- between bar soap and liquid soap bought in refill bags and diluted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="3cb99152-eb2e-486b-9cc6-c76d9971a037" CreationDate="2015-03-05T22:22:52.983" UserId="2096" Text="I'm looking to recycle used eyewear plastic lenses for a sculpture. I want to try to manipulate the plastic to give it a more organic look. I'm also concerned about toxic fumes, so I want to find the best/safe way to do this... if at all possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="3cb99152-eb2e-486b-9cc6-c76d9971a037" CreationDate="2015-03-05T22:22:52.983" UserId="2096" Text="Is there a way to melt down plastic lenses used for eyewear?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="3cb99152-eb2e-486b-9cc6-c76d9971a037" CreationDate="2015-03-05T22:22:52.983" UserId="2096" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4357" RevisionGUID="05035a78-6492-4fb2-a79d-ea7173472e44" CreationDate="2015-03-05T23:47:03.913" UserId="2072" Text="Both plastic lenses for glasses and for contact lenses could be made from a wide variety of materials. Polycarbonates (PC), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), thiourethanes, silicone hydrogels as well as myriads of other polymers come into play. See [Wikipedia/Glasses](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasses#Lens_materials) and [Wikipedia/Contact Lens](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_lens#Materials). Without knowing more about the materials to be used it will be hard to answer precisely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of those materials, e.g. PC and PMMA are thermoplastic or thermosoftening, thus more or less easily moldable when heated above a specific temperature. Toxic fumes due to chemical decomposition of the polymer as mentioned in the question could of course be an issue. Thermomolding therefore requires extensive air exchange (or preferably outdoor handling only) and careful heating to avoid excessive temperatures. To give an example: PMMA's melting point is around 160°C with the softening starting at even lower temperatures. Decomposing is reported to happen above 545 K (272°C) (see [Thermal Decomposition of Polymers](http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~ernesto/F2012/EP/MaterialsforStudents/Patel/Beyler_Hirschler_SFPE_Handbook_3.pdf)) which at least *suggests* that thermosoftening could be achieved without significant and hazardous decomposing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PC and PMMA could also be &quot;modified&quot; using solvents such as acetone. Again be sure to take care of precautionary actions wrt to inherents hazards of those solvents (especially flammability and toxicity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: I am by no means an expert in the field and therefore just reporting my opinion on the subject which should be treated as such." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9274" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="2487" RevisionGUID="c6f61bd1-b7c8-43eb-8a01-d5478af7da7e" CreationDate="2015-03-06T08:54:57.277" UserId="99" Comment="26" />
  <row Id="9275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4358" RevisionGUID="35ffd642-6f3d-4bb0-b77b-e5f921d514f6" CreationDate="2015-03-06T17:11:43.453" UserId="2097" Text="It is 9 degrees and front room space heater has quit. Thinking of taking kitchen space heater to front room and turning new elec oven on to protect plumbing. BRRR" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9276" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4358" RevisionGUID="35ffd642-6f3d-4bb0-b77b-e5f921d514f6" CreationDate="2015-03-06T17:11:43.453" UserId="2097" Text="Can I use new electric oven to protect kitchen plumbing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9277" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4358" RevisionGUID="35ffd642-6f3d-4bb0-b77b-e5f921d514f6" CreationDate="2015-03-06T17:11:43.453" UserId="2097" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4359" RevisionGUID="7c02c6ab-8ed8-4b51-8a5f-2b86e8b41114" CreationDate="2015-03-06T18:48:31.390" UserId="48" Text="Taking this as a question about how to stay warm without having the resource cost of replacing the space heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An electric oven is simply an electrical resistance heater in an insulated box. Sometimes with a fan. So probably not that different to your space heater. Running costs should be very similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll need to have the oven door open. And you'll need to keep an eye on it, and probably have the oven temperature turned down to its minimum - after all, a space heater would normally stop heating when its thermostat reaches 22&amp;deg;C or so, whereas an electric oven stops heating when its thermostat reaches, say. 200&amp;deg;C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing is that you can move a space heater around with you, to only heat the place you really need heating. Whereas ovens tend to be a lot less mobile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's not really a long-term viable solution. More of a stop-gap for a few hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that most components in your space heater are probably recyclable. It may need to be treated as electronic waste, if it has a circuit-board controller. And it may be possible to get it repaired rather than replaced, meaning much less material waste." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4360" RevisionGUID="6ce05cb0-bd4c-435f-b749-98fa9145acdf" CreationDate="2015-03-06T22:24:24.593" UserId="400" Text="Method 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally you want a material with a low taber number:  You want a material that is very reflective in the visible spectrum, but close to black in the infrared.  Try for paints that use titanium dioxide for the pigment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a flat roof, and water is cheap, put a pond on top.  Even 2 inches of water will absorb a lot of heat, and evaporate off.  It's possible that this would make a mosquito problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method 3.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put mist nozzles and a timer that turns them on on a regular basis, or uses a photocell that can tell the difference between a dry roof and a wet one.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4361" RevisionGUID="ee7186c5-6b76-48e3-9039-b536db5c8b85" CreationDate="2015-03-07T04:22:34.897" UserId="15" Text="I attended a protest against the TPPA today and found myself wondering about what biodegradable paint might work nicely for short term use, such as for a cardboard placard. A similar use for such paint might be for low-cost business signs, such as a small orchard shop (locally, these tend to have prices advertised on the road side for seasonal produce that's good value at the time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What sort of non-toxic paint might be appropriate? Bonus points if it's something that could be made with ingredients commonly found around the home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume that it doesn't matter if the paint isn't waterproof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4361" RevisionGUID="ee7186c5-6b76-48e3-9039-b536db5c8b85" CreationDate="2015-03-07T04:22:34.897" UserId="15" Text="Biodegradable paint for short term use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4361" RevisionGUID="ee7186c5-6b76-48e3-9039-b536db5c8b85" CreationDate="2015-03-07T04:22:34.897" UserId="15" Text="|diy|biodegradable-waste|safe-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="7083e870-4a9b-4f10-a73f-e6662e97ee1a" CreationDate="2015-03-07T06:23:08.327" UserId="318" Text="The Goal Zero PV panel is rated at 20 Watts. [**Specifications here**](http://www.goalzero.com/mobile/p/211/sherpa-100-solar-kit)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the [average insolation figures for Houston](http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/houston-texas.html)  &#xD;&#xA;The line in the 4th chart titled &quot;Insolation, kWh/m²/day&quot; gives the kWh per square meter per day ~= hours of equivalent full power sun.  You'll see that Houston average about 4 kWh/m^2/day. That means that an eg 20 W panel will produce about 4 x 20 = 80 Watt hours per day maximum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you average 4 hours of equivalent sun per day annually and if you use 100% of the panels output (which you won't) then at $0.12 unit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Watt-hours/day = 20 x 4 = 80 Wh = 0.08 kWh/day  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;kWh = units per year =  365 x 0.08 = 29.2 units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Value of energy in mains electricity equivalent at $0.12/unit = &#xD;&#xA;29.2 x $0.12 = $3.50&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That may sound wrong.  &#xD;&#xA;It is.  &#xD;&#xA;Actual amount will be less due to matching panel to load, not steering panel toward ssun etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Goal Zero has come close to achieving its goal - at least as far as the amount of energy provided goes. Such systems are valuable when grid power is not available but utterly uneconomic when grid power is present. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[FWIW: I design small solar lighting systems as part of my 'day job' so I'm confident that the results are 'in the order of correct']&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4363" RevisionGUID="8eb9f611-a0a7-4f2f-9c8e-e0caeffc9ae4" CreationDate="2015-03-07T06:28:55.987" UserId="318" Text="The more concentrated a solar collection system is, the narrower the angle over which it will accept useful energy. While the system that you describe sounds feasible, nobody who has designed systems of this sort has found it cost effective to use concentration ratios of more than about 2 to 3 to 1. Higher is possible but presumably the practical issues get too severe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of practical systems that do this are the many solar cookers with fold out mirrored or reflectorised flaps. These usually need to be moved a few times over the duration of a cooking session for optimum heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll find [**numerous real world examples here**](https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&amp;site=imghp&amp;tbm=isch&amp;source=hp&amp;biw=1920&amp;bih=1075&amp;q=solar+cooker&amp;oq=solar+cooker&amp;gs_l=img.3..0l10.2270.5117.0.5550.12.12.0.0.0.0.215.2096.2-10.10.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.62.img..2.10.2095.Qy7ct39kuis) - each image links to a page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9285" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="cbb3a759-08c4-4355-a103-df121badb817" CreationDate="2015-03-08T03:12:15.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/574407253215805440" />
  <row Id="9286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4364" RevisionGUID="f1d3be86-cec3-4052-bf35-3906c6fc7597" CreationDate="2015-03-08T16:02:43.580" UserId="2089" Text="is it really worth it..&#xD;&#xA;can mean something else as well:&lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;During the wintertime:&lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Lowering the temperature has (sometimes) a nice side effect - you will lose weight.&lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of heat given from the body to the room will increase (lowering the temperature from 21 to 19 °C) by 15 % (in comparison for a normal adult person in a resting phase). This energy is created inside your body and so fat gets burned without doing any sport at all.&lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, you won't catch a flu easier by lowering the room temperature.&#xD;&#xA;To get exposed to lower temperatures during the winter time is what our body has dealt with throughout history and is a more natural way of living.&lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;But please, don't over exaggerate this process.&lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You can still feel comfortable using a blanket for a while .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information here: http://www.uni-magdeburg.de/isut/TV/Download/Der_Mensch_als_waermetechnisches_System.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="52832484-211a-42f8-acc8-9dd474b02346" CreationDate="2015-03-08T22:39:58.143" UserId="279" Comment="easier to read formulas" Text="The Goal Zero PV panel is rated at 20 Watts. [**Specifications here**](http://www.goalzero.com/mobile/p/211/sherpa-100-solar-kit)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the [average insolation figures for Houston](http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/houston-texas.html)  &#xD;&#xA;The line in the 4th chart titled &quot;Insolation, kWh/m²/day&quot; gives the kWh per square meter per day ~= hours of equivalent full power sun.  You'll see that Houston average about 4 kWh/m^2/day. That means that an eg 20 W panel will produce about 4 x 20 = 80 Watt hours per day maximum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you average 4 hours of equivalent sun per day annually and if you use 100% of the panels output (which you won't) then at $0.12 unit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;    Watt-hours/day = 20 x 4 = 80 Wh = 0.08 kWh/day&#xA;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;    kWh = units per year =  365 x 0.08 = 29.2 units.&#xA;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;    Value of energy in mains electricity equivalent at $0.12/unit = &#xD;&#xA;    29.2 x $0.12 = $3.50&#xA;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That may sound wrong.  &#xD;&#xA;It is.  &#xD;&#xA;Actual amount will be less due to matching panel to load, not steering panel toward ssun etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Goal Zero has come close to achieving its goal - at least as far as the amount of energy provided goes. Such systems are valuable when grid power is not available but utterly uneconomic when grid power is present. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[FWIW: I design small solar lighting systems as part of my 'day job' so I'm confident that the results are 'in the order of correct']&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9288" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="52832484-211a-42f8-acc8-9dd474b02346" CreationDate="2015-03-08T22:39:58.143" Comment="Proposed by 279 approved by -1 edit id of 320" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4362" RevisionGUID="2f274342-aadb-450b-a981-ff2e7f9fd52e" CreationDate="2015-03-08T22:39:58.143" UserId="812" Comment="easier to read formulas" Text="The Goal Zero PV panel is rated at 20 Watts. [**Specifications here**](http://www.goalzero.com/mobile/p/211/sherpa-100-solar-kit)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the [average insolation figures for Houston](http://www.gaisma.com/en/location/houston-texas.html)  &#xD;&#xA;The line in the 4th chart titled &quot;Insolation, kWh/m²/day&quot; gives the kWh per square meter per day ~= hours of equivalent full power sun.  You'll see that Houston average about 4 kWh/m^2/day. That means that an eg 20 W panel will produce about 4 x 20 = 80 Watt hours per day maximum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you average 4 hours of equivalent sun per day annually and if you use 100% of the panels output (which you won't) then at $0.12 unit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Watt-hours/day = 20 x 4 = 80 Wh = 0.08 kWh/day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    kWh = units per year =  365 x 0.08 = 29.2 units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Value of energy in mains electricity equivalent at $0.12/unit = &#xD;&#xA;    29.2 x $0.12 = $3.50&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That may sound wrong.  &#xD;&#xA;It is.  &#xD;&#xA;Actual amount will be less due to matching panel to load, not steering panel toward ssun etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Goal Zero has come close to achieving its goal - at least as far as the amount of energy provided goes. Such systems are valuable when grid power is not available but utterly uneconomic when grid power is present. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[FWIW: I design small solar lighting systems as part of my 'day job' so I'm confident that the results are 'in the order of correct']&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4365" RevisionGUID="6aef5407-8ca7-4c5c-bdec-359f02f213e5" CreationDate="2015-03-09T18:00:55.420" UserId="2089" Text="For achieving an efficiency of  90 % for a stove you need a very sophisticated technology. &lt;Br&gt; You need at least a lambda measurement and a controlled air supply and a computer to regulate the burning process very carefully. Then it's possible to achieve an oxygen amount of 9 % and a temperature of 180 °C. This exhaust composition results in an efficiency of 90 %&lt;Br&gt; &#xD;&#xA;But sorry, that's not a rocket stove. &lt;Br&gt;Normally the average amount of oxygen in the exhaust of a good, modern oven is about 13 %. Less oxygen results in the production of CO (dangerous compound).&#xD;&#xA;Without a sophisticated technology and with a normal oven, that gets his amount of air by a natural way from low pressure inside the hot chimney it's possible to have an efficiency of about 70%.&lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For the described high tech stove you an expert for maintenace cause he has to check your stove more often to make sure that the technology is functioning well to do no harm to yourself or your neighbourhood.&#xD;&#xA;To use wood in a modern but &quot;normal&quot; stove means that you increase the efficiency from 50 to 70-75 %. So this approach is certainly a good and environmental friendly way to heat your home. &lt;Br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The efficiency of an oven depends on the temperature of the exhaus and the amount of oxygen. You can calculate the efficiency of a stove yourself here.&#xD;&#xA;http://www.normatherm.com/Abgasberechnung.php&#xD;&#xA;This tool is in german but essentially self explaining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="2c4b5afc-be2c-4882-8e8c-dbfe928527d8" CreationDate="2015-03-09T19:42:50.650" UserId="2096" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="I'm looking to recycle used eyewear plastic lenses for a sculpture. I want to try to manipulate the plastic to give it a more organic look. I'm also concerned about toxic fumes, so I want to find the best/safe way to do this... if at all possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have several different types of lenses that I'm using. They are acrylic, CR-39 and Polycarbonate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried putting the c-39's in a toaster oven but it just crackled them to the point where they broke apart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="8fd71425-3e96-4aa6-9bec-d0abb28333eb" CreationDate="2015-03-09T20:11:21.330" UserId="2096" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="I'm looking to recycle used eyewear plastic lenses for a sculpture. I want to try to manipulate the plastic to give it a more organic look. I'm also concerned about toxic fumes, so I want to find the best/safe way to do this... if at all possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have several different types of lenses that I'm using. They are acrylic, CR-39 and Polycarbonate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried putting the c-39's in a toaster oven but it just crackled them to the point where they broke apart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FYI: I'm using the material for a sculpture that I'm creating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4366" RevisionGUID="e4d88a26-2373-49fa-ad31-d851a799dac3" CreationDate="2015-03-10T20:43:19.607" UserId="2103" Text="In those envelopes paper is often glued pretty well to bubble wrap portion, making it hard to separate. On top of that bubble wrap itself is seldom recycled - for example in my area of Ontario, Canada it does not qualify for curb-side pick up of recyclables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any environmentally friendly ways to dispose of those?&#xD;&#xA;I would not buy them, but when you order online,  usually you do not have a choice on how the merchandise will be packed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9294" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4366" RevisionGUID="e4d88a26-2373-49fa-ad31-d851a799dac3" CreationDate="2015-03-10T20:43:19.607" UserId="2103" Text="How to properly dispose of bubble wrap envelopes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9295" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4366" RevisionGUID="e4d88a26-2373-49fa-ad31-d851a799dac3" CreationDate="2015-03-10T20:43:19.607" UserId="2103" Text="|recycling|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4367" RevisionGUID="1d34bd90-14d0-4303-9f2f-511ba33b563d" CreationDate="2015-03-11T00:10:47.187" UserId="399" Text="Not an exact answer to what you're asking, but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Re-use them!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re-using is almost always better than recycling, since recycling isn't 'free' (it still takes energy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They take up little space, you can save them for years, you don't have to go to the post-office when you *do* need them, and it saves you some money!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9298" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4366" RevisionGUID="e4be8622-699b-4243-90ab-220b8c726148" CreationDate="2015-03-11T15:20:35.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/575677707427708929" />
  <row Id="9299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="7db5eb32-a462-433f-be4c-07742dd996e4" CreationDate="2015-03-11T20:46:50.240" UserId="2106" Text="I decided to avoid buying clothes that have a non negligible probability of being made in on-ethical conditions, e.g. by people younger than 15 years old, or working more than 12h a days. When not buying in ethical shops, I look at the label and see the &quot;Made in ...&quot; information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, which countries are acceptable ? All EU seems acceptable to me, and US as well, but besides I don't know. Is Mexico or North-African countries little likely to host sweatshops, or is it a big problem ? I heard that Turkey used to be very bad but passed some law to secure the workers, but I don't know if they are really applied. East Asia is definitly a no-no. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="7db5eb32-a462-433f-be4c-07742dd996e4" CreationDate="2015-03-11T20:46:50.240" UserId="2106" Text="Which country produces clothes in an ethical way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="7db5eb32-a462-433f-be4c-07742dd996e4" CreationDate="2015-03-11T20:46:50.240" UserId="2106" Text="|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9302" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4368" RevisionGUID="6113cf3b-1818-468d-b6cc-86e974be5b52" CreationDate="2015-03-12T09:23:23.923" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/575950203846533121" />
  <row Id="9303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4369" RevisionGUID="c1fa46ba-6311-44ec-a573-9c71ce17aabb" CreationDate="2015-03-12T11:00:02.263" UserId="99" Text="First of all, most companies aren't willing to tell you which substances they use in their packaging and even if they do not all substances have been researched intensively to rule out any harmful effects. This being said, it seems that for plastics a common replacement for BPA is BPS, a molecule that is rather similar to BPA. According to [this article in the Scientific American](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-free-plastic-containers-may-be-just-as-hazardous/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recent research reveals that a common BPA replacement, bisphenol S (BPS), may be just as harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a variety of other solutions are also being used or are currently under investigation. Which solution is suitable depends on how and where the plastic is used. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - for the linings of cans with low-acidic foods oleaoresin a.k.a R-Enamel (a mixture of oil and plant extracts) is now often used. Note that for high-acidic foods this is not an option. That's also why most canned tomatoes still have an BPA-contaning epoxy on the inside. More info [here](http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i6/Clear-Winner-Race-Find-Non.html)&#xD;&#xA;  - replacing plastic bottles with TetraPak containers (which have a polyethylene inside)&#xD;&#xA;  - for thermal paper/receipts biobased alternatives like derivatives of [gallic acid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_acid) and [diphenolic acid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphenolic_acid) are currently being assessed ([source](http://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=rivmp:270391&amp;type=org&amp;disposition=inline&amp;ns_nc=1))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK, no harmful effects have been found for these alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article](http://www.calwic.org/storage/documents/state/2010/bpa_alternatives.pdf) also list some other alternatives,&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4369" RevisionGUID="a9e003fe-162d-4901-b73d-3a20b19121d2" CreationDate="2015-03-12T12:03:17.643" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="First of all, most companies aren't willing to tell you which substances they use in their packaging and even if they do not all substances have been researched intensively to rule out any harmful effects. This means that a precise answer to your question is difficult. This being said, it seems that for plastics a common replacement for BPA is BPS, a molecule that is rather similar to BPA. According to [this article in the Scientific American](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-free-plastic-containers-may-be-just-as-hazardous/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recent research reveals that a common BPA replacement, bisphenol S (BPS), may be just as harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a variety of other solutions are also being used or are currently under investigation. Which solution is suitable depends on how and where the BPA was used. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - for the linings of cans containing low-acidic foods oleaoresin a.k.a R-Enamel (a mixture of oil and plant extracts) is now often used. Note that for high-acidic foods this is not an option. That's also why most canned tomatoes still have a BPA-containing epoxy on the inside. More info [here](http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i6/Clear-Winner-Race-Find-Non.html)&#xD;&#xA;  - replacing plastic bottles with TetraPak containers (which have a polyethylene inside)&#xD;&#xA;  - for thermal paper/receipts biobased alternatives like derivatives of [gallic acid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_acid) and [diphenolic acid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphenolic_acid) are currently being assessed ([source](http://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=rivmp:270391&amp;type=org&amp;disposition=inline&amp;ns_nc=1))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK, no harmful effects have been found for these alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article](http://www.calwic.org/storage/documents/state/2010/bpa_alternatives.pdf) also list some other alternatives to BPA,&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9305" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="7a667405-6668-4a8d-bba6-ac07ec2449a3" CreationDate="2015-03-12T13:22:57.147" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/41544/relationship-between-number-of-public-rubbish-bins-and-mswmunicipal-solid-waste" />
  <row Id="9306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="c1ea1755-3377-4360-a060-9147e0e6b12e" CreationDate="2015-03-12T10:02:04.750" UserDisplayName="伍柒貳" Text="Is there any research really about the relationship between the number of public rubbish bins and MSW? Any studies about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do municipalities with less public rubbish bins tend to produce less MSW? Due to the &quot;Culture of Convenience&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any examples about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need those answers quite bad, any possible suggestions will be appreciated, Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9307" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="c1ea1755-3377-4360-a060-9147e0e6b12e" CreationDate="2015-03-12T10:02:04.750" UserDisplayName="伍柒貳" Text="Relationship between number of public rubbish bins and MSW(municipal Solid Waste) among countries and areas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9308" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="c1ea1755-3377-4360-a060-9147e0e6b12e" CreationDate="2015-03-12T10:02:04.750" UserDisplayName="伍柒貳" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4371" RevisionGUID="33533ccb-2990-472f-b105-824c0e92d86b" CreationDate="2015-03-12T19:52:15.470" UserId="986" Text="My dining room lights are shown in the pictures. I have two of those fixtures, with 3 bulbs each. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) On the plastic chandelier it says &quot;MAX 40W&quot;, but the lamps that when I first arrived in the flat are 42W 240V (see picture below). Why? Is that a problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1] &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) I would like to reduce the electricity consumption. What is the best option out there in terms of energy saving? And in terms of quality/price?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5pupgm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DyIiHm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4371" RevisionGUID="33533ccb-2990-472f-b105-824c0e92d86b" CreationDate="2015-03-12T19:52:15.470" UserId="986" Text="Energy saving lamps suggestion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4371" RevisionGUID="33533ccb-2990-472f-b105-824c0e92d86b" CreationDate="2015-03-12T19:52:15.470" UserId="986" Text="|electricity|energy-efficiency|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4372" RevisionGUID="c1d264ce-370f-4e27-a925-1e889c1f96dc" CreationDate="2015-03-13T13:00:53.420" UserId="812" Text="The wattage given on the fixture refers to the maximum that can safely be used. That will be dictated by two things: The internal wiring of the fixture, and the heat that it can tolerate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality the additional 6W of the three 42W lamps that you are using is probably not going to be a problem, but it would be wrong of me to advise you that it's OK - you are drawing more power than the fixture is rated for, and so it is potentially unsafe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as you have noted, it's expensive ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this fitting was designed, it was probably intended for 40W incandescent tungsten lamps. What you seem to have there are 42W incandescent tungsten-halogen lamps (often simply known as &quot;halogen&quot;). They were probably be marketed as &quot;energy saving&quot;, as they are intended to replace 60W non-halogen lamps, but in your case are using roughly the same amount of energy to give more light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you will need to consider whether you need as much light as you are getting at present, or whether you can cope with something dimmer. Then there are three options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Tungsten halogen lamps of a lower wattage. These will give you less light, and cost you proportionately less to run, but are still relatively inefficient. They are dimmable, and if the fitting is one where the lamps are visible (which isn't clear from your pictures), they are a point source with the &quot;sparkle&quot; that you are used to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Compact fluorescent lamps. You could choose ones that would give as much light as you have at present, but with less electricity. They would cost less to run. In most cases they would not be dimmable, and they would give a diffuse light rather than a point source. Care would also be needed to find ones that fitted in the light fixture, since they tend to be larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. LED lamps. A few years ago I would have said &quot;avoid&quot;, but these are just becoming good for general home use, and I have a number myself. You could choose ones that would give as much light as you have at present, but with less electricity. They would cost less to run (although significantly more to buy). Depending on the model they might or might not be dimmable, and they might offer a diffuse source or group of &quot;sparkly&quot; point sources. As with compact fluorescents, care would be needed re the physical dimensions.&#xD;&#xA;Beware when buying these, because there are an awful lot of cheap ones around that are dim, or have a nasty colour, or are fine for a few months but then stop working / go dim / develop a nasty colour. It's worth paying £10+ per lamp for a well-known manufacturer such as Osram, Philips, GE. Even from the reputable names there are still some older models that give a nasty colour of light, and it's not always possible to tell in from specifications - so buy one and use it for a few weeks to see how you find it, before spending money on more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first choice would probably be the LED option, given the caveats above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4373" RevisionGUID="a3c766d5-7ed0-41ee-8e78-5a49eeaf6a40" CreationDate="2015-03-13T18:37:37.620" UserId="2082" Text="I think it would be milk paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.milkpaint.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Milk Paint receives USDA Biobased Certification&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Safe for MCS, Hospitals, Children's things and the Environment &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4374" RevisionGUID="02a3ca79-d657-4089-82ad-e63aa6972070" CreationDate="2015-03-16T10:40:06.393" UserId="1078" Text="Counties does not produce clothes, people do, companies do but not countries.&#xD;&#xA;My answer is if you want to buy ethical stuff (whatever it means) - buy local stuff where you can see people who made it and check production process, supplying chain and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For sure you'll find &quot;unethical clothes&quot; MADE IN DENMARK and &quot;ethical clothes&quot; MADE IN CHINA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4374" RevisionGUID="505ee354-445f-4a8f-9e5e-836a88f7fdd3" CreationDate="2015-03-17T11:13:36.200" UserId="1078" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Counties do not produce clothes, people do, companies do but not countries.&#xD;&#xA;My answer is if you want to buy ethical stuff (whatever it means) - buy local stuff where you can see people who made it and check production process, supplying chain and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For sure you'll find &quot;unethical clothes&quot; MADE IN DENMARK and &quot;ethical clothes&quot; MADE IN CHINA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3114" RevisionGUID="0fb41411-651c-4087-99e9-34ef36296992" CreationDate="2015-03-17T16:38:43.200" UserId="1792" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="After reading carefully about the question on internet and how other have fix their glass' frame, It is known that acetate frames (or any other thing made of Acetate) can be &quot;melt&quot; using Acetone. You must be sure that your frame are made of pure acetate, which was my case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. I dipped both broken parts into acetone for about 2 minutes&#xD;&#xA;2. I sticked them together with little bit of hand pressure during 1 minute or so&#xD;&#xA;3. Then, I carefully placed my frame on a flat surface&#xD;&#xA;4. 24 hour later, it has sticked and really, it's hard as it used to (even more I think).&#xD;&#xA;5. With my finger, I just flattered surface with a bit of acetone to make it soft and TADAM!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **Warning** : Be careful because in my case, because it was related to glasses, it is really not recommended to do this for a long time usage. Do this for a &quot;temporary&quot; repair until you buy some glasses back really soon. Angles are really important in case of prescription glasses. Unless you are a professional and/or you have correct tools, you are not able to replicate the exact angle as your frame had for your very needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, carefuly handles acetone... it is known to be toxic. Wash you hands and frame once you finished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu9v5UffIJ0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="b176c498-fc3b-40ef-8a48-0b7b604781f0" CreationDate="2015-03-18T01:50:28.423" UserId="20" Text="I see with some high end housing construction the use of copper for gutters and drain pipes as well as roofs and flashing.  Is using copper where it will be exposed to water runoff from rain a good choice?  Will the copper oxide dissolve into the water and create copper pollution wherever the water runs off to?  What about longevity, is copper a long lived building material solution?  If copper is not a good choice due to durability or pollution, what are some better options that a high end house might be built with?  Aluminum, galvanized steel, etc.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="b176c498-fc3b-40ef-8a48-0b7b604781f0" CreationDate="2015-03-18T01:50:28.423" UserId="20" Text="Is using copper for gutters and roofs a sustainable choice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="b176c498-fc3b-40ef-8a48-0b7b604781f0" CreationDate="2015-03-18T01:50:28.423" UserId="20" Text="|building-materials|pollution|water-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4376" RevisionGUID="7d510b42-25bf-4cdc-bc79-b7057cd7cc0d" CreationDate="2015-03-18T07:35:37.930" UserId="15" Text="**Availability in the long term**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You didn't include in your list a mention of how available copper will be in the future; this matters, for sustainability, because we can't afford to be using it for guttering if we're about to run out of copper ore. It is a very important metal for other purposes, such as electrical components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has a good article on the concept of &quot;[peak copper][1]&quot; which does make it clear we have a pretty good reserve of it still, despite a prediction in 1924 that it will soon run out and &quot;Our civilization based on electrical power will dwindle and die&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For guttering, the price of copper does matter, because if it becomes expensive it becomes highly desirable to steal. This already happens in New Zealand with copper hot water cylinders occasionally. The risk of theft is also heavily dependent on location, culture &amp; local law enforcement of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Health Benefits?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently [copper is anti-microbial][2] but stainless steel is not. I'm not sure about other metal options for guttering, such as zinc galvanised steel (zinc is mentioned at the same link as being anti-microbial). Even if the copper itself is safe, in some cases it may be healthier to have the microbes present (it helps us build immunity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll leave the longevity &amp; pollution aspects of the question to others who know more about that side of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_copper&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_properties_of_copper" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9321" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="9238283d-ee96-4c5e-8697-52b4207ec9b0" CreationDate="2015-03-18T18:33:49.550" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/578263050786078722" />
  <row Id="9326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4378" RevisionGUID="b6ee5f89-79c8-4c38-8651-a797ce5618fc" CreationDate="2015-03-20T23:15:30.700" UserId="2118" Text="Copper for such a use could potentially be a health risk to those succeptable to things like hepatolenticular degeneration. This depends on how much copper is already present in the soil, what type of well is being used, whether the water is being treated before consumption, and many other factors. Sustainable though? Might depend on what the chemical makeup of your rainwater is. Where I'm at, it would react rather quickly. Some people like patina though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9327" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4378" RevisionGUID="b615920a-fe1d-429a-962c-5a3eb92de582" CreationDate="2015-03-20T23:15:43.977" UserId="2118" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2118,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Patrick Kelly&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9328" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4378" RevisionGUID="e5d6499d-4d97-4597-a71b-c6a25f7a208a" CreationDate="2015-03-20T23:16:00.050" UserId="2118" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2118,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Patrick Kelly&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4379" RevisionGUID="314f9fc7-d257-401f-8ada-92c73c738cfc" CreationDate="2015-03-21T13:08:50.353" UserId="2063" Text="A long-term consideration is increased condensation from cooler air in the far corners of rooms, which encourages fungal colonies.  These are bad for health and eventually expensive to treat.  Keeping a constant temperature diminishes the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9330" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="8051c56d-a2cf-4d79-8d2e-56c1cf9ae601" CreationDate="2015-03-24T13:10:05.087" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/580355905423863808" />
  <row Id="9331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="eab00d19-6543-470c-903a-ff8e821e5363" CreationDate="2015-03-25T09:23:19.130" UserId="936" Text="How to keep a small room cool using wet curtains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hypothesize that Keeping curtains wet continously will help in cooling a room through rapid evaporation with indoor fan set at full speed. So how to accompalish this and will it really keep the room cool for the following parameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The room is closed with ventilation to prevent hot air from outside&#xD;&#xA;   coming inside the room during day time&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - The area is humid tropical region - Coastal India&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Fan is at full speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The size of the room is 15ft * 15 ft , height is 16ft&#xD;&#xA; - Dark Curtain to make wet is on one wall having size 10 ft * 5 ft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on above I need to know 1) Will wet curtain really help in reducing the temperature of the room or keep us cool? if yes(I assume Yes after some research on this) then how to maintain wet curtains without  manually keeping the curtain wet , I envision keeping it wet using an irrigation drip system , but are there any simpler mechanisms ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="eab00d19-6543-470c-903a-ff8e821e5363" CreationDate="2015-03-25T09:23:19.130" UserId="936" Text="How to keep a small room cool using wet curtains?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="eab00d19-6543-470c-903a-ff8e821e5363" CreationDate="2015-03-25T09:23:19.130" UserId="936" Text="|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="8697879c-586b-41c8-8830-78d3209c619a" CreationDate="2015-03-25T09:28:39.640" UserId="936" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="How to keep a small room cool using wet curtains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hypothesize that Keeping curtains wet continously will help in cooling a room through [rapid evaporation][1] with indoor fan set at full speed. So how to accompalish this and will it really keep the room cool for the following parameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The room is closed with ventilation to prevent hot air from outside&#xD;&#xA;   coming inside the room during day time&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - The area is humid tropical region - Coastal India&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Fan is at full speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The size of the room is 15ft * 15 ft , height is 16ft&#xD;&#xA; - Dark Curtain to make wet is on one wall having size 10 ft * 5 ft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on above I need to know 1) Will wet curtain really help in reducing the temperature of the room or keep us cool? if yes(I assume Yes after some research on this) then how to maintain wet curtains without  manually keeping the curtain wet , I envision keeping it wet using an irrigation drip system , but are there any simpler mechanisms ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gothicarchgreenhouses.com/greenhouse_cooling.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4381" RevisionGUID="3307c7bf-311a-4cf6-ae92-74bda150baf6" CreationDate="2015-03-25T10:31:42.160" UserId="15" Text="With the given parameters, the idea won't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To provide continued cooling, the water blown onto the curtains needs to be able to evaporate water. Without a ongoing supply of fresh air that is below its maximum humidity for its temperature, the humidity will quickly reach an equilibrium point and then will no longer cool at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to use fresh air (that isn't already at its maximum humidity) blown over a wet curtain, then you would obtain a supply of cooled air using evaporation. A heat exchange or heat pump system could still make use of that, but unfortunately both those systems tend to be either inefficient or expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fresh air feels cooler to our skin when it is able to evaporate some sweat, so simply having a flow of fresh air that goes past the inhabitants may be the simplest solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="f09d2bac-0357-4707-924f-1c55db50af18" CreationDate="2015-03-25T10:36:03.970" UserId="936" Comment="added 112 characters in body" Text="How to keep a small room cool using wet curtains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hypothesize that Keeping curtains wet continously will help in cooling a room through [rapid evaporation][1] with indoor fan set at full speed. So how to accompalish this and will it really keep the room cool for the following parameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The room is closed with ventilation to prevent hot air from outside&#xD;&#xA;   coming inside the room during day time. The door of the room is open facing another room which is has only one small window open for the same reasons.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - The area is humid tropical region - Coastal India&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Fan is at full speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The size of the room is 15ft * 15 ft , height is 16ft&#xD;&#xA; - Dark Curtain to make wet is on one wall having size 10 ft * 5 ft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on above I need to know 1) Will wet curtain really help in reducing the temperature of the room or keep us cool? if yes(I assume Yes after some research on this) then how to maintain wet curtains without  manually keeping the curtain wet , I envision keeping it wet using an irrigation drip system , but are there any simpler mechanisms ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gothicarchgreenhouses.com/greenhouse_cooling.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="df0a101a-08b3-4043-a115-b45a119606e7" CreationDate="2015-03-25T10:45:45.423" UserId="936" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="How to keep a small room cool using wet curtains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hypothesize that Keeping curtains wet continuously will help in cooling a room through [rapid evaporation][1] with indoor celing fan set at full speed. So how to accomplish this and will it really keep the room cool for the following parameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The room is closed to prevent hot air from outside&#xD;&#xA;   coming inside the room during day time. The door of the room is open facing another room which  has only one small window open for the same reasons. I bigger room is generally cooler (we dont know why) and has one small window open which supplies fresh outside air passing through green plants.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - The area is humid tropical region - Coastal India&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The ceiling Fan is at full speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The size of the room is 15ft * 15 ft , height is 16ft&#xD;&#xA; - Dark Curtain to make wet is on one wall having size 10 ft * 5 ft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on above I need to know 1) Will wet curtain really help in reducing the temperature of the room or keep us cool during daytime? if yes(I assume Yes after some research on this) then how to maintain wet curtains without  manually keeping the curtain wet , I envision keeping it wet using an irrigation drip system , but are there any simpler mechanisms ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gothicarchgreenhouses.com/greenhouse_cooling.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9338" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="8fdb6610-f15c-4882-835f-bb616dd82316" CreationDate="2015-03-25T10:46:23.243" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/4565/can-the-uk-be-powered-practically-by-100-renewables" />
  <row Id="9339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="12f62390-2b6d-42ae-829f-ed2c29535347" CreationDate="2015-03-22T13:45:39.033" UserId="2133" UserDisplayName="Enchanter" Text="Taking into consideration the landmass of the whole of the United Kingdom, areas of open country where windfarms could be placed, areas of country designated as wildlife havens and also areas of particular scenic beauty or with notable wildlife such as raptors where windfarms or renewable energy aquisition sources should not be placed. And taking into consideration the population of the whole of the UK, the number of households and businesses and the average electricity consumption of each, could the UK presently sustain itself entirely from renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar) and not coal, oil and gas? Also I consider nuclear sources as non-renewable as they do produce harmful waste and do consume fuel albeit in a much more efficient manner than fossil fuels.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="12f62390-2b6d-42ae-829f-ed2c29535347" CreationDate="2015-03-22T13:45:39.033" UserId="2133" UserDisplayName="Enchanter" Text="Can The UK Be Powered Practically By 100% Renewables?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="12f62390-2b6d-42ae-829f-ed2c29535347" CreationDate="2015-03-22T13:45:39.033" UserId="2133" UserDisplayName="Enchanter" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="a920005d-bae5-497a-a00b-7316304bdb2f" CreationDate="2015-03-25T10:56:55.807" UserId="936" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="How to keep a small room cool using wet curtains?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hypothesize that Keeping curtains wet continuously will help in cooling a room through [rapid evaporation][1] with indoor celing fan set at full speed. So how to accomplish this and will it really keep the room cool for the following parameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The room is closed to prevent hot air from outside&#xD;&#xA;   coming inside the room during day time. The door of the room is open facing another bigger room which  has only one small window open for the same reasons. The bigger room is generally cooler (we dont know why) and has one small window open which supplies fresh outside air passing through green plants. And the bigger room also has a full speed ceiling fan.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - The area is humid tropical region - Coastal India&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The ceiling Fan is at full speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The size of the room is 15ft * 15 ft , height is 16ft&#xD;&#xA; - Dark Curtain to make wet is on one wall having size 10 ft * 5 ft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on above I need to know 1) Will wet curtain really help in reducing the temperature of the room or keep us cool during daytime? if yes(I assume Yes after some research on this) then how to maintain wet curtains without  manually keeping the curtain wet , I envision keeping it wet using an irrigation drip system , but are there any simpler mechanisms ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gothicarchgreenhouses.com/greenhouse_cooling.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9343" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="f18e383e-6e71-4413-b735-b97516d3b29e" CreationDate="2015-03-25T11:08:42.090" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9344" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="32de20b8-7e0e-49d8-a17d-c98a5d9a1515" CreationDate="2015-03-25T11:09:12.433" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9345" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="d03e2f50-875c-440d-b648-ae34ea675582" CreationDate="2015-03-25T11:09:28.627" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="|careers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="5f88af56-c822-4d5d-a681-cc19f6b91320" CreationDate="2015-03-25T11:57:04.057" UserId="936" Comment="deleted 53 characters in body" Text="I hypothesize that Keeping curtains wet continuously will help in cooling a room through [rapid evaporation][1] with indoor celing fan set at full speed. So how to accomplish this and will it really keep the room cool for the following parameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The room is closed to prevent hot air from outside&#xD;&#xA;   coming inside the room during day time. The door of the room is open facing another bigger room which  has only one small window open for the same reasons. The bigger room is generally cooler (we dont know why) and has one small window open which supplies fresh outside air passing through green plants. And the bigger room also has a full speed ceiling fan.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - The area is humid tropical region - Coastal India&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The ceiling Fan is at full speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The size of the room is 15ft * 15 ft , height is 16ft&#xD;&#xA; - Dark Curtain to make wet is on one wall having size 10 ft * 5 ft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on above I need to know 1) Will wet curtain really help in reducing the temperature of the room or keep us cool during daytime? if yes(I assume Yes after some research on this) then how to maintain wet curtains without  manually keeping the curtain wet , I envision keeping it wet using an irrigation drip system , but are there any simpler mechanisms ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gothicarchgreenhouses.com/greenhouse_cooling.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4383" RevisionGUID="e74ff5a4-ed00-4f38-879e-2e4cb94d6625" CreationDate="2015-03-25T18:15:49.397" UserId="48" Text="#Summary: yes, the UK can be powered practically by 100% renewables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically it's fairly straightforward. Subject to some fairly reasonable assumptions, and the commercialisation of technology that's already proven in the labs, it's also economically efficient too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total UK energy demand is about 200 GW, of which 40 GW is presently served by electricity. (source: DUKES 2014)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know how efficient wind, PV and biomass can get, in terms of yield per unit surface area, as it's never been an issue: surface availability is not a constraint: cost and permissions are the constraints. So if we take existing yields per unit surface area, we are erring on the safe side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###offshore wind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Offshore wind yields are of the order of 2 or 3 Watts per square metre, averaged out over time: that's equivalent to 2-3 GW per thousand  km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. That's not installed nameplate capacity, that average delivered power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting offshore wind equivalent to that 40 GW of current electricity demand would require 13 to 20 thousand  km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of surface area. And for 200 GW, that would require 67 to 100 thousand  km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of surface area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The surface area of the UK's seas, the Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ, is about 770 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, so at the very most we're talking about less than 15% of the EEZ, even if we had no land-based renewables at all, no energy efficiency improvements, and no increase in energy yields per unit area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###onshore wind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now onshore wind and PV are both cheaper than offshore wind, so there are good reasons to use those as well as offshore wind; the onshore resoure is smaller - various estimates put it at between 20GW and 50GW average output, at about 2GW per thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Hence 20GW would be 10 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, and 50GW would be 25 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. The UK's surface area is just over 240 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, so we're talking about 4-10% of UK land area. Easy enough to avoid Areas of Outstanding National Beauty, and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###solar photovoltaics&#xD;&#xA;The photovoltaics resource is huge, even in cloudy old Britain. The limiting factor on PV isn't available area: it's that its generation is concentrated in spring to autumn, with very low supply in winter, when energy demand is highest. Integrating PV is pretty easy up to the point where capacity is equal to average demand; actual average output would be about one-tenth of that. So, integrating 4-20 GW of PV output is fairly straightforward (taking demand to be in the range of 40 GW of present electricity demand to 200 GW of present all-energy demand). PV generates at about 5W per m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, equivalent to 5GW per thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. And so we're talking about 1-4 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, i.e less than 2% of UK land area, and absolutely no need to put PV on land currently used for growing food crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###balancing demand and supply, and electricity versus other vectors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there's really no shortage of energy there for the UK to harness: there's way way more potential there than we could possibly use. And protected areas can stay protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sufficient quantity of resource on average is only part of the story. There are two other parts. One is balancing demand and supply; the other is the form of energy. Presently, only a fifth of energy demand is met by electricity. Gas, coal and oil products meet the rest. In some cases, electrification is pretty straightforward - for example, for heating, and urban car use. And electrifying car use would have the additional bonus of reducing total energy demand by about 25 GW, as electric cars are about four times as efficient as fossil cars. Electric heating is also typically more efficient than gas heating, though not usually by such a large margin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some uses where getting off fossil fuels looks a lot more challenging: in particular, air- and water- transport. There are a couple of options: biomass, and synthetic fuels. Both work in the lab and in prototypes, but given the world is awash with cheap oil and no sane carbon price, getting either of them commercialised is economically challenging at the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How we electrify these things matters a lot, because it influences how we match demand and supply. Electrifying heat is great, because heat storage is very cheap, and hugely scalable, offering balancing services at the scale of milliseconds to months. As would synthesising fuels using electricity. Electrifying cars offers balancing services at the scale of milliseconds to a day or two. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leaves some industrial processes such as steel-making that currently rely on coke. Now, coke isn't the only way to make steel - what you need is lots of heat, and some carbon. Coke is one way to do that, but it's not the only way - there are lots of sources of carbon other than fossil fuels, and lots of other sources of heat too. So, technical solutions are there, but again the economics are not currently favourable to commercialising these solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###efficiency of space use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few years ago, some people started worrying about whether this space use was efficient or not. That turned out to be irrelevant, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, when we do the maths, we find we'll only talking about a few percent of land and seas at most. And secondly, and more interestingly, adding PV or wind to land or seas makes those areas more efficient, not less. For example, take a sheep farm. It's currently used for farming sheep. You can add both PV and turbines to it, and now the land is being used much more efficiently: you get electricity when it's sunny; you get electricity when it's windy; and you still get sheep all year round.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###an example solution&#xD;&#xA;We could get about 6 GW from tidal barrages, 10 GW from PV, 20 GW from onshore wind, 114 GW from offshore wind, and 50 GW reduction in demand from energy efficiency measures. That would mean the renewables would enhance the efficiency of use of about 5% of our land area (though the physical footprint would be less than one-tenth of that: wind turbines occupy very little land), and about 7% of our seas. Now, there's also wave, tidal stream and solar thermal too, so I've only looked at part of the picture; but enough of the picture to be able to answer the question in the affirmative:&#xD;&#xA;##yes, the UK can be powered practically by 100% renewables." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4381" RevisionGUID="12191901-82c6-4d69-ab6d-f618cfabd9cc" CreationDate="2015-03-26T05:15:43.997" UserId="15" Comment="Updated to match changed question" Text="With the given parameters you originally gave, the idea won't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To provide continued cooling, the water blown onto the curtains needs to be able to evaporate water. Without a substantial ongoing supply of fresh air that is below its maximum humidity (for its temperature), the humidity will quickly reach an equilibrium point and then will no longer cool at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to use plenty of fresh air (that isn't already at its maximum humidity) blown over a wet curtain, then you would obtain a supply of cooled air using evaporation. A heat exchange or heat pump system could still make use of that, but unfortunately both those systems tend to be either inefficient or expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fresh air feels cooler to our skin when it is able to evaporate some sweat, so simply having a flow of fresh air that goes past the inhabitants may be the simplest solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now that you've updated your question, I think it's worth pointing out the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hot air rises, so if the larger room has a higher ceiling, then that could explain the difference. Otherwise, is there a difference in the solar load through windows, or even on the roof (a roof angled to face the sun will be hotter than one that isn't).&#xD;&#xA; - If you use a fabric curtain you are likely to have mould/algae issues. A longer lasting solution is probably to use something that is allowed to grow algae but is able to be cleaned, such as stainless steel or plastic. Water doesn't flow as well over those surfaces, but I suspect your ability to evaporate water is going to be heavily limited anyway by your supply of fresh air rather than the surface area of the water.&#xD;&#xA; - Ceiling fans may bring hotter air down and make the temperature feel higher than if you used ground level pedestal fans instead.&#xD;&#xA; - The volume of air leaving the building is equal to the volume entering the building. This means you could vent the hotter air from the ceiling, and allow fresh air (where ever it is drawn in) to flow past a wet object, cooling it on the way into the building. This technique, combined with fans directed onto the inhabitants, would be your optimum solution in my opinion.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4384" RevisionGUID="0ff2138f-2e2e-44e3-822d-e99d4c5e5a36" CreationDate="2015-03-26T09:43:13.343" UserId="812" Text="Energynumbers gives an excellent summary of the purely technical aspects. While I might quibble with a few specifics, I'll accept that - subject to developments of storage technologies and some substantial demand reductions - 100% renewables in the UK is technically possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, technical considerations are not the only ones. There are two other aspects that spring to mind that make this ambition *substantially* more difficult to achieve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, **public acceptance:** Will the British people put up with (to use Energynumbers' figures) 4-10% of UK land area hosting wind turbines along with 15% of the EEZ seas[1], 2% of UK land area hosting PV? How about the environmental impacts of tidal barrages, and then the things that actually affect people in their homes - further energy efficiency measures, and &quot;forced&quot; demand-side management (either statuatory or with very strong price incentives), etc? Remember the tabloid horror about &quot;Banning the light bulb&quot;; we've already seen the Daily Mail's first response to modern demand management, which read &quot;GOVERNMENT WANTS TO TURN YOUR FRIDGE OFF&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, the UK can only go fully renewable if its people are prepared to accept that they can see the infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, **how do we get there from here?** To take an example, the scenario described involves a nationwide takeup of electric vehicles, and a portion of connected vehicles' batteries being used as distributed storage. That's a great end-point to arrive at. But first of all, we need the mass takeup of electric vehicles. But that isn't feasible without major grid reinforcements and upgrades, and increases in generating capacity. But there's no commercial incentive to do that until the uptake of EVs is clear; indeed, current OFGEM rules would probably not *allow* the grid operators to do the upgrades based on a hypothetical demand, because that would represent &quot;poor value for the consumer&quot;. Catch 22. To make all of this work, a substantial amount of risk and short-term financial loss needs to be taken on to get from here to there, and I suspect that that that is ultimately a political question: Is there any likely UK government in the near future that will be prepared to pledge tens, maybe hundreds of billions of pounds of public funds on a grand project that will not come to fruition while they are still in power? Maybe. High speed rail is a precedent there. But the political setting will need to be just right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Note how for years people have said &quot;We don't want wind turbines here, put them offshore&quot;, but now that large offshore farms are planned, there are objections to these too on the basis that they will &quot;dominate the horizon&quot; when viewed from the coast." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9350" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="74481a19-93a5-44c2-a02d-ed0e5d79d5dc" CreationDate="2015-03-26T10:12:44.520" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/581036051571089408" />
  <row Id="9351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="00558df3-7872-4ed2-913f-15d4ade72092" CreationDate="2015-03-26T19:35:00.290" UserId="2132" Text="I'm curious about the efficiency of using [Oxyhydrogen][1] as a home heating method. Oxyhydrogen can be generated from water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the fact that it takes more energy to generate the oxyhydrogen, but perhaps if I use a combination of wind/solar power it might make more sense to use this in a furnace similar to a propane furnace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I compare the energy required to power say, a baseboard heater, to the energy required to produce similar heat from oxyhydrogen? There are [propane versus electricity][2] comparisons, so maybe just comparing the cost of generating similar amounts of oxyhydrogen/propane would be sufficient? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.propane101.com/propanevselectricity.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="00558df3-7872-4ed2-913f-15d4ade72092" CreationDate="2015-03-26T19:35:00.290" UserId="2132" Text="Oxyhydrogen as home heating method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="00558df3-7872-4ed2-913f-15d4ade72092" CreationDate="2015-03-26T19:35:00.290" UserId="2132" Text="|heating|fuel-efficiency|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4386" RevisionGUID="537648c0-f546-4fe0-b65b-619be9213eca" CreationDate="2015-03-27T08:23:10.893" UserId="812" Text="You will always put more energy into generating this gas mixture than you will get back by burning it. The second law of thermodynamics (which for this context can simply be thought of as saying that nothing can be 100% efficient) guarantees that. So rather than using energy to split water to produce gas for burning, you would be better off using that same energy to heat your home directly. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;(also, a h2/o2 mixture is not known for burning in a controlled way.... ;-)) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="6267b020-1188-4fdc-b6d7-ce73492db3a2" CreationDate="2015-03-27T09:35:59.910" UserId="812" Comment="Added uk tag. Corrected a tyop while I was there :-)" Text="Taking into consideration the landmass of the whole of the United Kingdom, areas of open country where windfarms could be placed, areas of country designated as wildlife havens and also areas of particular scenic beauty or with notable wildlife such as raptors where windfarms or renewable energy acquisition sources should not be placed. And taking into consideration the population of the whole of the UK, the number of households and businesses and the average electricity consumption of each, could the UK presently sustain itself entirely from renewable energy sources (such as wind and solar) and not coal, oil and gas? Also I consider nuclear sources as non-renewable as they do produce harmful waste and do consume fuel albeit in a much more efficient manner than fossil fuels.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9356" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4382" RevisionGUID="6267b020-1188-4fdc-b6d7-ce73492db3a2" CreationDate="2015-03-27T09:35:59.910" UserId="812" Comment="Added uk tag. Corrected a tyop while I was there :-)" Text="|renewables|uk|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4387" RevisionGUID="2b85295b-fb9f-46f6-b4c2-f52792173139" CreationDate="2015-03-27T20:36:31.600" UserId="48" Text="It is appealing to use wind or PV whenever they are available, and to have heating when it is required - and something is required to help those align in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the energy to synthesise storable fuels is one way to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you need special burners to make the most of burning a mix of hydrogen and oxygen. You need special equipment to store the hydrogen and oxygen. And you may find your municipal authority taking a close interest in what you're storing, and how you're storing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, expense and complications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The alternative that is easier and cheaper in most circumstances, is to store heat itself. Heat's pretty cheap and easy to store: but it does need space, and a bit of planning. A large underground thermal tank is one way to do it. Some people have looked at using the ground itself as thermal store, and combining a solar thermal system with a ground-source heat-pump, to store more heat in the ground in summer, and take it out in winter. The key here is volume: seasonal stores need to be huge; one-day stores can be a few hundred liters. The bigger the store, the more smoothing over time it gives you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="769de1b4-dc4d-420a-9540-17271a3d32d2" CreationDate="2015-03-28T11:46:24.463" UserId="2134" Text="Heating with electricity is always wasteful, because the generation of electricity is wasteful. However, heating with the waste heat of electrical appliances is saving energy, if the appliance is doing &quot;meaningful work&quot; and is not just turned on because of the waste heat it generates …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a server waste heat is a good source of &quot;free&quot; heat. Meaningful server tasks could be either Bitcoin mining (if you consider that meaningful) or general cloud computing. The latter has been commercialized by German startup [Cloud&amp;Heat](https://www.cloudandheat.com/), offering a cloud server rack to place a server into your house and to pay the electricity for it, so you get the waste heat for free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4389" RevisionGUID="f6b5ecdf-faa0-4ecc-9de2-c5458c8de85e" CreationDate="2015-03-28T11:55:59.200" UserId="2134" Text="Obviously, the 120 W electrical heater element is where to save the most energy. Not the 4 W fan, which seems ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that a candle or small ethanol or propane burner can be a valid substitute. A candle has 40 - 100 W &quot;thermal power rating&quot;. The 120 W electric heater element at 50% duty cycle would have 60 W average rating, so it would fit. If and how this can be safely integrated into a commercial toilet design, I don't know. &quot;It depends&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, electricity for heating is a waste, and as a manufacturer I would have replaced the electrical heating element with an electronically controlled small propane burner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9360" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="c755c51b-729c-43c9-a1e7-ad456c66b239" CreationDate="2015-03-28T13:28:01.393" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/581809971614126080" />
  <row Id="9361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4385" RevisionGUID="afe3df2c-0d4e-4ddc-ac08-26aba5424da2" CreationDate="2015-03-28T13:54:55.620" UserId="2132" Comment="further explanation" Text="I'm curious about the efficiency of using [Oxyhydrogen][1] as a home heating method. Oxyhydrogen can be generated from water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the fact that it takes more energy to generate the oxyhydrogen, but perhaps if I use a combination of wind/solar power it might make more sense to use this in a furnace similar to a propane furnace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I compare the energy required to power say, a baseboard heater, to the energy required to produce similar heat from oxyhydrogen? There are [propane versus electricity][2] comparisons, so maybe just comparing the cost of generating similar amounts of oxyhydrogen/propane would be sufficient? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: I would never propose to store this gas for later use. It should always be used as it is made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For further clarification, what I'm trying to analyze is this: An electric space heater is only so efficient. How much more or less efficient would the process of creating and burning oxyhydrogen be? It is easy to say &quot;oh, it's much less efficient&quot;, but I'm trying to figure out how much less efficient. Does it burn hot enough to heat a larger area for the same electricity? Probably not, but the equations/math to determine that is beyond me. I didn't do well in physics class I guess. Maybe this is a question for a physics community!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.propane101.com/propanevselectricity.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4387" RevisionGUID="b03c0dfb-2606-44fa-9b51-95ac9ada3fca" CreationDate="2015-03-29T19:04:59.627" UserId="48" Comment="added 665 characters in body" Text="It is appealing to use wind or PV whenever they are available, and to have heating when it is required - and something is required to help those align in time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the energy to synthesise storable fuels is one way to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you need special burners to make the most of burning a mix of hydrogen and oxygen. You need special equipment to store the hydrogen and oxygen. And you may find your municipal authority taking a close interest in what you're storing, and how you're storing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, expense and complications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The alternative that is easier and cheaper in most circumstances, is to store heat itself. Heat's pretty cheap and easy to store: but it does need space, and a bit of planning. A large underground thermal (hot-water) tank is one way to do it. Some people have looked at using the ground itself as thermal store, and combining a solar thermal system with a ground-source heat-pump, to store more heat in the ground in summer, and take it out in winter. The key here is volume: seasonal stores need to be huge; one-day stores can be a few hundred liters. The bigger the store, the more smoothing over time it gives you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you're not interested in time-shifting - if you want to use the electricity when it's generated - then there's no sense in electrolysing water. Electricity is pretty much as exergy-intensive as it's possible to get: if you want to get things done, electricity will in general do it far better than any other energy vector can. For heating, either use a resistance heater, which is very cheap to buy, and better efficiency than any chemical route; or if it will be running for a large proportion of the time, consider investing in a heat pump, which will allow you to harvest more joules in heat than the joules of electricity you put into it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4383" RevisionGUID="beebd2c4-d51c-437a-9f53-417e83b7f089" CreationDate="2015-03-30T09:50:24.750" UserId="48" Comment="added 721 characters in body" Text="#Summary: yes, the UK can be powered practically by 100% renewables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Technically it's fairly straightforward. Subject to some fairly reasonable assumptions, and the commercialisation of technology that's already proven in the labs, it's also economically efficient too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total UK energy demand is about 200 GW, of which 40 GW is presently served by electricity. (source: DUKES 2014)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know how efficient wind, PV and biomass can get, in terms of yield per unit surface area, as it's never been an issue: surface availability is not a constraint: cost and permissions are the constraints. So if we take existing yields per unit surface area, we are erring on the safe side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###offshore wind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Offshore wind yields are of the order of 2 or 3 Watts per square metre, averaged out over time: that's equivalent to 2-3 GW per thousand  km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. That's not installed nameplate capacity, that average delivered power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting offshore wind equivalent to that 40 GW of current electricity demand would require 13 to 20 thousand  km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of surface area. And for 200 GW, that would require 67 to 100 thousand  km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of surface area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The surface area of the UK's seas, the Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ, is about 770 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, so at the very most we're talking about less than 15% of the EEZ, even if we had no land-based renewables at all, no energy efficiency improvements, and no increase in energy yields per unit area. So that's not 14-15% of the EEZ *along with* land-use for onshore wind and PV - that's *instead of* those. Now, no one's suggesting using offshore wind only: the calculation is just to give an indication on the outer limit, and to show that the available resource is not at all a constraint on going 100% renewables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###onshore wind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now onshore wind and PV are both cheaper than offshore wind, so there are good reasons to use those as well as offshore wind; the onshore resoure is smaller - various estimates put it at between 20GW and 50GW average output, at about 2GW per thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Hence 20GW would be 10 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, and 50GW would be 25 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. The UK's surface area is just over 240 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, so we're talking about 4-10% of UK land area. Easy enough to avoid Areas of Outstanding National Beauty, and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###solar photovoltaics&#xD;&#xA;The photovoltaics resource is huge, even in cloudy old Britain. The limiting factor on PV isn't available area: it's that its generation is concentrated in spring to autumn, with very low supply in winter, when energy demand is highest. Integrating PV is pretty easy up to the point where capacity is equal to average demand; actual average output would be about one-tenth of that. So, integrating 4-20 GW of PV output is fairly straightforward (taking demand to be in the range of 40 GW of present electricity demand to 200 GW of present all-energy demand). PV generates at about 5W per m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, equivalent to 5GW per thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. And so we're talking about 1-4 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, i.e less than 2% of UK land area, and absolutely no need to put PV on land currently used for growing food crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###balancing demand and supply, and electricity versus other vectors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, there's really no shortage of energy there for the UK to harness: there's way way more potential there than we could possibly use. And protected areas can stay protected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sufficient quantity of resource on average is only part of the story. There are two other parts. One is balancing demand and supply; the other is the form of energy. Presently, only a fifth of energy demand is met by electricity. Gas, coal and oil products meet the rest. In some cases, electrification is pretty straightforward - for example, for heating, and urban car use. And electrifying car use would have the additional bonus of reducing total energy demand by about 25 GW, as electric cars are about four times as efficient as fossil cars. Electric heating is also typically more efficient than gas heating, though not usually by such a large margin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some uses where getting off fossil fuels looks a lot more challenging: in particular, air- and water- transport. There are a couple of options: biomass, and synthetic fuels. Both work in the lab and in prototypes, but given the world is awash with cheap oil and no sane carbon price, getting either of them commercialised is economically challenging at the moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How we electrify these things matters a lot, because it influences how we match demand and supply. Electrifying heat is great, because heat storage is very cheap, and hugely scalable, offering balancing services at the scale of milliseconds to months. As would synthesising fuels using electricity. Electrifying cars offers balancing services at the scale of milliseconds to a day or two. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leaves some industrial processes such as steel-making that currently rely on coke. Now, coke isn't the only way to make steel - what you need is lots of heat, and some carbon. Coke is one way to do that, but it's not the only way - there are lots of sources of carbon other than fossil fuels, and lots of other sources of heat too. So, technical solutions are there, but again the economics are not currently favourable to commercialising these solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###efficiency of space use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few years ago, some people started worrying about whether this space use was efficient or not. That turned out to be irrelevant, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, when we do the maths, we find we'll only talking about a few percent of land and seas at most. And secondly, and more interestingly, adding PV or wind to land or seas makes those areas more efficient, not less. For example, take a sheep farm. It's currently used for farming sheep. You can add both PV and turbines to it, and now the land is being used much more efficiently: you get electricity when it's sunny; you get electricity when it's windy; and you still get sheep all year round.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###public acceptance&#xD;&#xA;Renewables repeatedly come out top in polls of public acceptability: they receive far higher levels of approval than any other generation source. Electric vehicles offer a large number of advantages over fossil-fuelled vehicles, and as costs come down, uptake increases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###an example solution&#xD;&#xA;We could get about 6 GW from tidal barrages, 10 GW from PV, 20 GW from onshore wind, 114 GW from offshore wind, and 50 GW reduction in demand from energy efficiency measures that improve the quality of people's lives, such as higher-quality lighting, and well-insulated buildings. That would mean the renewables would enhance the efficiency of use of about 5% of our land area (though the physical footprint would be less than one-tenth of that: wind turbines occupy very little land), and about 7% of our seas. Now, there's also wave, tidal stream and solar thermal too, so I've only looked at part of the picture; but enough of the picture to be able to answer the question in the affirmative:&#xD;&#xA;##yes, the UK can be powered practically by 100% renewables." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="4773c87e-7870-44b0-ba3a-e65441998cc1" CreationDate="2015-03-30T11:19:00.250" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to better reflect content, added measurements in liters for international users" Text="I'm trying to decide if it's worth buying all my beer in reusable growlers (32-64 oz. / 0.9-1.9 liter reusable glass containers). I live in New York, so doing so requires me to go out of my way but is easy compared to some other places: you can buy a growler at some of the bigger Duane Reades (a drug store chain) and take it home, then bring it back for a refill whenever you want. Some bars in the area will also fill growlers. But would doing so make a difference versus recycling the cans and glass bottles I use otherwise? My household drinks at most about one six-pack per week (72 oz. / 2.1 liter), but that could probably be cut back to the 64 oz. (1.9 liter) in a single growler. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also interested in what this would look like on a large scale, i.e. if it became a common practice. It's worth it in my eyes even if I'm doing something that would only be useful on a community scale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9366" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4288" RevisionGUID="4773c87e-7870-44b0-ba3a-e65441998cc1" CreationDate="2015-03-30T11:19:00.250" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to better reflect content, added measurements in liters for international users" Text="When buying beer is refilling growlers better than recycling bottles and cans?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9367" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4294" RevisionGUID="b4837d83-5269-4c49-9085-ae3185c5cf07" CreationDate="2015-03-30T11:34:16.867" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title, added energy-efficiency tag" Text="Less energy consumption when we stop using fossil fuels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9368" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4294" RevisionGUID="b4837d83-5269-4c49-9085-ae3185c5cf07" CreationDate="2015-03-30T11:34:16.867" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title, added energy-efficiency tag" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|cars|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="dc230208-9c53-4699-90c4-19e337358510" CreationDate="2015-03-30T13:28:57.637" UserId="99" Comment="improved title" Text="I have four things that need to be heated on my house:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Pool (28.000 liters solar thermal heated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Jacuzzi (I think that is like 400-600 liters is gas heated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Showers (actually they are all electric)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;4. Sauna (not sure here but I think it's gas heated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, thinking about electric and water requirements, what would be better? I already saw studies saying that electric showers use less water and energy than gas showers but i don't know about pools and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would just changing everything to electric and solar panels be more sustainable and economize on my bills? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9370" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4310" RevisionGUID="dc230208-9c53-4699-90c4-19e337358510" CreationDate="2015-03-30T13:28:57.637" UserId="99" Comment="improved title" Text="Pool, sauna and shower with electric heating and solar thermal vs gas heating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4390" RevisionGUID="eab9a49f-82c6-4805-ba6c-21f8598b4904" CreationDate="2015-03-31T01:48:24.153" UserId="85" Text="In Brazil there are solar-powered thermal systems which work extremely well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![solar thermal](http://www.entrepreneurstoolkit.org/images/3/36/Aquecimento-solar.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no general numbers at hand, but just to give an idea, during a sunny day in São Paulo, four thermal panels will easily heat 200 litres of water to up to 70 degrees Celsius in a couple of hours (morning until after lunch).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system circulates &quot;naturally&quot; as cold, heavy water pushes the hot, lighter water through the panels into the tank. Heating water with electricity will be both environmentally unfriendly and expensive. But Brazil has a lot of sun, so investing in enough thermal panels should be enough for the pool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you want hot showers usually when it is cold, you can install an electric shower head that heats the water &quot;on-the-fly&quot;. These shower heads are extremely cheap (about 50 R$ or 20 US$). But if there is few people using the hot water, you can even last for 3 days without sun with a solar thermal system only. (Careful, cheap electric shower heads only accept _cold_ water!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only drawback with solar systems is that one has to be extremely careful not to freeze them. But then in most parts of Brazil the temperature never ever drops below 0 degrees Celsius, so I'd recommend you to go solar thermal all the way!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="b34cc87f-3e09-42c4-9c01-4e2402d2a0b8" CreationDate="2015-03-31T09:10:27.460" UserId="99" Comment="revised answer, fixed typos, fixed broken link to TNO report" Text="I know about two different studies that investigated which funeral method has the smallest environmental impact. I will base my answer on the most recent study and then shortly discuss the differences with the other one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Two studies##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [this report drawn up by the Dutch research institution TNO in 2011](http://www.petmemorialcenter.ca/aquamation/TNO_report_Environmental_impact_of_different_funeral_technologies.pdf) two alternatives are mentioned that are have a lower environmental impact compared to traditional burials or cremation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [**Resomation** a.k.a Alkaline Hydrolysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resomation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Resomation is a patented process in which a body is broken down into its chemical components by placing it into a mixture of water and lye and then heating it at high pressure. This will dissolve the soft tissue and make the bones porous, so they can be crushed afterwards. The resulting &quot;ash&quot; can then be returned to the next of kin.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    The advantage is that metals or toxic chemicals in the body (e.g. mercury used in tooth fillings)  can be separated and this process reduces [emissions of greenhouse gases by approximately 35%](http://www.resomation.com/index_files/Page369.htm) compared to cremation. AFAIK it is legal only in some states in the US and Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [**Cryomation** a.k.a promession](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promession)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    During cryomation a body is frozen solid by immersing it into liquid nitrogen. Then vibration or pressure is used to shatter the now brittle body. The remains are then placed in a vacuum and turned to powder. This powder can then be buried for further decomposition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    As with resomation, the benefits are lower CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and toxic emissions and the possibility to separate metals.&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK cryomation is legal only in Sweden, Scotland and South Korea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results of the TNO study however are different compared to an earlier Dutch study done by researchers of Delft University of Technology in 2005. Sadly I have only been able to find references to the 2005 study and not the study report itself, but [this article (in Dutch)](http://www.groene-uitvaart.nl/page_1754.html) discusses the differences between the two studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Delft University study burial, cremation and resomation were considered to have a more or less equivalent environmental impact, but cryomation was found to have a big impact. The difference between the two studies is said to be caused by different weighing factors. Also the TNO study includes recycling of metals and toxic chemicals (not included in the Delft University study), but it also uses a relatively big impact factor (perhaps bigger than necessary?) for ground use in burials. Note that the results may not apply to other countries, since they are based on funeral regulations and customs in the Netherlands (e.g. coffin required for burials)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other options##&#xD;&#xA;There are 3 other options that are sometimes mentioned as being more sustainable (than burial and cremation), but that AFAIK have never been researched as how sustainable they really are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [Sky burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial): a traditional Tibetan and Mongolian custom where a body is taken to a mountain top, cut into pieces and then fed to vultures or other birds of prey. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. [Sea burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_at_sea): disposing a body into the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. [Natural burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_burial) a.k.a. green burial: like a traditional burial, but then with a biodegradable coffin or shroud, allowing the body to decompose quickly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final note; the Delft University study I mentioned earlier also found that the biggest environmental impact of funerals comes from the people who are driving (or flying?) there to attend ([source: this article in Dutch](http://www.groeneuitvaart.nl/page_1754.html)):&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="95cbbd4f-f442-4cbd-8c25-56ecd65f0fc7" CreationDate="2015-03-31T14:11:35.220" UserId="2134" Comment="wording fixes" Text="Heating with electricity is always wasteful, because the generation of electricity is wasteful. However, heating with the waste heat of electrical appliances is saving energy, if the appliance is doing &quot;meaningful work&quot; and is not just turned on because of the waste heat it generates …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a computer's waste heat is a good source of &quot;free&quot; heat. Meaningful computing tasks could be either Bitcoin mining (if you consider that meaningful) or general cloud computing. The latter has been commercialized by German startup [Cloud&amp;Heat](https://www.cloudandheat.com/), offering a cloud server rack to place a server into your house and to pay the electricity and bandwidth for it, so you get the waste heat for free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="2081ee32-e7aa-4cf3-a8a5-ec35b06f5ec2" CreationDate="2015-03-31T22:54:19.267" UserId="871" Text="I was interested in generating electricity using dynamo-electric generators when all external power sources are dysfunctional (power line fault, no wind, not enough sunlight, etc). Different bicycle part sites have varying info about how much energy their unique solutions can provide, and don't have any specific information, like voltage, watts, how fast and for how long you gotta step on the pedals and such. I suppose there should be simple formulas that allow to calculate all the important parameters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming we're interested only in conventional electric devices like 220v household electronics and 3v, 5v, 12v mobile devices, what is the average output of a bicycle generator being used by an adult for, let's say 15 minutes at the same speed? For how long would that support a 100W light bulb at full brightness, and approximately how long it could take to fully charge a completely discharged battery of a modern cellphone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="2081ee32-e7aa-4cf3-a8a5-ec35b06f5ec2" CreationDate="2015-03-31T22:54:19.267" UserId="871" Text="How much power can a bicycle generator produce?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="2081ee32-e7aa-4cf3-a8a5-ec35b06f5ec2" CreationDate="2015-03-31T22:54:19.267" UserId="871" Text="|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4392" RevisionGUID="f32f5c98-38bd-4cdc-b3c6-39b6156721b9" CreationDate="2015-04-01T06:03:42.920" UserId="1325" Text="It depends on what power you can produce and the efficiency of the equipment you use to convert that mechanical power into electrical power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a moderately fit 50+ cyclist, I can produce over 200 W for five or so hours, 300 W for much shorter periods, and levels around 1 kW for less than a minute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A commonly quoted efficiency for electrical generation is 80%, but lets assume 75% efficiency to be just a little conservative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;200 W X .75 = 150 W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;300 W X .75 = 225 W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's just for 15 minutes, we can take the higher figure. 15 minutes is .25 hours, so we have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;225 W X .25 = 56.25 Wh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that would run a 100 W load for half an hour, provided the remaining parts of the system were 90% efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A mobile phone battery capacity vary. Some are advertised at over 2000 mAh, and given a voltage of 3.7 V, that's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 Ah X 3.7 V = 7.4 Wh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On these figures that 15 minutes of pedaling would charge a mobile phone seven times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One limitation will be the conversion of the electrical power from one voltage to another. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4392" RevisionGUID="e417d136-6c13-45aa-9815-7aa435caef94" CreationDate="2015-04-01T08:12:27.437" UserId="1325" Comment="Typos, clarifying" Text="It depends on what power you can produce and the efficiency of the equipment you use to convert that mechanical power into electrical power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a moderately fit 50+ cyclist, I can produce over 200 W for five or so hours, 300 W for much shorter periods, and levels around 1 kW for less than a minute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A commonly quoted efficiency for electrical generation is 80%, but lets assume 75% efficiency to be just a little conservative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;200 W X .75 = 150 W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;300 W X .75 = 225 W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's just for 15 minutes, we can take the higher figure. 15 minutes is .25 hours, so we have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;225 W X .25 h = 56.25 Wh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that would run a 100 W load for half an hour, provided the remaining parts of the system were 90% efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mobile phone battery capacities vary. Some are advertised at over 2000 mAh, and given a voltage of 3.7 V, that's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 Ah X 3.7 V = 7.4 Wh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On these figures that 15 minutes of pedaling would charge a mobile phone seven times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One limitation will be the efficiency of conversion of the electrical power from one voltage to another. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4393" RevisionGUID="07a6f8d3-2665-4f83-a159-71e9f074a05d" CreationDate="2015-04-02T22:09:31.733" UserId="1768" Text="If you are already looking for an MBA, then consider getting an MBA in sustainable business.  That should help you incorporate the skills you have acquired with the path you wish to take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, the MBA in Sustainable Business at Pinchot University: http://pinchot.edu/schools/mba-in-sustainable-business-2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find other providers of similar programs by searching the web." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="82ebb0d3-0413-4d8e-93dd-63f6f90be36e" CreationDate="2015-04-03T00:43:26.677" UserId="2083" Text="Another user [asked](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4335/prevent-concrete-roof-from-absorbing-too-much-heat-during-summer/4343#4343) the question, and I think the question is important enough to deserve it's own post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard that white roofs drive away clouds and cause global warming. How can this be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="82ebb0d3-0413-4d8e-93dd-63f6f90be36e" CreationDate="2015-04-03T00:43:26.677" UserId="2083" Text="How do white roofs cause global warming?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9382" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="82ebb0d3-0413-4d8e-93dd-63f6f90be36e" CreationDate="2015-04-03T00:43:26.677" UserId="2083" Text="|solar-power|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4395" RevisionGUID="2902c47f-ad6e-4d6a-94a1-a80d34413c96" CreationDate="2015-04-03T00:43:26.677" UserId="2083" Text="This counter-intuitive advice is actually the result of [research](http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/october/urban-heat-islands-101911.html). Unfortunately journalists are rarely qualified to cover any sort of science news, and this was no exception. I'll try to explain the result in more detail, and in a way people can understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people know that dark colored objects absorb light and become warm in the sun. The darker the color, the more light objects tend to absorb. Black asphalt and dark roofs are familiar examples. When they warm in the sun, they in turn warm nearby air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than rising immediately, this warm surface air tends to get stuck under colder, heavier air. On a large scale this is called an inversion, but on small scales such things happen everyday. The warm air is less dense, and will rise given the opportunity. Most commonly a building or bare tree will provide an easy path for the warm air to rise, and this tends to pull the entire pocket of warm air into a thermal column. These columns can last minutes or hours, depending on conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thermal air columns rise until they hit the condensation point, where they stop and form white, puffy clouds (cumulus clouds).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider what happens when you replace that dark roof with a very reflective white roof. Rather than heating up, the roof &quot;reflects&quot; solar energy right back into the atmosphere. Some of the light escapes, but much of it is absorbed by air gasses and black carbon soot. The small amount of light escaping the atmosphere would be more than offset by the clouds formed by dark roofs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clouds reflect light just like a white roof does, but they do so from higher in the atmosphere, and they're much larger than a roof. Overall white roofs cause more energy to stay in our atmosphere, and contribute to global warming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*However*, if you live in a hot, sunny area where clouds never form regardless of your choice, a white roof will reflect some solar energy back into space. In this scenario, you can paint your roof white with a clean conscience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better alternative is to cover your roof with solar panels. This converts solar energy into electricity which you may otherwise purchase from a coal or diesel power plant. It keeps the solar energy from heating your home, and doesn't reflect as much energy back into the atmosphere. It allows clouds to form, and is the most sustainable solution. A green roof might also be a good answer, if your building is strong enough to support it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4396" RevisionGUID="65bee550-bbb6-469a-9bec-4952acfd816d" CreationDate="2015-04-03T20:30:05.817" UserId="2155" Text="The answer is, in contributes to the planet surface albedo, it reflects light and therefore heat back into the atmosphere where it is trapped in the weather system. Whether it has real impact or not is debatable. If everyone on the planet painted their roof's white, it might increase our collective albedo by something on the order of less than 0.001 %&#xA;&#xA;The effect it will have or more local, shifting the weather patterns, similar to how metro Florida where the rain clouds always rain on schedule around the cities, but no longer seem able to surmount the updraft caused by all the pavement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4397" RevisionGUID="53dc23b1-4b92-430b-a594-aaa35fd43876" CreationDate="2015-04-06T13:37:56.380" UserId="318" Text="Mixed Oxygen + Hydrogen can be both stored and burned safely (with due attention to details) despite this seeming unlikely. The Wikipedia page you cite covers this in more detail. There is much hype associated with this area with terms like &quot;HHO&quot; and &quot;Brown's gas&quot; usually indicating that some 'non main-stream physics' is about to be encountered. Despite this the basic science involved is sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficiency of production versus recoverable energy depends on how close you can get the potential of an electrolysis cell to the minimum required potential. This Wikipedia page [Electrolysis of water](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency) provides a hgood overview. Cheaper electrolysers using Alklaine electrolytes (as a boy I used washing soda) achieve in the 60-75% efficiency range and the best PEM units may manage 90%. Higher efficiencies are possible with very special magic - such as advanced (and usually secret and expensive) catalysts, but are unlikely to be available to we mere mortals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It almost certainly makes no sense to generate and then immediately use the gas as there will be a loss of energy with no gain. Storage and later use makes sense if the energy cost varies by a factor of say 2:1 or more or if load shifting can be achieved. eg If you can store it for a while there may be gains in storing eg solar energy by day and using it at night or low cost power from early AM grid power for daytime use. If desired Hydrogen and Oxygen could be stored separately and recombined at the point of combustion. A gasometer system using eg inverted 40 gallon / 200 litres drums over water may be viable. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4296" RevisionGUID="09eff925-0876-49e9-ae13-9fa69de8423b" CreationDate="2015-04-06T17:25:11.197" UserId="400" Comment="Corrected math error." Text="The [Wikipedia article on world energy][1] use is a good place to start.  It gives the breakdown by various sources.   You will also have to read the electricity generation article to figure out what fraction of electricity is fossil origin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While a nice thought, what are you going to replace that energy with?  Grocery shopping is going to be a much more time consuming activity if I have to take the dog team to town to get my food.  (Even now we typically shop once a month for all but bread and milk)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you going to heat your house with wood.  (I do, but I live in the country.  Read about coal heat in London)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What will you fuel your cars with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the long run a carbon tax is the way to deal with all of these problems.  Administered at the point it comes out of the ground, it's easy to implement.  By scheduling the rate increases people have a predictable cost of energy for the next 10 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A $50/ton carbon tax would add about 2 cents per kWh to the price of coal generated electricity.  Start at $20 and increase it by $10 per year.  An good read on carbon tax and implementation issues is here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4398" RevisionGUID="320442d7-9874-43f2-8ec9-82dc76576a9a" CreationDate="2015-04-06T17:44:36.310" UserId="400" Text="Evaporative coolers are common in dry hot climates.  It's different from what you are proposing.  It's a box on the roof that has coarse pads (commonly coir) with a small pump that keeps them wet.  Air is sucked thorugh the pads, and exhausted into the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the cost of more energy, you can use the now cooler air to cool the input air of a second unit.    In principle with stages you can get the incoming air into the building down to the dew point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In humid climates this doesn't work well.  Moving the air through a wet pad doesn't cool it.  Indeed, if the air is truly saturated it will warm up from mechanical losses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you climate gets cooler at night, then you may get some relief by using the cooler night air to cool a mass of water, then use that mass of water for cooling during the day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="3a29bf53-e73b-43e9-a295-bc22b244657c" CreationDate="2015-04-06T20:03:40.870" UserId="2157" Text="I'll be spending a month this summer on a mountain in an earth-friendly community. In their welcoming documents it says: `[we] will provide bio-degradable soap, shampoo and lotion. When packing any additional toiletries, please bring biodegradable products only.`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My hair looks awful without some kind of styling product. Can anyone recommend a men's hair gel that will biodegrade?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9389" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="3a29bf53-e73b-43e9-a295-bc22b244657c" CreationDate="2015-04-06T20:03:40.870" UserId="2157" Text="biodegradable hair gel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9390" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="3a29bf53-e73b-43e9-a295-bc22b244657c" CreationDate="2015-04-06T20:03:40.870" UserId="2157" Text="|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9391" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4399" RevisionGUID="5584c41b-7ba1-46f6-95fc-b822b37c4815" CreationDate="2015-04-07T08:39:14.447" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4400" RevisionGUID="d50fb325-b500-45c9-8eb4-c1a4e23cc1b6" CreationDate="2015-04-07T10:03:22.153" UserId="812" Text="This question may be about semantics as much as sustainability, but let's see...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I think of geothermal energy, I think of hot rocks (or hot aquifers) that are kept warm by the internal volcanic activity of the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people use the same term to refer to ground-source heat pumps, which are usually installed at a shallow depth where I imagine most of the energy comes from the ground being kept warm by the sun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are ground source heat pumps a form a geothermal energy, or is this term being misused?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4400" RevisionGUID="d50fb325-b500-45c9-8eb4-c1a4e23cc1b6" CreationDate="2015-04-07T10:03:22.153" UserId="812" Text="Are ground source heat pumps a form of geothermal energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4400" RevisionGUID="d50fb325-b500-45c9-8eb4-c1a4e23cc1b6" CreationDate="2015-04-07T10:03:22.153" UserId="812" Text="|heating|geothermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="13a2bb36-0e78-4d22-8f56-67ce193f0c18" CreationDate="2015-04-07T13:02:52.140" UserId="1644" Text="I have a house which has a central heating and cooling system which I assume uses a heat pump. This central heating system is not zoned so when I turn it on, I need to heat the entire house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live alone so I generally occupy my bedroom or my living room and I have a small electric heater which can adequately heat up this room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering, how do I figure out at what point is it cost effective to use the central heating unit vs the electric heater?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to work out roughly that say with everything being equal (eg. all rooms having the same insulation, the same desired temperature) if the room I was heating took up a certain percentage of the total area of my house, would it be better to use the central heating or the electric heater?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much more efficient is a heat pump compared to generating heat from electricity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9396" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="13a2bb36-0e78-4d22-8f56-67ce193f0c18" CreationDate="2015-04-07T13:02:52.140" UserId="1644" Text="At what point is it better to use a room heater vs a central heating unit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9397" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="13a2bb36-0e78-4d22-8f56-67ce193f0c18" CreationDate="2015-04-07T13:02:52.140" UserId="1644" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4402" RevisionGUID="1a006bde-a188-46f0-9a26-14cc0008b1c2" CreationDate="2015-04-07T16:41:45.723" UserId="48" Text="Language is a very versatile thing; and the meaning of words is a social convention, nothing more. So if two people agree in their conversation to call a ground-source heat pump geothermal, then it is, for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, from what I've seen, it is more commonly the case that people call it geothermal as a mistake. Ground-source heat pumps are indeed solar energy collectors, unless you're somewhere like Iceland where the geothermal energy gives significant warming to the ground very close to the surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, it is possible to have geothermal heat pumps. But almost all the cases I've seen where that name's been used, that's not what's going on. It's that someone's misunderstood where the heat has come from." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9399" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4401" RevisionGUID="9c9067d0-3b42-4d41-94d0-faa95b1167dd" CreationDate="2015-04-07T23:31:24.490" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/585585696519380992" />
  <row Id="9400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4403" RevisionGUID="281d451c-2712-4a90-a94a-25dca75181dc" CreationDate="2015-04-08T16:55:44.740" UserId="2155" Text="Direct recycle (refilling bottles) is always more efficient that recycling the materials. Direct recycling is nearly a zero input recycle.&#xA;&#xA;However as others have pointed out, transporting air (empty bottles) has an additional cost.&#xA;&#xA;The question is, which costs more? Transportation of empty bottles (crushed glass is transported also, but much more efficiently since it isn't full sized bottles full of air) or running the furnace and machinery to melt and mold the glass into new bottles. (Which direct recycling doesn't require)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4404" RevisionGUID="385c264a-f4e0-4182-9466-2c7bb6471c9d" CreationDate="2015-04-09T07:41:42.190" UserId="679" Text="A 1500+ employees company is trying to be greener and instead of throwing cardboard packaging out it sends it for recycling. Recycling company won't accept less than several dozen kilograms of materials and also driving small portions of this waste very often is not economical. So the waste has to be stored for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is corrugated cardboard (the most typical in packaging) occupies a lot of space even after the original boxes have been &quot;disassembled&quot; and became just pieces of cardboard. I imagine there're some industrial machines which can tear the cardboard into pieces and maybe even compress it into pellets but those would likely be uneconomical with this scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any easy way to preprocess cardboard that comes from packaging so it can be stored in a more compact way before it is recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4404" RevisionGUID="385c264a-f4e0-4182-9466-2c7bb6471c9d" CreationDate="2015-04-09T07:41:42.190" UserId="679" Text="How can corrugated cardboard from packaging be compacted for storage before recycling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4404" RevisionGUID="385c264a-f4e0-4182-9466-2c7bb6471c9d" CreationDate="2015-04-09T07:41:42.190" UserId="679" Text="|recycling|cardboard|storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4405" RevisionGUID="a3efab8d-b165-4314-ba18-a7ed743c39fd" CreationDate="2015-04-09T23:45:46.743" UserId="2083" Text="Yes, it is geothermal energy. From [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy): Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and **stored in the Earth**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire point of in-ground heatpumps is to treat the ground as a large heatsink that's unaffected by weather, seasons, and the day-night cycle. These systems use pipes buried below the depth where the ground ever freezes, just like utility companies do for their water lines. They can give or take heat without noticeably effecting the surrounding earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ground temperature at this depth is *not* based on the sun, and that's the entire point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one thing you're probably confused about is that, no, these systems don't generate energy. They aren't an energy source. They're just a very efficient heat exchange system. They're more efficient than normal heatpumps because the air temperature is variable while the ground temperature maintains a moderate temperature year-round." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4406" RevisionGUID="c4170d68-ae45-402a-8f10-d3f303469349" CreationDate="2015-04-09T23:53:52.957" UserId="2083" Text="From a cost or sustainability perspective, and assuming identical efficiency and identical power sources, it's always better to heat just the one room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the room has poor insulation and easily leaks heat into the rest of the house. At the most extreme, with near-zero insulation around the room, you would effectively heat the whole house by heating the one room. Thus the worst-case scenario is identical energy use, and the best-case is less energy use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is always more complicated because you're comparing an electric heater to a gas heater. Those sources have very different costs. There's also the personal comfort issue, concern over burst pipes if the weather is freezing, increased risk of a fire, and many other issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, your best option is to just *try it out* and measure your costs. Be sure to discount the transition period, as it can take days for a house to fully cool. Then you can compare your electric heating bill (factoring in cost, transmission efficiencies, pollution caused by generation, pollution caused by transportation, pollution caused by mining, etc.) with your gas bill and make a determination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4407" RevisionGUID="08ccee90-34a5-450b-9fe6-145355647062" CreationDate="2015-04-10T01:57:44.317" UserId="2164" Text="Modern A/C and Fridge are built with R134a, R410a and R600a&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4402" RevisionGUID="2ad952a7-27a8-4f34-9d66-1c03ca686c42" CreationDate="2015-04-10T08:25:29.887" UserId="48" Comment="added 341 characters in body" Text="Language is a very versatile thing; and the meaning of words is a social convention, nothing more. So if two people agree in their conversation to call a ground-source heat pump geothermal, then it is, for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, from what I've seen, it is more commonly the case that people call it geothermal as a mistake. Ground-source heat pumps are indeed solar energy collectors, unless you're somewhere like Iceland where the geothermal energy gives significant warming to the ground very close to the surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, it is possible to have geothermal heat pumps. But almost all the cases I've seen where that name's been used, that's not what's going on. It's that someone's misunderstood where the heat has come from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a quick crude check, take the temperature of the area from where the heat will be extracted. at the depth it will be extracted. If that's about the same temperature as the year-round average surface temperature, then the heat has come from the sun. If it's more than 10 Kelvin (degrees Celsius) warmer than that, then it's geothermal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9409" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4400" RevisionGUID="6de9c51e-552c-4cf8-9f23-9a2f0dc49b01" CreationDate="2015-04-10T11:36:42.500" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/586493000269897728" />
  <row Id="9410" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4404" RevisionGUID="d4de8c7d-b286-466b-844c-46dc840cad31" CreationDate="2015-04-10T23:38:00.360" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/586674520263495681" />
  <row Id="9411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4408" RevisionGUID="851f59b2-b276-4fa3-ac00-0fda2141ca9e" CreationDate="2015-04-11T11:40:43.257" UserId="318" Text="There are a number of considerations, which makes the decision harder than is at first apparent. A key factor is that if your central heating system does in fact use a &quot;heat pump&quot; as you suspect, then it is much more efficient than any other heating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike all other heaters, a heat pump does NOT generate heat per se, but &quot;lifts&quot;  heat energy from a cold source to a hotter &quot;sink&quot;. The energy used is related to the difference between hot sink and cold source. A well designed modern heat pump can achieve efficiency gains of 4+ times compared to an electric heater when the temperature difference is not too severe and maybe a factor of 2 in colder conditions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An electric heater converts electrical energy to thermal energy with 100% efficiency. A heat pump is 2 to 4 times better. This seems to 'break the laws of physics, but doesn't. A gas heater is not 100% efficient at the point of use, but as an electric heater depends on a conversion process at some other location, and as there are transmission losses, the overall efficiency may be lower or higher than for gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat energy used can be measured by multiplying heating power x time used.  &#xD;&#xA;So a 1 kW (1 kiloWatt electric) heater operated for one hour uses 1 kWh = 1 kiloWatt-hour of electrical energy. An electric heater typically makes 1 kW of power per &quot;bar&quot;. A fan heater on low or a 1 bar heater will often be rated at about 1000 Watts, and a 2 bar heater or fan heater on high ~= 2 kW. A gas heater will typically be rated at 5 - 15 kW output depending on design and the setting relative to 100%. A gas heater will often be operated at a small percentage of full output.  Heat pumps usually are 1000-2000 Watt output rated for entry level units and as much heat as you wish to buy at the top end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use a heat pump to heat say 3 rooms of your home and keep internal doors open so that temperatures are relatively equal then in cold but not (literally) freezing outdoor temperatures a heat pump may often use less energy that a single bar heater in one room. As outside temperatures drop below zero the 1 bar heater in a room will probably use less energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9412" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="8c745cf3-55dd-4f70-88d6-7284d6dd7f35" CreationDate="2015-04-12T14:46:10.923" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/587265458434367488" />
  <row Id="9413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4409" RevisionGUID="94e551ca-a06e-48d5-aad2-3609c4454c6d" CreationDate="2015-04-13T19:36:47.180" UserId="480" Text="Most places that generate a lot of cardboard (grocery stores, Costco, etc) seem to use a cardboard &quot;baling&quot; machine -- this machine will compress the cardboard and strap it to hold it together. You can often see the bales of cardboard behind the store or on their loading dock, awaiting pick by a recycler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Photo from http://www.thecompactorguy.com/&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [site][2] says that baled cardboard is about 10 times more dense than loose cardboard:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Loose cardboard: 50 - 100 lbs/ cubic yard	&#xD;&#xA;    Baled cardboard: 600 - 1100 lbs / cubic yard&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of any commercial machine that shreds into pellets  and compacts the cardboard pellets for recycling, that would probably be more difficult to store and transport since it would have to be placed and compacted into containers while baled cardboard is a self-contained unit that needs no special container.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TF7Hl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thecompactorguy.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&amp;ArticleID=35" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4409" RevisionGUID="765e94c5-b4af-4ddd-8be6-52981b722977" CreationDate="2015-04-14T15:01:02.313" UserId="480" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Most places that generate a lot of cardboard (grocery stores, Costco, etc) seem to use a cardboard &quot;baling&quot; machine -- this machine will compress the cardboard and strap it to hold it together. You can often see the bales of cardboard behind the store or on their loading dock, awaiting pickup by a recycler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Photo from http://www.thecompactorguy.com/&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [site][2] says that baled cardboard is about 10 times more dense than loose cardboard:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Loose cardboard: 50 - 100 lbs/ cubic yard	&#xD;&#xA;    Baled cardboard: 600 - 1100 lbs / cubic yard&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of any commercial machine that shreds into pellets  and compacts the cardboard pellets for recycling, that would probably be more difficult to store and transport since it would have to be placed and compacted into containers while baled cardboard is a self-contained unit that needs no special container.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TF7Hl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.thecompactorguy.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&amp;ArticleID=35" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="b44b0da9-8cce-4af6-8e9b-cae233c425e6" CreationDate="2015-04-15T10:00:20.310" UserId="99" Comment="revised title to improve SEO, added health tag" Text="I'm wondering what kind of products I can use that are not dangerous to keep kitchen surfaces clean and safe.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Should I get different products for different types surfaces (e.g. granite top vs. wooden cutting board)?  &#xD;&#xA; - Should I get different products for different types of foods (e.g. meats vs. vegetables)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9416" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="b44b0da9-8cce-4af6-8e9b-cae233c425e6" CreationDate="2015-04-15T10:00:20.310" UserId="99" Comment="revised title to improve SEO, added health tag" Text="What non-toxic products can I use to keep my kitchen counters clean and safe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9417" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="b44b0da9-8cce-4af6-8e9b-cae233c425e6" CreationDate="2015-04-15T10:00:20.310" UserId="99" Comment="revised title to improve SEO, added health tag" Text="|cleaning|safe-chemicals|health|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9418" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="238" RevisionGUID="17ba27ce-b499-4baa-82c9-1e5902eb4ecc" CreationDate="2015-04-15T10:23:49.943" UserId="99" Comment="revised title to improve SEO" Text="Filtering indoor air with plants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="32dd645b-39d7-4628-9691-a6d655bdedfd" CreationDate="2015-04-15T12:20:26.390" UserId="99" Comment="added more info about usage of this tag, added resources; edited body" Text="Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an established method for quantifying impacts - often environmental - of a product, process or service's total supply chain. This means looking not only at use, but also at production of raw materials (referred to as the cradle), processing and transportation, and eventual disposal (grave). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The LCA method has been formalized by ISO in the 14040 standards, and can include many different impacts, of which [tag:carbon-footprint] is the most well-known. Other impact categories include [ecotoxicity][1], [eutrophication][2], and various human health categories, as well as resource accounting for water or energy consumption. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related but separate fields include life-cycle costing and material flow analysis, which take a similarly wide perspective but a different method, and are used for answering different questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions** with this tag should focus on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - comparing possible options based on environmental impacts&#xD;&#xA; - how impacts may vary depending on the supply chain choices - say, recycling paper vs. composting it. &#xD;&#xA; - interpreting LCA study results&#xD;&#xA; - performing simple LCA studies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Resources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [LCA Commons](http://www.lcacommons.gov/) (open access to North America LCA datasets and tools)&#xD;&#xA;- [ILCD Handbook](http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/?page_id=86) (guide and other documents aimed at more experienced LCA practitioners)&#xD;&#xA;- [Free textbook &quot;LCA Quantitative Approaches for Decisions That Matter&quot; written by Matthews et al. ](http://www.lcatextbook.com) (learning to perform LCA aimed at (under)graduate students )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wikipedia.org/ecotoxicity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wikipedia.org/eutrophication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="af266c8d-a99a-4aca-9bb1-e04678cc20fe" CreationDate="2015-04-15T12:32:34.437" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body" Text="Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an established method for quantifying impacts - often environmental - of a product, process or service's total supply chain. This means looking not only at use, but also at production of raw materials (referred to as the cradle), processing and transportation, and eventual disposal (grave). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The LCA method has been formalized by ISO in the 14040 standards, and can include many different impacts, of which [tag:carbon-footprint], water footprint and energy footprint are the most well-known. Other impact categories include [ecotoxicity][1], [eutrophication][2], and various human health categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related but separate fields include life-cycle costing and material flow analysis, which take a similarly wide perspective but a different method, and are used for answering different questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions** with this tag should focus on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - comparing possible options based on environmental impacts&#xD;&#xA; - how impacts may vary depending on the supply chain choices - say, recycling paper vs. composting it. &#xD;&#xA; - interpreting LCA study results&#xD;&#xA; - performing simple LCA studies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Resources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [LCA Commons](http://www.lcacommons.gov/) (open access to North America LCA datasets and tools)&#xD;&#xA;- [ILCD Handbook](http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/?page_id=86) (guide and other documents aimed at more experienced LCA practitioners)&#xD;&#xA;- [Free textbook &quot;LCA Quantitative Approaches for Decisions That Matter&quot; written by Matthews et al. ](http://www.lcatextbook.com) (learning to perform LCA aimed at (under)graduate students )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wikipedia.org/ecotoxicity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wikipedia.org/eutrophication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="367" RevisionGUID="54f0872a-2428-42b8-b649-f6731002ad76" CreationDate="2015-04-15T12:32:34.437" UserId="99" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="LCA is a method for quantifying the impacts of a product, process, or service over its entire supply chain. Carbon, energy and water footprinting are well-known subsets of LCA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="be2cdef5-9eef-4484-8822-ed4942e084cb" CreationDate="2015-04-16T09:44:57.117" UserId="99" Text="I've read somewhere that (organic) banana peels make a good fertilizer. You simply cut them up into small pieces and bury those around the plants in your garden. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how effective are banana peels compared to an organic fertilizer you'd buy from a store? Could I feed my roses and herb and vegetable garden with only banana peels and have similar results as with store-bought fertilizer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And do other fruit peels work as well?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="be2cdef5-9eef-4484-8822-ed4942e084cb" CreationDate="2015-04-16T09:44:57.117" UserId="99" Text="Fruit peels as alternative to store-bought fertilizer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="be2cdef5-9eef-4484-8822-ed4942e084cb" CreationDate="2015-04-16T09:44:57.117" UserId="99" Text="|gardening|fertilizer|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4412" RevisionGUID="b1e8c39f-4125-4aca-81b6-6b58459f3608" CreationDate="2015-04-16T10:21:21.377" UserId="15" Text="With a solar reflector/concentrator that was a square metre or two in size, I would expect it would be possible to get temperatures high enough to melt glass, even if only for a small sized object. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What (high-level, no great detail required) technical hurdles would need to be overcome to be able to make something useful out of used glass containers at home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4412" RevisionGUID="b1e8c39f-4125-4aca-81b6-6b58459f3608" CreationDate="2015-04-16T10:21:21.377" UserId="15" Text="How difficult would it be to make things out of glass at home, using a solar relector?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4412" RevisionGUID="b1e8c39f-4125-4aca-81b6-6b58459f3608" CreationDate="2015-04-16T10:21:21.377" UserId="15" Text="|recycling|glass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4413" RevisionGUID="88acef6c-1045-4c1b-86bb-c9e2ca66577b" CreationDate="2015-04-16T10:46:46.100" UserId="15" Text="There is a product on the local market in New Zealand called &quot;Showerdome&quot; that is a clear plastic dome that can be attached over the top of most open top showers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Covering the top of a shower reduces the convection air flow that naturally occurs when showering, as well as increasing the humidity while showering, which has the effect that one feels warmer and can turn the temperature down and reduce hot water use. It also heavily reduces the steam escaping the shower, so also heavily reduces condensation and associated mould problems in the bathroom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, &quot;Showerdomes&quot; are quite expensive. Are there other designs or products available for achieving the same result?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9430" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4413" RevisionGUID="88acef6c-1045-4c1b-86bb-c9e2ca66577b" CreationDate="2015-04-16T10:46:46.100" UserId="15" Text="How to cover an open-top shower, to make it feel warmer while showering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9431" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4413" RevisionGUID="88acef6c-1045-4c1b-86bb-c9e2ca66577b" CreationDate="2015-04-16T10:46:46.100" UserId="15" Text="|energy-efficiency|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="b8b393f7-d615-4677-a981-40536123ede8" CreationDate="2015-04-16T11:17:52.033" UserId="1325" Text="I studies Physics in the days when a Physicist made their own equipment; a mandatory subject was scientific glass blowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are various kinds of glass. The main type used for ordinary bottles and such is [soda glass](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda-lime_glass). This answer will focus on this glass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Soda glass can be worked (from memory) at around 600°C. So if you had some glass rods or tubes, you could heat it to 600°C, and just join them together. More on that later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to completely reuse the glass, it needs to be properly melted. For soda glass that means 1040-1090°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The liquid glass could then be cast, but a cleaner result is achieved by blowing. To blow the melted glass, it needs to cool to a working temperature of around 900-1000°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned above, the glass *can* be worked at lower temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After any heating, the glass should be allowed to cool slowly; this is called annealing. It's purpose is to relax the strains in the material that are caused when one part has been heated more than the rest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, one would use three furnaces. One for the melt, one for reheating work between steps, and an annealing furnace where the temperature is gradually reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the material is at a high temperature, safety precautions must be taken. Firstly, the worker must understand the treatment of burns, and the use of protective equipment. One learns quickly to *never* handle the work with bare hands until it is *quite* cool. Leather gloves, steel tongs and blowtube, and a steel work surface are all required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since most small scale glass work is carried out using gas torches, the use of a solar concentrator would require an additional learning curve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer the question: if you don't have the equipment and knowledge - quite difficult. But IMHO certainly possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Useful Wikipedia references are the [physical properties of glass](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physical_properties_of_glass) page and the [Glassblowing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glassblowing) page.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4414" RevisionGUID="2cddcb1a-e3b6-4e75-a57c-f52440e44fb9" CreationDate="2015-04-16T12:51:21.007" UserId="1325" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="I studies Physics in the days when a Physicist made their own equipment; a mandatory subject was scientific glass blowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are various kinds of glass. The main type used for ordinary bottles and such is [soda glass](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soda-lime_glass). This answer will focus on this glass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Soda glass can be worked (from memory) at around 600°C. So if you had some glass rods or tubes, you could heat it to 600°C, and just join them together. More on that later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to completely reuse the glass, it needs to be properly melted. For soda glass that means 1040-1090°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The liquid glass could then be cast, but a cleaner result is achieved by blowing or using various shaping tools. To blow the melted glass, it needs to cool to a working temperature of around 900-1000°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned above, the glass *can* be worked at lower temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After any heating, the glass item should be allowed to cool slowly; this is called annealing. It's purpose is to relax the strains in the material that are caused when one part has been heated more than the rest. Improper annealing usually results in the item cracking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, one would use three furnaces. One for the melt, one for reheating work between steps, and an annealing furnace where the temperature is gradually reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the material is at a high temperature, safety precautions must be taken. Firstly, the worker must understand the treatment of burns, and the use of protective equipment. One learns quickly to *never* handle the work with bare hands until it is *quite* cool. Leather gloves, steel tongs, shears and blowtube, and a steel work surface are all required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since most small scale glass work is carried out using gas torches, the use of a solar concentrator would require an additional learning curve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to answer the question: if you don't have the equipment and knowledge - quite difficult. But IMHO certainly possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Useful Wikipedia references are the [physical properties of glass](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physical_properties_of_glass) page and the [Glassblowing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glassblowing) page.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9434" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4412" RevisionGUID="d6cdd88b-163d-4780-b43d-469609ba5884" CreationDate="2015-04-16T21:52:28.687" UserId="1325" Comment="Typo in title" Text="How difficult would it be to make things out of glass at home, using a solar reflector?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9435" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4412" RevisionGUID="d6cdd88b-163d-4780-b43d-469609ba5884" CreationDate="2015-04-16T21:52:28.687" Comment="Proposed by 1325 approved by 96, 15 edit id of 321" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4415" RevisionGUID="0dbc3928-8a00-4444-abf8-45d52441a39e" CreationDate="2015-04-17T07:15:06.947" UserId="2175" Text="I have added banana peel to my garden compost bin in the past but how quickly they break down depends on the climate. Here in Northern England our weather is generally fairly cool so the banana peel only breaks down slowly. I use homemade garden compost as a general soil feed in early Spring." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4416" RevisionGUID="f47a3cfe-3b49-4661-8c0a-23dfd342a637" CreationDate="2015-04-17T17:50:35.997" UserId="1053" Text="There's nothing particularly magic about banana peels compared to other peels. But if you're putting these in the garbage, you totally should stop doing that and use them in your garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cutting up individual peels and adding them to the garden is way too much work for me. Instead, I have a small lidded bucket on my kitchen counter. I add all fruit peels, cores, vegetable peels, stalks, and other bits of raw fruit and veg as the day goes on. I also add eggshells and used coffee filters full of coffee grounds. Nothing cooked, nothing non-vegetable. When it's full (more than once a day in the summer) I take it outside and put it on the compost pile which can be as simple as literally a pile on the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally (say at the start of the growing season, and during the summer if you feel like it) I turn the whole pile over to make an upside down pile next to it. I have mesh bins to make this process slightly neater. Then new stuff continues to get added to the old location. The turned over pile is now a source of compost to put around your plants, add shovelfuls of when transplanting things, and so on. If you like you can run a three-pile system - take compost from pile 3, turn pile 2 over into where pile 3 was, turn pile 1 over into where pile 2 was, always add new stuff to pile 1. You can add pulled up garden plants and whatnot to pile 1 as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this way your garden gets the organic matter from your peels and you throw out less garbage. It is actually less work to compost this way than to throw my peels away and empty the garbage more often." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="7c3286bf-848d-496e-9310-7d21bb6582e6" CreationDate="2015-04-17T21:27:05.260" UserId="99" Comment="added more explanation about desirable answers." Text="I've read somewhere that (organic) banana peels make a good fertilizer. You simply cut them up into small pieces and bury those around the plants in your garden. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how effective are banana peels compared to an organic fertilizer you'd buy from a store? Could I feed my roses and herb and vegetable garden with only banana peels and have similar results as with store-bought fertilizer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And do other fruit peels work just as well?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** Please note that I'm not interested in other approaches such as composting the fruit or other material first (I already do vermicomposting, but that's not the point here). My main interest is if adding chopped up fruit peels directly to the soil is effective and could potentially replace the use of other fertilizers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4417" RevisionGUID="a6cbbe0c-60dd-41c3-80e7-58022dcde3b6" CreationDate="2015-04-18T10:39:21.553" UserId="1325" Text="I suggest a square wooden frame with a pyramid-shaped frame rising from the corners. Fill the triangular sides of the pyramid with glass or &quot;perspex&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit of trig is needed to work out the angles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you work with a bit more precision *and* use the perspex, you could dispense with the pyramid frame and just glue the panes together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wooden base allows you to fit the cover snugly to the existing shower stall." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="6b55c046-929f-4a37-981b-9b17718903bd" CreationDate="2015-04-18T19:48:16.457" UserId="1308" Text="Inspired from http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3202/what-s-the-carbon-footprint-of-an-email , and other recent questions that made me reconsider the &quot;immaterial&quot; internet usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about updated statistics about the carbon footprint browsing the internet (probably it should be divoded by service, since facebook  gmail recently claimed to be have moved to sustainable data center, while I haven't any idea for amazon web service, or stackoverflow :) ) and about computer usage in general. &#xD;&#xA;I found a nice idea in cloud carbon, a chrome extension that shows your carboon footprint , https://github.com/chrisallick/FacebookCarbonFootprintChromeExtension/blob/master/README.md , but it's still far from accurate (for example, looking in the source code, you see that they just estimated facebook carbon footprint equal to the computer usage). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="6b55c046-929f-4a37-981b-9b17718903bd" CreationDate="2015-04-18T19:48:16.457" UserId="1308" Text="What's the carboon footprint of stackoverflow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="6b55c046-929f-4a37-981b-9b17718903bd" CreationDate="2015-04-18T19:48:16.457" UserId="1308" Text="|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="1c100550-cad3-4164-b46d-abc290537fbf" CreationDate="2015-04-18T20:56:42.267" UserId="1308" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="Inspired from http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3202/what-s-the-carbon-footprint-of-an-email , and other recent questions that made me reconsider the &quot;immaterial&quot; internet usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about updated statistics about the carbon footprint browsing the internet (probably it should be divoded by service, since facebook  gmail recently claimed to be have moved to sustainable data center, while I haven't any idea for amazon web service, or stackoverflow :) ) and about computer usage in general. &#xD;&#xA;I found a nice idea in cloud carbon, a chrome extension that shows your carboon footprint , https://github.com/chrisallick/FacebookCarbonFootprintChromeExtension/blob/master/README.md , but it's still far from accurate (for example, looking in the source code, you see that they just estimated facebook carbon footprint equal to the computer usage). There is also a project from windows http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/joulemeter/default.aspx but I can't try it now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="04be95f3-0fa0-4723-88b6-8f0dcaa17ede" CreationDate="2015-04-19T07:35:48.847" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, improved readability of links" Text="Inspired from http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3202/what-s-the-carbon-footprint-of-an-email and other recent questions that made me reconsider the &quot;immaterial&quot; internet usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about updated statistics about the carbon footprint browsing the internet (it should probably be divided by service, since facebook and gmail recently claimed to be have moved to sustainable data centers, while I haven't any idea about amazon web service, or stackoverflow :) ) and about computer usage in general. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a nice idea in cloud carbon, [a chrome extension that shows your carbon footprint](https://github.com/chrisallick/FacebookCarbonFootprintChromeExtension/blob/master/README.md), but it's still far from accurate (for example, looking in the source code, you see that they just estimated facebook carbon footprint equal to the computer usage). There is also a [project from Microsoft](http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/joulemeter/default.aspx) but I can't try it now.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9445" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="04be95f3-0fa0-4723-88b6-8f0dcaa17ede" CreationDate="2015-04-19T07:35:48.847" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, improved readability of links" Text="What's the carbon footprint of stackoverflow?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9446" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="76e12761-1c70-43dd-8f26-6b373f014d28" CreationDate="2015-04-19T09:01:42.867" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/589715485152915456" />
  <row Id="9447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="ecb36a1f-d17c-406c-8ed1-5f542accd5c2" CreationDate="2015-04-19T21:08:42.577" UserId="2182" Text="Not a full answer to your question, I do not know the footprint of the servers running the StackExchange sites, but it could be estimated from the information [here][1]. Good performance automatically means it uses as little resources (energy included) as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could measure your own carbon footprint while using StackOverflow if you are using an UPS that also measures your use. See my answer to the question &quot;[Is it possible/easy to determine how much power a program is using?][2]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a screenshot of what my computer is was using after a day of rendering 3D (Povray) scenes:&#xD;&#xA;![Energy consumption with heavy processor usage][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The figures may seen shocking, but rendering 3D scenes uses 100% processing capacity of all 8 cores in my workstation. Browsing any site, including Stack-Exchange sites, would only use a fraction of that. Unfortunately I cannot do a measurement of only using Stack-Exchange at this moment. To do that I would have to stop the current process which would be the same as throwing away a few hours worth of rendering (quite some CO2) which I am not prepared to do :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a laptop or tablet, the footprint will be allot less than on a desktop or workstation, so a real estimation could only be made by knowing what type of devices are connecting (server logs could provide a good estimation I guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/performance&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/20920522/659778&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JdXMd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4420" RevisionGUID="09b77247-7f5f-4437-be10-f2d1071fd3e9" CreationDate="2015-04-20T00:41:36.457" UserId="2183" Text="Like all organic matter banana peels **can** simply be buried &amp; allowed to compost in place. My grandmother preferred this method to piles &amp; just dug a new, small hole every day- one beside the other- in the grass alongside her multiple planting beds. In the course of a year she went all around her yard! **Banana peels are especially valuable** because they rot relatively quickly &amp; have [high potassium, plus magnesium &amp; other good minerals][1] that're expensive to purchase as fertilizer. She saved them for her rose bushes, which were **exceptionally fine &amp; full of blooms** every year. She did note that there would be a short-term nitrogen loss as the peel broke down. To prevent this harming the plant she broke them into 4-5 strips &amp; buried in multiple holes around the roots, plus she gave a nitrogen boost. **There are other ways to use peels** &amp; overripe bananas and several sites show methods like [spray][2], dried powder &amp; banana water soaks. (Sorry I can't add more links- I'm new so I don't have enough reputation for more than 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pallensmith.com/garden/answer?questionid=699&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.littlehouseliving.com/banana-peel-plant-fertilizer-spray.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="e4e72334-960c-434c-a9d3-8a7abf624f96" CreationDate="2015-04-20T01:26:04.730" UserId="2183" Text="Good for the company that's greening-up their processes! The greenest options are to **Reduce** the stored amount (ordering less) or facilitate **Reuse** (i.e. package outgoing items; set up a box pickup for employees; list boxes for giveaway on a specific date using Craigslist, [Facebook ReuseIt groups][1] or Freecycle). I get a lot of deliveries &amp; once a month take less than 10 minutes to list our items &amp; another 10-15 minutes a day later to handle replies &amp; pickup arrangements. The takers come pick up our boxes &amp; packing materials a day or so later. You have options for **Recycling**, too. A couple of small businesses near here made ongoing arrangements with small farmers to take pickup loads of boxes for their compost piles and/or soil revision. Any or all of these would **empty your space out more often with minimal effort**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For any cardboard that's left you might decrease the volume &amp; make compacting easier by shredding. One business we know that does this is [Bulbs.com][2]- I know because they use those along with newspaper shreds as packing material for our bulb orders. (I don't work for or with them- we just order their bulbs.) The strips make fantastic cat toys &amp; activity piles, so they're very popular deliveries at our house! When the cats are done with them we add them to our compost pile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope some of these ideas are helpful!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.facebook.com/ReUseIt.Network&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://bulbs.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4420" RevisionGUID="67eb04b0-a927-485b-9c11-d6dd82a28e9e" CreationDate="2015-04-20T04:12:05.923" UserId="2183" Comment="Added more links &amp; info now that my rating allows it." Text="Like all organic matter banana peels **can** simply be buried &amp; allowed to compost in place. My grandmother preferred this method to piles &amp; just dug a new, small hole every day- one beside the other- in the grass alongside her multiple planting beds. In the course of a year she went all around her yard! **Banana peels are especially valuable** because they rot relatively quickly &amp; have [high potassium, plus magnesium &amp; other good minerals][1] that're expensive to purchase as fertilizer. She saved them for her rose bushes, which were **exceptionally fine &amp; full of blooms** every year. She did note 2 problems: 1) peels break down more slowly in the dirt than they do in air; and 2) there would be a short-term nitrogen loss as the peel broke down. If you need quicker release [pre-composting is a better method][2]. To prevent nitrogen drop from harming the plant she broke them into lots of strips &amp; buried in multiple holes around the roots, plus she gave a nitrogen boost. **There are other ways** to use banana peels &amp; overripe bananas and several sites show methods like [spray][3], [dried powder][4] &amp; [banana water][5] soaks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other peels are valuable, too**, because they're already thin &amp; small so they break down quickly. **Citrus peels** are especially valuable because they have d-limonene, a pungent fragrance &amp; natural insecticide. [This may keep bugs away from your compost pile][6] as well as adding nutrients. We prefer to [extract the oil][7] to [combine with garlic][8] for excellent bug spray. Some folks get good results just [pureeing the peels with water][9] &amp; spraying it on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this is useful for you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pallensmith.com/garden/answer?questionid=699&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/composting/ingredients/banana-peels-compost.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.littlehouseliving.com/banana-peel-plant-fertilizer-spray.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4lhkmBY4tc&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://themicrogardener.com/diy-fertilisers-how-to-use-banana-peels/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/composting/ingredients/citrus-peels-compost.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.condoblues.com/2011/04/how-to-make-orange-essential-oil-from.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://tipnut.com/natural-pesticides/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.hometipsworld.com/ants-hate-orange-peel.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4420" RevisionGUID="fae5f00b-412b-40cf-a8e9-60963bf19a40" CreationDate="2015-04-20T04:17:47.283" UserId="2183" Comment="Added more links &amp; info now that my rating allows it" Text="Like all organic matter banana peels **can** simply be buried &amp; allowed to compost in place. My grandmother preferred this method to piles &amp; just dug a new, small hole every day- one beside the other- in the grass alongside her multiple planting beds. In the course of a year she went all around her yard! **Banana peels are especially valuable** because they rot relatively quickly &amp; have **[high potassium, plus magnesium &amp; other good minerals][1]** that're expensive to purchase as fertilizer. She saved them for her rose bushes, which were **exceptionally fine &amp; full of blooms** every year. She did note **2 problems**: 1) peels break down more slowly in the dirt than they do in air; and 2) there would be a short-term nitrogen loss as the peel broke down. If you need quicker release **[pre-composting is a better method][2]**. To prevent nitrogen drop from harming the plant she broke them into lots of strips &amp; buried in multiple holes around the roots, plus she gave a nitrogen boost. **There are other ways** to use banana peels &amp; overripe bananas and several sites show methods like **[sprays][3]**, **[powders][4]** &amp; **[banana water][5] soaks**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other peels are valuable, too**, because they're already thin &amp; small so they break down quickly. **Citrus peels** are especially valuable because they have d-limonene, a pungent fragrance &amp; natural insecticide. **[This may keep bugs away from your compost pile][6]** as well as adding nutrients. We prefer to **[extract the oil][7]** to **[combine with garlic][8]** for excellent bug spray. Some folks get good results just **[pureeing the peels with water][9]** &amp; spraying the strained solution on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this is useful for you!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pallensmith.com/garden/answer?questionid=699&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/composting/ingredients/banana-peels-compost.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.littlehouseliving.com/banana-peel-plant-fertilizer-spray.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4lhkmBY4tc&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://themicrogardener.com/diy-fertilisers-how-to-use-banana-peels/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/composting/ingredients/citrus-peels-compost.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.condoblues.com/2011/04/how-to-make-orange-essential-oil-from.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://tipnut.com/natural-pesticides/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.hometipsworld.com/ants-hate-orange-peel.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="824d9a77-809e-463d-a4bc-746ac4637fdd" CreationDate="2015-04-20T05:56:01.113" UserId="2183" Text="You're smart to figure out a way that works for you to store &amp; access your used bags. Without that they're not nearly as re-usable!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use these strategies to cut through the clutter &amp; make our bags more manageable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bring as few home as possible** We keep reusable shopping &amp; produce bags in a front closet so it's easy to grab on the way to the store. We keep 2-3 bags in each car for errands on the way home. Foldable or net bags can even fit in a tote bag, backpack or briefcase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Store where you use them** An example of this is a bunch of bags used as trash can liners stored under the in-use bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Group like with like** For example, fold &amp; stack paper grocery bags &amp; slide the stack inside one of the paper bags. When the &quot;holder&quot; looks like what's inside it's easier to know where to go to get what you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Group by function** We bring all our food bags to one drawer, rolled &amp; stored in emptied boxes of that type (marked for re-use) or in marked tubes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bundle the bulk** When any type of bag overflows its storage we put the overflow into a like bag &amp; store in a holding area (top of a closet near our refuse station). When the current store is used up we bring out the bundle &amp; put those bags in current use areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Share the wealth!** If we have a lot we'll likely take a long time to use we find someone who needs a whole bunch &amp; pass them on. Good candidates for that are farmers (need lots of produce bags &amp; other small bags like newspaper bags); Small businesses (need shopping bags); School &amp; volunteer groups (lots of different needs- check with your faves!). Local **[Freecycle][1]** and **[ReuseIt Groups][2]** are easy ways to find a taker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This **[*&quot;The Yummy Life&quot;* blog post][3]** shows several if these in action. I loved her cardboard tube grouping idea &amp; we use it for our food bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.freecycle.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.facebook.com/ReUseIt.Network&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.theyummylife.com/wash_dry_and_store_used_plastic_bags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4421" RevisionGUID="0fab10d5-24f1-4244-a2f9-b45dbbb43b64" CreationDate="2015-04-20T06:00:14.593" UserId="2183" Comment="Improved formatting" Text="Good for the company that's greening-up their processes! The greenest options are to **Reduce** the stored amount (ordering less) or facilitate **Reuse** (i.e. package outgoing items; set up a box pickup for employees; list boxes for giveaway on a specific date using Craigslist, **[Facebook ReuseIt groups][1]** or **[Freecycle][2]**). I get a lot of deliveries &amp; once a month take less than 10 minutes to list our items &amp; another 10-15 minutes a day later to handle replies &amp; pickup arrangements. The takers come pick up our boxes &amp; packing materials a day or so later. You have **more options for Recycling**, too. A couple of small businesses near here made ongoing arrangements with small farmers to pick up boxes on set days, for their compost piles and/or soil revision. Any or all of these would **empty your space out more often with minimal effort**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For any cardboard that's still designated for storage &amp; bulk recycling you might decrease the volume &amp; make compacting easier by shredding it. I don't know if this takes a special shredder but one business we know that does this is **[Bulbs.com][3]**- I know because they use those along with newspaper shreds as packing material for our bulb orders. (I don't work for or with them- we just order their bulbs.) The strips make fantastic cat toys &amp; activity piles, so they're very popular deliveries at our house! When the cats are done with them we add them to our compost pile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope some of these ideas are helpful!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.facebook.com/ReUseIt.Network&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.freecycle.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://bulbs.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4423" RevisionGUID="2cc30219-00dc-4da6-91d2-5244df7a529c" CreationDate="2015-04-20T11:29:55.070" UserId="2184" Text="I've been doing some reading up on the full cycle carbon footprint of energy production and consumption, and realising there's a lot of aspects that are frequently overlooked. One of these I'm wondering about are power lines. Over the lifetime of the power lines, including maintenance (and possibly management), what is the carbon production per kWh?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9455" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4423" RevisionGUID="2cc30219-00dc-4da6-91d2-5244df7a529c" CreationDate="2015-04-20T11:29:55.070" UserId="2184" Text="What is the carbon footprint of energy transfer across power lines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9456" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4423" RevisionGUID="2cc30219-00dc-4da6-91d2-5244df7a529c" CreationDate="2015-04-20T11:29:55.070" UserId="2184" Text="|energy|carbon-footprint|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="0e72bb07-2aa3-4c20-b4f4-292439fd7315" CreationDate="2015-04-20T14:05:12.153" UserId="1421" Text="Dogs and cat food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has to be domestic animal (and not pigs, for example) because you don't want to put human flesh in a cycle (it could cause a equivalent of mad cow disease)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4424" RevisionGUID="769cb0a3-3fe8-4ae6-8254-6f25377681e0" CreationDate="2015-04-20T14:11:33.173" UserId="1421" Comment="added 357 characters in body" Text="Dogs and cat food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has to be domestic animal (and not pigs, for example) because you don't want to put human flesh in a cycle (it could cause a equivalent of mad cow disease)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logistic need for this method is close to zero. The local butcher can totally deal with the job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I admit, this is an answer to the second part of the question: What are some sustainable options for handling dead bodies?  &#xD;&#xA;It hardly qualify as funeral. Because funeral is mostly about showing to the livings that a body is not to be treated as raw matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9459" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4423" RevisionGUID="c3c28650-8506-4e96-a2a7-c92390a8919b" CreationDate="2015-04-20T15:04:15.050" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/590169108748095488" />
  <row Id="9460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4425" RevisionGUID="074da99d-e5a6-48b2-9848-1319bf62a955" CreationDate="2015-04-20T21:12:22.053" UserId="1852" Text="From what I've read, the energy losses during [electric power transmission][1] are usually less than 10% of the original power. This loss decreases as voltage increases, up until a certain point when corona discharges make up for the increased transmission efficiency. When compared to the efficiency of the other parts of energy generation, transmission loss is fairly small. When it comes to maintenance, there are so many factors to take into account that giving an average number wouldn't be accurate, such as climate, type of transmission(overhead or underground), and materials used. Ideally, a wire should only have the one-time cost of construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4423" RevisionGUID="8a5475d0-d12d-44aa-83b5-8d13383a1697" CreationDate="2015-04-20T23:08:16.697" UserId="2184" Comment="Added mention about parabolic arrays vs PV panels" Text="I've been doing some reading up on the full cycle carbon footprint of energy production and consumption, and realising there's a lot of aspects that are frequently overlooked. One of these I'm wondering about are power lines. Over the lifetime of the power lines, including maintenance (and possibly management), what is the carbon production per kWh?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Solar parabolic array vs PV panels**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inspiration of the question is that solar parabolic arrays are reported to be substantially more efficient than PV panels, but given that PV panels don't need power lines if they're on your roof, I'm wondering if the carbon footprint of power lines make up the difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4426" RevisionGUID="4c7cf3ac-a610-4795-9f16-6bfeed0e3520" CreationDate="2015-04-21T10:43:34.023" UserId="318" Text="Energy input for a given crucible is the main factor.   &#xD;&#xA;You need energy input to exceed losses from radiation, and some convection and minimal conduction to give net energy gain so temperature will rise. While notionally you can achieve this with as little energy input as you wish, in practice it helps to have a healthy net energy input so that losses are swamped by energy gain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an indication of the energy levels available, &#xD;&#xA;The typical Sky TV dishes - ovals about 600mm tall, when covered with mylar aluminsied foil can create enough solar concentration to set your house on fire. Ask me how I almost know* :-).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 1.8m diameter circular satellite dish has an area of about 2.5 m^2.   &#xD;&#xA;Maximium midday sun on that is about 2.5 kW of power. Cover the dish with aluminised mylar and you can get say 1 kW plus thermal output. This can be concentrated in about a 100mm sphere at the focal point. (Exact size depends on dish geometry and covering precision but can be small.) With 1 kW avA crucible with a black outer surface could be made hot enough to melt glass - or a range of metals . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Solar house burner - almost:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-OR a chair on the back porch. A satellite dish was doing double duty as a cellphone repeater access antenna - place cellphone on arm at focus point, and for solar experimenting. Lefton a chair arm after a night time cellphone call, thge early morning sun was focused on the chair arm. Loss of house was a possibility. Notre smoke still rising on left side of image. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xpx77.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4426" RevisionGUID="c26b9a4b-6d16-4ec1-8ffc-4442ce334014" CreationDate="2015-04-21T10:52:59.350" UserId="318" Comment="added 1311 characters in body" Text="Energy input for a given crucible is the main factor.   &#xD;&#xA;You need energy input to exceed losses from radiation, and some convection and minimal conduction to give net energy gain so temperature will rise. While notionally you can achieve this with as little energy input as you wish, in practice it helps to have a healthy net energy input so that losses are swamped by energy gain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an indication of the energy levels available, &#xD;&#xA;The typical Sky TV dishes - ovals about 600mm tall, when covered with mylar aluminsied foil can create enough solar concentration to set your house on fire. Ask me how I almost know* :-).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 1.8m diameter circular satellite dish has an area of about 2.5 m^2.   &#xD;&#xA;Maximium midday sun on that is about 2.5 kW of power. Cover the dish with aluminised mylar and you can get say 1 kW plus thermal output. This can be concentrated in about a 100mm sphere at the focal point. (Exact size depends on dish geometry and covering precision but can be small.) With 1 kW avA crucible with a black outer surface could be made hot enough to melt glass - or a range of metals . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Solar house burner - almost:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*-OR a chair on the back porch. A satellite dish was doing double duty as a cellphone repeater access antenna - place cellphone on arm at focus point, and for solar experimenting. Lefton a chair arm after a night time cellphone call, thge early morning sun was focused on the chair arm. Loss of house was a possibility. Notre smoke still rising on left side of image. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xpx77.jpg&#xD;&#xA;_________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The following relates to Microwave Oven glass melting, not solar, to give an idea of the power levels needed:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**PPP: Glass Fusing in a Microwave Oven**](http://www.ceramicindustry.com/articles/89661-ppp-glass-fusing-in-a-microwave-oven)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Making glass jewelry is fun and will teach you the principles of glass fusing. With practice, you should be able to achieve consistent results in microwave firing. You will need a microwave kiln, which is a small ceramic fiber container that fits inside the microwave oven. The microwave kiln captures microwave energy and concentrates it in the firing chamber. The concept is similar to using a magnifying glass to focus sunlight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest challenge to microwave firing is the fast heating rate. A microwave kiln reaches 1650°F (899°C) in only 5-10 minutes. Firing times depend on the wattage of the microwave oven; the lower the wattage, the longer the firing time. However, firings can be controlled to achieve consistent results. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Making glass Jewelery in a microwave oven**](http://www.mijnhotpot.nl/pagina/user_manual_hotpot.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[HOW TO USE A MICROWAVE KILN TO FUSE GLASS JEWELRY &amp; PROCESS LOW-FIRE PMC ART CLAY SILVER. DOMAIN MICROWAVEKILN.COM &amp; MICROWAVE-KILN.COM ARE FOR SALE](https://microwavekiln.wordpress.com/home/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4427" RevisionGUID="303e3a7c-095c-4c46-af59-a2d0eb18c39a" CreationDate="2015-04-21T19:33:55.987" UserId="2188" Text="As a side note to the accepted answer (I don't have enough reputation to comment), most, if not all, of the plants on the NASA list are poisonous to cats and dogs. So if you have animals to worry about as well, choose wisely. Aside from that it is a great list." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4427" RevisionGUID="586a8d14-580e-414d-b937-de8cd9d49a0b" CreationDate="2015-04-21T19:39:46.570" UserId="2188" Comment="added 233 characters in body" Text="As a side note to the accepted answer (I don't have enough reputation to comment), most, if not all, of the plants on the NASA list are poisonous to cats and dogs. So if you have animals to worry about as well, choose wisely. Aside from that it is a great list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;I have found a [page][1] saying that a spider plant is good for cleaning the air and is non-toxic to cats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.petswelcome.com/articles/8-indoor-plants-that-are-safe-for-pets-also-improve-our-health.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="c3984ebe-eea1-4265-94d7-3821b77eb12e" CreationDate="2015-04-22T11:07:12.367" UserId="99" Comment="added explanation that production phase is generally more important" Text="Generally speaking, the production phase of a food makes up the larger part of it's total environmental impact. According to [this published Carnegie Mellon University study from 2008](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702969f) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S.&#xD;&#xA;household’s 8.1 t CO 2 e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle&#xD;&#xA;GHG emissions, and ﬁnal delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if similar results also apply to both tomato-scenarios you describe. It probably depends on the exact geographical location, the time of year and the technology used for growing the tomatos. Nevertheless, a while back on a Dutch television program they asked and answered a similar question for 2 types of vegetables. The question was which would be more sustainable **in the winter**; fresh endive grown locally in a greenhouse, or grown in the ground in Spain (about 1300km from here) and then transport it by truck. According to research they had done the answer was that the endive grown in Spain had a lower CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint because the local greenhouse requires lots of gas for heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the same television show also mentioned that fresh green beans which are transported by plane (from Kenia) have a far higher CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint than the ones transported by boat and/or truck (from Senegal, Marocco or Spain), so the type of transport does make a difference when all else is equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Locally grown vegetables that are grown in the summertime, when you don't need a greenhouse, have the lowest CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Dutch speakers, here is [the fragment about endive](http://kassa.vara.nl/tv/afspeelpagina/fragment/dilemma-verse-andijvie-uit-nederland-of-uit-spanje/speel/1/) and the one about [green beans](http://kassa.vara.nl/tv/afspeelpagina/fragment/dilemma-sperzieboontjes-uit-afrika/speel/1/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4428" RevisionGUID="f14f3046-75d4-44b1-97af-c5b80ec7e804" CreationDate="2015-04-22T11:07:22.507" UserId="616" Text="Since it's inside a house, a number of older homes in the US have closed in showers.  It's either a set of shower doors that extend from the top of the tub where they are mounted all the way to the ceiling, or from the top of the tub to the bottom of a short wall extending from the ceiling. Something like this, but imagine from the top of the shower doors a wall going up to completely enclose the shower.  Keep in mind that moisture issues can be problems, which is why most homes now use open-top showers. ![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BDOiw.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="4064f9e8-9da4-48f0-a856-0f4af636a573" CreationDate="2015-04-22T14:06:18.377" UserId="106" Comment="greenhouse/hothouse" Text="I've often wondered what is ecologically better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A tomato from the region grown in a greenhouse/hothouse&#xD;&#xA;* A tomato from several thousand km away grown naturally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ceteris paribus*, are there any reliable studies comparing the ecological impact of the two?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9469" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="4064f9e8-9da4-48f0-a856-0f4af636a573" CreationDate="2015-04-22T14:06:18.377" UserId="106" Comment="greenhouse/hothouse" Text="Local greenhouse/hothouse vegetables vs. remote naturally-grown vegetables" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9470" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="32963cfe-ad31-48ec-b945-da982ecbae9f" CreationDate="2015-04-23T03:11:33.573" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/591076917408849920" />
  <row Id="9471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="d754ac30-0e65-4de6-b2e6-f728ff1106f8" CreationDate="2015-04-23T12:09:53.497" UserId="836" Text="According to culture and countries, people must have using alternatives for tooth brush and pastes. What all things can be used as effective alternatives for these? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9472" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="d754ac30-0e65-4de6-b2e6-f728ff1106f8" CreationDate="2015-04-23T12:09:53.497" UserId="836" Text="What are the natural alternatives for toothbrush and toothpaste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9473" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="d754ac30-0e65-4de6-b2e6-f728ff1106f8" CreationDate="2015-04-23T12:09:53.497" UserId="836" Text="|alternatives|nature|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4430" RevisionGUID="5369c9f5-c098-487b-ba5f-2a84a030af48" CreationDate="2015-04-23T12:23:24.880" UserId="2190" Text="The alternative of toothpaste and toothbrush, what people still uses in country parts in India.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bbranches of following trees **[Prosopis juliflora][1]** tree and  **[Azadirachta indica][2]** tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see this : [other uses][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopis_juliflora&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azadirachta_indica&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azadirachta_indica#Other_uses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="ea8d2d2c-265e-461f-97be-292d1550a47c" CreationDate="2015-04-23T12:23:34.220" UserId="836" Comment="added 340 characters in body; edited title" Text="According to culture and countries, people must have using alternatives for toothpastes. What all things can be used as effective alternatives for tooth cleaning and whitening? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in Indian villages some people use some ayurvedic powders instead of toothpaste. Also some are using the [leaf of mango tree][1] to clean the tooth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=umikkari&amp;oq=umikkari&amp;aqs=chrome..69i57.3152j0j1&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;es_sm=0&amp;ie=UTF-8#q=mango%20leaf%20for%20tooth%20whitening" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9476" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="ea8d2d2c-265e-461f-97be-292d1550a47c" CreationDate="2015-04-23T12:23:34.220" UserId="836" Comment="added 340 characters in body; edited title" Text="What are the natural alternatives for toothpaste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4431" RevisionGUID="0ca67bc8-ecc7-4beb-b87f-441956f96b76" CreationDate="2015-04-23T12:27:35.003" UserId="2178" Text="Branches of the Yellow and Black birch have anti-septic properties from Methyl salicylate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_salicylate " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9478" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="208c5ae2-58ff-432d-96d4-397f7968f243" CreationDate="2015-04-23T18:11:35.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/591303416946765824" />
  <row Id="9479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="7cebcc85-b389-4b2b-ad05-1976c099395f" CreationDate="2015-04-23T22:17:38.453" UserId="2182" Text="I think it could work with a minor tweak. If you stick the curtain to the outside of the window and keep it wet (including the surface of the window), it will cool the glass from the outside, which in turn will cool the air on the inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will probably end up with condense on the inside (which would prove that it works) but compared to the original idea, that would be a minor problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use a white cloth, it could keep the window more or less transparent (especially while wet) providing light while also partially reflecting some heating sunlight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dark curtain would not be a good idea. It may accelerate the rate of evaporation, but only because it becomes hotter, so that defeats the cause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess some experimenting is worthwhile to find the ideal thickness and material for the cloth. If this proves to work out well, it may be interesting to develop an adaptive irrigation system specifically for this cause." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4430" RevisionGUID="1e1227ab-82e7-448c-8763-8437d5d2b511" CreationDate="2015-04-24T05:01:26.813" UserId="1325" Comment="General English" Text="The alternative of toothpaste and toothbrush, that people still use in country parts in India.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Branches of following trees **[Prosopis juliflora][1]** tree and  **[Azadirachta indica][2]** tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See Wikipedia *Azadirachta indica* [other uses][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopis_juliflora&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azadirachta_indica&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azadirachta_indica#Other_uses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9481" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4430" RevisionGUID="1e1227ab-82e7-448c-8763-8437d5d2b511" CreationDate="2015-04-24T05:01:26.813" Comment="Proposed by 1325 approved by 2190 edit id of 322" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9482" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="6157b793-99c4-4d37-8c76-e063b774e429" CreationDate="2015-04-24T06:11:35.370" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/591484611231813634" />
  <row Id="9484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4433" RevisionGUID="946e3e8d-f308-4817-9c6b-c5352c0a3b9f" CreationDate="2015-04-24T17:53:43.510" UserId="2082" Text="There are lots of alternatives to store-bought toothpaste.  A simple Google search for &quot;homemade toothpaste&quot; will give you a lot of results.  Here are some that I found, note that they can get rather elaborate. For myself, I go simple, just baking soda and salt.  It works great, really!&#xD;&#xA;http://wellnessmama.com/2500/remineralizing-toothpaste/&#xD;&#xA;http://familysponge.com/health/coconut-oil/homemade-toothpaste-coconut-oil/&#xD;&#xA;http://www.diynatural.com/homemade-toothpaste/&#xD;&#xA;http://www.weedemandreap.com/diy-toothpaste-recipe/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4434" RevisionGUID="49b3f9e5-96be-4f43-960f-b4b2141faab7" CreationDate="2015-04-25T18:04:26.423" UserId="480" Text="Due to your humid climate, an evaporative cooler is not likely going to be very effective. A 100% efficient evaporative cooler will only cool down to the &quot;wet bulb&quot; temperature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For direct evaporative cooling, the direct saturation efficiency,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  measures in what extent the temperature of the air leaving&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the direct evaporative cooler is close to the wet-bulb temperature of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the entering air.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The same equation indicates why evaporative coolers are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of limited use in highly humid environments: for example, a hot August&#xD;&#xA;&gt; day in Tokyo may be 30 °C (86 °F), 85% relative humidity, 1,005 hPa&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pressure. This gives dew point 27.2 °C (81.0 °F) and wet-bulb&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temperature 27.88 °C (82.18 °F). According to the formula above, at&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 85% efficiency air may be cooled only down to 28.2 °C (82.8 °F) which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; makes it quite impractical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using Surat, India as a representative coastal city, the current temperature is 26c/79f and the web bulb temperature is 24.5c/76f, so even if your evaporative cooler were 100% efficient, it would only drop the temperature by a degree or two, but it would also increase the humidity inside your home, making it less comfortable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [heat index chart](http://www.nws.noaa.gov/os/heat/heat_index.shtml) shows the relationship between relative humidity and perceived temperature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TJyc7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="0b2f7a85-a484-46bb-b13c-f1bbfb144ad7" CreationDate="2015-04-25T22:59:18.683" UserId="2182" Comment="Added drawing of idea" Text="I think it could work with a minor tweak. If you stick the curtain to the outside of the window and keep it wet (including the surface of the window), it will cool the glass from the outside, which in turn will cool the air on the inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will probably end up with condense on the inside (which would prove that it works) but compared to the original idea, that would be a minor problem. In fact it will lower the humidity inside making it more comfortable. In some countries it is quite common to have a small drainage under the window to dispose condense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a small example section drawing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use a white cloth, it could keep the window more or less transparent (especially while wet) providing light while also partially reflecting some heating sunlight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dark curtain would not be a good idea. It may accelerate the rate of evaporation, but only because it becomes hotter, so that defeats the cause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess some experimenting is worthwhile to find the ideal thickness and material for the cloth. If this proves to work out well, it may be interesting to develop an adaptive irrigation system specifically for this cause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WhWlO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4435" RevisionGUID="1edfaff8-7315-418e-8457-339aed6ef3bd" CreationDate="2015-04-28T14:54:32.977" UserId="2202" Text="In principle, an EIA should be carried out by expert(s) recognized by the governement and external to the project. I am however wondering the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Is it always the case or are there some countries which don't require the participation of a thrid party ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) In countries where the participation of a third party is mandatory, does the project initiator still contribute to the EIA (by providing key information on the project, i.e.)? If so, what is exactly the type and level of participation of the project initiator ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware that every country has different legislation with regard to EIA and it is therefore difficult to have general answers to my questions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am particularly interested at the moment by the cases of Panama and Guatemala. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks,&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9488" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4435" RevisionGUID="1edfaff8-7315-418e-8457-339aed6ef3bd" CreationDate="2015-04-28T14:54:32.977" UserId="2202" Text="Who carries an EIA out? (Environmental Impact Assessment)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9489" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4435" RevisionGUID="1edfaff8-7315-418e-8457-339aed6ef3bd" CreationDate="2015-04-28T14:54:32.977" UserId="2202" Text="|planning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="cc1a2778-59a4-41ba-8c22-47fdfee9b153" CreationDate="2015-04-28T15:04:42.527" UserId="2203" Text="I like to commute with my bicycle in the morning. It's just more relax than public transportation or motorcycling (or just whatever else, actually!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there's just one problem this summer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I work, we don't have any access to showers. I probably don't need to tell you that sport + heat = sweat. And sweat can be, occasionally, smelly. That's something I will probably face soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm targeting for zero waste lifestyle, although still far from it. Do you know any magical mixture / cloth / trick I could use to get a quick wash after commuting? Something that can be reused and preferably made of natural components?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="cc1a2778-59a4-41ba-8c22-47fdfee9b153" CreationDate="2015-04-28T15:04:42.527" UserId="2203" Text="Quick &quot;non-shower&quot; after morning bicycle commute" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="cc1a2778-59a4-41ba-8c22-47fdfee9b153" CreationDate="2015-04-28T15:04:42.527" UserId="2203" Text="|health|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4437" RevisionGUID="58849541-4b0f-4ef0-915f-c8f088a5fd46" CreationDate="2015-04-28T21:03:35.110" UserId="2187" Text="You could take a small, fast-drying (outdoor) towel with you and wash your underarms (usually the most dominant source of smell) in the toilet. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9494" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4436" RevisionGUID="797a1bdf-66f9-40b7-8cc9-7edf7660db30" CreationDate="2015-04-28T21:45:27.180" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/593169177340411907" />
  <row Id="9495" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4435" RevisionGUID="5bfef945-3e19-42d4-ab2b-9d4c03feffc1" CreationDate="2015-04-29T06:43:58.190" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/593304699773804544" />
  <row Id="9496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4438" RevisionGUID="6adfe8d9-15cf-4922-ab8f-c74bedb80d74" CreationDate="2015-04-29T06:59:18.177" UserId="1912" Text="I heard that at big voltages (10 000+V) the energy loss along a wire is very small. Unfortunately I've got little electrical knowledge, but this sparked up a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that peak consumption is at 5 P.M. and peak solar production is at about 1-2 P.M. (considering daylight savings are in effect) could we send solar energy across multiple timezones, to try to cope with peak consumption?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4438" RevisionGUID="6adfe8d9-15cf-4922-ab8f-c74bedb80d74" CreationDate="2015-04-29T06:59:18.177" UserId="1912" Text="Transmit solar over multiple time-zones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4438" RevisionGUID="6adfe8d9-15cf-4922-ab8f-c74bedb80d74" CreationDate="2015-04-29T06:59:18.177" UserId="1912" Text="|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4439" RevisionGUID="5415d03c-077b-4f75-b5f7-51cfae164b90" CreationDate="2015-04-29T07:59:23.627" UserId="48" Text="Yes, we can. Estimates vary of the losses in long-distance HVDC (high-voltage direct current) transmission, but they're around 3-4% per 1000 km. Now, those operate at far higher voltages than you've mentioned: you wrote of 10 000 V, which is also written as 10 kV. HVDC runs at 100-800 kV, i.e. 10 to 80 times higher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of using a large-area transmission network to help average out both demand peaks and variations in supply goes back quite a few years: most notably to Gregor Czisch's thesis in the early noughties, which found that an international grid spanning Europe, the Middle-East and North Africa would enable 100% renewables with very high energy security, and would be about the same price as a fossil-fuel powered grid, without any of the pollution. ([Gregor's thesis is available for free in German][1], and the English translation can be bought [as a book from the IET][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, a lot of work has been done on these: they became called **supergrids**, and various people (including me) looked at scenarios built around supergrids. Some of the interest has waned now, partly because a lot of people just take it for granted that that's the obvious way to do things, and that more and more HVDC transmission and other international electricity connectors are getting built. If you're interested in more about the USA case, see the Tres Amigas Superstation, also work by Mark Z. [Jacobson][3] &amp; Mark Delucchi, and work by [Chris Clack and Alexander (Sandy) MacDonald][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peak hours vary by country: in the UK, the biggest peaks are winter evenings around 17.30, with a smaller peak in the morning. In Germany, the demand curve tends to peak during the middle of the day. So a wide-area grid with high-capacity long-distance transmission helps there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And additionally, weather systems tend to be at most about 2000 km across, so having a grid that is larger than that, means that it will never be dominated by a single weather system; meaning that wave, solar, wind and hydro will all get smoothed over that whole area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High-capacity long-distance transmission networks aren't a silver bullet: they don't *guarantee* energy security. No one thing does. What they do do, is take us a long way along the path of energy security, at low cost relative to the alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://transnational-renewables.org/Gregor_Czisch/veroeffentlichungen.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.theiet.org/resources/books/pow-en/scenarios.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/events/seminars/seas/2014/052714.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4438" RevisionGUID="2ada48f9-a9be-4697-b1af-1f6a89f5deb3" CreationDate="2015-04-29T08:06:41.577" UserId="48" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot; (greetings and sign-offs are discouraged here, and it's not considered rude to do without them)" Text="I heard that at big voltages (10 000+V) the energy loss along a wire is very small. Unfortunately I've got little electrical knowledge, but this sparked up a question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that peak consumption is at 5 P.M. and peak solar production is at about 1-2 P.M. (considering daylight savings are in effect) could we send solar energy across multiple timezones, to try to cope with peak consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9501" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4438" RevisionGUID="2ada48f9-a9be-4697-b1af-1f6a89f5deb3" CreationDate="2015-04-29T08:06:41.577" UserId="48" Comment="removed &quot;thanks&quot; (greetings and sign-offs are discouraged here, and it's not considered rude to do without them)" Text="|electricity|photovoltaics|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4439" RevisionGUID="8be1e159-1749-4225-ac89-b3897968604a" CreationDate="2015-04-29T08:07:09.363" UserId="48" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Yes, we can. Estimates vary of the losses in long-distance HVDC (high-voltage direct current) transmission, but they're around 3-4% per 1000 km. Now, those operate at far higher voltages than you've mentioned: you wrote of 10 000 V, which is also written as 10 kV. HVDC runs at 100-800 kV, i.e. 10 to 80 times higher (100 000 to 800 000 V).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of using a large-area transmission network to help average out both demand peaks and variations in supply goes back quite a few years: most notably to Gregor Czisch's thesis in the early noughties, which found that an international grid spanning Europe, the Middle-East and North Africa would enable 100% renewables with very high energy security, and would be about the same price as a fossil-fuel powered grid, without any of the pollution. ([Gregor's thesis is available for free in German][1], and the English translation can be bought [as a book from the IET][2]. It's an academic thesis, so it's a very dense read).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, a lot of work has been done on these: they became called **supergrids**, and various people (including me) looked at scenarios built around supergrids. Some of the interest has waned now, partly because a lot of people just take it for granted that that's the obvious way to do things, and that more and more HVDC transmission and other international electricity connectors are getting built. If you're interested in more about the USA case, see the Tres Amigas Superstation, also work by Mark Z. [Jacobson][3] &amp; Mark Delucchi, and work by [Chris Clack and Alexander (Sandy) MacDonald][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peak hours vary by country: in the UK, the biggest peaks are winter evenings around 17.30, with a smaller peak in the morning. In Germany, the demand curve tends to peak during the middle of the day. So a wide-area grid with high-capacity long-distance transmission helps there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And additionally, weather systems tend to be at most about 2000 km across, so having a grid that is larger than that, means that it will never be dominated by a single weather system; meaning that wave, solar, wind and hydro will all get smoothed over that whole area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High-capacity long-distance transmission networks aren't a silver bullet: they don't *guarantee* energy security. No one thing does. What they do do, is take us a long way along the path of energy security, at low cost relative to the alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://transnational-renewables.org/Gregor_Czisch/veroeffentlichungen.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.theiet.org/resources/books/pow-en/scenarios.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/events/seminars/seas/2014/052714.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4439" RevisionGUID="35fdf704-88cb-4333-a504-66305499ed04" CreationDate="2015-04-29T08:13:08.193" UserId="48" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="Yes, we can. Estimates vary of the losses in long-distance HVDC (high-voltage direct current) transmission, but they're around 3-4% per 1000 km. Now, those operate at far higher voltages than you've mentioned: you wrote of 10 000 V, which is also written as 10 kV. HVDC runs at 100-800 kV, i.e. 10 to 80 times higher (100 000 to 800 000 V).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of using a large-area transmission network to help average out both demand peaks and variations in supply goes back quite a few years: most notably to Gregor Czisch's thesis in the early noughties, which found that an international grid spanning Europe, the Middle-East and North Africa would enable 100% renewables with very high energy security, and would be about the same price as a fossil-fuel powered grid, without any of the pollution. ([Gregor's thesis is available for free in German][1], and the English translation can be bought [as a book from the IET][2]. It's an academic thesis, so it's a very dense read).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since then, a lot of work has been done on these: they became called **supergrids**, and various people (including me) looked at scenarios built around supergrids. Some of the interest has waned now, partly because a lot of people just take it for granted that that's the obvious way to do things, and that more and more HVDC transmission and other international electricity connectors are getting built. If you're interested in more about the USA case, see the Tres Amigas Superstation, also work by Mark Z. [Jacobson][3] &amp; Mark Delucchi, and work by [Chris Clack and Alexander (Sandy) MacDonald][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peak hours vary by country: in the UK, the biggest peaks are winter evenings around 17.30, with a smaller peak in the morning. In Germany, the demand curve tends to peak during the middle of the day. So a wide-area grid with high-capacity long-distance transmission helps there: it's not just an issue of spanning timezones, but also spanning different economies with different rhythms; and spanning different climatic zones, so different requirements for heating, ventilation and air-conditioning, which follow different diurnal and seasonal patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And additionally, weather systems tend to be at most about 2000 km across, so having a grid that is larger than that, means that it will never be dominated by a single weather system; meaning that wave, solar, wind and hydro will all get smoothed over that whole area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High-capacity long-distance transmission networks aren't a silver bullet: they don't *guarantee* energy security. No one thing does. What they do do, is take us a long way along the path of energy security, at low cost relative to the alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://transnational-renewables.org/Gregor_Czisch/veroeffentlichungen.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.theiet.org/resources/books/pow-en/scenarios.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/events/seminars/seas/2014/052714.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4440" RevisionGUID="62c8393f-857c-4bd8-887d-a34773dd6795" CreationDate="2015-04-29T09:25:09.063" UserId="812" Text="I can't comment on Panama/Guatemala, but in the UK, at least in theory:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EIAs are normally conducted by third-party consultants. These consultants are usually hired by the prospective developer, and some might argue that this makes them non-independent (although bear in mind that they also have reputations for rigor to preserve).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What protects the objectiveness of EIAs is not who does them, but that they are open - they are presented as scientific reports with a citation trail to back up all the assertions that they make, and thus anybody can inspect them and, if they find mistakes or bias, point this out to the regulatory authorities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="d9ed9c0f-0792-47d9-a3b6-d95dbd0775de" CreationDate="2015-04-29T09:57:17.713" UserId="1445" Text="I've been trying to understand and reduce my impact on the environment, and particularly to understand what a really sustainable lifestyle would look like.  I (roughly) get the concepts of ecological footprint and planetary boundaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one of my difficulties is how to account for the impact of buying secondhand goods.  I tend now to buy nearly everything from charity shops, eBay, etc and buy very little new &quot;stuff&quot;.  A simplistic viewpoint is that these have zero impact (other than shipping and other overheads).  But that seems like a bit of a cheat.  In particular it fails the test of &quot;would it work if everyone lived like this&quot; since it relies on someone else having bought things new.  A bit like countries offshoring all their carbon emissions and claiming to have reduced their footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas for how to do this in a practical way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9506" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="d9ed9c0f-0792-47d9-a3b6-d95dbd0775de" CreationDate="2015-04-29T09:57:17.713" UserId="1445" Text="How to account for environmental impact of second hand goods" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9507" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="d9ed9c0f-0792-47d9-a3b6-d95dbd0775de" CreationDate="2015-04-29T09:57:17.713" UserId="1445" Text="|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4442" RevisionGUID="b8def023-41fe-4b4a-8b33-8419da2b8865" CreationDate="2015-04-29T11:02:03.240" UserId="15" Text="The market value of the goods is often indicative of the remaining useful life of the goods. If you know the environmental footprint of the product when new, it seems reasonable to assume that a purchaser of the goods (second hand) is to be responsible for a share of that impact based on the proportion of useful life remaining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you take a $10,000 car with a footprint of 5,000 environmental-harm units (whatever they may be; this is just an example), and you then purchase it for say $6,000 then you should consider yourself responsible for 3,000 units of environment-harm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you treat the item well and onsell it for $5,000 then you could consider that you've reduced your impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of simple assumption is never going to be completely accurate, especially with factors such as government subsidies of environmentally damaging activities, but it's a starting point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4442" RevisionGUID="1260c55e-7933-4fd0-aac9-76411ed1ca43" CreationDate="2015-04-29T11:08:25.263" UserId="15" Comment="added 430 characters in body" Text="The market value of the goods is often indicative of the remaining useful life of the goods. If you know the environmental footprint of the product when new, it seems reasonable to assume that a purchaser of the goods (second hand) is to be responsible for a share of that impact based on the proportion of useful life remaining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you take a $10,000 car with a footprint of 5,000 environmental-harm units (whatever they may be; this is just an example), and you then purchase it for say $6,000 then you should consider yourself responsible for 3,000 units of environment-harm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you treat the item well and onsell it for $5,000 then you could consider that you've reduced your impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of simple assumption is never going to be completely accurate, especially with factors such as government subsidies of environmentally damaging activities, but it's a starting point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This idea holds up well in some key ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An item taken that was otherwise heading to landfill could be considered as having a zero dollar value, and if that's accurate then it's reasonable to assume you aren't responsible for any of its impact of manufacture.&#xD;&#xA; - The higher the price you pay for a second hand item, the more likely it will be that the seller replaces the item and causes additional environmental impact. It's therefore reasonable to consider that when you choose to take up their offer at the given price, you are responsible for additional environmental impact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4443" RevisionGUID="3b5302e1-a1bf-4058-9e47-f17616dee29d" CreationDate="2015-04-29T13:30:22.437" UserId="1445" Text="Good question.  There are three parts to the answer: extracting and using non-renewable resources also uses energy, water, etc which *are* part of the ecological footprint; &quot;consuming&quot; some non-renewable resources can have other negative effects on the environment; and there are limited amounts of non-renewable resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The footprint FAQ you reference is addressing the first point.  To take Aluminium as an example, producing Aluminium from the ore requires a large amount of energy: the ore is heated to 1000°C and electrolysed using thousands of Amperes of current, with large amounts of CO2 given off in the process (see [Hall-Heroult process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall%E2%80%93H%C3%A9roult_process)).  So there is a significant carbon footprint to its production (231 MJ/kg embodied energy according to [this](http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/106.pdf), plus direct CO2 emissions).  Aluminium ore also tends to be strip-mined, which takes up land which could otherwise be farmed, and so on.  These impacts should be included in ecological footprint calculations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second point is rather complex.  The extraction and use of some resources can pollute the environment (e.g. Cadmium released from spent batteries, mercury released from gold mining).  In theory this *could* be included in an ecological footprint calculation: the amount of land/sea needed to degrade the pollution plus the effective reduction in global capacity from the negative effects of the pollution.  But in practice this calculation is difficult and doesn't seem to be included in most methodologies for measuring ecological footprint (e.g. see [here](http://www.earthday.org/footprintfaq#waste)).  Also some kinds of pollution (e.g. plastic waste) just aren't degraded.  One way of attempting to measure the most significant negative impacts of activities is the idea of [Planetary Boundaries](http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/research-programmes/planetary-boundaries.html) - which overlaps a bit with ecological footprint but also includes biodiversity, pollution, etc.  Unfortunately this is less well-developed than ecolocigal footprint, and isn't very quantitative - yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, in using a non-renewable resource you *may* be reducing the total amount available.  I say &quot;may&quot; because many non-renewable resources are widely recycled (e.g. Aluminium).  This scarcity angle is actually rather well handled by economics: price movements do a much better job of managing the use of scarce raw materials than they do of managing environmental impacts.  So I tend not to worry too much about this on the assumption that scarcity is reflected in price.  If only I could make the same assumption about environmental and social impact..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4444" RevisionGUID="28078e8f-2e79-437a-9f2c-076f8dd25840" CreationDate="2015-04-29T18:43:23.290" UserId="2187" Text="I want to reduce my own consumption of industrial toothpaste, in particular to avoid the large amount of plastic packaging it uses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already been using tea tree oil as a supplement to my conventional toothpaste. Do you consider it health and safe to only rely on tea tree oil to brush my teeth?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4444" RevisionGUID="28078e8f-2e79-437a-9f2c-076f8dd25840" CreationDate="2015-04-29T18:43:23.290" UserId="2187" Text="Is it healthy to brush teeth only with tea tree oil?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4444" RevisionGUID="28078e8f-2e79-437a-9f2c-076f8dd25840" CreationDate="2015-04-29T18:43:23.290" UserId="2187" Text="|packaging|health|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4445" RevisionGUID="7272d9a4-3725-42b5-b579-ccd726fc5115" CreationDate="2015-04-29T21:04:06.310" UserId="99" Text="**NO! [Tea tree oil is toxic when swallowed](http://www.poison.org/poisonpost/winter2010/teatreeoil.htm)**, so I'd strongly advise against any intake of tea tree oil, and even more so I you are using it regularly. Even if you spit it out, some may be left behind and effects may build up over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, be very careful when taking medical advice from people on the Internet. Imagine if instead of the above I told you that you can safely drink a liter!? (which you can't!!). This is also the reason most StackExchange sites don't allow medical questions and perhaps this is something we should also discuss here on Meta Sustainability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4445" RevisionGUID="87a27570-a873-4e27-94ec-4f1ca74ce2e3" CreationDate="2015-04-29T21:18:53.177" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 160 characters in body" Text="**NO! [Tea tree oil is toxic when swallowed](http://www.poison.org/poisonpost/winter2010/teatreeoil.htm)**, so I'd strongly advise against any intake of tea tree oil, and even more so I you are using it regularly. Even if you spit it out, some may be left behind and effects may build up over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, be very careful when taking medical advice from people on the Internet. Imagine if instead of the above I told you that you can safely drink a liter!? (which you can't!!). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9516" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4444" RevisionGUID="a603667a-dd34-4051-bac2-a621d7dc9225" CreationDate="2015-04-29T21:23:23.043" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4445" RevisionGUID="05ae50a6-a527-4a0e-b1af-7751edbc78d9" CreationDate="2015-04-29T21:51:39.033" UserId="99" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="**NO! [Tea tree oil is toxic when swallowed](http://www.poison.org/poisonpost/winter2010/teatreeoil.htm)**, so I'd strongly advise against any intake of tea tree oil, and even more so I you are using it regularly. Even if you spit it out, some may be left behind and effects may build up over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, be very careful when taking medical advice from people on the Internet. Imagine if instead of the above I told you that you can safely drink a liter!? (which you can't!! You'd die if you did drink that much). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4442" RevisionGUID="4e14b0d6-9b79-4919-a983-491040494c8b" CreationDate="2015-04-29T21:55:21.777" UserId="15" Comment="Clarified wording" Text="The market value of the goods is often indicative of the remaining useful life of the goods. If you know the environmental footprint of the product when new, it seems reasonable to assume that a purchaser of the goods (second hand) is to be responsible for a share of that impact based on the proportion of useful life remaining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if there exists a car that cost $10,000 (when new) with a footprint of 5,000 environmental-harm units (whatever they may be; this is just an example. This works out to be 1 unit per $2), and you then purchase it for say $6,000 then you should consider yourself responsible for 3,000 units of environment-harm (ie still 1 unit per $2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, if you treat the item well and onsell it for $5,000 then you could consider that you've reduced your impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of simple assumption is never going to be completely accurate, especially with factors such as government subsidies of environmentally damaging activities, but it's a starting point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This idea holds up well in some key ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An item taken that was otherwise heading to landfill could be considered as having a zero dollar value, and if that's accurate then it's reasonable to assume you aren't responsible for any of its impact of manufacture.&#xD;&#xA; - The higher the price you pay for a second hand item, the more likely it will be that the seller replaces the item and causes additional environmental impact. It's therefore reasonable to consider that when you choose to take up their offer at the given price, you are responsible for additional environmental impact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4446" RevisionGUID="b3d95908-b5b7-4ddd-8f36-3a0958d7e492" CreationDate="2015-04-30T04:42:15.540" UserId="2209" Text="We used to throw away our banana peels and all other fruit and vegetable peels in our veggie patch, but they take a long time to decompose and also invite snails. Especially the orange peels, which are a good amount of biomass are a good attraction for snails. We now collect peels until they fill up our grinder, and then grind them before throwing them into the tree roots. Putting a decent amount of water helps the grinder break up the peels faster and finer. The grinded and finer product should be as good as raw banana peels, and should be more quickly absorbed by the soil. At least we believe so! Can a soil expert here confirm this understanding?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4447" RevisionGUID="28bad1d7-7e83-4b1a-a53a-6ef7ef4ab668" CreationDate="2015-04-30T09:03:34.680" UserId="99" Text="What you are asking is generally referred to as the '*allocation problem*'. There are a number of allocation methods that are often used in assessing the environmental impact of a product or service, but each allocation method has it pros and cons. Since the chosen method can have a big influence on the outcome of a study, allocation is an important and even controversial topic as experts have different opinions on which allocation method is best in which situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of often used allocation methods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **portion of mass reused**: relatively easy to determine for physical products, leads to low impacts, if you reuse the entire product the impact is 0 (as you mentioned in your question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **portion of (embodied) energy**:&#xD;&#xA;   similar to mass reused, but may be more difficult to determine&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - **market value**:&#xD;&#xA;   this is nicely explained [in Highly Irregular's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4442/99),&#xD;&#xA;   value may be difficult to determine correctly, prices can be volatile&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - **no/avoided allocation**:  may not be very realistic, leads to higher impacts, in your case you have the full impact.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Which method is chosen in practice depends on various things; the type of product, what environmental impact you want to measure, what data is available to you. Personally, in your case I'd go with market value." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4445" RevisionGUID="526fcef1-e747-4cba-9845-2232ce893dad" CreationDate="2015-04-30T09:22:27.547" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo" Text="**NO! [Tea tree oil is toxic when swallowed](http://www.poison.org/poisonpost/winter2010/teatreeoil.htm)**, so I'd strongly advise against any intake of tea tree oil, and even more so if you are using it regularly. Even if you spit it out, some may be left behind and adverse effects may build up over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, be very careful when taking medical advice from people on the Internet. Imagine if instead of the above I told you that you can safely drink a liter!? (which you can't!! You'd die if you did drink that much). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="7e6a9c55-4044-49ef-b546-17148d751fa1" CreationDate="2015-05-01T19:09:24.887" UserId="2214" Text="A lot of proponents against solar power that I talk to argue that solar power is not current economically sustainable in the long term based on the energy and infrastructure required to create the panels, etc in the first place. Specifically, they say that solar panel producers use for fossil fuel in the making of this infrastructure and product than the renewable energy created per unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How true is this claim and are there any quantitative resources for exploring both sides of this claim? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="7e6a9c55-4044-49ef-b546-17148d751fa1" CreationDate="2015-05-01T19:09:24.887" UserId="2214" Text="What is the economic sustainability of solar power" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="7e6a9c55-4044-49ef-b546-17148d751fa1" CreationDate="2015-05-01T19:09:24.887" UserId="2214" Text="|solar-power|economy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="254ba0b4-c996-4486-bdc6-266c5bf9e6b7" CreationDate="2015-05-02T11:11:48.757" UserId="15" Comment="Slight rewording to make more sense" Text="A lot of proponents against solar power that I talk to argue that solar power is not current economically sustainable in the long term based on the energy and infrastructure required to create the panels, etc in the first place. Specifically, they say that solar panel producers use more fossil fuel in the making of this infrastructure and product than the renewable energy created in the operation of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How true is this claim and are there any quantitative resources for exploring both sides of this claim? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="f7065ee2-da7b-4bc0-a13c-958a9810186e" CreationDate="2015-05-02T15:00:01.463" UserId="1325" Comment="Change proponents against to opponents of." Text="A lot of opponents of solar power that I talk to argue that solar power is not current economically sustainable in the long term based on the energy and infrastructure required to create the panels, etc in the first place. Specifically, they say that solar panel producers use more fossil fuel in the making of this infrastructure and product than the renewable energy created in the operation of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How true is this claim and are there any quantitative resources for exploring both sides of this claim? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9528" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="f7065ee2-da7b-4bc0-a13c-958a9810186e" CreationDate="2015-05-02T15:00:01.463" Comment="Proposed by 1325 approved by 99 edit id of 324" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4449" RevisionGUID="2c57073f-c5be-465a-a3e7-3f6c7a40b417" CreationDate="2015-05-03T15:39:53.190" UserId="2218" Text="Geoff Lawson &quot;The Prince of Permaculture&quot; uses ducks and plants to feed the ducks-- the glee settles where the cracks are and builds up--- kind of like radiator stop leak..&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="90a455d0-4810-4e95-a59e-ba1c4520ddc9" CreationDate="2015-05-04T14:33:25.977" UserId="2219" Text="besides batteries are there any viable options to store energy from solar panels for the home owner to be able to use the energy at night or when the sun does not shine. I realise there will be losses in the conversion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9531" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="90a455d0-4810-4e95-a59e-ba1c4520ddc9" CreationDate="2015-05-04T14:33:25.977" UserId="2219" Text="what alternatives are there to store solar energy besides a battery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9532" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="90a455d0-4810-4e95-a59e-ba1c4520ddc9" CreationDate="2015-05-04T14:33:25.977" UserId="2219" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4451" RevisionGUID="34455cfa-5b99-41eb-9ebd-fd981db28249" CreationDate="2015-05-04T20:01:37.200" UserId="2072" Text="Ok, let's break this down. I will assume photovoltaic solar panels (as the question implies alternatives to batteries) and therefore skip all kinds of solar thermal collectors. Starting from electric energy coming from this PV panels we can convert to various [forms of energy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forms_of_energy). For the purpose of storage this boils typically down to a few used forms only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Mechanical, both kinetic and potential energies&#xD;&#xA; * Chemical, the bonding energy of molecules &#xD;&#xA; * Electromagnetic, the energy contained in electromagnetic fields&#xD;&#xA; * Thermal, the internal energy present in a system according to its temperature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first and obvious choice for home owners are batteries that store chemical energy. They are common today, somewhat accepted and to be honest despite the high prices currently the only viable solution. Very benefitial to their use is the easy scalability (amount of stored energy) to the needs of the owner/user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potential energy could be used by lifting up things that if coming down again will release energy. While this principle is used at utility-scale with hydroelectric dams including pumped-storage hydroelectricity and is proposed for very small off-grid applications (mainly third world usage). Home-scale applications are actually rare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kinetic energy could be stored in so called flyweels, where rapidly rotating masses. Unfortunately last that I checked they seem to come in systems starting at 20k$. Some require supraconducting magnets to levitate the disc, operate within a vacumm and they all have rather low storage time (hours to days). As of today they are also not viable for home use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electromagnetic energy could be stored via the current in supraconducting coils (again not that home-use friendly) or via the electric field in capacitors. Those capacitors in the form of supercaps are investigated and could be one of the next big things in home use energy storage. Idealy the would also provide scalable systems like batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thermal energy storage including molten salts which can efficiently store and release very large quantities of heat energy. Unfortunately heat cannot be transferred back to electricity at high effiency. So this comes only into play if the energy will be needed to heat buildings or water for domestic use. Nice benefit is seasonal thermal energy storage to store the summer's solar energy for the use in winter time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One last form that needs to combine mechanical and thermal energy: compressed air energy storage. Unfortunately (to my knowlegde) investigated only at utility-scale with only a few research facilities reported (in the US and in Germany).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list is by no means comprehensive but reflects my understanding of the current situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4452" RevisionGUID="2bf23dce-2945-4c22-9d4b-821809418808" CreationDate="2015-05-05T09:17:12.457" UserId="2222" Text="We already try to measure how much energy is invested (EROEI) in the production of energy, but I have a hard time finding numbers on the *materials* invested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: What is the total energy a wind turbine produces in it's lifetime divided by the total mass of all the materials consumed in it's construction, operation and and maintenance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it would be even more interesting to know the *kind* of materials invested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4452" RevisionGUID="2bf23dce-2945-4c22-9d4b-821809418808" CreationDate="2015-05-05T09:17:12.457" UserId="2222" Text="I there an &quot;energy returned on materials invested&quot; index for energy sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4452" RevisionGUID="2bf23dce-2945-4c22-9d4b-821809418808" CreationDate="2015-05-05T09:17:12.457" UserId="2222" Text="|recycling|energy|renewables|electricity-generation|manufacturing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9537" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4452" RevisionGUID="f08b8c49-4102-472d-8aea-3f6de64493b8" CreationDate="2015-05-05T11:07:05.267" UserId="2222" Comment="edited title" Text="Is there an &quot;energy returned on materials invested&quot; index for energy sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4452" RevisionGUID="f08b8c49-4102-472d-8aea-3f6de64493b8" CreationDate="2015-05-05T11:07:05.267" UserId="2222" Comment="edited title" Text="We already try to measure how much energy is invested (EROEI) in the production of energy, but I have a hard time finding numbers on the *materials* invested.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: What is the total energy a wind turbine produces in it's lifetime divided by the total mass of all the materials consumed in its construction, operation and and maintenance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it would be even more interesting to know the *kind* of materials invested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4453" RevisionGUID="63de4d6f-c5fd-47e1-b8f0-59e453bb2813" CreationDate="2015-05-05T12:26:12.593" UserId="48" Text="I've yet to see a meaningful metric that relates directly to materials, other than the EROEI; and there's discussion about whether or not EROEI is at all a useful measure: its probably not that useful, since once it's over 1.0, it's completely subsumed into the economics. The same would be true of a more explicitly materials-based index: it's completely subsumed into the economics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As THelper hints at in the comments, calculations of energy inputs, and other lifecycle cost analyses, do usually work from a quantified list of materials that are used in construction, operations and decommissioning. So most detailed LCAs will contain such a list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will vary depending on whether the turbine has a permanent (neodymium) magnet or not; whether it's onshore or offshore; and if offshore, what sort of foundation / tethering is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy out per unit kilogram (kg) mass input seems like a strange measure, as it equates a kg of water, a kg of oxygen, a kg of steel, a kg of platinum: I can't really see how that's at all a useful measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the two tables identified by THelper, from [&quot;Energy performances and life cycle assessment of an Italian wind farm&quot; by Ardente et al (2006):](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2006.05.013)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Materials per 660kW-capacity turbine:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Additional Materials for the whole 11-turbine farm:*&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get total energy generated, you could assume a 20-year life and something like a 25% capacity factor, to get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;20y x 25% x 11 x 660kW x 8766 h/y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;= about 300 GWh of electricity generated over the lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gR5mA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AXZkK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4453" RevisionGUID="0d4bd481-c0e3-4d5f-99d3-38038dc1d3e0" CreationDate="2015-05-05T17:59:20.030" UserId="48" Comment="added 554 characters in body" Text="I've yet to see a meaningful metric that relates directly to materials, other than the EROEI; and there's discussion about whether or not EROEI is at all a useful measure: its probably not that useful, since once it's over 1.0, it's completely subsumed into the economics. The same would be true of a more explicitly materials-based index: it's completely subsumed into the economics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As THelper hints at in the comments, calculations of energy inputs, and other lifecycle cost analyses, do usually work from a quantified list of materials that are used in construction, operations and decommissioning. So most detailed LCAs will contain such a list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will vary depending on whether the turbine has a permanent (neodymium) magnet or not; whether it's onshore or offshore; and if offshore, what sort of foundation / tethering is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy out per unit kilogram (kg) mass input seems like a strange measure, as it equates a kg of water, a kg of oxygen, a kg of steel, a kg of platinum: I can't really see how that's at all a useful measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the two tables identified by THelper, from [&quot;Energy performances and life cycle assessment of an Italian wind farm&quot; by Ardente et al (2006):](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2006.05.013)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Materials per 660kW-capacity turbine:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Additional Materials for the whole 11-turbine farm:*&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get total energy generated, you could assume a 20-year life and something like a 25% capacity factor, to get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;20y x 25% x 11 x 660kW x 8766 h/y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;= about 300 GWh of electricity generated over the lifetime, and about 40 kilotonnes of material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###caveat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost all of that material would be re-usable at the end of life of the farm: the aggregates, soil and stone could be directly reused; the steel would be recycled; and the concrete reused as aggregates. So picking a divisor is tricky - without detailed information on recycling and reuse rates, the number of generations of windfarm served by those 40 kilotonnes of materials is hard to determine, so one might end up picking an abritrary number of generations, changing the end result considerably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gR5mA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AXZkK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4453" RevisionGUID="d10d7cf0-52f9-48be-8430-2d56736c3ad2" CreationDate="2015-05-06T04:39:17.797" UserId="48" Comment="added 342 characters in body" Text="#Measuring impact&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've yet to see a meaningful metric that relates directly to materials, other than the EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested); and there's discussion about whether or not EROEI is at all a useful measure: its probably not that useful, since once it's over 1.0, it's completely subsumed into the economics. The same would be true of a more explicitly materials-based index: it's completely subsumed into the economics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As THelper hints at in the comments, calculations of energy inputs, and other lifecycle cost analyses (LCAs), do usually work from a quantified list of materials that are used in construction, operations and decommissioning. So most detailed LCAs will contain such a list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will vary depending on whether the turbine has a permanent (neodymium) magnet or not; whether it's onshore or offshore; and if offshore, what sort of foundation / tethering is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy out per unit kilogram (kg) mass input seems like a strange measure, as it equates a kg of water, a kg of oxygen, a kg of steel, a kg of platinum: I can't really see how that's at all a useful measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Materials for one wind farm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the two tables identified by THelper, from [&quot;Energy performances and life cycle assessment of an Italian wind farm&quot; by Ardente et al (2006):](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2006.05.013)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Materials per 660kW-capacity turbine:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Additional Materials for the whole 11-turbine farm:*&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get total energy generated, you could assume a 20-year life and something like a 25% capacity factor, to get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;20y x 25% x 11 x 660kW x 8766 h/y&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;= about 300 GWh of electricity generated over the lifetime, and about 40 kilotonnes of material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Caveats&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;660kW turbines are quite small, these days: 2-3MW is more common. So the above windfarm isn't really that representative. Also, the amount of material used for roads and lay-bays could vary a lot, depending on the specific site configuration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost all of that material would be re-usable at the end of life of the farm: the aggregates, soil and stone could be directly reused; the steel would be recycled; and the concrete reused as aggregates. So picking a divisor is tricky - without detailed information on recycling and reuse rates, the number of generations of windfarm served by those 40 kilotonnes of materials is hard to determine, so one might end up picking an abritrary number of generations, changing the end result considerably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gR5mA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AXZkK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9543" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4452" RevisionGUID="59806440-df6c-407d-a103-9c9b24eb5b37" CreationDate="2015-05-06T10:18:50.920" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|renewables|life-cycle-analysis|electricity-generation|manufacturing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4455" RevisionGUID="a76c8e73-0aea-447e-956e-5345aa966061" CreationDate="2015-05-08T02:27:17.753" UserId="2228" Text="I hate to sound glib, but how about storing it in biomass?  Trees are a fantastic way to store solar energy; so is some sort of oilseed like rape.  Of course, it takes long-term planning to get a sustainable cycle going, but you can figure out how much energy you use continuously (kWh/year), then plan on harvesting enough biomass in a given year and consuming it in some sort of generator (woodgas, in the case of trees; diesel in the case of oilseed), then plan on having the generator run more or less continuously (plan for maintenance), adjusting to consumption with a governor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4456" RevisionGUID="95e08816-428f-484e-ab1f-caaf73357d6e" CreationDate="2015-05-08T02:34:34.837" UserId="2228" Text="Here's an instructional video on making toothpaste with the primary ingredient being diatomaceous earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRnjmDIRmqM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4457" RevisionGUID="7a4ea84c-f1f5-41b3-bba5-ba8454d535d9" CreationDate="2015-05-08T12:50:23.430" UserId="1567" Text="We had student tenants for a while. They made their furniture of stacked wine-crates and palettes (the things fork-lift trucks handle). It looked very classy and they said it was comfortable. The sofa was some garden-furniture mattresses on top of crates, and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a table they lifted the kitchen door off its hinges and set it on two trestles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact after they got money they bought a real bed and said the palettes had been more comfortable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9550" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="794af98e-6dc0-4d0f-8540-eebbd739ff40" CreationDate="2015-05-08T16:16:08.773" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/596710182920560640" />
  <row Id="9551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4458" RevisionGUID="b730a0f8-28c8-40fc-9548-5022434b5289" CreationDate="2015-05-08T18:34:57.953" UserId="283" Text="&quot;Solar panel&quot; includes both thermal panels and photovoltaic panels. A common way to store and use heat is in a domestic hot water storage tank. This is generally cheaper and more efficient than PV panels and batteries, but of course it only makes sense if you need the hot water! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone with a heated pool or laundromat should probably be doing this. You'll also need a backup source of heat for cloudy winter days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4455" RevisionGUID="c13cbac5-4573-4e64-b5e1-8e985c03d147" CreationDate="2015-05-08T19:03:37.003" UserId="2228" Comment="re-worded to address the OP directly" Text="I hate to sound glib, but have you considered abandoning solar panels in favor of biomass, storing solar energy in a natural form?  Trees are a fantastic way to store solar energy; so is some sort of oilseed like rape.  Of course, it takes long-term planning to get a sustainable cycle going, but you can figure out how much energy you use continuously (kWh/year), then plan on harvesting enough biomass in a given year and consuming it in some sort of generator (woodgas, in the case of trees; diesel in the case of oilseed), then plan on having the generator run more or less continuously (plan for maintenance), adjusting to consumption with a governor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you already have solar panels, which it seems you do, the cost of migration may be steep, but it's still probably the most sustainable solution for the long term." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4456" RevisionGUID="9f067916-7c30-4160-9cca-0c8b67fb0ffe" CreationDate="2015-05-08T19:13:41.593" UserId="2228" Comment="included recipe from video" Text="Here's an instructional video on making toothpaste with the primary ingredient being diatomaceous earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRnjmDIRmqM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The recipe, as identified in the video, is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1/2 c. food grade diatomaceous earth&#xD;&#xA; - 1/2 c. water&#xD;&#xA; - 1/4 t. salt&#xD;&#xA; - 1/4 t. Stevia (I presume they mean stevia leaf extract)&#xD;&#xA; - 12 drops peppermint oil&#xD;&#xA; - 2 drops tea tree oil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blend all together until it forms a paste, adjusting the DE and water until it creates the consistency you're after.  They recommended putting the resulting mixture in a restaurant-style ketchup squeeze bottle for use.  I'm presuming, given the ingredients, that little refrigeration is necessary if its used within a week or so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9554" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4438" RevisionGUID="fe3d7f75-00a4-4b24-ba51-82781a31aab4" CreationDate="2015-05-08T19:16:08.390" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/596755480053207040" />
  <row Id="9558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="babd75e1-32a2-4f25-b570-550054e6a1c1" CreationDate="2015-05-09T08:21:08.407" UserId="99" Comment="improved excerpt to better reflect meaning, added part about usage" Text="An ecological footprint estimates how much land and ocean area is required to sustain the consumption pattern of one person or a particular group of people. For example in 2007 it was estimated that mankind's total ecological footprint was 1.5 planet Earths, i.e. humanity uses 1.5 times more of the available resources than the Earth can renew them. In 2012 this world average was calculated to be 1.8 Earths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage:**&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions on how to derive an ecological footprint, or for questions about the exact ecological footprint of a country or of a particular lifestyle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that ecological footprint is sometimes confused with [tag:environmental impact] which describes all effects (positive or negative) of the production, consumption or disposal of a product or service on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;Also note the difference between ecological footprint and [tag:carbon-footprint] which only considers the emissions of greenhouse gasses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online personal ecological footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [WWF UK](http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/pt/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Islandwood.org](https://islandwood.org/footprint-calculator/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Myfootprint.org](http://myfootprint.org/) (requires subscription)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="c7c1294b-4ada-484b-a261-173fb104e128" CreationDate="2015-05-09T08:21:08.407" UserId="99" Comment="improved excerpt to better reflect meaning, added part about usage" Text="a measure of how much land and ocean area is required to sustain a particular consumption pattern. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9560" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="e02284b6-e276-4288-b986-196df07db795" CreationDate="2015-05-09T08:26:13.440" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|reuse|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="54aa9fc7-02d7-4577-81b3-fd85f44e48fb" CreationDate="2015-05-09T08:26:44.210" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4461" RevisionGUID="63034530-d4c7-449f-aaea-a419c7d16fc1" CreationDate="2015-05-09T08:26:44.210" UserId="99" Text="describes all effects (positive or negative) of the production, consumption and/or disposal of a product, service, policy, or project on the environment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9563" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4264" RevisionGUID="562d625f-a2fe-47ba-81e4-942b9c5b3f7f" CreationDate="2015-05-09T08:30:36.303" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|careers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9564" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3189" RevisionGUID="1f7e82f2-f39f-4d90-8ce4-c672d7888237" CreationDate="2015-05-09T08:32:18.323" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|electricity|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9565" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="6d3d7dbb-6120-4fdf-b5cc-183722732c52" CreationDate="2015-05-09T08:33:21.823" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|vehicle|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="9336338e-1903-42bc-9a99-129d06dae25c" CreationDate="2015-05-09T08:37:32.473" UserId="99" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="a measure of how much land and ocean area is required to sustain a particular consumption pattern. &#xD;&#xA;For environmental impact use that tag&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9567" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4441" RevisionGUID="66848089-6c9f-4dcb-b650-20f7008ccefe" CreationDate="2015-05-10T04:17:05.527" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/597254003110637568" />
  <row Id="9568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4462" RevisionGUID="74c935fe-261f-455d-a62a-3b123cb5c3c9" CreationDate="2015-05-10T11:56:56.440" UserId="99" Text="Use this tag for questions specifically about cars. For questions also about other types of vehicles or about transport in general use [tag:vehicle] or [tag:transport] respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4463" RevisionGUID="35a9a717-b965-4978-a4fe-8ebcbd915b71" CreationDate="2015-05-10T11:56:56.440" UserId="99" Text="automobile, mainly used for transporting people&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions specifically about cars. For questions also about other types of vehicles or about transport in general use the [vehicle] or [transport] tags respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2436" RevisionGUID="655d2295-72a0-46be-b565-6ba887820e7e" CreationDate="2015-05-10T12:04:39.613" UserId="99" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="moving people or freight from one place to another. This includes use of cars, trucks, buses, aircraft, watercraft, as well as non-fuel-intensive transportation. For questions specifically about cars use that tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4463" RevisionGUID="2c63068d-6780-487c-8c3e-6404d6291c97" CreationDate="2015-05-10T12:05:11.007" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 52 characters in body" Text="automobile, mainly used for transporting people&#xD;&#xA;For questions also about other types of vehicles or about transport in general use the [vehicle] or [transport] tags respectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4464" RevisionGUID="2d10bb89-aff2-4c6d-bacd-256d8b97cf9d" CreationDate="2015-05-10T12:07:04.437" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4465" RevisionGUID="e99f87b0-2da3-4588-a793-8a528fb57221" CreationDate="2015-05-10T12:07:04.437" UserId="99" Text="device with wheels used for transporting people and/or goods. &#xD;&#xA;For questions specifically about [cars] or about [transport] in general, use those tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9574" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="3cef1208-81c2-40fb-8a50-3e585e725f89" CreationDate="2015-05-10T12:08:42.227" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|cars|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9575" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="734" RevisionGUID="c2fba38c-81c4-4b8a-9b8a-cbcfeb77f451" CreationDate="2015-05-10T12:11:18.957" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|reuse|diy|plastic-bottles|boat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="936316f9-f830-490e-a25b-7580f38b52bf" CreationDate="2015-05-10T12:19:03.770" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4467" RevisionGUID="d09eeea5-83e9-4206-96cf-79c6db9889f6" CreationDate="2015-05-10T12:19:03.770" UserId="99" Text="materials and products used for the construction and repair of buildings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4468" RevisionGUID="973836c7-4ee0-41ff-bf97-467cc05427ae" CreationDate="2015-05-10T18:46:32.630" UserId="2234" Text="Over the years, my family has built up a small stockpile of incandescent light bulbs. More recently, we have been replacing our incandescent lights with more energy-efficient alternatives. Nevertheless, there are still plenty of unused incandescent bulbs in our closet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the most environmentally-friendly thing to do with these bulbs? Letting them sit unused indefinitely seems like a waste, especially given the energy and resources it took to produce the bulbs. Nevertheless, using them in our home also seems wasteful, since we already own more efficient bulbs that we could be using instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4468" RevisionGUID="973836c7-4ee0-41ff-bf97-467cc05427ae" CreationDate="2015-05-10T18:46:32.630" UserId="2234" Text="What to do with old, unused incandescent light bulbs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4468" RevisionGUID="973836c7-4ee0-41ff-bf97-467cc05427ae" CreationDate="2015-05-10T18:46:32.630" UserId="2234" Text="|energy|waste|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4468" RevisionGUID="d6c7468d-17c3-43f1-a5f9-2a4259dab1be" CreationDate="2015-05-10T20:48:43.727" UserId="2234" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Over the years, my family has built up a small stockpile of incandescent light bulbs. More recently, we have been replacing our incandescent lights with more energy-efficient alternatives. Nevertheless, there are still plenty of unused incandescent bulbs in our closet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the most environmentally-friendly thing to do with these bulbs? Letting them sit unused indefinitely seems like a waste, especially given the energy and resources it took to produce the bulbs. Still, using them in our home also seems wasteful, since we already own more efficient bulbs that we could be using instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4466" RevisionGUID="789825a5-ebd0-43d2-a864-c77a6455434d" CreationDate="2015-05-11T07:32:54.740" UserId="99" Comment="added usage explanation" Text="Building materials are all materials and products used for the construction and repair of buildings, sustainable or non-sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions about the environmental impact or sustainability of those materials.&#xD;&#xA;For questions about building as a process use the [tag:construction] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4467" RevisionGUID="7dac0693-1683-4d88-89d3-25d5d2e93149" CreationDate="2015-05-11T07:32:54.740" UserId="99" Comment="added usage explanation" Text="materials and products used for the construction and repair of buildings.&#xD;&#xA;For questions about building as a process use the [construction] tag " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4469" RevisionGUID="60a60d75-268b-4b40-bd7e-c78387838fcd" CreationDate="2015-05-11T07:41:16.107" UserId="99" Text="Use this tag for questions about the process of constructing large objects like  houses or windmills for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions specifically about sustainable constructions use the [tag:green-construction] tag. For questions specifially about materials use the [tag:building-materials] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4470" RevisionGUID="5c4b373d-2502-42d3-95ce-a6892dd4a6df" CreationDate="2015-05-11T07:41:16.107" UserId="99" Text="the process of building something&#xD;&#xA;For questions specifically about the used materials use the [building-materials] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2685" RevisionGUID="4f3aef50-f2fd-40cd-8543-c0a9d44bcec8" CreationDate="2015-05-11T07:52:41.177" UserId="99" Comment="added reference to upcycling" Text="Recycling is where items are treated or processed into a mass raw material to be manufactured into a new product (whether or not the new material is the same as the original one). Often recycling results products of lesser quality than the originals which is also called 'downcycling', but [tag:upcycling] is possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling is distinct from [tag:reuse], where items are simply used again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2686" RevisionGUID="e237823d-e20d-4754-935f-9f4b677c752c" CreationDate="2015-05-11T07:52:41.177" UserId="99" Comment="added reference to upcycling" Text="using materials that would otherwise be waste to manufacture new materials. For questions specifically on [upcycling] use that tag, for questions on [reuse] use that tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4471" RevisionGUID="439981a1-2513-4990-8517-b0819a96a360" CreationDate="2015-05-11T07:54:38.553" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4472" RevisionGUID="323e1d75-4fae-4af8-91e0-3688d3c92c86" CreationDate="2015-05-11T07:54:38.553" UserId="99" Text="form of recycling where waste materials are used to create new products that are of better quality than the original." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9593" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4468" RevisionGUID="8a849d2e-f81c-413c-8317-c87a460cbafb" CreationDate="2015-05-11T10:17:46.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/597707158428463105" />
  <row Id="9594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4473" RevisionGUID="513ba8df-846c-400e-9020-7f13b3576e33" CreationDate="2015-05-11T19:35:27.000" UserId="2235" Text="To elaborate a bit more on [underground rain collection options][1].  With plastic tanks topping out in the 2500 gallon range for underground storage, you are able to link tanks together to increase capacity.  In the states a lot of lower cost options fall into where you're located.  1700 gallon tanks are spread nicely throughout the United States, which makes will call or shipping feasible.  Larger tanks 2000 - 2500 gallon tanks tend to be limited to Iowa/Minnesota &amp; Central California.  Freight on these can be expensive.  If you find the 1700 gallon tank nearby, linking a few of these may be a nice option.  There's a nice image at the bottom of [this page][2] showing a linking possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This 2650 is the biggest plastic underground tank i've come across at the moment.  If anyone has anything bigger they've found let me know.  Still searching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.plastic-mart.com/category/200/underground-water-tanks&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.plasticwatertanks.com/p/rzkbq/c7d-snyder-1700-gallon-underground-cistern&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4474" RevisionGUID="42e53ccb-c641-408c-a010-9d8f840740a1" CreationDate="2015-05-12T06:49:58.497" UserId="1325" Text="I grew up on a rural property using only rainwater. I'll walk through the calculations as an example to give a general idea of what you'll need to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rainfall in the region averaged about 750mm pa (temperate rainforest area).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water tank was (using imperial measurements) 20' diameter and 6' deep, for a total volume (in roundish numbers) of 1885 cubic feet, and a capacity of 11740 gals; ~53370 liters. The construction was concrete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With an initial roof area of around 100 m^2, the average annual water catchment was 75000 liters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, a lower than average rain year was likely to maintain the tank water level. More importantly, we could, with frugal water use, go an entire year *without rain*, using 130 l/day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your rainfall figures can be obtained from your local weather service. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Plastic&quot; water tanks up to 10000 l are easy purchased and transported where I live (Australia), YMMV. You can also consider rubber bladder tanks under the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will need to measure your garden water use to know what you'll need. This will vary according to the crop plants, mulch, area, and climate. If your house has a water meter then learn to read it, and measure how much you use to water the garden. Alternatively, water by bucket and count the buckets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9596" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3210" RevisionGUID="98560125-73bb-4dc7-a7de-00b45c3fe4a7" CreationDate="2015-05-12T13:53:45.580" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|paper|alternatives|environmental-impact|computing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9597" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3148" RevisionGUID="99516799-5ce4-454e-817b-382accb07c8d" CreationDate="2015-05-12T13:54:59.597" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|computing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4475" RevisionGUID="65bc2ba1-5e72-4c8c-b93e-a047d8c96193" CreationDate="2015-05-12T14:51:51.563" UserId="318" Text="Surprisingly to many, conversion of electrical energy from PV (photovoltaic) panels to heat energy and storage in hot water is a potentially excellent use of the energy - provided that you have a use for the hot water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water stores energy at the rate of about 1 Watt hour per litre degree or 1 kWh per 1000 litre degrees. So eg a 100 litres tank (about 25 US gallons) heated by 10 degrees Celsius stores 1 kWh.  So if water is heated from 10 C ambient to 60 C, a difference of 50 C, a 100 litre tank will store 50 x 100 = 5000 litre-degrees or 5 kWh of energy. A battery of that capacity would cost several thousand dollars and have a cycle life of under 1000 cycles - or cost several times as much and have a longer cycle life because it is not deep cycle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is usual to use thermal panels to heat water, using PV electricity for heating has some advantages. The panels are lighter, there is no liquid associated with the panel. no header tank, no plumbing., no pumps and no problems associated with corrosion and fluids. A good quality well installed solar system has a lifetime in the 20 to 30 year range and this can be higher. &#xD;&#xA;If direct heating is used with a low voltage resistive element a very simple MPPT controller can be used. There is no inverter to mains AC, and no &quot;grid tie arrangements&quot;. Efficiency of storage as heat in the water is close  to 100% (with wiring loses being the main loss). The tank will lose heat due to insulation not being perfect, but with good tank siting the lost heat can be useful.  Any energy used to heat water replaces grid electricity which would have been paid for at full retail rates so you are &quot;paying yourself&quot; retail rates for energy generated as long as you can use the hot water. Stored energy can  be used for standard hot water uses and also for central hearing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analysis of the prose and cons shows that using water for thermal energy storage is often a highly efficient use of the energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get elements for water tanks which have multiple &quot;spears&quot; on the one element with some being low voltage and some being mains voltage rated. These allow a mix of low voltage and mains heating as desired. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4476" RevisionGUID="87c6fae3-5f15-4690-b06d-e1188cd3b887" CreationDate="2015-05-13T01:34:42.903" UserId="2238" Text="I would also prefer LED, but wanted brighter lights. I ended up using &quot;SYLVANIA 2-Pack 23-Watt (100W Equivalent) 2,700K Spiral Candelabra Base (E-12) Soft White CFL Bulbs ENERGY STAR&quot;. 1640 lumens. I found them only at Lowes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4475" RevisionGUID="35c39d3a-0876-4177-a39c-cd9cb27c225e" CreationDate="2015-05-13T03:06:30.043" UserId="318" Comment="added 3213 characters in body" Text="**Thermal storage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly to many, conversion of electrical energy from PV (photovoltaic) panels to heat energy and storage in hot water is a potentially excellent use of the energy - provided that you have a use for the hot water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water stores energy at the rate of about 1 Watt hour per litre degree or 1 kWh per 1000 litre degrees. So eg a 100 litres tank (about 25 US gallons) heated by 10 degrees Celsius stores 1 kWh.  So if water is heated from 10 C ambient to 60 C, a difference of 50 C, a 100 litre tank will store 50 x 100 = 5000 litre-degrees or 5 kWh of energy. A battery of that capacity would cost several thousand dollars and have a cycle life of under 1000 cycles - or cost several times as much and have a longer cycle life because it is not deep cycle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is usual to use thermal panels to heat water, using PV electricity for heating has some advantages. The panels are lighter, there is no liquid associated with the panel. no header tank, no plumbing., no pumps and no problems associated with corrosion and fluids. A good quality well installed solar system has a lifetime in the 20 to 30 year range and this can be higher. &#xD;&#xA;If direct heating is used with a low voltage resistive element a very simple MPPT controller can be used. There is no inverter to mains AC, and no &quot;grid tie arrangements&quot;. Efficiency of storage as heat in the water is close  to 100% (with wiring loses being the main loss). The tank will lose heat due to insulation not being perfect, but with good tank siting the lost heat can be useful.  Any energy used to heat water replaces grid electricity which would have been paid for at full retail rates so you are &quot;paying yourself&quot; retail rates for energy generated as long as you can use the hot water. Stored energy can  be used for standard hot water uses and also for central hearing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analysis of the prose and cons shows that using water for thermal energy storage is often a highly efficient use of the energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get elements for water tanks which have multiple &quot;spears&quot; on the one element with some being low voltage and some being mains voltage rated. These allow a mix of low voltage and mains heating as desired. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Electrolysis:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible storage system is to electrolyse eg water to produce Hydrogen &amp; Oxygen and store the gas. As Hydrogen can be burned in air it is possible to store only the Hydrogen. Electrolysis can achieve efficiencies in the 80%-90% range and burning of Hydrogen can be highly efficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen has the disadvantage of having very high volume per mass at a given pressure. Hydrogen could be stored over water in a simple 40 gallon drum gasometer at low pressure but mass per volume would be low. Storage in steel tanks at modest pressures may be viable. Storage in hydrides achieves reasonable densities for Hydrogen but poor by any other measure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an indication of the volumes required for gaseous storage, Hydrogen occupies about 20 litres per gram at STP. You need about 25 grams to produce 1 kWh thermally by burning at 100% efficiency so would need 20l x 25g = 500 litres per kWh. So a near atmospheric pressure gasometer using steel 40 gallon (imperial) drums would need about 4 drums per kWh. Fun as a home project but unlikely to be commercially viable in most cases. Storage at modest pressure brings the volume down  - a single 40 gallon drum at 5 bar = 754 litres or about 1.5 kWh. Hydrogen will diffuse through steel and embrittle it as a bonus. At 5 bar it would probably not be a problem but joints are equally problematic. Surplus LPG or  CNG tanks (much higher pressure rating) would be safer but still only allow modest pressures and certifications for Hydrogen are probably not available.   &#xD;&#xA;Storage in a bladder at essentially zero differential pressure may be viable for use within short periods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With due design you could electrolyse a suitable quantity of water inside a Hydrogen rated say 3000 psi gas bottle such that the end pressure reached 3000 psi. You can produce mixed gas H2-O2 and even burn it safely with due design!. &#xD;&#xA;Without due design you can burn mixed H2-O2 but can expect a rocket or a bomb :-(.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pumped storage** - immense masses needed.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 kg x 1 metre =~ 10 Joule.   &#xD;&#xA;1 kWh = 1000 Watt x 3600 s = 3,600,000 Joule   &#xD;&#xA;3.6 MJ/10 = 360,000 kg.m   &#xD;&#xA;For eg a 10m head that needs 36000 kg = 36 tons of water for 1 kWh at 100% efficient :-(.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Flywheels** are doable but rapidly get large, massive and very very lethal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Recoinversion of thermal energy to mechanical and/or electrical:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low temperature storage (as above) is viable for heating but not for reconversion to electrical energy.  &#xD;&#xA;Maximum conversion efficiency to mechanical is given by Carnot limit of Z (efficiency) max = (T_hot-T_cold)/T_hot.  &#xD;&#xA;Temperatures in absolute units.  &#xD;&#xA;30C is about 300K.  &#xD;&#xA;So a T_hot of 600K ~- 330C gives a Carnot efficiency of (600-300)/600 = 50% max.   &#xD;&#xA;Getting real world efficiencies of more than 50% of Carnot is doing well. Higher differentials help both Carnot efficiency and actual % of Carnot realisable.  &#xD;&#xA;At T_hot = 630 C Z_Carnot = 66%  &#xD;&#xA;At T_hot = 930C Zc = 75%  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building mechanical things to work reliably at 900C is 'a bit of an ask'.     &#xD;&#xA;600C is doable but falls in the &quot;don't try this at home' category.  &#xD;&#xA;Alas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9606" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3142" RevisionGUID="2e5a4504-522c-4e66-a4da-5c30e9a98657" CreationDate="2015-05-13T10:56:55.113" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|population|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9607" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3239" RevisionGUID="b7ac68e5-6e97-4a60-9684-93cb6a75a046" CreationDate="2015-05-13T10:57:17.543" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|ecological-footprint|carbon-footprint|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9608" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="425" RevisionGUID="aefda2b6-37a1-4011-8b98-3df2b6fc7337" CreationDate="2015-05-13T12:23:37.080" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4478" RevisionGUID="3f165215-5277-4d93-a7a0-b6a67b7b9342" CreationDate="2015-05-13T14:58:06.857" UserId="1123" Text="I would hold a few in reserve in case you ever find a need for them. For instance, I used an 85W incandescent bulb and a steel coffee can to create a small &quot;space heater&quot; for young chicks (chickens).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rest can probably be sold via Craigslist, eBay, or similar. There are still people unwilling to change to more efficient lighting, and those bulbs will at least get used that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="6c9c21a5-b0df-4935-b491-5b64c1ac42e0" CreationDate="2015-05-14T02:04:22.083" UserId="1662" Text="My bathroom is surrounded by a fuzzy leafed species, planted specifically for this purpose, I imagine.  Many people I talk to around here can still vividly remember before toilet paper.  I have yet to fully switch over, but I am considering it, and am wondering about the implications for my composting toilet.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="6c9c21a5-b0df-4935-b491-5b64c1ac42e0" CreationDate="2015-05-14T02:04:22.083" UserId="1662" Text="How will using leaves as toilet paper affect the composting of my toilet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="6c9c21a5-b0df-4935-b491-5b64c1ac42e0" CreationDate="2015-05-14T02:04:22.083" UserId="1662" Text="|composting|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4480" RevisionGUID="927a654f-23f4-487d-a266-58be47ac0866" CreationDate="2015-05-14T08:23:43.380" UserId="1445" Text="TLDR; don't use them for lighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that you could keep your incandescent bulbs for when your current energy-efficient (I will assume CCFL) bulbs need replacing, your choice boils down to: buy a new CCFL; or use an incandescent that has already been manufactured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This helpful analysis](http://www.thewatt.com/?q=node/175) gives the embodied energy in a CCFL as 1.7 kWh.  Let's assume that the CCFL lasts 8000 hours and uses 15W, while your equivalent incandescent lasts 1000 hours and uses 60W (also from the same source, though these are pretty standard numbers).  Total energy usage (in kWh) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                CCFL                 Incandescent&#xD;&#xA;    embodied energy             1.7                  n/a as &quot;sunk cost&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;    energy used over lifetime   8000 * 0.015 = 120   1000 * 0.06 = 60     &#xD;&#xA;    total over lifetime         121.7                60                   &#xD;&#xA;    total over 8000 hours       121.7                480                  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you're better off not using the incandescents for lighting, even though that means buying new CCFLs.  That's because the energy to produce the bulbs is dwarfed by the energy used in using one.  The comparison would be even starker for LEDs as these are even more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question remains, what *should* you do with them, if not lighting?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You may be able to recycle them (see e.g. [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2699/99))&#xD;&#xA; - You could just throw them into landfill.  Being largely glass and metal, at least they won't break down to produce greenhouse gases like methane&#xD;&#xA; - You could sell them, though given that incandescent bulbs are being outlawed (in Europe) this may enable someone to use them who would otherwise have been forced to use a CCFL or LED, so there may be an indirect energy cost there.  The embodied energy in an incandescent bulb is about 0.3 kWh, so really quite small.&#xD;&#xA; - You could use them for applications where the heat is useful, not wasted (assuming you have such uses for them!)&#xD;&#xA; - You could keep them in the attic until long after all incandescent bulbs have been outlawed, then donate them to a museum ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4481" RevisionGUID="4845b74f-d74d-41f8-9076-db0cb1c206e5" CreationDate="2015-05-14T16:44:19.767" UserId="2242" Text="In my local council, one category of confirmed recyclables is &quot;plastic bottles, pots, tubs &amp; trays&quot;. But surely not all plastic tubs can be recycled? Some of the plastic tubs I end up after using a food product may be numbered/have Mobius symbols, but others aren't. Mushroom and meat tubs tend to feel different to normal PP &amp; HDPE plastic tubs, and generally don't seem to have numbers/symbols. I know that numbers/symbols aren't actually a guarantee of recyclability (e.g. in my council HDPE or any kind of bottle lids are not recyclable (too small))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9615" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4481" RevisionGUID="4845b74f-d74d-41f8-9076-db0cb1c206e5" CreationDate="2015-05-14T16:44:19.767" UserId="2242" Text="Recycling plastic types" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9616" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4481" RevisionGUID="4845b74f-d74d-41f8-9076-db0cb1c206e5" CreationDate="2015-05-14T16:44:19.767" UserId="2242" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4481" RevisionGUID="9468f7e3-f3f6-4229-9a7d-9539ff832d88" CreationDate="2015-05-14T21:24:34.583" UserId="2242" Comment="Improved clarity" Text="In my local council (I live in the UK), one category of confirmed recyclables is &quot;plastic bottles, pots, tubs &amp; trays&quot;. But surely not all plastic tubs can be recycled? Some of the plastic tubs I end up after using a food product may have a Resin Identification Code (RIC), but others aren't. Mushroom and meat tubs tend to feel different to normal PP (RIC: 05) plastic tubs, and generally don't seem to have RICs. I know that RICs aren't actually a guarantee of recyclability (e.g. in my council HDPE or any kind of bottle lids are not recyclable (too small)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, can all of the day-to-day plastic food tubs be thrown for recycling, even if they don't have RICs? I suppose it depends on the sorting facilities for each council, so if they can't sort bottle tops, should I avoid throwing sans-RIC tubs for recycling on the grounds they can't be sorted either?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4482" RevisionGUID="1ee8571a-21fd-4b68-a6bd-2bc5f9e177ce" CreationDate="2015-05-14T23:18:07.367" UserId="318" Text="This needs to be done on a case-by-case basis.  &#xD;&#xA;Almost anything CAN be recycled if desired, but not always cost effectively or sensibly.  &#xD;&#xA;Some materials are recycled by some processors and not by others.  &#xD;&#xA;So, a strictly technically correct answer in one situation may not reflect practical reality in another.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case your uncertainty is probably due to inadequate advice by your council. Unfortunately, if they do not clearly state what they would like you to do, or what you are required to do or may do, then they may not care or know.   &#xD;&#xA;This may represent a lack of caring on their part, with an unknown fraction of 'recycled' goods being sent for disposal, or may represent a lack of communications by the council.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you care about the overall impact of such operations on the environment, and it sounds as though you do, you may be able to do everyone in your area a service by first (politely) inquiring from the council re what they really want, then perhaps following this up with a talk to the people who process the material*, followed by whatever action seems likely to improve the advice that all recyclers receive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lots of work? Possibly yes.  &#xD;&#xA;Liable to improve results? Only maybe :-(.  &#xD;&#xA;But it may prove to be very worthwhile overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I'm an engineer. When I really want to get things done, talking to the people &quot;at the coal face&quot; tends to happen :-).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4483" RevisionGUID="46c1326f-0d50-4cd0-8b03-0cb76abf722a" CreationDate="2015-05-14T23:40:11.937" UserId="15" Text="**Realistic Expections**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If requirements become too detailed for something such as recycling, you can expect the eyes of most people to glaze over and ignore them altogether. This means the [KISS principle][1] is very important, and this might be what the council had in mind when publishing their instructions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The top level goals for a recycling program are likely to be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Reducing waste sent to landfill&#xD;&#xA; - Keeping costs low&#xD;&#xA; - Minimising any other environmental effects, such as litter (eg from recycling bins spilling) or pollution from the recycling process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One might find that even though providing more detailed instructions to the public might reduce sorting costs slightly, it may also cause many people to throw everything in the Too Hard basket (ie the rubbish), rather than separating out their recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9620" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4481" RevisionGUID="e76f0358-7edc-4643-8a5c-eadf5aee883d" CreationDate="2015-05-15T08:17:51.457" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to better reflect question contents" Text="Recycling plastic food tubs that have no resin identification code?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4484" RevisionGUID="503d3306-63b7-4b66-99cc-6af2e6a6b08d" CreationDate="2015-05-15T09:11:05.623" UserId="99" Text="I think both the answers of [Russell McMahon](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4482/99) and [Highly Irregular](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4483/99) are great. On the one hand the council should keep things simple so the recycling system is easy to use for everyone, but on the other hand the council should give more detailed information for people who really care and want to do the best they can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to actually answer your question: marking of plastic packaging in the EU is voluntary, so if the packaging doesn't contain any symbol it's up to you or your recycling center to determine the type. My experience is that compostable plastic normally does have a marking (probably for promotional purposes) and has the word 'compostable' and/or a logo like this one on it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/hL8Vv.gif&quot; width=&quot;180&quot; height=&quot;200&quot; alt=&quot;EU compostable plastic logo&quot;/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is really nothing on it the help you identify it, chances are the plastic is PP, PET or perhaps PS. Other types are uncommon for food packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your council doesn't provide information how to handle an object, you can use these two general guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If a plastic is compostable, don't throw it away with other plastics. Instead throw it away with other organic material, or else in the 'other/general' waste.&#xD;&#xA;This is because compostable plastics will degrade the quality of recycled traditional plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you cannot determine the plastic type, throw the plastic away in the plastics waste stream. Any good recycling center will have methods to filter out unwanted objects from a recycling stream, so even if the plastic turns out to be non-recyclable it most probably will be filtered out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously the second guideline is a 'last resort' measure. It's best to first try to find out what kind of material it is and what the preferred method of disposal is according to your council &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hL8Vv.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4484" RevisionGUID="185a7969-ceae-4b5b-b1ac-1d50d5a8a97e" CreationDate="2015-05-15T09:19:07.733" UserId="99" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I think both the answers of [Russell McMahon](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4482/99) and [Highly Irregular](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4483/99) are great. On the one hand the council should keep things simple so the recycling system is easy to use for everyone, but on the other hand the council should give more detailed information for people who really care and want to do the best they can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to actually answer your question: marking of plastic packaging in the EU is voluntary, so if the packaging doesn't contain any symbol it's up to you or your recycling center to determine the type. My experience is that compostable plastic normally does have a marking (probably for promotional purposes) and has the word 'compostable' and/or a logo like this one on it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/hL8Vv.gif&quot; width=&quot;180&quot; height=&quot;200&quot; alt=&quot;EU compostable plastic logo&quot;/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is really nothing on it the help you identify it, chances are the plastic is PP, PE, PET or perhaps PS. Other types are uncommon for food packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your council doesn't provide information how to handle an object, you can use these two general guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If a plastic is compostable, don't throw it away with other plastics. Instead throw it away with other organic material, or else in the 'other/general' waste.&#xD;&#xA;This is because compostable plastics will degrade the quality of recycled traditional plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you cannot determine the plastic type, throw the plastic away in the plastics waste stream. Any good recycling center will have methods to filter out unwanted objects from a recycling stream, so even if the plastic turns out to be non-recyclable it most probably will be filtered out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously the second guideline is a 'last resort' measure. It's best to first try to find out what kind of material it is and what the preferred method of disposal is according to your council &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hL8Vv.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9624" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4481" RevisionGUID="85b4f553-b9be-457e-a269-cf144039171f" CreationDate="2015-05-15T13:23:56.203" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/599203559918444545" />
  <row Id="9625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4485" RevisionGUID="949eee78-d7c5-4607-b0a3-7dcaa3ca1a4e" CreationDate="2015-05-16T06:28:54.307" UserId="99" Text="I think the only difference of using leaves compared to toilet paper is that you'll be adding more nitrogen to the mix. This means that your C:N ratio will change, but you can solve this easily by adding more browns (carbon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of good browns are straw, cardboard or sawdust. You can check the [table in this answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1280/99) to see the C:N ratio of some common household wastes and see what else you can use. Higher numbers mean more carbon. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9626" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1248" RevisionGUID="5e504bd4-137b-4a8f-b56f-9542e1caa458" CreationDate="2015-05-18T13:15:17.713" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|vegetable-oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9627" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1028" RevisionGUID="cb9898cc-f8f8-4be3-83de-e492eb7653ce" CreationDate="2015-05-18T13:15:20.293" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|waste-water|environmental-impact|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4486" RevisionGUID="eaae8acb-dcbf-4bd0-8318-dbb109cbf424" CreationDate="2015-05-18T13:24:05.917" UserId="99" Text="For questions specifically about [tag:greenhouse-gas-emissions] or [tag:toxic-chemicals] please use those tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4487" RevisionGUID="17843423-5902-42f2-b1d5-cdd29bc157d0" CreationDate="2015-05-18T13:24:05.917" UserId="99" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="any addition of harmful substances or products in the environment (air, water, soil or food).&#xD;&#xA;For questions specifically about [greenhouse-gas-emissions] or [toxic-chemicals] please use those tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4488" RevisionGUID="1a8c6449-a625-4a0f-9930-af0f4f247f7c" CreationDate="2015-05-19T00:21:32.497" UserId="2122" Text="Just had a thought: How much energy could be saved if everyone got up at sunrise? Perhaps it would have a counteractive effect somehow but my thought is that if you're up less during hours that it's dark you wouldn't need to have your lights on during those hours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4488" RevisionGUID="1a8c6449-a625-4a0f-9930-af0f4f247f7c" CreationDate="2015-05-19T00:21:32.497" UserId="2122" Text="How much energy could we save if we all got up at sunrise" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4488" RevisionGUID="1a8c6449-a625-4a0f-9930-af0f4f247f7c" CreationDate="2015-05-19T00:21:32.497" UserId="2122" Text="|energy|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9633" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4479" RevisionGUID="8dad5daf-21a4-4f7f-adb9-93d0de598cd8" CreationDate="2015-05-19T13:50:24.687" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/600659773961408513" />
  <row Id="9634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4489" RevisionGUID="60185aeb-1212-42bd-a8fc-649e8ea40102" CreationDate="2015-05-20T03:05:21.203" UserId="2122" Text="Is there a plausible scenario where humans can continue traveling in airplanes? I have heard that airplanes create a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas emissions, the global number of air miles continues to increase and that there is no technology on the horizon to create a carbon neutral airplane. Is it feasible to capture all the carbon emitted by airplanes or to really stop climate change are we going to have to stop flying?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4489" RevisionGUID="60185aeb-1212-42bd-a8fc-649e8ea40102" CreationDate="2015-05-20T03:05:21.203" UserId="2122" Text="What is required to make air travel sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4489" RevisionGUID="60185aeb-1212-42bd-a8fc-649e8ea40102" CreationDate="2015-05-20T03:05:21.203" UserId="2122" Text="|transport|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9637" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4489" RevisionGUID="8403e0b4-b46d-44ed-b74a-bfefd61dad34" CreationDate="2015-05-20T09:31:12.527" UserId="812" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="|transport|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9638" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4489" RevisionGUID="9e9dabc9-05f8-45c0-99b6-f7d8781a1861" CreationDate="2015-05-20T13:53:08.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/601022847570583552" />
  <row Id="9639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="30cf789c-b193-425f-936e-d6ed333e92d0" CreationDate="2015-05-21T18:14:52.353" UserId="2187" Text="What prominent, everyday products are made of recycled plastic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="30cf789c-b193-425f-936e-d6ed333e92d0" CreationDate="2015-05-21T18:14:52.353" UserId="2187" Text="What prominent daily products are made of recycled plastic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="30cf789c-b193-425f-936e-d6ed333e92d0" CreationDate="2015-05-21T18:14:52.353" UserId="2187" Text="|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9642" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="c0bc22f4-c0b5-49ff-83cf-434e6ecac9c4" CreationDate="2015-05-22T16:22:07.240" UserId="85" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4491" RevisionGUID="5674adb8-8de3-4dc9-9ec7-05b6bf1e9354" CreationDate="2015-05-23T17:42:18.957" UserId="1662" Text="I make several compost piles, flip them regularly, add some additives and apply them to my crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I often cover the piles when its rainy, will this affect the offgassing?  Some of my neighbors apply some of some things to their plants (coffee cherry shells, for example) but pre-composted - basically letting it decompose around the plant.  Will this have an effect on how much CO2 is released (I suspect yes, since its in thinner layers, while the others are in mountains)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9644" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4491" RevisionGUID="5674adb8-8de3-4dc9-9ec7-05b6bf1e9354" CreationDate="2015-05-23T17:42:18.957" UserId="1662" Text="Are my compost piles adding CO2 to the atmosphere by offgassing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9645" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4491" RevisionGUID="5674adb8-8de3-4dc9-9ec7-05b6bf1e9354" CreationDate="2015-05-23T17:42:18.957" UserId="1662" Text="|composting|greenhouse-gas-emissions|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4492" RevisionGUID="e4df288f-e861-4fad-928b-a7c7beefa4b3" CreationDate="2015-05-23T18:29:34.883" UserId="2072" Text="Short answer: yes they do. &#xA;&#xA;It's completely natural that decomposing organic materials release CO2 and other green house gases like methane and nitrogen oxides in some quantities. Both during compostation (which is usually done at normal atmosphere) and after putting it in the field. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="3abe1220-f3f5-40fc-9839-7f2fee203dcc" CreationDate="2015-05-23T18:34:47.247" UserId="1662" Text="People who talk about permaculture often mention that it is a *system* or a *toolbox* for making sustainable designs.  If this is so then what are the tools, or principles by which permaculture helps us to design?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="3abe1220-f3f5-40fc-9839-7f2fee203dcc" CreationDate="2015-05-23T18:34:47.247" UserId="1662" Text="What are the principles of permaculture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9649" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="3abe1220-f3f5-40fc-9839-7f2fee203dcc" CreationDate="2015-05-23T18:34:47.247" UserId="1662" Text="|permaculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4494" RevisionGUID="1df3abf3-ddc3-46ed-b34c-7516f2179eb1" CreationDate="2015-05-23T18:34:47.247" UserId="1662" Text="These are 12 principles of Permaculture elucidated by David Holmgren, which I pulled off of [here][1] and added a bit to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are not the only accepted principles of permaculture, nor the only phrasings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Observe and Interact** – “Beauty is in the mind of the beholder” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By taking the time to engage with nature we can design solutions that suit our particular situation.  We can also learn about how nature solves problems, and apply her solutions and patterns to our designs.&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA; 2. **Catch and Store Energy** – “Make hay while the sun shines”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By developing systems that collect resources when they are abundant, we can use them in times of need.  &#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA; 3. **Obtain a yield** – “You can’t work on an empty stomach”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ensure that you are getting truly useful rewards as part of the working you are doing.  Identify both things that you have and how you can use them, but also things that you need and how you can obtain them.&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA; 4. **Apply Self Regulation and Accept Feedback** – “The sins of the fathers are visited on the children of the seventh generation”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need to discourage inappropriate activity to ensure that systems can continue to function well. Negative feedback is often slow to emerge.  Be attentive to all feedback.&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA; 5. **Use and Value Renewable Resources and Services** – “Let nature take its course”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make the best use of nature’s abundance to satiate our consumptive behavior and dependence on non-renewable resources.  See value in renewability and sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA; 6. **Produce No Waste** – “Waste not, want not” or “A stitch in time saves nine”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By valuing and making use of all the resources that are available to us, nothing goes to waste.  Be aware of natural cycles and how materials are transformed.&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA; 7. **Design From Patterns to Details** – “Can’t see the forest for the trees”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By stepping back, we can observe patterns in nature and society. These can form the backbone of our designs, with the details filled in as we go.  &#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA; 8. **Integrate Rather Than Segregate** – “Many hands make light work”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By putting the right things in the right place, relationships develop between those things and they work together to support each other.  Organisms developed together and need each other.&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA; 9. **Use Small and Slow Solutions** – “Slow and steady wins the race” or “The bigger they are, the harder they fall”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Small and slow systems are easier to maintain than big ones, making better use of local resources and produce more sustainable outcomes.  &#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA; 10. **Use and Value Diversity** – “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diversity reduces vulnerability to a variety of threats and takes advantage of the unique nature of the environment in which it resides.  &#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA; 11. **Use Edges and Value the Marginal** – “Don’t think you are on the right track just because it’s a well-beaten path”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interface between things is where the most interesting events take place. These are often the most valuable, diverse and productive elements in the system.&#xD;&#xA;        &#xD;&#xA; 12. **Creatively Use and Respond to Change** – “Vision is not seeing things as they are but as they will be”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can have a positive impact on inevitable change by carefully observing and then intervening at the right time.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://justlists.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/principles-of-permaculture/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4492" RevisionGUID="68616edd-cddf-4441-95bd-cbea1c6dba02" CreationDate="2015-05-23T18:39:07.543" UserId="2072" Comment="added 427 characters in body" Text="Short answer: yes they do. &#xA;&#xA;It's completely natural that decomposing organic materials release CO2 and other greenhouse gases like methane and nitrogen oxides in some quantities. Both during compostation (which is usually done at normal atmosphere) and after putting it in the field. &#xA;&#xA;I highly doubt that the mentioned different procedures really lead to significant offgasing in the long run. If you intend to reduce offgasing then decomposing would need to be performed in a closed environment. But even if you produce and harness the methane - using it will yield the same ammount of CO2. Significant difference would be not to release methane into the atmosphere which is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4495" RevisionGUID="8e304b1c-b98b-40f5-b9f4-b45d4be79958" CreationDate="2015-05-24T17:04:09.860" UserId="1662" Text="I know BitCoin uses a lot of electricity for its mining, but how is this comparable to the banking system?  Also, other cryptocurrencies, like PeerCoin, claim to be more environmentally friendly by using something called proof-of-stake.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the metrics, and how does this all stack up with the current banking system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9653" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4495" RevisionGUID="8e304b1c-b98b-40f5-b9f4-b45d4be79958" CreationDate="2015-05-24T17:04:09.860" UserId="1662" Text="How would one go about judging the sustainability of BitCoin or other cryptocurrency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9654" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4495" RevisionGUID="8e304b1c-b98b-40f5-b9f4-b45d4be79958" CreationDate="2015-05-24T17:04:09.860" UserId="1662" Text="|electricity|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4496" RevisionGUID="70bb7005-1c23-458f-b04f-fa20881bdc89" CreationDate="2015-05-24T17:23:59.490" UserId="1662" Text="The 'solution' to catastrophic climate change is just as vast and varied as the problem.  Air travel is only one part of the problem, but the 'solution' to it is spectrum wide.  But I'm sure we will not stop travelling by air until the catastrophic part catches up with us, so we better look at the different aspects of the solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, everybody knows that plants absorb carbon.  We need more plants, we need more trees, we need more greenhouse gas sequestration.  There are some solutions that are moving forward - Urban greening and [AirCarbon][1], just to give two examples.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically about air travel, currently is using fossil fuels.  Switching between fossil fuels isn't going to make much of a difference, but biofuels might, they still emit but they are emitting carbon that was recently sequestered.  We could also put some solar panels on planes, or in some near future have airplane batteries that we powered by some sustainable means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe I have heard some talk about low-orbit trajectories being a possible energy savings for long trips, we could also have micro-air travel, everybody in their little ultralite plane.  There could be some other future game changer (High Velocity Tubes!) but for now we need to lower per mile emissions, fit more people in per flight, and sequester those gases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://newlight.com/aircarbon/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="8388cb5e-1003-4e43-9c4f-2abe22c62706" CreationDate="2015-05-24T19:36:30.600" UserId="2187" Comment="narrowed down the question to the 5 most financially successful recycled plastic consumer products." Text="By most widely used I mean in terms of sales annually (worldwide). With consumer products I follow the definition found on the [BusinessDictionary](http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/consumer-product.html), referring to merchandise or other item of common or daily use, ordinarily bought by individuals or households for private consumption. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Behind that question is my interest in the visibility and presence of recycled plastic products in everyday life of households. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9657" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="8388cb5e-1003-4e43-9c4f-2abe22c62706" CreationDate="2015-05-24T19:36:30.600" UserId="2187" Comment="narrowed down the question to the 5 most financially successful recycled plastic consumer products." Text="What are the five most widely used consumer products made of recycled plastic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9658" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="bb528488-562b-4c13-8093-672bd2b295d0" CreationDate="2015-05-25T07:37:34.973" UserId="99" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4497" RevisionGUID="7b2fb53d-6d65-414a-aaa2-75c2050f911c" CreationDate="2015-05-26T19:27:59.237" UserId="48" Text="No ponzi scheme is economically sustainable; BitCoin is no exception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity is just a vector of energy: it is neither sustainable nor unsustainable *per se*. It depends how it is generated and how it is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9660" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4495" RevisionGUID="361f21fe-739e-494c-8a98-71990ed61955" CreationDate="2015-05-27T02:22:37.377" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/603385788659798016" />
  <row Id="9661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4497" RevisionGUID="87b72fad-c9f6-4b22-b3cd-b7a4efffc444" CreationDate="2015-05-27T05:41:04.207" UserId="48" Comment="added 525 characters in body" Text="No ponzi scheme is economically sustainable; BitCoin is no exception. Those who created the first quarter of the total possible bitcoin stock did so extremely easily. Every block thereafter gets harder and harder, The bitcoin founders thus held a worthless stock, but can increase their stock's value by getting other people to use bitcoin - they are always looking for the greater fool. It's therefore a commodity whose value depends solely on sucking more and more people in: it's a ponzi scheme; albeit an unusually clever one, with some very talented rampers and PR merchants now behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bitcoin itself has no value, so it is distinct from capital markets, where the stocks are of wealth generators. It's perhaps closest to the gold market; but gold is tangible, has a little bit of industrial use, and some use as jewellery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity is just a vector of energy: it is neither sustainable nor unsustainable *per se*. It depends how it is generated and how it is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4497" RevisionGUID="60dc3a62-2a12-4529-ae89-9e8b0c5e3485" CreationDate="2015-05-27T06:26:08.890" UserId="48" Comment="added 347 characters in body" Text="No ponzi scheme is economically sustainable; BitCoin is no exception. Those who created the first quarter of the total possible bitcoin stock did so extremely easily. Every block thereafter gets harder and harder, The bitcoin founders thus held a worthless stock, but can increase their stock's value by getting other people to use bitcoin - they are always looking for the greater fool. It's therefore a commodity whose value depends solely on sucking more and more people in: it's a ponzi scheme; albeit an unusually clever one, with some very talented rampers and PR merchants now behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bitcoin itself has no value, so it is distinct from capital markets, where the stocks are of wealth generators. It's perhaps closest to the gold market; but gold is tangible, has a little bit of industrial use, and some use as jewellery. There are always a few stocks in a market that generate no wealth, but have sellers always looking for the greater fool. So although it's a mistake to say that Bitcoin is like all capital markets, it is true that within each market, there's often a worthless stock that floats up on belief and naive optimism to a high positive value for a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity is just a vector of energy: it is neither sustainable nor unsustainable *per se*. It depends how it is generated and how it is used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4497" RevisionGUID="ba64455a-34f0-402d-8147-56b06688bfe2" CreationDate="2015-05-27T06:36:59.320" UserId="48" Comment="added 459 characters in body" Text="Electricity is just a vector of energy: it is neither sustainable nor unsustainable *per se*. It depends how it is generated and how it is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No ponzi scheme is economically sustainable; and BitCoin is no exception. Those who created the first quarter of the total possible bitcoin stock did so extremely easily. Every block thereafter gets harder and harder, The bitcoin founders thus held a worthless stock, but can increase their stock's value by getting other people to use bitcoin - they are always looking for the greater fool. It's therefore a commodity whose value depends solely on sucking more and more people in: it's a ponzi scheme; albeit an unusually clever one, with some very talented rampers and PR merchants now behind it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bitcoin itself has no value, so it is distinct from capital markets, where the stocks are of wealth generators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's perhaps closest to the gold market; but gold is tangible, has a little bit of industrial use, and some use as jewellery. However, unlike commodities (and unlike modern currencies), the technically possible total stock of Bitcoin is a known capped quantity, and the available stock is already very close to it. So there's very little adjustment that the supply can make to changes in demand. So any change in demand has a disproportionately high impact on price. Hence the need for early adopters to constantly draw in new people, to increase their stock's value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are always a few stocks in a market that generate no wealth themselves, but have sellers always looking for the greater fool. So although it's a mistake to say that Bitcoin is like all capital markets, it is true that within each market, there's often a worthless stock that floats up on belief and naive optimism to a high positive value for a while.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9664" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4491" RevisionGUID="77ff3dd9-3cae-4033-b5aa-d44aac2fcbb6" CreationDate="2015-05-27T08:22:34.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/603476375333371904" />
  <row Id="9665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4498" RevisionGUID="83b8e9f3-b88d-4679-a9a7-2089fe380ebe" CreationDate="2015-05-27T13:15:29.663" UserId="2263" Text="You might use Life Cycle Assessment and existing data on global power mix, server requirements, and data infrastructure to model the life cycle of a bit coin. It's possible someone has already modeled the life cycle of currency, though you can do that yourself also, from fiber harvesting to incineration at end of life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OpenLCA is free, and I think NREL still has a free database of life cycle data. It's also possible someone has already modeled this for a thesis project or something; it sounds interesting enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;www.openlca.org &#xD;&#xA;http://www.nrel.gov/lci/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4499" RevisionGUID="fc1a0690-0d9f-465a-b28f-834ce6e58c70" CreationDate="2015-05-27T14:30:56.837" UserId="2263" Text="Air travel sustainability problems, even if you limit the category to climate change impacts, are not limited to greenhouse gas emissions. Atmospheric transport of emissions is difficult and, since jet fuel isn't a pure (or even homogeneous) substance, it's not always possible to know what is coming out of the aircraft in what concentrations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biofuels were discussed in other answers. 'Biofuels' is a pretty broad term; there are some quite sustainable algal fuels on the make. University research and R&amp;D groups are busy altering the genes of algaes to have them produce hydrocarbons directly, rather than having to press oil from algae cells and use that for diesel production. If we created a reasonable fuel from this, which would be light but energy-dense enough to suit air travel, it could replace current jet fuel (which generally has things other than just hydrocarbons in it). The purer the fuel, at least the easier it will be to model and determine how to mitigate damages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NOx emissions from air travel create O3 which-- in the right quantities and at the right altitudes-- protect the earth from radiation (which is good). But when the plane is taking off and landing, O3 is created on the ground. This causes warming and affects human health. A high quality biofuel could reduce these; a low quality biofuel might actually increase NOx emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thermal emissions are a localized problem affecting O3 formation and degradation, as well as how emissions interact with water vapor in the atmosphere. I wish I could hear these discussed more, but for engineering purposes the atmosphere is treated as a limitless thermal sink. :S It doesn't really lend itself to being quantified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Altering atmospheric chemistry is very tricky. We hardly understand the way the atmosphere works, so predicting the long-term results of our changes is even more difficult. The best we can do is minimize the changes as much as possible. To that purpose, I'm very excited to hear about the solar airplane. Ideally, we would be able to develop light enough solar and energy storage, such that we could replace freight flights with solar machines. Public trust would need to be built over time, as it was for the original passenger airplane. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things to read:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.solarimpulse.com/&#xD;&#xA;http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/events/2007/chemworkshop/pdf/NOAAAtmosChemModeling.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4500" RevisionGUID="9c755f4e-a3f7-46d5-a29b-70fb76835e08" CreationDate="2015-05-27T14:37:20.073" UserId="2263" Text="It is. However, the aerobic process of composting produces CO2, which is better than the anaerobic processes which result from burying compostable materials under layers of sand (preventing access to air), such that it creates methane. If the methane isn't captured (and in most landfills on earth, it still is not) then it causes climate change at a rate of about 25 times that of the same amount of CO2. If you compost at home, you also prevent emissions from the transport of your biowaste from your home to the landfill, freeing up truck space for things that actually must go to the landfill (surprisingly little, these days).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your composting purposes (soil augmentation for crops) are sound; covering the compost when it rains will prevent the compost from becoming too moist, which will change bacterial processes to favor anaerobic decomposition, but it also deprives the compost of oxygen. If you want your compost to continue aerobically (which, you probably do), then you *can* cover it, but definitely uncover after rain is done, and mix it thoroughly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your neighbors applying directly to the soil in a thin layer makes it offgas less CH4 (methane) and more CO2, since the process is exposed to more oxygen. It also mostly solves the problems of the middle of the heap becoming anaerobic or the compost becoming too moist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you checked the pH of your compost? This is a pretty good indicator of how the decomposition is going. Anaerobic decomposition tends towards acidity, which in turn kills aerobic bacteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reads!&#xD;&#xA;https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the good part of this handbook are in the electronic preview on Google Books:&#xD;&#xA;https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=MX_jbemODmAC&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA1&amp;dq=compost+process+modeling+emissions&amp;ots=WdZEojafha&amp;sig=lXEB72mn1u4K4EB9zAgiYNlM758#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4501" RevisionGUID="0ddb19df-895f-43ed-8dd3-9861a04a22f8" CreationDate="2015-05-27T14:45:40.230" UserId="2263" Text="Life cycle assessment has been done on this! This report is by InSinkErator, so they obviously have some commercial interest. Here's the summary, which (to me) seems sound:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.insinkerator.com/en-us/Documents/Disposer/ISE-Life-Cycle-Summary.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will search out the original study report, which will define more of the assumptions they're making and what is being included and excluded from the model." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4502" RevisionGUID="c46db300-6901-4383-9744-1c19bc52485c" CreationDate="2015-05-27T14:58:24.870" UserId="2263" Text="Osram did a good comparative life cycle assessment on bulbs, including incandescent, CFLs, and LEDs. The total life cycle impacts of CFLs and LEDs are both significantly lesser in all categories than incandescent bulbs, meaning that the very best thing you can do with an incandescent bulb is *not use it* even if it's already been manufactured! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are generally safe to put in landfills. Most incandescent bulbs have tungsten in the filament, which is fairly valuable, but most metal recycling facilities do not separate tungsten and it ends up in the landfill as process waste, anyway. Universities and R&amp;D organizations are working on various ways to separate rarer metals from waste, but the technology is not yet widely used. Where it is used, it's generally for the more valuable metals like platinum, gold, and such. :(&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short answer: chuck it in the trash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The executive summary of Osram's LCA can be downloaded as a PDF from here:&#xD;&#xA;http://seeds4green.net/sites/default/files/OSRAM_LED_LCA_Summary_November_2009.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4503" RevisionGUID="b5c391c4-908f-453e-8fcd-dcc6cbe7636d" CreationDate="2015-05-27T15:19:17.687" UserId="2263" Text="Sorry for the short answer, I can't comment yet due to reputation rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're also going to have to deal with the heat generated by the ceiling fan. If it's electric, then it has a motor and generates heat. :/ It may actually be more heat than you can store in water through evaporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you tried putting the water on your roof? If the air is not as saturated as it can be, you may get some cooling from the evaporation there; at the very least, it will offset the heat from the sun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="f7b55f44-a18d-4e28-a437-053232b96b66" CreationDate="2015-05-31T20:35:18.813" UserId="2187" Text="With hybrid packaging I refer to the combined packaging of plastic and paper. They are often offered by supermarkets for consumers to put inside fresh bread and buns. The reasons I can imagine for using these hybrids:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Visibility at the cashier allowing the cashier to quickly screen the containing products;&#xD;&#xA; - Convenience for the consumer allowing him to easily see what he has bought without having to open the packaging, e.g when arriving home;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these advantages come with a huge downside. For the consumer hybrid packaging poses an extra burden for waste separation. It requires him to cut the plastic from the paper. I assume that in practice not many consumers follow this behaviour accordingly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="f7b55f44-a18d-4e28-a437-053232b96b66" CreationDate="2015-05-31T20:35:18.813" UserId="2187" Text="Why is hybrid packaging so frequently used to package bread?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="f7b55f44-a18d-4e28-a437-053232b96b66" CreationDate="2015-05-31T20:35:18.813" UserId="2187" Text="|plastic|paper|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="e0cf231d-b9ef-48e5-bafa-a62f549e3bf4" CreationDate="2015-06-01T03:23:04.780" UserId="2272" Text="Why is the nation worried about climate change and not willing to change old habits of food production for a sustainable system?. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="e0cf231d-b9ef-48e5-bafa-a62f549e3bf4" CreationDate="2015-06-01T03:23:04.780" UserId="2272" Text="If permaculture is a solution why are others holding back on making a contribution toward?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="e0cf231d-b9ef-48e5-bafa-a62f549e3bf4" CreationDate="2015-06-01T03:23:04.780" UserId="2272" Text="|crop|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="e6f3e8a2-3e92-4761-bf06-7a4ccbbf795a" CreationDate="2015-06-01T03:33:18.330" UserId="2272" Comment="added 210 characters in body; edited tags" Text="My point... conventional garden and conventional farming for that matter. Is based on known systems that are failling the consumer and even the produceres. Why are those failing systems contined to be used?   Why is the nation worried about climate change and not willing to change old habits of food production for a sustainable system?.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9679" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="e6f3e8a2-3e92-4761-bf06-7a4ccbbf795a" CreationDate="2015-06-01T03:33:18.330" UserId="2272" Comment="added 210 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|defining-sustainability|crop|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="411a1e16-d24d-464e-bb69-51963c6e0783" CreationDate="2015-06-01T07:25:45.540" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, added permaculture tag, removed defining-sustainabilty tag; edited tags" Text="My point... conventional gardening, and conventional farming for that matter, is based on known systems that are failing the consumer and even the producers. Why are those failing systems continued to be used? Why is the nation worried about climate change and not willing to change old habits of food production for a sustainable system?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9681" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="411a1e16-d24d-464e-bb69-51963c6e0783" CreationDate="2015-06-01T07:25:45.540" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, added permaculture tag, removed defining-sustainabilty tag; edited tags" Text="|gardening|permaculture|crop|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="0bc35bef-a9eb-45d6-aa7a-08c1c883e219" CreationDate="2015-06-01T07:47:03.943" UserId="883" Text="In recent days in market it is said that the water melon fruits are injected with artificial colouring to make it look fresh and attractive but is very harmful for any one who consumes it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a best way to check it before buying ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9683" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="0bc35bef-a9eb-45d6-aa7a-08c1c883e219" CreationDate="2015-06-01T07:47:03.943" UserId="883" Text="How can we detect if water melon is added artificial colouring?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9684" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="0bc35bef-a9eb-45d6-aa7a-08c1c883e219" CreationDate="2015-06-01T07:47:03.943" UserId="883" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4507" RevisionGUID="274ceec8-ce45-4d32-8a90-d8bae871ea7f" CreationDate="2015-06-01T08:50:54.233" UserId="2187" Text="Are there any recent studies on the number of people worldwide depending on food donations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4507" RevisionGUID="274ceec8-ce45-4d32-8a90-d8bae871ea7f" CreationDate="2015-06-01T08:50:54.233" UserId="2187" Text="How many people depend on food banks worldwide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4507" RevisionGUID="274ceec8-ce45-4d32-8a90-d8bae871ea7f" CreationDate="2015-06-01T08:50:54.233" UserId="2187" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="0d9e1248-d460-4509-87ad-112bae8a58ed" CreationDate="2015-06-01T09:30:03.683" UserId="883" Comment="edited body" Text="In recent days at market it is said that the water melon fruits are injected with artificial colouring to make it look fresh and attractive but is very harmful for any one who consumes it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a best way to check it before buying ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4508" RevisionGUID="c9480700-b759-4027-a3f7-3193c63ce266" CreationDate="2015-06-01T11:49:28.720" UserId="99" Text="I think this is a very difficult question to answer, but I'd like to try and see how for I get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various types of plastic are being recycled for a lot of different purposes. The number of end-products appears to be very large and continues to expand, making any list probably obsolute within one or two years. This makes it difficult to get a complete picture and identify the most-sold products. However, I've checked some sources and came up with a list of recycled products as well as some usage numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **PET:** bottles, containers, carpet, clothing, industrial strapping, rope, upholstery fabrics, boat sails, automotive parts, fibrefill for winter jackets and sleeping bags, construction materials.  [Source: PET Manufacturers in Europe](http://www.cpme-pet.org/content/what-kinds-products-are-made-recycled-pet) and [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#PET). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The website [Petcore](http://www.petcore.org/recycled-products) mentions that in 2011 39% of all recoverd European PET was used to produce polyester fibers (e.g. clothing and carpets) and 25% is used for packaging (e.g. water or soft drink containers, fruit boxes, household products)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **PVC:**  pipes, window profiles, flooring, foils, traffic cones, hoses. [Source: Recovinyl](http://www.recovinyl.com/certification/converters/uses-and-applications) and [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#PVC).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;    [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#PVC) also mentions that the majority (75%) is used for floors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **HDPE:** plastic lumber, tables, roadside curbs, benches, truck cargo liners, trash receptacles, stationery (e.g. rulers) and other durable plastic products.&#xD;&#xA;   [Source Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#HDPE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I suspect PET bottles, containers and carpets, PVC flooring and HDPE furniture are the top 5 most-sold recycled consumer products, but admittedly this is just my own best guess and I cannot back it up with reliable numbers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9690" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4490" RevisionGUID="a6fad8b3-993a-4af6-9baa-cf4a099a2a4c" CreationDate="2015-06-01T11:49:58.510" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4508" RevisionGUID="e1cd4e55-2ba4-404f-84e8-bad1cc1912f4" CreationDate="2015-06-01T11:55:02.107" UserId="99" Comment="edited body" Text="I think this is a very difficult question to answer, but I'd like to try and see how far I get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various types of plastic are being recycled for a lot of different purposes. The number of end-products appears to be very large and continues to expand, making any list probably obsolute within one or two years. This makes it difficult to get a complete picture and identify the most-sold products. However, I've checked some sources and came up with a list of recycled products as well as some usage numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **PET:** bottles, containers, carpet, clothing, industrial strapping, rope, upholstery fabrics, boat sails, automotive parts, fibrefill for winter jackets and sleeping bags, construction materials.  [Source: PET Manufacturers in Europe](http://www.cpme-pet.org/content/what-kinds-products-are-made-recycled-pet) and [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#PET). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The website [Petcore](http://www.petcore.org/recycled-products) mentions that in 2011 39% of all recovered European PET was used to produce polyester fibers (e.g. clothing and carpets) and 25% is used for packaging (e.g. water or soft drink containers, fruit boxes, household products)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **PVC:**  pipes, window profiles, flooring, foils, traffic cones, hoses. [Source: Recovinyl](http://www.recovinyl.com/certification/converters/uses-and-applications) and [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#PVC).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;    [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#PVC) also mentions that the majority (75%) is used for floors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **HDPE:** plastic lumber, tables, roadside curbs, benches, truck cargo liners, trash receptacles, stationery (e.g. rulers) and other durable plastic products.&#xD;&#xA;   [Source Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#HDPE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I suspect PET bottles, containers and carpets, PVC flooring and HDPE furniture are the top 5 most-sold recycled consumer products, but admittedly this is just my own best guess and I cannot back it up with reliable numbers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4507" RevisionGUID="12cb7f27-e1bc-4bf5-b07f-cde881c401a8" CreationDate="2015-06-01T19:29:54.407" UserId="2187" Comment="included background information that correspond to (un)sustainable living. " Text="A large amount of edible food is wasted by households (corresponding to unsustainable behaviours) that could potentially be diverted to food banks. I am interested in the potential of people who could be served by surplus food. Aside this background, are there any recent studies on the number of people worldwide who depend on food donations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="df272bb2-f9ab-42e6-bb6f-2d04b7793875" CreationDate="2015-06-02T04:15:13.907" UserId="2272" Comment="added 1756 characters in body" Text="My point... conventional gardening, and conventional farming for that matter, is based on known systems that are failing the consumer and even the producers. Why are those failing systems continued to be used? Why is the nation worried about climate change and not willing to change old habits of food production for a sustainable system?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Blockquote&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our ignorance about life is at present profound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **&#xD;&#xA;author Eve Balfour 1953 article &quot;9600 miles across the USA in a station wagon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is my understanding that there have been studies proving nurtient depletion in the soil of conventional farming. These  studies (Haughley Farms in the mid to late 1930's) at which time   states more people should be made aware of the facts that organic farming methods are far more sustainable than conventional.  Such as in the area of chemical fertilizer  and the nutirent lose over a 10 year period as well as mircobolic soil deplention which basicly means lifeless soil.&#xD;&#xA;This is then a comparative  of conventional vrs organic.  We move onto a system of growing food by Mollison the Father of permaculture. Dave Jacke and Eric Toensmeier have a wonderful indepth set of books &quot;Edible Forest Garden&quot;. I appauld these men and women for their contribution towards the education of our ignorance. But it is a daunting tast to manuver conventional farming to organic let alone into the permaculture system. Yet  this move is highly needed and seems somewhat sequestered from public use with exception to a few community groups and a farm here and there in the tropics.  The main thought of many people is that I don't need to worry about food when I can buy it at the grocery store.  Currently I grow food without any chemicals and have been doing so for over 10 years. I have been adding more perennial plants as funds allow and always looking for free mulch. Plus other ideas. I understand that new world opportunities are often only traveled by those most adventurous and willing to take risk. But if some of these reports have been around 50  60 and 70 years what are we waiting for?      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4509" RevisionGUID="3ea0bcab-04eb-4629-bce1-a4b3864a0901" CreationDate="2015-06-02T05:31:32.207" UserId="2272" Text="If true sustainability is not realling on outside input. Try to learn the art of  coppice for fire wood, along with growing self propigating plants such as black locust which grows fast and produces more saplings along the root system and the can be cut for wood within a year or two.    You would not need to purchase trees often once the coppice method is employed and the stumb sprouts new growth.  These also make good handle,bean pole and fence post plus other ideas.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4509" RevisionGUID="911cdaa7-6f30-4d5a-b11f-42153823c3f6" CreationDate="2015-06-02T05:39:24.117" UserId="2272" Comment="spelling,added a link to 'coppice&quot; " Text="True sustainability is not dependant on outside sources. Try to learn the art of  [coppice][1] for fire wood, along with growing self propigating plants such as black locust which grows fast and produces more saplings along the root system and the can be cut for wood within a year or two.    You would not need to purchase trees often once the coppice method is employed and the stump sprouts new growth.  These also make good handle,bean pole and fence post plus other ideas.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=coppicing%20trees&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;gws_rd=ssl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4508" RevisionGUID="950008cd-9d0b-4702-b608-d3fce6ae80c6" CreationDate="2015-06-02T07:59:41.420" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, improved wording" Text="I think this is a very difficult question to answer, but I'd like to try and see how far I get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various types of plastic are being recycled for a lot of different purposes. The number of end-products appears to be very large and continues to expand, making any list probably obsolete within one or two years. This makes it difficult to get a complete picture and identify the most-sold products. However, I've checked some sources and came up with a list of products that are made from recycled plastic as well as some usage numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **PET:** bottles, containers, carpet, clothing, industrial strapping, rope, upholstery fabrics, boat sails, automotive parts, fibrefill for winter jackets and sleeping bags, construction materials.  [Source: PET Manufacturers in Europe](http://www.cpme-pet.org/content/what-kinds-products-are-made-recycled-pet) and [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#PET). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The website [Petcore](http://www.petcore.org/recycled-products) mentions that in 2011 39% of all recovered European PET was used to produce polyester fibers (e.g. clothing and carpets) and 25% is used for packaging (e.g. water or soft drink containers, fruit boxes, household products)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **PVC:**  pipes, window profiles, flooring, foils, traffic cones, hoses. [Source: Recovinyl](http://www.recovinyl.com/certification/converters/uses-and-applications) and [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#PVC).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;    [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#PVC) also mentions that the majority of recycled PVC (75%) is used for floors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **HDPE:** plastic lumber, tables, roadside curbs, benches, truck cargo liners, trash receptacles, stationery (e.g. rulers) and other durable plastic products.&#xD;&#xA;   [Source Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_recycling#HDPE)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I suspect PET bottles, containers and carpets, PVC flooring and HDPE furniture are the top 5 most-sold recycled consumer products, but admittedly this is just my own best guess and I cannot back it up with reliable numbers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4510" RevisionGUID="67132b9b-aebd-49be-826a-4f4ef899cb95" CreationDate="2015-06-02T08:25:41.577" UserId="48" Text="Why do existing systems continue? There are several reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many ways that the current system does work. Perhaps not in the long-term sustainable sense, but in the sense of feeding billions of people every day. That's not a small feat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The existing system has an entire global supply chain built around it. A different system would need a different supply chain. Changing a supply chain takes time, concerted effort, and for regulation and markets to work together to make the change happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Intensive mono-cropping has some very specific useful properties. It is highly scalable. As farm-size increases, and thus the number of people fed increases, labour inputs increase much more slowly: two people can farm one hectare or one hundred hectares, thanks to the intensive mechanisation that mono-cropping facilitates. And it's very easy to change the crop grown from one growing cycle to the next.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things will continue as they are until there are real economic and regulatory pressures to change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4505" RevisionGUID="273f3ef6-8d88-42df-880b-97db88e58f33" CreationDate="2015-06-02T08:28:10.090" UserId="48" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="My point... conventional gardening, and conventional farming for that matter, is based on known systems that are failing the consumer and even the producers. Why are those failing systems continued to be used? Why is the nation worried about climate change and not willing to change old habits of food production for a sustainable system?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our ignorance about life is at present profound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: author Eve Balfour 1953 article &quot;9600 miles across the USA in a station wagon.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is my understanding that there have been studies proving nutrient depletion in the soil of conventional farming. These  studies (Haughley Farms in the mid to late 1930's) at which time states more people should be made aware of the facts that organic farming methods are far more sustainable than conventional.  Such as in the area of chemical fertilizer and the nutrient lose over a 10 year period as well as microbial soil depletion which basically means lifeless soil.&#xD;&#xA;This is then a comparative  of conventional versus organic.  We move onto a system of growing food by Mollison the Father of permaculture. Dave Jacke and Eric Toensmeier have a wonderful in-depth set of books &quot;Edible Forest Garden&quot;. I applaud these men and women for their contribution towards the education of our ignorance. But it is a daunting task to maneuver conventional farming to organic let alone into the permaculture system. Yet  this move is highly needed and seems somewhat sequestered from public use with exception to a few community groups and a farm here and there in the tropics.  The main thought of many people is that I don't need to worry about food when I can buy it at the grocery store.  Currently I grow food without any chemicals and have been doing so for over 10 years. I have been adding more perennial plants as funds allow and always looking for free mulch. Plus other ideas. I understand that new world opportunities are often only traveled by those most adventurous and willing to take risk. But if some of these reports have been around 50  60 and 70 years what are we waiting for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9699" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="d6ea58ce-c94a-4063-9c66-2379e7f14dd5" CreationDate="2015-06-02T08:34:42.383" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/605653754730434560" />
  <row Id="9700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4511" RevisionGUID="b98a5398-09db-45c6-b261-0c89f32c0fb7" CreationDate="2015-06-02T12:43:41.757" UserId="96" Text="&gt;It is my understanding that there have been studies proving nutrient depletion in the soil of conventional farming. These studies (Haughley Farms in the mid to late 1930's) at which time states more people should be made aware of the facts that organic farming methods are far more sustainable than conventional. Such as in the area of chemical fertilizer and the nutrient lose over a 10 year period as well as microbial soil depletion which basically means lifeless soil. This is then a comparative of conventional versus organic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not entirely true. While I do not doubt these studies from the 30ties, modern conventional farming nowadays takes several factors into account, among longterm nutrient depletion (N, P, K, S) as well as the soil carbon content (indicative of the soil ecosystem and the ability of the soil to store nutrients) and acidicity/alkalinity . The most important tool to these ends are crop rotations, mostly by planting cold tolerant species in the winter. This is used alongside manure based, chemical fertilizers and soil amanedments like agricultural lime. &#xD;&#xA;My source for this is agricultural trade press and conversations with farmers, all of this centered on Germany which may not be representative for everywhere else. But as a rule, farmers (or cooperations) owning land have an interest in maintaining its quality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to say that conventional agriculture is without problems, or even that the problems you describe don't exist: Fertilizer is often over-applied, leading to groundwater infiltration, larger fields suffer from erosion by wind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I don't disagree much with Energy Numbers answer, part of the reason is that conventional agriculture has adopted some of the best pracises also used in permaculture, due to regulatory pressure and because they make sense from an agricultural engineering standpoint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4511" RevisionGUID="d6f9edc4-2622-4cb9-801a-a0e97877aca3" CreationDate="2015-06-02T13:00:02.190" UserId="96" Comment="added 544 characters in body" Text="&gt;It is my understanding that there have been studies proving nutrient depletion in the soil of conventional farming. These studies (Haughley Farms in the mid to late 1930's) at which time states more people should be made aware of the facts that organic farming methods are far more sustainable than conventional. Such as in the area of chemical fertilizer and the nutrient lose over a 10 year period as well as microbial soil depletion which basically means lifeless soil. This is then a comparative of conventional versus organic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not entirely true. While I do not doubt these studies from the 30ties, modern conventional farming takes several factors into account. Among them are longterm nutrient depletion (N, P, K, S and micronutrients) as well as the soil carbon content (indicative of the soil ecosystem and the ability of the soil to store nutrients) and acidicity/alkalinity. Farmers take measurements and adjust their practices to ensure productivity of their fields. The most important tools to these ends are crop rotations, mostly by planting cold tolerant species in the winter. This is used alongside manure based fertilizers, chemical fertilizers and soil amanedments like agricultural lime. &#xD;&#xA;My source for this is agricultural trade press and conversations with farmers, all of this centered on Germany which may not be representative for everywhere else, environmental regulations are often tighter here than in elsewhere. As a rule, farmers (or cooperations) owning land have an interest in maintaining its productivity and our understanding of this only grew over the last decades. Don't understand this wrong: there are certainly farmers and cooperations that practice a very intensive, soil depleting agriculture, because they think it makes sense for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to say that conventional agriculture is without problems, or even that the problems you describe don't exist: Fertilizer is often over-applied, leading to groundwater infiltration, larger fields suffer from erosion by wind, monocultures demand more pesticides, among other issues. Globally, soil loss that can be attributed to (among other things) bad farming practices is a problem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the decision between permaculture and &quot;soilponics&quot; is not entirely black and white, conventional agriculture has adopted some ideas because of regulatory pressure or because they make sense from an economic point of view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4509" RevisionGUID="d5bb94ab-60d9-4423-8817-8600ddf5d65e" CreationDate="2015-06-02T17:22:16.727" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="True sustainability is not dependent on outside sources. Try to learn the art of [coppicing][1] for fire wood, along with growing self propagating plants such as black locust which grows fast and produces more saplings along the root system and then can be cut for wood within a year or two. You would not need to purchase trees often once the coppice method is employed and the stump sprouts new growth. These also make good handle, bean pole and fence posts plus other ideas.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=coppicing%20trees&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;gws_rd=ssl" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4512" RevisionGUID="0b7480e5-40d5-4b6b-b23b-f8aae72e52de" CreationDate="2015-06-03T06:48:01.873" UserId="2272" Text="When appling these principles try to think of them as something that is second nature to you. My home gardening is not in full use of all the principles at this point,however I can see the long term benefit to implimenting permaculture principles. For example use principle #9 in maintaining mini eco systems even in small raised beds with polyculture that has eliminate the need for any chemical pesticides and fertilizers. By the way a raised bed need not always be a framed box. Layer on layer of mulch and compost over time becomes a raised be with the added benefit of soil improvement. &#xD;&#xA;With principle #10  this has helped me with advance planning and knowing what to expect from the impact of a plant or mini eco system. Permaculture mimics nature and you begin to graps the overall concept in a way that you see permaculture as gardening in motion working within itself and by itself yet enjoied by other." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9706" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4504" RevisionGUID="6d729b0e-f7f6-448f-abc5-0d466c97f14c" CreationDate="2015-06-03T08:40:38.097" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/606017634631614464" />
  <row Id="9718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="5dcafd24-d130-44fb-bdd6-bc59cdc8cc8e" CreationDate="2015-06-04T10:00:37.013" UserId="85" Comment="added 30 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Recently I heard at the market that water melons are injected with artificial colouring to make them look fresh and attractive, even though it is very harmful for anyone who consumes them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to check a water melon for artificial colouring before buying?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9719" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="5dcafd24-d130-44fb-bdd6-bc59cdc8cc8e" CreationDate="2015-06-04T10:00:37.013" UserId="85" Comment="added 30 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How can we detect if a water melon contains artificial colouring?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9720" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4506" RevisionGUID="5dcafd24-d130-44fb-bdd6-bc59cdc8cc8e" CreationDate="2015-06-04T10:00:37.013" UserId="85" Comment="added 30 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|food|fruits-and-vegetables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4516" RevisionGUID="49f5025b-561f-499c-8870-08b1a991a292" CreationDate="2015-06-04T17:20:49.807" UserId="2283" Text="Yes. Put a dime sized piece of watermelon pulp in a glass. Add 1 tablespoon of white vinegar and stir. Wait 30 seconds. If the vinegar stays clear then there is no artificial coloring. If it changes to any other color, then coloring has been added!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4517" RevisionGUID="0dd0c90d-85bf-4e58-a223-559eb360d633" CreationDate="2015-06-05T05:03:40.170" UserId="2272" Text="Diatomaceous earth a naturally occurring sedimentary rock and is effective for this purpose, however I would not classify it with permaculture.  A simple diffenition of permaculture ,the growing plants within a eco system that is self supporting.  Diatomaceous earth comes from places like Germany,Denmark and closer to home So. California,Colorado,to name a few. These are outside resouce that cannot be produced within a permaculture system. However, eggshells can since these can be from egg laying animals or chickens and ducks that are within the permaculture system.      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4520" RevisionGUID="e914bc3c-9cca-4bd1-b86c-7a4b46148931" CreationDate="2015-06-05T06:46:00.023" UserId="2272" Text="Stick with certified organic as already suggested the price difference from convental to orginic is next to neal.  Visit [&quot;The national List&quot;][1], Evaluation criteria for allowed and prohibited substances, methods, and ingredients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This same websight has [watermelon][2] as a superfood you will be well informed to visit . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=faq&amp;dbid=47&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&amp;dbid=31#purchasequalities" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9730" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4507" RevisionGUID="0612c0f6-8127-4b20-b4b2-e4b1ac2614ca" CreationDate="2015-06-05T23:48:18.883" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/606970835472105472" />
  <row Id="9732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4517" RevisionGUID="037847a7-c787-455d-b395-1511ae548130" CreationDate="2015-06-06T21:06:16.477" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Diatomaceous earth is a naturally occurring sedimentary rock and is effective for this purpose. However, I would not classify it as permaculture. A simple definition of permaculture is growing plants within a ecosystem that is self-supporting. Diatomaceous earth comes from places like Germany, Denmark and closer to home Southern California, Colorado, to name a few. These are outside resources that cannot be produced within a permaculture system. However, eggshells _can_ be produced within a permaculture system (by egg-laying animals such as chickens and ducks).      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4522" RevisionGUID="d256e236-57b1-463d-b33f-77300fe649ea" CreationDate="2015-06-08T08:18:48.593" UserId="2291" Text="This question is about analyzing the potential of concentrating solar power (CSP) to meet different load curves, each load curve at one time zone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know the best way to analyze the match of a cumulative supply from different CSP plants along different states in the US (the plants are spread along 3 time zones: UTC-8, UTC-7, UTC-6) with the cumulative load curve from the load curves of different states at UTC-8, UTC-7, UTC-6, UTC-5. Any idea on this regard?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9737" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4522" RevisionGUID="d256e236-57b1-463d-b33f-77300fe649ea" CreationDate="2015-06-08T08:18:48.593" UserId="2291" Text="Coupling a solar DNI dataset with demand loads at different time zones" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9738" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4522" RevisionGUID="d256e236-57b1-463d-b33f-77300fe649ea" CreationDate="2015-06-08T08:18:48.593" UserId="2291" Text="|solar-power|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4523" RevisionGUID="fcf24c7f-41a0-4ff2-9c98-3eaf604abd25" CreationDate="2015-06-08T08:54:16.783" UserId="48" Text="To do demand/supply matching, I don't use cumulative load curves, because they lack the time dimension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the sensitivity to Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) of time-of-day, what I'd look for is hourly or more frequent (eg half-hourly) data both for Direct Normal Insolation (DNI), and for electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some utilities do publish such (half-) hourly electricity consumption; as do some transmission operators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the insolation data, often reanalysis data is 3-hourly or 6-hourly, which might be too infrequent for your purpose. Reanalysis data does have better geographic coverage though. If need be, you might have to use more frequent met-station DNI data, and use that to interpolate the reanalysis data for your putative CSP sites, to get the right combination of precision for both time and place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9740" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="3105" RevisionGUID="e21402c2-5429-4846-b5df-b14cfd24becd" CreationDate="2015-06-08T09:13:57.910" UserId="99" Comment="27" />
  <row Id="9741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4523" RevisionGUID="509ee157-d363-41b2-8e7c-2fe9ded47771" CreationDate="2015-06-08T10:41:21.747" UserId="48" Comment="added 597 characters in body" Text="To do demand/supply matching, I don't use cumulative load-duration curves, because they lack the time dimension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the sensitivity to Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) of time-of-day, what I'd look for is hourly or more frequent (eg half-hourly) data both for Direct Normal Insolation (DNI), and for electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some utilities do publish such (half-) hourly electricity consumption; as do some transmission operators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the insolation data, often reanalysis data is 3-hourly or 6-hourly, which might be too infrequent for your purpose. Reanalysis data does have better geographic coverage though. If need be, you might have to use more frequent met-station DNI data, and use that to interpolate the reanalysis data for your putative CSP sites, to get the right combination of precision for both time and place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When combining data across different timezones, the first thing (after basic cleaning) to do is to convert the timestamps in all the data so that it's all for the same timezone (typically UTC). This requires adjustments for daylight saving time too. Once all the data are in UTC with no daylight saving time, then start doing your accumulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One usual method with such synoptic-scale analyses is to first model without any transmission capacity constraints; and then to introduce such constraints later if it looks like they might become relative. Long-distance transmission is pretty cheap and easy compared to building generation or storage, so ignoring capacity constraints is a pretty reasonable assumption for a first-order estimate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2835" RevisionGUID="a689f870-25aa-4336-80f3-dafb43ca96ae" CreationDate="2015-06-08T11:25:46.517" UserId="99" Comment="edited body" Text="United Kingdom, a country in the North-Western part of Europe. Use this tag for questions that are specific for UK and not applicable to other countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4523" RevisionGUID="13170b3f-daaa-4b59-aa40-36c2cb3cf941" CreationDate="2015-06-08T12:03:01.653" UserId="48" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="To do demand/supply matching, I don't use cumulative load-duration curves, because they lack the time dimension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the sensitivity to Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) of time-of-day, what I'd look for is hourly or more frequent (eg half-hourly) data both for Direct Normal Insolation (DNI), and for electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some utilities do publish such (half-) hourly electricity consumption; as do some transmission operators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the insolation data, often reanalysis data is 3-hourly or 6-hourly, which might be too infrequent for your purpose. Reanalysis data does have better geographic coverage though. If need be, you might have to use more frequent met-station DNI data, and use that to interpolate the reanalysis data for your putative CSP sites, to get the right combination of precision for both time and place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When combining data across different timezones, the first thing (after basic cleaning) to do is to convert the timestamps in all the data (DNI data, demand data, everything with a timestamp) so that it's all for the same timezone (typically UTC, aka UTC+00). This requires adjustments for daylight saving time too. Once all the data are in UTC with no daylight saving time, then start doing your accumulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One usual method with such synoptic-scale analyses is to first model without any transmission capacity constraints; and then to introduce such constraints later if it looks like they might become relative. Long-distance transmission is pretty cheap and easy compared to building generation or storage, so ignoring capacity constraints is a pretty reasonable assumption for a first-order estimate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4523" RevisionGUID="582fd97f-8b6c-4903-ab3b-f22bc27bf5c2" CreationDate="2015-06-08T13:53:20.387" UserId="48" Comment="added 463 characters in body" Text="To do demand/supply matching, I don't use cumulative load-duration curves, because they lack the time dimension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Data frequency&#xD;&#xA;Given the sensitivity to Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) of time-of-day, what I'd look for is hourly or more frequent (eg half-hourly) data both for Direct Normal Insolation (DNI), and for electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some utilities do publish such (half-) hourly electricity consumption; as do some transmission operators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the insolation data, often reanalysis data is 3-hourly or 6-hourly, which might be too infrequent for your purpose. Reanalysis data does have better geographic coverage though. If need be, you might have to use more frequent met-station DNI data, and use that to interpolate the reanalysis data for your putative CSP sites, to get the right combination of precision for both time and place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Combining data across timezones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When combining data across different timezones, the first thing (after basic cleaning) to do is to convert the timestamps in all the data (DNI data, demand data, everything with a timestamp) so that it's all for the same timezone (typically UTC, aka UTC+00). This requires adjustments for daylight saving time too. Once all the data are in UTC with no daylight saving time, then start doing your accumulation. (If everything's in the same timezone, then it's simplest to keep it in that ... except dealing with daylight saving time can create problems. As soon as I'm doing things across timezones, I switch to UTC+00 as that keeps it all simple, and is most straightforward for any present or future collaborators, wherever they are in the world. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###further issues with synoptic- (continental-) scale analysis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One usual method with such synoptic-scale analyses is to first model without any transmission capacity constraints; and then to introduce such constraints later if it looks like they might become relative. Long-distance transmission is pretty cheap and easy compared to building generation or storage, so ignoring capacity constraints is a pretty reasonable assumption for a first-order estimate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4523" RevisionGUID="7007f7a3-1018-4ac2-973f-3f0965b38d88" CreationDate="2015-06-08T14:05:09.260" UserId="48" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="To do demand/supply matching, I don't use cumulative load-duration curves, because they lack the time dimension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Data frequency&#xD;&#xA;Given the sensitivity to Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) of time-of-day, what I'd look for is hourly or more frequent (eg half-hourly) data both for Direct Normal Insolation (DNI), and for electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some utilities do publish such (half-) hourly electricity consumption; as do some transmission operators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the insolation data, often reanalysis data is 3-hourly or 6-hourly, which might be too infrequent for your purpose. Reanalysis data does have better geographic coverage though. If need be, you might have to use more frequent met-station DNI data, and use that to interpolate the reanalysis data for your putative CSP sites, to get the right combination of precision for both time and place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Combining data across timezones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When combining data across different timezones, the first thing (after basic cleaning) to do is to convert the timestamps in all the data (DNI data, demand data, everything with a timestamp) so that it's all for the same timezone (typically UTC, aka UTC+00). This requires adjustments for daylight saving time too. Once all the data are in UTC with no daylight saving time, then start doing your accumulation. (If everything's in the same timezone, then it's simplest to keep it in that ... except dealing with daylight saving time can create problems. As soon as I'm doing things across timezones, I switch to UTC as that keeps it all simple, and is most straightforward for any present or future collaborators, wherever they are in the world. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###further issues with synoptic- (continental-) scale analysis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One usual method with such synoptic-scale analyses is to first model without any transmission capacity constraints; and then to introduce such constraints later if it looks like they might become relative. Long-distance transmission is pretty cheap and easy compared to building generation or storage, so ignoring capacity constraints is a pretty reasonable assumption for a first-order estimate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4524" RevisionGUID="198d6cc3-02b1-49cc-a9d5-93ed129a9f89" CreationDate="2015-06-08T15:49:40.253" UserId="2292" Text="Some problems with very large horizontal axis turbines&#xD;&#xA;are beginning to become apparent...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Component supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Transportation of large components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Footings of large cantilevered towers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Problems with erecting large systems on land and in water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Gearbox problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Maintenance, especially in the ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on each of those items see the first few pages of a presentation by Dr. Brian Kirke at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cyberiad.net/library/pdf/ringdrivevawtsept09.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the introduction of that report focusses on Australia, many of the same problems are relevant to in other regions.&#xD;&#xA;(The rest of the report looks at an innovation that is not really relevant to your questions).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4525" RevisionGUID="e7060e2b-30aa-4860-a76d-e40b1105ca20" CreationDate="2015-06-08T16:07:16.233" UserId="2292" Text="jkj's suggestion of measuring the profile at wind height is sound (and necessary!) but it won't tell you whether the turbine you choose will be an efficient solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article you linked to is correct that the wind speeds in urban environments are likely to be very low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another factor why they are unlikely to become popular is that roof-top  turbines are usually quite small. That means that they are likely to be very inefficient relative to large turbines. Without going into the fluid dynamics in too much detail, it is simply because the  Reynolds numbers are too low which means that the lift generated by the blades is very small. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, you could opt for &quot;drag&quot; type turbines (e.g Savonius rotors), but they are very inefficient, often very heavy, and they require very strong support structures.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4526" RevisionGUID="8b18ce30-7921-4e22-86f9-3c49ddce2f02" CreationDate="2015-06-08T19:03:38.620" UserId="2293" Text="Should I use low or high temperature to use a stove energy efficiently? If Is use low temperatures a lot of energy will be wasted with time, but using high temperature is not energy efficient as well. So what's more economic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9749" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4526" RevisionGUID="8b18ce30-7921-4e22-86f9-3c49ddce2f02" CreationDate="2015-06-08T19:03:38.620" UserId="2293" Text="What's the most energy-efficient temperature to use when cooking?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9750" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4526" RevisionGUID="8b18ce30-7921-4e22-86f9-3c49ddce2f02" CreationDate="2015-06-08T19:03:38.620" UserId="2293" Text="|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4527" RevisionGUID="37cc456e-f24a-4793-a7ef-cdd73c99687e" CreationDate="2015-06-09T01:34:21.637" UserId="15" Text="This answer won't cover all cases, but when you are cooking with water it starts boiling at roughly 100 degrees and won't get any hotter (unless you boil it dry). Unless you're steaming, cooking a [reduction][1] or need the vigorous motion of water boiling hard, you may as well turn down the element at that point to save energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often foods don't cook until quite a high temperature is reached, so if you only slowly bring the food up to the required temperature then more energy will be lost. Once the temperature is adequate though, any excess heat is essentially wasted (and may burn the food or make it less healthy too). It's clearly best to aim to bring the temperature up quickly, but not overheat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other ways to reduce the energy used; for example using a minimal quantity of water to boil or steam requires less energy to bring up to temperature than using an excessive amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_%28cooking%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4526" RevisionGUID="de2221fb-dd58-4367-b6d6-3972141da05f" CreationDate="2015-06-09T06:48:02.290" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added cooking tag" Text="Should I use low or high temperature to use a stove energy efficiently? If I use low temperatures a lot of energy will be wasted with time, but using high temperature is not energy efficient as well. So what's more economic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9753" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4526" RevisionGUID="de2221fb-dd58-4367-b6d6-3972141da05f" CreationDate="2015-06-09T06:48:02.290" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added cooking tag" Text="|energy-efficiency|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4529" RevisionGUID="16b9c0c3-3f62-4978-aa77-84135a20722a" CreationDate="2015-06-09T19:44:52.880" UserId="2297" Text="I have created aquaponic system and tried to plant tomatoes, cucumbers and some other herbs. They sprout without problem but after couple of days they dried out. I tried it 2 times with the same result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water circulates 15 min every hour. I'm not using siphon setup but water flow one. At the bottom I have a gravel to filter it and at the top I use clay pellets in which I seeded the seeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The white drain pipe goes up to where the clay pellets and the gravel meets. So the seeds are not constantly in the water but absorb the moisture from the pellets. Any idea how to make it work? I'm planning to give up and just to plant some flowers meant for ponds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7FJmR.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4529" RevisionGUID="16b9c0c3-3f62-4978-aa77-84135a20722a" CreationDate="2015-06-09T19:44:52.880" UserId="2297" Text="Aquaponic system doesn't grow the plants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4529" RevisionGUID="16b9c0c3-3f62-4978-aa77-84135a20722a" CreationDate="2015-06-09T19:44:52.880" UserId="2297" Text="|aquaponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4530" RevisionGUID="e1ee8185-1c8e-4816-a271-d67805a4b459" CreationDate="2015-06-09T21:11:20.407" UserId="85" Text="(This is only meant as an extended comment. I hope someone with aquaponics experience will be able to answer your question. I have only seen much bigger aquaponics set-ups, outside.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I unfortunately don't have any experience with aquaponics, but it looks like your system is _inside_. My experience with tomatoes is that they need lots of warmth and light. My tomatoes I grow at 30 ºC outside in the sun. On top of that I've been told that tomatoes get sweeter with less water, so I only water them once a day. (I think that cucumbers (like melons), also need light and warmth, and depending on your herbs, they, too might need light and warmth.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I think that a problem with your setup might be not enough sunlight. (Seeds do sprout without sunlight, but as soon as they produce leaves, they need enough light to grow larger.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9760" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4526" RevisionGUID="7f79f312-07eb-48dd-a40b-bf71421397a8" CreationDate="2015-06-09T23:58:56.713" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/608423061747036160" />
  <row Id="9761" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4529" RevisionGUID="ba5962d6-96b7-4c2e-8b40-ce656014cba6" CreationDate="2015-06-10T08:58:56.823" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/608558957930622976" />
  <row Id="9762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4531" RevisionGUID="900fb14f-382a-43cf-8528-42f8f7a1f06d" CreationDate="2015-06-11T04:25:56.183" UserId="2013" Text="You didn't mention if you had done any Ph readings, so it seems like a good to consider the ph balancing process that aquaponic systems are known for, there is a ph plummet issue which can happen as a new system balances. It seems that my fish are living in 8.0 water after the winter ice melted, so I&quot;m trying to keep it down toward 6.5  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9763" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="43" RevisionGUID="189e5f2a-bb9e-4d97-88f1-667545ad6484" CreationDate="2015-06-11T15:03:23.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/609013061110894592" />
  <row Id="9764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="10c1a271-0118-4f53-bb0c-d5da4040c7ad" CreationDate="2015-06-12T08:22:27.113" UserId="2301" Text="The question looks silly, but I hope it's not. I'm interested in life-style decisions like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* going vegan&#xD;&#xA;* going vegetarian (but only local and maybe bio food) &#xD;&#xA;* get rid of car (only bike, public transport, car sharing)&#xD;&#xA;* invest in home efficiency (led lights, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* use renewable energy&#xD;&#xA;etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Positive externalities are important too (not killing intelligent living creatures, healthier life style, ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The major priority is for me cut carbon emissions, minimize pollution, but I very much like the idea that my action/decision can be self-evident and inspire and be shared by others." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9765" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="10c1a271-0118-4f53-bb0c-d5da4040c7ad" CreationDate="2015-06-12T08:22:27.113" UserId="2301" Text="What is the most sustainable life-style decision I can make?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9766" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="10c1a271-0118-4f53-bb0c-d5da4040c7ad" CreationDate="2015-06-12T08:22:27.113" UserId="2301" Text="|defining-sustainability|lifestyle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9768" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="c7a7579d-a765-480e-a6f3-5d1a9a71c865" CreationDate="2015-06-12T09:49:19.730" UserId="99" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="44e9cd26-e506-4a45-b0b6-f4ee0db11b43" CreationDate="2015-06-12T12:14:20.803" UserId="2301" Comment="deleted 113 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm interested in sustainability, especially regarding carbon footprint,  of life-style decisions regarding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **transportation** (i.e. get an electric car, use bike and public transport) &#xD;&#xA;* **dietary**: going vegan or vegetarian &#xD;&#xA;* **home efficiency** (i.e. using led lights, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* **proactive investing in carbon sink** (i.e. fund no profits against deforestation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My major goal is to fight carbon emissions, so I'd like to now the order of magnitude of these different actions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9770" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="44e9cd26-e506-4a45-b0b6-f4ee0db11b43" CreationDate="2015-06-12T12:14:20.803" UserId="2301" Comment="deleted 113 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the most efficient and sustainable life-style decision I can make?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="c273d8d4-49c8-47e4-bc79-e0067e84d0b6" CreationDate="2015-06-12T12:59:39.953" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, improved question title to better reflect contents, added carbon-footprint tag, removed defining-sustainability tag" Text="I'm interested in the sustainability, especially the carbon footprint, of life-style decisions regarding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **transportation** (i.e. get an electric car, use bike and public transport) &#xD;&#xA;* **dietary**: going vegan or vegetarian &#xD;&#xA;* **home efficiency** (i.e. using led lights, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* **proactive investing in carbon sink** (i.e. fund no profits against deforestation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My major goal is to fight carbon emissions, so I'd like to know the order of magnitude of these different actions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9773" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="c273d8d4-49c8-47e4-bc79-e0067e84d0b6" CreationDate="2015-06-12T12:59:39.953" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, improved question title to better reflect contents, added carbon-footprint tag, removed defining-sustainability tag" Text="What life-style decision can I make to reduce my carbon footprint most efficiently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9774" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="c273d8d4-49c8-47e4-bc79-e0067e84d0b6" CreationDate="2015-06-12T12:59:39.953" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, improved question title to better reflect contents, added carbon-footprint tag, removed defining-sustainability tag" Text="|carbon-footprint|lifestyle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9775" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="65e7239d-ebc2-42d7-a185-91c45576a77d" CreationDate="2015-06-12T12:59:40.473" UserId="99" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="5671ee63-d983-42cf-b6cb-e5aaef2f2a65" CreationDate="2015-06-12T14:33:50.727" UserId="2301" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I'm interested in the sustainability, especially the carbon footprint, of life-style decisions regarding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **transportation** (i.e. get an electric car, use bike and public transport) &#xD;&#xA;* **dietary**: going vegan or vegetarian &#xD;&#xA;* **home efficiency** (i.e. using led lights, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* **proactive investing in carbon sink** (i.e. fund no profits against deforestation, planting trees).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My major goal is to fight carbon emissions, so I'd like to know the order of magnitude of these different actions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9780" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="725" RevisionGUID="40ff8ff7-d1f4-4d43-bac6-481991a67e97" CreationDate="2015-06-12T14:37:02.263" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4534" RevisionGUID="6d7cb9aa-0794-419f-97fd-b7aec2619990" CreationDate="2015-06-12T18:00:08.740" UserId="2301" Text="I wonder how much carbon dioxide does grass sequester, compared to trees. Moreover, is grass still efficient in absorbing pollution? It seems to me that grass would be more efficient in storing carbon in soil than trees. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9782" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4534" RevisionGUID="6d7cb9aa-0794-419f-97fd-b7aec2619990" CreationDate="2015-06-12T18:00:08.740" UserId="2301" Text="Is grass efficient for carbon sequestration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9783" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4534" RevisionGUID="6d7cb9aa-0794-419f-97fd-b7aec2619990" CreationDate="2015-06-12T18:00:08.740" UserId="2301" Text="|plants|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4535" RevisionGUID="807f4aa8-5aed-4d89-b235-bd520edfb5b0" CreationDate="2015-06-12T18:09:35.887" UserId="2301" Text="I found [this article](http://nativeplantwildlifegarden.com/is-lawn-a-carbon-sink/) regarding *lawns*. &#xD;&#xA;It suggests that lawns could be regarded as *carbon sinks* only if they are not (frequently) mowered, and do not use pesticedes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;An acre of established temperate forest can hold from [2,000 lbs.][1] up to  [6,000][2] or more lbs. of carbon per year, depending on the age of the trees and other conditions. Mature grasslands sequester [2,400-3,600 lbs.][3] per acre each year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.oceanarks.org/Our_Carbon_Neutral_Program.php&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.oceanarks.org/Our_Carbon_Neutral_Program.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4537" RevisionGUID="9ac9f566-4ba1-4429-ad33-c00bb8d5fe78" CreationDate="2015-06-13T18:40:51.997" UserId="2301" Text="Building on Chris' answer: think about **transportation**.  &#xD;&#xA;For example, California produces a huge percentage of almonds and other nuts, and they are exported everywhere: I live in Italy and for example it's much easier and cheaper to buy walnuts from California than from any other country (Italy included).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably buying local nuts it's the *primary* factor. &#xD;&#xA;Given that, you can think about the rest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9796" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4534" RevisionGUID="3a0bcfef-366d-423f-9d45-fce50e31b1d6" CreationDate="2015-06-15T09:23:09.557" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/610376990676381696" />
  <row Id="9797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="ccd44cd2-c47f-4a20-9aa1-b109037a8cbd" CreationDate="2015-06-15T09:29:01.180" UserId="2301" Text="How much of carbon dioxide is used in the first years of the tree, and how much in maturity? How much goes in the soil, and how much in the wood? What about the night? The more details, the better!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9798" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="ccd44cd2-c47f-4a20-9aa1-b109037a8cbd" CreationDate="2015-06-15T09:29:01.180" UserId="2301" Text="How do trees absorb carbon dioxide?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9799" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="ccd44cd2-c47f-4a20-9aa1-b109037a8cbd" CreationDate="2015-06-15T09:29:01.180" UserId="2301" Text="|plants|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="4cf54061-f019-43b3-9d60-b86d95c46b83" CreationDate="2015-06-15T11:29:09.310" UserId="2301" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="How much of carbon dioxide is used in the first years of the tree, and how much in maturity? How much goes in the soil, and how much in the wood? What about the night?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in northern Italy, and a list of trees present in my territory are listed [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trees_of_Europe).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to maximise absorption of carbon and pollution in the first years, and I'm also interested in the best performance of soil carbon sequestration, as it is seems to be more efficient (i.e. carbon is stored for much more time than wood). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4540" RevisionGUID="91010c99-8bd2-4e96-b63f-0fec3ae95d2d" CreationDate="2015-06-16T21:12:46.443" UserId="279" Text="*My answers are from general browsing on reputable American environmental news and urban planning websites so forgive me for not citing scientific and exact research.* &#xA;&#xA;&gt; transportation (i.e. get an electric car, use bike and public transport) &#xA;&#xA;In Italy the gas tax for gas and diesel is enough to discourage excessive driving or large SUVs. Buying electric or hybrid car will not offset carbon that much because **you still have to charge the car.** Can't be certain your electricity company uses a renewable energy source and not coal. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; dietary: going vegan or vegetarian&#xA;&#xA;Those ideas are nice and healthier but the transport of goods uses gas. Unless you're buying from a local farmer can't be certain they're not importing it from across the continent or country.  &#xA;&#xA;&gt; home efficiency (i.e. using led lights, etc.)&#xA;&#xA;One LED bulb lasts 7-22 years and uses less power than CFL and incandescent so this is a effective way to reduce carbon footprint. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; proactive investing in carbon sink (i.e. fund no profits against deforestation, planting trees).&#xA;&#xA;Donating money to plant trees and maintain forests is noble but unless you buy lots of acres of rain forests it's hard for the common person, non-billionaire, to make an impact.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="633c6bf9-b9fc-4384-bfec-0f8442b94cc4" CreationDate="2015-06-17T12:29:37.703" UserId="2318" Text="Water supply in our apartment is hard water and is not suitable for daily use like washing cloths, drinking, bathing etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestion that we can put on any water purifier to the main pipe which comes to our house? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9803" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="633c6bf9-b9fc-4384-bfec-0f8442b94cc4" CreationDate="2015-06-17T12:29:37.703" UserId="2318" Text="Which is the best hard water purifier for house in an apartment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9804" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="633c6bf9-b9fc-4384-bfec-0f8442b94cc4" CreationDate="2015-06-17T12:29:37.703" UserId="2318" Text="|water|health|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4542" RevisionGUID="4dee150f-7b62-4d9e-b519-d75dd9c3d316" CreationDate="2015-06-17T13:36:19.367" UserId="48" Text="There is only one effective measure, and that's an ion-exchange water-softener.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that the major inputs are sustainable, or potentially sustainable: electricity, and salt. Similarly, the waste product, calcium chloride, has no (to my knowledge) negative ecological impact on being added to waste-water streams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the catalyst itself, I don't know about its sustainability. On the positive side, it does last for years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The casing is recyclable plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electronics (if present) should on disposal be treated as electronic waste, and can be processed to extract reusable materials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4543" RevisionGUID="f50d8c9b-750a-4616-8065-6fdfa808d875" CreationDate="2015-06-17T19:20:05.917" UserId="2319" Text="Becoming a vegan is the fastest way to do this. Check out this film for clear evidence:http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4544" RevisionGUID="1333562e-c34e-4984-8ea2-5b84b1f88037" CreationDate="2015-06-17T23:55:36.637" UserId="2320" Text="I have been cutting poplar trees for firewood on my 11 acre mixed use property for a few years now , since I have retired .  I discovered many 50 to 60 foot tall trees , straight with few limbs , and 12&quot; to 15&quot; and more at the base .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last year I cut 30 down of these large trees and wound up with 6 cords of stacked firewood , cut and split. 5 trees to the cord . Enough for the winter's burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="73eb68d6-9948-4683-b37f-b2ae0589cb40" CreationDate="2015-06-18T07:18:09.153" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, improved question title, added part about sustainability to make the question relevant for this site" Text="The water supply in our apartment is hard water and is not suitable for daily use like washing clothes, drinking, bathing etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there water purifiers we can put on the main water pipe which goes into our house? How sustainable are they?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9809" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="73eb68d6-9948-4683-b37f-b2ae0589cb40" CreationDate="2015-06-18T07:18:09.153" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar, improved question title, added part about sustainability to make the question relevant for this site" Text="Are there hard water purifiers for the main water pipe into an apartment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4545" RevisionGUID="92e00da2-308a-4589-bc77-1056df324c34" CreationDate="2015-06-18T10:16:42.457" UserId="2321" Text="The inquiry is the title.  Please let me know if this should be posted elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4545" RevisionGUID="92e00da2-308a-4589-bc77-1056df324c34" CreationDate="2015-06-18T10:16:42.457" UserId="2321" Text="How to figure out whether roommate has been using insecticides in my bedroom, living room, or kitchen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4545" RevisionGUID="92e00da2-308a-4589-bc77-1056df324c34" CreationDate="2015-06-18T10:16:42.457" UserId="2321" Text="|pest-management|toxic-chemicals|pesticides|health|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4546" RevisionGUID="45d2e1a1-95f8-4d7d-97e1-5aed44ee419c" CreationDate="2015-06-18T11:02:02.903" UserId="15" Text="If you have a particular location in the room where you suspect they may have been used, you could try releasing some live bugs there (ones that are moderately welcome indoors), eg some jumpy spiders. If they quickly die, that would indicate insecticide use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously you would ensure any bugs released are in good health to start with, and release several to get a more reliable result." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="ca98333d-3bef-46d1-99e2-129ece739c3d" CreationDate="2015-06-18T12:10:36.787" UserId="1053" Text="The simplest rule to follow is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Buy Less Stuff&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people replace large articles of furniture (couch, fridge, bed) every 3-5 years, often for reasons of style or fashion. That stuff has to be made and shipped to where you buy it. If you keep those things for 30 years (which is by no means impossible or even particularly different) you have a big impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people buy food half made for them in boxes, bags, and cans. That requires shipping raw ingredients to a factory, building and running a factory, and shipping the finished goods to the store. Buying meat from the farm yourself (especially if you didn't drive to it) has a lower carbon footprint than buying Tofurky or Hamburger Helper and not eating meat. The &quot;stuff&quot; that is the box, bag, can and the time-and-effort of the factory people is stuff you don't need. Buy raw ingredients and cook them. Buy them from the farm if you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people own many pairs of shoes, dozens of shirts and pants, a cupboard full of candlesticks and placemats and gadgets and knickknacks. Every one of these items has to be made (from cloth, petroleum products, metal, whatever) in a factory that had to be made, and so on. If you don't buy these things, you save all that footprint. How many candlesticks does one home need?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, walk or bike when you can. Take public transport. Eat less meat. Use LED bulbs and don't waste electricity. But the biggest impact you will ever have - on the planet, on CO2, on your health, and on your retirement savings - is to Buy Less Stuff." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4548" RevisionGUID="535a2367-c149-4769-a983-7ded6a7de242" CreationDate="2015-06-18T12:23:41.157" UserId="99" Text="**General recommendations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many households in the developed world the largest sources of CO2 emissions are transportation (car fuel), electricity and food. This means that the average household can reduce its carbon footprint most effectively by taking measures such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - installing PV panels to generate electricity&#xD;&#xA; - buying an electric vehicle&#xD;&#xA; - switching to a meatless diet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect CO2 emisisons from stuff you buy may also have a big impact, so it's always a good idea to reduce your consumption where possible, and reuse things as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Personalised recommendations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personalised recommendations are rather difficult. There can be very big differences in the CO2 emissions of the average household per country (see for example [this list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)), but it could also be that you've already taken measures and that you are far from being an 'average household'. Consequently it's best to carefully investigate your own lifestyle yourself to see where improvements can be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good way to start is to check a few online carbon footprint calculators to find out how much CO2 emissions you are currently responsible for.&#xD;&#xA;Carbon footprint calculators are far from perfect (see also [this article](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583613002168)), but it's  probably the best we have for personalized recommendations.&#xD;&#xA;There is a short list of calculators in this site's [carbon footprint tag information](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/carbon-footprint/info), but there are also many others. &#xD;&#xA;Some calculators, like the [Cool California calcualtor](http://www.coolcalifornia.org/calculator) for example, show intermediate results for different categories. This way you can see what currently is your biggest contribution to CO2 emissions, and by tweaking with the parameters you can try to find out what reductions may be possible for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get the most accurate result I recommend selecting calculators that were developed in your country of residence, or that at least allow you to select the country where you live (and hope they use recent and accurate data to make the calculations). I also recommend checking the results of more than 1 calculator, unless you are quite positive the calculator is founded on scientifically sound principles and uses recent and relevant data. Note that not all calculators include indirect CO2 emissions (that were emitted to manufacture a product or service before you started using it), so be careful when comparing results between several calculators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tree planting**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK there are no carbon footprint calculators that also show how much you can reduce your CO2 footprint by participating in a tree planting scheme. The efficiency of such a scheme would depend on many things such as; the type of tree planted, the geographical location where they are planted, the amount of space a tree has to grow, and the lifespan of the tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A figure you encounter often is that a tree can absorp up to 48 lbs of CO2 per year, but note that [this figure is a maximum](http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm) so the average CO2 absorption during it's lifespan will be lower. To give a rough estimate: [a tree will generally absorb around 1 tonne (about 2200 lbs) of CO2 during it's life-time](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/plantingtrees.html). Note that over time, the reduction of CO2 will be lower than this calculated amount because the CO2 will be released again once the tree dies. Tree planting alone will never be enough to compensate for all the CO2 that is emitted, so ultimately other solutions are needed. If you do decide to participate in a tree planting scheme, be careful that the particular scheme is legit and doesn't introduce monocultures because this may reduce biodiversity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9816" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4493" RevisionGUID="d0287d97-beaf-4ef2-b357-390ab735223d" CreationDate="2015-06-18T21:23:34.047" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/611645451075473410" />
  <row Id="9817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4549" RevisionGUID="0a2cb454-3e7f-4153-bcde-26f5e6188630" CreationDate="2015-06-19T03:17:31.087" UserId="2324" Text="take one sample of that firewood then burn it, a burning firewood which is moist will tend to produce a bubbles at the other end caused by the combination of the moisture content of wood and the gases it accumulated during the burning process&#xD;&#xA;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="654cb558-d51c-4e00-b22a-9e7a815df031" CreationDate="2015-06-21T08:09:24.643" UserId="476" Text="Living in a dense (vertical) city with public transport. I explained it in details all over the place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2417/476 - you cannot use trees to capture CO2&#xD;&#xA;http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2398/476 - using neighbours for heat isolation&#xD;&#xA;http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2402/476 - composting in NY city&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way, you can reduce energy and all other wastes tenfolds compared to average &quot;middle class&quot; lifestyle and achieve sustainability. Bill Rees, the author of &quot;ecofootprint concept&quot;, has finally came to the same conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/ugv0OY6LyuE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="18a3236a-7076-4ee6-b8a4-536b41bbbaae" CreationDate="2015-06-21T08:44:21.603" UserId="476" Comment="unfolded the idea a bit" Text="Living in a dense (vertical) city with public transport. I explained it in details all over the place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2417/476 - you cannot use trees to capture CO2&#xD;&#xA;http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2398/476 - using neighbours for heat isolation&#xD;&#xA;http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2402/476 - composting in NY city&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way, you can reduce energy and all other wastes tenfolds compared to average &quot;middle class&quot; lifestyle and achieve sustainability. Bill Rees, the author of &quot;ecofootprint concept&quot;, has finally came to the same conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/ugv0OY6LyuE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afterwards you can look at lightening electronics, garbage separation/recycling and more vegetarian diet. But these are ridiculously tiny savings compared to what you save migrating from your suburb into a dense city. In dense city you have 10-100 closer distances to everything and share almost every piece of infrastructure, whereas suburbs enable/demand evrything privately, and you consume immense reousrces starting from the precious lands. You consume tens times more lands if you own a beatiful house with grass than living in a flat in 10-floor building. You heat not only your flat but living rooms of your neigbours, so heating is shared, whereas in private house you have a large surface area leaking the heat. Furthermore, heat power plants produce hot water and heating, which can be used only in a dense city because you cannot distribute hot water over large distances. You get heat for free in dense cities! The pipes, electiricty channels all are tens or thouthands times shorter in dense city. One street lamp in a vertical illuminates thouthands of people whereas ten lamps are needed to illuminate a single person in suburbs (see these sick astronomers look at the form of the lamps and do not notice that they can have 1000x less of them if collapse all this 1-floor infrastructure into one big building). Guess what savings and light pollution is in both cases. Public transport is more effective than car (energy waste per person/distance) and travels considerably shorter distances, giving 10-100 time energy savings over private car in a &quot;human friendly suburb&quot;. See, we have 10-100 overconsumption of everything, thanks to horizontal infrastructure of private cottages. Capitalists need to increase consumption, regardless of the Earth consequences. Sustainability is a communist thing. That is why ruling class will tell you distract you looking for &quot;new sources&quot; and &quot;sequestration&quot; instead of saving that your dream, to have a nice house in beatiful place, is what causes all the environment collapse. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4552" RevisionGUID="a3611c76-82ea-489e-9874-843875d29d4c" CreationDate="2015-06-21T20:09:35.130" UserId="476" Text="Probably not answering the question, but I cannot resist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is increadable that you understand that you cook by temperature rather than by applying the energy. Maintaining the temperature, no matter how high, ideally, does not consume any energy whatsoever (likewise the body, once accelerated, maintains its speed itself. Only heat up is energy consuming. Maintaining does not consume anything. You can boil for free!). That is a law of heat from Galileo. You need an accelerator just to counteract the resistance (aka energy leakage/loss). **The faster you move, the more you leak per second**. This is another law of heating/cooling from Newton&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It says that the higher is temperature, the faster you loose the energy, exponentially faster. You see the contradiction between the laws because your pan is not ideal. Galileo was first to notice that **if you boil with ideal lid, your pan will keep its temperature forever, for free. You can boil for free!** Wait, I repeat myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is that you should always use a lid and probably wrap your pan into towels. The latter can be risky. I recommend therefore reaching the water boiling temperature quickly first, turn off the heater and cover everything with with towels. This will insulate your cooking-optimal temperature pan and you won't waste any temperature/energy at all and it is safe. It is also optimal ib terms of the fact that, as the dish cools down, it is prepared and once preparation completes, your dish has optimal temperature for consumption (in contrast to those slaves of evil who are convinced that beauty and good taste = energy waste, enjoy their fresh dish scalding). The real beauty is energy saving, when things go smoothly themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such stewing is a best way to boil pasta, eggs and various crops. The latter should be soaked in advance. Soaking = boiling at room temperature. It is free (costs no money and does not increase world entropy whatsoever). Yes, **you should boil the crops and beans at room temperature first**. Boil them normally, as described above, after soaking. It will be a huge saver. I think that thinly filmed potatoes will go either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, boil with as few water as possible and never dispose stem-hot water into the drain. Boil something else or use it to clean fat or recuperate. Washing steam-hot water down the drain is a (entropic) crime against the God. I normally boil the crops such that after soaking, there is left some water in the pan and it is partially evaporated and further soaked into beans during stewing. So, nothing is wasted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But your question is interesting. It re-raises my old question, **why do kitchen bosses do not produce the thermically insulated pans to enable zero-energy cooking**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/i119H.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="e8fba24d-d1e6-442b-aa59-5bfb6b3412cc" CreationDate="2015-06-22T08:32:30.113" UserId="99" Text="I've read that clothes made from bamboo fibers require about 1/3 the amount of water compared to cotton. Also bamboo grows much faster than cotton and it requires little or no herbicides or fertilizer. This suggests that bamboo has a much lower environmental impact than cotton. Is that really the case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that only a very small percentage of clothing you can buy in the stores nowadays is made from bamboo (at least where I live). If the advantages are really this big, why aren't more clothing manufacturers switching to bamboo? What are the disadvantages of using bamboo?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9824" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="e8fba24d-d1e6-442b-aa59-5bfb6b3412cc" CreationDate="2015-06-22T08:32:30.113" UserId="99" Text="Pros and cons of bamboo clothing compared to cotton?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9825" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="e8fba24d-d1e6-442b-aa59-5bfb6b3412cc" CreationDate="2015-06-22T08:32:30.113" UserId="99" Text="|environmental-impact|manufacturing|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4554" RevisionGUID="2f2e4f14-9bab-46f7-87d9-f18bb979a456" CreationDate="2015-06-22T18:30:45.200" UserId="2330" Text="Yes, you do want to make sure they are not poisonous.  I came across this site because I was looking for drinking straw material.  25 years ago in Japan I used to go to a place that roasted their own coffee beans. That was new to me and I would have an iced coffee while I waited. The woman their provided these lovely dried reeds for straws.  They worked great and didn't add any unwanted flavour so I know these straws exist somewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9832" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4541" RevisionGUID="83d10389-95f6-4459-a6ea-f22656451126" CreationDate="2015-06-24T12:46:12.440" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/613689580143947776" />
  <row Id="9837" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4558" RevisionGUID="cd02a41e-d1b2-41a6-8775-7be46eee42b0" CreationDate="2015-06-25T21:13:16.953" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/5065/why-the-world-is-using-non-renewable-resources" />
  <row Id="9838" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4559" RevisionGUID="993243af-d525-4c3a-991c-3754a098115c" CreationDate="2015-06-25T21:13:16.953" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/5065/why-the-world-is-using-non-renewable-resources/5066#5066" />
  <row Id="9839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4559" RevisionGUID="9c84d081-ee2b-4aaa-8d21-ddb566d7a7e0" CreationDate="2015-06-25T14:22:58.830" UserId="2345" UserDisplayName="Fred" Text="There is no one reason for why humans are using non-renewable resources like fossil fuels and nuclear fuels to generate energy. I'll write what I know about and others can do the same and from all the answers you'll be able to see complexity of the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with humankind has been burning things for energy for millennia. It's something we know a lot about. Burning coal, oil and gas is and extension of an old practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [first usage][1] of renewable energy was around 5000 BC when people put sails on boats. The Persians used wind power to pump water and grind grain from 900 BC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One key aspect about burning non-renewable resources is that it can be done anywhere and at any time: on good farming country, in a desert, on a mountain, in the tundra, away from a town and in the centre of town. It can be done day or night, summer or winter, irrespective of whether its wet, dry, hot or cold; except during extreme weather like hurricanes or natural disasters. Fossil fuels are very good sources of base load power. If a generator is not running at full capacity it can increase its power output when required very quickly and likewise can reduce its power very quickly when required. This sort of flexibility is not available with renewable energy sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Renewable energy sources are limited in where they can be utilized and when. Wind power requires windy locations and for the wind to be blowing at speed powerful enough to generate electricity but not too powerful to damage the equipment. There are some issues with placing wind farms near population centres. Solar energy can only be generated when the Sun is shining and it will be affected by cloud cover and anything else that may interfere with the Sun shining of the solar energy collector . Peak generating times for solar energy is generally from late morning to mid afternoon. If solar energy isn't stored while being generated it can't be used during the night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tidal power can only be generated when tides are going in or going out (only twice a day) and where the tides are strong enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wave power ultimately relies on the wind and is variable in strength. Water wheels require fast flowing rivers and are limited in where they can be placed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydro-electricity requires the construction of massive dams. During the construction phase a lot of fossil fuel is consumed in moving rock and making concrete for the dam. There is also an environment impact in disrupting rivers and ecosystems. Additionally, all dams used for hydro power silt-up over time, which either renders the dam unusable or the silt must be removed. The dams also rely on consistent rainfall of sufficient quantities to keep water levels at required capacities. Also not all rivers are suitable for damming and hydro-electricity generation. But once constructed, hydro electric generators provide an excellent source of base load power that can be turned on and off at will, provided there is enough water in the dam, without additional atmospheric pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally, people have used wind turbines to power pumps to pump some of the discharge water from a hydro-electric dam back into the dam. Solar photovoltaic cells can be used for this as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geothermal electricity can only be utilized when geothermal conditions are favourable: hot rocks near the surface of the Earth or in volcanically active regions where steam and hot rock are near the Earth's surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The generation of geothermal power from non-volcanic sources has been tried in Australia since the 1990s but it still requires a lot of money for development. Currently, only [pilot plants][2] have been made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-renewable energy power stations can be built close to where the energy will be consumed which reduces the cost of electricity transmission, power lines and pylons, and it also reduces [transmission energy losses][3] by having short transmission lines. They are also relatively compact in size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Renewable energy power stations tend to require large amounts of land: wind farms and solar generating sites. They also tend to be built to maximise the energy source and generally are located far from where the energy will be utilised. This requires longer transmission lines and increases the cost and the energy losses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the main factors inhibiting the construction of renewable energy generating sites is the cost. Currently, in most parts of the world energy derived from fossil fuels is much cheaper than that of renewable energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing that helps fossil fuels compared to renewables is that fossil fuels are considered sources of high quality energy; a lot of energy produced from a small quantity of material.  Renewables are generally regarded as sources of low quality energy because their sources, like the [Sun provide low amounts of energy][4]. &quot;Most people around the world live in areas with insolation levels of 150 to 300 watt per square meter or 3.5 to 7.0 $kWh/m^2$ per day&quot;.  Depending on the type of coal burned, [energy from coal][5] varies between 29 MJ/kg to 35 MJ/kg. This is equivalent to 7.7 kWh/kg to 9.7 kWh/kg. A lot a coal can be burned in a 24 hour day providing a lot energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The energy produced by [natural gas][6] is 439 $MJ/m^3$, or 10.8 $kWh/m^3$, which is even higher than that from coal. [Uranium 235][7] can produce 24 million kWh/kg, which is 3.4 million times more energy than a photovoltaic cell, 1 metre square, can produce during one bright sunny day on Earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to using energy for transport, fossil fuels still give us the most flexibility and lowest cost options. Battery powered cars have a maximum range of approximately 300 km on a fully charged battery, which may be fine for driving around town but is not an option for long distance driving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buses in towns could revert to using overhead trolley wires, similar to what electric locomotives use, but from personal experience decades ago, they can cause traffic congestion when one or more such buses is waiting on another such bus to take or discharge passengers and all the buses must use the same trolley wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen fuel cells can be used, but they are expensive and obtaining the hydrogen by splitting water generally requires the use of electricity. Also being highly explosive, hydrogen requires special safety measures and special thick walled tanks for storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/history-wind-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geodynamics.com.au/Our-Company/Our-History.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/f/fuelcomparison.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4558" RevisionGUID="408f02d4-5015-4f91-8050-286a678dac59" CreationDate="2015-06-25T12:03:09.980" UserId="2346" UserDisplayName="Mr_Green" Text="According to [Wiki][1],&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A renewable resource is an organic natural resource which **can replenish** to overcome usage and consumption, either through biological reproduction or other naturally recurring processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this explains that renewable resources can be recycled and used. and also there are many resources which produce renewable energy such as Solar enery, wind enery and Hydro/Thermal enery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keeping this aside, there is also Non-renewable resources. According to Wiki, the explanation is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A non-renewable resource (also called a finite resource) is a resource that **does not renew** itself at a sufficient rate for sustainable economic extraction in meaningful human time-frames.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing the fact, that the non-renewable resources can't be renewed and also that the consumption of these resources are making our earth hollow, we still use it more compare to renewable resources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: Why we are using non-renewable resources to generate energy from fossil fuels and Nuclear, when we have renewable resources like solar energy, wind energy and Hydro/Thermal energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_resource" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9841" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4558" RevisionGUID="408f02d4-5015-4f91-8050-286a678dac59" CreationDate="2015-06-25T12:03:09.980" UserId="2346" UserDisplayName="Mr_Green" Text="Why the world is using non renewable resources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9842" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4558" RevisionGUID="408f02d4-5015-4f91-8050-286a678dac59" CreationDate="2015-06-25T12:03:09.980" UserId="2346" UserDisplayName="Mr_Green" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9843" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="36bfc45d-2f35-4e3f-ab97-26eed0b0b193" CreationDate="2015-06-26T03:46:16.327" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/614278476917547009" />
  <row Id="9844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4558" RevisionGUID="45308333-76c0-4bb3-bd3b-f38dc600897c" CreationDate="2015-06-26T08:57:15.710" UserId="15" Comment="Fixed some spelling, add some sensible tags" Text="According to [Wiki][1],&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A renewable resource is an organic natural resource which **can replenish** to overcome usage and consumption, either through biological reproduction or other naturally recurring processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this explains that renewable resources can be recycled and used. and also there are many resources which produce renewable energy such as Solar energy, wind energy and Hydro/Thermal energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keeping this aside, there is also Non-renewable resources. According to Wiki, the explanation is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A non-renewable resource (also called a finite resource) is a resource that **does not renew** itself at a sufficient rate for sustainable economic extraction in meaningful human time-frames.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Knowing the fact, that the non-renewable resources can't be renewed and also that the consumption of these resources are making our earth hollow, we still use it more compare to renewable resources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: Why we are using non-renewable resources to generate energy from fossil fuels and Nuclear, when we have renewable resources like solar energy, wind energy and Hydro/Thermal energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_resource" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9845" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4558" RevisionGUID="45308333-76c0-4bb3-bd3b-f38dc600897c" CreationDate="2015-06-26T08:57:15.710" UserId="15" Comment="Fixed some spelling, add some sensible tags" Text="|energy|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4559" RevisionGUID="44502ee7-8b21-4568-bcf4-5e5d19e60da5" CreationDate="2015-06-26T09:47:51.267" UserId="2345" Comment="Removed MathJax formatting" Text="There is no one reason for why humans are using non-renewable resources like fossil fuels and nuclear fuels to generate energy. I'll write what I know about and others can do the same and from all the answers you'll be able to see complexity of the situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with humankind has been burning things for energy for millennia. It's something we know a lot about. Burning coal, oil and gas is and extension of an old practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [first usage][1] of renewable energy was around 5000 BC when people put sails on boats. The Persians used wind power to pump water and grind grain from 900 BC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One key aspect about burning non-renewable resources is that it can be done anywhere and at any time: on good farming country, in a desert, on a mountain, in the tundra, away from a town and in the centre of town. It can be done day or night, summer or winter, irrespective of whether its wet, dry, hot or cold; except during extreme weather like hurricanes or natural disasters. Fossil fuels are very good sources of base load power. If a generator is not running at full capacity it can increase its power output when required very quickly and likewise can reduce its power very quickly when required. This sort of flexibility is not available with renewable energy sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Renewable energy sources are limited in where they can be utilized and when. Wind power requires windy locations and for the wind to be blowing at speed powerful enough to generate electricity but not too powerful to damage the equipment. There are some issues with placing wind farms near population centres. Solar energy can only be generated when the Sun is shining and it will be affected by cloud cover and anything else that may interfere with the Sun shining of the solar energy collector . Peak generating times for solar energy is generally from late morning to mid afternoon. If solar energy isn't stored while being generated it can't be used during the night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tidal power can only be generated when tides are going in or going out (only twice a day) and where the tides are strong enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wave power ultimately relies on the wind and is variable in strength. Water wheels require fast flowing rivers and are limited in where they can be placed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydro-electricity requires the construction of massive dams. During the construction phase a lot of fossil fuel is consumed in moving rock and making concrete for the dam. There is also an environment impact in disrupting rivers and ecosystems. Additionally, all dams used for hydro power silt-up over time, which either renders the dam unusable or the silt must be removed. The dams also rely on consistent rainfall of sufficient quantities to keep water levels at required capacities. Also not all rivers are suitable for damming and hydro-electricity generation. But once constructed, hydro electric generators provide an excellent source of base load power that can be turned on and off at will, provided there is enough water in the dam, without additional atmospheric pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally, people have used wind turbines to power pumps to pump some of the discharge water from a hydro-electric dam back into the dam. Solar photo-voltaic cells can be used for this as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geothermal electricity can only be utilized when geothermal conditions are favorable: hot rocks near the surface of the Earth or in volcanically active regions where steam and hot rock are near the Earth's surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The generation of geothermal power from non-volcanic sources has been tried in Australia since the 1990s but it still requires a lot of money for development. Currently, only [pilot plants][2] have been made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Non-renewable energy power stations can be built close to where the energy will be consumed which reduces the cost of electricity transmission, power lines and pylons, and it also reduces [transmission energy losses][3] by having short transmission lines. They are also relatively compact in size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Renewable energy power stations tend to require large amounts of land: wind farms and solar generating sites. They also tend to be built to maximize the energy source and generally are located far from where the energy will be utilized. This requires longer transmission lines and increases the cost and the energy losses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the main factors inhibiting the construction of renewable energy generating sites is the cost. Currently, in most parts of the world energy derived from fossil fuels is much cheaper than that of renewable energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing that helps fossil fuels compared to renewables is that fossil fuels are considered sources of high quality energy; a lot of energy produced from a small quantity of material.  Renewables are generally regarded as sources of low quality energy because their sources, like the [Sun provide low amounts of energy][4]. &quot;Most people around the world live in areas with insolation levels of 150 to 300 watt per square meter or 3.5 to 7.0 kWh/m2 per day&quot;.  Depending on the type of coal burned, [energy from coal][5] varies between 29 MJ/kg to 35 MJ/kg. This is equivalent to 7.7 kWh/kg to 9.7 kWh/kg. A lot a coal can be burned in a 24 hour day providing a lot energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The energy produced by [natural gas][6] is 439 MJ/m3, or 10.8 kWh/m3, which is even higher than that from coal. [Uranium 235][7] can produce 24 million kWh/kg, which is 3.4 million times more energy than a photovoltaic cell, 1 metre square, can produce during one bright sunny day on Earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to using energy for transport, fossil fuels still give us the most flexibility and lowest cost options. Battery powered cars have a maximum range of approximately 300 km on a fully charged battery, which may be fine for driving around town but is not an option for long distance driving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buses in towns could revert to using overhead trolley wires, similar to what electric locomotives use, but from personal experience decades ago, they can cause traffic congestion when one or more such buses is waiting on another such bus to take or discharge passengers and all the buses must use the same trolley wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen fuel cells can be used, but they are expensive and obtaining the hydrogen by splitting water generally requires the use of electricity. Also being highly explosive, hydrogen requires special safety measures and special thick walled tanks for storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/history-wind-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.geodynamics.com.au/Our-Company/Our-History.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/f/fuelcomparison.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="d5e9b3ea-7d07-48ff-b981-ec2063f74682" CreationDate="2015-06-26T12:57:34.463" UserId="2345" Text="The best analogy for this the use of daylight savings time, where in effect people wake up one hour early than they usually do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A study by the [US Department of Transport in 1975][1] (see page 4 of the website),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; showed that Daylight Saving Time trims the entire country's electricity usage by a small but significant amount, about one percent each day, because less electricity is used for lighting and appliances. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although a 1976 report by the National Bureau of Standards disputed the 1975 U.S. Department of Transportation study, and found that DST-related energy savings were insignificant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A more recent report][2], referenced by the California Energy Commission states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The study concluded that both Winter Daylight Saving Time and Summer-season Double Daylight SavingTime (DDST) would probably save marginal amounts of electricity - around 3,400 megawatt-hours (MWh) a day in winter (one-half of one percent of winter electricity use - 0.5%) and around 1,500 MWh a day during the summer season (one-fifth of one percent of summer-season use - 0.20%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the energy savings would be small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/c.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=P400-01-013" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4562" RevisionGUID="64242855-adfc-419a-a41e-798c66345df0" CreationDate="2015-06-26T13:16:31.767" UserId="2345" Text="The cause of body odour are the chemical produced by bacteria that live on the skin in warm, moist areas like the armpits and on feet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to reduce the amount of bacteria is to kill them off using vinegar. Vinegar is mild acid that certain bacteria can't survive in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get some cheap bulk clear vinegar and apply it with a wash cloth and then rinse the cloth afterwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4563" RevisionGUID="b77313e6-f76e-4eb4-b17e-dbba179e6a23" CreationDate="2015-06-26T14:32:11.570" UserId="2345" Text="There are a lot of good answers here and shading the roof by whatever means to reduce the amount of heat from the sun hitting roof will all help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand your problem heat stored in the concrete roof is radiating into the rooms immediately below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the rooms immediately under the concrete roof have high ceilings, false ceilings can be constructed approximately 300 mm below the current ceiling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place insulation above the false ceiling but leave an air gap between the true ceiling and the insulated false ceiling. Then put ventilation holes in the walls at the height of the gap between the true and false ceilings. To aid ventilation a fan can be placed in the holes in the walls. Alternatively, if there is room outside the walls of the house tubing can be placed in the holes in the walls and a roof ventilator placed on the other end of the tube so that when their is a breeze it draws air out from the gap between the two ceilings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attic fan ventilator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![attic fan ventilator][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roof ventilator&#xD;&#xA;![roof ventilator][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vPRhs.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RAbe0.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="e20a9735-bf62-4a4b-b190-c92df6cf6c85" CreationDate="2015-06-26T19:05:21.360" UserId="99" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="the sustainable use of energy, through efficiency and renewables. Use this tag for questions on energy in general. For questions on a specific energy type see [electricity], [heating] or [light]. For questions specificially about efficiency, use [energy-efficiency]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="bc3bb5d0-9806-4f9a-8f7c-3c2113d9ce41" CreationDate="2015-06-26T19:22:21.013" UserId="99" Comment="edited body" Text="An ecological footprint estimates how much land and ocean area is required to sustain the consumption pattern of one person or a particular group of people. For example in 2007 it was estimated that mankind's total ecological footprint was 1.5 planet Earths, i.e. humanity uses 1.5 times more of the available resources than the Earth can renew them. In 2012 this world average was calculated to be 1.8 Earths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage:**&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions on how to derive an ecological footprint, or for questions about the exact ecological footprint of a country or of a particular lifestyle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that ecological footprint is sometimes confused with [tag:environmental-impact] which describes all effects (positive or negative) of the production, consumption or disposal of a product or service on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;Also note the difference between ecological footprint and [tag:carbon-footprint] which only considers the emissions of greenhouse gasses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online personal ecological footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [WWF UK](http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/pt/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Islandwood.org](https://islandwood.org/footprint-calculator/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Myfootprint.org](http://myfootprint.org/) (requires subscription)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="834" RevisionGUID="ee990ac8-a54d-4610-b1d5-a876b7a4d95f" CreationDate="2015-06-26T19:23:25.137" UserId="99" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="a measure of how much land and ocean area is required to sustain a particular consumption pattern. &#xD;&#xA;This is related to, but not the same as [environmental-impact]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1102" RevisionGUID="a0a470d8-9cdd-46b1-865d-6eb021f03680" CreationDate="2015-06-26T19:27:33.817" UserId="99" Comment="added 359 characters in body" Text="Permaculture (originally a contraction of &quot;permanent agriculture&quot;) is a school of sustainable agriculture modeled on observations of how natural ecosystems work. It was instigated by Bill Mollison in the early 1970s, and is founded on three principles: care of ecosystems, care of people, and closing cycles so that waste is returned to the land as nutrients." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1103" RevisionGUID="bc01a088-2b83-46a4-b9ba-0d11e7ca2d3a" CreationDate="2015-06-26T19:27:33.817" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 126 characters in body" Text="a school of sustainable agriculture modeled on observations of how natural ecosystems work. It is founded on three principles: care of ecosystems, care of people, and closing cycles so that waste is returned to the land as nutrients." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4564" RevisionGUID="ab6d24a4-7c55-4e66-bac1-1a65e6ad7fa2" CreationDate="2015-06-26T19:34:32.630" UserId="99" Comment="added 52 characters in body" Text="Multicellular organism of the kingdom Plantae, such as trees, bushes, herbs, ferns and mosses. For questions about growing, keeping, or using plants in a sustainable way or to improve the sustainability of other processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For sustainability questions about gardening in general use [tag:gardening] or [tag:permaculture]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4565" RevisionGUID="a231315b-d7f4-4b6f-8309-bdd87e8a394c" CreationDate="2015-06-26T19:34:32.630" UserId="99" Comment="added 52 characters in body; edited body" Text="multicellular organism of the kingdom Plantae, such as trees, bushes, herbs, ferns and mosses. For questions about growing, keeping, or using plants in a sustainable way or to improve the sustainability of other processes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4566" RevisionGUID="1d177e6d-0182-4ec5-bdac-59202e1eed9d" CreationDate="2015-06-26T19:50:52.043" UserId="99" Text="A pesticide is a chemical used for killing pests (often insects).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions about the (harmful) effects of pesticides or for questions about more sustainable alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For question about pest-management in general (using other methods to control pests as well), use [tag:pest-management]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions about toxic chemicals present in pesticides, see also  [tag:toxic-chemicals]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4567" RevisionGUID="655031f1-3ceb-446a-a477-3ac9f67c25f0" CreationDate="2015-06-26T19:50:52.043" UserId="99" Text="chemicals used for killing pests (often insects). Use this tag for questions about the (harmful) effects of pesticides or about more sustainable alternatives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="d8142cf6-78fe-4ac7-a093-780f450ba4b4" CreationDate="2015-06-26T20:00:41.440" UserId="1177" Text="Scenario 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ice blocks are harvested from frozen river in early January, then stored in underground cellars. When summer comes, the same district heating network is used for circulating cold water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ice blocks harvest in the manner of scenario #1 are transported by rail or ship to warmer climates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9863" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="d8142cf6-78fe-4ac7-a093-780f450ba4b4" CreationDate="2015-06-26T20:00:41.440" UserId="1177" Text="Would saving winter ice for summer A/C be more energy efficient?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9864" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="d8142cf6-78fe-4ac7-a093-780f450ba4b4" CreationDate="2015-06-26T20:00:41.440" UserId="1177" Text="|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="e6ad3358-d9a1-4097-886e-ebd1c686b53d" CreationDate="2015-06-26T22:10:12.183" UserId="99" Text="## Software ##&#xD;&#xA;The most basic, free tool to create an LCA would simply be a spreadsheet like OpenOffice Calc. However, dedicated LCA software does make things easier for you, but most software is not free. The few good and free LCA software packages I know are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [**OpenLCA**](http://www.openlca.org): open-source software, supports databases in EcoSpold or ILCD format, also has free and paid datasources via its [Nexus service](https://nexus.openlca.org/)&#xD;&#xA; - **Carnegie-Mellon's [EIO-LCA tool**](http://www.eiolca.net/), however this uses a different approach to LCA which has it's own pros and cons (see also [Jack Ryan's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2441/99) for more details)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are however quite a number of free tools that focus specifically on a particular impact or use case. Some examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Greenhouse Gas Protocol Calculation Tools](http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools): consists basically of Excel sheets with instructions for calculating the GHG emissions of various materials or activities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Athena LCA software](http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/overview/) for the construction sector (registration required)&#xD;&#xA; - [Economy Map 2.0](http://www.economymap.org), an interactive map of the US economy and its environmental impacts (registration required)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most popular commercial software packages for a full process-based LCA are without a doubt SimaPro and GaBi. They are not free, but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - SimaPro does offer [a free demo version](http://www.pre-sustainability.com/simapro-demo) (with limited functionality) of their software&#xD;&#xA; - [GaBi](http://www.gabi-software.com/) is free for educational purposes (for college students and teachers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Learning ##&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned that you are looking for software preferably for &quot;the casual user&quot;. Conducting a full process-based LCA however, is not for the casual user no matter which tool you are using. To draw up such an LCA you need to know about things like reference flows, unit processes, cut-off rules, allocation, impact assessment, ISO 14040 guidelines and other LCA conventions.&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have at least a basic understanding your LCA will be worthless. To learn about these LCA concepts, I can recommend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  following the free online course [How Green Is That Product? An Introduction to Life Cycle Environmental Assessment](https://www.coursera.org/course/introtolca) which will teach you all the basic concepts. The course is given once a year. The home work assignments use spreadsheets to learn how to perform an LCA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - reading the [free e-book &quot;LCA Quantitative Approaches for Decisions That Matter&quot; written by Matthews et al.](http://www.lcatextbook.com) specifically aimed at (under)graduate students." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="1cefc692-4e86-44ef-81b6-d67a1eabd4bf" CreationDate="2015-06-26T22:13:05.320" UserId="1177" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Scenario 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ice blocks are harvested from frozen river in early January, then stored in underground cellars. When summer comes, the same district heating network is used for circulating cold water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scenario 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ice blocks harvested in the manner of scenario #1 are transported by rail or ship to warmer climates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4570" RevisionGUID="517f18ae-aec0-4c02-a448-d7e8cf69b637" CreationDate="2015-06-26T22:49:03.990" UserId="48" Text="summary: potentially yes, but ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;detail: it's all about the volume. Rate of loss of ice will be proportional to surface area. Amount of ice is volume. So loss as a proportion of volume decreases, as volume increases. Which all goes to say, that for seasonal storage of heat or coolth, your store needs to be very large, and very well insulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ice houses, as they are called, have been around for centuries, and possibly millennia, [starting in ancient Mesopotamia][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_oTh51M5XF4C&amp;pg=PA91&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4570" RevisionGUID="ba537939-df29-499b-9918-a2754d70d9c4" CreationDate="2015-06-26T22:58:56.597" UserId="48" Comment="added 455 characters in body" Text="summary: yes, and it has been done, and it needs to be big, to work &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;detail: it's all about the volume. Rate of loss of ice will be proportional to surface area. Amount of ice is volume. So loss as a proportion of volume decreases, as volume increases. Which all goes to say, that for seasonal storage of heat or coolth, your store needs to be very large, and very well insulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ice houses, as they are called, have been around for centuries, and possibly millennia, [starting in ancient Mesopotamia][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more, see for example [this article by M. Mahdavinejad &amp; Kavan Javanrudi, *&quot;Assessment of Ancient Fridges: A Sustainable Method to Storage Ice in Hot-Arid Climates&quot;*][2] - the image below is from the Image Archive of Tarbiat Modares University, via that paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_oTh51M5XF4C&amp;pg=PA91&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ach/article/view/13822&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ebdyr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4571" RevisionGUID="4b2008f8-c97e-44cb-a938-83e1052dd63a" CreationDate="2015-06-28T07:48:14.983" UserId="2349" Text="Make sure your laptop is failing physically before deciding to buy new. It might just be that it's too old and worn to run Windows, but installing Linux might work. The easiest version to use is Linux Mint. See here for a guide: http://moderngreenlife.com/save-an-old-pc-from-landfill-with-linux-mint-xfce/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really have to buy one new, then spend a bit of cash and go for something easily upgradeable and relatively future-proof -  http://moderngreenlife.com/greenest-computers-in-2015/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4572" RevisionGUID="51047734-220f-4f08-b3c7-07c74147d7e2" CreationDate="2015-06-28T08:00:43.887" UserId="2349" Text="I live in Korea and we have a bidet toilet seat. I was wary at first, but now I'm a complete convert. Paper just cannot clean as well. There are a few varieties of bidet toilet attachments, but they basically fall into the categories of mechanical and electrical. The mechanical ones are of course the most environmentally friendly, and I personally don't like using a bidet with anything hotter than lukewarm water, but each to their own. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How Mechanical Bidets Work][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How Electrical Bidets Work][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://moderngreenlife.com/mechanical-bidet-review/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://moderngreenlife.com/electrical-bidet-review/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="65cc4bbb-5bb2-4657-b607-8ae32e461d4c" CreationDate="2015-06-28T10:49:54.330" UserId="99" Comment="added 415 characters in body" Text="I was curious about which trees absorb the most CO2 and Googled for this a while back. I found that there are several websites that list trees that are good in absorbing carbon, e.g. [this website](http://environment.about.com/od/whatyoucando/a/best_trees.htm) and [this website](http://www.ehow.com/info_8609132_trees-absorb-carbon-dioxide.html). Both sites list trees like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Pine (Ponderosa, red, white and Hispaniolan pines)&#xD;&#xA; - Oake (Scarlet, Red and Virginia Live Oak)&#xD;&#xA; - Douglas fir &#xD;&#xA; - Bald Cypress&#xD;&#xA; - Common Horse-chestnut &#xD;&#xA; - Black Walnut&#xD;&#xA; - London Plane&#xD;&#xA; - American Sweetgum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is [one site](http://www.everything71.com/2012/02/10-type-of-trees-most-carbon-dioxide.html)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; that has an entirely different list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Trembesi a.k.a rain tree (Samanea saman)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo (Bambuseae)&#xD;&#xA; - Cassia (Cassia sp)&#xD;&#xA; - Cananga/Kenanga (Canangium odoratum)&#xD;&#xA; - Pingku (Dysoxylum excelsum)&#xD;&#xA; - Banyan/Beringin (Ficus benyamina)&#xD;&#xA; - Krey Payung (Fellicium decipiens)&#xD;&#xA; - Matoa (Pometia pinnata)&#xD;&#xA; - Mahogany (Swettiana mahagoni)&#xD;&#xA; - Saga (Adenanthera pavonina)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As also mentioned by [theUg](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/786/which-tree-consumes-most-carbon-dioxide-and-poisonous-gases#comment1265_788) and [Blue_hat](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/315/blue-hat) in their comments below, the first list probably applies to temperate climates, and the second one to tropical climates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that for good sustainability you will have to consider more things than simply the amount of CO2 a tree can absorb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all not all trees grow in all places. The tree you have in mind should be appropriate for the region and climate. If you have to water it, add fertilizer regularly or package it during cold winters to survive, etc. then it will be less sustainable. If the factory does indeed exhaust poisonous(?) gases as you said, then trees may not grow at all near it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, think about what will you do with the trees once they are mature. If you harvest them and plant new trees then you can capture more CO2. But if let the tree fall down and rot or if you burn wood from harvested trees, then the captured CO2 will be released again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; update Jan 2015: sadly the link has died, but I found the same list in this forum post along with some statistics on how much CO2 the trees take up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9872" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4558" RevisionGUID="21d0bca3-b739-4c2f-96a5-dc42e2422bd1" CreationDate="2015-06-29T06:58:21.760" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/615413981860265984" />
  <row Id="9873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4573" RevisionGUID="8a2fb7df-3209-4c33-beaf-9a77785e5893" CreationDate="2015-06-29T09:59:48.970" UserId="2350" Text="It's just a matter of time, [Peak-Oil][1] will happen. There is no logical argument to assume it will not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are doing efforts to replace petrol based products with something else, for fuel in combustion engine ethanol is candidate #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is there even enough space on earth to produce the ethanol that's needet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can only guess how effectiveness will raise, but I assume that fuel consumption is more likely to raise than to lower, even while electronic cars are establishing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9874" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4573" RevisionGUID="8a2fb7df-3209-4c33-beaf-9a77785e5893" CreationDate="2015-06-29T09:59:48.970" UserId="2350" Text="Are we running out of fuel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9875" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4573" RevisionGUID="8a2fb7df-3209-4c33-beaf-9a77785e5893" CreationDate="2015-06-29T09:59:48.970" UserId="2350" Text="|fuel-efficiency|biofuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4574" RevisionGUID="a981fae3-6fc5-4dcd-89fe-de55629e4d40" CreationDate="2015-06-29T10:44:25.067" UserId="2350" Text="PRO:  &#xD;&#xA;- renewable  &#xD;&#xA;- low amount of required water  &#xD;&#xA;- fast growing  &#xD;&#xA;- no herbicides needet  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CONS:  &#xD;&#xA;- performs very poor blocking UV. You could run arount naked as well.&#xD;&#xA;- low comfort (rough)    &#xD;&#xA;- processed raw bamboo fabric isn't antibacterial, even if some manufactures claim it is.  &#xD;&#xA;- low production quantitie makes it relatively expensive&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4575" RevisionGUID="a56c0adf-e49f-4d6d-b956-0a14b0325cf9" CreationDate="2015-06-29T11:00:51.570" UserId="48" Text="No, we're not running out of fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peak oil never made sense as a problem, and still doesn't. I know that's an inconvenient truth for anyone who'd vested a lot of time and effort into the question of peak oil; but it doesn't help anyone to continue with a pretense that it's a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's because we can't afford to burn the fossil fuel reserves we *do* know about (whilst preserving human civilisation) let alone any undiscovered deposits. So it's always been the case that we were going to discontinue our oil dependence long before our oil reserves ran out, just as the stone age ended long before we ran out of stones (H/t Sheikh Yamani, Saudi Arabian Oil Minister 1962-1986)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The problem is that we have too much fossil fuels, not too little.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are already replacements for pretty much all fossil-fuel applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We know we can synthesise fluid hydrocarbons - the chemistry is pretty straightforward - which is one way to address the powering of heavy transport on road, sea and in the air. There may well be more economical solutions, but we know we have at least one working, scalable one. Some biofuels work, and are scalable too, so there may well be an increasing role for biogenic ethanol, and we've already seen viable biogenic jet fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fossil oil is also used for plastics; now, as long as those plastics are recycled, that's sustainable. However, for those plastics where we don't succeed in closing the loop, we'll have to find alternatives such as synthetic or biogenic materials. As far as I know, there are no impossible barriers thrown up by the chemistry there: the solutions are technically possible, but we haven't yet found the economically optimal ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And we already have highly-scalable fixes for the static applications of oil &amp; gas: wind, PV and hydro all have well-developed global supply chains that have proven themselves capable of year-on-year expansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So although questions such as what share of global energy will sustainable biofuels have, what will be the best mix of fuels to power flight and shipping, and what amounts of shipping &amp; aviation per year will be sustainable and economically efficient, are all presently *unanswered* questions, we *do* have an answer to your core question: are their viable sustainable substitutes for fossil oil in its current applications? And that answer is yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4575" RevisionGUID="8f003748-536e-4305-a898-6b21987627c7" CreationDate="2015-06-29T11:20:12.907" UserId="48" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="No, we're not running out of fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peak oil never made sense as a problem, and still doesn't. I know that's an inconvenient truth for anyone who'd vested a lot of time and effort into the question of peak oil; but it doesn't help anyone to continue with a pretense that it's a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's because we can't afford to burn the fossil fuel reserves we *do* know about (whilst preserving human civilisation) let alone any undiscovered deposits. So it's always been the case that we were going to discontinue our oil dependence long before our oil reserves ran out, just as the stone age ended long before we ran out of stones (H/t Sheikh Yamani, Saudi Arabian Oil Minister 1962-1986)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The problem is that we have too much fossil fuels, not too little.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are already replacements for pretty much all fossil-fuel applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We know we can synthesise fluid hydrocarbons - the chemistry is pretty straightforward - which is one way to address the powering of heavy transport on road, sea and in the air. There may well be more economical solutions, but we know we have at least one working, scalable one. Some biofuels work, and are scalable too, so there may well be an increasing role for biogenic ethanol, and we've already seen viable biogenic jet fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fossil oil is also used for plastics; now, as long as those plastics are recycled, that's sustainable. However, for those plastics where we don't succeed in closing the loop, we'll have to find alternatives such as synthetic or biogenic materials. As far as I know, there are no impossible barriers thrown up by the chemistry there: the solutions are technically possible, but we haven't yet found the economically optimal ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And we already have highly-scalable fixes for the static applications of oil &amp; gas: wind, PV and hydro all have well-developed global supply chains that have proven themselves capable of year-on-year expansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So although biogenic ethanol is one substitute, it's far from the only substitute. Hence, answering the ethanol question doesn't answer the question &quot;are we running out of fuel?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And although questions such as what share of global energy will sustainable biofuels have, what will be the best mix of fuels to power flight and shipping, and what amounts of shipping &amp; aviation per year will be sustainable and economically efficient, are all presently *unanswered* questions, we *do* have an answer to your core question: are their viable sustainable substitutes for fossil oil in its current applications? And that answer is yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4561" RevisionGUID="a5fc5050-a430-4dab-8fd3-881877fa9404" CreationDate="2015-06-29T12:34:32.957" UserId="2345" Comment="Additional data about potential energy usage &amp; savings from Daylight Savings in Germany" Text="The best analogy for this is the use of daylight savings time, where in effect people wake up one hour early than they usually do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A study by the [US Department of Transport in 1975][1] (see page 4 of the website),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; showed that Daylight Saving Time trims the entire country's electricity usage by a small but significant amount, about one percent each day, because less electricity is used for lighting and appliances. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although a 1976 report by the National Bureau of Standards disputed the 1975 U.S. Department of Transportation study, and found that DST-related energy savings were insignificant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A more recent report][2], referenced by the California Energy Commission states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The study concluded that both Winter Daylight Saving Time and Summer-season Double Daylight SavingTime (DDST) would probably save marginal amounts of electricity - around 3,400 megawatt-hours (MWh) a day in winter (one-half of one percent of winter electricity use - 0.5%) and around 1,500 MWh a day during the summer season (one-fifth of one percent of summer-season use - 0.20%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the energy savings would be small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Additional data on potential energy usage &amp; savings from Daylight Savings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for @Stempie for the additional data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [Initiative Neue Marktwirtschaft][3]  (*Initiative New Market Economy*) [German language], by way of example, in 2010 Germany used 600 - 650 TWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An average nuclear plant produces about 1.4 - 1.5 GW, which is 11 TWh/year.&#xD;&#xA;An over average bituminous coal plant produces about 1.7 - 2 GW, 12 - 14 TWh/year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this means, 0.5% of the total German energy consumption in 2010 was about 3 TWh  was slightly more than a quarter the output of either a large coal plant or a nuclear plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/c.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.energy.ca.gov/publications/displayOneReport.php?pubNum=P400-01-013&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.insm.de/insm/Themen/Soziale-Marktwirtschaft/energiewende-radar/aspekt8-stromverbauch.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4573" RevisionGUID="7f0567f6-1be0-49d7-86a1-a9d24d73d8ee" CreationDate="2015-06-30T05:07:04.253" UserId="2345" Comment="Fixed a typo &amp; replaced words" Text="It's just a matter of time, [Peak-Oil][1] will happen. There is no logical argument to assume it will not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are doing efforts to replace petrol based products with something else, for fuel in combustion engine ethanol is candidate #1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is there even enough space on earth to produce the ethanol that's needed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can only guess how effectiveness will increase, but I assume that fuel consumption is more likely to increase than decrease, even while electric cars are becoming establised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9884" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4573" RevisionGUID="7f0567f6-1be0-49d7-86a1-a9d24d73d8ee" CreationDate="2015-06-30T05:07:04.253" Comment="Proposed by 2345 approved by 2350 edit id of 325" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="5b14d3a6-61b5-40aa-98f9-8000d332eb6b" CreationDate="2015-06-30T14:05:35.017" UserId="1644" Text="The solar light batteries in my garden are dead. Upon replacing them, I realized they were the old Ni-Cd rechargeable batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have heard that these batteries are not so good for the environment because they contain toxic chemicals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel–cadmium_battery#Environmental_impact). I would like to use Ni-MH batteries instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be recommended or will slowly charging these batteries using solar panels shorten its life span?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="5b14d3a6-61b5-40aa-98f9-8000d332eb6b" CreationDate="2015-06-30T14:05:35.017" UserId="1644" Text="Can I use ni-mh batteries in my garden solar lights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="5b14d3a6-61b5-40aa-98f9-8000d332eb6b" CreationDate="2015-06-30T14:05:35.017" UserId="1644" Text="|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4578" RevisionGUID="472a8292-8bae-4d58-a48d-5d26cc06c70d" CreationDate="2015-06-30T19:00:42.023" UserId="607" Text="As far as predator urine is concerned, you can order from trapping supply houses (www.fntpost.com)  Some would argue this is not sustainable, many would argue that is.  With humanity removing so much of nature from North America, there is a need for the harvesting of wild animals to help ensure the populations are kept within healthy bounds.  Many of the products sold for fur trapping are simply fur trappers using every part of the animal that is possible.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4579" RevisionGUID="9b7b074a-80c6-4738-8185-b5bd72863ab8" CreationDate="2015-07-01T10:25:41.487" UserId="15" Text="Based on [this article][1], it sounds like the NiMH batteries could be safely used with a charging system that is designed to slowly charge NiCad batteries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the lifetime of a NiMH battery charged that way may be poor compared with a NiCd one. The same question was asked in a battery forum, and [one of the responses][2] was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cheaper priced NiCd is a good option.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I think the problem with eneloops in solar garden lights is not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overcharging but over-discharging. The capacity is too high for them&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ever to reach a full charge in a day of sunlight, but at night the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lights will run them right down to empty and beyond. NiCd can take&#xD;&#xA;&gt; deep discharge cycles much better than NiMH can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, obviously not everybody is in agreement with this. [This other site][3] seems to say it's a great idea to replace NiCd's with NiMH batteries instead. Maybe it depends on the brand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know who's correct about which is better, however I do know that NiMH batteries quickly deteriorate if left fully discharged. If you're going to put a solar light (containing an NiMH battery) into storage, allow it to charge up at least partially first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ensure NiCd batteries are correctly disposed of, the potential environmental impact is heavily reduced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greenbatteries.com/nimh-battery-charger-faq/#NiCD%20charger%20for%20NiMH%20batteries&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?226787-Replacements-for-solar-garden-light-batteries-Ni-Cd-or-NiMH&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.yoursolarlink.com/blog/replacing-nicd-rechargeables-with-nimh-rechargeable-batteries-in-solar-lights-the-better-choice/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="2f74a8ea-249f-4102-8783-8a4e700615d7" CreationDate="2015-07-01T11:14:49.340" UserId="85" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="The solar light batteries in my garden are dead. Upon replacing them, I realized they were the old Ni-Cd rechargeable batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have heard that these batteries are not so good for the environment because they contain toxic chemicals (see [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-cadmium#Environmental_impact)). I would like to use Ni-MH batteries instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be recommended or will slowly charging these batteries using solar panels shorten its life span?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9891" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="2f74a8ea-249f-4102-8783-8a4e700615d7" CreationDate="2015-07-01T11:14:49.340" UserId="85" Comment="added 9 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|solar-power|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4575" RevisionGUID="613b1316-443a-4bb7-af56-87dbedb52117" CreationDate="2015-07-01T11:25:23.327" UserId="85" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="No, we're not running out of fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peak oil never made sense as a problem, and still doesn't. I know that's an inconvenient truth for anyone who'd vested a lot of time and effort into the question of peak oil; but it doesn't help anyone to continue with a pretense that it's a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's because we can't afford to burn the fossil fuel reserves we *do* know about (whilst preserving human civilisation) let alone any undiscovered deposits. So it's always been the case that we were going to discontinue our oil dependence long before our oil reserves ran out, just as the stone age ended long before we ran out of stones (H/t Sheikh Yamani, Saudi Arabian Oil Minister 1962-1986).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The problem is that we have too much fossil fuels, not too little.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are already replacements for pretty much all fossil-fuel applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We know we can synthesise fluid hydrocarbons - the chemistry is pretty straightforward - which is one way to address the powering of heavy transport on road, sea and in the air. There may well be more economical solutions, but we know we have at least one working, scalable one. Some biofuels work, and are scalable too, so there may well be an increasing role for biogenic ethanol, and we've already seen viable biogenic jet fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fossil oil is also used for plastics; now, as long as those plastics are recycled, that's sustainable. However, for those plastics where we don't succeed in closing the loop, we'll have to find alternatives such as synthetic or biogenic materials. As far as I know, there are no impossible barriers thrown up by the chemistry there: the solutions are technically possible, but we haven't yet found the economically optimal ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And we already have highly-scalable fixes for the static applications of oil &amp; gas: wind, PV and hydro all have well-developed global supply chains that have proven themselves capable of year-on-year expansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So although biogenic ethanol is one substitute, it's far from the only substitute. Hence, answering the ethanol question doesn't answer the question &quot;are we running out of fuel?&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And although questions such as what share of global energy will sustainable biofuels have, what will be the best mix of fuels to power flight and shipping, and what amounts of shipping &amp; aviation per year will be sustainable and economically efficient, are all presently *unanswered* questions, we *do* have an answer to your core question: are there viable sustainable substitutes for fossil oil in its current applications? And that answer is yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4574" RevisionGUID="ec5cabb7-ceff-4f31-a714-bec50c6a12db" CreationDate="2015-07-01T11:27:03.053" UserId="85" Comment="edited body" Text="PRO&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;- renewable  &#xD;&#xA;- low amount of required water  &#xD;&#xA;- fast growing  &#xD;&#xA;- no herbicides needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CONS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- performs very poorly in blocking UV. You could run around naked as well.&#xD;&#xA;- low comfort (rough)    &#xD;&#xA;- processed raw bamboo fabric isn't antibacterial, even if some manufactures claim it is.  &#xD;&#xA;- low production quantity makes it relatively expensive" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="56e51cfe-d43e-4f1f-a42b-84c39227e2a0" CreationDate="2015-07-01T13:46:36.537" UserId="2356" Text="Am considering installing 3kva pv system on my roof top. I am to use a string system on a single inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My choice is : &#xD;&#xA;12 by 250w =3000w or&#xD;&#xA;10 by 300w =3000w&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Space is not an issue.&#xD;&#xA;installer told me 12 are better as overall efficiency would be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure why. I am quite technical but cannot reason this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="56e51cfe-d43e-4f1f-a42b-84c39227e2a0" CreationDate="2015-07-01T13:46:36.537" UserId="2356" Text="Photo voltaic panels string of 3kw setup" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="56e51cfe-d43e-4f1f-a42b-84c39227e2a0" CreationDate="2015-07-01T13:46:36.537" UserId="2356" Text="|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4582" RevisionGUID="ff1d80e8-a451-4a68-ac36-e7cfcb5efc61" CreationDate="2015-07-01T15:08:29.967" UserId="2358" Text="The Romans of antiquity used a sponge on a stick. The sponge can be washed in a bucket with water and soap or eco friendly detergent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9901" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="3e483134-b2b8-4012-8dd4-e66287e06be2" CreationDate="2015-07-02T01:06:31.560" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/616412604207112192" />
  <row Id="9902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4583" RevisionGUID="4c3be5bc-4d1c-43b7-9703-dadc76e522b0" CreationDate="2015-07-02T06:32:06.587" UserId="48" Text="In the absence of any other differences between the panels, you're right that it doesn't make sense that an array of twelve 250W&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt; panels is more efficient than an array of ten 300W&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt; panels. Given that it's the same brand of panel, the same efficiency of panel, and the same type of panel - polycrystalline - it's very hard to see why 12 panels would be more efficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's conceivable that your supplier can just get the 250W&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt; panels cheaper, and so is trying to nudge you in that direction. Or, if some part of the array might be subject to shading during part of the day, perhaps the array of twelve panels might just generate more power when there is partial shading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or it could be that there's a different inverter with different efficiency: 12  panels gives the option of installing 1,2,3 or 4 in series, so operating at voltages of 12-48V; whereas an array of 10 panels would be just 1 or 2 in series, so 12-24V. The 48V inverter might be more efficient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4583" RevisionGUID="616e3adc-d37d-4d7d-9e08-70049ab2fa20" CreationDate="2015-07-02T06:40:26.930" UserId="48" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="In the absence of any other differences between the panels, you're right that it doesn't make sense that an array of twelve 250W panels is more efficient than an array of ten 300W panels. Given that it's the same brand of panel, the same efficiency of panel, and the same type of panel - polycrystalline - it's very hard to see why 12 panels would be more efficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's conceivable that your supplier can just get the 250W panels cheaper, and so is trying to nudge you in that direction. Or, if some part of the array might be subject to shading during part of the day, perhaps the array of twelve panels might just generate more power when there is partial shading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or it could be that there's the inverter operates with different efficiency depending on the input voltage; the input voltage is driven by the number of panels you have in series (assuming the panels have the same voltage, and the 300W panel just gives a higher current). Twelve panels gives the option of installing 1,2,3, 4, 6 or 12 in series; whereas an array of 10 panels could be 1, 2, 5 or 10 in series. The inverter might operate more efficiently with one of the formations unique to a 12-panel array (3, 6 or 12 in series) than any of the formations available to a 10-panel array. This would *not* apply in the case of say, the Suntech panels, where the 300W panel seems (according to my reading of the datasheet) to scale up voltage rather than current, so 12 250W Suntech panels in series have the same voltage as 10 300W Suntech panels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4583" RevisionGUID="d2fe6d0c-5d71-4e46-ae92-f96558bc09ce" CreationDate="2015-07-02T06:46:32.627" UserId="48" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="Summary: like you, I'm sceptical, but it is plausible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the absence of any other differences between the panels, you're right that it doesn't make sense that an array of twelve 250W panels is more efficient than an array of ten 300W panels. Given that it's the same brand of panel, the same efficiency of panel, and the same type of panel - polycrystalline - it's very hard to see why 12 panels would be more efficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's conceivable that your supplier can just get the 250W panels cheaper, and so is trying to nudge you in that direction. Or, if some part of the array might be subject to shading during part of the day, perhaps the array of twelve panels might just generate more power when there is partial shading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or it could be that there's the inverter operates with different efficiency depending on the input voltage; the input voltage is driven by the number of panels you have in series (assuming the panels have the same voltage, and the 300W panel just gives a higher current). Twelve panels gives the option of installing 1,2,3, 4, 6 or 12 in series; whereas an array of 10 panels could be 1, 2, 5 or 10 in series. The inverter might operate more efficiently with one of the formations unique to a 12-panel array (3, 6 or 12 in series) than any of the formations available to a 10-panel array. This would *not* apply in the case of say, the Suntech panels, where the 300W panel seems (according to my reading of the datasheet) to scale up voltage rather than current, so 12 250W Suntech panels in series have the same voltage as 10 300W Suntech panels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="21d3a144-2cbf-4cd3-8699-3446d5c8e8ba" CreationDate="2015-07-02T11:51:01.267" UserId="2345" Comment="Correct capitalization for units" Text="Am considering installing 3 kVA pv system on my roof top. I am to use a string system on a single inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My choice is : &#xD;&#xA;12 by 250 W =3000 W or&#xD;&#xA;10 by 300 W =3000 W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Space is not an issue.&#xD;&#xA;installer told me 12 are better as overall efficiency would be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure why. I am quite technical but cannot reason this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9906" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="21d3a144-2cbf-4cd3-8699-3446d5c8e8ba" CreationDate="2015-07-02T11:51:01.267" UserId="2345" Comment="Correct capitalization for units" Text="Photo voltaic panels string of 3 kW setup" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9907" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4580" RevisionGUID="21d3a144-2cbf-4cd3-8699-3446d5c8e8ba" CreationDate="2015-07-02T11:51:01.267" Comment="Proposed by 2345 approved by 85 edit id of 326" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="9d678f95-05cb-49ea-a812-09f36016c99f" CreationDate="2015-07-03T04:48:10.897" UserId="927" Text="My parents recently moved and are going through throwing out and replacing allot of their furniture.  They have 3 large old fashioned crtv that are quite heavy, and I'm considering encouraging them to replace on the grounds that they are not just heavy and don't fit in the new house, but are also highly energy inefficient.  The newest of the tv's is at least a decade old, the oldest likely more then two decades old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have to questions in regards to replacing them, closely related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) If I convince my parents to replace them, will the environmental savings in terms of less energy consumed be enough to justify the harm of manufacturing new televisions?  It seems even good will won't take crtv now of days, so the old tv will be disposed of entirely if replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) can anyone point me to a good analysis of the financial savings in energy of a new flat screen to an old television, since I would have to justify replacing them by convincing my parents that they will save more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9909" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="9d678f95-05cb-49ea-a812-09f36016c99f" CreationDate="2015-07-03T04:48:10.897" UserId="927" Text="cost of energy for old crt vs new flatscreen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9910" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="9d678f95-05cb-49ea-a812-09f36016c99f" CreationDate="2015-07-03T04:48:10.897" UserId="927" Text="|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9911" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4282" RevisionGUID="0f2a5556-5218-467f-a090-91cffcb2e1a9" CreationDate="2015-07-03T07:08:39.050" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/616866122386771968" />
  <row Id="9913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4586" RevisionGUID="19984867-c4d8-45fd-b0c3-0e147b22e619" CreationDate="2015-07-03T09:38:06.103" UserId="15" Text="One of the key considerations here is how much time the appliance will spend turned on. If an old CRT TV is hardly used, then the environmental footprint of continuing to use it is very low, even if it uses 5 times as much as an LCD one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, the way the electricity is generated makes a substantial difference. If renewable energy is used to run the old TV, then the environmental footprint is much lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The energy used to manufacture a TV (or any electronic device) is substantial and also needs to be considered. I would expect energy used for most electronics to have come from non-renewable sources. To alleviate this environmental cost, it could be an option to purchase a second hand TV rather than a new one. A second hand one might be for sale because someone is purchasing a larger model." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9917" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4568" RevisionGUID="2f93b5a1-9197-487a-b08f-932336330269" CreationDate="2015-07-05T16:18:08.100" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/617729180982190080" />
  <row Id="9918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4586" RevisionGUID="db8f6837-7711-44b0-8d49-b76e4992a0cb" CreationDate="2015-07-05T20:31:45.870" UserId="15" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="One of the key considerations here is how much time the appliance will spend turned on. If an old CRT TV is hardly used, then the environmental footprint of continuing to use it is very low, even if it uses 5 times as much electricity as an LCD one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, the way the electricity is generated makes a substantial difference. If renewable energy is used to run the old TV, then the environmental footprint is much lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The energy used to manufacture a TV (or any electronic device) is substantial and also needs to be considered. I would expect energy used for most electronics to have come from non-renewable sources. To alleviate this environmental cost, it could be an option to purchase a second hand TV rather than a new one. A second hand one might be for sale because someone is purchasing a larger model." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="f74d01f5-847c-4bd2-8374-c4641bcddc11" CreationDate="2015-07-06T08:30:20.530" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, added relevant tags" Text="My parents recently moved and are going through throwing out and replacing a lot of their furniture.  They have 3 large old fashioned crt televisions that are quite heavy, and I'm considering encouraging them to replace those on the grounds that they are not just heavy and don't fit in the new house, but are also highly energy inefficient.  The newest of the tvs is at least a decade old, the oldest likely more than two decades old.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two questions in regards to replacing them, closely related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If I convince my parents to replace them, will the environmental savings in terms of less energy consumed be enough to justify the harm of manufacturing new televisions?  It seems even good will won't take crt televisions nowadays, so the old tv will be disposed of entirely if replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Can anyone point me to a good analysis of the financial savings in energy of a new flat screen compared to an old television, since I would have to justify replacing them by convincing my parents that they will save more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9920" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="f74d01f5-847c-4bd2-8374-c4641bcddc11" CreationDate="2015-07-06T08:30:20.530" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, added relevant tags" Text="|energy-efficiency|manufacturing|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="abb17169-b6ec-4249-abda-80a8ab27b519" CreationDate="2015-07-09T23:47:17.270" UserId="2372" Text="Would commuting on a horse be more eco friendly ?   &#xD;&#xA;What if there were millions of people did that ?   &#xD;&#xA;Would millions of horses be better than millions of cars ?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9924" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="abb17169-b6ec-4249-abda-80a8ab27b519" CreationDate="2015-07-09T23:47:17.270" UserId="2372" Text="impact on environment : million horses vs million cars" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9925" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="abb17169-b6ec-4249-abda-80a8ab27b519" CreationDate="2015-07-09T23:47:17.270" UserId="2372" Text="|cars|vehicle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4588" RevisionGUID="b11a26f2-46e6-4b68-83cb-dac8f16f0e7e" CreationDate="2015-07-10T06:23:25.163" UserId="2345" Text="In large numbers, horses are more problematic than cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Eric Morris][1], in 1898 delegates from around the world gathered to discuss urban planning. The issue they were &quot;desperate&quot; to solve was what to do about horse manure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rutgers University has a [fact sheet about horses and manure][2]. It states that a 1000 lb horse will produce about 9.1 tons of manure a year. Additionally, each horse needs about 10 to 20 pounds of bedding each day. If you assume 15 pounds of bedding per day on average, that's 2.7 tons per year. Combine this with the amount of manure each horse produces and it's 11.8 tons of waste each year. This excludes horse urine not absorbed by bedding which adds a further waste burden to the environment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One million horses will produce 11.8 million tons of solid waste each year. Disposing of that is a massive environmental problem and why the delegates to the 1898 conference in New York were desperate about the waste produced by horses. With so much manure to dispose, it ground water can easily become contaminated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional problems produced by horses are what to do with the numerous quantities of horses that will die each year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The removal of horses from urban environments has resulted in one of the major improvements in human health. The permanent removal of horse manure from urban environments has significantly reduced the amount of disease carrying flies in cities and towns. Also, people in cities and towns no longer have to deal with smell of horse manure and urine or avoid having to step in horse manure or urine as they walk around town.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other aspect of horse manure is that horses need to eat. According the Eric Morris, each horse needs about 1.4 tons of oats and 2.4 tons of hay each year. That's 3.6 tons of food each year. Rutger's University uses a figure of 25 pounds of dry feed per horse each day; that's 4.56 tons per year. Growing that much food for horses will require a lot of land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uctc.net/access/30/Access%2030%20-%2002%20-%20Horse%20Power.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://njaes.rutgers.edu/pubs/fs036/horses-and-manure.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.tellusb.net/index.php/tellusb/article/download/15135/16953" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4589" RevisionGUID="a64308e6-69ab-4b32-b962-52ba16ef4147" CreationDate="2015-07-10T13:49:44.653" UserId="85" Text="I think the main problem is that commuting is almost never &quot;eco-friendly&quot;. There's a lot of energy that's needed to carry your behind (and your carriage) from your home to your workplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the most efficient way to commute it is to use public transport, for which the weight-of-vehicle to weight-of-passenger ratio is lowest. For trains, the amount of friction is also reduced to a minimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horses have high friction, they need a lot of rest, and they keep &quot;running&quot; (i.e. breathing, eating, etc.) even if they're not carrying anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it is a partial misconception that horses are a good method of transport. In old Asia, messages were sometimes delivered by &quot;marathon monks&quot;, messengers who were running on foot because they turned out to be faster than conventional horse-riding messengers, because they could run for longer and needed not as much rest. Horses overheat much easier than humans. In fact, there are tribes in Africa to this day, who hunt (in groups of three) by running behind antelopes until the antelope collapses from exhaustion. (And that's without anyone riding the antelope.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if anyone should *run* you back and forth between your home and your workplace, it should be you. (I guess the distance and the size of your briefcase is a limiting factor here.) =)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="f56272e9-f96a-47ec-b90a-b7785719c8a5" CreationDate="2015-07-10T13:53:59.187" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Would commuting on a horse be more eco-friendly? What if there were millions of people did that? Would millions of horses be better than millions of cars?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9929" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="f56272e9-f96a-47ec-b90a-b7785719c8a5" CreationDate="2015-07-10T13:53:59.187" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Impact on environment: a million horses vs a million cars" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9930" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="f56272e9-f96a-47ec-b90a-b7785719c8a5" CreationDate="2015-07-10T13:53:59.187" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|cars|fuel-efficiency|environmental-impact|vehicle|husbandry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4593" RevisionGUID="ddcddd7f-a376-4583-81d2-36a62d6860ec" CreationDate="2015-07-11T15:56:41.397" UserId="2277" Text="I'm in the process of setting up an aquaponics (recirculating aquaculture) system. The main fish being raised are Channel Catfish, and in a separate tank I am also attempting to raise Guppies as a primary food source for the catfish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Catfish, being omnivorous and greedy, will eat almost anything. Right now, they're small (5&quot;-7&quot;) and can't fit a guppy in their mouth. I am feeding them on commercial fish pellets but eventually would like to feed them the guppies, grubs such as soldier fly larvae, as well as a small amount of some vegetable matter like duckweed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The guppies need their own food of course, and I'd like to know what type of food chain I can create that doesn't rely on purchasing or importing feed of any kind. Commercial feeds for fish are typically made from ocean-caught &quot;trash fish&quot; and thus are likely contaminated with mercury or other heavy metals, which is why I'd like to avoid buying feed pellets. It's also expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several things I've considered for guppy food:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Daphnia&#xD;&#xA; - Paramecium&#xD;&#xA; - Algae&#xD;&#xA; - Mosquito larvae&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, the only &quot;free&quot; inputs that are available are sunlight and oxygen (air). It seems like, in nature, that is enough to fuel the bottom of the food chain. So what is practical for a DIY system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9942" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4593" RevisionGUID="ddcddd7f-a376-4583-81d2-36a62d6860ec" CreationDate="2015-07-11T15:56:41.397" UserId="2277" Text="Aquaculture from nothing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9943" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4593" RevisionGUID="ddcddd7f-a376-4583-81d2-36a62d6860ec" CreationDate="2015-07-11T15:56:41.397" UserId="2277" Text="|food|aquaponics|fish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9944" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4587" RevisionGUID="af22bb9a-f322-4e89-90d2-13605155affd" CreationDate="2015-07-11T19:35:33.243" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/619953189161431040" />
  <row Id="9945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4594" RevisionGUID="11327c93-43b1-4ce6-b440-91abc7b79366" CreationDate="2015-07-11T23:15:14.337" UserId="15" Text="Let's assume 1kWh of electricity is used to run a fan heater. Heat pumps are more efficient, but have a range of different efficiencies, so perhaps aren't a good base comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming a good quality log burning fireplace, how much firewood (by weight) does it take to produce the equivalent of that 1kWh of heating? [This stove][1] claims combustion efficiency of 89.1%, but 70% is perhaps a reasonable standard to work with. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously water content of the wood would make a big difference too, so let's assume either 10% or 20%, whichever is easier. I understand 20% is considered to be dry, when dealing with firewood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thestoveroom.co.uk/pdf/burley-brochure.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4594" RevisionGUID="11327c93-43b1-4ce6-b440-91abc7b79366" CreationDate="2015-07-11T23:15:14.337" UserId="15" Text="How much firewood does it take to produce the equivalent of 1kWh of electrical heating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4594" RevisionGUID="11327c93-43b1-4ce6-b440-91abc7b79366" CreationDate="2015-07-11T23:15:14.337" UserId="15" Text="|energy-efficiency|firewood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="f219542e-6a1d-4785-8e62-bc300e2e37b5" CreationDate="2015-07-11T23:49:46.010" UserId="2371" Text="I'm interested in public policy as regards recycling. I recently read an interesting [Atlantic article][1] on single-stream recycling, which noted that single-stream certainly makes it as easy as possible for end users to recycle, but can raise expense and result in potentially-recyclable materials being put in a landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cities need to choose the &quot;best&quot; policy for recycling, but &quot;best&quot; has to include cost, convenience for the end user, what percentage of discarded material ends up in an undifferentiated landfill, least harm to the environment, as well as public relations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lowest cost, the best policy is probably collecting only the most valuable recyclable materials (steel, aluminum and newspaper) and [chucking the rest in a landfill][2]. For best public relations (assuming their public is clueless) they'd just paint RECYCLE on the side of all their trash trucks, and still chuck everything in the landfill. For most material actually recycled and/or least environmental harm, they'd do multiple-stream recycling and pay a lot of money for hand-separation of additional materials. But none of these would be a balanced policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is the current state-of-the-art for [recycling policy][6]? If location matters, then choose the Boston, Massachusetts area, or specify whatever location you like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/single-stream-recycling-is-easier-for-consumers-but-is-it-better/380368/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275963/Recycling-Millions-tons-end-landfill-officials-admit-success-exaggerated.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="f219542e-6a1d-4785-8e62-bc300e2e37b5" CreationDate="2015-07-11T23:49:46.010" UserId="2371" Text="What is current best practice for setting up recycling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="f219542e-6a1d-4785-8e62-bc300e2e37b5" CreationDate="2015-07-11T23:49:46.010" UserId="2371" Text="|recycling|environmental-impact|materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9952" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4593" RevisionGUID="aef96086-b45a-476f-a36f-5af28c0ea8c9" CreationDate="2015-07-12T07:35:35.300" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/620134391654842368" />
  <row Id="9953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="a4216c75-d7a4-4de7-a272-5dc2ec0c3a69" CreationDate="2015-07-12T10:29:55.217" UserId="2301" Text="*[Blockchain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_chain_(database))* is the main technology behind bitcoin, and it's more and more studied for other uses.  &#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand, it's great for decentralising a registry/ledger of *transactions*, that can be financial or otherwise (you could have [a decentralized github](http://blog.printf.net/articles/2015/05/29/announcing-gittorrent-a-decentralized-github/), for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Decentralization is a crucial concept in sustainability, but it seems to me that the current amount of calculation required for bitcoin mining and transaction log is very, very high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replacing the current infrastructure for banking is of course an interesting (sustainable?) scenario, but I'd really love to understand if someone has seriously thought about all this in from the sustainability point of view. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9954" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="a4216c75-d7a4-4de7-a272-5dc2ec0c3a69" CreationDate="2015-07-12T10:29:55.217" UserId="2301" Text="Is blockchain a sustainable technology?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9955" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="a4216c75-d7a4-4de7-a272-5dc2ec0c3a69" CreationDate="2015-07-12T10:29:55.217" UserId="2301" Text="|computing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4598" RevisionGUID="01649923-302a-4094-977a-0effb10385d1" CreationDate="2015-07-12T11:32:18.513" UserId="2379" Text="I was wondering what could I do to fight back &quot;bad&quot; companies and practices, for instance seed industries the produce MGOs, companies that starve their employees, companies that pollute the environment, bad politics (like TTIP) ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am an engineer, I feel the *need* of a practical solution. When I was younger (now I am in the thirties) I believed I could really change the world, have a car that does not pollute the environment, build a solid rocks-and-wood chalet that would last centuries and I could leave to my future child, ... Now I am totally discuraged, and I feel like I can do nothing to change even the smallest and dumbest thing in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example to show what I mean by the above, I avoid turning on lights in my workplace except when absolutely necessary -- which seems totally normal to me. I share my office with a dozen of colleagues, and all of them automatically turn on the lights as they enter, even if the sun is shining so bright that one could barely see that they are lit. Many times I've tried to explain them why I hadn't turned them on, what are the consequences of having them on without necessity, I've explained what are the consequences of global warming that one can see on a daily basis -- but this hasn't changed their behaviour. Finally, I gave up. When they turn on the light, I just look at them expressing my total disapproval, but I simply can't treat them as &quot;enemies&quot; and risk loosing my job because of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I see the following as having little effect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - using political vote as a way to make pressure on politics and force them to impose rules&#xD;&#xA; - protesting&#xD;&#xA; - using my market choices to bias the market&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean by the above is that if, for instance, I chain myself to the entrance of a the building of a bad company or I peacefully protest against a bad politician, at best I will be ignored, at worst I will be sued and I will have to face expenses I am not ready to take, or beaten up by the police, or loose my job, or simila (I am thinking of what happens in my home country, Italy, about the protests against the TAV trains, where peaceful people, like elderly and majors, were beaten up by the police or arrested) again with little or no effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vote is another no-go choice: I have absolutely no trust in politics, as I perceive democracy flawed by design -- what I mean is that it would be great if anyone had an high level of education and could choose among candidates that are examples of transparency, justness and correctness, but this is not of course the case in the real world. Think again about Italy, where people choose according to what trash television shows say, and a politician (think about the ridiculous person of your choice) can rise its popularity by buying a famous football player for his team. Even if one candidate was *the* real best politician in the world, in western countries the vote is so biased by external factors like television that he/she would have no hope of winning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice that is usually suggested is to boycott economically the bad practices. Let's suppose that I choose not to buy clothes made in Bangladesh because of the poor working conditions of that country, and I choose to avoid clothes made by MGO cotton because harmful for the people and for the environment. Good choice, but I have very little control on what I am buying (for instance, no label says where and how the cotton was produced), and also I have a very limited budget so I cannot afford to buy a 200$ crappy t-shirt just because it claims to respect my criteria (even though, I would be ready to do this if I had the *guarantee* that the t-shirt is effectively top-quality, meaning that it would last 10+ years). Plus, if anyone did the same, these people would starve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am doing right now is to choose what I consider &quot;the best I can do&quot; -- for instance I buy biological eggs, I make my clothes last years (I am wearing jeans that are almost 10 years old, with some repair but I don't care), I buy only things that look extremely good quality (of course within the limits of my budget) to me so that I won't have to throw them away in few years, I am building my forniture by myself to ensure that is robust and durable, I don't buy things according to trends, I do not use social networks, I do not have a smartphone, I save energy, have no air conditioner at home, I am involved in several no profit organizations, ... Also, I try to spread &quot;good habits&quot; to people around me -- sadly most of the time without success, as I've written above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel I am not doing enough. If someone were to ask me &quot;what are you doing for whales? What are you doing for malformed births caused by MGOs? What are you doing for environment?&quot; I would have no convincing answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is suggested to be informed, but it is very difficult to do -- Internet is full of information but no way to know how reliable it is, and of course I cannot know everything of any object and problem around me. Also, knowing stuff makes me only sadder, angrier, and useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the good way of facing the above feeling?&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your suggestions!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4598" RevisionGUID="01649923-302a-4094-977a-0effb10385d1" CreationDate="2015-07-12T11:32:18.513" UserId="2379" Text="How to fight back bad companies/governments and *really* do something? In other words, how to change the world in better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4598" RevisionGUID="01649923-302a-4094-977a-0effb10385d1" CreationDate="2015-07-12T11:32:18.513" UserId="2379" Text="|lifestyle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4599" RevisionGUID="928e61f6-64d6-45f9-b52a-95f11c32bbac" CreationDate="2015-07-12T14:20:30.447" UserId="963" Text="Let’s look at this anther way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your house will have some insulation &#xD;&#xA;- There will be heat input from the people and electrical equipment in the house.&#xD;&#xA;- There will be heat **lost** from the fireplace including when the stove is not in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore having a fireplace will increase the number of hours a year you need to heat compared to electrical heating. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the questions as asked does not lead to a useful result, in some homes the wood burned will have a negative effect on the heat needed, assuming that the fireplace would not otherwise be there.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4600" RevisionGUID="c6ebbd30-4102-44df-b921-18f85e5a18b1" CreationDate="2015-07-12T14:24:49.193" UserId="963" Text="Wide is better for sound, also for sound use different thickness of glass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For thermal, it can depend on the time of day and what way the windows face, as windows gain heat as well as let heat out.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4601" RevisionGUID="32bedd94-3ec6-40d1-bfc7-ea25b6d68a34" CreationDate="2015-07-12T17:45:36.757" UserId="1937" Text="Per Google, 1 kWh = 3412 BTU.  (And a fraction, which I'll neglect.)  Here's a table (one of many found with Google) of BTU/cord for various kinds of wood: https://chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm  It varies a lot by species, but let's say 20 million BTU per cord, and 3500 lbs/cord as average for hardwoods.  So 1 lb of average hardwood gives you 5714 BTU.  Multiply by the efficiency of your stove (70 - 89.1%) gives 4000 - 5091 BTU.  So it takes roughly 0.67 - 085 lbs of firewood to equate to 1 kWh of electric heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4602" RevisionGUID="01bcc37e-cae5-4b79-b4cf-55696a9b9997" CreationDate="2015-07-13T10:09:34.473" UserId="2356" Text="Actually I have bought 10 panels of S-Energy at 310W each.&#xD;&#xA;http://s-energy.designq.kr/download/SE-Datasheet_SN310P-10_3BB_72_2015_EN_V01.1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One supplier told me that the 250w would be better than 310 size divided/area you get more Watts/m2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that space has also a cost, I preferred using 10 panels rather than 12. If in the next coming years technology and price improve I would have enough space to add 2 more panels maybe using micro inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9963" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4598" RevisionGUID="3c4fda11-3c87-4194-b5b0-abd8b3050c8e" CreationDate="2015-07-13T13:34:39.457" UserId="99" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="9966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4604" RevisionGUID="6497187d-9dad-4416-a172-8d6540a28ea1" CreationDate="2015-07-13T21:29:15.200" UserId="927" Text="More of a curiosity question, but I'm trying to figure out the most fuel efficient way to run the AC in my car, assuming I must use AC.  I already know when to open windows vs use AC, so I'm looking at what to do if I'm traveling fast enough that AC is the better option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have three options I can set.  I can increase the fan, I can increase the 'cold' value for the AC, and I can turn on and off the AC.  If I'm trying to figure out a way to keep the temperature cool enough to be tolerable which of these options do I use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would assume that usually having the fan on max value with the actual 'temperature' set a lower setting (cooler, but not cold), and leaving that on all the time, would be the most efficient.  However, that would depend on exactly how the AC works and how smart it is about adjusting the power of the AC when I keep the temperature on a warmer setting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have a more definitive answer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9967" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4604" RevisionGUID="6497187d-9dad-4416-a172-8d6540a28ea1" CreationDate="2015-07-13T21:29:15.200" UserId="927" Text="Most fuel efficent way to run AC in my car?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9968" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4604" RevisionGUID="6497187d-9dad-4416-a172-8d6540a28ea1" CreationDate="2015-07-13T21:29:15.200" UserId="927" Text="|energy-efficiency|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9969" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4584" RevisionGUID="47d6b0a2-517d-4832-84f6-c09784ea9066" CreationDate="2015-07-14T01:44:48.260" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/620770889626480640" />
  <row Id="9970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="47c21eb0-958a-417e-9f58-527b3a884380" CreationDate="2015-07-14T08:57:01.250" UserId="2301" Comment="added 194 characters in body; edited title" Text="My case example is *[blockchain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_chain_(database))*, the main technology behind bitcoin, which is more and more being studied for other uses.  &#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand, it's great for decentralising a registry/ledger of *transactions*, that can be financial or otherwise (you could have [a decentralized github](http://blog.printf.net/articles/2015/05/29/announcing-gittorrent-a-decentralized-github/), for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems to me that the current amount of calculation required for bitcoin mining and transaction log is very, very high. More generally, centralised computing is more optimized and efficient than decentralised coputing? I know some figures for [http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/planet3/PDFs/2015ClickCleanKeyFindings.pdf](some data-centers). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we are heading to a future of distribute computing even for industries before centralised as banking, I'd like to understand is this averagely more efficient, energy-wise, or if we are cutting physical transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9971" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="47c21eb0-958a-417e-9f58-527b3a884380" CreationDate="2015-07-14T08:57:01.250" UserId="2301" Comment="added 194 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is distributed computing more or less sustainable than centralised computing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4605" RevisionGUID="44ca3e7f-fd5f-4bfb-98a1-35630bfa17cb" CreationDate="2015-07-14T17:26:46.780" UserId="2385" Text="I live in Washington, and travel around the Pacific Northwest often. It's a beautiful environment, full of huge plains of grass with (virtually) nothing in them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if, in order to help combat climate change, I (and a lot of other people) engaged in &quot;Guerilla Gardening&quot;. According to these pages, one tree sucks up ~12 tons of CO2 over its lifetime[1], and 1 ppm is equal to 2B tons[2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By this logic, in order to go from 400 ppm -&gt; 300 ppm, we would need to plant about 16B trees. While this seems like a very large number, you could have large numbers counteract it (e.g. rally 1M people over 20 years). The problem is where to go about it - this is where guerilla gardening would come in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if whenever I saw one of these huge plains, I stopped, jumped out of my car, threw 20 (locally flora appropriate) seeds in the ground, and drove on. Would that work? Would that violate some property/state/federal issue? Would it help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] http://learn.eartheasy.com/2014/01/10-carbon-storing-trees-and-how-to-plant-them/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=45" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4605" RevisionGUID="44ca3e7f-fd5f-4bfb-98a1-35630bfa17cb" CreationDate="2015-07-14T17:26:46.780" UserId="2385" Text="Would “Guerilla Gardening” help combat climate change and/or be feasible/legal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4605" RevisionGUID="44ca3e7f-fd5f-4bfb-98a1-35630bfa17cb" CreationDate="2015-07-14T17:26:46.780" UserId="2385" Text="|environmental-impact|decarbonisation|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4601" RevisionGUID="4d59562b-05da-41a0-91a3-cd6245d697bd" CreationDate="2015-07-14T20:12:51.623" UserId="15" Comment="Added metric conversion" Text="Per Google, 1 kWh = 3412 BTU.  (And a fraction, which I'll neglect.)  Here's a table (one of many found with Google) of BTU/cord for various kinds of wood: https://chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm  It varies a lot by species, but let's say 20 million BTU per cord, and 3500 lbs/cord as average for hardwoods.  So 1 lb of average hardwood gives you 5714 BTU.  Multiply by the efficiency of your stove (70 - 89.1%) gives 4000 - 5091 BTU.  So it takes roughly 0.67 - 0.85 lbs (304 to 386 grams) of firewood to equate to 1 kWh of electric heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4606" RevisionGUID="67962d45-ef99-44b2-99fa-647ded2332b2" CreationDate="2015-07-14T21:19:40.697" UserId="812" Text="If you have a &quot;climate control&quot; system where you can set a temperature and let it do it's thing, it's probably best to let it do it's thing on auto (&quot;auto eco&quot; if it has such a setting).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have more manual controls, then I'm guessing that the compressor uses the same amount of power regardless of how the other controls are set. On the basis that the compressor dominates the power consumption, then, I would suggest,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Keep the temperature set as low as is comfortable to you (angle vents so that the air is not actually hitting you, to avoid uncomfortable chill)&#xD;&#xA;* Run the fan at a moderate speed (too fast and the air doesn't have time to be cooled much. And it's noisy, and itself burns power)&#xD;&#xA;* When the cabin has cooled enough, leave the other settings as they are and turn the A/C off. When it gets too warm, turn the A/C on again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have any evidence or specialist knowledge, but I'm guessing that that will be more energy-efficient than adjusting the temperature control for a steady continuous level of cooling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9977" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4604" RevisionGUID="353fd5c5-ac98-4483-8361-9870761a4514" CreationDate="2015-07-14T22:44:47.473" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/621087975833780228" />
  <row Id="9978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4607" RevisionGUID="33baf69f-9574-42a2-8e53-35e8a7e007b1" CreationDate="2015-07-15T01:05:12.100" UserId="2371" Text="I think you're up against &lt;s&gt;two&lt;/s&gt; &lt;s&gt;three&lt;/s&gt; at least four separate problems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The scale: rallying 1M people to plant 16k trees apiece over 20 years is no way a &quot;guerrilla&quot; operation; it's a mass movement. It won't be covert: everyone will know about it, and landowners will probably object more or less strenuously.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The distribution: if you have anywhere near 1M people randomly scattering seeds about, you'll find that there will be piles of seeds near the obvious places (highway rest stops, obvious side roads, etc) and nothing elsewhere. Without coordination, you'll never get the acreage covered.&#xD;&#xA; 3. The planting: as noted by @jamesqf, prairies are prairies not just because they haven't had any tree seeds scattered on them, but because they're stable ecosystems. Without some tending, the trees are unlikely to get started, and even then they may not last.&#xD;&#xA; 4. And, as noted by @jamesqf, disturbing a stable ecosystem that's been capturing carbon for a long time probably isn't a good way to rally against climate change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4607" RevisionGUID="334efd8d-9e0c-48c7-a1e1-02cfd40b8673" CreationDate="2015-07-15T11:11:04.733" UserId="2371" Comment="Wordsmithing" Text="I think you're up against &lt;s&gt;two&lt;/s&gt; &lt;s&gt;three&lt;/s&gt; at least four separate problems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The scale: rallying 1M people to plant 16k trees apiece over 20 years is no way a &quot;guerrilla&quot; operation; it's a mass movement. It won't be covert: everyone will know about it, and landowners will probably object more or less strenuously.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The distribution: if you have anywhere near 1M people randomly scattering seeds about, you'll find that there will be piles of seeds near the obvious places (highway rest stops, obvious side roads, etc) and nothing elsewhere. Without coordination, you'll never get the acreage covered.&#xD;&#xA; 3. The planting: as noted by @jamesqf, prairies are prairies not just because they have never seen tree seeds, but because they're stable ecosystems. Without some tending, the trees are unlikely to get started, and even then they may not last.&#xD;&#xA; 4. And, as noted by @jamesqf, disturbing a stable ecosystem that's been capturing carbon for a long time probably isn't a good way to rally against climate change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4608" RevisionGUID="e5be0097-7997-4048-a8f1-e3476ec9064c" CreationDate="2015-07-16T04:50:46.810" UserId="2388" Text="What depth of soil is required for a roof top garden?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular I am looking to grow plants that will produce food without requiring re-planing yearly (like strawberries and chives). However I would also like to plant some root plants like potatoes and carets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am quite new to gardening so please be general with your answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4608" RevisionGUID="e5be0097-7997-4048-a8f1-e3476ec9064c" CreationDate="2015-07-16T04:50:46.810" UserId="2388" Text="What depth of soil is required for a roof top garden?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4608" RevisionGUID="e5be0097-7997-4048-a8f1-e3476ec9064c" CreationDate="2015-07-16T04:50:46.810" UserId="2388" Text="|food|gardening|green-roof|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9983" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4605" RevisionGUID="5dbf3ccc-23cc-44fc-b1a0-a1cc00ff623b" CreationDate="2015-07-16T04:55:17.590" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/621543603593154560" />
  <row Id="9987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4608" RevisionGUID="d339e066-2c94-4e0b-a4c5-173e1957d223" CreationDate="2015-07-16T08:14:03.370" UserId="15" Comment="Fixed spelling" Text="What depth of soil is required for a roof top garden?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular I am looking to grow plants that will produce food without requiring re-planting yearly (like strawberries and chives). However I would also like to plant some root plants like potatoes and carrots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am quite new to gardening so please be general with your answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4610" RevisionGUID="aab8e4b7-7237-4c80-a3db-f6c79c3f0d82" CreationDate="2015-07-16T08:20:26.323" UserId="1078" Text="How food producers calculate &quot;best before&quot; date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why I'm asking on SL? Because I'd rather not waste food to be sustainable. And many times I'm advised (by &quot;best before&quot; date put on food package) to waste some food product - but it looks perfectly fine and edible to me. By knowing how food producers calculate &quot;best before&quot; date I'd know also if I should follow those advices or not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4610" RevisionGUID="aab8e4b7-7237-4c80-a3db-f6c79c3f0d82" CreationDate="2015-07-16T08:20:26.323" UserId="1078" Text="How food producers calculate &quot;best before&quot; date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4610" RevisionGUID="aab8e4b7-7237-4c80-a3db-f6c79c3f0d82" CreationDate="2015-07-16T08:20:26.323" UserId="1078" Text="|food|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4610" RevisionGUID="e24a928c-6794-400c-ba64-e6ed92468f89" CreationDate="2015-07-16T10:55:54.377" UserId="1078" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="How food producers calculate &quot;best before&quot; date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why I'm asking on SL? Because I'd rather not waste food to be sustainable. And many times I'm advised (by &quot;best before&quot; date put on food package) to waste some food product - but it looks perfectly fine and edible to me. By knowing how food producers calculate &quot;best before&quot; date I'd know also if I should follow those advices or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know for example that France removed this kind of information from packages this year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4611" RevisionGUID="a21d0279-f41c-4a4e-9d83-7f3d5ca7b67a" CreationDate="2015-07-16T13:30:45.700" UserId="99" Text="**TLDR**; it depends on what you want to grow, but generally speaking a depth of 20-25 cm (8-10 inches) suffices to grow many vegetables and herbes, but  do investigate if your roof supports such a weight because a rooftop garden can become very heavy when it's soaked with water!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;Once you are set up, rooftop gardening is similar to container gardening. The main difference is that there usually is more wind and less shade compared to a ground-level garden. However, before you can start there are quite a bit of things to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check if you have **proper access** to the rooftop as you'll want to plant, water, add fertilizer, remove weeds and harvest regularly. You don't want to do this balancing yourself on a ladder for example. Also consider how you are going to get all materials (most notably water!) on your rooftop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Check if **local ordinances and home owner association rules** allow for the construction of a rooftop garden and if so under what conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Check if the **roof and building infrastructure** supports the weight of the garden depth you have in mind. The larger and deeper your garden, the heavier it becomes especially when it is soaked with water after rainfall. You might want to hire a professional to check this for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Make sure you have a **proper drainage system** for draining superfluous water from rainfall and check if it isn't clogged up every once in a while.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Figure out the **needs for each plant** you want to grow. Make a list of everything you want to grow and investigate the required minimum soil depth (just google it), but also other relevant requirements, e.g. how much water and sunlight does the plant need for proper growth and can it stand windy conditions that are prevalent on rooftops? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned a few plants you want to grow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Chives can grow in as little as 10 cm (4 inch) of soil and are very easy to keep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Strawberries require at least 15 cm (6 inch) of soil and will make excellent rooftop plants if you can keep them out of the wind. Think about whether you want june-bearing (harvest once a year), everbearing (harvest twice a year) or day-neutral (harvest all summer) strawberries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Carrots are fairly easy to grow and require around 20 cm (8 inches) soil depth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Potatoes can be grown using shallow planting or deep planting. For shallow planting you plant about 10-15 cm (4-6 inch) deep and as the plant grows you add soil on top. Basically you create a tiny hill around the plant so the potatoes themselves remain covered. This is necessary because when potatoes are exposed to sunlight they create toxins and become inedible. Deep planting requires less maintenance but you'll want a minimum of 20-25 cm (8-10 inches) soil depth&#xD;&#xA;You also mentioned you don't like re-planting, but crop rotation is a must if you want to grow potatoes (a second time). More [info about growing potatoes in a container](http://containergardening.about.com/od/vegetablesandherbs/ss/ContainerPotatoes.htm)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9994" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4610" RevisionGUID="5c1cc3f3-2e5e-4230-b299-f1ec31a0e5d5" CreationDate="2015-07-17T04:57:36.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/621906575154876417" />
  <row Id="9995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4612" RevisionGUID="b762959e-2601-4051-ad62-b0b2bea18943" CreationDate="2015-07-17T10:32:03.333" UserId="2345" Text="As [this reference][1] states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Shelf life depends on the degradation mechanism of the specific product. Most can be influenced by several factors: exposure to light, heat, moisture, transmission of gases, mechanical stresses, and contamination by things such as micro-organisms. Product quality is often mathematically modelled around a parameter (concentration of a chemical compound, a microbiological index, or moisture content).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For some foods, health issues are important in determining shelf life. Bacterial contaminants are ubiquitous, and foods left unused too long will often be contaminated by substantial amounts of bacterial colonies and become dangerous to eat, leading to food poisoning. However, shelf life alone is not an accurate indicator of how long the food can safely be stored. For example, pasteurized milk can remain fresh for five days after its sell-by date if it is refrigerated properly. In contrast, if milk already has harmful bacteria, the use-by dates become irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The expiration date of pharmaceuticals specifies the date the manufacturer guarantees the full potency and safety of a drug.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelf_life" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4613" RevisionGUID="2413651e-a896-41d2-b880-d3727b6a069a" CreationDate="2015-07-17T19:57:13.800" UserId="2277" Text="Consider less typical methods of gardening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   - Strawberries can be grown in rows using suspended plastic rain gutters, either filled with soil (with appropriate drainage) or hydroponically.&#xD;&#xA;   - Tomatoes can be grown upside-down in &quot;Topsy-Turvy&quot; planters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9997" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4608" RevisionGUID="c5ad8029-6c83-4f29-abef-e85f49682165" CreationDate="2015-07-18T23:00:34.800" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/622541500581330944" />
  <row Id="9998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4614" RevisionGUID="704fa344-337f-41f7-a2f1-2c00758c9fdb" CreationDate="2015-07-19T08:02:54.067" UserId="2395" Text="Seems we need an answer from a double glazing manufacturer, since secondary glazing can be done with mylar spacers, silicone sealers and suitable framing so that spacing in secondary glazing installations could be done to whatever specifications you choose. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="9999" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4594" RevisionGUID="2b969555-1313-4177-9ea1-aebae6d695a7" CreationDate="2015-07-20T17:03:54.020" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/623176514729869312" />
  <row Id="10000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="222acf03-fb51-46b8-9a87-5a63a63c46de" CreationDate="2015-07-20T18:19:11.860" UserId="986" Text="What is the best way to store fruits and vegetables in the fridge? I currently use plastic food containers like those in [this][1] picture, of different sizes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Is it better in terms of energy consumption for the fridge? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Should they be sealed or not? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Would plastic bags or freezer bags be better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://adriennesmillie.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/plastic_food_container.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10001" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="222acf03-fb51-46b8-9a87-5a63a63c46de" CreationDate="2015-07-20T18:19:11.860" UserId="986" Text="Best way to store vegetables in the fridge" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10002" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="222acf03-fb51-46b8-9a87-5a63a63c46de" CreationDate="2015-07-20T18:19:11.860" UserId="986" Text="|food|energy-efficiency|food-storage|fruits-and-vegetables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="07d775c0-323f-42e2-89cb-48206fd87544" CreationDate="2015-07-22T08:03:21.393" UserId="2399" Text="Mosquito larvae are easy and reproduce quicky in warm weather. just mix water and a bit of soil and they will come.  Guppies are naturally adapted to feed on them. Everything else (apart from algae) will be more laborious and will also depend on water temperature. You could also consider breeding crickets and meal worms indoor if (when) you run our of guppies.  Mosquito fish are a pest and basically are guppy and reproduce equally fast. They can be caught in the wild, especially urban waterways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4617" RevisionGUID="16bfe7d9-e20b-44fe-90bb-060d60b01f20" CreationDate="2015-07-22T15:27:38.647" UserId="85" Comment="edited body" Text="Mosquito larvae are easy and reproduce quickly in warm weather. just mix water and a bit of soil and they will come.  Guppies are naturally adapted to feed on them. Everything else (apart from algae) will be more laborious and will also depend on water temperature. You could also consider breeding crickets and meal worms indoor if (when) you run out of guppies. Mosquito fish are a pest and basically are guppy and reproduce equally fast. They can be caught in the wild, especially urban waterways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4619" RevisionGUID="db1ffe49-0077-4c5d-907c-d68fc613f9ee" CreationDate="2015-07-24T19:22:05.247" UserId="2082" Text="In order to sustain the vegetables as much as possible, I use vegetable bags and put them in the vegetable drawer of the refrigerator. The veggies need to breathe.  They last longer that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="c6ae2896-a905-4675-96c9-9ff62c30b370" CreationDate="2015-07-26T02:56:55.147" UserId="2409" Text="Is there any compost toilet that is legal for new construction? Assuming the answer is no, will there ever be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="c6ae2896-a905-4675-96c9-9ff62c30b370" CreationDate="2015-07-26T02:56:55.147" UserId="2409" Text="Legalities of compost toilets" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="c6ae2896-a905-4675-96c9-9ff62c30b370" CreationDate="2015-07-26T02:56:55.147" UserId="2409" Text="|composting|construction|toilet|law|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="9ef5f5f8-bc05-4195-9bb3-23860c4dc580" CreationDate="2015-07-26T23:29:24.713" UserId="2414" Text="Im renting a home with central heatingand air in oklahoma its really hot now 90 inside ac on all day but only cold at night because attic has noinsulation and owner does seem to care about fixing it and im paying for ac on all day for nothing what can i do" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="9ef5f5f8-bc05-4195-9bb3-23860c4dc580" CreationDate="2015-07-26T23:29:24.713" UserId="2414" Text="home owner doesnt care about house having insulation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="9ef5f5f8-bc05-4195-9bb3-23860c4dc580" CreationDate="2015-07-26T23:29:24.713" UserId="2414" Text="|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4623" RevisionGUID="3103da57-b220-4324-87c4-9fbe461ea536" CreationDate="2015-07-27T02:53:38.097" UserId="2345" Text="Unless there is a law which states houses must have insulation or that landlords must provide houses that are insulated there's not much you can do to compel the owner to have insulation installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the perspective of the owner, the house is a business and insulation costs money. What return on money spent on insulation does the owner get? The owner could charge higher rent to cover the cost of insulation. Alternatively, the owner risks not being able to rent the property once it becomes widely known that the house does not have insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also an element of potential negligence on your behalf. Did you ask whether the house was insulated before signing the rental contract? I would suggest you ask more questions about insulation, heating and cooling when looking at houses in the future, whether you rent or buy. Ask about the type of insulation and where the insulation is installed. Some newer houses have insulation in the external walls as well as the ceiling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to what you can do now, there are two options. Firstly, you could find somewhere else to live. Somewhere which has insulation and lower heating and cooling costs. The other option is to pay for the insulation yourself and try to recover the cost from the owner later. If the owner won't pay, you remove the insulation prior to you moving out and you take the insulation with you. In which case you look for a type of insulation that can easily be installed and removed. I don't know if they still exist, but some time ago it was possible to buy inflatable silver colored insulating cushions. They used to be about 1 inch thick when inflated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="8d6eb79c-8ca8-47ea-b32c-7f6928b486c6" CreationDate="2015-07-27T03:55:09.217" UserId="15" Comment="tidy up" Text="I'm renting a home with central heating and air conditioning in Oklahoma. It's really hot now (90 inside) so I have the A/C on all day but it's cold at night because the attic has no insulation and the owner isn't interested in installing any. I'm paying for A/C on all day for nothing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can I do to improve the situation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10019" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="8d6eb79c-8ca8-47ea-b32c-7f6928b486c6" CreationDate="2015-07-27T03:55:09.217" UserId="15" Comment="tidy up" Text="Home owner doesn't care about house having insulation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="de02e990-ec35-4177-a47e-d9f09725656d" CreationDate="2015-07-27T17:49:15.557" UserId="2417" Text="I currently have 1600w wind turbine with grid tie inverters of 12-24 volt 1600w and I now want to add batteries to my system with a controled discharge, Adjustable from 10-20 amps without disconnecting the net from the grid. Any suggestions ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="de02e990-ec35-4177-a47e-d9f09725656d" CreationDate="2015-07-27T17:49:15.557" UserId="2417" Text="How to make a controlled discharge of batteries connected to the grid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="de02e990-ec35-4177-a47e-d9f09725656d" CreationDate="2015-07-27T17:49:15.557" UserId="2417" Text="|solar-power|wind-power|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="533922e4-0bc1-4761-81a8-322cddcb881a" CreationDate="2015-07-28T06:45:42.717" UserId="2345" Comment="Correct capitalization for units " Text="I currently have 1600 W wind turbine with grid tie inverters of 12-24 volt 1600 W and I now want to add batteries to my system with a controlled discharge, Adjustable from 10-20 amps without disconnecting the net from the grid. Any suggestions ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10027" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="533922e4-0bc1-4761-81a8-322cddcb881a" CreationDate="2015-07-28T06:45:42.717" Comment="Proposed by 2345 approved by 99 edit id of 328" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10028" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4622" RevisionGUID="5afdb770-547a-426b-9307-e2a26fa3243e" CreationDate="2015-07-28T08:37:00.567" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/625948054915543040" />
  <row Id="10029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4625" RevisionGUID="af5206bd-3266-4feb-b954-80c6e6d62115" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:29:55.697" UserId="1297" Text="My organization wants to install toilets and some kind of recycling method in remote underdeveloped areas. The installments should be suitable for hilly and mountainous terrain. Since the area we cover does not allow for regular maintenance by humans, we need a solution which is self sustaining. My question is, are there any sanitation and recycling solutions out there which can be installed in remote areas, are eco friendly and don't need human intervention to work? Are they expensive or affordable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4625" RevisionGUID="af5206bd-3266-4feb-b954-80c6e6d62115" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:29:55.697" UserId="1297" Text="Are there any self sustainable sanitation solutions for remote and underdeveloped areas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4625" RevisionGUID="af5206bd-3266-4feb-b954-80c6e6d62115" CreationDate="2015-07-28T11:29:55.697" UserId="1297" Text="|recycling|waste|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4626" RevisionGUID="c7ed7ac9-dca0-479e-9560-c6548cd53000" CreationDate="2015-07-28T23:43:28.603" UserDisplayName="user2423" Text="The existing answer by Simon W is excellent, I just wanted to add some thoughts to it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The best thing is to have your car running as efficiently as&#xD;&#xA;    possible overall, so make sure the engine is cared for. Car engines&#xD;&#xA;    have a theoretical max efficiency of less than 50% (based on&#xD;&#xA;    thermodynamics) so this is an absolute limit no matter how we&#xD;&#xA;    re-design cars. Actually driving anywhere wastes even more (wind&#xD;&#xA;    resistance). &#xD;&#xA;2. I don't think that a good A/C system adds all that&#xD;&#xA;    much to the engine's workload. I have a 19 year-old Subaru wagon&#xD;&#xA;    (not the most efficient or newest thing) and it gets about 30 MPG on&#xD;&#xA;    the highway, with or without A/C on. You could do worse with a brand new car! In the city with long stops at&#xD;&#xA;    lights, it gets about 21, maybe 24 without the A/C, but the sitting&#xD;&#xA;    is really what wastes fuel! ZERO MPG! Find alternate routes around&#xD;&#xA;    those incredibly long stoplights.&#xD;&#xA;3. When I do have to sit at a light, I put the transmission in Neutral. This makes it &quot;lug&quot; less, and does not heat up the transmission. Also the A/C works better with the engine idling freely. Just remember to put it back in gear: people are not impressed when you go *Vroom!* and just sit there, after waiting two minutes at a stoplight.&#xD;&#xA;4. I have tried to cut the incoming heat-load on this large, dark brown car in a hot sunny climate. I leave the windows open a bit when parked during the day, when possible, to lower the temp as much as I can when I first get in. I have painted about 15 sq ft (most of the roof area) white - just tried that so I am not sure how much it helps. I draped white paper over the roll-up cover in the rear area to reflect heat away. I park in the shade (this is the most important thing, but not always in your control).&#xD;&#xA;5. I am trying to find a simple solar fan solution to vent the heat     while the car is parked without letting in rain or blown debris.&#xD;&#xA;6. The A/C system has a slow leak, so I top it off with a can of refrigerant, maybe once a year. Keeping it full up makes it work *much* better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are my suggestions. Painting the roof is a bit radical, but *Lursa* is old and has basically no resale value, and is mine. The roof is not too visible unless you are tall enough to look over the car." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="680db4d6-38ea-456c-a22b-ca7aa66ddec3" CreationDate="2015-07-29T00:05:05.610" UserDisplayName="user2423" Text="Assuming that I throw them away each time, and taking transportation out of the question, which is the most environmentally sound choice: single use bamboo chopsticks, or single use plasticware?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the factors involved in the analysis, like plastic pollution, or land-use for bamboo, etc? (I am in the USA and I don't even know if bamboo is grown here.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="680db4d6-38ea-456c-a22b-ca7aa66ddec3" CreationDate="2015-07-29T00:05:05.610" UserDisplayName="user2423" Text="Which is better for carry-out eating: disposable bamboo chopsticks or disposable plasticware?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="680db4d6-38ea-456c-a22b-ca7aa66ddec3" CreationDate="2015-07-29T00:05:05.610" UserDisplayName="user2423" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4628" RevisionGUID="ca0c6d26-b3cf-4db7-b4fb-e1a884ffaff6" CreationDate="2015-07-29T06:17:07.097" UserId="99" Text="**TLDR;** it's impossible to answer your question without LCA data and without a precise definition of &quot;better&quot; or &quot;environmentally sound&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact answer to your question depends on many variables, most notably on how you yourself define &quot;better&quot; or &quot;environmentally sound&quot;. For example, what do you think is most important? Is it the contribution to ecotoxicity of both products, is it global warming potential, eutrophication, acidification, land-use? Or perhaps a combination of all these things, and if so are all factors of equal importance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Life cycle assessment&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally questions like these are answered by performing a lifecycle assessment (LCA) of both products. An LCA study investigates all processes involved during the full lifecycle of a product and lists all materials and energy used as well as waste products generated. Once you have such a detailed list, this allows you to do an assessment and compare multiple factors you are interested in. The final decision which is better however would still depend on what you think is most important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, LCAs do have their limits. They are rather time-consuming and costly to perform. LCA results may not translate to other countries (e.g. transport of materials may affect the outcome) or become obsolete in time (due to changing manufacturing processes or waste processing). Also some things are not measured in LCAs like labour conditions or land-use because those are rather hard to quantify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Best guess&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now back to your question. I wasn't able to find an LCA study that compares bamboo versus plastic chopsticks, so this makes an answer rather hard. If I had to guess, I'd say that bamboo chopsticks are better because bamboo grows rather quickly and is compostable. However, AFAIK almost all bamboo in the US is imported (more info [here](http://madeinusachallenge.com/2012/help-grow-the-bamboo-industry-in-the-usa/)), so transportation most likely would have an effect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Best option&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to make a contribution, don't use disposable chopsticks! The chopstick with the smallest environmental footprint is the one you reuse most (as long as you don't use loads of soap and water for cleaning)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4631" RevisionGUID="668f205c-94f0-4faf-a696-5f71da957d38" CreationDate="2015-07-29T07:47:24.657" UserId="1552" Text="Short and sweet answer is Bamboo and plants from that family. You can also reuse them as sustainable fuel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Avoid the conifer and pines as they kill everything that lives beneath them due to toxified leaf (in their case needle) litter. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4628" RevisionGUID="4b442adb-3e8d-4af3-8309-e518f65003b0" CreationDate="2015-07-29T09:19:19.777" UserId="99" Comment="added sentence on potential negative effects of growing bamboo" Text="**TLDR;** it's impossible to answer your question without LCA data and without a precise definition of &quot;better&quot; or &quot;environmentally sound&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact answer to your question depends on many variables, most notably on how you yourself define &quot;better&quot; or &quot;environmentally sound&quot;. For example, what do you think is most important? Is it the contribution to ecotoxicity of both products, is it global warming potential, eutrophication, acidification, land-use? Or perhaps a combination of all these things, and if so are all factors of equal importance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Life cycle assessment&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally questions like these are answered by performing a lifecycle assessment (LCA) of both products. An LCA study investigates all processes involved during the full lifecycle of a product and lists all materials and energy used as well as waste products generated. Once you have such a detailed list, this allows you to do an assessment and compare multiple factors you are interested in. The final decision which is better however would still depend on what you think is most important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, LCAs do have their limits. They are rather time-consuming and costly to perform. LCA results may not translate to other countries (e.g. transport of materials may affect the outcome) or become obsolete in time (due to changing manufacturing processes or waste processing). Also some things are not measured in LCAs like labour conditions or land-use because those are rather hard to quantify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Best guess&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now back to your question. I wasn't able to find an LCA study that compares bamboo versus plastic chopsticks, so this makes an answer rather hard. If I had to guess, I'd say that bamboo chopsticks are better because bamboo grows rather quickly and is compostable. However, AFAIK almost all bamboo in the US is imported (more info [here](http://madeinusachallenge.com/2012/help-grow-the-bamboo-industry-in-the-usa/)), so transportation most likely would have an effect. Also the way bamboo is grown (water, fertilizer and pesticide use) may have a negative influence on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Best option&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to make a contribution, don't use disposable chopsticks! The chopstick with the smallest environmental footprint is the one you reuse most (as long as you don't use loads of soap and water for cleaning)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4632" RevisionGUID="01c1012c-bbbc-4307-b1e2-131d1343392d" CreationDate="2015-07-29T17:11:43.413" UserId="2419" Text="The date is determined by local\federal law based on all of the reasons listed above. It seems Water normally only has a two year best by date. If properly stored that 2 year shelf life on water can be longer. Id recommend boiling and filtering after two years however." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4633" RevisionGUID="7910d4fb-1922-4f36-8d6f-068a2ce538bd" CreationDate="2015-07-29T18:27:48.077" UserId="85" Text="The issue of disposable chopsticks has been raised in Japan and &quot;personal chopsticks&quot; called [マイ箸](https://www.google.com.br/search?tbm=isch&amp;q=%E3%83%9E%E3%82%A4%E7%AE%B8) (_mai hashi_, &quot;my chopsticks&quot;) are a popular solution: You carry your own chopsticks in a case. The case is either hard (wood/bamboo/plastic) or soft (fabric) and washable in either case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people keep their own chopsticks at their workplace or carry them in their bag. (Many restaurants have also switched to dishwasher-safe plastic chopsticks.) マイ箸 are also a popular gift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, as an answer to your question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which is better for carry-out eating: disposable bamboo chopsticks or disposable plasticware?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to answer &quot;neither, use personal chopsticks&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4633" RevisionGUID="7dbbaf6c-6e61-496b-a787-26fb474c0d64" CreationDate="2015-07-29T18:46:20.107" UserId="85" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="The issue of disposable chopsticks has been raised in Japan and &quot;personal chopsticks&quot; called [マイ箸](https://www.google.com.br/search?tbm=isch&amp;q=%E3%83%9E%E3%82%A4%E7%AE%B8) (_mai hashi_, &quot;my chopsticks&quot;) are a popular solution: You carry your own chopsticks in a case. The case is either hard (wood/bamboo/plastic) or soft (fabric) and washable in either case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people keep their own chopsticks at their workplace or carry them in their bag. (Many restaurants have also switched to dishwasher-safe plastic chopsticks.) マイ箸 are also a popular gift.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, as an answer to your question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which is better for carry-out eating: disposable bamboo chopsticks or disposable plasticware?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to answer &quot;neither, use personal chopsticks&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Also, if you're on-the-go, chopsticks are great. You can use them to eat almost anything, and you only need one hand, so you can hold your plate/container in the other hand.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4626" RevisionGUID="77349be2-9b7a-4883-af5c-d5efb4a4fd54" CreationDate="2015-07-30T12:40:44.107" UserDisplayName="user2423" Comment="Bolded the bit about painting the roof white" Text="The existing answer by Simon W is excellent, I just wanted to add some thoughts to it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The best thing is to have your car running as efficiently as&#xD;&#xA;    possible overall, so make sure the engine is cared for. Car engines&#xD;&#xA;    have a theoretical max efficiency of less than 50% (based on&#xD;&#xA;    thermodynamics) so this is an absolute limit no matter how we&#xD;&#xA;    re-design cars. Actually driving anywhere wastes even more (wind&#xD;&#xA;    resistance). &#xD;&#xA;2. I don't think that a good A/C system adds all that&#xD;&#xA;    much to the engine's workload. I have a 19 year-old Subaru wagon&#xD;&#xA;    (not the most efficient or newest thing) and it gets about 30 MPG on&#xD;&#xA;    the highway, with or without A/C on. You could do worse with a brand new car! In the city with long stops at&#xD;&#xA;    lights, it gets about 21, maybe 24 without the A/C, but the sitting&#xD;&#xA;    is really what wastes fuel! ZERO MPG! Find alternate routes around&#xD;&#xA;    those incredibly long stoplights.&#xD;&#xA;3. When I do have to sit at a light, I put the transmission in Neutral. This makes it &quot;lug&quot; less, and does not heat up the transmission. Also the A/C works better with the engine idling freely. Just remember to put it back in gear: people are not impressed when you go *Vroom!* and just sit there, after waiting two minutes at a stoplight.&#xD;&#xA;4. I have tried to cut the incoming heat-load on this large, dark brown car in a hot sunny climate. I leave the windows open a bit when parked during the day, when possible, to lower the temp as much as I can when I first get in. **I have painted about 15 sq ft (most of the roof area) white** - just tried that so I am not sure how much it helps. I draped white paper over the roll-up cover in the rear area to reflect heat away. I park in the shade (this is the most important thing, but not always in your control).&#xD;&#xA;5. I am trying to find a simple solar fan solution to vent the heat     while the car is parked without letting in rain or blown debris.&#xD;&#xA;6. The A/C system has a slow leak, so I top it off with a can of refrigerant, maybe once a year. Keeping it full up makes it work *much* better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are my suggestions. Painting the roof is a bit radical, but *Lursa* is old and has basically no resale value, and is mine. The roof is not too visible unless you are tall enough to look over the car." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3139" RevisionGUID="63fdf515-4a62-4ba7-bbdf-fa0892499dd9" CreationDate="2015-07-30T12:42:14.460" UserId="99" Comment="added data for older and latest (2015) revision" Text="Currently we have [over 7 billion people in the world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population). In 2010 the UN made several projections for world population growth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Picture from \[wikipedia\]][1]&#xD;&#xA;*World population estimates from 1800 to 2100, based on &quot;high&quot;, &quot;medium&quot; and &quot;low&quot; United Nations projections in 2010. [source wikipedia](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/World-Population-1800-2100.svg/640px-World-Population-1800-2100.svg.png)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worst case scenario (red line) is that the world population will continue to grow and we’ll have about 10.5 billion people in 2050. The best case scenario (green line) is that the population will stop growing soon and we’ll have a peak of 8 billion people somewhere around 2045.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The UN scenario that is generally thought to be the most plausible is that the world population will continue to grow to around 9.3 in 2050 and 10.1 billion people at the end of the 21st century and then remain stable (the yellow line). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the [2012 revision of these figures](http://esa.un.org/wpp/documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf) changed these 'most likely' numbers to 9.6 billion in 2050 and 10.9 billion in 2100. In the [2015 revision](http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/Key_Findings_WPP_2015.pdf) the numbers were raised to 9.7 and 11.2 respectively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                       2050    2100&#xD;&#xA;    --------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    1994 revision  |   9.8&#xD;&#xA;    2000 revision  |   9.3    &#xD;&#xA;    2002 revision  |   8.9&#xD;&#xA;    2010 revision  |   9.3    10.1&#xD;&#xA;    2012 revision  |   9.6    10.9&#xD;&#xA;    2015 revision  |   9.7    11.2&#xD;&#xA;*Table 1: UN (medium) projections of the expected world population in billions of people*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [a recent statistical study published in 2014](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/09/17/science.1257469) says that the UN projections are inaccurate and claims that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion people, will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion in 2100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [critics on this new study](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26231-global-population-may-boom-well-beyond-the-year-2050.html#.VGpo_PmG-So) say that it doesn't take improvements to female education in Africa into account, which is a key driver in (slowing) population growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1cCXQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3139" RevisionGUID="f2d5e162-95d3-4e40-b1b3-e253b376f0c6" CreationDate="2015-07-30T13:00:19.227" UserId="99" Comment="added sources" Text="Currently we have [over 7 billion people in the world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population). In 2010 the UN made several projections for world population growth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Picture from \[wikipedia\]](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1cCXQ.png)&#xD;&#xA;*World population estimates from 1800 to 2100, based on &quot;high&quot;, &quot;medium&quot; and &quot;low&quot; United Nations projections in 2010. [source wikipedia](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/World-Population-1800-2100.svg/640px-World-Population-1800-2100.svg.png)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worst case scenario (red line) is that the world population will continue to grow and we’ll have about 10.5 billion people in 2050. The best case scenario (green line) is that the population will stop growing soon and we’ll have a peak of 8 billion people somewhere around 2045.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The UN scenario that is generally thought to be the most plausible is that the world population will continue to grow to around 9.3 in 2050 and 10.1 billion people at the end of the 21st century and then remain stable (the yellow line). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the [2012 revision of these figures](http://esa.un.org/wpp/documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf) changed these 'most likely' numbers to 9.6 billion in 2050 and 10.9 billion in 2100. In the [2015 revision](http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/Key_Findings_WPP_2015.pdf) the numbers were raised to 9.7 and 11.2 respectively&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                       2050    2100&#xD;&#xA;    --------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    1994 revision  |   9.8           &#xD;&#xA;    2000 revision  |   9.3           &#xD;&#xA;    2002 revision  |   8.9          &#xD;&#xA;    2010 revision  |   9.3    10.1    &#xD;&#xA;    2012 revision  |   9.6    10.9  &#xD;&#xA;    2015 revision  |   9.7    11.2    &#xD;&#xA;*Table 1: UN (medium) projections of the expected world population in billions of people*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [a recent statistical study published in 2014](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/09/17/science.1257469) says that the UN projections are inaccurate and claims that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion people, will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion in 2100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [critics on this new study](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26231-global-population-may-boom-well-beyond-the-year-2050.html#.VGpo_PmG-So) say that it doesn't take improvements to female education in Africa into account, which is a key driver in (slowing) population growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1994 https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&amp;id=85zBAAAAIAAJ&#xD;&#xA;- 2000 http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2000/highlights.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- 2002 http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2002/WPP2002-HIGHLIGHTSrev1.PDF&#xD;&#xA;- 2010 http://esa.un.org/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2010_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf (Jul 30, 2015 Link is broken, may be temporary)&#xD;&#xA;- 2012 http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_%20KEY%20FINDINGS.pdf (Jul 30, 2015 Link is broken, may be temporary)&#xD;&#xA;- 2015 http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/Key_Findings_WPP_2015.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10064" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4627" RevisionGUID="08112646-cc56-44d0-a41f-4d925106ec1d" CreationDate="2015-08-01T02:43:55.503" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/627308749330456576" />
  <row Id="10066" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4604" RevisionGUID="930834bc-ec9a-4083-949b-0f1b08add3f4" CreationDate="2015-08-01T07:31:36.937" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo in title" Text="Most fuel efficient way to run AC in my car?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10067" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="8a7160f0-a2ca-49fe-a565-6820e5fd87b1" CreationDate="2015-08-01T07:36:22.673" UserId="99" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10068" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="4847f51e-534a-4cb0-9f18-6ad6cdc35c5a" CreationDate="2015-08-01T07:37:28.083" UserId="99" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10069" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4620" RevisionGUID="34a8494b-b542-4a73-92aa-7c916634d6e4" CreationDate="2015-08-01T07:37:54.090" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[539],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4638" RevisionGUID="4a0a1ff7-2df8-4fcf-853f-91d7328e7efe" CreationDate="2015-08-04T11:36:13.227" UserId="2439" Text="I often wonder how much energy a given item in my home is using. Examples include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;+ the clock on my microwave&#xD;&#xA;+ my espresso maker&#xD;&#xA;+ an electric water kettle&#xD;&#xA;+ my phone charger (when no device is attached)&#xD;&#xA;+ the garage door &#xD;&#xA;+ my NES&#xD;&#xA;+ the dehumidifier in the basement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should one go about finding out (or estimating how much electricity a given household item uses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10071" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4638" RevisionGUID="4a0a1ff7-2df8-4fcf-853f-91d7328e7efe" CreationDate="2015-08-04T11:36:13.227" UserId="2439" Text="Is there a way to tell (or estimate) the eletricity consumption of an arbitrary household item?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10072" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4638" RevisionGUID="4a0a1ff7-2df8-4fcf-853f-91d7328e7efe" CreationDate="2015-08-04T11:36:13.227" UserId="2439" Text="|energy|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4639" RevisionGUID="38676da9-9ddf-4935-b84a-b598e6f01020" CreationDate="2015-08-05T00:23:12.973" UserId="2345" Text="The easiest way is to buy a meter that plug into the power outlet and the device you want to measure is plugged into the meter. Something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Power meter][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the meter you buy, it will measure watt of power used and kWh, as well as other measures of power consumption/utilization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such meters are available at most major hardware or electrical stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7jst2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4640" RevisionGUID="8b767d6c-10d9-421c-bf09-e86a5fe77dbb" CreationDate="2015-08-05T06:09:45.327" UserId="812" Text="One method, which is not very accurate but is very easy, is to look on the back. Most appliances, or their power supplies if seperate, will have this info printed on their back. In some cases (e.g. Simple appliances such as An electric heater or tumble dryer) this will be the power that they actually use, and in some (eg a computer) it will be the maximum rating of the power supply, and thus only an upper limit that may never be reached. &#xA;&#xA;Sometimes the power is given in watts. Sometimes, instead, the current draw is given in amps (A) or milliamps (mA) (there are a thousand milliamps to an amp). In this case, multiply the current by the voltage where you are to get the power [1].&#xA;For example, most of Europe has mains electricity at 230V, so if the label said &quot;input: 200mA&quot; you would do 0.2 × 230 = 46W. &#xA;&#xA;Having said all this: for many purposes, you are much better off with a meter :-) &#xA;&#xA;[1] for the pedants, I'm deliberately ignoring power factor. Most domestic electricity meters ignore it too. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4643" RevisionGUID="37b7a9ea-58c1-4a83-9979-55c57e581d41" CreationDate="2015-08-05T18:50:43.363" UserId="1937" Text="NiCd batteries are only bad for the environment if you discard them.  NiCds suffer from a memory effect, so it may be possible to rejuvenate them with an appropriate charger - one that has a &quot;refresh mode&quot;.  (I've done this myself, and am still using some batteries that I know are more than a decade old.) Several such can be found with Google." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4644" RevisionGUID="61b3f38e-7b84-448f-a173-305cb7529f8e" CreationDate="2015-08-06T06:30:28.513" UserId="58" Text="When I fill my electric water boiler with water some time before boiling it, the water gets warmer, it's temperature get closer to the room's temperature, saving some energy. On the other hand, I've heard that this decreases the lifetime of the boiler, especially with hard water. So which of these factors is more important? Or, if it depends, how can I determine if it's more eco-friendly to fill the boiler just before boiling or some time before?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10082" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4644" RevisionGUID="61b3f38e-7b84-448f-a173-305cb7529f8e" CreationDate="2015-08-06T06:30:28.513" UserId="58" Text="Should I let water in a water boiler for prolonged periods?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10083" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4644" RevisionGUID="61b3f38e-7b84-448f-a173-305cb7529f8e" CreationDate="2015-08-06T06:30:28.513" UserId="58" Text="|energy|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10084" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4644" RevisionGUID="4392cfc1-2f6f-4634-b1cc-a9bf80826b04" CreationDate="2015-08-06T07:49:48.690" UserId="58" Comment="edited title" Text="Should I leave water in a water boiler for prolonged periods?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4645" RevisionGUID="e877238c-af5c-4e1f-9cee-633ad9627381" CreationDate="2015-08-06T07:52:53.733" UserId="48" Text="If you're not going to be drinking the water, then fill it as long before you'll heat it as you can, assuming the ambient temperature is higher than the temperature of the incoming water. This will save energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also gives you the option of pre-heating the water if very cheap, free, or negatively-priced energy becomes available: for example, if you've got a home PV system, or you're connnected to an electricity grid with high penetrations of exogenously-variable renewables (run-of-river hydro, solar, wind, tidal, wave). You may also be able to use it to sell ancillary (balancing) services to the grid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tackle the scaling from hard water either using occasional application of a descaler; or by putting an ion-exchange water-softener onto your water feed. As an added bonus, you'll also use less detergent. Though I don't know anything about the sustainability of the ion-exchange material that makes the softener work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4645" RevisionGUID="b93b2ebd-756b-4014-9d29-b2932d69d06c" CreationDate="2015-08-06T09:06:16.040" UserId="48" Comment="added 595 characters in body" Text="Fill the boiler as long before you'll heat it as you can, assuming the ambient temperature is higher than the temperature of the incoming water. This will save energy. As you've pointed out in the comments: as it's going to be boiled, this will kill off any microbes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also gives you the option of pre-heating the water if very cheap, free, or negatively-priced energy becomes available: for example, if you've got a home PV system, or you're connnected to an electricity grid with high penetrations of exogenously-variable renewables (run-of-river hydro, solar, wind, tidal, wave). You may also be able to use it to sell ancillary (balancing) services to the grid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tackle the scaling from hard water either using occasional application of a descaler; or by putting an ion-exchange water-softener onto your water feed. As an added bonus, you'll also use less detergent. Though I don't know anything about the sustainability of the ion-exchange material that makes the softener work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the water is for drinking, there are a couple of things to bear in mind. If you use a water softener, then: some people notice a difference in taste of softened water, compared to what they're used to; and people who have to be very careful about their levels of sodium intake will need to add in to their calculations, the sodium in the water. It's a tiny amount, but it needs accounting for. Whereas if you use a descaler instead, then you'll need to make sure that the boiler is thoroughly rinsed before used for drinking water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="6eb997e2-14b9-4ab5-983f-25bdbb0e5131" CreationDate="2015-08-06T09:59:26.660" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="The solar light batteries in my garden are dead. Upon replacing them, I realized they were the old Ni-Cd rechargeable batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have heard that these batteries are not so good for the environment because they contain toxic chemicals (see [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-cadmium#Environmental_impact)). I would like to use Ni-MH batteries instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be recommended or will slowly charging these batteries using solar panels shorten their life span?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10088" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="6eb997e2-14b9-4ab5-983f-25bdbb0e5131" CreationDate="2015-08-06T09:59:26.660" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can I use Ni-MH batteries in my garden solar lights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4646" RevisionGUID="856d6f5f-df62-4430-96aa-e3ae904326f1" CreationDate="2015-08-06T10:52:11.247" UserId="2446" Text="I don't believe anyone has mentioned the fact that most traditional electrical plants consume water.  Additionally, this water is often evaporated and thus removed from the local water supply while--very unpalatability to think about--the water flowing through your plumbing may be taken from local surface water (i.e. a river or lake) and put back into local surface water (i.e. the same or different river or lake) as sewage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/how-much-water-does-it-take-to-make-electricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10091" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4638" RevisionGUID="d7904f09-81d5-4685-8921-b96d5da716dc" CreationDate="2015-08-06T16:44:02.990" UserId="2345" Comment="Spelling correction in the title of the question" Text="Is there a way to tell (or estimate) the electricity consumption of an arbitrary household item?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10092" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4638" RevisionGUID="d7904f09-81d5-4685-8921-b96d5da716dc" CreationDate="2015-08-06T16:44:02.990" Comment="Proposed by 2345 approved by 2439 edit id of 330" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4649" RevisionGUID="9167ea93-f8da-4ee3-b48b-4cba2c08d964" CreationDate="2015-08-07T15:55:27.477" UserId="2450" Text="I realise this thread is a little old, but for the benefit of current and future readers, I would like to share some valuable insight and a detailed infographic of UK solar PV payback period and earnings by region, that I have put together recently (July 2015).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Answer To 1st Part - UK Solar PV Incentives**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earnings from solar PV in the UK can be summarised by the following equation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Solar PV Earnings = Bill Savings + FiT Generation + FiT Export** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bill Savings = The savings you make on your electricity bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FiT Generation = The amount you earn for generating electrcity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FiT Export = The amount you earn for exporting surplus electricity to the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FiT (Feed-in Tariff) is the main financial incentive by the government through which you earn money for each unit of electricity you generate and an additional amount for each unit of electricity you export to the grid. The FiT rates are constantly changing (decreasing), the latest rates can be viewed at the [Ofgem website][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three important points to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. To benefit from the Feed-in Tariff, your system must use MCS accredited components (panels, inverters, etc) and must be fitted by an MCS accredited installer. You can verify whether your installer is MCS accredited at the MCS installer database. MCS accredited installers will usually use accredited products, but you can double-check whether the products recommended to you are MCS accredited at the MCS products database. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The Feed-in Tariff is designed to be degenerative (decrease with time). If you are planning to install solar panels on your roof, the earlier you apply for the Feed-in Tariff the better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. As PeteH pointed out in his conclusion, quotations can vary significantly between installers. It is essential to [compare prices][2] to get the best deal. Savings of £2k - £3k are not uncommon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Answer to 2nd part - UK Solar PV Earnings**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different sources give various figures on the payback period and earning potential of solar pv in the UK. The Energy Saving trust's solar PV calculator is a good starting point. Unfortunately, their calculator does not account for the Retail Price Index (RPI) or rising costs of electricity. Two real world factors that significantly affect solar pv earning projections. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here at SolarLinker, we have taken data from the Energy Saving Trust, adjusted it to account for these two factors and plotted it on colour coded maps for easy interpretation (attached below). Figures shown are for a 4kWp solar PV system, mounted on a south facing roof at a 45 degree angle. All other assumptions and sources are listed at the bottom of the infographic below for your convenience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is important to note that these figures are estimates. As Simon correctly pointed out, there are many variables that affect solar performance. Without a site visit it is impossible to accurately predict the solar potential of your roof. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I Hope this helps :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://solarlinker.co.uk/oc-content/uploads/1/308_original.png&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/environmental-programmes/feed-tariff-fit-scheme/tariff-tables&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://solarlinker.co.uk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4650" RevisionGUID="118b09fa-810a-4017-be2c-eb54e9877aef" CreationDate="2015-08-09T18:51:00.837" UserId="2454" Text="These folks are called the American Textile Recycling Service. They take shoes, and although I do not see them specify on the website what they do with them, they recycle/upcycle/keep them out of the landfill. &#xD;&#xA;http://atrscorp.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4651" RevisionGUID="620c8248-df75-4c58-89a7-610ce2fe6ad7" CreationDate="2015-08-10T05:06:13.193" UserId="2457" Text="I totally agree, I am currently stocking poly solar panels and mono solar panels from Sharp and Solarworld respectively on &lt;a href=&quot;www.blue.solar&quot;&gt;www.blue.solar&lt;/a&gt;, the clients have come back with great feedback after we insisted that a clear line of sight between the panel and the sun is needed, the difference in efficiency in countries in Africa and Brazil have been very similar, however in the UK the mono panel have prevailed slighly due to the clouds and mono panels ability to retain more heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="7f0e450c-7769-4e4e-bf02-3f8bb1dd7957" CreationDate="2015-08-10T05:21:59.800" UserId="2458" Text="Isn't creating hydrogen from solar energy a lowers the amount of work that can be extracted from the Sun? Isn't it more efficient to use the electricity being generated by the Solar resource itself?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="7f0e450c-7769-4e4e-bf02-3f8bb1dd7957" CreationDate="2015-08-10T05:21:59.800" UserId="2458" Text="Is creating hydrogen fuel for the fuel cell from the solar panel worth considering?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="7f0e450c-7769-4e4e-bf02-3f8bb1dd7957" CreationDate="2015-08-10T05:21:59.800" UserId="2458" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4653" RevisionGUID="5768a08d-d760-447a-9d5b-b15d3e1dbf47" CreationDate="2015-08-10T06:10:08.493" UserId="48" Text="Yes, if you want electricity, it's much cheaper and more efficient to just use the electricity directly from a solar panel, than to do *any* transformation of that electricity into *any* other form, then back to electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reasons that we'd use electricity to electrolyse water to create hydrogen, is if we had spare electricity now, and wanted to store the energy for use later; or we wanted to use the hydrogen as a fuel for transport; or if we wanted hydrogen (or HO, or O2) as a chemical feedstock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="ad6aad1a-b616-4a06-8668-da4d271fb2f9" CreationDate="2015-08-10T06:42:39.750" UserId="2458" Text="Can energy be stored long enough in batteries so that the cold winter days can go without any shortage in power supply? Or should the energy be converted to hydrogen which will be used as a fuel later on.&#xD;&#xA;Or is there some other way around to cope up with winter days when the sun shines low." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10109" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="ad6aad1a-b616-4a06-8668-da4d271fb2f9" CreationDate="2015-08-10T06:42:39.750" UserId="2458" Text="Is hydrogen fuel produced more an efficient fuel than storing the excess solar energy in a battery?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10110" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="ad6aad1a-b616-4a06-8668-da4d271fb2f9" CreationDate="2015-08-10T06:42:39.750" UserId="2458" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="79b6b12b-c2ba-45cb-bc0d-7db35e0fa720" CreationDate="2015-08-10T07:15:23.317" UserId="2187" Text="A vegan diet recommends the use of fortified foods and supplements ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_nutrition#Vitamin_B12)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How environmentally friendly is the production process of these vitamin B12 pills? Might it maybe even be better for the environment to occasionally eat meat instead of making these pills?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10112" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="79b6b12b-c2ba-45cb-bc0d-7db35e0fa720" CreationDate="2015-08-10T07:15:23.317" UserId="2187" Text="How environmentally friendly is the production process of vitamin B12 supplements?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10113" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="79b6b12b-c2ba-45cb-bc0d-7db35e0fa720" CreationDate="2015-08-10T07:15:23.317" UserId="2187" Text="|ecological-footprint|nutrion|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10114" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="b9a9602e-314f-446f-909e-fbf9771854a8" CreationDate="2015-08-10T07:47:27.547" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10115" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="258565fd-625c-40f7-a3d4-96e12ca8320d" CreationDate="2015-08-10T08:53:57.383" UserId="15" Comment="Clarified question to make more sense. Added fuel-cell tag" Text="Does creating hydrogen from solar energy provide a lesser amount of energy than is extracted from the Sun? Isn't it more efficient to use the electricity being generated by the Solar resource itself?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10116" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="258565fd-625c-40f7-a3d4-96e12ca8320d" CreationDate="2015-08-10T08:53:57.383" UserId="15" Comment="Clarified question to make more sense. Added fuel-cell tag" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="b405fc95-c734-4dc0-a49e-979b3030ec0f" CreationDate="2015-08-10T12:39:54.663" UserId="2345" Comment="Fixed grammar + added one tag" Text="Can energy be stored long enough in batteries so that the cold winter days can go without any shortage in power supply, or should the energy be converted to hydrogen which will be used as a fuel later on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, is there some other way around to cope up with winter days when there is low sunshine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10118" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="b405fc95-c734-4dc0-a49e-979b3030ec0f" CreationDate="2015-08-10T12:39:54.663" UserId="2345" Comment="Fixed grammar + added one tag" Text="Is the production of hydrogen fuel more an efficient fuel than storing the excess solar energy in a battery?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10119" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="b405fc95-c734-4dc0-a49e-979b3030ec0f" CreationDate="2015-08-10T12:39:54.663" UserId="2345" Comment="Fixed grammar + added one tag" Text="|solar-power|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10120" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="b405fc95-c734-4dc0-a49e-979b3030ec0f" CreationDate="2015-08-10T12:39:54.663" Comment="Proposed by 2345 approved by -1 edit id of 331" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="9458583c-d6b3-449f-af7e-ed9140ce325d" CreationDate="2015-08-10T12:39:54.663" UserId="85" Comment="Fixed grammar + added one tag" Text="Can energy be stored long enough in batteries so that the cold winter days can go without any shortage in power supply, or should the energy be converted to hydrogen which will be used as a fuel later on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, is there some other way around to cope up with winter days when there is little sunshine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10122" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="9458583c-d6b3-449f-af7e-ed9140ce325d" CreationDate="2015-08-10T12:39:54.663" UserId="85" Comment="Fixed grammar + added one tag" Text="Is the production of hydrogen fuel more efficient than storing the excess solar energy in a battery?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="b6ac7c9e-a500-4197-9ff1-08e4587a39fc" CreationDate="2015-08-10T13:31:07.030" UserId="2468" Text="Yes, Energy can be stored long enough in batteries to provide enough power for the winter. though it would be very expensive, use a lot of space and require inverters for AC power. take a look at lead crystal batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Or should the energy be converted to hydrogen to be used as a fuel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Well... if you don't mind using an explosive gas as a fuel, think about possible gas leaks... hydrogen in automotive vehicles are usually compressed to about 300 bar as well, so you would need to use energy to produce and compress it. also transporting highly compressed gas is always dangerous, especially in vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please elaborate on your question by adding the amount of power needed in the winter and for what purpose? I.E Heating, cooking, lighting, transport or general use electricity. How much you can produce and ow it would be produced also plays a factor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4657" RevisionGUID="8f636b90-cb1b-43ea-a8a5-74ba41503e20" CreationDate="2015-08-10T13:35:30.267" UserId="2467" Text="I think the biggest challenge to &quot;renewable&quot; energy is answered by asking this reverse question: When do you want to use the energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use the energy NOW, of course the answer is going to be don't convert it. Use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about using solar... at night? What about using Wind power... when there is a lull in the wind? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is that Solar doesn't shine all day (in one spot). Clouds cover the sun. Wind doesn't always blow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the &quot;droughts&quot; of energy, you need some way to tide you over. Either you need to store your previous extra energy... or you need another source - being tied to the grid for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4657" RevisionGUID="47c2ef3c-2d98-43bb-b733-f34d3cd74b25" CreationDate="2015-08-10T13:40:48.420" UserId="2467" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="I think the biggest challenge to &quot;renewable&quot; energy is answered by asking this reverse question: When do you want to use the energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use the energy NOW, of course the answer is going to be don't convert it. Use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about using solar... at night? What about using Wind power... when there is a lull in the wind? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is that Solar doesn't shine all day (in one spot). Clouds cover the sun. Wind doesn't always blow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the &quot;droughts&quot; of energy, you need some way to tide you over. Either you need to store your previous extra energy... or you need another source - being tied to the grid for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next question would be: What is the best way/place to store energy? Batteries? Hydrogen? Pressurized air? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4657" RevisionGUID="34e82cb9-7efa-42b2-8027-98a20546084d" CreationDate="2015-08-10T13:46:04.910" UserId="2467" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="I think the biggest challenge to &quot;renewable&quot; energy is answered by asking two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1) When do you want to use the energy?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use the energy NOW, of course the answer is going to be don't convert it. Use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about using solar... at night? What about using Wind power... when there is a lull in the wind? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is that Solar doesn't shine all day (in one spot). Clouds cover the sun. Wind doesn't always blow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the &quot;droughts&quot; of energy, you need some way to tide you over. Either you need to store your previous extra energy... or you need another source - being tied to the grid for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) What do you do with excess energy?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've just created 10 units of electricity... but you can only use 5. What happens to the extra 5?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't store the extra somewhere, you'll lose it. If you lose 50% of it converting it to something else, that's still better than losing 100% of it doing to not storing it somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The next unasked question would be What is the best way/place to store energy** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Batteries? Hydrogen? Pressurized air? Tons of options exist to &quot;store&quot; - and they all have different pro's/con's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;When&quot; and &quot;Extra&quot; are two very solid reasons to store it somewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4651" RevisionGUID="a2471b21-74ba-4497-abeb-e2195cf42cbf" CreationDate="2015-08-10T14:10:02.267" UserId="2457" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I totally agree, I am currently stocking poly solar panels and mono solar panels from Sharp and Solarworld respectively on [www.blue.solar][1], the clients have come back with great feedback after we insisted that a clear line of sight between the panel and the sun is needed, the difference in efficiency in countries in Africa and Brazil have been very similar, however in the UK the mono panel have prevailed slighly due to the clouds in the UK ability to work at lower temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.blue.solar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4657" RevisionGUID="9d0bcdfe-0d3f-4de0-949e-76406858e019" CreationDate="2015-08-10T15:32:42.830" UserId="2467" Comment="added 836 characters in body" Text="I think the biggest challenge to &quot;renewable&quot; energy is answered by asking two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1) When do you want to use the energy?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use the energy NOW, of course the answer is going to be don't convert it. Use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about using solar... at night? What about using Wind power... when there is a lull in the wind? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is that Solar doesn't shine all day (in one spot). Clouds cover the sun. Wind doesn't always blow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the &quot;droughts&quot; of energy, you need some way to tide you over. Either you need to store your previous extra energy... or you need another source - being tied to the grid for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) What do you do with excess energy?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've just created 10 units of electricity... but you can only use 5. What happens to the extra 5? Either you a) store the energy somewhere or b) you need to sell/trade via [Net Metering](https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/2014/03/go-solar-and-sell-power-to-your-utility/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't store the extra somewhere, you'll lose it. If you lose 50% of it converting it to something else, that's still better than losing 100% of it doing to not storing it somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are connected to the grid, and the local policies (State/City/Electric Company/etc) allow it, look into [Net Metering](https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/2014/03/go-solar-and-sell-power-to-your-utility/) to buy/sell power. Give it to the electric company when you have extra. Buy it from them when you aren't producing. Maybe you can simply owe nothing each month... or you might be able to make money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The next unasked question would be What is the best way/place to store energy** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If    &#xD;&#xA; ... you aren't connected to the grid     &#xD;&#xA; ... the Net Metering options aren't beneficial for your situation     &#xD;&#xA; ... you just don't want to sell    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then: what route should you take to store the excess energy? Batteries? Hydrogen? Pressurized air? Tons of options exist to &quot;store&quot; - and they all have different pro's/con's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But &quot;I need this energy later&quot; and &quot;I generate more than I use&quot; are two very solid reasons to store it somewhere/somehow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="fc38bf1d-76de-4bd8-94ae-d66b1fdb6f85" CreationDate="2015-08-10T19:30:02.430" UserId="2209" Text="I drive a 2015 Corolla. The most efficient way I figured to keep the car cool was to turn off the AC, turn the temperature to coolest, and just have the fan on. This setting gives enough cold air. Even with the AC off, we sometimes have to turn the vents away from us to not get too cold. It does takes a little longer to cool the car when starting, but then, you can turn the fan to the highest speed until the car cools down to a comfortable temperature. It has worked for me for temperatures till low hundreds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A humble request to everybody, there is no need to race to a stop sign, or a light turning yellow, let the car coast to it. Neither do we need a sudden acceleration while start on a green signal. I don't want to put the CO2 in air that I have done nothing to take out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lower gas consumption from all of us will can result in lower gas prices, and I never heard that lower gas prices affect the economy of the nation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10130" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4654" RevisionGUID="fbabb440-9de8-41d8-b20d-9bab6193bc4d" CreationDate="2015-08-10T21:22:16.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/630851682604347392" />
  <row Id="10132" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4652" RevisionGUID="dbe42538-51ca-47d0-a6ce-3794c200e7b3" CreationDate="2015-08-11T06:22:16.513" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/630987577928122369" />
  <row Id="10133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="84ffe230-ccdb-478e-9564-ef43a3daf8c6" CreationDate="2015-08-11T07:20:31.517" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected capitalization &amp; one typo" Text="Yes, energy can be stored long enough in batteries to provide enough power for the winter, though it would be very expensive, use a lot of space and require inverters for AC power. Take a look at lead crystal batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Or should the energy be converted to hydrogen to be used as a fuel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Well... if you don't mind using an explosive gas as a fuel, think about possible gas leaks... hydrogen in automotive vehicles are usually compressed to about 300 bar as well, so you would need to use energy to produce and compress it. also transporting highly compressed gas is always dangerous, especially in vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please elaborate on your question by adding the amount of power needed in the winter and for what purpose? I.E Heating, cooking, lighting, transport or general use electricity. How much you can produce and how it would be produced also plays a factor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10134" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="84ffe230-ccdb-478e-9564-ef43a3daf8c6" CreationDate="2015-08-11T07:20:31.517" Comment="Proposed by 2345 approved by -1 edit id of 332" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4656" RevisionGUID="cc5259cd-f852-43a8-8528-4756d575ef0a" CreationDate="2015-08-11T07:20:31.517" UserId="99" Comment="Corrected capitalization &amp; fixed typos" Text="Yes, energy can be stored long enough in batteries to provide enough power for the winter, though it would be very expensive, use a lot of space and require inverters for AC power. Take a look at lead crystal batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Or should the energy be converted to hydrogen to be used as a fuel&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well... if you don't mind using an explosive gas as a fuel, think about possible gas leaks... hydrogen in automotive vehicles are usually compressed to about 300 bar as well, so you would need to use energy to produce and compress it. Also transporting highly compressed gas is always dangerous, especially in vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please elaborate on your question by adding the amount of power needed in the winter and for what purpose? I.e heating, cooking, lighting, transport or general use electricity. How much you can produce and how it would be produced also plays a factor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="d31cffe2-2497-462d-9cec-e5c2c9317457" CreationDate="2015-08-11T09:16:20.640" UserId="2477" Text="This is my first post so hello to everyone on here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing i constantly battle with is money and affording to be more self-sufficient. Don't get me wrong – I earn good money, have managed finances and a few debts but this post isn't really about money management.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My family and I are on the path of being more self-sufficient. Being proud owners of 3 allotment plots, a reasonably large polytunnel, renting of land where we share the husbandry of a few pigs, sheep, chickens and turkeys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we would like to do more. Possibly looking to go more off-grid with wind, solar, rain harvesting, etc. But a constant barrier we come up against is the cost of doing all this. £600 for a Polytunnel to help us grow veg throughout the winter months for example will pay for itself in 5 years time but it's a chunk of change to get started and seems like to others a waste of time as for that we can get a lot of vegetables from the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've started to realise that being more self-sufficient actually costs a significant sum to do and can feel like it's against the whole point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was wondering if anyone knew of cost affective ways of moving in this direction? Are their any other small steps we can make frugally to push forward with the lifestyle choice we've been working towards for the last 10 years? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for your help!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="d31cffe2-2497-462d-9cec-e5c2c9317457" CreationDate="2015-08-11T09:16:20.640" UserId="2477" Text="How can people afford to be sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="d31cffe2-2497-462d-9cec-e5c2c9317457" CreationDate="2015-08-11T09:16:20.640" UserId="2477" Text="|solar-power|food|water|home|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10139" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2991" RevisionGUID="346bed76-3321-49ba-b14a-ba0108b1615a" CreationDate="2015-08-11T17:40:41.150" UserId="85" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4658" RevisionGUID="916bfd2b-8014-4cab-9a6d-8abf4876b47f" CreationDate="2015-08-11T19:14:15.163" UserId="2209" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I drive a 2015 Corolla. The most efficient way I figured to keep the car cool was to turn off the AC, turn the temperature to coolest, and just have the fan on. This setting gives enough cold air. Even with the AC off, we sometimes have to turn the vents away from us to not get too cold. It does takes a little longer to cool the car when starting, but then, you can turn the fan to the highest speed until the car cools down to a comfortable temperature. It has worked for me for temperatures till low hundreds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A humble request to everybody, there is no need to race to a stop sign, or a light turning yellow, let the car coast to it. Neither do we need a sudden acceleration while start on a green signal. I don't want to put the CO2 in air that I have done nothing to take out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lower gas consumption from all of us will can result in lower gas prices, and I never heard that lower gas prices can hurt the economy of the nation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4660" RevisionGUID="3b434844-f211-45a5-8fca-902c1466325c" CreationDate="2015-08-11T22:57:54.140" UserId="2479" Text="I'll give you an answer based on my previous readings and some years of researches/talks and practices about this subject. But I think that you can only reduce costs if you know and take into consideration:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Your living situation: land owner, family situation (kids, pets, ...), etc.&#xD;&#xA; - Your objectives: eat organic food, reduce carbon emissions, religious thoughts, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - Your goal(s): live with less money, better quality of life, accept less comfort?, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being more self-sufficient doesn't mean to make big expenses and there are lots of way to reduce the costs of this way of life. (Actually, there is a market trying to benefit from it, but we don't want to get caught by bad marketing arguments: we do not always need to have things that are new, we do not always need the best, ...). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some tips that are adaptable according to our desires and way of life, to reduce costs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sharing: if you do all by yourself, it'll cost money for sure. Tools are not always cheap, having different seeds could be expensive too and mistakes can cost money... Sharing with near by communities (or even with your neighbors) will for sure reduce the final costs.&#xD;&#xA; - Recycle: if you search over internet, local newspapers or talk to people, you'll find people who get rid of things that you can re-use, adapt or repair to serve you well. Don't forget to check the waste collection site/dump site.&#xD;&#xA; - DIY: you can really lower the costs by doing things by yourself, but takes some time.&#xD;&#xA; - Make growing choices: some vegetables produces more than others, and some flowers could be sell at higher prices than others. If I take, for example, your polytunnel at £600, you say that it will pay for itself in 5 years time, but it depend of what you do with it. Sure you'll grow some vegetables in there, but what about some flowers that can be sell near-by? Or more productive crops to sell to a local shop? The possibilities and profitability of these facilities may be more or less profitable according to our lifestyle choices and our desires.&#xD;&#xA; - Ask for help: More and more people are moving towards self-sufficiency in our day, and they are generally willing to help you or to exchange (even give away) some things that are not useful to them.&#xD;&#xA; - Lower your comfort: quality of life can be better even if you have&#xD;&#xA;   less comfort. Less comfort mean lower expenses too. Depend of what is&#xD;&#xA;   your final goal and what are your objectives (reduce carbon emission,&#xD;&#xA;   eat organic food, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope that some of the information above will be useful to you..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="082782c9-4b61-4977-a071-bd263ecfffd2" CreationDate="2015-08-11T23:11:10.103" UserId="40" Comment="Improve spelling, grammar" Text="This is my first post so hello to everyone on here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing I constantly battle with is money and affording to be more self-sufficient. Don't get me wrong – I earn good money, have managed finances and a few debts but this post isn't really about money management.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My family and I are on the path of being more self-sufficient, being proud owners of 3 allotment plots, a reasonably large polytunnel, renting of land where we share the husbandry of a few pigs, sheep, chickens and turkeys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we would like to do more. Possibly looking to go more off-grid with wind, solar, rain harvesting, etc. But a constant barrier we come up against is the cost of doing all this. £600 for a Polytunnel to help us grow veg throughout the winter months for example will pay for itself in 5 years time but it's a chunk of change to get started and seems like to others a waste of time as for that we can get a lot of vegetables from the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've started to realise that being more self-sufficient actually costs a significant sum to do and can feel like it's against the whole point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was wondering if anyone knew of cost-effective ways of moving in this direction? Are their any other small steps we can make frugally to push forward with the lifestyle choice we've been working towards for the last 10 years? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10143" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="082782c9-4b61-4977-a071-bd263ecfffd2" CreationDate="2015-08-11T23:11:10.103" Comment="Proposed by 40 approved by 85 edit id of 333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4661" RevisionGUID="c9a31b52-7c90-4176-b866-0eb4e385f228" CreationDate="2015-08-12T06:55:45.140" UserId="2481" Text="I have chosen to embrace coconut oil over palm oil for MCT's deliberately because the creation of coconuts also creates coco husks which are amazingly excellent at hydroponic media, and can be directly used for more farming. Further, the meat of the coconut is carbohydrate, when combined with greens like kale and chia seed in a proportion of 4 fat to 1 (carbohydrate + protein), allows proper vegan weight management that really works wonders on the restoration of morbidly obese people who do not know the magic, technology, and chemistry of the vegan alkaline ketosis restoration of morbidly obese people to functional normalcy.  Once someone finds out, they never go back.  The only way to get the acidic meat and bad fat and harsh cheetos dye which has become the adipose tissue of the morbidly obese people, is to reverse the acidic fat storage process by becoming an alkaline, primarily ketosis-based metabolism on conjunction with vegan kale/broccoli consumption. Once morbidly obese Americans find out that they can reverse their &quot;death culture cheeseburger obesity&quot; with sustainable, green, healthy vegan carbs, there will be a tremendous upsurge in coconut oil farms, kale farms, broccoli farms, and hopefully this planet-killing madness can stop. Just my two cents. Palm oil plantations wreck the last ecological zones for orangutans and Sumatran rhinos. Coconuts float in the ocean. Go figure. Love is all One." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="d4b07dbe-a7e2-4e06-8544-2dd299d5fa97" CreationDate="2015-08-12T12:18:49.720" UserId="2477" Comment="Change wording on question slightly and edited the topic a little improving the way it reads" Text="This is my first post so hello to everyone on here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing I constantly battle with is money and affording to be more self-sufficient. Don't get me wrong – I earn good money, I have managed finances and a few debts but this post isn't really about money management.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My family and I are on the path of being more self-sufficient and have been on this path for a few years now. We're being proud tennants of 3 allotment plots, own a reasonably large polytunnel, we borrow a little land where we share the husbandry of a few pigs, sheep, chickens and turkeys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we would like to do more. Possibly looking to go more off-grid with wind, solar, rain harvesting, etc. But a constant barrier we come up against is the cost of doing all this. £600 for a Polytunnel to help us grow veg throughout the winter months for example will pay for itself in 5 years time but it's a chunk of change to get started and seems like to others a waste of time as for that we can get a lot of vegetables from the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've started to realise that being more self-sufficient actually costs a significant sum to do and can feel like it's against the whole point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was wondering if anyone knew of cost-effective ways of moving in this direction? Are their any other small steps we can make frugally to push forward with the lifestyle choice we've been working towards for the last 10 years? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10146" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="d4b07dbe-a7e2-4e06-8544-2dd299d5fa97" CreationDate="2015-08-12T12:18:49.720" UserId="2477" Comment="Change wording on question slightly and edited the topic a little improving the way it reads" Text="How can people afford to be self-sufficient and sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10147" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4644" RevisionGUID="cb6cae0a-daec-40c0-9f62-d096e4f21987" CreationDate="2015-08-12T15:28:30.147" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/631487428285566977" />
  <row Id="10148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4662" RevisionGUID="2b3a11cc-0d76-40dd-a164-e766bef1bb5a" CreationDate="2015-08-12T16:52:55.740" UserId="2484" Text="My local utility offers a program where customers can pay extra on each bill to buy energy from more renewable sources. I'm signed up to contribute at the highest level ($12/month), but I'm wondering if this is an effective use of money. Do they actually purchase more renewable energy based on customers opting in, or would they have done so anyway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.seattle.gov/light/Green/greenPower/greenup.asp&#xD;&#xA;https://www.nationalgridus.com/masselectric/business/energychoice/4_greenup_provider.asp&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, it seems strange that the purchase options aren't actually based on metered usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4662" RevisionGUID="2b3a11cc-0d76-40dd-a164-e766bef1bb5a" CreationDate="2015-08-12T16:52:55.740" UserId="2484" Text="How effective are &quot;GreenUp&quot; (opt-in utility company green energy) programs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4662" RevisionGUID="2b3a11cc-0d76-40dd-a164-e766bef1bb5a" CreationDate="2015-08-12T16:52:55.740" UserId="2484" Text="|energy|renewables|electricity-generation|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4663" RevisionGUID="454901fe-cd49-4172-98a6-39187c9c1e1a" CreationDate="2015-08-13T08:04:57.930" UserId="99" Text="My Spanish isn't great, but I think that on the website of [this Argentinian recycling company called Silkers SA](http://www.silkers.com.ar/gestion-ecologica-de-baterias) they are saying that you should:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Check the website of the producer of the battery if they accept it back. &#xD;&#xA;  2. Check this [webpage of the city of Buenos Aires](http://www.buenosaires.gob.ar/areas/med_ambiente/apra/des_sust/res_esp/empresa_recoleccion.php?razonsocial=3&amp;barrio)  (however, this link reports &quot;service unavailable&quot; and &quot;Sitio en Mantenimiento&quot; at the time of writing)&#xD;&#xA;  3. Check the website http://www.dondereciclo.org.ar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last website also has a [blog in Spanish on batteries](http://www.dondereciclo.org.ar/blog/las-pilas-te-las-pones-cuando-no-las-usas/). If I understand the blog correctly it says that there is a law which prohibits the use of mercury, cadmium and lead in non-rechargable batteries so they can be handled as 'normal' waste !?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rechargable batteries on the other hand are collected in various places in Buenos Aires, but according to [this map](https://www.dondereciclo.org.ar/pilas-recargables) also in Rosario and Cordoba&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4664" RevisionGUID="968adc78-686e-4a12-bfcc-0d6da3a09aa8" CreationDate="2015-08-13T13:39:57.403" UserId="2481" Text="Why not simply get a food waste composter with earthworms?  This allows worms for fish food, a place to make use of food waste, it gives valuable organic liquid and solid fertilizers that can be used for wheat grass or other edible plants.  The water from the fish tanks are used to water the plants, and the plant system is used to filter and clean the fish tank water.  &#xD;&#xA;Thus, I wad surprised not to see a plant-based aspect to the fish-based part of the system.  Thus, the sustainable aquaponic system is part hydroponic filter. Just my two cents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10153" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="4664" RevisionGUID="a8f0506d-c02e-44af-bdea-6b989902caa3" CreationDate="2015-08-13T13:39:57.403" UserId="2481" />
  <row Id="10154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4662" RevisionGUID="22dd15cc-4fbb-478b-87d9-b26abf14da68" CreationDate="2015-08-13T19:39:43.720" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Nicer links, location information" Text="My local Seattle utility offers a [&quot;Green Up!&quot;](http://www.seattle.gov/light/Green/greenPower/greenup.asp) program where customers can pay extra on each bill to buy energy from more renewable sources. I'm signed up to contribute at the highest level ($12/month), but I'm wondering if this is an effective use of money. Do they actually purchase more renewable energy based on customers opting in, or would they have done so anyway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[List of US &quot;Green Up!&quot; providers](https://www.nationalgridus.com/masselectric/business/energychoice/4_greenup_provider.asp)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, it seems strange that the purchase options aren't actually based on metered usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10155" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4662" RevisionGUID="22dd15cc-4fbb-478b-87d9-b26abf14da68" CreationDate="2015-08-13T19:39:43.720" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 2484 edit id of 334" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="041ee1d0-fb8f-4ffb-8081-1e10c2975db2" CreationDate="2015-08-14T19:43:23.147" UserId="2492" Text="[reposted from Earth Science since more relevant here]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am at a farm where previous tenants left a non-biodegradable plastic film roughly 10-15 years ago. It is inconsistently spread over a few acres and was not discovered until we attempted plowing the fields. The fields are overgrown with weeds (grasses, thistles, small shrubs, etc.) about 1m tall and this growth has fragmented the plastic considerably (see image, left). The plastic must be removed in order for food to be safely grown there, and to meet the organic standards of the farm.  The fragments are in a wide range of sizes and easily breaks when handled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What method and equipment (such as an excavator) would best remove the plastic and top layers of soil, with minimal damage to the remaining soil (ie minimal degradation)?  What types of remediation could help deal with microscopic remnants of plastic?&#xD;&#xA;[![close-up of black plastic,left, and view of field growth, right.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Prbwa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10159" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="041ee1d0-fb8f-4ffb-8081-1e10c2975db2" CreationDate="2015-08-14T19:43:23.147" UserId="2492" Text="Removing agricultural plastic film waste after 10+ years degradation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10160" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="041ee1d0-fb8f-4ffb-8081-1e10c2975db2" CreationDate="2015-08-14T19:43:23.147" UserId="2492" Text="|plastic|permaculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="ccd8eaa2-6482-4d91-9fa7-bd857cee27e2" CreationDate="2015-08-15T00:00:35.740" UserId="2388" Text="How can I be more effectively cool cooling my house by managing windows with outdoor temperature changes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My current strategy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I open all my windows when the temperature inside the house is warmer than what the temperature is outside (I use the temperature from Accu-weather). I do the reverse when the temperature is warmer outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My Environment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in northern Canada (Edmonton, Alberta) and during the mid-summer the temperature gets quite high (room+15c) between the hours of 1 to 9 PM. During the rest of the time it is generally lower than room tempture (room-5c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Issues I have found that confuse me**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I am not always available to open/close the windows when the temperature changes (I am away from 8AM to 7PM). So effectively I am missing lots of potential house cooling time because I close my windows in advance anticipating the days high.&#xD;&#xA; - When I check the thermostat it says its hotter inside then it *feels* outside some times (without any wind).&#xD;&#xA; - When it *is* windy but warm would I think it may be better for me to open my windows anyway or would this be counterproductive in the long term. From what I could find on this [hot wind is better then not][1] but if it is not direct wind I assume it would heat up my house even more.&#xD;&#xA; - One side of my house is always in the shade, even when it is very hot outside this window always feels cooler, I wonder if I should just leave it open anyways?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.livescience.com/34062-breeze-feel-cool.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10162" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="ccd8eaa2-6482-4d91-9fa7-bd857cee27e2" CreationDate="2015-08-15T00:00:35.740" UserId="2388" Text="How can I be more effectivly cool my house by managing windows with outdoor temperature changes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10163" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="ccd8eaa2-6482-4d91-9fa7-bd857cee27e2" CreationDate="2015-08-15T00:00:35.740" UserId="2388" Text="|energy-efficiency|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4667" RevisionGUID="4e3cbbce-d018-4668-bcfc-9e82ad61fa42" CreationDate="2015-08-15T01:42:19.387" UserId="2345" Text="Unless you can secure windows so no-one can enter the house don't compromise your safety by having windows open while no-one is at home. Open windows of a vacant house make it easier for burglars to enter the premises: either to ransack or vandalise the premises while you're not at home or they can wait for you so they can take your wallet and/or your car keys, or demand/do other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to heat, two things affect comfort – temperature and humidity. High temperature with high humidity is very uncomfortable. There is also a radiative aspect to heat. Items that have been heated, like the walls and furniture, will radiate the heat stored in them when the air in the room cools. Because of this, cooling of a house is improved by having continuously flowing, flow through ventilation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it's hot and windy close all windows, otherwise the inside of the house and its contents will heat up more quickly and maintain that heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the considerable amount of time you're not a home during the day a computerised system which would open and close certain windows depending on temperature differences between inside and outside the house would be ideal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving the window open on the shady side of the house would be OK, except on very hot days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other options for temperature control are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - roller shutters on the windows&#xD;&#xA; - insulating drapes&#xD;&#xA; - plant deciduous plants around the house that would provide shade&#xD;&#xA;   during summer&#xD;&#xA; - reduce heat reflected onto the house by other buildings or large&#xD;&#xA;   expanses of concrete paving, or similar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="6b267c09-33f4-4584-89c5-30ac25d7db4e" CreationDate="2015-08-15T01:46:25.547" UserId="2345" Comment="Fixed grammar &amp; spelling" Text="How can I more effectively cool cooling my house by managing windows with outdoor temperature changes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My current strategy**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I open all my windows when the temperature inside the house is warmer than what the temperature is outside (I use the temperature from Accu-weather). I do the reverse when the temperature is warmer outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My Environment**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in northern Canada (Edmonton, Alberta) and during the mid-summer the temperature gets quite high (room+15C) between the hours of 1 to 9 PM. During the rest of the time it is generally lower than room temperature (room-5C).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Issues I have found that confuse me**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I am not always available to open/close the windows when the temperature changes (I am away from 8AM to 7PM). So effectively I am missing lots of potential house cooling time because I close my windows in advance anticipating the day's high.&#xD;&#xA; - When I check the thermostat it says its hotter inside than it *feels* outside some times (without any wind).&#xD;&#xA; - When it *is* windy but warm, would it be better for me to open my windows anyway or would this be counter productive in the long term. From what I could find on this, [hot wind is better then not][1] but if it is not, direct wind I assume would heat up my house even more.&#xD;&#xA; - One side of my house is always in the shade, even when it is very hot outside this window always feels cooler, I wonder if I should just leave it open anyway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.livescience.com/34062-breeze-feel-cool.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10166" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="6b267c09-33f4-4584-89c5-30ac25d7db4e" CreationDate="2015-08-15T01:46:25.547" UserId="2345" Comment="Fixed grammar &amp; spelling" Text="How can I more effectively cool my house by managing windows with outdoor temperature changes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10167" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="6b267c09-33f4-4584-89c5-30ac25d7db4e" CreationDate="2015-08-15T01:46:25.547" Comment="Proposed by 2345 approved by 2388 edit id of 335" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4668" RevisionGUID="8dc58e04-1c6f-444d-acd3-a637973f2643" CreationDate="2015-08-15T08:54:40.787" UserId="15" Text="Fan forced ventilation systems&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the description of your situation, it may be worth investing in a controlled ventilation system. In New Zealand, these are popular where the air intake (and a good filter) is in the ceiling space, where warmer air can be drawn into the house, however the controller of such systems can generally be set to target a particular temperature and the system will adjust the fan speed based on whether it can improve the temperature or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ducting can be used in the ceiling space to distribute the air to different parts of the house. Obviously this requires a ceiling space to be able to be installed; not every house has that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, since you have more of an issue with too much heat, you could draw air from outside at the shady side of the house. It would work even more effectively if you could add some evaporative cooling, especially if your climate is dry when it's hot." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10173" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="f13fdcb9-c79f-45c3-903b-d8fbc6acbd4a" CreationDate="2015-08-16T10:09:25.763" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/632856682603921408" />
  <row Id="10174" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="8b904edf-e814-47fb-8fe5-7d424d568087" CreationDate="2015-08-16T14:51:25.890" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|plastic|permaculture|farming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4665" RevisionGUID="8b904edf-e814-47fb-8fe5-7d424d568087" CreationDate="2015-08-16T14:51:25.890" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="[reposted from Earth Science since more relevant here]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am at a farm where previous tenants left a non-biodegradable plastic film roughly 10-15 years ago. It is inconsistently spread over a few acres and was not discovered until we attempted plowing the fields. The fields are overgrown with weeds (grasses, thistles, small shrubs, etc.) about 1m tall and this growth has fragmented the plastic considerably (see image, left). The plastic must be removed in order for food to be safely grown there, and to meet the organic standards of the farm.  The fragments are in a wide range of sizes and easily breaks when handled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What method and equipment (such as an excavator) would best remove the plastic and top layers of soil, with minimal damage to the remaining soil (i.e. minimal degradation)?  What types of remediation could help deal with microscopic remnants of plastic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![close-up of black plastic, left, and view of field growth, right.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Prbwa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4670" RevisionGUID="d8491ea2-13c8-4231-9850-919452104b77" CreationDate="2015-08-17T13:42:00.703" UserId="2500" Text="An interesting old book I found recently entitled &quot;Everywoman's Home Encyclopedia&quot; had an article about keeping homes cool in summer. Here are their basic recommendations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Whitewash roof to reflect heat.&#xD;&#xA; - Use &quot;sun blinds&quot; or thick curtains on doors and windows.&#xD;&#xA; - Open all windows at night to cool the house as much as possible (except ground floor windows if this would be a security risk). Close all windows as soon as it starts to warm up in the day.&#xD;&#xA; - Place arrangements of leafy, cool looking plants around the house to help it feel like a cool, shady garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I particularly liked the last suggestion, as making your house look cooler can help you feel more relaxed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4671" RevisionGUID="ca99b7bc-21e7-4009-b17d-69eb70ebe7ff" CreationDate="2015-08-17T13:59:36.863" UserId="2500" Text="I have been told by a friend that some ingredients in hair and body wash can harm aquatic life. I live in the UK and I'm not sure how our water processing works, but I can see that the amount of these things we collectively wash down the drain could be very bad. I have heard of using baking soda and apple cider vinegar to replace conventional shampoo and conditioner, but I have not managed to find a quick and easy way to use these effectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know what specific ingredients I should be looking out for to avoid and why?&#xD;&#xA;Also, any recommendations of brands or UK retailers that supply environmentally-conscious shower products?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10178" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4671" RevisionGUID="ca99b7bc-21e7-4009-b17d-69eb70ebe7ff" CreationDate="2015-08-17T13:59:36.863" UserId="2500" Text="What harmful products are used in shampoo, conditioner and body wash that I should avoid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10179" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4671" RevisionGUID="ca99b7bc-21e7-4009-b17d-69eb70ebe7ff" CreationDate="2015-08-17T13:59:36.863" UserId="2500" Text="|cleaning|lifestyle|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4672" RevisionGUID="8dfe2702-80ad-4b02-b884-b0ed9ebb992e" CreationDate="2015-08-17T20:30:29.943" UserId="2493" Text="As for saving energy in the fridge, vegetable storing does not make a difference.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to prolong the life of your produce to reduce waste, it depends on the vegetable.  Many veggies and greens generally need to 'breathe', so non-sealed bags/containers or just in the 'crisper drawer' is good. You can buy specialty bags such as perforated ziplocs or mesh fabric. I generally freeze things if I don't think I can eat them before they go bad. I've also heard that wrapping celery in foil helps, but haven't tried it myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there are many things which don't actually need to be refrigerated, or do better at room temperature.  Tomatoes are one of them: unless they're overripe, store them on the counter (which is also better for flavour).&#xD;&#xA;Here's a list foods that do better outside the fridge:[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/08/foods-in-fridge_n_5280137.html][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*As an aside, you can save power if you put large bottles of water in empty spaces in the fridge (if you have any).  When you open the door, the water stays cool longer than air in an otherwise unused part of the fridge, using less energy to maintain a cool temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://HuffPo%20Foods%20in%20Fridge" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4673" RevisionGUID="60494782-3e0c-4f1e-973c-de8066db4d1b" CreationDate="2015-08-17T20:54:00.597" UserId="2493" Text="Here is a good resource for compounds which can be harmful, although they are more related to health rather than environmental concern.  That said, anything which is toxic to humans is likely toxic to other organisms, especially when concentrated and bioamplified.  I'll summarize the environmental effects below:&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/health/science/toxics/dirty-dozen-cosmetic-chemicals/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Sodium laureth sulfate (a foaming agent) might contain 1,4-dioxane, which persists in the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole) and BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene) used as preservatives in lipsticks and moisturizers, among other cosmetics and food preservatives. They are toxic to aquatic organisms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Coal tar-derived colours and P-phenylenediamine (classified as toxic in the EU) are also toxic to aquatic organisms and environments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also toxic to aquatics:&#xD;&#xA;DEA (diethanolamine), Dibutyl phthalate (DBP), &#xD;&#xA;and triclosane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic &quot;micro-beads&quot; are also really bad because water treatment facilities do not filter them out and they can be eaten by fish, etc., and may break down to other harmful things as plastic does.  They are currently being phased out in Canada, though I don't know if the UK has already done this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/health/science/toxics/dirty-dozen-cosmetic-chemicals/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4673" RevisionGUID="60117390-8455-4224-9a7b-4136da81a95f" CreationDate="2015-08-18T13:08:11.443" UserId="2493" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="Here is a good resource for compounds which can be harmful, although they are more related to health rather than environmental concern.  That said, anything which is toxic to humans is likely toxic to other organisms, especially when concentrated and bioamplified.  I'll summarize the environmental effects below:&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/health/science/toxics/dirty-dozen-cosmetic-chemicals/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The really common ones you hear bad things about are phthalates, sulfates, and parabens (many companies/products will promote the fact if they are free of these compounds)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Sodium laureth sulfate (a foaming agent) might contain 1,4-dioxane, which persists in the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole) and BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene) used as preservatives in lipsticks and moisturizers, among other cosmetics and food preservatives. They are toxic to aquatic organisms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-Coal tar-derived colours and P-phenylenediamine (classified as toxic in the EU) are also toxic to aquatic organisms and environments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also toxic to aquatics:&#xD;&#xA;DEA (diethanolamine), Dibutyl phthalate (DBP), &#xD;&#xA;and triclosane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic &quot;micro-beads&quot; are also really bad because water treatment facilities do not filter them out and they can be eaten by fish, etc., and may break down to other harmful things as plastic does.  They are currently being phased out in Canada, though I don't know if the UK has already done this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/health/science/toxics/dirty-dozen-cosmetic-chemicals/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10189" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4671" RevisionGUID="986f7d2b-c2cc-495c-ae94-66cd00edd3c7" CreationDate="2015-08-20T07:21:55.237" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/634264078840672256" />
  <row Id="10193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4673" RevisionGUID="14a25de9-ab26-4c20-a3f3-81a22bb6fcf8" CreationDate="2015-08-20T11:15:06.297" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="general cleanup (link/layout)" Text="[Here is a good resource](http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/health/science/toxics/dirty-dozen-cosmetic-chemicals/) for compounds which can be harmful, although they are more related to health rather than environmental concern.  &lt;br /&gt;That said, anything which is toxic to humans is likely toxic to other organisms, especially when concentrated and bioamplified.  I'll summarize the environmental effects below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The really common ones you hear bad things about are phthalates, sulfates, and parabens (many companies/products will promote the fact if they are free of these compounds)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Sodium laureth sulfate (a foaming agent) might contain 1,4-dioxane, which persists in the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole) and BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene) used as preservatives in lipsticks and moisturizers, among other cosmetics and food preservatives. They are toxic to aquatic organisms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Coal tar-derived colours and P-phenylenediamine (classified as toxic in the EU) are also toxic to aquatic organisms and environments&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also toxic to aquatics:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;DEA (diethanolamine), Dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and triclosane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic &quot;micro-beads&quot; are also really bad because water treatment facilities do not filter them out and they can be eaten by fish, etc., and may break down to other harmful things as plastic does.  They are currently being phased out in Canada, though I don't know if the UK has already done this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10194" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4673" RevisionGUID="14a25de9-ab26-4c20-a3f3-81a22bb6fcf8" CreationDate="2015-08-20T11:15:06.297" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 15, 659 edit id of 336" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10195" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4655" RevisionGUID="93537bbc-5323-4528-b5fb-f8902dbd1406" CreationDate="2015-08-20T13:29:08.960" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/634356494969008129" />
  <row Id="10196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="f7519659-2b0e-4a42-a7b9-40f589e70c48" CreationDate="2015-08-20T15:46:40.900" UserId="2419" Text="Looking for ideas to make a boat out of mostly recycled material. Two idea's that come to mind is cardboard and use weather sealer on it, and caulking the edges or plastic bottles, jugs, and the like tied together and fasten a board over the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already made a cardboard boat that was able to carry more than a thousand pounds of people, at the time we had seven people on board. I would really like to make another one. Mostly looking for ways to improve or get fresh ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Uses: Fishing, Ease of travel, and\or cargo transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus points for durability and reusability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10197" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="f7519659-2b0e-4a42-a7b9-40f589e70c48" CreationDate="2015-08-20T15:46:40.900" UserId="2419" Text="Building a boat - out of recyclables" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10198" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="f7519659-2b0e-4a42-a7b9-40f589e70c48" CreationDate="2015-08-20T15:46:40.900" UserId="2419" Text="|recycling|diy|construction|boat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2932" RevisionGUID="1b6ee7c4-14b7-4b10-8378-3494e9813a52" CreationDate="2015-08-21T06:46:24.830" UserId="99" Comment="updated answer that company no longer provides service for households" Text="I found [this webpage](http://www.ems-europe.co.uk/services/domestic-tape-disc/) of a company in Bristol called &quot;Environmental Media Solutions&quot; where they say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Environmental Media Solutions are able to recycle 78% of tapes, 100% of CD’s and DVD’s and their cases, leaving just 22% being sent to waste to energy. The service is free of charge for households and is subsidised through the revenues made from our B2B services, though unfortunately we can’t cover postage or shipping costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [this form](http://www.ems-europe.co.uk/wp-content/documents/Domestic_Disposal_Form.pdf) they say the first 100 VCR tapes are free, after that they charge £0.30+VAT per unit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update (21 aug 2015):** the first link is broken and on the EMS website it now says that they &quot;*no longer provide a domestic recycling service for households.*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="d5473782-6869-43e0-821f-34b47b844def" CreationDate="2015-08-21T19:01:44.113" UserId="2493" Text="I'm researching the degradation of polyethylene (PE) plastic films such as in plastic bags, and am trying to figure if they degrade chemically.&#xD;&#xA;If so: under what conditions, and into what byproducts.&#xD;&#xA;Most sources for PE say that it is inert, but it seems to be referring to the pellets used in manufacturing rather than the film/end product.  I don't know if surface area has a significant effect here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know they mechanically break down (fragment) due to heat, sunlight (UV), physical stress, etc.  Does anyone know how small these fragments can get and if they can be moved through water (possibly a separate question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is about either high- or low-density PE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more context, see: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4665/removing-agricultural-plastic-film-waste-after-10-years-degradation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10208" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="d5473782-6869-43e0-821f-34b47b844def" CreationDate="2015-08-21T19:01:44.113" UserId="2493" Text="Does polyethylene film (plastic bags) breakdown chemically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10209" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="d5473782-6869-43e0-821f-34b47b844def" CreationDate="2015-08-21T19:01:44.113" UserId="2493" Text="|plastic|toxic-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10211" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="47248fa2-4648-4c43-b9e2-feb05c0cb0d5" CreationDate="2015-08-22T04:43:23.037" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/634948957609816064" />
  <row Id="10212" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4666" RevisionGUID="922890a8-b667-4e7f-9315-5a92bd1cebb8" CreationDate="2015-08-23T16:44:54.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/635492922918572032" />
  <row Id="10213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4678" RevisionGUID="204d033c-c775-4d5c-9638-e686c0ef93c0" CreationDate="2015-08-24T02:47:40.593" UserId="2345" Text="Unless polyethylene has been pretreated during its manufacturing process it is a very obdurate material, being susceptible to degradation by oxidation and UV light. Degradation can occur with chlorine, particularly of polyethylene water pipe that convey chlorinated water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning minute fragments of polyethylene results from degradation, these like the parent material they derive from are very obdurate. They can be moved by surface waters to end up in oceans to be constituents of [ocean plastic garbage dumps][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some researchers have found that polyethylene can be susceptible to accelerated degradation via microbes. If polyethylene is pretreated/conditioned with steam, heat or UV exposure the affect of microbial colonization and attach is enhanced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Oxo-biodegradable carbon backbone polymers -&#xD;&#xA;Oxidative degradation of polyethylene under accelerated test conditions][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Microbial Degradation of Polyethylene][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Degradation of Polyethylene by Fungus][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Biodegradation of low density polyethylene (LDPE) by  fungi  &#xD;&#xA;isolated from municipal landfill area][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Biodegradation of Polyethylene by Bacillus cereus][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epi-global.com/files/scientific_publication/1247509293Oxo-biodegradable%20Carbon%20Backbone%20Polymers.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&amp;file_id=SP09012.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141391001000271&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com/JMB-vol1-iss4/JMB-2011-1-4-131-136.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://urpjournals.com/tocjnls/1_14v4i2_3.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4679" RevisionGUID="d435bd63-2f9e-4e4d-ac58-fbcf15845677" CreationDate="2015-08-24T12:05:38.243" UserId="2468" Text="Tomatoes sound like a good start, easy to grow and they like the structure you could provide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10217" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="2ab68d8e-55b9-4ac2-a93e-d7f3d25597ed" CreationDate="2015-08-25T11:02:11.943" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/636131452934049792" />
  <row Id="10218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4680" RevisionGUID="cb914776-681a-4e25-acfa-3da17b3fc112" CreationDate="2015-08-25T16:17:52.563" UserId="2522" Text="Look at your system usage right now. Is anything near maxed out? Very unlikely. I'm only using 1% of my CPU right now. Although that must mean my system is using less power than if it was at 100%, it can't possibly be scalable with every other components power consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By &quot;distributed computing&quot; do you mean like Folding@Home which can use your spare CPU power to complete medical research calculations, or do you mean like using the cloud?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either case you're getting more work out of the same amount of hardware, which is definitely more environmentally efficient as there's less hardware to be manufactured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something I really wish schools or any other building that uses a load of computers would have is instead of 30 PC's in a room, why not just have 1 extremely powerful system? Again this would save on resources and use less power than the 30 PC's would be using especially as 1 PSU is going to be less inefficient than 30 PSUs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Data centers can have a similar problem too. If you rent a dedicated server and end up barely using it, that server will be running 24/7 doing nothing. At least if you rent a VPS the system will be getting used more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't see banks ever using decentralised computing as they wouldn't be able to ensure the confidentiality of the information. Important information should always remain in a secure, dedicated location." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="c55c88db-908d-47ac-a7fe-8c8ab04c3a04" CreationDate="2015-08-26T03:46:46.100" UserId="659" Comment="fix link" Text="My case example is *[blockchain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_chain_(database))*, the main technology behind bitcoin, which is more and more being studied for other uses.  &#xD;&#xA;As far as I understand, it's great for decentralising a registry/ledger of *transactions*, that can be financial or otherwise (you could have [a decentralized github](http://blog.printf.net/articles/2015/05/29/announcing-gittorrent-a-decentralized-github/), for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it seems to me that the current amount of calculation required for bitcoin mining and transaction log is very, very high. More generally, centralised computing is more optimized and efficient than decentralised coputing? I know some figures for [some data-centers](http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/planet3/PDFs/2015ClickCleanKeyFindings.pdf). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we are heading to a future of distribute computing even for industries before centralised as banking, I'd like to understand is this averagely more efficient, energy-wise, or if we are cutting physical transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4681" RevisionGUID="90caa610-3af9-4fac-a05d-e225187552a0" CreationDate="2015-08-26T04:15:24.280" UserId="659" Text="The terms are used in different ways in different contexts I'm going to define them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **centralised computing**: every device does its own computing&#xD;&#xA; - **distributed computing**: device sends off as much computation as possible to other computers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, to supercomputer users &quot;centralised computing&quot; means sending jobs off to the supercomputer, but you're talking about doing computation on your computer rather that off in the cloud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, distributed computing is far, far more sustainable than centralised. This is mostly because computing needs these days go right down into tiny trivial devices that you might not even be aware of. For example, all the security cameras that have automatic number plate recognition built in, or smart thermostats (that react to outside temperature, people being in rooms or power cuts, for example). Taking a very simple device that costs a couple of cents and uses a few microwatts and bolting a network interface on it will make the interface into the dominant cost and power sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even for larger computations, it often makes sense to use the computing power that's available rather than sending tasks away. So your smartphone camera will do face detection locally, but when it needs lots of memory and processing power for speech recognition will send that to a remote computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That illustrates the crossover question you seem to be concerned with: **at what point does it make more sense to send the task away**? And the answer varies depending on the complexity of the task, how easily it can be sent away, and what other computing resources you have available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One core problem is the cost of securely communicating with the distributed computer. That takes computation itself (for the encryption) and often means redundant communication channels (when reliability matters) and communication takes energy too (a battery powered device using wifi is probably the example people are mostly familiar with). Any of those can be enough to make local computing the only viable solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The converse is also important - what does it cost you to safely make your computer available to others? Things like data security, power cost, wear and tear, and your time all factor in. You're not going to be happy if someone starts mining bitcoin on your smartphone, for example, even if you consented (on page 500 of the T&amp;C for a free app). But if you offer your home desktop to a community project but never leave it on, or connected to the internet, you are just wasting whatever effort it costs them to add you as a contributor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **that's not what blockchains like BitCoin do**. They address an entirely different problem: how do people verify the actions of others? [There are lots of uses.][1] The computational cost is a side effect, what blockchains do is allow you to be fairly sure that what someone tells you is actually true. Money is the obvious answer - you don't care too much whether it costs a few cents to find out whether you'd actually been given $1000, but you care a lot about whether you have actually been given the money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where that effects efficiency and sustainability is when the cost of building the blockchain starts to dominate the process, or is much more than the cost of alternate methods. A lot of tasks don't need the high level of security that blockchains provide, for example, or the blockchain just adds a layer to an existing process that only needs it sometimes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine an email forward chain, for example. It starts with something important - your government sending you a court order. You forward it to your lawyer (also important) but also to your friends (no-one cares) and the media (possibly important). Only the important cases really need a new entry in the blockchain, everyone else just needs to be able to verify the blockchain. So computing blockchain entries there is a complete waste, however &quot;efficient&quot; the computation is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bitcoinx.com/84-alternate-uses-blockchain/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4681" RevisionGUID="49fcc364-4ab5-4799-82a9-bc2d7c0c2f0e" CreationDate="2015-08-26T07:25:35.980" UserId="659" Comment="added paper money as example of off-line blockchain fails" Text="The terms are used in different ways in different contexts I'm going to define them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **centralised computing**: every device does its own computing&#xD;&#xA; - **distributed computing**: device sends off as much computation as possible to other computers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, to supercomputer users &quot;centralised computing&quot; means sending jobs off to the supercomputer, but you're talking about doing computation on your computer rather that off in the cloud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, distributed computing is far, far more sustainable than centralised. This is mostly because computing needs these days go right down into tiny trivial devices that you might not even be aware of. For example, all the security cameras that have automatic number plate recognition built in, or smart thermostats (that react to outside temperature, people being in rooms or power cuts, for example). Taking a very simple device that costs a couple of cents and uses a few microwatts and bolting a network interface on it will make the interface into the dominant cost and power sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even for larger computations, it often makes sense to use the computing power that's available rather than sending tasks away. So your smartphone camera will do face detection locally, but when it needs lots of memory and processing power for speech recognition will send that to a remote computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That illustrates the crossover question you seem to be concerned with: **at what point does it make more sense to send the task away**? And the answer varies depending on the complexity of the task, how easily it can be sent away, and what other computing resources you have available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One core problem is the cost of securely communicating with the distributed computer. That takes computation itself (for the encryption) and often means redundant communication channels (when reliability matters) and communication takes energy too (a battery powered device using wifi is probably the example people are mostly familiar with). Any of those can be enough to make local computing the only viable solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The converse is also important - what does it cost you to safely make your computer available to others? Things like data security, power cost, wear and tear, and your time all factor in. You're not going to be happy if someone starts mining bitcoin on your smartphone, for example, even if you consented (on page 500 of the T&amp;C for a free app). But if you offer your home desktop to a community project but never leave it on, or connected to the internet, you are just wasting whatever effort it costs them to add you as a contributor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **that's not what blockchains like BitCoin do**. They address an entirely different problem: how do people verify the actions of others? [There are lots of uses.][1] The computational cost is a side effect, what blockchains do is allow you to be fairly sure that what someone tells you is actually true. Money is the obvious answer - you don't care too much whether it costs a few cents to find out whether you'd actually been given $1000, but you care a lot about whether you have actually been given the money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where that effects efficiency and sustainability is when the cost of building the blockchain starts to dominate the process, or is much more than the cost of alternate methods. A lot of tasks don't need the high level of security that blockchains provide, for example, or the blockchain just adds a layer to an existing process that only needs it sometimes, or they need that level of security, but at times that blockchains will not work. That's why we don't blockchain instant messages or HTTPS request but we still have paper money (it even works underwater!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine an email forward chain, for example. It starts with something important - your government sending you a court order. You forward it to your lawyer (also important) but also to your friends (no-one cares) and the media (possibly important). Only the important cases really need a new entry in the blockchain, everyone else just needs to be able to verify the blockchain. So computing blockchain entries there is a complete waste, however &quot;efficient&quot; the computation is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bitcoinx.com/84-alternate-uses-blockchain/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4682" RevisionGUID="9256f072-c3c8-4c26-8eed-576b170d10e6" CreationDate="2015-08-26T09:50:53.043" UserId="2524" Text="I found this site whilst looking for shoe recycling in the UK.  I've found europeanrecycling.co.uk which is my preferred because they sort everything 400 hundred times!! and reuse everything including zips, buttons, rivets etc. even the dust from the process, but I don't know if they do US.&#xD;&#xA;Also Rethink Recycling - maybe&#xD;&#xA;But Swalco definitely is in US&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - List item" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4682" RevisionGUID="7dd0cbe7-efc5-4793-a927-6bd6701e4b33" CreationDate="2015-08-26T10:48:09.027" UserId="99" Comment="added link" Text="I found this site whilst looking for shoe recycling in the UK.  I've found [European Recycling Company](http://europeanrecycling.co.uk) which is my preferred because they sort everything 400 hundred times!! and reuse everything including zips, buttons, rivets etc. even the dust from the process, but I don't know if they do US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Rethink Recycling - maybe.&#xD;&#xA;But Swalco definitely is in US&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4683" RevisionGUID="cb48075c-4470-42be-b1ef-1310572e1d86" CreationDate="2015-08-27T07:01:32.000" UserId="471" Text="Near by my home there are barber shops they use to throw wasted hair in dustbin and due to that when it burns it gives bad smelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How i can suggest them to dispose that hair or any recycle process so that it prevent from bad smell.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4683" RevisionGUID="cb48075c-4470-42be-b1ef-1310572e1d86" CreationDate="2015-08-27T07:01:32.000" UserId="471" Text="How we can dispose the wasted hairs at barber shop?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4683" RevisionGUID="cb48075c-4470-42be-b1ef-1310572e1d86" CreationDate="2015-08-27T07:01:32.000" UserId="471" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4684" RevisionGUID="3873d541-8d00-45c7-9855-56af320775ed" CreationDate="2015-08-27T07:58:26.970" UserId="99" Text="1. There is a market for human hair:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hair can be sold to people who create wigs or hair extensions. There is even an [online calculator](http://hairsellon.com/hair-price-calculator/) to determine the value of your hair.&#xD;&#xA; - Apparently hair is a good animal repellent so some gardeners will gladly take it (altough others say there is no proof for the effectiveness).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Hair is an organic material that can be composted. It will probably slow down composting if added in large amounts, so you need to spread out the hair over a compost heap. It counts as a nitrogen source, so be sure to add some browns (carbon-rich materials such as cardboard for example) to get a good [C:N ratio](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/1262/99) for composting. According to [this article](http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/human-hair-fertilizer.aspx) there are some disadvantages: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - hair does take a long time, 1 or 2 years, to break down &#xD;&#xA; - you may need to be careful with chemically treated hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  More info on research on composting hair [in this article on sciencedaily.com](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229104704.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Someone suggested to [use human hair as a substitute for toilet paper](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2665/99), but personally I'm rather unsure if this was a serious proposal and if it would really work (the post in question currently has a -2 score).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4683" RevisionGUID="ce84e779-4bd4-49eb-aa42-7f568884bf50" CreationDate="2015-08-27T08:06:01.567" UserId="99" Comment="improved grammar, added relevant tags" Text="Near by my home there are barber shops where they throw hair clippings in the dustbin and when the contents are burned it gives a bad smell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How I can suggest them to properly dispose or recycle the hair clippings, so we can prevent this bad smell.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10229" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4683" RevisionGUID="ce84e779-4bd4-49eb-aa42-7f568884bf50" CreationDate="2015-08-27T08:06:01.567" UserId="99" Comment="improved grammar, added relevant tags" Text="How can we dispose or recycle hair clippings from barber shops?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10230" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4683" RevisionGUID="ce84e779-4bd4-49eb-aa42-7f568884bf50" CreationDate="2015-08-27T08:06:01.567" UserId="99" Comment="improved grammar, added relevant tags" Text="|recycling|reuse|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4685" RevisionGUID="77fca256-50d9-4514-a87c-b42f4bdf71fe" CreationDate="2015-08-27T09:52:51.067" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="This reduces the pollution not by prevention, but by decreasing the risks: **Plant trees**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Urban tree leaves remove fine-particulate air pollution](http://www.accessscience.com/content/urban-tree-leaves-remove-fine-particulate-air-pollution/BR0116141)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4685" RevisionGUID="9354705b-5079-4716-8b25-48a8e797bdef" CreationDate="2015-08-27T09:58:22.413" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="This reduces the pollution not by preventing paricle exhaust, but by cleaning up afterwards: **Plant trees and shrubs**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Urban tree leaves remove fine-particulate air pollution](http://www.accessscience.com/content/urban-tree-leaves-remove-fine-particulate-air-pollution/BR0116141)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will reduce particulates (in the air) from *any* source, of course, so including exhaust sources. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4685" RevisionGUID="df4093c8-76db-416e-9e2c-be2a73f2f314" CreationDate="2015-08-27T10:12:58.317" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="These reduce the pollution not by preventing particle emission, but by cleaning up afterwards: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Plant trees and shrubs**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Urban tree leaves remove fine-particulate air pollution](http://www.accessscience.com/content/urban-tree-leaves-remove-fine-particulate-air-pollution/BR0116141)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will reduce particulates (in the air) from *any* source, of course, so including exhaust sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Sweep the streets**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resuspension of road dust contibrutes to the atmospheric pollution, so cleaning the road surface helps. [This gives moderate results in urban areas](http://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2005final/Yee_C.pdf)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4686" RevisionGUID="5ad2fc28-284a-478d-b673-51617563a443" CreationDate="2015-08-27T17:47:56.153" UserId="2187" Text="Lately, I have been thinking about the above question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By buying fairtrade bananas, I ensure that the producers get paid above market price. However, I do support large-scale retail corporations which usually don't see sustainability as their core business value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, I can buy bananas from an unknown source - and mostly not certified - at a local shop. The benefit here is that I support a local business owner, strengthen local relationships and support a shop that often prefers to give away food for free before having to throw food away that cannot longer be sold. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me a difficult decision. What is your opinion? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4686" RevisionGUID="5ad2fc28-284a-478d-b673-51617563a443" CreationDate="2015-08-27T17:47:56.153" UserId="2187" Text="Purchasing fairtrade supermarket bananas or unknown bananas from a local business owner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4686" RevisionGUID="5ad2fc28-284a-478d-b673-51617563a443" CreationDate="2015-08-27T17:47:56.153" UserId="2187" Text="|local|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="594f3bb6-e626-49ab-b230-a575b5b9b1c7" CreationDate="2015-08-27T18:47:24.727" UserId="2530" Text="Good call mentioning American Textile Recycling Service (atrscorp.com). You can find convenient ATRS Clothing &amp; Shoe Recycling drop offs in over 13 states nationwide. And its easy to mail in a box of recycling too! Everything is reused, repurposed or redistributed - nothing goes to waste. Every pound is diverted from our landfill and helps a local charity along the way. Thanks to all for commenting and being environmental stewards in your community!! :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4688" RevisionGUID="a3ca68fc-2d26-466b-8254-bc8af477cec2" CreationDate="2015-08-27T22:11:24.193" UserId="2522" Text="I would have gone with the local shop but after looking into fair trade, it seems that fair trade supports the environment: http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/what-is-fairtrade/the-impact-of-our-work/the-difference-that-fairtrade-makes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should ask the local shop to stock fair trade and if they do then it'll be a double win." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="dcc8f202-027d-40b5-9ad2-7e7501d08586" CreationDate="2015-08-28T05:53:57.250" UserId="99" Comment="fixed link, added link to refered answer" Text="Good call mentioning [American Textile Recycling Service](http://atrscorp.com) in [this answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4650/). You can find convenient ATRS Clothing &amp; Shoe Recycling drop offs in over 13 states nationwide. And it's easy to mail in a box of recycling too! Everything is reused, repurposed or redistributed - nothing goes to waste. Every pound is diverted from our landfill and helps a local charity along the way. Thanks to all for commenting and being environmental stewards in your community!! :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4689" RevisionGUID="a38e4c50-5246-4078-a8ec-3322e7e9e9df" CreationDate="2015-08-28T21:49:52.667" UserId="15" Text="In each case, a certain amount of money is going to be helping people you care about. With the local shop owner, it's the owner and other local people (as a downstream effect). With the supermarket, it's the growers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to determine how much money makes it to those people would help give an appropriate weighting for each.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may or may not be hard to find out the money going to each, but there's no harm in asking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Greenwashing**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note it's important to watch out for *greenwashing*, such as a retailer claiming their bananas are fairtrade when only 5 cents/kg extra gets to the grower (and they might charge $1/kg extra for it). This is where certifying organisations are useful, as they can standardise what should be deemed &quot;fairtrade&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such a case, you might be better buying the standard bananas and making an occasional donation to an appropriate charity instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10241" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4686" RevisionGUID="27ba53b8-3bb9-4f5e-a58d-39fa57ab5b78" CreationDate="2015-08-28T23:23:11.607" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/637405094007451648" />
  <row Id="10242" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3196" RevisionGUID="4906e262-2c43-40f3-acd9-825745cd776b" CreationDate="2015-08-29T07:14:00.543" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10243" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4683" RevisionGUID="f14199fc-f8e2-448a-8e72-9979ae925b5d" CreationDate="2015-08-29T17:23:16.343" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/637676904800231424" />
  <row Id="10244" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="566" RevisionGUID="4fc5149e-2175-47ed-854a-77050718dd50" CreationDate="2015-08-30T03:01:34.103" UserId="99" Comment="28" />
  <row Id="10245" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="f6c57d0d-3902-4177-85dd-398265b26e1a" CreationDate="2015-08-31T05:25:52.840" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/638221143049170944" />
  <row Id="10246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4690" RevisionGUID="a590a14c-3db4-4c46-a2cc-22daabe87208" CreationDate="2015-08-31T09:09:35.203" UserId="2539" Text="Well old shoes can be converted into gasoline by a process known as thermal depolymerisation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact this is not a very complex process. The energy required for the process however might not make it profitable. Then again installed solar panels require subsidies to be viable. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10249" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4577" RevisionGUID="93831d2b-b8a5-4a8c-9af1-d61b5df6eb5d" CreationDate="2015-09-01T02:28:23.610" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/638538864718684160" />
  <row Id="10251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4691" RevisionGUID="db7816fc-c056-41c5-9e96-a8d1d799f1b8" CreationDate="2015-09-03T18:39:06.593" UserId="2548" Text="I'm living in an apartment, and after I water my plants the water goes to plates below the vases. The vases are in a metallic structure above the vases, so I can take the vases to reuse the water (throwing it at the plants again).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That recycling seems beneficial, because I think I can get rid of mosquitoes that would reproduce in the stagnated water. And also some nutrients of the soil (as well as earthworms) can return to the vase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some negative points in doing that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10252" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4691" RevisionGUID="db7816fc-c056-41c5-9e96-a8d1d799f1b8" CreationDate="2015-09-03T18:39:06.593" UserId="2548" Text="How good is it to recycle water plants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10253" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4691" RevisionGUID="db7816fc-c056-41c5-9e96-a8d1d799f1b8" CreationDate="2015-09-03T18:39:06.593" UserId="2548" Text="|water|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4692" RevisionGUID="64ae6294-d3d9-448c-8ccf-b515dc8bc8e5" CreationDate="2015-09-04T01:38:28.500" UserId="15" Text="In my experience plants suffer in the long term from accumulation of salts in the soil, so fresh water would be better than reusing the water. Even better would be to get hold of fresh rain water (tricky in an apartment though, unless perhaps you have a balcony that gets rained on) for watering them, as that won't contain the salts that tap water does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More detail here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cagardenweb.ucanr.edu/Houseplants/Soluble_Salts/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4693" RevisionGUID="afe8649e-59a0-4272-b7db-9c0e812adc2f" CreationDate="2015-09-06T01:36:20.313" UserId="1956" Text="How much megawatts U.S could save if they used LED for public illumination? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus : The math for China which is another big energy consumer in the world. And the math for the humanity as whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would like to know about % total energy saved too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4693" RevisionGUID="afe8649e-59a0-4272-b7db-9c0e812adc2f" CreationDate="2015-09-06T01:36:20.313" UserId="1956" Text="How much energy would U.S save if all public illumination use LED?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4693" RevisionGUID="afe8649e-59a0-4272-b7db-9c0e812adc2f" CreationDate="2015-09-06T01:36:20.313" UserId="1956" Text="|energy-efficiency|economy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="3ba48066-ff53-4e4d-95f6-474ca1b73a2e" CreationDate="2015-09-06T19:09:10.067" UserId="2555" Text="Since I think buying a second hand smartphone will please the environment more than buying a new one I am planning to buy one. I already considered things like quality, battery etc. But there is still one more thing I am not sure about: [Planned obsolescence][1]. How would this affect me? I don't like the thought buying an one year old smartphone and getting in trouble after another year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10260" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="3ba48066-ff53-4e4d-95f6-474ca1b73a2e" CreationDate="2015-09-06T19:09:10.067" UserId="2555" Text="Buying a second hand smartphone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10261" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="3ba48066-ff53-4e4d-95f6-474ca1b73a2e" CreationDate="2015-09-06T19:09:10.067" UserId="2555" Text="|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="85d542d3-7f18-4a68-8105-a309b0c8c723" CreationDate="2015-09-06T21:53:18.537" UserId="15" Comment="Expanded title" Text="Since I think buying a second hand smartphone will please the environment more than buying a new one I am planning to buy one. I already considered things like quality, battery etc. But there is still one more thing I am not sure about: [Planned obsolescence][1]. How would this affect me? I don't like the thought buying a one year old smartphone and getting in trouble after another year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10264" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="85d542d3-7f18-4a68-8105-a309b0c8c723" CreationDate="2015-09-06T21:53:18.537" UserId="15" Comment="Expanded title" Text="How to avoid planned obsolescence when buying a second hand smartphone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4697" RevisionGUID="abcb3881-f78f-410a-bafc-226664c05854" CreationDate="2015-09-07T03:44:33.760" UserId="2345" Text="Every modern manufactured item has a limited life. The trick with buying a second hand phone is to get the most recently produced second hand phone you can get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some issues with phones:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Depending on which country you live in, the cellular phone system&#xD;&#xA;   will be running a number of systems from 2G to 4G or 5G. Recently I &#xD;&#xA;   received notification from my phone company that within a few months &#xD;&#xA;   their 2G phone system will be shut down. Consequently, it will only &#xD;&#xA;   be running 3G &amp; 4G, while getting ready for 5G. A phone that is more &#xD;&#xA;   than 5 or 6 years old could be a 2G device. Ask your service provider if it has a schedule for closing&#xD;&#xA;   older parts of its system.&#xD;&#xA; - Check the radio frequencies for any phone you are interested in to&#xD;&#xA;   ensure it will be compatible with you service provider.&#xD;&#xA; - Mobile phones are essentially micro computers that have telephony&#xD;&#xA;   capabilities. Like all computers, they need an operating system and&#xD;&#xA;   software (apps) to function. Inability to update operating systems&#xD;&#xA;   and software is one way to ensure designed/planned obsolescence. Some newer&#xD;&#xA;   apps may not run on older operating systems used by old phones.&#xD;&#xA; - The one part of design obsolescence for which you will not find a&#xD;&#xA;   solution is component, materials and manufacturing quality. Things&#xD;&#xA;   such as: such as corrosion of solder joining electronic components;&#xD;&#xA;   corrosion of battery contacts; electronic components designed to&#xD;&#xA;   tolerate a certain amount of electricity passing through they before&#xD;&#xA;   they fails. Devices only need one weak component to fail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10271" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4694" RevisionGUID="4fb6264a-42bb-4233-b217-78efb614611d" CreationDate="2015-09-07T17:41:14.853" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/640942919986323456" />
  <row Id="10272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="417cca17-d746-46c9-a4a8-30c9e958550f" CreationDate="2015-09-08T09:20:18.410" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="**You buy from a company that does not 'do' planned obsolescence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a [FairPhone](https://www.fairphone.com/) which was built with the intention to have it last (&quot;*We’re focusing on longevity and repairability to extend the phone’s usable life and give buyers more control over their products*&quot;).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is where they succeeded/failed for the first release (which I have) IMO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(-) upgrading to the latest Android versions turned out to be impossible (some wrong choices made with the hardware provider)&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) it has dual SIM&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) good repair manuals, spare part dealers&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) they don't pack it full with their own software, and have a decent  upgrade cycle for e.g. security updates (could be a little faster/better, but I don't know enough about the software initricacies)&#xD;&#xA;(+) using open source software/making the code available&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They learned from this and are now manufacturing a second version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There must be more manufacturers like this, but this is the only one I have experience with. If anyone else knows of any, leave a comment or edit into my answer here:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="52ffb7e4-f5d4-4b17-84e3-e52814216709" CreationDate="2015-09-08T09:27:17.737" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="**You buy from a brand that does not 'do' planned obsolescence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a [FairPhone](https://www.fairphone.com/) which was built with the intention to have it last (&quot;*We’re focusing on longevity and repairability to extend the phone’s usable life and give buyers more control over their products*&quot;).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is where they succeeded/failed for the first release (which I have) IMO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(-) upgrading to the latest Android versions turned out to be impossible (some wrong choices made with the hardware provider)&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) it has dual SIM&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) good repair manuals, spare part dealers&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) they don't pack it full with their own software, and have a decent  upgrade cycle for e.g. security updates (could be a little faster/better, but I don't know enough about the software initricacies)&#xD;&#xA;(+) using open source software/making the code available&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They learned from this and are now manufacturing a second version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Now, there is a complication of course**: if companies like this succeed in&#xD;&#xA;making long-lasting phones, you won't find many second hand ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There must be more manufacturers like this, but this is the only one I have experience with. If anyone else knows of any, leave a comment or edit into my answer here:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="84d198f2-9999-4775-bad0-e249aea9a171" CreationDate="2015-09-08T09:34:40.410" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="**You buy a brand that does not 'do' planned obsolescence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a [FairPhone](https://www.fairphone.com/) which was built with the intention to have it last (&quot;*We’re focusing on longevity and repairability to extend the phone’s usable life and give buyers more control over their products*&quot;).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is where they succeeded/failed for the first release (which I have) IMO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(-) upgrading to the latest Android versions turned out to be impossible (some wrong choices made with the hardware provider)&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) dual SIM&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) all phone bands IIRC&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) good repair manuals, spare part dealers&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) they don't pack it full with their own software, and have a decent  upgrade cycle for e.g. security updates (could be a little faster/better, but I don't know enough about the software initricacies)&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) using open source software/making the code available&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They learned from this and are now manufacturing a second version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There is a complication of course**: if companies like this succeed in&#xD;&#xA;making long-lasting phones, you won't find many second hand ones. Luckily, the user community behind these companies are (not surprisingly) aware that second hand trade is importanto to extend the life cycle. On the Fairphone forum there is [a separate thread for buying/selling](https://forum.fairphone.com/t/unofficial-second-hand-fairphone-marketplace/6453) second handys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There must be more manufacturers like this, but this is the only one I have experience with. If anyone else knows of any, leave a comment or edit into my answer here:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4691" RevisionGUID="7e5926a8-033c-4788-9518-b1cc1fad31ce" CreationDate="2015-09-08T11:08:18.530" UserId="2548" Comment="added a note on climate" Text="I'm living in an apartment, and after I water my plants the water goes to plates below the vases. The vases are in a metallic structure above the vases, so I can take the vases to reuse the water (throwing it at the plants again).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That recycling seems beneficial, because I think I can get rid of mosquitoes that would reproduce in the stagnated water. And also some nutrients of the soil (as well as earthworms) can return to the vase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some negative points in doing that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I think I must add that I'm at 3 degrees of latitude, in a hot and humid tropical rainforest, where the precipitation used to be around 1700 mm. So I use lots of water everyday, more than once a day sometimes, so the recycled water is a small fraction of the water used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10277" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4693" RevisionGUID="5fd043b1-b522-4489-8282-7dcb173bdf13" CreationDate="2015-09-08T11:41:18.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/641214726781968384" />
  <row Id="10278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="cf6dddcc-8e9b-4192-8adf-2953708578de" CreationDate="2015-09-08T12:41:43.640" UserId="2547" Text="Not sure if this is the correct stackexchange to ask this question....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to install bat houses at my property.  What conditions do bats prefer to live and won't conditions do they NOT to prefer to live in?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in Vermont on a 2 acre parcel, and have a section of property that sees about 6.5-8 hours of sunlight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="cf6dddcc-8e9b-4192-8adf-2953708578de" CreationDate="2015-09-08T12:41:43.640" UserId="2547" Text="Bat living conditions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="cf6dddcc-8e9b-4192-8adf-2953708578de" CreationDate="2015-09-08T12:41:43.640" UserId="2547" Text="|insects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4700" RevisionGUID="7f38350e-7df9-468b-8ea8-ce57c76088f1" CreationDate="2015-09-08T16:16:00.020" UserId="2155" Text="All information technology has planned (or unplanned) obsolescence. It is unavoidable due to the nature of information technology. The best way to get the most useful lifetime out of your phone is to by the most recent iteration of your preferred choice. I.e. Today that would be iPhone 5 or 6 for Apple.&#xA;&#xA;I used an iPhone 3G right up until you could no longer buy a replacement, that was about 7 months ago. I bought an iPhone 5s with 64gb to replace so that it can keep up with technology advances. The 3gs were getting cheap at less than $100 for a new/used phone from GameStop or similar. Before they finally ran out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="d5377a9f-bb72-4489-a2a2-bf758ba1b1d8" CreationDate="2015-09-08T21:46:22.660" UserId="15" Comment="Fixed typo, expanded title, removed unnecessary sentence." Text="I want to install bat houses at my property.  What conditions do bats prefer to live and what conditions do they NOT to prefer to live in?.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in Vermont on a 2 acre parcel, and have a section of property that sees about 6.5-8 hours of sunlight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10283" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="d5377a9f-bb72-4489-a2a2-bf758ba1b1d8" CreationDate="2015-09-08T21:46:22.660" UserId="15" Comment="Fixed typo, expanded title, removed unnecessary sentence." Text="How to create healthy bat living conditions in Vermont?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10284" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="d5377a9f-bb72-4489-a2a2-bf758ba1b1d8" CreationDate="2015-09-08T21:46:22.660" UserId="15" Comment="Fixed typo, expanded title, removed unnecessary sentence." Text="|insects|balanced-ecosystems|bats|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4701" RevisionGUID="12421d8e-ba14-47be-b122-9d61c3b7736d" CreationDate="2015-09-08T21:48:32.173" UserId="15" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4702" RevisionGUID="7852615f-da2a-4d53-8015-220b62371bf9" CreationDate="2015-09-08T21:48:32.173" UserId="15" Text="Relates to bats (the animals) and their role in ecosystems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4698" RevisionGUID="73851a4f-f26c-4a89-8cb8-dd6e3bc1ee28" CreationDate="2015-09-09T07:19:53.387" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Typos" Text="**You buy a brand that does not 'do' planned obsolescence**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a [FairPhone](https://www.fairphone.com/) which was built with the intention to have it last (&quot;*We’re focusing on longevity and repairability to extend the phone’s usable life and give buyers more control over their products*&quot;).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is where they succeeded/failed for the first release (which I have) IMO:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(-) upgrading to the latest Android versions turned out to be impossible (some wrong choices made with the hardware provider)&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) dual SIM&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) all phone bands IIRC&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) good repair manuals, spare part dealers&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) they don't pack it full with their own software, and have a decent  upgrade cycle for e.g. security updates (could be a little faster/better, but I don't know enough about the software intricacies)&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(+) using open source software/making the code available&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They learned from version 1 and are now manufacturing a second version.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There is a complication of course**: if companies like this succeed in&#xD;&#xA;making long-lasting phones, you won't find many second hand ones. Luckily, the user community behind these companies are (not surprisingly) aware that second hand trade is important to extend the life cycle. On the Fairphone forum there is [a separate thread for buying/selling](https://forum.fairphone.com/t/unofficial-second-hand-fairphone-marketplace/6453) second handys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There must be more manufacturers like this, but this is the only one I have experience with. If anyone else knows of any, leave a comment or edit into my answer here:" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4704" RevisionGUID="4ec780a8-42d0-469c-9354-7e72ba75eb5c" CreationDate="2015-09-09T19:59:50.673" UserId="1701" Text="Audibon Magazine distilled the following from Bat Conservation International:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here are some tips for installing a bat house, from Bat Conservation&#xD;&#xA;&gt; International, a science-based bat conservation organization.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Design. All bat houses should be at least 2 feet tall, have chambers at least 14 inches wide, and have a landing area extending&#xD;&#xA;&gt; below the entrance at least 3 to 6 inches (some houses feature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recessed partitions that offer landing space inside). Taller and wider&#xD;&#xA;&gt; houses are even better. Rocket boxes should be at least 3 feet tall&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and have at least 12 inches of linear roost space. Most bat houses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have one to four roosting chambers—the more the better. Roost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; partitions should be carefully spaced three-quarters of an inch to 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inch apart. All partitions and landing areas should be roughened. Wood&#xD;&#xA;&gt; surfaces can be scratched or grooved horizontally, at roughly&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quarter-inch to half-inch intervals, or covered with durable square,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plastic mesh mesh. Include vents approximately 6 inches from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bottom of all houses 24 to 32 inches tall where average July high&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temperatures are 85 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. Front vents are as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; long as a house is wide; side vents are 6 inches tall by a half-inch&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wide. Houses 36 inches or taller should have vents approximately 10 to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12 inches from the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Construction. For wooden houses, a combination of exterior plywood (ACX, BCX or T1-11 grade) and cedar is best. Plywood for exteriors&#xD;&#xA;&gt; should be a half-inch thick or greater and have at least four plies.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do not use pressure-treated wood. Any screws, hardware, or staples&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used must be exterior grade (galvanized, coated, stainless steel,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; etc.). To increase longevity, use screws rather than nails. Caulk all&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seams, especially around the roof. Alternative materials, such as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plastic or fiber-cement board, may last longer and require less&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maintenance.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Wood treatment. For the exterior, apply three coats of exterior-grade, water-based paint or stain. Available observations&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suggest that color should be black where average high temperatures in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; July are less than 85 degrees Fahrenheit; dark colors (such as dark&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brown or dark gray) where they are 85 degrees to 95 degrees; medium&#xD;&#xA;&gt; colors where they are 95 degrees to 100 degrees; and white or light&#xD;&#xA;&gt; colors where they exceed 100 degrees. A lot depends upon amount of sun&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exposure; adjust to darker colors in places where there’s less sun.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For the interior, use two coats of dark, exterior-grade, water-based&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stain. Apply the stain after creating scratches or grooves, or prior&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to stapling on the plastic mesh. Paint fills the grooves, making them&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unusable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Sun exposure. Houses where high temperatures in July average 80 degrees Fahrenheit or less should receive at least 10 hours of sun. At&#xD;&#xA;&gt; least six hours of direct daily sun are recommended for all bat houses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; where daily high temperatures in July average less than 100 degrees.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Full sun is often successful in all but the hottest climates. For&#xD;&#xA;&gt; maternity colonies in summer, internal bat house temperatures should&#xD;&#xA;&gt; stay between 80 degrees and 100 degrees as long as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Habitat. Most nursery colonies choose roosts within a quarter-mile of water, preferably a river or lake. Greatest bat house success has&#xD;&#xA;&gt; been achieved in areas of diverse habitat, especially where there is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mixture of varied agricultural use and natural vegetation. Bat houses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are most likely to succeed in regions where bats are already&#xD;&#xA;&gt; attempting to live in buildings.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Mounting. Bat houses should be mounted on buildings or poles. Houses mounted on trees or metal siding are seldom used. Wooden,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; brick, or stone buildings with proper solar exposure are excellent&#xD;&#xA;&gt; choices, and locations under the eaves are often successful.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Single-chamber houses work best when mounted on buildings. Mounting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; two bat houses back to back on poles is ideal (face one house north,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the other south). Place houses three-quarter inches apart and cover&#xD;&#xA;&gt; both with a galvanized metal roof to protect the center roosting space&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from rain. All bat houses should be mounted at least 12 feet above the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ground; 15 to 20 feet is better. Bat houses should not be lit by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bright lights.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Protection from predators. Houses mounted on sides of buildings or on metal poles provide the best protection from predators. Metal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; predator guards may be helpful, especially on wooden poles. Bat houses&#xD;&#xA;&gt; may be found more quickly if located along forest or water edges where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; bats tend to fly, but they should be placed at least 20 feet from the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nearest tree branches, wires or other perches for aerial predators.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. Avoiding uninvited guests. Wasps can be a problem before bats fully occupy a house. Use of three-quarter inch chambers reduces wasp&#xD;&#xA;&gt; problems. Wasp nests should be removed in late winter or early spring&#xD;&#xA;&gt; before either wasps or bats return. Open-bottom houses greatly reduce&#xD;&#xA;&gt; problems with birds, rodents or parasites, and guano does not build up&#xD;&#xA;&gt; inside.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 9. Timing. Bat houses can be installed at any time of the year, but they are more likely to be used during their first summer if they’re&#xD;&#xA;&gt; installed before the bats return in spring. When using bat houses in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; conjunction with excluding a colony from a building, install the bat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; houses at least two to six weeks before the actual eviction, if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4267" RevisionGUID="82fe185b-22c2-4010-96dc-b4ec2ad35ff5" CreationDate="2015-09-09T21:52:57.660" UserId="15" Comment="Clarified battery comment" Text="**Warranties**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep an eye out for products that have long warranties. When the warranty is short you can expect a short average time until failure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Parts**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look for products that have generic parts, especially when the part is expected to fail sooner than the rest of the device. One good example I can think of is cordless landline phones by Panasonic that use rechargeable AAA batteries in the handsets rather than a proprietary battery that would be much more expensive to replace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fashion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Industries designing for fashion essentially try to promote particular styles of product as fashionable for a season, knowing full well that it leads to increased sales but also leads to items being discarded before their useful life is up. When it comes to clothing, furniture and other products designed with attention to their appearance, look for classic styles that have been around for years, and for durability and function.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Books**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paperback books are cheaper to buy, but are not particularly durable and have a much shorter life than hardcover ones. If when purchasing a book, you believe it is likely to be used heavily or be of value for more than say 10 years, then consider spending extra to purchase a hardcover." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4706" RevisionGUID="40789f78-c818-49a8-92c0-6aead4e53888" CreationDate="2015-09-10T05:13:50.687" UserId="264" Text="As sustainability is concerned, you might want to go all plastic free.&#xA;&#xA;Here is one of the many resources you can easily find online, may it be about avoiding plastic or best storing ways (there is a loooot to be said about): http://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-store-fruits-and-vegeta-152591" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="366" RevisionGUID="c4b05014-5ddf-4def-8bd5-b6b28676197c" CreationDate="2015-09-10T12:39:08.480" UserId="99" Comment="added more free resources" Text="Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is an established method for quantifying impacts - often environmental - of a product, process or service's total supply chain. This means looking not only at use, but also at production of raw materials (referred to as the cradle), processing and transportation, and eventual disposal (grave). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The LCA method has been formalized by ISO in the 14040 standards, and can include many different impacts, of which [tag:carbon-footprint], water footprint and energy footprint are the most well-known. Other impact categories include [ecotoxicity][1], [eutrophication][2], and various human health categories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related but separate fields include life-cycle costing and material flow analysis, which take a similarly wide perspective but a different method, and are used for answering different questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions** with this tag should focus on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - comparing possible options based on environmental impacts&#xD;&#xA; - how impacts may vary depending on the supply chain choices - say, recycling paper vs. composting it. &#xD;&#xA; - interpreting LCA study results&#xD;&#xA; - performing simple LCA studies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Resources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Free software / tools***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [OpenLCA](http://www.openlca.org): open-source software for conducting process-based LCAs, supports databases in EcoSpold or ILCD format.&#xD;&#xA;- [Carnegie-Mellon's EIO-LCA tool](http://www.eiolca.net): free software tool for  Economic Input-Output LCA&#xD;&#xA;- [CMLCA](http://www.cmlca.eu) free tool that is intended to support the technical steps of the LCA procedure, specifically designed for students and scientists&#xD;&#xA;- [Greenhouse Gas Protocol Calculation Tools](http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools): Excel sheets for calculating the GHG emissions of various materials or activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Free databases***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [LCA Commons](http://www.lcacommons.gov/): open access to North America LCA datasets and tools&#xD;&#xA;- [The European reference Life Cycle Database (ELCD)](http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ELCD3/): LCI data from EU business associations and other sources for key materials, energy carriers, transport, and waste management.&#xD;&#xA;- [OpenLCA's Nexus](https://nexus.openlca.org/databases#free-provider): allows browsing other free (and paid) LCI databases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Free books / manuals / tutorials***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [ILCD Handbook](http://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/?page_id=86): guides and other documents aimed at more experienced LCA practitioners&#xD;&#xA;- [Textbook &quot;LCA Quantitative Approaches for Decisions That Matter&quot; written by Matthews et al. ](http://www.lcatextbook.com): learning to perform LCA aimed at (under)graduate students&#xD;&#xA;- Online course [How Green Is That Product? An Introduction to Life Cycle Environmental Assessment](https://www.coursera.org/course/introtolca): teaches basic LCA concepts and provides home work assignments for practicing, the course is given once a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wikipedia.org/ecotoxicity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.wikipedia.org/eutrophication" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="0268ecf0-b56c-467d-8938-2c0d48e10ae4" CreationDate="2015-09-10T12:42:26.220" UserId="99" Comment="added 3rd free LCA software option, added link to tag wiki for more resources" Text="## Software ##&#xD;&#xA;The most basic, free tool to create an LCA would simply be a spreadsheet like OpenOffice Calc. However, dedicated LCA software does make things easier for you, but most software is not free. The few good and free LCA software packages I know are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [**OpenLCA**](http://www.openlca.org): open-source software, supports databases in EcoSpold or ILCD format, also has free and paid datasources via its [Nexus service](https://nexus.openlca.org/)&#xD;&#xA; - **[Carnegie-Mellon's EIO-LCA tool**](http://www.eiolca.net/), however this uses a different approach to LCA which has it's own pros and cons (see also [Jack Ryan's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2441/99) for more details)&#xD;&#xA; - [**CMLCA from Leiden University**](http://www.cmlca.eu) free tool that is intended to support the technical steps of the LCA procedure, specifically designed for students and scientists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are however quite a number of free tools that focus specifically on a particular impact or use case. Some examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Greenhouse Gas Protocol Calculation Tools](http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools): consists basically of Excel sheets with instructions for calculating the GHG emissions of various materials or activities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Athena LCA software](http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/overview/) for the construction sector (registration required)&#xD;&#xA; - [Economy Map 2.0](http://www.economymap.org), an interactive map of the US economy and its environmental impacts (registration required)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most popular commercial software packages for a full process-based LCA are without a doubt SimaPro and GaBi. They are not free, but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - SimaPro does offer [a free demo version](http://www.pre-sustainability.com/simapro-demo) (with limited functionality) of their software&#xD;&#xA; - [GaBi](http://www.gabi-software.com/) is free for educational purposes (for college students and teachers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Learning ##&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned that you are looking for software preferably for &quot;the casual user&quot;. Conducting a full process-based LCA however, is not for the casual user no matter which tool you are using. To draw up such an LCA you need to know about things like reference flows, unit processes, cut-off rules, allocation, impact assessment, ISO 14040 guidelines and other LCA conventions.&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have at least a basic understanding your LCA will be worthless. To learn about these LCA concepts, I can recommend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  following the free online course [How Green Is That Product? An Introduction to Life Cycle Environmental Assessment](https://www.coursera.org/course/introtolca) which will teach you all the basic concepts. The course is given once a year. The home work assignments use spreadsheets to learn how to perform an LCA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - reading the [free e-book &quot;LCA Quantitative Approaches for Decisions That Matter&quot; written by Matthews et al.](http://www.lcatextbook.com) specifically aimed at (under)graduate students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More resources can be found in this site's [LCA tag wiki](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/life-cycle-analysis/info)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="4d7f02ff-30fd-4427-bf7f-f335cc0ed1bb" CreationDate="2015-09-11T08:35:57.123" UserId="2570" Text="## Theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calculation in the other answer is rather naive. I haven't done the calculation myself, but there are a few things to consider. First of all, lighter wheels mean more than *just* lower overall vehicle weight. Advantages are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- lower overall vehicle weight: lower inertia of the car&#xD;&#xA;- lower weight of the wheel (rotating part): lower rotational inertia&#xD;&#xA;- (probably) different aerodynamic behavior&#xD;&#xA;- lower unsprung weight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weight *distribution* in the wheel also makes a huge difference. If the weight is more to the center, there's even less rotational inertia. Therefore, smaller diameter wheels are better than large diameter wheels! Clearly then, saving 10 kg in weight on wheels has a much higher impact on fuel economy than saving 10 kg by removing the backseat or something. A (itself quite naive) [calculation](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/alloy-wheels-and-fuel-economy.488123/#post-3234770) suggests a factor of 1.5 difference, based purely on the rotational inertia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're especially going to notice the difference when accelerating and decelerating a lot (because that's when weight matters), so in city driving your savings will be higher than in constant high-speed highway driving (where drag matters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Practice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A test was conducted on a racetrack with 3 different wheel configurations, documented [here](http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/tech/techpage.jsp?techid=108). Note that the difference in fuel economy is secondary here, the real difference is actually in lap time. Obviously, the lighter wheels yielded better lap times, but due to the higher average speed, fuel economy was worse. You can easily imagine that the lighter wheels enabled the car to drive more in the high-RPM range, which means the engine runs less efficient, resulting in worse fuel economy. I should also note that the lighter wheels actually had a larger diameter, which is also worse for fuel economy. I wonder what the results would be with consistent lap times, identical wheel size and the same tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's still interesting to note that the differences in fuel economy were quite measurable, about 2%. It's hard to determine what that would mean for real-life driving situations, but I could image it saving a few tens of bucks on a yearly basis. That'd still mean you'd have to drive the car for at least a couple of years to pay for the wheels (assuming you receive the same amount when selling it), but the lifetime of most cars probably makes it worthwhile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="19e9e140-6380-4656-9511-cc29c5a76619" CreationDate="2015-09-11T08:41:36.410" UserId="2570" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="## Theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calculation in the other answer is rather naive. I haven't done the calculation myself, but there are a few things to consider. First of all, lighter wheels mean more than *just* lower overall vehicle weight. Advantages are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- lower overall vehicle weight: lower inertia of the car&#xD;&#xA;- lower weight of the wheel (rotating part): lower rotational inertia&#xD;&#xA;- (probably) different aerodynamic behavior&#xD;&#xA;- lower unsprung weight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weight *distribution* in the wheel also makes a huge difference. If the weight is more to the center, there's even less rotational inertia. Therefore, smaller diameter wheels are better than large diameter wheels! Clearly then, saving 10 kg in weight on wheels has a much higher impact on fuel economy than saving 10 kg by removing the backseat or something. A (itself quite naive) [calculation](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/alloy-wheels-and-fuel-economy.488123/#post-3234770) suggests a factor of 1.5 difference, based purely on the rotational inertia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're especially going to notice the difference when accelerating and decelerating a lot (because that's when weight matters), so in city driving your savings will be higher than in constant high-speed highway driving (where drag matters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Practice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A test was conducted on a racetrack with 3 different wheel configurations, documented [here](http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/tech/techpage.jsp?techid=108). Note that the difference in fuel economy is secondary here, the real difference is actually in lap time. Obviously, the lighter wheels yielded better lap times, but due to the higher average speed, fuel economy was worse. You can easily imagine that the lighter wheels enabled the car to drive more in the high-RPM range, which means the engine runs less efficient, resulting in worse fuel economy. I should also note that the lighter wheels actually had a larger diameter, which is also worse for fuel economy. I wonder what the results would be with consistent lap times, identical wheel size and the same tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's still interesting to note that the differences in fuel economy were quite measurable, about 2%. It's hard to determine what that would mean for real-life driving situations, but I could image it saving a few tens of bucks on a yearly basis. That'd still mean you'd have to drive the car for at least a couple of years to pay for the wheels (assuming you receive the same amount when selling it), but the lifetime of most cars probably makes the investment worthwhile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="58f283e9-5eb8-44eb-8bc5-59dc5ecbe69c" CreationDate="2015-09-11T08:55:50.113" UserId="2570" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="## Theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calculation in the other answer is rather naive. I haven't done the calculation myself, but there are a few things to consider. First of all, lighter wheels mean more than *just* lower overall vehicle weight. Advantages are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- lower overall vehicle weight: lower inertia of the car&#xD;&#xA;- lower weight of the wheel (rotating part): lower rotational inertia&#xD;&#xA;- (probably) different aerodynamic behavior&#xD;&#xA;- lower unsprung weight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weight *distribution* in the wheel also makes a huge difference. If the weight is more to the center, there's even less rotational inertia. Therefore, smaller diameter wheels are better than large diameter wheels! Clearly then, saving 10 kg in weight on wheels has a much higher impact on fuel economy than saving 10 kg by removing the backseat or something. A (itself quite naive) [calculation](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/alloy-wheels-and-fuel-economy.488123/#post-3234770) suggests a factor of 1.5 difference, based purely on the rotational inertia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're especially going to notice the difference when accelerating and decelerating a lot (because that's when weight matters), so in city driving your savings will be higher than in constant high-speed highway driving (where drag matters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Practice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A test was conducted on a racetrack with 3 different wheel configurations, documented [here](http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/tech/techpage.jsp?techid=108). Note that the difference in fuel economy is secondary here, the real difference is actually in lap time. Obviously, the lighter wheels yielded better lap times, but due to the higher average speed, fuel economy was worse. You can easily imagine that the lighter wheels enabled the car to drive more in the high-RPM range, which means the engine runs less efficient, resulting in worse fuel economy. I should also note that the lighter wheels actually had a larger diameter, which is also worse for fuel economy. I wonder what the results would be with consistent lap times, identical wheel size and the same tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's still interesting to note that the differences in fuel economy were quite measurable, about 2%. It's hard to determine what that would mean for real-life driving situations, but I could image it saving a few tens of bucks on a yearly basis. That'd still mean you'd have to drive the car for at least a couple of years to pay for the wheels (assuming you receive the same amount when selling it), but the lifetime of most cars probably makes the investment worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I'm not thinking about an expensive set of wheels here, I bought a set of less than €300 for my wife's compact car, with the same diameter as the original set" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="6925ac33-a04d-4b6f-ba2c-ef7c0fa87a13" CreationDate="2015-09-11T11:30:33.433" UserId="2570" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="## Theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calculation in the other answer is rather naive. I haven't done the calculation myself, but there are a few things to consider. First of all, lighter wheels mean more than *just* lower overall vehicle weight. Advantages are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- lower overall vehicle weight: lower inertia of the car&#xD;&#xA;- lower weight of the wheel (rotating part): lower rotational inertia&#xD;&#xA;- (probably) different aerodynamic behavior&#xD;&#xA;- lower unsprung weight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weight *distribution* in the wheel also makes a huge difference. If the weight is more to the center, there's even less rotational inertia. Therefore, smaller diameter wheels are better than large diameter wheels! Clearly then, saving 10 kg in weight on wheels has a much higher impact on fuel economy than saving 10 kg by removing the backseat or something. A (itself quite naive) [calculation](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/alloy-wheels-and-fuel-economy.488123/#post-3234770) suggests a factor of 1.5 difference, based purely on the rotational inertia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're especially going to notice the difference when accelerating and decelerating a lot (because that's when weight matters), so in city driving your savings will be higher than in constant high-speed highway driving (where drag matters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Practice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A test was conducted on a racetrack with 3 different wheel configurations, documented [here](http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/tech/techpage.jsp?techid=108). Note that the difference in fuel economy is secondary here, the real difference is actually in lap time. Obviously, the lighter wheels yielded better lap times, but due to the higher average speed, fuel economy was worse. You can easily imagine that the lighter wheels enabled the car to drive more in the high-RPM range, which means the engine runs less efficient, resulting in worse fuel economy. I should also note that the lighter wheels actually had a larger diameter, which is also worse for fuel economy. I wonder what the results would be with consistent lap times, identical wheel size and the same tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's still interesting to note that the differences in fuel economy were quite measurable, about 2%. It's hard to determine what that would mean for real-life driving situations, but I could image it saving a few tens of bucks on a yearly basis. That'd still mean you'd have to drive the car for at least a couple of years to pay for the wheels (assuming you receive the same amount when selling the car), but the lifespan of most cars probably makes the investment worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I'm not thinking about an expensive set of wheels here, I bought a set of less than €300 for my wife's compact car, with the same diameter as the original set" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10310" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="cb07b0db-4f19-4a22-b152-2d3d556f0b42" CreationDate="2015-09-12T00:00:04.357" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/642487805080375296" />
  <row Id="10311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="e3018e92-db2c-4136-af93-0d516ab1d5d1" CreationDate="2015-09-13T11:51:55.603" UserId="2574" Text="After different years of contributions on FOSS software I would like to contribute in some way to the sustainable living, doing something for Earth and in some way for the mankind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there projects that I can help with my knowledge? I would like people somehow recover its human touch, live together without making the technology a barrier (as it seems to be happening more and more) and remember to be part of nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't really know if this is the right place to ask this, but I think that this question can't be on stackoverflow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10312" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="e3018e92-db2c-4136-af93-0d516ab1d5d1" CreationDate="2015-09-13T11:51:55.603" UserId="2574" Text="What can I do as a developer for the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10313" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="e3018e92-db2c-4136-af93-0d516ab1d5d1" CreationDate="2015-09-13T11:51:55.603" UserId="2574" Text="|health|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10319" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="75cf6e00-0fa0-4505-b70e-02659c2e29df" CreationDate="2015-09-14T06:12:18.250" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/643306254400684032" />
  <row Id="10320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4711" RevisionGUID="ea4df917-2835-4eab-a083-9984803f1bf5" CreationDate="2015-09-14T07:27:06.683" UserId="48" Text="###Professional&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The low-carbon sector employees a lot of software developers. For example, wind farm operators use SCADA systems to provide data on performance and to inform proactive maintenance regimes; and wind-farm developers use modelling software to design the optimum layout of the windfarms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to dedicate your career to it, and you don't have success at first when applying to such posts, then I'd recommend a 1-year Masters' course in one of the environmental subjects that most interests you, as a way to make your CV more attractive to employers in the sector. For example, University College London has several Masters that might interest you (disclosure: I have a little involvement with these), such as [the MSC in Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment][1] and [the MRes in Energy Demand][2]; Imperial College (also in London) has an [MSc in Sustainable Energy Futures][3], and the well-established and well-respected [MSc in Environmental Technology][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Voluntary, with possible routes into professional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are various open-source environmental projects. One I'm a little involved with is [the OpenMod Initiative][5], which is building an international network of open-source clean-energy modellers - [here's a list of some live open-source energy models][6] (NB they do cover quite a broad definition of &quot;open&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/sustainable/programmes/msc_epee&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/energy/programmes/postgraduate/mres-energy-demand-studies&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/energy-futures-lab/our-msc/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/environmental-policy/msc/msc-environmental-technology/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://openmod-initiative.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Open_Models" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4712" RevisionGUID="b871d2d8-000d-4367-a4bf-f4a12f9b214e" CreationDate="2015-09-14T08:19:12.413" UserId="15" Text="[This article][1] talks about how urban trees reduce particulate pollution. In particular, a study showed that a row of trees in front of houses reduced the level of pollution detected in the houses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously a tall enough fence could block air flow as well as trees can, but is there another mechanism through which the trees can trap pollution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.accessscience.com/content/urban-tree-leaves-remove-fine-particulate-air-pollution/BR0116141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4712" RevisionGUID="b871d2d8-000d-4367-a4bf-f4a12f9b214e" CreationDate="2015-09-14T08:19:12.413" UserId="15" Text="How do leaves trap or block particulate pollution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4712" RevisionGUID="b871d2d8-000d-4367-a4bf-f4a12f9b214e" CreationDate="2015-09-14T08:19:12.413" UserId="15" Text="|pollution|trees|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="08877847-e428-4931-9dc0-1812da20cd66" CreationDate="2015-09-14T08:29:08.117" UserId="2570" Comment="Found out the fuel economy test was done on the road, not track. Edited answer accordingly" Text="## Theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calculation in the other answer is rather naive. I haven't done the calculation myself, but there are a few things to consider. First of all, lighter wheels mean more than *just* lower overall vehicle weight. Advantages are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- lower overall vehicle weight: lower inertia of the car&#xD;&#xA;- lower weight of the wheel (rotating part): lower rotational inertia&#xD;&#xA;- (probably) different aerodynamic behavior&#xD;&#xA;- lower unsprung weight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weight *distribution* in the wheel also makes a huge difference. If the weight is more to the center, there's even less rotational inertia. Therefore, smaller diameter wheels are better than large diameter wheels! Clearly then, saving 10 kg in weight on wheels has a much higher impact on fuel economy than saving 10 kg by removing the backseat or something. A (itself quite naive) [calculation](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/alloy-wheels-and-fuel-economy.488123/#post-3234770) suggests a factor of 1.5 difference, based purely on the rotational inertia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're especially going to notice the difference when accelerating and decelerating a lot (because that's when weight matters), so in city driving your savings will be higher than in constant high-speed highway driving (where drag matters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Practice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A test was conducted on a racetrack with 3 different wheel configurations, documented [here](http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/tech/techpage.jsp?techid=108). They also did a road test to measure fuel economy, but the main goal was better lap times. Obviously, the lighter wheels yielded better lap times.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately though, the road actually registered worse fuel economy for the lightweight wheels. There's a few things that explain this result, having to do with the fact that this test aimed to optimize the car for lap times, not fuel economy. Those are the wheel size (the alloy wheel had a larger diameter) and different tires (the stock tires were optimized for low rolling resistance). There may also have been a difference in driving style. I wonder what the results would be with identical wheel size and the same tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's still interesting to note that the differences in fuel economy were quite measurable, about 2%. It's hard to determine what that would mean for real-life driving situations, but I could imagine a set of carefully chosen wheels saving a few tens of bucks on a yearly basis. That'd still mean you'd have to drive the car for at least a couple of years to pay for the wheels (assuming you receive the same amount when selling the car), but the lifespan of most cars probably makes the investment worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I'm not thinking about an expensive set of wheels here, I bought a set of less than €300 for my wife's compact car, with the same diameter as the original set. They obviously aren't magnesium wheels though, those are way more expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10325" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="f42f0b91-1023-486a-8833-77bfdc1fa1ba" CreationDate="2015-09-14T08:35:17.973" UserId="2570" Comment="Found out the fuel economy test was done on the road, not track. Edited answer accordingly" Text="## Theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calculation in the other answer is rather naive. I haven't done the calculation myself, but there are a few things to consider. First of all, lighter wheels mean more than *just* lower overall vehicle weight. Advantages are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- lower overall vehicle weight: lower inertia of the car&#xD;&#xA;- lower weight of the wheel (rotating part): lower rotational inertia&#xD;&#xA;- (probably) different aerodynamic behavior&#xD;&#xA;- lower unsprung weight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weight *distribution* in the wheel also makes a huge difference. If the weight is more to the center, there's even less rotational inertia. Therefore, smaller diameter wheels are better than large diameter wheels! Clearly then, saving 10 kg in weight on wheels has a much higher impact on fuel economy than saving 10 kg by removing the backseat or something. A (itself quite naive) [calculation](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/alloy-wheels-and-fuel-economy.488123/#post-3234770) suggests a factor of 1.5 difference, based purely on the rotational inertia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're especially going to notice the difference when accelerating and decelerating a lot (because that's when weight matters), so in city driving your savings will be higher than in constant high-speed highway driving (where drag matters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Practice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A test was conducted on a racetrack with 3 different wheel configurations, documented [here](http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/tech/techpage.jsp?techid=108). They also did a road test to measure fuel economy, but the main goal was better lap times. Obviously, the lighter wheels yielded better lap times.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately though, the road actually registered worse fuel economy for the lightweight wheels. There's a few things that explain this result, having to do with the fact that this test aimed to optimize the car for lap times, not fuel economy. Those are the wheel size (the alloy wheel had a larger diameter) and different tires (the stock tires were optimized for low rolling resistance). The stock wheels were already light as well, 20.5 pounds, while the light wheels weighed 17 pounds, so the difference wasn't that major. There may also have been a difference in driving style. I wonder what the results would be with identical wheel size and the same tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's still interesting to note that the differences in fuel economy were quite measurable, about 2%. It's hard to determine what that would mean for real-life driving situations, but I could imagine a set of carefully chosen wheels saving a few tens of bucks on a yearly basis. That'd still mean you'd have to drive the car for at least a couple of years to pay for the wheels (assuming you receive the same amount when selling the car), but the lifespan of most cars probably makes the investment worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I'm not thinking about an expensive set of wheels here, I bought a set of less than €300 for my wife's compact car, with the same diameter as the original set. They obviously aren't magnesium wheels though, those are way more expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4713" RevisionGUID="1fe9f7ec-cf2d-41cd-855f-3bd517415789" CreationDate="2015-09-14T09:16:25.177" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="The study [Impact of Roadside Tree Lines on Indoor Concentrations of Traffic-Derived Particulate Matter](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es404363m?source=cen) by Barbara A. Maher and her colleagues at Lancaster University (UK) writes: *Electron microscopy analyses show that leaf-captured PM is concentrated in agglomerations around leaf hairs and within the leaf microtopography.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The study is also on [Chemical and Engineering News](http://cen.acs.org/) but that page is corrupt.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is a paid publication, so I was unable to actually check the quote.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A picture of these particles (from the report?) is on [ZME Science](http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/pollution-ecology/trees-particulate-matter-26112013/).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A picture of the leaf structures is on [TreeHugger](http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/trees-are-awesome-study-shows-tree-leaves-can-capture-50-particulate-matter-pollution.html), but it probably does not come from the report (it's a Wikimedia pic and shows no particles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the addition (in the ZME science) *However, it’s still unclear what the trees actually do with it – it can be estimated that at one point or another it reaches the soil, and while that isn’t exactly good either, it’s pretty much the best thing you can do in terms of common urban pollution.*&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I can imagine that with rain the particles are quickly transported into the soil, i.e. effectively removed from the air." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10327" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4709" RevisionGUID="2215d0c5-4f84-4521-968d-fc0f31125c5a" CreationDate="2015-09-14T09:25:17.600" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|green-it|careers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4711" RevisionGUID="205c1ffb-341b-4ab9-ad65-a74594925c8e" CreationDate="2015-09-14T09:47:35.330" UserId="48" Comment="added 315 characters in body" Text="###Professional&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The low-carbon sector employees a lot of software developers. For example, wind farm operators use SCADA systems to provide data on performance and to inform proactive maintenance regimes; and wind-farm developers use modelling software to design the optimum layout of the windfarms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to dedicate your career to it, and you don't have success at first when applying to such posts, then I'd recommend a 1-year Masters' course in one of the environmental subjects that most interests you, as a way to make your CV more attractive to employers in the sector. For example, University College London has several Masters that might interest you (disclosure: I have a little involvement with these), such as [the MSC in Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment][1] and [the MRes in Energy Demand][2]; Imperial College (also in London) has an [MSc in Sustainable Energy Futures][3], and the well-established and well-respected [MSc in Environmental Technology][4]. And the Danish Technical University offers MScs (in English) in [Wind Energy][5] and [Sustainable Energy][6], among other sustainable topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Voluntary, with possible routes into professional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are various open-source environmental projects. One I'm a little involved with is [the OpenMod Initiative][7], which is building an international network of open-source clean-energy modellers - [here's a list of some live open-source energy models][8], including one of my own (NB they do cover quite a broad definition of &quot;open&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/sustainable/programmes/msc_epee&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/energy/programmes/postgraduate/mres-energy-demand-studies&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/energy-futures-lab/our-msc/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/environmental-policy/msc/msc-environmental-technology/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.dtu.dk/english/Education/msc/Programmes/wind_energy&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.dtu.dk/english/Education/msc/Programmes/sustainable_energy&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://openmod-initiative.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Open_Models" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="45143851-33e6-48ed-813c-7ea35cde804b" CreationDate="2015-09-14T13:12:15.930" UserId="2570" Comment="refer to the lightweight wheels consistently as lightweight" Text="## Theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calculation in the other answer is rather naive. I haven't done the calculation myself, but there are a few things to consider. First of all, lighter wheels mean more than *just* lower overall vehicle weight. Advantages are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- lower overall vehicle weight: lower inertia of the car&#xD;&#xA;- lower weight of the wheel (rotating part): lower rotational inertia&#xD;&#xA;- (probably) different aerodynamic behavior&#xD;&#xA;- lower unsprung weight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weight *distribution* in the wheel also makes a huge difference. If the weight is more to the center, there's even less rotational inertia. Therefore, smaller diameter wheels are better than large diameter wheels! Clearly then, saving 10 kg in weight on wheels has a much higher impact on fuel economy than saving 10 kg by removing the backseat or something. A (itself quite naive) [calculation](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/alloy-wheels-and-fuel-economy.488123/#post-3234770) suggests a factor of 1.5 difference, based purely on the rotational inertia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're especially going to notice the difference when accelerating and decelerating a lot (because that's when weight matters), so in city driving your savings will be higher than in constant high-speed highway driving (where drag matters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Practice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A test was conducted on a racetrack with 3 different wheel configurations, documented [here](http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/tech/techpage.jsp?techid=108). They also did a road test to measure fuel economy, but the main goal was better lap times. Obviously, the lighter wheels yielded better lap times.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately though, the road test actually registered worse fuel economy for the lightweight wheels. There's a few things that explain this result, having to do with the fact that this test aimed to optimize the car for lap times, not fuel economy. Those are the wheel size (the lightweight wheel had a larger diameter) and different tires (the stock tires were optimized for low rolling resistance). The stock wheels were already light as well, 20.5 pounds, while the lightweight wheels weighed 17 pounds, so the difference wasn't that major. There may also have been a difference in driving style. I wonder what the results would be with identical wheel size, the same tires and controlled driving conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's still interesting to note that the differences in fuel economy were quite measurable, about 2%. It's hard to determine what that would mean for real-life driving situations, but I could imagine a set of carefully chosen wheels saving a few tens of bucks on a yearly basis. That'd still mean you'd have to drive the car for at least a couple of years to pay for the wheels (assuming you receive the same amount when selling the car), but the lifespan of most cars probably makes the investment worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I'm not thinking about an expensive set of wheels here, I bought a set of less than €300 for my wife's compact car, with the same diameter as the original set. They obviously aren't magnesium wheels though, those are way more expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="ab8b2cb9-9780-4a09-875c-9a5de2210b6b" CreationDate="2015-09-14T20:08:31.993" UserId="2577" Text="I am researching ways to eliminate difficult yellow jacket ground nests without using dangerous chemicals. Does anyone know of a commercial machine that is made to inject large quantities of dust into the ground or other void? If not, any clever ideas if how to make one (maybe with a compressor)? I would like to experiment with the injection of nests with diatomaceous earth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10331" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="ab8b2cb9-9780-4a09-875c-9a5de2210b6b" CreationDate="2015-09-14T20:08:31.993" UserId="2577" Text="Diatomaceous earth ground injector" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10332" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="ab8b2cb9-9780-4a09-875c-9a5de2210b6b" CreationDate="2015-09-14T20:08:31.993" UserId="2577" Text="|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10333" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4712" RevisionGUID="3552c41d-71bc-490c-b8fb-b7047bb09047" CreationDate="2015-09-15T03:12:16.670" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/643623339035127809" />
  <row Id="10345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4717" RevisionGUID="020b6b58-8dbe-4a27-926c-637df24d02b4" CreationDate="2015-09-16T13:43:25.967" UserId="2547" Text="This past spring I was given 2 mature high bush blueberry plants.  They were around 6 feet high and 5 feet wide.  They did produce a decent amount of berries too.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gardening friend told me that, although they did produce berries and look relatively healthy, that they probably wouldn't survive through the winter, saying that mature blueberries bushes usually don't transplant well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any truth in that statement?  If so, what can I do to help them through the winter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in southwest New Hampshire, zone 5b.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4717" RevisionGUID="020b6b58-8dbe-4a27-926c-637df24d02b4" CreationDate="2015-09-16T13:43:25.967" UserId="2547" Text="transplanting mature high bush blueberries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4717" RevisionGUID="020b6b58-8dbe-4a27-926c-637df24d02b4" CreationDate="2015-09-16T13:43:25.967" UserId="2547" Text="|fruits-and-vegetables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10348" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4717" RevisionGUID="d3ea90a3-939d-4a15-a3b2-a8c103cef403" CreationDate="2015-09-16T14:28:19.247" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|plants|fruits-and-vegetables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4717" RevisionGUID="fc52ffeb-8500-4377-adb3-71184b687533" CreationDate="2015-09-16T14:33:49.760" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="This past spring I was given 2 mature high bush blueberry plants.  They were around 6 feet high and 5 feet wide.  They did produce a decent amount of berries too.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gardening friend told me that, although they did produce berries and look relatively healthy, that they probably wouldn't survive through the winter, saying that mature blueberries bushes usually don't transplant well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any truth in that statement?  If so, what can I do to help them through the winter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in south-west New Hampshire, [zone 5b](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardiness_zone#United_States_hardiness_zones)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10350" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4717" RevisionGUID="fc52ffeb-8500-4377-adb3-71184b687533" CreationDate="2015-09-16T14:33:49.760" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="Transplanting mature high bush blueberries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4718" RevisionGUID="18997409-08a2-4097-85f7-03c1e3c24eb7" CreationDate="2015-09-16T15:06:23.707" UserId="85" Text="I think your gardening friend has a point, because the longer the plant has had time to establish itself the better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the problem with highbush blueberries is that they'll stick out of the snow and are exposed to much lower temperatures than smaller plants which would be covered by snow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something that works even to keep palm trees alive during long snowy winters is large rocks which retain heat (provided they're placed not in the shadow, but are actually heated with sunlight, of course). Depending on where your bushes are located, placing large rocks next to them might help to alleviate the detrimental effect of the cold. Generally, the heat retention of large rocks is said to allow one to grow plants from 1-2 zone higher. Whether this will work as promised in your situation depends very much on the level of sunlight, the amount of snow, wind and the weather in general, of course. In New Hampshire [you seem to have a decent amount of winter sunshine](http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-state-sunshine-in-winter.php), which seems to be a good start." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4719" RevisionGUID="f0c7f318-92a6-4b14-b2bd-173a5fd59fc0" CreationDate="2015-09-16T15:32:41.720" UserId="1495" Text="The reason for concern is that winter damage is usually via drying, and in newly transplanted shrubs, the roots (because of the transplanting) are structurally damaged and cannot hydrate the plant as efficiently as an established root system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your plants, being in the ground since April, and having put out a good amount of new growth, show that the plant has put out considerable root growth also (a good percentage in the form of root hairs). In other words, you really shouldn't have a problem. Now if you have any dry spells, going into winter, so long as the ground isn't frozen, I'd encourage you to irrigate. In any case, mulching (~3&quot; deep with some organic matter) will be very beneficial and I recommend that you do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These plants are very cold hardy, and cold isn't the issue unless they are too dry, then they'll get wind/winter burn. Your plants seem great, and I'd expect very little to no winter damage on them. In the case of some winter burn occurring, wait until the growth flush (or bud break) in spring and trim out any dead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you fertilize, don't fertilize this fall, because that can promote more growth, that may not get a chance to fully harden before cold weather sets in, and that will render your plants more susceptible to winter burn. Fertilizing in the spring is a great idea, though, and I highly recommend doing that. Natural fertilizers are healthier for your soil and plant than chemicals. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4720" RevisionGUID="194f9a81-6189-4aec-875c-d8ff7ab070eb" CreationDate="2015-09-16T20:38:56.820" UserId="2583" Text="Recycling water is always a good initiative, but there is one golden rule: You MUST avoid re-use it in a &quot;circle&quot;, because of accumulation. Always think of a &quot;chain&quot; when re-using water. For example: use potable water for drinking and cooking. Water left from cooking: use to make sauce. taking a shower/bath can be done with rainwater. Same counts for cleaning/laundry. Only end cleaning you maybe prefer fresh water. Last part of the chain: your toilet?? And then maybe a septic tank as sewery. Water from the septic tank can be used for gardening/agriculture. In short: every time you use water, you can use it for a task which asks for&quot;lower quality&quot; water. And IF you bring it back in the chain (retour-flow) you must drain a part of it, to prevent too much accumulation of unwanted materials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4721" RevisionGUID="25a4d850-cb81-4833-85f8-a8d008294881" CreationDate="2015-09-16T20:47:49.687" UserId="2583" Text="It doesn't matter. At the end shoes are disposables. Chemicals are used to produce shoes. (for leather: chrome compound). Controlled burning is the end solution. However, you could reuse them first, but at the end...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4722" RevisionGUID="aa31fff1-b52e-4a0c-a184-0de80f155972" CreationDate="2015-09-16T21:34:50.480" UserId="15" Text="Making a difference with your web searches&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a software developer myself, and one thing I do very often is use search engines. One small thing we can do for the environment is do searches with [Ecosia][1], an organisation that donates 80% of surplus income to tree planting projects. There are add-ons for Firefox and Chrome to make it the default search engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're interested in learning more about the project, their Facebook page publishes occasional updates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ecosia.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4720" RevisionGUID="e8184e7e-291c-4932-86d4-b717f58c3da5" CreationDate="2015-09-17T08:22:18.007" UserId="2345" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="Recycling water is always a good initiative, but there is one golden rule: You MUST avoid re-use it in a &quot;circle&quot;, because of the accumulation of minerals and chemicals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Always think of a &quot;chain&quot; when re-using water. For example: use potable water for drinking and cooking. Water left from cooking: use to make sauce. Taking a shower/bath can be done with rainwater. The same counts for cleaning/laundry; for end cleaning you maybe prefer fresh water. Last part of the chain: your toilet and then maybe a septic tank as sewage storage. Water from the septic tank can be used for gardening/agriculture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: every time you use water, you can use it for a task which asks for&quot;lower quality&quot; water. IF you bring it back in the chain (retour-flow) you must drain a part of it, to prevent too much accumulation of unwanted materials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10362" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4720" RevisionGUID="e8184e7e-291c-4932-86d4-b717f58c3da5" CreationDate="2015-09-17T08:22:18.007" Comment="Proposed by 2345 approved by 659, 99 edit id of 338" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10363" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="05d10643-2449-47c0-94b3-4b5565c3db4a" CreationDate="2015-09-17T15:02:40.357" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/6500/how-much-ceco-2-do-those-gas-flame-pits-outside-restaurants-emit" />
  <row Id="10364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4725" RevisionGUID="edc6d4d7-5e7a-46af-a62d-fd3729029c96" CreationDate="2015-09-07T15:38:53.433" UserId="2587" UserDisplayName="Christoph" Text="Taking this video as a reference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYZKGlxutfw), a 20 lb (I take that as 10 kg) tank as in your burner lasts for 6 to 12 hours. So roughly 1 kg per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming pure propane, which has 36 g/mol $\ce{C}$ and 8 g/mol $\ce{H}$, every kg of propane contains 36/44 kg carbon. Under complete combustion this leads to 3 kg $\ce{CO_2}$, so that is your hourly $\ce{CO_2}$ emission. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison: Manufacturers of cars report something around 100 g/km (e.g. for a Mercedes C-Class) as $\ce{CO_2}$ emission. That value is of course highly optimistic. But if we assume these values, you need to drive roughly 30 km in order to emit 3 kg of $\ce{CO_2}$." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="b7ca67e9-1831-4c40-a6bf-3234d27f2ee6" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:50:36.700" UserId="2371" Text="I've been noticing gas-fueled flame pit displays outside some &quot;hip&quot; restaurants, such as [this one shown in a Portland Monthly article][1]. I find myself reacting to them with disgust; it looks like they're blowing fossil carbon into the sky like there's literally no tomorrow. The one in the linked article at least has people sitting around it; sometimes they're just alone out front, advertising the owner's environmental folly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't know how much $\ce{CO_2}$ such a display actually emits. Our environmental instincts aren't very accurate, and I fear that I may be getting huffy about these minor displays while blindly causing far more emissions elsewhere in my life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is this: how much $\ce{CO_2}$ does such a display emit relative to an average person's total environmental load? Is it equivalent to one percent of an average person's total emissions? All of a single person's? One hundred people's? Or you could compare it to other typical fuel-related activities: is it a Prius doing 35 mph? A Hummer doing 75 mph? Twenty loaded tractor-trailers on the highway? The [Allure of the Seas][2] carrying a full load of vacationers across the Caribbean? (Well, probably not the last one...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a baseline, use three of this [Uptown Fire Pit Table][3]s. It has a 12&quot; x 42&quot; burner (powered by a 20 pound propane tank in the base), and claims to [produce up to 88,000 BTUs][4], although I'll assume [they mean 88,000 BTU/hour][5]. So, the baseline would be a 12&quot; x 10' burner emitting 264,000 BTUs/hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pdxmonthly.com/articles/2011/7/22/portland-dining-firepits-august-2011&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Allure_of_the_Seas&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.outdoorrooms.com/store/fire-pits-fireplaces/fire-pits/uptown-fire-pit-table-with-1224-burner-424.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.outdoorrooms.com//wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Uptown-Sell-Sheet1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="b7ca67e9-1831-4c40-a6bf-3234d27f2ee6" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:50:36.700" UserId="2371" Text="How much $\ce{CO_2}$ do those gas flame pits outside restaurants emit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="b7ca67e9-1831-4c40-a6bf-3234d27f2ee6" CreationDate="2015-09-07T12:50:36.700" UserId="2371" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10368" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4725" RevisionGUID="e2cef395-b348-4082-bd34-8e79a998ecdd" CreationDate="2015-09-17T15:02:40.357" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/6500/how-much-ceco-2-do-those-gas-flame-pits-outside-restaurants-emit/6501#6501" />
  <row Id="10369" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4726" RevisionGUID="d3682485-172c-4a67-8bdc-f5774a11e948" CreationDate="2015-09-17T15:02:40.357" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/6500/how-much-ceco-2-do-those-gas-flame-pits-outside-restaurants-emit/6502#6502" />
  <row Id="10370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4726" RevisionGUID="694ebfe0-06ea-4f26-9d54-c761c21990c2" CreationDate="2015-09-07T16:53:28.600" UserId="2371" Text="Working from @Christoph's answer, here's what I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Baseline heat emission is 264,000 BTU/hour (at full blast)&#xD;&#xA; - 43,700 BTU in a kilogram of propane, so that's 6 kg/hour&#xD;&#xA; - 6 kg of propane contains $6 \times 36 / 44 = 4.9\ \mathrm{kg}$ of carbon&#xD;&#xA; - 4.9 kg of carbon forms $4.9 \times 44 / 12 = 18\ \mathrm{kg}$ of CO2 emitted by the fire pit per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparing to driving my own car:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I drive a 2015 Golf S automatic, which burns about 6.9 L of gasoline per 100 km on the highway&#xD;&#xA; - Burning 1 L of gasoline emits around 2.4 kg of $\ce{CO_2}$&#xD;&#xA; - My car emits 16.6 kg of $\ce{CO_2}$ per 100 km at highway speeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, that fire pit emits about what my car emits at highway speeds, constantly. On its own that isn't apocalyptic, but I still find it pretty irritating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Since @Christoph was working from the emissions of a single burner, and I was asking about three in order to match the larger burners I see at restaurants, our answers match pretty well.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10371" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="e6e5b58e-35e0-4dfd-827c-df6c51030de7" CreationDate="2015-09-18T04:52:14.383" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How much CO2 do those gas flame pits outside restaurants emit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10372" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="e6e5b58e-35e0-4dfd-827c-df6c51030de7" CreationDate="2015-09-18T04:52:14.383" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|heating|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4727" RevisionGUID="21f5338b-9343-4135-860d-c56c41530bdd" CreationDate="2015-09-18T12:48:11.653" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="One thing not explicitly mentioned in [Highly Irregular's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4267/2451):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you can buy the product online or in a physical store, choose for the store.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This lets you investigate with your hands and eyes. Photos on websites often do not show that a product is assembled out of cheap parts, that its finish is cheap paint, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you e.g. want to buy a stereo and it has wobbly plastic controls, you know it can't be high quality.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Or it can be as simple as weighing an object: a heavy ice scoop ;-) is probably better than a lightweight one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also dare to generalize and say that local stores where you can talk to people provide better service/warranties than an online shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10374" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="b36ff422-8acc-477d-be86-06f3067c4bcd" CreationDate="2015-09-18T13:54:46.110" UserId="2371" Comment="Removing MathJax notation" Text="I've been noticing gas-fueled flame pit displays outside some &quot;hip&quot; restaurants, such as [this one shown in a Portland Monthly article][1]. I find myself reacting to them with disgust; it looks like they're blowing fossil carbon into the sky like there's literally no tomorrow. The one in the linked article at least has people sitting around it; sometimes they're just alone out front, advertising the owner's environmental folly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't know how much CO2 such a display actually emits. Our environmental instincts aren't very accurate, and I fear that I may be getting huffy about these minor displays while blindly causing far more emissions elsewhere in my life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is this: how much CO2 does such a display emit relative to an average person's total environmental load? Is it equivalent to one percent of an average person's total emissions? All of a single person's? One hundred people's? Or you could compare it to other typical fuel-related activities: is it a Prius doing 35 mph? A Hummer doing 75 mph? Twenty loaded tractor-trailers on the highway? The [Allure of the Seas][2] carrying a full load of vacationers across the Caribbean? (Well, probably not the last one...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a baseline, use three of this [Uptown Fire Pit Table][3]s. It has a 12&quot; x 42&quot; burner (powered by a 20 pound propane tank in the base), and claims to [produce up to 88,000 BTUs][4], although I'll assume [they mean 88,000 BTU/hour][5]. So, the baseline would be a 12&quot; x 10' burner emitting 264,000 BTUs/hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pdxmonthly.com/articles/2011/7/22/portland-dining-firepits-august-2011&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Allure_of_the_Seas&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.outdoorrooms.com/store/fire-pits-fireplaces/fire-pits/uptown-fire-pit-table-with-1224-burner-424.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.outdoorrooms.com//wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Uptown-Sell-Sheet1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4726" RevisionGUID="3eb68d22-7957-4081-89a0-c59c4085e74a" CreationDate="2015-09-18T13:56:55.587" UserId="2371" Comment="Removing MathJax notation" Text="Working from @Christoph's answer, here's what I get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Baseline heat emission is 264,000 BTU/hour (at full blast)&#xD;&#xA; - 43,700 BTU in a kilogram of propane, so that's 6 kg/hour&#xD;&#xA; - 6 kg of propane contains 6 x 36 / 44 = 4.9 kg of carbon&#xD;&#xA; - 4.9 kg of carbon forms 4.9 x 44 / 12 = 18 kg of CO2 emitted by the fire pit per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparing to driving my own car:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I drive a 2015 Golf S automatic, which burns about 6.9 L of gasoline per 100 km on the highway&#xD;&#xA; - Burning 1 L of gasoline emits around 2.4 kg of CO2&#xD;&#xA; - My car emits 16.6 kg of CO2 per 100 km at highway speeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, that fire pit emits about what my car emits at highway speeds, constantly. On its own that isn't apocalyptic, but I still find it pretty irritating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Since @Christoph was working from the emissions of a single burner, and I was asking about three in order to match the larger burners I see at restaurants, our answers match pretty well.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="3d87fe37-46ef-41b4-97e5-ceaf23c207ea" CreationDate="2015-09-18T18:13:10.737" UserId="2589" Text="So, I want to try recycling the water I use to rinse the coffee grounds out of my morning coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thought is, a plant of some description on the (north facing) windowsil of my kitchen.  The question is - what sort of plant would&#xD;&#xA;a) survive that much coffee&#xD;&#xA;b) thrive on the reduced light level&#xD;&#xA;c) be edible/interesting in some fashion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10377" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="3d87fe37-46ef-41b4-97e5-ceaf23c207ea" CreationDate="2015-09-18T18:13:10.737" UserId="2589" Text="Coffee grounds to water plants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10378" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="3d87fe37-46ef-41b4-97e5-ceaf23c207ea" CreationDate="2015-09-18T18:13:10.737" UserId="2589" Text="|recycling|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4725" RevisionGUID="c4234b1f-9b40-4bc1-aa8c-63e52dd1ef8d" CreationDate="2015-09-18T19:32:47.597" UserId="2371" Comment="Removing MathJax" Text="Taking this video as a reference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYZKGlxutfw), a 20 lb (I take that as 10 kg) tank as in your burner lasts for 6 to 12 hours. So roughly 1 kg per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming pure propane, which has 36 g/mol C and 8 g/mol H, every kg of propane contains 36/44 kg carbon. Under complete combustion this leads to 3 kg CO2, so that is your hourly C)2 emission. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison: Manufacturers of cars report something around 100 g/km (e.g. for a Mercedes C-Class) as CO2 emission. That value is of course highly optimistic. But if we assume these values, you need to drive roughly 30 km in order to emit 3 kg of CO2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10380" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4725" RevisionGUID="c4234b1f-9b40-4bc1-aa8c-63e52dd1ef8d" CreationDate="2015-09-18T19:32:47.597" Comment="Proposed by 2371 approved by 85 edit id of 339" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4729" RevisionGUID="7c6ca880-1900-4d89-9f1e-54ce02645251" CreationDate="2015-09-19T11:48:37.060" UserId="2590" Text="I have a nine hundred square foot home that has a wood stove as its only source of heat. I am planning to be away for one to two weeks a couple times this winter and am wondering if an infra red heater(claims to heat up to 1000sq ft) would be sufficient to keep my plumbing from freezing. The only plumbing is the kitchen and bathroom and they are right beside each other, so with the bathroom door open the heater could be pointed at both. I have separate heat in the basement. I am also counting on it to run while I am at work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10382" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4729" RevisionGUID="7c6ca880-1900-4d89-9f1e-54ce02645251" CreationDate="2015-09-19T11:48:37.060" UserId="2590" Text="Infra red heaters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10383" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4729" RevisionGUID="7c6ca880-1900-4d89-9f1e-54ce02645251" CreationDate="2015-09-19T11:48:37.060" UserId="2590" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4730" RevisionGUID="43d1b2ae-68ce-4671-89e1-27360c759f7b" CreationDate="2015-09-19T13:09:52.923" UserId="48" Text="Anything that puts heat into your home has a chance of working. If you want to keep the plumbing from freezing, then the best place to apply a small amount of heat to do the job, would be on the plumbing itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Infrared heaters feel warmer than the actual heat that they put out, because our skin picks up the infrared and makes us feel much warmer. But the air temperature can still stay very cold, and it's that that will determine whether or not your pipes freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as a cost-saving way to stop the pipes freezing, infrared heater won't really work, other than just putting a bit of heat into the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be much more effective to lag all the pipes (hot and cold) thoroughly; and apply very local thermostatically-controlled heating to particularly vulnerable areas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4731" RevisionGUID="83ffda5e-7302-4998-8575-6d49fd43cb76" CreationDate="2015-09-19T13:38:22.880" UserId="2547" Text="I have 13 chickens.  They have a chicken coop with a large run attached by wire mesh on all sides. I have 2 terriers that would just assume eat them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I clean the coop, I lock them in the run,they obviously don't have access to the coop or nesting boxes at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, is it super stressful for them not to have access to the nesting box when it is time for them to lay an egg? It's not like I am cleaning it everyday, but it's about every month and a half or so.  This question is after the fact just curious what other people do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10386" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4731" RevisionGUID="83ffda5e-7302-4998-8575-6d49fd43cb76" CreationDate="2015-09-19T13:38:22.880" UserId="2547" Text="Stressing chickens out when it's time to lay" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10387" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4731" RevisionGUID="83ffda5e-7302-4998-8575-6d49fd43cb76" CreationDate="2015-09-19T13:38:22.880" UserId="2547" Text="|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10389" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4728" RevisionGUID="38526e4e-9870-4d6e-8c25-abf5741bd3fa" CreationDate="2015-09-20T06:42:05.023" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/645488078308679680" />
  <row Id="10390" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4731" RevisionGUID="72447f90-efbc-4540-b9e6-93437e259549" CreationDate="2015-09-20T14:22:29.597" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|husbandry|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10391" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4717" RevisionGUID="cd3bf62e-70dd-45e9-9a07-78054b1fb950" CreationDate="2015-09-20T15:42:05.070" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/645623973976371200" />
  <row Id="10392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4732" RevisionGUID="561ffa0d-0596-413e-89fb-5cab8a624e71" CreationDate="2015-09-21T08:27:00.390" UserId="2594" Text="I heard too much meat can bring up nitrogen too high. Also heard should add decomposers such as lacto-bacteria and yeast." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10397" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="afeae692-b419-4255-b65d-a49295aba272" CreationDate="2015-09-21T12:45:17.650" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/645941870489673728" />
  <row Id="10403" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4691" RevisionGUID="f07f1972-18c7-4315-8399-2277b574197a" CreationDate="2015-09-21T18:45:16.727" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/646032464037679108" />
  <row Id="10410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2912" RevisionGUID="ec53c020-b5c0-47f9-a956-1926086128f3" CreationDate="2015-09-22T18:30:38.990" UserId="1581" Comment="added a brief cxplanation" Text="If you care about the consumption of primary energy, a gas stove is best, as long as less than 70% of electricity comes from renewable sources. This is only a rough estimate, resulting from the fact that approx. 30% of primary energy used in combustion power plants arrive at your plug at home (due to losses in transformation and transmission).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, a gas stove is also more economic, at least in germany. Here, one kWh of heat from gas costs approx. 10ct, electricity is at 30ct/kWh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10411" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4597" RevisionGUID="9f6122da-512b-47c4-9e5d-735dc47d15cf" CreationDate="2015-09-22T18:47:37.083" Comment="http://twitter.com/#!/StackSustain/status/646395440179605506" />
  <row Id="10417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2912" RevisionGUID="7c8547f1-7d52-4ec2-8e5b-0b9311e5e271" CreationDate="2015-09-25T10:32:56.240" UserId="1581" Comment="improved classification" Text="If you are able to heat the oven from a renewable source (like solar energy, wood, biogas), this would be most efficient way to do it in terms of CO2-emmissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, this is not possible. Then you have to choose basically between an electical and a gas stove. In this case, a gas stove is best, as long as less than 70% of electricity comes from renewable sources. This is only a rough estimate, resulting from the fact that approx. 30% of primary energy used in combustion power plants arrive at your plug at home (due to losses in transformation and transmission).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, a gas stove is also more economic, at least in germany. Here, one kWh of heat from gas costs approx. 10ct, electricity is at 30ct/kWh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4738" RevisionGUID="997505b4-d86d-4e81-9f14-7d64c2cbdbdf" CreationDate="2015-09-27T09:40:27.270" UserId="2187" Text="What are the arguments in favour and against using music streaming services such as Spotify in comparison to having music stored in a local folder and accessible offline?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4738" RevisionGUID="997505b4-d86d-4e81-9f14-7d64c2cbdbdf" CreationDate="2015-09-27T09:40:27.270" UserId="2187" Text="The sustainability of Spotify" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4738" RevisionGUID="997505b4-d86d-4e81-9f14-7d64c2cbdbdf" CreationDate="2015-09-27T09:40:27.270" UserId="2187" Text="|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4738" RevisionGUID="9bbe4c87-40b2-464c-a99f-26f8a3105157" CreationDate="2015-09-28T05:29:44.787" UserId="2187" Comment="added energy use" Text="What are the arguments in favour and against using music streaming services such as Spotify in comparison to having music stored in a local folder and accessible offline?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability can refer to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - content accessibility&#xD;&#xA; - energy use of streaming" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="4401899d-59c3-48fe-bdca-60d127a44bc4" CreationDate="2015-09-29T17:13:02.913" UserId="2618" Text="A simple yet practical answer is. ***Cook in the winter, not in the summer.*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;wasted&quot; heat energy not applied to the food does not disappear, but dissipates into your house.  In the winter this theoretically reduces the burden on your heating system. But of course it will increase the burden on your cooling system.  My mother would always open the oven door so that the heat was not wasted. In reality, you don't need to open the door, since the heat will escape eventually.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This principle applies to lighting and other electronic devices contained within the envelope of your home. Most of the electronic energy is converted to heat dissipated within the home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10428" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4738" RevisionGUID="e1b84a9b-fdeb-4399-9b1a-0e01aecb5605" CreationDate="2015-09-29T17:42:13.850" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|green-it|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="e6971bbe-a63a-4d9d-bf7a-7c2250c7c1a9" CreationDate="2015-09-29T17:46:06.613" UserId="2618" Comment="made the guideline less absolute." Text="A simple yet practical answer is. ***Cook more in the winter, less in the summer.*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;wasted&quot; heat energy not applied to the food does not disappear, but dissipates into your house.  In the winter this theoretically reduces the burden on your heating system. But of course it will increase the burden on your cooling system.  My mother would always open the oven door so that the heat was not wasted. In reality, you don't need to open the door, since the heat will escape eventually.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This principle applies to lighting and other electronic devices contained within the envelope of your home. Most of the electronic energy is converted to heat dissipated within the home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4740" RevisionGUID="dc2680ac-f83b-4f7b-9c0e-57de105edfdc" CreationDate="2015-09-29T18:03:38.347" UserId="2618" Comment="removed practical" Text="Choosing when you use your oven may be more impactful than which type of oven you choose. Here is a simple guideline worth trying: ***Cook more in the winter, less in the summer.*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;wasted&quot; heat energy not applied to the food does not disappear, but dissipates into your house.  In the winter this theoretically reduces the burden on your heating system. But of course it will increase the burden on your cooling system.  My mother would always open the oven door so that the heat was not wasted. In reality, you don't need to open the door, since the heat will escape eventually.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This principle applies to lighting and other electronic devices contained within the envelope of your home. Most of the electronic energy is converted to heat dissipated within the home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4741" RevisionGUID="ba575be0-80ca-495d-bd4e-aa8ea7a1633a" CreationDate="2015-09-29T20:01:12.957" UserId="2619" Text="DE will kill most soft-bodied insects by causing them to become dehydrated due to miscroscopic cuts incurred from contact with the razor-sharp ancient fossil dust. Wasps definitely will die from DE exposure and contact. These cuts drain their fluids and dessicate their bodies. I have used it succesfully with ants as well as grasshoppers. Each requires a different approach, however the common goal is to make the insect come into contact with the diatomaceous earth, to make them cross or move through it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your yellow jacket wasp ground nests can be easily filled, to a degree, with powder sprayers found on the internet and in certain garden stores. Search using &quot;powder sprayer&quot; or &quot;pesticide duster&quot; as keywords. They range from hand-pumped technology to electric-powered portable units. In some cases a water application is useful because it will cause the DE to stick to the nest. An example would be wasp nests on walls or under rooftop overhangs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wasps are definitely killed after contact with DE. They have vulnerable abdomens and like ants will dehydrate from repeated contact. I can't vouch for any approximate time necessary for this to be successful on a wasp nest basis, but deeper research on the Web should have some more definitive time approximations for total nest death. With underground ant red ant nests in Arizona I have personally had it work in a day or two. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3072" RevisionGUID="0689eb91-6143-476b-89fb-d2c84fd54a54" CreationDate="2015-09-30T06:32:47.590" UserId="99" Comment="added link to snap circuits website" Text="One thing I've found fun is [Snap Circuits](http://snapcircuits.net). Though they have both an educational version, and a renewables kit, it is kind of broad (electronics in general), and doesn't just do solar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="458ca6a5-0c42-49ec-a93a-0d7f4da92fad" CreationDate="2015-09-30T15:06:53.277" UserId="2625" Text="Would an electric motorized vehicle work if there was a small gas-powered generator to power it instead of batteries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10437" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="458ca6a5-0c42-49ec-a93a-0d7f4da92fad" CreationDate="2015-09-30T15:06:53.277" UserId="2625" Text="How feasible would a gas-powered electric-engine based car be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10438" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="458ca6a5-0c42-49ec-a93a-0d7f4da92fad" CreationDate="2015-09-30T15:06:53.277" UserId="2625" Text="|energy-efficiency|cars|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4743" RevisionGUID="836f349e-18b0-4d45-8a3a-d9a795193f1f" CreationDate="2015-09-30T21:26:44.917" UserId="2625" Comment="added 298 characters in body" Text="Would an electric motorized vehicle work if there was a small gas-powered generator to power it instead of batteries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: The original Chevy Volt was going to have a gas generator to charge the lithium ion batteries, and I never understood why they did not go that route. It seems to make sense to me to use gasoline as the power source rather than having the entire underside of the car filled with batteries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="5c44f50f-d615-43e5-82e8-acbea3c1343a" CreationDate="2015-09-30T21:52:49.303" UserId="2627" Text="I think you had pretty much of advice pro electrical. &#xD;&#xA;I do not preach combustion is better than electrical, but would like to make some side notes in favor of combustion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**energy efficiency:**&#xD;&#xA;The energy for your electrical engine must come from somewhere. These sources are probably combustion engines, so basically you are adding an extra conversion which will loose energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Batteries:**&#xD;&#xA;Your batteries will be heavy. Assuming that you use the engine for locomotion, you will loose more energy because you accelerate more mass.&#xD;&#xA;Batteries will also be environmentally unfriendly and produced under bad condition labour.&#xD;&#xA;These batteries will also need transportation and replacement and old batteries might become a source of heavy metal waste. &#xD;&#xA;An empty battery is as heavy as a full one. Your fuel tank on the other hand will become lighter as you go. Technology however promises better batteries and you might also google 'fuel cell'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pollution:** Combustion engine pollution depends on what you are burning and how. If you would use hydrogen your pollution might be zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Engine complexity and durability:** Your electrical engine will likely last longer than your internal combustion engine. It will also be easier to use, maintain, design, build etc. &#xD;&#xA;From durability perspective you might want to have a look at External combustion engines (for example steam engine). This guy claims they have some of them running for over a hundred years: &#xD;&#xA;[http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/steamart.html][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From engine simplicity perspective it might be possible to use a more simple engine like a rocket engine. Of course they are not energy efficient but the bottomline I try to make is that the force you need for your vehicle is directional and not rotary. Combustion (and also electrical) engines complicate the issue by first converting to a rotating force and than to a directional one. One might simply propel a rocket engine against a rail to create a directional force at once. This would of course apply more to trains and not so much to cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get to much in the electrical car hype yet. I believe they are still more expensive even though heavily sponsored by governments. That latter being a good indication for how environmentally friendly they are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But don't understand this wrong: Electrical cars will become more advanced if batteries and/or fuel cells improve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://I%20think%20you%20had%20pretty%20much%20of%20advice%20pro%20electrical.%20%20I%20do%20not%20preach%20combustion%20is%20better%20than%20electrical,%20but%20would%20like%20to%20make%20some%20side%20notes%20in%20favor%20of%20combustion.%20%20%20**energy%20efficiency:**%20The%20energy%20for%20your%20electrical%20engine%20must%20come%20from%20somewhere.%20These%20sources%20are%20probably%20combustion%20engines,%20so%20basically%20you%20are%20adding%20an%20extra%20conversion%20which%20will%20loose%20energy.%20%20%20**Batteries:**%20Your%20batteries%20will%20be%20heavy.%20Assuming%20that%20you%20use%20the%20engine%20for%20locomotion,%20you%20will%20loose%20more%20energy%20because%20you%20accelerate%20more%20mass.%20Batteries%20will%20also%20be%20environmentally%20unfriendly%20and%20produced%20under%20bad%20condition%20labour.%20These%20batteries%20will%20also%20need%20transportation%20and%20replacement%20and%20old%20batteries%20might%20become%20a%20source%20of%20heavy%20metal%20waste.%20%20An%20empty%20battery%20is%20as%20heavy%20as%20a%20full%20one.%20Your%20fuel%20tank%20on%20the%20other%20hand%20will%20become%20lighter%20as%20you%20go.%20Technology%20however%20promises%20better%20batteries%20and%20you%20might%20also%20google%20'fuel%20cell'.%20%20**Pollution:**%20Combustion%20engine%20pollution%20depends%20on%20what%20you%20are%20burning%20and%20how.%20If%20you%20would%20use%20hydrogen%20your%20pollution%20might%20be%20zero.%20%20**Engine%20complexity%20and%20durability:**%20Your%20electrical%20engine%20will%20likely%20last%20longer%20than%20your%20internal%20combustion%20engine.%20It%20will%20also%20be%20easier%20to%20use,%20maintain,%20design,%20build%20etc.%20%20From%20durability%20perspective%20you%20might%20want%20to%20have%20a%20look%20at%20External%20combustion%20engines%20(for%20example%20steam%20engine).%20This%20guy%20claims%20they%20have%20some%20of%20them%20running%20for%20over%20a%20hundred%20years:%20%20http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/steamart.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4746" RevisionGUID="08370b31-e2f5-4415-b399-2cac281503bf" CreationDate="2015-10-01T04:17:14.437" UserId="2345" Text="The concept has been used in heavy duty mining trucks for decades. Diesel powered locomotive engines power an electric generator that then powers electric motors located on the rear axles of the trucks which then turn the wheels. One of my college lecturers mentioned in the early 1980s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was the solution to the engineering problem of not being able to have a tail shaft system, from a motor-gearbox system, strong enough to power heavy duty haulage trucks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting a fossil fuel based engine to power an electric generator in a car would be simpler by comparison. But as @Earthin suggests it would be a pointless exercise due to the inefficiencies introduced by having a double energy conversion: fossil fuel to mechanical energy to electrical energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an engineering perspective it's better to have only one energy conversion system. If a fossil fuel engine is going to be used then use it to power the drive wheels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With hybrid cars, the battery powers the drive wheels during light use, such as city driving. But for higher energy driving, such as highway driving, the fossil fuel engine takes over." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10450" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4675" RevisionGUID="feca3282-7a49-4bf9-a769-2ad039fbec60" CreationDate="2015-10-04T02:26:13.687" UserId="99" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4749" RevisionGUID="ba7ad63b-01b1-40d9-9f37-64d6a8cdae23" CreationDate="2015-10-04T09:02:00.703" UserId="812" Text="It would work, but there isn't much reason to do it. If you do this without batteries, you are giving up most of the potential advantages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you simply have an internal combustion engine (petrol or diesel, hereafter an ICE) driving a generator driving electric motor(s), then the engine must rev up and down according to the load from the motors at that instant, and thus has to behave in a similar fashion to an ICE that is driving wheels mechanically, except that some of its output is being lost in further conversion inefficiencies, and you are driving the weight of the electric motors around. Some heavy systems - e.g. trains, large industrial trucks (as noted in another answer), and ships, do do this, but as I understand it that's because it's a better transmission arrangement for these purposes for reasons that probably do not apply to cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you add batteries in the middle - so that you have an ICE charging batteries that are used to drive the car - then you have what is called a &quot;series hybrid&quot; system. There are two significant advantages to this approach:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Regenerative braking can be used. When the driver wants to slow down, instead of using only mechanical friction - which converts the car's kinetic energy to heat and wears away the brake pads - the motors can work as generators and reclaim some of the kinetic energy back into electrical energy in the battery. This can provide a big improvement in fuel efficiency for city driving, where lots of starting and stopping is required, as the car's energy is not being thrown away every time it stops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. When the ICE is running, it can be run at its most efficient rpm. When the ICE is not required (because there is sufficient energy in the batteries), it can be stopped. There is no need for the ICE to idle, or to otherwise run outside its most efficient range. Additionally, because the battery smooths out the peaks of demand (e.g. accelerating up a hill), the ICE must only provide for the *average* power required, not the peak. This means that a less powerful engine can be used to provide the same vehicle performance. Both of these things reduce the engine's fuel consumption, whether in cities or on the open road.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a further, optional, elaboration, if the battery capacity is high enough and a charging socket is added, this arrangement can be used as a &quot;series plugin-hybrid electric vehicle&quot;. For short journeys the battery is charged from a mains supply and the car operates as an all-electric vehicle, and for longer journeys the ICE is used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, according to Wikipedia this is the arrangement used by the [Chevy Volt][1]. Another vehicle with a similar system is an optional varient of the [BMW i3][2], which is by default a pure-electric car that can optionally be fitted with a &quot;range-extender&quot; generator. In this case the ICE is not sufficiently powerful to drive the car indefinitely, but adds substantially to the range that it has before charging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i3" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4548" RevisionGUID="c70f8f42-78d4-4232-ab3a-a980c2a8e1c1" CreationDate="2015-10-05T10:33:02.110" UserId="99" Comment="added some more examples" Text="**General recommendations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many households in the developed world the largest sources of CO2 emissions are transportation (car fuel), electricity, heating and food. This means that the average household can reduce its carbon footprint most effectively by taking measures such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - installing PV panels to generate electricity&#xD;&#xA; - buying an electric vehicle (assuming you can charge it with renewable energy)&#xD;&#xA; - take public transport more often&#xD;&#xA; - switching to a meatless diet&#xD;&#xA; - insulate your home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect CO2 emisisons from stuff you buy may also have a big impact, so it's always a good idea to reduce your consumption where possible, and reuse things as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Personalised recommendations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personalised recommendations are rather difficult. There can be very big differences in the CO2 emissions of the average household per country (see for example [this list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)), but it could also be that you've already taken measures and that you are far from being an 'average household'. Consequently it's best to carefully investigate your own lifestyle yourself to see where improvements can be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good way to start is to check a few online carbon footprint calculators to find out how much CO2 emissions you are currently responsible for.&#xD;&#xA;Carbon footprint calculators are far from perfect (see also [this article](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583613002168)), but it's  probably the best we have for personalized recommendations.&#xD;&#xA;There is a short list of calculators in this site's [carbon footprint tag information](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/carbon-footprint/info), but there are also many others. &#xD;&#xA;Some calculators, like the [Cool California calcualtor](http://www.coolcalifornia.org/calculator) for example, show intermediate results for different categories. This way you can see what currently is your biggest contribution to CO2 emissions, and by tweaking with the parameters you can try to find out what reductions may be possible for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get the most accurate result I recommend selecting calculators that were developed in your country of residence, or that at least allow you to select the country where you live (and hope they use recent and accurate data to make the calculations). I also recommend checking the results of more than 1 calculator, unless you are quite positive the calculator is founded on scientifically sound principles and uses recent and relevant data. Note that not all calculators include indirect CO2 emissions (that were emitted to manufacture a product or service before you started using it), so be careful when comparing results between several calculators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tree planting**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK there are no carbon footprint calculators that also show how much you can reduce your CO2 footprint by participating in a tree planting scheme. The efficiency of such a scheme would depend on many things such as; the type of tree planted, the geographical location where they are planted, the amount of space a tree has to grow, and the lifespan of the tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A figure you encounter often is that a tree can absorp up to 48 lbs of CO2 per year, but note that [this figure is a maximum](http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm) so the average CO2 absorption during it's lifespan will be lower. To give a rough estimate: [a tree will generally absorb around 1 tonne (about 2200 lbs) of CO2 during it's life-time](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/plantingtrees.html). However, the actual reduction of CO2 will be lower than this calculated amount because the CO2 will be released again once the tree dies. Tree planting alone will never be enough to compensate for all the CO2 that is emitted, so ultimately other solutions are needed. If you do decide to participate in a tree planting scheme, be careful that the particular scheme is legit and doesn't introduce monocultures because this may reduce biodiversity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4750" RevisionGUID="b18676dd-f663-4300-bdf7-8a4be327ac42" CreationDate="2015-10-05T10:48:52.067" UserId="99" Text="I already provided an answer to this question [here](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4548/99), which was written based on personal experience and knowledge, but in this answer I wanted to address some interesting details and specific measures I found in a [recent news article](http://nos.nl/artikel/2061311-bereken-online-wat-milieubewust-leven-oplevert.html) and [related infographics](http://www.klimaatklappers.nl). The article and infographics are based on scientific research by a Dutch NGO, who's goal it is to inform the public about energy and the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The average Dutch household (2.2 persons) emits 23 tons of CO2 per year. The 3 largest areas are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Transportation      5.6 tons CO2/year per family, &#xD;&#xA;                        4.0 for car use&#xD;&#xA;                        1.4 for flying&#xD;&#xA;                        0.2 for public transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food                5.6 tons CO2/year per family, &#xD;&#xA;                        2.3 for plant-based food&#xD;&#xA;                        1.9 for animal products&#xD;&#xA;                        1.3 for other (including bars and restaurants)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Energy use at home  4.1 tons CO2/year per family&#xD;&#xA;                        3.0 ton natural gas&#xD;&#xA;                        1.1 for electricity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dutch NGO also investigated the best measures you can take to reduce this footprint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Take the train to work instead of the car (about 180km return trip) 7500kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 2. Don't fly to your holiday destination (24000 km return trip)        5400kg CO2&#xD;&#xA; 3. Place 15 solar panels on your roof                                  1800kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 4. Insulate your walls                                                 1600kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 5. Insulate your roof                                                  1400kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 6. Insulate your floor                                                  600kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 7. Buy a smaller car (and rent a bigger car when you really need one)   500kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 8. Use an energy monitor and check which appliances consume most        400kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 9. Efficient/reduced heating (close doors, turn down heat at night)     360kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 10. Reduce food waste by a half                                         350kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 11. Don't eat meat 2 days a week                                        320kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 12. For short distances take a bike instead of a car                    310kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 13. Drive your car efficiently                                          290kg CO2/year &#xD;&#xA;    (shift to high gear quickly, use cruise control, check tyre pressure)&#xD;&#xA; 14. Don't buy food that's flown in or is grown in heated green houses   200kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 15. Evict high-consuming energy appliance                               190kg CO2/year &#xD;&#xA;    (e.g. aquarium, 2nd fridge, waterbed, sauna)                         &#xD;&#xA; 16. Install a more efficient shower head                                120kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 17. Dry your clothes outside instead of in the dryer                     90kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 18. Shower one minute shorter                                            60kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 19. Wash clothes at low temperatures                                     25kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source (in Dutch): http://www.klimaatklappers.nl " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="13dd3f71-9da0-4af5-9efd-dfbdc63e5a1b" CreationDate="2015-10-06T16:41:11.400" UserId="1408" Text="My electric washing machine has an *express wash* button (they seem a common feature) that reduces the washing time by a lot. My first thought would be that using it would save energy because of the much shorter time, but I'm guessing it has to do extra work to wash in a shorter time (faster spins?), so I could be wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've not measured the time difference, or looked at an energy meter because I'd like to know if there's a general principle I can apply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10459" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="13dd3f71-9da0-4af5-9efd-dfbdc63e5a1b" CreationDate="2015-10-06T16:41:11.400" UserId="1408" Text="Which is more energy efficient, a washing machine express wash, or normal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10460" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="13dd3f71-9da0-4af5-9efd-dfbdc63e5a1b" CreationDate="2015-10-06T16:41:11.400" UserId="1408" Text="|electricity|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4753" RevisionGUID="81ab25de-fa05-4303-b5bf-1314231751e2" CreationDate="2015-10-07T12:00:20.977" UserId="2648" Text="[Black,](http://www.swithenbanks.co.uk/product_uploads/1334568994_original_1.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;[Blue,](http://www.extremesolar.hu/kepek/termek/napelem_poly.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;[Light blue](http://www.solar-power-made-affordable.com/images/solar-roof-shingles.jpg). I have noticed different colored solar panels everywhere I go. I have a black solar panel that is installed on a solar flash light I also look on other people's houses to see a blue colored solar panels. Every time I ride the bus I see brand new houses with built in light blue solar panels. So why are solar panels different colors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10462" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4753" RevisionGUID="81ab25de-fa05-4303-b5bf-1314231751e2" CreationDate="2015-10-07T12:00:20.977" UserId="2648" Text="Why are solar panels different colors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10463" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4753" RevisionGUID="81ab25de-fa05-4303-b5bf-1314231751e2" CreationDate="2015-10-07T12:00:20.977" UserId="2648" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4755" RevisionGUID="72c7b95f-cb29-4a6e-aa41-9dda4c3eadc1" CreationDate="2015-10-07T21:12:10.823" UserId="85" Text="I think a &quot;general principle&quot; is that &quot;express wash&quot; usually means one or more of the following&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- reduce the wash cycle &#xD;&#xA;- reduce the spin cycle&#xD;&#xA;- skip a rinse cycle (e.g. by not using any softener)&#xD;&#xA;- etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, rather than &quot;same washing in less time&quot; you get &quot;less washing&quot;, but still enough for not-so-dirty clothes to get clean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that the total amount of energy is _less_, so express wash is more energy efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Talking about &quot;general principles&quot;, a priori there is no immediate problem with hardly ever washing clothes, or washing them for shorter periods of time. But if dirty clothes would make you throw them away earlier, washing them on time may be more sustainable.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4756" RevisionGUID="eb7b7cc8-5b42-4d61-a92f-24454653f95c" CreationDate="2015-10-07T23:41:43.540" UserId="2652" Text="I use sheep wool to insulate my little cottage and it works great, it might seem you need a thicker layer though - as long as the beams can hold it, I will just add more wool on top. I use wool from my own sheep, so its free and the transportation cost is 50 meters :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very important to discard bits of wool that have muck or sheep droppings on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very very important to treat the wool with Borax or other similar substance to make it unhabitable for moths. I didn't and I &quot;enjoy&quot; a massive number of moths flying out of my attic every spring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of mice living in the wool is very comparable to a similar setup using rock wool (experience from my last house)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4548" RevisionGUID="f4c3b6d8-591d-434e-af64-f5f836a0aba3" CreationDate="2015-10-08T03:26:54.020" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added link to EPA GHG spreadsheet" Text="**General recommendations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many households in the developed world the largest sources of CO2 emissions are transportation (car fuel), electricity, heating and food. This means that the average household can reduce its carbon footprint most effectively by taking measures such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - installing PV panels to generate electricity&#xD;&#xA; - buying an electric vehicle (assuming you can charge it with renewable energy)&#xD;&#xA; - take public transport more often&#xD;&#xA; - switching to a meatless diet&#xD;&#xA; - insulate your home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect CO2 emisisons from stuff you buy may also have a big impact, so it's always a good idea to reduce your consumption where possible, and reuse things as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Personalised recommendations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personalised recommendations are rather difficult. There can be very big differences in the CO2 emissions of the average household per country (see for example [this list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)), but it could also be that you've already taken measures and that you are far from being an 'average household'. Consequently it's best to carefully investigate your own lifestyle yourself to see where improvements can be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good way to start is to check a few online carbon footprint calculators to find out how much CO2 emissions you are currently responsible for.&#xD;&#xA;Carbon footprint calculators are far from perfect (see also [this article](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583613002168)), but it's  probably the best we have for personalized recommendations.&#xD;&#xA;There is a short list of calculators in this site's [carbon footprint tag information](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/carbon-footprint/info), but there are also many others. &#xD;&#xA;Some calculators, like the [Cool California calculator](http://www.coolcalifornia.org/calculator) for example, show intermediate results for different categories. This way you can see what currently is your biggest contribution to CO2 emissions, and by tweaking with the parameters you can try to find out what reductions may be possible for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get the most accurate result I recommend selecting calculators that were developed in your country of residence, or that at least allow you to select the country where you live (and hope they use recent and accurate data to make the calculations). I also recommend checking the results of more than 1 calculator, unless you are quite positive the calculator is founded on scientifically sound principles and uses recent and relevant data. Note that not all calculators include indirect CO2 emissions (that were emitted to manufacture a product or service before you started using it), so be careful when comparing results between several calculators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively if you really want to make an effort and love spreadsheets and tweaking parameters, I recommend using the [GHG emissions spreadsheet](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/GHGCalculator.xls) created by the EPA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tree planting**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK there are no carbon footprint calculators that also show how much you can reduce your CO2 footprint by participating in a tree planting scheme. The efficiency of such a scheme would depend on many things such as; the type of tree planted, the geographical location where they are planted, the amount of space a tree has to grow, and the lifespan of the tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A figure you encounter often is that a tree can absorp up to 48 lbs of CO2 per year, but note that [this figure is a maximum](http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm) so the average CO2 absorption during it's lifespan will be lower. To give a rough estimate: [a tree will generally absorb around 1 tonne (about 2200 lbs) of CO2 during it's life-time](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/plantingtrees.html). However, the actual reduction of CO2 will be lower than this calculated amount because the CO2 will be released again once the tree dies. Tree planting alone will never be enough to compensate for all the CO2 that is emitted, so ultimately other solutions are needed. If you do decide to participate in a tree planting scheme, be careful that the particular scheme is legit and doesn't introduce monocultures because this may reduce biodiversity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4757" RevisionGUID="74d3521c-4ab6-44ca-a72a-b5b63fce938d" CreationDate="2015-10-08T08:30:24.010" UserId="15" Text="To supplement the existing answer, it's worth mentioning that using a hot wash may well incur more electricity costs in water heating than the washing machine incurs in actually washing, assuming you use electricity to heat your water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According to this][1], 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity will only get you around 18 litres of hot water. I'd guess that most washing machines would use less than 1KWh of electricity for a cycle, but a full hot wash could easily use more than 18 litres of hot water. It pays to use a cold wash if you can!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1200/15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10469" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4753" RevisionGUID="1e4488ed-5664-4fc8-a9df-11d99f371bfb" CreationDate="2015-10-08T10:50:07.713" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/652073482105286660" />
  <row Id="10479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="cc22fb41-8319-4678-889e-3a5b1ecebd71" CreationDate="2015-10-10T22:47:22.973" UserId="1924" Text="Every food source comes with some complexities when considering the source, impact and price. [This article](http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/351723) includes details around the popular practice of macaques trained to pick coconuts. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4761" RevisionGUID="b9dd9e11-b9be-49a8-91e2-365ee144d47f" CreationDate="2015-10-10T23:32:29.847" UserId="1924" Text="One reason for differing blue to black hues would be different manufacturing methods for silicon panels and how they reflect light a bit differently due to the material (crystal) arrangement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cut from pure drawn crystalline silicon bars, the cell material for monocrystalline panels can have a more uniform black color and broader light absorption at a particular angle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Made from silicon offcuts, polycrystalline panels (also known as multicrystalline) are molded into rectangular block cells using several bits of crystal. This arrangement prevents perfect alignment and joints in the material causing more varied reflection at different angles and a generally more blue appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Though less efficient from a singular angle, there are applications that make the second type just as effective given various circumstances due to the varied-angle cell material.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hybrid constructions can create varied blue to black appearances. There are less efficient cells that reflect yet other colors that are being developed to encourage adoption for broader construction and design purposes or applications.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4761" RevisionGUID="00c1ce64-cf30-4e91-b514-5d35da4386e7" CreationDate="2015-10-13T20:44:53.153" UserId="1924" Comment="Added mention of other panel types, clarified main explanation as relating to very common type, included an article reference about color efficiency and added a summary." Text="Reasons for differing blue to black hues in very common silicon panels would be different manufacturing methods and how they reflect light a bit differently due to the material (crystal) arrangement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cut from pure drawn crystalline silicon bars, the cell material for monocrystalline panels can have a more uniform black color and broader light absorption at a particular angle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Made from silicon offcuts, polycrystalline panels (also known as multicrystalline) are molded into rectangular block cells using several bits of crystal. This arrangement prevents perfect alignment and joints in the material causing more varied reflection at different angles and a generally more blue appearance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Though less efficient from a singular angle, there are applications that make the second type just as effective given various circumstances due to the varied-angle cell material.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hybrid constructions can create varied blue to black appearances. There are examples of [less efficient cells][1] that reflect yet other colors that are being developed to encourage adoption for broader construction and design purposes or applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Less common panels of other types and materials (including thin film types) will have their own material and manufacturing peculiarities. One example is a measurable darkening effect of the glass when ionized atoms of insulating material move creating fields giving rise to color fields. Special treatments or processes (like glass doping) can alleviate or modify these effects but can increase cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless a particular color is desirable, there are many different factors that determine precisely what color occurs in the final product. Along with market forces and required purpose, the final hue has more to do with the interplay of materials (layered substrate/conductor/window/absorber) decided on during the design and eventually replayed through an engineered manufacturing process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2015/02/solar-cells-now-rainbow-colors &quot;Solar Cells Now Rainbow Colors&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="b06da00a-785e-4e6f-82ca-18977fa26400" CreationDate="2015-10-13T22:56:25.570" UserId="2663" Text="# Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Professor Bugbee][1]'s [presentation][2], he [describes][3] some drawbacks of vertical farming (VF) versus traditional horizontal agriculture. Most of Bugbee's arguments against VF hinge on grow lamp efficiency. In July of 2015, a [step towards][4] a 400lm/W monolithic white laser was [announced][5]. Laser lights are several times brighter than LEDs and use much less energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bugbee's calculations with respect to his assumptions about photon energy conversion into biomass appear to be correct. Therefore his conclusion also seems to be correct: vertical farms are far less efficient than traditional agriculture (for growing tomatoes). This doesn't necessarily mean they aren't viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the assumptions above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How would you calculate the required lamp efficiency to achieve parity or near-parity with traditional agriculture?&#xD;&#xA;1. What is the lumens per watt efficiency necessary to make vertical farming equivalent to horizontal agriculture (in terms of energy usage and production)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Addendum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4759/hypothetical-energy-requirements-calculations-for-vertical-farms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cpl.usu.edu/htm/about-us/directory/memberID=5316&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cornellcea.com/resourcesPublications/otherResources/PSC%20departmental%20seminar%20-%20Vertical%20farming-Turning%20fossil%20fuels%20into%20food.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISAKc9gpGjw&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/the-first-white-laser&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://nanophotonics.asu.edu/paper/Fan-NatureNanotech2015.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="b06da00a-785e-4e6f-82ca-18977fa26400" CreationDate="2015-10-13T22:56:25.570" UserId="2663" Text="Can artificial lighting achieve near-parity with horizontal agriculture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="b06da00a-785e-4e6f-82ca-18977fa26400" CreationDate="2015-10-13T22:56:25.570" UserId="2663" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|light|vertical-gardening|farming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="21c9096c-6c39-44ed-ab87-e5137ac0f4b8" CreationDate="2015-10-14T00:25:36.340" UserId="2663" Comment="added 266 characters in body" Text="# Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Professor Bugbee][1]'s [presentation][2], he [describes][3] some drawbacks of vertical farming (VF) versus traditional horizontal agriculture. Most of Bugbee's arguments against VF hinge on grow lamp efficiency. In July of 2015, a [step towards][4] a 400lm/W monolithic white laser was [announced][5]. Laser lights are several times brighter than LEDs and use much less energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He illustrates a compelling argument as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Solar Inputs][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The arrows represent relative inputs. Sunlight, being the largest, dwarfs fossil fuels (black) and water (blue). Also, it's free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bugbee's calculations with respect to his assumptions about photon energy conversion into biomass appear to be correct. Therefore his conclusion also seems to be correct: vertical farms are far less efficient than traditional agriculture (for growing tomatoes). This doesn't necessarily mean they aren't viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the assumptions above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How would you calculate the required lamp efficiency to achieve parity or near-parity with traditional agriculture?&#xD;&#xA;1. What is the lumens per watt efficiency necessary to make vertical farming equivalent to horizontal agriculture (in terms of energy usage and production)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Addendum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4759/hypothetical-energy-requirements-calculations-for-vertical-farms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cpl.usu.edu/htm/about-us/directory/memberID=5316&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cornellcea.com/resourcesPublications/otherResources/PSC%20departmental%20seminar%20-%20Vertical%20farming-Turning%20fossil%20fuels%20into%20food.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISAKc9gpGjw&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/the-first-white-laser&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://nanophotonics.asu.edu/paper/Fan-NatureNanotech2015.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7zi4j.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="b1b0e050-5483-4a4f-a4c7-2aa6ccbf7c99" CreationDate="2015-10-14T01:48:02.550" UserId="2663" Comment="added 725 characters in body" Text="# Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Professor Bugbee][1]'s [presentation][2], he [describes][3] some drawbacks of vertical farming (VF) versus traditional horizontal agriculture. Most of Bugbee's arguments against VF hinge on grow lamp efficiency. In July of 2015, a [step towards][4] a 400lm/W monolithic white laser was [announced][5]. Laser lights are several times brighter than LEDs and use much less energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He illustrates a compelling argument as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Solar Inputs][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arrows represent relative inputs. Free sunlight, being the largest, dwarfs fossil fuels (black) and water (blue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bugbee's calculations with respect to his assumptions about photon energy conversion into biomass appear to be correct. Therefore his conclusion also seems to be correct: vertical farms are far less efficient than traditional agriculture (for growing tomatoes). This doesn't necessarily mean they aren't viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the assumptions above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How would you calculate the required lamp efficiency to achieve parity or near-parity with traditional agriculture?&#xD;&#xA;1. What is the lumens per watt efficiency necessary to make vertical farming equivalent to horizontal agriculture (in terms of energy usage and production)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, barring [compact fusion][7], can can we even come close (within an order of magnitude) to achieving sun-like capacity for food growth using technology? (For **example**, concentrated [solar capture][8] at 85%, [batteries][9] with 85% storage efficiency, 95% [transmission][10] efficiency, and highly-efficient grow lamps could be in the ballpark. I don't know, hence the question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Addendum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4759/hypothetical-energy-requirements-calculations-for-vertical-farms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cpl.usu.edu/htm/about-us/directory/memberID=5316&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cornellcea.com/resourcesPublications/otherResources/PSC%20departmental%20seminar%20-%20Vertical%20farming-Turning%20fossil%20fuels%20into%20food.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISAKc9gpGjw&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/the-first-white-laser&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://nanophotonics.asu.edu/paper/Fan-NatureNanotech2015.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7zi4j.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/compact-fusion.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/11/04/why-are-solar-panels-so-inefficient/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraBattery#DC.E2.80.93DC_efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-achieve-superconductivity-at-room-temperature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="3f1eea84-5ddf-4bb5-875c-86b23e858407" CreationDate="2015-10-14T01:53:06.670" UserId="2663" Comment="added 725 characters in body" Text="# Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Professor Bugbee][1]'s [presentation][2], he [describes][3] some drawbacks of vertical farming (VF) versus traditional horizontal agriculture. Most of Bugbee's arguments against VF hinge on grow lamp efficiency. In July of 2015, a [step towards][4] a 400lm/W monolithic white laser was [announced][5]. Laser lights are several times brighter than LEDs and use much less energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He illustrates a compelling argument as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Solar and Agriculture][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arrows represent relative inputs and outputs. Sunlight, being large and free, dwarfs fossil fuels (black), water (blue), and crop yield (green).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bugbee's calculations with respect to his assumptions about photon energy conversion into biomass appear to be correct. Therefore his conclusion also seems to be correct: vertical farms are far less efficient than traditional agriculture (for growing tomatoes). This doesn't necessarily mean they aren't viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the assumptions above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How would you calculate the required lamp efficiency to achieve parity or near-parity with traditional agriculture?&#xD;&#xA;1. What is the lumens per watt efficiency necessary to make vertical farming equivalent to horizontal agriculture (in terms of energy usage and production)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, barring [compact fusion][7], can can we even come close (within an order of magnitude) to achieving sun-like capacity for food growth using technology? (For **example**, concentrated [solar capture][8] at 85%, [batteries][9] with 85% storage efficiency, 95% [transmission][10] efficiency, and highly-efficient grow lamps could be in the ballpark. I don't know, hence the question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Addendum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4759/hypothetical-energy-requirements-calculations-for-vertical-farms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cpl.usu.edu/htm/about-us/directory/memberID=5316&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cornellcea.com/resourcesPublications/otherResources/PSC%20departmental%20seminar%20-%20Vertical%20farming-Turning%20fossil%20fuels%20into%20food.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISAKc9gpGjw&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/the-first-white-laser&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://nanophotonics.asu.edu/paper/Fan-NatureNanotech2015.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t7hHq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/compact-fusion.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/11/04/why-are-solar-panels-so-inefficient/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraBattery#DC.E2.80.93DC_efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-achieve-superconductivity-at-room-temperature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="f97cfc67-8c42-4e4d-939c-4ae004b8698c" CreationDate="2015-10-14T06:03:15.227" UserId="2663" Comment="added 298 characters in body" Text="# Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Professor Bugbee][1]'s [presentation][2], he [describes][3] some drawbacks of vertical farming (VF) versus traditional horizontal agriculture. Most of Bugbee's arguments against VF hinge on grow lamp efficiency. In July of 2015, a [step towards][4] a 400lm/W monolithic white laser was [announced][5]. Laser lights are several times brighter than LEDs and use much less energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He illustrates a compelling argument as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Solar and Agriculture][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arrows represent relative inputs and outputs. Sunlight, being large and free, dwarfs fossil fuels (black), water (blue), and crop yield (green).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bugbee's calculations with respect to his assumptions about photon energy conversion into biomass appear to be correct. Therefore his conclusion also seems to be correct: vertical farms are far less efficient than traditional agriculture (for growing tomatoes). This doesn't necessarily mean they aren't viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the assumptions above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How would you calculate the required lamp efficiency to achieve parity or near-parity with traditional agriculture?&#xD;&#xA;1. What is the lumens per watt efficiency necessary to make vertical farming equivalent to horizontal agriculture (in terms of energy usage and production)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: While [PAR][7] is the preferred way to measure photon use by plants, it is onerous to [convert][8] PAR into the theoretical luminous efficiency of grow lamps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, barring [compact fusion][9], can can we even come close (within an order of magnitude) to achieving sun-like capacity for food growth using technology? (For **example**, concentrated [solar capture][10] at 85%, [batteries][11] with 85% storage efficiency, 95% [transmission][12] efficiency, and highly-efficient grow lamps could be in the ballpark. I don't know, hence the question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Addendum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4759/hypothetical-energy-requirements-calculations-for-vertical-farms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cpl.usu.edu/htm/about-us/directory/memberID=5316&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cornellcea.com/resourcesPublications/otherResources/PSC%20departmental%20seminar%20-%20Vertical%20farming-Turning%20fossil%20fuels%20into%20food.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISAKc9gpGjw&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/the-first-white-laser&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://nanophotonics.asu.edu/paper/Fan-NatureNanotech2015.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t7hHq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetically_active_radiation&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.egc.com/useful_info_lighting.php&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/compact-fusion.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/11/04/why-are-solar-panels-so-inefficient/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraBattery#DC.E2.80.93DC_efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-achieve-superconductivity-at-room-temperature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4764" RevisionGUID="15105a6f-9314-4ddd-963c-966225d677d9" CreationDate="2015-10-14T14:05:02.973" UserId="2674" Text="I use them in garden/indoor. Something like this...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Moneyplant] (https://madebylakshmi.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/dsc09761.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(source : google search)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="82f351fe-81f4-4ca5-8778-f2933361a874" CreationDate="2015-10-14T21:10:00.963" UserId="2663" Comment="deleted 74 characters in body" Text="# Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Professor Bugbee][1]'s [presentation][2], he [describes][3] some drawbacks of vertical farming (VF) versus traditional horizontal agriculture. Most of Bugbee's arguments against VF hinge on grow lamp efficiency. In July of 2015, a [step towards][4] a 400lm/W monolithic white laser was [announced][5]. Laser lights are several times brighter than LEDs and use much less energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He illustrates a compelling argument as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Solar and Agriculture][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arrows represent relative inputs and outputs. Sunlight, being large and free, dwarfs fossil fuels (black), water (blue), and crop yield (green).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bugbee's calculations with respect to his assumptions about photon energy conversion into biomass appear to be correct. Therefore his conclusion also seems to be correct: vertical farms are far less efficient than traditional agriculture (for growing tomatoes). This doesn't necessarily mean they aren't viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the assumptions above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What is the lumens per watt efficiency necessary to allow vertical farming to compete with horizontal agriculture (in terms of energy usage and production)?&#xD;&#xA;1. How did you calculate that efficiency?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: While [PAR][7] is the preferred way to measure photon use by plants, it is onerous to [convert][8] PAR into the theoretical luminous efficiency of grow lamps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, barring [compact fusion][9], can can we even come close (within an order of magnitude) to achieving a capacity for indoor food growth using technology? (For **example**, concentrated [solar capture][10] at 85%, [batteries][11] with 85% storage efficiency, 95% [transmission][12] efficiency, and highly-efficient grow lamps could be in the ballpark. I don't know, hence the question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Addendum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4759/hypothetical-energy-requirements-calculations-for-vertical-farms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cpl.usu.edu/htm/about-us/directory/memberID=5316&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cornellcea.com/resourcesPublications/otherResources/PSC%20departmental%20seminar%20-%20Vertical%20farming-Turning%20fossil%20fuels%20into%20food.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISAKc9gpGjw&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/the-first-white-laser&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://nanophotonics.asu.edu/paper/Fan-NatureNanotech2015.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t7hHq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetically_active_radiation&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.egc.com/useful_info_lighting.php&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/compact-fusion.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/11/04/why-are-solar-panels-so-inefficient/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraBattery#DC.E2.80.93DC_efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-achieve-superconductivity-at-room-temperature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="2f9f3dbb-aad4-48e9-b93b-5802e9178cca" CreationDate="2015-10-15T01:39:22.163" UserId="2663" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="# Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Professor Bugbee][1]'s [presentation][2], he [describes][3] some drawbacks of vertical farming (VF) versus traditional horizontal agriculture. Most of Bugbee's arguments against VF hinge on grow lamp efficiency. In July of 2015, a [step towards][4] a 400lm/W monolithic white laser was [announced][5]. Laser lights are several times brighter than LEDs and use much less energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He illustrates a compelling argument as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Solar and Agriculture][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arrows represent relative inputs and outputs. Sunlight, being large and free, dwarfs fossil fuels (black), water (blue), and crop yield (green).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bugbee's calculations with respect to his assumptions about photon energy conversion into biomass appear to be correct. Therefore his conclusion also seems to be correct: vertical farms are far less efficient than traditional agriculture (for growing tomatoes). This doesn't necessarily mean they aren't viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the assumptions above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What is the lumens per watt efficiency necessary to allow vertical farming to compete with horizontal agriculture (in terms of energy usage and production)?&#xD;&#xA;1. How did you calculate that efficiency?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: While [PAR][7] is the preferred way to measure photon use by plants, it is onerous to [convert][8] PAR into the theoretical luminous efficiency of grow lamps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, barring [compact fusion][9], can can we wholly replace (in time) traditional plant-based agriculture farming by growing indoors using technology? (For **example**, concentrated [solar capture][10] at 85%, [batteries][11] with 85% storage efficiency, 95% [transmission][12] efficiency, and highly-efficient grow lamps could be in the ballpark. I don't know, hence the question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Addendum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4759/hypothetical-energy-requirements-calculations-for-vertical-farms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cpl.usu.edu/htm/about-us/directory/memberID=5316&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cornellcea.com/resourcesPublications/otherResources/PSC%20departmental%20seminar%20-%20Vertical%20farming-Turning%20fossil%20fuels%20into%20food.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISAKc9gpGjw&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/the-first-white-laser&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://nanophotonics.asu.edu/paper/Fan-NatureNanotech2015.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t7hHq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetically_active_radiation&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.egc.com/useful_info_lighting.php&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/compact-fusion.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/11/04/why-are-solar-panels-so-inefficient/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraBattery#DC.E2.80.93DC_efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-achieve-superconductivity-at-room-temperature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10507" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="b2624460-2d78-49be-a998-93cda6b5789d" CreationDate="2015-10-15T04:43:11.427" UserId="2663" Comment="edited title" Text="Can artificial lighting compete with horizontal agriculture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4765" RevisionGUID="76cfd23f-27aa-49f9-9e8c-ce8bf966fc0d" CreationDate="2015-10-15T20:34:46.910" UserId="2679" Text="I'm curious if anyone has an information about the largest polyculture farms that have been able to be successful. Are planning and harvesting techniques good enough to make polyculture economically competitive at scale?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10509" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4765" RevisionGUID="76cfd23f-27aa-49f9-9e8c-ce8bf966fc0d" CreationDate="2015-10-15T20:34:46.910" UserId="2679" Text="What's the largest polyculture farm out there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10510" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4765" RevisionGUID="76cfd23f-27aa-49f9-9e8c-ce8bf966fc0d" CreationDate="2015-10-15T20:34:46.910" UserId="2679" Text="|food|farming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10515" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4765" RevisionGUID="d9a4a66e-e952-40c5-bcbc-689f0e8292b6" CreationDate="2015-10-16T17:37:58.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/655075223692275712" />
  <row Id="10516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="424afaaf-869c-4913-9ea1-5131c96ddb8f" CreationDate="2015-10-16T19:58:44.377" UserId="2682" Text="I am tasked with finding a compostable takeout containers for a food festival that we can use to replace thousands of styrofoam takeout containers. There are a lot of issues with convincing the organizers to do it; the two primary concerns are cost, and the durability of the container once hot, moist food has been sitting in it for a while (say, up to 30 minutes while somebody is driving home). The durability of the containers we buy is going to affect both of these issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two materials I have been looking at (online suppliers) so far are sugarcane or natural fiber, both of which are compostable. Some of them have &quot;heavy duty&quot; or &quot;lined&quot; versions, which would likely stand up better to food. However, they are also up to double the cost — and since expense is an argument against the compostable containers in the first place, needing to buy an even-more-expensive version will be a tougher sell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How durable is a &quot;standard&quot; compostable container compared to a &quot;heavy duty&quot; compostable container?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Or, are there materials beyond sugarcane or natural fiber which are more like plastic and therefore essentially water-proof? Would they still be able to stand up to hot food safely?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to get samples of the various options and plan to test this myself, but that takes some time and I would appreciate some ideas so I know which avenues to pursue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10517" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="424afaaf-869c-4913-9ea1-5131c96ddb8f" CreationDate="2015-10-16T19:58:44.377" UserId="2682" Text="How &quot;heavy duty&quot; does a compostable container need to be to hold hot food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10518" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="424afaaf-869c-4913-9ea1-5131c96ddb8f" CreationDate="2015-10-16T19:58:44.377" UserId="2682" Text="|compostable-plastic|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="e2f86a72-b243-4c11-af19-621d81687e25" CreationDate="2015-10-17T00:13:52.080" UserId="2371" Comment="Removing broken link" Text="I'm interested in public policy as regards recycling. I recently read an interesting [Atlantic article][1] on single-stream recycling, which noted that single-stream certainly makes it as easy as possible for end users to recycle, but can raise expense and result in potentially-recyclable materials being put in a landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cities need to choose the &quot;best&quot; policy for recycling, but &quot;best&quot; has to include cost, convenience for the end user, what percentage of discarded material ends up in an undifferentiated landfill, least harm to the environment, as well as public relations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lowest cost, the best policy is probably collecting only the most valuable recyclable materials (steel, aluminum and newspaper) and [chucking the rest in a landfill][2]. For best public relations (assuming their public is clueless) they'd just paint RECYCLE on the side of all their trash trucks, and still chuck everything in the landfill. For most material actually recycled and/or least environmental harm, they'd do multiple-stream recycling and pay a lot of money for hand-separation of additional materials. But none of these would be a balanced policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is the current state-of-the-art for recycling policy? If location matters, then choose the Boston, Massachusetts area, or specify whatever location you like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/09/single-stream-recycling-is-easier-for-consumers-but-is-it-better/380368/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275963/Recycling-Millions-tons-end-landfill-officials-admit-success-exaggerated.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="40afd3d4-134e-4717-b74d-711e7fab098b" CreationDate="2015-10-18T12:31:31.663" UserId="2687" Text="I would have a question. I lived till now in a number of Eastern and Western European countries. With time I saw that the states/cities in which I lived made provisions (most recently in Poland-Warsaw), that garbage needs to be separated. Myself being an economist, I always wondered, are there real benefits to this garbage separation, or is it more a &quot;feel good/image thing&quot;. Thus my question is, what exactly are the benefits (e.g. cost reduction, garbage processing efficiency...) of garbage separation. Any examples (especially quantifications of the benefits) would be very welcome (references to articles would be appreciated).   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="40afd3d4-134e-4717-b74d-711e7fab098b" CreationDate="2015-10-18T12:31:31.663" UserId="2687" Text="Is garbage separation beneficial, if yes, how beneficial is it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="40afd3d4-134e-4717-b74d-711e7fab098b" CreationDate="2015-10-18T12:31:31.663" UserId="2687" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4771" RevisionGUID="4bbaf1c3-9bd1-4f43-8a8b-fadfde10d656" CreationDate="2015-10-18T17:53:07.850" UserId="1053" Text="I disagree with the answers that say not to use it. It may in fact be an excellent idea to use it if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - you live somewhere that requires your home to be heated in the winter&#xD;&#xA; - you currently heat with electricity or with something less efficient than electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;wasted&quot; energy from an incandescent bulb is wasted as heat. In the summer, this is really bad since at best it is thrown away and at worst it might cause you to use energy in cooling. But in the winter, the bulb is a tiny little electric furnace, with about the same efficiency as other electric heating approaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you throw the bulb away unused or use it has no effect on the materials and energy used to make it. But if using it will save overall energy consumption (by enabling you to use less of a less-efficient heating approach) then you should use it before throwing it away. If you heat with electricity, then by using it before throwing it away you are not saving any energy, but you are postponing the time when you'll need to buy more &quot;regular&quot; (efficient LED probably) light bulbs, thus saving (a probably minuscule but non zero amount of) money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="e5940332-542c-4fa0-8905-c9c0f2cc8fa2" CreationDate="2015-10-19T07:20:53.433" UserId="96" Text="I know from shop talk among previous collegues that waste incinerators often need natural gas to sustain firing. AFAIK this is mostly because mixed household wastes have a high moisture content, making them a bad fuel. However, I found no data on this. For some reason, the incineration industry does not advertise this fact. The only didbit I found was on a site advertising natural gas, of all things. I want to understand this issue more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obvsously not all waste fractions are equally interesting as fuel. Light plastics and some packaging are close to brown coal in caloric content and usually pretty dry, organic waste is also okayish from a caloric point of view but has a high moisture content while some other trash basically does not burn. Paper would make a good fuel but makes better pulp. So when asking about wether natural gas or other fuel is used for co-firing, we need to know what waste fractions are in fact incinerated or the answer is meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it actually true that many/most incinerators for unsorted household waste use additional fuel for co-firing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What sorting steps are neccessary to arrive at a waste stream that can be burnt without additional fuel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the latter question, I want to be able to look at the input waste streams into an inceration plant and be able to make an educated guess wether it uses additional fuels or not. I don't see natural gas used purely for thermal exhaust aftertreatment as co firing for this question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="e5940332-542c-4fa0-8905-c9c0f2cc8fa2" CreationDate="2015-10-19T07:20:53.433" UserId="96" Text="Co-firing fossile fuels use in waste inciertation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="e5940332-542c-4fa0-8905-c9c0f2cc8fa2" CreationDate="2015-10-19T07:20:53.433" UserId="96" Text="|energy-efficiency|waste|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="f801443a-6eda-4c5e-8711-d025a50cea72" CreationDate="2015-10-19T07:42:39.297" UserId="96" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="I know from shop talk among previous collegues that waste incinerators often need natural gas to sustain firing. AFAIK this is mostly because mixed household wastes have a high moisture content, making them a bad fuel. However, I found no data on this. For some reason, the incineration industry does not advertise this fact. The only didbit I found was on a site advertising natural gas, of all things. I want to understand this issue more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obvsously not all waste fractions are equally interesting as fuel. Light plastics and some packaging are close to brown coal in caloric content and usually pretty dry, organic waste is also okayish from a caloric point of view but has a high moisture content while some other trash basically does not burn. Paper would make a good fuel but makes better pulp. So when asking about wether natural gas or other fuel is used for co-firing, we need to know what waste fractions are in fact incinerated or the answer is meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it actually true that many/most incinerators for unsorted household waste use additional fuel for co-firing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What sorting steps are neccessary to arrive at a waste stream (Starting from household waste) that can be burnt without additional fuel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the latter question, I want to be able to look at the input waste streams into an inceration plant and be able to make an educated guess wether it uses additional fuels or not. I don't see natural gas used purely for thermal exhaust aftertreatment as co firing for this question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="b76db07c-007e-46d9-ada0-779ab729b580" CreationDate="2015-10-19T08:29:17.500" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, added new tag 'waste-incineration'" Text="I know from shop talk among previous colleagues that waste incinerators often need natural gas to sustain firing. AFAIK this is mostly because mixed household wastes have a high moisture content, making them a bad fuel. However, I found no data on this. For some reason, the incineration industry does not advertise this fact. The only tidbit I found was on a site advertising natural gas, of all things. I want to understand this issue more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously not all waste fractions are equally interesting as fuel. Light plastics and some packaging are close to brown coal in caloric content and usually pretty dry, organic waste is also okayish from a caloric point of view but has a high moisture content while some other trash basically does not burn. Paper would make a good fuel but makes better pulp. So when asking about whether natural gas or other fuel is used for co-firing, we need to know what waste fractions are in fact incinerated or the answer is meaningless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Is it actually true that many/most incinerators for unsorted household waste use additional fuel for co-firing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What sorting steps are neccessary to arrive at a waste stream (Starting from household waste) that can be burnt without additional fuel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the latter question, I want to be able to look at the input waste streams into an inceration plant and be able to make an educated guess wether it uses additional fuels or not. I don't see natural gas used purely for thermal exhaust aftertreatment as co firing for this question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10532" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="b76db07c-007e-46d9-ada0-779ab729b580" CreationDate="2015-10-19T08:29:17.500" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, added new tag 'waste-incineration'" Text="Co-firing fossil fuels use in waste incineration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10533" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="b76db07c-007e-46d9-ada0-779ab729b580" CreationDate="2015-10-19T08:29:17.500" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, added new tag 'waste-incineration'" Text="|energy-efficiency|waste|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4773" RevisionGUID="648cc0a8-267a-494a-9f18-647ae636ab7c" CreationDate="2015-10-19T10:27:22.007" UserId="1053" Text="Let's compare a garbage-separating and recycling city A to three imaginary cities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- B, in which garbage is not separated and it all goes to landfill, incinerating, ocean dumping etc&#xD;&#xA;- C, in which garbage is not separated by householders but is separated by municipal staff, and some is recycled&#xD;&#xA;- D, in which garbage is separated by householders but then just all sent to landfill (or whatever) anyway&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to B, the benefits are that some recycling happens. This means landfills are less likely to fill up, and the city may recoup some money - for example some cities pay to truck garbage a long way to landfills in other countries, and either pay less for recycles to be taken away or in some cases can actually sell their recycles. The cost savings do not always offset the costs to the municipality (trucks with special sections for recycles, larger storage and processing facilities, employee training) but in many cases they do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to C, the benefits are that the city doesn't have to pay its staff to sort, the householders do it for free. Also, the city doesn't need a large facility to do the sorting in. The costs are that untrained householders may throw out materials that could have been recycled, or contaminate a load of recycles with something non recyclable. As a result such locales spend money on training the householders. Also typically the city gives out free sorting containers which costs them money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to D, the benefits are solely the psychological ones (which also happen compared to B) that people become aware of whether materials they buy are recyclable or not, and see what proportion of their waste stream is plastic, paper, compostable, metal, and so on. They may change their consumption habits as a result. There are some places that feel this change in consumer habits is actually more important than what happens to the garbage after it is picked up, while others believe constructing a sham recycling program is ridiculous. The truth is that at any given time some city somewhere is sending recycles to the landfill (or incinerator) because the capacity of the places that take their recycles has been reached. The desirability of the collected material varies, but cities don't dare stop collecting; in fact the pressure is high to include more and more materials in the collection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, where I live I can recycle film plastic (grocery bags etc.) There is a nearby factory that makes them into wood substitute. People who visit me and see this have asked their municipalities to do the same. Well those cities aren't near my factory. And there is only so much wood substitute needed; since it doesn't rot once we all have a picnic table and a deck why keep making more of the stuff? Yet they don't want to feel bad throwing out plastic bags, so they want their cities to take it and make them feel better. Often that means the cities start taking it, and do send a few loads to the diversion project, but not necessarily all of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's true that the benefits are large even compared to D, where the only difference is consumer behaviour, then it's clear to see they are even larger compared to B, since we both change consumers and divert from landfill. It's not clear how large they are compared to C. Among other things it depends on land cost and municipal wages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10535" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4772" RevisionGUID="6ae8761b-4af0-4a08-972e-e81bbc26d99c" CreationDate="2015-10-19T20:53:30.800" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/656211595136278528" />
  <row Id="10536" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="2f5de12c-ad26-4da9-a47f-a90127c3ee5b" CreationDate="2015-10-20T05:53:30.710" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/656347490795585536" />
  <row Id="10549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2988" RevisionGUID="580e1228-2213-4605-9cfd-251f1ef3ff66" CreationDate="2015-10-24T11:53:33.007" UserId="99" Comment="added info about new meta-study" Text="**TLDR;** cadmium telluride panels have the highest EROI of the mentioned PV panels (around 34.2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EROI estimates vary widely. This is because of differences in the method of calculation, scope of the study, installation location, assumed lifespan of a panel, etc. This also makes it relatively easy to manipulate EROI calculations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pessimistic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most pessimistic estimate I've read is [this article](http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/) where the (apparently pro-nuclear energy) author claims that solar PV has an EROI of 3.9 (in Germany) and 1.6 when you buffer excess energy. He also says solar CSP in a desert has an EROI of 19 (and 9 with buffer). I found the [original article](http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf) on which these numbers are based. To be more precise in that article they've calculated the following numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    EROIs of Solar PVs with 1,000 peak hours per year in Germany&#xD;&#xA;                                                    EROI     EROI buffered&#xD;&#xA;    ----------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Poly-Si Rooftop                         4.0      2.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Poly-Si Field (extra steel frame)       3.8      2.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Amorphous Rooftop                       2.3      1.6&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV Amorphous Field                         2.1      1.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    EROIs of Solar CSP based on proposed plant in Marocco&#xD;&#xA;      with a solar radiation constant of 2340 kWh/m2**&#xD;&#xA;    --------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Solar thermal (CSP) parabolic (phenyl coolant)  21.0      9.6&#xD;&#xA;    Solar thermal (CSP) Fresnel (steam coolant)     17.0      8.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Optimistic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, in [this optimistic paper written by a director of a PV research center](http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf) they've calculated the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    EROIs based on the EPBT values for mono-Si, multi-Si and Cadmium Telluride &#xD;&#xA;      photovoltaics for the Southwest of the US.&#xD;&#xA;    ----------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV mono-Si    25&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV multi-Si   25&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV CdTe       50&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Truth is the middle?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how reliable any of the mentioned numbers are. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. This seems to be confirmed by the results of [this 2015 meta study](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211500146X) where they reviewed 232 studies published between 2000 and 2013. 23 studies that met their criteria were analyzed further (11 on mono-Si, 11 on poly-Si, 7 on amorphous Si, 11 on CdTe and 8 on CIGS). The conclusion was that the mean harmonized EROI varied from 8.7 for mono-crystalline silicon panels to 34 for cadmium telluride panels (see also the picture below). Sadly they didn't investigate CSP or CPV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Mean harmonized EROI with error bars representing one standard deviation][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: K. P. Bhandarib et al. (2015) &quot;Energy payback time (EPBT) and energy return on energy invested (EROI) of solar photovoltaic systems: A systematic review and meta-analysis&quot;, in *Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews*, Vol 47, Pages 133–141. Link to [full paper](http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~relling2/PDF/pubs/life_cycle_assesment_ellingson_apul_(2015)_ren_and_sustain._energy_revs.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7GDFe.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4777" RevisionGUID="ee32ec18-e7bd-4f75-98ef-1c3917945976" CreationDate="2015-10-25T15:59:07.117" UserId="1697" Text="I started a small (mostly NZW) Rabbit operation last Winter. I was having good luck with 5 does and a buck, breeding every two months. And then when we got into summer, it just stopped. I was just leaving the does with the buck overnight, and was not seeing breading. But a month ago I definitely saw one breeding, and this breeding round I am making sure to watch, and the buck is going strong. All the rabbits appear to be healthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had heard that the heat can case problems with the male's sperm count, but I would not imagine that it would drop his sperm count so much as to account for going from hundreds of babies to absolutely zero even with multiple chances to mate with many rabbits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rabbits do not enjoy touching so I really have no way to handle them gently to check for pregnancy, so I just leave them be. But they do not seem to really be nesting at all, so if they get pregnant they do not seem to get particularly far along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea what could be causing this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4777" RevisionGUID="ee32ec18-e7bd-4f75-98ef-1c3917945976" CreationDate="2015-10-25T15:59:07.117" UserId="1697" Text="All my Rabbits Stopped Producing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4777" RevisionGUID="ee32ec18-e7bd-4f75-98ef-1c3917945976" CreationDate="2015-10-25T15:59:07.117" UserId="1697" Text="|husbandry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="6720de90-bdcc-48ea-aaa4-cfb6dd27ac53" CreationDate="2015-10-25T18:16:42.543" UserId="2456" Comment="Re-structured sentences for better grammar; added in some helpful punctuation" Text="Could the cost of biochar production ever be less than that of coal extraction? Is the thermal potential good enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen certain articles (sorry, no links) that point to its applicability for sugar cane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it work for corn properly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At what time could we produce biochar for industrial application? Isn't it nonsense to even think of using biochar to trap carbon, when we're still using coal power plants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10554" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3225" RevisionGUID="6720de90-bdcc-48ea-aaa4-cfb6dd27ac53" CreationDate="2015-10-25T18:16:42.543" Comment="Proposed by 2456 approved by 99 edit id of 340" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4778" RevisionGUID="4bd74af6-d63f-4e36-8323-0bd4176e8d98" CreationDate="2015-10-25T19:32:02.077" UserId="99" Text="A partial answer on my own question, based on what I found on [this website](https://www.sks-bottle.com/PLAValueAdded.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The conditions PLA needs to degrade are exposure to temperatures greater than 140°F (60°C) and relative humidity greater than 90%, for approximately 60 to 80 days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is confirmed in [this paper](http://www.contactalimentaire.com/fileadmin/ImageFichier_Archive/contact_alimentaire/Fichiers_Documents/autres/ALTERNATIVES_ANALYSIS_REPORT_FOR_BPA_in_Infant.pdf) where it also says that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...once exposed to the proper combination of&#xD;&#xA;oxygen, moisture and naturally occurring organisms, it will break down&#xD;&#xA;into carbon dioxide, water and a small amount of nontoxic waste.... Some studies have shown that it can take as long as 15 months for&#xD;&#xA;PLA to start to decompose, even in a controlled composting environment " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4777" RevisionGUID="5695f417-ba4b-48c4-9417-d43b63c30716" CreationDate="2015-10-26T02:25:48.320" UserId="1697" Comment="Added details" Text="I started a small (mostly NZW) Rabbit operation last Winter. I was having good luck with 5 does and a buck, breeding every two months. And then when we got into summer, it just stopped. I was just leaving the does with the buck overnight, and was not seeing breading. But a month ago I definitely saw one breeding, and this breeding round I am making sure to watch, and the buck is going strong. All the rabbits appear to be healthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had heard that the heat can case problems with the male's sperm count, but I would not imagine that it would drop his sperm count so much as to account for going from hundreds of babies to absolutely zero even with multiple chances to mate with many rabbits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rabbits do not enjoy touching so I really have no way to handle them gently to check for pregnancy, so I just leave them be. But they do not seem to really be nesting at all, so if they get pregnant they do not seem to get particularly far along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea what could be causing this?&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Some more information would increase the chance of getting a good answer. Such,general location of the rabbit farm (Idaho, Central Kazakhstan, eastern Spain, south island of New Zealand); stress factors like nearby sources of noise (busy multi lane highway); weather &amp; climate since the last breeding season (drought, excessive rain, prolonged hot or dry conditions); presence of predatory animals; living conditions of the rabbits (shade, places to hide, ample sunshine, comfortable bedding, enough food, the right type of food) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Info:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Canada, Ontario&#xD;&#xA; - It has been quite hot, as it was summer. But in general the weather has been fairly normal&#xD;&#xA; - Fresh grass and clover, with moderate amounts of grain mix.&#xD;&#xA; - A salt lick&#xD;&#xA; - Bedded cages hung off the floor&#xD;&#xA; - In a barn. No direct sunlight. It is sort of light shade. It is very bright for indoors without artificial lights, but it is indoors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4777" RevisionGUID="3da04323-3c80-49aa-b3c4-7ea41d2202e1" CreationDate="2015-10-26T13:43:03.813" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Comment question was edited in to the text - removed" Text="I started a small (mostly NZW) Rabbit operation last Winter. I was having good luck with 5 does and a buck, breeding every two months. And then when we got into summer, it just stopped. I was just leaving the does with the buck overnight, and was not seeing breading. But a month ago I definitely saw one breeding, and this breeding round I am making sure to watch, and the buck is going strong. All the rabbits appear to be healthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had heard that the heat can case problems with the male's sperm count, but I would not imagine that it would drop his sperm count so much as to account for going from hundreds of babies to absolutely zero even with multiple chances to mate with many rabbits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rabbits do not enjoy touching so I really have no way to handle them gently to check for pregnancy, so I just leave them be. But they do not seem to really be nesting at all, so if they get pregnant they do not seem to get particularly far along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea what could be causing this?&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;**Info:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Canada, Ontario&#xD;&#xA; - It has been quite hot, as it was summer. But in general the weather has been fairly normal&#xD;&#xA; - Fresh grass and clover, with moderate amounts of grain mix.&#xD;&#xA; - A salt lick&#xD;&#xA; - Bedded cages hung off the floor&#xD;&#xA; - In a barn. No direct sunlight. It is sort of light shade. It is very bright for indoors without artificial lights, but it is indoors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10558" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4777" RevisionGUID="3da04323-3c80-49aa-b3c4-7ea41d2202e1" CreationDate="2015-10-26T13:43:03.813" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 1697 edit id of 341" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4777" RevisionGUID="5cc298fe-4e67-4d1d-afbb-34f14b9ff784" CreationDate="2015-10-26T13:52:40.810" UserId="1697" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="I started a small (mostly NZW) Rabbit operation last Winter. I was having good luck with 5 does and a buck, breeding every two months. And then when we got into summer, it just stopped. I was just leaving the does with the buck overnight, and was not seeing breading. But a month ago I definitely saw one breeding, and this breeding round I am making sure to watch, and the buck is going strong. All the rabbits appear to be healthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had heard that the heat can case problems with the male's sperm count, but I would not imagine that it would drop his sperm count so much as to account for going from hundreds of babies to absolutely zero even with multiple chances to mate with many rabbits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rabbits do not enjoy touching so I really have no way to handle them gently to check for pregnancy, so I just leave them be. But they do not seem to really be nesting at all, so if they get pregnant they do not seem to get particularly far along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea what could be causing this?&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;**Info:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Canada, Ontario&#xD;&#xA; - It has been quite hot, as it was summer. But in general the weather has been fairly normal&#xD;&#xA; - Fresh grass and clover, with moderate amounts of grain mix.&#xD;&#xA; - A salt lick&#xD;&#xA; - Bedded cages hung off the floor&#xD;&#xA; - In a barn. No direct sunlight. It is sort of light shade. It is very bright for indoors without artificial lights, but it is indoors&#xD;&#xA; - Doe ages ranging from just over a year, with like 3-4 births, to 2-3 years and probably around 3 times as many births.&#xD;&#xA; - The buck is similarly around 2-3 years old, I believe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4779" RevisionGUID="e297f5e8-1661-42d9-863b-9d3d84b050a9" CreationDate="2015-10-26T19:17:59.953" UserId="2155" Text="You can bury them directly in your garden. That's what some of the native Americans did in coastal New England." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4777" RevisionGUID="854abfa3-2839-4f1e-881c-0a5587e0ee39" CreationDate="2015-10-27T00:08:07.757" UserId="659" Comment="spelling" Text="I started a small (mostly NZW) Rabbit operation last Winter. I was having good luck with 5 does and a buck, breeding every two months. And then when we got into summer, it just stopped. I was just leaving the does with the buck overnight, and was not seeing breeding. But a month ago I definitely saw one breeding, and this breeding round I am making sure to watch, and the buck is going strong. All the rabbits appear to be healthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had heard that the heat can case problems with the male's sperm count, but I would not imagine that it would drop his sperm count so much as to account for going from hundreds of babies to absolutely zero even with multiple chances to mate with many rabbits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rabbits do not enjoy touching so I really have no way to handle them gently to check for pregnancy, so I just leave them be. But they do not seem to really be nesting at all, so if they get pregnant they do not seem to get particularly far along.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea what could be causing this?&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;**Info:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Canada, Ontario&#xD;&#xA; - It has been quite hot, as it was summer. But in general the weather has been fairly normal&#xD;&#xA; - Fresh grass and clover, with moderate amounts of grain mix.&#xD;&#xA; - A salt lick&#xD;&#xA; - Bedded cages hung off the floor&#xD;&#xA; - In a barn. No direct sunlight. It is sort of light shade. It is very bright for indoors without artificial lights, but it is indoors&#xD;&#xA; - Doe ages ranging from just over a year, with like 3-4 births, to 2-3 years and probably around 3 times as many births.&#xD;&#xA; - The buck is similarly around 2-3 years old, I believe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4780" RevisionGUID="9eb604f5-e0f4-4996-8508-4745ed517d5a" CreationDate="2015-10-27T10:42:29.763" UserId="2661" Text="Is it possible to calculate impact of more packaging versus farther transportation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two options are: 1. say: two half-litre glass bottles with local (made-in-this-country) oil; 2. say: 1 litre bottle with oil packed and shipped between Europe or North America and Australia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, in one case there is the advantage of less packaging, in the other the advantage of shorter transport. *Are these relative advantages comparable?* Now I'm not sure it is answerable with just these data, but a negative answer will also be instructive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4780" RevisionGUID="9eb604f5-e0f4-4996-8508-4745ed517d5a" CreationDate="2015-10-27T10:42:29.763" UserId="2661" Text="Larger package or more local source?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4780" RevisionGUID="9eb604f5-e0f4-4996-8508-4745ed517d5a" CreationDate="2015-10-27T10:42:29.763" UserId="2661" Text="|transport|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4781" RevisionGUID="68d5a452-75ca-43cb-a403-e7f6426cae7e" CreationDate="2015-10-27T13:53:06.850" UserId="2345" Text="&#xD;&#xA;**Packaging Considerations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example of using bottles to contain a liquid being transported.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All containers have a certain amount of required and excess material to enable them to hold a desired quantity of liquid. In the case of the bottles this material is in the thickness of the bottle, both the walls and the base. The large the container the thicker the walls and the base. Also, bottles have a funnel arrangement at their top (the opening) through which the bottle is filled and emptied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two half litre bottles will have two such funnels and will require extra material that a one litre bottle, which would the same capacity as two half litre bottles combined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Transportation Issue**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an indication of the work/energy required to transport anything, a convenient unit of measure is weight multiplied by distance carried. For heavy haulage items this is tonne-kilometres, but it could also be kilogram-metres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If 6 tonnes of stuff are being transported 10 km then the effort required is 60 t-km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your example, you would need to know the total weight of the filled bottles: bottles + oil + caps + labels and multiple that by the distance being transported for each situation and then compare the t-km for each scenario." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10567" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4780" RevisionGUID="4fa1597a-fd64-42c8-a19b-f6855f23a518" CreationDate="2015-10-28T00:06:46.030" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/659159331938684928" />
  <row Id="10572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4783" RevisionGUID="8e9653d5-576c-4bed-b281-edf0d2bfcf2c" CreationDate="2015-10-28T05:43:56.947" UserId="836" Text="What are the recycling methods applicable for a smart phone? People often change smart phones twice in a year and the number of unused phones are getting a big problem. I came to know about some organizations accepting electronic wastes including phones. What are the alternatives to handle this from a individual's point of view?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4783" RevisionGUID="8e9653d5-576c-4bed-b281-edf0d2bfcf2c" CreationDate="2015-10-28T05:43:56.947" UserId="836" Text="What should I do with my old smart phone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4783" RevisionGUID="8e9653d5-576c-4bed-b281-edf0d2bfcf2c" CreationDate="2015-10-28T05:43:56.947" UserId="836" Text="|recycling|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4783" RevisionGUID="378c0ac0-832b-4101-96a8-1fc5301252f3" CreationDate="2015-10-28T09:53:28.183" UserId="836" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="What are the recycling methods applicable for a smart phone? People often change smart phones twice in a year and the number of unused phones are getting a big problem. I came to know about some organizations accepting electronic wastes including phones. What are the alternatives to handle this from a individual's point of view? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Location: India, phone: samsung galaxy   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4783" RevisionGUID="0a95d089-14e2-4a2c-a051-88338575fc13" CreationDate="2015-10-28T10:04:13.580" UserId="836" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="What are the recycling methods applicable for a smart phone? People often change smart phones and the number of unused phones have become a problem for the environment. I came to know about some organizations accepting electronic wastes including phones in countries like US. What are the alternatives to handle this from a individual's point of view? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Location: India, phone: samsung galaxy   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: Location based advice will be helpful, but together with that other ideas are also appreciated as it will helpful for others in the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4784" RevisionGUID="ae30b013-cccd-4e8b-99b9-bc0575780bdf" CreationDate="2015-10-28T17:57:27.113" UserId="2718" Text="As mentioned above, putting heat into the pipes is the best way to go.  If the pipes are accessible, you might be able to put warming cables (aka frost protection, heat tracing etc etc) on them, on a simple time switch to provide a heat input - these would put the heat exactly where it's needed &amp; use relatively little electricity - rated at 10W/metre for this brand(http://thorneandderrick.com/heat-tracing-cables-systems-videos-protecting-pipes-from-freezing-temperatures/). I just picked that company from a search as it had technical specs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you could lag them as well that would be good, to retain the heat, your running costs would be lower still (different manufacturers have differing requirements).  If they're boxed in, drawing cable through would still help as the boxing-in would help retain the heat to some extent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you put a (any) heat source at a low point in the plumbing, the warmed water will, to an extent, circulate through convection, which could be useful for inaccessible areas.rated at &#xD;&#xA;This is a good read...&#xD;&#xA;http://inspectapedia.com/plumbing/Pipe_Heat_Tapes.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="2591704f-9f37-4bed-b1c6-95141d8b0cf0" CreationDate="2015-10-28T18:48:16.430" UserId="2719" Text="Electrical cars are very much promoted for a sustainable future, because they do not rely (directly) on fossil fuels. In the meantime, most of the electricity is produced with fossil fuels, such that electrical cars actually are less efficient from an energy standpoint than when the energy of the fossil fuels are used in a direct way. However, I understand that within a future where all energy is produced in a sustainable way, electricity is 100% green and electrical cars are too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, the same argument goes for electrical heating. Electrical heating is very much discouraged, because they are not green. However, creating heat with electricity is actually quite efficient. Now, electrical heating is less efficient than heating directly with fossil fuels; but in a world where all energy is produced in a sustainable way, electrical heating will be 100% green.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, two times the same story, but a completely different general standpoint. Where am I making an erroneous reasoning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possible reason I got come up with myself, is that there is not much room for improvement in electrical heating technology, such that we can just wait with using electrical heating equipment until energy is produced in a sustainable way. On the other hand, it is advantageous to promote electrical cars, because there is much room for technological improvement there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="2591704f-9f37-4bed-b1c6-95141d8b0cf0" CreationDate="2015-10-28T18:48:16.430" UserId="2719" Text="Why are electrical cars encouraged but is electrical heating discouraged?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="2591704f-9f37-4bed-b1c6-95141d8b0cf0" CreationDate="2015-10-28T18:48:16.430" UserId="2719" Text="|electricity|heating|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4786" RevisionGUID="924e1834-904e-40dd-a36c-c7e7609b8fb9" CreationDate="2015-10-28T22:28:29.547" UserId="659" Text="The first part of your question is about where pollution happens as much as about pollution reduction. Cars emit pollution where people are, while electric generators can be built further away from most people. That reduces the (human) impact of the pollution. Normally fossil burning plants are built outside cities, often close to the fuel source because it's cheaper and more efficient to move electricity than coal. Oddly enough hardly anyone wants to live next to a coal fired power station (see also: wind farm syndrome).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A secondary factor is that it's much easier to filter the pollution coming out of a few big fossil electricity plants than to filter every single car. And it's easier to enforce, too, if the government is interested in doing that - testing the output of a few plants is easier than testing every car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, the main reason why electric is discouraged is that it's not self-contained, so people living where the grid is unreliable or unavailable can't rely on electric heating. Fossil fuel heaters typically have a large fuel reservoir on site so can run for days or weeks after a storm disrupts the electricity supply. Where big storms are common in winter households need to be fairly self-contained to survive them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as improvement in technology goes, over the last decade the performance of electric heating systems has increased significantly ([interesting history pdf][1]). [Best of class coefficient of performance (CoP)][2] has gone from 3 to 5. In New Zealand there were subsidies for people switching from fossil or resistive heaters to heat pumps for this reason - not just less fossil burning, but less electricity use overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building technology is an odd mix, where the [actual knowledge and materials][3] for [very efficient houses][4] are readily available but the housing being built doesn't use it. So it's sort of correct to say that there's not much room for improvement (focus on the technology), but it's also true that we could get a dramatic improvement very easily if we wanted to (focus on the houses we have).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that even though [NZ generates 70%+ renewable electricity][5] (mostly hydro) they still have cheap off peak power rates because that evens out demand on the grid. If they can persuade people to power hot water storage and thermal mass heaters overnight the peak load in the evening drops. So they do that, as it's cheaper that massively increasing the size of the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.zogg-engineering.ch/publi/iea_hpc08_zogg.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump#Coefficient_of_performance_.28COP.29_and_lift&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthship&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_electricity_in_New_Zealand#Annual_electricity_generation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10582" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4783" RevisionGUID="05f7af94-d70e-4aa9-bb68-5bff16797807" CreationDate="2015-10-29T09:15:46.423" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/659659881734144000" />
  <row Id="10583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4787" RevisionGUID="9246c972-bdb4-4bca-a4b1-08f8972ecc49" CreationDate="2015-10-29T09:19:13.943" UserId="99" Text="**Option 1: Reuse**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reuse is always better than recycling because recycling requires energy and not all parts of a phone may be recyclable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is only so long a mobile phone can be used (mine is now 5 years old and is starting to malfunction), so there comes a point you want to get rid of it. Mobile phones often contain rare earth metals like neodymium, europium, terbium, and yttrium, but also copper, gold, palladium, and platinum. So if reuse is not an option anymore make sure it is recycled properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Option 2: Donate to charity**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal preference is to donate my old phone to a charity organization. Where I live (The Netherlands) there are all kinds of charity organizations that collect old smartphones (and ink cartridges and mp3-players). The charities sell the phones to local e-waste recyclers for somewhere between €1 and €3 per phone. Some charities even provide free envelopes so you can post the phones to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Option 3 : Return it to your phone manufacturer** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most large phone manufacturers have take-back/recycling programmes, often world-wide. I noticed on your profile that you live in India and with a quick Google search I found that at least [Samsung](http://www.samsung.com/in/samsungrecycle/) and [Motorola](http://www.motorola.com/us/Environment/Recycling/recycling-india.html) have such a program in India.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Option 4: Find an e-waste recycling company in your area**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your phone manufacturer doesn't have a take-back program, I'd advice you to search for an e-waste recycling company yourself. Cell phones are being recycled in more and more countries, because it is rather profitable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4788" RevisionGUID="6705d3d7-fef3-4222-a1ea-875155e6c111" CreationDate="2015-10-29T18:49:27.510" UserId="2155" Text="The biggest reason is why it is being used. Converting combustion heat into electricity and then converting electricity back into heat is highly inefficient. Better to just create the heat by combustion on the spot.&#xA;&#xA;Cars however don't need to produce heat, they need to provide motive power. Electricity is a transportable way to store power and and deliver that power wherever you are without creating a huge amount of waste heat and a blanket of pollution wherever you go.&#xA;&#xA;You can filter your pollution at power plants much better and more efficiently that trying to do so on a small power plant like a car engine, and power plants centralize a lot of the work involved in keeping that power &quot;cleaner&quot;, I.e. Filter changes and waste, heat recapture, carbon collection, etc etc etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4471" RevisionGUID="50d4b08e-fe84-4253-b3a7-b4b0c92cba05" CreationDate="2015-10-30T09:33:13.063" UserId="99" Comment="added 376 characters in body; deleted 1 character in body" Text="upcycling is the process of transforming waste materials into new products that are of better quality or have better environmental value. It is the opposite of downcycling where materials are recycled into products of lower quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of upcycling are biodegradable flowerpots made from old newspapers, or art objects made from waste materials found in landfills.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2836" RevisionGUID="4764d0a4-c067-4e23-9e64-85b075c30f75" CreationDate="2015-10-30T10:24:44.097" UserId="99" Comment="Fully revised excerpt and tag info" Text="Pest management or control refers to the active control of (the numbers of) a species that is regarded as a pest. Pests can be [tag:plants], [tag:insects] or  other [tag:animals] and are usually unwanted because of their (potential or perceived) negative influence on the human health, the environment, or the economy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia provides an [extensive overview of different pest-management strategies][Wiki-Pests].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within the context of sustainability, pest-management does NOT NORMALLY include the use of pesticides or chemicals. Instead it relies on environmentally friendly control techniques such as habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant or predator species. This is also called Integrated pest management or Ecological Pest Management.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [Wiki-Pests]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_management#Types_of_pest_control" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2837" RevisionGUID="e32f9256-8049-4fb0-802f-ee82d4f20f84" CreationDate="2015-10-30T10:24:44.097" UserId="99" Comment="Fully revised excerpt and tag info; added 21 characters in body" Text="pest management or control refers to the active control of (the numbers of) a species that is regarded as a pest. Pests can be [plants], [insects] or other [animals] and are usually unwanted because of their (potential or perceived) negative influence on the human health, the environment, or the economy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="888" RevisionGUID="53634ea4-2d1b-46c9-9845-e5e44764e1b1" CreationDate="2015-10-30T10:29:03.697" UserId="99" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="The sustainability issues around domestic or commercial gardening; the cultivation of plants and fungi; landscaping and garden design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability.SE takes gardening questions that are **primarily about the sustainability aspects** of gardening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there's a dedicated [Gardening StackExchange][1] where you can ask questions about amateur or professional gardening that are **not primarily** about the sustainability aspects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions specifically about [tag:permaculture] please use that tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions on (edible) plants please use [tag:plants] or [tag:food]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions on composting use [tag:composting].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="889" RevisionGUID="ab8ba760-4126-4109-8429-eb496d41e191" CreationDate="2015-10-30T10:29:03.697" UserId="99" Comment="edited body" Text="the sustainability aspects of domestic or commercial gardening: the cultivation of plants and fungi, landscaping and garden design." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="a0db7a02-1b61-4aa6-bbd7-fac4040e0c26" CreationDate="2015-10-30T13:32:35.923" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Some explanation for the international readers. The OP did not even say 'wasp'..." Text="I am researching ways to eliminate difficult [yellow jacket wasp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_jacket) ground nests without using dangerous chemicals. Does anyone know of a commercial machine that is made to inject large quantities of dust into the ground or other void? If not, any clever ideas if how to make one (maybe with a compressor)? I would like to experiment with the injection of nests with diatomaceous earth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10591" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="a0db7a02-1b61-4aa6-bbd7-fac4040e0c26" CreationDate="2015-10-30T13:32:35.923" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by -1 edit id of 342" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="dfc97914-9b73-4466-949b-ad20664ad20d" CreationDate="2015-10-30T13:32:35.923" UserId="99" Comment="Some explanation for the international readers, added insects tag" Text="I am researching ways to eliminate difficult [yellow jacket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_jacket)  (wasp) ground nests without using dangerous chemicals. Does anyone know of a commercial machine that is made to inject large quantities of dust into the ground or other void? If not, any clever ideas if how to make one (maybe with a compressor)? I would like to experiment with the injection of nests with diatomaceous earth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10593" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="dfc97914-9b73-4466-949b-ad20664ad20d" CreationDate="2015-10-30T13:32:35.923" UserId="99" Comment="Some explanation for the international readers, added insects tag" Text="|pest-management|insects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4714" RevisionGUID="a1e18647-5409-4c51-8e9b-14e0ddc5e53d" CreationDate="2015-10-30T13:33:29.977" UserId="48" Comment="added clarification from OP's comment" Text="I am researching ways to eliminate difficult [yellow jacket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_jacket)  (wasp) ground nests without using dangerous chemicals. Does anyone know of a commercial machine that is made to inject large quantities of dust into the ground or other void? If not, any clever ideas if how to make one (maybe with a compressor)? I would like to experiment with the injection of nests with diatomaceous earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need to do more research on how effectively the DE kills Yellow Jackets. What I do know from my own experiments is that they avoid contact with it in a big way. After filling the nest entrance with DE, they will spend a lot of time digging a new tunnel around the DE rather than clearing the existing hole of DE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4789" RevisionGUID="b9af0041-056d-4c68-a0a4-feb3655811fb" CreationDate="2015-10-30T23:03:32.100" UserId="812" Text="There are a couple of good answered already, but here's another perspective (who said a question can only have one right answer!). &#xA;&#xA;In a possible future world where electricity generation is plentiful and carbon-free, then it will make sense to fully electrify both transport and heating. &#xA;&#xA;We do not yet live in that world. In most countries electric heating is less efficient, in terms of primary energy consumed, than gas or oil (except perhaps with heat pumps, which might sometimes win). However, on many countries' existing generation mixes, electric cars are *already* more efficient than petrol or diesel ones. This is because fossil fuel power stations are generally more efficient than vehicle engines, by a sufficient margin that (together with some help from nuclear and renewables) this makes up for transmission and conversion losses. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4790" RevisionGUID="5c2c4b81-ea7f-4617-a620-f34c009a6e0e" CreationDate="2015-10-31T10:25:14.400" UserId="48" Text="There are several reasons why a policy of encouraging electric cars, but discouraging electric heating, might make sense. I can't answer for the specific case of Belgium, which currently has some unique problems in meeting electricity demand, but some combination of the below motivations may apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Industrial policy&#xD;&#xA;Electric heating is quite a mature technology now. On the other hand, electric cars are not. So an active industrial policy would encourage the uptake of the immature technology, but not the mature one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Transport, urban, local environment policy&#xD;&#xA;Local air pollution from gas boilers tends to be very low. However, local air pollution from cars is very bad. In addition, they're noisy. Electric cars solve these problems, so encouraging them can be a positive intervention for transport, urban or local environmental policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Electricity capacity&#xD;&#xA;If the building stock is not super-insulated, and local climate requires a lot of heating, then electrical heating would place a very high burden on local electricity distribution network capacity, on transmission capacity and on generation. That's because any building can get electric heating at very low investment, very quickly: it's as simple as going to the shop and buying a resistance heater. Cheap to buy, easy to install. And a very very high rate of electricity consumption in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas buying an electric car is different. It's a high capital investment. You need somewhere to park it, and a licence to use it. And, except for extreme cases, the rate of electricity consumption is pretty low, and not particularly seasonal. So even with rapid take-up, there'd be much less stress on the electricity system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Competing heating supplies&#xD;&#xA;If a country has a domestic non-electric heating supply chain, but not a domestic non-electric vehicle supply chain, then encouraging electric vehicles but discouraging electric heating would protect domestic industries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Net energy demand&#xD;&#xA;Some countries (France for example, as well as EU energy-efficiency targets) have particular targets on reducing the rate of total energy consumption. Internal combustion engines are terribly inefficient: well-to-wheel it's 20% or so. Whereas for electric vehicles, even if the electricity is powered by coal, they're more efficient than that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10597" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="f0d9101a-827a-4c05-b642-3e7c6c5e124d" CreationDate="2015-10-31T10:26:02.077" UserId="48" Comment="added &quot;policy&quot; tag" Text="|electricity|heating|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4790" RevisionGUID="2d4b556f-da53-4626-92d5-c14144bb6ee6" CreationDate="2015-10-31T17:51:27.900" UserId="48" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="There are several reasons why a policy of encouraging electric cars, but discouraging electric heating, might make sense. I can't answer for the specific case of Belgium, which currently has some unique problems in meeting electricity demand, but some combination of the below motivations may apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Industrial policy&#xD;&#xA;Electric heating is quite a mature technology now. On the other hand, electric cars are not. So an active industrial policy would encourage the uptake of the immature technology, but not the mature one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Transport, urban, local environment policy&#xD;&#xA;Local air pollution from gas boilers tends to be very low. However, local air pollution from cars is very bad. In addition, they're noisy. Electric cars solve these problems, so encouraging them can be a positive intervention for transport, urban or local environmental policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Electricity capacity&#xD;&#xA;If the building stock is not super-insulated, and local climate requires a lot of heating, then electrical heating would place a very high burden on local electricity distribution network capacity, on transmission capacity and on generation. That's because any building can get electric heating at very low investment, very quickly: it's as simple as going to the shop and buying a resistance heater. Cheap to buy, easy to install. And a very very high rate of electricity consumption in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas buying an electric car is different. It's a high capital investment. You need somewhere to park it, and a licence to use it. And, except for extreme cases, the rate of electricity consumption is pretty low, and not particularly seasonal. So even with rapid take-up, there'd be much less stress on the electricity system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Competing heating supplies&#xD;&#xA;If a country has a domestic non-electric heating supply chain, but not a domestic non-electric vehicle supply chain, then encouraging electric vehicles but discouraging electric heating would protect domestic industries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Net energy demand&#xD;&#xA;Some countries (France for example, as well as EU energy-efficiency targets) have particular targets on reducing the rate of total energy consumption. Internal combustion engines are terribly inefficient: well-to-wheel it's 20% or so. Whereas for electric vehicles, even if the electricity is powered by coal, they're more efficient than that. So switching from fossil cars to electric would cut primary energy consumption; whereas switching from gas heating to electric would be likely to increase primary energy consumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="e2a54519-1c8a-46fd-9e3a-fbec370bde75" CreationDate="2015-10-31T18:30:44.577" UserId="99" Text="A few months ago I heard a news story about new research that found that polyester clothing is more of an environmental concern than previously thought. The reason for this is that each time you wash polyester clothes, thousands of plastic microfibers are washed away and end up in groundwater or in the sea.&#xD;&#xA;The news story didn't mention the exact effects of the microfibers in the waste water. So my question is: how bad exactly are nylon and polyester clothing for the environment? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to find more information about the original research, but wasn't able to find it. I did find [this Guardian article about a researcher named Mark Browne](http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/oct/27/toxic-plastic-synthetic-microscopic-oceans-microbeads-microfibers-food-chain) who found back in 2011 that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 85% of the human-made material found on the shoreline were microfibers, and matched the types of material, such as nylon and acrylic, used in clothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the same article also mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not only are synthetic fabrics durable and versatile, but they can have smaller water and energy footprint than natural fabrics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the jury is still out on the final verdict. Does anyone know where I can find recent information about what is currently known about this (potential) problem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="e2a54519-1c8a-46fd-9e3a-fbec370bde75" CreationDate="2015-10-31T18:30:44.577" UserId="99" Text="How bad are nylon and polyester clothing for the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="e2a54519-1c8a-46fd-9e3a-fbec370bde75" CreationDate="2015-10-31T18:30:44.577" UserId="99" Text="|plastic|environmental-impact|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="40072d6a-7736-4304-a9ae-cdc97ec475bf" CreationDate="2015-10-31T18:37:50.843" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="A few weeks ago I heard a news story about new research that found that polyester clothing is more of an environmental concern than previously thought. The reason for this is that each time you wash polyester clothes, thousands of plastic microfibers are washed away and end up in groundwater or in the sea.&#xD;&#xA;The news story didn't mention the exact effects of the microfibers in the waste water. So my question is: how bad exactly are nylon and polyester clothing for the environment? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to find more information about the original research, but wasn't able to find it. I did find [this Guardian article about a researcher named Mark Browne](http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/oct/27/toxic-plastic-synthetic-microscopic-oceans-microbeads-microfibers-food-chain) who found back in 2011 that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 85% of the human-made material found on the shoreline were microfibers, and matched the types of material, such as nylon and acrylic, used in clothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the same article also mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not only are synthetic fabrics durable and versatile, but they can have smaller water and energy footprint than natural fabrics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the jury is still out on the final verdict. Does anyone know where I can find recent information about what is currently known about this (potential) problem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4792" RevisionGUID="13c59433-e19b-4d75-83f5-07615c549e55" CreationDate="2015-11-01T06:56:18.380" UserId="2726" Text="Vertical Farming does already compete with horizontal farming. I read an article about a lettuce farm in Japan that was producing 10,000 head of lettuce a day. The research showed that the vertical farm not only used less water but it also produced more lettuce with less labour. Because LEDs have been designed specifically for this purpose by GE, the farm also uses a fraction of the energy a traditional horizontal farm uses in terms of machinery. I don't have the original article as I read it in a magazine while waiting in the doctors office, but [here][1] is a link to a similar article on the same farm and [here][2] is another link. Considering that this farm is now the largest producer of lettuce for the European market, I would assume it is not only sustainable but maybe for this particular product more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes artificial lighting can compete with horizontal agriculture. This is probably because although the sun is much brighter than any artificial light we can produce in a sustainable manner, it is not the brightness that matters but the frequency range of light produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://weburbanist.com/2015/01/11/worlds-largest-indoor-farm-is-100-times-more-productive/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://inhabitat.com/the-worlds-largest-indoor-farm-produces-10000-heads-of-lettuce-a-day-in-japan/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4794" RevisionGUID="c727e99c-d5bd-42d5-b515-40d55db4efac" CreationDate="2015-11-02T08:06:53.127" UserId="2726" Text="When you got the rabbits last winter, did you get any guarantee of their age. As a general rule, Does stop breeding at about 4 years old while Bucks stop at about 5 or 6. I don't have any literature to back this up as this is just from personal experience but I'm sure you can google this. Since they all stopped breeding at the same time it is likely that the buck is the cause or there is something environmental or their diet is causing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think it might be the buck, watch him and see how often he mounts. If it is anything less than 3 or 4 times a day, he is probably passed his breeding age.&#xD;&#xA;If you suspect it is environmental, check for leakages in their hutch and get a thermometer to monitor their hutch temperature. This should ideally bee in the range of 13 to 27 Celsius (55 to 80 Fahrenheit).&#xD;&#xA;If you suspect it might be diet related try and find out what they were being fed before coming to your farm and stick to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd still lean towards the Buck being above its breeding age as the other two theories would have manifested other symptoms as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4795" RevisionGUID="aa2eae71-d4e0-42d5-b731-12e56765ea4c" CreationDate="2015-11-02T10:02:51.923" UserId="1078" Text="You can use your smartphone in less obvious way, e.g. use it as surveillance camera (especially when some of your phone functions stops working well, e.g. battery is dead, no voice). There are apps for this, e.g. https://getperch.com/." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4796" RevisionGUID="dea71e06-f5ea-4803-bd7c-7524e0c3e99d" CreationDate="2015-11-02T17:11:55.150" UserId="2735" Text="We give our bokashi bran a 1 year shelf life but it will typically survive much longer than that. As long as the bran is sealed and dried, kept out of direct sun and not allowed to freeze then it should last much longer. When the bran is kept sealed the bacteria are dormant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are not sure, you can test a small batch. Get some food scraps, add some bran and seal in a container or bag. Leave to sit for up to two weeks. If the see white mould starting to form and/or smell a sweet, pickled smell then the bran is still fine. If you see blue/green mould and/or a putrid rotting smell, then the bran no longer has active EM bacteria and you will need to buy some fresh bran. The out-of-date bran is fine to be added to your compost pile or buried in your garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4797" RevisionGUID="5954e56f-cbd3-4560-a1b8-daa3ce59f9c8" CreationDate="2015-11-02T17:15:28.163" UserId="2735" Text="The above answers are correct for 'traditional' composting but by using bokashi composting you can compost all of your food scraps, including meat, bones, cooked food, dairy etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bokashi process works by first pickling or fermenting your food scraps using healthy bacteria. Once the fermentation process is complete (after about 2 weeks) the pre-compost (the pickled food scraps) can be buried directly in your garden where the soil biota will finish off the work. The pickled food waste is not attractive to pests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps. Happy to answer any bokashi related questions!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4797" RevisionGUID="f14c1701-2ea0-4a71-8978-fb9ead803778" CreationDate="2015-11-02T17:52:48.227" UserId="48" Comment="deleted 67 characters in body" Text="The above answers are correct for 'traditional' composting but by using bokashi composting you can compost all of your food scraps, including meat, bones, cooked food, dairy etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bokashi process works by first pickling or fermenting your food scraps using healthy bacteria. Once the fermentation process is complete (after about 2 weeks) the pre-compost (the pickled food scraps) can be buried directly in your garden where the soil biota will finish off the work. The pickled food waste is not attractive to pests." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4796" RevisionGUID="6666fa1f-673e-40e5-9909-6ee2d0abd79f" CreationDate="2015-11-02T17:53:47.543" UserId="48" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="We give our bokashi bran a 1 year shelf life but it will typically survive much longer than that. As long as the bran is sealed and dried, kept out of direct sun and not allowed to freeze then it should last much longer. When the bran is kept sealed the bacteria are dormant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are not sure, you can test a small batch. Get some food scraps, add some bran and seal in a container or bag. Leave to sit for up to two weeks. If the see white mould starting to form and/or smell a sweet, pickled smell then the bran is still fine. If you see blue/green mould and/or a putrid rotting smell, then the bran no longer has active EM bacteria and you will need to buy some fresh bran. The out-of-date bran is fine to be added to your compost pile or buried in your garden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4800" RevisionGUID="eb3c33f9-68cd-4a09-910a-e8f2a84c49e4" CreationDate="2015-11-04T02:04:08.757" UserId="927" Text="Another efficency question from me out of curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets say that I am driving at a decent rate (say 40 MPG) and am coming up on a hill, with no cars immediately behind me or traffic lights ahead of me.  I know that once I crest the hill I will start to accelerate rapidly, building up enough speed going down that i'll eventually need to break to avoid going well above the speed limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense that taking my foot off the gas before I fully crest the hill could help.  Decelerate a little as I go up the last tiny bit of the hill, then regain that speed on the way down, avoid having to break as soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this only works to a point.  worst case scenario I allow my car speed to decelerate going up the hill until I'm going at nearly idling speed, with 70% of the energy output from my idling car going to counteracting gravity on the hill and my overall efficiency being horrible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is where is the sweet point?  How much can one allow a car to decelerate going up a hill before they start to lose more efficiency letting their engine idle to push the car the rest of the way compared to using gas to overtake the hill sooner despite knowing your have to break on the way down?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4800" RevisionGUID="eb3c33f9-68cd-4a09-910a-e8f2a84c49e4" CreationDate="2015-11-04T02:04:08.757" UserId="927" Text="fuel efficency when decelerating on a hill" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4800" RevisionGUID="eb3c33f9-68cd-4a09-910a-e8f2a84c49e4" CreationDate="2015-11-04T02:04:08.757" UserId="927" Text="|energy-efficiency|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="ea2e7599-dce4-4ce4-8599-27b15b18214d" CreationDate="2015-11-04T07:45:32.117" UserId="812" Text="Counteracting gravity on the hill will require roughly the same amount of energy regardless of the speed you are travelling at (with some small variation according to the engine's efficiency at different rpm). I suspect that the limit on how much speed you can lose before the crest of the hill is what doesn't cause traffic behind to get angry :-) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4802" RevisionGUID="84fc8c17-6b49-4da0-8e64-fbeb706ce2d0" CreationDate="2015-11-04T08:07:22.843" UserId="15" Text="Generally a driver doesn't know the exact angle of the hill at any point in time, nor do they generally know the exact combination of gear and gas-pedal that will be the most efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe some day those things become standard features, and maybe the car could even calculate where the top of the hill is and work out how to optimise fuel consumption too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meantime, I tend to assume that if I can relax my foot on the gas-pedal as much as possible without losing too much speed, and remain in the highest possible gear while doing it (without making the engine do a &quot;pinking&quot; sound!), then I'm getting a sensible combination of speed and efficiency. As Simon W mentions in his answer, it's also important to be courteous to drivers behind you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An experienced driver should, with a little practice, easily get a feel for when to ease their foot off the pedal as they approach the crest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reverse of the situation applies too; just before the start of the hill, adding a little extra speed can reduce the time spent having to fight gravity while going up the hill, and thus improve efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that as per [the formula for drag][1], air resistance increases exponentially as speed increases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4800" RevisionGUID="fe030c44-4a4b-41fd-84e6-4e50a34982ce" CreationDate="2015-11-04T09:03:24.767" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo's, added fuel-efficiency tag" Text="Another efficiency question from me out of curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say that I am driving at a decent efficiency rate (say 40 MPG) and am coming up on a hill, with no cars immediately behind me or traffic lights ahead of me.  I know that once I crest the hill I will start to accelerate rapidly, building up enough speed going down that I'll eventually need to break to avoid going well above the speed limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense that taking my foot off the gas before I fully crest the hill could help.  Decelerate a little as I go up the last tiny bit of the hill, then regain that speed on the way down, avoid having to break soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this only works to a point.  Worst case scenario I allow my car to decelerate going up the hill until I'm going at nearly idling speed, with 70% of the energy output from my idling car going to counteracting gravity on the hill and my overall efficiency being horrible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is where is the sweet point?  How much can one allow a car to decelerate going up a hill before they start to lose more efficiency letting their engine idle to push the car the rest of the way, compared to using gas to overtake the hill sooner despite knowing your have to break on the way down?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10626" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4800" RevisionGUID="fe030c44-4a4b-41fd-84e6-4e50a34982ce" CreationDate="2015-11-04T09:03:24.767" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo's, added fuel-efficiency tag" Text="Fuel efficiency when decelerating on a hill" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10627" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4800" RevisionGUID="fe030c44-4a4b-41fd-84e6-4e50a34982ce" CreationDate="2015-11-04T09:03:24.767" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo's, added fuel-efficiency tag" Text="|energy-efficiency|fuel-efficiency|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3083" RevisionGUID="ecc40087-30df-4d85-81c0-ae13f599838f" CreationDate="2015-11-04T11:12:44.850" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Link explaining what BB is" Text="We've bought a house and found half a large tub of [bokashi bran](http://theunconventionalfarmer.com/how-to-make-bokashi-bran/) in the basement. This puzzled us a while as we'd never heard of the process, but a little Googling enlightened us.  We've also got some bins, also left by the previous owners so we're interested in giving it a go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've no idea how old the kit is.  Given the state of the bins (found under an archaeological layer of rubbish) and the wormery (well past it and the wooden lid rotted) I'd say it's probably been some years since any composting method was tried here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the bran expire?  It's been kept in cool dry conditions in a reasonable tub with a lid (loosely) on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10630" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3083" RevisionGUID="ecc40087-30df-4d85-81c0-ae13f599838f" CreationDate="2015-11-04T11:12:44.850" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 659, 812 edit id of 343" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="820c2352-1ea4-4fcc-985a-9073019d09e9" CreationDate="2015-11-04T14:30:31.400" UserId="927" Text="I may be purchasing a new vehicle soon (still doing the whole cost-reward calculations).  When looking for a new vehicle fuel efficiency was important to me, both for savings considering how much I drive and to help the enviroment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen vehicles that are designed to be significantly more efficient, hybrids &amp; electrics, but also very *tiny* cars, that fit less then your usual compact car, either one or two man usually. When I look around at online vehicle websites I don't find these vehicles appearing to be listed at all.  The most fuel efficient ones I see are generally 40-42 MPG sedans.  Mitsubishi Mirage is what I'm eying after a quick online search with a MPG of 44 on highway, but I just started looking so I'm hardly committed to anything yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if there is somewhere I should be looking at to find these other vehicles, especially those really small non-standard size vehicles.  I don't even know what I should be googleing to find them, do they have a name?  The only ones I've found were electric, but since I may need to do 3 hour drives one way (6 hours total, with little time to charge a car between going and return trips even if there was a place to charge it), so I don't think electric is an option for me.  is it possible to find non-electric smaller cars?  Can anyone point me in the right direction for how to find them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mildly curious what their footprint is.  I assume they lack economy of scales, being rarely purchased they are not mass produced and thus more expensive then their size would imply.  I'm curious how this affects their environmental footprint.  Does the lack of mass production affect the environmental cost of manufacturing them?  Would any such car I purchase (quite possible online) need to be shipped longer distance to reach me and thus cost more for instance?  Do they have the same expected lifetime, or do they end up being replaced sooner which should be factored into their lifetime footprint etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="820c2352-1ea4-4fcc-985a-9073019d09e9" CreationDate="2015-11-04T14:30:31.400" UserId="927" Text="How to find, and effectiveness, of the non-standard smaller cars I sometimes see" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="820c2352-1ea4-4fcc-985a-9073019d09e9" CreationDate="2015-11-04T14:30:31.400" UserId="927" Text="|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4801" RevisionGUID="0a707a92-c3b1-418a-b8e4-91b3de5fb17b" CreationDate="2015-11-04T21:27:39.320" UserId="812" Comment="Clarified the actual answer to the question here." Text="Counteracting gravity on the hill will require roughly the same amount of energy regardless of the speed you are travelling at (with some small variation according to the engine's efficiency at different rpm). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sweet spot is probably not a technical one about efficiencies, but a practical one about how slowly you are willing to crest the hill, and (if there is other traffic or poor sightlines) how slowly it is safe and considerate to other road users to be travelling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2456" RevisionGUID="1282dec6-db4a-4f14-88a6-ebc01bf48260" CreationDate="2015-11-04T23:41:16.823" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Better link" Text="I've read a lot about [diatomaceous earth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatomaceous_earth) being useful for organic gardening, animal raising, pest control, intestinal parasite treatment, etc. However I am somewhat conflicted about the material itself - from what I understand it's essentially ground plankton fossil. How sustainable is this? Will there be &quot;peak diatomaceous earth&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10638" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2456" RevisionGUID="1282dec6-db4a-4f14-88a6-ebc01bf48260" CreationDate="2015-11-04T23:41:16.823" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 812, 659 edit id of 344" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="22daa7af-e83e-4059-9625-fd945380017f" CreationDate="2015-11-04T23:50:11.743" UserId="659" Comment="condensed the rambling" Text="I may be purchasing a new vehicle soon (still doing the whole cost-reward calculations).  When looking for a new vehicle fuel efficiency was important to me, both for savings considering how much I drive and to help the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen vehicles that are designed to be significantly more efficient, hybrids &amp; electrics, but also very *tiny* cars, that fit less then your usual compact car, either one or two seater usually. But I can't find more information about them, or anyone who sells them. When I look around at online vehicle websites these vehicles don't appear to be listed.  The most fuel efficient ones I see are generally 40-42 MPG sedans. The Mitsubishi Mirage gets 44 MPG on highway, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only tiny cars I've found were electric, but since I may need to do 3 hour drives one way I don't think electric is an option for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mildly curious what their footprint is.  Are they not mass produced and thus more expensive than their size would imply? Does the lack of mass production affect the environmental cost of manufacture? What other considerations are there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10640" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="22daa7af-e83e-4059-9625-fd945380017f" CreationDate="2015-11-04T23:50:11.743" UserId="659" Comment="condensed the rambling" Text="How efficient are tiny cars compared to others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4807" RevisionGUID="8487020f-d7e0-44bc-868b-999264561db7" CreationDate="2015-11-05T17:02:47.833" UserId="2155" Text="All engines have an optimum operating range, most cars this is somewhere between 3000 and 5000 RPMs depending on the engine and gearing.&#xA;&#xA;To use the least fuel without damaging your engine while climbing a hill, you want the car to maintain the proper RPM. Efficiency is all about RPM.&#xA;&#xA;Trying to climb a hill in 5th gear going 20 MPH is very bad for the engine. It's called Lugging. It causes pits and additional wear on your Pistons, cylinders and head and by the time you save $500 worth of fuel consumption you may have set yourself up for a $500 or more engine overhaul.&#xA;&#xA;Acceleration is easier and more efficient on a horizontal plane, so for efficiency, you want to accelerate to your peak speed before you begin to slope upward. Then again as you reach the crest, you can allow your self to naturally decelerate as the slope approaches horizontal again and allow your car to accelerate naturally while going down hill.&#xA;&#xA;For hyper-miling this will burn the least amount of fuel.&#xA;&#xA;Remember this non-intuitive fact, it's brakes that burns more fuel, not acceleration. You need to accelerate a car to make it go, but if you are hitting the brakes, it means you wasted perfectly good fuel " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4808" RevisionGUID="9beb4a6b-aa9b-48df-86b3-a510101ef26e" CreationDate="2015-11-06T00:26:35.443" UserId="659" Text="In the USA the [Daimler/Mercedes &quot;Smart&quot; Fortwo car][1] is the obvious choice, rated at 41mpg on the highway. Those look silly but are quite safe and very fuel efficient, as well and being ridiculously easy to park. In parts of Europe it's legal to park them across a roadside car parking space (so you can get two cars into one spot).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The efficiency is all-round with a car like that. It's small and light, so it doesn't use much space and contains less material than other cars so the environmental impact of producing it and recycling it at the end of its useful life is lower. They're mass produced, and mostly in Europe where standards for things like this are much higher than in the US. For example, they have to be designed to be recycleable and the production facilities have to be safe to work in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many cars like that available around the world, but most have practical restrictions on them even aside from not being approved in the USA. For example in Japan they have [cheaper road fees for small vehicles (under 600cc)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_size_class#Japan) but also have horrid congestion and parking issues, so tiny cars are a very practical solution. Those cars are often not suited to the USA because they're not safe around high speed traffic - they're designed for 60kph (~35mph) speed limit areas so don't need to survive high speed crashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [list of 20 USA fuel-efficient vehicles][2] has a worst-case fuel use of 50mpg, suggesting that there are at least 19 options available (one of the 20 is a Volkswagen so doesn't count).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo#United_States&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://rac.com.au/news-community/news-and-reports/publications/rac-enews/rac-enews-2010/top-20-most-fuel-efficient-cars" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4800" RevisionGUID="c3ebb20c-09bf-4997-8740-d856e6ca5c17" CreationDate="2015-11-06T01:40:24.827" UserId="659" Comment="homonyms are not synonyms" Text="Another efficiency question from me out of curiosity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say that I am driving at a decent efficiency rate (say 40 MPG) and am coming up on a hill, with no cars immediately behind me or traffic lights ahead of me.  I know that once I crest the hill I will start to accelerate rapidly, building up enough speed going down that I'll eventually need to brake to avoid going above the speed limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense that taking my foot off the gas before I fully crest the hill could help.  Decelerate a little as I go up the last tiny bit of the hill, then regain that speed on the way down, avoid having to break soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this only works to a point.  Worst case scenario I allow my car to decelerate going up the hill until I'm going at nearly idling speed, with 70% of the energy output from my idling car going to counteracting gravity on the hill and my overall efficiency being horrible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is where is the sweet point?  How much can one allow a car to decelerate going up a hill before they start to lose more efficiency letting their engine idle to push the car the rest of the way, compared to using gas to overtake the hill sooner despite knowing your have to brake on the way down?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10647" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4807" RevisionGUID="a7fdd943-ffc9-4fb3-a412-6c134d82be85" CreationDate="2015-11-06T01:43:21.083" UserId="659" Comment="reMoved randOm capiTalisaTION" Text="All engines have an optimum operating range, most cars this is somewhere between 3000 and 5000 rpm depending on the engine and gearing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use the least fuel without damaging your engine while climbing a hill, you want the car to maintain the proper rpm. Efficiency is all about rpm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to climb a hill in 5th gear going 20 mph is very bad for the engine. It's called lugging. It causes pits and additional wear on your pistons, cylinders and head and by the time you save $500 worth of fuel consumption you may have set yourself up for a $500 or more engine overhaul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Acceleration is easier and more efficient on a horizontal plane, so for efficiency, you want to accelerate to your peak speed before you begin to slope upward. Then again as you reach the crest, you can allow your self to naturally decelerate as the slope approaches horizontal again and allow your car to accelerate naturally while going down hill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For hyper-miling this will burn the least amount of fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember this non-intuitive fact, it's braking that burns more fuel, not acceleration. You need to accelerate a car to make it go, but if you are hitting the brakes, it means you wasted perfectly good fuel " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4810" RevisionGUID="ce11eac4-49de-4df7-b183-a70878493735" CreationDate="2015-11-06T14:27:19.413" UserId="2752" Text="I am looking for 2 portable heaters to use in a static caravan. 1 - to go in the childrens bedrom (and ideally on at night), the other to go in the living room (to turn on ) and blast out heat when we get back in. What do you suggest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4810" RevisionGUID="ce11eac4-49de-4df7-b183-a70878493735" CreationDate="2015-11-06T14:27:19.413" UserId="2752" Text="What portable haters to use in a static caravan?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4810" RevisionGUID="ce11eac4-49de-4df7-b183-a70878493735" CreationDate="2015-11-06T14:27:19.413" UserId="2752" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10654" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4810" RevisionGUID="4ce89f5f-c784-4b50-a5ea-d8e3dce73fd3" CreationDate="2015-11-06T14:53:32.160" UserId="99" Comment="105" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4810" RevisionGUID="a3b28526-105e-44d3-b7a9-a3db9e6079bf" CreationDate="2015-11-06T22:09:52.363" UserId="15" Comment="Reword question so that it's on topic" Text="I am looking for 2 portable heaters to use in a static caravan. One to go in the children's bedroom (safe to leave on at night), the other to go in the living room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which types of heaters would be most suitable for these situations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10656" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4810" RevisionGUID="a3b28526-105e-44d3-b7a9-a3db9e6079bf" CreationDate="2015-11-06T22:09:52.363" UserId="15" Comment="Reword question so that it's on topic" Text="Which type of portable heaters are best suited to use in a static caravan?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10657" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4810" RevisionGUID="685a7d6a-47f4-4e44-957a-291d61901efc" CreationDate="2015-11-07T07:03:24.727" UserId="99" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:15,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Highly Irregular&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10658" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="e7dab8e2-f0cd-4137-b841-e2d7d2fcc3ae" CreationDate="2015-11-07T07:11:04.567" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|fuel-efficiency|manufacturing|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10659" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4791" RevisionGUID="794e15e5-db6a-4cb1-9754-fb47accc2553" CreationDate="2015-11-07T09:59:42.067" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/662932427862581248" />
  <row Id="10660" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4804" RevisionGUID="27e0862a-bb82-4baf-8314-65cda10ba906" CreationDate="2015-11-07T12:59:44.400" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/662977735518744577" />
  <row Id="10661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4811" RevisionGUID="4be1950c-b422-46ca-9f3c-90ff56bc0f12" CreationDate="2015-11-09T07:13:50.247" UserId="2702" Text="Don't hold me to it, but I've been reading a lot of stuff on this matter, on an off, these past few years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The private automobile is the least efficient means of transportation currently in use. Remember that your car consumes 99% of the energy available to it in order to transport ITSELF. That's not very efficient, now, is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, even jet airplanes are more efficient than cars. Buses are more efficient. Electric trains are more efficient by orders of magnitude, as are streetcars (a.k.a. trams) and trolley buses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most energy-efficient vehicle right now is the bicycle. This is not a metaphor or a joke: the actual ratio of energy spent/distance covered is absolutely off the charts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please don't be fooled by the amazing miles-per-gallon ads. A train can travel 1000 miles on 0 gallons of gasoline. So can your bike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the Governor of your state, or any other state, had the courage to tax private motoring into the ground, there'd be an economic boom in that state, and later on, in the world: think of all the train and streetcar tracks we'd have to build! I'm not kidding." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4795" RevisionGUID="6b0de9a7-2ff0-4945-8fff-ed756bb059a6" CreationDate="2015-11-09T10:38:45.063" UserId="1078" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="You can use your smartphone in less obvious way, e.g. use it as surveillance camera (especially when some of your phone functions stops working well, e.g. battery is dead, no voice). There are apps for this, e.g. https://getperch.com/.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another similar funcationality is served by manything.com which together with https://ifttt.com/manything creates quite powerful solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4808" RevisionGUID="5daef736-97e9-4c38-b190-c1853ecd75b6" CreationDate="2015-11-09T20:13:13.680" UserId="659" Comment="added 721 characters in body" Text="In the USA the [Daimler/Mercedes &quot;Smart&quot; Fortwo car][1] is the obvious choice, rated at 41mpg on the highway. Those look silly but are quite safe and very fuel efficient, as well and being ridiculously easy to park. In parts of Europe it's legal to park them across a roadside car parking space (so you can get two cars into one spot).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The efficiency is all-round with a car like that. It's small and light, so it doesn't use much space and contains less material than other cars so the environmental impact of producing it and recycling it at the end of its useful life is lower. They're mass produced, and mostly in Europe where standards for things like this are much higher than in the US. For example, they have to be designed to be recycleable and the production facilities have to be safe to work in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many cars like that available around the world, but most have practical restrictions on them even aside from not being approved in the USA. For example in Japan they have [cheaper road fees for small vehicles (under 600cc)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_size_class#Japan) but also have horrid congestion and parking issues, so tiny cars are a very practical solution. Those cars are often not suited to the USA because they're not safe around high speed traffic - they're designed for 60kph (~35mph) speed limit areas so don't need to survive high speed crashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [list of 20 USA fuel-efficient vehicles][2] has a worst-case fuel use of 50mpg, suggesting that there are at least 19 options available (one of the 20 is a [Volkswagen so doesn't count][3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm adding a quote from the linked SMH article in case that link rots:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Choice has discovered at least five cars it tested in real-world conditions this year exceeded the claimed fuel usage by more than 30 per cent.&#xD;&#xA;It found a Mercedes-Benz all-wheel drive burned up 43 per cent more fuel than the seven litres per 100 kilometres claimed by the carmaker. It also found a Volvo front-wheel drive consumed 37 per cent more and a Lexus all-wheel drive, 36 per cent more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That suggests that it might not just be VW ... &quot;optimising engine performance for specific test scenarios&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo#United_States&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://rac.com.au/news-community/news-and-reports/publications/rac-enews/rac-enews-2010/top-20-most-fuel-efficient-cars&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.smh.com.au/business/retail/volkswagen-scandal-choice-car-test-points-to-other-fuel-guzzlers-20150930-gjxura.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4812" RevisionGUID="2ae85a6f-1d5b-4b87-8415-97024a529fc1" CreationDate="2015-11-09T22:06:16.660" UserId="2735" Text="Ants aren`t going to cause any problems (until you want to remove your compost and then they might get annoyed!). They will actually help in the breakdown of the organic waste. Coffee grounds are meant to deter ants so you may consider adding some to your compost bin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4813" RevisionGUID="cf1bd472-f69d-4ecd-90ce-83ca7305e21b" CreationDate="2015-11-09T22:08:31.763" UserId="2735" Text="Consider using a bokashi composting system for your foodscraps. The bokashi process ferments (or pickles) your foodscraps meaning that they are not attractive to pests and bugs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4814" RevisionGUID="ceea7a7e-e2d8-48d4-ae0f-ac936ef6177d" CreationDate="2015-11-09T22:28:26.997" UserId="2735" Text="Paper products should always be recycled first before composting (assuming they are clean and dry). This gives them another 'go' round the system. Once composted it takes a lot more time and resources to turn them back into paper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10672" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4785" RevisionGUID="904bbdd1-5817-4f18-b079-59e7f0a0eb11" CreationDate="2015-11-11T04:12:47.757" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/664294677705842690" />
  <row Id="10673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4816" RevisionGUID="52764f21-1e92-4d25-8496-380c6752277a" CreationDate="2015-11-11T09:19:37.897" UserId="2356" Text="Recently I have installed a set of 10 panels connected in series with 1 single Inverter. I have realised that for the first 2 hours 2 PVs have a cast shadow on them from a neighbourhood tank (that cannot shoot down :) )  and this will reduce the overall current of the system to the bare minimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking of using a timer to bypass the 2 PVs and take energy from the 8 remaining PVs for the first 2 hours. I was thinking of fitting 2 MC4 T-Connectors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should this incurr any implications due to short circuit currents in the last 2 PVs. Should I insert a low OHm load just in case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6UGUB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4816" RevisionGUID="52764f21-1e92-4d25-8496-380c6752277a" CreationDate="2015-11-11T09:19:37.897" UserId="2356" Text="Solar Panel short section of string due to obstacle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4816" RevisionGUID="52764f21-1e92-4d25-8496-380c6752277a" CreationDate="2015-11-11T09:19:37.897" UserId="2356" Text="|photovoltaics|renewables|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10676" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4817" RevisionGUID="aea44557-744c-4b81-829c-e243e9ef8225" CreationDate="2015-11-11T21:20:14.107" UserId="659" Text="You must open circuit the panels you're not using, do not short circuit them. Open circuit is fine, the panel just sits there and no current flows. You'll see quite a high voltage on the terminals (it'll be listed on the panel data sheet as &quot;maximum open circuit voltage&quot;. If you short the panels you'll get up to &quot;maximum short circuit current&quot; which risks overheating the wiring inside the panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can I would test the idea by installing the plug/socket in the string and manually bypassing those two panels to make sure that you get enough extra power to make it worth doing properly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="ff90b3ce-069e-46f5-a7b3-a124fb74a3f9" CreationDate="2015-11-12T02:00:37.680" UserId="2766" Text="We have two Tamworth pigs coming back from the butcher tomorrow with a decent amount of fat (don't know how many pounds yet). What are the best and/or most economical uses of pig fat or lard?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="ff90b3ce-069e-46f5-a7b3-a124fb74a3f9" CreationDate="2015-11-12T02:00:37.680" UserId="2766" Text="What's the best use for pig fat (lard)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="ff90b3ce-069e-46f5-a7b3-a124fb74a3f9" CreationDate="2015-11-12T02:00:37.680" UserId="2766" Text="|animals|materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="eac29271-b5ec-424f-b455-71fd68b30c68" CreationDate="2015-11-13T17:41:10.717" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Inserted comment answer" Text="We have two Tamworth pigs coming back from the butcher tomorrow with a decent amount of fat (don't know how many pounds yet). What are the best and/or most economical uses of pig fat or lard?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not just looking at cooking applications. Evidently you can also make candles and other body products, and even use for water-proofing leather" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10685" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="eac29271-b5ec-424f-b455-71fd68b30c68" CreationDate="2015-11-13T17:41:10.717" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 96, 99 edit id of 345" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="2f732b80-a5c5-4baa-84a7-2296da468a11" CreationDate="2015-11-14T01:17:03.440" UserId="2663" Text="# Overview&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following system for sustainable food production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Urban Plan][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this system is to provide an environmentally-friendly, semi- (or fully-) automated means to produce food for lots of people. Similar in nature to the [Earthship][2] question, but delving into a few more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy Requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume a population of 350 people:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* daily = 7500kJ&#xD;&#xA;* input = 350 x 7500kJ x 365 = 958125MJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Vertical Farm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using aeroponics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* storeys = 10&#xD;&#xA;* floor = 55m x 55m&#xD;&#xA;* interstitial = 1/3&#xD;&#xA;* floorspace = storeys x floor x interstitial = 20270m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interstitial space allows for spacing between plants as well as infrastructure (e.g., ducts, plumbing, wiring).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Plant Growth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using tomatoes as an example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = 338kJ (per tomato)&#xD;&#xA;* yield = 50 (per plant)&#xD;&#xA;* harvests = 5 (per year)&#xD;&#xA;* diameter = 2m&#xD;&#xA;* height = 1.5m&#xD;&#xA;* plants = 12384&#xD;&#xA;* output = plants x harvests x yield x energy = 1046448MJ&#xD;&#xA;* balance = output - input = 88323MJ (surplus)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Lighting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using high-efficiency LED grow lamps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* coverage = 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* racks = 2&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = floorspace / coverage x racks = 33252&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Racks are the factor of plants per floor being grown (i.e., the number of stacks per storey; a storey 3m high can fit two racks of plants that grow 1.5m tall).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using light movers increases coverage by 35 per cent, therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - (0.35 x lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;) = 21614&#xD;&#xA;* movers = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = 11638&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy Requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electrical needs are calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* power = 250W (per lamp)&#xD;&#xA;* light&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = 303lm/W&#xD;&#xA;* light&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = 625lm/W (hypothetical efficiency)&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; x power = 5.41MW&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; x power x (light&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; / light&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) = 2.63MW&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; = total&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; + movers x 5W = 2.70MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary concern is whether **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Plasma lighting][3] seems unbelievably efficient, which could reduce substantially reduce power requirements even further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Additional Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nate Storey][4] calculated the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Using current LED efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA; - Sustain (calorie + nutrition) 1,000 people on a variety of foods.&#xD;&#xA; - The building is 64m x 64m (approx. 1 acre) by 6 storeys.&#xD;&#xA; - Each storey must be 4m (approx. 13 feet) high.&#xD;&#xA; - Vertical plane production within the vertical building.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires 45 watts/sq. ft. per hour, at 18 hours per day for ~3.5 square feet of production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this implies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = 64m x 64m x 6 = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; area&#xD;&#xA;* power = 45W/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = area * power = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; * 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 11.9MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His calculations show 11.9MW to feed 1,000 people; my calculations show 2.7MW to feed 350 people, which is 7.71MW to feed 1,000. That's 4MW difference, which is huge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we account for 30% interstitial space, then the power requirements drop to 7.93MW, which is almost equivalent. I don't know if Nate considered this in his calculations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having difficulties aligning my calculations with those from Nate Storey, an expert in the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What are the total energy requirements, in watts, to power the lighting for Nate's solution, using a modern lighting system?&#xD;&#xA;* What assumptions made for **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** are incorrect, if any, and how can they be corrected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please show each step and assumptions made for your calculations, preferably similar to how I've laid out the parameters above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rJBqC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1433/13418&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://luxim.resilient.lighting/products/grow-lighting&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.brightagrotech.com/dr-nate-storey-aquaponics-expert/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10691" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="2f732b80-a5c5-4baa-84a7-2296da468a11" CreationDate="2015-11-14T01:17:03.440" UserId="2663" Text="Energy requirements for sustainable food production system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10692" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="2f732b80-a5c5-4baa-84a7-2296da468a11" CreationDate="2015-11-14T01:17:03.440" UserId="2663" Text="|electricity|food|energy-efficiency|light|farming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4822" RevisionGUID="72c6b673-f2f9-44a1-b775-7965e637fbca" CreationDate="2015-11-14T07:20:38.980" UserId="2726" Text=" 1. You can use it to replace oil when cooking things that would benefit from the pork flavour like soups.&#xD;&#xA; 2. You can use it in any situation that requires deep frying. Chips taste especially nice when cooked in lard.&#xD;&#xA; 3. It can be used as a wood preservative.&#xD;&#xA; 4. It makes amazing pastries.&#xD;&#xA; 5. If done properly and doesn't smell, you can add fabric dye and use it as shoe polish.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Tried making crayons with it once and though this wasn't really a success. I think it is possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4823" RevisionGUID="52ead5f5-7513-44fa-9650-7129f37e9370" CreationDate="2015-11-14T10:19:00.747" UserId="85" Text="You seem to be well aware of the &quot;cooking applications&quot; of lard, but just in case you haven't heard of it, I'm particularly fond of **Schmalz** a German spread made from lard, together with small amounts of [pork scratchings/cracklings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_rind), apples and onions. (For example, see [here](http://germanfood.about.com/od/resources/r/schmalz.htm) for a basic recipe.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for candles, you can make about 12 candles from 2 pounds of (strained) fat. A better recipe would be to mix it in a proportion of 1:1 with (strained) beeswax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For other recipes, tips on how to make/store lard (and other pork by-products), etc., I refer to pp. 884-886 of _The Encyclopedia of Country Living_ (10th ed.) by Carla Emery (which I can highly recommend to anyone).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If all fails and your fat gets rancid, it still makes excellent soap." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4824" RevisionGUID="9868b94a-12a2-4e2c-a419-5bd6bd056ae3" CreationDate="2015-11-14T12:15:37.443" UserId="2661" Text="One of the many advantages of GNU/Linux systems, and probably *NIX in general, is that they can run on older and lesser hardware than the children of Microsoft can, i.e. has lower &quot;system requirements&quot;. A similar sentiment about Linux is expressed in [this question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems reasonable to think that power cosumption (and maybe even wear of the hardware?) is lower in *NIX compared to Windows. Is this true or at least plausible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if this is a more viable/correct question: Is some software more sustainable than other for the same task?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/3148/2661" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10696" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4824" RevisionGUID="9868b94a-12a2-4e2c-a419-5bd6bd056ae3" CreationDate="2015-11-14T12:15:37.443" UserId="2661" Text="Is Linux more sustainable than Windows?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10697" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4824" RevisionGUID="9868b94a-12a2-4e2c-a419-5bd6bd056ae3" CreationDate="2015-11-14T12:15:37.443" UserId="2661" Text="|environmental-impact|computing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4824" RevisionGUID="686c60dc-3a6f-49c3-a1eb-e3492487b048" CreationDate="2015-11-14T12:31:46.723" UserId="2661" Comment="added information" Text="One of the many advantages of GNU/Linux systems, and probably *NIX in general, is that they can run on older and lesser hardware than the children of Microsoft can, i.e. has lower &quot;system requirements&quot;. A similar sentiment about Linux is expressed in [this question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems reasonable to think that power cosumption and even wear of the hardware is lower in *NIX compared to Windows. Is this true or at least plausible? I'm also interested what other effects there may be. In fact, I found one [article][2] that says Linux servers on average run twice longer (~6-8yrs) that Windows ones (~3yrs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if this is a more viable/correct question: Is some software more sustainable than other for the same task?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/3148/2661&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/1246762/Report-Linux-open-source-greener-than-Windows" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10699" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="bd514c65-bcaa-4942-a9ea-f50a33d17c1f" CreationDate="2015-11-14T14:07:19.257" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|animals|materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="bd514c65-bcaa-4942-a9ea-f50a33d17c1f" CreationDate="2015-11-14T14:07:19.257" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="We have two Tamworth pigs coming back from the butcher tomorrow with a decent amount of fat (don't know how many pounds yet). What are the best and/or most economical uses of pig fat or lard?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not just looking at cooking applications. Evidently you can also make candles and other body products, and even use for water-proofing leather." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4825" RevisionGUID="a360a76d-06ac-4921-8d80-894370ce4e95" CreationDate="2015-11-14T20:26:53.637" UserId="2772" Text="I have a heat pump and a space heater ($10 @ 1500 watt 1.5kw at Wally world).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My elect heat pump is roughly 4kw an hour, Aux is roughly 11kw an hour, together they roughly draw 15kw an hour... which usually in the coldest months run me around 1500kw- 1700kw ($150-$170).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My house is well insulated, with 3 floors. I turn my heat off, and blower is on circulate (set for 10 min cycles at 25%...or running at medium speed for 2 1/2 minutes every 10 minutes).  Heater has thermostat, and is set for 68°F for 2400sq Ft home.  I can easily maintain temp with just heater running for approx. 20 min or so with outside temps around 40°F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heater used approx. A third of the electricity that the heat pump runs, and a 1/8 the electricity of the Aux heat strips per kw hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do the math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes, a heat pump with space heater works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4825" RevisionGUID="0eca42aa-b529-4879-88c8-ecfb79ed9a98" CreationDate="2015-11-14T20:32:05.970" UserId="2772" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I have a heat pump and a space heater ($10 @ 1500 watt 1.5kw fan forced at Wally world).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My elect heat pump is roughly 4kw an hour, Aux is roughly 11kw an hour, together they roughly draw 15kw an hour... which usually in the coldest months run me around 1500kw- 1700kw ($150-$170).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My house is well insulated, with 3 floors. I turn my heat off, and blower is on circulate (set for 10 min cycles at 25%...or running at medium speed for 2 1/2 minutes every 10 minutes).  Heater has thermostat, and is set for 68°F for 2400sq Ft home.  I can easily maintain temp with just heater running for approx. 20 min or so with outside temps around 30-40°F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heater used approx. A third of the electricity that the heat pump runs, and a 1/8 the electricity of the Aux heat strips per kw hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do the math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes, a heat pump with space heater works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4826" RevisionGUID="d1a972ed-aa8a-4a4d-9f57-5feb684c92bd" CreationDate="2015-11-14T20:47:07.667" UserId="2301" Text="I will address just a tiny part of your (great) question. It seems to me that a key factor is the simple fact that Microsoft is a huge corporation, who delivers a software used by hundreds of millions of computers, tablets, smartphones. It's deeply entangled with a whole industry based on fashion, software/hardware obsolescence, status symbols. It's literally one of the main actors in that industry.  &#xD;&#xA;While Linux, even if it has companies like Canonical or Red Hat, it has a different philosophy, and profit it's not the main goal of many developers who write it. This is not more environmentally friendly *per se*, but I think it's reasonable to assume that indirectly it produces less externalization on the environment.  &#xD;&#xA;It's not directly related to the sustainability of the software, but in my opinion is something worth noting from an ecological point of view.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4827" RevisionGUID="5c48f0d2-2367-46a6-8be1-95a6bc254ac8" CreationDate="2015-11-15T01:50:48.537" UserId="2345" Text="An interesting question you pose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm writing my answer via a computer that is 7 years old and has been using GNU/Linux for 3 or 4 years. The battery or battery charger no longer works, but everything else does, and everything else is original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I got this computer, new, it run Windows NT. After about 3 years it was virtually unusable due to the Microsoft ladened crud that it had acquired over time that was slowing it down and causing it to crash. I've never had a similar issue after I replaced Windows NT with the Ubuntu distribution of GNU/Linux.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three or four years ago I seriously considered replacing this computer with a new one because of the issues I was having. Replacing Windows with GNU/Linux not only saved me money but also reduced my environmental impact on the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some people this is not an option due to the reasons they use computers and the software they use. There are a lots of applications written for Windows that cannot be used on GNU/Linux because they are either proprietary or they  haven't been converted. If you use computers to play games check what is available on GNU/Linux, it's limited compared in Windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For other types of applications: media players, office suites, photo editors there are applications in GNU/Linux that are as good, and in some cases better, than similar applications used by Windows. Research is required before adopting GNU/Linux.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, most of the world's super computers, Internet servers and servers operated by larger corporations, internationally, run GNU/Linux. It's extremely stable, **cheap** and *generally* doesn't need to be rebooted after an update or upgrade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the sustainability of software, recently I saw an application that was written more than 20 years ago still being used by a corporation - colored text on a black screen with no graphics and no mouse; the TAB key was used to navigate around the screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is lots of legacy scientific and engineering code written in FORTRAN and commercial/corporate code written in COBOL. Both these languages were introduced in the 1950s. Some legacy code has been re-written in C or C++, but most is still in its original, old format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I came across an article that discussed how the computing system used for a pension scheme in one of the Balkan countries badly needed to be replaced with something modern but it was such a large and complicated undertaking no-one is prepared to commit to change. There is no desire to disrupt people's pensions during a transition period. One of the issues is when the system was devised in the 1970s it was modern for the time but it used a programming language called PL/1, which was popular then but very few people know that language now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes **software** sustainable is people wanting to learn a particular computing language so that software can be maintained. There must also be a need for keeping the software." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10706" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4824" RevisionGUID="6dc4c7c9-9748-4bba-bcd9-1abfba89e513" CreationDate="2015-11-15T07:36:05.383" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/665795389702934528" />
  <row Id="10710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4829" RevisionGUID="ed544485-57ac-47d0-a9df-e50a64488803" CreationDate="2015-11-16T03:17:11.780" UserDisplayName="user2433" Text="I am struggling to find recent sources on the carbon intensity of corn ethanol. I find many sources from around 2007, but I want something a little more recent (preferably from this decade). This is a difficult topic; land changes, production, transportation, refining, and end use all affect the carbon intensity of ethanol. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;What is the carbon intensity of corn ethanol in the United States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4829" RevisionGUID="ed544485-57ac-47d0-a9df-e50a64488803" CreationDate="2015-11-16T03:17:11.780" UserDisplayName="user2433" Text="Sources for the carbon impact of US corn ethanol?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4829" RevisionGUID="ed544485-57ac-47d0-a9df-e50a64488803" CreationDate="2015-11-16T03:17:11.780" UserDisplayName="user2433" Text="|carbon-footprint|biofuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="47852d9c-82b2-4212-8638-82b15221f6e4" CreationDate="2015-11-16T09:09:06.647" UserId="99" Text="This [2014 research report from a company called Life Cycle Associates](http://www.ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Carbon-Intensity-of-Marginal-Petroleum-and-Corn-Ethanol-Fuels1.pdf) contains a nice table and graph showing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the volume weighted carbon intensities (g CO2 e/MJ) of U.S. petroleum&#xD;&#xA;gasoline and corn ethanol over time based on the historical crude oil and ethanol plant resource mixes and future projections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carbon intensity of US petroleum gasoline and corn ethanol][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Advancements in corn ethanol in relation to petroleum gasoline GHG emissions][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From: *Boland. S. and Unnasch. S. (2014) Carbon Intensity of Marginal&#xD;&#xA;Petroleum and Corn Ethanol Fuels. Life Cycle Associates Report LCA.6075.83.2014, Prepared for Renewable Fuels Association.* ([link to PDF](http://www.ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Carbon-Intensity-of-Marginal-Petroleum-and-Corn-Ethanol-Fuels1.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The researchers also say that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The CI for corn ethanol reflects the most recent estimates of land use conversion from the University of Illinois and Argonne National Laboratory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is no reference to these estimates, so I'm not sure from which year they are. Based on the table I suspect the most recent used data is from 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QqAKt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SDDNC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10716" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4829" RevisionGUID="0eed36d0-0df5-400a-af18-1e001aa16e1c" CreationDate="2015-11-16T10:36:52.687" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/666203274400440320" />
  <row Id="10717" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4816" RevisionGUID="ceeec49e-4525-41de-9c72-ab9e5d38a52f" CreationDate="2015-11-17T01:37:01.387" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/666429801331298304" />
  <row Id="10721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4832" RevisionGUID="b305d40e-5172-49c5-ab67-1d1e925069be" CreationDate="2015-11-17T05:21:15.513" UserId="2786" Text="I wonder the difference between these two renewable energy air conditioning systems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10722" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4832" RevisionGUID="b305d40e-5172-49c5-ab67-1d1e925069be" CreationDate="2015-11-17T05:21:15.513" UserId="2786" Text="What is the difference between Geothermal HVAC and Heat pump?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10723" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4832" RevisionGUID="b305d40e-5172-49c5-ab67-1d1e925069be" CreationDate="2015-11-17T05:21:15.513" UserId="2786" Text="|renewables|air-conditioning|geothermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4832" RevisionGUID="26fdd436-2e89-4f33-9609-ba7811eeb28c" CreationDate="2015-11-17T06:39:21.780" UserId="15" Comment="Clarified" Text="What is the difference between these two renewable energy air conditioning systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="68fe0075-de39-4ceb-9d1d-11122fbcf940" CreationDate="2015-11-17T11:35:19.180" UserId="48" Text="Geothermal energy uses a high-temperature heat source powered by underground natural nuclear reactions, and passive heat exchangers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ground-source heat pumps use ambient ground temperatures, which tend to be about the same as annual average air temperature. The ground's heat is recharged each summer by the sun. The heat is extracted using active technology, compressing and expanding fluids to lift the temperatures to something useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="36614410-65ca-4421-994d-fd917036b18b" CreationDate="2015-11-17T17:55:56.183" UserId="99" Comment="added second source" Text="**Source 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [2014 research report from a company called Life Cycle Associates](http://www.ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Carbon-Intensity-of-Marginal-Petroleum-and-Corn-Ethanol-Fuels1.pdf) contains a nice table and graph showing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the volume weighted carbon intensities (g CO2 e/MJ) of U.S. petroleum&#xD;&#xA;gasoline and corn ethanol over time based on the historical crude oil and ethanol plant resource mixes and future projections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carbon intensity of US petroleum gasoline and corn ethanol][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Advancements in corn ethanol in relation to petroleum gasoline GHG emissions][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From: *Boland. S. and Unnasch. S. (2014) Carbon Intensity of Marginal&#xD;&#xA;Petroleum and Corn Ethanol Fuels. Life Cycle Associates Report LCA.6075.83.2014, Prepared for Renewable Fuels Association.* ([link to PDF](http://www.ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Carbon-Intensity-of-Marginal-Petroleum-and-Corn-Ethanol-Fuels1.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The researchers also say that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The CI for corn ethanol reflects the most recent estimates of land use conversion from the University of Illinois and Argonne National Laboratory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is no reference to these estimates, so I'm not sure from which year they are. Based on the table I suspect the most recent used data is from 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Source 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found one other source, which is [this webpage of the U.S. Energy Information Administration](http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=750), published in March 2011. Their data is based on [this document of the California Air Resources Board](http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/121409lcfs_lutables.pdf) and on [research done by Purdue University and Argonne National Laboratory](http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/MC/625.PDF)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carbon intensity of US petroleum gasoline and corn ethanol][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Graph from: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=750*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QqAKt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SDDNC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2011.03.31/ethanol_p2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4833" RevisionGUID="700a8eb6-f59a-4a2d-9706-6925ce450617" CreationDate="2015-11-18T07:58:18.600" UserId="48" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="A ground-source heat pump is not a form of geothermal energy at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geothermal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. energy source is underground natural nuclear reactions;&#xD;&#xA; 2. source temperature is over 50&amp;deg;C;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Energy is extracted with passive heat exchangers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ground-source heat pumps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. energy source is solar radiation;&#xD;&#xA; 2. source temperature is about the same as annual average air temperature;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Energy is extracted using active technology, compressing and expanding fluids to lift the temperatures to something useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="292" RevisionGUID="a85eb33e-c14f-4f51-a81f-03e46baa5faf" CreationDate="2015-11-18T08:11:38.260" UserId="96" Comment="added info about layer below pile" Text="See the other answer for the question of whether this is a real issue.&#xD;&#xA;If you want to mimic an industrial approach, you can put the heap on a plastic foil that's inclined into a small barrel, bucket or whatever to contain the leachate. I'd use PE foil since it's more resistant to chemicals than PVC. Keep away from sun.&#xD;&#xA;Another industrial approach is to put your compost heap onto a concrete or asphalt slab that's drained into a gutter.  &#xD;&#xA;Either way, I'd advise to have a grate or something between the pile and the barrier (Foil or asphalt). This way you ensure that the bottom of your pile is aerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you put a lid on the gutter and minimise the area that's open to rain, this will also tell you how much leachate you get (if this is really important information to have, I don't know)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you spread the leachate over a wider area, you should minimise nutrient entry into the groundwater." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="9dbdce16-96b7-4498-9c2c-513621dcf101" CreationDate="2015-11-18T08:31:36.960" UserId="2663" Comment="added 2156 characters in body" Text="# Overview&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following system for sustainable food production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Urban Plan][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this system is to provide an environmentally-friendly, semi- (or fully-) automated means to produce food for lots of people. Similar in nature to the [Earthship][2] question, but delving into a few more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help performing calculations on multi-storey indoor farms, using vertical plan production. I'm trying to reconcile the following variables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* People to feed.&#xD;&#xA;* Building dimensions and storeys.&#xD;&#xA;* Total wattage necessary for lighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1,000 people&#xD;&#xA;* 64m x 64m x 6 storeys x 4m per storey&#xD;&#xA;* 7.71MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following sections serve as an example calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of an example, assume a population of 350 people (but it could be 1,000 or any other number). The minimum global daily [intake][3] as of 2006 is 1850 calories per person, which is 7740kJ per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* daily = 7740kJ&#xD;&#xA;* input = 350 x 7500kJ x 365 = 988785MJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a given population of 350 people, they require a minimum of 988785MJ of energy per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Plant Growth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we know the energy per year needed by the population, it is possible to determine the size and harvests of a food that will yield that energy amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A giant large red round [heirloom][4] tomato stores 85kJ of energy per 100g, and reaches an average of [375g][5] in 65 days, which equals 318kJ. (Round the number of annual harvests down to 5 to err on caution.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = 318kJ (per tomato)&#xD;&#xA;* yield = 50 (per plant)&#xD;&#xA;* harvests = 5 (per year)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of plants is calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* plants = input / (harvests x yield x energy)&#xD;&#xA;* plants = 988785MJ / (5 x 50 x 319kJ)&#xD;&#xA;* plants ~= 12400&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The space required for each tomato plant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* diameter = 2m&#xD;&#xA;* height = 1.5m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Building Area&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The minimum building area is calculated using:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = (pi x diameter/2)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x plants&#xD;&#xA;* area = 9.869604m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 12400 = 122,383m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since indoor farms use vertical space, we can pick an arbitrary number of storeys for the building. In this example, we'll choose 10. At 10 storeys, each storey must occupy 12238.3m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Using a square building means that length and width of the building is equal to the square root of 12238.3m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, or ~111m per side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the plants are 1.5m tall, we can make each storey 3m tall to fit two levels of plants per storey. This halves the building length and width. We still need to account for interstitial space for infrastructure (e.g., ducts, plumbing, wiring). This adds 18.5m per side, bringing the total length and width to ~74m per side. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* storeys = 10&#xD;&#xA;* plant floor space = 55.6m x 55.6m&#xD;&#xA;* interstitial = 1/3&#xD;&#xA;* total floor space = 74m x 74m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Lighting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using high-efficiency LED grow lamps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* racks = 2&#xD;&#xA;* coverage = 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = plant floor space / coverage x racks x storeys&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = 3091m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; / 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 2 x 10&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; ~= 50710&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Racks are the factor of plants per floor being grown (i.e., the number of stacks per storey; a storey 3m high can fit two racks of plants that grow 1.5m tall).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using light movers increases coverage by 35 per cent, therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - (0.35 x lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;) = 32962&#xD;&#xA;* movers = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = 17748&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy Requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electrical needs are calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* power = 250W (per lamp)&#xD;&#xA;* light&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = 303lm/W&#xD;&#xA;* light&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = 625lm/W (hypothetical efficiency)&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; x power ~= 8.24MW&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; x power x (light&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; / light&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) ~= 3.98MW&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; = total&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; + movers x 5W = 4.07MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary concern is whether **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Plasma lighting][6] seems unbelievably efficient, which could reduce substantially reduce power requirements even further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Additional Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nate Storey][7] calculated the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Using current LED efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA; - Sustain (calorie + nutrition) 1,000 people on a variety of foods.&#xD;&#xA; - The building is 64m x 64m (approx. 1 acre) by 6 storeys.&#xD;&#xA; - Each storey must be 4m (approx. 13 feet) high.&#xD;&#xA; - Vertical plane production within the vertical building.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires 45 watts/sq. ft. per hour, at 18 hours per day for ~3.5 square feet of production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this implies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = 64m x 64m x 6 = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; area&#xD;&#xA;* power = 45W/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = area * power = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; * 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 11.9MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His calculations show 11.9MW to feed 1,000 people; my calculations show 4.07MW to feed 350 people, which is 11.6MW to feed 1,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What assumptions made for **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** are incorrect, if any, and how can they be corrected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please show each step and assumptions made for your calculations, preferably similar to how I've laid out the parameters above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E5zJO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1433/13418&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/food_security_statistics/MinimumDietaryEnergyRequirement_en.xls&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.caloriecount.com/calories-freshdirect-beefsteak-tomato-i140109&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://californiahybrids.com/category/large-tomatoes/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://luxim.resilient.lighting/products/grow-lighting&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.brightagrotech.com/dr-nate-storey-aquaponics-expert/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="0b660113-15bf-487e-9921-df419046d83e" CreationDate="2015-11-18T19:09:34.430" UserId="2663" Comment="edited body" Text="# Overview&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following system for sustainable food production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Urban Plan][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this system is to provide an environmentally-friendly, semi- (or fully-) automated means to produce food for lots of people. Similar in nature to the [Earthship][2] question, but delving into a few more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help performing calculations on multi-storey indoor farms, using vertical plan production. I'm trying to reconcile the following variables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* People to feed.&#xD;&#xA;* Building dimensions and storeys.&#xD;&#xA;* Total wattage necessary for lighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1,000 people&#xD;&#xA;* 64m x 64m x 6 storeys x 4m per storey&#xD;&#xA;* 7.71MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following sections serve as an example calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of an example, assume a population of 350 people (but it could be 1,000 or any other number). The minimum global daily [intake][3] as of 2006 is 1850 calories per person, which is 7740kJ per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* daily = 7740kJ&#xD;&#xA;* input = 350 x 7500kJ x 365 = 988785MJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a given population of 350 people, they require a minimum of 988785MJ of energy per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Plant Growth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we know the energy per year needed by the population, it is possible to determine the size and harvests of a food that will yield that energy amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A giant large red round [heirloom][4] tomato stores 85kJ of energy per 100g, and reaches an average of [375g][5] in 65 days, which equals 318kJ. (Round the number of annual harvests down to 5 to err on caution.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = 318kJ (per tomato)&#xD;&#xA;* yield = 50 (per plant)&#xD;&#xA;* harvests = 5 (per year)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of plants is calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* plants = input / (harvests x yield x energy)&#xD;&#xA;* plants = 988785MJ / (5 x 50 x 319kJ)&#xD;&#xA;* plants ~= 12400&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The space required for each tomato plant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* diameter = 2m&#xD;&#xA;* height = 1.5m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Building Area&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The minimum building area is calculated using:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = (pi x diameter/2)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x plants&#xD;&#xA;* area = 9.869604m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 12400 = 122,383m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since indoor farms use vertical space, we can pick an arbitrary number of storeys for the building. In this example, we'll choose 10. At 10 storeys, each storey must occupy 12238.3m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Using a square building means that length and width of the building is equal to the square root of 12238.3m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, or ~111m per side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the plants are 1.5m tall, we can make each storey 3m tall to fit two levels of plants per storey. This halves the building length and width. We still need to account for interstitial space for infrastructure (e.g., ducts, plumbing, wiring). This adds 18.5m per side, bringing the total length and width to ~74m per side. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* storeys = 10&#xD;&#xA;* plant floor space = 55.6m x 55.6m&#xD;&#xA;* interstitial = 1/3&#xD;&#xA;* total floor space = 74m x 74m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Lighting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using high-efficiency LED grow lamps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* racks = 2&#xD;&#xA;* coverage = 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = plant floor space / coverage x racks x storeys&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = 3091m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; / 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 2 x 10&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; ~= 50710&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Racks are the factor of plants per floor being grown (i.e., the number of stacks per storey; a storey 3m high can fit two racks of plants that grow 1.5m tall).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using light movers increases coverage by 35 per cent, therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - (0.35 x lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;) = 32962&#xD;&#xA;* movers = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = 17748&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy Requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electrical needs are calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* power = 250W (per lamp)&#xD;&#xA;* light&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = 303lm/W&#xD;&#xA;* light&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = 625lm/W (hypothetical efficiency)&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; x power ~= 8.24MW&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; x power x (light&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; / light&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) ~= 3.98MW&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; = total&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; + movers x 5W = 4.07MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary concern is whether **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Plasma lighting][6] seems unbelievably efficient, which could reduce substantially reduce power requirements even further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Additional Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nate Storey][7] calculated the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Using current LED efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA; - Sustain (calorie + nutrition) 1,000 people on a variety of foods.&#xD;&#xA; - The building is 64m x 64m (approx. 1 acre) by 6 storeys.&#xD;&#xA; - Each storey must be 4m (approx. 13 feet) high.&#xD;&#xA; - Vertical plane production within the vertical building.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires 45 watts/sq. ft. per hour, at 18 hours per day for ~3.5 square feet of production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this implies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = 64m x 64m x 6 = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; area&#xD;&#xA;* power = 45W/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = area x power = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 11.9MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His calculations show 11.9MW to feed 1,000 people; my calculations show 4.07MW to feed 350 people, which is 11.6MW to feed 1,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What assumptions made for **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** are incorrect, if any, and how can they be corrected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please show each step and assumptions made for your calculations, preferably similar to how I've laid out the parameters above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E5zJO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1433/13418&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/food_security_statistics/MinimumDietaryEnergyRequirement_en.xls&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.caloriecount.com/calories-freshdirect-beefsteak-tomato-i140109&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://californiahybrids.com/category/large-tomatoes/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://luxim.resilient.lighting/products/grow-lighting&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.brightagrotech.com/dr-nate-storey-aquaponics-expert/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10735" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4770" RevisionGUID="2d30da7b-82a1-4574-a802-248ccc59e3b4" CreationDate="2015-11-18T19:56:10.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/667068799712174080" />
  <row Id="10737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="1c514c75-72d7-4ffc-bce9-05d6b51b04d8" CreationDate="2015-11-18T22:37:39.783" UserId="2663" Comment="deleted 372 characters in body" Text="# Overview&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following system for sustainable food production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Urban Plan][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this system is to provide an environmentally-friendly, semi- (or fully-) automated means to produce food for lots of people. Similar in nature to the [Earthship][2] question, but delving into a few more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help performing calculations on multi-storey indoor farms, using vertical plan production. I'm trying to reconcile the following variables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* People to feed.&#xD;&#xA;* Building dimensions and storeys.&#xD;&#xA;* Total wattage necessary for lighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1,000 people&#xD;&#xA;* 64m x 64m x 6 storeys x 4m per storey&#xD;&#xA;* 7.71MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following sections serve as an example calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of an example, assume a population of 350 people (but it could be 1,000 or any other number). The minimum global daily [intake][3] as of 2006 is 1850 calories per person, which is 7740kJ per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* daily = 7740kJ&#xD;&#xA;* input = 350 x 7500kJ x 365 = 988785MJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a given population of 350 people, they require a minimum of 988785MJ of energy per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Plant Growth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we know the energy per year needed by the population, it is possible to determine the size and harvests of a food that will yield that energy amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A giant large red round [heirloom][4] tomato stores 85kJ of energy per 100g, and reaches an average of [375g][5] in 65 days, which equals 318kJ. (Round the number of annual harvests down to 5 to err on caution.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = 318kJ (per tomato)&#xD;&#xA;* yield = 50 (per plant)&#xD;&#xA;* harvests = 5 (per year)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of plants is calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* plants = input / (harvests x yield x energy)&#xD;&#xA;* plants = 988785MJ / (5 x 50 x 318kJ)&#xD;&#xA;* plants ~= 12450&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The space required for each tomato plant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* diameter = 2m&#xD;&#xA;* height = 1.5m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Building Area&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The minimum building area is calculated using:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = (pi x diameter/2)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x plants&#xD;&#xA;* area = 3.14159265m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 12450 = 39,113m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since indoor farms use vertical space, we can pick an arbitrary number of storeys for the building. In this example, we'll choose 10. At 10 storeys, each storey must occupy 3,911.3m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Therefore, a square building would be approximately **63m** per side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using plants 1.5m tall, means a storey 3m tall fits two levels of plants per storey. This halves the building length and width to **31.5m** per side. We still need to account for interstitial space for infrastructure (e.g., ducts, plumbing, wiring). This adds 10.5m per side, bringing the total length and width to ~42m per side. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* storeys = 10&#xD;&#xA;* plant floor space = 31.5m x 31.5m&#xD;&#xA;* interstitial = 1/3 (10.5m)&#xD;&#xA;* total floor space = 42m x 42m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Lighting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using high-efficiency LED grow lamps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* racks = 2&#xD;&#xA;* coverage = 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = plant floor space / coverage x racks x storeys&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = 992.25m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; / 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 2 x 10&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; ~= 16277&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using light movers increases coverage by 35 per cent, therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - (0.35 x lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;) ~= 10,581&#xD;&#xA;* movers = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = 5,696&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy Requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electrical needs are calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* power = 250W (per lamp)&#xD;&#xA;* light&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = 303lm/W&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; x power ~= 2.65MW&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; + movers x 5W = 2.68MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary concern is whether **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Plasma lighting][6] seems unbelievably efficient, which could reduce substantially reduce power requirements even further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Additional Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nate Storey][7] calculated the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Using current LED efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA; - Sustain (calorie + nutrition) 1,000 people on a variety of foods.&#xD;&#xA; - The building is 64m x 64m (approx. 1 acre) by 6 storeys.&#xD;&#xA; - Each storey must be 4m (approx. 13 feet) high.&#xD;&#xA; - Vertical plane production within the vertical building.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires 45 watts/sq. ft. per hour, at 18 hours per day for ~3.5 square feet of production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this implies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = 64m x 64m x 6 = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; area&#xD;&#xA;* power = 45W/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = area x power = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 11.9MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His calculations show ~11.9MW to feed 1,000 people; my calculations show ~2.68MW to feed 350 people, which is ~7.66MW to feed 1,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What assumptions made for **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** are incorrect, if any, and how can they be corrected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please show each step and assumptions made for your calculations, preferably similar to how I've laid out the parameters above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E5zJO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1433/13418&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/food_security_statistics/MinimumDietaryEnergyRequirement_en.xls&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.caloriecount.com/calories-freshdirect-beefsteak-tomato-i140109&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://californiahybrids.com/category/large-tomatoes/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://luxim.resilient.lighting/products/grow-lighting&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.brightagrotech.com/dr-nate-storey-aquaponics-expert/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="5081f7de-8a69-4d39-9e31-8604c52b4cb9" CreationDate="2015-11-18T22:45:28.120" UserId="2663" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="# Overview&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following system for sustainable food production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Urban Plan][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this system is to provide an environmentally-friendly, semi- (or fully-) automated means to produce food for lots of people. Similar in nature to the [Earthship][2] question, but delving into a few more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help performing calculations on multi-storey indoor farms, using vertical plan production. I'm trying to reconcile the following variables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* People to feed.&#xD;&#xA;* Building dimensions and storeys.&#xD;&#xA;* Total wattage necessary for lighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1,000 people&#xD;&#xA;* 64m x 64m x 6 storeys x 4m per storey&#xD;&#xA;* 7.71MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following sections serve as an example calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of an example, assume a population of 350 people (but it could be 1,000 or any other number). The minimum global daily [intake][3] as of 2006 is 1850 calories per person, which is 7740kJ per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* daily = 7740kJ&#xD;&#xA;* input = 350 x 7500kJ x 365 = 988785MJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a given population of 350 people, they require a minimum of 988785MJ of energy per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Plant Growth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we know the energy per year needed by the population, it is possible to determine the size and harvests of a food that will yield that energy amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A giant large red round [heirloom][4] tomato stores 85kJ of energy per 100g, and reaches an average of [375g][5] in 65 days, which equals 318kJ. (Round the number of annual harvests down to 5 to err on caution.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = 318kJ (per tomato)&#xD;&#xA;* yield = 50 (per plant)&#xD;&#xA;* harvests = 5 (per year)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of plants is calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* plants = input / (harvests x yield x energy)&#xD;&#xA;* plants = 988785MJ / (5 x 50 x 318kJ)&#xD;&#xA;* plants ~= 12450&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The space required for each tomato plant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* diameter = 2m&#xD;&#xA;* height = 1.5m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Building Area&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The minimum building area is calculated using:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = (pi x diameter/2) x plants&#xD;&#xA;* area = (pi x 2m^2/2) x 12,450&#xD;&#xA;* area = 3.14159265m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 12,450 = 39,113m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since indoor farms use vertical space, we can pick an arbitrary number of storeys for the building. In this example, we'll choose 10. At 10 storeys, each storey must occupy 3,911.3m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Therefore, a square building would be approximately **63m** per side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using plants 1.5m tall, means a storey 3m tall fits two levels of plants per storey. This halves the building length and width to **31.5m** per side. We still need to account for interstitial space for infrastructure (e.g., ducts, plumbing, wiring). This adds 10.5m per side, bringing the total length and width to ~42m per side. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* storeys = 10&#xD;&#xA;* plant floor space = 31.5m x 31.5m&#xD;&#xA;* interstitial = 1/3 (10.5m)&#xD;&#xA;* total floor space = 42m x 42m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Lighting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using high-efficiency LED grow lamps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* racks = 2&#xD;&#xA;* coverage = 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = plant floor space / coverage x racks x storeys&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = 992.25m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; / 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 2 x 10&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; ~= 16277&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using light movers increases coverage by 35 per cent, therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - (0.35 x lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;) ~= 10,581&#xD;&#xA;* movers = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = 5,696&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy Requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electrical needs are calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* power = 250W (per lamp)&#xD;&#xA;* light&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = 303lm/W&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; x power ~= 2.65MW&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; + movers x 5W = 2.68MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary concern is whether **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Plasma lighting][6] seems unbelievably efficient, which could reduce substantially reduce power requirements even further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Additional Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nate Storey][7] calculated the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Using current LED efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA; - Sustain (calorie + nutrition) 1,000 people on a variety of foods.&#xD;&#xA; - The building is 64m x 64m (approx. 1 acre) by 6 storeys.&#xD;&#xA; - Each storey must be 4m (approx. 13 feet) high.&#xD;&#xA; - Vertical plane production within the vertical building.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires 45 watts/sq. ft. per hour, at 18 hours per day for ~3.5 square feet of production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this implies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = 64m x 64m x 6 = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; area&#xD;&#xA;* power = 45W/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = area x power = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 11.9MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His calculations show ~11.9MW to feed 1,000 people; my calculations show ~2.68MW to feed 350 people, which is ~7.66MW to feed 1,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What assumptions made for **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** are incorrect, if any, and how can they be corrected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please show each step and assumptions made for your calculations, preferably similar to how I've laid out the parameters above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E5zJO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1433/13418&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/food_security_statistics/MinimumDietaryEnergyRequirement_en.xls&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.caloriecount.com/calories-freshdirect-beefsteak-tomato-i140109&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://californiahybrids.com/category/large-tomatoes/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://luxim.resilient.lighting/products/grow-lighting&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.brightagrotech.com/dr-nate-storey-aquaponics-expert/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="12f6d284-ff00-4c72-854c-8c42649bdf2e" CreationDate="2015-11-18T22:55:20.547" UserId="2663" Comment="edited body" Text="# Overview&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following system for sustainable food production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Urban Plan][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this system is to provide an environmentally-friendly, semi- (or fully-) automated means to produce food for lots of people. Similar in nature to the [Earthship][2] question, but delving into a few more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help performing calculations on multi-storey indoor farms, using vertical plan production. I'm trying to reconcile the following variables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* People to feed.&#xD;&#xA;* Building dimensions and storeys.&#xD;&#xA;* Total wattage necessary for lighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1,000 people&#xD;&#xA;* 64m x 64m x 6 storeys x 4m per storey&#xD;&#xA;* 7.71MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following sections serve as an example calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of an example, assume a population of 350 people (but it could be 1,000 or any other number). The minimum global daily [intake][3] as of 2006 is 1850 calories per person, which is 7740kJ per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* daily = 7740kJ&#xD;&#xA;* input = 350 x 7740kJ x 365 = 988785MJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a given population of 350 people, they require a minimum of 988785MJ of energy per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Plant Growth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we know the energy per year needed by the population, it is possible to determine the size and harvests of a food that will yield that energy amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A giant large red round [heirloom][4] tomato stores 85kJ of energy per 100g, and reaches an average of [375g][5] in 65 days, which equals 318kJ. (Round the number of annual harvests down to 5 to err on caution.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = 318kJ (per tomato)&#xD;&#xA;* yield = 50 (per plant)&#xD;&#xA;* harvests = 5 (per year)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of plants is calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* plants = input / (harvests x yield x energy)&#xD;&#xA;* plants = 988785MJ / (5 x 50 x 318kJ)&#xD;&#xA;* plants ~= 12450&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The space required for each tomato plant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* diameter = 2m&#xD;&#xA;* height = 1.5m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Building Area&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The minimum building area is calculated using:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = (pi x diameter/2) x plants&#xD;&#xA;* area = (pi x 2m^2/2) x 12,450&#xD;&#xA;* area = 3.14159265m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 12,450 = 39,113m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since indoor farms use vertical space, we can pick an arbitrary number of storeys for the building. In this example, we'll choose 10. At 10 storeys, each storey must occupy 3,911.3m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Therefore, a square building would be approximately **63m** per side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using plants 1.5m tall, means a storey 3m tall fits two levels of plants per storey. This halves the building length and width to **31.5m** per side. We still need to account for interstitial space for infrastructure (e.g., ducts, plumbing, wiring). This adds 10.5m per side, bringing the total length and width to ~42m per side. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* storeys = 10&#xD;&#xA;* plant floor space = 31.5m x 31.5m&#xD;&#xA;* interstitial = 1/3 (10.5m)&#xD;&#xA;* total floor space = 42m x 42m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Lighting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using high-efficiency LED grow lamps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* racks = 2&#xD;&#xA;* coverage = 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = plant floor space / coverage x racks x storeys&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = 992.25m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; / 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 2 x 10&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; ~= 16277&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using light movers increases coverage by 35 per cent, therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - (0.35 x lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;) ~= 10,581&#xD;&#xA;* movers = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = 5,696&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy Requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electrical needs are calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* power = 250W (per lamp)&#xD;&#xA;* light&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = 303lm/W&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; x power ~= 2.65MW&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; + movers x 5W = 2.68MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary concern is whether **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Plasma lighting][6] seems unbelievably efficient, which could reduce substantially reduce power requirements even further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Additional Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nate Storey][7] calculated the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Using current LED efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA; - Sustain (calorie + nutrition) 1,000 people on a variety of foods.&#xD;&#xA; - The building is 64m x 64m (approx. 1 acre) by 6 storeys.&#xD;&#xA; - Each storey must be 4m (approx. 13 feet) high.&#xD;&#xA; - Vertical plane production within the vertical building.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires 45 watts/sq. ft. per hour, at 18 hours per day for ~3.5 square feet of production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this implies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = 64m x 64m x 6 = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; area&#xD;&#xA;* power = 45W/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = area x power = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 11.9MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His calculations show ~11.9MW to feed 1,000 people; my calculations show ~2.68MW to feed 350 people, which is ~7.66MW to feed 1,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What assumptions made for **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** are incorrect, if any, and how can they be corrected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please show each step and assumptions made for your calculations, preferably similar to how I've laid out the parameters above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E5zJO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1433/13418&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/food_security_statistics/MinimumDietaryEnergyRequirement_en.xls&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.caloriecount.com/calories-freshdirect-beefsteak-tomato-i140109&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://californiahybrids.com/category/large-tomatoes/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://luxim.resilient.lighting/products/grow-lighting&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.brightagrotech.com/dr-nate-storey-aquaponics-expert/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4837" RevisionGUID="0db6c666-9e7f-4e43-a0f8-9fee8130c0b2" CreationDate="2015-11-19T02:41:58.717" UserId="2155" Text="Although the currently accepted answer (as of this one being written) is very good and full of information, it doesn't actually answer the question.&#xA;&#xA;When you are done baking, it doesn't hurt _anything_ to leave the door open when you turn it off. All it will do is add some heat to the thermal mass, whether it's all up at the ceiling or not, it's still in the room and helps even if just incrementally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4838" RevisionGUID="f45ee39f-6397-4131-9745-877e287cf12c" CreationDate="2015-11-19T05:01:46.350" UserId="48" Text="Given the uncertainties in many of your numbers, your answer is consistent with Nate Storey's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your assumption of 303 lm/W for LEDs doesn't look plausible to me - that's very different to the sort of efficiencies I see on the market. Half that would be much more plausible. So no, your total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; calculation doesn't look right to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you do need to account for uncertainties in the calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, with these sorts of complex systems, the sort of back-of-envelope calculation you've done is all very well as a first step, but only as a first step. The next step is to build a very small-scale prototype system and start looking at real data, for each of the system components, and for the system as a whole. And look at what other people have done: real-world experiments with empirical data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Model, experiment, reconcile, repeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only then will you find out if your calculation is correct and meaningful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10750" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="3d58a5d0-acb2-4a35-9567-f94c0d1434e6" CreationDate="2015-11-19T08:39:53.203" UserId="99" Comment="29" />
  <row Id="10751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="7fda8506-f9ba-43a7-a757-7cebb5e597c6" CreationDate="2015-11-19T09:24:34.003" UserId="2663" Comment="deleted 162 characters in body" Text="# Overview&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following system for sustainable food production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Urban Plan][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this system is to provide an environmentally-friendly, semi- (or fully-) automated means to produce food for lots of people. Similar in nature to the [Earthship][2] question, but delving into a few more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help performing calculations on multi-storey indoor farms, using vertical plan production. I'm trying to reconcile the following variables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* People to feed.&#xD;&#xA;* Building dimensions and storeys.&#xD;&#xA;* Total wattage necessary for lighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1,000 people&#xD;&#xA;* 64m x 64m x 6 storeys x 4m per storey&#xD;&#xA;* 7.71MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following sections serve as an example calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of an example, assume a population of 350 people (but it could be 1,000 or any other number). The minimum global daily [intake][3] as of 2006 is 1850 calories per person, which is 7740kJ per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* daily = 7740kJ&#xD;&#xA;* input = 350 x 7740kJ x 365 = 988785MJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a given population of 350 people, they require a minimum of 988785MJ of energy per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Plant Growth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we know the energy per year needed by the population, it is possible to determine the size and harvests of a food that will yield that energy amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A giant large red round [heirloom][4] tomato stores 85kJ of energy per 100g, and reaches an average of [375g][5] in 65 days, which equals 318kJ. (Round the number of annual harvests down to 5 to err on caution.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = 318kJ (per tomato)&#xD;&#xA;* yield = 50 (per plant)&#xD;&#xA;* harvests = 5 (per year)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of plants is calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* plants = input / (harvests x yield x energy)&#xD;&#xA;* plants = 988785MJ / (5 x 50 x 318kJ)&#xD;&#xA;* plants ~= 12450&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The space required for each tomato plant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* diameter = 2m&#xD;&#xA;* height = 1.5m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Building Area&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The minimum building area is calculated using:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = (pi x diameter/2) x plants&#xD;&#xA;* area = (pi x 2m^2/2) x 12,450&#xD;&#xA;* area = 3.14159265m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 12,450 = 39,113m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since indoor farms use vertical space, we can pick an arbitrary number of storeys for the building. In this example, we'll choose 10. At 10 storeys, each storey must occupy 3,911.3m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Therefore, a square building would be approximately **63m** per side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using plants 1.5m tall, means a storey 3m tall fits two levels of plants per storey. This halves the building length and width to **31.5m** per side. We still need to account for interstitial space for infrastructure (e.g., ducts, plumbing, wiring). This adds 10.5m per side, bringing the total length and width to ~42m per side. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* storeys = 10&#xD;&#xA;* plant floor space = 31.5m x 31.5m&#xD;&#xA;* interstitial = 1/3 (10.5m)&#xD;&#xA;* total floor space = 42m x 42m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Lighting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using high-efficiency LED grow lamps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* racks = 2&#xD;&#xA;* coverage = 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = plant floor space / coverage x racks x storeys&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = 992.25m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; / 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 2 x 10&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; ~= 16277&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using light movers increases coverage by 35 per cent, therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - (0.35 x lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;) ~= 10,581&#xD;&#xA;* movers = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = 5,696&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy Requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electrical needs are calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* power = 250W (per lamp)&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; x power ~= 2.65MW&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; + movers x 5W = 2.68MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary concern is whether **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Plasma lighting][6] seems unbelievably efficient, which could reduce substantially reduce power requirements even further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Additional Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nate Storey][7] calculated the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Using current LED efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA; - Sustain (calorie + nutrition) 1,000 people on a variety of foods.&#xD;&#xA; - The building is 64m x 64m (approx. 1 acre) by 6 storeys.&#xD;&#xA; - Each storey must be 4m (approx. 13 feet) high.&#xD;&#xA; - Vertical plane production within the vertical building.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires 45 watts/sq. ft. per hour, at 18 hours per day for ~3.5 square feet of production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this implies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = 64m x 64m x 6 = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; area&#xD;&#xA;* power = 45W/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = area x power = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 11.9MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His calculations show ~11.9MW to feed 1,000 people; my calculations show ~2.68MW to feed 350 people, which is ~7.66MW to feed 1,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What assumptions made for **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** are incorrect, if any, and how can they be corrected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E5zJO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1433/13418&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/food_security_statistics/MinimumDietaryEnergyRequirement_en.xls&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.caloriecount.com/calories-freshdirect-beefsteak-tomato-i140109&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://californiahybrids.com/category/large-tomatoes/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://luxim.resilient.lighting/products/grow-lighting&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.brightagrotech.com/dr-nate-storey-aquaponics-expert/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="143ee95b-9562-4218-ab00-ae5a4cd6d163" CreationDate="2015-11-19T16:22:42.553" UserId="2786" Text="Does anyone know that? I am wondering the fact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="143ee95b-9562-4218-ab00-ae5a4cd6d163" CreationDate="2015-11-19T16:22:42.553" UserId="2786" Text="Does water-source heat pump equal to seawater heat pump?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="143ee95b-9562-4218-ab00-ae5a4cd6d163" CreationDate="2015-11-19T16:22:42.553" UserId="2786" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|water|renewables|seawater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4840" RevisionGUID="b7a6ff3f-b9fc-4018-8190-bb2069071b21" CreationDate="2015-11-19T21:31:36.897" UserDisplayName="user2433" Text="After taking a few different &quot;tests,&quot; I have realized that results may vary quite significantly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Is there an online, comprehensive carbon footprint &quot;test&quot; that is both precise and accurate? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10756" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4840" RevisionGUID="b7a6ff3f-b9fc-4018-8190-bb2069071b21" CreationDate="2015-11-19T21:31:36.897" UserDisplayName="user2433" Text="How can one accurately estimate their carbon footprint?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10757" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4840" RevisionGUID="b7a6ff3f-b9fc-4018-8190-bb2069071b21" CreationDate="2015-11-19T21:31:36.897" UserDisplayName="user2433" Text="|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10758" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="bba94100-e625-48e3-8dd8-5d7580a38dcb" CreationDate="2015-11-20T02:07:26.593" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/667524621990785024" />
  <row Id="10760" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="302cc374-5fbf-40ad-8c4b-8ea5cd6ab0e6" CreationDate="2015-11-20T10:02:21.383" UserId="85" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:812,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Simon W&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4841" RevisionGUID="2beb4138-3cac-44a1-8e31-0951fd9b5c58" CreationDate="2015-11-20T16:04:41.440" UserId="2789" Text="I had bamboo pillowcases before, they are very soft but not very durable.  So I have to disagree with the con No 2 in previous post. I do know that bamboo fabric need more water to produce, which increases overall environmental impact.  However, since bamboo grow really fast, I am not award of any producer is heavily using fertilizer, which is a pro comparing to cotton." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10762" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="4841" RevisionGUID="445ba7cb-0758-4934-b6dd-121addecfa49" CreationDate="2015-11-20T16:05:08.870" UserId="2789" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2789,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Evelin Ericksson&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10763" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="4841" RevisionGUID="6fb87aa8-9023-457d-ac69-58bac9cbbd90" CreationDate="2015-11-20T16:05:52.593" UserId="2789" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2789,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Evelin Ericksson&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4842" RevisionGUID="1c47c42f-da15-45a4-92cd-a95fc413ef5c" CreationDate="2015-11-21T10:38:45.417" UserId="986" Text="I happen to have a lot of white used paper (with black ink on it, either from a printer or a pen), and also a very wet compost bin (I guess it's because my soil is heavy clay and the drainage is quite poor). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thought was: I buy a paper shredder, I shred the paper that I have/produce and use it to make my compost pile dryer, by adding it little by little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few question arise, though:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Is it safe (in terms of soil/plant health) to compost white used paper with ink on it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Will this actually help drying the compost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. How small should the shredded strips be, and how long will they take to be composted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4842" RevisionGUID="1c47c42f-da15-45a4-92cd-a95fc413ef5c" CreationDate="2015-11-21T10:38:45.417" UserId="986" Text="Composting used white shredded paper" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4842" RevisionGUID="1c47c42f-da15-45a4-92cd-a95fc413ef5c" CreationDate="2015-11-21T10:38:45.417" UserId="986" Text="|recycling|composting|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4841" RevisionGUID="e26bea4b-6690-4d0d-b13c-f963cc31f466" CreationDate="2015-11-21T11:05:33.123" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected typos" Text="I had bamboo pillowcases before, they are very soft but not very durable.  So I have to disagree with the con No 2 in previous post. I do know that bamboo fabric need more water to produce, which increases overall environmental impact.  However, since bamboo grows really fast, I am not aware of any producer heavily using fertilizer, which is a pro comparing to cotton." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10769" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4841" RevisionGUID="e26bea4b-6690-4d0d-b13c-f963cc31f466" CreationDate="2015-11-21T11:05:33.123" Comment="Proposed by 2345 approved by 99 edit id of 346" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4843" RevisionGUID="43228ab4-9daa-4fc1-9e0a-cb5449285940" CreationDate="2015-11-21T13:22:01.853" UserId="48" Text="It's not possible to accurately estimate it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are only approximations. There are so many uncertainties. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When you use electricity, should you use average carbon intensity, or&#xD;&#xA;   marginal carbon intensity? Each tends to vary constantly (unless&#xD;&#xA;   you're on one of the handful of already-zero-carbon electricity&#xD;&#xA;   grids)&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  What adjustment do you make for the change in congestion if you&#xD;&#xA;   drive?&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  What's the CO2e multiplier for flights? (big uncertainties on that&#xD;&#xA;   one)&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  What's the embedded carbon in the objects you've consumed?&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  Which methane-multiplier should you use - 5-year, 30-year, 100-year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How much methane leakage should you include? (It's surprising how little we know about that)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why you'll get such wide variations: there are big uncertainties attached to most of the calculations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, one cannot accurately estimate one's own carbon footprint. The best you can do is get a wide range of possible values, and some clues as to where it's easiest to start reducing it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="573c58e3-ed2a-4ab3-8477-3960db768ac7" CreationDate="2015-11-21T19:23:17.967" UserId="99" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor and ozone) that is produced directly and indirectly by a person, an organisation, an event or a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Direct emissions, also called primary footprint, come from sources directly controlled by the person(s) or activity in question, for example heating one's house. Indirect emissions or secondary footprint are emissions that are the consequence of a person(s) actions using sources owned or controlled by someone else, for example fuel that was for transport from the factory to the store for a product one has bought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The global average carbon footprint is approximately 4 tons of CO2-equivalent per person per year [[source]](http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_footprint) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the difference with [tag:ecological-footprint] that measures the total impact (so not only greenhouse gas emissions) of a person, organisation or activity on the Earth's ecosystems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online carbon footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Personal/Household*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbon Story](https://www.carbonstory.org/calculator/calculate)&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbonfootprint.com](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator1.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [Conservation International](http://www.conservation.org/act/live_green/carboncalc/Pages/default.aspx)&#xD;&#xA; - [EPA USA - Household Carbon Footprint Calculator](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/ind-calculator.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [Berkeley University - CoolClimate Carbon Footprint Calculator](http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/carboncalculator)&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbon Neutral Company](http://www.carbonneutralcalculator.com/householdcalculator.aspx)&#xD;&#xA; - [Earth Lab](https://www.earthlab.com/createprofile/reg.aspx) (requires registration)&#xD;&#xA; - [Nature Conservancy](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) (for US citizens)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Kids*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Cooltheworld.com - Kid's carbon calculator](http://www.cooltheworld.com/kidscarboncalculator.php)&#xD;&#xA; - [Meet the Greens - Zero footprint youth calculator](http://www.meetthegreens.org/features/carbon-calculator.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [ABC Television - Carbon Cops](http://www.abc.net.au/tv/carboncops/calculator.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Business*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Greenhouse Gas Protocols](http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools)&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbonfootprint.com](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/businesscalculator.aspx) (registration required)&#xD;&#xA; - [Energy Star Target Finder](https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=target_finder)&#xD;&#xA; - [Clean Air-Cool Planet - Campus Carbon Calculator](http://campuscarbon.com) (for schools in the US/Canada, registration required)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4844" RevisionGUID="c81c41e5-1cdf-41e1-86bc-d8cd56ddced6" CreationDate="2015-11-21T19:23:56.540" UserId="99" Text="I agree with the [answer given by EnergyNumbers](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4843/99). At best you can get a rough estimate of your carbon footprint. If you want an accurate result you would need  to do a carbon footprint analysis of all products you buy, all services you use, and all activities you do, and then aggregate the results. And even then the accuracy of the end result is questionable. As EnergyNumbers also mentioned, we have to make a lot of assumptions because there are so many unknowns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, there are somethings you can do to get better results, or have to keep in mind when interpreting the results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Consult a carbon footprint calculator that has been made specifically for your country of residence. This is because many calculators rely on national (average) data.&#xD;&#xA;  2. If possible, try to consult multiple calculators. The ones with the most questions and parameters are more likely to give a better, more accurate result for your specific situation.&#xD;&#xA;  3. Be careful when comparing the results of different calculators, because not all calculators have the same scope. For example, not all calculators include indirect CO2 emissions (that were emitted to manufacture a product or service before you started using it). Often comparison between calculators is impossible, because many calculators don't make their exact scope clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, one of my favourite carbon footprint calculators is the [CoolCalifornia calculator](http://coolcalifornia.org/calculator) because it includes indirect emissions, shows the results for individual categories and has quite a bit of parameters. It does have it's downsides though; default settings (and probably underlying data model) are for US residents, there is no option for electric cars, and personally I do think it is a bit negative when it comes to emissions for transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, US residents can use the [EPA carbon footprint calculator](http://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/) but it lacks (indirect) emissions from things like food, clothing and services. The nice thing is that the EPA also provides a spreadsheet, which allows you to see all the used data and parameters. So if you really want to make an effort and know what you are doing, you could tweak those parameters to make results more specific for you situation, or for your country of residence if you are not a US resident.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;I've read that the [Carbon Story calculator](https://www.carbonstory.org/calculator/calculate) is quite good as it was created to meet the principles identified in [this research](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583613002168), but I haven't tried that one myself yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4845" RevisionGUID="33e97e0c-a339-48b1-8db7-e72e1213902b" CreationDate="2015-11-21T20:17:16.003" UserId="1255" Text="We put shredded paper in our compost without noticeable ill effects, for much the reasons you are thinking about it (ie, it's readily available). The laser printer toner is probably better thought of as plastic than ink, and is unlikely to be biodegradable. It's [apparently not toxic][1], it's just fine, inert particules (before it's printed). I suspect we're adding to the plastic content of our soil, but since there's so much plastic en our environment already I'm not sure that paper is going to affect the amount by much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does help dry the compost, and it seems to work as well as adding dry, woody material in similar amounts by weight (ie, you need more volume of shredded paper). It breaks down at about the same rate, possibly a little faster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never bothered about the size, I've just taken bags from whatever shredder I can easily access. My main concern is to avoid shredded where people have been feeding plastic into them, either directly by shredding CDs and DVDs (most shredders will do that), or indirectly via plastic folders or cover sheets. I also try to avoid too much glossy paper, since the clay content is high and it's more likely to have other stuff in it to make it accept ink even though it's shiny.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/toxic-broken-ink-toner-cartridge-65436.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4844" RevisionGUID="8201e168-f323-4ffc-af11-6f285c8d80ce" CreationDate="2015-11-23T08:38:34.813" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo's" Text="I agree with the [answer given by EnergyNumbers](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4843/99). At best you can get a rough estimate of your carbon footprint. If you want an accurate result you would need  to do a carbon footprint analysis of all products you buy, all services you use, and all activities you do, and then aggregate the results. And even then the accuracy of the end result is questionable. As EnergyNumbers also mentioned, we have to make a lot of assumptions because there are so many unknowns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, there are some things you can do to get better results, or have to keep in mind when interpreting the results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Consult a carbon footprint calculator that has been made specifically for your country of residence. This is because many calculators rely on national (average) data.&#xD;&#xA;  2. If possible, try to consult multiple calculators. The ones with the most questions and parameters are more likely to give a better, more accurate result for your specific situation.&#xD;&#xA;  3. Be careful when comparing the results of different calculators because calculators often do not have the same scope. For example, not all calculators include indirect CO2 emissions (that were emitted to manufacture a product or service before you started using it). Often comparison between calculators is impossible, because many calculators don't make their exact scope clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of my favourite carbon footprint calculators is the [CoolCalifornia calculator](http://coolcalifornia.org/calculator) because it includes indirect emissions, shows the results for individual categories and has quite a bit of parameters. It does have it's downsides though; default settings (and probably underlying data model) are for US residents, there is no option for electric cars, and personally I do think it is a bit negative when it comes to emissions for transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, US residents can use the [EPA carbon footprint calculator](http://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/) but it lacks (indirect) emissions from things like food, clothing and services. The nice thing however is that the EPA also provides a spreadsheet, which allows you to see all the used calculations and parameters. So if you really want to make an effort and know what you are doing, you could tweak those parameters to make results more specific for your situation (perhaps even for your country of residence if you are not a US resident).&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;I've read that the [Carbon Story calculator](https://www.carbonstory.org/calculator/calculate) is quite good as it was created to meet the principles identified in [this research](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583613002168), but I haven't tried that one myself yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4847" RevisionGUID="31076563-f38d-4f50-b071-a0ccdf8bed61" CreationDate="2015-11-23T09:30:54.053" UserId="2794" Text="Can electricity be produced from running water by the use of dc motors?&#xD;&#xA;For example rainwater collected from from the roof of a very tall house say 15m high is directed through a pipe and at it's exit, makes the wheels of a dc motor turn." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10780" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4847" RevisionGUID="31076563-f38d-4f50-b071-a0ccdf8bed61" CreationDate="2015-11-23T09:30:54.053" UserId="2794" Text="Electricity Generation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10781" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4847" RevisionGUID="31076563-f38d-4f50-b071-a0ccdf8bed61" CreationDate="2015-11-23T09:30:54.053" UserId="2794" Text="|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10782" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="347bdd58-a101-42c2-a6ee-154099d46f92" CreationDate="2015-11-23T10:01:59.363" UserId="2786" Comment="edited title" Text="Does the term of water-source heat pump equal to the term of seawater heat pump?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4848" RevisionGUID="6b091a93-1a50-44f6-be16-bb4c54b2817a" CreationDate="2015-11-23T10:54:01.677" UserId="48" Text="If it's a very simple motor then it may be possible just to run it backwards to generate electricity. If it's got electronic controls, probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is it worth it? Do a quick calculation of the amount of energy available. How much water are you expecting to fall? (roof area x annual rainfall). One cubic metre of water weights 1000 kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Height (metres) x mass (kg) x 10 will give you the energy in joules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3.6 million joules in one kWh (one unit of electricity on your bill).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's just not going to be that much energy to collect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10784" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4847" RevisionGUID="449d3908-6055-416f-adb1-70d662ff2d09" CreationDate="2015-11-23T10:58:12.550" UserId="48" Comment="made title more descriptive" Text="Hydro-electric generation from roof-collected rainwater" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10785" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4847" RevisionGUID="449d3908-6055-416f-adb1-70d662ff2d09" CreationDate="2015-11-23T10:58:12.550" UserId="48" Comment="made title more descriptive" Text="|electricity|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4848" RevisionGUID="4bbd6aef-d822-4241-8bbc-ef61dc62a7e8" CreationDate="2015-11-23T10:59:35.620" UserId="48" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="If it's a very simple motor then it may be possible just to run it backwards to generate electricity. If it's got electronic controls, probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is it worth it? Do a quick calculation of the amount of energy available. How much water are you expecting to fall? (roof area x annual rainfall). One cubic metre of water weights 1000 kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Height (metres) x mass (kg) x 10 will give you the energy in joules - the total it would be theoretically possible to harvest if you could achieve 100% efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3.6 million joules in one kWh (one unit of electricity on your bill).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's just not going to be that much energy to collect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10787" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4840" RevisionGUID="9740911c-69a1-410f-b3c2-094969f75223" CreationDate="2015-11-23T17:35:02.103" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/668845221694865409" />
  <row Id="10792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="8020f9c5-6e79-4e51-8ed2-5c8fc1b96119" CreationDate="2015-11-24T09:23:39.287" UserId="2727" Text="I have some stacks of old CD's and DVD's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The piles includes traditional CD's and DVD's, as well as writable and re-writable discs of various types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to prevent these from ending up in a landfill, what are some good uses for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are too many to reuse, can they be safely recycled?  If so, where?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I seem to remember that cyanide and some other dangerous chemicals may be used in some optical media. I can't remember if that's for pre-printed ones, writable ones, or re-writable ones.  Besides the obvious hazard of the sharp edges, are there any hazardous (including chemical) concerns involved with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - reusing them&#xD;&#xA; - breaking them into pieces&#xD;&#xA; - recycling them" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="8020f9c5-6e79-4e51-8ed2-5c8fc1b96119" CreationDate="2015-11-24T09:23:39.287" UserId="2727" Text="Reusing or recycling old CDs and DVDs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10794" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="8020f9c5-6e79-4e51-8ed2-5c8fc1b96119" CreationDate="2015-11-24T09:23:39.287" UserId="2727" Text="|recycling|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10795" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="b4e16753-f747-43c4-aab3-effff46fd5e5" CreationDate="2015-11-24T10:12:12.687" UserId="2727" Comment="edited title" Text="Reusing or recycling old CD's and DVD's" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4851" RevisionGUID="50b367cf-df04-4aa8-a8b0-b7db5b458248" CreationDate="2015-11-24T11:51:18.017" UserId="99" Text="**TLDR:** CDs and DVDs can be safely reused or recycled as long as you don't heat them. Specialized recycling companies can recycle them for you, but this may cost you money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;CDs and DVDs are mainly plastic (polycarbonate), with a thin reflective layer (usually aluminum), and a protective acrylic lacquer. CD cases are usually made from polystyrene and DVD cases are polypropylene. I've never heard of CDs or DVDs containing cyanide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Reuse&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Reusing CDs and DVDs is more environmentally friendly than recycling as no energy is needed to convert the materials to usable resources, but it requires some effort on your part. You can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - sell you old music CDs or video DVDs, or give them away on websites like [The Freecycle Network](https://www.freecycle.org/)&#xD;&#xA; - use them to create art (mosaics, ornaments)&#xD;&#xA; - turn them into a clock, or [light](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/408068416209499758/)&#xD;&#xA; - reuse them as coasters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people heat discs so they can reshape them (e.g. see [this Youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc3m29kV-Oc)), but I can't recommend this because harmful fumes may be released when plastics are heated (see also [this question about melting and molding plastics](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/225/99))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More reuse suggestions can be found here [10 Reuse Ideas for CDs and DVDs](http://earth911.com/news/2012/01/12/10-reuse-ideas-for-cds-and-dvds/) or in [this Youtube video](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/225/99). I'm sure that if you search the internet you can find a whole lot more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Recycling&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There are specialized companies that recycle CDs, DVDs, and sometimes also videotapes or computer hard drives, but often you have to pay them and not all companies accept materials from households. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in the US, there are a number of recycling centers where you can drop CDs and DVDs. You can check the [recycling locator on the Earth 911 website](http://www.earth911.com/recycling-guide/how-to-recycle-cds-tapes/) for addresses. Some companies allow you to send CDs and DVDs and you only pay for shipping, e.g. the [CD Recycling Center of America](http://www.cdrecyclingcenter.org/) in Salem, NH and [Back thru the future CD/DVD Recycling](http://backthruthefuture.com/free-cddvd-recycling) in Franklin, NJ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling centers usually ask you to separate sleeves, casings, paper inserts and discs, but regulations may vary per recycling center.&#xD;&#xA;The Recycling Center of America made [this Youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv8pJfCCwxI) showing how they want you to collect and send everything, and how they process everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are also specialized companies with drop-off points or mailing possibilities in many European countries. If you live elsewhere I suggest you contact your local recycling center and ask if they have a specific recycling scheme for CDs and DVDs. Or you can search the internet for specialized recycling companies or drop-off boxes in your area." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4851" RevisionGUID="8b80dea8-acd8-4bc0-a081-ebd48ef301ab" CreationDate="2015-11-24T11:56:20.493" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="**TLDR:** CDs and DVDs can be safely reused or recycled as long as you don't heat them. Specialized recycling companies can recycle them for you, but this may cost you money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;CDs and DVDs are mainly plastic (polycarbonate), with a thin reflective layer (usually aluminum), and a protective acrylic lacquer. CD cases are usually made from polystyrene and DVD cases are polypropylene. I've never heard of CDs or DVDs containing cyanide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these materials can be safely cut, but as you mentioned yourself be careful for sharp edges and splinters. Some people heat plastics so they can reshape them (e.g. see [this Youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc3m29kV-Oc)), but I can't recommend this because harmful fumes may be released when plastics are heated (see also [this question about melting and molding plastics](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/225/99))&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Reuse&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Reusing CDs and DVDs is more environmentally friendly than recycling as no energy is needed to convert the materials to usable resources, but it requires some effort on your part. You can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - sell you old music CDs or video DVDs, or give them away on websites like [The Freecycle Network](https://www.freecycle.org/)&#xD;&#xA; - use them to create art (mosaics, ornaments)&#xD;&#xA; - turn them into a clock, or [light](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/408068416209499758/)&#xD;&#xA; - reuse them as coasters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More reuse suggestions can be found here [10 Reuse Ideas for CDs and DVDs](http://earth911.com/news/2012/01/12/10-reuse-ideas-for-cds-and-dvds/) or in [this Youtube video](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/225/99). I'm sure that if you search the internet you can find a whole lot more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Recycling&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There are specialized companies that recycle CDs, DVDs, and sometimes also videotapes or computer hard drives, but often you have to pay them and not all companies accept materials from households. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in the US, there are a number of recycling centers where you can drop CDs and DVDs. You can check the [recycling locator on the Earth 911 website](http://www.earth911.com/recycling-guide/how-to-recycle-cds-tapes/) for addresses. Some companies allow you to send CDs and DVDs and you only pay for shipping, e.g. the [CD Recycling Center of America](http://www.cdrecyclingcenter.org/) in Salem, NH and [Back thru the future CD/DVD Recycling](http://backthruthefuture.com/free-cddvd-recycling) in Franklin, NJ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling centers usually ask you to separate sleeves, casings, paper inserts and discs, but regulations may vary per recycling center.&#xD;&#xA;The Recycling Center of America made [this Youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv8pJfCCwxI) showing how they want you to collect and send everything, and how they process it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are also specialized companies with drop-off points or mailing possibilities in many European countries. If you live elsewhere I suggest you contact your local recycling center and ask if they have a specific recycling scheme for CDs and DVDs. Or you can search the internet for specialized recycling companies or drop-off boxes in your area." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4851" RevisionGUID="292813cd-d0e4-4399-a4e2-da7382c7b467" CreationDate="2015-11-24T12:15:54.513" UserId="99" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="**TLDR:** CDs and DVDs can be safely reused or recycled as long as you don't heat them. Specialized recycling companies can recycle them for you, but this may cost you money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;CDs and DVDs are mainly plastic (polycarbonate), with a thin reflective layer (usually aluminum), and a protective acrylic lacquer. CD cases are usually made from polystyrene and DVD cases are polypropylene. I've never heard of CDs or DVDs containing cyanide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these materials can be safely cut, but as you mentioned in your question you have to watch out for sharp edges and splinters. Some people heat plastics so they can reshape them (e.g. see [this Youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc3m29kV-Oc)), but I can't recommend this because harmful fumes may be released when plastics are heated (see also [this question about melting and molding plastics](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/225/99))&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Reuse&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Reusing CDs and DVDs is more environmentally friendly than recycling as no energy is needed to convert the materials to usable resources, but it requires some effort on your part. You can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - sell you old music CDs or video DVDs, or give them away on websites like [The Freecycle Network](https://www.freecycle.org/)&#xD;&#xA; - use them to create art (mosaics, ornaments)&#xD;&#xA; - turn them into a clock, or [light](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/408068416209499758/)&#xD;&#xA; - reuse them as coasters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More reuse suggestions can be found here [10 Reuse Ideas for CDs and DVDs](http://earth911.com/news/2012/01/12/10-reuse-ideas-for-cds-and-dvds/) or in [this Youtube video](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/225/99). I'm sure that if you search the internet you can find a whole lot more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Recycling&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There are specialized companies that recycle CDs, DVDs, and sometimes also videotapes or computer hard drives, but often you have to pay them and not all companies accept materials from households. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in the US, there are a number of recycling centers where you can drop CDs and DVDs. You can check the [recycling locator on the Earth 911 website](http://www.earth911.com/recycling-guide/how-to-recycle-cds-tapes/) for addresses. Some companies allow you to send CDs and DVDs and you only pay for shipping, e.g. the [CD Recycling Center of America](http://www.cdrecyclingcenter.org/) in Salem, NH and [Back thru the future CD/DVD Recycling](http://backthruthefuture.com/free-cddvd-recycling) in Franklin, NJ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling centers usually ask you to separate sleeves, casings, paper inserts and discs, but regulations may vary per recycling center.&#xD;&#xA;The Recycling Center of America made [this Youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv8pJfCCwxI) showing how they want you to collect and send everything, and how they process it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are also specialized companies with drop-off points or mailing possibilities in many European countries. If you live elsewhere I suggest you contact your local recycling center and ask if they have a specific recycling scheme for CDs and DVDs (other than incineration). Or you can search the Internet for specialized recycling companies or drop-off boxes in your area." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4852" RevisionGUID="d83617c5-c24b-4bc2-8c5f-0b72bf8ab94f" CreationDate="2015-11-24T17:05:03.087" UserId="2800" Text="I will make this brief:&#xD;&#xA;Search for fruit fly lifespan. An associated article shows an experiment of the effects of sweeteners on fruit flies done by a 6th grader. He found that Truvia killed fruit flies.&#xD;&#xA;So I tried Truvia in my worm bin and it works!  AND the worms are not harmed.&#xD;&#xA;You should try it and if it works for you, spread the word:  No more fruit flies in worm bins.&#xD;&#xA;Steven Goddard" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10800" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4850" RevisionGUID="c97efec2-31b6-482b-95bc-3743a40242f3" CreationDate="2015-11-24T17:41:22.097" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/669209203609833476" />
  <row Id="10806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4854" RevisionGUID="bbbb016a-d71b-4c14-b7ed-34ff23703380" CreationDate="2015-11-25T16:55:00.393" UserId="2802" Text="More uses...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lard or the fat can be made into Lardo - or cured pork fat (Italian name).  This is done without rendering it.  It's remarkably tasty.  There are many versions of this around the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lard can be 'cleaned' to remove much of the pork flavor too, and then is usually for nearly everything. You can look this up, but is mostly a process of boiling it in water.  I personally don't mind some pork flavor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used to help start fires in your fireplace or woodstove, but here I would not use fresh good quality lard, but old rancid lard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Great for seasoning cast iron.  I've tried other things and now specifically collect pork fat for this purpose.  It works better than other fats (well beef fat works nearly the same).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be used as a lubricant when using tools.  Some old-time devices (like cart wheels) were frequently lubricated with lard (often mixed with other ingredients). It can also keep some tools from rusting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was used medicinally and cosmetically and mixed with herbs and other materials and used as a balm, salve, or poultice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4855" RevisionGUID="788f4907-54ef-4c50-be36-51df1317365a" CreationDate="2015-11-25T17:23:07.313" UserId="2261" Text="There are many alternative building methods that rely on recycling or sustainable materials, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Earthships (and other rammed earth techniques)&#xD;&#xA; - Earthbags&#xD;&#xA; - Wattle and daub&#xD;&#xA; - Earth-sheltered&#xD;&#xA; - Straw bale&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and even log cabins and shipping containers. A lot of these seem to be used in off-the-beaten-path locations because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. the people building them aren't living where they can earn a sizable living, so they depend on materials that they can harvest,&#xD;&#xA; 2. there's much less access to readily-available standard building materials and&#xD;&#xA; 4. there is much less of a requirement to meet stringent building codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which sustainable building techniques have the best chance of passing building codes in locations where the requirements aren't so lenient?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4855" RevisionGUID="788f4907-54ef-4c50-be36-51df1317365a" CreationDate="2015-11-25T17:23:07.313" UserId="2261" Text="Which sustainable building techniques are most code friendly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4855" RevisionGUID="788f4907-54ef-4c50-be36-51df1317365a" CreationDate="2015-11-25T17:23:07.313" UserId="2261" Text="|building-materials|law|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4856" RevisionGUID="c2a6cb43-808c-4fe5-8d01-9a5fb09ef55d" CreationDate="2015-11-25T21:53:00.517" UserId="2803" Text="If your system does not flood and drain somehow, it is to be expected that the plants will dry out.  Without the flood and drain, the plants will have a hard time getting their roots all the way to the water.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can accomplish a flood and drain via two methods:&#xD;&#xA;1.  Use a timer on the pump and use a standard 2-outlet setup like in a hydro tray.  One short stand pipe to set a low water level and a second taller stand pipe to set a high water level.  The low level should be at most 1 &quot; above the floor of the grow tray.  Make the high level about 1-2 inches below the surface of your media.  The pump is on for 5-10 minutes then off for 5-10 minutes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Use a standard bell siphon (check out [Affnan's site][1] for the industry standard).  The siphon can take some serious fidgeting to get working properly but once its going, it is a lovely piece of tech.  The autosiphon design will automatically drain your plant bed of water automatically once it hits a certain level and then automatically shut off once the bed is empty.  We use the bell siphon for our media beds every time.  They take extra fine tuning but the benefits are totally worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.affnanaquaponics.com/2010/02/affnans-valve-detailed-explanations-of_9459.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10814" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4856" RevisionGUID="9b394aa0-82e1-46a1-875e-656c7e8f122c" CreationDate="2015-11-26T03:52:08.150" UserId="659" Comment="formatting" Text="If your system does not flood and drain somehow, it is to be expected that the plants will dry out.  Without the flood and drain, the plants will have a hard time getting their roots all the way to the water.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can accomplish a flood and drain via two methods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Use a timer on the pump and use a standard 2-outlet setup like in a hydro tray.  One short stand pipe to set a low water level and a second taller stand pipe to set a high water level.  The low level should be at most 1 &quot; above the floor of the grow tray.  Make the high level about 1-2 inches below the surface of your media.  The pump is on for 5-10 minutes then off for 5-10 minutes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Use a standard bell siphon (check out [Affnan's site][1] for the industry standard).  The siphon can take some serious fidgeting to get working properly but once its going, it is a lovely piece of tech.  The autosiphon design will automatically drain your plant bed of water automatically once it hits a certain level and then automatically shut off once the bed is empty.  We use the bell siphon for our media beds every time.  They take extra fine tuning but the benefits are totally worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.affnanaquaponics.com/2010/02/affnans-valve-detailed-explanations-of_9459.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4858" RevisionGUID="4f703ed7-dc01-4f76-b101-b380eee6fd0f" CreationDate="2015-11-26T06:43:48.457" UserId="2805" Text="i have the same issue over 2 flats under the same roof top , &#xD;&#xA;however 1 unit has concrete pavers laid approx 50mm above the roof top , &#xD;&#xA;it unbelievable the difference in temperature by having the pavers with an air lock , that unit under the paver roof is always comfortable but the one directly under the concrete is always uncomfortable , also i will try the suggestion above and plant some &#xD;&#xA;pot plants with a large cove maybe even some vines " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4858" RevisionGUID="974e4af6-4b4c-4e88-943d-8ea46044b69c" CreationDate="2015-11-26T08:02:12.037" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar and improved punctuation" Text="I have the same issue over 2 flats under the same roof top. However 1 unit has concrete pavers laid approx. 50mm above the roof top. It's unbelievable the difference in temperature by having the pavers with an air lock. That unit under the paver roof is always comfortable but the one directly under the concrete is always uncomfortable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will try the suggestion above and plant some pot plants with a large cove, maybe even some vines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="6444d248-c376-49da-843b-55bf8ecfd4ee" CreationDate="2015-11-26T15:54:43.897" UserId="2786" Comment="added 122 characters in body" Text="Sometimes ppl say water-to-water heat pump, sometimes ppl say seawater heat pump, I am confused with them now. Are they the same thing? Can anyone explain them to me, ty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10822" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="1c012f71-86d5-479c-93e9-c15e4ec631b4" CreationDate="2015-11-26T16:00:00.893" UserId="2786" Comment="edited title; added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Can someone explain that the difference/features between the term of water-to-water heat pump and the term of seawater heat pump?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="1c012f71-86d5-479c-93e9-c15e4ec631b4" CreationDate="2015-11-26T16:00:00.893" UserId="2786" Comment="edited title; added 1 character in body; edited title" Text="Sometimes ppl say water-to-water heat pump, sometimes ppl say seawater heat pump, I am confused with them now. Are they the same thing? Can someone explain them to me, ty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="129a4225-ac04-4b2d-897f-250e4d16e3c6" CreationDate="2015-11-26T16:08:26.750" UserId="2786" Comment="deleted 132 characters in body; edited title; added 3 characters in body; edited title; added 1 character in body" Text="the topic had been closed, thanks everyone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10828" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="129a4225-ac04-4b2d-897f-250e4d16e3c6" CreationDate="2015-11-26T16:08:26.750" UserId="2786" Comment="deleted 132 characters in body; edited title; added 3 characters in body; edited title; added 1 character in body" Text="the topic had been closed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4861" RevisionGUID="59de7dd8-544f-4b0f-9ba5-fc459f82fb67" CreationDate="2015-11-26T16:56:37.677" UserId="2807" Text="Just like the title said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my house, we are very heavy tea drinker. So my mother tend to brew a lot of water each day. She usually done this with small amount of water (1-2L) every time she boil the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This make me wondering. I know that it took the same amount of kinetic energy to heat ten 1 L water and one 10 L water, since both of them are essentially same. But are in practice heating ten 1 L water is more energy consumptive (in gas or electricity) than just heating one 10 L water in bulk, due to the design of kettle, stove, heat transfer or something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to search about this with search engine but found no conclusive answer for this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10830" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4861" RevisionGUID="59de7dd8-544f-4b0f-9ba5-fc459f82fb67" CreationDate="2015-11-26T16:56:37.677" UserId="2807" Text="Which is more energy efficient? Heating ten 1L water separately or one 10L water directly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10831" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4861" RevisionGUID="59de7dd8-544f-4b0f-9ba5-fc459f82fb67" CreationDate="2015-11-26T16:56:37.677" UserId="2807" Text="|energy-efficiency|water-heating|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4862" RevisionGUID="a165e38a-6fac-4a25-9182-23d977429cf5" CreationDate="2015-11-26T17:45:04.260" UserId="48" Text="The heat loss will be proportional to the surface area. If you boil ten litres, one litre at a time (rather than all ten litres at once), there's typically a lot more surface area, so the heat loss will be higher during boiling, so it will take more energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, once boiled, it will then lose energy. So if you're boiling water for consumption many hours later, you probably will end up using more energy, because when you want that water hours later, you're going to have to reheat it to a suitable temperature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4863" RevisionGUID="c73b14a2-7325-4f96-be87-5cae0b322d0d" CreationDate="2015-11-27T04:06:59.840" UserId="659" Text="Unless she's actually using the 1-2 litres of tea each time, there's more savings from simply boiling less water. We bought a small electric kettle with a flat bottom and glass walls to encourage people to boil the one cup of water they actually want, and that has worked reasonably well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![small kettle][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can make 10 litres of boiling water and insulate the container then you might save energy, especially if you can fill it with tea at a slightly lower temperature rather than needing boiling water every time. The savings are as much from the lower temperature as the extra insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also buy an [insulated version of the big tea urns][2] used at conference centres and some offices, and that will be a good start on your project. It'll be easier to super-insulate one of those than to start from scratch, and it's also easier to turn it off at night when you don't need it to stay hot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![insulated tea urn][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a decent electricity supply you might be better off with an &quot;instant hot water&quot; heater in the kitchen, so that the whole tea-making process is faster (this is what you tell her) as well as using less electricity (which is what you tell whoever pays the bills).  The reason offices use them is the time saving, so they don't pay people to stand in the kitchen waiting for the kettle to boil, but the good ones also save energy (instead of having a really big tank of hot water to insulate they have a tiny little one, so they lose less heat)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inside of those [looks like this][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![instant hot water heater][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VnZgw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Highland-Islands-NEW-8-8-ltr-Water-Boiler-Tea-Urn-SAFE-DOUBLED-WALL-INSULATED-/390853154440&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kkMlT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.zipwater.com/products/hydroboil&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pc5tF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10835" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="a9bcbf20-be19-46bc-aa77-4c43796a5e27" CreationDate="2015-11-27T06:37:24.107" UserId="48" Comment="Rollback to [1c012f71-86d5-479c-93e9-c15e4ec631b4]" Text="Sometimes ppl say water-to-water heat pump, sometimes ppl say seawater heat pump, I am confused with them now. Are they the same thing? Can someone explain them to me, ty" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10836" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="a9bcbf20-be19-46bc-aa77-4c43796a5e27" CreationDate="2015-11-27T06:37:24.107" UserId="48" Comment="Rollback to [1c012f71-86d5-479c-93e9-c15e4ec631b4]" Text="Can someone explain that the difference/features between the term of water-to-water heat pump and the term of seawater heat pump?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="58ca1504-d3f6-4180-a900-ec7d574240fe" CreationDate="2015-11-27T06:39:46.917" UserId="48" Comment="restored question, clarified it" Text="I have heard multiple names for water-source heat pumps. What's the difference between something called a water-to-water heat pump, and a seawater heat pump? Are they just different names for the same thing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10838" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="58ca1504-d3f6-4180-a900-ec7d574240fe" CreationDate="2015-11-27T06:39:46.917" UserId="48" Comment="restored question, clarified it" Text="Are there different types of water-source heat pump?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10839" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="58ca1504-d3f6-4180-a900-ec7d574240fe" CreationDate="2015-11-27T06:39:46.917" UserId="48" Comment="restored question, clarified it" Text="|water|heating|renewables|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10841" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="0c4e86a8-c5b4-4ccb-be21-a677f5af506e" CreationDate="2015-11-27T07:10:05.900" UserId="48" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10845" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4839" RevisionGUID="c1b11ecf-1a0e-4afd-b049-9e451053fdeb" CreationDate="2015-11-27T08:53:39.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/670163563709923328" />
  <row Id="10847" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4553" RevisionGUID="f29f70aa-694d-419e-98f4-e0a3698c51d0" CreationDate="2015-11-27T09:53:38.617" UserId="-1" Comment="29" />
  <row Id="10848" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4847" RevisionGUID="1ea5ad6a-8543-46f0-a83d-cee167d4140a" CreationDate="2015-11-27T11:53:40.283" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/670208866655862784" />
  <row Id="10850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4864" RevisionGUID="b3cc8b9f-bff7-4956-b8e8-7020eb276164" CreationDate="2015-11-27T18:14:19.900" UserId="929" Text="A. Energy effecient is to boil exactly that amount of water which is actually needed for tee preparation. &#xD;&#xA;To heat more of the water means, some water is not used and eat will be wasted into the air. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. But if you need to prepare for example 5 liters of the tea at once, it is more effective to heat it at once, and not to heat it 5 times 1 liter, due to following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. detection of 100°C is not exact and almost all heaters will switch off the power some moments after water already boiled. Better if this happens once instead of 5 times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. water is usually heated in cylinder shapes so if you take formulas for cylider for Volume `V=πr^2h` and Area `A=2πr(r + h)`, you will get nonlinear dependency between Volume and Area(surface). The heat waste will be in some direct dependency to surface(area). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If you make some reasonable modelling, you will get that cylinders for 5 liters have 1.5-2.5 times more of Area (surface) and if you multiply surface 5 times, you can get numbers of 10-30 times more in volume, depend on shape of your cylindric heater. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  I recommend to calculate it for your case/heater. This is the theory, there are many ways how to reduce heat waste of the heater and different heaters will have different index of heat waste on the top, bottom, and sides.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4865" RevisionGUID="19fe0e5f-5e93-4adc-a545-aed9262fc267" CreationDate="2015-11-27T18:14:22.333" UserId="2802" Text="I had a new roof put on my house that is metal and coated with a white material (sort of a plastic/rubber coating).  They installed it on a support system so it's a bit raised off the old roof.  This made it amazingly cooler.  That was not why I had it done - the old roof leaked.  So painting the roof white will help.  But putting on another roof - metal panels for instance - with spacers so air can flow a bit between it and the concrete would help too.  You would not have to use expensive materials as all you are trying to accomplish is shade for the roof you already have, not provide a water-tight new roof. A space between your roof and ceiling, perhaps installing a new ceiling in the process - with vents to the outside in this space could work too, but this may be too expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10852" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4842" RevisionGUID="011e658c-7377-45c5-8f7c-8f920a487f24" CreationDate="2015-11-27T20:58:39.357" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/670346016269430784" />
  <row Id="10853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4864" RevisionGUID="cacb3d39-34ce-4db8-a4e3-5405bfcd68ac" CreationDate="2015-11-28T08:33:04.267" UserId="99" Comment="improved grammar and spelling" Text="A. It's energy efficient to boil exactly that amount of water which is actually needed for tea preparation. &#xD;&#xA;To heat more water means some water is not used and heat will be wasted into the air. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B. But if you need to prepare for example 5 liters of the tea at once, it is more effective to heat it at once, and not to heat it 5 times 1 liter, due to following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. detection of 100°C is not exact and almost all heaters will switch off the power some moments after the water already boiled. It's better if this happens once instead of 5 times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. water is usually heated in cylinder shapes so if you take the formulas for cylinder Volume `V=πr^2h` and Area `A=2πr(r + h)`, you will get nonlinear dependency between Volume and Area(surface). The heat waste is directly dependent on the surface area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If you make some reasonable modeling, you will get that cylinders for 5 liters have 1.5-2.5 times more of Area (surface) and if you multiply surface 5 times, you can get numbers of 10-30 times more in volume, depend on the shape of your cylindric heater. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  I recommend to calculate it for your case/heater. This is the theory, there are many ways to reduce heat waste of the heater and different heaters will have a different index of heat waste on the top, bottom, and sides.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4778" RevisionGUID="9fa3d109-2ff1-4f4d-bc0d-a5ff1fe39525" CreationDate="2015-11-28T09:46:19.763" UserId="99" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="A partial answer on my own question, based on what I found on [this website](https://www.sks-bottle.com/PLAValueAdded.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The conditions PLA needs to degrade are exposure to temperatures greater than 140°F (60°C) and relative humidity greater than 90%, for approximately 60 to 80 days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is confirmed in [this paper](http://www.contactalimentaire.com/fileadmin/ImageFichier_Archive/contact_alimentaire/Fichiers_Documents/autres/ALTERNATIVES_ANALYSIS_REPORT_FOR_BPA_in_Infant.pdf) where it also says that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...once exposed to the proper combination of&#xD;&#xA;oxygen, moisture and naturally occurring organisms, it will break down&#xD;&#xA;into carbon dioxide, water and a small amount of nontoxic waste.... Some studies have shown that it can take as long as 15 months for&#xD;&#xA;PLA to start to decompose, even in a controlled composting environment &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I haven't been able to find information about an industrial composting facility that properly composts PLA, so I'm starting to think this isn't done anywhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10855" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2607" RevisionGUID="a24789e9-e39a-487b-856b-44ead00f29e8" CreationDate="2015-11-28T12:59:24.433" UserId="99" Comment="edited title" Text="How is compostable plastic recycled/composted industrially?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4867" RevisionGUID="618ff8eb-3367-467a-885f-33726a331d42" CreationDate="2015-11-29T22:45:35.760" UserId="2816" Text="I used Aspen Aerogel blanket between a concrete stem wall and the granite sill that was to rest on it.  It was great for this special application where space was a premium, and I wanted to stop the bridging of heat from the sill and foundation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4869" RevisionGUID="5a97954d-114d-44a6-af61-c7eae24f070f" CreationDate="2015-11-30T07:51:50.040" UserId="812" Text="They *can* be the same thing; the terms have overlapping meanings. &#xA;&#xA;A seawater heat pump is a specific type of water-source heat pump that uses seawater. Water-source heat pumps can also use fresh water, e.g. from a lake or river. &#xA;&#xA;The source is the first part of the meaning of &quot;water-to-water&quot;. The second part means that the destination for the heat is water, most likely in a &quot;wet&quot; central heating system with pipes and radiators. One could also have a water-to-air heat pump, which would use water as the source but deliver the heat through hot air from a wall unit. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4870" RevisionGUID="25ca8a9c-0eeb-4172-a136-a30b231c4c7f" CreationDate="2015-11-30T10:55:53.930" UserId="929" Text="Definitely YES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As currently supported versions of MS Windows (7,8,10) now will have problem to run on older machines with RAM under 500MB and CPU under old Intel Core2/CoreM, you can find plenty Linux distributions with equivalent functionality, which are supported and will run on even lover configurations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore some platforms as RapsberyPi was developed, which are energy effecient with equivalent functionality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carefully, not all linux distributions are memory or energy effeciient. But you have the choice. MS Windows have less options. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same with MS Windows, which would possible run on more efficient Rapsberry Pi 2 (we had first look on early beta in 2015), but in version Windows for IoT, which has limited functionality. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="8efe24e8-f55d-4c7b-9246-a80afc7678ba" CreationDate="2015-11-30T15:59:42.117" UserId="2818" Text="I live in a building of 8 apartments, in Belgium. We share a communal fuel oil engine in the basement to provide hot water and hot air. For the latter, each apartment has radiators through which a hot liquid flows. We do not have gas pipes running to each apartment, but there is an unused gas mains in the basement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to upgrade this system to a cleaner solution, still requiring hot water and hot air. We could consider a shared solution or independent for each apartment. What are the best alternatives to consider? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="8efe24e8-f55d-4c7b-9246-a80afc7678ba" CreationDate="2015-11-30T15:59:42.117" UserId="2818" Text="Good alternatives to a fuel oil heating system in an apartment block" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="8efe24e8-f55d-4c7b-9246-a80afc7678ba" CreationDate="2015-11-30T15:59:42.117" UserId="2818" Text="|heating|water-heating|oil|apartment|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10870" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4861" RevisionGUID="edd79ec7-1f08-43ca-a8ef-6912f4d12289" CreationDate="2015-12-01T06:03:41.533" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/671570342914183168" />
  <row Id="10871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4870" RevisionGUID="715f7929-0508-4eb8-89c5-246b7c5dd0fb" CreationDate="2015-12-01T13:13:14.140" UserId="929" Comment="updated potential definition of sustainable OS" Text="Definitely YES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As currently supported versions of MS Windows (7,8,10) now will have problem to run on older machines with RAM under 500MB and CPU under old Intel Core2/CoreM, you can find plenty Linux distributions with equivalent functionality, which are supported and will run on even lover configurations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore some platforms as RapsberyPi was developed, which are energy effecient with equivalent functionality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carefully, not all linux distributions are memory or energy effeciient. But you have the choice. MS Windows have less options. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same with MS Windows, which would possible run on more efficient Rapsberry Pi 2 (we had first look on early beta in 2015), but in version Windows for IoT, which has limited functionality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** Let's define &quot;sustainable OS&quot;, there are 2 viewpoints:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. It spends less hardware (has lower HW needs) for same/equivalent operations, thus better performance and you can keep to use longer your old computer (consider that creating a new computer and put it to your desk cost a lot of energy).&#xD;&#xA;  2. It spends less energy for same/equivalent operations, thus lower energy consumption and you spend less energy with the very same hardware.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4870" RevisionGUID="b68f5873-7e92-4295-9265-e52a8edf4a06" CreationDate="2015-12-01T14:02:54.750" UserId="929" Comment="updated potential definition of sustainable OS" Text="Definitely YES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As currently supported versions of MS Windows (7,8,10) now will have problem to run on older machines with RAM under 500MB and CPU under old Intel Core2/CoreM, you can find plenty Linux distributions with equivalent functionality, which are supported and will run on even lover configurations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore some platforms as RapsberyPi was developed, which are energy effecient with equivalent functionality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carefully, not all linux distributions are memory or energy effeciient. But you have the choice. MS Windows have less options. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same with MS Windows, which would possible run on more efficient Rapsberry Pi 2 (we had first look on early beta in 2015), but in version Windows for IoT, which has limited functionality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: Let's define &quot;sustainable OS&quot;, there are 2 viewpoints:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. It spends less hardware (has lower HW needs) for same/equivalent operations, thus better performance and you can keep to use longer your old computer (consider that creating a new computer and put it to your desk cost a lot of energy).&#xD;&#xA;  2. It spends less energy for same/equivalent operations, thus lower energy consumption and you spend less energy with the very same hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: Sources of energy consumption in the computers. &#xD;&#xA;  * CPU&#xD;&#xA;  * Chipset and rest of the board&#xD;&#xA;  * Videocard (some modern cards are computer in computer)&#xD;&#xA;  * RAM Memory&#xD;&#xA;  * HDD or some storage&#xD;&#xA;  * Communication ports (USB, network etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally is possible to say, that energy is consumed for &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Keep the information in the component - this consumption is somehow fix, does not matter how much information is stored in the component.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Communicate the information to other component or outside the computer - this consumption is growing with amount of information transferred. And this is the key point for next step - what is the difference in Linux distributions. Usually more memory taken by running software means more CPU operations, more disk operations, bigger graphic patterns means more GPU calculations (for 3D), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: Difference between Linux distributions has few viewpoints as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Difference between core distributions of linux - means what services are running out of the box, how they are configured, etc.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Difference between windows managers - each windows manager is different&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is good source which can help you to make the decision of what is good enough for your needs and but better in sustainability: http://distrowatch.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my personal experience, the Ubuntu, Xbuntu, Lubuntu distributions has following hardware needs because of the windows manager from high &gt; to low: Unity &gt; XFCE &gt; LXDE. I personally do not know the other distributions..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10873" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="7b9810ab-2f45-4715-8638-b8b5faa4c33b" CreationDate="2015-12-01T15:03:43.563" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/671706246857248768" />
  <row Id="10875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4870" RevisionGUID="748b93ff-926d-4a35-8ae4-b7e8c92c4e30" CreationDate="2015-12-01T17:40:12.340" UserId="929" Comment="formatting typos" Text="Definitely YES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As currently supported versions of MS Windows (7,8,10) now will have problem to run on older machines with RAM under 500MB and CPU under old Intel Core2/CoreM, you can find plenty Linux distributions with equivalent functionality, which are supported and will run on even lover configurations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore some platforms as RapsberyPi was developed, which are energy effecient with equivalent functionality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carefully, not all linux distributions are memory or energy effeciient. But you have the choice. MS Windows have less options. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same with MS Windows, which would possible run on more efficient Rapsberry Pi 2 (we had first look on early beta in 2015), but in version Windows for IoT, which has limited functionality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: Let's define &quot;sustainable OS&quot;, there are 2 viewpoints:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. It spends less hardware (has lower HW needs) for same/equivalent operations, thus better performance and you can keep to use longer your old computer (consider that creating a new computer and put it to your desk cost a lot of energy).&#xD;&#xA;  2. It spends less energy for same/equivalent operations, thus lower energy consumption and you spend less energy with the very same hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: Sources of energy consumption in the computers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * CPU&#xD;&#xA;  * Chipset and rest of the board&#xD;&#xA;  * Videocard (some modern cards are computer in computer)&#xD;&#xA;  * RAM Memory&#xD;&#xA;  * HDD or some storage&#xD;&#xA;  * Communication ports (USB, network etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally is possible to say, that energy is consumed for &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Keep the information in the component - this consumption is somehow fix, does not matter how much information is stored in the component.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Communicate the information to other component or outside the computer - this consumption is growing with amount of information transferred. And this is the key point for next step - what is the difference in Linux distributions. Usually more memory taken by running software means more CPU operations, more disk operations, bigger graphic patterns means more GPU calculations (for 3D), etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: Difference between Linux distributions has few viewpoints as well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Difference between core distributions of linux - means what services are running out of the box, how they are configured, etc.&#xD;&#xA;  2. Difference between windows managers - each windows manager is different&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is good source which can help you to make the decision of what is good enough for your needs and but better in sustainability: http://distrowatch.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my personal experience, the Ubuntu, Xbuntu, Lubuntu distributions has following hardware needs because of the windows manager from high &gt; to low: Unity &gt; XFCE &gt; LXDE. I personally do not know the other distributions..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4872" RevisionGUID="abd98c10-6159-4c91-8495-d65bc80b2ff8" CreationDate="2015-12-02T18:05:26.613" UserId="2826" Text="I have heard estimates as high as [37 gallons][1] (140 liters) of water used in the production in each cup of coffee. As someone who is an inveterate drinker of coffee for multiple reasons (caffeine, calming effect of sipping at it while coding, the extra exercise from getting up and walking over to grab another cup every 40 minutes or so), I can't really go entirely without, but I'd like to do something a bit more sustainable. It looks like tea is a bit better at about [9 gallons per cup][2] (35 liters). In either case, I'm sure that I'm expending some amount of resources getting the water heated as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm moving to refilling my water bottle at work for about half of my consumption, but water doesn't entirely cut it, between the lack of caffeine and that it seems to be worse for forcing me off to the bathroom to dispose of excess in my system. What sort of a substitute can I use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.saseconnect.org/saseprints/160-3-17-14-how-much-water-goes-into-a-cup-of-coffee&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://temp.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/CoffeeTea" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4872" RevisionGUID="abd98c10-6159-4c91-8495-d65bc80b2ff8" CreationDate="2015-12-02T18:05:26.613" UserId="2826" Text="Coffee substitute with less water use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4872" RevisionGUID="abd98c10-6159-4c91-8495-d65bc80b2ff8" CreationDate="2015-12-02T18:05:26.613" UserId="2826" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4873" RevisionGUID="4ae3ffe7-e972-4eae-a58f-009c866840cd" CreationDate="2015-12-02T19:46:27.540" UserId="400" Text="1.  If you have it available switching to natural gas will produce less CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  If you have renewable energy surpluses, then TES  (Thermal Energy Storage) makes lots of sense.  You use MUCH larger water tanks, and heat it electrically when there is a surplus of power.  Your air systems can be heated with hot-water fan coils -- cheap conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at roof mounting solar power.  Tie into the grid.  Sell power to the grid during the day.  Buy it at it's minimum cost during the night to heat the tanks for the next day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Even without renewable, you can size a heat pump to the average demand instead of peak demand.  It will be far more efficient that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do the heating with a heatpump, you can also create cold water or ice for summer air conditioning using the same system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia TES  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4874" RevisionGUID="de25e341-1232-46bf-b9d1-2b706ce8dca2" CreationDate="2015-12-02T19:53:18.897" UserId="400" Text="This is one of those messy questions.  The answer, &quot;It depends&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider a 1 candle power heater.  It heats 1 cup of water to boiling in 10 minutes.  Total energy used:  1/6 candle power hour.  Now try to heat 10 liters of water.  Due to the much larger pot, it never gets it to boiling.  1 candle power gets it to something above luke warm, and never get any warmer.  Total energy used Infinite.  And you get people impatient for their tea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most efficient water heater is one that works so fast that there are no loses.  Few of us have flash boilers in the kitchen.  Failing that, one that is insulated and has the element surrounded by water will do better than anything with a separate water vessel and heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Practical advice:  Heat the water in the pot in the microwave.  The microwave is very efficient.  It heats the pot at the same time.  If you don't need a pot full, use a thermal mug and a teabag in the microwave.  Put the tea in first or after.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4875" RevisionGUID="1227ce71-f404-4b33-848f-44268120a1f4" CreationDate="2015-12-02T19:55:03.270" UserId="400" Text="One good reuse is in the garden.  Hanging bright silver disks that spin in the wind is a deterent to deer and birds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4876" RevisionGUID="98ada504-4f7c-4f70-a0f8-9ac14364835b" CreationDate="2015-12-03T00:16:24.310" UserId="2827" Text="It sounds to me like you want the same product - coffee - without feeling bad about the water it requires. So this might not be the answer you're looking for, but theoretically, the best thing would be to switch to water entirely. Caffeine is addictive, so at first your body will resist, but after a while that will go away. It's also supposed to be healthier (I heard - requires source) to quit drinking coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need to go to the bathroom too often, you could replace your water bottle for something smaller. This way you'll drink less water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't look for a substitute for coffee myself, I just love the taste:)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10884" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4872" RevisionGUID="1650fe35-5771-429a-8269-547e44662120" CreationDate="2015-12-03T08:19:07.023" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|water|water-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="021aa90a-3d11-4a88-a719-4d57cd4ce705" CreationDate="2015-12-03T12:47:00.920" UserId="2605" Text="Even though I tend to agree with Wout's answer, I would like to add an alternative solution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm currently facing the same problem. Here at the office we drink several cups of coffee per day, and we only have a capsule coffee machine (which entails the problem of plastic waste). Which is why I'm know considering switching to mate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I come from (south of Chile), and mostly in Argentina and Uruguay, we used to drink [mate][1] long before coffee gets popular. Lots of people still do. Mate has similar characteristics to coffee--it actually contains caffeine--and has some other nice properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that coffee is also imported (mostly from Brasil and Colombia), I suppose that its carbon footprint should be similar in terms of transport. While I can't tell you exactly how much water it requires for production, I tend to think it's similar to tea, considering that it's an infusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, it's an alternative to consider and today you may find it almost every country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_(beverage)#Health_effects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4878" RevisionGUID="d6fd33d6-85e6-416b-9c37-abb5b1fb8ee3" CreationDate="2015-12-03T12:53:18.153" UserId="96" Text="**TL, DR** Solar thermal with a gas burner for peak demand. Possibly improved isolation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you need exact data on how much heat you need, and when, during the year and during each day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This should help you get an idea if the insulation of your house can be improved. Once you have the numbers, ask here for a first orientation. Without seeing the house (preferably through a thermographic camera) we will only give you a balpark estimate though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, I'd lok at the following: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar thermal - how much collector surface can you actually mount on your house? If it's 8-storey, you will have limited roof space but maybe a south facing fasade without much shadow?&#xD;&#xA;Once you have a realistic grip on how much collectors you could mount, do a conservative calculation how much thermal power this will bring you over the year (again, you want a graph of thermal power vs. time in the year) and on days representative of different periods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See how much of your demand you can actually cover with solar thermal, decide if its worth it. Or rather: decide if it's worth to go forward with examining the possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, look at peak heat demand and peak heat production, to get an idea how much heat storage (a huge water tank in your cellar) you will need. My gut feeling is that you will store heat for 12h to a day at the utmost, everything beyond that will be ridiculuosly large. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at how much of your heat demand you cannot satisfy from (stored solar), this wil stil come from your boiler. I suggest swapping for a natural gas boiler since those emit less CO2. The gas burner must be sized to supply you total heat demand, as you could have days with very bad weather and practically no sun. The burner will only be active when you need heat in but the storage tank is cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will definitly need a professional to do the installation and to properly size all components. You will need high quality (well insulated) collectors to achieve high temperatures, else you'll have problems 'marrying' the solar thermal to your existing heating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4877" RevisionGUID="8dc7bb24-10ee-44d3-9921-3f3d8df7bcc1" CreationDate="2015-12-03T13:00:59.307" UserId="2605" Comment="added 57 characters in body" Text="Even though I tend to agree with Wout's answer, I would like to add an alternative solution, specially for those who are not ready to switch to water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm currently facing the same problem. Here at the office we drink several cups of coffee per day, and we only have a capsule coffee machine (which entails the problem of plastic waste). Which is why I'm now considering switching to mate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I come from (south of Chile), and mostly in Argentina and Uruguay, we used to drink [mate][1] long before coffee gets popular. Lots of people still do. Mate has similar characteristics to coffee--it actually contains caffeine--and has some other nice properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that coffee is also imported (mostly from Brasil and Colombia), I suppose that its carbon footprint should be similar in terms of transport. While I can't tell you exactly how much water it requires for production, I tend to think it's similar to tea, considering that it's an infusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, it's an alternative to consider and today you may find it almost every country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate_(beverage)#Health_effects" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4879" RevisionGUID="6bdb4e7f-2242-4d57-8e91-5715bc34ab86" CreationDate="2015-12-03T15:55:58.373" UserId="2261" Text="[Rice coffee](http://www.adoboflavourshop.com/2015/03/13/pinoy-rice-coffee/) is popular in the Philippines, where it's available in grocery stores. It's also very simple to make - just roast some white rice in a frying pan, grind it and use it like ground coffee. It doesn't have any caffeine, which is either an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on your preferences. [Dandelion coffee](http://rosesprodigalgarden.org/articles/how%20to%20make%20roasted%20dandelion%20coffee.html) is another option. It's made from the roots of the dandelion, in a similar way to rice coffee. You can also [order it](http://www.goodnessdirect.co.uk/cgi-local/frameset/detail/366080_Cotswold_Dandelion_Coffee__100g.html) if you're not interested in harvesting and preparing the dandelions yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="43a63888-5c4e-4ddd-bd61-cee841745c9e" CreationDate="2015-12-03T17:46:42.360" UserId="2733" Text="As my questions indicates, what is the most viable dairy alternative from a sustainability perspective (ignoring the importance of nutritional value)? From a life-cycle analysis are some options more environmentally friendly than others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="43a63888-5c4e-4ddd-bd61-cee841745c9e" CreationDate="2015-12-03T17:46:42.360" UserId="2733" Text="Which is more sustainable: Almond, Soy, Coconut, Cashew or Other Milk?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="43a63888-5c4e-4ddd-bd61-cee841745c9e" CreationDate="2015-12-03T17:46:42.360" UserId="2733" Text="|food|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4861" RevisionGUID="b6b13bdd-ceaf-4bf6-931d-7289b260c4a6" CreationDate="2015-12-03T19:22:00.453" UserId="2828" Comment="Improved English" Text="Just like the title said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my house, we are very heavy tea drinkers. So my mother tends to boil a lot of water every day. She usually does this with a small amount of water (1-2L) every time she boils the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This make me wonder: I know that it takes the same amount of energy to heat 1 L water ten times and 10 L water once, since both of them are essentially same. But in practice, does heating 1 L water ten times consume more energy (in gas or electricity) than just heating 10 L water in bulk once, due to the design of kettle, stove, heat transfer or something?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried searching the net for this but found no conclusive answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10893" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4861" RevisionGUID="b6b13bdd-ceaf-4bf6-931d-7289b260c4a6" CreationDate="2015-12-03T19:22:00.453" Comment="Proposed by 2828 approved by 99 edit id of 347" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="e4d321b3-b6b1-4358-a2f0-d83dd27e2c16" CreationDate="2015-12-03T19:51:27.703" UserId="2830" Text="I'm a garden always interested in these topics, discovered Birch trees absorb a lot more pollution than most other trees but tend to prefer cooler climates. They will grow in the south of England but with a shorter life expectancy. If the soil is acidic and the summer is cool enough they should multiply on their own. To absorb street pollution from roads small trees would be more effective as the leaves do all the work. For a factory then the planting needs to be diverse and well placed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="59faa12a-a1c0-4f78-a406-f9d3307d3e8d" CreationDate="2015-12-04T07:54:17.037" UserId="2345" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="I'm a gardener who is always interested in these topics, discovered Birch trees absorb a lot more pollution than most other trees but tend to prefer cooler climates. They will grow in the south of England but with a shorter life expectancy. If the soil is acidic and the summer is cool enough they should multiply on their own. To absorb street pollution from roads small trees would be more effective as the leaves do all the work. For a factory then the planting needs to be diverse and well placed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10896" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="59faa12a-a1c0-4f78-a406-f9d3307d3e8d" CreationDate="2015-12-04T07:54:17.037" Comment="Proposed by 2345 approved by 659, -1 edit id of 348" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4881" RevisionGUID="e26d7713-53ef-4c8e-ad21-319f0920a00c" CreationDate="2015-12-04T07:54:17.037" UserId="99" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="I'm a gardener who is always interested in these topics. I discovered Birch trees absorb a lot more pollution than most other trees but tend to prefer cooler climates. They will grow in the south of England but with a shorter life expectancy. If the soil is acidic and the summer is cool enough they should multiply on their own. To absorb street pollution from roads small trees would be more effective as the leaves do all the work. For a factory the planting needs to be diverse and well placed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4882" RevisionGUID="a2587ad1-3c5e-4e36-b4b6-662b9950eb9c" CreationDate="2015-12-04T09:23:44.267" UserId="99" Text="Water footprint refers to the amount water used to make a product (a.k.a. [tag:virtual-water] content) or provide a service, or support the lifestyle of a particular person or group of people. This includes water used by suppliers or manufacturers who create or supply components or necessary services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that [tag:virtual-water] only refers to the amount of water used in a product, but that water footprint is a much wider concept as it includes additional information to assess the full impact of the water usage, for example where the water is from, how it is used and when it is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Water footprint network - FAQ](http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/frequently-asked-questions/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Calculators:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Water footprint network - Various interactive tools/calculators](http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Kemira water footprint calculator](http://www.waterfootprintkemira.com/meter)&#xD;&#xA; - [Home water works calculator](http://www.home-water-works.org/calculator) for US or Canadian households&#xD;&#xA; - [Watercalculator.org](http://www.watercalculator.org) for US households&#xD;&#xA; - [National Geographic - Water footprint calculator](http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/change-the-course/water-footprint-calculator/) for US households&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4883" RevisionGUID="d2b97979-194e-40e4-8d86-4784129bc8fe" CreationDate="2015-12-04T09:23:44.267" UserId="99" Text="amount of water used to make a product (a.k.a. virtual water content) or to support the lifestyle of a particular person or group of people, including additional information to assess the full impact of the water usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2687" RevisionGUID="d56c124c-cd94-4746-b26c-ee9f9e390b75" CreationDate="2015-12-04T09:27:46.917" UserId="99" Comment="added reference to water-footprint" Text="Chemical formula: H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions on [tag:waste-water], [tag:greywater] or [tag:seawater] please use that tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions solely about the amount of water in a product use [tag:virtual-water].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For question about the full impact of water usage in a product, service, or by a person or group of people use [tag:water-footprint]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2688" RevisionGUID="618a3d1e-d29d-4eca-9461-877b18a6efe8" CreationDate="2015-12-04T09:27:46.917" UserId="99" Comment="added reference to water-footprint" Text="Questions regarding sustainable use of water, or water's impact on sustainability in general.&#xD;&#xA;For questions on [waste-water], [greywater], [seawater], [water-footprint] or [virtual-water] please use that tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4883" RevisionGUID="ae4a556a-660e-496f-a2a6-28b03859400e" CreationDate="2015-12-04T09:29:20.670" UserId="99" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="amount of water used to make a product or to support the lifestyle of a particular person or group of people, including additional information to assess the full impact. For questions solely about the amount of water in a product please use [virtual-water] tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4532" RevisionGUID="465578fb-c3f6-438b-8797-bdb7da2e928f" CreationDate="2015-12-04T09:39:18.550" UserId="2301" Comment="as per comments, I introduced a baseline" Text="I'm interested in the sustainability, especially the carbon footprint, of life-style decisions regarding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **transportation** (i.e. get an electric car, use bike and public transport) &#xD;&#xA;* **dietary**: going vegan or vegetarian &#xD;&#xA;* **home efficiency** (i.e. using led lights, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;* **proactive investing in carbon sink** (i.e. fund no profits against deforestation, planting trees).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My major goal is to fight carbon emissions, so I'd like to know the order of magnitude of these different actions. What I already do: I currently don't eat meat, but rarely fish, eggs. More often diary. I live in a small apartment with my girlfriend in the city center (northern Italy), I'm able to walk and ride a bike for many of my movements. We share a methane car. I donated last year to treesforthefuture.org, and other ngos related with afforestation, and compensated a year of carbon emissions. I try to buy local veggies from a friend. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4884" RevisionGUID="12be7b5a-f6d3-4544-b241-6df6d0cbbbb3" CreationDate="2015-12-04T13:28:56.023" UserId="2833" Text="&quot;ecologically&quot; can cover many aspects one of which is the quality of the product...its food value.&#xD;&#xA;From my experience in agriculture we know that fast growing grasses (usually using promotants such as nitrogen) do not have the same nutrient value as slower grown grass of the same species. Conversely this must surely apply to vegetables especially in respect to the levels of minerals etc in those vegetables. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4874" RevisionGUID="f484e357-602e-4642-9e73-27ceb9bd9e5f" CreationDate="2015-12-04T15:43:46.113" UserId="400" Comment="Clarifications" Text="This is one of those messy questions.  The answer, &quot;It depends&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider a 1 candle power heater.  It heats 1 cup of water to boiling in 10 minutes.  Total energy used:  1/6 candle power hour.  Now try to heat 10 liters of water.  Due to the much larger pot, it never gets it to boiling.  1 candle power gets it to something above luke warm, and never get any warmer.  Total energy used Infinite.  And you get people impatient for their tea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most efficient water heater is one that works so fast that there are no loses.  Few of us have flash boilers in the kitchen.  Failing that, one that is insulated and has the element surrounded by water will do better than anything with a separate water vessel and heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Practical advice:  Heat the water in the pot in the microwave.  The microwave is very efficient.  It heats the pot at the same time.  If you don't need a pot full, use a thermal mug and a teabag in the microwave.  Put the tea in first or after.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suspicion is that this is not as efficient as the insulated immersed elment kettle.  The microwave conversion is not perfect, nor is all of the energy absorbed by the items in the microwave.  However pouring boiling water into a pot can result in the water dropping 10-15C.  The water used to heat the pot is discarded.  Overall I suspect that using the microwave is a win, but I cannot back that up with actual tests or data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inside of a microwave reflects microwaves.  So the waves bounce until they are absorbed.  This is one reason you don't run them while empty.  I couldn't find actual figures for MW efficiency, but one indication:  Energy that isn't absorbed has to show up somewhere.  The exhaust temperature from my microwave doesn't get warm until there is steam coming off the food, so emperically it is quite efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10906" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4872" RevisionGUID="e372a6d3-773f-4bf1-988b-c23236557ec6" CreationDate="2015-12-05T12:23:06.927" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/673115379527479296" />
  <row Id="10907" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4885" RevisionGUID="875795fa-265b-4e54-bb71-a2dc01caee5f" CreationDate="2015-12-05T14:09:57.883" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/59313/are-possum-fur-products-typically-from-culled-possums" />
  <row Id="10908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="ef1c8301-731d-4aff-8f5a-d23c57d79355" CreationDate="2015-11-29T05:29:00.443" UserDisplayName="Tom" Text="The fur probably comes from multiple sources.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The NZ Dept of Conservation doesn't consider fur harvesting to be a contributing factor to possum population reduction, as the critters need to be trapped to preserve the quality of their fur rather than shot or exterminated by other mass means. As such the number taken by traps in culling is small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while some fur may come from culling operations, more likely the bulk of it comes from farming." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4885" RevisionGUID="2a17a7c3-7ff7-4e26-adf1-3d4c7e4f2bb1" CreationDate="2015-11-29T02:49:40.297" UserId="179" Text="While in NZ and Australia, I've seen some souvenir shops offer products including possum fur, or a mixture of possum fur and merino wool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the possum fur typically from deliberately culled possums as an introduced species control measure, as opposed to farmed possums or possums living in their native habitats in normal numbers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4885" RevisionGUID="2a17a7c3-7ff7-4e26-adf1-3d4c7e4f2bb1" CreationDate="2015-11-29T02:49:40.297" UserId="179" Text="Are possum fur products typically from culled possums?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4885" RevisionGUID="2a17a7c3-7ff7-4e26-adf1-3d4c7e4f2bb1" CreationDate="2015-11-29T02:49:40.297" UserId="179" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10912" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4886" RevisionGUID="072e0696-a5ca-4781-8bec-12acef488975" CreationDate="2015-12-05T14:09:57.883" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/59313/are-possum-fur-products-typically-from-culled-possums/59316#59316" />
  <row Id="10913" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4885" RevisionGUID="3d63af5a-039b-4e50-9f5a-10ab5f7da930" CreationDate="2015-12-05T23:29:25.530" UserId="179" Comment="Retag" Text="|pest-management|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4887" RevisionGUID="dbd63ca6-41a5-4fae-9b72-e4d24c287588" CreationDate="2015-12-06T04:13:43.800" UserId="659" Text="Possums are not farmed in New Zealand or in Australia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're an Australian native, where most species are protected. The [brushtail possum][1] that's a major pest species in New Zealand is only minimally protected in Australia as it's very common. To the best of my knowledge there is no possum real industry in Australia, just some [experimental outlets][2]. So even when Australia culls possums, the carcases are very rarely used for anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The possum is a [noxious pest in New Zealand][6], so it's illegal to breed, farm or release possums, and environmental groups like [Forest and Bird][7] want them gone. Public sentiment is [heavily against them][8] so it would take an extraordinary incident for someone to be prosecuted for harming them. There are [animal lovers][9] who are against [harming possums and in denial about the damage they do][10] but they're not highly regarded either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a variety of businesses in New Zealand using material from culled possums, from [conventional fur][3] or [wool/fur mixes][4] to [tourist gimmicks][5]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/livingwith/brushtail_possums.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/06/06/3236877.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://wearnewzealand.com/possum-nz&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.ecowool.com/possum-fur-products.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.silverfernz.com/840-possum-fur-bellybutton-warmer.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/animal-pests/animal-pests-a-z/possums/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/saving-our-environment/threats-and-impacts-/protecting-native-forests-1080&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/03/new-zealands-war-on-30-million-possums/273606/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://safenewzealand.org/2013/05/29/possum-fur-an-ethical-choice/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/Actions-Australia-NZ/possumfur.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="5eefb11c-d4af-4763-bb4c-afa665f4bb59" CreationDate="2015-12-06T11:32:36.000" UserId="2727" Text="It is widely known that most AC-DC converters (aka &quot;wall warts&quot;) continually use electricity, even when no devices are plugged in to them.  That wasted energy is often called &quot;phantom electricity&quot; or &quot;phantom use&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![wall wart][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A new trend is USB (DC) outlets, whether integrated into the wall plate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![wall plate USB][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or attached to an existing AC receptacle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![add-on USB][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nT6OC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/teFpb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8yTI9.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do both of these two new types of AC-DC converters waste energy just like the old wall warts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, what is a reasonable solution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="5eefb11c-d4af-4763-bb4c-afa665f4bb59" CreationDate="2015-12-06T11:32:36.000" UserId="2727" Text="Do USB outlets waste energy just like conventional wall warts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="5eefb11c-d4af-4763-bb4c-afa665f4bb59" CreationDate="2015-12-06T11:32:36.000" UserId="2727" Text="|energy|electricity|waste|home|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10919" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="37cc4b05-cedd-4f50-a56f-311bd6f0b5b9" CreationDate="2015-12-06T21:25:29.717" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/673614261403451392" />
  <row Id="10921" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4888" RevisionGUID="b5f62b7c-5c4e-46b9-9e89-f03ebe6e3796" CreationDate="2015-12-07T08:38:43.157" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|electricity|home|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="685cb410-1231-447f-bc19-b4466d3ce575" CreationDate="2015-12-08T00:07:34.920" UserId="2828" Text="Our electric kettle for making tea has what looks like a minimum mark at 0.8 litres (though on closer inspection it says “**mini**” rather than “**min**”!). I try to save energy by boiling no more than the amount actually needed for my tea or coffee, which is often as little as ca. 0.3 litres, but always enough to cover the base, and have seen no ill-effects so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it is worth, the kettle in question is a Moulinex Subito made in China rated 2-2.4 kW where the element is concealed under an almost flat stainless steel bottom, but I suspect that pretty much any similar kettle would behave the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any danger in this? If it does depend on the model, what features matter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="685cb410-1231-447f-bc19-b4466d3ce575" CreationDate="2015-12-08T00:07:34.920" UserId="2828" Text="Should I worry about the minimum mark on our kettle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="685cb410-1231-447f-bc19-b4466d3ce575" CreationDate="2015-12-08T00:07:34.920" UserId="2828" Text="|energy-efficiency|home|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="a49fcb64-7e71-482e-a60e-715205bc4563" CreationDate="2015-12-08T00:15:46.943" UserId="2828" Comment="Clarify the type of kettle meant" Text="Our electric kettle for boiling water for tea or coffee has what looks like a minimum mark at 0.8 litres (though on closer inspection it says “**mini**” rather than “**min**”!). I try to save energy by boiling no more than the amount actually needed for my drink, which is often as little as ca. 0.3 litres, but always enough to cover the base, and have seen no ill-effects so far.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it is worth, the kettle in question is a Moulinex Subito made in China rated 2-2.4 kW where the element is concealed under an almost flat stainless steel bottom, but I suspect that pretty much any similar kettle would behave the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any danger in this? If it does depend on the model, what features matter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4891" RevisionGUID="aa189409-f356-4257-9d16-4f90b7cd6748" CreationDate="2015-12-08T02:25:14.610" UserId="2345" Text="In older kettles with an exposed heating element it does matter. If the element is not covered with water it will overheat and burn out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With newer kettles without an exposed heating element you may risk reducing the useful life of the kettle as a certain amount of water will be required to absorb and dissipate the heat produced by the heating element." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4892" RevisionGUID="84b9d794-c156-44a7-a3ba-24ceca248a95" CreationDate="2015-12-08T08:02:12.157" UserId="15" Text="I agree with Fred in that it seems logical that a minimum amount of water would be required to help prevent overheating by the element. It's likely though that the manufacturer has specified a fairly conservative minimum amount of water to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When using a kettle with a concealed element with less that the minimum recommended amount of water, you could reduce damage that might be caused by overheating by manually switching the kettle off as soon as it boils. You'll save electricity too. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4893" RevisionGUID="6f78b4fb-5676-44b0-8e6c-f3b36fe4bcab" CreationDate="2015-12-08T08:22:16.903" UserId="2846" Text="There's another reason for minimum water levels: when the steam is used to trip the temperature sensor, a certain minimum amount of steam (or rate of steam delivery) is required. This will depend on the contact between the water and the element, so will be more of an issue for exposed elements. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that you can get away with quite a bit less than the minimum even with an exposed element, so long as the main part of the element is underwater. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4894" RevisionGUID="53f43c4e-76a5-4a8c-b6a3-ad0ca49d16ff" CreationDate="2015-12-08T08:26:12.453" UserId="2846" Text="Electronically they're the same and will waste as much energy as a conventional adaptor. Depending on your electrical regulations they may be forced to be at the good end of adaptor efficiency, or they may be at the very cheap end. This will be a matter of safety regulations, but the cheapest designs fall down on safety and efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hunted for one with a switch on the charger and failed to find it. But there are built in chargers without mains sockets, which could be connected via a switch. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4895" RevisionGUID="19465f87-0bb5-4119-b69c-52d7bfa1f371" CreationDate="2015-12-08T12:26:07.680" UserId="2846" Text="You could choose to buy coffee from somewhere that's not short of water. I've got a rather nice Costa Rican fairtrade on the go, for example. This doesn't deal with the transport or roasting energy consumption/emissions, but does address your main point. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4896" RevisionGUID="f8f02e6f-9107-4273-b849-2c3ca4c85fba" CreationDate="2015-12-08T20:38:19.500" UserId="2826" Text="I live in Pennsylvania in the United States. Due to a combination of frequent overcast days, potential storm damage, and my wife not wanting to cover up our recently-rebuilt roof, I'm not able to install my own solar panels, but I remembered seeing an article about a company that was essentially letting one invest in solar panels installed in sunnier states like California and Arizona (specifically ones built on rooftops there). I visited the company's website and thought I'd bookmarked it, but I cannot find the link anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do such resources currently exist? Have they proven economically feasible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4896" RevisionGUID="f8f02e6f-9107-4273-b849-2c3ca4c85fba" CreationDate="2015-12-08T20:38:19.500" UserId="2826" Text="Renting solar panels in another state" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4896" RevisionGUID="f8f02e6f-9107-4273-b849-2c3ca4c85fba" CreationDate="2015-12-08T20:38:19.500" UserId="2826" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10934" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4896" RevisionGUID="aa9c5175-312d-4b1c-bf9d-a6bfa2f87d2d" CreationDate="2015-12-09T10:53:53.373" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Added US tag" Text="|solar-power|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10935" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4896" RevisionGUID="aa9c5175-312d-4b1c-bf9d-a6bfa2f87d2d" CreationDate="2015-12-09T10:53:53.373" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 2826 edit id of 349" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4897" RevisionGUID="891e0019-d4bc-4350-bd93-24c50e0751cb" CreationDate="2015-12-09T19:25:48.497" UserId="2857" Text="http://www.yeloha.com/ does this.  Since I need 30 characters to post, let me add that I'm not 100% sure they serve customers in PA, yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4898" RevisionGUID="5f97628a-8325-42d6-922f-bedabad18c9a" CreationDate="2015-12-09T22:53:56.027" UserId="2858" Text="[Wikipedia says 4 companies produce 35 tons a year.][1] It is produced something similar to the way that yeast is produced since you need microorganisms to create the B12. [This is true for animals and us][2]. The subsequent steps appear to convert the B12 created by the vats of bacteria to shelf stable, solid form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[65% of grain in the US alone is for livestock feed][3]. [For pesticides to grow that animal feed alone][4], [to say nothing of fertilizers, fossil fuels for shipping refrigerating, etc, the US uses, 1 billion tons][5]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;35 tons of B12 is a colossal amount. The daily recommendation is for dozens or hundreds of micrograms, I have no idea why we are creating so much. But even with this massive level of production of B12, it is 35/1000000000 of the chemical inputs necessary for the pesticides to grow the grains to feed the cows, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as a back of the envelope calculation, I'd have to be 7 orders of magnitude off for the inputs of animal agriculture to equal those of B12 production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we want to think outside of the box, then the environmentally friendly source of B12 is dirty water and dirty food, but that has problems of its own, like water borne diseases, and municipalities make sure there aren't any microbes that might have produced B12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12#Synthesis_and_industrial_production&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/35786/why-do-humans-require-vitamin-b12-supplementation-while-herbivores-do-not&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.earthsave.org/environment.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.sustainabletable.org/263/pesticides&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/facts-on-animal-farming-and-the-environment/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4899" RevisionGUID="24c04ba7-44ff-4e34-a20b-b8d6d962f36a" CreationDate="2015-12-10T05:19:04.127" UserId="2860" Text="If you are looking for an effiThis [post][1] refers to a USB wall outlet that shuts off when not plugged in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://diy.stackexchange.com/a/15741/46414" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="25ff18f1-14e7-4f26-b088-1e2e925076ac" CreationDate="2015-12-10T07:38:56.813" UserId="2861" Text="Despite the fact that India lies below USA and China on the list of carbon emitters in world, why is Delhi the most polluted city of the world?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also why are so many Indian cities (and no US city), mentioned on the list by USA TODAY, with high levels of air pollution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [USA TODAY][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/12/07/beijing-air-quality-china-pollution/76924786/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="25ff18f1-14e7-4f26-b088-1e2e925076ac" CreationDate="2015-12-10T07:38:56.813" UserId="2861" Text="Why is Delhi the most polluted city of the world?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="25ff18f1-14e7-4f26-b088-1e2e925076ac" CreationDate="2015-12-10T07:38:56.813" UserId="2861" Text="|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4899" RevisionGUID="350afd69-bc91-4917-bd20-4a64ebad7981" CreationDate="2015-12-10T08:22:57.580" UserId="99" Comment="fixed incomplete sentence" Text="If you are looking for an efficient USB outlet, this [post][1] refers to a USB wall outlet that shuts off when not plugged in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://diy.stackexchange.com/a/15741/46414" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10943" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4890" RevisionGUID="6affd9d4-21f1-4e8f-96ff-d9137ba49bf9" CreationDate="2015-12-10T09:40:19.363" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/674886349648998400" />
  <row Id="10944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4901" RevisionGUID="96265521-fb77-406c-b26a-8094c5017f7c" CreationDate="2015-12-10T11:54:50.770" UserId="99" Text="Several reasons come to mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Population density**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air pollution is mostly caused by people and the more people live together in a particular area the higher the air pollution generally is. If people are spread more evenly over an area, so is the pollution which means that overall pollution levels are lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both China and India have several cities in the top 20 of [largest cities in the world sorted by population-density](http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html), for example Mumbai, Kolkata, Shenzen, Delhi and Beijing.&#xD;&#xA;You can see that Delhi and Beijing have a similar density, but Delhi has a much bigger population so more air pollution is to be expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first US city on the list is Los Angeles (position 90) with a population density only 1/4 of that of Delhi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Number of cars** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traffic is a notorious contributor to air pollution, especially if you are measuring [particulates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates), which the WHO study did. Common sources are exhaust fumes from fossil-fuel engines and dust from unpaved roads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based solely on population density you'd expect Mumbai or Kolkata to be the most polluting cities, but Delhi has by far the most vehicles of all cities in India: 7.35 million in 2012 which is about 2.5 times more than Mumbai ([source](http://www.firstpost.com/business/data-business/these-five-cities-have-the-most-vehicles-in-india-mumbai-isnt-one-of-them-1963743.html)). Beijing has an estimated 5 million cars in 2011 ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Beijing)), Shenzhen about 3 million ([source](http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/shenzhen-china-restricts-car-sales-due-to-pollution-1.2885541))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Income**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Areas with relatively low-income usually have more air pollution. This has to do with not being able to afford cleaner alternatives or filtering systems for manufacturing, travel and energy production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per capita GDP in Delhi is Rs. 210,000 ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi)), which is about USD 3,150&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per capita GDP in Mumbai is Rs. 486,000 (USD 7,300) ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per capita GDP in Beijing is CNY 99,214 (USD 16,150) ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per capita GDP in Shenzhen is CNY 149,500 (USD 24,084) ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhen))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. Local conditions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Local conditions can play an important role, for example coastal cities usually have lower pollution levels compared to more in-land cities due to more windy weather (pollution is blown away) and the fact that there are less nearby polluters (no industry on the water).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**5. Air pollution laws**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert on this, but it's been my impression that air pollution laws and regulations are stricter and better enforced in the US and China than they are in India.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remarks about the WHO study**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The WHO study did not investigate all cities in the world, but about 1600 cities for which data on PM10 and PM2.5 particulates is available. Many cities were not included simply because there is no local monitoring system. There is no data from most large cities in Africa, and very little from South America, Russia and the Middle East. So, it's possible that there are cities that are even more polluted than Delhi." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="36bae321-8d2c-455f-9a40-8bb5130073a6" CreationDate="2015-12-10T12:04:59.500" UserId="99" Comment="added &quot;air&quot; to indicate that it's not about water or ground pollution" Text="Despite the fact that India lies below USA and China on the list of carbon emitters in world, why is Delhi the most air-polluted city of the world?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also why are so many Indian cities (and no US city), mentioned on the list by USA TODAY, with high levels of air pollution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [USA TODAY][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/12/07/beijing-air-quality-china-pollution/76924786/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10946" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="36bae321-8d2c-455f-9a40-8bb5130073a6" CreationDate="2015-12-10T12:04:59.500" UserId="99" Comment="added &quot;air&quot; to indicate that it's not about water or ground pollution" Text="Why is Delhi the most air-polluted city of the world?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10947" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="36bae321-8d2c-455f-9a40-8bb5130073a6" CreationDate="2015-12-10T12:04:59.500" UserId="99" Comment="added &quot;air&quot; to indicate that it's not about water or ground pollution" Text="|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4902" RevisionGUID="ccd06742-dfd8-490e-be39-1e17c4396888" CreationDate="2015-12-10T13:31:56.637" UserId="2821" Text="Although this may not be a direct answer to the question &quot;Why is Delhi the most air-polluted city of the world?&quot; I want to go against the statement that Delhi is the most polluted city since there are a lot of ways to measure this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [USA today article][1] gives a list of &quot;the world cities with highest pollution levels&quot; ranked on &quot;pollution level&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Actually the [original data (over 2014)][2] of the [WHO air pollution site][3] shows that the values are in fact the **Annual mean PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; &amp;mu;g/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;**. Where PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; are fine [particles][6] of 2.5 &amp;mu;g or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; particles&#xD;&#xA;High PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; levels are obviously [unhealthy][7]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exposure to fine particles can cause short-term health effects such as&#xD;&#xA;eye, nose, throat and lung irritation, coughing, sneezing, runny nose&#xD;&#xA;and shortness of breath. Exposure to fine particles can also affect&#xD;&#xA;lung function and worsen medical conditions such as asthma and heart&#xD;&#xA;disease. Scientific studies have linked increases in daily PM2.5&#xD;&#xA;exposure with increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospital&#xD;&#xA;admissions, emergency department visits and deaths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other particles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; particles are not the only causes of low air quality, as indicated by [this WHO article][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 2005 &quot;WHO Air quality guidelines&quot; offer global guidance on thresholds and limits for key air pollutants that pose health risks. The Guidelines indicate that by reducing particulate matter (PM10) pollution from 70 to 20 micrograms per cubic metre (μg/m), we can cut air pollution-related deaths by around 15%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Guidelines apply worldwide and are based on expert evaluation of current scientific evidence for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particulate matter (PM) ozone (O3) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), in all WHO regions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the slightly bigger particles PM&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt; particles (until 10 &amp;mu;g) are [dangerous for health][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Major concerns for human health from exposure to PM-10 include: effects on breathing and respiratory systems, damage to lung tissue, cancer, and premature death. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in fact, taking the [original data][2], we can find that Peshwar, Pakistan had the highest mean PM&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt; concentration with 540 &amp;mu;g /m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; average, while Delhi is on the 8th place with 286 &amp;mu;g/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other Indices&#xD;&#xA;An intend to combine the different pollutant concentration in one number is the [Air Quality Index (AQI)][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[EPA][10] calculates the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground-level ozone, particle pollution (also known as particulate matter), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An actual and continuously updated map of the AQI of the world can be seen on the [aqicn.org world map][11]. I have to make two notes on this data: 1) I don't know the update frequency, and 2) although some value may look better (lower), this may be because the lack of a sensor for a certain pollutant (for example PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another site, [numbeo][12], gives ranking of pollution based on surveys of visitors in which they score different thinks: air quality, water quality, garbage, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/12/07/beijing-air-quality-china-pollution/76924786/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.who.int/entity/quantifying_ehimpacts/national/countryprofile/AAP_PM_database_May2014.xls&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://www.who.int/topics/air_pollution/en/&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/phe/oap_exposure/atlas.html&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/indoors/air/pmq_a.htm&#xD;&#xA;[8]: http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd95/pm10.html&#xD;&#xA;[9]: http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqibasics.aqi&#xD;&#xA;[10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency&#xD;&#xA;[11]: http://aqicn.org/map/world/&#xD;&#xA;[12]: http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings_current.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4902" RevisionGUID="fd951800-0551-4bfe-8568-bab49d324f0f" CreationDate="2015-12-10T14:07:17.347" UserId="2821" Comment="slight changes in text" Text="Although this may not be a direct answer to the question &quot;Why is Delhi the most air-polluted city of the world?&quot; I want to go against the statement that Delhi is the most polluted city since there are a lot of ways to measure this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [USA today article][1] gives a list of &quot;the world cities with highest pollution levels&quot; ranked on &quot;pollution level&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Actually the [original data (over 2014)][2] of the [WHO air pollution site][3] shows that the values are in fact the **Annual mean PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; &amp;mu;g/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;**. Where PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; are fine [particles][6] of 2.5 &amp;mu;g or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; particles&#xD;&#xA;High PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; levels are obviously [unhealthy][7]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exposure to fine particles can cause short-term health effects such as&#xD;&#xA;eye, nose, throat and lung irritation, coughing, sneezing, runny nose&#xD;&#xA;and shortness of breath. Exposure to fine particles can also affect&#xD;&#xA;lung function and worsen medical conditions such as asthma and heart&#xD;&#xA;disease. Scientific studies have linked increases in daily PM2.5&#xD;&#xA;exposure with increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospital&#xD;&#xA;admissions, emergency department visits and deaths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other particles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; particles are not the only causes of low air quality, as indicated by [this WHO article][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 2005 &quot;WHO Air quality guidelines&quot; offer global guidance on thresholds and limits for key air pollutants that pose health risks. The Guidelines indicate that by reducing particulate matter (PM10) pollution from 70 to 20 micrograms per cubic metre (μg/m), we can cut air pollution-related deaths by around 15%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Guidelines apply worldwide and are based on expert evaluation of current scientific evidence for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particulate matter (PM) ozone (O3) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), in all WHO regions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the slightly bigger PM&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt; particles (until 10 &amp;mu;g) are [dangerous for health][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Major concerns for human health from exposure to PM-10 include: effects on breathing and respiratory systems, damage to lung tissue, cancer, and premature death. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in fact, taking the [original data][2], we find that Peshwar, Pakistan had the highest mean PM&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt; concentration with 540 &amp;mu;g /m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; average, while Delhi is on the 8th place with 286 &amp;mu;g/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other Indices&#xD;&#xA;An intend to combine the different pollutant concentration in one number is the [Air Quality Index (AQI)][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[EPA][10] calculates the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground-level ozone, particle pollution (also known as particulate matter), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An actual and continuously updated map of the AQI of the world can be seen on the [aqicn.org world map][11]. I have to make two notes on this data: 1) I don't know the update frequency, and 2) although some value may look better (lower), this may be because the lack of a sensor for a certain pollutant (for example PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another site, [numbeo][12], gives ranking of pollution based on surveys of visitors in which they score different thinks: air quality, water quality, garbage, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/12/07/beijing-air-quality-china-pollution/76924786/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.who.int/entity/quantifying_ehimpacts/national/countryprofile/AAP_PM_database_May2014.xls&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://www.who.int/topics/air_pollution/en/&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/phe/oap_exposure/atlas.html&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/indoors/air/pmq_a.htm&#xD;&#xA;[8]: http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd95/pm10.html&#xD;&#xA;[9]: http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqibasics.aqi&#xD;&#xA;[10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency&#xD;&#xA;[11]: http://aqicn.org/map/world/&#xD;&#xA;[12]: http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings_current.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10950" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="577" RevisionGUID="ab093bb9-1d9c-4505-81f5-85f82254bda4" CreationDate="2015-12-10T14:53:00.837" UserId="99" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="10951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4903" RevisionGUID="7b9698a9-affd-4671-ae6b-44eb61e5086a" CreationDate="2015-12-10T21:54:53.527" UserId="2734" Text="I believe in adopting sustainable practices in our daily or recurring maintenance activities. Recently, I measured the amount of water I spend at the sink and shifted to mug-based shaving (rinsing the razor by dipping it in a mug of water). However, there is another thing that troubles me, the use of plastic in my preferred razor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly, I use the [Gillette Mach 3 razor][1] . I have tried other cheaper razors as well, but I have settled with this for a balance of cost and skin care. I am aware of stainless [steel blades that are cheap that'll go into steel razor slots][2] but I am afraid they may cut my skin, I tend to be careless and lost in thought while shaving, LoL. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Mach 3 lasts a month or so for me and I shave once in three days. Is there an equivalently comfortable (not-cutting-skin guaranteed) razor that does not use plastic, and at comparable (or little higher) cost, i.e. $2 per cartridge ? Come to think of it, I won't mind spending more for a sustainable alternative with equivalent benefits ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71hwSeQzluL._SL1500_.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Chrome-Safety-Razor.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4903" RevisionGUID="7b9698a9-affd-4671-ae6b-44eb61e5086a" CreationDate="2015-12-10T21:54:53.527" UserId="2734" Text="Is there a shaving razor that is an alternative to, say, Gillette Mach 3, and does not use plastic ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4903" RevisionGUID="7b9698a9-affd-4671-ae6b-44eb61e5086a" CreationDate="2015-12-10T21:54:53.527" UserId="2734" Text="|home|plastic|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4904" RevisionGUID="093868d6-b718-413e-885d-440c082e7d45" CreationDate="2015-12-10T22:03:58.803" UserId="2734" Text="I have tried both, a low-cost electric shaver and a medium-cost regular razor for water-based shaving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water and Electricity, are both, equally important factors to be considered for sustainable living. I currently live in a place where the supply of both are okay, so shortage is not a factor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to adopt the more sustainable option. I don't mind a one-time investment in an electric razor, or the periodic buying of razors for water-based shaving. Currently I use a [Gillette Mach 3][1] that costs 2$ per cartridge and lasts a month, I shave once in three days, rinsing the razor in a mug of water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, taking into account, the water, the plastic in the razor and the use-and-throw of the cartridge after use, is electric shaver a more sustainable option or will the power usage out-beat the consumption waste ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71hwSeQzluL._SL1500_.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4904" RevisionGUID="093868d6-b718-413e-885d-440c082e7d45" CreationDate="2015-12-10T22:03:58.803" UserId="2734" Text="Is an electric shaver more sustainable than water-based shaving ? And how to determine so for one's context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4904" RevisionGUID="093868d6-b718-413e-885d-440c082e7d45" CreationDate="2015-12-10T22:03:58.803" UserId="2734" Text="|water|home|plastic|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4905" RevisionGUID="225344d0-13b6-409b-b805-aede5178a0cf" CreationDate="2015-12-10T22:44:34.647" UserId="2661" Text="One-piece safety razor with replaceable blades might be an option. They are vegan (unlike your Mach3) and you only throw out the blades (although I'm not sure that you can recycle them)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10958" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4904" RevisionGUID="3a38b617-0fec-492a-986b-c5e6f84f713b" CreationDate="2015-12-11T07:59:49.940" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|home|environmental-impact|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4906" RevisionGUID="c87a0d97-afa0-403d-8c4b-d2e99bb2e025" CreationDate="2015-12-11T21:19:09.870" UserId="1255" Text="Your most sustainable choice is an old [straight razor][1], but there's a reason the replacement is called a &quot;safety razor&quot;... you're much less likely to kill yourself with a safety razor. But these last a long time and you can shave using a small amount of water and a soap stick. You can buy one second hand, that's how long they last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much safer is an old style single-blade safety razors. They are almost plastic-free, and the disposable blade is only plastic coated. They look like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the blade like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those will be almost entirely recycleable, and I'd be confident putting a collection of used blades in the steel recycling bin. I wouldn't put one in there, simply because it's surprisingly sharp and unexpected so you could easily hurt someone. But a bit of tie wire holding 20 or more in a bundle is safer and more obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also recycleable disposable razors [like these][5] where the company that makes them will take them back. [BIC en France][6] has a stupid &quot;mail-back&quot; program where the cost of recycling is greater than any possible return on the razors (you can't just put a stamp on a razor so you have to package them, then transport them etc etc, it's very inefficient).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as compared-to-electric goes, the electric razor can be powered by renewable electricity, but it's very hard to find one that's not made of hard-to-recycle parts including a lot of non-renewable plastic. You almost certainly won't be able to pay someone else to disassemble it, you'll have to do that yourself and then take the parts to a scrap metal dealer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a disposable or plastic-blade razor you're probably less sustainable than an electric razor purely on the amount of plastic used. But that's assuming your alternative is a decent electric shaver, rather than one that needs to be replaced every year or two. My experiment with an electric shaver lasted about 5 years, but when the shaver stopped working I decided that I preferred blade shaving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, you can make [how you shave more effective][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Carefully rub a little Bikini Soft Razor Saver or baby oil on your razor’s blades after each use. The oil will keep the blades sharp and rust-free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Instead of buying cheap disposable razors that come all in one piece, buy cartridge razors. These have higher-quality handles with removable heads, meaning you only have to throw the small piece with the razor blades away. Also, consider double-edge razors as opposed to those with three or more edges since they require fewer raw materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Consider shaving less often. Some men can skip shaving on their days off from work. Women can shave only below the knee if they do not wear short skirts or not all if they so choose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Much of the environmental impact of each shaving session actually comes from all the hot water you use. If you shave at the sink, do not leave the water running. If you shave in the shower, turn off the water while you work on your legs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [This article from Slate.com][7] posits that electric razors have a lower carbon footprint than even eco-friendly disposable razors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* See more at: http://recyclenation.com/2015/04/how-to-recycle-razor-blades#sthash.RysGfalm.dpuf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_razor&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/B7mnQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/opVUb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ap752.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://recyclenation.com/2015/04/how-to-recycle-razor-blades&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.earth911.com/living-well-being/health/can-you-recycle-disposable-razors/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2010/12/trimming_your_carbon_footprint.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10961" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="6aa6a236-acc0-40b2-9cd7-b421291294bc" CreationDate="2015-12-11T21:57:07.420" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/675434160492830720" />
  <row Id="10962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4902" RevisionGUID="fb7e7b1b-9bc2-4b41-985b-196c277bebe3" CreationDate="2015-12-12T12:44:01.103" UserId="2821" Comment="fixed ug -&gt; um (micrometre), and added link" Text="Although this may not be a direct answer to the question &quot;Why is Delhi the most air-polluted city of the world?&quot; I want to go against the statement that Delhi is the most polluted city since there are a lot of ways to measure this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [USA today article][1] gives a list of &quot;the world cities with highest pollution levels&quot; ranked on &quot;pollution level&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Actually the [original data (over 2014)][2] of the [WHO air pollution site][3] shows that the values are in fact the **Annual mean PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; &amp;mu;g/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;**. Where PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; are fine [particles][6] of 2.5 &amp;mu;m ([micrometre][13]) or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; particles&#xD;&#xA;High PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; levels are obviously [unhealthy][7]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Exposure to fine particles can cause short-term health effects such as&#xD;&#xA;eye, nose, throat and lung irritation, coughing, sneezing, runny nose&#xD;&#xA;and shortness of breath. Exposure to fine particles can also affect&#xD;&#xA;lung function and worsen medical conditions such as asthma and heart&#xD;&#xA;disease. Scientific studies have linked increases in daily PM2.5&#xD;&#xA;exposure with increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospital&#xD;&#xA;admissions, emergency department visits and deaths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other particles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; particles are not the only causes of low air quality, as indicated by [this WHO article][5]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 2005 &quot;WHO Air quality guidelines&quot; offer global guidance on thresholds and limits for key air pollutants that pose health risks. The Guidelines indicate that by reducing particulate matter (PM10) pollution from 70 to 20 micrograms per cubic metre (μg/m), we can cut air pollution-related deaths by around 15%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Guidelines apply worldwide and are based on expert evaluation of current scientific evidence for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; particulate matter (PM) ozone (O3) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), in all WHO regions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the slightly bigger PM&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt; particles (until 10 &amp;mu;m) are [dangerous for health][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Major concerns for human health from exposure to PM-10 include: effects on breathing and respiratory systems, damage to lung tissue, cancer, and premature death. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in fact, taking the [original data][2], we find that Peshwar, Pakistan had the highest mean PM&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt; concentration with 540 &amp;mu;g /m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; average, while Delhi is on the 8th place with 286 &amp;mu;g/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other Indices&#xD;&#xA;An intend to combine the different pollutant concentration in one number is the [Air Quality Index (AQI)][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[EPA][10] calculates the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground-level ozone, particle pollution (also known as particulate matter), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An actual and continuously updated map of the AQI of the world can be seen on the [aqicn.org world map][11]. I have to make two notes on this data: 1) I don't know the update frequency, and 2) although some value may look better (lower), this may be because the lack of a sensor for a certain pollutant (for example PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another site, [numbeo][12], gives ranking of pollution based on surveys of visitors in which they score different thinks: air quality, water quality, garbage, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/12/07/beijing-air-quality-china-pollution/76924786/&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.who.int/entity/quantifying_ehimpacts/national/countryprofile/AAP_PM_database_May2014.xls&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://www.who.int/topics/air_pollution/en/&#xD;&#xA;[4]: http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/phe/oap_exposure/atlas.html&#xD;&#xA;[5]: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates&#xD;&#xA;[7]: http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/indoors/air/pmq_a.htm&#xD;&#xA;[8]: http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd95/pm10.html&#xD;&#xA;[9]: http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqibasics.aqi&#xD;&#xA;[10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency&#xD;&#xA;[11]: http://aqicn.org/map/world/&#xD;&#xA;[12]: http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings_current.jsp&#xD;&#xA;[13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometre" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10963" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4903" RevisionGUID="53fa4e37-a874-478a-81d4-8ed0f77b69c6" CreationDate="2015-12-12T12:57:06.057" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/675660646856413184" />
  <row Id="10965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="c7c7c5fa-3081-4e73-9da9-ea716f0cf480" CreationDate="2015-12-12T14:10:15.017" UserId="2868" Text="Are there any sustainable (and useful) alternatives to toothpaste? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried so far [this kind][1] of tooth tabs and I'm also aware of the existence of tooth powder but I haven't tried it yet. I liked about the product that I tried that the package was easily recyclable (and not made of plastic).  What are the advantages of the alternatives in terms of sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://uk.lush.com/products/teeth/miles-smiles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="c7c7c5fa-3081-4e73-9da9-ea716f0cf480" CreationDate="2015-12-12T14:10:15.017" UserId="2868" Text="Are there any more sustainable alternatives to traditional toothpaste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="c7c7c5fa-3081-4e73-9da9-ea716f0cf480" CreationDate="2015-12-12T14:10:15.017" UserId="2868" Text="|environmental-impact|cleaning|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4908" RevisionGUID="8583db69-cfd7-4f73-9e80-b555bbe10961" CreationDate="2015-12-12T15:24:08.500" UserId="2869" Text="In this era of growing concerns about global warming, the tradition of chopping down millions of trees each year only to discard them a few weeks later, might strike some people as bizarre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But does it actually harm the environment? By the time the tree is discarded, have we added to or removed carbon emissions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many subjective media articles on the subject, but I'm looking for something more concrete based on confirmed numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Possible factors which increase carbon emissions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A felled tree no longer takes part in photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;- Carbon emitted during the manufacture and transport of agricultural equipment and consumables (e.g. pesticides and fertilizers).&#xD;&#xA;- Carbon emitted during transport of the tree to the customer.&#xD;&#xA;- Methods of discarding used trees such as burning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Possible factors which decrease or are neutral for carbon emissions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Trees are constantly replanted, and those trees might not exist otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;- Recyling used trees (e.g. composting)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4908" RevisionGUID="8583db69-cfd7-4f73-9e80-b555bbe10961" CreationDate="2015-12-12T15:24:08.500" UserId="2869" Text="Do Christmas trees have a positive or a negative impact on carbon emissions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4908" RevisionGUID="8583db69-cfd7-4f73-9e80-b555bbe10961" CreationDate="2015-12-12T15:24:08.500" UserId="2869" Text="|carbon-footprint|trees|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4909" RevisionGUID="3d96ca73-9ed5-48fb-b472-ae1507ea1b1f" CreationDate="2015-12-12T19:22:55.683" UserId="2870" Text="To qualify my answer I have ended up here following research into the new agreement made today in Paris regarding climate change (COP21).&#xD;&#xA;There appears to be a consensus that one of the most important ways of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions is to plant tree's and then burn them in carbon capture facilities - generating energy but trapping carbon.(I have not read the whole document yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Key to this reasoning are the following assumptions;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The energy consumed in the growing of the seedling/sapling (Nursing),&#xD;&#xA;Planting, transport etc,etc must be carbon neutral or have a low and known figure.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The plant should naturally have a low greenhouse gas footprint. For example - broad leaved disiduous tree's *may* have a higher emission of gasses if they drop leaves every year (which rot) and grow slowly.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Lastly the method and timing of using the timber created is very important. If you burn it on a fire - then there is no benefit and possibly a negative effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best option is to make things from it - such as tables, chairs, bread boards etc, then at the end of the life of those products, make chipboard, then eventually burn the chipboard in a pyrolysis plant or high temperature incinerator (IMPORTANT) &gt; with a carbon capture system. Such systems are very rare and mostly experimental at the time of writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To try and answer you question succinctly;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is likely that Christmas trees have a negative impact on climate.&#xD;&#xA;BECAUSE: almost invariably there is a huge amount of diesel used in the vehicles that plant, process and deliver the trees.&#xD;&#xA;AND: because the trees are ultimately either left to rot which releases greenhouse gasses (Some more potent that CO2), OR they are burned - in which case they release all the carbon they captured over the last 3-4 years without mitigating any of the carbon emitted from fossil fuels in their production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4910" RevisionGUID="b8d29ea2-ee26-4b56-9b28-dca29d4fd389" CreationDate="2015-12-12T19:55:58.670" UserId="2870" Text="This will depend on where you live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a question of energy;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all take into account the carbon footprint of the electric shaver relative to it's expected lifespan - this is likely to be higher than the safety razor proposed by Nui (Which I agree with by the way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly - as I alluded too; it will depend on where you live, more precisely - what altitude you live at and where your water comes from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you assume water takes 9.8 joules of energy to lift 1L by 1 Meter - which is about right, and you live at the top of a hill 100m above your water source - well then its about 1 unit of electric for every 1000 litres of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further to this [enter link description here][1] this site shows the current UK carbon footprint of electricity per unit. at the time of writing it is 426g/unit.&#xD;&#xA;Some parts of Birmingham in England are 200m above their water source.&#xD;&#xA;Using this as an example and assuming you only use 2L of water when you shave (Below average - it would be about 4 IF you turn off the tap).&#xD;&#xA;So assuming 2 litre each time - that's 365 times a year. 730 litres is .730 units of electricity - and we can reasonably assume you do so at peak times of day for energy use.&#xD;&#xA;So about **310g** of carbon emissions per year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to assess the electric razor - Mine has a 2600 mamp/h cell which is putting out at about 14 watts. I can shave with it in about 8 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would do that every 2 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;365/2 = 182 * 8 minutes = 1460 minutes / 60 (hour) = 24h (Shoot me now!!)&#xD;&#xA;24 hours at a rate of 14W is 0.336 units which is **143g** of C02.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you don't then wash the electric razor with water like I do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion - find out where your water is coming from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/uk-grid-live" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4911" RevisionGUID="0b6e5e06-8a64-4351-a84a-b36338bfa3e6" CreationDate="2015-12-12T20:05:06.910" UserId="2870" Text="I'm an energy consultant - I'm also aware of the environmental impacts of plastic - however; I still have to ask, what is the issue with plastic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing more sustainable than plastic is SOME wood IF it is carefully cared for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The carbon embedded in the production of plastic is VERY low compared to say aluminium, stainless etc... Plastic is a great material with a lot of bad press and an unfortunately low price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability comes from the whole life cycle of a product and a consideration of the materials with the lowest embedded energy consumption. If the life cycle is correctly managed - plastic is hard to argue with - even the disposable heads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion: look at how you dispose of plastic - and aim to do so more sustainably." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4912" RevisionGUID="83391b5e-c9aa-4c29-9406-f567b0e4d23d" CreationDate="2015-12-12T20:16:00.897" UserId="2870" Text="Living in PA you should consider solar thermal and bio-mass for your energy needs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar thermal panels such as the evacuated tube type systems and bio-mass boilers will offer you the best home energy efficiency because of your geography.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is electrical energy you are most concerned about and you have already resolved the sustainability of your heat demand (the highest demand and the highest cost) - you should look to first: reduce energy consumption using LED lighting and low energy appliances.&#xD;&#xA;THEN; you can consider a number of products that make electricity from heat taken from bio-mass boilers. (Particularly available in central and northern states).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are near to the local electricity network - ask your local network operator in a few months whether there is any subsidy for electric generated this way. They may offer you an export meter and pay you extra for making energy this way for your neighbours [Tax Credits upto 30%][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following the latest negotiations in Paris COP21 the USA along with most other countries will be working on more bio-mass based incentives so look out for them and plan for them in your home energy strategies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.dasolar.com/energytaxcredit-rebates-grants/pennsylvania" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4913" RevisionGUID="6f2861ac-6f2f-4296-a151-a75ff59adfff" CreationDate="2015-12-12T20:23:02.263" UserId="2870" Text="You should look at the corporate responsibility of the companies who make toothpaste.&#xD;&#xA;Some will be better than others and you can be sure that many will be incentive by both government tax schemes and public opinion to reduce the negative footprint of their products. You can also be sure that the bigger companies are almost always better equipped financially and in human resources to create products with the lowest footprints - in most cases it is driven by powerful market forces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice is to just pay attention to WHO you are buying from and vote with your feet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4914" RevisionGUID="ad27a006-884a-4c07-a590-1c0b7c9b91c9" CreationDate="2015-12-12T20:29:05.740" UserId="2870" Text="I would argue that by using non-dairy you are already putting yourself into the top 20% of low impact because any plant based alternative to dairy is significantly better than dairy itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you have pointed out the question of one type of plant over another then becomes quite subjective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only other thing you could consider is looking at the attitude of the companies you purchase from; some will be more bothered about sustainability than others. Check the corporate responsibility pages of their websites, ro look at their financial statements to see how they are investing in sustainable practices or mitigation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4909" RevisionGUID="12c7cfca-cdcb-485c-a4db-59546561464e" CreationDate="2015-12-12T21:44:21.847" UserId="85" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="To qualify my answer I have ended up here following research into the new agreement made today in Paris regarding climate change (COP21).&#xD;&#xA;There appears to be a consensus that one of the most important ways of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions is to plant trees and then burn them in carbon capture facilities, generating energy but trapping carbon. (I have not read the whole document yet.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Key to this reasoning are the following assumptions;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The energy consumed in the growing of the seedling/sapling (nursing),&#xD;&#xA;planting, transport, etc., must be carbon neutral or have a low and known figure.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The plant should naturally have a low greenhouse gas footprint. For example - broad leaved deciduous trees *may* have a higher emission of gasses if they drop leaves every year (which rot) and grow slowly.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Lastly, the method and timing of using the timber created is very important. If you burn it on a fire, then there is no benefit and possibly a negative effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best option is to make things from it – tables, chairs, cutting boards, etc. – then at the end of the life of those products, make chipboard and eventually burn the chipboard in a pyrolysis plant or high temperature incinerator *with a carbon capture system* (this last part is important). Such systems are very rare and mostly experimental at the time of writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To try and answer you question succinctly;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is likely that Christmas trees have a negative impact on climate, because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- almost invariably there is a huge amount of diesel used in the vehicles that plant, process and deliver the trees, and&#xD;&#xA;- the trees are ultimately either left to rot which releases greenhouse gases (some more potent than CO2), or they are burned, in which case they release all the carbon they captured over the last 3-4 years without mitigating any of the carbon emitted from fossil fuels in their production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10978" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4904" RevisionGUID="b44c07c7-b4cc-42ec-82e3-a2f5109eeb5f" CreationDate="2015-12-13T00:57:07.970" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/675841848980697090" />
  <row Id="10980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4908" RevisionGUID="9704df49-e92e-4e1f-b2ea-fcf24af53bfb" CreationDate="2015-12-13T21:13:25.347" UserId="2869" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="In this era of growing concerns about global warming, the tradition of chopping down millions of trees each year only to discard them a few weeks later, might strike some people as bizarre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But does it actually harm the environment? By the time the tree is discarded, have we added to or removed carbon emissions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many subjective media articles on the subject, but I'm looking for something more concrete based on confirmed numbers. Ideally I would like to calculate a carbon footprint (+ / -) per christmas tree, based on averages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Possible factors which increase carbon emissions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A felled tree no longer takes part in photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;- Carbon emitted during the manufacture and transport of agricultural equipment and consumables (e.g. pesticides and fertilizers).&#xD;&#xA;- Carbon emitted during transport of the tree to the customer.&#xD;&#xA;- Methods of discarding used trees such as burning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Possible factors which decrease or are neutral for carbon emissions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Trees are constantly replanted, and those trees might not exist otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;- Recyling used trees (e.g. composting)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4915" RevisionGUID="06c04d93-d732-48eb-9a9e-67f2f9732c36" CreationDate="2015-12-14T07:38:55.087" UserId="179" Text="How can I get automatic notifications that the outside temperature (in Sydney CBD) is below a certain threshold, and therefore the best option is to turn off the air conditioning and instead open the windows?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The automatic notification should ideally be via Slack, but email is also fine. Nothing that requires a mobile phone, such as SMS alerts or a smartphone app. The service should be either free or very low cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buying air conditioners that are intelligent about the external temperature is presumably impractical, as the air conditioners have already been purchased, as would changing the architecture of the building. (And please don't suggest we use fans - we're currently using a mixture of fans and aircon)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On r/frugal, a similar question was asked. The only worthwhile solution was using ifttt.com, but without any mention of specific &quot;if&quot; or &quot;do&quot; recipes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10982" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4915" RevisionGUID="06c04d93-d732-48eb-9a9e-67f2f9732c36" CreationDate="2015-12-14T07:38:55.087" UserId="179" Text="Notifications for outside temperature negating need for air conditioning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10983" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4915" RevisionGUID="06c04d93-d732-48eb-9a9e-67f2f9732c36" CreationDate="2015-12-14T07:38:55.087" UserId="179" Text="|cooling|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10984" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="410c1850-bb69-4020-825c-d6685f6c995b" CreationDate="2015-12-14T10:15:13.163" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|carbon-footprint|green-it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4880" RevisionGUID="1c828a00-28ad-44ad-96f6-235ce00e14e6" CreationDate="2015-12-14T14:14:59.097" UserId="2733" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="As my question indicates, what is the most viable dairy alternative from a sustainability perspective (ignoring the importance of nutritional value)? From a life-cycle analysis are some options more environmentally friendly than others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10992" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4917" RevisionGUID="ae267f98-5e19-4bc1-a975-b4bb1de12b14" CreationDate="2015-12-14T14:39:02.870" UserId="400" Text="This doesn't use a notifiction service, it just replaces a dumb system with a slightly smarter one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Ebay has lots of 20 buck gadgets that have a remote sensor and have a relay to control 5 to 15 A of current.  Using one of these, you can keep the air conditioner off until outside temps exceed a certain value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'open windows' criteria is much harder.  Automatic window openers don't come cheap.  If I had to hack one together, I'd start by ripping apart a car door electric window for the actuators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One approach may be to get/make louvered openings.  You can get fans with them already for greenhouses and barns.  The louvers are closed when the fan is not operating, and are forced open by the wind of the fan.  A pair of louvers, one set for in and one set for out, with a fan could automate the venting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a differential thermostat  ([http://www.mydtcstore.com/index.html][1]) you can do things like, &quot;run the fan as long as it's cooler outside than it is inside&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These start at US $70.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mydtcstore.com/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4918" RevisionGUID="fd99100d-889f-4625-abd0-9fc9d41fc8d0" CreationDate="2015-12-14T15:10:59.843" UserId="2870" Text="Mσᶎ is correct; you cannot include the embedded carbon of the tree itself because of it's short time in captured state. unless you take the tree's back from customers and then dispose of them in a very specific way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will assume you cannot or would not do that; therefore all the factors are negative and contribute towards a carbon footprint. This includes everything from the growing of the seedling through to the delivery to the point of sale. The analysis is a complex one and there are many consultants who can do it for you. You would need the cooperation of many suppliers too, though some will already have this information available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10994" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4915" RevisionGUID="c820a869-5c66-4460-9ecc-5f23d368462c" CreationDate="2015-12-14T19:03:01.973" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/676477512201936896" />
  <row Id="10995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="0e1a374f-d116-4e89-bea2-5b2c85638d1f" CreationDate="2015-12-15T01:45:32.367" UserId="2702" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one advantage they have is they don't need tracks, just overhead cables. Thus, only the rolling stock requires any serious maintenance. Implementing a trolleybus system in any city would be ridiculously easy compared to any light-rail solution. Apart from that? I've searched and searched, and haven't been able to locate any information that would shed light on the matter.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TfrTp.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="0e1a374f-d116-4e89-bea2-5b2c85638d1f" CreationDate="2015-12-15T01:45:32.367" UserId="2702" Text="Are trolleybuses better, worse, or about the same, as streetcars in terms of sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="0e1a374f-d116-4e89-bea2-5b2c85638d1f" CreationDate="2015-12-15T01:45:32.367" UserId="2702" Text="|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4920" RevisionGUID="9ebfad29-9dbe-4f3c-9b5c-596b90dcb57c" CreationDate="2015-12-15T05:08:44.853" UserId="48" Text="Each has pros and cons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trolleybuses require less infrastructure (no steel tracks), and don't need the road dug up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Light rail typically (with few exceptions - Curitiba being the notable counter-example) offers much higher capacity for a given land-take: it requires a narrower corridor and it carries more people per metre lane width per minute; and has less rolling resistance per unit mass, and less air resistance, so will use less energy per person-kilometre travelled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for more popular routes, light rail is the better solution. For others, trolleybuses are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the sustainability of each depends on the production of steel, electricity and copper becoming sustainable in and of themselves." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="10999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4921" RevisionGUID="aa519bf4-0e3a-4396-8ec9-d4b1a6dfb75f" CreationDate="2015-12-15T09:26:10.910" UserId="2702" Text="The current preferred means of travel from New York to London or Paris is the jet plane. Which is a shame, because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is poorly designed. The fact that &quot;it is the best we can do&quot; is no excuse. It's not a proper means of transportation: it's a flying gas tank. Literally. There's fuel in the damn wings, even. Most of the energy the burning of this fuel generates is spent on carrying the plane itself, and its fuel. It is said that a car (another lousy design) expends about 99% of its energy on carrying itself, and about 1% on carrying the passenger. I don't know if the jet airplane is better or worse, but surely it's in the same category of moronic guzzlers. Note that the design of the jet has not changed significantly in fifty years. This is, like, I don't know, *medieval*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To keep the airline industry afloat, so to speak, thousands upon thousands of planes need to take off every day and travel at speeds that increase their fuel consumption by something like 50%. In order to do this, millions of people are coaxed, coerced, or bribed to travel to destinations they have no particular desire to visit, or, in fact, to travel at all. Do you have to attend that conference? We do have videophones, you know. However, the airlines contend that a decrease in volume would drive them all bankrupt, and commercial aviation will cease to exist. This is true to some extent - with the fleet they have today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen tourists in Times Square &quot;taking pictures&quot; of computerized billboards. I have seen tourists under the Arc of Triumph in Paris &quot;taking pictures&quot; of each other against the background of the memorial fire. It is not obvious to me that they need to be there. The one thing that would get them to curb their tourist appetites would be a decrease in their comfort level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so my question is: air or water? Should engineers bend their energies on improving air travel or sea travel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clippers crossed the ocean in about twelve days. Each time it was a very uncomfortable trip, often replete with danger. Could it be made more comfortable with today's technologies and know-how? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or should we take a closer look at airships and see where that leads us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SEMZV.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wrQOo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XGw3h.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11000" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4921" RevisionGUID="aa519bf4-0e3a-4396-8ec9-d4b1a6dfb75f" CreationDate="2015-12-15T09:26:10.910" UserId="2702" Text="Is sustainable passenger traffic across the Atlantic possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11001" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4921" RevisionGUID="aa519bf4-0e3a-4396-8ec9-d4b1a6dfb75f" CreationDate="2015-12-15T09:26:10.910" UserId="2702" Text="|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4922" RevisionGUID="3a7d25dc-49a4-4ce1-ae4f-6bc2bb88c1cb" CreationDate="2015-12-15T11:26:24.617" UserId="106" Text="&gt; Air or water? Should engineers bend their energies on improving air travel or sea travel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air.  Regardless of sustainability, people who are used to hypermobility will not accept that mobility to be taken away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is work going on on [electric aircraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft).  Current batteries have insufficient energy density, but energy density is increasing rapidly.  I don't know if we are anywhere near theoretical limits — you might ask here or on another Stack.  Wikipedia quotes Elon Musk saying *once batteries are capable of producing 400 Watt-hours per kilogram, with a Power-to-weight ratio of between 0.7-0.8, then an electrical transcontinental aircraft becomes “compelling”*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which then reduces the aviation question to an electricity production question.  We already know how to do *that* sustainably.  Then there is the full life cycle of the batteries itself, which has non-zero impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a transatlantic voyage across the Atlantic possible with absolutely zero impact?  No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a transatlantic voyage across the Atlantic (in less than 12 hours) theoretically possible with impact that is orders of magnitude lower than now?  Currently, no.  In the future, perhaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(I wonder how long an aircraft could fly powered by an RTG.)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4923" RevisionGUID="22d5bee2-dbd6-4311-8310-cbbdb3ea15d5" CreationDate="2015-12-15T13:20:25.453" UserId="2860" Text="I cannot answer the questions completely but I have experience in Coconut cultivation and processing. In our part of the world (Southern part of India), Coconut farming is very sustainable since most of the process is manual and Coconut grows very well here without special care. Extraction of Coconut milk is very labor intensive and uses some machinery. The tricky part is processing the milk so that it can be stored. We haven't quite figured out a way to do it without noticeable change in flavor. South Indian cooking uses freshly squeezed Coconut milk and we rarely use it as a Diary alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, this is my personal experience and it completely depends on where you source it from." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4921" RevisionGUID="c3ce6540-ae42-40f8-bd43-2e74bd2283d9" CreationDate="2015-12-15T22:57:41.540" UserId="2702" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="The current preferred means of travel from New York to London or Paris is the jet plane. Which is a shame, because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It is poorly designed. The fact that &quot;it is the best we can do&quot; is no excuse. It's not a proper means of transportation: it's a flying gas tank. Literally. There's fuel in the damn wings, even. Most of the energy the burning of this fuel generates is spent on carrying the plane itself, and its fuel. It is said that a car (another lousy design) expends about 99% of its energy on carrying itself, and about 1% on carrying the passenger. I don't know if the jet airplane is better or worse, but surely it's in the same category of moronic guzzlers. Note that the design of the jet has not changed significantly in fifty years. This is, like, I don't know, *medieval*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. To keep the airline industry afloat, so to speak, thousands upon thousands of planes need to take off every day and travel at speeds that increase their fuel consumption by something like 50%. In order to do this, millions of people are coaxed, coerced, or bribed into traveling to destinations they have no particular desire to visit, or, in fact, into traveling at all. Do you have to attend that conference? We do have videophones, you know. However, the airlines contend that a decrease in volume would drive them all bankrupt, and commercial aviation would promptly cease to exist. This is true to some extent - with the fleet they have today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen tourists in Times Square &quot;taking pictures&quot; of computerized billboards. I have seen tourists under the Arc of Triumph in Paris &quot;taking pictures&quot; of each other against the background of the memorial fire. It is not obvious to me that they need to be there. The one thing that would get them to curb their tourist appetites would be a sharp decrease in their comfort level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus my question is: air or water? Should engineers bend their energies on improving air travel or sea travel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those fabled clippers, they could cross the ocean in about twelve days. Each time it was a very uncomfortable trip, replete with danger. Could it be made more comfortable with today's technologies and know-how? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or should we take a closer look at airships and see where that leads us?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SEMZV.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wrQOo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XGw3h.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4924" RevisionGUID="c2927ecb-25db-4e59-9e4a-845c5546efb3" CreationDate="2015-12-16T00:16:00.270" UserId="2702" Text="The bicycle is the most efficient machine ever invented in terms of energy conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of converting the energy produced by exercise machines to electricity is hardly new. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now suppose that your family's house (or apartment) were equipped with a generator, a stationary bike connected to it, and a number of rechargeable batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With four people living in the house with the standard complement of amenities (i.e. two bedrooms, two laptop computers, one TV, one stove, one water heater for the bathroom, air conditioning, heat, eight light fixtures, one phone charger):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... how long would an average person have to pedal to generate enough electricity for one day?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Should the answer be &quot;Impossibly long,&quot; what could be improved: the bike, the generator, or the batteries?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nSKsT.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11009" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4924" RevisionGUID="c2927ecb-25db-4e59-9e4a-845c5546efb3" CreationDate="2015-12-16T00:16:00.270" UserId="2702" Text="How many hours a day would you have to pedal to generate enough electricity for your apartment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11010" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4924" RevisionGUID="c2927ecb-25db-4e59-9e4a-845c5546efb3" CreationDate="2015-12-16T00:16:00.270" UserId="2702" Text="|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4925" RevisionGUID="34e43896-9183-4502-9de7-54c63d5f21a0" CreationDate="2015-12-16T01:46:21.980" UserId="2702" Text="Depending on whom you trust, sort of, up to two thirds of all the oil we consume in the U.S. is burned in our engines. If you added the section of the infrastructure that directly supports transportation via internal combustion, the number might go up to 90%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how much of that is consumed by buses, taxis, trucks, emergency vehicles, tractors, combine harvesters, etc. What I do know is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One Saturday morning I stepped out for some fresh air and maybe a coffee at my favorite hangout next to the subway station. It was 11 a.m. My wife was still asleep. We live Brooklyn because Manhattan is no longer affordable. There was a traffic jam on my street resembling the one depicted in this photo:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where the hell were all these people going at 11 a.m. on Saturday? Why couldn't they enjoy some quality time in bed with their spouses or mistresses, or play with their kids, or go to church? (For the record: in our section of Brooklyn, a church or synagogue is never further than a five-minute walk from anyone's house or building). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What important events did they have to attend, and what was so special about their destinations that apparently couldn't be reached by subway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the f**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A neighbor of mine was astonished when he found out I didn't have a car. He blinked, shook his head, and asked, &quot;So, how do you get around?&quot; I pointed out that there was a perfectly serviceable subway station only three short blocks from our building, and I could get anywhere in the city any time (our subway system, literally working around the clock, is not just one of the oldest in the world, but also one of the best) *for just over two bucks*. Worrying about parking, getting tickets, changing the oil, realigning the brakes, etc, are like life on Mars to me. You can always rent a jalopy for the weekend if you're in the mood for some picnicking and nature-watching. My neighbor shook his head once again, unconvinced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The automotive industry has long since outlived its purpose. It is well within any government's power to tax the private automobile into the ground by raising taxes exponentially on the *private* use of fuel. For instance, this month, they could levy a 50% federal sales tax on every gallon sold at your local gas station. Three months later, the tax could go up another 50%. And maybe 150% by the end of next year. And then another 200%. Would all these people want to drive on Saturday morning if they had to pay $20 per gallon? I doubt it. They would have to look for other options as well as, generally, *better things to do*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would almost immediately cause an economic boom *in any country*. When people are inconvenienced, they look for *solutions*, and someone always finds one, especially if he or she foresees a sizable profit that might come with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One solution would be to built train and streetcar tracks. Lots and lots of them. Unemployment would cease to exist as a concept for many years to come. There would be jobs galore for everybody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's ironic, but the automotive industry wouldn't have to lose a dime: they would simply shift their focus on producing large electrical vehicles. The *steel* industry would have to leave China and come back to Pittsburgh: the demand would exceed supply by orders of magnitude during the first few years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I don't know whether the system we had in this country before Robert Moses stepped in and changed it all ... when the streetcar accounted for 90% (!!) of all individual passenger trips ... was sustainable, or would be sustainable with a bit of help from modern technology, but it would certainly be more so than what we have now: a step in the right direction, perhaps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yet, and yet ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a single major politician, not a single leader of *any* country, even mentions this possibility, like, ever. Why not? Do they know something we don't? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QuTHd.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4925" RevisionGUID="34e43896-9183-4502-9de7-54c63d5f21a0" CreationDate="2015-12-16T01:46:21.980" UserId="2702" Text="Why is the private car still around: do our elected officials know more than we do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4925" RevisionGUID="34e43896-9183-4502-9de7-54c63d5f21a0" CreationDate="2015-12-16T01:46:21.980" UserId="2702" Text="|carbon-footprint|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4926" RevisionGUID="1183b4ba-d9fb-47c6-9d24-64d939a6e529" CreationDate="2015-12-16T03:05:58.687" UserId="2878" Text="I was under the impression GWP (global-warming potential) is the measure of a gas' impact on global warming, in comparison with CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. methane has a GWP of 86 over 20 years - [Wikipedia][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparing paper and ceramic cups for GWP, [this article][2] (page 24) shows GWP in kilograms. Does this make sense to show GWP in kg? Can anyone explain why?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.tcd.ie/GreenPages/documents/refiller_cup_comparison.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4926" RevisionGUID="1183b4ba-d9fb-47c6-9d24-64d939a6e529" CreationDate="2015-12-16T03:05:58.687" UserId="2878" Text="What is meant by Global-warming Potential (GWP)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4926" RevisionGUID="1183b4ba-d9fb-47c6-9d24-64d939a6e529" CreationDate="2015-12-16T03:05:58.687" UserId="2878" Text="|carbon-footprint|greenhouse-gas-emissions|greenhouse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4927" RevisionGUID="36fd2641-1624-4e3e-9252-ac51c32cfd6a" CreationDate="2015-12-16T05:51:34.563" UserId="48" Text="It's a cosmetic issue. They're just using the language in an idiosyncratic way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What this particular document means by &quot;GWP&quot; on page 24 is simply the amount of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-equivalent emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally that would just be labelled kgCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e or tCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e for kilogrammes or tonnes of emissions respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier in the same document, they'd used GWP to refer to carbon intensity rates, e.g. on page 16 the global warming potential is given in units of kg CO2-eq./cup - the emissions rate per cup. Again, that's not really GWP, but what I've seen more commonly called the carbon intensity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11018" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4919" RevisionGUID="87cd45d3-1bd5-47ca-90bd-7720501b07b6" CreationDate="2015-12-16T07:15:32.277" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/677024241003405312" />
  <row Id="11019" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4925" RevisionGUID="c5dfc3e5-1b42-4459-ae28-a5a54584736b" CreationDate="2015-12-16T07:42:04.523" UserId="15" Comment="Added US context to title" Text="Why is the private car still around in the US: do our elected officials know more than we do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4928" RevisionGUID="51af543b-7d1d-40a7-b023-d65454ca93fa" CreationDate="2015-12-16T08:41:55.360" UserId="659" Text="**Power Generated**  Most people who cycle regularly can produce [between 150 and 250 watts][1] for an hour. More for shorter periods or fitter people, obviously. Indurain is believed to have peaked at 2kW but he was exceptional even for a world champion ([some people are fascinated by this stuff][2]). But if you assume the average TV watcher can put out 150W for an evening you're probably overestimating the average fitness and enthusiasm of noncyclists. So let's say 100W per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A DIY bicycle generator is likely to be less than 50% efficient, but 90% is achievable with a mass produced item. Unfortunately that's for the generator, not the system. If you're charging a battery you then have a battery charger that's 90% efficient and a battery that's 70-80% efficient (assuming high quality parts and design), so an overall efficiency of about 50%. If you feed the grid instead you avoid all that and only need the generator-to-grid inverter which again will be 85-90% efficient. You need that even with a battery, since you'll be using mains powered appliances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far we have 100W in, 80% efficiency (90% * 90%), 80W. Assume they can do that for 4 hours after they've been at work all day. That's 320Wh of available power, or **0.3kWh per person**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How much power do we use?** In [Australia the average house][3] uses about 7kWh per person per day (1400kWh/quarter divided by 91 days per quarter for 1-2 people = 15, 2100 for 3-4 people = 23). The [US uses a little more][4] and here's [figures around the world per year][5]. For the USA 4500kWh/365 days = 12kWh/day for each person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the average USA resident would need to pedal for 12.3kWh/0.08kW = **154 hours per day** (slightly less than a week assuming no breaks, or about two weeks of normal working hours - a 72 hour working week). The average Australian would only have to pedal for 87 hours a day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should the answer be &quot;Impossibly long,&quot; what could be improved: the bike, the generator, or the batteries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of those make the slightest difference. A 100% efficient bike, generator, battery and inverter would reduce the time required by 25%, so instead of needing a team of 20 people pedalling each day, your American would only need 16.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The easy wins here are efficiency**. If instead of driving their electric car (not included above) they simply rode a bicycle to work they'd use less than 1/10th the energy, even allowing for the extra food they might eat (most Americans eat more than they need to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of that electricity is use to heat and cool houses. If people lived in properly built homes that were designed for the weather they experience they would use dramatically less energy. The [PassivHaus][6] standard, for example, allows 15kWh per year for heating and cooling, so assuming two residents they'd use less energy in a year than many American houses use in a day. Building to PassiveHaus standards is hard, though, because if you &quot;need&quot; the ridiculous floor area that Australian and US homes have you also need a ridiculous level of insulation and it costs a ridiculous amount of money. So don't do that. Settle for less than 100 square metres per person (about 1000 square feet) and it's much easier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally we have energy audited our lifestyle to a fairly high level even by green geek standards, so my household uses about 15kWh/day for a household of four (slightly over 1/2 the Australian average, 1/4 the US average). We could cut that in half again by getting a solar hot water system (we live in *Australia*, solar is the obvious choice) and we will do that as soon as we can afford it. We are also planning on building a &quot;granny flat&quot; in the back yard that my partner and I will live it. At about 45 square metres (450 square feet) and to PassivHaus standards it will cost about 30% more than a standard one, and should not require heating or cooling at all. With solar water heating we are confident of using less than 2kWh/day per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we can cut our use to 2kWh/day each, that's still 20 hours a day on the bike at 100W. But I'm pretty fit and even at my post-peak age I can still put out 200W for a couple of hours. So say I do three hours a day at 200W... that's 0.6kWh/day when I'm using 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Or I could buy a solar PV system**. Excluding subsidies, those cost about $US1/watt installed and generate 3Wh/Wday. Even if I double the size so in the middle of winter I'm generating most of what I use, 2KWh/day means I need less than 1kW of panels and with four people in the house a 4kW system costing about $US4000. And I can sit on the couch rather than sweating it out, because I ride about 90 minutes a day to and from work already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance#Energy_output&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Home/For_Consumers/Compare_Energy_Offers/Typical_household_energy_use&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&amp;t=3&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-consumption&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4928" RevisionGUID="a7f2eb96-3465-4e7f-a14a-f4e531809eb4" CreationDate="2015-12-16T09:00:10.497" UserId="659" Comment="added 298 characters in body" Text="Summary: in the US about 150 hours a day, in Australia only about 90. Solar panels are better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Power Generated**  Most people who cycle regularly can produce [between 150 and 250 watts][1] for an hour. More for shorter periods or fitter people, obviously. Indurain is believed to have peaked at 2kW but he was exceptional even for a world champion ([some people are fascinated by this stuff][2]). But if you assume the average TV watcher can put out 150W for an evening you're probably overestimating the average fitness and enthusiasm of noncyclists. So let's say 100W per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A DIY bicycle generator is likely to be less than 50% efficient, but 90% is achievable with a mass produced item. Unfortunately that's for the generator, not the system. If you're charging a battery you then have a battery charger that's 90% efficient and a battery that's 70-80% efficient (assuming high quality parts and design), so an overall efficiency of about 50%. If you feed the grid instead you avoid all that and only need the generator-to-grid inverter which again will be 85-90% efficient. You need that even with a battery, since you'll be using mains powered appliances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far we have 100W in, 80% efficiency (90% * 90%), 80W. Assume they can do that for 4 hours after they've been at work all day. That's 320Wh of available power, or **0.3kWh per person**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How much power do we use?** In [Australia the average house][3] uses about 7kWh per person per day (1400kWh/quarter divided by 91 days per quarter for 1-2 people = 15, 2100 for 3-4 people = 23). The [US uses a little more][4] and here's [figures around the world per year][5]. For the USA 4500kWh/365 days = 12kWh/day for each person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the average USA resident would need to pedal for 12.3kWh/0.08kW = **154 hours per day** (slightly less than a week assuming no breaks, or about two weeks of normal working hours - a 72 hour working week). The average Australian would only have to pedal for 87 hours a day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Should the answer be &quot;Impossibly long,&quot; what could be improved: the bike, the generator, or the batteries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of those make the slightest difference. A 100% efficient bike, generator, battery and inverter would reduce the time required by 25%, so instead of needing a team of 20 people pedalling each day, your American would only need 16.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The easy wins here are efficiency**. If instead of driving their electric car (not included above) they simply rode a bicycle to work they'd use less than 1/10th the energy, even allowing for the extra food they might eat (most Americans eat more than they need to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of that electricity is use to heat and cool houses. If people lived in properly built homes that were designed for the weather they experience they would use dramatically less energy. The [PassivHaus][6] standard, for example, allows 15kWh per year for heating and cooling, so assuming two residents they'd use less energy in a year than many American houses use in a day. Building to PassiveHaus standards is hard, though, because if you &quot;need&quot; the ridiculous floor area that Australian and US homes have you also need a ridiculous level of insulation and it costs a ridiculous amount of money. So don't do that. Settle for less than 100 square metres per person (about 1000 square feet) and it's much easier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally we have energy audited our lifestyle to a fairly high level even by green geek standards, so my household uses about 15kWh/day for a household of four (slightly over 1/2 the Australian average, 1/4 the US average). We could cut that in half again by getting a solar hot water system (we live in *Australia*, solar is the obvious choice) and we will do that as soon as we can afford it. We are also planning on building a &quot;granny flat&quot; in the back yard that my partner and I will live it. At about 45 square metres (450 square feet) and to PassivHaus standards it will cost about 30% more than a standard one, and should not require heating or cooling at all. With solar water heating we are confident of using less than 2kWh/day per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we can cut our use to 2kWh/day each, that's still 20 hours a day on the bike at 100W. But I'm pretty fit and even at my post-peak age I can still put out 200W for a couple of hours. So say I do three hours a day at 200W... that's 0.6kWh/day when I'm using 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Or I could buy a solar PV system**. Excluding subsidies, those cost about $US1/watt installed and generate 3Wh/Wday. Even if I double the size so in the middle of winter I'm generating most of what I use, 2KWh/day means I need less than 1kW of panels and with four people in the house a 4kW system costing about $US4000. And I can sit on the couch rather than sweating it out, because I ride about 90 minutes a day to and from work already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The embodied energy cost of the two systems is likely to be similar as well. While a single bicycle system is smaller (and therefore likely to have less embodied energy), you need many more of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [UK TV program][7] actually used teams of people on pedal generators to power a house. It was embarrassing. 70 cyclists sprinting to power one shower. You can [watch it on YouTube][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance#Energy_output&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Home/For_Consumers/Compare_Energy_Offers/Typical_household_energy_use&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&amp;t=3&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-consumption&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/powering-your-entire-home-by-bike-the-bbc-explores-cheap-energy-video.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C93cL_zDVIM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4922" RevisionGUID="dd8ae407-3388-42d9-906e-3d32fbfaf93e" CreationDate="2015-12-16T11:12:06.120" UserId="106" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="&gt; Air or water? Should engineers bend their energies on improving air travel or sea travel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air.  Regardless of sustainability, people who are used to hypermobility will not easily accept that mobility to be taken away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is work going on on [electric aircraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft).  Current batteries have insufficient energy density, but energy density is increasing rapidly.  I don't know if we are anywhere near theoretical limits — you might ask here or on another Stack.  Wikipedia quotes Elon Musk saying *once batteries are capable of producing 400 Watt-hours per kilogram, with a Power-to-weight ratio of between 0.7-0.8, then an electrical transcontinental aircraft becomes “compelling”*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which then reduces the aviation question to an electricity production question.  We already know how to do *that* sustainably.  Then there is the full life cycle of the batteries itself, which has non-zero impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a transatlantic voyage across the Atlantic possible with absolutely zero impact?  No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is a transatlantic voyage across the Atlantic (in less than 12 hours) theoretically possible with impact that is orders of magnitude lower than now?  Currently, no.  In the future, perhaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(I wonder how long an aircraft could fly powered by an RTG.)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11023" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="7d75fea5-8679-45e0-8e26-d32c865c38d2" CreationDate="2015-12-16T11:33:17.970" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/7084/how-much-energy-does-it-take-to-electrolise-1l-water" />
  <row Id="11024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="246a2537-f093-49bb-ab39-994879e67402" CreationDate="2015-12-14T13:32:44.233" UserDisplayName="Hugh Jones" Text="I am interested to know how large a solar panel would need to be to produce pure oxygen and pure Hydrogen from sea water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already found the required energy [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you assume perfect efficiency.....in terms of power, this is 3.67 kW for one hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/131168/how-many-joules-of-energy-are-required-to-convert-1-liter-of-water-into-hydrogen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11025" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="246a2537-f093-49bb-ab39-994879e67402" CreationDate="2015-12-14T13:32:44.233" UserDisplayName="Hugh Jones" Text="How much energy does it take to Electrolise 1L Water" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11026" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="246a2537-f093-49bb-ab39-994879e67402" CreationDate="2015-12-14T13:32:44.233" UserDisplayName="Hugh Jones" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="56b113fc-4e9d-4050-8c7f-2327691be6df" CreationDate="2015-12-16T11:40:25.610" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title, fixed typos" Text="I am interested to know how large a solar panel one would need to produce pure oxygen and pure hydrogen from sea water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already found the required energy [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you assume perfect efficiency.....in terms of power, this is 3.67 kW for one hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/131168/how-many-joules-of-energy-are-required-to-convert-1-liter-of-water-into-hydrogen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11028" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="56b113fc-4e9d-4050-8c7f-2327691be6df" CreationDate="2015-12-16T11:40:25.610" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title, fixed typos" Text="How large a solar panel would I need to electrolyse 1 liter of water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11029" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="56b113fc-4e9d-4050-8c7f-2327691be6df" CreationDate="2015-12-16T11:40:25.610" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title, fixed typos" Text="|solar-power|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="a8a1bb43-34d5-48a2-9f95-b2c90523d1aa" CreationDate="2015-12-16T11:42:21.540" UserId="106" Text="&gt; It is well within any government's power to tax the private automobile into the ground by raising taxes exponentially on the private use of fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not a single major politician, not a single leader of any country, even mentions this possibility, like, ever. Why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is simple: because the majority of voters drive private automobiles and would decline to vote such politicians into power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, arguably the problem is not that people are driving, but that they are all driving in the same place.  That means we should be taxing access to the *road*, not access to the car at all.  The environmental cost of driving 5 km in New York City is higher than the cost of driving 50 km in rural Wyoming, where public transport or cycling alternatives are unlikely to emerge.  Taxing the car overall will just increase the unbalance between urban and rural areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to some, it is going to get worse rather than better with the self-driving car.  You may want to read [this blog post](http://humantransit.org/2015/11/self-driving-cars-a-coming-congestion-disaster.html).  We're not pricing roads according to demand, therefore, there are traffic jams:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's also why in the old Soviet Union, people spent hours waiting to buy bread: Soviet price controls made the price too low to compensate the suppliers, so there wasn't enough bread, so everyone waited in line.  Congestion — waiting in line to use an underpriced road — works the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roads are essentially communist.  (&lt;sub&gt;Take that, Tea Party!&lt;/sub&gt;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="dfd897b9-2422-4734-b627-1e025b21d1be" CreationDate="2015-12-16T11:48:13.257" UserId="106" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="&gt; It is well within any government's power to tax the private automobile into the ground by raising taxes exponentially on the private use of fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not a single major politician, not a single leader of any country, even mentions this possibility, like, ever. Why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is simple: because the majority of voters drive private automobiles and would decline to vote such politicians into power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, arguably the problem is not that people are driving, but that they are all driving in the same place.  That means we should be taxing access to the *road*, not access to the car at all¹.  The environmental cost of driving 5 km in New York City is higher than the cost of driving 50 km in rural Wyoming, where public transport or cycling alternatives are unlikely to emerge.  Taxing the car overall will just increase the imbalance between urban and rural areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to some, it is going to get worse rather than better with the self-driving car.  You may want to read [this blog post](http://humantransit.org/2015/11/self-driving-cars-a-coming-congestion-disaster.html).  We're not pricing roads according to demand, therefore, there are traffic jams:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's also why in the old Soviet Union, people spent hours waiting to buy bread: Soviet price controls made the price too low to compensate the suppliers, so there wasn't enough bread, so everyone waited in line.  Congestion — waiting in line to use an underpriced road — works the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roads are essentially communist.  (&lt;sub&gt;Take that, Tea Party!&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹Depending on what you want to achieve.  Battle congestion: tax the road.  Give a strong incentive to move electric cars: tax unsustainable fuels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="1bc86897-3897-4d72-8297-fc120a28214c" CreationDate="2015-12-16T11:52:08.700" UserId="106" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="&gt; It is well within any government's power to tax the private automobile into the ground by raising taxes exponentially on the private use of fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not a single major politician, not a single leader of any country, even mentions this possibility, like, ever. Why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is simple: because the majority of voters drive private automobiles and would decline to vote such politicians into power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, arguably the problem is not that people are driving, but that they are all driving in the same place.  That means we should be taxing access to the *road*, not access to the car at all¹.  The environmental cost of driving 5 km in New York City is higher than the cost of driving 50 km in rural Wyoming, where public transport or cycling alternatives are unlikely to emerge.  Taxing the car overall will just increase the imbalance between urban and rural areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to some, it is going to get worse rather than better with the self-driving car.  You may want to read [this blog post](http://humantransit.org/2015/11/self-driving-cars-a-coming-congestion-disaster.html).  We're not pricing roads according to demand, therefore, there are traffic jams:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's also why in the old Soviet Union, people spent hours waiting to buy bread: Soviet price controls made the price too low to compensate the suppliers, so there wasn't enough bread, so everyone waited in line.  Congestion — waiting in line to use an underpriced road — works the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Untaxed roads are essentially communist.  (&lt;sub&gt;Take that, Tea Party!&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(See also: [London congestion charge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹Depending on what you want to achieve.  Battle congestion: tax the road.  Give a strong incentive to move electric cars: tax unsustainable fuels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4931" RevisionGUID="e06614ab-80a3-490c-a394-e3a1d5ead70c" CreationDate="2015-12-16T15:02:42.970" UserId="812" Text="The flippant answer is &quot;it depends how long you're prepared to wait&quot;. But, let's assume that you want to electrolyse a litre of water an in hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've identified above that the energy needed to electrolyse one litre of water is 3.67kWh, or 3.67kW for one hour (assuming no losses in the process). So what we need is a solar system capable of delivering 3.67kW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume that we're in a temperate latitude, that the sky is clear, and that it's the middle of the day. That should give us around a 1kW/m^2 of energy, in the form of light, reaching the ground. Decent (but not bleeding-edge) photovoltaic panels are around 15% efficient, so we'll get around 150W out of them for each square metre of area. That means that in this scenario, we'd need 24m^2 of solar panels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a lot. It gets worse if you want to do this continuously, rather than as a one-off, because the *average* power of sunlight reaching the ground in temperate climes, including cloudy days and including nighttime, is around 250kW/m^2, one quarter of the peak value. So then you need 100m^2 of solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at it another way, and say that we have 20m^2 of rooftop available. That would mean that you produced an average of `20 x 250 x 0.15 = 750W`, which works out to splitting around 5 litres of water per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="e2f3f739-25ef-4b58-af4f-cbd2f15b371e" CreationDate="2015-12-16T15:27:48.107" UserId="2880" Text="Baking soda.  Also cheap and useful in many other contexts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11035" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4925" RevisionGUID="83b14638-55f1-4367-9c30-96dce30227f7" CreationDate="2015-12-16T16:29:35.687" UserId="48" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:812,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Simon W&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4933" RevisionGUID="40103b09-79ce-4fce-a5a7-af4334a75411" CreationDate="2015-12-16T18:30:20.307" UserId="85" Text="My toothpaste is made from natural materials (mainly clay, small quantities of herb extracts and essential oils) and comes in a (recyclable) aluminium tube. The cap is from recyclable plastic (but of course for plastics, &quot;recycling&quot; means [downcycling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find this toothpaste marvellous and pretty sustainable (except for the plastic cap). The clay part really helps get the teeth clean. Diligent brushing even removes discolouring (coffee, tea, etc.), if only over a course of weeks/months. (By the way, this is not a crackpot health product. Clay is also found in many conventional non-natural toothpastes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have used tooth powder, but not for long. (I prefer my natural tooth paste.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So rather than looking for alternatives to toothpaste, I recommend you also look at the range of natural toothpastes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I use mostly Weleda toothpaste. The red and yellow types are the ones with clay; the green and blue one are tooth gels, which I didn't find as effective. Weleda should be available in many parts of the world. I have also used other natural toothpastes containing clay, whose name I don't recall, but you should take a look in your local natural health product store.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="b5ae77ef-35c6-4e26-bab3-68d42dfad430" CreationDate="2015-12-16T18:32:24.293" UserId="2881" Comment="improved terminology, grammar" Text="I live in a building of 8 apartments, in Belgium. We share a communal fuel oil boiler in the basement to provide hot water and heat. For the latter, each apartment has radiators through which a hot liquid flows. We do not have gas pipes running to each apartment, but there is an unused gas main in the basement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to upgrade this system to a cleaner solution, still providing hot water and heat. We could consider a shared solution or independent for each apartment. What are the best alternatives to consider? Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11038" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4871" RevisionGUID="b5ae77ef-35c6-4e26-bab3-68d42dfad430" CreationDate="2015-12-16T18:32:24.293" Comment="Proposed by 2881 approved by 85 edit id of 350" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4934" RevisionGUID="84182b2c-1d73-4b44-8020-e95dc0631186" CreationDate="2015-12-16T20:02:52.167" UserId="2881" Text="You could definitely switch to an efficient gas boiler system with proper controls to run &quot;cleaner&quot; and more efficiently.  Depending on gas/oil prices in your area, this may or may not be economically beneficial (short or long term).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Varying with your current setup, electrical prices in your area (and their generation method) you could also change about your hot water system to be more insulated when stored (lose less energy), be on demand (may or may not be viable depending on distances), or use electricity some or all of the time to heat water.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are just looking for cleaner but similar replacement, a well controlled gas fired boiler that was also used to heat a highly insulated hot water storage tank would be a good place to start.  You could take the installation period as a change to view/change the zones in the existing system and possibly do insulation work to minimize heat lost during transmission.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4934" RevisionGUID="f4522ce3-0af0-488a-8a46-d002f0563728" CreationDate="2015-12-16T21:03:30.317" UserId="659" Comment="spielling fix" Text="You could definitely switch to an efficient gas boiler system with proper controls to run &quot;cleaner&quot; and more efficiently.  Depending on gas/oil prices in your area, this may or may not be economically beneficial (short or long term).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Varying with your current setup, electrical prices in your area (and their generation method) you could also change about your hot water system to be more insulated when stored (lose less energy), be on demand (may or may not be viable depending on distances), or use electricity some or all of the time to heat water.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are just looking for cleaner but similar replacement, a well controlled gas fired boiler that was also used to heat a highly insulated hot water storage tank would be a good place to start.  You could take the installation period as a chance to view/change the zones in the existing system and possibly do insulation work to minimize heat lost during transmission.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="9402656f-594f-4625-b037-b6127e8cc356" CreationDate="2015-12-16T22:30:05.723" UserId="659" Text="Looking at it from systems I can buy rather than theory, if you want 1 litre per hour you need 3.67kW of output from your system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia says][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Reported working efficiencies are in the range 60-75% for alkaline and 65–90% for PEM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will need 3.67kW/0.60 = 6.1kW of input power. But you will have other losses, so should aim for 7kW or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the US that looks to [cost about $US10,000][2] as a DIY kit, or [$OZ11,000 here][3]**. In Australia it's common to put slightly more panels on than your inverter is rated for so that you get peak power for longer. I would try to put 7.5kW or 8kW of panels on that 7kW inverter (almost all of them will do that, it's a question of maximum input voltage) so that you get 7kW out of the system more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gogreensolar.com/products/7000w-diy-solar-panel-kit-grid-tie-inverter&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://aussiesolarworld.com.au/7.0kw-solar-energy-system.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="0be0c6b3-2fce-47f1-923a-fbf85effd768" CreationDate="2015-12-17T07:22:24.807" UserId="2883" Text="I'm slowly teaching myself on how I can build a solar PV system for my own home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone kind enough to provide a breakdown of what tools i need to test my site for an optimum conversion of solar energy to electricity, and what i need to look out for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Im looking at a grid-tied PV system. &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="0be0c6b3-2fce-47f1-923a-fbf85effd768" CreationDate="2015-12-17T07:22:24.807" UserId="2883" Text="Detailed breakdown of Solar PV installation site test." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="0be0c6b3-2fce-47f1-923a-fbf85effd768" CreationDate="2015-12-17T07:22:24.807" UserId="2883" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="787b4a96-fe28-40f1-ad8e-56aa414d1160" CreationDate="2015-12-17T07:39:57.347" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title to better reflect content" Text="I'm slowly teaching myself how I can build a solar PV system for my own home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is anyone kind enough to provide a breakdown of what tools I need to test my site for an optimum conversion of solar energy to electricity? And what do I need to look out for? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking at a grid-tied PV system. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11046" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="787b4a96-fe28-40f1-ad8e-56aa414d1160" CreationDate="2015-12-17T07:39:57.347" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title to better reflect content" Text="Where can I find tools to test my home-built solar PV installation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11047" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="787b4a96-fe28-40f1-ad8e-56aa414d1160" CreationDate="2015-12-17T07:39:57.347" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title to better reflect content" Text="|solar-power|home|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4937" RevisionGUID="91b905cb-28de-4bb5-91fd-31c94ed41115" CreationDate="2015-12-17T09:39:41.340" UserId="2879" Text="We've been experimenting this year with hot composting, and are now looking at how we can go about using the heat generated in the pile to heat water, either to use directly or to pump around as secondary heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem is that the hot composting method relies on turning the heap every couple of days, and only gets to a high core temperature for a few weeks before composting is finished. This is a problem if our compost heap is full of water pipes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to maintain a high core temperature in a compost heap so that you can use it long-term for heating water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11049" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4937" RevisionGUID="91b905cb-28de-4bb5-91fd-31c94ed41115" CreationDate="2015-12-17T09:39:41.340" UserId="2879" Text="Heating water with compost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11050" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4937" RevisionGUID="91b905cb-28de-4bb5-91fd-31c94ed41115" CreationDate="2015-12-17T09:39:41.340" UserId="2879" Text="|composting|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11052" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4924" RevisionGUID="21a2b707-0aa2-4125-b1fa-7ac166c0c9d2" CreationDate="2015-12-17T10:30:19.870" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/677435650161950720" />
  <row Id="11053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4938" RevisionGUID="1ea220d6-2521-48a1-90fc-319faae73091" CreationDate="2015-12-17T11:01:44.997" UserId="2879" Text="We've been keeping chickens for a few years now, and in my experience they don't seem to mind a few hours without access to the nest boxes. They will sometimes lay an egg in other places, we get to know their favourite spots, and often they wwill just hang around the entrance waiting for you to finish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last year when we had more hens, they often all wanted to lay in the same place, and would often queue up outside waiting for each to finish, so I guess they don't get that desperate, not like humans needing to pee or anything!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4731" RevisionGUID="820a88af-76fa-4e5c-84d7-0f9dbc2733bb" CreationDate="2015-12-17T13:22:39.000" UserId="2682" Comment="minor cleanup; added a detail from comments to help clarify for people" Text="I have 13 chickens. They have a chicken coop with a large run attached by wire mesh on all sides. I have 2 terriers that would just as soon eat them, so I can't let them out of the run to roam around the yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I clean the coop, I lock them in the run; they obviously don't have access to the coop or nesting boxes at this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: is it super stressful for them not to have access to the nesting box when it is time for them to lay an egg? I am not cleaning it every day, but it's about every month and a half or so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11055" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4731" RevisionGUID="820a88af-76fa-4e5c-84d7-0f9dbc2733bb" CreationDate="2015-12-17T13:22:39.000" Comment="Proposed by 2682 approved by 85 edit id of 351" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11056" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="fd80af6f-f1d1-49cb-949b-71c6dec9f8c1" CreationDate="2015-12-17T13:23:41.983" UserId="85" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1054],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:15,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Highly Irregular&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:659,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Mσᶎ&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11057" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4937" RevisionGUID="98bb831b-cf3f-4c61-807e-842eb7343933" CreationDate="2015-12-17T16:34:02.110" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/677527178775498754" />
  <row Id="11058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4939" RevisionGUID="2e58ea7b-b6e5-4096-a787-01ee9d2d8697" CreationDate="2015-12-17T19:12:47.970" UserId="2871" Text="Consider using a flow through core of some sort. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wrap several layers of chicken wire around about 4 to 8 feet of 24&quot; diameter cardboard concrete forms from the hardware store (Depending on how tall you want to make it).&#xD;&#xA; - Wrap several layers of black poly tubing around the chicken wire and cardboard tube. Use baling wire to tie the black poly tubing to the chicken wire tube in bundles of coils so that the core maintains integrity once the cardboard form composts away.&#xD;&#xA; - Arrange some clay blocks or rammed earth so that you can stand the &quot;flow through core&quot; tube on end but still be able to get in underneath it with a shovel.&#xD;&#xA; - Build a tower of straw bales around the core to insulate it and create a retaining wall for compost to be held against the outside of the core. You will want a couple of feet of compost around the core so make the inside diameter of the retaining wall 5 - 6 feet wide. The thicker you build your wall the faster the more efficient your composting and hot water generation will be.&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure to leave a hole in the bottom of the wall where you want the shovel access. It is also desirable to fashion a plug for the shovel hole to keep vermin out and to further insulate the compost.&#xD;&#xA; - Fill up the core one quarter of the way with already composted material, making sure to get a good shovel full of the center of an active compost pile as an inoculum. Then fill up the rest of the core with material to be composted.&#xD;&#xA; - Fill in between the straw bales and the flow through core about a quarter of the way with already composted material, then add a compost inoculum from the center of an active compost pile. Then fill in the rest of the way with material to compost.&#xD;&#xA; - Put plywood over the top of the straw bale tower and cut bucket sized holes into it so that you can pour in scraps to the center of the flow through core and edges of the outside of the compost pit.&#xD;&#xA; - Cover the plywood (and holes) with straw bales in such a way that a few bales can be moved to access the fill holes.&#xD;&#xA; - Shovel fresh compost out of the bottom to make room for adding new material to the top of the pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, the straw bales will eventually start to decompose themselves. So the tower would have to be rebuilt periodically, but the same core could be reused until the chicken wire rusts away. Having built similar straw towers just for speeding up compost I would guess that you might be able to use the same straw bales for at least a couple of years before replacing them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4935" RevisionGUID="8dd20492-702e-4f78-8fa9-2f317030c145" CreationDate="2015-12-17T20:11:14.143" UserId="659" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="Looking at it from systems I can buy rather than theory, if you want 1 litre per hour you need 3.67kW of hydrolysis output from your system, but the hydrolosis is not 100% efficient. There are two main options, and they're both a bit over 50% efficient:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia says][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Reported working efficiencies are in the range 60-75% for alkaline and 65–90% for PEM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will need 3.67kW/0.60 = 6.1kW of input power. But you will have other losses, so should aim for 7kW or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the US that looks to [cost about $US10,000][2] as a DIY kit, or [$OZ11,000 here][3]**. In Australia it's common to put slightly more panels on than your inverter is rated for so that you get peak power for longer. I would try to put 7.5kW or 8kW of panels on that 7kW inverter (almost all of them will do that, it's a question of maximum input voltage) so that you get 7kW out of the system more often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.gogreensolar.com/products/7000w-diy-solar-panel-kit-grid-tie-inverter&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://aussiesolarworld.com.au/7.0kw-solar-energy-system.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="a61709e6-323d-4189-bd00-b79c9aa1b94a" CreationDate="2015-12-18T08:26:48.260" UserId="2187" Text="There is the prominent argument that we should buy food without plastic packaging because plastic is made of oil and thus bad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering, however, what if the plastic packaging remains in the system to 100%? Then, all plastic packaging materials could be reused with potentially some energy intake necessary for the reuse process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question to the community, to what extent can conventional food packaging be reused given households would separate their plastic packaging correctly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11061" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="a61709e6-323d-4189-bd00-b79c9aa1b94a" CreationDate="2015-12-18T08:26:48.260" UserId="2187" Text="Is plastic food packaging 100% reusable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11062" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="a61709e6-323d-4189-bd00-b79c9aa1b94a" CreationDate="2015-12-18T08:26:48.260" UserId="2187" Text="|food|plastic|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4941" RevisionGUID="a0203a3c-67bc-44ec-9b56-a3bc7e0e1aa5" CreationDate="2015-12-18T08:57:22.743" UserId="99" Text="I'm not sure what percentage of food packaging currently is or could theoretically be recycled, but I do know why achieving a large percentage is currently not possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that plastics used for packing food are required to be of high quality in many countries. This is called [food-grade plastic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_safe_symbol). That's why you will see this label on certain types of plastic food packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Food safe symbol][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem with recycled plastic is that it is very difficult to assure that the recycled plastic is of food-grade quality. This is because washing used plastics will not remove all food leftovers so used plastics will often contaminate the recycled plastic, thus resulting in lower quality plastic.&#xD;&#xA;Also non-food-grade plastic may be present in a batch of plastic that is to be recycled, thus contaminating the whole batch (but this would not be a problem if we assume correct plastic separating by households as you suggested in your question). Additionally, some types of plastics are not or hardly recycled (e.g. polystyrene). This usually has to do with the cost efficiency and/or lack of recycling facilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1WwLu.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4941" RevisionGUID="60cde1ae-37a5-4985-ba7c-ab97bfab0e54" CreationDate="2015-12-18T12:57:06.223" UserId="99" Comment="added 927 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure what percentage of food packaging could theoretically be recycled into new food packaging, but I do know why achieving a large percentage is currently not possible.&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that plastics used for packing food are required to be of high quality in many countries. This is called [food-grade plastic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_safe_symbol). That's why you will see this label on certain types of plastic food packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Food safe symbol][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem with recycled plastic is that it is difficult and costly to assure that it is of food-grade quality. This is because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. washing and cleaning the used plastics will not remove all contaminants (e.g. food leftovers, labels, glue) which results in the recycled plastic being of lower quality.&#xD;&#xA;   2. non-food-grade plastic may be present in a batch of plastic that is to be recycled and lower the quality (but this would not be a problem if we assume correct plastic separating by households as you suggested in your question). &#xD;&#xA;   3. plastic manufacturers have to test and that the recycled plastic is of food-grade quality and get new recycling processes certified by certain government bodies. Both cost time and money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, some types of plastics are not or hardly recycled (e.g. polystyrene). This usually has to do with cost efficiency and/or lack of recycling facilities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK at the moment one of the few food packaging plastics that are being recycled into new food packaging (on a large scale, outside of labs) are PET bottles, but I've been told that virgin PET is usually added to get a high-enough quality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been research under which conditions certain types of plastics can be recycled safely and reused as food packaging, but it's been my impression that progress is slow. More information about this also here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [European Food Safety Authority - Plastic recycling](http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/plasticrecycling)&#xD;&#xA; - [FDA.gov - Recycled Plastics in Food Packaging](http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/PackagingFCS/RecycledPlastics/default.htm)&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1WwLu.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11065" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4926" RevisionGUID="ef495290-b546-4795-a689-7798dc308291" CreationDate="2015-12-18T19:35:38.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/677935267983044612" />
  <row Id="11066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4942" RevisionGUID="e7611b32-7d42-43da-88c6-11bb21be25ef" CreationDate="2015-12-18T20:33:14.350" UserId="986" Text="I have been using bamboo socks and t-shirts, and I have read online about the fact that two main disadvantage of the industrial production of bamboo are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Some companies process the bamboo chemically. The plants are cooked in a cocktail of chemical solvents - primarily sodium hydroxide (lye, or caustic soda, as it's more commonly known) and carbon disulfide, which are both known to be harmful to human health.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) In some countries Bamboo is being cultivated with lots of chemical fertiliser or - even worse - entire areas have been converted to bamboo cultivations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, since bamboo is very easy to grow, I would like to pose the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other method to process bamboo is mechanical. This involves crushing the plants into a mush, using natural enzymes to break it down and then combing out the fibres and spinning them into a yarn. Is it possible to do this at home or on a non-industrial scale anyway? What would it take?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are the major obstacles to making bamboo fabric at home? What would be a good estimate of the surface of planted bamboo required per meter square of fabric material?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11067" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4942" RevisionGUID="e7611b32-7d42-43da-88c6-11bb21be25ef" CreationDate="2015-12-18T20:33:14.350" UserId="986" Text="Would it be possible to process bamboo for fabric at home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11068" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4942" RevisionGUID="e7611b32-7d42-43da-88c6-11bb21be25ef" CreationDate="2015-12-18T20:33:14.350" UserId="986" Text="|diy|clothing|industrial-production|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4943" RevisionGUID="ac396136-041d-4b8f-9a99-bdca1dfe7a52" CreationDate="2015-12-18T21:01:12.480" UserId="986" Text="In view of the possibility of cultivating rye to become self-sufficient in bread and flour, I am looking for a good estimate of the following quantities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. the surface of area planted with rye needed to produce 1 kg of rye grain;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. the amount of rye grain needed to produce 1 kg of rye flour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11070" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4943" RevisionGUID="ac396136-041d-4b8f-9a99-bdca1dfe7a52" CreationDate="2015-12-18T21:01:12.480" UserId="986" Text="Rye cultivation and rye flour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11071" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4943" RevisionGUID="ac396136-041d-4b8f-9a99-bdca1dfe7a52" CreationDate="2015-12-18T21:01:12.480" UserId="986" Text="|food|gardening|cooking|fruits-and-vegetables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11072" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="ea36754e-551f-45f0-9178-4fa60c548648" CreationDate="2015-12-19T01:38:47.273" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/678026659136712704" />
  <row Id="11073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4942" RevisionGUID="a2cf2a26-a0e7-4da8-a1f6-e825a5e1f24c" CreationDate="2015-12-19T09:24:33.767" UserId="986" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I have been using bamboo socks and t-shirts, and I have read online about the fact that two main disadvantages of the industrial production of bamboo are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Some companies process the bamboo chemically. The plants are cooked in a cocktail of chemical solvents - primarily sodium hydroxide (lye, or caustic soda, as it's more commonly known) and carbon disulfide, which are both known to be harmful to human health.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) In some countries Bamboo is being cultivated with lots of chemical fertiliser or - even worse - entire areas have been converted to bamboo cultivations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, since bamboo is very easy to grow, I would like to pose the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other method to process bamboo is mechanical. This involves crushing the plants into a mush, using natural enzymes to break it down and then combing out the fibres and spinning them into a yarn. Is it possible to do this at home or on a non-industrial scale anyway? What would it take?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are the major obstacles to making bamboo fabric at home? What would be a good estimate of the surface of planted bamboo required per meter square of fabric material?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4944" RevisionGUID="f4bc32d2-1c17-4301-8865-43097a634e32" CreationDate="2015-12-19T09:56:00.940" UserId="85" Text="From the *Encyclopedia of Country Living* by Carla Emery, which I cited here before and can warmly recommend to anyone:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes about 5.5 sqm per kg of rye (grain or flour, doesn't really make a difference).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1Elf6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="04364a86-a19a-4605-b74a-c0447667de9a" CreationDate="2015-12-19T10:50:57.673" UserId="2891" Text="I have the best source of information for this. I will not get a lot of votes for this as most people tend to believe AMA &amp; Pharma lobby, but the information comes from the most reliable sources of ancient herbal wisdom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ayurveda - 5000 year old science of life, food, medicine &amp; healing - sister science to Yoga. Open Source science. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have been used for ever. There are some commercial preparations that use these components and great blends. I'll link to some that I personally use below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Datun/ Datoon can made from Plant Stems Dant Manjan / Herbal Tooth Powder also from herbal preparations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoted from [Rajiv Dixit's talks on Prakrutik Chikitsa i.e. Natural Medicine][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12 types of daatoon can be used only.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - There are 3 basic season and 3 sub seasons. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Summers neem daatoon, babool,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Winters, amrood is best, jaamoon is next&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Rains – mango, Arjun&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dant Manjans&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan   – daaru  - haldi, salt, sarso mustard oil &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 2 – burn dried gobar, add haldi and sendha namak to it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 3 – triphala choorna, sendha namak. This is the only one that can be used in all seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mango Leaves - Chew - make paste - Rub on teeth - Amazing whitener&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without even me starting on Fluoride some of the negatives of chemical toothpastes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	11. Tooth paste is not good for you. They disturb Pitta. This will cause many problems. Teeth will decay very quickly due to paste use.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When sweet things are eaten early in the morning they disturb the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system. Our culture has a system to eating neem and turmeric balls.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	12. Commercial toothpastes have been using powdered animal bones for decades e.g. Colgate - pig bones, pepsodant – cow bones, close up –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; goat. This has been proven in lab tests and it seems only recently&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that some of these companies have stopped using bones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commercial Preparations that I personally have used &amp; are recommend by knowledgeable Ayurvedic experts: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_powder.php &#xD;&#xA; - I had gum bleeding for decades and have close friends who are dentists and cousins who are dentist and that never stopped. Another fellow yogi told me about these and they stopped bleeding in few days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://patanjaliayurved.net/product/dant-kanti/91 - My toothpase of choice. Although I feel the above powder with my fingers is way better for tooth health. I use both in conjunction. Use less of tooth brushes and carefully as they damage soft gums. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_paste.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rootsandshoots.ning.com/forum/topics/summary-of-rajiv-dixit-s-lectures-on-ayurveda-based-on-mharishi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11077" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4942" RevisionGUID="9843b440-88fd-4859-800e-1d5f5bdd4752" CreationDate="2015-12-19T22:42:20.357" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/678344641595506689" />
  <row Id="11079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4942" RevisionGUID="8c881e0d-2574-4912-8541-2d9572ea1612" CreationDate="2015-12-20T21:13:22.380" UserId="986" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I have been using bamboo socks and t-shirts, and I have read online about the fact that two main disadvantages of the industrial production of bamboo are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Some companies process the bamboo chemically. The plants are cooked in a cocktail of chemical solvents - primarily sodium hydroxide (lye, or caustic soda, as it's more commonly known) and carbon disulfide, which are both known to be harmful to human health.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) In some countries Bamboo is being cultivated with lots of chemical fertiliser or - even worse - entire areas have been converted to bamboo cultivations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, since bamboo is very easy to grow, I would like to pose the following question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The other method to process bamboo is mechanical. This involves crushing the plants into a mush, using natural enzymes to break it down and then combing out the fibres and spinning them into a yarn. Is it possible to do this at home or on a non-industrial scale anyway? What would it take?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What are the major obstacles to making bamboo fabric at home? What would be a good estimate of the surface of planted bamboo required per meter square of fabric material?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4946" RevisionGUID="e52db179-a78b-4037-ad7c-c94c411ef0b5" CreationDate="2015-12-21T08:12:43.630" UserId="85" Text="This question reminds me of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/225/can-i-recycle-plastics-at-home-by-melting-and-molding/229#229&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2904/recycling-paper-at-home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in that it is asking if it is possible to do some industrialized process at home. Well, of course it is, but that's *only because anything is possible*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there are two ways of making bamboo fabric, sometimes called &quot;bamboo rayon&quot; and &quot;bamboo linen&quot; to distinguish them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bamboo rayon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process for making bamboo rayon is described on [OrganicClothing.blogs.com](http://organicclothing.blogs.com/my_weblog/2007/09/bamboo-facts-be.html) (direct quote):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Bamboo leaves and the soft, inner pith from the hard bamboo trunk are extracted and crushed;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The crushed bamboo cellulose is soaked in a solution of 15% to 20% sodium hydroxide at a temperature between 20 degrees C to 25 degrees C for one to three hours to form alkali cellulose;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The bamboo alkali cellulose is then pressed to remove any excess sodium hydroxide solution. The alkali cellulose is crashed by a grinder and left to dry for 24 hours;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Roughly a third as much carbon disulfide is added to the bamboo alkali cellulose to sulfurize the compound causing it to jell;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Any remaining carbon disulfide is removed by evaporation due to decompression and cellulose sodium xanthogenate is the result;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. A diluted solution of sodium hydroxide is added to the cellulose sodium xanthogenate dissolving it to create a viscose solution consisting of about 5% sodium hydroxide and 7% to 15% bamboo fiber cellulose.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. The viscose bamboo cellulose is forced through spinneret nozzles into a large container of a diluted sulfuric acid solution which hardens the viscose bamboo cellulose sodium xanthogenate and reconverts it to cellulose bamboo fiber threads which are spun into bamboo fiber yarns to be woven into reconstructed and regenerated bamboo fabric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### tl;dr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right, too long, didn't read, i.e. don't try this at home!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bamboo linen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently bamboo can also be processed into &quot;bamboo linen&quot;, i.e. using the same process as with flax or hemp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have processed bamboo before, not for fabric, but for (Japanese) [basket weaving](https://goo.gl/awltOk) and I have to admit that I find it difficult to imagine that you can get any joy out of it if you have to do it at home. Bamboo is very hard (after all, you can build houses out of it). Also, we have used natural bamboo baskets in the kitchen (as sieve, storage baskets, etc.), some items for up to 10 years, washing with dish-washing liquid as usual and the bamboo didn't mould or break. This long exposure to water without any kind of breaking down should also mean that processing it into fabric (where it should break down) is more difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One commercial producer of bamboo linen is Litrax. Its bamboo linens are described/advertised [on textileworld.com](http://www.textileworld.com/textile-world/quality-fabric-of-the-month/2010/04/litrax-natural-bamboo-the-real-deal/). The processing, however, uses &quot;fine-tuned enzymatic cocktails&quot;, as is to be expected. Again, this probably means you should give up on trying to make bamboo fabrics at home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're mainly interested in processing bamboo, I can warmly recommend basket weaving. With a handful simple tools (some of which can be improvised), you can cut, dry, process and weave bamboo into baskets that are almost indestructible (and look pretty, too)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4946" RevisionGUID="a173df26-6843-4726-b011-ad23a804d3cf" CreationDate="2015-12-21T16:33:55.503" UserId="85" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="This question reminds me of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/225/can-i-recycle-plastics-at-home-by-melting-and-molding/229#229&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2904/recycling-paper-at-home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in that it is asking if it is possible to do some industrialized process at home. Well, of course it is, but that's *only because anything is possible*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there are two ways of making bamboo fabric, sometimes called &quot;bamboo rayon&quot; and &quot;bamboo linen&quot; to distinguish them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bamboo rayon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process for making bamboo rayon is described on [OrganicClothing.blogs.com](http://organicclothing.blogs.com/my_weblog/2007/09/bamboo-facts-be.html) (direct quote):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Bamboo leaves and the soft, inner pith from the hard bamboo trunk are extracted and crushed;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The crushed bamboo cellulose is soaked in a solution of 15% to 20% sodium hydroxide at a temperature between 20 degrees C to 25 degrees C for one to three hours to form alkali cellulose;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The bamboo alkali cellulose is then pressed to remove any excess sodium hydroxide solution. The alkali cellulose is crashed by a grinder and left to dry for 24 hours;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Roughly a third as much carbon disulfide is added to the bamboo alkali cellulose to sulfurize the compound causing it to jell;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Any remaining carbon disulfide is removed by evaporation due to decompression and cellulose sodium xanthogenate is the result;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. A diluted solution of sodium hydroxide is added to the cellulose sodium xanthogenate dissolving it to create a viscose solution consisting of about 5% sodium hydroxide and 7% to 15% bamboo fiber cellulose.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. The viscose bamboo cellulose is forced through spinneret nozzles into a large container of a diluted sulfuric acid solution which hardens the viscose bamboo cellulose sodium xanthogenate and reconverts it to cellulose bamboo fiber threads which are spun into bamboo fiber yarns to be woven into reconstructed and regenerated bamboo fabric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### tl;dr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right, too long, didn't read, i.e. don't try this at home!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bamboo linen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently bamboo can also be processed into &quot;bamboo linen&quot;, i.e. using the same process as with flax or hemp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have processed bamboo before, not for fabric, but for (Japanese) [basket weaving](https://goo.gl/awltOk) and I have to admit that I find it difficult to imagine that you can get any joy out of it if you have to do it at home. Bamboo is very hard (after all, you can [build houses](https://goo.gl/1CsNKm) out of it). Also, we have used natural bamboo baskets in the kitchen (as sieve, storage baskets, etc.), some items for up to 10 years, washing with dish-washing liquid as usual and the bamboo didn't mould or break. This long exposure to water without any kind of breaking down should also mean that processing it into fabric (where it should break down) is more difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One commercial producer of bamboo linen is Litrax. Its bamboo linens are described/advertised [on textileworld.com](http://www.textileworld.com/textile-world/quality-fabric-of-the-month/2010/04/litrax-natural-bamboo-the-real-deal/). The processing, however, uses &quot;fine-tuned enzymatic cocktails&quot;, as is to be expected. Again, this probably means you should give up on trying to make bamboo fabrics at home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're mainly interested in processing bamboo, I can warmly recommend basket weaving. With a handful simple tools (some of which can be improvised), you can cut, dry, process and weave bamboo into baskets that are almost indestructible (and look pretty, too)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="61c0e154-c3cf-447a-8c5f-03390d7aab7f" CreationDate="2015-12-22T04:35:46.163" UserId="2702" Text="According to [this jolly article][1], concrete is just as recyclable as asphalt, easy to maintain, requires almost no maintenance, etc, when it comes to pavement. I realize the guys who wrote the article have a vested interest in the affair. However, I've always thought concrete was a much healthier option in every possible sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, the only disadvantage I've been able to find in my very superficial research is that when maintenance is due, an entire block of concrete has to be replaced, while asphalt will take as many patches as necessary, of any size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bolingconcrete.com/benefits-of-concrete.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rKR7d.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="61c0e154-c3cf-447a-8c5f-03390d7aab7f" CreationDate="2015-12-22T04:35:46.163" UserId="2702" Text="Concrete vs asphalt: which is better in terms of sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="61c0e154-c3cf-447a-8c5f-03390d7aab7f" CreationDate="2015-12-22T04:35:46.163" UserId="2702" Text="|building-materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4949" RevisionGUID="6a5937a6-15fb-42b6-8afc-39866c7f3235" CreationDate="2015-12-22T09:51:44.393" UserId="96" Text="**Pyrolysis gas is mostly carbon monoxide and very, very deadly. Of course you have thought about gas warning and ventilation around your kilns and will review the safety with someone qualified, because you are not a total idiot. It is very, very unlikely that you are qualified to do this alone and even then you should get someone to check your work.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have a complex system with several heat sources, and you should spend some time in properly designing this system (or pay someone to do it). I'll concentrate on this aspect of your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With multiple retort biomass barrel type processors, and the wide range of temperatures that a heat exchanger will experience inside of the exhaust flue from pyrolysis to wood degassing and combusting those products, what would be a simple way to capture these product of combustion temperatures and put them to good use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, ist this a good idea? Pyrolysis creates tar in the exhaust and you will spend a lot of time cleaning your HX. Pyrolysis gas is energy rich but not trivial to burn (the kinetics of burning tar beeing what they are), using this energy is out of the scope of my answer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the heat exchanger: In my experience, for exhaust applications a [shell and tube type HX is a good choice][1]. You guide the exhaust through the tubes and the water through the shell. Make sure you get one with flanges at either end of the whole assemply so you can access the tubes for  cleaning. HX are a whole bunch of steel and not cheap yo you want to get one and use it for all your kilns. You should adopt a 'staggered' operation of your kilns so the flue gas flow and temp. is high over a prolonged time. The exhaust HX will change the draft of your kiln and it's likely that you need some forced ventialtion to overcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, the buffer and the heat management: You are looking for a stratification buffer tank, a system with a water tank where a smart automation feeds water at different levels depending on temperature. You should still maximise the temp. you get from you HX but as you correctly wrote, the flue gas temp. will be ununiform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fourth, Sizing components: You need to make a decent model of your kilns with HX so for different HX sizes you can estimate what heat at what temp you will get. Then look at buffer tanks, what size you need to store your pyrolysis waste heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the end of the day your design will be a tradeoff between energy recovery, cost and a host of other considerations. It is entirely possible that heat recovery from pyrolysis kilns is not worth it in your case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_and_tube_heat_exchanger" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11089" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="61fc478f-b244-49c6-ad2a-e04edc1aa73e" CreationDate="2015-12-22T11:15:39.580" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/679258997124411392" />
  <row Id="11090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="8289f555-bbb3-44aa-a19c-524bed44511e" CreationDate="2015-12-22T12:56:49.360" UserId="2891" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="I have the best source of information for this. I will not get a lot of votes for this as most people tend to believe AMA &amp; Pharma lobby, but the information comes from the most reliable sources of ancient herbal wisdom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ayurveda - 5000 year old science of life, food, medicine &amp; healing - sister science to Yoga. Open Source science. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have been used for ever. There are some commercial preparations that use these components and great blends. I'll link to some that I personally use below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Datun/ Datoon can made from Plant Stems Dant Manjan / Herbal Tooth Powder also from herbal preparations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoted from [Rajiv Dixit's talks on Prakrutik Chikitsa i.e. Natural Medicine][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12 types of daatoon can be used only.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - There are 3 basic season and 3 sub seasons. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Summers neem daatoon, babool,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Winters, amrood is best, jaamoon is next&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Rains – mango, Arjun&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dant Manjans&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan   – daaru  - haldi, salt, sarso mustard oil &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 2 – burn dried gobar, add haldi and sendha namak to it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 3 – triphala choorna, sendha namak. This is the only one that can be used in all seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mango Leaves - Chew - make paste - Rub on teeth - Amazing whitener&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without even me starting on Fluoride some of the negatives of chemical toothpastes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	11. Tooth paste is not good for you. They disturb Pitta. This will cause many problems. Teeth will decay very quickly due to paste use.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When sweet things are eaten early in the morning they disturb the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system. Our culture has a system to eating neem and turmeric balls.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	12. Commercial toothpastes have been using powdered animal bones for decades e.g. Colgate - pig bones, pepsodant – cow bones, close up –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; goat. This has been proven in lab tests and it seems only recently&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that some of these companies have stopped using bones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commercial Preparations that I personally have used &amp; are recommend by knowledgeable Ayurvedic experts: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_powder.php &#xD;&#xA; - I had gum bleeding for decades and have close friends who are dentists and cousins who are dentist and that never stopped. Another fellow yogi told me about these and they stopped bleeding in few days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://patanjaliayurved.net/product/dant-kanti/91 - My toothpase of choice. Although I feel the above powder with my fingers is way better for tooth health. I use both in conjunction. Use less of tooth brushes and carefully as they damage soft gums. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_paste.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Colgate tried to patent some of this stuff but it was thrown out due to prior known knowledge:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3dv4q1/india_blocks_colgate_patents_for_spices/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rootsandshoots.ning.com/forum/topics/summary-of-rajiv-dixit-s-lectures-on-ayurveda-based-on-mharishi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="29" RevisionGUID="5a24d056-a8bd-4601-9b8f-5382f8ed7b5e" CreationDate="2015-12-22T15:41:50.073" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="I am located near Austin. Using the hanging tower approach, what produce tends to work best in this style of aquaponics system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11092" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="29" RevisionGUID="5a24d056-a8bd-4601-9b8f-5382f8ed7b5e" CreationDate="2015-12-22T15:41:50.073" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="What produce in Central Texas works in hanging towers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4950" RevisionGUID="01c75272-f31d-49f2-969c-db5e92d9dc3d" CreationDate="2015-12-23T09:00:48.800" UserId="2345" Text="Concrete is rigid, whereas asphalt is flexible to a certain degree. If ground movement is significant concrete break into awkward slabs while asphalt can be more accommodating of ground movements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, nature can't do much with concrete. An unutilized asphalt pavement can more easily be absorbed by nature with plants breaking up the asphalt with their roots. Weeds can easily establish themselves on an unused asphalt pavement. As long as the seeds aren't crushed and allowed to develop their roots can penetrate asphalt. The same doesn't happen with concrete." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="17c05b5f-f92f-4cbe-a4c0-a77889d1d349" CreationDate="2015-12-24T01:19:28.923" UserId="1878" Comment="detail of relevant new opinion article" Text="The power of brands in consumer culture has been much criticized, for encouraging needless consumption and masking the environmental and social costs of production. But branded goods surely have some redeeming qualities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- They tend to last longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In the case of items like watches and electronics and cars, the higher price of prestigious brands is usually dictated by costs such as craftsmanship, design and marketing – in other words, job creation in fields with low direct impact on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With food and clothing, it could be argued that a well-known brand creates a link between the consumer and the producer, thereby exposing the producer to consumer boycott in the case of environmental or social abuses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all cases, any reasonable comparison in this area must take into account the opportunity cost of avoiding &quot;overpriced&quot; branded goods – that is, what the brand-avoiding consumer would do with the money saved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which is more sustainable? Buy cheap clothes or electronics and spend the savings elsewhere? Or support the design and marketing budgets of multinational corporations and have no money left to do damage with?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** This recent [opinion article][1] suggests that luxury clothing is indeed more sustainable than cheap clothing, by definition. The author's main argument is that high-value production means less consumption and less wastage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you buy more expensive clothing, it doesn’t guarantee that your clothes will be exceptionally well-made, or that workers haven’t been exploited in their making. [...] And even expensive clothes are responsible for polluting the environment when the textiles they’re made from are dyed, and when they’re eventually discarded and left to sit in a landfill. But it may reduce the likelihood of worker exploitation. And if nothing else, spending more should mean buying—and wasting—less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, the premise of this question is *equal expenditure*. At issue is whether or not luxury goods are more sustainable – dollar for dollar – than budget items, taking into account the impacts at each stage of the production chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://qz.com/507904/your-next-item-of-clothing-should-be-so-expensive-it-hurts/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11096" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="17c05b5f-f92f-4cbe-a4c0-a77889d1d349" CreationDate="2015-12-24T01:19:28.923" UserId="1878" Comment="detail of relevant new opinion article" Text="|manufacturing|clothing|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="67c8780e-d009-479d-a3d9-bb21afd5d2df" CreationDate="2015-12-24T01:24:38.070" UserId="1878" Comment="clarify premise of question" Text="The power of brands in consumer culture has been much criticized, for encouraging needless consumption and masking the environmental and social costs of production. But branded goods surely have some redeeming qualities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- They tend to last longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In the case of items like watches and electronics and cars, the higher price of prestigious brands is usually dictated by costs such as craftsmanship, design and marketing – in other words, job creation in fields with low direct impact on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With food and clothing, it could be argued that a well-known brand creates a link between the consumer and the producer, thereby exposing the producer to consumer boycott in the case of environmental or social abuses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which is more sustainable? Buy cheap clothes or electronics but in greater quantity? Or support the design and marketing budgets of multinational corporations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** This recent [opinion article][1] suggests that luxury clothing is indeed more sustainable than cheap clothing, by definition. The author's main argument is that high-value production means less consumption and less wastage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you buy more expensive clothing, it doesn’t guarantee that your clothes will be exceptionally well-made, or that workers haven’t been exploited in their making. [...] And even expensive clothes are responsible for polluting the environment when the textiles they’re made from are dyed, and when they’re eventually discarded and left to sit in a landfill. But it may reduce the likelihood of worker exploitation. And if nothing else, spending more should mean buying—and wasting—less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, the premise of this question has been amended to assume *equal expenditure*. At issue is whether or not luxury goods are more sustainable – dollar for dollar – than budget items, taking into account the impacts at each stage of the production chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://qz.com/507904/your-next-item-of-clothing-should-be-so-expensive-it-hurts/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4345" RevisionGUID="69f7644c-fa07-46ad-8b98-26eb17378bf0" CreationDate="2015-12-24T12:35:49.507" UserId="1878" Comment="add clarification about product value" Text="The power of brands in consumer culture has been much criticized, for encouraging needless consumption and masking the environmental and social costs of production. But luxury branded goods surely have some redeeming qualities when compared to the own-brand or white-label products which can be bought cheaply in a supermarket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- They tend to last longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In the case of items like watches and electronics and cars, the higher price of prestigious brands is usually dictated by costs such as craftsmanship, design and marketing – in other words, job creation in fields with low direct impact on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- With food and clothing, it could be argued that a well-known brand creates a link between the consumer and the producer, thereby exposing the producer to consumer boycott in the case of environmental or social abuses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which is more sustainable? Buy cheap clothes or electronics but in greater quantity? Or support the design and marketing budgets of multinational corporations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** This recent [opinion article][1] suggests that luxury clothing is indeed more sustainable than cheap clothing, by definition. The author's main argument is that high-value production means less consumption and less wastage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you buy more expensive clothing, it doesn’t guarantee that your clothes will be exceptionally well-made, or that workers haven’t been exploited in their making. [...] And even expensive clothes are responsible for polluting the environment when the textiles they’re made from are dyed, and when they’re eventually discarded and left to sit in a landfill. But it may reduce the likelihood of worker exploitation. And if nothing else, spending more should mean buying—and wasting—less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, the premise of this question has been amended to assume *equal expenditure*. At issue is whether or not luxury goods are more sustainable – dollar for dollar – than budget items, taking into account the impacts at each stage of the production chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://qz.com/507904/your-next-item-of-clothing-should-be-so-expensive-it-hurts/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11101" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4943" RevisionGUID="1a883ef1-7790-4bcc-ab60-840bf4db5a6c" CreationDate="2015-12-24T20:49:12.507" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/680128110633811968" />
  <row Id="11102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1231" RevisionGUID="362ec8b0-30ca-43cc-bcc8-383521a76167" CreationDate="2015-12-25T09:52:43.627" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, improved title, added green-it tag" Text="I have a HP Deskjet printer that does not allow me to use refilled cartridges, therefore every time it runs out of ink I need to buy a new cartridge, which implies a lot of waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how to buy a printer that does not present this issue, and in general that has a low environmental impact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11103" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1231" RevisionGUID="362ec8b0-30ca-43cc-bcc8-383521a76167" CreationDate="2015-12-25T09:52:43.627" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, improved title, added green-it tag" Text="How to buy an ecofriendly printer that accepts refilled cartridges?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11104" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1231" RevisionGUID="362ec8b0-30ca-43cc-bcc8-383521a76167" CreationDate="2015-12-25T09:52:43.627" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, improved title, added green-it tag" Text="|green-it|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11105" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4908" RevisionGUID="b00ccaf5-5f6d-4b6f-95c3-1cb4c118a772" CreationDate="2015-12-25T11:57:05.987" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/680356589363150849" />
  <row Id="11106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="f8259c33-020b-44c3-a59e-5ee01e609fcd" CreationDate="2015-12-25T19:00:50.917" UserId="99" Text="I'm trying to decide what type of printer to buy. I've read a number of posts on the web where people claim that laser printers are more durable than ink-jet printers. Some people say this is because inkjet printers are targeted at consumers who are mostly looking for low prices so inkjet build-quality is kept low (and manufacturers make most of their money selling ink cartridges anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this is true, I guess a laser printer would result in less electronic waste as you don't have to repair or replace the printer as often. But how do the environmental impact of ink cartridges versus toners compare?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11107" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="f8259c33-020b-44c3-a59e-5ee01e609fcd" CreationDate="2015-12-25T19:00:50.917" UserId="99" Text="Environmental impact of toner versus ink cartridges?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11108" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="f8259c33-020b-44c3-a59e-5ee01e609fcd" CreationDate="2015-12-25T19:00:50.917" UserId="99" Text="|environmental-impact|life-cycle-analysis|green-it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="4c60f573-c828-4133-a9da-b8681f7f599f" CreationDate="2015-12-26T01:44:33.840" UserId="2903" Text="So im my plan to start this off is to get 4 250w panels @24v 6 12v 200 ah batteries a 60 amp charge controller and 1000w pure sine inverter. Will be a 48v system. How does all of this scale with each other. Also i dont have a clue what brands to look for or if this will even work so any reccomendation would be appreciated and would like to get a good price/quality dont need the best but dont want something thats cheap and breaks in a year. Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="4c60f573-c828-4133-a9da-b8681f7f599f" CreationDate="2015-12-26T01:44:33.840" UserId="2903" Text="Trying to figure out what to buy for my solar power system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="4c60f573-c828-4133-a9da-b8681f7f599f" CreationDate="2015-12-26T01:44:33.840" UserId="2903" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="1a900531-2fc5-4e53-899b-03d5f0752ea3" CreationDate="2015-12-26T02:27:43.650" UserId="2903" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="So im my plan to start this off is to get 4 250w panels @24v 6 12v 200 ah batteries a 60 amp charge controller and 1000w pure sine inverter. Will be a 48v system. How does all of this scale with each other. Also i dont have a clue what brands to look for or if this will even work so any reccomendation would be appreciated and would like to get a good price/quality dont need the best but dont want something thats cheap and breaks in a year. Thanks in advance. Also what kind of power capabilities will this setup provide? Can i run a heater at night or an ac all day, i dont expect it to but it would be nice, or will i be limited to some lights and small appliances" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11113" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4824" RevisionGUID="f282e764-059a-4ce4-9f35-53aab02822fe" CreationDate="2015-12-26T03:01:33.000" UserId="2661" Comment="added green-it" Text="|environmental-impact|green-it|computing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4954" RevisionGUID="f85cf4e6-5ff3-454f-bbec-2103ba05559e" CreationDate="2015-12-26T05:39:06.013" UserId="2903" Text="Alright so after further research and understanding all this a bit better i think ive decided my finished set up will be 24 250w 24v renology panels. 2 3000w cotek sine inverters 2 morning star 60 amp mppt controllers and 8 400ah-500ah batteries not sure what brand to get. Also this will be for full off grid use in colorado ive decided just gonna go with wood burner for heat not sure about ac. I think this should work for my needs and more. Idk if theres anything better i could do or not still tho." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11115" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="f5ca4ab1-a344-4c49-b6ca-b91a60407d32" CreationDate="2015-12-26T06:03:08.823" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/680629902064893952" />
  <row Id="11116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="26c3f7c1-e24e-4ee6-8a28-7766e2a699d9" CreationDate="2015-12-26T11:28:35.080" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar and spelling, removed off-topic question, added diy tag" Text="My plan is to get 4x 250w panels @24v, 6x 12v 200 ah batteries, a 60 amp charge controller and 1000w pure sine inverter. It will be a 48v system. How does all of this scale with each other? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I don't have a clue if this will even work so any recommendation would be appreciated. I would like to get a good price/quality. I don't need the best but don't want something thats cheap and breaks in a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also what kind of power capabilities will this setup provide? Can I run a heater at night or an AC all day? I don't expect it to but it would be nice. Or will I be limited to some lights and small appliances" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11117" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="26c3f7c1-e24e-4ee6-8a28-7766e2a699d9" CreationDate="2015-12-26T11:28:35.080" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar and spelling, removed off-topic question, added diy tag" Text="|solar-power|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11118" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="5aec7fdd-8c0f-41b1-8701-3ed00095289e" CreationDate="2015-12-27T06:10:18.683" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/680994092747223041" />
  <row Id="11119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="4d038ab4-d23a-42ce-9976-80bbe737b362" CreationDate="2015-12-27T07:19:45.870" UserId="2891" Comment="added 1054 characters in body" Text="I have the best source of information for this. I will not get a lot of votes for this as most people tend to believe AMA &amp; Pharma lobby, but the information comes from the most reliable sources of ancient herbal wisdom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ayurveda - 5000 year old science of life, food, medicine &amp; healing - sister science to Yoga. Open Source science. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have been used for ever. There are some commercial preparations that use these components and great blends. I'll link to some that I personally use below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Datun/ Datoon can made from Plant Stems Dant Manjan / Herbal Tooth Powder also from herbal preparations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoted from [Rajiv Dixit's talks on Prakrutik Chikitsa i.e. Natural Medicine][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12 types of daatoon can be used only.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - There are 3 basic season and 3 sub seasons. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Summers neem daatoon, babool,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Winters, amrood is best, jaamoon is next&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Rains – mango, Arjun&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dant Manjans&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan   – daaru  - haldi, salt, sarso mustard oil &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 2 – burn dried gobar, add haldi and sendha namak to it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 3 – triphala choorna, sendha namak. This is the only one that can be used in all seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mango Leaves - Chew - make paste - Rub on teeth - Amazing whitener&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without even me starting on Fluoride some of the negatives of chemical toothpastes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	11. Tooth paste is not good for you. They disturb Pitta. This will cause many problems. Teeth will decay very quickly due to paste use.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When sweet things are eaten early in the morning they disturb the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system. Our culture has a system to eating neem and turmeric balls.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	12. Commercial toothpastes have been using powdered animal bones for decades e.g. Colgate - pig bones, pepsodant – cow bones, close up –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; goat. This has been proven in lab tests and it seems only recently&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that some of these companies have stopped using bones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commercial Preparations that I personally have used &amp; are recommend by knowledgeable Ayurvedic experts: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_powder.php &#xD;&#xA; - I had gum bleeding for decades and have close friends who are dentists and cousins who are dentist and that never stopped. Another fellow yogi told me about these and they stopped bleeding in few days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://patanjaliayurved.net/product/dant-kanti/91 - My toothpase of choice. Although I feel the above powder with my fingers is way better for tooth health. I use both in conjunction. Use less of tooth brushes and carefully as they damage soft gums. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_paste.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Colgate tried to patent some of this stuff but it was thrown out due to prior known knowledge:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3dv4q1/india_blocks_colgate_patents_for_spices/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rootsandshoots.ning.com/forum/topics/summary-of-rajiv-dixit-s-lectures-on-ayurveda-based-on-mharishi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional interesting &amp; related information: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above mentioned Ayurvedic solutions focus on one principal in Ayurveda - 6 tastes - where Sweet, Salty and Bitter &amp; Astringent tasting items have different effect on a persons system and how each of them is needed in right amount and in the right order - Typically ending with Bitter/ Astringent items. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such items are suggested above for dental usage, and also used as after-mint or after food chewing, using betel nuts or betel leaves. {In excessive abuse, it also has a negative effect}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar principal seems to have been present in the Pompeii / ancient Roman excavations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://qz.com/516672/ancient-romans-had-no-need-for-dentists-because-of-one-food-they-didnt-eat/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  revealed in a press conference that the ancient Romans had perfect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teeth and “no immediate discernible need for dentists,” according news&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agency Agenzia Giornalistica Italia. Though Pompeii citizens never&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used toothbrushes or toothpaste, they had healthy teeth thanks to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their low-sugar diet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="5621f7f0-50f5-4c60-9bfe-e005f4cbb6f6" CreationDate="2015-12-27T09:16:42.513" UserId="2891" Comment="todays toothpastes are conventional &amp; commercial.. not TRADITIONAL, traditional means what was used before these" Text="Are there any sustainable (and useful) alternatives to toothpaste? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried so far [this kind][1] of tooth tabs and I'm also aware of the existence of tooth powder but I haven't tried it yet. I liked about the product that I tried that the package was easily recyclable (and not made of plastic).  What are the advantages of the alternatives in terms of sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://uk.lush.com/products/teeth/miles-smiles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Todays mainstream toothpastes are conventional &amp; commercial, Not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; TRADITIONAL;  Traditional means what was used before by cultures &amp;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; communities before the advent of packaged corporate products." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11121" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="5621f7f0-50f5-4c60-9bfe-e005f4cbb6f6" CreationDate="2015-12-27T09:16:42.513" UserId="2891" Comment="todays toothpastes are conventional &amp; commercial.. not TRADITIONAL, traditional means what was used before these" Text="Are there any more sustainable alternatives to conventional commercial toothpaste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11122" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="5621f7f0-50f5-4c60-9bfe-e005f4cbb6f6" CreationDate="2015-12-27T09:16:42.513" Comment="Proposed by 2891 approved by -1 edit id of 353" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="863c7be6-e99b-4aa6-9d78-23b404abc0e3" CreationDate="2015-12-27T09:16:42.513" UserId="99" Comment="todays toothpastes are conventional &amp; commercial.. not TRADITIONAL, traditional means what was used before these" Text="Are there any sustainable (and useful) alternatives to toothpaste? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried so far [this kind][1] of tooth tabs and I'm also aware of the existence of tooth powder but I haven't tried it yet. I liked about the product that I tried, that the package was easily recyclable (and not made of plastic).  What are the advantages of the alternatives in terms of sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://uk.lush.com/products/teeth/miles-smiles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11124" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="863c7be6-e99b-4aa6-9d78-23b404abc0e3" CreationDate="2015-12-27T09:16:42.513" UserId="99" Comment="todays toothpastes are conventional &amp; commercial.. not TRADITIONAL, traditional means what was used before these" Text="|environmental-impact|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4955" RevisionGUID="7bf232e4-09b8-44c2-87bf-99d40d4ba5b7" CreationDate="2015-12-27T12:43:43.667" UserId="1662" Text="For simplicity, lets stick to a concrete block bunker with a tin roof, as these are our direct competitor here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen a lot of comparisons about seismic activity, fire resistance, and cost, but not direct sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does barbed wire compare to steel rebar, and how do the quantities (or weights) compare with similar square footage?  &#xD;&#xA;How sustainable are polypropilane bags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This site talks about about LEEDs characteristics, but they either don't answer my main question, or do it in a way that I don't understand: http://www.earthbagbuilding.com/articles/hartleed.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11126" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4955" RevisionGUID="7bf232e4-09b8-44c2-87bf-99d40d4ba5b7" CreationDate="2015-12-27T12:43:43.667" UserId="1662" Text="Can we compare superadobe earthbags to concrete construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11127" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4955" RevisionGUID="7bf232e4-09b8-44c2-87bf-99d40d4ba5b7" CreationDate="2015-12-27T12:43:43.667" UserId="1662" Text="|home|construction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4957" RevisionGUID="5cffe635-6d1a-4724-9ca7-8fc5502404a8" CreationDate="2015-12-28T01:29:57.597" UserId="2702" Text="Unless you're into printing color photos, the laser printer is the way to go. The retail prices of toner cartridges may seem a bit steep, but there are ways to refill them. The toner lasts a long long time (a few thousand printed pages if you know what you're doing) and does not dry up, ever. Laser printers are efficient, very fast, and hardly ever break down (again: if you know what you're doing). They literally last for years. *Decades* if you're stubborn. You can easily get yourself something very durable for under $300.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Word to the wise**: color printing is expensive either way. Stick with black and white. If you want color, do your printing at Staples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything under $2000 that uses ink is a joke. Really. Cartridges dry up very quickly, or stop working after two dozen pages (a phenomenon known as *planned obsolescence*). They're notoriously slow, prone to jamming and other types of malfunction. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4957" RevisionGUID="014a7c54-33b5-435e-a13e-a71cf0f868c6" CreationDate="2015-12-28T07:32:03.173" UserId="2702" Comment="added 2694 characters in body" Text="Unless you're into printing color photos, the laser printer is the way to go. The retail prices of toner cartridges may seem a bit steep, but there are ways to refill them. The toner lasts a long long time (a few thousand printed pages if you know what you're doing) and does not dry up, ever. Laser printers are efficient, very fast, and hardly ever break down (again: if you know what you're doing). They literally last for years. *Decades* if you're stubborn. You can easily get yourself something very durable for under $300.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Word to the wise**: color printing is expensive either way. Stick with black and white. If you want color, do your printing at Staples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything under $2000 that uses ink is a joke. Really. Cartridges dry up very quickly, or stop working after two dozen pages (a phenomenon known as *planned obsolescence*). They're notoriously slow, prone to jamming and other types of malfunction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each little ink cartridge is made of plastic. There's plenty of chemical nonsense in the ink itself as well. 150 pages per cartridge is the best you can hope for (beyond realistic) with ink. As opposed to, roughly, 3000 pages, with toner. That's twenty individual cartridges vs *one*. Environmental winner: laser printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because laser printers work a lot faster (by orders of magnitude), less electricity is wasted, and fewer chemicals discharged into the atmosphere. Environmental winner: laser printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because laser printers work for years whilst ink printers periodically break down and need to be replaced, the carbon footprint of laser printer manufacturing is a lot smaller. Environmental winner: laser printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my field of work, I have to use the printer a lot - sometimes. I've tried them all. I'm not trying to insult anyone. Well. Suffice it to say that if your goal is to print ten or twenty pages once a year, a cheap ink printer ($70) will suffice. Buy it. Buy a couple of cartridges (only so-called starter cartridges come with the printer that last two or three pages). That's another $40 or $50, sometimes more, depending on how sophisticated your printer pretends to be. Only use good paper designed for inkjets. Another $15 for a batch of 500 sheets, of which, as I may have mentioned earlier, you will use ten or twenty. You'll get your twenty colorfully printed pages and be done with it for a while. Then, ten or twelve or fourteen months later, when suddenly you get this urge to print another twenty colorful pages, and try to use your printer, you'll find that the cartridges are dry. You'll replace them with new ones and realize that they have to be aligned. You'll spend an hour trying to align them, printing one test page after another. When you're finally satisfied with the results, you'll try to print your pages. You'll realize that the colors and some contours are definitely off. You'll try to align the cartridges again. Eventually you'll drain them. You'll then want to call tech support and get lots of useless info. Eventually you'll give up, buy a new printer ($70) and new cartridges ($50), print your twenty pages, and get some satisfaction out of the process. You'll have to repeat the entire process every year. That's a hell of a lot of materials bought and discarded, year after year. Think of the environmental impact. In the meantime, your laser printer can just sit quietly under your desk, ready to serve you whenever you need it. No alignment of anything, no need to get reacquainted every time you use it. Works like a charm, and only does what you ask of it, never more, never less." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4958" RevisionGUID="5e1625b4-eaa4-4c59-b201-6a1ade6fa528" CreationDate="2015-12-28T15:38:40.597" UserId="1662" Text="This is a huge question, with **huge** implications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In rural Colombia, where we are working, if a project is not productive, very few will implement it, and those that do will think you tricked them.  If sustainability cannot combat poverty, then we are all lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily, it can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**With each investment, have a ROI plan**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your polytunnel is a great first example.  Pays for itself in 5 years, isn't that wonderful?  And I assume that is just passively, for vegetables not purchased.  But what if we supercharged that?  How can your Polytunnel pay for solar pannel installation, or whatever your next step is?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look to your local market, but selling starts, flowers, seedling trees, aromatics or cuttings is a good place to start.  Get your children involved, even better, depending on their ages, support them starting their own family business.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each investment should be productive, and should work with previous investments in creating both passive (money not spent) and active (incoming money) income streams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are in a special situation, presumably being in a rich, developed nation/community.  This has its cons, as often small productive projects will not pay off at the hourly wage we are accostomed to.  If 10 dollars a day is a good wage for a Colombian rural resident, there are a litany of productive projects that could reward their labor.  If we value our time at ten dollars an hour, many projects look less appealing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason it is recommended to get our families involved.  Time spent with family is immensely valuable, and as such will pay additional wages to your time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A big benefit in living in a developed region is in the quality of garbage.  Its amazing what people will throw out, and if you source consciously and correctly, through sites like craigslist and your local waste points (could be the sides of the road!), you can find wonderful materials/objects for use in your productive projects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4959" RevisionGUID="d44b5009-30f8-4f94-ae28-784b48ea441a" CreationDate="2015-12-28T16:38:18.647" UserId="1662" Text="**Composting Toilets** and **Capacitation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are doing work in the Colombian Andes, and this is our current go-to solution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is to elevate the toilet, create a seal for insects, keep waste dry with sawdust, ash, lime, rice husk, or other dry product.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the bin fills, remove it, seal it and date it with proper saftey equipment.  We use long gloves and face masks.  Place new bin for collection.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After two years, the bin can be emptied and its contents **composted**.  This is the best way to get it back into the soil and growing plants.  With the two years wait and composting, there is 'no' risk.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your organization will need to teach people using these systems how to operate them. You may need to give them gloves.  You need to show them how to compost the waste.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the community gets the rhythm, and the compost is replacing fertilizer costs, the overall costs and benefits of the project beat out any other sanitation option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="528f93ad-9d78-49e5-b780-1a18489a95e2" CreationDate="2015-12-28T17:46:55.417" UserId="1662" Comment="mispelling and order of ideas" Text="Clinker is a major component of cement, which is a major component of concrete. Which means the production of clinker, globally, is huge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But currently, clinker production releases very large amounts of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know [Stuart Licht's group at George Washington University][1], and others, have been looking at alternative production methods for clinker that would decarbonise the production of cement and concrete; others are looking at substitutes for clinker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the most promising routes for decarbonising this sector, in terms of preserving the best qualities of cement and concrete as much as possible, including the economics and scalability? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://home.gwu.edu/~slicht/Solar.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11135" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="528f93ad-9d78-49e5-b780-1a18489a95e2" CreationDate="2015-12-28T17:46:55.417" Comment="Proposed by 1662 approved by 85 edit id of 355" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4955" RevisionGUID="af5f0782-573d-492e-b2b8-c9fa31d9afe4" CreationDate="2015-12-28T20:16:44.667" UserId="1255" Comment="spelling (and some extra characters)" Text="For simplicity, lets stick to a concrete block bunker with a tin roof, as these are our direct competitors here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen a lot of comparisons about seismic activity, fire resistance, and cost, but not direct sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does barbed wire compare to steel rebar, and how do the quantities (or weights) compare with similar square footage? How sustainable are  polypropylene bags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The EarthBag website][1] talks about about LEEDs characteristics, but they either don't answer my main question, or do it in a way that I don't understand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.earthbagbuilding.com/articles/hartleed.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11137" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4955" RevisionGUID="af5f0782-573d-492e-b2b8-c9fa31d9afe4" CreationDate="2015-12-28T20:16:44.667" Comment="Proposed by 1255 approved by 85 edit id of 356" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4960" RevisionGUID="72037e62-c2b8-4622-92e6-7265d3660e7d" CreationDate="2015-12-28T20:29:22.670" UserId="1255" Text="Sustainability is a complex thing, not least because there are a lot of different meanings attached to it. [This question][1] goes into that a little more. So unless you define what you mean by &quot;sustainable&quot; people won't know. Is it just greenwash &quot;sustainable coal power&quot; or is it 100% recycleable, or what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The EarthBag website talks about about LEEDs characteristics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reading of it is that table 1 is the key summary, and I've copied that here for when that link breaks. The LEED system evaluates a house on a list of criteria and the table lists those and describes how the house fulfils each one. A lot of those criteria may not matter to you, but they're key to some people's definitions of sustainable so they are in there. You can ignore them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How does barbed wire compare to steel rebar, and how do the quantities (or weights) compare with similar square footage? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be extremely hard to use the same weight of barbed wire as a concrete house would use steel reinforcing, I'd expect 1/10th or less weight of wire. And it's weight that matters here. As well, and probably more important, making the cement in the concrete uses huge amounts of energy where the adobe house uses little to no cement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How sustainable are polypropylene bags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're not. But in many ways that's the wrong question. Two more important questions are: where do the bags come from?; and what's the alternative? From the link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *typically burlap or polypropylene feed sacks in 50 or 100 pound sizes*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That looks as though they're reusing bags that would otherwise be sent to landfill or if we're lucky, recycled. [Reuse is better][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the alternative? Pure adobe houses take skill to build and have limited ability to withstand rain, so they're not suitable for all locations. Using bags like this probably enhances their rain-resistance and also lowers the skill level required of the builder. They're also fairly slow to build unless you have a solid stream of hot days for several months while building. The bag system doesn't require that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other alternatives are rammed earth and (sundried) mud bricks, which like adobe requires formwork and sun. The EarthShip tyure system is more labour-intensive and uses tyres. Tyres have more material in them than bags, so are less sustainable there, but are also harder to recycle and thus more likely to end up stored rather than recycled. But it's also much harder to build a whole house from tyres, so EarthShips inevitably have a lot of non-tyre structure (and the labour cost means they often only have a &quot;feature wall&quot; of tyres)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On balance I'd say the bag system is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/905/how-is-sustainability-determined-for-a-product-or-system-and-by-whom&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4OygH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L2CSC.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2522/what-does-reduce-reuse-recycle-actually-mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4960" RevisionGUID="98ed3458-ab99-4b5e-b0e1-6437f95c226a" CreationDate="2015-12-28T20:40:05.747" UserId="1255" Comment="added 970 characters in body" Text="Sustainability is a complex thing, not least because there are a lot of different meanings attached to it. [This question][1] goes into that a little more. So unless you define what you mean by &quot;sustainable&quot; people won't know. Is it just greenwash &quot;sustainable coal power&quot; or is it 100% recycleable, or what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The EarthBag website talks about about LEEDs characteristics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reading of it is that table 1 is the key summary, and I've copied that here for when that link breaks. [The LEED system][2] evaluates a house on a list of criteria and the table lists those and describes how the house fulfils each one. A lot of those criteria may not matter to you, but they're key to some people's definitions of sustainable so they are in there. You can ignore them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the first item &quot;ND Neighbourhood&quot; they summarise that as &quot;promote responsible land development&quot; which they differentiate from the next item &quot;avoid environmentally sensitive areas&quot; so I take that to be talking about social sustainability rather than ecological. In other words, this is about not going into a poor/affordable neighbourhood and buying a house there that you're going to knock down and replace with a much more expensive one (gentrification). They're achieving that via &quot;design decisions&quot; which I assume means &quot;not buying a site in a poor neighbourhood&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That goes for every point on the list, but because LEED is a proprietary system you need to pay to get access to the details. That IMO makes it less useful as only the people who pay know what it means. By using it you're saying &quot;I'm sustainable, but I'm not going to tell you any details&quot;. If a major corporation said that would you believe them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How does barbed wire compare to steel rebar, and how do the quantities (or weights) compare with similar square footage? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be extremely hard to use the same weight of barbed wire as a concrete house would use steel reinforcing, I'd expect 1/10th or less weight of wire. And it's weight that matters here. As well, and probably more important, making the cement in the concrete uses huge amounts of energy where the adobe house uses little to no cement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How sustainable are polypropylene bags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're not. But in many ways that's the wrong question. Two more important questions are: where do the bags come from?; and what's the alternative? From the link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *typically burlap or polypropylene feed sacks in 50 or 100 pound sizes*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That looks as though they're reusing bags that would otherwise be sent to landfill or if we're lucky, recycled. [Reuse is better][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the alternative? Pure adobe houses take skill to build and have limited ability to withstand rain, so they're not suitable for all locations. Using bags like this probably enhances their rain-resistance and also lowers the skill level required of the builder. They're also fairly slow to build unless you have a solid stream of hot days for several months while building. The bag system doesn't require that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other alternatives are rammed earth and (sundried) mud bricks, which like adobe requires formwork and sun. The EarthShip tyure system is more labour-intensive and uses tyres. Tyres have more material in them than bags, so are less sustainable there, but are also harder to recycle and thus more likely to end up stored rather than recycled. But it's also much harder to build a whole house from tyres, so EarthShips inevitably have a lot of non-tyre structure (and the labour cost means they often only have a &quot;feature wall&quot; of tyres)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On balance I'd say the bag system is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/905/how-is-sustainability-determined-for-a-product-or-system-and-by-whom&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.usgbc.org/leed&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4OygH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L2CSC.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2522/what-does-reduce-reuse-recycle-actually-mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11140" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="8932843e-844f-421f-84e4-0ac3d58da9b7" CreationDate="2015-12-28T21:15:28.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/681584270670970881" />
  <row Id="11141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4957" RevisionGUID="51c8b48c-9e1c-4feb-8b91-adb9d890ec34" CreationDate="2015-12-29T02:05:26.280" UserId="2702" Comment="added 566 characters in body" Text="Unless you're into printing color photos, the laser printer is the way to go. The retail prices of toner cartridges may seem a bit steep, but there are ways to refill them. The toner lasts a long long time (a few thousand printed pages if you know what you're doing) and does not dry up, ever. Laser printers are efficient, very fast, and hardly ever break down (again: if you know what you're doing). They literally last for years. *Decades* if you're stubborn. You can easily get yourself something very durable for under $300.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Word to the wise**: color printing is expensive either way. Stick with black and white. If you want color, do your printing at Staples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything under $2000 that uses ink is a joke. Really. Cartridges dry up very quickly, or stop working after two dozen pages (a phenomenon known as *planned obsolescence*). They're notoriously slow, prone to jamming and other types of malfunction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each little ink cartridge is made of plastic. There's plenty of chemical nonsense in the ink itself as well. 150 pages per cartridge is the best you can hope for (beyond realistic) with ink. As opposed to, roughly, 3000 pages, with toner. That's twenty individual cartridges vs *one*. Environmental winner: laser printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because laser printers work a lot faster (by orders of magnitude), less electricity is wasted, and fewer chemicals discharged into the atmosphere. Environmental winner: laser printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because laser printers work for years whilst ink printers periodically break down and need to be replaced, the carbon footprint of laser printer manufacturing is a lot smaller. Environmental winner: laser printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my field of work, I have to use the printer a lot - sometimes. I've tried them all. I'm not trying to insult anyone. Well. Suffice it to say that if your goal is to print ten or twenty pages once a year, a cheap ink printer ($70) will suffice. Buy it. Buy a couple of cartridges (only so-called starter cartridges come with the printer that last two or three pages). That's another $40 or $50, sometimes more, depending on how sophisticated your printer pretends to be. Only use good paper designed for inkjets. Another $15 for a batch of 500 sheets, of which, as I may have mentioned earlier, you will use ten or twenty. You'll get your twenty colorfully printed pages and be done with it for a while. Then, ten or twelve or fourteen months later, when suddenly you get this urge to print another twenty colorful pages, and try to use your printer, you'll find that the cartridges are dry. You'll replace them with new ones and realize that they have to be aligned. You'll spend an hour trying to align them, printing one test page after another. When you're finally satisfied with the results, you'll try to print your pages. You'll realize that the colors and some contours are definitely off. You'll try to align the cartridges again. Eventually you'll drain them. You'll then want to call tech support and get lots of useless info. Eventually you'll give up, buy a new printer ($70) and new cartridges ($50), print your twenty pages, and get some satisfaction out of the process. You'll have to repeat the entire process every year. That's a hell of a lot of materials bought and discarded, year after year. Think of the environmental impact. In the meantime, your laser printer can just sit quietly under your desk, ready to serve you whenever you need it. No alignment of anything, no need to get reacquainted every time you use it. Works like a charm, and only does what you ask of it, never more, never less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**@Johnny says:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One other factor is that sometimes when the ink dries in the printer, it clogs the heads and ink tubes, making the printer unusable. Even if you can purchase new heads, they often cost more than an entire printer. Ironically, if you minimize printing to be more &quot;green&quot;, you're at more risk of this happening. I bought a cheap laser printer 6 years ago, and just last year replaced the 250 page starter cartridge that came with it. At this rate, I have another 10 years to go before I run out of toner in the 500 page replacement cartridge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="e53098a5-c287-4d64-9e0d-41be68ec9e98" CreationDate="2015-12-29T07:07:47.910" UserId="2883" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm slowly teaching myself on how I can build a solar PV system for my own home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone kind enough to provide a breakdown of what tools i need to test my site for an optimum conversion of solar energy to electricity, and what i need to look out for. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Im looking at a grid-tied PV system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11143" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="e53098a5-c287-4d64-9e0d-41be68ec9e98" CreationDate="2015-12-29T07:07:47.910" UserId="2883" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="Detailed breakdown of Solar PV installation site test (site survey)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11144" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="1a6b68a4-24a4-41cc-8a7c-71fa26f87064" CreationDate="2015-12-29T18:15:34.653" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/681901387819708416" />
  <row Id="11145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4961" RevisionGUID="5740f25a-33d0-4993-b690-ce1ec84c3464" CreationDate="2015-12-29T23:54:22.890" UserId="659" Text="Composting toilets seem like the obvious solution. In warmer climates it's easy to have a hot compost that cycles fairly quickly, in colder climates you will likely need to heat it or accept a very slow cold cycle (which is risky because not all pathogens will be killed in a cold cycle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key is to mix in cellulose to help aerate the mix and even out the nitrogen (human poo has too much for most composting). That can be sawdust or woodchips, or you can buy mulch from a garden supply place. Once a container is full it needs time to compost down, so you need multiple containers. You also need a separate system for urine, as that will turn the bin anaerobic and it will stink and not compost properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [New Zealand the Department of Conservation][1](DOC) use [commercially made composting toilets][2] in some huts and camping areas, as do [Tasmania's Parks and Wildlife][3] in Australia. They're common enough that I've seen a variety of types and they're not remarkable enough to get special mentions that I can find. They're just there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have an [Excelet][4] commercially made one because it's got all [the paperwork][5] and [certifications][6] to be the only toilet in the house, and we intend to move it into the granny flat we are building (as the only toilet). They say that even in Australia it's a good idea to keep the full bins in the sun so they get heated into the [thermophilic zone above 40 degrees Celcius][7]. In Sydney we get outside temperatures above 35 degrees quite regularly in the summer so it doesn't take much to get a black plastic bin over 40 degrees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past I have used a passively ventilated DIY system that worked as well as the Excelet, but obviously without the necessary approvals it could only be our second toilet. That was literally just a bucket, 5cm of gravel in a bag made of plastic shadecloth to keep the compost out of the gravel (rather than proper geotextile), and a length of 25mm PVC pipe down the side of the bucket to let air into the bottom. When the bucket was full we emptied it into a black plastic bin at the bottom of the garden that was set up in a similar way (but bigger). That's messy, but not as messy as you might think. The top layer of the bucket is very fresh, but if you empty it with a fairly fast, smooth motion by the time that fresh stuff hits the bottom of the big bin there's a lot of partly-composted material falling on top of it so there's no splash or mess. We had two, 100 litre bins for a household of four people. We emptied a bin about every 6 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![NaturalEvent composting toilets][8]][8] [![High'n'Dry festival composting toilets][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also worked at a music festival that used 220 litre wheelie bins as the toilets. They had separate urinals and pee-only stations, but the poo toilets were slightly elevated platforms with a toilet lid support directly over the bin, and a bucket of sawdust/wood shavings in each cubical. We had attendants explaining them and adding extra wood when needed. They also had a wire hook for getting things back out of the toilets. Those bins were taken out when full then just left in the sun for six months to a year with no further attention (AFAIK). After a year they were thoroughly composted, and then emptied onto a sifter rack so that all the rubbish people dump into them could be picked out before the compost was used on a farm. The guy has [formed a company that does this][10]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.newzealand.com/au/feature/department-of-conservation-campsites/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ecotoilets.co.nz/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/?base=2255&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ecoflo.net.au/6/160928.ashx?lv.crumb=63723&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/building/plumbing/waterless_composting_toilet_systems&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/domesticwastewater/Pages/wcts.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.ecoflo.net.au/onsitewastewaterproducts/domesticcompostingtoilet/how-do-they-work/nature-loo-general/nature-loo-compost-treatment.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NFbhW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4z2fB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.naturalevent.com.au/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4961" RevisionGUID="a7f5f675-37ac-4bf1-8e5c-170e1e22edef" CreationDate="2015-12-29T23:59:47.727" UserId="659" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Composting toilets seem like the obvious solution. In warmer climates it's easy to have a hot compost that cycles fairly quickly, in colder climates you will likely need to heat it or accept a very slow cold cycle (which is risky because not all pathogens will be killed in a cold cycle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key is to mix in cellulose to help aerate the mix and even out the nitrogen (human poo has too much for most composting). That can be sawdust or woodchips, or you can buy mulch from a garden supply place. Once a container is full it needs time to compost down, so you need multiple containers. You also need a separate system for urine, as that will turn the bin anaerobic and it will stink and not compost properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [New Zealand the Department of Conservation][1](DOC) use [commercially made composting toilets][2] in some huts and camping areas, as do [Tasmania's Parks and Wildlife][3] in Australia. They're common enough that I've seen a variety of types and they're not remarkable enough to get special mentions that I can find. They're just there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past I have used a passively ventilated DIY system that worked as well as the Excelet, but obviously without the necessary approvals it could only be our second toilet. That was literally just a bucket, 5cm of gravel in a bag made of plastic shadecloth to keep the compost out of the gravel (rather than proper geotextile), and a length of 25mm PVC pipe down the side of the bucket to let air into the bottom. When the bucket was full we emptied it into a black plastic bin at the bottom of the garden that was set up in a similar way (but bigger). That's messy, but not as messy as you might think. The top layer of the bucket is very fresh, but if you empty it with a fairly fast, smooth motion by the time that fresh stuff hits the bottom of the big bin there's a lot of partly-composted material falling on top of it so there's no splash or mess. We had two, 100 litre bins for a household of four people. We emptied a bin about every 6-9 months and a 20 litre bucket every week or so (the numbers don't add up mostly because we didn't completely fill the bucket, and the bin was composting so it would lose volume over time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We now have an [Excelet][4] commercially made one because it's got all [the paperwork][5] and [certifications][6] to be the only toilet in the house, and we intend to move it into the granny flat we are building (as the only toilet). They say that even in Australia it's a good idea to keep the full bins in the sun so they get heated into the [thermophilic zone above 40 degrees Celcius][7]. In Sydney we get outside temperatures above 35 degrees quite regularly in the summer so it doesn't take much to get a black plastic bin over 40 degrees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![NaturalEvent composting toilets][8]][8] [![High'n'Dry festival composting toilets][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also worked at a music festival that used 220 litre wheelie bins as the toilets. They had separate urinals and pee-only stations, but the poo toilets were slightly elevated platforms with a toilet lid support directly over the bin, and a bucket of sawdust/wood shavings in each cubical. We had attendants explaining them and adding extra wood when needed. They also had a wire hook for getting things back out of the toilets. Those bins were taken out when full then just left in the sun for six months to a year with no further attention (AFAIK). After a year they were thoroughly composted, and then emptied onto a sifter rack so that all the rubbish people dump into them could be picked out before the compost was used on a farm. The guy has [formed a company that does this][10]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.newzealand.com/au/feature/department-of-conservation-campsites/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ecotoilets.co.nz/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/?base=2255&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ecoflo.net.au/6/160928.ashx?lv.crumb=63723&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/building/plumbing/waterless_composting_toilet_systems&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/domesticwastewater/Pages/wcts.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.ecoflo.net.au/onsitewastewaterproducts/domesticcompostingtoilet/how-do-they-work/nature-loo-general/nature-loo-compost-treatment.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NFbhW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4z2fB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.naturalevent.com.au/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11148" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="24373675-79ef-449b-93cd-6b3db1369f24" CreationDate="2015-12-30T05:39:53.673" UserId="99" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4957" RevisionGUID="0327a645-fadf-49ea-9cd4-53930e12747c" CreationDate="2015-12-30T06:31:27.190" UserId="2702" Comment="added 348 characters in body" Text="Unless you're into printing color photos, the laser printer is the way to go. The retail prices of toner cartridges may seem a bit steep, but there are ways to refill them. The toner lasts a long long time (a few thousand printed pages if you know what you're doing) and does not dry up, ever. Laser printers are efficient, very fast, and hardly ever break down (again: if you know what you're doing). They literally last for years. *Decades* if you're stubborn. You can easily get yourself something very durable for under $300.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Word to the wise**: color printing is expensive either way. Stick with black and white. If you want color, do your printing at Staples. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything under $2000 that uses ink is a joke. Really. Cartridges dry up very quickly, or stop working after two dozen pages (a phenomenon known as *planned obsolescence*). They're notoriously slow, prone to jamming and other types of malfunction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each little ink cartridge is made of plastic. There's plenty of chemical nonsense in the ink itself as well. 150 pages per cartridge is the best you can hope for (beyond realistic) with ink. As opposed to, roughly, 3000 pages, with toner. That's twenty individual cartridges vs *one*. Environmental winner: laser printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because laser printers work a lot faster (by orders of magnitude), less electricity is wasted, and fewer chemicals discharged into the atmosphere. Environmental winner: laser printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because laser printers work for years whilst ink printers periodically break down and need to be replaced, the carbon footprint of laser printer manufacturing is a lot smaller. Environmental winner: laser printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my field of work, I have to use the printer a lot - sometimes. I've tried them all. I'm not trying to insult anyone. Well. Suffice it to say that if your goal is to print ten or twenty pages once a year, a cheap ink printer ($70) will suffice. Buy it. Buy a couple of cartridges (only so-called starter cartridges come with the printer that last two or three pages). That's another $40 or $50, sometimes more, depending on how sophisticated your printer pretends to be. Only use good paper designed for inkjets. Another $15 for a batch of 500 sheets, of which, as I may have mentioned earlier, you will use ten or twenty. You'll get your twenty colorfully printed pages and be done with it for a while. Then, ten or twelve or fourteen months later, when suddenly you get this urge to print another twenty colorful pages, and try to use your printer, you'll find that the cartridges are dry. You'll replace them with new ones and realize that they have to be aligned. You'll spend an hour trying to align them, printing one test page after another. When you're finally satisfied with the results, you'll try to print your pages. You'll realize that the colors and some contours are definitely off. You'll try to align the cartridges again. Eventually you'll drain them. You'll then want to call tech support and get lots of useless info. Eventually you'll give up, buy a new printer ($70) and new cartridges ($50), print your twenty pages, and get some satisfaction out of the process. You'll have to repeat the entire process every year. That's a hell of a lot of materials bought and discarded, year after year. Think of the environmental impact. In the meantime, your laser printer can just sit quietly under your desk, ready to serve you whenever you need it. No alignment of anything, no need to get reacquainted every time you use it. Works like a charm, and only does what you ask of it, never more, never less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**@Johnny says:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One other factor is that sometimes when the ink dries in the printer, it clogs the heads and ink tubes, making the printer unusable. Even if you can purchase new heads, they often cost more than an entire printer. Ironically, if you minimize printing to be more &quot;green&quot;, you're at more risk of this happening. I bought a cheap laser printer 6 years ago, and just last year replaced the 250 page starter cartridge that came with it. At this rate, I have another 10 years to go before I run out of toner in the 500 page replacement cartridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**And now**, [here's a decent ***ink*** printer][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here is what it looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/CANON-6565B002AA-iPF8400-12-Color-LUCIA/dp/B00F45TM8W/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1451456814&amp;sr=8-11&amp;keywords=inkjet%20printer%20professional&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZJ5xh.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4962" RevisionGUID="c1e7caa7-838c-404d-b3be-2d58ceb7d861" CreationDate="2015-12-30T10:04:55.943" UserId="2914" Text="Be aware it is not temperature only.  If you fill the house up with water saturated air then you use electricity to condense the water out of the air when you turn the AC back on.  Nominally you want air cooler than the thermostat and with a dew point of less than 55 Fahrenheit.  If the air is 70 and the humidity is 62 it is not worth opening the windows for a short term.  In a humid climate you are more driven by dew point and can get from the forecast.  The dew point does not change rapidly.  I live in a humid climate and there are actually very few days of the year that it is worth opening the windows at night during AC season and those days come in sets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4963" RevisionGUID="dbbf3db6-a32b-445e-9d87-21d874df4ee1" CreationDate="2015-12-30T16:47:42.300" UserId="2915" Text="First of all, I **DO NOT** have any commercial intentions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am still getting to know the world of recycling and I have come across a minor issue when it comes to the learning the difference between recyclable items. I have several cat food bags (*OK CAT Health &amp; Taste Low Magnesium, 800g* - `I mentioned this because I hope there is someone who had previous experience with the brand, or &quot;material&quot; which the bag is made of`) and thought those could be recycled, as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, there is a symbol on the bag which confuses me and I would be very grateful if someone helped me solve the mystery I am dealing with here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![BACK of the bag][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nXntH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that the bag is **both PET and PE**?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*or*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that this is **neither PET nor PE** - hence not recyclable? Or what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**P.S.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry if I violated some rules when it comes to advertising/marketing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11152" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4963" RevisionGUID="dbbf3db6-a32b-445e-9d87-21d874df4ee1" CreationDate="2015-12-30T16:47:42.300" UserId="2915" Text="Is the bag of cat food recyclable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11153" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4963" RevisionGUID="dbbf3db6-a32b-445e-9d87-21d874df4ee1" CreationDate="2015-12-30T16:47:42.300" UserId="2915" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4939" RevisionGUID="af2e770d-7ae1-4038-a292-7d4922ee9e28" CreationDate="2015-12-30T18:03:54.263" UserId="2871" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Consider using a flow through core of some sort. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wrap several layers of chicken wire around about 4 to 8 feet of 24&quot; diameter cardboard concrete forms from the hardware store (Depending on how tall you want to make it).&#xD;&#xA; - Wrap several layers of black poly tubing around the chicken wire and cardboard tube. Use baling wire to tie the black poly tubing to the chicken wire tube in bundles of coils so that the core maintains integrity once the cardboard form composts away.&#xD;&#xA; - Arrange some clay blocks or rammed earth so that you can stand the &quot;flow through core&quot; tube on end but still be able to get in underneath it with a shovel.&#xD;&#xA; - Build a tower of straw bales around the core to insulate it and create a retaining wall for compost to be held against the outside of the core. You will want a couple of feet of compost around the core so make the inside diameter of the retaining wall 5 - 6 feet wide. The thicker you build your wall the faster the more efficient your composting and hot water generation will be.&#xD;&#xA; - Make sure to leave a hole in the bottom of the wall where you want the shovel access. It is also desirable to fashion a plug for the shovel hole to keep vermin out and to further insulate the compost.&#xD;&#xA; - Fill up the core one quarter of the way with already composted material, making sure to get a good shovel full of the center of an active compost pile as an inoculum. Then fill up the rest of the core with material to be composted.&#xD;&#xA; - Fill in between the straw bales and the flow through core about a quarter of the way with already composted material, then add a compost inoculum from the center of an active compost pile. Then fill in the rest of the way with material to compost.&#xD;&#xA; - Put plywood over the top of the straw bale tower and cut bucket sized holes into it so that you can pour in scraps to the center of the flow through core and edges of the outside of the compost pit.&#xD;&#xA; - Cover the plywood (and holes) with straw bales in such a way that a few bales can be moved to access the fill holes.&#xD;&#xA; - Shovel fresh compost out of the bottom to make room for adding new material to the top of the pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, the straw bales will eventually start to decompose themselves. So the tower would have to be rebuilt periodically, but the same core could be reused until the chicken wire rusts away. Having built similar straw towers just for speeding up normal compost piles I would guess that you might be able to use the same straw bales for at least a couple of years before replacing them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4964" RevisionGUID="4a4cc6d3-4e98-495e-9785-58949a6b1ae2" CreationDate="2015-12-30T18:19:02.020" UserId="85" Text="Apparently Nova Foods is an Italian company and [apparently](https://goo.gl/55jptB) in Italy there are different logos for marking packaging as recyclable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't be sure, but I'm guessing that the symbol on your bag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![PET/PE][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is **a custom symbol meaning that the bag consists of PET or PE or both and is recyclable**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the best way to be sure is to call or email Nova Foods and ask them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5NHWZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bLayx.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gVMcL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4963" RevisionGUID="fef03400-eec6-40fb-8643-2499f4193dcc" CreationDate="2015-12-30T18:22:43.403" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 187 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am still getting to know the world of recycling and I have come across a minor issue when it comes to the learning the difference between recyclable items. I have several cat food bags (*OK CAT Health &amp; Taste Low Magnesium, 800g* — I mention this because I hope there is someone who had previous experience with the brand, or &quot;material&quot; which the bag is made of) and thought those could be recycled, as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, there is a symbol on the bag which confuses me and I would be very grateful if someone helped me solve the mystery I am dealing with here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![BACK of the bag][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that the bag is **both PET and PE** or that this is **neither PET nor PE** and hence not recyclable? Or what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/27hc0.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11157" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4963" RevisionGUID="fef03400-eec6-40fb-8643-2499f4193dcc" CreationDate="2015-12-30T18:22:43.403" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 187 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|recycling|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11158" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4921" RevisionGUID="a177c6b3-0544-4df5-a7b2-3ade8234dd3d" CreationDate="2015-12-31T00:15:41.863" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/682354402875830272" />
  <row Id="11159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4963" RevisionGUID="a6f1d475-ab4b-4163-9a26-5714e47639ca" CreationDate="2015-12-31T06:31:27.253" UserId="2915" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="I am still getting to know the world of recycling and I have come across a minor issue when it comes to learning the difference between recyclable items. I have several cat food bags (*OK CAT Health &amp; Taste Low Magnesium, 800g* — I mention this because I hope there is someone who had previous experience with the brand, or &quot;material&quot; which the bag is made of) and thought those could be recycled, as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, there is a symbol on the bag which confuses me and I would be very grateful if someone helped me solve the mystery I am dealing with here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![BACK of the bag][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that the bag is **both PET and PE** or that this is **neither PET nor PE** and hence not recyclable? Or what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/27hc0.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4965" RevisionGUID="e1877b7b-f5a5-4d05-b46e-7cbc66c79d02" CreationDate="2015-12-31T08:19:24.123" UserId="99" Text="The logo means that the packaging consists of both PET and PE. Logos like this are common on packaging and are often (incorrectly) called 'recycling logos' or '[recycling codes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_codes)'. Contrary to popular belief the presence of such a logo **does not mean that the material is recyclable**. Whether something is recycled differs from place to place. It can even differ per recycling facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original plastic Resin Identification Codes (RICs) were invented in 1988 by an organisation called Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI). The idea was that with a RIC logo the then common types of plastics could easily be distinguished, so plastics could be separated properly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Plastic recycling codes / RIC][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Picture copied from [Little numbers on the plastic material inside the triangle - Resin Identification Coding System](http://19041980ap.blogspot.nl/2007/07/little-numbers-on-plastic-material.html)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The RIC scheme has been adopted by countries all over the world, but only the numbers 1 to 7 are universal. The meaning of higher numbers varies per country.&#xD;&#xA;There is no standard code or logo for composite materials such as a combination of PET and PE and some manufacturers tend to use slightly different logos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both PET and PE can theoretically be recycled individually. In fact, PET is one of the most recycled types of plastic. I'm not sure if a PET/PE composite is also recyclable. I suspect this is much more difficult and not economically feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qn7mr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4965" RevisionGUID="81c35db0-88a6-4463-bfd1-0db8d83f4f1a" CreationDate="2015-12-31T08:30:59.570" UserId="99" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="The logo means that the packaging consists of both PET and PE. Logos like this are common on packaging and are often (incorrectly) called 'recycling logos' or '[recycling codes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_codes)'. Contrary to popular belief the presence of such a logo **does not mean that the material is recyclable**. Whether something is recycled differs from place to place. It can even differ per recycling facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original plastic Resin Identification Codes (RICs) were invented in 1988 by an organisation called Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI). The idea was that with a RIC logo the then common types of plastics could easily be distinguished, so plastics could be separated properly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Plastic recycling codes / RIC][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Picture copied from [Little numbers on the plastic material inside the triangle - Resin Identification Coding System](http://19041980ap.blogspot.nl/2007/07/little-numbers-on-plastic-material.html)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The RIC scheme has been adopted by countries all over the world, but only the numbers 1 to 7 are universal. The meaning of higher numbers varies per country.&#xD;&#xA;There is no standard code or logo for composite materials such as a combination of PET and PE and some manufacturers tend to use slightly different logos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both PET and PE can theoretically be recycled individually. In fact, PET is one of the most recycled types of plastic. I'm not sure if a PET/PE composite is also recyclable. I suspect this is much more difficult and not economically feasible. If you want to know for sure whether PET/PE is recycled, you'll have to contact your local recycling facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qn7mr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11162" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4963" RevisionGUID="b9aad87b-71a9-4e4c-afe4-68a6ac1bba07" CreationDate="2015-12-31T09:15:46.687" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/682490318705561601" />
  <row Id="11163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4964" RevisionGUID="368e98ef-7b1f-40e8-bcef-609432833d49" CreationDate="2015-12-31T09:41:49.943" UserId="85" Comment="added 582 characters in body" Text="Apparently Nova Foods is an Italian company and [apparently](https://goo.gl/55jptB) in Italy there are different logos for marking packaging as recyclable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't be sure, but I'm guessing that the symbol on your bag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![PET/PE][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is **a custom symbol** probably indicating that the bag consists of **PET and PE**. Apparently this type of combination is called a PET/PE _alloy_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ptonline.com writes about such alloys [here](http://www.ptonline.com/articles/recycled-pet-pe-alloys-show-promise-in-monofilament-pallets-pipe):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Alloying PET and PE doesn’t make economic sense if you start with virgin PET, but it pays off as a use for inexpensive waste streams like colored PET and barrier PET film scrap that normally find only low-value applications or are thrown away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently, alloying gives a way of making recycled PET into a useful product, but it doesn't mean that this product is recyclable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please ask your local recycling facility if they recycle PET/PE alloys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5NHWZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bLayx.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gVMcL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4966" RevisionGUID="ecdf38ec-6adb-4a68-8a87-fa14feea7534" CreationDate="2015-12-31T18:54:59.017" UserId="2871" Text="Bags of cat food are better than recyclable! They are reusable!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You know all of those trash bags that you buy? Well, save your empty cat food bags (roll them up tight and find a place to hide them), as they make great trash bags. To seal them up after they are full just fold the top over and use 3-5 staples to secure the fold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only do you reuse the feed bag this way, but you also decrease demand on plastic trash bags which means fewer plastic trash bags get manufactured. So using your cat food bag as a trash bag is both a &quot;Reduction&quot; and a &quot;Reuse&quot;, both of which are better than &quot;Recycling&quot; which should be the last resort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same goes for just about any feed bag (Dog, Chicken, Horse, etc)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4965" RevisionGUID="93fd3962-50f1-487c-bea7-ee4a5428d2b1" CreationDate="2015-12-31T20:17:59.087" UserId="99" Comment="added example of plastic that is not recyclable" Text="The logo means that the packaging consists of both PET and PE. Logos like this are common on packaging and are often (incorrectly) called 'recycling logos' or '[recycling codes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_codes)'. Contrary to popular belief the presence of such a logo **does not mean that the material is recyclable**. Compostable plastic for example has code #7 and is not recyclable. Also, whether a plastic is recycled differs from place to place. It can even differ per recycling facility in the same country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original plastic Resin Identification Codes (RICs) were invented in 1988 by an organisation called Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI). The idea was that with a RIC logo the then common types of plastics could easily be distinguished, so plastics could be separated properly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Plastic recycling codes / RIC][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Picture copied from [Little numbers on the plastic material inside the triangle - Resin Identification Coding System](http://19041980ap.blogspot.nl/2007/07/little-numbers-on-plastic-material.html)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The RIC scheme has been adopted by countries all over the world, but only the numbers 1 to 7 are universal. The meaning of higher numbers varies per country.&#xD;&#xA;There is no standard code or logo for composite materials such as a combination of PET and PE and some manufacturers tend to use slightly different logos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both PET and PE can theoretically be recycled individually. In fact, PET is one of the most recycled types of plastic. I'm not sure if a PET/PE composite is also recyclable. I suspect this is much more difficult and not economically feasible. If you want to know for sure whether PET/PE is recycled, you'll have to contact your local recycling facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qn7mr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11166" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4900" RevisionGUID="b12cee60-9b0d-49c1-aab5-168e9365ace2" CreationDate="2016-01-01T03:16:57.757" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/682762407404503040" />
  <row Id="11168" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4885" RevisionGUID="ee239bec-b0dc-42cf-978a-11463792b121" CreationDate="2016-01-02T06:25:31.140" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/683172247230660608" />
  <row Id="11169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="7a90ced2-558c-4c33-87d8-81357f2b295e" CreationDate="2016-01-02T12:19:21.613" UserId="2919" Text="Does anyone know of a wireless energy usage capture device, that one can attach to an appliance and find out the energy usage. I know that there are certain energy monitors that do the job to some extent, however I am looking for a small device/tag that can permanently be attached to an appliance or cable to find out energy usage over longer periods of time. Energy monitors can only be attached to a device at a time and display the usage on a monitor, however I am looking for something that can capture and transfer data wirelessly.&#xD;&#xA;I researching into a business idea for which this would be very useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help would very much be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="7a90ced2-558c-4c33-87d8-81357f2b295e" CreationDate="2016-01-02T12:19:21.613" UserId="2919" Text="Energy capture device" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="7a90ced2-558c-4c33-87d8-81357f2b295e" CreationDate="2016-01-02T12:19:21.613" UserId="2919" Text="|energy|electricity|energy-efficiency|energy-use|energy-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="d9255772-1b62-442f-8f69-d6e324449e55" CreationDate="2016-01-02T16:34:56.920" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="General cleanup (title)" Text="Does anyone know of a wireless energy usage capture device, that one can attach to an appliance and find out the energy usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there are certain energy monitors that do the job to some extent, however I am looking for a small device/tag that can permanently be attached to an appliance or cable to find out energy usage over longer periods of time. Energy monitors can only be attached to a device at a time and display the usage on a monitor, however I am looking for something that can capture and transfer data wirelessly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm researching into a business idea for which this would be very useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11173" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="d9255772-1b62-442f-8f69-d6e324449e55" CreationDate="2016-01-02T16:34:56.920" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="General cleanup (title)" Text="Energy capture device with wireless data transfer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11174" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="d9255772-1b62-442f-8f69-d6e324449e55" CreationDate="2016-01-02T16:34:56.920" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 85 edit id of 358" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4968" RevisionGUID="c3587c04-0294-4999-8bac-de72f73b3172" CreationDate="2016-01-02T17:33:21.200" UserId="2871" Text="It sounds like the [Kill A Watt wireless][1] might be what you are after. For more alternatives keep reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another product line called the [Watts-Up][2] that has USB connections to computers on some models, and a built in web server on the high end one. The high end one can be made to work over wireless with an adapter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are handy with electronics and such you might want to have a look at this [HACKADAY][3] solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://p3international.com/products/p4200.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.wattsupmeters.com/secure/products.php?pn=0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://hackaday.com/2014/10/21/digital-data-from-a-cheap-power-meter/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4970" RevisionGUID="a2ef8d40-bfdb-4e90-9481-d70f3c3ed3fc" CreationDate="2016-01-02T18:30:59.663" UserId="2871" Text="Magnesium Oxide based cements are interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the downsides when compared to portland cement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They cure extremely fast so transporting pre-mixed cement doesn't work out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are all of the upsides when compared to portland cement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They are produced at a lower temperature and release less CO2 during the process than when compared to portland cement. MgO cement can be produced in lower temperature processes and as part of seawater desalinization operations.&#xD;&#xA; - It is cellulose-philic, meaning that it will get sucked up into and penetrate into cellulose fibers. Portland cement is cellulose-phobic and will be repelled by cellulose.&#xD;&#xA; - Magnesium Oxide cement when combined with cellulose fibers will create an extremely strong matrix (stronger than steel reinforced portland cement). This allows for direct sequestration of Carbon in the form of cellulose fibers. When combined with an annual fiber crop such as hemp the resulting hempcrete blocks would be extremely strong and economical.&#xD;&#xA; - Magnesium Oxide continues to absorb CO2 over time, and as it does it gets stronger. There are Magnesium Oxide buildings that are thousands of years old that are still standing, while portland cement starts decaying in a mere hundred years.&#xD;&#xA; - Magnesium Oxide cement breaths water vapor but repels condensed water. This gives it the same phase change material properties that you get with adobe and rammed earth resulting in passive cooling and heating. Portland cement does not breath at all.&#xD;&#xA; - The fast cure time is beneficial when manufacturing prebuilt sections in an assembly line. Also, note that it is also suitable for small batch mixing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11179" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4932" RevisionGUID="eb50726c-c265-4630-8067-7b84ec5fb7ff" CreationDate="2016-01-02T19:14:46.160" UserId="99" Comment="31" />
  <row Id="11181" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4818" RevisionGUID="df5917f0-f06b-4f28-9a1c-791353d5c27d" CreationDate="2016-01-03T00:28:49.553" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/683444870208466944" />
  <row Id="11182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="25a7a644-4483-453c-83e5-f7536edb95f1" CreationDate="2016-01-03T21:07:41.007" UserId="2891" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="I have the best source of information for this. I will not get a lot of votes for this as most people tend to believe AMA &amp; Pharma lobby, but the information comes from the most reliable sources of ancient herbal wisdom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ayurveda - 5000 year old science of life, food, medicine &amp; healing - sister science to Yoga. Open Source science. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have been used for ever. There are some commercial preparations that use these components and great blends. I'll link to some that I personally use below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Datun/ Datoon can made from Plant Stems Dant Manjan / Herbal Tooth Powder also from herbal preparations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoted from [Rajiv Dixit's talks on Prakrutik Chikitsa i.e. Natural Medicine][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12 types of daatoon can be used only.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - There are 3 basic season and 3 sub seasons. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Summers neem daatoon, babool,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Winters, amrood is best, jaamoon is next&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Rains – mango, Arjun&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dant Manjans&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan   – daaru  - haldi {turmeric}, salt, sarso/ mustard oil &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 2 – burn dried gobar, add haldi and sendha namak to it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 3 – triphala choorna, sendha namak. This is the only one that can be used in all seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mango Leaves - Chew - make paste - Rub on teeth - Amazing whitener&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/turmeric-for-gum-disease.html?t=DM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without even me starting on Fluoride some of the negatives of chemical toothpastes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	11. Tooth paste is not good for you. They disturb Pitta. This will cause many problems. Teeth will decay very quickly due to paste use.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When sweet things are eaten early in the morning they disturb the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system. Our culture has a system to eating neem and turmeric balls.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	12. Commercial toothpastes have been using powdered animal bones for decades e.g. Colgate - pig bones, pepsodant – cow bones, close up –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; goat. This has been proven in lab tests and it seems only recently&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that some of these companies have stopped using bones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commercial Preparations that I personally have used &amp; are recommend by knowledgeable Ayurvedic experts: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_powder.php &#xD;&#xA; - I had gum bleeding for decades and have close friends who are dentists and cousins who are dentist and that never stopped. Another fellow yogi told me about these and they stopped bleeding in few days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://patanjaliayurved.net/product/dant-kanti/91 - My toothpase of choice. Although I feel the above powder with my fingers is way better for tooth health. I use both in conjunction. Use less of tooth brushes and carefully as they damage soft gums. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_paste.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Colgate tried to patent some of this stuff but it was thrown out due to prior known knowledge:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3dv4q1/india_blocks_colgate_patents_for_spices/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://rootsandshoots.ning.com/forum/topics/summary-of-rajiv-dixit-s-lectures-on-ayurveda-based-on-mharishi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional interesting &amp; related information: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above mentioned Ayurvedic solutions focus on one principal in Ayurveda - 6 tastes - where Sweet, Salty and Bitter &amp; Astringent tasting items have different effect on a persons system and how each of them is needed in right amount and in the right order - Typically ending with Bitter/ Astringent items. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such items are suggested above for dental usage, and also used as after-mint or after food chewing, using betel nuts or betel leaves. {In excessive abuse, it also has a negative effect}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar principal seems to have been present in the Pompeii / ancient Roman excavations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://qz.com/516672/ancient-romans-had-no-need-for-dentists-because-of-one-food-they-didnt-eat/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  revealed in a press conference that the ancient Romans had perfect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teeth and “no immediate discernible need for dentists,” according news&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agency Agenzia Giornalistica Italia. Though Pompeii citizens never&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used toothbrushes or toothpaste, they had healthy teeth thanks to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their low-sugar diet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4962" RevisionGUID="aa387af2-07fb-44ba-9600-28f64ea439c9" CreationDate="2016-01-03T22:23:08.270" UserId="2914" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="Be aware it is not temperature only.  If you fill the house up with water saturated air then you use electricity to condense the water out of the air when you turn the AC back on.  Nominally you want air cooler than the thermostat and with a dew point of less than 55 Fahrenheit.  If the air is 70 and the humidity is 62 it is not worth opening the windows for a short term.  In a humid climate you are more driven by dew point and can get from the forecast.  The dew point does not change rapidly.  I live in a humid climate and there are actually very few days of the year that it is worth opening the windows at night during AC season and those days come in sets. It would be an absolute edge case that you open up the windows for a few hours and close.  It is not something that needs to be micro optimized." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11184" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4625" RevisionGUID="b52b4f49-5a79-4d6d-a75a-0d34c7afe1ad" CreationDate="2016-01-04T00:30:37.510" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/683807710345883648" />
  <row Id="11185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="75fa467e-b418-4016-b6f5-77fdcc12fe7e" CreationDate="2016-01-04T05:12:40.530" UserId="2883" Text="I have access to live solar irradiance data (in W/m²) at each minute of the day in my location. How do I make use of these datas to determine the solar installation size (in kW)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess what I don't really understand here is what really happens within the solar system the moment the sun radiate a power of say 900W/m² **at that minute**. Does the panel immediately generate its potential power at 900W/m² solar irradiance at that minute or am I completely missing the point here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope the kind fellows who will answer this question do not suggest to look for datas in kWh/m²/day to determine installation size as the internet has a lot of articles on it already. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="75fa467e-b418-4016-b6f5-77fdcc12fe7e" CreationDate="2016-01-04T05:12:40.530" UserId="2883" Text="Determine the solar installation size based on W/m² solar irradiance data" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="75fa467e-b418-4016-b6f5-77fdcc12fe7e" CreationDate="2016-01-04T05:12:40.530" UserId="2883" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4972" RevisionGUID="3f1c60fd-7578-454f-b998-b216d7229be1" CreationDate="2016-01-04T06:36:41.060" UserId="48" Text="The conversion of light into electricity happens pretty much instantaneously. Well, it takes time, but such a short amount of time that we can't perceive it without some serious instrumentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if the insolation on the panels themselves at one second is 500W/m², and your system's efficiency is 20%, you'll get 100W for every m² of panel in that second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If cloud passes over and insolation halves to 250W/m² for ten seconds, then your power will also halve for ten seconds (assuming it's a small installation, so that the entire array effectively experiences the same cloud at the same moment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For grid-connected systems, this doesn't really make any difference: the rest of the grid acts as a massive storage buffer that smooths everything out. So in general, the number that interests people is how much energy will they get on average per day on an average day of the year. The system designer still has to account for the maximum generation at any one moment, to pick the correct inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, however, it's a standalone system, not grid-connected, and so does not have the luxury of that storage buffer, then it usually has a battery connected: that battery provides the smoothing. But now the system designer needs to do an hour-by-hour calculation for, say, 3 years, as well as accounting for peak momentary power in and out, to size the battery (and inverter if required) correctly for the application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4972" RevisionGUID="c533bdfb-a101-4d49-bc82-da002c6920fe" CreationDate="2016-01-04T13:29:24.067" UserId="48" Comment="added 344 characters in body" Text="The conversion of light into electricity happens pretty much instantaneously. Well, it takes time, but such a short amount of time that we can't perceive it without some serious instrumentation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if the insolation on the panels themselves at one second is 500W/m², and your system's efficiency is 20%, you'll get 100W for every m² of panel in that second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If cloud passes over and insolation halves to 250W/m² for ten seconds, then your power will also halve for ten seconds (assuming it's a small installation, so that the entire array effectively experiences the same cloud at the same moment).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For grid-connected systems, this doesn't really make any difference: the rest of the grid acts as a massive storage buffer that smooths everything out. So in general, the number that interests people is how much energy will they get on average per day on an average day of the year. The system designer still has to account for the maximum generation at any one moment, to pick the correct inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, however, it's a standalone system, not grid-connected, and so does not have the luxury of that storage buffer, then it usually has a battery connected: that battery provides the smoothing. But now the system designer needs to do an hour-by-hour calculation for, say, 3 years, as well as accounting for peak momentary power in and out, to size the battery (and inverter if required) correctly for the application. As the battery is going to store enough energy for at least several hours of load, the modelling doesn't need to be any more detailed than hourly. But if the particular application had little or no storage, then you'd have to model down to the level of individual seconds, or possibly even sub-second intervals, to get a correct system design." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="3bc14e01-1d36-45ee-a87b-9bdb6a4d7a88" CreationDate="2016-01-04T15:03:15.177" UserId="2915" Text="Since I'm still getting to know the world of sustainable living, recycling, scraping, and everything related to that - I would be very grateful if someone gave me a few pieces of advice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know what is the most valuable **thing** I should look for when scraping electronics. I do understand that various materials can be found in different objects, but it's still unclear to me what objects can yield as great results as to be considered &quot;Holy Grails&quot; of e-scraping - are those TVs, computers, cell phones, chargers, or what...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I have a question regarding scraping cell phone chargers &amp; headsets. Recently I have come across a bag containing a bunch of cell phone chargers, headsets, a variety of cables, etc. My first thought had been to cut the cables in order to look for copper only, and there I was - stripping cables for copper, when a thought popped up in my mind - should I somehow separate copper I stumble upon (for instance - low grade, high grade)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, when I stripped one particular cell phone charger (cable of the charger) - wires inside were &quot;silverish&quot;, if you know what I mean. Is that aluminum, or what? I am also wondering what should I do with the &quot;insulation&quot; (looks like rubber to me, but I suppose it's some kind of plastic material - anyway &quot;the tube&quot; where the copper wires are located)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also realised that there are also other **materials** to look for, besides copper - probably aluminum, but maybe even silver or gold? And where are those located?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="3bc14e01-1d36-45ee-a87b-9bdb6a4d7a88" CreationDate="2016-01-04T15:03:15.177" UserId="2915" Text="What is the most valuable &quot;thing&quot; I should focus on when scraping electronics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="3bc14e01-1d36-45ee-a87b-9bdb6a4d7a88" CreationDate="2016-01-04T15:03:15.177" UserId="2915" Text="|recycling|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="fddb7455-b410-401d-9f5b-8402f4c786af" CreationDate="2016-01-04T15:49:24.383" UserId="2932" Text="That trees are the major tools to remove CO2 from the air is clear, but how many new trees need to be planted to compensate all human CO2 polution (6 gigaton/ year?)? We should work with standard tree and count a tree in the tropics double since they absorb year round. If yearly net uptake of growing trees is 20kg CO2 in temparate zones, global avarage might be 30kg/year. &#xD;&#xA;This means that 'only' 6x 10*12 kg divided by 30 = 200 Bn trees are needed. I say only because this means only 10% extra forest, while I was counting on a doubling of global tree cover is needed (and possible).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="fddb7455-b410-401d-9f5b-8402f4c786af" CreationDate="2016-01-04T15:49:24.383" UserId="2932" Text="Qt of new Trees needed to compensate all human CO2 polution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="fddb7455-b410-401d-9f5b-8402f4c786af" CreationDate="2016-01-04T15:49:24.383" UserId="2932" Text="|trees|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="99dc9f5d-dcce-4eb9-b8e1-2ea0426f7ff7" CreationDate="2016-01-04T20:19:44.767" UserId="85" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="That trees are the major tools to remove CO₂ from the air is clear, but how many new trees need to be planted to compensate all human CO₂ pollution (6 gigatons / year?)? We should work with standard tree and count a tree in the tropics double since they absorb year round. If yearly net uptake of growing trees is 20kg CO₂ in temperate zones, global average might be 30kg/year. &#xD;&#xA;This means that &quot;only&quot; 6  10¹² kg divided by 30 = 200 Bn trees are needed. I say &quot;only&quot; because this means only 10% extra forest, while I was counting on a doubling of global tree cover is needed (and possible).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11197" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="99dc9f5d-dcce-4eb9-b8e1-2ea0426f7ff7" CreationDate="2016-01-04T20:19:44.767" UserId="85" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Quantity of new trees needed to compensate all human CO₂ pollution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11198" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="99dc9f5d-dcce-4eb9-b8e1-2ea0426f7ff7" CreationDate="2016-01-04T20:19:44.767" UserId="85" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|carbon-sequestration|trees|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="8baa1922-635f-4d29-9ce2-c83b74cba719" CreationDate="2016-01-04T21:05:41.623" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="That trees are the major tools to remove CO₂ from the air is clear, but how many new trees need to be planted to compensate all human CO₂ pollution (6 gigatons / year?)? We should work with standard tree and count a tree in the tropics double since they absorb year round. If yearly net uptake of growing trees is 20kg CO₂ in temperate zones, global average might be 30kg/year. &#xD;&#xA;This means that &quot;only&quot; 6 × 10¹² kg ÷ 30 kg = 200 × 10⁹ = 200 bn trees are needed. I say &quot;only&quot; because this means only 10% extra forest, while I was counting on a doubling of global tree cover is needed (and possible).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4975" RevisionGUID="8d3b9399-91cd-4687-beba-417594c1281e" CreationDate="2016-01-05T12:59:49.783" UserId="2883" Text="I have access to live solar irradiance data (in W/m²) at each minute of the day in my location, they come in 3 types: minimum, maximum and average. How do I make use of these datas to convert to kWh/m²/day?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought of summing each minute of irradiance data all up but it sounds ridiculous. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11201" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4975" RevisionGUID="8d3b9399-91cd-4687-beba-417594c1281e" CreationDate="2016-01-05T12:59:49.783" UserId="2883" Text="Converting from W/m² to kWh/m²/day" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11202" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4975" RevisionGUID="8d3b9399-91cd-4687-beba-417594c1281e" CreationDate="2016-01-05T12:59:49.783" UserId="2883" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="3a4b5a26-5f00-445a-8884-d5a146ff246e" CreationDate="2016-01-05T15:26:28.140" UserId="2846" Text="If your data is minute-by-minute then that's exactly what you need to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding all the minute-by-minute W/m² figures for a day (you should have 1440 of them, so use a spreadsheet or script) will give you the number of Wh/m² *incident radiation*.  So then divide by 1000 to get kWh/m² for that day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might as well use the &quot;average&quot; value unless you know what the difference between the three, and how it applies to you.  Then don't forget that to convert to kWh/m² *generated* you would need to take into account not just the panel efficiency but the angle of indcidence.  At this point you'll be glad you created a spreadsheet/script because this calculation is best done based on the date/time of day/latitude.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11204" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="1300bfb2-3d51-4771-8c80-5713df6e1752" CreationDate="2016-01-05T15:49:42.327" UserId="2846" Comment="spelling (scraping -&gt; scrapping)" Text="Since I'm still getting to know the world of sustainable living, recycling, scrapping, and everything related to that - I would be very grateful if someone gave me a few pieces of advice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know what is the most valuable **thing** I should look for when scrapping electronics. I do understand that various materials can be found in different objects, but it's still unclear to me what objects can yield as great results as to be considered &quot;Holy Grails&quot; of e-scrapping - are those TVs, computers, cell phones, chargers, or what...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I have a question regarding scrapping cell phone chargers &amp; headsets. Recently I have come across a bag containing a bunch of cell phone chargers, headsets, a variety of cables, etc. My first thought had been to cut the cables in order to look for copper only, and there I was - stripping cables for copper, when a thought popped up in my mind - should I somehow separate copper I stumble upon (for instance - low grade, high grade)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, when I stripped one particular cell phone charger (cable of the charger) - wires inside were &quot;silverish&quot;, if you know what I mean. Is that aluminum, or what? I am also wondering what should I do with the &quot;insulation&quot; (looks like rubber to me, but I suppose it's some kind of plastic material - anyway &quot;the tube&quot; where the copper wires are located)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also realised that there are also other **materials** to look for, besides copper - probably aluminum, but maybe even silver or gold? And where are those located?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11205" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="1300bfb2-3d51-4771-8c80-5713df6e1752" CreationDate="2016-01-05T15:49:42.327" UserId="2846" Comment="spelling (scraping -&gt; scrapping)" Text="What is the most valuable &quot;thing&quot; I should focus on when scrapping electronics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11206" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="1300bfb2-3d51-4771-8c80-5713df6e1752" CreationDate="2016-01-05T15:49:42.327" Comment="Proposed by 2846 approved by 2915 edit id of 359" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4977" RevisionGUID="3d5f1775-5572-4a62-b101-7d50b84891cf" CreationDate="2016-01-05T16:10:04.920" UserId="2846" Text="Copper cable can usually be recycled, and industrial processes are more likely to be able to take care of the insulation than you are.  This is likely to be true for other materials as well (the amount of gold in contact plating is very small, but it's still significant in terms of value).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For electronic devices, the recycling processes tend to be dirty and low tech (e.g. gold is recovered by hand-dipping in mercury baths) and involve shipping across the world.  This might make it sound like anything you could do would be an improvement, but in fact you probably couldn't do any better without significant investment, and then what would you do withthe recovered materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much better would be to look into reuse, even if only of components.  Some things may actually be useful as they are, others may be broken or terminally obsolete. In this case older stuff can often be better, as modern electronics tends to use surface-mount components and microcontrollers, both of which are hard to do anything with.  Using junk-box components first to learn some skills, then for repairing broken hardware, is probably the best you can hope for. I've known people who have made reasonable amounts of money repairing elctronic products, and also keeping them out of landfill.  Their approach has typically been to concentrate on a few similar products, and reckon that for buying 3-4 broken units and a few parts, they might get 2 working units for sale.  The rest ends up being disposed of through the least worst route (around here hardware can be recycled by taking it to a municipal facility)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11208" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4973" RevisionGUID="358820e0-e563-4323-9af2-9dec7b4081d9" CreationDate="2016-01-05T16:21:45.283" UserId="99" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11209" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="33e28378-1073-40dc-acd4-db2cb67f8331" CreationDate="2016-01-05T16:40:18.543" UserId="2915" Text="First of all, I would truly appreciate your help since I'm still a rookie when it comes to scrapping. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I stumble upon e-waste quite often which is the prime reason why have I decided to become a scrapper. Speaking of scrapping, my main goal is to fully use the potential of an object before throwing it away. I don't want to get rid of e-waste, without taking full advantage of it in the first place, which means I want my scrapping to be as profitable as possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, I would like to save some materials/objects which I can reuse later in DIY projects, or something like that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, I want to contribute to protecting the environment properly, as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, I know the theory - there is a variety of materials in different objects, such as gold, silver, copper, plastic, steel, aluminum - but things aren't that simple when you actually decide to scrap your first object. &#xD;&#xA;     &#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I have started to disassemble a mouse, but in order to recognize valuable parts - I need some advice. This is my very first object that I am taking apart, so I absolutely have no idea what is valuable - what materials should I accumulate with intention to sell it later when the price goes up; what can I reuse for DIY projects, etc. Simply, I need to know what is what.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the mouse before scrapping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Mouse before scrapping][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First step - strip the plastic parts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![First step][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I came across a spacecraft. Where is the value here? What should I focus on (how to handle, how not to break)...What should I accumulate for the reasons mentioned above? What isn't worth accumulating (what should I sell right away), etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ukait.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xOZs0.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dYSme.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/93WZH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely, lots of questions, but please - I would be so grateful if someone enlightened me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="33e28378-1073-40dc-acd4-db2cb67f8331" CreationDate="2016-01-05T16:40:18.543" UserId="2915" Text="Scrapping a mouse - what should I focus on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="33e28378-1073-40dc-acd4-db2cb67f8331" CreationDate="2016-01-05T16:40:18.543" UserId="2915" Text="|recycling|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4966" RevisionGUID="99aa15bb-5ee3-465f-93cd-345616e157bb" CreationDate="2016-01-05T18:27:05.983" UserId="2871" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Bags of cat food are better than recyclable! They are reusable!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You know all of those trash bags that you buy? Well, save your empty cat food bags (roll them up tight and find a place to hide them), as they make great trash bags. To seal them up after they are full just fold the top over and use 3-5 staples to secure the fold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only do you reuse the feed bag this way, but you also decrease demand on plastic trash bags which means fewer plastic trash bags get manufactured. So using your cat food bag as a trash bag is both a &quot;Reduction&quot; and a &quot;Reuse&quot;, both of which are better than &quot;Recycling&quot; which should be the last resort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same goes for just about any feed bag (Dog, Chicken, Horse, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bags made out of the plastic weave material are also good as rammed earth bags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11213" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4971" RevisionGUID="abbd3772-ab06-4cf9-b3f8-dd73ee11ee4a" CreationDate="2016-01-06T00:32:33.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/684532972192677889" />
  <row Id="11214" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="77c1c9b7-a676-4e1f-aeed-819e9664612d" CreationDate="2016-01-06T07:11:08.233" UserId="1462" Comment="clafication" Text="Electrical usage data capture with wireless data transfer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11215" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="77c1c9b7-a676-4e1f-aeed-819e9664612d" CreationDate="2016-01-06T07:11:08.233" Comment="Proposed by 1462 approved by 85 edit id of 360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11216" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="78fec077-e5dc-4a58-b588-aa8d34ee7a8e" CreationDate="2016-01-06T07:21:35.923" UserId="1462" Comment="slightly better terminology" Text="Electrical usage data logging with wireless data transfer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11217" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="78fec077-e5dc-4a58-b588-aa8d34ee7a8e" CreationDate="2016-01-06T07:21:35.923" Comment="Proposed by 1462 approved by 85 edit id of 361" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="8e3d7e41-8a42-4839-90eb-51f0fe6fecd0" CreationDate="2016-01-06T07:45:49.067" UserId="2846" Comment="Fixed missing correction for hours. " Text="If your data is minute-by-minute then that's exactly what you need to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding all the minute-by-minute W/m² figures for a day (you should have 1440 of them, so use a spreadsheet or script) will give you the number of Wh/m² *incident radiation*.  So then divide by 60,000 to get kWh/m² for that day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might as well use the &quot;average&quot; value unless you know what the difference between the three, and how it applies to you.  Then don't forget that to convert to kWh/m² *generated* you would need to take into account not just the panel efficiency but the angle of indcidence.  At this point you'll be glad you created a spreadsheet/script because this calculation is best done based on the date/time of day/latitude.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4976" RevisionGUID="f6a6175b-fcd0-4a34-bd65-b5c99d29c78b" CreationDate="2016-01-06T07:55:20.680" UserId="2846" Comment="Further fix " Text="If your data is minute-by-minute then that's exactly what you need to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding all the minute-by-minute W/m² figures for a day (you should have 1440 of them, so use a spreadsheet or script) will give you the number of Wmin/m² *incident radiation*.  So then divide by 60,000 to get kWh/m² for that day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might as well use the &quot;average&quot; value unless you know what the difference between the three, and how it applies to you.  Then don't forget that to convert to kWh/m² *generated* you would need to take into account not just the panel efficiency but the angle of indcidence.  At this point you'll be glad you created a spreadsheet/script because this calculation is best done based on the date/time of day/latitude.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11223" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4975" RevisionGUID="37fd4a42-4bef-496d-ba75-330e40705e00" CreationDate="2016-01-08T06:43:44.580" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/685351160186802176" />
  <row Id="11225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4980" RevisionGUID="1ba8c67c-6639-497f-966e-57ef60a02686" CreationDate="2016-01-08T09:48:29.167" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="In addition to Chris' answer I'm going to give you a (IMO) clearer and more generic way of doing this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need to convert units, **always reduce your units to more fundamental units of the International System of Units** that your two terms have in common.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;See [International System of Units](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Watt is a Joule per second, so 1 W/m² = 1 J/(m²s)&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm using brackets for clarity, but they are not required)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise 1 kWh/m²/day reduces step-by-step&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    kWh/(m²day)&#xD;&#xA;    1000 Wh/(m²day)&#xD;&#xA;    1000W3600s/(m²day)&#xD;&#xA;    3600000J/(m²day)&#xD;&#xA;    3600000J/(m²86400s)&#xD;&#xA;    41.666 J/(m²s)&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;... and if you insist on using Watts this is 41.666 W/m²&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strictly speaking I could have left out the step converting 1 W to 1 J/s, but we are so used to express energy in Joules&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; that I reduce to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as Chris says, whether to use use min/max/avg depends on what you want to calculate, not on your units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* If you are not, you should. Distinguishing the absolute amount of energy from the amount per second makes things much clearer.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4941" RevisionGUID="53ce10b2-1c95-4cf5-8087-e22dce3e63ed" CreationDate="2016-01-09T12:30:31.953" UserId="99" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="I'm not sure what percentage of food packaging could theoretically be recycled into new food packaging, but I do know why achieving a large percentage is currently not possible.&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that plastics used for packing food are required to be of high quality in many countries. This is called [food-grade plastic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_safe_symbol). That's why you will see this label on certain types of plastic food packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Food safe symbol][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem with recycled plastic is that it is difficult and costly to assure that it is of food-grade quality. This is because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. washing and cleaning the used plastics will not remove all contaminants (e.g. food leftovers, labels, glue) which reduces the quality of the recycled plastic.&#xD;&#xA;   2. non-food-grade plastic may be present in a batch of plastic that is to be recycled due to imperfect separation systems (but this would not be a problem if we assume correct plastic separating by households as you suggested in your question). &#xD;&#xA;   3. plastic manufacturers have to test that the recycled plastic is of food-grade quality and often need to get new recycling processes certified by certain government bodies. This costs time and money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reaseon for the low percentage of recycled food packaging is that some types of plastics are not or hardly recycled (e.g. polystyrene). This usually has to do with cost efficiency and/or lack of recycling facilities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK at the moment one of the few food packaging plastics that are being recycled into new food packaging (on a large scale, outside of labs) are PET bottles, but I've been told that virgin PET is usually added to get a high-enough quality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been research under which conditions certain types of plastics can be recycled safely and reused as food packaging, but it's been my impression that progress is slow. More information about this also here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [European Food Safety Authority - Plastic recycling](http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/plasticrecycling)&#xD;&#xA; - [FDA.gov - Recycled Plastics in Food Packaging](http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/PackagingFCS/RecycledPlastics/default.htm)&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1WwLu.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4981" RevisionGUID="36453a01-cc8b-4b3e-ab88-045d4a16d05f" CreationDate="2016-01-09T14:21:59.003" UserId="2868" Text="What I have ended up doing is making my own toothpaste using kaolin clay, essential oils, marine salt and an infusion of herbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of recipes on the internet for making your own toothpaste using natural ingredients as [this one][1] (which is very similar to the one that I followed) or [this one][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://realfoodoutlaws.com/diy-clay-toothpaste/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://wellnessmama.com/2500/remineralizing-toothpaste/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11229" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4974" RevisionGUID="a25e65a8-fcff-4bc2-962d-32fcb7802d12" CreationDate="2016-01-09T15:51:46.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/685851467329236993" />
  <row Id="11230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4968" RevisionGUID="13a25492-57ef-4a4f-be6b-f6d6611371fb" CreationDate="2016-01-09T17:54:51.500" UserId="2871" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="It sounds like the [Kill A Watt wireless][1] might be what you are after. For more alternatives keep reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another product line called the [Watts-Up][2] that has USB connections to computers on some models, and a built in web server on the high end one. The high end one can be made to work over wireless with an adapter. The USB only versions could be used together with a Raspberry Pi and a USB WIFI adapter to achieve sending the data over the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are handy with electronics and such you might want to have a look at this [HACKADAY][3] solution. This likewise should interface easily to a Arduino or Raspberry Pi and allow you to send the data over a wireless network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://p3international.com/products/p4200.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.wattsupmeters.com/secure/products.php?pn=0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://hackaday.com/2014/10/21/digital-data-from-a-cheap-power-meter/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4968" RevisionGUID="c5a7e7f7-2198-476e-8f1b-a0ad5ca3ec8c" CreationDate="2016-01-09T18:06:44.920" UserId="2871" Comment="added 84 characters in body" Text="It sounds like the [Kill A Watt wireless][1] might be what you are after. For more alternatives keep reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is another product line called the [Watts-Up][2] that has USB connections to computers on some models, and a built in web server on the high end one. The high end one can be made to work over wireless with an adapter. The USB only versions could be used together with a [Raspberry Pi][4] and a USB WIFI adapter to achieve sending the data over the network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are handy with electronics and such you might want to have a look at this [HACKADAY][3] solution. This likewise should interface easily to a [Arduino][5] or [Raspberry Pi][4] and allow you to send the data over a wireless network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://p3international.com/products/p4200.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.wattsupmeters.com/secure/products.php?pn=0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://hackaday.com/2014/10/21/digital-data-from-a-cheap-power-meter/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.raspberrypi.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.arduino.cc/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11232" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4936" RevisionGUID="31a9d3f6-c328-4349-8bab-1ed4ed56a0b7" CreationDate="2016-01-09T18:51:46.650" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/685896764046598145" />
  <row Id="11233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4982" RevisionGUID="bb7041f5-1898-46c7-882f-11bb3558818b" CreationDate="2016-01-10T04:04:35.240" UserId="2945" Text="Please check the following very short, 1 minute video about what to do with old incandescent bulbs:&#xD;&#xA;[Forestfern][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a longer &quot; white paper &quot; calculating the economies of various alternatives:&#xD;&#xA;[Transitioning to LED][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forestfern.simplesite.com/423784024&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://forestfern.simplesite.com/423815606" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4982" RevisionGUID="60286ec3-ebb6-4285-a89d-ffd9d445b130" CreationDate="2016-01-10T14:30:49.997" UserId="2945" Comment="summarized information as requested" Text="What to do with existing stock of incandescent bulbs – use them up or just put an LED in any socket where a lamp burns out?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; As efficient LED bulbs are widely available the question comes up what is the most economical way to transition, if a household still has sockets with incandescent bulbs midway in their lifetime and also some “stock” of previously purchased incandescent bulbs. &#xD;&#xA;A white paper published by [Forestfern.org][1] examines various transition strategies such as&#xD;&#xA;-replacing any bulb with an LED every time when a bulb burns out even though existing stock of incandescent still exists. &#xD;&#xA;- using up existing bulbs first before buying any new LED&#xD;&#xA;- employing a replacement strategy based on “use frequency” of sockets. &#xD;&#xA;We found that the most economical way is to employ a replacement strategy based on “average daily use” of the sockets. Replacing burnt out bulbs with existing stock of incandescent bulbs in sockets that are used “infrequently” and purchasing LED-s for sockets that are used “frequently” maximizes the savings achievable in a 5 year period. Examples of sockets used “infrequently” are attic lights, lights in a walk-in closet or other areas where a light source is used on average for less than an hour per day. Sockets that are used “frequently” are those that are used on average more than an hour daily, for example living room, desk lights etc.&#xD;&#xA;This is the consequence of having to purchase an LED ( even if it is &quot;relatively cheap&quot; compared to say last year), but the existing stock of incandescent bulbs have already been paid for and if the are thrown out then just generate waste.&#xD;&#xA; Please visit   forestfern.org  for further info, Transition to LED tab.&#xD;&#xA;Please check the following very short, 1 minute video about what to do with old incandescent bulbs:&#xD;&#xA;[Forestfern.org][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forestfern.simplesite.com/423815606&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://forestfern.simplesite.com/423784024" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4982" RevisionGUID="c7a685be-9ab8-4de6-bad4-24c21222168c" CreationDate="2016-01-10T14:36:15.077" UserId="2945" Comment="summarized information as requested" Text="What to do with existing stock of incandescent bulbs – use them up or just put an LED in any socket where a lamp burns out?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; As efficient LED bulbs are widely available the question comes up what is the most economical way to transition, if a household still has some “stock” of previously purchased incandescent bulbs. &#xD;&#xA;A white paper published by [Forestfern.org][1] examines various transition strategies such as&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- replacing any bulb with an LED every time when a bulb burns out even though existing stock of incandescent still exists&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- using up existing bulbs first before buying any new LED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- employing a replacement strategy based on “use frequency” of sockets.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Forestfern.org has found that the most economical way is to employ a replacement strategy based on “average daily use” of the sockets. Replacing burnt out bulbs with existing stock of incandescent bulbs in sockets that are used “infrequently” and purchasing LED-s for sockets that are used “frequently” maximizes the savings achievable in a 5 year period. Examples of sockets used “infrequently” are attic lights, lights in a walk-in closet or other areas where a light source is used on average for less than an hour per day. Sockets that are used “frequently” are those that are used on average more than an hour daily, for example living room, desk lights etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please check the following very short, 1 minute video about what to do with old incandescent bulbs and make sure to check out the &quot;Transition to LED&quot; tab.&#xD;&#xA;[Forestfern.org][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://forestfern.simplesite.com/423815606&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://forestfern.simplesite.com/423784024" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="f57d9f18-d145-4e65-b133-7bc40b73f476" CreationDate="2016-01-10T16:46:12.993" UserId="2871" Text="Almost all of those components are reusable in a DIY electronics project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Save these things for reuse, but make sure you have a good organization system thought out or you will never be able to find the thing you saved when you actually need it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Capacitors&#xD;&#xA; - Buttons&#xD;&#xA; - Encoder Wheel&#xD;&#xA; - The 7 Pin Connector Set&#xD;&#xA; - The 4 Pin Connector Set&#xD;&#xA; - The USB Cable&#xD;&#xA; - The Wiring&#xD;&#xA; - Not pictured in your photo, but there should be an optical sensor on the bottom of the mouse that is used for tracking the position. That could be useful, but you need to find the datasheet for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not possible to tell from your picture whether the Integrated Circuit (The 22 pin Chip) is worth saving. Take the sticker off, and take a closer picture of it, or post all of the make model and serial number information you can find written on the chip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ABS parts can be recycled, or if you are into 3D printing, then consider making a shredder for the plastic, and an extruder to make the ABS printing filament. I have seen videos of someone working on such a project online somewhere. I will edit with a link if and when I find it again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4984" RevisionGUID="676a3101-1ae1-468a-830b-700ee189ce54" CreationDate="2016-01-10T18:40:55.197" UserId="2946" Text="Our concrete  roof paint deteriorates from inner side, probably due to presence of moisture in concrete, &amp; it results in poor luck of roof .. Please guide me , how to stop paint deterioration ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note : walls under the roof are made of bricks &amp; mud mortar ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4984" RevisionGUID="676a3101-1ae1-468a-830b-700ee189ce54" CreationDate="2016-01-10T18:40:55.197" UserId="2946" Text="How to stop paint deterioration of inner side of roof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4984" RevisionGUID="676a3101-1ae1-468a-830b-700ee189ce54" CreationDate="2016-01-10T18:40:55.197" UserId="2946" Text="|energy-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11241" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4978" RevisionGUID="28da4e5d-8364-4054-b59c-ac54c5c3c288" CreationDate="2016-01-10T18:56:20.693" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/686260301310857216" />
  <row Id="11242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="486eefb2-f42f-4637-ae34-66ae37806e94" CreationDate="2016-01-11T11:26:28.360" UserId="2891" Comment="Article with Medical Research references" Text="&gt; **Update:** Medical Research references attached in this article -  &#xD;&#xA;[6 Natural Ways To Stop And Heal Receding Gums Before It’s Too Late][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the best source of information for this. I will not get a lot of votes for this as most people tend to believe AMA &amp; Pharma lobby, but the information comes from the most reliable sources of ancient herbal wisdom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ayurveda - 5000 year old science of life, food, medicine &amp; healing - sister science to Yoga. Open Source science. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have been used for ever. There are some commercial preparations that use these components and great blends. I'll link to some that I personally use below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Datun/ Datoon can made from Plant Stems Dant Manjan / Herbal Tooth Powder also from herbal preparations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoted from [Rajiv Dixit's talks on Prakrutik Chikitsa i.e. Natural Medicine][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12 types of daatoon can be used only.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - There are 3 basic season and 3 sub seasons. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Summers neem daatoon, babool,&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Winters, amrood is best, jaamoon is next&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Rains – mango, Arjun&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dant Manjans&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan   – daaru  - haldi {turmeric}, salt, sarso/ mustard oil &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 2 – burn dried gobar, add haldi and sendha namak to it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 3 – triphala choorna, sendha namak. This is the only one that can be used in all seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mango Leaves - Chew - make paste - Rub on teeth - Amazing whitener&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/turmeric-for-gum-disease.html?t=DM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without even me starting on Fluoride some of the negatives of chemical toothpastes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	11. Tooth paste is not good for you. They disturb Pitta. This will cause many problems. Teeth will decay very quickly due to paste use.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When sweet things are eaten early in the morning they disturb the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system. Our culture has a system to eating neem and turmeric balls.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	12. Commercial toothpastes have been using powdered animal bones for decades e.g. Colgate - pig bones, pepsodant – cow bones, close up –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; goat. This has been proven in lab tests and it seems only recently&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that some of these companies have stopped using bones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commercial Preparations that I personally have used &amp; are recommend by knowledgeable Ayurvedic experts: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_powder.php &#xD;&#xA; - I had gum bleeding for decades and have close friends who are dentists and cousins who are dentist and that never stopped. Another fellow yogi told me about these and they stopped bleeding in few days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://patanjaliayurved.net/product/dant-kanti/91 - My toothpase of choice. Although I feel the above powder with my fingers is way better for tooth health. I use both in conjunction. Use less of tooth brushes and carefully as they damage soft gums. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_paste.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Colgate tried to patent some of this stuff but it was thrown out due to prior known knowledge:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3dv4q1/india_blocks_colgate_patents_for_spices/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional interesting &amp; related information: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above mentioned Ayurvedic solutions focus on one principal in Ayurveda - 6 tastes - where Sweet, Salty and Bitter &amp; Astringent tasting items have different effect on a persons system and how each of them is needed in right amount and in the right order - Typically ending with Bitter/ Astringent items. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such items are suggested above for dental usage, and also used as after-mint or after food chewing, using betel nuts or betel leaves. {In excessive abuse, it also has a negative effect}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar principal seems to have been present in the Pompeii / ancient Roman excavations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://qz.com/516672/ancient-romans-had-no-need-for-dentists-because-of-one-food-they-didnt-eat/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  revealed in a press conference that the ancient Romans had perfect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teeth and “no immediate discernible need for dentists,” according news&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agency Agenzia Giornalistica Italia. Though Pompeii citizens never&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used toothbrushes or toothpaste, they had healthy teeth thanks to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their low-sugar diet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dailyhealthpost.com/natural-ways-to-heal-gum-disease/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://rootsandshoots.ning.com/forum/topics/summary-of-rajiv-dixit-s-lectures-on-ayurveda-based-on-mharishi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11243" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4967" RevisionGUID="13af44b7-ccdd-452b-b998-dd18dd28089b" CreationDate="2016-01-11T13:05:17.343" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/686534343783772160" />
  <row Id="11244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="40898c7b-24e0-420b-bebb-16d43a0dcd38" CreationDate="2016-01-11T13:43:10.237" UserId="986" Text="I know this is a huge question, but I keep find conflicting or, at best, qualitative and not referenced information about the following issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example [here](http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainability-performance-textiles-wool-environment), or [here](http://www.sustainablematerials.org.uk/resource/textiles.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the sustainability and impact on the environment of different fabrics like organic cotton, bamboo fibre, wool, cashmere wool, hemp, leather, etc? And how do they compare to one another from different aspects?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11245" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="40898c7b-24e0-420b-bebb-16d43a0dcd38" CreationDate="2016-01-11T13:43:10.237" UserId="986" Text="Sustainability of different fabrics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11246" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="40898c7b-24e0-420b-bebb-16d43a0dcd38" CreationDate="2016-01-11T13:43:10.237" UserId="986" Text="|defining-sustainability|clothing|fabric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="582c6f4c-fba8-42b5-be96-914ce866f296" CreationDate="2016-01-11T15:14:51.027" UserId="986" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="I know this is a huge question, but I keep find conflicting or, at best, qualitative and not referenced information about the following issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See for example [here](http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainability-performance-textiles-wool-environment), or [here](http://www.sustainablematerials.org.uk/resource/textiles.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the sustainability and impact on the environment of different fabrics like organic cotton, bamboo fibre, wool, cashmere wool, hemp, leather, etc? And how do they compare to one another from different aspects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I am interested in the comparison among Bamboo - organic cotton - Hemp." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4986" RevisionGUID="e22ada52-2749-4a8d-b862-87275d1f0a81" CreationDate="2016-01-11T16:30:45.257" UserId="2871" Text="Moss takes a while to grow, but when it fills in it makes a beautiful wall covering. If the concrete has moisture that will actually help the moss. Check out [these pictures][1] to get some ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a guide to [growing moss][2]. It focuses more on lawns, but the ideas are just as applicable to walls and ceilings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=moss+wall&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.mossandstonegardens.com/blog/how-to-grow-moss/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4986" RevisionGUID="ed34e525-d252-4dfc-8446-e8a0199f6ec0" CreationDate="2016-01-11T17:36:58.713" UserId="2871" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Moss takes a while to grow, but when it fills in it makes a beautiful wall covering. If the concrete has moisture that will actually help the moss grow without need of misting like you would on a dry surface. Check out [these pictures][1] to get some ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a guide to [growing moss][2]. It focuses more on lawns, but the ideas are just as applicable to walls and ceilings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=moss+wall&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.mossandstonegardens.com/blog/how-to-grow-moss/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4986" RevisionGUID="0506d6d4-4f3a-4482-8162-de9b7febdff5" CreationDate="2016-01-11T17:44:18.920" UserId="2871" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Moss takes a while to grow, but when it fills in it makes a beautiful wall covering. If the concrete has moisture that will actually help the moss grow without need of misting like you would on a dry surface. Check out [these pictures][1] to get some ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a guide to [growing moss][2]. It focuses more on lawns, but the ideas are just as applicable to walls and ceilings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If moss isn't your thing, consider striping the current paint with a sand blaster, then mixing your choice of latex paint with an acrylic cement admixture and some portland cement and water to make a thin slurry that can be painted or troweled onto the ceiling. That will at least last **much** longer than a normal paint job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=moss+wall&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.mossandstonegardens.com/blog/how-to-grow-moss/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4986" RevisionGUID="d8ad8f88-21e9-40f0-9b7c-926330658725" CreationDate="2016-01-11T17:51:35.633" UserId="2871" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Moss takes a while to grow, but when it fills in it makes a beautiful interior or exterior wall covering. If the concrete has moisture that will actually help the moss grow without need of misting like you would on a dry surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out [these pictures][1] to get some ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a guide to [growing moss][2]. It focuses more on lawns, but the ideas are just as applicable to walls and ceilings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If moss isn't your thing, consider striping the current paint with a sand blaster, then mixing your choice of latex paint with an acrylic cement admixture and some portland cement and water to make a thin slurry that can be painted or troweled onto the ceiling. That will at least last **much** longer than a normal paint job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=moss+wall&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.mossandstonegardens.com/blog/how-to-grow-moss/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4987" RevisionGUID="4b75a63e-551e-4107-8f6a-4d7dd7fef14e" CreationDate="2016-01-11T23:47:21.193" UserId="2954" Text="The curbside recycling service in my town accepts plastic bags. I wonder whether there is any difference in the recycling process (thus there is any environmental benefit) between this and taking them to the grocery store, where there is a container specific for plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that some people make the effort to take them to the grocery store, while it is way more convenient to drop it in the recycling bin, makes me think there may be some advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My local recycling service announces that they manually sort out the recycling materials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11253" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4987" RevisionGUID="4b75a63e-551e-4107-8f6a-4d7dd7fef14e" CreationDate="2016-01-11T23:47:21.193" UserId="2954" Text="Store drop-off vs curbside recycling plastic bags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11254" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4987" RevisionGUID="4b75a63e-551e-4107-8f6a-4d7dd7fef14e" CreationDate="2016-01-11T23:47:21.193" UserId="2954" Text="|plastic|bags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4988" RevisionGUID="5ae8b207-60aa-4e31-b4f1-44e1a08e713b" CreationDate="2016-01-12T01:43:29.720" UserId="2871" Text="No, the process the plastic ends up going through is the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing that changes when you drop them off at the grocery store is that it is more convenient for the recycling plant because the grocery store collection gets presorted, and the grocery retailers probably deliver enough bulk at a time that they actually get some money for it. A normal household could not achieve that kind of scale so they won't get paid." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4981" RevisionGUID="24498a78-58b2-4cfe-8bca-23ef522e934e" CreationDate="2016-01-12T09:40:40.127" UserId="2868" Comment="added 337 characters in body; added 48 characters in body" Text="What I have ended up doing is making my own toothpaste using kaolin clay, essential oils, marine salt and an infusion of herbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of recipes on the internet for making your own toothpaste using natural ingredients as [this one][1] (which is very similar to the one that I followed) or [this one][2].&#xA;&#xA;I consider this more sustainable than conventional commercial toothpaste because I've reduced packing (also none of the packages are made of plastic) and the amount of chemicals used, which makes me believe that the environmental footprint of the industrial production must be bigger than the one caused by producing it myself at home but I have no actual data to support this claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://realfoodoutlaws.com/diy-clay-toothpaste/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://wellnessmama.com/2500/remineralizing-toothpaste/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4989" RevisionGUID="07646950-0412-4516-a32b-db94cb0ef146" CreationDate="2016-01-12T09:57:28.543" UserId="2868" Text="I was considering to use the same device for writing from now on and I was considering two alternatives: a [mechanical pencil][1] or some kind of [refillable pen][2].&#xA;&#xA;Which of these two options is more sustainable? By sustainability here I mean which option causes less environmental footprint when producing the leads or the refills respectively.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Staedtler-Mars-Technical-Mechanical-Pencil/dp/B000YQEFGU&#xA;  [2]: http://www.amazon.com/Cross-Ballpoint-Refill-Medium-8511-2/dp/B00006IEC8/ref=lp_1069832_1_5?s=office-products&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1452592433&amp;sr=1-5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11258" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4989" RevisionGUID="07646950-0412-4516-a32b-db94cb0ef146" CreationDate="2016-01-12T09:57:28.543" UserId="2868" Text="What is more sustainable, using a mechanical pencil or a pen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11259" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4989" RevisionGUID="07646950-0412-4516-a32b-db94cb0ef146" CreationDate="2016-01-12T09:57:28.543" UserId="2868" Text="|carbon-footprint|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="9dc942a2-347b-44bf-bb51-0530f798a40f" CreationDate="2016-01-12T17:05:40.133" UserId="2871" Text="It is hard to say because there is such a wide variation in ink formulations. Also, no company is going to tell you what is in their ink, as they will consider that a trade secret. That being said, the only consumable part of a mechanical pencil is made entirely of graphite which is 100% Carbon. Go with the pencil!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4990" RevisionGUID="b484afd2-9fe4-4f57-b207-5d44525edcae" CreationDate="2016-01-12T17:25:04.640" UserId="2871" Comment="added 220 characters in body" Text="It is hard to say because there is such a wide variation in ink formulations. Also, no company is going to tell you what is in their ink, as they will consider that a trade secret. That being said, the only consumable part of a mechanical pencil is made entirely of graphite which is 100% Carbon and Clay. Go with the pencil!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a &quot;How it is made&quot; video on [Graphite pencil leads][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a [video on ink making][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmCHSj2wTCI&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fypi6dAJB8E" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4991" RevisionGUID="8bd659e6-65d1-42ac-804c-f69b87b9b398" CreationDate="2016-01-12T18:37:51.363" UserId="2956" Text="A plastic rubber coating will help you to not loose as much heat during the evening.  Painting the roof white will not help during the evening after the sun goes down. The way I see it you have 2 options that will help: 1) put a rubber coating on the top of the roof (rubber is an excellent insulator). 2)add a lower ceiling with insulation material in between the existing roof and new ceiling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="00c9b2bb-1aa7-46b6-9b61-540d5f329456" CreationDate="2016-01-12T19:45:45.490" UserId="2871" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="Almost all of those components are reusable in a DIY electronics project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Save these things for reuse, but make sure you have a good organization system thought out or you will never be able to find the thing you saved when you actually need it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Capacitors&#xD;&#xA; - Buttons&#xD;&#xA; - Encoder Wheel&#xD;&#xA; - The 7 Pin Connector Set&#xD;&#xA; - The 4 Pin Connector Set&#xD;&#xA; - The USB Cable&#xD;&#xA; - The Wiring&#xD;&#xA; - Not pictured in your photo, but there should be an optical sensor on the bottom of the mouse that is used for tracking the position. That could be useful, but you need to find the datasheet for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not possible to tell from your picture whether the Integrated Circuit (The 22 pin Chip) is worth saving. Take the sticker off, and take a closer picture of it, or post all of the make model and serial number information you can find written on the chip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ABS parts can be recycled, or if you are into 3D printing, then consider making a shredder for the plastic, and an extruder to make the ABS printing filament. There appear to be several choices for filament extrusion kits online, some off the shelf, some more DIY. [This Article][1] does a really good job of explaining the process, and has a list of extruders at the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://3dprintingforbeginners.com/how-to-make-diy-filament-for-your-3d-printer/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4983" RevisionGUID="0ec33b40-be77-4818-920f-316c00e4e8e0" CreationDate="2016-01-12T21:45:39.150" UserId="2871" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Almost all of those components are reusable in a DIY electronics project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Save these things for reuse, but make sure you have a good organization system thought out or you will never be able to find the thing you saved when you actually need it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Capacitors&#xD;&#xA; - Buttons&#xD;&#xA; - Encoder Wheel&#xD;&#xA; - The 7 Pin Connector Set&#xD;&#xA; - The 4 Pin Connector Set&#xD;&#xA; - The USB Cable&#xD;&#xA; - The Wiring&#xD;&#xA; - Not pictured in your photo, but there should be an optical sensor on the bottom of the mouse that is used for tracking the position. That could be useful, but you need to find the datasheet for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not possible to tell from your picture whether the Integrated Circuit (The 22 pin Chip) is worth saving. Take the sticker off, and take a closer picture of it, or post all of the make model and serial number information you can find written on the chip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ABS parts can be recycled, or if you are into 3D printing, then consider making/buying a shredder for the plastic, and an extruder to make the ABS printing filament. There appear to be several choices for filament extrusion kits online, some off the shelf, some more DIY. [This Article][1] does a really good job of explaining the process, and has a list of extruders at the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://3dprintingforbeginners.com/how-to-make-diy-filament-for-your-3d-printer/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11267" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4985" RevisionGUID="7ad5fa6a-993f-4052-b3c3-fa9538f240de" CreationDate="2016-01-13T04:08:52.700" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/687124126847336448" />
  <row Id="11268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="520dd0b9-88dd-4c8e-8f11-91c1ac6110be" CreationDate="2016-01-13T13:00:08.467" UserId="99" Comment="added WWF calculator" Text="A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor and ozone) that is produced directly and indirectly by a person, an organisation, an event or a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Direct emissions, also called primary footprint, come from sources directly controlled by the person(s) or activity in question, for example heating one's house. Indirect emissions or secondary footprint are emissions that are the consequence of a person(s) actions using sources owned or controlled by someone else, for example fuel that was for transport from the factory to the store for a product one has bought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The global average carbon footprint is approximately 4 tons of CO2-equivalent per person per year [[source]](http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_footprint) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the difference with [tag:ecological-footprint] that measures the total impact (so not only greenhouse gas emissions) of a person, organisation or activity on the Earth's ecosystems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online carbon footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Personal/Household*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbon Story](https://www.carbonstory.org/calculator/calculate)&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbonfootprint.com](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator1.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [Conservation International](http://www.conservation.org/act/live_green/carboncalc/Pages/default.aspx)&#xD;&#xA; - [EPA USA - Household Carbon Footprint Calculator](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/ind-calculator.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [Berkeley University - CoolClimate Carbon Footprint Calculator](http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/carboncalculator)&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbon Neutral Company](http://www.carbonneutralcalculator.com/householdcalculator.aspx)&#xD;&#xA; - [Earth Lab](https://www.earthlab.com/createprofile/reg.aspx) (requires registration)&#xD;&#xA; - [WWF UK Footprint Calculator](http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/) (for UK citizens)&#xD;&#xA; - [Nature Conservancy](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) (for US citizens)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Kids*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Cooltheworld.com - Kid's carbon calculator](http://www.cooltheworld.com/kidscarboncalculator.php)&#xD;&#xA; - [Meet the Greens - Zero footprint youth calculator](http://www.meetthegreens.org/features/carbon-calculator.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [ABC Television - Carbon Cops](http://www.abc.net.au/tv/carboncops/calculator.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Business*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Greenhouse Gas Protocols](http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools)&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbonfootprint.com](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/businesscalculator.aspx) (registration required)&#xD;&#xA; - [Energy Star Target Finder](https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=target_finder)&#xD;&#xA; - [Clean Air-Cool Planet - Campus Carbon Calculator](http://campuscarbon.com) (for schools in the US/Canada, registration required)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="2964e058-76f5-4e77-a1eb-26108a615ede" CreationDate="2016-01-13T13:13:04.627" UserId="99" Comment="removed WWF calculator as it is for carbon only, added 3 other calculators" Text="An ecological footprint estimates how much land and ocean area is required to sustain the consumption pattern of one person or a particular group of people. For example in 2007 it was estimated that mankind's total ecological footprint was 1.5 planet Earths, i.e. humanity uses 1.5 times more of the available resources than the Earth can renew them. In 2012 this world average was calculated to be 1.8 Earths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage:**&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions on how to derive an ecological footprint, or for questions about the exact ecological footprint of a country or of a particular lifestyle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that ecological footprint is sometimes confused with [tag:environmental-impact] which describes all effects (positive or negative) of the production, consumption or disposal of a product or service on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;Also note the difference between ecological footprint and [tag:carbon-footprint] which only considers the emissions of greenhouse gasses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online personal ecological footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/pt/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Islandwood.org](https://islandwood.org/footprint-calculator/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Myfootprint.org](http://myfootprint.org/) (requires subscription)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecologicalfootprint.calculatord.com](http://ecologicalfootprint.calculatord.com) (very basic calculator)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecologicalfootprint.com](http://ecologicalfootprint.com) (very basic calculator, aimed at UK residents)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecocamp.us](http://www.ecocamp.us/eco-footprint-calculator) (for kids in the USA)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11271" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="333" RevisionGUID="3ee0e11e-995f-47f4-8655-bf95c86edaa2" CreationDate="2016-01-13T18:04:22.147" UserId="20" Comment="Fix stale link" Text="I found [a comparison here](https://web.archive.org/web/20130527164642/http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/energy-recycle-glass-bottles-vs-aluminum-cans-vs-plastic-2376.html).  My take on reading that is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Aluminum is the most efficient in terms of energy saved in making a new can taking only 5% that compared to working from scratch.&#xD;&#xA;* Glass comes in second saving 20-30% of the energy in making new glass.&#xD;&#xA;* Plastic is a distant third since you keep degenerating to a lower quality plastic formula. (e.g. PET (type 1) soda bottles becomes carpeting and jackets)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm not sure if glass beats aluminum in a total energy consumed to make say a 12 ounce container in that perhaps the amount of energy required for glass is so much less than aluminum that using 70% of the glass number still beats 5% of the aluminum number.  However, with no facts to back this up, my intuition tells me aluminum would still win in a side by side comparison." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11272" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4989" RevisionGUID="20b9423e-d411-41b0-ac93-053091eec3e8" CreationDate="2016-01-13T18:52:19.393" UserId="2868" Comment="edited tags" Text="|carbon-footprint|ecological-footprint|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="bbce7ba2-93c4-427b-8339-894811234955" CreationDate="2016-01-13T22:42:34.013" UserId="2871" Text="The sustainability of fiber farming Cotton, Bamboo, and Hemp all depend heavily on the cultivation methods being used. That being said we can compare the function stacking ability of these crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organic Cotton is an [perennial plant that is grown as an annual crop][1] so requires effort every year to get the crop started. It also require a great deal of effort in managing it during the growth cycle since you need to limit vegetative growth to get a good yield of cotton. It is grown specifically for the fiber found in the cotton flower while the rest of the plant goes unused with the exception of the seeds which get pressed for cottonseed oil. I am unsure of guild relationships with the cotton plant, but generally it is grown in a mono-culture so that is of little concern here. The fact that it is, for the most part, grown in mono-culture with &quot;conventional&quot; (even if it is organic) agriculture means that the soil is not being cared for properly which is a **really** bad thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bamboo is a perennial grass! It forms a thick matted root layer that suppresses growth of other plants, so it doesn't have plant guild dynamics, but acts as a great way to suppress the spread of plants from one place to another. Bamboo also has several other uses other than harvesting for fiber. It is grown as a windbreak or hedge / living fence. The young shoots are human edible, or used for forage. Older stalks can also be used as [goat &amp; sheep forage][2], so you can obtain, wool, leather, milk, &amp; meat from a mixed production bamboo forage system as well as bamboo fiber! Of note: due to the very high water holding capacity of bamboo textiles they will take more energy to dry than cotton will. If you use a cloths line instead of a dryer then this isn't an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hemp is an annual crop that grows invasively like a weed so there should be very little environmental concerns with organic mono-cultures as long as a cover crop gets planted from late fall to early spring. Read [this article][4] to see which companion plants are great to grow alongside hemp to reduce pest issues. Additionally Hemp can be grown as a companion plant to potatoes to help fend off late blight. Hemp yields a large quantity of seed, which is [considered a superfood][6]. I have heard of hemp being used as an [amendment to cattle feed][3], so I am sure other animals would do well with it as well. Hemp also has found use as a [source of graphene][3] for technological applications. The hemp fibers are also useful for making [Hempcrete][5] which allows for buildings that sequester carbon. Work is currently being done to use bamboo fiber in a similar way with Magnesium Oxide cement instead of a lime based cement like portland cement, but Hempcrete is a far more established technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.soilcropandmore.info/crops/CottonInformation/B1252/b1252.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.permies.com/t/30971/goats/Sheep-Bamboo&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.globalhemp.com/2004/05/hemp-is-the-not-so-secret-ingredient-in-farmers-cow-feed.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.hightimes.com/read/grow-qa-companion-plants-pot&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.americanlimetechnology.com/what-is-hempcrete/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.leafly.com/news/health/why-are-hemp-seeds-considered-a-superfood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4994" RevisionGUID="d830c882-dda0-4d2a-b346-89db9820be98" CreationDate="2016-01-14T12:19:21.007" UserId="2826" Text="In my house, I currently have a mix of incandescent, CFL, and LED bulbs. I have a supply of additional CFL and LED bulbs. My immediate plan is to go through the house and swap out the incandescent bulbs that I can since they're considerably less efficient, and aren't really much of a change in investment, but I'm less certain on switching from CFL to LED since they're only a year or two old, might be good for years more, and contain more harmful elements for the purpose of disposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it make sense to replace them at this time? Financially and for the good of the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="4994" RevisionGUID="d830c882-dda0-4d2a-b346-89db9820be98" CreationDate="2016-01-14T12:19:21.007" UserId="2826" Text="Is it economical / sustainable to switch from CFL to LED?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="4994" RevisionGUID="d830c882-dda0-4d2a-b346-89db9820be98" CreationDate="2016-01-14T12:19:21.007" UserId="2826" Text="|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4995" RevisionGUID="5da1e490-10c4-4303-b86e-910ee22b7fb0" CreationDate="2016-01-14T17:53:52.213" UserId="2871" Text="Right off the bat, I would say that LEDs make much more sense sustainability wise since CFLs contain Mercury which makes broken CFLs hazardous waste!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will see if I can hunt down figures for embodied energy, and energy consumption to do a more thorough analysis. I will update the answer when I have found those figures." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="4839d986-01af-4e68-8446-cea9d494c511" CreationDate="2016-01-14T17:55:57.017" UserId="2871" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="The sustainability of fiber farming Cotton, Bamboo, and Hemp all depend heavily on the cultivation methods being used. That being said we can compare the function stacking ability of these crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organic Cotton is an [perennial plant that is grown as an annual crop][1] so requires effort and Energy every year to get the crop started. It also require a great deal of effort in managing it during the growth cycle since you need to limit vegetative growth to get a good yield of cotton. It is grown specifically for the fiber found in the cotton flower while the rest of the plant goes unused with the exception of the seeds which get pressed for cottonseed oil. I am unsure of guild relationships with the cotton plant, but generally it is grown in a mono-culture so that is of little concern here. The fact that it is, for the most part, grown in mono-culture with &quot;conventional&quot; (even if it is organic) agriculture means that the soil is not being cared for properly which is a **really** bad thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bamboo is a perennial grass! It forms a thick matted root layer that suppresses growth of other plants, so it doesn't have plant guild dynamics, but acts as a great way to suppress the spread of plants from one place to another. Bamboo also has several other uses other than harvesting for fiber. It is grown as a windbreak or hedge / living fence. The young shoots are human edible, or used for forage. Older stalks can also be used as [goat &amp; sheep forage][2], so you can obtain, wool, leather, milk, &amp; meat from a mixed production bamboo forage system as well as bamboo fiber! Of note: due to the very high water holding capacity of bamboo textiles they will take more energy to dry than cotton will. If you use a cloths line instead of a dryer then this isn't an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hemp is an annual crop that grows invasively like a weed so there should be very little environmental concerns with organic mono-cultures as long as a cover crop gets planted from late fall to early spring. Read [this article][4] to see which companion plants are great to grow alongside hemp to reduce pest issues. Additionally Hemp can be grown as a companion plant to potatoes to help fend off late blight. Hemp yields a large quantity of seed, which is [considered a superfood][6]. I have heard of hemp being used as an [amendment to cattle feed][3], so I am sure other animals would do well with it as well. Hemp also has found use as a [source of graphene][3] for technological applications. The hemp fibers are also useful for making [Hempcrete][5] which allows for buildings that sequester carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Work is currently being done to use bamboo fiber in a similar way with Magnesium Oxide cement instead of a lime based cement like portland cement, but Hempcrete is a far more established technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.soilcropandmore.info/crops/CottonInformation/B1252/b1252.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.permies.com/t/30971/goats/Sheep-Bamboo&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.globalhemp.com/2004/05/hemp-is-the-not-so-secret-ingredient-in-farmers-cow-feed.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.hightimes.com/read/grow-qa-companion-plants-pot&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.americanlimetechnology.com/what-is-hempcrete/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.leafly.com/news/health/why-are-hemp-seeds-considered-a-superfood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4986" RevisionGUID="031eb8ab-3dd3-4a5d-afe0-744ae2aaf5e1" CreationDate="2016-01-14T18:12:12.590" UserId="2871" Comment="added 332 characters in body" Text="Moss takes a while to grow, but when it fills in it makes a beautiful interior or exterior wall covering. If the concrete has moisture that will actually help the moss grow without need of misting like you would on a dry surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out [these pictures][1] to get some ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a guide to [growing moss][2]. It focuses more on lawns, but the ideas are just as applicable to walls and ceilings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If molds are an issue grow lichen first before the moss. Lichens are a multi-species organism composed of a moss like plant and a fungi. The fungal aspect of the Lichen will compete against other fungi (like black mold). If mold is already present you may need to sterilize the concrete somehow (e.g. Bleach or Rubbing Alcohol).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If moss isn't your thing, consider striping the current paint with a sand blaster, then mixing your choice of latex paint with an acrylic cement admixture and some portland cement and water to make a thin slurry that can be painted or troweled onto the ceiling. That will at least last **much** longer than a normal paint job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option, is like THelper says in his comment to this answer, you might be better off finding out why the concrete gets wet and fixing that problem instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=moss+wall&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.mossandstonegardens.com/blog/how-to-grow-moss/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4996" RevisionGUID="ad6dae2a-09db-482b-ad13-131578b17652" CreationDate="2016-01-14T20:22:29.970" UserId="2871" Text="Bamboo Pros:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is a perennial grass.&#xD;&#xA;  - You don't need to put annual effort and energy into it's cultivation.&#xD;&#xA;  - You don't need to disturb the soil, so the soil ecosystem stays intact.&#xD;&#xA;  - **NO Soil Erosion!**&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo suppresses the growth of other plants (weeds) around it so it requires **NO Herbicides**.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is **VERY** [hardy against pests and diseases][1] so it requires **NO Pesticides**, especially if grown in a polyculture.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires **NO Fertilizer** when growing for fiber. (Note: some bamboo crops grown for the young edible shoots do use some fertilizer and herbicide.)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo grows extremely fast.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo takes less water to grow, and is drought tolerant.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo textiles hold much more water than cotton textiles.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo textiles wick water away from the skin much more quickly than cotton textiles.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is a better insulator than cotton.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fiber, when processed naturally, contains a natural antimicrobial compound called bamboo-kun. (Note: Most bamboo fiber is processed using the viscose method, which [strips it of the bamboo-kun][2].)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fiber [requires less dye than cotton][4] for colored textiles, and results in more vibrant textiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bamboo Cons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Since Bamboo holds much more water than cotton textiles, it takes much more energy to dry it after washing. If you are using a cloths line instead of a clothes dryer then this isn't an issue.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is [sensitive to the timing of harvest][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cotton Pros:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Processing cotton requires less energy and water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cotton Cons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cotton is a perennial plant, grown as an annual crop.&#xD;&#xA;  - Annual energy and effort devoted to cultivation.&#xD;&#xA;  - Plowing which disturbs the soil ecosystem.&#xD;&#xA;  - Contributes to soil erosion.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires lots of management effort during cultivation as [vegetative growth needs to be minimized][5] in order to get a high yield.&#xD;&#xA; - Even [Organic Cotton requires pesticides][3] (copper salts).&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Estimates indicate that cotton is the largest user of water among all agricultural commodities.&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA; - Requires lots of fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bamboobotanicals.ca/html/bamboo-care/bamboo-pests-diseases.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.barnhardtcotton.net/blog/know-fibers-cotton-vs-bamboo/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_textile&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://thegreenlivingcenter.com/node/137&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.soilcropandmore.info/crops/CottonInformation/B1252/b1252.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4997" RevisionGUID="74937997-9d9c-4cc1-a7a1-d8e97730f8d0" CreationDate="2016-01-15T00:49:50.803" UserId="2964" Text="I put up an electric fence.  The deer wire is about 3 foot off the ground.  I take a piece a tinfoil the size of my hand put a dab of peanut butter on it and fold it over, in half.  The deer are attracted to it, by smell, must touch it, get stung, then leave and never come back again.  I do not know why it works but it has for me for several years and I see deer in my garden during the winter when the fence is down." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4995" RevisionGUID="cb40a44f-6324-45b0-af43-4b29bb20b6b1" CreationDate="2016-01-15T01:13:46.773" UserId="2871" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="Right off the bat, I would say that LEDs make much more sense sustainability wise since CFLs contain Mercury which makes broken CFLs hazardous waste!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will see if I can hunt down figures for embodied energy, and energy consumption to do a more thorough analysis. I will update the answer when I have found those figures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, do you pay to heat your house? If so, then **DO NOT** ditch those incandescent bulbs. All of the wasted energy is in the form of Radiant heat. So if you heat your house anyway then those incandescent bulbs are already **100% Efficent!**. Just switch them out for the LED bulbs during the summer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4996" RevisionGUID="90333cf4-49e1-42f9-9f58-c5f7e754e70b" CreationDate="2016-01-15T01:17:54.697" UserId="2871" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="Bamboo Pros:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is a perennial grass.&#xD;&#xA;  - You don't need to put annual effort and energy into it's cultivation.&#xD;&#xA;  - You don't need to disturb the soil, so the soil ecosystem stays intact.&#xD;&#xA;  - **NO Soil Erosion!**&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo suppresses the growth of other plants (weeds) around it so it requires **NO Herbicides**.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is **VERY** [hardy against pests and diseases][1] so it requires **NO Pesticides**, especially if grown in a polyculture.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires **NO Fertilizer** when growing for fiber. (Note: some bamboo crops grown for the young edible shoots do use some fertilizer and herbicide.)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo grows extremely fast.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo takes less water to grow, and is drought tolerant.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo textiles hold much more water than cotton textiles.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo textiles wick water away from the skin much more quickly than cotton textiles.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is a better insulator than cotton.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fiber, when processed naturally, contains a natural antimicrobial compound called bamboo-kun. (Note: Most bamboo fiber is processed using the viscose method, which [strips it of the bamboo-kun][2].)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fiber [requires less dye than cotton][4] for colored textiles, and results in more vibrant textiles.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fibers are softer than cotton fibers.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fibers do not [pill][6] as much as cotton fibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bamboo Cons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Since Bamboo holds much more water than cotton textiles, it takes much more energy to dry it after washing. If you are using a cloths line instead of a clothes dryer then this isn't an issue.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is [sensitive to the timing of harvest][2].&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fibers are less durable than cotton fibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cotton Pros:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Processing cotton requires less energy and water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cotton Cons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cotton is a perennial plant, grown as an annual crop.&#xD;&#xA;  - Annual energy and effort devoted to cultivation.&#xD;&#xA;  - Plowing which disturbs the soil ecosystem.&#xD;&#xA;  - Contributes to soil erosion.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires lots of management effort during cultivation as [vegetative growth needs to be minimized][5] in order to get a high yield.&#xD;&#xA; - Even [Organic Cotton requires pesticides][3] (copper salts).&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Estimates indicate that cotton is the largest user of water among all agricultural commodities.&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA; - Requires lots of fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bamboobotanicals.ca/html/bamboo-care/bamboo-pests-diseases.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.barnhardtcotton.net/blog/know-fibers-cotton-vs-bamboo/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_textile&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://thegreenlivingcenter.com/node/137&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.soilcropandmore.info/crops/CottonInformation/B1252/b1252.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pill_(textile)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11291" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4994" RevisionGUID="9e0ed1d5-c709-496a-ae48-8116f379a47c" CreationDate="2016-01-15T07:20:24.480" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/687897102983294976" />
  <row Id="11292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4841" RevisionGUID="8f1ec0e7-8515-441b-82a9-55e8191c1e4b" CreationDate="2016-01-15T08:11:23.493" UserId="99" Comment="added link to refered post" Text="I had bamboo pillowcases before, they are very soft but not very durable.  So I have to disagree with the con No 2 in [Sempie's post](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4574/99). I do know that bamboo fabric need more water to produce, which increases overall environmental impact.  However, since bamboo grows really fast, I am not aware of any producer heavily using fertilizer, which is a pro comparing to cotton." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3130" RevisionGUID="63e35766-915a-4e64-b615-ab648edd60e3" CreationDate="2016-01-15T08:46:02.227" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title for SEO purposes" Text="I would like to dispose of a plastic cup:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![ECO CUP][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom view:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![ECO CUP bottom][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Markings on the cup say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 100% COMPOSTABLE &amp; BIODEGRADABLE&#xD;&#xA;- MADE FROM 100% RENEWABLE RESOURCE&#xD;&#xA;- ECO-CUP® Made from plant&#xD;&#xA;- NatureWorks®&#xD;&#xA;- Type 7 plastic PLA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I should toss it in our city-provided compostables collection bin. However, the [city's guidelines][3] say&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unaccepted items:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Plastic bags, wrap, or containers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compostable or biodegradable plastic bags&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Curbside recycling won't take it either][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not accepted:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Packaging labelled biodegradable or compostable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, do I have to toss it as garbage?  That seems like an unfortunate and ironic waste. Is there a better alternative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/td6HR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TW2bo.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/what-food-scraps-and-yard-waste-go-in-green-bins.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://recyclinginbc.ca/program/can-recycled/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11294" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3130" RevisionGUID="63e35766-915a-4e64-b615-ab648edd60e3" CreationDate="2016-01-15T08:46:02.227" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title for SEO purposes" Text="How to best dispose of a plant-based 100% compostable plastic ECO-CUP?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3132" RevisionGUID="7765446d-986c-4beb-8fc7-1d154754fd32" CreationDate="2016-01-15T08:47:00.217" UserId="99" Comment="added remark about not disposing it with other plastics" Text="The problem with PLA-based plastic is that it requires high temperatures and moist conditions for a relatively long period to actually degrade and turn into compost. Theoretically it is possible to compost it along with all other compostables (food leftovers, garden wastes), but PLA takes much longer to fully decompose than 'normal' organic waste and it seems most municipal composting centers don't bother doing this. Instead they filter out any plastics or large objects and either dump them in landfills or incinerate them,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 things you can do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Throw it in the 'general' or 'compostables' waste bin**. In both cases, the plastic either gets either dumped in a landfill which would be unfortunate, or it gets incinerated in which case it may be useful as an energy source.&#xD;&#xA;2. **Try and compost it yourself using hot composting**. However, proper hot composting isn't easy as you need to monitor the temperatures in your compost pile and turn the materials regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever you do, **do not dispose of it along with other plastics**. If compostable plastics end up being recycled along with other plastics, the quality of the recycled plastic will be impacted severely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to know more about this there are two related questions on this website:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [How is compostable plastic recycled/composted industrially?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2607/99) &#xD;&#xA; - [Which compostable plastic types can be composted at home?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2594/99)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4996" RevisionGUID="d6ce75aa-494e-4d1c-9e40-6630381ad462" CreationDate="2016-01-15T09:57:47.057" UserId="85" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="**Bamboo Pros**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is a perennial grass.&#xD;&#xA;  - You don't need to put annual effort and energy into it's cultivation.&#xD;&#xA;  - You don't need to disturb the soil, so the soil ecosystem stays intact.&#xD;&#xA;  - **NO Soil Erosion!**&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo suppresses the growth of other plants (weeds) around it so it requires **NO Herbicides**.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is **VERY** [hardy against pests and diseases][1] so it requires **NO Pesticides**, especially if grown in a polyculture.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires **NO Fertilizer** when growing for fiber. (Note: some bamboo crops grown for the young edible shoots do use some fertilizer and herbicide.)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo grows extremely fast.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo takes less water to grow, and is drought tolerant.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo textiles hold much more water than cotton textiles.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo textiles wick water away from the skin much more quickly than cotton textiles.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is a better insulator than cotton.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fiber, when processed naturally, contains a natural antimicrobial compound called bamboo-kun. (Note: Most bamboo fiber is processed using the viscose method, which [strips it of the bamboo-kun][2].)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fiber [requires less dye than cotton][4] for colored textiles, and results in more vibrant textiles.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fibers are softer than cotton fibers.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fibers do not [pill][6] as much as cotton fibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bamboo Cons**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Since Bamboo holds much more water than cotton textiles, it takes much more energy to dry it after washing. If you are using a cloths line instead of a clothes dryer then this isn't an issue.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is [sensitive to the timing of harvest][2].&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fibers are less durable than cotton fibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cotton Pros**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Processing cotton requires less energy and water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cotton Cons**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cotton is a perennial plant, grown as an annual crop.&#xD;&#xA;  - Annual energy and effort devoted to cultivation.&#xD;&#xA;  - Plowing which disturbs the soil ecosystem.&#xD;&#xA;  - Contributes to soil erosion.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires lots of management effort during cultivation as [vegetative growth needs to be minimized][5] in order to get a high yield.&#xD;&#xA; - Even [Organic Cotton requires pesticides][3] (copper salts).&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Estimates indicate that cotton is the largest user of water among all agricultural commodities.&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA; - Requires lots of fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bamboobotanicals.ca/html/bamboo-care/bamboo-pests-diseases.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.barnhardtcotton.net/blog/know-fibers-cotton-vs-bamboo/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_textile&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://thegreenlivingcenter.com/node/137&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.soilcropandmore.info/crops/CottonInformation/B1252/b1252.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pill_(textile)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11297" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4955" RevisionGUID="7043fefe-a96e-4083-88b2-8335eab4a586" CreationDate="2016-01-15T22:23:37.277" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/688124403154984962" />
  <row Id="11298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4998" RevisionGUID="3198dc95-90b3-4037-a47a-083e80847fef" CreationDate="2016-01-17T21:50:34.510" UserId="400" Text="As a first attempt, I would use a sheet of formica or equivalent brand.  If you have an edge to work with, set it in place with a bead of caulk.  Caulk is easier to remove if you don't like it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have an edge to work with, frame it with 1x2. Cut a triangle off of 1 edge of the 1x2 so that you 1/8&quot; cut off the narrow dimension, and 3/8&quot; off the wide dimension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Paint the frame with a good primer and exterior grade paint to protect the wood.  Build the frame  to suit, adding cross pieces if needed to keep the formica flat.  Attach the frame to the formica using contact cement. carefully paint the edge of the formica.  This is the only place where water can get into the layers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The triangle cutoff is on top (away from the formica, and on the outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Set in place initially with duct tape on the bottom edge.  Run a strip of masking tape even with the top of the wood.  Run a another strip of tape on the narrow edge up to the triangular cut.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now put a bead of silicon seal along the missing triangle, smoothing with a wet finger.  Remove the masking tape.  Allow to cure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remove the duct tape.  Mask both edges of the bottom, about 1/4&quot; from the edge.&#xD;&#xA;Repeat the silicon seal trick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  If this works, you may want to make a more solid version of it, and use the space above for storage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="4999" RevisionGUID="19d76b75-ea5d-434c-8875-0233e4f79d05" CreationDate="2016-01-17T21:54:40.320" UserId="400" Text="At present it is not sustainable.  There isn't enough difference in efficiency.  Not all of the CF bulbs have mercury.  Read the package.  Put an M (or Hg) on the base of ones that do so that you will recognize them after you lose the packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LED lights right now are seriously over priced.  But the tech is changing fast.  Once you have installed your last CFL bulb, check out the current state of the art before buying more replacements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In passing:  Living rurally they don't last any 10,000 hours.  We lost 4 in a day due to a voltage spike.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5000" RevisionGUID="e0a204e8-db09-4293-8539-9ab204cd601a" CreationDate="2016-01-18T10:53:01.007" UserId="929" Text="**The symbol**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The symbol you posted (and similar recycling symbols all around the world) usually means, that some kind of ecological charge was paid by manufacturer and that money is on the other hand given to recycling companies. Nothing else. Some of them does cooperate worldwide and sending/receiving money if the packaging materials are exported/imported, some does not. but the symbol definitely does not say anything about the material form which the plastic bags are made of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_recycling_symbols), this symbol is &quot;Recyclable plastic&quot;, usually used with letters bellow depend on plastic type. See bellow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The material** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, you have to decide by yourself if this plastic is possible to recycle, based on the material which it is made from. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually plastic bags are from some type of polyethylene, so probably it is possible to recycle it in US as well. It is plastic as any other, does not matter if the US symbol is missing. In Japan they are recycling plastics similarly as in any other country. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For different materials/different plastics it is necessary to always distinguish the material from which it is made from, not if the ecological charge was paid.&#xD;&#xA;[![plastic materials][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**... and some fun**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, some fun: It is not possible and definitely not sustainable to re-export the plastic bags back to Japan to be recycled there. :c)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bsSul.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/U9PaZ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Il1NP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5000" RevisionGUID="d931ae50-9818-45d1-9673-232c16ddbcb7" CreationDate="2016-01-18T15:03:34.823" UserId="929" Comment="+picture Jap PP  " Text="**The symbol**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The symbol you posted (and similar recycling symbols all around the world) usually means, that some kind of ecological charge was paid by manufacturer and that money is on the other hand given to recycling companies. Nothing else. Some of them does cooperate worldwide and sending/receiving money if the packaging materials are exported/imported, some does not. but the symbol definitely does not say anything about the material form which the plastic bags are made of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_recycling_symbols), this symbol is &quot;Recyclable plastic&quot;, usually used with letters bellow depend on plastic type. As is on the picture below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Japanse recyclyble plastci PP][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The material** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, you have to decide by yourself if this plastic is possible to recycle, based on the material which it is made from. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually plastic bags are from some type of polyethylene, so probably it is possible to recycle it in US as well. It is plastic as any other, does not matter if the US symbol is missing. In Japan they are recycling plastics similarly as in any other country. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For different materials/different plastics it is necessary to always distinguish the material from which it is made from, not if the ecological charge was paid.&#xD;&#xA;[![plastic materials][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**... and some fun**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, some fun: It is not possible and definitely not sustainable to re-export the plastic bags back to Japan to be recycled there. :c)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1j57o.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Il1NP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5000" RevisionGUID="c63a9e1e-5476-4bfd-bf13-803fb8b984c7" CreationDate="2016-01-18T15:10:01.957" UserId="929" Comment="+picture Jap PP  +some minor updates" Text="**The symbol**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The symbol you posted (and similar recycling symbols all around the world) usually means, that some kind of ecological charge was paid by manufacturer and that money is on the other hand given to recycling companies. Nothing else. Some of them does cooperate worldwide and sending/receiving money if the packaging materials are exported/imported, some does not. but the symbol definitely does not say anything about the material form which the plastic bags are made of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_recycling_symbols), this symbol is &quot;Recyclable plastic&quot;, usually used with letters bellow depend on plastic type. As is on the picture below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Japanse recyclyble plastci PP][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The material** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, you have to decide by yourself if this plastic is possible to recycle, based on the material which it is made from. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually plastic bags are from some type of polyethylene, so probably it is possible to recycle it in US as well. It is plastic as any other, does not matter if the US symbol is missing. In Japan they are recycling plastics similarly as in any other country. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recycling different materials/different plastics it is necessary to always distinguish the material from which it is made from, not if the ecological charge was paid and where.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![plastic materials][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the numbers and the letters, if used, seems to be the same in whole world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**... and some fun**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, some fun: It is not possible and definitely not sustainable to re-export the plastic bags back to Japan to be recycled there. :c)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1j57o.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Il1NP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5000" RevisionGUID="7ae33be6-c7ff-4f50-be37-6f9393bd2b00" CreationDate="2016-01-18T15:59:38.053" UserId="929" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**The symbol**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The symbol you posted (and similar recycling symbols all around the world) could only mean, that some kind of ecological charge was paid by manufacturer and that money is on the other hand given to recycling companies. Nothing else. Some of them does cooperate worldwide and sending/receiving money if the packaging materials are exported/imported, some does not. but the symbol definitely does not say anything about the material form which the plastic bags are made of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_recycling_symbols), this symbol is &quot;Recyclable plastic&quot;, usually used with letters bellow depend on plastic type. As is on the picture below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Japanse recyclyble plastci PP][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The material** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, you have to decide by yourself if this plastic is possible to recycle, based on the material which it is made from. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually plastic bags are from some type of polyethylene, so probably it is possible to recycle it in US as well. It is plastic as any other, does not matter if the US symbol is missing. In Japan they are recycling plastics similarly as in any other country. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recycling different materials/different plastics it is necessary to always distinguish the material from which it is made from, not if the ecological charge was paid and where.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![plastic materials][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the numbers and the letters, if used, seems to be the same in whole world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**... and some fun**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And finally, some fun: It is not possible and definitely not sustainable to re-export the plastic bags back to Japan to be recycled there. :c)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1j57o.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Il1NP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5001" RevisionGUID="0b01a504-3eab-44d8-83b8-1a606832d400" CreationDate="2016-01-18T21:27:57.543" UserId="480" Text="To answer your question about whether or not it's financially worthwhile to swap them out, I looked at two simlarly rated lamps from the same manufacturer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Philips 60W equivalent CFL](http://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/046677419806/energy-saver-bulb/specifications): 14W power consumption, 800 Lumens, CRI 82&#xD;&#xA; - [Philips 60W equivalent LED](http://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/046677425265/led-a-shape/specifications): 11W power consumption, 830 lumens, CRI 80&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there's a 3W difference in power consumption between the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you keep the light on for 4 hours/day every day for a year, it will consume around 4KWh of extra power each year, or around 60 cents worth of power at $0.15/KWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CFL is rated for 8000 hours, so if it's brand new and lasts the entire 8000 hours, it will run for around 5.5 years, costing you an extra $3.30 in electricity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can replace the CFL with an LED for less than $3.30, it's probably not going to be financially worthwhile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your payback period may be different depending on how often you use the lamp and how much you pay for electricity.  I ignored the labor costs of changing bulbs since in most cases it's minimal, but sometimes may be significant -- I have a set of 4 stairway lamps that are mounted high on the wall and I need to bring in the long folding ladder and set it up on the stairs to reach the bulbs. When one of the CFL's burnt out, I replaced all 4 with (hopefully longer lifetime) LED's at the same time since it was easy to replace them while the ladder was set up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as others have said, due to the sunk environmental cost in creating the CFLs you already own, it's likely a net environmental loss if you discard them before their useable lifetime is over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5001" RevisionGUID="e518474b-edb7-4322-8d88-4e3260648fce" CreationDate="2016-01-18T23:47:22.747" UserId="480" Comment="added 382 characters in body" Text="To answer your question about whether or not it's financially worthwhile to swap them out, I looked at two simlarly rated lamps from the same manufacturer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Philips 60W equivalent CFL](http://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/046677419806/energy-saver-bulb/specifications): 14W power consumption, 800 Lumens, CRI 82&#xD;&#xA; - [Philips 60W equivalent LED](http://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/046677425265/led-a-shape/specifications): 11W power consumption, 830 lumens, CRI 80&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there's a 3W difference in power consumption between the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you keep the light on for 4 hours/day every day for a year, it will consume around 4KWh of extra power each year, or around 60 cents worth of power at $0.15/KWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CFL is rated for 8000 hours, so if it's brand new and lasts the entire 8000 hours, it will run for around 5.5 years, costing you an extra $3.30 in electricity. Similarly, if the lamp is already a few years old and has only 2000 hours left it'll cost you less than a dollar of extra electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can replace the CFL with an LED for less than $3.30, it's probably not going to be financially worthwhile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your payback period may be different depending on how often you use the lamp and how much you pay for electricity.  I ignored the labor costs of changing bulbs since in most cases it's minimal, but sometimes may be significant -- I have a set of 4 stairway lamps that are mounted high on the wall and I need to bring in the long folding ladder and set it up on the stairs to reach the bulbs. When one of the CFL's burnt out, I replaced all 4 with (hopefully longer lifetime) LED's at the same time since it was easy to replace them while the ladder was set up. It takes me around 30 minutes to get the ladder from the garage, set it up, then put it away again, so if the LED really does last 3 times longer than the CFL, it's economically worthwhile for me to change it out before the end of life of the CFL.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as others have said, due to the sunk environmental cost in creating the CFLs you already own, it's likely a net environmental loss if you discard them before their useable lifetime is over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4999" RevisionGUID="e4ae8d42-92e9-4753-a7e9-d513a728d963" CreationDate="2016-01-19T05:13:36.430" UserId="400" Comment="added 861 characters in body" Text="At present it is not sustainable.  There isn't enough difference in efficiency.  Not all of the CF bulbs have mercury.  Read the package.  Put an M (or Hg) on the base of ones that do so that you will recognize them after you lose the packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit:  Jonny's comment prompted a check.  &quot;Eco friendly&quot; bulbs have about 1 mg Hg/bulb.  The common bulb has about 5 mg. Coal report from the Pembina group cited 20 to 33 mg/ MWh (1000 kWh) So a eco bulb that uses 10 W over a 10,000 hour life will result in twice as much Hg from the power it uses compared to the mercury inside.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*According to [this article][1] the minimum daily does of Hg to have a demonstrable effect is 300 ug (microgram)/day.  You need to EAT two eco bulbs a weak to get this dose.  (And the exposure refers to methylmercury, a much easier to absorb form)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Overall, worrying about Hg in bulbs right now is a case of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Take them back to a recycling station if you can, but don't stay awake if one slides into the trash.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LED lights right now are seriously over priced.  But the tech is changing fast.  Once you have installed your last CFL bulb, check out the current state of the art before buying more replacements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In passing:  Living rurally they don't last any 10,000 hours.  We lost 4 in a day due to a voltage spike.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cda-adc.ca/jcda/vol-65/issue-1/42.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11308" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4989" RevisionGUID="cebebdf8-60bf-4f5b-a7a4-8e0fcf6bac06" CreationDate="2016-01-19T07:44:52.263" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/689352808794099712" />
  <row Id="11309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4996" RevisionGUID="ac01ed58-a345-40b3-909a-ec8b9de6e744" CreationDate="2016-01-19T17:24:42.463" UserId="2871" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="**Bamboo Pros**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is a perennial grass.&#xD;&#xA;  - You don't need to put annual effort and energy into it's cultivation.&#xD;&#xA;  - You don't need to disturb the soil, so the soil ecosystem stays intact.&#xD;&#xA;  - **NO Soil Erosion!**&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo suppresses the growth of other plants (weeds) around it so it requires **NO Herbicides**.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is **VERY** [hardy against pests and diseases][1] so it requires **NO Pesticides**, especially if grown in a polyculture. This is in part a result of the fact that bamboo contains a natural antimicrobial compound called bamboo-kun which defends the plants against fungal attacks.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires **NO Fertilizer** when growing for fiber. (Note: some bamboo crops grown for the young edible shoots do use some fertilizer and herbicide.)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo grows extremely fast.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo takes less water to grow, and is drought tolerant.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo textiles hold much more water than cotton textiles.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo textiles wick water away from the skin much more quickly than cotton textiles.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is a better insulator than cotton.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fiber, when processed naturally, contains a natural antimicrobial compound called bamboo-kun. (Note: Most bamboo fiber is processed using the viscose method, which [strips it of the bamboo-kun][2].)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fiber [requires less dye than cotton][4] for colored textiles, and results in more vibrant textiles.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fibers are softer than cotton fibers.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fibers do not [pill][6] as much as cotton fibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bamboo Cons**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Since Bamboo holds much more water than cotton textiles, it takes much more energy to dry it after washing. If you are using a cloths line instead of a clothes dryer then this isn't an issue.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is [sensitive to the timing of harvest][2].&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fibers are less durable than cotton fibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cotton Pros**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Processing cotton requires less energy and water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cotton Cons**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cotton is a perennial plant, grown as an annual crop.&#xD;&#xA;  - Annual energy and effort devoted to cultivation.&#xD;&#xA;  - Plowing which disturbs the soil ecosystem.&#xD;&#xA;  - Contributes to soil erosion.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires lots of management effort during cultivation as [vegetative growth needs to be minimized][5] in order to get a high yield.&#xD;&#xA; - Even [Organic Cotton requires pesticides][3] (copper salts).&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Estimates indicate that cotton is the largest user of water among all agricultural commodities.&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA; - Requires lots of fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bamboobotanicals.ca/html/bamboo-care/bamboo-pests-diseases.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.barnhardtcotton.net/blog/know-fibers-cotton-vs-bamboo/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_textile&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://thegreenlivingcenter.com/node/137&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.soilcropandmore.info/crops/CottonInformation/B1252/b1252.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pill_(textile)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="897348ba-2435-40c3-a0d6-25ac3c7c405f" CreationDate="2016-01-19T17:29:11.830" UserId="2871" Comment="added 154 characters in body" Text="The sustainability of fiber farming Cotton, Bamboo, and Hemp all depend heavily on the cultivation methods being used. That being said we can compare the function stacking ability of these crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organic Cotton is an [perennial plant that is grown as an annual crop][1] so requires effort and Energy every year to get the crop started. It also require a great deal of effort in managing it during the growth cycle since you need to limit vegetative growth to get a good yield of cotton. It is grown specifically for the fiber found in the cotton flower while the rest of the plant goes unused with the exception of the seeds which get pressed for cottonseed oil. I am unsure of guild relationships with the cotton plant, but generally it is grown in a mono-culture so that is of little concern here. The fact that it is, for the most part, grown in mono-culture with &quot;conventional&quot; (even if it is organic) agriculture means that the soil is not being cared for properly which is a **really** bad thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bamboo is a perennial grass! It forms a thick matted root layer that suppresses growth of other plants, so it doesn't have plant guild dynamics, but acts as a great way to suppress the spread of plants from one place to another. Bamboo also has several other uses other than harvesting for fiber. It is grown as a windbreak or hedge / living fence. The young shoots are human edible, or used for forage. Older stalks can also be used as [goat &amp; sheep forage][2], so you can obtain, wool, leather, milk, &amp; meat from a mixed production bamboo forage system as well as bamboo fiber! Of note: due to the very high water holding capacity of bamboo textiles they will take more energy to dry than cotton will. If you use a cloths line instead of a dryer then this isn't an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hemp is an annual crop that grows invasively like a weed so there should be very little environmental concerns with organic mono-cultures as long as a cover crop gets planted from late fall to early spring. Read [this article][4] to see which companion plants are great to grow alongside hemp to reduce pest issues. Additionally Hemp can be grown as a companion plant to potatoes to help fend off late blight. Hemp yields a large quantity of seed, which is [considered a superfood][6]. I have heard of hemp being used as an [amendment to cattle feed][3], so I am sure other animals would do well with it as well. Hemp also has found use as a [source of graphene][3] for technological applications. The hemp fibers are also useful for making [Hempcrete][5] which allows for buildings that sequester carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Work is currently being done to use bamboo fiber in a similar way with Magnesium Oxide cement instead of a lime based cement like portland cement, but Hempcrete is a far more established technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as THelper recommended in a comment on your question, have a look at [this question][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.soilcropandmore.info/crops/CottonInformation/B1252/b1252.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.permies.com/t/30971/goats/Sheep-Bamboo&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.globalhemp.com/2004/05/hemp-is-the-not-so-secret-ingredient-in-farmers-cow-feed.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.hightimes.com/read/grow-qa-companion-plants-pot&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.americanlimetechnology.com/what-is-hempcrete/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.leafly.com/news/health/why-are-hemp-seeds-considered-a-superfood&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/4553/99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5003" RevisionGUID="986818a5-27b9-4a79-9342-a533a2723556" CreationDate="2016-01-20T05:02:19.520" UserId="2702" Text="Very few people use fountain pens today. It follows that few such pens are made. A good fountain pen lasts a long time if you take good care of it. If you have to choose between Parker and Mont Blanc, go with the former (and the one with the gold tips are rumored to last longer):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get one on Amazon for under $200.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/206Ru.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5005" RevisionGUID="2ffe93ca-d352-4bd8-86d5-a37778b676eb" CreationDate="2016-01-20T14:04:56.557" UserDisplayName="user2039" Text="I am looking to make a ecofriendly humidifier. It should not use electricity.I suffer from sinuses and humidity is essential for me. So I thought of keeping  a container of water in my room(s) near where the sun's rays hit the container of water. How do I sustain the humidity through the night ? I also want to know whether specific levels of humidity can be achieved with this simple approach. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11316" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5005" RevisionGUID="2ffe93ca-d352-4bd8-86d5-a37778b676eb" CreationDate="2016-01-20T14:04:56.557" UserDisplayName="user2039" Text="Portable humidifier that does not use electricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11317" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5005" RevisionGUID="2ffe93ca-d352-4bd8-86d5-a37778b676eb" CreationDate="2016-01-20T14:04:56.557" UserDisplayName="user2039" Text="|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11319" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="786" RevisionGUID="b0db8fe8-ae5d-46e3-9954-8a7f6c4b4624" CreationDate="2016-01-20T19:06:03.050" UserId="85" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11320" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5005" RevisionGUID="629fa34a-17b6-4f15-a007-044834c8c350" CreationDate="2016-01-20T19:50:48.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/689897884960055296" />
  <row Id="11321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4999" RevisionGUID="800d9cc3-8ea4-4530-a5ab-9470f5ec8c86" CreationDate="2016-01-20T22:50:04.760" UserId="400" Comment="Fixed more flaws in answer." Text="At present it is not sustainable.  There isn't enough difference in efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;All bulbs have Hg according to Wikipedia, but 'eco friendly' have less.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Jonny's comment prompted a check.  &quot;Eco friendly&quot; bulbs have about 1 mg Hg/bulb.  The common bulb has about 5 mg. Coal report from the Pembina group cited 20 to 33 mg/ MWh (1000 kWh) So a eco bulb that uses 10 W over a 10,000 hour life will result in twice as much Hg from the power it uses compared to the mercury inside.  Compared to an incandescent bulb it delivers far less Hg to the environment, even if not properly recycled. (Based on coal fired power) *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*According to [this article][1] the minimum daily does of Hg to have a demonstrable effect is 300 ug (microgram)/day.  You need to EAT two eco bulbs a week to get this dose.  (And the exposure refers to methylmercury, a much easier to absorb form)*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Overall, worrying about Hg in bulbs right now is a case of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Take them back to a recycling station if you can, but don't stay awake if one slides into the trash. And if you use coal generated power, then CFLs are are better choice than LED*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LED lights right now are seriously over priced.  But the tech is changing fast.  Once you have installed your last CFL bulb, check out the current state of the art before buying more replacements.  If you are currently all incandescent, then by preference replace with LED, 2nd choice CFL.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In passing:  Living rurally they don't last any 10,000 hours.  We lost 4 in a day due to a voltage spike.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cda-adc.ca/jcda/vol-65/issue-1/42.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5006" RevisionGUID="a3a60538-7218-48e9-b6e2-67b576247793" CreationDate="2016-01-21T00:27:35.013" UserId="2345" Text="I've seen the technique that you describe used in hot desert climates, were it was used in rooms that were cooled by refrigerated air conditioning. Such air conditioning can dehumidify the air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a container with a larger surface area; a flat pan rather than a tall narrow glass will increase the potential for evaporation of the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effectiveness of the method depends on the amount of humidity already in the air and how much more moisture you can put into the air. During the night, you may need to have more containers in the room. Depending on air flow in the room, the closer they are to you the better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5006" RevisionGUID="391911de-f62f-47ea-a008-adb7d90c68cc" CreationDate="2016-01-21T02:43:53.273" UserId="2345" Comment="Added more info: plants inside &amp; issues with not providing adequate ventilation" Text="I've seen the technique that you describe used in hot desert climates, were it was used in rooms that were cooled by refrigerated air conditioning. Such air conditioning can dehumidify the air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a container with a larger surface area; a flat pan rather than a tall narrow glass will increase the potential for evaporation of the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effectiveness of the method depends on the amount of humidity already in the air and how much more moisture you can put into the air. During the night, you may need to have more containers in the room. Depending on air flow in the room, the closer they are to you the better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Edit***&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;This came to me some time after I posted my initial answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing you could do **at home** is to &quot;bring the jungle inside&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plants transpire water, increasing the humidity around them - jungles and forest can create their own rain systems. By having plants with large green leaves inside the house you can increase the humidity inside house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in colder climates where some people air dry their laundry inside they have to be careful to provide proper ventilation otherwise they can create the ideal conditions for mould to appear on the inside walls and ceiling due to the increased humidity from the drying laundry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4882" RevisionGUID="4cb0bb06-ecdc-4e6e-af66-1a374e1a552f" CreationDate="2016-01-22T15:15:29.740" UserId="99" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Water footprint refers to the amount water used to make a product, provide a service, or support the lifestyle of a particular person or group of people. This includes water used by suppliers or manufacturers who create or supply components or necessary services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distinction between [tag:virtual-water] and water footprint is that the first only refers to the amount of water used in a product. Water footprint is a much wider concept as it includes additional information to assess the full impact of the water usage, for example where the water is from, how it is used and when it is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Water footprint network - FAQ](http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/frequently-asked-questions/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Calculators:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Water footprint network - Various interactive tools/calculators](http://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Kemira water footprint calculator](http://www.waterfootprintkemira.com/meter)&#xD;&#xA; - [Home water works calculator](http://www.home-water-works.org/calculator) for US or Canadian households&#xD;&#xA; - [Watercalculator.org](http://www.watercalculator.org) for US households&#xD;&#xA; - [National Geographic - Water footprint calculator](http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/change-the-course/water-footprint-calculator/) for US households&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11327" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="657" RevisionGUID="89b8d35c-ac85-4050-b3ea-3960d5570001" CreationDate="2016-01-22T16:11:24.810" UserId="85" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5008" RevisionGUID="feca43e6-7046-4a11-8768-faaaeca3c498" CreationDate="2016-01-23T10:33:01.763" UserId="2868" Text="Besides those mentioned in Fred's answer, there are more choices available that you could consider trying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find non-electric humidifiers in most major online shops as [Amazon][1]. These are spheres that absorb water and restore moisture to the room bit by bit. I haven't tried them myself but the reviews are positive in general (although some of them consider the spheres too small).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More alternatives are offered [here][2] as drying your clothes in an inside clothes-rack (humidifying the room where they are hung in the process) or leaving the door of the bathroom opened while you take a shower. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Set-Of-Non-Electric-Humidifier/dp/B00HS5ZH8A&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.mnn.com/health/healthy-spaces/questions/how-can-i-naturally-humidify-my-home" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5010" RevisionGUID="ca78fa4a-c9b8-44cd-8181-a212a3efd9d6" CreationDate="2016-01-23T22:17:26.410" UserId="1701" Text="It is refreshing to take a cool shower in hot weather. And for the sake of discussion, lets assume that one should be &quot;comfortable&quot; with temeratures when taking a shower. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that the vast majority of the heat from a shower is lost down the drain, would it not be more energy efficient to heat a confined space (shower stall) to a temperature that would allow you to shower with cool water rather than hot? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How hot would it have to be in the room for 70 degree water to be &quot;nice.&quot; 60 degree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And since all of the energy used to heat the air in the space would remain in the space/room, would you use less energy to take a comfortable shower doing it that way?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11331" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5010" RevisionGUID="ca78fa4a-c9b8-44cd-8181-a212a3efd9d6" CreationDate="2016-01-23T22:17:26.410" UserId="1701" Text="Would you save energy by heating the air in a shower stall so that you could use colder water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11332" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5010" RevisionGUID="ca78fa4a-c9b8-44cd-8181-a212a3efd9d6" CreationDate="2016-01-23T22:17:26.410" UserId="1701" Text="|energy|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11336" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="844" RevisionGUID="b2956764-862c-4a1d-a8cc-8d39e9791f60" CreationDate="2016-01-24T03:42:27.510" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11338" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5010" RevisionGUID="c06d4957-d776-45d0-9c6b-2098234c7d38" CreationDate="2016-01-24T13:57:43.610" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/691258581946142720" />
  <row Id="11339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="788d76bb-9018-430c-a71f-f6d02118566d" CreationDate="2016-01-24T22:23:24.703" UserId="3002" Text="tl;dr : how would you talk about (Scientific approaches to sustainable resource management – **applied to a local problem**) ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm applying for this [Ms degree in sustainable resource management][1] and I have to write an essay of 800 words about (Scientific approaches to sustainable resource management – applied to a local problem) but I'm not sure that I got the correct understanding of the idea required here. My background is from a different field and I'm afraid that I'll just write something total our of the point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read some report about the concepts of sustainability but I still wanted an opinion from someone actually in the field, so here I am. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding to the point is as follows: I would pick a certain resource in my country - say a forest. And try to suggest ideas about how to make it more sustainable, through the concepts that might apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does this sound reasonable? if there any articles, reports or book I should read? and finally is there any similar essays I can use as a guide in writing mine? surely someone did this before, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thank you in advance &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.forst.wzw.tum.de/index.php?id=39&amp;L=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11340" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="788d76bb-9018-430c-a71f-f6d02118566d" CreationDate="2016-01-24T22:23:24.703" UserId="3002" Text="Scientific approaches to sustainable resource management?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11341" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="788d76bb-9018-430c-a71f-f6d02118566d" CreationDate="2016-01-24T22:23:24.703" UserId="3002" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5013" RevisionGUID="a646e0b9-4c53-4286-8f7d-9242aa49f202" CreationDate="2016-01-25T01:53:41.690" UserId="15" Text="If we apply the concept of sustainability of a local forest, then there are various objectives we might have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The short and long term direct health of the flora and fauna. This might be affected by pollution, climate change, introduced species (eg insects, predators such as rats or stoats, or invasive plants).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Encouragement of the local community to care for the forest, and remove litter, fund pest management, provide walks or community facilities.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Preventing development (and thus bulldozing) of the land. This is largely a political goal, though in some countries where illegal activities are a problem it could be considered a security issue too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider a [simple description of science][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Science is a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using science to meet the goals above could initially involve baseline measurement and monitoring of relevant qualities, such as rainfall, numbers and types of of pest plants, numbers of people walking through the forest, amount of money spent looking after it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next the data collected could be used to determine which qualities are improving, and which are declining. Understanding the reasons for improvements, or for problems, can help determine future courses of action. Ongoing monitoring can indicate which actions might be helping or not. Getting in touch with other parties solving the same problem elsewhere can also save time and money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a degree in science and have read a substantial amount on sustainability over the years but I don't have a qualification focused on sustainability.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the entry requirements of the course, I'd be fairly comfortable they'd accept something written without reading up heavily on the subject, but it would be worth the 5 or 10 mins needed to call the tutor for the course and have a brief chat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5014" RevisionGUID="63875c73-70cf-42ac-a20f-c20f57f905e6" CreationDate="2016-01-25T11:43:36.873" UserId="48" Text="Bear in mind that every word in the question will have been chosen carefully. The &quot;to&quot; and &quot;a&quot; are there to ensure it's correct English. Each of the other words is important. So make sure that you've addressed every one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The people assessing your application will be looking for signs that you have the aptitude to learn, that you understand what will be required, and that you already have a decent grounding in the subject. So that's what you need to display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainable resource management is a deep topic, and it would at least be worth reading a primer on it. Consider issues of ownership, maintenance, stakeholders' interests, income sources, understanding what the inputs are, what the outputs are, closing the loop where possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="fc687c32-4a16-4f16-82bb-b033d431c4ad" CreationDate="2016-01-25T12:36:50.840" UserId="2868" Comment="Fixed grammar " Text="tl;dr : how would you talk about (Scientific approaches to sustainable resource management – **applied to a local problem**) ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm applying for this [Ms degree in sustainable resource management][1] and I have to write an essay of 800 words about (Scientific approaches to sustainable resource management – applied to a local problem) but I'm not sure that I got the correct understanding of the idea required here. My background is from a different field and I'm afraid that I'll just write something totally out of the point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read some report about the concept of sustainability but I still wanted an opinion from someone actually in the field, so here I am. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding of the point is as follows: I would pick a certain resource in my country - say a forest. And try to suggest ideas about how to make it more sustainable, through the concepts that might apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;does this sound reasonable? is there any articles, reports or book I should read? and finally is there any similar essays I can use as a guide in writing mine? surely someone did this before, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thank you in advance &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.forst.wzw.tum.de/index.php?id=39&amp;L=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11346" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="fc687c32-4a16-4f16-82bb-b033d431c4ad" CreationDate="2016-01-25T12:36:50.840" Comment="Proposed by 2868 approved by -1 edit id of 362" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="dbed1c27-c5e9-460f-8d96-f967ab055363" CreationDate="2016-01-25T12:36:50.840" UserId="60" Comment="Fixed grammar " Text="tl;dr : how would you talk about (Scientific approaches to sustainable resource management – **applied to a local problem**) ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm applying for this [Ms degree in sustainable resource management][1] and I have to write an essay of 800 words about (Scientific approaches to sustainable resource management – applied to a local problem) but I'm not sure that I got the correct understanding of the idea required here. My background is from a different field and I'm afraid that I'll just write something totally out of the point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read some report about the concept of sustainability but I still wanted an opinion from someone actually in the field, so here I am. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding of the point is as follows: I would pick a certain resource in my country - say a forest. And try to suggest ideas about how to make it more sustainable, through the concepts that might apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this sound reasonable? Is there any articles, reports or book I should read? And finally is there any similar essays I can use as a guide in writing mine? Surely someone did this before, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thank you in advance &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.forst.wzw.tum.de/index.php?id=39&amp;L=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11348" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="8a8b5ef8-91b5-46f1-b187-f4d79606a066" CreationDate="2016-01-25T14:09:22.840" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|careers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5014" RevisionGUID="92ba02b0-8e2b-4c94-9e19-e95035e81e65" CreationDate="2016-01-25T14:35:13.407" UserId="48" Comment="added 299 characters in body" Text="Bear in mind that every word in the question will have been chosen carefully. The &quot;to&quot; and &quot;a&quot; are there to ensure it's correct English. Each of the other words is important. So make sure that you've addressed every one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The people assessing your application will be looking for signs that you have the aptitude to learn, that you understand what will be required, and that you already have a decent grounding in the subject. So that's what you need to display.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainable resource management is a deep topic, and it would at least be worth reading a primer on it. Consider issues of ownership, maintenance, stakeholders' interests, income sources, understanding what the inputs are, what the outputs are, closing the loop where possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many ways, you can treat us just as if the subject were geology, in terms of the tone and academic writing style. The content will of course be different. One big difference is that sustainable resource management *can* have aspects of social science too: but that's not necessarily the case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5015" RevisionGUID="3653e3a9-b960-49eb-96bd-51ae87aa8866" CreationDate="2016-01-25T19:04:08.533" UserId="1701" Text="OK. Since asking this question I've tried to come up with an answer - or at least a back of the envelope calculation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to a steam shower vendor, a 10KW unit is required to provide enough steam at 118 deg.F in a 6'x8'x 8' enclosure. The timer runs for 20 minutes (about right for a nice shower), so figure the unit would use 3.3KW and 2 gallons of water to make the steam room hot and steamy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to numbers pulled from all over, figure an average 20 min shower uses 50 gallons of water (416.5 lbs.), and that in my area that water comes out of the ground at 55 degrees F. To heat that water to 110 deg.F would take approx 22,910 BTU.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Converting KW to BTU (and here are the limits of my understanding - please correct my conversions/assumptions as needed) it looks like 3.3KW is about 11,260 BTU.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is all reasonable, then heating the shower to 82.5 deg.F would require 11,500 BTU, which, when added to the 11,260 BTU for the steam would total 22,760 BTU - or slightly less than just running the hot shower by itself. If you could go with heating the shower water even less,then the savings would appear to increase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am fully aware that this answer is full of broad assumptions, simplifications, and perhaps misunderstandings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="e8914a77-9e28-49e8-a3c2-8cb341b75782" CreationDate="2016-01-25T22:17:23.017" UserId="2868" Text="I write a lot in a whiteboard and I would like to find a sustainable alternative to traditional (disposable) [whiteboard markers][1] which are what I'm using right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking of getting a refillable marker like [this alternative][2] or [any of these][3] but I was wondering if there is any other possible choice. Are there any more sustainable alternatives than refillable markers to write in a whiteboard?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bicworld.com/us/products/details/118/velleda-whiteboard-marker-1701-1751&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.staedtler.com.au/en/products/markers-refill-ink/refill-stations-refill-ink/lumocolor-whiteboard-refill-station-488-51-refill-station-for-lumocolor-whiteboard-markers-351-and-351-b/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.auspen.us/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11353" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="e8914a77-9e28-49e8-a3c2-8cb341b75782" CreationDate="2016-01-25T22:17:23.017" UserId="2868" Text="What is the most sustainable choice to write in a whiteboard?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11354" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="e8914a77-9e28-49e8-a3c2-8cb341b75782" CreationDate="2016-01-25T22:17:23.017" UserId="2868" Text="|diy|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11355" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5012" RevisionGUID="523d66c1-6d20-48fd-bdd0-b380d9a1d682" CreationDate="2016-01-25T23:02:36.573" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/691758094016192512" />
  <row Id="11357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5018" RevisionGUID="efd4c40c-6169-406f-a9be-68b4834df8e9" CreationDate="2016-01-26T13:13:00.057" UserId="2868" Text="I live in Madrid, where like in most big cities there is a high level of air pollution, especially due to the traffic. The levels of pollution reached the maximum allowable level a couple of months ago and some measures were taken to [decrease them][1]. The measures were to decrease the maximum speed in the main roads to 70 km/h and to ban parking in the city centre for non-residents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The measures made effect and also the rain has helped to maintain a lower level of air pollution during the last month but the situations seems likely to happen again. These measures taken seemed to me that would only alleviate the situation temporarily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was wondering, what measures can be taken in such a big city to permanently decrease the levels of air pollution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/11/13/inenglish/1447402110_230650.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5018" RevisionGUID="efd4c40c-6169-406f-a9be-68b4834df8e9" CreationDate="2016-01-26T13:13:00.057" UserId="2868" Text="What measures could be taken to decrease the air pollution in a big city?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5018" RevisionGUID="efd4c40c-6169-406f-a9be-68b4834df8e9" CreationDate="2016-01-26T13:13:00.057" UserId="2868" Text="|cars|transport|pollution|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="9342689d-8f32-4afb-afaa-95bd19717186" CreationDate="2016-01-26T13:21:22.560" UserId="1078" Text="During 6 days my heating system consumed 11,4 m3 of natural gas keeping its temperature at 20 degrees of Celsius. No human or other energy source (except for refrigerator) was inside the flat at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside temperature was about 0 degrees of Celsius (but I can provide more accurate temperature data set).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to calculate energy efficienty of that flat by knowing how much energy was consumed to keep temperature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="9342689d-8f32-4afb-afaa-95bd19717186" CreationDate="2016-01-26T13:21:22.560" UserId="1078" Text="Is it possible to calculate energy efficienty of a flat by knowing how much energy was consumed to keep temperature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="9342689d-8f32-4afb-afaa-95bd19717186" CreationDate="2016-01-26T13:21:22.560" UserId="1078" Text="|energy-efficiency|heating|fuel-efficiency|energy-management|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="5b9c1788-a41f-432b-85eb-aa1efdddad53" CreationDate="2016-01-26T14:57:28.943" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, improved title" Text="During 6 days my heating system consumed 11,4 m3 of natural gas keeping its temperature at 20 degrees of Celsius. No human or other energy source (except for refrigerator) was inside the flat at that time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside temperature was about 0 degrees of Celsius (but I can provide more accurate temperature data set).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to calculate energy efficiency of that flat by knowing how much energy was consumed to keep temperature?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11366" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="5b9c1788-a41f-432b-85eb-aa1efdddad53" CreationDate="2016-01-26T14:57:28.943" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, improved title" Text="Is it possible to calculate energy efficiency of a flat by knowing how much energy was consumed for heating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4486" RevisionGUID="82e31d89-686f-4d4c-bddc-81e81c20b4c7" CreationDate="2016-01-26T15:02:13.540" UserId="99" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="For questions specifically about [tag:air-pollution], [tag:greenhouse-gas-emissions] or [tag:toxic-chemicals] please use those tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4487" RevisionGUID="f593fd53-04c4-4e11-bc1f-634afccf9024" CreationDate="2016-01-26T15:02:13.540" UserId="99" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="any addition of harmful substances or products in the environment (air, water, soil or food).&#xD;&#xA;For questions specifically about [air-polution], [greenhouse-gas-emissions] or [toxic-chemicals] please use those tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11370" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5019" RevisionGUID="748bf972-35d3-424f-8bf8-3de1d42cbcb0" CreationDate="2016-01-26T23:03:45.283" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/692120769703337985" />
  <row Id="11371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5020" RevisionGUID="a7722e50-abb0-4d7a-98e5-7ba8bb2a20aa" CreationDate="2016-01-26T23:05:59.633" UserId="2345" Text="To encourage people to not use of purchase cars develop a public transportation system that is easily accessible by the to public and caters to the needs of the public so that people will use it. Additionally, the energy source for the public transport system must be electricity. Anything that is combustible, even bio fuels, will maintain a certain level of atmospheric pollution, including soot. This may require the re-establishment of former technologies rarely used now, such over head trolley wires for trams and trolley buses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an interim measure convert all cars to use gas, such as LPG or LCG, instead of petrol or diesel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, encourage people to ride bicycles instead of using cars by constructing dedicated cycle paths that can handle large volumes of bicycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should battery powered cars and trucks be as reliable and useful as carbon fuelled vehicles, then ban the use the of carbon fuelled vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing to do is to ban the use of wood or coal for cooking or heating, if they are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11372" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="1041cf86-bb75-432c-b2f4-aeeda9f0d032" CreationDate="2016-01-27T08:03:48.463" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/692256678578896896" />
  <row Id="11373" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5018" RevisionGUID="3b49e2f3-6327-413e-90dd-ddd75057004d" CreationDate="2016-01-27T17:03:50.440" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/692392582324862978" />
  <row Id="11374" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4777" RevisionGUID="2d2f9b5b-e59b-4ded-a6f0-04811b495822" CreationDate="2016-01-28T05:04:16.193" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/692573884919484416" />
  <row Id="11378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5022" RevisionGUID="ee516472-e102-4959-a087-7806cf873438" CreationDate="2016-01-28T20:47:36.597" UserId="3016" Text="Despite we have adopted some European legislation here in Estonia regarding the recycling in 2004 and we have got some containers for sorted wasted on the streets for those environmental enthusiats, I am seem the only person who cares about sorting my garbage. My family hates when I collect packages separately in the appartments and at work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have forced them to collect the biowaste because [Tallinn prescribes that bio and paper containers are installed in front of every block of flats][1] (with more 10 rooms, like those wealthy people who live separately in low-density areas, and, being wealthy, produce more garbage, should not bother with sorting). The city guidelines also say that people should sort the plastic/metal packages and glass and provides [the map with corresponding containers][2]. But, my parents say that this just proves that [there are slaves at garbage processing plant to sort your waste for you][3] and you do not need to sort anything. If that would be necessary, city would demand to have all the containers in front of the house. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The situation is even worse if we look at the professional cleaners. We do not have separate garbage bins at the working place and cleaners dump everything into one big bag. We don't even collect the bio and paper (produced in volumes) at work. What is the point of the garbage sorting programm in this light?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, there are 3 problems in our culture. It creates an impression that sorting is for poor people who do not produce much garbage anyway and there are very poor to process your garbage, if people would see that separate garbage collection is intended to prevent the entropy growth, which occurs when you mix the waste into one pile, and forced to sort at their work places, the culture would change. They would also sort if they primarily would have the special containers for sorted garbage and only rare containers for the rest unsorted materials. Currently, they are not listening anything when I explain them and laugh instead. But I cannot care about the environment alone. Others must be enforced legally. What can I do about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.tallinn.ee/est/prygihunt/Prugi-sorteerimise-juhend.pdf-2&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.prugi.ee/portal/pakendite-kogumine/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drzCYDB7AAQ&amp;t=2815" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5022" RevisionGUID="ee516472-e102-4959-a087-7806cf873438" CreationDate="2016-01-28T20:47:36.597" UserId="3016" Text="How can I enforce the garbage recycling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5022" RevisionGUID="ee516472-e102-4959-a087-7806cf873438" CreationDate="2016-01-28T20:47:36.597" UserId="3016" Text="|recycling|city-living|law|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5023" RevisionGUID="1188a7cd-6377-486d-9513-9420d0d0bd18" CreationDate="2016-01-29T06:40:42.580" UserId="2187" Text="Lately, I have been thinking about the wasteful use of toothbrushes. I assume that most people replace their toothbrushes every 4-6 weeks. This, of courses, generates a lot of plastic waste. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess it is not in the interest of the industry to produce everlasting toothbrushes. However, my question to you, would it be technically possible to produce everlasting (or at least) longer lasting toothbrushes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11384" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5023" RevisionGUID="1188a7cd-6377-486d-9513-9420d0d0bd18" CreationDate="2016-01-29T06:40:42.580" UserId="2187" Text="Can we design an everlasting toothbrush?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11385" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5023" RevisionGUID="1188a7cd-6377-486d-9513-9420d0d0bd18" CreationDate="2016-01-29T06:40:42.580" UserId="2187" Text="|product-design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5024" RevisionGUID="c4b6c089-749e-41b5-8d1a-7332bb8322e9" CreationDate="2016-01-29T08:08:42.987" UserId="2868" Text="From what I've been reading is not possible (at least yet) to produce an everlasting toothbrush due to the wearing of the bristles. But there are a few alternatives available that are more sustainable than conventional plastic toothbrushes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are [toothbrushes][1] made of biodegradable materials (they promote themselves saying that you can compost it) where you should replace the part with the bristles every once in a while. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are more alternatives. Not everlasting either, but there are already a few companies ([2],[3],[4]) that sell bamboo toothbrushes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every one of them is a bit different from each other but all of them have a handle made of bamboo instead of plastic and non-biodegradable bristles. The life expectancy is similar to that of a conventional toothbrush.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. This is the only one I've ever seen advertised as [everlasting][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.crowdsupply.com/goodwell/goodwell-open-source-modern-toothbrush&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.brushwithbamboo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://environmentaltoothbrush.com.au/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://woobamboo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.reinast.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5025" RevisionGUID="25fd14fc-a9e4-49e1-892c-a5efddd08b15" CreationDate="2016-01-29T08:11:35.817" UserId="2345" Text="If by everlasting you mean buy once, use it throughout you life and have it buried with you when you die, the answer is no. Everything wears out and the softer something is the more likely it is to wear away more quickly, particularly when it rubs against something that is harder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing to consider is the affect toothbrushes will have on people's teeth. For good dental hygiene dentists recommend using a soft brush because, over time, hard brushes can wear away dental enamel and hard brushes can cause gum damage, resulting in receding gums, which exposes the roots of teeth, which results in pain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best solution is to develop harder wearing soft bristles for tooth brushes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5026" RevisionGUID="3ddcb210-6e8e-474b-bb7a-7a99aa7e38d2" CreationDate="2016-01-29T13:47:19.733" UserId="3020" Text="&gt; ...would it be technically possible to produce everlasting (or at least) longer lasting toothbrushes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.  You can use a wire brush - since it's harder than the teeth it will be used on, it will not wear out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The teeth, however, will wear out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root problem is that the purpose of the toothbrush is to remove material that is softer than your teeth, without removing the hard enamel coating of your teeth.  The bristles, thus, have to be softer than tooth enamel, and harder than tooth deposits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you end up rubbing this material up against the tooth enamel - which means it will wear down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything harder and longer lasting will have a detrimental effect on the teeth you're trying to protect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I assume that most people replace their toothbrushes every 4-6 weeks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [American Dental Association recommends toothbrush replacement][1] every 3-4 months, or 13-17 weeks, which is 3 times longer than your assumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps people can reduce their toothbrush waste by 3 times merely by changing from a 4-6 week schedule to the recommended 13-17 week schedule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I replace my bristles once a year.  They are colored with a dye that changes according to use so I know when to replace them per my use, and that's about a year. Further I use a replaceable head toothbrush, which is about half the volume of materials as a regular toothbrush. These two things - infrequent replacement, and replacing only the head - may make a significant difference if adopted more widely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This, of courses, generates a lot of plastic waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This depends on your definition of &quot;a lot&quot;. A single human, even following your excessive replacement schedule, would be throwing away about a quarter of a pound of plastic per year just on toothbrushes. According to [one resource][2], the average human throws away over 300 pounds of plastic a year, so at this extreme usage level this would account for 0.08% of their yearly plastic waste, or, in other words, every day they throw away four times the amount of other plastic that they throw away in toothbrushes per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, even if you designed an everlasting brush and make it so affordable and effective that adoption goes up past 90%, you've only reduced total plastic waste by 0.08%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ada.org/en/about-the-ada/ada-positions-policies-and-statements/statement-on-toothbrush-care-cleaning-storage-and-&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.greencontributor.com/index.php/human-foot-print.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11389" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="803b9c49-61fa-4270-9047-89d396e3b0af" CreationDate="2016-01-29T14:20:45.977" UserId="1078" Comment="removed wrong tag" Text="|plants|aquaponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11390" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1071" RevisionGUID="803b9c49-61fa-4270-9047-89d396e3b0af" CreationDate="2016-01-29T14:20:45.977" Comment="Proposed by 1078 approved by 99 edit id of 363" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="be37ab5b-7863-4bc9-a1ea-dd615317935e" CreationDate="2016-01-29T23:02:58.530" UserId="2868" Text="I currently use plastic garbage bags in the kitchen. I would like (if possible) to use something plastic free, as hygienic as the usual plastic bag and easily obtainable in Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any sustainable (biodegradable or plastic free preferably) alternative  to plastic garbage bags? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11394" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="be37ab5b-7863-4bc9-a1ea-dd615317935e" CreationDate="2016-01-29T23:02:58.530" UserId="2868" Text="Alternatives to garbage plastic bags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11395" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="be37ab5b-7863-4bc9-a1ea-dd615317935e" CreationDate="2016-01-29T23:02:58.530" UserId="2868" Text="|home|waste|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="1d6a81a9-a1fc-462b-a89c-e16828da9859" CreationDate="2016-01-30T03:45:18.333" UserId="2871" Text="If you have pets, then the empty food bags make great trash bags. Use a stapler to close them up when they are full. If you don't have pets, ask one of your friends to save the bags for you. Many of them are plastic, but it was plastic that is already considered trash, so getting an extra use out of it is a great thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5029" RevisionGUID="d545fd98-f258-4273-8f6d-2199809e5e23" CreationDate="2016-01-30T04:07:09.500" UserId="2345" Text="Long before plastic bags became ubiquitous, stores provided customers with paper bags. It was also a time when people used to read hard copy newspapers as their main source of news. To utilize the stack of newspapers that was accumulating daily they wrapped their kitchen scraps and other domestic garbage in several layers of newspapers before disposing of the wrapped bundle in the rubbish bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you might want to consider is, if you buy milk or other beverages, such as juice, in paper tetrapack containers you can open the top of the container and fill it with &quot;stuff&quot; before disposing of a neat package of trash." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5028" RevisionGUID="13841b8a-1652-4588-9a94-b65f484ab688" CreationDate="2016-01-30T04:21:27.083" UserId="2871" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="If you have pets, then the empty food bags make great trash bags. Use a stapler to close them up when they are full. If you don't have pets, ask one of your friends to save the bags for you. Many of them are plastic, but it was plastic that is already considered trash, so getting an extra use out of it is a great thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider composting or vermiculture for getting rid of kitchen scraps and non-glossy paper products. Save the landfill for the non-biodegradable stuff." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5031" RevisionGUID="92ea4bdc-d22c-43a1-82ea-448c93366797" CreationDate="2016-01-30T16:59:01.967" UserId="3027" Text="Does anyone have a case study on community glass recycling.  Specifically the cost/ton to crush/pulverize and screen into usable traction control sand for winter applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5031" RevisionGUID="92ea4bdc-d22c-43a1-82ea-448c93366797" CreationDate="2016-01-30T16:59:01.967" UserId="3027" Text="Glass Recycling Case Study" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5031" RevisionGUID="92ea4bdc-d22c-43a1-82ea-448c93366797" CreationDate="2016-01-30T16:59:01.967" UserId="3027" Text="|recycling|glass|upcycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11409" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5023" RevisionGUID="2af999b0-63b9-4fce-bd76-3c8a3627376a" CreationDate="2016-02-01T05:24:37.800" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/694028559808094208" />
  <row Id="11410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5033" RevisionGUID="afb25ea5-5f9b-4f40-b35a-ec1a66e5e65c" CreationDate="2016-02-01T09:49:07.960" UserId="1567" Text="You have to persuade people to do it and ensure the infrastructure is there.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;For the first, start an organisation of volunteers. Put up posters, organise lectures in schools, factories, social centres, do radio interviews... it takes time. Don't lose heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the second lobby your local and national politicians, make sure everybody has access to recycling facilities, and that they are used (and seen to be used) in a proper manner. Chase up when the bins don't get emptied. Get local clubs to tidy the recycling areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your country is beautiful, it is excellent that you want to keep it that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5034" RevisionGUID="da43be09-0166-4f53-a8ce-976ca2b5043b" CreationDate="2016-02-01T18:27:10.883" UserId="2868" Text="So far the best alternative that I've found is to use a refillable marker. I bought one of [these][1] a week ago with a bottle of [ink][2]. The marker is not made of plastic (I would say it is made of aluminium) except from the cap, so I have reduced a lot the quantity of plastics used. Also, the ink bottle provides around 10 complete refills making it even cheaper than using disposable markers in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pilotpen.eu/en/products-categories/markers/wytebord-marker-medium-bullet-tip.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cultpens.com/i/q/PL05519/pilot-wytebord-refill-ink-bottle-wbmatrf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5035" RevisionGUID="cfe54fe4-ca92-4b94-8778-b3754a6eb7ea" CreationDate="2016-02-01T23:17:05.263" UserId="1513" Text="On the west coast of the US (WA, OR) how many acres of trees would be required to keep a single family home supplied endlessly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I and my family plant a tree for everyone tree we cut for fuel, how much property would we need in our tree lot to meet our heating and cooking needs forever? Assuming we begin with established reforest, manage wisely and maintain a steady population of 5 - 7 people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11413" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5035" RevisionGUID="cfe54fe4-ca92-4b94-8778-b3754a6eb7ea" CreationDate="2016-02-01T23:17:05.263" UserId="1513" Text="On the west coast of the US (WA, OR) how many acres would a wood lot need to be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11414" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5035" RevisionGUID="cfe54fe4-ca92-4b94-8778-b3754a6eb7ea" CreationDate="2016-02-01T23:17:05.263" UserId="1513" Text="|fuel-efficiency|firewood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11415" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5031" RevisionGUID="889da8d5-fbf4-4903-992e-48e14434c229" CreationDate="2016-02-02T14:41:50.867" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/694531175843500032" />
  <row Id="11416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5036" RevisionGUID="535771bd-b6aa-47b8-b159-3584fce19df2" CreationDate="2016-02-02T19:21:34.723" UserId="1053" Text="Ironically, the better you are at reducing your waste, the less likely you are to succeed at replacing plastic bags for the irreducible portion. My mother throws out actual garbage twice a year - one small plastic bag such as the ones you get from grocery stores, every 6 months. While she always has a reusable shopping bag in her purse, she finds that plastic bags come into her house anyway - for example people bring things over in a plastic bag and leave it - so she uses one of these waifs and strays to accumulate 6 months of garbage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newspapers, which could be used to wrap messy garbage so you don't need plastic, are better put into the recycling to be turned into other paper - and better still declined and read online. Jars and tins which could hold messy garbage are better put into the recycling also. Where I live we can recycle tetrapacks (I know this is rare) and film plastic, and she saves these (rinsed) and brings them to us when she visits, so they can be recycled. She lives in a city with a &quot;green bin&quot; program so all food waste and other nasty stuff goes into the green bin, which insists on very specific bags being used. Foil, Styrofoam and such are also recycled. Egg cartons and rubber bands she also brings to us, and we give them to our farmer, who uses them to wrap up other people's vegetables, eggs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly she's quite rabid about what she buys. She has completely stopped buying certain things she quite enjoys, because of the packaging they come in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Her actual garbage typically consists of some potato chip bags, wax paper, and other inert-but-not-recyclable materials that don't need to be in a plastic bag. She just uses one because that shows people that it's actually garbage. I would suggest to you that reducing the total amount of garbage you produce in this way is a much bigger contribution to sustainability than changing what you put your garbage in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="c99ccdd5-6999-40d6-809d-1c83169f2281" CreationDate="2016-02-02T20:42:52.320" UserId="3036" Text="Why split a/c are more popular in South ease Asia, even in Singapore where high rise buildings are common but central a/c are not common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a/c in Singapore is as important as in Dubai. Also the buildings in Singapore and Dubai are high rise. But the a/c system Dubai uses is central and Singapore is split. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any specific reason for this pattern? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="c99ccdd5-6999-40d6-809d-1c83169f2281" CreationDate="2016-02-02T20:42:52.320" UserId="3036" Text="Why Dubai uses Central a/c and Singapore uses Split" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="c99ccdd5-6999-40d6-809d-1c83169f2281" CreationDate="2016-02-02T20:42:52.320" UserId="3036" Text="|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5038" RevisionGUID="0e98b0be-1151-4af0-b32f-59d4ad163ca1" CreationDate="2016-02-02T23:33:16.777" UserId="2868" Text="[Here][1] there is a very interesting case study by the government of Oregon. It is not as specific as you want but they give a lot of figures to understand the cost of processing and collecting glass and to give a quantitative estimate of the average saving caused by recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can find much more examples [googling][2] , like this [British][3] one, which is much more general (they consider different residues, not just glass) and more qualitative than quantitative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/41/recycling/OhioGlassRecyclingStudy.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.es/search?q=glass%20reciclying%20case%20study&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;gws_rd=cr&amp;ei=AzuxVtGOE4jYaYvShegN#q=glass%20recycling%20case%20study&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/recycling_in_action.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="c1970502-a2f2-4a4c-a54f-5e2d7185857d" CreationDate="2016-02-03T04:58:36.887" UserId="2970" Text="OK, one possible setup (and assuming both my math and memory are right, neither of which is certain):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Planting Douglas Fir, which is fairly fast growing (one to two feet a year) and a good wood for lumber and for burning, planted around 16'-18' apart (or half that, and thinned as they grow). They become large enough to be commercially valuable at around 30 years; at that point, they will have a diameter of somewhere between 16&quot; and 21&quot;; I'll be conservative and say they're at the low end, at about 16&quot;. That gives you half a cord of wood per tree (18&quot; will get you about 2/3 of a cord, and 21&quot; will get you almost a full cord).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go to the National Ag Safety Database and look up &quot;Home Heating with Wood&quot; and determine how many cords you need, given the size of your home and the type of stove(s) you are using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you know how many cords you are going to need, multiply that by 2 (2 trees per cord), by 30 (years to grow a tree), then by the feet apart you plant your trees squared (square feet per tree). Divide that by 43560 (square feet in an acre). Add a little more for a safety margin, then add a lot large enough to hold your cutting area plus enough land to hold a year's worth of cut wood for seasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's how much land you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest you talk to people in the area you plan to move to in order to determine the best woods to grow in the area, how much space they need, how long to harvest and size at harvest, etc. to get an idea of what's reasonable locally. Also, the size of and insulation in your house will make a big difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="a6ff21a4-e01a-4311-9464-2f9b43f02139" CreationDate="2016-02-03T07:35:03.017" UserId="3038" Text="Get some woven mats which sell for Rs. 150 for about 30 sq ft and put it on roof top. These are traditional mats made of hemp or plastic. The plastic ones are also washable. The reason you want the mats to be temporary is because the same hot roofs will help in reducing the heating bills in winter by removing them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5040" RevisionGUID="784799d9-7635-4497-b21c-15f447ee391e" CreationDate="2016-02-03T07:42:13.307" UserId="3038" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="Get some woven mats which sell for Rs. 150 for about 30 sq ft and put it on roof top. These are traditional mats made of hemp or plastic. The plastic ones are also washable. Just use some weights to hold them on the roof. The reason you want the mats to be temporary is because you can remove them during winter. The same hot roofs will help in reducing the heating bills in winter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11425" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5035" RevisionGUID="a4168a44-bd64-4a59-8f8e-3ae20f7e651f" CreationDate="2016-02-03T13:20:45.647" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Added usage to title" Text="Size of wood lot required for cooking/heating (US west coast)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11426" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5035" RevisionGUID="a4168a44-bd64-4a59-8f8e-3ae20f7e651f" CreationDate="2016-02-03T13:20:45.647" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 1513 edit id of 364" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11428" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="b859b8b7-c49d-4598-ae1f-f6f1b663becf" CreationDate="2016-02-03T15:45:03.060" UserId="48" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="da25125d-a18a-43bd-8356-82e9a5212d9a" CreationDate="2016-02-03T18:52:02.110" UserId="3036" Comment="added 393 characters in body; edited title" Text="Which type of a/c more environment friendly - doing cooling using split VS central cooling (for the high rise residential building)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that central cooling is more effective than using splits in the high rise buildings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a house I understand split is cost effective and more affordable but if we see high rise building we see different pattern in different part of world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example Singapore and Dubai both have high rise building for living (residential) and also per capita GNI in Singapore ($55k) is more than Dubai ($44k) but Singapore residents uses split a/c in their houses where as Dubai buildings uses central a/c. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any specific reason for this pattern and which type is more environment friendly? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11430" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="da25125d-a18a-43bd-8356-82e9a5212d9a" CreationDate="2016-02-03T18:52:02.110" UserId="3036" Comment="added 393 characters in body; edited title" Text="Why similar buildings use different types of cooling method and which one is more environment friendly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11431" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="9a21d243-d5d5-4a99-bc04-7c001777d172" CreationDate="2016-02-03T20:31:01.650" UserId="48" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11432" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5035" RevisionGUID="6ae3fe7c-e455-4127-b006-b6d7026e40da" CreationDate="2016-02-03T20:51:41.663" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/694986638745796609" />
  <row Id="11433" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="78679338-f28e-4bd5-96dd-eb133fe982ff" CreationDate="2016-02-03T23:51:42.493" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/695031941121359873" />
  <row Id="11434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="8e85cd26-47b4-4baf-a432-81438772ada5" CreationDate="2016-02-04T10:36:09.850" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="general cleanup (language)" Text="Which type of air conditioning is more environment friendly - doing the cooling per apartment or central cooling (for high rise residential buildings)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that central cooling is more effective than using separate units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We see different patterns in different parts of the world:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: Singapore and Dubai both have high rise buildings for living (residential), but Singapore residents use split a/c in their houses whereas Dubai buildings use central a/c.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The per capita income in Singapore is more than Dubai ($55k vs. $44k). Maybe that has to do with the difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any specific reason for this pattern and which type is more environment friendly? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11435" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="8e85cd26-47b4-4baf-a432-81438772ada5" CreationDate="2016-02-04T10:36:09.850" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="general cleanup (language)" Text="Why do similar buildings use different types of cooling method and which one is more environment friendly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11436" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="8e85cd26-47b4-4baf-a432-81438772ada5" CreationDate="2016-02-04T10:36:09.850" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 365" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5041" RevisionGUID="b79cb7af-423e-4fba-ba85-494f806efd1d" CreationDate="2016-02-04T16:52:08.513" UserId="2846" Text="Plant a lot of trees -- assuming you mean partciulate pollution:  See for example [*Estimating the removal of atmospheric particulate pollution by the urban tree canopy of London, under current and future environments*, Tallis et al. 2011](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204611002349)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="fc460807-c61e-4390-82aa-b62182f5524b" CreationDate="2016-02-04T21:53:09.520" UserId="2868" Text="I think that there is a clear and close interplay between politics and sustainable living. What I mean by this is that I think that sustainable ways of living should be reinforced politically to spread them among the society. In some cases the relation between the two [is very clear][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been trying to find some books or articles about this topic but I've had some difficulties so far. I've come across concepts like [ecosocialism][2], social sustainability, micro-sustainability, ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quantity of information is overwhelming and I'm a bit lost right now. So, is there any canonical reference in this topic? A classical book (or set of notes, paper, ...) about the relation between politics and sustainable living?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sweden.se/nature/sustainable-living/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability#Ecosocialist_approach" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="fc460807-c61e-4390-82aa-b62182f5524b" CreationDate="2016-02-04T21:53:09.520" UserId="2868" Text="Are there any canonical references of the political aspects of sustainable living?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="fc460807-c61e-4390-82aa-b62182f5524b" CreationDate="2016-02-04T21:53:09.520" UserId="2868" Text="|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5043" RevisionGUID="0c59c32f-9b7f-4ea3-ac0d-b96fe1fe5a79" CreationDate="2016-02-05T11:48:53.700" UserId="2821" Text="[This brochure][1] of the [European Environmental Bureau][2] gives 12 good tips to reduce air pollution in a city. Here a summary and some extra information I added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Create [Low Emission Zones (LEZ)][4]**: charge or prohibit vehicles that do not comply with certain emission requirements. This is already done in for example [London][5], and [Berlin][6].&#xD;&#xA;In Madrid they [propose to do this][3] starting in 2017, and in [Barcelona][12] in 2018.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Encourage cycling and walking**: make them safe and convenient, by making for for example [bike lanes][7], and bike parking places like for example in [The Netherlands][8].&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Land use planning**: when planning land usage, take into account the air pollution, by for example reducing committing distances, and encouraging cycling, and walking.&#xD;&#xA; 4. [**Congestion charges**][9]: charge more in peak hours, like for example in [London][10], and [Stockholm][11].&#xD;&#xA; 5. **Lower (urban) speed limits**: lowering the urban speed limit to 30 km/h reduces air pollution a bit, and especially increments safety. [This article][13] indicates that speed reduction from 100/120 km/h to 80 km/h especially has influence on the entrance ways of a city.&#xD;&#xA; 6. **Restrict access to cars**: restrict access to areas with low air quality.&#xD;&#xA; 7. **Parking management**: limit parking spaces in the city to encourage use of other (public) transport. This has been done [in Madrid as a temporal solution][14]. Also parking fees can be asked, or fees depending on the car's pollution.&#xD;&#xA; 8. **Public procurement**: put pollution requirements on the vehicles bought by for example city. Copenhagen and Berlin have a [procurement][15] to buy municipal vehicles that comply with the emission limitation standards.&#xD;&#xA; 9. [**Car sharing**][16]: share the same car between different people. Also [carpooling][17] reduces the amount of cars used.&#xD;&#xA; 10. [**Improving public transport**][18]: increase the attractiveness of public transport, by availability, accessibility, reliability, pricing, safety,&#xD;&#xA;and comfort&#xD;&#xA; 11. **Park and ride**: relieve the city center by letting people park outside the city, but this requires a good public transport connection.&#xD;&#xA; 12. [**Promote electro mobility**][19]: promote low-emission vehicles, for example by replacing conventional cars by electrical cars. However the city should have enough charging points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then, you can also try to reduce the air pollution more indirectly by [promoting things like][23]: recycling, don't/reduce the use of woodstoves, plant trees, use [green energy][21], wash clothes with cold water, limit the use of heaters and A/Cs, etc. &#xD;&#xA;Also the [way of driving influences pollution][22]: keep your car in shape, accelerate smoothly, minimize air conditioning, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=DDBC1EFC-0954-9A57-841E0CE12D72CB23&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.eeb.org/&#xD;&#xA;[3]: http://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2016/01/24/madrid/1453666295_596071.html&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_low_emission_zone&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/low-emission-zone&#xD;&#xA;[6]: http://urbanaccessregulations.eu/countries-mainmenu-147/germany-mainmenu-61/berlin&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_lane&#xD;&#xA;[8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands&#xD;&#xA;[9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing&#xD;&#xA;[10]: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge&#xD;&#xA;[11]: https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/en/road/Congestion-taxes-in-Stockholm-and-Goteborg/&#xD;&#xA;[12]: http://www.lavanguardia.com/local/barcelona/20160125/301658270501/amb-prohibir-vehiculos-contaminantes-barcelona.html&#xD;&#xA;[13]: http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/transport/speed-limits&#xD;&#xA;[14]: http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/11/13/inenglish/1447402110_230650.html&#xD;&#xA;[15]: http://sootfreecities.eu/measure/public-procurement&#xD;&#xA;[16]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carsharing&#xD;&#xA;[17]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpool&#xD;&#xA;[18]: https://improve-public-transport.wikispaces.com/&#xD;&#xA;[19]: https://content.sierraclub.org/evguide/blog/2015/04/best-city-programs-promoting-electric-cars&#xD;&#xA;[20]: http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/peg_caa/reduce.html&#xD;&#xA;[21]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy&#xD;&#xA;[22]: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/reduce-your-carbon-footprint/drive-smarter-for-a-better-planet/&#xD;&#xA;[23]: http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/peg_caa/reduce.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11442" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5027" RevisionGUID="cc0e6c4c-ac0f-4d24-95c1-d1cf686cf8ea" CreationDate="2016-02-06T05:57:18.583" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/695848723369357312" />
  <row Id="11443" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5022" RevisionGUID="80f6fe34-7820-4a70-b17d-5bd7d30cd891" CreationDate="2016-02-06T18:02:48.520" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/696031301489594368" />
  <row Id="11444" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4413" RevisionGUID="bc24113c-8c78-4b70-83c0-a82cba82a229" CreationDate="2016-02-07T03:03:00.350" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/696167246683598848" />
  <row Id="11445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="20cc1d1d-0f99-413e-affa-6e4aded5be8f" CreationDate="2016-02-07T11:23:13.763" UserId="1078" Text="Pellet is considered a sustainable energy source. But the way it's used now seems to produce air pollution which I think should not happen in case of sustainable energy source. So is pellet sustainable energy source in the way it's used now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="20cc1d1d-0f99-413e-affa-6e4aded5be8f" CreationDate="2016-02-07T11:23:13.763" UserId="1078" Text="Is pellet sustainable energy source in the way it's used now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11447" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="20cc1d1d-0f99-413e-affa-6e4aded5be8f" CreationDate="2016-02-07T11:23:13.763" UserId="1078" Text="|energy|renewables|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5045" RevisionGUID="a43a214c-cf65-4643-907d-43a9b877776c" CreationDate="2016-02-07T16:01:11.187" UserId="48" Text="It depends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to farm wood sustainably, or unsustainably. Both ways happen now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to use wood pellets for energy while trapping particulate matter and other non-GHG pollutants. This sometimes happens, and sometimes it doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to dispose of the resulting post-combustion products in a way that returns the nutrients to agricultural soil. This sometimes happens, and sometimes it doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are wood pellets a sustainable source of energy? Well, it depends." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="26a109ab-209b-4ba1-a4b8-88a43918ddd3" CreationDate="2016-02-07T20:08:25.107" UserId="2868" Comment="Added link" Text="[Pellet][1] is considered a sustainable energy source. But the way it's used now seems to produce air pollution which I think should not happen in case of sustainable energy source. So is pellet sustainable energy source in the way it's used now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_fuel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11450" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="26a109ab-209b-4ba1-a4b8-88a43918ddd3" CreationDate="2016-02-07T20:08:25.107" Comment="Proposed by 2868 approved by 85 edit id of 366" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5046" RevisionGUID="72faf1b4-1c74-40d4-9f0b-cdcdd658ecff" CreationDate="2016-02-08T13:54:00.487" UserId="2868" Text="I have been collecting lately disposable lighters as these:[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to recycle them but I don't know exactly what I should do. Should I separate the metallic and plastic parts and recycle them normally? Or should I take the lighters to some special facilities? What should I do with the igniter?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/P835m.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5046" RevisionGUID="72faf1b4-1c74-40d4-9f0b-cdcdd658ecff" CreationDate="2016-02-08T13:54:00.487" UserId="2868" Text="How can I recycle a disposable lighter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5046" RevisionGUID="72faf1b4-1c74-40d4-9f0b-cdcdd658ecff" CreationDate="2016-02-08T13:54:00.487" UserId="2868" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5047" RevisionGUID="1cb2ee36-23aa-42bb-8464-5e559f67c46b" CreationDate="2016-02-08T15:15:47.190" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="Generally, the situation is becoming *less* sustainable. The demand for large scale electricity production with wood pellets is rising faster than their production, and ('fresh') trees are being used in their entirety for the production of pellets. Calculate the energy required for that production + worldwide transport and any ecological advantage quickly dwindles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can pull [this Belgian overview article describing the European situation](http://www.lowtechmagazine.be/2013/01/hoe-duurzaam-zijn-houtpellets.html) through Google translate, or read the (mostly English) sources from 2009-2012 mentioned at the bottom.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the article mainly focuses on energy production; burning pellets for heat is 'better': we need an estimated 38 versus 5 years before the CO2 balance is restored when using wood pellets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4369" RevisionGUID="26fbe06b-dd25-4342-980a-99defa0594eb" CreationDate="2016-02-08T20:42:24.460" UserId="99" Comment="added part about BPA often not being replaced" Text="First of all, in many products BPA has not been replaced at all. It is still present in many types of food packaging, especially in canned foods. AFAIK the main exception is baby bottles which are required to be BPA free in the US, Canada and the EU. France is also an exception as it is the only EU-country where BPA is banned for all food packaging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, most companies aren't willing to tell you which substances they use in their packaging. Even if they do, not all substances have been researched intensively to rule out any harmful effects. This means that a precise answer to your question is difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This being said, when BPA is replaced it seems that a common replacement in plastics is BPS, a molecule that is rather similar to BPA. According to [this article in the Scientific American](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bpa-free-plastic-containers-may-be-just-as-hazardous/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; recent research reveals that a common BPA replacement, bisphenol S (BPS), may be just as harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a variety of other solutions are also being used or are currently under investigation. Which solution is suitable depends on how and where the BPA was used. Some examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - a replacement for the linings of cans containing low-acidic foods is PET or Oleaoresin (a.k.a R-Enamel, a mixture of oil and plant extracts). Note that for high-acidic foods this is not an option. That's also why most canned tomatoes still have a BPA-containing epoxy on the inside. More info [here](http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i6/Clear-Winner-Race-Find-Non.html)&#xD;&#xA;  - plastic bottles can be replaced by TetraPak containers (which have a polyethylene inside)&#xD;&#xA;  - for thermal paper/receipts biobased alternatives like derivatives of [gallic acid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_acid) and [diphenolic acid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphenolic_acid) are currently being assessed ([source](http://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=rivmp:270391&amp;type=org&amp;disposition=inline&amp;ns_nc=1))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article of the Breast Cancer fund](http://www.calwic.org/storage/documents/state/2010/bpa_alternatives.pdf) lists some other alternatives to BPA. AFAIK no harmful effects have been found for any of the mentioned alternatives other than BPS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11456" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="14765d57-af61-45ad-bca1-0048a4408e35" CreationDate="2016-02-09T00:08:46.410" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/696848175139856384" />
  <row Id="11457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="8edb79d4-d68f-4fdf-9ee5-9cf9f9f18c79" CreationDate="2016-02-09T12:36:56.577" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Explain your abbreviations" Text="And is there any reason to think that the replacement is any better than [Bisphenol A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A) (BPA) itself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11458" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="8edb79d4-d68f-4fdf-9ee5-9cf9f9f18c79" CreationDate="2016-02-09T12:36:56.577" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 1701 edit id of 367" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5048" RevisionGUID="15572bcc-4fc2-43cc-8e19-43eb6b309703" CreationDate="2016-02-09T23:32:27.503" UserId="3059" Text="I am not sure whether any of it could be considered environment friendly since they both use electricity. You may choose one over other in terms of efficiency but at the end how does the energy is produced may be the real question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also consider investigating passive cooling systems which use no electricity at all. Such as underground water pipe loops and passive ventilation architecture (two different air holes at different elevations naturally creating draft)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are perfect sustainable cooling systems which have zero-Carbon output but they come with some disadvantages. You must start considering them at architecture drawing phase. If you have a private house you may construct Geo-thermal cooling-heating underground loops later on but passive ventilation architecture must definetlly be pallned before construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geothermal heating-cooling&#xD;&#xA;http://www.heatingandairmarietta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Geothermal-Heating-System.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passive ventilation&#xD;&#xA;http://riorenewables.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/website_new_heading_121120_r-05.jpg&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4954" RevisionGUID="72003e8f-ed90-4eb6-98b6-34402dbf848c" CreationDate="2016-02-10T06:08:25.963" UserId="3057" Comment="extensive proofreading w/edits" Text="Alright, so after further research and understanding all this a bit better, I think I've decided my finished setup will be: 24 250w 24v Renology panels; 2 3000w Cotek sine inverters; 2 Morning Star 60 amp mppt controllers; and 8 400ah-500ah batteries, although I'm not sure what brand to get. Also, this will be for full off-grid use in colorado and I've decided I'm just gonna go with a wood burner for heat; not sure about A/C. I think this should work for my needs and more. Idk if theres anything better I could do or not still though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11461" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4954" RevisionGUID="72003e8f-ed90-4eb6-98b6-34402dbf848c" CreationDate="2016-02-10T06:08:25.963" Comment="Proposed by 3057 approved by -1 edit id of 368" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4954" RevisionGUID="82a96940-c3e5-469b-ac25-344c74b2df94" CreationDate="2016-02-10T06:08:25.963" UserId="85" Comment="extensive proofreading w/edits" Text="After further research and understanding all this a bit better, I think I've decided my finished set-up will be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 24 250W 24V Renology panels&#xD;&#xA;- 2 3000W Cotek sine inverters&#xD;&#xA;- 2 Morning Star 60 Amp MPPT controllers, and&#xD;&#xA;- 8 400Ah-500Ah batteries (although I'm not sure what brand to get).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, this will be for full off-grid use in Colorado and I've decided I'm just gonna go with a wood burner for heat; not sure about A/C. I think this should work for my needs and more. I still don't know if there's anything better I could do or not, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11463" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4348" RevisionGUID="7fc821dc-84d7-49ed-8ee5-0d0323d2bac4" CreationDate="2016-02-10T07:23:48.970" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title" Text="What chemicals are used to replace BPA in plastics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="e544e0bf-fb1d-4c9c-b84c-37f6f0ab5ace" CreationDate="2016-02-10T09:46:27.370" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Added cord definition" Text="OK, one possible setup (and assuming both my math and memory are right, neither of which is certain):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Planting Douglas Fir, which is fairly fast growing (one to two feet a year) and a good wood for lumber and for burning, planted around 16'-18' apart (or half that, and thinned as they grow). They become large enough to be commercially valuable at around 30 years; at that point, they will have a diameter of somewhere between 16&quot; and 21&quot;; I'll be conservative and say they're at the low end, at about 16&quot;. That gives you half a cord of wood per tree (18&quot; will get you about 2/3 of a cord, and 21&quot; will get you almost a full cord).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Go to the National Ag Safety Database and look up &quot;Home Heating with Wood&quot; and determine how many cords you need, given the size of your home and the type of stove(s) you are using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you know how many cords you are going to need, multiply that by 2 (2 trees per cord), by 30 (years to grow a tree), then by the feet apart you plant your trees squared (square feet per tree). Divide that by 43560 (square feet in an acre). Add a little more for a safety margin, then add a lot large enough to hold your cutting area plus enough land to hold a year's worth of cut wood for seasoning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's how much land you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest you talk to people in the area you plan to move to in order to determine the best woods to grow in the area, how much space they need, how long to harvest and size at harvest, etc. to get an idea of what's reasonable locally. Also, the size of and insulation in your house will make a big difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: (From Wikipedia) *The cord is a unit of measure of dry volume used to measure firewood and pulpwood in the United States and Canada. A cord is the amount of wood that, when &quot;racked and well stowed&quot; (arranged so pieces are aligned, parallel, touching and compact), occupies a volume of 128 cubic feet (3.62 m3)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11465" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5039" RevisionGUID="e544e0bf-fb1d-4c9c-b84c-37f6f0ab5ace" CreationDate="2016-02-10T09:46:27.370" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 369" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5049" RevisionGUID="dfb4edd5-488d-4bbc-9b29-5c431b0f2480" CreationDate="2016-02-10T16:21:41.323" UserId="1912" Text="Is there some way to estimate the environmental impact on overall carbon emissions of a community switching from normal to **smart meters**, with all the integrated solutions(monitoring, for instance)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the impact happens in the following way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - detecting where energy/gas is being wasted (leaks, for instance)&#xD;&#xA; - maybe also regulating prices depending on when the peak consumption is, therefore making huge cuts in efficiency (if people stop consuming during peak times, no need for the load to be high = maybe less coal being used)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5049" RevisionGUID="dfb4edd5-488d-4bbc-9b29-5c431b0f2480" CreationDate="2016-02-10T16:21:41.323" UserId="1912" Text="smart metering - impact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11468" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5049" RevisionGUID="dfb4edd5-488d-4bbc-9b29-5c431b0f2480" CreationDate="2016-02-10T16:21:41.323" UserId="1912" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5050" RevisionGUID="dd633603-a540-4130-bf72-a97405b8e542" CreationDate="2016-02-10T17:22:14.887" UserId="2868" Text="There is a very detailed and interesting document of the [British Government][1] where the saving in costs (divided in a lot of categories, as a saving of £1.21bn in carbon related activities) and in emissions is explained carefully.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that document you can find a section of more than 30 pages explaining the results for the domestic sector which addresses your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/276656/smart_meter_roll_out_for_the_domestic_and_small_and_medium_and_non_domestic_sectors.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5051" RevisionGUID="4ffe31c7-a21c-4084-b3ca-e99611c3188a" CreationDate="2016-02-10T20:09:10.240" UserId="48" Text="There is very large uncertainty on this, and one should not attach much credibility to reports that do put a specific number on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Early work suggested that easy availability of real-time energy-use data led to quite high energy savings. Later work suggested that this had been significantly over-estimated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether time-of-use pricing has any effect in and of itself would depend on the generation portfolio on the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Britain, gas plants are the marginal producer for an increasing proportion of the time (as coal plant gets decommissioned); moving demand around in time has little effect on carbon emissions when the only effect is to use one CCGT plant instead of another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the future, some method of time-shifting demand that's enabled or assisted by smart metering (maybe time-varying pricing, maybe something else) will enable a much higher combined penetration of exogenously-variable renewables such as solar and wind, possibly with some plant that would be too expensive to run flexibly, such as biomass with CCS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So smart meters in and of themselves don't do much. It's the fancy demand time-shifting that offers the interesting opportunities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11471" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5049" RevisionGUID="e848f65b-b1e2-47e7-a584-17efa1bb6731" CreationDate="2016-02-11T08:38:28.880" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title, added energy-management tag" Text="What is the impact of switching to smart metering?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11472" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5049" RevisionGUID="e848f65b-b1e2-47e7-a584-17efa1bb6731" CreationDate="2016-02-11T08:38:28.880" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title, added energy-management tag" Text="|environmental-impact|energy-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11473" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5049" RevisionGUID="1d7b39c2-058b-434a-b445-3662586c29ac" CreationDate="2016-02-11T09:24:21.887" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/697712769613885440" />
  <row Id="11478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="81823bdb-f27b-4807-baff-9e785e560064" CreationDate="2016-02-11T15:54:35.070" UserId="929" Text="I'm front of decision to buy an older car deciding between gasoline or diesel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to choose a diesel, but I consider negatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- smoke&#xD;&#xA;- smell&#xD;&#xA;- NOx emisions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something I personally can do to emit less NOx, smoke, smell and dust?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="81823bdb-f27b-4807-baff-9e785e560064" CreationDate="2016-02-11T15:54:35.070" UserId="929" Text="How to prevent older Diesel cars to emit NOx, dust and smell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="81823bdb-f27b-4807-baff-9e785e560064" CreationDate="2016-02-11T15:54:35.070" UserId="929" Text="|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="6004eae9-78ea-4cac-800c-ffa623c53928" CreationDate="2016-02-12T04:44:21.660" UserId="2345" Comment="Fixed the grammar" Text="I'm considering on buying an older car but I haven't decided if it should be gasoline or diesel powered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to choose a diesel, but I'm considering the negatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- smoke&#xD;&#xA;- smell&#xD;&#xA;- NOx emisions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something I personally can do to emit less NOx, smoke, smell and dust?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11483" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="6004eae9-78ea-4cac-800c-ffa623c53928" CreationDate="2016-02-12T04:44:21.660" UserId="2345" Comment="Fixed the grammar" Text="How to prevent older Diesel cars from emitting NOx, dust and smell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11484" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5053" RevisionGUID="760421e0-87c5-4729-9d2d-2513eae7c876" CreationDate="2016-02-12T12:32:07.330" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/698122408088248321" />
  <row Id="11487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5054" RevisionGUID="1354b6fb-a037-4140-8b84-28f730f982d4" CreationDate="2016-02-13T10:08:38.433" UserId="1078" Text="I was planning to buy a toy. I can buy it online and in local shop next door. Price is (including shipping in case of online shop) more or less the same. Is one more sustainable than the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11488" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5054" RevisionGUID="1354b6fb-a037-4140-8b84-28f730f982d4" CreationDate="2016-02-13T10:08:38.433" UserId="1078" Text="Is buying online more sustainable than in local shop next door?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11489" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5054" RevisionGUID="1354b6fb-a037-4140-8b84-28f730f982d4" CreationDate="2016-02-13T10:08:38.433" UserId="1078" Text="|ecological-footprint|transport|economy|consumption|storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11491" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5054" RevisionGUID="9f458796-e94c-435e-83f9-605c6874e854" CreationDate="2016-02-13T21:39:27.130" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/698622536511332361" />
  <row Id="11492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5055" RevisionGUID="bd87bb04-073a-4774-a61b-e989ece97fe4" CreationDate="2016-02-14T22:33:32.893" UserId="3068" Text="It depends on your definition of sustainable. Your question doesn't have an absolute answer as stated. Sustainable can refer too and individual, a community, a region, a country, or civilization as a whole. It is also used to make reference to the effect on the environment (which can become very controversial). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make your money from the local community (which is true for most of us) then the more of your money you spend locally, the better the local economy grows and in turn, your livelihood may be more sustainable. Therefor, if your definition is more of a personal sustainability or a local sustainability then buying locally is the correct answer. If you make your money online, you may not care about local sustainability but you may want to consider the environment. This is where it becomes more complicated. When you buy in bulk (such as the local retail) a whole bunch of merchandise is shipped at the same time (less impact per item). However, the local retailer &quot;may&quot; have additional environmental impact such as his heating, cooling, etc. If you want to get that detailed, you can also investigate the online store to see if they also have a storefront which may impact the environment, if either of the retailers have solar or use the income to help, etc. As you can see, it becomes very complicated (and sometimes impossible) to know for sure what the best option is to be environmentally sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The truth is that most people will have a preference. So then they use the arguments which support their view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate two questions for those the hard core who want to be really sustainable would be &quot;Do I really need the item in question?&quot; or &quot;Does the item in question improve my sustainability?&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5055" RevisionGUID="2f94f00d-3d9a-4711-90ab-92c86b986e71" CreationDate="2016-02-15T00:22:40.200" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected typos &amp; improved readability" Text="It depends on your definition of sustainable. Your question doesn't have an absolute answer as stated. Sustainable can refer to an individual, a community, a region, a country, or civilization as a whole. It is also used to make reference to the effect on the environment (which can become very controversial). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make your money from the local community (which is true for most of us) then the more of your money you spend locally, the better the local economy grows and in turn, your livelihood may be more sustainable. Therefore, if your definition is more of a personal sustainability or a local sustainability then buying locally is the correct answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make your money online, you may not care about local sustainability but you may want to consider the environment. This is where it becomes more complicated. When you buy in bulk (such as the local retail) a whole bunch of merchandise is shipped at the same time (less impact per item). However, the local retailer &quot;may&quot; have additional environmental impact such as his heating, cooling, etc. If you want to get that detailed, you can also investigate the online store to see if they also have a storefront which may impact the environment, if either of the retailers have solar or use the income to help, etc. As you can see, it becomes very complicated (and sometimes impossible) to know for sure what the best option is to be environmentally sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The truth is that most people will have a preference. So then they use the arguments which support their view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate two questions for the hard core who want to be really sustainable would be: &quot;Do I really need the item in question?&quot; or &quot;Does the item in question improve my sustainability?&quot; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11494" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="06617b66-a12f-4148-baf8-23af8815fc5e" CreationDate="2016-02-15T08:09:10.400" UserId="3068" Comment="grammatical error. Original used plural (types) with singular (method)." Text="Why do similar buildings use different types of cooling methods and which one is more environment friendly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11495" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5037" RevisionGUID="06617b66-a12f-4148-baf8-23af8815fc5e" CreationDate="2016-02-15T08:09:10.400" Comment="Proposed by 3068 approved by 2345, 85 edit id of 371" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="8902f227-7e44-4e54-977f-3cde34052326" CreationDate="2016-02-15T08:09:17.597" UserId="3068" Comment="Improved readability. &quot;Pellet&quot; by itself just seemed cumbersome " Text="[Pellet fuel][1] is considered a sustainable energy source. But the way it's used now seems to produce air pollution which I think should not happen in case of sustainable energy source. So is pellet sustainable energy source in the way it's used now?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_fuel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11497" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="8902f227-7e44-4e54-977f-3cde34052326" CreationDate="2016-02-15T08:09:17.597" UserId="3068" Comment="Improved readability. &quot;Pellet&quot; by itself just seemed cumbersome " Text="Is pellet fuel a sustainable energy source in the way it's used now?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11498" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5044" RevisionGUID="8902f227-7e44-4e54-977f-3cde34052326" CreationDate="2016-02-15T08:09:17.597" Comment="Proposed by 3068 approved by 2345, 85 edit id of 370" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="53905676-70f2-41c0-984f-22110877dc1e" CreationDate="2016-02-15T08:32:25.310" UserId="3423" Text="What is the value of raw materials in a typical wind or solar renewables unit? If you need specifics, take a typical 1kw panel or 1.5mw turbine. As I understand high purity silicon is the bulk of panel costs, while turbines contain tons of expensive carbon fiber." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="53905676-70f2-41c0-984f-22110877dc1e" CreationDate="2016-02-15T08:32:25.310" UserId="3423" Text="What is the scrap value of wind and solar renewables?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="53905676-70f2-41c0-984f-22110877dc1e" CreationDate="2016-02-15T08:32:25.310" UserId="3423" Text="|solar-power|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="f9d857c8-7d35-45ec-a5d5-3279850a3538" CreationDate="2016-02-15T09:04:52.380" UserId="3423" Comment="added 141 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the value of raw materials in a typical wind turbine- the entire unit? If you need specifics, take a typical 1.5mw turbine, just the raw material cost, no labor or overhead cost. As I understand high purity silicon is the bulk of panel costs, while turbines contain tons of expensive carbon fiber. I estimate based on emails with manufacturers that there is 15 tons of carbon fiber in the blade worth $16/lb, or 450k+ just for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11503" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="f9d857c8-7d35-45ec-a5d5-3279850a3538" CreationDate="2016-02-15T09:04:52.380" UserId="3423" Comment="added 141 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the scrap value of wind renewables?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11504" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="00487f54-2e1c-416f-a77b-e43f74dbde16" CreationDate="2016-02-15T09:14:05.360" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Added LCA tag" Text="|solar-power|life-cycle-analysis|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11505" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="00487f54-2e1c-416f-a77b-e43f74dbde16" CreationDate="2016-02-15T09:14:05.360" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 3069 edit id of 372" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="e837e5e3-0dfe-4c58-9e3e-8da2dbd7b1c2" CreationDate="2016-02-15T09:23:39.913" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Removed solar tag, removed the confusing 'raw' term because that is associated with construction, not scrapping." Text="What is the scrap value of the materials in a typical wind turbine - the entire unit? Take a typical 1.5 MW turbine, just the raw material value, no labor or overhead cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand high purity silicon is the bulk of panel costs, while turbines contain tons of expensive carbon fiber. I estimate based on emails with manufacturers that there is 15 tons of [carbon fiber](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1125/can-carbon-fibre-be-recycled) in the blade worth $16/lb, or 450k+ just for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11507" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="e837e5e3-0dfe-4c58-9e3e-8da2dbd7b1c2" CreationDate="2016-02-15T09:23:39.913" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Removed solar tag, removed the confusing 'raw' term because that is associated with construction, not scrapping." Text="|life-cycle-analysis|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11508" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="e837e5e3-0dfe-4c58-9e3e-8da2dbd7b1c2" CreationDate="2016-02-15T09:23:39.913" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 3069 edit id of 373" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11509" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5046" RevisionGUID="6908a59f-4cd3-43e9-871d-57404dcd2890" CreationDate="2016-02-15T09:51:43.487" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/699169206412124160" />
  <row Id="11510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5057" RevisionGUID="a890631a-547e-412c-b99f-059fb5a800d3" CreationDate="2016-02-15T10:57:56.123" UserId="48" Text="###Executive summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's too early to tell what the resale value is, as contemporary turbine designs are not as old as the lifetime of a wind-turbine, so we have very little experience of the economic value that results from decommissioning 1.5MW turbines; however, a rough first-order calculation puts the scrap value of the metals, based on Feb 2016 UK prices, at gb£14k/MW, or us$30k for a 1.5MW turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too early to tell; and reuse vs scrapping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know, because it is too early to tell: there isn't yet a large post-first-life industry for wind turbines. And the reason for that is that large-scale deployment of the now-industry standard horizontal-axis three-blade megawattt-plus wind turbine as we know it, dates back less than the lifetime of a wind turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do have some experience from the large Danish repowering exercise (2002-3), when a change in incentives caused a burst of decommissioning of older, smaller turbines; they were replaced with newer, high-power turbines. But the decommissioned turbines generally got sold on to be refurbished and reused elsewhere: so resale value for reuse must have been significantly higher than scrap value, given the additional transport costs implied by selling for reuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, with a first life of 20-25 years, and with a second life for maybe another 10-20 years, it's still too early to say what the optimal end-of-first-life outcome is for wind turbines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###NPV of scrap is low enough that no one's really counting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And because the first life is so long, then that 20-25 years of economic discounting of any end-of-life value, means that it's not really yet a consideration when reviewing the economics: anything that's achieved at end-of-life is considered a bonus as far as the business case is concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A first attempt at scrap value&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is value in pretty much all of the materials: the last I saw, it was expected that 95% of materials (by weight) could be reused or recycled (see LCA below). Even the poured concrete base can be recycled as subcore. All the copper, steel, aluminium, neodymium (if present) and so on already have existing recycling industries, but the value of each is constantly in flux as global commodity prices move around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For offshore wind, the picture is even less clear, as large-scale offshore deployment is much younger than onshore; and the world's first commercial offshore windfarm (Vindeby in Denmark, which became operational in 1991) is still generating after 24.4 years (as of Feb 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could look at a bill of materials from one of the [life-cycle analyses][1] - from that Vestas 2MW one, we see:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; large metal components are assumed to be 98% recycled&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cables 95% recycled&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other steel, aluminium, copper: 90% recycled&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That LCA shows per MW capacity (based on a 50MW plant consisting of 25 x 2MW gridstreamer turbines):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* about 120 tonnes of iron &amp; steel&#xD;&#xA;* 13 tonnes of aluminium (&amp; alloys thereof); &#xD;&#xA;* 3 tonnes of copper&#xD;&#xA;* 0.18 tonnes of permanent magnet (neodymium, dysprosium alloy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could enable you to get a rough estimate for value, depending on where you are in the world, and what the price of the various scrap metals are near you today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the UK, ferrous metals are ~£50/t, aluminium ~£600/t, copper ~£300/t.&#xD;&#xA;Multiplying those figures together, just using 95% as an average recycling rate, gives 0.95 * (120 * 50 + 13 * 600 + 3 * 300).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which is £14k per megawatt, or about us$30,000 for a 1.5 MW turbine, excluding scrap value of the blades** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Blade composition and value&#xD;&#xA;It's only recently that we've seen increasing use of carbon fibres as structural spars in blades, so in general this won't apply to older turbines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your estimate of us$450k for the blades of a 1.5MW turbine are correct, the value of the blades swamps everything else. I'd have though that there's a good chance they'd have more value as sale for reuse rather than sale for recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, regarding your calculation of blade composition: I understand from elsewhere that only [6% of the blade composite by weight is carbon fibre][2], and even a monster 100m blade (no one's making them that big yet) would weigh between 35-50 tonnes;  so that would be 2-3 tonnes of carbon fibre for one 100m blade, or 6-9 tonnes for a whole 10MW turbine; let's call it 0.6-1 tonnes per Megawatt, which is between one sixteenth and one-tenth of the figure you have. On that basis, the blades are still worth more than everything else (us$30,000-45,000 per 1.5MW turbine), using your number for carbon fibre scrap value (I couldn't find a price when I looked), assuming the carbon fibre can be separate out from the rest of the blade cheaply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.vestas.com/~/media/vestas/about/sustainability/pdfs/lca_v902mw_version1.ashx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/wind-turbine-blades-glass-vs-carbon-fiber" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="2e0a237e-433f-45de-bb26-374082c0b505" CreationDate="2016-02-15T15:14:17.980" UserId="3423" Comment="Noted that carbon fiber recycling cannot be 100%" Text="Like many substances, carbon fiber **can** be recycled, but it may (currently) be better described as *downcycling*, vs. *recycling*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Aerospace &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon fiber composite materials, for example, are being used increasingly in aircraft manufacture.  Although this has been the case in more expensive *military* aircraft for decades, only recently have large commercial aircraft started using more composite materials than aluminum (the new [Boeing 787 is about 50% composites vs. 20% aluminum][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [this article about Boeing][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... use a process called pyrolysis, whereby heat removes the resin&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from shredded raw composite material, rendering what Carberry&#xD;&#xA;&gt; described as a kind of fluffy fiber.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carberry explained that physical properties of recycled composites&#xD;&#xA;&gt; limit their use to nonstructural parts. Only new material–made of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; virgin carbon fiber–is strong enough for fabrication of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flight-critical components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The carbon composites are [heated to around 400 &amp;deg;C - 600 &amp;deg;C][5], so the epoxy resin can be burned off (and lost), and the fibers reclaimed.  Although the end result is not a fiber of the same length as the original, the [process only uses about 5% of the energy that the original manufacturing process did.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like when paper is recycled, the resulting fibers get shorter and shorter, and this reduces the strength of the recycled composite material.  They are still usable, but not for all the same applications (e.g. aircraft structure) as the original material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An early, lower-tech recycling process for carbon fiber simply involved grinding it up, and using it as filler material for applications like road building.  Less demanding applications like laptop cases are also current recipients of recycled carbon fiber.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Consumer Products&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, the material performance demands are highest for aerospace applications, then automotive applications, then sporting goods, and finally consumer electronics.  So, this is likely to be the *downcycling* flow for carbon fiber (although I don't have evidence that recycled aerospace fibers are being used in car frames yet).  It's also the case that aerospace consumption of carbon fiber composites is vastly greater than smaller consumer products, so that's the most important place to start innovating in fiber recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Check out this article, though, on Trek Bicycles recycling carbon fiber from bike frames][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is a link for a company developing a different carbon fiber recycling process][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Another link discussing the general state of the art, and future directions][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclaimer: in a former life, was a Boeing structures engineer, and did my Master's in Aero/Astro structures*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/787family/programfacts.page&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-air-transport-perspective/2012-11-05/composites-go-green-through-recycling&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.adherent-tech.com/recycling_technologies/carbon_fiber_reclamation_faqs&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/carbon-fiber-reclamation-going-commercial&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.swrtec.de/swrtec/team/recyclingposter.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://bicycling.com/blogs/thestraightdirt/2011/04/26/props-trek-institutes-novel-carbon-fiber-recycling-program/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Please also be aware that carbon fiber sustains strain and damage during use and cannot be 100% recycled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11512" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="2e0a237e-433f-45de-bb26-374082c0b505" CreationDate="2016-02-15T15:14:17.980" Comment="Proposed by 3069 approved by 2345, 85 edit id of 374" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5057" RevisionGUID="d8c92cc8-de99-41ae-9e56-c06e64aeb134" CreationDate="2016-02-15T17:56:41.140" UserId="48" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="###Executive summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's too early to tell what the resale value is, as contemporary turbine designs are not as old as the lifetime of a wind-turbine, so we have very little experience of the economic value that results from decommissioning 1.5MW turbines; however, a rough first-order calculation puts the scrap value of the metals, based on Feb 2016 UK prices, at gb£14k/MW, or us$30k for a 1.5MW turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Too early to tell; and reuse vs scrapping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't know, because it is too early to tell: there isn't yet a large post-first-life industry for wind turbines. And the reason for that is that large-scale deployment of the now-industry standard horizontal-axis three-blade megawattt-plus wind turbine as we know it, dates back less than the lifetime of a wind turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do have some experience from the large Danish repowering exercise (2002-3), when a change in incentives caused a burst of decommissioning of older, smaller turbines; they were replaced with newer, high-power turbines. But the decommissioned turbines generally got sold on to be refurbished and reused elsewhere: so resale value for reuse must have been significantly higher than scrap value, given the additional transport costs implied by selling for reuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, with a first life of 20-25 years, and with a second life for maybe another 10-20 years, it's still too early to say what the optimal end-of-first-life outcome is for wind turbines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###NPV of scrap is low enough that no one's really counting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And because the first life is so long, then that 20-25 years of economic discounting of any end-of-life value, means that it's not really yet a consideration when reviewing the economics: anything that's achieved at end-of-life is considered a bonus as far as the business case is concerned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A first attempt at scrap value&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is value in pretty much all of the materials: the last I saw, it was expected that 95% of materials (by weight) could be reused or recycled (see LCA below). Even the poured concrete base can be recycled as subcore. All the copper, steel, aluminium, neodymium (if present) and so on already have existing recycling industries, but the value of each is constantly in flux as global commodity prices move around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For offshore wind, the picture is even less clear, as large-scale offshore deployment is much younger than onshore; and the world's first commercial offshore windfarm (Vindeby in Denmark, which became operational in 1991) is still generating after 24.4 years (as of Feb 2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could look at a bill of materials from one of the [life-cycle analyses][1] - from that Vestas 2MW one, we see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* large metal components are assumed to be 98% recycled  &#xD;&#xA;* cables 95% recycled  &#xD;&#xA;* other steel, aluminium, copper: 90% recycled&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That LCA shows per MW capacity (based on a 50MW plant consisting of 25 x 2MW gridstreamer turbines):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* about 120 tonnes of iron &amp; steel&#xD;&#xA;* 13 tonnes of aluminium (&amp; alloys thereof); &#xD;&#xA;* 3 tonnes of copper&#xD;&#xA;* 0.18 tonnes of permanent magnet (neodymium, dysprosium alloy)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could enable you to get a rough estimate for value, depending on where you are in the world, and what the price of the various scrap metals are near you today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the UK, ferrous metals are ~£50/t, aluminium ~£600/t, copper ~£300/t.&#xD;&#xA;Multiplying those figures together, just using 95% as an average recycling rate, gives 0.95 * (120 * 50 + 13 * 600 + 3 * 300).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which is £14k per megawatt, or about us$30,000 for a 1.5 MW turbine, excluding scrap value of the blades** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Blade composition and value&#xD;&#xA;It's only recently that we've seen increasing use of carbon fibres as structural spars in blades, so in general this won't apply to older turbines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your estimate of us$450k for the blades of a 1.5MW turbine are correct, the value of the blades swamps everything else. I'd have though that there's a good chance they'd have more value as sale for reuse rather than sale for recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, regarding your calculation of blade composition: I understand from elsewhere that only [6% of the blade composite by weight is carbon fibre][2], and even a monster 100m blade (no one's making them that big yet) would weigh between 35-50 tonnes;  so that would be 2-3 tonnes of carbon fibre for one 100m blade, or 6-9 tonnes for a whole 10MW turbine; let's call it 0.6-1 tonnes per Megawatt, which is between one sixteenth and one-tenth of the figure you have. On that basis, the blades are still worth more than everything else (us$30,000-45,000 per 1.5MW turbine), using your number for carbon fibre scrap value (I couldn't find a price when I looked), assuming the carbon fibre can be separate out from the rest of the blade cheaply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.vestas.com/~/media/vestas/about/sustainability/pdfs/lca_v902mw_version1.ashx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/wind-turbine-blades-glass-vs-carbon-fiber" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="a9419de6-3207-4369-845b-b4fb3488b326" CreationDate="2016-02-15T19:18:33.257" UserId="3423" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="What is the scrap value of the materials in a typical wind turbine - the entire unit? Take a typical 1.5 MW turbine, just the raw material value, no labor or overhead cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand high purity silicon is the bulk of panel costs, while turbines contain tons of expensive carbon fiber. I estimate based on the responses that there is 2 tons of [carbon fiber](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1125/can-carbon-fibre-be-recycled) in the blades worth $16/lb, or 30k+ just for that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="0c6a19ee-aef5-4b17-93ec-70a1c5086d61" CreationDate="2016-02-15T19:37:55.737" UserId="3423" Comment="added 131 characters in body" Text="What is the scrap value of the materials in a typical wind turbine - the entire unit? Take a typical 1.5 MW turbine, just the raw material value, no labor or overhead cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand high purity silicon is the bulk of panel costs, while turbines contain tons of expensive carbon fiber. I estimate based on the responses that there is 2 tons of [carbon fiber](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1125/can-carbon-fibre-be-recycled) in the blades worth $16/lb, or 30k+ just for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon fiber and other fiberglass costs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/glass-fiber-and-basalt-fiber-industries.html?m=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5059" RevisionGUID="f7eb3849-de62-4f8a-ac10-2ffe178bd528" CreationDate="2016-02-16T06:50:07.413" UserId="400" Text="I've done this calc for my farm here in Alberta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.  I know that it takes 5 cords a year to heat my house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.  The average lifespan of trembling aspen is about 40 years.  At that point it's about 40 feet tall, and 8&quot; diameter.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.  The average spacing in my woods is about 10 feet.  So 100 ft2 into 40,000 ft2/acre gives me about 400 trees per acre.  So with 400 per acre and a 40 year span, I can grow on average 10 trees per acre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4.  A given tree has about 32 feet of trunk before it gets too small to bother with.  The top end is 2&quot; bottom end 8 inches.  We will do some crude rounding and say that the first 8 feet is 8&quot; the second 8 feet is 6&quot; the thrird 8 feet is 4&quot; and the last 8 feet is 2&quot;  This is overall an underestimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5.  A cord is 8 feet x 4 feet x 4 feet.  So cord is 36 8&quot; diameter chunks, 64 6&quot; chunks, 144 4&quot;diameter chunks, and we're ignoring the top one, even if we cut it up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. So one tree = 1/36 + 1/64 + 1/144.  If we pretend that it's 1/72 instead of 1/64 we get 7/144 cord per tree.  So 10 trees is darn close to 1/2 cord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for me the answer is 10 acres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I managed it more intensely, thinned it, planted hybrids that grew faster, made the spacing more even, I could half the time it takes to grow.  If I found a way to use smaller wood, I would have less waste and it would take fewer trees per cord.  Also the fastest mass increase is when they are young.  6&quot; apart and 1&quot; diameter at harvest if all you want is fixed carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Oregon you would have twice the growing season, and a much smaller heating season.  (we have 10,000 degree days per year)  But people in coastal climates often go light on the insulation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5060" RevisionGUID="00e7dd9d-35aa-4eed-b996-cc74585a2b66" CreationDate="2016-02-17T09:19:07.490" UserId="3075" Text="There may be a solution (although not cheap) from these people in the UK&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cgon.co.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5060" RevisionGUID="7bf7f680-d59b-45d7-b14a-5453a4bcad07" CreationDate="2016-02-17T09:40:08.487" UserId="3075" Comment="Addeed extra links and explanation in response to a comment" Text="There may be a solution (although not cheap) from these people in the UK&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cgon.co.uk/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Responding to Dee's comments below:&#xD;&#xA;What you could do is buy the ezero1 unit that CGON (who are based in the UK) manufacture for around £700.  It claims to reduce emissions and increase efficiency.  However, the installation service only seems to operate in the UK at present.&#xD;&#xA;The page relating to independent (but apparently paid for, so arguably not independent) testing is here: &#xD;&#xA;http://www.cgon.co.uk/emissionresults&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5061" RevisionGUID="46758a63-2c73-43a7-8f20-aab643c4d44a" CreationDate="2016-02-17T15:52:48.113" UserId="99" Text="**TLDR:** in this particular case, where the buyer lives very close to the shop, it's likely that buying in a brick-and-mortar shop has a lower carbon footprint compared to buying online. &#xD;&#xA;Online shopping may become greener when the distance to the shop is more than 14 - 50km (depending on your shopping behavior and on which scientific study you consult).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fully agree with the answer given by [Maxfield Solar](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5055/99) that 1.) you should make a distinction between sustainability and environmental impact and that 2.) it's very difficult to go into a specific situation because you don't know all relevant details. This being said, there have been a number of interesting scientific studies about shopping online versus shopping in a brick-and-mortar shop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Important factors** to consider are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- method of transportation (for both the consumer and the retailer),&#xD;&#xA;- distance to the brick-and-mortar shop, &#xD;&#xA;- number of items that are bought in one go, &#xD;&#xA;- consumer shopping behavior (e.g. orientation trips, time spent browsing online, ordering express delivery, number of items that are returned),&#xD;&#xA;- missed deliveries (e.g. when a delivery truck tries to deliver a package multiple times, but the recipient is not at home).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some conclusions** you often encounter in those studies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Transportation is the biggest contributor to carbon emissions&#xD;&#xA;- Delivery trucks are more efficient per item compared to the average consumer's  car because trucks optimize routing and deliver multiple items to various places in one go. Consequently driving to a brick-and-mortar store yourself usually just adds to the carbon footprint of a product.&#xD;&#xA;- Express delivery (often by air) and returned items can both have a significant impact on the total carbon footprint&#xD;&#xA;- Brick-and-mortar shops use more electricity and storage space compared to one central location used in online shopping.&#xD;&#xA;- Online shopping uses more packaging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one study which seems to be particularly relevant for this case. Looking at carbon footprint, [this German study done in 2012](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920912000521) has found that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; online retailing causes lower CO2 emissions under many conditions. Nevertheless, the brick-and-mortar channel is more environmentally friendly when travel distances are small. The radius for which brick-and-mortar shopping has an advantage increases when returns, shifts in the use of public transport and information behavior are also considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have access to the full article, but I did find [this online article](http://persquaremile.com/2013/08/21/what-is-more-energy-efficient-shopping-online-or-in-stores/) where more details where provided: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At short distances—less than 8.6 miles or 14 km one-way—in-store shoppers slightly edged out online customers per transaction, about 73.8 g CO2 vs 77.9 g CO2. But over that, online shoppers’ footprints remained relatively stable while store goers emissions skyrocketed to as high as 451.4 g CO2 per transaction if they had to travel over 62 miles or 100 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an older Swedish study done in 1999 which was quoted [here](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1799327) they found a similar result, except that the distance to the brick-and-mortar shop has to be at most 50km. Alternatively, you would also be greener if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; online shopping replaces 3.5 traditional shopping trips, [or] if 25 orders are delivered at the same time..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that different studies make different assumptions and use different cut-off rules (what is and isn't included in the measurements). As a result a definitive answer cannot be given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Weideli, D. (2013) &quot;Environmental Analysis of US Online Shopping&quot;, Master Thesis Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, carried out at  MIT Center for Transportation &amp; Logistics&#xD;&#xA;Available at http://ctl.mit.edu/library/environmental_analysis_us_online_shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Wiese, A. et al. (2012) &quot;Transport-related CO2 effects of online and brick-and-mortar shopping: a comparison and sensitivity analysis of clothing retailing&quot;, in *Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 17*, Issue 6, pp 473-477. Available via http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920912000521&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Plepys, A. (2002) &quot;The Grey Side of ICT&quot;, *Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 22*, No. 5, pp 509-523. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1799327" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5064" RevisionGUID="bdd84c45-ba93-4fcc-8d52-ceaa358c75c7" CreationDate="2016-02-18T07:28:08.250" UserId="2553" Text="Which [type of pencil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil#By_manufacture) is the most sustainable one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Wooden pencil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Automatic (propelling) pencil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Clutch pencil &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The types I'm referring to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read related questions about comparing pens and pencils:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is more sustainable, using a mechanical pencil or a pen?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4989/what-is-more-sustainable-using-a-mechanical-pencil-or-a-pen)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Are “eco-friendly” pens and pencils actually more sustainable than the conventional models?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1118/are-eco-friendly-pens-and-pencils-actually-more-sustainable-than-the-conventio)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I'm interested in comparing the environmental footprints of these 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zHqgp.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5064" RevisionGUID="bdd84c45-ba93-4fcc-8d52-ceaa358c75c7" CreationDate="2016-02-18T07:28:08.250" UserId="2553" Text="Which is the most sustainable type of pencil?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5064" RevisionGUID="bdd84c45-ba93-4fcc-8d52-ceaa358c75c7" CreationDate="2016-02-18T07:28:08.250" UserId="2553" Text="|ecological-footprint|environmental-impact|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11539" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5064" RevisionGUID="617b3ae3-2be6-47f5-9325-f6977ae8cf10" CreationDate="2016-02-18T09:53:35.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/700256841557741568" />
  <row Id="11542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="5d83d481-3822-44ff-9993-9d469155cc05" CreationDate="2016-02-18T14:57:57.497" UserId="400" Text="Get the plastic itself analyzed.  It is likely Polyetheylene.  PE itself is harmless -- chemically it is essentially a very long chain wax.  If there were any solvents in it, by now they have leached into the soil. (rueful grimace). In many jursidictions using PE mulch is allowed in organic farming.  Get a ruling from your local authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long exposure to sunlight will cause PE to cross link.  This reduces it's strenth, and makes it brittle.  It gradually becomes PE confetti.  If you have sandy soil, this actually helps with water retention.  If you have clay soil water movement can be slowed too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with removing the topsoil to get rid of it, is you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  You want that soil for growing your crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would look at doing this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Modify your plough by removing the plough shares, leaving the coulters in place.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Go over the field with coulters several times.  You want to cut the plastic every 4 inches in two directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Put the plough shares back on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Plough and disk the land.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.  Try harrows of various types.  Chain, bar, and spring tooth. These may catch the plastic and flip it to the surface. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.  Try using a hay rake to see if it will gather the bits that are on the surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.  If #6 didn't work, try using a hay bine with the blades removed. (Essentially vacuuming the field.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.  This will remove only the plastic that is mostly above the surface.  Disk again.  Repeat whatever worked before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9.  Rototiller may work to bring deeper stuf up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10.  Rock rake may lift stuff up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5066" RevisionGUID="ffce2cbb-9586-477d-a7c0-631ea28ccb79" CreationDate="2016-02-18T15:04:02.783" UserId="400" Text="Contact City of Edmonton Waste Treatment.  They have one of the best diversion systems in the world, at present removing better than 70% of the waste stream:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Yard waste is composted.  The compost is sold commercially.&#xD;&#xA;* Plastic bags slitted, emptied, and vacuumed out of the stream. Baled and recycled.&#xD;&#xA;* Starting to do this with styrofoam too, but they still don't have an outlet.&#xD;&#xA;* Large plastic items are sorted out by type, shredded and bagged.&#xD;&#xA;* Newspaper and cardboard are baled and recycled.&#xD;&#xA;* ferrous metals are removed by magnet.&#xD;&#xA;* Wet waste may be in a different compost stream.  Not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The technology is changing constantly.  They export expertise all over the world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="3ede06e7-8335-46ff-a5cd-bb91c77d88a3" CreationDate="2016-02-18T15:08:18.977" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="Get the plastic itself analyzed.  It is likely Polyethylene.  PE itself is harmless -- chemically it is essentially a very long chain wax.  If there were any solvents in it, by now they have leached into the soil (rueful grimace). In many jurisdictions using PE mulch is allowed in organic farming.  Get a ruling from your local authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long exposure to sunlight will cause PE to cross link.  This reduces it's strength and makes it brittle.  It gradually becomes PE confetti.  If you have sandy soil, this actually helps with water retention.  If you have clay soil water movement can be slowed too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with removing the topsoil to get rid of it, is you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  You want that soil for growing your crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would look at doing this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Modify your plough by removing the plough shares, leaving the coulters in place.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Go over the field with coulters several times.  You want to cut the plastic every 4 inches in two directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Put the plough shares back on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Plough and disk the land.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.  Try harrows of various types.  Chain, bar, and spring tooth. These may catch the plastic and flip it to the surface. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.  Try using a hay rake to see if it will gather the bits that are on the surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.  If #6 didn't work, try using a hay bine with the blades removed. (Essentially vacuuming the field.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.  This will remove only the plastic that is mostly above the surface.  Disk again.  Repeat whatever worked before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9.  Rototiller may work to bring deeper stuff up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10.  Rock rake may lift stuff up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5067" RevisionGUID="5a825c46-fac3-47e4-9bdd-44292cd4bed7" CreationDate="2016-02-18T15:25:26.580" UserId="400" Text="Burying it is a bad idea particularly for lead acid batteries.   The case  will eventually break down, then the solutions will leach downward into the water table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we have to put down a $10 deposit on a car battery.  The deposit is waived if we bring a battery with us. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current limit for Pb in water is 5 ppb.  And there is some discussion that this is too high.  A battery is about 80% lead.  So 40 lbs of lead -- 20 kg roughly -- is enough to contaminate 4 billion liters of water.  That's 4 million cubic meters of water. 1600 Olympic pools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at recycling costs.  A battery weighs about 50 lbs.  A semi can haul about 20 tons.  That's about 800 batteries.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Running a semi cross country is a few thousand dollars.  $4/battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it doesn't work that way.  More typically most large cities have various metal salvage firms.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happens is this:  Canadian Tire sells you a new battery and takes the old one in on trade.  Their trucks are deadheading back for another load of store goods, so the battery's trip back to the distribution point is free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the distribution point in some major city, they will take them to the recycler.  There they will drain the acid, precipitate the lead out, probably as PbS.  The drained case then is broken, the lead plates, and lead oxide precipitates are separated.  Lead plates may be melted down to smaller ingots.  Oxide is either drummed or binned.  Cases are washed, rinsed, and recycled as poly-ethylene (I think...) Wash water is added to the acid.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Periodically the acid is loaded into a tank car, reprocessed into new battery acid (you don't care if there is still some Pb in it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lead goes back to the battery plant to make new batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commidity lead today is $0.83/lb. So the lead in the battery is worth thirty some bucks.  In bulk this is cheaper than mining new lead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11546" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5054" RevisionGUID="99d1fc01-baa3-4a5c-81dd-1f3b8aba2842" CreationDate="2016-02-19T09:09:18.830" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|transport|environmental-impact|economy|consumption|storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5068" RevisionGUID="e44d7427-8a44-4f69-93c3-9f91b90c46e7" CreationDate="2016-02-19T15:31:30.627" UserId="400" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When faced with a bunch of different vague tradeoffs like this go with a 'which has the lowest total cost of ownership?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting at that, then try to internalize the issues involved in making is sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wooden pencil:  Made of cedar.  Cedar logging in North America has some stringent requirements for erosion prevention, and regeneration.  Graphite and clay are not resources in short supply.  No costs to internalize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic mechanical pencil:  Probably made of styrene.  Styrene monomer is made from natural gas.  Styrene is also an easily recycled plastic.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition the cheap plastic ones typically come with several chunks of 'lead', and can be refilled.  The usual limitation I find is that they get lost before they break down.  Because of their clip, and shorter length, I don't lose them as fast.  Often a 12 pack at staples is cheaper than a similar box of wooden pencils.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally some value needs to be given to not having to sharpen them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall:  I would go with the mechanical pencil.  But you realize that you have been more unsustainable by driving your car to the end of the driveway than any reasonable number of pencils you use in a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One last consideration.  The mechanical pencils are more agile.  All writing instruments have a flight reflex that kicks in at the sound of a phone ringing.  If it can't run or hide, it has &quot;pigment constipation&quot; and will refuse to write.  It may be that these are older, and sacrifice them so the others can get away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5064" RevisionGUID="655171a6-92c1-417b-a863-a74b5cbb192d" CreationDate="2016-02-19T16:42:22.760" UserId="2553" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Which [type of pencil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil#By_manufacture) is the most sustainable one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Wooden pencil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Automatic (propelling) pencil/Clutch pencil &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The types I'm referring to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read related questions about comparing pens and pencils:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is more sustainable, using a mechanical pencil or a pen?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4989/what-is-more-sustainable-using-a-mechanical-pencil-or-a-pen)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Are “eco-friendly” pens and pencils actually more sustainable than the conventional models?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1118/are-eco-friendly-pens-and-pencils-actually-more-sustainable-than-the-conventio)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I'm interested in comparing the environmental footprints of these 2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zHqgp.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5064" RevisionGUID="04055c1d-8311-464a-85d6-175438367baf" CreationDate="2016-02-19T18:35:10.707" UserId="2553" Comment="Edit from comments, made the question more specific " Text="Which [type of pencil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil#By_manufacture) is the most sustainable one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Wooden pencil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Automatic (propelling) pencil/Clutch pencil &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The types I'm referring to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read related questions about comparing pens and pencils:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is more sustainable, using a mechanical pencil or a pen?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4989/what-is-more-sustainable-using-a-mechanical-pencil-or-a-pen)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Are “eco-friendly” pens and pencils actually more sustainable than the conventional models?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1118/are-eco-friendly-pens-and-pencils-actually-more-sustainable-than-the-conventio)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I'm interested in comparing the environmental footprints of these 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of the complexity of such an analysis (which resources are renewable, energy and transport for non-reusable parts and potential waste production) and while I'm interested in as a comprehensive answer as possible, any steps of the solution are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zHqgp.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4910" RevisionGUID="838eee95-89c7-4854-b887-d2e8295a7129" CreationDate="2016-02-20T07:37:02.970" UserId="2553" Comment="Link formatting" Text="This will depend on where you live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a question of energy;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all take into account the carbon footprint of the electric shaver relative to it's expected lifespan - this is likely to be higher than the safety razor proposed by Nui (Which I agree with by the way).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly - as I alluded too; it will depend on where you live, more precisely - what altitude you live at and where your water comes from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you assume water takes 9.8 joules of energy to lift 1L by 1 Meter - which is about right, and you live at the top of a hill 100m above your water source - well then its about 1 unit of electric for every 1000 litres of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further to this, [this site][1] shows the current UK carbon footprint of electricity per unit. at the time of writing it is 426g/unit.&#xD;&#xA;Some parts of Birmingham in England are 200m above their water source.&#xD;&#xA;Using this as an example and assuming you only use 2L of water when you shave (Below average - it would be about 4 IF you turn off the tap).&#xD;&#xA;So assuming 2 litre each time - that's 365 times a year. 730 litres is .730 units of electricity - and we can reasonably assume you do so at peak times of day for energy use.&#xD;&#xA;So about **310g** of carbon emissions per year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now to assess the electric razor - Mine has a 2600 mamp/h cell which is putting out at about 14 watts. I can shave with it in about 8 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would do that every 2 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;365/2 = 182 * 8 minutes = 1460 minutes / 60 (hour) = 24h (Shoot me now!!)&#xD;&#xA;24 hours at a rate of 14W is 0.336 units which is **143g** of C02.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you don't then wash the electric razor with water like I do!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion - find out where your water is coming from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/uk-grid-live" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11552" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4910" RevisionGUID="838eee95-89c7-4854-b887-d2e8295a7129" CreationDate="2016-02-20T07:37:02.970" Comment="Proposed by 2553 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 375" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5070" RevisionGUID="a6087332-6915-48fb-ac5c-a562c44a1561" CreationDate="2016-02-22T17:38:25.423" UserId="3085" Text="http://theguardian.com/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/jul/31/sky-lanterns&#xD;&#xA;and http://bbc.com/news/magazine-23129276 are critical about use of lanterns which float into the sky using hot air because of risk of fire and litter, but the same sites do not question the impact of firework displays, especially massive ones during Bonfire Night and the New Year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the same typical audience size, how do they compare?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11556" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5070" RevisionGUID="a6087332-6915-48fb-ac5c-a562c44a1561" CreationDate="2016-02-22T17:38:25.423" UserId="3085" Text="How do the environmental impacts of sky lantern and firework displays compare?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11557" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5070" RevisionGUID="a6087332-6915-48fb-ac5c-a562c44a1561" CreationDate="2016-02-22T17:38:25.423" UserId="3085" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11558" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5070" RevisionGUID="2f9abcf4-c0d0-4129-bc1b-4bb78abe0bd0" CreationDate="2016-02-23T01:19:46.053" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/701939471592329216" />
  <row Id="11559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5071" RevisionGUID="73a3e6aa-03ab-4914-9496-c37bfe2b4df3" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:14:54.603" UserId="2868" Text="I work with a computer and I was wondering if using its USB ports to charge the devices that I use the most (mostly my phone and my e-reader) while working as opposed to charging them using a normal wall charger would make any impact.&#xA;&#xA;I am interested in two things. First, would I save any money over the year? (We can assume that I charge my phone daily, my ebook once a week and some other devices once in a while)&#xA;&#xA;Secondly, does this make any environmental impact? Am I actually decreasing the quantity of electricity that I use or just making the computer to use more energy to compensate the charging of the devices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5071" RevisionGUID="73a3e6aa-03ab-4914-9496-c37bfe2b4df3" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:14:54.603" UserId="2868" Text="Does it make any difference to charge my electronic devices using an USB port?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5071" RevisionGUID="73a3e6aa-03ab-4914-9496-c37bfe2b4df3" CreationDate="2016-02-23T22:14:54.603" UserId="2868" Text="|electricity|energy-efficiency|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5073" RevisionGUID="3b240053-354b-403b-a3fc-c07a2af4d8d9" CreationDate="2016-02-24T02:21:41.553" UserId="3068" Text="To give a definite answer would require a lot of research and it would probably be quite impossible to give a &quot;for sure&quot; answer because there are some variables. Some computer power supplies are much more efficient than others and some wall chargers are much more efficient than others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This being said, it is generally MUCH more efficient to use the computer USB (while you are using the computer). This is because the computer is already supplying the 5V power so you are just drawing a little more off an existing load rather than powering a whole new power supply (the wall charger).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, when I say much more, I'm talking in terms of percentage. The fact is that the amount of power used to charge the average phone or tablet for a year is pretty minimal and you will definitely not notice a difference on your power bill if you charge it one way or the other (as long as you unplug your computer and/or your wall charger when not needed). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5074" RevisionGUID="bcf6dbae-e2b8-4c97-bb71-221704566e1d" CreationDate="2016-02-25T17:15:49.393" UserId="812" Text="Computer PSUs generally only hit their rated efficiency when well loaded. Most desktop PCs have larger PSUs than they need, to allow for expansion, and so they are not fully loaded. Consequently it is quite possible (though by no means guaranteed) that charging from a desktop computer is more efficient than doing so from a dedicated adapter, since part of the extra load might be absorbed by increased efficiency. This is unlikely to apply to laptops. &#xA;&#xA;Perhaps of at least as much import is that most computer USB sockets only deliver 0.5A, and hence will charge your phone slower than a dedicated charger. Since charging a battery faster usually generates more heat, the slower charging may again result in less energy loss (as well as perhaps a slightly longer battery life). &#xA;&#xA;The difference from either of these effects will be very small, though. My general advice would be &quot;don't worry about it&quot;. In case it isn't obvious, never leave a computer running for the sole purpose of charging a USB device - this would be *very* inefficient. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11567" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5071" RevisionGUID="bf2d51be-2ce3-42c9-bbf4-2de2e7e89a08" CreationDate="2016-02-26T04:32:17.597" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/703075085247225856" />
  <row Id="11570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1223" RevisionGUID="19756343-8129-463c-bf03-de999793419f" CreationDate="2016-02-26T09:19:49.117" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Inserted comment answer" Text="Want to build one of those old-style water wheels powered by a waterfall. Is there a more efficient way than the ones that were around since the start of the industrial revoloution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11571" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1223" RevisionGUID="19756343-8129-463c-bf03-de999793419f" CreationDate="2016-02-26T09:19:49.117" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by -1 edit id of 376" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1223" RevisionGUID="eaccc90a-58d8-4114-bfbc-e31e9ae69b51" CreationDate="2016-02-26T09:19:49.117" UserId="85" Comment="Inserted comment answer" Text="Want to build one of those old-style water wheels powered by a waterfall. Is there a more efficient way than the ones that were around since the start of the industrial revolution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="8c3dcccf-2cf3-4f26-a59f-b86834d56075" CreationDate="2016-02-26T12:10:47.703" UserId="2891" Text="Organic sustainable alternatives to commercial Hair products; gel, pomade, mousse? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any that can be easily home made with organic/ plant based ingredients? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11575" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="8c3dcccf-2cf3-4f26-a59f-b86834d56075" CreationDate="2016-02-26T12:10:47.703" UserId="2891" Text="Organic sustainable alternatives to commercial Hair products; gel, pomade, mousse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11576" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="8c3dcccf-2cf3-4f26-a59f-b86834d56075" CreationDate="2016-02-26T12:10:47.703" UserId="2891" Text="|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5077" RevisionGUID="91708baa-ab30-4882-a5a7-546ab822491e" CreationDate="2016-02-26T15:05:04.520" UserId="2868" Text="There are a lot of alternatives to make your own shampoo at home and many of them use [castile soap][1] (because it doesn't involve any kind of animal fat in the production process). You have a few examples [here][2] and [here][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea behind all of them is pretty similar, mixing castile soap (I am pretty sure that other kinds of soap can be used but this is the one I have tried and I'm familiar with) with distilled water to get a nice texture and with herbs and essential oils for aroma and other properties (chamomile extract is used in many industrial shampoos).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to mess around and make your own shampoo there are also a lot of companies that make natural grooming products of all kinds (you can even often find some natural cosmetic projects in Kickstarter [1][4], [2][5]). This products are made with natural materials without lots of chemicals, so I would also recommend you look around for &quot;natural products&quot; and read carefully the ingredients of the products you are interested in to see if they fit or not your needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castile_soap&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mypurepursuit.blogspot.de/p/shampoo-recipes_19.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://nourishingjoy.com/homemade-shampoo/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jasmineofjaza/jaza-natural-cruelty-free-cosmetics?ref=nav_search&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1979747841/double-dyed-cosmetics-cruelty-free-brand?ref=nav_search" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="644c5556-bc8f-41c5-88f1-d90eb2a8fb0e" CreationDate="2016-02-26T15:27:03.567" UserId="99" Comment="improved description" Text="Green IT is the study and practice of reducing the environmental impact of IT and/or using IT as a tool for sustainable development and improving sustainability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing IT's impact is sometimes also referred to as *Green IT 1.0*, whereas using IT to improve sustainability is also known as *Green IT 2.0.* Other names for Green IT include green computing, sustainable computing, or ICT sustainability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Green IT includes: &quot;*the study and practice of designing, manufacturing, using, and disposing of computers, servers, and associated subsystems - such as monitors, printers, storage devices, and networking and communications systems - efficiently and effectively with minimal or no impact on the environment.*&quot; (San Murugesan)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="edbe3721-abe4-49e7-a5fd-e61a46820be1" CreationDate="2016-02-26T15:27:03.567" UserId="99" Comment="improved description" Text="the study and practice of reducing IT's environmental impact as well as using IT as a tool for sustainable development and improving sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5078" RevisionGUID="34d8ae58-7bba-4804-9dcd-f9b3782558f7" CreationDate="2016-02-26T15:31:59.627" UserId="2868" Text="There are a few papers about the environmental impact of fireworks (see [link][1] and [link][2] as examples). In the first one they also discuss that exposure to fireworks is risky for the people attending the display as opposed to what happens to people attending a festival with sky-lanterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They analyze the concentration of determined particles in the air during and after the celebration and comparing it with the usual levels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this is not a complete answer it could give you at least an starting place and you could check the references of both these articles to find more information on the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10661-010-1347-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231006003499" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="fcb30bd6-9e2e-4137-b587-ae743c038029" CreationDate="2016-02-27T10:25:21.733" UserId="2187" Text="Are there any internet search engines that employ a special focus on sustainability aspects? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="fcb30bd6-9e2e-4137-b587-ae743c038029" CreationDate="2016-02-27T10:25:21.733" UserId="2187" Text="What are search engines with a focus on sustainability aspects?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="fcb30bd6-9e2e-4137-b587-ae743c038029" CreationDate="2016-02-27T10:25:21.733" UserId="2187" Text="|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5081" RevisionGUID="59443005-88d0-47cb-85ff-adbe909214be" CreationDate="2016-02-27T11:00:23.987" UserId="15" Text="The only one I'm aware of is Ecosia, which uses a substantial amount of the money generated through its search engine to fund tree planting (80% of surplus income according to Wikipedia).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information here: https://info.ecosia.org/what" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="8c68f04c-e5e4-4395-9dc2-1d1bc7be8d5b" CreationDate="2016-02-27T14:52:11.433" UserId="2187" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Are there any internet search engines that emphasise a focus on one or more sustainability aspects? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11590" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="455d2a73-98f1-4b4b-97c2-fec49a67ebd4" CreationDate="2016-02-28T04:45:27.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/703803173627170816" />
  <row Id="11593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="58e37300-688c-4852-b88f-652aa409bffe" CreationDate="2016-02-28T12:23:55.350" UserId="2187" Text="From a [Degrowth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth) perspective, how would one argue in favour or against ad blocking and online advertising? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely, online advertising fuels consumption. Yet it is also a potential source of income for anti-consumerist alternatives and blocking advertising thus closes this opportunity of income generation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="58e37300-688c-4852-b88f-652aa409bffe" CreationDate="2016-02-28T12:23:55.350" UserId="2187" Text="What is the Degrowth perspective on ad blocking and online advertising?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="58e37300-688c-4852-b88f-652aa409bffe" CreationDate="2016-02-28T12:23:55.350" UserId="2187" Text="|degrowth|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5085" RevisionGUID="925532ca-487f-48ca-92e7-a6d2d8a431fd" CreationDate="2016-03-02T15:24:03.590" UserId="2851" Text="Which method of brewing coffee is the most sustainable? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The criteria being: minimal waste, minimal energy (no matter where it's produced)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess for the optimal solution it would be necessary to...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. use organic and fair trade coffee&#xD;&#xA; 2. not heat more water than necessary &#xD;&#xA; 3. use a French press or a similar system that produces zero waste (filters, capsules, etc.)&#xD;&#xA; 4. reuse or recycle the coffee grounds, for example as garden fertilizer. &#xD;&#xA; 5. buy the coffee beans in bigger bags (to minimize waste) and grind them myself &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing on something or is something from this list not really necessary? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11605" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5085" RevisionGUID="925532ca-487f-48ca-92e7-a6d2d8a431fd" CreationDate="2016-03-02T15:24:03.590" UserId="2851" Text="What is the most sustainable way of making coffee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11606" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5085" RevisionGUID="925532ca-487f-48ca-92e7-a6d2d8a431fd" CreationDate="2016-03-02T15:24:03.590" UserId="2851" Text="|energy|home|waste|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5086" RevisionGUID="6315cd45-c033-4447-a697-2be22fe12db2" CreationDate="2016-03-02T17:39:38.427" UserId="3121" Text="I hope this is the right place - I'm looking at buying my first home in a climate where a heat pump would make a significant difference on our energy requirements for heating and cooling. I've done some research and I'm really excited about the idea of having a heat pump rather than rely on a furnace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In looking at homes, however, some have identified as their heat or A/C source the home is equipped with an Air Exchange, rather than a heat pump. I've looked around and can find documentation suggesting their differences but ultimately they seem the same. Is anyone here familiar with heat pump and air exchange systems to identify the differences, or confirm they are the same?  Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5086" RevisionGUID="6315cd45-c033-4447-a697-2be22fe12db2" CreationDate="2016-03-02T17:39:38.427" UserId="3121" Text="Heat Pump vs Air Exchanger, What's the difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5086" RevisionGUID="6315cd45-c033-4447-a697-2be22fe12db2" CreationDate="2016-03-02T17:39:38.427" UserId="3121" Text="|heating|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="e53ffccc-5c1a-436b-b1b9-905e4c6368dd" CreationDate="2016-03-02T20:30:51.957" UserId="2846" Text="Your grinder *may* be less efficient than a commercial unit, and shipping beans rather than ground coffee *may* affect the bulk for shipping. If you use extra (hot) water in washing a permanent filter you may be better off using unbleached paper filters and composting them along with the grounds. I find that you can't put lots of coffee grounds through a dishwasher without clothing the filter so pre-rinsing is necessary there. A drip machine used with paper filters doesn't need to be washed every time it's used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the many cases where you're trading off water, energy and materials, so a direct comparison isn't possible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5090" RevisionGUID="66ac423d-a239-46ae-b3dc-ce760b7c07be" CreationDate="2016-03-03T00:46:48.613" UserId="3068" Text="Yes, the terms can refer to different thing. There are two types of heat pumps (and A/C units in general). There are &quot;air source&quot; and &quot;ground source.&quot; Ground source is often known as Geothermal and is much more efficient and sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air Exchange *could* refer to air source A/C (or heat pump) but that is not very likely. Air Exchange is much more likely to refer to any system which pulls in outdoor air and exhausts indoor air to keep the air inside fresher. You hope that if a house has an &quot;air exchange system&quot; in place, that it utilizes an HRV (or Heat Recovery Ventilator) which is much more efficient. So much like a humidifier, an &quot;Air Exchange&quot; system typically has nothing to do with heating or cooling the house, but rather is an optional add-on to keep the air fresher. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note on sustainability&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Some people have installed heat pumps and found **adverse** effects on their energy consumption and sustainability. It all depends on how warm it is, the cost of electricity (vs gas), and where the electricity is coming from. If you install enough solar to compensate the extra electricity usage, then a heat pump is hands down the best thing to have (especially a ground source). Notice, air source heat pumps don't do well in cold climates (where you need it the most). If you are using elecricity from the grid then it is helpful to know that most grid's are much dirtier than using a high efficient furnace (look for 95% efficient or 90% at the lowest). So if you are considering the environment, it is typically better to use a high efficient furnace than a heat pump unless you plan to offset your energy usage.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11622" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5085" RevisionGUID="1850de9c-1d64-4847-8a8b-1b81a5ffaef1" CreationDate="2016-03-03T02:00:28.413" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/705211205544181760" />
  <row Id="11625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5091" RevisionGUID="2690d3f6-6671-452c-a667-c66c1feffb5d" CreationDate="2016-03-03T02:12:48.103" UserId="3068" Text="I live off-grid so I did a lot of study on topic. All used coffee grounds make good fertilizer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drip machines seem to use a lot of energy and they seem to use it for a lot of time. They also use disposable filters. Drip machines are kind of on the off-grid black list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Percolators waste a lot of energy because they have to keep the water boiling for a while but they don't have any waste products. (I bet they also lose more steam.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Espresso Machines may use more energy per volume because it heats the water hotter and uses a pump. The coffee also must be ground finer but it's so much more concentrated that it might balance the energy consumption out (I guess more extensive studies may be necessary.) They also don't have any waste products. Some people choose espresso because of the superior flavor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French press uses the least energy (depending on how the water is heated) as you only have to heat the water up once. The coffee is supposed to be coarse ground, which can also save trace amounts of energy. It has no waste products. If you want to heat the water with electricity, electric tea pots (with the heating element actually inside the water) seem to be very efficient and fast. With no waste products and maximum efficiency, French Press is often considered the best way to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to minimize your energy use and increase your sustainability then you can grind it by hand, but other than that, it's hard to know if pre-ground or home ground is more efficient. If you buy in bulk, that definitely reduces shipping and packaging waste. Overall, your list looks pretty good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5090" RevisionGUID="58cb6462-2564-4428-ae8e-b49efd02e058" CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:17:57.683" UserId="3057" Comment="improved grammar, flow" Text="Yes, the terms can refer to different things. There are two types of heat pumps (and A/C units in general). There are &quot;air source&quot; and &quot;ground source.&quot; Ground source is often known as Geothermal and is much more efficient and sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air Exchange *could* refer to air source A/C (or heat pump) but that is not very likely. Air Exchange is much more likely to refer to any system which pulls in outdoor air and exhausts indoor air to keep the air inside fresher. You hope that if a house has an &quot;air exchange system&quot; in place, it utilizes an HRV (or Heat Recovery Ventilator) which is much more efficient. So much like a humidifier, an &quot;Air Exchange&quot; system typically has nothing to do with heating or cooling the house, but rather is an optional add-on to keep the air fresher. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note on sustainability&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Some people have installed heat pumps and found **adverse** effects on their energy consumption and sustainability. It all depends on how warm it is, the cost of electricity (vs gas), and where the electricity is coming from. If you install enough solar to compensate for the extra electricity usage, then a heat pump is hands down the best thing to have (especially a ground source). Notice that air source heat pumps don't do well in cold climates (where you need it the most). If you are using elecricity from the grid then it is helpful to know that most grids are much dirtier than using a high efficient furnace (look for 95% efficient or 90% at the lowest). So if you are considering the environment, it is typically better to use a high efficient furnace than a heat pump unless you plan to offset your energy usage.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11628" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5090" RevisionGUID="58cb6462-2564-4428-ae8e-b49efd02e058" CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:17:57.683" Comment="Proposed by 3057 approved by 3068 edit id of 377" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5090" RevisionGUID="a2ebdaa4-08f2-4648-8e9a-ed8447f5e47c" CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:19:08.247" UserId="3068" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Yes, the terms can refer to different things. There are two types of heat pumps (and A/C units in general). There are &quot;air source&quot; and &quot;ground source.&quot; Ground source is often known as Geothermal and is much more efficient and sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air Exchange *could* refer to air source A/C (or heat pump) but that is not very likely. Air Exchange is much more likely to refer to any system which pulls in outdoor air and exhausts indoor air to keep the air inside fresher. You hope that if a house has an &quot;air exchange system&quot; in place, it utilizes an HRV (or Heat Recovery Ventilator) because they are much more efficient. So much like a humidifier, an &quot;Air Exchange&quot; system typically has nothing to do with heating or cooling the house, but rather is an optional add-on to keep the air fresher. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note on sustainability&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Some people have installed heat pumps and found **adverse** effects on their energy consumption and sustainability. It all depends on how warm it is, the cost of electricity (vs gas), and where the electricity is coming from. If you install enough solar to compensate for the extra electricity usage, then a heat pump is hands down the best thing to have (especially a ground source). Notice that air source heat pumps don't do well in cold climates (where you need it the most). If you are using elecricity from the grid then it is helpful to know that most grids are much dirtier than using a high efficient furnace (look for 95% efficient or 90% at the lowest). So if you are considering the environment, it is typically better to use a high efficient furnace than a heat pump unless you plan to offset your energy usage.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5091" RevisionGUID="40454029-be43-47c7-a471-d9e3167e12e9" CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:44:41.513" UserId="3057" Comment="improved grammar, consistency" Text="I live off-grid so I did a lot of study on this topic. All used coffee grounds make good fertilizer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drip machines seem to use a lot of energy and they seem to use it for a lot of time. They also use disposable filters. Drip machines are kind of on the off-grid &quot;black list&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Percolators waste a lot of energy because they have to keep the water boiling for a while but they don't have any waste products. (I bet they also lose more steam.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Espresso Machines may use more energy per volume because it heats the water hotter and uses a pump. The coffee also must be ground finer but it's so much more concentrated that it might balance the energy consumption out. (I guess more extensive studies may be necessary.) They also don't have any waste products. Some people choose espresso because of the superior flavor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French Press uses the least energy (depending on how the water is heated) as you only have to heat the water up once. The coffee is supposed to be a coarse ground, which can also save trace amounts of energy. It has no waste products. If you want to heat the water with electricity, electric tea pots (with the heating element actually inside the water) seem to be very efficient and fast. With no waste products and maximum efficiency, French Press is often considered the best way to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to minimize your energy use and increase your sustainability then you can grind it by hand, but other than that, it's hard to know if pre-ground or home ground is more efficient. If you buy in bulk, that definitely reduces shipping and packaging waste. Overall, your list looks pretty good." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11631" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5091" RevisionGUID="40454029-be43-47c7-a471-d9e3167e12e9" CreationDate="2016-03-03T04:44:41.513" Comment="Proposed by 3057 approved by 3068 edit id of 378" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11632" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="cf0c1049-c68d-424d-ae03-b8566dbb3c3d" CreationDate="2016-03-03T05:00:28.423" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/705256504132280320" />
  <row Id="11633" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5086" RevisionGUID="974c9f06-2c1b-4754-98d5-01a411e9849d" CreationDate="2016-03-03T11:07:08.393" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/705348778363068416" />
  <row Id="11634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5092" RevisionGUID="0f2f2b65-fa26-48f1-8452-22a026652cf7" CreationDate="2016-03-03T13:45:20.687" UserId="3088" Text="I just bought a card for some friends. It has the following printed on the back:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. What do these symbols mean?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Where do they come from?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Is the card recycled?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7hK3W.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11635" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5092" RevisionGUID="0f2f2b65-fa26-48f1-8452-22a026652cf7" CreationDate="2016-03-03T13:45:20.687" UserId="3088" Text="Recycling symbols on greeting card - what do these symbols mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11636" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5092" RevisionGUID="0f2f2b65-fa26-48f1-8452-22a026652cf7" CreationDate="2016-03-03T13:45:20.687" UserId="3088" Text="|recycling|cardboard|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5092" RevisionGUID="cd27407d-1041-4aac-b2bd-4936f538ba12" CreationDate="2016-03-03T13:52:32.847" UserId="3088" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="I just bought a card for some friends. It was published by a company called Portfolio, London. It has the following printed on the back:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. What do these symbols mean?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Where do they come from?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. To what extent is the card recycled?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7hK3W.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="219" RevisionGUID="ae93c754-5c22-4680-a1be-2bbe5e22702a" CreationDate="2016-03-03T15:40:21.847" UserId="99" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Green IT is the study and practice of reducing the environmental impact of IT and/or using IT as a tool for improving sustainability in other areas (usually in the context of a business). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing IT's impact is sometimes also referred to as *Green IT 1.0*, whereas using IT to improve sustainability is also known as *Green IT 2.0.* or as *IT for Green*. Other names for Green IT include green computing, sustainable computing, or ICT sustainability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Green IT includes &quot;*the study and practice of designing, manufacturing, using, and disposing of computers, servers, and associated subsystems - such as monitors, printers, storage devices, and networking and communications systems - efficiently and effectively with minimal or no impact on the environment.*&quot; (as defined by San Murugesan)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="220" RevisionGUID="6a211897-885b-4075-9130-3b81b0b4c013" CreationDate="2016-03-03T15:40:21.847" UserId="99" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="the study and practice of reducing IT's environmental impact as well as using IT as a tool for improving sustainability in other areas (usually in the context of a business).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="9c993bab-a1f4-4cb9-b819-481ecce4daa6" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:07:28.327" UserId="2942" Comment="added clarification based on what OP is interested in with this question; added tag to reflect large-scale industrial nature of search engines" Text="Are there any internet search engines that emphasise a focus on one or more sustainability aspects in their day-to-day operations? For example, the extent to which their vision and activities incorporate principles from sustainable development." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11643" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="9c993bab-a1f4-4cb9-b819-481ecce4daa6" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:07:28.327" UserId="2942" Comment="added clarification based on what OP is interested in with this question; added tag to reflect large-scale industrial nature of search engines" Text="|industrial-production|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11644" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5080" RevisionGUID="9c993bab-a1f4-4cb9-b819-481ecce4daa6" CreationDate="2016-03-03T19:07:28.327" Comment="Proposed by 2942 approved by 2187 edit id of 379" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5093" RevisionGUID="5e41c13a-0e18-4765-afa8-b1d0861ab65b" CreationDate="2016-03-04T02:40:44.190" UserId="2299" Text="For your health you should consider the best ways to recycle filter paper. &quot;The problem with French press and other types of unfiltered coffee techniques lies with blood lipids. Compounds from coffee can raise total cholesterol, triglycerides and bad LDL cholesterol (European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, August 2012). The culprits are in coffee oils that get trapped by filters, so people drinking filtered coffee should get the benefits without the higher cholesterol.&quot; -- from: People’s Pharmacy: Coffee has benefits, but not French press http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996912002360&#xD;&#xA;Also see &quot;Cafestol extraction yield from different coffee brew mechanisms&quot; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996912002360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5093" RevisionGUID="fde3123d-9370-4b65-860e-89034d80a21c" CreationDate="2016-03-04T02:55:22.167" UserId="2299" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="For your health you should consider the best ways to produce and recycle filter paper. &quot;The problem with French press and other types of unfiltered coffee techniques lies with blood lipids. Compounds from coffee can raise total cholesterol, triglycerides and bad LDL cholesterol (European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, August 2012). The culprits are in coffee oils that get trapped by filters, so people drinking filtered coffee should get the benefits without the higher cholesterol.&quot; -- from: People’s Pharmacy: Coffee has benefits, but not French press http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996912002360&#xD;&#xA;Also see &quot;Cafestol extraction yield from different coffee brew mechanisms&quot; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996912002360" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11647" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5092" RevisionGUID="1b30190c-720a-4445-b688-b783acfd5204" CreationDate="2016-03-04T08:07:27.580" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/705665948569759744" />
  <row Id="11648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5093" RevisionGUID="a3a66366-e3fd-44f6-9172-ea01e6d29809" CreationDate="2016-03-04T08:24:20.957" UserId="99" Comment="added link to original article, improved quote layout, removed duplicate link" Text="For your health you should consider the best ways to produce and recycle filter paper. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;The problem with French press and other types of unfiltered coffee techniques lies with blood lipids. Compounds from coffee can raise total cholesterol, triglycerides and bad LDL cholesterol (European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, August 2012). The culprits are in coffee oils that get trapped by filters, so people drinking filtered coffee should get the benefits without the higher cholesterol.&quot; -- from: [People’s Pharmacy: Coffee has benefits, but not French press](http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/peoples-pharmacy-coffee-has-benefits-but-not-french-press/) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also see &quot;[Cafestol extraction yield from different coffee brew mechanisms]( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996912002360)&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5094" RevisionGUID="7834b29a-d9ee-4847-b9a6-afe0d27cac8e" CreationDate="2016-03-04T17:56:48.763" UserId="3127" Text="i signed up just so i could make this comment. THelper♦ provided a good link to a DOE report on this topic, which i was researching because my roommate is skeptical about the advantages of efficient bulbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the report THelper♦ cited has the following bar graph that pretty much answers the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VNIAR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5096" RevisionGUID="d2776c01-8c1f-43c5-89f9-be9c32cf43a1" CreationDate="2016-03-07T13:15:20.177" UserId="3139" Text="To keep body cool on hottest summer days, I use wet tee-shirt so as to mimic body's natural cooling system e.g. transpiration. Vaporisation of water really helps to feel good even under full sun. For the sake of not using too much tap water I found empirically that wetting at neck and upper back is most water-efficient while achieving good results.&#xA;&#xA;At night it is possible to get asleep while wearing such wet clothes too.&#xA;&#xA;Keep in mind common cotton wet clothes let most UVs pass to skin. Use anti-UV wet clothes or UV-cream under wet clothes under the sun.&#xA;&#xA;Of course it is necessary to wet clothes once every hour or so.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5097" RevisionGUID="b18849e8-92ee-4c84-82b5-55dbe8996175" CreationDate="2016-03-07T16:53:59.383" UserId="2858" Text="Cold brew, which is essentially soaking the beans for 24 hours would only call for energy to roast the beans and to filter them. If you used a metal filter, there wouldn't be ongoing disposable costs, but some quantity of energy is needed to create the metal filter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you used the lightest roast, that would minimize the the energy used in roasting.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, coffee from beans calls for transportation of the beans and fast transportation, since they only last about two weeks before the coffee taste like crap. So the economist in me says the most shelf stable and flat out cheapest source of caffeine might use the fewest inputs, and that would be caffeine pills or instant coffee." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="3721f3ba-8178-4423-949f-98f5d43deee2" CreationDate="2016-03-08T07:13:50.167" UserId="3142" Text="I just bought 50W solar panel with charge controller.&#xD;&#xA;Can I use standard Car Battery (Liquid type)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And can someone help to teach me about Watt Hour and mAH&#xD;&#xA;quite rusty nowadays" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="3721f3ba-8178-4423-949f-98f5d43deee2" CreationDate="2016-03-08T07:13:50.167" UserId="3142" Text="Which battery is best for solar power?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="3721f3ba-8178-4423-949f-98f5d43deee2" CreationDate="2016-03-08T07:13:50.167" UserId="3142" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5099" RevisionGUID="842ed40a-da17-418e-a924-a1a95da769d6" CreationDate="2016-03-08T20:06:52.413" UserId="3068" Text="There is no &quot;best battery.&quot; There are different kinds of batteries for different applications. Here are some things to consider,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What voltage do I want? (Most DIY projects pick 12V because they want to run 12V appliances built for RVs.)&#xD;&#xA; 2. How much power do I need (instantaneous power)? Eg. do I want to run a Microwave (fairly high), just a couple of lights (pretty low), or start a large engine (very high).&#xD;&#xA; 3. How much energy to I need to store? Eg. do I want to run that Microwave for one minute each day and a light for one hour, or do I need an hour for the microwave and five hours for those lights? &#xD;&#xA; 4.  What temperature is the battery going to have to endure? (If the battery is going to have to charge below freezing, that eliminates any kind of lithium. If the battery is going to go below -15° F (-26° C) then you probably don't want Flooded Lead Acid unless you are willing to keep it fully charged.)&#xD;&#xA; 5. Is space and/or weight an issue?&#xD;&#xA; 6. What's my budget? If your budget is pretty low, you are pretty much stuck with car batteries and low budget golf-cart batteries. If your budget is high, you can go all-out with lithium or Ni-Fe (Nickel Iron). (Lithium [LiFePO4] is the ultimate for performance, is smallest and lightest, and has better life than lead acid. Ni-Fe is the ultimate for lifespan and durability but is lower in performance.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I said, there are many different kinds of batteries and each one has it's purpose. Here are just a few to give you an idea...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Lead acid group&#xD;&#xA;-------------------&#xD;&#xA;These are the cheaper batteries and each of these sub-catagories are available in &quot;Flooded&quot; (needs maintenance), Gel, or AGM. Both of the latter are maintenance free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Shallow cycle, or &quot;car battery.&quot; These are high performance (they handle a lot of amperage and instantaneous power) but they have a low life and they don't like to be cycled (drained) very deeply.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Marine &quot;deep cycle&quot; batteries. Don't let the name fool you, these batteries are not meant to be deeply cycled either. They can be cycled deeper than a car battery and have a longer live but they can't handle as much amperage.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Budget friendly golf cart batteries. These get better life and deeper cycling than marine batteries but again, they lose some amperage (performance).&#xD;&#xA; 4. Commercial Batteries. These include high end golf cart batteries and many &quot;solar batteries.&quot; These are built for deep cycling and lower amperage still.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Industrial Batteries. These include the most rugged, most durable Lead Acid batteries available. They have the longest life, and the deepest cycling but also the lowest performance and amperage relative to the size of the battery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most applications where you need commercial or industrial batteries, you need a lot of storage so the bank ends up large enough that the lower amperage is not a problem. Whereas a car battery doesn't need to store a lot of energy but it needs to deliver a lot of power all at once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Lithium Batteries ##&#xD;&#xA;Lithium batteries are very expensive and there are many types that are not really safe and (no matter what the manufacturer says) if you charge a lithium battery of any kind while the internals of the battery are below freezing, it will significantly shorten the life and increase the fire hazard. The LiFePO4 (lithium iron phosphate) is a very stable battery that will outperform and outlive any Lead Acid battery (of the same size) if it is not overly abused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Ni-Fe ##&#xD;&#xA;Ni-Fe batteries are comparable to industrial lead acid batteries but they have substantially longer lifespan and better deep cycling. A well maintained Ni-Fe battery will outlast a lithium battery by a long shot. These batteries are very expensive so you need to make sure you're getting the right ones the first time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you give us more details on your project, I can add a couple of details that might help you decide what you need.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="611d63da-b0ce-47c3-861e-c2108c4a62ac" CreationDate="2016-03-09T01:21:56.023" UserId="3142" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I just bought 50W solar panel with charge controller.&#xD;&#xA;Can I use standard Car Battery (Liquid type)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The battery is planned to be used to power my night lights at the rooftop garden" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5100" RevisionGUID="b0f41ac4-0cfe-46b2-8e24-80c6ba6ed171" CreationDate="2016-03-09T02:35:02.913" UserId="3080" Text="How about a much shorter and perhaps easier answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Check out saltwater batteries.  They are quite large because of the low energy density, but are also inexpensive and many consider to be well-suited to low-cost energy storage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5103" RevisionGUID="f52d89f2-b170-4664-960b-501e867c4b81" CreationDate="2016-03-10T10:19:48.990" UserId="99" Text="Water heating includes all methods to raise the temperature of a particular water resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions about space-heating please use [tag:heating]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5104" RevisionGUID="c48f3441-3925-406b-b2d7-fee7dc039348" CreationDate="2016-03-10T10:19:48.990" UserId="99" Text="raising the temperature of water.&#xD;&#xA;For questions about space-heating use the [heating] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1069" RevisionGUID="57c4f032-f82b-42fc-8ef3-c27e5dcb067b" CreationDate="2016-03-10T10:21:42.820" UserId="99" Comment="added see also water-heating" Text="Cooking is the process of preparing food using a heat source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions about preparing food in a sustainable way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For questions on the production or preservation of food in general or the reduction and handling of food waste see [tag:food]&#xD;&#xA; - For questions about heating water see [tag:water-heating]&#xD;&#xA; - For questions on preparing food that have nothing to do with sustainability you may want to try the [Seasoned Advice SE](http://cooking.stackexchange.com/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1070" RevisionGUID="9f0b12ea-9274-4a8b-89c0-b72425722bb7" CreationDate="2016-03-10T10:21:42.820" UserId="99" Comment="added see also water-heating" Text="preparing food by use of heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2709" RevisionGUID="62ca22e2-698f-4fbd-9ef1-a3721a5f7228" CreationDate="2016-03-10T10:51:37.527" UserId="99" Comment="added 162 characters in body" Text="Corporate Social Responsibility; ethical and responsible behavior of businesses with the aim to increase long-term profits through positive public relations. This includes strategies and policies of a company to improve the economic, social and environmental impact of it's activities on (local) communities. See also [CS]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2707" RevisionGUID="38d3bfda-3995-40d4-b62a-0f73be17ec71" CreationDate="2016-03-10T11:50:51.603" UserId="99" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="corporate sustainability; strategies and practices of a company to provide added value and long-term growth by taking into account the sustainability, environmental and sometimes social issues of their business. Related to [csr]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="127" RevisionGUID="141e3f93-47de-4302-8375-b6d0d4d50f78" CreationDate="2016-03-10T11:55:54.200" UserId="99" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="A green roof, also called living roof, is a roof covered with vegetation. Various types of vegetation can be used, for example sedum, grass, or even trees.&#xD;&#xA;Green roofs can retain rainwater, insulate the building they cover, filter dust particles from the air and function as a habitat for birds and insects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions about construction of a 'normal' roof with sustainable building materials use [tag:building-materials]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="128" RevisionGUID="5351069c-0804-44ad-ae57-6a1b1dfc8433" CreationDate="2016-03-10T11:55:54.200" UserId="99" Comment="added 115 characters in body; edited body" Text="roof covered with vegetation.&#xD;&#xA;For questions about construction of a 'normal' roof with sustainable building materials use [building-materials]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5105" RevisionGUID="f64ad473-1377-47b4-9828-d7d6a2f55f3a" CreationDate="2016-03-10T11:59:50.247" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5106" RevisionGUID="3ef1f67e-7010-4c8a-8af1-536ef24f428d" CreationDate="2016-03-10T11:59:50.247" UserId="99" Text="all materials used to enclose and protect items for the purpose of distributing and/or selling them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5106" RevisionGUID="d6a710b1-8c6a-4957-9d9a-44a1e7cc2062" CreationDate="2016-03-10T12:05:26.150" UserId="99" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="all materials used to enclose and protect items for the purpose of distributing and/or selling them.&#xD;&#xA;See also [paper], [plastic]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="7337df65-f625-4bce-a0e8-b2a4b2a16edf" CreationDate="2016-03-10T12:18:27.810" UserId="99" Comment="added that I'm particularly interested in LCA studies" Text="I'm trying to decide what type of printer to buy. I've read a number of posts on the web where people claim that laser printers are more durable than ink-jet printers. Some people say this is because inkjet printers are targeted at consumers who are mostly looking for low prices so inkjet build-quality is kept low (and manufacturers make most of their money selling ink cartridges anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this is true, I guess a laser printer would result in less electronic waste as you don't have to repair or replace the printer as often. But how do the environmental impact of ink cartridges versus toners compare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any scientific studies that compared the entire life cycle (production, use and disposal) of both toner and ink cartridges?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5090" RevisionGUID="16471485-584e-457b-8ad7-517c918ca633" CreationDate="2016-03-10T16:01:22.597" UserId="3068" Comment="added 632 characters in body" Text="Yes, the terms can refer to different things. There are two types of heat pumps (and A/C units in general). There are &quot;air source&quot; and &quot;ground source.&quot; Ground source is often known as Geothermal and is much more efficient and sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air Exchange *could* refer to air source A/C (or heat pump) but that is not very likely. Air Exchange is much more likely to refer to any system which pulls in outdoor air and exhausts indoor air to keep the air inside fresher. You hope that if a house has an &quot;air exchange system&quot; in place, it utilizes an HRV (or Heat Recovery Ventilator) because they are much more efficient. So much like a humidifier, an &quot;Air Exchange&quot; system typically has nothing to do with heating or cooling the house, but rather is an optional add-on to keep the air fresher. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note on sustainability&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Due to the comments below, I realized that I need to add a note here first. I have to admit that I don't really know much about grids and alternate fuel sources outside of Continental USA. When I talk about burning gas, I strictly am talking about propane and natural gas. I now understand that these resources are not available everywhere and other fuels such as oil are dirtier to burn. I also understand that some grids are much &quot;Greener&quot; than other grids. The following paragraph is just my experience and should just give some things to think about when analyzing what will be best for your location.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people have installed heat pumps and found **adverse** effects on their energy consumption and sustainability. It all depends on how warm it is, the cost of electricity (vs gas), and where the electricity is coming from. If you install enough solar to compensate for the extra electricity usage, then a heat pump is hands down the best thing to have (especially a ground source). Notice that air source heat pumps don't do well in cold climates (where you need it the most). If you are using electricity from the grid then it is helpful to know that most grids around here are much dirtier than using a high efficient furnace (look for 95% efficient or 90% at the lowest). So, (in my region) if you are considering the environment, you should weigh these factors to determine if it's better to use a high efficient furnace or a heat pump.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5107" RevisionGUID="c3098c1e-f729-4e0f-a257-2fe11258850a" CreationDate="2016-03-10T19:55:22.117" UserId="1053" Text="A heat pump heats or cool your house by exploiting a cycle. For example to heat, it expands a gas to make that gas cold, then sends the gas through pipes outside to be warmed by the air or ground (the air may be much colder than your inside air, but the expansion trick has cooled the gas to colder than outside.) When it comes back in, warmer than it left, the heat pump compresses it, making it warmer than the air in your house, and then there is a warming effect on your house from this hotter fluid. It won't work in an arbitrarily cold environment. You can also reverse the process to cool your house in the summer even though the air outside is hotter than in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An air exchanger is installed for an entirely different reason. Houses that use less energy to heat or cool get to that condition through many changes - good insulation, passive heating from sunshine in the winter, avoiding passive heating in the summer, thermal mass to help even out night and day temperature swings, and -- relevant to this question -- minimizing air leaks. This last one is pretty much the only one with a downside: it can result in the air feeling stale or not smelling great. So when a house is not turning over the air through various leaks and drafts, an air exchanger sends out house air and draws in outside air, in a way that deliberately causes them to exchange energy - the warm house air heats the cool incoming air on its way in - so that you get fresh air without losing as much heat as you would if your fresh air found its way in through leaks and gaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are completely independent of each other - a house could have either, both, or neither. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2681" RevisionGUID="e771fa31-800b-46fe-8d9b-afe85c3504dc" CreationDate="2016-03-10T20:01:13.963" UserId="1053" Comment="fixed &quot;degrees&quot; from o to &amp;deg;" Text="I have had a Panasonic Aquarea ASHP installed. The manual talks about a &quot;water temperature thermal shift setting&quot; which can be set to -5&amp;deg;C to 5&amp;deg;C. It doesn't make it clear at all what a &quot;thermal shift&quot; actually is or does!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody know what this shift setting refers to?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5108" RevisionGUID="1c8e4be2-3170-4031-aa00-9e472d837723" CreationDate="2016-03-11T06:01:16.600" UserId="3153" Text="If you want to save energy, just have a colder shower! It is supposed to be healthier and you can exercise to warm back up. http://www.medicaldaily.com/benefits-cold-showers-7-reasons-why-taking-cool-showers-good-your-health-289524" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5109" RevisionGUID="b035982d-397c-4609-94e9-9258d2846bbb" CreationDate="2016-03-11T10:17:51.827" UserId="2868" Text="In a very recent [paper][1] scientists talk about the discovery of a new bacteria which can &quot;eat&quot; PET, one of the most common types of plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering which effect would this have in our society but in any of the press articles that I've read they mention possible consequences of this fact. What are the consequences of this discovery? Would the levels of recycling PET decrease due to the possibility of using this bacteria to degrade PET plastics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6278/1196" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11684" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5109" RevisionGUID="b035982d-397c-4609-94e9-9258d2846bbb" CreationDate="2016-03-11T10:17:51.827" UserId="2868" Text="What would be the effect of &quot;Ideonella sakaiensis&quot; in society?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11685" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5109" RevisionGUID="b035982d-397c-4609-94e9-9258d2846bbb" CreationDate="2016-03-11T10:17:51.827" UserId="2868" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5109" RevisionGUID="9b78f923-d3a1-48ae-a18f-e6ce2ac7da6a" CreationDate="2016-03-12T02:09:36.163" UserId="2345" Comment="Inserted apparant missing word" Text="In a very recent [paper][1] scientists talk about the discovery of a new bacteria which can &quot;eat&quot; PET, one of the most common types of plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering what effect would this have in our society but in any of the press articles that I've read they don't mention possible consequences of this fact. What are the consequences of this discovery? Would the levels of recycling PET decrease due to the possibility of using this bacteria to degrade PET plastics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6278/1196" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5110" RevisionGUID="1805a857-8dea-42a9-81dc-bd8a46013f6f" CreationDate="2016-03-12T07:08:45.243" UserId="2345" Text="Given that the announcement of the PET eating bacteria has just been made there may not be enough knowledge, or knowledgeable people, to properly answer your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of this, you question could be closed as being potentially too broad given the lack of knowledge about the bacterium and the result of what it does with PET plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any development of plastic eating bacteria will be influenced by cost and what waste products, if any, are produced and how harmful they could be to the environment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If using plastic eating bacteria is cheaper than recycling plastic then plastic recycling plants could close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another outcome of plastic eating bacteria is potentially an increased use of plastic instead of other packaging materials because then we would have a cheaper and possibly better way of disposing of the plastic afterwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5109" RevisionGUID="b4752056-726e-46fe-9652-a5a799c8d1dd" CreationDate="2016-03-12T08:54:39.613" UserId="99" Comment="revised question title for SEO purposes" Text="In a very recent [paper][1] scientists talk about the discovery of a bacterium (&quot;[Ideonella sakaiensis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideonella_sakaiensis)&quot;) which can &quot;eat&quot; PET, one of the most common types of plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering what effect this would have in our society but in any of the press articles that I've read they don't mention possible consequences of this fact. What are the consequences of this discovery? Would the levels of recycling PET decrease due to the possibility of using this bacteria to degrade PET plastics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6278/1196" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11692" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5109" RevisionGUID="b4752056-726e-46fe-9652-a5a799c8d1dd" CreationDate="2016-03-12T08:54:39.613" UserId="99" Comment="revised question title for SEO purposes" Text="What will be the effect of PET-eating bacteria in society?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5111" RevisionGUID="559b2635-8dfd-4676-a0e6-bf3e668040b1" CreationDate="2016-03-12T09:53:41.503" UserId="99" Text="From what I've read the bacteria can completely degrade PET-film in 6 weeks via two by-products, terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol, which are both environmentally benign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that we may be able to use these bacteria to clean up plastics in the environment. However this may not be very easy because a PET bottle for example is different from PET film. PET bottles are made from highly crystallised PET. In [this article](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-11/plastic-eating-bacterium-can-break-down-pet/7238614) the lead scientist is quoted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dr Miyamoto said that it was not as simple as unleashing armies of PET-metabolising bacteria into landfills to break down waste plastic. &quot;Because of its crystal structure, the rate of degradation is very slow. However, after heat-treatment at 260 degrees, the crystal structure breaks down, allowing these micro-organisms to easily decompose the plastic,&quot; he said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the slow-degradation problem is solved, the question remains whether there are any unwanted effects if the bacteria are used on a large scale (e.g. release of toxic substances that are often present in plastics, or increase in CO2 emissions). Also, it isn't probable that the current strain of bacteria can be used to clean plastic in the oceans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I think it's more likely that the bacterium can be used in a new method of recycling PET. Terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol are the building blocks of PET, so in controlled conditions the bacteria may be able to convert old PET into these resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scientists are probably going to search for other new bacteria with similar and perhaps even more beneficial properties. Who knows what they are going to find. So as [Fred also mentioned in his answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5110/99), it's too soon to tell what the exact consequences are going the be. A lot will depend on how this will develop further. Can we find or engineer better bacteria, are there unwanted side effects, and what are the costs going to be for using the bacteria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5112" RevisionGUID="9af4aaac-7fc2-4206-b7ef-6faf2cf97fe0" CreationDate="2016-03-12T11:55:14.353" UserId="2846" Text="Composite plastic films are becoming quite common and are hard to recycle. By using bacteria to eat the PET layer the rest could be recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interviewee for the article I read about this (probably in the guardian) suggested that the breakdown product could be a feedstock for plastic manufacturing. If so that would fit well with my suggestion above. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11698" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4987" RevisionGUID="0ef204f1-78fe-442e-b279-8f19d3d79d43" CreationDate="2016-03-15T10:46:48.260" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|plastic|bags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4691" RevisionGUID="218a4fbe-21d7-487a-ad6a-2a18635b3107" CreationDate="2016-03-15T10:50:47.370" UserId="99" Comment="the question is about water reuse and not about water recycling" Text="I'm living in an apartment, and after I water my plants the water goes to plates below the vases. The vases are in a metallic structure above the vases, so I can take the vases to reuse the water (throwing it at the plants again).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reuse seems beneficial, because I think I can get rid of mosquitoes that would reproduce in the stagnated water. And also some nutrients of the soil (as well as earthworms) can return to the vase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some negative points in doing that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I think I must add that I'm at 3 degrees of latitude, in a hot and humid tropical rainforest, where the precipitation used to be around 1700 mm. So I use lots of water everyday, more than once a day sometimes, so the reused water is a small fraction of the water used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11700" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4691" RevisionGUID="218a4fbe-21d7-487a-ad6a-2a18635b3107" CreationDate="2016-03-15T10:50:47.370" UserId="99" Comment="the question is about water reuse and not about water recycling" Text="How good is it to reuse water from vases?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11701" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4691" RevisionGUID="218a4fbe-21d7-487a-ad6a-2a18635b3107" CreationDate="2016-03-15T10:50:47.370" UserId="99" Comment="the question is about water reuse and not about water recycling" Text="|water|reuse|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5111" RevisionGUID="037d8b1f-5f8f-46d1-a142-c681606f218b" CreationDate="2016-03-15T10:52:02.807" UserId="99" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="From what I've read the bacteria can completely degrade PET-film in 6 weeks via two enzymes that turn PET into terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol. Both substances are both environmentally benign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that we may be able to use these bacteria to clean up plastics in the environment. However this may not be very easy because a PET bottle for example is different from PET film. PET bottles are made from highly crystallised PET. In [this article](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-11/plastic-eating-bacterium-can-break-down-pet/7238614) the lead scientist is quoted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dr Miyamoto said that it was not as simple as unleashing armies of PET-metabolising bacteria into landfills to break down waste plastic. &quot;Because of its crystal structure, the rate of degradation is very slow. However, after heat-treatment at 260 degrees, the crystal structure breaks down, allowing these micro-organisms to easily decompose the plastic,&quot; he said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the slow-degradation problem is solved, the question remains whether there are any unwanted effects if the bacteria are used on a large scale (e.g. release of toxic substances that are often present in plastics, or increase in CO2 emissions). Also, it isn't probable that the current strain of bacteria can be used to clean plastic in the oceans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I think it's more likely that the bacterium can be used in a new method of recycling PET. Terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol are the building blocks of PET, so in controlled conditions the bacteria may be able to convert old PET into these resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scientists are probably going to search for other new bacteria with similar and perhaps even more beneficial properties. Who knows what they are going to find. So as [Fred also mentioned in his answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5110/99), it's too soon to tell what the exact consequences are going the be. A lot will depend on how this will develop further. Can we find or engineer better bacteria, are there unwanted side effects, and what are the costs going to be for using the bacteria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11703" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="787" RevisionGUID="bfe09919-17f3-4160-a0a9-6b71f98517ed" CreationDate="2016-03-15T10:52:53.260" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|reuse|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5113" RevisionGUID="0ae4b4d6-4787-49f2-86a4-eb6de03c7e84" CreationDate="2016-03-15T16:37:57.657" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="I'm going to give a different then user2121874.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process the plastic ends up going through is the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is a difference in the distance driven between the two methods. Take a piece of paper, draw a shop and some households around it, and a processing plant in the distance. Now draw the routes required in both scenarios. The 'everybody taking their stuff to the grocery store' scenario takes more kilometers, hence more fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Unless** you don't travel by car, or you were going to the store anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In which case a generic answer is not possible ;-) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5114" RevisionGUID="85fadc4f-419f-46fe-b6a0-ce1cf4be69a4" CreationDate="2016-03-15T19:26:37.090" UserId="2868" Text="My parents live in a small place where paper is not recycled. They don't even separate the paper from the rest of the residues.&#xA;&#xA; I can't carry their paper away to recycle it when I visit them so I was wondering which alternatives there are. &#xA;&#xA;I know that composting is a possibility but I am looking for something different as I am sure that they won't do it.&#xA;&#xA;What else can be done with used paper instead of recycling it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11706" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5114" RevisionGUID="85fadc4f-419f-46fe-b6a0-ce1cf4be69a4" CreationDate="2016-03-15T19:26:37.090" UserId="2868" Text="What alternatives there are to recycling paper?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11707" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5114" RevisionGUID="85fadc4f-419f-46fe-b6a0-ce1cf4be69a4" CreationDate="2016-03-15T19:26:37.090" UserId="2868" Text="|recycling|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5115" RevisionGUID="fcb5bfc6-fe36-4bae-a95d-3e2c01f2d898" CreationDate="2016-03-16T02:08:20.337" UserId="3068" Text="I know of two things you can do with it. If they burn wood (or anything else for heat) then they can make fire bricks with it. The neatest thing I know to do with it is to make your own paper out of it. Homemade recycled paper looks nice, and has a neat texture. Some people use it in place of stationary. I have not personally done either of these projects but here are some resources on how you can do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see how to make fire bricks [Here,][1] [Here,][2] [Here,][3] and [Here][4] as well as numerous places on YouTube. Again, I've never done it so I can't make a recommendation as to which one is best. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see how to make recycled paper [Here,][6] [Here,][7] and [Here.][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here][5] is a list of other suggestions, some of which are pretty good ideas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.instructables.com/id/Paper-Bricks-free-fuel-from-recycled-paper/?ALLSTEPS&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://survivalsherpa.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/how-to-make-firebricks-and-wood-stove-logs-for-free/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://shallowsky.com/blog/misc/paper-bricks.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/diy-burnable-fire-bricks-fuel-logs-made-recycled-newspaper.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.allyou.com/budget-home/live-green-save/10-ways-to-recycle-paper&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Make-and-Recycle-Paper/?ALLSTEPS&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.earth911.com/living-well-being/events-entertainement/recycle-your-own-paper/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Paper" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5116" RevisionGUID="b61e927a-5b02-4c26-8e56-5079332f84d5" CreationDate="2016-03-16T07:17:50.143" UserId="80" Text="If you are asking about sustainability in general, I assume social aspects should be factored in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[DuckDuckGo][1]** follows a number of [principles][2] linked to privacy and openness. They tend to use and promote free software (also via donating to them every year), and they do not &quot;bubble&quot; you (i.e. restrict your search results) or track your activity.&#xD;&#xA;* **[Lilo][3]** is a search engine that redirects part of its profits towards &quot;social and environmental projects&quot; that the users prefer. They also state that they offset the carbon emissions that the searches generate.&#xD;&#xA;* **[Framabee][4]** is based on the free software Searx and developped by the French organisation Framasoft. It protects privacy by not collecting data.&#xD;&#xA;* A number of websites offer a search engine with a black background that is supposed to save energy used by the computer's monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are the ones I have used before, but an *online search* for &quot;sustainable search engines&quot; will give you several lists of them, although many lists are fairly old and some links will be dead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://duckduckgo.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://duckduckgo.com/privacy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.lilo.org/en/#&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://framabee.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5117" RevisionGUID="ea2631fe-a112-43e1-b990-8417ede97f8c" CreationDate="2016-03-16T09:38:14.950" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="1. Use for packaging (especially when its newspaper paper). This may not get rid of all their old paper, and it may not look particularly appetizing, but 'in the old days' when we didn't yet have all kinds of modern packaging materials, wrapping stuff in old newspapers was 'the most natural thing in the world'.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;When packing delicate objects, you would also stuff the containers with crumbled up papers instead of using modern paper tissue, styrofoam etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [Wash your windows with it](http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/how-to-clean-a-window-with-new-109240)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5117" RevisionGUID="b95a8b3e-bc1a-4333-a7b7-1439a716a552" CreationDate="2016-03-16T09:47:30.093" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added 558 characters in body" Text="I'm adressing *newspaper* paper here specifically, but for some of these you can use other paper types as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Use for packaging. This may not get rid of all their old paper, and it may not look particularly festive, but 'in the old days' when we didn't yet have all kinds of modern packaging materials, wrapping stuff in old newspapers was 'the most natural thing in the world'.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;When packing delicate objects, you would also stuff the containers with crumbled up papers instead of using modern paper tissue, styrofoam etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Wash your windows with it](http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/how-to-clean-a-window-with-new-109240)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Line the bottom of the bird cage or cat litter box with it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Wrap fruits and vegetable in them before putting these in the fridge, as an alternative to plastic bags. This serves as a moisture buffer. In plastic bags vegetables (especially leafy ones) will produce condensation (leads to rotting), and without any protection the vegetables will dry out more.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(This will not work for all vegetables, e.g. carrots are better left dry to prevent root formation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5117" RevisionGUID="04b3d1ec-0b0a-4b1a-b285-c1d9718f9262" CreationDate="2016-03-16T09:53:59.813" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added 558 characters in body" Text="I'm adressing *newspaper* paper here specifically, but for some of these you can use other paper types as well. (Also, only things you can do repeatedly, and no low-volume hobby stuff like papier mache).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Use for packaging. This may not get rid of all their old paper, and it may not look particularly festive, but 'in the old days' when we didn't yet have all kinds of modern packaging materials, wrapping stuff in old newspapers was 'the most natural thing in the world'.&lt;br /&gt;When packing delicate objects, you would also stuff the containers with crumbled up papers instead of using modern paper tissue, styrofoam etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Wash your windows with it](http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/how-to-clean-a-window-with-new-109240)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Line the bottom of the bird cage, puppy crate or cat litter box with it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Wrap fruits and vegetable in them before putting these in the fridge, as an alternative to plastic bags. This serves as a moisture buffer. In plastic bags vegetables (especially leafy ones) will produce condensation (leads to rotting), and without any protection the vegetables will dry out more.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(This will not work for all vegetables, e.g. carrots are better left dry to prevent root formation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Shelf lining. Another old-fashioned method to keep your shelves clean. In cupboards or in high places, you (or your visitors) won't even see it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Fire starter. But that's so obvious it probably does not apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. For the DIY: Replace rags with old newspaper when cleaning paint brushes, removing oil stains and mopping up petrol spills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 8. Windscreen cover for the car when it's very hot or freezing cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 9. Clean your oven with moist paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5118" RevisionGUID="25246f6f-6bd1-4474-a454-8eca4e629ef7" CreationDate="2016-03-17T04:52:30.053" UserId="3068" Text="This proposed system wouldn't work as described. With the quantity of batteries, panels, and your inverter that you've described, the system size would be - 1kW solar, 14.4kWh batteries @48V (see note below), and 1kW inverter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest and most obvious problem you can't wire a 48V battery bank with six 12V batteries. To make a 48V battery bank with 12V batteries, you need to wire them in sets of 4, so you could have 4 or 8 but not 6. (When you fix this problem, your battery's kWh will change.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 60A charge controller would be way overkill. Depending on if you were to go with MPPT or PWM, you would only need between 20A to 30A but there is no harm in going with a larger one in case you want to have room for expansion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would make a nice solar system for a camping trailer, or for a remote cabin where the only thing you needed were a few lights. This wouldn't run heaters or a/c but it would have no problem with running the fan on a gas powered trailer furnace. You might be able to run a couple of power tools as well on a good sunny day but that 1kW inverter might be a bit limiting. This is about the size I'm considering installing on top of my work truck but I will go with 2kW inverter so I can run a big compressor in case I ever need to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The normal way to go about sizing a system is to figure out what you want it to do and then try to size it to meet the need. Both Johnny's and Ⴖuі's comments have good info.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="893ab3f7-3614-46ef-9f2e-84e7cacffb68" CreationDate="2016-03-17T07:16:16.390" UserId="3173" Text="I started teaching at a school in Indonesia and found some sort of arch-enemy of mine: Naphthalene.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People here use huge quantities at toilets to suppress the smell. Some tried to use it against cockroaches but have figured out it's not really helpful.&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile I made the executives remove the Naphthalene-balls in the toilets but now the question comes up what to do to use against the smell (As you can imagine we have permanent temperatures of 30°C and higher).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;Help is highly appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11715" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="893ab3f7-3614-46ef-9f2e-84e7cacffb68" CreationDate="2016-03-17T07:16:16.390" UserId="3173" Text="Alternatives to Naphthalene" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11716" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="893ab3f7-3614-46ef-9f2e-84e7cacffb68" CreationDate="2016-03-17T07:16:16.390" UserId="3173" Text="|toilet|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11717" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="c9a737cf-05a6-4d66-9ff3-5cb69fbb12dd" CreationDate="2016-03-17T09:15:30.590" UserId="3173" Comment="Added toxic chemicals" Text="|toxic-chemicals|toilet|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5120" RevisionGUID="acf45f2c-b678-4983-8f50-8e7cfe70159b" CreationDate="2016-03-17T11:23:28.980" UserId="3174" Text="Yes you can construct [Solar portable air cooler][1] i have constructed this as a final year sem project and i got good grade thinks needed :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    A thermally Insulated box (hard thermocol)&#xD;&#xA;    A fan ( 3.5 W, 6V )&#xD;&#xA;    Solar Panel ( 8V )&#xD;&#xA;    Lead Acid Battery ( 4.5 Ah)&#xD;&#xA;    Signal Conditioning Circuit&#xD;&#xA;    PVC pipe&#xD;&#xA;    Ice&#xD;&#xA;**[Consturction :][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The fan and the PVC pipe are mounted on the upper surface of a thermally insulated box ( made of thermocol )&#xD;&#xA;    The voltage output from the solar panel is connected to a charge controller to regulate the voltage input to the battery&#xD;&#xA;    The lead acid battery is charged and gives supply to the fan&#xD;&#xA;    The fan blows in air through the ice compartment&#xD;&#xA;    While the new air enters the compartment, it displaces the air that is cooled in the cooling compartment.&#xD;&#xA;    The displaced air ( cold ) flows out and cools the surroundings&#xD;&#xA;    This causes temperature drop in the surroundings, and thus acts as an air cooler&#xD;&#xA;    This is a simple battery charge controller that can be used in situations where the input voltage varies widely. Typically a solar panel’s output is dependent upon the amount of sunlight that falls on it. This, of course, varies from morning to evening.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Working Of Circuit Diagram :**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Here the dotted box marked X is a simple voltage regulator that gives an output voltage of about 7 Volts – the 5K preset has to be adjusted to achieve this. The input voltage from the solar panel is assumed to vary from about 8 Volts to about 11 Volts. The charging current is about 05A. The “discharged” battery voltage should be about 5.5 Volts. The dotted box marked Y is a simple circuit that prevents over charging. This is done by sensing the battery voltage – when this crosses about 6.5 volts (adjusted by t 10K preset) Q4 turns on thereby diverting the drive from Q1-Q2 Q5 and Q6 are diode connected transistors (two silicon diodes, such as 1N4848/1N4001 can also be used in their place) that provides a reference voltage of about1.3 Volts.&#xD;&#xA;    Connect the solar panel to the input (or a voltage source of about say 9 Volts)&#xD;&#xA;    Adjust the 5K preset so that the output voltage is about 7 Volts.&#xD;&#xA;    Move the 10K preset slider to ground&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.joblagao.com/voices/joblagao-university/solar-power-portable-air-cooler-college-project" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11719" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="35bad2a6-d075-4354-bcf1-8de33b9f130d" CreationDate="2016-03-17T12:15:37.263" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/710439442373328897" />
  <row Id="11720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5120" RevisionGUID="ef998914-c73d-4927-9eaf-202594fc4b9b" CreationDate="2016-03-17T13:17:30.787" UserId="99" Comment="fixed post layout and typos" Text="Yes you can construct a [Solar portable air cooler][1]. I have constructed this as a final year sem project and I got a good grade for it. Things needed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   A thermally Insulated box (hard thermocol)&#xD;&#xA;-   A fan ( 3.5 W, 6V )&#xD;&#xA;-   Solar Panel ( 8V )&#xD;&#xA;-   Lead Acid Battery ( 4.5 Ah)&#xD;&#xA;-   Signal Conditioning Circuit&#xD;&#xA;-   PVC pipe&#xD;&#xA;-   Ice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[Construction :][1]**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The fan and the PVC pipe are mounted on the upper surface of a thermally insulated box ( made of thermocol )&#xD;&#xA;-    The voltage output from the solar panel is connected to a charge controller to regulate the voltage input to the battery&#xD;&#xA;-   The lead acid battery is charged and gives supply to the fan&#xD;&#xA;-   The fan blows in air through the ice compartment&#xD;&#xA;-   While the new air enters the compartment, it displaces the air that is cooled in the cooling compartment.&#xD;&#xA;-   The displaced air ( cold ) flows out and cools the surroundings&#xD;&#xA;-   This causes temperature drop in the surroundings, and thus acts as an air cooler&#xD;&#xA;-   This is a simple battery charge controller that can be used in situations where the input voltage varies widely. Typically a solar panel’s output is dependent upon the amount of sunlight that falls on it. This, of course, varies from morning to evening.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Working Of Circuit Diagram :**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Here the dotted box marked X is a simple voltage regulator that gives an output voltage of about 7 Volts – the 5K preset has to be adjusted to achieve this. The input voltage from the solar panel is assumed to vary from about 8 Volts to about 11 Volts. The charging current is about 05A. The “discharged” battery voltage should be about 5.5 Volts. The dotted box marked Y is a simple circuit that prevents over charging. This is done by sensing the battery voltage – when this crosses about 6.5 volts (adjusted by t 10K preset) Q4 turns on thereby diverting the drive from Q1-Q2 Q5 and Q6 are diode connected transistors (two silicon diodes, such as 1N4848/1N4001 can also be used in their place) that provides a reference voltage of about1.3 Volts.&#xD;&#xA;-   Connect the solar panel to the input (or a voltage source of about say 9 Volts)&#xD;&#xA;-   Adjust the 5K preset so that the output voltage is about 7 Volts.&#xD;&#xA;-   Move the 10K preset slider to ground&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.joblagao.com/voices/joblagao-university/solar-power-portable-air-cooler-college-project" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4691" RevisionGUID="6dbe203e-71d8-409a-803b-64a8e4dafa78" CreationDate="2016-03-17T15:27:49.927" UserId="2548" Comment="corrected to use pots instead of vases" Text="I'm living in an apartment, and after I water my plants the water goes to plates below the pots. The pots are in a metallic structure above the plates, so I can take the plates to reuse the water (throwing it at the plants again).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This reuse seems beneficial, because I think I can get rid of mosquitoes that would reproduce in the stagnated water. And also some nutrients of the soil (as well as earthworms) can return to the vase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some negative points in doing that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I think I must add that I'm at 3 degrees of latitude, in a hot and humid tropical rainforest, where the precipitation used to be around 1700 mm. So I use lots of water everyday, more than once a day sometimes, so the reused water is a small fraction of the water used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11722" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4691" RevisionGUID="6dbe203e-71d8-409a-803b-64a8e4dafa78" CreationDate="2016-03-17T15:27:49.927" UserId="2548" Comment="corrected to use pots instead of vases" Text="How good is it to reuse water from plant pots?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5121" RevisionGUID="2563869e-5aee-48c5-830f-19d1316f2a39" CreationDate="2016-03-17T21:06:20.197" UserId="1692" Text="It's funny you should ask this now, since I was just at a resort hotel that does exactly this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a trick though. The entirety of its architecture was dedicated to the task. There wasn't any fancy technology involved in cooling the place, it was just cooler. Part of the way that the building accomplishes this is by having hallways on the outside of the hotel that are open to the outside. These hallways were about 12-14 feet wide, with large, north-facing window openings. As these hallways were pretty open to the weather, the floor covering used was tile instead of carpet (which they used throughout the entire hotel), and there were drains in the exterior wall at floor level. This hotel had actually weathered a Category 3 hurricane about 18 months ago, and while they had to replace a lot of glass, the floor only needed a few tiles replaced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ceilings were also appropriately high, allowing hot air to accumulate much higher than person-level, if it were ever to stagnate. The day I arrived though, this was certainly not a problem, as a windstorm generating some 50km/h winds was making the 30C heat feel more like about 17C. After the storm had passed though, the ease with which air circulated still kept the place quite cool, as a constant breeze was moving through the whole structure the entire time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5122" RevisionGUID="cae83e7f-a3c7-479d-8e1e-76e72715ca6f" CreationDate="2016-03-17T21:11:43.423" UserId="1692" Text="Why not just install [solar shingles][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/im-getting-my-roof-redone-and-heard-about-solar-shingles/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11725" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5098" RevisionGUID="8092211e-627f-47cf-bfe1-b7502db233f9" CreationDate="2016-03-17T21:15:51.047" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/710575395633041408" />
  <row Id="11726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5123" RevisionGUID="8b544185-8200-4bdf-a48a-58d5fec99df4" CreationDate="2016-03-17T21:32:28.753" UserId="1692" Text="Buy rechargeable batteries instead, if you're talking about single-use alkaline AA cells. If you're talking about car batteries, then you should recycle them, as about 99% of the lead in them can be recycled. Also, lead is extremely toxic and shouldn't go into landfills for any reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium-ion batteries from your laptop or phone can also be recycled, but they're far less hazardous than Lead or NiCd batteries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5124" RevisionGUID="0b215b9d-66fd-46e2-a045-c188be2d5374" CreationDate="2016-03-18T02:06:02.823" UserId="3155" Text="It depends on your goals for installing the solar panels. If your goal is mainly environmental (e.g., reduce your carbon footprint), it would be better to install the solar panels sooner to start the environmental benefits sooner. However, I would not recommend installing solar panels over a roof that will require new shingles soon, because you would then have to deal with the added hassle and cost of removing them temporarily to allow for the new shingles to be replaced. In this case it makes sense so install the new shingles now and then install the solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you goal is mainly financial savings, you need to identify the financial consequences of each option available to you and identify the option with the highest financial benefit (e.g., highest net present value)," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5125" RevisionGUID="2b7597ec-df81-4121-8c04-4908d615d572" CreationDate="2016-03-18T17:09:52.853" UserId="1692" Text="By crushing the car and recycling the metal. That's how.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diesel cars are awful and there's pretty much nothing anyone can do about it, if the recent [VW diesel cheating scandal][1] hasn't already made that abundantly clear. Volkswagen had done everything they could, using the latest technology, to reduce the emissions of these cars, but they still couldn't get the emissions down to acceptable levels. So they cheated and made the cars run super lean when the GPS told the car that it was at a testing facility. Doing this on the street would make real-world owners complain about a lack of power though, and they couldn't have *that*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now what they're doing is replacing their diesel models with electric drive trains. They're literally giving up on diesels for consumer applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to do this (for a myriad of reasons, including leaving the awfulness of diesel engines behind, and cutting the cost of fuel to next to nothing, nevermind a super reliable, quiet ride that requires nearly no maintenance), then you can buy an older Nissan Leaf or Renault Zoe for a fraction of their original sticker price. If you have 220v mains in your house (which describes pretty much the whole of the UK and Europe), then you don't even need to do anything extra. The car comes with a charger that will fill it within a few hours while you sleep, and there are now lots of fast chargers throughout the countryside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5126" RevisionGUID="988532b6-65ee-4b95-98d2-aa1f0508fa42" CreationDate="2016-03-19T21:52:15.310" UserId="3186" Text="Aloha,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I bought a house in HI in 2014 which had 2 4'x8' solar thermal panels, a 120ga solar tank with 1 upper grid tided 4500w element. The previous owners had had multiple problems: leaks, replaced one panel, etc. all of which was disclosed.  While it worked it worked very well providing waaaay more HW than my wife and I need.  Now of course both panels have failed completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With HI's electric effective rate of about 30 cents/kWh I installed a 6.6kWh pv system soon after buying this house.  I've closed the rooftop thermal panel water feed and am now using the single 4500W grid tied element for hot water.  This does provide plenty of HW for showering at about 110 degrees F but we would like hotter water for dish washing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the existing solar type water tank is 15+ years old I know I'll be replacing it one way or another soon.  Although solar thermal panels are very good at heating water I'm just not going to spend another $1000.00 x2, plus labor, plus likely another large solar specific tank just to have the same problems in another 5 to 10 years.  &#xD;&#xA;FYI the water is VERY hard here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My alternatives as far as I can tell are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;1. Replace the existing solar tank with a conventional water heater and observe the effect on my electric bill, maybe add to my PV system later as necessary.&#xD;&#xA;2. Replace the existing solar tank with a hybrid heat pump tanked water heater.  These are expensive and new technology without a good track record.&#xD;&#xA;3. Maybe some type of dedicated DC output solar pv system to power a resistive element with grid back up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'll appreciate any comments, advice, recommendations anyone might have.  A couple more FYI's:  First, I have a grandfathered net metering pv system agreement with the local privately owned HI electric company but they have now changed the agreement for new pv customers. They are now back pedaling on net metering as hard as they can!!! Secondly, I'm retired and don't have the tax liability I once had so the solar tax credits mean much less to me. It will take me years to use up the credits from my current PV installation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11732" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5126" RevisionGUID="988532b6-65ee-4b95-98d2-aa1f0508fa42" CreationDate="2016-03-19T21:52:15.310" UserId="3186" Text="Failed &quot;solar thermal&quot; water heating system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11733" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5126" RevisionGUID="988532b6-65ee-4b95-98d2-aa1f0508fa42" CreationDate="2016-03-19T21:52:15.310" UserId="3186" Text="|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11734" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5126" RevisionGUID="187f2a5f-77e5-4de4-ae6c-841fabb3b8e2" CreationDate="2016-03-20T09:26:15.487" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/711483985441005569" />
  <row Id="11735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5127" RevisionGUID="add07db4-7238-48fa-b599-3cf8eb6d1941" CreationDate="2016-03-20T23:10:02.703" UserId="3186" Text="I'm a retired dentist, new to this site.  All the answers are good. I'm not qualified from an engineering standpoint to comment on this subject but I do have some useful input I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably the most important thing to remember when brushing is that what you're removing is the *soft* plaque and it will be easily removed with a soft bristle toothbrush.  If the plaque has hardened into tartar then you'll not remove it with any toothbrush in any case.  You'll need professional help then.  So, *light* pressure with a *soft* bristle toothbrush is the key.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By avoiding hard scrubbing pressure your tooth brush will last much,  much longer and be better for your teeth and gums!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5128" RevisionGUID="e992514c-c118-4a42-961f-24f8fcca7853" CreationDate="2016-03-20T23:26:25.703" UserId="3186" Text="As a retired dentist with 30+ years of practice experience I have some input here.  This will be a very controversial statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Toothpaste* is NOT essential to good oral hygiene!!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just routine (thorough and expert) brushing and flossing without *any* dentifrice is sufficient for plaque removal!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toothpastes are useful for some reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 They make B&amp;F taste better. 2 The fluoride is a helpful adjunct to combat decay. I personally buy dentifrices based on cost and taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most everything folks (and dentists?) believe about toothpastes and toothbrushes are based on marketing hype designed to sell you products!!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use these or not based on personal preference.  If you make your own just be sure to avoid toxic and abrasive ingredients." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5130" RevisionGUID="7043e99d-c3c6-45e5-ad8a-a5c611a11ace" CreationDate="2016-03-21T15:26:03.507" UserId="2337" Text="I am building a small building on top of a hill. The roof area is 600 square feet.  In my area, we get about 39 inches of rain each year, which amounts to 600*38/12 = 1950 cubic feet ~ 14500 gallons of rainwater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to store all of this water in a pond, should I just make a pond with 14500 gallon capacity?  Should I use slightly less than this, due to groundwater infiltration/ evaporation?  Should I make more than this for multiyear storage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also planning on using the pond to irrigate some perennial plantings (chestnuts, fruit trees, berries, etc) during dry spells.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If anyone has personal experience, that would be great, but I am most interested in manuals or reference materials for such a project." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5130" RevisionGUID="7043e99d-c3c6-45e5-ad8a-a5c611a11ace" CreationDate="2016-03-21T15:26:03.507" UserId="2337" Text="Sizing a stormwater detention pond" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5130" RevisionGUID="7043e99d-c3c6-45e5-ad8a-a5c611a11ace" CreationDate="2016-03-21T15:26:03.507" UserId="2337" Text="|water|permaculture|ponds|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11745" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5130" RevisionGUID="8252ac88-3c8e-4586-b0db-e0e0a7c1a1b1" CreationDate="2016-03-21T15:52:17.537" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|water|permaculture|water-management|ponds|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5131" RevisionGUID="939a21cf-8f5a-47ae-a248-ee1130a4319b" CreationDate="2016-03-21T17:50:41.727" UserId="3195" Text="They could put it in their garden to suppress weeds and leave it there to break down. It conserves water and keeps the soil cooler too for the earthworm population. Putting it down between the rows keeps you from getting muddy feet when you are out there working after a rain. Put rocks and water on it initially to keep it on the ground and from blowing away. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5122" RevisionGUID="a1f7c921-a297-48a6-9ecd-bc893ae709a5" CreationDate="2016-03-21T22:31:43.780" UserId="659" Comment="paste in chunks of article for when the link dies" Text="Why not just install [solar shingles][1]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First commercially available in 2005, solar shingles were much more costly than traditional “bolt-on” photovoltaic panels, and thus were used mainly by those wanting to go solar but maintain a traditional roofline. But more recently solar shingles have become price-competitive with bolt-on panels, and are getting much more popular accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Contacts: Dow Powerhouse, www.dowpowerhouse.com; CertainTeed Solar, www.certainteed.com/products/roofing/solar; DSIRE, www.dsireusa.org.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/im-getting-my-roof-redone-and-heard-about-solar-shingles/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11749" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5114" RevisionGUID="1e6199c7-4214-40a9-b9d0-5cbe06f6f7ca" CreationDate="2016-03-22T03:43:29.737" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/712122501388697601" />
  <row Id="11750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5132" RevisionGUID="961e2b06-2a53-49c8-afe4-83535ee04f17" CreationDate="2016-03-22T08:03:49.853" UserId="3198" Text="good question, it has been a while since you asked about this, but anyway, I think you may also try chemicals for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see the video.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YWW20Lxpi4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11751" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5132" RevisionGUID="6d36a6e0-716d-45d0-811c-b4c3965ab2bf" CreationDate="2016-03-22T09:06:05.257" UserId="99" Comment="32" />
  <row Id="11753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5134" RevisionGUID="86a857b5-2f4f-43be-ac67-3da270945db5" CreationDate="2016-03-23T02:16:50.113" UserId="400" Text="Start here:  [Quality Farm Dugouts][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When doing this for a farm, the usual calculation (Central Alberta Climate) is to plan for 2 years use, plus 2 years evaporation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dugouts should be as deep as practical to excavate to minimize surface area.  That usually translates into 15 to 18 feet which is what most trackhoes can handle. Here a trackhoe costs you about $500 to the point where they unload.  In a day's activity they can move a bucket load -- 2/3 to 2 cubic yards -- every 15 seconds.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dugouts are almost never filled by roof runoff, but rather by land runoff.  The usual figure used is that there will be at LEAST 1&quot; of spring runoff.  This is a low estimate.  2.5&quot; is more typical.  But that means that a 15 foot deep 1 acre pond needs 15 * 12 = 180 acres drainage to fill it.  This ratio will fill it 95% of the time.  There are charts for this ratio for various parts of the province.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here in Alberta we get about 20 inches of precip per year, but the net level drop from an open body of water is between 36 and 48 inches per year.  (This is mostly evaporation, but also from trees on the edge.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, if you are going to make a dugout larger than 6000 cubic meters (200,000 cubic feet, 1.6 million gallons) or if wish to site it or fill it from an ephemeral stream you need a permit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to check is how much water you are using right now.  Off hand 15,000 gallons per year sounds too small.  The usual standard is something like 100 g/day/person, but that includes a lot of flushing.  But at that rate one person is using 36,000 g/year and that doesn't count exterior use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/eng4696" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5135" RevisionGUID="45fa337f-d7c4-496d-b2c2-173338f8ad28" CreationDate="2016-03-23T02:21:33.063" UserId="400" Text="When I worked in a school we had a fly problem at some times of the year.  We got a sprayer on a timer.  It would put a 1 second mist of fly spray every 10 minutes.  A cartridge would last for weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like this could work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to work would be to speed up the airchange speed in the room.  Calculate how many hours you could run a 300 cfm fan on the price of one puck.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have steady daytime breezes, there are wind powered ventilators you can mount on the roof.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5136" RevisionGUID="19ac5f16-b8ee-4cf1-bcb4-40780da1dbf9" CreationDate="2016-03-23T02:25:42.870" UserId="400" Text="If you are burning wood for heat, you don't even have to make fire bricks out of it.  We've found that if you have a good fire going in our wood stove that we can lay 2-3 inches of paper on the logs before going to bed, and it will hold the fire all night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This does produce substantially more ash.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5137" RevisionGUID="c9e0f0e0-a656-4550-8bb5-1af1e96007b8" CreationDate="2016-03-23T15:16:07.087" UserId="99" Text="There is quite a lot of software that is in one way or another helping the environment. To give you an idea here are some categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Environmental management systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_management_system)** to keep track of and analyze the environmental performance of a company.&#xD;&#xA;* **[Life-cycle assessment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment) software** to investigate how exactly a product impacts the environment and what more environmentally friendly components or alternatives are.&#xD;&#xA;* **Routing optimization software** to reduce the use of fossil fuels by a company's delivery trucks.&#xD;&#xA;* **Teleconferencing/telepresence systems** to reduce travel.&#xD;&#xA;* **Energy management software** for various applications; from improving energy efficiency at home to building [smart grids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid) that enable more efficient distribution of electricity (from renewable sources).&#xD;&#xA;* **Footprint calculators** to show people their own environmental footprint and educate them how to bring this down (see also [tag:carbon-footprint], [tag:ecological-footprint] or [tag:water-footprint]).&#xD;&#xA;* **Online community platforms** to&#xD;&#xA;    * connect with environmental activists (e.g. like [greenwire.greenpeace.org](http://greenwire.greenpeace.org) or [care2.com](http://www.care2.com)), &#xD;&#xA;    * lend out or give away unused items (e.g. like [freecycle.org](http://www.freecycle.org) or [peerby.com](http://peerby.com)) &#xD;&#xA;    * do projects that help the environment with friends (e.g. like [celsias.com](http://www.celsias.com) or [joulebug app](http://joulebug.com))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you search online you'll find various companies that offer proprietary software like this and perhaps there's a company near you where you can apply. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd rather do something besides your current job, in some of the categories mentioned above there are open-source alternatives. Here are some examples I know of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [openLCA](http://www.openlca.org/about-openlca), open-source software package for life-cycle analysis&#xD;&#xA;* [OpenEnergyMonitor](http://openenergymonitor.org/), open-source energy monitoring tool&#xD;&#xA;* [Open Foris](http://www.openforis.org/), a set of free open-source software tools for environmental data collection, monitoring, analysis and reporting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look around in your area, there are probably all kinds of environmental grassroots initiatives that would love your help and guidance for setting up or developing a website for their cause. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="803" RevisionGUID="12a74f1e-18e8-481f-abb0-294dd9ce26cb" CreationDate="2016-03-23T20:15:22.480" UserId="1692" Comment="The only all-electric car ever produced that hasn't used Li-Ion batteries was the GM EV-1, and they didn't even make that many. So I removed the bit about NiMH batteries." Text="This is a really big question, and [@EnergyNumbers' answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/613/486) addresses some of it.  I'll try to address some more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Battery End-of-Life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is obviously referring to **standard** car batteries, which are used to power the car's starter motor.  These are generally lead-acid batteries.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A true Electric Vehicle (EV) may have a small battery just like this (e.g. to drive accesories), but this kind of battery is **not** what drives the car, and is not the big impact on the recycling/landfill issue.  An EV's traction motor uses a Li-ion battery pack.  It's very large, and very expensive.  It also happens to be about 85% recyclable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My 2011 Nissan LEAF has a 24 KWh capacity Li-ion battery pack in it.  At this point, it's hard to tell exactly what the longevity will be, because it's a new product.  However, automakers do test these things before fielding new models (the results are obviously important when they decide what kind of warranties to offer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nissan projects the life of this battery pack to be 10 years.  What does that mean?  By their definition, at the end of 10 years of life, it will have a useful capacity that's 70-80% of its original capacity, depending on how you use it.  So, by no means is the battery *dead*.  But, they're estimating what a user would be willing to tolerate in terms of driving range reduction.  If your trips tend to be 20 miles or less, or you have recharge facilities at your typical destination (e.g. workplace charging), then you may continue to use your 10 year-old batteries.  But, 10 years seems like a reasonable longevity estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, the bigger a battery is (all else equal), the more likely you can recycle it, and even get paid to do so.  As I said, a Li-ion battery is largely recyclable, and with 70-80% capacity, even still usable for non-automotive energy storage applications.  It's **very** hard to believe that a battery pack that originally cost [several thousand dollars](http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/15/nissan-leaf-profitable-by-year-three-battery-cost-closer-to-18/), that still has 70% capacity, and is 85% recyclable, wouldn't fetch a significant trade-in value.  This value will likely ensure that EV batteries are not simply thrown away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Energy Efficiency / Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As EnergyNumbers said, the overall energy efficiency of an EV depends highly on *where* the electricity came from.  **However, whether it's more environmentally friendly than standard gas internal combustion engines (ICE) does not.**  Even if all the car's electricity comes from coal, which is our dirtiest source of electricity, an EV is about 25% more energy efficient than a gas ICE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this Union of Concerned Scientists report](http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf), the average midsize gas ICE fuel economy is 26 mpg.  Based largely on the (midsize) Nissan LEAF, the EV well-to-wheels equivalent energy economy is 30 mpg&lt;sub&gt;ghg&lt;/sub&gt;.  So, that's already a 15% improvement for the 100% coal-powered EV.  However, a gas ICE's fuel economy is not rated *well-to-wheels*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like electricity, gas requires energy to make.  Currently, [gas and petro-diesel average an *energy ratio* of about 0.8 to 0.9](http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EnergyLifeCycleSoybeanBiodieseI6-11.pdf), which means that to produce a gallon of gas, you have to spend about .1 to .2 gallons to make it.  For Saudi oil, it takes relatively little energy to produce.  However, as that runs out, and we continue to get more gas/diesel from deepwater rigs, and tar sands oil, gas and diesel will become even more costly (and environmentally damaging) to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when you perform well-to-wheels accounting, an EV *starts* at about 25% better than a gasoline ICE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** a well-publicized [report has recently been released](http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html), that found Toyota Prius to be more GHG friendly than Nissan LEAF in most US states (accounting for where each state gets power from).  However, it's important to note that the Prius has a lower drag coefficient than LEAF (0.25 vs 0.28), which will increase energy economy, but is unrelated to the cars' powertrains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how environmentally-friendly *you* think EVs are, but yes, they are more environmentally friendly than standard gas engine cars, in almost every way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to post more here as I get time ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11760" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="803" RevisionGUID="12a74f1e-18e8-481f-abb0-294dd9ce26cb" CreationDate="2016-03-23T20:15:22.480" Comment="Proposed by 1692 approved by 85 edit id of 380" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5135" RevisionGUID="7d6ff5f1-ab7f-4e6c-877d-1c6fa4bb3c0f" CreationDate="2016-03-24T02:20:53.613" UserId="400" Comment="Made it clear that you could solve the problem with masking for dilution." Text="As I understand the smell is the problem.  The naphthelene masks the smell but it too is a problem.  So the issue is &quot;How to reduce the smell&quot;  One answer is to cover it up.  Anotehr answer is to dilute it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I worked in a school we had a fly problem at some times of the year.  We got a sprayer on a timer.  It would put a 1 second mist of fly spray every 10 minutes.  A cartridge would last for weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Substitute a masking scent for the fly spray and the same mechanism could work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to work would be to speed up the airchange speed in the room.  Calculate how many hours you could run a 300 cfm fan on the price of one puck.  This is solving the problem with dilution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have steady daytime breezes, there are wind powered ventilators you can mount on the roof.  This saves power.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5138" RevisionGUID="5036a44d-faf2-4590-88bb-b838c43f4b1b" CreationDate="2016-03-24T03:43:10.423" UserId="3068" Text="Well, first of all, it is not typical for panels to completely fail like that. I am guessing that they used an &quot;open loop&quot; system. The typical (and generally better) system is called a &quot;closed loop&quot; system. You can see the basic operation below. An open loop system puts your normal water through the panels. This leads to hard water buildup and corrosion in the panels. A closed loop system uses a different liquid in the panels and then uses a heat exchanger to transfer the heat it collected. I would assume that it really never freezes where you are, so you would generally just use distilled water in the panels. Here where it freezes hard, we add solar rated glycol to the distilled water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should cover my tracks here... most contractors may not &quot;go the extra mile&quot; and use distilled water but it is well known that distilled water will corrode less and will not leave any hard water deposits than normal water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your panels may yet be recoverable. When you say that they both &quot;failed&quot; what do you mean. Are they leaking, clogged, or they just don't really heat? Any of these problems may be repairable under the right circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your proposed solutions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. This will work fine. Just FYI, my best friend (who is a plumber) said that if a normal modern electric water heater lasts 5 years, it is doing very well. He said that they used to be made better but don't expect them to last more than 4 years any more.&#xD;&#xA; 2. As you mentioned, this is a risk. These are expensive and they have only been around for a few years. I have heard nothing but good on these and I even have one myself. You want to look at the &quot;energy star factor.&quot; Multiply this by 100 and that gives you the % efficiency. (Efficiency above 100% is because you're not really creating heat but just moving it.) For example, Stiebel Eltron currently offers two models, one providing an efficiency factor of 2.75 and the other one at 3.09. That makes efficiency equivalents of 275% and 309% respectively. I am not offering product advice here, just providing an example. These work by transferring heat from the air to the water so they blow out cold air. My guess is that this cool air would be an additional benefit in your climate.&#xD;&#xA; 3. This could turn out to be less expensive than option 1 if you add the same amount of solar either way but it is less straightforward. For myself, I would not hesitate to try option 3 but I know that I would be willing to fiddle with it to make sure that the amount of solar connected to the tank would be sufficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion... As an avid DIYer, I would first make sure that the parts you already have are not resurrectable. Assuming that they aren't recoverable and you have the financing, the second option from your list is the leading technology and the peak of efficiency but the cold air exhaust is not a benefit in cooler climates. Otherwise, your first option is the most foolproof and likely the cheapest upfront. I would only recommend the third option for the adventurous who like to experiment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Jv4Sz.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5139" RevisionGUID="b732e795-72dc-44f6-80f5-d68a9d5b12e6" CreationDate="2016-03-24T08:33:23.770" UserId="80" Text="I nearly killed a plant (grape vine) by discarding coffee grounds regularly into the pot, while working at a bar/café. I told the owner it was great for plants, but didn't realise they could actually get too much of it – that plant was getting *a lot* more than what you want to discard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coffee ground is great for composting, as it is [rich][1] in carbon, nitrogen (that needs to be degraded to become available to the plant), phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and copper. Worms also like it. But it can be [acidic][2], which is a problem if used directly on the plant – although it might be [neutralised quickly][2] and other [sources][3] state they are not acidic enough to significantly alter the soil pH. Given that you might really pile it on, you might still want to choose more acidic substrate-loving plants: [this page][4] suggests &quot;azaleas, rhododendrons, potatoes and blueberries&quot;. [This page][3] suggests &quot;leafy vegetables such as spinach, tomatoes, corn, roses, camellias, rhododendrons and azaleas&quot; because they like nitrogen-rich substrates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice would be to go to a nursery and ask the staff for a plant that does not mind a tiny bit of acidity, a heap of organic matter, over-watering and low sun exposure. Also make sure the pot is big enough, and the substrate active enough (by using some healthy soil and compost) so the ground can be processed and the acidity buffered. Nutrient-rich organic material should remain a relatively small part of the whole substrate volume, and should probably be mixed in a bit to promote decomposition. Other (micro-)nutrients than the ones cited might need to be applied eventually, if the ground is the only fertiliser you apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;side note: coffee grounds are great when added to soap for washing grease off your hands, so dry coffee ground pellets can be kept in a container until you need it after a dirty car or bike job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sunset.com/garden/earth-friendly/starbucks-coffee-compost-test&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.green-talk.com/coffee-grounds-garden-friend-or-foe/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://homeguides.sfgate.com/plants-shrubs-like-coffee-grounds-45743.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.geeksongardens.com/about_6472165_coffee-grounds-garden-fertilizer.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5126" RevisionGUID="523878e7-ca45-49fc-b0bc-f99bb024b5a3" CreationDate="2016-03-24T08:35:35.393" UserId="3068" Comment="improved formatting" Text="Aloha,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I bought a house in HI in 2014 which had 2 4'x8' solar thermal panels, a 120ga solar tank with 1 upper grid tied 4500w element. The previous owners had had multiple problems: leaks, replaced one panel, etc. all of which was disclosed.  While it worked it worked very well providing waaaay more HW than my wife and I need.  By now, both panels have failed completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With HI's electric effective rate of about 30 cents/kWh I installed a 6.6kWh pv system soon after buying this house.  I've closed the rooftop thermal panel water feed and am now using the single 4500W grid tied element for hot water.  This does provide plenty of HW for showering at about 110 degrees F but we would like hotter water for dish washing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the existing solar type water tank is 15+ years old I know I'll be replacing it one way or another soon.  Although solar thermal panels are very good at heating water I'm just not going to spend another $1000.00 x2, plus labor, plus likely another large solar specific tank just to have the same problems in another 5 to 10 years.  &#xD;&#xA;FYI the water is VERY hard here!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My alternatives as far as I can tell are as follows:  &#xD;&#xA; 1. Replace the existing solar tank with a conventional water heater and&#xD;&#xA;    observe the effect on my electric bill, maybe add to my PV system&#xD;&#xA;    later as necessary   &#xD;&#xA; 2. Replace the existing solar tank with a hybrid heat pump tanked water&#xD;&#xA;    heater.  These are expensive and new technology without a good track&#xD;&#xA;    record.   &#xD;&#xA; 3. Maybe some type of dedicated DC output solar pv system to power a&#xD;&#xA;    resistive element with grid back up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'll appreciate any comments, advice, recommendations anyone might have.  A couple more FYI's:  First, I have a grandfathered net metering pv system agreement with the local privately owned HI electric company but they have now changed the agreement for new pv customers. They are now back pedaling on net metering as hard as they can!!! Secondly, I'm retired and don't have the tax liability I once had so the solar tax credits mean much less to me. It will take me years to use up the credits from my current PV installation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11765" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5126" RevisionGUID="523878e7-ca45-49fc-b0bc-f99bb024b5a3" CreationDate="2016-03-24T08:35:35.393" Comment="Proposed by 3068 approved by 99 edit id of 381" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="613" RevisionGUID="5d415201-f4a6-4f1c-b4d8-2a4df4215574" CreationDate="2016-03-24T08:37:18.050" UserId="80" Comment="little typos" Text="EVs offer some definite advantages, and lots of advantages that depend on the specifics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**short answer: yes, it's better than driving a fossil-fuel car.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: it may seem to make less sense if you only consider a very small range of impacts, where all of the costs are visible, but only some of the benefits. Only when you zoom out to the long-term system level do you capture all of the benefits. And there are even better alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of their quantified advantages over petrol (gasoline) &amp; diesel, it will depend on just how your electricity is generated, and what the full lifecycle costs are of each vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###carbon in motion&#xD;&#xA;Even if the extra electricity is provided by coal, an electric vehicle is so much more efficient than a fossil car, that there will be carbon savings: electric cars are typically 80-90% efficient, compared to about 20% for a fossil car. So even with a coal plant at 33% efficiency, there's still a carbon saving from the electric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They definitely reduce local pollution - unlike fossil cars, they don't emit NOx, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, CO or particulates.  And they are much easier to decarbonise than fossil cars - they just need renewable electricity to recharge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I wrote [over on skeptics.SE][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars are about 4× as efficient as fossil-fuelled combustion engines, tank-to-wheel: [ICE engine efficiency][1] is around 20%. Electric engines tend to be [around 80-90%][2].  For the whole-cycle energy-efficiency, then well-to-wheel would be the efficiency you were after, and then it would be very sensitive to how your electricity would be generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that pretty much all electric cars benefit from regenerative braking, and very few fossil-cars do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficiencies do depend on the drive cycle: and whereas ICEs tend to be optimised for speeds around 85km/h, the efficiency of electric cars decreases with increasing speed, just as the core physics would lead you to expect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[(source)][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on &quot;power-station to wheel&quot; efficiencies of electric vehicles, see the [US Gov Fuel Economy][6] site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###embodied energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chassis of an electric vehicle is usually lighter, too (except the Rolls Royce Electric Phantom), so there can be lower impact on materials for the chassis.  The batteries are materials-intensive; they are currently so valuable that a lot of attention is paid to end-of-life reuse and recycling of the materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###big picture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric vehicles can help with the market penetration of exogenously-variable renewables such as wind and PV. They release some of the stranglehold that oil companies have on the economy and politics. They make for quieter streets, and quieter car journeys. They eliminate the local pollution from car exhausts (tail pipes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in general, yes, electric cars are a significant improvement over their fossil-fuel guzzling competitors. I've seen no evidence that the batteries end up in landfill after just 3 years of life - that seems to be a bizarre and unsupported claim. Such a practice would not be remotely sustainable. I have seen evidence that some manufactures are seeking to recover the batteries: presently, at least here in the UK, a lot of electric-car suppliers are leasing, rather than selling, the batteries, which means that they'll go back to the manufacturer at the end of their life for complete recycling. After all, a dead battery contains all the ingredients needed to make a brand-new battery - the thing that needs doing, is reversing all the decay chemistry, which is just a question of energy inputs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###bigger picture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patterns both of car ownership and use have changed hugely in the last 4 decades. And the change in the 4 decades before that was huge too. 4 decades is enough for really big changes in transport patterns. For several reasons. It's 1.5-2 generations, giving plenty of time for cultural attitudes to shift. It's long enough for disruptive technological innovations to gain big market share. And it's long enough for a sufficient amount of land-use to be reshaped around new transport patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current car ownership doesn't make a lot of sense, from lots of perspectives. Most cars spend almost all their time stationary. Quite a lot of dwellings have different cars for different purposes. Most cars are able to drive hundreds of miles on a single refuelling, but very rarely if ever do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible we will see completely different patterns of ownership in the future, with various different forms of shared ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also possible that the growing obesity epidemic in parts of the developed world, the internalising of negative externalities into energy prices, and a better public understanding of the prerequisites for and importance of a vibrant public realm, lead to a resurgence in walking and cycling, negating the need for a big proportion of current car ownership and use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://courses.washington.edu/me341/oct22v2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.claverton-energy.com/?dl_name=nazisharks1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9tHTr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/15013/6236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11767" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="613" RevisionGUID="5d415201-f4a6-4f1c-b4d8-2a4df4215574" CreationDate="2016-03-24T08:37:18.050" Comment="Proposed by 80 approved by 99 edit id of 382" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5140" RevisionGUID="38246814-032a-449f-b90c-fe9a508d7b0b" CreationDate="2016-03-24T11:09:21.790" UserId="3212" Text="Simple , cheap , safe and effective solution , please try and share with others :&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thealternative.in/lifestyle/beat-the-heat-with-a-white-roof/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11769" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5140" RevisionGUID="96d91aa1-c146-4351-9589-81dbf2121924" CreationDate="2016-03-24T11:11:14.923" UserId="99" Comment="33" />
  <row Id="11770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5140" RevisionGUID="81dec06d-266b-4344-a595-2863069e59c7" CreationDate="2016-03-24T11:21:01.740" UserId="3212" Comment="Briefly explained the procedure " Text="Simple , cheap , safe and effective solution , please try and share with others :Paint the roof top ( exterior surface facing sunlight)&#xD;&#xA;You can simply use any lime powder available in 10 kg bags at Rs. 120 per bag (Rs. 12 per kg). Use the proper ratio of lime, water and pevicol. For every 5 kg of lime powder, add 8 liters of water and mix well, then add 0.5 liter of pevicol (adhesive) and mix well everything and let it stand for 5-10 minutes before applying the lime + pevicol solution on the terrace. Clean the terrace, dry it, and then apply the&#xD;&#xA;lime + pevicol solution with a brush. Leave it overnight, cure it by watering morning and evening the next day. Apply a 2nd coating of 5 kg lime in 8 l of water mixed with 0.5 l of pevicol on 3rd day and repeat curing with water for the next two days. That is it. Check this link for details:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.thealternative.in/lifestyle/beat-the-heat-with-a-white-roof/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11771" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5140" RevisionGUID="242bcac1-4319-47a3-82a8-0a29501c47be" CreationDate="2016-03-24T11:23:34.537" UserId="99" Comment="33" />
  <row Id="11772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5126" RevisionGUID="0c8acac8-cdfd-4324-bd55-a8393d41b419" CreationDate="2016-03-24T12:41:14.813" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="General cleanup (abbreviations)" Text="I bought a house in Hawaii in 2014 which had 2 4'x8' solar thermal panels, a 120 gallon solar tank with 1 upper grid tied 4500W element. The previous owners had had multiple problems: leaks, replaced one panel, etc. all of which was disclosed.  While it worked, it worked very well providing way more hot water than my wife and I need. But by now, both panels have failed completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Hawaii's electric effective rate of about 30 cents/kWh I installed a 6.6kWh photovoltaic (PV) system soon after buying this house.  I've closed the rooftop thermal panel water feed and am now using the single 4500W grid tied element for hot water.  This does provide plenty of ot water for showering at about 110 degrees F (43 °C) but we would like hotter water for dish washing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the existing solar type water tank is 15+ years old I know I'll be replacing it one way or another soon.  Although solar thermal panels are very good at heating water I'm just not going to spend another $1000.00 x2, plus labor, plus likely another large solar specific tank just to have the same problems in another 5 to 10 years.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(FYI The water is VERY hard here!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My alternatives as far as I can tell are as follows:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Replace the existing solar tank with a conventional water heater and&#xD;&#xA;    observe the effect on my electric bill, maybe add to my PV system&#xD;&#xA;    later as necessary   &#xD;&#xA; 2. Replace the existing solar tank with a hybrid heat pump tanked water&#xD;&#xA;    heater.  These are expensive and new technology without a good track&#xD;&#xA;    record.   &#xD;&#xA; 3. Maybe some type of dedicated DC output solar PV system to power a&#xD;&#xA;    resistive element with grid back up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I'll appreciate any comments, advice, recommendations anyone might have.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple more FYI's:  First, I have a grandfathered net metering PV system agreement with the local privately owned Hawaii electric company but they have now changed the agreement for new PV customers. They are now back pedaling on net metering as hard as they can!!!&lt;br /&gt; Secondly, I'm retired and don't have the tax liability I once had, so the solar tax credits mean much less to me. It will take me years to use up the credits from my current PV installation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11773" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5126" RevisionGUID="0c8acac8-cdfd-4324-bd55-a8393d41b419" CreationDate="2016-03-24T12:41:14.813" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 383" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="f9e65735-92d7-4d59-9589-088ee435200d" CreationDate="2016-03-24T13:17:36.507" UserId="2868" Text="When I last visited my grandmother I found a couple of expired cans of peaches. Given that they should have been consumed three years ago I don't think it's safe to eat them.&#xA;&#xA;I was thinking about using them for composting but I don't know if it's safe for the plants. What can I do with expired food instead of just throwing it away?&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="f9e65735-92d7-4d59-9589-088ee435200d" CreationDate="2016-03-24T13:17:36.507" UserId="2868" Text="What to do with expired food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="f9e65735-92d7-4d59-9589-088ee435200d" CreationDate="2016-03-24T13:17:36.507" UserId="2868" Text="|food|composting|safety|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5142" RevisionGUID="3d4537cb-241b-4c58-828d-9bfe48b90b03" CreationDate="2016-03-24T13:43:59.800" UserId="3213" Text="The above answers were too complicate. You can buy a tarpaulin sheets which is available in 9X12ft and larger sizes also available. If you have any doubt please see the velai illa pattathari (vip) Tamil film. On that film he used to make temporary building at the top of building. Or you can easily see the song (amma amma song from vip). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5143" RevisionGUID="2a22e075-4dd2-43c6-ad6d-8a001fab49cc" CreationDate="2016-03-24T15:59:40.903" UserId="2846" Text="Eat them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then look into what the different types of expiry date mean. Tins, dried pasta and many other foods have a *best before* date based on guesswork about quality. Most foods sold chilled and some others have a *use by* date based on safety. I won't try to convince you to ignore use by dates though I don't always stick to them myself. *Display until* dates are about stock control and nothing else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to your peaches: if the tin is bulging or they seem in any way &quot;off&quot; then compost them. Even mouldy veg is fine for composting. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11779" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5130" RevisionGUID="19316289-3e93-412f-acfb-ee424b78166a" CreationDate="2016-03-25T00:57:39.470" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/713167930826076160" />
  <row Id="11780" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5141" RevisionGUID="92861ce3-1667-4473-9224-b764814a4917" CreationDate="2016-03-25T18:59:20.557" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/713440145651986432" />
  <row Id="11782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5144" RevisionGUID="245d14b7-77f4-4463-ac1c-3b7e50994ab5" CreationDate="2016-03-28T09:04:01.953" UserId="706" Text="No, because with this limited data you cannot separately estimate the three components that make up a building's energy signature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the base load&#xD;&#xA;* the base temperature&#xD;&#xA;* the energy efficiency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if we assume the base load (i.e. the part of the energy used for other things than heating) is zero, there's no way you can estimate the base temperature (i.e. the outdoor temperature above which no heating is required).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you assume that there were no casual gains during that period, then you can probably assume the base temperature to be 20 C, and only then can you reasonably claim that the energy efficiency of your building to be 11.4 * 1000 / (6 * 20) = 95 liters of gas per degree per day. Natural gas holds about 11 kWh per m3, so that's about 1.045 kWh / day / degree. That's *very* good (Swiss houses are between 4 and 10), whatever the size of your building, but it doesn't take into account your heating system's (in-)efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="c52abbad-9823-4f80-9e1b-36d77e50c919" CreationDate="2016-03-28T09:13:42.943" UserId="706" Text="When evaluating the energy demand of a building, the weather conditions are supposed to be controlled for by calculating *degree-days* (sometimes also known as *accumulated temperature difference*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe, these are defined by [ISO 15927-6:2007][1] and in Switzerland by [SIA 380/1][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each of these norms recommend the use of a base temperature of 12 C, but neither of them explain the rationale behind this value. And no references are provided to any research that may explain it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know where this value comes from? Or does anyone know *whom to ask*?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=35564&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.webnorm.ch/normenwerk/architekt/380-1_2009_f/D/Product" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="c52abbad-9823-4f80-9e1b-36d77e50c919" CreationDate="2016-03-28T09:13:42.943" UserId="706" Text="What is the rationale for a base temperature for degree-days of 12 degrees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="c52abbad-9823-4f80-9e1b-36d77e50c919" CreationDate="2016-03-28T09:13:42.943" UserId="706" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11786" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4987" RevisionGUID="6a1eb3a0-d6fa-48b0-9453-f1f548bcc5ac" CreationDate="2016-03-28T16:17:16.360" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/714486522226024448" />
  <row Id="11787" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="6b831d0b-92a1-4fa1-9dba-092763a68d50" CreationDate="2016-03-28T22:17:16.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/714577120970817536" />
  <row Id="11788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5146" RevisionGUID="c0f743a5-cca1-4b0f-8297-e601403bfc03" CreationDate="2016-03-28T22:40:02.137" UserId="80" Text="I am aware of a few ways to &quot;upcycle&quot; a sealable coffee (ground or whole beans) bag (see photo), but how recyclable is it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure it depends a lot on where I live, but I was wondering if you knew of a system currently in place that allows a recycling plant to recover the materials that are part of those bags, which I often see made of plastic/aluminium or paper/plastic/aluminium. They often include an &quot;aerating/breathing&quot; plastic circle on one side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking because I know that it is very common to recycle complex packagings [like drink cartons][1] (i.e. Tetra Pak type).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Two types of coffee bags. None of them displays any information about materials.][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra_Pak#Recycling&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/131iU.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11789" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5146" RevisionGUID="c0f743a5-cca1-4b0f-8297-e601403bfc03" CreationDate="2016-03-28T22:40:02.137" UserId="80" Text="How recyclable is a sealable coffee bag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11790" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5146" RevisionGUID="c0f743a5-cca1-4b0f-8297-e601403bfc03" CreationDate="2016-03-28T22:40:02.137" UserId="80" Text="|recycling|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11791" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="172" RevisionGUID="f2085dd1-117a-45f4-ba06-2c8d8e578624" CreationDate="2016-03-29T10:18:53.147" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/714758719289102337" />
  <row Id="11792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="c26d6cde-eb0c-4684-bda0-52e1cd8cfd04" CreationDate="2016-03-29T14:01:45.013" UserId="3228" Text="I don't understand why [STES][1] - or more specifically BTES (Borehole thermal energy storage) - isn't more popular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that is has a high implementation cost; excavation, drilling, evacuated heat pipes, (and usually a centralized heat exchanger). But is that the only downside? Or are there other factors which make this solution less practical?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="c26d6cde-eb0c-4684-bda0-52e1cd8cfd04" CreationDate="2016-03-29T14:01:45.013" UserId="3228" Text="Why isn't STES (Seasonal thermal energy storage) more popular?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11794" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="c26d6cde-eb0c-4684-bda0-52e1cd8cfd04" CreationDate="2016-03-29T14:01:45.013" UserId="3228" Text="|energy-efficiency|zero-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11795" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5146" RevisionGUID="93185d2d-8a14-48e9-bd4a-24757aeff5c8" CreationDate="2016-03-29T19:18:53.840" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/714894617745993728" />
  <row Id="11796" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5147" RevisionGUID="c7139735-c038-485e-bfc7-065df1a28c35" CreationDate="2016-03-30T04:22:01.300" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/715031299740798976" />
  <row Id="11797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5148" RevisionGUID="bf8fa3ef-1bd7-4575-aaf3-03637df0ab69" CreationDate="2016-03-30T08:02:07.783" UserId="48" Text="Pretty much any and every energy system needs lots of storage - either real, or virtual in the form of demand-side response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old energy system, the one we inherited, had absolutely vast amounts of energy storage built into it, in the form of oil, coal and gas storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for about 40 years, we've known that the price for that was way too high - the pollution is destroying us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it meant that for a very long time, there was no economic incentive to build much storage at all. The only storage that got built, really, was either to cope with inflexible nuclear power (overnight storage heaters) or their intermittency (pumped hydro storage to provide rapid-response power within seconds, for a few hours, when very large power plants drop off the grid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And because most countries have had powerful incumbent fossil fuel supply chains, then although this is a problem we should have started fixing 40 years ago, many countries are only starting on it now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have little understanding of how to build seasonal thermal energy storage (even though it can be pretty simple engineering), and of its whole-life costs. And there's still no market for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some places, such as Denmark, are building larger stores for their district heating schemes. And to their credit, they did start on heat storage decades ago, in response to the 1970s oil crisis, and never stopped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other places are now looking at thermal energy storage of various forms, and there are demonstration projects in place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5149" RevisionGUID="75605971-ea24-49bc-ab9c-646f2d97e7e2" CreationDate="2016-03-30T10:09:04.363" UserId="80" Text="To add to Chris' answer, I'd say eat them *after* doing the usual look-, smell- and taste-checks. Above all, make sure the can hasn't been [deeply dented](http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/shelf-stable-food-safety/ct_index/!ut/p/a1/jZDbCsIwDIafxQcoyZyKXspA3NQNEbX2RqJrt8LsxBZPT-883Ciekqv8__eTEBDAQRja64ycLg0V11m0ljjGltcJMEo6Xg_DeDZOBkGA7UmzAhZfgNj_M_-huvgrH_2xoL4bBaMMxJZczrRRJfBMOkbGHuTOAldlmTJLSroTU7R2zOZSusq4auzm5mTSQpus0nJZKGYdrYqHd08CX7ulNqk8whzE81XoVR3G_qTRj2Ifk8Yr8OZtd-DzX7abKT8Pu33UYe0CgdD7ZA!!/#10), is rusty or is bulging; in those cases, don't even taste-test it: the severity of botulism (or any other illness originating from bacteria in preserved food) is just too serious to take the risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not eat them, composting those will be completely fine, but you might want to remove the excess liquid first if your compost heap is humid enough already. Some processed/cooked/rotten/mouldy food is fine in composts, especially if they represent a small part of it. The most important thing is to make sure that your compost has the right C:N ratio, the right aeration and the right humidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make sure you recycle the cans. You can also &quot;upcycle&quot; them by poking a few holes in them and using them as plant pots, which might contain some of that compost at some stage..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5150" RevisionGUID="59b6ecbf-1c5d-42e2-86a1-70a62b1e35c7" CreationDate="2016-03-30T11:17:38.793" UserId="80" Text="People might not be able to buy their own home, or might even decide to rent their whole life for good reasons (it sometimes makes sense in an economical way; other people might not be able to stay at the same spot more than a few years). However, renting means less control over how the home operates, and less freedom to make significant changes to its general structure or to some of its components (think solar/wind/geothermal power, water efficiency, insulation, construction material choice, vegetated roof, reorganising the garden entirely to produce food efficiently...). This might of course depend on how open the owner is to the renter making significant changes, or how restrictive the rules set by the real estate agent are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a few effective ways to make a significant difference in how sustainable a home is when renting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5150" RevisionGUID="59b6ecbf-1c5d-42e2-86a1-70a62b1e35c7" CreationDate="2016-03-30T11:17:38.793" UserId="80" Text="What are effective ways to make a home significantly more sustainable when renting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5150" RevisionGUID="59b6ecbf-1c5d-42e2-86a1-70a62b1e35c7" CreationDate="2016-03-30T11:17:38.793" UserId="80" Text="|home|diy|renting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5151" RevisionGUID="7b73d10c-634a-4c57-9df9-5a5495b12f66" CreationDate="2016-03-30T12:51:27.117" UserId="80" Text="To start with, the sentence &quot;Environmentally friendly as symbols below show&quot; sounds dodgy, especially seeing how uncommon the symbols feel. I guess they designed them to look uniform on the product, but the overall thing looks very dubious. Google Image searches of each separate symbol did not yield anything similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Two trees][1]][1] This one looks so generic it's hard to tell. &quot;This paper was made from trees&quot;, maybe? :) They probably want to look like they comply to some forestry standard (think FSC).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Recycle it][2]][2] This one is probably just a way to say &quot;please recycle this&quot;, as the &quot;R&quot; on the bin would suggest. Just a common &quot;[tidy man](http://www.recycle-more.co.uk/catalogue_item.php?catID=11581&amp;prodID=84564)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ECF][3]][3] As THelper commenter, this probably means &quot;[Elemental Chlorine-Free bleaching](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elemental_chlorine_free)&quot;, which reduces the formation and release of dioxins (persistent carcinogens) during the bleaching process of wood pulp. TCF (Totally Chlorine-Free bleaching) would reduce it even further. By the way, most paper is either ECF or TCF in Europe nowadays, so it's not like they really went out of their way... ([In 1996](http://www.pneac.org/sheets/all/paper.cfm), already 40% of European mills operated TCF. Kraft was producing 75% ECF paper worldwide [in 2005](http://web.archive.org/web/20071202204438/http://www.gunnspulpmill.com.au/factsheets/BleachingByCSIRO.pdf). [In 2007](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444594211000119), ECF's worldwide market share is 89%.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Maple leaf][4]][4] This one looks a bit like the Canadian &quot;[Ecologo / Environmental Choice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Choice_Program)&quot; label, but *looking like* a label does not mean it went through the certification process...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ISO 706][5]][5] [ISO 706](http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=40329) (ISO 706:2004 in its most recent revision) is a standard about the &quot;determination of the coagulant content (sieve residue) in rubber latex&quot;. From the look of it, could it be about a rubber band around the card? (This standard does not apply to paper coating.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Conclusion ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just think they are trying to make themselves look good by inventing or copying labels, or citing a random ISO that they complied to (which probably wasn't their decision). I'd call this an example of [greenwashing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The UK Government (via DEFRA) [states](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/218590/green-claims-quick-guide.pdf) that &quot;the true value of environmental claims and marketing rests on the assurance that claims are both credible to consumers, and reflect a genuine benefit to the environment&quot;, and that environmental claims and labels on products should be &quot;clear, accurate, relevant and substantiated&quot;. The company selling this card evidently did a very poor job at it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article [Environmental impact of paper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper) gives an idea of what could actually be done to make paper more &quot;environmentally friendly&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question: those do not tell us anything about how much the paper is recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reliable sources for &quot;green&quot; labels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [A GUIDE TO ENVIRONMENTAL LABELS - for Procurement Practitioners of the United Nations System](https://www.ungm.org/Areas/Public/Downloads/Env_Labels_Guide.pdf)&#xD;&#xA; - [Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN)](http://www.globalecolabelling.net/)&#xD;&#xA; - [DEFRA's &quot;A shopper's guide to green labels&quot;](https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/Defra-shoppers-guide.pdf)&#xD;&#xA; - [Recycle-More's symbol guide](http://www.recycle-more.co.uk/catalogue_main.php?catID=11581)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/raw2v.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wOnFf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/H4iLB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GzrfK.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sHGWF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5148" RevisionGUID="b137eeca-01d6-46a7-883c-f87e45f6f054" CreationDate="2016-03-30T14:32:41.640" UserId="48" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Pretty much any and every energy system needs lots of storage - either real, or virtual in the form of demand-side response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old energy system, the one we inherited, had absolutely vast amounts of energy storage built into it, in the form of oil, coal and gas storage. And that's the main reason there's no market for STES.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for about 40 years, we've known that the price for that was way too high - the pollution is destroying us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it meant that for a very long time, there was no economic incentive to build much storage at all. The only storage that got built, really, was either to cope with inflexible nuclear power (overnight storage heaters) or their intermittency (pumped hydro storage to provide rapid-response power within seconds, for a few hours, when very large power plants drop off the grid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And because most countries have had powerful incumbent fossil fuel supply chains, then although this is a problem we should have started fixing 40 years ago, many countries are only starting on it now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we have little understanding of how to build seasonal thermal energy storage (even though it can be pretty simple engineering), and of its whole-life costs. And there's still no market for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some places, such as Denmark, are building larger stores for their district heating schemes. And to their credit, they did start on heat storage decades ago, in response to the 1970s oil crisis, and never stopped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other places are now looking at thermal energy storage of various forms, and there are demonstration projects in place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5152" RevisionGUID="72f13a48-a6a0-44c8-8c6c-b58582f94bea" CreationDate="2016-03-30T21:03:47.893" UserId="2846" Text="Thermal lined curtains would make a big difference especially if the windows are single glazed. Draught proofing using self-adhesive strip is both subtle and removable. Topping up loft insulation, as it's out of sight, is something that might be permitted quite easily, but could be expensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other options are things like shower flow reducers and toilet cistern displacement devices, both of which can be fitted and removed without tools and without leaving a trace. Light bulbs also fall into this category. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even thick rugs on the floor can provide a little insulation and a warmer surface underfoot making a room feel warmer for the same temperature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of how much you want to invest in a home you could be out of in a few months is an important one. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5153" RevisionGUID="ddca6dca-2869-45d8-ab45-bed6afaf10cf" CreationDate="2016-03-31T01:47:39.567" UserId="2762" Text="Faucet aerators are cheap ways to help save water and you can install/uninstall them pretty easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SmartStrips and other power-saving devices can help cut off phantom loads.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most innovations that reduce plug load electric usage, except perhaps large appliances, are available to renters.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Energy-saving light bulbs can also generally be installed/uninstalled pretty easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cold-climate rentals, clear plastic window film can also be put over windows to help keep heat in in the wintertime.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainable living techniques that are related to food (waste, sources, etc.) and behavioral changes (e.g. shorter showers) are also available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you pay the utility bills, the utility might have rebate programs for certain energy efficiency upgrades like a programmable thermostat.  Something like that you would need the landlord's permission for but it might be a decent idea to ask.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, some energy-efficient upgrades are things you can easily install/uninstall, and you could keep the inefficient elements around to reinstall when you leave, OR when you're putting them in you could describe the benefits &amp; ask the landlord if they want to keep that and are willing to apply your receipts from the purchases toward a discount on rent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5153" RevisionGUID="305c4163-118b-48bc-ab17-02a021bda843" CreationDate="2016-03-31T03:04:03.600" UserId="2762" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="Faucet aerators are cheap ways to help save water and you can install/uninstall them pretty easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SmartStrips and other power-saving devices can help cut off phantom loads.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most innovations that reduce plug load electric usage, except perhaps large appliances, are available to renters.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Energy-saving light bulbs can also generally be installed/uninstalled pretty easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cold-climate rentals, clear plastic window film can also be put over windows to help keep heat in in the wintertime.  I've seen renters with chimneys put in an insulation roll and some plastic film seal to help prevent the heat from going up and out as much (do ask the landlord on this). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainable living techniques that are related to food (waste, sources, etc.), transportation (e.g. bike, take mass transit) and behavioral changes (e.g. shorter showers) are also available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you pay the utility bills, the utility might have rebate programs for certain energy efficiency upgrades like a programmable thermostat.  Something like that you would need the landlord's permission for but it might be a decent idea to ask.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, some energy-efficient upgrades are things you can easily install/uninstall, and you could keep the inefficient elements around to reinstall when you leave, OR when you're putting them in you could describe the benefits &amp; ask the landlord if they want to keep that and are willing to apply your receipts from the purchases toward a discount on rent.  Sometimes the &quot;payback period&quot; is even within the time period you'll be staying there, especially if you're considering environmental/health/livability/other noneconomic benefits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5154" RevisionGUID="4771d5f6-1611-4fa6-a52f-11c1b9a5a754" CreationDate="2016-03-31T08:26:53.397" UserId="3234" Text="You can try to use it for plants if it was not expired so long ago. check the expiry date and the information given to make sure that there is nothing that harms plants. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="a5c4bfb6-ee30-4b41-bfeb-f0189636463d" CreationDate="2016-03-31T08:30:20.570" UserId="3234" Text="What is the best use of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)? can it be used for (eco-products) ? can it be used for products like phones and computers? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="a5c4bfb6-ee30-4b41-bfeb-f0189636463d" CreationDate="2016-03-31T08:30:20.570" UserId="3234" Text="What is the Life cycle assessment best to use for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="a5c4bfb6-ee30-4b41-bfeb-f0189636463d" CreationDate="2016-03-31T08:30:20.570" UserId="3234" Text="|environmental-impact|life-cycle-analysis|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5156" RevisionGUID="98def35f-c2d3-4397-a76d-0026ff4f6127" CreationDate="2016-03-31T08:33:48.370" UserId="3234" Text="The controlled part in this case is the demand side management which will depend mainly on you. how much energy and water you consume and by when? changing some habits may help in making your place more sustainable, for example closing lights and electrical devices if not used, recycling your waste and maybe planting some flowers and tress in the available space. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5157" RevisionGUID="32d93680-38d6-4252-8e0f-ecdc4947a5e0" CreationDate="2016-03-31T08:39:12.347" UserId="3234" Text="I don't think there is a &quot;best battery&quot;. this depends on your purpose and usage of the battery. If you would like to charge your solar panel for long time or if you are welling to have this for couple of hours extra. &#xD;&#xA;Deep-cycle, lead-acid batteries have been employed in renewable energy and reliably used in off-grid applications as your case here. Typical deep-cycle, lead-acid batteries cost about half as much as lithium-ion, so maybe you can save some money. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="023b8ef7-9bb0-4665-870f-162062bb0dc6" CreationDate="2016-03-31T08:47:25.737" UserId="3234" Text="I would like to be more sustainable and I am thinking of installing a solar panel on the roof of my apartment, my question is how cost effective I will be knowing that my current electrify bills are low (something about 50 USD per month) and the cost of solar panels are considerably high. Or shall i use solar heating only?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11814" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="023b8ef7-9bb0-4665-870f-162062bb0dc6" CreationDate="2016-03-31T08:47:25.737" UserId="3234" Text="Is it cost effective to use a solar panel in an apartment if I have a low electricity bill?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11815" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="023b8ef7-9bb0-4665-870f-162062bb0dc6" CreationDate="2016-03-31T08:47:25.737" UserId="3234" Text="|solar-power|defining-sustainability|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="c044291e-67fc-48df-ab46-14cb51839fd7" CreationDate="2016-03-31T08:53:28.997" UserId="15" Comment="Linked to wikipedia for an explanation" Text="What is the best use of the [Life Cycle Assessment][1] (LCA)? can it be used for (eco-products) ? can it be used for products like phones and computers? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11817" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="89aa9e61-7c6d-45c9-91f1-8c3404e9f5ce" CreationDate="2016-03-31T09:20:10.983" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|solar-power|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="9766eae4-3c1d-4679-9008-642271572082" CreationDate="2016-03-31T09:44:39.177" UserId="15" Comment="Fixed typo" Text="I would like to be more sustainable and I am thinking of installing a solar panel on the roof of my apartment, my question is how cost effective I will be knowing that my current electricity bills are low (something about 50 USD per month) and the cost of solar panels are considerably high. Or shall i use solar heating only?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5159" RevisionGUID="519efbe7-2036-40bb-a838-d260428cfeea" CreationDate="2016-03-31T10:10:33.523" UserId="99" Text="Life cycle assessment (LCA) is about assessing the environmental impacts of a product, process or service over it's full life cycle, so from production, usage and disposal. This assessment includes the impact of all subcomponents/subprocesses down to the (extraction of) the natural resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There isn't really a single 'best use' for a LCA. LCAs are usually issued by companies but sometimes also by NGOs or governments for various reasons. Some examples why companies do this are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - improving the ecological footprint of a product,&#xD;&#xA; - getting a clearer picture of the main factors that are involved in producing a product,&#xD;&#xA; - saving money by using other or less resources,&#xD;&#xA; - meeting company CSR standards,&#xD;&#xA; - providing proof that a product complies with environmental or industry standards, or with government regulations,&#xD;&#xA; - providing basic LCA information to customers and promote a product or brand as being sustainable (marketing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically you can do an LCA study for any type product as long as you are able to access or gather the necessary data. What this data exactly is depends on the goal of your study. For example, for a quick hot-spot analysis of the energy usage of product you need less detail than for an elaborate comparison between two related products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to perform an LCA for a phone or computer, but this is far from easy because both are rather complicated objects with lots of different parts. You'd need to investigate the impacts of the production, use and disposal of all (major) parts and this will take a lot of time and effort. Additionally, if there is no existing LCA data for a particular component, you would need the cooperation of the up-stream suppliers that are involved in producing that component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know Samsung has performed LCAs for several of their mobile phones. There is some brief info of the results in [this PDF](http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/sustainability/environment/eco_products/download/Life-Cycle-Assessment-for-Mobile-Phone_final.pdf). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're interested in learning more about LCA, there are some good free resources listed in the ['learn more' section](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/life-cycle-analysis/info) of this site's [tag:life-cycle-analysis] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="a24c4cd4-b1eb-4ad6-8ee9-0732f9889d55" CreationDate="2016-03-31T10:12:48.227" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the best use of [Life Cycle Assessment][1] (LCA)? Can it be used for eco-products? Can it be used for products like phones and computers? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11821" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="a24c4cd4-b1eb-4ad6-8ee9-0732f9889d55" CreationDate="2016-03-31T10:12:48.227" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What is life cycle assessment best used for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11822" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="a24c4cd4-b1eb-4ad6-8ee9-0732f9889d55" CreationDate="2016-03-31T10:12:48.227" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|environmental-impact|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5160" RevisionGUID="9ec7dcee-28eb-416b-88ab-ae517272572c" CreationDate="2016-03-31T13:24:51.590" UserId="3234" Text="Still renewable energy cost is high and the capacity factor is very low compare to non-renewable sources like fossil fuel based power plant. At the same time people demand is increasing significantly. Moreover, to use renewable like solar power plant, you will need to build and use a backup capacity (like gas turbine) to supply energy during night when the sun is not shining. or the plant will require some sort of energy storage (batteries or hot salt) which makes it more complicated and more expensive. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5153" RevisionGUID="94a68c50-c670-4c3e-8d2d-d2878d8cc648" CreationDate="2016-03-31T13:38:11.897" UserId="2762" Comment="parallel structure" Text="Faucet aerators are cheap ways to help save water and you can install/uninstall them pretty easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SmartStrips and other power-saving devices can help cut off phantom loads.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most innovations that reduce plug load electric usage, except perhaps large appliances, are available to renters.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Energy-saving light bulbs can also generally be installed/uninstalled pretty easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cold-climate rentals, clear plastic window film can also be put over windows to help keep heat in in the wintertime.  I've seen renters with chimneys put in an insulation roll and some plastic film seal to help prevent the heat from going up and out as much (do ask the landlord on this). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainable living techniques that are related to food (e.g. reduce waste, consider sources), transportation (e.g. bike, take mass transit), and behavioral changes (e.g. shorter showers) are also available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If recycling is available, having easy-to-use recycling bins (and using them) is also a good idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Houseplants can improve your indoor air quality and if those are edibles (e.g. basil) you can get the benefits of eating fresh local herbs (for basil, pinch off the tops before any flowers develop). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you pay the utility bills, the utility might have rebate programs for certain energy efficiency upgrades like a programmable thermostat.  Something like that you would need the landlord's permission for but it might be a decent idea to ask.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, some energy-efficient upgrades are things you can easily install/uninstall, and you could keep the inefficient elements around to reinstall when you leave, OR when you're putting them in you could describe the benefits &amp; ask the landlord if they want to keep that and are willing to apply your receipts from the purchases toward a discount on rent.  Sometimes the &quot;payback period&quot; is even within the time period you'll be staying there, especially if you're considering environmental/health/livability/other noneconomic benefits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11825" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5153" RevisionGUID="a804671b-1869-48e9-bd6e-c6d9b279d3d9" CreationDate="2016-03-31T13:43:46.240" UserId="2762" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Faucet aerators are cheap ways to help save water and you can install/uninstall them pretty easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SmartStrips and other power-saving devices can help cut off phantom loads.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most innovations that reduce plug load electric usage, except perhaps large appliances, are available to renters.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Energy-saving light bulbs can also generally be installed/uninstalled pretty easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cold-climate rentals, clear plastic window film can also be put over windows to help keep heat in in the wintertime.  I've seen renters with chimneys put in an insulation roll and some plastic film seal to help prevent the heat from going up and out as much (do ask the landlord on this). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainable living techniques that are related to food (e.g. reduce waste, consider sources), transportation (e.g. bike, take mass transit), and behavioral changes (e.g. shorter showers) are also available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If recycling and/or compost are available, having easy-to-use recycling bins (and using them) is also a good idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Houseplants can improve your indoor air quality and if those are edibles (e.g. basil) you can get the benefits of eating fresh local herbs (for basil, pinch off the tops before any flowers develop). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you pay the utility bills, the utility might have rebate programs for certain energy efficiency upgrades like a programmable thermostat.  Something like that you would need the landlord's permission for but it might be a decent idea to ask.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, some energy-efficient upgrades are things you can easily install/uninstall, and you could keep the inefficient elements around to reinstall when you leave, OR when you're putting them in you could describe the benefits &amp; ask the landlord if they want to keep that and are willing to apply your receipts from the purchases toward a discount on rent.  Sometimes the &quot;payback period&quot; is even within the time period you'll be staying there, especially if you're considering environmental/health/livability/other noneconomic benefits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11827" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5158" RevisionGUID="95f6d04a-35c1-42d4-965f-d07711f39238" CreationDate="2016-03-31T19:31:54.357" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/715622667349585923" />
  <row Id="11831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5162" RevisionGUID="c01c1e7f-23ff-4881-a969-3c93d6e62020" CreationDate="2016-04-01T11:58:52.057" UserId="3239" Text="To add to @Fred 's answer, there are a few things that can easily be overlooked.&#xD;&#xA;In order to generate clean green energy you need to invest into these power production facilities. Obviously we know these are expensive, usually more expensive than fossil power plants. So for the price-per-power green energy isn't that interesting. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sun provide low amounts of energy &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is somewhat incorrect. The sun provides a HUGE amount of energy, and it all reaches the earth in a large quantity. However we are unable to convert this to &quot;usable&quot; energy. Some of the best solar panels will only be able to convert [around 21% of the power][1] that the sun provides into usable energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if we were capable of [harnessing lightning][2] we would also be able to receive large quantities of power. There will be many issues; Where will this energy be stored? how will it be converted? how can this power be received without destroying/melting the equipment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our technology is stick lacking to be able to do such things. I would also refer to new technology such as **graphene** This material would be able to significantly improve the green power production due to conductivity, less power loss in transfer, huge power storage capabilities and low raw material costs (It's basically charcoal). However it's nearly impossible to mass produce this at this point at an affordable price. So again our technology is lacking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, there are 2 more factors that matter why we aren't using just green energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;visual pleasantness is a thing in many places. For wind power you'd need to place those &quot;wind mills&quot;. However you'd be polluting nature's visual. This is why wind parks are often placed in the seas or in locations where they don't obstruct the visuals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next problem with green energy is that it's unpredictable. The sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't always blow hard. So to compensate for the unpredictability, you'll need to have a power storage for a &quot;rainy day&quot;. And at this moment we don't really have that many viable options for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR**&#xD;&#xA;As technology progresses, we'll start using more green energy. Not because it's better for the environment, but because it'll become cheaper than non-green energy. Not to mention, fossil power will slowly become unable to provide the gigantic amount of power humans require.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://energyinformative.org/solar-panel-comparison/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvesting_lightning_energy&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5162" RevisionGUID="2aeb30ef-c837-400c-995f-59de4e8a80b6" CreationDate="2016-04-01T12:39:39.760" UserId="3239" Comment="edited body" Text="To add to @Fred 's answer, there are a few things that can easily be overlooked.&#xD;&#xA;In order to generate clean green energy you need to invest into these power production facilities. Obviously we know these are expensive, usually more expensive than fossil power plants. So for the price-per-power green energy isn't that interesting. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sun provide low amounts of energy &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is somewhat incorrect. The sun provides a HUGE amount of energy, and it all reaches the earth in a large quantity. However we are unable to convert this to &quot;usable&quot; energy. Some of the best solar panels will only be able to convert [around 21% of the power][1] that the sun provides into usable energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if we were capable of [harnessing lightning][2] we would also be able to receive large quantities of power. There will be many issues; Where will this energy be stored? how will it be converted? how can this power be received without destroying/melting the equipment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our technology is still lacking to be able to do such things. I would also refer to new technology such as **graphene** This material would be able to significantly improve the green power production due to conductivity, less power loss in transfer, huge power storage capabilities and low raw material costs (It's basically charcoal). However it's nearly impossible to mass produce this at this point at an affordable price. So again our technology is lacking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, there are 2 more factors that matter why we aren't using just green energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;visual pleasantness is a thing in many places. For wind power you'd need to place those &quot;wind mills&quot;. However you'd be polluting nature's visual. This is why wind parks are often placed in the seas or in locations where they don't obstruct the visuals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next problem with green energy is that it's unpredictable. The sun doesn't always shine, the wind doesn't always blow hard. So to compensate for the unpredictability, you'll need to have a power storage for a &quot;rainy day&quot;. And at this moment we don't really have that many viable options for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR**&#xD;&#xA;As technology progresses, we'll start using more green energy. Not because it's better for the environment, but because it'll become cheaper than non-green energy. Not to mention, fossil power will slowly become unable to provide the gigantic amount of power humans require.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://energyinformative.org/solar-panel-comparison/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvesting_lightning_energy&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5163" RevisionGUID="354e0851-e0f6-4c22-91d2-e1730ab5a275" CreationDate="2016-04-01T12:59:21.050" UserId="3239" Text="The amount of power you consume/power costs are surprisingly unrelated to the cost effective-ness of solar power. To be more accurate, they are &quot;slightly&quot; related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you install a solar panel you will start generating power. Then there will be two things that can happen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. excess power will go directly towards your power supplier.&#xD;&#xA; 2. excess power will be stored in some sort of battery and once this is&#xD;&#xA;    full, direct the rest to the power supplier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does it mean when power goes to your supplier? It means they will pay you for your excess power. This means that your solar panels may generate you profit. The thing you should note is that you will receive less money for the power you send to the supplier than the costs to receive power from the supplier. This is why it's always in your best interest to have a battery to power your house at night and rainy days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why your electricity bill doesn't really have an impact on the effectiveness on the solar panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the optimal situation, you will have a battery that will nearly always have power stored in it. This means you will never receive an &quot;electricity bill&quot;. Instead you will receive money from this bill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would advise to calculate how much sun/power you can produce with a solar panel at your location. Then inform yourself on how much power you use, get a battery that can hold x amount of power for Y hours/days. If you have good connections with your power supplier you will be able to strike a good deal on selling them power. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: you will be selling power, this will be a form of income, so I don't know to what degree income taxes are involved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5163" RevisionGUID="034fab7f-7e51-41a5-a7c7-732ffeac1df3" CreationDate="2016-04-01T13:09:37.120" UserId="3239" Comment="added battery link" Text="The amount of power you consume/power costs are surprisingly unrelated to the cost effective-ness of solar power. To be more accurate, they are &quot;slightly&quot; related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you install a solar panel you will start generating power. Then there will be two things that can happen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. excess power will go directly towards your power supplier.&#xD;&#xA; 2. excess power will be stored in some sort of battery and once this is&#xD;&#xA;    full, direct the rest to the power supplier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does it mean when power goes to your supplier? It means they will pay you for your excess power. This means that your solar panels may generate you profit. The thing you should note is that you will receive less money for the power you send to the supplier than the costs to receive power from the supplier. This is why it's always in your best interest to have a battery to power your house at night and rainy days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why your electricity bill doesn't really have an impact on the effectiveness on the solar panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the optimal situation, you will have a battery that will nearly always have power stored in it. This means you will never receive an &quot;electricity bill&quot;. Instead you will receive money from this bill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would advise to calculate how much sun/power you can produce with a solar panel at your location. Then inform yourself on how much power you use, get a [battery][1] that can hold x amount of power for Y hours/days. If you have good connections with your power supplier you will be able to strike a good deal on selling them power. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: you will be selling power, this will be a form of income, so I don't know to what degree income taxes are involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5098/which-battery-is-best-for-solar-power" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5163" RevisionGUID="4152194e-d71d-485a-915a-8c4df8deb957" CreationDate="2016-04-01T13:58:17.813" UserId="3239" Comment="change loads of stuff based on @Thelper's awesome comment" Text="The amount of power you consume/power costs are surprisingly unrelated to the cost effective-ness of solar power. To be more accurate, they are &quot;slightly&quot; related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you install a solar panel you will start generating power. Then there will be four things that can happen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. excess power will go directly towards your power supplier.&#xD;&#xA; 2. excess power will be stored in some sort of battery and once this is&#xD;&#xA;    full, direct the rest to the power supplier.&#xD;&#xA; 3. excess power will be lost&#xD;&#xA; 4. Excess power will be stored in some sort of batter until it's full&#xD;&#xA;    and the overflow will be lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Selling to the supplier##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does it mean when power goes to your supplier? It means they will pay you for your excess power. This means that your solar panels may generate you profit. The thing you should note is that you will receive less money for the power you send to the supplier than the costs to receive power from the supplier. This is why it's always in your best interest to have a battery to power your house at night and rainy days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why your electricity bill doesn't really have an impact on the effectiveness on the solar panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the optimal situation, you will have a battery that will nearly always have power stored in it. This means you will never receive an &quot;electricity bill&quot;. Instead you will receive money from this bill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would advise to calculate how much sun/power you can produce with a solar panel at your location. Then inform yourself on how much power you use, get a [battery][1] that can hold x amount of power for Y hours/days. If you have good connections with your power supplier you will be able to strike a good deal on selling them power. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: you will be selling power, this will be a form of income, so I don't know to what degree income taxes are involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## calculating effectiveness without selling ##&#xD;&#xA;If you cannot sell to your supplier (see @Thelper's comment). Then you'll want to calculate this to be more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many solar panels can only supply you with a certain amount of power per hour/day/month. What you'd want to calculate is how much you use during your &quot;light&quot; hour and how much you use during your &quot;dark&quot; hours. The larger your battery is, the less accurate you need to be with your calculations. Assuming you have a gigantic battery you will want to calculate how much power you use within an average day/month. And then look for a solar panel that can provide these amounts at your location. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expect to need more power during the winter and less power during the summer. &#xD;&#xA;Look at the time period you wish to start benefitting from your solar setup. Chances are that you may not be able to get back the amount you invested until year X. Especially if you can't sell to your provider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5098/which-battery-is-best-for-solar-power" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="d339b463-f675-4869-b532-89f0f1c12a41" CreationDate="2016-04-01T16:09:59.180" UserId="37" Text="Assuming that the original investment of housing is paid for (or free ranged).  What is the average cost of raising chicken per LB?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Original cost of chicks&#xD;&#xA; - Feed&#xD;&#xA; - Assume you butcher them yourself&#xD;&#xA; - Anything else I may be over looking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="d339b463-f675-4869-b532-89f0f1c12a41" CreationDate="2016-04-01T16:09:59.180" UserId="37" Text="True cost of raising chicken for meat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11838" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="d339b463-f675-4869-b532-89f0f1c12a41" CreationDate="2016-04-01T16:09:59.180" UserId="37" Text="|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="5152964f-04b3-430f-91f6-e9b0fadfd1fc" CreationDate="2016-04-01T16:16:07.917" UserId="37" Text="In NE Ohio (Zone 5 - 6) how large of a pond would I need to raise fish - Min. depth &amp; diameter for 100 fish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="5152964f-04b3-430f-91f6-e9b0fadfd1fc" CreationDate="2016-04-01T16:16:07.917" UserId="37" Text="Pond for large mouth bass / perch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="5152964f-04b3-430f-91f6-e9b0fadfd1fc" CreationDate="2016-04-01T16:16:07.917" UserId="37" Text="|fish|ponds|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5166" RevisionGUID="bf898c48-577a-4185-b91e-71c43f826712" CreationDate="2016-04-01T16:27:08.403" UserId="37" Text="These three terms are often considered interchangeable.  IMHO, they're distinct.  For example, you can live Green and not Living off the Grid (solar power to charge batteries to stream NetFlix).  You can be Sustainable but not necessarily Green (use of chemicals to grow plants for your garden).  Is there a concise definition of each which demonstrates their differences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5166" RevisionGUID="bf898c48-577a-4185-b91e-71c43f826712" CreationDate="2016-04-01T16:27:08.403" UserId="37" Text="Sustainable, Living off the Grid, vs Green" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11844" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5166" RevisionGUID="bf898c48-577a-4185-b91e-71c43f826712" CreationDate="2016-04-01T16:27:08.403" UserId="37" Text="|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11852" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5166" RevisionGUID="f10545af-58fb-490c-ab54-a94625937983" CreationDate="2016-04-02T10:41:14.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/716213898366550017" />
  <row Id="11853" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5164" RevisionGUID="5379c1b7-b650-40bb-b2c8-34ff2c5874ff" CreationDate="2016-04-02T13:43:34.207" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/716259781539983360" />
  <row Id="11854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5168" RevisionGUID="a526a047-4f03-4f8f-b81e-f311298e321b" CreationDate="2016-04-02T21:12:57.577" UserId="1255" Text="One important thing is to talk to your landlord. In anglonesia I've found some landlords will negotiate improvements on a &quot;you do the work to a professional standard, they reap the benefit when you leave&quot; basis. This is especially the case when there are subsidies available, like the hot water and home insulation ones that make the cost to the landlord very low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have also got permission to replace lawn with vege gardens, and once were allowed to keep chickens as well (we replaced the whole back lawn with chicken run and vege garden).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also added DIY double glazing to a few places, and removed it when I left. If you're careful you can often fix things and not have the landlord even notice, like fitting draft stoppers to external doors (rather than [using a &quot;snake&quot;][1], fit a proper draft strip) or simple getting a tube of silicone sealant and blocking gaps in the walls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on where your hot water heater is located, and how awful it is (Australia especially has a lot of very bad resistive HWS), you may be able to put an insulating wrap over it. They're not sold here any more, so I made my own out of a roll of rockwool insulation and some plastic drop cloths. We have also used offcuts of foil-backed bubblewrap insulation in another place. It's really really obvious that you've done it... if someone looks at the hot water tank. Few people do :) But for $35 we see a consistent 10 degrees Celcius between the inside and outside of the insulation layer, and that has to be saving us something (I can't easily meter the consumption of the HWS alone).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are renting through an agency, we find that it's usually the most junior staff member who runs that part of the agency, and they're as a rule not the smartest or most diligent people. And they change jobs a lot. That's really frustrating when you're trying to get messages forwarded to the owner (for gardens or whatever), but works to your advantage when you make obvious changes. We got permission to add rainwater tanks once (as long as we took them with us when we left), and at the next inspection the agent looked at a 2000 litre tank blocking half the driveway and said &quot;was that there when you moved in?&quot; and accepted it when I said &quot;yes&quot;. No, no, it was not there when we moved in, it meant you can't get a car past it into the garage. She didn't notice the DIY double glazed window in the kitchen, new pelmets, lawn where there used to be concrete or for that matter, seven people living in a four bedroom house. So there may be a lot of room for doing things that don't damage the property but aren't the usual things tenants do. Agents look for damage more than anything, so if your change doesn't look like damage, it's likely going to be ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=draft%20stopper%20snake" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5169" RevisionGUID="dafe3404-4bbe-4e13-9257-4be47052618c" CreationDate="2016-04-02T23:01:27.310" UserId="3248" Text="I was reading here: [Here’s How Electric Cars Will Cause the Next Oil Crisis](http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-oil-crisis/), that the more miles an EV drives, the more economical battery packs become. I don't understand this assertion. I see battery packs as a resource with limited amount of discharge/charge cycles. Why is it more economical to run out of cycles early rather than later? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5169" RevisionGUID="dafe3404-4bbe-4e13-9257-4be47052618c" CreationDate="2016-04-02T23:01:27.310" UserId="3248" Text="The more miles a car drives, the more economical battery packs become?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11858" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5169" RevisionGUID="dafe3404-4bbe-4e13-9257-4be47052618c" CreationDate="2016-04-02T23:01:27.310" UserId="3248" Text="|electricity|vehicle|batteries|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5170" RevisionGUID="933aeb71-ee61-412f-84f0-e613a1985615" CreationDate="2016-04-03T01:29:04.297" UserId="3250" Text="If cost was not an issue and you were simply doing it to remove dust then yes cost aside this particular panel although expensive http://www.buyaerogel.com/product/airloy-x103-large-panels/  The H density class is .043W/m-K  So I hope that answers your question and this particular panel is also 10-1000x better at acoustic dampening.  It should be noted that at the time I wrote this the panel was apparently $490 30cm x 30cm x 0.5cm." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5171" RevisionGUID="926498ab-709c-4502-90ab-dd99a37db26a" CreationDate="2016-04-03T01:40:17.617" UserId="3250" Text="I have no clue at all if this would work or if it would damage the plastic possibly yes but if you could ever find a metal one of these a Salad spinner may do the trick.  [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/uyazW.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11861" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5150" RevisionGUID="dd5462ff-1811-4672-aca6-93c25b22bf80" CreationDate="2016-04-03T01:46:34.477" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/716441731823247360" />
  <row Id="11862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5172" RevisionGUID="22a4a258-9684-4362-8c05-1275e004325c" CreationDate="2016-04-03T02:59:39.693" UserId="2762" Text="The immediate previous sentence says:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The other unknown that BNEF considers is the rise of autonomous cars and ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft, which would all put more cars on the road that drive more than 20,000 miles a year.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a benefit to electric vehicles per mile driven, that benefit will be realized more quickly by someone who's driving a lot of miles, and if the payback period is quicker, there's a stronger economic argument for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Battery packs may have a limited number of *deep* charge/discharge cycles, but a lot of short rides (like may happen with Uber/Lyft) may produce a usage pattern where a lot of miles are being driven per deep discharge cycle and a lot of miles gotten out of the life of the battery.  Because the battery is a high initial fixed cost and the marginal per-mile cost of electricity is relatively low (compared to the marginal per-mile cost of a gas-powered car), the more miles you can amortize that initial fixed cost over, the stronger the economic argument becomes for paying that initial cost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the previous paragraph says:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Manufacturers need to actually follow through on bringing down the price of electric cars, and there aren’t yet enough fast-charging stations for convenient long-distance travel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the longer the range of an electric car, the more sense it makes to buy one.  This isn't directly what the quote you're wondering about refers to, but it could be a point in support.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5173" RevisionGUID="bc32bf25-6a7b-4dfd-961a-f06a24ae9218" CreationDate="2016-04-03T05:49:03.637" UserId="399" Text="Many years ago I read that plastic cups, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Plastic cup](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/RedPlasticCup.jpg/210px-RedPlasticCup.jpg)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RedPlasticCup.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;are *more* environmental friendly than ceramic mugs, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Ceramic mug](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/WSMR_Coffee_Mug.jpg)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WSMR_Coffee_Mug.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is rather counter-intuitive. If I remember correctly, I believe the argument was that ceramic mugs take a *lot* of energy to produce...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5173" RevisionGUID="bc32bf25-6a7b-4dfd-961a-f06a24ae9218" CreationDate="2016-04-03T05:49:03.637" UserId="399" Text="Are plastic cups more environmental friendly than ceramic mugs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5173" RevisionGUID="bc32bf25-6a7b-4dfd-961a-f06a24ae9218" CreationDate="2016-04-03T05:49:03.637" UserId="399" Text="|energy-efficiency|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="79f5b88d-1b99-4304-b5df-d8ec278ebd06" CreationDate="2016-04-03T06:51:54.470" UserId="2846" Text="You've pictured a disposable plastic cup. If you assume that you can use it a few times, then you might consider that you get through one a day. A ceramic cup lasts until you drop it. The cup in your photo is only for cold drinks anyway. Paper or expanded polystyrene are usually used for hot drinks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[this link](https://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://carbon-clear.com/files/Reuseable_vs_Disposable_Cups_2012.pdf) runs the numbers. In summary, ceramic is best. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're clumsy or use a lot of hot water in washing the ceramic cup, you might *just* be better off using a polystyrene cup, maybe one per day. But if you get takeaway coffee it will come in a paper cup which is much worse. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5175" RevisionGUID="2e8c565c-35bd-41e5-816f-bb972c9cb0f8" CreationDate="2016-04-03T07:21:54.750" UserId="99" Text="It's correct that the production of 1 ceramic mug requires much more material and energy than the production of 1 plastic cup, but this isn't a fair comparison. Plastic cups are generally used once or twice and then disposed of. A ceramic mug is probably used several hundreds of times. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume you use a plastic cup twice a day and then trow it away. Alternatively you can use a ceramic mug twice a day and then wash it. Let's also assume the lifetime of a ceramic mug is 5 years. This means you need to compare: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 5 * 365 * production, transport and disposal costs of plastic cup&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;versus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1 * production, transport and disposal costs of ceramic mug + 5 * 365 energy and material costs of water and soap used for rinsing the mug.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have the actual numbers to do the full calculation (they would also depend on the type of plastic cup and ceramic mug and how you rinse the mug), but you can see that in the long run the ceramic mug becomes more environmentally friendly provided the energy and material costs for rinsing are less than the production and disposal costs of 1 plastic cup (which should be the case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several articles on the Internet that do make calculations like this. However the assumptions between those articles are often slightly different, so that's why you also see slightly different outcomes. Also not all articles include disposal which IMHO is unfair.&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless most articles I've seen conclude that the ceramic mug wins if it's lifetime is long enough and you rinse the mug efficiently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.greenlifestylemag.com.au/features/1017/disposable-coffee-cups-vs-ceramic-mugs&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.triplepundit.com/2007/12/askpablo-disposable-cups-vs-reusable-mugs/&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/ceramic-or-paper-cups.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11869" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5173" RevisionGUID="1b4fda5c-645d-49ef-987c-79921643410e" CreationDate="2016-04-03T07:22:43.910" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy-efficiency|environmental-impact|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5175" RevisionGUID="0307c2d5-468e-42a6-bf10-4ff67ada761f" CreationDate="2016-04-03T07:29:48.060" UserId="99" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="It's correct that the production of 1 ceramic mug requires much more material and energy than the production of 1 plastic cup, but this isn't a fair comparison. Plastic cups are generally used once or twice and then disposed of. A ceramic mug is probably used several hundreds of times. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume you use a plastic cup twice a day and then trow it away. Alternatively you can use a ceramic mug twice a day and then wash it. Let's also assume the lifetime of a ceramic mug is 5 years. This means you need to compare: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 5 * 365 * production, transport and disposal costs of plastic cup&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;versus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1 * production, transport and disposal costs of ceramic mug + 5 * 365 energy and material costs of water and soap used for rinsing the mug.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have the actual numbers to do the full calculation (they would also depend on the type of plastic cup and ceramic mug and how you rinse the mug), but you can see that in the long run the ceramic mug becomes more environmentally friendly provided the energy and material costs for rinsing are less than the production and disposal costs of 1 plastic cup (which should be the case).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several articles on the Internet that do make calculations like this. However the assumptions between those articles are often slightly different (e.g. different lifetime of ceramic mug, paper/plastic cup instead of full-plastic cup, disposal is sometimes not included). The result is that those articles have different outcomes. Nevertheless most articles I've seen conclude that the ceramic mug wins if it's lifetime is long enough and you rinse the mug efficiently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.greenlifestylemag.com.au/features/1017/disposable-coffee-cups-vs-ceramic-mugs&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.triplepundit.com/2007/12/askpablo-disposable-cups-vs-reusable-mugs/&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/ceramic-or-paper-cups.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5175" RevisionGUID="8a589110-ab22-4d5a-9ed4-4720332acc5f" CreationDate="2016-04-03T07:49:05.827" UserId="99" Comment="added another link, explained more on differences between studies" Text="It's correct that the production of 1 ceramic mug requires much more material and energy than the production of 1 plastic cup, but this isn't a fair comparison. Plastic cups are generally used once or perhaps twice and then disposed of. A ceramic mug is likely to be used several hundreds of times before it breaks and is thrown away. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume you use a plastic cup twice a day and then trow it away. Alternatively you can use a ceramic mug twice a day and then wash it. Let's also assume the lifetime of a ceramic mug is 5 years. This means you need to compare: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 5 * 365 * production, transport and disposal costs of plastic cup&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;versus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1 * production, transport and disposal costs of ceramic mug + 5 * 365 energy and material costs of water and soap used for rinsing the mug.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have the actual numbers to do the full calculation (they would also depend on the type of plastic cup and ceramic mug and how you rinse the mug), but you can see that in the long run the ceramic mug becomes more environmentally friendly provided the energy and material costs for rinsing are less than the production, transport and disposal costs of 1 plastic cup, which should be the case if you don't use lots of heated water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several articles on the Internet that do make calculations like this. Most articles compare ceramic mugs with paper cups but the idea is the same. Other assumptions in those articles may also vary from what I've written above (e.g. different lifetime of ceramic mug, transport and disposal is sometimes not included, or an article may only compare energy use instead of full environmental impact). The result is that those articles have different outcomes. Nevertheless most articles I've seen conclude that **the ceramic mug wins if it's lifetime is long enough and you rinse the mug efficiently**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://carbon-clear.com/files/Reuseable_vs_Disposable_Cups_2012.pdf - this article has a nice graph that shows how over time ceramic mugs win.&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.greenlifestylemag.com.au/features/1017/disposable-coffee-cups-vs-ceramic-mugs&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.triplepundit.com/2007/12/askpablo-disposable-cups-vs-reusable-mugs/&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/ceramic-or-paper-cups.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11872" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4738" RevisionGUID="d78ccbb8-6021-457d-a056-640b5ab1ce27" CreationDate="2016-04-03T07:50:20.107" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/716533274730971136" />
  <row Id="11874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="7dc445f4-4953-440b-a434-722b8dfb3029" CreationDate="2016-04-03T12:00:47.210" UserId="3252" Comment="Cleaned up the link. There's no need to redirect through Google." Text="You've pictured a disposable plastic cup. If you assume that you can use it a few times, then you might consider that you get through one a day. A ceramic cup lasts until you drop it. The cup in your photo is only for cold drinks anyway. Paper or expanded polystyrene are usually used for hot drinks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[this link](http://carbon-clear.com/files/Reuseable_vs_Disposable_Cups_2012.pdf) runs the numbers. In summary, ceramic is best. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're clumsy or use a lot of hot water in washing the ceramic cup, you might *just* be better off using a polystyrene cup, maybe one per day. But if you get takeaway coffee it will come in a paper cup which is much worse. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11875" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="7dc445f4-4953-440b-a434-722b8dfb3029" CreationDate="2016-04-03T12:00:47.210" Comment="Proposed by 3252 approved by 2846 edit id of 384" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5176" RevisionGUID="8740b576-02b5-4ca8-ae2c-3fe3f79e5676" CreationDate="2016-04-03T14:16:39.750" UserId="812" Text="The article is considering the total costs of ownership of electric vs internal combustion engined (ICE) cars, including purchase and running costs. One of the benefits of electric cars is that fuel costs are zero; the car costs more to buy, but costs less to run. The point at which owning an electric vehicle becomes more economical than an ICE one depends, therefore, on the mileage that it covers during its lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier in the article, the author has mentioned that a large proportion of the cost of an electric car is the cost of the battery, and in the previous paragraph they note that low oil prices lessen the appeal of electric propulsion. While the paragraph in question is unclear, I therefore believe that the point that the author is making is that electric vehicles will be more economically advantageous at a higher price point for high-mileage users (such as taxis) than for the general population - and therefore that taxi services may be amongst the early adopters of this technology, and may cause a more rapid takeup of electric vehicles than would be predicted by somebody who did not take this into account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5177" RevisionGUID="bdc87aec-949f-4b39-b751-6f10453ba4df" CreationDate="2016-04-03T18:34:22.813" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="Not a 100% alternative, but a reduction:&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Use only **one layer** of paper towel and used newspapers under it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11880" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="ca038edf-16aa-4f2c-9f55-d03990e12742" CreationDate="2016-04-03T19:18:38.013" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Inserted comment answer into question" Text="In NE Ohio (Zone 5 - 6) how large of a pond would I need to raise fish for food production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the minimal depth and diameter required for 100 fish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11881" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="ca038edf-16aa-4f2c-9f55-d03990e12742" CreationDate="2016-04-03T19:18:38.013" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 385" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5178" RevisionGUID="38da4919-99dc-459c-9c7e-a1b4578f4948" CreationDate="2016-04-03T20:54:37.560" UserId="99" Text="**Sustainability** = the ability to continue a particular behavior, lifestyle or process indefinitely &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Living off the grid** = living without using public supplies of utilities such as water, electricity or natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Green** = beneficial to the environment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem with the above definitions is that many people will disagree and define these terms differently. As Ⴖuі also mentioned in [his comment](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5166/sustainable-living-off-the-grid-vs-green#comment6684_5166), especially sustainability is hard to define and there is no single agreed-upon definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fully agree that the 3 terms are distinct. You can life off the grid and shoot endangered animals for food which would not be green or sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;Or you can plant trees in the desert which could be considered an attempt to be green, but is not sustainable&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I do think that green and sustainability have a lot of common ground. If you are not green and are damaging the environment a lot that's not going to be sustainable in the long run because ultimately we all live from what nature provides us. &#xD;&#xA;Living off the grid, or trying to be independent can be sustainable or green, but personally I believe that living off grid only makes being green and sustainable harder. There is a lot that could be improved in the society we are living in today, but isolating yourself from that is not going to help much. We are in this together, we should fix it together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;This may not be entirely true if you use the right techniques, see for example the [Sahara forest project](http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/16/africa/sahara-forest-project-tunisia-feat/index.html) which is part of the larger [The Great Green Wall](http://www.greatgreenwall.org/great-green-wall/#great-green-wall-internal) initiative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11884" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5166" RevisionGUID="6b032d86-3103-48ef-bdc3-9d97ba4698b1" CreationDate="2016-04-03T20:55:17.830" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags, improved title" Text="|home|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11885" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5166" RevisionGUID="6b032d86-3103-48ef-bdc3-9d97ba4698b1" CreationDate="2016-04-03T20:55:17.830" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags, improved title" Text="Sustainable vs Living off the Grid vs Green" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5179" RevisionGUID="b0ef9611-84da-497f-b988-e6a3b9cf595d" CreationDate="2016-04-04T05:38:41.497" UserId="3256" Text="Using electricity to heat anything is not a good financial decision unless you have abundance. Here, my first solar hot water system failed due to frost freezing the pipes, and the expansion blowing the joints apart. I now have fitted an evacuated glass tube with stainless steel components. It is rated to -15C. During our summer, I have to cover about 80% of the tubes as it will boil the water. For me, replacing the original one with copper collector pipes was a wise decision, plenty of hot water unless we get 5 or 6 days overcast weather in winter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5180" RevisionGUID="a7195cd1-40a5-4427-9055-6a57d477838f" CreationDate="2016-04-04T13:46:27.470" UserId="3257" Text="I have a small garden on the roof of an appartment Building, and I have an area of 3 square meters to plant crops. Last year I planted carrots and got around 100 distributed over the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This year i'm planing on planting common beans, but I still have space left and don't know what to plant there. Do you have any recomendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For information, I live in Switzerland, it's mostly about 20-30°C and there is a lot of sunshine. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11888" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5180" RevisionGUID="a7195cd1-40a5-4427-9055-6a57d477838f" CreationDate="2016-04-04T13:46:27.470" UserId="3257" Text="Best vegetables for roof top garden?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11889" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5180" RevisionGUID="a7195cd1-40a5-4427-9055-6a57d477838f" CreationDate="2016-04-04T13:46:27.470" UserId="3257" Text="|food|gardening|plants|green-roof|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="57042828-ba72-4161-bc3f-26951dc225ef" CreationDate="2016-04-04T14:29:27.540" UserId="3257" Comment="Changed fish to bass or perch to make it easier to read." Text="In NE Ohio (Zone 5 - 6) how large of a pond would I need to raise bass or perch for food production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the minimal depth and diameter required for 100 fish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11891" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="57042828-ba72-4161-bc3f-26951dc225ef" CreationDate="2016-04-04T14:29:27.540" Comment="Proposed by 3257 approved by -1 edit id of 386" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="1e72c11f-0750-4b6f-8250-86e6ff992df6" CreationDate="2016-04-04T14:29:27.540" UserId="99" Comment="Changed fish to bass or perch to make it easier to read." Text="In NE Ohio (Zone 5 - 6) how large of a pond would I need to raise largemouth bass or perch for food production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the minimal depth and diameter required for 100 fish?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11893" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="1e72c11f-0750-4b6f-8250-86e6ff992df6" CreationDate="2016-04-04T14:29:27.540" UserId="99" Comment="Changed fish to bass or perch to make it easier to read." Text="Pond for largemouth bass / perch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="cff7a53e-d8aa-4d1f-b6f9-365ab08ac87c" CreationDate="2016-04-05T07:39:14.433" UserId="3256" Text="I have an aquaponics system to provide our above ground vegetables such as lettuce, spinach, silver beet etc. I have found that over summer, even when shaded the growing media is getting too hot for the roots and the plants die off (this year, 2 weeks &gt; 42C). I am starting to covert the 1/2 IBCs to having 100mm coarse gravel with well in middle covered with weed mat, then about 150mm sand, topped of with a mixture of soil and compost and composted chicken/cow manure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any experience with wicking beds? And can they provide some guidance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="cff7a53e-d8aa-4d1f-b6f9-365ab08ac87c" CreationDate="2016-04-05T07:39:14.433" UserId="3256" Text="Convert aquaponics to wicking beds?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="cff7a53e-d8aa-4d1f-b6f9-365ab08ac87c" CreationDate="2016-04-05T07:39:14.433" UserId="3256" Text="|aquaponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11902" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2607" RevisionGUID="c21e259c-1a15-40e6-b55c-96fe17dc8e7e" CreationDate="2016-04-05T12:15:02.120" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|composting|compostable-plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4778" RevisionGUID="52ed225f-28b3-4ea7-b1c2-5624ea2db612" CreationDate="2016-04-05T12:15:19.043" UserId="99" Comment="added info from television program" Text="I found information about composting conditions on [this website](https://www.sks-bottle.com/PLAValueAdded.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The conditions PLA needs to degrade are exposure to temperatures greater than 140°F (60°C) and relative humidity greater than 90%, for approximately 60 to 80 days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is confirmed in [this paper](http://www.contactalimentaire.com/fileadmin/ImageFichier_Archive/contact_alimentaire/Fichiers_Documents/autres/ALTERNATIVES_ANALYSIS_REPORT_FOR_BPA_in_Infant.pdf) where it also says that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...once exposed to the proper combination of&#xD;&#xA;oxygen, moisture and naturally occurring organisms, it will break down&#xD;&#xA;into carbon dioxide, water and a small amount of nontoxic waste.... Some studies have shown that it can take as long as 15 months for&#xD;&#xA;PLA to start to decompose, even in a controlled composting environment &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I haven't been able to find information about an industrial composting facility that properly composts PLA, so I'm starting to think this isn't done anywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT (4th apr 2016):** A Dutch television program asked several professional recycling companies what they do with compostable plastics like PLA. Most companies said they filter out all plastics, including compostables. Only 1 company (Attero in the city of Venlo) said they compost PLA plastic along with other organic materials.&#xD;&#xA;For Dutch speakers, you can view the video here: http://programma.vara.nl/groenlicht/media/355207" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11905" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5180" RevisionGUID="0400153a-3294-4478-b2b9-3fedb46b0725" CreationDate="2016-04-05T14:10:52.707" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/717353815385772033" />
  <row Id="11906" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5165" RevisionGUID="b016af28-e9c0-4650-a539-e7c0bdcb037b" CreationDate="2016-04-05T17:10:51.660" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/717399111826333696" />
  <row Id="11907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5176" RevisionGUID="785e7306-7677-4f8f-aa5a-3af5a28051b7" CreationDate="2016-04-05T17:49:11.563" UserId="1692" Comment="The cost of electricity isn't zero. It's very cheap (around 1/6th to 1/10th the cost of gasoline), but it's not *free*." Text="The article is considering the total costs of ownership of electric vs internal combustion engined (ICE) cars, including purchase and running costs. One of the benefits of electric cars is that fuel costs are very low; the car costs more to buy, but costs less to run. The point at which owning an electric vehicle becomes more economical than an ICE one depends, therefore, on the mileage that it covers during its lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier in the article, the author has mentioned that a large proportion of the cost of an electric car is the cost of the battery, and in the previous paragraph they note that low oil prices lessen the appeal of electric propulsion. While the paragraph in question is unclear, I therefore believe that the point that the author is making is that electric vehicles will be more economically advantageous at a higher price point for high-mileage users (such as taxis) than for the general population - and therefore that taxi services may be amongst the early adopters of this technology, and may cause a more rapid takeup of electric vehicles than would be predicted by somebody who did not take this into account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11908" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5176" RevisionGUID="785e7306-7677-4f8f-aa5a-3af5a28051b7" CreationDate="2016-04-05T17:49:11.563" Comment="Proposed by 1692 approved by 85 edit id of 387" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11909" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5182" RevisionGUID="fabee344-2e0b-4da0-9b28-d11a810d941e" CreationDate="2016-04-05T20:10:57.117" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/717444433097179136" />
  <row Id="11910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5183" RevisionGUID="e4052774-77d9-444f-9bb0-9510cdd7e5eb" CreationDate="2016-04-05T20:20:26.173" UserId="2228" Text="In commercial chicken operations, it's down to the question of conversion rates of feed, and it varies by breed, and that translates directly to small farm operations (though the rates go down as management gets less rigid).  [Here's a brief article that gives you an idea of the scope.][1]  Rotate their pasture and farm bugs in the fallow areas if you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.avianaquamiser.com/posts/Feed_conversion_rate_for_chickens/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5153" RevisionGUID="afb199c6-6d5d-4b1b-983f-243d661bf6cd" CreationDate="2016-04-05T20:33:06.073" UserId="2762" Comment="Add link" Text="Faucet aerators are cheap ways to help save water and you can install/uninstall them pretty easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SmartStrips and other power-saving devices can help cut off phantom loads.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most innovations that reduce plug load electric usage, except perhaps large appliances, are available to renters.  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Energy-saving light bulbs can also generally be installed/uninstalled pretty easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cold-climate rentals, clear plastic window film can also be put over windows to help keep heat in in the wintertime.  I've seen renters with chimneys put in an insulation roll and some plastic film seal to help prevent the heat from going up and out as much (do ask the landlord on this). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainable living techniques that are related to food (e.g. reduce waste, consider sources), transportation (e.g. bike, take mass transit), and behavioral changes (e.g. shorter showers) are also available. See [Zero Waste Home][1] (book or blog) for a lot of ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If recycling and/or compost are available, having easy-to-use recycling bins (and using them) is also a good idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Houseplants can improve your indoor air quality and if those are edibles (e.g. basil) you can get the benefits of eating fresh local herbs (for basil, pinch off the tops before any flowers develop). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you pay the utility bills, the utility might have rebate programs for certain energy efficiency upgrades like a programmable thermostat.  Something like that you would need the landlord's permission for but it might be a decent idea to ask.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted above, some energy-efficient upgrades are things you can easily install/uninstall, and you could keep the inefficient elements around to reinstall when you leave, OR when you're putting them in you could describe the benefits &amp; ask the landlord if they want to keep that and are willing to apply your receipts from the purchases toward a discount on rent.  Sometimes the &quot;payback period&quot; is even within the time period you'll be staying there, especially if you're considering environmental/health/livability/other noneconomic benefits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.zerowastehome.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5184" RevisionGUID="ba5faee5-0f6c-45f9-b2c2-3361e14b8e2d" CreationDate="2016-04-06T05:43:19.950" UserId="3261" Text="I know it's been a few years since the OP made this post, but I wanted to add a few thoughts for future readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fish bones can be mounted for education and display.  Photos (and directions) can easily be found online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They can also be made into sculptures:&#xD;&#xA;http://icelandmag.visir.is/article/icelandic-lego-made-fish-bones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And they can be made into sewing needles as many primitive peoples once did.  Here is some information on bone needles and specifically fishbone needles in this link:  http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/1046#.VwSevMfmqM9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope the OP sees this!  Enjoy all!  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5185" RevisionGUID="13e52170-9fa2-4ce3-b413-a2e9499c2713" CreationDate="2016-04-06T07:43:48.670" UserId="1255" Text="I'd go for a quick green leafy crop, silverbeet, kale or spinach in the winter, lettuce or rocket in the summer. Those are all shallow rooted and will recover from being too hot and dry for a day if you water them well. They do all require watering, preferably daily when it's hot. They will all go to seed if you let them, and easily produce fertile seeds. I did that deliberately with ours to save buying seed next year. You can trim kale at almost ground level once it's established and it will grow back, or just keep pulling leaves off and you can end up with quite a stump. The others are normally annuals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our kale and silverbeet both grew quite well through a Sydney summer with regular days over 35°C and a few over 40°C, while the lettuce and rocket went completely wild. We went on holiday for a few weeks and came back to a wall of metre-high rocket all gone to seed and now it's growing wild. Which is good, since we have stupid lawn and enough space that having edible rocket as our broad-leafed &quot;weed&quot; makes me happy :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5149" RevisionGUID="0fc2dcbb-6503-456e-b265-116ebe750005" CreationDate="2016-04-07T03:19:58.100" UserId="80" Comment="extra sustainability concern with diseases" Text="To add to Chris' answer, I'd say eat them *after* doing the usual look-, smell- and taste-checks. Above all, make sure the can hasn't been [deeply dented](http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/shelf-stable-food-safety/ct_index/!ut/p/a1/jZDbCsIwDIafxQcoyZyKXspA3NQNEbX2RqJrt8LsxBZPT-883Ciekqv8__eTEBDAQRja64ycLg0V11m0ljjGltcJMEo6Xg_DeDZOBkGA7UmzAhZfgNj_M_-huvgrH_2xoL4bBaMMxJZczrRRJfBMOkbGHuTOAldlmTJLSroTU7R2zOZSusq4auzm5mTSQpus0nJZKGYdrYqHd08CX7ulNqk8whzE81XoVR3G_qTRj2Ifk8Yr8OZtd-DzX7abKT8Pu33UYe0CgdD7ZA!!/#10), is rusty or is bulging; in those cases, don't even taste-test it: the severity of botulism (or any other illness originating from bacteria in preserved food) is just too serious to take the risk (and, talking about sustainability: imagine the environmental cost of treating serious infections and their consequences that need several days, if not weeks, of hospitalisation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do not eat them, composting those will be completely fine, but you might want to remove the excess liquid first if your compost heap is humid enough already. Some processed/cooked/rotten/mouldy food is fine in composts, especially if they represent a small part of it. The most important thing is to make sure that your compost has the right C:N ratio, the right aeration and the right humidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make sure you recycle the cans. You can also &quot;upcycle&quot; them by poking a few holes in them and using them as plant pots, which might contain some of that compost at some stage..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="50635982-c62e-4eb7-9306-b2b6814fab56" CreationDate="2016-04-07T03:37:10.007" UserId="80" Text="I am concerned by people's privacy in the Internet age, and the security that communication software and services offer, which is why I try to promote encryption in different everyday activities (emails with PGP, [communication apps](https://www.eff.org/secure-messaging-scorecard) that offer end-to-end encryption, encrypted data on hard drives...). I consider that those issues are part of how &quot;sustainable&quot; a society is (for reasons that might not need to be explained in details here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, encrypting and decrypting a file uses extra processing power, and therefore extra electricity, when compared to a regular file transmission or read-write activity. How important is that difference, and does it have a significant impact on the overall environmental cost of our general use of computers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="50635982-c62e-4eb7-9306-b2b6814fab56" CreationDate="2016-04-07T03:37:10.007" UserId="80" Text="What is the environmental cost of encrypting your communications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="50635982-c62e-4eb7-9306-b2b6814fab56" CreationDate="2016-04-07T03:37:10.007" UserId="80" Text="|green-it|internet|privacy|security|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5187" RevisionGUID="f6498323-4e0f-4b2d-aa85-c4ccefa27bad" CreationDate="2016-04-07T05:20:23.420" UserId="3265" Text="I am a grower of herbs and alpines. I use only bioinsecticide ie critters that control other critters. In the uk as far as I can tell there is only one product still in use as an insecticide from the group of chemicals known as neonicitinoids. It has very strict conditions of use one of which is that treated plants must not be planted in the ground for 9 months. This alone would rule out its use for most nursery stock. If you are worried please buy your plants from a decent garden centre  and ask them what they have been treated with. They won't know but if they have a good relationship with a UK nursery rather than buying in any old stuff from abroad then they will find out for you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11922" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="ec624c70-8ea7-41c2-ad23-55e18bfb24d1" CreationDate="2016-04-07T11:19:14.210" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/718035398212120576" />
  <row Id="11923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5188" RevisionGUID="c9c5b017-8038-4876-828c-3cac843d6e8a" CreationDate="2016-04-07T13:48:36.010" UserId="37" Text="Not much at all. Since we waste more electricity waiting for a page to load with your monitor on.  You would probably reduce your environmental cost by reading faster and not staring at the screen to think - leaving your monitor off as much as possible.  This may help regarding the over all [cost](http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/computers.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a tablet to read and recharge the batteries with a portable solar powered charger is probably the most sustainable solution.  Do you really NEED a desktop with an energy sucking harddrive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a tip, offload your PGP encryption for emails by using Hushmail." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5188" RevisionGUID="df974ee7-d405-43bf-9e97-b1050635e8a5" CreationDate="2016-04-07T13:54:52.623" UserId="37" Comment="added 224 characters in body" Text="Not much at all. Since we waste more electricity waiting for a page to load with your monitor on.  You would probably reduce your environmental cost by reading faster and not staring at the screen to think - leaving your monitor off as much as possible.  This may help regarding the over all [cost](http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/computers.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a tablet to read and recharge the batteries with a portable solar powered charger is probably the most sustainable solution.  Do you really NEED a desktop with an energy sucking harddrive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a tip, offload your PGP encryption for emails by using an encrypted email provider.  Hushmail is an example of that.  While they WILL [turn over your encrypted emails to comply with law enforcement](https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/1k03w4/hushmail_is_not_a_secure_email_provider/), if you're just trying to stop snooping and are not breaking the law... you should be fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11925" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5189" RevisionGUID="46a4989e-4689-4b6c-bc16-13bfc0bf32e3" CreationDate="2016-04-07T14:11:13.850" UserId="99" Text="AFAIK there hasn't been much research on this topic, at least not about energy consumption of encryption on a global scale. Most research I've seen is concerned with the impact of specific types of encryption on the battery life of wireless devices (e.g. [this article](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&amp;arnumber=6830130) or [this article](http://palms.ee.princeton.edu/PALMSopen/potlapally03analyzing.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estimates are that the ICT sector is responsible for around 0.6% of the world's total energy use and about 4.7% of the generated electricity (see also [this post](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-ecological-footprint-of-internet/answer/Pat-Ehlert?srid=OMyv&amp;share=64878736)). So on a global scale the impact of encryption is most likely rather small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose encryption is responsible for 0.01% of all ICT electricity usage (I'm not sure, just a wild guess on my part), that's 930 TWh * 0.0001 = 93 GWh or 93,000,000 kWh used per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume a carbon emissions factor of 0.5 kg / kWh (rough global estimate), then we can say that encryption is responsible for 93 * 1000 * 0.5 = **46500 metric tons of CO2e each year.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [EPA](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator) that's roughly the equivalent of 9789 passenger vehicles driven for one year, or the energy used by 4243 homes in one year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is of course just a back-of-the-envelope calculation and depends largely on my estimate that encryption uses 0.01% of all ICT. If someone has a better estimate I'd be happy to revise my calculation.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11926" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5186" RevisionGUID="f56c1f7d-7c85-4b1a-b04c-1e42288a17ad" CreationDate="2016-04-07T14:14:49.073" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|carbon-footprint|environmental-impact|green-it|computing|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5189" RevisionGUID="84af7815-cd2b-406d-92bc-aa64c31519b0" CreationDate="2016-04-07T14:18:23.873" UserId="99" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="AFAIK there hasn't been much research on this topic, at least not about energy consumption of encryption on a global scale. Most research I've seen is concerned with the impact of specific types of encryption on the battery life of wireless devices (e.g. [this article](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&amp;arnumber=6830130) or [this article](http://palms.ee.princeton.edu/PALMSopen/potlapally03analyzing.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estimates are that the ICT sector is responsible for around 0.6% of the world's total energy use and about 4.7% of the generated electricity (see also [this post](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-ecological-footprint-of-internet/answer/Pat-Ehlert?srid=OMyv&amp;share=64878736)). So on a global scale the impact of encryption is most likely rather small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose encryption is responsible for 0.01% of all ICT electricity usage (I'm not sure, just a wild guess on my part), that's 930 TWh * 0.0001 = 93 GWh or 93,000,000 kWh used per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume a carbon emissions factor of 0.5 kg / kWh (rough global estimate), then we can say that encryption is responsible for 93 * 1000 * 0.5 = **46500 metric tons of CO2e each year.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [EPA](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator) that's roughly the equivalent of 110,714,286 miles or 178,177,372 kilometers driven with an average American passenger vehicle, or the energy used by 4243 American homes in one year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is of course just a back-of-the-envelope calculation and depends largely on my estimate that encryption uses 0.01% of all ICT. If someone has a better estimate I'd be happy to revise my calculation.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5190" RevisionGUID="fa0fa008-7745-48c0-92db-372336b54499" CreationDate="2016-04-07T14:42:34.207" UserId="2605" Text="In fact there is an actual increase in energy consumption, though not much. What is done at the end devices is one thing (the encoding-decoding part). [This][1] answer from stackoverflow provides a good example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When Google switched Gmail to use HTTPS, no additional resources were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; required; no network hardware, no new hosts. It only increased CPU&#xD;&#xA;&gt; load by about 1%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you also must take into account the protocol overhead (i.e. the additional information that must be exchanged between the 2 end points). Overhead means that more bits of information must be transmitted. Since communication networks are composed by several intermediate devices (e.g. wireless access points, switches, routers, .etc), there is an extra energy consumption, due to transmission and processing, at each of these nodes. Regarding the overhead added by a specific encryption protocol (TLS), some details are provided [here][2]. You may use this information to compute an average overhead (in %).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a communications engineer, and without having made any detailed calculation, I tend to agree with the other answers, the additional environmental cost *seems* to be negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/548029/how-much-overhead-does-ssl-impose&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1615882/how-much-network-overhead-does-tls-add-compared-to-a-non-encrypted-connection" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11930" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5173" RevisionGUID="34ad66cc-6b48-4f94-ba19-431bdce756bb" CreationDate="2016-04-07T17:25:07.437" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/718127476128550912" />
  <row Id="11931" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="343" RevisionGUID="90328b4c-22c1-40ab-8ef8-9cf932b5c7b7" CreationDate="2016-04-08T04:20:59.223" UserId="2762" Comment="Added 2 tags" Text="|recycling|energy|life-cycle-analysis|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11932" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="343" RevisionGUID="90328b4c-22c1-40ab-8ef8-9cf932b5c7b7" CreationDate="2016-04-08T04:20:59.223" Comment="Proposed by 2762 approved by 85 edit id of 389" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11933" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5169" RevisionGUID="ee62b6d6-9c63-4625-940c-ede31984b04d" CreationDate="2016-04-08T08:27:33.287" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/718354581042962435" />
  <row Id="11938" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5155" RevisionGUID="a8e29c10-a372-4a57-b8e1-4e7c0ba93956" CreationDate="2016-04-10T08:34:03.893" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/719080995098664960" />
  <row Id="11942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5193" RevisionGUID="019b5ad9-3ec4-4587-8824-9362a2c743ff" CreationDate="2016-04-12T14:02:19.887" UserId="3284" Text="Keep a Professional Fridge: if you how professionals use their fridges is a great way to reduce waste. This system is designed to minimise the likelihood of food contamination. The idea is to arrange you fridge based on the temperature the foods need to be cooked to. The upper shelves are for leftovers, and ready-to-eat-food, then as you move down the fridge each shelf should be for items that need higher cooking temperatures, with raw meat being at the bottom on its own shelf. Salads in the salad drawer. And, as the door is the warmest part of the fridge, only use this for condiments.&#xD;&#xA;I have loads more food waste tips here http://www.lovelyappetite.com/reduce-food-waste/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5194" RevisionGUID="f196d5d8-0d9d-462a-baa9-2797a5ead75d" CreationDate="2016-04-12T14:07:42.373" UserId="3285" Text="Does anybody openly publish conversion factors (e.g. for miles in different modes of transport, food, etc) into global hectares for ecological footprint?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Global Footprint Network, so far as I can tell, only make this data available through licensing their software.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5194" RevisionGUID="f196d5d8-0d9d-462a-baa9-2797a5ead75d" CreationDate="2016-04-12T14:07:42.373" UserId="3285" Text="Where to get Ecological Footprint factors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5194" RevisionGUID="f196d5d8-0d9d-462a-baa9-2797a5ead75d" CreationDate="2016-04-12T14:07:42.373" UserId="3285" Text="|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="db68dbc9-6579-4504-ab57-5afe68d7fddb" CreationDate="2016-04-12T21:14:37.253" UserId="99" Text="The ecological footprint method does not directly convert consumed resources into global hectares, at least not via a single conversion factor. &#xD;&#xA;Instead first the amount of required land/sea area in physical hectares is calculated by dividing the amount of resources by the yield of the specific land/sea area where those resources were harvested. The physical hectares for each land type are then converted into global hectares by multiplying with both 'yield factors' and 'equivalence factors'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **Yield Factor (YF)** for a land type is the ratio between the national average yield and the world average yield on that type of land. In other words it accounts for land type productivity differences between countries. Obviously yield factors vary per country and per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **EQuivalence Factor (EQF)** for a land type indicates how much higher/lower the productivity of that land type is compared to the world average productivity. In other words, it allows aggregating different land types into one common global hectare measure. Equivalence factors vary per year but by definition not per location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a formula:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; EcoFootprint = (amount product harvested / national average product yield) * YF * EQF&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Global Footprint Network regularly publishes yield and equivalence factors in reports, but I think you have to buy those reports. You can find other  reports on the Internet that mention factors for particular years. For example page 15 of [this report](http://www.sern.eu/sern/docs/publications/buratti.pdf) shows the equivalence factors for 2005, and page 22 of [this report](https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/3779578583278/Valada%20(2010)%20Ecological%20Footprint.pdf) mentions those for 2006&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                    2005    2006&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA; Primary cropland   2.644   2.39&#xD;&#xA; Forest             1.333   1.24&#xD;&#xA; Grazing land       0.497   0.51&#xD;&#xA; Fishing grounds    0.397   0.41&#xD;&#xA; Built-up land      2.644   2.39&#xD;&#xA; Carbon             1.333&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second report also mentions the yield factors for a few countries in 2006&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;               Cropland Forest Grazing Fishing&#xD;&#xA; Algeria         0.6     0.4     0.7     0.9&#xD;&#xA; Germany         2.1     4.1     2.2     3.0&#xD;&#xA; Hungary         1.4     2.6     1.9     0.0&#xD;&#xA; Japan           1.5     1.4     2.2     0.8  &#xD;&#xA; Jordan          1.0     1.5     0.4     0.7&#xD;&#xA; New Zealand     1.9     2.0     2.5     1.0&#xD;&#xA; Zambia          0.5     0.2     1.5     0.0&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chances are this data is not very useful to you, but the mentioned reports do demonstrate how ecological footprint calculations are done. If it's only for one country you may be able to follow the reports as an example and gather the required data yourself using public information?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5196" RevisionGUID="265bc5cc-4884-4d69-adfc-5fd0895c42cf" CreationDate="2016-04-12T23:42:17.213" UserId="3288" Text="I've created active charcoal soap by mixing active charcoal, aloe vera, and witch hazel.  Problematically, the color clings to my skin and is very difficult to rinse off.  What natural agents might I add to the cleanser in order to cause it to bind to itself more and rinse more easily off the body?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11948" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5196" RevisionGUID="265bc5cc-4884-4d69-adfc-5fd0895c42cf" CreationDate="2016-04-12T23:42:17.213" UserId="3288" Text="how to make active charcoal soap rinse away?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11949" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5196" RevisionGUID="265bc5cc-4884-4d69-adfc-5fd0895c42cf" CreationDate="2016-04-12T23:42:17.213" UserId="3288" Text="|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11950" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5194" RevisionGUID="057d263c-2b0d-4bff-8e4c-0508e5a027de" CreationDate="2016-04-13T07:03:18.130" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title for SEO purposes" Text="Where can I find conversion factors for calculating Ecological Footprints?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5197" RevisionGUID="fd67cf1b-96f9-4c95-9769-7fab53439dae" CreationDate="2016-04-13T14:19:38.307" UserId="1078" Text="More/less related http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4610/how-food-producers-calculate-best-before-date: eat it if it looks good - expiration date is just best wish of producer, food may be perfectly fine after expiration date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="f2f58be4-c138-4e1f-92d4-e7a74531eb4c" CreationDate="2016-04-13T14:56:14.487" UserId="99" Comment="revised answer and added part about calculating inputs" Text="The ecological footprint method does not directly convert consumed resources into global hectares, at least not via a single conversion factor. &#xD;&#xA;Instead first the amount of required land/sea area in physical hectares is calculated by dividing the amount of resources by the yield of the specific land/sea area where those resources were harvested. The physical hectares for each land type are then converted into global hectares by multiplying with both 'yield factors' (YF) and 'equivalence factors' (EQF).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a formula:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; EcoFootprint = (amount resource used / national average resource yield) * YF * EQF&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Yield and equivalence factors###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **yield factor** for a land type is the ratio between the national average yield and the world average yield on that type of land. In other words it accounts for land type productivity differences between countries. Obviously yield factors vary per country and per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **equivalence factor** for a land type indicates how much higher/lower the productivity of that land type is compared to the world average productivity. In other words, it allows aggregating different land types into one common global hectare measure. Equivalence factors vary per year but by definition not per location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Global Footprint Network (GFN) regularly publishes yield and equivalence factors in reports and data packages, but you have to pay a fee to obtain those unless you qualify for non-commercial educational usage ([this page on the GFN website](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/public) mentions the exact requirements).&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively you can find other  reports on the Internet that mention factors for particular years. For example page 15 of [this report](http://www.sern.eu/sern/docs/publications/buratti.pdf) shows the equivalence factors for 2005, and page 22 of [this report](https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/3779578583278/Valada%20(2010)%20Ecological%20Footprint.pdf) mentions those for 2006&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                    2005    2006&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA; Primary cropland   2.644   2.39&#xD;&#xA; Forest             1.333   1.24&#xD;&#xA; Grazing land       0.497   0.51&#xD;&#xA; Fishing grounds    0.397   0.41&#xD;&#xA; Built-up land      2.644   2.39&#xD;&#xA; Carbon             1.333&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second report also mentions the yield factors for a few countries in 2006&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;               Cropland Forest Grazing Fishing&#xD;&#xA; Algeria         0.6     0.4     0.7     0.9&#xD;&#xA; Germany         2.1     4.1     2.2     3.0&#xD;&#xA; Hungary         1.4     2.6     1.9     0.0&#xD;&#xA; Japan           1.5     1.4     2.2     0.8  &#xD;&#xA; Jordan          1.0     1.5     0.4     0.7&#xD;&#xA; New Zealand     1.9     2.0     2.5     1.0&#xD;&#xA; Zambia          0.5     0.2     1.5     0.0&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chances are this data is not very useful to you, but many online reports do demonstrate how ecological footprint calculations are done. If it's only for one country you may be able to follow the reports as an example and gather the required data yourself using public information?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Usage data###&#xD;&#xA;If you want to calculate the EF for a product or organisation you also need to determine the amount of consumed primary inputs. This can be rather challenging as there is no single accepted procedure here. For example, the person doing the calculation defines the exact boundaries of what is and isn't included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read somewhere that there is (some?) product information available in the GFN National Footprint Accounts reports, but I can't verify this myself at the moment.&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively there are both open-source and proprietary life-cycle analysis (LCA) databases that provide information about the resources used to produce certain products or services (see also the [info wiki](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/life-cycle-analysis/info) of the [tag:life-cycle-analysis] tag).  Whether or not data is publicly available depends on the product or service you are looking for. Note that older LCA data or data from other countries can be used, but may be less accurate for the product or process you are interested in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11953" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5194" RevisionGUID="357957e9-f083-4438-8cbf-456ffd2b1c4d" CreationDate="2016-04-16T03:08:19.467" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/721173346965135360" />
  <row Id="11954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="35d5db8f-8d4d-4200-ab65-1ba4444bb209" CreationDate="2016-04-16T10:05:28.637" UserId="3300" Text="As the climate is varying every year due to varies reasons like deforestation, global warming, urbanization etc, the level of ground water and in rivers is decreasing which in turn is affecting the supply of water in households. How can a family save water in day to day house work? How can an individual contribute to increase ground water level?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="35d5db8f-8d4d-4200-ab65-1ba4444bb209" CreationDate="2016-04-16T10:05:28.637" UserId="3300" Text="Saving Water in day to day life" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="35d5db8f-8d4d-4200-ab65-1ba4444bb209" CreationDate="2016-04-16T10:05:28.637" UserId="3300" Text="|water-management|water-conservation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="c3270903-92b9-455f-90cb-b31ea876054d" CreationDate="2016-04-16T10:37:44.230" UserId="85" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="As the climate is varying every year due to various reasons like deforestation, global warming, urbanization, etc., the level of ground water and in rivers is decreasing which in turn is affecting the supply of water in households. How can a family save water in day-to-day house work? How can an individual contribute to increase ground water level?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11958" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="c3270903-92b9-455f-90cb-b31ea876054d" CreationDate="2016-04-16T10:37:44.230" UserId="85" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Saving water in day-to-day life" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5200" RevisionGUID="9d420328-d849-49aa-81ae-c34bdd99a23d" CreationDate="2016-04-17T08:29:11.827" UserId="3303" Text="I am in Thailand now, it is the hottest time of year, relentless 40C and sun every day. No air conditioning.&#xA;&#xA;I survive by staying indoors during the hottest time of day, getting my clothes wet. Sitting close to the ground can help. I find ceiling fans unhelpful as they bring down the hotter air that has risen to the ceiling. &#xA;&#xA;Your body adapts to heat after about 2 weeks so it is good to let yourself get as hot as you are comfortable with. This is why air conditioning is bad, people overuse it and are less able to cope with heat. &#xA;&#xA;Use the middle of the day for relaxing, sleeping  or other non physical activity.&#xA;&#xA;The locals here play cards when it is hot.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5201" RevisionGUID="464c8238-edf8-4a0a-ba79-02ab8b579e52" CreationDate="2016-04-17T08:36:52.627" UserId="3303" Text="There is a lot of efficiency variation dependant on the quality of the LEDs. Cheap LEDs are no better than CFLs. &#xA;&#xA;High quality LEDs from brands like Cree or Phillips can be over double the efficiency of CFLs&#xA;&#xA;Also under powering LEDs will make them more efficient and last longer. They can last indefinitely when underpowered by a certain level. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5202" RevisionGUID="4bdbe2f2-b055-4166-be99-eba9eaf103c2" CreationDate="2016-04-17T08:46:02.137" UserId="3303" Text="Use it as a general cooking oil for frying stuff. It is healthier than most vegetable oils and tastes amazing. Healthy in moderation :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5203" RevisionGUID="3250f69b-a712-4ebc-bad7-2e72a21b8eee" CreationDate="2016-04-17T09:00:46.930" UserId="3303" Text="I think biofuels are extremely destructive to the planet due the the vast amounts of land required to produce a small amount of energy.&#xA;&#xA;http://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/2/&#xA;&#xA;http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/the-biofuel-grind/&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11964" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4429" RevisionGUID="ef57fb8f-222a-4250-9d90-7850e22b53ce" CreationDate="2016-04-17T09:15:43.087" UserId="85" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4907],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="11967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5201" RevisionGUID="adb8a5ad-7636-4956-8604-e8bb8d6502b9" CreationDate="2016-04-17T09:19:13.557" UserId="85" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="There is a lot of efficiency variation that depends on the quality of the LEDs. Cheap LEDs are no better than CFLs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;High quality LEDs from brands like Cree or Philips can be over double the efficiency of CFLs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also under-powering LEDs will make them more efficient and last longer. They can last indefinitely when underpowered by a certain level. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="ae1fc8ac-6207-4dd5-8c88-1636f9799487" CreationDate="2016-04-17T23:34:15.907" UserId="2228" Text="This question may be outside of the scope for this forum, but I'm having a hard time finding good information, and thought asking here might be worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started looking into farm-scale solar here in Oregon, and found that we just don't have enough insolation here to get above the cost/benefit curve.  If my property were in the Mojave Desert, however, the benefit is far above the cost curve.  That got me wondering about the commercial viability of a small (~1MW) solar power plant in the Mojave, where 5 acres of land can be had for $5,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the cost per kW to set up solar on that sort of scale where you're not trying to offset energy consumption, just sell it straight to the grid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="ae1fc8ac-6207-4dd5-8c88-1636f9799487" CreationDate="2016-04-17T23:34:15.907" UserId="2228" Text="Establishing a Small Commercial Solar Plant" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="ae1fc8ac-6207-4dd5-8c88-1636f9799487" CreationDate="2016-04-17T23:34:15.907" UserId="2228" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5205" RevisionGUID="3e63ded9-3d0f-4403-9cba-c9b79769c17c" CreationDate="2016-04-18T08:38:18.653" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="If your house has a flat roof, cover it with water. This will of course require relatively large amounts of water, so the *total* energy requirements (not just yours) may not be less." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5206" RevisionGUID="48b7d692-e244-4e13-a316-3ec55e703a74" CreationDate="2016-04-18T14:51:03.743" UserId="80" Text="I am curious to know how recyclable [bioplastics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic) are. For example, how recyclable would a polylactic acid (PLA) cup be when compared to a conventional PET cup? Can the material go through a comparable number of recycling cycles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume it depends on the availability of facilities that can process the particular kind of material; plus, the fact that the [resin identification code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code) does not discriminate bioplastics from a bunch of other petrochemical-based plastics yet does make it even more difficult (they are currently all lumped together as &quot;nb 7&quot;). But I am simply wondering: could some types of bioplastics actually be as recyclable as petrochemical-based plastics, or are they likely to be mostly destined to landfill and industrial composting? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5206" RevisionGUID="48b7d692-e244-4e13-a316-3ec55e703a74" CreationDate="2016-04-18T14:51:03.743" UserId="80" Text="How does bioplastic recyclability compare with petrochemical-based plastic recyclability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5206" RevisionGUID="48b7d692-e244-4e13-a316-3ec55e703a74" CreationDate="2016-04-18T14:51:03.743" UserId="80" Text="|recycling|plastic|plastic-alternatives|compostable-plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5207" RevisionGUID="3d45285c-652c-456c-bf56-c4cacc7f92bd" CreationDate="2016-04-18T16:56:44.553" UserId="2605" Text="At our apartment, we keep a small trash can devoted to organic waste. When it is full, which takes a week or so, we empty it in a compost container near our street.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, how often should we clean that trash bin? Should we worry about cleaning it anyway? I'm only concerned about hygienic issues, because of course, it stinks. But with the cover on it, it's just fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Until now, I try to clean it every 2 weeks. But it's not a pleasant task (and last time, I did in the shower and it got plugged. After doing it, it took some extra time to clean the shower also). So, if we should have to clean it, is it ok (again, from an hygienic point of view) to do it in the sink?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11976" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5207" RevisionGUID="3d45285c-652c-456c-bf56-c4cacc7f92bd" CreationDate="2016-04-18T16:56:44.553" UserId="2605" Text="About the hygiene of my organic trash can/rubbish bin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11977" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5207" RevisionGUID="3d45285c-652c-456c-bf56-c4cacc7f92bd" CreationDate="2016-04-18T16:56:44.553" UserId="2605" Text="|composting|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="f2e16f92-54bc-4ddf-95fa-a61124dd0652" CreationDate="2016-04-18T17:57:17.553" UserId="80" Comment="typos, orthography..." Text="The point of compostable plastics is that they can be processed in the same way as the rest of the garbage stream they are mixed in with.       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a fast food outlet uses 100% compostable packing and cups etc, then they can compost everything in their bins without having to separate.   The process start off with a fine shedding and mixing of everything, so if the plastic is still only 50% composted at the end of the process, it will keep braking down when the compost is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is by giving out compostable plastic bags so as to make it more likely that people will put their food garbage in the compostable collection bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some areas they are now composting all garbage that cannot be separated to reduce its size before the compost gets dumped – the “compost” that is produced is only good for landfill, but at least it takes up a lot less landfill than the uncomposted garbage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Also when compostable plastic gets into the environment, at least it does not remain there for tens of thousands of years.**&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11979" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="f2e16f92-54bc-4ddf-95fa-a61124dd0652" CreationDate="2016-04-18T17:57:17.553" Comment="Proposed by 80 approved by 99 edit id of 390" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5208" RevisionGUID="b0388499-2e20-445d-aa64-394919f6dd60" CreationDate="2016-04-19T04:56:18.590" UserId="3308" Text="I want to pursue an independent lifestyle growing my own food, using solar panels etc. but I live in Spain and the legislation here doesn't favour this, buying terrain in a rural area and being allowed to build a house using alternative materials is very difficult and expensive, are there countries that encourage and facilitate this kind of living? or communities that have already figured out how to deal with legislators and are open to accept new people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11982" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5208" RevisionGUID="b0388499-2e20-445d-aa64-394919f6dd60" CreationDate="2016-04-19T04:56:18.590" UserId="3308" Text="What countries favour people who want to live a sustainable lifestyle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11983" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5208" RevisionGUID="b0388499-2e20-445d-aa64-394919f6dd60" CreationDate="2016-04-19T04:56:18.590" UserId="3308" Text="|home|permaculture|law|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5209" RevisionGUID="eeee65ef-21a2-4cdb-a852-9e3f179bf0d9" CreationDate="2016-04-19T06:42:54.237" UserId="2846" Text="Our system works differently (we're responsible for an outside container as well as the indoor one) but I clean it as little as possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inside one can be lined (unusually, we can use plastic bags for this, they're skimmed off the top of the anaerobic digester). Check the rules in your area, but in many places you can use newspaper or comparable plastic liners. The line isn't perfect, so when it starts to smell I scrape the bits out with a trowel then wash it with a bleach based cleaner. This might be every couple of months at most. We have a sink which isn't used for food prep or washing up so I use that. But I clean the sink afterwards as if I was going to wash up in it (more bleach based spray cleaner). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The outside one essentially never gets cleaned, I just loosen stuck bits energy now and then. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5209" RevisionGUID="75f4c6e6-1142-4b71-92a9-985edeeb36e1" CreationDate="2016-04-19T09:09:53.157" UserId="2846" Comment="typos, paper liners, outside liners, flies" Text="Our system works differently (we're responsible for an outside container as well as the indoor one) but I clean it as little as possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inside one can be lined (unusually, we can use plastic bags for this, they're skimmed off the top of the anaerobic digester). Check the rules in your area, but in many places you can use newspaper or compostable (paper or plastic) liners. The liner isn't perfect, so when it starts to smell I scrape the bits out with a trowel then wash it with a bleach based cleaner. This might be every couple of months at most. We have a sink which isn't used for food prep or washing up so I use that. But I clean the sink afterwards as if I was going to wash up in it (more bleach based spray cleaner). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The outside one essentially never gets cleaned, I just loosen stuck bits every now and then. Liners are again availble but tend to fall in and don't do much good.  A tight-fitting lid contains smells and keeps flies out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="d435391d-db73-4b63-b793-6122f4c11681" CreationDate="2016-04-19T14:16:30.023" UserId="2605" Text="I can only tell you about my country, Chile, where I've been watching the situation closely. But since I'm living in France now (for the moment), I'm also familiar with the situation in France and Spain. &#xD;&#xA;As things are in Chile right now, I believe that self-sufficiency is quite affordable. We can generate our own energy, our tax load is quite low (compared to any country in Europe), and there is plenty of land in the south, which is really fertile (though prices have been rising steadily in the last decade). Legislation in terms of building rules is also quite flexible, and raw materials are not expensive (but it depends on the region).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, apart from the clean sources (wind, sun), you can use wood for heating, as long as you don't live in a big city, where sometimes is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the story of one successful self-sufficient community from Bio Bio, Chile. http://www.paula.cl/reportajes-y-entrevistas/reportajes/el-pueblo-autosuficiente/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can't have anything: low taxes mean a poor social security system and you also have to take into account all the disadvantages of a developing country. We are not even close of the notion of Welfare State. You basically get what you can afford. You will need to sell a horse anytime you go see the doctor for something different than a routine check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, I don't think that Chile---or are any other country in South America---actually *encourages* this way of life, thinks are like this mainly as a consequence of the economic system (but this can be quite a subjective opinion). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I also know there are still some active communities in England, one of which is ran by John Seymour's daughter Anne Sear. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35945417&#xD;&#xA;It seems that starting your own self-sufficient community in Europe can be just too hard and expensive, but you can still try to integrate an existing one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5210" RevisionGUID="3f5e6b9b-7de7-4ad1-af46-f29e53c6b620" CreationDate="2016-04-19T14:26:09.180" UserId="2605" Comment="grammar" Text="I can only tell you about my country, Chile, where I've been watching the situation closely. But since I'm living in France now (for the moment), I'm also familiar with the situation in France and Spain. &#xD;&#xA;As things are in Chile right now, I believe that self-sufficiency is quite affordable. We can generate our own energy, our tax load is quite low (compared to any country in Europe), and there is plenty of land in the south, which is really fertile (though prices have been rising steadily in the last decade). Legislation in terms of building rules is also quite flexible, and raw materials are not expensive (but it depends on the region).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, apart from the clean sources (wind, sun), you can use wood for heating, as long as you don't live in a big city, where sometimes is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the story of one successful self-sufficient community from Bio Bio, Chile. http://www.paula.cl/reportajes-y-entrevistas/reportajes/el-pueblo-autosuficiente/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you can't have anything: low taxes mean a poor social security system and you also have to take into account all the disadvantages that come when living in a developing country. We are not even close of the notion of Welfare State. You basically get what you can afford. You will need to sell a horse anytime you go see the doctor for something different than a routine check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, I don't think that Chile---or are any other country in South America---actually *encourages* this way of life, thinks are like this mainly as a consequence of the economic system (but this can be quite a subjective opinion). And because there is still people, especially in the south Patagonia, that relies on self-sufficiency, at least at some extent. They just don't have the choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I also know there are still some active communities in England, one of which is ran by John Seymour's daughter Anne Sear. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35945417&#xD;&#xA;It seems that starting your own self-sufficient community in Europe can be just too hard and expensive, but you can still try to integrate an existing one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11990" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5208" RevisionGUID="ace2123b-7fdf-48b0-b3f1-d7dc7d2582c9" CreationDate="2016-04-20T09:30:12.930" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/722719003513331713" />
  <row Id="11991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5212" RevisionGUID="2fadfe71-a45b-4590-8177-a3f679af09a9" CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:52:26.507" UserId="3293" Text="I leave in the country, and have space on the north-side of my house where it doesn't get too hot in the summer. I think this could be a good place to implant a water-less or [dry toilet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_toilet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read [here](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3076/how-to-improve-energy-efficiency-of-composting-toilet) and [there](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2757/how-to-construct-a-composting-toilet) of guys who work with power to dry the manure. But do I really need to use power to dry the stuff? Because I heard it was possible for it to self compost, e.g. with large collecting volume or with with worms? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to avoid using power for drying.&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking of doing it myself, but I'm not sure where to start. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think of this project? I'm looking for experience feedback here. &#xD;&#xA;How much could this cost? How much time should I plan for it to make it run and compost fine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11992" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5212" RevisionGUID="2fadfe71-a45b-4590-8177-a3f679af09a9" CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:52:26.507" UserId="3293" Text="How difficult is it to build its own dry, self composting toilet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11993" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5212" RevisionGUID="2fadfe71-a45b-4590-8177-a3f679af09a9" CreationDate="2016-04-20T14:52:26.507" UserId="3293" Text="|composting|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5212" RevisionGUID="9e9403c5-dd62-4f7e-b11e-8ff46600798a" CreationDate="2016-04-20T15:01:12.617" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, clarified the meaning of the word 'power'" Text="I live in the country and have space on the north-side of my house where it doesn't get too hot in the summer. I think this could be a good place to implant a water-less or [dry toilet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_toilet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read [here](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3076/how-to-improve-energy-efficiency-of-composting-toilet) and [there](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2757/how-to-construct-a-composting-toilet) of guys who work with electricity to dry the manure. But do I really need to use electricity to dry the stuff? Because I heard it was possible for it to self compost, e.g. with large collecting volume or with worms? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to avoid using electricity for drying.&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking of doing it myself, but I'm not sure where to start. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think of this project? I'm looking for experience feedback here. &#xD;&#xA;How much could this cost? How much time should I plan for it to make it run and compost fine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11995" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5212" RevisionGUID="9e9403c5-dd62-4f7e-b11e-8ff46600798a" CreationDate="2016-04-20T15:01:12.617" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, clarified the meaning of the word 'power'" Text="How difficult is it to build your own dry, self-composting toilet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11996" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5212" RevisionGUID="415ea127-8222-4f6c-8587-e814fd1fd340" CreationDate="2016-04-21T09:35:33.037" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/723082734516752384" />
  <row Id="11997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="3c5247b8-f630-4b89-b2e7-01b35b45c44b" CreationDate="2016-04-21T11:11:42.407" UserId="99" Text="Conventional plastics&#xD;&#xA;---------------------&#xD;&#xA;All conventional plastics marked with the [1 to 6 resin identification codes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code) are recyclable. Some types are more easy to recycle than others, for example recycling PVC is more difficult than PET. Also very little polystyrene (PS) is recycled simply because it is not cost-effective to do so. &#xD;&#xA;The majority of conventional plastics is downcycled into a lower grade plastic and as a result plastics are usually only recycled once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compostable plastics&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;Most bioplastics are compostable plastics and these are not recyclable because this quality interferes with the plastic recycling progress. That's also the reason that recycling companies will ask you to collect compostable plastics separately. If you add it to a batch of conventional plastic for recycling, the quality of the recycled plastic goes down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrary to popular belief compostable plastics like PLA are not compostable in your home compost heap (see also [Which compostable plastic types can be composted at home?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2594/99)). PLA can be composted industrially, but it seems very little recycling companies do this and most compostable plastics are incinerated (see also [How is compostable plastic recycled/composted industrially?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2607/99))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bioderived polyethylene&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article on bioplastics mentions one type of bioplastic that is recyclable which is [Bio-derived polyethylene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic#Bio-derived_polyethylene). This is exactly the same material as traditional PE made from fossil-fuels, but in this case it's made from ethanol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OXO-biodegradable plastic&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Some people say that [OXO-biodegradable plastic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxo_Biodegradable) is a recyclable bioplastic, but this specific type of plastic is a bit controversial. It's made from conventional polymers with some added salts that catalize the degradation process, so it isn't really a bioplastic. The manufacturer claims that oxo-biodegradable plastics do not just fall apart into tiny plastic pieces and are really biodegradable. However so far no independent research has confirmed this. For more information on this see also [Do oxo-degradable plastics really biodegrade?](http://www.eppm.com/materials/do-oxo-degradable-plastics-really-biodegrade/) and [Mexico’s PE suppliers denounce oxo-biodegradables](http://www.bioplasticsmagazine.com/en/news/meldungen/20140808_oxo-mexico.php).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="9863ba05-13d9-49f2-88e7-4dfb646a8106" CreationDate="2016-04-21T13:11:56.977" UserId="99" Comment="revised answer and added part that PLA may be recyclable" Text="Conventional plastics&#xD;&#xA;---------------------&#xD;&#xA;All conventional plastics marked with the [1 to 6 resin identification codes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code) are recyclable. Some types are more easy to recycle than others, for example recycling PVC is more difficult than PET. Also very little polystyrene (PS) is recycled simply because it is not cost-effective to do so. &#xD;&#xA;The majority of conventional plastics is downcycled into a lower grade plastic and as a result plastics are usually only recycled once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compostable plastics&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;Most bioplastics are compostable plastics and I've heard mixed stories about their recyclability. Some claim that compostable plastics cannot be recyclable because this quality interferes with the plastic recycling progress. If you throw a compostable plastic in a batch of conventional plastics, it just acts as a contaminant and lowers the quality of the recycled plastic. Others claim that a compostable plastic like [PLA for example can be recycled](http://plasticredesignproject.org/files/NWRecyclePsntn.pdf), at least in theory. So far I've not heard of a recycling facility that actually does recycle a compostable plastic (not counting composting or thermal recycling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrary to popular belief compostable plastics like PLA are not compostable in your home compost heap (see also [Which compostable plastic types can be composted at home?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2594/99)). PLA can be composted industrially, but it seems very little recycling companies do this and most compostable plastics are incinerated (see also [How is compostable plastic recycled/composted industrially?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2607/99))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bioderived polyethylene&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article on bioplastics mentions one type of bioplastic that is recyclable which is [Bio-derived polyethylene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic#Bio-derived_polyethylene). This is exactly the same material as traditional PE made from fossil-fuels, but in this case it's made from ethanol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OXO-biodegradable plastic&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Some people say that [OXO-biodegradable plastic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxo_Biodegradable) is a recyclable bioplastic, but this specific type of plastic is a bit controversial. It's made from conventional polymers with some added salts that catalize the degradation process, so it isn't really a bioplastic. The manufacturer claims that oxo-biodegradable plastics do not just fall apart into tiny plastic pieces and are really biodegradable. However so far no independent research has confirmed this. For more information on this see also [Do oxo-degradable plastics really biodegrade?](http://www.eppm.com/materials/do-oxo-degradable-plastics-really-biodegrade/) and [Mexico’s PE suppliers denounce oxo-biodegradables](http://www.bioplasticsmagazine.com/en/news/meldungen/20140808_oxo-mexico.php).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="11999" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5206" RevisionGUID="7dc1cc1b-9666-40dc-a727-76a93263c173" CreationDate="2016-04-21T15:35:33.457" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/723173333471252480" />
  <row Id="12000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5214" RevisionGUID="0a3e35a7-201f-465f-9202-234fcb57de8e" CreationDate="2016-04-21T15:56:34.667" UserId="1053" Text="I accumulate compost in a small stainless steel bucket with a lid and a handle originally [sold][1] as an icebucket, though they gave up and now label it a compost bucket. I have had it for decades. We do not line it with paper, plastic, or anything else. I take it out and empty it as often as it gets full - sometimes more than once in a day, sometimes days between emptyings. It rarely needs more than a quick rinse to get any slime out of the bottom, and often doesn't even need that if it was emptied quickly enough. Slime and smell come from anaerobic decomposition, and anaerobic decomposition doesn't make compost, so you want to minimize it. The best way to do that is not by changing your container, but by emptying it more often. To that end, you prefer a smaller container to a large one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.leevalley.com/en/garden/page.aspx?p=10025&amp;cat=2,40733,40734,10025" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12004" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5216" RevisionGUID="0ff9dd20-11dd-4d0c-ab11-a272575881f0" CreationDate="2016-04-21T21:08:45.943" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://productivity.stackexchange.com/questions/15569/how-do-i-set-myself-up-to-not-have-to-mow-the-lawn" />
  <row Id="12005" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5217" RevisionGUID="ffe97d93-040c-47be-a1b8-3baee1f793e1" CreationDate="2016-04-21T21:08:45.943" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://productivity.stackexchange.com/questions/15569/how-do-i-set-myself-up-to-not-have-to-mow-the-lawn/15571#15571" />
  <row Id="12006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5217" RevisionGUID="cd253a1b-be06-4729-a23c-353a5c9f40cd" CreationDate="2016-04-21T20:15:40.280" UserId="2762" Text="This sounds like a question for [Sustainable Living.SE][1]; you can flag to request a mod migrate it if desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Planting a large garden and covering other areas with gravel and/or stepping stones is one approach.  Maybe look into rain gardens; water retention is a key concern here and why you want something water can go into (as opposed to concrete etc.).  I've also seen folks use square flat stones to create a large playable chessboard to accomplish this goal (but it can have more runoff issues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also hire a local lawn service or neighbor teen to mow for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a smaller yard, consider using an unpowered rotary mower instead of one with an engine and all the hassles of storing &amp; breathing the pollution/hearing the noise/maintaining the engine/etc. of a gas-powered lawnmower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5216" RevisionGUID="72633bad-31c8-4f45-a45a-ffab86204916" CreationDate="2016-04-21T18:05:12.633" UserId="3321" UserDisplayName="Will" Text="In the next few years, I will likely be getting my first home, and I don't want to mow the lawn.  I see this as a large waste of time, a source of waste in buying a lawnmower, fertilizer, gas, oil, and having a negative effect on the environment.  I've considered a few, such as:&#xD;&#xA;1. Getting an animal to eat the grass, such as a goat.  However, this would force me to care for a goat, and would add to my problem.  This might also result in poop all over the lawn, forcing me to clean up after it or not be able to use it for recreational activities.  &#xD;&#xA;2.  Artificial Turf.  This would likely result in a large upfront cost, and perhaps require some kind of maintenance, depending on the type of turf.  Also, this might upset the homeowner's association, if any.  &#xD;&#xA;3.  Finding something to seed the lawn with that would only require mowing once or twice annually, in which case I would be fine hiring someone else to mow it for me, as this would probably be less expensive in the long run.  any fauna suggestions? low-maintenance as possible would be optimal.  &#xD;&#xA;4.  Other ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5216" RevisionGUID="72633bad-31c8-4f45-a45a-ffab86204916" CreationDate="2016-04-21T18:05:12.633" UserId="3321" UserDisplayName="Will" Text="How do I set myself up to not have to mow the lawn?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5216" RevisionGUID="72633bad-31c8-4f45-a45a-ffab86204916" CreationDate="2016-04-21T18:05:12.633" UserId="3321" UserDisplayName="Will" Text="|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12010" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5109" RevisionGUID="53d4ef05-1d5b-4de9-b150-1d2cb4c675a5" CreationDate="2016-04-22T03:42:01.713" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/723356156077432832" />
  <row Id="12011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5218" RevisionGUID="bc20c04c-7a5b-4824-a32b-65840f8a5d41" CreationDate="2016-04-22T07:08:20.173" UserId="2846" Text="Some of the affirmative lawn plants don't need mowing. We looked into chamomile but decided it was too expensive or *initially* labour intensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You probably don't need to cut it as often as you think, and leaving it longer keeps down weeds as well as reducing the drying effect of sun and wind. A few (ornamental or fruit) trees, by providing shade and using water can show the growth of grass while giving other benefits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you buy somewhere that already has grass, don't rush to replace it as you'll be busy enough anyway. Besides, what you want from your garden may change and spending a lot of money before knowing what you really want doesn't seem like a good idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are plenty of good solutions for ground cover, but you mention a potential homeowners association. That could be the biggest problem as at their worst they're all about conformity, and enforce identically boring space. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5218" RevisionGUID="2c8bf8a6-5c28-449a-8aca-c8dda03e9637" CreationDate="2016-04-22T12:02:02.347" UserId="2846" Comment="autocorrect" Text="Some of the alternative lawn plants don't need mowing. We looked into chamomile but decided it was too expensive or *initially* labour intensive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You probably don't need to cut it as often as you think, and leaving it longer keeps down weeds as well as reducing the drying effect of sun and wind. A few (ornamental or fruit) trees, by providing shade and using water can show the growth of grass while giving other benefits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you buy somewhere that already has grass, don't rush to replace it as you'll be busy enough anyway. Besides, what you want from your garden may change and spending a lot of money before knowing what you really want doesn't seem like a good idea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are plenty of good solutions for ground cover, but you mention a potential homeowners association. That could be the biggest problem as at their worst they're all about conformity, and enforce identically boring space. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5219" RevisionGUID="1859dc79-2930-41a1-b5de-5535d8623da0" CreationDate="2016-04-22T12:56:48.030" UserId="812" Text="Depending on where you are, the natural gas may *be* mostly propane ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer from Russel McMahon gives an excellent summary of the chemistry. However, I suspect that the differences there will easily be outweighed by differences in distribution. Since you refer to &quot;natural gas&quot; rather than its specific contents, I assume that you have the option of &quot;mains&quot; piped gas to your property, and are comparing this to using bottled propane. In this case I would expect the use of natural gas to have substantially lower emissions since it is not being compressed into bottles, trucked to your home, etc - as well as being much cheaper!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5220" RevisionGUID="3303b981-a335-4a2d-95bc-3c3491d12b30" CreationDate="2016-04-22T16:38:38.430" UserId="3296" Text="I'm nearing the end of the life of my asphalt shingles on my house (the inspector estimated 2yrs left when I bought the house 2yrs ago).  Since my house is 100% electric and my state (Nebraska) offers Net metering (but no other incentives), I'm considering the option of having solar shingles installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a decent amount of un-shaded roof space available (probably more than I can afford to cover).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are hundreds of calculators and estimators available on the internet but I would prefer to deal with some real world numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I would like to be able to put a small solar cell on the roof and measure the amount of electricity generated at various locations on my roof.  Of course I would also like to measure this in the winter as well but I don't know if I will be forced to replace before then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is the cheapest setup for a roof mounted (even if just attached with tape) solar cell that would be large enough to get a scalable real-world estimate?  Or am I asking the wrong question and/or probably shouldn't even be considering this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5220" RevisionGUID="3303b981-a335-4a2d-95bc-3c3491d12b30" CreationDate="2016-04-22T16:38:38.430" UserId="3296" Text="How can I cheaply evaluate how much solar energy I can collect?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5220" RevisionGUID="3303b981-a335-4a2d-95bc-3c3491d12b30" CreationDate="2016-04-22T16:38:38.430" UserId="3296" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5217" RevisionGUID="6db15b4d-f71b-498e-a1c4-4cd805f4d093" CreationDate="2016-04-22T18:43:15.100" UserId="2762" Comment="deleted 116 characters in body" Text="Planting a large garden and covering other areas with gravel and/or stepping stones is one approach.  Maybe look into rain gardens; water retention is a key concern here and why you want something water can go into (as opposed to concrete etc.).  I've also seen folks use square flat stones to create a large playable chessboard to accomplish this goal (but it can have more runoff issues).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also hire a local lawn service or neighbor teen to mow for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a smaller yard, consider using an unpowered rotary mower instead of one with an engine and all the hassles of storing &amp; breathing the pollution/hearing the noise/maintaining the engine/etc. of a gas-powered lawnmower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5221" RevisionGUID="958f2207-c1b7-4dc7-ba0e-4bc186f4159a" CreationDate="2016-04-22T22:21:27.390" UserId="215" Text="[Building on the garden answer][1] :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turn your lawn into a native plant garden. Six or Seven years ago I turned the front lawn of my house (roughly 30' x 50') into a (mostly) native plant garden. The trick is to pick plants that will thrive in the conditions of your yard as well as maintain a manageable size and shape. Be very wary of invasive and/or spreading species such as bamboo or ivies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steps for yard conversion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cover all grass with cardboard (stores that cell appliances are a&#xD;&#xA;    great resource).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Cover cardboard with mulch (bark works well) to avoid the eyesore&#xD;&#xA;    and stop the cardboard from blowing away.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Wait about a year.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Start planting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can avoid the waiting by digging out and backfilling the lawn, but that will be time consuming or expensive if you hire it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5217/215" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5221" RevisionGUID="2edac9d1-32df-4b40-b590-89363fd4dd02" CreationDate="2016-04-22T22:29:02.550" UserId="215" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="[Building on the garden answer][1] :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turn your lawn into a native plant garden. Six or Seven years ago I turned the front lawn of my house (roughly 30' x 50') into a (mostly) native plant garden. The trick is to pick plants that will thrive in the conditions of your yard as well as maintain a manageable size and shape. Be very wary of invasive and/or spreading species such as bamboo or ivies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This garden took quite a while to get going, but I have done almost no maintenance on it for three years now, and it still looks good. The house is now a rental property and they leave it be. The shurbs need to be pruned when whey grow into the driveway, but other than that nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steps for yard conversion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cover all grass with cardboard (stores that cell appliances are a&#xD;&#xA;    great resource).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Cover cardboard with mulch (bark works well) to avoid the eyesore&#xD;&#xA;    and stop the cardboard from blowing away.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Wait about a year.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Start planting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can avoid the waiting by digging out and backfilling the lawn, but that will be time consuming or expensive if you hire it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5217/215" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5223" RevisionGUID="8b7cf511-5603-495b-9f79-cbcfd0a3291e" CreationDate="2016-04-23T09:12:46.297" UserId="3325" Text="If you're currently in Western Europe, then Eastern European countries may be very interesting for you to look at, because compared to Western Europe: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The cost of living tends to be lower, so you could invest more of your savings into alternative technologies such as solar energy&#xD;&#xA; 2. Cost of property tends to be lower (both housing and land)&#xD;&#xA; 3. There's generally more property available in villages, because young people tend to want to stay in the towns (or even move abroad), so you have more choice&#xD;&#xA; 4. Regulations tend to be more relaxed&#xD;&#xA; 5. A self-sufficient lifestyle is still more widely practised by local people&#xD;&#xA; 6. Nature tends to be more pristine, meaning there are more opportunities to forage for food&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're from Western Europe and have been living in Bulgaria now for over 5 years. I'll share my experience regarding the above points to give you a deeper insight in this country. I believe the situation is very similar in Romania, but cannot speak from personal experience. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: Cost of living: in 2016 the cost of living in index for Spain is 56.11 (which is much lower already than most Western European countries), and for Bulgaria it's 36.36 (which is much lower again). Source: http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/rankings_by_country.jsp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: Cost of property: in 2016 in many Bulgarian villages it's possible to buy an old house from between 10.000 and 20.000 Euros upwards. These would be houses that need work, but they are liveable. many houses have a decent sized garden (think 500 to 1000 m2 minimum). If you need more land for growing food, I'd consider not buying that, but using old communal land. Many villages have this and it can be rented cheaply or worked freely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: Availability of property: everywhere in Bulgaria younger people tend to want to live in the towns (where most of the work is), leaving the villages (and there are many) to the elderly. When occupants die properties are often left uninhabited for long periods of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4: Regulations: compared to Western Europe the attitude towards what you want to do with your property is much more 'laisser faire / let it be'. If you want to build a compost loo in your garden, you just do it. Want to install solar panels? Go for it. Building a lean-to for storing straw-bales? No problem. Want to dig a pond in your garden? Sure. Don't get me wrong, there certainly are rules and regulations, but for relatively small things the attitude of everyone is: just do it. As long as it's sensible and it blends in, no-one really cares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5: Self-sufficient lifestyle: in the villages older people tend to be fairly self-sufficient. Almost everyone grows a garden that they use to feed themselvesand sometimes their family throughout the year. Canning and bottling all kinds of foods is very common. Many people keep animals (most commonly chickens and bees, but also geese, goats, sheep, donkeys, horses, cows, pigs, etc.). And these things are totally normal and even applauded. Bulgarians tend to be proud of their gardens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6: Pristine nature: Eastern European countries are much less densely populated than most Western European countries. With an average population density of 69 people per km2, Bulgaria is one of the lesser densely populated countries in Europe (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_and_population_of_European_countries). This leaves much more room for nature. I've tried to find you statistics on the level of biodiversity here, but they're not very well recorded, so I can only speak from personal observations. When I compare Bulgaria's nature to that of the Netherlands and the UK (countries I've both lived in), there's just much more nature here. Commercial agriculture is also big in Bulgaria, and you will see vast areas of monoculture, but at the same time in areas less accessible to humans nature still just does its thing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more info: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The climate here is continental with warm summers and cold winters. We're experimenting with growing our own food and have come to the conclusion that with permaculture techniques it's possible to grow our own food year-round. We're not self-sufficient at all food-wise, because we choose to focus on other things also, but it would be possible for us. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There weather is generally sunny, which is great if you're looking into producing your own energy from the sun. But there's also plenty of rain, which is great for growing food. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many natural springs also, so it's usually quite easy to get good drinking water (tap water is considered safe also by the way). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another consideration if you're now in Spain is that Bulgaria is (like Spain) a EU country, which makes settling here easier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5224" RevisionGUID="ecf8749c-2cb5-4226-a1c3-5f4b47f316b4" CreationDate="2016-04-23T13:45:09.903" UserId="2345" Text="A simple short term test like the one you are thinking about will reveal little information. Many factors affect the output of photovoltaic cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Results from a cloudy day will differ those for a sunny day. Also the angle of the sun relative to the horizontal changes throughout the year: low during winter and high during summer. The angle at which sunlight strikes a PV cell affects the amount of electricity the cell will generate. The pitch angle of your roof is fixed. Generally, PV cells are installed parallel to the roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most PV cell rooftop installation have the cells installed at a fixed angle, so they rarely perform at maximum efficiency. Better results are obtain if the orientation of the PV cells can track the sun. This is expensive and why most PV cells are installed at a fixed angle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12025" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5220" RevisionGUID="b5bd2290-c9ce-486d-9bb7-fea1f2591147" CreationDate="2016-04-24T12:52:07.420" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/724219367257419778" />
  <row Id="12027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="8d8d6b4d-77b7-41a4-bcf9-8e7a0340adda" CreationDate="2016-04-24T21:47:04.597" UserId="3423" Text="How much silicon is there, in kg, in a 1kw panel? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12028" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="8d8d6b4d-77b7-41a4-bcf9-8e7a0340adda" CreationDate="2016-04-24T21:47:04.597" UserId="3423" Text="What is the amount of silicon in a 1kw panel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12029" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="8d8d6b4d-77b7-41a4-bcf9-8e7a0340adda" CreationDate="2016-04-24T21:47:04.597" UserId="3423" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5228" RevisionGUID="17731a7a-16cf-4852-a65d-7b533383ca8a" CreationDate="2016-04-25T14:44:32.930" UserId="48" Text="Fthenakis has published more on the subject than anyone, to my knowledge. His [LCA][1] lists a whole bunch of factors, but it's roughly 1.5kg of silicon in the PV itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a module also has 16.1g of tempered low-iron glass for a 210 Wp panel (p32). Glass is 60-80% silica, and silica is about half and half silicon and oxygen by weight. So there's 5kg - 6.5kg of silicon in the glass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure there is such a thing as a 1kW panel - it would be 5-7 square metres in size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we can consider 1kW to be a useful unit - typically about five panels' worth - and that, very roughly speaking, would be roughly 40kg of silicon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't a sustainability issue though: not only are silicon cells recyclable, but the earth's crust is about 10% silica - it's one of the most abundant compounds on the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.seas.columbia.edu/clca/Task12_LCI_LCA_10_21_Final_Report.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5229" RevisionGUID="0ff66f48-8755-471f-8e06-32e4eee6a9f5" CreationDate="2016-04-25T18:49:06.953" UserId="3338" Text="With a lot of deciduous trees, our lawn requires minimal mowing. A few times until the leaves fill in, and not much over the summer (a couple times maybe) until fall (southern Ontario). Leaves are a much bigger deal, but that goes with the trees and the shade they create. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may find it difficult to contract with a company to cut your law very infrequently, since they like to come regularly. A teenage neighbor may be willing to do it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The local office of Pollution Probe (I think it was) established a &quot;Prairie Long Grass Environment&quot; on their office lawn, but it actually looked pretty sloppy, and might run afoul of local bylaws or HOA rules. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12034" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2702" RevisionGUID="c58f88e7-07c9-4ba2-8dad-acabf9970890" CreationDate="2016-04-26T00:17:02.293" UserId="80" Comment="extra parentheses" Text="I assume you are talking here about [incandescent light bulbs][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From looking around the Internet and from my personal experience, here is what I can say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In the countries I have lived in (France and Australia), I have always read that incandescent light bulbs should be thrown in the general waste bins.&#xD;&#xA; - These kinds of specific recycling streams really depend on what is&#xD;&#xA;   available locally. Search for organisations specialised in recycling&#xD;&#xA;   less &quot;conventional&quot; kinds of waste in your area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I understand that, at least in developed countries, this kind of technology is getting replaced by more efficient light bulbs, which means that the availability of such recycling services is deemed to decrease over time.&#xD;&#xA; - The glass part of the bulb is so thin that the appeal to recycle it is low. I am not sure about the cap (metal) part and the wires, but again, it might be too little an amount to justify the inclusion of a separate stream in the existing recycling schemes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There is the option of recycling at home: a search with the terms &quot;light bulb upcycling&quot; on any search engine will yield a number of great ideas to achieve that (including nice-looking flower vases). However, the glass might be dangerous to manipulate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5228" RevisionGUID="025af8b5-bf1d-42c2-ba6c-598715389eb9" CreationDate="2016-04-26T05:52:58.943" UserId="48" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Fthenakis has published more on the subject than anyone, to my knowledge. His [LCA][1] lists a whole bunch of factors, but it's roughly 1.5kg of silicon in the PV itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a module also has 16.1kg of tempered low-iron glass for a 210 Wp panel (p32). Glass is 60-80% silica, and silica is about half and half silicon and oxygen by weight. So there's 5kg - 6.5kg of silicon in the glass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure there is such a thing as a 1kW panel - it would be 5-7 square metres in size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we can consider 1kW to be a useful unit - typically about five panels' worth - and that, very roughly speaking, would be roughly 40kg of silicon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't a sustainability issue though: not only are silicon cells recyclable, but the earth's crust is about 10% silica - it's one of the most abundant compounds on the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.seas.columbia.edu/clca/Task12_LCI_LCA_10_21_Final_Report.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5230" RevisionGUID="69b54aaf-294d-4be6-a1bd-0f990ac87c84" CreationDate="2016-04-26T07:00:28.953" UserId="3423" Text="Based on [a previous discussion](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/38891/discussion-between-energynumbers-and-mustang), it appears panels are being sold at less than 10% of their raw material cost. What is making up the difference? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5230" RevisionGUID="69b54aaf-294d-4be6-a1bd-0f990ac87c84" CreationDate="2016-04-26T07:00:28.953" UserId="3423" Text="How does the solar industry fund itself?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5230" RevisionGUID="69b54aaf-294d-4be6-a1bd-0f990ac87c84" CreationDate="2016-04-26T07:00:28.953" UserId="3423" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5230" RevisionGUID="0dccb373-0535-4720-99d5-3a295f7b1ff6" CreationDate="2016-04-26T07:21:41.337" UserId="3423" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="Based on [a previous discussion](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/38891/discussion-between-energynumbers-and-mustang), it appears panels are being sold at less than 10% of their raw material cost. What is making up the difference? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: The answer seems to be that... solar is viable as long as silicon is below about $50/kg." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5230" RevisionGUID="4b02d389-690c-4953-a24b-ce0b2695a1dc" CreationDate="2016-04-26T07:27:53.500" UserId="3423" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="Based on [a previous discussion](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/38891/discussion-between-energynumbers-and-mustang), it appears panels are being sold at less than 10% of their raw material cost. What is making up the difference? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: The answer seems to be that... solar is viable as long as silicon is below about $50/kg. Which is odd considering panel prices were roughly the same in the late 2000s yet silicon was much higher." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="119293d2-41dd-4bed-b0a6-2ae0649c9e45" CreationDate="2016-04-26T08:57:58.090" UserId="99" Comment="elaborated on separate recycling for each plastic type" Text="Conventional plastics&#xD;&#xA;---------------------&#xD;&#xA;All conventional plastics marked with the [1 to 6 resin identification codes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code) are recyclable. Some types are more easy to recycle than others, for example recycling PVC is more difficult than PET. Also very little polystyrene (PS) is recycled simply because it is not cost-effective to do so. &#xD;&#xA;The majority of conventional plastics is downcycled into a lower grade plastic and as a result plastics are usually only recycled once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compostable plastics&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;Most bioplastics are compostable plastics and I've heard mixed stories about their recyclability. Some claim that compostable plastics cannot be recyclable because this quality interferes with the plastic recycling progress. Others say that a compostable plastic like [PLA for example can be recycled](http://plasticredesignproject.org/files/NWRecyclePsntn.pdf), at least in theory. In any case different plastic types need to be recycled separately. If you throw a compostable plastic in a batch of conventional plastics, it just acts as a contaminant and lowers the quality of the recycled plastic. You need a large and constant supply of a particular plastic type before recycling becomes cost-effective. So far I've not heard of a recycling facility that actually does recycle a compostable plastic (not counting composting or thermal recycling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrary to popular belief compostable plastics like PLA are not compostable in your home compost heap (see also [Which compostable plastic types can be composted at home?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2594/99)). PLA can be composted industrially, but it seems very little recycling companies do this and most compostable plastics are incinerated (see also [How is compostable plastic recycled/composted industrially?](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2607/99))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bioderived polyethylene&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article on bioplastics mentions one type of bioplastic that is recyclable which is [Bio-derived polyethylene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic#Bio-derived_polyethylene). This is exactly the same material as traditional PE made from fossil-fuels, but in this case it's made from ethanol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OXO-biodegradable plastic&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Some people say that [OXO-biodegradable plastic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxo_Biodegradable) is a recyclable bioplastic, but this specific type of plastic is a bit controversial. It's made from conventional polymers with some added salts that catalize the degradation process, so it isn't really a bioplastic. The manufacturer claims that oxo-biodegradable plastics do not just fall apart into tiny plastic pieces and are really biodegradable. However so far no independent research has confirmed this. For more information on this see also [Do oxo-degradable plastics really biodegrade?](http://www.eppm.com/materials/do-oxo-degradable-plastics-really-biodegrade/) and [Mexico’s PE suppliers denounce oxo-biodegradables](http://www.bioplasticsmagazine.com/en/news/meldungen/20140808_oxo-mexico.php).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5231" RevisionGUID="5126d3f4-da1a-42ab-b704-b476adefb9de" CreationDate="2016-04-26T11:20:30.247" UserId="48" Text="Your first sentence is incorrect, as per the very chat discussion you've referenced: the sales price for panels is more than the cost of the panel's components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence is also incorrect: solar is viable as long as people are willing to pay for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so is your third sentence: panel prices have dropped a lot in the last six years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take all those away and all that's left is the title: &quot;how does the solar industry fund itself?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that there is no single &quot;solar industry&quot;. Silicon extractors and refiners sell to various markets: glass, electronics, PV. PV cell producers can sell to various module manufacturers. Module manufacturers sell to system developers, or they are themselves sometimes the system developers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like pretty much any other industry, the supply chain funds itself through sales. And like a lot of other industries, in some countries it may also partially funded by the State." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5220" RevisionGUID="8b83065a-597d-458a-b006-c12e6a732f7c" CreationDate="2016-04-27T03:54:37.770" UserId="3296" Comment="added 1127 characters in body" Text="I'm nearing the end of the life of my asphalt shingles on my house (the inspector estimated 2yrs left when I bought the house 2yrs ago).  Since my house is 100% electric and my state (Nebraska) offers Net metering (but no other incentives), I'm considering the option of having **solar shingles** installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this time I'm not considering any other solar collection devices (either shingles or nothing).  My thinking is that I'm already going to have to endure the cost of the new roof and (AFAIK) solar shingles offer the same physical protection as asphalt shingles (aka, they are a direct replacement) with the added bonus of generating solar power.  So, the money NOT spent on asphalt shingles would help offset the cost of the solar.  Of course this only makes sense if the cost of solar shingles is less than the total cost of asphalt + solar panels (an assumption I have not yet verified).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a decent amount of un-shaded roof space available (probably more than I can afford to cover).  It is a hip/hurricane style roof so part of it faces in all directions.  I haven't taken measurements yet but my guess is ~400sqft facing directly south and another 1600 facing east or west (800 each way).  Very little of my roof is facing North and that is where the little bit of shade is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are hundreds of calculators and estimators available on the internet but I would prefer to deal with some real world numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to do is this:  Put a small (maybe 1sqft) solar cell (or multiple...up to 5 depending on cost) on the roof and measure the amount of electricity generated at various locations on my roof.  I could then extrapolate the surface area and efficiency of the devices vs shingles to get some real-world expected values.  Ideally this would be attached to some sort of data collection device (I'm thinking arduino perhaps) so that I can measure over time (at least a month).  Of course I would also like to measure this in the winter as well but I may be forced to replace my roof (and thus make the decision) before then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, does any device like what I've described currently exist?  Or am I going to have to piece this together myself if I want to do it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5233" RevisionGUID="26a0f15a-ff85-4cab-9068-2cdce2503312" CreationDate="2016-04-27T04:27:22.967" UserId="3333" Text="Don't bathe (not a joke) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mother Dirt (www.motherdirt.com)  is a company selling an atomizer dispersing bacteria that metabolizes perspiration. (Amonia oxidizing bacteria).  Replaces the natural skin microbiome. No need (or greatly reduced need) to bathe or shower especially not use soap, which kills the bacteria.  Written up in the NY Times,  etc. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;It works. I use it. I haven't used soap or shampoo for about a year, and I only take a 30 second shower (no soap or shampoo) at the gym if I've been in the sauna. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12046" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5226" RevisionGUID="0f88c127-52d5-40ed-8d38-3cdce08ab728" CreationDate="2016-04-27T07:06:37.503" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/725219583326605312" />
  <row Id="12047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="ffca9cee-63bb-466e-90d1-413c41e12eaf" CreationDate="2016-04-27T10:24:52.947" UserId="3342" Text="I'm doing a research in the water of the air conditioning, and dissertation of it is how can we collect the water of the air's conditioners and where can we use it , i already started by collecting some symbols and i did some experiments such as ( PH, TDS, EC ) . and I mixed these water with wells water and I used it in planting &#xD;&#xA;   I need addition informants about this project any thing that is helpful      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="ffca9cee-63bb-466e-90d1-413c41e12eaf" CreationDate="2016-04-27T10:24:52.947" UserId="3342" Text="how to benefit from thwe water of air's condiontiong" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="ffca9cee-63bb-466e-90d1-413c41e12eaf" CreationDate="2016-04-27T10:24:52.947" UserId="3342" Text="|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="4494a2f5-c598-4113-9ecb-4b7e3128698e" CreationDate="2016-04-27T12:14:18.927" UserId="3293" Comment="hope the dissertation they does is not in English!" Text="I'm doing a research in the water of the air conditioning, and dissertation how it could be collected and where it could be used. I already started by collecting some figures and I did some experiments such as ( PH, TDS, EC ). and I mixed these water with wells water and I used it in planting.&#xD;&#xA;   I need addition information for my project, anything that could be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12051" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="4494a2f5-c598-4113-9ecb-4b7e3128698e" CreationDate="2016-04-27T12:14:18.927" UserId="3293" Comment="hope the dissertation they does is not in English!" Text="How to benefit from air-conditionning water" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12052" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="4494a2f5-c598-4113-9ecb-4b7e3128698e" CreationDate="2016-04-27T12:14:18.927" UserId="3293" Comment="hope the dissertation they does is not in English!" Text="|reuse|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12053" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="4494a2f5-c598-4113-9ecb-4b7e3128698e" CreationDate="2016-04-27T12:14:18.927" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 85 edit id of 391" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="eebcbf93-9ad3-4535-a8ad-a887d1be83e8" CreationDate="2016-04-27T12:16:36.657" UserId="85" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I'm doing research on the water of the air conditioning, and a dissertation on how it could be collected and where it could be used. I already started by collecting some figures and I did some experiments such as (PH, TDS, EC). I mixed this water with water from a well and used it in planting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need additional information for my project, anything that could be helpful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12055" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="eebcbf93-9ad3-4535-a8ad-a887d1be83e8" CreationDate="2016-04-27T12:16:36.657" UserId="85" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to benefit from air-conditioning water" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12056" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="eebcbf93-9ad3-4535-a8ad-a887d1be83e8" CreationDate="2016-04-27T12:16:36.657" UserId="85" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|water|reuse|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5235" RevisionGUID="131a69f7-de47-4a6d-8777-29016114e648" CreationDate="2016-04-27T12:32:38.287" UserId="3293" Text="Yeah you certainly can use it as water to grow plants. But better not drinking it, since it can host bacteria in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is good stuff about it here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/08/how_gross_is_the_water_that_drips_from_air_conditioners.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="26022f3c-cdb5-42e6-b8d2-7e82b69e9c39" CreationDate="2016-04-27T12:34:09.710" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body" Text="I'm doing research on the water of the air conditioning, and a dissertation on how it could be collected and where it could be used. I already started by collecting some figures and I did some experiments such as (PH, TDS, EC). I mixed this water with water from a well and used it in planting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are other uses for water from air-conditioners?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12059" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5236" RevisionGUID="50708478-a0c0-403d-bb22-e874ce388d7f" CreationDate="2016-04-27T21:12:43.840" UserId="3345" Text="So the 2 acre thing - well - its a stake in the ground.  If you are using traditional methods...I don't think its actually very far off.  I also agree with a previous comment/assumption - where's the food coming for the animals...I think they are assuming this is this a &quot;closed system&quot; - the holy grail of all gardeners - true food independence and begs the question - is there a self-sustaining model available to most people.  Ideas like this will absolutely make a difference - where our food is becoming more and more a blind item at markets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All things can be improved.  Vertical gardening techniques certainly cut down on space requirements in theory.  Aquaponics...Green houses...Climate...Design plans (Annualized solar), soldier fly larvae for chicken feed (again location dependent) - There's alot of information out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's like asking a stranger how much they spend on heat a year...and then gasping at the answer...without asking how big of a house they are heating...where they live...the age of the house...if it's insulated properly...what type of heat to they use or what type of heating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This really isn't a simple problem. - especially if you are looking for sustainability and a closed loop system/factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It requires alot of process and planning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think everyone wants to be independent with all things...electric...heat...rent/mortgage...and food...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The feasability/effort scale - I'm not sure if most people have that much ambition and forsight available to them.  They may not realize that such a project - is a commitment to a certain lifestyle - in order to be remotely sustainable.  Permaculture...fascinating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So processes and systems needs to be developed for many climates with goals in mind for both sustainability and abundance.  There is a cost to set up such lofty goals, but I think it's a worthwhile problem to solve and once designed - truly designed - hopefully it will be simple enough, attractive enough and modular enough for others to easily follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Great post!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12060" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5234" RevisionGUID="72fd150d-e47a-4930-8b3d-df26c4400d17" CreationDate="2016-04-27T22:10:00.040" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/725446925437247489" />
  <row Id="12063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5230" RevisionGUID="944052f1-0a5e-4dd2-a335-bbf1089b576d" CreationDate="2016-04-28T01:25:56.533" UserId="3423" Comment="added 217 characters in body" Text="Based on [a previous discussion](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/38891/discussion-between-energynumbers-and-mustang), it appears panels are being sold at less than 10% of their raw material cost. What is making up the difference? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: The answer seems to be that... solar is viable as long as silicon is below about $50/kg. Which is odd considering panel prices were roughly the same in the late 2000s yet silicon was much higher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit 2: Were getting contradictory statements on solar costs from energynumbers. http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5204/establishing-a-small-commercial-solar-plant/5232?noredirect=1#comment6801_5232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5231" RevisionGUID="3a47968c-d665-4e43-9d9b-937e7b5093c5" CreationDate="2016-04-28T04:16:43.680" UserId="48" Comment="deleted 151 characters in body" Text="Your first sentence is incorrect, as per the very chat discussion you've referenced: the sales price for panels is more than the cost of the panel's components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second sentence is also incorrect: solar is viable as long as people are willing to pay for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so is your third sentence: panel prices have dropped a lot in the last six years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take all those away and all that's left is the title: &quot;how does the solar industry fund itself?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that there is no single &quot;solar industry&quot;. Silicon extractors and refiners sell to various markets: glass, electronics, PV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like pretty much any other supply chain, the PV supply chain funds itself through sales. And like a lot of other supply chains, in some countries it may also be partially funded by the State." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12065" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="ce5132f3-2452-4699-85a2-6ea3b82d3902" CreationDate="2016-04-28T07:10:00.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/725582823474749440" />
  <row Id="12066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5216" RevisionGUID="ca5b8cc2-1cd8-4aff-b3b2-f44548616d13" CreationDate="2016-04-28T07:28:52.550" UserId="2826" Comment="Fixing numbering" Text="In the next few years, I will likely be getting my first home, and I don't want to mow the lawn.  I see this as a large waste of time, as well as a source of waste in buying a lawnmower, fertilizer, gas, oil, and having a negative effect on the environment.  I've considered a few possibilities, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Getting an animal to eat the grass, such as a goat.  However, this would force me to care for a goat, and would add to my problem.  This might also result in poop all over the lawn, forcing me to clean up after it or not be able to use it for recreational activities.  &#xD;&#xA; 2.  Artificial Turf.  This would likely result in a large upfront cost, and perhaps require some kind of maintenance, depending on the type of turf.  Also, this might upset the homeowner's association, if any.  &#xD;&#xA; 3.  Finding something to seed the lawn with that would only require mowing once or twice annually, in which case I would be fine hiring someone else to mow it for me, as this would probably be less expensive in the long run. Any flora suggestions? As low-maintenance as possible would be optimal.  &#xD;&#xA; 4.  Other ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12067" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5216" RevisionGUID="ca5b8cc2-1cd8-4aff-b3b2-f44548616d13" CreationDate="2016-04-28T07:28:52.550" Comment="Proposed by 2826 approved by 85 edit id of 392" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5237" RevisionGUID="9af72f4b-43b5-4201-bd08-7474b609709a" CreationDate="2016-04-28T11:15:41.613" UserId="3293" Text="What we do here with my brother, since we have a vast field we don't use for now, is we allow a local goat-keeper to us it every now and then. The goats and sheep succeed in maintaining the grass low over the years. The poop left by them is not too much of an issue, its not like cow's, it smaller and less sticky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started planting trees around, but to do this I had to protect them from the beasts - especially the goats who can do hard damages to even adult trees. So I had to use wire protecting nets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12074" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="9101a7c7-eacd-43d0-9e62-48706641b376" CreationDate="2016-04-28T20:55:28.690" UserId="2228" Comment="35" />
  <row Id="12075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5239" RevisionGUID="7128c59e-49c5-4e95-8673-4b2faf05e79b" CreationDate="2016-04-28T23:30:57.223" UserId="3296" Text="I've started replacing my lawn with pearls premium grass which is supposed to be never water and once a month mowing (or you can let it grow and it will be a &quot;4in meadow&quot;).  I'm just in my first season (planted in the fall) so I can't say if it lives up to its billing just yet but the lawn looks beautiful at this point.&#xA;&#xA;The main point is that there are slow growing, deep rooted grasses available that are extremely low maintenance if you shop around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="893" RevisionGUID="17e918e8-c2bf-42aa-88d6-4fd5eaff42bd" CreationDate="2016-04-29T03:18:43.150" UserId="80" Comment="replace dead link" Text="I believe you can also find more detailed info through [phys.org][1] (the link throws you in the website with the &quot;incandescent light bulb&quot; tag on).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding &quot;state of the art&quot;, I would refer you to [NanoLeaf][2] (formerly NanoLight). They just completed a Kickstarter campaign with a lot more money than they asked for, and have reviews in several renowned magazines and websites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://phys.org/tags/incandescent+light+bulb/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://nanoleaf.me/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12078" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5216" RevisionGUID="51a0361c-bdf7-4bc3-9040-e00589994e90" CreationDate="2016-04-29T10:18:28.210" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/725992638420275201" />
  <row Id="12083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5241" RevisionGUID="2c317aa8-4b4b-483f-b1a1-527f8dba14b5" CreationDate="2016-04-30T03:30:10.850" UserId="3355" Text="A much better solution is to get a Hand Bidet Sprayer and wash with water. Cleaner, greener, healthier, saves money and you never run out! See www.bathroomsprayers.com. &#xD;&#xA; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4NjEU.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5242" RevisionGUID="53e0ac50-7062-4250-9893-aa3d72138b9a" CreationDate="2016-04-30T09:52:02.923" UserId="2187" Text="Thereby &quot;bakeries&quot; is just one example of a seeked alternative and more sustainable form of consumption and &quot;Madrid&quot; just one example to indicate the search within an urban context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5242" RevisionGUID="53e0ac50-7062-4250-9893-aa3d72138b9a" CreationDate="2016-04-30T09:52:02.923" UserId="2187" Text="How can I find artisanal bakeries in Madrid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5242" RevisionGUID="53e0ac50-7062-4250-9893-aa3d72138b9a" CreationDate="2016-04-30T09:52:02.923" UserId="2187" Text="|localisation|degrowth|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5242" RevisionGUID="fc68cd40-ccae-4522-8a32-ff7c6cf3ead1" CreationDate="2016-04-30T15:19:09.847" UserId="2187" Comment="Provided explanation for techniques and artisanal" Text="For me, artisanal refers to local production with traditional methods that, due to its local focus and valorisation of time taken for production, are less resource intensive than industrial mass production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thereby &quot;bakeries&quot; is just one example of a seeked alternative and more sustainable form of consumption and &quot;Madrid&quot; just one example to indicate the search within an urban context.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are techniques for one to identify these types of productions are than walking around to physically encounter them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="bb4aa99e-d722-46c8-9bb9-12aed8fd3c7f" CreationDate="2016-05-01T15:26:42.270" UserId="3357" Text="We like to waste a lot, particularly, in the kitchen we like to wash the hot water down the tubes, literally, right into the sink. We even heat up much more water than we need: 2 leters of water to make a cup of tea or boil half of pan with just two eggs in it. We like to flush the boiling-hot water into the sink. But I would like to ask why do you like the cookware not to be thermally isolated from the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know some physics and chemistry to understand that, in order to cook something boiling, you need no more than to heat up the water to 100°C and leave the pan at that temperature. You should not waste more energy to maintain the energy. It is the principle of Galileo, who taught us that you spend energy to speed up your car (raise water temperature), but, as soon as you reached your target speed (water is 100 degrees hot), you stop the acceleration. The only reason that you need to add a reduced energy is the thermal leakage or friction. But, theoretically, if you reduce the thermal leakage to almost zero (nobody says that you cannot), you can cook anything for free as long as you like. This makes me to ask, why don't you like it? Many of you, if not most, prefer to cook without the lid (!) and nobody cares about thermal conductivity of the lid and walls, where you have the leakage even when pan is closed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read in WP that [thermal conductivity has a significant effect on the cookware items][1]. What does that ever mean? I see that any pan is a 3D object, which means that it has 6 surfaces: up, down and 4 walls. Only one of 6 surfaces needs the thermal conductivity. Why do you make your cookware of homogeneous material? I would make the bottom highly thermal conductive whereas insulate the walls and the lid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, I have to drop a towel on top of the pan, but that is risky, and I would like to see the thermally-isolated cookware in the store. But you do not like it. Why? Why don't you want to travel the infinite distances at a finite drop of the energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be fine to leak the heat at winter but you do that all the year along, even during the hottest summer days. You use your cookware to heat up the rooms. I can guess that the answer is &quot;it is irrelevant since losses are negligible contrasted with the bath/shower&quot;. But, please, confirm anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookware_and_bakeware" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12089" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="bb4aa99e-d722-46c8-9bb9-12aed8fd3c7f" CreationDate="2016-05-01T15:26:42.270" UserId="3357" Text="Cookware thermal isolation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12090" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="bb4aa99e-d722-46c8-9bb9-12aed8fd3c7f" CreationDate="2016-05-01T15:26:42.270" UserId="3357" Text="|energy-efficiency|cooking|zero-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="bf00cb01-2cf8-42eb-b8cb-100f62bdaa35" CreationDate="2016-05-01T18:46:09.687" UserId="3357" Comment="energy -&gt; temperature typo" Text="We like to waste a lot, particularly, in the kitchen we like to wash the hot water down the tubes, literally, right into the sink. We even heat up much more water than we need: 2 leters of water to make a cup of tea or boil half of pan with just two eggs in it. We like to flush the boiling-hot water into the sink. Probably, that is the answer to my question, but I would like to ask it anyway: why do you like the cookware not to be thermally isolated from the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know some physics and chemistry to understand that, in order to cook something boiling, you need no more than to heat up the water to 100°C and leave the pan at that temperature. You should not waste more energy to maintain the temperature. It is the principle of Galileo, who taught us that you spend energy to speed up your car (raise water temperature), but, as soon as you reached your target speed (water is 100 degrees hot), you stop the acceleration. The cooking can proceed to completion, despite of zero energy inflow, because cooking is a flesh denaturation, which is driven by temperature rather than energy wasted. The only reason that you need to add some energy is the thermal leakage or friction. But, theoretically, if you reduce the thermal leakage to almost zero (nobody says that you cannot), you can cook anything for free as long as you like. Theoretically, you can even use heat pump to transfer the heat from ready cooked pan to a fresh one, exchange their temperatures and cook as many dishes as you wish with zero energy (waste).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes me to ask, why don't you like it? Many of you, if not most, prefer to cook without the lid (!) and nobody cares about thermal conductivity of the lid and walls, where you have the leakage even when pan is covered with lid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read in WP that [thermal conductivity has a significant effect on the cookware items][1]. What does that ever mean? I see that any pan is a 3D object, which means that it has 6 surfaces: top, bottom and 4 walls. Only one of 6 surfaces needs the thermal conductivity. Why don't you see that and make your cookware of homogeneous material? The energy that you supply from the bottom leaks from all other surfaces! The more conductive material you make, the higher is leakage. I would make the bottom highly thermal conductive whereas insulate the walls and the lid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, I have to drop a towel on top of the pan, but that is risky. I therefore would prefer to see the thermally-isolated cookware in the store. But you do not like it. Why? Why don't you want to travel the infinite distances at a finite drop of the energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be fine to leak the heat at winter but you do that all the year along, even during the hottest summer days. You use your cookware to heat up the rooms. I can guess that the answer is &quot;it is irrelevant since losses are negligible contrasted with the bath/shower, for instance&quot;. But, please, confirm anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cookware_and_bakeware" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="8acf481c-fbe1-457a-89c3-f05e133ccdd0" CreationDate="2016-05-01T19:40:31.297" UserId="3357" Text="I think that the mostly water-hungry is irrigation but, in the kitchen, it is advised that you use a dish washing machine. I think this is wrong. I doubt that machine is smart enough to detect pollution, which is necessary to choose the minimal washing method. Correct me if I am wrong, but, as a result, it must choose the worst case washing scenario for all the dishes, which not only increases the water consumption but also contaminates the sewage. This is a crime, I think. We should reduce the contamination of the sewage to make it usable for the field irrigation. In fact, only very rare food is fatty and needs the detergent, especially if you don't indulge into the nasty fried diet. Also, soak the dishes in the stale water. When you wash down the soaked dishes under the stream of fresh water, you produce water for soaking the next lot of dishes. The water will soften all the dirt and more than 90% of the dishes then can be washed just by washing them down under the stream, without neither detergent nor effort, just as a fun. Detergent is needed for fatty dishes, which will not only contaminate the sewage but also demand more water and time since poison should not stay on your dishes and you need much more thorough washing down. Therefore, eliminating detergent saves your time and saves the water twice: when you wash the dishes and reuse the sewage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also reduce the amount of water used when boiling. Many people pour out the hot water after cooking potatoes and pasta, for instance, which is a sing that more water was used than necessary. No water should be left after pasta or croup cooking, for instance. But that is more to the heat conservation. After boiling eggs you can boil pasta, for instance. This way, you reuse the water and thermal energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, you could collect the sewage and wash down the toilet. I have not reached that level yet.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5246" RevisionGUID="8c8491fc-2f17-4a07-a7c2-09966a7dc0f0" CreationDate="2016-05-02T04:59:44.047" UserId="3364" Text="I wish to connect four 250w panels to a battery bank. Each panel is rated at 15A, yet my MPPT regulator warns against exceeding 30A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I add a second regulator, running two panels to each, but all connected to the same bank? Or is there a better alternative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5246" RevisionGUID="8c8491fc-2f17-4a07-a7c2-09966a7dc0f0" CreationDate="2016-05-02T04:59:44.047" UserId="3364" Text="Two solar regulators to one battery bank?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5246" RevisionGUID="8c8491fc-2f17-4a07-a7c2-09966a7dc0f0" CreationDate="2016-05-02T04:59:44.047" UserId="3364" Text="|solar-power|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5246" RevisionGUID="2f50deaf-a393-484a-b58c-b267dc1fec85" CreationDate="2016-05-02T06:23:43.197" UserId="3364" Comment="added 397 characters in body" Text="I wish to connect four 250w panels to a battery bank. Each panel is rated at 15A, yet my MPPT regulator warns against exceeding 30A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I add a second regulator, running two panels to each, but all connected to the same bank? Or is there a better alternative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Panel specs**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Rated Max Power         250W&#xD;&#xA;    Max Power Voltage       30.70V&#xD;&#xA;    Max Power Current       8.18A&#xD;&#xA;    Open-Circuit Voltage    30.80V&#xD;&#xA;    Short-Circuit Voltage   8.71A&#xD;&#xA;    Max System Voltage      1000V DC&#xD;&#xA;    Max Series Fuse Rating  15A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for that battery bank, I have four 200ah 12v batteries linked in parallel. But I'm open to any kind of system that works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5247" RevisionGUID="86fe019c-8b7f-4aed-9e16-3a0dd8dc1e15" CreationDate="2016-05-02T07:56:21.403" UserId="1255" Text="The main thing we found is that in everything, use less. Over time you will be able to work down to quite low usage without major hassles. It sounds kinda obvious, but it works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Melbourne (Australia) during a major drought they [introduced &quot;target 155&quot;][1], or 155 litres of water per person per day. It's [possible to do better][2], and from that article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Go dual flush. Or DIY dual flush&#xD;&#xA;2. More nifty gadgets -  flow restrictors or tap aerators&#xD;&#xA;3. Got an evaporative cooler?&#xD;&#xA;4. Save water in the laundry&#xD;&#xA;5. Make your garden less thirsty&#xD;&#xA;6. Tanks (and cheaper alternatives)&#xD;&#xA;7. Only using your water once? Save water and use it on your garden.&#xD;&#xA;8. Fix those leaking taps&#xD;&#xA;9. Showers, showers, showers&#xD;&#xA;10. And that means shorter showers too&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We found that to get below 155 litres per day for a household of six we also needed to catch shower water for flushing toilets, and completely stop flushing the toilet when it only had pee in it. But if you really work at it, 20-odd litres per day, per person is quite possible even if everyone showers every day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Target 155 was so successful the had to start telling households to flush all their toilets at the same time once a week just to stop sewage sediment blocking their drains. (that's every toilet in one house, not &quot;every household in Melbourne flush at 3pm Sunday&quot;). The water companies also struggled because they budgeted on a much higher volume of water sales, so their pricing models were wrong (water companies have mostly fixed costs, but have volume charges to discourage waste).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.target155.org.au/Target155/Your_Water.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://environmentvictoria.org.au/content/leave-target-155-dead-how-use-less-100-litres-water-day" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5248" RevisionGUID="0315463e-8f3a-4c59-ae6d-5d918eb2a5f1" CreationDate="2016-05-02T08:11:29.123" UserId="1255" Text="You are much better off using one of the &quot;solar calculators&quot;, specifically one that uses actual data from installed systems. You might get lucky and find one of the tracking sites has an install near you that is very similar to what you want to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For our system I used a randomly searched calculator [like this one][1] at EnergyMatters, because those numbers are just physics and it really doesn't matter who produces them. Better ones (like that one) use weather and existing installs to improve their estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also used the [online output tracking/sharing tool PVOutput][2] to find other systems in our area and see whether they gave markedly different results. Once I used Google Maps to remove a couple of badly-sited systems the answer was no. There was one installed under a tree, and one or two with odd orientations (people are strangely reluctant to turn their houses to get better solar performance!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our system has performed as expected from the above, BTW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.energymatters.com.au/climate-data/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://pvoutput.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5246" RevisionGUID="95a4425c-a6ac-46cc-82eb-f95f63e1590f" CreationDate="2016-05-02T08:28:24.997" UserId="3364" Comment="added 442 characters in body" Text="I wish to connect four 250w panels to a battery bank. Each panel is rated at 15A, yet my MPPT regulator warns against exceeding 30A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I add a second regulator, running two panels to each, but all connected to the same bank? Or is there a better alternative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At present, I have four [Neuton Power NPN200 12V 200Amp][1] batteries, three [200w 12v panels][2], this [12V/24V 30A MPPT][3] charge controller and this [600W Giandel pure sine wave inverter][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[These][5] are the new panels, which I have four of and would like to use in place of my old three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://yhipower.com.au/home/product/neuton-power-npn200-12v-200amp/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://s32.postimg.org/y9fnrqnad/Screen_Shot_2016_05_02_at_5_57_20_PM.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.jaycar.com.au/Ecotech/Solar-Power/Solar-Charge-Controllers/12V-24V-30A-MPPT-Solar-Charge-Controller/p/MP3735&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Pure-Sine-Wave-Inverter-600W-1200W-12V-240V-Car-Plug-Cable-1-Amp-USB-/231619351015?hash=item35ed96d1e7:g:Pm4AAOxy3NBSoY-H%3Cbr%3E&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://s32.postimg.org/874hb9gyt/Screen_Shot_2016_05_02_at_4_15_54_PM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5250" RevisionGUID="09bf1bdf-fe9b-4bf9-a2fe-b2ef90244f76" CreationDate="2016-05-02T08:53:49.830" UserId="85" Text="There is cookware that uses insulation for cooking, not quite in the way you envision, but close enough. I'm referring to a cooker Thermos Shuttle Chef, popular in Japan (as シャトルシェフ). It's an ordinary pot, but comes with a well-insulated case. You cook rice, for example, for 8 mins. (on an ordinary stove—no insulation, yet) and put the whole pot into the case. The rest of the cooking (15 mins.) is done in the case, without any extra energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![シャトルシェフ](http://blog-imgs-50.fc2.com/k/e/t/ketunoblog/20130426083514c67.gif)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See a short promo-like video [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETh2xfwqMpE). For more pictures of various recipes, take a look [on cookpad.com](http://cookpad.com/search/%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A3%E3%83%88%E3%83%AB%E3%82%B7%E3%82%A7%E3%83%95).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've used it for rice and have to say it works quite well and reduces the needed energy by more than 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cooking during summertime, you can also look up solar cookers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12108" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5246" RevisionGUID="b20f67a0-4268-46fc-8ebc-a1511d95027a" CreationDate="2016-05-02T13:34:43.477" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/727129191758614529" />
  <row Id="12109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5246" RevisionGUID="ffae4443-210d-4aa8-90e1-320a96aaaf90" CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:34:36.823" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="MPPT Explanatory link" Text="I wish to connect four 250w panels to a battery bank. Each panel is rated at 15A, yet my MPPT&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; regulator warns against exceeding 30A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could I add a second regulator, running two panels to each, but all connected to the same bank? Or is there a better alternative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At present, I have four [Neuton Power NPN200 12V 200Amp][1] batteries, three [200w 12v panels][2], this [12V/24V 30A MPPT][3] charge controller and this [600W Giandel pure sine wave inverter][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[These][5] are the new panels, which I have four of and would like to use in place of my old three.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* [Maximum Power Point Tracking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_point_tracking)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://yhipower.com.au/home/product/neuton-power-npn200-12v-200amp/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://s32.postimg.org/y9fnrqnad/Screen_Shot_2016_05_02_at_5_57_20_PM.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.jaycar.com.au/Ecotech/Solar-Power/Solar-Charge-Controllers/12V-24V-30A-MPPT-Solar-Charge-Controller/p/MP3735&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Pure-Sine-Wave-Inverter-600W-1200W-12V-240V-Car-Plug-Cable-1-Amp-USB-/231619351015?hash=item35ed96d1e7:g:Pm4AAOxy3NBSoY-H%3Cbr%3E&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://s32.postimg.org/874hb9gyt/Screen_Shot_2016_05_02_at_4_15_54_PM.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12110" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5246" RevisionGUID="ffae4443-210d-4aa8-90e1-320a96aaaf90" CreationDate="2016-05-02T16:34:36.823" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 3364 edit id of 393" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5251" RevisionGUID="d0b2f5a8-6e47-4654-b88e-0022edfab963" CreationDate="2016-05-02T21:11:30.937" UserId="3256" Text="I have 1100 amp hour 24V battery bank with 2 solar controllers connected, each from a separate bank of solar panels. Works fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12112" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5252" RevisionGUID="833f03d5-8709-4935-8be7-04d7f7f99857" CreationDate="2016-05-03T13:52:51.443" UserId="3293" Text="In France they're trying to build a site referencing planned-obsolescence products: http://www.halteobsolescence.org/ . Maybe we could build the same or help them go worldwide (at least by translating it). I asked them if they had an English version, and will update when they answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The principle of this site is that users can alert if a product is fragile, and on the contrary they also can promote long-lasting ones. But I think the stack-exchange format could greatly benefit this site, because we know nothing on the users that promote the products. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12114" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5198" RevisionGUID="8421f728-713d-44db-a73e-076671883006" CreationDate="2016-05-03T16:44:52.553" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/727539433046683648" />
  <row Id="12117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5220" RevisionGUID="2118fda6-393d-455d-8737-bb0887e1df10" CreationDate="2016-05-04T18:57:49.280" UserId="3296" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="I'm nearing the end of the life of my asphalt shingles on my house (the inspector estimated 2yrs left when I bought the house 2yrs ago).  Since my house is 100% electric and my state (Nebraska) offers Net metering (but no other incentives), I'm considering the option of having **solar shingles** installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this time I'm not considering any other solar collection devices (either shingles or nothing).  My thinking is that I'm already going to have to endure the cost of the new roof and (AFAIK) solar shingles offer the same physical protection as asphalt shingles (aka, they are a direct replacement) with the added bonus of generating solar power.  So, the money NOT spent on asphalt shingles would help offset the cost of the solar.  Of course this only makes sense if the cost of solar shingles is less than the total cost of asphalt + solar panels (an assumption I have not yet verified).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a decent amount of un-shaded roof space available (probably more than I can afford to cover).  It is a hip/hurricane style roof so part of it faces in all directions.  I haven't taken measurements yet but my guess is ~400sqft facing directly south and another 1600 facing east or west (800 each way).  Very little of my roof is facing North and that is where the little bit of shade is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are hundreds of calculators and estimators available on the internet but I would prefer to deal with some real world numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to do is this:  Put a small (maybe 1sqft) solar cell (or multiple...up to 5 depending on cost) on the roof and measure the amount of electricity generated at various locations on my roof.  I could then extrapolate the surface area and efficiency of the devices vs shingles to get some real-world expected values.  Ideally this would be attached to some sort of data collection device (I'm thinking arduino perhaps) so that I can measure over time (at least a month).  Of course I would also like to measure this in the winter as well but I may be forced to replace my roof (and thus make the decision) before then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-edit- Location is roughly Sioux City, IA (42.5000° N, 96.4003° W)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, does any device like what I've described currently exist?  Or am I going to have to piece this together myself if I want to do it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12121" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5242" RevisionGUID="f34ccec2-c04e-4941-8fe6-c922dfe3e80a" CreationDate="2016-05-05T07:32:43.620" UserId="85" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:15,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Highly Irregular&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2868,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;A. A.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:659,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Mσᶎ&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5254" RevisionGUID="d5795e14-f3b5-4c27-a06f-6fc93be0810a" CreationDate="2016-05-05T08:28:42.657" UserId="3372" Text="How can I log data from anemometers? Are there any anemometers with ability to log data for long periods of time? I want to collect data for about a year or two. What are the options? Which will be cheapest? I will do this at home and I want to calculate the potential wind power and is it worth to install a wind turbine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12123" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5254" RevisionGUID="d5795e14-f3b5-4c27-a06f-6fc93be0810a" CreationDate="2016-05-05T08:28:42.657" UserId="3372" Text="How to log wind statistics data" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12124" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5254" RevisionGUID="d5795e14-f3b5-4c27-a06f-6fc93be0810a" CreationDate="2016-05-05T08:28:42.657" UserId="3372" Text="|energy|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5255" RevisionGUID="d63cf564-2d23-48c7-aea0-5735cc328aba" CreationDate="2016-05-05T12:14:59.053" UserId="48" Text="Firstly, if it's rooftop wind you're asking about, then that's easy: it's not worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if it's a pole-mounted turbine that you're considering, then talk to a supplier or installer - they'll have the right kit for you to hire cheaply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's best to measure speeds at the hub height you have in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not simple to go from a set of wind speed measurements, to a generation forecast. For a long time, the standard process was measure-correlate-predict. There are better ways, but it's not a bad way to go about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5256" RevisionGUID="8ad8fe78-3588-4c3c-84dd-7a30078a97c7" CreationDate="2016-05-05T16:43:22.133" UserId="3373" Text="Unfortunately--and I realize this is not very helpful--the best choice in terms of carbon footprint is almost certainly not to go. It's a good point that freighters are likely to be much more efficient per passenger than cruise ships, but when comparing them to airplanes, you have to keep in mind what's being brought along to accommodate the passenger, not just what's being expended to move the passenger personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On airplanes, although shared facilities (the body of the airplane itself, the aisle, the rest rooms, the flight attendants and their seats, the galley, etc.) are substantial, each additional passenger's main impact is the passenger and the seat that passenger sits in. On an oceangoing vessel, you're transporting not just the passenger, but also *the room the passenger stays in* and all its furnishings. To help put this in perspective, imagine you were to order an entire room, including walls, bed, chairs, etc., from Europe and have it delivered to an American port (or vice-versa).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be argued that the room would be transported whether or not the passenger was there, but if there were no passengers, in theory the room could be converted into additional cargo space, or never built in the first place. The reason it's there and being transported around is because there are passengers interested in traveling in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I have no idea what the impact of transporting a room across the ocean on a freighter is. Perhaps it's not as enormous as I imagine. However, if it's anywhere in the ballpark of the impact of a transatlantic flight, it's literally tons of CO2 equivalent and therefore many times, for instance, the entire annual carbon footprint of a person living in one of the poorer countries of the world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5254" RevisionGUID="01bd3918-d574-4cb2-8087-2540e08774d0" CreationDate="2016-05-06T00:35:10.777" UserId="659" Comment="add search link" Text="How can I log data from anemometers? Are there any [anemometers with ability to log data][1] for long periods of time? I want to collect data for about a year or two. What are the options? Which will be cheapest? I will do this at home and I want to calculate the potential wind power and is it worth to install a wind turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=anemometers%20with%20ability%20to%20log%20data" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5255" RevisionGUID="b97cdf7b-7925-46aa-8187-336117f4588a" CreationDate="2016-05-06T06:08:52.157" UserId="48" Comment="added 550 characters in body" Text="Firstly, if it's rooftop wind you're asking about, then that's easy: it's not worth it - the air's too turbulent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if it's a pole-mounted turbine that you're considering, then talk to a supplier or installer - they'll have the right kit for you to hire cheaply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's best to measure speeds at the hub height you have in mind. It's just an anemometer and a data-logger: all you need, is to pick an anemometer that will output its data in a form that the data-logger can read: that might be a simple voltage, it might be a digital stream of data - it doesn't matter, as long as the anemometer transmits what the data-logger expects to receive. Lots of places sell them as a combined unit, and you can pay anywhere between a few tens of pounds (dollars / euro) to tens of thousands. How much you need to spend, depends on the quality  of data you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not simple to go from a set of wind speed measurements, to a generation forecast. For a long time, the standard process was measure-correlate-predict. There are better ways, but it's not a bad way to go about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5257" RevisionGUID="71f5baa0-cf6c-40fe-82d2-4e5ca48fbfd3" CreationDate="2016-05-06T12:26:03.267" UserId="659" Text="The first link in [that search][1] gives you [a cup anemometer that puts out a standard 4-20mA signal][2] that can be logged by a standard industrial data logger, meaning you can buy whatever duration you want. It's likely overkill for you, though (ie, expensive). The [second result sells a kit][3] which is likely much cheaper, but requires a Windows PC to do the data logging. You might find once you buy it that the output can be logged by something smaller and cheaper like a Raspberry Pi, one of the &quot;windows on a USB stick&quot; devices or similar. I log my PV system output using a Pi, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second question probably makes this pointless though:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will do this at home and I want to calculate the potential wind power and is it worth to install a wind turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both answers to &quot;[are home windmills sustainable][4]&quot; addresses this, and to summarise... small urban wind generation doesn't work, so it's not sustainable or economical. The [(Australian) Alternative Technology Association study][5] is probably worth reading if you want more technical detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=anemometers%20with%20ability%20to%20log%20data&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://au.omega.com/pptst/WMS-20.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.inspeed.com/wind_data_logging/Windware_Wind_Speed_Data_kit.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2625/at-what-point-are-home-windmills-sustainable/2630#2630&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/409" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="d5199ec4-984f-41d9-871e-884f0faf4baf" CreationDate="2016-05-06T12:33:34.140" UserId="3357" Text="The trains are considered the most energy-efficient means of transport, a way more energy-efficient than airplanes. That is why people make the latter the main means of long-distance traveling. Morevoer, [Transatlantic Train](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb0_b-UvyAw) is going to travel within a vacuum tunnel, to reduce the friction/leakage to practically zero. The only energy waste would be to heat up the pot then (to accelerate your vehicle). But, to speed up, you can use the energy of deacelerating trains at the arrival. So, you can transport any mass virtually for free, once Transanlantic tunnel is built. I advice to use that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12134" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="aab76772-1b99-4267-91fc-77fec4898544" CreationDate="2016-05-06T21:59:36.670" UserId="-1" Comment="35" />
  <row Id="12135" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5254" RevisionGUID="44657baf-4907-4965-be61-88f99d123f33" CreationDate="2016-05-07T13:58:42.687" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/728947167986102272" />
  <row Id="12136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="433" RevisionGUID="9749857e-1ba1-41db-a834-0ebf803b3bbc" CreationDate="2016-05-07T23:09:29.110" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Remove overly verbose examples and repetitions" Text="tl;dr **There really isn't a sustainability argument for switching either way between them: there is only an argument for switching away from both.** It's akin to asking whether we should switch from coal to gas: the answer is that that's not a meaningful question: we absolutely have to stop using both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, let's look at a lifecycle analysis of their relative unsustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On specific pollutants, on a well-to-wheel basis, per unit distance driven, diesel tends to be worse for particulates and NOx; petrol (gasoline) is worse for CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and hydrocarbons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The system boundary for sustainability analysis&#xD;&#xA;When looking at sustainability, one has to draw a system boundary somewhere, to set out what will be included in the study, and what will be excluded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For transport, we typically use a well-to-wheel basis. That's a generic description that applies even when the fuel doesn't come from a well (and even if the transport doesn't have wheels), and relates to the supply chain from initial extraction to the transport itself and the direct consequences, but not the indirect consequences such as changes in land use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Is the question meaningful?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither petrol (gasoline) nor diesel are at all sustainable. Both score zero for sustainability. And there is little to choose between their unsustainability: the trade-offs being some increase in NOx and particulates, for some decrease in CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and hydrocarbons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And given that the entire supply chain for each is unsustainable, it does not make any sense to talk about the relative sustainability of one part of that supply chain: sustainability by its very nature is an issue that concerns the whole system, not just one component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###But which is worse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [Life Cycle Assessment of&#xD;&#xA;Vehicle Fuels and Technologies (2006, London Borough of Camden)][1], diesel CO2 emissions are 16% lower than petrol on a life cycle basis (p36). However, particulate and NOx emissions from diesel are significantly worse (p37), with petrol NOx being only 60% of diesel NOx. Petrol has worse hydrocarbon emissions (p38). Those are on a unit-distance basis. Conversely, the unit-energy basis is used in the [UK DTI report from 2003, Life Cycle Assessment of Vehicle Fuels and Technologies][2], which gives total GHG emissions of 87gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e/MJ for ultra low sulphur diesel, and 81gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e/MJ for unleaded petrol (gasoline) (Table II).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary: there's really not much too choose between them. They're both completely unsustainable, in only slightly different ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/Camden%20LCA%20Report%20FINAL%2010%2003%202006.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file14925.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12137" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="433" RevisionGUID="9749857e-1ba1-41db-a834-0ebf803b3bbc" CreationDate="2016-05-07T23:09:29.110" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 85 edit id of 395" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5259" RevisionGUID="4513bc8b-a239-48a9-b18a-128f16e1354e" CreationDate="2016-05-08T04:49:18.217" UserId="3379" Text="Here are two links from NREL, the National Renewable Energy Lab, which would help you figure this out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[LCOE calculator](http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe.html). **L**evelized **c**ost **o**f **e**lectricity is a way to look at what solar power costs per unit of generation (kWh) so you can compare it to any other generation resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Renewable energy cost estimates](http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe_re_cost_est.html). This gives you some of the values you'd need to fill in for the LCOE calculator, depending on the size and type of system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a third link, which I can't post because I'm not reputable yet... but SEPA, the Solar Electric Power Association, published a report in 2014 comparing the cost of solar between different states. This would help equalize the costs across state lines for comparison purposes. The report is titled &quot;Photovoltaic System Price Quotes from Selected States.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12139" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="433" RevisionGUID="63f27f30-38c9-46b8-9f38-ef26856f02d4" CreationDate="2016-05-08T05:14:43.653" UserId="48" Comment="Rollback to [1daff0a6-1661-4576-8c91-30716fd0d338]" Text="tl;dr **There really isn't a sustainability argument for switching either way between them: there is only an argument for switching away from both.** It's akin to asking whether we should switch from coal to gas: the answer is that that's not a meaningful question: we absolutely have to stop using both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So although the question is in the same sort of rhetorical terrain as asking whether it's better to suffer a premature death by gun or knife, when the answer is obviously that it's better to not suffer a premature death, let's look at lifecycle analysis of their relative unsustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On specific pollutants, on a well-to-wheel basis, per unit distance driven, diesel tends to be worse for particulates and NOx; petrol (gasoline) is worse for CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and hydrocarbons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The system boundary for sustainability analysis&#xD;&#xA;When looking at sustainability, one has to draw a system boundary somewhere, to set out what will be included in the study, and what will be excluded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where one draws a system boundary is a judgement call: if it goes beyond our galaxy or beyond a billion years, you're system boundary is too large. If, however, it does not include consumption of the product and its direct consequences, then your system boundary is too small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For transport, we typically use a well-to-wheel basis. That's a generic description that applies even when the fuel doesn't come from a well (and even if the transport doesn't have wheels), and relates to the supply chain from initial extraction to the transport itself and the direct consequences, but not the indirect consequences such as changes in land use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Is the question meaningful?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither petrol (gasoline) nor diesel are at all sustainable. Both score zero for sustainability. And there is little to choose between their unsustainability: the trade-offs being some increase in NOx and particulates, for some decrease in CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and hydrocarbons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both release carbon dioxide (and other pollutants) during combustion; and that is leading us to catastrophic climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both come from crude oil, which is a finite, depletable resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The extraction of crude oil itself is environmentally destructive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this means that the refining of each is environmentally unsustainable too: the production of each is unsustainable, along the entire supply chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question, as posed, is not meaningful: it does not make any sense to ask about the sustainability of just the refining part of petrol (gasoline) or diesel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And given that the entire supply chain for each is unsustainable, it does not make any sense to talk about the relative sustainability of one part of that supply chain: sustainability by its very nature is an issue that concerns the whole system, not just one component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###But which is worse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [Life Cycle Assessment of&#xD;&#xA;Vehicle Fuels and Technologies (2006, London Borough of Camden)][1], diesel CO2 emissions are 16% lower than petrol on a life cycle basis (p36). However, particulate and NOx emissions from diesel are significantly worse (p37), with petrol NOx being only 60% of diesel NOx. Petrol has worse hydrocarbon emissions (p38). Those are on a unit-distance basis. Conversely, the unit-energy basis is used in the [UK DTI report from 2003, Life Cycle Assessment of Vehicle Fuels and Technologies][2], which gives total GHG emissions of 87gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e/MJ for ultra low sulphur diesel, and 81gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e/MJ for unleaded petrol (gasoline) (Table II).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary: there's really not much too choose between them. They're both completely unsustainable, in only slightly different ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/Camden%20LCA%20Report%20FINAL%2010%2003%202006.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file14925.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="0271bc20-c1ed-44c7-b9ce-81fca1eee097" CreationDate="2016-05-09T15:40:56.723" UserId="3357" Comment="Instant, 0-water fat elimination from the pan" Text="I think that the mostly water-hungry is irrigation but, in the kitchen, it is advised that you use a dish washing machine. I think this is wrong. I doubt that machine is smart enough to detect pollution, which is necessary to choose the minimal washing method. Correct me if I am wrong, but, as a result, it must choose the worst case washing scenario for all the dishes, which not only increases the water consumption but also contaminates the sewage. This is a crime, I think. We should reduce the contamination of the sewage to make it usable for the field irrigation. In fact, only very rare food is fatty and needs the detergent, especially if you don't indulge into the nasty fried diet. Also, soak the dishes in the stale water. When you wash down the soaked dishes under the stream of fresh water, you produce water for soaking the next lot of dishes. The water will soften all the dirt and more than 90% of the dishes then can be washed just by washing them down under the stream, without neither detergent nor effort, just as a fun. Detergent is needed for fatty dishes, which will not only contaminate the sewage but also demand more water and time since poison should not stay on your dishes and you need much more thorough washing down. Therefore, eliminating detergent saves your time and saves the water twice: when you wash the dishes and reuse the sewage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also waste **0 water and no detergent when washing a fat pan**! Have you seen the advertisment, where they just flick the remnants away from an enamel pan? The secret is that you still have to use some oil to fry anything on the ultra-modern pan because otherwise the contact of the food with the pan is poor and oil delivers the heat to the internals of the food. This method works when you fry something coated in the flour, like pankakes or fish. Some four is left over and you throw it into biogarbage. But, if you are crazy enough, you can sprinkle the remnants of the flour over the fan in the pan, mix them with a scooplua to help the fat better soaking into the flour. In the end, you just flick the fat-flour mixture into the biocontainer. Voila! Zero water, zero detergent, almost instantly, no contaminated sewage and reused garbage flour for washing! Isn't it brilliant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also reduce the amount of water used when boiling. Many people pour out the hot water after cooking potatoes and pasta, for instance, which is a sing that more water was used than necessary. No water should be left after pasta or croup cooking, for instance. But that is more to the heat conservation. After boiling eggs you can boil pasta, for instance. This way, you reuse the water and thermal energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, you could collect the sewage and wash down the toilet. I have not reached that level yet.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="b14ee6fe-face-46e9-ac17-f1c16c94254d" CreationDate="2016-05-09T16:11:12.380" UserId="3357" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="I think that the mostly water-hungry is irrigation but, in the kitchen, it is advised that you use a dish washing machine. I think this is wrong. I doubt that machine is smart enough to detect pollution, which is necessary to choose the minimal washing method. Correct me if I am wrong, but, as a result, it must choose the worst case washing scenario for all the dishes, which not only increases the water consumption but also contaminates the sewage. This is a crime, I think. We should reduce the contamination of the sewage to make it usable for the field irrigation. In fact, only very rare food is fatty and needs the detergent, especially if you don't indulge into the nasty fried diet. Also, soak the dishes in the stale water. When you wash down the soaked dishes under the stream of fresh water, you produce water for soaking the next lot of dishes. The water will soften all the dirt and more than 90% of the dishes then can be washed just by washing them down under the stream, without neither detergent nor effort, just as a fun. Detergent is needed for fatty dishes, which will not only contaminate the sewage but also demand more water and time since poison should not stay on your dishes and you need much more thorough washing down. Therefore, eliminating detergent saves your time and saves the water twice: when you wash the dishes and reuse the sewage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also waste **0 water and no detergent when washing a fat pan**! Have you seen the advertisment, where they just flick the remnants away from an enamel pan? The secret is that you still have to use some oil to fry anything on the ultra-modern pan because otherwise the contact of the food with the pan is poor and oil delivers the heat to the internals of the food. This method works when you fry something coated in the flour, like pankakes or fish. Some four is left over and you throw it into biogarbage. But, if you are crazy enough, you can sprinkle the remnants of the flour over the fan in the pan, mix them with a scooplua to help the fat better soaking into the flour. In the end, you just wipe fat-flour mixture with a towel into the biocontainer. Voila! Zero water, zero detergent, almost instantly, no contaminated sewage and reused garbage flour for washing! Isn't it brilliant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also reduce the amount of water used when boiling. Many people pour out the hot water after cooking potatoes and pasta, for instance, which is a sign that more water was used than necessary. No water should be left after pasta or croup cooking, for instance. But that is more to the heat conservation. After boiling eggs you can boil pasta, for instance. This way, you reuse the water and thermal energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, you could collect the sewage and wash down the toilet. I have not reached that level yet.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5260" RevisionGUID="0a0b6891-e9cc-4a38-a359-ee5e00c8e5f6" CreationDate="2016-05-09T20:00:34.893" UserId="3379" Text="Using [PVWatts](http://pvwatts.nrel.gov), as suggested by @Mσᶎ, really is going to be your best bet. NREL (the National Renewable Energy Lab) has been collecting solar irradiation data for years, and have a very rigorous method for scrubbing the data to make it generally applicable for regions surrounding the weather stations from which data is collected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sioux City seems to be swamped with weather stations:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PVWatts lets you trace the outline of the proposed panel over the satellite image of your rooftop, though you'd have to do it three times for the different angles you're working with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;User @Ⴖuі also noted using the [tool](http://www.energymatters.com.au/climate-data/) by Energy Matters to plan a solar array, and that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The] system has performed as expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PVWatts system is designed for and used by solar installers and those seeking solar installations to plan and justify the cost of a solar installation system. You can add all necessary detail about the type of system you want to install, and the manner in which you will install it. It is the best you can do short of installing the actual system you're proposing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BDywj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5262" RevisionGUID="5c678165-1570-4051-8f9a-faddf56a1b50" CreationDate="2016-05-10T13:30:53.410" UserId="3303" Text="What percentage of total world production of palm oil is used for fuel, and what is used for food and cosmetics?&#xA;&#xA;I am asking this because there seems to be more awareness in the media of palm oil use for food and cosmetics than for fuel. I suspect biggest use is for fuel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12148" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5262" RevisionGUID="5c678165-1570-4051-8f9a-faddf56a1b50" CreationDate="2016-05-10T13:30:53.410" UserId="3303" Text="What is palm oil mostly used for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12149" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5262" RevisionGUID="5c678165-1570-4051-8f9a-faddf56a1b50" CreationDate="2016-05-10T13:30:53.410" UserId="3303" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5204" RevisionGUID="7e70ce52-95ca-4988-a134-99c06ac7442e" CreationDate="2016-05-10T19:10:48.210" UserId="2228" Comment="results of research" Text="This question may be outside of the scope for this forum, but I'm having a hard time finding good information, and thought asking here might be worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started looking into farm-scale solar here in Oregon, and found that we just don't have enough insolation here to get above the cost/benefit curve.  If my property were in the Mojave Desert, however, the benefit is far above the cost curve.  That got me wondering about the commercial viability of a small (~1MW) solar power plant in the Mojave, where 5 acres of land can be had for $5,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the cost per kW to set up solar on that sort of scale where you're not trying to offset energy consumption, just sell it straight to the grid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update&#xD;&#xA;======&#xD;&#xA;Based on some research, I've come up with a bit more &quot;information&quot; on the subject (I put that word in quotes because some of it isn't something I can cite a viable source for. A key resource was [the report that LShaver mentioned][1] but couldn't link to):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The preferred size for a small-scale utility PV plant is around 3 MW&#xD;&#xA;* A 3 MW plant takes up just under 20 acres when roads and other non-generating aspects are taken into account&#xD;&#xA;* Lots in the Mojave that are 20 acres in size still fall in the ~$1000 per acre that I mentioned above ([example here][2])&#xD;&#xA;* Project development and interconnection costs ran about $0.06 per watt ($60,000 per MW) in 2015, down from $0.12 from 2014&#xD;&#xA;* Total project cost ran about $2.44 per watt ($2.44M per MW) in 2015, down from $2.73 in 2014&#xD;&#xA;* Strictly using utility rates for Needles, CA, gross income per year is $314,200 per MW of installed capacity ($942,600/yr for a ~$7.5M, 3 MW project with a 33 year life expectancy).  This is consistent with the &quot;brown&quot; [energy price at SP-15][3], the electricity pricing point nearest Needles, CA.&#xD;&#xA;* Utilities pay higher prices for solar than for mixed source generation through a [&quot;green tag&quot; or &quot;REC&quot; marketplace][4].  The market for green tags is separate from the market for energy.  The prices of green tags has been falling for years as more installed solar is constructed, but the price seems to be currently between $10-15/MWh, adding ~$54,000-75,000 per year to the above revenue estimates for a 3 MW plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.solarelectricpower.org/media/426584/ES-Marktet-Snapshot-PV-Systems-Price-Report.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Landers/Linn-Rd-92285/home/17520850&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/wholesale/xls/ice_electric-2016.xls&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Certificate_(United_States)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="e2946b52-9a86-4fdf-9d48-af1b47d630b3" CreationDate="2016-05-10T20:17:50.613" UserId="3379" Text="Take a look at this report: [&quot;Palm oil-based biofuels and sustainability in southeast Asia: A review of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand&quot;](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032114003177). It's behind the ScienceDirect paywall so you may not have full access.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They give two tables, one for palm oil production, and one for biodiesel production, for the three largest producers of palm oil in the world. Total world production was 52.1 million tons in 2012, and Indonesia and Malaysia accounted for 85% of this ([source](http://www.palmoilresearch.org/statistics.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I combined the two tables to look at share of biodiesel produced as a percentage of palm oil production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                       2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010    2011&#xD;&#xA;    Indonesia&#xD;&#xA;    Total oil        15,560  16,600  18,000  20,500  21,000  23,600  25,400 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Biodiesel             0      21      31      98     311     405     578 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Share              0.0%    0.1%    0.2%    0.5%    1.5%    1.7%    2.3%&#xD;&#xA;    Malaysia&#xD;&#xA;    Total oil        15,485  15,290  17,567  17,259  17,763  18,211  18,300 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Biodiesel             0      55     130     230     227      95     200 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Share              0.0%    0.4%    0.7%    1.3%    1.3%    0.5%    1.1%&#xD;&#xA;    Thailand&#xD;&#xA;    Total oil           784   1,170   1,050   1,540   1,345   1,288   1,546 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Biodiesel             0       0      60     385     482     516     538 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Share              0.0%    0.0%    5.7%   25.0%   35.8%   40.1%   34.8%&#xD;&#xA;    COMBINED&#xD;&#xA;    Total oil        31,829  33,060  36,617  39,299  40,108  43,099  45,246 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Biodiesel             0      76     221     713   1,020   1,016   1,316 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Share              0.0%    0.2%    0.6%    1.8%    2.5%    2.4%    2.9%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, from 84% of the world's palm oil, only 2.9% is used for biodiesel production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it's possible (but not likely) that someone is buying raw palm oil and converting it to biodiesel on their own, but I don't think the economics of this would favor anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A follow-up question - why did you suspect that fuel would be the biggest end-use? Or are you thinking of other types of fuel than biodiesel? Perhaps cooking fuel, or lighting (candles)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5259" RevisionGUID="afe9d849-cc9d-41fd-91ef-ea939bc7210d" CreationDate="2016-05-11T00:43:42.237" UserId="3379" Comment="Added third link" Text="Here are two links from NREL, the National Renewable Energy Lab, which would help you figure this out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[LCOE calculator](http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe.html). **L**evelized **c**ost **o**f **e**lectricity is a way to look at what solar power costs per unit of generation (kWh) so you can compare it to any other generation resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Renewable energy cost estimates](http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe_re_cost_est.html). This gives you some of the values you'd need to fill in for the LCOE calculator, depending on the size and type of system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a third link, which I can't post because I'm not reputable yet... but SEPA, the Solar Electric Power Association, published a report in 2014 comparing the cost of solar between different states. This would help equalize the costs across state lines for comparison purposes. The report is titled &quot;Photovoltaic System Price Quotes from Selected States.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: Here's that third link (thanks @Highly-Irregular): [&quot;Photovoltaic System Price Quotes from Selected States&quot; (pdf)](https://www.solarelectricpower.org/media/426584/ES-Marktet-Snapshot-PV-Systems-Price-Report.pdf)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5258" RevisionGUID="bbdbb5e1-bbe9-4016-a5f3-dc8e70729770" CreationDate="2016-05-11T10:45:27.500" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar and spelling, added reference to wikipedia so people don't have to view the entire youtube movie to get the idea" Text="Trains are considered the most energy-efficient means of transport and are way more energy-efficient than airplanes. That is why people make the latter the main means of long-distance travel. Moreover, the Transatlantic Train (see [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_tunnel) or [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb0_b-UvyAw)) is going to travel in a vacuum tunnel to reduce the friction/leakage to practically zero. The only energy waste would be to heat up the pot (to accelerate your vehicle). But to speed up, you can use the energy of de-accelerating trains at arrival, so you can transport any mass virtually for free. Once the Transatlantic tunnel is built, I'd advice to use that. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5264" RevisionGUID="6a6b4e9e-b4a2-4804-9d96-0e425e07d025" CreationDate="2016-05-11T16:06:35.930" UserId="3387" Text="does anyone know of a platform/forum where people measure and compare the energy consumption of their devices?  Any suggestions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5264" RevisionGUID="6a6b4e9e-b4a2-4804-9d96-0e425e07d025" CreationDate="2016-05-11T16:06:35.930" UserId="3387" Text="Measure and compare energy consumption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5264" RevisionGUID="6a6b4e9e-b4a2-4804-9d96-0e425e07d025" CreationDate="2016-05-11T16:06:35.930" UserId="3387" Text="|energy|consumption|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5265" RevisionGUID="4b8d0169-5312-4b67-b669-f9a86dd9db96" CreationDate="2016-05-12T05:27:23.713" UserId="3388" Text="A very nice and eco freindly way to keep our cement roof cool , is by planting grass or any greenry small plants on it,just make a squre block with bricks and cover it with plastic sheet so that no leakage issue,just spread soil and sm manure on it and grow any thng like grass or small plants,it looks so awsm on my roof," ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2402" RevisionGUID="aadfff54-1d42-430d-a4ae-467460b4cfaa" CreationDate="2016-05-12T06:57:57.483" UserId="3314" Comment="spelling, readability, emphasis" Text="The answer is [waste sorting][1]. I mean that there must be no such thing as garbage in the world at all. Everything must be recicled and biowaste is not anyhow different. I do not understand why you raise the questions so selectively: I will separate only the bio-waste from the rest of my waste? Why not separate the rest also?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I argue that an [appartment is the utmost ecofriendly system in the world.][2] It leaves 10-100 times _less footprint_ in the nature and composting is not a problem when it is a social system, like electricity. I live in a appartment in the city of Tallinn, _in Estonia_, where since 2005 **compost container was mandatory in front of every block of flats**. Waste sorting is what you need in New York. I use a pretty small separate compost container, wrapped with a thin disposable plastic bags in the flat and carry the bag over into the public container once a while. I do not buy the plastic bags. They are given for free in our all-about-packaging economy when you buy fruits or vegetables. It is a thin and mandatory disposable since 2005 in Estonia. And it does not smell because what I compost is mostly vegetable rather than animal organics and _vegan diet does not smell at all_ (neither as compost nor when you fart). There are other containers of plastic/metal packaging, glass and paper. These do not smell at all. The food packaging could but you rinse them to avoid smell and improve the quality of the recicling materials that you deliver. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should also _reduce the amount of detergents when washing_ anything so that we could safely head the sewage on our crop fields. I mean that liquid fraction should also be composted efficiently but our owners head us to poison the waters with their products.&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, if you want to do everything individually, as consumerist, why do you care about resource conservation and don't you want to grow electricity by your personal generator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_sorting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2398/476" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12160" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2402" RevisionGUID="aadfff54-1d42-430d-a4ae-467460b4cfaa" CreationDate="2016-05-12T06:57:57.483" Comment="Proposed by 3314 approved by 96, 99 edit id of 396" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="125" RevisionGUID="7889103a-64d1-4869-8795-ecb16dfae67b" CreationDate="2016-05-12T06:59:00.297" UserId="3314" Comment="linkrot corrected" Text="I'd suggest **vermicomposting**.  You can learn tons by searching the web and there are numerous products you can buy to help you along, but you can also DIY and keep it indoors with essentially no danger of foul odors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more information is linked at the [North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality](http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/environmental-assistance-customer-service/nc-green-travel-program/organics) with a 10 page document on [small scale vermicompost](https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Environmental%20Assistance%20and%20Customer%20Service/NC%20Green%20Travel%20Documents/small%20scale%20vermicomposting.pdf)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12162" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="125" RevisionGUID="7889103a-64d1-4869-8795-ecb16dfae67b" CreationDate="2016-05-12T06:59:00.297" Comment="Proposed by 3314 approved by 99 edit id of 397" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5265" RevisionGUID="1955c107-aa04-4bfe-b316-d746832e8000" CreationDate="2016-05-12T07:01:26.453" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar and spelling" Text="A very nice and eco-friendly way to keep our cement roof cool, is by planting grass or any green small plants on it. Just make a square block with bricks and cover it with a plastic sheet to avoid leakage issues. Just spread soil and some manure on it and grow anything like grass or small plants. It looks so awesome on my roof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="64b11e19-d473-45b5-bae4-b6359042614a" CreationDate="2016-05-12T08:48:16.663" UserId="3314" Comment="adding detail and link, plus more information on how-to" Text="Starting a compost on your balcony seems to be feasible. You can buy or build your own box of suitable dimensions.  &#xD;&#xA;Keeping it running is not difficult if it's shaded but not rained, you have to water it from time to time. And you just add the material and take (and use) the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the smell, it depends mainly on the balance of the substances inside, some [advices are here][1]. That means it can take your time to manage it almost smell-less.  Here you want to keep in mind the proper [Carbon-Nitrogen ratio of the mixture](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1262/what-are-the-carbon-nitrogen-ratios-of-common-household-wastes).&#xD;&#xA;In my experience including grass cuts (gardening leftovers) makes it better, having mostly kitchen leftovers makes it worse. Temperatures around and below 0°C (freezing) slow/stop the composting process and the smell worsens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, be careful of cockroachs: you may need to place your compost over some kind of high ground with some liquid at the feet to avoid attracting them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/38/60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12165" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="64b11e19-d473-45b5-bae4-b6359042614a" CreationDate="2016-05-12T08:48:16.663" Comment="Proposed by 3314 approved by 85 edit id of 398" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5266" RevisionGUID="18486254-9bb4-4ceb-8492-c489f23cefa0" CreationDate="2016-05-12T11:45:47.203" UserId="99" Text="I found more information about this, and since there hasn't been a single answer so far I'm going to self-answer my question based on what I found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Information sources##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There is a EU-sponsored research project called [MERMAIDS](http://life-mermaids.eu/en/) that investigates this problem and [links to various related and interesting news articles](http://life-mermaids.eu/en/about/news/). &#xD;&#xA;* The [Plastic Soup Foundation](http://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org) is cooperating with the MERMAIDS project and clothing manufacturer G-STAR to address the problem. G-Star and the Plastic Soup Foundation are calling upon other manufacturers to sign their [Ocean Clean Wash Charter](http://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PSF.Charter.Ocean_.Clean_.Wash_.pdf?941464) which also contains some interesting information about the research that was done so far.&#xD;&#xA;* The researcher Mark Brown mentioned in the question, has initiated a project called [Benign by Design](http://www.launch.org/innovators/mark-browne) with the goal to &quot;*propel the textile industry toward cost effective fabrics that emit fewer and less toxic fibers*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The problem##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several aspects that make this a rather worrying problem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all recent research found that clothing gives off much more particles in a washing machine than previously thought. [The 2011 paper written by Mark Browne](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es201811s) mentioned over 1900 fibers per garment, but new research has found that a single polyester fleece sweeter gives off almost 1.000.000 fibers per wash. Especially polyester, acrylic and nylon are mentioned as bad materials. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, we know from [past research](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873017/) that plastic particles in (sea)water absorb other toxins present in the water. We also know microplastics are eaten by marine animals, thus introducing toxic pollutants into the food chain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally waste water treatment plants lets microfibers through, so it could very well be that microfibers are also present in our drinking water. However I haven't been able to find any confirmation of this. It seems there hasn't been any research on microfibers in drinking water yet!?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I've read there still is no direct evidence linking microfibers found in oceans to clothing but, as was also mentioned in the question, we do know that microfibers are released during washing and that microfibers make up 85% of all man-made materials found in various ocean water samples. Also the types and amount of fibers found on shores matches those used in the clothing industry. Based on these facts [this article](http://www.alternet.org/recycled-plastic-clothing-solution-or-threat) says that this could very well make microfibres from clothes the biggest source of plastic pollution in the ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Potential solutions##&#xD;&#xA;Although research is still in progress, the MERMAIDS website mentions several solutions to at least reduce the problem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Reduce friction between garments by &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. filling up your washing machine to the max, &#xD;&#xA;   2. use washing liquid instead of powder,&#xD;&#xA;   3. use a fabric softener.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Reduce the amount of 'damage' to your clothing so less fibers are released by&#xD;&#xA;   1. washing at low temperatures,&#xD;&#xA;   2. avoiding long washings,&#xD;&#xA;   2. dry spin at lower revolutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore the Ocean Clean Wash Charter mentions a few potential future solutions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Develop washing machine filters that catch the microfibers&#xD;&#xA; - Develop synthetic fabrics or that don't give off microfibers&#xD;&#xA; - Develop impregnation that prevents the release of microfibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you could also try to avoid buying polyester, acrylic and nylon clothing until a good permanent solution has been found and implemented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12167" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5207" RevisionGUID="509e3ecd-71f8-4ad8-a669-c0067c305b63" CreationDate="2016-05-12T17:12:05.177" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/730807771189420034" />
  <row Id="12168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5267" RevisionGUID="da2dacd8-a363-4b00-8b1e-3cbe1cc9e80b" CreationDate="2016-05-12T18:31:04.777" UserId="3390" Text="I have run into the same quandary. I resolved it by keeping a large bin in my sink that catches &quot;grey water&quot; or water already used for washing dishes and add a drop of biodegradable phosphate-free soap and lather it up and dunk it in the grey water as my pre-recycling rinse. Keeping a bin inside my sink and salvaging grey water really cuts down my water use. Soap will carry away any gunk from the dirty water. Sometimes I do a final rinse with one shot of potable water if the soap is too dense to rinse off in greywater bin. I hope that helps other people with this dilemma." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5268" RevisionGUID="0bb04749-0444-453d-acb2-2cff287fc293" CreationDate="2016-05-13T02:23:47.290" UserId="3391" Text="It's much, much better to compost than to recycle, if you can. While recycling does use less energy than making these items from non-recycled materials, it's still not perfect - lots of energy goes into treating and processing the recycled paper. Recycled paper has a carbon footprint of only around 30% less than standard paper. That's not to say you shouldn't recycle; 30% less is still pretty good, but if you have the option to compost, absolutely do. Brown paper bags haven't been treated with bleach or dye either, so they're perfect for the garden! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5269" RevisionGUID="d3f5cd82-f2dd-4d76-ba19-90b4dfbd80ac" CreationDate="2016-05-13T04:54:32.853" UserId="3392" Text="my requirement is just to run ten 4-watts LEDs, a 0.5 HP submursible motor and four ceiling fans through solar panels. Calculations suggested that i need 800 watts panels to work on it. But I'm unaware of batteries and inverters. The place where i would be setting this is a new plotted area, so no previous electricity records. Can you please help me out of this ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5269" RevisionGUID="d3f5cd82-f2dd-4d76-ba19-90b4dfbd80ac" CreationDate="2016-05-13T04:54:32.853" UserId="3392" Text="How much capacity inverters and batteries should i need to set up a 800 watts solar panel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5269" RevisionGUID="d3f5cd82-f2dd-4d76-ba19-90b4dfbd80ac" CreationDate="2016-05-13T04:54:32.853" UserId="3392" Text="|solar-power|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5264" RevisionGUID="f34b1794-c938-43dd-bb28-c78886087c9d" CreationDate="2016-05-13T10:16:13.943" UserId="3387" Comment="added 381 characters in body" Text="does anyone know of a platform/forum where people measure and compare the energy consumption of their devices?  I bought an energy metering plug, and now I can find out how much electricity my dishwasher, microwave, kettle, hairdryer, etc, consume. But I have no idea if their level of consumption is good or bad, unless I can compare with those of other people, to learn whether I should use different appliance settings, or even buy new appliances! Anyone know of a site of forum where I could get such info?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5270" RevisionGUID="c8e1f866-81df-4309-a949-610c0d6f76a5" CreationDate="2016-05-13T12:20:00.257" UserId="3357" Text="Multiply the power with time you use the device and concentrate your efforts on the key expenditure contributors. You should google for the typical and best devices in the class: what is normal and how good can it go and what are natural, environmental implications for producing the most energy efficient devices? Yes, that is also important. If you use a lamp once a year for couple of minutes then it may be not the best idea to buy an ultra-expensive and poisonous led lamps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, you better record your figures and lend the power meter to the friends. You do not need the meter anyway and you do not save environment if you buy individual stuff. You must share. The friends may report you their recordings as extra benefit. Meantime, you can approximate the consumers quite closely by plain your hand. The energy waste inevitably takes the form of heat (you may notice that light and sound do not take a lot of energy away). The evil is the entropy, the thermal motion at microscopic level and you increase the amount of evil when heat up anything. So, the warmer is the device, the more evil it is. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="d399d910-fe30-4ad2-a7c1-641b411332db" CreationDate="2016-05-13T12:27:31.733" UserId="3357" Comment="added 548 characters in body" Text="I think that the mostly water-hungry is irrigation but, in the kitchen, it is advised that you use a dish washing machine. I think this is wrong. I doubt that machine is smart enough to detect pollution, which is necessary to choose the minimal washing method. Correct me if I am wrong, but, as a result, it must choose the worst case washing scenario for all the dishes, which not only increases the water consumption but also contaminates the sewage. This is a crime, I think. We should reduce the contamination of the sewage to make it usable for the field irrigation. In fact, only very rare food is fatty and needs the detergent, especially if you don't indulge into the nasty fried diet. Also, soak the dishes in the stale water. When you wash down the soaked dishes under the stream of fresh water, you produce water for soaking the next lot of dishes. The water will soften all the dirt and more than 90% of the dishes then can be washed just by washing them down under the stream, without neither detergent nor effort, just as a fun. Detergent is needed for fatty dishes, which will not only contaminate the sewage but also demand more water and time since poison should not stay on your dishes and you need much more thorough washing down. Therefore, eliminating detergent saves your time and saves the water twice: when you wash the dishes and reuse the sewage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also reduce water consumption to almost 0 when washing some dishes. My grandfather taught be this (their life was very difficult in the middle of 20 century in Russia). Instead of flushing the sewage into the drain, you eat that! Formerly, food products were supplied in the glass bottles and you could wash the scoured cream with the hot soup that you eat. In the modern time, jams are still supplied in glass bottles and you can wash them with the tea that you drink, for instance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, you can also waste **0 water and no detergent when washing a fat pan**! Have you seen the advertisment, where they just flick the remnants away from an enamel pan? The secret is that you still have to use some oil to fry anything on the ultra-modern pan because otherwise the contact of the food with the pan is poor and oil delivers the heat to the internals of the food. This method works when you fry something coated in the flour, like pankakes or fish. Some four is left over and you throw it into biogarbage. But, if you are crazy enough, you can sprinkle the remnants of the flour over the fan in the pan, mix them with a scooplua to help the fat better soaking into the flour. In the end, you just wipe fat-flour mixture with a towel into the biocontainer. Voila! Zero water, zero detergent, almost instantly, no contaminated sewage and reused garbage flour for washing! Isn't it brilliant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also reduce the amount of water used when boiling. Many people pour out the hot water after cooking potatoes and pasta, for instance, which is a sign that more water was used than necessary. No water should be left after pasta or croup cooking, for instance. But that is more to the heat conservation. After boiling eggs you can boil pasta, for instance. This way, you reuse the water and thermal energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, you could collect the sewage and wash down the toilet, as my grandparents did. I still have not reached this level of eco-mind yet.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="95ffa539-147c-4ca0-aa29-c367149661b4" CreationDate="2016-05-13T12:41:18.610" UserId="3357" Comment="flush the remnants into into your mouth instead of the drain" Text="I think that the mostly water-hungry is irrigation but, in the **kitchen**, it is advised that you use a dish washing machine. I think this is wrong. I doubt that machine is smart enough to detect kind/level of pollution, which is necessary to choose the minimal washing method. Correct me if I am wrong, but, as a result, it must choose the worst washing regime for everything it washes, which not only increases the water consumption but also contaminates the sewage with chemicals. This is a crime, I think. We should reduce the contamination of the sewage to make it usable for the field irrigation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you was mindful, you would notice that **very rare food is fatty and needs the detergent**, especially if you don't indulge into the nasty fried diet. Also, soak the dishes in the stale water. **When you wash down the soaked dishes under the stream of fresh water, you produce water for soaking the next lot of dishes**. The water will soften all the dirt and more than 90% of the dishes then can be washed just by washing them down under the stream, without neither detergent nor effort, just as a fun. Detergent is needed for fatty dishes, which will not only contaminate the sewage but also demand more water and time since poison should not stay on your dishes and you need much more thorough washing down. Therefore, eliminating detergent saves your time and saves the water twice: when you wash the dishes and reuse the sewage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also reduce water consumption to almost 0 when washing some dishes. The idea is that **consumed the product to 100%, you have nothing to flush into the drain**. My grandfather taught be this (their life was very difficult in the middle of 20 century in Russia). Instead of flushing the remnants, tuck to the walls of the container, you dissolve them in the (hat) water and drink! It made more sense in the past, when food products were supplied in the glass bottles and you could wash the scoured cream with the hot soup that you eat, for instance. In the modern time, jams are still supplied in glass bottles and you can wash them with the tea that you drink, for instance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, you can also waste **0 water and no detergent when washing a fat pan**! Have you seen the advertisment, where they just flick the remnants away from an enamel pan? The secret is that you still have to use some oil to fry anything on the ultra-modern pan because otherwise the contact of the food with the pan is poor and oil delivers the heat to the internals of the food. This method works when you fry something coated in the flour, like pankakes or fish. Some four is left over and you throw it into biogarbage. But, if you are crazy enough, you can sprinkle the remnants of the flour over the fan in the pan, mix them with a scooplua to help the fat better soaking into the flour. In the end, you just wipe fat-flour mixture with a towel into the biocontainer. Voila! Zero water, zero detergent, almost instantly, no contaminated sewage and reused garbage flour for washing! Isn't it brilliant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also reduce the amount of water used when boiling. Many people pour out the hot water after cooking potatoes and pasta, for instance, which is a sign that more water was used than necessary. No water should be left after pasta or croup cooking, for instance. But that is more to the heat conservation. After boiling eggs you can boil pasta, for instance. This way, you reuse the water and thermal energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, you could collect the sewage and wash down the toilet, as my grandparents did. I still have not reached this level of eco-mind yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5245" RevisionGUID="26e2820b-6b2e-44fd-8b2d-bc2d62d7ed71" CreationDate="2016-05-13T12:53:27.380" UserId="3357" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="I think that the mostly water-hungry is irrigation but, in the **kitchen**, it is advised that you use a dish washing machine. I think this is wrong. I doubt that machine is smart enough to detect kind/level of pollution, which is necessary to choose the minimal washing method. Correct me if I am wrong, but, as a result, it must choose the worst washing regime for everything it washes, which not only increases the water consumption but also contaminates the sewage with chemicals. This is a crime, I think. We should reduce the contamination of the sewage to make it usable for the field irrigation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you was mindful, you would notice that **very rare food is fatty and needs the detergent**, especially if you don't indulge into the nasty fried diet. Also, soak the dishes in the stale water. **When you wash down the soaked dishes under the stream of fresh water, you produce water for soaking the next lot of dishes**. The water will soften all the dirt and more than 90% of the dishes then can be washed just by washing them down under the stream, without neither detergent nor effort, just as a fun. Detergent is needed for fatty dishes, which will not only contaminate the sewage but also demand more water and time since poison should not stay on your dishes and you need much more thorough washing down. Therefore, eliminating detergent saves your time and saves the water twice: when you wash the dishes and reuse the sewage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also reduce water consumption to almost 0 when washing some dishes. The idea is that **consumed the product to 100%, you have nothing to flush into the drain**. My grandfather taught me this (their life was very difficult in the middle of 20 century in Russia, especially in the Leningrad that he defended from the Nazi animals, every drop of food was a gold). Instead of flushing the remnants, tuck to the walls of the container, you dissolve them in the (hat) water and drink! It made more sense in the past, when food products were supplied in the glass bottles and you could wash the scoured cream with the hot soup that you eat, for instance. In the modern time, jams are still supplied in glass bottles and you can wash them with the tea that you drink, for instance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, you can also waste **0 water and no detergent when washing a fat pan**! Have you seen the advertisment, where they just flick the remnants away from an enamel pan? The secret is that you still have to use some oil to fry anything on the ultra-modern pan because otherwise the contact of the food with the pan is poor and oil delivers the heat to the internals of the food. This method works when you fry something coated in the flour, like pankakes or fish. Some four is left over and you throw it into biogarbage. But, if you are crazy enough, you can sprinkle the remnants of the flour over the fan in the pan, mix them with a scooplua to help the fat better soaking into the flour. In the end, you just wipe fat-flour mixture with a towel into the biocontainer. Voila! Zero water, zero detergent, almost instantly, no contaminated sewage and reused garbage flour for washing! Isn't it brilliant?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also reduce the amount of water used when boiling. Many people pour out the hot water after cooking potatoes and pasta, for instance, which is a sign that more water was used than necessary. No water should be left after pasta or croup cooking, for instance. But that is more to the heat conservation. After boiling eggs you can boil pasta, for instance. This way, you reuse the water and thermal energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, you could collect the sewage and wash down the toilet, as my grandparents did. I still have not reached this level of eco-mind yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5271" RevisionGUID="61801f14-d02a-4bc8-b77b-f91f80553c44" CreationDate="2016-05-13T17:11:39.710" UserId="555" Text="I'm interested in marine desalinization.  Most every device I have seen this far is some fossil-fuel driven high pressure pump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Are there electric ones?&#xD;&#xA; - Is high pressure even that necessary to produce a reasonable amount of potable water?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5271" RevisionGUID="61801f14-d02a-4bc8-b77b-f91f80553c44" CreationDate="2016-05-13T17:11:39.710" UserId="555" Text="What are the power requirements for typical water desalinization devices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5271" RevisionGUID="61801f14-d02a-4bc8-b77b-f91f80553c44" CreationDate="2016-05-13T17:11:39.710" UserId="555" Text="|water|boat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5272" RevisionGUID="c9a5359a-b34e-4677-97b8-e433eaa555a9" CreationDate="2016-05-14T00:03:54.637" UserId="3396" Text="**tldr: Look at power rating of different appliances (show in W or kW typically), or most simply try to buy Energy Star appliances.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing that you should know is that if you are trying to be as sustainable as possible the manufacture of the products must be considered. If the appliance has a short life or low energy consumption throughout its life then it is likely that the manufacturing methods (material use, process, etc) will contribute much more to the environmental impact of the product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really wanted to have a somewhat accurate estimate of the impact of one appliance over another you should find or do LCA analyses. This typically is not practical for most small appliances, and realistically the differences may not be clear between products from different companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you make the assumption that the manufacturing methods are similar between products and want to make a judgement solely on energy use you can try the following websites (I would post more but my reputation is not high enough yet). Or try searching &quot;database of energy consumption of appliances&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.energystar.gov/products?s=mega&#xD;&#xA;https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5273" RevisionGUID="0e1dd8a1-558b-46a4-bf82-fd4fbc75335a" CreationDate="2016-05-14T00:46:57.577" UserId="3396" Text="There are different types of grass which require less water and grow at different rates. You have to pick a type which is suitable for your area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can purchase a robotic lawnmower if the lawn is small enough but they are pricey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can go without a conventional lawn you can just let native plants grow or plant lots of trees which will eventually kill the grass by blocking the sunlight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5272" RevisionGUID="6aee590b-911d-49a0-80ae-868824f96725" CreationDate="2016-05-14T08:55:40.240" UserId="99" Comment="added links from comment" Text="**tldr: Look at power rating of different appliances (show in W or kW typically), or most simply try to buy Energy Star appliances.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing that you should know is that if you are trying to be as sustainable as possible the manufacture of the products must be considered. If the appliance has a short life or low energy consumption throughout its life then it is likely that the manufacturing methods (material use, process, etc) will contribute much more to the environmental impact of the product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really wanted to have a somewhat accurate estimate of the impact of one appliance over another you should find or do LCA analyses. This typically is not practical for most small appliances, and realistically the differences may not be clear between products from different companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you make the assumption that the manufacturing methods are similar between products and want to make a judgement solely on energy use you can try the following websites. Or try searching &quot;*database of energy consumption of appliances*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://www.energystar.gov/products?s=mega&#xD;&#xA;- https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.energyrating.gov.au/ (Australian database)&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.tpcdb.com/ (Computer focused),&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.energyefficiencydatabase.com/index.html . It sounds like this database should be useful once operational.&#xD;&#xA;- http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-184403.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12185" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5271" RevisionGUID="43449e80-6631-40d2-948f-6e6eae2e5da6" CreationDate="2016-05-14T11:12:26.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/731442037933932548" />
  <row Id="12186" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5243" RevisionGUID="91691fc2-696e-4a89-aef1-ee5df052c1d1" CreationDate="2016-05-14T14:41:15.500" UserId="99" Comment="105" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:659,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Mσᶎ&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5235" RevisionGUID="aa8f934c-fade-4fc9-a256-71293a97c578" CreationDate="2016-05-15T06:45:48.080" UserId="3293" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="You certainly can use it as water to grow plants. But better not drinking it, since it can host bacteria in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is good stuff about it here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/08/how_gross_is_the_water_that_drips_from_air_conditioners.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also be linked here in the site: someone thought about filtering it before drinking - http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3228/water-condensation-using-air-conditioners&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But anyway, this water wouldn't have any minerals in it, so no good for drinking for the every-day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5274" RevisionGUID="c16f0cec-5f19-41fd-87f6-86740a135c10" CreationDate="2016-05-15T13:02:16.447" UserId="3398" Text="I coated with Asian heat and water proof paint on that surface spreed plastic mat then on that one feet thickness of coconut coir spray water above all use green colour green house plastic shade put a c it will be very comfort and less electricity try and reply tan q&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5272" RevisionGUID="34d47f62-272c-4944-92b7-0150a27f7ba6" CreationDate="2016-05-15T20:20:58.627" UserId="3396" Comment="Fixed description error" Text="**tldr: Look at power rating of different appliances (show in W or kW typically), or most simply try to buy Energy Star appliances.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing that you should know is that if you are trying to be as sustainable as possible the manufacture of the products must be considered. If the appliance has a short life or low energy consumption throughout its life then it is likely that the manufacturing methods (material use, process, etc) will contribute much more to the environmental impact of the product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really wanted to have a somewhat accurate estimate of the impact of one appliance over another you should find or do LCA analyses. This typically is not practical for most small appliances, and realistically the differences may not be clear between products from different companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you make the assumption that the manufacturing methods are similar between products and want to make a judgement solely on energy use you can try the following websites. Or try searching &quot;*database of energy consumption of appliances*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://www.energystar.gov/products?s=mega&#xD;&#xA;- https://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.energyrating.gov.au/ (Australian database)&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.tpcdb.com/ (Computer focused),&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.energyefficiencydatabase.com/index.html &#xD;&#xA;- http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-184403.pdf (it sounds like this database should be useful once operational)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12190" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="cd686dac-9a20-4c39-8da7-792c683f8fc7" CreationDate="2016-05-16T06:27:06.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="12191" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5264" RevisionGUID="4dc5500e-39f9-46a4-95fe-9cebb729b55e" CreationDate="2016-05-16T23:19:35.440" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/732349807528935424" />
  <row Id="12194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="631" RevisionGUID="6f68f239-e758-4c47-a882-e4b3a4142754" CreationDate="2016-05-17T01:06:27.587" UserId="659" Comment="spelling" Text="Most washing machines pump water out. The pump is not intended to have a very high &quot;head&quot; or lift distance above floor level, but must have enough pressure to pump water above the level of a wash-tub as this is usually what is used as the water drain. Such pumps will be able to pump water &quot;somewhat higher&quot;. Flow rate will drop with increasing height, but a tank mounted slightly above toilet tank level will be able to be filled. From there it is &quot;easy enough&quot; to take a pipe to the toilet water inlet.  If desired you could use an independent inlet with its own valve so the mains feed is left in place with the tap turned off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that washing machine water will contain soap scum and dirt from clothes, which is liable to build up in storage tank, cistern and vales and pipe and need occasional cleaning. Filtering, settling and careful positioning of the toilet feed pipe entry will minimise this issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small electric pump could be used to transfer water from a lower level tank or a handpump could be used. You may wish to figure pump and pumping costs into your calculations if you want to know how &quot;green&quot; your solution is overall. In my country (New Zealand) the water for a toilet cistern fill costs about 3 cents and the electricity required to lift this one meter (assuming a fairly inefficient system) costs about 0.01 cents, so the reuse costs about 300 times less. Electric pumps can come from windscreen washer pumps (good lift, low rate, more easily blocked, usually 12V operation), electric washing machine pumps (fairly ideal: mains powered, OK lift, find in junk-yard) and more. Only some washing machine pumps are electrically powered - older ones tend to use mechanical drive using the main motor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5275" RevisionGUID="f4c82d89-2d3e-4cdf-98ef-dd70c584be39" CreationDate="2016-05-17T12:15:41.427" UserId="3400" Text="I believe they are called zeerpots. terracotta &quot;or other porous ceramic&quot; pot with another identical but smaller pot inside, fill gap between pots with sand pour just enough water into sand to dampen it and throw damp towel over top inside cools quite nicely. With that in mind there is many ways of taking the idea and modding it to better suit your specific need" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5276" RevisionGUID="ebaaa01b-4f16-4081-863d-080ee9ac0710" CreationDate="2016-05-17T15:36:55.427" UserId="3401" Text="It is fairly common to add a layer of gravel on top of a slab roof in many commercial buildings around the world (I guess 20-30cm). A friend (engineer) explained to me that the slab would then absorb much less heat during the day, because there was only little contact between the small stones and the slab through which heat could be conducted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way that is increasingly used these days around the world is a layer of dirt with plants in them (the so-called [green roof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_roof) - either edible plants or meadow or lawn-type plants) which also both isolate the slab, shade it somewhat, and provide evaporative cooling. Of course this needs to be watered regularly, or you should try to find out which plants in your locale survive wild easily with only natural rainfall (they may still benefit from additional water, growing lusher). I think this is more complex to install, as ideally one would still need a gravel layer underneath for drainage, a root barrier inbetween to keep drainage and roots/soil separated, then the growing soil. But I doubt many plants have roots going down much further than 30-40cm. In the long run this may however be more &quot;green&quot; as it works against the &quot;urban heat island&quot; effect, and you can use this for extra gardening and recreational space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a pinch, I would try this with a couple of large (water tight) plastic containers in which the plants are planted. One would obviously need to leave walking paths between them so that all could be reached (I guess one could reach about 50-60cm, so no more than 1m-1.2m between paths), and work out some way that would provide sufficient drainage. This would be a lot less effective, but might still do the trick sufficiently for your needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Optionally an isolating layer between the slab and the cover may be necessary (I know of dense polystyrene sheets used for this). Can't really be more detailed due to not knowing the local circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all cases you should be sure that the roof is able to carry the additional weight. I guess the fee for a structural engineer may be worth the cost of knowing you won't lose your house and all occupants...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all cases one would also make sure that the roof is sufficiently waterproofed. A naked roof will have the water run off and dry off quickly, but those layers I suggested will retain water for longer, which can lead to all sorts of weakening to the slab (and insulation layer, if added).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also be sure that the layer is retained in some way and can not slide off or be washed off especially during heavy rainfall." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5277" RevisionGUID="50c4a43d-d14c-4d01-bd3b-3928eee5609c" CreationDate="2016-05-17T16:50:07.130" UserId="3401" Text=" 1. There are of course [robotic lawn mowers](https://www.google.com/search?q=robot+lawn+mower) available, probably best suited for the smaller suburban yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered the same problem, as I have quite a large area (1/3 hectare / 0.8 acres), half kudzu, half native.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. For now, I have a ride-on lawn mower that does the area in about 3 hours every 2 weeks to one month. I [cut at the highest setting](http://www.richsoil.com/lawn-care.jsp). I also leave the clippings just where they fall. Collecting them in the catcher and emptying it on the compost pile easily makes the chore a whole-day exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. If you do go for biological lawn robots (animals), in my opinion the way to go would be to set up an [intensive grazing system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_intensive_rotational_grazing). You divide your area into a couple of enclosures and have your animals graze everything in it to the ground. Then rotate them to the next enclosure while that area recovers and grows lush from all the nice manure :-) In this way all plants are grazed equally (not only the tasty kudzu - while the bitter weeds are left alone to thrive). Do read the Wikipedia article. This is actually used in some areas to improve pasture by suppressing weeds (while lessening the use of weed killer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Animals I have considered:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cows. Not really. Maybe a very small breed. Rejected the idea.&#xD;&#xA; - Sheep. Probably preferably a mutton breed as you do not want to do the shearing... Else a milking breed. Look for what is available and thriving in your area. (If you are in the USA, I know mutton is all but unknown, but quite tasty, I assure you, if you need to cull some stock.) An ewe-only flock would be easier to handle.&#xD;&#xA; - Goats. Much the same as for sheep, but since they also browse (eat tree leaves - and branches, and bark), you need to keep them away from what you don't want eaten. Quite intelligent animals with a mind of their own. I would prefer a milk breed like the Swiss Saanens or the Nigerian/Cameroon dwarf goats. The latter are excellent milk producers, cute and make good pets, and may be more suited for a smaller space. Again, beginners especially should rather avoid rams.&#xD;&#xA; - Chickens. I have actually kept a couple of Dutch bantams, and am very fond of those little birds (but am now looking at a larger breed that is quite hardy in local conditions). Nice for the eggs, much better than bought. If handled regularly from an early age, can be quite tame and make nice pets. In addition, can help to control insects and slugs in your veggie patch (but should be kept separated from the plants especially cabbages and lettuce - it is quite tasty to them too). I found them quite low-maintenance, I could go away for a week or two and just leave them with a waterer and a feeder. Occasional trimming of claws and wings, maybe once or twice a year. Of course, you would need a lot more individuals for a given area than the larger animals. Also, they should not be combined with sheep (as sheep manure contains a lot of copper, which chickens are sensitive to). Depending on neighbors and city ordinances, roosters may not be a good idea due to noise - although I had a Pekinese that did not make himself all that noticeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Droppings are not that much of a problem. The grazers and browsers have fairly fibrous pellets, due to the free nature of their confinement they dry out quickly and break down to provide plant nourishment. The poultry may be a slightly bigger problem, but simply avoid the grazed area for a few days until dried out :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, an enclosure would disrupt your lawn's flow of movement. But you do not absolutely need permanent enclosures, you may make movable ones (examples: [chicken tractor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tractor), [electrified tape](http://www.zarebasystems.com/store/electric-fence-wire/polytape) or [mesh](http://www.kencove.com/fence/Electric+Net+Fencing_detail_NSPCG.php)). You would also have patches in various stages of grazing/recovery so your lawn would not always look suburb-pristine. You would need to find out (or determine through experimentation) your property's carrying capacity to determine how many animals to get, and then you need to keep in mind that grazing in spring and summer will feed more animals than in fall and winter - so you would need to cull your fock in winter and/or buy feed, then get additional animals in spring (new offspring is nature's way, but all the advice against the males may make that difficult to achieve).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Milking breeds may need daily milking (if they were pregnant), which can be a lot of trouble (milking machines do exist), but can at the same time be rewarding in the self-sufficiency department.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, animals should always have access to drinking water (which luckily can be made movable and/or automated) and depending on your climate, shelter. So some thinking should go into that. Also, chickens should have a nesting box, which makes it easier to find and collect eggs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. You can always [do away with the lawn and put it to use for (most of) your food needs](http://www.foodnotlawns.com/), perhaps similar to the [One Acre Farm](http://www.earthporm.com/self-sustaining-homestead/) concept. Obviously, this depends a lot on how many people in your family, how much land, climate and soil fertility, and not least, your expertise. I guess something like that is more like an ideal to work towards..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5277" RevisionGUID="c5e2916c-3cb6-44ef-a60a-e93fb469dca3" CreationDate="2016-05-17T17:08:27.093" UserId="3401" Comment="added 395 characters in body" Text=" 1. There are of course [robotic lawn mowers](https://www.google.com/search?q=robot+lawn+mower) available, probably best suited for the smaller suburban yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered the same problem, as I have quite a large area (1/3 hectare / 0.8 acres), half kudzu, half native.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. For now, I have a ride-on lawn mower that does the area in about 3 hours every 2 weeks to one month. I [cut at the highest setting](http://www.richsoil.com/lawn-care.jsp). I also leave the clippings just where they fall. Collecting them in the catcher and emptying it on the compost pile easily makes the chore a whole-day exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. If you do go for biological lawn robots (animals), in my opinion the way to go would be to set up an [intensive grazing system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_intensive_rotational_grazing). You divide your area into a couple of enclosures and have your animals graze everything in it to the ground. Then rotate them to the next enclosure while that area recovers and grows lush from all the nice manure :-) In this way all plants are grazed equally (not only the tasty kudzu - while the bitter weeds are left alone to thrive). Do read the Wikipedia article. This is actually used in some areas to improve pasture by suppressing weeds (while lessening the use of weed killer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Animals I have considered:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cows. Not really. Maybe a very small breed. Rejected the idea.&#xD;&#xA; - Sheep. Probably preferably a mutton breed as you do not want to do the shearing... Else a milking breed. Look for what is available and thriving in your area. (If you are in the USA, I know mutton is all but unknown, but quite tasty, I assure you, if you need to cull some stock.) An ewe-only flock would be easier to handle.&#xD;&#xA; - Goats. Much the same as for sheep, but since they also browse (eat tree leaves - and branches, and bark), you need to keep them away from what you don't want eaten. Quite intelligent animals with a mind of their own. I would prefer a milk breed like the Swiss Saanens or the Nigerian/Cameroon dwarf goats. The latter are excellent milk producers, cute and make good pets, and may be more suited for a smaller space. Again, beginners especially should rather avoid rams.&#xD;&#xA; - Chickens. I have actually kept a couple of Dutch bantams, and am very fond of those little birds (but am now looking at a larger breed that is quite hardy in local conditions). Nice for the eggs, much better than bought. If handled regularly from an early age, can be quite tame and make nice pets. In addition, can help to control insects and slugs in your veggie patch (but should be kept separated from the plants especially cabbages and lettuce - it is quite tasty to them too). I found them quite low-maintenance, I could go away for a week or two and just leave them with a waterer and a feeder. Occasional trimming of claws and wings, maybe once or twice a year. Of course, you would need a lot more individuals for a given area than the larger animals. Also, they should not be combined with sheep (as sheep manure contains a lot of copper, which chickens are sensitive to). Depending on neighbors and city ordinances, roosters may not be a good idea due to noise - although I had a Pekinese that did not make himself all that noticeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Droppings are not that much of a problem. The grazers and browsers have fairly fibrous pellets, due to the free nature of their confinement they dry out quickly and break down to provide plant nourishment. The poultry may be a slightly bigger problem, but simply avoid the grazed area for a few days until dried out :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, an enclosure would disrupt your lawn's flow of movement. But you do not absolutely need permanent enclosures, you may make movable ones (examples: [chicken tractor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tractor), [electrified tape](http://www.zarebasystems.com/store/electric-fence-wire/polytape) or [mesh](http://www.kencove.com/fence/Electric+Net+Fencing_detail_NSPCG.php)). You would also have patches in various stages of grazing/recovery so your lawn would not always look suburb-pristine. You would need to find out (or determine through experimentation) your property's carrying capacity to determine how many animals to get, and then you need to keep in mind that grazing in spring and summer will feed more animals than in fall and winter - so you would need to cull your flock in winter and/or buy feed, then get additional animals in spring (new offspring is nature's way, but all the advice against the males may make that difficult to achieve).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Milking breeds may need daily milking (if they were pregnant), which can be a lot of trouble (milking machines do exist), but can at the same time be rewarding in the self-sufficiency department.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, animals should always have access to drinking water (which luckily can be made movable and/or automated) and depending on your climate, shelter. So some thinking should go into that. Also, chickens should have a nesting box, which makes it easier to find and collect eggs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. You can always [do away with the lawn and put it to use for (most of) your food needs](http://www.foodnotlawns.com/), perhaps similar to the [One Acre Farm](http://www.earthporm.com/self-sustaining-homestead/) concept. Obviously, this depends a lot on how many people in your family, how much land, climate and soil fertility, and not least, your expertise. I guess something like that is more like an ideal to work towards...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional note regarding chickens combined with grazers: I know of this Zimbabwean farmer, having bred an extremely hardy indigenous breed of chicken ([Boschvelder](http://naturallyzimbabwean.com/2016/03/23/the-boschvelds-are-back-in-town/)), that would accompany the cattle and peck ticks off them, thus helping to keep them more healthy without the need for dips and antibiotics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5278" RevisionGUID="8d60e2cd-a1d7-475a-8baa-f46434a85e40" CreationDate="2016-05-18T05:13:38.647" UserId="80" Text="To add to Terry and Darren's suggestions, I wanted to insist on the fact that modern **[bidet attachments][1]** are available and easily installable on a sitting water toilet without major modification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This one I found at a &quot;culturally aware&quot; place in Brisbane, Australia (sorry about the bad quality of the photo):&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kind of compact electronic attachment might be more hygienic than hand-held showers, as there is less risk of splash-back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the **environmental impact**, there are a number of things to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The amount of water coming out of those devices is fairly small compared to the toilet flush.&#xD;&#xA; - The device involves building materials like plastic, different kinds&#xD;&#xA;   of metal for parts and extra bit of plumbing... and some wiring + the&#xD;&#xA;   use of electricity in case of electronics.&#xD;&#xA; - Does the device include an air-drying function, that would use more energy but could completely remove toilet paper form the bathroom? Will you be using a reusable towel to dry yourself, or will you still use some toilet paper?&#xD;&#xA; - What kind of paper are you&#xD;&#xA;   using currently? Is it already post-consumer recycled paper? Or&#xD;&#xA;   [FSC](https://ic.fsc.org/en) certified? Was the wood pulp&#xD;&#xA;   [bleached](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleaching_of_wood_pulp#Environmental_considerations)? Where does the raw material come from, and where is it transformed?&#xD;&#xA; - What is your local waste water treatment plant process, i.e. what is the effect of toilet paper in the treatment or disposal of sewerage water locally? Or do you use a septic tank?&#xD;&#xA; - etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All those parameters will influence the comparison between the two methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Mother Nature News][3] says that bidets would be more environmentally friendly than just paper, because they'd (counter-intuitively) save water (paper production is water-intensive, even for recycled paper), and because the mill's organic pollution would be mostly avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[American Scientist](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talks-bidets/) lists the tree, water, electricity and chlorine savings that would be made if Americans gave toilet paper up, and agrees that the amount of water used by the bidet is negligible compared to the amount of water used in the paper production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefit of a completely separate bidet unit would be to have a dry composting toilet and reduce significantly the amount of water used in the bathroom altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidet#Bidet_integrated_with_toilet_.28or_electronic_bidet.29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oyyI3.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/responsible-living/stories/which-is-greener-toilet-paper-or-a-bidet" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5279" RevisionGUID="ee5b9903-5498-445e-8cfc-6bd121bd2a6e" CreationDate="2016-05-18T21:43:18.940" UserId="3404" Text="Yes few sources do inject sucrose based colors via injections two to three days prior it is sent to market . &#xD;&#xA;Such water melons have sugar taste rather then it's own ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="ec1a4ee7-b64f-4d81-9f73-4cbcfecacb60" CreationDate="2016-05-19T05:18:16.353" UserId="3405" Text="I am installing a solar panel which requires a 7m cable run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the diagrams I've seen on the internet suggest fusing at the charge controller end. This protects against charge controller failures, but what about a mid wire short on a sunny day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate that there is nothing wrong with fusing the +Ve at both ends of the wire, but why isn't this recommended?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="ec1a4ee7-b64f-4d81-9f73-4cbcfecacb60" CreationDate="2016-05-19T05:18:16.353" UserId="3405" Text="Fusing a Solar (PV) Panel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="ec1a4ee7-b64f-4d81-9f73-4cbcfecacb60" CreationDate="2016-05-19T05:18:16.353" UserId="3405" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12204" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5269" RevisionGUID="881e583b-1008-4325-94c2-0a56857826f6" CreationDate="2016-05-19T07:33:47.187" UserId="99" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:659,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Mσᶎ&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2868,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;A. A.&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5281" RevisionGUID="b9fe0d88-490c-46ca-887c-9b17b4c017a7" CreationDate="2016-05-19T11:56:44.780" UserId="3405" Text="There is no benefit to having an extra fuse at the solar panel. The fuse at the charge controller end is recommended (an in some jurisdictions a requirement).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From https://www.boats.com/how-to/solar-panels-what-about-fuses-or-breakers/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar panels are what are known as “self-limiting” devices, meaning that no matter what, the amount of amperage they can produce is limited. A breaker or fuse would never trip in the event of a short circuit between the panels and your charge controller. Remember that what blows fuses and trips circuit breakers is amperage that is excessive for the circuit in question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="671" RevisionGUID="3e1916b0-5e6b-4a99-8c50-4338dd113229" CreationDate="2016-05-20T01:55:11.383" UserId="318" Comment="added 1158 characters in body" Text="**Added at top May 2016:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@Johann commented on May 20th :    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Please note that the Question is talking about an Aquaponics system, not Hydroponics. The entire water system needs to completely recirculate at least once an hour due to fish/oxygen needs. Your pump will be a very large one or a multi staged set up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggests that while my advice may be correct for a given flow rate, the desired flow rate is much higher than I assumed. The actualtime to circulate all fluid is an importnt parameter nd must be specified by the 'client'. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick update based on that, is that my power required formula still holds as an approximation. ie&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You will get about 66 litres per hour per Watt in your system.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Divide litres by ~~= 4 to get US gallons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if 1 hour circulation time is required.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Power = Gallons_per_hour / 16.5 Watts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a 5000 gallon system &#xD;&#xA;= 5000 /16.5 = 300 Watts or about 1/2 HP.  &#xD;&#xA;As the volume involved appears to be more than 5000 gallons (adding up the various tanks &amp; beds) then perhaps a 750 Watt / 1 HP pump may be needed for once per hour circulation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Engineers view :-).   &#xD;&#xA;Replace with answer by somebody with practical hydroponics experience when available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can determine desired flow rate needed from hydroponics lore.   &#xD;&#xA;Let's say the system = 5000 gallons or 20,000 litres (4:1 is close enough for this purpose).&#xD;&#xA;To recirculate the total fluid in 1 week = 168 hours requires 5000/168 = 30 gallons per hour or about 120 litres per hour   &#xD;&#xA;(= 2 litres/minute or 33 cc/second - about 1/3 of a 100cc medicine measure per second.  &#xD;&#xA; Not very fast.)   &#xD;&#xA;According to the formula in part (2) below that would requires about 120/66 or about a 2 Watt pump.   &#xD;&#xA;That's very small.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the other approach - a 50 Watt pump will supply about 50 x 66 = 3300 litres per hour. Total system fluid will recirculate in about 20,000l/3300 = 6 hours.   &#xD;&#xA;If 6 hours is acceptable then a 50 Watt pump will be adequate. That sizing was probably conservative so I'dd expect you'd actually get substantially more flow and quicker turnover than that if required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say flow wanted = L litres/hour.&#xD;&#xA; Lift from top of sump if full to grow bed = 2 feet.   &#xD;&#xA; If you want to be able to pump with simp only half full = 3 feet from top, required lift = 5 feet. Say 1.5 metres.  If you want to be able to pump sump from very bottom you need more power or be willing to accept a lower flow rate (probably acceptable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So say Lift at full flow = 1.5 metres = height = head = h&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) The easy way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pump manufacturers provide lift x volume charts and these can be used to select required power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) The slightly harder way. In your case -  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Power ~~ = (litres per hour) / 66 Watts**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You will get about 66 litres per hour per Watt in your system.  &#xD;&#xA; Divide litres by ~~= 4 to get US gallons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why ?   &#xD;&#xA;Read on ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pump power at 100% efficiency ~= head x litres/second x 10 Watts  &#xD;&#xA; litres/second = litres/hour/3600.&#xD;&#xA;For system with less than 100% efficiency multiply power needed by K.&#xD;&#xA;K = 100/efficiency %.  &#xD;&#xA;eg 50% efficiency -&gt; k= 2.  &#xD;&#xA;25% efficiency  K = 100/25 = 4 etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Power = metres lift x litres / hour * 10/3600 * k &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume k-5 for now = 20% efficient = easily achieved.  &#xD;&#xA; This includes pipeline head or pressure losses at typical flow rates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Power = lift x litres /h x 50/3600 = h x l x 0.0139  &#xD;&#xA;Close enough to start:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  Power = lift x litres per hour / 100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **For 1.5m lift Power = litres per hour / 66**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - or **litres per hour = 66 x Watts.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5283" RevisionGUID="001ade3c-6a13-4f8b-b233-cacf2d6fcbbc" CreationDate="2016-05-20T07:11:56.053" UserId="2891" Text="We have some white boards where the ink has dried. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure there are commercial cleaners out there, but I am looking to find something: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Liquid:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Organic/ Edible - Maybe as natural as a fruit/ veg/ herb extract  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AND/ OR  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Home made - Using simple items from the kitchen/ garage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Scrub:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the best scrub that will work well with the above? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12211" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5283" RevisionGUID="001ade3c-6a13-4f8b-b233-cacf2d6fcbbc" CreationDate="2016-05-20T07:11:56.053" UserId="2891" Text="Organic or Homemade equivalent White board Cleaning liquid &amp; scrub?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12212" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5283" RevisionGUID="001ade3c-6a13-4f8b-b233-cacf2d6fcbbc" CreationDate="2016-05-20T07:11:56.053" UserId="2891" Text="|diy|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5284" RevisionGUID="60878650-ad7d-411e-86dd-054281a09f15" CreationDate="2016-05-20T08:09:05.130" UserId="2846" Text="I use lab alcohol for the ones in work. You need a solvent to free up the inks. At home I'd use methylated spirits (alcohol stove fuel). Flambe alcohol might work. You could test some vodka but the water content might be too high and make it smear. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brown paper works well, screwed up. If you end up with lots in packaging you can recycle it for this. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5285" RevisionGUID="d4564af1-55c3-412e-b8c6-fa32e5eaf201" CreationDate="2016-05-20T14:27:33.333" UserId="3411" Text="For at least a few weeks, I've been living using others resources. I do not own a cellphone and have no expenses except my car insurance. I'm currently using my car for sleep and transportation. For food, my job has free hot chocolate and green tea (I drink A LOT so I keep my calories up. On my free time at work I look for food left behind at meetings or ask people at lunch. They also have a shower, but I rely on left behind soap. On weekends, I go to Sam's Club or Costco and spend much of the day eating samples. It's free for me since I don't buy anything. &#xA;&#xA;Is this sustainable for the future? Is it possible to start a family with my lifestyle? Is there anything else I can do to lower my expenses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5285" RevisionGUID="d4564af1-55c3-412e-b8c6-fa32e5eaf201" CreationDate="2016-05-20T14:27:33.333" UserId="3411" Text="Using other peoples resources for basic living" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5285" RevisionGUID="d4564af1-55c3-412e-b8c6-fa32e5eaf201" CreationDate="2016-05-20T14:27:33.333" UserId="3411" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5286" RevisionGUID="3cfdfeda-848d-48d1-82db-8a8416db0bfd" CreationDate="2016-05-20T15:41:59.523" UserId="48" Text="No, it's not sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As per your comment, you're not doing anything economically productive, but you are consuming goods and services. It doesn't matter that those goods and services are free to you at the point of consumption - what matters it the consumption itself, which is happening without you contributing to economic replenishment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="580a5c78-1964-4a67-b8ce-7ba582151e01" CreationDate="2016-05-20T21:43:49.567" UserId="3415" Text="I wouldn't focus on negative answers... **It's ALL POSSIBLE!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is sustainable... At least for one person as well as you are doing already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MAYBE it will be sustainable for an entire family, moreover if you are all CONSCIOUS human beings and focus on some CURRENT tendencies in that direction around the world (YES, you're not alone!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Urban Agroecoloy][1] (moreover on [non-owned land][2])&#xD;&#xA; - Food leftbehind (moreover on [dining halls][3])&#xD;&#xA; - [Food from garbage][4] &#xD;&#xA; - [Occuppy][5] (Living on [abandoned places][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there's much from this tendencies in Germany, as it is a VERY conscious country, maybe you could make some research on that countries tendencies and find much more useful things. I'm doing my thing too, and you know what? some of the richest persons I've known have made their way from ground-up through tendencies that aren't adopted by the mayority of us (recycling, green bonds, biogas, etc), done massively, but yes, little by little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.urbanaglaw.org/land-access/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/freiburg-studenten-essen-die-mensa-reste-der-kommilitonen-a-1086593.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/containern-lebensmittel-aus-der-muelltonne-a-1009663.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wikihow.com/Squat-in-Abandoned-Property&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLugXY3NahE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="f22828bd-ca40-40cc-9cdc-f4cc37c8a720" CreationDate="2016-05-20T21:55:32.900" UserId="3415" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="I wouldn't focus on negative answers... **It's ALL POSSIBLE!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is sustainable... At least for one person as well as you are doing already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MAYBE it will be sustainable for an entire family, moreover if you are all CONSCIOUS human beings and focus on some CURRENT tendencies in that direction around the world (YES, you're not alone!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Urban Agroecoloy][1] (moreover on [non-owned land][2])&#xD;&#xA; - Food leftbehind (moreover on [dining halls][3])&#xD;&#xA; - [Food from garbage][4] &#xD;&#xA; - [Occuppy][5] (Living on [abandoned places][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there's much from this tendencies in Germany, as it is a VERY conscious country, maybe you could make some research on that countries tendencies and find much more useful things. I'm doing my thing too, and you know what? some of the richest persons I've known have made their way from ground-up through tendencies that aren't adopted by the mayority of us (recycling, green bonds, biogas, etc), done massively, but yes, little by little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internet is information, and information is... POWER!&#xD;&#xA;With enough information you have the power to transform EVERYTHING! &#xD;&#xA;Nothing is created, nor destructed, only transformed (Laws of Conservation of energy and mass and Thermodynamics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.urbanaglaw.org/land-access/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/freiburg-studenten-essen-die-mensa-reste-der-kommilitonen-a-1086593.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/containern-lebensmittel-aus-der-muelltonne-a-1009663.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wikihow.com/Squat-in-Abandoned-Property&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLugXY3NahE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="f10d5f05-b772-4c1d-9992-510366598a68" CreationDate="2016-05-20T22:00:54.573" UserId="3415" Comment="Added a nice conclusion" Text="I wouldn't focus on negative answers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's ALL POSSIBLE!&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is sustainable... At least for one person as well as you are doing already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MAYBE it will be sustainable for an entire family, moreover if you are all CONSCIOUS human beings and focus on some CURRENT tendencies in that direction around the world (YES, you're not alone!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Urban Agroecoloy][1] (moreover on [non-owned land][2])&#xD;&#xA; - Food leftbehind (moreover on [dining halls][3])&#xD;&#xA; - [Food from garbage][4] &#xD;&#xA; - [Occuppy][5] (Living on [abandoned places][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there's much from this tendencies in Germany, as it is a VERY conscious country, maybe you could make some research on that countries tendencies and find much more useful things. I'm doing my thing too, and you know what? some of the richest persons I've known have made their way from ground-up through tendencies that aren't adopted by the mayority of us (recycling, green bonds, biogas, etc), done massively, but yes, little by little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Internet is information, and information is... POWER!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**With enough information you have the power to transform EVERYTHING!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nothing is created, nor destructed, only transformed. (Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of energy and Conservation of mass).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.urbanaglaw.org/land-access/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/freiburg-studenten-essen-die-mensa-reste-der-kommilitonen-a-1086593.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/containern-lebensmittel-aus-der-muelltonne-a-1009663.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wikihow.com/Squat-in-Abandoned-Property&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLugXY3NahE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5285" RevisionGUID="d8573749-97a2-42dd-bcd0-91b0d2ed698d" CreationDate="2016-05-20T22:17:53.167" UserId="3415" Comment="added a tag" Text="For at least a few weeks, I've been living using others resources. I do not own a cellphone and have no expenses except my car insurance. I'm currently using my car for sleep and transportation. For food, my job has free hot chocolate and green tea (I drink A LOT so I keep my calories up. On my free time at work I look for food left behind at meetings or ask people at lunch. They also have a shower, but I rely on left behind soap. On weekends, I go to Sam's Club or Costco and spend much of the day eating samples. It's free for me since I don't buy anything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is this sustainable for the future?  &#xD;&#xA; - Is it possible to start a family with my lifestyle?&#xD;&#xA; - Is there anything else I can do to lower my expenses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12224" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5285" RevisionGUID="d8573749-97a2-42dd-bcd0-91b0d2ed698d" CreationDate="2016-05-20T22:17:53.167" UserId="3415" Comment="added a tag" Text="|food|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12225" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5285" RevisionGUID="d8573749-97a2-42dd-bcd0-91b0d2ed698d" CreationDate="2016-05-20T22:17:53.167" Comment="Proposed by 3415 approved by 3411 edit id of 399" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="8e9294ce-14cb-44f3-b38e-dc44e420dc96" CreationDate="2016-05-20T22:39:05.367" UserId="3415" Comment="Added a nice conclusion, and many extra points" Text="I wouldn't focus on negative answers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's ALL POSSIBLE!&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is sustainable... At least for one person as well as you are doing already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MAYBE it will be sustainable for an entire family, moreover if you are all CONSCIOUS human beings and focus on some CURRENT tendencies in that direction around the world (YES, you're not alone!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Urban Agroecoloy][1] (moreover on [non-owned land][2])&#xD;&#xA; - Food leftbehind (moreover on [dining halls][3])&#xD;&#xA; - [Food from garbage][4] &#xD;&#xA; - [Occuppy][5] (Living on [abandoned places][6])&#xD;&#xA; - Barter, Trade and Alternative Economies (exchange without taxes)&#xD;&#xA; - Hard Money ([Non-Fiat currencies][7])&#xD;&#xA; - Sovereign Citizens or Freemen (living under own laws no matter the country, obviously this doesn't allows you to surpass others laws, there's many movements in many countries, but it's a legal complication in many matters)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there's much from this tendencies in Germany, as it is a VERY conscious country, maybe you could make some research on that countries tendencies and find much more useful things. I'm doing my thing too, and you know what? some of the richest persons I've known have made their way from ground-up through tendencies that aren't adopted by the mayority of us (recycling, green bonds, biogas, etc), done massively, but yes, little by little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Internet is information, and information is... POWER!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**With enough information you have the power to transform EVERYTHING!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nothing is created, nor destructed, only transformed. (Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of energy and Conservation of mass).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.urbanaglaw.org/land-access/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/freiburg-studenten-essen-die-mensa-reste-der-kommilitonen-a-1086593.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/containern-lebensmittel-aus-der-muelltonne-a-1009663.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wikihow.com/Squat-in-Abandoned-Property&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLugXY3NahE&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2014/10/02/dozens-of-countries-have-already-kicked-the-fiat-currency-habit/#35c90b7c2a6f" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12227" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="1e11048c-9ac2-421e-979e-3e0e705d748f" CreationDate="2016-05-20T22:47:38.477" UserId="3415" Comment="Reorder of points and extra nice comment" Text="I wouldn't focus on negative answers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's ALL POSSIBLE!&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is sustainable... At least for one person as well as you are doing already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MAYBE it will be sustainable for an entire family, moreover if you are all CONSCIOUS human beings and focus on some CURRENT tendencies in that direction around the world (YES, you're not alone!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Food leftbehind (moreover on [dining halls][3])&#xD;&#xA; - [Food from garbage][4] &#xD;&#xA; - [Occuppy][5] (Living on [abandoned places][6])&#xD;&#xA; - [Urban Agroecoloy][1] (moreover on [non-owned land][2])&#xD;&#xA; - Barter, Trade and Alternative Economies (exchange overproduction without taxes)&#xD;&#xA; - Hard Money ([Non-Fiat currencies][7])&#xD;&#xA; - Sovereign Citizens or Freemen (living under own laws no matter the country, obviously this doesn't allows you to surpass others laws, there's many movements in many countries, but it's a legal complication in many matters)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there's much from this tendencies, some being really aaplied in Germany and France (very conscious countries). Maybe you could make some research on that countries tendencies and find much more useful things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm doing my thing too, and you know what? some of the richest persons I've known have made their way from ground-up through tendencies that aren't adopted by the mayority of us (recycling, green bonds, biogas, etc), done massively, but yes, little by little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For whom this all is MORE sustainable is for the entire world, humanity and mother earth, so I want to give you a **BIG THANK YOU!** in name of us all, you are a living example and you should SHARE IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Internet is information, and information is... POWER!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**With enough information you have the power to transform EVERYTHING!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nothing is created, nor destructed, only transformed. (Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of energy and Conservation of mass).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.urbanaglaw.org/land-access/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/freiburg-studenten-essen-die-mensa-reste-der-kommilitonen-a-1086593.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/containern-lebensmittel-aus-der-muelltonne-a-1009663.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wikihow.com/Squat-in-Abandoned-Property&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLugXY3NahE&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2014/10/02/dozens-of-countries-have-already-kicked-the-fiat-currency-habit/#35c90b7c2a6f" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="95ba61b5-0e31-40af-b19b-727e09a503bd" CreationDate="2016-05-20T23:01:42.153" UserId="3415" Comment="included the word waste many more times" Text="I wouldn't focus on negative answers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's ALL POSSIBLE!&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is sustainable... At least for one person as well as you are doing already, dealing with unconscious waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MAYBE it will be sustainable for an entire family, moreover if you are all CONSCIOUS human beings and focus on some CURRENT tendencies in that direction around the world (YES, you're not alone!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Food leftbehind (moreover on [dining halls][3])&#xD;&#xA; - [Food from garbage][4] &#xD;&#xA; - [Occuppy][5] (Living on [abandoned places][6])&#xD;&#xA; - [Urban Agroecoloy][1] (moreover on [non-owned land][2])&#xD;&#xA; - Barter, Trade and Alternative Economies (exchange overproduction without taxes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not about waste transformation, but related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hard Money ([Non-Fiat currencies][7])&#xD;&#xA; - Sovereign Citizens or Freemen (living under own laws no matter the country, obviously this doesn't allows you to surpass others laws, there's many movements in many countries, but it's a legal complication in many matters)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there's many of this anti-waste tendencies, some being really applied in Germany and France (very conscious countries on waste-transforming). Maybe you could make some research on those countries and their tendencies to find much more useful things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm doing my thing too, and you know what? some of the richest persons I've known have made their way from ground-up through this kind of waste-transforming-tendencies that aren't adopted by the mayority of us (recycling, green bonds, biogas, etc), done massively, but yes, little by little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For whom this all is MORE sustainable is for the entire world, humanity and mother earth, so I want to give you a **BIG THANK YOU!** in name of us all, you are a living example and you should SHARE IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Internet is information, and information is... POWER!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**With enough information you have the power to transform EVERYTHING!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nothing is created, nor destructed, only transformed. (Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of energy and Conservation of mass).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.urbanaglaw.org/land-access/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/freiburg-studenten-essen-die-mensa-reste-der-kommilitonen-a-1086593.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/containern-lebensmittel-aus-der-muelltonne-a-1009663.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wikihow.com/Squat-in-Abandoned-Property&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLugXY3NahE&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2014/10/02/dozens-of-countries-have-already-kicked-the-fiat-currency-habit/#35c90b7c2a6f" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12230" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5285" RevisionGUID="b3207ce1-f564-4d37-9f79-d0058c72d068" CreationDate="2016-05-21T08:07:23.730" UserId="3415" Comment="added some tags about waste" Text="|food|waste|defining-sustainability|waste-minimisation|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12231" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5285" RevisionGUID="b3207ce1-f564-4d37-9f79-d0058c72d068" CreationDate="2016-05-21T08:07:23.730" Comment="Proposed by 3415 approved by 85 edit id of 400" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5290" RevisionGUID="e67aeba8-2cec-40e6-8fe4-d4a8e4b86e14" CreationDate="2016-05-21T10:03:52.937" UserId="15" Text="It's reasonable to say that a lifestyle can still be sustainable even if not everybody could live that way. It's like filling a niche in an ecosystem. Obviously we can't all eat discarded/excess meals, but there is certainly room for such behaviour to be part of a system that is sustainable as a whole. You almost certainly can't live that way your whole life though, assuming you live to old age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not sustainable for your health to be consuming hot chocolate as a food, and it's likely the free food samples aren't great either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of those lifestyle choices would be difficult if you get sick, especially if was a disease that required special facilities or equipment. Examples I can think of include difficulty making yourself comfortable if you suffered from a spine problem, public or workplace toilet facilities being inadequate or perhaps inappropriate for some diseases, asthma or respiratory conditions requiring a warmer place to sleep than a vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you driving your car to get to the stores you get free samples from? If so, then you could consider the environmental and monetary cost of running the car (not just fuel, but servicing and wear and tear too) and compare that with the monetary and environmental cost of getting food elsewhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12233" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5280" RevisionGUID="f0ed3276-63a6-4153-8a9e-5829404f48ac" CreationDate="2016-05-21T17:31:17.160" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/734074093792854016" />
  <row Id="12235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="f5ffc210-c2bb-403b-83d5-6f8234081cdf" CreationDate="2016-05-22T04:59:56.503" UserId="3416" Text="I am trying to build a passively cooled building in equatorial Indonesia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a rendering of the ground floor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ground floor][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are existing structures on the left and right side of the building, however they are lower than the ceiling of the first floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The back wall of the building is a very large rock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The building is 13 metres wide by 4 metres deep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main part of the ground floor is light commercial space, the right hand part is a storage room.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ahLVu.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am just wondering about air flow. Should I seek to create vents just below ceiling height? Or a cross-draught from left to right? Or is it better to try and get the hot air to rise upstairs and then out of the flat roof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="f5ffc210-c2bb-403b-83d5-6f8234081cdf" CreationDate="2016-05-22T04:59:56.503" UserId="3416" Text="How do I get airflow through my building" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="f5ffc210-c2bb-403b-83d5-6f8234081cdf" CreationDate="2016-05-22T04:59:56.503" UserId="3416" Text="|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12238" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="cf34c432-3bc4-4f3c-af36-36f19b982a97" CreationDate="2016-05-22T06:19:54.797" UserId="872" Comment="Make link a hyperlink." Text="I am looking to replace my laptop. Being in a conscious path of my own, I want to choose a laptop which is a product of good and sustainable procedures. I am saying good because most popular brands like Lenovo have factories in China where the labor conditions are inhumane I have read and I am not sure if they follow proper environmental protocol there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is, are there any brands of laptop which are in the niche genre of enhancing sustainability and eco-friendliness of their products? For example, one brand I came across is iameco ([www.iameco.com][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look forward to your inputs!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.iameco.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12239" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2925" RevisionGUID="cf34c432-3bc4-4f3c-af36-36f19b982a97" CreationDate="2016-05-22T06:19:54.797" Comment="Proposed by 872 approved by 99 edit id of 401" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4946" RevisionGUID="7abab595-8c43-4474-b07a-7d170fffc2ef" CreationDate="2016-05-22T10:07:42.220" UserId="85" Comment="added 300 characters in body" Text="This question reminds me of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/225/can-i-recycle-plastics-at-home-by-melting-and-molding/229#229&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2904/recycling-paper-at-home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in that it is asking if it is possible to do some industrialized process at home. Well, of course it is, but that's *only because anything is possible*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there are two ways of making bamboo fabric, sometimes called &quot;bamboo rayon&quot; and &quot;bamboo linen&quot; to distinguish them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bamboo rayon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process for making bamboo rayon is described on [OrganicClothing.blogs.com](http://organicclothing.blogs.com/my_weblog/2007/09/bamboo-facts-be.html) (direct quote):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Bamboo leaves and the soft, inner pith from the hard bamboo trunk are extracted and crushed;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The crushed bamboo cellulose is soaked in a solution of 15% to 20% sodium hydroxide at a temperature between 20 degrees C to 25 degrees C for one to three hours to form alkali cellulose;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The bamboo alkali cellulose is then pressed to remove any excess sodium hydroxide solution. The alkali cellulose is crashed by a grinder and left to dry for 24 hours;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Roughly a third as much carbon disulfide is added to the bamboo alkali cellulose to sulfurize the compound causing it to jell;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Any remaining carbon disulfide is removed by evaporation due to decompression and cellulose sodium xanthogenate is the result;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. A diluted solution of sodium hydroxide is added to the cellulose sodium xanthogenate dissolving it to create a viscose solution consisting of about 5% sodium hydroxide and 7% to 15% bamboo fiber cellulose.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. The viscose bamboo cellulose is forced through spinneret nozzles into a large container of a diluted sulfuric acid solution which hardens the viscose bamboo cellulose sodium xanthogenate and reconverts it to cellulose bamboo fiber threads which are spun into bamboo fiber yarns to be woven into reconstructed and regenerated bamboo fabric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### tl;dr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right, too long, didn't read, i.e. don't try this at home!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bamboo linen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently bamboo can also be processed into &quot;bamboo linen&quot;, i.e. using the same process as with flax or hemp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have processed bamboo before, not for fabric, but for (Japanese) [basket weaving](https://goo.gl/awltOk) and I have to admit that I find it difficult to imagine that you can get any joy out of it if you have to do it at home. Bamboo is very hard (after all, you can [build houses](https://goo.gl/1CsNKm) out of it). Also, we have used natural bamboo baskets in the kitchen (as sieve, storage baskets, etc.), some items for up to 10 years, washing with dish-washing liquid as usual and the bamboo didn't mould or break. This long exposure to water without any kind of breaking down should also mean that processing it into fabric (where it should break down) is more difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One commercial producer of bamboo linen is Litrax. Its bamboo linens are described/advertised [on textileworld.com](http://www.textileworld.com/textile-world/quality-fabric-of-the-month/2010/04/litrax-natural-bamboo-the-real-deal/). The processing, however, uses &quot;fine-tuned enzymatic cocktails&quot;, as is to be expected. Again, this probably means you should give up on trying to make bamboo fabrics at home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're mainly interested in processing bamboo, I can warmly recommend basket weaving. With a handful simple tools (some of which can be improvised), you can cut, dry, process and weave bamboo into baskets that are almost indestructible (and look pretty, too). Searching Google for [images of 竹細工](https://www.google.de/search?q=%E7%AB%B9%E7%B4%B0%E5%B7%A5&amp;safe=off&amp;client=safari&amp;hl=en-de&amp;prmd=imnv&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwig56L4tu3MAhVJXhQKHRwyADMQ_AUIBygB&amp;biw=1024&amp;bih=672) (Japanese bamboo basket weaving) gives a good idea of what is possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5292" RevisionGUID="81e2f630-3bd9-4987-8a44-9bce4eb6399c" CreationDate="2016-05-22T15:55:53.407" UserId="3293" Text="I am about to  start the project. Here are the charges I plan:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 4h   - build an extra composter, in order to have 3 composters like advised [here](http://humanurehandbook.com/manual.html), where *A minimum three bin system is recommended*.&#xD;&#xA; - 12h  - build a small cabin for privacy&#xD;&#xA; - 4h   - build two big containers. So when one is full, the other can be used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA; In my view it should take about 1 hour / month to handle the manure.&#xD;&#xA; I also account to about 5-10 hours per year for total cleaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 20h / year - handle the thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="fc3e76db-cec1-4350-8870-7954622dd377" CreationDate="2016-05-24T02:10:24.970" UserId="1773" Text="Here's some background on my question, before I actually ask it (my question is in bold below):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wanting to have a very sustainable method of turning grains, legumes and pseudocereals into flours (which methods do not require electricity or reliance on corporations in the long run). In the short-term, I don't mind purchases some materials. A variety of methods have come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Grinding with rocks. This is essentially like using a mortar and pestle. It works (I tried it with some club-like rocks I found in Kentucky), but most mortars and pestles that you can actually buy are very small, and unlike the sorts they might use in the East for grinding larger amounts of flour (wherein the pestle is like a meter long or such)—I haven't seen these available in the USA (that's where I am). Using rocks doesn't seem to work very well for larger, harder things like chickpeas, but it's very effective for millet, and works okay for rice and wheat. It's easy to squash the wheat, but requires further grinding if you want more than squashed wheat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Using a hammer or mallet. I tried this on chickpeas and it works fine. I assume it works for other grains, too (although it may or may not be the most practical solution for tiny grains like millet). Lacking a mallet, I could always use rocks to smash them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Using a manual grain grinder. This is all well and good, but they may be a lot more difficult to make yourself (and might lead one to be reliant on others to get the grinder). Plus, really good ones are very expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Making a huge animal-powered stone mill like they used to use. This would probably be rather effective and ideal, but I'm looking for a simple solution that doesn't require animals or things so large (and one I can tote around with me if I travel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, my question pertains to item number 2 (using a hammer/mallet/rock to smash them). I basically want to get a very broad mallet, and a sack that won't break if I hammer it (I want to put the grains/legumes/pseudocereals inside the sack and hammer them until they're flour; the sack is to keep them in place while I hammer them). **So, my question is, what kind of materials would be suitable for this sack? I don't want it to break apart when I hammer it (like the experimental paper I used with the chickpeas did).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about leather. That sounds like it could work, but would it be treated with stuff that would make the flour toxic? Would leather be strong enough? Would something else be more ideal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="fc3e76db-cec1-4350-8870-7954622dd377" CreationDate="2016-05-24T02:10:24.970" UserId="1773" Text="What kind of material would be most ideal to enclose grains/legumes to smash?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="fc3e76db-cec1-4350-8870-7954622dd377" CreationDate="2016-05-24T02:10:24.970" UserId="1773" Text="|materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12248" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="0502797e-24be-41cd-a820-fa765f4de3b5" CreationDate="2016-05-24T02:16:47.050" UserId="1773" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Here's some background on my question, before I actually ask it (my question is in bold below):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wanting to have a very sustainable method of turning grains, legumes and pseudocereals into flours (which methods do not require electricity or reliance on corporations in the long run). In the short-term, I don't mind purchasing some materials. A variety of methods have come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Grinding with rocks. This is essentially like using a mortar and pestle. It works (I tried it with some club-like rocks I found in Kentucky), but most mortars and pestles that you can actually buy are very small, and unlike the sorts they might use in the East for grinding larger amounts of flour (wherein the pestle is like a meter long or such)—I haven't seen these available in the USA (that's where I am). Using rocks doesn't seem to work very well for larger, harder things like chickpeas, but it's very effective for millet, and works okay for rice and wheat. It's easy to squash the wheat, but requires further grinding if you want more than squashed wheat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Using a hammer or mallet. I tried this on chickpeas and it works fine. I assume it works for other grains, too (although it may or may not be the most practical solution for tiny grains like millet). Lacking a mallet, I could always use rocks to smash them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Using a manual grain grinder. This is all well and good, but they may be a lot more difficult to make yourself (and might lead one to be reliant on others to get the grinder). Plus, really good ones are very expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Making a huge animal-powered stone mill like they used to use. This would probably be rather effective and ideal, but I'm looking for a simple solution that doesn't require animals or things so large (and one I can tote around with me if I travel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, my question pertains to item number 2 (using a hammer/mallet/rock to smash them). I basically want to get a very broad mallet, and a sack that won't break if I hammer it (I want to put the grains/legumes/pseudocereals inside the sack and hammer them until they're flour; the sack is to keep them in place while I hammer them). **So, my question is, what kind of materials would be suitable for this sack? I don't want it to break apart when I hammer it (like the experimental paper I used with the chickpeas did).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about leather. That sounds like it could work, but would it be treated with stuff that would make the flour toxic? Would leather be strong enough? Would something else be more ideal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="e0b2aa6d-3c0f-4db5-8798-1b77448d9382" CreationDate="2016-05-24T03:05:02.913" UserId="1773" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="Here's some background on my question, before I actually ask it (my question is in bold below):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wanting to have a very sustainable method of turning grains, legumes and pseudocereals into flours (which methods do not require electricity or reliance on corporations in the long run). In the short-term, I don't mind purchasing some materials. A variety of methods have come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Grinding with rocks. This is essentially like using a mortar and pestle. It works (I tried it with some club-like rocks I found in Kentucky), but most mortars and pestles that you can actually buy are very small, and unlike the sorts they might use in the East for grinding larger amounts of flour (wherein the pestle is like a meter long or such)—I haven't seen these available in the USA (that's where I am). Using rocks doesn't seem to work very well for larger, harder things like chickpeas, but it's very effective for millet, and works okay for rice and wheat. It's easy to squash the wheat, but requires further grinding if you want more than squashed wheat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Using a hammer or mallet. I tried this on chickpeas and it works fine. I assume it works for other grains, too (although it may or may not be the most practical solution for tiny grains like millet). Lacking a mallet, I could always use rocks to smash them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Using a manual grain grinder. This is all well and good, but they may be a lot more difficult to make yourself (and might lead one to be reliant on others to get the grinder). Plus, really good ones are very expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Making a huge animal-powered stone mill like they used to use. This would probably be rather effective and ideal, but I'm looking for a simple solution that doesn't require animals or things so large (and one I can tote around with me if I travel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, my question pertains to item number 2 (using a hammer/mallet/rock to smash them). I basically want to get a very broad mallet, and a sack that won't break if I hammer it (I want to put the grains/legumes/pseudocereals inside the sack and hammer them until they're flour; the sack is to keep them in place while I hammer them). **So, my question is, what kind of materials would be suitable for this sack? I don't want it to break apart when I hammer it (like the experimental paper I used with the chickpeas did).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about leather. That sounds like it could work, but would it be treated with stuff that would make the flour toxic? Would leather be strong enough? Would something else be more ideal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also thinking about just using some old jeans or something to make a grain-smashing pouch. Maybe that would work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="c9f75127-7de8-48e5-8d93-0fabc333b565" CreationDate="2016-05-24T03:47:46.423" UserId="3415" Comment="added the term Recycling" Text="I wouldn't focus on negative answers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's ALL POSSIBLE!&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is sustainable... At least for one person as well as you are doing already, dealing with unconscious waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MAYBE it will be sustainable for an entire family, moreover if you are all CONSCIOUS human beings and focus on some CURRENT tendencies in that direction around the world (YES, you're not alone!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Food leftbehind (moreover on [dining halls][3])&#xD;&#xA; - [Food from garbage][4] &#xD;&#xA; - [Occuppy][5] (Living on [abandoned places][6])&#xD;&#xA; - [Urban Agroecoloy][1] (moreover on [non-owned land][2])&#xD;&#xA; - Barter, Trade and Alternative Economies (exchange overproduction without taxes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not about waste transformation, but related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hard Money ([Non-Fiat currencies][7])&#xD;&#xA; - Sovereign Citizens or Freemen (living under own laws no matter the country, obviously this doesn't allows you to surpass others laws, there's many movements in many countries, but it's a legal complication in many matters)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there's many of this anti-waste tendencies, some being really applied in Germany and France (very conscious countries on waste-transforming which is usually called RECYCLING, which in this continent's society is on pampers). Maybe you could make some research on those countries and their tendencies to find much more useful things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm doing my thing too, and you know what? some of the richest persons I've known have made their way from ground-up through this kind of waste-transforming-tendencies that aren't adopted by the mayority of us (recycling, green bonds, biogas, etc), done massively, but yes, little by little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For whom this all is MORE sustainable is for the entire world, humanity and mother earth, so I want to give you a **BIG THANK YOU!** in name of us all, you are a living example and you should SHARE IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Internet is information, and information is... POWER!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**With enough information you have the power to transform EVERYTHING!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nothing is created, nor destructed, only transformed. (Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of energy and Conservation of mass).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.urbanaglaw.org/land-access/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/freiburg-studenten-essen-die-mensa-reste-der-kommilitonen-a-1086593.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/containern-lebensmittel-aus-der-muelltonne-a-1009663.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wikihow.com/Squat-in-Abandoned-Property&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLugXY3NahE&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2014/10/02/dozens-of-countries-have-already-kicked-the-fiat-currency-habit/#35c90b7c2a6f" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="d99286a3-b92c-4b00-9dbb-23d9c4b59e6c" CreationDate="2016-05-24T07:36:42.650" UserId="1773" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="Here's some background on my question, before I actually ask it (my question is in bold below):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wanting to have a very sustainable method of turning grains, legumes and pseudocereals into flours (which methods do not require electricity or reliance on corporations in the long run). In the short-term, I don't mind purchasing some materials. A variety of methods have come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Grinding with rocks. This is essentially like using a mortar and pestle. It works (I tried it with some club-like rocks I found in Kentucky), but most mortars and pestles that you can actually buy are very small, and unlike the sorts they might use in the East for grinding larger amounts of flour (wherein the pestle is like a meter long or such)—I haven't seen these available in the USA (that's where I am). Using rocks doesn't seem to work very well for larger, harder things like chickpeas, but it's very effective for millet, and works okay for rice and wheat. It's easy to squash the wheat, but requires further grinding if you want more than squashed wheat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Using a hammer or mallet. I tried this on chickpeas and it works fine. I assume it works for other legumes, grains, and pseudocereals, too (although it may or may not be the most practical solution for tiny seeds like millet). Lacking a mallet, I could always use rocks to smash (rather than squish and grind them as with a mortar and pestle) them. I have a blacksmith hammer on order to try for this purpose, since its broadness should smash more seeds at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Using a manual grain grinder. This is all well and good, but they may be a lot more difficult to make yourself (and might lead one to be reliant on others to get the grinder). Plus, really good ones are very expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Making a huge animal-powered stone mill like they used to use. This would probably be rather effective and ideal, but I'm looking for a simple solution that doesn't require animals or things so large (and one I can tote around with me if I travel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, my question pertains to item number 2 (using a hammer/mallet/rock to smash them). I basically want to get a very broad mallet, and a sack that won't break if I hammer it (I want to put the grains/legumes/pseudocereals inside the sack and hammer them until they're flour; the sack is to keep them in place while I hammer them). **So, my question is, what kind of materials would be suitable for this sack? I don't want it to break apart when I hammer it (like the experimental paper I used with the chickpeas did).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about leather. That sounds like it could work, but would it be treated with stuff that would make the flour toxic? Would leather be strong enough? Would something else be more ideal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also thinking about just using some old jeans or something to make a grain-smashing pouch. Maybe that would work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5294" RevisionGUID="3aafcc87-a3f8-48b3-bbb0-0771bc88fd69" CreationDate="2016-05-24T11:27:36.690" UserId="15" Text="**Mallets/Sacks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you're going down the wrong track with the sack idea. I doubt any kind of fabric or material that could be used to make a sack would stand up to much hammering, and even if it did I would also expect that if your end goal is flour then using a mallet would not give a quality result. If you wanted rolled oats for porridge, you might just be ok though. My understanding is that successful crushing of grains/seeds requires two hard (and generally heavy) objects, not just one. Improvising, while travelling, to find the second of those objects might be a bit dicey unless perhaps you're happy to hose down a section of concrete and use that. Even then, the owner of it may be upset if it was stained or damaged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Alternatives**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, unless you want to meditate on the inefficiency of crushing/grinding grains manually, I think you would be best to invest some money in an electric mill and use the time you save pursuing other admirable sustainable goals. To make it more sustainable, you could purchase second hand, choose a model that has replacement parts available, ensure it's a good quality effective device, share it with your local community, and sell it on when you no longer use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Electricity/Corporations** (TL;DR?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention electricity and corporations as something to be avoided. Many people with that belief would have a sudden change of heart when faced with difficult decisions such as whether to receive urgent healthcare using a vehicle to get to a hospital or relying on a pigeon to request the local herbalist ride his horse to your place at a gallop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I admit that I can see it being a very big challenge for our society to continue to embrace technology and yet become truly sustainable for the long term, but I doubt that shunning technology such as electricity will do us any better. Shunning corporations, where possible, seems like a pretty good idea though as they are substantially responsible for nurturing a greed-focused, polluting, unequal culture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="a4942df0-56db-4a8b-9214-53b3a3129a62" CreationDate="2016-05-24T22:18:54.957" UserId="1773" Comment="added 305 characters in body" Text="Here's some background on my question, before I actually ask it (my question is in bold below):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wanting to have a very sustainable method of turning grains, legumes and pseudocereals into flours (which methods do not require electricity or reliance on corporations in the long run). In the short-term, I don't mind purchasing some materials. A variety of methods have come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Grinding with rocks. This is essentially like using a mortar and pestle. It works (I tried it with some club-like rocks I found in Kentucky), but most mortars and pestles that you can actually buy are very small, and unlike the sorts they might use in the East for grinding larger amounts of flour (wherein the pestle is like a meter long or such)—I haven't seen these available in the USA (that's where I am). Using rocks doesn't seem to work very well for larger, harder things like chickpeas, but it's very effective for millet, and works okay for rice and wheat. It's easy to squash the wheat, but requires further grinding if you want more than squashed wheat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Using a hammer or mallet. I tried this on chickpeas and it works fine. I assume it works for other legumes, grains, and pseudocereals, too (although it may or may not be the most practical solution for tiny seeds like millet). Lacking a mallet, I could always use rocks to smash (rather than squish and grind them as with a mortar and pestle) them. I have a blacksmith hammer on order to try for this purpose, since its broadness should smash more seeds at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Using a manual grain grinder. This is all well and good, but they may be a lot more difficult to make yourself (and might lead one to be reliant on others to get the grinder). Plus, really good ones are very expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Making a huge animal-powered stone mill like they used to use. This would probably be rather effective and ideal, but I'm looking for a simple solution that doesn't require animals or things so large (and one I can tote around with me if I travel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, my question pertains to item number 2 (using a hammer/mallet/rock to smash them). I basically want to get a very broad mallet, and a sack that won't break if I hammer it (I want to put the grains/legumes/pseudocereals inside the sack and hammer them until they're flour; the sack is to keep them in place while I hammer them). **So, my question is, what kind of materials would be suitable for this sack? I don't want it to break apart when I hammer it (like the experimental paper I used with the chickpeas did).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about leather. That sounds like it could work, but would it be treated with stuff that would make the flour toxic? Would leather be strong enough? Would something else be more ideal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also thinking about just using some old jeans or something to make a grain-smashing pouch. Maybe that would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I recently had the idea that if I'm just looking for something that I can do right now, with purchased materials, I can always just buy a packet of socks, and when one wears out, use another one, heh, heh. Socks are pretty inexpensive, but they would make me reliant on sock companies, probably." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5295" RevisionGUID="3a99e015-0f44-41a2-be88-fc283f0709a4" CreationDate="2016-05-25T02:36:36.640" UserId="1255" Text="I've lived in a house with a DIY composting toilet, and we've since [purchased one that's Australian certified][1] to be **the** toilet in the house. It looks prettier, but it seems to work the same way as the DIY one (but it has the magic paperwork that makes the government happy). I've only done this in urban areas (minimum 200m² of garden space on a 400-600m² block of land).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The DIY one was literally just some **buckets and a frame to hold a toilet seat** over the current bucket. We kept it outside so it got solar heating during the day and the small stink didn't matter (we also had chickens, which is a slightly different but generally stronger smell). We followed the [Humanure Handbook][2], more or less, using straw and sawdust mulch that we purchased as bulking agent/cellulose. With sawdust you have to be sure it's not too fresh, or a species where the sawdust has antimicrobial properties (in Australia that includes all eucalypt species and many other native trees and shrubs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we found with the DIY one was that having a tight lid so we could **shake the bucket up a couple of times a week** helped distribute the poo and fill better, and it composted faster. But leaving the lid slightly ajar worked better to make it actually compost (a vent would work, or as we used, two lids). With the EcoFlo I ended up with a &quot;shit stick&quot; to stir the pot a couple of times a week and help distribute the poo, because their setup has vent pipes and drains in the chamber. I'm not convinced that that is the best arrangement, but it makes for a very pretty, self-contained unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Having external heat seems to be essential**. Putting our EcoFlo commercial one in a small, cold toilet room seemed to stop it composting properly and we got vinegar flies and bad smells. Shifting it outside and putting it in the sun stopped the smell very quickly (one day) and the flies died off after a couple of days. Other brands have electric heaters which I expect do the same thing, but I would be tempted to make a passive thermosyphon solar setup if I was making a DIY one and had a two storey house (we hope to build a two storey, ~60m² flat in the back yard with a double garage underneath, so that plan will probably work for me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EcoFlo one has seals under the toilet seat and lid, so when the lid is down it forms a reasonable seal, and the fan built in to the vent pipe means that smells get sucked out the vent (and exhaust up on the roof where they disperse). The DIY one was outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the compost takes quite a while, in Australia they say at least 3 months sitting outside in the sun but preferably 6 months. With 4 containers (about 40-50 litres) two of us took about 3 months to fill one, so we possibly only need 3, but it's better to have extra if it's your only toilet :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, urine is separate. With the DIY one we just peed on the garden, but that requires a bit of privacy and healthy people. Since we had a flush toilet inside we used that, and some housemates never used the outside toilet. The EcoFlo one has a urine catch basin built in that you have to connect to hoses that take the pee outside, and you need to dig a pit and fill it with gravel to absorb the pee. In the new house with the EcoFlo, our soil  is clay and does not drain well, so that wouldn't have worked. Instead I dug a larger pit than suggested, and filled it with woodchip mulch, then put soil over the top (proper soil, not clay). The pee makes the woodchips rot quite fast, so after 3 months there was a visible dip over the trench and well broken down woodchips underneath. I re-buried those in the garden and put more in. But I don't mind digging, and we have a lot of cheap woodchips available. I'm sure there are other ways to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My time estimates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 2-4 days to set it all up, including the pee pit and several shopping trips to buy bits you only realise you need after you get home.&#xD;&#xA; - an hour a week cleaning, stirring, checking the toilet&#xD;&#xA; - 2-4 hours every three months burying the poo compost&#xD;&#xA; - 2 hours every 3-6 months reburying the pee woodchips&#xD;&#xA; - a day every year finding, taking delivery of, and moving 10m³ of woodchips (cost us about $AUS200 including delivery but are chipped that day by the tree surgeon we buy them from, so they need time to rot or they will kill anything you put them in or on)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ecoflo.net.au/onsitewastewaterproducts/domesticcompostingtoilet/Self-contained-composting-toilets.aspx#!/Nature-Loo-Excelet-NE/p/56212015/category=15646133&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://humanurehandbook.com/manual.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5296" RevisionGUID="3533fa57-84bc-4ea4-9df6-d38f42d52e35" CreationDate="2016-05-25T02:52:22.840" UserId="1255" Text="Milling by hand is very hard work, that's why most traditional mills are animal, wind or water powered. I have used a commercially made hand-powered grain mill, and it was very hard work. A cup of flour took a minute or more of fairly strenuous work (I cycle and use a power meter, so I'm guessing more than 150 Watts which is a lot of arm power - it's the effort most adults and apply to a bicycle using their legs, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The little ones are basically jokes as far as I can tell. You could make one loaf of bread occasionally, sure, but they're not designed to accept much power in, so they're going to be very slow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![hand flour mill][1]][1] (from Amazon)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like this is what I used, and you can get both hands onto the handle plus use your core muscles for power. It also bolts to the table or stand rather than using a flimsy clamp. It's faster, but still not something you're going to feed a 20 kilogramme sack of wheat through. Not in one day, at least. However, you can convert one of these to use leg power (basically hook it up to an exercise bike) and that makes it less impractical. But those cost more, use more space, and if you're not certain you will use it, likely to be hard to resell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![hand powered grain mill][2]][2] ([via Modern Survival Blog][3])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing the same thing with rocks, or by beating cloth covering rocks, doesn't strike me as very practical. If you were milling small amounts of seeds (what most people use a mortar and pestle for), it might work. I just can't imagine a cloth rugged enough not to wear out very quickly. And since you're going to be grinding the cloth as well as the seeds, you'll be eating the cloth. So whatever cloth you use, be willing to eat it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Atu5y.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bCT0U.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://modernsurvivalblog.com/survival-kitchen/choosing-a-hand-grain-mill/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12257" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5291" RevisionGUID="dffca04d-83f9-42a0-aff0-a123575d5963" CreationDate="2016-05-25T05:55:40.340" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/735348588251873280" />
  <row Id="12258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5295" RevisionGUID="6fa9af23-4e66-45c6-9f33-d6ea87766fd9" CreationDate="2016-05-25T08:48:43.480" UserId="3293" Comment="EcoFlo needed clarification" Text="I've lived in a house with a DIY composting toilet, and we've since [purchased one that's Australian certified][1](called EcoFlo) to be **the** toilet in the house. It looks prettier, but it seems to work the same way as the DIY one (but it has the magic paperwork that makes the government happy). I've only done this in urban areas (minimum 200m² of garden space on a 400-600m² block of land).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The DIY one was literally just some **buckets and a frame to hold a toilet seat** over the current bucket. We kept it outside so it got solar heating during the day and the small stink didn't matter (we also had chickens, which is a slightly different but generally stronger smell). We followed the [Humanure Handbook][2], more or less, using straw and sawdust mulch that we purchased as bulking agent/cellulose. With sawdust you have to be sure it's not too fresh, or a species where the sawdust has antimicrobial properties (in Australia that includes all eucalypt species and many other native trees and shrubs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we found with the DIY one was that having a tight lid so we could **shake the bucket up a couple of times a week** helped distribute the poo and fill better, and it composted faster. But leaving the lid slightly ajar worked better to make it actually compost (a vent would work, or as we used, two lids). With the EcoFlo I ended up with a &quot;shit stick&quot; to stir the pot a couple of times a week and help distribute the poo, because their setup has vent pipes and drains in the chamber. I'm not convinced that that is the best arrangement, but it makes for a very pretty, self-contained unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Having external heat seems to be essential**. Putting our EcoFlo commercial one in a small, cold toilet room seemed to stop it composting properly and we got vinegar flies and bad smells. Shifting it outside and putting it in the sun stopped the smell very quickly (one day) and the flies died off after a couple of days. Other brands have electric heaters which I expect do the same thing, but I would be tempted to make a passive thermosyphon solar setup if I was making a DIY one and had a two storey house (we hope to build a two storey, ~60m² flat in the back yard with a double garage underneath, so that plan will probably work for me).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EcoFlo one has seals under the toilet seat and lid, so when the lid is down it forms a reasonable seal, and the fan built in to the vent pipe means that smells get sucked out the vent (and exhaust up on the roof where they disperse). The DIY one was outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the compost takes quite a while, in Australia they say at least 3 months sitting outside in the sun but preferably 6 months. With 4 containers (about 40-50 litres) two of us took about 3 months to fill one, so we possibly only need 3, but it's better to have extra if it's your only toilet :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, urine is separate. With the DIY one we just peed on the garden, but that requires a bit of privacy and healthy people. Since we had a flush toilet inside we used that, and some housemates never used the outside toilet. The EcoFlo one has a urine catch basin built in that you have to connect to hoses that take the pee outside, and you need to dig a pit and fill it with gravel to absorb the pee. In the new house with the EcoFlo, our soil  is clay and does not drain well, so that wouldn't have worked. Instead I dug a larger pit than suggested, and filled it with woodchip mulch, then put soil over the top (proper soil, not clay). The pee makes the woodchips rot quite fast, so after 3 months there was a visible dip over the trench and well broken down woodchips underneath. I re-buried those in the garden and put more in. But I don't mind digging, and we have a lot of cheap woodchips available. I'm sure there are other ways to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My time estimates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 2-4 days to set it all up, including the pee pit and several shopping trips to buy bits you only realise you need after you get home.&#xD;&#xA; - an hour a week cleaning, stirring, checking the toilet&#xD;&#xA; - 2-4 hours every three months burying the poo compost&#xD;&#xA; - 2 hours every 3-6 months reburying the pee woodchips&#xD;&#xA; - a day every year finding, taking delivery of, and moving 10m³ of woodchips (cost us about $AUS200 including delivery but are chipped that day by the tree surgeon we buy them from, so they need time to rot or they will kill anything you put them in or on)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ecoflo.net.au/onsitewastewaterproducts/domesticcompostingtoilet/Self-contained-composting-toilets.aspx#!/Nature-Loo-Excelet-NE/p/56212015/category=15646133&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://humanurehandbook.com/manual.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12259" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5295" RevisionGUID="6fa9af23-4e66-45c6-9f33-d6ea87766fd9" CreationDate="2016-05-25T08:48:43.480" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 85 edit id of 403" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="d6a4c6aa-d5e7-43c7-9210-86249100bfe8" CreationDate="2016-05-25T09:23:33.513" UserId="3423" Text="Industrial energy costs are $1 per million BTU or 300kwh, or $3e-6 per watt hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar has 1 kg of 9n silicon per 100w, at $20/kg. Since raw material prices are mainly energy costs, this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$20/$3e-6 = 6mwh/kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kg per watt solar is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1kg/100w = 0.01kg/w&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means energy use to build a watt of capacity is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0.01kg/w * 6mwh/kg = 0.06 mwh = 60kwh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say a 1 watt cell operates for 20 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8760*1w*20=180 kwh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 20% capacity this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0.2 * 180kwh = 36kwh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12261" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="d6a4c6aa-d5e7-43c7-9210-86249100bfe8" CreationDate="2016-05-25T09:23:33.513" UserId="3423" Text="Is PV viable? Filler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12262" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="d6a4c6aa-d5e7-43c7-9210-86249100bfe8" CreationDate="2016-05-25T09:23:33.513" UserId="3423" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12263" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="b050667e-7d7c-448d-8b0e-ab0c1218ebe5" CreationDate="2016-05-25T09:32:30.280" UserId="3423" Comment="edited title" Text="Is PV viable? (Solar)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="6834f706-9f06-4503-a134-3f8ff8c0c6fd" CreationDate="2016-05-25T10:43:36.520" UserId="48" Text="Yes, PV is viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why somewhere around a billion solar panels have been connected to the grid - about 200 GW of capacity, with another 50 GW or so coming online in 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid that the costs you have are quite wrong. Remember, PV generates electricity - that's a higher-quality (high exergy) energy than heat from gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And most of gas's costs are hidden - there's the externality of pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total electricity costs from fossil fuels are around us$100-300 / MWh, depending on where you put the marginal social cost of carbon - (somewhere between $100-200 / tCO2e)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas total electricity costs from PV are around us$30-120 / MWh and trending downwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="6359ed1f-c27f-4c6e-8710-95763dd48591" CreationDate="2016-05-25T10:48:49.543" UserId="48" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Yes, PV is viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why somewhere around a billion solar panels have been connected to the grid - about 200 GW of capacity, with another 50 GW or so coming online in 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid that the costs you have are quite wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, PV generates electricity - that's a higher-quality (high exergy) energy than heat from gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And most of gas's costs are hidden - there's the externality of pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total electricity costs from fossil fuels are around us$100-300 / MWh, depending on where you put the marginal social cost of carbon - (somewhere between $100-200 / tCO2e)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas total electricity costs from PV are around us$30-120 / MWh and trending downwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12266" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="12d9d072-f099-4df6-b5e2-98dbe4ffd9d9" CreationDate="2016-05-25T10:54:23.587" UserId="48" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="Yes, PV is viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why somewhere around a billion solar panels have been connected to the grid - about 200 GW of capacity, with another 50 GW or so coming online in 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid that the costs you have are quite wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, PV generates electricity - that's a higher-quality (high exergy) energy than heat from gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And most of gas's costs are hidden - there's the externality of pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total electricity costs from fossil fuels are around us$100-300 / MWh, depending on where you put the marginal social cost of carbon - (somewhere between $100-200 / tCO2e)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas total electricity costs from PV are around [us$30][1]-120 / MWh and trending downwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/02/lowest-solar-price-dubai-800-mw-solar-project/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="cc00d917-72ec-45e2-844e-e2b5088fec7b" CreationDate="2016-05-25T11:02:04.867" UserId="48" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="Yes, PV is viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why somewhere around a billion solar panels have been connected to the grid - about 200 GW of capacity, with another 50 GW or so coming online in 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid that the costs you have are quite wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, PV generates electricity - that's a higher-quality (high exergy) energy than heat from gas. To get electricity from gas, you get about half the energy out that you put in, and you'll need to buy and manage a power plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And most of gas's costs are hidden - there's the externality of pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total electricity costs from fossil fuels are around us$100-300 / MWh, depending on where you put the marginal social cost of carbon - (somewhere between [$100-200 / tCO2e][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas total electricity costs from PV are around [us$30][2]-120 / MWh and trending downwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/workingpapers/wp1502.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/02/lowest-solar-price-dubai-800-mw-solar-project/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12268" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5298" RevisionGUID="65b8d4f4-b74d-4324-a2d5-99ae31f9b56d" CreationDate="2016-05-25T11:40:15.457" UserId="48" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="Yes, PV is viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why somewhere around a billion solar panels have been connected to the grid - about 200 GW of capacity, with another 50 GW or so coming online in 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid that the costs you have are quite wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, PV generates electricity - that's a higher-quality (high exergy) energy than heat from gas. To get electricity from gas, you get about half the energy out that you put in, and you'll need to buy and manage a power plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And most of gas's costs are hidden - there's the externality of pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total electricity costs from fossil fuels are around us$100-300 / MWh, depending on where you put the marginal social cost of carbon - (somewhere between [$100-200 / tCO2e][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas total electricity costs from PV are around [us$30][2]-120 / MWh and [trending downwards][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/workingpapers/wp1502.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/02/lowest-solar-price-dubai-800-mw-solar-project/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d9f9f1b4-a3f0-11e5-873f-68411a84f346.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="4e3b6da7-bc23-40dc-84ba-ed309a8a8c0b" CreationDate="2016-05-25T17:32:19.297" UserId="3424" Text="I have a three story detached house which uses a lot of energy, particularly in the winter. I'm looking to insulate the loft but I'm not sure which kind of insulation to go with. Glass wool seems like option, but a friend says she has some rigid foam insulation going spare, which is probably enough to cover my attic. What would be the best option to go with, or should I use another sort of insulation material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12270" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="4e3b6da7-bc23-40dc-84ba-ed309a8a8c0b" CreationDate="2016-05-25T17:32:19.297" UserId="3424" Text="Which Loft Insulation Type is best for the top floor of a three story house?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12271" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="4e3b6da7-bc23-40dc-84ba-ed309a8a8c0b" CreationDate="2016-05-25T17:32:19.297" UserId="3424" Text="|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5300" RevisionGUID="0a538399-df11-417f-a233-2f6be75e8c7d" CreationDate="2016-05-25T19:07:20.790" UserId="3424" Text="When I was living in France a lot of the houses had a similar sort of look and layout to yours, but the doors were a lot larger, which allowed a lot more airflow to get through one we'd opened them, so that's one option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another one is to knock through the vent just to the upper right hand corner of the wall facing us in the picture, and put some sort of grate in it with a lattice of the right density to allow the correct amount of air through. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former solution has the disadvantage that it's likely not very energy efficient in the winter months, where you're doing to find the glass less efficient than other materials at insulating. With the second solution, though, you could quite easily put a block into the vent during those periods, which effectively mean you're not losing any extra heat at all during those times, as long as you make sure it fits effectively (or you could even slap a bit of mortar around the cracks if you want to make it extra air-tight)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5300" RevisionGUID="4b24b560-c1f1-402c-990b-ec7101ab69be" CreationDate="2016-05-25T20:58:38.737" UserId="3424" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="When I was living in France a lot of the houses had a similar sort of look and layout to yours, but the doors were a lot larger, which allowed a lot more airflow to get through one we'd opened them, so that's one option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another one is to knock through a vent just to the upper right hand corner of the wall facing us in the picture, and put some sort of grate in it with a lattice of the right density to allow the correct amount of air through. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The former solution has the disadvantage that it's likely not very energy efficient in the winter months, where you're doing to find the glass less efficient than other materials at insulating. With the second solution, though, you could quite easily put a block into the vent during those periods, which effectively mean you're not losing any extra heat at all during those times, as long as you make sure it fits effectively (or you could even slap a bit of mortar around the cracks if you want to make it extra air-tight)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12278" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="1e05aac1-1ebe-4f09-98f5-0e2273e1c5e8" CreationDate="2016-05-26T05:26:25.497" UserId="48" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1013],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="4b5b83d1-90d6-49e8-bc37-13069c8d952d" CreationDate="2016-05-26T08:04:13.367" UserId="3379" Comment="unit capitalization, formatting" Text="Industrial energy costs are $1 per million BTU (MMBTU) or 300kWh, or $3*10^-6 per watt hour (Wh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar has 1 kg of 9n silicon per 100W, at $20/kg. Since raw material prices are mainly energy costs, this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ($20/kg)/($3e-6/Wh) = 6MWh/kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kg per watt solar is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1kg/100W = 0.01kg/W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means energy use to build a watt of capacity is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    0.01kg/W * 6MWh/kg = 0.06 mwh = 60kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say a 1 watt cell operates for 20 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    8760*1W*20=180 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 20% capacity this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    0.2 * 180kWh = 36kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12280" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="4b5b83d1-90d6-49e8-bc37-13069c8d952d" CreationDate="2016-05-26T08:04:13.367" Comment="Proposed by 3379 approved by -1 edit id of 404" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="dd927658-e27d-4a36-95f2-f8b1d7e4ca75" CreationDate="2016-05-26T08:04:13.367" UserId="48" Comment="corrected unit formatting, making title reflect the question, retagging" Text="Industrial energy costs are $1 per million BTU (MMBTU) or 300kWh, or $3*10^-6 per watt hour (Wh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar has 1 kg of 9n silicon per 100W, at $20/kg. Since raw material prices are mainly energy costs, this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;($20/kg)/($3e-6/Wh) = 6MWh/kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kg per watt solar is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1kg/100W = 0.01kg/W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means energy use to build a watt of capacity is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0.01kg/W * 6MWh/kg = 0.06 mwh = 60kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say a 1 watt cell operates for 20 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8760*1W*20=180 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 20% capacity this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0.2 * 180kWh = 36kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12282" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="dd927658-e27d-4a36-95f2-f8b1d7e4ca75" CreationDate="2016-05-26T08:04:13.367" UserId="48" Comment="corrected unit formatting, making title reflect the question, retagging" Text="Does a PV panel take more energy to build than it generates in its lifetime?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12283" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="dd927658-e27d-4a36-95f2-f8b1d7e4ca75" CreationDate="2016-05-26T08:04:13.367" UserId="48" Comment="corrected unit formatting, making title reflect the question, retagging" Text="|solar-power|electricity|renewables|economics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12289" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5299" RevisionGUID="5eb6a32a-2687-4855-a4fb-e5b1aa7d47f9" CreationDate="2016-05-26T20:59:40.137" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/735938474730225664" />
  <row Id="12290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="2111744c-77d2-4f3a-93f4-ffd1b461b938" CreationDate="2016-05-27T02:44:24.643" UserId="3423" Comment="added 222 characters in body" Text="Energynumbers is incompetent and needs to be demodded. Actual duplicate is here.   http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2968/is-the-energy-used-to-manufacture-and-install-solar-panels-in-proper-balance-wit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Industrial energy costs are $1 per million BTU (MMBTU) or 300kWh, or $3*10^-6 per watt hour (Wh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar has 1 kg of 9n silicon per 100W, at $20/kg. Since raw material prices are mainly energy costs, this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;($20/kg)/($3e-6/Wh) = 6MWh/kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kg per watt solar is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1kg/100W = 0.01kg/W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means energy use to build a watt of capacity is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0.01kg/W * 6MWh/kg = 0.06 mwh = 60kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say a 1 watt cell operates for 20 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8760*1W*20=180 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 20% capacity this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0.2 * 180kWh = 36kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="d3970c83-6347-42ca-8301-55bc6825e28e" CreationDate="2016-05-27T02:51:03.393" UserId="3423" Comment="deleted 609 characters in body" Text="![](http://i.imgur.com/gMVJNkw.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](http://i.imgur.com/9D2FWjL.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PV prices track oil prices. This proves that panels are made using oil because solar pv is not a viable energy source." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12293" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2968" RevisionGUID="d21fb6b6-31b6-4970-889c-0ad6b462c759" CreationDate="2016-05-27T05:04:42.223" UserId="48" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1013],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12294" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="384d1105-61cd-4500-acc3-505f84f7586e" CreationDate="2016-05-27T05:08:45.947" UserId="48" Comment="Rollback to [dd927658-e27d-4a36-95f2-f8b1d7e4ca75]" Text="Industrial energy costs are $1 per million BTU (MMBTU) or 300kWh, or $3*10^-6 per watt hour (Wh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar has 1 kg of 9n silicon per 100W, at $20/kg. Since raw material prices are mainly energy costs, this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;($20/kg)/($3e-6/Wh) = 6MWh/kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kg per watt solar is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1kg/100W = 0.01kg/W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means energy use to build a watt of capacity is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0.01kg/W * 6MWh/kg = 0.06 mwh = 60kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say a 1 watt cell operates for 20 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8760*1W*20=180 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 20% capacity this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0.2 * 180kWh = 36kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="2af934b4-9f37-4596-b64e-f6507690398a" CreationDate="2016-05-27T06:04:40.640" UserId="3431" Text="I'm not sure if this is the right site to ask this kind of question.Sorry,if it is misleading.&#xA;&#xA;So, what kind of education system that would help to promote sustainable development?&#xA;&#xA;My points now&#xA;*reorganized formal education&#xA;-initiative:more child-to-child approach programme(child mentoring) and eradicate stereotypes(eg:gender or racial) by creating media that includes people of different background.&#xA;-implication: it can reach wider base and syllabus catered towards innovation itself and can reduce social inequalities.&#xA;&#xA;*education that involve application of natural renewable resources as basis&#xA;-initiative:increase the use of renewable resources through technology(eg:solar,wind turbines to power cities and factories) which will enhance the workforce in renewable energy industry.&#xA;-implication:it can affect a large number of population and also can affect the environmental aspect,which can contribute to a more sustainable world.&#xA;&#xA;*education that is free for all&#xA;-initiative:free education are focused on primary education(funded by government taxes) and workshop(funded by charity funds)&#xA;-implication: will eradicate the gaps of poverty and give the poor the chance of better education &#xA;&#xA;*education that involves decision making process&#xA;-Initiative:activities that involve decision-making process such as summer camp,experiments and tour are being featured in education&#xA;-implication:this will enhance the thinking skills of decision-making process of young minds.&#xA;&#xA;I'm also asking if my points are straying off from original question,which is education that aims a more sustainable development." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12296" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="2af934b4-9f37-4596-b64e-f6507690398a" CreationDate="2016-05-27T06:04:40.640" UserId="3431" Text="Ideal education system for sustainable life" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12297" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="2af934b4-9f37-4596-b64e-f6507690398a" CreationDate="2016-05-27T06:04:40.640" UserId="3431" Text="|environmental-impact|renewables|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="389cbf17-356b-482d-be50-6203d3a6cfc0" CreationDate="2016-05-27T07:13:42.830" UserId="99" Comment="improved question layout, added education tag" Text="I'm not sure if this is the right site to ask this kind of question. Sorry if it is misleading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what kind of education system would help to promote sustainable development?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My points now&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reorganized formal education**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Initiative: more child-to-child approach programmes (child mentoring) and eradicating stereotypes (e.g. gender or racial) by creating media that includes people of different background.&#xD;&#xA;- Implication: it can reach wider base and syllabus catered towards innovation itself and can reduce social inequalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Education that involves application of natural renewable resources as basis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Initiative: increase the use of renewable resources through technology (e.g. solar, wind turbines to power cities and factories) which will enhance the workforce in renewable energy industry.&#xD;&#xA;- Implication:it can affect a large number of population and also can affect the environmental aspect which can contribute to a more sustainable world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Education that is free for all**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Initiative: free education focused on primary education (funded by government taxes) and workshop (funded by charity funds)&#xD;&#xA;- Implication: will eradicate the gaps of poverty and give the poor the chance of better education &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Education that involves decision making process**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Initiative: activities that involve decision-making process such as summer camp, experiments and tour are being featured in education&#xD;&#xA;- Implication: this will enhance the thinking skills of decision-making process of young minds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also asking if my points are straying off from original question,which is education that aims a more sustainable development." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12299" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="389cbf17-356b-482d-be50-6203d3a6cfc0" CreationDate="2016-05-27T07:13:42.830" UserId="99" Comment="improved question layout, added education tag" Text="|education|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="147df47e-8ae8-4a66-89b1-697be6fef476" CreationDate="2016-05-28T06:47:28.460" UserId="3415" Comment="added useful information" Text="I wouldn't focus on negative answers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's ALL POSSIBLE!&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is sustainable... At least for one person as well as you are doing already, dealing with unconscious waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MAYBE it will be sustainable for an entire family, moreover if you are all CONSCIOUS human beings and focus on some CURRENT tendencies in that direction around the world (YES, you're not alone!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Food leftbehind (moreover on [dining halls][3], as well as many other things)&#xD;&#xA; - [Food in garbage][4] (big supermarkets and restaurants do it every day) &#xD;&#xA; - [Occuppy][5] (Living on [abandoned places][6])&#xD;&#xA; - [Urban Agroecoloy][1] (moreover on [non-owned land][2])&#xD;&#xA; - Barter, Trade and Alternative Economies (exchange overproduction without taxes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not about waste transformation, but related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hard Money ([Non-Fiat currencies][7])&#xD;&#xA; - Sovereign Citizens or Freemen (living under own laws no matter the country, obviously this doesn't allows you to surpass others laws, there's many movements in many countries, but it's a legal complication in many matters)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there's many of this anti-waste tendencies, some being really applied in Germany and France (very conscious countries on waste-transforming which is usually called RECYCLING, which in this continent's society is on pampers). Maybe you could make some research on those countries and their tendencies to find much more useful things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm doing my thing too, and you know what? some of the richest persons I've known have made their way from ground-up through this kind of waste-transforming-tendencies that aren't adopted by the mayority of us (recycling, green bonds, biogas, etc), done massively, but yes, little by little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For whom this all is MORE sustainable is for the entire world, humanity and mother earth, so I want to give you a **BIG THANK YOU!** in name of us all, you are a living example and you should SHARE IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Internet is information, and information is... POWER!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**With enough information you have the power to transform EVERYTHING!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nothing is created, nor destructed, only transformed. (Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of energy and Conservation of mass).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.urbanaglaw.org/land-access/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/freiburg-studenten-essen-die-mensa-reste-der-kommilitonen-a-1086593.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/containern-lebensmittel-aus-der-muelltonne-a-1009663.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.wikihow.com/Squat-in-Abandoned-Property&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLugXY3NahE&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2014/10/02/dozens-of-countries-have-already-kicked-the-fiat-currency-habit/#35c90b7c2a6f" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="881449c9-2e06-4419-a895-13beaa289c58" CreationDate="2016-05-28T06:54:02.120" UserId="3415" Comment="added a link to a documentary" Text="I wouldn't focus on negative answers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's ALL POSSIBLE!&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is sustainable... At least for one person as well as you are doing already, dealing with unconscious waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MAYBE it will be sustainable for an entire family, moreover if you are all CONSCIOUS human beings and focus on some CURRENT tendencies in that direction around the world (YES, you're not alone!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Food leftbehind (moreover on [dining halls][1], as well as many other things)&#xD;&#xA; - [Food in garbage][2] (big [supermarkets and restaurants][3] do it every day) &#xD;&#xA; - [Occuppy][4] (Living on [abandoned places][5])&#xD;&#xA; - [Urban Agroecoloy][6] (moreover on [non-owned land][7])&#xD;&#xA; - Barter, Trade and Alternative Economies (exchange overproduction without taxes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not about waste transformation, but related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hard Money ([Non-Fiat currencies][8])&#xD;&#xA; - Sovereign Citizens or Freemen (living under own laws no matter the country, obviously this doesn't allows you to surpass others laws, there's many movements in many countries, but it's a legal complication in many matters)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there's many of this anti-waste tendencies, some being really applied in Germany and France (very conscious countries on waste-transforming which is usually called RECYCLING, which in this continent's society is on pampers). Maybe you could make some research on those countries and their tendencies to find much more useful things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm doing my thing too, and you know what? some of the richest persons I've known have made their way from ground-up through this kind of waste-transforming-tendencies that aren't adopted by the mayority of us (recycling, green bonds, biogas, etc), done massively, but yes, little by little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For whom this all is MORE sustainable is for the entire world, humanity and mother earth, so I want to give you a **BIG THANK YOU!** in name of us all, you are a living example and you should SHARE IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Internet is information, and information is... POWER!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**With enough information you have the power to transform EVERYTHING!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nothing is created, nor destructed, only transformed. (Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of energy and Conservation of mass).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/freiburg-studenten-essen-die-mensa-reste-der-kommilitonen-a-1086593.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/containern-lebensmittel-aus-der-muelltonne-a-1009663.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1490637/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wikihow.com/Squat-in-Abandoned-Property&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLugXY3NahE&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.urbanaglaw.org/land-access/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2014/10/02/dozens-of-countries-have-already-kicked-the-fiat-currency-habit/#35c90b7c2a6f" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5289" RevisionGUID="400843f2-bdea-406f-b3ee-1aff64c03523" CreationDate="2016-05-28T07:14:27.223" UserId="3415" Comment="added links to documentaries and articles" Text="I wouldn't focus on negative answers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's ALL POSSIBLE!&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes it is sustainable... At least for one person as well as you are doing already, dealing with unconscious waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MAYBE it will be sustainable for an entire family, moreover if you are all CONSCIOUS human beings and focus on some CURRENT tendencies in that direction around the world (YES, you're not alone!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Food:** &#xD;&#xA;   - Leftbehind (moreover on [dining halls][1], as well as many other things)&#xD;&#xA;   - [in garbage][2] (big [supermarkets and restaurants][3] do it every day) &#xD;&#xA; - **Shelter / Home**:&#xD;&#xA;   - [Occuppy][4] (Living on [abandoned places][5])&#xD;&#xA; - **Productivity from waste:**&#xD;&#xA;   - [Urban Agroecoloy][6] (moreover on [non-owned land][7])&#xD;&#xA;   - [Artists from garbage][8] mainly from [seas][9] which is [VERY SAD][11]!&#xD;&#xA;   - Gold in [electronics][10]&#xD;&#xA;   - Barter, Trade and Alternative Economies (exchange overproduction without taxes)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not about waste transformation, but related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hard Money ([Non-Fiat currencies][12])&#xD;&#xA; - Sovereign Citizens or Freemen (living under own laws no matter the country, obviously this doesn't allows you to surpass others laws, there's many movements in many countries, but it's a legal complication in many matters)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, there's many of this anti-waste tendencies, some being really applied in Germany and France (very conscious countries on waste-transforming which is usually called RECYCLING, which in this continent's society is on pampers). Maybe you could make some research on those countries and their tendencies to find much more useful things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm doing my thing too, and you know what? some of the richest persons I've known have made their way from ground-up through this kind of waste-transforming-tendencies that aren't adopted by the mayority of us (recycling, green bonds, biogas, etc), done massively, but yes, little by little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For whom this all is MORE sustainable is for the entire world, humanity and mother earth, so I want to give you a **BIG THANK YOU!** in name of us all, you are a living example and you should SHARE IT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Internet is information, and information is... POWER!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**With enough information you have the power to transform EVERYTHING!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nothing is created, nor destructed, only transformed. (Laws of Thermodynamics, Conservation of energy and Conservation of mass).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/freiburg-studenten-essen-die-mensa-reste-der-kommilitonen-a-1086593.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/containern-lebensmittel-aus-der-muelltonne-a-1009663.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1490637/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wikihow.com/Squat-in-Abandoned-Property&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLugXY3NahE&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.urbanaglaw.org/land-access/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://mentalfloss.com/article/13046/11-artists-doing-amazing-things-recycled-materials&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2621737/Amazing-artworks-beach-trash-items-waves.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.instructables.com/id/Gold-recovery/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://plasticparadisemovie.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2014/10/02/dozens-of-countries-have-already-kicked-the-fiat-currency-habit/#35c90b7c2a6f" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5308" RevisionGUID="235d4759-77cd-48c4-be80-8120d0156cb6" CreationDate="2016-05-28T07:32:09.147" UserId="3415" Text="I agree that basics of ethics and consciousness come from parents, that said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I feel you are almost describing the [Waldorf system][1] (also known as [Steiner Education)][2] and here's even [more info][3]... you can find lots in internet and almost any city may have already such a School. Maybe your point about free education won't be solved, but could be if we push governments to install Waldorf schools too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. I also believe the points established by the [Venus Project][4] about [education][5] might be interesting for your focus on how to educate kids. You should check out the live's story of it's creator [Jacque Fresco][6] that is included in the [documentary of the project][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://waldorfwatch.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.inhabitots.com/why-waldorf-education-is-a-great-choice-for-environmentally-conscious-parents/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.waldorfanswers.org/Waldorf.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.thevenusproject.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.thevenusproject.com/faq/what-can-you-tell-us-about-the-venus-projects-approach-to-education/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/jacque-fresco/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5309" RevisionGUID="e0f49f7a-fb5f-47fe-952c-4c4107403d9e" CreationDate="2016-05-29T08:34:11.370" UserId="318" Text="Explaining what John says in a slightly different way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current that a PV (solar) panel produces in full sunlight at its maximum power point is termed Imp.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current that a PV (solar) panel produces in full sunlight when short circuited is termed Isc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The increase in current from Imp to Isc is typically about 10%. eg if a panel makes maximum power when current = 10A, then shorting the panel into a zero Ohm load will produce about 10 + 10% = 11A.   &#xD;&#xA;The increase from Imp to Isc is so small that there is no difference hazard wise. For example, if a wiring run droppeed  1 Volt at 10A then the power lost would be P = I x V = 10 x 1 = 10 Watt.  &#xD;&#xA;At 11A the voltage drop would be 1.1 Volt and the power lost would be   &#xD;&#xA;I x V =  11 x 1.1 = 12.1 Watt. The extra 21% loss of 2.1 Watts would be spread over many metres of cable and would make no noticeable difference to heating - or any other aspect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So - fusing at the panel end is not needed as I_short_circuit is hardly more than I_maximum_operating. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12312" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5241" RevisionGUID="2556957b-aa26-4b43-8799-a076824c4a02" CreationDate="2016-05-30T19:47:51.410" UserId="85" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12313" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5241" RevisionGUID="cba84d65-25e1-4314-910e-cf014ef1d096" CreationDate="2016-05-30T19:48:10.100" UserId="85" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5241" RevisionGUID="90e96184-e42f-43c2-be4a-1a24dc21a064" CreationDate="2016-05-30T19:49:13.340" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body" Text="A much better solution is to get a hand bidet sprayer and wash with water. Cleaner, greener, healthier, saves money and you never run out!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4NjEU.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5310" RevisionGUID="7648746a-8364-464d-9064-565857306bc3" CreationDate="2016-05-30T20:56:32.310" UserId="3357" Text="My point was that [any system suffices][1]. It just needs to make it clear that all you learn should not end at your job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QOfBv82dxdiDRFabTUOYrxcUObLVjJ8TL_a11Ph_WwI/pub" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12316" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5304" RevisionGUID="a9399cb3-1a7a-4c08-8a60-9f5719138619" CreationDate="2016-05-31T06:33:30.243" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/737532436012113925" />
  <row Id="12317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5311" RevisionGUID="d4c629cb-e17d-4318-9624-2c49ca661354" CreationDate="2016-05-31T08:05:23.460" UserId="3234" Text="Are (Eco schools) the best practice in term of building sustainability awareness for school kids and teaching them about renewable energy technologies? or there is a better approach that might be more effective and faster in developing the awareness for pupils in an attractive way? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5311" RevisionGUID="d4c629cb-e17d-4318-9624-2c49ca661354" CreationDate="2016-05-31T08:05:23.460" UserId="3234" Text="Can (Eco-school) be effective to teach children about renewable energy technologies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5311" RevisionGUID="d4c629cb-e17d-4318-9624-2c49ca661354" CreationDate="2016-05-31T08:05:23.460" UserId="3234" Text="|renewables|education|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5312" RevisionGUID="a2836114-cee0-4ec0-b068-256aacb0aeb0" CreationDate="2016-05-31T10:01:14.073" UserId="3234" Text="What the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) is about? does it measure the relation between energy and well being? or it has other parameters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5312" RevisionGUID="a2836114-cee0-4ec0-b068-256aacb0aeb0" CreationDate="2016-05-31T10:01:14.073" UserId="3234" Text="What is the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5312" RevisionGUID="a2836114-cee0-4ec0-b068-256aacb0aeb0" CreationDate="2016-05-31T10:01:14.073" UserId="3234" Text="|defining-sustainability|economics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5312" RevisionGUID="54aa414a-2654-44d7-a1b8-95b73ab722fa" CreationDate="2016-05-31T10:24:24.117" UserId="15" Comment="tidy up grammar &amp; case" Text="What is the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) about? Does it measure the relation between energy and well being? Or does it have other parameters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12324" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5312" RevisionGUID="54aa414a-2654-44d7-a1b8-95b73ab722fa" CreationDate="2016-05-31T10:24:24.117" UserId="15" Comment="tidy up grammar &amp; case" Text="What is the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5313" RevisionGUID="754eb1c2-9709-460f-8370-c3ed8fe9cd03" CreationDate="2016-05-31T11:59:48.317" UserId="1701" Text="We are installing a platform/dock on a small freshwater pond. The property has a great amount of red cedar available for our use. How long could we expect red cedar posts to last if used as pilings? How much longer would black locust last?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5313" RevisionGUID="754eb1c2-9709-460f-8370-c3ed8fe9cd03" CreationDate="2016-05-31T11:59:48.317" UserId="1701" Text="Are red cedar posts a viable option for freshwater dock pilings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5313" RevisionGUID="754eb1c2-9709-460f-8370-c3ed8fe9cd03" CreationDate="2016-05-31T11:59:48.317" UserId="1701" Text="|construction|ponds|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5293" RevisionGUID="aa31872c-0786-4a35-9fbb-02c5c8539703" CreationDate="2016-05-31T13:06:01.983" UserId="1773" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="Here's some background on my question, before I actually ask it (my question is in bold below):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wanting to have a very sustainable method of turning grains, legumes and pseudocereals into flours (which methods do not require electricity or reliance on corporations in the long run). In the short-term, I don't mind purchasing some materials. A variety of methods have come to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Grinding with rocks. This is essentially like using a mortar and pestle. It works (I tried it with some club-like rocks I found in Kentucky), but most mortars and pestles that you can actually buy are very small, and unlike the sorts they might use in the East for grinding larger amounts of flour (wherein the pestle is like a meter long or such)—I haven't seen these available in the USA (that's where I am). Using rocks doesn't seem to work very well for larger, harder things like chickpeas, but it's very effective for millet, and works okay for rice and wheat. It's easy to squash the wheat, but requires further grinding if you want more than squashed wheat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Using a hammer or mallet. I tried this on chickpeas and it works fine. I assume it works for other legumes, grains, and pseudocereals, too (although it may or may not be the most practical solution for tiny seeds like millet). Lacking a mallet, I could always use rocks to smash (rather than squish and grind them as with a mortar and pestle) them. I have a blacksmith hammer on order to try for this purpose, since its broadness should smash more seeds at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Using a manual grain grinder. This is all well and good, but they may be a lot more difficult to make yourself (and might lead one to be reliant on others to get the grinder). Plus, really good ones are very expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Making a huge animal-powered stone mill like they used to use. This would probably be rather effective and ideal, but I'm looking for a simple solution that doesn't require animals or things so large (and one I can tote around with me if I travel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, my question pertains to item number 2 (using a hammer/mallet/rock to smash them). I basically want to get a very broad mallet, and a sack that won't break if I hammer it (I want to put the grains/legumes/pseudocereals inside the sack and hammer them until they're flour; the sack is to keep them in place while I hammer them). **So, my question is, what kind of materials would be suitable for this sack? I don't want it to break apart when I hammer it (like the experimental paper I used with the chickpeas did).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought about leather. That sounds like it could work, but would it be treated with stuff that would make the flour toxic? Would leather be strong enough? Would something else be more ideal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also thinking about just using some old jeans or something to make a grain-smashing pouch. Maybe that would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I recently had the idea that if I'm just looking for something that I can do right now, with purchased materials, I can always just buy a packet of socks, and when one wears out, use another one, heh, heh. Socks are pretty inexpensive, but they would make me reliant on sock companies, probably." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5314" RevisionGUID="41762596-df2e-4a95-99cb-3168c02d3aa1" CreationDate="2016-05-31T19:05:57.933" UserId="3440" Text="According to http://phys.org/news/2010-06-humans-extinct-years-eminent-scientist.html, it's because the population exploded then they wiped out all the forests. What caused the population explosion? Was it the development of a new technology that enabled them to consume at a faster rate? Why would deforestation have made them gone extinct instead of wiping out only some of them lowering the consumtion rate enough to prevent their extinction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5314" RevisionGUID="41762596-df2e-4a95-99cb-3168c02d3aa1" CreationDate="2016-05-31T19:05:57.933" UserId="3440" Text="How did the people living on Easter Island go extinct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5314" RevisionGUID="41762596-df2e-4a95-99cb-3168c02d3aa1" CreationDate="2016-05-31T19:05:57.933" UserId="3440" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5315" RevisionGUID="900ac1cc-51ed-4c15-b65f-aa3c1e055d9a" CreationDate="2016-05-31T23:30:37.143" UserId="1053" Text="They didn't. The (much reduced) population is still there. They went through a very bad time with wars and starvation, and records of the time were lost with the last people who could read the writing system. [Wikipedia][1] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Polynesian people most likely settled on Easter Island sometime between 700 and 1100 CE, and created a thriving and industrious culture as evidenced by the island's numerous enormous stone moai and other artifacts. However, human activity, the introduction of the Polynesian rat and overpopulation led to gradual deforestation and extinction of natural resources which severely weakened the Rapa Nui civilization. By the time of European arrival in 1722, the island's population had dropped to 2,000–3,000 from an estimated high of approximately 15,000 just a century earlier. European diseases and Peruvian slave raiding in the 1860s further reduced the Rapa Nui population, to a low of only 111 inhabitants in 1877.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was there in August last year I met a very old woman at one of the sites and when I signed the guest book she got very excited and spoke at length in a language that was neither English nor Spanish. I managed to catch *&quot;maururu Canadense&quot;* many times. Maururu is Thankyou in Tahiti and presumably also there (Polynesian words are similar throughout the Pacific) and Canadense is doubtless from the Spanish. My guide told me that in the late 50's or early 60's a group of Canadian doctors came and helped the natives who were very ill and being treated poorly by Chile, but more importantly took blood samples and demonstrated that the people who live there today are descended from the original settlers who built the Moai. This was a **huge deal** to her. She made a point of thanking and welcoming us. Our doctors gave them their heritage back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5320" RevisionGUID="c82e4f3b-5fc0-4463-bb1d-d5b293ead295" CreationDate="2016-06-01T09:42:07.610" UserId="3357" Text="You should teach to reduce energy/resources consumption. Teaching to consume more energy is anti-environmental, despite you heard otherwise from everybody. In is a common misconception on the earth that consuming more (green energy) reduces harmful effects. Capitalists perpetuate this idea because they need consumers. Do you know that when you buy more, you pay less? This is a fallacy of the same kind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5321" RevisionGUID="2036d465-4178-44e9-afc8-5a1f769d5446" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:00:05.467" UserId="3443" Text="Can someone explain Potential Induced Degredation? I've been looking over the internet but a lot of the explanations go into too much detail. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5321" RevisionGUID="2036d465-4178-44e9-afc8-5a1f769d5446" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:00:05.467" UserId="3443" Text="Potential Induced Degredation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5321" RevisionGUID="2036d465-4178-44e9-afc8-5a1f769d5446" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:00:05.467" UserId="3443" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5322" RevisionGUID="e15d65a5-36ea-4543-911a-cafa99391b76" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:02:51.120" UserId="1567" Text="Are you allowed to build higher? There is an Arabic invention, the Wind Tower&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windcatcher&#xD;&#xA;which is a sort of wind-driven air-conditioning. You could build a shorter version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5315" RevisionGUID="c3774434-9f88-4e14-95d6-abf1e189eb1c" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:13:33.903" UserId="1053" Comment="more on collapse reasons" Text="They didn't. The (much reduced) population is still there. They went through a very bad time with wars and starvation, and records of the time were lost with the last people who could read the writing system. [Wikipedia][1] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Polynesian people most likely settled on Easter Island sometime between 700 and 1100 CE, and created a thriving and industrious culture as evidenced by the island's numerous enormous stone moai and other artifacts. However, human activity, the introduction of the Polynesian rat and overpopulation led to gradual deforestation and extinction of natural resources which severely weakened the Rapa Nui civilization. By the time of European arrival in 1722, the island's population had dropped to 2,000–3,000 from an estimated high of approximately 15,000 just a century earlier. European diseases and Peruvian slave raiding in the 1860s further reduced the Rapa Nui population, to a low of only 111 inhabitants in 1877.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was there in August last year I met a very old woman at one of the sites and when I signed the guest book she got very excited and spoke at length in a language that was neither English nor Spanish. I managed to catch *&quot;maururu Canadense&quot;* many times. Maururu is Thankyou in Tahiti and presumably also there (Polynesian words are similar throughout the Pacific) and Canadense is doubtless from the Spanish. My guide told me that in the late 50's or early 60's a group of Canadian doctors came and helped the natives who were very ill and being treated poorly by Chile, but more importantly took blood samples and demonstrated that the people who live there today are descended from the original settlers who built the Moai. This was a **huge deal** to her. She made a point of thanking and welcoming us. Our doctors gave them their heritage back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, as to the collapse reasons, early visitors reported large forests, but those disappeared. To this day there are almost no trees outside of town there, just some eucalyptus that were planted during the 20th century sheep ranching times. There are almost no spots on the island where you can safely go into the water. There's a harbor in the town and a beach. There is no reef around the island. This means the people couldn't be supported by fishing, gathering seaweed, or anything other than the land unless they built a boat to go out into the water. Without trees they couldn't make boats. They had to change their houses from wood to stone - and very small stone houses they were indeed. Opinions vary on the reasons for the forest collapse - some say &quot;the ignorant savages&quot; cut down every tree without realizing they needed them to survive. I don't believe that myself. If you've stood in the quarry looking at the moai half-carved, you understand how much effort and organization was required to make them and move them, this was a culture that knew things and made things happen. Someone fed those artisans. Clearly people didn't make their own statues, they commissioned them. They worked in teams. Even a group madness for bigger and bigger statues would not have led to accidentally cutting down every tree on the whole island and then saying Ooops. Other theories say rats from visiting ships ate the nuts of the trees meaning new ones didn't grow. Pollen records show that the tree population crashed over a very short period of time. The loss of the trees led to the collapse of the human population, but the exact reason for the loss of the trees may never be known. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5321" RevisionGUID="1af595ae-6e27-4e98-8b10-e0a81bf982dd" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:31:30.690" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title, changed energy tag to energy-efficiency, added photovoltaics tag" Text="Can someone explain Potential Induced Degradation? I've been looking over the internet but a lot of the explanations go into too much detail. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12352" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5321" RevisionGUID="1af595ae-6e27-4e98-8b10-e0a81bf982dd" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:31:30.690" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title, changed energy tag to energy-efficiency, added photovoltaics tag" Text="What exactly is Potential Induced Degradation in PV panels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12353" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5321" RevisionGUID="1af595ae-6e27-4e98-8b10-e0a81bf982dd" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:31:30.690" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title, changed energy tag to energy-efficiency, added photovoltaics tag" Text="|energy-efficiency|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5311" RevisionGUID="4fbacd6f-c397-4684-90a0-a739223aa3a1" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:51:47.870" UserId="99" Comment="added link that explains eco-schools concept, fixed typo" Text="Are [Eco-Schools](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-Schools) the best practice in terms of building sustainability awareness for school kids and teaching them about renewable energy technologies? Or is there a better approach that might be more effective and faster in developing the awareness for pupils in an attractive way? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12355" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5311" RevisionGUID="4fbacd6f-c397-4684-90a0-a739223aa3a1" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:51:47.870" UserId="99" Comment="added link that explains eco-schools concept, fixed typo" Text="Can Eco-Schools be effective to teach children about renewable energy technologies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5314" RevisionGUID="a2dd31b1-56f9-4886-a9a9-bbe34d9e9305" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:55:21.950" UserId="99" Comment="fixed link, fixed typos, added population tag" Text="According to [a professor in this article on phys.org](http://phys.org/news/2010-06-humans-extinct-years-eminent-scientist.html) it's because the population exploded when they wiped out all the forests. What caused the population explosion? Was it the development of a new technology that enabled them to consume at a faster rate? Why would deforestation have made them go extinct instead of wiping out only some of them, lowering the consumption rate enough to prevent their extinction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12357" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5314" RevisionGUID="a2dd31b1-56f9-4886-a9a9-bbe34d9e9305" CreationDate="2016-06-01T13:55:21.950" UserId="99" Comment="fixed link, fixed typos, added population tag" Text="|environmental-impact|population|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5277" RevisionGUID="ddc6be79-1eef-4a17-93d3-983d99f4e314" CreationDate="2016-06-01T15:07:55.933" UserId="3401" Comment="edited body" Text=" 1. There are of course [robotic lawn mowers](https://www.google.com/search?q=robot+lawn+mower) available, probably best suited for the smaller suburban yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered the same problem, as I have quite a large area (1/3 hectare / 0.8 acres), half kudzu, half native.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. For now, I have a ride-on lawn mower that does the area in about 3 hours every 2 weeks to one month. I [cut at the highest setting](http://www.richsoil.com/lawn-care.jsp). I also leave the clippings just where they fall. Collecting them in the catcher and emptying it on the compost pile easily makes the chore a whole-day exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. If you do go for biological lawn robots (animals), in my opinion the way to go would be to set up an [intensive grazing system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_intensive_rotational_grazing). You divide your area into a couple of enclosures and have your animals graze everything in it to the ground. Then rotate them to the next enclosure while that area recovers and grows lush from all the nice manure :-) In this way all plants are grazed equally (not only the tasty kudzu - while the bitter weeds are left alone to thrive). Do read the Wikipedia article. This is actually used in some areas to improve pasture by suppressing weeds (while lessening the use of weed killer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Animals I have considered:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cows. Not really. Maybe a very small breed. Rejected the idea.&#xD;&#xA; - Sheep. Probably preferably a mutton breed as you do not want to do the shearing... Else a milking breed. Look for what is available and thriving in your area. (If you are in the USA, I know mutton is all but unknown, but quite tasty, I assure you, if you need to cull some stock.) An ewe-only flock would be easier to handle.&#xD;&#xA; - Goats. Much the same as for sheep, but since they also browse (eat tree leaves - and branches, and bark), you need to keep them away from what you don't want eaten. Quite intelligent animals with a mind of their own. I would prefer a milk breed like the Swiss Saanens or the Nigerian/Cameroon dwarf goats. The latter are excellent milk producers, cute and make good pets, and may be more suited for a smaller space. Again, beginners especially should rather avoid rams.&#xD;&#xA; - Chickens. I have actually kept a couple of Dutch bantams, and am very fond of those little birds (but am now looking at a larger breed that is quite hardy in local conditions). Nice for the eggs, much better than bought. If handled regularly from an early age, can be quite tame and make nice pets. In addition, can help to control insects and slugs in your veggie patch (but should be kept separated from the plants especially cabbages and lettuce - it is quite tasty to them too). I found them quite low-maintenance, I could go away for a week or two and just leave them with a waterer and a feeder. Occasional trimming of claws and wings, maybe once or twice a year. Of course, you would need a lot more individuals for a given area than the larger animals. Also, they should not be combined with sheep (as sheep manure contains a lot of copper, which chickens are sensitive to). Depending on neighbors and city ordinances, roosters may not be a good idea due to noise - although I had a Pekinese that did not make himself all that noticeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Droppings are not that much of a problem. The grazers and browsers have fairly fibrous pellets, due to the free nature of their confinement they dry out quickly and break down to provide plant nourishment. The poultry may be a slightly bigger problem, but simply avoid the grazed area for a few days until dried out :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, an enclosure would disrupt your lawn's flow of movement. But you do not absolutely need permanent enclosures, you may make movable ones (examples: [chicken tractor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tractor), [electrified tape](http://www.zarebasystems.com/store/electric-fence-wire/polytape) or [mesh](http://www.kencove.com/fence/Electric+Net+Fencing_detail_NSPCG.php)). You would also have patches in various stages of grazing/recovery so your lawn would not always look suburb-pristine. You would need to find out (or determine through experimentation) your property's carrying capacity to determine how many animals to get, and then you need to keep in mind that grazing in spring and summer will feed more animals than in fall and winter - so you would need to cull your flock in winter and/or buy feed, then get additional animals in spring (new offspring is nature's way, but all the advice against the males may make that difficult to achieve).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Milking breeds may need daily milking (if they were pregnant), which can be a lot of trouble (milking machines do exist), but can at the same time be rewarding in the self-sufficiency department.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, animals should always have access to drinking water (which luckily can be made movable and/or automated) and depending on your climate, shelter. So some thinking should go into that. Also, chickens should have a nesting box, which makes it easier to find and collect eggs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. You can always [do away with the lawn and put it to use for (most of) your food needs](http://www.foodnotlawns.com/), perhaps similar to the [One Acre Farm](http://www.earthporm.com/self-sustaining-homestead/) concept. Obviously, this depends a lot on how many people in your family, how much land, climate and soil fertility, and not least, your expertise. I guess something like that is more like an ideal to work towards...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional note regarding chickens combined with grazers: I know of this Zimbabwean farmer, having bred an extremely hardy indigenous breed of chicken ([Boschvelder](http://naturallyzimbabwean.com/2016/03/23/the-boschvelds-are-back-in-town/)), that would accompany the cattle and peck ticks off them, thus helping to keep them more healthy without the need for dips and antibiotics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5221" RevisionGUID="8420a49a-034d-4bd3-951e-9ae91230f80a" CreationDate="2016-06-01T17:29:18.640" UserId="215" Comment="Fixed typo" Text="[Building on the garden answer][1] :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turn your lawn into a native plant garden. Six or Seven years ago I turned the front lawn of my house (roughly 30' x 50') into a (mostly) native plant garden. The trick is to pick plants that will thrive in the conditions of your yard as well as maintain a manageable size and shape. Be very wary of invasive and/or spreading species such as bamboo or ivies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This garden took quite a while to get going, but I have done almost no maintenance on it for three years now, and it still looks good. The house is now a rental property and they leave it be. The shurbs need to be pruned when whey grow into the driveway, but other than that nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steps for yard conversion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cover all grass with cardboard (stores that sell appliances are a&#xD;&#xA;    great resource).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Cover cardboard with mulch (bark works well) to avoid the eyesore&#xD;&#xA;    and stop the cardboard from blowing away.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Wait about a year.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Start planting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can avoid the waiting by digging out and backfilling the lawn, but that will be time consuming or expensive if you hire it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5217/215" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="2bc29ebf-233d-4cef-927a-1a8d718337a4" CreationDate="2016-06-01T18:34:54.093" UserId="1024" Text="Blown or batts. See: http://www.homedepot.com/p/compare/?errorURL=ProductAttributeErrorView&amp;langId=-1&amp;storeId=10051&amp;catalogId=10053&amp;prodComp_0=100541755&amp;prodComp_1=100318635&amp;N for a comparison. Look at R-Value and height and depth. Also, both fiberglass and cellulose can iritate your lungs. So wear a respirator. Also check out the recommended R value for your zone: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Owens-Corning-AttiCat-Fiberglass-Expanding-Blown-in-Insulation-System-L38A/100541755. BTW, I DO NOT suggest buying from Home Depot or any other big box. Keep your purchases local if you can." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="af1fb4b7-c347-4022-905d-dfce3eb4b359" CreationDate="2016-06-02T04:51:58.967" UserId="2891" Comment="added 80 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am looking for organic natural materials &amp; receipes for Gel, Pomade, Mousse for hair styling, not shampoo. If there are some examples please point me to them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any that can be easily home made with organic/ plant based ingredients? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12362" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="af1fb4b7-c347-4022-905d-dfce3eb4b359" CreationDate="2016-06-02T04:51:58.967" UserId="2891" Comment="added 80 characters in body; edited title" Text="Organic natural sustainable alternatives to commercial Hair Styling products; gel, pomade, mousse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="4c733a77-4ab3-4ddd-87e8-bcab92fb5019" CreationDate="2016-06-02T05:05:20.303" UserId="659" Comment="embed links" Text="Blown or batts. See [HomeDepot for a comparison][1]. Look at R-Value and height and depth. Also, both fiberglass and cellulose can iritate your lungs. So wear a respirator. Also check out the [R value HomeDepot recommends][2] for your zone. BTW, I DO NOT suggest buying from Home Depot or any other big box. Keep your purchases local if you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.homedepot.com/p/compare/?errorURL=ProductAttributeErrorView&amp;langId=-1&amp;storeId=10051&amp;catalogId=10053&amp;prodComp_0=100541755&amp;prodComp_1=100318635&amp;N&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Owens-Corning-AttiCat-Fiberglass-Expanding-Blown-in-Insulation-System-L38A/100541755" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="ac28c7bc-6f67-486f-a6d2-1ffb5d1efd89" CreationDate="2016-06-02T05:05:27.097" UserId="1024" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="Blown or batts. See: http://www.homedepot.com/p/compare/?errorURL=ProductAttributeErrorView&amp;langId=-1&amp;storeId=10051&amp;catalogId=10053&amp;prodComp_0=100541755&amp;prodComp_1=100318635&amp;N for a comparison. Look at R-Value and height and depth. Also, both fiberglass and cellulose can iritate your lungs. So wear a respirator. Also check out the recommended R value for your zone: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Owens-Corning-AttiCat-Fiberglass-Expanding-Blown-in-Insulation-System-L38A/100541755. I would suggest cellulose. BTW, I DO NOT suggest buying from Home Depot or any other big box. Keep your purchases local if you can." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="19f2c973-02a9-4248-bcba-5c81fbc3c53a" CreationDate="2016-06-02T05:05:39.360" UserId="2891" Text="There are commercial designs that replaced the power transmission of &quot;lubricated chains&quot; and &quot;gear mechanisms&quot; with high performance &quot;[Timing Belts][1]&quot; made of special polymer composited with steel fibre etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of our family was extensively involved in such redesigns/ solutions. And as a student I remember watching this case study video that talked about how Harley Davidson that benefited a lot from adopting certain company's high performance belts. I did look online to possibly find that video, but I'll try again to find it for you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an entire industry of billions running around replacing chains with such &quot;Power Transmission Belts&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/why-things-are-chopper-drivetrains  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;Source: Chains vs Belts - http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2008/05/08may08_chainsvbelt/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discussion on Google groups: &#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.autos.misc/79N2Sy8sf94%5B1-25%5D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_belt_(camshaft)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rlpnJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9bLW6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5323" RevisionGUID="071263cf-4c92-4f11-af43-4d7093e06d0a" CreationDate="2016-06-02T05:07:29.113" UserId="659" Comment="embed links" Text="Blown or batts. See [HomeDepot for a comparison][1]. Look at R-Value and height and depth. Also, both fiberglass and cellulose can iritate your lungs. So wear a respirator. Also check out [the HomeDepot recommended R value for your zone][2]. I would suggest cellulose. BTW, I DO NOT suggest buying from Home Depot or any other big box. Keep your purchases local if you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.homedepot.com/p/compare/?errorURL=ProductAttributeErrorView&amp;langId=-1&amp;storeId=10051&amp;catalogId=10053&amp;prodComp_0=100541755&amp;prodComp_1=100318635&amp;N&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Owens-Corning-AttiCat-Fiberglass-Expanding-Blown-in-Insulation-System-L38A/100541755" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="85e87627-bc1a-4f63-81ab-6beb7290115b" CreationDate="2016-06-02T05:09:32.553" UserId="2891" Text="From some old school yoga &amp; ayurveda folks I've heard of the following for shaving: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Raw Milk - I haven't tried this as yet but hope to do so when I get some unheated/ unpasteurized milk. It can be thinned down with water apparently and would still work as a Preshave facial lubricant/ friction reducer &amp; moisturizer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Yogurt - I have tried this and it words wonders for the skin, but given the texture/ colloidal &amp; viscous nature &amp; maybe some stickiness the cut/ shaved facial hair pieces &amp; fragments get stuck in between the &quot;Multi Blade Safety Razors&quot; (Gillette Mach 3). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Despite a bunch of washing with water its harder to clean the blades. This is something that definitely does not happen with commercial Shaving Foam  &#xD;&#xA;  - I might try a &quot;diluted&quot; and &quot;beaten&quot; mixture with water i.e. Buttermilk which has less colloidal matter, less viscous and is more liquid  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Shave Oils - I have read about some commercial pre shave oils but not had a chance to use or verify how effective they are. If so, maybe we could look up its ingredients list to find the active elements? Or maybe someone could suggest some &quot;natural&quot; oils that are maybe gifted in this direction could I try out for myself? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts on the above 3 and maybe other organic &amp; natural substances. I'd prefer to avoid &quot;chemicals&quot; if possible. I posted &amp; like some of the answers in that direction: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Deo: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/261/2891  &#xD;&#xA; - Toothpaste:  &#xD;&#xA;  http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4429/what-are-the-natural-alternatives-for-toothpaste  &#xD;&#xA; http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4945/2891   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="85e87627-bc1a-4f63-81ab-6beb7290115b" CreationDate="2016-06-02T05:09:32.553" UserId="2891" Text="Organic &amp; natural (maybe edible) alternatives for Pre Shaving cream, foam, oil etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="85e87627-bc1a-4f63-81ab-6beb7290115b" CreationDate="2016-06-02T05:09:32.553" UserId="2891" Text="|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5326" RevisionGUID="87151a00-c36c-4db0-8dee-e4199c06c623" CreationDate="2016-06-02T14:31:49.810" UserId="3447" Text="In the more realistical and pragmatical way, which are the main steps a set of people in a medium sized urban envinroment, should undertake to convert the city to a permaculture oriented living style?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much time realistically does it take to see it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any real life successful examples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5326" RevisionGUID="87151a00-c36c-4db0-8dee-e4199c06c623" CreationDate="2016-06-02T14:31:49.810" UserId="3447" Text="Permaculture Urban Transition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5326" RevisionGUID="87151a00-c36c-4db0-8dee-e4199c06c623" CreationDate="2016-06-02T14:31:49.810" UserId="3447" Text="|energy-efficiency|permaculture|city-living|defining-sustainability|vertical-gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5327" RevisionGUID="8a1fae1b-7377-45f3-864d-4bdbd58b7c87" CreationDate="2016-06-03T07:07:52.337" UserId="1078" Text="When I look at how houses/offices are cooled in my area I see that refrigerant cooler is far more popular than evaporative cooler. I did not find any company which serves evaporative cooler services/devices so there must be some downside of evaporative cooler which seems to be more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why [refrigerant cooler][1] is more popular than [evaporative cooler][2]?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_conditioning#Refrigerant_development&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12374" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5327" RevisionGUID="8a1fae1b-7377-45f3-864d-4bdbd58b7c87" CreationDate="2016-06-03T07:07:52.337" UserId="1078" Text="Why refrigerant cooler is more popular than evaporative cooler?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12375" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5327" RevisionGUID="8a1fae1b-7377-45f3-864d-4bdbd58b7c87" CreationDate="2016-06-03T07:07:52.337" UserId="1078" Text="|ecological-footprint|pollution|cooling|waste-minimisation|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5328" RevisionGUID="9cb8c51b-05d7-4877-9344-0882579d3b88" CreationDate="2016-06-03T11:33:50.687" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="As the name says, for evaporatice cooling you need a fluid to evaporate, and you would have to replenish this constantly.&#xD;&#xA;Even if you use simple water, you would need to make a connection to your water supply, and you would have continuous (although small) costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sustainability* is not the primary reason to choose between the two, it's *ease of use* and *price*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, in the minds of your population, the refrigerant method wins." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5329" RevisionGUID="3bf3ab1a-f800-4257-8cfc-8db9b8b02bed" CreationDate="2016-06-03T11:49:02.880" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="A friend of mine has issues with slugs on **young plants (seedlings)** specifically. She solves it this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take left-over round plastic (margarine) cups:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;Throw away the lid, cut out the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buy adhesive-backed copper tape, approx 2 cm wide:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put a strip of the tape all the way around the cup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place this over/around your seeds/seedlings. The slugs hate the copper.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;When the plant has grown sturdy enough, take off the cup, or do that after harvesting.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You can easily stack and store them for next year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QprY4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ocTDt.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12378" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5314" RevisionGUID="4dc4faa2-7816-48c6-ac24-9e7cb260fc0b" CreationDate="2016-06-03T21:40:47.660" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/738847927192391680" />
  <row Id="12379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5330" RevisionGUID="20ae090d-fa5d-4ef6-bc3a-525d0a635645" CreationDate="2016-06-04T14:41:26.663" UserId="2345" Text="You have to also consider the climate where each type of cooler will be used and how each type of cooler works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refrigeration coolers transfer heat from inside a building to the outside. However, the hotter the outside temperature the less effectively such coolers work. If the outside/atmospheric temperature is 50 C or higher, such coolers will struggle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evaporator coolers work by putting moisture into the air. This works well were the air is dry, such a deserts, However, in tropical locations or coastal locations, where the air is already humid, putting more moisture into the air doesn't help with cooling, it only makes the air more humid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the right conditions, refrigeration coolers can cool the inside of buildings to 16 C or 18 C, but evaporative coolers generally can only cool down to 22 C or 24 C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, refrigeration coolers allow buildings to be closed off to the outside - all the windows and doors being shut. Evaporative domestic coolers work on the basis of continually flowing air through the building &amp; they require a opening to allow the &quot;exhaust&quot; air to vacate the building." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5331" RevisionGUID="de4783d6-cd4f-41d9-b021-c05563bfb082" CreationDate="2016-06-04T21:40:45.383" UserId="2868" Text="There are a few recipes available out there. Most of those that I have seen are oil based and the ingredients that they use are very easy to buy (at least where I live). I will give you an example which uses just three ingredients (you can find different variations of this recipe [here][1] or [here][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ingredients used are coconut oil, shea butter and olive oil. Olive oil and coconut oil are usually used for making soap because they are great for hydrating the skin, so here they make the same effect. Also it should be easy to clean your razor afterwards (although I haven't tried this recipe I have used a lot of soap made from these ingredients and I believe that it shouldn't stuck in your razor).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mommypotamus.com/natural-homemade-shaving-cream/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.littlehouseliving.com/easy-homemade-shaving-cream.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12381" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="3e14cd2c-fdc2-43b0-808c-de702a17539b" CreationDate="2016-06-04T21:42:54.600" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/739210847583670278" />
  <row Id="12382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="ed0798c7-9633-4191-ab5c-a74485a000f1" CreationDate="2016-06-05T19:48:25.660" UserId="99" Comment="update that greenhouses are becoming more efficient." Text="Generally speaking, the production phase of a food makes up the larger part of it's total environmental impact. According to [this published Carnegie Mellon University study from 2008](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702969f) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S.&#xD;&#xA;household’s 8.1 t CO 2 e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle&#xD;&#xA;GHG emissions, and ﬁnal delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if similar results also apply to both tomato-scenarios you describe. It probably depends on the exact geographical location, the time of year and the technology used for growing the tomatoes. Nevertheless a while back on a Dutch television program they asked and answered a similar question for 2 types of vegetables. The question was which would be more sustainable **in the winter**; fresh endive grown locally in a greenhouse, or grown in the ground in Spain (about 1300km from here) and then transport it by truck. According to research they had done the answer was that the endive grown in Spain had a lower CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint because the local greenhouse requires lots of gas for heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the same television show also mentioned that fresh green beans which are transported by plane (from Kenia) have a far higher CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint than the ones transported by boat and/or truck (from Senegal, Marocco or Spain), so the type of transport does make a difference when all else is equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Locally grown vegetables that are grown in the summertime, when you don't need a greenhouse, have the lowest CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Dutch speakers, here is [the fragment about endive](http://kassa.vara.nl/tv/afspeelpagina/fragment/dilemma-verse-andijvie-uit-nederland-of-uit-spanje/speel/1/) and the one about [green beans](http://kassa.vara.nl/tv/afspeelpagina/fragment/dilemma-sperzieboontjes-uit-afrika/speel/1/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE June 2016**: Now a few years later, the same television show did an update and again investigated the footprint, this time of tomatoes grown locally in heated greenhouses in The Netherlands versus tomatoes grown outside in Spain or Morocco and then transported by truck to The Netherlands. Due to technical innovations in greenhouses, the carbon footprint is now more or less equal. Dutch greenhouse owners are trying to make their greenhouses CO2-neutral by 2020." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="46cc8136-0797-4364-a223-13436499abe4" CreationDate="2016-06-05T19:54:54.180" UserId="99" Comment="update that greenhouses are becoming more efficient." Text="**TLDR;** a few years ago vegetables grown naturally and then transported by truck over a distance of 1000-1500 km had a lower carbon footprint than vegetables grown locally in heated greenhouses. However due to technical innovations things have changed and the footprint is now equal. Expectations are that in a few years heated greenhouses will have a neutral carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, the production phase of a food makes up the larger part of it's total environmental impact. According to [this published Carnegie Mellon University study from 2008](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702969f) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S.&#xD;&#xA;household’s 8.1 t CO 2 e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle&#xD;&#xA;GHG emissions, and ﬁnal delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if similar results also apply to both tomato-scenarios you describe. It probably depends on the exact geographical location, the time of year and the technology used for growing the tomatoes. Nevertheless a while back on a Dutch television program they asked and answered a similar question for 2 types of vegetables. The question was which would be more sustainable **in the winter**; fresh endive grown locally in a greenhouse, or grown in the ground in Spain (about 1300km from here) and then transport it by truck. According to research they had done the answer was that the endive grown in Spain had a lower CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint because the local greenhouse requires lots of gas for heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the same television show also mentioned that fresh green beans which are transported by plane (from Kenia) have a far higher CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint than the ones transported by boat and/or truck (from Senegal, Marocco or Spain), so the type of transport does make a difference when all else is equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Locally grown vegetables that are grown in the summertime, when you don't need a greenhouse, have the lowest CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Dutch speakers, here is [the fragment about endive](http://kassa.vara.nl/tv/afspeelpagina/fragment/dilemma-verse-andijvie-uit-nederland-of-uit-spanje/speel/1/) and the one about [green beans](http://kassa.vara.nl/tv/afspeelpagina/fragment/dilemma-sperzieboontjes-uit-afrika/speel/1/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE June 2016**: Now a few years later, the same television show did an update and again investigated the footprint, this time of tomatoes grown locally in heated greenhouses in The Netherlands versus tomatoes grown outside in Spain or Morocco and then transported by truck to The Netherlands. Due to technical innovations in greenhouses, the carbon footprint is now more or less equal. Dutch greenhouse owners are trying to make their greenhouses CO2-neutral by 2020." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12384" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="111" RevisionGUID="7c7b8d7e-d5b6-49b9-8ed5-ca8801c75e9d" CreationDate="2016-06-05T20:13:42.050" UserId="99" Comment="added link to tv fragment" Text="**TLDR;** a few years ago vegetables grown naturally and then transported by truck over a distance of 1000-1500 km had a lower carbon footprint than vegetables grown locally in heated greenhouses. However due to technical innovations things have changed and the footprint is now equal. Expectations are that in a few years heated greenhouses will have a neutral carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, the production phase of a food makes up the larger part of it's total environmental impact. According to [this published Carnegie Mellon University study from 2008](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702969f) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S.&#xD;&#xA;household’s 8.1 t CO 2 e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle&#xD;&#xA;GHG emissions, and ﬁnal delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if similar results also apply to both tomato-scenarios you describe. It probably depends on the exact geographical location, the time of year and the technology used for growing the tomatoes. Nevertheless a while back on a Dutch television program they asked and answered a similar question for 2 types of vegetables. The question was which would be more sustainable **in the winter**; fresh endive grown locally in a greenhouse, or grown in the ground in Spain (about 1300km from here) and then transport it by truck. According to research they had done the answer was that the endive grown in Spain had a lower CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint because the local greenhouse requires lots of gas for heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the same television show also mentioned that fresh green beans which are transported by plane (from Kenia) have a far higher CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint than the ones transported by boat and/or truck (from Senegal, Marocco or Spain), so the type of transport does make a difference when all else is equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Locally grown vegetables that are grown in the summertime, when you don't need a greenhouse, have the lowest CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Dutch speakers, here is [the fragment about endive](http://kassa.vara.nl/tv/afspeelpagina/fragment/dilemma-verse-andijvie-uit-nederland-of-uit-spanje/speel/1/) and the one about [green beans](http://kassa.vara.nl/tv/afspeelpagina/fragment/dilemma-sperzieboontjes-uit-afrika/speel/1/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE June 2016**: Now a few years later, the same television show did an update and again investigated the footprint, this time of tomatoes grown locally in heated greenhouses in The Netherlands versus tomatoes grown outside in Spain or Morocco and then transported by truck to The Netherlands. Due to technical innovations in greenhouses, the carbon footprint is now more or less equal. Dutch greenhouse owners are trying to make their greenhouses CO2-neutral by 2020. Here's the [tv fragment](http://programma.vara.nl/groenlicht/media/353148) (in Dutch)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5332" RevisionGUID="e0fc40a8-b90a-4733-b8f8-c1ef2ac01b89" CreationDate="2016-06-06T01:22:14.583" UserId="3456" Text="When my daughter was in diapers, we used cloth wipes for her. I bought them online, but pretty much any small piece of cloth will do. I would wet it with a spray bottle of water or a [wipes solution][1] to keep her skin clean and free of any rashes. The only thing I didn't like about it was having to using a diaper sprayer/bidet to rinse solid waste before putting them in the washer. Since I was already doing this with her cloth diapers anyway, it wasn't really as bad comparatively. Solid waste is not disolvable with the washer so it has to be removed before washing (unless you have a different method of clothes washing.)&#xA;&#xA;I looked into using this method for myself and my husband (probably without the wipes solution for simplicity sake). I found some good info/idea from [this article][2] and I liked the bulleted pro/con list. Ultimately, we decided against this method for our family. But I'm so glad you posted this question because the other answers given are very insightful and have given me a lot to consider!&#xA;&#xA;I hope you find (or have found) a good solution for your family.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nickisdiapers.com/cjs-butter-carcass-cleaner-body-wash.html&#xA;  [2]: http://inhabitat.com/family-cloths-gross-or-great/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12389" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="972" RevisionGUID="4d4b3760-5243-4bdf-b2b5-eb5a5225f2cd" CreationDate="2016-06-06T10:28:03.970" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12394" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="10fba86f-6a4b-42f9-b46e-1ef9912e99a2" CreationDate="2016-06-06T10:35:04.130" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|environmental-impact|greenhouse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5334" RevisionGUID="fb6f8af0-34fe-4fe8-81ba-595d8ad53e60" CreationDate="2016-06-06T10:35:19.723" UserId="3460" Text="I have not found much of an alternative to paper towels, but you could at least try the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Drain food that has been deep fried on a wire rack. Only after this use paper towel to soak up excess oil.&#xD;&#xA; 1. I keep paper towel that is soaked in cooking oil and use it as a fire-lighter later on. Of course, that only works if you have a wood-fired stored.&#xD;&#xA; 1. To minimise the use of paper towels in cleaning, I make use of our local food waste scheme, which accepts cooked food. For greasy pans: used teabags, or vegetable peelings that seem to be sufficiently absorbent, are used to wipe the pans before washing them. I then compost the oily teabags This saves a large amount of detergent and water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5335" RevisionGUID="ce11ff10-f7b1-47fd-9e15-00ed106b94f8" CreationDate="2016-06-06T14:54:08.877" UserId="3460" Text="You could try slug nematodes. These are parasites of slugs that can kill them. They occur normally in the soil, but their numbers are normally in balance with the slug population. The trick is to increase the number of nematodes to the point where the slug population collapses. The problem is that this causes the netmatodes' source of food to vanish, so the nematode population then also dips until the slug population recovers. Thus to keep the slug population down, you need to keep the nematode population higher than normal by periodically re-applying the nematodes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nematodes can be bought online, or made at home. When bought online, they are delivered in a sachet that must be kept refrigerated on receipt, or used immediately. To spread on the garden: mix with water and spread over the garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may be able to make slug nematodes at home by collecting slugs, keeping them captive in a watered container, feeding them and allowing them to die. The resulting mush can be watered into the garden. More here:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.permies.com/t/27111/organic/Slug-Gunk-experiment-home-nemaslug&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also try a hybrid solution: buy them online, keep a slug nursery that you apply some of the nematodes to. Keep feeding the nursery with caught slugs (beer traps?) and keep decanting the water to reapply to the garden. This would be my choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You must keep the soil moist for a while after spreading, or the nematodes die before they have a chance to infect the slugs. In the past, I have been a bit erratic at watering as we do not have a hose, just watering cans. Thus, when I have (twice now) spread commercially bought nematodes, there was an immediate dry hot spell that killed off both slugs and nematodes and it is hard to gauge how well they worked. I mean to install a drip-irrigation system that will, together with appropriate mulching, help with irrigation. Then I will reattempt my nematode experiment, perhaps in two different parts of the garden (they are divided by a wall) and I may well report back here. Don't hold your breath though :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12405" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5327" RevisionGUID="a439eeb6-841c-43fd-bf07-87d24a2c85f3" CreationDate="2016-06-07T00:48:25.410" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/739982308518809600" />
  <row Id="12407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="fafd2a79-2729-473a-b22a-191a81c6e9d3" CreationDate="2016-06-07T08:45:30.293" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Emphasis on heated; not everyone knows the term 'hothouse'" Text="I've often wondered what is ecologically better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A tomato from the region grown in a (heated) greenhouse/hothouse&#xD;&#xA;* A tomato from several thousand km away grown naturally&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ceteris paribus*, are there any reliable studies comparing the ecological impact of the two?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12408" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="92" RevisionGUID="fafd2a79-2729-473a-b22a-191a81c6e9d3" CreationDate="2016-06-07T08:45:30.293" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 106 edit id of 406" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="811" RevisionGUID="39ae1dbd-dad3-460b-a794-132b18358009" CreationDate="2016-06-08T07:11:31.513" UserId="3293" Comment="corrected typos " Text="First of all you are picking up pennies while the world is burning bills.  The amount of oil from your chain is small even compared to the amount of oil that comes out of your exhaust, which in turn is small compared to the unburned hydrocarbons from the gasoline, which in turn is small compared to what everyone in their SUV's are releasing.  You are already a good citizen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But that's not what you asked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at some of the products at bicycle shops.  One product I like is a graphite powder in mineral spirit solvent &amp; oil.  The spirits evaporate, leaving the graphite with enough of a film of oil to keep the graphite from running away.  There is similar product that uses Teflon.  A friend who is an ardent cyclist claims that for these to work well, you have to remove ALL the oil from the chain.  This usually means two washes with solvent, then a wash in acetone to remove the oil film left by the solvent.  But talk to the guys in the bicycle shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveat:  The forces between chain and tooth are a LOT smaller on a bicycle than on a motor bike.  If this doesn't work you may need two new sprockets and a chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My estimate is that the graphite would work better. The key for it is keeping it attached to the chain.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an outboard motor, the key is keeping the seals intact.  Also:  Many outboard motors discharge their exhaust under water.  This is NOT friendly.  Run your motor in a barrel of water for 20 minutes, let the water set overnight, and look at the reflection in the morning.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost all pollutants are tolerable sufficiently diluted.  Using a tiny put-put going through a swamp that sees a dozen boats a year is unlikely to be an issue.  Take  close look at the shore line, however at any marina." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12412" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="811" RevisionGUID="39ae1dbd-dad3-460b-a794-132b18358009" CreationDate="2016-06-08T07:11:31.513" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 85 edit id of 407" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5339" RevisionGUID="3972f6af-0f4e-4fc9-bc6e-af800fcf116e" CreationDate="2016-06-08T20:47:42.477" UserId="1445" Text="Are any of these three types of detergents more or less damaging to manufacture and/or use or dispose of than the others?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise these are rather broad classes, but this is usually the only detail one gets on packaging." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12414" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5339" RevisionGUID="3972f6af-0f4e-4fc9-bc6e-af800fcf116e" CreationDate="2016-06-08T20:47:42.477" UserId="1445" Text="Any sustainability difference between anionic/cationic/nonionic detergents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12415" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5339" RevisionGUID="3972f6af-0f4e-4fc9-bc6e-af800fcf116e" CreationDate="2016-06-08T20:47:42.477" UserId="1445" Text="|environmental-impact|pollution|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12416" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5339" RevisionGUID="0ea82845-2766-4064-ae31-2be3c7ef1c1c" CreationDate="2016-06-09T15:18:02.510" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/740925930990886912" />
  <row Id="12417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5340" RevisionGUID="eaa18f2f-8a5e-4f2a-a236-25cfa9e26a79" CreationDate="2016-06-09T20:30:20.833" UserId="3477" Text="I work and attend classes at a University in Florida. Our 100kW system has been installed for more than five years without a single cleaning. I have walked the solar field several times and can confirm that no significant dust has collected. (The angle of inclination is about 27 degrees.) But, Florida rains a lot and that helps keep everything clean. I imagine desert areas with wind storms would be much worse. But a duster at best or some cotton rags and dish-soap at worst would be more than enough to keep any system clean. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5341" RevisionGUID="524a4775-40d5-4611-8834-c18a3e1d0ce6" CreationDate="2016-06-10T05:44:34.553" UserDisplayName="user3478" Text="Energy efficiency and reduced consumption are not exclusive.  But is it possible that we focus too much on the former and not enough on the latter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To expand on my question, I live near a very wealthy area.  People in this area will own electric cars, solar panels, energy efficient dishwashers, etc.  At the same time, they own a *huge* house, with lots of stuff (electronics, furniture, additional vehicles, etc.), will take expensive vacations, etc.  Many own second homes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have the numbers to back me up, but I can't help but wonder how much energy they consume.  Sure, they will use less hot water because of their energy efficient dishwasher.  But the energy that went into building, furnishing, and maintaining their extra large house can't be insignificant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's great to pat ourselves on the back when we reduce our electricity bill be $x/month, but does it really make a dent in reducing our energy footprint if we are consuming way too much?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or am I just being pessimistic?  Do the gains made from energy efficiency cars, appliances, houses, etc. outweigh the cost of our massive consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12419" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5341" RevisionGUID="524a4775-40d5-4611-8834-c18a3e1d0ce6" CreationDate="2016-06-10T05:44:34.553" UserDisplayName="user3478" Text="Energy Efficiency vs. Reduced Consumption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12420" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5341" RevisionGUID="524a4775-40d5-4611-8834-c18a3e1d0ce6" CreationDate="2016-06-10T05:44:34.553" UserDisplayName="user3478" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12421" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5341" RevisionGUID="80d58f72-e558-4024-8202-3b753f334d78" CreationDate="2016-06-10T18:19:59.387" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/741334108366905344" />
  <row Id="12422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="884712e1-96f3-4b6d-ac7a-e4426cf238bc" CreationDate="2016-06-11T02:46:31.943" UserId="2891" Comment="added 160 characters in body; added 25 characters in body" Text="There are commercial designs that replaced the power transmission of &quot;lubricated chains&quot; and &quot;gear mechanisms&quot; with high performance &quot;[Timing Belts][1]&quot; made of special polymer composited with steel fibre etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of our family was extensively involved in such redesigns/ solutions in all possible industries beyond automotive that you can think of (hydro electric, textile, machinery, airport, industrial/ manufacturing, arms manufacturing, food production &amp; so on). And as a student I remember watching this case study video that talked about how Harley Davidson that benefited a lot from adopting certain company's high performance belts. I did look online to possibly find that video, but I'll try again to find it for you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's an entire industry of billions running around replacing chains with such &quot;Power Transmission Belts&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/why-things-are-chopper-drivetrains  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;Source: Chains vs Belts - http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2008/05/08may08_chainsvbelt/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discussion on Google groups: &#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.autos.misc/79N2Sy8sf94%5B1-25%5D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_belt_(camshaft)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rlpnJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9bLW6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5342" RevisionGUID="979de832-ba28-4c4c-849f-c61ae3b2f52c" CreationDate="2016-06-12T14:39:29.203" UserId="400" Text="It's a different version of the capital cost vs cost of operation.  The classic case is New vs Used car.  The new car is more expensive, but the maintenance costs are generally low for the first several years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example closer to the issue:  High efficiency windows.  Triple pane, low e, argon filled windows are the rage, but when you simulate their performance relative to a standard double pane sealed unit, they never pay for themselves in energy savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another extreme is the tiny home movement.  I have friends who live in a house that measures 8 x 24 feet with a half loft.  Even with R-12 walls it is cheap to heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downside of the tiny house is the very limited amount of stuff you can keep.  Being able to lay your hands on a book saves a trip to the library.  Being able to store a month's food saves trips to the grocery store.  (This is our habit now:  Shop once a month -- it's an hour each way to a decent grocery store.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The accountants have a term:  Total Cost of Ownership.  This takes into account the initial capital cost, the lifetime costs, and the disposal costs, as well as costs that are extrinsic to the actual item itself.  A similar approach needs to be used for energy.  The Big House would fare badly here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, a house built to last and be maintainable for a thousand years may be initially expensive, but still have a reasonable TCO/year.  (I don't think we can build such a house right now.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy and money are not the same, but in a given domain you often find they are proportional.  Very often something that costs twice as much will use twice as much energy to make it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exceptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A:  Fashion items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B:  Innovative products. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C:  Price differences due solely to marketing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5343" RevisionGUID="8a490b21-53d7-4469-af7f-4948011a85a6" CreationDate="2016-06-12T23:37:52.417" UserId="400" Text="Heat pump coolers are used in humid climates.  Evaporative coolers are used in desert climates.  Heat pumps are more popular because more people live in humid climates than live in deserts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where the climate is dry enough, an evaporative cooler is much cheaper to run -- you're running a fan and a very low flow water pump.  A heat pump based air conditioner still needs a fan to distribute the cool air, and often the same water pump to dispose of condensate. (Although it may be disposed of by gravity.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5328" RevisionGUID="36248ee5-8d00-43d0-ae6a-a610ffdf1117" CreationDate="2016-06-13T07:32:54.587" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="As the name says, for evaporative cooling you need a fluid to evaporate, and you would have to replenish this constantly.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you use simple water, you would need to make a connection to your water supply, and you would have continuous (although small) costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Sustainability* is not the primary reason to choose between the two, it's *ease of use* and *price*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, in the minds of your population, the refrigerant method wins." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12431" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4953" RevisionGUID="0d1ceff8-e3a5-4154-9c25-17be58df7e5a" CreationDate="2016-06-15T06:53:56.393" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="12432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5345" RevisionGUID="dd6af9b2-1010-4959-9ecc-f4cc485e4bda" CreationDate="2016-06-15T15:25:59.233" UserId="3491" Text="&gt; Most every device I have seen this far is some fossil-fuel driven high pressure pump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to look at more devices. We live on a sailboat and make our own water and every single boat (sail or power) I have ever been on, seen, or heard of that has a reverse osmosis watermaker has an electric one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Are there electric ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely. Some run on AC some on DC. Ours is a PUR PowerSurvivor 160E. It runs on 12v and turns seawater into fresh at the rate of 6.7 gallons per hour. This particular unit runs at approximately 16 amps (but it does fluctuate because the pressure is constantly changing making the motor resistance more/less). Like most sailboats we have a 12v battery bank that is maintained by solar panels. No fossil fuels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the people I know with 120v AC watermakers usually run some sort of generator (or their aux engines) at the same time they are making water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want truly &quot;green&quot; desalination, Katadyn is a reputable company and makes the smallest watermaker in the world, but it's hand operated: [Katadyn Survivor 06][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Is high pressure even that necessary to produce a reasonable amount of potable water?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Absolutely. It takes a large amount of energy to remove the salt and other minerals from sea water. From our user manual for the PUR:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;For every gallon of pure water made, up to 10 gallons of seawater must be pressurized. &#xD;&#xA;    So 90 percent of the energy used in conventional reverse osmosis is lost.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The high pressure hoses on our unit are no different than the high pressure hydraulic hoses you would see on a tractor. The motor is trying to push all that seawater through a membrane that only allows the smallest of particles to pass. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are able to avoid expensive marinas by being able to make all of our own water and electricity. Do a search on watermakers and sailboats and you will find all the information you need on seawater desalination because sailors all over the world have and use these systems. There is tons of information about this out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.katadyn.com/en/ch/149-8013418-katadyn-survivor-06" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5345" RevisionGUID="abc62031-09ba-4b3a-83d2-aef78ce21809" CreationDate="2016-06-15T15:32:23.607" UserId="3491" Comment="Removed Katadyn Link. Added Watermaker links" Text="&gt; Most every device I have seen this far is some fossil-fuel driven high pressure pump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to look at more devices. We live on a sailboat and make our own water and every single boat (sail or power) I have ever been on, seen, or heard of that has a reverse osmosis watermaker has an electric one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Are there electric ones?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitely. Some run on AC some on DC. Ours is a PUR PowerSurvivor 160E. It runs on 12v and turns seawater into fresh at the rate of 6.7 gallons per hour. This particular unit runs at approximately 16 amps (but it does fluctuate because the pressure is constantly changing making the motor resistance more/less). Like most sailboats we have a 12v battery bank that is maintained by solar panels. No fossil fuels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the people I know with 120v AC watermakers usually run some sort of generator (or their aux engines) at the same time they are making water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want truly &quot;green&quot; desalination, Katadyn is a reputable company and makes the smallest watermaker in the world, but it's hand operated. Look for the Katadyn Survivor 06.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Is high pressure even that necessary to produce a reasonable amount of potable water?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Absolutely. It takes a large amount of energy to remove the salt and other minerals from sea water. From our user manual for the PUR:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;For every gallon of pure water made, up to 10 gallons of seawater must be pressurized. &#xD;&#xA;    So 90 percent of the energy used in conventional reverse osmosis is lost.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The high pressure hoses on our unit are no different than the high pressure hydraulic hoses you would see on a tractor. The motor is trying to push all that seawater through a membrane that only allows the smallest of particles to pass. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are able to avoid expensive marinas by being able to make all of our own water and electricity. Do a search on watermakers and sailboats and you will find all the information you need on seawater desalination because sailors all over the world have and use these systems. There is tons of information about this out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Desalination Decisions: Watermakers - Cruising World][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Choosing a Watermaker - West Marine][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cruisingworld.com/desalination-decisions-watermakers&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.westmarine.com/WestAdvisor/Choosing-a-Watermaker" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5346" RevisionGUID="71ab8755-8be3-45d9-9cc5-f896a5268dee" CreationDate="2016-06-15T16:04:57.923" UserId="3492" Text="I live in a duplex bungalow. The room on the first floor is about 250 sqft but has only two windows of 12 sqft each. The roof is at 10 ft level. The roof is open to sunlight and is used to dry clothes so I cannot do anything with the roof.I have aircon but it just does not cool the room . The temperature outside ranges between 36 degrees to 42 degrees. We have comfortable temperatures of 14 to 24 degrees for one month only. So please advise. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12435" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5346" RevisionGUID="71ab8755-8be3-45d9-9cc5-f896a5268dee" CreationDate="2016-06-15T16:04:57.923" UserId="3492" Text="My Room on the first floor is very hot all day and night" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12436" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5346" RevisionGUID="71ab8755-8be3-45d9-9cc5-f896a5268dee" CreationDate="2016-06-15T16:04:57.923" UserId="3492" Text="|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5347" RevisionGUID="5be14cba-0426-4dda-9a77-83d04fa18159" CreationDate="2016-06-15T21:37:54.873" UserId="659" Text="If you can't re-insulate the whole house it might be possible to insulate just your room. Since you're already using an air conditioner the lack of effective thermal mass once you do that shouldn't matter much. But it depends on the extent that you're allowed to modify the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we are considering doing in our house is somewhere between building a new room inside one of the existing ones, and lining the walls and ceiling with insulation. The simplest version of this is European-style wall hangings. Find something insulating and hang sheets of it on the walls. Optionally weave the material into decorative tapestries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can get sheets of polystyrene or better foam+foil insulation, you can layer those on the walls and ceiling of the room and tape the gaps. That will obviously make the room smaller, but should be fairly effective. Doing the same with the floor is more difficult, and you will probably need a dedicated underlay material. But simply laying down a layer of flooring ply or new floorboards over the top of the existing floor will help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step, which will take even more of the room space, is to build a whole new layer of wall inside the existing one. Normally you will do a stud/timber frame wall, with any wall insulation, and no exterior cover (because the existing wall does that job). We are looking at using coolstore panels (steel/foam sandwich) instead to get better insulation and better sealing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With any of those the big problem is the window. You still need to be able to open it, but windows are normally very poor insulators. If you can afford a double glazed window that will help a lot, and may be the single most effective change you can make (as well as the least obtrusive, but also the most significant change to the building structure). There are a range of [DIY double glazing][1]ideas around, one or more of which might suit you. If you get direct sun on that window a shade or shutter will also help, if you can add that to the outside of the building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are safety issues to consider. You need to avoid anything that makes the window unusable as a fire escape, for example, and you should consider ventilation more generally. Also think about what happens to moisture that gets between the existing wall and any insulation - if you get sheets of mould behind the insulation you could make yourself quite sick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=DIY%20double%20glazing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5346" RevisionGUID="e7af2235-4f1a-41b4-8ddb-b058ff1e3e1d" CreationDate="2016-06-16T06:48:48.233" UserId="99" Comment="added cooling tag, improved question title" Text="I live in a duplex bungalow. The room on the first floor is about 250 sqft but has only two windows of 12 sqft each. The roof is at 10 ft level. The roof is open to sunlight and is used to dry clothes so I cannot do anything with the roof. I have aircon but it just does not cool the room. The temperature outside ranges between 36 degrees to 42 degrees. We have comfortable temperatures of 14 to 24 degrees for one month only. So please advise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12439" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5346" RevisionGUID="e7af2235-4f1a-41b4-8ddb-b058ff1e3e1d" CreationDate="2016-06-16T06:48:48.233" UserId="99" Comment="added cooling tag, improved question title" Text="How do I keep my room on the first floor cool all day and night?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12440" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5346" RevisionGUID="e7af2235-4f1a-41b4-8ddb-b058ff1e3e1d" CreationDate="2016-06-16T06:48:48.233" UserId="99" Comment="added cooling tag, improved question title" Text="|home|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5348" RevisionGUID="800d1ae2-a85d-4661-8003-db9c5e1f5ae5" CreationDate="2016-06-16T06:58:49.113" UserId="99" Text="Use this tag for questions about cooling:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a space for human comfort&#xD;&#xA; - food so it doesn't go bad soon (refrigerator)&#xD;&#xA; - electrical devices to prevent overheating (computer servers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For question specifically about cooling using [tag:air-conditioning] please use that tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5349" RevisionGUID="441ed0e6-28a3-4732-af1b-dd1d05091e69" CreationDate="2016-06-16T06:58:49.113" UserId="99" Text="Cooling a space for human comfort, cooling food so it doesn't go bad soon (refrigerator) or cooling electrical devices to prevent overheating (computer servers). See also [air-conditioning]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12443" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5346" RevisionGUID="5930a7a7-4c37-4c35-920c-0b109f7e0885" CreationDate="2016-06-16T06:59:15.737" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|home|cooling|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5350" RevisionGUID="23b3bc00-9e65-4a89-9b33-616779d8d550" CreationDate="2016-06-16T18:39:58.553" UserId="3496" Text="I'm canning my own cooked jams, and I'm estimating that I'm wasting half gallon of water per cup produced, for canning and dishwashing mostly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not including the water and energy used to produce the ingredients (fruits, sugar, pectin) how much water does a medium or large scale jam cooking/canning operation would use ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that a for a sufficiently large operation, the water cost per cup is virtually zero  since you would reuse the same water for canning multiple batch, and industrial sized dishwashing is probably very efficient. But I'm looking to confirm that with actual data, or at least something from someone with knowledge of such medium/large scale operations.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12445" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5350" RevisionGUID="23b3bc00-9e65-4a89-9b33-616779d8d550" CreationDate="2016-06-16T18:39:58.553" UserId="3496" Text="How much water and energy does it take to produce canned jams in large/medium scale operations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12446" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5350" RevisionGUID="23b3bc00-9e65-4a89-9b33-616779d8d550" CreationDate="2016-06-16T18:39:58.553" UserId="3496" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5350" RevisionGUID="f9cc4f62-5b96-4c72-a018-ad31a6bfc7d8" CreationDate="2016-06-17T07:01:43.383" UserId="99" Comment="added amount in liter (for international users), fixed typo, added water-footprint tag" Text="I'm canning my own cooked jams, and I'm estimating that I'm wasting half gallon (1.9 liter) of water per cup produced, for canning and dishwashing mostly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not including the water and energy used to produce the ingredients (fruits, sugar, pectin) how much water woulds a medium or large scale jam cooking/canning operation use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that a for a sufficiently large operation, the water cost per cup is virtually zero since you would reuse the same water for canning multiple batches, and industrial sized dishwashing is probably very efficient. But I'm looking to confirm that with actual data, or at least something from someone with knowledge of such medium/large scale operations.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12448" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5350" RevisionGUID="f9cc4f62-5b96-4c72-a018-ad31a6bfc7d8" CreationDate="2016-06-17T07:01:43.383" UserId="99" Comment="added amount in liter (for international users), fixed typo, added water-footprint tag" Text="|water|water-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12449" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5350" RevisionGUID="4ef83afc-4646-4bb2-b0e5-0298574f62cd" CreationDate="2016-06-17T07:03:25.393" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/743700559266361346" />
  <row Id="12453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="587fc0e3-e3cb-45b1-991d-82aa892e54ac" CreationDate="2016-06-17T08:04:57.863" UserId="986" Text="Being Hemp so easy, sustainable and economic to grow, one would expect it to be much cheaper than it is at the moment. Why, therefore, is it so expensive compared to cotton?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it because of the scarce economy of scale in the current market?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12454" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="587fc0e3-e3cb-45b1-991d-82aa892e54ac" CreationDate="2016-06-17T08:04:57.863" UserId="986" Text="Why are Hemp clothes so expensive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12455" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="587fc0e3-e3cb-45b1-991d-82aa892e54ac" CreationDate="2016-06-17T08:04:57.863" UserId="986" Text="|economy|clothing|fabric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5353" RevisionGUID="46bc6c9a-721a-41df-9892-ef84902deeec" CreationDate="2016-06-18T08:20:07.630" UserId="3499" Text="Cotton industry produces hundreds of time more volume than the Hemp industry does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cotton: world production estimate is about 25 million tonnes.&#xD;&#xA;* Hemp: approximately 37000-45000 tonnes fiber - most of it used by the specialty paper's industry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It allows cotton industry to do huge [Economies of scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale), making the size of the primary intrans and transportation low in the final price. I guess economies of scale are largely linked with size of the market anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumers have to pay the price for thus new industry to start." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5353" RevisionGUID="1fa50355-d56a-40f0-a0dd-46662d01aede" CreationDate="2016-06-18T08:27:25.310" UserId="3499" Comment="added 219 characters in body" Text="Cotton industry produces hundreds of time more volume than the Hemp industry does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cotton: world production estimate is about 25 million tonnes.&#xD;&#xA;* Hemp: approximately 37000-45000 tonnes fiber - most of it used by the specialty paper's industry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It allows cotton industry to do huge [Economies of scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale), making the size of the primary intrans and transportation low in the final price. I guess economies of scale are largely linked with size of the market anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, basic hemp clothes that were built back in the ages were rough. It must require more complicate processing to become smooth, and that would explain why it was abandoned and quickly replaced by cotton.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Consumers have to pay the price for thus new industry to start." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5354" RevisionGUID="c1e2efbc-db6e-4959-9e09-5755f09f1b05" CreationDate="2016-06-18T09:43:23.433" UserId="3500" Text="My question is in the header. It would seem to be a major environmental benefit if toilets used saltwater in stead of drinkable fresh water, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5354" RevisionGUID="c1e2efbc-db6e-4959-9e09-5755f09f1b05" CreationDate="2016-06-18T09:43:23.433" UserId="3500" Text="Why don't toilets use saltwater?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5354" RevisionGUID="c1e2efbc-db6e-4959-9e09-5755f09f1b05" CreationDate="2016-06-18T09:43:23.433" UserId="3500" Text="|water|environmental-impact|waste-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12462" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="627b9228-ee7f-4072-ab61-ff34e1c16457" CreationDate="2016-06-18T13:13:27.060" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/744156068087988224" />
  <row Id="12463" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5354" RevisionGUID="b892ff70-a335-4ff1-b58d-4d7f07081668" CreationDate="2016-06-18T16:13:35.480" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/744201402122178560" />
  <row Id="12464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5355" RevisionGUID="1b10bf57-df12-4c27-a7df-ac8f170eeb50" CreationDate="2016-06-18T17:57:29.200" UserId="3501" Text="The solution I use is to collect them by hand day after day. I dispose the slugs so collected into my composting pile where they feed, breed and attract predators. But you need a composting pile in a good place where predators will find shelter. No need to say the pile must be &quot;far&quot; (15 meters) from the plants you want to grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The secret for collecting slugs is to have a bucket with a little water in it where to put the beasts. I collect them with a big old pinch to avoid touching them :s . The water in the bucket allow me to avoid slugs to climb out the bucket by gently moving the water in the bucket -- they cannot cling well to the sides, so little water movement make them fall back to the bottom. They can easily be found beneath tiles or planks that I laid specially to attract them in specific places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Before doing that, I used to kill them on the spot, but the bodies attracted more and more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5356" RevisionGUID="c6115ba3-3840-4782-ab45-852b90d7bebe" CreationDate="2016-06-19T02:25:08.763" UserId="1255" Text="The main answer is logistical. Building a network of pipes to bring water to houses is a major effort, and most places where that's been done found it extremely expensive. Providing a second set of pipes to bring salt water to houses would probably cost about the same. Except that cities go to considerable lengths to put their water reservoirs above the city as far as possible so they don't have to use as much energy for pumping. The few cities with seawater above them pay a lot to pump water *out*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A minor secondary problem is that sewage treatment plants are fairly heavily biological. They grow things in the sewage to break it down. But most of those things won't grow in salt water. It's already a challenge keeping toxic chemicals out of the sewage. For this to work it might be necessary to add a second set of sewer pipes to carry the water away, and develop new methods of treating that salty sewage (the treated sewage couldn't be spread on farmland, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be far simpler, cheaper and more reliable to simply buy everyone a composting toilet to replace each toilet they currently have. As a halfwat measure, mandating more economical toilets would help, as would education campaigns like the  ones [encouraging people not to flush at all when they urinate][1]. Even with a sensible cistern that has a 2 litre &quot;half flush&quot;, that's two litres wasted every time someone pees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=If%20it%27s%20yellow%2C%20let%20it%20mellow.%20If%20it%27s%20brown%2C%20flush%20it%20down" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="34ac8cbf-6c35-4adf-a685-e07e04e90b7a" CreationDate="2016-06-19T03:48:15.107" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="To use an example, say I need to take out a carton of milk from the fridge, add some milk to my tea, then put the carton of milk back. There are two methods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method A: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Open fridge door.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Take out milk.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Close fridge door.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Add milk to tea.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Open fridge door.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Put back milk.&#xD;&#xA; 7. Close fridge door.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method B: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Open fridge door.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Take out milk.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Add milk to tea.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Put back milk.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Close fridge door.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Say Method A means leaving the fridge door open for 10 more seconds than Method B. In terms of energy wastage, is this a &quot;big deal&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Against this must be weighed what to me is the obvious benefit of Method B --- convenience. But perhaps Method A has other costs too, such as additional wear-and-tear of the fridge door.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="34ac8cbf-6c35-4adf-a685-e07e04e90b7a" CreationDate="2016-06-19T03:48:15.107" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="Is leaving the fridge door open for, say, 10 seconds a &quot;big deal&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="34ac8cbf-6c35-4adf-a685-e07e04e90b7a" CreationDate="2016-06-19T03:48:15.107" UserDisplayName="user1631" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1065" RevisionGUID="85d30550-8d7d-4ffb-8801-f02fca160e48" CreationDate="2016-06-19T05:16:52.263" UserId="85" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="![leafcutter ants](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Leaf_cutter_ants_arp.jpg/640px-Leaf_cutter_ants_arp.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The picture says it all. They strip a complete tree in a day of all its leaves. Can't blame them, because they use the leaves to make their own food, but they do attack my fig tree, roses, hibiscus, etc., and I would try anything to stop them, preferably a natural solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natives' strategy is to track them back to their home, pour petrol down the nest and set it on fire. I'm neither keen on pouring petrol into nature, nor on spraying my plants with heavy chemicals (which does work, I am told). Besides, the nest is not on my property. Is there anything I can do to protect my plants and get rid of the ants?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They seem to cut the leaves and then collect them at the bottom of the tree. Are there any physical barriers that one could try, which might be too difficult to overcome whilst carrying the leaf?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do ants avoid plants with strong smell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5358" RevisionGUID="67a14de8-c2f6-4050-a427-0394a1b7f6fc" CreationDate="2016-06-19T05:33:13.110" UserId="2345" Text="It is common knowledge that hot air rises and cold air sinks. Inside a fridge the coldest air will be in the bottom of the fridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As soon as the fridge door is opened cold air from the bottom of the fridge drops out onto the floor of the room where the fridge is located. This air is replaced by room temperature air entering the top of the fridge space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The longer the fridge door opens the greater the amount of cold air falls out of the fridge and is replaced by room temperature air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Opening the fridge door for the least amount of time possible is the best way to retain cold air in the fridge. However, opening the fridge too often, even if briefly, in a short period of time will drain the fridge of the cold air inside it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best thing to do is know what you want to get from the fridge, get it as quickly as possible and close the fridge door as soon as possible and leave it closed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5353" RevisionGUID="98578079-65bd-4d4c-81df-ea0421a48f89" CreationDate="2016-06-19T09:24:03.677" UserId="3499" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Cotton industry produces hundreds of time more volume than the Hemp industry does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Cotton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton): world production estimate is about 25 million tonnes.&#xD;&#xA;* [Hemp]: approximately 37000-45000 tonnes fiber - most of it used by the specialty paper's industry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It allows cotton industry to do huge [Economies of scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale), making the size of the primary intrans and transportation low in the final price. I guess economies of scale are largely linked with size of the market anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, basic hemp clothes that were built back in the ages were rough. It must require more complicate processing to become smooth, and that would explain why it was abandoned and quickly replaced by cotton.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Consumers have to pay the price for thus new industry to start." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5353" RevisionGUID="55bec159-6f2a-4b0e-9d73-9193c366ed13" CreationDate="2016-06-19T09:27:08.180" UserId="99" Comment="added link" Text="Cotton industry produces hundreds of time more volume than the Hemp industry does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Cotton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton): world production estimate is about 25 million tonnes.&#xD;&#xA;* [Hemp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hemp): approximately 37000-45000 tonnes fiber - most of it used by the specialty paper's industry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It allows cotton industry to do huge [Economies of scale](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale), making the size of the primary intrans and transportation low in the final price. I guess economies of scale are largely linked with size of the market anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, basic hemp clothes that were built back in the ages were rough. It must require more complicate processing to become smooth, and that would explain why it was abandoned and quickly replaced by cotton.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Consumers have to pay the price for thus new industry to start." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5359" RevisionGUID="b3cc4405-81d1-422b-8af5-32cc570b882c" CreationDate="2016-06-19T13:59:29.053" UserId="3505" Text="Catalina Island does use salt water for toilets.  It's a small community, however, and they seem to be shifting towards freshwater due to corrosion issues inherent to salt water utilization.&#xA;&#xA;http://catalinaislandblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/catalina-island-drinking-water.html?m=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5356" RevisionGUID="69a6d962-698a-403c-ba73-6c221a4ebc70" CreationDate="2016-06-20T05:11:30.697" UserId="3314" Comment="adding extra reason to great answer" Text="The main answer is logistical. Building a network of pipes to bring water to houses is a major effort, and most places where that's been done found it extremely expensive. Providing a second set of pipes to bring salt water to houses would probably cost about the same. Except that cities go to considerable lengths to put their water reservoirs above the city as far as possible so they don't have to use as much energy for pumping. The few cities with seawater above them pay a lot to pump water *out*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A minor secondary problem is that sewage treatment plants are fairly heavily biological. They grow things in the sewage to break it down. But most of those things won't grow in salt water. It's already a challenge keeping toxic chemicals out of the sewage. For this to work it might be necessary to add a second set of sewer pipes to carry the water away, and develop new methods of treating that salty sewage (the treated sewage couldn't be spread on farmland, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be far simpler, cheaper and more reliable to simply buy everyone a composting toilet to replace each toilet they currently have. As a halfwat measure, mandating more economical toilets would help, as would education campaigns like the  ones [encouraging people not to flush at all when they urinate][1]. Even with a sensible cistern that has a 2 litre &quot;half flush&quot;, that's two litres wasted every time someone pees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=If%20it%27s%20yellow%2C%20let%20it%20mellow.%20If%20it%27s%20brown%2C%20flush%20it%20down&#xA;&#xA;Plus, salt is no good for pipes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12476" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5356" RevisionGUID="69a6d962-698a-403c-ba73-6c221a4ebc70" CreationDate="2016-06-20T05:11:30.697" Comment="Proposed by 3314 approved by 85 edit id of 408" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5360" RevisionGUID="98bd6d09-dc70-497c-85ab-0ded1176b16e" CreationDate="2016-06-20T05:13:37.090" UserId="3508" Text="**The Idea**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small thin waterbed mattress inside a tent cot that is filled with water that's heated by the sun during the day and cooled at night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Details**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get this tent cot and water mattress (yes, it's meant for water, not air! It seems it comes from a medical supply company.): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Tent cot and water mattress][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then build something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Diagram][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is that the sun will heat the water in the coil of copper tubing, and by the thermosiphon effect, heat the water in the bucket. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the day, the water in the water mattress will be cold, providing a (hopefully) nice place to lie down, even in the summer. Valves A and C will be closed to prevent my body weight from pushing the water out of the mattress, and valve B will be open to keep the water flowing into the coil of copper tubing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, toward the end of the day, valve A and C will be opened and valve B closed, causing the thermosiphoned hot water to flow from the bucket into the water mattress. (Nothing can be weighing down the mattress at this time, of course.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the mattress is filled with warm water which will (hopefully) keep me warm at night. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, the water in the bucket is still outside the tent and cooling in the night air, ready to be put into the mattress when it gets hot during the day. I'm not sure how to do this part, but perhaps with valves A and C closed, the bucket could be lifted above the height of the mattress. Then, assuming the mattress can accommodate the extra volume of water, the water in the bucket will drain into it. Then valve B is closed, and the bucket is set down. Valve A is then opened, and the bucket will fill with water from the other side of the mattress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Concern About the Weight of the Water**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water mattress is 32&quot; x 68&quot; x 4&quot;. This comes to 8704 cubic inches if it were a perfect rectangular box, which is 37.7 gallons. I think 25 gallons might be a reasonable guess as to actual volume of the mattress. Assuming 8.3 lbs per gallon, this comes to 208 lbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cot is rated for 500 lbs, so it should be strong enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My Questions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is the design sound? Is there a better way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Is a five gallon bucket of water enough? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. How can I estimate how much the sun will heat the water and the temperatures that can be maintained inside the tent? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. How much and what diameter of copper tubing should I use? Ideally, I'd build a solar water-heating panel but portability is a concern, as is cost and labor. I'm disabled with CFS, so I have very little money and energy (for building this, assembling it, and carrying things).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(This whole project is because I want a comfortable place to stay when away from home. I cannot be exposed to mold, and most houses have mold at levels that, though unnoticeable to healthy people, will affect those who have developed sensitivity. I visit a distant doctor and would like to stay with my aunt, setting this tent up in the backyard. It might also enable me to attend an upcoming family reunion.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking I could make a solar cooker out of foam core and plexiglass, which, in addition to cooking food in, could also be sized to allow the coil of copper tubing to be placed inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LHrDm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ar4Tl.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5360" RevisionGUID="98bd6d09-dc70-497c-85ab-0ded1176b16e" CreationDate="2016-06-20T05:13:37.090" UserId="3508" Text="Need critique of my idea for a passive heating and cooling system for a tent/waterbed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5360" RevisionGUID="98bd6d09-dc70-497c-85ab-0ded1176b16e" CreationDate="2016-06-20T05:13:37.090" UserId="3508" Text="|water|heating|cooling|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="5e269987-ddb7-4310-8ca0-447a1daeef92" CreationDate="2016-06-20T10:23:11.093" UserId="3401" Text="Short version&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;I want to know of methods (and devices) of selecting the biggest/heaviest bean and grain seeds from my garden, to re-sow the next season. I would like to hear from people that have done this, how they went about this, and if the results were satisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Longer explanation&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;I have a few different crops of legumes (green beans, mung beans, peas - might try chickpeas, lentils etc. in future) and grains (maize, might try quinoa in future) that I have grown from heirloom seeds. The main idea with heirloom seeds is to have a perpetual cycle since one **saves a few seeds at harvest, to sow again the next season**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, heirloom seeds are originally obtained from a commercial supplier or, better still, friend - which means the seeds were originally produced elsewhere where the climate, soil and other conditions may have been slightly different and *perhaps* your own garden might now be slightly less optimal. (I have still obtained satisfactory results until now, so this is not a big worry.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, it should be possible to **improve your crops for your own local conditions** by **selecting seeds with the most desirable traits** for resowing the next season, for at least a few generations. (My grandparents and parents were commercial papaya growers that grew their own seedlings for each year's plantation, so I have known about the concept - and practical application, even if not very advanced as judged by modern scientific methods - from an early age :-). )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With some crops (e.g. tomatoes and squash families) I would probably look at the fruits yielded and then take seeds from the most desirable ones. However, for **legume and grain** crops the part you eat is exactly the same as the seed, so my thinking is that the bigger the seed size, the more desirable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, one would not take seed from only one fruit or one plant. Having seeds from a nice overall selection might help to maintain some genetic diversity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all this in mind: If I have a container of seeds (maybe 200 - 1000 seeds in total) what is a good way to separate and sort them by size? So that I can keep the biggest (say) 20% and eat the rest. Spreading them on a towel and eyeballing them, picking out some with tweezers, seems to be cheap, but very time consuming, labor intensive, and not very exact. Any better suggestion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12481" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="5e269987-ddb7-4310-8ca0-447a1daeef92" CreationDate="2016-06-20T10:23:11.093" UserId="3401" Text="Improving heirloom crops by selection (legumes, grains)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12482" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="5e269987-ddb7-4310-8ca0-447a1daeef92" CreationDate="2016-06-20T10:23:11.093" UserId="3401" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="815c35ca-105a-4514-b241-95fa32e93c9c" CreationDate="2016-06-20T11:01:56.957" UserId="3401" Text="Note: the plants need nitrogen (for protein synthesis), not necessarily ammonia. Ammonia however is only **one** source of nitrogen. So I'm using the general term nitrogen below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice this has already been done through various methods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. no-till: crop leftovers (e.g. stalks and husks from maize) are left on the field. Plowing is minimized or abandoned completely, with specialized sowing machines inserting the seed into the soil in a small disturbance. Over time this provides mulch and, on breakdown, *organic* nutrients. This starts to increase humus content, which traps more nutrients (prevents against leaching) and provides a beneficial environment for soil microbes (some of which fix atmospheric nitrogen). Moisture is retained better, soil structure is improved and soil compaction is minimized. Yields have been found to be comparable or even better than the conventional method. (I like this method since the waste is turned from an additional liability to an asset.)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Biochar: (partially carbonized but not burned biomass). Much the same benefits as humus/compost as in the previous point. Please do a web search on this.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Companion or rotation planting: Some legumes (beans, alfalfa, etc.) and other plants have a symbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, which colonize their roots, and these nitrogen-rich deposits remain in the soil for some time. Obviously not good for large single-crop farms, but has been used in gardening and traditional farming for millennia. Some mixtures are available commercially today to inoculate beans and other seeds with the relevant bacteria to **ensure** the maximum benefit is available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5362" RevisionGUID="87d9a633-8c74-4616-9f98-787734c69092" CreationDate="2016-06-20T11:08:02.490" UserId="3401" Comment="added 519 characters in body" Text="Note: the plants need nitrogen (for protein synthesis), not necessarily ammonia. Ammonia however is only **one** source of nitrogen. So I'm using the general term nitrogen below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice this has already been done through various methods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. no-till: crop leftovers (e.g. stalks and husks from maize) are left on the field. Plowing is minimized or abandoned completely, with specialized sowing machines inserting the seed into the soil in a small disturbance. Over time this provides mulch and, on breakdown, *organic* nutrients. This starts to increase humus content, which traps more nutrients (prevents against leaching) and provides a beneficial environment for soil microbes (some of which fix atmospheric nitrogen). Moisture is retained better, soil structure is improved and soil compaction is minimized. Yields have been found to be comparable or even better than the conventional method. (I like this method since the waste is turned from an additional liability to an asset.)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Biochar: (partially carbonized but not burned biomass). Much the same benefits as humus/compost as in the previous point. Please do a web search on this.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Companion or rotation planting: Some legumes (beans, alfalfa, etc.) and other plants have a symbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, which colonize their roots, and these nitrogen-rich deposits remain in the soil for some time. Obviously not good for large single-crop farms, but has been used in gardening and traditional farming for millennia. Some mixtures are available commercially today to inoculate beans and other seeds with the relevant bacteria to **ensure** the maximum benefit is available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel the need to point out that farming should **not** be a balance statement about what you put into the soil and what you take out of it. These methods take the long-term view (years or even centuries) to create a beneficial environment in the soil. This environment is able to attract more beneficial factors than just what one uses to fertilize the soil (e.g.: carbon from atmospheric CO_2, atmospheric nitrogen, more complex organic molecules that originally were synthesized in a plant via sunlight energy)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5363" RevisionGUID="5d7ffe80-fea2-494e-877e-c3f4dc6be1fc" CreationDate="2016-06-20T11:20:25.467" UserId="3401" Text="I have kept some chickens in the past and let me assure you, they eat **anything**. I've observed these little dutch bantams catching frogs and mice... Also, slugs, worms and other harmful insects in my cabbage patch - as well as the cabbage underneath :-( You should really try to allow them to roam free and forage for themselves ([MIRG](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_intensive_rotational_grazing) may be an option). They absolutely love a compost heap (kitchen scraps, egg shells, as well as the insects and worms that naturally live in it). Mine could spend the whole day in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for harsher times of the year like winter, some people have found barley sprouts cheap, easy, and beneficial. As a plus, you don't need ground, you will probably do this indoors where you have some control over humidity or at least temperature. First [Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=sprouted+barley&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8#q=sprouted+barley+chickens) result: [The Chicken Chick: Sprouting Grains for Chickens: Fodder for Thought](http://www.the-chicken-chick.com/2014/02/sprouting-grains-for-chickens-fodder.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5364" RevisionGUID="3679aad2-a5d3-4e33-88fa-82e4ea7bc83e" CreationDate="2016-06-20T11:38:08.973" UserId="3401" Text="Want to agree with [Sherwood Botsford's answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/3013/3401) in that you should try to recycle the nutrients in weeds back into your soil via composting as the first priority. You might see that many weeds have quite long taproots, which draw up nutrients from much deeper soil than other plants can reach. So this would be a way to get more nutrients to your wanted crops. Composting, if done properly, should raise the temperature enough to sterilize weed seeds. The other consideration is that it is better to uproot the weed (or mow it) **before** it can even set seed, so that over time you may get less and less weeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you are right about the eating part too: weeds are often just perfectly good plants that nobody has deemed it worth to cultivate. (And nutritious, due to the root as discussed.) My rocket (aragula/rucola) goes to weed easily, so I always have a good supply. I have also recently discovered [Purslane](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portulaca_oleracea) in my garden, which I now actively try to propagate although it is a hard-to-eradicate weed. It has many and nice culinary uses and is extremely high in omega-3 fatty acids (for a plant)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5365" RevisionGUID="923d73ee-e500-4b43-beeb-17ef40e25489" CreationDate="2016-06-20T12:04:37.507" UserId="15" Text="**Selection**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember to consider a whole-of-plant perspective when saving seed, as the seed determines the success of the whole plant. If the end goal of a grain crop is the maximum yield for a given area, then selecting based on the size of individual seeds may not give an optimal result. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Growing**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might try to maximise the total weight of seeds produced by a single plant, though a greater number of lower yield plants situated more closely together may do just as well or better. This could lead you to select based on yield from a standard sized plot, where the plants in each plot are grown from seed taken from a single ear per plot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other Characteristics**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above suggestions are really just examples, as breeding for drought resistance, disease/pest resistance, ease of harvest, etc can all be more or less important depending on your particular circumstances (though quantity and quality of yield may be the ultimate end goal anyway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I do save some seed, but I don't have the time and energy to try to do it perfectly, so I just try to ensure the seed comes from a reasonably productive and healthy plant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you do want to sort seeds by size, you could try putting all the seeds in a container and gently vibrating it. Larger ones will probably tend to rise to the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12488" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5262" RevisionGUID="3d56c698-cbd7-4966-8b42-db8c55317923" CreationDate="2016-06-20T13:23:05.123" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/744883267732545536" />
  <row Id="12489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="06342647-475a-4161-8ced-49966b1a648e" CreationDate="2016-06-21T23:58:29.503" UserId="3515" Text="How do municipalities calculate reported diversion and recycling rates?  From what I can tell, most are using surveys of private recycling companies without a standard system of measure or process to validate reported numbers are accurate.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12490" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="06342647-475a-4161-8ced-49966b1a648e" CreationDate="2016-06-21T23:58:29.503" UserId="3515" Text="How do municipalities calculate reported diversion and recycling rates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12491" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="06342647-475a-4161-8ced-49966b1a648e" CreationDate="2016-06-21T23:58:29.503" UserId="3515" Text="|recycling|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12492" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5360" RevisionGUID="075edb54-3ac2-4bb2-adf5-73d78b87cad2" CreationDate="2016-06-22T01:40:56.237" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/745431342872158209" />
  <row Id="12493" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5366" RevisionGUID="4a75f260-03be-4504-9904-c9e13cf5a0eb" CreationDate="2016-06-22T07:40:56.563" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/745521940262117377" />
  <row Id="12494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5367" RevisionGUID="c2747d12-1523-44f0-b9c6-b2928b0971ba" CreationDate="2016-06-22T12:32:11.280" UserId="99" Text="**1. Try to reuse**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reuse is always better than recycling or disposal because it 1) saves energy that is needed for the recycling process and 2) the energy and materials for manufacturing and transporting new envelopes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides relabelling and resending you can also reuse the envelopes for other purposes, for example as knee pads for gardening work. If you have lots of envelopes either give them away to friends and family or on websites like freecycle.org.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Check with your local recycling facility**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard that there are a few recycling companies that accept paper/plastic combinations. Although they seem to be very rare, it doesn't hurt to check this first.&#xD;&#xA;While you are at it, also check which types of plastic your local recycling facility accepts (for the next step).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Try to separate the paper and plastic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned it's impossible to separate the paper and plastic in your case, and for some types of envelopes this very true, but sometimes cutting the envelope open first with a scissor allows better access to the bubble wrap allowing you to separate it after all.&#xD;&#xA;However separating only makes sense if your municipality has a dedicated waste stream for paper, for plastic or for both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can separate, but the plastic isn't of a type that is recycled by your local recycling company, you can try upcycling plastics by melting them into something else (see also [Fusing plastic bags](http://etsylabs.blogspot.nl/2007/05/long-overdue-fusing-plastic-bag.html)). Do be careful when you do this, because [melting plastics may release toxic fumes](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/225/99)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. Check with the envelope manufacturer/sender**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't separate the paper and plastic of if you can't find out what kind of plastic was used (most likely it's [LDPE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene)), contact the envelope manufacturer. They may be able to provide you with alternative recycling options. &#xD;&#xA;If the manufacturer has no good recycling options urge them to become more environmentally aware. You can also contact the envelope sender and ask them start using recyclable bubble mailers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12495" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4366" RevisionGUID="2a2e78d0-997e-4b44-aa62-ad17b6876619" CreationDate="2016-06-22T12:35:48.963" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5368" RevisionGUID="fb299803-d951-4fd9-ace9-da6b8f203af3" CreationDate="2016-06-22T14:55:04.070" UserId="2493" Text="My rubber boots are cracking where they form folds when I walk, as well as the soles attachment.&#xD;&#xA;What is a generic name of a flexible and waterproof substance/product that I can use to patch/glue?&#xD;&#xA;I know that specific product/brand recommendations are discouraged, but I'd like to know what type of ingredients work. eg is rubber cement flexible enough? Do silicone-based glues work for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5368" RevisionGUID="fb299803-d951-4fd9-ace9-da6b8f203af3" CreationDate="2016-06-22T14:55:04.070" UserId="2493" Text="repairing rubber boots cracked" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5368" RevisionGUID="fb299803-d951-4fd9-ace9-da6b8f203af3" CreationDate="2016-06-22T14:55:04.070" UserId="2493" Text="|repair|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12499" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5368" RevisionGUID="af7bd20e-093b-4a28-811f-d8a18ed70fed" CreationDate="2016-06-23T09:15:38.293" UserId="15" Comment="reworded title" Text="What's a waterproof substance suitable for repairing cracked rubber boots?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="ccc0a616-b3f0-4b07-8c8e-ba4824a4dbd8" CreationDate="2016-06-23T11:23:15.663" UserId="1984" Comment="verbiage, tense, spelling, format" Text="Although I think the other answers do provide good information, I would argue that, as posed on `sustainability.stackexchange.com`, all of them are still wrong (albeit maybe Chris Travers' answer is only partially so).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You should not put meat in your compost pile.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sustainability of Eating Meat in the First Place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're even remotely concerned with sustainability (underlying assumption I'm making, based on where this question is), then you shouldn't be eating meat at all.  [**Meat is hands-down the most inefficient, unsustainable way to feed a human being, as it stands today**](http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/energy-required-to-produce-a-pound-of-food.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To really go back to first principles, consider the laws of thermodynamics.  You can't create energy from nothing, and no process is perfectly energy efficient.  In order to *build* an animal from food, first you have to grow, process, and transport the food.  The animal has to eat it and process the food into energy, which it does not do with perfect efficiency.  Then, the animal has to live for a while (weeks, months, or years, depending on the meat), during which time it has to move around, eat, poop, heat itself and make noise.  All these things take energy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of performing this cycle, skip the animal altogether and just grow (non-animal) food that can be directly consumed by humans.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How inefficient it is to eat meat depends on the animal, what you feed it, and the processes used.  There is no one answer here.  But, a reasonable range, for example, might be that in order to produce a given unit of beef energy (e.g. a *calorie*), you have to put in 6 to [**50 times that much energy**](http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat) in the process.  That puts the effective energy efficiency of the process at between 2% and 16%.  That's terrible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it gets worse.  The previous figures only discussed *energy* efficiency.  If you believe that climate change is a problem, you need understand that not all greenhouse gases are equally *potent*.  [**Methane is 22x more *effective* at trapping heat in the atmosphere**](http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html) than is CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and the animals we get our meat from produce a lot of methane, meaning that their contribution to global warming is even worse than suggested by looking at their energy efficiency alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, don't eat meat (cow, pig, sheep, deer, etc.) in the first place.  Poultry (chicken, turkey) is a bit better.  Seafood is better still.  A vegetarian or vegan diet is most sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If You Do Eat Meat, Don't Compost It&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As has been said many times on this site, including in [**Chris's answer**](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/174/486), sustainability choices need to be prioritized to reduce use first, then reuse second, then recycle last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do you have **extra** meat at all?  If you have leftover meat, then buy a smaller cut.  Virtually everywhere I see meat sold allows you to buy pieces in an almost continuous array of sizes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the developing world, [**currently about 1/3 of food is lost**](http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/the-conundrum-of-food-waste/), mostly to disease or spoilage (lack of preservatives, but also refrigeration).  However, in the developed world, the loss is almost exactly the same (1/3), for different reasons.  One reason is people buying and preparing more food than they need and just throwing the rest out (or composting it).  If you need to eat 2000 calories per day, then prepare 2000 calories.  Don't prepare 2500, and then compost the unused portion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find yourself in a scenario where you can't find a way to stop eating meat, try to buy the correct portion, but you still have leftovers, then save the edible meat for tomorrow.  Chop it up to make a lunch sandwich.  If you still have fat and gristle left, those things probably won't break down quickly in your compost bin, and can create health/rodent concerns outlined in other answers.  Just bury the fat in a hole you dig.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aside:* in response to the plethora of responses everywhere online about people saying &quot;I compost meat and rarely see rats&quot;, I respond: &quot;Rats tend to come out when you're not there.  Trust me, they find the meat, unless your bin is under tight lock-down.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking a sustainability question about putting meat in a compost pile really is like asking one about the proper tire inflation pressure for a Humvee.  True, you can save some gas by keeping tires inflated properly, but if you have a Humvee at all, you've already gone awry.  I don't pose this comparison simply as a rhetorical tactic.  The direct contribution of agriculture to global warming is roughly equivalent to that of transportation ([**about 10-15%**](http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3213/Climate_change_and_agriculture.html)).  If you add in secondary effects from land-use change, it's even worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making the decision to not to eat farmed meat at all is one of those currently uncomfortable sustainability solutions, along with having fewer babies, and not keeping pets.  People don't want to consider it, but the impact of the choice is large, and completely within your control, right now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12501" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="ccc0a616-b3f0-4b07-8c8e-ba4824a4dbd8" CreationDate="2016-06-23T11:23:15.663" Comment="Proposed by 1984 approved by 85 edit id of 409" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="7e892abf-f84f-41bc-8100-6553e63c1d47" CreationDate="2016-06-23T16:09:11.173" UserId="3423" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="Industrial energy costs are $1 per million BTU (MMBTU) or 300kWh, or $3*10^-6 per watt hour (Wh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar has 1 kg of 9n silicon per 100W, at $20/kg. Since raw material prices are mainly energy costs, this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;($20/kg)/($3e-6/Wh) = 6MWh/kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kg per watt solar is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1kg/100W = 0.01kg/W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means energy use to build a watt of capacity is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0.01kg/W * 6MWh/kg = 0.06 mwh = 60kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say a 1 watt cell operates for 20 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8760*1W*20=180 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 20% capacity this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0.2 * 180kWh = 36kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a specific new question and not a dupe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="713a1d9c-3ca4-4405-8e9a-806967810f27" CreationDate="2016-06-23T16:15:25.563" UserId="3423" Text="[Study](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ferroni-y-hopkirk-2016-energy-return-on-energy-invested-eroei-for-photo.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjttI2Mxb7NAhWEJR4KHUkMD_wQFghGMAg&amp;usg=AFQjCNGdeJegShQl6uwR7xcM5FSSVa083w&amp;sig2=qBeY9PXvDATjEUlzpP5HrA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar EROI is far below 1. The high estimates are due to excluding infrastructure costs and other shenanigans. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5297" RevisionGUID="f3ac0eea-7119-4462-974e-edcd1bcb7591" CreationDate="2016-06-23T16:30:13.273" UserId="3423" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Industrial energy costs are $1 per million BTU (MMBTU) or 300kWh, or $3*10^-6 per watt hour (Wh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar has 1 kg of 9n silicon per 100W, at $20/kg. Since raw material prices are mainly energy costs, this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;($20/kg)/($3e-6/Wh) = 6MWh/kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kg per watt solar is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1kg/100W = 0.01kg/W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means energy use to build a watt of capacity is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0.01kg/W * 6MWh/kg = 0.06 mwh = 60kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say a 1 watt cell operates for 20 years:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8760*1W*20=180 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 20% capacity this is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;0.2 * 180kWh = 36kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a specific new question and not a dupe of the above. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="c2ea783c-804f-4eaf-ba3e-073c8259cb1a" CreationDate="2016-06-23T16:33:52.367" UserId="3423" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="[Study](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ferroni-y-hopkirk-2016-energy-return-on-energy-invested-eroei-for-photo.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjttI2Mxb7NAhWEJR4KHUkMD_wQFghGMAg&amp;usg=AFQjCNGdeJegShQl6uwR7xcM5FSSVa083w&amp;sig2=qBeY9PXvDATjEUlzpP5HrA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar EROI is far below 1. The above-one EROI estimates are due to various shenanigans, such as excluding infrastructure costs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12508" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5368" RevisionGUID="19ab94eb-3e4f-491f-9ac0-a8d55166d4ee" CreationDate="2016-06-23T16:45:24.960" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/746021349919985664" />
  <row Id="12509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="2658c114-e399-481f-b277-d640d7be7eb6" CreationDate="2016-06-23T17:22:47.103" UserId="3516" Text="Background&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, for a given transportation medium, modes of transport that are more densely populated are more efficient than those that are more sparsely populated. For example, it is not a complete comparison to say your Prius gets 50 mpg and the city bus only gets 5 mpg, therefore your Prius is an order of magnitude more efficient than the bus. This is because that bus also moved twenty people at once. So the per-person fuel efficiency of the bus is actually an order of magnitude higher than the per-person fuel efficiency of your Prius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this does not necessarily hold up when comparing modalities from different transportation media (for example, flying versus taking the train). This is because of the differing challenges facing a given medium _de facto_, such as the fuel spent keeping an airplane aloft rather than propelling it forward, whereas the train is held aloft by static rails.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question&#xD;&#xA;========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In deciding on a vacation, how can I determine the more sustainable option between, for example, a train tour of the continent and a commercial cruise to Mexico? The ship likely has an order of magnitude more passengers than the train, but the expense of pushing the hull through water is significant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12510" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="2658c114-e399-481f-b277-d640d7be7eb6" CreationDate="2016-06-23T17:22:47.103" UserId="3516" Text="Sustainable Vacation Options" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12511" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="2658c114-e399-481f-b277-d640d7be7eb6" CreationDate="2016-06-23T17:22:47.103" UserId="3516" Text="|ecological-footprint|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12513" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="dbf17064-c8f8-4849-932f-2db91a42949d" CreationDate="2016-06-23T20:21:22.337" UserId="15" Comment="Reworded title" Text="How to choose a more sustainable vacation option?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12515" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="67158638-cc76-412b-a376-8d198938357c" CreationDate="2016-06-24T07:15:12.020" UserId="3401" Comment="36" />
  <row Id="12516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="c1b5e04f-d42d-4117-8d76-ad409d64f50c" CreationDate="2016-06-24T07:18:23.583" UserId="3401" Comment="added 347 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short version&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;I want to know of methods (and devices) of selecting the biggest/heaviest bean and grain seeds from my garden, to re-sow the next season. I would like to hear from people that have done this, how they went about this, and if the results were satisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Longer explanation&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;I have a few different crops of legumes (green beans, mung beans, peas - might try chickpeas, lentils etc. in future) and grains (maize, might try quinoa in future) that I have grown from heirloom seeds. The main idea with heirloom seeds is to have a perpetual cycle since one **saves a few seeds at harvest, to sow again the next season**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, heirloom seeds are originally obtained from a commercial supplier or, better still, friend - which means the seeds were originally produced elsewhere where the climate, soil and other conditions may have been slightly different and *perhaps* your own garden might now be slightly less optimal. (I have still obtained satisfactory results until now, so this is not a big worry.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, it should be possible to **improve your crops for your own local conditions** by **selecting seeds with the most desirable traits** for resowing the next season, for at least a few generations. (My grandparents and parents were commercial papaya growers that grew their own seedlings for each year's plantation, so I have known about the concept - and practical application, even if not very advanced as judged by modern scientific methods - from an early age :-). )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With some crops (e.g. tomatoes and squash families) I would probably look at the fruits yielded and then take seeds from the most desirable ones. However, for **legume and grain** crops the part you eat is exactly the same as the seed, so my thinking is that the bigger the seed size, the more desirable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, one would not take seed from only one fruit or one plant. Having seeds from a nice overall selection might help to maintain some genetic diversity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all this in mind: If I have a container of seeds (maybe 200 - 1000 seeds in total) what is a good way to separate and sort them by size? So that I can keep the biggest (say) 20% and eat the rest. Spreading them on a towel and eyeballing them, picking out some with tweezers, seems to be cheap, but very time consuming, labor intensive, and not very exact. Any better suggestion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added:** I've also recently sprouted mung beans (for eating) and noticed that some kernels did not germinate; those seemed to be smaller than the successful ones (not a pleasant surprise on the teeth...) So perhaps this might be a consideration for removing the smallest (not completely developed) seeds from a harvest too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="52554c9a-f9e4-4c3d-bb90-898f19276e97" CreationDate="2016-06-24T07:19:39.883" UserId="96" Comment="expanded answer" Text="(Draft answer till I get around to find some figures)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a few ways I see to go about this: Running a Haber Bosch process or similiar with a non-fossile source for energy and H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, or finding other N sources. There's principally two routes, N fixing plants in crop rotation + organic fertilizer and reusing N-rich wastes and wastewater. The key difference beeing that the first is basically happening within one or a few farms, while the second version involves municipalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nitrogen as hard limit**  &#xD;&#xA;Plants need nitrogen to build protein, typically 1kg N for 6,25 kg protein. The amount of nitrogen available to the plant is a hard upper limit on the amount of protein we can get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Non-fossil Haber Bosch:**  &#xD;&#xA;Haber Bosch (HB) needs power to drive turbocompressors and Methane for heat and hydrogen. For the latter, one could use Biogas. HB yields a bit less than one mole NH&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; per mole CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;. One ha of corn yields about 47t/y, that amounts to roundabout 9400Nm³ Biogas at 52% methane. So we have ~220kmol methane, a slightly smaller amount of ammonia that amounts to maybe 2500kg/a of nitrogen fixed. This actually a lot.  This approach is scalable if there's a gas grid in place: Biogas plants can feed the (upgraded) Biogas into the grid, where it is transported to the HB plant.  &#xD;&#xA;There are electrically powered approaches to HB that I have not yet investigated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Crop rotation + organic fertilizers:**  &#xD;&#xA;needs a side by side comparision of conventional/intensive planting and extensive planting without. Even when fertilizers are used, the farmer wil have to follow some crop rotation to replenish topsoil, protect the ground from winter erosion etc. This means we cannot look at just plant yields with different fertilizer applications, but we must look at complete crop rotations.  &#xD;&#xA;According to wikipedia, [fixing 30-40kg N/ha](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%BCnd%C3%BCngung) is possible. Typical fertilizer application is in the range 100-170kg N/ha, for high yield crops.   &#xD;&#xA;[This meta study](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X) states that on average organic farming practices (which in this context mainly means no fossils based nitrogen fertilizer) yield about 20% less than conventional agriculure - at the field level. The authors themselves stress that whole crop rotations have to be looked at. Also there'S a huge span, in some cases organic practices outperformed conventional agriculture.  &#xD;&#xA;While the question may still be open wether organic agriculture can feed the world (and this will depend on meat consumption, biofuels etc.), organic farming is scalable with one caveat: Manure is not always available in the quantities neccessary. Solutions that utilize waste and or wastewater will beimportant in the years to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wastewater**&#xD;&#xA;With [activated sludge treatment][1], about 90% of the nitrogen content of the wastewater is sequestered in the sewage sludge, along with some phosphates and other interesting nutrients. Sludge from municipal wastewater is often contaminated with heavy metals and not usable for land application. These contaminants usually come from industrial wastewater. Banning untreated industrial wastewater from municipal  sewer lines could help.   &#xD;&#xA;Most Wastewater treatment plants are designed for elemination of the remaining N (turning nitrate into athmospheric N), not for fixing nitrogen in a usable form. But apparently there are promising tests with MAP ([Magnesium amoonium phosphate][2], can be used as a fertilizer) precipitation or duckweed for municipal wastewater. To my knowledge, technologies established for high strength wastewater (like ANA strip or Dekastrip) cannot be used economically for municipal wastewater.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Using municipal wastes and wastewater**   &#xD;&#xA;Source separated organic wastes can be composted (or fermented) and applied to land. This depends heavily on the behaviour of the households doing the separation. I've seen compost from SSO that looked pretty good, and I've seen some with lots of visible plastic contaminants.  &#xD;&#xA;I think one key to close nutrient cycles between city and countryside is cleaner waste, meaning better separation, separation between industrial and household wastewaters (and maybe between gray and black and yellow wastewaters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no simple comprehensive plan for a future agriculture without fossile fule based fertilizer. The trick will be to employ closed nutrient cycles at many scales - on the farm, betweeen farm and food processing, between city and countryside. Closed loops are only possilbe with good waste and wastewater management and are aided by source separation.  &#xD;&#xA;Where these loops are insufficient, green fertilization with legumes etc. and non-fossile HB are needed to supplant fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_sludge&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struvite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="21580333-5f62-49ce-9593-93be64db7551" CreationDate="2016-06-24T07:39:48.007" UserId="96" Comment="slight expansion of first paragraph" Text="(Draft answer till I get around to find some figures)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a few ways I see to go about this: Running a Haber Bosch process or similiar with a non-fossile source for energy and H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, or finding other N sources. There's principally two routes, N fixing plants in crop rotation + organic fertilizer and reusing N-rich wastes and wastewater. The key difference beeing that the first is basically happening within one or a few farms, while the second version involves municipalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nitrogen as hard limit**  &#xD;&#xA;Plants need nitrogen to build protein, typically 1kg N for 6,25 kg protein. The amount of nitrogen available to the plant is a hard upper limit on the amount of protein we can get. While it's not enough to look at the nutrient balance of a field, the balance puts limits on the achievable yields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Non-fossil Haber Bosch:**  &#xD;&#xA;Haber Bosch (HB) needs power to drive turbocompressors and Methane for heat and hydrogen. For the latter, one could use Biogas. HB yields a bit less than one mole NH&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; per mole CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;. One ha of corn yields about 47t/y, that amounts to roundabout 9400Nm³ Biogas at 52% methane. So we have ~220kmol methane, a slightly smaller amount of ammonia that amounts to maybe 2500kg/a of nitrogen fixed. This actually a lot.  This approach is scalable if there's a gas grid in place: Biogas plants can feed the (upgraded) Biogas into the grid, where it is transported to the HB plant.  &#xD;&#xA;There are electrically powered approaches to HB that I have not yet investigated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Crop rotation + organic fertilizers:**  &#xD;&#xA;needs a side by side comparision of conventional/intensive planting and extensive planting without. Even when fertilizers are used, the farmer wil have to follow some crop rotation to replenish topsoil, protect the ground from winter erosion etc. This means we cannot look at just plant yields with different fertilizer applications, but we must look at complete crop rotations.  &#xD;&#xA;According to wikipedia, [fixing 30-40kg N/ha](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%BCnd%C3%BCngung) is possible. Typical fertilizer application is in the range 100-170kg N/ha, for high yield crops.   &#xD;&#xA;[This meta study](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X) states that on average organic farming practices (which in this context mainly means no fossils based nitrogen fertilizer) yield about 20% less than conventional agriculure - at the field level. The authors themselves stress that whole crop rotations have to be looked at. Also there'S a huge span, in some cases organic practices outperformed conventional agriculture.  &#xD;&#xA;While the question may still be open wether organic agriculture can feed the world (and this will depend on meat consumption, biofuels etc.), organic farming is scalable with one caveat: Manure is not always available in the quantities neccessary. Solutions that utilize waste and or wastewater will beimportant in the years to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wastewater**&#xD;&#xA;With [activated sludge treatment][1], about 90% of the nitrogen content of the wastewater is sequestered in the sewage sludge, along with some phosphates and other interesting nutrients. Sludge from municipal wastewater is often contaminated with heavy metals and not usable for land application. These contaminants usually come from industrial wastewater. Banning untreated industrial wastewater from municipal  sewer lines could help.   &#xD;&#xA;Most Wastewater treatment plants are designed for elemination of the remaining N (turning nitrate into athmospheric N), not for fixing nitrogen in a usable form. But apparently there are promising tests with MAP ([Magnesium amoonium phosphate][2], can be used as a fertilizer) precipitation or duckweed for municipal wastewater. To my knowledge, technologies established for high strength wastewater (like ANA strip or Dekastrip) cannot be used economically for municipal wastewater.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Using municipal wastes and wastewater**   &#xD;&#xA;Source separated organic wastes can be composted (or fermented) and applied to land. This depends heavily on the behaviour of the households doing the separation. I've seen compost from SSO that looked pretty good, and I've seen some with lots of visible plastic contaminants.  &#xD;&#xA;I think one key to close nutrient cycles between city and countryside is cleaner waste, meaning better separation, separation between industrial and household wastewaters (and maybe between gray and black and yellow wastewaters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no simple comprehensive plan for a future agriculture without fossile fule based fertilizer. The trick will be to employ closed nutrient cycles at many scales - on the farm, betweeen farm and food processing, between city and countryside. Closed loops are only possilbe with good waste and wastewater management and are aided by source separation.  &#xD;&#xA;Where these loops are insufficient, green fertilization with legumes etc. and non-fossile HB are needed to supplant fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_sludge&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struvite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12519" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="5ac71e33-8a21-4dbf-abb5-6b2d700d74c9" CreationDate="2016-06-24T07:45:31.393" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/746247869703856132" />
  <row Id="12520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5356" RevisionGUID="96a1fc9e-fa0b-4fd4-8869-55668b48b0cb" CreationDate="2016-06-24T08:44:43.923" UserId="1255" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="The main answer is logistical. Building a network of pipes to bring water to houses is a major effort, and most places where that's been done found it extremely expensive. Providing a second set of pipes to bring salt water to houses would probably cost about the same. Except that cities go to considerable lengths to put their water reservoirs above the city as far as possible so they don't have to use as much energy for pumping. The few cities with seawater above them pay a lot to pump water *out*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A minor secondary problem is that sewage treatment plants are fairly heavily biological. They grow things in the sewage to break it down. But most of those things won't grow in salt water. It's already a challenge keeping toxic chemicals out of the sewage. For this to work it might be necessary to add a second set of sewer pipes to carry the water away, and develop new methods of treating that salty sewage (the treated sewage couldn't be spread on farmland, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be far simpler, cheaper and more reliable to simply buy everyone a composting toilet to replace each toilet they currently have. As a halfway measure, mandating more economical toilets would help, as would education campaigns like the  ones [encouraging people not to flush at all when they urinate][1]. Even with a sensible cistern that has a 2 litre &quot;half flush&quot;, that's two litres wasted every time someone pees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, salt is no good for pipes. A lot of pipes even today are clay are concrete, and salt water is bad for both of those. It's not impossible to get around that, just expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=If%20it%27s%20yellow%2C%20let%20it%20mellow.%20If%20it%27s%20brown%2C%20flush%20it%20down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12521" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="5de2d984-8cbb-4beb-8583-5cbd938f408e" CreationDate="2016-06-24T10:46:05.530" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/746293310541684736" />
  <row Id="12522" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5357" RevisionGUID="c67441ab-d2cb-4488-81f9-5467cfc68dba" CreationDate="2016-06-25T10:54:05.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/746657713346732032" />
  <row Id="12524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5359" RevisionGUID="548d0204-9caa-40da-a154-30ba03d8ccb7" CreationDate="2016-06-27T22:24:37.043" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Better link + quote" Text="Catalina Island does use salt water for toilets.  It's a small community, however, and they seem to be shifting towards freshwater due to corrosion issues inherent to salt water utilization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [Catalina Island &amp; Drinking Water](http://catalinaislandblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/catalina-island-drinking-water.html?m=1):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Saltwater used for toilet-flushing and fire suppression purposes is simply filtered as it is not intended to be potable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unique issues for wastewater treatment include the high salt content of the wastewater resulting from the City’s use of salt water for toilet flushing throughout the system; and very large differences between average and peak flow loadings resulting from the varying tourist population&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It was discovered that the use of saltwater for wastewater purposes leads to corrosion of the laterals. A majority of the laterals were broken or cracked, causing wastewater from the homes in Avalon to enter the groundwater system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The blog post has references for further reading." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12525" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5359" RevisionGUID="548d0204-9caa-40da-a154-30ba03d8ccb7" CreationDate="2016-06-27T22:24:37.043" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 96, 85 edit id of 410" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="a8ccc423-84c9-49f3-a90a-17e4d6225a17" CreationDate="2016-06-28T10:34:08.540" UserId="96" Text="[Biochar][1] is often heralded as a great combination of soil improvement and carbon sequestration. However, at least on the carbon sequestration front, it seems to be a mixed bag. [Biofuelwatch cites a paper from Nature (2011)][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *“Persistence of soil organic carbon is primarily...an ecosystem property.”*' This is why some types of soil carbon which are highly 'unstable' in laboratory conditions have been found to remain in some soils for long periods of time whereas black carbon, which under laboratory conditions appears particularly stable, has been found under some circumstances to decompose quicker than other types of carbon. The authors&#xD;&#xA;therefore warn: *“Sequestration strategies based on adding recalcitrant material to soils, whether through plant selection for recalcitrant tissues or through biochar amendments must be reevaluated.”*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked text also claims that black carbon is not inert, but the exact mechanisms under which black carbon degrades are not well understood. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also mention several field trials where after 2 or 4 years, the carbon content of soil treated with biochar did not differ significantly from soil without biochar. So the claim that black carbon in the form of biochar has a very long lifetime in *all* soils seems to be false. As mentioned in the nature article, black carbon degradation seems to be very much a function of the soil ecosystem, which in turn depends on soil type; mineral, oxygen and moisture content; vegetation and farming practices etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the uncertainty of the lifetime of biocahr-C in the soil, is biochar actually a viable way of carbon sequestration? Are there specific application, e.g. biochar + specific soil type + specific farming style, that are shown to work as long term carbon sequestration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Biochar-Report3.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12528" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="a8ccc423-84c9-49f3-a90a-17e4d6225a17" CreationDate="2016-06-28T10:34:08.540" UserId="96" Text="Is biochar actually a viable way of carbon sequestration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12529" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="a8ccc423-84c9-49f3-a90a-17e4d6225a17" CreationDate="2016-06-28T10:34:08.540" UserId="96" Text="|carbon-sequestration|biochar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="4715f14e-7118-423f-b632-6b59b13dd013" CreationDate="2016-06-28T16:11:34.670" UserId="3423" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="[Study](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ferroni-y-hopkirk-2016-energy-return-on-energy-invested-eroei-for-photo.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjttI2Mxb7NAhWEJR4KHUkMD_wQFghGMAg&amp;usg=AFQjCNGdeJegShQl6uwR7xcM5FSSVa083w&amp;sig2=qBeY9PXvDATjEUlzpP5HrA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar EROI is far below 1. The above-one EROI estimates are due to various shenanigans, such as excluding infrastructure costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comments below also ignore infrastructure costs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12531" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5372" RevisionGUID="7d956c57-6677-4bb2-9bdb-7853163ad199" CreationDate="2016-06-29T08:16:05.650" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/748067502639415296" />
  <row Id="12534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5374" RevisionGUID="ceca9f81-08c1-4735-842f-3df144b16754" CreationDate="2016-06-30T03:45:51.893" UserId="3532" Text="I'm currently building a food forest that I plan to gate in to protect animals. What type/breed of animals should I look into for keeping the forest floor clean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12535" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5374" RevisionGUID="ceca9f81-08c1-4735-842f-3df144b16754" CreationDate="2016-06-30T03:45:51.893" UserId="3532" Text="What type/breed of animals do I want for food forest mantinence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12536" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5374" RevisionGUID="ceca9f81-08c1-4735-842f-3df144b16754" CreationDate="2016-06-30T03:45:51.893" UserId="3532" Text="|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12537" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5374" RevisionGUID="169f49be-917b-4b92-8728-c7327aed5494" CreationDate="2016-06-30T03:52:52.040" UserId="3532" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|animals|forestry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5375" RevisionGUID="a5325af0-c21d-42bf-bad8-0f4ce96e446a" CreationDate="2016-06-30T03:58:37.603" UserId="3532" Text="Ships use salt water from the fire main for flushing, and to clean out the CHT tank, so some toilets do use salt water, and other ones don't. They do this because using fresh water can be taxing on the water tanks, as well as having more cleaning enzymes then potable water would have available to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="d7b2112e-08f1-4f92-b2a3-89d020104479" CreationDate="2016-06-30T04:01:07.833" UserId="3423" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="[Study](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ferroni-y-hopkirk-2016-energy-return-on-energy-invested-eroei-for-photo.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjttI2Mxb7NAhWEJR4KHUkMD_wQFghGMAg&amp;usg=AFQjCNGdeJegShQl6uwR7xcM5FSSVa083w&amp;sig2=qBeY9PXvDATjEUlzpP5HrA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar EROI is far below 1. The above-one EROI estimates are due to various shenanigans, such as excluding infrastructure costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comments below also ignore infrastructure costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also see that solar prices just track oil prices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/INJHV.png)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5376" RevisionGUID="6d4befb0-dffa-43b3-9825-3597a8ca6f52" CreationDate="2016-06-30T04:27:42.367" UserId="3532" Text="I'm building an [agroforestry (food forest)][1] area in the yard, and was wondering how to exactly lay out the plants so they work well together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm putting in:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Aronia X2&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;American Persimmon X2&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Red Colossal Gooseberry X2&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Red White Blue Currant X1 each&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Adams &amp; John Elderberry X1 each&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Darrow Everbearing Blackberry X3&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Russian Mulberry X1&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;paw paw tree X2&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Goumiberry X2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFDuM2P1E-Q" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5376" RevisionGUID="6d4befb0-dffa-43b3-9825-3597a8ca6f52" CreationDate="2016-06-30T04:27:42.367" UserId="3532" Text="How do I properly colonize trees to work together in a food forest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5376" RevisionGUID="6d4befb0-dffa-43b3-9825-3597a8ca6f52" CreationDate="2016-06-30T04:27:42.367" UserId="3532" Text="|forestry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12544" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3228" RevisionGUID="d28d63e6-06cf-4410-b19a-4de79e2d3460" CreationDate="2016-06-30T07:05:30.720" UserId="99" Comment="added air-conditioning tag, improved question title" Text="Can you drink condensation water from air-con after treating it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12545" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3228" RevisionGUID="d28d63e6-06cf-4410-b19a-4de79e2d3460" CreationDate="2016-06-30T07:05:30.720" UserId="99" Comment="added air-conditioning tag, improved question title" Text="|water|air-conditioning|treatment|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12546" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5374" RevisionGUID="64a2b936-eb62-42b5-98aa-609414b130f5" CreationDate="2016-06-30T07:07:56.143" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo in question title" Text="What type/breed of animals do I want for food forest maintenance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12547" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5377" RevisionGUID="2b19ffa5-d4ba-4e10-97d0-acf7959679e4" CreationDate="2016-06-30T07:59:51.210" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/26917/what-breed-of-chickens-would-make-the-best-lawn-mowers-for-a-food-forest-prepera" />
  <row Id="12548" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="77d08099-aaef-4906-bf3c-0025430eb030" CreationDate="2016-06-30T07:59:51.210" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/26917/what-breed-of-chickens-would-make-the-best-lawn-mowers-for-a-food-forest-prepera/26927#26927" />
  <row Id="12549" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5379" RevisionGUID="904c59ba-b620-48ac-a183-5fefbc283310" CreationDate="2016-06-30T07:59:51.210" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/26917/what-breed-of-chickens-would-make-the-best-lawn-mowers-for-a-food-forest-prepera/26932#26932" />
  <row Id="12550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5378" RevisionGUID="ff3690fa-034e-45d9-ad04-bff4c98fab2b" CreationDate="2016-06-27T22:50:46.550" UserId="3540" UserDisplayName="stormy" Text="FORGET chickens, bucko.  They might eat seeds and seedlings but in no universe I know they actually cut grass down.  My goodness.  If you are wanting A LAWN forget about hiring goats, horses, cattle...sheeps.  That is fine for pasture but you'd have to be able to rotate them before they eat down to the crowns and demolish any grass plants you have.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a lawn just get your man juices up and purchase a damn good hydraulic mower with blades you can sharpen, bag your grass clippings, purchase a cheapo scott's hand spreader for fertilizer and/or seed, definitely need a great gas powered string trimmer and a gas powered blower (Stihl is a bonafide great brand for homeowner use...).  Otherwise, make an lawn of gravel...like the Japanese do. Once per year rent a plug aerator..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5379" RevisionGUID="61eb288f-7d01-49e8-91e5-8a35634f51e0" CreationDate="2016-06-28T06:48:27.440" UserId="3533" UserDisplayName="Giacomo Catenazzi" Text="Chickens are not lawn mowers.  They eat grass, but they select what they like (plants with relatively *large* leaves are preferred, like clovers, *Plantago*, etc). So you have no uniform cutting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They like also much the ground, so they will start to throw away grass in patches, so that they can delouse (if it is dry) or looking for worms (if is is more humid).  In a forest, I would expect they will dig various holes (not deep, but large).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you want a wild garden, they could help, and also in a wild garden (OTOH a wild garden doesn't requires chicken nor lawn mower)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5380" RevisionGUID="0e777ce7-ce2c-4170-aab5-1c29f0703de7" CreationDate="2016-06-28T20:05:23.210" UserId="5517" UserDisplayName="Graham Chiu" Text="You're confusing concepts. Chickens are used to prepare the ground prior to the planting of the food forest. They weed the ground, fertilize and lay eggs. They are confined inside moveable fencing, and any domestic breed will do the job.  In no universe do they mow lawns.&#xA;&#xA;See http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-agriculture/using-chickens-plant-food-forest.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5377" RevisionGUID="b9d48428-ccd9-4072-92f2-f1ef6e89082b" CreationDate="2016-06-27T20:41:52.967" UserId="3532" Text="I'm looking for a type of chicken that I can use in a chicken yard to keep my grass mowed, will grow quickly, stay in their yard to clean all of the grass out. What breeds would you recommend that I get for my lawn mowers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5377" RevisionGUID="b9d48428-ccd9-4072-92f2-f1ef6e89082b" CreationDate="2016-06-27T20:41:52.967" UserId="3532" Text="What breed of chickens would make the best lawn mowers for a food forest preperation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5377" RevisionGUID="b9d48428-ccd9-4072-92f2-f1ef6e89082b" CreationDate="2016-06-27T20:41:52.967" UserId="3532" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12556" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5380" RevisionGUID="6bdb2524-9e1a-45b3-86f4-a95919009cf7" CreationDate="2016-06-30T07:59:51.210" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/26917/what-breed-of-chickens-would-make-the-best-lawn-mowers-for-a-food-forest-prepera/26939#26939" />
  <row Id="12557" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5381" RevisionGUID="aa9d3a24-ecf5-42b3-8bc3-4723f8a2a746" CreationDate="2016-06-30T08:02:09.563" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/26944/what-type-of-guinea-pigs-will-keep-a-food-forest-well-cleaned" />
  <row Id="12558" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5382" RevisionGUID="6a3d62eb-14e6-4581-bd0c-a0ffef21cba1" CreationDate="2016-06-30T08:02:09.563" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/26944/what-type-of-guinea-pigs-will-keep-a-food-forest-well-cleaned/26952#26952" />
  <row Id="12559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5382" RevisionGUID="f406ded3-2bcd-4979-b92c-466e7b14230b" CreationDate="2016-06-29T13:14:07.143" UserDisplayName="kevinsky" Text="Until recently we had three guinea pigs that we would bring outside in the summer and let graze on a patch of grass.  From the point of view of animal husbandry the issues were:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- they are delicate creatures. If it gets too hot they die ( &gt; ~28 deg C). If it gets too cold they die ( &lt; 10 deg C). Their natural habitat is the Andes Mountains in South America where it is cool and sunny.&#xD;&#xA;- Cats, dogs, birds of prey are all quite interested in guinea pigs and not in a good way&#xD;&#xA;- they don't actually eat that much grass in a day.  Three Guinea pigs failed to clear an area six feet by two feet in less than a week of hard work.&#xD;&#xA;- they are vulnerable to toxins in other plants.  One bite of a tomato leaf and it's all over&#xD;&#xA;- they are escape artists in miniature.  They will dig under or go under nets and chicken wire&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our guinea pigs died of old age but they are just not rugged domestic animals like goats and sheep." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5381" RevisionGUID="83709e21-6dad-449f-a823-292cfea060c7" CreationDate="2016-06-29T03:59:43.903" UserId="3532" Text="I'm building a food forest, and was wondering what type of guinea pigs would work  best to keep a food forest floor clean while not harming my plants so I can have plenty of food as well as getting pelts to sell to a tannery, and possibly sell some to the pet store if I get too many for the yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to have some berries/grapes/kiwi berries (when the trees get big enough)/fruit (polyculture), and things falling into the yard, but will also have pine needles, and compost scraps for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5381" RevisionGUID="83709e21-6dad-449f-a823-292cfea060c7" CreationDate="2016-06-29T03:59:43.903" UserId="3532" Text="What type of guinea pigs will keep a food forest well cleaned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5381" RevisionGUID="83709e21-6dad-449f-a823-292cfea060c7" CreationDate="2016-06-29T03:59:43.903" UserId="3532" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12563" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5383" RevisionGUID="d1867a02-8673-45c8-a3f0-dab7e6eca6ca" CreationDate="2016-06-30T08:03:18.867" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/26945/how-do-i-raise-guinea-pigs-effectively-for-meat" />
  <row Id="12564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5383" RevisionGUID="3000a8a3-eabf-4a41-b669-6febc6235309" CreationDate="2016-06-29T05:47:48.300" UserId="3532" Text="Since guinea pigs do well for maintaining a food forest floor how should I raise them so they put on weight quickly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think of a herd of guinea pigs for a few meals a year, and selling for pets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12565" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5383" RevisionGUID="3000a8a3-eabf-4a41-b669-6febc6235309" CreationDate="2016-06-29T05:47:48.300" UserId="3532" Text="How do I raise guinea pigs effectively for meat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12566" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5383" RevisionGUID="3000a8a3-eabf-4a41-b669-6febc6235309" CreationDate="2016-06-29T05:47:48.300" UserId="3532" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12567" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5381" RevisionGUID="48a6bcf3-2eff-40ac-9d4b-f94290a58348" CreationDate="2016-06-30T08:04:48.667" UserId="99" Comment="added related tags" Text="|food|animals|forestry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12568" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5383" RevisionGUID="6a0b9ca3-bf65-4262-ab87-e9ca1a61695c" CreationDate="2016-06-30T08:07:03.730" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|meat|husbandry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12569" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5377" RevisionGUID="20edc569-521b-48a3-9c4d-d5debd214dfe" CreationDate="2016-06-30T08:11:10.090" UserId="99" Comment="added relevant tags" Text="|gardening|husbandry|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5375" RevisionGUID="05a46897-80a2-40d6-bab9-3cad5fbbe07b" CreationDate="2016-07-01T02:54:11.127" UserId="3532" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="Ships use salt water from the fire main for flushing, and to clean out the CHT (shit, which is used when sewage can't be dumped, or to process before dumping over the side) tank, so some toilets do use salt water, and other ones don't. They do this because using fresh water can be taxing on the water tanks, as well as having more cleaning enzymes then potable water would have available to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5367" RevisionGUID="a25dab96-21a3-4aec-835d-0c9dd500c7f4" CreationDate="2016-07-01T03:26:31.270" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, minor improvements" Text="**1. Try to reuse**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reuse is always better than recycling or disposal because it 1) saves energy that is needed for the recycling process and 2) saves energy and materials for manufacturing and transporting new envelopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides relabeling and resending you can also reuse the envelopes for other purposes, for example as knee pads for gardening work. If you have lots of envelopes you can give them away to friends and family or on websites like freecycle.org.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Check with your local recycling facility**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard that there are a few recycling companies that accept paper/plastic-composite materials. Although they seem to be very rare, it doesn't hurt to check this first. While you are at it also check which types of plastic your local recycling facility accepts (for the next step).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Try to separate the paper and plastic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned it's impossible to separate the paper and plastic in your case and for some types of envelopes this is very true, but sometimes cutting the envelope open first with a scissor gives you better access to the bubble wrap allowing you to separate it after all. However separating only makes sense if you can recycle the paper and/or plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can separate but the plastic isn't of a type that is recycled by your local recycling company, you can try upcycling plastics by melting them into something else (see also [Fusing plastic bags](http://etsylabs.blogspot.nl/2007/05/long-overdue-fusing-plastic-bag.html)). Be careful when you do this, because [melting plastics may release toxic fumes](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/225/99)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. Check with the envelope manufacturer/sender**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't separate the paper and plastic of if you can't find out what kind of plastic was used (most likely it's [LDPE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene)), contact the envelope manufacturer. They may be able to provide you with this information or with alternative recycling options. If the manufacturer has no good recycling options urge them to become more environmentally aware. You can also contact the envelope sender and ask them to start using recyclable bubble mailers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5369" RevisionGUID="371952c7-02a8-4238-9bdc-1d0118ebbb6a" CreationDate="2016-07-01T04:36:47.187" UserId="3423" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="[Study](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/ferroni-y-hopkirk-2016-energy-return-on-energy-invested-eroei-for-photo.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjttI2Mxb7NAhWEJR4KHUkMD_wQFghGMAg&amp;usg=AFQjCNGdeJegShQl6uwR7xcM5FSSVa083w&amp;sig2=qBeY9PXvDATjEUlzpP5HrA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar EROI is far below 1. The above-one EROI estimates are due to various shenanigans, such as excluding infrastructure costs..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also see that solar prices just track oil prices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/INJHV.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comments below also ignore infrastructure costs and use industry-reported data despite obvious conflicts of interest. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="32497379-015c-4b55-934d-1942baa71efc" CreationDate="2016-07-01T10:03:08.840" UserId="96" Comment="minor edit to nitrogen paragraph" Text="(Draft answer till I get around to find some figures)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a few ways I see to go about this: Running a Haber Bosch process or similiar with a non-fossile source for energy and H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, or finding other N sources. There's principally two routes, N fixing plants in crop rotation + organic fertilizer and reusing N-rich wastes and wastewater. The key difference beeing that the first is basically happening within one or a few farms, while the second version involves municipalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nitrogen as hard limit**  &#xD;&#xA;Plants need nitrogen to build protein, typically 1kg N for 6,25 kg protein. The amount of nitrogen available to the plant is a hard upper limit on the amount of protein we can get. While it's not enough to look at the nutrient balance of a field, the balance puts limits on the achievable yields.&#xD;&#xA;Nitrogen is the nutrient that is most strongly fossile fuel based, since production of N-fertilizers requires natural gas. So in this answer I will look only at nitrogen.  &#xD;&#xA;However, another important nutrient is phosphorus and here the world could face a [shortage in the coming decades][1]. Many of the ways to recycle nitrogen also recycle phosphorus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Non-fossil Haber Bosch:**  &#xD;&#xA;Haber Bosch (HB) needs power to drive turbocompressors and Methane for heat and hydrogen. For the latter, one could use Biogas. HB yields a bit less than one mole NH&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; per mole CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;. One ha of corn yields about 47t/y, that amounts to roundabout 9400Nm³ Biogas at 52% methane. So we have ~220kmol methane, a slightly smaller amount of ammonia that amounts to maybe 2500kg/a of nitrogen fixed. This actually a lot.  This approach is scalable if there's a gas grid in place: Biogas plants can feed the (upgraded) Biogas into the grid, where it is transported to the HB plant.  &#xD;&#xA;There are electrically powered approaches to HB that I have not yet investigated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Crop rotation + Organic fertilizers:**  &#xD;&#xA;needs a side by side comparision of conventional/intensive planting and extensive planting without. Even when fertilizers are used, the farmer wil have to follow some crop rotation to replenish topsoil, protect the ground from winter erosion etc. This means we cannot look at just plant yields with different fertilizer applications, but we must look at complete crop rotations.  &#xD;&#xA;According to wikipedia, [fixing 30-40kg N/ha](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%BCnd%C3%BCngung) is possible. Typical fertilizer application is in the range 100-170kg N/ha, for high yield crops.   &#xD;&#xA;[This meta study](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X) states that on average organic farming practices (which in this context mainly means no fossils based nitrogen fertilizer) yield about 20% less than conventional agriculure - at the field level. The authors themselves stress that whole crop rotations have to be looked at. Also there's a huge span, in some cases organic practices outperformed conventional agriculture.  &#xD;&#xA;While the question may still be open wether organic agriculture can feed the world (and this will depend on meat consumption, biofuels etc.), organic farming is scalable with one caveat: Manure is not always available in the quantities neccessary. Solutions that utilize waste and or wastewater will beimportant in the years to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wastewater**&#xD;&#xA;With [activated sludge treatment][2], about 90% of the nitrogen content of the wastewater is sequestered in the sewage sludge, along with some phosphates and other interesting nutrients. Sludge from municipal wastewater is often contaminated with heavy metals and not usable for land application. These contaminants usually come from industrial wastewater. Banning untreated industrial wastewater from municipal  sewer lines could help.   &#xD;&#xA;Most Wastewater treatment plants are designed for elemination of the remaining N (turning nitrate into athmospheric N), not for fixing nitrogen in a usable form. But apparently there are promising tests with MAP ([Magnesium amoonium phosphate][3], can be used as a fertilizer) precipitation or duckweed for municipal wastewater. To my knowledge, technologies established for high strength wastewater (like ANA strip or Dekastrip) cannot be used economically for municipal wastewater.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Using municipal wastes and wastewater**   &#xD;&#xA;Source separated organic wastes can be composted (or fermented) and applied to land. This depends heavily on the behaviour of the households doing the separation. I've seen compost from SSO that looked pretty good, and I've seen some with lots of visible plastic contaminants.  &#xD;&#xA;I think one key to close nutrient cycles between city and countryside is cleaner waste, meaning better separation, separation between industrial and household wastewaters (and maybe between gray and black and yellow wastewaters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no simple comprehensive plan for a future agriculture without fossile fule based fertilizer. The trick will be to employ closed nutrient cycles at many scales - on the farm, betweeen farm and food processing, between city and countryside. Closed loops are only possilbe with good waste and wastewater management and are aided by source separation.  &#xD;&#xA;Where these loops are insufficient, green fertilization with legumes etc. and non-fossile HB are needed to supplant fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_sludge&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struvite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4273" RevisionGUID="480b0c6f-3608-4d55-8322-1818f3b01ea4" CreationDate="2016-07-01T11:06:06.287" UserId="96" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="(Draft answer till I get around to find some figures)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a few ways I see to go about this: Running a Haber Bosch process or similiar with a non-fossile source for energy and H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, or finding other N sources. There's principally two routes, N fixing plants in crop rotation + organic fertilizer and reusing N-rich wastes and wastewater. The key difference beeing that the first is basically happening within one or a few farms, while the second version involves municipalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nitrogen as hard limit**  &#xD;&#xA;Plants need nitrogen to build protein, typically 1kg N for 6,25 kg protein. The amount of nitrogen available to the plant is a hard upper limit on the amount of protein we can get. While it's not enough to look at the nutrient balance of a field, the balance puts limits on the achievable yields.&#xD;&#xA;Nitrogen is the nutrient that is most strongly fossile fuel based, since production of N-fertilizers requires natural gas. So in this answer I will look only at nitrogen.  &#xD;&#xA;However, another important nutrient is phosphorus and here the world could face a [shortage in the coming decades][1]. Many of the ways to recycle nitrogen also recycle phosphorus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Non-fossil Haber Bosch:**  &#xD;&#xA;Haber Bosch (HB) needs power to drive turbocompressors and Methane for heat and hydrogen. For the latter, one could use Biogas. HB yields a bit less than one mole NH&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; per mole CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;. One ha of corn yields about 47t/y, that amounts to roundabout 9400Nm³ Biogas at 52% methane. So we have ~220kmol methane, a slightly smaller amount of ammonia that amounts to maybe 2500kg/a of nitrogen fixed. This actually a lot.  This approach is scalable if there's a gas grid in place: Biogas plants can feed the (upgraded) Biogas into the grid, where it is transported to the HB plant.  &#xD;&#xA;There are electrically powered approaches to HB that I have not yet investigated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Crop rotation + Organic fertilizers:**  &#xD;&#xA;needs a side by side comparision of conventional/intensive planting and extensive planting without. Even when fertilizers are used, the farmer wil have to follow some crop rotation to replenish topsoil, protect the ground from winter erosion etc. This means we cannot look at just plant yields with different fertilizer applications, but we must look at complete crop rotations at the farm level.  &#xD;&#xA;According to wikipedia, [fixing 30-40kg N/ha](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%BCnd%C3%BCngung) is possible. Typical fertilizer application is in the range 100-170kg N/ha, for high yield crops.   &#xD;&#xA;[This meta study](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X) states that on average organic farming practices (which in this context mainly means no fossils based nitrogen fertilizer) yield about 20% less than conventional agriculure - at the field level. The yield gap is assumed to be larger at the farm level, when nutrient limits come into play stronger. The authors themselves stress that whole crop rotations have to be looked at. Also there's a huge span, in some cases organic practices outperformed conventional agriculture. So far I found no farm level multi year comparison between organic and conventional agriculture.  &#xD;&#xA;While the question may still be open wether organic agriculture can feed the world (and this will depend on meat consumption, biofuels etc.), organic farming is scalable with one caveat: Manure is not always available in the quantities neccessary. Solutions that utilize waste and or wastewater will beimportant in the years to come.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wastewater**&#xD;&#xA;With [activated sludge treatment][2], about 90% of the nitrogen content of the wastewater is sequestered in the sewage sludge, along with some phosphates and other interesting nutrients. Sludge from municipal wastewater is often contaminated with heavy metals and not usable for land application. These contaminants usually come from industrial wastewater. Banning untreated industrial wastewater from municipal  sewer lines could help.   &#xD;&#xA;Most Wastewater treatment plants are designed for elemination of the remaining N (turning nitrate into athmospheric N), not for fixing nitrogen in a usable form. But apparently there are promising tests with MAP ([Magnesium amoonium phosphate][3], can be used as a fertilizer) precipitation or duckweed for municipal wastewater. To my knowledge, technologies established for high strength wastewater (like ANA strip or Dekastrip) cannot be used economically for municipal wastewater.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Using municipal wastes and wastewater**   &#xD;&#xA;Source separated organic wastes can be composted (or fermented) and applied to land. This depends heavily on the behaviour of the households doing the separation. I've seen compost from SSO that looked pretty good, and I've seen some with lots of visible plastic contaminants.  &#xD;&#xA;I think one key to close nutrient cycles between city and countryside is cleaner waste, meaning better separation, separation between industrial and household wastewaters (and maybe between gray and black and yellow wastewaters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no simple comprehensive plan for a future agriculture without fossile fule based fertilizer. The trick will be to employ closed nutrient cycles at many scales - on the farm, betweeen farm and food processing, between city and countryside. Closed loops are only possilbe with good waste and wastewater management and are aided by source separation.  &#xD;&#xA;Where these loops are insufficient, green fertilization with legumes etc. and non-fossile HB are needed to supplant fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_sludge&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struvite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="fa2c8da4-140b-4a69-88a9-8ea5ede4e122" CreationDate="2016-07-01T11:30:25.707" UserId="96" Text="[This meta study on the yield gap][1] suggests that organic farming has about 80% the yield of conventional farming at the field level, yields may vary widely and organic yields can surpass conventional yields. The authors state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our analysis of yield gaps was at crop and field level. The results cannot readily be upscaled to higher system levels. Organic agriculture relies for its crop nutrients on natural soil fertility, legume crops, compost and manure. When legumes are grown as a green manure crop instead of a food or fodder crop to add nitrogen to the system, the average yield of food and fodder crops over the entire rotation is reduced. [...] We did not perform an in-depth analysis of this issue for our data, but it may be assumed that at crop rotation or farm level at least some organic yields in our database would have to be reduced to account for non-productive green manure crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another important source of nutrients in organic farming is manure. Some of the successful organic production systems are dependent on relatively large manure applications imported from outside the farming system (e.g. Clark et al., 1999; Jaim and Al Kader, 1998). If these systems were to be adopted more widely in a given region, manure may become a limiting resource, thus reducing overall organic food crop yields (e.g. Jaim and Al Kader, 1998). [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In conclusion, a thorough analysis of the productivity of organic and conventional agriculture at crop rotation, farm and regional level is needed that accounts for the availability of crop nutrients. Since maintaining soil fertility is generally a greater challenge for organic systems (e.g. Nguyen and Haynes, 1995), we hypothesize that at higher system levels yield gaps of organic agriculture may be larger than 20%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm looking for research that compares organic with conventional agriculture at the farm level, as at this level the diminished yields due to green fertilization would be taken into account. Crucially for me to undersand are the nutrient/fertilizer flows, so ideally the study would also compare organic yields at different (external) fertilizer inputs. But I'll take what I can get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This info would be helpful to someday finish [my answer][2] to [this question on food without fossile fertilizer][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4273/96&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/4271/96" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="fa2c8da4-140b-4a69-88a9-8ea5ede4e122" CreationDate="2016-07-01T11:30:25.707" UserId="96" Text="Reference reqeust - Farm level, multi year comparison between organic and conventional agriculture" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="fa2c8da4-140b-4a69-88a9-8ea5ede4e122" CreationDate="2016-07-01T11:30:25.707" UserId="96" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12580" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4276" RevisionGUID="6265af20-e8d5-4486-9387-09c1770d37e7" CreationDate="2016-07-01T11:34:08.297" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/748842117573804032" />
  <row Id="12581" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5311" RevisionGUID="9e5a3bc5-94ea-4faa-bb45-5570b609d460" CreationDate="2016-07-01T14:55:11.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="12584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5386" RevisionGUID="bb5d231b-9bc4-4507-b79f-b207338943e8" CreationDate="2016-07-02T00:50:22.570" UserId="3540" Text="Rubber boots are inexpensive for a reason.  They do not last long.  They are made to be disposable.  Just go get another pair.  There just is nothing that will glue your cracks together and stay together.  I've used duct tape but forget about being waterproofed...just go get another pair.  If you are worried about throwing them away, go punch more holes in the bottom, fill with soil and grow growies in them.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5387" RevisionGUID="bfc6e3de-9fc1-414f-904f-6b30e674b796" CreationDate="2016-07-02T01:10:39.413" UserId="3540" Text="No animal no person could or  should do the work for you.  You HAVE to put some time and effort into learning about these plants, their height, width, how fast they grow, whether they need low pH or high pH, how much sun they need, are you able to chop your yard into different, separate sections so one section could be less than 6 pH and another 7 pH?  Have you done SOIL TESTS?  Have you connected with your cooperative extension service of your nearest university?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not expect anyone to answer questions that really don't matter in order to be successful with making your own self sufficient forest.  You just do not have enough information with which to ask the proper questions nor go after this impossible goal.  It will be fun but your expectations are way too high.  Any garden, anything us humans make is artificial and our responsibility to make healthy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12587" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="5927e310-a8e1-4e41-be53-fe1765aac148" CreationDate="2016-07-02T09:06:27.863" UserId="-1" Comment="36" />
  <row Id="12588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5389" RevisionGUID="f3d21584-c28d-413a-bbae-3ce1cf51f849" CreationDate="2016-07-02T13:53:10.550" UserId="3379" Text="The assertion that the answer to this question is &quot;yes&quot; was made in an answer to another question here: [Which solar power technology has the highest energy return on investment (EROI aka EROEI)?][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user (@DJSims/@NeilTyson/@Mustang) posted these two graphics as evidence:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Historical prices for polysilicon and oil][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the poster did not provide a source for either chart, however a quick google image search indicates that they are likely indicative of actual trends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, a quick glance at these charts does indicate that the prices seem to track. However, the most striking feature is the boom leading to 2008, and the bust thereafter. I am not an economist, but I suspect that historical pricing for any two randomly selected commodities (with the possible exception of gold) would look pretty similar in the years immediately before and after 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, do oil and polysilicon prices actually depend on each other? Are these charts sufficient to decide one way or another? Or is more information needed? Is there enough data post-2008 to decide if the trend would continue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5369/3379&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8Cg4I.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5389" RevisionGUID="f3d21584-c28d-413a-bbae-3ce1cf51f849" CreationDate="2016-07-02T13:53:10.550" UserId="3379" Text="Does the price of polysilicon (for solar PV panels) depend on oil prices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5389" RevisionGUID="f3d21584-c28d-413a-bbae-3ce1cf51f849" CreationDate="2016-07-02T13:53:10.550" UserId="3379" Text="|solar-power|electricity|electricity-generation|oil|economics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5390" RevisionGUID="e7c079e8-c61f-4362-8d0b-619df3bbb4be" CreationDate="2016-07-03T02:11:38.150" UserId="1173" Text="For a specific product, I recommend *Shoe Goo*. It is designed for repairing shoes, in my experience it does work rather well. It is good for sticking them back together, and reattaching the soles if they have separated. Though maybe not so effective for repairing cracks where they are splitting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if there is a generic term for Shoe Goo - [according to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_Goo), it is composed of &quot;toluene, styrene-butadiene copolymer, and solvent naphtha&quot;. So you may be able to find something similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also its probably a bit late for your boots, but rubber boots may last long if looked after. Wash them occasionally, with mild soap and water, and dry them off. Then they can be treated with *rubber conditioner*. This will restore the shine of the rubber, and stop them from drying out and cracking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5391" RevisionGUID="18b0da69-e8e1-4fcb-a425-078204e02bcf" CreationDate="2016-07-03T03:30:01.110" UserId="15" Text="Here's a quick answer; hopefully we'll see some more in depth answers too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the given charts closely, the price of polysilicon appears to decline from around $75 in early 2010 to $17 in 2014, but the price of oil appears to gradually rise from $80 to $100 over the same period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is very different behaviour, and says to me the relationship between the two is very limited at best. Given that the 2008/09 financial crisis involved essentially artificial (ie unjustified) price inflation of commodities (as well as other things), it's no surprise that both charts spiked at that point, and therefore it would make sense to ignore that part of the data to give a more accurate comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="5559a617-19e2-41e3-a63c-3a6fedeedce4" CreationDate="2016-07-03T20:45:59.050" UserId="3293" Comment="various typos" Text="[This meta study on the crop yield gap][1] suggests that organic farming has about 80% the yield of conventional farming at the field level, yields may vary widely and organic yields can surpass conventional yields. The authors state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our analysis of yield gaps was at crop and field level. The results cannot readily be upscaled to higher system levels. Organic agriculture relies for its crop nutrients on natural soil fertility, legume crops, compost and manure. When legumes are grown as a green manure crop instead of a food or fodder crop to add nitrogen to the system, the average yield of food and fodder crops over the entire rotation is reduced. [...] We did not perform an in-depth analysis of this issue for our data, but it may be assumed that at crop rotation or farm level at least some organic yields in our database would have to be reduced to account for non-productive green manure crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another important source of nutrients in organic farming is manure. Some of the successful organic production systems are dependent on relatively large manure applications imported from outside the farming system (e.g. Clark et al., 1999; Jaim and Al Kader, 1998). If these systems were to be adopted more widely in a given region, manure may become a limiting resource, thus reducing overall organic food crop yields (e.g. Jaim and Al Kader, 1998). [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In conclusion, a thorough analysis of the productivity of organic and conventional agriculture at crop rotation, farm and regional level is needed that accounts for the availability of crop nutrients. Since maintaining soil fertility is generally a greater challenge for organic systems (e.g. Nguyen and Haynes, 1995), we hypothesize that at higher system levels yield gaps of organic agriculture may be larger than 20%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm looking for research that compares organic with conventional agriculture at the farm level, as at this level the diminished yields due to green fertilization would be taken into account. Crucially for me to understand are the nutrient/fertilizer flows, so ideally the study would also compare organic yields at different (external) fertilizer inputs. But I'll take what I can get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This info would be helpful to someday finish [my answer][2] to [this question on food without fossil fertilizer][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4273/96&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/4271/96" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12596" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="5559a617-19e2-41e3-a63c-3a6fedeedce4" CreationDate="2016-07-03T20:45:59.050" UserId="3293" Comment="various typos" Text="Reference request - Farm level, multi year comparison between organic and conventional agriculture" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12597" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="5559a617-19e2-41e3-a63c-3a6fedeedce4" CreationDate="2016-07-03T20:45:59.050" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 99 edit id of 411" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12602" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="593e0ee8-f9fb-4f4b-8e0f-538fabb72b18" CreationDate="2016-07-04T05:38:52.730" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/749839877294977024" />
  <row Id="12604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5393" RevisionGUID="1b3bcbd0-50d2-4928-b6f2-59c25d6ab218" CreationDate="2016-07-04T09:51:18.077" UserId="99" Text="Yes, it's definitely feasible. In fact several houses have already been built. In 2010 a Colombian architect called Oscar Mendez had the same idea as you. He started an initiative called [Conceptos Plasticos](http://conceptosplasticos.com) (website in Spanish, but [crowd-funding website](http://www.theventure.com/global/en/finalists/conceptos-plasticos) in English) with the goal to reduce waste and extreme poverty by providing cheaper and better housing solutions for people in need. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The plastic waste we recycle is melted and poured into a mould to produce plastic blocks that work like Lego pieces, allowing whole communities and families to play a part in the easy constructing of their own homes. The materials contain additives that makes them resistant to fire and because the structure is plastic-based, it is earthquake resistant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A house for one family takes four people, with no construction experience, just five days to build. Our construction system is 30% cheaper than traditional systems in rural areas. We helped build a contemporary shelter for 42 families displaced by violence in Guapi, Cauca, in 2015, whilst recycling 200 tons of plastic in the process.  ([source](http://www.theventure.com/global/en/finalists/conceptos-plasticos))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Building a house with bricks made from recycled plastic][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Finished house][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Images from [theventure.com](http://www.theventure.com/global/en/finalists/conceptos-plasticos) and [changemakers.com](https://www.changemakers.com/globalgoals2015/entries/re-cycled-house-closing-cycle-plastic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is a YouTube video (in Spanish)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33CdLjIr_uw) that shows the process. If you [search](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=oscar+mendez+plastic+houses) you can also find a few videos in English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9wiP1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rVwM4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/U1wtl.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5393" RevisionGUID="5716c507-7947-463e-b7fe-16390a068174" CreationDate="2016-07-04T14:50:43.340" UserId="99" Comment="added remark that not all types of plastic may be recycled, a few minor improvements" Text="It's definitely possible to recycle plastic and create LEGO-like building blocks. In fact several houses have already been built this way! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2010 a Colombian architect called Oscar Mendez had the same idea as you. He started an initiative called [Conceptos Plasticos](http://conceptosplasticos.com) (website in Spanish) with the goal to reduce both waste and extreme poverty by providing cheaper and better housing solutions for people in need. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The plastic waste we recycle is melted and poured into a mould to produce plastic blocks that work like Lego pieces, allowing whole communities and families to play a part in the easy constructing of their own homes. The materials contain additives that makes them resistant to fire and because the structure is plastic-based, it is earthquake resistant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A house for one family takes four people, with no construction experience, just five days to build. Our construction system is 30% cheaper than traditional systems in rural areas. We helped build a contemporary shelter for 42 families displaced by violence in Guapi, Cauca, in 2015, whilst recycling 200 tons of plastic in the process.  ([source: theventure.com](http://www.theventure.com/global/en/finalists/conceptos-plasticos))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Building a house with bricks made from recycled plastic][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Finished house][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Images from [theventure.com](http://www.theventure.com/global/en/finalists/conceptos-plasticos) and [changemakers.com](https://www.changemakers.com/globalgoals2015/entries/re-cycled-house-closing-cycle-plastic)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is a YouTube video (in Spanish)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33CdLjIr_uw) that shows the process. If you [search on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=oscar+mendez+plastic+houses) you can also find a few videos in English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9wiP1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rVwM4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/U1wtl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One critical remark though; I haven't seen any information which types of plastic are used for creating the bricks, so I'm not 100% sure all types of plastic are recycled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5394" RevisionGUID="5b5b76a5-c727-4215-89e6-76918d37d2ff" CreationDate="2016-07-04T22:26:51.617" UserId="659" Text="No. As the graphs provided show, the prices both spike during the GFC, loosely speaking, but the oil price spikes later and declines faster, then continues a general slow rise while the price of silicon falls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took the graphs above, chopped out the relevant section of the oil graph and superimposed it on the silicon graph, stretching it very slightly so that the horizontal scales are the same. This took 30 seconds in an image editor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1WkDU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5394" RevisionGUID="319c6c14-b628-4fa7-849a-9e52d06b5495" CreationDate="2016-07-04T22:34:46.247" UserId="659" Comment="added 710 characters in body" Text="No. As the graphs provided show, the prices both spike during the GFC, loosely speaking, but the oil price spikes later and declines faster, then continues a general slow rise while the price of silicon falls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took the graphs above, chopped out the relevant section of the oil graph and superimposed it on the silicon graph, stretching it very slightly so that the horizontal scales are the same. This took 30 seconds in an image editor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the longer time series in the oil graph shows is that the price of oil does not correlate well with any single factor - the Hubert Peak, the GFC, carbon taxes, global demand, they all influence it by varying amounts at different times. The fall between 2014 and 2016 is much discussed, for example, but my impression is that it's regarded as primarily a result of geopolitical power struggles between the US and Russia, but the more optimistic commentators also see some influence from falling demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a slightly deeper level, what we're seeing is that by carefully selecting your graphs you can produce apparent correlations between any two factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1WkDU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EEJnN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5394" RevisionGUID="059c6736-ce01-4068-88cc-9ac6ae3fd647" CreationDate="2016-07-04T23:36:08.207" UserId="659" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="No. As the graphs provided show, the prices both spike during the GFC, loosely speaking, but the oil price spikes later and declines faster, then continues a general slow rise while the price of silicon falls. Note that in late 2005/early 2006 oil drops abruptly while silicon is rising sharply, but during the 2011 blip in silicon prices you see a similar blip in oil, possibly. It seems more likely that some external factors affect both prices, but some don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I took the graphs above, chopped out the relevant section of the oil graph and superimposed it on the silicon graph, stretching it very slightly so that the horizontal scales are the same. This took 30 seconds in an image editor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the longer time series in the oil graph shows is that the price of oil does not correlate well with any single factor - the Hubert Peak, the GFC, carbon taxes, global demand, they all influence it by varying amounts at different times. The fall between 2014 and 2016 is much discussed, for example, but my impression is that it's regarded as primarily a result of geopolitical power struggles between the US and Russia, but the more optimistic commentators also see some influence from falling demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a slightly deeper level, what we're seeing is that by carefully selecting your graphs you can produce apparent correlations between any two factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1WkDU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EEJnN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="168e478c-bc38-4708-9364-6188e24ef23f" CreationDate="2016-07-05T19:30:20.087" UserId="3547" Text="After toilet paper is flushed down a toilet and it goes to a water treatment plant, what happens next?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Does it decompose, if so what gasses are released? Is the carbon sequestered in any significant way?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is it present in a solid form in the outflow of the treatment plant? (i.e. in to the sea?) Does that affect wildlife?&#xD;&#xA; 3. What, if anything, is consumed as it is processed? (e.g. are chemicals consumed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see there is a questions about [alternatives to toilet paper][1]. I'd like to understand the impacts of using it. Of course there is the impact of its production, transportation, etc, but I think that is a separate question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/82/alternative-to-toilet-paper" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12611" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="168e478c-bc38-4708-9364-6188e24ef23f" CreationDate="2016-07-05T19:30:20.087" UserId="3547" Text="What is the environmental impact of toilet paper processed at a water treatment plant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12612" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="168e478c-bc38-4708-9364-6188e24ef23f" CreationDate="2016-07-05T19:30:20.087" UserId="3547" Text="|composting|environmental-impact|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5396" RevisionGUID="dae9462c-71fc-4c9b-92bc-5eb5b9ec14cb" CreationDate="2016-07-05T21:55:08.827" UserId="80" Text="Does the triple-R rule (or its extended version like Reduce-Reuse-Repair-Recycle) apply to everything, in that order, as the most sustainable process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just wondering if you could think of any particular situation where a different sequence would makes more sense in terms of sustainability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12614" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5396" RevisionGUID="dae9462c-71fc-4c9b-92bc-5eb5b9ec14cb" CreationDate="2016-07-05T21:55:08.827" UserId="80" Text="Does the Reduce-Reuse-Recycle rule always apply?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12615" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5396" RevisionGUID="dae9462c-71fc-4c9b-92bc-5eb5b9ec14cb" CreationDate="2016-07-05T21:55:08.827" UserId="80" Text="|recycling|reuse|repair|reduce|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5397" RevisionGUID="c1877097-8857-4211-95ab-9a730e86ecd9" CreationDate="2016-07-06T03:31:52.747" UserId="3532" Text="In an effort to keep bugs down in a food forest, would it be a good idea to use chickens for day time pest control, and bats as night time pest control?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5397" RevisionGUID="c1877097-8857-4211-95ab-9a730e86ecd9" CreationDate="2016-07-06T03:31:52.747" UserId="3532" Text="Do bats and chickens make good companion animals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5397" RevisionGUID="c1877097-8857-4211-95ab-9a730e86ecd9" CreationDate="2016-07-06T03:31:52.747" UserId="3532" Text="|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5398" RevisionGUID="fbaf4832-a86b-4ee0-a8c3-8db0f77311ed" CreationDate="2016-07-06T05:08:05.557" UserId="3379" Text="This is a fun mental exercise - hopefully others can improve these examples, or come up with others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we're looking at Reduce-Reuse-Repair-Recycle as an ordered cycle, moving backwards doesn't count, since the cycle already infers that you're only making the choice at one step of the process since it's not possible to act on an earlier step. I'm also going to be explicit about the final step: put it in a landfill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in this process, when would it be more sustainable to *skip* a given step?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Reduce:** Reduce refers to consuming less of a necessary good. I can't think of any situation where it would be more sustainable to consume more of a good, without going to cop-outs like &quot;consume more toxic waste&quot; (which isn't necessary), or &quot;consume more organic milk&quot; (which is just shifting consumption from one good to an equivalent good, when it would be more sustainable to consume less milk total).&#xD;&#xA;- **Reuse:** This one is easy: don't reuse lead pipes, CFC-based refrigerants, asbestos fire-proofing, etc. Take these items and skip straight to recycle or landfill.&#xD;&#xA;- **Repair:** It would be more sustainable to buy a new Honda Fit than to repair your Hummer -- this way you'll be reducing your consumption long-term. With your broken Hummer, it's best to skip over &quot;repair&quot; and go right to &quot;recycle.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;- **Recycle:** This one's a bit tricky. The best example I can think of would be a case where recycling a product props up demand something that sustainability would compel us to do without. Examples include animal ivory, and wood products from rainforests: it would be best to destroy these things. Plastic doesn't count, because you could recycle it into a permanent good (like polyester clothing, flower pots) as opposed to a consumable good (like food packaging)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5399" RevisionGUID="cf8bf1da-7cce-4029-941c-6cac9c591d4f" CreationDate="2016-07-06T06:10:15.780" UserId="1255" Text="Reduce-Reuse-Recycle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main exception I can think of is upcycling - rather than reuse a product, you recycle it into a better product. This is most obvious with computational electronics, where a 10 year old computer is likely to use a lot more electricity to do a worse job than a new one. Unfortunately recycling old computers is hard. So a better example might be a resistive electric hot water tank. If you have one, and especially if it has a problem, it's very likely better to replace it with a new heat pump one and recycle the old one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar situation could occur with noxious plants and firewood.  I have stayed on a farm where they were burning their way through a stand of honey locust trees (Gleditsia triacanthos). Once they discovered the trees, they killed them all we cut everything we could into firewood then transported it back to the firewood shed. They ended up with more firewood than they could store for any length of time. So they lit the stove and just kept it running. That way they got unlimited free hot water (and hot, clean burn), where the rest of the muck just got bulldozed into a pile and burned (in a very dirty fire). Reusing or recycling that timber would not have been appropriate (the &quot;trunks&quot; were only ~10cm diameter). Some of it probably rotted from being stored out in the rain, but they had lots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder whether some permaculture green mulching might be considered a violation of the &quot;reduce rather than reuse&quot; rule. You're growing plants specifically so you can re-use them, by digging them in after harvest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stepping outside the whole framework, I have heard people argue that if you are buying 100% renewable electricity, using more than you need to is a good thing because it helps make renewable electricity profitable. My response is that you're better off donating money to those companies directly, or buying greenhouse gas abatement certificates and hoarding them. But that &quot;use more because of beneficial side effects&quot; argument is, in a way, correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5400" RevisionGUID="2e593504-4086-4308-92bb-96808b841626" CreationDate="2016-07-06T06:28:25.960" UserId="1255" Text="In a municipal scale sewage system toilet paper is barely detectable. It gets soggy very quickly and disintegrates. There are [huge problems with wet wipes, tampons and menstrual pads][1], however, as those do not break down and need to be extracted and disposed of (this is an extremely gross process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a home septic system the same situation applies but in a more visible way. [Toilet paper disintegrates then breaks down][2], with the cheaper paper apparently being better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your specific points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. it will decompose somewhat into methane, carbon dioxide and water, but the cellulose content will mostly make it through the process unchanged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. the material after treatment is very fine, even if it didn't disintegrate before treatment, so the wildlife affected will be mostly microscopic and they will either eat it or ignore it unless it's in sufficient volume to smother them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. mostly what's consumed is energy. Different sewage treatment systems work in different ways, but the most common decomposition step is settling ponds with agitators to encourage aerobic decomposition (ie, less methane and more carbon dioxide produced). Chemical are mostly added when there are problems, and normally problems are chemical contamination when criminals dump toxic stuff into the sewers. Fixing that can mean rebalancing PH, other chemical neutralising agents, or simply excavating the affected ponds and restarting them with &quot;clean&quot; sewage (non-contaminated). That last is expensive, messy and slow, so most sewer systems will go to considerable lengths to prevent those problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/treating-sewage/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://inspectapedia.com/septic/Toilet_Paper_Choices.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5398" RevisionGUID="afd066d8-5e59-4633-becf-1eafc4a433f0" CreationDate="2016-07-06T07:39:29.837" UserId="3379" Comment="Came up with an example for reduce." Text="This is a fun mental exercise - hopefully others can improve these examples, or come up with others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we're looking at Reduce-Reuse-Repair-Recycle as an ordered cycle, moving backwards doesn't count; at each step, we've already determined that previous steps could not be taken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's also be explicit about the inferred fifth step; sending goods to a landfill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in this process, when would it be more sustainable to *skip* a given step?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Reduce:** That is, consume less of a necessary good. Cases where consuming *more* of a good would be more sustainable could be increased consumption of invasive species. If Australians replaced all meat in their diets with rabbit, could this solve the problem? However, glancing ahead to step four, we want to be careful not to create a market for rabbit. ([1],[2])&#xD;&#xA;2. **Reuse:** This one is easy: don't reuse lead pipes, CFC-based refrigerants, asbestos fire-proofing, etc. Take these items and skip straight to recycle (if possible) or landfill.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Repair:** It would be more sustainable to buy a new Honda Fit than to repair your Hummer -- this way you'll be reducing your consumption long-term. With your broken Hummer, it's best to skip over &quot;repair&quot; and go right to &quot;recycle.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Recycle:** In some cases, recycling a product props up demand for something that sustainability would compel us to do without. Examples include animal ivory, and wood products from rainforests; it would be best to destroy these things. Plastic doesn't count, because you could recycle it into a permanent good (like polyester clothing or flower pots) as opposed to a consumable good (like food packaging).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia &quot;Rabbits in Australia&quot;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/08/15/340648935/fighting-tasty-invasive-fish-with-forks-and-knives &quot;Fighting (Tasty) Invasive Fish with Forks and Knives&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5355" RevisionGUID="2c11ac09-ce26-4cc0-84ac-42db7a6ff377" CreationDate="2016-07-06T07:46:19.257" UserId="3501" Comment="deleted 22 characters in body" Text="Human work as a permaculture intrant&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A solution that wasn't mentioned there is to collect them by hand day after day. I dispose the slugs collected into my composting pile where they feed, breed and attract predators. But you need a composting pile in a good place where predators will find shelter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The secret for collecting slugs is to have a bucket with a little water in it where to put the beasts. I collect them with a big old pinch to avoid touching them :s . The water in the bucket allow me to avoid slugs to climb out the bucket by gently moving the water in the bucket -- they cannot cling well to the sides, so little water movement make them fall back to the bottom. They can easily be found beneath tiles or planks that I laid specially to attract them in specific places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Before doing that, I used to kill them on the spot, but the bodies attracted more and more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5401" RevisionGUID="5e5ea735-bfc3-493b-a432-4457c4fe6d2f" CreationDate="2016-07-06T11:32:52.147" UserId="3379" Text="You asked this question a while ago so not sure if you still need an answer, but I used to live in Silver Spring, MD, so the question caught my eye. If you're in Montgomery County or Prince George's, Pepco is likely your utility, and they provide a number of [energy saving programs](http://www.pepco.com/my-home/save-money-and-conserve-energy/efficiency-rebates-and-incentives-and-programs/md-customers/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I lived in Silver Spring, I signed up for [Energy Wise Rewards](https://energywiserewards.pepco.com/md/index.php) and got a free programmable thermostat plus over $100 in bill credits per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't live in those two counties, I would still check with the electric utility. Many offer similar cost-saving programs, especially now that they're gearing up for the Clean Power Plan." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12627" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5396" RevisionGUID="bad03e33-601c-4c52-9ff9-9ee83d824ba7" CreationDate="2016-07-06T11:52:45.150" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/750658741331255297" />
  <row Id="12628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5402" RevisionGUID="d3d5886f-8142-4c44-b0be-90acb725eb97" CreationDate="2016-07-06T17:29:08.960" UserId="3080" Text="My wife and I have about 100 free-ranging chickens.  For bug control, they are a mixed blessing.  Chickens eat just about any kind of insect they can find, excepting small ants, and thank goodness they don't appear to eat bees.  But they also eat frogs and lizards, which also eat insects.  We try to create environments where the frogs and lizards can hide during the day, and then they come out at night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a strange bit of trivia...  Despite growing up watching cartoons where the number one thing that a chicken loves is earthworms, none of our chickens (many different breeds) have ever shown any interest at all in earthworms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our property also has bats, which we intend to further encourage by building a bat house.  The bats largely eat flying insects like mosquitoes and moths.  I doubt mosquitoes are interested in your food forest, but obviously the moths would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the bats don't bother the chickens and the chickens don't bother the bats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An excellent addition for your food forest is lady bugs.  They eat all sorts of small critters that feast on your food forest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12629" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5397" RevisionGUID="1791c84a-9fe6-46fd-a935-d81e341a9ec1" CreationDate="2016-07-06T17:57:04.443" UserId="99" Comment="altered question title to better reflect question content, added tags" Text="Are bats and chickens good animals for pest control?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12630" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5397" RevisionGUID="1791c84a-9fe6-46fd-a935-d81e341a9ec1" CreationDate="2016-07-06T17:57:04.443" UserId="99" Comment="altered question title to better reflect question content, added tags" Text="|permaculture|pest-management|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12631" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="73d6ccfb-da2b-492c-84b5-96558fabc077" CreationDate="2016-07-07T02:52:49.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/750885250021093380" />
  <row Id="12632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5403" RevisionGUID="0e6a53df-3f62-48b6-a187-1f3b7e8970df" CreationDate="2016-07-07T12:46:49.197" UserId="3080" Text="We kept 70 - 80 wild guinea pigs in the back of our lot for perhaps four months.  They free-ranged the pasture during the daytime and slept in sturdy cages at night.  Every few weeks we would move the cages, till the manure into the ground, and plant a garden.  Here are some insights:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The guinea pigs did a fantastic job of eating down about half an acre of pasture.  They ate everything.  That corner of the pasture was a mixture of hay and Spanish needles, which are both great for most small animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The guinea pigs tried to eat/gnaw anything and everything we grew, and a lot of extra work went in to protecting the gardens from the pigs.  Meaning the pigs were useless at weeding the gardens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) No amount of eating down of the pasture provided ample nutrition for the pigs.  Without a continuous supply of alfalfa pellets, the pigs became malnourished.  We would have had to plant a large, continuously producing garden of cabbage in order to make the pigs sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) The reality of how the alpha male pigs treated females was horrible.  A lot of effort was necessary to protect pregnant or very recently pregnant females from the males.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Unless you can handle the guinea pigs from birth, they will make terrible pets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) If you want meat animals or pelts, you probably need to raise one of the larger breeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the manure being a fantastic product for our gardens, we moved the pigs on to another group that would maintain them in a wild habit and dropped that project.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3237" RevisionGUID="924727a4-3877-4072-8dd2-2cad0cc679d4" CreationDate="2016-07-07T12:59:23.633" UserId="400" Comment="Added section on problems, added material on UV protection and colourants." Text="At present the plastic waste stream can be diverted into multi-color goo mixed with wood chips and be extruded into synthetic fence posts.  Ugly as sin, but better than nothing, and I think that for sheet goods (bags) this is pretty good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your idea would work well for styrofoam.  You would work it like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Styrofoam is separated from the waste stream by density.  You would also get used grocery bags.  Don't think that will matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Material is shredded to a uniform size, and cleaned of food residue.  Dirt is ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Material is sprayed with a solution of acetone and water.  Acetone is a solvent (may be other better or cheaper ones) This dissolves a surface layer of the styrofoam, leaving it sticky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Chips are pressed into a continuous molder that molds the knobs and sockets into the block.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  In the molding process 3/8&quot; x 3/8&quot; (size needs testing) grooves 2&quot; apart on the long faces, parallel to the long dimension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  The blocks are cut into full and half length blocks.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point the blocks can be used for building.  The grooves allow stucco or plaster to be sprayed on for fireproofing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional features:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Predrill vertical holes 2&quot; in from the surface.  This will allow vertical wire runs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Put horizontal groove 2&quot; in from the side, also for wiring use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Coat 5 faces to prevent condensation inside the block.  One face is left open so that trapped water can get out.  In a heating climate this would be the outside face.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Add colourant to the mix so that you can get colours other than dirty white if they are going to be used unstuccoed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*  Add a UV absorber to prevent/slow degradtion of plain blocks in sunlight.  A spray of disolved styrofoam, carbon black would work.  A second coat with a pastel mineral would improve appearence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest compacting the blocks enough to get the density up to about 10 lbs per cubic foot.  This would still leave them at about R3 per inch.  Mold the blocks 16&quot; tall x 12&quot; wide x 4 feet long.  This would make for a 5+ cubic foot block taht would weigh about 50 lbs.  This would be easy to work with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would need a make a different slab structure for roofs. There are designs for styrofoam insulated panels that can be applied to conventional roof trusses, but these have a lot of wood in them.  May be better to put a conventional roof on them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The building trade is very conservative.  Mistakes tend to be expensive and stick around. Building codes are slow to change with good reason.  Google the fires caused by aluminum wiring, and by early Pex heating connectors. The initial use for these blocks could be for utility sheds.  Market them through farm supply stores, as in many areas farm buildings are not subject to building code.  The other market, once you work out the techniques, would be to cities to build up a supply for emergency housing.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ideal production facility would fit on a train.  This would allow municipalities to build up a small mountain of styrofoam, then the train would come in and process it.  This removes long distance trucking from the equation, and lets any municipality that can afford to the garbage sorters to play.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Styrofoam is very flamable, and the fumes are toxic.  In most building codes it cannot be left uncovered, but has to be covered with a material to fireproof it -- essentially the equivalent of a half inch of gyprock.  In some cases OSB is considered sufficient for external walls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The material may expand and contract with temperature changes.  This may make it unsuitable for applying materials like stucco and plaster unless they have extensive elasticing agents (latex, usually) added.  Some of the lime based plasters may work, as they tend to deform more gracefully, as may earth plasters with emulsified asphalt as a binder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wall is very fairly light.  At 10 lbs per cubic foot the unplastered wall would only weigh about 80 lbs per linear foot.  Styrofoam is not very strong in tension.  It's not clear how this would affect the building in heavy wind or earthquake.  It would probably be necessary to tie the roof to the foundation in some way.  The low density and fairly low strength would require very large fasteners to distribute the load over large areas.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Adding some form of long fiber to the mix may increase it's tensile strength.  Hemp or flax hurds?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A wall as described would not be secure.  A chainsaw could go through it with ease.  However this is true of conventional stick frame construction too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative construction system is Logix, by Beaver Plastics.  There are several other similar systems.  In this sytem, you have blocks of styrofoam with channels in them.  Think styrofoam concrete blocks.  The channels are filled with concrete, after re-bar is placed.  The use of rebar and concrete makes the embedded energy cost of the wall fairly high.  There is no reason that this system couldn't use recycled styrofoam as its feed stock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5404" RevisionGUID="ff7196ab-55b8-4d38-83c6-b3796b0a9559" CreationDate="2016-07-07T13:05:38.367" UserId="3080" Text="Technical explanations aside, here is an example from sunny Florida.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would think that more sunlight equals more power output, but that isn't the case.  It is easily possible, especially in South Florida, that the temperature of the panel can exceed the effective operating range of the solar module materials.  At which point the power output drops precipitously!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very important to select solar modules that are designed to operate in the environment in which they will be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of this example, a small amount of the power generated was used to pump water from a cool reservoir to run down the faces of the panels to assist in keeping them cool, thus maintaining maximum power output on especially hot days.  This was very effective and resulted in a net increase in power output.  The water was collected, filtered, and used again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5405" RevisionGUID="7a726cd8-63b3-495e-8765-372b0de0a442" CreationDate="2016-07-08T06:26:48.780" UserId="3379" Text="I did some digging and found data with a bit more resolution. First, polysilicon prices since 2010:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Polysilicon prices][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;Source: Fu, et al, [Economic Measurements of Polysilicon for the Photovoltaic Industry: Market Competition and Manufacturing Competitiveness](http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/pdfs/Economic_Measurements_of_Polysilicon_for_the_Photovoltaics_Industry.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, crude oil prices since 2010:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;Source: www.macrotrends.net, [Crude Oil Prices - 70 Year Historical Chart](http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart). Note that the chart on the website is a log scale by default - I changed it to a standard scale to closely match the polysilicon chart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, here's my attempt at overlaying the two images (oil prices on right y axis):&#xD;&#xA;[![Combined chart][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, it looks like something in late 2010/early 2011 cause the prices of both commodities to spike - but after that, there's not much correlation at all. Most notably, polysilicon prices are much less volatile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/J5GnL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tW5rW.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RNXB3.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5406" RevisionGUID="2a136f5e-073d-42e8-9ab5-462ff3903bb4" CreationDate="2016-07-08T08:27:17.320" UserId="659" Text="In very simple terms, current leaks from the solar cells to the structure of the panel. This happens when a combination of heat, water and the generated electricity cause the material the panel is made of to break down at a very low level, and start conducting electricity where we don't want them to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to balance &quot;how, exactly&quot; with &quot;not too detailed&quot; in an answer to your question. Going beyond &quot;very simple&quot; above means talking about ions (atoms that have more or fewer electrons than normal), crystal structure (where those ions should be) and ion channels (where the ions move to). The explanation below is one fairly simple technical one I found online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From Advanced Energy][1] (pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Potential Induced Degradation, as the designation implies, occurs when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the module’s voltage potential and leakage current drive ion mobility&#xD;&#xA;&gt; within the module between the semiconductor material and other&#xD;&#xA;&gt; elements of the module (e.g. glass, mount and frame), as shown in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Figure 1, thus causing the module’s power output capacity to degrade.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ion mobility accelerates with humidity, temperature and voltage&#xD;&#xA;&gt; potential. Tests have revealed the relationship of mobility to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temperature and humidity: “Planar contact with the panel surface also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; causes a capacitive coupling to the cells, resulting in a capacitive&#xD;&#xA;&gt; leakage current of varying strength.” 1&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The PV system and environment interact to cause PID. The conditions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; necessary for the occurrence of PID involve (i) environmental factors,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; as well as factors involving (ii) the system, (iii) the module, and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (iv) the cells.2 3 “While the environment is set for each individual&#xD;&#xA;&gt; installation, it is possible to prevent PID by properly controlling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only one of the factors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://solarenergy.advanced-energy.com/upload/File/White_Papers/ENG-PID-270-01%20web.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5407" RevisionGUID="c7943883-5df0-4d4d-a2a1-625bc47dc48d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:20:37.867" UserId="3557" Text="is it okay to connect a 12v to 220v inverter to the output of a MPPT solar charger instead of batteries? so it will have a different load..... I find it way cheaper than having a full solar inverter which is really expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5407" RevisionGUID="c7943883-5df0-4d4d-a2a1-625bc47dc48d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:20:37.867" UserId="3557" Text="Can I connect an inverter after MPPT controller" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5407" RevisionGUID="c7943883-5df0-4d4d-a2a1-625bc47dc48d" CreationDate="2016-07-08T23:20:37.867" UserId="3557" Text="|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5403" RevisionGUID="e64f2f5a-2d41-4e08-bfbd-cd5e16aba3af" CreationDate="2016-07-09T12:09:03.293" UserId="3080" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="We kept 70 - 80 wild guinea pigs in the back of our lot for perhaps four months.  They free-ranged the pasture during the daytime and slept in sturdy cages at night.  Every few weeks we would move the cages, till the manure into the ground, and plant a garden.  Here are some insights:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) The guinea pigs did a fantastic job of eating down about half an acre of pasture.  They ate everything.  That corner of the pasture was a mixture of hay and Spanish needles, which are both great for most small animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The guinea pigs tried to eat/gnaw anything and everything we grew, and a lot of extra work went in to protecting the gardens from the pigs.  Meaning the pigs were useless at weeding the gardens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) No amount of eating down of the pasture provided ample nutrition for the pigs.  Without a continuous supply of alfalfa pellets, the pigs became malnourished.  We would have had to plant a large, continuously producing garden of cabbage in order to make the pigs sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) The reality of how the alpha male pigs treated females was horrible.  A lot of effort was necessary to protect pregnant or very recently pregnant females from the males.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Unless you can handle the guinea pigs from birth, they will make terrible pets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6) If you want meat animals or pelts, you probably need to raise one of the larger breeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the manure being a fantastic product for our gardens, we moved the pigs on to another group that would maintain them in a wild habitat and dropped that project.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5407" RevisionGUID="61a64a69-5c60-4e3f-a7dc-0d405d892e56" CreationDate="2016-07-09T12:22:17.033" UserId="3557" Comment="added 254 characters in body" Text="is it okay to connect a 12v to 220v inverter to the output of a MPPT solar charger instead of batteries? so it will have a different load..... I find it way cheaper than having a full solar inverter which is really expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I don't need batteries! because it's a pump that used to water garden only when there is enough sun! so I don't know if I need a VFD to control the motor of the pump? &#xD;&#xA;I don't know if a normal MPPT controller followed by an inverter will do?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5407" RevisionGUID="25030ad4-d15a-49b7-9e06-ef234723d8e4" CreationDate="2016-07-09T17:30:11.457" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified title, text, added tags" Text="Is it possible to connect a 12VDC to 220VAC inverter to the output of an MPPT solar charge controller, with no battery? This will be cheaper than having a full solar inverter, which can be really expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: I don't need batteries, because it's a pump that's used to water a garden, and is only need when there is enough sun for the solar panels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Possible secondary question: Would I need a VFD to control the motor of the pump?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12643" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5407" RevisionGUID="25030ad4-d15a-49b7-9e06-ef234723d8e4" CreationDate="2016-07-09T17:30:11.457" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified title, text, added tags" Text="Can I connect an inverter directly after an MPPT controller, with no battery?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12644" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5407" RevisionGUID="25030ad4-d15a-49b7-9e06-ef234723d8e4" CreationDate="2016-07-09T17:30:11.457" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified title, text, added tags" Text="|energy|electricity|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12645" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5407" RevisionGUID="25030ad4-d15a-49b7-9e06-ef234723d8e4" CreationDate="2016-07-09T17:30:11.457" Comment="Proposed by 3379 approved by 85 edit id of 412" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12646" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5407" RevisionGUID="3fa11f3d-5b73-4454-8b98-4f043907054f" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:06:27.140" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/751930546025005056" />
  <row Id="12647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5408" RevisionGUID="dfedc5c1-d664-4716-a120-ad908b4f0582" CreationDate="2016-07-10T00:20:17.147" UserId="3379" Text="Generally speaking, the answer to your question is yes: there are many examples of irrigation systems employing a pump powered directly by solar power, with no battery energy storage. A quick search indicates there are numerous suppliers and types/scales of systems, and even a few youtube videos with DIY-guides to setting such a system up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, it would depend on the components you have or intend to purchase: what are the specifications of your solar panels, charge controller, inverter, and pump, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="e1c97d95-89ce-4973-b3bf-6d96d3ad5b4e" CreationDate="2016-07-10T03:14:25.630" UserId="3423" Text="I suspect that it's less than a factor of two. Is this right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say a 1 kw panel has 10kg of silicon at $20/kg. That's $200 for a panel that costs less than $400, at 34 cents/watt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets say a 1.5mw turbine has 150 tons of E Glass at $4/kg. That's $600k for something that sells for less than a mil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have better information? It seems like renewables are being sold basically at material cost, plus some profit and administrative overhead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="e1c97d95-89ce-4973-b3bf-6d96d3ad5b4e" CreationDate="2016-07-10T03:14:25.630" UserId="3423" Text="How close are renewables prices to scrap value?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="e1c97d95-89ce-4973-b3bf-6d96d3ad5b4e" CreationDate="2016-07-10T03:14:25.630" UserId="3423" Text="|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5410" RevisionGUID="672edc07-7cea-483e-a26b-1da43e2506ce" CreationDate="2016-07-10T12:02:35.097" UserId="48" Text="No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that you've just taken some fairly random numbers and multiplied them together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to actually understand the cost structures of the manufacturers, then you need to go into the line-by-line detail of their accounts - lines that generally won't be publicly available, due to commercial confidentiality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's going to be very difficult for PV, where the cheapest manufacturers have particularly opaque accounts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5411" RevisionGUID="5fb57d21-013d-478f-9efa-493703525457" CreationDate="2016-07-10T14:08:28.593" UserId="3568" Text="I believe the Farm Systems Trail research at Rodale Institute could be helpful for you, it has compared conventional and organic farm practices over a 30 year period. Lately added a rotational no-till practice into the comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-systems-trial/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the menu on the right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="34f53716-ead4-4a81-8ae8-2ffc87574f2a" CreationDate="2016-07-10T18:42:32.720" UserId="3423" Comment="added 489 characters in body" Text="I suspect that it's less than a factor of two. Is this right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say a 1 kw panel has 10kg of silicon at $20/kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/35650.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjG1YDoxenNAhWGHB4KHe84D5UQFgg5MAo&amp;usg=AFQjCNEBWHM-IhSEv0nigB_zQg8af27Unw&amp;sig2=26Ht0VpHMBDVODJ791LeSQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; That's $200 for a panel that costs less than $400, at 34 cents/watt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets say a 1.5mw turbine has 150 tons of E Glass at $4/kg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5036/sir2011-5036.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjFgrWNxunNAhUKlx4KHQuSDUAQFggbMAA&amp;usg=AFQjCNHApw9DnUtacROtLGyLCFiZB_Ic2A&amp;sig2=oIO_gDdXdArILVHAG_Xffw&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.technica.net/NT/NT1/compositii.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's $600k for something that sells for less than a mil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have better information? It seems like renewables are being sold basically at material cost, plus some profit and administrative overhead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="14c5577c-2d8c-42ad-8b26-e576b9219f93" CreationDate="2016-07-10T19:03:40.030" UserId="3423" Comment="added 489 characters in body" Text="I suspect that it's less than a factor of two. Is this right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say a 1 kw panel has 10kg of silicon at $20/kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/35650.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjG1YDoxenNAhWGHB4KHe84D5UQFgg5MAo&amp;usg=AFQjCNEBWHM-IhSEv0nigB_zQg8af27Unw&amp;sig2=26Ht0VpHMBDVODJ791LeSQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; That's $200 for a panel that costs less than $400, at 34 cents/watt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lets say a 1.5mw turbine has 170 tons of steel at $2.4/kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5036/sir2011-5036.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiv99WGy-nNAhUMFR4KHW2wDxQQFgghMAA&amp;usg=AFQjCNHApw9DnUtacROtLGyLCFiZB_Ic2A&amp;sig2=9rQIeHKH7xcz4ykkpeigBQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.metalprices.com/metal/stainless-steel/stainless-steel-flat-rolled-coil-304&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's $408k for something that sells for less than 750k.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have better information? It seems like renewables are being sold basically at material cost, plus some profit and administrative overhead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5413" RevisionGUID="5239f4ff-ed14-4da3-807c-579e035a5432" CreationDate="2016-07-10T22:29:12.190" UserId="3568" Text="Please provide more information about your yard (size, orientation, topography and current use). Where are you located and when where you hoping the establish your system? summer can be a bad time for planting trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What kind of design do you want, savannah style or tree lanes (potentially keyline patterned)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I normally overlay a google map with topography and design on that map. I am not an expert on companion planting with the species you list, but a fungal dominated environment would benefit forest / tree system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood chip mulch will encourage fungal activity, remember rabbit guards rodents also like wood chip mulch and young trees. You can also inoculate your plantings with mycorrhiza or alike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending your yards orientation, one suggestion could be a simple system with south facing undergrowth and higher trees on the back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="860895a4-f6aa-46a5-9b63-3dac2deef343" CreationDate="2016-07-10T23:01:04.580" UserId="659" Comment="turned link vomit into text. Left the google wrappers in place since OP seems to prefer that" Text="I suspect that it's less than a factor of two. Is this right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say a 1 kw panel has 10kg of silicon at $20/kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Google says $200 for a panel that costs less than $400][1], at 34 cents/watt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lets say a 1.5mw turbine has 170 tons of steel][2] worth about [$2.4/kg as scrap][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's $408k for something that sells for less than 750k.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have better information? It seems like renewables are being sold basically at material cost, plus some profit and administrative overhead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/35650.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjG1YDoxenNAhWGHB4KHe84D5UQFgg5MAo&amp;usg=AFQjCNEBWHM-IhSEv0nigB_zQg8af27Unw&amp;sig2=26Ht0VpHMBDVODJ791LeSQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5036/sir2011-5036.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiv99WGy-nNAhUMFR4KHW2wDxQQFgghMAA&amp;usg=AFQjCNHApw9DnUtacROtLGyLCFiZB_Ic2A&amp;sig2=9rQIeHKH7xcz4ykkpeigBQ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.metalprices.com/metal/stainless-steel/stainless-steel-flat-rolled-coil-304" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="6a1e5488-0da6-416e-acc0-679954280336" CreationDate="2016-07-10T23:32:20.033" UserId="3423" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="I suspect that it's less than a factor of two. Is this right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say a 1 kw panel has 10kg of silicon at $20/kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[That's $200 for a panel that costs less than $400][1], at 34 cents/watt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lets say a 1.5mw turbine has 170 tons of steel][2] worth [$2.4/kg][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's $408k for something that sells for less than 750k.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have better information? It seems like renewables are being sold basically at material cost, plus some profit and administrative overhead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/35650.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjG1YDoxenNAhWGHB4KHe84D5UQFgg5MAo&amp;usg=AFQjCNEBWHM-IhSEv0nigB_zQg8af27Unw&amp;sig2=26Ht0VpHMBDVODJ791LeSQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5036/sir2011-5036.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiv99WGy-nNAhUMFR4KHW2wDxQQFgghMAA&amp;usg=AFQjCNHApw9DnUtacROtLGyLCFiZB_Ic2A&amp;sig2=9rQIeHKH7xcz4ykkpeigBQ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.metalprices.com/metal/stainless-steel/stainless-steel-flat-rolled-coil-304" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5413" RevisionGUID="b4ff0a9c-15ef-46a2-b82a-722e8505051c" CreationDate="2016-07-10T23:53:55.517" UserId="3568" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="I can't comment yet. Therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please provide more information about your yard (size, orientation, topography and current use). Where are you located and when where you hoping the establish your system? summer can be a bad time for planting trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What kind of design do you want, savannah style or tree lanes (potentially keyline patterned)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I normally overlay a google map with topography and design on that map. I am not an expert on companion planting with the species you list, but a fungal dominated environment would benefit forest / tree system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood chip mulch will encourage fungal activity, remember rabbit guards rodents also like wood chip mulch and young trees. You can also inoculate your plantings with mycorrhiza or alike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending your yards orientation, one suggestion could be a simple system with south facing undergrowth and higher trees on the back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5413" RevisionGUID="1aaedd65-df2b-420f-aa43-59e5f8f26f28" CreationDate="2016-07-11T05:51:07.640" UserId="48" Comment="moved comments into a new comment on the question; left the remaining answer intact" Text="Summer can be a bad time for planting trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I normally overlay a google map with topography and design on that map. I am not an expert on companion planting with the species you list, but a fungal dominated environment would benefit forest / tree system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood chip mulch will encourage fungal activity, remember rabbit guards rodents also like wood chip mulch and young trees. You can also inoculate your plantings with mycorrhiza or alike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending your yards orientation, one suggestion could be a simple system with south facing undergrowth and higher trees on the back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5409" RevisionGUID="9488a347-e143-4451-8fef-365ac875f8b4" CreationDate="2016-07-11T06:21:25.720" UserId="3423" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="I suspect that it's less than a factor of two. Is this right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 1 kw panel has 10kg of silicon at $20/kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[That's $200 for a panel that costs less than $400][1], at 34 cents/watt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A 1.5mw turbine has 170 tons of steel][2] worth [$2.4/kg][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's $408k for something that sells for less than 750k.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have better information? It seems like renewables are being sold basically at material cost, plus some profit and administrative overhead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/35650.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjG1YDoxenNAhWGHB4KHe84D5UQFgg5MAo&amp;usg=AFQjCNEBWHM-IhSEv0nigB_zQg8af27Unw&amp;sig2=26Ht0VpHMBDVODJ791LeSQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5036/sir2011-5036.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiv99WGy-nNAhUMFR4KHW2wDxQQFgghMAA&amp;usg=AFQjCNHApw9DnUtacROtLGyLCFiZB_Ic2A&amp;sig2=9rQIeHKH7xcz4ykkpeigBQ&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.metalprices.com/metal/stainless-steel/stainless-steel-flat-rolled-coil-304" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5415" RevisionGUID="29930fb6-fda3-4c89-8d99-6666c8a79c2d" CreationDate="2016-07-11T11:53:28.250" UserId="3573" Text="I want to purchase a hotel and sell rooms that have been renovated into tiny apartments that can accommodate one couple.&#xD;&#xA;living together will reduce costs for all and the rent can reinvested in green tech for the hotel.&#xD;&#xA;are there any obvious downfalls to this style of living besides being so close to others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5415" RevisionGUID="29930fb6-fda3-4c89-8d99-6666c8a79c2d" CreationDate="2016-07-11T11:53:28.250" UserId="3573" Text="Hotel communal living" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5415" RevisionGUID="29930fb6-fda3-4c89-8d99-6666c8a79c2d" CreationDate="2016-07-11T11:53:28.250" UserId="3573" Text="|home|carbon-footprint|alternatives|city-living|housing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5415" RevisionGUID="1c2b6a4a-1496-4a31-bc04-7a3c2950ccd9" CreationDate="2016-07-11T12:06:04.140" UserId="3573" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="I want to purchase a hotel and sell rooms that have been renovated into tiny apartments that can accommodate one couple.&#xD;&#xA;living together will reduce costs for all and the rent can reinvested in green tech for the hotel.&#xD;&#xA;are there any obvious downfalls to this style of living besides being so close to others? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Edit: Also, are there any environmental costs associated with hotels specifically?]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5376" RevisionGUID="525c929d-182f-4f17-a36c-b7a2c7cfb5f2" CreationDate="2016-07-11T13:50:03.843" UserId="48" Comment="edited in the OP's comment" Text="I'm building an [agroforestry (food forest)][1] area in the yard, and was wondering how to exactly lay out the plants so they work well together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm putting in:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Aronia X2&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;American Persimmon X2&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Red Colossal Gooseberry X2&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Red White Blue Currant X1 each&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Adams &amp; John Elderberry X1 each&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Darrow Everbearing Blackberry X3&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Russian Mulberry X1&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;paw paw tree X2&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Goumiberry X2	&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;I want to do a polyculture design where the bushes are next to each other ONLY if they need to be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFDuM2P1E-Q" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5415" RevisionGUID="cb7ceed0-cf50-405f-9e03-4734e589123d" CreationDate="2016-07-11T15:11:10.707" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I want to purchase a hotel and sell rooms that have been renovated into tiny apartments that can accommodate one couple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Living together will reduce costs for all and the rent can reinvested in green tech for the hotel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any obvious downfalls to this style of living besides being so close to others? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, are there any environmental costs associated with hotels specifically?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12673" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5389" RevisionGUID="8ab8a442-699c-4d11-8568-816774d52537" CreationDate="2016-07-11T21:11:44.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/752611354524151808" />
  <row Id="12674" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5321" RevisionGUID="e80a2a78-47d3-4357-8cb6-b67251769a57" CreationDate="2016-07-12T12:16:46.637" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/752839114278461440" />
  <row Id="12675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5416" RevisionGUID="26c1e1f3-77d3-4eb3-ad1f-7cbb1b4a48c4" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:31:28.427" UserId="3576" Text="Am living in Lahore, Pakistan, and these days in process of my house construction. Note, here locally we have concrete flat roofs. Summer time maximum temperature upto 50C,  and in winters minimum temperature -1C.&#xD;&#xA;Looking for a Insulation board for my concrete roof top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traditional way, is that over the concrete slab , a layer of molten bitumen is laid with a Plastic sheet over it to water proof the roof, then a mud layer of about 6&quot; inches is applied, over the plastic sheet, and over it clay brick are grouted with cement. The mud in this scenario is supposed to act as thermal insulator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for a more efficient way than described above. Local vendors are offering EPS ( Expanded Polystyrene Sheet ), and  XPS ( Extruded Polystyrene sheet ) boards. In both cases vendors recommend a 2&quot; ( 5 cm ) thickness of these boards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Installation method as described by vendors is quite similar too :  (1) Concrete roof slab  (2) molten bitumen layer with a plastic sheet over it (3) Lay the EPS or XPS boards (4) another layer of plastic sheet  (6) 6&quot; inches of mud layer (7) clay bricks grouted with cement over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My query is that out of these 2 options :  EPS and XPS,  whichone is better, as price difference between the two is about 50%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks &amp; Regards.&#xD;&#xA;Omar&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12676" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5416" RevisionGUID="26c1e1f3-77d3-4eb3-ad1f-7cbb1b4a48c4" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:31:28.427" UserId="3576" Text="Choice between Expanded or Extruded Polystyrene Insulation Boards" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12677" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5416" RevisionGUID="26c1e1f3-77d3-4eb3-ad1f-7cbb1b4a48c4" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:31:28.427" UserId="3576" Text="|cooling|insulation|construction|green-roof|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5417" RevisionGUID="7f66ee00-3802-4c7e-8c33-c70ccc28265b" CreationDate="2016-07-12T20:39:52.723" UserId="3576" Text="Yes this is very much possible. &#xD;&#xA;While purchasing the Inverter , look for  &quot; BATTERY-LESS &quot;, and you will have your desired product.&#xD;&#xA;Just a suggestion, a Taiwan based company has such model of Inverter with in-built MPPT controller. Google for  INVEREX INFINI&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5418" RevisionGUID="f40935c1-42f2-4df7-a366-ce120c11dc24" CreationDate="2016-07-13T00:23:12.237" UserId="659" Text="[This article](https://www.austech.com.au/news/extruded-v-s-expanded-polystyrene-1) describes the difference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* EPS is formed as beads (as used in cushions) then heated and pressed together&#xD;&#xA;* XPS is formed as a sheet or whatever final shape is desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So EPS will break up more easily and be less waterproof, which makes it likely to degrade faster and be less effective as insulation. XPS will be stronger and better insulating. [This US article](http://www.buildings.com/article-details/articleid/8498/title/insulation-eps-and-xps.aspx) gives similar values in their table, but is less clear about the differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That article suggests 50mm of each will give R1.2 for EPS, and R1.78 for XPS - 48% more insulation for the same amount of XPS. If it costs 50% more that's because you get nearly 50% more value from it. But if you can just use a 50% thicker layer of EPS, that might not matter. But I suspect that both come in 50mm thick sheets, so the choice is really 50mm of XPS or 100mm of EPS (two layers), if you can fit two layers on. The installers are likely to damage from of the fragile EPS panels than the XPS one, so it may cost more to have installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My inclination would be to prefer XPS. But I'd also prefer more insulation rather than less, so 100mm of EPS while it costs 50% more, might be better because it's also 50% more insulating. On the other hand, if you instead shade some of the roof using solar photovoltaic panels the insulation doesn't matter as much. And I'd prefer to do that, if you can afford it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5419" RevisionGUID="d7fb744e-71f8-456d-8f8c-ab2ca96b79b5" CreationDate="2016-07-13T03:23:53.113" UserId="3379" Text="Since you don't indicate in which country you're thinking of implementing this plan, I'm going to write from my perspective in the US, considering chain hotels (Marriot, Holiday Inn, Hilton,, etc) that make up the majority of hotels here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can think of several ways in which a building constructed as a hotel would have greater environmental costs than a building constructed as a multi-family apartment building:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **No gas lines for cooking.** You'll either need to provide electric stoves/ovens, which are less efficient, or have gas lines installed, which would be costly (both the installation of the lines, and the measures needed for safety compliance).&#xD;&#xA; - **Unsustainable heating/cooling system.** Typical hotel rooms have low ceilings and a single window (restricting natural ventilation), and an individual HVAC system that must be able to provide heating and cooling during all seasons (to cater to the desires of guests from both the tropics and the arctic). Depending on the vintage and vendor of the system, converting it to a centrally controlled or zoned system (at least to control heating/cooling seasons and max/min setpoints) may be costly.&#xD;&#xA; - **Lack of green space.** Most hotels would not have any sort of garden or courtyard space, except for some landscaping in the front.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can also think of a few ways in which a hotel would be more sustainable than the average apartment building:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Well insulated.** It has to be soundproof, so the walls will be thick, forming thermal buffers.&#xD;&#xA; - **Industrial strength fixtures.** Plumbing, doors, appliances, fixtures, etc will be built to withstand the abuses of a large volume of guests who have no stake in the hotel's longevity. This would reduce maintenance costs.&#xD;&#xA; - **Uniform construction.** There will be a limited number of floorplans, and each room will be pretty much the same. This will reduce costs during renovation.&#xD;&#xA; - **Flat, well-drained roof.** This could be turned into a green roof and/or solar array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, these points cover hotels in general - if you have a specific hotel in mind, there may be more (or fewer) considerations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5415" RevisionGUID="3fa4a19e-7351-4594-802c-a3ceeebc64b7" CreationDate="2016-07-13T09:20:21.267" UserId="3573" Comment="clarified some features" Text="I want to purchase a hotel and sell rooms that have been renovated into tiny apartments that can accommodate one couple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Living together will reduce costs for all and the rent can reinvested in green tech for the hotel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any obvious downfalls to this style of living besides being so close to others? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, are there any environmental costs associated with hotels specifically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit1: &#xD;&#xA;the type of hotel i am looking for is something multistory to take advantage of as much vertical space as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to start this in the united states possibly California due to high need for low cost residences. If i start it in california i will use solar panels for electricity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i will use the food service kitchen as a food delivery service for the residents, having one kitchen serve many residences will reduce electrical waste. the main kitchen will use gas ideally methane produced on-site by anaerobically digesting organic and black water waste produced by each unit and the aquaponics system installed on-site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If enough methane can be produced I would like a generator(cut the cord and sell some back maybe). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the aquaponics system was intended to feed the kitchen but could accommodate seating and act as a green space. i also want to pipe the oxygenated air into the units but, that would disturb individual hvac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the heating and cooling solution that i would like involves a ridiculous renovation and complex automation which would require many expensive prerequisites and resemble the thermal management of an animal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5415" RevisionGUID="a32c5194-ca63-48e0-86b2-bf4814272cbb" CreationDate="2016-07-13T09:49:23.707" UserId="3573" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="I want to purchase a hotel and sell rooms that have been renovated into tiny apartments that can accommodate one couple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Living together will reduce costs for all and the rent can reinvested in green tech for the hotel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any obvious downfalls to this style of living besides being so close to others? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, are there any environmental costs associated with hotels specifically?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit1: &#xD;&#xA;the type of hotel i am looking for is something multistory to take advantage of as much vertical space as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to start this in the united states possibly California due to high need for low cost residences. If i start it in california i will use solar panels for electricity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the kitchens in each apartment will have to be tied into the bathroom plumbing.&#xD;&#xA;i was thinking a kitchen in a cabinet design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;i will use the food service kitchen as a food delivery service for the residents, having one kitchen serve many residences will reduce electrical waste. the main kitchen will use gas ideally methane produced on-site by anaerobically digesting organic and black water waste produced by each unit and the aquaponics system installed on-site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If enough methane can be produced I would like a generator(cut the cord and sell some back maybe). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the aquaponics system was intended to feed the kitchen but could accommodate seating and act as a green space. i also want to pipe the oxygenated air into the units but, that would disturb individual hvac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the heating and cooling solution that i would like involves a ridiculous renovation and complex automation which would require many expensive prerequisites and resemble the thermal management of an animal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12685" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5416" RevisionGUID="5fea0b3b-f2df-404e-b73e-d374b6ba51e2" CreationDate="2016-07-14T11:29:15.343" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|cooling|insulation|construction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5420" RevisionGUID="033e1255-8a0d-4cd4-bc6c-9560fb8a0413" CreationDate="2016-07-15T06:04:49.363" UserId="3379" Text="I am looking for recommendations for websites, journals, blogs, and magazines that one could turn to to find the latest news and research on issues of sustainability, without (or at least with minimal) editorializing or politicizing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where could I find information about the latest research on environmental effects of GMOs? advances in solar PV technology? legislation/regulation relating to distributed generation, fuel subsidies, etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5420" RevisionGUID="033e1255-8a0d-4cd4-bc6c-9560fb8a0413" CreationDate="2016-07-15T06:04:49.363" UserId="3379" Text="Where to find the latest non-political news on sustainability issues?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5420" RevisionGUID="033e1255-8a0d-4cd4-bc6c-9560fb8a0413" CreationDate="2016-07-15T06:04:49.363" UserId="3379" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5421" RevisionGUID="6b55abe7-1b6e-42a5-b808-7b942ebefae6" CreationDate="2016-07-15T07:22:03.750" UserId="99" Text="[**Science Daily**](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/) is a good one. It discusses new scientific research in a way that it is understandable for lay people. There are also quite a bit of interesting subtopics. Just to name a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [sustainability](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/sustainability/) &#xD;&#xA; - [recycling and waste](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/recycling_and_waste/)&#xD;&#xA; - [pollution](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/pollution/)&#xD;&#xA; - [global warming](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/)&#xD;&#xA; - [alternative fuels](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/alternative_fuels/)&#xD;&#xA; - [solar energy](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/solar_energy/)&#xD;&#xA; - [wind energy](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/wind_energy/)&#xD;&#xA; - [GMOs](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/plants_animals/genetically_modified/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Environmental policy](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/environmental_policy/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only confusing part of the website is that a lot of subtopics aren't visible in the menu at the top, but a bit lower on the page on the menu on the left." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5421" RevisionGUID="1df4944a-7599-4f2a-ad33-37005cf91efc" CreationDate="2016-07-15T08:33:14.747" UserId="99" Comment="added part about newspapers" Text="[**Science Daily**](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/) is a good one. It discusses new scientific research in a way that is understandable for non-scientists. The site has quite a bit of interesting subtopics. Just to name a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [sustainability](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/sustainability/) &#xD;&#xA; - [recycling and waste](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/recycling_and_waste/)&#xD;&#xA; - [pollution](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/pollution/)&#xD;&#xA; - [global warming](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/)&#xD;&#xA; - [alternative fuels](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/alternative_fuels/)&#xD;&#xA; - [solar energy](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/solar_energy/)&#xD;&#xA; - [wind energy](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/wind_energy/)&#xD;&#xA; - [GMOs](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/plants_animals/genetically_modified/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Environmental policy](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/environmental_policy/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only confusing part of the website is that a lot of subtopics aren't visible in the menu at the top, but a bit lower on the page on the menu on the left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively there are a few newspapers that have a section dedicated to sustainable living, e.g. [The NY times](http://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/sustainable-living) or [The Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/sustainability/). However topics don't always relate to research and the newspapers may be politically biased." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="f1c89aea-f51e-4abf-b9a2-08c9bbc44847" CreationDate="2016-07-16T09:09:08.777" UserId="3589" Text="I was wondering about planned obsolescence in the hardware of electronic products like TVs and smartphones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this achieved through low quality parts that simply break over time or do manufacturers put in kill switches for this purpose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**An example for the latter:**&#xD;&#xA;Company A put in a device inside their laptops that upon reaching 3 years of age, will randomly deliver a high voltage current to intentionally damage certain components weekly so that no matter how many times you send your laptop for repairs, it will always fails after a week." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12692" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="f1c89aea-f51e-4abf-b9a2-08c9bbc44847" CreationDate="2016-07-16T09:09:08.777" UserId="3589" Text="Are kill switches used for planned obsolescence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12693" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="f1c89aea-f51e-4abf-b9a2-08c9bbc44847" CreationDate="2016-07-16T09:09:08.777" UserId="3589" Text="|manufacturing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5423" RevisionGUID="37ae2565-d420-4592-9a53-33d094eba8db" CreationDate="2016-07-16T12:15:00.457" UserId="3379" Text="Yes - but not in the way you describe. First of all, **planned obsolescence** refers broadly to intentionally designing a project so that it will have an artificially short life-span, which can include less-nefarious tactics such as using cheaper manufacturing processes that make repairs more difficult. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are referring to is **programmed obsolescence**: essentially, putting a time-bomb inside of a product. This is a subset of planned obsolescence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The textbook example of programmed obsolescence is ink cartridges: the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkjet_printing#Business_model) covers the basics. Some ink cartridges have timers or page counters. In other cases, the driver software on the user's PC counts the pages and issues a warning when the ink is almost out - except often the cartridges may still have significant capacity left.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This business model &quot;works&quot; because inkjet printer manufacturers have created a monopoly on the cartridges. Once you buy the printer from them, you need to buy the ink from them too*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a model would not be effective in your laptop example, for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Company A cannot guarantee that you will buy your next laptop from them once their kill-switch is engaged.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Company A's competitor, Company B, could easily play the long game and increase their market share by building the same laptop, saving money by leaving out the kill-switch, and selling it for a little bit less. As word got out that Company A's laptop didn't last as long, consumers would start buying more from Company B.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;*This has led to an interesting market effect, where competing printer manufacturers can only gain market share by lowering their up-front costs: Amazon currently lists [941 inkjet printers available for less than $100 USD](https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?fst=as%3Aoff&amp;rh=n%3A1064954%2Cn%3A172574%2Cn%3A172646%2Ck%3Ainkjet+printer%2Cp_36%3A-10000&amp;keywords=inkjet+printer&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1468670567&amp;rnid=1084128)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5423" RevisionGUID="d8a55d30-ed68-4c21-9469-88b8cdf013d7" CreationDate="2016-07-16T14:21:52.770" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Yes - but not in the way you describe. First of all, **planned obsolescence** refers broadly to intentionally designing a project so that it will have an artificially short life-span, which can include less-nefarious tactics such as using cheaper manufacturing processes that make repairs more difficult. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are referring to is **programmed obsolescence**: essentially, putting a time-bomb inside of a product. This is a subset of planned obsolescence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The textbook example of programmed obsolescence is ink cartridges: the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkjet_printing#Business_model) covers the basics. Some ink cartridges have timers or page counters. In other cases, the driver software on the user's PC counts the pages and issues a warning when the ink is almost out - except often the cartridges may still have significant capacity left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This business model &quot;works&quot; because inkjet printer manufacturers have created a monopoly on the cartridges. Once you buy the printer from them, you need to buy the ink from them too.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a model would not be effective in your laptop example, for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Company A cannot guarantee that you will buy your next laptop from them once their kill-switch is engaged.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Company A's competitor, Company B, could easily play the long game and increase their market share by building the same laptop, saving money by leaving out the kill-switch, and selling it for a little bit less. As word got out that Company A's laptop didn't last as long, consumers would start buying more from Company B.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;*This has led to an interesting market effect, where competing printer manufacturers can only gain market share by lowering their up-front costs: Amazon currently lists [941 inkjet printers available for less than $100 USD](https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?fst=as%3Aoff&amp;rh=n%3A1064954%2Cn%3A172574%2Cn%3A172646%2Ck%3Ainkjet+printer%2Cp_36%3A-10000&amp;keywords=inkjet+printer&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1468670567&amp;rnid=1084128)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5420" RevisionGUID="1b02c788-6c6b-47f2-a5e7-9ef2ddb9ba43" CreationDate="2016-07-17T00:57:06.273" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified question and title" Text="I am looking for recommendations for websites, journals, blogs, and magazines that one could turn to to find the latest news and research on issues of sustainability, without (or at least with minimal) editorializing or politicizing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such sources would provide reporting on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The latest research on environmental effects of GMOs&#xD;&#xA; - Advances in solar PV technology &#xD;&#xA; - Proposed or enacted legislation/regulation relating to distributed generation, fuel subsidies, etc&#xD;&#xA; - Recent data or analysis relating to climate change&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since opinions (by the public, prominent public figures, and/or politicians) on such topics are often news items in themselves, these sources could report on such opinions, but ideally they would not offer opinions of their own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12697" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5420" RevisionGUID="1b02c788-6c6b-47f2-a5e7-9ef2ddb9ba43" CreationDate="2016-07-17T00:57:06.273" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified question and title" Text="Where to find the latest news on sustainability issues?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12698" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5422" RevisionGUID="2d068e16-2cd4-48f6-a038-63d184a415c8" CreationDate="2016-07-17T03:23:50.733" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/754516936529248256" />
  <row Id="12699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5421" RevisionGUID="8d13566e-a68e-443e-84d6-c4cdc87b896a" CreationDate="2016-07-18T09:33:36.457" UserId="99" Comment="added sentence that articles link to original paper" Text="[**Science Daily**](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/) is a good one. It discusses new scientific articles in a way that is understandable for non-scientists and it provides a link to the original article so you can read it yourself. The site has quite a bit of interesting subtopics. Just to name a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [sustainability](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/sustainability/) &#xD;&#xA; - [recycling and waste](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/recycling_and_waste/)&#xD;&#xA; - [pollution](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/pollution/)&#xD;&#xA; - [global warming](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/)&#xD;&#xA; - [alternative fuels](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/alternative_fuels/)&#xD;&#xA; - [solar energy](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/solar_energy/)&#xD;&#xA; - [wind energy](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/wind_energy/)&#xD;&#xA; - [GMOs](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/plants_animals/genetically_modified/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Environmental policy](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/environmental_policy/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only confusing part of the website is that a lot of subtopics aren't visible in the menu at the top, but a bit lower on the page on the menu on the left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively there are a few newspapers that have a section dedicated to sustainable living, e.g. [The NY times](http://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/sustainable-living) or [The Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/sustainability/). However topics don't always relate to research and the newspapers may be politically biased." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="995" RevisionGUID="0ea795f9-5944-4fda-813f-d576d4f74c82" CreationDate="2016-07-18T12:27:38.150" UserId="1354" Comment="Moderator edits article" Text="&lt;p&gt;Sustainable Living Stack Exchange is for folks dedicated to a lifestyle that can be maintained indefinitely without depleting available resources.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Please &lt;a href=&quot;/search&quot;&gt;look around&lt;/a&gt; to see if your question has been asked before. It’s also OK to &lt;a href=&quot;/helpcenter/self-answer&quot;&gt;ask and answer your own question&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If your question is not specifically on-topic for $SiteName, it may be on topic for &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/sites&quot;&gt;another Stack Exchange site&lt;/a&gt;. For example if your question has &lt;b&gt;no direct relation with sustainability&lt;/b&gt; and is about...&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;gardening, ask on &lt;a href=&quot;http://gardening.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Gardening and Landscaping&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;do-it-yourself, ask on &lt;a href=&quot;http://diy.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Home Improvement&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;money or finances, ask on &lt;a href=&quot;http://money.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Personal Finance &amp; Money&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;physics, ask on &lt;a href=&quot;http://physics.stackexchange.com&quot;&gt;Physics&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;If no site currently exists that will accept your question, you may &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq&quot;&gt;commit to&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/76974/how-can-i-propose-a-new-site&quot;&gt;propose&lt;/a&gt; a new site at &lt;a href=&quot;http://area51.stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Area 51&lt;/a&gt;, the place where new Stack Exchange communities are democratically created.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;For more help, see &lt;a href=&quot;/help/dont-ask&quot;&gt;&quot;What types of questions should I avoid asking?&quot;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5424" RevisionGUID="b47f283e-5bf1-41a0-8327-5a602de83cbe" CreationDate="2016-07-18T23:02:56.847" UserId="3596" Text="I've had the same idea - using artificial light to power a solar cell.  It has been done with an incandescent bulb, but that throws heat and draws a lot more current.  An LED would be ideal because of it's low power consumption.  Solar cells use certain wavelengths of the light spectrum.  An incandescent bulb produces all the wavelengths the sun does, but in different amounts.  LEDs produce most of the wavelengths as well, but in different proportions.  So, from a scientific standpoint, LEDs will probably produce the correct light to charge a solar cell.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding &quot;The Sun Is Kinda Big&quot; issue, it's hard to dispute that.  :)  However, if you were to introduce passive components like mirrors, magnifiers (remember burning ants on the sidewalk with a magnifying glass?) and prisms (to optimize the correct wavelengths), it might be possible to get a solar system that runs 24X7.  I'm not sure it's ever been tried with an LED light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is seems like it might also be possible to design a wind power system that powers and is powered by a DC fan.   ;)&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5425" RevisionGUID="3b6a1993-117c-434a-b92d-e9fde6bec662" CreationDate="2016-07-19T02:22:36.593" UserId="3379" Text="It is well-known that the beef, chicken, and pork industries are responsible for a massive share of the methane that is released into the atmosphere, and is a major contributor to global warming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also clear that as incomes increase, people tend to increase their consumption of meat. This is due both to the desirability of meat, and the high proportion of meat included in traditional western-style diets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources: [&quot;Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health&quot;](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61256-2/abstract?cc=y=), [&quot;The role of livestock in climate change&quot;](http://www.fao.org/agriculture/lead/themes0/climate/en/), [&quot;Livestock a major threat to environment&quot;](http://www.fao.org/Newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the research on the environmental benefits of organic meat are not conclusive (of the first five google results for &quot;is organic meat better for the environment,&quot; two say &quot;no&quot; and three say &quot;yes&quot;) it is more expensive, which results in lower consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would levying taxes on non-organic meat be an effective means to reduce consumption and thus reduce the environmental harm? Revenue from these taxes could be used to subsidize conversion of traditional livestock operations to organic methods.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5425" RevisionGUID="3b6a1993-117c-434a-b92d-e9fde6bec662" CreationDate="2016-07-19T02:22:36.593" UserId="3379" Text="Should there be a tax on meat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5425" RevisionGUID="3b6a1993-117c-434a-b92d-e9fde6bec662" CreationDate="2016-07-19T02:22:36.593" UserId="3379" Text="|food|meat|economics|global-warming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12706" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5425" RevisionGUID="701627ba-3784-4379-a1e8-7e66841ecccb" CreationDate="2016-07-19T02:48:04.693" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title" Text="Would a tax on non-organic meat have environmental benefits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12707" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="2658" RevisionGUID="e4da879f-889e-4943-8c7a-fce8916adf69" CreationDate="2016-07-19T04:55:01.090" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12710" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5416" RevisionGUID="9dcbe87a-0751-42c1-8bfe-492170fd9021" CreationDate="2016-07-19T18:43:06.863" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/755473054168408064" />
  <row Id="12711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="579ebd2f-6ae6-44ee-bd8e-7af773bb57a7" CreationDate="2016-07-19T19:55:51.930" UserId="986" Text="Are there any clothes made out of bamboo fibre processed naturally, and not via the *viscose/rayon* (see [here][1]) method?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for something that can be purchasable commercially, but can't find any sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayon#Production_method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="579ebd2f-6ae6-44ee-bd8e-7af773bb57a7" CreationDate="2016-07-19T19:55:51.930" UserId="986" Text="Bamboo fibre clothing (NOT RAYON)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12713" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="579ebd2f-6ae6-44ee-bd8e-7af773bb57a7" CreationDate="2016-07-19T19:55:51.930" UserId="986" Text="|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5427" RevisionGUID="fef0e2c0-a433-43d9-b2f6-41021697d14c" CreationDate="2016-07-20T03:22:23.777" UserId="659" Text="&gt; Would levying taxes on non-organic meat be an effective means to reduce consumption and thus reduce the environmental harm?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. But.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would add complexity compared to just taxing all meat, and thus make the tax less efficient. The increased costs would be the primary cause of reduced consumption. Whether only taxing conventional meat would have a distinct benefit is very difficult to establish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tax Effects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tax would almost certainly increase final product costs, and thus reduce consumption. But the reduction is likely to be both slower that you might expect (due to cultural preferences for meat), and politically more costly (people would react negatively to the tax).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The costs would rise both directly through the tax and compliance costs, but through a variety of secondary effects like policing import substitution (or production shifting) and efforts by affected industries to weaken, bypass or repeal the tax.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One marginal effect would be on game and pest meat. Those animals are likely to count as &quot;technically organic&quot; but are very rarely certified, and most certification systems don't allow them to be considered. But if there was a significant cost benefit to certification there would probably be attempts to certify them. In Australia some camel and kangaroo meat would fall into this gap in the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Social Effects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also force organic certifiers to interact a great deal more with government, and expose them to significantly greater corruption pressures. That would also increase costs, either of preventing the corruption or by exposing society to the costs of that corruption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also likely to be a significant expansion of the organic certification system, into an area where it is currently fairly weak. That would require close supervision at a time when that system would already be under strain. The chances of major problem would be high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environmental Effects**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an increasing amount of research into the environmental benefits or otherwise of organic agriculture, but much of it focuses on cropping. This [meta-analysis of biodiversity][1](pdf) for example, finds benefits but the great majority of studies were of crop farming. [This study on protein sourcing][2] suggests that meat is 1.5-2 worse over the complete lifecycle, with specific disadvantages ranging up to 100-fold - so even if organic meat farming is half as bad as inorganic, it's still worse than not eating meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If meat consumption is diverted, the question of what it's diverted to is also important. Many alternative sources of protein are environmentally problematic, from the soy monocultures in the USA to the [complex social and environmental  changes][3] caused by food fads like quinoa - marginal land is put into production, farming techniques change and land is degraded in the search for quick profits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other environmental issue is that factory farming of meat animals is common, and can be environmentally disastrous if pollution controls are lax or absent. Few controls decrease cost of production, which can make the product seem cheaper, but as we see in Florida right now the large algal blooms that are one possible result are not necessarily cheap or easy to deal with. New Zealand has a problem with their dairy farms producing what is politely called &quot;faecal coliform contamination and nutrient excess in waterways&quot;, or colloquially referred to as &quot;rivers of shit&quot;. Avoiding those problems costs money, increasing the cost of production. It also often lowers production intensity, which can have the overall effect of reducing total production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which suggests that an alternative approach would be to focus on enforcing existing environmental regulations, and making sure that meat production is included in new ones. As  greenhouse gas restrictions become more common, for example, [livestock farmers often argue that they should be exempt][4] due to the difficulty of measuring or reducing their emissions. Not doing that would directly benefit the environment through reduced production, as well as through the secondary effect of increasing costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/pdf/11_11_28_OA_biodiversity_Rahmann.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/664S.full&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/25/quinoa-good-evil-complicated&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.revealnews.org/article/us-gives-meat-producers-a-pass-on-climate-change-emissions/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="6e1528cb-ddd0-4372-ba2b-adb2b2022c42" CreationDate="2016-07-20T06:45:12.837" UserId="986" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="Are there any clothes made out of bamboo fibre processed naturally, and not via the *viscose/rayon* (see [here][1]) method?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking for something that can be purchasable commercially, but can't find any sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xA;I am in the UK, and I am willing to buy online.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayon#Production_method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12716" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5420" RevisionGUID="e70e7353-feda-468c-ac11-122abade0c52" CreationDate="2016-07-20T07:01:43.293" UserId="99" />
  <row Id="12717" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="5421" RevisionGUID="b849439d-1293-4053-8a8f-77556681f7ca" CreationDate="2016-07-20T07:01:43.293" UserId="99" />
  <row Id="12718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="4e586376-3ddf-4424-b8d3-719e7c92c53d" CreationDate="2016-07-20T07:58:31.343" UserId="986" Comment="added 818 characters in body" Text="Are there any clothes made out of bamboo fibre processed naturally, and not via the *viscose/rayon* (see [here][1]) method? I am talking of the alternative proposed in [this answer][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently bamboo can also be processed into &quot;bamboo linen&quot;, i.e. using the same process as with flax or hemp.&#xD;&#xA;One commercial producer of bamboo linen is Litrax. Its bamboo linens are described/advertised on textileworld.com. The processing, however, uses &quot;fine-tuned enzymatic cocktails&quot;, as is to be expected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At [this][3] page, more information on the method used by Litrax can be found. From the same page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the typical rayon production process used for most&#xD;&#xA;manufactured fiber derived from bamboo uses caustic chemicals whose emissions can harm not only&#xD;&#xA;factory workers but also the environment when not properly controlled within the factory. And the&#xD;&#xA;resulting fiber — whether processed using the rayon process or a closed-loop, eco-friendly,&#xD;&#xA;modified lyocell process — does not resemble bamboo at all in its original form. In addition,&#xD;&#xA;widespread claims that the fiber offers antimicrobial properties cannot be substantiated, and its&#xD;&#xA;biodegradability has been questioned because it does not break down within a reasonably short time&#xD;&#xA;after disposal in a landfill or in a recycling scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [Litrax][4] seems to produce only yarns and fibres, and doesn't sell any clothing itself. In my case, I am looking for something that can be purchasable commercially, but can't find any sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am in the UK, and I am willing to buy online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayon#Production_method&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4942/would-it-be-possible-to-process-bamboo-for-fabric-at-home&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.textileworld.com/textile-world/quality-fabric-of-the-month/2010/04/litrax-natural-bamboo-the-real-deal/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.litrax.com/fibers/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="74d5e370-5739-4dd2-a643-19d352fc9cec" CreationDate="2016-07-20T08:15:30.943" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Link to answer instead of question" Text="Are there any clothes made out of bamboo fibre processed naturally, and not via the *viscose/rayon* (see [here][1]) method? I am talking of the alternative proposed in [this answer][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently bamboo can also be processed into &quot;bamboo linen&quot;, i.e. using the same process as with flax or hemp.&#xD;&#xA;One commercial producer of bamboo linen is Litrax. Its bamboo linens are described/advertised on textileworld.com. The processing, however, uses &quot;fine-tuned enzymatic cocktails&quot;, as is to be expected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At [this][3] page, more information on the method used by Litrax can be found. From the same page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the typical rayon production process used for most&#xD;&#xA;manufactured fiber derived from bamboo uses caustic chemicals whose emissions can harm not only&#xD;&#xA;factory workers but also the environment when not properly controlled within the factory. And the&#xD;&#xA;resulting fiber — whether processed using the rayon process or a closed-loop, eco-friendly,&#xD;&#xA;modified lyocell process — does not resemble bamboo at all in its original form. In addition,&#xD;&#xA;widespread claims that the fiber offers antimicrobial properties cannot be substantiated, and its&#xD;&#xA;biodegradability has been questioned because it does not break down within a reasonably short time&#xD;&#xA;after disposal in a landfill or in a recycling scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [Litrax][4] seems to produce only yarns and fibres, and doesn't sell any clothing itself. In my case, I am looking for something that can be purchasable commercially, but can't find any sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am in the UK, and I am willing to buy online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayon#Production_method&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4946/2451&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.textileworld.com/textile-world/quality-fabric-of-the-month/2010/04/litrax-natural-bamboo-the-real-deal/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.litrax.com/fibers/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12720" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="74d5e370-5739-4dd2-a643-19d352fc9cec" CreationDate="2016-07-20T08:15:30.943" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Link to answer instead of question" Text="Bamboo fibre clothing (not rayon)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12721" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="74d5e370-5739-4dd2-a643-19d352fc9cec" CreationDate="2016-07-20T08:15:30.943" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 986 edit id of 413" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="e634781c-9753-4556-8d6b-58fa5cbe481a" CreationDate="2016-07-20T08:22:25.840" UserId="15" Comment="reworded first sentence to clarify question, and reworded request for retailer location to remove authors location" Text="Are there any retailers selling clothes made out of naturally processed bamboo fibre, not the *viscose/rayon* (see [here][1]) method? I am talking of the alternative proposed in [this answer][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently bamboo can also be processed into &quot;bamboo linen&quot;, i.e. using the same process as with flax or hemp.&#xD;&#xA;One commercial producer of bamboo linen is Litrax. Its bamboo linens are described/advertised on textileworld.com. The processing, however, uses &quot;fine-tuned enzymatic cocktails&quot;, as is to be expected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At [this][3] page, more information on the method used by Litrax can be found. From the same page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the typical rayon production process used for most&#xD;&#xA;manufactured fiber derived from bamboo uses caustic chemicals whose emissions can harm not only&#xD;&#xA;factory workers but also the environment when not properly controlled within the factory. And the&#xD;&#xA;resulting fiber — whether processed using the rayon process or a closed-loop, eco-friendly,&#xD;&#xA;modified lyocell process — does not resemble bamboo at all in its original form. In addition,&#xD;&#xA;widespread claims that the fiber offers antimicrobial properties cannot be substantiated, and its&#xD;&#xA;biodegradability has been questioned because it does not break down within a reasonably short time&#xD;&#xA;after disposal in a landfill or in a recycling scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [Litrax][4] seems to produce only yarns and fibres, and doesn't sell any clothing itself. In my case, I am looking for something that can be purchasable commercially, but can't find any sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically I'm most interested in availability to the UK, including online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayon#Production_method&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4946/2451&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.textileworld.com/textile-world/quality-fabric-of-the-month/2010/04/litrax-natural-bamboo-the-real-deal/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.litrax.com/fibers/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4480" RevisionGUID="04adb8b5-f2ff-4088-a59f-beb44251bd68" CreationDate="2016-07-20T15:59:19.317" UserId="1445" Comment="included mention that &quot;waste&quot; heat may not actually be wasted" Text="TLDR; don't use them for lighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that you could keep your incandescent bulbs for when your current energy-efficient (I will assume CCFL) bulbs need replacing, your choice boils down to: buy a new CCFL; or use an incandescent that has already been manufactured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This helpful analysis](http://www.thewatt.com/?q=node/175) gives the embodied energy in a CCFL as 1.7 kWh.  Let's assume that the CCFL lasts 8000 hours and uses 15W, while your equivalent incandescent lasts 1000 hours and uses 60W (also from the same source, though these are pretty standard numbers).  Total energy usage (in kWh) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                CCFL                 Incandescent&#xD;&#xA;    embodied energy             1.7                  n/a as &quot;sunk cost&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;    energy used over lifetime   8000 * 0.015 = 120   1000 * 0.06 = 60     &#xD;&#xA;    total over lifetime         121.7                60                   &#xD;&#xA;    total over 8000 hours       121.7                480                  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you're better off not using the incandescents for lighting, even though that means buying new CCFLs.  That's because the energy to produce the bulbs is dwarfed by the energy used in using one.  The comparison would be even starker for LEDs as these are even more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question remains, what *should* you do with them, if not lighting?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You could use them for applications where the heat is useful, not wasted (this could include lighting your home - provided you are also heating it around the same times you are lighting it)&#xD;&#xA; - You may be able to recycle them (see e.g. [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2699/99))&#xD;&#xA; - You could just throw them into landfill.  Being largely glass and metal, at least they won't break down to produce greenhouse gases like methane&#xD;&#xA; - You could sell them, though given that incandescent bulbs are being outlawed (in Europe) this may enable someone to use them who would otherwise have been forced to use a CCFL or LED, so there may be an indirect energy cost there.  The embodied energy in an incandescent bulb is about 0.3 kWh, so really quite small.&#xD;&#xA; - You could keep them in the attic until long after all incandescent bulbs have been outlawed, then donate them to a museum ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12725" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="510" RevisionGUID="3ca8d010-a8f5-4856-9cb3-725caecee8ed" CreationDate="2016-07-22T07:55:45.547" UserId="-1" Comment="small math error but the numbers were off by a decent amount :)" Text="There are two important variables and one important caution here.  The caution is that containing grasshoppers in an area may be very difficult,  You may have to have insect screens fully covering an area.  Keeping flying migratory livestock contained is somewhat difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The variables regard climate.  Grasshoppers don't survive freezing so you have a limited growing season, and the shorter the growing season the more land you will need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third is water.  The more lush your landscape the less of it you will need.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So assuming you have ideal areas and can sustain a population of grasshoppers at 30/m^2 (this may be optimistic), with each grasshopper weighing about 0.1g, then each M^2 would produce about 3g of meat/year.  1kg = 1000g so it would take approx 333m^2, and so your 100kg would require about 33,333m^2.  I don't know what you could grow that would sustain a population that size for very long (bamboo, maybe?) so you might want to assume at least 3-4x that size for sustainability reasons.  I would therefore estimate approx one hectare to be safe, more if land is marginal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12726" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="510" RevisionGUID="3ca8d010-a8f5-4856-9cb3-725caecee8ed" CreationDate="2016-07-22T07:55:45.547" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 99 edit id of 414" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5428" RevisionGUID="c8360c1f-1dc4-489f-9591-1739c5bee901" CreationDate="2016-07-23T15:28:00.980" UserId="3611" Text="Nobody who turns off their engine ever mentions the fact that restarting their engine causes a slight delay in getting away and must result in increased congestion. This will increase the fuel consumption of everyone in the queue who should have got away but didn't and those who had to wait a few  moments longer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5429" RevisionGUID="bb19c5b5-e8d5-4d8a-8d04-6dd119abbda5" CreationDate="2016-07-23T15:49:51.703" UserId="3612" Text="I am saving rainwater for a long time to water plants in garden. I got a plastic tank with 1000 liter capacity. Last year I brought a water TDs meter and it shows that the tap water have 874 reading and the bottle water have 83-85 reading and the rain water have reading of 16. That's amazing . So I just thought brought a new ro filter to filter this 1000 liter water and I got a very clean 4-7 TDs reading water. It's taste is great but when I try to drink this water it made me sit in washroom all day. I think it's a great stomach cleaner and who have constipation problem must try this . " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5429" RevisionGUID="4eec098c-4359-476e-a81b-c5b7ef1872e5" CreationDate="2016-07-23T20:00:17.617" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="explained terms, fixed language, removed irrelevant text" Text="I am saving rainwater for a long time to water plants in garden. I got a plastic tank with 1000 liter capacity. Last year I brought a TDS meter ([Total Dissolved Solids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_dissolved_solids)) and it shows that the tap water has a reading of 874 mg/L, bottled water has 83-85 mg/L, and rain water only 16 mg/L. That's amazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I just thought brought a new [Reverse Osmosis (RO)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_osmosis) filter to filter this 1000 liter water and I got a very clean 4-7 mg/L for the TDS. Its taste is great but when I tried to drink this water it made me sit in the washroom all day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12731" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5429" RevisionGUID="4eec098c-4359-476e-a81b-c5b7ef1872e5" CreationDate="2016-07-23T20:00:17.617" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 415" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5423" RevisionGUID="e4cce74f-0880-4414-ad15-88be2849b8d4" CreationDate="2016-07-24T09:48:20.127" UserId="3379" Comment="fixed type" Text="Yes - but not in the way you describe. First of all, **planned obsolescence** refers broadly to intentionally designing a product so that it will have an artificially short life-span, which can include less-nefarious tactics such as using cheaper manufacturing processes that make repairs more difficult. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you are referring to is **programmed obsolescence**: essentially, putting a time-bomb inside of a product. This is a subset of planned obsolescence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The textbook example of programmed obsolescence is ink cartridges: the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkjet_printing#Business_model) covers the basics. Some ink cartridges have timers or page counters. In other cases, the driver software on the user's PC counts the pages and issues a warning when the ink is almost out - except often the cartridges may still have significant capacity left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This business model &quot;works&quot; because inkjet printer manufacturers have created a monopoly on the cartridges. Once you buy the printer from them, you need to buy the ink from them too.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a model would not be effective in your laptop example, for two reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Company A cannot guarantee that you will buy your next laptop from them once their kill-switch is engaged.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Company A's competitor, Company B, could easily play the long game and increase their market share by building the same laptop, saving money by leaving out the kill-switch, and selling it for a little bit less. As word got out that Company A's laptop didn't last as long, consumers would start buying more from Company B.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;*This has led to an interesting market effect, where competing printer manufacturers can only gain market share by lowering their up-front costs: Amazon currently lists [941 inkjet printers available for less than $100 USD](https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?fst=as%3Aoff&amp;rh=n%3A1064954%2Cn%3A172574%2Cn%3A172646%2Ck%3Ainkjet+printer%2Cp_36%3A-10000&amp;keywords=inkjet+printer&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1468670567&amp;rnid=1084128)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5430" RevisionGUID="173296c9-22f2-405d-9efe-5f52c664b5be" CreationDate="2016-07-25T08:10:33.123" UserId="3618" Text="I use free range chickens to help with lawn management. They do an excellent job and do not destroy the lawn if they have enough space to roam. Any breed will do. I now cut the grass only a few times each year so they save me lots of work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5431" RevisionGUID="69c3c36f-59ed-4c47-b36d-605ca87c498d" CreationDate="2016-07-25T08:21:40.240" UserId="3619" Text="Well, it seems a little is ok. &#xD;&#xA;I think we have over done it with out goats, given them too much too quickly. Seems to be a problem with gut bacteria and not having time to adjust to the new feed. We had 2 huge pines cut down in the yard and have been chucking branches into the goat pen all week, so they don't have much choice. Bad move- our one doe couldn't get up last night and is very week and bloated, all the others look ok but seem like they have slight signs of bloat and weekness. There was a study that someone referred to in a post about this very issue, it suggested that the tips are the more toxic part, and if they have too much it's a problem. Bottom line, I think if you have decent pasture they will eat a bit of everything. Don't feed them pine exclusively. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5431" RevisionGUID="569eab33-2fa4-4be9-a14f-c5833db799fa" CreationDate="2016-07-25T20:25:00.553" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="white space" Text="Well, it seems a little is ok.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I think we have over done it with out goats, given them too much too quickly. Seems to be a problem with gut bacteria and not having time to adjust to the new feed.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We had 2 huge pines cut down in the yard and have been chucking branches into the goat pen all week, so they don't have much choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bad move - our one doe couldn't get up last night and is very week and bloated, all the others look ok, but seem like they have slight signs of bloat and weekness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a study that someone referred to in a post about this very issue, it suggested that the tips are the more toxic part, and if they have too much it's a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line: I think if you have decent pasture they will eat a bit of everything. Don't feed them pine exclusively. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12737" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5431" RevisionGUID="569eab33-2fa4-4be9-a14f-c5833db799fa" CreationDate="2016-07-25T20:25:00.553" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 85 edit id of 416" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5432" RevisionGUID="4c5149d1-fd97-4e30-ae1c-fa611fcd94fc" CreationDate="2016-07-26T02:36:25.393" UserId="659" Text="There is quite a lot of info on the web in general, from this big list of [poisonous and ok plants][1] (repeated in various places with no source or attribution - pine is on the ok side). A more definitive answer comes from this [summary of two research papers][2] containing this excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No abortions occurred, however, toxicity was observed in the 3 treated groups. The pine tips were most toxic, the bark less toxic and the needles least toxic. Clinical signs of toxicity included muscular weakness, trembling, unusual stance, rumen stasis, bloating, opisthotunus, depression, loss of appetite, and death. Necropsy revealed no significant gross lesions. Pine needles, tips, or bark do not cause abortions in goats but are potentially toxic…&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience is that goats will eat pine trees if given the opportunity, so it's probably wise to keep pregnant ones away from the trees. But they do generally seem to prefer grass and trees with bigger leaves. My experience of goats eating young trees (including pines) suggests that that should apply to any tree you don't want the goats to eat. Note that goats are climbers, and will eat much more of the tree than you would expect, if they can get access.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fiascofarm.com/goats/poisonousplants.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ask.extension.org/questions/159811" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5434" RevisionGUID="a313e1a7-d02f-4bfc-9039-c4940360dc33" CreationDate="2016-07-27T23:10:39.060" UserId="3532" Text="I've read that a quince is a very hard fruit, and was wondering if chickens like them enough for one of their forage foods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12743" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5434" RevisionGUID="a313e1a7-d02f-4bfc-9039-c4940360dc33" CreationDate="2016-07-27T23:10:39.060" UserId="3532" Text="Will chickens eat quince?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12744" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5434" RevisionGUID="a313e1a7-d02f-4bfc-9039-c4940360dc33" CreationDate="2016-07-27T23:10:39.060" UserId="3532" Text="|chickens|fruits-and-vegetables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="cf2c291a-9b39-4549-b1ee-c9c25488fecf" CreationDate="2016-07-28T00:59:27.707" UserId="3532" Text="I live in USDA zone 4, and was wondering how I can minimally keep my chickens alive through the long cold winters, when just picking eggs all over the 100 acre farm at their coops." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12752" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="cf2c291a-9b39-4549-b1ee-c9c25488fecf" CreationDate="2016-07-28T00:59:27.707" UserId="3532" Text="What do I need to do to have chickens survive winters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12753" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="cf2c291a-9b39-4549-b1ee-c9c25488fecf" CreationDate="2016-07-28T00:59:27.707" UserId="3532" Text="|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5438" RevisionGUID="09b76f8c-166a-4074-be01-739ad97777a1" CreationDate="2016-07-28T05:41:14.610" UserId="3532" Text="I've heard that chickens will take away all of the cover crops, and was wondering if there's any type of cover that will survive chickens." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12755" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5438" RevisionGUID="09b76f8c-166a-4074-be01-739ad97777a1" CreationDate="2016-07-28T05:41:14.610" UserId="3532" Text="What type of cover crop survives mobs of chickens in zone 4a?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12756" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5438" RevisionGUID="09b76f8c-166a-4074-be01-739ad97777a1" CreationDate="2016-07-28T05:41:14.610" UserId="3532" Text="|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12757" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="b9a8da5f-a4c2-4474-887c-c2ee0636c218" CreationDate="2016-07-28T07:52:58.483" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|husbandry|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5439" RevisionGUID="bf579b5b-b8b4-48fe-8f3b-5069e133ed36" CreationDate="2016-07-28T07:59:29.297" UserId="85" Text="At least within permaculture chickens are employed to get rid of any weeds and other types of hardy plants. I dare say that &quot;all cover crops&quot; really means *all* cover crops. Don't let chickens near your cover crops." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12759" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="7d86b7a2-b0e1-4d8c-9f17-3590d755a8d7" CreationDate="2016-07-28T15:04:28.237" UserId="3532" Comment="edited title" Text="What do I need to do to have chickens survive winters in a free range method?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5439" RevisionGUID="b1cf38ff-223a-4b0e-b87a-174c017f9195" CreationDate="2016-07-28T16:36:49.830" UserId="85" Comment="added 498 characters in body" Text="At least within permaculture chickens are employed to get rid of any weeds and other types of hardy plants. I dare say that &quot;all cover crops&quot; really means *all* cover crops. Don't let chickens near your cover crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you still want to use chickens in your forest make a movable chicken coop (a chicken tractor) of a decent (big) size and see what they do to your crops in a couple of hours. To minimize the damage, I would probably try something like potato (tubers) or root vegetables like beets or turnip first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if they turn out to damage your crop, you can still move the tractor over unused areas, which will help keep unused parts of your forest clean (and prepare the soil for future planting)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5440" RevisionGUID="61ac8fbc-311d-48bb-936b-1241ddcdbe78" CreationDate="2016-07-29T09:18:48.737" UserId="3631" Text="Today I heard on the radio that only 1 litre of water will be available per person by year 2090.&#xA;If there is plenty of seawater present on our earth and there are processes like desalination and distillation for making seawater usable/drinkable , then why is it said that there is scarcity of water??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5440" RevisionGUID="61ac8fbc-311d-48bb-936b-1241ddcdbe78" CreationDate="2016-07-29T09:18:48.737" UserId="3631" Text="Why is there so much scarcity of water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5440" RevisionGUID="61ac8fbc-311d-48bb-936b-1241ddcdbe78" CreationDate="2016-07-29T09:18:48.737" UserId="3631" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5441" RevisionGUID="fbd73da2-0de9-463c-9934-633cc9245ea6" CreationDate="2016-07-29T13:12:28.527" UserId="48" Text="There is no global scarcity of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some areas have a scarcity of potable water per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several ways to fix that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Move the people to where there's sufficient potable water for them.&#xD;&#xA;- Move the potable water to where the people are.&#xD;&#xA;- Take the water that is where the people are, and make it potable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any of these things can be done sustainably. The technology is easy. It's a matter of taking the political decision to do the appropriate allocation of resources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5442" RevisionGUID="beb70c2c-a93a-45a6-94ea-b6c5a05f41fd" CreationDate="2016-07-29T21:24:51.403" UserId="3303" Text="I place my weeds right down where I pulled them up. All stages of the plants decomposition are beneficial, not just having them ready composted and dug into the soil.&#xA;&#xA;The first stage of having the wilted plant there is useful because slugs often prefer to eat it instead of live plants. The next stage of having brown straw like matter on top of the soil is a habitat for many beneficial animals like ground beetles, frogs, spiders, slow worms. Next it gets taken down into the soil by worms and provides energy for many more animals and fungi. &#xA;&#xA;Having the dead plants lying on top of the soil is usually not done by gardeners because it looks untidy, but when I realised how much life and activity it creates I learned see it as beautiful as my live plants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5443" RevisionGUID="7a98f83c-9bac-49be-bdb8-571fa5af46dc" CreationDate="2016-07-30T09:32:41.460" UserId="3423" Text="Third world populations grew faster than their carrying capacity. Thus, there are water shortages in some areas. There are also cases where one country seizes critical resources from another, e.g. Zionist control of the Jordan River and Golan water sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no real water shortage in the first world. There is only a shortage in the sense that it costs more money to water your lawn in Arizona." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="076ae22b-8a8f-4aa4-9130-7817dd1ad551" CreationDate="2016-07-31T00:33:13.763" UserId="3528" Text="My city's policies on keeping chickens makes it difficult to use them for their composting abilities. I'm looking for alternatives. By my understanding, chickens can take insects and weeds (two major garden problems) and creates nitrogen rich manure. As a bonus, if I provide the carbonaceous material, the chickens will do all the work of turning it for me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vermicomposting could be considered an alternative, although it's not necessarily exclusive with having chickens. They would probably be considered as agents in different layers of the ecosystem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of usefulness for compost, what are good alternatives to keeping chickens?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="076ae22b-8a8f-4aa4-9130-7817dd1ad551" CreationDate="2016-07-31T00:33:13.763" UserId="3528" Text="In terms of usefulness for compost, what are good alternatives to keeping chickens?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="076ae22b-8a8f-4aa4-9130-7817dd1ad551" CreationDate="2016-07-31T00:33:13.763" UserId="3528" Text="|composting|vermicomposting|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="758de8f9-2657-4673-b62a-06f652891239" CreationDate="2016-07-31T07:07:53.823" UserId="986" Text="I have been doing some research online, essentially along two different lines: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- sustainability, using http://rankabrand.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- animal-free materials, browsing through the several companies which trade &quot;vegan&quot; shoes online (in the UK). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be your sustainability considerations when buying a pair of shoes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="758de8f9-2657-4673-b62a-06f652891239" CreationDate="2016-07-31T07:07:53.823" UserId="986" Text="What to look for in a pair of sustainable shoes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="758de8f9-2657-4673-b62a-06f652891239" CreationDate="2016-07-31T07:07:53.823" UserId="986" Text="|animals|clothing|vegetarianism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5447" RevisionGUID="fb5fcf74-1f8a-43c8-8fcc-eabb7de9a843" CreationDate="2016-07-31T10:54:47.073" UserId="15" Text="Quail&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though I haven't kept them myself, I remember reading that quail tend to be much quieter than chickens (especially when compared with roosters!),  require a smaller area to live and are well suited for suburban backyards. They and their eggs can be eaten and are generally considered a delicacy. Here's a basic introduction about them: http://www.quailfarm.co.uk/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a reference to [a successful &quot;quail tractor&quot;][1], so it appears they might help you with your weeding too (but watch you don't squash them while moving the coop).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.backyardchickens.com/t/793555/quail-tractors#post_11443130" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5448" RevisionGUID="e52e455c-f5b1-4c03-a9b8-d56d5cb706d4" CreationDate="2016-07-31T12:09:40.390" UserId="3080" Text="There isn't much to do at all.  Chickens are just fine in snow and at night pile on top each other for warmth.  The primary issue with cold weather and chickens is crop freezing.  So pick a cold-hearty breed such as wyandottes, which are known to be very resistant to that problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously the chickens will want access to clean, dry nest boxes for laying eggs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want additional protection for the coop, build a wind block.  Just make sure the coop always has excellent ventilation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12782" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5311" RevisionGUID="f13c0e27-4ffc-47fa-8175-625299e86093" CreationDate="2016-07-31T15:27:14.097" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="12783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="4d5a249a-1eff-44f3-a151-0fb8a87af456" CreationDate="2016-08-01T11:19:36.867" UserId="3638" Text="We've just gotten some old books out of the loft, and it appears the plastic bags they were in have disintegrated/biodegraded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the most environmentally friendly way to dispose of them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="4d5a249a-1eff-44f3-a151-0fb8a87af456" CreationDate="2016-08-01T11:19:36.867" UserId="3638" Text="How to recycle disintegrated plastic bags, without negatively impacting the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="4d5a249a-1eff-44f3-a151-0fb8a87af456" CreationDate="2016-08-01T11:19:36.867" UserId="3638" Text="|recycling|plastic|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5450" RevisionGUID="a24c0b5e-cc53-433d-9b2a-d77c36280cab" CreationDate="2016-08-01T12:23:48.137" UserId="85" Text="Unless the plastic bags are labelled with a recycling symbol, there is no easy way to know if the plastic is even recyclable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good biodegradable plastic bags are made from decomposable materials, which contain no pollutants or toxins. The fact that your plastic bags have disintegrated *doesn't* mean they are biodegradable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The safest thing for the recycling plant (and the environment) is to assume they aren't recyclable and dispose of them as non-recyclable waste." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5450" RevisionGUID="35fe4d9e-f144-49de-bcd1-c45ebb864c83" CreationDate="2016-08-01T12:52:56.283" UserId="85" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Unless the plastic bags are labelled with a recycling symbol, there is no easy way to know if the plastic is even recyclable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good biodegradable plastic bags are made from decomposable materials, which contain no pollutants or toxins. The fact that your plastic bags have disintegrated *doesn't* mean they are biodegradable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The safest thing for the recycling plant (and the environment) is to assume they aren't recyclable and **dispose of them as non-recyclable waste**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12799" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="6cc7c2a3-52e8-47b5-bbd7-6867e2a7474e" CreationDate="2016-08-02T09:13:38.153" UserId="99" Comment="made the question less subjective" Text="I have been doing some research online, essentially along two different lines: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- sustainability, using http://rankabrand.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- animal-free materials, browsing through the several companies which trade &quot;vegan&quot; shoes online (in the UK). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the main sustainability considerations when buying a pair of shoes? Which materials or what part of shoe manufacturing or disposal have the largest environmental impact?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12800" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="6cc7c2a3-52e8-47b5-bbd7-6867e2a7474e" CreationDate="2016-08-02T09:13:38.153" UserId="99" Comment="made the question less subjective" Text="What to look for in a pair of sustainable shoes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12801" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="6cc7c2a3-52e8-47b5-bbd7-6867e2a7474e" CreationDate="2016-08-02T09:13:38.153" UserId="99" Comment="made the question less subjective" Text="|environmental-impact|animals|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5311" RevisionGUID="416e9608-f163-4bb0-8f44-4f4d5b5fb781" CreationDate="2016-08-02T09:30:15.687" UserId="99" Comment="made the question less subjective" Text="Is there any evidence that [Eco-Schools](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-Schools) are better at building sustainability awareness for school kids and teaching them about renewable energy technologies? Or is there a better approach that might be more effective and faster in developing the awareness for pupils in an attractive way? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12803" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5311" RevisionGUID="416e9608-f163-4bb0-8f44-4f4d5b5fb781" CreationDate="2016-08-02T09:30:15.687" UserId="99" Comment="made the question less subjective" Text="Are Eco-Schools more effective teaching children about sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12805" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="ef09cfbf-8923-4415-981f-725381044691" CreationDate="2016-08-02T14:03:26.047" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/760476100371906561" />
  <row Id="12806" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="c261bc9d-11cd-4ec4-8099-f4c960db225e" CreationDate="2016-08-02T17:03:26.077" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/760521399140311041" />
  <row Id="12807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="8eca4354-986a-4ca2-90cd-ddd533c6ff90" CreationDate="2016-08-03T13:44:50.340" UserId="3646" Text="Old post....&#xD;&#xA; But im a natural gas technician, and i have the answer. &#xD;&#xA;All you need is the oriface size and pressure.&#xD;&#xA;Do you know the oriface size for the pilot? You can look in your paperwork/on a plate on the unit, or you can size it by hand by sticking drill bits in the oriface to measure it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11&quot; wc is usually what propane is set to, but your appliance might cut it down even further, check again for a info plate. You can be sure by hooking a manometer to the pilot, opening the pilot valve, and reading what it reads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theres a book, NFPA 54, and i believe annex f-something has a chart. You just line up oriface size, and delivery pressure, and it tells ya how much gas itl pass... simple math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry its copy written and i wouldn't know how to go about putting a chart on here anyway,  but if anyone's interested,  check it out!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="66d4e08e-9431-46b1-8846-feb1484c0bf5" CreationDate="2016-08-03T15:32:49.783" UserId="2187" Text="I have some extra money that I would like to invest to both benefit myself with a moderate return on investment but also for mutual benefit to contribute to sustainable economic development. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I have literally no experience with banking and investing, how would one approach an investment with the aforementioned objective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12809" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="66d4e08e-9431-46b1-8846-feb1484c0bf5" CreationDate="2016-08-03T15:32:49.783" UserId="2187" Text="How to perform investments that benefit sustainable development?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12810" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="66d4e08e-9431-46b1-8846-feb1484c0bf5" CreationDate="2016-08-03T15:32:49.783" UserId="2187" Text="|money|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5455" RevisionGUID="4192fbec-2e1c-40cb-a7bd-ccb2f697e728" CreationDate="2016-08-03T17:29:08.840" UserId="3597" Text="[![solar still][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S0eiI.gif&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I replaced the foliage in this diagram with a gallon of sea water - would the resulting &quot;fresh water&quot; be pure enough for agriculture? For human consumption?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the process really that prohibitively inefficient? (like 1 gallon of sea water yielding 1 shotglass of fresh water per week)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What gives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can this not be the answer to solving California's drought? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize I must have gaping holes in my logic. Please help me identify them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12812" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5455" RevisionGUID="4192fbec-2e1c-40cb-a7bd-ccb2f697e728" CreationDate="2016-08-03T17:29:08.840" UserId="3597" Text="Why can't solar stills convert sea water into fresh water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12813" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5455" RevisionGUID="4192fbec-2e1c-40cb-a7bd-ccb2f697e728" CreationDate="2016-08-03T17:29:08.840" UserId="3597" Text="|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12814" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5455" RevisionGUID="79b1a297-ed19-40ac-84ef-206d2c04e3e6" CreationDate="2016-08-03T17:44:59.150" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|water-management|seawater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5456" RevisionGUID="9cfbe765-b8d8-41d3-b441-45f88ea9838b" CreationDate="2016-08-03T19:25:43.187" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="You have *literally no experience with banking and investing*, so you should let someone else handle the actual trading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many banks have investment funds targeted at specific areas (sustainable development, microloans), or avoiding areas (nuclear, weapons, fossil fuels, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you have consumer organisations or independent investigators in your country&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;, find the reviews that they publish about sustainability of banks. Pick those that come out best, then examine the funds they offer, and invest your money in one of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One additional benefit of choosing an 'ordinary' bank (instead of e.g. private investment funds) is that they are likely more stable, with a more reliable return on investment. They also have people overseeing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* (You may want to add that to your question)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5446" RevisionGUID="c4da3eaa-592d-49e2-826f-67de5a2b4b4c" CreationDate="2016-08-03T19:35:11.530" UserId="986" Comment="added 284 characters in body" Text="Let's limit ourselves to [&quot;casual sport&quot; shoes][1] (e.g., everyday trainers, casual, etc.) . I have been doing some research online, essentially along two different lines: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- sustainability, using http://rankabrand.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- animal-free materials, browsing through the several companies which trade &quot;vegan&quot; shoes online (in the UK). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the main sustainability considerations when buying a pair of shoes? Which materials or what part of shoe manufacturing or disposal have the largest environmental impact?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=casual%20shoes&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjq2uip_qXOAhWsCMAKHaeSD7EQ_AUICSgC&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=699#tbm=isch&amp;q=mens%20casual%20sport%20shoes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12817" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5455" RevisionGUID="bdebcc32-a169-47b0-ad94-2dea623d3b79" CreationDate="2016-08-04T17:07:21.727" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/761247163288551424" />
  <row Id="12818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3094" RevisionGUID="dc1b70a1-8fcc-4ab1-96e0-a0bca4566d03" CreationDate="2016-08-05T02:38:46.363" UserId="659" Comment="embed links, remove URL hacking, insert translations" Text="I shared a google slide presentation [an calculator on Rainwater Harvesting][1]. It's an intro course. I hope you'll find helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to check out the collection/storage/use sizing chart slide. [Calculator is also here][2] in case the url isn't working in the sizing slide linked above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tips**&#xD;&#xA;Use at least one first flush diverter. The idea is to collect the cleanest water possible before storage. Then you want to &quot;use&quot; the cleanest water from the tank. So build a floating intake yourself. Bad for gravity use but good for quality. I use gravity for a backup distribution system so I flow from the bottom of the tank. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to risk getting sick, consider a 9 and 3 micron dual-stage filter with uv light. Use large, sturdy screen at the in and out flow of the tank to keep critters out. Chlorine at 1 part per million will kill pretty much everything and I think most instructors recommend some combination of all this stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend using everything. Especially if you use pesticides that could be ingested by critters. When they get sick, they look for clean water supplies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feelin' lucky?&#xD;&#xA;Get a part per million meter to gauge how close to &quot;perfect water&quot; you can get. &#xD;&#xA;Get a ph meter to gauge the acidity of the water.&#xD;&#xA;Radiation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Addendum for the pluviophiles** (lovers of rain):&#xD;&#xA;I live about 7 miles from an active volcano. My metal roof flows into plastic gutters and pvc pipe is used to convey the water to my food-grade holding tank. It has crud on the bottom ie; life. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My water has a slight yellow tinge from the Ohia tree leaves that collect in the gutter. I give the water a bunch of positive intention, specifically love and gratitude and the color will change, sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use a first and a second flush diverter. I don't use filters and do very little mainteance on the system. I have a close connection with the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ultimately, I believe the connection you develop with your water is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; big health factor. It's worked well for the during the last 5 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some folks see rainwater harvesting as owning their own water supply. I see it as a gift to be able to attract from the sky, one of the things I need most. I REALLY love my water. It's the only water that quenches my thirst. Bottle water makes me thirsty, tap water smells and tastes too much like chlorine and eh, I forgot what else I had to add. Did I miss anything?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also watch the &quot;Rainwater Harvesting TED Talk&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ka Wai O Kane!  &#xD;&#xA;(the water of Kane, or rainwater)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v6R-t3bTadurK784f52yr6rjz1X6DWPID3ZNZPercsQ/edit#gid=0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://docs.google.com/a/greencollartech.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkTmAYUM4GL5cFExWnUwakhSS3FrM3lsak9GelNWT3c&amp;usp=drive_web&amp;pli=1#gid=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5457" RevisionGUID="35b0edd7-818a-409c-a575-2b80a66367bf" CreationDate="2016-08-05T11:51:56.913" UserId="3379" Text="A [recent question on what to do with harvested rainwater][1] got me thinking about pumped energy storage systems. Since both systems require storage of water for later use, is there a cost-effective way in which the two could be combined?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As background, pumped energy storage involves pumping water to an elevated storage reservoir when energy is cheap and plentiful (excess wind, low demand, unused solar, etc) then letting it run through a turbine to generate power at times of low supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My initial thoughts are that the combination would only work in special circumstances - for instance where rainwater was harvested in a structure on a hill, then allowed to run downhill through a turbine to a lower structure where the water could be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/370/3379" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5457" RevisionGUID="35b0edd7-818a-409c-a575-2b80a66367bf" CreationDate="2016-08-05T11:51:56.913" UserId="3379" Text="Can pumped water energy storage be combined with rainwater harvesting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5457" RevisionGUID="35b0edd7-818a-409c-a575-2b80a66367bf" CreationDate="2016-08-05T11:51:56.913" UserId="3379" Text="|energy|water|water-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5457" RevisionGUID="a4f16695-2b2e-4daa-835d-1f67c10ff104" CreationDate="2016-08-05T12:46:32.790" UserId="3379" Comment="Expanded with some examples" Text="A [recent question on what to do with harvested rainwater][1] got me thinking about pumped energy storage systems. Since both systems require storage of water for later use, is there a cost-effective way in which the two could be combined? Specifically in small-scale applications (farms, rural communities, campuses) where rooftops are already available for rainwater harvesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As background, pumped energy storage involves pumping water to an elevated storage reservoir when energy is cheap and plentiful (excess wind, low demand, unused solar, etc) then letting it run through a turbine to generate power at times of low supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some ideas about how this might work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Rain water caught on the roofs of tall and/or elevated buildings could flow through a turbine (generating power) to shorter/lower reservoirs where it could be used for irrigation or other purposes&#xD;&#xA; - Overhead water tanks could be fitted with solar panels to drive pumps bringing up rain water from lower rooftops, where it would later be flowed through a turbine to provide power&#xD;&#xA; - A reservoir or tank could be built near a community or farm requiring water. Wind or solar power could pump water into the tank. When water is needed it could be flowed through a turbine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have any such systems been implemented? Could it be cost-effective, or would it simply over-complicate things?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/370/3379" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5458" RevisionGUID="096ffc0b-d246-46cc-b52e-040e23c1da42" CreationDate="2016-08-05T13:24:41.033" UserId="2345" Text="In effect, nature does this already. The sun heats up a patch of ocean, water evaporates and rises into the atmosphere. The vapour then condenses on airborne aerosols to form clouds which are then moved by winds and given the correct atmospheric conditions, rain falls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To produce significant amounts of water from a solar still would require either an extremely large region of ocean be covered with a condensing medium (such as a plastic sheet) or the area of ocean be covered with an extremely large number of smaller stills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other significant problem with this is the distribution system required to get the water from the one large still or the large number of smaller stills to where it would be required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other problems would be: what effect all this would have on the ocean environment and wildlife? What happens if whales, sharks, seals, birds, or other wildlife damages the stills? How do you prevent the accumulation of barnacles on the solar stills? How can the still be protected against the forces of nature, such as: wave action, winds, hurricanes and solar damage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the economic question who is going to pay for such a system and how much will it cost? Are there cheaper alternatives and ones that are less problematic and less risky? How often would the still need to be replaced because of damage, exposure or wear-and-tear and how much is that going to cost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5460" RevisionGUID="a784da20-938b-4c81-973e-54e33fca7b86" CreationDate="2016-08-05T23:23:05.777" UserId="1255" Text="On a small scale it can be done, but you're unlikely to match the [efficiency of large scale systems][1](70-80%). The big issue, though, is likely to be making it work at all. Conveniently that wikipedia article has a small-scale example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1000 kilograms of water (1 cubic meter) at the top of a 100 meter tower has a potential energy of about 0.272 kW·h (capable of raising the temperature of the same amount of water by only 0.23 Celsius = 0.42 Fahrenheit). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it useful you'd want to store as much as a modern small battery system, say 10kWh. With 100m of head and using the 0.27kWh/m³, 10 kWh is about 40m³ (40,000 litres) of storage. That's a small farm dam, it's definitely not a rainwater tank as most urban households think of it. Here's a pair of 38,000 litre tanks sitting in front of a house:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![9000 gallon water tank][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other problem is getting an efficient pump that can push water from your bottom 40m³ dam to the top 40m³ dam. Alibaba will sell you a 2kW pump&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is not something you can do at all as an urban household, and it will be difficult for most rural landowners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I had a microhydro system on a property I owned, I had about 20 litres/second available but the head was over 100m because the block of land was steep. The main limitation was my willingness to drag heavy pipe up a steep hill. Vehicle access to the top of the block was strictly &quot;all wheel drive with winch&quot; and took a whole day - that sort of terrain is brilliant for hydro, but steep land with high rainfall is a disaster for ground vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the high rainfall, he &quot;reservoir&quot; at the top of that pipe was just an inlet filter anchored to bedrock using a cubic metre of concrete, there wasn't a dam per se, let alone storage. Getting the top anchor in place was over a months work for one man using machinery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oX8N2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12827" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5460" RevisionGUID="bfb0cc7f-8894-4b6f-90aa-918f1baeea69" CreationDate="2016-08-05T23:37:25.300" UserId="1255" Comment="added 1387 characters in body" Text="Water loss is not the issue, because you need a lot of water to make it work at all. Even if your dams lose 30% of their water every year, that's about 0.1% per day. [System losses is the best large-scale systems are about 20%][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a small scale it can be done, but you're unlikely to match the [efficiency of large scale systems (wikipedia)][2](70-80%). The big issue, though, is likely to be making it work at all. Conveniently that wikipedia article has a small-scale example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1000 kilograms of water (1 cubic meter) at the top of a 100 meter tower has a potential energy of about 0.272 kW·h (capable of raising the temperature of the same amount of water by only 0.23 Celsius = 0.42 Fahrenheit). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it useful you'd want to store as much energy as a modern small battery system, say 10kWh. With 100m of head and using the 0.27kWh/m³, 10 kWh is about 40m³ (40,000 litres) of storage. That's a small farm dam or big farm tank, it's definitely not a rainwater tank as most urban households think of it. Here's a pair of 38,000 litre tanks sitting in front of a house:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![9000 gallon water tank][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other problem is getting an efficient pump that can push water from your bottom 40m³ dam to the top 40m³ dam. Amazon will sell you a [2kW pump capable of 3m/hr to 100m][4] for $1500. Efficiency is not very high - that's 2kWh input for 0.8kWh stored (3x0.272kWh from above). To get from 40% efficient to 90% efficient is going to cost a lot more, and if you're not 90% efficient on the storing side, you're going to struggle to get 80% round-trip efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you can trade head for volume linearly, but the efficiency of your pipes, pumps and turbines is crucial. The reason moderate head systems are preferred is that it's easier to get them up to the efficiency required. If you have 1000 metres, or 10 metres, of head, it becomes very difficult to make the system efficient. For example, most bore pumps with over 100m of head are simply multistage versions of lower-head pumps, so the efficiency drops even further. But flow turbines for low-head systems usually peak at 70%-80% efficient rather than the 90% you can get out of a pelton wheel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![water turbine efficiency graph][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([via wikidot][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is not something you can do at all as an urban household, and it will be difficult for most rural landowners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I had a microhydro system on a property I owned, I had about 20 litres/second available but the head was over 100m because the block of land was steep (hence, cheap :)). The main limitation was my willingness to drag heavy pipe up a steep hill. Vehicle access to the top of the block was strictly &quot;all wheel drive with winch&quot; and took a whole day - that sort of terrain is brilliant for hydro, but steep land with high rainfall is a disaster for ground vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the high rainfall, the &quot;reservoir&quot; at the top of that pipe was just an inlet filter anchored to bedrock using a cubic metre of concrete, there wasn't a dam per se, let alone storage. Getting the top anchor in place was over a months work for one man using machinery. Getting a tak like the one above to the top would have needed a helicopter. A big, expensive helicopter that would have had to come from a long way away. A dam would be easier, but still ridiculously difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydroelectric-storage&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oX8N2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.amazon.com/24V-1920W-Submersible-100M-Head/dp/B00M1NDCDG&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NYEBN.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://waterturbines.wikidot.com/system:join" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5460" RevisionGUID="90eda708-c529-406d-9b57-5cb2a18e070d" CreationDate="2016-08-05T23:42:31.450" UserId="1255" Comment="added 1387 characters in body" Text="Water loss is not the issue, because you need a lot of water to make it work at all. Even if your dams lose 30% of their water every year, that's about 0.1% per day. [System losses is the best large-scale systems are about 20%][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a small scale it can be done, but you're unlikely to match the [efficiency of large scale systems (wikipedia)][2](70-80%). The big issue, though, is likely to be making it work at all. Conveniently that wikipedia article has a small-scale example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1000 kilograms of water (1 cubic meter) at the top of a 100 meter tower has a potential energy of about 0.272 kW·h&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it useful you'd want to store as much energy as a modern small battery system, say 10kWh. Assuming your &quot;house&quot; is 100m tall (25-30 storeys), you get 100m of head and using the 0.27kWh/m³, 10 kWh is about 40m³ (40,000 litres) of storage. That's a small farm dam or big farm tank, it's definitely not a rainwater tank as most urban households think of it. Here's a pair of 38,000 litre tanks sitting in front of a house:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![9000 gallon water tank][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other problem is getting an efficient pump that can push water from your bottom 40m³ dam to the top 40m³ dam. Amazon will sell you a [2kW pump capable of 3m/hr to 100m][4] for $1500. Efficiency is not very high - that's 2kWh input for 0.8kWh stored (3x0.272kWh from above). To get from 40% efficient to 90% efficient is going to cost a lot more, and if you're not 90% efficient on the storing side, you're going to struggle to get 80% round-trip efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you can trade head for volume linearly, but the efficiency of your pipes, pumps and turbines is crucial. The reason moderate head systems are preferred is that it's easier to get them up to the efficiency required. If you have 1000 metres, or 10 metres, of head, it becomes very difficult to make the system efficient. For example, most bore pumps with over 100m of head are simply multistage versions of lower-head pumps, so the efficiency drops even further. But flow turbines for low-head systems usually peak at 70%-80% efficient rather than the 90% you can get out of a pelton wheel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![water turbine efficiency graph][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([via wikidot][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is not something you can do at all as an urban household, and it will be difficult for most rural landowners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I had a microhydro system on a property I owned, I had about 20 litres/second available but the head was over 100m because the block of land was steep (hence, cheap :)). The main limitation was my willingness to drag heavy pipe up a steep hill. Vehicle access to the top of the block was strictly &quot;all wheel drive with winch&quot; and took a whole day - that sort of terrain is brilliant for hydro, but steep land with high rainfall is a disaster for ground vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the high rainfall, the &quot;reservoir&quot; at the top of that pipe was just an inlet filter anchored to bedrock using a cubic metre of concrete, there wasn't a dam per se, let alone storage. Getting the top anchor in place was over a months work for one man using machinery. Getting a tak like the one above to the top would have needed a helicopter. A big, expensive helicopter that would have had to come from a long way away. A dam would be easier, but still ridiculously difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydroelectric-storage&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oX8N2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.amazon.com/24V-1920W-Submersible-100M-Head/dp/B00M1NDCDG&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NYEBN.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://waterturbines.wikidot.com/system:join" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5461" RevisionGUID="7136d783-5eba-4ad5-a3cb-9835edb77288" CreationDate="2016-08-06T18:35:49.293" UserId="3652" Text="Start with the volume of 180 litres. Multiply by 4. Then multiply by the target rise on temperature and divide the product by 3412 to give the KWhs needed. Then divide that answer by the KWh output of your heat source to get the time required to achieve your target or alternatively multiply the KWhs required by your local unit cost of electricity to calculate the appx. cost of your water heating.&#xD;&#xA;Example:- &#xD;&#xA;Volume of water....180 litres&#xD;&#xA;Target rise in Temp .........45 degrees Celsius &#xD;&#xA;Local cost of electricity ...$0.30&#xD;&#xA;180 X 4 X 45 = 32,400&#xD;&#xA;32400 / 3412 =  9.495KWhours @ $0.30 per KWh costs  $2.85 &#xD;&#xA;If you are using a say 3KW heat source then time  taken will be 9.495 divided by 3= 3hours and 10 mins appx.&#xD;&#xA;Gerry" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="fa89c65c-2d57-4cc1-89ca-3bffff7fedd4" CreationDate="2016-08-07T14:35:23.020" UserId="3653" Text="*This question could also go to Cooking SE or to Outdoor SE or to Health SE, but I thought this was the best section.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my furnished apartment I found a 0.6 litres SIGG bottle from unknown year and previous tenant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes the water taste bad and also I found out that old SIGG bottles release BPA: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/07/some-aluminum-water-bottles-still-contain-bpa/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bad taste is a problem, however BPA may not be a real issue:  http://health.stackexchange.com/questions/1868/is-bpa-in-can-linings-a-health-concern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I only know the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in the cap there is a &quot;4&quot; between a tilted &quot;C&quot; letter and a standard PP symbol. Maybe from 2004?&#xD;&#xA; - the SIGG logo seems different from the current bottles, see photo&#xD;&#xA; - the internal surface is lined with a golden material, see photo&#xD;&#xA; - to clean the inside and to test the thermal insulation I filled it with some boiling water mixed with dish soap and rinsed very well&#xD;&#xA; - the water still tastes strange when I tried it, after the cleaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it safe to use this bottle? not only due to BPA (see link above) but also due to the bad taste it gives to the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, any idea how to put it to use? I don't like to throw it away but the small opening does not allow many uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is safe, how to clean it well to stop it from making the water taste bad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1BwT7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12833" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="fa89c65c-2d57-4cc1-89ca-3bffff7fedd4" CreationDate="2016-08-07T14:35:23.020" UserId="3653" Text="How I use/clean this old SIGG bottle that makes water taste bad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12834" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="fa89c65c-2d57-4cc1-89ca-3bffff7fedd4" CreationDate="2016-08-07T14:35:23.020" UserId="3653" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="8dbe92db-5d78-470b-8152-f263882b13aa" CreationDate="2016-08-07T14:40:34.520" UserId="3653" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="*This question could also go to Cooking SE or to Outdoor SE or to Health SE, but I thought this was the best section.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my furnished apartment I found a 0.6 litres SIGG bottle from unknown year and previous tenant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes the water taste bad (NOT metallic taste) and also I found out that old SIGG bottles release BPA: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/07/some-aluminum-water-bottles-still-contain-bpa/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bad taste is a problem, however BPA may not be a real issue:  http://health.stackexchange.com/questions/1868/is-bpa-in-can-linings-a-health-concern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I only know the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in the cap there is a &quot;4&quot; between a tilted &quot;C&quot; letter and a standard PP symbol. Maybe from 2004?&#xD;&#xA; - the SIGG logo seems different from the current bottles, see photo&#xD;&#xA; - the internal surface is lined with a golden material, see photo&#xD;&#xA; - to clean the inside and to test the thermal insulation I filled it with some boiling water mixed with dish soap and rinsed very well&#xD;&#xA; - the water still tastes strange when I tried it, after the cleaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it safe to use this bottle? not only due to BPA (see link above) but also due to the bad taste it gives to the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, any idea how to put it to use? I don't like to throw it away but the small opening does not allow many uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is safe, how to clean it well to stop it from making the water taste bad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1BwT7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="f6ed5f4d-0219-448e-944f-d0f842540cf3" CreationDate="2016-08-07T21:53:25.407" UserId="3653" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="**Update**: the question has been rewritten to be more on topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my furnished apartment I found a 0.6 litres SIGG bottle from unknown year and previous tenant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes the water taste bad (NOT metallic taste) and also I found out that old SIGG bottles release BPA: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/07/some-aluminum-water-bottles-still-contain-bpa/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supposing I decide not to use it anymore due to taste and/or BPA, any idea how to put it to use? I don't like to throw it away but the small opening does not allow many uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The rest of the data, from the original question, still maybe useful:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BPA may not be a real issue:  http://health.stackexchange.com/questions/1868/is-bpa-in-can-linings-a-health-concern&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I know the following things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in the cap there is a &quot;4&quot; between a tilted &quot;C&quot; letter and a standard PP symbol. Maybe from 2004?&#xD;&#xA; - the SIGG logo seems different from the current bottles, see photo&#xD;&#xA; - the internal surface is lined with a golden material, see photo&#xD;&#xA; - to clean the inside and to test the thermal insulation I filled it with some boiling water mixed with dish soap and rinsed very well&#xD;&#xA; - the water still tastes strange when I tried it, after the cleaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it safe to use this bottle? If it is safe, how to clean it well to stop it from making the water taste bad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1BwT7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12842" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="76f0c123-277c-45e8-b76c-3b1c52c5d3e6" CreationDate="2016-08-08T07:31:31.110" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5464" RevisionGUID="11bf3d80-1f0f-43b2-9f09-2dac736db56e" CreationDate="2016-08-08T09:34:38.793" UserId="15" Text="This isn't meant to be a complete answer, but since it sounds like there's a chance you might keep using the bottle, and you convince yourself it's safe, it might also be worthwhile to confirm the strange taste you've noticed is from the bottle. You could simply try comparing the taste with water from another container, or take a scientific approach...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Store some water in the bottle for a reasonable period of time in conditions that are similar to how you might use the bottle (ie a few hours, perhaps a day, at room temperature), and store some water from the same water source at the same time in another container known not to affect flavour (eg a glass bottle, with a lid), ensuring both containers have been well washed and rinsed.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Pour an equal serving into 2 identical cups/glasses/bottles that have also been well washed and rinsed at the same time. Label each vessel with it's source (SIGG or control, but it's best if you can't see the labels)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Get a friend to reposition the containers such that you don't know which is which (ie the labels aren't visible)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Try water from each container and see which tastes best, then check the labels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also bear in mind that our brains tend to blend taste and smell senses together, so if the bottle has a particular smell that may affect your perception of the taste." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5465" RevisionGUID="dbad95e9-1262-4782-abc2-6a07df642648" CreationDate="2016-08-08T10:09:21.023" UserId="2846" Text="To clean it I suggest home-brew steriliser or baby bottle steriliser. If that doesn't fix the bad smell/taste, I wouldn't use it for drinks and would probably recycle the metal (unless you want it for an unusual vase). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12845" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="d9036605-d3a9-4dc9-bb23-0c5a06371e27" CreationDate="2016-08-08T10:17:00.673" UserId="3653" Comment="deleted 177 characters in body" Text="In my furnished apartment I found a 0.6 litres SIGG bottle from unknown year and previous tenant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes the water taste bad (not clearly a metallic taste, somewhat different or more in addition to that) and also I found out that old SIGG bottles release BPA: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/07/some-aluminum-water-bottles-still-contain-bpa/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supposing I decide not to use it anymore due to taste and/or BPA, any idea how to put it to use? I don't like to throw it away but the small opening does not allow many uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since BPA may not be a real issue&#xD;&#xA;http://health.stackexchange.com/questions/1868/is-bpa-in-can-linings-a-health-concern&#xD;&#xA;how could I clean it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in the cap there is a &quot;4&quot; between a tilted &quot;C&quot; letter and a standard PP symbol. Maybe from 2004?&#xD;&#xA; - the SIGG logo seems different from the current bottles, see photo&#xD;&#xA; - the internal surface is lined with a golden material, see photo&#xD;&#xA; - to clean the inside and to test the thermal insulation I filled it with some boiling water mixed with dish soap and rinsed very well&#xD;&#xA; - the water still tastes strange when I tried it, after the cleaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1BwT7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12846" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5454" RevisionGUID="8e097f45-c851-4d2e-bfcb-095cdcb6ce1a" CreationDate="2016-08-08T14:37:22.317" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/762658968342790144" />
  <row Id="12847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5466" RevisionGUID="eb588752-8346-4cb3-afe8-28d98272567b" CreationDate="2016-08-08T23:24:22.937" UserId="1173" Text="If you don't want to use it for drinks, you could use it for storing fuel. eg for a camping stove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though it would be a good idea to take some precautions for this. First make sure it doesn't leak at all, and no signs corrosion or other damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on what sort of fuel you want to store. Methylated spirits can corrode aluminium, so it should not be used for that. But petrol/gasoline or white gas (Coleman fuel) would be OK. The standard O-ring seal on the cap could be damaged by petrol, but you can get a replacement O-ring made of nitrile rubber, which would be safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also probably best not to use for a stove that pressurises the bottle, as it may not strong enough for that. Bottles for pressurised fuel should have thicker walls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a good idea to clearly label the bottle, so you know it has fuel in it, and prevent confusion with a drinks bottle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12848" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5460" RevisionGUID="9e21211b-fb01-4877-b812-97489dba825b" CreationDate="2016-08-09T00:04:00.797" UserId="659" Comment="spelling/grammar" Text="Water loss is not the issue, because you need a lot of water to make it work at all. Even if your dams lose 30% of their water every year, that's about 0.1% per day. [System losses in the best large-scale systems are about 20%][1]. In other words, 70-80% [efficiency of large scale systems (wikipedia)][2]. The big issue, though, is likely to be making it work at all. Conveniently that wikipedia article has a small-scale example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1000 kilograms of water (1 cubic meter) at the top of a 100 meter tower has a potential energy of about 0.272 kW·h&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it useful you'd want to store as much energy as a modern small battery system, say 10kWh. Assuming your &quot;house&quot; is 100m tall (25-30 storeys), you get 100m of head and using the 0.27kWh/m³, 10 kWh is about 40m³ (40,000 litres) of storage. That's a small farm dam or big farm tank, it's definitely not a rainwater tank as most urban households think of it. Here's a pair of 38,000 litre tanks sitting in front of a house:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![9000 gallon water tank][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other problem is getting an efficient pump that can push water from your bottom 40m³ dam to the top 40m³ dam. Amazon will sell you a [2kW pump capable of 3m/hr to 100m][4] for $1500. Efficiency is not very high - that's 2kWh input for 0.8kWh stored (3x0.272kWh from above). To get from 40% efficient to 90% efficient is going to cost a lot more, and if you're not 90% efficient on the storing side, you're going to struggle to get 80% round-trip efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that you can trade head for volume linearly, but the efficiency of your pipes, pumps and turbines is crucial. The reason moderate head systems are preferred is that it's easier to get them up to the efficiency required. If you have 1000 metres, or 10 metres, of head, it becomes very difficult to make the system efficient. For example, most bore pumps with over 100m of head are simply multistage versions of lower-head pumps, so the efficiency drops even further. But flow turbines for low-head systems usually peak at 70%-80% efficient rather than the 90% you can get out of a pelton wheel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![water turbine efficiency graph][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([via wikidot][6] - relative efficiency of various turbines as flow rate varies as a proportion of rated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this is not something you can do at all as an urban household, and it will be difficult for most rural landowners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I had a microhydro system on a property I owned, I had about 20 litres/second available but the head was over 100m because the block of land was steep (hence, cheap :)). The main limitation was my willingness to drag heavy pipe up a steep hill. Vehicle access to the top of the block was strictly &quot;all wheel drive with winch&quot; and took a whole day - that sort of terrain is brilliant for hydro, but steep land with high rainfall is a disaster for ground vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the high rainfall, the &quot;reservoir&quot; at the top of that pipe was just an inlet filter anchored to bedrock using a cubic metre of concrete, there wasn't a dam per se, let alone storage. Getting the top anchor in place was over a months work for one man using machinery. Getting a tank like the one above to the top would have needed a helicopter. A big, expensive helicopter that would have had to come from a long way away. A dam would be easier, but still ridiculously difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydroelectric-storage&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oX8N2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.amazon.com/24V-1920W-Submersible-100M-Head/dp/B00M1NDCDG&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NYEBN.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://waterturbines.wikidot.com/system:join" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12851" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="cf58dabf-ad9b-4767-8650-4ac56f5c12e1" CreationDate="2016-08-10T11:53:03.363" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/763342392938340352" />
  <row Id="12852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5467" RevisionGUID="4b03e10f-e73d-4bf1-97b4-99c05765422f" CreationDate="2016-08-10T12:29:10.113" UserId="99" Text="Instead of comparing the impact of each travelling modality with 1 traveller, you want to compare modalities per passenger-kilometer or passenger-mile with average load. This means that you divide the total impact by the number of passengers and the distance travelled. Energy efficiency or CO2 emissions is almost always used as a proxy for impact as it is relatively easy to determine, but there are [other environmental impacts](https://www.people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/tenvitbl.html) as well, e.g. noise pollution, land usage, animals being run over, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following transportation methods are listed from low-impact to high-impact:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Walking&#xD;&#xA; - Bicycling&#xD;&#xA; - Sailing boat (no engines)&#xD;&#xA; - Train (electric)&#xD;&#xA; - Bus (petrol)&#xD;&#xA; - Car (petrol)&#xD;&#xA; - Campervan (petrol)&#xD;&#xA; - Airplane (kerosine)&#xD;&#xA; - Cruise ship (bunker fuel)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list is loosely based on [this chart by David MacKay](http://withouthotair.com/c20/page_128.shtml) as well as some articles I read in the past. Do keep in mind that this list is very much a simplification because in real life the exact impact depends on lots of factors, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Exact type of vehicle (e.g. a large family car consumes more fuel than a small family car)&#xD;&#xA; - Type of engine and fuel (e.g. cruise ship running on gas oil, diesel oil, or bunker fuel)&#xD;&#xA; - Number of occupants (e.g. a car with 4 people has almost half the impact per passenger-mile than the same car with 2 people in it).&#xD;&#xA; - Distance travelled without stops (making intermediate stops can cost a lot of energy, that's also why short flights have a bigger impact per passenger-kilometer than long flights)&#xD;&#xA; - Weather conditions (headwind or not)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Some airplane companies and train operating companies list estimated CO2 emissions for your trip when you plan it with their software so that can give you some indication, but be careful when comparing results between different organizations as the used method of calculation can be rather different (see [this answer comparing different sites for the same trip](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/108/99) for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW if you are interested in other tips to make your holiday more sustainable I can recommend reading the free [Lonely Planet's Guide to Responsible Travel](http://mydigimag.rrd.com/publication/?i=164489)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12853" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="270ae2b0-b26b-4311-b385-7161461e397a" CreationDate="2016-08-10T12:30:21.870" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5468" RevisionGUID="0f9913a6-24ab-4d2c-9d74-35e4620f2768" CreationDate="2016-08-10T16:50:28.120" UserId="3664" Text="Ever since it was first mentioned in a popular news site, I've always been interested in [GravityLight][1]. But I've never been able to go to a store or a site and just buy it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anything vaguely similar to the technology of GravityLight that's readily available for purchase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, why was there so much interest in GravityLight when other mechanically-powered flashlights are available at department stores?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GravityLight" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5468" RevisionGUID="0f9913a6-24ab-4d2c-9d74-35e4620f2768" CreationDate="2016-08-10T16:50:28.120" UserId="3664" Text="Anything similar to GravityLight that can be readily purchased?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5468" RevisionGUID="0f9913a6-24ab-4d2c-9d74-35e4620f2768" CreationDate="2016-08-10T16:50:28.120" UserId="3664" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|electricity|light|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5469" RevisionGUID="1daade81-a3d2-495d-94c0-c53e9a4b6032" CreationDate="2016-08-10T18:17:15.367" UserId="99" Text="The big advantage of GravityLight is that you can pull the weight once and then you have electricity for a relatively long period (I read somewhere 30 minutes). This is ideal when you need to have both hands free to do some work. This long period is also a must if you want it to replace the kerosine lamps that are currently used in rural Africa. AFAIK other mechanically-powered lights only provide light for a very short period or require you to generate electricity continuously. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK the GravityLight is not for sale in any shops. The only way to get one is if you contributed to the crowd-funding campaigns. A while back there was [second crowd-funding round for an improved GravityLight 2.0](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gravitylight-2-made-in-africa#/). If you donated $70 USD or more you'll receive one of the new lights by end 2016. Sadly the website now says that the campaign is closed, so it may not be possible to ‘buy’ it anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any similar lights that also use gravity, at least not working ones. In 2008 someone did come up with a similar idea called the [Gravia floor lamp](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gravitylight-2-made-in-africa#/), but that wasn't developed into a prototype." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5469" RevisionGUID="d0a3a03b-25d4-49c0-a5d6-f4ef31f329bf" CreationDate="2016-08-10T18:23:56.383" UserId="99" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="The big advantage of GravityLight is that you can pull the weight once and then you have electricity for a relatively long period (I read somewhere 30 minutes). This is ideal when you need to have both hands free to do some work. This long period is also a must if you want it to replace the kerosene lamps that are currently used in rural Africa. The latter has always been the main goal of the inventors of the GravityLight. Replacing kerosene lamps could save millions of liters of kerosene, avoid fires and severe burning wounds, and save its users a lot of money. Other mechanically-powered lights only provide light for a very short period or require you to generate electricity continuously, so they aren't very suitable as a replacement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK the GravityLight is not for sale in any shops. The only way to get one is if you contributed to the crowd-funding campaigns. A while back there was [second crowd-funding round for an improved GravityLight 2.0](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gravitylight-2-made-in-africa#/). If you donated $70 USD or more you'll receive one of the new lights by end 2016. Sadly the website now says that the campaign is closed, so it may not be possible to ‘buy’ it anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any similar lights that also use gravity, at least not working ones. In 2008 someone did come up with a similar idea called the [Gravia floor lamp](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gravitylight-2-made-in-africa#/), but that wasn't developed into a prototype." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5469" RevisionGUID="7c185601-6891-41ff-972f-53793491775d" CreationDate="2016-08-10T18:35:15.337" UserId="99" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="The big advantage of GravityLight is that you can pull the weight once and then you have electricity for a relatively long period (I read somewhere 30 minutes). This is ideal when you need to have both hands free to do some work. This long period is also a must if you want it to replace the kerosene lamps that are currently used in rural Africa. The latter has always been the main goal of the inventors of the GravityLight. Replacing kerosene lamps could save millions of liters of kerosene, avoid fires and severe burning wounds, save its users a lot of money and reduce their exposure to toxic fumes. Other mechanically-powered lights only provide light for a very short period or require you to generate electricity continuously, so they aren't very suitable as a replacement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK the GravityLight is not for sale in any shops. The only way to get one is if you contributed to the crowd-funding campaigns. A while back there was [second crowd-funding round for an improved GravityLight 2.0](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gravitylight-2-made-in-africa#/). If you donated $70 USD or more you'll receive one of the new lights by end 2016. Sadly the website now says that the campaign is closed, so it may not be possible to ‘buy’ it anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any similar lights that also use gravity, at least not working ones. In 2008 someone did come up with a similar idea called the [Gravia floor lamp](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gravitylight-2-made-in-africa#/), but that wasn't developed into a prototype." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5470" RevisionGUID="d625d2bb-09e1-4346-b0a0-0b02ef6570f6" CreationDate="2016-08-11T02:41:35.760" UserId="1214" Text="In addition for already mentioned advantage that you only put effort once and then have a dozens of minutes of uninterrupted usage (which is important as one of the main goals was enabling reading/studying/taking notes after dark -- try doing that while constantly cranking handle or shaking with your typical off-the-shelf generators), there were (at least) few more important factors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - it should not use spoilables (thing that are expected to die soon, especially in harsh african conditions) - so no batteries primarily; which rules out energy collection stuff like solar panels&#xD;&#xA; - it should be cheap to mass produce (so much of them can be produced)&#xD;&#xA; - it should be light and small (so delivering it in mass to africa could be cheaper), so it used locally available sand/rocks for weights etc (instead of built-in heavy magnets in some off-the-shelf technologies).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, I got one (back in original buy-two-get-one programme), and it really is great idea. Never found anything as usable in local stores (most are just useless gadgets requiring constant action, and are often even fake products with primary battery integrated which works fine just until novelty wears off and then whole thing dies)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5469" RevisionGUID="c210ee3a-38ae-48c3-b07b-06b9a6aac30a" CreationDate="2016-08-11T07:01:16.607" UserId="99" Comment="fixed link (was wrong one)" Text="The big advantage of GravityLight is that you can pull the weight once and then you have electricity for a relatively long period (I read somewhere 30 minutes). This is ideal when you need to have both hands free to do some work. This long period is also a must if you want it to replace the kerosene lamps that are currently used in rural Africa. The latter has always been the main goal of the inventors of the GravityLight. Replacing kerosene lamps could save millions of liters of kerosene, avoid fires and severe burning wounds, save its users a lot of money and reduce their exposure to toxic fumes. Other mechanically-powered lights only provide light for a very short period or require you to generate electricity continuously, so they aren't very suitable as a replacement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK the GravityLight is not for sale in any shops. The only way to get one is if you contributed to the crowd-funding campaigns. A while back there was [second crowd-funding round for an improved GravityLight 2.0](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gravitylight-2-made-in-africa#/). If you donated $70 USD or more you'll receive one of the new lights by end 2016. Sadly the website now says that the campaign is closed, so it may not be possible to ‘buy’ it anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any similar lights that also use gravity, at least not working ones. In 2008 someone did come up with a similar idea called the [Gravia floor lamp](http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/gravia-led-lamp-lit-by-gravity-lasts-200-years-never-plugs-in.html), but that wasn't developed into a prototype." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5471" RevisionGUID="417a7cdd-7888-4695-b822-a45cc2eb2755" CreationDate="2016-08-11T14:35:26.047" UserId="1214" Text="First, you should really find out what is causing your high electric bill. &#xD;&#xA;You can use watt-o-meter, or simply search. Concentrate on big power eaters, especially anything with heater elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is little point in saving 5 Watts for 10 hours by turing off your power strip when you're not around, but use clothes dryer which uses 1000 Watts for 2 hours (just an example - but you should really not use dryers - just hang the clothers to dry!).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Another great idea in cold weather is smarter use. When it is cold outside, YOU want to be warm. Heating extremly big (compared to volume of YOURSELF) heat-leaking room (or few!) is incredibly wasteful. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should consider **microheating** - that is, putting on adequate clothing, and then concentrating the heating just on exposed parts of your body, instead of heating hundreds and thousands of cubic meters of air and hoping some of it will transfer to you (as it is commonly and wastefully done). And turn down room heating all the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And amazingly, those regular lightbulbs you replaced with LEDs are very nice local heaters. Put them on small lamp to heat your hands and face while  you type on laptop for example. Get heaters for pet reptiles/snakes and put them under your feet, and use cloth to cover holes from table. Get cheap heated mouse/keyboard/usb gloves on ebay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use few layers of blankets in your bed (you can nicely sleep in much colder temperatures). If it is extremly cold, use heated ones - they will still use orders of magnitude less power then heating of the whole room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;here is example [how effective micro heater can be][1] (reducing heating bill by 87%), with nice instructions. Also not that in few weeks you body will ajdust to lower temperatures, so you can reduce it even further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://richsoil.com/electric-heat.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12869" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="f8ac6b1b-c5f7-4d09-b3a7-088a3dbb07fe" CreationDate="2016-08-12T06:21:12.197" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|transport|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5474" RevisionGUID="69fa3a66-3899-4206-8671-a5c6430ececc" CreationDate="2016-08-12T17:32:48.670" UserId="1053" Text="The issue here is using the word &quot;sustainable&quot; as something like &quot;healthy&quot; - the more the better - when it actually refers to a balance between, say, resources used and resources generated. If I buy a plastic thing for putting leftovers in, and then throw it away, that's not sustainable, it will lead to landfills full of plastic. If I fly all over the world in a private jet burning jet fuel, that's not sustainable, I'll use up all the petro products. You want to choose a sustainable vacation option, but that doesn't really mean &quot;the vacation option that uses the least fuel possible.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you start saying &quot;well, let's use as little fuel as possible&quot; then as little as possible is zero. So your vacation should only involve walking. Even waling is kind of wasteful since you're wearing out your shoes and eating more than usual. If you ride a bike, the bike had to be made. If you go canoeing, unless you live on the lake you have to get your canoe to the water, and the canoe had to be made. All this uses energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So really what you have to do is compare two options that you would enjoy, and ask &quot;which uses less resources?&quot; Maybe one is a 12 hour flight on a large plane (more efficient) and one is a two hour flight on a small plane. You can even worry about whether planes on a particular route usually fly full or not. Don't get yourself distracted about &quot;fuel to hold up the plane&quot; vs &quot;fuel to push the plane forward&quot; since that's not really the physics, and anyway all that is reported is the overall fuel consumption. You can't reason out which is more efficient (those train rails didn't grow there, for example, and it takes resources to build airports and cruise ports too). You can just look stuff up and divide by passenger load. It's really a complex calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's how I do it: I use money as a rough proxy for energy. If A costs twice as much as B, it probably consumes twice as much energy per passenger in running it, and in building its infrastructure (amortized over the infrastructure lifetime), maintenance, etc. This isn't strictly true; some price differences are because of better staff or free food or something, but it's close. So if you find two vacations that seem equally fun to you, but one has double the transportation cost of the other, the one with the lower transportation cost (whether the accomodations, attractions, food etc are more or less) is the more sustainable choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another advantage of using cost as a proxy for energy is that it lets you evaluate the importance of the choice. Living somewhere that lets you commute by foot, bike, or public transit will save you far more money ever year (compared to driving a car) than most people's vacations cost. That means your efforts should be on that more than on vacation choices. OTOH if you already commute like that, maybe putting some attention to the vacation is a smart next step." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12876" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5468" RevisionGUID="d6405e8b-9437-4336-bcec-7e34ff761120" CreationDate="2016-08-15T03:15:06.413" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/765023985478275072" />
  <row Id="12877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5469" RevisionGUID="2c77a2ae-5c8f-484e-8041-618b4d8cecdc" CreationDate="2016-08-15T14:48:56.937" UserId="99" Comment="added sentence about patents, made pros a list for better readability" Text="The big advantage of GravityLight is that you can pull the weight once and then you have electricity for a relatively long period (I read somewhere it's 30 minutes). This is ideal when you need to have both hands free to do some work. This long period is also a must if you want it to replace the kerosene lamps that are currently used in rural Africa. The latter has always been the main goal of the inventors of the GravityLight. Replacing kerosene lamps by GravityLights could:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - save billions of liters of kerosene (and thus reduce CO2 emissions),&#xD;&#xA; - save its users a lot of money (many African families spend around 20% of their income on kerosene),&#xD;&#xA; - avoid fires and severe burning wounds (kerosene lamps are sometimes knocked over which can have disastrous consequences),&#xD;&#xA; - reduce exposure to toxic fumes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other mechanically-powered lights only provide light for a very short period or require you to generate electricity continuously, so they aren't very suitable as a replacement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK the GravityLight is not for sale in any shops. The only way to get one is if you contributed to the crowd-funding campaigns. A while back there was [second crowd-funding round for an improved GravityLight 2.0](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gravitylight-2-made-in-africa#/). If you donated $70 USD or more you'll receive one of the new lights by end 2016. Sadly the website now says that the campaign is closed, so it may not be possible to ‘buy’ it anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of any similar lights that also use gravity, at least not working ones. In 2008 someone did come up with a similar idea called the [Gravia floor lamp](http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/gravia-led-lamp-lit-by-gravity-lasts-200-years-never-plugs-in.html), but that wasn't developed into a prototype.&#xD;&#xA;There seem to be a few patents on the GravityLight design (e.g. [this one](https://www.google.com/patents/US8950889) and [this one](https://www.google.com/patents/WO2014195681A3)), so that could be the reason for the lack of similar lamps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5476" RevisionGUID="adf0b65c-2844-4502-baa7-59a6ed9b8af4" CreationDate="2016-08-16T17:27:55.337" UserId="3675" Text="My hydro (electricity) bills always contain helpful hints on conserving energy: do laundry runs in the wee hours, favor LED over incandescent bulbs, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure many at the big-energy corporate offices actually care about the environment, sustainability, and generally being eco-friendly. But I'm wondering if there are specific reasons that compel them to do so, outside of being responsible Earthlings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they provide public service announcements like this. But I'm trying to understand why they would go against the corporate instinct to maximize profits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are there laws that force energy companies to highlight energy saving tips? &#xD;&#xA;2. Does this provide a measurable marketing edge (show the public 'we care')?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5476" RevisionGUID="adf0b65c-2844-4502-baa7-59a6ed9b8af4" CreationDate="2016-08-16T17:27:55.337" UserId="3675" Text="What are the incentives for energy companies promoting energy efficiency?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5476" RevisionGUID="adf0b65c-2844-4502-baa7-59a6ed9b8af4" CreationDate="2016-08-16T17:27:55.337" UserId="3675" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|energy-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12881" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5476" RevisionGUID="e7daaed2-e408-446c-bd12-16eb1aa80ac3" CreationDate="2016-08-16T17:33:14.503" UserId="3675" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="My hydro (electricity) bills always contain helpful hints on conserving energy: do laundry runs in the wee hours, favor LED over incandescent bulbs, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure many at the big-energy corporate offices actually care about the environment, sustainability, and generally being eco-friendly. But I'm wondering if there are specific reasons that compel them to do so, outside of being responsible Earthlings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they provide public service announcements like this. But I'm trying to understand why they would go against the corporate instinct to maximize profits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Are there laws that force energy companies to highlight energy saving tips? &#xD;&#xA;2. Does this provide a measurable marketing edge (show the public that *We Care*)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5477" RevisionGUID="00d47b07-d6a4-4cd0-9bd7-932374eedab3" CreationDate="2016-08-16T17:59:45.007" UserId="3676" Text="I grew up very poor, out in the country, the youngest of seven, and my mom was a widow. &#xD;&#xA;She canned everything over an open fire outside, in a galvanized tub, the same one we used to take our baths in. She had a piece of plywood cut to fit the top, and a &quot;handle&quot; of plywood nailed to the center.&#xD;&#xA;Three or four cinderblocks under the edges of the tub, and a fire in the center got it boiling, and we fed it for 3 hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of us ever got sick from home-canned meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Federal guidelines for canned meat say to pressure can meat for 90 minutes to kill all botulism spores. But then, it also says, just to be safe, never taste home-canned meat until you first boil it for 15 minutes, to kill all botulism spores that may have survived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is overkill. (Pardon the pun.)&#xD;&#xA;3 hours of waterbath canning will efficiently kill all botulism enough to create a sealed product that will keep for years, and will be safe IF you remember to boil the opened meat for 15 minutes before tasting...which you need to do anyhow, even if you pressure can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the Feds are only trying to create a dummy-proof system... which creates an undue fear of trying to do things ourselves. The overall idea is that corporations are more trustworthy, because the government will make them do it right... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As if corporations... or even the Feds... have our best interests at heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't be so scared. Just use your brain. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5478" RevisionGUID="31ad6247-82f6-445d-a0e0-4b55c2c8946c" CreationDate="2016-08-16T18:02:19.193" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="One argument in favor is load balancing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can manage to shave off request peaks, your systems can be smaller and/or have to scale up and down slower and less frequently. That all pays itself back in building and maintaining your infrastructure.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Since the customer is paying for the electricity anyway, it does not matter when he uses it.&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can interpret 'load' several ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For companies actually producing electricity it means having to build less (peak) capacity.&#xD;&#xA;- For resellers it means having to pay less to the actual producers, because prices are more and more determined by instantaneous demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* This is offset somewhat if the user also is billed less in low-demand hours&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5478" RevisionGUID="39513e63-f627-4be8-814c-c327a7953370" CreationDate="2016-08-16T18:07:45.317" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="One argument in favor is load balancing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can manage to shave off request peaks, your systems can be smaller and/or have to scale up and down slower and less frequently. That all pays itself back in building and maintaining your infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It does not matter if the customer changes hours, he is paying for the electricity anyway.&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- If the consumer actually uses less, my guess that is offset by the benefit mentioned above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can interpret 'load' several ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- For companies actually producing electricity it means having to build less (peak) capacity.&#xD;&#xA;- For resellers it means having to pay less to the actual producers, because prices are more and more determined by instantaneous demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* This is offset somewhat if the user also is billed less in low-demand hours&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5479" RevisionGUID="2077b2dc-3976-484a-9d5c-efa0cad84754" CreationDate="2016-08-16T19:02:00.147" UserId="3532" Text="I understand that many animals like frogs need to reproduce in water, but live mostly on land after that. If I create berm/swales in the wetland will this likely increase the value of the land to wetland animals, or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5479" RevisionGUID="2077b2dc-3976-484a-9d5c-efa0cad84754" CreationDate="2016-08-16T19:02:00.147" UserId="3532" Text="Is mud, or berm/swales considered to be worth more in a wetland?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5479" RevisionGUID="2077b2dc-3976-484a-9d5c-efa0cad84754" CreationDate="2016-08-16T19:02:00.147" UserId="3532" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5480" RevisionGUID="10c65115-2044-4c95-b546-63f36bcafa4e" CreationDate="2016-08-16T19:49:39.063" UserId="1701" Text="Unless there is lack of upland habitat, for example if you live in a highly developed area, then the conversion of any wetland area to upland area would almost certainly have a net negative impact on the system as a whole. Freshwater wetlands are comparatively rare and have been [disappearing rapidly][1]. Populations of the plants and animals that depend on wetlands for part or all of their life cycle have paralleled the losses of the wetlands themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, however, you are dealing with a manmade pond or some other isolated feature, then it is possible that you could improve habitat through the construction of small islands or other topographic variations within the wetland. In theory you could create habitat specifically for certain plants, animals, or ecosystems. These would benefit different species differently - but they would also negatively impact those species that did not benefit directly from whatever habitat you create. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally most freshwater wetlands are highly regulated, in the USA at least, by [federal][2], state, and even local laws. In most cases it would be difficult to get permission to &quot;fill&quot; any kind of natural wetland - this would include just moving the mud around the bottom to make some areas deeper and others shallower or turn them into upland areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.water.ncsu.edu/watershedss/info/wetlands/wetloss.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/clean-water-act-section-404" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5477" RevisionGUID="14e131f6-9587-4206-93cf-cf9ea6c438e7" CreationDate="2016-08-17T08:30:36.880" UserId="85" Comment="removed irrelevant part of post" Text="I grew up very poor, out in the country, the youngest of seven, and my mom was a widow. &#xD;&#xA;She canned everything over an open fire outside, in a galvanized tub, the same one we used to take our baths in. She had a piece of plywood cut to fit the top, and a &quot;handle&quot; of plywood nailed to the center.&#xD;&#xA;Three or four cinderblocks under the edges of the tub, and a fire in the center got it boiling, and we fed it for 3 hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of us ever got sick from home-canned meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Federal guidelines for canned meat say to pressure can meat for 90 minutes to kill all botulism spores. But then, it also says, just to be safe, never taste home-canned meat until you first boil it for 15 minutes, to kill all botulism spores that may have survived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience this is overkill. (Pardon the pun.)&#xD;&#xA;3 hours of waterbath canning will efficiently kill all botulism enough to create a sealed product that will keep for years, and will be safe *if* you remember to boil the opened meat for 15 minutes before tasting—which according to federal guidelines you need to do anyhow, even if you pressure can." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5481" RevisionGUID="d574ec8f-e2a9-429b-805a-e3aa41da3fcb" CreationDate="2016-08-19T13:13:54.847" UserId="3688" Text="- the specific heat capacity of glass is 0.84 J/gm*K&#xD;&#xA;- the maximum solar radiation on the planet is 1000 W/m2&#xD;&#xA;- glass can start to melt at 500 degree-Celsius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;((500 - 25) * 0.84) / 1000 = 0.4 s/gm*m2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;without considering energy losses from the melting glass to the surrounding environment,&#xD;&#xA;you could melt glass with a square meter reflector at a rate of 2.5 gm/s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5482" RevisionGUID="962e4000-928d-4091-9ed2-c0a2af78ed3a" CreationDate="2016-08-19T20:29:39.093" UserId="1701" Text="A solar still CAN convert sea water to potable water. They are commonly included in lifeboat kits. Check the [Watercone][1] or [this survival guide][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.watercone.com/product.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://survival.about.com/od/1/a/Turn-Seawater-Into-Drinkable-Water-With-A-Solar-Still.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5481" RevisionGUID="a6a48326-f7e8-45d6-861f-025563c453f5" CreationDate="2016-08-19T22:22:57.420" UserId="3688" Comment="added references" Text="- [Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=specific+heat+capacity) says that the specific heat capacity of glass is 0.84 J/gm*K&#xD;&#xA;- \[Wikipedia](wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#Earth) says that the maximum solar radiation on the planet is 1000 W/m2&#xD;&#xA;- [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass#Ingredients) also says that glass can start to melt at 500 degree-Celsius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;((500 - 25) * 0.84) / 1000 = 0.4 s/gm*m2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;without considering energy losses from the melting glass to the surrounding environment,&#xD;&#xA;you could melt glass with a square meter reflector at a rate of 2.5 gm/s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5481" RevisionGUID="f4e25955-0cec-484b-9b14-d052cfff92fc" CreationDate="2016-08-20T08:19:01.333" UserId="99" Comment="fixed link, fixed unit (convention is to use g for grams)" Text="- [Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=specific+heat+capacity) says that the specific heat capacity of glass is 0.84 J/g*K&#xD;&#xA;- [Wikipedia](http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance#Earth) says that the maximum solar radiation on the planet is 1000 W/m2&#xD;&#xA;- [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass#Ingredients) also says that glass can start to melt at 500 degree-Celsius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;((500 - 25) * 0.84) / 1000 = 0.4 s/g*m2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;without considering energy losses from the melting glass to the surrounding environment,&#xD;&#xA;you could melt glass with a square meter reflector at a rate of 2.5 g/s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12900" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5476" RevisionGUID="2ca206c9-ee3e-49d3-8e54-df69ffce9359" CreationDate="2016-08-20T18:46:41.167" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/767070364279173121" />
  <row Id="12902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="938ae9c1-0b00-41d8-8a9a-c6e9b6b04500" CreationDate="2016-08-23T02:50:46.223" UserId="3686" Text="I recently read about 'Lead Crystal' batteries on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Does anyone know what these are?&#xD;&#xA;- How old is this technology?&#xD;&#xA;- Is it better than AGM or Gel batteries?&#xD;&#xA;- I've heard you can fully discharge them over and over without loss of performance. Is this true?&#xD;&#xA;- How cost effective are they?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12903" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="938ae9c1-0b00-41d8-8a9a-c6e9b6b04500" CreationDate="2016-08-23T02:50:46.223" UserId="3686" Text="What are lead crystal batteries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12904" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="938ae9c1-0b00-41d8-8a9a-c6e9b6b04500" CreationDate="2016-08-23T02:50:46.223" UserId="3686" Text="|solar-power|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="15a64e7a-3a55-4d04-9a0e-ef659cacedf7" CreationDate="2016-08-23T04:37:43.517" UserId="3694" Text="The RDA recommended to us by health experts are based on the amount of nutrition in fruits, vegetables, grains, etc. The RDA hasn't changed since decades, yet the nutrition derived from plants certainly seems to have degraded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may not be the same, of course, across all the countries and cultures, but you can still feel the quality degradation in the air if you remember eating anything from that era. I just want to know if there are any scientific studies done in this matter, and do we have any conclusive evidence?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="15a64e7a-3a55-4d04-9a0e-ef659cacedf7" CreationDate="2016-08-23T04:37:43.517" UserId="3694" Text="Do the veggies you eat today has the same amount of vitamins and minerals as they used to twenty years ago?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="15a64e7a-3a55-4d04-9a0e-ef659cacedf7" CreationDate="2016-08-23T04:37:43.517" UserId="3694" Text="|vegetarianism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="91213253-e0e7-455c-a176-86dead08d809" CreationDate="2016-08-23T06:49:43.347" UserId="85" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="I recently read about 'Lead Crystal' batteries on the Internet and am wondering if they are suitable for a solar-powered house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Does anyone know what these are?&#xD;&#xA;- How old is this technology?&#xD;&#xA;- Is it better than AGM or Gel batteries?&#xD;&#xA;- I've heard you can fully discharge them over and over without loss of performance. Is this true?&#xD;&#xA;- How cost effective are they?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12909" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5449" RevisionGUID="aa1e9fb4-62cb-4989-aa2f-e814d87da016" CreationDate="2016-08-23T06:55:33.127" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/767978565480615936" />
  <row Id="12910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="dc9dc733-bf0f-4a6d-a0e5-0b716d474de8" CreationDate="2016-08-23T14:33:40.273" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="removed opinions" Text="The RDA (Recommended Dietary Allowances) recommended to us by health experts are based on the amount of nutrition in fruits, vegetables, grains, etc. The RDA hasn't changed since decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are any scientific studies done (do we have any conclusive evidence) that either prove or disprove that the amount of vitamins and minerals in vegetables have changed substantially over the past 20 years?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12911" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="dc9dc733-bf0f-4a6d-a0e5-0b716d474de8" CreationDate="2016-08-23T14:33:40.273" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="removed opinions" Text="Do the veggies you eat today have the same amount of vitamins and minerals as they used to twenty years ago?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12912" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="dc9dc733-bf0f-4a6d-a0e5-0b716d474de8" CreationDate="2016-08-23T14:33:40.273" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 2345, 3694 edit id of 418" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="21e48fea-56a1-459d-b2b6-4fc954828827" CreationDate="2016-08-24T03:05:20.087" UserId="3423" Text="Was Mount Erebus shooting thousands of tons of chlorine per day into the upper atmosphere and over to Anatartica in the 70s with no effect in the ozone layer? Was this problem ever explained away? Otherwise, what is the evidence that CFCs destroy ozone? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="21e48fea-56a1-459d-b2b6-4fc954828827" CreationDate="2016-08-24T03:05:20.087" UserId="3423" Text="Does the CFC-kills-ozone hypothesis have any validity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="21e48fea-56a1-459d-b2b6-4fc954828827" CreationDate="2016-08-24T03:05:20.087" UserId="3423" Text="|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5487" RevisionGUID="7883ca03-b2b8-49a2-b3a6-a4efd3baee5b" CreationDate="2016-08-24T13:10:42.140" UserId="48" Text="Yes: it's basic chemistry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CFCs are lifted by buoyancy into the stratosphere, where they are broken up by the sun's ultraviolet radiation (1), and the chlorine then reacts with ozone (2), with equation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cl + O&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; -&gt; ClO + O&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then that chlorine monoxide reacts with atmospheric oxygen: (4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ClO + O -&gt; Cl + O&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so the chlorine can go on to damage more ozone, again and again. (5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source: UCAR][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HeP92.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_6_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="cb2429b2-175b-4e1f-8408-990a341fbcd2" CreationDate="2016-08-24T17:31:18.680" UserId="3423" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="Was Mount Erebus shooting thousands of tons of chlorine per day into the upper atmosphere and over to Anatartica in the 70s with no effect in the ozone layer? Was this problem ever explained away? Otherwise, what is the evidence that CFCs destroy ozone? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, if the daily production of ozone and cfc maxed out at 400 million and 30 tons, respectively,  would each Mol of cfc be able to destroy millions of mols of ozone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5483" RevisionGUID="82695316-014a-4735-b844-117d0570ee82" CreationDate="2016-08-24T22:35:40.843" UserId="3686" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="I recently read about 'Lead Crystal' batteries on the Internet and am wondering if they are suitable for a solar-powered house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Does anyone know what these are?&#xD;&#xA;- How old is this technology?&#xD;&#xA;- Is it better than AGM or Gel batteries?&#xD;&#xA;- I've heard you can fully discharge them over and over without loss of performance. Is this true?&#xD;&#xA;- How cost effective are they?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(edit) : There's a suggestion in the comments that they are simply a brand name, if that's the case is there a generic name for this technology, or is it just marketing babble.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="33afd339-1220-4982-bb18-dcafa432ed2c" CreationDate="2016-08-24T22:43:07.237" UserId="3686" Text="Most appliances, such as washing machines and dishwashers typically take cold water and heat it internally. This is probably the most efficient way on a grid connected house with electric water heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have an offgrid house, and we use LPG (a.k.a. propane) for our water heating. (Others here on Sustainable Living may use solar hot water heating or a wet-back fire etc...). We use photovoltaics for our electricity, but we have to avoid any applications that involve electric heating, as this is a very energy intensive application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) Are modern appliances still available that take a hot water feed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and/or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Can modern appliances be connected to the hot water instead of the cold (potentially with a mixer so one could choose a hot or a cold wash)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12927" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="33afd339-1220-4982-bb18-dcafa432ed2c" CreationDate="2016-08-24T22:43:07.237" UserId="3686" Text="Feeding hotwater into modern appliances" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12928" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="33afd339-1220-4982-bb18-dcafa432ed2c" CreationDate="2016-08-24T22:43:07.237" UserId="3686" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5490" RevisionGUID="a9cf50b1-8852-4e1f-bbbb-5bb948ba197d" CreationDate="2016-08-24T23:24:07.997" UserId="3686" Text="You probably don't need another controller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you connect your panels in series - i.e. one string - you won't exceed 15A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could connect them as 2 strings of 2 and that would be 30A in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only if you connect them all in parallel will you exceed 30A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should check out the maximum input voltage of your MPPT. If the combined VOC of your panels does not exceed that maximum you should be able to run them all in series at 15A. (So take the VOC of one panel and multiply by 4.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5491" RevisionGUID="e93a57a9-4e8a-48ad-b610-8ac769c04a8b" CreationDate="2016-08-24T23:27:27.333" UserId="3686" Text="I have a battery bank in which some of the batteries are experiencing positive terminal growth. This is when the positive terminal literally grows longer and starts to push its way out of the battery case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not had much luck finding out exactly what causes this and how to avoid further worsening of the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the exact causes of this, or whether it's possible to reverse it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12931" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5491" RevisionGUID="e93a57a9-4e8a-48ad-b610-8ac769c04a8b" CreationDate="2016-08-24T23:27:27.333" UserId="3686" Text="Battery Positive Terminal Growth" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12932" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5491" RevisionGUID="e93a57a9-4e8a-48ad-b610-8ac769c04a8b" CreationDate="2016-08-24T23:27:27.333" UserId="3686" Text="|solar-power|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5491" RevisionGUID="af275852-56bf-4d05-b2c8-06a325d8dcfa" CreationDate="2016-08-25T01:19:28.660" UserId="3686" Comment="Extra detail about battery types." Text="I have a battery bank in which some of the batteries are experiencing positive terminal growth. This is when the positive terminal literally grows longer and starts to push its way out of the battery case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The batteries are 2v 460 A/hr Gel Batteries (sealed lead acid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not had much luck finding out exactly what causes this and how to avoid further worsening of the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the exact causes of this, or whether it's possible to reverse it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5492" RevisionGUID="2ec1652c-85a9-40d2-9295-22f0bd566dd8" CreationDate="2016-08-25T01:39:17.203" UserId="3686" Text="Others have touched on this too, but if it's purely about economic or environmental concerns, then saving energy is better than creating new energy just to turn around and waste it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you spend money (energy) on heating and/or cooling, double glazing your windows and add insulation to external walls floors and ceilings if you can. In an apartment it may be only one wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have LED lighting, replace all of your lighting, either as bulbs blow or all at once. Most bulb types now have direct replacements in LED. They typically use 1/10th of the power of old school incandescents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can upgrade to energy efficient appliances. Turn off TVs and other things with standby mode at the wall. Turn off chargers when they aren't in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dry your clothes on a rack with the windows open if the weather is good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't use a new towel for every single shower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't wash clean clothes after a single wear...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't fill your kettle right up before boiling it for a single cup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take shorter showers. If it's just about money - shower at the gym.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The list goes on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's an engineering challenge, then an apartment could be quite limiting, but good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12936" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5445" RevisionGUID="e7931890-e48c-462b-b2b2-aa23efdca0b1" CreationDate="2016-08-25T03:55:48.513" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/768658106876321793" />
  <row Id="12937" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="6db92143-757f-4973-b5d6-2cb22a712de2" CreationDate="2016-08-25T05:24:36.907" UserId="48" Comment="Rollback to [21e48fea-56a1-459d-b2b6-4fc954828827]" Text="Was Mount Erebus shooting thousands of tons of chlorine per day into the upper atmosphere and over to Anatartica in the 70s with no effect in the ozone layer? Was this problem ever explained away? Otherwise, what is the evidence that CFCs destroy ozone? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="7581a761-9d98-4094-a1d3-dcd5ed569526" CreationDate="2016-08-25T06:10:07.100" UserId="3423" Comment="Kill yourself" Text="Was Mount Erebus shooting thousands of tons of chlorine per day into the upper atmosphere and over to Anatartica in the 70s with no effect in the ozone layer? Was this problem ever explained away? Otherwise, what is the evidence that CFCs destroy ozone? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, if the daily production of ozone and cfc maxed out at 400 million and 30 tons, respectively, would each Mol of cfc be able to destroy millions of mols of ozone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12939" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="b1d4b16f-4043-4b74-957c-aaf8797dacae" CreationDate="2016-08-25T08:02:46.953" UserId="48" Comment="Rollback to [21e48fea-56a1-459d-b2b6-4fc954828827]" Text="Was Mount Erebus shooting thousands of tons of chlorine per day into the upper atmosphere and over to Anatartica in the 70s with no effect in the ozone layer? Was this problem ever explained away? Otherwise, what is the evidence that CFCs destroy ozone? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5493" RevisionGUID="b5b3d250-70a6-4b04-8adb-2223b0b6a405" CreationDate="2016-08-25T12:35:19.823" UserId="3706" Text="The boss of Nespresso [has called][1] coffee pods [an environmental disaster][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of my friends recently commented:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Coffee pods are the environmental equivalent of beating baby seals to death. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to work out why. We can recycle aluminium cans. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I get that coffee pods aren't (yet) designed to be recycled, but surely with some tweaks they could be similar to what we do with cans?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: **If coffee pods are made of aluminium, what are the negative environmental effects?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-24/former-nespresso-boss-warns-coffee-pods-are-killing-environment/7781810&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/may/27/nespresso-sustainability-transparency-recycling-coffee-pods-values-aluminum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12943" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5493" RevisionGUID="b5b3d250-70a6-4b04-8adb-2223b0b6a405" CreationDate="2016-08-25T12:35:19.823" UserId="3706" Text="If coffee pods are made of aluminium, what are the negative environmental effects?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12944" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5493" RevisionGUID="b5b3d250-70a6-4b04-8adb-2223b0b6a405" CreationDate="2016-08-25T12:35:19.823" UserId="3706" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2696" RevisionGUID="e75b0043-6ecc-4951-8637-c87ee30fc5bf" CreationDate="2016-08-25T18:42:37.960" UserId="99" Comment="added update" Text="The original K-Cups are made from plastic [resin 7](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code), the catch-all 'other' plastics category. This means that the precise composition of the plastic is known only to the manufacturer. Because of this, plastic resin 7 is hard to recycle and usually goes to landfills. A second problem is that the K-Cups consists of several materials that need to be recycled separately but cannot be separated easily (e.g. foil lid, plastic cup, filter, used coffee grounds). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in short the answer is **&quot;No, K-Cups are not recyclable&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [their website](http://www.keurig.com/customer-service/k-cups-and-beverages-support/frequently-asked-questions) Keurig confirms this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We are very sensitive about the waste created by the K-Cup® packs and are investigating alternative materials. Finding a solution for this is a priority for us, and one we hope to have before long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keurig does have a slightly better system, the [Vue capsules that can be recycled](http://www.singleservecoffee.com/archives/039866.php) more easily, that is if your local waste processing facility recycles plastic resin 5 (Polypropylene).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, according to [this treehugger blog](http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/even-recyclable-coffee-pods-arent.html), all cups, even the onces that call themselves recyclable, usually end up on landfills because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The cups are then recyclable — in theory. The problem is the cups are too small to be captured in most recycling facilities where machinery separates objects by size and density&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE August 25th 2016**: Green Mountain, the producer of K-Cups, [recently launched their first recyclable K-Cups](http://www.keuriggreenmountain.com/en/OurStories/SustainabilityStories/FirstRecyclableKCupPod.aspx). The new pods are made from polypropylene (plastic #5) and Green Mountain claims that the&#xD;&#xA;&gt;new recyclable K-Cup® pods have been tested in real world recycling and recovery facilities" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5494" RevisionGUID="964e60e1-729a-43e9-a7a8-2fc4aa1426ed" CreationDate="2016-08-25T18:42:58.127" UserId="99" Text="**Why coffee pods are bad**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem with all single-serve coffee pods is that for almost all steps in their life-cycle they are less efficient and have a bigger environmental impact than the alternative; packs of filter coffee. This goes for all coffee pods, no matter what kind of material they are made of. Filter coffee is easier to produce, requires less packaging, the square packs can be stacked and transported more efficiently than round coffee pods, and after usage there is much less packaging to recycle/dispose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes the existing coffee pods exceptionally bad is that most pods are landfilled. This is because the pod either isn't recyclable, or it is in theory but the pod is tossed aside in the recycling facility because it's 1) a composite product, or 2) [too small to be sorted out](http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/even-recyclable-coffee-pods-arent.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Aluminium pods versus existing plastic-based pods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume that a coffee pod made entirely from aluminium is possible&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; and can be sorted properly in a recycling facility, how would this compare to existing pods? First of all, it is questionable if an aluminium pod will be more light-weight than a plastic one. If it's not, the additional weight means that more energy is required for transport to the consumer and back again to a recycling facility. K-Cup Green Mountain produces about 9 billion cups a year, so even a small weight difference can have a significant impact in transport.&#xD;&#xA;Second I suspect that recycling aluminium requires more energy than recycling plastics (but admittedly I'm not sure about that). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big advantage of aluminium pods would be that they can be recycled entirely without loss of quality. It may even be possible to reuse the pods after proper cleaning, which would reduce it's impact significantly. The existing plastic pods are clearly at a disadvantage here because recycled plastic is usually turned into lower-grade plastic that cannot be used for packaging food. This means that manufacturing plastic pods requires a constant feed of new, virgin plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How these pros and cons balance out exactly is difficult to assess because you would need to investigate the impact of an non-existing product and there are a lot of unknowns until someone creates it. My guess is that aluminium pods would raise the price of coffee pods which is already [2-3 times as expensive](http://time.com/money/3733586/k-cups-price-cost-comparison-coffee/) as an old-fashioned cup of coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Aluminium cans normally have a lining that protects the food/beverage from being exposed to the metal and keeps the aluminum from oxidizing. I'm fairly certain an aluminium coffee pod would also require a protective lining. Also I suspect that it's rather hard to manufacture a small and light-weight aluminium filter for the pod&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12948" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="a4b01b8e-4d4c-4a68-a641-4e00ba35537e" CreationDate="2016-08-25T19:01:39.173" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/768886070318620672" />
  <row Id="12949" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5493" RevisionGUID="afc567ad-8fdd-476f-878c-cb109f64346b" CreationDate="2016-08-25T19:35:22.143" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12953" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5493" RevisionGUID="f5cd8307-864b-4615-a8e4-f054b3065f62" CreationDate="2016-08-26T16:09:20.487" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/769205094986416128" />
  <row Id="12954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5496" RevisionGUID="50dd5cd5-43aa-455c-a696-a47cdfc695c4" CreationDate="2016-08-26T23:23:43.697" UserId="3716" Text="Structurally or otherwise, is there a way to transition an unsustainable city into a sustainable one? What would needs to occur and what would the effect be? Can modern civilization become sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5496" RevisionGUID="50dd5cd5-43aa-455c-a696-a47cdfc695c4" CreationDate="2016-08-26T23:23:43.697" UserId="3716" Text="What would need to happen to push NYC or other urban centers towards holistic sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5496" RevisionGUID="50dd5cd5-43aa-455c-a696-a47cdfc695c4" CreationDate="2016-08-26T23:23:43.697" UserId="3716" Text="|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2501" RevisionGUID="26e18e7a-ba2a-43c1-bdc2-3eec7cb80f38" CreationDate="2016-08-27T09:12:12.710" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed broken link" Text="Are they recyclable at all? can you pull them apart and recycle parts of them?&#xD;&#xA;Are there recyclable alternatives?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many offices including mine are using these to brew coffee in the USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally use a [Clever Dripper][1] at work. Which I can pour hot water over steep and throw away the filter/coffee (all compostable).   It is incredibly mess free and *almost* as easy as pushing the kurig machine button.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those that don’t know, Clever steeps the coffee like a French press and then has release valve to drain the coffee through a coffee filter into your cup. This gives benefits of Pour over without standing around actually pouring for 5 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sweetmarias.com/product/clever-coffee-dripper-large" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12960" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2501" RevisionGUID="26e18e7a-ba2a-43c1-bdc2-3eec7cb80f38" CreationDate="2016-08-27T09:12:12.710" Comment="Proposed by 3379 approved by 99 edit id of 419" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5497" RevisionGUID="c822f6b0-fcfc-447c-8357-8cab2a7e0f3c" CreationDate="2016-08-27T17:53:30.323" UserId="3720" Text="I am form Belize I have tried almost everything against these evil ants, but seem that nothing stops them from eating my plum, mango, banana, roses, flowers, oranges and lots more. Now I bought a poison called Sompopin it comes in bags they took it as if it was food and the whole colony died for some months, but after 3-5 months they are back and start multiplying like beach sand again, I am tired just yesterday I mix water with Foca soap and spray them and seem to die instantly. But I am planning to bring an excavator to dig the nest because there are around 16 nests and spray soapy water with a good chemical and disappear them off my land. Can someone help?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5498" RevisionGUID="83252788-9e4d-49ef-a205-1428f4168191" CreationDate="2016-08-27T18:52:52.363" UserDisplayName="user3719" Text="I mix biowaste with mixed waste. In my household the amount of produced biowaste is minimal, mostly consisting of leftover pasta and fruit &amp; vegetable peels. Will I cause harm to the environment by not sorting biowaste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12963" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5498" RevisionGUID="83252788-9e4d-49ef-a205-1428f4168191" CreationDate="2016-08-27T18:52:52.363" UserDisplayName="user3719" Text="Is there any harm in not sorting biowaste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12964" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5498" RevisionGUID="83252788-9e4d-49ef-a205-1428f4168191" CreationDate="2016-08-27T18:52:52.363" UserDisplayName="user3719" Text="|waste|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5498" RevisionGUID="db2d92d5-d88a-4b9b-8bb1-0bf58e3b3f34" CreationDate="2016-08-28T11:16:00.513" UserDisplayName="user3719" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="I mix biowaste with mixed waste (ends up to a landfill). In my household the amount of produced biowaste is minimal, mostly consisting of leftover pasta and fruit &amp; vegetable peels. Will I cause harm to the environment by not sorting biowaste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5499" RevisionGUID="af47e268-fe11-4236-bee7-0e686b1533e5" CreationDate="2016-08-28T11:37:21.027" UserId="99" Text="It depends a bit how your waste processing facility handles the 'mixed waste' stream. In the best case scenario they sort out everything and your biodegradable waste ends up where it belongs after all; on a compost heap or in a biodigester where it is turned into compost and/or biogas. However this is very unlikely and chances are that the mixed waste is either landfilled or incinerated. In both cases it is a waste of resources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organic waste that is landfilled takes up valuable space, but what's worse it will emit methane when it degrades due to lack of oxygen. Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas and contributes to global warming.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Waste that is incinerated is often used to generate heat and/or electricity, so there could be a small benefit here. However there are much better and more environmentally friendly ways to generate heat and electricity Also by burning organic waste you do not have the benefit of recycling it into compost. This means a bigger dependency on artificial fertilizers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, the small amount of biowaste you dispose will have very little influence on the environment, just like the emissions from only your car have very little influence. The trouble is that there are probably millions of people who dispose waste this way (and billions that drive a car). If all people continue doing what they do, nothing will change and the environment will continue to degrade. By altering your behavior you can set an example for other people and the change begins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information: [US Composting Council Position Statement:&#xD;&#xA;Keeping Organics Out&#xD;&#xA;of Landfills](http://compostingcouncil.org/admin/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Keeping-Organics-Out-of-Landfills-Position-Paper.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12968" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5498" RevisionGUID="7da57a5b-4119-4494-aa52-d21480a68f00" CreationDate="2016-08-28T16:18:37.373" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/769932206567546881" />
  <row Id="12969" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5425" RevisionGUID="e948b80f-c6cc-45b2-8478-9886fadab73a" CreationDate="2016-08-28T19:18:36.983" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/769977502886486017" />
  <row Id="12972" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5496" RevisionGUID="03fb177b-3e57-418d-81dc-a342e2a40c43" CreationDate="2016-08-29T08:46:36.690" UserId="99" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5500" RevisionGUID="e6055fad-bd95-48c6-9e7f-4d24ae188b24" CreationDate="2016-08-29T18:49:38.667" UserId="1173" Text="My local council now takes most types of plastic bottles, pots, tubs and trays in the recycling bin.&#xD;&#xA;But they specifically exclude **black** plastic containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a reason for this? Why can't black plastic be recycled in the same way as other coloured plastics? Does it depend on what sort of plastic it is made from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5500" RevisionGUID="e6055fad-bd95-48c6-9e7f-4d24ae188b24" CreationDate="2016-08-29T18:49:38.667" UserId="1173" Text="Why can't black plastic be recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12976" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5500" RevisionGUID="e6055fad-bd95-48c6-9e7f-4d24ae188b24" CreationDate="2016-08-29T18:49:38.667" UserId="1173" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="556c0969-a100-480c-a975-45efd8ac397b" CreationDate="2016-08-29T19:24:36.807" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="From e.g. the [Severnwaste recycling company](http://www.severnwaste.com/envirosort/faqs/) (UK):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plastic items are sorted by optical scanners which use the reflection of light to identify the types of plastics. Black plastic doesn’t reflect light, so can not be seen and sorted by the scanners and could end up contaminating other materials such as glass bottles. Microwave food trays which are normally black are also made of a special type of plastic which can not be easily recycled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in [a forum post on TheRubbishdiet.com](http://www.therubbishdiet.org.uk/recycle-black-plastic/) Joseph Kennedy from the [PlasticExpert blog](http://www.plasticexpert.co.uk/news/) writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...  in July (2014), Sainsbury’s and M&amp;S began working together to alter the properties of the polymer to make it known to infra-red sorting technologies. So within a year we can hopefully expect to see this kind of plastic recyclable. This isn’t to say your council can’t recycle it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They can, they just choose not to. The councils earn rebates on the materials they sell, which in turn helps pay for the council workers etc. Black plastic is the least valuable (that’s why your bin bags are black), and the reason is simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can dye clear plastic black, but you can’t dye black plastic clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Black plastic is very low value, so your black food trays, bin bags, pvc guttering pipes etc, most often wont get recycled because they have little value on the other end of the market. It’s a money driven industry, like everything else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="8509376a-a344-45a5-9280-b7c23f26c22e" CreationDate="2016-08-29T19:31:21.657" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added 1535 characters in body" Text="From e.g. the [Severnwaste recycling company](http://www.severnwaste.com/envirosort/faqs/) (UK):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plastic items are sorted by optical scanners which use the reflection of light to identify the types of plastics. Black plastic doesn’t reflect light, so can not be seen and sorted by the scanners and could end up contaminating other materials such as glass bottles. Microwave food trays which are normally black are also made of a special type of plastic which can not be easily recycled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in [a forum post on TheRubbishdiet.com](http://www.therubbishdiet.org.uk/recycle-black-plastic/) Joseph Kennedy from the [PlasticExpert blog](http://www.plasticexpert.co.uk/news/) writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...  in July (2014), Sainsbury’s and M&amp;S began working together to alter the properties of the polymer to make it known to infra-red sorting technologies. So within a year we can hopefully expect to see this kind of plastic recyclable. This isn’t to say your council can’t recycle it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They can, they just choose not to. The councils earn rebates on the materials they sell, which in turn helps pay for the council workers etc. Black plastic is the least valuable (that’s why your bin bags are black), and the reason is simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You can dye clear plastic black, but you can’t dye black plastic clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Black plastic is very low value, so your black food trays, bin bags, pvc guttering pipes etc, most often wont get recycled because they have little value on the other end of the market. It’s a money driven industry, like everything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way in which the plastic is colored black makes a difference. From [Recyclability of black plastic packaging](http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/recyclability-black-plastic-packaging-0) at Wrap.org:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The majority of black plastic packaging is coloured using carbon black pigments which do not enable the pack to be sorted by the optical sorting systems being used widely in plastics recycling. As a result, black plastic packaging commonly ends up as residue and is disposed of in landfill or recycled into lower value materials where polymer sorting is not required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; WRAP has worked in partnership with key players in the retail supply chain to improve the recyclability of black plastics and prevent these materials from going to landfill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This work was carried out in three phases and based on the results of this work, it is recommended that detectable black colourants be used as a viable option to carbon black pigments in the manufacture of black packaging such as amorphous  polyethylene terephthalate (APET), crystallised polyethylene terephthalate (CPET),  polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) packaging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By selecting a detectable black colourant that enables the polymer to be detected by optical sorting systems the packaging supply chain can enable black plastic packaging to be recycled into a high quality, high value material which can substitute for virgin plastic in the manufacture of new items, and benefit the environment as well as the financial viability of mixed plastics recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That last page has more detailed (technical) information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="0cafb60e-d304-446f-a7b2-80ee2420cf12" CreationDate="2016-08-30T06:07:21.620" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Inserted comment answer into question" Text="In my work and study, I have a lot of printouts - many of which re drafts and redrafts.  Is there are a way to recycle printed paper (standard printer paper) without using harsh chemicals and minimal waste?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both sides are printed on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12980" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1114" RevisionGUID="0cafb60e-d304-446f-a7b2-80ee2420cf12" CreationDate="2016-08-30T06:07:21.620" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 80, 2345 edit id of 420" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5502" RevisionGUID="2983a94f-ba02-416c-a5e9-988445dd87ec" CreationDate="2016-08-30T11:57:16.363" UserId="3727" Text="Is there a particular discipline in the engineering field concerned with the various ways and approaches to recycling ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not, then what is the closest field to study so ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5502" RevisionGUID="2983a94f-ba02-416c-a5e9-988445dd87ec" CreationDate="2016-08-30T11:57:16.363" UserId="3727" Text="Is there any engineering discipline concerned with recycling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5502" RevisionGUID="2983a94f-ba02-416c-a5e9-988445dd87ec" CreationDate="2016-08-30T11:57:16.363" UserId="3727" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5503" RevisionGUID="343d728c-56bd-43ec-8dff-ab9799b84f0d" CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:17:14.503" UserId="3728" Text="I looked everywhere on the box itself but no notice at all. They usually have colourful prints on them and seem plastic-coated to give a &quot;shiny&quot; effect, but on the other hand they don't look very different from cereal boxes or cigarettes packs, so I'm not sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5503" RevisionGUID="343d728c-56bd-43ec-8dff-ab9799b84f0d" CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:17:14.503" UserId="3728" Text="Can the card-boxes that contain toothpaste tubes be recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5503" RevisionGUID="343d728c-56bd-43ec-8dff-ab9799b84f0d" CreationDate="2016-08-30T13:17:14.503" UserId="3728" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12988" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="85ce84a4-3f90-4737-9265-599c968a050c" CreationDate="2016-08-30T16:04:40.427" UserId="99" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:96,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;mart&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:659,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Móż&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="12989" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5500" RevisionGUID="7546d4fa-6e1a-463f-b6a4-124e00b6a6f4" CreationDate="2016-08-30T16:29:23.910" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/770659693614202880" />
  <row Id="12990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5504" RevisionGUID="3b1df24f-93eb-438b-88a0-5b4677e46ce8" CreationDate="2016-08-30T17:56:57.770" UserDisplayName="user2440" Text="Good fields to look into would be Bio engineering or environmental engineering. There also programs at certain schools, depending on where you are located, that have programs that focus on the technical side of sustainability.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5505" RevisionGUID="3f7c577d-061c-4274-99b8-89eb2490a86f" CreationDate="2016-08-30T18:05:03.037" UserId="3725" Text="&gt; You can leave tape and labels on the box&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should check with your local recycling scheme [like this one][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively you can take it to the local recycling centre. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://wasteindustries.com/commercial/recycling/cardboard.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12992" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5397" RevisionGUID="d5b5cd3d-c5a5-486b-abcd-fa03904ab0a2" CreationDate="2016-08-31T04:40:52.737" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/770843777070170112" />
  <row Id="12997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="4be27785-451a-4e5c-a7d8-5224a77b167a" CreationDate="2016-08-31T08:27:00.783" UserId="15" Comment="Added sustainability angle to bring the question on-topic" Text="The RDA (Recommended Dietary Allowances) recommended to us by health experts are based on the amount of nutrition in fruits, vegetables, grains, etc. The RDA hasn't changed since decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are any scientific studies done (do we have any conclusive evidence) that either prove or disprove that the amount of vitamins and minerals in vegetables have changed substantially over the past 20 years? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is how we're currently farming to produce food sustainable for the long term when it comes to the nutrition in the resulting crop? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="12998" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="4be27785-451a-4e5c-a7d8-5224a77b167a" CreationDate="2016-08-31T08:27:00.783" UserId="15" Comment="Added sustainability angle to bring the question on-topic" Text="|food|farming|vegetarianism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5507" RevisionGUID="b8e4d09e-69c2-4287-b8b7-104d91b08c61" CreationDate="2016-08-31T21:38:54.320" UserId="3734" Text="Early on this summer we had ants, and I used an old advise about spreading some cinnamon-powder on the ground and holes. I tell you, they where complete GONE after one hour or two " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13002" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5491" RevisionGUID="7e399b00-2ded-4e5b-86c2-f668fc3e65b8" CreationDate="2016-08-31T22:40:56.887" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/771115585149239296" />
  <row Id="13003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5508" RevisionGUID="0de450fd-9554-483e-bf8e-9c3c7988806b" CreationDate="2016-09-01T06:03:51.697" UserId="3737" Text="I live in Chennai, a place which has only three seasons, hot-hotter &amp; hottest. I had tried this coolroof solution, where a white so called chemical solution is painted on the concrete roof. We did see some reduction in the temperature in the rooms, however, this is a short term solution and need to be repeated atleast every year and it does not come very cheap rates vary from Rs.12/- to 50/- per sqft. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have learnt a couple of things from my previous experiments and would like to list it out for the benefit of all. So that you all can take informed decisions when it comes to looking for and investing in a durable and sustainable solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Painting and trying out planting green cover for your roofs is only trying to reflect or partially absorb the heat after it has reached your roof. Painting is expensive depending on which material you use and green cover maintenance is not an easy job, especially in Chennai like climate.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Idea should be to prevent sun rays from hitting your roofs directly - the best solutions is to have a raised coated aluminium sheet cover on preferably metal stilts OR pillars above the concrete roof. There should be enough space between the roof and the sheets for the space to be useful for walking around, drying clothes or to hold any family functions even during rainy season.&#xD;&#xA;The air in the space between the roof and the sheet would act as a insulation and since the sides would be open the cross breeze would take away any heat being radiated to the roof. Keeping the interior of the house very comfortable, reducing your energy bills by a substantial amount.&#xD;&#xA;Point to be noted is this solution does not come cheap, it is expensive but a one time solution and it gives you return for long time. Also, there are very aesthetic looking sheets and could give a nice look to the house or roof tops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Folks, this is my personal opinion and would suggest you all to check all options before investing in any specific solution to the issue. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks, Wilson" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5509" RevisionGUID="949bb2cb-e4ca-4819-858b-8667d7bbfd3a" CreationDate="2016-09-01T07:32:12.473" UserId="99" Text="Use this tag for sustainability questions about the Internet, for example energy consumption of cloud computing, or websites specifically created for sustainable development in developing countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For question about reducing the environmental impact of IT in general please use the tag [tag:green-IT].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions about the energy consumption required for computer calculations, or making those calculations more efficient please use [tag:computing]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5510" RevisionGUID="cae40079-1cca-4dec-877e-87ec9b52fbe2" CreationDate="2016-09-01T07:32:12.473" UserId="99" Text="Global network of computers that communicate via common open protocols." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5511" RevisionGUID="89d94440-44ae-41d0-be74-6b5d41096bb6" CreationDate="2016-09-01T07:43:01.660" UserId="99" Text="Use this tag for questions about the (energy) efficiency of computer calculations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5512" RevisionGUID="8461764e-4c95-4e52-bfab-ba012f7ac318" CreationDate="2016-09-01T07:43:01.660" UserId="99" Text="Doing calculations on a computer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5505" RevisionGUID="d3ebbf23-4336-4f2c-86e2-40ee6a1b5ae6" CreationDate="2016-09-01T18:57:24.653" UserId="3725" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&gt; You can leave tape and labels on the box&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should check with your local recycling scheme [like this one][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively you may take it to your local recycling centre. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://wasteindustries.com/commercial/recycling/cardboard.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5513" RevisionGUID="4c957256-6031-4cf1-a9d3-5123508711fb" CreationDate="2016-09-01T21:01:53.067" UserId="3686" Text="All packaging costs energy &amp; natural resources to create in the first place. This includes recyclables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if all the aluminium packaging material is reusable they would have to be cleaned and sterilized before reuse. This consumes energy, clean water and detergent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not reusable, the next best option is recycling. Again recycling requires energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In either event, not all coffee pods will be handled in this manner. People are lazy, not everyone is 100% dedicated to recycling. Some organisations won't recycle due to increased operating costs. Etc... etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best option is reduce. I.e. avoid creating packaging in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to minimize your impact. Buy large paper bags of coffee beans and grind them yourself immediately before use. This will produce the freshest coffee anyway. Although it's possibly less convenient... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="15cf1f25-51a5-455f-ba34-93f0bd89c99f" CreationDate="2016-09-02T07:38:41.313" UserId="96" Text="I'm looking for an overview of established [solar thermal desalination][1] technologies. The wiki page is remarkably poor on sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Established&quot; means there is a large scale plant (&gt;50m³/d) or many small scale plants with several years 'uptime'. The overview should include the working principles/principle construction and basic performance metrics (throughput in &lt;conditions&gt;). Anything written in this century is recent enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_desalination" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="15cf1f25-51a5-455f-ba34-93f0bd89c99f" CreationDate="2016-09-02T07:38:41.313" UserId="96" Text="Reference request - Overview over established solar thermal desalination technolgies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="15cf1f25-51a5-455f-ba34-93f0bd89c99f" CreationDate="2016-09-02T07:38:41.313" UserId="96" Text="|water|solar-thermal|seawater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5515" RevisionGUID="ca2c543a-a2de-45ce-9b4f-0675f5575de8" CreationDate="2016-09-02T08:53:04.463" UserId="3734" Text="This article is from april 2015, it says that more than 1 million people used food banks, but that is not the same as being complete depended &#xD;&#xA;to food banks, hopes it helps a little&#xD;&#xA;[More than 1 million people used food banks last year][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fullfact.org/economy/more-1-million-people-used-food-banks-last-year-s-not-what-evidence-shows/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5516" RevisionGUID="7c96dbe2-6f3c-4523-9ac0-83cd08b77d48" CreationDate="2016-09-02T23:01:51.420" UserId="3743" Text="So far as replacing most Internal Combustion engines with electrical cars we need to remember that if everyone starts using them then we will need to produce more electricity. There is no free lunch, because electric power is produced by burning non-renewable (and still polluting) forms of energy -- if not coal, then natural gas or nuclear power). Hydro electric generation has its own set of environmental concerns. Oh yes, there is solar and wind power but just imagine the areas that will be required to accommodate these very large solar panel farms and win turbine generators to satisfy all the increased demand. There will be NIMBY concerns if located near urban areas and even in rural areas, and given that these solar and wind farm locations have to be in areas where there are either significant number of cloud free days or where there is a reliable steady flow of wind at the surface there are not too may alternate locations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5517" RevisionGUID="cdf02046-9d1b-4136-beca-72ef2ac9a4a0" CreationDate="2016-09-03T17:49:27.493" UserId="99" Text="A recycling process is usually very specific for the material that should be recycled. There isn't really a single discipline called recycling engineering (yet).&#xD;&#xA;The most common profession among people who design and improve recycling processes is probably **chemical engineering**, but people from other disciplines are usually involved as well: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **mechanical engineering**: e.g. design and manufacture sorting machines,&#xD;&#xA; - **materials science**: e.g. investigate materials that are better recycable, improve recycled product quality, &#xD;&#xA; - **environmental engineering**: investigate impact of waste and recycling processes on environment,&#xD;&#xA; - **industrial design**: design products that are better recyclable, &#xD;&#xA; - **electrical engineering / computer engineering**: automated material detection and sorting systems.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13018" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5503" RevisionGUID="860c7ff4-db3b-4b03-b674-fdc92bb047f1" CreationDate="2016-09-04T23:11:19.793" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/772572782324514816" />
  <row Id="13019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5292" RevisionGUID="24d18d3d-c8f5-41b8-b187-7314c13c4f36" CreationDate="2016-09-05T07:47:04.470" UserId="3293" Comment="added 1404 characters in body" Text="I am about to  start the project. Here are the charges I plan:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 4h   - build an extra composter, in order to have 3 composters like advised [here](http://humanurehandbook.com/manual.html), where *A minimum three bin system is recommended*.&#xD;&#xA; - 12h  - build a small cabin for privacy&#xD;&#xA; - 4h   - build two big containers. So when one is full, the other can be used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA; In my view it should take about 1 hour / month to handle the manure.&#xD;&#xA; I also account to about 5-10 hours per year for total cleaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 20h / year - handle the thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit:&#xD;&#xA;Now I know what it takes&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I moved on on the project, and changed my mind a little:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I postponed the idea to build a small cabin.&#xD;&#xA;* I'm now using big **square flower pots** in place of &quot;the big containers&quot; I wanted to build. &#xD;&#xA;* It took me 2 hours to install a toilet seat on top of a big square flower pot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/rXd6b.jpg&quot; &gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/rXd6b.jpg&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;dry, self-composting toilet do-it-yourself&quot; &gt; &lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vTcpE.jpg&quot; &gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vTcpE.jpg&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;dry, self-composting toilet do-it-yourself&quot; &gt; &lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8ABf.jpg&quot; &gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8ABf.jpg&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;dry, self-composting toilet do-it-yourself&quot; &gt; &lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So here is my conclusion for now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cost of 1 flower pot + toilet seat is about **70$**&#xD;&#xA;* Time spent for a very minimal thing : **2h**&#xD;&#xA;* Expected time to be spent : more than expected - but it will include the new composting pile I planned to do : **4h / month** =&gt; **50h / year** (of hazardous material handling :s )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rXd6b.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vTcpE.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8ABf.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5518" RevisionGUID="411265a2-7256-47e6-9f12-f278ccf58185" CreationDate="2016-09-05T08:22:57.427" UserId="3293" Text="If you have a sufficient yard area, a composting dry-toilet can be easily built as a very simple facility. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* create a composting pile - you will require at least 2, and better 3 composting piles in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* buy 2-3 big square flower-pots, and have a toilet seat fitted on top of it. The seat can easily be removed from the flower pot for disposal to the composting pile: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/rXd6b.jpg&quot; &gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/rXd6b.jpg&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;dry, self-composting toilet do-it-yourself&quot; &gt; &lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vTcpE.jpg&quot; &gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vTcpE.jpg&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;dry, self-composting toilet do-it-yourself&quot; &gt; &lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8ABf.jpg&quot; &gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8ABf.jpg&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;dry, self-composting toilet do-it-yourself&quot; &gt; &lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started this home and it works for now. I installed the thing outside in a secluded place for intimacy. My outside light allow using it at night too. Consider hiding your place it behind curtains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is my installation doesn't dry. For it not to stink, I pile up sand, dried leaves and saw dust on top of it. I have to use mowed grass to clean the bin after disposal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5519" RevisionGUID="d94fcda5-babd-479a-8cec-2aa882f53c1e" CreationDate="2016-09-05T16:13:43.433" UserId="3532" Text="Is there a good way to put biochar into a forest, or should it be in there before you plant the forest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5519" RevisionGUID="d94fcda5-babd-479a-8cec-2aa882f53c1e" CreationDate="2016-09-05T16:13:43.433" UserId="3532" Text="How should biochar be used in a forest soil?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5519" RevisionGUID="d94fcda5-babd-479a-8cec-2aa882f53c1e" CreationDate="2016-09-05T16:13:43.433" UserId="3532" Text="|forestry|biochar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5520" RevisionGUID="dc674da6-6cd4-4c2c-96c6-c475d6541dea" CreationDate="2016-09-06T06:32:31.603" UserId="3293" Text="**Be gentle with an existing forest.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your trees are already in place, then you may put the biochar directly in place around the trunks of the trees you want to help grow. You may rake the soil to put the biochar beneath the normal humus forest ground, to avoid it to be washed away to quickly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how you created your biochar (it may contain more or less ashes, that can change soil Ph a lot), you should go smoothly with it. Start gently on chosen spot for 2-3 years, then see how it goes for those chosen places, then extend to other places step by step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Don't do it in place:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One method of making [tag:biochar]: pile up woody debris in a shallow pit in a garden bed; burn the brush until the smoke thins; damp down the fire with a one-inch soil covering; let the brush smolder until it is charred; put the fire out. The leftover charcoal will improve soil by improving nutrient availability and retention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This probably will burn up tree's roots and arm them, if it doesn't kill them (let alone the fire issue for the whole forest).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5502" RevisionGUID="71ce3338-7994-41df-9177-4cc9166af167" CreationDate="2016-09-06T07:21:55.990" UserId="85" Comment="added 113 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I was searching for stand-alone bachelor degrees in the field of Engineering related to recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a particular discipline in the engineering field concerned with the various ways and approaches to recycling? If not, what is the academic discipline that is most closely related?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13026" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5502" RevisionGUID="71ce3338-7994-41df-9177-4cc9166af167" CreationDate="2016-09-06T07:21:55.990" UserId="85" Comment="added 113 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|recycling|academia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="bfba3af3-1f22-4da0-bf5c-ceec81a226f9" CreationDate="2016-09-06T22:34:30.160" UserId="80" Comment="typo in title, remove tags that made word disappear" Text="I'm looking for an overview of established [solar thermal desalination][1] technologies. The wiki page is remarkably poor on sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Established&quot; means there is a large scale plant (&gt;50 m³/d) or many small scale plants with several years 'uptime'. The overview should include the working principles/principle construction and basic performance metrics (throughput in conditions). Anything written in this century is recent enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_desalination" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13028" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="bfba3af3-1f22-4da0-bf5c-ceec81a226f9" CreationDate="2016-09-06T22:34:30.160" UserId="80" Comment="typo in title, remove tags that made word disappear" Text="Reference request - Overview over established solar thermal desalination technologies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5521" RevisionGUID="a4a377d5-325c-44c3-a4f1-637a67246f36" CreationDate="2016-09-06T23:08:01.400" UserId="80" Text="Here are a couple of papers published between 2011 and 2016:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ranjan, K. R., and S. C. Kaushik. 2013. ‘[Energy, Exergy and Thermo-Economic Analysis of Solar Distillation Systems: A Review][1]’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 27 (November): 709–23. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.07.025.&#xD;&#xA; - Velmurugan, V., and K. Srithar. 2011. ‘[Performance Analysis of Solar Stills Based on Various Factors Affecting the productivity—A Review][2]’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (2): 1294–1304. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.10.012.&#xD;&#xA; - Sharon, H., and K. S. Reddy. 2015. ‘[A Review of Solar Energy Driven Desalination Technologies][3]’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 41 (January): 1080–1118. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.002.&#xD;&#xA; - Esfahani, Iman Janghorban, Jouan Rashidi, Pouya Ifaei, and ChangKyoo Yoo. 2016. ‘[Efficient Thermal Desalination Technologies with Renewable Energy Systems: A State-of-the-Art Review][4]’. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering 33 (2): 351–87. doi:10.1007/s11814-015-0296-3.&#xD;&#xA; - El-Sebaii, A. A., and E. El-Bialy. 2015. ‘[Advanced Designs of Solar Desalination Systems: A Review][5]’. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 49 (September): 1198–1212. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.161.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't find the full text, you can use [Sci-Hub][6], where you can search by DOI.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211300470X&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032110003527&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032114007758&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Changkyoo_Yoo/publication/291384784_Efficient_thermal_desalination_technologies_with_renewable_energy_systems_A_state-of-the-art_review/links/56c178e808ae2f498ef9b82a.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115004311&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://scihub22266oqcxt.onion.link/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5522" RevisionGUID="3ab79211-d41c-49da-8cde-2bcb7c29e68b" CreationDate="2016-09-07T00:09:14.657" UserId="80" Text="Several news outlets and popular science publications have reported on this subject in the last few years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, the focus is not specifically on vitamins, but on nutrients in general (i.e. &quot;phytonutrients&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One study often cited is [Donald R. Davis' publication from 2004][1] that showed that 6 out of 13 nutrients had declined (statistically significant) in 43 fruit and vegetable crops during the second half of the 20th century. It is of course not the only study that has been published on the subject, and [*SFGate*][2] (2006) reports on a number of them, including reviews.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common explanation is that we have been selecting varieties focusing on growing large crops in a small amount of time, while taking out some taste that most find undesirable. For example, we worked hard at getting rid of bitterness, which often is a sign of the presence of beneficial anti-oxidant chemicals ([*NewScientist*][3] published an article about it in 2015, sadly paywalled).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other reasons can be the micro-nutrient depletion in agricultural soils, the over-supply of macro-nutrients like nitrogen, general soil health – including presence of beneficial micro-organisms, and smaller root systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as vitamins go, [*Scientific American*][4] mentions declines in vitamins B2, C, A. The [*New-York Times*][5] tells the story of breeding beta-carotene (precursor of vitamin A) out of corn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another [article by Donald R. Davis][6] was published in 2009 in *HortScience* and explains three observations that have been brought up in research looking into nutrient depletion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Inverse relations between plant yield and mineral concentration&#xD;&#xA; 2. Apparent nutrient declines in historical food composition data&#xD;&#xA; 3. Side-by-side comparison of high- and low-yield cultivars&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He concludes that &quot;the broad evidence [for minerals, vitamins and protein decline] is consistent with more definitive studies and seems difficult to dismiss&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plant food grown organically are often seen to be richer in nutrients than their conventional industrial agriculture counterparts, most probably because of many things: less intensive, heirloom varieties, more diverse nutrients, healthier soil, more developed root system, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://saveoursoils.com/userfiles/downloads/1351255687-Changes%20in%20USDA%20food%20composition%20data%20for%2043%20garden%20crops,%201950-1999.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/Organic-fruits-and-vegetables-work-harder-for-2520931.php&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730322-100-bitter-truth-how-were-making-fruit-and-veg-less-healthy/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/opinion/sunday/breeding-the-nutrition-out-of-our-food.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/44/1/15.full" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="650" RevisionGUID="66c95a02-7352-4a6d-8fc2-a5a691c6ba67" CreationDate="2016-09-07T07:51:48.130" UserId="99" Comment="removed dead links" Text="Simply put [biochar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar) is charcoal made by burning biomass and using it to enhance soil and/or capture CO2. The idea is that the charcoal improves the soil's carbon content and functions as a carbon sink for atmospheric CO2. This would be especially useful for depleted soils. The idea of using charcoil to enhance to soil was derived from the [Terra Preta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta) found in the Amazone. Terra Preta is very dark and rich soil with high content of charcoil that supposedly was created by Amazone natives between 450 BC and 950 AD. However, research has to point out how much of the idea behind biochar is actually true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can either buy Biochar or you can make it yourself via [pyrolysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis), which is burning organic materials with very low levels of oxygen. Here is [one movie](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXMUmby8PpU) on how to make it, but you can find [many other movies or webpages](http://www.google.nl/search?q=how+do+i+make+biochar) on the net.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biochar is currently used in all sorts or places - farm fields, gardens, indoor plantpots - but since we don't know much about its effect yet, its usage is mostly experimental. Raw biochar needs to be mixed with compost and water before adding it to your garden or else it will draw nutrients and water away from your plants. How much to add depends on the type of soil you have and possibly on what you want to grow, so you may want to do a soil analysis first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is quite a bit of professional research going on, as well as people experimenting themselves (just search the internet). Personally I found [this link](http://biochar.pbworks.com/w/page/9748043/FrontPage) very informative and useful.&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is also a [Gardening SE question on using charcoal as soil amendment](http://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1314/1916) with some interesting answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13036" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="645" RevisionGUID="6527de28-cdcb-469c-9c4a-24e759fa1c9c" CreationDate="2016-09-07T07:53:35.530" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|carbon-sequestration|biochar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="487f9385-8c90-4c3c-aec8-213085e900fe" CreationDate="2016-09-07T14:38:52.047" UserId="2134" Comment="one more option for &quot;meaningful computing work&quot;, some language fixes" Text="Heating with electricity is always wasteful, because the generation of electricity is wasteful. However, heating with the waste heat of electrical appliances is saving energy, if the appliance is doing &quot;meaningful work&quot; and is not just turned on because of the waste heat it generates …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a computer's waste heat is a good source of &quot;free&quot; heat. Meaningful computing tasks could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bitcoin mining (if you consider that meaningful …).&#xD;&#xA; - Scientific grid computing by running the [BOINC][1] client on your computers. They will not pay your additional electricity bill, but at least you support science :)&#xD;&#xA; - General cloud computing and web hosting. This has been commercialized by German startup [Cloud&amp;Heat](https://www.cloudandheat.com/), offering to place a rack with cloud servers into your house and to pay the electricity and bandwidth for it. So you get the servers' waste heat for free for water heating (connections provided) or space heating (from the heated water, with a buffer tank as normally done for houses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Open_Infrastructure_for_Network_Computing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="8a2e073d-8543-46a8-8d86-51150f0eed18" CreationDate="2016-09-07T14:55:52.077" UserId="2134" Comment="some more options for &quot;meaningful computing work&quot;, some language fixes" Text="Heating with electricity is always wasteful, because the generation of electricity is wasteful. However, heating with the waste heat of electrical appliances is saving energy, if the appliance is doing &quot;meaningful work&quot; and is not just turned on because of the waste heat it generates …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a computer is a good source of waste heat, which you can consider &quot;free&quot; if the computer has a meaningful task to run. Such tasks can be for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Bitcoin mining.** If you consider that meaningful ….&#xD;&#xA; - **Other cryptocurrency mining.** There are hundreds of them now, and some allow [mining with meaningful calculations][1] that serve science, rather than just calculating millions of hash checksums as with Bitcoin.&#xD;&#xA; - **Personal server housing.** If you have enough Internet bandwidth, you can put a web server for yourself, your company or a friend into your home.&#xD;&#xA; - **[Distributed computing][2].** The most well-known project infrastructure to use is [BOINC][3]. The official BOINC projects to select from are for advancing science, but you can also enter a URL to any of the third-party [BOINC projects][4]. For example, BURP for 3D rendering. None of these pay your increasing electricity bill, but at least you can opt to support science :)&#xD;&#xA; - **Cloud computing / hosting.** This has been commercialized by German startup [Cloud&amp;Heat](https://www.cloudandheat.com/), offering to place a rack with cloud servers into your house and to pay the electricity and bandwidth for it. So you get the servers' waste heat for free for water heating (connections provided) or space heating (from the heated water, with a buffer tank as normally done for houses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cryptorials.io/how-to-mine-cryptocurrency-for-science-gridcoin-and-foldingcoin/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_distributed_computing_projects&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Open_Infrastructure_for_Network_Computing&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Project_list" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="e41ad6e8-2218-4e54-b55d-5da72ee9abfe" CreationDate="2016-09-07T15:03:41.193" UserId="2134" Comment="some more options for &quot;meaningful computing work&quot;, better explanations, some language fixes" Text="Heating with electricity is always wasteful, because generating electricity creates waste heat already. (If only we could deliver *that* waste heat, you could heat your home for free …).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if an electrical appliance is doing &quot;meaningful work&quot; anyway, using its waste heat saves energy, since you don't need other sources for that heat. Just don't turn on an electrical appliance just because of the waste heat it generates. Nearly all other forms of heat are cheaper and less wasteful in that case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computer for example is a good source of waste heat, which you can consider &quot;free&quot; if the computer has a meaningful task to run. Such tasks can be for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Bitcoin mining.** If you consider that meaningful of course. With the right ASIC hardware (not cheap…), the value of the Bitcoins you generate will approximately pay for your electricity bill, since that is the &quot;market equilibrium&quot; in Bitcoin mining. So you get the heat for free.&#xD;&#xA; - **Other cryptocurrency mining.** There are hundreds of them now, and some allow [mining with meaningful calculations][1] that serve science, rather than just calculating millions of hash checksums as with Bitcoin.&#xD;&#xA; - **Personal server housing.** If you have enough Internet bandwidth, you can put a web server for yourself, your company or a friend into your home.&#xD;&#xA; - **[Distributed computing][2].** The most well-known project infrastructure to use is [BOINC][3]. The official BOINC projects to select from are for advancing science, but you can also enter a URL to any of the third-party [BOINC projects][4]. For example, BURP for 3D rendering. None of these pay your increasing electricity bill, but at least you can opt to support science :)&#xD;&#xA; - **Cloud computing / hosting.** This has been commercialized by German startup [Cloud&amp;Heat](https://www.cloudandheat.com/), offering to place a rack with cloud servers into your house and to pay the electricity and bandwidth for it. So you get the servers' waste heat for free for water heating (connections provided) or space heating (from the heated water, with a buffer tank as normally done for houses).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cryptorials.io/how-to-mine-cryptocurrency-for-science-gridcoin-and-foldingcoin/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_distributed_computing_projects&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Open_Infrastructure_for_Network_Computing&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Project_list" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5523" RevisionGUID="0b4c26b9-5df7-4b98-8148-37ce23663297" CreationDate="2016-09-10T00:33:43.557" UserId="840" Text="Imho, we should all havea basic understanding of what is good and what not. Tasting something or smelling it won't kill you immediatelly. And if you are not totally sure because you are not 100 % sure, better don't eat it. &#xA;&#xA;Looking at the numbers is something you can do, but it doesn't always tell you the truth. I live in germany, and the joghurt I buy can still be eaten after 2 months if you kept it cold and closed. &#xA;&#xA;But you should know if your food is eatable. &#xA;From time to time I am dumpster diving and I take home a lot of food. You cannot always eat everything but most of the time you see or smell if already if it is too late.&#xA;I only look on the numbers if it is about meat, because this can destroy you. Meat, milk products and eggs. Thats something you don't joke around. I'm also careful with this things if I am on dumpster diving!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5525" RevisionGUID="13588cc8-fcce-4b47-bdab-5d09612d3e76" CreationDate="2016-09-11T13:02:16.817" UserId="3766" Text="In so far as I am aware, drinking straws were originally made from straw, the hollow shaft cut from wheat or barley, hence the name.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regular grass, like hay, is probably too thin to be useful, but I imagine if you can find an *edible* plant with a hollow stalk that you can dry, it would probably be suitable to your needs. The recomended material, of course, would be straw." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="102ecf8c-2d62-4191-9f33-9c2541638ff6" CreationDate="2016-09-11T23:53:32.193" UserId="2134" Comment="explained PoW cryptocurrency mining as wasteful, ordered last" Text="Heating with electricity is always wasteful, because generating electricity creates waste heat already. (If only we could deliver *that* waste heat, you could heat your home for free …).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if an electrical appliance is doing &quot;meaningful work&quot; anyway, using its waste heat saves energy, since you don't need other sources for that heat. Just don't turn on an electrical appliance just because of the waste heat it generates. Nearly all other forms of heat are cheaper and less wasteful in that case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computer for example is a good source of waste heat, which you can consider &quot;free&quot; if the computer has a meaningful task to run. Such tasks can be for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Personal server housing.** If you have enough Internet bandwidth, you can put a web server for yourself, your company or a friend into your home.&#xD;&#xA; - **Cloud computing / hosting.** This has been commercialized by German startup [Cloud&amp;Heat](https://www.cloudandheat.com/), offering to place a rack with cloud servers into your house and to pay the electricity and bandwidth for it. So you get the servers' waste heat for free for water heating (connections provided) or space heating (from the heated water, with a buffer tank as normally done for houses).&#xD;&#xA; - **[Distributed computing][2].** The most well-known project infrastructure to use is [BOINC][3]. The official BOINC projects to select from are for advancing science, but you can also enter a URL to any of the third-party [BOINC projects][4]. For example, BURP for 3D rendering. None of these pay your increasing electricity bill, but at least you can opt to support science :)&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;Useful&quot; cryptocurrency mining.** Some new cryptocurrencies allow [mining with meaningful scientific calculations][1] rather than just calculating millions of hash checksums as in the case of Bitcoin.&#xD;&#xA; - **PoW cryptocurrency mining (Bitcoins etc.).** If you consider that meaningful, you can do this too. It can pay off in monetary terms (&quot;you get the heat for free&quot;), but resource-wise Bitcoin and other PoW (proof-of-work) cryptocurrencies are an &quot;intentional waste of energy&quot;. Also with Bitcoin, you will need energy-efficient ASIC hardware (not cheap…) in order to achieve that the Bitcoins you mine will approximately pay your electricity bill for mining. That's always the &quot;market equilibrium&quot; in Bitcoin mining, so you can get the heat for free or very cheap, but it's not easy to achieve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cryptorials.io/how-to-mine-cryptocurrency-for-science-gridcoin-and-foldingcoin/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_distributed_computing_projects&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Open_Infrastructure_for_Network_Computing&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Project_list" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5526" RevisionGUID="cea8193b-67e0-4e3f-8b6c-0b10f6eb7a87" CreationDate="2016-09-12T15:01:25.650" UserId="99" Text="As far as I know there isn't a &quot;*really famous green social media network / plug-in*&quot; where lots of green-minded people hang out and where you can just select the ones that live close to you. It's probably easier (and perhaps also more efficient) to reach out to real-life groups and communities in your area. Nevertheless you can try the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Nearby**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Local LinkedIn Groups**: your best shot may be to try and find a local sustainability or carbon footprint-related group on LinkedIn. I followed some interesting discussions in local groups in the past myself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Alternatives (not necessarily nearby)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to connect to people using the Internet then why not broaden your scope and connect to anyone, no matter where they live? There are lots of people all over the world who are willing to provide advice on how to reduce your carbon footprint. To name a few possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **MOOCS**: sign up for interesting sustainability, global warming or other carbon footprint-related courses on MOOC platforms like Coursera and Edx. The best courses have active discussion forums and you can learn a lot from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Twitter**: I don't use it personally, but I know of other people who connected to similarly-minded people after they started following a specific tag. Twitter has a [#carbonfootprint tag](https://twitter.com/hashtag/carbonfootprint)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Joulebug**: with the **[Joulebug](http://joulebug.com/)** app (no affiliation) you can compete in local or global challenges or with friends. It has people from all over the world, but the majority seems to be from the US. If you're lucky you may be able to find a person living close to you, but the number of active users is limited and it's hard to determine where people come from (no location data on profiles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **This website**: you could also use this site to connect to other people. We have a [sustainability chat room](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/7310/sustainable-living). It's usually not very active, but we only need 2 or 3 regular visitors there to change that. &#xD;&#xA;You could also just post a discussion question on chat if no-one is around and wait for reactions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13049" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="3e00cb54-64a9-4d76-a327-ff668e907c0b" CreationDate="2016-09-12T15:03:20.437" UserId="99" Comment="revised title to better reflect content" Text="Green social media to connect with nearby people to help reduce carbon footprint" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13054" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4326" RevisionGUID="4832f23e-952b-4246-b221-e9ddf54a70b5" CreationDate="2016-09-13T08:02:14.290" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|carbon-footprint|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="188d3a30-1ea2-4972-bb69-01b693d5ddef" CreationDate="2016-09-14T06:42:49.060" UserId="2187" Text="- What makes a good example of a sustainable writing pen? &#xD;&#xA;- Which ones do you use in your daily life?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="188d3a30-1ea2-4972-bb69-01b693d5ddef" CreationDate="2016-09-14T06:42:49.060" UserId="2187" Text="What are some good examples of sustainable writing pens?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="188d3a30-1ea2-4972-bb69-01b693d5ddef" CreationDate="2016-09-14T06:42:49.060" UserId="2187" Text="|product-recommendation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13058" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5514" RevisionGUID="945d21e5-ac73-46d3-9fe5-9a757bfb2690" CreationDate="2016-09-14T08:42:11.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/775977934016446464" />
  <row Id="13059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="f692633f-1421-4edf-bc8b-cc3191548006" CreationDate="2016-09-14T12:37:55.940" UserId="2187" Comment="Rephrased the question to stay on-topic." Text="What makes a good example of a sustainable writing pen? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13060" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="f692633f-1421-4edf-bc8b-cc3191548006" CreationDate="2016-09-14T12:37:55.940" UserId="2187" Comment="Rephrased the question to stay on-topic." Text="What is a good examples of a sustainable writing pen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13061" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="f692633f-1421-4edf-bc8b-cc3191548006" CreationDate="2016-09-14T12:37:55.940" UserId="2187" Comment="Rephrased the question to stay on-topic." Text="|product-design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="ffb16549-c236-4f39-b0b8-1c7d122e0d1e" CreationDate="2016-09-14T12:57:41.560" UserId="2187" Comment="Concretised ball-point pen." Text="What makes a good example of a sustainable writing ball-point pen? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13063" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="ffb16549-c236-4f39-b0b8-1c7d122e0d1e" CreationDate="2016-09-14T12:57:41.560" UserId="2187" Comment="Concretised ball-point pen." Text="What is a good examples of a sustainable writing ball-point pen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5529" RevisionGUID="580a15e4-17ef-4a35-a5cb-05aceea4fe05" CreationDate="2016-09-14T13:24:36.910" UserId="3779" Text="I have just started recycling our Laundry Grey Water on a farm in Australia through the Toilet Cisterns.&#xD;&#xA;I initially had an IBC 1000litre tank on 200 litre (44 imp gallon) oil drums outside a verandah with a step down from the verandah floor of about 300mm &#xD;&#xA;(1foot). &#xD;&#xA;The washing machine would only just pump in when the tank was empty and no way would fill the IBC (Intermediate Bulk Container- plastic with Aluminium frame around it). I have since bought a used 240v pump for $80 to fill the IBC. &#xD;&#xA;At half full there was not enough head to fill the toilet Cisterns even though is was running in by gravity. I am now moving the IBC to under our garage to get another 600mm (2 feet) head. This places the bottom of the IBC well above the Toilet Cisterns. &#xD;&#xA;The washing machine uses approx 48 litres per full cycle and the toilets use 7 litres per flush and 1 person full daily use amounts to approx 50 litres of flushed water. The toilet water goes down to a septic tank and French Drain at the end of which I have another IBC to hold all bathroom and laundry/toilet water for use on fruit trees. &#xD;&#xA;I hope these ideas are of use to someone. I am now enquiring about council and health regulations here to start a business doing this cycle.     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5530" RevisionGUID="97e3501d-524e-4dfb-b6ec-b1bac5b07605" CreationDate="2016-09-15T07:56:19.587" UserId="48" Text="The process of wind resource assessment has used a variety of methods over the years; more recently, lidar  - radar-style sensing using lasers; and sodar (similar, but using sound) have come to dominate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What the pros and cons of using lidar, over sodar, when assessing the wind resource at a potential windfarm site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5530" RevisionGUID="97e3501d-524e-4dfb-b6ec-b1bac5b07605" CreationDate="2016-09-15T07:56:19.587" UserId="48" Text="What are the advantages and disadvantages of using lidars over sodars for wind resource assessment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5530" RevisionGUID="97e3501d-524e-4dfb-b6ec-b1bac5b07605" CreationDate="2016-09-15T07:56:19.587" UserId="48" Text="|renewables|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13071" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4388" RevisionGUID="88a07112-d796-4bed-bae0-a5666fffea65" CreationDate="2016-09-16T19:31:59.343" UserId="2134" Comment="wording improvements" Text="Heating with electricity is wasteful because it implies the heat that could not be converted to electricity at the point of generation. It's roughly 50-70% for fuel-powered plants and 70-80% for photovoltaics (but not really an issue there, as sun and space are usually abundant). That implied waste heat could heat many homes for free, if only we'd have a way to deliver it long-distance …).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you run your electrical appliance to do meaningful work that has to be done anyway, and then utilize its waste heat for room heating, it *is* a greener solution since you save heating fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A computer is quite useful in this scenario, since there are quite some meaningful tasks for them to do while contributing to heating your home:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Personal server housing.** If you have enough Internet bandwidth, you can put a web server for yourself, your company or a friend into your home.&#xD;&#xA; - **Cloud computing / hosting.** German startup [Cloud&amp;Heat](https://www.cloudandheat.com/) wants to do something against the enormous amounts of heat wasted when cooling centralized data centers. They offer to place a rack with cloud servers into your house and pay the electricity and bandwidth for it. So you get the servers' waste heat for free and can use it for water heating (connections provided) or space heating (via the heated water and a buffer tank).&#xD;&#xA; - **Distributed computing.** The best-known [distributed computing infrastructure][2] is [BOINC][3]. In the BOINC Manager application at &quot;Tools → Add Project…&quot; you are presented with the official BOINC projects, all for advancing science. However, you can also contribute to any of the [third-party BOINC projects][4] by typing in the project URL. (Example: `http://burp.renderfarming.net/` for contributing to BURP distributed 3D rendering.) None of these projects pay your increasing electricity usage, but at least you can opt to support science :)&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;Useful&quot; cryptocurrency mining.** Some new cryptocurrencies allow [mining with meaningful scientific calculations][1] rather than just calculating millions of hash checksums as in the case of Bitcoin. The amount of cryptocurrencies you earn this way is not sufficient to cover the electricity bill, but again, you can support science.&#xD;&#xA; - **Normal cryptocurrency mining.** If you consider this &quot;meaningful work&quot;, it's an option as well. It can pay off in monetary terms (&quot;you get the heat for free&quot;), but resource-wise mining Bitcoins and other proof-of-work cryptocurrencies is an intentional waste of energy. Also with Bitcoin, you will need energy-efficient ASIC hardware (not cheap…) in order to break even. Having your energy costs covered is always the &quot;market equilibrium&quot; in Bitcoin mining, so in principle you can get the heat for (nearly) free, but it's not easy to achieve and the required investments are speculative risks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://cryptorials.io/how-to-mine-cryptocurrency-for-science-gridcoin-and-foldingcoin/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_distributed_computing_projects&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Open_Infrastructure_for_Network_Computing&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Project_list" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5532" RevisionGUID="6e7f5d95-961c-4f20-9b54-5cc00903c07b" CreationDate="2016-09-17T08:35:55.960" UserId="48" Text="Pumped hydroelectric storage has, to date, been the most scalable way to store electricity (in this case, in the form of gravitational potential energy), allowing us to spread the time between when the electricity is first generated, and when it is finally consumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are inevitably losses - the pumping of water uphill is less than 100% efficient, the conversions of the potential energy to kinetic energy to electricity are too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the typical efficiency of pumped hydroelectric storage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On top of the losses described above, the upper reservoir may experience some evaporation, depleting the energy stored; and it might get topped up from precipitation - is there any data on how that affects the overall real-world performance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13073" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5532" RevisionGUID="6e7f5d95-961c-4f20-9b54-5cc00903c07b" CreationDate="2016-09-17T08:35:55.960" UserId="48" Text="What's the average efficiency of pumped hydroelectric energy storage facilities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13074" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5532" RevisionGUID="6e7f5d95-961c-4f20-9b54-5cc00903c07b" CreationDate="2016-09-17T08:35:55.960" UserId="48" Text="|electricity|renewables|electricity-generation|storage|hydroelectricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13075" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5532" RevisionGUID="f7397fe7-0dc0-4ab6-a69e-e0fd6a4aab6e" CreationDate="2016-09-17T20:57:24.210" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/777250120740012032" />
  <row Id="13076" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5530" RevisionGUID="3940b6e0-fce4-405e-b90a-f660cbf0aaf8" CreationDate="2016-09-17T23:59:10.293" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/777295864243027968" />
  <row Id="13077" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5484" RevisionGUID="650df949-1701-453a-b027-5c5e107a76a0" CreationDate="2016-09-18T15:01:47.790" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/777523017194799105" />
  <row Id="13078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5533" RevisionGUID="ffae0e41-2cac-4a6b-8d74-d4382b2c723c" CreationDate="2016-09-19T12:41:03.897" UserId="2187" Text="In my everyday life I drink my espresso in small cafés that sell espresso made from coffee beans certified as ecological and fair trade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exceptionally I drink espresso at McDonald's if there is no alternative, e.g. at airports or train stations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brought my interest to the question how sustainable McDonald's espresso is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13079" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5533" RevisionGUID="ffae0e41-2cac-4a6b-8d74-d4382b2c723c" CreationDate="2016-09-19T12:41:03.897" UserId="2187" Text="How sustainable is McDonald's espresso?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13080" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5533" RevisionGUID="ffae0e41-2cac-4a6b-8d74-d4382b2c723c" CreationDate="2016-09-19T12:41:03.897" UserId="2187" Text="|coffee|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="2e3158ac-2a4a-4c0b-808f-a22c52cffc0f" CreationDate="2016-09-19T16:04:16.577" UserId="3532" Text="I'm looking for an egg laying duck to keep in MN that won't need wing clipping, will survive a snowy winter, and will produce good eggs. What should I look into?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13082" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="2e3158ac-2a4a-4c0b-808f-a22c52cffc0f" CreationDate="2016-09-19T16:04:16.577" UserId="3532" Text="What types of ducks are cold hardy, and do well in wetlands?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13083" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="2e3158ac-2a4a-4c0b-808f-a22c52cffc0f" CreationDate="2016-09-19T16:04:16.577" UserId="3532" Text="|ducks|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13084" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="792429f7-3056-4163-8d2f-46118f84f040" CreationDate="2016-09-20T03:19:13.017" UserId="3532" Comment="edited tags" Text="|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5535" RevisionGUID="30ffe49f-ed2c-43ad-be2b-d32e46c62f2d" CreationDate="2016-09-20T06:39:11.893" UserId="3293" Text="Multinational firms are not sustainable, because **only profit rules** them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current mainstream society isn't sustainable as long as firms are allowed not to pay the **real price** for things they take from &quot;us&quot; (and our children) - this would include soil resources, water, air, work force, animals and plants life..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5535" RevisionGUID="2e9a6929-5ef4-4157-9e8e-9d31a4fbb057" CreationDate="2016-09-20T07:58:26.730" UserId="3293" Comment="added 248 characters in body" Text="Since this question is quite general, I will allow me to be a little general too: **McDonald's products are not sustainable** - in general. Moreover it appears Fast-food cannot be sustainable, since it negates the fact that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ***sustainable things take time***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multinational firms are not sustainable, because **only profit rules** them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current mainstream society isn't sustainable as long as firms are allowed not to pay the **real price** for things they take from &quot;us&quot; (and our children) - this would include soil resources, water, air, work force, animals and plants life..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5536" RevisionGUID="2662cab0-707b-4360-a8de-f5600698dbd9" CreationDate="2016-09-20T08:00:03.620" UserId="48" Text="Wind-turbine wake models are used in the design of wind farms, to optimise the choice of turbine model, and the layout of the turbines. They're also sometimes used in the operation of wind farms, to maximise generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the evidence on the accuracy of the wind turbine wake models?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm primary interested in accuracy with specific regard to maximising windfarm profitability: that is to say, judging their accuracy from the perspective of their objectives when used in wind farm design and operation. If there aren't studies looking at their accuracy with regard to maximising generation at lowest cost, then some other measure of accuracy would be acceptable: at worst, something like root mean square error (as unsatisfactory as it is in this context)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13088" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5536" RevisionGUID="2662cab0-707b-4360-a8de-f5600698dbd9" CreationDate="2016-09-20T08:00:03.620" UserId="48" Text="Is there a recent study that shows how accurate wind turbine wake models are?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13089" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5536" RevisionGUID="2662cab0-707b-4360-a8de-f5600698dbd9" CreationDate="2016-09-20T08:00:03.620" UserId="48" Text="|renewables|wind-power|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="941007d5-1a21-4f95-b45b-325047dfbfe4" CreationDate="2016-09-20T08:13:12.510" UserId="15" Comment="edited abbreviated state to full state name and added country, as this is an international site" Text="I'm looking for an egg laying duck to keep in Minnesota (USA) that won't need wing clipping, will survive a snowy winter, and will produce good eggs. What should I look into?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5537" RevisionGUID="a25a0926-6d64-4579-bec9-25eb3e880717" CreationDate="2016-09-21T20:50:15.177" UserId="3792" Text="You might want to look at refillable pens, where you do not have to throw away the whole pen if it's finished, but can just replace the inside. You can buy them in most office stores and are not very expensive (often less than 1 dollar/euro/pound for a refill).&#xD;&#xA;A lot of pens are refillable so it's worth looking if you may already have one laying around! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5539" RevisionGUID="a8e3cd6a-02e2-47d9-a44d-115b20fbb4cf" CreationDate="2016-09-22T01:53:24.870" UserId="659" Text="One approach is to look for studies in this area and decide whether the idea is even plausible. Is it &quot;a bit more expensive but I like the technology&quot; or is it &quot;much more expensive and doesn't work very well&quot;? If it's the former you can start looking at your exact site, if the latter... do you have a lot of money to spend on something that just looks green? The latter reason is why small turbines on roofs are popular with corporations trying to greenwash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Australian [&quot;Alternative Technology Association&quot; has done a study on whether small turbines][1] can be viable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short summary is that **small turbines need consistent strong winds**, and because the wind is significantly disturbed by the house, it helps a lot of the wind is almost always from the same direction so you can mount the turbine on the upwind side of the house. The exception would be if you're in a site with exceptionally steady, strong wind, and you need to go off-grid/can't get a grid connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I wrote this][2] on another forum in response to the same question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have a friend with an offgrid property in the Otways on the south coast in Victoria. It's windy pretty much year round. But even there the two 200W turbines have to be ~8m up on a grassy hilltop to get clear of ground noise and over a year they run about 60% of capacity. Sure, that's better than PV (~15%-25%) but they're noisy, the installation was difficult and they have to be taken down and serviced every year. Of the parts of the system (wind, pv, battery, inverter, genset), the wind takes more maintenance than the rest of the setup combined and only the generator comes close. 400W of wind also cost as much as the 3kW PV system, but the PV gives more power, more reliably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that is is on a 10Ha+ block where no-one cares about what it looks like, how much noise it makes, or how much space you need to drop the tower and service the turbine. In the city you're likely to have 8m roof heights (or you will have in a couple of years when the neighbours rebuild), [so you need an 18m tower][3]. Then you need to be 3.5m from the boundary, and need ~20m to drop the tower. So you need 23 metres of clear space in your backyard - assuming you have an unguyed tower. Tower costs get scary. A standard lattice-and-guy tower 18m tall is $5k-$10k just for hardware, but if you want self-supporting it gets pricey fast ([Randwick Council in Sydney paid ~$45k for 2.4kW up a 13.5m freestanding tower][4] - pdf, case study page 51).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's obviously silly to spend $10k on a tower then put a little 200W or even 2kW turbine on top of it, so finding information about those systems is basically impossible. In the pdf above case study 5 says an 18m mast with a 6kW turbine cost $50k, so doubling the turbine size added 10% to the system cost compared to Randwick (roughly speaking, not all things are equal between the two).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But then if you look for $50k solar RAPS systems (because for that money why not go off grid) [I picked a random one out of a search engine you get 15kW of PV, 80kWh of battery and 30kWh of consumption a day][5] (base cost $37k, I just assumed that the extra $13k would take you to the top end of their quoted range).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ata.org.au/ata-research/the-viability-of-domestic-wind-turbines&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2506090&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.windpowerengineering.com/construction/high-small-wind-turbine/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/households/NSWSmallWindTurbineConsumerGuide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.offgridenergy.com.au/index.php/off-grid-complete-system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5539" RevisionGUID="52455f03-3b84-4ea1-8cfb-823ccbdd1afe" CreationDate="2016-09-22T01:58:55.540" UserId="659" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="One approach is to look for studies in this area and decide whether the idea is even plausible. Is it &quot;a bit more expensive but I like the technology&quot; or is it &quot;much more expensive and doesn't work very well&quot;? If it's the former you can start looking at your exact site, if the latter... do you have a lot of money to spend on something that just looks green? The latter reason is why small turbines on roofs are [popular with corporations trying to greenwash][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Australian [&quot;Alternative Technology Association&quot; has done a study on whether small turbines][2] can be viable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short summary is that **small turbines need consistent strong winds**, and because the wind is significantly disturbed by the house, it helps a lot of the wind is almost always from the same direction so you can mount the turbine on the upwind side of the house. The exception would be if you're in a site with exceptionally steady, strong wind, and you need to go off-grid/can't get a grid connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[I wrote this][3] on another forum in response to the same question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I have a friend with an offgrid property in the Otways on the south coast in Victoria. It's windy pretty much year round. But even there the two 200W turbines have to be ~8m up on a grassy hilltop to get clear of ground noise and over a year they run about 60% of capacity. Sure, that's better than PV (~15%-25%) but they're noisy, the installation was difficult and they have to be taken down and serviced every year. Of the parts of the system (wind, pv, battery, inverter, genset), the wind takes more maintenance than the rest of the setup combined and only the generator comes close. 400W of wind also cost as much as the 3kW PV system, but the PV gives more power, more reliably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note that is is on a 10Ha+ block where no-one cares about what it looks like, how much noise it makes, or how much space you need to drop the tower and service the turbine. In the city you're likely to have 8m roof heights (or you will have in a couple of years when the neighbours rebuild), [so you need an 18m tower][4]. Then you need to be 3.5m from the boundary, and need ~20m to drop the tower. So you need 23 metres of clear space in your backyard - assuming you have an unguyed tower. Tower costs get scary. A standard lattice-and-guy tower 18m tall is $5k-$10k just for hardware, but if you want self-supporting it gets pricey fast ([Randwick Council in Sydney paid ~$45k for 2.4kW up a 13.5m freestanding tower][5] - pdf, case study page 51).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's obviously silly to spend $10k on a tower then put a little 200W or even 2kW turbine on top of it, so finding information about those systems is basically impossible. In the pdf above case study 5 says an 18m mast with a 6kW turbine cost $50k, so doubling the turbine size added 10% to the system cost compared to Randwick (roughly speaking, not all things are equal between the two).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But then if you look for $50k solar RAPS systems (because for that money why not go off grid) [I picked a random one out of a search engine you get 15kW of PV, 80kWh of battery and 30kWh of consumption a day][6] (base cost $37k, I just assumed that the extra $13k would take you to the top end of their quoted range).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1841305&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ata.org.au/ata-research/the-viability-of-domestic-wind-turbines&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2506090&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.windpowerengineering.com/construction/high-small-wind-turbine/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/households/NSWSmallWindTurbineConsumerGuide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.offgridenergy.com.au/index.php/off-grid-complete-system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5540" RevisionGUID="f91d43e0-e9d1-49f3-9c06-38932e0cbcf9" CreationDate="2016-09-22T17:55:12.560" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5541" RevisionGUID="689214a1-ae43-44f3-9e9e-c848182b4a9d" CreationDate="2016-09-22T17:55:12.560" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13108" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5533" RevisionGUID="d3745055-9738-4c8d-8298-f0913a46057a" CreationDate="2016-09-25T15:22:04.067" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/780064833739849728" />
  <row Id="13109" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5536" RevisionGUID="b57f4a61-e6d2-4867-8222-e0e9ed5b4fbb" CreationDate="2016-09-25T21:22:04.680" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/780155433076006914" />
  <row Id="13110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="8219a5b5-984a-4390-a433-10b1fc75cbac" CreationDate="2016-09-26T13:19:23.280" UserId="80" Text="To light my gas stove, I use either a cheap butane lighter or small sulphur matches. The lighter is refillable and made of plastic, and the matches are made of wood and come in small cardboard boxes. I compost the used matches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there much of a difference as far as greenhouse gas emissions go? Is there obvious environmental concerns with one or the other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="8219a5b5-984a-4390-a433-10b1fc75cbac" CreationDate="2016-09-26T13:19:23.280" UserId="80" Text="Should I use matches or a refillable lighter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="8219a5b5-984a-4390-a433-10b1fc75cbac" CreationDate="2016-09-26T13:19:23.280" UserId="80" Text="|kitchen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5544" RevisionGUID="3b34ea5f-f824-41ca-9805-2ea0efe0b7fc" CreationDate="2016-09-27T05:42:42.130" UserId="48" Text="Estimations of the potential generation resource of wind power happens at all scales from very coarse global estimates, to detailed estimates at individual sites based on specific locations and specific choices of turbine. And this happens at different timescales, from seconds to decades; and both onshore and offshore. It happens in real-time for forecasting minutes, hours, days ahead; and it can happen for farms not yet developed, as part of the design process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What part of that process of estimating wind resource has the potential greatest benefit from further research?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5544" RevisionGUID="3b34ea5f-f824-41ca-9805-2ea0efe0b7fc" CreationDate="2016-09-27T05:42:42.130" UserId="48" Text="Which part of the process of estimating wind resource has the potential greatest benefit from further research?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5544" RevisionGUID="3b34ea5f-f824-41ca-9805-2ea0efe0b7fc" CreationDate="2016-09-27T05:42:42.130" UserId="48" Text="|renewables|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="e8ae53d0-9920-4429-8c68-f5c84a933042" CreationDate="2016-09-27T12:52:01.080" UserId="80" Comment="extra info as per comments" Text="To light my gas stove, I use either a cheap butane lighter or small sulphur matches. The lighter is refillable and made of plastic, and the matches are made of wood and come in small cardboard boxes. I compost the used matches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there much of a difference as far as greenhouse gas emissions go? Is there obvious environmental concerns with one or the other?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I assume the stove could probably be lit with a simple spark.&#xD;&#xA; - The lighter would be refilled with butane from a butane can, which  originates from fossil fuel (as I understand, either from natural gas&#xD;&#xA;   or liquefied petroleum gas).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5545" RevisionGUID="8159b230-7ef0-4996-ad29-196479c8256d" CreationDate="2016-09-27T19:33:37.397" UserId="1123" Text="As you mention, all that is really needed is something to produce a spark several inches from your hand (which is why a simple flint and steel is not a realistic option). I suggest using a piezo electric gas lighter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quick internet search will turn up many products, some battery powered and others using hand &quot;effort&quot; to produce the spark. The hand-powered version is the most obviously &quot;zero-emissions beyond manufacture&quot; option, but you could use solar and rechargeable batteries and still avoid emissions beyond the initial manufacture of the lighter and batteries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5546" RevisionGUID="3621da31-4c3f-48c4-aedf-dab68ea3ee2a" CreationDate="2016-09-28T02:20:28.137" UserId="48" Text="I've heard that investors use the P90 of a wind resource when considering an investment. What kind of measure is it, what does it actually mean, and how is it calculated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13119" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5546" RevisionGUID="3621da31-4c3f-48c4-aedf-dab68ea3ee2a" CreationDate="2016-09-28T02:20:28.137" UserId="48" Text="What does the P90 of a wind resource mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13120" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5546" RevisionGUID="3621da31-4c3f-48c4-aedf-dab68ea3ee2a" CreationDate="2016-09-28T02:20:28.137" UserId="48" Text="|renewables|wind-power|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13121" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5502" RevisionGUID="19e5bec6-2f59-43c4-83be-f08b197b3957" CreationDate="2016-09-28T09:58:40.787" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/781070614320836608" />
  <row Id="13122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="ddda9680-fe17-4771-8fd5-19f820336efa" CreationDate="2016-09-28T11:31:32.267" UserId="1701" Text="From the [Wind Measurement International site][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; P90 is all about quantifying the uncertainty of annual energy yield predictions. P90 is the energy WMI predicts that a wind turbine is 90% likely to produce over an average year, given the uncertainties in the measurement, analysis and wind turbine operation. P50, on the other hand, is the average annual energy yield predicted for your site - the annual energy output you are most likely to achieve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Investor decisions are commonly based on P90 (P95 or even P80 are sometimes used). Better instrumentation, long term data, analysis and wind turbine operation are all able to close the gap between P90 and P50, so increasing your project value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind Measurement International aims to maximise P90 from initial survey to final bankable report. Our range of services offer a consistent P50/P90 through the energy valuation matched to your risk/cost requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.windmeasurementinternational.com/wind-analysis/p90-wind_anyalsis.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="ee156d73-5e4d-47bb-9bba-c19c97d61d64" CreationDate="2016-09-28T12:13:55.007" UserId="99" Comment="removed commercial part" Text="From the [Wind Measurement International site][1]: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; P90 is all about quantifying the uncertainty of annual energy yield predictions. P90 is the energy WMI predicts that a wind turbine is 90% likely to produce over an average year, given the uncertainties in the measurement, analysis and wind turbine operation. P50, on the other hand, is the average annual energy yield predicted for your site - the annual energy output you are most likely to achieve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Investor decisions are commonly based on P90 (P95 or even P80 are sometimes used). Better instrumentation, long term data, analysis and wind turbine operation are all able to close the gap between P90 and P50, so increasing your project value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.windmeasurementinternational.com/wind-analysis/p90-wind_anyalsis.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5548" RevisionGUID="eab0ac36-d785-4c7a-9961-377ae9ae79ad" CreationDate="2016-09-28T14:33:33.753" UserId="3824" Text="Energy Storage Association cites round trip efficiencies above 80%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydroelectric-storage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5548" RevisionGUID="4c368413-229b-43e6-95bd-3a0748319c2c" CreationDate="2016-09-28T14:40:31.737" UserId="3824" Comment="Discussed second question about evaporation" Text="Energy Storage Association cites round trip efficiencies above 80%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydroelectric-storage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the evaporation question. I don't know of any specific data on it, but would expect it to be minimal if you charge the reservoir during off-peak (cheaper) hours and discharge it during the morning ramp.  Evaporation can also be eliminated through underground pumped hydro... one example: http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Gravity-Power " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5549" RevisionGUID="830bba5e-6102-42ee-99b6-55fa09c5d815" CreationDate="2016-09-28T16:44:10.403" UserId="3825" Text="current flow, in the case of AC (in 2 directions ergo, alternating current AC)&#xD;&#xA;is the determinate as to whether there is consumption.If a lamp is plugged into a wall socket and the bulb is dark there is no consumption. If a plug in transformer (AC to DC) is plugged in but the device to be charged is not connected (like your cell phone)there is no consumption.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5550" RevisionGUID="a568e265-5029-477c-a60b-a1b74abd201b" CreationDate="2016-09-28T17:00:19.947" UserId="3826" Text="Although hybrid cars are efficient on paper - the reality is far from that. Until battery technology advances well enough to have a cost-effective product in the long run, my choice will always be on the side of diesel, or even petrol engines - there are still other options still, take a look at this article: https://www.marlincash.com/fuel-efficient-cars/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5551" RevisionGUID="7800539e-1f89-4417-b449-21743fb3017d" CreationDate="2016-09-29T01:36:48.420" UserId="659" Text="In this [question about rooftop hydro][1] I covered the efficiency question almost as an aside. I can't find an actual plant with efficiency over 80%, only claims that that might be possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started with the link William also found to the [Energy Storage Association][2] who appear to be a trade group promoting the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; these plants are typically highly efficient (round-trip efficiencies reaching greater than 80%) and can prove very beneficial in terms of balancing load within the overall power system. Pumped-storage facilities can be very economical due to peak tand off-peak price differentials and their potential to provide critical ancillary grid services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia make a similar claim][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the round-trip energy efficiency of PSH varies in practice between 70% and 80%, with some claiming up to 87%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But they give references. Unfortunately the Hawaiian Electric Company claim of 87% round-trip is no longer on their web page and I can't find an archived version. They don't appear to have built an actual plant with that efficiency, so I suspect they were repeating advertising claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The people [promoting trains for energy storage][4] say that 70-75% or more realistic (via The Economist):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Its system uses modified railway cars on a specially built track ... delivers more power for the same height differential. He also says it is more efficient, with a round-trip efficiency—the ratio of energy out to energy in—of more than 85%, compared with 70-75% for Pumped Storage Hydro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Storing Energy: with Special Reference to Renewable Energy Sources&#xD;&#xA;By Trevor M. Letcher][5] says 60% for older plants and up to 80% for newer ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5457/can-pumped-water-energy-storage-be-combined-with-rainwater-harvesting/5460#5460&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydroelectric-storage&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.economist.com/node/21548495?frsc=dg%7Ca&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=TPReBwAAQBAJ&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA25&amp;dq=info:1fSw0yVikpMJ:scholar.google.com&amp;ots=nOV5mvjb3R&amp;sig=-mVET6C_qQosE11doraPLlwi0e0&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5551" RevisionGUID="28a67347-4adb-4393-81b5-71cfd4e43f09" CreationDate="2016-09-29T01:42:46.297" UserId="659" Comment="added 597 characters in body" Text="In this [question about rooftop hydro][1] I covered the efficiency question almost as an aside. I can't find an actual plant with efficiency over 80%, only claims that that might be possible. The average efficiency will be much lower than the peak, as a lot of plants are old and have efficiencies around 60% (although some have been refitted to boost efficiency). Since we're dealing with big civil engineering projects changing the design is usually a big, expensive project. Published efficiency figures often fail to separate natural inflow from pumped, although thanksfully the engineers seem to dominate these discussions so they generally say &quot;{year} input *x* GWh, output *y* GWh (including natural inflows)&quot;. Otherwise a few plants would have efficiencies over 100% some years :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started with the link William also found to the [Energy Storage Association][2] who appear to be a trade group promoting the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; these plants are typically highly efficient (round-trip efficiencies reaching greater than 80%) and can prove very beneficial in terms of balancing load within the overall power system. Pumped-storage facilities can be very economical due to peak tand off-peak price differentials and their potential to provide critical ancillary grid services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia make a similar claim][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the round-trip energy efficiency of PSH varies in practice between 70% and 80%, with some claiming up to 87%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But they give references. Unfortunately the Hawaiian Electric Company claim of 87% round-trip is no longer on their web page and I can't find an archived version. They don't appear to have built an actual plant with that efficiency, so I suspect they were repeating advertising claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The people [promoting trains for energy storage][4] say that 70-75% or more realistic (via The Economist):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Its system uses modified railway cars on a specially built track ... delivers more power for the same height differential. He also says it is more efficient, with a round-trip efficiency—the ratio of energy out to energy in—of more than 85%, compared with 70-75% for Pumped Storage Hydro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Storing Energy: with Special Reference to Renewable Energy Sources&#xD;&#xA;By Trevor M. Letcher][5] says 60% for older plants and up to 80% for newer ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5457/can-pumped-water-energy-storage-be-combined-with-rainwater-harvesting/5460#5460&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydroelectric-storage&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.economist.com/node/21548495?frsc=dg%7Ca&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=TPReBwAAQBAJ&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA25&amp;dq=info:1fSw0yVikpMJ:scholar.google.com&amp;ots=nOV5mvjb3R&amp;sig=-mVET6C_qQosE11doraPLlwi0e0&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13131" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5543" RevisionGUID="4fd5bf89-bfc4-4ce3-aae3-9999c1b16a92" CreationDate="2016-09-29T07:09:56.233" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/781390536569675776" />
  <row Id="13132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5552" RevisionGUID="d7d637fb-5f70-476f-97a1-de49cc7624f9" CreationDate="2016-09-30T01:30:56.157" UserId="3837" Text="One method of making a composting toilet is to connect the outlet of a regular flush toilet to a ~1 cubic meter flowbin (just a container with a sufficient inlet and outlet). And then you fill it 1/3 to half way with mulching material and a kilogram of earthworms. What will happen is the solids will remain in the flowbin and get processed by the earthworms and the liquids will flow out. The liquids should then go into a greywater system. We've been using this method for 2 years by ~3 people/day (sometimes 10-12 people over the course of a week) and haven't had to empty the flowbin yet. When it comes time to empty, we'll stop using it for a bit so that it can be fully processed by the worms. Or at least enough that it's not a horrible job. How long that is, is still to be determined. I would say only do this if you're somewhat familiar with using composting toilets already (a good one to start with would be a dry composting toilet). Also note that there is the potential to kill your earthworms by taking strong worm medicine internally. The performance of the system is brilliant. There is literally no smell unless you stick your head right inside the flowbin. And it functions just like a regular toilet that everyones used to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="14974107-c782-4212-89e8-39262a6501dc" CreationDate="2016-09-30T08:48:49.967" UserId="48" Text="Utility-scale wind turbines have various sensors mounted on the nacelle, to ensure the power generation is optimised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are readings from the wind sensors mounted on wind turbines influenced by the blades' wakes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And what sort of compensation is done in best practice to adjust for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="14974107-c782-4212-89e8-39262a6501dc" CreationDate="2016-09-30T08:48:49.967" UserId="48" Text="How are readings from the wind sensors mounted on wind turbines influenced by the blades' wakes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="14974107-c782-4212-89e8-39262a6501dc" CreationDate="2016-09-30T08:48:49.967" UserId="48" Text="|renewables|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5554" RevisionGUID="5eb21c19-8d52-482e-9c62-f40ad64942d2" CreationDate="2016-10-01T10:22:30.237" UserId="3293" Text="I would use a mechanical or electromechanical or mechanical sparkle lighter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This mechanical one is purely made of metal, and should last more than your stove:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electromechanical could even last longer (it has no retrofit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even more, you could try to modify and use an existing empty electronic lighter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LnFVm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mNudu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13137" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5546" RevisionGUID="d6bc31c4-8065-415c-9600-5fbf52fc7892" CreationDate="2016-10-01T16:41:24.580" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/782259127980593152" />
  <row Id="13139" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5553" RevisionGUID="c55656cc-2204-4239-bbeb-c44121fd8313" CreationDate="2016-10-02T01:44:11.133" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/782395722142453760" />
  <row Id="13142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5556" RevisionGUID="cb3cf879-ff55-4e61-91a8-9004305b94c3" CreationDate="2016-10-04T21:47:46.757" UserId="80" Text="**[Meetup.com][1]** has all sorts of groups with different interests, and I am sure you will find a nearby group that aligns with yours. It is designed to show you what is happening close to you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a different manner, what I would call a &quot;green&quot; social network also relates to how it functions and the principles on which it was designed. I know you are asking specifically about connecting to nearby folks to reduce you carbon footprint, but consider this: **The Federation** is a bunch of different Free Software-based social networks that can interact with each other. One of them is **[Diaspora][2]**, which is Free Software that you can host yourself (and run the server on renewable energy if you want to ;) ), but you can also try to find a local *pod* to sign up. You can even create a local pod that is specifically focused on sustainability, because you can personalise the software. I think that those alternative social networks are *sustainable* &quot;sensu lato&quot; because it is Free Software, focused on respecting privacy, decentralised, and built to be interoperable. And to tell you the truth, a very big chunk of the users are quite interested in reducing their environmental footprint, because that's the kind of crowd that those networks attract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I can think of a different way to connect to like-minded people: start volunteering with an **organisation or a political party** that is aligned with your interest in reducing your carbon footprint, and has a significant number of members in their local branch. You are likely to find very motivated people that already have a system in place to communicate and organise actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck, and keep us informed of what you find!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.meetup.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://diasporafoundation.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5557" RevisionGUID="2876e4ed-7b8a-4aca-be65-d7718746a262" CreationDate="2016-10-04T22:13:33.190" UserId="80" Text="I thought a new development would be worth mentioning: CrowdSupply hosts a successful crowd-funding campaign for the **[EOMA68 line of computing devices][1]**. EOMA68 is a standard, and the computing devices have the benefit of using easily-replaceable parts to fix or upgrade them, 3D-printable casings, and components that can move from one casing to another (for example, desktop to laptop). The modularity allows for recycling and re-purposing. It uses Free Software, which allows you to modify and adapt it to your needs and does not make it rely on one single company for support (which adds to a device's longevity); it also is a benefit for privacy concerns. The Micro Desktop casing is made of wood, which is a renewable resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related to **Free Software**: GNU/Linux distributions exist in the thousands, and some of them are specialised to install on [older hardware][2] and/or on [low-spec computers][3], which is good for both longevity and power consumption. I have often found that a computer that was struggling with Windows and seemed to be ready to retire got a second life after a fresh install of a GNU/Linux operating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop#&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://distrowatch.com/search.php?category=Old%20Computers&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://distrowatch.com/search.php?category=Netbooks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5558" RevisionGUID="5ef09938-61b0-4b86-9f9e-8ac68e892508" CreationDate="2016-10-05T05:39:40.340" UserId="3532" Text="I'm looking at ordering mangalitsa pigs for some land, and was wondering how many I can keep on an acre with rotating pasture system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13146" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5558" RevisionGUID="5ef09938-61b0-4b86-9f9e-8ac68e892508" CreationDate="2016-10-05T05:39:40.340" UserId="3532" Text="How many mangalitsa pigs can live on an acre of field?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13147" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5558" RevisionGUID="5ef09938-61b0-4b86-9f9e-8ac68e892508" CreationDate="2016-10-05T05:39:40.340" UserId="3532" Text="|pigs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="d7d40152-f3c3-4d34-98bf-f9c1af5fb0aa" CreationDate="2016-10-05T14:42:19.997" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="These quotes from the [Appendix - Pig Production Case Studies](http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/gap_pig_case_studies.pdf) (page 137 and up) of the report &quot;Animal Welfare Aspects of Good Agricultural Practice:&#xD;&#xA;pig production&quot; may give you an idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ökorex Bio Kft. in Fiad, Hungary keeps *60 sows and their progeny which occupy an area of about 5 hectares* &#xD;&#xA;- On Primagro Bt, in Kozárd, Hungary *the sows are kept in groups of 45. They share large paddocks measuring 4 hectares with open straw-bedded huts*&#xD;&#xA;- Dél-Cserháti Ökológiai Tájközpont Kht, in Jákotpuszta, Hungary has *3 boars, 80 sows plus all their progeny*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In winter, they are kept in a smaller paddock of about 30 hectares. n spring, the pigs are moved to larger paddocks&#xD;&#xA;measuring about 70 hectares. In these paddocks, the animals feed on whatever is being grown in the fields. They receive no other food ration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also more general publications like [Review of Production, Husbandry and Sustainability of Free-range Pig Production Systems](http://www.ajas.info/upload/pdf/17_262.pdf) (Z. H. Miao, P. C. Glatz and Y. J. Ru).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW I found all these Googling for [mangalica pigs husbandry density acre](https://www.google.nl/search?q=mangalica+pigs+husbandry+density+acre), so it looks as if you just need to spend some more time browsing the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as I suggested in my comments, what's wrong with actually contacting farmers or associations like the [Hungarian National Association of Mangalica Breeders](http://www.mangalicatenyesztok.hu/index-english.html), and asking them?&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You have far better change of getting answers that way than betting on Mangalica farmers reading this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5558" RevisionGUID="6abdadd4-14d0-495d-b4f9-68905d815f31" CreationDate="2016-10-05T19:09:13.910" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added link" Text="I'm looking at ordering [mangalitsa pigs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangalica) for some land, and was wondering how many I can keep on an acre with rotating pasture system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13150" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5558" RevisionGUID="6abdadd4-14d0-495d-b4f9-68905d815f31" CreationDate="2016-10-05T19:09:13.910" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 423" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="758021dd-04ca-45b2-aaf4-e777f10bf86a" CreationDate="2016-10-05T22:42:58.313" UserId="3379" Text="In the book *The Upcycle* (copyright 2013) by William McDonough and Michael Braungart, the authors make the following claim:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... consider exactly how much desert area covered in solar collectors would be required to power the entire United States: 140 square miles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to reproduce these numbers? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a starting point, the net summer capacity in the US in 2014 was 1,068,422.2 MW, [according to the EIA](http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_03.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Converting square miles to square meters, this means each square meter would need to produce **2,946.6 W/m^2**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at the top of the atmosphere is 1,367 W/m^2 ([source](https://www.newport.com/t/introduction-to-solar-radiation)), we have a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As this is obviously a hypothetical exercise, we're not concerned with the logistics of building such an array, transmitting the power, or what to do at night. At the very least, the system should either match the total annual electricity consumption of the US ([3,724,867,821 MWh](http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/5?agg=0,1&amp;geo=vvvvvvvvvvvvo&amp;endsec=vg&amp;linechart=ELEC.SALES.US-ALL.A&amp;columnchart=ELEC.SALES.US-ALL.A&amp;map=ELEC.SALES.US-ALL.A&amp;freq=A&amp;ctype=linechart&amp;ltype=pin&amp;maptype=0&amp;rse=0&amp;pin=) in 2013), or the peak demand (listed above)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13152" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="758021dd-04ca-45b2-aaf4-e777f10bf86a" CreationDate="2016-10-05T22:42:58.313" UserId="3379" Text="Can 140 square miles of solar panels power the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13153" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="758021dd-04ca-45b2-aaf4-e777f10bf86a" CreationDate="2016-10-05T22:42:58.313" UserId="3379" Text="|solar-power|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13154" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4411" RevisionGUID="3133a44b-6c43-42a2-88bd-21589db969a7" CreationDate="2016-10-06T02:45:47.427" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/783860776662605824" />
  <row Id="13155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5559" RevisionGUID="7d86a284-6219-4012-921c-da7d597f9804" CreationDate="2016-10-06T07:34:38.810" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="edited body" Text="These quotes from the [Appendix - Pig Production Case Studies](http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/gap_pig_case_studies.pdf) (page 137 and up) of the report &quot;Animal Welfare Aspects of Good Agricultural Practice:&#xD;&#xA;pig production&quot; may give you an idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Ökorex Bio Kft. in Fiad, Hungary keeps *60 sows and their progeny which occupy an area of about 5 hectares* &#xD;&#xA;- On Primagro Bt, in Kozárd, Hungary *the sows are kept in groups of 45. They share large paddocks measuring 4 hectares with open straw-bedded huts*&#xD;&#xA;- Dél-Cserháti Ökológiai Tájközpont Kht, in Jákotpuszta, Hungary has *3 boars, 80 sows plus all their progeny*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In winter, they are kept in a smaller paddock of about 30 hectares. In spring, the pigs are moved to larger paddocks&#xD;&#xA;measuring about 70 hectares. In these paddocks, the animals feed on whatever is being grown in the fields. They receive no other food ration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also more general publications like [Review of Production, Husbandry and Sustainability of Free-range Pig Production Systems](http://www.ajas.info/upload/pdf/17_262.pdf) (Z. H. Miao, P. C. Glatz and Y. J. Ru).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW I found all these Googling for [mangalica pigs husbandry density acre](https://www.google.nl/search?q=mangalica+pigs+husbandry+density+acre), so it looks as if you just need to spend some more time browsing the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And as I suggested in my comments, what's wrong with actually contacting farmers or associations like the [Hungarian National Association of Mangalica Breeders](http://www.mangalicatenyesztok.hu/index-english.html), and asking them?&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You have a greater chance of getting answers that way than betting on Mangalica farmers reading this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5561" RevisionGUID="3fff6b2b-c0d5-497a-85e5-c511350a0d2a" CreationDate="2016-10-06T07:53:29.360" UserId="400" Text="Google is your friend.  Use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;search **cold weather ducks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://thriftyhomesteader.com/2013/11/cold-ducks-keeping-ducks-in-winter.html][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://wholefedhomestead.com/what-temperature-can-a-duck-survive/][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.backyardchickens.com/t/550096/cold-weather-ducks][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thriftyhomesteader.com/2013/11/cold-ducks-keeping-ducks-in-winter.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://wholefedhomestead.com/what-temperature-can-a-duck-survive/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.backyardchickens.com/t/550096/cold-weather-ducks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="ccf85d10-0069-400e-8b3f-39950233fa53" CreationDate="2016-10-06T13:43:29.247" UserId="48" Text="No, that's way too little. I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following on from one of Elon Musk's presentations, which showed an area of about 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; as the area of PV panels needed to power the USA, the question came up on the [Skeptics Stack Exchange](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/27628/6236).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the numbers from this [fact-checking of Elon Musk's blue square - how much solar to power the US](http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/): US electricity consumption is about 425 GW. And 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of the best currently-commercially-available PV panels would give about 500 GW of mean electricity. Now, that's putting aside time-matching supply and demand, transmission losses, and so on: it's just looking at multi-year average supply and multi-year average demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, allowing for a ratio of about 2.5:1 for the actual amount of land spanned by such an installation (because one doesn't blanket-cover a desert area - that wouldn't be the most economical physical arrangement), would mean about 25,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of land spanned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between this and the claim is pretty huge: 140 square miles is 362 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen errors of this scale before. In all the other cases - and so, I'm guessing, in this case - is that an editor or non-technical author has taken a technical source, and switched some words, and in doing so has completely mangled the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claim had been that an area of 140 miles square of PV could power the USA, then that would be entirely reasonable - that would be about 50,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; - a conservative over-estimate of the area needed. So I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;. (the former is 140 times the area of the latter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="b5d979e3-88c9-41e7-a479-7b7ede8655f9" CreationDate="2016-10-06T14:06:12.723" UserId="48" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="No, that's way too little. I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following on from one of Elon Musk's presentations, which showed an area of about 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; as the area of PV panels needed to power the USA, the question came up on the [Skeptics Stack Exchange](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/27628/6236).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the numbers from this [fact-checking of Elon Musk's blue square - how much solar to power the US](http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/): US electricity consumption is about 425 GW. And 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of the best currently-commercially-available PV panels would give about 500 GW of mean electricity. Now, that's putting aside time-matching supply and demand, transmission losses, and so on: it's just looking at multi-year average supply and multi-year average demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, allowing for a ratio of about 2.5:1 for the actual amount of land spanned by such an installation would mean about 25,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of land spanned. (because one doesn't blanket-cover a desert area without gaps, as that wouldn't be the most economical physical arrangement)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between this and the claim is pretty huge: 140 square miles is 362 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen errors of this scale before. In all the other cases &amp;mdash;  and so, I'm guessing, in this case &amp;mdash; an editor or non-technical author has taken a technical source, and switched some words, and in doing so has completely mangled the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claim had been that an area of 140 *miles square* of PV could power the USA, then that would be entirely reasonable: that would be about 50,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, which is a conservative over-estimate of the area needed. So I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;. (the former is 140 times the area of the latter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="17af8db2-30d0-421b-8276-ea4cda76fa96" CreationDate="2016-10-06T16:44:51.513" UserId="48" Comment="added 146 characters in body" Text="No, that's way too little. I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Following on from one of Elon Musk's presentations, which showed an area of about 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; as the area of PV panels needed to power the USA, the question came up on the [Skeptics Stack Exchange](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/27628/6236).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the numbers from this [fact-checking of Elon Musk's blue square - how much solar to power the US](http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/): US electricity consumption is about 425 GW. And 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of the best currently-commercially-available PV panels would give about 500 GW of mean electricity. Now, that's putting aside time-matching supply and demand, transmission losses, and so on: it's just looking at multi-year average supply and multi-year average demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, allowing for a ratio of about 2.5:1 for the actual amount of land spanned by such an installation would mean about 25,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of land spanned. (because one doesn't blanket-cover a desert area without gaps, as that wouldn't be the most economical physical arrangement)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between this and the claim is pretty huge: 140 square miles is 362 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen errors of this scale before. In all the other cases &amp;mdash;  and so, I'm guessing, in this case &amp;mdash; an editor or non-technical author has taken a technical source, and switched the distance unit and the &quot;square&quot;, and in doing so has completely mangled the meaning. So &quot;metres square&quot; becomes &quot;square metres&quot;; or &quot;km square&quot; becomes &quot;square km&quot;; or &quot;miles square&quot; becomes &quot;square miles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claim had been that an area of 140 *miles square* of PV could power the USA, then that would be entirely reasonable: that would be about 50,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, which is a conservative over-estimate of the area needed. So I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;. (the former is 140 times the area of the latter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13160" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5560" RevisionGUID="c0fee637-4fb5-4519-ab5a-69c4544f93ad" CreationDate="2016-10-06T17:52:04.383" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/784088850528342016" />
  <row Id="13162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="24e91673-8d14-4e9a-9ed9-83572dff3942" CreationDate="2016-10-07T05:00:34.137" UserId="48" Comment="added 426 characters in body" Text="###Summary&#xD;&#xA;No, that's way too little. I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Running the numbers&#xD;&#xA;Following on from one of Elon Musk's presentations, which showed an area of about 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; as the area of PV panels needed to power the USA, the question came up on the [Skeptics Stack Exchange](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/27628/6236).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the numbers from this [fact-checking of Elon Musk's blue square - how much solar to power the US](http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/): US electricity consumption is about 425 GW. And 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of the best currently-commercially-available PV panels would give about 500 GW of mean electricity. Now, that's putting aside time-matching supply and demand, transmission losses, and so on: it's just looking at multi-year average supply and multi-year average demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, allowing for a ratio of about 2.5:1 for the actual amount of land spanned by such an installation would mean about 25,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of land spanned. (because one doesn't blanket-cover a desert area without gaps, as that wouldn't be the most economical physical arrangement)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between this 25,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and the claim is pretty huge: 140 square miles is 362 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###How did this error happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen errors of this scale before. In all the other cases &amp;mdash;  and so, I'm guessing, in this case &amp;mdash; an editor or non-technical author has taken a technical source, and swapped the order of two words: the distance unit and the &quot;square&quot;, and in doing so has completely mangled the meaning. So &quot;metres square&quot; becomes &quot;square metres&quot;; or &quot;km square&quot; becomes &quot;square km&quot;; or &quot;miles square&quot; becomes &quot;square miles&quot;. It's an easy editing mistake to make: &quot;square miles&quot; is much more common than &quot;miles square&quot;, and to a non-technical editor or author, they might sound like different ways of saying the same thing (even though they are completely different in reality). And so the editor/author does their job and replaces an unusual variant with its much more common supposed synonym, unwittingly transforming the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claim had been that an area of 140 *miles square* of PV could power the USA, then that would be entirely reasonable: that would be about 50,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, which is a conservative over-estimate of the area needed. So I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;. (the former is 140 times the area of the latter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="eda64242-7f50-4485-a4c6-902207526ebf" CreationDate="2016-10-07T05:07:09.560" UserId="48" Comment="added 426 characters in body" Text="###Summary&#xD;&#xA;No, that's way too little. I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Running the numbers&#xD;&#xA;Following on from one of Elon Musk's presentations, which showed an area of about 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; as the area of PV panels needed to power the USA, the question came up on the [Skeptics Stack Exchange](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/27628/6236).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the numbers from this [fact-checking of Elon Musk's blue square - how much solar to power the US](http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/): US electricity consumption is about 425 GW. And 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of the best currently-commercially-available PV panels would give about 500 GW of mean electricity. Now, that's putting aside time-matching supply and demand, transmission losses, and so on: it's just looking at multi-year average supply and multi-year average demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, allowing for a ratio of about 2.5:1 for the actual amount of land spanned by such an installation would mean about 25,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of land spanned. (because one doesn't blanket-cover a desert area without gaps, as that wouldn't be the most economical physical arrangement)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between this 25,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and the claim is pretty huge: 140 square miles is 362 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###How did this error happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen errors of this scale before. In all the other cases &amp;mdash;  and so, I'm guessing, in this case &amp;mdash; an editor or non-technical author has taken a technical source, and swapped the order of two words: the distance unit and the &quot;square&quot;, and in doing so has completely mangled the meaning. So &quot;metres square&quot; becomes &quot;square metres&quot;; or &quot;km square&quot; becomes &quot;square km&quot;; or &quot;miles square&quot; becomes &quot;square miles&quot;. It's an easy editing mistake to make: &quot;square miles&quot; is much more common than &quot;miles square&quot;, and to a non-technical editor or author, they might sound like different ways of saying the same thing (even though they are completely different in reality). And so the editor/author does their job and replaces an unusual variant with its much more common supposed synonym, unwittingly transforming the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claim had been that an area of 140 *miles square* of PV could power the USA, then that would be entirely reasonable: that would be about 50,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, which is a conservative over-estimate of the area needed. So I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;. (the former is 140 times the area of the latter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What does it mean to say &quot;it would power the US&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These claims of &quot;X resource needed to power Y&quot; are usually about mean (average) supply and mean demand, and that's typically a one-year or multi-year average. The estimates aren't done to present a completely specified working system; but to give an idea of the scale of resource needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally, the context makes it clear if it is about a much more sophisticated bit of modelling, typically a dispatch model, that is matching supply and demand in each timeslice (e.g. every half-hour for a year). Even then, it's not about peak capacity equalling peak demand, but about half-hourly supply meeting or exceeding half-hourly demand. (Peak capacity is rarely an interesting or relevant number for modern generation systems; whereas for dirty old systems, it was indeed a standard metric.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13164" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="df08fc7b-edad-4b49-9bcd-5e49f5f3e340" CreationDate="2016-10-07T08:43:23.820" UserId="48" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="###Summary&#xD;&#xA;No, that's way too little. I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Running the numbers&#xD;&#xA;Following on from one of Elon Musk's presentations, which showed an area of about 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; as the area of PV panels needed to power the USA, the question came up on the [Skeptics Stack Exchange](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/27628/6236).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the numbers from this [fact-checking of Elon Musk's blue square - how much solar to power the US](http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/): US electricity consumption is about 425 GW. And 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of the best currently-commercially-available PV panels would give about 500 GW of mean electricity. Now, that's putting aside time-matching supply and demand, transmission losses, and so on: it's just looking at multi-year average supply and multi-year average demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, allowing for a ratio of about 2.5:1 for the actual amount of land spanned by such an installation would mean about 25,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of land spanned. (because one doesn't blanket-cover a desert area without gaps, as that wouldn't be the most economical physical arrangement)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between this 25,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and the claim is pretty huge: 140 square miles is 362 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###How did this error happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen errors of this scale before. In all the other cases &amp;mdash;  and so, I'm guessing, in this case &amp;mdash; an editor or non-technical author has taken a technical source, and swapped the order of two words: the distance unit and the &quot;square&quot;, and in doing so has completely mangled the meaning. So &quot;metres square&quot; becomes &quot;square metres&quot;; or &quot;km square&quot; becomes &quot;square km&quot;; or &quot;miles square&quot; becomes &quot;square miles&quot;. It's an easy editing mistake to make: &quot;square miles&quot; is much more common than &quot;miles square&quot;, and to a non-technical editor or author, they might sound like different ways of saying the same thing (even though they are completely different in reality). And so the editor/author does their job and replaces an unusual variant with its much more common supposed synonym, unwittingly transforming the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claim had been that an area of 140 *miles square* of PV could power the USA, then that would be entirely reasonable: that would be about 50,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, which is a conservative over-estimate of the area needed. So I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;. (the former is 140 times the area of the latter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What does it mean to say &quot;it would power the US&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These claims of &quot;X resource needed to power Y&quot; are usually about mean (average) supply and mean demand, and that's typically a one-year or multi-year average. This is equivalent to saying that total production over the period would be at least as much as total consumption over the same period. The estimates aren't done to present a completely specified working system; but to give an idea of the scale of resource needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally, the context makes it clear if it is about a much more sophisticated bit of modelling, typically a dispatch model, that is matching supply and demand in each timeslice (e.g. every half-hour for a year). Even then, it's not about peak capacity equalling peak demand, but about half-hourly supply meeting or exceeding half-hourly demand. (Peak capacity is rarely an interesting or relevant number for modern generation systems; whereas for dirty old systems, it was indeed a standard metric.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5563" RevisionGUID="9c630a23-1b17-42a9-866a-aeac95540db2" CreationDate="2016-10-08T05:43:22.977" UserId="80" Text="The growing global human population is and will be a massive challenge, in particular because of the strain it puts on natural ressources, which might in turn increase tensions between groups and potentially start conflicts when access to them is restricted. Humanity already has massively disrupted nutrient cycles, one of the consequences being global warming, and it is fair to suppose that a bigger population will further disrupt them. Interplanetary travel aimed at relocalising people away from the Earth is currently not expected to happen in the next century. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some ethical ways to significantly curb the human population growth in order to make a societal collapse less likely?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5563" RevisionGUID="9c630a23-1b17-42a9-866a-aeac95540db2" CreationDate="2016-10-08T05:43:22.977" UserId="80" Text="What are ethical ways to curb the global human population increase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13167" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5563" RevisionGUID="9c630a23-1b17-42a9-866a-aeac95540db2" CreationDate="2016-10-08T05:43:22.977" UserId="80" Text="|population|degrowth|global-warming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5564" RevisionGUID="60b29e65-4306-42b7-b4e3-1edcf6664d57" CreationDate="2016-10-08T07:00:13.680" UserId="812" Text="Education, education, education. Also healthcare, and access to contraception. &#xA;&#xA;I don't have any references available, I'm afraid, but repeatedly we have seen that when standards of education are improved in a community - especially education of women - birth rates go down. &#xA;&#xA;When child mortality goes down, so does fertility, but that has little effect on population. However, when healthcare provision for the elderly improves, people feel less need to have many children as insurance. &#xA;&#xA;And access to contraception - both physically and in terms of cultures making it acceptable to use - is obvious. &#xA;&#xA;This all takes time. I don't think there's an ethical quick fix. &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5565" RevisionGUID="7b1d0b41-7e16-4d4f-ac65-468b209dac17" CreationDate="2016-10-09T04:07:09.213" UserId="3869" Text="I live off-grid in a forest clearing. I've got solar panels laying on skids in different areas that each get sun for only parts of the day, panels in windows indoors &amp; in the back window of my car. Solar panels (even grid tie) only need light to produce electricity, not direct sun. Don't worry about efficiencies &amp; return time; what's the return time on your utility's power? Just start small with some panels &amp; batteries in sunny/bright spots in you house. There's a real &quot;cool&quot; factor to making your own power that outweighs the economics of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13172" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5563" RevisionGUID="2a31fccf-bd3a-489f-b0e7-17736dcdfdd4" CreationDate="2016-10-10T00:38:51.913" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/785278386440667136" />
  <row Id="13173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="d04bca8a-6dd7-489d-bb81-4d911c0accab" CreationDate="2016-10-10T08:21:50.407" UserId="48" Text="For power plants where the energy that could be generated is driven by exogenously variable factors, such as wind farms, PV power plants, and run-of-river hydro, which are all driven by weather, how accurate are the forecasts that are commissioned by the developer at the design phase, before construction starts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does the error distribution of the forecasts look like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13174" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="d04bca8a-6dd7-489d-bb81-4d911c0accab" CreationDate="2016-10-10T08:21:50.407" UserId="48" Text="How accurate are consultant pre-construction energy assessments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13175" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="d04bca8a-6dd7-489d-bb81-4d911c0accab" CreationDate="2016-10-10T08:21:50.407" UserId="48" Text="|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13176" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5567" RevisionGUID="8d94c395-079d-4323-a6b8-4397d1b37877" CreationDate="2016-10-10T21:53:41.227" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/785599206086017024" />
  <row Id="13178" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4412" RevisionGUID="a4328be0-1a39-48bb-9198-5b94627bf15c" CreationDate="2016-10-11T10:05:12.967" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/785783301021761536" />
  <row Id="13179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="8986de38-41bb-477e-9f35-6de330a2cfc8" CreationDate="2016-10-12T13:25:11.820" UserId="3532" Text="I'm looking at putting black locust posts around my field, but I've read that [black locust is poisonous][1] to sheep, but they're excellent fencing poles. Will the sheep eat the black locust poles if they can?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sheep.osu.edu/2012/07/09/poisonous-trees/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="8986de38-41bb-477e-9f35-6de330a2cfc8" CreationDate="2016-10-12T13:25:11.820" UserId="3532" Text="I've read that black locust is poisonous to sheep, so will installing black locust poles poison sheep also?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="8986de38-41bb-477e-9f35-6de330a2cfc8" CreationDate="2016-10-12T13:25:11.820" UserId="3532" Text="|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="61ecf3aa-9e60-4f2c-9e1a-d8b0056c9ec8" CreationDate="2016-10-13T15:08:33.507" UserId="85" Comment="added 41 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I'm looking at putting black locust posts around my field, but I've read that [black locust is poisonous][1] to sheep, but they're excellent fencing poles as they last forever and need no treatment with chemicals. Will the sheep eat the black locust poles if they can?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sheep.osu.edu/2012/07/09/poisonous-trees/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13183" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="61ecf3aa-9e60-4f2c-9e1a-d8b0056c9ec8" CreationDate="2016-10-13T15:08:33.507" UserId="85" Comment="added 41 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|animals|husbandry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5569" RevisionGUID="7bd16883-f730-45f9-a785-7fb3229eaf31" CreationDate="2016-10-16T11:49:36.357" UserId="3894" Text="Fight to poverty. In fact this is the main goal of the UN agency for sustainable development. People living in poor countries use to have more children because they need somebody to take care of them when they'll be old and they rely on their family and cluster to help eachother. It's too easy to thingk that they don't do contraception because of their ignorance.&#xD;&#xA;Health care programmes and campaign helps but don't stop the problem&#xD;&#xA;how to fight poverty then? &#xD;&#xA;fair trade comes first!&#xD;&#xA;stop land grabbing&#xD;&#xA;stop pollution in developing countries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5570" RevisionGUID="cb8e6f25-7c85-427c-a98b-048d4f1e1968" CreationDate="2016-10-16T11:59:58.063" UserId="3894" Text="I think we have to make a distinction.&#xD;&#xA;the product (coffee) could be quite sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;the problem is with mac donald!&#xD;&#xA;so I think whenever you can avoid it, just do and find better alternatives. Usually big brands aren't very sustainable, they just go sustainable to clean their dirty clothes!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="34154c06-32b9-4dac-af0f-932aa2c60be9" CreationDate="2016-10-18T12:06:27.007" UserId="3314" Comment="correction of linkrot and adding additional references" Text="If your main goal is keeping your compostable waste out of landfill (as opposed to producing compost for your own use), consider using a pickup service like New York Compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:** It looks like New York Compost is not around anymore, but the city is piloting an ambitious compost pickup program: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [NYC Compost Project](http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/zerowaste/residents/nyc-compost-project.shtml)&#xD;&#xA;- [Food Scraps + Yard Waste](http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/dsny/zerowaste/residents/food-scraps-and-yard-waste.shtml) (2 min video)&#xD;&#xA;- [&#xD;&#xA;Organics Collection Program&#xD;&#xA;](http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2165/organics-collection-program)&#xD;&#xA;- [New York City Organics Collection](https://www.biocycle.net/2015/01/14/new-york-city-organics-collection/) (BioCycle Magazine)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13188" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="591" RevisionGUID="34154c06-32b9-4dac-af0f-932aa2c60be9" CreationDate="2016-10-18T12:06:27.007" Comment="Proposed by 3314 approved by 99 edit id of 426" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5375" RevisionGUID="5091691c-51dc-491a-818d-3a373078f873" CreationDate="2016-10-18T14:17:22.960" UserId="3314" Comment="giving context to an ok answer, adding link, and highlight of section for quick read" Text="Navy/Marine ships usually have [two systems to handle water](http://www.nstcenter.biz/navy-product-approval-process/approved-interior-ship-coatings/cht-msd-tanks/), in separate tanks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- CHT: Collection, Holding and Transfer tanks (more detail [on the standards by the SBIR here](http://navysbir.info/n14_1/N141-024.htm))&#xD;&#xA;- MSD: Marine Sanitation Device tanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ships use salt water from the fire main for flushing, and to clean out the CHT (shit, which is used when sewage can't be dumped, or to process before dumping over the side) tank, so **some toilets do use salt water, and other ones don't**. They do this because _using fresh water can be taxing on the water tanks_. Also the CHT tanks have more cleaning enzymes than potable water would have available to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13190" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5375" RevisionGUID="5091691c-51dc-491a-818d-3a373078f873" CreationDate="2016-10-18T14:17:22.960" Comment="Proposed by 3314 approved by 3532 edit id of 424" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5571" RevisionGUID="f0c8f48d-4b95-428a-940e-f90639d19292" CreationDate="2016-10-18T17:32:16.153" UserId="3533" Text="Usually the estimates are pretty good. Constructing plants is very expensive, so companies choose good consultants, and because good consultants have already estimated energy for a lot of plants, they can estimate better generation (and other local problems).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, for wind turbines, a measurement station is set-up for several months, which measure the wind at the expected high, in order to validate the models. For photovoltaic and hydro, usually good (and less expensive) data is already available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, it is better to have several sites in several places, in order to reduce risks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: companies are interested on yearly average. Estimate on short term is not really taken into account." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5572" RevisionGUID="9bb6ef59-1fdc-4d44-afb0-8c561d855bc2" CreationDate="2016-10-18T22:16:15.600" UserId="3903" Text="Never leave home without an air mattress. Been observing the fools that sleep on the ground for years. the older you get the more likely you will do serious damage. Yes the &quot;macho dick&quot; who sleeps on the ground, but only goes camping a few days a year because it's to cold. Unfortunately, there comes a time in the fall, where an air mattress also gets cold.&#xD;&#xA;In answer to your question, the problem you will have with sleeping on a giant hot water bottle, is too much heat. I have done something similar for cabin bunks.&#xD;&#xA;You are better off with the light weight air mattress and an air space between&#xD;&#xA;you and the &quot;hot water bottle&quot;. The thermal conductivity of the water bottle  is critical, to slow down the transmittance of the stored heat. PVC water bladders are good. it does not need to be that big 10 gallons will last the night. (at 100 F you have 2,500 BTU's above ambient) Since you are getting all high techy, don't forget to drape a radiant barrier (space blanket over top of you. This will cut your BTU requirement in half !&#xD;&#xA;It depends on overnight temps, but I have heard people brag about their 2 gallon water bottle and space blanket. I have 10 gallon poly under the bunks.&#xD;&#xA;A simple thought. A black or dark green water bladder 3 gallons would be 25 lbs. a glazed (something clear like polycarbonate)enclosure to hold said bladder and sit in sun. About a 600 to 800 but's/sq.ft. on a sunny day. &#xD;&#xA;You need to be aware of over heating. 3 sq.ft. could easily be over 2000 BTU's, and that's over 150 F for 3 gallons of water. On a cloudy day ,surprisingly, you still get half that. So invent a rollup/foldup green house, to go with the foldup water bladder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Better Google that though before you waist too much time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="0bf50411-c2cc-4a31-86e4-36160fae3a02" CreationDate="2016-10-21T08:49:00.850" UserId="3911" Text="As many people know, many of the renewable energy technologies generate fluctuating power dependent on availability of the power generating source e.g. wind and solar et al. Balancing power must be provided, to compensate fluctuations and to balance consumption and generation, guarantee the energy system operates reliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds quite challenging for me. I would like to know how it's managed today. Is there advanced electrical or mechanical control systems implemented nowadays to minimise the negative impact on the grid? I.e. what is the common practice in markets with high wind energy penetration e.g. Germany, Spain, Denmark?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13194" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="0bf50411-c2cc-4a31-86e4-36160fae3a02" CreationDate="2016-10-21T08:49:00.850" UserId="3911" Text="How the grid is managed in markets with high renewable energy penetration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13195" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="0bf50411-c2cc-4a31-86e4-36160fae3a02" CreationDate="2016-10-21T08:49:00.850" UserId="3911" Text="|electricity|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5574" RevisionGUID="b0b94853-9899-4c80-b43f-6d78c79a231c" CreationDate="2016-10-21T09:57:45.327" UserId="48" Text="There are very few grids with *high* penetration of those exogenously-variable renewables that have up til now provided no inertia to the grid - wind and PV. What matters is not the penetration in a particular market, nor in a particular country, but rather what the penetration is on a particular synchronous grid - the area over which the frequency is synchronised. So although Denmark has a high penetration of wind, that's not what's important for managing the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;East Denmark belongs to a large Nordic synchronous grid, that covers Norway, Sweden and Finland too. And on that grid, wind &amp; PV have pretty low penetration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;West Denmark belongs to the main continental European synchronous grid, which goes from Portugal to Greece to Poland. And on that grid, wind &amp; PV have pretty low penetration too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The highest penetrations are currently found on the Single Irish Grid, which covers the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland. There, there are times when wind could meet more than 50% of demand. Those times are infrequent, but they do happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next highest to my knowledge is Britain, which has (at time of writing) not exceeded 49% wind + PV. I would expect it to exceed that some time in the next year or two, but to date, no special management techniques have been required in Britain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas Ireland *has* had to curtail some wind to keep penetration down to 50%. That is to say, they've had to spill some wind to manage the grid. They're looking at implementing measures now to raise that to 70%. Hydro Quebec have been looking at building frequency reserve into wind generation, to allow penetration to rise. Britain's National Grid is just completing trials of the same thing (the NIC project- “Enhanced frequency control capability&quot; - efcc), and there should be a report out on that soon; [the early sounds coming from the project team have been positive][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://renews.biz/104319/burbo-aces-grid-test/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5574" RevisionGUID="2771458a-b06a-4530-aaa7-a5f4dc618df4" CreationDate="2016-10-21T10:13:47.733" UserId="48" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="There are very few grids with *high* penetration of those exogenously-variable renewables that have up til now provided no inertia to the grid - wind and PV. What matters is not the penetration in a particular market, nor in a particular country, but rather what the penetration is on a particular synchronous grid - the area over which the frequency is synchronised. So although Denmark has a high penetration of wind (sometimes more than 100% of demand), that's not what's important for managing the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;East Denmark belongs to a large Nordic synchronous grid, that covers Norway, Sweden and Finland too. And on that grid, wind &amp; PV have pretty low penetration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;West Denmark belongs to the main continental European synchronous grid, which goes from Portugal to Greece to Poland. And on that grid, wind &amp; PV have pretty low penetration too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The highest penetrations are currently found on the Single Irish Grid, which covers the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland. There, there are times when wind could meet more than 50% of demand. Those times are infrequent, but they do happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next highest to my knowledge is Britain, which has (at time of writing) not exceeded 49% wind + PV. I would expect it to exceed that some time in the next year or two, but to date, no special management techniques have been required in Britain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas Ireland *has* had to curtail some wind to keep penetration down to 50%. That is to say, they've had to spill some wind to manage the grid. They're looking at implementing measures now to raise that to 70%. Hydro Quebec have been looking at building frequency reserve into wind generation, to allow penetration to rise. Britain's National Grid is just completing trials of the same thing (the NIC project- “Enhanced frequency control capability&quot; - efcc), and there should be a report out on that soon; [the early sounds coming from the project team have been positive][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://renews.biz/104319/burbo-aces-grid-test/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5574" RevisionGUID="d82faa06-a3f5-4289-821b-41691d3ab218" CreationDate="2016-10-21T13:30:12.517" UserId="48" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="There are very few grids with *high* penetration of those exogenously-variable renewables that have up til now provided no inertia to the grid - wind and PV. What matters is not the penetration in a particular market, nor in a particular country, but rather what the penetration is on a particular synchronous grid - the area over which the frequency is synchronised. So although Denmark has a high penetration of wind (sometimes more than 100% of demand - they export the surplus), that's not what's important for managing the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;East Denmark belongs to a large Nordic synchronous grid, that covers Norway, Sweden and Finland too. And on that grid as a whole, wind &amp; PV have pretty low penetration, even when Denmark has more than 100% wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;West Denmark belongs to the main continental European synchronous grid, which goes from Portugal to Greece to Poland. And on that grid, wind &amp; PV have pretty low penetration too, even when Denmark has more than 100% wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for pretty much all grids, managing existing renewables penetrations is very easy: some other plants get turned down or off (typically coal or gas) when the wind or PV is available, and everything else carries on just the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The highest penetrations are currently found on the Single Irish Grid, which covers the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland. There, there are times when wind could meet more than 50% of demand. Those times are infrequent, but they do happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next highest to my knowledge is Britain, which has (at time of writing) not exceeded 49% wind + PV. I would expect it to exceed that some time in the next year or two, but to date, no special management techniques have been required in Britain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas Ireland *has* had to curtail some wind to keep penetration down to 50%. That is to say, they've had to spill some wind to manage the grid. They're looking at implementing measures now to raise that to 70%. Hydro Quebec have been looking at building frequency reserve into wind generation, to allow penetration to rise. Britain's National Grid is just completing trials of the same thing (the NIC project- “Enhanced frequency control capability&quot; - efcc), and there should be a report out on that soon; [the early sounds coming from the project team have been positive][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://renews.biz/104319/burbo-aces-grid-test/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13200" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5573" RevisionGUID="94eced06-6cbd-4ed8-b8ee-1eca267d3154" CreationDate="2016-10-21T14:04:52.753" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/789467492997533696" />
  <row Id="13202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5576" RevisionGUID="e7f565bc-d4ad-4c8b-99d7-05c23314dd10" CreationDate="2016-10-23T08:25:09.610" UserId="48" Text="&lt;b&gt;Sustainable Living Stack Exchange&lt;/b&gt; is a question and answer site for people trying to live a sustainable lifestyle, for professionals in renewable energy and other clean technoloy, and&amp;nbsp;&amp;ndash;&amp;nbsp;most importantly&amp;nbsp;&amp;ndash;&amp;nbsp;for you. It's built and run *by you* as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question on sustainability issues including climate change, renewable energy and sustainable resources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5572" RevisionGUID="c1cb9688-a5d1-419c-a21c-a4745201f4ef" CreationDate="2016-10-23T09:18:02.013" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, made answer a bit more readable" Text="Never leave home without an air mattress. I've been observing the fools that sleep on the ground for years. The older you get the more likely you will do serious damage. Yes, the &quot;macho&quot; who sleeps on the ground, but only goes camping a few days a year because it's too cold. Unfortunately there comes a time in the fall where an air mattress also gets cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In answer to your question, the problem you will have with sleeping on a giant hot water bottle is too much heat. I have done something similar for cabin bunks.&#xD;&#xA;You are better off with the light-weight air mattress and an air space between&#xD;&#xA;you and the &quot;hot water bottle&quot;. The thermal conductivity of the water bottle is critical to slow down the transmittance of the stored heat. PVC water bladders are good. It does not need to be that big 10 gallons that will last the night (at 100 F you have 2,500 BTU's above ambient). Since you are getting all high- techy, don't forget to drape a radiant barrier (space blanket on top of you). This will cut your BTU requirement in half!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on overnight temperatures, but I have heard people brag about their 2 gallon water bottle and space blanket. I have 10 gallon poly under the bunks.&#xD;&#xA;A simple thought. A black or dark green water bladder 3 gallons would be 25 lbs. a glazed (something clear like polycarbonate) enclosure to hold said bladder and sit in sun. About a 600 to 800 btu's/sq.ft. on a sunny day. &#xD;&#xA;You need to be aware of overheating. 3 sq.ft. could easily be over 2000 BTU's, and that's over 150 F for 3 gallons of water. On a cloudy day, surprisingly, you still get half that. So invent a roll-up/fold-up green house, to go with the fold-up water bladder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Better Google that though before you waste too much time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5577" RevisionGUID="fde922bb-599b-4622-b9e1-1e76d6af8fc4" CreationDate="2016-10-24T00:01:01.530" UserId="1104" Text="I want to vent smoke, such as roasting coffee smoke and cooking grease out of my kitchen. I do not have a hood, nor is there room to install one due to cabinet and window placements just above the stove.&#xD;&#xA;I have a window just above the stove, so placing a fan in the window is doable and seemingly effective. But in the winter having a fan suck all of the hot air out of the house is not ideal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the loss of heat, over a 20 minute period of window fanning a few times a week a big deal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way for the fan to suck out the smoke without losing too much hot air?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I invest in a through the wall vent, and would this be any better than the window fan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5577" RevisionGUID="fde922bb-599b-4622-b9e1-1e76d6af8fc4" CreationDate="2016-10-24T00:01:01.530" UserId="1104" Text="Best way to vent smoke from stove, without room for a hood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5577" RevisionGUID="fde922bb-599b-4622-b9e1-1e76d6af8fc4" CreationDate="2016-10-24T00:01:01.530" UserId="1104" Text="|heating|ventilation|kitchen|stove|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="9da30df9-fed6-4477-8fcc-4b2cb405e7bd" CreationDate="2016-10-24T12:04:06.203" UserId="48" Text="What metrics are usually used to quantify forecasted power error for weather-dependent renewables such as wind or PV?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that there are at least two kinds of errors: where the magnitude of the forecast is wrong, and where the timing of the forecast is wrong. &#xD;&#xA;Something like a typical root mean squared error (RMSE) would seem to penalise a timing error twice over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how is the skill of a forecasting method quantified?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="9da30df9-fed6-4477-8fcc-4b2cb405e7bd" CreationDate="2016-10-24T12:04:06.203" UserId="48" Text="What metrics are usually used to quantify forecasted power error for weather-dependent renewables?r?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="9da30df9-fed6-4477-8fcc-4b2cb405e7bd" CreationDate="2016-10-24T12:04:06.203" UserId="48" Text="|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13211" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="4d031d2d-925e-4501-b6ab-c85293ad8563" CreationDate="2016-10-24T16:40:07.623" UserId="812" Comment="edited title" Text="What metrics are usually used to quantify forecasted power error for weather-dependent renewables?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13212" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="e80197f6-b69c-4d70-934e-d18960699c47" CreationDate="2016-10-25T11:24:54.173" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/790876785005199360" />
  <row Id="13213" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5577" RevisionGUID="82b6c472-f248-4f9f-8b43-fd87e1612b44" CreationDate="2016-10-25T14:24:54.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/790922086818516992" />
  <row Id="13214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5580" RevisionGUID="887229a4-e6da-4469-b2cf-d9437fa81b21" CreationDate="2016-10-25T18:52:40.350" UserId="3929" Text="It has already been stated that population growth decreases in countries that experience an increase in prosperity. It seems clear to me that this goes hand-in-hand with access to education for all members of the population. To encourage a decrease in number of births per woman in the developing countries, it would seem that the primary goal would be to keep girls out of early marriages, keeping them in the classroom instead. Easier said than done... I am by no means an expert in these issues, but from what I have read and heard it seems that girls are married off early for many reasons: one less mouth to feed; fulfill expectations; cement ties across families, etc. Unmarried women may also be regarded with suspicion or even hostility in many cultures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these aspects will probably lose influence with increasing internet access, simply because that broadens horizons. But the &quot;rich&quot; countries should carry on in their efforts to support education, help in family planning, etc. What we should also be doing is to practice true fair trade with developing countries... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5581" RevisionGUID="0f41f75e-b154-4d77-91d7-2cd746e8c984" CreationDate="2016-10-26T08:28:03.797" UserId="99" Text="It may sound contradictory, but according to scientist and statistician Hans Rosling, the main criterion to limit population growth is a **reduction of the child mortality rate** (see also [this Ted Talk](https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen)). In the next decades most population growth is expected to be in developing countries where child mortality is high. This is especially the case in the sub-Saharan countries, where children are an insurance that there is someone to take care of you when you are old. Population growth rates in developed countries are much lower. In some countries like Germany, Russia and Japan it is even zero or negative (not counting recent immigration, see also [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lower child mortality can be achieved by better living conditions and better health services. This in turn can be achieved by better education and higher income. Moreover women who are more educated tend to marry later and also get children at a later age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [Móż has also mentioned in his comment](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/what-are-ethical-ways-to-curb-the-global-human-population-increase#comment7573_5564), another big influence can be goverment policy and incentives. China for example still has one of the lowest population growth rates in Asia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information can be found on the website of Hans Rosling's [Gapminder.org](http://gapminder.org) organisation. The site also has a great [interactive graphical statistics tool](https://www.gapminder.org/tools/) that shows the relationship between child mortality, babies born per woman, education, income, health services and many other factors, plus their changes since 1960.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Child mortality vs Population Growth][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;*Child mortality rate vs Population growth rate in 2011 (color = continent, bubble size = babies per woman)*&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fK0OY.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="53724f46-32d7-4222-904e-b84f0e0e293d" CreationDate="2016-10-26T14:59:29.617" UserId="2187" Text="Is there any data about the CO2 emissions per individual Google search?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or are there none because Google is moving towards 100% renewable energy supply?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13217" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="53724f46-32d7-4222-904e-b84f0e0e293d" CreationDate="2016-10-26T14:59:29.617" UserId="2187" Text="How much CO2 do I cause with one Google search?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13218" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="53724f46-32d7-4222-904e-b84f0e0e293d" CreationDate="2016-10-26T14:59:29.617" UserId="2187" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="b6ca4097-f826-459b-b2d7-8dc3853f9e86" CreationDate="2016-10-27T05:42:55.893" UserId="2187" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="Is there any data about the CO2 emissions per individual Google search?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or are there none because Google is moving towards 100% renewable energy supply?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Scope:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Just the search query, no lifetime emissions&#xD;&#xA; - Excluding my PC, home or city consumption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13220" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="36baa1b8-acac-46c2-b705-7600fcc6e2ad" CreationDate="2016-10-27T08:44:11.940" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/791561118242246656" />
  <row Id="13224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5584" RevisionGUID="5b80c344-81ed-4ba0-bb07-a7415e454bbb" CreationDate="2016-10-27T09:34:13.317" UserId="99" Text="As LShaver and Gerrit also mentioned in their comments, an exact answer would depend on the scope and method of calculation. You've already mentioned you are only interested in the search itself so I guess this &#xD;&#xA;means you don't want to include (part of) the footprint of Google's servers, the web-indexing process, or information storage about your query. But what about the energy for transferring the data via several internet servers? And does Google's carbon offsetting scheme count as a negative component in the calculation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the numbers that has been circulating on the Internet for years now, is that a single Google search has a carbon footprint of 7 grams of CO2.&#xD;&#xA;This number allegedly was based on calculations done by Alex Wissner-Gross and was published in the Sunday Times in 2009, but after publication [Wissner-Gross claimed he never mentioned such a number](https://techcrunch.com/2009/01/12/revealed-the-times-made-up-that-stuff-about-google-and-the-tea-kettles/). In any case [Google's response to the article](https://googleblog.blogspot.nl/2009/01/powering-google-search.html) was that the calculation is incorrect and that **0.2 grams of CO2** is more accurate. This number includes energy for some pre-query processes, such as building Google's search index.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't until 2011 that Google made it's energy usage public for the first time. At the time they repeated the 0.2 g CO2 per search. At the moment of writing this, the [latest data from Google](https://www.google.com/green/bigpicture/) is from 2014. Google says that their entire company is responsible for about 2.5 million metric tonnes of CO2e, all of which is off-setted by '*purchasing high-quality carbon offsets*'. I haven't been able to find recent data on a single Google search, but Google does say that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you take an active Google user—someone who does 25 searches and watches 60 minutes of YouTube a day, has a Gmail account and uses our other services—Google emits about 8 grams of CO2 per day to serve that user. In other words, serving a Google user for a month is like driving a car one mile.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Note that these numbers were derived by Google itself. It doesn't seem possible to check it and find out what exactly is or is not included in that footprint. Interestingly the same 8 grams was already reported in 2013 based on 2012 data. With all the measures Google has taken in recent years, I expect a slightly lower number now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More information:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Copy of 2009 Sunday Times article where the 7 grams CO2 was first mentioned](http://www.ict-21.ch/com-ict/IMG/html/article5488934.ece.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [Guardian article about Google's first company footprint publication in 2011](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/08/google-carbon-footprint)&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13225" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5582" RevisionGUID="18f50474-e88a-4bbf-8811-012594d4ba9f" CreationDate="2016-10-27T09:36:50.953" UserId="99" Comment="added carbon-footprint and internet tags" Text="|carbon-footprint|greenhouse-gas-emissions|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5584" RevisionGUID="505bd386-0f9c-42ac-ba30-e277914e968d" CreationDate="2016-10-27T09:41:09.773" UserId="99" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="As LShaver and Gerrit also mentioned in their comments, an exact answer would depend on the scope and method of calculation. You've already mentioned you are only interested in the search itself so I guess this &#xD;&#xA;means you don't want to include (part of) the footprint of Google's servers, the web-indexing process, or information storage about your query. But what about the energy for transferring the data via several internet servers? And does Google's carbon offsetting scheme count as a negative component in the calculation? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the numbers that has been circulating on the Internet for years now, is that a single Google search has a carbon footprint of 7 grams of CO2.&#xD;&#xA;This number allegedly was based on calculations done by Alex Wissner-Gross and was published in the Sunday Times in 2009, but after publication [Wissner-Gross claimed he never mentioned such a number](https://techcrunch.com/2009/01/12/revealed-the-times-made-up-that-stuff-about-google-and-the-tea-kettles/). In any case [Google's response to the article](https://googleblog.blogspot.nl/2009/01/powering-google-search.html) was that the calculation is incorrect and that **0.2 grams of CO2** is more accurate. This number includes energy for some pre-query processes, such as building Google's search index.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't until 2011 that Google made it's company energy usage public for the first time. At the time they repeated the 0.2 g CO2 per search. At the moment of writing this, the [latest data from Google](https://www.google.com/green/bigpicture/) is from 2014. Google says that the entire company is responsible for about 2.5 million metric tonnes of CO2e, all of which is off-setted by '*purchasing high-quality carbon offsets*'. I haven't been able to find recent data on a single Google search, but Google does say that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you take an active Google user—someone who does 25 searches and watches 60 minutes of YouTube a day, has a Gmail account and uses our other services—Google emits about 8 grams of CO2 per day to serve that user. In other words, serving a Google user for a month is like driving a car one mile.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Note that this number was derived by Google itself. It doesn't seem possible to check it and find out what exactly is or is not included in that footprint. Interestingly the same 8 grams was already reported in 2013 based on 2012 data. With all the measures Google has taken in recent years, I expect a slightly lower number now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More information:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Copy of 2009 Sunday Times article where the 7 grams CO2 was first mentioned](http://www.ict-21.ch/com-ict/IMG/html/article5488934.ece.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [Guardian article about Google's first company footprint publication in 2011](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/08/google-carbon-footprint)&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13229" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1308" RevisionGUID="89fa7664-241f-4ee4-9d39-e3ddf2529e1d" CreationDate="2016-10-27T13:44:59.480" UserId="164" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="### General principles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important thing here is to realise *what* these heaters heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Radiative heaters radiate infra-red light which strikes objects and heats them directly, heating the intervening air less.&#xD;&#xA;* Fan heaters primarily heat the air in the room by [forced convection][1].&#xD;&#xA;* Oil filled radiators, work like ordinary central heating radiators, primarily heating the air in the room by [natural convection][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are heating a space with ventilation but no heat recovery (you open a door or window regularly, or have a draught) then a fan heater or radiator would be less useful than a radiative heater. Much of the heat you generate will escape with the air which escapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in a space where there is little likelihood of hot air escaping, but where the walls are thin and poorly insulated, then a fan heater might be better. While some of the heat from the radiative heater will strike you and heat you directly, the energy which hits the walls will be divided between radiating back into the room and escaping through the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a well insulated room with little escape of air, there would be negligible differences between the different methods other than perceptual ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Safety&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is usually recommended that radiative and fan heaters are not left running when unattended. Even when an oil filled radiator is rated for unattended operation, care should be taken, as with any heating device, that nothing flammable is left close to or in contact with the heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Care should also be taken with these heaters when used in a room where people are sleeping. If there is **any** chance that they could be knocked over, or bedding/clothes could fall on them and pose fire risk, do not use the heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, in kitchens and bathrooms, only use appliances rated for use in those rooms. Moisture in the air could cause a heater not rated for those environments to fail, posing an additional fire risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Personal experience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From personal experience, I always *feel* warmer in front of a radiative heater, and they certainly produce less noise pollution than fan heaters, so are more pleasant to be around. Both are more controllable than oil filled radiators, so you get heat out of them sooner after you need it and waste little heat when you no longer need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find infra-red heaters particularly useful in bathrooms. Heaters like the following are (or were) common in UK bathrooms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Dimplex IRX120N - 1200 Watt Infra Red Wall Heater - Image used without permission, but with attribution][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to use a heater like this is on demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't normally heat my bathroom, but I turn on my bathroom IR wall heater before I get in the shower so it is up to full heat by the time I get out of the shower. The infra-red heat keeps me nice and warm in those those crucial moments between stopping the hot water flow and towelling off the rapidly cooling water. I then turn off the heater as I leave the bathroom, having wasted little electricity unnecessarily heating it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never understood why people replace IR wall heaters in bathrooms with fan heaters. I find that they can never warm up the air in the bathroom enough during the time you are showering that you don't feel cold during the towelling. I know that IR heaters are seen as *old technology*, but they work very well, are as 'efficient' as every other electric heater and are far more reliable than fan heaters. I have never had a fan heater last for more than a decade, but the IR heater in my bathroom has been working for over four.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Forced_convection&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Natural_convection&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Images/Products/size_3/DXIRX120N.JPG&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/DXIRX120N.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5585" RevisionGUID="9afc793f-00e3-4581-a38c-26bd298309cb" CreationDate="2016-10-27T15:42:33.950" UserId="3937" Text="I live in a medium-sized airy house whose bedrooms are all in the main part of the house, with the exception of one bedroom which is above the unheated garage. This room gets quite cold even in the autumn, and has an electric heater that we use along with lots of blankets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The living room at the opposite end of the house has a large fireplace which is able to keep most of the rooms warm just by keeping the doors open, but the room over the garage is quite isolated and is accessed via a few corridors - the warmth doesn't get that far (the ceilings are higher than the tops of the doors, so heat gets stuck).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What options are there for warming this room?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally we should use the fireplace, but I am not sure how. Some relatives (a long time ago, in another house) used to put a brick in/near the fire and then place that in their bed - is there something similar that could achieve the same safely today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also seen tea candles (the small  circular candles used for keeping plates warm in some restaurants) under upturned ceramic pots being used for heating but I'm not sure if the air in the room becomes dirty this approach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13231" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5585" RevisionGUID="9afc793f-00e3-4581-a38c-26bd298309cb" CreationDate="2016-10-27T15:42:33.950" UserId="3937" Text="How to heat an isolated room" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13232" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5585" RevisionGUID="9afc793f-00e3-4581-a38c-26bd298309cb" CreationDate="2016-10-27T15:42:33.950" UserId="3937" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5586" RevisionGUID="3b105cba-5622-46cd-9699-553752d31471" CreationDate="2016-10-27T22:16:11.537" UserId="15" Text="Water has a very high [specific heat capacity][1], which means it can store a lot of heat for its weight compared with most other materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to warm something in front of the fire and then move it to the bedroom, a container of water would store about 4-5 times as much heat as the same weight of bricks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For safety, just make sure that the container you use isn't going to break or spill if the water is hot enough to scald you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://studyonline.zohosites.com/Specific-Heat-Capacity-Materials.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5581" RevisionGUID="0f82498e-6a97-4959-b43c-ef67a6939ed3" CreationDate="2016-10-28T06:45:45.777" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, various other minor improvements" Text="It may sound contradictory, but according to scientist and statistician Hans Rosling, the main criterion to limit population growth is a **reduction of the child mortality rate** (see also [his Ted Talk on the topic](https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen) and the stats below). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Child mortality vs Population Growth][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;*Child mortality rate vs Country population growth rate (including migration) in 2011,&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Each bubble is a country, bubble color indicates continent, bubble size relates to number of babies per woman*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the next decades most population growth is expected to be in developing countries where child mortality is high. This is especially the case in the sub-Saharan countries, where children are an insurance that there is someone to take care of you when you are old. Population growth rates in developed countries are much lower. In some countries like Germany, Russia and Japan it is even zero or negative (not counting recent immigration, see also [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lower child mortality can be achieved by **better living conditions and better health services. This in turn can be achieved by better education and higher income**. Also women who are better educated tend to marry later and get children at a higher age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Móż has also mentioned in [his comment](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/what-are-ethical-ways-to-curb-the-global-human-population-increase#comment7573_5564), another big influence on population growth can be **government policy and incentives**. China for example still has one of the lowest population growth rates in Asia (although I do not consider their former 1-child policy ethical).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information about population growth can be found on the website of Hans Rosling's [Gapminder.org](http://gapminder.org) organisation. The site also has a great [interactive graphical statistics tool](https://www.gapminder.org/tools/) that shows the relationship between child mortality, babies born per woman, education, income, health services and many other factors, plus their changes since 1960.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fK0OY.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5587" RevisionGUID="34996d46-854c-427b-bb34-261834e97755" CreationDate="2016-10-28T06:52:14.233" UserId="1233" Text="Even though I agree with most of the previous answers that education and economic equality would be the most efficient mechanics in the long-run, I feel like they do not directly answer your question as it seemed you wanted to have an instrumental answer in the style of IF-THEN. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the fact that a multidimensional problem such as over-population deserves a multi-dimensional answer, I feel hesitant to state my claim, but I wanted to share it anyway. I heard this thought on the podcast &quot;*Tangentially Speaking*&quot; by Christopher Ryan, namely &quot;Increasing economic incentives for families with small amounts of children&quot;. As we have these types of stimuli already at present, I do not see why we could not do so in terms of population reduction. That addresses the element of ethical concern. Instead of getting money for children, you get money if you do _not_ have any. Or tax breaks, alternatively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adopting a stance of systemic thinking again, however, we should consider the social and socio-economic incentives, that are present in several countries with high birth rates and population increases, such as heightened social standing, assumed higher levels of masculinity, secured future and retirement, and tribal social structures. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my personal view, as with most frictions between environmental and social/economic interests, it boils down to habits and the innate human difficulty in breaking them..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5585" RevisionGUID="bc1c663c-04f2-4b2e-8ed5-c53500470e45" CreationDate="2016-10-28T07:58:23.893" UserId="3937" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="I live in a medium-sized airy house whose bedrooms are all in the main part of the house, with the exception of one bedroom which is above the unheated garage. This room gets quite cold even in the autumn, and has an electric heater that we use along with lots of blankets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The living room at the opposite end of the house has a large fireplace which is able to keep most of the rooms warm just by keeping the doors open, but the room over the garage is quite isolated and is accessed via a few corridors - the warmth doesn't get that far (the ceilings are higher than the tops of the doors, so heat gets stuck).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What options are there for warming this room?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally we should use the fireplace, but I am not sure how. Some relatives (a long time ago, in another house) used to put a brick in/near the fire and then place that in their bed - is there something similar that could achieve the same safely today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also seen tea candles (the small  circular candles used for keeping plates warm in some restaurants) under upturned ceramic pots being used for heating but I'm not sure if the air in the room becomes dirty this approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit: while ducting is possible, it's not very appealing aesthetically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5588" RevisionGUID="b7362eda-651b-4255-a439-c0ddc4d76b8a" CreationDate="2016-10-28T10:05:51.307" UserId="1233" Text="I know that there a some Startups working on innovative solutions for the renewable energy *load-shifting conundrum* (maybe add &quot;load-shifting&quot; to the tags?), out of which the one that stuck most to my head was *compressed air energy storage*, also known as *CAES*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In peak energy production when it is foreseeable that there will be a surplus, this excess energy will be used to pump **compressed air** into **underwater tanks/ballons** with a compressor. When there is an energy shortage, this transformed energy can be turned into electricity again by using turbines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Renewable Energy world on the issue][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Bonus Excursion*: &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;At a recent hackathon in Groningen, the Netherlands, called [H4ck Energy][1] my team conceptualised *liquefied natural gas (LNG)* powered freight trucks being additionally loaded with electric batteries, e.g. the Tesla powerwall to function as mobile load-shifting plants. Being charged at the truck stations, the legally binding downtime for recess at highway truck stations, combined with the renewable energy intermittency, would create a synergy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy Surplus = Charge standby trucks, Energy Shortage = Discharge standby trucks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*&quot;Watt, the truck&quot;*-Concept Animation [here][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://h4ckenergy.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.powtoon.com/online-presentation/dW2hqYKRWHJ/energy-hackathon-2016/?mode=movie&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2014/09/underwater-compressed-air-storage-fantasy-or-reality.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="2b46e642-f3b1-4f71-b788-88cb336a42f9" CreationDate="2016-10-28T15:24:40.150" UserId="3941" Text="I'm currently at the end of computer science bachelor and not quite sure what to do after. In a way I'd like to continue with Master degree and at the same time help somehow for a more eco-friendly and sustainable world. &#xD;&#xA;I know for example that Informatics is needed when building systems like smart grid, weather/load prediction for electricity or even database building, data analysis in this area.&#xD;&#xA;I am still wondering though if this won't over-qualify me in this area and maybe there is a study in which I approach other more relevant subjects for this. Note that I have up to a quarter of my study free choice of courses so I can choose the ones with power grids or similar things. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="2b46e642-f3b1-4f71-b788-88cb336a42f9" CreationDate="2016-10-28T15:24:40.150" UserId="3941" Text="Is a master in computer science relevant for working in sustainable living?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13240" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="2b46e642-f3b1-4f71-b788-88cb336a42f9" CreationDate="2016-10-28T15:24:40.150" UserId="3941" Text="|renewables|computing|education|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13241" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2674" RevisionGUID="4d87a65d-5b0e-4139-a04f-a8ffa103f033" CreationDate="2016-10-29T11:19:49.900" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|careers|education|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13243" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="8ad39bea-7bbc-45df-8f0d-ea0ca5640045" CreationDate="2016-10-30T05:47:30.380" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/792603815442784256" />
  <row Id="13244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5137" RevisionGUID="2804f11f-0d6d-41e3-8ba5-b6a0fe136a4e" CreationDate="2016-10-30T08:29:06.433" UserId="99" Comment="added humanitarian FOSS project" Text="There is quite a lot of software that is in one way or another helping the environment. To give you an idea here are some categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Environmental management systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_management_system)** to keep track of and analyze the environmental performance of a company.&#xD;&#xA;* **[Life-cycle assessment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment) software** to investigate how exactly a product impacts the environment and what more environmentally friendly components or alternatives are.&#xD;&#xA;* **Routing optimization software** to reduce the use of fossil fuels by a company's delivery trucks.&#xD;&#xA;* **Teleconferencing/telepresence systems** to reduce travel.&#xD;&#xA;* **Energy management software** for various applications; from improving energy efficiency at home to building [smart grids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid) that enable more efficient distribution of electricity (from renewable sources).&#xD;&#xA;* **Footprint calculators** to show people their own environmental footprint and educate them how to bring this down (see also [tag:carbon-footprint], [tag:ecological-footprint] or [tag:water-footprint]).&#xD;&#xA;* **Online community platforms** to&#xD;&#xA;    * connect with environmental activists (e.g. like [greenwire.greenpeace.org](http://greenwire.greenpeace.org) or [care2.com](http://www.care2.com)), &#xD;&#xA;    * lend out or give away unused items (e.g. like [freecycle.org](http://www.freecycle.org) or [peerby.com](http://peerby.com)) &#xD;&#xA;    * do projects that help the environment with friends (e.g. like [celsias.com](http://www.celsias.com) or [joulebug app](http://joulebug.com))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you search online you'll find various companies that offer proprietary software like this and perhaps there's a company near you where you can apply. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd rather do something besides your current job, in some of the categories mentioned above there are open-source alternatives. Here are some examples I know of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [openLCA](http://www.openlca.org/about-openlca), open-source software package for life-cycle analysis&#xD;&#xA;* [OpenEnergyMonitor](http://openenergymonitor.org/), open-source energy monitoring tool&#xD;&#xA;* [Open Foris](http://www.openforis.org/), a set of free open-source software tools for environmental data collection, monitoring, analysis and reporting.&#xD;&#xA;* [The Humanitarian FOSS project](http://hfoss.org), a community-building website with a collection of (academic) open-source projects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look around in your area, there are probably all kinds of environmental grassroots initiatives that would love your help and guidance for setting up or developing a website for their cause. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5590" RevisionGUID="0605241c-abac-4fb5-8abd-4cd4cdc7ffe7" CreationDate="2016-10-30T19:25:38.207" UserId="1581" Text="I observe every year in autumn that fallen leaves are piled and left to rot. Assuming there are biogas facilities (say within 10 miles) is there some reason to not ferment the leaves? Is the energy density too low? In cities, the leaves are collected anyway. In forests, could extracting leaves draw too much nutrients from the soil? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13246" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5590" RevisionGUID="0605241c-abac-4fb5-8abd-4cd4cdc7ffe7" CreationDate="2016-10-30T19:25:38.207" UserId="1581" Text="Is it worthwhile to collect leaves that fall in autumn from trees for biogas production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13247" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5590" RevisionGUID="0605241c-abac-4fb5-8abd-4cd4cdc7ffe7" CreationDate="2016-10-30T19:25:38.207" UserId="1581" Text="|energy-use|biogas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13248" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5590" RevisionGUID="1d0f7ee4-1cc8-40a3-abfa-ec20a83ae638" CreationDate="2016-10-31T17:58:59.450" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/793150287032754176" />
  <row Id="13249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5591" RevisionGUID="907716ef-ba7f-4cb9-9c42-ab50075796b4" CreationDate="2016-10-31T19:48:20.997" UserId="2072" Text="I notice that vinegar has been recommended in two other answers. While it is true that acids and the low pH of vinegar are helpful agains mold it should not be applied to all surfaces. Used on various plasterings (typically of a high pH value) the vinegars acid is neutralized and fails in its anti-fungal properties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Isopropyl alcohol is recommended to be used on such surfaces." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5592" RevisionGUID="37c91085-6c11-4793-9aa0-5b2c7a60819f" CreationDate="2016-10-31T22:16:26.007" UserId="1581" Text="**Develop for old hardware**&#xA;&#xA;You could develop for old hardware or in general develop software that enables &#xA;durable hardware. For example some developers provide slick Linux distributions like WattOS, others develop specialized tools that free up space on your Android phone (eg Audio cleanup, Ccleaner, etc)  such that older hardware may serve longer. I think this could really have some environmental impact, as production of new hardware is rather costly from an environmental point of view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5593" RevisionGUID="38bee547-98cc-4d8d-9811-18096f6ebd6f" CreationDate="2016-11-01T11:40:26.650" UserId="3948" Text="Since grass and switchgrass already been mentioned; **Hemp** and **Paulownia** tree may be the alternative answer. They are among the fastest growing plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For hemp, one unit land area of hemp(s) can produces as much cellulose as 4 unit land area of trees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="af37f918-444f-4a31-a6f9-0f6e2a6fd16b" CreationDate="2016-11-02T15:57:03.610" UserId="400" Comment="added a solution" Text="Ecologists refer to this as 'gross productivity' and define it to be dry weight plant matter per area per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In temperate climates this is likely to be a grass.  Switchgrass has been proposed as a bio feedstock, both because it's highly productive, and the plant pulls most of the necessary trace nutrients back into the roots in fall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poplar and willow are two other bio feedstocks.  They reach maximum productivity when coppice grown, and harvested when stems are about 1&quot; thick.  (Grow on about 6&quot; spacing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you aren't limited to land use, you can likely do better with algae.  They produce very fast, but also decompose fast.  You have to figure out some way to rapidly harvest the biomass, and remove enough water to frustrate the bacteria.  This may make it an impractical solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(One of the proposed solutions to carbon sequesterization is to 'fertilize' the oceans with iron.  In most water this is the limiting element.  The notion is to create an algae bloom.  When the algae die, their corpses settle to the abysal plain where decomposition is very slow. So far the experiments to test this aren't conclusive.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5594" RevisionGUID="d411a12e-2ecd-4cb1-8e73-10125235480c" CreationDate="2016-11-02T16:04:59.607" UserId="400" Text="Yes, you could.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biogas production is heavily depending on outside factors.  If you have to haul the matter a significant distance, you may end up with a net loss. Biogas overall is a way to intercept some energy that would otherwise be lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember too, that biogas is mostly methane.  If your system leaks, then you are replacing the CO2 that the detritivores would produce with methane -- a much more potent (but shorter lived) gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to harvest some of the energy:  Build a large compost bin, run layers of plastic pipe in it, and use the heat of the pile to preheat water for domestic use.  There has been some research setups for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you garden, a better use may be to till the leaves into your garden, or compost them, and distribute the compost to your garden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="b5ff3e31-1cbc-4950-bf38-6e71e182098e" CreationDate="2016-11-02T20:48:51.093" UserId="3952" Text="I was thinking the other day, after having a very wet winter season in New Zealand, if we are getting all this rain, are other parts of the planet, getting droughts? and of course this lead to the question, does the world have a defined amount of water, or is water created when Hydrogen(H) an Oxygen(O) combine somehow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand water is evaporated, and rises, then condenses and becomes clouds/rain (and of course these clouds don't just release their rain over th place that the water was evaporated from, so the water moves, around. And of course a lot of the water on the planet exists inside people/animals etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is their a defined amount?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="b5ff3e31-1cbc-4950-bf38-6e71e182098e" CreationDate="2016-11-02T20:48:51.093" UserId="3952" Text="Does the world have a defined amount of water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="b5ff3e31-1cbc-4950-bf38-6e71e182098e" CreationDate="2016-11-02T20:48:51.093" UserId="3952" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5596" RevisionGUID="6ebebdb9-13a7-431e-9448-a5523694814e" CreationDate="2016-11-03T07:46:48.230" UserId="2846" Text="To a decent approximation the amount of free water (i.e. liquid and gas) is fixed. Ice sheet melting of course increases this slowly. But so much of the free water is in the oceans that the amount that's available for most human uses can still vary hugely. Sea surface temperatures significantly affect evaporation rates, and these vary e.g. El Niño. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The distribution of rainfall is predicted to be seriously affected by climate change, both in space and time. Flooding and drought could both increase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount tied up in plants and animals is small; should may account for more (citation needed). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's essentially *no* free hydrogen to combine with oxygen (0.5 parts per million according to Wikipedia). There also aren't any major sources of hydrogen. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5597" RevisionGUID="52060c49-7f92-42b8-82e7-039cf5152512" CreationDate="2016-11-03T08:27:29.760" UserId="96" Text="First, how do we look at the biogas yield of a suvbstrate? We look at the total solids (TS) and volatile solids (VS), and then measure the gas production per VS. TS is the fraction that remains after thorough drying, while VS is the fraction that is lost after heating the dry stuff to a few hundred °C for an hour or so. VS is a handy stand in for the part of the  matter than may be organically degraded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yield of leaves is, according to [this paper][1] 377 Nl/kg VS Biogas at around 50% Methane. VS is about 82% of TS. The paper gives no numbers, I'd expect leaves when they fall of the tree to have 30%+ TS, but the TS will also vary wildly depending on weather. For comnaprison, good quality corn whole crop silage would be around 660 Nl/kg VS and 65% methane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The low yield is likely due to to the high ligning content. [This paper][2] states a far higher yield for pretreated leaves vs. non-pretreated: Crushing or milling will break up fiber and so make the cellulose inside, that would otherwise be encased in lignin, accessible to the bacteria. However the second paper does not give convenient numbers for gas yield, so I can't do a direct comparison with 377Nl/kg. According to [this (german) article][3] one can also prepare a mash and then do a solid liquid separation, the liquid contains an easily gasifiable fraction and the solid fraction would be incinerated. Since this would also work on grass etc. (which are available when leaves are not) such a process *could* be a worthwhile addition to a biogas plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaves, when raked of the ground, will be mixed with sand, grit, earth, sticks and other debris. Depending on the biogas plant in question, this can be a problem or not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK forest litter plays an important role in a forests nutrient cycle. Gathering leaves from a forest also sounds challenging. so only leaves that would be gathered anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaves are 'produced' only in fall. It makes sense to produce biogas from leaves if:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The leaves are collected anyway, off roadways, parking lots etc.&#xD;&#xA; - there's an existing biogas plant that can take an extra load every fall &#xD;&#xA; - this biogas plant and downstream process can handle the extra grit etc. from the leaves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://tf.llu.lv/conference/proceedings2012/Papers/100_Dubrovskis_V.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.banglajol.info/index.php/BJSIR/article/viewFile/25579/17152&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.agrarheute.com/joule/news/gruenschnitt-biogas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="f6182aed-745b-4f30-a466-c9988946d5ed" CreationDate="2016-11-03T09:03:56.403" UserId="15" Text="Yes, there is a limited amount of water on (and in, and above) Earth. There's a limited amount of everything on Earth. Most things on Earth stay on Earth due to the pull of gravity, gaseous water included (Mars doesn't have enough gravity to keep its water though). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, giving it the formula H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O. These form a relatively tight bond (compared with some molecules) so that they don't easily break apart, but a small proportion of them do break apart under the right conditions, such as when [photosynthesis][1] turns the combination of water and carbon dioxide into oxygen and sugar. Often water is formed again later, such as when the sugar is consumed (eaten) by animals or microbes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where Earth's Water is&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The majority of the easily accessible water on Earth is in our oceans. Only a small proportion (3.5%) is fresh water in lakes, rivers, swamps, aquifers, and ice, and most of that is largely inaccessible. There's some [excellent info here][2] on that (see the table). Apparently only 0.04% of the fresh water is in the atmosphere (To be clear, that's one twenty-fifth of a percent of the fresh water, or one thousandth of a percent of the total water).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are there droughts then?&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system as a whole is in a kind of complicated balance, where warm dry air causes increased evaporation of water from oceans into the atmosphere, and as moist air cools it becomes clouds then rain. In places where there's a lack of rain, it's not caused by a shortage of water on Earth. Rather, it's caused by localised weather which is caused by shapes of land masses and their location on Earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's probably most interesting is local weather. Because temperature has significant effects on weather, you're probably better to focus on climate patterns and effects of (anthropogenic) climate change rather on how much water there is in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="c58b83d3-1647-4e9d-a6c2-e4b9d1efd55c" CreationDate="2016-11-03T09:15:51.750" UserId="15" Comment="added 370 characters in body" Text="Yes, there is a limited amount of water on (and in, and above) Earth. There's a limited amount of everything on Earth. Most things on Earth stay on Earth due to the pull of gravity, gaseous water included* (Mars doesn't have enough gravity to keep its water though). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, giving it the formula H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O. These form a relatively tight bond (compared with some molecules) so that they don't easily break apart, but a small proportion of them do break apart under the right conditions, such as when [photosynthesis][1] turns the combination of water and carbon dioxide into oxygen and sugar. Often water is formed again later, such as when the sugar is consumed (eaten) by animals or microbes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where Earth's Water is&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The majority of the easily accessible water on Earth is in our oceans. Only a small proportion (3.5%) is fresh water in lakes, rivers, swamps, aquifers, and ice, and most of that is largely inaccessible. There's some [excellent info here][2] on that (see the table). Apparently only 0.04% of the fresh water is in the atmosphere (To be clear, that's one twenty-fifth of a percent of the fresh water, or one thousandth of a percent of the total water).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are there droughts then?&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system as a whole is in a kind of complicated balance, where warm dry air causes increased evaporation of water from oceans into the atmosphere, and as moist air cools it becomes clouds then rain. In places where there's a lack of rain, it's not caused by a shortage of water on Earth. Rather, it's caused by localised weather which is caused by shapes of land masses and their location on Earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's probably most interesting is local weather. Because temperature has significant effects on weather, you're probably better to focus on climate patterns and effects of (anthropogenic) climate change rather on how much water there is in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lighter gases, Helium in particular, but water too, do tend to be lost into outer space from the outside of Earth's atmosphere. Earth has lost some already, but it's a very slow process and nothing to worry about too much for quite some time... we might need to worry about the sun before it happens? http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2321/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5598" RevisionGUID="ab1c59e3-e4b4-413c-b5f7-6a78b2e27133" CreationDate="2016-11-03T09:50:51.213" UserId="15" Comment="minor clarification" Text="Yes, there is a limited amount of water on (and in, and above) Earth. There's a limited amount of everything on Earth. Most things on Earth stay on Earth due to the pull of gravity, gaseous water included* (Mars doesn't have enough gravity to keep its water though). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chemistry&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, giving it the formula H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O. These form a relatively tight bond (compared with some molecules) so that they don't easily break apart, but a small proportion of them do break apart under the right conditions, such as when [photosynthesis][1] turns the combination of water and carbon dioxide into oxygen and sugar. Often water is formed again later, such as when the sugar is consumed (eaten) by animals or microbes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where Earth's Water is&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The majority of the easily accessible water on Earth is in our oceans. Only a small proportion (3.5%) is fresh water in lakes, rivers, swamps, aquifers, and ice, and most of that is largely inaccessible. There's some [excellent info here][2] on that (see the table). Apparently only 0.04% of the fresh water is in the atmosphere (To be clear, that's one twenty-fifth of a percent of the fresh water, or one thousandth of a percent of the total water).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are there droughts then?&#xD;&#xA;----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system as a whole is in a kind of complicated balance, where warm dry air causes increased evaporation of water from oceans into the atmosphere, and as moist air cools it becomes clouds then rain. In places where there's a lack of rain, it's not caused by a shortage of water on Earth. Rather, it's caused by localised weather which is caused by shapes of land masses and their location on Earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's probably most interesting is local weather. Because temperature has significant effects on weather, you're probably better to focus on climate patterns and effects of (anthropogenic) climate change rather on how much water there is in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Lighter gases, Helium in particular, but water too, do tend to be lost into outer space from the outside of Earth's atmosphere. Earth has lost some already, but it's a very slow process and nothing to worry about too much for quite some time... we might need to worry about the deterioration of our sun before we lose too much water. http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2321/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="6e8e39af-45f6-4bf9-9188-bc5911feaba1" CreationDate="2016-11-03T09:58:49.627" UserId="3954" Text="Air pollution in Delhi has rose up to hazardous level with air quality index crossing 500 in many areas. But unlike other polluted cities (like Beijing), Delhi has no shut down of schools and businesses. Such a shut down would not only prevent people from its hazardous effects but also reduce pollution levels due to closed industries and less vehicular traffic. So why does this not happen?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="6e8e39af-45f6-4bf9-9188-bc5911feaba1" CreationDate="2016-11-03T09:58:49.627" UserId="3954" Text="Why do schools and businesses in Delhi not shut down even during extreme levels of air-pollution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="6e8e39af-45f6-4bf9-9188-bc5911feaba1" CreationDate="2016-11-03T09:58:49.627" UserId="3954" Text="|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5600" RevisionGUID="1c2c4d1f-24df-4f22-9a85-7b0f274e7d7e" CreationDate="2016-11-03T10:37:14.517" UserId="812" Text="My university's IT department has recently sent everybody an email asking us to leave our computers on at night, every night, so that they can do remote maintenance. They say &quot;Despite what you may believe, modern PCs use very little energy when not in use&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're almost certainly wrong, because it really doesn't take much power to add up to something significant when we're talking about thousands of PCs, but for the sake of approximately quantifying it,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How much power does an average desktop PC draw when switched on (not in Sleep mode) but idle?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, I am being a bit lazy here, but I don't have a meter available and I figure somebody here will have measured it before! Plus, it may be useful info for others.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13268" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5600" RevisionGUID="1c2c4d1f-24df-4f22-9a85-7b0f274e7d7e" CreationDate="2016-11-03T10:37:14.517" UserId="812" Text="How much power does an idle PC use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13269" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5600" RevisionGUID="1c2c4d1f-24df-4f22-9a85-7b0f274e7d7e" CreationDate="2016-11-03T10:37:14.517" UserId="812" Text="|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13270" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="d30a95b9-8f7a-414d-a8dd-31ceaed531ea" CreationDate="2016-11-03T20:28:37.107" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/9008/most-environmentally-friendly-mode-of-transport" />
  <row Id="13271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5602" RevisionGUID="8368e009-bada-467a-8bd0-1cf2e79dfe49" CreationDate="2016-11-02T14:24:28.220" UserId="3955" UserDisplayName="kingledion" Text="This question is addressed in a paper by [Shibahara et al, 2013][1]. They don't discuss walking, but they do discuss bicycling, which I suppose is a more realistic method for commuting (for example, I bike the 8 miles to work but I've never walked it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The authors analyzed taxi, gas cars (GV), electric cars (EV), bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail (LRT), city-center shuttle buses, and bicycle (and battery-assisted bicycle, which I am going to ignore, because I think it is silly). They accounted for total system life-cycle carbon (SyLC-CO2) usage, including the cost of making bike paths and rails and roads and the farmland CO2 costs emissions needed to power the human on a bike. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is that taxis are unspeakably bad, gas cars go from 145-155 as traffic increases, electric cars are a little better in the 125 range. BRT and LRT have rapid exponential decreases from ~100 with low traffic to 25 for BRT and 15 for LRT at high traffic. City center have a slight decay from 30 to 25 as traffic increases, and bicycles a near constant 20.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the conclusion is, **bicycling is much better than cars or even electric cars, better than buses even in high traffic areas, but not as good as a light rail in the most densely populated areas**. I would suspect that walking is similar to biking, maybe even better. The calorie demands would be similar, more paved sidewalk would be needed due to slower speed, but not manufacturing bikes would save you some carbon. But the time it takes to walk more than a couple miles is pretty prohibitive, so it isn't a reasonable transportation alternative in many cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wctrs-society.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/abstracts/rio/selected/1590.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x1mGU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="ef23a033-d2ed-458b-aa28-b490b4e9eaed" CreationDate="2016-11-02T11:36:42.323" UserId="3958" UserDisplayName="James" Text="You often hear &quot;Walk, it's better for the environment&quot;, but is that actually true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I walk 5 miles instead of taking say a public bus, given that I now will need to replace the energy I spent walking with food which has a cost on the environment to grow, which would really be more environmentally friendly? Given that the bus would be running anyway, so the only cost is hauling my extra weight on it. How do electric cars compare? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cycling would cost me less energy, but then there's the wear and tear on my bicycle which again has a cost on the environment that is presumably greater than the food cost. Roller blades seem to last a long time (or is that because I rarely used mine?) so could they be more efficient? Would sailing be a more environmentally friendly mode of transport than walking? Again there's wear and tear on boat parts, but over a long distance humans would need a considerable amount of food and fresh water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="ef23a033-d2ed-458b-aa28-b490b4e9eaed" CreationDate="2016-11-02T11:36:42.323" UserId="3958" UserDisplayName="James" Text="Most environmentally friendly mode of transport" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="ef23a033-d2ed-458b-aa28-b490b4e9eaed" CreationDate="2016-11-02T11:36:42.323" UserId="3958" UserDisplayName="James" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13275" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5602" RevisionGUID="f26f670d-beac-4ecd-b46f-9c0fdc75606f" CreationDate="2016-11-03T20:28:37.107" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/9008/most-environmentally-friendly-mode-of-transport/9012#9012" />
  <row Id="13276" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="ea45b925-7ea1-4a19-ae7c-c14d91ab2d5e" CreationDate="2016-11-03T20:28:37.107" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/9008/most-environmentally-friendly-mode-of-transport/9014#9014" />
  <row Id="13277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5603" RevisionGUID="a67f3fff-31ec-4a59-8585-a71076fab99d" CreationDate="2016-11-02T21:31:39.163" UserId="277" Text="Walk. And probably naked [*]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because any time one includes any means of transportation one should also include the industry behind it. Trains, buses and bikes don't grow on trees. Neither do clothes...  :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[*] A grape leaf may be deemed advisable for decency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5604" RevisionGUID="7656c850-119d-43c4-8d48-d1bfbf5701ed" CreationDate="2016-11-03T23:53:38.790" UserId="400" Text="The currently tenable options I see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Move the energy to where it's needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Moderately large synchronous networks are tied together with DC lines.  This allows further movement of power without requiring synchronization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Store the energy for later&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Someone comes up with a chemical process that can be easily turned on/ turned off when you have/ don't have surplus power.  A battery is one example.  Electrolysis may be one.  Someone may be able to come up with a way to make methanol this way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Compressed air storage may be viable, especially with volumes large enough that the air doesn't cool significantly while in storage.  This has some efficiency issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Pumped hydro works well, but there are not many suitable sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Where to store it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are going to store energy for a while just where is optimum:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  At the point of use.  Makes all kinds of sense for battery, or anything that is equivalent to a battery. (Battery = any box that you pump electricity in when you have lots, and pull it out when you are short.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  At the point of generation.  E.g. you have a wind farm that makes hydrogen when it has surplus power.  hydrogen is burned or run through fuel cells when it's calm.  The advantage here is that the wind farm is now 'dispatchable' &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  At centralied locations.  This makes the most sense for large systems that make methonol or other feedstocks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5605" RevisionGUID="e7e7ded5-bc77-4a7c-88cf-3ad453b61bc5" CreationDate="2016-11-04T00:45:07.643" UserId="3956" Text="I live in Hamilton Ontario which a major city right on the shore of Lake Ontario, and I was just doing some personal research on the pollution levels in lake Ontario. Generally the water here has a negative stigma of being dirty, and I was just wondering, are the lakes getting cleaner, or like greenhouse gases; It depends where you are talking about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was always under the impression that the factories here in Hamilton Harbor were a large source of pollution, and apparently they were at one point, but now days its non point source pollution that is apparently creating the most pollution in Lake Ontario." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5605" RevisionGUID="e7e7ded5-bc77-4a7c-88cf-3ad453b61bc5" CreationDate="2016-11-04T00:45:07.643" UserId="3956" Text="Are The Great Lakes Getting Cleaner or Worse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5605" RevisionGUID="e7e7ded5-bc77-4a7c-88cf-3ad453b61bc5" CreationDate="2016-11-04T00:45:07.643" UserId="3956" Text="|water|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13283" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5600" RevisionGUID="c59df64a-db8a-43d1-8f49-bfd6207713e0" CreationDate="2016-11-04T06:33:01.330" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/794427209306017792" />
  <row Id="13284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5606" RevisionGUID="c15eb180-8684-4766-90c7-3bc580fe11be" CreationDate="2016-11-04T06:38:36.220" UserId="3957" Text="I am thinking the option of laying plastic tubes at regular intervals along the length of building roof (after the concrete slab is casted) and a common header pipe at the ends of all tubes. The tubes on both sides will be connected to header. The one side header will act as inlet and another header as outlet. keep provision of water inlet and outlet in the headers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After placing the headers and tubes at over the slab, pave the roof slab (ensure all tubes are placed well and compact with concrete mixture, so that after paving the roof will look like a normal concrete floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will help in two ways...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The air gap in the tubes will act a insulation, since heat travel through air will be less. Though direct contact happens at the places where tubes are not placed, this will give a 60-70% reduction in heat conduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. We can let the water in to the tubes when required, may be for half an hour to cool the roof. The water can be use it for household purposes, if the piping is done accordingly. If you have surplus water use it for gardening on need basis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13285" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="f621f40a-2abe-47cc-9723-5576b04918bc" CreationDate="2016-11-04T07:53:41.520" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13287" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5605" RevisionGUID="b3ccf2a6-0a8e-4d48-acd0-0ec81473f23d" CreationDate="2016-11-04T09:33:01.623" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/794472509391470593" />
  <row Id="13288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5607" RevisionGUID="91bdecc1-de62-412d-b3b9-9403c6695982" CreationDate="2016-11-04T14:41:04.233" UserId="2299" Text="This is a little off from your question, but I think it helps explain your experience in New Zealand. Because of global warming there is more water in the atmosphere, so, while weather patterns will still cause drought in some areas, overall we can expect more precipitation.&#xD;&#xA;Also, water itself is a greenhouse gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5608" RevisionGUID="a39c08ee-551f-49ed-b133-79d95b7c4cf0" CreationDate="2016-11-04T20:00:15.593" UserId="3960" Text="I have a similar problem, where my home office is in a small extension that was added to the house. I currently use an infra-red heating panel, it is quite low power at 300W and a lot of the time I can run it off surplus from my solar panels. It works a little differently to most heating systems, it heats the structure (walls etc.) of the house through radiation, rather than heating the air through convection as radiators do. The effect is subtle, but it definitely keeps the worst of the chills away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5609" RevisionGUID="e9798419-0c95-443b-b685-63c3ac4ed165" CreationDate="2016-11-05T01:13:56.480" UserId="80" Text="In Australia, most cars are automatic, and most people stay on &quot;drive&quot; while braking when stopped at a red light (i.e. if they weren't breaking, the car would drive forward).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if moving the gear handle to &quot;neutral&quot; when stopping for a couple of minutes would help save a non-negligeable amount of petrol?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of the following existing question but I consider my question to be different enough to ask it:&#xD;&#xA;http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1253/when-does-using-a-cars-start-stop-system-become-more-economical&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13291" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5609" RevisionGUID="e9798419-0c95-443b-b685-63c3ac4ed165" CreationDate="2016-11-05T01:13:56.480" UserId="80" Text="Does putting an automatic car in neutral when stopped help save petrol?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13292" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5609" RevisionGUID="e9798419-0c95-443b-b685-63c3ac4ed165" CreationDate="2016-11-05T01:13:56.480" UserId="80" Text="|transport|cars|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5610" RevisionGUID="52100ae6-2f97-46cc-b535-27f8ca03e56b" CreationDate="2016-11-05T03:01:58.750" UserId="3961" Text="Because is no system in place to do so. There is no regulation. There are no Public health warnings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arbitrarily, schools might be shut down either by their own choice or by government under public pressure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, this is the state of most Indian cities. On the other hand, if there is a parents association and it declares that they wont vote for the current government in next election, only then would some action will be taken." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13294" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5609" RevisionGUID="efc01591-4018-4a98-b751-f21c3d5cc415" CreationDate="2016-11-05T18:45:02.203" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/794973814484561921" />
  <row Id="13296" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="dda321ea-ebce-4163-ab20-91ea974e9662" CreationDate="2016-11-06T05:27:23.197" UserId="48" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13297" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5601" RevisionGUID="a767988e-8530-478c-9293-8e9901be8995" CreationDate="2016-11-06T12:46:57.213" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/795246088110350336" />
  <row Id="13298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="87189e7a-d682-4b0f-9394-76c1213debdd" CreationDate="2016-11-06T16:15:06.773" UserId="3379" Text="According to [this answer over on mechanics.SE][1], below a certain engine RPM, your vehicle automatically disengages the torque converter. That is to say, when stopped, there isn't a fundamental difference between having the transmission in drive or neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, shifting back and forth each time you're at a stop light does cause a bit of wear, and slows your reaction time (meaning you might slow traffic behind you, or be unable to respond quickly in case of emergency).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/a/3904" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5612" RevisionGUID="5c6ec63d-9683-41df-a3de-b3f2f400e954" CreationDate="2016-11-06T17:42:42.293" UserId="3847" Text="My understanding is that the Mayans, who lived in a very thick forested area, used slash-and-burn to clear land for farming, which was a terribly unsustainable way to do it.  What is the most sustainable way to clear temperate forested land (such as the forested land in the pacific northwest), and prepare it for farming of plant crops?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5612" RevisionGUID="5c6ec63d-9683-41df-a3de-b3f2f400e954" CreationDate="2016-11-06T17:42:42.293" UserId="3847" Text="What is the most sustainable way to convert forested land to farmland?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5612" RevisionGUID="5c6ec63d-9683-41df-a3de-b3f2f400e954" CreationDate="2016-11-06T17:42:42.293" UserId="3847" Text="|farming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13303" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5612" RevisionGUID="b6de3f46-7629-4d0d-98e2-428681d9ca9a" CreationDate="2016-11-07T09:49:04.733" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/795563712455315456" />
  <row Id="13304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5613" RevisionGUID="db64fd2b-8e18-4fd3-bcd8-205eb1dee6b5" CreationDate="2016-11-07T16:14:52.887" UserId="1701" Text="An organic ranch in Virginia would clear forest for pasture by first penning goats into the area for a year or so. The goats would clear out all of the underbrush while producing milk (turned into cheese) and meat. Timber could then be much more easily harvested using traditional techniques - companies would pay slightly higher rates to come in because there was virtually no understory after the goats. The stumps will be problematic, but if you've got time, you could consider inoculating with mushroom spawn and then harvesting mushrooms for a few years while the fungus breaks down the stumps. Stumps will then be much easier to remove. If time is of the essence, you'll have to dig them out, but that will be the case no matter how you go about getting to that point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5614" RevisionGUID="5f8d7140-b76d-4a36-878c-0315a13bb0c5" CreationDate="2016-11-07T20:54:00.343" UserId="3929" Text="I have some knowledge in this field, coming from several years' experience in drafting and defending patent applications that deal with wind turbines in one form or other. &#xD;&#xA;If you're talking about a single wind turbine with a sensor somewhere on the nacelle, downwind of the rotor blades: one way of dealing with the problem of wake-corrupted measurements is to place wind speed and pressure sensors in the spinner or hub, or out in front of the spinner (for example a sonic wind speed sensor on a boom extending outward from the hub). This placement of the sensors can at least ensure that the measured values are not falsified by turbulence caused by the rotor blades. The pressure sensors are used to determine the wind direction. Accurate measurements are important because these are needed to precisely control the yaw drive that turns the hub to face into the wind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem gets more complicated in the case of a wind farm. Here, the turbines in the current &quot;front row&quot; receive the most reliable information from their wind speed and wind pressure sensors. The wind direction information collected from the pressure sensors of the front row turbines can generally be used to also control the yaw drives of the downstream wind turbines. However, the wind speed can be significantly different for the downstream turbines.    Some wind parks use sophisticated wake modelling algorithms to continually update the control setpoints for each turbine in order to maximise the park power output. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13306" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5595" RevisionGUID="cd15392b-389f-4015-8983-e1b5e3d8cdf4" CreationDate="2016-11-08T00:51:48.267" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/795790891260768257" />
  <row Id="13307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5615" RevisionGUID="2f5a157d-52da-4295-afc7-e49cb147826b" CreationDate="2016-11-08T22:08:45.117" UserId="3972" Text="&#xD;&#xA;After much experimentation and financial, environmental and hygienic considerations, I have found that, for my use, Skoy cloths make the best alternative to toilet paper.  They are the right size, absorbent, easily and thoroughly washable, wring out almost dry, dry quickly and last a long time.  I feel clean and pleased to help the planet.  Of course, I do leave Seventh Generation toilet paper out for my guests." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5617" RevisionGUID="531c2d6f-70e8-4e51-b487-fa2137fe174d" CreationDate="2016-11-09T13:12:15.803" UserId="3974" Text="I was thinking today of a model to convert water drops into energy using a dynamo and a heating mechanism that will transform the  water back to drops. Was just wondering if anyone tried to do anything related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5617" RevisionGUID="531c2d6f-70e8-4e51-b487-fa2137fe174d" CreationDate="2016-11-09T13:12:15.803" UserId="3974" Text="Are you able to convert rain drops to energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5617" RevisionGUID="531c2d6f-70e8-4e51-b487-fa2137fe174d" CreationDate="2016-11-09T13:12:15.803" UserId="3974" Text="|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5618" RevisionGUID="e195fb96-be31-4c13-826e-fa9ca942b4ca" CreationDate="2016-11-09T18:44:10.557" UserId="48" Text="It's possible, but the best way to do it was devised over a century ago: hydro power. Let the high land collect and channel lots of rain, and then put a turbine on the channel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that raindrops, as they fall, have very little energy - very little mass, and pretty low velocity too. Once they've fallen on high land, they've still got a lot of gravitational potential energy; and as they're channeled by the lay of the land, the combined mass becomes high, and there's enough velocity, to make the kinetic energy sufficiently high to justify investing in the infrastructure to harvest the energy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5617" RevisionGUID="adc56de7-7da3-4ead-a6e0-d74de47ff8c4" CreationDate="2016-11-11T06:37:49.600" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title, clarified, fixed tags" Text="Would it be possible to convert water drops into energy using a dynamo? A heating mechanism could then be used to transform the water back to a vapor to start the cycle again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13319" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5617" RevisionGUID="adc56de7-7da3-4ead-a6e0-d74de47ff8c4" CreationDate="2016-11-11T06:37:49.600" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title, clarified, fixed tags" Text="Is it possible to convert rain drops to energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13320" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5617" RevisionGUID="adc56de7-7da3-4ead-a6e0-d74de47ff8c4" CreationDate="2016-11-11T06:37:49.600" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title, clarified, fixed tags" Text="|electricity-generation|hydroelectricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13321" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5617" RevisionGUID="adc56de7-7da3-4ead-a6e0-d74de47ff8c4" CreationDate="2016-11-11T06:37:49.600" Comment="Proposed by 3379 approved by 85 edit id of 427" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="d6b1cde4-568a-4e77-81c1-1690c0f58e3f" CreationDate="2016-11-11T06:55:00.477" UserId="3954" Comment="added 83 characters in body; edited title" Text="Air pollution in Delhi has rose up to hazardous level with air quality index crossing 500 in many areas. But unlike other polluted cities (like Beijing), Delhi has no shut down of schools and businesses. Such a shut down would not only prevent people from its hazardous effects but also reduce pollution levels due to closed industries and less vehicular traffic. So why does this not happen? What are other possible solutions to protect people from this hazardous situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13324" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="d6b1cde4-568a-4e77-81c1-1690c0f58e3f" CreationDate="2016-11-11T06:55:00.477" UserId="3954" Comment="added 83 characters in body; edited title" Text="What would be a viable and justifiable policy to handle short-term acute pollution incidents across large urban areas such as Delhi?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13325" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="b9b71511-f81d-4ba0-aeef-c7e210b40282" CreationDate="2016-11-11T08:51:43.573" UserId="48" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5620" RevisionGUID="78339ae2-ce78-46ed-9a03-1e6d4cfd3da2" CreationDate="2016-11-11T09:51:31.847" UserId="2187" Text="Organic nuts are significantly more expensive than non-organic nuts. How do they difference with regards to the following exemplary aspects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - difference in pesticide use? &#xD;&#xA; - difference in large-scale vs. small-scale farming?&#xD;&#xA; - difference in social/ethical aspects of paying workers?&#xD;&#xA; - difference in quality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13327" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5620" RevisionGUID="78339ae2-ce78-46ed-9a03-1e6d4cfd3da2" CreationDate="2016-11-11T09:51:31.847" UserId="2187" Text="How do organic nuts differ from non-organic nuts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13328" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5620" RevisionGUID="78339ae2-ce78-46ed-9a03-1e6d4cfd3da2" CreationDate="2016-11-11T09:51:31.847" UserId="2187" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5620" RevisionGUID="e1921447-c53c-41af-ab51-f31a5d0aabc2" CreationDate="2016-11-11T10:53:28.387" UserId="2187" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="Organic nuts are significantly more expensive than non-organic nuts. How do they difference with regards to the following exemplary aspects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - difference in pesticide use? &#xD;&#xA; - difference in large-scale vs. small-scale farming?&#xD;&#xA; - difference in social/ethical aspects of paying workers?&#xD;&#xA; - difference in quality?&#xD;&#xA; - difference between countries and specific organic certification organisations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13330" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5620" RevisionGUID="94c27255-9a8f-41e9-a8fa-42514816740c" CreationDate="2016-11-12T07:10:50.097" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/797335828309622784" />
  <row Id="13332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="814c92a7-51b5-45c0-9d73-8ea4ea3651b6" CreationDate="2016-11-12T22:59:01.477" UserId="3985" Text="Just purchased weather tape for my windows. After seeing prop.65 on the package I intend to return it due to safety reasons. Is it the tape material or adhesive that earned the warning? Did a lot of Internet research and got Phthalates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the safest weather tape to use around the house? What material should it be? What to avoid?&#xD;&#xA;About foam tapes- same questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please help (Nowadays I wish I had education in Chemistry instead of Biology. Would definitely help with reading the labels)&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!&#xD;&#xA;Einav" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="814c92a7-51b5-45c0-9d73-8ea4ea3651b6" CreationDate="2016-11-12T22:59:01.477" UserId="3985" Text="Safe weather tape for windows insulation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13334" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="814c92a7-51b5-45c0-9d73-8ea4ea3651b6" CreationDate="2016-11-12T22:59:01.477" UserId="3985" Text="|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13335" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="aa4bea7c-2cbf-4d1c-8df5-2ebaa7c04702" CreationDate="2016-11-13T04:15:14.543" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/797654026859008000" />
  <row Id="13336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="a838fd9f-4ce4-4ff4-9096-3b1b0eb90385" CreationDate="2016-11-13T10:03:42.333" UserId="3379" Comment="clarified, added links" Text="I just purchased weather tape for my windows, but after seeing a [propoition 65][1] warning label on the package I intend to return it due to safety reasons. The warning is apparently due to presence of [phthalates][2], but I'm wondering if it's the tape material or adhesive that earned the warning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what is the safest weather tape to use around the house? What material should it be? What to avoid? What about foam types?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cancer-warning-labels-based-on-californias-proposition-65&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13337" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="a838fd9f-4ce4-4ff4-9096-3b1b0eb90385" CreationDate="2016-11-13T10:03:42.333" UserId="3379" Comment="clarified, added links" Text="Safe weather tape for insulating windows" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13338" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="a838fd9f-4ce4-4ff4-9096-3b1b0eb90385" CreationDate="2016-11-13T10:03:42.333" UserId="3379" Comment="clarified, added links" Text="|home|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13339" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="a838fd9f-4ce4-4ff4-9096-3b1b0eb90385" CreationDate="2016-11-13T10:03:42.333" Comment="Proposed by 3379 approved by 48 edit id of 428" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5622" RevisionGUID="cd1f92b2-5605-4b3b-aef9-da05e1e810aa" CreationDate="2016-11-13T10:04:11.223" UserId="48" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="I just purchased weather tape for my windows, but after seeing a [proposition 65][1] warning label of carcinogenic materials on the package I intend to return it due to safety reasons. The warning is apparently due to presence of [phthalates][2], but I'm wondering if it's the tape material or adhesive that earned the warning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, what is the safest weather tape to use around the house? What material should it be? What to avoid? What about foam types?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/cancer-warning-labels-based-on-californias-proposition-65&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5623" RevisionGUID="90de50e1-79c0-41c9-8b97-5211af30ee1f" CreationDate="2016-11-13T10:57:44.303" UserId="3987" Text="One way is to replace polluted by air by clean air..Hence growing plants and saplings and nurturing them into trees. We have to start at our own place, before saying where is the space to grow it..Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13343" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5624" RevisionGUID="29257b09-3a67-4902-b25e-b7072a9e4c65" CreationDate="2016-11-13T18:18:21.673" UserId="1173" Text="During the winter, I often get high humidity in the home. Especially with multiple people living here, and cooking, or having showers etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads to condensation on the windows, and moisture on other surfaces, and maybe mould growing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how to decrease the humidity? Obvious answer is a dehumidifier, but how much electricity would that use? Or open the windows, but that lets cold air in, and often the outside humidity is nearly as high anyway. Any other options?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13344" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5624" RevisionGUID="29257b09-3a67-4902-b25e-b7072a9e4c65" CreationDate="2016-11-13T18:18:21.673" UserId="1173" Text="How to reduce humidity in the home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13345" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5624" RevisionGUID="29257b09-3a67-4902-b25e-b7072a9e4c65" CreationDate="2016-11-13T18:18:21.673" UserId="1173" Text="|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5625" RevisionGUID="7c924d51-a125-4b7f-b753-78a11926865f" CreationDate="2016-11-13T18:52:49.280" UserId="2846" Text="The outside *relative* humidity may be almost as high but the absolute amount of water held in the air is lower. So removing the most humid air is effective. That's the principle behind shower extractor fans and cooker hoods. Replacing a lot of lower humidity air with outside air lets a lot of heat out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dehumidifier uses a couple of hundred Watts when it's actually doing something (i.e. when it's making a noise), but this all contributes to heating the house,  *as does the latent heat recovered from the condensed water*. This is a small domestic model that can remove a few litres a day; bigger ones are of course available but they're noisy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we use a dehumidifier for slightly more of the year than the heating is on; in summer opening the windows in preferable. In winter ours doesn't run flat out (almost all have humidistats) unless we've got washing drying. Cooking steam and shower steam are at least partly removed by fans as well. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5626" RevisionGUID="2a050775-2c42-4f79-8913-98863a8ed562" CreationDate="2016-11-14T15:19:41.783" UserId="85" Text="###Pesticide use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventional farming uses both pesticides and fertilizers. Depending on the body of certification, organic farming may only use &quot;natural&quot; pesticides or fertilizers, which usually excludes all conventional pesticides and fertilizers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Large-scale vs. small-scale farming&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventional farming is usually geared towards scalable farming. Controlling pests without conventional pesticides is more difficult on a large scale. (A large organic crop would be the perfect breeding ground for pests.) So organically farmed produce is usually more likely to come from a smaller-scale farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Social/ethical aspects of paying workers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many organic producers also support fair wages and are Fairtrade certified. However, there is no necessary connection between these two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Quality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quality is not clearly defined (taste, absence of imperfections, mineral/vitamin content, ...). In some cases, however, organically produced nuts have been shown to be higher in minerals and lower in metals with a possibly harmful effect on the human body: http://www.organicag.org/mineral-content-organic-and-conventional-hazelnuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Specific organic certification organisations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Standards for organic labelling are sometimes more, sometimes less strict. The same applies to nuts. There are also other labels that require a higher standard, such as *demeter* (&quot;biodynamic&quot; farming).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final produce is the most interesting to the consumer, but only a small part of the growing process. Conventional pesticides often wear out the soil and present a danger to both wildlife (apart from the &quot;pests&quot;) and the farmers, even if these dangers are tried to be avoided as much as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5627" RevisionGUID="dc32970f-daca-4599-be84-523043c927ae" CreationDate="2016-11-14T16:33:03.213" UserId="3929" Text="Your best bet is to thoroughly ventilate the house by opening all windows at the same time. The resulting draft will quickly result in a complete exchange of air within a few minutes, so the &quot;moist&quot; air from your house or apartment will be replaced by the drier outside air (as pointed out by Chris H).&#xD;&#xA;The house itself won't lose heat. This is the way we ventilate in winter. The windows are kept closed except for the 5 minutes or so of thorough ventilation. I regard this step as a necessity at least once a day, otherwise the air gets rather pongy.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13349" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5626" RevisionGUID="cbbbff31-0836-48c2-85e5-13acefb15ca4" CreationDate="2016-11-14T20:47:15.530" UserId="2187" Comment="Made statement more clear." Text="###Pesticide use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventional farming uses both pesticides and fertilizers. Depending on the body of certification, organic farming may only use &quot;natural&quot; pesticides or fertilizers, which usually excludes all conventional pesticides and fertilizers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Large-scale vs. small-scale farming&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventional farming is usually geared towards scalable farming. Controlling pests without conventional pesticides is more difficult on a large scale. (A large organic crop would be the perfect breeding ground for pests.) So organically farmed produce is usually more likely to come from a smaller-scale farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Social/ethical aspects of paying workers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many organic producers also support fair wages and are Fairtrade certified. However, there is no necessary connection between these two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Quality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quality is not clearly defined (taste, absence of imperfections, mineral/vitamin content, ...). In some cases, however, organically produced nuts have been shown to be higher in minerals and lower in metals, thus having a possibly lower harmful effect on the human body. See [this study][1] for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Specific organic certification organisations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Standards for organic labelling are sometimes more, sometimes less strict. The same applies to nuts. There are also other labels that require a higher standard, such as *demeter* (&quot;biodynamic&quot; farming).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final produce is the most interesting to the consumer, but only a small part of the growing process. Conventional pesticides often wear out the soil and present a danger to both wildlife (apart from the &quot;pests&quot;) and the farmers, even if these dangers are tried to be avoided as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.organicag.org/mineral-content-organic-and-conventional-hazelnuts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13350" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5626" RevisionGUID="cbbbff31-0836-48c2-85e5-13acefb15ca4" CreationDate="2016-11-14T20:47:15.530" Comment="Proposed by 2187 approved by 85 edit id of 429" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13351" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5624" RevisionGUID="dbadd5df-9b79-4686-bee1-421f8835e39f" CreationDate="2016-11-15T04:20:36.963" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/798380155089682432" />
  <row Id="13352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5626" RevisionGUID="5ffcb7f1-2c73-4ec6-8f44-8d142fcd3eae" CreationDate="2016-11-15T09:33:44.917" UserId="85" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="###Pesticide use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventional farming uses both pesticides and fertilizers. Organic farming may only use a small list of pesticides or fertilizers, which usually excludes most if not all conventional pesticides and fertilizers. However, this list is prescribed by the certifying body and may or may not admit synthetic pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Large-scale vs. small-scale farming&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventional farming is usually geared towards scalable farming. Controlling pests without conventional pesticides is more difficult on a large scale. (A large organic crop would be the perfect breeding ground for pests.) So organically farmed produce is usually more likely to come from a smaller-scale farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Social/ethical aspects of paying workers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many organic producers also support fair wages and are Fairtrade certified. However, there is no necessary connection between these two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Quality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quality is not clearly defined (taste, absence of imperfections, mineral/vitamin content, ...). In some cases, however, organically produced nuts have been shown to be higher in minerals and lower in metals, thus having a possibly lower harmful effect on the human body. See [this study][1] for more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Specific organic certification organisations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Standards for organic labelling are sometimes more, sometimes less strict. The same applies to nuts. There are also other labels that require a higher standard, such as *demeter* (&quot;biodynamic&quot; farming).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What else?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The final produce is the most interesting to the consumer, but only a small part of the growing process. Conventional pesticides often wear out the soil and present a danger to both wildlife (apart from the &quot;pests&quot;) and the farmers, even if these dangers are tried to be avoided as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.organicag.org/mineral-content-organic-and-conventional-hazelnuts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13353" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5533" RevisionGUID="c4e99c06-a47f-4555-b99a-a43a5c65c5db" CreationDate="2016-11-15T12:00:49.830" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="13354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5628" RevisionGUID="d79707b7-984a-495e-a7a1-08fa9c8b5bde" CreationDate="2016-11-16T20:56:03.133" UserId="3379" Text="This article which was recently trending got me thinking about biofuels: [Alaska Airlines makes first flight using jet fuel made from trees][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar with the numbers for biodiesel, but I know that the energy in to energy out (**EIEO**) ratio for ethanol is about 1.2 to 1.4. Assuming biodiesel follows the same pattern, this leaves only a 20%-40% margin of energy &quot;left&quot; to process further to jet fuel, before the ratio drops below one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how do bio get fuels compare to ethanol? Is there a positive energy balance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/15/alaska-airlines-makes-history-with-first-commercial-flight-using-jet-fuel-made-from-trees.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5628" RevisionGUID="d79707b7-984a-495e-a7a1-08fa9c8b5bde" CreationDate="2016-11-16T20:56:03.133" UserId="3379" Text="Does bio jet fuel have a positive energy balance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5628" RevisionGUID="d79707b7-984a-495e-a7a1-08fa9c8b5bde" CreationDate="2016-11-16T20:56:03.133" UserId="3379" Text="|energy|biofuels|biodiesel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5629" RevisionGUID="37ea48bf-6131-4ecc-86cb-9c036fd7fe61" CreationDate="2016-11-17T05:46:32.590" UserId="3996" Text="I agree that at least a couple extractor fans or vents are a good idea, in both the kitchen and bathroom. (And does the clothes dryer vent outside?) Look into Heat Recovery Ventilators (HRV) and Energy Recovery Ventilators (ERV) if you're worried about heat loss. I also agree that just opening the windows once a day would be pretty effective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could also be that you really have a condensation problem, more than a humidity problem, from insufficient insulation. Condensation happens on items that are cooler than the room's air. When there's noticeable condensation on your windows, walls, and ceilings, it's worth checking out what your insulation is like, and maybe improving it. When the condensation is on windows, there could be air leaking through, or the window could be not built for winter (purely aluminum frames, for example, conduct heat very well, so in the winter the internal window pane/frame will be much cooler than other things in your room). The windows should be at least double-pane. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't mind burning stuff indoors &amp; have some extra money, a lot of people say wood stoves dehumidify the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="17838868-3817-48cd-81de-1b465e766698" CreationDate="2016-11-17T06:20:02.787" UserId="3996" Text="California is very proactive about requiring warning labels on chemicals that are possibly a problem for human health. Depending on your own judgement of the information below, I think you could just keep the tape you have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phthalates are in many, many, products, including food and cosmetics. They are mixed into plastics to make them more flexible, they're used in glues, they're in hair spray, they're in flooring, they're in fast food. There are health concerns because researchers have found that the phthalates can leave the plastic, particularly in the presence of heat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Human urine testing finds phthalates in most people, sometimes at higher-than-desirable levels. The links to health are still uncertain. There are some studies that indicate high levels of certain phthalates are linked to wide ranging issues like birth defects and cancer. The main concern is for infants &amp; children, and the main issue is phthalates leaking from plastics into food, saline solution, or other stuff that enters the body. But in comparison to the other sources of phthalates you likely already encounter, the molecules released from your weather tape into the air are unlikely to be a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some external links for more detail (broken because I have insufficient rep to post more) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=24&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;www.cpsc.gov/Regulations-Laws--Standards/Voluntary-Standards/Topics/Phthalates/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;www. cdc. gov/biomonitoring/Phthalates_FactSheet.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Phthalate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;www.consumerreports .org/cro/magazine/2013/03/what-does-california-s-cancer-warning-mean/index.htm&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5631" RevisionGUID="eb8cb488-b558-41a5-8b5f-c9fb362726b2" CreationDate="2016-11-17T06:42:30.947" UserId="3996" Text="This may be outside the range of what you want to spend, but if it's a big room you could consider a heat pump, which pulls in heat from the outside, rather than creating heat through electricity or combustion. Within the last 10 years the technology has advanced and there are heat pumps that work even in Canadian winters now. And they're more efficient (in terms of electricity) than a space heater, because space heaters have to generate heat, whereas heat pumps just move it. A mini-split heat pump is a kind without any ducts. You stick one half on an inside wall, run a tube through your wall, and put the other half outside. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-systems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5632" RevisionGUID="c81fb8f9-6ec8-48ff-ba8d-73e1a61682d3" CreationDate="2016-11-17T07:07:28.337" UserId="3996" Text="This is more like a comment than an answer, but I have insufficient rep to comment. I think the short answer is that we lack the data to say for certain. And it definitely does depend on what compounds and contaminants you're looking for, as well as your definition of &quot;clean.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of the compounds that were marked as toxic or dangerous in previous decades, the EPA and other organizations have been working steadily to decrease their levels, so in that sense the lake is much cleaner than it was. But there are many, many, compounds in any body of water nowadays, many of which we don't have great data for. You have to test specifically for a contaminant to know how much of it is present, and when you start thinking of all the thousands of compounds that go down the drain every day....we would need a lot more tests. And even if we do the tests now, we wouldn't have past years of data to compare to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And certain water issues complicate matters. Zebra mussels are great for making water look clear and &quot;clean&quot; - but they are extremely invasive and horrible for any ecosystem invaded by them. So authorities may chlorinate sections of lakes or rivers to kill them. Obviously in the short term that causes an issue with the water having too much chlorine. Another issue is the fact that a normal non-polluted lake would still have things like algae and bacteria hanging out in the water. People would think of that as &quot;dirty&quot; compared to drinking water, but it's pretty &quot;clean&quot; in terms of ecology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This webpage from the Great Lakes Commission (and the US EPA and Environment Canada) has some great information about the difficulties of measuring the cleanliness of Lake Ontario: http://www.great-lakes.net/humanhealth/lake/ontario.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's the EPA reports on Lake Ontario: https://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/lake-ontario" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5630" RevisionGUID="bf224e3a-6f3b-4c19-b6d6-e016dbf2b0ef" CreationDate="2016-11-17T07:24:57.117" UserId="48" Comment="fix links" Text="California is very proactive about requiring warning labels on chemicals that are possibly a problem for human health. Depending on your own judgement of the information below, I think you could just keep the tape you have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Phthalates are in many, many, products, including food and cosmetics. They are mixed into plastics to make them more flexible, they're used in glues, they're in hair spray, they're in flooring, they're in fast food. There are health concerns because researchers have found that the phthalates can leave the plastic, particularly in the presence of heat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Human urine testing finds phthalates in most people, sometimes at higher-than-desirable levels. The links to health are still uncertain. There are some studies that indicate high levels of certain phthalates are linked to wide ranging issues like birth defects and cancer. The main concern is for infants &amp; children, and the main issue is phthalates leaking from plastics into food, saline solution, or other stuff that enters the body. But in comparison to the other sources of phthalates you likely already encounter, the molecules released from your weather tape into the air are unlikely to be a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some external links for more detail (broken because I have insufficient rep to post more) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=24&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cpsc.gov/Regulations-Laws--Standards/Voluntary-Standards/Topics/Phthalates/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/Phthalates_FactSheet.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/03/what-does-california-s-cancer-warning-mean/index.htm&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5633" RevisionGUID="5df5403b-0558-4005-a516-b63b170d2724" CreationDate="2016-11-17T13:15:14.813" UserId="399" Text="The problem here is that there is really no such thing as an &quot;average desktop&quot;. There are a lot of factors that influence this, and just &quot;averaging them out&quot; doesn't really work. Your university may have very fancy modern power-efficient desktops that can use less than 20W idling, or it may have six year old power-hungry behemoths that use well over 100W idling. Who knows? You can't just say &quot;ah, so the average must be about 60W&quot;, as that may not reflect reality at all (this is why &quot;averaging it out&quot; almost never works).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some factors that influence this are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Power drawage of the components (du'h), especially the CPU and video card (if any).&#xD;&#xA;- Efficiency of the power supply; typical PSUs sit in the ~70% efficiency range, but some people put a 800W PSU for a 150W computer, which will drastically reduce the power efficiency. Really good (and usually expensive) PSUs are &gt;90%.&#xD;&#xA;- Operating system and configuration; there are quite a few tricks you can do in some systems, while older systems can't take advantage of some power-saving features. On my laptop I managed to get about one hour of extra battery life by tweaking various settings.&#xD;&#xA;- BIOS settings; sometimes things like C-states (which will make the CPU to go a &quot;light sleep mode&quot; when not used) are turned off by default (why? who knows...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *best* and only *sure* way to figure out how much electricity this will cost your university is to get a power meter (the kind that you can stick between the wall socket and any appliance) and *measure it*. This will probably *still* only give you a rough estimate as your university will probably have a bunch of different computers models in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that being said, the absolute best case scenario you can get with modern components is probably around 10W, but it's almost certainly higher than that since most people don't buy the extra power-efficient components. The &quot;realistic best case&quot; is more like 20W, based on my experience of recently buying a power-efficient desktop and measuring its idle usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end I guess it depends on your definition of &quot;very little energy&quot;. Is 20W times *n* computers &quot;very little energy&quot;? I'll leave that for the reader to decide..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5628" RevisionGUID="be463421-c078-477f-b077-4ee8c8ebd3ec" CreationDate="2016-11-17T15:45:18.633" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed typo" Text="This article which was recently trending got me thinking about biofuels: [Alaska Airlines makes first flight using jet fuel made from trees][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not familiar with the numbers for biodiesel, but I know that the energy in to energy out (**EIEO**) ratio for ethanol is about 1.2 to 1.4. Assuming biodiesel follows the same pattern, this leaves only a 20%-40% margin of energy &quot;left&quot; to process further to jet fuel, before the ratio drops below one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how do bio jet fuels compare to ethanol? Is there a positive energy balance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/15/alaska-airlines-makes-history-with-first-commercial-flight-using-jet-fuel-made-from-trees.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5633" RevisionGUID="73e6b68d-0a76-4e7f-bed5-80d631523c83" CreationDate="2016-11-17T15:47:20.263" UserId="399" Comment="added 464 characters in body" Text="The problem here is that there is really no such thing as an &quot;average desktop&quot;. There are a lot of factors that influence this, and just &quot;averaging them out&quot; doesn't really work. Your university may have very fancy modern power-efficient desktops that can use less than 20W idling, or it may have six year old power-hungry behemoths that use well over 100W idling. Who knows? You can't just say &quot;ah, so the average must be about 60W&quot;, as that may not reflect reality at all (this is why &quot;averaging it out&quot; almost never works).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some factors that influence this include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Power usage of the components (du'h), especially the CPU and video card (if any).&#xD;&#xA;- Efficiency of the power supply (PSU); typical PSUs sit in the ~70% efficiency range, but some people put a 800W PSU for a 150W computer, which will drastically reduce the power efficiency. Really good (and usually expensive) PSUs are &gt;90%.&#xD;&#xA;- Operating system and configuration; there are quite a few tricks you can do in some operating systems, and older operating systems may not be able to take advantage of some power-saving features. On my laptop I managed to get about one hour of extra battery life by frobbing with various settings.&#xD;&#xA;- The programs running on the computer. A computer is rarely 100% &quot;idle&quot;; there are various maintenance tasks that are done to keep the computer running (e.g. keep the computer clock running, listening for new emails, etc.). Typically this should use a negligible amount of processing power, but this is in no way guaranteed. I know of some programs that will use &gt;20% CPU just by being open (not even doing anything).&#xD;&#xA;- BIOS settings; sometimes things like C-states (which will make the CPU to go a &quot;light sleep mode&quot; when not used) are turned off by default (why? who knows...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The *best* and only *sure* way to figure out how much electricity this will cost your university is to get a power meter (the kind that you can stick between the wall socket and any appliance) and *measure it*. This will probably *still* only give you a rough estimate as your university will probably have a bunch of different computers models in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of that being said, the absolute best case scenario you can get with modern components is probably around 10W, but it's almost certainly higher than that since most people don't buy the extra power-efficient components. The &quot;realistic best case&quot; is more like 20W, based on my experience of recently buying a power-efficient desktop and measuring its idle usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end I guess it depends on your definition of &quot;very little energy&quot;. Is 20W times *n* computers &quot;very little energy&quot;? I'll leave that for the reader to decide..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13366" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5628" RevisionGUID="9fc64a25-2e00-4a97-b8b7-eaa22fc9f0f9" CreationDate="2016-11-17T16:32:55.083" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/799289220795928576" />
  <row Id="13367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="044db88f-c0a4-4625-b6c1-efb65b161b45" CreationDate="2016-11-17T20:51:00.677" UserId="3929" Text="it would be interesting on several levels if sustainable per-capita meat consumption could be quantified in a sensible way. in a perfect world, a person would only eat as much meat as is necessary for health and well-being (some would argue that we don't actually *need* to eat meat at all; personally, i tend towards veganism but i don't think that humans are per se vegans).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BUT** there are too many of us (7.4 billion) too many farting cows out there (1.47 billion), and waaaay too much industrial-level &quot;farming&quot; polluting the groundwater and using land that could be used for veggies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: if all meat production world-wide was sustainable, how much meat per person would be available? let's assume for simplicity that everyone is an omnivore, and that sustainable animal farms use local feed and don't produce more slurry than the ground can cope with... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;can anyone out there help put a reasonable number on this? i'm thinking along the lines of &quot;x kg per year per person&quot;. i guess it will be small number, much smaller that the current per-capita estimations (ca. 60 kg per head in germany) and might help people make day-to-day decisions regarding their meat consumption. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking forward to hearing what y'all have to say :-) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="044db88f-c0a4-4625-b6c1-efb65b161b45" CreationDate="2016-11-17T20:51:00.677" UserId="3929" Text="what is a sustainable quantity for per-capita meat consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="044db88f-c0a4-4625-b6c1-efb65b161b45" CreationDate="2016-11-17T20:51:00.677" UserId="3929" Text="|meat|farming|veganism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5635" RevisionGUID="fb2720ec-f437-4a3e-af42-c4ab6a74f967" CreationDate="2016-11-18T07:50:14.720" UserId="2187" Text="When I buy fruits and vegetables in a small grocery store at the corner, I cannot help myself but think that—coming from the idea that [&quot;Small is Beautiful&quot;][1]—if I do my shoppings in these kinds of stores, then I do good for sustainable development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are my thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Look at this small shop owner&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Look at these imperfect fruits and vegetables. They look different than those from the big supermarket&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Hmmm, but why are they so cheap?&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;Ultimately, where do these fruits and vegetables come from and how are they being produced? Are they actually the same as those found in the supermarket?&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Store][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iMYbB.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5635" RevisionGUID="fb2720ec-f437-4a3e-af42-c4ab6a74f967" CreationDate="2016-11-18T07:50:14.720" UserId="2187" Text="How different are small fruits and vegetables grocery stores from around the corner from big supermarkets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5635" RevisionGUID="fb2720ec-f437-4a3e-af42-c4ab6a74f967" CreationDate="2016-11-18T07:50:14.720" UserId="2187" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="6f64ff73-07f7-4af7-86c0-eb02f503af5a" CreationDate="2016-11-18T22:36:03.113" UserId="85" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I'm currently at the end of computer science bachelor and not quite sure what to do after. In a way I'd like to continue with a Master's degree and at the same time help somehow for a more eco-friendly and sustainable world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know, for example, that informatics is needed when building systems like smart grid, weather/load prediction for electricity or even database building, data analysis in this area.&#xD;&#xA;I am still wondering though if this won't over-qualify me in this area and maybe there is a study in which I approach other more relevant subjects for this. Note that I have up to a quarter of my study free choice of courses so I can choose the ones with power grids or similar things. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13374" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="6f64ff73-07f7-4af7-86c0-eb02f503af5a" CreationDate="2016-11-18T22:36:03.113" UserId="85" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is a master's degree in computer science relevant for working in sustainable living?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13375" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5589" RevisionGUID="6f64ff73-07f7-4af7-86c0-eb02f503af5a" CreationDate="2016-11-18T22:36:03.113" UserId="85" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|renewables|computing|education|academia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5636" RevisionGUID="140793c0-ab8c-448a-8c8f-9ac812767d90" CreationDate="2016-11-20T06:10:28.233" UserId="3940" Text="Blah blah blah ...canoe ! Seriously; depends where you're going. On moving water, when you're not paddling, it's gravity powered transportation. When you do paddle, there's often very little air resistance while you push &amp; pull your weight around with out much friction. Works well for me. Even with a heavy load." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13377" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5636" RevisionGUID="12a53bfd-dd63-49ce-9e6f-a4f059123053" CreationDate="2016-11-20T08:46:29.893" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 20 characters in body" Text="Canoe! Seriously; depends where you're going. On moving water, when you're not paddling, it's gravity powered transportation. When you do paddle, there's often very little air resistance while you push &amp; pull your weight around without much friction. Works well for me. Even with a heavy load." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5637" RevisionGUID="7125175f-da90-4465-a84c-c8e0d5163511" CreationDate="2016-11-20T19:54:01.410" UserId="3379" Text="Yes, definitely! While today we often think of sustainability considerations as secondary, up-and-coming, or even fringe, at some point in the future (hopefully soon!) they will be a standard and even primary component of any business model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same way, information technology and computer science were once secondary considerations - and today they are central (or even primary) elements of any successful business or organization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I challenge you not to think about specializing your career towards a sustainability perspective. Rather, the first step is to figure this out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm currently at the end of computer science bachelor and not quite sure what to do after.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are you passionate about? What are you good at? What type of challenges do you enjoy solving? Find your skill set, and within that area, where do questions of sustainability apply? Any career path which you could imagine in the world today, will in the future require considerations of sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, think of sustainability also on a personal level: what career choice will be sustainable *for you*? That is to say, what direction could you take your career that you will find fulfilling and challenging for years to come, so that you can continue to be as passionate about it years from now, as you are today? Bringing a sustainability perspective to something you are passionate about will bring about much more positive change in the world than trying to force yourself into a sustainability box that doesn't inspire you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;HR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Something else to consider -- I took a few years to work after completing my BS before returning for an MS, and found that some experience out there in the &quot;real world&quot; helped focus my ambitions in grad school, and I've been able to get much more out of it than I believe I would have otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="92d3c090-bedb-42e7-86b6-da7580f5eb5f" CreationDate="2016-11-20T19:58:19.857" UserId="3379" Text="An exchange in the comments on [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5634/3379) got me thinking: is there a standard definition for sustainability that we're using here at sustainability.SE? What is the scope for sustainability, in terms of geographic extent, time frame, and thresholds for negative externalities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13380" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="92d3c090-bedb-42e7-86b6-da7580f5eb5f" CreationDate="2016-11-20T19:58:19.857" UserId="3379" Text="What is this site's working definition for &quot;sustainable&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13381" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="92d3c090-bedb-42e7-86b6-da7580f5eb5f" CreationDate="2016-11-20T19:58:19.857" UserId="3379" Text="|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="6c9af064-4d38-4bc6-a344-18c67787ce84" CreationDate="2016-11-20T20:43:38.800" UserId="4006" Text="I am pursuing a science project involving wind power, and am looking for some data on wind speeds, directions, and ideally turbulence and shear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know where I could find this? I would need to be able to download a file of this data that can be used in the programming language MATLAB.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have found these two sources:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.nrel.gov/gis/data_wind.html &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaa/2016/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think these would suit my purpose? I am trying to predict wind turbine energy output based on speed, direction, and/or turbulence and shear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="6c9af064-4d38-4bc6-a344-18c67787ce84" CreationDate="2016-11-20T20:43:38.800" UserId="4006" Text="What is a good database containing wind speed and direction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13384" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="6c9af064-4d38-4bc6-a344-18c67787ce84" CreationDate="2016-11-20T20:43:38.800" UserId="4006" Text="|energy|renewables|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="f45af891-ba23-467d-9f42-819ab2cbadd4" CreationDate="2016-11-21T12:41:15.207" UserId="48" Text="There are lots of possible data sources. It will depend on the years you want, the geographic area you want, and the spatial and temporal resolution you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is quite a large, well-established field. The best thing to do will be to read the existing literature, work out what's already been done, and build on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a long list of climate data (4 page worth)][1], I'll note that [MERRA](http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/mdisc/) is pretty popular for this purpose at the moment, and here are some recent relevant papers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*Using reanalysis data to quantify extreme wind power generation statistics: A 33 year case study in Great Britain*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.024), Cannon, Brayshaw, Methven, Coker, Lenaghan 2015&#xD;&#xA;- [*Evaluating the accuracy of CFSR reanalysis hourly wind speed forecasts for the UK , using in situ measurements and geographical information*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.12.025), Sharp, Dodds, Barrett, Spataru 2015.&#xD;&#xA;- [*Using bias-corrected reanalysis to simulate current and future wind power output*](http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/39214), Staffell, Pfenninger 2016&#xD;&#xA;- [*Demonstrating the effect of vertical and directional shear for resource mapping of wind power*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/we.1944), Clack, Alexander, Choukulkar, Macdonald 2015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And do check out other relevant papers by those authors - Brayshaw, Cannon, Clack, Coker, Sharp, Staffell in particular - and the papers they cite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13387" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="8ebe4c79-d2f4-413b-8614-4793ddf45db8" CreationDate="2016-11-21T13:47:47.167" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/800697215471730688" />
  <row Id="13388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5640" RevisionGUID="c5138020-ad9b-42f4-874d-31f25dda09c7" CreationDate="2016-11-21T14:49:26.793" UserId="48" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="There are lots of possible data sources. It will depend on the years you want, the geographic area you want, and the spatial and temporal resolution you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is quite a large, well-established field. The best thing to do will be to read the existing literature, work out what's already been done, see what datasets your peers are using, and build on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's [a long list of climate data (4 pages worth)][1], I'll note that [**MERRA**](http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/mdisc/) is pretty popular for this purpose at the moment, and here are some recent relevant papers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [*Using reanalysis data to quantify extreme wind power generation statistics: A 33 year case study in Great Britain*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.024), Cannon, Brayshaw, Methven, Coker, Lenaghan 2015&#xD;&#xA;- [*Evaluating the accuracy of CFSR reanalysis hourly wind speed forecasts for the UK , using in situ measurements and geographical information*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.12.025), Sharp, Dodds, Barrett, Spataru 2015.&#xD;&#xA;- [*Using bias-corrected reanalysis to simulate current and future wind power output*](http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/39214), Staffell, Pfenninger 2016&#xD;&#xA;- [*Demonstrating the effect of vertical and directional shear for resource mapping of wind power*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/we.1944), Clack, Alexander, Choukulkar, Macdonald 2015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And do check out other relevant papers by those authors - Brayshaw, Cannon, Clack, Coker, Sharp, Staffell in particular - and the papers they cite.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="202f662e-dad8-42cc-9b5d-44fcb0233ac3" CreationDate="2016-11-21T16:19:08.177" UserId="3379" Comment="Made the question less meta" Text="An exchange in the comments on [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5634/3379) got me thinking: what is the standard definition for sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it include such things as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Geographic extent&#xD;&#xA; - Time frame&#xD;&#xA; - Economics&#xD;&#xA; - Other factors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13390" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="202f662e-dad8-42cc-9b5d-44fcb0233ac3" CreationDate="2016-11-21T16:19:08.177" UserId="3379" Comment="Made the question less meta" Text="What is the definition of &quot;sustainable&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="1c6475f0-5ae2-4a32-80c4-6e31a6cb3636" CreationDate="2016-11-21T22:47:26.220" UserId="2942" Text="Salt has been the go-to for de-icing walkways and roads here in the northeastern U.S. It is terrible for vegetation and is substantially corrosive on other surfaces. I'm looking for a good residential alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found some articles but am still not sure. There doesn't seem to be a clear answer. Has anyone done the research and found a clear alternative for de-icing walkways? Sand or seeds are some examples I'm exploring, and I may very well come and answer my own question soon. I recognize shoveling is important too, but I don't think that totally solves the issue of ice forming when the conditions are right for it too over wood or concrete paths and steps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13393" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="1c6475f0-5ae2-4a32-80c4-6e31a6cb3636" CreationDate="2016-11-21T22:47:26.220" UserId="2942" Text="Environmentally friendly alternative to salt for de-icing walkways?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13394" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="1c6475f0-5ae2-4a32-80c4-6e31a6cb3636" CreationDate="2016-11-21T22:47:26.220" UserId="2942" Text="|home|safety|safe-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13395" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="090b8811-e364-402c-9daf-c5dffd87a4de" CreationDate="2016-11-22T04:47:53.980" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/800923736299945986" />
  <row Id="13397" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5360" RevisionGUID="a4aecebd-dac0-4c30-898d-ec76f43aae53" CreationDate="2016-11-22T09:52:50.613" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="13398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="9ebc750c-a745-4962-8d33-2def5b73cf81" CreationDate="2016-11-22T11:08:57.990" UserId="3303" Text="I get the feeling that there is such a strong backlash against fossil fuels that there is an irrational movement to purge them completely. &#xA;&#xA;For example the preference of bio-plastics over fossil fuel plastics, without considering the environmental impact of each. &#xA;&#xA;Using fossil fuel to make plastics does not necessarily produce more CO2 than production of bio-plastics. &#xA;&#xA;We already use vast amounts of former rainforest land for the production of natural latex, but I can't imagine any environmental campaign to encourage use of synthetic rubber. &#xA;&#xA;Should we use fossil fuels wherever their end use would have less environmental impact than the alternatives? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13399" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="9ebc750c-a745-4962-8d33-2def5b73cf81" CreationDate="2016-11-22T11:08:57.990" UserId="3303" Text="Should we leave all fossil fuels in the ground and not used them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13400" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="9ebc750c-a745-4962-8d33-2def5b73cf81" CreationDate="2016-11-22T11:08:57.990" UserId="3303" Text="|renewables|environmental-impact|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="b97524fc-6f34-4dae-8f3f-899225ddb24a" CreationDate="2016-11-22T11:36:48.477" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="general cleanup (language)" Text="It would be interesting on several levels if sustainable per-capita meat consumption could be quantified in a sensible way. In a perfect world, a person would only eat as much meat as is necessary for health and well-being (some would argue that we don't actually *need* to eat meat at all; personally, I tend towards veganism but I don't think that humans are vegans per se).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But** there are too many of us (7.4 billion), too many farting cows out there (1.47 billion), and waaaay too much industrial-level &quot;farming&quot; polluting the groundwater and using land that could be used for veggies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: If all meat production world-wide was sustainable, how much meat per person would be available? Let's assume that everyone is an omnivore, and that sustainable animal farms use local feed and don't produce more slurry than the ground can cope with. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help put a reasonable number on this? I'm thinking along the lines of &quot;x kg per year per person&quot;. I guess it will be small number, much smaller that the current per-capita estimates (ca. 60 kg per head in Germany), and might help people make day-to-day decisions regarding their meat consumption. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13402" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="b97524fc-6f34-4dae-8f3f-899225ddb24a" CreationDate="2016-11-22T11:36:48.477" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="general cleanup (language)" Text="What is a sustainable quantity for per-capita meat consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13403" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="b97524fc-6f34-4dae-8f3f-899225ddb24a" CreationDate="2016-11-22T11:36:48.477" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 430" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="8501501c-931f-4252-8a8f-b8b4243c0f3c" CreationDate="2016-11-22T11:54:17.810" UserId="3303" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="I get the feeling that there is such a strong backlash against fossil fuels that there is an irrational movement to purge them completely. Maybe because people are transferring their worries about climate change to all aspects of fossil fuel use. &#xA;&#xA;For example the preference of bio-plastics over fossil fuel plastics, without considering the environmental impact of each. &#xA;&#xA;Using fossil fuel to make plastics does not necessarily produce more CO2 than production of bio-plastics. &#xA;&#xA;We already use vast amounts of former rainforest land for the production of natural latex, but I can't imagine any environmental campaign to encourage use of synthetic rubber. &#xA;&#xA;Should we use fossil fuels wherever their end use would have less environmental impact than the alternatives? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="46556d45-5b23-4504-8b23-5b44bd72a151" CreationDate="2016-11-22T12:17:24.483" UserId="99" Text="Yes, we should leave fossil fuels in the ground if we want to stop global warming. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fossil fuels that are in the ground are usually stored safely there and do not contribute to global warming. But once you take them out, chances are that their stored carbon content is added to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 at one time or another. Your statement that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using fossil fuel to make plastics does not necessarily produce more CO2 than production of bio-plastics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is only true in theory. It only holds for plastics that are stored safely at the end of their lifetime. In practice however large amounts of fossil-fuel-based waste plastics are incinerated and when that happens they add CO2 to the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When bio-plastics are incinerated they also add CO2, but the difference here is that the biomass that was used to create the plastic, has taking CO2 out of the atmosphere when it was growing. That's why bio-plastics are carbon neutral (if you neglect the emissions from their manufacturing process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="df4ac545-c1ef-484d-afa3-6c13f6cec5be" CreationDate="2016-11-22T12:20:36.890" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added plastic tag" Text="I get the feeling that there is such a strong backlash against fossil fuels that there is an irrational movement to purge them completely. Maybe because people are transferring their worries about climate change to all aspects of fossil fuel use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example the preference of bio-plastics over fossil fuel plastics, without considering the environmental impact of each. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using fossil fuel to make plastics does not necessarily produce more CO2 than production of bio-plastics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We already use vast amounts of former rainforest land for the production of natural latex, but I can't imagine any environmental campaign to encourage use of synthetic rubber. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should we use fossil fuels wherever their end use would have less environmental impact than the alternatives? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13407" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="df4ac545-c1ef-484d-afa3-6c13f6cec5be" CreationDate="2016-11-22T12:20:36.890" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added plastic tag" Text="Should we leave all fossil fuels in the ground and not use them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13408" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="df4ac545-c1ef-484d-afa3-6c13f6cec5be" CreationDate="2016-11-22T12:20:36.890" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added plastic tag" Text="|renewables|environmental-impact|plastic|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="dca592a0-45e3-415a-9598-458f935d1b4d" CreationDate="2016-11-22T12:24:14.123" UserId="99" Comment="added 225 characters in body" Text="Yes, we should leave fossil fuels in the ground if we want to stop global warming. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fossil fuels that are in the ground are usually stored safely there and do not contribute to global warming. But once you take them out, chances are that their stored carbon content is added to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 at one time or another. Your statement that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using fossil fuel to make plastics does not necessarily produce more CO2 than production of bio-plastics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is only true in theory. It only holds for plastics that are stored safely at the end of their lifetime. In practice however large amounts of fossil-fuel-based waste plastics are incinerated and when that happens they add CO2 to the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When bio-plastics are incinerated they also add CO2, but the difference here is that the biomass that was used to create the plastic, has taking CO2 out of the atmosphere when it was growing. That's why bio-plastics are carbon neutral (if you neglect the emissions from their manufacturing process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do agree that we should '*use fossil fuels when their end would have less environmental impact than the alternative*'. The problem is that for all uses of fossil fuels there is a more environmentally-friendly alternative.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="a0d8c97a-6e96-4b69-b0f1-58c451d0fc87" CreationDate="2016-11-22T12:29:27.330" UserId="99" Comment="added 225 characters in body" Text="Yes, we should leave fossil fuels in the ground if we want to stop global warming. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fossil fuels that are in the ground are usually stored safely there and do not contribute to global warming. But once you take them out, chances are that their stored carbon content is added to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 at one time or another. Your statement that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using fossil fuel to make plastics does not necessarily produce more CO2 than production of bio-plastics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is only true in theory. It only holds for plastics that are stored safely at the end of their lifetime. In practice however large amounts of fossil-fuel-based waste plastics are incinerated and when that happens they add CO2 to the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When bio-plastics are incinerated they also add CO2, but the difference here is that the biomass that was used to create the plastic, has taking CO2 out of the atmosphere when it was growing. That's why bio-plastics are carbon neutral (if you neglect the emissions from their manufacturing process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do agree that we should '*use fossil fuels when their end would have less environmental impact than the alternative*'. The problem is I can't think of any use of fossil fuels for which there isn't a more environmentally-friendly alternative. Perhaps the only thing is jet fuel, but according to [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5628/99) they are working on that, and of course reduction (less flying) would be even better.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5641" RevisionGUID="380bb0b4-b334-483a-acfa-b4648402351f" CreationDate="2016-11-22T17:04:01.067" UserId="2942" Comment="added context" Text="Salt has been the go-to for de-icing walkways and roads here in the northeastern U.S. It is terrible for vegetation and is substantially corrosive on other surfaces. I'm looking for a good residential alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found some articles but am still not sure. There doesn't seem to be a clear answer. Has anyone done the research and found a clear alternative for de-icing walkways? Sand or seeds are some examples I'm exploring, and I may very well come and answer my own question soon. I recognize shoveling is important too, but I don't think that totally solves the issue of ice forming when the conditions are right for it too over wood or concrete paths and steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I'm asking in the context of a residential walkway, maybe even driveway but mostly just a short walkway and stairs to keep folks safe from slips." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="9d639126-4252-43f9-8089-ef202207e467" CreationDate="2016-11-22T18:29:54.197" UserId="99" Comment="added results of scientific study, added reference to Guardian article" Text="Yes, we should leave the larger part of all known fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Scientists have calculated that if we want to keep global temperature rise under 2 degrees C (which was agreed upon in the Paris climate agreement), then we cannot use more than 1/3 of all currently known reserves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2 °C. ([source](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7533/full/nature14016.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fossil fuels that are in the ground are usually stored safely there and do not contribute to global warming. But once you take them out their stored carbon content is almost always added to the atmosphere in the form of CO2 at one time or another. Your statement that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using fossil fuel to make plastics does not necessarily produce more CO2 than production of bio-plastics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is only true in theory. It only holds for plastics that are stored safely at the end of their lifetime. In practice however large amounts of fossil-fuel-based waste plastics are incinerated and when that happens they add CO2 to the atmosphere. When bio-plastics are incinerated they also add CO2, but the difference here is that the biomass that was used to create the plastic has taken CO2 out of the atmosphere when it was growing. That's why bio-plastics are carbon neutral (if you neglect the emissions from their manufacturing process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do agree that we should '*use fossil fuels wherever their end use would have less environmental impact than the alternatives*', but there are very few uses of fossil fuels for which there isn't a more environmentally-friendly alternative. The only thing I can think of right now is jet fuel, but according to [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5628/99) they are working on that, and of course reduction (less flying) would be even better from an environmental point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more information in this Guardian article: [Leave fossil fuels buried to prevent climate change, study urges](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/much-worlds-fossil-fuel-reserve-must-stay-buried-prevent-climate-change-study-says)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="5b88d08c-9015-4af0-a827-68b4550ef365" CreationDate="2016-11-22T18:47:37.537" UserId="99" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="Yes, we should leave the larger part of all known fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Scientists have calculated that if we want to keep global temperature rise under 2 degrees C (which was agreed upon in the Paris climate agreement), then we cannot use more than 1/3 of all currently known reserves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2 °C. ([source](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7533/full/nature14016.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fossil fuels that are in the ground are usually stored safely there and do not contribute to global warming. But once you take them out their stored carbon content is almost always added to the atmosphere in the form of greenhouse gas emissions at one time or another. Your statement that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using fossil fuel to make plastics does not necessarily produce more CO2 than production of bio-plastics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is only true in theory. It only holds for plastics that are stored safely at the end of their lifetime. In practice however large amounts of fossil-fuel-based waste plastics are incinerated and when that happens they add CO2 to the atmosphere. When bio-plastics are incinerated they also add CO2, but the difference here is that the biomass that was used to create the plastic has taken CO2 out of the atmosphere when it was growing. That's why bio-plastics are carbon neutral (if you neglect the emissions from their manufacturing process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do agree that we should '*use fossil fuels wherever their end use would have less environmental impact than the alternatives*', but there are very few uses of fossil fuels for which there isn't a more environmentally-friendly alternative. The only thing I can think of right now is jet fuel, but according to [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5628/99) they are working on that, and of course reduction (less flying) would be even better from an environmental point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more information in this Guardian article: [Leave fossil fuels buried to prevent climate change, study urges](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/much-worlds-fossil-fuel-reserve-must-stay-buried-prevent-climate-change-study-says)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5644" RevisionGUID="5192eff9-bf04-4158-b11f-e042253e13bf" CreationDate="2016-11-23T03:25:49.613" UserId="3996" Text="This is a question that many Departments of Transportation have struggled with as well! There are other chemicals that you can use, but all of them will have at least some impact on the environment. Even sand can cause problems in our stormwater systems. Other chlorides (magnesium chloride and calcium chloride) are gaining popularity, but still have some of the same negative impacts as common salt (sodium chloride). There are also non-chloride products being created, but they're not very widely used yet. Here are a couple links talking about alternative chemicals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2014/02/best-ice-melts/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/de-icing-dilemma-do-streets-need-salt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can look for de-icers marked as &quot;Safer Choice&quot; by the EPA too (search for Deicers under Product Type at https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/products#sector=Home)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing the amount of de-icer that you use is one of the most important steps to make your de-icing environmentally friendly. You achieve this with two methods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Practice the method of &quot;anti-icing&quot; by spraying down a salt brine or other anti-icing chemical right before the snowstorm. This significantly reduces the amount of de-icer that you need to use after the storm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Apply the minimum amount possible of the de-icer. If you're using salt, wet it with brine before applying it. This MNDOT guide is for street de-icing but has some interesting charts about de-icing with various chemicals beginning at page 13: http://www.mnltap.umn.edu/publications/handbooks/documents/snowice.pdf - As this says, one pound of normal road salt can melt 46 pounds of ice at 30 degrees F, but only 4 pounds of ice at 5 degrees F, so the temperature matters, but you really don't need much salt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I'm having trouble finding any charts to help with hand-mixed solutions &amp; minimum amounts needed, since cities use special machines to regulate the application of their de-icers. If anybody else can find that, please feel free to edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For additional reading, this webpage has a bunch of information and many interesting links: http://pprc.org/index.php/2015/p2-rapid/how-to-reduce-the-environmental-impact-of-deicing/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5644" RevisionGUID="c67d3eaa-4075-4af7-a1c5-395dc51ae499" CreationDate="2016-11-23T03:43:34.347" UserId="3996" Comment="formatting and link addition" Text="This is a question that many Departments of Transportation have struggled with as well! There are other chemicals that you can use, but all of them will have at least some impact on the environment. Even sand can cause problems in our stormwater systems. Other chlorides (magnesium chloride and calcium chloride) are popular as alternatives, but still have some of the same negative impacts as common salt (sodium chloride). There are also non-chloride products being created. Here are a couple links talking about alternative chemicals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2014/02/best-ice-melts/index.htm&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/de-icing-dilemma-do-streets-need-salt&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.readersdigest.ca/home-garden/cleaning/de-icing-your-driveway-right-way/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also look for de-icers marked as &quot;Safer Choice&quot; by the EPA: search for Deicers under Product Type at https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/products#sector=Home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Minimizing the amount of de-icer is the most important step to make your de-icing more environmentally friendly. You achieve this with two methods:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Practice the method of &quot;anti-icing&quot; by spraying down a salt brine or other anti-icing chemical right before the snowstorm. This significantly reduces the amount of de-icer that you need to use after the storm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Apply the minimum amount possible of the de-icer. If you're using salt, wet it with brine before applying it. This MNDOT guide is for street de-icing but has some interesting charts about de-icing with various chemicals beginning at page 13: http://www.mnltap.umn.edu/publications/handbooks/documents/snowice.pdf - As this says, one pound of normal road salt can melt 46 pounds of ice at 30 degrees F, but only 4 pounds of ice at 5 degrees F, so the temperature matters, but you really don't need much salt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I'm having trouble finding any charts to help with hand-mixed solutions &amp; minimum amounts needed, since cities use special machines to regulate the application of their de-icers. If anybody else can find that, please feel free to edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For additional reading, this webpage has a bunch of information and many interesting links: http://pprc.org/index.php/2015/p2-rapid/how-to-reduce-the-environmental-impact-of-deicing/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5645" RevisionGUID="05f54030-6ef9-49da-ae33-f029c023820c" CreationDate="2016-11-23T03:57:18.313" UserId="3996" Text="If you don't feel like making a DIY washer, there is actually a whole niche industry of non-electric washers, including the Laundry Pod and the Wonderwash. You spin them around manually and leave your clothes to soak. The store-bought washers may make the task a little easier than a homemade bucket-based washer, but it's up to you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an Amazon search with multiple options: https://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&amp;page=1&amp;rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Anon%20electric%20washing%20machine&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon page actually includes some low-electricity options too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a magazine article about a couple options in more detail: http://www.greencleaningmagazine.com/3-efficient-hand-washing-machines/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5646" RevisionGUID="18153cd7-f000-4008-8dde-9559119641be" CreationDate="2016-11-23T12:00:11.367" UserId="318" Text="&gt; Would it be possible to convert water drops into energy using a dynamo? A heating mechanism could then be used to transform the water back to a vapor to start the cycle again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any rainfall can be used to supply energy **but** the energy available for typical volumes and &quot;heads&quot; is so small as to make the exercise not worthwhile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An exception is if you are in an extremely rain-blessed environment with a large collection area and can channel the water so it falls in a controlled manner over a significant &quot;head&quot;, or at good volume and flow rate but little 'head'. In the first case you end up with a microhydro system and in the second something more akin to a traditional waterwheel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is the available energy compared to available rain and typical energy needs (or desires). Below I'll start with 100% efficiency assumed. &#xD;&#xA;Anywhere I say &quot;=&quot; or equals it usually means 'close enough to = that's it's not worth saying &quot;about&quot; all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A litre of water weighs close enough to 1kg. A US gallon is close enough to 4 kg for this exercise. A litre of water falling through a 'head' of 1 meter (about 3 feet) acquires a kinetic energy content of about 10 Joule = 10 Watt seconds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Watts seconds = litres x metres x 10 x efficiency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is enough to light   &#xD;&#xA;a 10 Watt bulb for 1 second or   &#xD;&#xA;a 1 Watt bulb for one second or   &#xD;&#xA;a single small bright high efficiency white LED (at 50 milliwatts) for 200 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single modern very high performance white LED run at 16mA x 3V = 50 milliWatts will produce about 10 lumens of light. That's enough to read a book by comfortably. Above we said that 1 litre.metre of water at 100% efficiency would operate this LED for 200 seconds. To light it for an hour requires 3600 seconds/200 = 18 litre metres at 100%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we have a 10 foot/3 metres fall from gutter to generator we need 18/3 = 6 litres per hour to do this at 100% efficiency. If roof area collecting water was 1000 square feet = 100 square metres we need only 6/100 mm/hour at 100% efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real world efficiency overall of such a system is liable to be around 20% - over 50% may be possible with great care and much less than 20% is easy :-). At 20% we need 0.3mm/hour of rain to run our LED.  &#xD;&#xA;That's doable.  &#xD;&#xA;Alas, our real world desires soon catch up with use.   &#xD;&#xA;A mains LED bulb of 5 Watts is &quot;small&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;That's 5/.05 = 100 x larger than our LED   &#xD;&#xA;= 30mm/hour of rain or a bit over 1 inch.  &#xD;&#xA;You CAN get [**more than 1&quot; per hour of rainfall**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain#Intensity)  in some places just occasionally, but if you've ever seen it you'll remember :-). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it takes extremely heavy rain on a 1000 square foot roof to light a single 5 Watt bulb, larger power levels will be unachievable by this means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can manage a good flow rate (small stream or better) AND a good head then useful power can be provided.    &#xD;&#xA;1 US gallon per second x 30 foot head gives about 100 Watts output.  &#xD;&#xA;Not enough for heating but useful for light or maybe a small TV (but probably not both).   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To supply say 10 kW to a home with a mix of cooking, heating, air conditioning, lighting, TV etc requires 10,000/10 = 1000 litre.metres of water flow.  If a dam has say 100 feet = 30 metres of head that's about 30+ litres = 8+ gallons per second x 100 foot head to power your home. Or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This DOES get supplied by falling raindrops and DOES get returned by solar heat in due course and is not a &quot;perpetuum mobile&quot; as someone suggested, as the sun is non sustainable, but the scale is utterly too vast for all but a very few individuals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5647" RevisionGUID="616352fe-fcf5-4bab-8747-eb6bc36c1a56" CreationDate="2016-11-23T14:42:35.577" UserId="4010" Text="I'm looking to have a ~20kW grid-tied solar system installed at our property in Ontario, Canada. I've been searching and reading but am unable to find current (last year or two) data on how much such a system *should* cost (per watt installed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no shortage or news and press releases regarding falling prices of PV and batteries over the years but locating information of the form &quot;it cost this to install it&quot; seems more illusive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been quoted $5(CAD)/kW installed (no batteries). How does one go about finding out a reasonable rate for installed solar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13422" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5647" RevisionGUID="616352fe-fcf5-4bab-8747-eb6bc36c1a56" CreationDate="2016-11-23T14:42:35.577" UserId="4010" Text="How can I find out what a reasonable rate for installed solar is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13423" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5647" RevisionGUID="616352fe-fcf5-4bab-8747-eb6bc36c1a56" CreationDate="2016-11-23T14:42:35.577" UserId="4010" Text="|energy|solar-power|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5648" RevisionGUID="7bd006c6-eb59-4d43-8cdf-25bfc5183d40" CreationDate="2016-11-23T15:47:45.503" UserId="48" Text="As with many purchases, the most straightforward route is to get quotes from 3 completely separate suppliers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There isn't a simple rule for establishing what a reasonable rate is, because every installation is different. Some of the relevant factors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If it's mounted on rooftop, how high is the roof?&#xD;&#xA;- Is scaffolding needed?&#xD;&#xA;- What wind and snow loading does it need to withstand?&#xD;&#xA;- How good is access from the road?&#xD;&#xA;- What are the connection costs to the grid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many countries will have internet forums where people with such systems will gather to compare notes and quotes. In the UK, we've got [Navitron](http://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php/board,7.0.html). Something similar will exist for Canada, I'm sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a simple system with no access difficulties, then CAD 5 per Watt capacity looks to be on the high side, by the standard of international costs. But there are often country-specific factors: your neighbour to the south has atypically high soft costs (insurance, marketing), and so has higher prices for PV systems than most of the world. There may also be import tariffs on the panels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5649" RevisionGUID="8c716c89-d3ce-4296-b436-359ee5fd2da0" CreationDate="2016-11-23T16:47:32.790" UserId="840" Text="Imho, if you are talking about sustainability, you should care about each factor that is connected to an object you use or an activity you do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's clear that you can't be always sustainable on everything you do, but it is already good if you know more in detail about things that happen around you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your post, it must be clear, that the production of meat is not sustainable at all. You need to produce or buy additional food for them, the people working in this field have to get payed and then you still have the distribution taking a lot of effort till the meat is at the customers home. I think it would be better to find a different lifestyle regarding food we eat and even discover the real diversity that is out there instead of just talking about meat all the time. I also eat meat from time to time but I don't have to talk about it all the time and I know it is not sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you also have the same problem with all the other things, that you can purchase, that have been produced in another place or with the everything that you do. To be sustainable, you have to be aware of what you consume and how you do it, the quantity. And that's the hardest thing, because we do not all have a correct relation to our consumption. Also because everybody has a different way to live. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being sustainable means to consume in a level that gives even generations after us the possibility to live and have enough of everything. In a level that everybody has the same possibilities to do it, everywhere in the world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4941" RevisionGUID="5f9bda39-3bb1-4f59-b0dc-80f89f3a815d" CreationDate="2016-11-24T08:12:27.923" UserId="99" Comment="added part about difference between reuse and recycling, fixed typo" Text="There is a difference between reuse and recycling. Reuse is using a container again as it is. Recycling is transforming a container into its core elements and using that to make an entirely new object.&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK industrial reuse of plastic food packaging isn't done anywhere because of the risk of bacterial contamination. Many plastics are designed for one-time usage and are difficult to clean. For example the small opening of plastic bottles hinders proper cleaning and the low melting point of many plastics makes sterilization impossible. At best food plastics are recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what percentage of food packaging could theoretically be recycled into new food packaging, but I do know why achieving a large percentage is currently not possible.&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that plastics used for packing food are required to be of high quality in many countries. This is called [food-grade plastic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_safe_symbol) and is sometimes indicated with this label on plastic food containers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Food safe symbol][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem with recycled plastic is that it is difficult and costly to assure that it is of food-grade quality. This is because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. washing and cleaning the used plastics will not remove all contaminants (e.g. food leftovers, labels, glue) which reduces the quality of the recycled plastic.&#xD;&#xA;   2. non-food-grade plastic may be present in a batch of plastic that is to be recycled due to imperfect separation systems (but this would not be a problem if we assume correct plastic separating by households as you suggested in your question). &#xD;&#xA;   3. plastic manufacturers have to test that the recycled plastic is of food-grade quality and often need to get new recycling processes certified by certain government bodies. This costs time and money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason for the low percentage of recycled food packaging is that some types of plastics are not or hardly recycled (e.g. polystyrene). This usually has to do with cost efficiency and/or lack of recycling facilities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK at the moment one of the few food packaging plastics that are being recycled into new food packaging (on a large scale, outside of labs) are PET bottles, but I've been told that virgin PET is usually added to get a high-enough quality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been research under which conditions certain types of plastics can be recycled safely and reused as food packaging, but it's been my impression that progress is slow. More information about this also here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [European Food Safety Authority - Plastic recycling](http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/plasticrecycling)&#xD;&#xA; - [FDA.gov - Recycled Plastics in Food Packaging](http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/PackagingFCS/RecycledPlastics/default.htm)&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1WwLu.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13429" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4940" RevisionGUID="6d531037-4ab5-4b9e-ae8b-0dd83de88f43" CreationDate="2016-11-24T08:12:43.447" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|plastic|reuse|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4941" RevisionGUID="ebd068df-6fc0-47c4-88f6-ac4f964b9b80" CreationDate="2016-11-24T08:54:21.977" UserId="99" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="There is a difference between reuse and recycling. Reuse is using a container again without major modifications. Recycling is transforming a container into its core elements and using that to make an entirely new object.&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK industrial reuse of plastic food packaging isn't done anywhere because of the risk of bacterial contamination. Many plastics are designed for one-time usage and are difficult to clean. For example the small opening of plastic bottles hinders proper cleaning and the low melting point of many plastics makes sterilization impossible. At best food plastics are recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what percentage of food packaging could theoretically be recycled into new food packaging, but I do know why achieving a large percentage is currently not possible.&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that plastics used for packing food are required to be of high quality in many countries. This is called [food-grade plastic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_safe_symbol) and is sometimes indicated with this label on plastic food containers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Food safe symbol][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem with recycled plastic is that it is difficult and costly to assure that it is of food-grade quality. This is because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. washing and cleaning the used plastics will not remove all contaminants (e.g. food leftovers, labels, glue) which reduces the quality of the recycled plastic.&#xD;&#xA;   2. non-food-grade plastic may be present in a batch of plastic that is to be recycled due to imperfect separation systems (but this would not be a problem if we assume correct plastic separating by households as you suggested in your question). &#xD;&#xA;   3. plastic manufacturers have to test that the recycled plastic is of food-grade quality and often need to get new recycling processes certified by certain government bodies. This costs time and money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason for the low percentage of recycled food packaging is that some types of plastics are not or hardly recycled (e.g. polystyrene). This usually has to do with cost efficiency and/or lack of recycling facilities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK at the moment one of the few food packaging plastics that are being recycled into new food packaging (on a large scale, outside of labs) are PET bottles, but I've been told that virgin PET is usually added to get a high-enough quality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been research under which conditions certain types of plastics can be recycled safely and reused as food packaging, but it's been my impression that progress is slow. More information about this also here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [European Food Safety Authority - Plastic recycling](http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/plasticrecycling)&#xD;&#xA; - [FDA.gov - Recycled Plastics in Food Packaging](http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/PackagingFCS/RecycledPlastics/default.htm)&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1WwLu.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4941" RevisionGUID="2e8853a3-72db-43c1-8f17-e94100031b59" CreationDate="2016-11-24T09:04:38.460" UserId="99" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="There is a difference between reuse and recycling. Reuse is using a container again without major modifications. Recycling is transforming a container into its core elements and using that to make an entirely new object.&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK industrial reuse of plastic food packaging isn't done anywhere because of the risk of bacterial contamination. Many plastics are designed for one-time usage and are difficult to clean. For example the small opening of plastic bottles hinders proper cleaning and the low melting point of many plastics makes sterilization impossible. At best food plastics are recycled by the industry or reused by people for different purposes (e.g. [plant containers, toys, decoratives](http://diycozyhome.com/reuse-plastic-bottles/))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what percentage of food packaging could theoretically be recycled into new food packaging, but I do know why achieving a large percentage is currently not possible.&#xD;&#xA;The reason is that plastics used for packing food are required to be of high quality in many countries. This is called [food-grade plastic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_safe_symbol) and is sometimes indicated with this label on plastic food containers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Food safe symbol][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem with recycled plastic is that it is difficult and costly to assure that it is of food-grade quality. This is because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. washing and cleaning the used plastics will not remove all contaminants (e.g. food leftovers, labels, glue) which reduces the quality of the recycled plastic.&#xD;&#xA;   2. non-food-grade plastic may be present in a batch of plastic that is to be recycled due to imperfect separation systems (but this would not be a problem if we assume correct plastic separating by households as you suggested in your question). &#xD;&#xA;   3. plastic manufacturers have to test that the recycled plastic is of food-grade quality and often need to get new recycling processes certified by certain government bodies. This costs time and money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason for the low percentage of recycled food packaging is that some types of plastics are not or hardly recycled (e.g. polystyrene). This usually has to do with cost efficiency and/or lack of recycling facilities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK at the moment one of the few food packaging plastics that are being recycled into new food packaging (on a large scale, outside of labs) are PET bottles, but I've been told that virgin PET is usually added to get a high-enough quality. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been research under which conditions certain types of plastics can be recycled safely and reused as food packaging, but it's been my impression that progress is slow. More information about this also here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [European Food Safety Authority - Plastic recycling](http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/plasticrecycling)&#xD;&#xA; - [FDA.gov - Recycled Plastics in Food Packaging](http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/PackagingFCS/RecycledPlastics/default.htm)&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1WwLu.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5650" RevisionGUID="901d988c-264b-4ab4-9bc9-bfd88c814ec9" CreationDate="2016-11-24T09:44:17.073" UserId="3960" Text="There are a few factors to consider which would change the results, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Animal welfare issues&#xD;&#xA; - What sort of animals you're eating&#xD;&#xA; - What you feed the animals on&#xD;&#xA; - How much of the animal you're prepared to eat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example ruminants such as sheep/cattle tend to have more of an impact on global warming due to higher methane emissions. However they may also be able to graze on land that is not suitable for other crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been some recent research, based on a world population of 9 billion, which assumes that animals are only allowed to graze on grasslands and fed by-products not related to soy, maize or other artificial feeds, and the figure they came up with was 26 grams of meat, per person, per day. For meat solely from ruminants the figure was 19 grams. Plus 138 grams of milk pp/pd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I don't have the reference, it was taken from an interview with Tara Garnett from the [Food Climate Research Network][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fcrn.org.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5650" RevisionGUID="6bfda644-ecdf-484a-9a20-02cb161e0bcf" CreationDate="2016-11-24T09:49:27.143" UserId="3960" Comment="add link to interview" Text="There are a few factors to consider which would change the results, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Animal welfare issues&#xD;&#xA; - What sort of animals you're eating&#xD;&#xA; - What you feed the animals on&#xD;&#xA; - How much of the animal you're prepared to eat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example ruminants such as sheep/cattle tend to have more of an impact on global warming due to higher methane emissions. However they may also be able to graze on land that is not suitable for other crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been some recent research, based on a world population of 9 billion, which assumes that animals are only allowed to graze on grasslands and fed by-products not related to soy, maize or other artificial feeds, and the figure they came up with was 26 grams of meat, per person, per day. For meat solely from ruminants the figure was 19 grams. Plus 138 grams of milk pp/pd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I don't have the reference, it was taken from an interview with Tara Garnett from the [Food Climate Research Network][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Interview  [here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fcrn.org.uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08296jm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="4d97fbf3-53f7-4895-9ef6-37432308d6fa" CreationDate="2016-11-24T12:08:27.217" UserId="80" Text="I have windows getting direct morning sunlight on one side of our apartment, and direct evening sunlight on the other side. All windows have (wooden slat) blinds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering: what is the best way to keep the inside of the apartment cool during hot summer days, and warm during cold winter days, just by using the windows and blinds, to avoid using energy-hungry devices? That should be achieved by opening and closing windows, and opening and closing the blinds, in order to control airflow and exposure to direct sunlight. Generalising for most homes would be great too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13435" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="4d97fbf3-53f7-4895-9ef6-37432308d6fa" CreationDate="2016-11-24T12:08:27.217" UserId="80" Text="How to regulate temperature at home with windows and blinds?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13436" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="4d97fbf3-53f7-4895-9ef6-37432308d6fa" CreationDate="2016-11-24T12:08:27.217" UserId="80" Text="|energy-efficiency|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5652" RevisionGUID="082b9cbd-c3d9-4da3-a2c0-a06183f98d8b" CreationDate="2016-11-24T13:34:25.043" UserId="2345" Text="**During summer**, the first thing you would want to do is to limit the amount of sunlight entering the windows when the sun is shine on each side of the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can put something on the outside of the windows (like shutters) to protect the windows from the sun that would be ideal. If that is not possible then close the binds you currently have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the same time, open the windows on the opposite side of house; the air outside the house will be in the shadow of the house &amp; hence cooler than the air on the sunny side of the house, which will be heated by the sun. Keep the windows on the sunny side of the house shut.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**During winter**, do the opposite concerning the blinds, open them up as much as possible on the sunny side of the house to let the sun light in, but close the blinds on the other side of the house as that will reduce heat loss. Regarding the windows, keep them closed as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If possible, plant deciduous plants (trees or vines) to shade the windows during summer. The foliage will provide shade during summer and during winter, when the plant has no leaves, they will let the sun shine into the windows to assist with warming. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5653" RevisionGUID="d595b7d2-1f4d-4afa-9c71-b3dd4d340ff0" CreationDate="2016-11-25T04:31:21.057" UserId="3532" Text="I've heard how people microchip dogs, and cats, so can you microchip livestock, and keep them organic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5653" RevisionGUID="d595b7d2-1f4d-4afa-9c71-b3dd4d340ff0" CreationDate="2016-11-25T04:31:21.057" UserId="3532" Text="Can you microchip animals in an organic herd?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5653" RevisionGUID="d595b7d2-1f4d-4afa-9c71-b3dd4d340ff0" CreationDate="2016-11-25T04:31:21.057" UserId="3532" Text="|organic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13443" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5647" RevisionGUID="3be2ac90-933e-45fc-90aa-b0f24eedad53" CreationDate="2016-11-26T11:02:37.307" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/802467589796560896" />
  <row Id="13444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5654" RevisionGUID="d9cca493-e4b1-4537-b9d7-a344e09e303d" CreationDate="2016-11-26T19:46:21.007" UserId="400" Text="Trees follow the logistics curve for growth.  More complicated, the number of trees descreases as they get larger.  E.g. after a forest fire, lodgepole pine sprout at about 10 per square foot.  In 10 years there is about 1 per square yard.  At 30 years it's one per 6 foot square.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fastest mass growth rate is when a given area is mostly at the 1&quot; diameter stem.  Some variation by species.  Google biofuels for more info on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A mature forest is carbon neutral.  Over the course of a year the process of decomposition equals the process of sequesterization.  Most tropical rain forests are carbon neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some numbers:  An immature aspen forest (3&quot; to 6&quot; trees)increases biomass at roughly a metric tonne per year per acre.  At GT of carbon is about 1.5 GT of cellulose &amp; lignan.  So it would take about 1.5 billion acres of aspen forest per GT of carbon, or 9 billion acres for your 6 GT.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About 14 million square miles, or about 4-5 times the area of the continental U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now my numbers are from the Canadian Praire, latitude 54.  Growing season about 115 days.  While longer growing seasons will help, remember that a lot of those days here have 18 hours of sun, so it doesn't help all that much.  But you might gain, say 30% that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5655" RevisionGUID="57ab70c8-6391-4c13-8985-b7ca0f981537" CreationDate="2016-11-26T22:59:00.333" UserId="840" Text="I understand the approach of helping smaller stores, and it is already a good idea to stop supporting these big supermarkets that already own a lot of shares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it depends on the location of your store, but on your picture are a lot of different fruits. All these fruits have to be shipped in some way, some more than others. &#xD;&#xA;If the store is focused on bio and fair trade products it is of course a good idea. But if it is a normal store without any focus on sustainability, you're again supporting some bad conditions in different places of the world with your purchase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So talking about the same fruits just from a smaller store has only one difference:**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;The smaller store can't buy in amounts like a bigger supermarket, and this leads to worse price conditions. A products is more expensive than in a big grocery. It's great, to support a smaller store with people from your place, but imho, nowadays a food store needs more love and focus on the nutrition itself and not a very very big selection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure, a smaller market owner is also working different with food and maybe wouldn't throw away in amounts like big supermarkets. So regarding this fact supporting a local store is a very nice idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5655" RevisionGUID="fbc7de6a-6393-4ce7-b21c-24ad456ad1cd" CreationDate="2016-11-27T00:42:21.003" UserId="2345" Comment="Improve grammar" Text="I understand the approach of helping smaller stores, and it is already a good idea to stop supporting these big supermarkets that already own a lot of shares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it depends on the location of your store, but on your picture are a lot of different fruits. All these fruits have to be transported in some way, some more than others. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the store is focused on bio and fair trade products it is of course a good idea. But if it is a normal store without any focus on sustainability, you're again supporting some bad conditions in different places of the world with your purchase. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So talking about the same fruits just from a smaller store has only one difference:**&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;The smaller store can't buy quantities of product like a bigger supermarket, and this leads to worse price conditions. Items in a smaller store are more expensive than in a big grocery. It's great, to support a smaller store with people from your place, but imho, nowadays a food store needs more love and focus on the nutrition itself and not a very very big selection. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am sure, a smaller market owner is also working differently with food and maybe wouldn't throw away in amounts like big supermarkets. So regarding this fact supporting a local store is a very nice idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="ba19391b-a12b-4176-8c04-c136b6f4e8e6" CreationDate="2016-11-27T07:07:45.177" UserId="2187" Text="I am wondering if there is any evidence that happy people (i.e. generally satisfied with their life condition) live more sustainable (i.e. have a lower environmental footprint) than unhappy people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="ba19391b-a12b-4176-8c04-c136b6f4e8e6" CreationDate="2016-11-27T07:07:45.177" UserId="2187" Text="Do happy people live more sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="ba19391b-a12b-4176-8c04-c136b6f4e8e6" CreationDate="2016-11-27T07:07:45.177" UserId="2187" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13450" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="45d1e8fe-5eb8-4127-8262-e9253ed0a1e8" CreationDate="2016-11-27T09:46:41.877" UserId="2187" Comment="edited title" Text="Do happy people live more sustainably?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13451" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5653" RevisionGUID="3ecf8fb7-9517-42f3-b83a-0589c4666700" CreationDate="2016-11-27T13:27:39.427" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|husbandry|organic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13452" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="2cb0841e-5c17-4389-a520-acf9486ca9b0" CreationDate="2016-11-27T13:30:54.280" UserId="85" Comment="edited tags" Text="|husbandry|meat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="10a25271-4a51-48b3-9fa4-213b4adba693" CreationDate="2016-11-28T11:06:38.150" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Inserted comment answer" Text="I have windows getting direct morning sunlight on one side of our apartment, and direct evening sunlight on the other side. All windows have (wooden slat) blinds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering: what is the best way to keep the inside of the apartment cool during hot summer days, and warm during cold winter days, just by using the windows and blinds, to avoid using energy-hungry devices? That should be achieved by opening and closing windows, and opening and closing the blinds, in order to control airflow and exposure to direct sunlight. Generalising for most homes would be great too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: this is a rented apartment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13454" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="10a25271-4a51-48b3-9fa4-213b4adba693" CreationDate="2016-11-28T11:06:38.150" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 431" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="3480feef-03f4-41e0-bc55-270f5b10bf70" CreationDate="2016-11-28T12:54:08.557" UserId="840" Text="What I found on this was [a short info][1] on the website of Mc Donalds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They tell you that 37 % of their coffee purchases are certified from  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Rainforest Alliance Certified™&#xD;&#xA;- Fair Trade USA &#xD;&#xA;- UTZ Certified farms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This means, 63 % are not certified**, and in a company like Mc Donalds, this is a lot because they puchase in very high qunatities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further more they saythe products in Europe are 100% certified by one of the three mentioned above. They sum it up but don't give more information on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like others already said, a company like Mc Donald can never be sustainable in the way they work. A company will mostly be focused on making money and not in being sustainable. I don't say companies can never be sustainable, but Mc Donalds does its' job for decades and I can't imagine they will switch their image from one day to another. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://corporate.mcdonalds.com/mcd/sustainability/signature_programs/coffee_story.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5659" RevisionGUID="e990bd66-3fbd-4365-963d-fc1c830e5970" CreationDate="2016-11-28T13:19:43.360" UserId="840" Text="There are many different things you can do to get active for your environment. Imho developers are even more important, as they create software that will consume energy at the design, development and later a lot more if it is getting used from many others. But next to this you can also change something on your behavior when you work, while using other services. You can even have a little environmental influence if you start looking at the food you eat and try to look at better nutrition ( in case you are one of these devs that don't like to cook and love pizza ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buy and use Hardware that will last for longer time. Think about the future and better pay a little more but use it for some more years&#xD;&#xA;- Don't buy every new technology. The apple watch f. e. wasn't a real hit and it would be more a toy then a helper ( at the beginning )&#xD;&#xA;- Watch your behavior on the internet. Don't make unnecessary searches ( visit websites instead of googling them )&#xD;&#xA;- Try to use renewable sources for energy. Are you a web developer, search for provider that host with green electricity.&#xD;&#xA;- If you are doing software, try to avoid spots that can end in loops and won't finish. Try to make your software work as it should. The less bugs you will have included, the less you will need to debug problems later, the less recourses you will need to do the debugging. And think about the people using the tools, everybody that is waiting to do his job but can't, is wasting his time, energy to run the periphery and other stuff. If you look at smartphone users, they are just a small part, but if they start using apps that are recourse intensive, the phones batterie might last only for hours and the loading process needs to be done more often. &#xD;&#xA;- If you are working with a server try to avoid unnecessary requests to servers. The more requests you have the more has to be executed on your server. And having many requests can also break down your whole applications like a DDOS. &#xD;&#xA;- Every developer is a normal human being, it doesn't mean, you are just working on your code. This is mostly a job, you should be aware about your nutrition as it is one of the things that are important to live. And this is something that many devs do not really focus on. At least it is getting more and more but I know many coders that are too lazy to cook. But there are so many tasty meals that you can do within a short time. Try to get active and watch what you eat, try to cook with your stuff together if it is possible at your working place. And don't think you can't influence something on this field, every person is one person doing more, and at the same time one person less influencing something bad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="ff79a733-d86d-4e82-b8b3-3f7170afc884" CreationDate="2016-11-28T18:26:16.840" UserId="3379" Comment="Grammar, spelling, clarification" Text="Here's what I found on [McDonald's website][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;37 % of their coffee purchases are certified from:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Rainforest Alliance Certified™&#xD;&#xA;- Fair Trade USA &#xD;&#xA;- UTZ Certified farms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This means 63 % is not certified**, and in a company like McDonald's, this is a lot because they purchase in very high quantities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, they say that coffee sold in Europe is 100% certified by one of the three mentioned above. They don't give more details on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like others already said, a company like McDonald's will never be sustainable in the way they work. Such a company will mostly be focused on making money, and not in being sustainable. I don't say companies can never be sustainable, but McDonald's has been the same for decades and I can't imagine they would switch their image from one day to the next. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://corporate.mcdonalds.com/mcd/sustainability/signature_programs/coffee_story.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13459" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5658" RevisionGUID="ff79a733-d86d-4e82-b8b3-3f7170afc884" CreationDate="2016-11-28T18:26:16.840" Comment="Proposed by 3379 approved by 85 edit id of 432" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5660" RevisionGUID="d2e2fb59-3c52-49a4-96fc-08e8175c67bc" CreationDate="2016-11-28T18:59:31.973" UserId="2072" Text="From [Guide for Organic Livestock Producers.pdf @ &#xD;&#xA;www.ams.usda.gov/nop](https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Guide%20for%20Organic%20Livestock%20Producers_0.pdf) I will make a case for **yes, microchipped animals are organic** but then again I am not affiliated with USDA so you might want to check with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**CHAPTER 18 PHYSICAL ALTERATIONS**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The term “physical alterations” refers to irreversible procedures that alter the natural appearance or function of animals. They are typically used for five reasons in live-stock management:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - For identification (e.g., branding, tattooing, ear tags, and ear notching)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - To  prevent  injury  from  fighting  or  cannibalism  among  animals  (e.g.,  beak trimming, dehorning, tail clipping, and castration)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - To prevent damage to pastures (e.g., noserings in hogs)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - To improve product quality and marketability (e.g., castration and caponization)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - For livestock health (e.g., tail docking in sheep) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to the USDA organic regulations, physical alterations are permitted “as needed to promote the animal’s welfare” as well as to maintain individual identification of mammals. Convenience for the producer should not be construed as “animal welfare.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [..]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A further requirement of the USDA organic regulations is that physical alterations be done “in a manner that minimizes pain and stress.” For example, it is desirable to castrate male calves at a very young age, as opposed to later in life when the pain and stress is much  greater. Another example is freeze branding, which uses dry ice and is considered more humane than fire branding using electrically or fire-heated metal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So obviously *&quot;physical alterations&quot;* *to maintain individual identification of mammals* - which is what I suppose microchipping is for - is permitted. Even more so if done *“in a manner that minimizes pain and stress.”* While I would have guessed that microchipping is less painful than branding some [sources](http://www.thehorse.com/articles/28130/microchipping-vs-branding-horses-which-is-less-stressful) claim them to be on a par. So providing the same level of discomfort would suggest it to be fine. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, it seems to be prudent to check with the respective authorities not only whether microchipping is permitted in organic operations but if it is recognised as an approved system of identification at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5662" RevisionGUID="8e705f44-b59a-4b6b-9d65-aa2f1bfdaf3f" CreationDate="2016-11-28T19:45:06.580" UserId="4025" Text="Found the site randomly via Google whislt trying to find an answer to a problem in my flat (apartment) in London.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had asked a question in response to another thread, but seeing how old that was thought best to post as question in its own right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in a ground floor flat in London. It’s a 1950’s brick built ex-council. Below me (basement / -1 level) is a communal boiler that runs all hot water out the tap and for the radiators for all flats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I get both unwanted noise and heat from this boiler. I’m in a bit of a dispute with block management on this and at present (a year in), no solutions forthcoming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I’m in the process of renovating my flat and as I have ripped up the floor to lay a new engineered wood floor I figured I ‘may as well’ lay some acoustic and thermal insulation anyway. I’m not expecting miracles but if it can reduce both noise and heat to a certain degree that would help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question for here relates to the thermal insulation. My intention was to put some PIR board down. However due to max floor height I could only put down 12mm possibly 25mm PIR board. I’ve been told that would not really do anything so wonder if it’s worth the effort?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what OCDtech said towards the bottom of the following thread, it sounds like as I’m experiencing ‘conductive' heat transfer the insulation should be on the boiler side of the concrete slab, not my side anyway?&#xD;&#xA;http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/275/is-there-a-difference-in-insulation-to-keep-heat-in-or-out/5661#5661&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover also wondering if it could actually make the heat situation worse in my flat rather than better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m due to start on the new floor next week so need to make a 'go / don’t go’ decision on the thermal insulation element in the next couple of days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collective wisdom would be gratefully received – many thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5662" RevisionGUID="8e705f44-b59a-4b6b-9d65-aa2f1bfdaf3f" CreationDate="2016-11-28T19:45:06.580" UserId="4025" Text="Insulating against unwanted conductive heat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5662" RevisionGUID="8e705f44-b59a-4b6b-9d65-aa2f1bfdaf3f" CreationDate="2016-11-28T19:45:06.580" UserId="4025" Text="|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5664" RevisionGUID="3397646c-d996-4b24-83c0-334666f26b9d" CreationDate="2016-11-29T03:50:28.780" UserId="400" Text="Main considerations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* source of materials.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously more oil is a bad thing.  This casts aspersions on any plastic too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Longevity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A shoe that lasts for 10 years is a 20 times the value of one that lasts for half a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cost of making.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost is a measure of crystalized sweat.  Energy.  Labour.  Cheaper is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Locality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something that you make is better than something downtown.  Downtown is better than next county.  Next county is better than China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turning that into pragmatic answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Sandals made from old tires are a big win.  The tires already exist, so making sandals isn't really an eco cost.  Unless you walk for a living they are good for decades.  I see these throughout  central and south America.  Price in Peru was about 20 sols-- about $2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Rope soled shoes. Don't last nearly as long.  You can find them on Instructables if you want to make your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Leather moccasins. As long as we eat cow, we may as well use the wrappers the bovines come in. This is also something you can do for yourself from the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Go barefoot.  Not a full time answer, but your feet toughen up a lot, and you can get away with it when not at work most of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.  Buy used shoes at Salvation Army, Goodwill and other such stores.  This is tough as someone else's shoes can be worn in patterns that cause you foot and knee grief.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5666" RevisionGUID="76fa5b20-04d2-48cc-bd20-f92292774247" CreationDate="2016-11-29T03:59:38.240" UserId="400" Text="In one sense, a lot.  But in terms of real life, not much.   Lighting accounts for something like 6% of electrical use.  (Please don't ask me to source that...) So if LED lighting cut that in half, it would only save 3%.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Why half?  LED isn't much more efficient than fluorescent lighting.  Some LEDs would replace incandescents.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The replacement cost is significant.  Unless lighting is going to be used 24/7 probably the best strategy is to use LEDs when you ahve to replace lighting, but to leave existing lighting be until it breaks, or the building is being refitted.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5667" RevisionGUID="6d388983-ca09-4677-82b9-e7a96ad5d625" CreationDate="2016-11-29T04:06:11.827" UserId="400" Text="The only appliances that take a water feed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Washing machine.  Most have both a hot and cold line connection.  I've yet to see a single feed machine. &#xD;&#xA;* Dryer with steamer.  Has hot water connection, with internal boost to make steam for dewrinkling/freshing.&#xD;&#xA;* Refrigerator with ice maker/ chilled water dispenser.  Only have a cold water connection.&#xD;&#xA;* Dishwasher.  Only has a hot water connection.  Internal heater to boost temperature as needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5668" RevisionGUID="08987c5b-bdfe-4872-9333-d0537049b531" CreationDate="2016-11-29T04:13:50.557" UserId="400" Text="FWIW:  I've worked in a kitchen.  A Hobart dishwasher uses the same wash water over and over.  The rinse cycle runs for 40 seconds at about 5 gpm  This replaces some of the wash water.  A batch of dishes is whatever fits face down on a 2 foot square tray, or whatever fits in a peg tray, with pegs about every 2.5 inches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:  If you were using 1/2 pint jars at 3 inch diameter, you could fit 64 on a tray.  Your water cost would be about 3 gallons, or 12 quarts, or 24 pints or 48 cups, so not quite a cup per jar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The unit adds a disinfectant and is running at 180 F.  Dishes are close to sterile when they come out.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to reduce water usage look into UV sterilization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13472" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="a88262d9-b5ba-4d3f-9ca5-fdd1c70ceb20" CreationDate="2016-11-29T08:16:37.673" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/803512979778113536" />
  <row Id="13473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5669" RevisionGUID="ef6cb28c-4ec6-4be6-aca5-b41aa21d8ae3" CreationDate="2016-11-29T08:49:18.373" UserId="48" Text="When you've got very little space to work with, as is often the case when insulating floors, it can be worth looking at more expensive insulation that has a higher insulation value. Yes, reducing conductive gains needs the same material as reducing conductive losses: you're looking for a higher themral resistance, i.e. a lower thermal conductivity, in each case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aerogels are more expensive than PIR, but you'll probably get better insulation for a given thickness. Something like [Ultratherm aerogel][1] flooring, or [Thermablok aerogel floor insulation board](http://www.thermablok.co.uk/products/thermabloksp-aerogel-magnesium-floor-board).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've got a residents' management group, it might be worth talking to them about going to the management group together, to get them to insulate the boiler room. At the moment, because it's uninsulated, you're all losing out. You're all getting charged for all the wasted heat, after all. So it would be financially sensible to get the pipes in the boiler room insulated, and to get the boiler room itself insulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thermal insulation should help with the sound insulation - particularly if they stop air transmission - i.e. convection losses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://enviroform-insulation.com/insulation/solid-floor-insulation/aerogel-ultratherm/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5662" RevisionGUID="0938cedc-f2f8-4d43-813c-82dad23bda53" CreationDate="2016-11-29T10:54:02.237" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Removed intro and extro" Text="I live in a ground floor flat in London. It’s a 1950’s brick built ex-council. Below me (basement / -1 level) is a communal boiler that runs all hot water out the tap and for the radiators for all flats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I get both unwanted noise and heat from this boiler. I’m in a bit of a dispute with block management on this and at present (a year in), no solutions forthcoming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I’m in the process of renovating my flat and as I have ripped up the floor to lay a new engineered wood floor I figured I ‘may as well’ lay some acoustic and thermal insulation anyway. I’m not expecting miracles but if it can reduce both noise and heat to a certain degree that would help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question for here relates to the thermal insulation. My intention was to put some PIR board down. However due to max floor height I could only put down 12mm possibly 25mm PIR board. I’ve been told that would not really do anything so wonder if it’s worth the effort?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what OCDtech said towards the bottom of the following thread, it sounds like as I’m experiencing ‘conductive' heat transfer the insulation should be on the boiler side of the concrete slab, not my side anyway?&#xD;&#xA;http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/275/is-there-a-difference-in-insulation-to-keep-heat-in-or-out/5661#5661&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover also wondering if it could actually make the heat situation worse in my flat rather than better?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13475" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5662" RevisionGUID="0938cedc-f2f8-4d43-813c-82dad23bda53" CreationDate="2016-11-29T10:54:02.237" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by -1 edit id of 433" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5662" RevisionGUID="480148f8-15cf-47e7-9db7-aa0f20fadadc" CreationDate="2016-11-29T10:54:02.237" UserId="4025" Comment="Removed intro and extro" Text="As recommended, question revised from inital one (see below the line)…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live on the ground floor of a block of flats (apartments) in London, UK. Below me (basement / -1 level) is the block’s communal boiler providing hot water for the taps and hot water for the radiators in each flat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately my flat gets hotter than I would like. I rarely use the radiators and make the educated guess that it is heat rising from the equipment downstairs conducting through the floor (concrete slab / screed etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To illustrate I have record temperatures of 12 degrees / 45 fahrenheit outside whilst 26 degrees / 79 fahrenheit inside my flat with radiators off.  I am trying to address the issue at source with the block’s owners / management however a year on little movement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of renovating the flat I am replacing flooring with an engineered wood floor. It feels that I may as well try and add some thermal insulation whilst doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this forum I have seen someone refer to insulation in issues of conduction being most effective when between the heat source and the conductive material / layer. In this instance this would be to insulate the ceiling downstairs in the boiler room. There is already some insulation down there and I will continue to press the issue for a more / better insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would be interested in opinions on if it is worth me insulating my side?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will used a damp proof layer / vapour layer between the insulation and the chipboard / engineered wood floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One concern I have is could it make the heat issue worse in my flat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in a ground floor flat in London. It’s a 1950’s brick built ex-council. Below me (basement / -1 level) is a communal boiler that runs all hot water out the tap and for the radiators for all flats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately I get both unwanted noise and heat from this boiler. I’m in a bit of a dispute with block management on this and at present (a year in), no solutions forthcoming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I’m in the process of renovating my flat and as I have ripped up the floor to lay a new engineered wood floor I figured I ‘may as well’ lay some acoustic and thermal insulation anyway. I’m not expecting miracles but if it can reduce both noise and heat to a certain degree that would help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question for here relates to the thermal insulation. My intention was to put some PIR board down. However due to max floor height I could only put down 12mm possibly 25mm PIR board. I’ve been told that would not really do anything so wonder if it’s worth the effort?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what OCDtech said towards the bottom of the following thread, it sounds like as I’m experiencing ‘conductive' heat transfer the insulation should be on the boiler side of the concrete slab, not my side anyway?&#xD;&#xA;http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/275/is-there-a-difference-in-insulation-to-keep-heat-in-or-out/5661#5661&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover also wondering if it could actually make the heat situation worse in my flat rather than better?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="709005ef-5cdc-40e0-ae1a-1ef2107a7520" CreationDate="2016-11-29T15:30:23.327" UserId="986" Text="My partner and I have been considering what the different options are for buying properties in the UK. We are interested in at least 1 acre of land, plus a house of 50-70 square meters minimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We would like to implement as many sustainable strategies as possible, ideally being nearly off-grid, with solar panels, rainwater storage, grey water recycling, humanure / methane tank toilets, ventilation based on good design, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these requirements in terms of energy management and design imply that buying a new house is probably not the best option, because we rarely find systems like this in houses which are for sale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I had a look around, and I found out the following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 1 - buy land and then go for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Earthships don't seem to be viable yet, there are only a few in the UK and none of them have residential permissions. These would be great both in terms of size, sustainability and price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Tiny Houses are too small for us, unless there is someone who produces tiny houses of more than 5 m^2. The price is optimal though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Hanse House][1]? Any advice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 2 - Buy a house with land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buying old houses/cottages and making them eco-friendly is too expensive, as I understand from a quick search online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Buying houses from people and then modifying everything to make them eco-friendly is outrageously expensive, because the property market in the UK is currently crazy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do any of you people have experience with self-building or refurbishing a house to make it eco-friendly? What are the possible routes into this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.self-build.co.uk/efficient-low-cost-home-for-retirement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="709005ef-5cdc-40e0-ae1a-1ef2107a7520" CreationDate="2016-11-29T15:30:23.327" UserId="986" Text="What's the best way of getting an eco-friendly off-grid house?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="709005ef-5cdc-40e0-ae1a-1ef2107a7520" CreationDate="2016-11-29T15:30:23.327" UserId="986" Text="|home|permaculture|building-materials|product-design|housing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5672" RevisionGUID="5bcb695a-17fe-4f79-b842-5bc2235f7eb1" CreationDate="2016-11-29T19:46:11.540" UserId="3379" Text="According to [this list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_codes) on Wikipedia, #81 is **paper and plastic composite**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to recycling, you have two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Go to the website of your county or city recycling agency to see if they will accept this material. If they don't, you could try neighboring counties/cities (areas with larger populations will tend to have broader recycling programs). For the US, I was not able to find any comprehensive listing of recycling policies and/or agencies.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Take a look at [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5be3pqh07KI) for instructions on how to separate the paper and plastic layers - typically the interior paper layer (which is in contact with the food) would be soiled and thus non-recyclable, while the outer plastic layer could be recycled with other similar plastics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5489" RevisionGUID="4439c0a1-d95b-4823-a1e1-ae3caab4bc91" CreationDate="2016-11-29T20:33:25.830" UserId="3686" Comment="Expanded my question" Text="Most appliances, such as washing machines and dishwashers typically take cold water and heat it internally. This is probably the most efficient way on a grid connected house with electric water heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have an offgrid house, and we use LPG (a.k.a. propane) for our water heating. (Others here on Sustainable Living may use solar hot water heating or a wet-back fire etc...). We use photovoltaics for our electricity, but we have to avoid any applications that involve electric heating, as this is a very energy intensive application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a) Are modern appliances still available that take a hot water feed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and/or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b) Can modern appliances be connected to the hot water instead of the cold (potentially with a mixer so one could choose a hot or a cold wash)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, does anyone know if internal water heaters be disabled?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5673" RevisionGUID="f5e15a3f-4baf-4e6d-8818-22f65a0d2675" CreationDate="2016-11-29T21:27:51.560" UserId="3960" Text="I am not aware of any modern washing machines (at least in the UK) that still have a hot water feed. One reason is that modern machines don't actually use that much water, so even if you had it connected to a hot tap, it would be filled mainly with the cold water that's been standing around in your pipes, unless you have a particularly short pipe run to your boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other reasons to be careful about simply connecting it to a hot tap - it may well confuse the electronics in modern machines, and will probably invalidate your warranty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once technique I have heard of to overcome this is to just pour water at 40C straight into the machine via the powder tray, and then start the machine as normal - but again this may or may not work well depending on your machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13487" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="2c7ce7df-ef67-40eb-8d72-661ed2fb85f5" CreationDate="2016-11-30T02:58:00.677" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed tags" Text="|heating|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13488" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="2c7ce7df-ef67-40eb-8d72-661ed2fb85f5" CreationDate="2016-11-30T02:58:00.677" Comment="Proposed by 3379 approved by 96, 99 edit id of 434" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5674" RevisionGUID="ed759aec-261e-4eaf-bbdd-aa7f29345ffb" CreationDate="2016-11-30T03:00:21.333" UserId="659" Text="I think you're right that building your own is likely to be necessary (we're in the same position). What I've discovered in Australia is broadly applicable in the global north, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An [earthship](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/search?q=earthship) can't be sustainable, and is not designed to be sustainable - they are about being self-contained within a very narrow definition of the term. They rely on free labour from outsiders for the build. Lots and lots of free labour. If you have to pay for the labour, very few people can afford the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The [TinyHouse movement][1] is as much about [not building more  than you need][2] as about going tiny, and everyone can do that. I have used some of their ideas to adjust my expectations, but I'm also that way inclined to start with, so our current plans are under 60m² habitable space for a couple with a spare bedroom. We're using a &quot;dutch bed&quot; or bed-in-cupboard with a separate office/computer room, for example, rather than a &quot;master bedroom&quot;, so one of us can sleep while the other works/plays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the Hanse House looks like a bigger version of what I've ended up wanting. Or more accurately, I want more workshop space and less single-purpose interior space, so I've made different design choices. But broadly, yes, design a small house, add a spare room, and build that. The space room will end up being used, so put it in when you build - they're expensive to add later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* refitting a run-down house can be done, but the usual reason is so that a DIY builder can avoid needing a construction loan and to reduce the number of permits required (and the property can be inhabited throughout the build... note that I didn't say &quot;habitable&quot;, just &quot;inhabited&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* buying an existing house is best done so you can rent it out and live in the new granny-flat you build on the block of land. It's called &quot;in-fill development&quot; and many local governments are keen on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have done a bunch of research locally, and ended up wanting to use SIPS purely for the ease of getting a passivhaus standard build (although likely not paying for the certification). That standard is hard to reach with conventional build processes, not least because fixing problems and re-attempting certification can be insanely expensive and require compromising the structure or philosophy (you start with a nice green insulation material, but then you discover air leaks and either tear half the house down or re-seal with sprayfoam... as one example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth paying a builder who has done this before just to save you a great deal of &quot;first time woes&quot;, even if that means getting someone from across the country. Ideally you'll find a local who wants to get into it, and they will work with an existing builder from somewhere else. We may yet end up using a Tasmanian company in Sydney because they want to expand this way. The benefit is they're likely to give you a discount/better service because they want you to be their demonstration and ideally a bit of a show home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest being open to your local experts, too. It doesn't matter if you have chosen the best technology/product in the world if you can't get it installed and working properly. Much better to go with what the local green technician likes, because they will also likely know about the maintenance and warranty issues. We contacted a company in another state who sell a combined solar hot water + electricity installation service and asked them, they recommended a couple of local installers, and one of them looked at my idea and said &quot;cheaper and simpler to have separate hot water and PV&quot;... and convinced me. He does do the combined product, but only on demand and only with a five year warranty. Apparently after 7-10 years they fall apart and can't be repaired. BUT, you will have different products with different products... ask the local expert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that any expert is almost certain to tell you that off-grid is an expensive, silly idea. It's anti-social so it fails that leg of the sustainability test, but it also means paying for a great deal of capacity that you will very rarely use. Much better in many ways to go grid-optional with 2-10 days of runtime depending on the season. You may also struggle to get off-grid sewer treatment approved at all for a single dwelling (and it will be expensive, in NSW you're looking at more than $1000/quarter for testing and certification for the smallest system because they expect that &quot;smallest system&quot; will be a subdivision).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found our local &quot;[Alternative Technology Association (ATA)][3]&quot; very useful for this stuff. I suggest trying to find something similar in the UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thetinylife.com/what-is-the-tiny-house-movement/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://rockymountaintinyhouses.com/about/philosophy/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ata.org.au" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5662" RevisionGUID="f80b9be3-874c-408d-9f98-ad16cc7b831c" CreationDate="2016-11-30T03:26:23.127" UserId="99" Comment="removed previous version of question (this is accessible in the post edit history anyways)" Text="I live on the ground floor of a block of flats (apartments) in London, UK. Below me (basement / -1 level) is the block’s communal boiler providing hot water for the taps and hot water for the radiators in each flat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately my flat gets hotter than I would like. I rarely use the radiators and make the educated guess that it is heat rising from the equipment downstairs conducting through the floor (concrete slab / screed etc.). To illustrate I have record temperatures of 12 degrees Celsius / 45 Fahrenheit outside whilst 26 degrees / 79 Fahrenheit inside my flat with radiators off.  I am trying to address the issue at source with the block’s owners / management however a year on little movement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of renovating the flat I am replacing flooring with an engineered wood floor. It feels that I may as well try and add some thermal insulation whilst doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this forum I have seen [someone refer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/421) to insulation in issues of conduction being most effective when between the heat source and the conductive material / layer. In this instance this would be to insulate the ceiling downstairs in the boiler room. There is already some insulation down there and I will continue to press the issue for a more / better insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would be interested in opinions on if it is worth me insulating my side?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will use a damp proof layer / vapour layer between the insulation and the chipboard / engineered wood floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One concern I have is could it make the heat issue worse in my flat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5674" RevisionGUID="933f0c68-dffb-4539-aba2-a1bfbe07a024" CreationDate="2016-11-30T04:28:24.547" UserId="659" Comment="o can spel" Text="I think you're right that building your own is likely to be necessary (we're in the same position). What I've discovered in Australia is broadly applicable in the global north, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An [earthship](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/search?q=earthship) can't be sustainable, and is not designed to be sustainable - they are about being self-contained within a very narrow definition of the term. They rely on free labour from outsiders for the build. Lots and lots of free labour. If you have to pay for the labour, very few people can afford the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The [TinyHouse movement][1] is as much about [not building more  than you need][2] as about going tiny, and everyone can do that. I have used some of their ideas to adjust my expectations, but I'm also that way inclined to start with, so our current plans are under 60m² habitable space for a couple with a spare bedroom. We're using a &quot;dutch bed&quot; or bed-in-cupboard with a separate office/computer room, for example, rather than a &quot;master bedroom&quot;, so one of us can sleep while the other works/plays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the Hanse House looks like a bigger version of what I've ended up wanting. Or more accurately, I want more workshop space and less single-purpose interior space, so I've made different design choices. But broadly, yes, design a small house, add a spare room, and build that. The spare room will end up being used, so put it in when you build - they're expensive to add later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* refitting a run-down house can be done, but the usual reason is so that a DIY builder can avoid needing a construction loan and to reduce the number of permits required (and the property can be inhabited throughout the build... note that I didn't say &quot;habitable&quot;, just &quot;inhabited&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* buying an existing house is best done so you can rent it out and live in the new granny-flat you build on the block of land. It's called &quot;in-fill development&quot; and many local governments are keen on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have done a bunch of research locally, and ended up wanting to use SIPS purely for the ease of getting a passivhaus standard build (although likely not paying for the certification). That standard is hard to reach with conventional build processes, not least because fixing problems and re-attempting certification can be insanely expensive and require compromising the structure or philosophy (you start with a nice green insulation material, but then you discover air leaks and either tear half the house down or re-seal with sprayfoam... as one example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth paying a builder who has done this before just to save you a great deal of &quot;first time woes&quot;, even if that means getting someone from across the country. Ideally you'll find a local who wants to get into it, and they will work with an existing builder from somewhere else. We may yet end up using a Tasmanian company in Sydney because they want to expand this way. The benefit is they're likely to give you a discount/better service because they want you to be their demonstration and ideally a bit of a show home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest being open to your local experts, too. It doesn't matter if you have chosen the best technology/product in the world if you can't get it installed and working properly. Much better to go with what the local green technician likes, because they will also likely know about the maintenance and warranty issues. We contacted a company in another state who sell a combined solar hot water + electricity installation service and asked them, they recommended a couple of local installers, and one of them looked at my idea and said &quot;cheaper and simpler to have separate hot water and PV&quot;... and convinced me. He does do the combined product, but only on demand and only with a five year warranty. Apparently after 7-10 years they fall apart and can't be repaired. You will have different products with different problems... ask the local expert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that any expert is almost certain to tell you that off-grid is an expensive, silly idea. It's anti-social so it fails that leg of the sustainability test, but it also means paying for a great deal of capacity that you will very rarely use. Much better in many ways to go grid-optional with 2-10 days of runtime depending on the season. You may also struggle to get off-grid sewer treatment approved at all for a single dwelling (and it will be expensive, in NSW you're looking at more than $1000/quarter for testing and certification for the smallest system because they expect that &quot;smallest system&quot; will be a subdivision).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found our local &quot;[Alternative Technology Association (ATA)][3]&quot; very useful for this stuff. I suggest trying to find something similar in the UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thetinylife.com/what-is-the-tiny-house-movement/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://rockymountaintinyhouses.com/about/philosophy/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ata.org.au" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13494" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5642" RevisionGUID="90f79272-b5a0-494b-a6c5-d4f8ba6ff63b" CreationDate="2016-11-30T14:29:00.890" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/803969081636507648" />
  <row Id="13495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="b9180c81-6ce4-40d6-b24c-bcc01120ee80" CreationDate="2016-11-30T21:34:48.083" UserId="4022" Text="Are there any bathroom fans or range hood fans that have a mechanical damper built in that fully seals when the fan is turned off? In other words, it shouldn't let any air in OR out when the fan is off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can hear the dampers that I currently have flap open in the wind. I've also seen thermal images of fans showing that a significant amount of thermal leakage is occuring. For instance, see the comments [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [&quot;Larson Fan&quot; damper][2] might be what I'm looking for, but I can't be 100% sure from the website's diagrams, and it'd be an expensive gamble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems like it should be an easy thing to solve, and an expensive source of energy loss, so I'm surprised I've found so little information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/community/forum/green-products-and-materials/21014/why-are-bath-fan-dampers-so-lousy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.larsonfan.com/index.php?app=cms&amp;ns=display&amp;ref=Why" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13496" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="b9180c81-6ce4-40d6-b24c-bcc01120ee80" CreationDate="2016-11-30T21:34:48.083" UserId="4022" Text="Mechanical damper built in to vent fan?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13497" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5675" RevisionGUID="b9180c81-6ce4-40d6-b24c-bcc01120ee80" CreationDate="2016-11-30T21:34:48.083" UserId="4022" Text="|air-conditioning|ventilation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13498" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5662" RevisionGUID="1b43666d-f534-4796-be1d-2a6b11e1f38c" CreationDate="2016-12-01T02:31:48.380" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/804150978396168193" />
  <row Id="13499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="c28b77ce-4042-4d36-b323-4faa3e6429be" CreationDate="2016-12-01T04:24:04.617" UserId="99" Text="**Materials**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Nike materials make up around 60% of the environmental impact of its shoes](http://news.nike.com/news/nike-inc-and-mit-climate-colab-materials-innovation-to-combat-climate-chang). Especially leather, synthetic plastics, and certain hybrid materials have a big impact, but also cotton, dyes and glues. The big impact of leather comes from raising cattle and the chemicals typically used in the tanning process (chromium). Plastics and hybrids are usually made from oil, and cotton is grown using lots of water, fertilizer and pesticides. Dyes and glues contain chemicals that negatively affect the environment as well as the health of the workers that manufacture shoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that vegan leather isn't necessarily a more sustainable choice because it can be made from PVC which is one of the worst types of plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Carbon footprint**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A typical pair of synthetic trainers generates 30lbs (13.6 kg) of emissions, equivalent to leaving a 100-watt bulb burning for a week ([source](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/23/running-shoes-carbon-footprint))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most shoes are made in Asia, but surprisingly transportation is only a small part of a shoe's carbon footprint. [Researchers from MIT did a life-cycle analysis](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652612006300) of an ASICS synthetic sport shoe and found that transport on average only accounts for 3% of the shoe's carbon footprint, and at most adds up to 7% when shipping to Canada (which is the farthest from China where the shoe came from). Raw material extraction and processing accounted for about 29% of the total carbon footprint and the manufacturing process was responsible for 68%. The reason why manufacturing has such a large footprint is because a single shoe consists of many parts that require multiple processing steps for assembly. The machines in Asian factories that perform these steps typically run on electricity generated by coal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Labor conditions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Developing countries like India and Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent also China, do not have strong worker safety or environmental protection standards. Workers are often exposed to toxic chemicals and left-over chemicals are often spilled or dumped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before buying shoes investigate the effort the manufacturer takes to be more sustainable. You already mentioned [Rankabrand](https://rankabrand.org) in your question and you can use that website to investigate if a shoe maker is fair-trade certified and working on reducing it's environmental impact. A similar website is EthicalConsumer.org which has a section on [shoes](http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/clothing/shoes.aspx), but the newest reviews there are behind a paywall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a shoe manufacturer is not listed on Rankabrand or EthicalConsumer you can check websites or annual reports to find out of a manufacturer is using environmentally friendly materials, trying to reduce the number of processing steps in manufacturing, or switching to renewable energy in their factories. Good materials to look for are natural materials such as hemp, jute, organic cotton, bamboo, vegetable-based dyes and perhaps recycled plastics. If you are really set on leather, go for vegetable-tanned leather or better yet [Piñatex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piñatex)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="d12e2d29-f40e-41a9-9f7d-5f1ef6b67326" CreationDate="2016-12-01T04:29:37.643" UserId="99" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="**Materials**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Nike materials make up around 60% of the environmental impact of its shoes](http://news.nike.com/news/nike-inc-and-mit-climate-colab-materials-innovation-to-combat-climate-chang). Especially leather, synthetic plastics, and certain hybrid materials have a big impact, but also cotton, dyes and glues. The big impact of leather comes from raising cattle and the chemicals typically used in the tanning process (chromium). Plastics and hybrids are usually made from oil, and cotton is grown using lots of water, fertilizer and pesticides. Dyes and glues contain chemicals that negatively affect the environment as well as the health of the workers that manufacture shoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that vegan leather isn't necessarily a more sustainable choice because it can be made from PVC which is one of the worst types of plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Carbon footprint**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A typical pair of synthetic trainers generates 30lbs (13.6 kg) of emissions, equivalent to leaving a 100-watt bulb burning for a week ([source](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/23/running-shoes-carbon-footprint))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most shoes are made in Asia, but surprisingly transportation is only a small part of a shoe's carbon footprint. [Researchers from MIT did a life-cycle analysis](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652612006300) of an ASICS synthetic sport shoe and found that transport on average only accounts for 3% of the shoe's carbon footprint, and at most adds up to 7% when shipping to Canada (which is the farthest from China where the shoe came from). Raw material extraction and processing accounted for about 29% of the total carbon footprint and the manufacturing process was responsible for 68%. The reason why manufacturing has such a large footprint is because a single shoe consists of many parts that require multiple processing steps for assembly. The machines in Asian factories that perform these steps typically run on electricity generated by coal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Labor conditions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Developing countries like India and Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent also China, do not have strong worker safety or environmental protection standards. Workers are often exposed to toxic chemicals and left-over chemicals are often spilled or dumped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before buying shoes investigate the effort the manufacturer takes to be more sustainable. You already mentioned [Rankabrand](https://rankabrand.org) in your question and you can use that website to investigate if a shoe maker is fair-trade certified and working on reducing it's environmental impact. A similar website is EthicalConsumer.org which has a [section on shoes](http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/clothing/shoes.aspx) with interesting background information, but the newest company reviews there are behind a paywall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a shoe manufacturer is not listed on Rankabrand or EthicalConsumer you can check websites or annual reports to find out of a manufacturer is using environmentally friendly materials, trying to reduce the number of processing steps in manufacturing, or switching to renewable energy in their factories. Good materials to look for are natural materials such as hemp, jute, organic cotton, bamboo, vegetable-based dyes and perhaps recycled plastics. If you are really set on leather, go for vegetable-tanned leather or better yet [Piñatex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piñatex)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="cf14814c-80e7-48f1-b797-49e259544acb" CreationDate="2016-12-01T04:40:13.507" UserId="99" Comment="added part about longevity" Text="**Materials**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Nike materials make up around 60% of the environmental impact of its shoes](http://news.nike.com/news/nike-inc-and-mit-climate-colab-materials-innovation-to-combat-climate-chang). Especially leather, synthetic plastics, and certain hybrid materials have a big impact, but also cotton, dyes and glues. The big impact of leather comes from raising cattle and the chemicals typically used in the tanning process (chromium). Plastics and hybrids are usually made from oil, and cotton is grown using lots of water, fertilizer and pesticides. Dyes and glues contain chemicals that negatively affect the environment as well as the health of the workers that manufacture shoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that vegan leather isn't necessarily a more sustainable choice because it can be made from PVC which is one of the worst types of plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Carbon footprint**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A typical pair of synthetic trainers generates 30lbs (13.6 kg) of emissions, equivalent to leaving a 100-watt bulb burning for a week ([source](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/23/running-shoes-carbon-footprint))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most shoes are made in Asia, but surprisingly transportation is only a small part of a shoe's carbon footprint. [Researchers from MIT did a life-cycle analysis](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652612006300) of an ASICS synthetic sport shoe and found that transport on average only accounts for 3% of the shoe's carbon footprint, and at most adds up to 7% when shipping to Canada (which is the farthest from China where the shoe came from). Raw material extraction and processing accounted for about 29% of the total carbon footprint and the manufacturing process was responsible for 68%. The reason why manufacturing has such a large footprint is because a single shoe consists of many parts that require multiple processing steps for assembly. The machines in Asian factories that perform these steps typically run on electricity generated by coal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Labor conditions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Developing countries like India and Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent also China, do not have strong worker safety or environmental protection standards. Workers are often exposed to toxic chemicals and left-over chemicals are often spilled or dumped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Recommendations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before buying shoes investigate the effort the manufacturer takes to be more sustainable. You already mentioned [Rankabrand](https://rankabrand.org) in your question and you can use that website to investigate if a shoe maker is fair-trade certified and working on reducing it's environmental impact. A similar website is EthicalConsumer.org which has a [section on shoes](http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/clothing/shoes.aspx) with interesting background information, but the newest company reviews there are behind a paywall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a shoe manufacturer is not listed on Rankabrand or EthicalConsumer you can check websites or annual reports to find out of a manufacturer is using environmentally friendly materials, trying to reduce the number of processing steps in manufacturing, or switching to renewable energy in their factories. Good materials to look for are natural materials such as hemp, jute, organic cotton, bamboo, vegetable-based dyes and perhaps recycled plastics. If you are really set on leather, go for vegetable-tanned leather or better yet [Piñatex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piñatex).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately it's hard to tell in advance what the quality is of a pair of shoes and how long they will last, otherwise you could take that into the equation as well. The least impact comes from not buying new shoes often and wearing your old ones as long as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13502" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="6ec6f516-ef24-413e-9d7b-fe5ff9214908" CreationDate="2016-12-01T05:10:38.703" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://expatriates.stackexchange.com/questions/9778/are-building-certificates-under-eu-directive-2002-91-ec-such-as-epc-energieaus" />
  <row Id="13503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="f7381aef-f647-4c53-943a-56c2afb010d6" CreationDate="2016-11-29T19:10:11.387" UserId="106" Text="Implementing [Directive 2002/91/EC](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002L0091), the UK have the [Energy Performance Certificate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Performance_Certificate) (EPC), Belgium has the [Energieprestatiecertificaat](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energieprestatiecertificaat) (EPC), Germany has Energieausweis, France has *Diagnostic de performance énergétique* (DPE), etc.  All are graded A-G.  Can they be directly compared?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I rent a studio in England with an EPC which states a typical consumption of 354 kWh/m²/yr and classifies it as C.  But on a Belgian real estate site I find homes with 205 kWh/m²/yr and D, 140 kwH/m²/yr and C, or 280 kWh/m²/yr and F, and the [French Wikipedia](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_de_performance_%C3%A9nerg%C3%A9tique#Positionnement_en_consommation_et_gaz_.C3.A0_effet_de_serre_.28pour_les_logements.29) would place 354 kWh/m²/yr in grade F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a common system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13504" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="f7381aef-f647-4c53-943a-56c2afb010d6" CreationDate="2016-11-29T19:10:11.387" UserId="106" Text="Are building certificates under EU Directive 2002/91/EC, such as EPC, Energieausweis, DPE, directly comparable between EU countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13505" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="f7381aef-f647-4c53-943a-56c2afb010d6" CreationDate="2016-11-29T19:10:11.387" UserId="106" Text="|housing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13506" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="a3a93fb6-8454-4d31-9c0a-31e183d9bc34" CreationDate="2016-12-01T05:31:48.047" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/804196275155587072" />
  <row Id="13509" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="a1b2a874-7e48-4492-ae66-d1a456d86670" CreationDate="2016-12-01T08:50:39.973" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy-efficiency|insulation|housing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="aaf7b131-4fc4-48d1-ab9a-2710d2fba131" CreationDate="2016-12-01T11:06:37.493" UserId="106" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="Implementing [Directive 2002/91/EC](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002L0091), the UK have the [Energy Performance Certificate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Performance_Certificate) (EPC), Belgium has the [Energieprestatiecertificaat](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energieprestatiecertificaat) (EPC), Germany has Energieausweis, France has *Diagnostic de performance énergétique* (DPE), etc.  All are graded A-G.  Can they be directly compared?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I rent a studio in England with an EPC which states a typical consumption of 354 kWh/m²/yr and classifies it as C.  But on a Belgian real estate site I find homes with 205 kWh/m²/yr and D, 140 kwH/m²/yr and C, or 280 kWh/m²/yr and F, and the [French Wikipedia](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_de_performance_%C3%A9nerg%C3%A9tique#Positionnement_en_consommation_et_gaz_.C3.A0_effet_de_serre_.28pour_les_logements.29) would place 354 kWh/m²/yr in grade F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine it's not entirely fair to compare absolute heating costs between different climates.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a common system that defines the A-G scale?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5678" RevisionGUID="4fd01ba3-bc30-400a-92ba-f3b1d821cfd7" CreationDate="2016-12-01T16:56:26.537" UserId="4034" Text="Jumping into this late but I couldn't help it because this is what I do for a living (guide major corporations on recycling).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mark you have simply means that the bag is plastic (it's not identifying which type).  As mentioned above, it's the same as SPI codes (the numbers in the chasing arrows).  No fee is paid to any organization for use of this code.  It's just to help recyclers identify what material they're receiving.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately because they didn't call out what type it was, it's not completely knowable.  However, plastic bags are generally made with PE (polyethene, either LDPE or HDPE (the LD and HD refer to density levels)).  Either way, you can place it in a proper recycling stream (either at a retail location or at a transfer station) and the recyclers can chose to keep it or weed it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps!  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5679" RevisionGUID="ec2a3544-0945-4465-a0ea-444d20c0673e" CreationDate="2016-12-01T19:18:55.860" UserId="99" Text="There isn't really a single agreed-upon definition of sustainability. Everyone has a basic idea of what it is, but the exact meaning differs from person to person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Most common definition**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common and often-cited definition of sustainability, or to be more precise that of sustainable development, is the one in the [Brundtland report &quot;Our common future&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability#Etymology):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this definition does give some direction, it is not very usable because it raises a lot of questions. What exactly is a 'need'? Where do we draw the line between a need and a want? How can we know the needs of future generations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Context and time dependent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact meaning of sustainability often depends on the context; a sustainable supply chain for example usually considers primarily the economics of it, whereas a sustainable building is usually about energy-efficiency and perhaps also about the environmental impact of the used construction materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of sustainability also changes with time. In the 'early days' sustainability was all about environmental protection. Nowadays a common view on sustainability is that of the 'triple bottom line' or the 3 pillars; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [social sustainability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sustainability),&#xD;&#xA; - environmental sustainability,&#xD;&#xA; - economical sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also referred to as the 3 Ps; people, planet, profit. Although this view is widely accepted, for some it doesn't go far enough and they propose to add [culture as a 4th pillar of sustainability](http://www.culturaldevelopment.net.au/publications/books-journals/fourth-pillar/).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainability on this website**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Sustainable Living SE we've tried to define sustainability by describing its relations with other concepts (which is the purpose of the [tag:defining-sustainability] tag). Since sustainability can mean many things, when an OP refers to sustainability in a question without further clarification it is recommended to ask what aspect of sustainability he/she is interested in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="f8e3deae-9666-49de-86a9-b1bd4a85ee12" CreationDate="2016-12-01T20:30:34.857" UserId="3641" Comment="corrected itemization; moved links" Text="I am pursuing a science project involving wind power, and am looking for some data on wind speeds, directions, and ideally turbulence and shear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know where I could find this? I would need to be able to download a file of this data that can be used in the programming language MATLAB.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have found these two sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [50-meter wind from National Renewable Energy Laboratory][1] &#xD;&#xA;- [NOAA Federal Climate Complex Integrated Surface Data Inventory][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think these would suit my purpose? I am trying to predict wind turbine energy output based on speed, direction, and/or turbulence and shear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13514" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="f8e3deae-9666-49de-86a9-b1bd4a85ee12" CreationDate="2016-12-01T20:30:34.857" Comment="Proposed by 3641 approved by 2345, 659 edit id of 435" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13515" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4370" RevisionGUID="6bf41624-722d-4f0d-9134-9de98f1aadfc" CreationDate="2016-12-01T20:33:39.813" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/804423236616409088" />
  <row Id="13516" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4624" RevisionGUID="bf0aeedf-7f1f-4347-809c-ebd389db103d" CreationDate="2016-12-01T22:36:42.297" UserId="85" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:659,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Móż&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="78e36857-8a08-4083-b9dd-d4c99e60328a" CreationDate="2016-12-01T23:41:16.270" UserId="106" Comment="added full quotation of European law" Text="Implementing [Directive 2002/91/EC](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002L0091), the UK have the [Energy Performance Certificate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Performance_Certificate) (EPC), Belgium has the [Energieprestatiecertificaat](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energieprestatiecertificaat) (EPC), Germany has Energieausweis, France has *Diagnostic de performance énergétique* (DPE), etc.  All are graded A-G.  Can they be directly compared?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I rent a studio in England with an EPC which states a typical consumption of 354 kWh/m²/yr and classifies it as C.  But on a Belgian real estate site I find homes with 205 kWh/m²/yr and D, 140 kwH/m²/yr and C, or 280 kWh/m²/yr and F, and the [French Wikipedia](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_de_performance_%C3%A9nerg%C3%A9tique#Positionnement_en_consommation_et_gaz_.C3.A0_effet_de_serre_.28pour_les_logements.29) would place 354 kWh/m²/yr in grade F.  [This Swedish certificate](http://docplayer.se/6077174-Energideklaration-kaglinge-bygata-10-238-43-oxie-malmo-stad-sammanfattning-av-nybyggnadsar-1984-energideklarations-id-660616.html) describes that new housing in Sweden must use at most 50 kWh/m²/yr, which there is apparently class C, even though Sweden is much colder than Belgium, France, or the UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine it's not entirely fair to compare absolute heating costs between different climates.&#xD;&#xA;Is there a common system that defines the A-G scale?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Article 7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Energy performance certificate**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Member States shall ensure that, when buildings are constructed, sold or rented out, an energy performance certificate is made available to the owner or by the owner to the prospective buyer or tenant, as the case might be. The validity of the certificate shall not exceed 10 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Certification for apartments or units designed for separate use in blocks may be based:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - on a common certification of the whole building for blocks with a common heating system, or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - on the assessment of another representative apartment in the same block.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Member States may exclude the categories referred to in Article 4(3) from the application of this paragraph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The energy performance certificate for buildings shall include reference values such as current legal standards and benchmarks in order to make it possible for consumers to compare and assess the energy performance of the building. The certificate shall be accompanied by recommendations for the cost-effective improvement of the energy performance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The objective of the certificates shall be limited to the provision of information and any effects of these certificates in terms of legal proceedings or otherwise shall be decided in accordance with national rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Member States shall take measures to ensure that for buildings with a total useful floor area over 1000 m2 occupied by public authorities and by institutions providing public services to a large number of persons and therefore frequently visited by these persons an energy certificate, not older than 10 years, is placed in a prominent place clearly visible to the public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The range of recommended and current indoor temperatures and, when appropriate, other relevant climatic factors may also be clearly displayed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source: [Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Official Journal L 001 , 04/01/2003 P. 0065 - 0071](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32002L0091))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5680" RevisionGUID="1d440837-d019-477d-a278-0fcb88eb6a67" CreationDate="2016-12-02T02:20:44.740" UserId="3379" Text="I have often wondered the same thing. [This video by ASAPScience](https://youtu.be/2g4fWaegoDk)  finally answers the question in a satisfying way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hygiene:** If you do it right, **both** options are the same in terms of hygiene - but paper towels are faster. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environment:** **Dryers win** - the energy used is less than what it takes to produce an equivalent amount of paper towel, and of course no trees were cut down." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13519" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5042" RevisionGUID="93550cb4-67ce-4d7c-ad7f-a6602659fb32" CreationDate="2016-12-02T02:34:04.003" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/804513934673870848" />
  <row Id="13520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="a03e92e5-435a-4c5d-802e-39bee1b8669e" CreationDate="2016-12-02T12:53:25.703" UserId="3641" Comment="corrected link" Text="I am pursuing a science project involving wind power, and am looking for some data on wind speeds, directions, and ideally turbulence and shear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know where I could find this? I would need to be able to download a file of this data that can be used in the programming language MATLAB.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have found these two sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [50-meter wind from National Renewable Energy Laboratory][1]&#xD;&#xA;- [NOAA Federal Climate Complex Integrated Surface Data Inventory][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think these would suit my purpose? I am trying to predict wind turbine energy output based on speed, direction, and/or turbulence and shear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/data_wind.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaa/2016/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13521" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5639" RevisionGUID="a03e92e5-435a-4c5d-802e-39bee1b8669e" CreationDate="2016-12-02T12:53:25.703" Comment="Proposed by 3641 approved by 85 edit id of 436" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5681" RevisionGUID="1ed12065-c4f4-49d9-a7f7-9db637c2a792" CreationDate="2016-12-03T00:08:19.817" UserId="3080" Text="For a sustainable solution, place dried bamboo in areas with the highest humidity.  Bamboo naturally absorbs moisture, odors, bacteria, pollutants and allergens.  If you can't grow bamboo in your climate, try [Moso Natural][1] for product ideas.  And you recharge the bamboo by placing it in the sun for a couple hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mosonatural.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5682" RevisionGUID="50b330fe-df75-4eb0-96b5-b798bbb14ad6" CreationDate="2016-12-03T01:48:54.967" UserId="400" Text="My high efficiency water heater has an electric damper.  Conventional butterfly plate.  The unit had a separate data sheet, so it wasn't part of the furnace itself.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try HVAC stores.  Explain the problem.  You may be able to find an off the wall solution. Failing that, you may be able just run an electric damper in parallel with the fan.   There would be some back pressure while the fan started, and the damper was opening.  May shorten fan life a trifle.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think Allied Granger carries electric dampers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way that isn't as effective but may be sufficient is to spring load the vent slats on a conventional fan exit, or wire weights (washers work well) to the slats so they close better.  This would decrease the efficiency of the fan, as it would take more pressure to open the slats." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5683" RevisionGUID="a63db017-1d5a-4820-aff6-2d00d05d992b" CreationDate="2016-12-03T04:22:17.653" UserId="3379" Text="The common definition for **renewable energy sources** includes at least:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wind&#xD;&#xA; - Solar&#xD;&#xA; - Biofuels&#xD;&#xA; - Hydro&#xD;&#xA; - Geo-thermal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the common definition of renewable makes this grouping a bit awkward. [Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/renewable) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **renewable**, *adjective*: capable of being replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This easily describes biofuels and hydro - some resource (biological material, flowing water) is used, and then through a natural cycle (photosynthesis, rain), is replenished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in the cases of wind, solar, and geothermal, this isn't so obvious -- nothing is being used up (at least not in a measurable quantity) which would need to be renewed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, there's no need to manage wind, solar, and geothermal energy -- it isn't possible, on human scales, to overuse these. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But obviously it is possible to overuse hydro and biofuel resources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, should there be subcategories?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13525" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5683" RevisionGUID="a63db017-1d5a-4820-aff6-2d00d05d992b" CreationDate="2016-12-03T04:22:17.653" UserId="3379" Text="Is &quot;renewable&quot; a proper term for both solar and hydro power?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13526" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5683" RevisionGUID="a63db017-1d5a-4820-aff6-2d00d05d992b" CreationDate="2016-12-03T04:22:17.653" UserId="3379" Text="|renewables|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5684" RevisionGUID="3cd5f284-e136-4b4a-9304-3f9eba6c7c17" CreationDate="2016-12-03T06:47:10.827" UserId="48" Text="There are lots of ways to subcategorise renewables, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Indirect + direct solar (wind, wave, hydro, biomass, biogas, PV, CSP, solar thermal, - and what's used up here in all cases is incoming solar energy), versus others (tidal &amp; geothermal)&#xD;&#xA;- Combustion (biomass, biogas) versus others&#xD;&#xA;- Heat engines (geothermal, biomass, biogas) versus others&#xD;&#xA;- portable (biofuel, wind) versus others&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so on. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which subcategories we use, depend on what the context is. It is theoretically possible to over-exploit any of them, leading to significant harm. That's most conspicuously true of biomass and hydro, but is true of the others too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You say it isn't possible on human scales to over-exploit them, but the science isn't unambiguous on this. For example, hot-dry-rock geothermal can cause [earth tremors](http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/man-made-tremor-shakes-basel/46232), which may cause damage to urban areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And conceivably, we could extract so much energy from the wind that it starts to disrupt climatic patterns. It's not clear how much energy we can extract before such disruption occurs, but it might be as low as 10 terawatts [TW]. Now, given human energy consumption is already ~18 TW, and there's a lot of development work still to do in emerging economies, that will increase further, so it is conceivable that we might get to 10 TW: and before we do, we'll need better modelling and monitoring to ensure that that's safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we (globally) need to be mindful that there may be limits on exploitation of any of the renewable resources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5679" RevisionGUID="24e14560-444b-46f6-8732-b4aa5164f3ba" CreationDate="2016-12-03T13:20:42.103" UserId="99" Comment="added sentence about answering questions" Text="There isn't really a single agreed-upon definition of sustainability. Everyone has a basic idea of what it is, but the exact meaning differs from person to person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Most common definition**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common and often-cited definition of sustainability, or to be more precise that of sustainable development, is the one in the [Brundtland report &quot;Our common future&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability#Etymology):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although this definition does give some direction, it is not very usable. What exactly is a 'need'? Where do we draw the line between a need and a want? How can we know the needs of future generations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Context and time dependent**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact meaning of sustainability often depends on the context. A sustainable supply chain for example usually considers primarily the economics of it, whereas a sustainable building is usually about energy-efficiency and perhaps also about the environmental impact of the used construction materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meaning of sustainability also changes with time. In the 'early days' sustainability was all about environmental protection. Nowadays a common view on sustainability is that of the 'triple bottom line' or the 3 pillars; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [social sustainability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sustainability),&#xD;&#xA; - environmental sustainability,&#xD;&#xA; - economic sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also referred to as the 3 Ps; people, planet, profit. Although this view is widely accepted, for some it doesn't go far enough and they propose to add [culture as a 4th pillar of sustainability](http://www.culturaldevelopment.net.au/publications/books-journals/fourth-pillar/).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainability on this website**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On Sustainable Living SE we've tried to define sustainability by describing its relations with other concepts (which is the purpose of the [tag:defining-sustainability] tag). Since sustainability can mean many things, when an OP refers to sustainability in a question without further clarification, it is recommended to ask what aspect of sustainability he/she is interested in. When answering questions, it is a good idea to mention what aspects of sustainability you've taken into account in your answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5685" RevisionGUID="0bc5702a-49a7-4404-b47d-6b8b66bf288b" CreationDate="2016-12-04T05:38:06.377" UserId="400" Text="Actually with wind power it may be possible to overuse them.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the wiki article: [&quot;Environmental Impact of Wind Power&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Weather and climate change** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wind farms may affect weather in their immediate vicinity. This turbulence from spinning wind turbine rotors&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increases vertical mixing of heat and water vapor that affects the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; meteorological conditions downwind, including rainfall.[107] Overall,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wind farms lead to a slight warming at night and a slight cooling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; during the day time. This effect can be reduced by using more&#xD;&#xA;&gt; efficient rotors or placing wind farms in regions with high natural&#xD;&#xA;&gt; turbulence. Warming at night could &quot;benefit agriculture by decreasing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; frost damage and extending the growing season. Many farmers already do&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this with air circulators&quot;.[108][109][110]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; A number of studies have used climate models to study the effect of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; extremely large wind farms. One study reports simulations that show&#xD;&#xA;&gt; detectable changes in global climate for very high wind farm usage, on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the order of 10% of the world's land area. Wind power has a negligible&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effect on global mean surface temperature, and it would deliver&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;enormous global benefits by reducing emissions of CO2 and air&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pollutants&quot;.[111] Another peer-reviewed study suggested that using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wind turbines to meet 10 percent of global energy demand in 2100 could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; actually have a warming effect, causing temperatures to rise by 1 °C&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (1.8 °F) in the regions on land where the wind farms are installed,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including a smaller increase in areas beyond those regions. This is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; due to the effect of wind turbines on both horizontal and vertical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; atmospheric circulation. Whilst turbines installed in water would have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a cooling effect, the net impact on global surface temperatures would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be an increase of 0.15 °C (0.27 °F). Author Ron Prinn cautioned&#xD;&#xA;&gt; against interpreting the study &quot;as an argument against wind power,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; urging that it be used to guide future research&quot;. &quot;We’re not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pessimistic about wind,&quot; he said. &quot;We haven’t absolutely proven this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effect, and we’d rather see that people do further research&quot;.[112]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article][2] points out that there is a limit to how much wind energy we can sustainably harvest.  With high altitude turbines it's about 1800 terawatts.  Not something to worry about before Tuesday.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar power too.  A solar panel is much darker than the land around it.  Suppose you put down a 20 mile square of panels covering 80% of the available surface.  Now you have a large chunk that has an albedo of .1 instead of the more typical .35.  The solar cells get hot.  Hot air rises.  And you end up with a semipermanent cloud directly over your solar array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geothermal is NOT a renewable resource. But it is far more benign than fossil fuel.  As you use it, you cool off the rocks where the steam is created.  It doesn't decay all at once, but you have to wait longer and longer as a larger and larger volume of rock is cooled.  I recall that in iceland it becomes uneconomic after a decade or so, and they move the power plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/the-sky-isnt-the-limit-of-wind-power-14964" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13530" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5686" RevisionGUID="35e7529a-cbe9-493b-af19-aa601605d61e" CreationDate="2016-12-04T09:58:19.953" UserId="812" Text="&gt; However, in the cases of wind, solar, and geothermal, this isn't so&#xD;&#xA;&gt; obvious -- nothing is being used up (at least not in a measurable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; quantity) which would need to be renewed.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Furthermore, there's no need to manage wind, solar, and geothermal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; energy -- it isn't possible, on human scales, to overuse these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For wind and solar there isn't a &quot;store&quot; that is being used up and replenished - instead the energy flux from the sun is being diverted. Wind power removes some of the kinetic energy from the atmosphere. This energy comes from the sun as heat, and after being converted to electricity and &quot;used&quot; will end up as heat, so the net result is the same, with some of the conversion being done in human appliances rather than atmospheric turbulence. The scale of what we divert is tiny in comparison with the global energy flux, but as others have noted the human-induced changes can be seen in local areas, and if we were to scale wind up enough might be noticeable globally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar is more direct: There is a certain amount of sunlight falling on a given area of the planet. Normally it will be converted to heat, but with a photovoltaic panel in the way a fraction of it will be converted to electricity instead, and will then later be converted to heat (by an electrical appliance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geothermal is different, and at human scales may or may not be renewable, depending on the rate at which heat is extracted compared to the rate at which it is replaced from underground heat sources. These heat sources may simply be adjacent hot rocks (in which case only a low rate of extraction can be replaced) or it may be that you're Iceland and you're extracting from a volcano, in which case you're not going to make a dent in the thermal energy just beneath ;-) &#xD;&#xA;Being strictly correct, geothermal power is not renewable at a planetary, long-term, scale, because the Earth is cooling and geothermal energy extraction hastens that cooling by a tiny fraction, but that hardly matters for human purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that ground source heat pumps and the like, commonly advertised as &quot;geothermal&quot;, are not usually operating off the internal heat of the planet, but instead are working in the top few metres that has been warmed by the sun - so they are arguably a form of solar energy. In this case there *is* a &quot;reservoir&quot;, which is the heat energy in the soil, which is replenished by the sun, and it's conceivable that in densely populated areas an overuse of heat pumps could temporarily deplete this reservoir. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13531" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="6a94541f-bad1-4b75-938a-7feb93682dbc" CreationDate="2016-12-04T11:39:16.017" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/805375914850811908" />
  <row Id="13532" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5683" RevisionGUID="c33166e4-edbf-4997-8e49-4127a899f6c7" CreationDate="2016-12-05T05:40:04.210" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/805647907814776832" />
  <row Id="13534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5687" RevisionGUID="0b89a352-67ea-4b2b-affa-1486aabc00c8" CreationDate="2016-12-05T17:29:27.723" UserId="4044" Text="Both advocates for the different vehicles, EVs vz ICEs, have very good arguments in their defense with some obvious bias because of feelings of connection to their vehicle. The internal combustion engine,ICE, has served humanity well for hundreds of years thanks to its Belgian inventor Nikolaus Otto Etienne Leonor in 1858. However, innovation has to advance and the most practical solutions have to emerge. In this case it seems like we are at an inflection point and the tilt is favoring the EVs. Yes, the demand on electricity would be overwhelming and the grid would not be able to handle it if suddenly all vehicles were EV, but that would not actually happen because the increase in EVs production would go hand-in-hand with new power generation from renewable sources. All things considered the EVs win the future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="72e8ffb4-af5c-42d5-9c42-4668a7fe36c5" CreationDate="2016-12-06T22:53:39.540" UserId="4047" Text="&#xD;&#xA; My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Is 3 phase power more efficient to generate/use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) How difficult or complicated is it going to be to provide balanced single phase load(s) from a 3 phase service?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) If I decide to get connected to the utility at some point, will I be able to sell my excess power back to the utility if I am generating 3 phase power?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Is there anything else I should be aware of when determining whether to generate single or 3 phase power for my use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you in advance for any input anybody may provide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To better understand my questions and concerns (as well as highlighting my electrical ignorance) I would like to expand my story and circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my scenario.&#xD;&#xA;I am purchasing a 2 acre property that has two buildings; a 16'x24' insulated, wired and plumbed single story steel pole bldg (converted dog kennel/house) and a 20'x24' plywood clad, uninsulated, unwired pole shed (workshop). There is no electric service on the property as the original service was provided by a neighboring parcel which was subdivided and sold. The original electrical supply lines were removed and currently the closest transformer is approximately 300' from the closest bldg. There is propane service and wood stoves together with a few small solar panels and a small wind generator hooked up with battery banks and inverters that supply a minimal  amount of energy and heating for the bldgs. I have the capability to make biodiesel and clean veg oil and a couple diesel engines that can be used as power plants. I am looking into getting a PTO driven generator to attach to the diesel engine which then can power the workshop and home and potentially a greenhouse in the future. I envision also reclaiming and utilizing waste heat from this setup for space and/or water heating/cooling. Looking forward as I start to layout electrical service and outlets in the workshop and contemplate a separate aquaculture greenhouse in the future, I am trying to determine if my needs would best be served by providing 3 phase or single phase power for the tools and equipment I will be utilizing. I currently do not own any 3 phase equipment but I am aware of the ability to acquire such at considerably reduced cost via auctions and used equipment sales and am cautiously leaning in that direction. My concerns however center around how costly and complicated it is going to be to separate and provide my single phase needs with a 3 phase generator. My cursory understanding is that the loads need to be balanced. &#xD;&#xA;As it is my intention to start with a 25kW generator, I am also concerned about not wasting the excess capacity of the generator as my initial needs are considerably less than the 25kW potential maximum. Therefore, I want to investigate if it would be cost effective to pursue a grid intertie and dump my excess capacity to the grid as opposed to just dumping it or before designing an alternative storage/utilization capacity somehow (e.g. batteries, water pumping, alcohol distillation, thermal storage, greenhouse lighting, etc. etc.) I assume that a future aquaculture venture would likely benefit from 3 phase equipment (lighting, pumps, ventilation, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My desire is self sufficiency. Waste of any kind is a pet peeve. Therefore I guess one of my main questions is;&#xD;&#xA;Is 3 phase a more efficient method of utilizing electrical energy and would it be smart to start with 3 phase generation and step down to provide single phase and possibly grid intertie requirements or should I generate single phase and step it up for specific 3 phase applications? Although I have a philosophical commitment to renewable and life-affirming systems thinking I am not independently wealthy (just a poor carpenter) and cost is definitely a factor in this decision-making process. Therefore, I would like to know if installing 3 phase distribution infrastructure (wiring, transfer switch(s), inverters/converters, etc.) would be smarter than installing single phase distribution infrastructure (wiring, transfer switch(s), inverters/converters, etc.)? I know that without specific equipment specs and firm usage applications it is impossible to arrive at precise cost estimates but in generalities, which is better and why, 3 phase or single phase?&#xD;&#xA;Opinions anyone??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13540" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="72e8ffb4-af5c-42d5-9c42-4668a7fe36c5" CreationDate="2016-12-06T22:53:39.540" UserId="4047" Text="Is 3 phase electrical generation more efficient to utilize than single phase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13541" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="72e8ffb4-af5c-42d5-9c42-4668a7fe36c5" CreationDate="2016-12-06T22:53:39.540" UserId="4047" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|electricity-generation|energy-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13542" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5690" RevisionGUID="4a273f6a-b268-423c-aef7-27fdffe304f1" CreationDate="2016-12-07T00:24:55.547" UserId="659" Text="I'm going to assume you'e in the USA since you're using Imperial units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1) Is 3 phase power more efficient to generate/use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In bulk, yes. Three phase (or sometimes 6 phase/3 phase 220V in low-voltage countries like the USA) has more options for direct driving motors and generators, and the higher voltages mean lower currents and hence lower losses. This is why many workshop tools are 220V or two/three phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, at small scale two or three phase power can easily just mean more parts, more wires and more cost. The inflection point depends on the fine print of what you're doing with the power. If you have a house full of single-phase appliances it's likely to be better to have single phase everywhere, even at the 25kW level (about 30 horsepower, I think). But if you have even one three phase machine in your workshop you're likely to be better off with a mutliphase system of some sort. I suspect the same is true of 220V US appliances - you may find that using a centre tap transformer to get 110V out of a 220V generator is more complex for the user than having a separate generator for the 3 phase/220V stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're concerned about waste, a combustion engine generator for primary supply is out of the question (biofuel is at best controversial). There's almost no situation in which a generator is better than the alternatives. The exceptions are in remote, low-insolation, extreme weather locations. If you're living outside Barrow, AK, for example, you are probably going to have to use a generator. In Australia RAPS using petrol or diesel ends up costing more than 50c/kWh (usually much more) and it's been a long time since PV/PbS power cost that much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a load vehicle (ute, truck, or trailer) you may be able to cobble together a decent PV setup by buying second hand systems from other people. That will involve quite a lot of learning about those systems on your part (not least learning how to identify systems that are worth buying), and likely a complex house wiring setup. But if you DIY it could well be cheaper. This is why people paying an installer almost always put in new systems, BTW, the &quot;save 20% by getting a haywire system that might not work properly&quot; option just doesn't work out often enough to be worth the hassle if you're paying for labour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) How difficult or complicated is it going to be to provide balanced single phase load(s) from a 3 phase service?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either very, or trivial. The usual solution is the brutal one of provisioning the whole system for the largest load on any phase. In practice that means arranging the loads so they're spread as evenly as possible because supply capacity is expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How hard the supply provisioning is depends very much on the power source - with a battery system it's almost irrelevant as the phases are independent inverters and what matters is the total load. Buying a 10kW inverter plus a 5kW 3 phase inverter rather than a pair of 10kW inverters comes down to whether you actually need to drive a three phase machine (you would very rarely want to have only a single inverter, since that means one failure takes your electricity away). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But with a three phase generator the size is directly determined by the largest load - if you have three phases peaking at 10kw, 5kw, 5kw... you need a 30kW generator to get your 20kW output. Most cheap generators have a limit on how unbalanced the load can be, but I've never dealt with that problem (my experience is in music festivals where the dominant loads are typically quite well balanced)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3) If I decide to get connected to the utility at some point&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will need to negotiate with the utility. It's unlikely they'll let you feed a diesel generator into the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4) Is there anything else I should be aware of when determining whether to generate single or 3 phase power for my use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, you need to work out where you're going to get the parts and who's going to maintain it. Unless you train to become a RAPS-certified electrician you will need someone to work on this for you. It's going to be much cheaper and easier if that person is local to you, which really means finding that person and asking what they recommend. Having the best setup in the world is useless if you have to fly a technician in from Germany every time it flashes a warning light at you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, many modern appliances won't run directly off a diesel generator. You will need a decent UPS just to clean up the power enough to stop your electronics exploding and that includes stuff like washing machines and fridges. So the whole &quot;I use simple machines that I understand&quot; thing will only work if you carefully choose appliances that you understand. That means no fluorescent or LED lights, for example, as the voltage variations from a generator will dramatically shorten their lifespan (I have seen single digit minutes when plugging CF lamps into a generator... flicker flicker pop... ooops). It might be more reliable to refine your biodiesel to kerosene and burn that in lamps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="cddfd731-f3be-4f85-b57b-e6035d11489d" CreationDate="2016-12-07T14:29:25.837" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="general cleanup (layout)" Text="1. Is 3 phase power more efficient to generate/use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How difficult or complicated is it going to be to provide balanced single phase load(s) from a 3 phase service?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If I decide to get connected to the utility at some point, will I be able to sell my excess power back to the utility if I am generating 3 phase power?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Is there anything else I should be aware of when determining whether to generate single or 3 phase power for my use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am purchasing a 2 acre property that has two buildings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a 16'x24' insulated, wired and plumbed single story steel pole bldg (converted dog kennel/house)&#xD;&#xA;- a 20'x24' plywood clad, uninsulated, unwired pole shed (workshop). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no electric service on the property as the original service was provided by a neighboring parcel which was subdivided and sold. The original electrical supply lines were removed and currently the closest transformer is approximately 300' from the closest building.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There is propane service and wood stoves together with a few small solar panels and a small wind generator hooked up with battery banks and inverters that supply a minimal  amount of energy and heating for the buildings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the capability to make biodiesel and clean vegetable oil and a couple diesel engines that can be used as power plants. I am looking into getting a PTO driven generator to attach to the diesel engine which then can power the workshop and home and potentially a greenhouse in the future.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I envision also reclaiming and utilizing waste heat from this setup for space and/or water heating/cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking forward as I start to layout electrical service and outlets in the workshop and contemplate a separate aquaculture greenhouse in the future, I am trying to determine if my needs would best be served by providing 3 phase or single phase power for the tools and equipment I will be utilizing.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I currently do not own any 3 phase equipment but I am aware of the ability to acquire such at considerably reduced cost via auctions and used equipment sales and am cautiously leaning in that direction. My concerns however center around how costly and complicated it is going to be to separate and provide my single phase needs with a 3 phase generator. My cursory understanding is that the loads need to be balanced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it is my intention to start with a 25kW generator, I am also concerned about not wasting the excess capacity of the generator as my initial needs are considerably less than the 25kW potential maximum. Therefore, I want to investigate if it would be cost effective to pursue a grid intertie and dump my excess capacity to the grid as opposed to just dumping it or before designing an alternative storage/utilization capacity somehow (e.g. batteries, water pumping, alcohol distillation, thermal storage, greenhouse lighting, etc. etc.)&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that a future aquaculture venture would likely benefit from 3 phase equipment (lighting, pumps, ventilation, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My desire is self sufficiency. Waste of any kind is a pet peeve. Therefore I guess one of my main questions is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is 3 phase a more efficient method of utilizing electrical energy and would it be smart to start with 3 phase generation and step down to provide single phase and possibly grid intertie requirements or should I generate single phase and step it up for specific 3 phase applications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost is definitely a factor in this decision-making process. Therefore, I would like to know if installing 3 phase distribution infrastructure (wiring, transfer switch(s), inverters/converters, etc.) would be smarter than installing single phase distribution infrastructure (wiring, transfer switch(s), inverters/converters, etc.)?&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I know that without specific equipment specs and firm usage applications it is impossible to arrive at precise cost estimates but in generalities, which is better and why, 3 phase or single phase?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13544" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="cddfd731-f3be-4f85-b57b-e6035d11489d" CreationDate="2016-12-07T14:29:25.837" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="general cleanup (layout)" Text="Is 3 phase electrical generation more efficient to utilize than single phase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13545" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="cddfd731-f3be-4f85-b57b-e6035d11489d" CreationDate="2016-12-07T14:29:25.837" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by -1 edit id of 437" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="a9a9d67c-583a-4c93-95b8-0dd1612bfcf7" CreationDate="2016-12-07T14:29:25.837" UserId="4047" Comment="general cleanup (layout)" Text="1. Is 3 phase power more efficient to generate/use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How difficult or complicated is it going to be to provide balanced single phase load(s) from a 3 phase service? (equipment &amp; controls required)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If I decide to get connected to the utility at some point, what types of equipment will I need? (3 phase compared to single phase.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Is there anything else I should be aware of when determining whether to generate single or 3 phase power for my use and potential grid integration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am purchasing a 2 acre property that has two buildings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a 16'x24' insulated, wired and plumbed single story steel pole bldg (converted dog kennel/house)&#xD;&#xA;- a 20'x24' plywood clad, uninsulated, unwired pole shed (workshop). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no electric service on the property as the original electrical supply lines were removed and currently the closest transformer is approximately 300' from the closest building.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There is propane service and wood stoves together with a few small solar panels and a small wind generator hooked up with battery banks and inverters that supply a minimal  amount of energy and heating for the buildings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the capability to make biodiesel and clean vegetable oil and a couple diesel engines that can be used as power plants. I am looking into getting a PTO generator (tractor driven Power Take Off) to attach to the diesel engine which then can power the workshop and home and potentially a greenhouse in the future.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I envision also reclaiming and utilizing waste heat from this setup for space and/or water heating/cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking forward as I start to layout electrical service and outlets in the unwired workshop and contemplate a separate aquaculture greenhouse in the future, I am trying to determine if my needs would best be served by providing 3 phase or single phase power for the tools and equipment I will be utilizing.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I currently do not own any 3 phase equipment but I am aware of the ability to acquire such at considerably reduced cost via auctions and used equipment sales and am cautiously leaning in that direction. My concerns however center around how costly and complicated it is going to be to separate and provide my single phase needs with a 3 phase generator and which scenario would provide the most efficient production and utilization of the electricity I will be producing. The house is already wired and utilizing single phase AC via PV and wind power. The load is small and optimized for off-grid living. Additional generator provided  supply would allow conveniences not currently possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it is my intention to start with a 25kW generator, I am also concerned about not wasting the excess capacity of the generator as my initial needs are considerably less than the 25kW potential maximum. Therefore, I want to investigate if it would be cost effective to pursue a grid intertie and dump my excess capacity to the grid as opposed to just dumping it or before designing an alternative storage/utilization capacity somehow (e.g. batteries, water pumping, alcohol distillation, thermal storage, greenhouse lighting, etc. etc.)&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that a future aquaculture venture would likely benefit from 3 phase equipment (lighting, pumps, ventilation, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My desire is self sufficiency. Waste of any kind is a pet peeve. Therefore the thrust of my questions revolve around:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is 3 phase a more efficient method of producing and utilizing electrical energy and would it be smart to start with 3 phase generation and step down to provide single phase and possibly grid intertie requirements or should I generate single phase and step it up for specific 3 phase applications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost is definitely a factor in this decision-making process. Therefore, I would like to know if installing 3 phase distribution infrastructure (wiring, transfer switch(s), inverters/converters, etc.) would be smarter than installing single phase distribution infrastructure (wiring, transfer switch(s), inverters/converters, etc.)?&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I know that without specific equipment specs and firm usage applications it is impossible to arrive at precise cost estimates but in generalities, (conversion and control equipment, wiring and distribution infrastructure, generation, distribution and utilization efficiency, etc.) which is better and why, 3 phase or single phase?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="79f7410f-6c36-4f3c-a0ab-965948138cd6" CreationDate="2016-12-07T16:57:29.227" UserId="4047" Comment="Inserted comment answer" Text="1. Is 3 phase power more efficient to generate/use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. How difficult or complicated is it going to be to provide balanced single phase load(s) from a 3 phase service? (equipment &amp; controls required)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If I decide to get connected to the utility at some point, what types of equipment will I need? (3 phase compared to single phase.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Is there anything else I should be aware of when determining whether to generate single or 3 phase power for my use and potential grid integration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am purchasing a 2 acre property that has two buildings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a 16'x24' insulated, wired and plumbed single story steel pole bldg (converted dog kennel/house)&#xD;&#xA;- a 20'x24' plywood clad, uninsulated, unwired pole shed (workshop). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no electric service on the property as the original electrical supply lines were removed and currently the closest transformer is approximately 300' from the closest building.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There is propane service and wood stoves together with a few small solar panels and a small wind generator hooked up with battery banks and inverters that supply a minimal  amount of energy and heating for the buildings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the capability to make biodiesel and clean vegetable oil and a couple diesel engines that can be used as power plants. I am looking into getting a PTO generator (tractor driven Power Take Off) to attach to the diesel engine which then can power the workshop and home and potentially a greenhouse in the future.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I envision also reclaiming and utilizing waste heat from this setup for space and/or water heating/cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking forward as I start to layout electrical service and outlets in the unwired workshop and contemplate a separate aquaculture greenhouse in the future, I am trying to determine if my needs would best be served by providing 3 phase or single phase power for the tools and equipment I will be utilizing.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I currently do not own any 3 phase equipment but I am aware of the ability to acquire such at considerably reduced cost via auctions and used equipment sales and am cautiously leaning in that direction. My concerns however center around how costly and complicated it is going to be to separate and provide my single phase needs with a 3 phase generator and which scenario would provide the most efficient production and utilization of the electricity I will be producing. The house is already wired and utilizing single phase AC via PV and wind power. The load is small and optimized for off-grid living. Additional generator provided  supply would allow conveniences not currently possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it is my intention to start with a 25kW generator, I am also concerned about not wasting the excess capacity of the generator as my initial needs are considerably less than the 25kW potential maximum. Therefore, I want to investigate if it would be cost effective to pursue a grid intertie and dump my excess capacity to the grid as opposed to just dumping it or before designing an alternative storage/utilization capacity somehow (e.g. batteries, water pumping, alcohol distillation, thermal storage, greenhouse lighting, etc. etc.)&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that a future aquaculture venture would likely benefit from 3 phase equipment (lighting, pumps, ventilation, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My desire is self sufficiency. Waste of any kind is a pet peeve. Therefore the thrust of my questions revolve around:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is 3 phase a more efficient method of producing and utilizing electrical energy and would it be smart to start with 3 phase generation and step down to provide single phase and possibly grid intertie requirements or should I generate single phase and step it up for specific 3 phase applications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost is definitely a factor in this decision-making process. Therefore, I would like to know if installing 3 phase distribution infrastructure (wiring, transfer switch(s), inverters/converters, etc.) would be smarter than installing single phase distribution infrastructure (wiring, transfer switch(s), inverters/converters, etc.)?&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I know that without specific equipment specs and firm usage applications it is impossible to arrive at precise cost estimates but in generalities, (conversion and control equipment, wiring and distribution infrastructure, generation, distribution and utilization efficiency, etc.) which is better and why, 3 phase or single phase?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: I'm in Wisconsin, USA. I am in a rural area with single family residences and farms. I don't envision needing 3P in the house, only in the shop and future greenhouse(s) or other crazy experiment(s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum:&#xD;&#xA;I will be producing potentially up to 25kW of electricity using very cheap fuel (vegetable oil and/or biodiesel) with a PTO driven generator designed for continuous operation. My conundrum is to find a use for the electricity generated in the most efficient manner. I have the option of generating either 3 phase or single phase primary power. The shop building is not wired for electricity and there currently is no greenhouse or other major loads to utilize generated capacity. Generated electricity will eventually need to be distributed to various structures on a 2 acre property and there is the potential to tie in to the grid (if the utility will permit such). The house will not need 3P power and the shop will definitely need single phase to operate hand tools,etc. but major equipment such as saws, drills, grinders, welders, dust collection, lighting, etc., etc. can be either single or 3 phase. The same would be true for future structures such as a greenhouse. It would be easier for me to just go with single phase since the culture in the U.S. is primarily structured for it except in industrial/commercial applications. Nevertheless, I have to consider future equipment costs and distribution infrastructure costs with a desire to be efficient (line losses, conversion losses, etc.). My posting here on this venue is an attempt to educate myself further through the experience and perceptions of thoughtful, generous individuals who are much better versed in this field than am I so that when I eventually seek a local electrician I will know somewhat what to look for and inquire about. Thank you for your input and enlightenment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5691" RevisionGUID="01817382-eb99-4a76-9475-1f78e35718e6" CreationDate="2016-12-07T20:05:54.930" UserId="4052" Text="My solar lights charges the rechargeable batteries.  But in the winter there is not enough sunlight to keep the lights on all night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solar cells and batteries are in parallel; can I add an AC 3 volt DC output power supply to augment the existing solar cells?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13550" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5691" RevisionGUID="01817382-eb99-4a76-9475-1f78e35718e6" CreationDate="2016-12-07T20:05:54.930" UserId="4052" Text="Solar Lights With Little Sunlight" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13551" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5691" RevisionGUID="01817382-eb99-4a76-9475-1f78e35718e6" CreationDate="2016-12-07T20:05:54.930" UserId="4052" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="42ca60f5-8a5f-436b-bbe1-bf4cef93661c" CreationDate="2016-12-07T20:54:40.390" UserId="659" Text="[This question][1] is based on the premise that using &quot;cheap&quot; biofuel in a diesel engine to power a generator (and not using batteries) is better than the alternatives. My understanding is that if you must grow crops to generate electricity that buring more of the plant is better - the cogen/trigen usints I've seen mostly run of primarily-cellulose pellets rather than plant oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 25kW generator will use about [2 gallons an hour][2] at full power, perhaps 0.5 at idle, so I'm guessing 20 gallons a day. I suspect using a battery instead of idling could drop that but exact numbers are hard to find because RAPS using backup generators dominate the search results. Oilseed crops run as high as [240 gallons/acre/year][3] (gross yield, not net!) and at a societal level [we can't both eat and drive biodiesels][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;20 gallons of fuel a day is about 7000 gallons/year requiring somewhere between 30 and 300 acres of arable land to grow. Alternatively, the average deep-fryer shop should need to dispose of about 5 gallons of oil a week but in practice it seems to be less than half that. So 140 gallons a week will mean visiting about 30 fast food outlets, plus a few extra to supply the vehicle fuel for those pickups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it really better to burn plant oil than the whole plant?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As secondary questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. is it more efficient to use a battery pack instead of idling the generator at low-demand times?&#xD;&#xA; 1. are my numbers for fuel consumption and DIY oil cropping right?&#xD;&#xA; 1. is it practical to run a generator off scrounged vege oil like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5689/is-3-phase-electrical-generation-more-efficient-to-utilize-than-single-phase&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.dieselserviceandsupply.com/Diesel_Fuel_Consumption.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://articles.extension.org/pages/28006/oilseed-crops-for-biodiesel-production&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://biofuel.org.uk/land-use.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="42ca60f5-8a5f-436b-bbe1-bf4cef93661c" CreationDate="2016-12-07T20:54:40.390" UserId="659" Text="Is using vegetable oil for electricity generation more efficient than burning whole plants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="42ca60f5-8a5f-436b-bbe1-bf4cef93661c" CreationDate="2016-12-07T20:54:40.390" UserId="659" Text="|electricity-generation|biofuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="80a8a4ad-860d-4eeb-a36c-e394d4a5791c" CreationDate="2016-12-07T23:22:44.533" UserId="659" Comment="spelling!" Text="[This question][1] is based on the premise that using &quot;cheap&quot; biofuel in a diesel engine to power a generator (and not using batteries) is better than the alternatives. My understanding is that if you must grow crops to generate electricity that burning more of the plant is better - the cogen/trigen units I've seen mostly run of primarily-cellulose pellets rather than plant oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 25kW generator will use about [2 gallons an hour][2] at full power, perhaps 0.5 at idle, so I'm guessing 20 gallons a day. I suspect using a battery instead of idling could drop that but exact numbers are hard to find because RAPS using backup generators dominate the search results. Oilseed crops run as high as [240 gallons/acre/year][3] (gross yield, not net!) and at a societal level [we can't both eat and drive biodiesels][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;20 gallons of fuel a day is about 7000 gallons/year requiring somewhere between 30 and 300 acres of arable land to grow. Alternatively, the average deep-fryer shop should need to dispose of about 5 gallons of oil a week but in practice it seems to be less than half that. So 140 gallons a week will mean visiting about 30 fast food outlets, plus a few extra to supply the vehicle fuel for those pickups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it really better to burn plant oil than the whole plant?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As secondary questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. is it more efficient to use a battery pack instead of idling the generator at low-demand times?&#xD;&#xA; 1. are my numbers for fuel consumption and DIY oil cropping right?&#xD;&#xA; 1. is it practical to run a generator off scrounged vege oil like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5689/is-3-phase-electrical-generation-more-efficient-to-utilize-than-single-phase&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.dieselserviceandsupply.com/Diesel_Fuel_Consumption.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://articles.extension.org/pages/28006/oilseed-crops-for-biodiesel-production&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://biofuel.org.uk/land-use.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="0459872c-8c31-48eb-bb03-39f20f58a35d" CreationDate="2016-12-08T10:00:57.640" UserId="179" Text="Japan shut down virtually all nuclear power plants after the March 11, 2011 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear power plant accident, and I've heard Germany is phasing out nuclear power plants as a result of Fukushima dai-ichi as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What has been the greenhouse gas impact of this decision? Have people merely consumed less power, or have other forms of electricity generation increased as a result? If the latter, have they been forms of electricity that have been more greenhouse gas intensive, or less greenhouse gas intensive, than nuclear power?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(As a pre-emptive reply to any criticisms: I acknowledge that nuclear power is not sustainable as it indirectly generates greenhouse gases, and there's a limited supply of nuclear material. Also, that electricity generation and electricity usage could well have changed without the shutdown of nuclear power plants, and that the impact of Germany phasing out nuclear power may be different to the impact of Japan ceasing to use nuclear power)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="0459872c-8c31-48eb-bb03-39f20f58a35d" CreationDate="2016-12-08T10:00:57.640" UserId="179" Text="What has been the greenhouse gas impact of shutting down nuclear power plants post-Fukushima?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="0459872c-8c31-48eb-bb03-39f20f58a35d" CreationDate="2016-12-08T10:00:57.640" UserId="179" Text="|electricity-generation|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13560" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="7905c232-d0e6-44b2-bb4f-e62612abe28c" CreationDate="2016-12-08T21:03:59.447" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/806967583459213312" />
  <row Id="13561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="68dd2af0-a134-4d96-9d95-4230f1939f20" CreationDate="2016-12-08T21:39:34.300" UserId="179" Comment="Narrow down to Japan" Text="Japan shut down virtually all nuclear power plants after the March 11, 2011 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear power plant accident.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What has been the greenhouse gas impact of this decision? Have people merely consumed less power, or have other forms of electricity generation increased as a result? If the latter, have they been forms of electricity that have been more greenhouse gas intensive, or less greenhouse gas intensive, than nuclear power?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the sake of simplicity, I'm asking only about Japan's decision, not about other countries that are phasing out nuclear post-Fukushima.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(As a pre-emptive reply to any criticisms: I acknowledge that nuclear power is not sustainable as it indirectly generates greenhouse gases, and there's a limited supply of nuclear material. Also, that electricity generation and electricity usage could well have changed without the shutdown of nuclear power plants)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13562" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="68dd2af0-a134-4d96-9d95-4230f1939f20" CreationDate="2016-12-08T21:39:34.300" UserId="179" Comment="Narrow down to Japan" Text="What has been the greenhouse gas impact of shutting down Japanese nuclear power plants post-Fukushima?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13563" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="007b784a-84ce-448e-bbc4-4b595135305b" CreationDate="2016-12-09T06:03:59.147" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/807103477625290752" />
  <row Id="13567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5691" RevisionGUID="cb6a0288-04e9-407b-bf02-8486377fcb9f" CreationDate="2016-12-09T07:19:03.517" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Edited in what OP wrote as an 'answer'" Text="My solar lights charges the rechargeable batteries.  But in the winter there is not enough sunlight to keep the lights on all night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solar cells and batteries are in parallel; can I add an AC 3 volt DC output power supply to augment the existing solar cells?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an address light with 5 LEDs. The batteries are two 2.1 rechargeable in parallel with unknown spec solar cells. My idea is to add a 3V solar panel with diode in a south direction connected by a long wire to the unit.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13568" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5691" RevisionGUID="cb6a0288-04e9-407b-bf02-8486377fcb9f" CreationDate="2016-12-09T07:19:03.517" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 659, 48 edit id of 439" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13575" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5651" RevisionGUID="23adb28c-d462-4a38-8c31-ad142f68e956" CreationDate="2016-12-09T12:03:59.860" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/807194077615849472" />
  <row Id="13582" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5634" RevisionGUID="31bacae8-dc6b-4de3-a782-b3256b203089" CreationDate="2016-12-11T03:18:37.570" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/807786639561003008" />
  <row Id="13589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5698" RevisionGUID="e1437152-36e9-48a9-84a1-bf1b50e2a0ff" CreationDate="2016-12-12T11:07:49.110" UserId="2187" Text="How is a credit card marketed as &quot;sustainable credit card&quot; different from a conventional credit card?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13590" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5698" RevisionGUID="e1437152-36e9-48a9-84a1-bf1b50e2a0ff" CreationDate="2016-12-12T11:07:49.110" UserId="2187" Text="What is a sustainable credit card?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13591" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5698" RevisionGUID="e1437152-36e9-48a9-84a1-bf1b50e2a0ff" CreationDate="2016-12-12T11:07:49.110" UserId="2187" Text="|money|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5699" RevisionGUID="6616fbee-edcb-432d-b4e0-e20f88c8f6e2" CreationDate="2016-12-12T18:58:58.177" UserId="3379" Text="Two things factor in to the sustainability of a credit card:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What you do with the credit you have&#xD;&#xA; 2. What the bank does with the money it makes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the first point is totally within your power -- max out the card on [carbon offsets](https://carbonfund.org/)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, that leaves the second point. [According to Green America](http://www.greenamerica.org/livinggreen/2013-Responsible-Credit-Cards.cfm), there are a number of credit card companies which invest the proceeds of their business (the fees they collect from card-holders and vendors who accept credit cards) in socially and environmentally conscious ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These investments are often defined by what they are *not:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Fossil fuel mining, refining, and burning projects and companies&#xD;&#xA; - Predatory lending&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other credit cards (including a few from big banks), called **affinity cards**, allow you to donate your points to charity, instead of spending them on TVs and plane tickets. However, if you are in the US and typically itemize your tax deductions, you may want to confirm whether or not this type of donation offers any tax benefit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="1405bb7e-f7af-4832-94a7-e0870022f906" CreationDate="2016-12-12T21:38:59.180" UserId="3379" Text="In principle, does the manner in which genetic engineering is currently used in agriculture pose a threat to our environment, or provide benefits?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand there are concerns about reduction of genetic diversity, but has research borne this out? Can such concerns be outweighed by reduced need for pesticides and fertilizers that GMOs promise? Could increased yields reduce impact on the planet by slowing rates of deforestation? Are there models which predict interaction between GMO use, yeilds, chemical use, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are innumerable opinions and anecdotes around this issue -- I am interested in what the research says.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally please **refrain from commenting on economic and health issues,** such as whether the practices of the GMO industry harm other types of farming, or whether or not GMOs are safe to eat. I understand both of these issues overlap with environmental sustainability, but as this is potentially a huge topic, they deserve questions of their own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="1405bb7e-f7af-4832-94a7-e0870022f906" CreationDate="2016-12-12T21:38:59.180" UserId="3379" Text="Do GMOs generally benefit or harm the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="1405bb7e-f7af-4832-94a7-e0870022f906" CreationDate="2016-12-12T21:38:59.180" UserId="3379" Text="|farming|gmo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13597" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="47dc60d5-0fd5-44c8-9d06-dabdd5b3bca7" CreationDate="2016-12-12T22:01:36.443" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title (less clickbait)" Text="Does the evidence suggest that GMOs predominantly harm or benefit the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5701" RevisionGUID="e8650f3a-ecd3-4e93-8588-0b6b5b17da92" CreationDate="2016-12-13T03:26:35.023" UserId="400" Text="Burning more of the plant makes better use of the plant, but requires a much larger setup to be efficient.  I suspect that at the scale of us mere mortals, your best bet is to extract and burn the oil, and  burn the rest of the plant for heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problem is you will likely get enough waste heat from the power plant to provide most of the rest of your heating needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diesel plants do not like to idle.  They get cold and you ahve problems with carbon build up.  You want to have thermally controlled shutters to keep the engine warm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would make more sense to have several generators of varying capacity along with a smart controller.  E.g. You have a 25 KW a 10 KW and a 4 KW.  This will mean that at any given time it will be unusual for any unit to be running at much below half of its rated output.  Ideally for this scenario, you have a high current battery/inverter system that can handle brief spike loads so you don't cycle the 10 KW unit for 1 minute because the the well pump and the dishwasher came on at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better unit than the battery pack would be something like the Velkess flywheel.  Alas, it's on hold due to low oil prices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, unless you are bound and determined to be off grid, selling your oil and buying natural gas may be a lower total footprint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5702" RevisionGUID="86b36cd9-1ced-4e78-b53f-c841ca1a453a" CreationDate="2016-12-13T03:34:20.847" UserId="400" Text="You need to diagnose why the cells are failing to keep the lights on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: Depending on the battery chemistry they may not work well in cold weather.  You may be able to get better lighting by putting the batteries inside, and running longer wires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B:  If the solar cells aren't getting enough light to charge the batteries, look at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Reorienting the cells to be at right angles to the sun at noon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Adding reflectors to concentrate more light on the cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with just adding an arbitrary solar array in parallel is the risk of overcharging the batteries.  I don't know the setup of small units like this.  It should be simple to make a circuit that periodically measures the battery voltage and disconnects the solar array when it's charged.  But if they are cheap, they may figure, &quot;Let the batteries cook.  They won't remember where they bought it 6 months from now.&quot;  Sadly the latter is the more common scenario." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5703" RevisionGUID="7d8797d9-3ed5-40fa-9d4a-e8dc8e6d5ba8" CreationDate="2016-12-13T03:44:56.123" UserId="400" Text="Another option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Generate single phase. Run your house on this.  Wiring your electrical system is much simpler, and can be done by anyone who can read and understand the equivalent of &quot;Alberta Electrical Code Simplified&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* In the shop, buy 3 phase equipment, and get a VFD (variable frequency drive) unit for each one.  These have the advantage that you can set them up to start the motor using a lower frequency, and thus making for much smaller surges.  Your first VFD unit should be for your well pump.  Some pumps (Gould makes a line) have VFD's built into the controller, along with sensors that adjust the pumps speed to the demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VFD's run about $50+ $100/hp at the low end.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="e7999740-a940-4624-a907-af3aae2818c3" CreationDate="2016-12-13T03:58:31.003" UserId="400" Text="I suggest that you question some of your assumptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off-grid is HARD, and generally isn't worth it unless you are a long ways from the power lines.  If you are looking at one acre, you probably aren't that far away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grid connected solar,with surplus feeding the grid makes much more sense economically, and can be worth doing even if you only get credit on your bill for the surplus.  (In some areas they have to buy the power back at the maximum price they are paying anyone.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building your own house.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Start with a trailer or RV (caravan, I think you call them)  You can often get these dirt cheap used, and it gives you a place that is warm and dry while building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Consider leichtlehm (light straw) Think of packing straw into forms that has been dampened with a clay/water slurry.  It's finished with a coat of plaster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advantages:  You start by building a pole frame or timber frame house.  YOu get the roof on first.  NOW you have a dry place to work -- at least when the wind isn't blowing.  It goes up reasonably fast and the weights are fairly easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Straw bale construction is also viable.  No frame needed for a single story building.  Typical building envelope costs are on par to slightly higher than convention construction, but since more of it is doable yourself, you can pay with sweat instead of cash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With any alternative building system, get the local building people on side first -- before you buy the land.  Some are much more open to innovation than others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do your homework.  Become the local expert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that leichtlehm is the basic technique used in Tudor times -- hence the dark beams with white fill, so if you get good at it, you may be able to work as a restorer.  Flip that around:  Work for a restorer, to learn how to do it right." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13604" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="f220c3f3-8d04-4672-9464-3cd0f5407bd0" CreationDate="2016-12-13T11:10:04.933" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="13605" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5653" RevisionGUID="1c0ae800-12b8-4ec1-a142-9618d2380986" CreationDate="2016-12-14T18:43:09.590" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/809106469786361856" />
  <row Id="13611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5706" RevisionGUID="4ba0bead-8a32-4f44-9c28-ff276784ac79" CreationDate="2016-12-17T21:01:27.857" UserId="4084" Text="Sustainability implies net efficiency for the entire sustainable process.  For your energy scenario and many others like it, the net efficiency is simply net energy use divided by net resource consumption. In the case of solar, the only resource consumption is the resources to build the solar devices initially and when they need replacement and any toxicity that damages the biosphere during manufacture and recycling.  For combustion, the fuel is added as a consumed resource, along with the toxic effects of combustion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The math to calculate a comprehensive metric to gauge sustainability looks like this (where M is the metric, E is energy, and R is resource value:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;M_sustainability&#xD;&#xA;  = E_net / R)net&#xD;&#xA;  = (E_acquired - E_lost)&#xD;&#xA;    / (R_consumed - R_procured)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using this comprehensive sustainability metric, we can answer your split phase or single phase versus three phase question easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of motors, the three phase is known to have significantly higher work output than a single phase motor of similar design for the same electrical energy input.  The three phase devices run cooler, so E_loss is lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicolo Tesla demonstrated the math behind that and built corresponding devices to demonstrate for the fairs he and Westinghouse used to promote their energy transmission approach.  Several engineers, physicists, and manufacturers realized around that time that three phases was an optimal balance between motor and alternator manufacturing cost and energy efficiency during use.  Many patents for tri-phase devices ensued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These same economics and physics principles remain essentially unchanged today and fit cleanly into the sustainability metric equation above.  Here's how it applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expect to have motors, they will consume less energy for the same work output if they are tri-phase and the electrical power source is tri-phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can convert 240 V split phase or 120 V single phase to 440 tri-phase with equipment, but from a sustainability point of view, having to manufacture, install, and maintain conversion equipment consumes resources and therefore reduces the sustainability metric.  It is optimal to have a three phase alternator too, just as utility scale plants employ, and that's why they use them too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lighting, contemporary (and highly efficient) LED lighting runs from a single phase, so if you had triphase, you'd probably get a transformer to produce split phase for lighting and other typical split phase devices such as a microwave for a break room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire choice revolves around the degree to which you expect to install AC motors (other than servos and steppers for which there is an entirely different strategy to applying power to the windings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13613" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5707" RevisionGUID="0287d08d-0e3e-4228-9257-ced077fc4719" CreationDate="2016-12-18T14:39:29.130" UserId="4089" Text="Obviously it is best to compost food scraps, but that is not always an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [recent ABC news article](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-16/sewage-fatbergs-fat-down-sink-face-wipes-quu/8126878) claimed that food scraps were contributing to 'fatbergs' in Brisbane's sewage system. I've heard of wet wipes being a huge problem, and oils make sense, but food scraps is more surprising. So if you can't compost, what's the best way to dispose of food scraps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13614" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5707" RevisionGUID="0287d08d-0e3e-4228-9257-ced077fc4719" CreationDate="2016-12-18T14:39:29.130" UserId="4089" Text="Is it better to dispose of food scraps with a garbage disposal unit or into the garbage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13615" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5707" RevisionGUID="0287d08d-0e3e-4228-9257-ced077fc4719" CreationDate="2016-12-18T14:39:29.130" UserId="4089" Text="|waste|biodegradable-waste|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5706" RevisionGUID="7b0b2452-89b4-4955-9127-9acc74c5c129" CreationDate="2016-12-18T16:49:48.653" UserId="85" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="Sustainability implies net efficiency for the entire sustainable process.  For your energy scenario and many others like it, the net efficiency is simply net energy use divided by net resource consumption. In the case of solar, the only resource consumption is the resources to build the solar devices initially and when they need replacement and any toxicity that damages the biosphere during manufacture and recycling.  For combustion, the fuel is added as a consumed resource, along with the toxic effects of combustion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The math to calculate a comprehensive metric to gauge sustainability looks like this (where M is the metric, E is energy, and R is resource value):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; M&lt;sub&gt;sustainability&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  = E&lt;sub&gt;net&lt;/sub&gt; / R&lt;sub&gt;net&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  = (E&lt;sub&gt;acquired&lt;/sub&gt; – E&lt;sub&gt;lost&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;    / (R&lt;sub&gt;consumed&lt;/sub&gt; – R&lt;sub&gt;procured&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using this comprehensive sustainability metric, we can answer your split phase or single phase versus three phase question easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of motors, the three phase is known to have significantly higher work output than a single phase motor of similar design for the same electrical energy input.  The three phase devices run cooler, so E&lt;sub&gt;lost&lt;/sub&gt; is lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicolo Tesla demonstrated the math behind that and built corresponding devices to demonstrate for the fairs he and Westinghouse used to promote their energy transmission approach.  Several engineers, physicists, and manufacturers realized around that time that three phases was an optimal balance between motor and alternator manufacturing cost and energy efficiency during use.  Many patents for tri-phase devices ensued.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These same economics and physics principles remain essentially unchanged today and fit cleanly into the sustainability metric equation above.  Here's how it applies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expect to have motors, they will consume less energy for the same work output if they are tri-phase and the electrical power source is tri-phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can convert 240 V split phase or 120 V single phase to 440 tri-phase with equipment, but from a sustainability point of view, having to manufacture, install, and maintain conversion equipment consumes resources and therefore reduces the sustainability metric.  It is optimal to have a three phase alternator too, just as utility scale plants employ, and that's why they use them too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lighting, contemporary (and highly efficient) LED lighting runs from a single phase, so if you had triphase, you'd probably get a transformer to produce split phase for lighting and other typical split phase devices such as a microwave for a break room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire choice revolves around the degree to which you expect to install AC motors (other than servos and steppers for which there is an entirely different strategy to applying power to the windings).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13617" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5707" RevisionGUID="f72ad51d-7718-4179-a2ed-055a4825669e" CreationDate="2016-12-18T22:11:31.380" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/810608457506230272" />
  <row Id="13618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="6aa4ae9a-c0c2-40d2-97a3-590a11046382" CreationDate="2016-12-19T13:06:54.657" UserId="99" Comment="fixed broken link, added summary and more details, improved readability/layout" Text="**Summary:** Go for natural materials such as hemp, jute, organic cotton, bamboo, vegetable-based dyes, preferably from a manufacturer that is  fair-trade certified and working on reducing its environmental impact. Try to find shoes that last long and only buy new when you really have to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest life-cycle impact of shoes comes from the used materials and the manufacturing process, but if you value 'social sustainability' as well you should also consider working conditions of the people who create the shoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Materials**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    According to [Nike materials make up around 60% of the environmental impact of its shoes](http://news.nike.com/news/sustainable-innovation). Especially leather, synthetic plastics, and certain hybrid materials have a big impact, but also cotton, dyes and glues. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The big impact of leather comes from raising cattle and the chemicals typically used in the tanning process (chromium). Plastics and hybrid materials are usually made from oil, and cotton is grown using lots of water, fertilizer and pesticides. Dyes and glues contain chemicals that negatively affect the environment as well as the health of the workers that manufacture shoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Vegan leather isn't necessarily a more sustainable choice because it can be made from PVC which is one of the worst types of plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Carbon footprint**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; A typical pair of synthetic trainers generates 30lbs (13.6 kg) of emissions, equivalent to leaving a 100-watt bulb burning for a week ([source](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/23/running-shoes-carbon-footprint))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Most shoes are made in Asia, but surprisingly transportation is only a small part of a shoe's carbon footprint. [Researchers from MIT did a life-cycle analysis](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652612006300) of an ASICS synthetic sport shoe and found that transport on average only accounts for 3% of the shoe's carbon footprint, and at most adds up to 7% when shipping to Canada (which is the farthest from China where the shoe came from). Raw material extraction and processing accounted for about 29% of the total carbon footprint and the manufacturing process was responsible for 68%. The reason why manufacturing has such a large footprint is because a single shoe consists of many parts that require multiple processing steps for assembly. The machines in Asian factories that perform these steps typically run on electricity generated by coal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Labor conditions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Developing countries like India and Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent also China, do not have strong worker safety or environmental protection standards. Sweatshops are common in these countries and there have been many reports about child labor. Workers are often exposed to toxic chemicals and left-over chemicals are often spilled or dumped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Recommendations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before buying shoes investigate the effort the manufacturer takes to be more sustainable. You already mentioned [Rankabrand](https://rankabrand.org) in your question and you can use that website to investigate if a shoe maker is fair-trade certified and working on reducing its environmental impact. A similar website is EthicalConsumer.org which has a [section on shoes](http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/clothing/shoes.aspx) with interesting background information, but the newest company reviews there are behind a paywall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a shoe manufacturer is not listed on Rankabrand or EthicalConsumer you can use the internet to find out more about a manufacturer. Especially look for information if the manufacturer is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - is using or switching to environmentally friendly materials, &#xD;&#xA; - is using or switching to renewable energy in their factories,&#xD;&#xA; - trying to reduce the number of processing steps in manufacturing.&#xD;&#xA; - was involved in child labor or dumping scandals in the recent past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good materials to look for are natural materials such as hemp, jute, organic cotton, bamboo, vegetable-based dyes and perhaps recycled plastics. If you are really set on leather, go for vegetable-tanned leather or better yet [Piñatex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piñatex).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately it's hard to tell in advance what the quality is of a pair of shoes and how long they will last, otherwise you could take that into the equation as well. The least impact comes from not buying new shoes often and wearing your old ones as long as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="be07cf15-2c88-423d-bb01-0477b668b04f" CreationDate="2016-12-19T21:41:39.207" UserId="4095" Text="Interested to know how to calculate how much energy photovoltaic PV solar panels would produce given x amount of soar irradiation per day - amount of direct sunlight and how much that might be effected by y amount of cloud cover. Also does temperature or season of the year have a significant effect on the amount of irradiation or direct sunlight used by soar panels to generate electricity?&#xA;&#xA;Lots of soar articles tell you you need Sun to generate solar power but not how much irradiation from the sun is required to get a solar panel system of size k to full capacity for a day. &#xA;&#xA;Could you please share resources and or a calculation for converting the amount of solar irradiation or direct sunlight required to power a solar system of say 10KW." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13620" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="be07cf15-2c88-423d-bb01-0477b668b04f" CreationDate="2016-12-19T21:41:39.207" UserId="4095" Text="How much irradiation from the sun is required to generate solar power" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13621" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="be07cf15-2c88-423d-bb01-0477b668b04f" CreationDate="2016-12-19T21:41:39.207" UserId="4095" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="f38830be-67d0-4747-986c-635578a7c009" CreationDate="2016-12-20T02:23:57.350" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="Interested to know how to calculate how much energy photovoltaic (PV) panels would produce given x amount of solar irradiation per day - amount of direct sunlight and how much that might be effected by y amount of cloud cover. Also does temperature or season of the year have a significant effect on the amount of irradiation or direct sunlight used by solar panels to generate electricity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lots of solar articles tell you you need Sun to generate solar power but not how much irradiation from the sun is required to get a solar panel system of size k to full capacity for a day. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you please share resources or a calculation for converting the amount of solar irradiation or direct sunlight required to power a solar system of say 10KW." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5709" RevisionGUID="b2b9dff8-cc96-40fa-8642-ac2054622b7a" CreationDate="2016-12-20T03:45:04.217" UserId="3379" Text="Theoretically, the maximum output you can get from a solar panel will be for a panel lying flat at the equator under a clear sky when the sun is at its zenith, such that sunlight strikes the panel at a 90° angle. At this moment, a 10kW solar panel will produce 10kW*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this ideal, three factors reduce the power output of a panel (in order of increasing effect, assuming a brand new, clean panel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cloud cover, smoke, haze (which you can't really control, other than putting panels in the desert)&#xD;&#xA; 2. The angle of the sun's rays relative to the panel moving away from 90° (which you can control by keeping the panel tilted toward the sun)&#xD;&#xA; 3. The thickness of the atmosphere through which the sun's rays must pass (which you can't control, as sunlight passes through more of the atmosphere at sunrise and sunset)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For any given hour, we can define the **capacity factor (cf)** of a particular solar panel or array. This is the amount of power output given vs the maximum possible output (the same as the panel's rating):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cf = E&lt;sub&gt;actual&lt;/sub&gt;/E&lt;sub&gt;theoretical&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the panel on the equator with the sun at it's zenith would have **cf=1** in that moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are lots of different ways to calculate the capacity factor for a given panel installation, and it can be calculated over lots of different time periods -- the usual case is to calculate an average cf over the course of a year, for calculating actual energy output (in kWh) and payback period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One excellent tool for simulating capacity factor of a particular installation is [PVWatts](http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/), from the US National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL). With this tool you select the type of panel, orientation, angle, type of tracking system, and a few other (optional) characteristics. Capacity factor is included in the output with a lot of other valuable information. Weather data from around the world is included in the calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other note -- I recently read [an interesting paper](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148110003964) modeling ideal azimuth (orientation with respect to compass directions) and tilt to get the highest annual capacity factor. In the author's model of the US, local weather played a big factor, and southward facing was not always found to be optimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This will vary with altitude, and with location for panels which are still optimally tilted/oriented, since the thickness of the atmosphere does matter. I haven't looked into research on this personally, but I imagine the variation would be small and/or hard to measure accurately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5709" RevisionGUID="13e26d8f-cf44-4c66-840c-e31f663aedcb" CreationDate="2016-12-20T04:05:59.770" UserId="3379" Comment="clarified power vs energy" Text="Theoretically, the maximum output you can get from a solar panel will be for a panel lying flat at the equator under a clear sky when the sun is at its zenith, such that sunlight strikes the panel at a 90° angle. At this moment, a 10kW solar panel will produce 10kW of power*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this ideal, three factors reduce the power output of a panel (in order of increasing effect, assuming a brand new, clean panel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cloud cover, smoke, haze (which you can't really control, other than putting panels in the desert)&#xD;&#xA; 2. The angle of the sun's rays relative to the panel moving away from 90° (which you can control by keeping the panel tilted toward the sun)&#xD;&#xA; 3. The thickness of the atmosphere through which the sun's rays must pass (which you can't control, as sunlight passes through more of the atmosphere at sunrise and sunset)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For any given time period, we can define the **capacity factor (cf)** of a particular solar panel or array. This is the amount of energy output given vs the maximum possible output (the same as the panel's rating):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cf = E&lt;sub&gt;actual&lt;/sub&gt;/E&lt;sub&gt;theoretical&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the panel on the equator with the sun at it's zenith would have **cf=1** in that moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the panel rating, given in watts (W) or kilowatts (kW) is a unit of **power**. Capacity factor is defined in terms of **energy**: watt-hours (Wh) or kilowatt-hours (kWh), which is power over  time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E = P × t &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if the sun at its zenith paused for one hour in the scenario described above, the panel would produce exactly 10 kWh. In reality, it will be slightly less than this, since the angle will change during that hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are lots of different ways to calculate the capacity factor for a given panel installation, and it can be calculated over lots of different time periods -- the usual case is to calculate an average cf over the course of a year, for calculating actual energy output (in kWh) and payback period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One excellent tool for simulating capacity factor of a particular installation is [PVWatts](http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/), from the US National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL). With this tool you select the type of panel, orientation, angle, type of tracking system, and a few other (optional) characteristics. Capacity factor is included in the output with a lot of other valuable information. Weather data from around the world is included in the calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other note -- I recently read [an interesting paper](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148110003964) modeling ideal azimuth (orientation with respect to compass directions) and tilt to get the highest annual capacity factor. In the author's model of the US, local weather played a big factor, and southward facing was not always found to be optimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This will vary with altitude, and with location for panels which are still optimally tilted/oriented, since the thickness of the atmosphere does matter. I haven't looked into research on this personally, but I imagine the variation would be small and/or hard to measure accurately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5709" RevisionGUID="9e127a96-63f7-443f-abf2-9d5294d582b7" CreationDate="2016-12-20T05:06:25.213" UserId="3379" Comment="Added detail on solar irradiance" Text="The amount of energy striking the earth from the sun is about 1,370W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (watts per square meter), as measured at the top of the atmosphere. This is the **[solar irradiance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance)**. The value at the earth's surface varies around the globe, but the maximum measured at sea level on a clear day is around 1,000W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. The loss is due to the fact that some of the sunlight's energy is absorbed by the atmosphere on the way down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this sunlight strikes a solar panel, about 10-20% of the energy is converted to electricity. So a good (20% efficient) 10kW array would measure 50 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, or about 7m by 7m.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically, the maximum output you can get from a solar panel will be for a panel lying flat at the equator under a clear sky when the sun is at its zenith, such that sunlight strikes the panel at a 90° angle. At this moment, a 10kW solar array will produce 10kW of power*. (This takes into account panel efficiency, conduction losses, charger efficiency, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this ideal, three factors reduce the power output of a panel (in order of increasing effect, assuming a brand new, clean panel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cloud cover, smoke, haze (which you can't really control, other than putting panels in the desert)&#xD;&#xA; 2. The angle of the sun's rays relative to the panel moving away from 90° (which you can control by keeping the panel tilted toward the sun)&#xD;&#xA; 3. The thickness of the atmosphere through which the sun's rays must pass (which you can't control, as sunlight passes through more of the atmosphere at sunrise and sunset)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For any given time period, we can define the **capacity factor (cf)** of a particular solar panel or array. This is the amount of energy output given vs the maximum possible output (the same as the panel's rating):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cf = E&lt;sub&gt;actual&lt;/sub&gt;/E&lt;sub&gt;theoretical&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the panel on the equator with the sun at it's zenith would have **cf=1** in that moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the panel rating, given in watts (W) or kilowatts (kW) is a unit of **power**. Capacity factor is defined in terms of **energy**: watt-hours (Wh) or kilowatt-hours (kWh), which is power over  time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E = P × t &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if the sun at its zenith paused for one hour in the scenario described above, the panel would produce exactly 10 kWh. In reality, it will be slightly less than this, since the angle will change during that hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are lots of different ways to calculate the capacity factor for a given panel installation, and it can be calculated over lots of different time periods -- the usual case is to calculate an average cf over the course of a year, for calculating actual energy output (in kWh) and payback period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One excellent tool for simulating capacity factor of a particular installation is **[PVWatts](http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/)**, from the US National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL). With this tool you select the type of panel, orientation, angle, type of tracking system, and a few other (optional) characteristics. Capacity factor is included in the output with a lot of other valuable information. Weather data from around the world is included in the calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other note -- I recently read [an interesting paper](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148110003964) modeling ideal azimuth (orientation with respect to compass directions) and tilt to get the highest annual capacity factor. In the author's model of the US, local weather played a big factor, and southward facing was not always found to be optimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This will vary with altitude, and with location for panels which are still optimally tilted/oriented, since the thickness of the atmosphere does matter. I haven't looked into research on this personally, but I imagine the variation would be small and/or hard to measure accurately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13626" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="21ec13ce-ef88-47b4-8e92-3c5236c525a6" CreationDate="2016-12-20T07:41:13.577" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5710" RevisionGUID="cdb3c77c-de1a-4ffa-b1f2-755737ec7535" CreationDate="2016-12-20T13:26:44.453" UserId="4101" Text="If soot was filtered from power plants, are there any trees or plants that would love to grow in it if mixed in the soil. If it is a sulfur substance. Has anyone ever tried to filter it and use it. Could it also be filtered and used in the making of paints or something. I don't know. But there has got to be a good use for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5710" RevisionGUID="cdb3c77c-de1a-4ffa-b1f2-755737ec7535" CreationDate="2016-12-20T13:26:44.453" UserId="4101" Text="Soot from factories?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13630" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5710" RevisionGUID="cdb3c77c-de1a-4ffa-b1f2-755737ec7535" CreationDate="2016-12-20T13:26:44.453" UserId="4101" Text="|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5709" RevisionGUID="ec771ca7-dc07-47be-ace0-9c69fc6fe4c2" CreationDate="2016-12-20T14:19:28.400" UserId="3379" Comment="Added headings" Text="&lt;H3&gt;Solar Irradiance&lt;/H3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of energy striking the earth from the sun is about 1,370W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (watts per square meter), as measured at the top of the atmosphere. This is the **[solar irradiance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance)**. The value at the earth's surface varies around the globe, but the maximum measured at sea level on a clear day is around 1,000W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. The loss is due to the fact that some of the sunlight's energy is absorbed by the atmosphere on the way down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H3&gt;Panel Efficiency&lt;/H3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this sunlight strikes a solar panel, about 10-20% of the energy is converted to electricity. So a good (20% efficient) 10kW array would measure 50 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, or about 7m by 7m.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H3&gt;Panel Location and Orientation&lt;/H3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically, the maximum output you can get from a solar panel will be for a panel lying flat at the equator under a clear sky when the sun is at its zenith, such that sunlight strikes the panel at a 90° angle. At this moment, a 10kW solar array will produce 10kW of power*. (This takes into account panel efficiency, conduction losses, charger efficiency, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this ideal, three factors reduce the power output of a panel (in order of importance, assuming a brand new, clean panel): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cloud cover, smoke, haze (which you can't really control, other than putting panels in the desert)&#xD;&#xA; 2. The angle of the sun's rays relative to the panel moving away from 90° (which you can control by keeping the panel tilted toward the sun)&#xD;&#xA; 3. The thickness of the atmosphere through which the sun's rays must pass (which you can't control, as sunlight passes through more of the atmosphere at sunrise and sunset)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H3&gt;Capacity Factor&lt;/H3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For any given time period, we can define the **capacity factor (cf)** of a particular solar panel or array. This is the amount of energy output given vs the maximum possible output (the same as the panel's rating):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cf = E&lt;sub&gt;actual&lt;/sub&gt;/E&lt;sub&gt;theoretical&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the panel on the equator with the sun at it's zenith would have **cf=1** in that moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the panel rating, given in watts (W) or kilowatts (kW) is a unit of **power**. Capacity factor is defined in terms of **energy**: watt-hours (Wh) or kilowatt-hours (kWh), which is power over  time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E = P × t &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if the sun at its zenith paused for one hour in the scenario described above, the panel would produce exactly 10 kWh. In reality, it will be slightly less than this, since the angle will change during that hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H3&gt;Calculator&lt;/H3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are lots of different ways to calculate the capacity factor for a given panel installation, and it can be calculated over lots of different time periods -- the usual case is to calculate an average cf over the course of a year, for calculating actual energy output (in kWh) and payback period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One excellent tool for simulating capacity factor of a particular installation is **[PVWatts](http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/)**, from the US National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL). With this tool you select the type of panel, orientation, angle, type of tracking system, and a few other (optional) characteristics. Capacity factor is included in the output with a lot of other valuable information. Weather data from around the world is included in the calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*This will vary with altitude, and with location for panels which are still optimally tilted/oriented, since the thickness of the atmosphere does matter. I haven't looked into research on this personally, but I imagine the variation would be small and/or hard to measure accurately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other note -- I recently read [an interesting paper](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148110003964) modeling ideal azimuth (orientation with respect to compass directions) and tilt to get the highest annual capacity factor. In the author's model of the US, local weather played a big factor, and southward facing was not always found to be optimal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="8029b292-1a07-41d0-bf00-6d4c0d7bfb6f" CreationDate="2016-12-20T14:24:02.340" UserId="3379" Comment="Made the question broader" Text="In principle, does the manner in which genetic engineering is currently used in agriculture pose a threat to our environment, or provide benefits?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand there are concerns about reduction of genetic diversity, but are there more specific concerns? Can such concerns be outweighed by reduced need for pesticides and fertilizers that GMOs promise? Could increased yields reduce impact on the planet by slowing rates of deforestation? Are there models which predict interaction between GMO use, yields, chemical use, etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13636" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="8029b292-1a07-41d0-bf00-6d4c0d7bfb6f" CreationDate="2016-12-20T14:24:02.340" UserId="3379" Comment="Made the question broader" Text="In what ways do GMOs harm or benefit the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5664" RevisionGUID="24b2c73a-cddd-4876-bfd2-7422a6b8e018" CreationDate="2016-12-20T18:12:07.230" UserId="400" Comment="clarification" Text="Main considerations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* source of materials.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously more oil is a bad thing.  This casts aspersions on any plastic too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Longevity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A shoe that lasts for 10 years is a 20 times the value of one that lasts for half a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cost of making.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost is a measure of crystallized sweat.  Energy.  Labour.  Cheaper is better. Cost != Retail Price, although often they are proportional.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Locality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something that you make is better than something downtown.  Downtown is better than next county.  Next county is better than China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turning that into pragmatic answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Sandals made from old tires are a big win.  The tires already exist, so making sandals isn't really an eco cost.  Unless you walk for a living they are good for decades.  I see these throughout  central and south America.  Price in Peru was about 20 sols-- about $2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Rope soled shoes. Don't last nearly as long.  You can find them on Instructables if you want to make your own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Leather moccasins. As long as we eat cow, we may as well use the wrappers the bovines come in. This is also something you can do for yourself from the internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Go barefoot.  Not a full time answer, but your feet toughen up a lot, and you can get away with it when not at work most of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.  Buy used shoes at Salvation Army, Goodwill and other such stores.  This is tough as someone else's shoes can be worn in patterns that cause you foot and knee grief.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13640" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5712" RevisionGUID="048fbbf1-5bb3-470a-b554-8ecf5f5ea4c6" CreationDate="2016-12-20T18:13:34.487" UserId="4105" Text="I would propose an alternative option, which is to bring a small hand towel with you to the office. You can keep it at your desk and just bring it with you when you need it, taking it home to wash it once in awhile.&#xA;&#xA;I got mine from a company called People Towels, but any small handkerchief-sized towel would probably do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="2a710709-2c17-49e0-ab65-44c811af5ee7" CreationDate="2016-12-20T18:58:21.480" UserId="4106" Text="A typical office lease says the tenant has 1.5 watts of electricity to use per sq.ft. for lighting and 3.5 watts of electricity per sq.ft to use for computers etc. anything over this they say extra for via sub meter. How do I calculate what the threshold is and amount they can not exceed per kWh ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="2a710709-2c17-49e0-ab65-44c811af5ee7" CreationDate="2016-12-20T18:58:21.480" UserId="4106" Text="Office building electricity use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="2a710709-2c17-49e0-ab65-44c811af5ee7" CreationDate="2016-12-20T18:58:21.480" UserId="4106" Text="|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5714" RevisionGUID="3cf37675-1455-4687-954d-0fab7b1cde1b" CreationDate="2016-12-20T19:30:03.147" UserId="3379" Text="Since the owner's meter is unable to differentiate between electricity used by lighting vs computers, the terms are essentially saying that the tenant is limited to 3.5W + 1.5W = 5W/sqft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This value is for **power**, often called **demand** on an electricity bill. Based on the info provided, if the tenant required 5W of electricity per square foot, they could leave their lights and computers on 24 hours a day without paying anything additional.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would equate to 5W × 730 hours/month = 3,650 watt-hours (Wh) of **energy usage**, also called **consumption**, per sqft, per month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, let's say the tenant makes widgets with 1 sq-ft widgetmakers that require 3,650W of power, but only have to run once a month to produce all the widgets needed to keep the company in business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usage remains the same: 3,650W ×  1 hour/month = 3,650Wh per sqft, per month. But now the demand is 3,650W, or 3,645W higher than the limit specified in the lease. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, in order to effectively answer the question, the tenant needs to know the power rating of each appliance they intend to use. As long as the total power demand of all appliances in use simultaneously doesn't exceed 5W/sqft, there will be no demand charge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13645" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5326" RevisionGUID="76d75530-cc18-46f3-9c7d-0b817cbc0442" CreationDate="2016-12-20T21:49:54.357" UserId="85" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13647" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5544" RevisionGUID="b37d2a79-e344-4727-9627-0692277da397" CreationDate="2016-12-21T01:14:17.157" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/811379226997850112" />
  <row Id="13650" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="0d85584a-767b-4d93-b829-545f225b9f3d" CreationDate="2016-12-21T09:55:11.577" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Better comparsion in title. " Text="Are electrical cars more efficient than gas-powered car (when considering entire energy cycle)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13651" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="0d85584a-767b-4d93-b829-545f225b9f3d" CreationDate="2016-12-21T09:55:11.577" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 440" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5716" RevisionGUID="90717dce-feec-4aca-8a8e-6bbc13104e9a" CreationDate="2016-12-21T14:28:27.400" UserId="4104" Text="I would present a different analysis to jamesqf, because his does not take into consideration the latent heat of evaporation, or at least does not mention it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we're assuming a regular hardwood used typically for firewood (here in the UK at least), which has a net calorific value of 4.06 kwh/kg at a moisture level of 20%, if this is burnt in a stove with an efficiency level of 70% then it is safe to calculate that it would take a 0.352kg piece of firewood to produce 1kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the moisture content of the firewood was 10% then it would take a 0.307kg piece of firewood to produce 1kWh of electricity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5716" RevisionGUID="70d2480b-2565-4cb0-adc6-c544d417ab50" CreationDate="2016-12-21T17:45:59.070" UserId="4104" Comment="addition" Text="I would present a different analysis to jamesqf, because his does not take into consideration the latent heat of evaporation, or at least does not mention it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we're assuming a regular hardwood used typically for firewood (here in the UK at least), which has a net calorific value of 4.06 kwh/kg at a moisture level of 20%, if this is burnt in a stove with an efficiency level of 70% then it is safe to calculate that it would take a 0.352kg piece of firewood to produce 1kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the moisture content of the firewood was 10% then it would take a 0.307kg piece of firewood to produce 1kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I realise that I should present a formula to back this up. I'll do this when I'm back home :-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5717" RevisionGUID="268551d6-2bb2-4716-b9e0-4fc3489f19e9" CreationDate="2016-12-21T18:17:02.733" UserId="4110" Text="Good day,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of sludge into U.S. waterways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some states prohibit organics from being land-filled, and garbage disposals can contribute to blockages in sewer systems.&#xD;&#xA;It is best to contact your local Public Works Department for guidance. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5561" RevisionGUID="e552f90e-fad6-4e10-b840-0679af65ee65" CreationDate="2016-12-21T21:30:01.013" UserId="400" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="Google is your friend.  Use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;search **cold weather ducks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://thriftyhomesteader.com/2013/11/cold-ducks-keeping-ducks-in-winter.html][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is in the Olympic mountains at 1000 feet.  Heavy snowfall.  Lows in the teens (F)  Khaki Campbells and Blue Swedish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://wholefedhomestead.com/what-temperature-can-a-duck-survive/][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peking Ancona ducks.  Claims -20 F temps without problems.  Tricks to keep liquid water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thriftyhomesteader.com/2013/11/cold-ducks-keeping-ducks-in-winter.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://wholefedhomestead.com/what-temperature-can-a-duck-survive/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.backyardchickens.com/t/550096/cold-weather-ducks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5716" RevisionGUID="92479a4d-5bbc-49a7-a98b-4a1578ebe07f" CreationDate="2016-12-22T08:17:07.040" UserId="4104" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="I would present a different analysis to jamesqf, because his does not take into consideration the latent heat of evaporation, or at least does not mention it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we're assuming a regular hardwood used typically for firewood (here in the UK at least), which has a net calorific value of 4.06 kwh/kg at a moisture level of 20%, if this is burnt in a stove with an efficiency level of 70% then it is safe to calculate that it would take a 0.352kg piece of firewood to produce 1kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the moisture content of the firewood was 10% then it would take a 0.307kg piece of firewood to produce 1kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In calculating these figures I have used a net calorific value for dry firewood of 5,251." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13662" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4448" RevisionGUID="2dd786b8-5c5d-489c-8fe8-e44cd0c11bbb" CreationDate="2016-12-22T08:32:42.670" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[1013],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5716" RevisionGUID="7c8e4a7b-4901-46f0-aba3-5a25801137ea" CreationDate="2016-12-22T08:42:10.307" UserId="4104" Comment="added 534 characters in body" Text="I would present a different analysis to jamesqf, because his does not take into consideration the latent heat of evaporation, or at least does not mention it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we're assuming a regular hardwood used typically for firewood (here in the UK at least), which has a net calorific value of 4.06 kwh/kg at a moisture level of 20%, if this is burnt in a stove with an efficiency level of 70% then it is safe to calculate that it would take a 0.352kg piece of firewood to produce 1kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the moisture content of the firewood was 10% then it would take a 0.307kg piece of firewood to produce 1kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In calculating these figures I have used a net calorific value for dry firewood of 5,251. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, this calculation assumes that the 1kWh produced can be perfectly turned into electricity by a thermoelectric generator. This is a naive assumption, hence I would like to present a probable calculation about how much firewood we would need to produce 1kWh of electricity, because that's really what the question is asking. The problem however is that currently I know too little about this process, let me do some research and I may be able to provide a better answer in the not too distant future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13665" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="3e75cb4b-e60a-4392-91e8-f2d1efa2af97" CreationDate="2016-12-22T10:19:52.333" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/811878915165843456" />
  <row Id="13666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="01acddab-fc1f-4121-b199-6ff3d6a34bff" CreationDate="2016-12-22T11:16:08.770" UserId="3989" Text="I found from the abstract of an [NCBI][1] publication which explained the antibacterial activity of the endophytic fungi species extracted from *Indigofera suffruticosa*.&#xA;&#xA;Of the extracted fungi *Nigrospora sphaerica* and *Pestalotiopsis maculans* performed well in a rice culture medium against gram positive and negative bacteria. According to experiment in the paper, the antibacterial activity was prominent against *Staphylococcus aureus* bacteria.&#xA;&#xA;I am however not certain of their commercial availability. You can go through the paper in the link above for more details.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4423342/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5720" RevisionGUID="0dd1eb1f-b316-4399-8d63-cb5da31e2f68" CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:20:41.413" UserId="216" Text="I was wondering whether fleece clothing is a good, cheap and above all sustainable alternative to conventional cotton, which uses a lot of pesticides and takes a lot of water to grow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other sustainable alternatives, ranging from organic cotton to hemp, are all significantly more expensive and often fairly hard to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fleece clothing is often advertised as 'recycled' or 'upcycled' from plastic trash, but to what extent is this true and how well does it do in other respects? I suspect that, since it's a synthetic material that's been recycled, it doesn't use any pesticides, but are there any other pollutants being produced? What about water usage? Other forms of pollution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the fact that the clothing is often still produced in Southeast Asia makes transportation a factor in practice, but this isn't inherent to fleece clothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any other insights into this matter would be highly appreciated as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5720" RevisionGUID="0dd1eb1f-b316-4399-8d63-cb5da31e2f68" CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:20:41.413" UserId="216" Text="Is fleece clothing a cheap and sustainable alternative to conventiona cotton?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5720" RevisionGUID="0dd1eb1f-b316-4399-8d63-cb5da31e2f68" CreationDate="2016-12-22T22:20:41.413" UserId="216" Text="|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13670" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5720" RevisionGUID="85a53d84-4084-4f89-bb0c-9daefe5b40f4" CreationDate="2016-12-23T00:30:45.500" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed type in title, tags" Text="Is fleece clothing a cheap and sustainable alternative to conventional cotton?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13671" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5720" RevisionGUID="85a53d84-4084-4f89-bb0c-9daefe5b40f4" CreationDate="2016-12-23T00:30:45.500" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed type in title, tags" Text="|recycling|plastic|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13672" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5720" RevisionGUID="85a53d84-4084-4f89-bb0c-9daefe5b40f4" CreationDate="2016-12-23T00:30:45.500" Comment="Proposed by 3379 approved by 216 edit id of 441" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5721" RevisionGUID="335f9550-a9fd-41c9-b1e2-61c007611917" CreationDate="2016-12-23T04:37:53.013" UserId="80" Text="I like adding carbon to the scraps I compost by mixing in some shredded newspaper and Yellow/White Pages books (bot not glossy magazines). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I check for to make sure I am not adding chemicals that might have a negative impact on the soil or my health (after eating vegetables grown in that compost)? Those chemicals could be in the paper itself or the ink on the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What specifically should I ask the people who print the newspapers and other publications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NB**: I am aware of [this](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4842/composting-used-white-shredded-paper) related question, but my question is related to commercially printed material, not office/home-printed paper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5721" RevisionGUID="335f9550-a9fd-41c9-b1e2-61c007611917" CreationDate="2016-12-23T04:37:53.013" UserId="80" Text="What commercially printed paper is safe to compost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5721" RevisionGUID="335f9550-a9fd-41c9-b1e2-61c007611917" CreationDate="2016-12-23T04:37:53.013" UserId="80" Text="|composting|gardening|paper|health|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13676" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4662" RevisionGUID="b4d51906-21c9-4633-b45f-1db53c02471e" CreationDate="2016-12-23T08:26:48.730" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[679],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:659,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Móż&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13677" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5720" RevisionGUID="e29e7fad-a206-4f67-ab82-a425b31f5486" CreationDate="2016-12-23T22:21:22.330" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/812422875621822464" />
  <row Id="13678" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="e67dde98-75bc-462c-b868-799cdbb256ec" CreationDate="2016-12-24T10:21:56.670" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[612],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:60,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Peter Ivan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:659,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Móż&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:15,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Highly Irregular&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13679" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5721" RevisionGUID="955abaac-6870-4c23-bd5b-8e393c51d733" CreationDate="2016-12-24T13:21:22.627" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/812649369262505985" />
  <row Id="13681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5722" RevisionGUID="86f6d611-d7f7-44a9-988e-74d0ea72d36a" CreationDate="2016-12-25T13:48:38.770" UserId="4123" Text="The best solution for houses that are already built is to put black rubber mats with holes in them - you can also get anti-fatigue rubber mats in big rolls. These can easily be found in the market. People use small pieces as doormats too. Lay them on the roof. The rubber mats have holes in them which makes for great insulations. Place thin interlocking concrete or ceramic tiles over them. Sleep easy after that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="009e494d-45e8-435a-bae3-9a16bde7964b" CreationDate="2016-12-25T19:15:54.857" UserId="3989" Comment="added 1651 characters in body" Text="It is true that some endophytic fungi have antimicrobial effects on their microscopic counterparts be it of fungal or bacterial origin. &#xA;&#xA;[This paper][1] whose study employed the use of fungal extracts from *[Indigofera suffruticosa][2]* points out that *Nigrospora sphaerica* and *Pestalotiopsis maculans* inocula performed well in a rice culture medium against gram positive and negative bacteria like of the species *Staphylococcus aureus*.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Antifungal activity by endophytic fungi  has also been observed in recent scientific studies. [One study][3] for instance, used fungal extracts (whose species were not specified in the abstract of the paywalled article) from *Pinus strobus* and exhibited antifungal biochemical characteristics against the **rust** and [Microbotryum violaceum][4] A.K.A anther smut fungus.&#xA;&#xA;Another study in a paper by Mousa et al (2015) used extracts from [finger millet][5] to perform bioassay experiments that showed antifungal activity against *Fusarium* fungal species (like *F. graminearum* and three others). The strain(s) of anti Fusarium fungi was predicted to be of the *Phoma genus*.&#xA;&#xA;Research on bioactive components from endophytic mycoflora from [*Sesbania grandiflora*][6] was conducted using bacterial and fungal indicator organisms. Of the isolated fungi in this study *acremonium* and *fusarium* species exhibited the most potency (Powthog et al, 2013).&#xA;&#xA;I have not come across information on the commercial availability of the endophytic fungi mentioned above but studies can be conducted on their viability with particular tree species upon acquiring samples from the wild.&#xA;&#xA;**Edit:** I did not include antifungal endophytic fungi in the initial answer as I missed that [fundamental] part of the question. I hope this little edit answers the question and helps. &#xA;&#xA;**References**&#xA;[I'll add cited texts soon, had to provide a quick answer to avoid further downvotes]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4423342/&#xA;  [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigofera_suffruticosa&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031942211002512&#xA;  [4]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbotryum_violaceum&#xA;  [5]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusine_coracana&#xA;  [6]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesbania_grandiflora" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5723" RevisionGUID="c7813c86-e1fa-49d5-a34f-435f6f3fa5ca" CreationDate="2016-12-26T00:00:49.243" UserId="4084" Text="The composition of food scraps depend largely on the household's eating habits, so the answer may vary from household to household.  Furthermore, the treatment of refuse and sewage differs from location to location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can only give some general guidelines, some of which will be within the domain of knowledge of the customer service departments of sewer and refuse organizations in your community.  Other concepts may require inquiring in the environmental departments of your state or perhaps university researchers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll assume you are interested in sustainable living in the wider sense and hope I am correct in that assumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability of a human circulatory system with regard to some fatty acids has one thing in common with the sustainability of a sewage system.  Anything that enters in particulate or liquid form and, over time, forms attachments to the inner walls of the conduit will ultimately increase flow resistance until a complete blockage forms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the first case, flow resistance generally leads to high blood pressure and possible clot formation with the associated complications.  Such a situation may lead to valve wear or heart fatigue, both of which can further lead to lethal malfunction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the second case, flow resistance eventually leads to sewage backup and expensive blockage removal procedures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether in sewage or refuse, most fatty acids are biodegradable, meaning they are decomposed by microorganisms, mostly bacteria.  What impact that has on buried refuse, exposed refuse, sewage in pipes, or sewage treatment will vary by climate and other factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One clear conclusion that a sustainability minded person can draw is basic and invariant by region or municipality:  If you shop and cook in such a way that a drop of soap brings your cookware and dishes to squeaky clean (a simple test for fatty acids that cling to and lubricate smooth surfaces) two benefits are likely to co-occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Your family will have lower risk of several chronic diseases.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Your own home's plumbing and your municipality's sewer system will have fewer risks of malfunction too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5724" RevisionGUID="94f1e745-6256-4a71-a30d-01e9193a21e6" CreationDate="2016-12-26T00:18:23.040" UserId="4084" Text="It is the result of thermodynamics and statistics.  Here's what we know for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Homes are essentially fixed, enclosed structures when the windows and doors are closed and the HVAC is off.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates that the functioning of human  beings and machines that humans make will necessarily throw heat into the structure.&#xD;&#xA; 3. The only way the heat can escape with the windows and doors closed and the HVAC off is through the components of the structure.&#xD;&#xA; 4. When the humans in an enclosure feel too warm, they want cooling.&#xD;&#xA; 5. When the humans in an enclosure feel too cold, they want warming.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Humans may open doors and windows to heat or cool naturally, but cannot expect to arrive at a better temperature if they are cold and it is colder outside or if they are too warm and it is warmer outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To minimize the energy consumed it is simply a matter of determining what the perceive ideal room temperature is for most humans and then subtracting the common thermal drop is (indoor to outdoor) for typical levels of human activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By careful study, by trial and error, or by educated guess, they decided indoor temperatures are approximately X degrees Celsius above outdoor temperatures when the doors and windows are closed and the HVAC system has been off.  They decided that Y degrees Celsius is the perceived ideal temperature of the average occupant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Y - X is apparently 12." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="46ad00be-3ad1-4fad-9a04-2ce66a6ba433" CreationDate="2016-12-26T07:44:11.123" UserId="3989" Comment="added 245 characters in body" Text="It is true that some endophytic fungi have antimicrobial effects on their microscopic counterparts be it of fungal or bacterial origin. &#xA;&#xA;[This paper][1] whose study employed the use of fungal extracts from *[Indigofera suffruticosa][2]* points out that *Nigrospora sphaerica* and *Pestalotiopsis maculans* inocula performed well in a rice culture medium against gram positive and negative bacteria like of the species *Staphylococcus aureus*.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Antifungal activity by endophytic fungi  has also been observed in recent scientific studies. [One study][3] for instance, used fungal extracts (whose species were not specified in the abstract of the paywalled article) from *Pinus strobus* and exhibited antifungal biochemical characteristics against the **rust** and [Microbotryum violaceum][4] A.K.A anther smut fungus.&#xA;&#xA;Another study in a paper by Mousa et al (2015) used extracts from [finger millet][5] to perform bioassay experiments that showed antifungal activity against *Fusarium* fungal species (like *F. graminearum* and three others). The strain(s) of anti Fusarium fungi was predicted to be of the *Phoma genus*.&#xA;&#xA;Research on bioactive components from endophytic mycoflora from [*Sesbania grandiflora*][6] was conducted using bacterial and fungal indicator organisms. Of the isolated fungi in this study *acremonium* and *fusarium* species exhibited the most potency (Powthog et al, 2013).&#xA;&#xA;[This][7] study further suggests that *Schizophyllum commune* fungal species produces proteolytic enzymes in which inhibit growth of phytopathogens in *Piper hispidum.*&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;I have not come across information on the commercial availability of the endophytic fungi mentioned above but studies can be conducted on their viability with particular tree species upon acquiring samples from the wild.&#xA;&#xA;**Edit:** I did not include antifungal endophytic fungi in the initial answer as I missed that [fundamental] part of the question. I hope this little edit answers the question and helps. &#xA;&#xA;**References**&#xA;[I'll add cited texts soon, had to provide a quick answer to avoid further downvotes]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4423342/&#xA;  [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigofera_suffruticosa&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031942211002512&#xA;  [4]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbotryum_violaceum&#xA;  [5]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusine_coracana&#xA;  [6]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesbania_grandiflora&#xA;  [7]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4507527/#!po=51.2987" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13688" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5713" RevisionGUID="36e72984-bf7f-4630-86f6-0773ed4495f6" CreationDate="2016-12-26T09:51:34.577" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:659,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Móż&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5725" RevisionGUID="f13f5fbd-bb93-4771-beca-78486ce3088b" CreationDate="2016-12-26T16:25:33.453" UserId="4084" Text="It depends on whether you can separate the aluminum alloy, plastic, and biological layers.  These three are distinct raw materials in the creation of new metal, plastic, and paper.  It is difficult to mechanically and chemically separate these items in an automated system, although possible.  It is questionable whether the energy and raw materials required to do so is greater than the sustainability value to have them separated.  In all likelihood, simple long term rotting is the way to return such materials to the biosphere, but if you can find a way to hand separate them quickly, they you could recycle them and the total process is much more likely to be sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5726" RevisionGUID="f74945da-b2b8-4131-bcd7-0f6dda79dbb8" CreationDate="2016-12-26T17:22:51.600" UserId="4084" Text="Steel alloys are primarily iron and between 0.002% and 2% carbon.  The later is called high carbon steel and is used for heat treated parts.  Sometimes other elements are added for strength or other properties, such as silicon and manganese for spring steel or chromium for harder steels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replacing carbon with silicon, seeing as the two elements are in the same periodic group, has been tried.  Unfortunately, the practical properties of steel (strength, durability, melting point, machinability, and heat-treat-ability) require the carbon atom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminum alloys are practical too, and have replaced steel in many applications. Aluminum is also more plentiful in the earth's crust than either iron or carbon and is easier to machine, however it is not as strong or durable as steel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In steel making, carbon is either added or removed to reach some standard percentage of the element in proportion with the other elements.  This is done to conform to SAE product standards.  Once cannot make steel without carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The steel industry exhales CO2, CO, H2, CH4, and other gasses as a result of the reactions required to meet various specifications.  There are a few interesting and potentially practical ways to improve the sustainability of the steel industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Recycle steel by SAE number so that the process is mostly removal of surface films and particulate matter, followed by melting and reforming into standard stock.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Reduce consumption by improving engineering and manufacturing processes.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Find ways to minimize the proportion of carbon in the input ore and recycled materials so that the steel making process consumes (rather than produces) carbon based gases.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Use catalytic conversion to convert CO to CO2 and then capture all the CO2 and feed it to plants, phytoplankton, or artificial photosynthesis beds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last item is quite a ways down the research and development road, but it is perhaps the most sustainable of the four.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="be5ddd2b-46b6-403d-89e9-fbae219242e4" CreationDate="2016-12-26T18:46:39.033" UserId="3989" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="It is true that some endophytic fungi have antimicrobial effects on their microscopic counterparts be it of fungal or bacterial origin. &#xA;&#xA;[This paper][1] whose study employed the use of fungal extracts from *[Indigofera suffruticosa][2]* points out that *Nigrospora sphaerica* and *Pestalotiopsis maculans* inocula performed well in a rice culture medium against gram positive and negative bacteria like of the species *Staphylococcus aureus*.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Antifungal activity by endophytic fungi  has also been observed in recent scientific studies. [One study][3] for instance, used fungal extracts (whose species were not specified in the abstract of the paywalled article) from *Pinus strobus* and exhibited antifungal biochemical characteristics against the **rust** and [Microbotryum violaceum][4] A.K.A anther smut fungus.&#xA;&#xA;Another study in a paper by Mousa et al (2015) used extracts from [finger millet][5] to perform bioassay experiments that showed antifungal activity against *Fusarium* fungal species (like *F. graminearum* and three others). The strain(s) of anti Fusarium fungi was predicted to be of the *Phoma genus*.&#xA;&#xA;Research on bioactive components from endophytic mycoflora from [*Sesbania grandiflora*][6] was conducted using bacterial and fungal indicator organisms. Of the isolated fungi in this study *acremonium* and *fusarium* species exhibited the most potency (Powthog et al, 2013).&#xA;&#xA;[This][7] study further suggests that *Schizophyllum commune* fungal species produces proteolytic enzymes in which inhibit growth of phytopathogens in *Piper hispidum.*&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;I have not come across information on the commercial availability of the endophytic fungi mentioned above. However, studies can be conducted on their viability with particular tree (like fruit trees since most fungi are host specific) species upon acquiring samples from the wild.&#xA;&#xA;**Edit:** I did not include antifungal endophytic fungi in the initial answer as I missed that [fundamental] part of the question. I hope this little edit answers the question and helps. &#xA;&#xA;**References**&#xA;[I'll add cited texts soon, had to provide a quick answer to avoid further downvotes]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4423342/&#xA;  [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigofera_suffruticosa&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031942211002512&#xA;  [4]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbotryum_violaceum&#xA;  [5]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusine_coracana&#xA;  [6]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesbania_grandiflora&#xA;  [7]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4507527/#!po=51.2987" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="007d37b7-1a49-49c8-ac6c-da37496c5a58" CreationDate="2016-12-27T08:30:06.763" UserId="99" Text="I'm trying to reduce my consumption of palm oil because [palm oil production is responsible for deforestation, large forest fires and loss of biodiversity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_and_environmental_impact_of_palm_oil). However palm oil is present in many food and non-food products under many different names and it's sometimes difficult to find a good alternative. When I can't find an alternative product without palm oil, I'll try to find one with a RSPO label because I know it's somewhat better than non-certified products. Even if RSPO standards are low it's probably the best label there is (more strict than ISPO and MSPO according to [this comparison](http://www.sustainablepalmoil.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/09/Efeca_PO-Standards-Comparison.pdf)). Unfortunately products with a RSPO label are scarce where I live, but there are quite a lot of products with organic palm oil.&#xA;&#xA;My question is how environmentally friendly is organic-certified palm oil? How does it compare to RSPO-certified oil and to products without any label?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13693" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="007d37b7-1a49-49c8-ac6c-da37496c5a58" CreationDate="2016-12-27T08:30:06.763" UserId="99" Text="How environmentally friendly is palm oil with an organic label?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13694" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="007d37b7-1a49-49c8-ac6c-da37496c5a58" CreationDate="2016-12-27T08:30:06.763" UserId="99" Text="|environmental-impact|vegetable-oil|organic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="67166669-bc6b-4588-a8a3-57d26879db9b" CreationDate="2016-12-27T10:17:54.200" UserId="15" Text="If sellotape or plastic stickytape is left on wrapping paper when I recycle it, does it matter? (or how much does it matter?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happens to it during the recycling process? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume I separate and exclude any gift wrapping made from plastic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13696" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="67166669-bc6b-4588-a8a3-57d26879db9b" CreationDate="2016-12-27T10:17:54.200" UserId="15" Text="Do I need to remove sellotape to recycle Christmas wrapping paper?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13697" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="67166669-bc6b-4588-a8a3-57d26879db9b" CreationDate="2016-12-27T10:17:54.200" UserId="15" Text="|recycling|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5729" RevisionGUID="0043839c-922d-4201-aea8-fd81a006c8bc" CreationDate="2016-12-27T12:16:32.763" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="This may depend on where you are (who does the processing and collecting). I know for sure that here (The Netherlands) it does not matter: tape parts, staples, and paper clips are sieved out of the pulp when recycling the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this is the case in most processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [The paper recycling process](http://www.paperonline.org/environment/paper-recycling/the-paper-recycling-process) at paperonline.org:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having reached the paper mill, it is 'slushed' into pulp and large non-fibrous contaminants are removed (for example staples, plastic, glass etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or, from [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jODl07akVHM) at 3:27&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pulp travels through screens that trap and take away dirt and small stones" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5729" RevisionGUID="395ab881-03fb-407f-b999-78bdc9d4986a" CreationDate="2016-12-27T12:21:56.527" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="This may depend on where you are (who does the processing and collecting, and what is the paper recycled into). I know for sure that here (The Netherlands) it does not matter: tape parts, staples, and paper clips are sieved out of the pulp when recycling the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume this is the case in all processes, you see this mentioned at many places:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [The paper recycling process](http://www.paperonline.org/environment/paper-recycling/the-paper-recycling-process) at paperonline.org:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Having reached the paper mill, it is 'slushed' into pulp and large non-fibrous contaminants are removed (for example staples, plastic, glass etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or, from [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jODl07akVHM) at 3:27&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The pulp travels through screens that trap and take away dirt and small stones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The processing companies just can't take the chance that contamination ruins the paper or machines further down the chain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2997" RevisionGUID="f11d0549-218f-4ebb-b95d-35aeb2e548da" CreationDate="2016-12-28T08:58:06.557" UserId="-1" Comment="NIKE no longer has this program. I just spoke to the factory. " Text="Nike grinds up old shoes and makes them into sport field surfaces.  Sounds like good program.  Unfortunately, though, the drop off locations are not plentiful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.nike.com/us/en_us/c/better-world/reuse-a-shoe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***PLEASE NOTE: NIKE NO LONGER HAS THIS PROGRAM***&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13701" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2997" RevisionGUID="f11d0549-218f-4ebb-b95d-35aeb2e548da" CreationDate="2016-12-28T08:58:06.557" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 99 edit id of 443" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="3b57fe7f-e238-472a-ad40-c95388bbf0dd" CreationDate="2016-12-28T09:08:36.183" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="General cleanup" Text="I'm trying to reduce my consumption of palm oil because [palm oil production is responsible for deforestation, large forest fires and loss of biodiversity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_and_environmental_impact_of_palm_oil).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However palm oil is present in many food and non-food products under many different names and it's sometimes difficult to find a good alternative. When I can't find an alternative product without palm oil, I'll try to find one with a RSPO (*Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil Standard*) label because I know it's somewhat better than non-certified products. Even if RSPO standards are low it's probably the best label there is (more strict than ISPO (*Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil Standard*) and MSPO (*Malaysian Palm Oil Standard*) according to [this comparison](http://www.sustainablepalmoil.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/09/Efeca_PO-Standards-Comparison.pdf)). Unfortunately products with a RSPO label are scarce where I live, but there are quite a lot of products with &quot;organic palm oil&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is how environmentally friendly is organic-certified palm oil? How does it compare to RSPO-certified oil and to products without any label?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13703" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="3b57fe7f-e238-472a-ad40-c95388bbf0dd" CreationDate="2016-12-28T09:08:36.183" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 2345, -1 edit id of 442" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="25bcd4c9-a296-4f16-bda5-5f80f7abfb99" CreationDate="2016-12-28T09:08:36.183" UserId="99" Comment="clarified organic certification" Text="I'm trying to reduce my consumption of palm oil because [palm oil production is responsible for deforestation, large forest fires and loss of biodiversity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_and_environmental_impact_of_palm_oil).&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that palm oil is present in many food and non-food products under many different names and it's sometimes difficult to find a good alternative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I can't find an alternative product without palm oil, I try to find one with a [Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil Standard (RSPO)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundtable_on_Sustainable_Palm_Oil) label because I know it's somewhat better than non-certified products. Even if RSPO standards are low it's probably the best label there is. It's more strict than the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil Standard (ISPO) and the Malaysian Palm Oil Standard (MSPO), at least according to [this comparison](http://www.sustainablepalmoil.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/09/Efeca_PO-Standards-Comparison.pdf). Unfortunately products with a RSPO label are scarce where I live (The Netherlands / Europe), but there are quite a lot of products with certified organic palm oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: how environmentally friendly is organic palm oil, certified according to EU regulations? How does it compare to RSPO-certified oil and to products without any label?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13705" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="6fa78da4-531a-4b57-9af1-4df16b3bfe8c" CreationDate="2016-12-28T10:16:51.883" UserId="99" Comment="edited title" Text="How environmentally friendly is palm oil with a certified organic label?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="deeb248a-8c05-4229-a41c-50dd49e1f4d9" CreationDate="2016-12-28T22:59:09.653" UserId="3847" Text="I have a quart of vegetable oil, and was wanting to get rid of it.  I know you're not supposed to pour it down the drain, and was thinking that if I put it in the compost bin I would be feeding the worms and helping my garden.  Are there any problems with that idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="deeb248a-8c05-4229-a41c-50dd49e1f4d9" CreationDate="2016-12-28T22:59:09.653" UserId="3847" Text="Can I compost vegetable oil?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="deeb248a-8c05-4229-a41c-50dd49e1f4d9" CreationDate="2016-12-28T22:59:09.653" UserId="3847" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13709" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5350" RevisionGUID="8af1f34a-baca-4115-b13b-9db1d46951f8" CreationDate="2016-12-29T04:19:51.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="13711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5731" RevisionGUID="f0e2c0a9-8cc8-4e53-a6aa-49ddb6136542" CreationDate="2016-12-29T06:53:41.477" UserId="400" Text="Yes -- with caveats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will decompose.  Even motor oil will decompose.  (Don't use this as a way of disposing the used stuff.  It has lots of ungood things besides oil by the time it's used.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it will attract animals, dogs, cats, squirrels, mice, rats, bears, porcupines,chickadees, bluejays... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better solution:  Mix it with oatmeal, or some other bird compatible cereal and put it out on your bird feeder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="e6a90f3c-dfc6-4cac-b046-7c66b3d59e10" CreationDate="2016-12-29T07:36:22.327" UserId="99" Comment="added international units, added vegetable-oil and disposal tag" Text="I have a quart (0.9 liter) of vegetable oil, and was wanting to get rid of it.  I know you're not supposed to pour it down the drain, and was thinking that if I put it in the compost bin I would be feeding the worms and helping my garden.  Are there any problems with that idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13713" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="e6a90f3c-dfc6-4cac-b046-7c66b3d59e10" CreationDate="2016-12-29T07:36:22.327" UserId="99" Comment="added international units, added vegetable-oil and disposal tag" Text="|composting|waste|vegetable-oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5732" RevisionGUID="7fb2a1ab-80f4-4aee-8e1d-7c044acc05cd" CreationDate="2016-12-29T07:50:41.597" UserId="99" Text="You can compost vegetable oil but when doing aerobic composting the disadvantage is that oil will reduce the amount of air that can get in your compost heap. If you add too much oil and/or don't aerate your heap properly the compost will start to smell and turn into an [anaerobic process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion). Additionally oil may attract animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling the oil via a local grease recycling program is the preferred option. If that's not possible you can compost it, but I recommend adding small amounts at a time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5733" RevisionGUID="bfa7a99b-a6d2-4e0e-ba44-f3fae27aa6c6" CreationDate="2016-12-29T08:28:35.433" UserId="400" Text="Cedar fence posts work about as well as pressure treated ones, 25 years or so.  I think I would derate that somewhat due to constant circulation of water around them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estimate of 15 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Warmer temps will shorten life.&#xD;&#xA;* Fungi are aerobic:  They are typically most active on a fence post in the 3&quot; just below the top of the soil. Moisture + air.  A fluctuating water level during the warm season will spread the damage done by the fungi somewhat. (Has to be long enough cycle that the wood dries out.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do this, plant some posts that are smaller in diameter (2&quot; smaller at least) at a spot you can check them.  When they are getting weak, it's time to rebuild the dock. Park a bird feeder on top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Larger timbers will last longer. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5734" RevisionGUID="47f77999-582d-419c-b213-c879f90d18de" CreationDate="2016-12-29T08:37:42.887" UserId="400" Text="Strawbale has established codes in many jurisdictions.  Try the SB-R-US group on Yahoo groups for details. Note:  2 story bale is much dicier for standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably:  California has a bale code that is accepted in active earthquake zones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CMHC in Canada will loan money on bale houses, and has model codes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've not heard of an earth shelter building that didn't require an engineer's stamp on the drawings to be accepted.  Too much weight to work with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better approach that wattle &amp; daub is leichtlehm.  This is the tradition filling in medieval and renaisance timber frame construction.  Put up the frame, then infill with a mix of straw moistend with a clay slip.  Pack, the forms, and move to the next bay. Let dry for 3 months, and plaster. Works well especially in mild climates.  Try looking for code examples from England.  They do a lot of restoration of that era of building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth bags should come under the same or similar rules as adobe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know this isn't a complete answer, but it may get you started." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5735" RevisionGUID="d3133cde-7801-4642-b6bb-c8dbb67e18a9" CreationDate="2016-12-29T08:44:34.590" UserId="400" Text="When I visited Peru, EVERY house had a guinea pig pen in the back yard.  Peru doesn't prep food like north Americans do, so there was a lot of husks, stems, trimmings, peelings.  These went to the guinea pigs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They were either used by the household, or sold to street vendors who would sell barbecued GP on the street.  In 1969 you could get one for about 20 sols (65 cents)  One time I got one that had lived it's life eating fish offal.  Texture like chicken.  Taste like tuna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No joke.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway:  A guinea pig let loose in your forest is going to be doggy dinner, cat food, coyote lunch, along with every martin, mink, weasel...  Keep them penned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are VERY efficient at turning scraps into meat.  Short life cycle.  You may get tired of eating them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***DON'T LET THE KIDS NAME THEM***" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13719" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="09fb823a-1353-42b7-94c0-db8b0d0c9fe6" CreationDate="2016-12-29T20:43:56.003" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="13720" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5727" RevisionGUID="c467f483-a7ce-4a49-b2ad-c62ffcdd7a79" CreationDate="2016-12-30T04:42:43.413" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/814693172127420416" />
  <row Id="13721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="973c50ac-0f9e-4456-a751-28d2ff892fc8" CreationDate="2016-12-30T05:01:03.930" UserId="4138" Text="I have a pellet stove and heat pump they say a pellet stove is more efficient than electric mine burns 3/4 of a 40lb bag in a 12 hour period a bag cost around 6 bucks plus 180 watts of power per hour to run the stove I believe let's just say total it cost 6 bucks a hour vs. what I'm doing now on 30° plus nights(I'm trying to use my pellets for those super cold nights in the 20's or below that)I use one $15 walmart ceramic heater(1500 watts)heats the air in the room and a 1500 watt infrared heater in the next room that is connected it gets around 75° in my living room dining room kitchen and bathroom I would say it's 700sqft I keep 2 bedroom doors closed on the same level and my door that goes upstairs(if it gets to hot I crack all of them up)closed my house is approximately 1500sqft with a unfinished 1000sqft basement so here's the math using 2 space heaters 3000 watts=3 kilowatts×12 hours=36 kilowatts×10 cents a hour=$3.60 so there you have it is cheaper to use electric heat space heaters for that amount of space the the pellet stove will put out more heat meaning it is more efficient at heating more sqft. for your money I guess depending on how cold it get outside also my heat pump does do a good job but the strips make it happen at 10 killawatts per hour so I just use that when I'm not home during the day and normally it is more warmer outside to add to efficiency I like using space heaters and my pellet stove just to save some wear and tear on it!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5736" RevisionGUID="7a2d2eb9-0600-423e-bce0-60823eca0899" CreationDate="2016-12-30T05:14:46.053" UserId="4138" Comment="Spelling and grammar " Text="I have a pellet stove and heat pump they say a pellet stove is more efficient than electric mine burns 3/4 of a 40lb bag in a 12 hour period a bag cost around 6 bucks plus 180 watts of power per hour to run the stove I believe let's just say total it cost 6 bucks in a 12 hour period vs. what I'm doing now on 30° plus nights(I'm trying to use my pellets for those super cold nights in the 20's or below that)I use one $15 walmart ceramic heater(1500 watts)heats the air in the room and a 1500 watt infrared heater in the next room that is connected it gets around 75° in my living room dining room kitchen and bathroom I would say it's 700sqft I keep 2 bedroom doors closed on the same level and my door that goes upstairs(if it gets to hot I crack all of them up)closed my house is approximately 1500sqft with a unfinished 1000sqft basement so here's the math using 2 space heaters 3000 watts=3 kilowatts×12 hours=36 kilowatts×10 cents a hour=$3.60 so there you have it is cheaper to use electric heat space heaters for that amount of space the pellet stove will put out more heat meaning it is more efficient at heating more sqft. for your money I guess depending on how cold it get outside also my heat pump does do a good job but the strips make it happen at 10 killawatts per hour so I just use that when I'm not home during the day and normally it is more warmer outside to add to efficiency I like using space heaters and my pellet stove just to save some wear and tear on the heat pump!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13723" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="400697c1-f9de-48c6-b380-9e6f19981b95" CreationDate="2016-12-30T07:41:25.373" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title to better reflect content, added waste-minimisation tag" Text="How can I manage my fridge's contents better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13724" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="822" RevisionGUID="400697c1-f9de-48c6-b380-9e6f19981b95" CreationDate="2016-12-30T07:41:25.373" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title to better reflect content, added waste-minimisation tag" Text="|electricity|food|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5737" RevisionGUID="ba8cbe0c-0f87-4bcc-b372-449ba11826a7" CreationDate="2016-12-31T02:20:55.180" UserId="4084" Text="Polar fleece cloth is Polyethylene terephthalate (C10H8O4) sometimes brand named Dacron. It is the same synthetic organic used to make plastic soda bottles, but it isn't generally recycled in its textile form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is the kind of fleece you mean, then cotton probably more naturally fits into the original cycles of the earth's biosphere.  Cotton may require water, but the water is reclaimed by evaporation during harvesting cycles and returns to the ground or atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pesticides are a concern of course, but read up on how PET is produced and you may dismiss those concerns when you think about the barrage of chemical reactions and various waste products created by the synthetic textile industry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5738" RevisionGUID="6f6f5f03-df34-41cd-a8f7-a51c564ce8d8" CreationDate="2016-12-31T02:25:23.833" UserId="4084" Text="Paper mills use bonding compounds, dies, and coatings.  Pure white paper, for instance, is not just bleached. It has white components to increase the reflectivity.  Glossy papers are the worst.  They have chemical coatings and there is no law to print the ingredients because we don't eat paper generally.  If you are an organic eater, I do NOT recommend placing commercial paper in the compost heap.  I recommend recycling it.  Food scraps are safe to compost if you read the ingredients when you purchased the food from which the scraps came." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5739" RevisionGUID="1e4dbb7b-869a-4a25-aa4e-55a2e6027d67" CreationDate="2016-12-31T02:45:08.990" UserId="4084" Text="I have had that discussion with Vegan friends and spent some time thinking about the flow of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It starts with the sun.  Photosynthesis converts the radiant energy into chemical potential energy as ATP and NADPH.  Other plant processes produce sugars, oils, structural carbohydrates, and other molecules for longer term storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Humans and animals eat the plants and produce mostly glucose internally, which also becomes ATP and NADPH for use by the cells eventually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we eat the animal instead of the plant, whatever energy losses that the animal had becomes an inefficiency in the chain of energy originating from the sun.  It is wasted energy.  When we discard most of the animal, more energy waste occurs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can argue that we have to eat large amounts of plants to get the various protein amino acids we can more easily get from animal meat, but vegans know what grains, beans, and other vegetables to eat so that such arguments loose ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not venture a guess exactly how many times as much grazing land is necessary to sustain a human population of 1,000 people than land used for harvest.  It would need quite a bit of study and peer review to come up with a figure that would mean anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd guess more than double without flinching.  Animals waste plenty of energy digesting, walking, breathing, and regulating body temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Minerals have a similar story to that of energy compounds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="f98ecb6e-76ac-4e62-8d06-96948ea356fa" CreationDate="2016-12-31T07:38:33.203" UserId="48" Comment="edited to clarify which bits of hte process are in scope" Text="At the moment, a very large proportion of steel production relies on coke. So even though electric-arc furnaces are reasonably energy-efficient (Professor Julian Allwood says that the best ones run at about 50% of the theoretical maximum efficiency, which isn't too bad for a real-world process), even if the supplied electricity was from clean renewable sources, steel production would still be carbon-intensive: in large part from the reduction of iron oxide to iron, but also from the iron-to-steel part of the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the most promising alternatives, in terms of the economics and scalability, to decarbonise steel production? Both for the reduction of iron oxide to iron, and for the iron-to-steel process?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5741" RevisionGUID="0f869272-9a19-423c-823b-16f18a69a4a9" CreationDate="2016-12-31T08:05:48.007" UserId="659" Text="Your question seems to be specifically limited to grain fed to livestock, even though a great deal of the feed grown for livestock is not grain, and most livestock are not fed, let alone fed grain. It's likely based on stories like this one saying [&quot;U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists&quot;][1]. I wonder whether in fact you are asking &quot;is that Cornell story true&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect it is, but you have to read past the headline to get any value from the story. That link even includes useful quotes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from grains and 15 million tons from forage crops. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question is not &quot;if we fed people all that animal food&quot;, but &quot;if we took the grain and fed that to people&quot;. Given that and the other reasonable points made, I am inclined to take the research at face value. The news media nonsense that flows from it, much less so. For example, anyone suggesting that the researcher assumes a vegetarian (or vegan) lifestyle would result has neither read the article nor research paper, or is lying. Or both. The [vegetarian research][2] has [been done][3], but this is not it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are [multiple references][4] to US [livestock consuming][5] most of [US grain production][6] so I think that isn't controversial. Also without question, the grain could be eaten by people. I strongly suspect that the US is, however, an outlier on that aspect - worldwide, most grain will be fed to humans rather than other animals - GlobalIssues and others suggest about 1/3rd but sadly don't give references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Globally, about [2.5 billion tons of grain][7] are produced each year and using that 1/3rd number, approximately 800 million tons is wasted on livestock. Again, roughly speaking (using freerice.com's estimate of [0.5kg/person/day][8]) that could support **about 4 billion people**, assuming they could also get enough other food to provide essential nutrients (and water etc etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is much less than the 1/3 of ALL human food that is wasted every year, and quietly skips around the other factors that mean millions of people starve despite a global surplus of food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=29892&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://tier-im-fokus.ch/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pimentelpimentel03.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.earthsave.org/environment.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.sustainabletable.org/260/animal-feed&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.globalissues.org/article/240/beef&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/271943/total-world-grain-production-since-2008-2009/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://freerice.com/content/how-much-rice-does-it-take-feed-person-day-how-many-grains-rice-gram" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5741" RevisionGUID="3d1151d5-00a2-4ce1-95e9-938be9e11dc1" CreationDate="2016-12-31T08:19:16.387" UserId="659" Comment="added 2109 characters in body" Text="Your question seems to be specifically limited to grain fed to livestock, even though a great deal of the feed grown for livestock is not grain, and most livestock are not fed, let alone fed grain. It's likely based on stories like this one saying [&quot;U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists&quot;][1]. I wonder whether in fact you are asking &quot;is that Cornell story true&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect it is, but you have to read past the headline to get any value from the story. That link even includes useful quotes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; About 26 million tons of the livestock feed comes from grains and 15 million tons from forage crops. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question is not &quot;if we fed people all that animal food&quot;, but &quot;if we took the grain and fed that to people&quot;. Given that and the other reasonable points made, I am inclined to take the research at face value. The news media nonsense that flows from it, much less so. For example, anyone suggesting that the researcher assumes a vegetarian (or vegan) lifestyle would result has neither read the article nor research paper, or is lying. Or both. The [vegetarian research][2] has [been done][3], but this is not it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are [multiple references][4] to US [livestock consuming][5] most of [US grain production][6] so I think that isn't controversial. Also without question, the grain could be eaten by people. I strongly suspect that the US is, however, an outlier on that aspect - worldwide, most grain will be fed to humans rather than other animals - GlobalIssues and others suggest about 1/3rd but sadly don't give references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Globally, about [2.5 billion tons of grain][7] are produced each year and using that 1/3rd number, approximately 800 million tons is wasted on livestock. Again, roughly speaking (using freerice.com's estimate of [0.5kg/person/day][8]) that could support **about 4 billion people**, assuming they could also get enough other food to provide essential nutrients (and water etc etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If instead we focus on land used to grow all fodder crops the question becomes more complex. For example, fodder crops are grown on land that can't usefully be used to produce food for humans, or fodder is a secondary product of a food crop (palm oil kernals, for example). But if the secondary product wasn't sold, it's likely that less of the primary crop would be produced (at least on a global, roughly Pareto-optimal first approximation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second problem is that most fodder crops that can be eaten by humans are poor sources of protein, and in many ways it's protein that matters - that is the dietary factor that limits human population more than any other (the political factors that lead to calory deficiency are not really part of the question as I understand it - we currently produce enough food calroies to feed roughly twice our population). While it's possible to grow protein crops on much fodder crop farmland, the yield will be reduced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the limiting case, you might look at the cutting of remote Australian grassland for hay in flood years, where that land is generally not usable at all for human feed crops. If hay is produced one year in five, perhaps a small wheat crop could be produced instead. But wheat is harder to grow and more likely to fail to produce a usable harvest. So maybe one year in 20 you'd need wheat harvesting equipment, a very long way from the next nearest source of wheat. It's never going to be economic. That's based on my observation of Australian cattle farming in northern Australia, so it's anecdotal rather than factual. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't just say &quot;X kilojoules of animal fodder therefore X kilojoules of human food&quot;, let alone &quot;therefore X kilojoules of human-accessible protein&quot;. The reason poor asians feed rice to chickens is not because they particularly value chickens as pets, it's because chickens turn otherwise hard to use rice into protein and they really need the protein. Food scraps, crop residues, anything the chicken (or pig) can eat that people can't, it all becomes usable protein once the animal eats it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this is much less than the 1/3 of ALL human food that is wasted every year, and quietly skips around the other factors that mean millions of people starve despite a global surplus of food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=29892&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://tier-im-fokus.ch/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pimentelpimentel03.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.earthsave.org/environment.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.sustainabletable.org/260/animal-feed&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.globalissues.org/article/240/beef&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/271943/total-world-grain-production-since-2008-2009/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://freerice.com/content/how-much-rice-does-it-take-feed-person-day-how-many-grains-rice-gram" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5743" RevisionGUID="9c1608f3-bca5-4f80-b384-9fe9a08a7e91" CreationDate="2016-12-31T19:48:36.243" UserId="400" Text="***Sustainable:**  To continue a practice over a long period with little or no impact on the underlying resource.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that &quot;sustainable&quot; is an absolute.  And too many people are using it that way.  E.g. &quot;Meat animals are unsustainable&quot;  &quot;Coal power is unsustainable&quot; &quot;Organic farming is unsustainable due to weed issues&quot; &quot;Zero till is unsustainable due to chemical use.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainable is better used as a relative measure, used with a given metric, and usually a handful of caveats.  This will make the word unusable in sound-bite journalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often a an adjective needs to come first.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. Managed timber leases, where a single company has century long management of a block of land, and is responsible for maintaining a cutting policy that keeps more or less constant inventory on a decade long time scale is more ***economically sustainable*** than the U.S. Forests Service policy of auctioning off timber blocks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves open whether or not it is ***ecologically sustainable***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The time frame is important.  Often the present practice will result in the destruction of the underlying resource in a short or medium period of time.  E.g. Slash and burn agriculture in tropical rain forests.  This results in infertile parking lots or mudscapes in a few years.  Conventional plough, disk and harrow agriculture in many climates loses top soil at a rate of inches per century.  By this metric PDH temperate agriculture is more sustainable than S&amp;B tropical agriculture.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate measure of sustainability is to be able to continue the practice over geologic time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5706" RevisionGUID="d2bfc6f6-90fe-4c72-8449-33cd221d9f9b" CreationDate="2016-12-31T22:37:56.707" UserId="4084" Comment="deleted 917 characters in body" Text="**Importance of Three Phase Electricity**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three phase motors are known to have significantly higher radial power output than a single phase motor of similar design for the same electrical power consumption. [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicola Tesla demonstrated the math behind that and built corresponding devices to demonstrate the benefits of alternating current multi-phase generators and motors at fairs and exhibits.  George Westinghouse successfully partnered with Tesla to make AC the distribution standard on the basis of its improved efficiency (and therefore improved sustainability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several others around that time found that three phases provided an optimal balance between motor and alternator efficiency and their manufacturing cost.  These same economics and physics principles still apply today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Equipment Purchase Decision**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expect to have motors, they will consume less energy for the same work output if they are tri-phase and the electrical power source is tri-phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Equipment exists to convert any of these electrical standards to any other one, however, there is a cost.  From a sustainability point of view, the manufacture, installation, and maintenance of conversion equipment is undesirable if there is another way to achieve high energy efficiency without the equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lighting, contemporary (and highly efficient) LED lighting runs from a single phase, so if you had triphase, you could purchase a transformer at a fairly low cost to produce split phase for lighting and other devices like break room appliances.  Such a solution normally lasts for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Summary**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire choice revolves around the degree to which you expect to install AC motors other than servos and steppers. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Power loss is reduced, and the devices run cooler as a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] Servos and steppers use an entirely different strategy to powering their windings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5744" RevisionGUID="4e149c79-cf05-4a19-948d-3a7af469bc1b" CreationDate="2016-12-31T23:06:29.130" UserId="4084" Text="Yes, especially if you have many of these to recycle, disassembly may aid in recycling, especially if you have have metal recycling provided separately in your region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming you are speaking of spent lighters (absent of fluid) and that your reference to Igniter is a reference to the flint-like element that fragments when meshed against the turning thumb wheel and create a spark to ignite the flame.  If not, I'll adjust my answer.  The remaining components are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Flint-like element&#xD;&#xA; 2. Metal hood and retainer&#xD;&#xA; 3. Springs&#xD;&#xA; 4. Valve&#xD;&#xA; 5. Thumb (spark) wheel&#xD;&#xA; 6. Plastic body and other components&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the body, Bic uses polyacetal homopolymer resin, which Dupont brand named Delrin.  It is recyclable in some municipal and county recycling systems.  You should probably check.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without doing a chemical analysis of several brand's flint-like elements, it is difficult to recommend recycling without some apprehension.  Perhaps normal refuse is the correct place for those.  Others may have more information on what to do with that part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5744" RevisionGUID="4422fe29-89d8-4a21-a7fd-c4e1f89a44d0" CreationDate="2016-12-31T23:12:51.323" UserId="4084" Comment="added 232 characters in body" Text="Yes, especially if you have many of these to recycle, disassembly is likely to improve the positive impact of recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming you are speaking of spent lighters (absent of fluid) and that your reference to IGNITER is a reference to the flint-like element that fragments when meshed against the turning thumb wheel and create a spark to ignite the flame.  The remaining components are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Flint-like (igniter) element&#xD;&#xA; 2. Metal hood and retainer&#xD;&#xA; 3. Springs (spring steel)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Metal valve&#xD;&#xA; 5. Thumb (spark) wheel&#xD;&#xA; 6. Plastic body and other components&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling the metal separately in a facility that specializes in metal recycling, if available in your region, is certainly an excellent choice.  It is most convenient if you take a run to such a facility regularly with all of your metal to be recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the body, Bic uses polyacetal homopolymer resin, which Dupont brand named Delrin.  It is recyclable in some municipal and county recycling systems.  You should probably check.  Other lighter manufacturers may use other plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without doing a chemical analysis of several brand's flint-like igniter elements, it is difficult to recommend recycling without some apprehension.  Perhaps normal refuse is the correct choice for those without more information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5746" RevisionGUID="054e9c8c-b82b-4643-84ea-6e3bd14f0400" CreationDate="2016-12-31T23:31:37.490" UserId="4084" Text="**Simple Answer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a simple answer that does not require significant modification to an existing residential or commercial building.  This is the standard high efficiency HVAC answer to the question: Heat air as it enters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Scientific Validity**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is based on thermodynamics.  The efficiency of a heater is based on the temperature difference between the heat source and the cold sink.  Therefore it is always better to heat incoming winter air than heat inside air while leaving the windows open.  The more efficient choice, is often, and certainly so in this case, the more sustainable one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How to Easily Achieve It**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Window heat pump manufacturers know this, being in the HVAC business.  If you buy a window unit and set it to heat and ventilate using outside air, you will meet your objective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have central heating, it will fire up at a shorter duty cycle (less constantly) and you will have only a slight increase in heating cost, the minimum reasonably possible with the outdoor ventilation you need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5748" RevisionGUID="14b25fe8-cf8d-49a7-a160-06c0ae8c36fe" CreationDate="2017-01-02T09:35:33.343" UserId="4145" Text="I was wondering what the most eco-friendly high-starch food is — not per kg but per calorie — I am looking for something to eat large amounts of when hungry after my main meals. Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grains and beans are staple foods as well as potatoes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5748" RevisionGUID="14b25fe8-cf8d-49a7-a160-06c0ae8c36fe" CreationDate="2017-01-02T09:35:33.343" UserId="4145" Text="Most eco-friendly staple food" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5748" RevisionGUID="14b25fe8-cf8d-49a7-a160-06c0ae8c36fe" CreationDate="2017-01-02T09:35:33.343" UserId="4145" Text="|food|health|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5749" RevisionGUID="ee653360-2b38-4b69-b4ae-07881ff5b238" CreationDate="2017-01-02T18:32:49.587" UserId="400" Text="First approximation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the cheapest starch?  Use dry weight, or bucks per calorie.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This tends to maximize for the calories per acre of land used, and the costs to bring it to market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not take into account externalized costs of farming:  Soil loss, chemical pollution, habitat destruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your next step would be to start with a list of cheap sources,then to look at how each is typically farmed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, for example, potatoes are cheap, but the chemical use for spuds is unreal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Soybeans are high chemical users too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grains:  Wheat, barley, oats are only moderate chemical users.  I would give serious consideration to any of these three that you could buy organically, especially if you could buy whole grain at the farm gate.  Look also for organic peas and beans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a starch source, oats is the highest yield per acre.  Hulled oats are easily chopped into scottish 'steel cut oats' which have a fairly low glycemic index, so they stave off hunger longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This pattern could result in dietary issues.  Most grains have protein but it is incomplete.  If you are using this a supplement, fine, but if it's going to be a major part of your diet, look at mixing sources to get the right protein mix.  Beans and either rice or corn work well.  Possibly any legume combined with any grain.  The vegan circle has good information about balanced combinations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5748" RevisionGUID="33741b5e-fc5a-4347-aeac-27f625315533" CreationDate="2017-01-02T22:58:32.223" UserId="4145" Comment="added 36 characters in body" Text="I was wondering what the most eco-friendly high-starch food is — not per kg but per calorie — I am looking for something to eat large amounts of when hungry after my main meals. Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grains and beans are staple foods as well as potatoes. My location is Melbourne, Australia." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5750" RevisionGUID="91b60185-886a-42e9-a0d3-d885b1425ad3" CreationDate="2017-01-03T14:51:41.587" UserId="400" Text="Probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The appearance of soot in the gas stream shows incomplete combustion.  This means insufficient combustion time, or not enough oxygen.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, depending on the fuel source this can mean that it is essentially pure carbon  which can be used as a pigment.  Anytime you see black plastic, it's about 1/2 to 2% carbon black.  If the source is oil or coal there is likely be admixture of a real witches brew of partially oxidized hydrocarbons.  I wouldn't want it on anything I grow in quantity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, in minor quantities most everything but the pure carbon can be eaten by some bacteria.  (Generally if there is energy to be gotten out of a chemical reaction, there is a bacteria that will take advantage of it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better solution is to better regulate the fuel/air supply at the source.  Some care has to be done with this, as if the fires run too hot you don't get soot, but you do get NOx (Nitrous oxides) which produce smog and acid rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:  Coal as a fuel produces fly ash.  Very very fine ash. It comes out as grey dust, but in thick enough quantities can appear black.  This is the stuff that isn't coal in the coal.  Mostly silicon dioxide, calcium oxide, but traces of arsenic, lead, mercury, depending on the source of the coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5751" RevisionGUID="e0bed33c-8141-4da8-b1df-098ca053859b" CreationDate="2017-01-03T14:59:42.820" UserId="400" Text="Additional information to @LShaver's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google for a solar power potential atlas or map.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These produce tables or maps that estimate the amount of power that can be generated over the course of a year for a 1 kW panel.  Some will give month by month breakdowns too, or give the relative values for different orientations of the panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are based in part on  latitude which gives you seasonal day length and solar elevation, but also in part on the climate record for that location, which comes from your local weather station's observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typical Numbers:  &#xD;&#xA;Where I live in Alberta a 1 kW panel oriented to be at right angles to the sun on solstices, will generate about 1250 to 1350 kWh/year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same array in Germany generates about 800 kWh, while one in the SW deserts in the U.S. will generate 1500-1600 kWh" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13767" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5752" RevisionGUID="b66350c1-2a3a-4597-ab94-ef4b11049a26" CreationDate="2017-01-03T19:09:03.733" UserId="3379" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Change in capacity&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 2004 to 2014, nuclear capacity did not change substantially:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Electricity capacity by source in Japan, 2004 to 2014][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Change in generation&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the generation mix did change quite a bit (2014 nuclear data not available, so this chart ends in 2013):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Electricity generation by source in Japan, 2004 to 2013][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Summary of data&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a summary of the data from 2011, along with the two years before and after:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    				                2009	2010	2011	2012	2013&#xD;&#xA;    	CAPACITY (Million kW)					&#xD;&#xA;    Fossil Fuels			        182	    182	    185	    189	    191&#xD;&#xA;    Nuclear				            47	    47	    44	    44	    42&#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectricity		        22	    22	    22	    22	    22&#xD;&#xA;    Non-Hydroelectric Renewables	7	    8	    9	    11	    18&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL                           258     259     260     266     273&#xD;&#xA;    	GENERATION (Billion kWh)					&#xD;&#xA;    Fossil Fuels			        616	    685	    795	    863	    862&#xD;&#xA;    Nuclear				            263	    280	    156	    17	    14&#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectricity		        76	    81	    82	    75	    77&#xD;&#xA;    Non-Hydroelectric Renewables	27	    41	    43	    56	    55&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL                           982     1087    1076    1011    1008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Effect of Fukushima incident&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to determine how much more greenhouse gases were emitted as a result of the move away from nuclear after the Fukushima incident, let's assume:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hydroelectric capacity is stable and not affected by the change&#xD;&#xA; - Solar and wind capacity would have grown anyway, and maybe grew a bit faster than if the accident had not occurred, but is still such a small percentage that we can safely ignore it&#xD;&#xA; - Therefore, nearly all generation shifted away from nuclear was replaced by fossil fuel generation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to the incident, fossil fuels accounted for about 63% of generation, and nuclear was about 26%. After, these numbers shift to 86% and 1%. That means that 23% of the total annual production moved from nuclear to fossil fuel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If for simplicity's sake we assume the annual consumption of Japan is 1 trillion kWh, this means that **about 230 billion kWh's worth of fossil fuels were burned to produce electricity, that would not have been used if the Fukushima incident had not occurred.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Change in fuel sources&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to Fukushima, coal and natural gas each accounted for roughly 50% of primary fuels for electricity generation. **Nearly all of the added generation after Fukushima came from natural gas** (values are in metric tonnes of oil equivalent):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    	        2009	2010	2011	2012	2013&#xD;&#xA;    Coal        108	    116	    112	    117	    104&#xD;&#xA;    Natural gas 97	    103	    119	    124	    124&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL	    205	    219	    231	    241	    228&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H1&gt;Net increase in GHG emissions&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @EnergyNumbers pointed out, it's really hard to give a definite answer to this question. I've made a whole series of assumptions here, and my numbers are rough as a result. But in the end, we could estimate that after Fukushima:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An additional 230 billion kWh of electricity was produced using natural gas instead of nuclear energy&#xD;&#xA; - Per kWh of electricity produced, about 0.4 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is produced&#xD;&#xA; - **Thus, roughly 100 billion metric tonnes of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; was emitted that would have been avoided if Fukushima had not occurred**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;HR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [EIA International Energy Statistics](http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e1Z6O.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/50z35.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5752" RevisionGUID="7beffde6-5138-4255-8db5-1b2daed43b3b" CreationDate="2017-01-03T19:14:49.797" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified data source" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Change in capacity&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 2004 to 2014, nuclear capacity did not change substantially:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Electricity capacity by source in Japan, 2004 to 2014][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Change in generation&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the generation mix did change quite a bit (2014 nuclear data not available, so this chart ends in 2013):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Electricity generation by source in Japan, 2004 to 2013][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Summary of data&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a summary of the data from 2011, along with the two years before and after:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    				                2009	2010	2011	2012	2013&#xD;&#xA;    	CAPACITY (Million kW)					&#xD;&#xA;    Fossil Fuels			        182	    182	    185	    189	    191&#xD;&#xA;    Nuclear				            47	    47	    44	    44	    42&#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectricity		        22	    22	    22	    22	    22&#xD;&#xA;    Non-Hydroelectric Renewables	7	    8	    9	    11	    18&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL                           258     259     260     266     273&#xD;&#xA;    	GENERATION (Billion kWh)					&#xD;&#xA;    Fossil Fuels			        616	    685	    795	    863	    862&#xD;&#xA;    Nuclear				            263	    280	    156	    17	    14&#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectricity		        76	    81	    82	    75	    77&#xD;&#xA;    Non-Hydroelectric Renewables	27	    41	    43	    56	    55&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL                           982     1087    1076    1011    1008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Effect of Fukushima incident&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to determine how much more greenhouse gases were emitted as a result of the move away from nuclear after the Fukushima incident, let's assume:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hydroelectric capacity is stable and not affected by the change&#xD;&#xA; - Solar and wind capacity would have grown anyway, and maybe grew a bit faster than if the accident had not occurred, but is still such a small percentage that we can safely ignore it&#xD;&#xA; - Therefore, nearly all generation shifted away from nuclear was replaced by fossil fuel generation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to the incident, fossil fuels accounted for about 63% of generation, and nuclear was about 26%. After, these numbers shift to 86% and 1%. That means that 23% of the total annual production moved from nuclear to fossil fuel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If for simplicity's sake we assume the annual consumption of Japan is 1 trillion kWh, this means that **about 230 billion kWh's worth of fossil fuels were burned to produce electricity, that would not have been used if the Fukushima incident had not occurred.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Change in fuel sources&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to Fukushima, coal and natural gas each accounted for roughly 50% of primary fuels for electricity generation. **Nearly all of the added generation after Fukushima came from natural gas** (values are in metric tonnes of oil equivalent):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    	        2009	2010	2011	2012	2013&#xD;&#xA;    Coal        108	    116	    112	    117	    104&#xD;&#xA;    Natural gas 97	    103	    119	    124	    124&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL	    205	    219	    231	    241	    228&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note this data comes from &quot;Annual primary fuel consumption,&quot; and thus includes more than just what is used for electricity production - some of the natural gas is likely used for heating, and some of the coal for steel production. However this shouldn't matter too much as we're most interested in the increase in consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H1&gt;Net increase in GHG emissions&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @EnergyNumbers pointed out, it's really hard to give a definite answer to this question. I've made a whole series of assumptions here, and my numbers are rough as a result. But in the end, we could estimate that after Fukushima:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An additional 230 billion kWh of electricity was produced using natural gas instead of nuclear energy&#xD;&#xA; - Per kWh of electricity produced, about 0.4 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is produced&#xD;&#xA; - **Thus, roughly 100 billion metric tonnes of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; was emitted that would have been avoided if Fukushima had not occurred**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;HR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [EIA International Energy Statistics](http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e1Z6O.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/50z35.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5752" RevisionGUID="cfd39ad2-080b-4456-bf24-e6e1f4a053f7" CreationDate="2017-01-04T00:17:29.857" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed billion -&gt; million, added percent share of emissions" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Change in capacity&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 2004 to 2014, nuclear capacity did not change substantially:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Electricity capacity by source in Japan, 2004 to 2014][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Change in generation&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the generation mix did change quite a bit (2014 nuclear data not available, so this chart ends in 2013):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Electricity generation by source in Japan, 2004 to 2013][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Summary of data&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a summary of the data from 2011, along with the two years before and after:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    				                2009	2010	2011	2012	2013&#xD;&#xA;    	CAPACITY (Million kW)					&#xD;&#xA;    Fossil Fuels			        182	    182	    185	    189	    191&#xD;&#xA;    Nuclear				            47	    47	    44	    44	    42&#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectricity		        22	    22	    22	    22	    22&#xD;&#xA;    Non-Hydroelectric Renewables	7	    8	    9	    11	    18&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL                           258     259     260     266     273&#xD;&#xA;    	GENERATION (Billion kWh)					&#xD;&#xA;    Fossil Fuels			        616	    685	    795	    863	    862&#xD;&#xA;    Nuclear				            263	    280	    156	    17	    14&#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectricity		        76	    81	    82	    75	    77&#xD;&#xA;    Non-Hydroelectric Renewables	27	    41	    43	    56	    55&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL                           982     1087    1076    1011    1008&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Effect of Fukushima incident&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to determine how much more greenhouse gases were emitted as a result of the move away from nuclear after the Fukushima incident, let's assume:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hydroelectric capacity is stable and not affected by the change&#xD;&#xA; - Solar and wind capacity would have grown anyway, and maybe grew a bit faster than if the accident had not occurred, but is still such a small percentage that we can safely ignore it&#xD;&#xA; - Therefore, nearly all generation shifted away from nuclear was replaced by fossil fuel generation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to the incident, fossil fuels accounted for about 63% of generation, and nuclear was about 26%. After, these numbers shift to 86% and 1%. That means that 23% of the total annual production moved from nuclear to fossil fuel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If for simplicity's sake we assume the annual consumption of Japan is 1 trillion kWh, this means that **about 230 billion kWh's worth of fossil fuels were burned to produce electricity, that would not have been used if the Fukushima incident had not occurred.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Change in fuel sources&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Prior to Fukushima, coal and natural gas each accounted for roughly 50% of primary fuels for electricity generation. **Nearly all of the added generation after Fukushima came from natural gas** (values are in metric tonnes of oil equivalent):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    	        2009	2010	2011	2012	2013&#xD;&#xA;    Coal        108	    116	    112	    117	    104&#xD;&#xA;    Natural gas 97	    103	    119	    124	    124&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL	    205	    219	    231	    241	    228&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note this data comes from &quot;Annual primary fuel consumption,&quot; and thus includes more than just what is used for electricity production - some of the natural gas is likely used for heating, and some of the coal for steel production. However this shouldn't matter too much as we're most interested in the increase in consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H1&gt;Net increase in GHG emissions&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As @EnergyNumbers pointed out, it's really hard to give a definite answer to this question. I've made a whole series of assumptions here, and my numbers are rough as a result. But in the end, we could estimate that after Fukushima:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An additional 230 billion kWh of electricity was produced using natural gas instead of nuclear energy&#xD;&#xA; - Per kWh of electricity produced, about 0.55 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is produced&#xD;&#xA; - **Thus, roughly 127 million metric tonnes of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; was emitted that would have been avoided if Fukushima had not occurred**&#xD;&#xA; - **This represents roughly 10% of Japan's total CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;HR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [EIA International Energy Statistics](http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/)&#xD;&#xA; - [How much carbon dioxide is produced per kilowatthour when generating electricity with fossil fuels?](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&amp;t=11)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/e1Z6O.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/50z35.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5710" RevisionGUID="4a390295-589b-4120-a240-e72e147e0078" CreationDate="2017-01-04T07:57:13.573" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed grammar, tags" Text="If soot was filtered from power plants, are there any trees or plants that would love to grow in it if mixed in the soil, if it is a sulfur substance? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it also be filtered and used in the making of paints or something? Is there any good use for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13773" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5710" RevisionGUID="4a390295-589b-4120-a240-e72e147e0078" CreationDate="2017-01-04T07:57:13.573" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed grammar, tags" Text="|pollution|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13774" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5710" RevisionGUID="4a390295-589b-4120-a240-e72e147e0078" CreationDate="2017-01-04T07:57:13.573" Comment="Proposed by 3379 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 444" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13775" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="182eff1a-4415-43fa-b747-bf47b16f0547" CreationDate="2017-01-04T09:39:28.613" UserId="3379" Comment="Added question mark in title" Text="How much irradiation from the sun is required to generate solar power?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13776" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5708" RevisionGUID="182eff1a-4415-43fa-b747-bf47b16f0547" CreationDate="2017-01-04T09:39:28.613" Comment="Proposed by 3379 approved by 2345, 80 edit id of 445" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="9b35f51a-af5a-4cf6-bc07-99e5b1936962" CreationDate="2017-01-04T17:35:35.157" UserId="2187" Comment="added 253 characters in body" Text="From a [Degrowth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth) perspective, how would one argue in favour or against ad blocking and online advertising? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give a perspective on Degrowth, Degrowth is a political, economic, and social movement based on ecological economics, anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist ideas that tries to address the limits to growth dilemma (constraints of a finite planet). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely, online advertising fuels consumption. Yet it is also a potential source of income for anti-consumerist alternatives and blocking advertising thus closes this opportunity of income generation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5698" RevisionGUID="14e64d7a-25f9-4ba0-960e-34c2eee87d3e" CreationDate="2017-01-04T17:39:15.613" UserId="2187" Comment="added 175 characters in body" Text="How is a credit card marketed as &quot;sustainable credit card&quot; different from a conventional credit card?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Do those providers, for instance, invest less in oil and coal projects?&#xD;&#xA;- Or are they in any way more local or socially just regarding their overall business practices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="5a969b75-e9c2-4a11-9f70-e5f452f04128" CreationDate="2017-01-05T16:48:26.407" UserId="3379" Text="As various investigative reports and documentaries have made clear by now, the environmental impacts and animal welfare abuses of CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) are dreadful and should be reformed or abandoned if we wish to achieve a just and sustainable society. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, looking at something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/1aUqO.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; alt=&quot;Pig CAFO&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...compared to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/lWA2J.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; alt=&quot;Organic pig farm&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..makes me wonder: if we compare the environmental impact of each dollar spent on conventional pork vs organic park, doesn't the CAFO win? It is a highly efficient operation where manure can be harvested, &quot;byproducts&quot; are recycled*, animals are given just the right amount of feed, meat is processed at scale on site, incoming feed and outgoing products are transported in bulk, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, due to the higher costs of the organic pork, each dollar buys less: so by comparing the environmental impact per pound of pork produced, would the organic operation win out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would this compare for other types of livestock?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Meaning, parts of the animals that can't be sold are often ground up and put back in the animal feed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13784" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="5a969b75-e9c2-4a11-9f70-e5f452f04128" CreationDate="2017-01-05T16:48:26.407" UserId="3379" Text="How does footprint per dollar vs footprint per pound compare for different cattle raising approaches?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13785" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="5a969b75-e9c2-4a11-9f70-e5f452f04128" CreationDate="2017-01-05T16:48:26.407" UserId="3379" Text="|ecological-footprint|animals|farming|organic|pigs|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13787" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5748" RevisionGUID="ba02e831-9620-4719-a1b0-c4b71a5082d1" CreationDate="2017-01-05T20:19:21.197" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/817103210209050626" />
  <row Id="13788" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="750134d2-a516-4b37-b701-b34e7035c941" CreationDate="2017-01-06T11:19:50.170" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/817329825258020865" />
  <row Id="13789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5755" RevisionGUID="0e1705cd-8f41-461d-9956-b9fbc0000b7c" CreationDate="2017-01-06T11:44:37.827" UserId="99" Text="I've read somewhere that this occurs because over time the positive plates of lead acid batteries corrode. The plates grow and start pushing at the weakest point which usually is the pole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article](http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/corrosion_shedding_and_internal_short)  briefly describes the process and mentions that you cannot prevent it, but you can take measures to avoid rapid corrosion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Limiting the depth of discharge, reducing the cycle count, operating at a moderate temperature and controlling overcharge are preventive measures to keep corrosion in check....... [prolonged overcharge] is especially damaging to sealed lead acid systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be too late for your current batteries, but I've read [here](http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_restore_and_prolong_lead_acid_batteries) that you can keep lead acid batteries in good condition if you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; apply a fully saturated charge lasting 14 to 16 hours. If the charge cycle does not allow this, give the battery a fully saturated charge once every few weeks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More do's and don'ts can be found [here](http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/do_and_dont_battery_table)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5756" RevisionGUID="eef1a8d4-eecf-4962-a1ff-4a68b5586fe1" CreationDate="2017-01-06T12:57:38.207" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5756" RevisionGUID="eef1a8d4-eecf-4962-a1ff-4a68b5586fe1" CreationDate="2017-01-06T12:57:38.207" UserId="99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5757" RevisionGUID="03ad9e00-7372-410a-8926-282d77f5d91c" CreationDate="2017-01-06T12:57:38.207" UserId="99" Text="Organic is a label placed on food products and clothing that are produced according to organic farming principles. The exact meaning of organic differs per country and/or certification-scheme, but usually it means produced without the use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, and with ecological balance, animal welfare and biodiversity in mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5757" RevisionGUID="03ad9e00-7372-410a-8926-282d77f5d91c" CreationDate="2017-01-06T12:57:38.207" UserId="99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5756" RevisionGUID="60553624-fa67-47e1-9b55-97938e0cd926" CreationDate="2017-01-06T13:54:05.867" UserId="99" Comment="added 1277 characters in body" Text="Organic is a label placed on food products and clothing that are produced according to organic farming principles. This usually means that the product was produced with:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - little or no use of artificial fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, genetically-manipulated organisms or other substances that artificially promote growth&#xD;&#xA; - ecological balance, biodiversity and animal welfare in mind (there are usually specific housing and breeding conditions for lifestock)&#xD;&#xA; - ability to provide required production and sales information during audits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there are differences between countries and certification-schemes. For example, in the European Union only a small list of naturally-occurring pesticides and fertilizers are allowed to grow organic ingredients, whereas in the USA this list is much larger and includes some synthetic pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also countries where the term organic is not regulated. For example in Australia it can be used on any domestic product, as long as it can be substantiated. Export products with an organic label on the other hand are heavily regulated in Australia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tag usage:**&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions about &#xD;&#xA;products that are labeled as organic, or for question about the criteria for a specific organic label." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13795" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="38cd4e07-58d7-4aa5-b21f-d8d39c45094c" CreationDate="2017-01-06T14:23:11.787" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Better title" Text="How does footprint per dollar/pound compare for different cattle raising approaches?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13796" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="38cd4e07-58d7-4aa5-b21f-d8d39c45094c" CreationDate="2017-01-06T14:23:11.787" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 3379 edit id of 446" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13797" PostHistoryTypeId="7" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="175f9b1f-f13c-4c20-810f-98479b5d1962" CreationDate="2017-01-06T14:28:32.070" UserId="3379" Comment="Rollback to [5a969b75-e9c2-4a11-9f70-e5f452f04128]" Text="How does footprint per dollar vs footprint per pound compare for different cattle raising approaches?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="8218088e-6021-48c3-899f-86e23452ba9e" CreationDate="2017-01-06T14:47:00.337" UserId="3379" Comment="Switched to SI units" Text="As various investigative reports and documentaries have made clear by now, the environmental impacts and animal welfare abuses of CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) are dreadful and should be reformed or abandoned if we wish to achieve a just and sustainable society. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, looking at something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/1aUqO.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; alt=&quot;Pig CAFO&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...compared to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/lWA2J.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; alt=&quot;Organic pig farm&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..makes me wonder: if we compare the environmental impact of each dollar spent on conventional pork vs organic park, doesn't the CAFO win? It is a highly efficient operation where manure can be harvested, &quot;byproducts&quot; are recycled*, animals are given just the right amount of feed, meat is processed at scale on site, incoming feed and outgoing products are transported in bulk, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, due to the higher costs of the organic pork, each dollar buys less: so by comparing the environmental impact per kilo of pork produced, would the organic operation win out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would this compare for other types of livestock?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Meaning, parts of the animals that can't be sold are often ground up and put back in the animal feed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13799" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="8218088e-6021-48c3-899f-86e23452ba9e" CreationDate="2017-01-06T14:47:00.337" UserId="3379" Comment="Switched to SI units" Text="How does footprint per dollar vs footprint per kilo compare for different cattle raising approaches?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5491" RevisionGUID="c7a55508-babc-4cf2-b7a8-a429003cfb8c" CreationDate="2017-01-06T15:59:25.087" UserId="99" Comment="added text from OPs comment which explains why this question is on-topic" Text="I'm living in an off-grid house with battery power storage. Batteries are one of the most expensive and problem prone aspects of off-grid power. &#xD;&#xA;I have a battery bank in which some of the batteries are experiencing positive terminal growth. This is when the positive terminal literally grows longer and starts to push its way out of the battery case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The batteries are 2v 460 A/hr Gel Batteries (sealed lead acid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not had much luck finding out exactly what causes this and how to avoid further worsening of the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the exact causes of this, or whether it's possible to reverse it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5756" RevisionGUID="345ec697-60ce-4251-bcac-9b9b87cbb819" CreationDate="2017-01-06T18:04:12.310" UserId="99" Comment="made clear that the term 'artificial' applies to both fertilizers and pesticides" Text="Organic is a label placed on food products and clothing that are produced according to organic farming principles. This usually means that the product was produced with:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - little or no use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, antibiotics, genetically-manipulated organisms or any other substance that artificially promotes growth&#xD;&#xA; - ecological balance, biodiversity and animal welfare in mind (there are usually specific housing and breeding conditions for lifestock)&#xD;&#xA; - ability to provide required production and sales information during audits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there are differences between countries and certification-schemes. For example, in the European Union only a small list of naturally-occurring pesticides and fertilizers are allowed to grow organic ingredients, whereas in the USA this list is much larger and includes some synthetic pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also countries where the term organic is not regulated. For example in Australia it can be used on any domestic product, as long as it can be substantiated. Export products with an organic label on the other hand are heavily regulated in Australia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tag usage:**&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions about &#xD;&#xA;products that are labeled as organic, or for question about the criteria for a specific organic label." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="9b71a5e0-d9f6-48c4-a096-5bf212b96742" CreationDate="2017-01-07T04:30:06.567" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified question" Text="As various investigative reports and documentaries have made clear by now, the environmental impacts and animal welfare abuses of CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) are dreadful and should be reformed or abandoned if we wish to achieve a just and sustainable society. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, looking at something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/1aUqO.png&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; alt=&quot;Pig CAFO&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...compared to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/lWA2J.jpg&quot; width=&quot;500&quot; alt=&quot;Organic pig farm&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;..makes me wonder: by some measures, could the CAFO be more sustainable? It is a highly efficient operation where manure can be harvested, &quot;byproducts&quot; are recycled*, animals are given just the right amount of feed, meat is processed at scale on site, incoming feed and outgoing products are transported in bulk, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on a quick google search, organic pork is $22/kilo, and conventional is $13: So $1 buys 45 grams of organic pork, and 77 grams of conventional pork.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we take a some &quot;basket&quot; of sustainability factors -- land use, water use, fuel use, and chemical use, for instance -- and compare the environmental impact of the dollar spent on each kind of pork, which is more sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would this compare for other types of livestock?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Meaning, parts of the animals that can't be sold are often ground up and put back in the animal feed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13803" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5754" RevisionGUID="9b71a5e0-d9f6-48c4-a096-5bf212b96742" CreationDate="2017-01-07T04:30:06.567" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified question" Text="How does footprint per dollar vs footprint per kilo compare for different methods of raising livestock?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13804" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5434" RevisionGUID="f587f63e-da45-4573-a637-12d7d563526b" CreationDate="2017-01-07T12:19:40.810" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:659,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Móż&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="13806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5758" RevisionGUID="7ca20245-6e53-4526-8039-98770770a045" CreationDate="2017-01-07T17:39:00.183" UserId="4159" Text="Your location will have a big influence on what is eco-friendly since things grown where you are may require intense inputs not needed on other sites.  Melbourne and surrounding areas, for example, have sandy soil and low precipitation, so require higher inputs of fertilizer and water than other places in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, investigation into your immediate foodshed area may reveal surprising sources of calories for little to no environmental impact.  Perhaps there is a food common during certain times of the year that has a short shelf-life and is thus thrown out.  A seasonal diagram for Melbourne is available [here][1].  You could enquire at your local grocer, or simply watch sales.  When produce goes on sale, this may be because of an oversupply.  The store may be putting this item on sale to try to sell what they can before they toss it out.  Taken to the extreme, there is also &quot;gleaning&quot; or the gathering up of food items that others leave behind or throw away.  This started on farming fields when people would follow the harvester, gathering up foods dropped on the floor, but in urban locations is known as dumpster-diving.  Some grocers or restaurants will leave food somewhere for people to glean before it goes in the dumpster.  I am not sure whether or not this is legal in Melbourne, but there is a facebook site for dumpster divers in your city here: https://www.facebook.com/dumpsterdivingmelbourne/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, if you really want to minimize your food footprint, you may want to look at varying your &quot;extra calorie intake&quot; to reflect seasonal gluts in what is available locally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://seasonalfoodguide.com/melbourne-victoria-seasonal-fresh-produce-guide-fruits-vegetables-in-season-availability-australia.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5759" RevisionGUID="cbeb9d92-3a78-42bf-8e87-9c18ba1a3115" CreationDate="2017-01-07T17:56:08.917" UserId="4159" Text="You can also consider using vegetable oil as fuel for diesel vehicles modified for such purposes.  There may be a site for people running on vegetable oil in your area, and you could donate your extra oil for this use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also be aware that you can reuse cooking oil if you strain and refrigerate after cooking, and don't take it over 375 degrees F with food in it.  You can watch for color changes or smells too, which indicate oil that should not be reused.  More information on this can be found here: http://www.livestrong.com/article/532582-the-hazards-of-reusing-cooking-oil/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5760" RevisionGUID="d38ea837-1dbf-402a-96aa-6aa39e9ad79c" CreationDate="2017-01-07T18:23:21.800" UserId="4159" Text="Yes, there are many concerns regarding the impact of GMOs on the environment.  First, let us understand what a GMO is.  This is when someone alters the genetic makeup of an organism by inserting genes into its genome.  Thus, compared to more traditional methods of plant breeding, which are more gradual, and limited to species that can breed together, GMOs are much faster and have greater variety.  Thus, the difference between a GMO versus a domesticated organism that has been bred is only that a GMO happens suddenly with a wider range of possibilities.  I am clarifying this because even more traditionally bred species can have some of the same problems, but are generally lower risk.  For example, killer bees are the result of breeding gone awry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the impact of any GMO is not known until it is released into the environment.  Might it become invasive and cause extinctions?  Might it be particularly vulnerable to some variable that is unforeseen, causing huge fluctuations in the food supply?  We don't know, and nor do we have sufficient understanding of ecosystems and the complex interactions between organisms below and above the ground to possibly create accurate models of how they currently work, much less with a new organism with new genomes in the mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are studies of the impact of specific GMOs on specific variables, such as on a particular pest.  For example, a GMO can be designed that would excrete a pesticide on its own leaves rather than needing this pesticide to be sprayed on.  Results have shown that this type of pesticide distribution can be more harmful to natural cycles since it has a more extreme effect than standard pesticides do, and cannot be adjusted after it has been produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, GMOs are not designed for extra food production.  Traditional breeding is sufficient for this.  GMOs are designed to reduce pesticide application, work with other chemical products by the same supplier, and to assert ownership rights over living things.  Legally, they are more like a product that is owned by the company producing it.  Thus, if a farmer buys GMO seeds, those plants are designed to work with other products from the same company, and to require future purchases by that farmer from the same supplier.  If those genes spread via natural reproduction to other farmer's fields, the supplier has sued those farmers for having their product on their field, even though the &quot;product&quot; is a living being which spreads itself.  This has actually happened, causing huge fees to neighboring farmers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To sum up, we don't know the true harm of GMOs to the environment, though we know they present a risk greater than invasive species and traditional breeding.  However, there are huge economic and legal impacts of GMOs since these are a new type of &quot;product&quot; that is owned by a private company, yet behaves like a living being, reproducing itself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5761" RevisionGUID="aa73753c-f654-48d3-b3bb-d0ff7a89c5e3" CreationDate="2017-01-07T20:46:34.667" UserId="4159" Text="The issue with answering this question is that there are inherent assumptions in how one creates a boundary for answering.  For example, in the previous answer, the person suggests comparing two similar products in terms of the eco-footprint of their lifecycle.  This is sound, but assumes that use of any product is warranted, and that levels of use and maintenance are fixed.  For example, I have recently gone from switching from standard shampoo to more eco-friendly shampoo products, to washing my hair less often, to not buying shampoo at all and only using baking soda with water.  I might also cut my hair shorter so that I don't need so much cleanser for my hair.  Or perhaps braid or dread my hair so that washing is less needed on a regular basis.  Then I could start to question why we wash our hair at all and truly minimize the activity itself, along with all of the products that go with it.  THe cleanliness of the water is another point that impacts the need for shampoo.  What if I went down to the nearby river or ocean to wash myself?  This would reduce impact too.  Or how about indirect impacts?  Instead of spending my time mixing my own shampoo, I could shower with my family members, or I could petition my local government to allow the reuse of shower water or to outlaw harmful shampoo ingredients.  This could multiply my potential impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that the answer depends highly on one's assumed boundaries.  In the hair-washing example, I could assume that I am only considering direct impacts on my personal footprint, am not interested in bathing activities anywhere other than my shower at home, and am unwilling to shower less frequently than weekly.  So these assumptions will frame the limits of how I am comparing &quot;sustainable&quot; options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, therefore, something that has helped me in growing my confidence for assessing sustainability is by enlarging my framework and realizing where I am making assumptions.  You can do this by having conversations with people from extremely different contexts to your own.  This will help you identify and critique your own assumptions.  Learning how indigenous cultures in your area survived in your ecosystem can be a nice source of information, as well as studying fields such as permaculture or social-ecological-systems theory.  Getting into the meta-level can take you to a new place that helps make those leaps from comparing bottled water with soda, to finding out where your tapwater comes from and how much hydration your body really needs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="7257df14-fc64-4489-9a4c-cda591fa1b18" CreationDate="2017-01-07T20:56:22.580" UserId="3379" Comment="spelling, grammar, tags" Text="This question is important because all too often we understand what is sustainable only if we are told. This approach demands marketing of ideas, and it takes time for ideas to disperse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know how people discover new and unique sustainable practices (if they do at all) because I want to give them tools to do more. For example maybe you use life cycle analysis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13811" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="7257df14-fc64-4489-9a4c-cda591fa1b18" CreationDate="2017-01-07T20:56:22.580" UserId="3379" Comment="spelling, grammar, tags" Text="How do you identify what is sustainable without reverting to lists and other people's ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13812" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2646" RevisionGUID="7257df14-fc64-4489-9a4c-cda591fa1b18" CreationDate="2017-01-07T20:56:22.580" UserId="3379" Comment="spelling, grammar, tags" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5762" RevisionGUID="aa56880c-468c-4088-b08d-24437a1f4251" CreationDate="2017-01-07T21:08:51.360" UserId="4159" Text="The best way to eliminate food scraps is to rethink the idea of a food scrap.  I don't mean to be cheeky, but just to suggest that you could find ways to reduce scraps.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, some scraps can be fed to your dog or other pet.  Some scraps can be reused in another recipe, such as using carrot greens in pesto.  Some scraps aren't scraps at all, such as many root peels. Try rinsing/scrubbing carrots or potatoes rather than peeling them and throwing away the peels.  Some people cut off the stems of broccoli not realizing they are just as edible as the tops.  Apple cores can be used to make apple cider vinegar, blended into applesauce, or even just eaten raw.  The bottoms of leafy greens can be planted and will grow more greens again, etc.  Eggshells are nutritious and can be broken up and blended into potting soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you find that certain foods are contributing to a lot of &quot;scraps,&quot; try googling that specific item to find if there is an alternate use for them.  If there is none, and you can't find a creative way to reuse or reduce the production of the scrap, then you can consider garbage vs. disposal.  In regards to those options, you could find out what happens to items in the garbage in your area - do they go to an incinerator or landfilled?  Does your landfill have a compost? Does it have methane capture? etc.  Only with that info can you really decide between those two options.  But, I hope you would have a lot less &quot;scrap&quot; material if you seek out ways to reduce them to begin with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5763" RevisionGUID="bd2abbdb-65a0-41e2-be34-0ffa918d0ee1" CreationDate="2017-01-07T21:25:56.173" UserId="4159" Text="I have tried vermi-composting in an apartment, and despite the theoretical lack of fruit flies, I was never able to eliminate this problem in reality.  Since you have a balcony, fruit flies may not be an issue for you. Instead, you will need to deal with the minimal level of maintenance for the worms, which need to be checked on occasionally, given bedding such as newspaper, and you will need to give them a home with ventilation and drainage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to buy one of the engineered devices that performs composting for you at home, maintains proper temperature, etc.  This option can be pricey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am wondering why you are interested specifically in composting at home, i.e. transforming organic waste into rich humus (for soil)?  It sounds like you are more interested in having your organic waste composted, rather than making the humus yourself.  In this case, you may be interested in separating your organic waste for someone else to compost, rather than composting it yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have starting simply storing my compostable waste and then delivering it to a composting collection rather than trying to compost at home.  This is much simpler, assuming that there is a convenient drop-off point for you.  The difference here is that to store the waste, you just need a leak-proof container with a filter and good seal.  These are sold all around the city as compostable waste containers.  When your home bin gets full, dump the contents into the larger collection bin.  Perhaps you could arrange with others in your apartment building so that you can have one larger shared bin in the basement with a weekly collection service?  Else, you can deliver your own material to some community compost bin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5764" RevisionGUID="2c642fe3-62d3-4588-af27-27d9c205e2b9" CreationDate="2017-01-07T21:33:27.650" UserId="4159" Text="The answer to this depends on your assumed alternative.  Electric vehicles are better than some traditional gas-fueled cars, but hybrids can have an even larger footprint than efficient combustion engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, what if we broaden the possible alternatives?  A car in a car-share is likely to be more eco-friendly than otherwise, no matter the fuel source.  An electric vehicle is not more eco-friendly than public transportation, even fossil-fueled transit, assuming there are at least a few riders.  Even carpooling in a combustion engine beats out electric vehicles.  And it is rather obvious that walking, cycling, and other people-powered methods are superior to electric.  Then there is the question of reducing distances or even trips.  As more people work remotely, the fuel source of their car matters less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this time, the choice of an electric vehicle is also about the politics of the future of cars.  You may not be saving much in terms of emissions today by switching to battery-powered vehicle, especially if you live in an area largely powered by coal, such as much of the USA and China.  But, you are helping to build political support for electric energy sources over fossil fuels which will aid in the future shift towards renewable sources of energy.  So, there is a long-term question that is much harder to quantify." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5765" RevisionGUID="5a26e4c3-4ed7-4f21-a741-1856f8dfae6d" CreationDate="2017-01-07T21:40:09.137" UserId="4159" Text="Depending on the type of reshaping you are interested in, you can do basic crafts with the right kind of plastic by simply using a hairblower to heat them up and bending them into shape." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5766" RevisionGUID="0ddfada3-a3cb-4d18-bcd4-3088e2340d3d" CreationDate="2017-01-07T22:00:35.843" UserId="4159" Text="There is no standard for this, but if a city offers its own recycling pickup or works with a small number of pickup companies, it would be simple to track recycling pickup quantities and consider that to be the diversion rate as a percentage of regular waste pickup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, the city could simply measure the reduction in waste pickup compared to projections and consider that the diversion rate.  It is probably best to ask your municipality directly since there is no standard system of doing this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5767" RevisionGUID="4f79bbca-5a78-4ce4-9245-1799027dfd28" CreationDate="2017-01-07T23:06:25.067" UserId="4159" Text="I have an incomplete answer, but at least this is something to get the conversation started.  At the bottom of your comments, you restate the question as &quot;is organic any better because it costs more, meaning consumers buy less?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throughout this sustainability Q&amp;A forum, there is a misunderstanding that sustainability equates to the minimization of inputs/outputs rather than the restoration of cycles of nutrients and the balance found in ecosystems that allows for life to generally flourish.  Taking the second definition, there are more factors to consider than the cost per kilo in terms of land or dollars.  The more compact the livestock is arranged, the more artificial controls must be implemented to make that system work.  As the livestock is compressed, animals are closer to one another, more stressed, and less healthy.  All of these facilitate the spread of disease, increasing the need for antibiotics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The meat produced in a high-stress, high-disease environment is less good for human consumption.  Thus, a kilo of meat from a CATO is not equivalent to a kilo of meat from an organic facility nor a super-eco facility where livestock roams around and eats its more natural diet rather than industrial feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organic meat regulations (in the USA) require that animals are fed organic food products (which use less pesticides and fertilizers and are therefore better for their environment), are not fed animal waste, are not given growth hormones nor antibiotics, are not irradiated nor genetically engineered, and are raised in a way that does not harm native species and natural resources, and have a minimum amount of time on pasture land.  These restrictions not only increase human health and animal well-being, but also the environment because they reduce the contamination of ecosystems with excess fertilizer, hormones, antibiotics, GMOs, etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, the use of antibiotics in livestock operations contributes to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which is a growing health concern as more and more people get sick with antibiotic-resistant disease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question also assumes that there is no ethical factor to consider when comparing these operations, which makes no sense to me unless you are interested in a purely theoretical exercise since any decision made in real life takes into account some basic ethical guidelines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would answer your question, saying that yes, organic meat has benefits in terms of ethics, the quality of the meat, and the long-term health of human bodies and our ecosystems.  Your original question at the top of your post is impossible to answer definitively without some clarification as to how you would like to compare two different meats - one full of bad byproducts and pumped up with chemicals, and one with less.  This is all, of course, assuming that eating less meat is not an option, which of course in most cases it is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13820" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5730" RevisionGUID="b56e0485-8489-4925-a332-8e36d017519f" CreationDate="2017-01-07T23:23:48.470" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/817874406458425345" />
  <row Id="13821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5491" RevisionGUID="a890836f-98f2-4f5e-a89f-a4290a9003a0" CreationDate="2017-01-08T01:11:13.780" UserId="3686" Comment="Clarification" Text="I'm living in an off-grid house with battery power storage. Batteries are one of the most expensive and problem prone aspects of off-grid power. &#xD;&#xA;I have a battery bank in which some of the batteries are experiencing positive terminal growth. This is when the positive terminal literally grows longer and starts to push its way out of the battery case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The batteries are 2v 460 A/hr Gel Batteries (sealed lead acid). I have 24 batteries running in series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not had much luck finding out exactly what causes this and how to avoid further worsening of the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the exact causes of this, or whether it's possible to reverse it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5761" RevisionGUID="df708d99-faf1-4a7d-80e9-0d13face04a8" CreationDate="2017-01-08T13:06:06.870" UserId="99" Comment="linked to other answer (because new answers may be posted), fixed typo" Text="The issue with answering this question is that there are inherent assumptions in how one creates a boundary for answering.  For example, [Voreno's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2650/) suggests comparing two similar products in terms of the eco-footprint of their lifecycle.  This is sound, but assumes that use of any product is warranted, and that levels of use and maintenance are fixed.  For example, I have recently gone from switching from standard shampoo to more eco-friendly shampoo products, to washing my hair less often, to not buying shampoo at all and only using baking soda with water.  I might also cut my hair shorter so that I don't need so much cleanser for my hair.  Or perhaps braid or dread my hair so that washing is less needed on a regular basis.  Then I could start to question why we wash our hair at all and truly minimize the activity itself, along with all of the products that go with it.  The cleanliness of the water is another point that impacts the need for shampoo.  What if I went down to the nearby river or ocean to wash myself?  This would reduce impact too.  Or how about indirect impacts?  Instead of spending my time mixing my own shampoo, I could shower with my family members, or I could petition my local government to allow the reuse of shower water or to outlaw harmful shampoo ingredients.  This could multiply my potential impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that the answer depends highly on one's assumed boundaries.  In the hair-washing example, I could assume that I am only considering direct impacts on my personal footprint, am not interested in bathing activities anywhere other than my shower at home, and am unwilling to shower less frequently than weekly.  So these assumptions will frame the limits of how I am comparing &quot;sustainable&quot; options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, therefore, something that has helped me in growing my confidence for assessing sustainability is by enlarging my framework and realizing where I am making assumptions.  You can do this by having conversations with people from extremely different contexts to your own.  This will help you identify and critique your own assumptions.  Learning how indigenous cultures in your area survived in your ecosystem can be a nice source of information, as well as studying fields such as permaculture or social-ecological-systems theory.  Getting into the meta-level can take you to a new place that helps make those leaps from comparing bottled water with soda, to finding out where your tapwater comes from and how much hydration your body really needs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5763" RevisionGUID="9824c0b5-cc05-40df-bda4-268a159a507c" CreationDate="2017-01-08T15:03:04.457" UserId="4159" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I have tried vermi-composting in an apartment, and despite the theoretical lack of fruit flies, I was never able to eliminate this problem in reality.  Since you have a balcony, fruit flies may not be an issue for you. Instead, you will need to deal with the minimal level of maintenance for the worms, which need to be checked on occasionally, given bedding such as newspaper, and you will need to give them a home with ventilation and drainage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to buy one of the engineered devices that performs composting for you at home, maintains proper temperature, etc.  This option can be pricey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am wondering why you are interested specifically in composting at home, i.e. transforming organic waste into rich humus (for soil)?  It sounds like you are more interested in having your organic waste composted, rather than making the humus yourself.  In this case, you may be interested in separating your organic waste for someone else to compost, rather than composting it yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have started simply storing my compostable waste and then delivering it to a composting collection rather than trying to compost at home.  This is much simpler, assuming that there is a convenient drop-off point for you.  The difference here is that to store the waste, you just need a leak-proof container with a filter and good seal.  These are sold all around the city as compostable waste containers.  When your home bin gets full, dump the contents into the larger collection bin.  Perhaps you could arrange with others in your apartment building so that you can have one larger shared bin in the basement with a weekly collection service?  Else, you can deliver your own material to some community compost bin." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="5ecdde34-1c93-4043-bcec-6c3d8537a2cd" CreationDate="2017-01-08T15:21:32.747" UserId="4159" Text="I have been reducing use of one-time-use items in the house, and have drastically reduced the use of plastic wrap by putting food items in tupperwares.  However, there remains a few uses for plastic wrap for which I have not found an alternative.  For example, I use it when &quot;steaming&quot; vegetables in the microwave (a faster and more energy efficient option than using the stovetop) since it can create a seal without exploding.  I also occasionally use it for convenience, such as to cover things that are not easily moved into a sealable container, e.g. leftover smoothies in a glass or those huge non-standard sized cans of pumpkin or leftover pies in a pie tin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things I already use: I have plastic can &quot;lids&quot; for pet food cans of standard sizes.  I also use those metal binder clips that are found in office supplies to get a good seal on plastic packages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other considerations: I am not interested in buying a million different gadgets for each potential use, nor any other disposables that generate waste." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="5ecdde34-1c93-4043-bcec-6c3d8537a2cd" CreationDate="2017-01-08T15:21:32.747" UserId="4159" Text="Reusable alternatives to plastic wrap?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="5ecdde34-1c93-4043-bcec-6c3d8537a2cd" CreationDate="2017-01-08T15:21:32.747" UserId="4159" Text="|home|waste-minimisation|kitchen|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5769" RevisionGUID="16311a4e-73ef-42ee-85ea-cb23b356c131" CreationDate="2017-01-08T17:44:23.147" UserId="4166" Text="For the pie form, I use big plates. They don't seal airtight but it sufficed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="b3a81f2c-8bec-4f73-84c7-8e89738423f7" CreationDate="2017-01-08T23:39:57.683" UserId="3379" Comment="formatting" Text="I have been reducing use of one-time-use items in the house, and have drastically reduced the use of plastic wrap by putting food items in tupperwares.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there remains a few uses for plastic wrap for which I have not found an alternative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For example, I use it when &quot;steaming&quot; vegetables in the microwave (a faster and more energy efficient option than using the stovetop) since it can create a seal without exploding&#xD;&#xA; - To cover things that are not easily moved into a sealable container, e.g. leftover smoothies in a glass or those huge non-standard sized cans of pumpkin or leftover pies in a pie tin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things I already use: I have plastic can &quot;lids&quot; for pet food cans of standard sizes.  I also use those metal binder clips that are found in office supplies to get a good seal on plastic packages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other considerations: I am not interested in buying a million different gadgets for each potential use, nor any other disposables that generate waste." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5762" RevisionGUID="62a04132-be59-47fa-8510-df1a93e47dcf" CreationDate="2017-01-09T00:35:17.867" UserId="4159" Comment="Order of paragraphs switched to reflect helpful comment." Text="If you find that certain foods are contributing to a lot of &quot;scraps,&quot; try googling that specific item to find if there is an alternate use for them.  If there is none, and you can't find a creative way to reuse or reduce the production of the scrap (see more on this below), *then you can consider garbage vs. disposal*.  In regards to those options, you could find out what happens to items in the garbage in your area - do they go to an incinerator or landfilled?  Does your landfill have a compost? Does it have methane capture? etc.  Only with that info can you really decide between those two options.  But, I hope you would have a lot less &quot;scrap&quot; material if you seek out ways to reduce them to begin with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way to eliminate food scraps is to rethink the idea of a food scrap.  I don't mean to be cheeky, but just to suggest that you could find ways to reduce scraps.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, some scraps can be fed to your dog or other pet.  Some scraps can be reused in another recipe, such as using carrot greens in pesto.  Some scraps aren't scraps at all, such as many root peels. Try rinsing/scrubbing carrots or potatoes rather than peeling them and throwing away the peels.  Some people cut off the stems of broccoli not realizing they are just as edible as the tops.  Apple cores can be used to make apple cider vinegar, blended into applesauce, or even just eaten raw.  The bottoms of leafy greens can be planted and will grow more greens again, etc.  Eggshells are nutritious and can be broken up and blended into potting soil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13831" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5770" RevisionGUID="1d601570-a302-4c2b-abba-f8eb48739fd2" CreationDate="2017-01-09T01:04:25.583" UserId="2345" Text="For steaming vegetables you can use a container with its own lid which can be used in a microwave. Such containers with lids could me made from glass, pyrex, ceramic or even multiple use plastics (something similar to tupperware for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such containers can also be used to keep leftovers in the fridge whether the left overs are homemade or bought pies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for liquids like smoothies, transfer them to reusable containers that have their own sealing lids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5771" RevisionGUID="cd04788a-bb19-4d99-a59b-e79db0240bb9" CreationDate="2017-01-09T03:13:53.623" UserId="400" Text="&#xD;&#xA;My better half found a set of silicone lids.  Three in the set, about 6, 8 and 10 inches across.  They are heavy enough to stay put, and make a reasonable seal, an sticky enough that they don't slide.  Rinse after use, and leave by the microwave." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13833" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5728" RevisionGUID="0f126733-341e-410c-8c06-764e68f02d64" CreationDate="2017-01-09T08:38:06.317" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/818376287509250048" />
  <row Id="13835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5772" RevisionGUID="d1c50cdf-da9e-45b2-8f3c-c075521df0de" CreationDate="2017-01-09T17:12:29.417" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13836" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5772" RevisionGUID="d1c50cdf-da9e-45b2-8f3c-c075521df0de" CreationDate="2017-01-09T17:12:29.417" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5773" RevisionGUID="7af2f579-5a0f-43c1-a9ec-ac74f2e2277c" CreationDate="2017-01-09T17:12:29.417" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13838" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5773" RevisionGUID="7af2f579-5a0f-43c1-a9ec-ac74f2e2277c" CreationDate="2017-01-09T17:12:29.417" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5774" RevisionGUID="8aa5a1ad-e746-4e47-9a57-bef3c4f9e8cb" CreationDate="2017-01-09T17:48:48.283" UserId="2846" Text="You don't need a perfect seal in the microwave - in fact the reason your plastic wrap doesn't explode is that the seal isn't perfect. So placing a plate or saucer on top of your microwave container (depending on the size of the container underneath) works very well without you needing to buy anything extra. It might get hot from the steam, or drop hot water on you, so take care removing it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A decent selection of plastic boxes, larger than you think you need, can allow other foods to be transferred more easily into them. In some cases using (reusable) cooking liner can help you get the food out (e.g. the pie if it's home made).  If you don't want to transfer your smoothie, perhaps you should drink it from a beaker with a screw top as sold for lunch boxes. This, like the plastic boxes, is useful enough to be worth considering buying. If you really don't want to buy anything new, drink the smoothie from a jam jar. Ice cream and chocolates can provide a useful source of plastic boxes too. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13841" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5775" RevisionGUID="ea1505a2-6157-4383-9fcb-49e65b59943f" CreationDate="2017-01-09T18:15:15.730" UserId="406" Text="Since one never really knows what kind of plastic you're dealing with, I always take everything out of plastic and put it in a pyrex dish with a lid to go in the microwave oven. It is better to use as little plastic as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="ce2f999d-791c-4995-a149-d262378ed610" CreationDate="2017-01-09T19:30:53.610" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13843" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5776" RevisionGUID="ce2f999d-791c-4995-a149-d262378ed610" CreationDate="2017-01-09T19:30:53.610" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="f42b09e8-e142-4a0c-b239-c1e13d86bbbb" CreationDate="2017-01-09T19:30:53.610" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="f42b09e8-e142-4a0c-b239-c1e13d86bbbb" CreationDate="2017-01-09T19:30:53.610" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="754f2f18-6ca9-4058-9484-747e301512e4" CreationDate="2017-01-10T09:14:18.860" UserId="3379" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="methods for producing electricity, including inputs (fuel, land, water, air) and byproducts (heat, waste, emissions)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13848" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5777" RevisionGUID="754f2f18-6ca9-4058-9484-747e301512e4" CreationDate="2017-01-10T09:14:18.860" Comment="Proposed by 3379 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 449" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="af77246e-f890-4811-b65b-db4a5d2d939b" CreationDate="2017-01-10T22:04:19.110" UserId="1223" Text="I want to look at getting solar panels for my home. Unfortunately, one thing that I need to resolve first is whether or not they will work / last while in the temperature extremes - anywhere from -40 C to +40 C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, are solar panels built to withstand this kind of temperature variance on a yearly basis? Summers can feel very hot, winters can get very cold. Would there be major considerations to get them to work properly in the extremes, or will it &quot;just work&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="af77246e-f890-4811-b65b-db4a5d2d939b" CreationDate="2017-01-10T22:04:19.110" UserId="1223" Text="Are there solar panels that can survive extreme temperature changes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="af77246e-f890-4811-b65b-db4a5d2d939b" CreationDate="2017-01-10T22:04:19.110" UserId="1223" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5779" RevisionGUID="9476f3d8-5295-4e9e-9ea4-4216e7b12986" CreationDate="2017-01-10T23:54:53.713" UserId="4170" Text="I've never used it in the microwave, but I use cotton beeswax wraps for storing stuff in the fridge. Its a cotton fabric coated in beeswax and other oils which make it water tight and stiff but malleable, like tinfoil. You just wash it in the sink if it gets dirty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://dandelionecostore.com.au/products/honeybee-wrap-organic-cotton-reusable-food-wrap-3-pack?utm_medium=cpc&amp;utm_source=googlepla&amp;variant=23573580611&amp;gclid=CKyRl6jjuNECFcGSvQodnPkKOA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5780" RevisionGUID="4f3a057a-a033-4a37-87b1-7a652ca38dbd" CreationDate="2017-01-11T00:10:38.167" UserId="4170" Text="I live in a small inner-city apartment. I am lucky to have a small courtyard area with a modest garden. I was thinking about getting a worm farm but am worried about the smell. Obviously, up close they would stink a bit, but could this permeate the entire court yard area (5m X 5m)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5780" RevisionGUID="4f3a057a-a033-4a37-87b1-7a652ca38dbd" CreationDate="2017-01-11T00:10:38.167" UserId="4170" Text="Do worm farms smell?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5780" RevisionGUID="4f3a057a-a033-4a37-87b1-7a652ca38dbd" CreationDate="2017-01-11T00:10:38.167" UserId="4170" Text="|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5780" RevisionGUID="aa6edebe-f2c1-4101-9567-fbcb11c0160f" CreationDate="2017-01-11T03:07:58.193" UserId="4170" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="I live in a small inner-city apartment. I am lucky to have a small courtyard area with a modest garden. I was thinking about getting a worm farm but am worried about the smell. Obviously, up close they would stink a bit, but could this permeate the entire court yard area (5m X 5m) making it uncomfortable to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="c6ff3d3a-bed3-4a1e-94dc-6c84cf3d859b" CreationDate="2017-01-11T06:22:04.610" UserId="3532" Text="I've heard that sunn hemp can build organic armor quickly, and sunn hemp is weed, so can it make animals high?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="c6ff3d3a-bed3-4a1e-94dc-6c84cf3d859b" CreationDate="2017-01-11T06:22:04.610" UserId="3532" Text="Can sunn hemp make animals high?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="c6ff3d3a-bed3-4a1e-94dc-6c84cf3d859b" CreationDate="2017-01-11T06:22:04.610" UserId="3532" Text="|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5782" RevisionGUID="2a55105d-2d2d-43d8-9e78-ead1f7c0caee" CreationDate="2017-01-11T08:13:33.043" UserId="2846" Text="I have one, and I would have to say it's possible but not certain that it will smell. With care you could avoid it as demonstrated by people using them indoors. You would have to be more careful than me about the amount of water that gets in, and possibly about the mix of food hot give them. Mine has a sump to collect liquid plant food, and a tap to remove it, but doesn't drain completely and some scraps fall through into that and decompose anaerobically, which sometimes smells (the smell is distinctive, different to rotting food). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen smaller designs that should drain completely, with a tap under the middle of a funnel-shaped sump. these would probably be more suitable for you. Also I live in a rather wet climate so rain gets in the vent holes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5783" RevisionGUID="ef44d7ef-3e5f-4c80-a939-a3ddc0bd4029" CreationDate="2017-01-11T08:38:51.677" UserId="99" Text="If you run your worm farm properly then it doesn't smell. It will give of a earthy scent. However if things go wrong because your worm farm contains too much water or nitrogen then it will start to smell sour or rotten. So make sure you have proper drainage and keep an eye on the [C:N ratio](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/1262/99) of whatever you put in the farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are using your worms to process food leftovers and want to be on the safe side regarding smells, you can bury food under already processed compost. Also make sure mice, rats and other rodents don't have access to the heap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth; I have my own worm farm in a small container in our  shed and I never had any problems with bad smells or vermin, but I am somewhat selective of what I feed my worms (no meat, dairy or oily foods)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1250" RevisionGUID="34f07f5c-a5f4-4a5b-bd1b-3e95fa274ae0" CreationDate="2017-01-11T09:24:58.580" UserId="99" Comment="fixed broken links, added new source found by LShaver that says coco palms bear fruit 60-80 years" Text="There is a lot of information and research on how the production of palm oil has severe negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (for example [this paper](http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/19109/InTech-The_impact_of_oil_palm_expansion_on_environmental_change_putting_conservation_research_in_context.pdf), [this paper](http://beahrselp.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Addressing-the-threats-of-oil-palm.pdf) and [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_palm_oil)). However, I have found that reliable information on how coconut oil is produced is rather scarce. There are several claims about why oil from coconut trees (cocos nucifera) is more sustainable than oil from oil palms (elaeis guineensis), but if have not been able to find any scientific evidence for those claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reasoning seems to be that many coconut palms are not grown in large plantations, so no rain forests have been removed for them. Although coconut plantations exists, I haven't been able to find any reports that rainforests have been cleared to create those coconut plantations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people also report other benefits of coco trees over palm trees, but most of these claims are difficult to prove. For example on [this page (archived version)](http://web.archive.org/web/20160308005640/http://www.ecos.com/sustainabilitychemsub.html) it is claimed that coconut trees: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. are considerably easy to replace&#xD;&#xA;2. grow in almost any kind of soil, even sandy beaches&#xD;&#xA;3. live and bear fruit for up to more than sixty years (other [sources](https://www.reference.com/science/life-cycle-coconut-tree-580819cec6ff3539) say 60-80 years)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the author doesn't really compare coco oil with palm oil and according to the [Malaysian Palm Oil Board](http://www.palmoilworld.org/about_malaysian-industry.html) oil palm has a much higher oil yield per hectare per year than coconut palms, so that would actually be in favor of palm oil from a sustainability viewpoint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:** there are indications that coconut oil is more sustainable than palm oil, mainly because no rainforests have been cleared for the production of coconut oil, but it is difficult to find any hard evidence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13863" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5778" RevisionGUID="357e8c3b-4093-4158-8f22-6af9418b76be" CreationDate="2017-01-11T11:51:07.783" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/819149640025206786" />
  <row Id="13864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="973ce735-8b7e-4ba3-bf2e-f04b89f96556" CreationDate="2017-01-11T20:30:49.397" UserId="3379" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Effects of extreme temps on solar panels&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[This article and its references](http://homeguides.sfgate.com/effects-temperature-solar-panel-power-production-79764.html) describe the effects of extreme temperatures on solar panels as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **High temperatures reduce panel efficiency**. However, since the panels are obviously intended to operate in direct sunlight, they can withstand these temps without much damage.&#xD;&#xA; - **Conversely, low temperatures improve performance**. But of course, since cold temperatures typically coincide with less sunlight, this doesn't make much difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;A few specification examples&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went on Home Depot's website and pulled up specifications for the first five brands listed by searching &quot;solar panel.&quot; Here's what I found regarding temperature specifications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Grape Solar (pdf)](http://www.grapesolar.com/docs/GS-S-160-Fab8.pdf): -40C to +85C&#xD;&#xA; - [Ramsond](http://www.ramsond.com/sp100/): &quot;resilient to ... extreme temperatures&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - [Wagan Tech](http://wagan.com/wagan-tech/solar-products/solar-e-power-cube-1500-plus.html): no specs for panels, but inverter limited to 0C to 40C&#xD;&#xA; - Goal Zero: no specs listed&#xD;&#xA; - Nature Power: no temperature specs listed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Other considerations&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you will install chargers, batteries, and inverters inside the home, extreme outdoor temperatures shouldn't affect the performance of these items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cabling you will want to make sure and use outdoor rated types, for which extreme temperatures won't be an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Extreme cold may cause aluminum framing (if that's what you use) to contract, which could flex and possibly damage panels which are rigidly mounted. Using light-duty aluminum frames and/or rubber gaskets at attachment points would reduce this effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Snow cover, obviously, will reduce panel output. Though your output will be reduced in the winter anyway, it's probably a good idea to clear the snow off periodically to reduce the payback time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="a3c96331-b301-44bb-9d24-8d1b4a737ee4" CreationDate="2017-01-11T20:40:41.563" UserId="3379" Comment="typo" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Effects of extreme temps on solar panels&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[This article and its references](http://homeguides.sfgate.com/effects-temperature-solar-panel-power-production-79764.html) describe the effects of extreme temperatures on solar panels as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **High temperatures reduce panel efficiency**. However, since the panels are obviously intended to operate in direct sunlight, they can withstand these temps without sustaining damage.&#xD;&#xA; - **Conversely, low temperatures improve efficiency**. But of course, since cold temperatures typically coincide with less sunlight, this doesn't make much difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;A few specification examples&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went on Home Depot's website and pulled up specifications for the first five brands listed by searching &quot;solar panel.&quot; Here's what I found regarding temperature specifications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Grape Solar (pdf)](http://www.grapesolar.com/docs/GS-S-160-Fab8.pdf): -40C to +85C&#xD;&#xA; - [Ramsond](http://www.ramsond.com/sp100/): &quot;resilient to ... extreme temperatures&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - [Wagan Tech](http://wagan.com/wagan-tech/solar-products/solar-e-power-cube-1500-plus.html): no specs for panels, but inverter limited to 0C to 40C&#xD;&#xA; - Goal Zero: no specs listed&#xD;&#xA; - Nature Power: no temperature specs listed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Other considerations&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you will install chargers, batteries, and inverters inside the home, extreme outdoor temperatures shouldn't affect the performance of these items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cabling you will want to make sure and use outdoor rated types, for which extreme temperatures won't be an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Extreme cold may cause aluminum framing (if that's what you use) to contract, which could flex and possibly damage panels which are rigidly mounted. Using light-duty aluminum frames and/or rubber gaskets at attachment points would reduce this effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Snow cover, obviously, will reduce panel output. Though your output will be reduced in the winter anyway, it's probably a good idea to clear the snow off periodically to reduce the payback time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="6dda1cff-a901-41ab-aec9-814e17cea151" CreationDate="2017-01-12T06:04:34.847" UserId="3532" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="I've heard that sunn hemp (Crotolaria Juncea) can build organic armor quickly, and sunn hemp is weed, so can it make animals high?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="891943af-0c1c-4c07-b7b2-c838a9b25653" CreationDate="2017-01-12T08:42:49.147" UserId="15" Comment="Edited to be a useful and on topic question" Text="I've heard that sunn hemp (Crotolaria Juncea) can build organic armor on the soil quickly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building and maintaining an armor of plant residue on top of the soil can protect the surface while providing food for the microorganisms below. This can Increase the level of organic matter and make plants more resilient to drought and allow reduced chemical use, important aspects of sustainable farming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hemp is cannabis though isn't it, so can it make animals high?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13868" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="891943af-0c1c-4c07-b7b2-c838a9b25653" CreationDate="2017-01-12T08:42:49.147" UserId="15" Comment="Edited to be a useful and on topic question" Text="|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5785" RevisionGUID="c8191b52-1d3f-4d11-bded-ac425b29ffab" CreationDate="2017-01-12T08:50:46.910" UserId="15" Text="**No.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hemp apparently was, for medieval Europeans, a generic term used to describe any fibre. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus there is a bewildering variety of plants carrying the name hemp,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including; Manila hemp (abacá, Musa textilis), Sisal hemp (Agave&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sisalana), New Zealand hemp/flax (Phormium tenax), Brown/Madras/Sunn&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hemp (Crotalaria juncea), Indian hemp (jute, Corchorus capsularis or&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C. clitorus) and Indian hemp (Apocynum cannabinum). [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This is a US government agency advocating the growing of [sunn] hemp: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; http://www.plant-materials.nrcs.usda.gov/pubs/hipmcrb8433.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sunn Hemp is a completely legal plant, not even in the same family as&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cannabis sativa L [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hempedification.blogspot.co.nz/2015/06/myth-and-reality-cannabis-and-hemp.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://michaellabelle.wordpress.com/tag/sunn-hemp/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="d15d09d0-9701-4d29-abe4-0ff85c3e2c98" CreationDate="2017-01-12T08:56:10.817" UserId="15" Comment="tidy up" Text="I've heard that sunn hemp (Crotolaria Juncea) can build organic armor on the soil quickly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building and maintaining an armor of plant residue on top of the soil can protect the surface while providing food for the microorganisms below. This can Increase the level of organic matter, making plants more resilient to drought and allowing reduced chemical use, important aspects of sustainable farming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hemp is cannabis though isn't it, so can it make animals high?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13872" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="e793757d-e425-4252-ab9f-039eb2659af5" CreationDate="2017-01-12T12:02:37.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="13873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="a50db5c7-496a-465e-886e-684f40b800d8" CreationDate="2017-01-12T16:23:51.107" UserId="3379" Comment="formatting" Text="I know some countries enforce having cars automatically shut down the engine when stopping at a traffic light.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How much resources are really saved by this process?  &#xD;&#xA; - Does the car need to be designed differently to make this effective? For example, do they make the ignition system different?  &#xD;&#xA; - Can we do the same manually (just remember to shut down when stopping, and start again when the light turns green) and get similar benefits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13874" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="666" RevisionGUID="a50db5c7-496a-465e-886e-684f40b800d8" CreationDate="2017-01-12T16:23:51.107" UserId="3379" Comment="formatting" Text="How effective is turning a car's engine off while standing at a traffic light?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="fb7b7539-94b4-48bb-b9a9-cde1b59fc0d0" CreationDate="2017-01-12T17:15:25.857" UserId="3379" Comment="Better source for temp effects on panel degradation" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Effects of extreme temps on solar panels&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer on Chemistry.SE](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/15068/37235) lists the three major factors which lead to solar cell degradation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Temperature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. UV exposure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Mechanical damage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically for temperature: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **High temperatures** reduce the internal shunt resistance ([lowering efficiency](https://retc-ca.com/?goto=cell)), and contribute to degradation of the anti-reflective coating&#xD;&#xA; - **Thermal cycling** also degrades the coating and can stress other components of the system (causing cell cracking, flexing, delamination, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;A few specification examples&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went on Home Depot's website and pulled up specifications for the first five brands listed by searching &quot;solar panel.&quot; Here's what I found regarding temperature specifications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Grape Solar (pdf)](http://www.grapesolar.com/docs/GS-S-160-Fab8.pdf): -40C to +85C&#xD;&#xA; - [Ramsond](http://www.ramsond.com/sp100/): &quot;resilient to ... extreme temperatures&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - [Wagan Tech](http://wagan.com/wagan-tech/solar-products/solar-e-power-cube-1500-plus.html): no specs for panels, but inverter limited to 0C to 40C&#xD;&#xA; - Goal Zero: no specs listed&#xD;&#xA; - Nature Power: no temperature specs listed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume that Grape Solar has not exceedingly outperformed the industry average with their temperature rating: at 40C, you are well within the limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for thermal cycling, in the winter this may be an issue due to cold nights followed by warm sunshine. Since this will occur anywhere in the world to some level, resistance to its effects will be built in to any panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, you may want to use light duty aluminum frames (which wouldn't be rigid enough to flex the panels when they contract) and/or rubber gaskets at attachment points to reduce the impact of thermal cycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Other considerations&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you will install chargers, batteries, and inverters inside the home, extreme outdoor temperatures shouldn't affect the performance of these items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cabling you will want to make sure and use outdoor rated types, for which extreme temperatures won't be an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Snow cover, obviously, will reduce panel output. Though your output will be reduced in the winter anyway, it's probably a good idea to clear the snow off periodically to reduce the payback time. As noted in the comments, you may even consider giving the panels a bit steeper of a tilt to prevent snow accumulation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13877" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5313" RevisionGUID="dc3ddb30-d89f-4751-b9ca-00c47608f977" CreationDate="2017-01-12T18:06:14.027" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/819606424875634688" />
  <row Id="13879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="174" RevisionGUID="8f0cbb6f-08cc-4994-a5df-b012e1d50561" CreationDate="2017-01-13T08:10:34.097" UserId="130" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Some concerns I would have about putting meat in the composter:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Attracting rodents, dogs, and cats&#xD;&#xA; - Things like bones aren't going to compost well (whether very heavily boiled chicken bones might compost is another matter entirely)&#xD;&#xA; - Meat is going to be very high in nitrogen and consequently may pose problems unless you mix in low-nitrogen/high-carbon mixtures as well&#xD;&#xA; - There is the theoretical concern over pathogens.  However unlike the fecal-oral transmission cycle, I think the risk of this getting spread back via food is pretty low.   Also I treat this as theoretical because all kinds of other stuff we compost (read:  anything that you'd want to refridgerate if saving to eat again!) could also grow bacteria that are pathogenic to humans...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just concerns.  Like all concerns they mean that you can plan for them and overcome them with a little bit of effort.  Keep it enclosed to ensure critters can't access.  Add low-nitrogen material to compensate (straw might be good), and accept that the bones are going to still be in large pieces when youa are done.  Adding meat to the compost pile adds maintenance.  It is not a hard rule to avoid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This being said, trimming what you serve, and recycling the meat products in the kitchen as much as you can first, is where I would start.  Reduce and re-use first, then recycle (compost) what is left." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="b1adcc99-4b94-42be-b524-3cd9143f7d6c" CreationDate="2017-01-13T17:29:12.967" UserId="3379" Text="The grocery co-op where I shop offers local, organic cream from three different farms, which use three different types of recyclable containers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Mini version of clear plastic milk jug: &lt;img src=&quot;https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/10080a58-51a6-4ebc-90f4-25dd1984ce01_1.f4a918948cfba8fb226246ffd5068444.jpeg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Wax-coated cardboard carton (no screw-type spout): &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5fHRT.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - White plastic bottle with plastic shrink-wrap sleeve/label: &lt;img src=&quot;http://www.shopsmart.biz/assets/images/dairy119.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How do I decide which type of container is most sustainable?** One consideration is that it often takes up to two weeks to go through a liter of cream, meaning that if there's no obvious best choice, whichever one keeps the cream from spoiling longest would be the winner.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="b1adcc99-4b94-42be-b524-3cd9143f7d6c" CreationDate="2017-01-13T17:29:12.967" UserId="3379" Text="Most sustainable type of cream container?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="b1adcc99-4b94-42be-b524-3cd9143f7d6c" CreationDate="2017-01-13T17:29:12.967" UserId="3379" Text="|recycling|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5787" RevisionGUID="8093edfb-98ac-454b-91f3-b1a4296c67f9" CreationDate="2017-01-14T04:27:27.847" UserId="4084" Text="The longevity of batteries often depend on maintaining the charge current within a particular range, so it is not advisable to add a 3 Volt AC-to-DC converter in parallel with the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some simple solutions that do not require electrical engineering expertise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Use a second set of lights for when the solar devices are low on battery power.  If you get a second set with sensors, they might be adjustable enough to get them to automatically turn on when the solar lights die out.&#xD;&#xA; - Get an additional battery holder and Wire the batteries so that they are indoors and out of the cold.&#xD;&#xA; - Ensure that there are no parts of the building or landscaping that shadow the solar cells during brightest parts of the day.  You may be able to relocate the cells themselves or the entire units to catch more sunlight even during the increased declination of winter.&#xD;&#xA; - Ensure that the angle of the cells is close to perpendicular relative to the winter's noon time sunlight.&#xD;&#xA; - Clean the cell surface in the way instructed by the device manual." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="be2f3c9e-0d05-40fe-8bce-92e6921fb1b2" CreationDate="2017-01-14T04:46:18.797" UserId="3379" Comment="added detail" Text="The grocery co-op where I shop offers local, organic cream from three different farms, which use three different types of recyclable containers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Mini version of clear plastic milk jug: &lt;img src=&quot;https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/10080a58-51a6-4ebc-90f4-25dd1984ce01_1.f4a918948cfba8fb226246ffd5068444.jpeg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Wax-coated cardboard carton (no screw-type spout): &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5fHRT.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - White plastic bottle with plastic shrink-wrap sleeve/label: &lt;img src=&quot;http://www.shopsmart.biz/assets/images/dairy119.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How do I decide which type of container is most sustainable?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two considerations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It often takes me up to two weeks to go through a liter of cream, meaning that if there's no obvious best choice, whichever one keeps the cream from spoiling longest would be the winner.&#xD;&#xA; - All three types of containers are recyclable where I live.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5788" RevisionGUID="58940e86-7148-4a2a-8c58-feb36c20a137" CreationDate="2017-01-14T04:47:18.470" UserId="4084" Text="If you do a find (control-f) for &quot;0.00&quot; on this web page, http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html, you will find that gasses have the lowest thermal conductivity. If you do a find for &quot;0.02&quot; on the same page, you will find that silica aerogel and foam are some of the best insulators.  If the materials compress, they loose their insulating properties, so fiberglass may be a good choice because it will endure concentrated pressure such as refrigerators rolling across the floor and kids bouncing basketballs.  Another factor is that doubling the thickness of insulation halves the rate of heat transfer.  The cost of materials and installation may differ greatly between materials too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5789" RevisionGUID="fedea9cf-8eb5-4f8c-8a15-25d4e06e8dd1" CreationDate="2017-01-14T07:39:30.990" UserId="99" Text="A quick and practical rule is that the product with the highest content weight /  packaging material weight ratio has the lowest impact. In practice it's much more complicated of course. Things to consider are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - people tend to consume or waste more if they buy in bulk&#xD;&#xA; - although all 3 types of cream are organic, there may be some differences in the method of the production resulting in different environmental impacts of the cream itself.&#xD;&#xA; - the type of packaging that is the most simple to produce usually requires the least energy and is often also the simplest one to recycle.&#xD;&#xA; - wax-coated paper and paper/plastic composites are difficult to recycle because it's hard to separate the materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the most accurate answer you'll need to do a life-cycle analysis of all 3 products, but that's a lot of work and is best done by a professional LCA-practitioner.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="50142058-0a09-4ee0-90eb-c9bb426cde5c" CreationDate="2017-01-14T15:25:39.577" UserId="3379" Comment="simplified/clarified question" Text="The grocery co-op where I shop offers local, organic cream from three different farms, which use three different types of recyclable containers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Mini version of clear plastic milk jug: &lt;img src=&quot;https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/10080a58-51a6-4ebc-90f4-25dd1984ce01_1.f4a918948cfba8fb226246ffd5068444.jpeg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Wax-coated cardboard carton (no screw-type spout): &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5fHRT.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - White plastic bottle with plastic shrink-wrap sleeve/label: &lt;img src=&quot;http://www.shopsmart.biz/assets/images/dairy119.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assuming the contents are roughly the same, which type of container has the lowest environmental impact?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two considerations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It often takes me up to two weeks to go through a liter of cream, meaning that if there's no obvious best choice, whichever one keeps the cream from spoiling longest would be the winner.&#xD;&#xA; - All three types of containers are recyclable where I live.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5789" RevisionGUID="e3f9dad0-d9dd-4bac-ba6d-16bc15f507e4" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:17:33.000" UserId="99" Comment="added more things to consider, improved scope of the 'practical rule', fixed typo, added best guess" Text="When comparing similar products and packaging, a quick and practical rule is that the product with the highest content weight / packaging weight ratio has the lowest impact. But in practice it's much more complicated of course. Things to consider are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The product itself usually has a larger environmental impact than its packaging, so not wasting any cream should be your first priority.&#xD;&#xA; - The production phase of a product often contributes the most to its total environmental impact, so how the packaging is produced matters more than how it is recycled (but the production of the cream matters even more).&#xD;&#xA; - People tend to consume or waste more if they buy in bulk.&#xD;&#xA; - The type of packaging that is the most simple to produce usually requires the least energy and is often also the simplest one to recycle.&#xD;&#xA; - Wax-coated paper and paper/plastic composites are difficult to recycle because it's hard to separate the materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is how this all will balance out for your situation. For the most accurate answer you'll need to do a life-cycle analysis of all 3 products, but that's a lot of work and is best done by a professional LCA-practitioner. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the limited information available, I personally would select the first container (the large one) unless I could find evidence that the production of the cream on one of the organic farms goes beyond the requirements of the 'organic' label (e.g. solar panels, converting cow manure to biogas). And of course provided I will finish all cream before it spoils.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13890" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="56b59776-9b26-4e38-aa2d-d4c3d6fc12e7" CreationDate="2017-01-14T19:23:51.030" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|environmental-impact|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="3d47d07e-9a29-4965-bc49-c343a3984750" CreationDate="2017-01-14T22:24:42.473" UserId="3379" Comment="a bit more detail" Text="The grocery co-op where I shop offers local, organic cream from three different farms, which use three different types of recyclable containers (all roughly the same volume):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Mini version of clear plastic milk jug: &lt;img src=&quot;https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/10080a58-51a6-4ebc-90f4-25dd1984ce01_1.f4a918948cfba8fb226246ffd5068444.jpeg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - Wax-coated cardboard carton (no screw-type spout): &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5fHRT.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - White plastic bottle with plastic shrink-wrap sleeve/label: &lt;img src=&quot;http://www.shopsmart.biz/assets/images/dairy119.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assuming the contents are roughly the same, which type of container has the lowest environmental impact?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two considerations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It often takes me up to two weeks to go through a liter of cream, meaning that if there's no obvious best choice, whichever one keeps the cream from spoiling longest would be the winner.&#xD;&#xA; - All three types of containers are recyclable where I live.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13896" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="2d75a3a8-1383-4acf-a7cb-55c9ece9a541" CreationDate="2017-01-15T09:20:02.680" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/820561169022877696" />
  <row Id="13897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5791" RevisionGUID="e013204b-f19e-460d-a6c2-b2a56933b327" CreationDate="2017-01-15T16:12:45.717" UserId="4159" Text="if you are really interested in these types of issues specific to your own footprint (rather than in general for an average person with recycling services), you may want to just call up your local recycling facility.  They may be able to tell you how these products are recycled, or they might offer tours so you can see it yourself.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many variables at play here, such as how clean the stream of recyclables that comes from your home ends up being when it reaches the plant and how they handle a less-tan optimal stream.  In some places they will just throw a contaminated lot in the landfill, whereas in other places they will separate it by hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can effect how best to recycle the containers.  For example, the plastic container with shrink wrap might be best treated by removing the plastic wrap.  Also, you can enquire how thoroughly rinsed the container needs to be according to the type of recycling that is happening." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5792" RevisionGUID="b0518cdf-1e58-43d1-a6c4-a9f5e7935f23" CreationDate="2017-01-15T18:09:46.130" UserId="400" Text="No experience at wicking beds, but a couple alternatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you circulate the water through an evaporative cooler?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could be as simple, as a place in the shade with a small pond and a pump that converted some of the pond to mist.  The aquaponics solution remains separate, and is circulate by a separate pump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the diurnal temperature swing large enough that you can cool a pond with several times the mass of your aquaponics system at night enough to keep the aquaponics water cool during the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way to do this would be to have insulated panels (roofing tin on top of strawbales) exposed to the clear night sky, set at a slightslope.  Add the water on the uphill edge.  It radiates skyward.  Collect the water at the lower edge and return to storage. Turn off when ambient air temp becomes higher than water temp in the morning.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Persians used to make ice this way.  In a desert climate on a still night, an insulated metal tray can radiate enough heat to freeze an 1/8&quot; layer of water into ice.  This depends on very dry still air.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5793" RevisionGUID="342bcdf1-c743-4c4c-8027-4920515a4cdd" CreationDate="2017-01-15T18:35:43.273" UserId="400" Text="Partial answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of this boils down to what the availability of sunlight at your location is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factor 1:  How much sunlight does your area get?  Try googling &quot;PV potential resource atlas&quot;  This will often find either maps or tables for your country that will list the sunlight resouce for a Typical meteorological year. (TMY)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result of this is usually a number &quot;kWh/Kw installed capacity&quot; for given orientation.  Most table I've seen have numbers for vertical, latitude +- 15 degrees, and horizontal.  There are ways to adjust for non-south orientations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factor 2:  Orientation and shading of the mount location.  There are apps for smartphones that show the path of the sun at solstice/equinox.  Using these you can quickly determine if there is going to be shade on your location at any given time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factor 3:  Regulations affecting your hookup.  Check this carefully, as in some jurisdictions it is effectively impossible to get connected, or there is such a discount applied to the power you add to the grid, that it is not economical.  This may also affect how much of it you can do yourself and how much you have to hire done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5794" RevisionGUID="2663cec6-4c68-4a2e-ad5b-eb25511833e6" CreationDate="2017-01-16T00:38:04.250" UserId="1259" Text="One way I am investigating to answer my won question is to develop a open ended systems methodology to apply to any selected system, ideally one in you or your teams sphere of influence. I can of course share many details and may do so later. Such a methodology is not intended to be proscriptive but introduce holistic, conceptual and a systems theory approach to looking at any given system. I believe this would allow new and innovative opportunities for sustainable solutions to be identified in addition to placing existing solutions in context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you to the previous contributors, it is clear your knowledge and experience could be applied expertly to identify new opportunities but what about the non-experts who do not have the time to develop our skills and experience?. Can we more experienced people develop a guiding methodology to empower others? I hope so, because this is exactly what I aim to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could ask you to contribute to identifying the critical concepts and relationships but first I must ask is what I propose clear to you so far? Can this idea stand on its own and be communicated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5794" RevisionGUID="e2a8f138-4f6f-465e-a3df-1f1b8fd4522b" CreationDate="2017-01-16T03:20:02.497" UserId="3379" Comment="spelling, punctuation" Text="One way I am investigating to answer my own question is to develop an open-ended systems methodology to apply to any selected system, ideally one in you or your team's sphere of influence. I can of course share many details and may do so later. Such a methodology is not intended to be prescriptive, but introduce holistic, conceptual and a systems theory approach to looking at any given system. I believe this would allow new and innovative opportunities for sustainable solutions to be identified, in addition to placing existing solutions in context. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you to the previous contributors, it is clear your knowledge and experience could be applied expertly to identify new opportunities; but what about the non-experts who do not have the time to develop our skills and experience? Can more experienced people develop a guiding methodology to empower others? I hope so, because this is exactly what I aim to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could ask you to contribute to identifying the critical concepts and relationships but first I must ask; is what I propose clear to you so far? Can this idea stand on its own and be communicated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5795" RevisionGUID="0babbcde-6bcc-4494-a540-aed0d4ac892a" CreationDate="2017-01-16T18:17:46.693" UserId="4184" Text="I would not recommended RECS (Renewable Energy certificates). Even though they are endorsed by the USEPA and several other NGOS, it's been empirically proven to have no impact on the additionality of renewable energy investment or the dispatching of renewable energy generators. For more information I would read studies from Michael Gillenwater and the GHGinstitute. Having the servers powered directly from a renewable energy source (renewable energy generators physically connected to the electricity transmitted to the servers) is the best way to ensure your using renewable energy. However this may not be the easiest or most inexpensive method. Renewable generation is also variable generation which I would assume may be an issue for servers that need to run 24/7." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="e6e351c0-1c53-48e8-b80f-95aade394613" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:16:34.637" UserId="2375" Text="I may be unique here but over the years I have collected perhaps hundreds of mismatched socks of various sizes and colors. Some are good cotton and others are like new. Since I have a large family and many no longer fit the children, I want to either get rid of them, recycle, or put them to use sustainably. I can't think of anything to do with these. I already have a large supply of rags. Any ideas for disposal or use of five full bags of socks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13904" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="e6e351c0-1c53-48e8-b80f-95aade394613" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:16:34.637" UserId="2375" Text="Mismatched socks? What to do with hundreds of them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13905" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="e6e351c0-1c53-48e8-b80f-95aade394613" CreationDate="2017-01-16T19:16:34.637" UserId="2375" Text="|recycling|home|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13907" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5780" RevisionGUID="476b3169-c72c-4002-8978-05ea8b837204" CreationDate="2017-01-17T00:24:45.013" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/821151233851486208" />
  <row Id="13910" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5798" RevisionGUID="a1cc0c15-b28c-4e42-9d70-0a542eced232" CreationDate="2017-01-17T08:45:33.810" UserId="1567" Text="Just about anything you would normally do with rags, but these ones are already in tube and bag form:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Use for washing, polishing and cleaning - just put your hand inside&#xD;&#xA; - Use to keep stuff in - small items like wingnuts, earrings...  &#xD;&#xA; - Use fancy socks for wrapping presents - tie a ribbon round the top&#xD;&#xA; - Put stones inside and use to hold down bird nets or apple branches in the garden&#xD;&#xA; - Add eyes and hair and make into puppets. Make hundreds and sell for charity&#xD;&#xA; - Recycle into baby and doll clothing&#xD;&#xA; - Sew together and stuff as draft excluders&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK that's just a few ideas for the creative household!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5799" RevisionGUID="91e6ba29-2fae-43b8-b24c-a7e8a27183f5" CreationDate="2017-01-17T11:24:12.773" UserId="4139" Text="You could ask the service providers for the PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness) score of the Data Centre the services run out of.  Although it's not a perfect measurement it widespread enough that the information should be readily available and could be useful in determining a providers commitment to driving down their use of on-grid electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_usage_effectiveness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="3ba58f51-459b-4814-b1ef-19c0d91fef69" CreationDate="2017-01-17T13:38:35.967" UserId="4187" Text="So what I'm trying to figure out is the efficiency of energy usage between heating up 2 tons of water from 5°C to 70°C everyday (during winter) with a certain given time (let's say one hour) and stabilizing 2 tons of water at 70°C all the time, given that there is always an amount of new water being supplied into the tank. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I calculated the first part and it would cost me 151.7kwH everyday to heat up 2 tons. But I couldn't find how to calculate the energy it would take to stabilize water at a certain temperature. I would appreciate if anyone with the relevant knowledge helps me with this question! Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13913" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="3ba58f51-459b-4814-b1ef-19c0d91fef69" CreationDate="2017-01-17T13:38:35.967" UserId="4187" Text="How much energy would it cost to stabilize 2 tons of water at 70 degrees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13914" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="3ba58f51-459b-4814-b1ef-19c0d91fef69" CreationDate="2017-01-17T13:38:35.967" UserId="4187" Text="|electricity|water|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5801" RevisionGUID="42c54d1c-813f-4f83-a44b-1efd6473a421" CreationDate="2017-01-17T15:44:20.253" UserId="48" Text="The stabilisation energy rate will be exactly exactly equal to the rate at which energy is lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the tank is closed, so there are no evaporative losses, there are two other ways energy is lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Firstly, from conductive losses through the surface of the tank. That will depend on the thermal conductivity of the tank, and on difference between the water temperature and the ambient temperature of the air around the tank. So if your tank loses 2 Watts per Kelvin per square metre of surface area (i.e. has a U-Value of 2.0), and has ten square metres of surface area, and the ambient air is 15 degrees Celsius, then the heat loss rate from conduction is 2 x 10 x (70 - 15) = 1100 Watts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Secondly, from the hot water being taken away and replaced by cold. So that's your 151.7 kWh/day. If you want to know the hourly rate, multiply that 151.7 kWh by the amount of water replaced in one hour, expressed as a proportion of the total 2 tonnes. So if 0.5 tonnes got used between 09.00 and 10.00, that's a quarter of the total water. So the energy lost in that hour would be a quarter of 151.7 kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add these two together to get the rate at which energy is lost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5795" RevisionGUID="345f1a0f-ba37-4f2f-8e8a-1fdf494bd21b" CreationDate="2017-01-17T19:02:05.787" UserId="4184" Comment="My answer was previously out of context. First time posting, sorry." Text="I would not recommended RECS (Renewable Energy certificates). Even though they are endorsed by the USEPA and several other NGOS, it's been empirically proven to have no impact on the additionality of renewable energy investment or the dispatching of renewable energy generators. For more information I would read studies from Michael Gillenwater and the GHGinstitute. Having the servers powered directly from a renewable energy source (renewable energy generators physically connected to the electricity transmitted to the servers) is the best way to ensure your using renewable energy. However this may not be the easiest or most inexpensive method. Renewable generation is also variable generation which I would assume may be an issue for servers that need to run 24/7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To elaborate further, Renewable Energy Credits are commodity instruments used to represent the ownership of an environmental attribute for 1 MWH of renewable energy generated. I don't want to go too deep into it, because I'm basically say that I would not recommend it as a metric for determining how sustainable a company or organization is (in this case a hosting service). Many organizations endorse RECS, but if you would like to further understand why they do not impact renewable energy generation, please check out the links below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://ghginstitute.org/2014/03/12/is-your-green-power-really-just-green-washing/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://ghginstitute.org/2015/01/26/have-you-fallen-for-the-green-power-accounting-shell-game/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brander, M. 2014. “The Enron of carbon accounting?” Isonomia Blog Post, March 7th, 2014.&#xD;&#xA;Gillenwater, M., Lu, X. &amp; Fischlein, M., 2014. “Additionality of wind energy investments in the U.S. voluntary green power market.” Renewable Energy, 63, pp.452–457.&#xD;&#xA;Gillenwater, M., 2013. “Probabilistic decision model of wind power investment and influence of green power market.” Energy Policy, 63, pp.1111–1125.&#xD;&#xA;Gillenwater, M. 2013. “Redefining RECS: Additionality in the Voluntary Renewable Energy Certificate Market“, Doctoral dissertation, Princeton University.&#xD;&#xA;Offset Quality Initiative, 2009. “Maintaining Carbon Market Integrity: Why Renewable Energy Certificates Are Not Offsets”, June.&#xD;&#xA;Gillenwater, M., 2008a. “Taking green power into account,” Environmental Finance, October.&#xD;&#xA;Gillenwater, M., 2008b. “Redefining RECs (Part 1): Untangling attributes and offsets,” Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, Pages 2109-2119.&#xD;&#xA;Gillenwater, M., 2008c. “Redefining RECs (Part 2): Untangling certificates and emission markets,” Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 2120-2129.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="270" RevisionGUID="5abe5bfd-63ee-4880-9d45-1669470d512c" CreationDate="2017-01-17T19:54:39.940" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed RECs link" Text="I feel like the term 'sustainable choice' is pretty open here - sustainability is mostly a case of what we as a civilization want to devote limited resources to. In general, server farms are going to be a more efficient use of electricity than everyone hosting a site locally (even if that were technically feasible). And, for context, while server farms consume a [lot of electricity][1] on an absolute basis, the whole internet uses about [2% of the nationwide total][2], a very good deal considering the services provided (and clearly room to improve). Having pages hosted at home would require a lot of personal computers to be on all the time, rather than shared servers. So, assuming we want to have a digitally connected civilization, server farms are probably a good choice to get economies of scale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the second question: Primarily, what you want to look for is where they get their electricity, ideally whether they pay attention to energy efficiency, and, if possible, whether they are decent to their employees. There are several companies out there that buy renewable energy directly, or buy renewable energy credits ([RECs][3]) equal to or greater than their demand. It's probably preferable to go with one that buys direct, but either way will help incentivize more green power. Statements of corporate responsibility - sponsorship, values, etc. - might help with the other metrics. As with anything, there are a lot of different impacts that could be considered, but since electricity is responsible for the bulk of the global warming impacts from the internet (as well as some respiratory-related ones), that's a straightforward decision tool.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&amp;arnumber=4937762&amp;url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4937762&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/technology/data-centers-waste-vast-amounts-of-energy-belying-industry-image.html?pagewanted=2&amp;_r=0&amp;pagewanted=all&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/renewable-energy-certificates-recs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="dcd26b9f-2fe8-478c-8272-c8823bc0136f" CreationDate="2017-01-17T21:27:28.373" UserId="3379" Text="[Chris Goldie's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5795/3379) to a question on sustainable web infrastructure brought this question up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/renewable-energy-certificates-recs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A **renewable energy certificate, or REC** (pronounced: rěk), is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; market-based instrument that represents the property rights to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; environmental, social and other non-power attributes of renewable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electricity generation. RECs are issued when one megawatt-hour (MWh)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of electricity is generated and delivered to the electricity grid from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a renewable energy resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Certificate_(United_States)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; RECs allow for purchasers [of electric power] to support renewable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; energy generation and allows the economic forces of supply and demand&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to spur the further development of renewable energy generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the purchase of RECs an effective means to reduce the environmental impact of a business or industry? Does this system work in practice, or is it simply a PR play?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="dcd26b9f-2fe8-478c-8272-c8823bc0136f" CreationDate="2017-01-17T21:27:28.373" UserId="3379" Text="Are RECs (Renewable Energy Certificates) an effective method to &quot;green&quot; industry?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="dcd26b9f-2fe8-478c-8272-c8823bc0136f" CreationDate="2017-01-17T21:27:28.373" UserId="3379" Text="|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5803" RevisionGUID="31f9b63b-2294-4b60-a6ff-1b2dd0d0d572" CreationDate="2017-01-17T22:41:19.200" UserId="659" Text="As greening measures go RECs tend to be one of the better options since they guarantee that for each certificate a given amount of renewable electricity is generated, so if that's what you want they work perfectly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that &quot;greening industry&quot; is essentially unrelated to the question of electricity supply. RECs work to green the electricity supply, no more. But for most industries electricity is a small part of their costs, and those emissions form a small part of their pollution. For example the coal-fired steel refinery is going to be almost completely unaffected, since its major emissions are from thermal heating using coal. At the other extreme, for an office building electricity makes up a small portion of the rent, and salary costs normally dominate that by a huge margin. Halving or doubling the electricity cost won't much affect the cost of running a business in the building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RECs are often introduced as the measurement device for a renewable electricity requirement, and the latter is where the major benefit comes from - few people with buy RECs just to have RECs. But when legislation requires that some percentage the electricity supply has to be renewable and measures that using RECs, RECs work very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is usually a small secondary effect where the cost of electricity goes up  because historically renewable electricity has been more expensive to the consumer than fossil electricity. This makes investment in efficiency more attractive and hence lowered demand slightly. But that is a small effect, and most consumers will not invest in efficiency just to save money (this includes businesses who consume electricity). It's also an effect that is local (some countries already have either all or no renewable electricity) and reducing over time as the cost of building renewable generators drops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in Australia when the government wanted to boost the take-up of residential solar, rather than increase the payment directly they instead issued more RECs per unit of installed solar (thermal hot water or PV). So now there are &quot;large scale RECs&quot; and &quot;small scale RECs&quot;. The latter being worth a fraction as much as the former, as well as being worth less because they were based on an estimate of lifetime output rather than actual output (the renewable energy requirement specifies that only a small portion can come from residential RECs). This is a classic case of politicians making a mess of a simple concept for arguable short-term political benefit. But [it's what Australia has][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.solaraccreditation.com.au/consumers/purchasing-your-solar-pv-system/government-schemes/renewable-energy-certificates.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="42eeb59c-dbbc-462c-9c2e-ee34bcca85df" CreationDate="2017-01-18T00:26:58.583" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected capitalization of units" Text="So what I'm trying to figure out is the efficiency of energy usage between heating up 2 tons of water from 5°C to 70°C everyday (during winter) with a certain given time (let's say one hour) and stabilizing 2 tons of water at 70°C all the time, given that there is always an amount of new water being supplied into the tank. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I calculated the first part and it would cost me 151.7 kWh everyday to heat up 2 tons. But I couldn't find how to calculate the energy it would take to stabilize water at a certain temperature. I would appreciate if anyone with the relevant knowledge helps me with this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5803" RevisionGUID="21939ace-e72a-4228-86c3-b439b22b82c4" CreationDate="2017-01-18T05:11:13.310" UserId="659" Comment="added retail &quot;green power&quot; note" Text="As greening measures go RECs tend to be one of the better options since they guarantee that for each certificate a given amount of renewable electricity is generated, so if that's what you want they work perfectly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a power retailer wants to sell &quot;green power&quot;, for example, this is a simple mechanism to do that. The electricity supply is a common pool - all the generators feed &quot;the grid&quot;, the customers draw from &quot;the grid&quot; (which is a local thing for a sometimes international value of &quot;local&quot;, but there is not a single world-wide grid). So your &quot;green power&quot; is just normal grid power, but the retailer buys RECs to cover the green power they sell. So the renewable generator gets a price premium for (at least some of) the electricity they generate, and the customer is assured that the price premium they pay actually goes to renewable generators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that &quot;greening industry&quot; is essentially unrelated to the question of electricity supply. RECs work to green the electricity supply, no more. But for most industries electricity is a small part of their costs, and those emissions form a small part of their pollution. For example the coal-fired steel refinery is going to be almost completely unaffected, since its major emissions are from thermal heating using coal. At the other extreme, for an office building electricity makes up a small portion of the rent, and salary costs normally dominate that by a huge margin. Halving or doubling the electricity cost won't much affect the cost of running a business in the building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RECs are often introduced as the measurement device for a renewable electricity requirement, and the latter is where the major benefit comes from - few people with buy RECs just to have RECs. But when legislation requires that some percentage the electricity supply has to be renewable and measures that using RECs, RECs work very well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is usually a small secondary effect where the cost of electricity goes up  because historically renewable electricity has been more expensive to the consumer than fossil electricity. This makes investment in efficiency more attractive and hence lowered demand slightly. But that is a small effect, and most consumers will not invest in efficiency just to save money (this includes businesses who consume electricity). It's also an effect that is local (some countries already have either all or no renewable electricity) and reducing over time as the cost of building renewable generators drops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in Australia when the government wanted to boost the take-up of residential solar, rather than increase the payment directly they instead issued more RECs per unit of installed solar (thermal hot water or PV). So now there are &quot;large scale RECs&quot; and &quot;small scale RECs&quot;. The latter being worth a fraction as much as the former, as well as being worth less because they were based on an estimate of lifetime output rather than actual output (the renewable energy requirement specifies that only a small portion can come from residential RECs). This is a classic case of politicians making a mess of a simple concept for arguable short-term political benefit. But [it's what Australia has][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.solaraccreditation.com.au/consumers/purchasing-your-solar-pv-system/government-schemes/renewable-energy-certificates.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="3a69e05c-437d-42ac-873b-073e458f79d4" CreationDate="2017-01-18T17:05:25.710" UserId="3379" Comment="Gave international context" Text="[Chris Goldie's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5795/3379) to a question on sustainable web infrastructure brought this question up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From the US Environmental Protection Agency](https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/renewable-energy-certificates-recs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A **renewable energy certificate, or REC** (pronounced: rěk), is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; market-based instrument that represents the property rights to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; environmental, social and other non-power attributes of renewable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electricity generation. RECs are issued when one megawatt-hour (MWh)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of electricity is generated and delivered to the electricity grid from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a renewable energy resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Certificate_(United_States)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; RECs allow for purchasers [of electric power] to support renewable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; energy generation and allows the economic forces of supply and demand&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to spur the further development of renewable energy generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these sources reference the RECs in the US, however the concept is similar around the world (based on answers/comments so far, similar systems exist in at least: Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Norway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the purchase of RECs an effective means to reduce the environmental impact of a business or industry? Does this system work in practice, or is it simply a PR play? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stated another way, does the increase of investment in renewable sources of electricity translate to reduction in environmental impact of the businesses which use electricity from the grid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5804" RevisionGUID="898ff26f-7810-4a54-b1b7-70cb8c50b0a0" CreationDate="2017-01-18T18:47:24.217" UserId="5" Text="    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; RECs are issued when one megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generated and delivered to the electricity grid from a renewable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; energy resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This quote is self-speaking. The REC says only, how much electricity is generated from energy sources considered renewable*. It is completely irrelevant for the benchmark, how negative impact on the environment that electricity unit had. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering how destructive impact on environment production of solar panels and windmills has**, it is possible, that more REC would mean more negative impact on environment. The opposite is also possible. The problem is, REC doesn't care. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*sorry to disappoint you, it was proven than perpetum mobile can't exist, therefore, strictly speaking, no energy source is renewable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**see rare earth metals acquisition" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5801" RevisionGUID="9073ef90-9d69-4f80-962f-000803f51925" CreationDate="2017-01-19T08:59:35.807" UserId="48" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="The stabilisation energy rate will be exactly exactly equal to the rate at which energy is lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the tank is closed, so there are no evaporative losses, there are two other ways energy is lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Firstly, from conductive losses through the surface of the tank. That will depend on the thermal conductivity of the tank, and on difference between the water temperature and the ambient temperature of the air around the tank. So if your tank loses 2 Watts per Kelvin per square metre of surface area (i.e. has a U-Value of 2.0), and has ten square metres of surface area, and the ambient air is 15 degrees Celsius, then the heat loss rate from conduction is 2 x 10 x (70 - 15) = 1100 Watts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Secondly, from the hot water being taken away and replaced by cold. If you were to use that full two tonners each day, that would be your 151.7 kWh/day. If you want to know the daily energy consumption based on a lower usage, multiply that 151.7 kWh by the amount of water used on average in a day, expressed as a proportion of the total 2 tonnes. So if 0.5 tonnes got used in a day, that's a quarter of the total water. So the energy lost in that day, i.e. the extra energy needed to heat the incoming cold water, would be a quarter of 151.7 kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add these two together to get the rate at which energy is lost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5805" RevisionGUID="f7343050-007b-4d37-a0f1-c82af1e3d21e" CreationDate="2017-01-20T00:06:45.997" UserId="3379" Text="**Do an inventory of all the light fixtures in your apartment, and re-distribute light bulbs based on how much light you need and how often you need it.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, for each bulb you have, determine the type (incandescent, CFL, or LED) and wattage. Use a chart like this one to compare brightness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, follow a few simple guidelines to determine where to put each bulb:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Incandescent bulbs should go in places where lights aren't often needed, such as closets&#xD;&#xA; - LEDs should go in the rooms where you spend the most time: kitchen, dining room, living room&#xD;&#xA; - The brightest LEDs should go in places like kitchens where you spend a lot of time and need the most light&#xD;&#xA; - The brightest CFLs should go in places like bathrooms where you spend less time, but still need a lot of light&#xD;&#xA; - Many fixtures can hold two bulbs - consider putting two low-wattage bulbs or just one higher wattage bulb in such fixtures&#xD;&#xA; - Lamps with a lower wattage bulb often work for reading or other tasks, rather than putting a higher wattage bulb in a ceiling fixture&#xD;&#xA; - Whenever a bulb burns out, replace it with an LED fixture, and re-arrange your other bulbs as necessary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way you can make the most of the fixtures and bulbs you've got, reduce energy usage, and avoid having to purchase all new light bulbs (assuming there are already a few CFLs and/or LEDs installed, which I've found to be the case in most places).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6IRH4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13929" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="612" RevisionGUID="7e636f70-ca85-4ef3-82e8-7740175191a5" CreationDate="2017-01-20T17:39:22.617" UserId="3379" Comment="tags" Text="|electricity|transport|cars|fuel-efficiency|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13930" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="360c65fb-8f9e-4083-8f61-cc3f8c003fd6" CreationDate="2017-01-20T17:40:27.883" UserId="3379" Comment="tags, typo in title" Text="Are electric cars more efficient than gas-powered car (when considering entire energy cycle)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13931" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1174" RevisionGUID="360c65fb-8f9e-4083-8f61-cc3f8c003fd6" CreationDate="2017-01-20T17:40:27.883" UserId="3379" Comment="tags, typo in title" Text="|energy|cars|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="31f7bb34-ec15-4d60-93dc-b5d14b34abef" CreationDate="2017-01-20T17:41:47.580" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, title, removed extraneous stuff in question" Text="So, is driving an EV (like the Tesla Model S) actually sustainable? Does it not matter *how* the actual power/energy was created? Does this matter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13933" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="31f7bb34-ec15-4d60-93dc-b5d14b34abef" CreationDate="2017-01-20T17:41:47.580" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, title, removed extraneous stuff in question" Text="Is an electric vehicle more sustainable just because it runs on batteries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13934" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2947" RevisionGUID="31f7bb34-ec15-4d60-93dc-b5d14b34abef" CreationDate="2017-01-20T17:41:47.580" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, title, removed extraneous stuff in question" Text="|transport|electricity-generation|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="0835ed2c-4f43-43a9-acc2-3537aad3be21" CreationDate="2017-01-20T17:43:54.693" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, removed external combustion references (this isn't a thing)" Text="What are the pros and cons of electric motors, compared to internal combustion engines, from a sustainability perspective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are electric motors better for the economy, more efficient, or more versatile/powerful than internal combustion engines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13936" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="0835ed2c-4f43-43a9-acc2-3537aad3be21" CreationDate="2017-01-20T17:43:54.693" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, removed external combustion references (this isn't a thing)" Text="What are the pros and cons of electric motors vs. internal combustion engines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13937" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1061" RevisionGUID="0835ed2c-4f43-43a9-acc2-3537aad3be21" CreationDate="2017-01-20T17:43:54.693" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, removed external combustion references (this isn't a thing)" Text="|vehicle|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5806" RevisionGUID="5df9af84-c732-4ebc-802c-eecc4c26f63c" CreationDate="2017-01-20T23:57:12.273" UserId="4084" Text="**Inferring Greater Sustainability from Greater Efficiency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a only few energy inputs to Earth's thermodynamic and chemical balance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Solar fusion (accessible directly or through wind and river flow)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Lunar energy (accessible as tidal force)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Terrestrial (heat dissipation from the core)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Cosmic (fissile material)&#xD;&#xA; 5. Combustion of chemically stored (fossilized) energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy efficiency reduces consumption of all five for a given global distribution of human energy usage patterns.  This is principle that flows from the engineering definition of efficiency, and it is applicable in practical ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some regions of the U.S., use of LED lighting and the promotion of the EPA's EnergyStar acceptance criteria has reduced coal consumption from what it would have been.  Fossil fuel combustion increases risk of environmental imbalance and places energy infrastructure as a dependency on depleting resources, neither of which are sustainable results.  Therefore, reducing such combustion increases overall energy infrastructure sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The planning of replacements for some nuclear plants reaching the end of their life has been questioned and postponed due to reductions in demand during the penetration of these same efficient products.  The risk of catastrophe or the burden of containing used fissile material inherent in the use of nuclear fusion is well known.  Decreasing this risk by decreasing the number of plants or total power output is arguably in support of sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reduction of total energy demand makes the economic burden of transitioning to the more sustainable energy sources (because the energy inputs are effectively continuous and eternal) less.  The cost of transition is roughly proportional to demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Realistic Scenarios Where Efficiency Increase Has an Inverse Effect**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any technology where the promotion of Energy Efficiency in a product or service that would otherwise be replaced by a more energy efficient alternative or that has some other sustainability problem outside of energy flow considerations could have an inverse effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider a region where wind and solar are providing a large proportion of the region's grid electricity and the human population is inclined to buy electric cars when their combustion engine cars reach end of life.  Suppose that a car company promotes an improved regenerative breaking technology that increases MPG ratings significantly for that model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many may dismiss the promotion to buy electric cars and go with the new regenerative breaking improvement.  They may perceive their choice as a step toward sustainability, but the more sustainable option was not chosen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes the good is the enemy of the best.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5807" RevisionGUID="1fbf2a7c-872f-4a25-9d71-80828142de4a" CreationDate="2017-01-21T00:12:46.480" UserId="4084" Text="To qualify as a pollutant in a scientific and practical sense, a compound or organism must exist in a kind of place and at a level that is considered toxic based on legitimate environmental science.  For instance, when water is tested, there are acceptable thresholds for compounds such as lead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The detection of pollutants at toxic levels when such levels were not detectable previously is a signal.  The signal notifies environmentalists that an unsustainable industrial, business, or residential behavior pattern is emerging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The toxic condition may be a transient caused by a single event, in which case it would disappear, or it may sustain.  In may cases the toxicity would increase as populations rise or modernization continues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this last case, clearly the trend is toward the disruption of the life of those species for which the pollutants have reached toxic levels in that particular region.  Assuming that the biosphere is largely symbiotic is a reasonable assumption, such disruption would ultimately increase risks in that region and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cumulative effect of pollution in general can be inferred from this local analysis.  If we consider sustainability as the reduction of risk to the geological, atmospheric, and biological processes that sustain life, then pollution reduces sustainability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5706" RevisionGUID="d4577a51-7f8a-4e3e-8730-ebbc12f7acee" CreationDate="2017-01-21T01:11:31.747" UserId="4084" Comment="Asked what else might be causing downvote persistence." Text="DOWNVOTERS: This was edited per recommendations, but the downvotes persist.  Is there anything further one would suggest?  I think the overall EE principles and application to efficiency and therefore sustainability are sound, so I'd rather fix anything else you see as wrong or misleading than delete this whole answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Importance of Three Phase Electricity**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three phase motors are known to have significantly higher radial power output than a single phase motor of similar design for the same electrical power consumption. [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicola Tesla demonstrated the math behind that and built corresponding devices to demonstrate the benefits of alternating current multi-phase generators and motors at fairs and exhibits.  George Westinghouse successfully partnered with Tesla to make AC the distribution standard on the basis of its improved efficiency (and therefore improved sustainability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several others around that time found that three phases provided an optimal balance between motor and alternator efficiency and their manufacturing cost.  These same economics and physics principles still apply today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Equipment Purchase Decision**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expect to have motors, they will consume less energy for the same work output if they are tri-phase and the electrical power source is tri-phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Equipment exists to convert any of these electrical standards to any other one, however, there is a cost.  From a sustainability point of view, the manufacture, installation, and maintenance of conversion equipment is undesirable if there is another way to achieve high energy efficiency without the equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lighting, contemporary (and highly efficient) LED lighting runs from a single phase, so if you had triphase, you could purchase a transformer at a fairly low cost to produce split phase for lighting and other devices like break room appliances.  Such a solution normally lasts for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Summary**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire choice revolves around the degree to which you expect to install AC motors other than servos and steppers. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Power loss is reduced, and the devices run cooler as a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] Servos and steppers use an entirely different strategy to powering their windings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5706" RevisionGUID="7940865f-7840-44d5-9716-e0032f64df43" CreationDate="2017-01-21T05:44:51.320" UserId="4084" Comment="Adjusted discussion of lighting based on @LShiver's critique." Text="DOWNVOTERS: This was edited per recommendations, but the downvotes persist.  Is there anything further one would suggest?  I think the overall EE principles and application to efficiency and therefore sustainability are sound, so I'd rather fix anything else you see as wrong or misleading than delete this whole answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Importance of Three Phase Electricity**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three phase motors are known to have significantly higher radial power output than a single phase motor of similar design for the same electrical power consumption. [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicola Tesla demonstrated the math behind that and built corresponding devices to demonstrate the benefits of alternating current multi-phase generators and motors at fairs and exhibits.  George Westinghouse successfully partnered with Tesla to make AC the distribution standard on the basis of its improved efficiency (and therefore improved sustainability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several others around that time found that three phases provided an optimal balance between motor and alternator efficiency and their manufacturing cost.  These same economics and physics principles still apply today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Equipment Purchase Decision**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expect to have motors, they will consume less energy for the same work output if they are tri-phase and the electrical power source is tri-phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Equipment exists to convert any of these electrical standards to any other one, however, there is a cost.  From a sustainability point of view, the manufacture, installation, and maintenance of conversion equipment is undesirable if there is another way to achieve high energy efficiency without the equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lighting, LED lighting usually requires single phase and possibly at a Voltage below that of higher power motors.  For them you could purchase a transformer at a fairly low cost to provide lighting and other devices like break room appliances with power.  Such transformers normally lasts for decades, especially if protected from surges, harsh weather, and moisture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Summary**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire choice revolves around the degree to which you expect to install asynchronous AC motors. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Power loss is reduced, and the devices run cooler as a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] Synchronous motors, such as stepper motors, use an entirely different strategy to powering their windings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="eda9832f-286f-49a7-8675-c3bae95549c7" CreationDate="2017-01-21T13:51:38.943" UserId="4194" Text="We are in the process of choosing a fireplace for our house (which is being refurbished). Is it possible to have a wood-burning fireplace that doesn't cause any harmful emissions or contribute to smog (both indoors and outdoors)? If this is the case then what do we need to look for when choosing it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need the fireplace only for decorative purposes, we are not planning to use it for actual heating. However, burning wood looks much better than burning gas pretending to be wood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="eda9832f-286f-49a7-8675-c3bae95549c7" CreationDate="2017-01-21T13:51:38.943" UserId="4194" Text="Ecological wood-burning fireplace" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="eda9832f-286f-49a7-8675-c3bae95549c7" CreationDate="2017-01-21T13:51:38.943" UserId="4194" Text="|environmental-impact|firewood|fireplace|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5809" RevisionGUID="9bb47dcf-8d24-478e-9d3b-5e053a6a9143" CreationDate="2017-01-21T23:24:34.577" UserId="85" Text="[**Masonry heaters**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonry_heater) are stoves with a masonry component (&quot;stones&quot;) of 800kg or more. They are installed into a home and are sized after the room size and insulation. (The sizing is quite important as you don't want a stove too strong or too weak, so it is recommended to consult a professional.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Used correctly, the inside temperature gets quite high, so that the wood burns comparatively cleanly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to their large thermal mass, they are able to store heat and give off a wonderful warmth over an extended period of time (6-36 hours) off-setting the need for other types of heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Usually, you can light a fire in the afternoon/at night and the room will be kept warm until you relight the stove the next day.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, for the decorative aspect, they may **come with a window**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![masonry heater](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Modern_Masonry_Fireplace.jpeg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13947" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5808" RevisionGUID="9ecdf17a-ead0-4b34-a588-5fb8ab256036" CreationDate="2017-01-22T00:45:59.850" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/822968519914647554" />
  <row Id="13948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5810" RevisionGUID="fa2692d5-9116-4bed-90a9-8db34166407f" CreationDate="2017-01-22T15:11:50.087" UserId="135" Text="I have several bottles of syrup which I am never gonna consume.&#xD;&#xA;And I would prefer not to simply throw away their content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to put them in cups, near the place I put butter/margarine for birds in winter. It's freezing these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not seen clear information against doing so, whether it is good or bad for birds to drink almost pure sugar and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea, before I do it all the same, lacking info on the subject ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5810" RevisionGUID="fa2692d5-9116-4bed-90a9-8db34166407f" CreationDate="2017-01-22T15:11:50.087" UserId="135" Text="Can I give fruit syrup and soda syrup to birds in winter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5810" RevisionGUID="fa2692d5-9116-4bed-90a9-8db34166407f" CreationDate="2017-01-22T15:11:50.087" UserId="135" Text="|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5810" RevisionGUID="80d0153d-7124-4c98-a92e-26657eff940e" CreationDate="2017-01-23T11:29:09.050" UserId="135" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="I have several bottles of syrup which I am never gonna consume.&#xD;&#xA;And I would prefer not to simply throw away their content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to put them in cups, near the place I put butter/margarine for birds in winter. It's freezing these days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not seen clear information against doing so, whether it is good or bad for birds to drink almost pure sugar and so on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any idea, before I do it all the same, lacking info on the subject ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or any other idea how to use them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13953" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5811" RevisionGUID="817d560e-7101-4464-979e-db7c05b5e28d" CreationDate="2017-01-23T19:46:17.827" UserId="4202" Text="If they are pretty stretchy you can cut off the tops and use them to make cozies for your drinks containers. Here's how: gather and stitch the cut end to close the tube in a round fashion. This is more easily done if you place a bottle or glass inside to help even out the material as you sew. Work the material around so that it sits flat. Decorate with yarn or sew on beads, etc.&#xD;&#xA;Then use the remaining foot portion to fashion drawer sachets. Just fill them with lavender and sew them shut. Or fill with rice, sew closed, and microwave for a minute to soothe a sore neck." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="1851643a-f3e7-46c5-ac9c-805f13e25abd" CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:00:17.503" UserId="4170" Text="I've owned a keep cup for about a year and though I clean it after use it really is starting to stink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried scrubbing it with a scouring pad and detergent and leaving it to soak overnight, but it still smells bad. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13955" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="1851643a-f3e7-46c5-ac9c-805f13e25abd" CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:00:17.503" UserId="4170" Text="Way to clean keep cup (reusable coffee cup)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13956" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="1851643a-f3e7-46c5-ac9c-805f13e25abd" CreationDate="2017-01-23T23:00:17.503" UserId="4170" Text="|reuse|cleaning|coffee|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="aea63f66-5735-4250-8624-11efd3b636e8" CreationDate="2017-01-24T00:19:25.637" UserId="4170" Comment="added 230 characters in body" Text="I've owned a keep cup for about a year and though I clean it after use it really is starting to stink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried scrubbing it with a scouring pad and detergent and leaving it to soak overnight, but it still smells bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cup looks like the one below. All pieces can be disassembled to make cleaning easy. It's like the smell is in the plastic it's self.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/leTjH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5813" RevisionGUID="02709be9-665b-4cf4-bdb9-3dcb8a7ba22b" CreationDate="2017-01-24T00:36:28.357" UserId="3379" Text="**Wash it in a dishwasher once every month or two.** I own a Contigo mug, and once had similar problems. I found some tips on their website, but ultimately found that if I washed the mug and lid in the dishwasher about once a month, the smell and staining would go away. I don't have a dishwasher, but find that I visit someone who does often enough to keep the smell at bay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;KeepCup also includes [cleaning tips](https://help.keepcup.com/hc/en-us/articles/221712248-How-do-I-clean-my-original-brew-KeepCup-) on their website, which you may want to try first if you don't have access to a dishwasher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, KeepCup offers a [one year wrranty](https://help.keepcup.com/hc/en-us/articles/221712168-Product-Warranty), so if you've owned the cup for less than a year you may want to try contacting them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="7f12c1c8-631f-4b02-8904-61f224af1656" CreationDate="2017-01-24T00:40:10.303" UserId="3379" Comment="Make clear that &quot;KeepCup&quot; is a specific brand" Text="I've owned a [KeepCup](https://us.keepcup.com/?country=United%20States) for about a year and though I clean it after use it really is starting to stink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried scrubbing it with a scouring pad and detergent and leaving it to soak overnight, but it still smells bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cup looks like the one below. All pieces can be disassembled to make cleaning easy. It's like the smell is in the plastic it's self.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/leTjH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13960" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="7f12c1c8-631f-4b02-8904-61f224af1656" CreationDate="2017-01-24T00:40:10.303" UserId="3379" Comment="Make clear that &quot;KeepCup&quot; is a specific brand" Text="How to clean a reusable plastic coffee cup, such as KeepCup?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5813" RevisionGUID="6c6ee8fb-5e71-464a-be4a-6099fdbc9a79" CreationDate="2017-01-24T00:59:31.653" UserId="3379" Comment="typo" Text="**Wash it in a dishwasher once every month or two.** I own a Contigo mug, and once had similar problems with the plastic/rubber lid. I found some tips on their website, but ultimately found that if I washed the mug and lid in the dishwasher about once a month, the smell and staining would go away. I don't have a dishwasher, but find that I visit someone who does often enough to keep the smell at bay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;KeepCup also includes [cleaning tips](https://help.keepcup.com/hc/en-us/articles/221712248-How-do-I-clean-my-original-brew-KeepCup-) on their website, which you may want to try first if you don't have access to a dishwasher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, KeepCup offers a [one year warranty](https://help.keepcup.com/hc/en-us/articles/221712168-Product-Warranty), so if you've owned the cup for less than a year you may want to try contacting them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5814" RevisionGUID="74ec24a2-4fb3-43ec-8f28-540cd5d59718" CreationDate="2017-01-24T08:04:54.163" UserId="3293" Text="From many references, [e.g. this good one](http://birding.about.com/od/birdfeeders/a/winterfeeding.htm), &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The best foods to offer birds in colder weather have a high fat or oil content that will provide abundant energy for winter survival. Nutritious winter foods for birds include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Black oil sunflower seed&#xD;&#xA;* Hulled peanuts or peanut hearts&#xD;&#xA;* Nyjer (thistle) seed&#xD;&#xA;* Suet mixes with seeds or fruit&#xD;&#xA;* Peanut butter&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Not sugar!** I suspect this is like for humans. It will quickly relieve the lack of energy, but the effect will fall back very quickly too. Sugar won't help birds to have long lasting energy in the belly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you could do with this liquid sugar is to pour it on the ground to **fertilize your yard**. Fungus and Microorganisms will thrive on it as soon as little heat comes back with bright sunny days, and decompose it to good soil for e.g. fruit trees. Of course this could bring you insects too, so don't put it too close to your home. I advise you use the most remote place of your yard, beside your compost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13968" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5796" RevisionGUID="fb0824a3-40d0-4c57-b0a0-0c8260d920a6" CreationDate="2017-01-24T15:52:44.813" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/823921486398451713" />
  <row Id="13969" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="05307052-c86d-497d-9165-4efa52f612a9" CreationDate="2017-01-25T00:30:58.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="13970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5816" RevisionGUID="cf9271e4-0fcc-47fa-9e0b-b31b6b8b659b" CreationDate="2017-01-25T12:22:11.273" UserId="48" Text="It depends on the typical insulation level of a dwelling, and the size of incidental gains. Thus, it varies by country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the UK][1], the base temperature for heating is 15.5&amp;deg;C, which reflects local conditions. And for cooling, the [UK Met Office uses 22&amp;deg;C](http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/22715)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lower base temperature suggests much better-insulated stock, combined with higher incidental gains - probably solar gains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The base temperature is typically calculated from a combination of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  empirical data - looking at patterns of energy consumption at different temperatures; and&#xD;&#xA;- model results - running a dynamic simulation of buildings, and stocks of buildings, in a package such as energyplus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.carbontrust.com/resources/guides/energy-efficiency/degree-days/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5816" RevisionGUID="8eefe0ba-56fb-4f15-8bb0-6d14f962cd94" CreationDate="2017-01-25T12:28:00.747" UserId="48" Comment="added 174 characters in body" Text="It depends on the typical insulation level of a dwelling, the size of incidental gains, and residents' preferences on internal temperatures. Thus, it varies by country, and possibly even by household.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[In the UK][1], the base temperature for heating is 15.5&amp;deg;C, which reflects local conditions. And for cooling, the [UK Met Office uses 22&amp;deg;C](http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/22715)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lower base temperature suggests much better-insulated stock, combined with higher incidental gains - probably solar gains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The base temperature is typically calculated from empirical data - looking at patterns of energy consumption at different temperatures; sometimes supplemented with model results, from running dynamic simulations of buildings, and stocks of buildings, in a package such as energyplus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here's an example estimation](http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-13-0220.1), for South Korea, which uses piecewise linear regression of empirical data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.carbontrust.com/resources/guides/energy-efficiency/degree-days/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5817" RevisionGUID="2be49e35-a272-466b-8f06-5937854e6fe8" CreationDate="2017-01-25T14:41:51.843" UserId="3293" Text="It looks to me that the efforts I'm doing to make my living more sustainable are worthless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, when some of us make efforts to lower energy consumption, doesn't it only leave harvestable resources for the others at lower price (because of market law &quot;offer &amp; demand&quot; making prices)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If too many others have no clue how armful they are for future generation, and only consume more because it is cheaper, is there any point making any effort in the direction of sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13973" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5817" RevisionGUID="2be49e35-a272-466b-8f06-5937854e6fe8" CreationDate="2017-01-25T14:41:51.843" UserId="3293" Text="Does responsible living leaves more space to unresponsible living?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13974" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5817" RevisionGUID="2be49e35-a272-466b-8f06-5937854e6fe8" CreationDate="2017-01-25T14:41:51.843" UserId="3293" Text="|environmental-impact|ecological-footprint|defining-sustainability|economy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5817" RevisionGUID="f2305ef8-2f52-4179-a362-6420e41b685f" CreationDate="2017-01-25T20:25:51.750" UserId="15" Comment="fix typo" Text="It looks to me that the efforts I'm doing to make my living more sustainable are worthless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, when some of us make efforts to lower energy consumption, doesn't it only leave harvestable resources for the others at lower price (because of market law &quot;offer &amp; demand&quot; making prices)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If too many others have no clue how harmful they are for future generation, and only consume more because it is cheaper, is there any point making any effort in the direction of sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5819" RevisionGUID="c204cf59-2e3d-494c-a224-b7e04cb20e85" CreationDate="2017-01-25T21:20:29.757" UserId="4207" Text="I tried a patchwork of socks, that wasn't very beautiful. Depends on the socks (and your abilities in patchwork) !&#xD;&#xA;You can cut them in little pieces and use them as stuffer for pillow, footstoll... You can easily find some tutos." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13978" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5768" RevisionGUID="e98c5e35-bd8f-416b-8178-667166cad075" CreationDate="2017-01-26T01:02:39.007" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/824422261738373120" />
  <row Id="13979" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5812" RevisionGUID="89ab72c0-b919-4d2e-839a-671427462a8c" CreationDate="2017-01-26T07:02:41.750" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/824512870268502016" />
  <row Id="13983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5821" RevisionGUID="c49d4b51-c464-4851-b97d-745d2f365a12" CreationDate="2017-01-26T17:56:24.280" UserId="4207" Text="When we found our house (we're not owners right now), there was already a pellet stove. I don't really appreciate it because it uses electricity (I don't know how much but we now depend on it) and I don't know if pellets are very sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;If we buy the house, is it better to change for a wood stove or to keep the actual stove (and maybe add solar panel)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5821" RevisionGUID="c49d4b51-c464-4851-b97d-745d2f365a12" CreationDate="2017-01-26T17:56:24.280" UserId="4207" Text="Is a pellet stove better than a wood stove?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5821" RevisionGUID="c49d4b51-c464-4851-b97d-745d2f365a12" CreationDate="2017-01-26T17:56:24.280" UserId="4207" Text="|energy|stove|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5822" RevisionGUID="b6350c5e-453c-49b2-a252-448e726beee2" CreationDate="2017-01-26T22:24:54.780" UserId="2299" Text="On the positive side economically you are expanding the market for sustainable products, which will help lower their price and make them more likely to be developed. &#xD;&#xA;Another reason to make the effort is that the grandchildren of the people who are't pursuing sustainability will be traumatized like the grandchildren of Nazis, and wish they could have had ancestors like you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5822" RevisionGUID="1af94c38-2f9d-4524-b80b-575451648d0c" CreationDate="2017-01-27T05:30:58.940" UserId="2299" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="On the positive side economically you are expanding the market for sustainable products, which will help lower their price and make them more likely to be developed. &#xD;&#xA;Another reason to make the effort is that the grandchildren of the people who are't pursuing sustainability may be, for example, traumatized like the grandchildren of war criminals, and wish they could have had ancestors like you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5822" RevisionGUID="7f9f6a54-dded-4a4b-b0ab-cc3c30dcaafc" CreationDate="2017-01-27T05:37:42.793" UserId="2299" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="On the positive side economically you are expanding the market for sustainable products, which will help lower their price and make them more likely to be developed. &#xD;&#xA;Another reason to make the effort is that the grandchildren of the people who aren't pursuing sustainability may be, for example, traumatized like the grandchildren of war criminals, and wish they could have had ancestors like you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5821" RevisionGUID="21a817e0-baea-4cff-9f18-9b32b7c76f60" CreationDate="2017-01-27T09:56:21.383" UserId="4207" Comment="added 333 characters in body" Text="When we found our house (we're not owners right now), there was already a pellet stove. I don't really appreciate it because it uses electricity (I don't know how much but we now depend on it) and I don't know if pellets are very sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;If we buy the house, is it better to change for a wood stove or to keep the actual stove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit : we live near the mountains, there's a lot of wood here, not difficult to find a local retailant. We are in the middle of the France.&#xD;&#xA;After reflexion, we can't use solar panels to produce electricity for our own house : the electricity compagnies must buy it and then re-sell it to us.&#xD;&#xA;The stove is use to warm the house, not just a as decorative. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="ecb2b68e-071a-4970-bf91-2a3fba2d869b" CreationDate="2017-01-27T13:37:00.507" UserId="2891" Comment="added 1780 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Update:** Medical Research references attached in this article -  &#xD;&#xA;[6 Natural Ways To Stop And Heal Receding Gums Before It’s Too Late][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the best source of information for this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not get a lot of votes for this as most people tend to believe AMA &amp; Pharma lobby, but the information comes from the most reliable sources of ancient herbal wisdom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ayurveda - 5000 year old science of life, food, medicine &amp; healing - sister science to Yoga.  &#xD;&#xA;Open Source science. Hence, no profit or incentive for AMA, Pharma &amp; Patent lobby.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have been used forever. There are some commercial preparations that use these components and great blends of the same. I'll link to some that I personally use below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Datun/ Datoon can made from Plant Stems &#xD;&#xA;- Dant Manjan / Herbal Tooth Powder also from herbal preparations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PS: The word 'Dant' (think Dental) is Sanskrit/ Hindi for Tooth/ Teeth. So, ever wonder where your modern dental techniques came from?  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoted from [Rajiv Dixit's talks on Prakrutik Chikitsa i.e. Natural Medicine][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12 types of daatoon (plant stems) can be used only.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - There are 3 basic season and 3 sub seasons. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Summers [neem][3] daatoon, [babool][4],&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Winters, [amrood][5] is best, [jaamoon][6] is next&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Rains – mango, [Arjun][7]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dant Manjans (Powder)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan   – daaru  - haldi {turmeric}, salt, sarso/ mustard oil &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 2 – burn dried gobar {cow dung}, add haldi and sendha namak to it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 3 – [triphala choorna][8], sendha namak. This is the only one that can be used in all seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mango Leaves - Chew - make paste - Rub on teeth - Amazing whitener&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/turmeric-for-gum-disease.html?t=DM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;From: [Types of Salts][9]:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Sendha namak (Rock salt)**. A large crystalline salt that's usually used for making ice cream in ice cream machines. Food grade rock salt is also available to use in regular cooking.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Kala namak (Black salt). This is a dark, reddish-black colored crystalline salt that turns a pinkish grey color when ground up. It has a distinct sulfurous odor and taste.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without even me starting on Fluoride some of the negatives of chemical toothpastes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	11. Tooth paste is not good for you. They disturb Pitta. This will cause many problems. Teeth will decay very quickly due to paste use.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When sweet things are eaten early in the morning they disturb the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system. Our culture has a system to eating neem and turmeric balls.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	12. Commercial toothpastes have been using powdered animal bones for decades e.g. Colgate - pig bones, pepsodant – cow bones, close up –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; goat. This has been proven in lab tests and it seems only recently&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that some of these companies have stopped using bones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outline of Commercial Preparations suggested by Ayurvedic experts that I use: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Vicco Vajradanti Tooth Powder][10] - Coarse Powder of dried Stems/ Herbs&#xD;&#xA; - I had gum bleeding for decades &amp; have close friends &amp; cousins who are dentists and that never stopped. Gum bleeding is not just a dental issue, it is said to be connected with Blood imbalance/ impurity&#xD;&#xA; - Another fellow yogi told me how with a week of using these his bleeding stopped. Tried and got the same result.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Patanjali Dant Kanti Tooth Paste][11]  &#xD;&#xA; - My toothpase of daily use. Although I feel the above powder with my fingers is way better for tooth health. I use both in conjunction.   &#xD;&#xA; - Use less of tooth brushes and carefully as they damage soft gums. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Vicco Vajradanti_Paste][12]  &#xD;&#xA; - There are several other brands that make similar herb based formulations for dental care. I'll update as I try &amp; evaluate more of them, myself &amp; expert advise.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **COLGATE tried to patent some of this but was thrown out due to prior known knowledge:**  &#xD;&#xA; - [Reddit: India_blocks_colgate_patents_for_spices][13]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Additional interesting &amp; related information/ fundamentals**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mentioned Ayurvedic solutions focus on one principle in Ayurveda: 6 tastes;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- where Sweet, Salty and Bitter &amp; Astringent tasting items have different effect on a persons system  &#xD;&#xA;- and how each of them is needed in right amount and in the right order  &#xD;&#xA;- Typically ending with Bitter/ Astringent items (to cleanse/ sanitize the palate) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such items are suggested above for dental usage, and also used as after-mint or after food chewing, using betel nuts or betel leaves. {In excessive abuse, it also has a negative effect}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Similar principle seems to have been present in the Pompeii / ancient Roman excavations.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://qz.com/516672/ancient-romans-had-no-need-for-dentists-because-of-one-food-they-didnt-eat/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  revealed in a press conference that the ancient Romans had perfect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teeth and “no immediate discernible need for dentists,” according news&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agency Agenzia Giornalistica Italia. Though Pompeii citizens never&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used toothbrushes or toothpaste, they had healthy teeth thanks to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their low-sugar diet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dailyhealthpost.com/natural-ways-to-heal-gum-disease/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://rootsandshoots.ning.com/forum/topics/summary-of-rajiv-dixit-s-lectures-on-ayurveda-based-on-mharishi&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azadirachta_indica&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vachellia_nilotica&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guava&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygium_cumini&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminalia_arjuna&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triphala&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://caloriebee.com/nutrition/Types-Of-Salts-Sendha-Namak-Rock-Salt-And-Kala-Namak-Black-Salt&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_powder.php&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://patanjaliayurved.net/product/dant-kanti/91&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_paste.php&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3dv4q1/india_blocks_colgate_patents_for_spices/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="268156e0-1916-43ef-85ea-1f119c2b145e" CreationDate="2017-01-27T13:47:28.007" UserId="2891" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="&gt; **Update:** Medical Research references attached in this article -  &#xD;&#xA;[6 Natural Ways To Stop And Heal Receding Gums Before It’s Too Late][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have the best source of information for this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not get a lot of votes for this as most people tend to believe AMA &amp; Pharma lobby, but the information comes from the most reliable sources of ancient herbal wisdom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ayurveda - 5000 year old science of life, food, medicine &amp; healing - sister science to Yoga.  &#xD;&#xA;Open Source science. Hence, no profit or incentive for AMA, Pharma &amp; Patent lobby.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These have been used forever. There are some commercial preparations that use these components and great blends of the same. I'll link to some that I personally use below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Datun/ Datoon can made from Plant Stems &#xD;&#xA;- Dant Manjan / Herbal Tooth Powder also from herbal preparations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;PS: The word 'Dant' (think Dental) is Sanskrit/ Hindi for Tooth/ Teeth. So, ever wonder where your modern dental techniques came from?  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoted from [Rajiv Dixit's talks on Prakrutik Chikitsa i.e. Natural Medicine][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12 types of [daatoon (plant stems/ twigs)][3] can be used only.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - There are 3 basic season and 3 sub seasons. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Summers [neem][4] daatoon, [babool][5],&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Winters, [amrood][6] is best, [jaamoon][7] is next&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Rains – mango, [Arjun][8]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dant Manjans (Powder)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan   – daaru  - haldi {turmeric}, salt, sarso/ mustard oil &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 2 – burn dried gobar {cow dung}, add haldi and sendha namak to it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 3 – [triphala choorna][9], sendha namak. This is the only one that can be used in all seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mango Leaves - Chew - make paste - Rub on teeth - Amazing whitener&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/turmeric-for-gum-disease.html?t=DM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;From: [Types of Salts][10]:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Sendha namak (Rock salt)**. A large crystalline salt that's usually used for making ice cream in ice cream machines. Food grade rock salt is also available to use in regular cooking.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Kala namak (Black salt). This is a dark, reddish-black colored crystalline salt that turns a pinkish grey color when ground up. It has a distinct sulfurous odor and taste.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without even me starting on Fluoride some of the negatives of chemical toothpastes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	11. Tooth paste is not good for you. They disturb Pitta. This will cause many problems. Teeth will decay very quickly due to paste use.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When sweet things are eaten early in the morning they disturb the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system. Our culture has a system to eating neem and turmeric balls.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 	12. Commercial toothpastes have been using powdered animal bones for decades e.g. Colgate - pig bones, pepsodant – cow bones, close up –&#xD;&#xA;&gt; goat. This has been proven in lab tests and it seems only recently&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that some of these companies have stopped using bones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outline of Commercial Preparations suggested by Ayurvedic experts that I use: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Vicco Vajradanti Tooth Powder][11] - Coarse Powder of dried Stems/ Herbs&#xD;&#xA; - I had gum bleeding for decades &amp; have close friends &amp; cousins who are dentists and that never stopped. Gum bleeding is not just a dental issue, it is said to be connected with Blood imbalance/ impurity&#xD;&#xA; - Another fellow yogi told me how with a week of using these his bleeding stopped. Tried and got the same result.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Patanjali Dant Kanti Tooth Paste][12]  &#xD;&#xA; - My toothpase of daily use. Although I feel the above powder with my fingers is way better for tooth health. I use both in conjunction.   &#xD;&#xA; - Use less of tooth brushes and carefully as they damage soft gums. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Vicco Vajradanti_Paste][13]  &#xD;&#xA; - There are several other brands that make similar herb based formulations for dental care. I'll update as I try &amp; evaluate more of them, myself &amp; expert advise.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **COLGATE tried to patent some of this but was thrown out due to prior known knowledge:**  &#xD;&#xA; - [Reddit: India_blocks_colgate_patents_for_spices][14]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Additional interesting &amp; related information/ fundamentals**: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mentioned Ayurvedic solutions focus on one principle in Ayurveda: 6 tastes;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- where Sweet, Salty and Bitter &amp; Astringent tasting items have different effect on a persons system  &#xD;&#xA;- and how each of them is needed in right amount and in the right order  &#xD;&#xA;- Typically ending with Bitter/ Astringent items (to cleanse/ sanitize the palate) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such items are suggested above for dental usage, and also used as after-mint or after food chewing, using betel nuts or betel leaves. {In excessive abuse, it also has a negative effect}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Similar principle seems to have been present in the Pompeii / ancient Roman excavations.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://qz.com/516672/ancient-romans-had-no-need-for-dentists-because-of-one-food-they-didnt-eat/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  revealed in a press conference that the ancient Romans had perfect&#xD;&#xA;&gt; teeth and “no immediate discernible need for dentists,” according news&#xD;&#xA;&gt; agency Agenzia Giornalistica Italia. Though Pompeii citizens never&#xD;&#xA;&gt; used toothbrushes or toothpaste, they had healthy teeth thanks to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their low-sugar diet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://dailyhealthpost.com/natural-ways-to-heal-gum-disease/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://rootsandshoots.ning.com/forum/topics/summary-of-rajiv-dixit-s-lectures-on-ayurveda-based-on-mharishi&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teeth_cleaning_twig&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azadirachta_indica&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vachellia_nilotica&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guava&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygium_cumini&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminalia_arjuna&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triphala&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://caloriebee.com/nutrition/Types-Of-Salts-Sendha-Namak-Rock-Salt-And-Kala-Namak-Black-Salt&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_powder.php&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://patanjaliayurved.net/product/dant-kanti/91&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_paste.php&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3dv4q1/india_blocks_colgate_patents_for_spices/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5824" RevisionGUID="e2da8e15-cd13-4b51-9ae5-078e56addd10" CreationDate="2017-01-27T15:27:10.767" UserId="4207" Text="I don't see the world like a big &quot;offer &amp; demand market place&quot;, I prefer a vision of an ocean of data.&#xD;&#xA;In a positive future, sustainability will be the new fashion (well, it begins !). The best is to do what we think is the best for the planets and share it with everyone. &#xD;&#xA;However, my view may be influenced by &quot;what I see is what I agree&quot;... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="c3e15df8-819e-45e6-844c-6b5d2b78ead6" CreationDate="2017-01-27T15:32:45.237" UserId="4218" Text="My local council accepts white plastic for recycling. If white is ok, why do we produce meat packaging, frozen meal packaging etc in black?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="c3e15df8-819e-45e6-844c-6b5d2b78ead6" CreationDate="2017-01-27T15:32:45.237" UserId="4218" Text="Why do we produce black plastic items if they cannot be recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="c3e15df8-819e-45e6-844c-6b5d2b78ead6" CreationDate="2017-01-27T15:32:45.237" UserId="4218" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="13998" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5821" RevisionGUID="46ac5490-0fb7-40f9-8881-edf3ada7ad97" CreationDate="2017-01-27T19:17:40.997" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/825060223744356353" />
  <row Id="14000" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5817" RevisionGUID="47d66282-9b4e-42a0-bb8f-6871891a234b" CreationDate="2017-01-28T04:25:20.567" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/825198046833156096" />
  <row Id="14001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5826" RevisionGUID="97d34c8c-65c2-48d0-92cb-683eb6a994fb" CreationDate="2017-01-28T07:12:02.850" UserId="2345" Text="One reason for using black plastic for meat packaging is the hide the blood that can sometimes seep out of the meat. It gives the appearance of a cleaner presentation. I've seen meat packaged in white &amp; black plastic trays and the black ones always look neater &amp; give the appearance of being cleaner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The choice of a color for a plastic item, such as packaging, may be more of a marketing decision than an environmental one. Not everyone is concerned with sustainability &amp; the environment, some people are more concerned about making money &amp; improving only their quality of life irrespective of the impact that may have on others or the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14002" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="5b0aecd7-2cff-42c7-9413-1edbe5a629a1" CreationDate="2017-01-28T21:14:26.487" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="14005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5827" RevisionGUID="33d55ae6-f1b7-4118-a0c7-2e86470d1da5" CreationDate="2017-01-30T09:26:50.450" UserId="1567" Text="Your life is never worthless if you are setting a good example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can increase the worth of your efforts by spreading the word, by setting up programmes in your area to help people recycle etc, you can help your less able neighbours &quot;I'm going to recycling, shall I take that stuff of yours?&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not lose heart. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5828" RevisionGUID="9d41a485-528b-49cc-835d-67f04071711b" CreationDate="2017-01-30T19:25:37.250" UserId="99" Text="Yes, to a certain extent. In economics this is called the '[rebound effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation))'.&#xD;&#xA;The rebound effect is that the effectiveness of a new techology or measure is reduced because it is counter-acted by other parts of the system. &#xD;&#xA;To give an example: people who insulate their house tend to keep  their house at a higher temperature than before the insulation was done. It has been suggested that people do this because they can now afford it or because they feel like they already did 'enough' to save energy. The above is an example of a 'direct rebound effect'. Since the insulation saves some money, this money may be spend on other services that require energy, which is an example of an 'indirect rebound effect'. What you are referring to in your question is actually a 3rd type, called 'economic-wide rebound effect'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rebound effect almost always occurs to some extent in all kinds of sustainability improvements. It's even possible that the rebound-effect fully counter-acts the measures taken and that the net-effect is negative, the situation gets worse. This is also called [Jevons paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How big the total effect of a technology or policy change is is very difficult to determine and has led to a debate between scientists. I'm not sure what the outcome of that debate is, but it seems there are no indications that negative effects are common. Most changes seem to have a net positive effect, albeit that it's less than it one might expect at first.&#xD;&#xA;In any case it is important to be aware that the rebound effect exists and that it is taken into account when creating and implementing new technology and policy changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5829" RevisionGUID="a0c0146b-613d-4c27-bf27-6df9d70459a3" CreationDate="2017-01-30T20:22:41.240" UserId="3379" Text="Since asking the question I have been thinking about this quite a bit, and I believe the fundamental difference boils down to the balance between preventing and repairing [negative externalities](http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Externalities.html): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cost[s] that [are] suffered by a third party as a result of an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; economic transaction. In a transaction, the producer and consumer are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first and second parties, and third parties include any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; individual, organisation, property owner, or resource that is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; indirectly affected. Externalities are also referred to as spill over&#xD;&#xA;&gt; effects, and a negative externality is also referred to as an external&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To simplify things, let's say organic farming produces zero externalities, and traditional farming produces only negative externalities. Then, imagine a case where the additional cost of the organic practices are exactly equal to the cost required to repair the negative externalities of conventional farming. So for the same dollar, imagine we have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1 kilo organic pork, **or**&#xD;&#xA; - 1 kilo organic pork, $0.10 worth of damage to a third party, and $0.10 left over to repair that damage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we are making numerous assumptions here: in reality, the amount of damage could be higher or lower, in addition to the fact that it is notoriously difficult to determine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again, assuming this simple scenario, we are left with the question: is it better not to cause any damage, or to cause the damage while producing the money to repair the damage at a later date?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the question in this way, it becomes clear that unless some aspect of organic farming is exponentially more expensive than traditional farming, it makes more sense to prevent damage in the first place, than to save a bit of money up front which later will be needed to repair damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, I think a strong argument could be made that organic farming is still better even if traditional farming saves more than enough money to pay for it's own damage. Perhaps there's an economist out there who could comment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14009" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5817" RevisionGUID="e44f7d84-20d2-4dc3-b4ff-2d010f38c932" CreationDate="2017-01-31T04:22:57.170" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo in title" Text="Does responsible living leave more space to unresponsible living?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14010" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="fd338396-606f-4eaf-9f3a-13d5d85e1845" CreationDate="2017-01-31T13:43:05.060" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/826425570594521089" />
  <row Id="14012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5830" RevisionGUID="853ae00a-c40d-460f-841e-ecac7a4e325e" CreationDate="2017-01-31T19:00:52.610" UserId="3297" Text="The social signals you send might well be more important than the economic ones. Consumers are not rational. Look at what people spend money and time one - it does not make them happier. We know what causes mental well being, e.g. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/stress-anxiety-depression/Pages/improve-mental-wellbeing.aspx So people's consumption is highly illogical and does not follow economic theory of maximizing happiness. Not only does this show how economics is unhelpful, but it also shows how social science is crucial: by setting an example you are doing one of the most important thing you can do. When we reach critical mass, we will be unstoppable. Look only to the rise of vegetarianism and other trends that shows we are quickly approaching critical mass." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5830" RevisionGUID="8807eaa4-b967-4c0c-b296-621cf605c61c" CreationDate="2017-01-31T19:25:13.827" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved linking" Text="The social signals you send might well be more important than the economic ones. Consumers are not rational. Look at what people spend money and time on - it does not make them happier. We know what causes mental well being (such as [these five steps](http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/stress-anxiety-depression/Pages/improve-mental-wellbeing.aspx)). So people's consumption is highly illogical and does not follow economic theories of maximizing happiness. Not only does this show how economics is unhelpful, but it also shows how social science is crucial: by setting an example you are doing one of the most important things you can do. When we reach critical mass, we will be unstoppable. Look only to the rise of vegetarianism and other trends that shows we are quickly approaching critical mass." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5831" RevisionGUID="2ab2ac42-a57d-4856-9d31-471bab4c9336" CreationDate="2017-02-01T07:18:18.727" UserId="4234" Text="Your personal practical  contribution is negligible but you can promote the topic by all kinds of media like speaking with friends and writing in social media. Maybe you will not see the effect during your life but in the eternity your action may gain a lot of followers. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14015" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5832" RevisionGUID="c02cf5e9-78d3-49cc-9c23-5333891a4d17" CreationDate="2017-02-01T17:37:09.960" UserId="4110" Text="Pellets are sustainable, typically made from poor feed-stock wood products.&#xD;&#xA;The heat produced is also evenly distributed, unlike a woodstove-high when fully loaded and lower as the fire extinguishes itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been heating with pellets for 10 yrs in a cold climate-New England in the USA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5833" RevisionGUID="a5a2e958-b3b0-443d-8195-79e07c24af9d" CreationDate="2017-02-02T12:15:32.557" UserId="4238" Text="Kindly advice me whether melting of plastic in absence of air produce harmful fumes or other chemicals? Whether it is a safer practice compared to normal melting?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14017" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5833" RevisionGUID="a5a2e958-b3b0-443d-8195-79e07c24af9d" CreationDate="2017-02-02T12:15:32.557" UserId="4238" Text="Melting of plastics in absence of air" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14018" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5833" RevisionGUID="a5a2e958-b3b0-443d-8195-79e07c24af9d" CreationDate="2017-02-02T12:15:32.557" UserId="4238" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="cac2bf6a-b802-4884-a6e6-94ef09a2afb3" CreationDate="2017-02-02T17:34:30.877" UserId="3955" Text="I have a theory that I am trying to develop empirical support for. I believe that the migration of people from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt has caused an increase in overall electricity usage and carbon emissions due to increased air conditioning demand. This [page][1] from EIA indicates that about 13% of electricity usage is due to air conditioning, while only 9% is due to space heating. I suspect that much of this heating is actually used in the South (like my house in Virginia), because in colder climes houses are much more likely to be using oil or gas heaters (like the house where I grew up in Massachusetts). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I want to examine the very high population growth in very hot states (Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina) compared to the very high out-migration from Ohio, Michigan, New York, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need more evidence to test my theory. I am looking for a breakdown of electricity by usage and by state (or at least by region). If I know the average annual per-capita kW-h usage for air conditioning, space heating, water heating, and boiler fans in both Texas and Ohio, I can calculate the net carbon effect of moving from one state to another. Also, electricity doesn't cover everything; the farther north you go the more likely that heat will be provided by natural gas (or the older oil boilers). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EIA has [some][2] information that I want, but does anyone know where to find detailed breakdowns by state (or region) of both electricity usage and fossil fuel heating?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=96&amp;t=3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=12551" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14020" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="cac2bf6a-b802-4884-a6e6-94ef09a2afb3" CreationDate="2017-02-02T17:34:30.877" UserId="3955" Text="How much could the US reduce its electricity demand if people moved from Texas back to Ohio?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14021" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="cac2bf6a-b802-4884-a6e6-94ef09a2afb3" CreationDate="2017-02-02T17:34:30.877" UserId="3955" Text="|home|carbon-footprint|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5835" RevisionGUID="dd354c41-7ddd-42f5-ba9b-c39796460f44" CreationDate="2017-02-02T19:17:31.280" UserId="3379" Text="**Short answer:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There isn't any way to find exactly the information you're looking for: gas and electric meters don't differentiate between usage for heating or cooling, compared to other uses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, there's another interesting way you could get an approximation of the data you're looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Find a few times of the year in each region during which there is no heating or cooling load.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Assume, during these times, that the amount of energy used (electricity and natural gas) represents a baseline value for amounts that will be used regardless of outdoor temperature.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Subtract these baseline values out of the total energy usage to find out how much each region is using for heating and cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long answer:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a detailed breakdown, with data sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H2&gt;1. Heating and cooling degree days&lt;/H2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Heating and cooling degree days will give you a way to approximate about how much demand for heating and/or cooling there will be. The EIA provides [this data](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/?v=28&amp;f=A&amp;s=0&amp;start=2012&amp;end=2016&amp;ctype=linechart&amp;maptype=0&amp;linechart=ZWHD_NEC~ZWCD_NEC&amp;map), however resolution is limited to per region*, per month. However, it's a start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For each region, pick a month where there is zero heating and cooling load, across a range of years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Degree days][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if we look at heating and cooling degree days for one year in New England and the South Atlantic, we can see that July to August is a time with zero heating load. You can go as far back as 1998 and filter out any years where July and August do not have zero heating load. Next, do the same for cooling - find a few months that have no cooling load for several years in the same region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H2&gt;2. Natural gas consumption&lt;/H2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Next, you can get residential use of natural gas by state from [this EIA dataset](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_a_EPG0_vrs_mmcf_m.htm), and group the states to match the regions from the degree days data set. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Find the value for consumption in the baseline heating months (July and August from the graph above). Now let's make a big assumption: the amount of natural gas consumption in the baseline heating month represents gas that's used for everything *except* heating. So, if we subtract this value from the gas usage during every month, the amount left will be total amount of gas used for heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H2&gt;3. Electricity consumption&lt;/H2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The last piece of data is residential electricity consumption by state, available [here](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_04_a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But here we run in to a problem, because in the South there aren't any months *without* cooling degree days:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That dotted yellow line never reaches zero. But there's a way around that, which involves a few more assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. First, follow the steps above to find how much electricity is used for cooling in hot months.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Divide this by degree days to determine a value of electric consumption per cooling degree day.&#xD;&#xA; 5. In each cool month, determine how many cooling degree days there are, and multiple this value by the number in step 2.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Subtract this value from the baseline electric usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H2&gt;4. Putting it all together&lt;/H2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you've got consumption values for each region, you'll also need to account for population differences between each state. I'd recommend using [2010 Census Data](https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml#) to determine each state's population, which also includes estimates for 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In all of this, the biggest assumption is that changes in outdoor temperature don't affect usage of anything besides heating and cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be interesting to see your results if you put all of this together, and I welcome any edits to this answer if you find better sources or methods!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;HR&gt;&#xD;&#xA;*To see what's included in each region, click the little globe next to each set:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;It took me way too long to figure this out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I2BBr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oHK3e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eL0ub.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="9236156e-950a-4dd0-8fd8-2a7dd436a7c2" CreationDate="2017-02-02T20:12:22.643" UserId="3379" Text="[Many cities](http://www.surfrider.org/pages/plastic-bag-bans-fees) in the US have banned plastic bags, and more are added to the list regularly. In addition, [some cities](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/water-bottle-ban/) are even beginning to ban plastic water bottles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These bans (and in some cases, fees) encourage people to bring their own bags or bottles. Many retailers, regardless of local restrictions, also provide discounts for customers bringing their own bags or beverage containers (such as [coffee cups](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/water-bottle-ban/)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is the logical next step fees on take-out containers, or restaurants which provide discounts to customers who bring their own plates or silverware?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this been tried successfully anywhere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="9236156e-950a-4dd0-8fd8-2a7dd436a7c2" CreationDate="2017-02-02T20:12:22.643" UserId="3379" Text="Are there any restaurants where you can bring your own dishes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="9236156e-950a-4dd0-8fd8-2a7dd436a7c2" CreationDate="2017-02-02T20:12:22.643" UserId="3379" Text="|waste-minimisation|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="d573a82a-8b3e-40ab-9c87-253085114ade" CreationDate="2017-02-02T23:46:15.323" UserId="3379" Comment="clarified question" Text="[Many cities](http://www.surfrider.org/pages/plastic-bag-bans-fees) in the US have banned plastic bags, and more are added to the list regularly. In addition, [some cities](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/water-bottle-ban/) are even beginning to ban plastic water bottles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These bans (and in some cases, fees) encourage people to bring their own bags or bottles. Many retailers, regardless of local restrictions, also provide discounts for customers bringing their own bags or beverage containers (such as [coffee cups](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/water-bottle-ban/)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is the logical next step fees on take-out containers, or restaurants which provide discounts to customers who bring their own plates or silverware (instead of taking disposable versions from the restaurant)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this been tried successfully anywhere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14027" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="d573a82a-8b3e-40ab-9c87-253085114ade" CreationDate="2017-02-02T23:46:15.323" UserId="3379" Comment="clarified question" Text="Are there any take-out restaurants where you can bring your own dishes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5837" RevisionGUID="bda03895-e68a-41d8-96b8-0e2341594264" CreationDate="2017-02-03T09:13:53.273" UserId="2846" Text="I know of one independent place that happily refills the containers they use, if you bring them back clean.  In this case the container is used as a portion measure so it wouldn't work with arbitrary dishes.  In this case they were the typical [plastic takeaway boxes (amazon link)](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Plastic-500ml-Microwave-Takeaway-Containers/dp/B007SA1IE2).  A couple of my colleagues did this; I didn't as I could dishwash and reuse them at home instead (you only get a few uses out of them anyway)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in the UK where we're fairly strict on food hygiene but less worried about litigation than some places.  It may be against a strict interpretation of the rules.  If food is kept hot (or promptly and properly reheated), the risks from invisible contamination should be vanishingly low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't expect a discount (except maybe a token amount) as these containers are cheap -- the amazon listing above works out to 13p (&amp;lt;$0.20) each and they'd cost a lot less than that wholesale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason this isn't more common is probably the same reason that many ideas   here aren't common -- nobody cares (to a good approximation of &quot;nobody&quot;).  Few individuals could be bothered to wash them up.  For big businesses it would save very little and they'd be worried enough about liability to incur costs just for considering it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5835" RevisionGUID="953986cc-24df-4624-b209-28bf96002fde" CreationDate="2017-02-03T16:13:37.393" UserId="3379" Comment="Totally new answer with better data sources." Text="&lt;H1&gt;Original answer (which had a long explanation):&lt;/H1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I proposed using degree days information to determine a baseload value for consumption of electricity and natural gas by region, and assume anything above this baseload was used for heating and cooling. This assumed that all seasonal changes in energy consumption were for heating and cooling only (so no change in lighting, cooking, water heating, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H1&gt;New (short) answer:&lt;/H1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[@ChrisH ](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5834/how-much-could-the-us-reduce-its-electricity-demand-if-people-moved-from-texas-b/5835?noredirect=1#comment8135_5835) made a comment on my original answer which sent me searching, and in the process I found some better resources. Here's the new process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Determine how much of each type of fuel (electricity, natural gas, propane, oil) is used for heating and air conditioning, by state.&#xD;&#xA; 2. For electricity, determine the fuel mix by state.&#xD;&#xA; 3. For each fuel, determine the carbon emissions.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Put it all together to determine per capita energy use and carbon emissions for heating and cooling, by state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H1&gt;New long explanation:&lt;/H1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H3&gt;1. Fuel consumption by residential end use, by state&lt;/H3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This information is available in the [2009 EIA Residential Energy Consumption Survey](https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/index.php?view=consumption#end-use-by-fuel):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H3&gt;2. Fuel consumption for electricity generation, by state&lt;/H3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Also from the EIA, [consumption of fuels for electricity generation](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm#consumption). To match the end use survey, take the data from 2009. For each state, add up all the fuels to determine what percent comes from each fuel type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will be seasonal variation, so you could look at the monthly data, but unfortunately that is only available for 2013. You could use this data to determine seasonal variability, then apply it to the 2009 annual data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H3&gt;3. Emissions factors by fuel type&lt;/H3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**For electricity:** The EIA provides [a summary](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&amp;t=11) of carbon emissions per kWh of electricity produced, by fuel source. This will vary from state to state depending on the type of coal used, and the power plant technologies, but from my own research the variation will be in the range of grams of CO2 per kWh. There are enough other assumptions in this analysis that these variations shouldn't matter significantly. (But if you really want to, you can use [EIA form 923](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/) to find the average heat rate per power plant per state, and then calculate the specific emissions factor for each state.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For other fuels:** There are two ways you could look at this, since the data in step 1 above gives consumption by BTU and physical units (kWh, cubic feet, gallons, etc). [This summary](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.cfm) gives the carbon dioxide factors by both measures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VV1K2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="c8a50292-0769-4dae-b4a3-69e10667ab3b" CreationDate="2017-02-03T21:03:20.310" UserId="3379" Text="[An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal](https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-california-paper-or-plastic-is-against-the-law-1485560488) argues that many re-usable grocery bags are made using more oil than old-fashioned &quot;single-use&quot; plastic grocery bags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://cdn1.relevantmediagroup.com/sites/default/files/field/thumbnail/Plastic-Bag.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes sense, as quite a bit more material is required to make a sufficiently sturdy bag, and many of the lower-quality bags are made of plastic, nylon, or polyester.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://c-pol.com/Fun/Blog/reusable_bag.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously bags made of canvas, burlap, or something similar are best, but if I'm at the check-out line, don't have a reusable bag, and opt to buy a cheap one from the store, how many times will I have to use it before it's better than just using the single use bags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;http://blog.firststreetrealestate.com/files/2012/11/groceries-canvas-bag-lg.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot;&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="c8a50292-0769-4dae-b4a3-69e10667ab3b" CreationDate="2017-02-03T21:03:20.310" UserId="3379" Text="How many times do you need to use a cheap re-usable bag to offset its impact?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="c8a50292-0769-4dae-b4a3-69e10667ab3b" CreationDate="2017-02-03T21:03:20.310" UserId="3379" Text="|recycling|plastic-alternatives|grocery|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5841" RevisionGUID="62b4d3f6-f545-4be2-b82c-b12e6be41ab1" CreationDate="2017-02-03T23:16:23.687" UserId="2846" Text="The cheapest reusable bags round here are made of the same plastic as disposable bags. In this case the number of uses required is simply the ratio of the weights. Without getting the scales out I think this is around 10-20 times. They're also bigger so that's not even 10-20 shopping trips unless you only ever buy a little. I know I've had a few hundred uses out of such bags in the past (a design with a season and year, used minimum twice a week for two years) so it's perfectly possible to do quite well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A major reason for reusable bags (and the reason we now have a charge on disposable bags here) can't be quantified in quite the same way: plastic pollution, especially ending up in the sea. Number of items is an issue as well as total quantity in this case, and fewer bags being used means fewer to cause problems. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5842" RevisionGUID="2a6a095d-4ed9-4eb8-8921-115917e55e12" CreationDate="2017-02-04T21:56:00.607" UserId="3379" Text="While researching for [another question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5834/3379), I found some data for the US that might be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EIA's 2009 [Residential Energy Consumption Survey](https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/index.php?view=characteristics#sh) includes thermostat settings organized in several ways, including by state, income, census region, type of home, etc. Here's a sample of what the data looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hx6yA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5843" RevisionGUID="27e8a7b8-eeaa-497b-a828-aace81ca6c73" CreationDate="2017-02-05T23:56:35.883" UserId="4249" Text="We leave our oven on with door open to heat our trailer Will that cause the ovens thermostat go out it's an electric stove with four burners to boil water also for heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5843" RevisionGUID="27e8a7b8-eeaa-497b-a828-aace81ca6c73" CreationDate="2017-02-05T23:56:35.883" UserId="4249" Text="Is leaving an electric oven on to heat bad for the oven?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5843" RevisionGUID="27e8a7b8-eeaa-497b-a828-aace81ca6c73" CreationDate="2017-02-05T23:56:35.883" UserId="4249" Text="|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14046" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="f28bb88c-00c4-40dc-a737-0219d40636c6" CreationDate="2017-02-06T08:04:29.940" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/828514690405900292" />
  <row Id="14047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="358353bf-b5b5-4958-a69d-b55f43a5d45e" CreationDate="2017-02-06T08:06:14.950" UserId="3293" Text="First, independently between wood and pellets, it depends how sustainably the wood you will use is farmed. Let's assume its farmed the same, so we rule this factor out - and France forest are among the most sustainably farmed I think&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inconvenient of pellets:&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;* (little) amount of energy to drive the feeding mechanism  &#xD;&#xA;* mechanism can dysfunction&#xD;&#xA;* another amount of energy to produce the pellets, I mean &quot;extra&quot; energy compared to the production of simple firewood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advantages:&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;* saved heating energy because pellets should come with less moisture&#xD;&#xA;* storage is easier&#xD;&#xA;* automatic feeding &#xD;&#xA;* continuous heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except the first one, this is mostly for comfort... I see no real advantage in the use of pellets, put aside the fact that you'll probably need to by them from a remote place, compared to the closeness where you can buy your firewood (sorry poor English). Moreover, from [JD answer here](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5047/3293) it looks like pellets aren't the best way to go in the long run: they become less sustainable because of increasing demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And not even sure pellets can apply right to the use of a [mass stove heater](http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-build-a-Rocket-Mass-Heater/), which on the other hand is said to have very high efficiency to burn wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5845" RevisionGUID="84744a4d-fa5b-4987-b3db-34a3a7446030" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:11:32.193" UserId="4252" Text="Have to start by saying, a much better idea to heat with an electric than with a gas stove: as mentioned in [this excellent question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/657/4252), gas stoves emit toxic carbon monoxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, there are several major issues with heating with your electric oven, some of which [this article from ehow.com points out](http://www.ehow.com/info_10021074_dangers-heating-house-electric-oven.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Cost.  There is a price tag attached to heating with an electric oven: the oven was designed for even heating of a cooking substance, not energy efficiency.  Thus, it generates less heat per amount of energy burned than a simple space heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Melting dials, etc.  Ovens are not designed to be run open, hence to do so can set up the risk of melting plastic dials or other plastic parts.  That being said, provided you take standard precautions, it's probably not an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Breakdowns.  This is obviously somewhat variable, but generally, I expect an oven to break down between 5-10 years, though [one online article](http://www.wisebread.com/this-is-how-long-these-6-appliances-should-last) says you can expect 10-15 years.  Obviously, the more you use the oven, the sooner it is likely to break.  And needless to say, the cost of replacing *or* fixing a range is significantly higher than the cost of a space heater.  You can easily get a decent space heater for well under a tenth of the price of an range.  So even if your space heater only lasts 2-3 years and you need two of them to do the job of the oven, it comes out cheaper, *plus giving a more even heat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Accidents.  Obviously, if you ever have children around, an open oven at top temp is an invitation for disaster.  Even for adults, a slip or a trip could result in burns.  That being said, you could counter that issue by simply placing it in a safe place or erecting protective grill.  This is obviously no worse than a wood or coal stove." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14050" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5845" RevisionGUID="2300d9c0-f379-4fec-a13c-8a886d194746" CreationDate="2017-02-07T14:35:27.987" UserId="4252" Comment="added 125 characters in body" Text="Have to start by saying, a much better idea to heat with an electric than with a gas stove: as mentioned in [this excellent question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/657/4252), gas stoves emit toxic carbon monoxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, there are several major issues with heating with your electric oven, some of which [this article from ehow.com points out](http://www.ehow.com/info_10021074_dangers-heating-house-electric-oven.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Melting dials, etc.  Ovens are not designed to be run open, hence to do so can set up the risk of melting plastic dials or other plastic parts.  That being said, provided you take standard precautions, it's probably not an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Breakdowns.  This is obviously somewhat variable, but generally, I expect an oven to break down between 5-10 years, though [one online article](http://www.wisebread.com/this-is-how-long-these-6-appliances-should-last) says you can expect 10-15 years.  Obviously, the more you use the oven, the sooner it is likely to break.  And needless to say, the cost of replacing *or* fixing a range is significantly higher than the cost of a space heater.  You can easily get a decent space heater for well under a tenth of the price of an range.  So even if your space heater only lasts 2-3 years and you need two of them to do the job of the oven, it comes out cheaper, *plus giving a more even heat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I add two extras, which don't have to do with the *oven itself*, as your question, but as long as we're on the topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Cost.  There is a price tag attached to heating with an electric oven: the oven was designed for even heating of a cooking substance, not energy efficiency.  Thus, it generates less heat per amount of energy burned than a simple space heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Accidents.  Obviously, if you ever have children around, an open oven at top temp is an invitation for disaster.  Even for adults, a slip or a trip could result in burns.  That being said, you could counter that issue by simply placing it in a safe place or erecting protective grill.  This is obviously no worse than a wood or coal stove." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5845" RevisionGUID="f7e67153-b31a-4d40-b44f-83cd25c4239a" CreationDate="2017-02-07T16:41:04.880" UserId="4252" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="Have to start by saying, a much better idea to heat with an electric than with a gas stove: as mentioned in [this excellent question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/657/4252), gas stoves emit toxic carbon monoxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, there are several major issues with heating with your electric oven, some of which [this article from ehow.com points out](http://www.ehow.com/info_10021074_dangers-heating-house-electric-oven.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Melting dials, etc.  Ovens are not designed to be run open, hence to do so can set up the risk of melting plastic dials or other plastic parts.  That being said, provided you take standard precautions, it's probably not an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Breakdowns.  This is obviously somewhat variable, but generally, I expect an oven to break down between 5-10 years, though [one online article](http://www.wisebread.com/this-is-how-long-these-6-appliances-should-last) says you can expect 10-15 years.  Obviously, the more you use the oven, the sooner it is likely to break.  And needless to say, the cost of replacing *or* fixing a range is significantly higher than the cost of a space heater.  You can easily get a decent space heater for well under a tenth of the price of an range.  So even if your space heater only lasts 2-3 years and you need two of them to do the job of the oven, it comes out cheaper, *plus giving a more even heat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I add two extras, which don't have to do with the *oven itself*, as your question, but as long as we're on the topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Cost.  There is a price tag attached to heating with an electric oven: the oven was designed for even heating of a cooking substance, not heating the outside air.  Thus, it outputs less heat per amount of energy burned than a simple space heater, which is designed to pump all the hot air out quickly and evenly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Accidents.  Obviously, if you ever have children around, an open oven at top temp is an invitation for disaster.  Even for adults, a slip or a trip could result in burns.  That being said, you could counter that issue by simply placing it in a safe place or erecting protective grill.  This is obviously no worse than a wood or coal stove." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14053" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="697868f3-86bb-438b-8440-8d441aec54ca" CreationDate="2017-02-08T08:49:58.440" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|electricity|energy-efficiency|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2371" RevisionGUID="0d55f863-41ba-480f-8c73-b07c033cd466" CreationDate="2017-02-09T23:35:54.467" UserId="3379" Comment="No generic links available: provided links to multiple vendors instead of favoring one" Text="Positive input ventilation* (PIV) is a lot cheaper to install then a heat recovery system; it pushes some of the air from the loft into the house.   The air in the loft tends to be warmer then the outside air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a dryer house **feels** warmer, by improving the ventilation you may be able to reduce the temperature you heat to, therefore often a PIV system will reduce heating costs.   (Not what you expect from the thermal maths!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have put a [MVHR][2] system in our bungalow, as we had so many issues with ventilation, it is great!  Being a bungalow the ducts were easy to install.   In a property we rent out, I put in a PIV system, as it is good enough to stop mould, putting in a better system would not have got any more rent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*I couldn't locate any generic info on the web about PIV, but here are a few example systems (each explains the device function): [Envirovent](http://www.envirovent.com/home-ventilation/about-envirovent/useful-resources/positive-input-ventilation/), [Greenwood](http://www.greenwood.co.uk/range/17/positive-input-ventilation.html), [Nuaire](http://www.nuaire.co.uk/our-products/Residential/products?pt=1685), [Solarcrest](http://www.solarcrest.co.uk/positive-input-ventilation.asp).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_recovery_ventilation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5846" RevisionGUID="cfb2cbaa-10ec-4d45-afdc-e399797ecb62" CreationDate="2017-02-10T17:01:10.680" UserId="4261" Text="This question has been intriguing me quite some time. While regulating my own consumption of the world's resources, I keep on wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the current world population, what would be each single person's share of the global resources, if they were allotted equally? In other words: what size of eco-footprint could I claim without taking anything away from others (be it now or in the future)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is anyone aware of studies that either directly answer this question or would enable me to do the calculation by myself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally I want to be able to draw conclusions as to whether my own consumption of energy, water, heat, food, electronic devices, transportation, carbon emissions, etc. is within tolerable limits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14058" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5846" RevisionGUID="cfb2cbaa-10ec-4d45-afdc-e399797ecb62" CreationDate="2017-02-10T17:01:10.680" UserId="4261" Text="One single person's equal share in the world's resources" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14059" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5846" RevisionGUID="cfb2cbaa-10ec-4d45-afdc-e399797ecb62" CreationDate="2017-02-10T17:01:10.680" UserId="4261" Text="|environmental-impact|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5847" RevisionGUID="fd039ec7-1efe-4e59-9297-61009836b44f" CreationDate="2017-02-10T18:26:39.467" UserId="3379" Text="Some interesting work on this problem is being done by researching **university campuses** as &quot;microcosms&quot; of society. I recently came across a paper that used my school, the [University of Wisconsin-Madison](http://www.wisc.edu/), as one of eight example campuses in the U.S. for a study of best practices for promoting modal change in transportation, from SOV (single occupancy vehicle) to public transit and active transportation (walking and biking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper, published in 2003, is titled &quot;[Sustainable transportation planning on college campuses](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X02000288)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the paper:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The key finding is&#xD;&#xA;that college campuses are clearly ‘de-marketing automobile&#xD;&#xA;commuting’ (Wright and Egan, 2000) and actively promoting&#xD;&#xA;alternative transportation modes. In order to create more&#xD;&#xA;bicycle and walking friendly campuses efforts need to focus&#xD;&#xA;on the following seven measures: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA; * TDM [transportation demand management] strategies&#xD;&#xA; * organization&#xD;&#xA; * planning&#xD;&#xA; * facilities&#xD;&#xA; * promotion&#xD;&#xA; * education&#xD;&#xA; * enforcement &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although these measures need to be tailored&#xD;&#xA;to local conditions, they should not be implemented alone&#xD;&#xA;because only the development of highly integrated strategies&#xD;&#xA;have the potential to improve sustainability (Potter&#xD;&#xA;and Skinner, 2000).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This graph is a bit old (1995) but shows a comparison between four different transport modes at the eight campuses in the study, vs the national average:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a summary of what each of the seven measures entail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **TDM strategies:** Policy and practice related to parking rates, zones, and hours, public transit subsidies, park and ride programs, zoning, and urban planning.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Organization:** Staff and committees dedicated to discussing student/staff/faculty concerns about active and public transportation, organizing surveys, and acting as liaison between university and city planners.&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Planning:** Dedicated planning process and personnel related to commuting and parking.&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Facilities:** Dedicated bicycle lanes, pedestrian overpasses of busy roads and intersections, bicycle racks, traffic signaling for bicycles, and bicycle sharing programs, among others.&#xD;&#xA; 5. **Promotion:** Print and on-line resources to support active commuters, and public awareness campaigns in both campus and local media.&#xD;&#xA; 6. **Education:** Both in-person classes and on-line courses for bicyclists regarding safe and lawful bicycling.&#xD;&#xA; 7. **Enforcement:** Mandatory registration, police enforcement of bicycling laws (both for cyclists and auto drivers on roads shared with cyclists).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to go even deeper, this book, published in 2004, might be a good place to start: [*Transportation and Sustainable Campus Communities*](https://islandpress.org/book/transportation-and-sustainable-campus-communities) by Will Toor and Spenser Havlick. You can actually read quite a bit of it in the preview on [Google books](https://books.google.com/books?id=n5psqZYz-DgC&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;pg=PP1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false). The book includes eight in-depth case studies, including a few of the campuses in the paper cited above, as well as one in Canada for a non-U.S. perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gtSyr.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14062" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5846" RevisionGUID="1680fe3f-67f8-4a00-aa24-4b4566e754d6" CreationDate="2017-02-11T02:37:26.063" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/830244320989106176" />
  <row Id="14063" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="bb2ee5d5-aeff-4710-b196-2a62d3c2be34" CreationDate="2017-02-11T12:03:50.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="14064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5849" RevisionGUID="3b30d2d6-5b0c-47be-95f1-b5476499151a" CreationDate="2017-02-12T11:05:37.967" UserId="3297" Text="Should I encourage my neighbors to send their food waste to a biogas plant instead of the current incineration facility? I have Googled around and it does not seem like it is clear that it is better to produce biogas than to burn waste in a district heat (I live in cold Sweden) or especially a co generation plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would think the high water content of food waste would mean a lot of energy goes to evaporating the water while in a biogas facility maybe more of the energy in the food could be captured?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5849" RevisionGUID="3b30d2d6-5b0c-47be-95f1-b5476499151a" CreationDate="2017-02-12T11:05:37.967" UserId="3297" Text="Sustainability of waste incineration vs biofuel/biogas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5849" RevisionGUID="3b30d2d6-5b0c-47be-95f1-b5476499151a" CreationDate="2017-02-12T11:05:37.967" UserId="3297" Text="|waste|biodegradable-waste|biofuels|food-waste|biogas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14067" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5834" RevisionGUID="8678929f-550f-4188-b886-de1bf7baae51" CreationDate="2017-02-12T11:38:52.517" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/830742967342231552" />
  <row Id="14071" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5849" RevisionGUID="65d8e8c1-d80c-48d8-ac2c-c1cd67b67cbe" CreationDate="2017-02-13T05:42:52.637" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/831015765277020160" />
  <row Id="14072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="63d563bf-0c23-4ac2-a6a3-4a5ee6696e46" CreationDate="2017-02-13T07:54:28.260" UserId="99" Comment="world average is inconsistent with other sources, fixed broken link" Text="An ecological footprint estimates how much land and ocean area is required to sustain the consumption pattern of one person or a particular group of people. For example in 2007 it was estimated that mankind's total ecological footprint was 1.5 planet Earths, i.e. humanity uses 1.5 times more of the available resources than the Earth can renew them. In 2016 this world average was calculated to be 1.6 Earths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage:**&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions on how to derive an ecological footprint, or for questions about the exact ecological footprint of a country or of a particular lifestyle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that ecological footprint is sometimes confused with [tag:environmental-impact] which describes all effects (positive or negative) of the production, consumption or disposal of a product or service on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;Also note the difference between ecological footprint and [tag:carbon-footprint] which only considers the emissions of greenhouse gasses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online personal ecological footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Islandwood.org](https://islandwood.org/footprint-calculator/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Myfootprint.org](http://myfootprint.org/) (requires subscription)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecologicalfootprint.calculatord.com](http://ecologicalfootprint.calculatord.com) (very basic calculator)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecologicalfootprint.com](http://ecologicalfootprint.com) (very basic calculator, aimed at UK residents)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecocamp.us](http://www.ecocamp.us/eco-footprint-calculator) (for kids in the USA)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5850" RevisionGUID="1c7d95b4-1937-4ccb-9eb1-8f2cb1a92246" CreationDate="2017-02-13T10:04:56.850" UserId="4269" Text="Most of these alternative sites don't allow comments or suggestions unless you register with them.  Very frustrating when you enjoy the subject matter, and feel you have something to contribute.  I've designed my own stoves and outdoor boilers and met with considerable success with my boiler projects in particular. My first outdoor boiler was a free &quot;jack&quot; boiler, very small, but with some mods, heated my thousand sq. Home and domestic hot water on less than half the wood my friends with $5-$10000 boilers used.  The rocket stove mass heaters are essentially the result I achieved with my boiler mods. I first moved my outdoor boiler indoors, building a small, steel panel lined boiler shed 30 feet from my home.  I built custom rigid foam boxed liners for my supply and return lines, insulated the shed with salvaged fiberglass to R36 in both walls and ceilings,  and included a dedicated fresh air intake for combustion air...on the coldest days, -15f, that shed was never below 80f.  At first I kept the stock water jacket, and merely fabled up an 8 foot water jacketed heat exchanger out of 100 pound lp cylinders with six inch well casing as the exhaust pipe.  Burning absolutely dry, seasoned wood, plus always having a week's worth stacked in that hot dry she'd to ensure it being both dry and warm, really helped ensure a clean hot burn.  I only fired the stove up twice a day, two longish hot complete burns, and my exchanger pumped the 190 degree + water into a dozen more salvaged lp cylinders, modified to encourage good flow, stored in my cellar.  I also used a non functioning gas water heater as my heat exchange from my boilers water supply to heat seperate water for domestic hot water.  My biggest leap was when I decided to fill the water jacket with refractory cement, thus insulting my actual firebox, creating a much, much hotter fire temp, and put a stop gate with silicone seal in the top exhaust, routed the new exhaust out the bottom with in line combustion air, and realised I had me a downdraft gasifier!  Essentially, the downdraft gasifier operates like the so called rocket stove, but with more controlled combustion/forced combustion, thus I could double my already awesome exchanger length built into the exhaust stream, and still never worry about gassing myself while in the shed.  By this time, my tiny boiler was heating my home, endless hot water for family uses, and the info or heat I put in my two story (800sq each) shop....on even less wood for fuel than before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5851" RevisionGUID="b12f44d8-5c46-4b38-bc3a-2cbfa8fccfde" CreationDate="2017-02-13T10:06:11.033" UserId="96" Text="I can only answer regarding to actual plant. If food wastes need to br trucked all around sweden when the incinerator is down the road, the picture may be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biogasification of food wastes, market wastes and similar stuff is certainly better, for the reason you describe in your last paragraph: Kitchen wastes are typically 70-80% moisture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically biogas plants use cogeneration. I would estimate that such a waste to energy plant uses about 20-30% of its generated electricity and maybe 50% of it's heat. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5850" RevisionGUID="6cf9773c-632a-4157-a0bb-2f713a11a594" CreationDate="2017-02-13T10:23:24.383" UserId="4269" Comment="Corrected spelling errors, grammatical issues." Text="Most of these alternative sites don't allow comments or suggestions unless you register with them.  Very frustrating when you enjoy the subject matter, and feel you have something to contribute.  I've designed my own stoves and outdoor boilers and met with considerable success with my boiler projects in particular. My first outdoor boiler was a free &quot;jack&quot; boiler, very small, but with some mods, heated my thousand sq. Home and domestic hot water on less than half the wood my friends with $5-$10000 boilers used.  The rocket stove mass heaters are essentially the result I achieved with my boiler mods. I first moved my outdoor boiler indoors, building a small, steel panel lined boiler shed 30 feet from my home.  I built custom rigid foam boxed liners for my supply and return lines, insulated the shed with salvaged fiberglass to R36 in both walls and ceilings,  and included a dedicated fresh air intake for combustion air...on the coldest days, -15f, that shed was never below 80f.  At first I kept the stock water jacket, and merely fabled up an 8 foot water jacketed heat exchanger out of 100 pound lp cylinders with six inch well casing as the exhaust pipe.  Burning absolutely dry, seasoned wood, plus always having a week's worth stacked in that hot dry shed to ensure it being both dry and warm, really helped ensure a clean hot burn.  I only fired the stove up twice a day, two longish hot complete burns, and my exchanger pumped the 190 degree + water into a dozen more salvaged lp cylinders, modified to encourage good flow, stored in my cellar.  I also used a non functioning gas water heater as my heat exchange from my boilers water supply to heat seperate water for domestic hot water.  My biggest leap was when I decided to fill the water jacket with refractory cement, thus insulating my actual firebox, creating a much, much hotter fire temp, and put a stop gate with silicone seal in the top exhaust, routed the new exhaust out the bottom with in line combustion air, and realised I had me a downdraft gasifier!  Essentially, the downdraft gasifier operates like the so called rocket stove, but with more controlled combustion/forced combustion, thus I could double my already awesome exchanger length built into the exhaust stream, and still never worry about gassing myself while in the shed.  By this time, my tiny boiler was heating my home, endless hot water for family uses, and the in-floor heat I put in my two story (800sq each) shop....on even less wood for fuel than before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5850" RevisionGUID="bf18d5fa-a967-41ab-8b03-4d1a5d804511" CreationDate="2017-02-13T15:15:27.467" UserId="3293" Comment="I removed the unconstructive comment at the beginning" Text="I've designed my own stoves and outdoor boilers and met with considerable success with my boiler projects in particular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first outdoor boiler was a free &quot;jack&quot; boiler, very small, but with some mods, heated my thousand sq. Home and domestic hot water on less than half the wood my friends with $5-$10000 boilers used.  The rocket stove mass heaters are essentially the result I achieved with my boiler mods. I first moved my outdoor boiler indoors, building a small, steel panel lined boiler shed 30 feet from my home.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I built custom rigid foam boxed liners for my supply and return lines, insulated the shed with salvaged fiberglass to R36 in both walls and ceilings,  and included a dedicated fresh air intake for combustion air...on the coldest days, -15f, that shed was never below 80f.  At first I kept the stock water jacket, and merely fabled up an 8 foot water jacketed heat exchanger out of 100 pound lp cylinders with six inch well casing as the exhaust pipe.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning absolutely dry, seasoned wood, plus always having a week's worth stacked in that hot dry shed to ensure it being both dry and warm, really helped ensure a clean hot burn.  I only fired the stove up twice a day, two longish hot complete burns, and my exchanger pumped the 190 degree + water into a dozen more salvaged lp cylinders, modified to encourage good flow, stored in my cellar.  I also used a non functioning gas water heater as my heat exchange from my boilers water supply to heat seperate water for domestic hot water.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My biggest leap was when I decided to fill the water jacket with refractory cement, thus insulating my actual firebox, creating a much, much hotter fire temp, and put a stop gate with silicone seal in the top exhaust, routed the new exhaust out the bottom with in line combustion air, and realised I had me a downdraft gasifier!  Essentially, the downdraft gasifier operates like the so called rocket stove, but with more controlled combustion/forced combustion, thus I could double my already awesome exchanger length built into the exhaust stream, and still never worry about gassing myself while in the shed.  By this time, my tiny boiler was heating my home, endless hot water for family uses, and the in-floor heat I put in my two story (800sq each) shop.... on even less wood for fuel than before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14077" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5850" RevisionGUID="bf18d5fa-a967-41ab-8b03-4d1a5d804511" CreationDate="2017-02-13T15:15:27.467" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by -1 edit id of 452" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5850" RevisionGUID="2398882a-db5e-4e94-a6d9-f45c9deae1a2" CreationDate="2017-02-13T15:15:27.467" UserId="3379" Comment="I removed the unconstructive comment at the beginning (and added SI units)" Text="I've designed my own stoves and outdoor boilers and met with considerable success with my boiler projects in particular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first outdoor boiler was a free &quot;jack&quot; boiler, very small, but with some mods, heated my thousand sq. Home and domestic hot water on less than half the wood my friends with $5k-$10k boilers used.  The rocket stove mass heaters are essentially the result I achieved with my boiler mods. I first moved my outdoor boiler indoors, building a small, steel panel lined boiler shed 30ft (9m) from my home.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I built custom rigid foam boxed liners for my supply and return lines, insulated the shed with salvaged fiberglass to R36 in both walls and ceilings,  and included a dedicated fresh air intake for combustion air...on the coldest days, -15F (-26C), that shed was never below 80F (27C).  At first I kept the stock water jacket, and merely fabled up an 8ft (2.5m) water jacketed heat exchanger out of 100lb (45kg) LP cylinders with 6in (15cm) well casing as the exhaust pipe.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning absolutely dry, seasoned wood, plus always having a week's worth stacked in that hot dry shed to ensure it being both dry and warm, really helped ensure a clean hot burn.  I only fired the stove up twice a day, two longish hot complete burns, and my exchanger pumped the 190F (88C) + water into a dozen more salvaged LP cylinders, modified to encourage good flow, stored in my cellar.  I also used a non functioning gas water heater as my heat exchange from my boilers water supply to heat separate water for domestic hot water.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My biggest leap was when I decided to fill the water jacket with refractory cement, thus insulating my actual firebox, creating a much, much hotter fire temp, and put a stop gate with silicone seal in the top exhaust, routed the new exhaust out the bottom with in line combustion air, and realized I had me a downdraft gasifier!  Essentially, the downdraft gasifier operates like the so called rocket stove, but with more controlled combustion/forced combustion, thus I could double my already awesome exchanger length built into the exhaust stream, and still never worry about gassing myself while in the shed.  By this time, my tiny boiler was heating my home, endless hot water for family uses, and the in-floor heat I put in my two story (800sqft/74sqm each) shop... on even less wood for fuel than before." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5851" RevisionGUID="db8ea2e1-0b15-4977-bbdb-7478e79ccf27" CreationDate="2017-02-13T15:21:59.657" UserId="3379" Comment="spelling/grammar" Text="I can only answer regarding the actual plant. If food wastes need to be trucked all around Sweden when the incinerator is down the road, the picture may be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biogasification of food wastes, market wastes and similar stuff is certainly better, for the reason you describe in your last paragraph: Kitchen wastes are typically 70-80% moisture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically biogas plants use co-generation. I would estimate that such a waste to energy plant uses about 20-30% of its generated electricity and maybe 50% of its heat. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14080" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5825" RevisionGUID="d8968648-5ae6-48ba-8614-01d7618a9e04" CreationDate="2017-02-13T20:43:19.260" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/831242368422670336" />
  <row Id="14081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5846" RevisionGUID="92e4561b-1df7-4c1f-ba5f-299d1a8597e3" CreationDate="2017-02-14T12:49:30.497" UserId="4261" Comment="clarified that this is not a duplicate" Text="This question has been intriguing me quite some time. While regulating my own consumption of the world's resources, I keep on wondering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the current world population, what would be each single person's share of the global resources, if they were allotted equally? In other words: what size of eco-footprint could I claim without taking anything away from others (be it now or in the future)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is anyone aware of studies that either directly answer this question or would enable me to do the calculation by myself?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally I want to be able to draw conclusions as to whether my own consumption of energy, water, heat, food, electronic devices, transportation, carbon emissions, etc. is within tolerable limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note: I am not interested in my personal ecological footprint but, so to say, in everybody's ideal maximum ecological footprint. Another way to put this would be: I want to know the total resources of the earth as far as this is feasible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="219f1d6f-07f9-4f06-bf9c-7eb2915dc42a" CreationDate="2017-02-15T02:19:21.127" UserId="4255" Text="Lately, postal cardboard packages have been arriving with an increasing level of exterior contamination with generic black dirt. Although the composition of this dirt is unknown, this can be a concern in manufacturing certain recycled products, such as food packaging. Since it is generally infeasible to separate the contaminated portions, this has also become an issue for me in maintaining a recycling stream of the highest possible quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is then twofold. From the perspective of the recycler, in particular in the US, to what extent can such contamination be tolerated or mitigated? From the perspective of the consumer, what should be the threshold for sending such cardboard instead to the landfill stream?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="219f1d6f-07f9-4f06-bf9c-7eb2915dc42a" CreationDate="2017-02-15T02:19:21.127" UserId="4255" Text="Should cardboard contaminated with unknown dirt be recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="219f1d6f-07f9-4f06-bf9c-7eb2915dc42a" CreationDate="2017-02-15T02:19:21.127" UserId="4255" Text="|recycling|cardboard|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14086" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="19a27e1d-d3b5-4135-8df5-fd95e1c2180e" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:12:50.200" UserId="99" Comment="added WWF UK calculator" Text="An ecological footprint estimates how much land and ocean area is required to sustain the consumption pattern of one person or a particular group of people. For example in 2007 it was estimated that mankind's total ecological footprint was 1.5 planet Earths, i.e. humanity uses 1.5 times more of the available resources than the Earth can renew them. In 2016 this world average was calculated to be 1.6 Earths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage:**&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions on how to derive an ecological footprint, or for questions about the exact ecological footprint of a country or of a particular lifestyle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that ecological footprint is sometimes confused with [tag:environmental-impact] which describes all effects (positive or negative) of the production, consumption or disposal of a product or service on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;Also note the difference between ecological footprint and [tag:carbon-footprint] which only considers the emissions of greenhouse gasses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online personal ecological footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Islandwood.org](https://islandwood.org/footprint-calculator/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Myfootprint.org](http://myfootprint.org/) (requires subscription)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecologicalfootprint.calculatord.com](http://ecologicalfootprint.calculatord.com) (very basic calculator)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecologicalfootprint.com](http://ecologicalfootprint.com) (very basic calculator, aimed at UK residents)&#xD;&#xA; - [World Wide Fund, United Kingdom](http://footprint.wwf.org.uk)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecocamp.us](http://www.ecocamp.us/eco-footprint-calculator) (for kids in the USA)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="b4e09f4b-7199-4a55-88fa-c9854cc9ed7c" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:13:01.617" UserId="99" Text="I think the closest measure to what you are asking is the ecological footprint. It's a commonly-used measure for the amount of productive land and sea area one needs to support a particular activity, lifestyle, person, or group of people. The ecological footprint is expressed in number of Earths or in [global hectares](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_hectare). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One global hectare represents the average productivity of all biologically productive areas (measured in hectares) on earth in a given year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world ecological footprint is estimated to be around 1.6 Earths (source: [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/#worldfootprint)). That means that on average each person on Earth consumes 1.6 times as much resources than the Earth can replenish. I can't find the latest figures but in 2011 the Earth had around 12 billion hectares of productive land and water. With 7 billion people this means each person can use 1.72 global hectares(source: [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/glossary/)). Actual usage was 1.72 * 1.6 = 2.7 global hectares per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested you can get a rough estimate of your own ecological footprint, by using an online calculator, for example [this one](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/). The wiki of the [tag:ecological-footprint] tag has a [short list of calculators](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/ecological-footprint/info)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14088" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="c448a3ed-8730-4af5-ad5e-5a8f69515fb9" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:16:34.350" UserId="99" Comment="Rollback to [63d563bf-0c23-4ac2-a6a3-4a5ee6696e46]" Text="An ecological footprint estimates how much land and ocean area is required to sustain the consumption pattern of one person or a particular group of people. For example in 2007 it was estimated that mankind's total ecological footprint was 1.5 planet Earths, i.e. humanity uses 1.5 times more of the available resources than the Earth can renew them. In 2016 this world average was calculated to be 1.6 Earths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage:**&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions on how to derive an ecological footprint, or for questions about the exact ecological footprint of a country or of a particular lifestyle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that ecological footprint is sometimes confused with [tag:environmental-impact] which describes all effects (positive or negative) of the production, consumption or disposal of a product or service on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;Also note the difference between ecological footprint and [tag:carbon-footprint] which only considers the emissions of greenhouse gasses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online personal ecological footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Islandwood.org](https://islandwood.org/footprint-calculator/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Myfootprint.org](http://myfootprint.org/) (requires subscription)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecologicalfootprint.calculatord.com](http://ecologicalfootprint.calculatord.com) (very basic calculator)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecologicalfootprint.com](http://ecologicalfootprint.com) (very basic calculator, aimed at UK residents)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecocamp.us](http://www.ecocamp.us/eco-footprint-calculator) (for kids in the USA)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5854" RevisionGUID="aaf4b6c9-063c-4589-8090-c800043dabdd" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:18:26.993" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="Make sock puppets, either yourself or others (children!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can Google something like [how to make sock puppets easy](https://www.google.nl/search?q=how+to+make+sock+puppets+easy) for plenty of descriptions, even instructables.com has a [10 minute sock puppet](http://www.instructables.com/id/10-minute-sock-puppet/) instruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[You can do great things with them](https://www.youtube.com/user/SockPuppetParody)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QMc03.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5819" RevisionGUID="44bd1617-88a9-4318-ae42-332cf23ef09a" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:21:42.227" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Language, typos" Text="I tried a patchwork of socks, that wasn't very beautiful. Depends on the socks (and your abilities in patchwork)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can cut them in little pieces and use them as stuffer for pillow, footstools... You can easily find some tutorials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14092" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5819" RevisionGUID="44bd1617-88a9-4318-ae42-332cf23ef09a" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:21:42.227" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 453" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="91fd3bb9-51cf-485d-92a9-71a9aabc1f94" CreationDate="2017-02-15T09:26:31.527" UserId="99" Comment="added part about conversion factors" Text="I think the closest measure to what you are asking is the ecological footprint. It's a commonly-used measure for the amount of productive land and sea area one needs to support a particular activity, lifestyle, person, or group of people. The ecological footprint is expressed in number of Earths or in [global hectares](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_hectare). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One global hectare represents the average productivity of all biologically productive areas (measured in hectares) on earth in a given year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world ecological footprint is estimated to be around 1.6 Earths (source: [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/#worldfootprint)). That means that on average each person on Earth consumes 1.6 times as much resources than the Earth can replenish. I can't find the latest figures but in 2011 the Earth had around 12 billion hectares of productive land and water. With 7 billion people this means each person can use 1.72 global hectares (source: [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/glossary/)). Actual usage was 1.72 * 1.6 = 2.7 global hectares (gha) per person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK there is no information available how to break the 2.7 gha down into types of land on a world scale. However there is data to do this at a country-level. Every year the Global Footprint Network calculates conversion factors for each country (see also http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5194/99)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested you can get a rough estimate of your own ecological footprint, by using an online calculator, for example [this one](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/). The wiki of the [tag:ecological-footprint] tag has a [short list of calculators](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/ecological-footprint/info)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="e7619621-5f24-441f-bb6b-a145fdca30e4" CreationDate="2017-02-15T10:29:05.450" UserId="99" Comment="added figure with breakdown into types of land" Text="I think the closest measure to what you are asking is the ecological footprint. It's a commonly-used measure for the amount of productive land and sea area one needs to support a particular activity, lifestyle, person, or group of people. The ecological footprint is expressed in number of Earths or in [global hectares](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_hectare). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One global hectare represents the average productivity of all biologically productive areas (measured in hectares) on earth in a given year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world ecological footprint is estimated to be around 1.6 Earths (source: [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/#worldfootprint)). That means that on average each person on Earth consumes 1.6 times as much resources than the Earth can replenish. I can't find the latest figures but in 2011 the Earth had around 12 billion hectares of productive land and water. With 7 billion people this means each person can use 1.72 global hectares (source: [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/glossary/)). Actual usage was 1.72 * 1.6 = 2.7 global hectares (gha) per person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the paper LShaver mentioned in [his comment](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5846/one-single-persons-equal-share-in-the-worlds-resources) there is a breakdown into different types of land. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Relative area of land use types worldwide in hectares and global hectares, 2008][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Relative area of land use types worldwide in hectares and global hectares, 2008* ([source](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X12002968))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested you can get a rough estimate of your own ecological footprint by using an online calculator, for example [this one](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/). The wiki of the [tag:ecological-footprint] tag has a [short list of calculators](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/ecological-footprint/info)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IvUMN.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5855" RevisionGUID="a71a271c-55f0-4874-85df-c07ee3635158" CreationDate="2017-02-15T11:07:04.840" UserId="3297" Text="I agree that the Global Footprint Network (GFN) is a good starting point. However, the challenge is: On whose personal footprint should we put all the schools, hospitals, roads, etc. that citizens of a country have decided to build? What you will find is that if you keep your personal consumption constant on GFN's calculator, but change country from the UK to India, your footprint decreases dramatically! What does this mean for how much you can consume personally? I think there are several responses to this, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;I vote green, so I would have chosen a much more sustainable society.&quot; But to this someone might respond - &quot;but you still use our roads and hospitals etc. so you should bear the same burden&quot;, or, &quot;it is not possible to have our high standards of health and education without the associated ecological footprint.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;I would have moved to India if I could&quot; to which the response might be: &quot;go on, then.&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;India has a much warmer climate so cold countries should get some extra footprint for staying warm (and extreme hot ones for staying cold)&quot; to which someone will say &quot;but we have less renewable energy per capita than e.g. hydropowered Norway&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, I think the best is for everyone to really try their best to limit their footprint no matter where they live or what level they started out from. We then need to recognize that some people might need &quot;more than their fair share&quot;, another example being farmers who live remotely and might not have access to public transportation (but maybe some of their &quot;personal travel&quot; should really be baked into food footprint borne by city-dwelling consumers?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is commendable that you want to live within the planet's means and I am motivated to see others like yourself try to do what I aim to do. I know we can be 9 billion people living sustainably on this planet. I also know that to get there, we all need to see how each one of us can best reduce her/his footprint and not worry too much about others, who live in very different situations.  What is good is that research on happiness shows that we do not need to consume much to live happy, free and fulfilling lives. In fact, by giving to others we are likely to increase our own happiness so if we can give e.g.  elderly people access to cars, or give people living in harsh climates resources to live comfortably like ourselves, we are all going to benefit from it, now and in future generations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="42d52dab-54ce-48e1-8a18-7c3bf8da8713" CreationDate="2017-02-15T21:21:52.123" UserId="3379" Text="To expand a bit on [THelper's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5853/3379), and to provide an answer to just one part of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How much land would each person have if everything were distributed evenly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The back-up research to the [Footprint Calculator](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/) is found primarily in two documents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X12002968)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010 (pdf)](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.660.8339&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Land categories&#xD;&#xA;The second of these two resources gives 2007 figures (and cites sources) for land in five different categories, and the total amount of land available:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cropland&#xD;&#xA; 2. Grazing land (for livestock)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Forests (for timber and forest products, and CO2 uptake)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Fisheries (including inland freshwater and continental shelf)&#xD;&#xA; 5. Built-up land (cities, roads, bridges, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Equivalence factors on a global scale&#xD;&#xA;In order to compare apples to apples, an equivalence factor (EQF) is used to compare different types of land. This is based on how much human-useful resources can be produced from each type of land. It assumes that the most productive land is cropland, followed by forests, then grazing land. The calculation then looks at yields to determine how much crops could be produced if grazing land were converted to cropland, forests to cropland, etc. Fisheries are equated through protein yields compared to grazing land, and built-up land is compared to crop-land, as it is assumed that the majority of built-up land (cities) would make suitable crop-land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, **area** times **EQF** equals ***global* area**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Yield factors on a national scale&#xD;&#xA;To compare nation to nation, yield factors (YF) compare productivity between nations, within each category. For example, grazing land in New Zealand compares favorably to grazing land in Mongolia, due to precipitation and other factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The YF is baked into the calculations in the tables from the Footprint Atlas, but I was not able to find a listing of the YF per category, per country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Summary data&#xD;&#xA;If we bring all of this data together, here is how it breaks down per person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Land type		ha (bn)		EQF			g ha (bn)	ha per capita	g ha per capita &#xD;&#xA;    ---------		-------		---			---------	-------------	---------------&#xD;&#xA;    Cropland		1.60		2.51		4.02		0.24			0.61&#xD;&#xA;    Grazing land	3.40		0.46		1.56		0.52			0.24&#xD;&#xA;    Forests			3.90		1.26		4.91		0.59			0.74&#xD;&#xA;    Fisheries		2.83		0.37		1.05		0.43			0.16&#xD;&#xA;    Built-up land	0.17		2.51		0.42		0.03			0.06&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL			11.90					11.96		1.80			1.81&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: the totals don't quite add up due to rounding in the source data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abbreviations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ha (bn):** billion hectares&#xD;&#xA; - **g ha (bn):** billion global hectares&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What does this mean?&#xD;&#xA;If, like me, you don't have much concept of a hectare, [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare#Interior_of_all-weather_athletics_track) is quite helpful: The grass area inside a standard outdoor athletic track is equal to one hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hansen_Field.JPG#/media/File:Hansen_Field.JPG&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Hansen_Field.JPG/300px-Hansen_Field.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;Hansen Field.JPG&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;By &lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Illini&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Grad&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Research&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;span class=&quot;int-own-work&quot; lang=&quot;en&quot;&gt;Own work&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0&quot; title=&quot;Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0&quot;&gt;CC BY-SA 3.0&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7507206&quot;&gt;Link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, each person gets just under two of these. A family of five would get a hair over nine. Here's how their land use would break down:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These numbers are in absolute (not global) terms, thus related to the actual land usage, not the productivity of the land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, roughly speaking, this family would have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Four fields for crops and animal pasture&#xD;&#xA; - Three fields forested&#xD;&#xA; - Two fields filled with lakes for fishing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Housing, barns, workshops, etc would be spread throughout all areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kIQym.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14097" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5852" RevisionGUID="bff3d19f-a6e5-4364-8c1c-e7cb38479248" CreationDate="2017-02-16T02:45:48.117" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/832058366155448320" />
  <row Id="14098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="d37ca5bf-6b6b-4a1e-bf23-8edb4099df7b" CreationDate="2017-02-16T05:32:38.227" UserId="3379" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="To expand on [THelper's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5853/3379), and to provide an answer to just one part of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How much land would each person have if everything were distributed evenly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The back-up research to the [Footprint Calculator](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/) is found primarily in two documents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X12002968)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010 (pdf)](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.660.8339&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Land categories&#xD;&#xA;The second of these two resources gives 2007 figures (and cites sources) for land in five different categories, and the total amount of land available:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cropland&#xD;&#xA; 2. Grazing land (for livestock)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Forests (for timber and forest products, and CO2 uptake)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Fisheries (including inland freshwater and continental shelf)&#xD;&#xA; 5. Built-up land (cities, roads, bridges, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Equivalence factors on a global scale&#xD;&#xA;In order to compare apples to apples, an equivalence factor (EQF) is used to compare different types of land. This is based on how much human-useful resources can be produced from each type of land. It assumes that the most productive land is cropland, followed by forests, then grazing land. The calculation then looks at yields to determine how much crops could be produced if grazing land were converted to cropland, forests to cropland, etc. Fisheries are equated through protein yields compared to grazing land, and built-up land is compared to crop-land, as it is assumed that the majority of built-up land (cities) would make suitable crop-land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, **area** times **EQF** equals ***global* area**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Yield factors on a national scale&#xD;&#xA;To compare nation to nation, yield factors (YF) compare productivity between nations, within each category. For example, grazing land in New Zealand compares favorably to grazing land in Mongolia, due to precipitation and other factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The YF is baked into the calculations in the tables from the Footprint Atlas, but I was not able to find a listing of the YF per category, per country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Summary data&#xD;&#xA;If we bring all of this data together, here is how it breaks down per person:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Land type		ha (bn)		EQF			g ha (bn)	ha per capita	g ha per capita &#xD;&#xA;    ---------		-------		---			---------	-------------	---------------&#xD;&#xA;    Cropland		1.60		2.51		4.02		0.24			0.61&#xD;&#xA;    Grazing land	3.40		0.46		1.56		0.52			0.24&#xD;&#xA;    Forests			3.90		1.26		4.91		0.59			0.74&#xD;&#xA;    Fisheries		2.83		0.37		1.05		0.43			0.16&#xD;&#xA;    Built-up land	0.17		2.51		0.42		0.03			0.06&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL			11.90					11.96		1.80			1.81&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note*: Based on land data from 2007, and a 2007 world population of 6.6 billion. The totals don't quite add up due to rounding in the source data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abbreviations: **ha (bn):** billion hectares. **g ha (bn):** billion global hectares.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What does this mean?&#xD;&#xA;If, like me, you don't have much concept of a hectare, [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare#Interior_of_all-weather_athletics_track) is quite helpful: The grass area inside a standard outdoor athletic track is equal to one hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hansen_Field.JPG#/media/File:Hansen_Field.JPG&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Hansen_Field.JPG/300px-Hansen_Field.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;Hansen Field.JPG&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;By &lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Illini&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Grad&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Research&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;span class=&quot;int-own-work&quot; lang=&quot;en&quot;&gt;Own work&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0&quot; title=&quot;Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0&quot;&gt;CC BY-SA 3.0&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7507206&quot;&gt;Link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, each person gets just under two of these. A family of five would get a hair over nine. Here's how their land use would break down:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These numbers are in absolute (not global) terms, thus related to the actual land usage, not the productivity of the land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, roughly speaking, this family would have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Four fields for crops and animal pasture&#xD;&#xA; - Three fields forested&#xD;&#xA; - Two fields filled with lakes for fishing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Housing, barns, workshops, etc would be spread throughout all areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kIQym.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="d40271ff-bab0-4365-875a-a4895ab67152" CreationDate="2017-02-16T06:08:14.937" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting" Text="To expand on [THelper's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5853/3379), and to provide an answer to just one part of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How much land would each person have if everything were distributed evenly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The back-up research to the [Footprint Calculator](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/) is found primarily in two documents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X12002968)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010 (pdf)](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.660.8339&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Land categories&#xD;&#xA;The second of these two resources gives 2007 figures (and cites sources) for land in five different categories, and the total amount of land available:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cropland&#xD;&#xA; 2. Grazing land (for livestock)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Forests (for timber and forest products, and CO2 uptake)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Fisheries (including inland freshwater and continental shelf)&#xD;&#xA; 5. Built-up land (cities, roads, bridges, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Totals and per capita&#xD;&#xA;If we bring all of this data together, here is how it breaks down per person (using 2007 land and population):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Land type		ha (bn)		EQF			g ha (bn)	ha per capita	g ha per capita &#xD;&#xA;    ---------		-------		---			---------	-------------	---------------&#xD;&#xA;    Cropland		1.60		2.51		4.02		0.24			0.61&#xD;&#xA;    Grazing land	3.40		0.46		1.56		0.52			0.24&#xD;&#xA;    Forests			3.90		1.26		4.91		0.59			0.74&#xD;&#xA;    Fisheries		2.83		0.37		1.05		0.43			0.16&#xD;&#xA;    Built-up land	0.17		2.51		0.42		0.03			0.06&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL			11.90					11.96		1.80			1.81&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ha (bn):** billion hectares. &#xD;&#xA; - **EQF - equivalence factors.** The EQF is used to cmpare different types of land, based on how much human-useful resources can be produced from each type. It assumes that the most productive land is cropland, followed by forests, then grazing land. The calculation then looks at yields to determine how much crops could be produced if grazing land were converted to cropland, forests to cropland, etc. Fisheries are equated through protein yields compared to grazing land, and built-up land is compared to crop-land, as it is assumed that the majority of built-up land (cities) would make suitable crop-land. Ultimately, **area** times **EQF** equals ***global* area**.&#xD;&#xA; -  **g ha (bn):** billion global hectares.&#xD;&#xA; - **YF - yield factors (not shown).** To compare nation to nation, yield factors (YF) compare productivity between nations, within each category. For example, grazing land in New Zealand is more productive than world average grazing land, due to precipitation and other factors. The YF is baked into the calculations in the tables from the Footprint Atlas, but I was not able to find a listing of the YF per category, per country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A real-world example&#xD;&#xA;If, like me, you don't have much concept of a hectare, [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare#Interior_of_all-weather_athletics_track) is quite helpful: The grass area inside a standard outdoor athletic track is equal to one hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hansen_Field.JPG#/media/File:Hansen_Field.JPG&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Hansen_Field.JPG/300px-Hansen_Field.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;Hansen Field.JPG&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;By &lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Illini&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Grad&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Research&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;span class=&quot;int-own-work&quot; lang=&quot;en&quot;&gt;Own work&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0&quot; title=&quot;Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0&quot;&gt;CC BY-SA 3.0&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7507206&quot;&gt;Link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, each person gets just under two of these. A family of five would get a hair over nine. Here's how their land use would break down:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These numbers are in absolute (not global) terms, thus related to the actual land usage, not the productivity of the land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, roughly speaking, this family would have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Four fields for crops and animal pasture&#xD;&#xA; - Three fields forested&#xD;&#xA; - Two fields filled with lakes for fishing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Housing, barns, workshops, etc would be spread throughout all areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kIQym.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5857" RevisionGUID="28a5c9c0-6210-4187-a821-9a37e247ce7f" CreationDate="2017-02-16T09:19:34.860" UserId="2718" Text="The trouble with organisms generally is that they don't stay put.  Consider all the alien invasive species man has introduced - eg in the UK, rabbits, Japanese knotweed, rhododendron etc -each country has its own.  It is common to see pockets of oil seed rape on the other side of the road, or further, from the crop field. IF they were pest-resistant and hybridised with non GM plants, this trait could spread, with potentially disastrous effects on pests (...insects, which are part of the food web). There are a lot of IFs, but with something as important as the environment on which we depend, it is wise to adopt the precautionary principal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="367afe7f-ea18-4de6-9fe0-7f5f4764fa02" CreationDate="2017-02-16T16:15:31.253" UserId="3379" Comment="additional notes" Text="To expand on [THelper's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5853/3379), and to provide an answer to just one part of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How much land would each person have if everything were distributed evenly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The back-up research to the [Footprint Calculator](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/) is found primarily in two documents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X12002968)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010 (pdf)](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.660.8339&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Land categories&#xD;&#xA;The second of these two resources gives 2007 figures (and cites sources) for land in five different categories, and the total amount of land available:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cropland&#xD;&#xA; 2. Grazing land (for livestock)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Forests (for timber and forest products, and CO2 uptake)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Fisheries (including inland freshwater and continental shelf)&#xD;&#xA; 5. Built-up land (cities, roads, bridges, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Totals and per capita&#xD;&#xA;If we bring all of this data together, here is how it breaks down per person (using 2007 land and population data):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Land type		ha (bn)		EQF			g ha (bn)	ha per capita	g ha per capita &#xD;&#xA;    ---------		-------		---			---------	-------------	---------------&#xD;&#xA;    Cropland		1.60		2.51		4.02		0.24			0.61&#xD;&#xA;    Grazing land	3.40		0.46		1.56		0.52			0.24&#xD;&#xA;    Forests			3.90		1.26		4.91		0.59			0.75&#xD;&#xA;    Fisheries		2.83		0.37		1.05		0.43			0.16&#xD;&#xA;    Built-up land	0.17		2.51		0.42		0.03			0.06&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL			11.90					11.96		1.81			1.81&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ha (bn):** billion hectares. &#xD;&#xA; - **EQF - equivalence factors.** The EQF is used to cmpare different types of land, based on how much human-useful resources can be produced from each type. It assumes that the most productive land is cropland, followed by forests, then grazing land. The calculation then looks at yields to determine how much crops could be produced if grazing land were converted to cropland, forests to cropland, etc. Fisheries are equated through protein yields compared to grazing land, and built-up land is compared to crop-land, as it is assumed that the majority of built-up land (cities) would make suitable crop-land. Ultimately, **area** times **EQF** equals ***global* area**.&#xD;&#xA; -  **g ha (bn):** billion global hectares.&#xD;&#xA; - **A note on totals:** The values in the bottom row include more precise figures than what's shown in the table, so the sum of the rows as shown may not add to the totals as shown.&#xD;&#xA; - **YF - yield factors (not shown).** To compare nation to nation, yield factors (YF) compare productivity between nations, within each category. For example, grazing land in New Zealand is more productive than world average grazing land, due to precipitation and other factors. The YF is baked into the calculations in the tables from the Footprint Atlas, but I was not able to find a listing of the YF per category, per country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A real-world example&#xD;&#xA;If, like me, you don't have much concept of a hectare, [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare#Interior_of_all-weather_athletics_track) is quite helpful: The grass area inside a standard outdoor athletic track is equal to one hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hansen_Field.JPG#/media/File:Hansen_Field.JPG&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Hansen_Field.JPG/300px-Hansen_Field.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;Hansen Field.JPG&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;By &lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Illini&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Grad&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Research&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;span class=&quot;int-own-work&quot; lang=&quot;en&quot;&gt;Own work&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0&quot; title=&quot;Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0&quot;&gt;CC BY-SA 3.0&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7507206&quot;&gt;Link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, each person gets just under two of these. A family of five would get a hair over nine. Here's how their land use would break down:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These numbers are in absolute (not global) terms, thus related to the actual land usage, not the productivity of the land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, roughly speaking, this family would have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Four fields for crops and animal pasture&#xD;&#xA; - Three fields forested&#xD;&#xA; - Two fields filled with lakes for fishing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Housing, barns, workshops, etc would be spread throughout all areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kIQym.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="04056cdf-963f-471a-9e96-996e765c6e29" CreationDate="2017-02-16T17:17:37.870" UserId="3379" Comment="Added more precise data" Text="To expand on [THelper's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5853/3379), and to provide an answer to just one part of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How much land would each person have if everything were distributed evenly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The back-up research to the [Footprint Calculator](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/) is found primarily in two documents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X12002968)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010 (pdf)](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.660.8339&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Land categories&#xD;&#xA;The second of these two resources gives 2007 figures (and cites sources) for land in five different categories, and the total amount of land available:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cropland&#xD;&#xA; 2. Grazing land (for livestock)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Forests (for timber and forest products, and CO2 uptake)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Fisheries (including inland freshwater and continental shelf)&#xD;&#xA; 5. Built-up land (cities, roads, bridges, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Totals and per capita&#xD;&#xA;If we bring all of this data together, here is how it breaks down per person (using land data from 2007 and a population of 6.6708 billion):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Land type		ha (mil.)	EQF		gha (mil.)	ha per capita	gha per capita &#xD;&#xA;    ---------		---------	---		----------	-------------	--------------&#xD;&#xA;    Cropland		 1,560		2.51	 3,905		0.24			0.61&#xD;&#xA;    Grazing land	 3,377		0.46	 1,552		0.52			0.24&#xD;&#xA;    Forest			 3,944		1.26	 4,962		0.59			0.75&#xD;&#xA;    Fishing			 2,840		0.37	 1,049		0.43			0.16&#xD;&#xA;    Built-up		   174		2.51	   426		0.03			0.06&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL			11,895				11,895		1.81			1.81&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ha (mil):** million hectares. &#xD;&#xA; - **EQF - equivalence factors.** The EQF is used to cmpare different types of land, based on how much human-useful resources can be produced from each type. It assumes that the most productive land is cropland, followed by forests, then grazing land. The calculation then looks at yields to determine how much crops could be produced if grazing land were converted to cropland, forests to cropland, etc. Fisheries are equated through protein yields compared to grazing land, and built-up land is compared to crop-land, as it is assumed that the majority of built-up land (cities) would make suitable crop-land. Ultimately, **area** times **EQF** equals ***global* area**.&#xD;&#xA; -  **gha (mil):** million global hectares.&#xD;&#xA; - **A note on totals:** The values in the bottom row include more precise figures than what's shown in the table, so the sum of the rows as shown may not add to the totals as shown.&#xD;&#xA; - **YF - yield factors (not shown).** To compare nation to nation, yield factors (YF) compare productivity between nations, within each category. For example, grazing land in New Zealand is more productive than world average grazing land, due to precipitation and other factors. The YF is baked into the calculations in the tables from the Footprint Atlas, but I was not able to find a listing of the YF per category, per country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A real-world example&#xD;&#xA;If, like me, you don't have much concept of a hectare, [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare#Interior_of_all-weather_athletics_track) is quite helpful: The grass area inside a standard outdoor athletic track is equal to one hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hansen_Field.JPG#/media/File:Hansen_Field.JPG&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Hansen_Field.JPG/300px-Hansen_Field.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;Hansen Field.JPG&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;By &lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Illini&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Grad&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Research&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;span class=&quot;int-own-work&quot; lang=&quot;en&quot;&gt;Own work&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0&quot; title=&quot;Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0&quot;&gt;CC BY-SA 3.0&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7507206&quot;&gt;Link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, each person gets just under two of these. A family of five would get a hair over nine. Here's how their land use would break down:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These numbers are in absolute (not global) terms, thus related to the actual land usage, not the productivity of the land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, roughly speaking, this family would have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Four fields for crops and animal pasture&#xD;&#xA; - Three fields forested&#xD;&#xA; - Two fields filled with lakes for fishing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Housing, barns, workshops, etc would be spread throughout all areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kIQym.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14103" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5698" RevisionGUID="fe65ffed-8012-4ea0-b4ed-f919bd9c1694" CreationDate="2017-02-16T17:53:05.683" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/832286694321881088" />
  <row Id="14104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="d505ae65-ec0d-4ae0-b7c8-39c7ac20dc87" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:52:12.120" UserId="3379" Text="[This story](http://nelson.wisc.edu/news/in-common/spring2017/story.php?s=1530) about a researcher at my university included this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...in recent years global retailers like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; committed to removing beef and soy produced on deforested land from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their supply chain. In turn, commodity traders – companies like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cargill that buy agricultural goods – have put pressure on local&#xD;&#xA;&gt; producers to follow suit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article mentions the difficulty in actually ensuring that no beef or soy comes from deforested land (including the interesting concept of &quot;cattle laundering&quot;), but assuming McDonald's et al are mostly successful: **what happens to the ranchers?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a rancher has already deforested land to graze their cattle, won't they simply find another slaughter-house? Or, worse, if there is no slaughterhouse that will take their cattle, won't they go out of business? I understand that deforesting land to raise cattle is bad, but isn't deforested land that's doing nothing even worse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems a very convenient strategy for rich, privileged nations to close supply lines to products produced in ways that offend our sensibilities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly the more challenging, yet more effective, solutions would involve working with the farmers to understand why they have decided to deforest land, and helping empower them to make different choices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="d505ae65-ec0d-4ae0-b7c8-39c7ac20dc87" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:52:12.120" UserId="3379" Text="What do developing nation farmers do when agribusiness stops sourcing products from deforested land?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="d505ae65-ec0d-4ae0-b7c8-39c7ac20dc87" CreationDate="2017-02-16T21:52:12.120" UserId="3379" Text="|farming|deforestation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5859" RevisionGUID="dfea269f-fd7b-4104-8567-aa251c34adbe" CreationDate="2017-02-17T08:27:04.833" UserId="3293" Text="If you see it this way, maybe it'll make sense to you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This could be a solution to make ranchers simply **stop** deforesting, and grow soy for their beast onto existing deforested land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this means existing deforested land becomes less productive with time. And since no more deforesting, this also means production cannot increase. So this means probably ranchers will earn less &quot;developed country&quot; money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yeah, it means us from developed country - mostly traders now, aren't we? - are giving them the lesson: stop destroying your land to send your children to good American schools, and return to farming like you where doing a century ago. Complicate issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5860" RevisionGUID="d4092921-204a-421a-9d3c-e2b0ec926e6f" CreationDate="2017-02-17T08:54:09.063" UserId="4282" Text="Throw them in your vehicle. Next trip by the river. Were all the little sewing shops are stop. They will take any good cloth to remake into other items. Rag Rugs, window wipes, dolls, you name it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14109" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="7d16070c-e123-4e0e-a04c-999dfb3f85d3" CreationDate="2017-02-17T08:57:46.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/832514362602618880" />
  <row Id="14111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5862" RevisionGUID="cf7ef28b-d1c2-4816-ace7-47229f5e4226" CreationDate="2017-02-17T20:50:05.353" UserId="4284" Text="There's a great answer about [heating water with electricity][1], where anyone can easily get an idea how much would it cost to heat water just by applying one's price for kWh. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for the same calculation, but for gas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1199/how-many-kilowatt-hours-of-electricity-does-it-take-to-heat-180-litres-of-water" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14112" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5862" RevisionGUID="cf7ef28b-d1c2-4816-ace7-47229f5e4226" CreationDate="2017-02-17T20:50:05.353" UserId="4284" Text="How much gas does it take to heat water from 15 to 60 degrees C?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14113" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5862" RevisionGUID="cf7ef28b-d1c2-4816-ace7-47229f5e4226" CreationDate="2017-02-17T20:50:05.353" UserId="4284" Text="|energy-efficiency|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1200" RevisionGUID="53612f00-5906-4a0b-8b17-af8611478d7d" CreationDate="2017-02-18T06:43:11.670" UserId="48" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="Let's look at how much electricity and money can be saved by using solar thermal to heat a cylinder of hot water, rather than by using an electrical resistance heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming a 100% efficient resistance heater (that's near enough to real values), and ignoring tank losses during the heating period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;180 litres of water is near enough 180kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific heat capacity of water is approx 4.2 J / g.K&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The increase in temperature is 45 Kelvin (60-15)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the energy needed is 180,000 x 45 x 4.2 = 34MJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1kWh = 1000W x 3600s = 3.6MJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, the energy needed is 34/3.6 = **9.5 kWh**. At $0.30/kWh that's **$2.85**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to account for the heating efficiency, just divide by it.&#xD;&#xA;So if your heater is 100% efficient, you divide by 1 - which is why we ignore it in the above calculation. If your heater is 95% efficient, you divide by 0.95, to get 10 kWh. This calculation works whatever the type of heater it is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14117" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5833" RevisionGUID="60008de6-580a-4d2c-b4bb-99c1d564c7cd" CreationDate="2017-02-18T07:12:56.073" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3293,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;J. Chomel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5858" RevisionGUID="eb63b0e3-d421-4676-abca-9772dbe3682f" CreationDate="2017-02-18T18:19:28.817" UserId="3379" Comment="reduced editorializing" Text="[This story](http://nelson.wisc.edu/news/in-common/spring2017/story.php?s=1530) about a researcher at my university included this line:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...in recent years global retailers like McDonald’s and Wal-Mart have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; committed to removing beef and soy produced on deforested land from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their supply chain. In turn, commodity traders – companies like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cargill that buy agricultural goods – have put pressure on local&#xD;&#xA;&gt; producers to follow suit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article mentions the difficulty in actually ensuring that no beef or soy comes from deforested land (including the interesting concept of &quot;cattle laundering&quot;), but assuming McDonald's et al are mostly successful: **what happens to the farmers?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do policies such as this do more harm in the long run? Simply cutting off purchase of products from unsustainable farms in developing countries would seem to have drastic consequences. Are there better solutions that would involve working with those farmers, rather than just cutting them off?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5174" RevisionGUID="bb05bae5-5ede-4983-8910-9cef18d28a5a" CreationDate="2017-02-18T18:23:28.803" UserId="3379" Comment="Added graphics from linked source" Text="You've pictured a disposable plastic cup. If you assume that you can use it a few times, then you might consider that you get through one a day. A ceramic cup lasts until you drop it. The cup in your photo is only for cold drinks anyway. Paper or expanded polystyrene are usually used for hot drinks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This link](http://carbon-clear.com/files/Reuseable_vs_Disposable_Cups_2012.pdf) runs the numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Chart comparing paper/polystyrene/ceramic cups][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![Table comparing paper/polystyrene/ceramic cups][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, ceramic is best. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're clumsy or use a lot of hot water in washing the ceramic cup, you might *just* be better off using a polystyrene cup, maybe one per day. But if you get takeaway coffee it will come in a paper cup which is much worse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bVjLD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9uQix.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5863" RevisionGUID="da1d93ba-0477-42b6-a59b-3a6ef3997809" CreationDate="2017-02-18T19:30:03.283" UserId="3379" Text="## The amount of energy needed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [EnergyNumber's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1200/3379) to the electricity version of this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...the energy needed is 180,000 x 45 x 4.2 = **34 MJ**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1kWh = 1000W x 3600s = 3.6 MJ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hence, the energy needed is 34/3.6 = 9.5 kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Billing in therms:&#xD;&#xA;Where I live in Wisconsin, natural gas is [billed in **therms** at a rate of $0.5748](https://www.mge.com/customer-service/home/gas-rates-res/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [Wikpedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therm), a therm is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...a non-SI unit of heat energy equal to 100,000 British thermal units&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (BTU). It is approximately the energy equivalent of burning 100 cubic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; feet (2.83 cubic metres) – often referred to as 1 CCF – of natural&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later in the article we find that **1 therm = 105.48 MJ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(34 MJ) / (105.48 MJ) = 0.322 therms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At my gas rate this equals $0.19*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Billing in cubic feet: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other places in the US bill in **Mcf**, or **thousand cubic feet.** From Wikipedia, we know this is roughly (but not exactly) the same as one therm. According to [Kyle's Converter](http://www.kylesconverter.com/energy,-work,-and-heat/cubic-feet-of-natural-gas-to-megajoules), the exact conversion is: **1 Mcf = 1055.06 MJ**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From EIA, [rates in Ohio (for example)](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_rescom_dcu_SOH_a.htm) averaged $9.51/Mcf in 2015.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(34 MJ) / (1055.06 MJ) = 0.0322 Mcf.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the average Ohio rate this equals $0.31.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* This is ridiculously low because my utility, MGE, recently switched to a fee structure where they make most of their money on a fixed daily connection charge - $0.72 for gas, and $0.62 for electricity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14121" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5862" RevisionGUID="8736ea6b-3945-4e21-8bf4-0ca584de0bae" CreationDate="2017-02-19T03:13:12.960" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/833152426282741760" />
  <row Id="14122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5864" RevisionGUID="cc3bef43-6e4b-4d03-b101-0cb6a7ff4035" CreationDate="2017-02-19T04:16:05.057" UserId="4286" Text="The truth is this. Once the forest are removed. Some one put a road in. Once a road is there. Big companies look to see what minerals are there. With a road small farmers look to see were can be farmed. Big companies can move in with plantations under 20 different names.  Slope is looked at &amp; soil. Will it grow coco, coconuts, coffee, Mango????? If not replant it in forest. If in the swamps. Can it be drained for banana? Or left back to the crocs &amp; snakes. Land is in short supply. Food can be sold. If Your stores will not buy fine. They can buy from Big companies that produce for them. We can sell on the local market or export to close Nations near us that are selling to you so they have need to buy from us. So it all sounds good in your news. You feel good buying &amp; we are fine here selling ours to the neighbors.   It leads to road improvement to ship out more &amp; work farther back into the bush. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5862" RevisionGUID="66b539e8-e554-4389-afa7-e81d264458df" CreationDate="2017-02-19T06:00:13.760" UserId="4284" Comment="added 441 characters in body" Text="There's a great answer about [heating water with electricity][1], where anyone can easily get an idea how much would it cost to heat water just by applying one's price for kWh. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for the same calculation, but for gas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: My gas is billed in 15kg gas cylinders, but feel free to allow for liters of gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think the efficiency of gas furnaces needs to be taken into account. Whereas the electric heater converts close to 100% of the heat into heating the water just by the virtue of having the rods surrounded by water, I am seriously afraid that is not the case with gas furnaces, that sip a significant amount of heat into the surrounding air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1199/how-many-kilowatt-hours-of-electricity-does-it-take-to-heat-180-litres-of-water" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5864" RevisionGUID="4dad4054-d429-4813-8565-414f94577faf" CreationDate="2017-02-19T12:41:18.187" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Major cleanup, removed the rant" Text="Since the harm is already done (area deforested, roads built) they can still sell on the local market or export to nearby nations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So *no beef or soy comes from deforested land* makes you feel good buying, but the producers are still fine here selling their goods to the neighbors. It may still lead to road improvement to ship out more, and work farther back into the bush. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14125" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5864" RevisionGUID="4dad4054-d429-4813-8565-414f94577faf" CreationDate="2017-02-19T12:41:18.187" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 454" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5865" RevisionGUID="70a6af53-c524-40bf-8c6a-e1c110ef27ba" CreationDate="2017-02-19T12:50:22.197" UserId="4287" Text="What should be added while recycling LDPE(low density polyethylene ) to brighten the granules. Which chemical should be used and how much amount. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14127" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5865" RevisionGUID="70a6af53-c524-40bf-8c6a-e1c110ef27ba" CreationDate="2017-02-19T12:50:22.197" UserId="4287" Text="Which chemical should be added on recycling LDPE to make the granules brighter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14128" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5865" RevisionGUID="70a6af53-c524-40bf-8c6a-e1c110ef27ba" CreationDate="2017-02-19T12:50:22.197" UserId="4287" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5863" RevisionGUID="2e5e38b8-0bbb-4c9d-bc3e-5dd30bf5264d" CreationDate="2017-02-19T19:20:55.427" UserId="3379" Comment="Updated to reflect changes in question" Text="## The amount of energy needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [EnergyNumber's answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1200/3379) to the electricity version of this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...the energy needed is 180,000 x 45 x 4.2 = **34 MJ**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1kWh = 1000W x 3600s = 3.6 MJ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hence, the energy needed is 34/3.6 = 9.5 kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Types of gas and units of measure&#xD;&#xA;Two types of gas are typically used for heating and cooking purposes in homes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **LPG** or liquefied petroleum gas, which is typically a mixture of propane and butane&#xD;&#xA;  - Stored compressed in bottles or tanks, typically sold by the **kilogram** (kg) or **liter** (L)&#xD;&#xA; - **Natural gas**, which is mostly methane with some mixture of ethane&#xD;&#xA;  - Often piped directly to homes, and sold in units of **hundred cubic feet** (ccf) or the nearly equivalent **therm**, defined as the quantity of gas containing 100,000 BTU of heat content &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Conversions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    FUEL			UNIT		MJ / UNIT	QUANTITY FOR 34 MJ&#xD;&#xA;    ----            ----		---------	------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Natural gas 	therm		105.5		0.322&#xD;&#xA;    				ccf			105.5		0.322&#xD;&#xA;    LPG				kg			46.0		0.739&#xD;&#xA;    				L			25.8		1.318&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Accounting for heating efficiency&#xD;&#xA;Again quoting from EnergyNumbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to account for the heating efficiency, just divide by it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So if your heater is 100% efficient, you divide by 1 - which is why we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ignore it in the above calculation. If your heater is 95% efficient,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you divide by 0.95, to get 10 kWh. This calculation works whatever the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; type of heater it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Wikipedia: [Liquefied petroleum gas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_petroleum_gas)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Wikipedia: [Therm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therm)&#xD;&#xA; 3. The Engineering Toolbox: [Gross and net heating values for some common gases](http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gross-net-heating-values-d_420.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="076ca511-2abb-4b88-b12d-cec433808978" CreationDate="2017-02-20T16:11:38.157" UserId="4290" Text="I'm looking to supply my toilet tank with rain water and grey water from, say, the washing machine, but if that's not enough water to fill up the tank, I want to use water from the water mains to top it off. Preferably, this would be an automatic solution, so that I can use as much waste water as possible but never end up with an underfilled tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have room for a large underground cistern, preferably I'd just modify the toilet's tank so that it takes in the water from both the mains and the waste water directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been working on a design (some frankensteinian monster involving two valves and float arms but I can't figure out how to get it to use the &quot;waste&quot; valve first and only activate the mains valve when there's no more water coming from the waste valve and the tank isn't filled to capacity yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone have a good design for inspiration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14131" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="076ca511-2abb-4b88-b12d-cec433808978" CreationDate="2017-02-20T16:11:38.157" UserId="4290" Text="Toilet tank with both water main and waste water (underflow)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14132" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="076ca511-2abb-4b88-b12d-cec433808978" CreationDate="2017-02-20T16:11:38.157" UserId="4290" Text="|water|water-management|toilet|greywater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5867" RevisionGUID="630b567a-bc91-4948-9859-f49d66098f83" CreationDate="2017-02-20T19:59:43.343" UserId="4084" Text="Assuming you can get the appropriate variance or exception from municipal and state health and building codes to put drain water into the toilet feed at all (which is unlikely in the United States), the low cost solution uses a combination of height (which fluid systems use all the time to create pressure differentials) and a second tank.  There are a few criteria to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. You don't want your washer to leave water in the basin at the end of a spin cycle.&#xD;&#xA; 2. You don't want to wear out your washer pump prematurely.&#xD;&#xA; 2. You don't want the utility water at your faucets, ice makers, and shower heads to be contaminated with washer drainage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the lowest cost and highest reliability design:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A large upstream tank receives the washer drainage.&#xD;&#xA; - The upstream tank has a large overflow outlet into a trap (U shaped pipe) leading to the sewer line.&#xD;&#xA; - The upstream tank must be on strong legs or attached securely to a strong wall such that its bottom is far enough above the top of the toilet tank(s) fill level so that the connecting pipe can decline according to code toward the toilet.&#xD;&#xA; - You may need (or want) an additional drain pump to take the burden of raising the water to above the fill level of the upstream tank off the washer drain pump.  (If so, itt will take some thinking to make sure the pump starts VERY soon after the spin cycle of the washer begins.)&#xD;&#xA; - The upstream tank also has a buoyancy controlled toilet valve, but no flap.&#xD;&#xA; - The drain at the bottom of the upstream tank feeds the normal toilet valve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The normal toilet tank will fill slowly, but this system does not require electrically controlled valves and the design of pump controllers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5867" RevisionGUID="807677f5-4614-4c27-888c-e76ef0132e29" CreationDate="2017-02-20T20:05:32.967" UserId="4084" Comment="add some small details" Text="Assuming you can get the appropriate variance or exception from municipal and state health and building codes to put drain water into the toilet feed at all (which is unlikely in the United States), the low cost solution uses a combination of height (which fluid systems use all the time to create pressure differentials) and a second tank.  There are a few criteria to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. You don't want your washer to leave water in the basin at the end of a spin cycle.&#xD;&#xA; 2. You don't want to wear out your washer pump prematurely.&#xD;&#xA; 2. You don't want the utility water at your faucets, ice makers, and shower heads to be contaminated with washer drainage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the lowest cost and highest reliability design:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A large upstream tank receives the washer drainage.&#xD;&#xA; - The upstream tank has a large overflow outlet into a trap (U shaped pipe) leading to the sewer line.&#xD;&#xA; - The upstream tank must be on strong legs or attached securely to a strong wall such that its bottom is far enough above the top of the toilet tank(s) fill level so that the connecting pipe can decline according to code toward the toilet.&#xD;&#xA; - You may need (or want) an additional drain pump to take the burden of raising the water to above the fill level of the upstream tank off the washer drain pump.  (If so, care must be taken to ensure the pump starts VERY soon after the spin cycle of the washer begins.)&#xD;&#xA; - The upstream tank also has a buoyancy controlled toilet valve fed by the utility system water, with an inline feed valve as is usual, but no flap.&#xD;&#xA; - The drain at the bottom of the upstream tank feeds the normal toilet valve through a filter that is designed to be easy to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The normal toilet tank will fill slowly, but this system does not require electrically controlled valves and the design of pump controllers. To get it to fill faster, you can raise the height of the upstream tank (to perhaps the attic, which would definitely require a secondary pump to relieve the burden on the washer drain pump.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14135" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="7244ee20-80b1-495e-abef-2cb5ea01b504" CreationDate="2017-02-21T01:41:38.643" UserId="-1" Comment="from http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/9743/does-buying-wooden-furniture-help-fight-global-warming" />
  <row Id="14136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="337da788-d9ed-45a9-a539-a8faf1656690" CreationDate="2017-02-20T21:55:50.150" UserId="1779" Text="Given the assumptions that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - emissions of CO2 are indirectly contributing to global warming&#xD;&#xA; - CO2 is captured in the bodies of trees during their lifetime&#xD;&#xA; - CO2 is released from the bodies of trees when they burn or decompose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It follows that if we prevent the bodies of trees (wood) from decomposing by producing durable consumer products (e.g. furniture) we are actually preventing CO2 emissions. Is this reasoning correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="337da788-d9ed-45a9-a539-a8faf1656690" CreationDate="2017-02-20T21:55:50.150" UserId="1779" Text="Does buying wooden furniture help fight global warming?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="337da788-d9ed-45a9-a539-a8faf1656690" CreationDate="2017-02-20T21:55:50.150" UserId="1779" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14139" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="286d17c4-2211-45e8-9ccd-40fb85bfddaa" CreationDate="2017-02-21T01:43:19.120" UserId="106" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|furniture|global-warming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14140" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5868" RevisionGUID="a128325e-423b-4562-b8aa-9b801c8e4f5a" CreationDate="2017-02-21T03:27:31.807" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/833880805915107328" />
  <row Id="14141" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5710" RevisionGUID="bc2e98b1-70cb-456d-9023-440f540a433d" CreationDate="2017-02-21T06:29:23.987" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/833926575875842048" />
  <row Id="14142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5706" RevisionGUID="ca31b50a-c225-4cf2-866a-1228b37a5fdd" CreationDate="2017-02-21T08:00:21.493" UserId="4084" Comment="deleted 324 characters in body" Text="**Importance of Three Phase Electricity**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three phase motors are known to have significantly higher radial power output than a single phase motor of similar design for the same electrical power consumption. [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nicola Tesla demonstrated the math behind that and built corresponding devices to demonstrate the benefits of alternating current multi-phase generators and motors at fairs and exhibits.  George Westinghouse successfully partnered with Tesla to make AC the distribution standard on the basis of its improved efficiency (and therefore improved sustainability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several others around that time found that three phases provided an optimal balance between motor and alternator efficiency and their manufacturing cost.  These same economics and physics principles still apply today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Equipment Purchase Decision**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expect to have motors, they will consume less energy for the same work output if they are tri-phase and the electrical power source is tri-phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Equipment exists to convert any of these electrical standards to any other one, however, there is a cost.  From a sustainability point of view, the manufacture, installation, and maintenance of conversion equipment is undesirable if there is another way to achieve high energy efficiency without the equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lighting, LED lighting usually requires single phase and possibly at a Voltage below that of higher power motors.  For them you could purchase a transformer at a fairly low cost to provide lighting and other devices like break room appliances with power.  Such transformers normally lasts for decades, especially if protected from surges, harsh weather, and moisture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In Summary**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entire choice revolves around the degree to which you expect to install asynchronous AC motors. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Power loss is reduced, and the devices run cooler as a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] Synchronous motors, such as stepper motors, use an entirely different strategy to powering their windings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5869" RevisionGUID="ced9b056-1cf1-4da9-a16b-072a884b9730" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:11:05.310" UserId="4297" Text="What are some of the main reasons horse lorries are so cheap to buy? *(they just seem very cheap and it instantly makes me wonder why)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5869" RevisionGUID="ced9b056-1cf1-4da9-a16b-072a884b9730" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:11:05.310" UserId="4297" Text="Living in a horse lorry" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5869" RevisionGUID="ced9b056-1cf1-4da9-a16b-072a884b9730" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:11:05.310" UserId="4297" Text="|uk|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="a203862e-0083-4d8e-8198-9b5c9becbdf6" CreationDate="2017-02-21T12:22:35.203" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="On first thought I was tempted to say yes, because you are creating a longer-living carbon sink for part of the wood (compared to letting the tree die naturally).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But on second consideration: Look at the amount of material that gets discarded when making wooden objects. I estimate that's easily 70% of the tree: [30% in the construction phase alone](http://www.woodweb.com/knowledge_base/Calculating_Waste_from_Rough_Lumber.html), plus cutaway outer edges, branch and root material. That fraction is going to be processed much faster (cheap wood board materials, wood pellets for burning, sawdust, etc), so it hardly counts as a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the total effect is you cut down a mature tree, plant 2 saplings in its place, put 30% of its carbon in your furniture for 50 years, and dump 70% of its carbon back into the atmosphere almost immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That looks to me a destroying a carbon sink. Better leave the tree standing.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5869" RevisionGUID="3ab35918-288e-442a-8e9b-2c555ca3bdd3" CreationDate="2017-02-21T15:51:37.293" UserId="4297" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="What are some of the main reasons horse lorries are so cheap to buy? *(they just seem very cheap and it instantly makes me wonder why)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NOXQH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5869" RevisionGUID="f12c5eee-9ea9-4afb-a8ec-024e551b3ef1" CreationDate="2017-02-21T16:33:40.170" UserId="4297" Comment="edited body" Text="What are some of the main reasons horse lorries are so cheap to buy? *(they just seem very cheap and it instantly makes me suspicious)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NOXQH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5869" RevisionGUID="f6f76eb8-6c2a-4d02-bc76-b1f4b239d760" CreationDate="2017-02-21T20:09:29.270" UserId="15" Comment="Added some supporting text based on author comment to bring the question more on topic" Text="What are some of the main reasons horse lorries are so cheap to buy? *(they just seem very cheap and it instantly makes me suspicious)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such lorries can be converted into a housetruck and be lived in, which may be an attractively economical way of building a housetruck, and a low environmental impact form of housing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NOXQH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14150" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5866" RevisionGUID="bdb5adc1-ea50-43de-b1ef-25cd74d6eaf7" CreationDate="2017-02-21T21:29:36.943" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/834153120859033600" />
  <row Id="14152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5871" RevisionGUID="57fb7b2a-1c76-45cc-b1cf-2e84f4b84a9c" CreationDate="2017-02-22T05:55:56.387" UserId="4301" Text="Am working in a XXXXX company where i have noticed a staggering level of tissue paper usage and it's disheartening to see it getting wasted. So i planned to propose an idea of reducing the tissue paper consumption in our office. I have already got the &quot;Price&quot; card (High sum of money is getting wasted in it) with me to showcase it to higher management and stress them to see the importance of reducing tissue paper consumption. However i believe it will be better if i give them another reason to adapt the reduction in tissue usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any considerable impact that tissue papers usually do on environment that i can use? Example: Emissions from Car and Bikes will increase the carbon footprint of the surroundings (If am not wrong). Likewise any major environmental impact i can use to emphasize the importance of this reduction in tissue papers please? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S : Am new to stackexchange, please feel free to edit the question if i haven't put it in a right way. Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14153" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5871" RevisionGUID="57fb7b2a-1c76-45cc-b1cf-2e84f4b84a9c" CreationDate="2017-02-22T05:55:56.387" UserId="4301" Text="Impact of over usage of tissue papers on environment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14154" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5871" RevisionGUID="57fb7b2a-1c76-45cc-b1cf-2e84f4b84a9c" CreationDate="2017-02-22T05:55:56.387" UserId="4301" Text="|recycling|paper|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5870" RevisionGUID="71e5d21f-18d3-4c56-90e9-e331c1e69193" CreationDate="2017-02-22T08:20:15.110" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Added notes" Text="On first thought I was tempted to say yes, because you are creating a longer-living carbon sink for part of the wood (compared to letting the tree die naturally).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But on second consideration: Look at the amount of material that gets discarded when making wooden objects. I estimate that's easily 70% of the tree: [30% in the construction phase alone](http://www.woodweb.com/knowledge_base/Calculating_Waste_from_Rough_Lumber.html), plus cutaway outer edges, branch and root material. That fraction is going to be processed much faster (cheap wood board materials, wood pellets for burning, sawdust, etc), so it hardly counts as a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the total effect is you cut down a mature tree, plant 2 saplings in its place, put 30% of its carbon in your furniture for 50 years, and dump 70% of its carbon back into the atmosphere almost immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That looks to me a destroying a carbon sink. Better leave the tree standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm assuming that you cut down the tree before the end of its natural life (otherwise the wood would be useless), and that the furniture outlives the period the tree would have lived on. Any deviation from that makes matters worse.&#xD;&#xA;- For a good comparison you would have to make a graph like below (time on horizontal axis, graph trees representing objects, their width representing carbon content), with calculations about tree type, tree and furniture volume, time stamps, etc. That would be quite an undertaking (and many quantities would have to be assumed since the question does not have them either).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eqGLE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5871" RevisionGUID="9eb03d78-cdc3-42b5-974d-deb1878a1a67" CreationDate="2017-02-23T03:16:15.847" UserId="4301" Comment="Mentioned what type of tissue paper consumption i was talking about" Text="Am working in a XXXXX company where i have noticed a staggering level of paper towels usage and it's disheartening to see it getting wasted. So i planned to propose an idea of reducing the paper towels consumption in our office. I have already got the &quot;Price&quot; card (High sum of money is getting wasted in it) with me to showcase it to higher management and stress them to see the importance of reducing its consumption. However i believe it will be better if i give them another reason to adapt the reduction in tissue usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any considerable impact that paper towels usually do on environment that i can use? Example: Emissions from Car and Bikes will increase the carbon footprint of the surroundings (If am not wrong). Likewise any major environmental impact i can use to emphasize the importance of this reduction in paper towels please? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S : Am new to stackexchange, please feel free to edit the question if i haven't put it in a right way. Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="f09251c6-8665-4f4f-8ae2-c5799406795c" CreationDate="2017-02-23T03:31:42.030" UserId="4303" Text="Perhaps this no nonsense Budget Wheel available on etsy would eleviate your need to make one.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/208198231/budget-spindle-wheel-beginner-spinning?ref=shop_home_active_3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plans are available on Etsy to make the Thrifty Fox Spinning wheel.   &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/198762832/thrifty-fox-spinning-wheel-digital-pdf?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are both spindle wheels--no bobbins, flyers etc.  They employ the same  method as the Great Wheel/walking wheel, charkhas, and navaho spindle spinning--spinning off the tip, reversing the wheel, then winding the yarn further back in the shaft.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="ff21e243-0a1c-4b22-ae47-311e96d20b5d" CreationDate="2017-02-23T04:01:29.570" UserId="4303" Comment="Added kind of spinner that uses similar method" Text="Perhaps this no nonsense Budget Wheel available on etsy would eleviate your need to make one.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/208198231/budget-spindle-wheel-beginner-spinning?ref=shop_home_active_3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plans are available on Etsy to make the Thrifty Fox Spinning wheel.   &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/198762832/thrifty-fox-spinning-wheel-digital-pdf?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are both spindle wheels--no bobbins, flyers etc.  They employ the same  method as the Great Wheel/walking wheel, charkha, Mother Marion kick spindle and Navaho spindle spinning--spinning off the tip, reversing, then winding the yarn further back on the shaft.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="f6eed51d-45f4-4594-b50f-2903101ea672" CreationDate="2017-02-23T09:03:26.773" UserId="4304" Text="The answer for this question depends on the reusability factor.&#xD;&#xA;The lifetime of plastic cups is very low since it could be used only few times.&#xD;&#xA;But even if molding Ceramic cups require more energy considering that it can be used for years before it breaks,&#xD;&#xA;**Ceramic cups** are more ecofriendly than plastic cups." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="709023fd-e44b-49c1-87d9-5f3fb7f095f6" CreationDate="2017-02-23T09:26:40.230" UserId="4304" Text="I am a guy living in **Kerala,India**. &amp;nbsp;I have a plot of 5 cents in my backyard. I would like to know which plants would be helpful for planting in the plot to put up a garden that will be both beautiful and useful for me and my family. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14161" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="709023fd-e44b-49c1-87d9-5f3fb7f095f6" CreationDate="2017-02-23T09:26:40.230" UserId="4304" Text="Useful plants to grow in graden" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14162" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="709023fd-e44b-49c1-87d9-5f3fb7f095f6" CreationDate="2017-02-23T09:26:40.230" UserId="4304" Text="|fruits-and-vegetables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="f8bdbc6f-a233-4372-be47-a073455a326e" CreationDate="2017-02-23T10:01:45.320" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added metric numbers, added gardening tag, added food tag?" Text="I am a guy living in **Kerala, India**. I have a plot of 5 cents (about 200 square meter) in my backyard. I would like to know which plants would be helpful for planting in the plot, to put up a garden that will be both beautiful and useful for me and my family. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14164" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="f8bdbc6f-a233-4372-be47-a073455a326e" CreationDate="2017-02-23T10:01:45.320" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added metric numbers, added gardening tag, added food tag?" Text="Useful plants to grow in garden" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14165" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="f8bdbc6f-a233-4372-be47-a073455a326e" CreationDate="2017-02-23T10:01:45.320" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added metric numbers, added gardening tag, added food tag?" Text="|food|gardening|fruits-and-vegetables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14166" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5869" RevisionGUID="4318cdec-21e0-406f-bb1a-4483fd62222b" CreationDate="2017-02-23T12:46:13.360" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="e7e66c63-9ab5-4f5b-86a3-78392d3b5def" CreationDate="2017-02-23T13:23:46.787" UserId="4305" Text="Could you please recommend, what kind of things should I consider planning hydroponic container? (Besides growing-lights, ventilation, water + solution supply, shelves, temperature controlling).&#xA;Thank you &amp; have a nice day! :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="e7e66c63-9ab5-4f5b-86a3-78392d3b5def" CreationDate="2017-02-23T13:23:46.787" UserId="4305" Text="Hydroponic farming in container" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="e7e66c63-9ab5-4f5b-86a3-78392d3b5def" CreationDate="2017-02-23T13:23:46.787" UserId="4305" Text="|food|farming|water-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="58baf284-7680-44b0-8371-254613957122" CreationDate="2017-02-23T14:17:47.427" UserId="4303" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Perhaps this no nonsense Budget Wheel available on etsy would eleviate your need to make one.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/208198231/budget-spindle-wheel-beginner-spinning?ref=shop_home_active_3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plans are available on Etsy to make the Thrifty Fox Spinning wheel.   &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/198762832/thrifty-fox-spinning-wheel-digital-pdf?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are both spindle wheels--no bobbins, flyers etc.  They employ the same  method as the Great Wheel/walking wheel, charkha, Mother Marion kick spindle and Navaho spindle spinning--spinning off the tip, reversing, then winding the yarn further back on the shaft.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a site that offers free plans:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.craftsmanspace.com/free-projects/spinning-wheel-plan.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="9334d70b-8830-41d6-af65-f14b46949685" CreationDate="2017-02-23T14:35:45.307" UserId="4303" Comment="Added resourses" Text="Perhaps this no nonsense Budget Wheel available on etsy would eleviate your need to make one.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/208198231/budget-spindle-wheel-beginner-spinning?ref=shop_home_active_3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plans are available on Etsy to make the Thrifty Fox Spinning wheel.   &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/198762832/thrifty-fox-spinning-wheel-digital-pdf?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are both spindle wheels--no bobbins, flyers etc.  They employ the same  method as the Great Wheel/walking wheel, charkha, Mother Marion kick spindle and Navaho spindle spinning--spinning off the tip, reversing, then winding the yarn further back on the shaft.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are sites that offer free plans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This PDF provides plans for the wheel as either a spindle wheel, or with bobbin and flyer:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=http://seadreamhobbies.yolasite.com/resources/version1%2520spinning%2520wheel.pdf&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjox7TAs6bSAhXm6IMKHVJfD0wQFghgMA0&amp;usg=AFQjCNGM6eCWfYjr5Il4PA8s_QDUBxQZdw&amp;sig2=bxfRZunrHuKONWnudZAwfQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This plan includes bobbin and flyer:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.craftsmanspace.com/free-projects/spinning-wheel-plan.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="dada60f3-3291-4b1f-bec6-da3e8b9a55b4" CreationDate="2017-02-23T14:51:39.210" UserId="99" Comment="altered link so it goes directly to the pdf and not via google" Text="Perhaps this no nonsense Budget Wheel available on etsy would eleviate your need to make one.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/208198231/budget-spindle-wheel-beginner-spinning?ref=shop_home_active_3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plans are available on Etsy to make the Thrifty Fox Spinning wheel.   &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/198762832/thrifty-fox-spinning-wheel-digital-pdf?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are both spindle wheels--no bobbins, flyers etc.  They employ the same  method as the Great Wheel/walking wheel, charkha, Mother Marion kick spindle and Navaho spindle spinning--spinning off the tip, reversing, then winding the yarn further back on the shaft.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are sites that offer free plans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This PDF provides plans for the wheel as either a spindle wheel, or with bobbin and flyer:&#xD;&#xA;http://seadreamhobbies.yolasite.com/resources/version1%20spinning%20wheel.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This plan includes bobbin and flyer:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.craftsmanspace.com/free-projects/spinning-wheel-plan.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="5e8b1df5-ca9f-49a0-a245-de834f5b979b" CreationDate="2017-02-23T16:05:51.267" UserId="2345" Comment="Changes to grammar" Text="Besides things such as growing-lights, ventilation, water and solution supply, shelves and temperature control, could someone please recomment, what kind of things should I consider when planning a hydroponic container? .&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="033909f4-5ecf-4683-9ef9-345a6e04e539" CreationDate="2017-02-23T17:56:27.340" UserId="4303" Comment="Some explaination provided in case the links break.  " Text="It seems the bottom line of the question is low cost spinning wheels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dodeca wheel design is available free on line as has been noted.  Its designer also sells this wheel and a similar wheel at a very low cost for a spinning wheel.  &#xD;&#xA;http://porterthreads.weebly.com/store/p4/Dodec_Spinning_Wheel.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Budget Wheel, seemingly derived from the Dodeca, with a circular wheel, is available on etsy.  &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/208198231/budget-spindle-wheel-beginner-spinning?ref=shop_home_active_3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a similar design published by popular mechanics, called a Penguin Quill spinning wheel.   Plans are available online and posted in Pintrest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plans are available on Etsy to make the Thrifty Fox Spinning wheel.   &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/198762832/thrifty-fox-spinning-wheel-digital-pdf?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are all spindle wheels--no bobbins, flyers etc.  They employ the same method as the Great Wheel/walking wheel, charkha, Mother Marion kick spindle and Navaho spindle spinning--spinning off the tip of the spindle, reversing, then reversing again to wind the yarn further back on the shaft, and out to the tip to continue spinning.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea behind all of these, is to run a drive belt from the shaft ofta stationary horizontal spindle, to a wheel that multipies the man power supplied from a peddle/treadle.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dodeca,  Budget Spindle Wheel, and the Penguin Quill Wheel, all are castle style designs that stack the spindle above the wheel, above the peddle.   The Thrifty Fox uses a horizontal design:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are sites that offer free plans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This PDF provides plans for the wheel as either a spindle wheel, or with bobbin and flyer:&#xD;&#xA;http://seadreamhobbies.yolasite.com/resources/version1%20spinning%20wheel.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------   &#xD;&#xA;More complicated designs that include bobbins and flyers  are more involved, more  costly to make...and thus, more expensive.   &#xD;&#xA;This plan includes bobbin and flyer:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.craftsmanspace.com/free-projects/spinning-wheel-plan.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="e5c7efbc-bfed-4cd9-8515-6eaeb592db43" CreationDate="2017-02-23T18:43:56.103" UserId="4303" Comment="Added pictures" Text="It seems the bottom line of the question is low cost spinning wheels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dodeca wheeldesign is available free on line as has been noted.  Its designer also sells this wheel and a similar wheel at a very low cost for a spinning wheel. &#xD;&#xA;http://porterthreads.weebly.com/store/p4/Dodec_Spinning_Wheel.html. &#xD;&#xA;![Dodeca Spinning Wheel](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6TUOA.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Budget Wheel, seemingly derived from the Dodeca, with a circular wheel, is available on etsy.  &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/208198231/budget-spindle-wheel-beginner-spinning?ref=shop_home_active_3. &#xD;&#xA;![Budget Spindle Wheel](https://i.stack.imgur.com/n67sF.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a similar design published by popular mechanics, called a Penguin Quill spinning wheel.   Plans are available online and posted in Pintrest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plans are available on Etsy to make the Thrifty Fox Spinning wheel.   &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/198762832/thrifty-fox-spinning-wheel-digital-pdf?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are all spindle wheels--no bobbins, flyers etc.  They employ the same method as the Great Wheel/walking wheel, charkha, Mother Marion kick spindle and Navaho spindle spinning--spinning off the tip of the spindle, reversing, then reversing again to wind the yarn further back on the shaft, and out to the tip to continue spinning.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea behind all of these, is to run a drive belt from the shaft ofta stationary horizontal spindle, to a wheel that multipies the man power supplied from a peddle/treadle.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dodeca,  Budget Spindle Wheel, and the Penguin Quill Wheel, all are castle style designs that stack the spindle above the wheel, above the peddle.   The Thrifty Fox uses a horizontal design:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are sites that offer free plans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This PDF provides plans for the wheel as either a spindle wheel, or with bobbin and flyer:&#xD;&#xA;http://seadreamhobbies.yolasite.com/resources/version1%20spinning%20wheel.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------   &#xD;&#xA;More complicated designs that include bobbins and flyers  are more involved, more  costly to make...and thus, more expensive.   &#xD;&#xA;This plan includes bobbin and flyer:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.craftsmanspace.com/free-projects/spinning-wheel-plan.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="3d1cf634-ffff-49d1-ae3d-d60e11874c36" CreationDate="2017-02-23T19:07:35.187" UserId="4303" Comment="Added pictures" Text="It seems the bottom line of the question is low cost spinning wheels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dodeca wheeldesign is available free on line [as has been noted](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1183/4303). Porter also sells this wheel and a similar wheel at a very low cost for a spinning wheel. &#xD;&#xA;http://porterthreads.weebly.com/store/p4/Dodec_Spinning_Wheel.html. &#xD;&#xA;![Dodeca Spinning Wheel](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6TUOA.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Budget Wheel, seemingly derived from the Dodeca, with a circular wheel, is available on etsy.  &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/208198231/budget-spindle-wheel-beginner-spinning?ref=shop_home_active_3. &#xD;&#xA;![Budget Spindle Wheel](https://i.stack.imgur.com/n67sF.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a similar design published by popular mechanics, called a Penguin Quill spinning wheel.   Plans are available online and posted in Pintrest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plans are available on Etsy to make the Thrifty Fox Spinning wheel.   &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/198762832/thrifty-fox-spinning-wheel-digital-pdf?  &#xD;&#xA;![Thrifty Fox Spinning Wheel](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bXYt1.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are all spindle wheels--no bobbins, flyers etc.  They employ the same method as the Great Wheel/walking wheel, charkha, Mother Marion kick spindle and Navaho spindle spinning--spinning off the tip of the spindle, reversing, then reversing again to wind the yarn further back on the shaft, and out to the tip to continue spinning.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea behind all of these, is to run a drive belt from the shaft ofta stationary horizontal spindle, to a wheel that multipies the man power supplied from a peddle/treadle.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dodeca,  Budget Spindle Wheel, and the Penguin Quill Wheel, all are castle style designs that stack the spindle above the wheel, above the peddle.   The Thrifty Fox uses a horizontal design:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are sites that offer free plans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This PDF provides plans for the wheel as either a spindle wheel, or with bobbin and flyer:&#xD;&#xA;http://seadreamhobbies.yolasite.com/resources/version1%20spinning%20wheel.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------   &#xD;&#xA;More complicated designs that include bobbins and flyers  are more involved, more  costly to make...and thus, more expensive.   &#xD;&#xA;This plan includes bobbin and flyer:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.craftsmanspace.com/free-projects/spinning-wheel-plan.html &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Free Spinning Wheel plan](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PxHhg.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5871" RevisionGUID="dd581315-8955-44b1-9126-383083588fe5" CreationDate="2017-02-23T19:31:10.173" UserId="1053" Comment="deleted 181 characters in body; edited title" Text="At work, I have noticed a staggering level of paper towel usage and it's disheartening to see it getting wasted. I planned to propose reducing the paper towel consumption in our office. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already got the &quot;Price&quot; card (High sum of money is getting wasted in it) with me to showcase it to higher management and stress them to see the importance of reducing its consumption. However I believe it will be better if i give them another reason to adapt the reduction in tissue usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any considerable impact that paper towels usually do on environment that i can use? Example: Emissions from Car and Bikes will increase the carbon footprint of the surroundings (If am not wrong). What major environmental impact can I use to emphasize the importance of this reduction in paper towels? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14178" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5871" RevisionGUID="dd581315-8955-44b1-9126-383083588fe5" CreationDate="2017-02-23T19:31:10.173" UserId="1053" Comment="deleted 181 characters in body; edited title" Text="Impact of over usage of paper towels on the environment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="042c3e31-fe98-4be2-9233-e6069da77a64" CreationDate="2017-02-23T19:39:59.817" UserId="4303" Comment="Adding demonstration links" Text="It seems the bottom line of the question is low cost spinning wheel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dodeca wheeldesign is available [free on line](http://www.interweave.com/wp-content/uploads/5661.Dodec-Spinning-Wheel-Brochure.pdf).   This   [has been noted in another post](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1183/4303). Porter also sells this wheel and a similar wheel at a very low cost for a spinning wheel. &#xD;&#xA;http://porterthreads.weebly.com/store/p4/Dodec_Spinning_Wheel.html. &#xD;&#xA;![Dodeca Spinning Wheel](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6TUOA.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Budget Wheel, seemingly derived from the Dodeca, with a circular wheel, is available on etsy.  &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/208198231/budget-spindle-wheel-beginner-spinning?ref=shop_home_active_3. &#xD;&#xA;![Budget Spindle Wheel](https://i.stack.imgur.com/n67sF.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a similar design published by popular mechanics, called a Penguin Quill spinning wheel.   Plans are available online and posted in Pintrest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plans are available on Etsy to make the Thrifty Fox Spinning wheel.   &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/198762832/thrifty-fox-spinning-wheel-digital-pdf?  &#xD;&#xA;![Thrifty Fox Spinning Wheel](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bXYt1.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are all spindle wheels--no bobbins, flyers etc.  They employ the same method as [the Great Wheel/walking wheel](https://youtu.be/z1KWQ1RE69E), [charkha](https://youtu.be/R8KvukFPRJc), [Mother Marion kick spindle](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cutoutandkeep.net/projects/building-a-kick-spindle.amp?client=ms-android-verizon),&#xD;&#xA;   [Navaho spindle spinning](https://youtu.be/D_p7OIghMVw)--spinning off the tip of the spindle, reversing, then reversing again to wind the yarn further back on the shaft, and out to the tip to continue spinning.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea behind all of these, is to run a drive belt from the shaft ofta stationary horizontal spindle, to a wheel that multipies the man power supplied from a peddle/treadle.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dodeca,  Budget Spindle Wheel, and the Penguin Quill Wheel, all are castle style designs that stack the spindle above the wheel, above the peddle.   The Thrifty Fox uses a horizontal design:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are sites that offer free plans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This PDF provides plans for the wheel as either a spindle wheel, or with bobbin and flyer:&#xD;&#xA;http://seadreamhobbies.yolasite.com/resources/version1%20spinning%20wheel.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------   &#xD;&#xA;More complicated designs that include bobbins and flyers  are more involved, more  costly to make...and thus, more expensive.   &#xD;&#xA;This plan includes bobbin and flyer:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.craftsmanspace.com/free-projects/spinning-wheel-plan.html &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Free Spinning Wheel plan](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PxHhg.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14180" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5691" RevisionGUID="a8c3ad07-3eba-46d6-915c-80b126036059" CreationDate="2017-02-23T21:46:29.097" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/834882143352401920" />
  <row Id="14181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1183" RevisionGUID="f767c942-881a-4ad3-92f1-76d4ce6f3bd7" CreationDate="2017-02-24T00:17:01.233" UserId="4303" Comment="Added pictures" Text="After looking at the rosemary knits spinning wheel (from the comments) I found a wheel called the dodec spinning wheel.  It makes a fully functional wheel with pedal out of a ten foot board.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://www.spinningdaily.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/spinoff/5661.Dodec-Spinning-Wheel-Brochure.pdf&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tg5sf.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14182" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1183" RevisionGUID="f767c942-881a-4ad3-92f1-76d4ce6f3bd7" CreationDate="2017-02-24T00:17:01.233" Comment="Proposed by 4303 approved by 3379, 2345 edit id of 456" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5876" RevisionGUID="bfdc2ad4-1624-424e-99d7-13650b86ba4e" CreationDate="2017-02-24T02:47:19.787" UserId="3379" Text="**Demand for gas is elastic...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read that cars in Europe are, on average, more efficient than cars in the US due to significantly higher taxes on gasoline. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**...but not for electricity?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the context of electricity, however, I have heard that demand is inelastic - people tend to use about the same amount regardless of the cost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is this true?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a comparison of per capita electric usage for the USA and a few other [high income nations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank_high-income_economy) around the world:&#xD;&#xA;[![Per capita electricity usage][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When comparing the US to other high income nations, is the discrepancy in usage due to higher prices, or some other factor(s)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mApzG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14184" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5876" RevisionGUID="bfdc2ad4-1624-424e-99d7-13650b86ba4e" CreationDate="2017-02-24T02:47:19.787" UserId="3379" Text="Do higher electricity prices cause people to use less?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14185" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5876" RevisionGUID="bfdc2ad4-1624-424e-99d7-13650b86ba4e" CreationDate="2017-02-24T02:47:19.787" UserId="3379" Text="|electricity|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14186" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4855" RevisionGUID="291caaff-7e1d-492c-967d-21984bbe36f8" CreationDate="2017-02-24T03:46:28.107" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/834972736137084933" />
  <row Id="14187" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="eb27ed9e-4756-4878-b347-89dc09624d00" CreationDate="2017-02-24T08:07:47.793" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|farming|hydroponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="12a5db5a-6af1-4087-adc5-d94b307737e1" CreationDate="2017-02-24T08:10:35.487" UserId="99" Comment="added link to hydroponics tag" Text="Aquaponics is the combination of aquaculture (keeping fish or other aquatic animals) and [tag:hydroponics] (growing plants in water). Together these two systems complement each other. The fish wastes provide nutrients for the plants and the plants filter the water. Additionally bacteria break down by-products such as ammonia excreted by fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions about fish as sustainable food source see [tag:fish]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions mainly about keeping fish for fun see [Pets StackExchange](http://pets.stackexchange.com)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions mainly about the plants used in aquaponics (not-specifically about sustainability) see [Gardening StackExchange](http://gardening.stackexchange.com). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="9a795545-7706-449d-a28e-eb91ffeb90de" CreationDate="2017-02-24T08:10:35.487" UserId="99" Comment="added link to hydroponics tag" Text="growing fish or other aquatic animals and plants together in one integrated system. The fish wastes provide nutrients for the plants and the plants filter the water. Additionally bacteria break down by-products such as ammonia. Related to [tag:hydroponics]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5877" RevisionGUID="9b6be26c-d224-4e80-aa88-5a6087bdff03" CreationDate="2017-02-24T08:24:04.347" UserId="99" Text="Hydroponics is the method of growing plants by placing the roots a liquid nutrient solution instead of in soil. The nutrient solution is usually water with dissolved mineral nutrients and/or animal manure. When the nutrients stem from fish that are kept in the water it's called [tag:aquaponics]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5877" RevisionGUID="9b6be26c-d224-4e80-aa88-5a6087bdff03" CreationDate="2017-02-24T08:24:04.347" UserId="99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5878" RevisionGUID="8effbdcb-d918-4c78-96f4-2591651fbc7d" CreationDate="2017-02-24T08:24:04.347" UserId="99" Text="growing plants in a nutrient solution instead of in soil. When fish kept in the water provide the required nutrients it's called [tag:aquaponics]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5878" RevisionGUID="8effbdcb-d918-4c78-96f4-2591651fbc7d" CreationDate="2017-02-24T08:24:04.347" UserId="99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5757" RevisionGUID="470ef079-7722-429b-a822-4f8506e684e8" CreationDate="2017-02-24T08:33:52.837" UserId="99" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Organic is a label placed on food products and clothing that are produced according to organic farming principles. The exact meaning of organic differs per country and/or certification-scheme, but usually it means produced without the use of artificial fertilizers and artificial pesticides, and with ecological balance, animal welfare and biodiversity in mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5879" RevisionGUID="7293a449-074e-4cb7-b6a0-5f5cf1a23f3b" CreationDate="2017-02-24T11:51:59.610" UserId="2345" Text="In some locations, the overall cost of domestic electricity &amp; gas (not gasoline) is not solely dependent on usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can arise in locations where electricity and gas bills have two charges, the first being a service or utility charge that is charged to every household irrespective of usage, because it's a fixed cost. The other cost is for usage of electricity or gas; this is the variable cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The service or utility charge is a cost for distributing electricity or gas. In the case of electricity, this pays for items such as: poles, pylons, wires, transformers and sub-stations. Sometimes these costs can be very high compared to the variable cost of usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing to consider is what is electricity being used for, predominantly: lighting, cooking, heating and cooling. Who wants to be in a dark house at night? Who want's to eat raw food and who want's to be cold in winter? Who want's wear dirty, smelly clothes just to save money on electricity for the washing machine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Humans are creatures of habit, if we are to use less electricity in the home, we need to have energy efficient appliances &amp; insulated homes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14196" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5871" RevisionGUID="0c4320fa-8307-4e82-a190-add7b91fc9b7" CreationDate="2017-02-24T12:46:28.140" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/835108631850938368" />
  <row Id="14197" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5145" RevisionGUID="dab91a29-dc69-41b8-bcdb-100ac7408ceb" CreationDate="2017-02-24T13:06:47.613" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="14198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="d60c3020-5ada-4ff6-b482-8dc963a65528" CreationDate="2017-02-24T15:23:16.000" UserId="3379" Comment="Added detail from comment" Text="I have a container of size L 1.8 m × W 1.86 × H 1.73. I am planning to turn this into a hydroponic container for growing cooking greens (salad etc.). The thing that concerns me is the stuff I probably need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides things such as growing-lights, ventilation, water and solution supply, shelves, and temperature control, could someone please recommend, what kind of things should I consider when planning a hydroponic container?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14199" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="d60c3020-5ada-4ff6-b482-8dc963a65528" CreationDate="2017-02-24T15:23:16.000" UserId="3379" Comment="Added detail from comment" Text="What's required for hydroponic farming in a container?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5880" RevisionGUID="e13f9048-6f18-4b7a-b269-1b7d9058ab09" CreationDate="2017-02-25T00:56:28.910" UserId="1173" Text="Part of the issue may be people don't realise how much electricity they are using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you switch on an appliance in your home, you can't tell how much electricity that is using, or what that will cost you. You don't know whether it is wasting much electricity by leaving it on all day. It may be several months later before you receive a bill, so you can't match increased costs with your usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An answer to this could be *smart meters*. These let you see usage in real time, so you can see how specific appliances affect consumption. If you can watch your bill increasing, you may be more inclined to switch things off when not needed. Or you can see if its worth replacing inefficient devices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5881" RevisionGUID="7e398350-8055-4b30-8a86-c013b2a7128b" CreationDate="2017-02-25T09:17:57.247" UserId="4312" Text="Follow [Richard Dawkins'](https://richarddawkins.net/2016/04/join-the-trend-wear-odd-socks/) suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Be bold&#xD;&#xA; - Make a fashion statement of odd socks&#xD;&#xA; - Fight the tyranny of the matching socks&#xD;&#xA; - Sock it to conformity&#xD;&#xA; - Be an individualist, not a slavish sock puppet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Shoes and gloves, like proteins and many other molecules, have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chirality: there’s a left one and a right one and you can’t rotate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; either to make the other. Hands are chiral, so are feet. But (with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rare exceptions) socks are not. Socks fit feet more approximately than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shoes, and any sock will fit the left or right foot equally well. So,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; unlike shoes, there’s no obvious reason why you have to buy socks in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pairs. Theoretically you could buy a dozen identical socks and choose&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any two of them at random each day. If you lose one, no matter, you&#xD;&#xA;&gt; now have eleven from which to choose. But alas, as far as I know,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; socks are only ever sold in pairs. And that’s ridiculous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14202" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5876" RevisionGUID="04ef4b5e-7179-47d7-bc95-b74f3cae8193" CreationDate="2017-02-25T18:59:14.557" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/835564831008784384" />
  <row Id="14204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5882" RevisionGUID="f595094a-d7c3-4541-adaa-9c40acd3be0e" CreationDate="2017-02-26T03:50:06.607" UserId="4313" Text="Much of it is government &amp; customs.  Here were 50% of the population has electric. It is like this. People who can afford on lowest rate least use have a lightbulb &amp; fan in there home. They use care not to use to much to avoid going into the next rate higher. As they improve there life. They buy a motorcycle &amp; big screen T.V. Middle class. The rate goes up but it is status to have a T.V. Next comes a refrigerator &amp; or window fan. But most buy a small one.So use less than Americans were every thing is supper sized.  Custom. Women will not give up walking to the market every day to shop with there friends so need a small fridge. From there you move up to the upper class. You put in A.C. in the home. Your rate goes up. so few have at that rate. So they buy less things for electric. Then you move to the rich. Washmachine T.V.fridge apartment size, 2 A.C. units, freezer small. you pay for electric then because you can afford it.So high rate keep many from buying.  So they use less. All is smaller than in America except the T.V. So they use less. So Government rates encourage some at the bottom to have. But discourage some better of not to have. Also here power poles often end at the city limits. So some well of farms may not have. Grandmother is like that. Nice plantation. But 20 years from electric here. So Americans like all supper sized use more. Larger fridge, larger freezer, more A.C.we keep houses warmer than them. Custom of not buying all bigger is better. Washers are smaller also. Spin dryers &amp; hang on line in most of the world. They use less. Less food also goes to waste so no need have a big box as less to go in it in left overs. Custom there. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="31357956-27b0-4f6f-8f5b-5705b81ce79f" CreationDate="2017-02-28T18:39:37.680" UserId="399" Text="[![Carbon footprints][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, cheese has the *third* highest carbon footprint. Only beef and lamb have a higher footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several other sources (such as [this](http://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon-footprint.html)) corroborate this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it so high? You would expect it to be due to the milk production, but milk itself it one of the lowest on the chart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: http://sustainability.tamu.edu/Data/Sites/1/GalleryImages/EditorUploadImages/PledgeImages/4d.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14206" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="31357956-27b0-4f6f-8f5b-5705b81ce79f" CreationDate="2017-02-28T18:39:37.680" UserId="399" Text="Why does cheese have such a high carbon footprint?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14207" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="31357956-27b0-4f6f-8f5b-5705b81ce79f" CreationDate="2017-02-28T18:39:37.680" UserId="399" Text="|food|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5871" RevisionGUID="522255c8-8dc1-49ad-b2b0-f435ca745cdd" CreationDate="2017-02-28T19:11:28.540" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified question, added details from comments" Text="At work, I have noticed a staggering level of paper towel usage and it's disheartening to see it getting wasted, even though hand dryers are installed in all rest rooms. I plan to propose reducing the paper towel consumption in our office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already got the &quot;price&quot; card (large sum of money is getting wasted) with me to showcase to higher management and stress the importance of reducing consumption. However I believe it will be better if I can give another reason to reduce usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any considerable impact that paper towels have on the environment?** What major environmental impacts can I bring up to emphasize the importance of reducing paper towel usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14209" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5871" RevisionGUID="522255c8-8dc1-49ad-b2b0-f435ca745cdd" CreationDate="2017-02-28T19:11:28.540" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified question, added details from comments" Text="Environmental impact of using paper towels for hand drying" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14210" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="1199" RevisionGUID="341b0a71-a40e-4450-a00b-48894c79739a" CreationDate="2017-03-01T01:29:46.007" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/836750273452339200" />
  <row Id="14211" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="779575d0-dc5a-4c3e-b29d-ca93069059d4" CreationDate="2017-03-01T04:29:45.417" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/836795569901289473" />
  <row Id="14212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="146e0fa7-783c-4466-9d22-1329f047179f" CreationDate="2017-03-01T05:44:48.767" UserId="4304" Comment="added additional info" Text="I am a guy living in **Kerala, India**. I have a plot of 5 cents (about 200 square meter) in my backyard. I would like to know which plants would be helpful for planting in the plot(Edible fruits or vegetables),that require less care on later stage after planting them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14213" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="5b21f655-c8db-4f54-8fef-65989e39812f" CreationDate="2017-03-01T05:47:04.857" UserId="4304" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4304,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;saju&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14214" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="5173" RevisionGUID="f62cf260-d0a7-476e-b4f3-326466eeda2c" CreationDate="2017-03-01T05:47:04.857" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14215" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="d18686cb-77f6-44d5-93ad-ee38d969d3da" CreationDate="2017-03-01T05:49:40.713" UserId="4304" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4304,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;saju&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5884" RevisionGUID="765b8e1e-93c8-4845-b4b8-f835c4f6e465" CreationDate="2017-03-01T16:52:32.980" UserId="1445" Text="1kg of cheese takes around 10kg of milk to produce (more for some cheeses - e.g. parmesan is around 1:16; less for softer cheeses).  So the carbon footprint of cheese is going to be at least that factor higher than that for milk (there will be a little extra from any heat/energy input into the cheesemaking process but this will be small).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.cheeseboard.co.uk/facts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2011/01/article_0005.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5885" RevisionGUID="053a783b-113d-44bc-971c-84902ccd908a" CreationDate="2017-03-02T09:23:16.353" UserId="4325" Text="  In European countries we'd like to use ballpoint pens with cartridges together. And in Asian countries another rolling ballpoint pens instead. But no matter which we choose. A problem is still making us head to wall：How to recycle them when they are useless? This can be divided into several senarios:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Totally useless： All of the ink in the cartridge is over (without any left). What we see now is ONLY a plastic stick with a ball point there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Half useless: Half of the ink is used, with another half left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Absolutely new but cannot write any more：The cartridge cannot be used again because it's dried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I wanna know more about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) How to cope with the three questions above to make our environment clearer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The plastic is of &quot;non-biodegradable&quot;. So how to cope with that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Can the ball points be recycled and re-created in the ballpoint pen manufacturing factory? Any clues or proves?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) What about ink? Ink is MOST HARD THING to do with for me……Is there anything about compostable-plastic ink? Any clues or ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14220" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5885" RevisionGUID="053a783b-113d-44bc-971c-84902ccd908a" CreationDate="2017-03-02T09:23:16.353" UserId="4325" Text="How to recycle cartridges for ballpoint or rolling pens?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14221" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5885" RevisionGUID="053a783b-113d-44bc-971c-84902ccd908a" CreationDate="2017-03-02T09:23:16.353" UserId="4325" Text="|recycling|compostable-plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5885" RevisionGUID="d63a1ead-394c-4ebd-b0fb-84f4df255a47" CreationDate="2017-03-02T09:42:40.263" UserId="4325" Comment="Change from &quot;rolling pen&quot; to &quot;gel pen&quot;" Text="  In European countries we'd like to use ballpoint pens with cartridges together. And in Asian countries another gel pens instead. But no matter which we choose. A problem is still making us head to wall：How to recycle them when they are useless? This can be divided into several senarios:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Totally useless： All of the ink in the cartridge is over (without any left). What we see now is ONLY a plastic stick with a ball point there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Half useless: Half of the ink is used, with another half left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Absolutely new but cannot write any more：The cartridge cannot be used again because it's dried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I wanna know more about:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) How to cope with the three questions above to make our environment clearer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The plastic is of &quot;non-biodegradable&quot;. So how to cope with that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Can the ball points be recycled and re-created in the ballpoint pen manufacturing factory? Any clues or proves?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) What about ink? Ink is MOST HARD THING to do with for me……Is there anything about compostable-plastic ink? Any clues or ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14224" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5885" RevisionGUID="169e9767-4267-459c-a386-85cfaff892f0" CreationDate="2017-03-02T12:17:29.740" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Removed lot of text" Text="How can we recycle ballpoint pens or gel pens when they no longer work?&lt;br /&gt; Consider these scenarios:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Cartridge is empty. What we see now is ONLY a plastic stick with a ball point there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Cartridge still has ink left. It may be dried out or the pen refuses to write for other reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume the plastic is non-biodegradable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can the ball points be recycled and re-used in manufacturing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Can the ink be recycled? Is there anything like compostable-plastic ink? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14225" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5885" RevisionGUID="169e9767-4267-459c-a386-85cfaff892f0" CreationDate="2017-03-02T12:17:29.740" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 457" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="749411cd-e0b0-4252-8b02-c0d0ba696835" CreationDate="2017-03-02T12:17:44.597" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Inserted comment answer (link)" Text="I am a guy living in **Kerala, India**. I have a plot of 5 [cents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cent_(area)) (about 200 square meter) in my backyard. I would like to know which plants would be helpful for planting in the plot (edible fruits or vegetables), that require less care in a later stage after planting them. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14227" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="749411cd-e0b0-4252-8b02-c0d0ba696835" CreationDate="2017-03-02T12:17:44.597" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 458" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5886" RevisionGUID="3bfc3c32-3769-4f3e-8992-a2e75303d7e4" CreationDate="2017-03-02T19:09:57.583" UserId="4328" Text="I live in a college town and have a teen age daughter along with some teen age nieces and I've notice that the style is to have mixed match socks. Just pair up colors and tell them they are retro style socks. They will think it's cool and you can start the next big trend. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5887" RevisionGUID="ba482e41-8154-435d-9cef-82ab8a109974" CreationDate="2017-03-02T19:54:02.177" UserId="4328" Text="I have been building bed frames, tables, chairs, wine racks, and many other different things out of old pallets.  I look for companies that are giving them away and collect as many as I can store. I figure out what I want to build and the design I want and start taking them apart for some projects while others I'll leave whole or cut like I need. The possibilities are limitless. Not only am I getting free material I'm recycling the wood and the nails. Even the smallest pieces can be use to make crafts for every room in the house. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="13d5f1f4-cd84-4f38-baab-037c0a1a4384" CreationDate="2017-03-03T03:06:04.390" UserId="3379" Text="When I am going to boil a pot of water for cooking, will the total energy consumption be less if I start with hot water from the tap?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few considerations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Both the water heater and the stove burn **natural gas (methane)**&#xD;&#xA; - The water heater is less than 10 years old (so relatively efficient and well-insulated)&#xD;&#xA; - The pipes are not insulated, so when I start filling the pot the water will be cold ([assume 8 deg C for Wisconsin, USA](http://www.gfxtechnology.com/WaterTemp.pdf))&#xD;&#xA; - I need 5L of water in the pot&#xD;&#xA; - By the time a pot is full the water from the tap is hot enough to steam (let's say [49 deg C](https://lifehacker.com/whats-the-best-temperature-for-my-water-heater-1465372005))&#xD;&#xA; - I'd estimate there are about 5m of 2cm diameter pipe from the tap to the water heater" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="13d5f1f4-cd84-4f38-baab-037c0a1a4384" CreationDate="2017-03-03T03:06:04.390" UserId="3379" Text="Water heater vs stovetop: most efficient way to heat water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="13d5f1f4-cd84-4f38-baab-037c0a1a4384" CreationDate="2017-03-03T03:06:04.390" UserId="3379" Text="|energy-efficiency|fuel-efficiency|cooking|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="9f67739e-752b-4137-86b4-80dc6b265ef7" CreationDate="2017-03-03T10:31:43.993" UserId="2891" Comment="added 1580 characters in body" Text="Commercial/ Factory designs have been replacing the power transmission of &quot;lubricated chains&quot; and &quot;gear mechanisms&quot; with high performance &quot;[Timing Belts][1]&quot; made of special polymer composited with steel fibre etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of our family was extensively involved in such redesigns/ solutions in all possible industries beyond automotive that you can think of (hydro electric, textile, machinery, airport, industrial/ manufacturing, arms manufacturing, food production &amp; so on). And as a student I remember watching this case study video that talked about how Harley Davidson that benefited a lot from adopting certain company's high performance belts. I could not find that video, but I'll try again to find it for you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There's industry of Billions replacing chains with such &quot;Power Transmission Belts&quot;**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: Such a mechanism/ drive train added to a **bicycle with Infinite Gears using CVT**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/03/how-a-bike-with-infinite-gears-changed-the-way-i-commute/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The Continuum gets its name from the **continuously variable transmission (CVT)** hub located on the rear wheel that gives the bike a spectrum of gears rather than a fixed number. This style of hub gave me a much smoother ride than a derailleur system, since the drivetrain components weren't brashly jumping between fixed gears on different sprockets but instead smoothly moving over the surface of rotating balls. &lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Gates, the maker of the belt drive, claims it lasts [about 10 times longer][2] than metal chains, and it's easy to imagine after a few months using it. The drivetrain has shown no signs of significant wear even after riding through rain and snow. It's rust-proof, never needs grease, and most importantly, provides a smoother ride because it's not rattling like a goddamn metal chain would.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Image: Gizmodo / Michael Nunez&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The belt drive alone has changed my life, and now that I've used one, I'm never ever going back to using a bike with a metal chain. I can't emphasise how much smoother the ride is and the immense benefit of getting rid of the chain derailleur.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/why-things-are-chopper-drivetrains  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;Source: Chains vs Belts - http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2008/05/08may08_chainsvbelt/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discussion on Google groups: &#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.autos.misc/79N2Sy8sf94%5B1-25%5D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_belt_(camshaft)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.gates.com/~/media/files/gates/industrial/power-transmission/flyers-and-brochures/gatescorporationbottlingfilledwithsolutionsforequipmentproductivitybrochure.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4CQjm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rlpnJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9bLW6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5324" RevisionGUID="716623a1-79b9-4539-a0f2-8b25dae2d9da" CreationDate="2017-03-03T10:47:16.880" UserId="2891" Comment="added 468 characters in body" Text="Commercial/ Factory designs have been replacing the power transmission of &quot;lubricated chains&quot; and &quot;gear mechanisms&quot; with high performance &quot;[Timing Belts][1]&quot; made of special polymer composited with steel fibre etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of our family was extensively involved in such redesigns/ solutions in all possible industries beyond automotive that you can think of (hydro electric, textile, machinery, airport, industrial/ manufacturing, arms manufacturing, food production &amp; so on). And as a student I remember watching this case study video that talked about how Harley Davidson that benefited a lot from adopting certain company's high performance belts. I could not find that video, but I'll try again to find it for you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There's industry of Billions replacing chains with such &quot;Power Transmission Belts&quot;**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: Such a mechanism/ drive train added to a **bicycle with Infinite Gears using CVT**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/07/how-priority-bicycles-made-a-maintenance-free-bike-for-under-400/&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For starters, the belt drive is a lube-free affair, so you never have to add grease, and rust shouldn't be a problem (also, no grease on your pants if you're commuting to work). Priority is using the [C-Drive system][2], which has gotten extremely popular in Europe but hasn't blown up stateside yet.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/03/how-a-bike-with-infinite-gears-changed-the-way-i-commute/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The Continuum gets its name from the **continuously variable transmission (CVT)** hub located on the rear wheel that gives the bike a spectrum of gears rather than a fixed number. This style of hub gave me a much smoother ride than a derailleur system, since the drivetrain components weren't brashly jumping between fixed gears on different sprockets but instead smoothly moving over the surface of rotating balls. &lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Gates, the maker of the belt drive, claims it lasts [about 10 times longer][3] than metal chains, and it's easy to imagine after a few months using it. The drivetrain has shown no signs of significant wear even after riding through rain and snow. It's rust-proof, never needs grease, and most importantly, provides a smoother ride because it's not rattling like a goddamn metal chain would.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Image: Gizmodo / Michael Nunez&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The belt drive alone has changed my life, and now that I've used one, I'm never ever going back to using a bike with a metal chain. I can't emphasise how much smoother the ride is and the immense benefit of getting rid of the chain derailleur.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/why-things-are-chopper-drivetrains  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;Source: Chains vs Belts - http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2008/05/08may08_chainsvbelt/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discussion on Google groups: &#xD;&#xA;https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.autos.misc/79N2Sy8sf94%5B1-25%5D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_belt_(camshaft)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cycledrive.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.gates.com/~/media/files/gates/industrial/power-transmission/flyers-and-brochures/gatescorporationbottlingfilledwithsolutionsforequipmentproductivitybrochure.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4CQjm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rlpnJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9bLW6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14236" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="98001173-e6e8-455d-9b3a-5d4e0bf1f52c" CreationDate="2017-03-03T17:08:20.853" UserId="4332" Text="I would like to add solar to my energy mix. For context, my grid supply is unstable. Currently I have a UPS which switches to Batteries when grid goes down. I have been researching products which can prioritize use of energy in this order: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Solar Panels&#xD;&#xA;2. Grid &#xD;&#xA;3. Batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Above priority means use solar first, if not sufficient add grid power. If grid is down, use augment solar with batteries. Same priority for charging batteries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is there a solution which satisfies above requirements ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note. Grid-tied setup is out of question. I want to be able to take power from the grid when solar output is low but do not want to give back to grid in case of excess power. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14237" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="98001173-e6e8-455d-9b3a-5d4e0bf1f52c" CreationDate="2017-03-03T17:08:20.853" UserId="4332" Text="Solar UPS with Priority of Power Sources" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14238" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="98001173-e6e8-455d-9b3a-5d4e0bf1f52c" CreationDate="2017-03-03T17:08:20.853" UserId="4332" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5890" RevisionGUID="f741340e-bb22-4af6-80c0-545e1ae4d6b6" CreationDate="2017-03-03T18:46:27.177" UserId="400" Text="More reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plastic makes it possible to see the bread.  Shelf appeal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper allows them to be bagged warm.  This gives a fresh bread smell around the shelf, and it feels warm in the customer's hand.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bag only:  People have took in the bag to see it.&#xD;&#xA;Plastic only:  Bread can't be bagged warm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A third option is to put naked loaves on display, and let people bag them themselves.  This has the downside that they go stale very quickly, and you don't know if the last person to touch that loaf washed his hands...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of our stores locally is going to an all plastic bag that has tiny slits everywhere.  This gives it enough breathability to bag warm, visibility for shelf appeal, and some resistance against dirty fingers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="663c5bc9-6b5a-4fc2-a802-c383db937e74" CreationDate="2017-03-03T18:54:23.777" UserId="400" Text="The answer is:  Unknown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So try it.  We need more data points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the mechanisms that would have a net benefit even if biochar doesn't work at all:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Process ag waste for energy.  Suppose you have a unit the size of a standard 53 foot seacan that you can load bales of straw/cornstocks, wood chips into, and then this is turned into a mix of energy, distillates and biochar.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Units like this can be dropped off at a farm.  Farmers can bale farm waste, and use it during the winter for heating barns.  Methanol (one of the main distilates) can be used either to run a generator, or it can be sold as a crop.  Char can be sold or returned to the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the unit, it can be easy to push the output mix one way or another.  Worst case, it's all turned into energy, well that's energy he didn't get from fossil fuel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14242" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="89bcbdbb-67a5-41ef-aeb7-fe366fcfe29c" CreationDate="2017-03-03T22:46:30.493" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/837796351169671172" />
  <row Id="14243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5892" RevisionGUID="0dc95f03-4612-42a7-b951-9b5f547bc125" CreationDate="2017-03-04T02:44:31.190" UserId="4334" Text="I am a student designing a hydro electric generator used on rivers to collect kinetic energy from horizontal water flow, rather than potential energy from vertical water drops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My idea is to turn a large wheel using the water flow, this is connected to a smaller wheel using a conveyor belt in order to increase RPM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is used solely to charge as many 17Ah 12V batteries as possible from the power generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A generator I have been looking at in particular is this :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ebay.com/itm/ESTA-Absaugtechnik-1-3kw-Single-Phase-Motor-B5-Flange-3400-RPM-110V-15-3A-/201450161121?hash=item2ee75d83e1:g:TjMAAOSwT5tWITJ7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are my calculations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water velocity = 2m/s , big wheel circumference = 75cm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives 2.66 RPS which is 160RPM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;to reach the 3400 RPM of the motor the small wheel must be (3400/160) = 21.25 times smaller&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this means the circumference of the small wheel is (75cm /21.25) = 3.59cm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this in turn means the diameter is 3.59/ Pi =1.12cm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a very small wheel to be turning such a large motor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am new to this so please if you answer then explain things clearly without leaving anything out &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this diameter too small to function correctly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions in regards to the design are very much appreciated however please be very clear." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5892" RevisionGUID="0dc95f03-4612-42a7-b951-9b5f547bc125" CreationDate="2017-03-04T02:44:31.190" UserId="4334" Text="Minimum diameter of small motor wheel in big wheel small wheel RPM increase" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5892" RevisionGUID="0dc95f03-4612-42a7-b951-9b5f547bc125" CreationDate="2017-03-04T02:44:31.190" UserId="4334" Text="|water|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5892" RevisionGUID="0af195ca-447e-49e5-8369-f06f1b40d28d" CreationDate="2017-03-04T16:00:00.973" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title, formatting" Text="I am a student designing a hydro electric generator used on rivers to collect kinetic energy from horizontal water flow, rather than potential energy from vertical water drops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My idea is to turn a large wheel using the water flow, this is connected to a smaller wheel using a belt in order to increase RPM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is used solely to charge as many 17Ah 12V batteries as possible from the power generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A generator I have been looking at in particular is this: [1.3kw single-phase motor, 3400 RPM, 110VAC, 15.3A](http://www.ebay.com/itm/ESTA-Absaugtechnik-1-3kw-Single-Phase-Motor-B5-Flange-3400-RPM-110V-15-3A-/201450161121?hash=item2ee75d83e1:g:TjMAAOSwT5tWITJ7).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are my calculations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Water velocity = 2m/s, big wheel circumference = 75cm&#xD;&#xA; - This gives 2.66 RPS which is 160RPM&#xD;&#xA; - to reach the 3400 RPM of the motor the small wheel must be (3400/160) = 21.25 times smaller&#xD;&#xA; - this means the circumference of the small wheel is (75cm /21.25) = 3.59cm&#xD;&#xA; - this in turn means the diameter is (3.59/pi) = 1.12cm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like this is a very small wheel to be turning such a large motor. Is this diameter too small to function correctly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14248" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5892" RevisionGUID="0af195ca-447e-49e5-8369-f06f1b40d28d" CreationDate="2017-03-04T16:00:00.973" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title, formatting" Text="Calculating wheel and motor size for run-of-river hydroelectric generator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14250" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5892" RevisionGUID="997a5b9a-77a8-4c4d-b77f-0074b07074d6" CreationDate="2017-03-05T07:49:48.143" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/838295464285962240" />
  <row Id="14251" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5888" RevisionGUID="28163b06-fff7-4552-8a4f-02f998c000f0" CreationDate="2017-03-05T07:51:13.373" UserId="15" Comment="Adjusted title to better match question body" Text="Water heater vs stovetop: most efficient way to heat water using natural gas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14252" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5889" RevisionGUID="d8c19a2d-08d9-4610-a44c-0d730d945528" CreationDate="2017-03-05T16:58:00.840" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/838433426206310405" />
  <row Id="14253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5894" RevisionGUID="bd0789ca-dd48-4b78-9fb2-7db9b590040b" CreationDate="2017-03-06T18:18:31.397" UserId="3379" Text="I was able to find several different news articles discussing this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Paper towels least green way of drying hands, study finds&quot;](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/11/paper-towels-drying-hands-energy) - *The Guardian*&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Electric Hand Dryers vs. Paper Towels&quot;](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/06/electric_hand_dryers_vs_paper_towels.html) - *Slate*&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;The Use and Abuse of Paper Towels&quot;](https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/the-use-and-abuse-of-paper-towels/) - *The New York Times*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most thorough treatment I found comes from an MIT study*, referenced by *The Guardian*: &quot;Life Cycle Assessment of Hand Drying Systems&quot; ([executive summary (pdf)](http://msl.mit.edu/publications/HandDryingLCA-ExecutiveSummary.pdf) and [full report (pdf)](http://www.citroenair.com/uploads/files/baa24b9515b36a243403206900be2a9c.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The study includes this graphic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the full report, the key drivers of environmental impact from paper towels are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Manufacturing.** The manufacture of paper towels makes up half the GHG emissions, and half the water consumption, for the total life-cycle. &#xD;&#xA; - **Materials production and transportation.** The sourcing, processing, and transport of wood and wood products which are used in the manufacture of paper towels also result in significant water use and GHG emissions.&#xD;&#xA; - **Waste disposal.** Because used paper towels are sent to landfills and not recycled, they result in additional GHG emissions, as the paper bio-degrades in landfills releasing CO2 to the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three of these areas are obviously on-going issues for paper towels, whereas an electric hand-dryer only needs to manufactured and transported once, and doesn't produce on-going waste material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;*The study was commissioned by Dyson, so I would be a bit skeptical (without spending more time reviewing the paper in depth) about the conclusions when comparing Dyson hand dryers to their competitors. However the authors do note that Dyson and Xlerator dryers have similar impact when the time constraints are relaxed, unlike Dyson's (expected) assertion that their product is *always* better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6e72O.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5895" RevisionGUID="612dafda-2a25-4367-9da0-4c0bd0ef8faf" CreationDate="2017-03-06T18:40:43.433" UserId="3379" Text="A blog post on Recycle Nation titled [&quot;How to Recycle Pens&quot;](http://recyclenation.com/2015/10/how-to-recycle-pens) offers many suggestions. Unfortunately, a free recycling program they had linked to (from [Terracycle](http://www.terracycle.com)) seems to have ended. Here are a few of the other suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Paper Mate offers a [free recycling program](http://papermate.com/pages/terracycle) that doubles as a charity fund-raiser. Only Paper Mate pens are accepted.&#xD;&#xA; - Send your used writing instruments to [The Pen Guy](http://penguyart.com/) who uses them in art projects (with the actual pens/pencils, not the ink!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, going forward, look for pens which are specifically recyclable or biodegradable: a Google search on each reveals there are dozens of options." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="c9bcc199-03d5-49b6-816c-6cff418a67a5" CreationDate="2017-03-07T04:47:24.423" UserId="3379" Text="I have spent about the last hour trying to find a comprehensive **list of the pollutants from each type of power plant** (though principally I am interested in an average for coal and natural gas, across combustion technologies), and **the quantity of each pollutant released per kWh** of energy produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EIA provides [this chart](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&amp;t=11) which includes emissions rates for CO2, but I couldn't find anything similar for other pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find this information?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="c9bcc199-03d5-49b6-816c-6cff418a67a5" CreationDate="2017-03-07T04:47:24.423" UserId="3379" Text="Types and quantities of pollutants by fuel, per kWh?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="c9bcc199-03d5-49b6-816c-6cff418a67a5" CreationDate="2017-03-07T04:47:24.423" UserId="3379" Text="|electricity-generation|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14258" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="055820a2-4911-4691-bf4e-4b0147c7f760" CreationDate="2017-03-07T05:43:55.390" UserId="3379" Comment="edited title" Text="Types and quantities of air pollutants by fuel, per kWh, for electricity generation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5897" RevisionGUID="ffee6980-ac1d-4c11-a22c-c13fbc0f22cb" CreationDate="2017-03-07T10:41:34.037" UserId="4347" Text="The control system will keep sending current through the heating coils, as the temperature will never reach the set value. With the door closed, the temperature will rise to its set level and the insulation will make sure that the coils only have to switch on intermittently to maintain a constant temperature.&#xD;&#xA;With the door open and air continuously circulating, the coils will be working the whole time that the oven is switched on. So theoretically yes - The overall life of your oven will decrease." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5895" RevisionGUID="d4d1399c-0173-4d61-9f77-a393f3ead2e4" CreationDate="2017-03-07T20:17:44.770" UserId="3379" Comment="Added more options" Text="### The pen you just used up&#xD;&#xA; - Paper Mate offers a [free recycling program](http://papermate.com/pages/terracycle) that doubles as a charity fund-raiser. Only Paper Mate pens are accepted.&#xD;&#xA; - Send your used writing instruments to [The Pen Guy](http://penguyart.com/) who uses them in art projects (with the actual pens/pencils, not the ink!). He is aiming to collect one million used pens.&#xD;&#xA; - In Canada, you can [drop off old writing instruments at Staples stores](https://www.terracycle.ca/en-CA/brigades/writing-instrument-retail-based-brigade).&#xD;&#xA; - Many colleges and universities (and even large businesses) run their own recycling collection programs, often collecting items (such as pens) which are not normally recycled by municipal recycling programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The next pen you buy&#xD;&#xA;Going forward, look for pens which are specifically recyclable or biodegradable: a Google search on each reveals there are dozens of options." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5895" RevisionGUID="6302abf0-9605-4411-923c-e5a78ba3d9cf" CreationDate="2017-03-07T20:33:45.257" UserId="3379" Comment="added info on TerraCycle" Text="### The pen you just used up&#xD;&#xA; - Paper Mate offers a [free recycling program](http://papermate.com/pages/terracycle) that doubles as a charity fund-raiser. Only Paper Mate pens are accepted.&#xD;&#xA; - Send your used writing instruments to [The Pen Guy](http://penguyart.com/) who uses them in art projects (with the actual pens/pencils, not the ink!). He is aiming to collect one million used pens.&#xD;&#xA; - In Canada, you can [drop off old writing instruments at Staples stores](https://www.terracycle.ca/en-CA/brigades/writing-instrument-retail-based-brigade).&#xD;&#xA; - Many colleges and universities (and even large businesses) run their own recycling collection programs, often collecting items (such as pens) which are not normally recycled by municipal recycling programs.&#xD;&#xA; - [TerraCycle](http://www.terracycle.com/), a US-based small business which specializes in recycling commonly used items which are generally not accepted at municipal recycling centers, will accept boxes of used writing instruments, [for a fee](http://www.terracycle.com/en-US/zero_waste_boxes/pens-pencils-and-markers). In the past they offered this service for free with sponsor funding (the so-called &quot;Writing Instrument Brigade&quot;), but there is currently no sponsor for the program. But, [contact them](http://www.terracycle.com/en-US/pages/work-with-us) if you're interested and/or know someone with deep green pockets!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The next pen you buy&#xD;&#xA;Going forward, look for pens which are specifically recyclable or biodegradable: a Google search on each reveals there are dozens of options." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14262" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="aca8e54c-380a-4144-84c7-a0a75bced5f4" CreationDate="2017-03-08T05:14:17.057" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/839343490253324288" />
  <row Id="14263" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5885" RevisionGUID="2dcb1297-ad44-4699-811d-da68c6b491f2" CreationDate="2017-03-08T08:14:16.650" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/839388787297959936" />
  <row Id="14264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="6e7725a1-cabe-49f3-bd86-85e7796fed29" CreationDate="2017-03-08T17:25:04.647" UserId="3379" Comment="clarified question based on comments" Text="An often repeated claim is that transitioning from coal to natural gas reduces air pollution... but what pollutants? and by how much? how is the potential reduction calculated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While natural gas (left) is roughly the same anywhere in the world, coal (right) is a very complicated compound (with chemical composition varying by type of coal, and location of deposit):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/uzoTG.png&quot; width=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/tyeFu.gif&quot; width=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, for each fuel source, there are different combustion technologies, and different pollution controls applied to the exhaust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, for natural gas, and each of the four main types of coal (lignite, anthracite, bituminous, sub-bituminous):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What types of pollutants are released in the combustion process?&#xD;&#xA; - How much does the combustion process affect level of pollution output?&#xD;&#xA; - **Before** pollution controls are applied, how much of each type of pollution is released per unit of energy output, on average?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14265" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5896" RevisionGUID="6e7725a1-cabe-49f3-bd86-85e7796fed29" CreationDate="2017-03-08T17:25:04.647" UserId="3379" Comment="clarified question based on comments" Text="|electricity-generation|pollution|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="3907d9ed-4855-4bed-a943-120f90917d89" CreationDate="2017-03-09T19:17:07.057" UserId="4353" Text="I'm working on constructing a totally self sufficient (i.e. **totally off grid**) building in the wild.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not want to restrict myself to any particular source of power (hydro, solar, wind etc), but I want to build up my knowledge of electrical power systems (and supporting electronic circuitry such as invertors/ voltage boosters etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal being that I will be able to create a composite power system that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Combines multiple power sources of different types (DC/AC) and different voltages and currents&#xD;&#xA; 2. Produces an A/C output of a required frequency, current and voltage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wherever possible, I would also like to be able to build the circuitry required (inverters, balance of system etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was a passionate electronics enthusiast in my youth - so I have some basic electronics experience (though most forgotten - the interest is still there), I am a software engineer by profession - so programming microcontrollers/EPROMS etc is something I can definitely do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question then is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the objectives listed above, what is the best course of study (links please) to help build the competence level required to do build my own power system as described above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** I am fully aware that power systems can be lethal if appropriate care is not taken - I can assure you that I will always verify from a professional, before I do anything - so don't worry!.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this question belong in engineering?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14269" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="3907d9ed-4855-4bed-a943-120f90917d89" CreationDate="2017-03-09T19:17:07.057" UserId="4353" Text="Off grid power station - complete newbie" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14270" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="3907d9ed-4855-4bed-a943-120f90917d89" CreationDate="2017-03-09T19:17:07.057" UserId="4353" Text="|electricity|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14271" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="6a476bba-04ee-48b4-9a04-7483a93c5799" CreationDate="2017-03-09T20:17:42.013" UserId="15" Comment="Updated title to match the question being asked" Text="Best course of study for learning to build electrical systems and supporting electronics for an off grid power station" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="0d77147f-51c8-44ea-b570-1e57a1f2d2c6" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:48.340" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://1.bp.blogspot.com/ with https://1.bp.blogspot.com/" Text="I don't know about turtles, but let me give you an idea from the world's number one fish eaters again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Japan, there are several uses for fish bones (with some meat left on them). The bones plus meat are ground into a paste called [surimi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surimi), which is then processed into [satsuma age](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satsuma_age), [chikuwa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chikuwa), or similar products (pictures below), which all have a rubber-like consistency. They can be eaten cold in salads (sliced), warm in soups or just for snacks and go well with mustard and/or soy sauce. Fresh they last for about a week in the fridge, but are usually stored in the freezer for several months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![satsuma-age](http://www.cybergarden.net/gourmet/images5/DSC45582.JPG)&#xD;&#xA;![chikuwa](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lv1nMvNcrYM/UMdd2GrTpyI/AAAAAAAAAks/XpPQNaVczeE/s1600/uocha_101209.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="14718caf-12fb-4c58-a27a-66a7bc6fd6fb" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:48.483" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://upload.wikimedia.org/ with https://upload.wikimedia.org/" Text="Many years ago I was taking some classes about traditional pottery where a lot of attention was given to contact with the earth and sustainability. I remember a few times they told us about traditional painting of those pots with oxides, as a natural method of painting. I never got to the point of really using it in class, but always kept on thinking about what it would be like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody have some experience? How does it work?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I imagine they must use minerals for it, but then I wonder how sustainable it is? Also it must depend on which mineral you would use and how much is needed for a little bit of paint?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edited:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking about the technique to make this (picture), other techniques might be interesting too, as long as they are natural materials and do not need a lot of material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find that iron oxides are used for red and yellow colours. Charcoal might be used for black and kaolinite for white. I imagine blue can be generated by copper oxides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1full]&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Jaguar_vase.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [1full]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jaguar_vase.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1056" RevisionGUID="d60db8fa-edf0-4368-84ef-8e056e98757f" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:48.500" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://images1.pricecheck.co.za/ with https://images1.pricecheck.co.za/" Text="When making paper from fibres, the fibres are chopped up into pulp, which naturally has a brownish grey colour. Cardboard boxes and packing paper are the natural colour for unbleached paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![unbleached toilet paper](https://images1.pricecheck.co.za/images/objects/hash/product/ee5/36a/5c2/image_big_10923508.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably white paper feels &quot;cleaner&quot;, so I think that it is simply a case that unbleached paper is more expensive, because it is harder to sell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As recycled paper is usually made from bleached paper, unbleached only means that no extra bleach is added, which is why recycled paper is usually lighter than unbleached paper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1094" RevisionGUID="6323d527-352f-487b-9b09-4a28d63a6df2" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:48.513" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/ with https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/" Text="## CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't have time to fully address this now, but here's an interesting [plot of results from Boston, USA][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![BU CO2 Plot][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from this graph, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels can vary quite a bit over *time* simply within **one city**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see a seasonal amplitude of +/- ~12 ppm that's due to plant photosynthesis speeding up (reducing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) in summer, and slowing down (allowing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to increase) in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, you can imagine that areas with different levels of sun or vegetation would then also experience different *average* CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels as well.  From the previous web page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The CO2 concentration level in Boston is almost always several ppm&#xD;&#xA;&gt; higher than the global average, because cities, with their buildings&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and vehicles burning natural gas, gasoline, and oil, are relatively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; large sources of CO2.  For example, in May 2011 the monthly average&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CO2 level at Mauna Loa was 394 ppm; at BU (Boston University), it was&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 405.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Here is a source with a collection of CO2 data from several different weather stations][2], including a couple in Hawaii.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If you want a visual plot, the US Nat'l Oceanic &amp; Atmospheric Association publishes an online tool that displays CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration in the **free troposphere** [here][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![NOAA CarbonTracker][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it's displaying CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; 1 to 5 km above the ground, it's going to smooth out the variations due to local forests, or power plants.   But, you certainly can see areas of high CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration over eastern Europe / Black Sea (downwind from central Europe) and also China / Korea / Japan (downwind from China's industrial hubs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##NOx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US Environmental Protection Agency has a [report on NOx here][5] (see page 6 for a US &quot;heat map&quot; of local NOx concentrations).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [University of Washington report][6] also contains a **global** NOx map, for both surface and 5km altitudes (page 10).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZIeNO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/CT2011_oi/co2wx/glb/co2wx_hammer-glb_20100104.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/co2weather.php&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/fnoxdoc.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://faculty.washington.edu/jaegle/558/ozone_NOx.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1119" RevisionGUID="e001bb3a-573c-480e-86e1-1f3b1d8d0183" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:48.530" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://nerdsyndicate.files.wordpress.com/ with https://nerdsyndicate.files.wordpress.com/" Text="I would be surprised if any pen would be more sustainable than a sustainably sourced pencil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of sustainability, I still think that &quot;green&quot; pens should come after refillable pens, pencils and fountain pens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also refillable cartridges for standard fountain pens, which usually come with plastic cartridges. For example, this middle one looks (and is) a plastic cartridge for a fountain pen, but the red end twists and is able to suck in ink from an inkwell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![cartridges](https://nerdsyndicate.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/222img_4210.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At one point I used such a model for many years, which should be more sustainable than any other type of pen (feathers aside, I guess). Now I use almost exclusively mechanical pencils (and chalk on a blackboard).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my verdict for your green pens:  &#xD;&#xA;&quot;Green&quot;? Maybe more so than others.&#xD;&#xA;Sustainable? Not really." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1224" RevisionGUID="6af051c5-d0d8-467b-9140-62f06e4587fb" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:48.540" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://upload.wikimedia.org/ with https://upload.wikimedia.org/" Text="I guess it depends on what you mean by &quot;better&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The traditional way needs a pipe, the [penstock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penstock), feeding as much clean water as possible from as high as possible directly onto a [pelton turbine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelton_wheel), which is connected to a generator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The drawbacks are that the water must be as clean as possible and you should use all water for maximum efficiency. You also have to source a decent pelton turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the ecosystem of your stream/river, this setup usually prevents fish traveling past your power plant. It seems to be general permaculture knowledge that the nutrients, which get washed out into the sea, travel back up in the form of small snails, crayfish and the like, which, it is believed, play an important part in keeping a land healthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fairly new (about 10 years) system is known under the cumbersome name &quot;[gravitation water vortex power plant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_water_vortex_power_plant)&quot;, where water is fed into a pool tangential to the edge of the pool. The water forms a vortex, as in your bathtub, and blades are inserted into the vortex to slow down the rotation. The blades are connected to a generator and give you the electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![vortex power plant](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Wasserwirbelkraftwerk.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The picture explains everything, but you can also [watch it in action](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAuX8I2zgmA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the water is fastest at the edges and slowest near the centre, fish and other freshwater creatures can travel past your power plant. (Also, not really applicable when you already have a waterfall, you don't need a large &quot;head&quot;, i.e. a large difference in height.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a very rough estimate, a small stream (maybe 2-3 meters wide) can provide electricity for several households." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1308" RevisionGUID="d6de1d3f-28d2-4bdd-9bc4-23ab2f11546f" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:48.553" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/ with https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/" Text="### General principles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important thing here is to realise *what* these heaters heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Radiative heaters radiate infra-red light which strikes objects and heats them directly, heating the intervening air less.&#xD;&#xA;* Fan heaters primarily heat the air in the room by [forced convection][1].&#xD;&#xA;* Oil filled radiators, work like ordinary central heating radiators, primarily heating the air in the room by [natural convection][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are heating a space with ventilation but no heat recovery (you open a door or window regularly, or have a draught) then a fan heater or radiator would be less useful than a radiative heater. Much of the heat you generate will escape with the air which escapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in a space where there is little likelihood of hot air escaping, but where the walls are thin and poorly insulated, then a fan heater might be better. While some of the heat from the radiative heater will strike you and heat you directly, the energy which hits the walls will be divided between radiating back into the room and escaping through the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a well insulated room with little escape of air, there would be negligible differences between the different methods other than perceptual ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Safety&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is usually recommended that radiative and fan heaters are not left running when unattended. Even when an oil filled radiator is rated for unattended operation, care should be taken, as with any heating device, that nothing flammable is left close to or in contact with the heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Care should also be taken with these heaters when used in a room where people are sleeping. If there is **any** chance that they could be knocked over, or bedding/clothes could fall on them and pose fire risk, do not use the heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, in kitchens and bathrooms, only use appliances rated for use in those rooms. Moisture in the air could cause a heater not rated for those environments to fail, posing an additional fire risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Personal experience&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From personal experience, I always *feel* warmer in front of a radiative heater, and they certainly produce less noise pollution than fan heaters, so are more pleasant to be around. Both are more controllable than oil filled radiators, so you get heat out of them sooner after you need it and waste little heat when you no longer need it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find infra-red heaters particularly useful in bathrooms. Heaters like the following are (or were) common in UK bathrooms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Dimplex IRX120N - 1200 Watt Infra Red Wall Heater - Image used without permission, but with attribution][3]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to use a heater like this is on demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't normally heat my bathroom, but I turn on my bathroom IR wall heater before I get in the shower so it is up to full heat by the time I get out of the shower. The infra-red heat keeps me nice and warm in those those crucial moments between stopping the hot water flow and towelling off the rapidly cooling water. I then turn off the heater as I leave the bathroom, having wasted little electricity unnecessarily heating it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have never understood why people replace IR wall heaters in bathrooms with fan heaters. I find that they can never warm up the air in the bathroom enough during the time you are showering that you don't feel cold during the towelling. I know that IR heaters are seen as *old technology*, but they work very well, are as 'efficient' as every other electric heater and are far more reliable than fan heaters. I have never had a fan heater last for more than a decade, but the IR heater in my bathroom has been working for over four.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Forced_convection&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convection#Natural_convection&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Images/Products/size_3/DXIRX120N.JPG&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.tlc-direct.co.uk/Products/DXIRX120N.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14279" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3049" RevisionGUID="ad13f82a-0a20-4d8b-88fe-2062afe1cc1d" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:48.573" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://upload.wikimedia.org/ with https://upload.wikimedia.org/" Text="I don't know about the specifics for the recycling bins in the question, but in Sweden, the openings have been shrunk twice, due to accidents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first time in 1997, two children climbed into a paper recycling bin and were lost as a car came to pick the bin up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite that a similar accident has occurred more recently, and the openings are now even smaller, or on older bins, they have had bars welded across the openings to make climbing into the impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does make it significantly harder to get large quantities of material into the bins, but I think the benefits make it worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Wikipedia image of bins for paper](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/%C3%85tervinningsplats.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4830" RevisionGUID="0f664943-4b59-40fe-984f-819d0211cea6" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:48.590" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://www.eia.gov/ with https://www.eia.gov/" Text="**Source 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [2014 research report from a company called Life Cycle Associates](http://www.ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Carbon-Intensity-of-Marginal-Petroleum-and-Corn-Ethanol-Fuels1.pdf) contains a nice table and graph showing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the volume weighted carbon intensities (g CO2 e/MJ) of U.S. petroleum&#xD;&#xA;gasoline and corn ethanol over time based on the historical crude oil and ethanol plant resource mixes and future projections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carbon intensity of US petroleum gasoline and corn ethanol][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Advancements in corn ethanol in relation to petroleum gasoline GHG emissions][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From: *Boland. S. and Unnasch. S. (2014) Carbon Intensity of Marginal&#xD;&#xA;Petroleum and Corn Ethanol Fuels. Life Cycle Associates Report LCA.6075.83.2014, Prepared for Renewable Fuels Association.* ([link to PDF](http://www.ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Carbon-Intensity-of-Marginal-Petroleum-and-Corn-Ethanol-Fuels1.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The researchers also say that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The CI for corn ethanol reflects the most recent estimates of land use conversion from the University of Illinois and Argonne National Laboratory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is no reference to these estimates, so I'm not sure from which year they are. Based on the table I suspect the most recent used data is from 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Source 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also found one other source, which is [this webpage of the U.S. Energy Information Administration](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=750), published in March 2011. Their data is based on [this document of the California Air Resources Board](http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/121409lcfs_lutables.pdf) and on [research done by Purdue University and Argonne National Laboratory](http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/MC/625.PDF)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carbon intensity of US petroleum gasoline and corn ethanol][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Graph from: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=750*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QqAKt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SDDNC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2011.03.31/ethanol_p2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5250" RevisionGUID="7102716e-9b8d-40be-aec8-424837cd5dec" CreationDate="2017-03-10T09:42:48.603" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://blog-imgs-50.fc2.com/ with https://blog-imgs-50.fc2.com/" Text="There is cookware that uses insulation for cooking, not quite in the way you envision, but close enough. I'm referring to a cooker Thermos Shuttle Chef, popular in Japan (as シャトルシェフ). It's an ordinary pot, but comes with a well-insulated case. You cook rice, for example, for 8 mins. (on an ordinary stove—no insulation, yet) and put the whole pot into the case. The rest of the cooking (15 mins.) is done in the case, without any extra energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![シャトルシェフ](https://blog-imgs-50.fc2.com/k/e/t/ketunoblog/20130426083514c67.gif)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See a short promo-like video [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETh2xfwqMpE). For more pictures of various recipes, take a look [on cookpad.com](http://cookpad.com/search/%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A3%E3%83%88%E3%83%AB%E3%82%B7%E3%82%A7%E3%83%95).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've used it for rice and have to say it works quite well and reduces the needed energy by more than 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cooking during summertime, you can also look up solar cookers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5899" RevisionGUID="0982baff-023e-4f5f-becc-d180fe1a0cb2" CreationDate="2017-03-10T14:58:41.397" UserId="4356" Text="I just watched a YouTube video with Tradd Cotter after buying his book Organic Mushroom Farming and Mycoremediation. He shows specifically how to grow mycelium from Shiitke mushroom stems. Cut the stems in pieces (not too tiny but don't know if that mattered).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Take a piece of cardboard, like 6&quot; across and 12&quot; long. Peel cardboard apart in two layers and soak it in water that has been boiled then cooled to remove contaminants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place the pieces of mushroom stems on the lower half of the soaked cardboard, place the other piece bumpy side down on top then and roll it up like a burrito.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place that in a plastic ziplock bag and put it in the fridge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open the bag a few times a day for gas exchange, or poke a small hole in the bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a couple of weeks, check the cardboard for the white mycelium starting to grow. Once you see it, take the bag out and bring to room temperature. You are then ready to transfer it to your growing medium. You can use sterilized sawdust but may need to mix with another medium...more info with better detail can be found in his book or on his website. A YouTube search will give you plenty of videos if you search Tradd Cotter. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Check out his website at http://mushroommountain.com &#xD;&#xA;He is a patient teacher and I'm learning so much!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best of luck with cloning!&#xD;&#xA;Sherri " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5899" RevisionGUID="7dd8821b-7527-4079-b0da-e073baa6959b" CreationDate="2017-03-12T08:41:51.783" UserId="99" Comment="Removed link to commercial website" Text="I just watched a YouTube video with Tradd Cotter after buying his book Organic Mushroom Farming and Mycoremediation. He shows specifically how to grow mycelium from Shiitke mushroom stems. Cut the stems in pieces (not too tiny but don't know if that mattered).&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Take a piece of cardboard, like 6&quot; across and 12&quot; long. Peel cardboard apart in two layers and soak it in water that has been boiled then cooled to remove contaminants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place the pieces of mushroom stems on the lower half of the soaked cardboard, place the other piece bumpy side down on top then and roll it up like a burrito.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place that in a plastic ziplock bag and put it in the fridge. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open the bag a few times a day for gas exchange, or poke a small hole in the bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a couple of weeks, check the cardboard for the white mycelium starting to grow. Once you see it, take the bag out and bring to room temperature. You are then ready to transfer it to your growing medium. You can use sterilized sawdust but may need to mix with another medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A YouTube search will give you plenty of videos if you search Tradd Cotter. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="21de9c54-e92e-4f2b-b572-9159c5ccbbed" CreationDate="2017-03-12T13:48:39.463" UserId="3501" Text="Cow-milk cheese have a high carbon footprint because rasing cows have several negative effects on climate changing factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* lots of cows a raised not only with simple grass - this would have not-so-bad effect, aside from the deforested land needed - they need extra proteins from soya: this causes major deforesting in Brazil for example&#xD;&#xA;* cow digestion produces considerable amount of methane that has huge greenhouse effect &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand good cheese should not be eaten in large quantities: always eat your cheese on a piece of bread!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And consider eating goat cheese: raising goats is known to have [smaller greenhouse effect](http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/986252/lamb_beef_and_cheese_have_largest_food_footprint.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14289" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5902" RevisionGUID="be85d6a2-5950-439c-9ecd-d989db6f38d4" CreationDate="2017-03-12T16:07:55.837" UserId="3664" Text="I know this will probably get closed, but it seems that I can't find anything that will guide me in the right direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We live in a South American country, so we have tons on sun. We also have a terrace, so we have tons of wind. Lately, I've been interested in renewable energy solutions for our apartment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's a good starting point For people with no knowledge of the subject? I'm not looking for technical background; I just want to understand how I can implement renewable energy solutions without having a PhD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Everytime I begin searching for information, I find tons of technical mumbo jumbo that I don't understand. It's just discouraging since I have no idea what any of it means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My goal would be to go to any online store and try to create something usable with off-the-shelf items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14290" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5902" RevisionGUID="be85d6a2-5950-439c-9ecd-d989db6f38d4" CreationDate="2017-03-12T16:07:55.837" UserId="3664" Text="Apply solar energy solutions at our apartment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14291" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5902" RevisionGUID="be85d6a2-5950-439c-9ecd-d989db6f38d4" CreationDate="2017-03-12T16:07:55.837" UserId="3664" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5903" RevisionGUID="b0ca1fa3-52a0-4c9f-8297-eb04626c3d05" CreationDate="2017-03-12T18:04:27.330" UserId="3379" Text="An answer to a question about [the carbon footprint of cheese](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5901/3379) inspired this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cheeses_by_animal%27s_milk), cheese can be made from the milk of several animals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - cows&#xD;&#xA; - goats&#xD;&#xA; - sheep&#xD;&#xA; - buffalo&#xD;&#xA; - reindeer&#xD;&#xA; - yak&#xD;&#xA; - donkey&#xD;&#xA; - moose&#xD;&#xA; - camel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another key ingredient in cheese making is **[rennet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennet)**, which can be made from animal, vegetable, and/or microbial sources. For this question I am not concerned with the environmental impact of rennet, assuming that its carbon footprint can be calculated separately from that of the rest of the cheese production process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, which type of cheese has the lowest carbon footprint? Is it simply a factor of which type of livestock has the lowest carbon footprint, or are other factors involved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5903" RevisionGUID="b0ca1fa3-52a0-4c9f-8297-eb04626c3d05" CreationDate="2017-03-12T18:04:27.330" UserId="3379" Text="What type of cheese has the lowest carbon footprint?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5903" RevisionGUID="b0ca1fa3-52a0-4c9f-8297-eb04626c3d05" CreationDate="2017-03-12T18:04:27.330" UserId="3379" Text="|food|carbon-footprint|farming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5904" RevisionGUID="3d20a5b6-f149-4bb2-abbd-8e88b05bbf1a" CreationDate="2017-03-12T19:21:00.740" UserId="3501" Text="If burning the whole plant means it comes raw and undried, the it clearly is not worth the point to do it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in a very sunny part of the world, then yes your plant easily comes in dried, so it should be worth thinking of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then it also comes to the waste wou get. Burning the plant totaly would probably yield to ashes only, whereas oil production byproduct would be more easily turned into useful composting medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say burn the oil and do something else with the byproduct of its extraction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5905" RevisionGUID="713e8d4a-79ce-4f5f-a504-dec4813e5103" CreationDate="2017-03-12T19:46:16.963" UserId="3501" Text="The foxes are probably here to feed on delicious little larvae lurking in your garden beds. Some cockroaches larvae are big delicius and juicy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you should do if this is the case, is to pick them before the beasts does. u&#xD;&#xA;Use your hands or  a rake and gently remove the earth to undig the larvaes. Pick them and dispose them on a plate (above ground, e.g. on a table) for the birds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5701" RevisionGUID="70120501-594a-4947-9956-abbf119b77d3" CreationDate="2017-03-12T19:47:14.450" UserId="3501" Comment="various typos" Text="Burning more of the plant makes better use of the plant, but requires a much larger setup to be efficient.  I suspect that at the scale of us mere mortals, your best bet is to extract and burn the oil, and  burn the rest of the plant for heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problem is you will likely get enough waste heat from the power plant to provide most of the rest of your heating needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diesel plants do not like to idle.  They get cold and you have problems with carbon build up.  You want to have thermally controlled shutters to keep the engine warm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would make more sense to have several generators of varying capacity along with a smart controller.  E.g. You have a 25 KW a 10 KW and a 4 KW.  This will mean that at any given time it will be unusual for any unit to be running at much below half of its rated output.  Ideally for this scenario, you have a high current battery/inverter system that can handle brief spike loads so you don't cycle the 10 KW unit for 1 minute because the well pump and the dishwasher came on at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better unit than the battery pack would be something like the Velkess flywheel.  Alas, it's on hold due to low oil prices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, unless you are bound and determined to be off grid, selling your oil and buying natural gas may be a lower total footprint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14301" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5701" RevisionGUID="70120501-594a-4947-9956-abbf119b77d3" CreationDate="2017-03-12T19:47:14.450" Comment="Proposed by 3501 approved by 3379, 400 edit id of 460" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14303" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="5f26d39e-d6be-42ff-8292-2e86bb3c90ac" CreationDate="2017-03-13T02:34:58.247" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/841115336896368640" />
  <row Id="14305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="9911d2a4-c21e-41b9-b433-c57c4e9d5a57" CreationDate="2017-03-13T08:07:54.607" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14306" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="9911d2a4-c21e-41b9-b433-c57c4e9d5a57" CreationDate="2017-03-13T08:07:54.607" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5907" RevisionGUID="d836d62a-dd69-49dc-87b1-91620a04a242" CreationDate="2017-03-13T08:07:54.607" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5907" RevisionGUID="d836d62a-dd69-49dc-87b1-91620a04a242" CreationDate="2017-03-13T08:07:54.607" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14309" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5875" RevisionGUID="2268bf82-165d-4315-9399-1dd59447d488" CreationDate="2017-03-13T08:38:09.743" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/841206737562656768" />
  <row Id="14310" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5599" RevisionGUID="abcdf265-e55b-4d63-aa8c-ed940711cd0b" CreationDate="2017-03-13T12:42:15.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="14311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="29676ed8-6e85-4cc9-9c99-2e522c5cfc97" CreationDate="2017-03-13T14:46:25.360" UserId="4361" Text="I recently saw a video (almost certain it was on youtube) about a university department where they had installed some measures to improve their waste management. One of the measures was to no longer put trash cans in each individual office, but rather have bins in a central point in the building (like the hallway). Now I wanted to introduce this idea in my own department, but I cannot for the life of me retrieve the video. They gave good reasons why to do this, like getting up and moving to take out trash. I remember vaguely that it was a technical department where they also needed to recycle styrofoam and such. I'm almost certain it was an English speaking university, and different people were interviewed (researchers, professors, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any idea what I am talking about?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14312" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="29676ed8-6e85-4cc9-9c99-2e522c5cfc97" CreationDate="2017-03-13T14:46:25.360" UserId="4361" Text="In search for a video on removing trash cans from the office" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14313" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="29676ed8-6e85-4cc9-9c99-2e522c5cfc97" CreationDate="2017-03-13T14:46:25.360" UserId="4361" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14315" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5903" RevisionGUID="ca17e2ad-e674-4fa6-98e6-aced728dba70" CreationDate="2017-03-13T17:39:44.630" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/841343030439354372" />
  <row Id="14317" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5902" RevisionGUID="d26d6359-b24c-4726-81b6-c07d367ee573" CreationDate="2017-03-13T20:39:44.760" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/841388329211957249" />
  <row Id="14319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5910" RevisionGUID="5dab7ed0-7ba0-4a6a-a53f-f4b768c7633d" CreationDate="2017-03-13T21:59:53.917" UserId="4358" Text="I'm not an expert on the topic but I have been doing similar research for the past several months as I'm planning to build an off-grid home and, obviously, renewable energy is critical for me. As LShaver has suggested, wind turbines are probably not the best option for an urban environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You (probably) won't have strong and constant wind to generate enough electricity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Wind turbines that create considerable electricity require very strong structure to keep them steady on the ground and that could be problematic in the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for solar panels, it is much more achievable but you need to do the math whether it is worth it and also consider your local regulations. I think you will find these two helpful in your research:&#xD;&#xA;https://energy.gov/energysaver/planning-home-solar-electric-system &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.instructables.com/id/Solar-Power-System/?ALLSTEPS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are tons of DIY articles and videos on the Internet. I suggest you try Instructables and youtube first to see something visual and get a better understanding of what you are getting into. Afterward, make a plan for your system. For me, there are 3 types of plans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- based on budget&#xD;&#xA;   * if you are working on a budget, the most important part you need to check are battery and converter prices. The solar panels are not that expensive (considering the rest of the stuff you will need for sunshineless hours)&#xD;&#xA;- based on space&#xD;&#xA;   * calculate how much space you have to build your solar system on and make sure it make sense. (positioning of solar panels is key) When you have done the math and have decided, keep in mind that smaller and more panels work more efficiently but cost more because of the cabling required to connect them together.&#xD;&#xA;- based on desired electrical output&#xD;&#xA;   * if you have unlimited budget and space to build on, calculate how much do you need and when. You need to understand how many electricity consuming appliances you expect to power from the solar system, how many of them at the same time, how many at all times, etc. You will find that your electrical bill contains a lot of useful information on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, keep asking the right questions (in google, here or other forums) and you will eventually find the best solution for you. I wish you the best of luck! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have more questions, I would be happy to try and answer them (to the best of my knowledge). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5911" RevisionGUID="a8521afa-42bf-4e8d-8559-3335805e84c5" CreationDate="2017-03-13T22:08:36.740" UserId="4358" Text="it is very likely you have already checked this but if you have not: http://www.earthship.org, they have some designs combining wind and solar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your terrain has a good water current you can also apply a water mill generator (depending on climate could be your most reliable energy source). You can put converters in your circuit but it is best to first plan your consumption (with some proper forecast if you see yourself expanding your electrical consumption) and then design the best system to fit your needs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am also planning to build a completely off-grid home and would be very keen to share plans with you if you are interested. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5912" RevisionGUID="cf9d0525-d6ef-45c8-952e-464e9c6944fd" CreationDate="2017-03-13T22:33:12.577" UserId="4358" Text="Maybe this is what you are looking for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FkFGr8_GW0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many possible ways to reduce waste. The main waste generator is packaging. If possible, focus on reducing packaging and promote up-cycling and recycling. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14322" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="767bdf3a-4671-4619-9a12-56af5dea0640" CreationDate="2017-03-14T09:49:02.903" UserId="99" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:400,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sherwood Botsford&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14323" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5865" RevisionGUID="d91a71f5-127d-4084-9a8e-39c3b02ec423" CreationDate="2017-03-14T09:51:46.970" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:400,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sherwood Botsford&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5910" RevisionGUID="c305aac9-c62d-4cb6-8072-2d190dcb4f04" CreationDate="2017-03-15T02:49:15.480" UserId="3379" Comment="Added titles to links to remove the mystery" Text="I'm not an expert on the topic but I have been doing similar research for the past several months as I'm planning to build an off-grid home and, obviously, renewable energy is critical for me. As LShaver has suggested, wind turbines are probably not the best option for an urban environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You (probably) won't have strong and constant wind to generate enough electricity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Wind turbines that create considerable electricity require very strong structure to keep them steady on the ground and that could be problematic in the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for solar panels, it is much more achievable but you need to do the math whether it is worth it and also consider your local regulations. I think you will find these two helpful in your research:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - U.S. Department of Energy: [Planning a home solar electric system](https://energy.gov/energysaver/planning-home-solar-electric-system)&#xD;&#xA; - Instructables: [Solar power system](https://www.instructables.com/id/Solar-Power-System/?ALLSTEPS)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are tons of DIY articles and videos on the Internet. I suggest you try Instructables and youtube first to see something visual and get a better understanding of what you are getting into. Afterward, make a plan for your system. For me, there are 3 types of plans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- based on budget&#xD;&#xA;   * if you are working on a budget, the most important part you need to check are battery and converter prices. The solar panels are not that expensive (considering the rest of the stuff you will need for sunshineless hours)&#xD;&#xA;- based on space&#xD;&#xA;   * calculate how much space you have to build your solar system on and make sure it make sense. (positioning of solar panels is key) When you have done the math and have decided, keep in mind that smaller and more panels work more efficiently but cost more because of the cabling required to connect them together.&#xD;&#xA;- based on desired electrical output&#xD;&#xA;   * if you have unlimited budget and space to build on, calculate how much do you need and when. You need to understand how many electricity consuming appliances you expect to power from the solar system, how many of them at the same time, how many at all times, etc. You will find that your electrical bill contains a lot of useful information on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, keep asking the right questions (in google, here or other forums) and you will eventually find the best solution for you. I wish you the best of luck! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have more questions, I would be happy to try and answer them (to the best of my knowledge). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5913" RevisionGUID="d0eea913-c11b-4acc-a751-c92e8e4f3e48" CreationDate="2017-03-15T21:06:47.893" UserId="3686" Text="The maximum rated power is not the only thing to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also look at how your panels are going to perform in low light conditions.&#xD;&#xA;Cloudy days, early mornings and late afternoons etc. You need to understand if the more expensive panels are going to start producing earlier each morning and until later each evening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have some older 250W panels; now you can get up to 295W in the same panel size with the same number of cells. My understanding is that not only will you get a higher peak output per sqr meter, but you'll get better performance in less than ideal conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PERC panels are a newer advance which I believe is worth investigating. I don't have any so I can comment from experience.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="d94ae3c8-ea51-467d-8a51-03a1ce6a3a7e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T08:06:38.317" UserId="2187" Comment="added 261 characters in body" Text="To learn more about Degrowth, please visit the following links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [https://degrowth.org/](https://degrowth.org/)&#xD;&#xA;- [https://www.degrowth.de/en/](https://www.degrowth.de/en/)&#xD;&#xA;- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14327" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="d94ae3c8-ea51-467d-8a51-03a1ce6a3a7e" CreationDate="2017-03-16T08:06:38.317" Comment="Proposed by 2187 approved by 3379, -1 edit id of 461" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="5be82449-4262-4475-84fe-8bb070063f16" CreationDate="2017-03-16T08:06:38.317" UserId="99" Comment="added short explanation, added link to article that explains degrowth more indepth" Text="Degrowth is a social and political movement that promotes a steady-state or shrinking economy as an answer to social and environmental problems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To learn more about degrowth, please visit the following links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Wikipedia article on degrowth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth)&#xD;&#xA;- [Research &amp; Degrowth website](https://degrowth.org)&#xD;&#xA;- [Article &quot;*What is Degrowth? From an activist slogan to a social movement*&quot;](http://www.jnu.ac.in/SSS/CSSP/What%20is%20degrowth.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5913" RevisionGUID="676375cf-a68e-4f55-a7e2-b24d149a1a2b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T08:07:00.593" UserId="3293" Comment="Added Missing negative" Text="The maximum rated power is not the only thing to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also look at how your panels are going to perform in low light conditions.&#xD;&#xA;Cloudy days, early mornings and late afternoons etc. You need to understand if the more expensive panels are going to start producing earlier each morning and until later each evening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have some older 250W panels; now you can get up to 295W in the same panel size with the same number of cells. My understanding is that not only will you get a higher peak output per square meter, but you'll get better performance in less than ideal conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PERC panels are a newer advance which I believe is worth investigating. I don't have any so I cannot comment from experience.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14330" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5913" RevisionGUID="676375cf-a68e-4f55-a7e2-b24d149a1a2b" CreationDate="2017-03-16T08:07:00.593" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 99 edit id of 463" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5907" RevisionGUID="ca07b7f3-833b-4cea-9537-0318279f8f56" CreationDate="2017-03-16T08:08:25.227" UserId="99" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="social and political movement that promotes a steady-state or shrinking economy as an answer to social and environmental problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14332" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="532" RevisionGUID="4bc74467-4103-4dd9-a44d-ec347bc32cd3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:51:40.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="The question starts with a premise that sustainability is relative. Natural gas is natural resource just like petroleum. They arise from similar processes and are generally found together although the ratios vary. Natural gas (particularly methane) is also produced by living organisms. As a natural resource, 'pure' sustainability would require you to consume at a rate less than it's produced by nature. Since petroleum and natural gas for the most part produced on geologic timescale, they would not generally be considered sustainable. However if you take the premise that sustainable is 'relative' than you could compare and contrast different non-renewable resources for their relative sustainability. For example, it appears new cheaper supplies of natural gas in the United States have led to reduced use of coal for producing electricity ([ref][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas is considered cleaner burning than coal so that is generally seen as better for the environment. The [WSJ article above][2] quotes the Sierra Club president with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here’s our position on gas: it burns more cleanly than coal or oil,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; but it is not clean. When coal plants are retired (or new ones are not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; built), we believe that the right “loading order” for new energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sources would be: energy conservation and efficiency, solar and wind&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (preferring distributed over large-scale), geothermal and perhaps some&#xD;&#xA;&gt; wave energy, then natural gas to fill in the rest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether 'better for environment' is a sustainability topic is probably a separate question for the [meta][3] site. Independent of the environmental issue, natural gas vs gasoline vs coal vs renewable resources is a relative. My guess is that it would be a similar list to the Sierra Club list above. However, to do it correctly, you really would need to get to specific sources. One measure might be the energy needed to create a unit of energy. This [reference][4] compares petroleum from sand oil vs others and takes into account mining, extraction, transportation, and refining. I could not find a source but my guess would be that on average it would be less for natural gas than petroleum. However, just like in petroleum, it might be dependent on the source of the natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703579804575441683910246338.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703579804575441683910246338.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.meta.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;ved=0CC8QFjAA&amp;url=http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/29589/52906785.pdf?sequence=1&amp;ei=ThQmUe2IDsmn0gHOroDADQ&amp;usg=AFQjCNFGuhPZgsoYdsOtiTquY2lk85h23Q&amp;bvm=bv.42661473,d.dmQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1106" RevisionGUID="01d194aa-80dd-4499-b34f-359a54e2f0d3" CreationDate="2017-03-16T15:51:40.727" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://meta.sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.meta.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was googling using the terms 'certification full life cycle food' because this question appears in the [site self-evaluation](https://sustainability.meta.stackexchange.com/q/156/99) and I one of the first hits I found is the [**Environmentally Preferable &#xD;&#xA;Product (EPP) certification**](http://farm-check.com/media/doc/environmentally-preferable-product-certification.pdf). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've never heard of it and am not sure if it is indeed used for food product and how common it is, but they claim to do the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; examines the entire lifecycle of a product and identifies key areas of improvement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another one I found using google is [**The Green Seal Standard for Restaurants and Food Services, GS-46**](http://www.greenseal.org/GreenBusiness/Standards.aspx?vid=ViewStandardDetail&amp;cid=0&amp;sid=27)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The standard is based on life cycle research and focuses on leadership environmental improvement in the key impact areas — food, waste, and energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I've never heard of it myself and don't know anything about it's popularity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14334" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5843" RevisionGUID="2be4623a-4fa7-4a51-96e6-323a17f5bcb1" CreationDate="2017-03-17T00:00:55.813" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/842526122772484101" />
  <row Id="14335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="dc10c4ae-7d9c-457c-9c08-b59cf98eaf45" CreationDate="2017-03-17T15:52:33.180" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed broken image links" Text="[An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal](https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-california-paper-or-plastic-is-against-the-law-1485560488) argues that many re-usable grocery bags are made using more oil than old-fashioned &quot;single-use&quot; plastic grocery bags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/FNLWJ.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot; alt=&quot;Standard plastic grocery bag&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes sense, as quite a bit more material is required to make a sufficiently sturdy bag, and many of the lower-quality bags are made of plastic, nylon, or polyester.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/kQzHo.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot; alt=&quot;Cheap reusable bag&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously bags made of canvas, burlap, or something similar are best, but if I'm at the check-out line, don't have a reusable bag, and opt to buy a cheap one from the store, how many times will I have to use it before it's better than just using the single use bags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/JNY6w.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot; alt=&quot;Higher quality burlap bag&quot;&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="b1b5f41d-4161-494a-960e-0f10fbfae13e" CreationDate="2017-03-17T20:33:14.333" UserId="3379" Text="**TL;DR:** Both methods are about the same, because most of the energy is needed to overcome the [enthalpy of vaporization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Basic formula&#xD;&#xA;From [an answer on Chemistry.SE](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/27312/37235), this is the formula for energy needed to boil a liquid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q = (mass)*(specific heat)*(change in temperature) + (mass)*(enthalpy of vaporization)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For water:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * specific heat = 1 kcal/(kg degC)&#xD;&#xA; * enthalpy of vaporization = 540 kcal/kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Total energy needed&#xD;&#xA;Applying the formula:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q_heating = (5kg)*(1 kcal/kg/degC)*(100degC - 8degC) = 460kcal&#xD;&#xA; Q_boiling = (5kg)*(540kcal/kg) = 2700kcal&#xD;&#xA; Q_total = 460kcal + 2700kcal = 3160kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Energy to preheat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this result it's obvious that regardless of starting temperature, most of the energy is needed to overcome the enthalpy of vaporization, which can only be done by the stove. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But all the same, let's assume I have perfectly insulated plumbing and see if the water heater can help a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q_preheat = (5kg)*(1 kcal/kg/degC)*(49degC - 8degC) = 205kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the remaining energy the stovetop must add is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q_remaining = 3160 - 205 = 2955kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Stovetop vs water heater efficiency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gas stove-top is about **44% efficient** ([source](http://blog.us.schott.com/boiling-point-putting-induction-electric-and-gas-to-the-test/)), and a modern natural gas water heater with a tank is at best **67% efficient** ([source (pdf)](https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/new_specs/downloads/water_heaters/WaterHeaterAnalysis_Final.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Final comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using only the stovetop:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q_stovetop = 3160kcal / 44% = 7182kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preheating with the water heater:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q_preheat = 205kcal / 67% = 306kcal&#xD;&#xA; Q_remaining = 2955kcal / 44% = 6716kcal&#xD;&#xA; Q_combined = 306 + 6716 = 7022kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the end, I've only saved about 160 kcal (186 watt-hours), or **2% of the total energy needed**. Given @Fred's point about the possibility of leaching from the water heater, it's probably not worth it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="acec25cf-7445-4e1c-8127-bc8df25d9c12" CreationDate="2017-03-18T14:36:25.460" UserId="3379" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="**TL;DR:** Both methods are about the same, because most of the energy is needed to overcome the [&quot;enthalpy of vaporization:&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization) the last push required to go from 100degC to boiling. &#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Basic formula&#xD;&#xA;From [an answer on Chemistry.SE](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/27312/37235), this is the formula for energy needed to boil a liquid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q = (mass)*(specific heat)*(change in temperature) + (mass)*(enthalpy of vaporization)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For water:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * specific heat = 1 kcal/(kg degC)&#xD;&#xA; * enthalpy of vaporization = 540 kcal/kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Total energy needed&#xD;&#xA;Applying the formula:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q_heating = (5kg)*(1 kcal/kg/degC)*(100degC - 8degC) = 460kcal&#xD;&#xA; Q_boiling = (5kg)*(540kcal/kg) = 2700kcal&#xD;&#xA; Q_total = 460kcal + 2700kcal = 3160kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Energy to preheat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this result it's obvious that regardless of starting temperature, most of the energy is needed to overcome the enthalpy of vaporization, which can only be done by the stove. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But all the same, let's assume I have perfectly insulated plumbing and see if the water heater can help a bit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q_preheat = (5kg)*(1 kcal/kg/degC)*(49degC - 8degC) = 205kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the remaining energy the stovetop must add is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q_remaining = 3160 - 205 = 2955kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Stovetop vs water heater efficiency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gas stove-top is about **44% efficient** ([source](http://blog.us.schott.com/boiling-point-putting-induction-electric-and-gas-to-the-test/)), and a modern natural gas water heater with a tank is at best **67% efficient** ([source (pdf)](https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/new_specs/downloads/water_heaters/WaterHeaterAnalysis_Final.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Final comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using only the stovetop:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q_stovetop = 3160kcal / 44% = 7182kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preheating with the water heater:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q_preheat = 205kcal / 67% = 306kcal&#xD;&#xA; Q_remaining = 2955kcal / 44% = 6716kcal&#xD;&#xA; Q_combined = 306 + 6716 = 7022kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the end, I've only saved about 160 kcal (186 watt-hours), or **2% of the total energy needed**. Given @Fred's point about the possibility of leaching from the water heater, it's probably not worth it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5915" RevisionGUID="b07432c8-7e63-43a3-9abb-e98a36c7331f" CreationDate="2017-03-19T14:21:53.743" UserId="4383" Text="i think that there is a difference between them as tidal energy is formed from the waves/tides and hydroelectric is formed from the height difference between two bodies of water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="f9ee2090-c28b-4b6c-8134-5609e1a62e4a" CreationDate="2017-03-19T21:29:09.453" UserId="3379" Comment="Corrected answer" Text="### Basic formula&#xD;&#xA;From [an answer on Chemistry.SE](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/27312/37235), this is the formula for energy needed to heat a liquid from one temperature to another:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q = (mass)*(specific heat)*(change in temperature)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For water, the specific heat is simply 1 kcal/(kg °C), so we can leave this out. The mass of water is 1 kg per L.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Total energy needed&#xD;&#xA;Applying the formula:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q = (5kg)*(100°C - 8°C) = 460kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Energy to preheat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with cold water in the pipes, volume is *length* * π * *radius*² = approximately 1.5L:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In the pot we'll need to heat this 1.5L from 8°C to 100°C = 138kcal&#xD;&#xA; - The remaining 3.5L is heated from 8°C to 49°C in the water heater = 143.5kcal...&#xD;&#xA; - ...and then the rest of the way to 100°C in the pot: 178.5kcal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the water at the tap is already hot, the breakdown is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Heat from 8°C to 49°C in the water heater = 205kcal&#xD;&#xA; - And from 49°C to 100°C in the pot = 255kcal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Stovetop vs water heater efficiency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gas stove-top is about **44% efficient** ([source](http://blog.us.schott.com/boiling-point-putting-induction-electric-and-gas-to-the-test/)), and a modern natural gas water heater with a tank is at best **67% efficient** ([source (pdf)](https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/new_specs/downloads/water_heaters/WaterHeaterAnalysis_Final.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Final comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stovetop only: `460kcal / 44% = 1045kcal`&#xD;&#xA; - Using the water heater, starting with **cold** water at the tap:&#xD;&#xA;  - `(138+178.5)/44% + 143.5/67% = 934kcal`&#xD;&#xA; - Using the water heater, starting with **hot** water at the tap:&#xD;&#xA;  - `255/44% + 205/67% = 886kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So using hot water from the tap will save anywhere between 11% and 15% compared to using just cold water.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="a495b2bf-8d15-4e10-b28e-311076c9d68f" CreationDate="2017-03-19T21:38:40.127" UserId="3379" Comment="Re-organized answer" Text="### Stovetop vs water heater efficiency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gas stove-top is about **44% efficient** ([source](http://blog.us.schott.com/boiling-point-putting-induction-electric-and-gas-to-the-test/)), and a modern natural gas water heater with a tank is up to **67% efficient** ([source (pdf)](https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/new_specs/downloads/water_heaters/WaterHeaterAnalysis_Final.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Basic formula&#xD;&#xA;From [this answer on Chemistry.SE](http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/27312/37235), the energy needed to heat a liquid from one temperature to another is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q = (mass)*(specific heat)*(change in temperature)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For water, the specific heat is simply 1 kcal/(kg °C), so we can leave this out. The mass of water is 1 kg per L.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Total energy needed&#xD;&#xA;Applying the formula:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q = (5kg)*(100°C - 8°C) = 460kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Energy needed from each source&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with cold water in the pipes, volume is *length* * π * *radius*² = approximately 1.5L:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In the pot we'll need to heat this 1.5L from 8°C to 100°C = 138kcal&#xD;&#xA; - The remaining 3.5L is heated from 8°C to 49°C in the water heater = 143.5kcal...&#xD;&#xA; - ...and then the rest of the way to 100°C in the pot: 178.5kcal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the water at the tap is already hot, the breakdown is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Heat from 8°C to 49°C in the water heater = 205kcal&#xD;&#xA; - And from 49°C to 100°C in the pot = 255kcal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Final comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stovetop only: `460kcal / 44% = 1045kcal`&#xD;&#xA; - Using the water heater, starting with **cold** water at the tap:&#xD;&#xA;  - `(138+178.5)/44% + 143.5/67% = 934kcal`&#xD;&#xA; - Using the water heater, starting with **hot** water at the tap:&#xD;&#xA;  - `255/44% + 205/67% = 886kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So using hot water from the tap will save anywhere between 11% and 15% compared to using just cold water.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="54a6d402-b0a8-4d67-a82f-cafe014419fa" CreationDate="2017-03-20T02:41:42.313" UserId="4386" Text="For simplicity, I will assume that the manufacture of a Prius is essentially the same process as that of a non-hybrid, plus the extra environmental impact (&quot;EEI&quot;) required for the hybrid components (battery, electric motor).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone tell me the amount of carbon emissions attributable specifically to the &quot;EEI&quot;?**  I would like to be able to calculate the number of gallons of gas that I would need *not* to burn while driving a Prius compared to driving a different car in order to determine the point at which the Prius becomes a net positive from a carbon perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see from some Googling that there is a good deal of information (and misinformation) related to this, although I have yet to find quite the concise answer I'm searching for.  I also know that measuring just carbon emissions oversimplifies things a little, as there are other factors at play in the manufacture of the batteries.  But it's a reasonably-good starting point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14342" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="54a6d402-b0a8-4d67-a82f-cafe014419fa" CreationDate="2017-03-20T02:41:42.313" UserId="4386" Text="what are the carbon emissions from the manufacture of the hyrid components of a Prius?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14343" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="54a6d402-b0a8-4d67-a82f-cafe014419fa" CreationDate="2017-03-20T02:41:42.313" UserId="4386" Text="|carbon-footprint|cars|life-cycle-analysis|manufacturing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="36290381-3234-4917-b385-3edb74fc842c" CreationDate="2017-03-20T02:53:36.860" UserId="4386" Comment="clarification" Text="For simplicity, I will assume that the manufacture of a Prius is essentially the same process as that of a non-hybrid ICE, plus the extra environmental impact required for the hybrid components (battery, electric motor).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone tell me the amount of carbon emissions attributable specifically to the manufacture of the hybrid components?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can then calculate how many gallons of gasoline would need to be burned to emit the same amount of carbon as is involved in the manufacture.  It then becomes simple to calculate what I really want to know, which is the breakeven point at which the Prius becomes a net positive from a carbon perspective compared to whatever other car.  This breakeven point will, of course, vary a bit depending on the MPG of the other car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see from some Googling that there is a good deal of information (and misinformation) related to this, although I have yet to find quite the concise answer I'm searching for.  I also know that measuring just carbon emissions oversimplifies things a little, as there are other factors at play in the manufacture of the batteries.  But it's a reasonably-good starting point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5904" RevisionGUID="7ee2987f-3508-4d75-9317-41c2460397fd" CreationDate="2017-03-20T07:33:46.200" UserId="3293" Comment="fixed various typo" Text="If burning the whole plant means it comes raw and moist, then it clearly is not worth the point to do it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in a very sunny part of the world, then yes your plant easily comes in dried, so it should be worth thinking of it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then it also comes to the waste you get. Burning the plant totally would probably yield to ashes only, whereas oil production byproduct would be more easily turned into useful composting medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say burn the oil and do something else with the byproduct of its extraction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14346" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5904" RevisionGUID="7ee2987f-3508-4d75-9317-41c2460397fd" CreationDate="2017-03-20T07:33:46.200" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 99 edit id of 464" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5917" RevisionGUID="aa0c777c-e4fe-43ec-a13f-ea286eb3764c" CreationDate="2017-03-20T09:20:57.030" UserId="99" Text="  &#xD;&#xA;I found [this interesting research paper](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000196/full) that answers some of your questions, at least for US power plants. For people who don't like to read research papers, there's an easier-to-read summary in [this Science Daily article](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140109132656.htm). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The research paper discusses carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from both coal and natural gas power plants by comparing data from [continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_emissions_monitoring_system).&#xD;&#xA;The researchers found that natural gas plants that use the &quot;combined cycle&quot; technology release far less CO2, NOx and SO2 than coal plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Average CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Coal:              915.0 ±  0.8g&#xD;&#xA;   Natural gas:       549.4 ±  1.1g&#xD;&#xA;   NG combined cycle: 436.0 ±  1.4g&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly the paper does not mention the exact amounts of NOx and SO2, but it does say that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the increased use of natural gas has led to emission reductions of NOx (40%) and SO2 (44%)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the paper provides a few graphs so you can get a rough estimate of the amounts of NOx and SO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Average emission intensities (in units of g/kWh) of CO2, NOx, and SO2 from U.S. power plants between 1995 and 2012. Error bars give the 1-σ uncertainty in the averages.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Average emission intensities (in units of g/kWh) of CO2, NOx, and SO2 from U.S. power plants between 1995 and 2012. Error bars give the 1-σ uncertainty in the averages.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Caveats:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The data is based on US power plant **output emissions**, so&#xD;&#xA;   after filtering (which is not what you asked for) &#xD;&#xA; - Other pollution types such as methane, heavy metals, particulate matter  and VOCs were not included in the study.&#xD;&#xA; - Emissions from fuel extraction and transport were also not included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OE88u.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="04a21b38-4b23-466c-8a33-528f63ca1d43" CreationDate="2017-03-20T23:57:26.140" UserId="2072" Comment="copy editing" Text="For simplicity, I will assume that the manufacture of a Prius is essentially the same process as that of a non-hybrid ICE, plus the extra environmental impact required for the hybrid components (battery, electric motor).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone tell me the amount of carbon emissions attributable specifically to the manufacture of the hybrid components?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can then calculate how many gallons of gasoline would need to be burned to emit the same amount of carbon as is involved in the manufacture.  It then becomes simple to calculate what I really want to know, which is the breakeven point at which the Prius becomes a net positive from a carbon perspective compared to whatever other car.  This breakeven point will, of course, vary a bit depending on the MPG of the other car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see from some Googling that there is a good deal of information (and misinformation) related to this, although I have yet to find quite the concise answer I'm searching for.  I also know that measuring just carbon emissions oversimplifies things a little, as there are other factors at play in the manufacture of the batteries.  But it's a reasonably-good starting point." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14349" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="04a21b38-4b23-466c-8a33-528f63ca1d43" CreationDate="2017-03-20T23:57:26.140" UserId="2072" Comment="copy editing" Text="What are the carbon emissions from the manufacture of the hybrid components of a Prius?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14350" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="04a21b38-4b23-466c-8a33-528f63ca1d43" CreationDate="2017-03-20T23:57:26.140" Comment="Proposed by 2072 approved by 3379, 4386 edit id of 465" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14352" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5836" RevisionGUID="d6f3aa87-af25-4c0a-848c-19117d594a28" CreationDate="2017-03-21T15:57:06.580" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/844216304227811329" />
  <row Id="14353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5917" RevisionGUID="de4c361f-6cde-4d99-977c-d985cbbf4c7f" CreationDate="2017-03-22T08:42:13.800" UserId="99" Comment="added part about methane leaks" Text="  &#xD;&#xA;I found [this interesting research paper](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000196/full) that answers some of your questions, at least for US power plants. For people who don't like to read research papers, there's an easier-to-read summary in [this Science Daily article](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140109132656.htm). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The research paper discusses carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from both coal and natural gas power plants by comparing data from [continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_emissions_monitoring_system).&#xD;&#xA;The researchers found that natural gas plants that use the &quot;combined cycle&quot; technology release far less CO2, NOx and SO2 than coal plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; Average CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Coal:              915.0 ±  0.8g&#xD;&#xA;   Natural gas:       549.4 ±  1.1g&#xD;&#xA;   NG combined cycle: 436.0 ±  1.4g&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly the paper does not mention the exact amounts of NOx and SO2, but it does say that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the increased use of natural gas has led to emission reductions of NOx (40%) and SO2 (44%)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the paper provides a few graphs so you can get a rough estimate of the amounts of NOx and SO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Average emission intensities (in units of g/kWh) of CO2, NOx, and SO2 from U.S. power plants between 1995 and 2012. Error bars give the 1-σ uncertainty in the averages.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Average emission intensities (in units of g/kWh) of CO2, NOx, and SO2 from U.S. power plants between 1995 and 2012. Error bars give the 1-σ uncertainty in the averages.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Caveats:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The data is based on US power plant **output emissions**, so&#xD;&#xA;   after filtering (which is not what you asked for) &#xD;&#xA; - Other pollution types such as heavy metals, particulate matter, VOCs and methane leaks were not included in the study.&#xD;&#xA; - Emissions from fuel extraction and transport were also not included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Methane leaks**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, leakages from gas production system could potentially negate the positive outcome of natural gas described above.&#xD;&#xA;In 2009 the EPA estimated that the leakage rate is 2.4% of the gross U.S. natural gas production ([source](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223974593_Greater_Focus_Needed_on_Methane_Leakage_From_Natural_Gas_Infrastructure)). Other researchers think the real amount is much higher, but also say that:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; system-wide leakage is unlikely to be large enough to negate climate benefits of coal-to-NG substitution ([source](http://nature.berkeley.edu/er100/readings/Brandt_2014.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly the same article also mentions that natural gas used as a fuel in cars is most likely not cleaner than diesel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OE88u.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14354" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5689" RevisionGUID="d47c9f8d-5c2a-491c-9581-b77ff2f2589e" CreationDate="2017-03-22T16:01:57.960" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/844579914762326016" />
  <row Id="14355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5918" RevisionGUID="f7d59c13-d9ed-40f1-bdb7-62d5fd9c245f" CreationDate="2017-03-23T04:02:20.603" UserId="3379" Text="**To answer your general question:** a recent, thorough LCA comparing battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) to internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) is freely available: [&quot;Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Alternative Passenger Vehicles&quot;](http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/12/9305).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But to answer your more specific question,** I had to dig a bit deeper... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### HEV specific components&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The HEV components which are not part of a standard ICEV include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Electric motors/generators&#xD;&#xA;  - Batteries and/or capacitors&#xD;&#xA;  - Electronics: inverter, controller, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [&quot;Current hybrid-electric powertrain architectures: Applying empirical design data to life cycle assessment and whole-life cost analysis&quot;](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261914000282), the authors group the components and make a few assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Vehicle construction emissions, excluding the traction battery, are equal for all powertrains.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Maintenance and disposal (end of life) emissions of all powertrains are equal.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Upstream electricity and gasoline emissions are equal to US averages.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - A lithium-ion (li-ion) traction battery is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Ignore the powertrain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assumption that the powertrain construction for all vehicle types has roughly the same CO2 emissions is based on a comparison of BEVs and HEVs: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;*(From [&quot;Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles&quot;](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es903729a))*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Through four different LCA methods you can see that powertrain (the third pattern from the left) has a similar weight. If this is true of BEVs then it holds even more strongly for HEVs, which would be more similar to an ICEV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Battery production emissions by chemistry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best data I could find on CO2eq emissions from EV battery production comes from: [&quot;Life Cycle Environmental Assessment of Lithium-Ion and Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries for Plug-In Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles&quot;](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es103607c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are their findings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NiMH: `0.35 kg CO2eq / Wh`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (NCM-type): `0.20 kg CO2eq / Wh`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (LFP-type): `0.25 kg CO2eq / Wh`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When comparing the carbon emissions from manufacturing of a Prius to an ICE vehicle in a similar class, the most important factor is the battery.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Toyota Prius HEV comes with either a NiMH or Li-Ion battery bank (from the [official spec](http://www.toyota.com/prius/features/mechanical_performance/1223/1224/1225/1226)), with roughly 1.3 kWh capacity (based on a 6.5Ah battery at about 200V - [source](http://www.eaa-phev.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Battery_Specs)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the resulting emissions for battery production are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NiMH: `459 kg CO2eq`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (average): `303 kg CO2eq`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JkTSP.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BSxrK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14356" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5700" RevisionGUID="d4d6e4d3-7987-42fc-a2b0-643b79db6418" CreationDate="2017-03-23T04:06:11.940" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/844762173712715776" />
  <row Id="14357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="c8f3fe5b-a154-4213-a192-91b9cbbe2c3b" CreationDate="2017-03-23T07:00:29.650" UserId="96" Text="What is the benefit, in terms of carbon footprint, of replacing a diesel fueled vehicle with an identical one with a CNG engine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not convinced I can simply take the carbon intensities of these two fuels (kg CO2/kWh) as I'm not entirely sure the relationship from powerplants holds for vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need the answer to further refine [my answer to this question on earthscience][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/a/9953/117" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14358" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="c8f3fe5b-a154-4213-a192-91b9cbbe2c3b" CreationDate="2017-03-23T07:00:29.650" UserId="96" Text="Carbon footprint of CNG vs. Diesel as a vehicle fuel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14359" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="c8f3fe5b-a154-4213-a192-91b9cbbe2c3b" CreationDate="2017-03-23T07:00:29.650" UserId="96" Text="|carbon-footprint|cars|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5920" RevisionGUID="22b4b61c-302e-4e3e-b37a-4f380ecdf247" CreationDate="2017-03-23T09:58:18.083" UserId="4394" Text="Is there an estimate of how many acres or hectares can a single person take care of, approximatelly? I'm mainly interested when following organic standards for cultivating the most common vegetables (tomatoes, lettuce, cauliflower, carrots,...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's forget about the climate, and assume that a full-time experienced gardener is not using any mechanized/industrial methods. How much land is  he able to take care of under these conditions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5920" RevisionGUID="22b4b61c-302e-4e3e-b37a-4f380ecdf247" CreationDate="2017-03-23T09:58:18.083" UserId="4394" Text="How much land can an full-time organic gardener take care of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5920" RevisionGUID="22b4b61c-302e-4e3e-b37a-4f380ecdf247" CreationDate="2017-03-23T09:58:18.083" UserId="4394" Text="|permaculture|organic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5921" RevisionGUID="1114c7fe-2e00-4107-9116-c948e8f56e66" CreationDate="2017-03-23T11:18:39.890" UserId="4395" Text="Or to phrase it differently: Are we, by using paper, causing any change in an overall forests area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that none of paper we use comes from deforested land. That paper industry is continually replanting forests in order to keep their business going. And that area used for &quot;growing paper&quot; is relatively steady. But that's just a guess. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean, not to get me wrong, there are problems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - forest monocultures instead of native forests built up by succession, &#xD;&#xA; - non-selective, large-scale cutting of trees leading to the previous, &#xD;&#xA; - CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; produced by transporting wood and creating paper, &#xD;&#xA; - CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; produced by rotting paper on landfill or burned in incinerators along with other garbage, &#xD;&#xA; - land grabbing and actual deforestation for food and other purposes, &#xD;&#xA; - etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and sure excessive usage of *anything* is unsustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is there any linkage between paper usage and forested land area? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14364" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5921" RevisionGUID="1114c7fe-2e00-4107-9116-c948e8f56e66" CreationDate="2017-03-23T11:18:39.890" UserId="4395" Text="Is there any link between deforestation and paper use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14365" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5921" RevisionGUID="1114c7fe-2e00-4107-9116-c948e8f56e66" CreationDate="2017-03-23T11:18:39.890" UserId="4395" Text="|paper|deforestation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5918" RevisionGUID="41aa6fc2-b305-4bf9-92e5-23096a02a959" CreationDate="2017-03-23T15:50:39.793" UserId="3379" Comment="expanded conclusions" Text="**To answer your general question:** a recent, thorough LCA comparing battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) to internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) is freely available: [&quot;Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Alternative Passenger Vehicles&quot;](http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/12/9305).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But to answer your more specific question,** I had to dig a bit deeper... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### HEV specific components&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The HEV components which are not part of a standard ICEV include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Electric motors/generators&#xD;&#xA;  - Batteries and/or capacitors&#xD;&#xA;  - Electronics (inverter, controller, charger, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [&quot;Current hybrid-electric powertrain architectures: Applying empirical design data to life cycle assessment and whole-life cost analysis&quot;](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261914000282), the authors group the components and make a few assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Vehicle construction emissions, excluding the traction battery, are equal for all powertrains.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Maintenance and disposal (end of life) emissions of all powertrains are equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Ignore the powertrain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assumption that the powertrain construction for all vehicle types has roughly the same CO2 emissions is based on a comparison of BEVs and ICEVs from [&quot;Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles&quot;](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es903729a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Through four different LCA methods (ADP, GWP, CED, and EI 99 H/A) you can see that powertrain (the third pattern from the left) has a similar weight: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is true of BEVs then it holds even more strongly for HEVs, which would be more similar to a ICEVs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Battery production emissions by chemistry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best data I could find on CO2eq emissions from EV battery production comes from: [&quot;Life Cycle Environmental Assessment of Lithium-Ion and Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries for Plug-In Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles&quot;](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es103607c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are their findings, given as CO2 equivalent emissions per rated watt-hour (Wh) of battery energy capacity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NiMH: `0.35 kg CO2eq / Wh`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (NCM-type): `0.20 kg CO2eq / Wh`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (LFP-type): `0.25 kg CO2eq / Wh`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When comparing the carbon emissions from manufacturing of a Prius to an ICE vehicle in a similar class, the most important factor is the battery.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Toyota Prius HEV comes with either a NiMH or Li-Ion battery bank (from the [official spec](http://www.toyota.com/prius/features/mechanical_performance/1223/1224/1225/1226)), with roughly 1.3 kWh capacity (based on a 6.5Ah battery at about 200V - [source](http://www.eaa-phev.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Battery_Specs)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the resulting emissions for battery production are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NiMH: `460 kg CO2eq`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (average): `300 kg CO2eq`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle-0), 8.9 kg of CO2 are released for each gallon of gas consumed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From FuelEconomy.gov](https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&amp;id=38061&amp;id=38154), a new Prius gets 52 mpg, while a new Corola gets 31 mpg. So we can calculate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`(miles)/(miles/gallon)/(kg CO2/gallon) = kg CO2`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the difference in fuel economy, we can then calculate how far you'd have to drive a Prius compared to the Corola to make up for the CO2 released in the battery production process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - with NiMH battery: `315,000 miles / 507,000 km`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (average): `205,000 miles / 330,000 km`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, while this seems like a lot of miles, it does not include any of the environmental factors besides simply carbon emissions that motivate the decision to purchase an HEV as opposed to an ICE vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JkTSP.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BSxrK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5920" RevisionGUID="941f47c5-60d2-4f1e-b209-638b0c35b815" CreationDate="2017-03-23T15:55:05.003" UserId="3379" Comment="fixed typos, tags" Text="Is there an estimate of how many acres or hectares a single person can take care of, approximately? I'm mainly interested when following organic standards for cultivating common vegetables (tomatoes, lettuce, cauliflower, carrots, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's forget about the climate, and assume that a full-time experienced gardener is not using any mechanized/industrial methods. How much land is he/she able to take care of under these conditions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14368" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5920" RevisionGUID="941f47c5-60d2-4f1e-b209-638b0c35b815" CreationDate="2017-03-23T15:55:05.003" UserId="3379" Comment="fixed typos, tags" Text="How much land can a full-time organic farmer take care of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14369" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5920" RevisionGUID="941f47c5-60d2-4f1e-b209-638b0c35b815" CreationDate="2017-03-23T15:55:05.003" UserId="3379" Comment="fixed typos, tags" Text="|permaculture|farming|organic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5918" RevisionGUID="31c3d55f-eacc-472e-9cc6-aa5d39710e2b" CreationDate="2017-03-23T16:33:14.527" UserId="3379" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="**To answer your general question:** a recent, thorough LCA comparing battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) to internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) is freely available: [&quot;Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Alternative Passenger Vehicles&quot;](http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/12/9305).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But to answer your more specific question,** I had to dig a bit deeper... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### HEV specific components&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The HEV components which are not part of a standard ICEV include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Electric motors/generators&#xD;&#xA;  - Batteries and/or capacitors&#xD;&#xA;  - Electronics (inverter, controller, charger, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [&quot;Current hybrid-electric powertrain architectures: Applying empirical design data to life cycle assessment and whole-life cost analysis&quot;](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261914000282), the authors group the components and make a few assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Vehicle construction emissions, excluding the traction battery, are equal for all powertrains.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Maintenance and disposal (end of life) emissions of all powertrains are equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Ignore the powertrain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assumption that the powertrain construction for all vehicle types has roughly the same CO2 emissions is based on a comparison of BEVs and ICEVs from [&quot;Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles&quot;](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es903729a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Through four different LCA methods (ADP, GWP, CED, and EI 99 H/A) you can see that powertrain (the third pattern from the left) has a similar weight: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is true of BEVs then it holds even more strongly for HEVs, which would be more similar to a ICEVs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Battery production emissions by chemistry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best data I could find on CO2eq emissions from EV battery production comes from: [&quot;Life Cycle Environmental Assessment of Lithium-Ion and Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries for Plug-In Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles&quot;](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es103607c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are their findings, given as CO2 equivalent emissions per rated watt-hour (Wh) of battery energy capacity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NiMH: `0.35 kg CO2eq / Wh`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (NCM-type): `0.20 kg CO2eq / Wh`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (LFP-type): `0.25 kg CO2eq / Wh`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When comparing the carbon emissions from manufacturing of a Prius to an ICE vehicle in a similar class, the most important factor is the battery.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Toyota Prius HEV comes with either a NiMH or Li-Ion battery bank (from the [official spec](http://www.toyota.com/prius/features/mechanical_performance/1223/1224/1225/1226)), with roughly 1.3 kWh capacity (based on a 6.5Ah battery at about 200V - [source](http://www.eaa-phev.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Battery_Specs)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the resulting emissions for battery production are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NiMH: `460 kg CO2eq`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (average): `300 kg CO2eq`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle-0), 8.9 kg of CO2 are released for each gallon of gas consumed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From FuelEconomy.gov](https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&amp;id=38061&amp;id=38154), a new Prius gets 52 mpg, while a new Corola gets 31 mpg. So we can calculate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`(miles)/(miles/gallon)/(kg CO2/gallon) = kg CO2`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the difference in fuel economy, we can then calculate how far you'd have to drive a Prius compared to the Corola to make up for the CO2 released in the battery production process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - with NiMH battery: `315,000 miles / 507,000 km`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (average): `205,000 miles / 330,000 km`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a lot of miles -- farther, in fact, than the [standard 100,000 mile battery warranty](http://www.toyotacertifiedhybrids.com/warranty.html). However, none of this includes any of the environmental factors besides simply carbon emissions that motivate the decision to purchase an HEV as opposed to an ICE vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JkTSP.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BSxrK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5922" RevisionGUID="7ed8e6e8-1d03-4967-8a33-63d4d2cfa7c3" CreationDate="2017-03-23T17:10:49.260" UserId="1701" Text="There is no real reason it could not be done. However there are a number of obstacles to success, so most Shitake producers buy spawn from labs that produce dowels or sawdust spawn under highly controlled conditions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest problem with doing it yourself is contamination from bacteria or mold - which can occur in any of the 3 or more steps required before you actually get to inoculate your growing substrate. Spore to agar, agar to spawn, spawn to expanded spawn, and then finally spawn to growth medium must all be done in a sterile environment. This can, and is, often done by hobbyists, but there is a fair amount of equipment to buy/make and techniques to learn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IF you get uncontaminated spawn, there is no guarantee that the mycelium that result will be vigorous enough to produce fruit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For these reasons, most people simply buy from a lab/company that has expertise in doing this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, there are other varieties (such as the various oyster mushrooms) that are far more forgiving. These are relatively easy to reproduce, and there are lots of resources for non-sterile production of oyster mushrooms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14372" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="47f71493-10f8-4d40-b994-7da52674044e" CreationDate="2017-03-23T19:08:42.610" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/844989298738941952" />
  <row Id="14373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="ac02c8f9-f1fc-447c-b4bf-dcd325a7fa3d" CreationDate="2017-03-23T20:18:42.343" UserId="3955" Text="# Information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a variety of estimates of varying validity for total world paper usage. I'll stick with US paper usage, which is 69 million tons per year, according to the [EPA][1] (Note, I have no idea if the linked site is no longer maintained due to old data or due to change in political climate. I will just have to assume it is correct). From here, the most reasonable world estimate I found is 336 million tons, which seems about right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to a [2007 FAO report][2] (page 7) paper and pulpwood consumes about 550 million m$^3$ of wood per year. Somwhat surprisingly, this matches the world estimate above, since 336 millon toms per 550 million m$^3$ works out to 610 kg/m$^3$, which is right between average densities for hardwoods and softwoods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now that we are more confident on who much wood is being used, we have to see how many trees that is. Timber yields per hectare vary wildly, as do yields per tree. I can't put together any reasonable estimates there. However, we can see from the FAO report that the 550 million m$^3$ accounts for about 35% of the total 1550 million m$^3$ of industrial wood production, which (from a different [FAO powerpoint][3], page 9) itself is only accounts for total timber clearings (the other half being firewood and agricultural clearance such as slash and burn). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the final thing to note is from the first FAO report. There it is shown (page 6) that for pulpwood for paper specifically, around 95% of demand is met from plantations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, lets take a look at deforestation. Deforestation (page 2 of second FAO link) is fastest in parts of the world where more of the wood is being used for firewood and land clearance (Africa, South America, Central America). Wood pulp itself is mostly made in North America and Europe ([FAO forestry products Yearbook 2014][4], page 224, I can't figure out what unites those are either). NA and Europe combine for 66% of world production. Looking at our other sources, NA and Europe are seeing net forest gains, and so the pulpwood creation there is probably as sustainable as we could ask for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;World pulpwood for paper production appears to be sustainable. The evidence is that the majority of pulpwood production comes from areas of the world with increasing forest areas, and the vast majority of pulpwood production comes from plantations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the areas of the world with higher deforestation are associated with high firewood consumption and land clearance for agriculture. Thus, shifting pulpwood plantations to other wood uses, like sawn roundwood (for construction), is not likely to help ameliorate deforestation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, the best thing for decreasing deforestation would be to shift the energy usage in poorer countries from firewood to electricity, and increase mechanical agriculture to increase crop yields. Of course, both of these things will inevitably increase fossil fuel consumption instead. Catch 22.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/paper/web/html/faqs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fao.org/forestry/12711-0e94fe2a7dae258fbb8bc48e5cc09b0d8.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/mis/presentations/PepkeGlobalWoodMkts050510.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4746m.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5924" RevisionGUID="072b1f41-ec98-4ead-9d04-b8da99ec2896" CreationDate="2017-03-23T20:45:33.900" UserId="3955" Text="# Research&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably extremely variable depending on the specific crops you are talking about. I tried to gather information from various sources. I looked mostly at studies of subsistence farmers; I propose that the labor per unit area would be similar without any mechanized methods. Yield may be higher based on other factors like increased availability of scientific information and fertilizer. Yield is, of course, also heavily dependent on crop type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A study in [Bang Chan Thailand][1] found an average of 3.4 man-years per 13.6 acres, or 1.6 hectares per person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A study in [Madhya Pradesh][2] found 2268 farm laborers managing 7811 acres, or 1.4 hectares per person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A study in the [Kandyan Gardens][3] of Sri Lanka found 30 farms with 2.54 adult equivalent units of labor tending 1 hectare per holding, or 0.4 hectares per person. However, these are high intensity 'food forests' where coffee, black pepper, tea, and spices are grown in conjunction with food products like jackfruit, coconut, and plantain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small sample size study in [Kakamega, Kenya][4] found farmers tended on average 1.2 hectares per. However, it was unclear if contributions of other family members were being measured properly. Also, like the Kandyan Gradens, this isn't strictly subsistence as only ~60% of the planted areas were food crops (maize). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thats all I could find for now, I'll update if I can see some more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The evidence was remarkably consistent between studies. I looked at about 25 studies, and these were the only four I could get labor per unit area numbers for, so it is as random a sample as I could provide. It looks like the labor requirements are such that **one adult can tend 1 to 1.5 hectares using subsistence methods**, and less if a more intensive food forest approach is used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://arch.neicon.ru/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/1418618/ajae_ajae_38_3.38-3-780.pdf?sequence=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.isid.ac.in/~tridip/Teaching/DevelopmentMicroeconomics/Readings/Shaban-JPE1987.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://gcs.isp.unu.edu/db/sites/default/files/02.Kandyan%20Gardens%20of%20Sri%20Lanka.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken_Giller/publication/222059318_Heterogeneity_of_crop_productivity_and_resource_use_efficiency_within_smallholder_Kenyan_farms_Soil_fertility_gradients_or_management_intensity_gradients/links/0deec52bd5a4712002000000.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14378" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5892" RevisionGUID="2632fda4-7b05-4b51-845e-acb46c718371" CreationDate="2017-03-23T21:48:32.000" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3293,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;J. Chomel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2868,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;A. A.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="ae6a78d8-3137-4f8b-b166-ab5c79a9210c" CreationDate="2017-03-23T23:26:13.133" UserId="3955" Comment="added 30 characters in body" Text="# Information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a variety of estimates of varying validity for total world paper usage. I'll stick with US paper usage, which is 69 million tons per year, according to the [EPA][1] (Note, I have no idea if the linked site is no longer maintained due to old data or due to change in political climate. I will just have to assume it is correct). From here, the most reasonable world estimate I found is 336 million tons, which seems about right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to a [2007 FAO report][2] (page 7) paper and pulpwood consumes about 550 million cu meters of wood per year. Somewhat surprisingly, this matches the world estimate above, since 336 million tons per 550 million cu meters works out to 610 kg per cu meter, which is right between average densities for hardwoods and softwoods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now that we are more confident on who much wood is being used, we have to see how many trees that is. Timber yields per hectare vary wildly, as do yields per tree. I can't put together any reasonable estimates there. However, we can see from the FAO report that the 550 million cu meters accounts for about 35% of the total 1550 million cu meters of industrial wood production, which (from a different [FAO powerpoint][3], page 9) itself is only accounts for total timber clearings (the other half being firewood and agricultural clearance such as slash and burn). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the final thing to note is from the first FAO report. There it is shown (page 6) that for pulpwood for paper specifically, around 95% of demand is met from plantations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, lets take a look at deforestation. Deforestation (page 2 of second FAO link) is fastest in parts of the world where more of the wood is being used for firewood and land clearance (Africa, South America, Central America). Wood pulp itself is mostly made in North America and Europe ([FAO forestry products Yearbook 2014][4], page 224, I can't figure out what unites those are either). NA and Europe combine for 66% of world production. Looking at our other sources, NA and Europe are seeing net forest gains, and so the pulpwood creation there is probably as sustainable as we could ask for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;World pulpwood for paper production appears to be sustainable. The evidence is that the majority of pulpwood production comes from areas of the world with increasing forest areas, and the vast majority of pulpwood production comes from plantations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the areas of the world with higher deforestation are associated with high firewood consumption and land clearance for agriculture. Thus, shifting pulpwood plantations to other wood uses, like sawn roundwood (for construction), is not likely to help ameliorate deforestation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, the best thing for decreasing deforestation would be to shift the energy usage in poorer countries from firewood to electricity and cooking gas, and increase mechanical agriculture to increase crop yields. Of course, both of these things will inevitably increase fossil fuel consumption instead. Catch 22.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/paper/web/html/faqs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fao.org/forestry/12711-0e94fe2a7dae258fbb8bc48e5cc09b0d8.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/mis/presentations/PepkeGlobalWoodMkts050510.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4746m.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14383" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5921" RevisionGUID="5f88f8cf-57cd-4a5f-b132-ed31d7b68750" CreationDate="2017-03-24T07:09:01.677" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/845170571654586368" />
  <row Id="14387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="abe317f0-0817-41ca-babc-cc43dd0c77e9" CreationDate="2017-03-24T08:31:15.140" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="# Information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a variety of estimates of varying validity for total world paper usage. I'll stick with US paper usage, which is 69 million tons per year, according to the [EPA][1] (Note, I have no idea if the linked site is no longer maintained due to old data or due to change in political climate. I will just have to assume it is correct). From here, the most reasonable world estimate I found is 336 million tons, which seems about right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to a [2007 FAO report][2] (page 7) paper and pulpwood consumes about 550 million cu meters of wood per year. Somewhat surprisingly, this matches the world estimate above, since 336 million tons per 550 million cu meters works out to 610 kg per cu meter, which is right between average densities for hardwoods and softwoods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now that we are more confident on how much wood is being used, we have to see how many trees that is. Timber yields per hectare vary wildly, as do yields per tree. I can't put together any reasonable estimates there. However, we can see from the FAO report that the 550 million cu meters accounts for about 35% of the total 1550 million cu meters of industrial wood production, which (from a different [FAO powerpoint][3], page 9) itself only accounts for total timber clearings (the other half being firewood and agricultural clearance such as slash and burn). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the final thing to note is from the first FAO report. There it is shown (page 6) that for pulpwood for paper specifically, around 95% of demand is met from plantations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, let's take a look at deforestation. Deforestation (page 2 of second FAO link) is fastest in parts of the world where more of the wood is being used for firewood and land clearance (Africa, South America, Central America). Wood pulp itself is mostly made in North America and Europe ([FAO forestry products Yearbook 2014][4], page 224, I can't figure out what units those are either). NA and Europe combine for 66% of world production. Looking at our other sources, NA and Europe are seeing net forest gains, and so the pulpwood creation there is probably as sustainable as we could ask for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;World pulpwood for paper production appears to be sustainable. The evidence is that the majority of pulpwood production comes from areas of the world with increasing forest areas, and the vast majority of pulpwood production comes from plantations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the areas of the world with higher deforestation are associated with high firewood consumption and land clearance for agriculture. Thus, shifting pulpwood plantations to other wood uses, like sawn roundwood (for construction), is not likely to help ameliorate deforestation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, the best thing for decreasing deforestation would be to shift the energy usage in poorer countries from firewood to electricity and cooking gas, and increase mechanical agriculture to increase crop yields. Of course, both of these things will inevitably increase fossil fuel consumption instead. Catch 22.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/paper/web/html/faqs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fao.org/forestry/12711-0e94fe2a7dae258fbb8bc48e5cc09b0d8.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/mis/presentations/PepkeGlobalWoodMkts050510.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4746m.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="268078c9-98a7-4cb5-a8bb-55d7ffc9919b" CreationDate="2017-03-24T12:17:10.990" UserId="4395" Comment="replaced &quot;cu meters&quot; with &quot;m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;&quot; as they are much easier to read and locate in text" Text="# Information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a variety of estimates of varying validity for total world paper usage. I'll stick with US paper usage, which is 69 million tons per year, according to the [EPA][1] (Note, I have no idea if the linked site is no longer maintained due to old data or due to change in political climate. I will just have to assume it is correct). From here, the most reasonable world estimate I found is 336 million tons, which seems about right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to a [2007 FAO report][2] (page 7) paper and pulpwood consumes about 550 million m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; of wood per year. Somewhat surprisingly, this matches the world estimate above, since 336 million tons per 550 million m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; works out to 610 kg per m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, which is right between average densities for hardwoods and softwoods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now that we are more confident on how much wood is being used, we have to see how many trees that is. Timber yields per hectare vary wildly, as do yields per tree. I can't put together any reasonable estimates there. However, we can see from the FAO report that the 550 million m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; accounts for about 35% of the total 1550 million m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; of industrial wood production, which (from a different [FAO powerpoint][3], page 9) itself only accounts for total timber clearings (the other half being firewood and agricultural clearance such as slash and burn). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the final thing to note is from the first FAO report. There it is shown (page 6) that for pulpwood for paper specifically, around 95% of demand is met from plantations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, let's take a look at deforestation. Deforestation (page 2 of second FAO link) is fastest in parts of the world where more of the wood is being used for firewood and land clearance (Africa, South America, Central America). Wood pulp itself is mostly made in North America and Europe ([FAO forestry products Yearbook 2014][4], page 224, I can't figure out what units those are either). NA and Europe combine for 66% of world production. Looking at our other sources, NA and Europe are seeing net forest gains, and so the pulpwood creation there is probably as sustainable as we could ask for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;World pulpwood for paper production appears to be sustainable. The evidence is that the majority of pulpwood production comes from areas of the world with increasing forest areas, and the vast majority of pulpwood production comes from plantations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the areas of the world with higher deforestation are associated with high firewood consumption and land clearance for agriculture. Thus, shifting pulpwood plantations to other wood uses, like sawn roundwood (for construction), is not likely to help ameliorate deforestation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, the best thing for decreasing deforestation would be to shift the energy usage in poorer countries from firewood to electricity and cooking gas, and increase mechanical agriculture to increase crop yields. Of course, both of these things will inevitably increase fossil fuel consumption instead. Catch 22.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/paper/web/html/faqs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fao.org/forestry/12711-0e94fe2a7dae258fbb8bc48e5cc09b0d8.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/mis/presentations/PepkeGlobalWoodMkts050510.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4746m.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14389" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="268078c9-98a7-4cb5-a8bb-55d7ffc9919b" CreationDate="2017-03-24T12:17:10.990" Comment="Proposed by 4395 approved by 3955 edit id of 467" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5923" RevisionGUID="4c7b13b1-0520-4177-b811-360a8f9aa85f" CreationDate="2017-03-24T12:18:14.007" UserId="3955" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="# Information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a variety of estimates of varying validity for total world paper usage. I'll stick with US paper usage, which is 69 million tons per year, according to the [EPA][1] (Note, I have no idea if the linked site is no longer maintained due to old data or due to change in political climate. I will just have to assume it is correct). From here, the most reasonable world estimate I found is 336 million tons, which seems about right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to a [2007 FAO report][2] (page 7) paper and pulpwood consumes about 550 million m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; of wood per year. Somewhat surprisingly, this matches the world estimate above, since 336 million tons per 550 million m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; works out to 610 kg per m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, which is right between average densities for hardwoods and softwoods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now that we are more confident on how much wood is being used, we have to see how many trees that is. Timber yields per hectare vary wildly, as do yields per tree. I can't put together any reasonable estimates there. However, we can see from the FAO report that the 550 million m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; accounts for about 35% of the total 1550 million m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; of industrial wood production, which (from a different [FAO powerpoint][3], page 9) itself only accounts for half of total timber clearings (the other half being firewood and agricultural clearance such as slash and burn). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the final thing to note is from the first FAO report. There it is shown (page 6) that for pulpwood for paper specifically, around 95% of demand is met from plantations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, let's take a look at deforestation. Deforestation (page 2 of second FAO link) is fastest in parts of the world where more of the wood is being used for firewood and land clearance (Africa, South America, Central America). Wood pulp itself is mostly made in North America and Europe ([FAO forestry products Yearbook 2014][4], page 224, I can't figure out what units those are either). NA and Europe combine for 66% of world production. Looking at our other sources, NA and Europe are seeing net forest gains, and so the pulpwood creation there is probably as sustainable as we could ask for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Conclusions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;World pulpwood for paper production appears to be sustainable. The evidence is that the majority of pulpwood production comes from areas of the world with increasing forest areas, and the vast majority of pulpwood production comes from plantations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the areas of the world with higher deforestation are associated with high firewood consumption and land clearance for agriculture. Thus, shifting pulpwood plantations to other wood uses, like sawn roundwood (for construction), is not likely to help ameliorate deforestation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, the best thing for decreasing deforestation would be to shift the energy usage in poorer countries from firewood to electricity and cooking gas, and increase mechanical agriculture to increase crop yields. Of course, both of these things will inevitably increase fossil fuel consumption instead. Catch 22.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/paper/web/html/faqs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fao.org/forestry/12711-0e94fe2a7dae258fbb8bc48e5cc09b0d8.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/mis/presentations/PepkeGlobalWoodMkts050510.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4746m.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5918" RevisionGUID="4b25c328-48a0-4543-af5b-5ab5463784e2" CreationDate="2017-03-24T14:55:56.903" UserId="3379" Comment="Added additional references." Text="**To answer your general question:** a recent, thorough LCA comparing battery electric vehicles (BEVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) to internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) is freely available: [&quot;Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Alternative Passenger Vehicles&quot;](http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/12/9305).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**But to answer your more specific question,** I had to dig a bit deeper... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### HEV specific components&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The HEV components which are not part of a standard ICEV include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Electric motors/generators&#xD;&#xA;  - Batteries and/or capacitors&#xD;&#xA;  - Electronics (inverter, controller, charger, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [&quot;Current hybrid-electric powertrain architectures: Applying empirical design data to life cycle assessment and whole-life cost analysis&quot;](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261914000282), the authors group the components and make a few assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Vehicle construction emissions, excluding the traction battery, are equal for all powertrains.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Maintenance and disposal (end of life) emissions of all powertrains are equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Ignore the powertrain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assumption that the powertrain construction for all vehicle types has roughly the same CO2 emissions is based on a comparison of BEVs and ICEVs from [&quot;Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles&quot;](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es903729a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Through four different LCA methods (ADP, GWP, CED, and EI 99 H/A) you can see that powertrain (the third pattern from the left) has a similar weight: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is true of BEVs then it holds even more strongly for HEVs, which would be more similar to a ICEVs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Battery production emissions by chemistry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best data I could find on CO2eq emissions from EV battery production comes from: [&quot;Life Cycle Environmental Assessment of Lithium-Ion and Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries for Plug-In Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles&quot;](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es103607c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are their findings, given as CO2 equivalent emissions per rated watt-hour (Wh) of battery energy capacity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NiMH: `0.35 kg CO2eq / Wh`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (NCM-type): `0.20 kg CO2eq / Wh`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (LFP-type): `0.25 kg CO2eq / Wh`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These figures match the range found in the report [&quot;Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles -- Critical issues&quot;](http://www.uni-obuda.hu/users/grollerg/LCA/hazidolgozathoz/Battery.pdf) (when scaled from a 10 kWh PHEV battery).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A different report, which is cited (directly or indirectly) in much of the literature on this topic, gives a much lower value for carbon intensity of Li-Ion production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (alternate estimate): `0.12 kg CO2eq / Wh`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [&quot;Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles: Implications for Policy&quot;](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702178s) (the values themselves are in the supplementary material).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When comparing the carbon emissions from manufacturing of a Prius to an ICE vehicle in a similar class, the most important factor is the battery.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Toyota Prius HEV comes with either a NiMH or Li-Ion battery bank (from the [official spec](http://www.toyota.com/prius/features/mechanical_performance/1223/1224/1225/1226)), with roughly 1.3 kWh capacity (based on a 6.5Ah battery at about 200V - [source](http://www.eaa-phev.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Battery_Specs)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the resulting emissions for battery production are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - NiMH: `460 kg CO2eq`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (average): `300 kg CO2eq`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (alternate estimate): `160 kg CO2eq`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle-0), 8.9 kg of CO2 are released for each gallon of gas consumed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From FuelEconomy.gov](https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&amp;id=38061&amp;id=38154), a new Prius gets 52 mpg, while a new Corola gets 31 mpg. So we can calculate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`(miles)/(miles/gallon)/(kg CO2/gallon) = kg CO2`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the difference in fuel economy, we can then calculate how far you'd have to drive a Prius compared to the Corola to make up for the CO2 released in the battery production process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - with NiMH battery: `315,000 miles / 507,000 km`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (average): `205,000 miles / 330,000 km`&#xD;&#xA; - Li-Ion (alternate): `110,000 miles / 177,000 km`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a lot of miles -- farther, in fact, than the [standard 100,000 mile battery warranty](http://www.toyotacertifiedhybrids.com/warranty.html). There is also a pretty wide range in the figures. However, none of this includes any of the environmental factors besides simply carbon emissions that motivate the decision to purchase an HEV as opposed to an ICE vehicle. Additionally, battery production is both the most carbon intense factor, and the area where technology is advancing the fastest -- meaning all evidence indicates that if they are not already a less carbon intense choice, HEVs soon will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JkTSP.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BSxrK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14392" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5920" RevisionGUID="60c77dc9-aaa5-4eae-b204-d1a7e20c53e0" CreationDate="2017-03-25T01:16:14.353" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/845444177756336128" />
  <row Id="14396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5928" RevisionGUID="aecaf843-c964-4114-8c3c-01e27eff9f8e" CreationDate="2017-03-26T18:26:16.570" UserId="4406" Text="I live in the US and our food industry is terrible. Our environmental regulations on many kinds of production are much lower than certain counterparts in Europe. I don't like that food from Europe has to be shipped over the ocean (and then transported via train), but I figure at some point the damage caused by such shipping is less than the damage caused by domestic production. Where's the cutoff?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a given weight and volume of food requiring refrigeration, how much worse would US manufacturing need to be than Western European manufacturing to environmentally justify importation? Does it depend on where in the US I live?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5928" RevisionGUID="aecaf843-c964-4114-8c3c-01e27eff9f8e" CreationDate="2017-03-26T18:26:16.570" UserId="4406" Text="What are the environmental consequences of shipping food across the Atlantic Ocean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14398" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5928" RevisionGUID="aecaf843-c964-4114-8c3c-01e27eff9f8e" CreationDate="2017-03-26T18:26:16.570" UserId="4406" Text="|environmental-impact|transport|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14399" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5928" RevisionGUID="e07ec660-1c69-4b27-90df-ca9db5549b87" CreationDate="2017-03-26T20:46:57.177" UserId="4406" Comment="removed context, background" Text="For a given weight and volume of food requiring refrigeration, how much worse would US manufacturing need to be than Western European manufacturing to environmentally justify importation? Does it depend on where in the US I live?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5930" RevisionGUID="7dd1eb93-3f98-40b4-998e-0be4490e8ad6" CreationDate="2017-03-27T03:14:16.583" UserId="4409" Text="The question is in the title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has there been any such calculations/analyses. And could you perhaps tell us something more about them please.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5930" RevisionGUID="7dd1eb93-3f98-40b4-998e-0be4490e8ad6" CreationDate="2017-03-27T03:14:16.583" UserId="4409" Text="Has there been any global calculation of average increase in consumption of energy per increase of wealth per person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5930" RevisionGUID="7dd1eb93-3f98-40b4-998e-0be4490e8ad6" CreationDate="2017-03-27T03:14:16.583" UserId="4409" Text="|economy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5930" RevisionGUID="8e6618e5-0f46-46d4-adeb-a9b0c98441d8" CreationDate="2017-03-27T04:27:49.993" UserId="4409" Comment="added 88 characters in body; edited title" Text="Has there been any global calculation of average increase in consumption of energy per increase of wealth per person?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has there been any such calculations/analyses. And could you perhaps tell us something more about them please.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14405" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5930" RevisionGUID="8e6618e5-0f46-46d4-adeb-a9b0c98441d8" CreationDate="2017-03-27T04:27:49.993" UserId="4409" Comment="added 88 characters in body; edited title" Text="How is per capita energy consumption related to increasing per capita wealth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14407" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5930" RevisionGUID="10795f50-c7d5-4c33-97c7-cb95c39e96b1" CreationDate="2017-03-27T07:30:14.523" UserId="99" Comment="added energy tag" Text="|energy|economy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5931" RevisionGUID="3c71e0ff-dbaa-4396-96f4-bf7daffb76ee" CreationDate="2017-03-27T09:45:48.313" UserId="106" Text="According to [research by Timothy Garrett](http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Economics.html), ratio of power to wealth is not changing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ratio power to wealth][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;Source: [T. Garrett](http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Economics.html), Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;T. Garrett, a physicist, has authored several papers on the topic.  See [his list of peer-reviewed publications](http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Publications.html) on this topic.  At least one of them [has a public peer review](http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/1/2012/esd-3-1-2012-discussion.html); as you can see, his study triggers a lot of discussion, perhaps because he is not trained as an economist.  If you have some time his articles and the responses make an interesting read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pmrrj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5931" RevisionGUID="47359d49-a891-4636-b3ac-2f44b5502815" CreationDate="2017-03-27T10:07:28.880" UserId="106" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="According to [research by physicist Timothy Garrett](http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Economics.html), who has used physical laws to model the economy, the ratio of power to wealth is not changing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ratio power to wealth][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;Source: [T. Garrett](http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Economics.html), Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;T. Garrett, a physicist, has authored several papers on the topic.  See [his list of peer-reviewed publications](http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Publications.html) on this topic.  At least one of them [has a public peer review](http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/1/2012/esd-3-1-2012-discussion.html); as you can see, his study triggers a lot of discussion, perhaps because he is not trained as an economist.  If you have some time his articles and the responses make an interesting read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pmrrj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5931" RevisionGUID="256284f8-c1f5-41d4-8088-1e8b37aee11c" CreationDate="2017-03-27T10:26:58.223" UserId="106" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="According to [research by physicist Timothy Garrett](http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Economics.html), who has used physical laws to model the economy, the ratio of power to wealth is not changing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ratio power to wealth][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;Source: [T. Garrett](http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Economics.html), Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;T. Garrett, a physicist, has authored several papers on the topic.  See [his list of peer-reviewed publications](http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Publications.html) on this topic.  At least one of them [has a public peer review](http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/1/2012/esd-3-1-2012-discussion.html); as you can see, his study triggers a lot of discussion, perhaps because he is not formally trained as an economist.  If you have some time his articles and the responses make an interesting read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pmrrj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5931" RevisionGUID="a3fa1445-e679-4379-8de7-0263c3e93174" CreationDate="2017-03-27T16:44:20.643" UserId="106" Comment="added 276 characters in body" Text="According to [research by physicist Timothy Garrett](http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Economics.html), who has used physical laws to model the economy, the ratio of power to wealth is not changing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ratio power to wealth][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;Source: [T. Garrett](http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Economics.html), Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;T. Garrett, a physicist, has authored several papers on the topic.  See [his list of peer-reviewed publications](http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Publications.html) on this topic.  At least one of them [has a public peer review](http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/3/1/2012/esd-3-1-2012-discussion.html); as you can see, his study triggers a lot of discussion, perhaps because he is not formally trained as an economist.  If you have some time his articles and the responses make an interesting read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that he is not particularly optimistic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If civilization does not collapse quickly this century, then CO2 levels will likely end up exceeding 1000 ppmv; but, if CO2 levels rise by this much, then the risk is that civilization will gradually tend towards collapse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Pmrrj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14412" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5930" RevisionGUID="a8799c4a-db53-41bd-925c-3cb83fbdfff2" CreationDate="2017-03-28T04:37:23.713" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/846581964001832961" />
  <row Id="14413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="9acb4c6b-b7ec-418e-b8fb-afbc032e322e" CreationDate="2017-03-28T22:15:44.827" UserId="3379" Text="In new buildings and homes I've noticed wall outlets with USB chargers popping up more and more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/oCF0b.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard that standard chargers use electricity when plugged in but not actively charging. Do these operate the same way? How much energy do they waste when not in use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14414" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="9acb4c6b-b7ec-418e-b8fb-afbc032e322e" CreationDate="2017-03-28T22:15:44.827" UserId="3379" Text="Do wall outlets with USB waste energy when not in use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14415" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="9acb4c6b-b7ec-418e-b8fb-afbc032e322e" CreationDate="2017-03-28T22:15:44.827" UserId="3379" Text="|energy|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14416" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="c1cae848-6c7c-4f87-9bdc-edcc850b857e" CreationDate="2017-03-29T05:47:53.700" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4888],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5933" RevisionGUID="91396052-d78e-4719-85af-bdcc63783ed7" CreationDate="2017-03-29T15:09:57.790" UserId="4417" Text="There are two different limits for NOx / NO2 in Europe:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) 80 milligrams NOx per km that a diesel car or truck drives:&#xD;&#xA;[Euro 6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_passenger_cars) .&#xD;&#xA;(In some cities you can't drive a diesel that emits more than that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) 40 µg / m3 NO2 in the air (NO2, not NOx; averaged over 1 year): &#xD;&#xA;[European Union legislation](http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/standards.htm) .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are these two related -- how does NOx from a diesel exhaust pipe turn into NO2,&#xD;&#xA;then dissipate ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Not answers, but two different approaches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) back-of-the-envelope calculation:  &#xD;&#xA;say 1000 diesel cars are driving around at 50 km/h for 1 hour, producing 80 mg NOx / km:  &#xD;&#xA;1000 * 50 km/h * 80 mg/km  =  4 kg per hour.  &#xD;&#xA;But then it gets iffy: how does NOx spread,&#xD;&#xA;over how many cubic metres, with how much wind ?&#xD;&#xA;Does it dissipate / become harmless overnight ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) measure both in parallel, at the same times and places. (Open data welcome.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5933" RevisionGUID="91396052-d78e-4719-85af-bdcc63783ed7" CreationDate="2017-03-29T15:09:57.790" UserId="4417" Text="How is NOx mg/km from diesel cars and trucks related to µg/m3 in the air?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5933" RevisionGUID="91396052-d78e-4719-85af-bdcc63783ed7" CreationDate="2017-03-29T15:09:57.790" UserId="4417" Text="|cars|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5933" RevisionGUID="9f9210e1-c27f-4697-9ba8-4dbc10455455" CreationDate="2017-03-29T17:07:17.867" UserId="4417" Comment="different laws in US ?" Text="There are two different limits for NOx / NO2 in Europe:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) 80 milligrams NOx per km that a diesel car or truck drives:&#xD;&#xA;[Euro 6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_passenger_cars) .&#xD;&#xA;(In some cities you can't drive a diesel that emits more than that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) 40 µg / m3 NO2 in the air (NO2, not NOx; averaged over 1 year): &#xD;&#xA;[European Union legislation](http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/standards.htm) .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are these two related -- how does NOx from a diesel exhaust pipe turn into NO2,&#xD;&#xA;then dissipate ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Not answers, but two different approaches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) back-of-the-envelope calculation:  &#xD;&#xA;say 1000 diesel cars are driving around at 50 km/h for 1 hour, producing 80 mg NOx / km:  &#xD;&#xA;1000 * 50 km/h * 80 mg/km  =  4 kg per hour.  &#xD;&#xA;But then it gets iffy: how does NOx spread,&#xD;&#xA;over how many cubic metres, with how much wind ?&#xD;&#xA;Does it dissipate / become harmless overnight ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) measure both in parallel, at the same times and places. (Open data welcome.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Added: does the US have two such different kinds of limits / different laws for NOx ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5934" RevisionGUID="60c03eed-064c-4e3f-9606-be6537478ec5" CreationDate="2017-03-29T23:04:58.613" UserId="4418" Text="As a Mechanical Engineer, I know the efficiency of the pump(s) and generator will be a function of the head or the height difference between the upper and lower reservoirs. Also, the line losses will increase with distance. Finally, an uncovered reservoir in an arid climate will suffer evaporation losses. Therefore, there isn't a single answer to this question, once a system is designed the efficiency can be estimated, but the efficiency will vary from one system to another." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5935" RevisionGUID="56645357-2385-457b-a72d-d4cc19590b37" CreationDate="2017-03-30T06:54:44.580" UserId="48" Text="It's phenomenally complicated, poorly understood, and very difficult to model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on the layout of buildings, where and when emissions happen, what the local winds are, and what's happening upwind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's all a bunch of numerical approximations (so much turbulence, so no analytic closed-form solution), and very expensive to get a snapshot of the entire system at any one time. Also, we can only roughly estimate what the actual emissions are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even in one city, the relationship is complex and hard to bottom out. Across cities in the same country, many different relationships. And more complexity again in different climatic zones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Sean Beevers](https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/sean-beevers(69d4f8e7-56f5-4751-84e3-2d735371f03e)/publications.html) has written a lot about it and related subjects, as have his colleagues at [Kings College London Environmental Research Group](http://www.erg.kcl.ac.uk/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For somewhere like London, the NOx emissions will get emitted in the city and hang around, as well as getting blown in from elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a city in New Zealand, winds might blow pretty much all the local pollution away pretty frequently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14426" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5916" RevisionGUID="26b8f820-468e-4546-b0e2-28a4a46ff521" CreationDate="2017-03-30T13:41:20.747" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/847443629341724672" />
  <row Id="14427" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5933" RevisionGUID="78d6acd4-e40a-4a29-83ef-01df536b9d92" CreationDate="2017-03-30T16:41:20.473" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/847488926474395648" />
  <row Id="14429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="a7882cf3-7de5-41af-b3f6-e54399664b4b" CreationDate="2017-03-30T20:19:23.780" UserId="3379" Comment="added 39 characters in body; edited title" Text="In new buildings and homes I've noticed wall outlets with USB chargers popping up more and more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/oCF0b.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers at [another question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/4888/3379) indicate that these outlets waste energy just like traditional chargers (&quot;wall warts&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, **how much energy is wasted?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14430" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="a7882cf3-7de5-41af-b3f6-e54399664b4b" CreationDate="2017-03-30T20:19:23.780" UserId="3379" Comment="added 39 characters in body; edited title" Text="How much energy do wall outlets with USB waste when not actively charging?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="50d6657b-756c-49fa-bfdd-3cf7eecade2d" CreationDate="2017-03-31T06:45:42.650" UserId="2187" Comment="Added Degrowth community platforms" Text="Degrowth is a social and political movement that promotes a steady-state or shrinking economy as an answer to social and environmental problems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To learn more about degrowth, please visit the following links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Wikipedia article on degrowth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth)&#xD;&#xA;- [Research &amp; Degrowth website](https://degrowth.org)&#xD;&#xA;- [Article &quot;*What is Degrowth? From an activist slogan to a social movement*&quot;](http://www.jnu.ac.in/SSS/CSSP/What%20is%20degrowth.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Community platforms maintained by the Degrowth movement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Wachstumswende](https://wachstumswende.de/)&#xD;&#xA;- [co-munity](https://co-munity.net/)&#xD;&#xA;- [WECHANGE](https://landing.wechange.de/)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14432" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5906" RevisionGUID="50d6657b-756c-49fa-bfdd-3cf7eecade2d" CreationDate="2017-03-31T06:45:42.650" Comment="Proposed by 2187 approved by 3379, 60 edit id of 466" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14433" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="d5adb68d-722e-49d1-9946-1565cec40343" CreationDate="2017-03-31T07:40:41.787" UserId="99" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:60,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Peter Ivan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14434" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5898" RevisionGUID="b1dbe1d0-e097-4f1f-9a7f-d8a30c2ee9ec" CreationDate="2017-03-31T10:53:22.353" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/847763745350852609" />
  <row Id="14435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5933" RevisionGUID="eacd3e31-4e98-412f-b07a-643bfae61c30" CreationDate="2017-03-31T13:51:42.187" UserId="4417" Comment="hard to find a middle way" Text="There are two different limits for NOx / NO2 in Europe:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) 80 milligrams NOx per km that a diesel car or truck drives:&#xD;&#xA;[Euro 6](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_passenger_cars) .&#xD;&#xA;(In some cities you can't drive a diesel that emits more than that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) 40 µg / m3 NO2 in the air (NO2, not NOx; averaged over 1 year): &#xD;&#xA;[European Union legislation](http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/standards.htm) .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How are these two related -- how does NOx from a diesel exhaust pipe turn into NO2,&#xD;&#xA;then dissipate ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Not answers, but two different approaches:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) back-of-the-envelope calculation:  &#xD;&#xA;say 1000 diesel cars are driving around at 50 km/h for 1 hour, producing 80 mg NOx / km:  &#xD;&#xA;1000 * 50 km/h * 80 mg/km  =  4 kg per hour.  &#xD;&#xA;But then it gets iffy: how does NOx spread,&#xD;&#xA;over how many cubic metres, with how much wind ?&#xD;&#xA;Does it dissipate / become harmless overnight ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) measure both in parallel, at the same times and places. (Open data welcome.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Added: does the US have two such different kinds of limits / different laws for NOx ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that it's hard to find a middle way, say at MacKay level,  between&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* &quot;it's complicated, you wouldn't understand, trust the EPA&quot;, and&#xD;&#xA;* [EPA NO2 Integrated Science Assessment](https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=310879)&#xD;&#xA;-- 1148 pages.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5936" RevisionGUID="1af79ecb-01e7-4ca1-8a58-504dd43f03b6" CreationDate="2017-03-31T20:17:06.723" UserId="3955" Text="Gerrit's answer answers from the perspective of time, and the entire world. I am going to answer by breaking down by country in the present, therefore we can see, at this current snapshot in time, the relationship between the richer and poorer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use energy consumption in GJ per capita per annum for 2013 [from here][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use IMF 2015 Per Capita GDP (at Purchasing Power Parity) [from here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use the World Bank 2015 Per Capita GDP (at exchange rate) [from here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used only the countries that data in all three charts. This does filter out a lot of the poorest countries in the world, especially the small ones. These countries are not present on the energy consumption chart, which could potentially skew the results. However, there are still plenty of poor countries left, and I think that makes for a valid sample. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Results &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the PPP graph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this is the nominal graph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# In progress&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I was going to fancy up the graphs, I discovered that I don't have numpy on this machine (at work) and so I'll come back to this this evening when I can add fit lines at home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There looks to be some serious outliers too (hello Qatar, Luxembourg) so I'll look into cleaning the data. Once I see the fit lines we can come up with some conclusions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1fWcT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nhXQ4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="4fe945a5-c751-4c2e-a027-29d32b208353" CreationDate="2017-03-31T21:00:42.223" UserId="3955" Text="# TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chart is misleading since it compares carbon imprint my mass instead of a measure of how much a human needs to survive; and the lack of specificity over whether products are cooked or not makes the data less useful still.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Argument&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chart you link contains false comparisons. They are comparing _mass_ of foods against each other. However, you don't eat for mass, you eat for calories (or protein or nutriment, or whatever).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better comparison would be to multiply each 1 kg of food by the calories in that food. The next problem is that the chart doesn't say if the food is cooked or not. This is a big problem: lentils are the best on the list, but are those lentils dried or cooked? 1 kg of dried lentils is worth 3 times more calories than 1 kg of cooked lentils. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got my numbers from [here][1], with data sourced from USDA. The numbers in my chart below are kilograms carbon per 1000 calories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Lamb         20.85&#xD;&#xA;    Beef         13.78&#xD;&#xA;    Turkey        5.83&#xD;&#xA;    Broccoli      5.71&#xD;&#xA;    Tuna          5.26&#xD;&#xA;    Salmon        5.15&#xD;&#xA;    Cheese        4.47&#xD;&#xA;    Pork          4.45&#xD;&#xA;    Yogurt        3.49&#xD;&#xA;    Chicken       3.37&#xD;&#xA;    Milk          3.17&#xD;&#xA;    Eggs          3.06&#xD;&#xA;    Rice          2.08&#xD;&#xA;    Potatoes      1.46&#xD;&#xA;    Beans         1.40&#xD;&#xA;    Tomato        1.39&#xD;&#xA;    Tofu          1.38&#xD;&#xA;    Lentils       0.78&#xD;&#xA;    Peanut Butter 0.42&#xD;&#xA;    Nuts          0.39&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used the cooked option of each food when available, but I'm not sure this a great assumption. For the numbers with some options, I used whole milk, pinto beans, plain lowfat yogurt, almonds for the nuts, and part-skim mozarella cheese. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first conclusion, is that Cheese doesn't have such a high footprint after all. It is just a little higher than Yogurt, which is just a little higher than Milk, which is about even with eggs. All the animal products dominate the top of the list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My other conclusions are that this is kind of a garbage comparison anyways. Broccoli doesn't provide calories, but it has more vitamin K than everything else on the chart combined. The peanut butter and nuts are really calorie efficient, but so what? If you try to live on peanut butter instead of rice you'll die of heart disease because you are getting 70% of your calories from fat and three times the recommended saturated fat dosage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, there is a reason this is printed in a .jpg and not a peer-reviewed paper. This is garbage analysis and would get shredded. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/71/2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="1620890e-3d24-490b-8627-68150f68db5e" CreationDate="2017-03-31T21:50:27.063" UserId="3955" Comment="deleted 543 characters in body" Text="# TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chart is misleading since it compares carbon imprint my mass instead of a measure of how much a human needs to survive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Argument&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chart you link contains false comparisons. They are comparing _mass_ of foods against each other. However, you don't eat for mass, you eat for calories (or protein or nutriment, or whatever). A better comparison would be to multiply each 1 kg of food by the calories in that food. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got my numbers from [here][1], with data sourced from USDA. The numbers in my chart below are kilograms carbon per 1000 calories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Lamb         20.85&#xD;&#xA;    Beef         13.78&#xD;&#xA;    Turkey        5.83&#xD;&#xA;    Broccoli      5.71&#xD;&#xA;    Tuna          5.26&#xD;&#xA;    Salmon        5.15&#xD;&#xA;    Cheese        4.47&#xD;&#xA;    Pork          4.45&#xD;&#xA;    Yogurt        3.49&#xD;&#xA;    Chicken       3.37&#xD;&#xA;    Milk          3.17&#xD;&#xA;    Eggs          3.06&#xD;&#xA;    Rice          2.08&#xD;&#xA;    Potatoes      1.46&#xD;&#xA;    Beans         1.40&#xD;&#xA;    Tomato        1.39&#xD;&#xA;    Tofu          1.38&#xD;&#xA;    Lentils       0.78&#xD;&#xA;    Peanut Butter 0.42&#xD;&#xA;    Nuts          0.39&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used the cooked option of each food when available. For the numbers with some options, I used whole milk, pinto beans, plain lowfat yogurt, almonds for the nuts, and part-skim mozarella cheese. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first conclusion, is that Cheese doesn't have such a high footprint after all. It is just a little higher than Yogurt, which is just a little higher than Milk, which is about even with eggs. All the animal products dominate the top of the list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My other conclusions are that this is kind of a garbage comparison anyways. Broccoli doesn't provide calories, but it has more vitamin K than everything else on the chart combined. The peanut butter and nuts are really calorie efficient, but so what? If you try to live on peanut butter instead of rice you'll die of heart disease because you are getting 70% of your calories from fat and three times the recommended saturated fat dosage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/71/2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5936" RevisionGUID="7c45d519-0d24-4040-ada5-e953c7852804" CreationDate="2017-04-01T09:39:12.757" UserId="3955" Comment="added 956 characters in body" Text="Gerrit's answer answers from the perspective of time, and the entire world. I am going to answer by breaking down by country in the present, therefore we can see, at this current snapshot in time, the relationship between the richer and poorer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use energy consumption in GJ per capita per annum for 2013 [from here][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use IMF 2015 Per Capita GDP (at Purchasing Power Parity) [from here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use the World Bank 2015 Per Capita GDP (at exchange rate) [from here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used only the countries that data in all three charts. This does filter out a lot of the poorest countries in the world, especially the small ones. These countries are not present on the energy consumption chart, which could potentially skew the results. However, there are still plenty of poor countries left, and I think that makes for a valid sample. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Results &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the PPP graph. Linear fit is in blue, and quadratic fit is in red.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this is the nominal graph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Outliers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some significant outliers, places like Qatar, Luxembourg, Trinidad and Iceland with very high income or energy use (or both: Qatar is highest in both categories).  These per capita statistics are distorted by low populations. Lets remove countries with less than 5 million people and see what is left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPP graph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nom graph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're getting conflicting slopes, but in neither case are we very far from a linear relationship. Doing a little deeper digging with the data, there were two groups of outliers that were removed from the first set to the second set. The Gulf oil states and Scandanavian states were all removed for having small population (except Saudi Arabia). These countries generally had all the highest energy usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mentioned, energy usage would probably be more accurately modeled by two additional boolean variables beyond GDP: 'is this a petrostate' and 'is part of this country above the Arctic circle.' But as a fist pass analysis, I'd say that a linear relationship between GDP and energy usage is pretty well supported by the data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nN99P.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5GrLG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XxrE8.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FnHwe.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="43f1b894-5828-4782-9ba3-35191c6b6d99" CreationDate="2017-04-01T13:05:02.373" UserId="3955" Comment="Re-added picture to, and provides source of information." Text="[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Source of information [here][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, cheese has the *third* highest carbon footprint. Only beef and lamb have a higher footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several other sources (such as [this](http://www.greeneatz.com/foods-carbon-footprint.html)) corroborate this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is it so high? You would expect it to be due to the milk production, but milk itself it one of the lowest on the chart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xnC3Z.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14441" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="43f1b894-5828-4782-9ba3-35191c6b6d99" CreationDate="2017-04-01T13:05:02.373" Comment="Proposed by 3955 approved by 3379, 2345 edit id of 468" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14442" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="7c4c6ce6-bfc7-4785-89ef-15c68c1f7d63" CreationDate="2017-04-01T20:06:44.220" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/848265392019648513" />
  <row Id="14443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5928" RevisionGUID="bd71509f-ce1e-405e-b4a1-b8d0a3da928d" CreationDate="2017-04-01T21:39:11.847" UserId="4406" Comment="repeated demands to list specific foods" Text="For a given weight and volume of food requiring refrigeration, how much worse would US manufacturing need to be than Western European manufacturing to environmentally justify purchasing imported food? Does it depend on where in the US I live?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sample cases:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I live in NYC and am considering purchasing a sausage imported from Pisticci,  Italy, or one produced in Kansas City, Kansas.&#xD;&#xA; - I live in Eureka, CA and am considering purchasing cheese from the Loleta Cheese Factory in Loleta, CA or that produced by the Amsterdam Cheese Company in Westbeemster, Holland.&#xD;&#xA; - I live in Omaha, Nebraska and am considering purchasing a pack of cheap tortellini, either from Sansepolcro, Italy or from Seattle, Washington.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14447" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5928" RevisionGUID="d65cb06a-f291-4bbf-bb47-d151352d959f" CreationDate="2017-04-03T10:19:38.077" UserId="99" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:60,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Peter Ivan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3955,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;kingledion&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5939" RevisionGUID="7c25a2c8-01db-46d7-8dba-f5e85f778542" CreationDate="2017-04-03T16:24:16.967" UserId="4406" Text="Given that two foods requiring refrigeration have the same weight and volume and are being shipped from one location to another via the same method, how does the environmental impact of that transportation depend on the type of food being shipped?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14450" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5939" RevisionGUID="7c25a2c8-01db-46d7-8dba-f5e85f778542" CreationDate="2017-04-03T16:24:16.967" UserId="4406" Text="How does transportation cost depend on food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14451" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5939" RevisionGUID="7c25a2c8-01db-46d7-8dba-f5e85f778542" CreationDate="2017-04-03T16:24:16.967" UserId="4406" Text="|food|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14453" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="105" RevisionGUID="a635a83b-6924-48e8-aaff-6c00808e3a71" CreationDate="2017-04-03T20:13:33.780" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/848991885171601412" />
  <row Id="14454" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5939" RevisionGUID="8cda7923-25be-40a9-9114-7c493b978d0a" CreationDate="2017-04-04T05:13:38.477" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/849127800774721536" />
  <row Id="14456" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="be927537-6bc7-4799-84d6-58fbbc2659c2" CreationDate="2017-04-04T11:49:29.257" UserId="96" Comment="37" />
  <row Id="14458" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5883" RevisionGUID="27d506a5-0ba0-4cf3-95d5-142716b84c05" CreationDate="2017-04-05T13:45:42.583" UserId="96" Comment="37" />
  <row Id="14459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="df0ab944-71ac-4ec6-b6aa-5a56e5dc9679" CreationDate="2017-04-05T15:53:19.793" UserId="4433" Text="Does ANYONE have (or can point me to a publication that has) the national yields for the Ecological Footprint as calculated by the Global Footprint Network for the United States for the year 2012? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need the Yield Factors (which I can calculate using the open-source data for world yields) but I am missing the national yields for the United States for the year of 2012 to make my ecological footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am doing my final project for my undergrad degree in Sustainability. Any help would be greatly appreciated!!! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="df0ab944-71ac-4ec6-b6aa-5a56e5dc9679" CreationDate="2017-04-05T15:53:19.793" UserId="4433" Text="Ecological Footprint: United States National Yield 2012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="df0ab944-71ac-4ec6-b6aa-5a56e5dc9679" CreationDate="2017-04-05T15:53:19.793" UserId="4433" Text="|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="0a4047a7-02f7-4ddf-b7cd-238f1ed2e786" CreationDate="2017-04-06T06:57:50.463" UserId="4435" Text="My newly designed &quot;Biomass fired water heater&quot; gives 50 lit of boiled water (Room temp is 30 deg. centigrade)within 20 min. by firing 2kg of firewood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know how to calculate the wattage of the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank You" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="0a4047a7-02f7-4ddf-b7cd-238f1ed2e786" CreationDate="2017-04-06T06:57:50.463" UserId="4435" Text="How does calculate the Wattage of a Biomass fired water heater" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="0a4047a7-02f7-4ddf-b7cd-238f1ed2e786" CreationDate="2017-04-06T06:57:50.463" UserId="4435" Text="|biomass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5943" RevisionGUID="7b33a258-d457-477d-bc34-5e0f1f46f174" CreationDate="2017-04-06T07:02:46.580" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14467" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5943" RevisionGUID="7b33a258-d457-477d-bc34-5e0f1f46f174" CreationDate="2017-04-06T07:02:46.580" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5944" RevisionGUID="4d1e367b-b48f-498b-a802-6897d2fbdbad" CreationDate="2017-04-06T07:02:46.580" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14469" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5944" RevisionGUID="4d1e367b-b48f-498b-a802-6897d2fbdbad" CreationDate="2017-04-06T07:02:46.580" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="2ee8481e-8c80-416b-add0-db838c9c9c1b" CreationDate="2017-04-06T07:16:41.330" UserId="99" Comment="improved question text, added water-heating tag" Text="My newly designed &quot;biomass fired water heater&quot; gives 50 liters of boiled water within 20 minutes by firing 2kg of firewood. Room temperature is 30 deg. centigrade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know how to calculate the wattage.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14471" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="2ee8481e-8c80-416b-add0-db838c9c9c1b" CreationDate="2017-04-06T07:16:41.330" UserId="99" Comment="improved question text, added water-heating tag" Text="How does one calculate the wattage of a biomass fired water heater" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14472" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="2ee8481e-8c80-416b-add0-db838c9c9c1b" CreationDate="2017-04-06T07:16:41.330" UserId="99" Comment="improved question text, added water-heating tag" Text="|water-heating|biomass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5945" RevisionGUID="80660b4c-3ad4-46aa-951f-452a06bff8e6" CreationDate="2017-04-06T08:10:18.287" UserId="99" Text="Water has a [heat capacity of 4.1814 J/g](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Heat_capacity_and_heats_of_vaporization_and_fusion) which means that 1 gram of water requires 4.1814 Joules of heat to increase 1°C. The definition of Watt is Joules / second so the formula you need is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; heat capacity * mass * temp. increase / time in seconds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming the water was at 30 degrees before you started heating it, just like the room. Since water boils at 100 degrees (at sea level, it's lower at higher altitudes), there was a temperature increase of 70°C (probably a bit less).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for your case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4.1814 * 50000 * 70 / (20 * 60) = 12196 W or 12.2 kW" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5947" RevisionGUID="e6d386f4-a8fd-4b4e-b317-ebc445356f1e" CreationDate="2017-04-09T12:01:23.753" UserId="4444" Text="Given that you shouldn't put leftovers of meals that has touched meat in compost bins due to the risk of attracting vermin, what is the most sustainable way to deal with these scraps? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14479" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5947" RevisionGUID="e6d386f4-a8fd-4b4e-b317-ebc445356f1e" CreationDate="2017-04-09T12:01:23.753" UserId="4444" Text="What's the most sustainable way to re-use or dispose of meat scraps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14480" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5947" RevisionGUID="e6d386f4-a8fd-4b4e-b317-ebc445356f1e" CreationDate="2017-04-09T12:01:23.753" UserId="4444" Text="|meat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14481" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5947" RevisionGUID="718d0884-9471-4a0a-b9ee-68e3200b1b45" CreationDate="2017-04-10T06:36:07.423" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|composting|reuse|meat|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14482" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5947" RevisionGUID="c9a5e1c2-c89d-4b91-98d7-566135446463" CreationDate="2017-04-10T17:43:59.683" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/851490960366329856" />
  <row Id="14483" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5942" RevisionGUID="06876fbc-707f-4b22-9441-530b0b029e6a" CreationDate="2017-04-11T20:47:54.057" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/851899629830537216" />
  <row Id="14484" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="415d11a3-5252-4066-abbe-de5929029710" CreationDate="2017-04-12T23:18:53.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="14486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="639" RevisionGUID="a9e71694-ff73-4f55-b07e-76851a3e6962" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:22:16.913" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://diy.stackexchange.com/ with https://diy.stackexchange.com/" Text="My fan takes 3 candelabra (E12) base bulbs; I traditionally use incandescent flame tips, but since they're behind frosted glass, I don't really care.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having just replaced my dimm-able recessed light with Utilitech dimm-able LEDs, and being quite pleased with the results, I want to do the same to this fan.  Unfortunately, I can't find bulbs with equivalent brightness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The light is currently dimm-able, and the bulb slots say 75W - 125V.  Since I can't even get 75W incandescent bulbs anymore, I thought I'd find some appropriate LED or (less-preferably) fluorescent bulbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** at the recommendation of the moderators here at Sustainable Living, I've [replicated this question at DIY Stack Exchange][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/25973/what-can-i-do-to-avoid-incandescent-bulbs-for-my-3-bulb-ceiling-fan-yet-maintai" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="fd9d568b-5ddb-4035-9b6a-5443324eb4e7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:22:16.913" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://diy.stackexchange.com/ with https://diy.stackexchange.com/" Text="Insulation doesn't care about directions, so whatever keeps a house warm in a cold climate will help keep it cool in a hot climate. Vapor barriers are different--my understanding is that the vapor barrier should go on the side of the wall that sees the most humidity. But insulation simply slows down heat transfer in all directions, so as long as you have a way to cool off the interior, whether it's AC or a cool night breeze, any insulation will hold the day's heat at bay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consult a local professional about the best insulation and vapor barrier choices for your area, because humidity and local pests can influence the effectiveness and longevity of your system. Make your decision based on factors such as those, because as far as heat transfer goes, an R-value is an R-value. If your energy comes from sustainable sources, the &quot;green&quot; insulating materials will be clear winners for sustainability, but otherwise just get the best insulation your budget allows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/897/462) gives a good overview of some of the insulating materials you might consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have questions regarding the effectiveness and durability of insulating materials, the folks at [Home Improvement](https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/insulation) can probably help you out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="994" RevisionGUID="4932c4c6-eef8-4dba-87be-5b67689d0db8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:22:16.913" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://diy.stackexchange.com/ with https://diy.stackexchange.com/" Text="Insulation can contribute to the sustainability of a home both by being sustainably-sourced and by reducing heating and cooling requirements. The longer the insulation lasts, the greater its contribution to your home's sustainability. It is also important to select insulation that can be installed easily, without tearing out walls and producing unnecessary waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some factors to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Building style:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you building a new home or simply upgrading an existing house? It simply isn't practical to re-do an existing home with straw-bale walls, but you can easily fill an attic with fiberglass, cellulose, denim, or other loose insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing from that, the type of building material used is also a major factor. You can't put loose-fill cellulose in a poured concrete wall, but you can use insulating concrete forms or foam boards. Wood houses have a lot of cavities that make blown-in insulation an attractive option, especially for retrofits. Filling empty cavities with cellulose or fiberglass is a fairly non-invasive strategy for wood structures as it only requires you to drill holes in the wall then plug them again. But if you are already re-siding the house, foam boards under the new siding might be an attractive option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sunlight damages most insulating foams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Climate:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Humidity can damage many types of insulation, and your choice of insulation will affect (or depend on) your strategies for dealing with moisture produced in the home or entering from outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pests:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mice are happy to nest in fiberglass, as reported on the [DIY/Home Improvement](https://diy.stackexchange.com/) sister site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainable materials:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Straw bale construction works well if you can find a contractor in your area familiar with it or if you have the skills to do it yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wool insulation (mentioned in the question) is sustainable if wool is produced in excess near the house in question. If you would have to make special arrangements to have it shipped from a far away place, you should consider other options." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4899" RevisionGUID="194f6d0c-ba0e-4bb7-8027-b467a3dc0061" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:22:16.913" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://diy.stackexchange.com/ with https://diy.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you are looking for an efficient USB outlet, this [post][1] refers to a USB wall outlet that shuts off when not plugged in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://diy.stackexchange.com/a/15741/46414" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="667" RevisionGUID="870db21c-9e5c-4c6c-8c53-874323099161" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:33:08.613" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://electronics.stackexchange.com/ with https://electronics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Disclosure: Doing things such as this is my 'day job'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use a bicycle dynamo to recharge a suitable battery at very little expense and with minimal effort. Use of something like the &quot;*Reecharger*&quot; that you mention is not essential, does extremely little for you and, if their description of their own products are accurate, the Reecharger is a badly designed piece of equipment that has major problems. Brief notes justifying this rather unlikely sounding claim are at the end of this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any rechargeable battery with a voltage of up to about 6 Volts will be usable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The SHD (Shimano Hub Dyno) makes about 3 Watts - 6V x 0.5A at rated output. This is at relatively low RPM due to bicycle use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any battery that can tolerate a charge rate of up to 0.5A is acceptable - and any modern rechargeable battery from about AA size on up would be suitable. You need some additional simple circuitry which I'll describe below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read my answer here on Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange [Building a new dynamo bike light](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/58718/building-a-new-dynamo-bike-light/58728#58728).  From there you will find an indirect link to this [PDA / GPS bike mounted USB charger](http://www.arenddeboer.com/bike-mounted-usb-charger). This doubles the voltage from the hub dyno to allow low speed operation. His circuit (shown below) may be somewhat daunting if you have never built such but he discusses what is involved and you can get advice on the Electrical Engineering SE page if you decide to pursue this. Cost of this is probably a few GBP - if you pursue this people on the EE site (including me) would be happy to comment on what is needed for battery charging. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bicycle electronics site:**  Here is an [***excellent*** site with mini projects relating to bicycle electronics including bicycle alternator circuits](http://www.pilom.com/BicycleElectronics/BicycleElectronics.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__________________________&#xD;&#xA;**How fast does it need to be turned?**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine we have a 26&quot; diameter wheel with 1&quot; of tyre thickness so total diameter ~~~= 28&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA; At 30 mph = 44 feet/second the dynamo should be at full output - possibly so at half that.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Circumference of a wheel is about 28&quot; x Pi / 12 feet = 7.3 feet.  &#xD;&#xA; 30 mph = 44 feet per second. &#xD;&#xA; So at 30 mph the wheel will turn 44/7.3 = 6 turns per second&#xD;&#xA;= 60 seconds/minute x  6 revs/second = 360 RPM  &#xD;&#xA;Or 180 RPM at 15 mph.     &#xD;&#xA;This is &quot;nice and slow&quot; by wind turbine standards and makes it much more usable than many alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Output is AC so you will need a &quot;bridge rectifier&quot; - this has 4 diodes in it and allows DC to be produced from 2 wire AC. Any small modern silicon bridge rectifier from a hobby electronics shop with a rating of 0.5A or more will do. Voltage rating of any bridge rectifier being sold will be &gt; 6VAC so is unimportant. You MAY find some very very very (decades) old Germanium or copper oxide or selenium rectifiers. Do not use them. A suitable modern bridge rectifier should cost well under 1 GBP. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bridge rectifier has 4 terminals - two AC inputs (connect either way to the dynamo output wires) and a positive and negative output. Positive goes to battery positive, negative to battery negative, 2 x AC input go to dynamo. Adding a filter capacitor would help if you were powering other equipment rather than battery charging, but for battery charging it is not strictly necessary. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use a &quot;regulator&quot; between the battery and dynamo but, for initial investigation, the most that is strictly essential is a means of limiting maximum voltage applied to the battery. The simplest and most effective means in this context is a &quot;clamp regulator&quot;. This has 2 wires, connects directly to the battery and usually does nothing whatsoever. If the battery ever rises to a certain present voltage under charge the clamp regulator will &quot;shunt&quot; current to limit the battery voltage to the desired maximum. The regulator can be more complex than that, but that will do well enough in this context in many cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Battery types:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Anything rechargeable&quot; :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**LiIon or Lithium Polymer.**   &#xD;&#xA;OK&#xD;&#xA;MUST have a voltage clamp at 4.2V or perhaps a little lower.    &#xD;&#xA;MUST have.    &#xD;&#xA;A zener diode is &quot;too soft&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;Ask if more information needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LiFePO4 similar to LiIon but lower clamp voltage needed. A superb battery type but not necessary here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NimH x 3.**  (Or NiCd x 3) &#xD;&#xA;Need about 4.5V.  &#xD;&#xA;NimH x 4 may be a good choice as they will charge when &quot;flat&quot; but never get to full capacity in most cases so will self limit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 3 cells a battery voltage clamp is a good idea but not totally necessary. Under most wind conditions yo are liable to get, if you use the light daily Vbattery may be OK uncontrolled.&#xD;&#xA;Worst case you cook your NimH early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Reecharger you mention probably looks after battery management for you but is very very dear for what you get. Buying a bare battery and playing is advised. Note voltage warning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Lead Acid** - 6V a bit marginally high - need to check dyno and see what voltage it REALLY makes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4V Lead Acid OK. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**BioLogic ReCharge Power Pack** ([home page here](http://www.thinkbiologic.com/products/reecharge-power-pack)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Dynamo powered battery charger should&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Work with a wide range of typical dynamos &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Tolerate usual dynamo input conditions regardless of battery state or battery presence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Not be damaged by over voltage, under loading, overloading, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ideally would have a replaceable battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Be described in technical terms that demonstrate that the seller or manufacturer understands the product and which give confidence that the product meets the specs given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Be priced at a fair market price for what it does. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ReeCharge unit fails on all these points.   &#xD;&#xA;[Here in their FAQ](https://thinkbiologic.zendesk.com/forums/20189876-reecharge-power-pack) they explicitly say that you may damage it if you ride too fast. They say    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot; ... For a 20&quot; wheel, sustaining speeds over 25km/h (~15.5mph) for long periods may overload the power regulator so we discourage riding above this speed with the power regulator engaged. 3W hubs can also generate more power than 2.4W ones under the same speed. The 20&quot;-25km/h rating is for a 2.4W hub.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For larger wheels, proportionately greater speeds can be sustained. Our tests show that a standard 26&quot; wheel can go up to 35~40km/hr (21~25mph) without any problem for the power regulator.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My 26&quot; where example noted that 30 mph gave 360 RPM - so their safe max speed is about say 300 RPM. Achievable RPM with a wind turbine will depend on design or happenstance, but 300 RPM is an unusually low expected maximum RPM for a wind turbine - possible even for one with bicycle wheel rotor with duct-tape blades (I like it). You can certainly limit the speed by various means BUT you should not need to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When they say &quot; ... If your hub outputs *the 6V current* that is standard for most dynamo hubs ...&quot; we all know what they mean, but one would be wise to wonder about their technical abilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say &quot;The power regulator should be disconnected from the hub when it’s not charging the ReeCharge Power Pack to prevent overloading the power regulator.&quot; - which is wholly unacceptable for something made to be used on we dark windswept nights or sudden unexpected exhilarating downhills. The unloaded voltages encountered are modest by any reasonable design standards. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think thrice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I8h3x.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14491" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="6527067d-9e92-4dd8-9079-f585dc764e59" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:14.080" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I’ve already touched on this topic on the sister SE site [once][1] or [twice][2]. To summarize what is told there (check for more detail), there would be several considerations as related to energy use and sustainability:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Idling in itself wastes fuel for no good reason, and that adds up. In US (country whose residents drive probably more than anyone else on Earth, to put it in perspective) the average cars idles 16 minutes a day (including warming up, waiting, and sitting in traffic). Even 2.0 L compact car would burn (at a rate of 1 L per hour) almost 100 L of fuel a year. Obviously, some idling is unavoidable, but even half of that saved and multiplied by the number of all the cars in the world would amount to significant impact.&#xD;&#xA;* Idling negatively affects the engine internals due to incomplete combustion (glazing of the combustion chamber, fouling of the spark plugs) which further decreases fuel efficiency for all other regimes of operation.&#xD;&#xA;* What’s more, excessive idling affects other components (burning up of the catalytic converter, increased corrosion of exhaust system, increased engine wear due to higher vibration etc.), whose premature wear and replacement lead to increased use of raw materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What one can do (and what I do) is to turn off engine during long traffic lights, railway crossings and so forth. Anything more than 10 to 15 seconds (very generously) would save fuel, because car that is already warm does not need that much effort to re-start, as it is at the proper operating temperature, and oil is distributed around the engine and at a high lubricity. Motor stays within the efficient range of temperatures for more than few minutes, and takes several hours to completely cool down (depending on the weather), so there is definitely no need to keep the car running during short errand (never mind someone could simply run off with the vehicle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any concerns about premature wear of the starting infrastructure are moot considering savings on fuel and other engine components (one could afford to replace starters every 3-4 years at the worst). See the linked posts for detailed arithmetic. And any energy losses that occur during starting, and keeping the electrical loads going during the time the engine is off are minuscule compared to energy used by petrol combustion while idling. See [relevant question][3] at Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/a/3428/1764&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/a/3566/1764&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57794/16432" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="7d9932e9-3494-4549-826c-f747edde434d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:14.080" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is a part of [this question](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/881/what-form-of-electrical-lighting-has-the-smallest-energy-footprint). Perhaps it is better suited on the [physics SE](https://physics.stackexchange.com/), but here goes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how much energy it takes, in the modern world, to construct an ordinary, ready-to-buy light bulb, from the raw materials in the ground. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, I would like to know it for the following types of bulbs: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Tungsten-filament &#xD;&#xA; 2. Halogen&#xD;&#xA; 3. Fluorescent tube&#xD;&#xA; 4. LED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, to create a tungsten-filament light bulb, you would need &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - tungsten &#xD;&#xA; - glass&#xD;&#xA; - a few types of metal&#xD;&#xA; - a few types of plastic&#xD;&#xA; - a mixture of gases inside the bulb&#xD;&#xA; - cardboard and plastics for the packaging &#xD;&#xA; - etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These raw materials all require energy input: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Forming/shaping&#xD;&#xA;  - extracting tungsten from the ores, ..., creating filaments, ...&#xD;&#xA;  - creating the right kind of glasses, ..., creating bulb housing, ...&#xD;&#xA;  - etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Transportation &#xD;&#xA;   - of all the materials to their respective factories&#xD;&#xA;   - of all the (half-)products to the bulb factory&#xD;&#xA;   - of the bulb to the distribution centers/shop&#xD;&#xA;   - etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Losses&#xD;&#xA;   - a small percentage of the raw materials will be rejected &#xD;&#xA;   - a small percentage of the finished light bulbs will not work, and get rejected&#xD;&#xA;   - energy expenditure of the robotic components and other tools in the involved factories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize this is virtually impossible to answer accurately for even a specific light bulb from a specific store, let alone make general statements -- there are simply too many steps in between to be able to trace everything &quot;back to the ground&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm looking for, is authorative sources on this subject. Studies done on the energy demands of modern production lines, hopefully, with this type of product in particular. I'd like to come to a more complete list than the one above, and some reasonable estimates on the energy expenditure in each step, ideally for each type of lightbulb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2318" RevisionGUID="9b0bac85-a11c-4a7b-89be-5de60dcc7e90" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:14.080" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think that you can assume, worst case, that your car will be no worse than the 10-15 seconds break-even given in the linked answer.  Since your car is engineered for start-stop, if there are easy improvements to be made to minimize the cost of restarting then the manufacturer may have made them, but in any case it should be no worse than average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electrical energy used to re-start is miniscule compared to the gasoline energy wasted by idling.  In [this link][1] on the physics SE it was estimated to be 1 / 4000 of a gallon of gasoline to re-start the motor.  The number given there for idling of .3 gal / hour is consistent with my observation of .24 gal / hour in my Prius.  Given those numbers they calculated a break-even point of only 3 seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I don't have hard data to provide an exact break-even point, my conclusion would be to take advantage of your vehicle's start-stop at every opportunity where you don't actually know that you will be moving off immediately - and don't worry if you guess wrong, the cost of one restart is much smaller than what you are saving from having the system for the much longer stops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57794/calculating-engine-starters-energy-use/75572#75572 &quot;this link&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2577" RevisionGUID="a4b79058-cc5f-4d12-80b5-f9c1e1db21af" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:14.080" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a rather broad question, but in the comments the OP has specified that they are comparing cylindrical Fresnel lenses to &quot;normal&quot; Fresnel lenses. We can get some insight by considering things at a high level, and considering why lenses might be used on PV at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within its normal operating range, the relationship between the amount of light falling on a PV cell and the amount of electricity produced is roughly linear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/e0EPL.jpg&quot; width=&quot;400&quot; alt=&quot;Power curve for a PV cell&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of electricity produced also scales linearly with the area of the PV panel: more panel = more electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we put a concentrating lens above a PV panel, what we are effectively doing is collecting the light from a wide area and focussing it on a small bit of PV material. Given the two linear relationships above, all else being equal this should give a similar output to just covering the wider area with unconcentrated PV and doing away with the optics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advantage or disadvantage to concentrating optics must, then, lie in more detailed factors. For instance, it might be worth using optics to allow the use of a smaller quantity of more expensive PV material. On the other hand, concentrating the light on a small area also concentrates the heat, which must then be dealt with... there's an engineering optimisation to be done there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This allows us to come back to the question of cylindrical (linear) vs spherical lenses. Cylindrical lenses concentrate the incoming light in only one dimension. As such, they can be considered as a compromise between unconcentrated PV and full spherical lens arrays. They may also be cheaper to manufacture and install than large numbers of spherical lenses (but I have no evidence for this, and if microlens arrays are used for the spherical version, it may not be true).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the exact intent of the question, you may also find the answers to [this question][2] on physics.SE to be of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/78846/are-fresnel-lenses-widely-used-for-solar-electricity-if-not-why-not" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2788" RevisionGUID="7987c232-b286-4f22-9410-cae5d6a9e311" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:14.080" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is built on, and directly quotes from, [my answer][1] and user26165's [answer][2] to [a similar question over on Physics.SE][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, fresnel lenses are not widely used for solar power. Occasionally, but rarely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issues are engineering and economics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other solar competitors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big economic story is the amazing speed at which ordinary photovoltaics have reduced their unit costs. This means that the economics of all the competing solar technologies - trackers, concentrating PV, concentrating solar thermal electric, all have got much more to prove now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The economic problem that comes from depending on direct rays&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concentrated solar power (CSP) that work by concentrating the sun on a heat-transfer fluid, to drive a turbine, depend on **direct** rays. Ordinary photovoltaics do not; they generate electricity from light however it comes in; reflected off snow, or scattered by the atmosphere and by clouds. And there's light like that all around the world (I've designed and sold PV systems for locations in Northern Europe, sub-tropics, Mount Everest, the tropics, and the South Pole). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas if you need high-intensity direct rays for a lot of the year, you're pretty much confined to the tropics and near the tropics. And those are places where clean water is precious - and these sort of plants can be large consumers of clean water. These plants can be sited further away (and there are indeed concentrating solar power stations further from the equator), but then you've got an economic problem - it will be the same capital costs, but much lower generation to spread those costs over, so unit energy costs will be higher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Maintenance challenges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As user26165's [answer][2] says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fresnel lenses are inherently single surface lenses; all of the optical power is on the serrated surface.  The grooved structure of this surface is easily contaminated , needing frequent cleaning.  They are expensive to make in glass, and most moldable optical plastics are UV degradable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The surface contamination problem can be overcome by putting the grooved side on the inside, towards the focus.    This is the worst possible way to use a single surface refracting lens; the lens aberration are extremely large, whereas they are not too bad, with the grooved side out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The axial edges of the grooves scatter a lot of light, greatly reducing the transmission efficiency.  You already have an 8-10% Fresnel reflection loss from the surfaces anyway, so Fresnel lenses are inefficient compared to reflector mirrors, and even with plastic molded lenses the costs are high.  Numbers like 500 x concentration are not possible with linear (one directional trough) Fresnels, and even with rotationally symmetrical lenses, achieving 500 x is difficult because of the scattering from the non active edges of the grooves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/78848/4066&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/78918/4066&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/78846/4066&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4929" RevisionGUID="5c1ed24b-53f5-4b46-be2e-d2ad91227b6c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:40:14.080" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am interested to know how large a solar panel one would need to produce pure oxygen and pure hydrogen from sea water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already found the required energy [here][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you assume perfect efficiency.....in terms of power, this is 3.67 kW for one hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/131168/how-many-joules-of-energy-are-required-to-convert-1-liter-of-water-into-hydrogen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="143" RevisionGUID="26916acb-30fd-4433-8a50-8920700ccf90" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:27.393" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://gardening.stackexchange.com/ with https://gardening.stackexchange.com/" Text="A great reference on seed saving for many common (and some rather uncommon) vegetable crops is &quot;Seed to Seed&quot; by Suzanne Ashworth. You can find tomatoes starting on p156. The info below is cribbed from this book and other sources. (Note that saving tomato seeds is a bit more involved than many other vegetables, some of which are trivial to save, like peas or beans.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are trying to save your own seeds indefinitely (i.e. without refreshing from another source), you'd want to save seeds from at least 20 different plants of the same variety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With modern varieties, you may not have to worry about isolation because they don't tend to cross. If you want to be sure about avoiding crossing, you can cage them to avoid insect crossing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tomato seeds need to ferment before they are viable. You'll need to help this fermentation along. Squeeze the seeds and tomato &quot;goo&quot; into a small bucket -- a 32oz yogurt container, deli tub, or similar container. Be sure to label the tubs. After a few days it will smell bad and grow a layer of mold over the top. (You'll want to have the bucket in a place where it won't get tipped over...) At this point, add more water, swish it around, and then let it settle for a moment. The good seeds will be at the bottom. You can skim off the top, or just pour the whole mess through a fine strainer. Rinse. &quot;Seed to Seed&quot; suggests putting the good seeds on a paper coffee filter; cloth or paper towels are a bad idea because it will be really hard to remove the seeds when they are dry. Let the seeds air-dry in dark place, stirring regularly. If they stay damp they may start to germinate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [this answer in gardening.SE about saving seeds](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/774/51) in general; that answer has a link to info that is specific to tomatoes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14498" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="368" RevisionGUID="4cc939e1-71f7-44f6-9263-5112ccd659bb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:27.393" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://gardening.stackexchange.com/ with https://gardening.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. Make up [a batch](https://paulwheaton12.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/deer-control/) of [bone sauce](http://hines.blogspot.com/2012/05/sepp-holzers-bone-saucesalve-how-to-for.html) and apply it to your tree trunks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; The first pot is buried in moist soil leaving an inch or two above ground. The second, upper, pot if filled with bones and a screen goes between the two pots. Clay seals the pots. A small fire is burned on top of the pots for about two hours. Then the wood is pulled away and the pots are covered with dirt. Let the pots cool overnight. Carefully clean all of the dirt off so that no dirt ends up in the bone sauce / salve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Grow plants that deer don't like. They didn't touch my garlic last spring, but they ate everything else... it's rumored that planting garlic around trees might keep them away, I don't know how well this works if there's a lot of feeding pressure.&#xD;&#xA;1. Grow lots of plants that deer *do* like as a distraction to keep them from the stuff you want for yourself.&#xD;&#xA;1. Grow &quot;deer resistant&quot; plants. Elderberries are supposed to tolerate being munched just about to the ground -- the roots will send up new canes.&#xD;&#xA;1. Get a dog; you'll still need a fence to keep the dog contained, but the requirements for a dog-proof fence are easier to meet than the requirements for a deer-proof fence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also questions where this has come up on gardening.SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [What is the best way to keep deer away?](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/3945/51)&#xD;&#xA;* [What is the best way to prevent animals from eating my garden without a fence?](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/615/51)&#xD;&#xA;* [What is the best way to keep deer away?](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/3945/51)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the [bottom line answer](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/3945/51) from that last question is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You will also find suggestions to use bars of soap, human hair, dogs or getting a hunting licence. These will work for some deer, some of the time but if you want a solution for all of the deer, all of the time you need a fence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not suburban, but I have a *lot* of deer pressure, and the only thing that works for me is a fence (and it has to be a *good* fence). (I haven't tried the bone sauce yet.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14500" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="389" RevisionGUID="29141f43-35cc-4071-8fe0-6448dbdadde6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:27.393" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://gardening.stackexchange.com/ with https://gardening.stackexchange.com/" Text="Possibly of interest: [What are some sustainable alternatives to peat for potting compost?](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/1483/51), several answers there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR: my favorite substitute for peat is fully-composted horse manure (with a wood-based bedding product), holds water a lot like peat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting my answer from that question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My (peat-free) recipe for potting soil is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    5 gal sifted garden soil  &#xD;&#xA;    5 gal sifted mature horse manure compost (we use a wood-based bedding   product, and the compost has some of the desirable properties of peat)  &#xD;&#xA;    5 gal coarse sand  &#xD;&#xA;    &quot;sprinkling&quot; of equal parts lime, greensand, and rock phosphate -- strength depending on what I'm potting  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Depending on what I'm planting and how much I have, sometimes I substitute sifted garden compost for all or part of the horse manure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I arrived at this recipe because the major components are free, it uses what I have on hand (it's basically impossible to run out of anything but fertilizer), and it has been very successful for getting seedlings off to a strong start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Based on what you have available locally (this is the essence of sustainability), experiment starting with my recipe or something similar and develop your own potting recipe. Nothing that comes from a Big Box is really all that sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="402" RevisionGUID="b1a57d4d-cab9-4509-90d8-cf9797b7e0f1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:27.393" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://gardening.stackexchange.com/ with https://gardening.stackexchange.com/" Text="The answer is: &quot;it depends&quot;. In theory, you could use a number of different models (e.g. the infographic in Daniel Bingham's answer, John Jeavon's &quot;How to Grow More Vegetables&quot;, [etc](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1433/51)). You'll get a wide variety of answers, and a lot depends on your specific circumstances -- and will likely vary widely for you from year to year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that a limiting factor may not be so much the *cold*, but the fact that the plants get fewer hours of sunlight in the winter as you move to higher latitudes, so they're not growing as much in the winter. Eliot Coleman talks about this in some of his books. One strategy you can use if this is an issue is to start your plants that will be harvested during the winter in the late summer so that they can have enough time to grow before the short days of winter arrive; they will be dormant (i.e. not growing) at that point but still harvestable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think an appropriate strategy would be to start small and experiment to figure out what *your* right size is. Set up some hoops over your garden to protect a handful of different winter crops. Keep track of how much space you allocate, what you've planted, and how much you can harvest and eat. Use this information to scale up your winter protection, and possibly to make adjustments to your crop selection, management, and harvesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A complementary strategy would be to increase the size of your summer garden so that you can have vegetables preserved for winter use. Winter squash, potatoes, and onions all store easily, and many more vegetables can be stored for months if you can provide a proper storage facility. (Apples and other fruits too, if you take a food forest approach to gardening.) Even if you don't have a good root cellar, you can preserve many other foods in a variety of ways. If you're processing your own chickens when there's a lot of vegetables available, use them in vegetable-heavy soups. (It makes the meat stretch farther.) These soups can be canned and enjoyed all winter long. I keep bags of greens (kale, spinach, chard) in the freezer for use in recipes during the winter -- lasagna, soups, quiche, etc. If you don't like the energy used by a freezer, most of these can be dried effectively as well, and stored for long periods that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, to put a number on it, let's say that you want to provide four 4oz salads (4oz of fresh greens only) a day for 6 months (October 1 through March 31). That's a pound a day for 180 days -- 180 pounds. A decent yield for spring-grown spinach would be about 1 pound per square foot, lettuce perhaps 2 lb/sqft. To make up a number, let's say you average about .5 lb/sqft for winter-harvested greens. You'd need a greenhouse with 360 square feet of **growing space**, plus space for paths, whatever heating you are going to provide, and whatever else you might keep in the building. It's a fairly simple formula, so you can play with the numbers, but until you *know* what your numbers really are (i.e. the strategy above), it's just a guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(I'm assuming greens above because they're among the easiest things for winter harvest, and to keep the answer simpler. Carrots and parsnips can be harvested in winter too as long as you keep the ground from freezing around them, but they don't need a greenhouse. I cribbed the yield numbers from Jeavons, because I had it handy.)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14502" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="650" RevisionGUID="39671803-f0a7-4696-ba24-3ce28e914d24" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:27.393" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://gardening.stackexchange.com/ with https://gardening.stackexchange.com/" Text="Simply put [biochar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar) is charcoal made by burning biomass and using it to enhance soil and/or capture CO2. The idea is that the charcoal improves the soil's carbon content and functions as a carbon sink for atmospheric CO2. This would be especially useful for depleted soils. The idea of using charcoil to enhance to soil was derived from the [Terra Preta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta) found in the Amazone. Terra Preta is very dark and rich soil with high content of charcoil that supposedly was created by Amazone natives between 450 BC and 950 AD. However, research has to point out how much of the idea behind biochar is actually true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can either buy Biochar or you can make it yourself via [pyrolysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis), which is burning organic materials with very low levels of oxygen. Here is [one movie](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXMUmby8PpU) on how to make it, but you can find [many other movies or webpages](http://www.google.nl/search?q=how+do+i+make+biochar) on the net.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biochar is currently used in all sorts or places - farm fields, gardens, indoor plantpots - but since we don't know much about its effect yet, its usage is mostly experimental. Raw biochar needs to be mixed with compost and water before adding it to your garden or else it will draw nutrients and water away from your plants. How much to add depends on the type of soil you have and possibly on what you want to grow, so you may want to do a soil analysis first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is quite a bit of professional research going on, as well as people experimenting themselves (just search the internet). Personally I found [this link](http://biochar.pbworks.com/w/page/9748043/FrontPage) very informative and useful.&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is also a [Gardening SE question on using charcoal as soil amendment](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1314/1916) with some interesting answers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2594" RevisionGUID="09b17a15-5fab-4bfb-bcb9-2a956a04066a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:27.393" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://gardening.stackexchange.com/ with https://gardening.stackexchange.com/" Text="There often is confusion about compostable plastics (see for example [this question on greenware items](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/55/99) or [this gardening question on plastic bags](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/8985/1916)).&#xD;&#xA;'Compostable' suggests that you can compost the plastic yourself, but most compostable plastics are made of [PLA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid) and that can only be composted in industrial composting facilities. This is because PLA requires high temperatures for several days to decompose. If you throw the plastic on your home compost pile it most likely won't degrade (or else very slowly) because the temperatures are often too low. However, plastics that can be composted at home do exist. I'd like to compile a list of plastics types that can be composted in home compost piles so we can refer people with questions about it to this post. Since I'm asking for a list of things, I've made this question community-wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What plastic types can you compost safely at home. Or which labels/certification schemes guarantee that you can compost it yourself? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please only answer if the label explicitly mentions that the plastic will break down in **home** compost piles, or if you've verified yourself that the plastic does break down. Please also include the method of composting (hot/cold composting).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3062" RevisionGUID="7002aa4d-2ecb-4e5c-9925-311fc376816c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:27.393" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://gardening.stackexchange.com/ with https://gardening.stackexchange.com/" Text="First of all, shredded cardboard is rather dry so you have to make sure that you are not starting with too little moisture. Also cardboard doesn't have much bacteria to start decomposition and preprocess the material for the worms (worms only eat material that's already decomposing), so I'd add a little bit of dirt and a few greens at the start as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I think it's better to start with less initial bedding material. Processing a lot of carbon in one go is more difficult than spreading it out over time, because you want to keep a [C:N ratio of 25](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/5762/1916) and a steady flow of decomposing material. Also lots of wet cardboard may clog up your draining system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much material worms can process depend on various factors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - amount of surface available (red wigglers like to stay just below the surface)&#xD;&#xA; - amount of worms (this will regulate itself over time if conditions are right)&#xD;&#xA; - preferred temperature for the worms (for red wigglers this is [55–77 degrees Fahrenheit (13–25 degrees Celsius)](http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-help-your-composting-worms-thrive.html)).&#xD;&#xA; - preferred moisture level (about 60-70% is ideal)&#xD;&#xA; - ph level / type of food (don't add too much citrus fruits at a time)&#xD;&#xA; - amount of air (make sure the contents don't turn into a soggy lump)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Red wiggler worms can eat about [half of their weight in food every day](http://home.howstuffworks.com/vermicomposting1.htm), but there has to be already decomposing material available, so you need to feed regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read that in an up-and-running bin there generally are around 1.5-2 lbs of worms per square feet (7-10 kg per m2), so with 2 x 2 = 4 square feet and 5 lbs of worms you are already approaching maximum processing speed. This means that you'll be running at maximum processing speed in a few weeks, provided the conditions in your bin are right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much bedding/compost you pile up over time depends on what your goal is. Personally I'd remove already finished compost once or twice a year (or more regularly in case of a flow through bin) and keep the bin between 1/4 and 3/4 full. There is little point to filling it to the top." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3196" RevisionGUID="f63c0345-9430-4ca2-93f9-bcb695e86bff" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:27.393" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://gardening.stackexchange.com/ with https://gardening.stackexchange.com/" Text="The [Gardening StackExchange][1] question [Renovating mature pear trees][2]&#xD;&#xA;asks about the techniques for keeping existing old (75-100 years) trees alive.&#xD;&#xA;How does the choice between renovating old trees vs removing them and buying new trees affect &#xD;&#xA;&quot;*a lifestyle that can be maintained indefinitely without depleting available resources*&quot;? &#xD;&#xA;What are the issues?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://gardening.stackexchange.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/14841/renovating-mature-pear-trees" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4821" RevisionGUID="7d1a8d5c-bfc8-42d1-bfb8-88b7990c4707" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:42:27.393" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://gardening.stackexchange.com/ with https://gardening.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Overview&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following system for sustainable food production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Urban Plan][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The purpose of this system is to provide an environmentally-friendly, semi- (or fully-) automated means to produce food for lots of people. Similar in nature to the [Earthship][2] question, but delving into a few more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need help performing calculations on multi-storey indoor farms, using vertical plan production. I'm trying to reconcile the following variables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* People to feed.&#xD;&#xA;* Building dimensions and storeys.&#xD;&#xA;* Total wattage necessary for lighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1,000 people&#xD;&#xA;* 64m x 64m x 6 storeys x 4m per storey&#xD;&#xA;* 7.71MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following sections serve as an example calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the purposes of an example, assume a population of 350 people (but it could be 1,000 or any other number). The minimum global daily [intake][3] as of 2006 is 1850 calories per person, which is 7740kJ per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* daily = 7740kJ&#xD;&#xA;* input = 350 x 7740kJ x 365 = 988785MJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a given population of 350 people, they require a minimum of 988785MJ of energy per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Plant Growth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we know the energy per year needed by the population, it is possible to determine the size and harvests of a food that will yield that energy amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A giant large red round [heirloom][4] tomato stores 85kJ of energy per 100g, and reaches an average of [375g][5] in 65 days, which equals 318kJ. (Round the number of annual harvests down to 5 to err on caution.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = 318kJ (per tomato)&#xD;&#xA;* yield = 50 (per plant)&#xD;&#xA;* harvests = 5 (per year)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number of plants is calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* plants = input / (harvests x yield x energy)&#xD;&#xA;* plants = 988785MJ / (5 x 50 x 318kJ)&#xD;&#xA;* plants ~= 12450&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The space required for each tomato plant:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* diameter = 2m&#xD;&#xA;* height = 1.5m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Building Area&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The minimum building area is calculated using:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = (pi x diameter/2) x plants&#xD;&#xA;* area = (pi x 2m^2/2) x 12,450&#xD;&#xA;* area = 3.14159265m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 12,450 = 39,113m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since indoor farms use vertical space, we can pick an arbitrary number of storeys for the building. In this example, we'll choose 10. At 10 storeys, each storey must occupy 3,911.3m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Therefore, a square building would be approximately **63m** per side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using plants 1.5m tall, means a storey 3m tall fits two levels of plants per storey. This halves the building length and width to **31.5m** per side. We still need to account for interstitial space for infrastructure (e.g., ducts, plumbing, wiring). This adds 10.5m per side, bringing the total length and width to ~42m per side. Thus:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* storeys = 10&#xD;&#xA;* plant floor space = 31.5m x 31.5m&#xD;&#xA;* interstitial = 1/3 (10.5m)&#xD;&#xA;* total floor space = 42m x 42m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Lighting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using high-efficiency LED grow lamps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* racks = 2&#xD;&#xA;* coverage = 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = plant floor space / coverage x racks x storeys&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = 992.25m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; / 1.2192m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 2 x 10&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; ~= 16277&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using light movers increases coverage by 35 per cent, therefore:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - (0.35 x lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;) ~= 10,581&#xD;&#xA;* movers = lamps&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; - lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = 5,696&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy Requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electrical needs are calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* power = 250W (per lamp)&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; = lamps&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; x power ~= 2.65MW&#xD;&#xA;* total&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; + movers x 5W = 2.68MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My primary concern is whether **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** is correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Plasma lighting][6] seems unbelievably efficient, which could reduce substantially reduce power requirements even further.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Additional Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nate Storey][7] calculated the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Using current LED efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA; - Sustain (calorie + nutrition) 1,000 people on a variety of foods.&#xD;&#xA; - The building is 64m x 64m (approx. 1 acre) by 6 storeys.&#xD;&#xA; - Each storey must be 4m (approx. 13 feet) high.&#xD;&#xA; - Vertical plane production within the vertical building.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires 45 watts/sq. ft. per hour, at 18 hours per day for ~3.5 square feet of production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this implies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* area = 64m x 64m x 6 = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; area&#xD;&#xA;* power = 45W/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* energy = area x power = 24576m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; x 484.376W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; = 11.9MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His calculations show ~11.9MW to feed 1,000 people; my calculations show ~2.68MW to feed 350 people, which is ~7.66MW to feed 1,000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What assumptions made for **total&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt;** are incorrect, if any, and how can they be corrected?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E5zJO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/1433/13418&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/food_security_statistics/MinimumDietaryEnergyRequirement_en.xls&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.caloriecount.com/calories-freshdirect-beefsteak-tomato-i140109&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://californiahybrids.com/category/large-tomatoes/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://luxim.resilient.lighting/products/grow-lighting&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.brightagrotech.com/dr-nate-storey-aquaponics-expert/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="613" RevisionGUID="53d349db-08ff-4c1b-83f1-36d4fd362ad4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:46:44.690" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/" Text="EVs offer some definite advantages, and lots of advantages that depend on the specifics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**short answer: yes, it's better than driving a fossil-fuel car.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long answer: it may seem to make less sense if you only consider a very small range of impacts, where all of the costs are visible, but only some of the benefits. Only when you zoom out to the long-term system level do you capture all of the benefits. And there are even better alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of their quantified advantages over petrol (gasoline) &amp; diesel, it will depend on just how your electricity is generated, and what the full lifecycle costs are of each vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###carbon in motion&#xD;&#xA;Even if the extra electricity is provided by coal, an electric vehicle is so much more efficient than a fossil car, that there will be carbon savings: electric cars are typically 80-90% efficient, compared to about 20% for a fossil car. So even with a coal plant at 33% efficiency, there's still a carbon saving from the electric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They definitely reduce local pollution - unlike fossil cars, they don't emit NOx, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, CO or particulates.  And they are much easier to decarbonise than fossil cars - they just need renewable electricity to recharge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I wrote [over on skeptics.SE][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars are about 4× as efficient as fossil-fuelled combustion engines, tank-to-wheel: [ICE engine efficiency][1] is around 20%. Electric engines tend to be [around 80-90%][2].  For the whole-cycle energy-efficiency, then well-to-wheel would be the efficiency you were after, and then it would be very sensitive to how your electricity would be generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that pretty much all electric cars benefit from regenerative braking, and very few fossil-cars do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficiencies do depend on the drive cycle: and whereas ICEs tend to be optimised for speeds around 85km/h, the efficiency of electric cars decreases with increasing speed, just as the core physics would lead you to expect:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[(source)][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on &quot;power-station to wheel&quot; efficiencies of electric vehicles, see the [US Gov Fuel Economy][6] site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###embodied energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chassis of an electric vehicle is usually lighter, too (except the Rolls Royce Electric Phantom), so there can be lower impact on materials for the chassis.  The batteries are materials-intensive; they are currently so valuable that a lot of attention is paid to end-of-life reuse and recycling of the materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###big picture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric vehicles can help with the market penetration of exogenously-variable renewables such as wind and PV. They release some of the stranglehold that oil companies have on the economy and politics. They make for quieter streets, and quieter car journeys. They eliminate the local pollution from car exhausts (tail pipes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in general, yes, electric cars are a significant improvement over their fossil-fuel guzzling competitors. I've seen no evidence that the batteries end up in landfill after just 3 years of life - that seems to be a bizarre and unsupported claim. Such a practice would not be remotely sustainable. I have seen evidence that some manufactures are seeking to recover the batteries: presently, at least here in the UK, a lot of electric-car suppliers are leasing, rather than selling, the batteries, which means that they'll go back to the manufacturer at the end of their life for complete recycling. After all, a dead battery contains all the ingredients needed to make a brand-new battery - the thing that needs doing, is reversing all the decay chemistry, which is just a question of energy inputs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###bigger picture&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Patterns both of car ownership and use have changed hugely in the last 4 decades. And the change in the 4 decades before that was huge too. 4 decades is enough for really big changes in transport patterns. For several reasons. It's 1.5-2 generations, giving plenty of time for cultural attitudes to shift. It's long enough for disruptive technological innovations to gain big market share. And it's long enough for a sufficient amount of land-use to be reshaped around new transport patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current car ownership doesn't make a lot of sense, from lots of perspectives. Most cars spend almost all their time stationary. Quite a lot of dwellings have different cars for different purposes. Most cars are able to drive hundreds of miles on a single refuelling, but very rarely if ever do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible we will see completely different patterns of ownership in the future, with various different forms of shared ownership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also possible that the growing obesity epidemic in parts of the developed world, the internalising of negative externalities into energy prices, and a better public understanding of the prerequisites for and importance of a vibrant public realm, lead to a resurgence in walking and cycling, negating the need for a big proportion of current car ownership and use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://courses.washington.edu/me341/oct22v2.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.claverton-energy.com/?dl_name=nazisharks1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9tHTr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/15013/6236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="87a10f56-e7dd-4af9-87b9-a877babfe324" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:46:44.690" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/" Text="As [Highly Irregular suggests][1] this very much depends on the specifics of your vehicle, conditions outside of your car and your desired conditions inside your vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this question was brought up on [skeptics][2] the best evidence we could find was from Mythbusters which visited this topic in both [episode 22][3] and [episode 38][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Episide 22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PARTLY CONFIRMED *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tests were performed under varying conditions (55 mph versus 45 mph). The 55 mph test used a computer to estimate fuel efficiency based on air intake, not actual fuel consumption, and showed A/C was more efficient. The 45 mph test consisted of running the tank until it was empty, and showed open windows were more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Because the original tests were inconclusive, this &quot;urban puzzle&quot; was revisited in episode 38: It is more fuel efficient to use air conditioning when the car is travelling approximately 50mph or more. Otherwise, windows are more fuel efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Episode 38&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PARTLY CONFIRMED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fundamental flaw in the MythBusters’ test was that the point where the drag becomes powerful enough to inhibit a car’s performance with windows down was inside their 45 – 55mph margin at 50mph. Going less than 50mph it is more efficient to leave your windows down, but going greater than 50mph it is more efficient to use your A/C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly unless you have the same vehicle, are driving in the same conditions and have the same comfort requirements, this tells you little about your own situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next time you fill up, decide on a strategy and stick to it until your next fill up, then calculate your overall fuel efficiency. Then try a different strategy and see if the efficiency changes. From a series of such tests you can build up a body of empirical evidence about how your own vehicle, preferences and environment interact, and thus find out what is most sustainable for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/736/164&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/5661/2772&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode22&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode38" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="868" RevisionGUID="ecfcc0a5-f08e-45b1-9b98-4d7fc6fc5e61" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:46:44.690" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/" Text="Use the kettle if you have one, and if you're nearby, switch it off as soon as it boils.&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some evidence to prove it's the best option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method:&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Measure 252g of cold tap water into Frog Mug using electronic kitchen scales, being the amount I'd use to make a cup of tea. Temperature according to my thermometer is 18 degrees C.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Plug microwave in through power meter.&#xD;&#xA; 3. See how long the water in the Frog Mug takes to boil in the microwave, and measure wattage used.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Measure 252g of cold tap water into Dog Mug using electronic kitchen scales, being the amount I'd use to make a cup of tea. Temperature according to my thermometer is 18 degrees C. Add a little extra because otherwise I end up with lime scale from the kettle in my tea. Though I picked this amount roughly, this worked out to be 121g giving 373g altogether. I could've used a little less.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Pour the 373g of water into the electric kettle, and plug it in through the power meter.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Boil the kettle, measure the wattage, and time how long it takes to boil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Microwave and frog mug][1]&#xD;&#xA;![Electric kettle and dog mug][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Results&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Frog Mug, in the microwave:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - My thermometer only goes up to 50 degrees C, so I very briefly took out the Frog Mug at 30s and 50s to measure the temperature, which was 32 degrees and 40 degrees respectively. I put it on for a further 2 minutes after that, for a total of 2 minutes 50 seconds.&#xD;&#xA; - Though it was a little hard to see through the mesh in the microwave while it was running, the water just started to appear to boil after 2m50s.&#xD;&#xA; - The microwave used 1315 watts of power throughout the test, thus using a total of 223550 Watt-seconds of power. If I did my calculations correctly, this is 0.062kWh (which costs a bit under 2 cents here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dog Mug, from the kettle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It took 1m 28s for the water to start to boil in the kettle, however it didn't automatically shut itself off until 1m52s. &#xD;&#xA; - The kettle used 990 Watts of power, which gives a total power usage of 110880 Watt-seconds, or 0.031kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The microwave would also have been heating the Frog Mug as it heated the water, so this gives a hotter cup of tea than the kettle, unless some hot water from the kettle is swirled around the mug and discarded before pouring from the kettle. Water in a lighter (or less thermally conductive) mug would boil quicker.&#xD;&#xA; - The heat lost by my measuring of the temperature of the water in the Frog Mug would probably have been fairly minimal, but still non-zero.&#xD;&#xA; - My Frog Mug weighs 366g, though I have a mug of similar size that only weighs 252g.&#xD;&#xA; - Also bear in mind that boiling water in the microwave can [sometimes be dangerous][3].&#xD;&#xA; - The microwave (a Sharp Carousel) was purchased in approx 2004; I don't know if more recent models are any more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The water heated by the electric kettle used only about half the energy of the water heated in the microwave, despite a greater amount of water being heated.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I could have saved a further 23760 Watt-seconds (21% of the total used), or 0.007kWh of power if I manually switched off the kettle when it first started boiling.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lu0TY.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/n2sbM.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/303/can-microwaved-water-explode/306#306" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2958" RevisionGUID="5590ab8c-c64d-4491-ab4c-84ecda79aa52" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:46:44.690" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Yes, being a vegetarian is more environmentally-friendly than otherwise**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question has been asked and answered on Skeptics Stack Exchange, based on a claim by PETA to that point.  [Full details are in this answer](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/6848/5337).  To summarise the summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Production of meat is a major source of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.  A vegetarian diet therefore leads to less emissions&#xD;&#xA; * [80% of deforestation is to grow more crops for feeding livestock](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/12330/5337), so a wide adoption of vegetarian diets would reduce deforestation significantly&#xD;&#xA; * There are other factors as well, such as use of water sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes, vegetarianism does help to protect the environment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="53b05f87-2331-4fe6-ab97-4af6b75d5644" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:46:44.690" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/" Text="###Summary&#xD;&#xA;No, that's way too little. I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Running the numbers&#xD;&#xA;Following on from one of Elon Musk's presentations, which showed an area of about 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; as the area of PV panels needed to power the USA, the question came up on the [Skeptics Stack Exchange](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/27628/6236).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the numbers from this [fact-checking of Elon Musk's blue square - how much solar to power the US](http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/): US electricity consumption is about 425 GW. And 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of the best currently-commercially-available PV panels would give about 500 GW of mean electricity. Now, that's putting aside time-matching supply and demand, transmission losses, and so on: it's just looking at multi-year average supply and multi-year average demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, allowing for a ratio of about 2.5:1 for the actual amount of land spanned by such an installation would mean about 25,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of land spanned. (because one doesn't blanket-cover a desert area without gaps, as that wouldn't be the most economical physical arrangement)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between this 25,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and the claim is pretty huge: 140 square miles is 362 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###How did this error happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen errors of this scale before. In all the other cases &amp;mdash;  and so, I'm guessing, in this case &amp;mdash; an editor or non-technical author has taken a technical source, and swapped the order of two words: the distance unit and the &quot;square&quot;, and in doing so has completely mangled the meaning. So &quot;metres square&quot; becomes &quot;square metres&quot;; or &quot;km square&quot; becomes &quot;square km&quot;; or &quot;miles square&quot; becomes &quot;square miles&quot;. It's an easy editing mistake to make: &quot;square miles&quot; is much more common than &quot;miles square&quot;, and to a non-technical editor or author, they might sound like different ways of saying the same thing (even though they are completely different in reality). And so the editor/author does their job and replaces an unusual variant with its much more common supposed synonym, unwittingly transforming the meaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the claim had been that an area of 140 *miles square* of PV could power the USA, then that would be entirely reasonable: that would be about 50,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, which is a conservative over-estimate of the area needed. So I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;. (the former is 140 times the area of the latter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###What does it mean to say &quot;it would power the US&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These claims of &quot;X resource needed to power Y&quot; are usually about mean (average) supply and mean demand, and that's typically a one-year or multi-year average. This is equivalent to saying that total production over the period would be at least as much as total consumption over the same period. The estimates aren't done to present a completely specified working system; but to give an idea of the scale of resource needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally, the context makes it clear if it is about a much more sophisticated bit of modelling, typically a dispatch model, that is matching supply and demand in each timeslice (e.g. every half-hour for a year). Even then, it's not about peak capacity equalling peak demand, but about half-hourly supply meeting or exceeding half-hourly demand. (Peak capacity is rarely an interesting or relevant number for modern generation systems; whereas for dirty old systems, it was indeed a standard metric.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="506" RevisionGUID="0b735e13-2273-4fd4-8fa1-d55d97d2c188" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:47:21.297" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/ with https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/" Text="## Driving Strategies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some research and personal experimentation on the topic, and here are some findings (more information in attached links). To achieve better mileage I would advocate the **appropriate driving**. The term _defensive driving_ relates to proactive risk management of on-road hazards, and can be done regardless of speed and acceleration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arbitrary “slower speed” does not guarantee better fuel economy, as different vehicles have different optimal RPM range for any given gear (with highest gear being most economical). However, at motorway speeds aerodynamic drag plays ever increasing role, and that optimal RPM range is usually allows for lower speed than most people indulge themselves on the autobahn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, smooth acceleration and aptly timed deceleration is key, but there are instances where it does not hold true. For example if one pulls out of side street during a rush hour, and the choice is to accelerate rapidly to safely merge into traffic, or be faced with the long line of cars and couple of minutes of idling, the winner is clearly the former (more on evils of idling later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proper deceleration is important, because fast braking (even if one “drives defensively” well under speed limit) does nothing but converting kinetic energy into waste heat, whereas there are more efficient ways to slow down. Releasing throttle well ahead of time not only reduces wear of brake pads and tyres, but allows the car to use natural losses of energy (inside the engine and drivetrain, aerodynamic drag etc.) to slow itself down. Importantly, it has to be done in gear ([engine braking][1]) which qualifies as an _engine overrun_ condition (throttle is off and RPMs are higher than idle) at which point ECU on modern fuel-injected petrol motors _shuts off fuel delivery entirely_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to greatly reduce need for acceleration by planning ahead and properly timing the traffic signals, slowing down well ahead of red lights in order to roll onto green, or accelerating when needed to make the green light, to avoid idling on red.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## On Evils of Idling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next big thing is **to reduce idling**. Besides the obvious “burning fuel with no miles” (0 MPG), there are more serious mechanical consideration against idling (even aforementioned fuel shut-off during overrun was primarily introduced to protect catalytic converter from incomplete combustion). Those are [enumerated elsewhere on SE][2], but in short that incomplete combustion leads to reducing effectiveness of spark plugs (which, in turn, further reduces fuel economy), glazing of combustion chamber, contaminating of oil, and excessive amount of water in exhaust system which increases corrosion. Moreover, idling produces more pollution from the same amount of fuel. For those concerned about implication of frequent stopping and restarting the vehicle, there is some math in above link, and more [in another][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practicality, this means turning off engine at long stop lights, railroad crossings, at the corner shop, and so forth, and reducing time spent warming up. Modern engines warm up better when they are put under moderate load rather than idling. And in the winter, one should protect the windscreen from defrosting with covered parking or putting blanket on it overnight, and to wear weather appropriate clothing, and not waiting for the car interior to turn into sauna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## More Better&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other suggestions are also true: **proper tyre pressure** (also, safety issue, as under-inflated tyres are at risk of overheating failure), **low rolling resistance tyres** ([some concerns addressed][4]), **diligent maintenance** (plugs, wires, oil and filters affect performance in little ways that can add up), and **removing unnecessary weight or aerodynamic impediments** (if you do not have skis or a bicycle on your roof rack, it has to go).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of the mechanicals, **alternative transportation** (walking, biking, public transport, motorcycling) and **carpooling** can make an impact. Public transport generally takes longer time, but this time can be used more productively (reading, homework, work), one avoids traffic stress, parking costs, reduces wear, tear, and statistical possibility of an accident in own car. Also helps **avoiding rush hour** when possible, and **combining trips** (engine is more efficient at proper operating temperature, and many separate small trips do not allow motor to reach it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keeping track of the fuel usage (I use Fuelly, [personally][5]) helps not only for monitoring effects of any particular approach, but can also point to problems if certain negative trends develop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The above is very sensible practises that many can readily apply today in improving their driving habits without entering arcane realm of hardcore _hypermiling_.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/3600/is-engine-braking-harmful/3610#3610&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/1772/is-idling-bad-for-your-engine/3428#3428&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/825/is-start-stop-technology-good-or-bad-for-my-car-alfa-mito/3566#3566&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/3030/are-there-any-disadvantage-to-fuel-efficient-tires/3471#3471&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.fuelly.com/driver/theUg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="670" RevisionGUID="eed316d2-7de2-48e0-92c8-0f6faae127f0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:47:21.297" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/ with https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/" Text="I’ve already touched on this topic on the sister SE site [once][1] or [twice][2]. To summarize what is told there (check for more detail), there would be several considerations as related to energy use and sustainability:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Idling in itself wastes fuel for no good reason, and that adds up. In US (country whose residents drive probably more than anyone else on Earth, to put it in perspective) the average cars idles 16 minutes a day (including warming up, waiting, and sitting in traffic). Even 2.0 L compact car would burn (at a rate of 1 L per hour) almost 100 L of fuel a year. Obviously, some idling is unavoidable, but even half of that saved and multiplied by the number of all the cars in the world would amount to significant impact.&#xD;&#xA;* Idling negatively affects the engine internals due to incomplete combustion (glazing of the combustion chamber, fouling of the spark plugs) which further decreases fuel efficiency for all other regimes of operation.&#xD;&#xA;* What’s more, excessive idling affects other components (burning up of the catalytic converter, increased corrosion of exhaust system, increased engine wear due to higher vibration etc.), whose premature wear and replacement lead to increased use of raw materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What one can do (and what I do) is to turn off engine during long traffic lights, railway crossings and so forth. Anything more than 10 to 15 seconds (very generously) would save fuel, because car that is already warm does not need that much effort to re-start, as it is at the proper operating temperature, and oil is distributed around the engine and at a high lubricity. Motor stays within the efficient range of temperatures for more than few minutes, and takes several hours to completely cool down (depending on the weather), so there is definitely no need to keep the car running during short errand (never mind someone could simply run off with the vehicle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any concerns about premature wear of the starting infrastructure are moot considering savings on fuel and other engine components (one could afford to replace starters every 3-4 years at the worst). See the linked posts for detailed arithmetic. And any energy losses that occur during starting, and keeping the electrical loads going during the time the engine is off are minuscule compared to energy used by petrol combustion while idling. See [relevant question][3] at Physics.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/a/3428/1764&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/a/3566/1764&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/57794/16432" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2815" RevisionGUID="3a418259-e48a-43ab-bee1-2785aa791d4e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:47:21.297" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/ with https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Yes, it matters, a little, but it also depends on your location.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your car, the process of converting fuel to movement is pretty inefficient (about 25% to 30%, [according to this][1]). That movement (kinetic energy, if you're a physicist) is then converted to electrical energy with an [efficiency of 75% to 80%][2], giving you an overall efficiency of 18.75% to 24%. You might also consider the inefficiency of getting the fuel to the service station that you bought it from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using more electricity in your car means a higher physical resistance experienced by the engine when it tries to turn the core of the alternator. ie it's harder to turn the alternator when more electricity is being drawn from it, and thus more fuel is used to keep the vehicle at the same speed, unless the vehicle is idling, or [overrunning the engine][3] downhill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your home, electricity is generated with varying efficiencies depending on the generation that supplies it. Transmission losses in the US are [apparently about 6.5%][4] (ie 93.5% efficient). It looks like an average for generation efficiency [would be around 39%][5]. This last link also says the overall efficiency of getting power to the consumer is about 33%, which seems about right, given the previous two figures. The efficiency is somewhat higher than when you use electricity from your car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It's better to charge your phone from home.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it very much depends on how your electricity for your home is generated. If you use an electricity retailer that leans towards renewable energy, it's going to be much better for the planet. It's clear there would be very few cases where the electricity grid generation was so inefficient that your car did a better job.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All that said, cellphones don't use much power. It's probably not worth worrying about too much.** For most people, there are much bigger energy efficiency improvements that can be made through actions like improving home insulation and heating/cooling systems, reducing use of hot water, and analysis of home appliance electricity use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Internal_combustion_engines&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternator_%28automotive%29#Field_regulation&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/a/3610/1761&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Production" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5611" RevisionGUID="2cdbde3f-da7d-426b-bec7-30e799871f00" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:47:21.297" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://mechanics.stackexchange.com/ with https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/" Text="According to [this answer over on mechanics.SE][1], below a certain engine RPM, your vehicle automatically disengages the torque converter. That is to say, when stopped, there isn't a fundamental difference between having the transmission in drive or neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, shifting back and forth each time you're at a stop light does cause a bit of wear, and slows your reaction time (meaning you might slow traffic behind you, or be unable to respond quickly in case of emergency).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/a/3904" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="52" RevisionGUID="523ca5eb-55b6-4f2c-b26f-6e96cfaf6a75" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Open fireplaces provide minimal heat to a house, as the warm air heads out the chimney, while cool air is sucked in to the house to replace it. This is a great feature when cooking over wood in the summer, but it's not helpful for staying warm in the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can buy a woodstove insert that will improve the efficiency, keeping more of the heat in your house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in a major project, look at high thermal mass stoves, which can be extremely efficient when burning wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [rethinktag mentions][1], **moisture content of wood** is extremely important. All the latent moisture in wood must be evaporated before the wood can get hot enough to burn. Wetter wood means more heat devoted to drying the wood out, which means burning more wood. Wetter wood also means cooler fires, which means incomplete combustion, leading to increased air pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/45/164" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="64" RevisionGUID="e05f94ac-70cd-46c2-afa3-8f26814b4445" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Starting a compost on your balcony seems to be feasible. You can buy or build your own box of suitable dimensions.  &#xD;&#xA;Keeping it running is not difficult if it's shaded but not rained, you have to water it from time to time. And you just add the material and take (and use) the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the smell, it depends mainly on the balance of the substances inside, some [advices are here][1]. That means it can take your time to manage it almost smell-less.  Here you want to keep in mind the proper [Carbon-Nitrogen ratio of the mixture](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1262/what-are-the-carbon-nitrogen-ratios-of-common-household-wastes).&#xD;&#xA;In my experience including grass cuts (gardening leftovers) makes it better, having mostly kitchen leftovers makes it worse. Temperatures around and below 0°C (freezing) slow/stop the composting process and the smell worsens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, be careful of cockroachs: you may need to place your compost over some kind of high ground with some liquid at the feet to avoid attracting them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/38/60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="68" RevisionGUID="d9917c2e-ca8d-42cb-a7cd-28fb5d59225e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I use [PVGIS calculator][1] to estimate photovoltaics energy gain to my satisfaction. It contains realistic Europe and Africa weather data.  &#xD;&#xA;Although this would be only a far estimate, let's assume you face south and you're based in Rome, Italy (instead of Chicago, IL), and we get:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* a maximum of 1260 kWh a year with an optimal inclination of 34° and almost south direction&#xD;&#xA;* 810 kWh a year (64% short) with 90° inclination (straight up-down) and a south direction&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;from a 1 [kW&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt;][2] installed power, i.e. 6m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of fully covered area. As you probably don't want to entirely cover your windows, you should search for transparent thin film PV panels. Their covered area for 1 kW&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt; would be double or more, depending on the required transmittance and price would be rather high (as of 2013).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the best way? Sometimes it's better to consume less energy (or preserve more of it) than try to produce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question [Estimating the cost of solar panels and return time][3] has got some very good answers with references of solar power generation calculators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/apps4/pvest.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt-peak&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/155/60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="fbec44cc-a9e3-4b57-9b62-df30c4107b60" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/72/66) to a question about a toilet/sink combo makes me wonder:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What design considerations need to be taken into account if I was to modify my existing sink &amp; toilet so that the sink waste water supplies the toilet tank?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm specifically thinking about&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* relative heights&#xD;&#xA;* traps&#xD;&#xA;* overflow&#xD;&#xA;* under-supply (i.e. how do you provide for the situation where the tank needs more water but nobody is using the sink -- does it automatically fill with water from a separate supply line, or do you have to run water in the sink?)&#xD;&#xA;* sanitary requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but there may be other considerations that I haven't thought about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="77" RevisionGUID="2d341778-7fe7-4667-980d-07263316f7ee" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="(Corrected)The &quot;thermal mass&quot; value you're interested in increasing is essentially the same (exceptions mentioned in [this other answer][1]) as the mass (essentially weight, for those not into learning physics!) of your material multiplied by its &quot;[specific heat capacity][2]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That doesn't help much when it comes to keeping mass down. However, there is a way around it. You can use liquid mass (water is cheap, and very heavy) and store it elsewhere. You just need a way to gently circulate it past the stove and store it in a tank somewhere (one that can handle the temperature increasing somewhat higher than your average water tank!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your tank is located outside of the space you want to heat, you'll need to insulate it heavily, along with the pipes leading to it. In that case you may also need panels for radiating the heat back into the building, which you'd circulate the hot water through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a liquid to distribute heat is a common method of heating a building; sometimes oil is used and a furnace is running while the building needs heating though. Using oil almost certainly isn't going to be sustainable though, especially when you want to store a tank of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using water, all parts of the system will need to be protected from corrosion (from the inside, especially). It will also need to be able to handle the changes in pressure as the water warms up (and a sudden increase if the water happened to boil by overheating).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, adding mass to any other part of your building that is reasonably warm will help, especially if the insulation is good. This may be an option too. It doesn't have to be right next to the stove (though the closer it is, the more effective it will be)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/80/15&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="88" RevisionGUID="554cb5d7-2350-4bad-aa8f-897b78bacd4c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. Make sure your roses are not in a location with strong winds, if so relocate them. The best place is a sunny area with at least 4 hours of sun and only slightly windy.&#xD;&#xA;2. Use an organic fertilizer so the roses have enough nutrients. Usually you need to do this twice a year (early spring and after the first flush of bloom) but check the instructions on the fertilizer for more information.&#xD;&#xA;3. Once the greenflies appear spray the roses every day with water, preferably early in the morning so the plant can dry during the day. If there are lots of greenflies add some soap and/or vinegar to the water before spraying. &#xD;&#xA;4. Alternatively you can try to attract or buy ladybugs that eat the aphids and/or [try to get rid of any ants](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/412/99) that feed on the greenflies and fend of ladybugs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also read somewhere that lavender, thyme, sage or garlic plants planted between the roses may also help. I've tried lavender last year myself but didn't notice any effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="104" RevisionGUID="a948649f-04b5-4b45-aa08-93f7a182e694" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="The presently dominant economic system appears to require exponential economic growth. I may be wrong, but whether or not it is is a question that is off-topic here — for the sake of this question, suppose that our economy needs growth and that a steady-state economy wouldn't work. Research has shown that economic growth and an increase in standard of living are tightly linked to an increase in energy use (see e.g. [Physics World](http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/nov/27/modelling-civilization-as-heat-engine-could-improve-climate)). Given the fact that energy sources are finite&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, does this mean that economic models that rely on growth are unsustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/95/106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;Of course, there is still plenty of room for growth, as vast amounts of renewable resources go unused." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="126" RevisionGUID="45f14d37-f4df-47de-b33e-a9b88643163b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  &#xA;&gt; [Impact of various travelling options](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/93/impact-of-various-travelling-options)  &#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;[Freakonomics makes the claim](http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/11/15/mass-transit-hysteria-full-transcript/) that for public transportation, provided ridership is sufficiently high, that the most energy efficient means is commuter trains and subways and that buses are the least efficient.  Further, they claim that buses actually consume more energy than cars per rider due to average bus ridership being about ten passengers in that if each person riding the bus instead took a car and the bus did not run, there would be less energy consumed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Typically, moving a passenger a mile by bus requires roughly 20&#xD;&#xA;&gt; percent more energy than moving a passenger around by car.  So, just&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in terms of energy expenditure, bus actually fares worse than car.](http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/11/07/can-mass-transit-save-the-environment-right-wing-or-left-wing-heres-a-post-everybody-can-hate/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any truth to this claim and how would one go about objectively measuring the complete impact (not just energy) of the various choices for moving about?  Do the choices vary by city size and population density, for example New York City (cited as very efficient) versus Cincinnati?  What are some of the non-obvious externalities of the various public transportation options?  Finally, if the bus system is running whether I'm on it or not, surely it is more sustainable if I ride it instead of taking my car, but by riding it, I'm encouraging its existence, so should I ride the bus or drive to reach a more sustainable solution to transit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14525" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="151" RevisionGUID="8eab370d-0bc6-4182-8b31-2a6316a30015" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a really difficult question to answer but I might give this a try. As you already noticed, the WWF formula is quite strange and the results are intransparent. You always have to be careful with calculators like this. Mostly the footprints are too complex to simply calculate them on some website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, I guess 1.7 planets refers to the ecological footprint of the whole mankind if *every single human would live like you do*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to calculate your own ecological footprint I would recommend a little excercise for school teachers and students &quot;*How big is my ecological footprint?*&quot; by Tim Turner. It can be found [here][1] (PDF) and takes about 1 hour. You have to answer 50 questions on the following topics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Water usage&#xD;&#xA; - Food&#xD;&#xA; - Transportation&#xD;&#xA; - Shelter&#xD;&#xA; - Energy usage&#xD;&#xA; - Clothing&#xD;&#xA; - ... and some fun facts to keep the students motivated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is your ecological footprint measured in hectars/acres. But this is by far **not scientific**. It only helps you to understand the complexity of calculating footprints and might point out some of the most important influences on your ecological footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might also be interested in the complexity of calculating carbon footprints of various transportation options as discussed in this thread: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/93/103&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.earthrangers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/how_big_is_my_ecological_footprint.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="158" RevisionGUID="12690c3a-8077-4810-9b0a-0dc79ba5ab82" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've seen a number of question about composting here. Five, if the [tag:composting] tag is a good way to measure. In my sustainability efforts (no car, no meat, no flying) I've never really considered composting. The conditions are not optimal: I have an apartment with a balcony (see also [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/7/106) and I live in a sub-Arctic climate with seven months per year below 0°C and only one month averaging above 10°C. I do my best to separate my trash to maximize recycling, and the small amount of rest-waste (burnable waste) that I have left ends up in the furnace at the town heating plant, which is used to heat public buildings and apartment (including the one I rent) in town, as well as to generate some electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see the point in minimising waste because of natural resources, but where exactly lies the sustainability gain in composting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="162" RevisionGUID="b76a093d-9b85-4a5a-88bf-6e21233b64ec" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="You have to get several numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *payments*&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you **pay to obtain** the PV system&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you **pay on taxes, recycling fees** from the PV system etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *returns*&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you **get back from produced power**&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you **save on your electricity** bill (price of electricity is rising)&#xD;&#xA;  - how much will you be payed from **incentives** (if any)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally the only (almost) objective answer can be given on *how much electricity you can produce*. Anything else is subject to change depending on country/location, legislation and on time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have a look at my [answer][1]. It contains a sample calculation of yearly solar gain too.  &#xD;&#xA;Just the explanation: the calculator is based on Europe &amp; Africa data, but those can serve as a rough estimate for any place on the Earth if you keep the right [latitude][2]. I'd pick somewhere in Spain as a substitute for Colorado, USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After dividing total payments by expected yearly returns you'll get the approximate return time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/68/60&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="182" RevisionGUID="8708e282-37d1-4f22-a07c-0b70e0d00b7f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is almost impossible and similar difficult to answer as the [question about ecological footprints][1] and the [question about impact of travelling][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before we find out how much virtual water comes along with a cellphone we need to find out *how to calculate the virtual water footprint*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You already mentioned the [Water Footprint Network][3]. Scientific head behind this project seems to be [Prof.dr.ir. Arjen Y. Hoekstra][4] at the University of Twente. In his book *The water footprint assessment manual: Setting the global standard* ([PDF, pages 48-51][5]), he writes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In order to calculate the water footprint of the final product in a production&#xD;&#xA;system, one can best start calculating the water footprints of the most original&#xD;&#xA;resources (where the supply chain starts) and then calculate, step-by-step,&#xD;&#xA;the water footprints of the intermediate products, until one can calculate the&#xD;&#xA;water footprint of the final product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's four pages worth a read if you want to find out more about water footprints of consumer products. Hoekstra explains two different approaches of how to calculate the footprints.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the essence is: **You need data**. For you cellphone you need to find out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - all details on processes of the production&#xD;&#xA; - all data of contained parts of the cellphone&#xD;&#xA; - all energy and ressources used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... and maybe much more. To be honest, I doubt you will be able to research this on your own and cellphone producers wont give out such data to consumers unless they really have some kind of transparency drive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find out the exact amount of virtual water used in your cellphone you will have to start your own dedicated research project which will only work *in coorperation* with the manufacturer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/91/103&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/93/103&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.waterfootprint.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.utwente.nl/ctw/wem/organisatie/medewerkers/hoekstra/arjen_hoekstra.doc/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.waterfootprint.org/downloads/TheWaterFootprintAssessmentManual.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="192" RevisionGUID="21370f2f-d03e-4a8f-bd84-3c95755b28a4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Only [5.7%][1] of LDPE is recycled. Most of it ends up in the environment. Biodegradation time is [500-1000 years][2] if exposed to light, else decomposing time is infinite. Go for a **paper** bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really plan to recycle it: paper bags will be new paper bags, LDPE bags will be [clothes or carpets][3] in asian or african markets. Paper can be recycled as often as you want to (as long as it does not get contaminated too much), LDPE can only be recycled once. Go for a **paper** bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't buy re-usable plastic bags. Read more about why not plastic in this question: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/189/103&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, buy re-usable organic **cotton** or organic **hemp** bags and you are happy for years with them... the environment, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.brighthub.com/environment/green-living/articles/107380.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ehow.com/about_6360593_ldpe-recycled_.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="196" RevisionGUID="e02761d6-c618-41f8-803a-4ca043bab157" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Ignoring the question of whether [aquaponics][1] is a sustainable process (which it may not be due to seemingly high energy input required for water movement and filtration).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most [aquaponics][2] designs use plastic as a basic building block for every component.  Given [plastics are not sustainable materials][3], I'd like to avoid their use in &quot;backyard&quot; DIY projects.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some safe, renewable, water-resistant materials I could use instead of plastic in existing designs?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there &quot;backyard&quot; designs that avoid plastic materials and components?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaponics&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/#q=diy+aquaponics&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/189/which-plastics-should-i-avoid-and-what-qualities-of-plastics-are-important-to-co" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="199" RevisionGUID="07316ac9-db7a-40e3-8003-f065b0edb7b8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="According to the German wikipedia: in Europe, [48%][1] of the plastic bottles were recycled back in 2009. According to the Plastic Recycling Report: in North America, [29%][2] of plastic bottles were recycled in 2010.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be hard to get numbers for worldwide recycling rates - and to be honest, what is the value of such a number? I've been to Nigeria in 2009 and 98% of the country don't even have some kind of waste-disposal options. It will take a while until recycling will establish in such countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've mentioned in [this answer][3], recycled plastics mainly go to asia and africa and are used in the production of [clothes and carpets][4]. I've not heard about just *piling them up* overseas as plastic is still a valuable ressource. The main issue is that most of the plastic bottles don't get into the recycle-*cycle* again but are simply disposed to generic waste or even worse - into the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylenterephthalat#Recycling&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.plasticsrecycling.org/news/news-archives/58-press-release/157-2010-pet-and-bottle-rate-reports-released&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/192/103&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://earth911.com/recycling/plastic/plastic-bottles/how-plastic-bottles-are-recycled/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="207" RevisionGUID="bdd641d6-dad2-4837-8b0d-442b4ae8894d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="As [the other answer][1] says, baking with sourdough involves keeping a portion of dough for the next loaf baked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you create a sourdough culture from scratch or get one from a friend, once you've got a culture that works for you, you can thinly spread some fermented dough onto some waxed paper (or perhaps a greased tray, if you prefer something you don't have to buy) and let it dry. Once dry, you can break it into flakes and freeze it. Use the flakes to kick off your next batch of dough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how long exactly the flakes will last, but it's helpful to have some stored that way in case you forget to keep some starter or neglect the fresh starter to the point that it grows some nasty mould.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no reason why you couldn't use the same technique to preserve other yeasts too, so you could avoid needing to buy more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've had a few tries at creating a sourdough starter from scratch, without much success. If I persisted, perhaps I could've managed it, but didn't seem easy by any means. I was given some sourdough starter from a friend eventually that worked better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/136/15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="230" RevisionGUID="d6f10a45-edb4-4a76-8eb7-880f5b278a7f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="As someone who has hand washed his own clothes, I'd say think again before giving up your washing machine. It is a real pain in the neck, and haunches, and forearms - specially if you're washing jeans! And that was one persons clothes - Washing the clothes of 6-8 people would be a nightmare. It's not that it can't be done, you have to be used to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of removing the washing machine from your lives, it would be advisable to use it in a more efficient manner. Like [@JayBazuzi][1] said, you could wash small items, like underwear, socks and handkerchiefs by hand. Also, wash clothes less regularly. These lyrics from a song, _I'm Ready_ by Jack's Mannequin come to mind -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;I put on the same clothes I wore yesterday.&#xD;&#xA;When did society decide that we had to change&#xD;&#xA;And wash a tee shirt after every individual use:&#xD;&#xA;If it's not dirty, I'm gonna wear it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it need to be washed? Can it be worn again before a wash?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And be more efficient in your usage - fill the machine to capacity before use, use shorter cycles - specially if there isn't much cleaning to do, just sweat and BO to clean. And the biggest saving you could make is by sun drying clothes instead of using a electric dryer. If the clothes aren't dripping, and have been wringed, it shouldn't take too long for them to dry in the sun, or in the air if isn't sunny(if it's not raining, or too cold, it'll take a few hours). The spin cycle of your washing machine should wring the clothes well enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, sustainable living doesn't mean we forsake the comforts of modern life - just that we use them efficiently and judiciously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/209/60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="241" RevisionGUID="dde239c2-2008-47b9-bcd0-0593fa03a73a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Good ventilation needs a strategy of its own accord. It doesn't just happen. It will depend on what climate zone you're in, and what your building is, but from your question, I'm going to assume that winter means you're having to use some space-heating to get the home to a decent temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The very best ventilation strategy we have, is to make sure that your dwelling has a high degree of air-tightness, and then to use Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (UK name), which is also known as Heat Recovery Ventilation (HRV), [as mentioned by half-integer fan][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will require ducting around your home. Typically, the air is introduced into bedrooms, and extracted from kitchens and bathrooms.  The intake air and extract air are propelled by fans, and pass over a heat-exchanger, so that the intake air absorbs heat from the extract air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is difficult to get the specification right. Don't do it yourself. Use a firm that has a strong reputation for MVHR.  The quality of specification and implementation are **everything**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passivhaus-approved MVHR systems have very efficient fans, and very efficient heat exchangers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/150/164&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t3JiE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="285" RevisionGUID="fd71c648-9347-4382-be8a-fbabdc57e142" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="A fire is a very inefficient way to get warm and keep warm. However, if your fuel is renewable, and your usage rate is lower than the replenishment rate, **there is no sustainability issue**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make a fire more efficient, use a stove rather than an open fire:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use a good design, to ensure as little heat goes up the flue/chimney, and as much stays in the room, while venting enough to get rid of the fire's emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reduce the amount of heat loss, curtail losses from [radiation, convection and conduction][2]. To curtail radiation, avoid materials that allow infra-red to pass through them; and prefer materials that reflect it. To curtail conduction, use materials with high insulation values (aka very low U-values) - particularly in warm layers of clothing. To curtail convection, have as little air flow through as is needed to prevent the concentration of pollutants, and to keep carbon dioxide levels down below 1000 ppm. Ideally, have a way to [transfer heat from outgoing air to incoming air][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add [a lot of thermal mass][4], to convert the fire's short burst of high temperature into a long slow burst of lower, more useful temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z8BD1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/280/48&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/241/48&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/80/48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="294" RevisionGUID="159ad473-92e5-49ba-a6c7-d1bf1b5c42be" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Looking at [this question][1], I see that composting doesn't really happen in the winter without external insulation or heat. At what outdoor temperature (or temperature range) does composting occur? Does it make sense to start a compost pile in the winter with below 0C average temperatures?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/265/how-can-i-use-my-balcony-compost-during-winter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="309" RevisionGUID="4081b235-a700-4902-bca2-4f9f9b461f74" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is partially a follow up to my earlier question: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/304/sustainably-grown-white-button-mushrooms-at-home-what-sort-of-material-to-use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that manure might be the best medium for growing button mushrooms, so to make use of what I have available (no composted manure readily available) I'm considering trying to grow some shiitake mushrooms in some moist branches/logs instead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's lots of information out there on how to do it by drilling holes in the moist wood and  inserting commercially produced dowels, but as soon as I added &quot;without dowels&quot; (quotes included) to the search I got nothing, except for one case where someone had tried it but failed to post their results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are my chances of success if I try to grow some shiitake mushrooms using spores from a store-bought pack? Is there any technique I can use that might increase my chances?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the sole search result mentioned above, the person tried growing some spores on some agar produced from boiled sawdust. Is this a technique that is used commonly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14538" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="316" RevisionGUID="8ec05f38-0192-4d21-bc72-88e06dd7e7cc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Short answer**: it's unlikely to be cost-effective, if you consider only the energy savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Longer answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it's possible. Let's look at the issues one by one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Condensation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you only open the secondary glazing when the inside air is cool and dry that will reduce the chances of condensation. Put some dessicant in the gap, and dry it out occasionally, if you like. The specific risk of condensation will depend on the temperature and humidity when you open the secondary window, and the temperature to which the air gap subsequently drops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Positioning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The building of the secondary frame, and clearance for opening, will determine the air gap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't fit it to the existing frame: have it in its own frame. The hinges on your double glazing aren't designed to handle the extra weight of another sheet of glass, and you won't get a good seal around the new pane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place the secondary glazing inside: your existing double glazing is already weather-proof. Your secondary glazing needn't be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Energy savings&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You've already got most of the energy savings that you're going to get, from the double-glazing. And they probably came as much from the improved air-tightness, as from the decreased U-value. With secondary glazing, you'll only have savings from additional U-value decreases. Here's the calculation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combined U-value = 1 /  [ (1 / secondary-glazing U-value) + (1 / double-glazing U-Value) ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if your secondary glazing would have a U-value of 2.0, and your double-glazing has a U-Value of 1.0, then the combined U-value = 1 / (1/2.0 + 1/1.0) = 1 / 1.5 = 0.67. So you'd reduce the window losses (not total losses, just losses through the window) by a third.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's unlikely to be economic, on energy savings alone, unless your unit cost of heat energy is immense, and/or it gets to -20&amp;deg;C outside for a few weeks a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##But then there's comfort&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you currently find that sitting right under the window is uncomfortable because of cool down-draughts, then the effective increase in usable room space you get from the secondary triple-glazing might make it worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##And taking it to the extreme&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the place is already super-insulated all over **except** the window, and you get lots of sun in in winter, and you've already installed an [MVHR][1], then adding secondary triple-glazing might be the thing that effectively turns your home into a [Passivhaus][2]. And at that point, you probably wouldn't need a central heating system. The money saved in not having to renew your central heating system, will go a long way to paying back the cost of the secondary glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/241/48&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://passiv.de/en/02_informations/01_whatisapassivehouse/01_whatisapassivehouse.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="81031f6f-9216-4b5f-a23b-28df72d39b0b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="**tl;dr :** For the millions of dwellings that have significant physical constraints imposed by the physical fabric of the building, its configuration and location, that rule out heat pumps, biomass and solar thermal, how can we decarbonise our space and water heating effectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The specifics of my home, for context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the moment there's natural-gas-fuelled central heating, with water-filled pump-driven loop going into wall-mounted radiators that have been sized for an operating temperature of 60-70&amp;deg;C. That's pretty typical for most British homes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The property is solid-wall construction, and there isn't much external wall - it's mostly glazed. Most rooms are generally tall - about 3m. (a fairly standard late-Victorian British terrace, with some subsequent improvements, including secondary glazing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's still quite leaky for air, but we're working on that, and planning to [build tight, ventilate right][1], over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't have much unshaded south-facing surface. And we're nowhere near any district heating schemes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a garden of about 180m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, with access only through the house. We live cheek-by-jowl with our neighbours, so a heating system of 40dB or more would be too loud. So no heat pumps - the defrost cycle alone is unacceptably noisy, let alone the constant throbbing during normal operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our first emphasis is on reducing space-heating needs through good insulation and air-tightness. But there will remain a big chunk of space-heating requirement, as well as water-heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heating season is roughly October to March, and outside temperatures in deepest winter can get as low as -15&amp;deg;Celsius at times. There may be 30 days a year when the temperature goes below 0&amp;deg;Celsius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###The question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And although our home is unique, it is in many ways representative of millions of homes. &#xD;&#xA;So I'm not looking for a unique solution for my own home, but a generic solution or set of solutions for the millions of homes that share the significant features with mine: there are severe fabric constraints that rule out air-source heat pumps, ground-source heat-pumps and solar thermal. Biomass seems an unlikely route, given the local pollution impact of millions of homes with individual biomass burners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So how can I decarbonise my domestic water and space heating, given the severe fabric constraints?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/241/48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="351" RevisionGUID="f508ede8-9ac9-47a0-9187-67386bbe3c39" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="The answer depends on the region where you are. In Sweden, we don't have a system as nice as in The Netherlands (see [this answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/344/106)), but I simply added a big hand-written note on my door &quot;No advertising please&quot;. It works remarkably well. Advertisers know that if many people get annoyed by their advertising, this harms their cause. Perhaps start a grassroots movement in your area where you all use such notifications and call the sender every time they ignore it; that might just help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether it impacts the total amount of junkmail printed is questionable. An acquaintance lives in a village with a few hundred inhabitants where almost everybody has such a notice. The acquaintance has represented the village and tried many times to convince the sender to send less junkmail, because almost nobody in the village wants to have it. Still, they keep sending it. So ultimately, in this particular case, the notifications do help to remove junkmail from the own mailbox, but not to prevent wasteful production." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="410" RevisionGUID="4c972d07-f998-4d2d-b946-c48ab86ffc2f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've heard a lot of back and forth on this issue, but when purchasing our next vehicle which is actually the better way to go?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For us, we cannot go fully electric at this point due to drive times, and there is no good public transit close to our house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This questions whether it is environmentally friendly to purchase a new hybrid, but doesn't really address the choice between types of used vehicles:&#xD;&#xA;[How to determine whether hybrid cars are really better for the environment?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10/how-to-determine-whether-hybrid-cars-are-really-better-for-the-environment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="425" RevisionGUID="5eefe260-da50-4170-a0b4-a8ec55ba6e1d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Inspired by my own answer [here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/417/40), I'm wondering what the actual numbers are regarding gasoline and Diesel fuel refining.  I have read (don't remember where) that refining of Diesel fuel is less environmentally damaging than that of gasoline.  But is this actually true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for the sake of this question, I'm interested in the environmental impact of refining per energy output (not per volume of fuel), so the energy density of the output fuel ought to be considered.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="435" RevisionGUID="9292d2df-1195-4f8c-a506-e0ac9d762a7d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Soap**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people, including myself, swear by castile soap such as Dr. Bronners. You can purchase it in bulk, and it has many uses other than just in washing your skin. It's one of those versatile things like baking soda and vinegar which have dozens of uses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A plastic-free alternative is a bar soap, I like the Kiss Your Face pure olive oil soap because it has a paper wrap and the only two ingredients are saponified olive oil and salt. You can also buy rather large bars (more product per packaging). Many stores sell bulk soap (such as some Whole Foods, natural food stores and co-ops) but you probably have to be careful about reading the ingredients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are ambitious you could probably make your own soap, which is best left for somebody with experience to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hair**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shampoo and conditioner can be completely eliminated in favor of castile soap (such as Dr. Bronners) or the &quot;no poo&quot; method, which uses baking soda as a shampoo and dilute vinegar as a conditioning rinse. Personally I have used the &quot;no poo&quot; method for several years and get comments about how great my hair looks, and I think it feels and looks amazing. There are many resources for the &quot;no poo&quot; method (just do a Google search and you will get a ton of hits) but [here is a good blog post with an explanation][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coloring of hair can be done with henna, [this great blog post on My Plastic-free Life][2] shows a couple henna methods (buying henna in bulk, and using a henna bar from Lush). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm hoping somebody else can comment on other hair products, which I tend not to use. I have seen [many recipes for flax hair gel][3] but I'm not sure what is used to replace hair spray, although [this post suggests using sugar or sea salt mixed with water][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deodorant**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This has been touched on in another post on this forum][5]. To sum up: baking soda works miracles!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Teeth**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be difficult to find an eco-friendly toothbrush, which was highlighted in [this great post on My Plastic-free life][6]. I like the Preserve recycled toothbrushes because they are so easy to find, easy to recycle and don't cost a lot of money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For toothpaste, you can make a tooth powder using baking soda, salt and cinnamon (just Google for tooth powder recipes). However, I have heard this is bad for your gums as it's very abrasive and I've stopped using it. [This post on My Plastic-free life goes over a ton of homemade toothpastes and other alternatives][7].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as dental floss goes, I like [eco dent floss][8] which comes with only minimal plastic in the package (to keep the floss fresh). The floss has no teflon coating yet is still very good at gliding between the teeth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have yet to find the best floss alternative for teeth that can't be flossed conventionally (for those of us with braces or a permanent retainer), but super floss (or the drugstore no-name brand) has minimal plastic in the packaging at least. If you found a good, reusable floss threader that would also be an option, although I find them to be very bulky (i.e. hard to fit between my teeth) and very cheap/disposable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Face / Makeup**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Face washing can be accomplished with castile soap (such as Dr. Bronners), some people suggest using the tea tree version of Bronners or adding a few drops of tea tree oil to your favorite castile soap. A lot of people swear that using castile soap has cured their acne problems, but I would take that with a grain of salt as it doesn't work for severe acne. I also like Desert Essence face wash, although it does come in a plastic container you can find it in quart sized bottles which lasts a very long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[My Plastic-free life has a recipe for making your own facial masque using items from a bulk foods store][9]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I enjoy [Organic Essence lip balm][10] which comes in a biodegradable container and has all USDA organic certified ingredients. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully somebody else can comment on makeup, as I haven't phased out my collection to anything approaching sustainable as of yet. I know there are a lot of organic makeup brands out there, but I can't vouch for their actual sustainability or quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hair removal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For shaving, I absolutely love my Merkur safety razor. I had a no name brand safety razor for a while, until the screw on the head broke off and I couldn't get it fixed. The good thing with Merkur is that I've heard they will fix them if they break. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The blades are stainless steel and if you don't have coarse hair, can last a very long time. I have a package of Lord safety razor blades ([for example, on Amazon][11]) that came with no plastic in the packaging. I haven't even used up one small container of 5 in the couple of years I've been using the Merkur razor, so a package of 100 will probably last a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are adventurous enough you could try a straight razor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found that I don't' miss shaving cream at all, I simply use liquid castile soap or lather with my bar soap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as waxing goes, you can use a sugar wax if you're comfortable doing your own waxing. There are a lot of recipes, here are two: [one][12] and [two][13].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweezing is of course another alternative which doesn't require using any products other than a pair of tweezers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Lotion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Organic Essence][14] has some great lotions which come in compostable containers and are made with USDA organic ingredients. I've had my lotion for probably 1-2 years now, and I must admit that the packaging is not in the best shape but has still held up. If you go through lotion quicker than me, it won't be a problem and you can put all of the packaging in your compost bin when you're finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also some lotions ([such as this][15], or do a search on Etsy) that you can find packaged in aluminum tins. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have also seen many recipes for making your own lotion, such as [this][16] and [this vegan recipe][17].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you cook with olive oil, I find I like rubbing some in on my hands, although it does leave your hands very greasy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://babyslime.livejournal.com/174054.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://myplasticfreelife.com/2012/08/coloring-hair-with-henna-non-toxic-and-almost-plastic-free/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.crunchybetty.com/homemade-hair-care-flax-seed-hair-gel&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://wellnessmama.com/1409/seven-natural-homemade-substitues-for-conventional-beauty-products/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/247/is-there-a-deodorant-with-minimal-packaging-waste&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://myplasticfreelife.com/2011/05/eco-friendly-toothbrush-review-and-giveaway/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://myplasticfreelife.com/2011/08/searching-for-the-perfect-all-natural-plastic-free-toothpaste-or-powder-or-soap-or/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.eco-dent.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://myplasticfreelife.com/2011/07/how-to-make-your-own-mint-julep-masque-without-plastic-or-toxic-chemicals/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.organic-essence.com/lipbalms.html&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.amazon.com/Double-Safety-Razor-Blades-Platinum/dp/B001VTRGGK&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/ancient-egyptian-body-sugaring.html&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://myplasticfreelife.com/2011/08/remove-hair-with-diy-homemade-sugar-wax-cheap-plastic-free-and-dangerous-in-the-wrong-hands/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.organic-essence.com/index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://www.hardlotion.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://wellnessmama.com/3765/luxurious-homemade-lotion-recipe/&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/make-vegan-lotion-2831.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="460" RevisionGUID="8c25c901-284b-43d6-8759-8d311984764f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Ultimately, it is a question of system boundaries. To be sustainable, a process must not ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use energy faster than it can be replenished&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use material resources faster then they can be replenished. Note that you could see most forms of energy also as material (fuel)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pollute faster than the polluted system can clean itself. Note that most energy generation also pollutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at almost any chemical plant, you will see some effort (and energy expenditure, and often material expenditure) to clean exhaust gases or waste water. Obviously the *energy efficiency* of the whole plant would be better without the cleaning effort, but the sustainability is worse due to pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you only compare highly similar processes, where matter input/output and pollution are basically the same, you have to look at the energy sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you use an energy source that does not get depleted (direct sun), might not matter.&#xD;&#xA;* If you use a finite energy source that does not replenish itself on interesting timescales (fossil coal), your process will never be sustainable in the strictest sense - but changing towards better energy efficiency (all else being equal) may mean less pollution, so you improve sustainability on that end.&#xD;&#xA;* If you use a regrowing energy source (wood), one question is wether you use it faster than it does regrow. All else being equal, the difference between an energy-efficient process and an inefficient on may mean the difference between sustainability or unsustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that, as you change towards more efficient processes, more sources of energy might become viable. LED lighting powered off batteries charged with photovoltaics come to mind, this would not have been possible on the same scale with bulbs. Not that I think LED toys to be particular sensible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that I speak of &quot;improving sustainability&quot; on one occasion, while some will argue that something is either sustainable or not, no gray areas. This view would dismiss any improvements in sustainability for processes using fossil fuels. This view ignores the pollution side of almost any process, where a hard yes/no on the sustainability of one single specific process cannot be given. Consider the question [about sustainability and pollution](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/414/how-are-pollution-and-sustainability-related)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="463" RevisionGUID="32539453-ec89-410d-b737-164bf374fc86" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This answer][1] does a great job of answering how recycling relates to sustainability.  So I will focus on where recycling is not sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recycling to be sustainable it should not create waste that is more damaging to the environment than discarding the original item would be, and/or less efficient to create the product you end up with at the end of the recycling process, than it would be to extract, and refine from raw materials, or that of a suitable alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Certain alloys are not easily reforged and the process of forging creates molecular bonds that do not re-purpose well with out breaking those bonds.  To break those bonds on many aluminum alloys requires chemicals and often quite a bit of electricity.  Most of these chemicals are highly toxic, and create hazardous waste.  The effort, waste, and pollution created by recycling these alloys is more damaging to the earth than just discarding the alloy which is chemically stable, and does not create hazardous waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/453/141" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="464" RevisionGUID="fcef9a62-bb0e-4a6a-ab32-ef177bc95c66" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Use a common (commercially available) electric pump. Home made ones can be problematic, as [Chris][1] writes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solar pumps are available in various power. Even with a very small pump you'd want to install a controller with (at least) two temperature probes on the panel and in the tank to turn the pump on and off.   &#xD;&#xA;I'm using a 45W pump with throughput of 2 litres/minute on a panel with area of 1.2 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. During sunny summer it runs almost all the day and it's stopped by the controller if the heat gain is too low.  &#xD;&#xA;The pump installed in a polystyrene box to silence it and it works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll always have a high pressure (1 bar) in a closed system with varying temperatures. The panel can easily reach 100°C if the pump stops and the pressure will rise. An expansion tank is a must and water is not &lt;strike&gt;to go&lt;/strike&gt; usable because it would boil out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility would be a [bubble pump system or Geyser Pump][2]. It's very simple, passive and innovative - but you'll have to find some references to existing installations. There is a [comparison of solar hot water systems][3] to consider your requirements.  &#xD;&#xA;The system is underpressurized and the medium boils when heated in the panel easily. While bubbles move to a (some) higher place, they move the loop of medium toward the water tank. After doing their work, the bubbles condensate back and preheat the returning medium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/380/60 &quot;Chris' answer&quot;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sunnovations.com/content/how-sunnovations-system-works&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_hot_water#A_rough_comparison_of_solar_hot_water_systems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="478" RevisionGUID="11484bf4-d43a-421a-a8af-e9cbf04e7b7d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Moulds help break down organic matter. They are part of a good compost heap and there is no reason why food with moulds cannot be placed on your heap. However, your heap can become too mouldy but that is usually the result of the heap being too wet and/or containing to much nitrogen. It is true that moulds can be toxic, so you should not let your pets eat any compost heap material. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the decomposition process is done, the moulds will be gone and the risk of pathogens is very small. This is due to a number of things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - during the composting process the temperature in the heap rises, killing most of the pathogens&#xD;&#xA; - other micro-organisms will kill and eat pathogens&#xD;&#xA; - in time the pathogens will die by natural causes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reduce the risk of pathogens even further you can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - make sure you have the correct C:N balance, the correct moisture balance and enough air in your heap. This is all to ensure the heap reaches a good temperature. &#xD;&#xA; - turn and mix your heap regularly so stuff on the edges of the heap (where it is less warm) are also heated.&#xD;&#xA; - don't throw cat and dog feces on the heap (see also [this answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/901/99))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="494" RevisionGUID="1496e816-27d4-49ea-a80b-6a5c2ac4c869" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Inspired by [this comment](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/489/should-i-reuse-or-recycle-ziploc-bags#comment741_489):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Try to replace [ziplock bags] with something else, and reuse the ones you have until they fall apart. I haven't used ziplock bags in over 5 years and haven't missed them. – lemontwist&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We raise and process our own chickens and guinea hens and store them, whole, in large plastic freezer bags in a chest freezer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are alternatives for storing whole frozen poultry that don't involve plastic bags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suggestions should meet these requirements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Readily available in the US&#xD;&#xA;* Reliably preserve meat in the freezer without loss of quality for up to 12 months&#xD;&#xA;* Not make a mess during thawing/defrosting of the meat&#xD;&#xA;* Not consume large amounts of extra space in the freezer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the kitchen I generally reach for glass bowls for storing food instead of plastic bags, but (a) I think meat will tend to freezer burn in a bowl and (b) it would take up a lot of extra space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note: I'm aware that there are other, possibly more sustainable, ways of [preserving meat without using the freezer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/74/66); I'm simply looking for alternatives to the plastic bags at the moment.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="646b4f97-2975-49d4-bcfb-dcc0eec3b5fc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Linseed oil can be used for varnish. It is obtained by pressing seeds of the flax plant, which sounds more sustainable that anything petroleum-derived.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's worth mentioning the safety aspect of using linseed oil. A pile of rags with linseed oil on can **spontaneously combust**, thanks to the linseed oil reacting with oxygen and producing heat that (when the pile of rags is big enough to work as effective insulation) can build up to the point of combustion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *[Thanks for [comment by Highly Irregular](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/508/whats-a-sustainable-way-to-stain-and-protect-wood/509#comment792_509)]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to stain before you varnish, [there are a variety](http://www.moneypit.com/article/natural-non-toxic-wood-stain-coffee-berries-and-more) of [natural ways to produce stains](http://www.safenaturaltips.com/decorating/naturalstains.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* soak rusty nails in vinegar for two weeks, then strain&#xD;&#xA;* same with pennies (for blue), or tea+metal (for black)&#xD;&#xA;* soak walnut husks for several days, then strain&#xD;&#xA;* chewing tobacco soaked overnight in 50/50 water/ammonia, then strain&#xD;&#xA;* strong tea&#xD;&#xA;* strong coffee&#xD;&#xA;* berries&#xD;&#xA;* not mentioned in the linked articles, but many plants can be used for dye and some of these dyes may be suitable for staining wood; [search pfaf.org](http://pfaf.org/user/plantsearch.aspx), tick the &quot;Dye&quot; box under &quot;Other uses&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be sure to test your stain and/or varnish on a piece of scrap wood that is of the same type you're finishing so that you can see how it will turn out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="515" RevisionGUID="b17e8dfe-a42a-44db-85ef-571eae813921" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="###Exergy&#xD;&#xA;PV is generally superior to solar thermal because it produces a higher-quality energy: electricity rather than low-grade heat: 1kWh of electricity has more [exergy][1] than 1kWh of low-grade heat.  As you say, PV's efficiency tends to be significantly lower than solar thermal, in straight watt-for-watt terms, which means less power per unit roof area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you're right that just using the electricity generated to create low-grade heat could be wasteful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Economics&#xD;&#xA;But exergy and economics are different: PV is becoming cheaper and cheaper. So maybe there are circumstances where PV + resistance heating is cheaper than solar thermal.  Misaligned incentives between PV and solar-thermal could make that happen, as could extremely cheap PV systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Deemed exports within Feed-in Tariffs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there are cases, for example in the UK, where the payment to the PV system owner is based on the amount of electricity generated, and where there is a payment for electricity exported to the grid, but this is not measured - it's just deemed to be 50% of the total generated. Yes, that is a silly way to do things, given how cheap and easy it is to meter the exports, but that's the system some utilities are operating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under such a regime, the PV is then built with a resistance heater in a hot-water storage-tank, and all the electricity gets dumped as low-grade heat into that tank.  Dumping it as heat doesn't change the revenue generated for by the PV system, and does reduce the heating costs of the homeowner, as well as given them very-low-carbon hot water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Hybrid photovoltaics +  solar thermal&#xD;&#xA;Finally, as [Highly Irregular][2] notes in the comments, there are various [PV-thermal hybrid systems][3], which provide both electricity and low-grade heat: in those cases, some of the PV electricity is used to pump water, but the water is heated by the sun directly, rather than by resistance heater - and this cools the PV panel, raising its electricity output:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][4] [source][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are people trying to combine a [PV-thermal hybrid with a heat pump][6], but the economics really don't favour it at the moment, and current heat pumps can be pretty noisy, particularly in their defrost cycle. A ground-source heat pump + PV-thermal hybrid might be superior to just a heat pump on its own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://exergy.se/goran/thesis/paper1/paper1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/15/highly-irregular&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.newformenergy.com/photovoltaic-thermal&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nhNrq.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2010.10.032&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.newformenergy.com/hybrid-solar-solution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="531" RevisionGUID="13ece965-d60e-474e-b7c9-cbffa728dae1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've answered about [the impact of drilling a well on water table][1], which is the most important aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But your question includes also an aspect of [water quality][2]. These two aspects are sometimes contradicting each other. If the water source is plentiful, one well should be enough. Otherwise, consider two wells:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The drinking water one located at a higher place to minimize water pollution. Far from the gray-water recycling and/or humanure lot, etc..&#xD;&#xA;- The lower quality well for irrigation and bigger volume output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wells should be far enough from each other so that the lower one wouldn't significantly drain the one above. This can be avoided by deeper drilling.  &#xD;&#xA;And both wells should be used regularly to prevent 'clogging'. It can take some time until the underground water makes its path to supplement the water requirements of the well. When the well isn't used for certain time, those paths can detoriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's possible, build a tank or a [retention basin][3] to keep the rain water for irrigation. It's the most sustainable way of using the rain water.  &#xD;&#xA;Even if it could seem as a good idea I wouldn't join the retention pond with the well. Mixing the surface water with underground water can pollute the underground water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/194/60&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_quality&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retention_basin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="538" RevisionGUID="6f0d2e8c-affa-4f6f-ac9d-6dce897dffe4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="How should I manage my worm bin so I can keep it inside the house in my kitchen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How do I prevent odor?&#xD;&#xA;- How do I prevent fruit fly infestations? Another question deals with [how to get rid of an existing fruit fly infestation][1].&#xD;&#xA;- How much can I feed the worms per day?&#xD;&#xA;- Are there foods I should not feed to worms kept indoors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/537/281" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="580" RevisionGUID="938e8fa4-384f-426e-88f8-960b148fcbfc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="It depends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Windows treated with IR blocking films will make them less efficient as a means of solar collection but double pane windows also provide better insulation than single pane windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[EngergyNumbers][1] suggestion of a greenhouse is also a good use for them. Especially if they have a UV blocking film. Several studies suggest plants are as sensitive to UV radiation humans are and blocking UV radiation can increase plant vitality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/48/energynumbers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="588" RevisionGUID="7f2a36d2-106e-418b-93ae-e5bc692495aa" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="The big advantage of localising the economy is that transport is reduced, which means less CO2 emissions.&#xD;&#xA;A second advantage is that multiple local farms or factories spread over the country have less impact on the local enviroment than one large farm/factory that needs to produce the same amount. Farm monocultures for example can only be maintained with (artificial) fertilizers and often pesticides are also used. &#xD;&#xA;Third, localisation reduces the power of multinational companies and a lot of multinationals have very poor track records when it comes to sustainability (e.g. Shell, Chevron, Dow Chemicals, Cargill). &#xD;&#xA;Finally, although not directly related to sustainability, food that is produced in bulk is usually processed and then stored in warehouses for years before it is being consumed. This means that the quality of the food is much less than that of food produced locally and consumed quickly after harvesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this being said, some of the advantages I mentioned need not necesarilly apply. For example, some crops only grow in countries with a warm climate all year round. To only way to have those crops available in countries with a colder climate is to grow them in greenhouses. Greenhouses use gas or electricity for heating which leads to higher CO2 emissions than when transporting those crops from warmer countries (provided transportation is done by truck and/or boat, see also [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/92/99)). Also a local farmer can still use a lot of pesticides and artificial fertilizers to grow crops when trying to increase his production.&#xD;&#xA;Some people also claim that localization requires more land to produce the same amount of food and products, but the debate on this point is still ongoing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you also count 'social sustainability', localising the economy will mean that people in poor countries do not have access to markets in rich countries so it may be harder for them to earn money. On the other hand, infant industries in poor countries will not be put out of business by large global companies and in local economies there are much less corporate 'middlemen' who do nothing more than drive up prices. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14555" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="592" RevisionGUID="ea27573e-7236-43a8-9450-23ca433b2eba" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Reading some comments on the [question comparing various materials from which bottles are made][1], the thought arose: indeed, what prevents large scale collection and reuse of glass tare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was growing up in the Soviet Union, there was a standard 0.5l bottle which was used nationwide for anything from lemonade to beer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One could turn in those bottles for cash refund in any store, and later they would be cleaned (steam cleaning, perhaps?) and reused with new tags. Likewise, bottles and jars for dairy (milk, sour cream, quarks etc.) were all standard and could be returned to a local dairy shop or a larger market where they would be cleaned and reused, sealed by colour-coded aluminium foil, much like Yoplait yoghurt containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, centrally planned and operated Soviet economy allowed for streamlined collection and return: shops would send the bottles back to regional distributor, which, in turn, would relay them back to manufacturers. In the market economy with fragmented distribution of retailers and bottlers, and with countless variations on bottle shape in lieu of preposterous “brand-recognition” concept (if everyone is “unique” I still cannot tell them apart), organizing such concerted effort would be undoubtedly difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, European [Green Dot system][3], seems to yield some results, even in the face of packaging industry opposition it initially endured. And so there are ways to reuse glass tare by returning it all the way to the manufacturer from the consumer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is the European system successful, can it be replicated and are there better alternatives? Given the push back by special interests, is it viable to promote standardised containers to simplify the logistics? Are there other concerns, such as health or enforcement of food safety, or if the manufacturer has to disinfect the new bottles anyway, does it make any difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/326/227&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nzaUe.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Dot_%28symbol%29" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="625" RevisionGUID="483710a8-115d-435a-8b4c-1bb03e299699" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some of the other questions have discussed the differences between localization and sustainability, for example, [What is the Relationship between Localising the Economy and Sustainability?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/587/what-is-the-relationship-between-localising-the-economy-and-sustainability)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of the answers bring up the issue that local food production can be far less efficient than large-scale commercial growers, especially when the commercial growers are located in a more favorable climate. They also discuss the transport issues in a farmer that drives three hours in a pickup truck with a relatively small amount of produce compared to the more efficient transport of large quantities even over the longer distances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering if this can be partly overcome by bringing the food production even closer to home. I'm thinking of rooftop gardens for urban areas, porch gardens, or even community gardens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of my thinking is that though likely less efficient then either the small-scale or large-scale farmer, they are utilizing &quot;marginal&quot; land and space that likely would have gone unused, while bringing the food production even more local. Is this an accurate assumption? Can this be even a marginally useful tactic in terms of sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="860d5c9b-b306-4766-91b5-1d92363ac9b4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="They've included the best mixture in their [earth brick press wiki][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bricks are made of **20%-30% clay, the rest being sand and silt**. A combination of mechanical and electrostatic forces is responsible for the high strength of compressed earth blocks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For stabilized bricks, chemical binding forces of the binder - such as cement - are responsible for the strength.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll have to learn or estimate the composition of your soil, as [Chris][2] writes and add the missing component to get the right balance.  &#xD;&#xA;As with most enthusiastic activities, you'll have to use &quot;trial and error&quot; to get the best results. And both OSE and SE communities will be happy to hear back from you about your progress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/CEB_Press_Design_Rationale,_Product_Ecology&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/363/what-is-the-most-effective-mixture-of-soil-and-amendments-to-use-with-open-sourc#comment675_363" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="f5475970-f022-491b-af6a-efbd27442bb5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="While such a project is technically possible, I have to wonder: why bother? There already exists a huge energy infrastructure, warehouses full of photovoltaic (PV) waiting to be bought, electricity transmission networks, mineral extraction and processing plants, and so on. Doing it all from scratch while ignoring available infrastructure looks like putting a purist philosophy above the practicalities. Which is romantic, but it's not engineering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Technical feasibility&#xD;&#xA;For it to be technically feasible, just requires that the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) is greater than 1, when assessed on a full lifecycle basis. And we have renewable technologies that meet that criterion - here are some examples. (NB specific values will depend on the specific installation - the following numbers are ballpark)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Onshore wind has an EROEI in the range 18-80&#xD;&#xA; - Offshore wind has an EROEI of around 20-35&#xD;&#xA; - PV has an EROEI of around 6-38&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some sources: [1][1], [2][2], [3 (pdf)][3]&#xD;&#xA;###Real-world example&#xD;&#xA;[Highly Irregular's answer][4] identifies the [Sahara Solar Breeder][5] (SSB) project. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here  are its technical objectives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Harnessing the 3rd value of the desert for energy: Large scale/low cost production of  solar-grade silicon from desert sand.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Solar breeder: Construction of solar cell plant doubling its scale every energy payback time (1-2 years at present).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. DC power transmission by HTSC cable: From test line to global network&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few odd things on there. Why go for High Temperature Superconductor (HTSC) for transmission? It doesn't make sense at the moment - it's an excessively complex way of doing things. High-voltage direct-current (HVDC) losses are low over long-distances, and it's a much simpler, more reliable technology. Their target isn't that ambitious - 100GW of capacity in 30 years: the world did that in (about) the last ten years, and is likely to do the same in fewer than the next 5 years - the plan is to get to [300GW of new capacity per year by 2025][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a useful experiment to prove the concept. It's a useful trial run for a similar project on, say, Mars. But the starting-from-scratch concept doesn't have a lot going for it in terms of providing clean global electricity: why slow down decarbonisation by ignoring all the really useful infrastructure already in place?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-1-environmental-benefits/energy-balance-analysis.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vestas.com/Files/Filer/EN/Sustainability/LCA/LCAV90_juni_2006.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.clca.columbia.edu/241_Raugei_EROI_EP_revised_II_2012-03_VMF.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/708/48&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ssb-foundation.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JmKnB.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.pv-magazine.com/features/300-gwa-initiative/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="731" RevisionGUID="648d9970-bdbd-4880-a384-e48d06fd966c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="It was already answered in [answers for a more general question about driving][1] (it's just on the top in the linked answer): it depends on speed. The slowing effect of an open window depends on speed qudratically, but it becomes really significant only at high speeds (more than 100 km/h according to what I know, though I can try to back it by some source if you want).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that air conditioning becomes clearly more gas-efficient than open window only on speeds forbidden on any highway except for those in Germany (no speed limit). That's why I never regret my car has no air conditioning :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/488/58" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="8319a092-d727-4798-b00f-b1dcc0cb24a6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="As [Highly Irregular suggests][1] this very much depends on the specifics of your vehicle, conditions outside of your car and your desired conditions inside your vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When this question was brought up on [skeptics][2] the best evidence we could find was from Mythbusters which visited this topic in both [episode 22][3] and [episode 38][4]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Episide 22&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PARTLY CONFIRMED *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tests were performed under varying conditions (55 mph versus 45 mph). The 55 mph test used a computer to estimate fuel efficiency based on air intake, not actual fuel consumption, and showed A/C was more efficient. The 45 mph test consisted of running the tank until it was empty, and showed open windows were more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Because the original tests were inconclusive, this &quot;urban puzzle&quot; was revisited in episode 38: It is more fuel efficient to use air conditioning when the car is travelling approximately 50mph or more. Otherwise, windows are more fuel efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Episode 38&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PARTLY CONFIRMED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The fundamental flaw in the MythBusters’ test was that the point where the drag becomes powerful enough to inhibit a car’s performance with windows down was inside their 45 – 55mph margin at 50mph. Going less than 50mph it is more efficient to leave your windows down, but going greater than 50mph it is more efficient to use your A/C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly unless you have the same vehicle, are driving in the same conditions and have the same comfort requirements, this tells you little about your own situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next time you fill up, decide on a strategy and stick to it until your next fill up, then calculate your overall fuel efficiency. Then try a different strategy and see if the efficiency changes. From a series of such tests you can build up a body of empirical evidence about how your own vehicle, preferences and environment interact, and thus find out what is most sustainable for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/736/164&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/5661/2772&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode22&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode38" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="771" RevisionGUID="7e0cd60f-df7f-4b6c-b223-40f391c224de" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Using the reusable bags at the shop check-out is well-known, and is getting wider acceptance. Also, some details were already discussed [here before][1]. However, what to do with transparent plastic bags supermarkets provide in their bulk foods and produce sections? I already try to minimize my usage by putting several things in one bag (mainly those sold in singles, like bell peppers, or bunches of radishes). I can also see bringing some of them back and reusing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I wonder if there is some viable long-term alternative. I was recently reading some article promoting use of bulk foods, and one of the benefits stated was reduction in packaging waste, especially with use of reusable bags. What would those be? Requirements would be transparency so that the cashier can see what you’re buying, and ability to hold friable stuffs such as flour or sugar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/190/227" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="9424d45b-7127-4098-8d7d-199316e50df9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was curious about which trees absorb the most CO2 and Googled for this a while back. I found that there are several websites that list trees that are good in absorbing carbon, e.g. [this website](http://environment.about.com/od/whatyoucando/a/best_trees.htm) and [this website](http://www.ehow.com/info_8609132_trees-absorb-carbon-dioxide.html). Both sites list trees like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Pine (Ponderosa, red, white and Hispaniolan pines)&#xD;&#xA; - Oake (Scarlet, Red and Virginia Live Oak)&#xD;&#xA; - Douglas fir &#xD;&#xA; - Bald Cypress&#xD;&#xA; - Common Horse-chestnut &#xD;&#xA; - Black Walnut&#xD;&#xA; - London Plane&#xD;&#xA; - American Sweetgum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is [one site](http://www.everything71.com/2012/02/10-type-of-trees-most-carbon-dioxide.html)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; that has an entirely different list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Trembesi a.k.a rain tree (Samanea saman)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo (Bambuseae)&#xD;&#xA; - Cassia (Cassia sp)&#xD;&#xA; - Cananga/Kenanga (Canangium odoratum)&#xD;&#xA; - Pingku (Dysoxylum excelsum)&#xD;&#xA; - Banyan/Beringin (Ficus benyamina)&#xD;&#xA; - Krey Payung (Fellicium decipiens)&#xD;&#xA; - Matoa (Pometia pinnata)&#xD;&#xA; - Mahogany (Swettiana mahagoni)&#xD;&#xA; - Saga (Adenanthera pavonina)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As also mentioned by [theUg](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/786/which-tree-consumes-most-carbon-dioxide-and-poisonous-gases#comment1265_788) and [Blue_hat](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/315/blue-hat) in their comments below, the first list probably applies to temperate climates, and the second one to tropical climates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that for good sustainability you will have to consider more things than simply the amount of CO2 a tree can absorb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all not all trees grow in all places. The tree you have in mind should be appropriate for the region and climate. If you have to water it, add fertilizer regularly or package it during cold winters to survive, etc. then it will be less sustainable. If the factory does indeed exhaust poisonous(?) gases as you said, then trees may not grow at all near it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, think about what will you do with the trees once they are mature. If you harvest them and plant new trees then you can capture more CO2. But if let the tree fall down and rot or if you burn wood from harvested trees, then the captured CO2 will be released again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; update Jan 2015: sadly the link has died, but I found the same list in this forum post along with some statistics on how much CO2 the trees take up" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="803" RevisionGUID="07eff66f-c8f9-4195-a38e-11f7d4118402" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a really big question, and [@EnergyNumbers' answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/613/486) addresses some of it.  I'll try to address some more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Battery End-of-Life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is obviously referring to **standard** car batteries, which are used to power the car's starter motor.  These are generally lead-acid batteries.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A true Electric Vehicle (EV) may have a small battery just like this (e.g. to drive accesories), but this kind of battery is **not** what drives the car, and is not the big impact on the recycling/landfill issue.  An EV's traction motor uses a Li-ion battery pack.  It's very large, and very expensive.  It also happens to be about 85% recyclable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My 2011 Nissan LEAF has a 24 KWh capacity Li-ion battery pack in it.  At this point, it's hard to tell exactly what the longevity will be, because it's a new product.  However, automakers do test these things before fielding new models (the results are obviously important when they decide what kind of warranties to offer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nissan projects the life of this battery pack to be 10 years.  What does that mean?  By their definition, at the end of 10 years of life, it will have a useful capacity that's 70-80% of its original capacity, depending on how you use it.  So, by no means is the battery *dead*.  But, they're estimating what a user would be willing to tolerate in terms of driving range reduction.  If your trips tend to be 20 miles or less, or you have recharge facilities at your typical destination (e.g. workplace charging), then you may continue to use your 10 year-old batteries.  But, 10 years seems like a reasonable longevity estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, the bigger a battery is (all else equal), the more likely you can recycle it, and even get paid to do so.  As I said, a Li-ion battery is largely recyclable, and with 70-80% capacity, even still usable for non-automotive energy storage applications.  It's **very** hard to believe that a battery pack that originally cost [several thousand dollars](http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/15/nissan-leaf-profitable-by-year-three-battery-cost-closer-to-18/), that still has 70% capacity, and is 85% recyclable, wouldn't fetch a significant trade-in value.  This value will likely ensure that EV batteries are not simply thrown away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Energy Efficiency / Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As EnergyNumbers said, the overall energy efficiency of an EV depends highly on *where* the electricity came from.  **However, whether it's more environmentally friendly than standard gas internal combustion engines (ICE) does not.**  Even if all the car's electricity comes from coal, which is our dirtiest source of electricity, an EV is about 25% more energy efficient than a gas ICE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this Union of Concerned Scientists report](http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf), the average midsize gas ICE fuel economy is 26 mpg.  Based largely on the (midsize) Nissan LEAF, the EV well-to-wheels equivalent energy economy is 30 mpg&lt;sub&gt;ghg&lt;/sub&gt;.  So, that's already a 15% improvement for the 100% coal-powered EV.  However, a gas ICE's fuel economy is not rated *well-to-wheels*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like electricity, gas requires energy to make.  Currently, [gas and petro-diesel average an *energy ratio* of about 0.8 to 0.9](http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EnergyLifeCycleSoybeanBiodieseI6-11.pdf), which means that to produce a gallon of gas, you have to spend about .1 to .2 gallons to make it.  For Saudi oil, it takes relatively little energy to produce.  However, as that runs out, and we continue to get more gas/diesel from deepwater rigs, and tar sands oil, gas and diesel will become even more costly (and environmentally damaging) to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, when you perform well-to-wheels accounting, an EV *starts* at about 25% better than a gasoline ICE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** a well-publicized [report has recently been released](http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html), that found Toyota Prius to be more GHG friendly than Nissan LEAF in most US states (accounting for where each state gets power from).  However, it's important to note that the Prius has a lower drag coefficient than LEAF (0.25 vs 0.28), which will increase energy economy, but is unrelated to the cars' powertrains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how environmentally-friendly *you* think EVs are, but yes, they are more environmentally friendly than standard gas engine cars, in almost every way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to post more here as I get time ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="7cfcdc01-0b9b-469d-a2d3-529119e8bd92" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Although I think the other answers do provide good information, I would argue that, as posed on `sustainability.stackexchange.com`, all of them are still wrong (albeit maybe Chris Travers' answer is only partially so).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**You should not put meat in your compost pile.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Sustainability of Eating Meat in the First Place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're even remotely concerned with sustainability (underlying assumption I'm making, based on where this question is), then you shouldn't be eating meat at all.  [**Meat is hands-down the most inefficient, unsustainable way to feed a human being, as it stands today**](http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/energy-required-to-produce-a-pound-of-food.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To really go back to first principles, consider the laws of thermodynamics.  You can't create energy from nothing, and no process is perfectly energy efficient.  In order to *build* an animal from food, first you have to grow, process, and transport the food.  The animal has to eat it and process the food into energy, which it does not do with perfect efficiency.  Then, the animal has to live for a while (weeks, months, or years, depending on the meat), during which time it has to move around, eat, poop, heat itself and make noise.  All these things take energy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of performing this cycle, skip the animal altogether and just grow (non-animal) food that can be directly consumed by humans.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How inefficient it is to eat meat depends on the animal, what you feed it, and the processes used.  There is no one answer here.  But, a reasonable range, for example, might be that in order to produce a given unit of beef energy (e.g. a *calorie*), you have to put in 6 to [**50 times that much energy**](http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat) in the process.  That puts the effective energy efficiency of the process at between 2% and 16%.  That's terrible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, it gets worse.  The previous figures only discussed *energy* efficiency.  If you believe that climate change is a problem, you need understand that not all greenhouse gases are equally *potent*.  [**Methane is 22x more *effective* at trapping heat in the atmosphere**](http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html) than is CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and the animals we get our meat from produce a lot of methane, meaning that their contribution to global warming is even worse than suggested by looking at their energy efficiency alone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, don't eat meat (cow, pig, sheep, deer, etc.) in the first place.  Poultry (chicken, turkey) is a bit better.  Seafood is better still.  A vegetarian or vegan diet is most sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##If You Do Eat Meat, Don't Compost It&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As has been said many times on this site, including in [**Chris's answer**](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/174/486), sustainability choices need to be prioritized to reduce use first, then reuse second, then recycle last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why do you have **extra** meat at all?  If you have leftover meat, then buy a smaller cut.  Virtually everywhere I see meat sold allows you to buy pieces in an almost continuous array of sizes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the developing world, [**currently about 1/3 of food is lost**](http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/the-conundrum-of-food-waste/), mostly to disease or spoilage (lack of preservatives, but also refrigeration).  However, in the developed world, the loss is almost exactly the same (1/3), for different reasons.  One reason is people buying and preparing more food than they need and just throwing the rest out (or composting it).  If you need to eat 2000 calories per day, then prepare 2000 calories.  Don't prepare 2500, and then compost the unused portion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find yourself in a scenario where you can't find a way to stop eating meat, try to buy the correct portion, but you still have leftovers, then save the edible meat for tomorrow.  Chop it up to make a lunch sandwich.  If you still have fat and gristle left, those things probably won't break down quickly in your compost bin, and can create health/rodent concerns outlined in other answers.  Just bury the fat in a hole you dig.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Aside:* in response to the plethora of responses everywhere online about people saying &quot;I compost meat and rarely see rats&quot;, I respond: &quot;Rats tend to come out when you're not there.  Trust me, they find the meat, unless your bin is under tight lock-down.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking a sustainability question about putting meat in a compost pile really is like asking one about the proper tire inflation pressure for a Humvee.  True, you can save some gas by keeping tires inflated properly, but if you have a Humvee at all, you've already gone awry.  I don't pose this comparison simply as a rhetorical tactic.  The direct contribution of agriculture to global warming is roughly equivalent to that of transportation ([**about 10-15%**](http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3213/Climate_change_and_agriculture.html)).  If you add in secondary effects from land-use change, it's even worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making the decision to not to eat farmed meat at all is one of those currently uncomfortable sustainability solutions, along with having fewer babies, and not keeping pets.  People don't want to consider it, but the impact of the choice is large, and completely within your control, right now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="813" RevisionGUID="a7fe90f4-d467-47f0-bb7e-27e7056dbb01" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="My question about [lubricating automotive gears and chains][1] also got me thinking about cleaning said contrivances which is required prior to lubrication. Oftly, kerosene is used as a generic cleaner. Other chemicals harmful to the environment could also be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are biodegradable cleaners available, such as some citrus-based solvent I have to clean bicycle parts, but those come in small and expensive containers, and I could easily use a quarter- to a half-litre of fluid to clean, say, motorcycle chain, depending on the degree of contamination. And it could prove really spendy in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there generic category of biodegradable solvents that can be purchased cheaply and/or in bulk, and at the same time provide decent cleaning performance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/810/227" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="829" RevisionGUID="71ca6bc2-7c3c-48fd-ab8a-110357342805" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="What is the lowest-impact regular¹ method to cross the Atlantic Ocean?  Specifically, which method has the lowest carbon dioxide equivalent emission per passenger-kilometre?  I'm aware there are other impacts to consider, but for this question I'm focussing on the carbon equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought a ship would be lower impact than a flight, but this [appears to be false](http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2006/dec/20/cruises.green), at least when comparing to cruise ships.  But what about [freighters](http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Freighter_travel)?  They're slower, lack the luxuries of a cruise ship, and for freight there is little alternative.  How does this affect the equation of the additional carbon footprint per passenger-kilometre?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: *https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/93/106* for a more generic question on a similar topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;¹By regular, I mean a way accessible for people without special skills or access to their own boats.  Therefore, I'm not counting rowing, sailing or (until I can buy a ticket on one) [solar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BBranor_PlanetSolar) boats." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="850" RevisionGUID="6f2c3ea3-ce99-4e05-95a7-6cbe7f276b92" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I disagree that [dishwashers, compared to hand washing, will not save energy](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/848/486).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, as with almost anything, *it depends how it's done*.  If you run your dishwasher half full, that's going to be bad for energy and water use.  Similarly, if you hand wash, with the hot water running the whole time, that's bad.  So, either technique requires tuning the way you use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, dishwashers have some inherent advantages, in that they're closed units.  Being closed units allows them to build up heat and humidity.  That helps the washing process.  It also means that water sprayed on dishes in the upper rack can then filter down, and rinse dishes in the lower rack.  The same goes for water that's sprayed horizontally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, understand that a dishwasher is fundamentally different than a clotheswasher.  A dishwasher doesn't need to spend a lot of energy physically moving around heavy clothes and a large tankful of water.  Much of the energy a dishwasher uses is in heating the water.  But, that happens with handwashing, too.  Hopefully, you can intuitively see that if the issue is largely about heating water, it's easier to do so in an enclosed space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rather than try to reproduce a thorough analysis myself, I'll point to an [article on treehugger.com](http://www.treehugger.com/kitchen-design/built-in-dishwashers-vs-hand-washing-which-is-greener.html).  An important excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These numbers indicate that it's possible to be more efficient when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hand-washing, but it's pretty tough. Can you successfully wash and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rinse a soiled dinner plate in just over a cup of water? If you can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; keep the water use low, equal to an efficient machine, you'll require&#xD;&#xA;&gt; less energy, but doing an entire load of dishes in 4 gallons of water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is roughly equivalent to doing them all in the same amount of water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you use in 96 seconds of showering (using a showerhead that emits 2.5&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gallons per minute).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, as long as you don't often run your dishwasher when it's only half&#xD;&#xA;&gt; full of dirty dishes, or unless you are very miserly with your water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; use (or have an old, inefficient dishwasher), the automatic dishwasher&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is likely to be more efficient. That is to say, it's possible to use&#xD;&#xA;&gt; less water and energy by hand washing your dishes, but it's not easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll also address another point in the other answer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When you automate things, you substitute electricity for manual energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Manual energy&quot; doesn't come from nowhere.   It comes from the food we eat.  Powering a human being involves converting sun, water, and soil into food, processing the food, then letting the human convert it into usable energy.  **The human body, combined with the agricultural inputs**, do not represent an *efficient* &quot;machine&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd also offer the somewhat *economic* argument regarding [opportunity cost](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost).  The time you'd spend handwashing dishes might better be spent on something else.  If you're interested in sustainability (yeah!), then consider what other sustainable projects you could work on with the X hours a month you'd spend handwashing dishes.  Perhaps add some insulation to your attic?  Add mulch to your garden?  Brew biodiesel yourself?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these things matter in the overall assessment of what saves energy, or makes energy usage more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, if I had to be tied down to a short, simple answer, I'd say that **yes, a dishwasher does (tend to) save water**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="867" RevisionGUID="c2c4dad3-b79b-4692-95f8-151f868f315c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am looking for a new place to live and I know the winters will be very cold (-20 C).  Coming from a warm climate country, I want to learn what to look for in a heating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the bit I understand, steam heating loses a lot of energy to the walls and surroundings, but it doesn't need the pumping that water based heating uses (which spends more energy). Is there a clear advantage of one over the other?&#xD;&#xA;Electric heaters don't use the propane usually burnt in furnaces, but then again, it will spend loads of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;Following directions given in comments, I split this question leaving the insulation part to https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/882/what-is-the-most-sustainable-house-insulation&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="881" RevisionGUID="fc68c6ac-850f-4d9c-94bd-aa6e327eced9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="We all know that when it comes to household electrical lighting, LED lights consume the least amount of energy for a given amount of light, followed by fluorescent tubes, halogens, and Edison-age tungsten-filament light bulbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also know that roughly the same ordering applies when looking at endurance; LED's will last until the end of the universe, flurescent tubes will last thousands of hours, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've also all seen the graphs that show how much money you'll save for all of these types of electrical lighting. Looking at initial investment (purchase) and energy consumption over a year, the break-even point when compared to tungsten-filament bulbs lies for LED lights somewhere in the order of ~10-15 months, fluorescent tubes ~6 months and halogens ~4 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is all very nice, but this all has a nasty sales-pitch/green-washed marketing aftertaste in all of this; way too much focus is on cost for the consumer, and very little is being said on actual overall energy expenditure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to prove to myself and everyone else that LED's are *really* the way to go. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I mean is the following. I would like to create a graph, plotting total energy consumption versus time (so money is *not* considered), with four lines in them (one for each of the aforementioned types), that takes into account: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **The energy it takes to create a single bulb**. See [this related question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/883/how-much-energy-does-it-take-to-create-a-single-light-bulb). For example, to create a tungsten-filament light bulb, you need tungsten, glass, some metals, some plastics, a mixture of specific gases, cardboard and plastics for the packaging, ... Extraction/production/transportation of these materials takes an amount of energy per kg. Shaping it into a filament/glass housing/metal fitting/etc. takes an amount of energy, etc. In other words, from the &quot;stuff that's in the ground&quot; to &quot;finished product in the store&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Replacement time** (this is why LED's will probably have a smooth line, and tungsten-filament bulbs-line will probably show frequent upward jumps due to replacement). The nominal amount of burn hours stated on the packages (mean time before failure, MTBF) is not really sufficient here; these are averages somehow, and frequently come from calculations or laboratory setups rather than actual real-life usage (how else can they claim that LED's can be lit for 10 years continuously?). Also, there is a finite chance that the average user will accidentally drop the bulb, crash into it with a ladder, etc, which is far worse for tungsten-filament bulbs and luminescent tubes than for LED's in protective casings. So, a far more realistic statistical model should be assumed here, which I can't find any reliable, authorative sources for...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Energy expenditure due to **disposal** and/or **recycling**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Transportation**. This is a broad topic and strongly depends on geographical location, but let's assume some worst-case scenario (where tungsten-filament bulbs have the advantage) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - anything else I've forgotten :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, such detailed calculations can only be done when making some assumptions. Let's assume: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - the most energy-efficient, state-of-the-art models for each kind&#xD;&#xA; - specific models with an equal or at least comparable amount of lumens produced (say, equivalent to a 40W tungsten bulb)&#xD;&#xA; - Daily average use of 5 hours in Winter, 2 hours in summer, sinusoidal in between (or some better, comparable model)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it very hard to find sufficient details on this subject to be able to do this comparison. I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one thinking this, but I'm  just not finding them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know some sites or papers I should look into?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="882" RevisionGUID="396dea4a-fc02-4e82-b2b1-585ecd5233f2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="This is a &quot;derived&quot; question from https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/867/what-is-the-most-sustainable-heating-strategy-for-a-home .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When talking about a home that has to withstand cold winters (-20 C), insulation is a big part of keeping this home sustainable. So if I am looking for a new place to live, or if building a new one, what is relevant &quot;insulation wise&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;Does the material used to build the walls have a big impact? Brick vs Wood for example?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="883" RevisionGUID="2cc966c1-fd29-4200-8956-8ac7e3c9ecf9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is a part of [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/881/what-form-of-electrical-lighting-has-the-smallest-energy-footprint). Perhaps it is better suited on the [physics SE](https://physics.stackexchange.com/), but here goes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how much energy it takes, in the modern world, to construct an ordinary, ready-to-buy light bulb, from the raw materials in the ground. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, I would like to know it for the following types of bulbs: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Tungsten-filament &#xD;&#xA; 2. Halogen&#xD;&#xA; 3. Fluorescent tube&#xD;&#xA; 4. LED&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, to create a tungsten-filament light bulb, you would need &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - tungsten &#xD;&#xA; - glass&#xD;&#xA; - a few types of metal&#xD;&#xA; - a few types of plastic&#xD;&#xA; - a mixture of gases inside the bulb&#xD;&#xA; - cardboard and plastics for the packaging &#xD;&#xA; - etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These raw materials all require energy input: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Forming/shaping&#xD;&#xA;  - extracting tungsten from the ores, ..., creating filaments, ...&#xD;&#xA;  - creating the right kind of glasses, ..., creating bulb housing, ...&#xD;&#xA;  - etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Transportation &#xD;&#xA;   - of all the materials to their respective factories&#xD;&#xA;   - of all the (half-)products to the bulb factory&#xD;&#xA;   - of the bulb to the distribution centers/shop&#xD;&#xA;   - etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Losses&#xD;&#xA;   - a small percentage of the raw materials will be rejected &#xD;&#xA;   - a small percentage of the finished light bulbs will not work, and get rejected&#xD;&#xA;   - energy expenditure of the robotic components and other tools in the involved factories&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize this is virtually impossible to answer accurately for even a specific light bulb from a specific store, let alone make general statements -- there are simply too many steps in between to be able to trace everything &quot;back to the ground&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm looking for, is authorative sources on this subject. Studies done on the energy demands of modern production lines, hopefully, with this type of product in particular. I'd like to come to a more complete list than the one above, and some reasonable estimates on the energy expenditure in each step, ideally for each type of lightbulb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="898" RevisionGUID="85c35f92-ff64-4286-8c6a-53df448d7902" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Short answer:**&#xD;&#xA;The average R-value of the building shell is the most important thing to consider whenever the outside temperature is going to be very different from the inside temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long answer:**&#xD;&#xA;In new construction, you can build your walls thick and fill them with insulation, or even use structural insulated panels instead of traditional materials. You can just pick your favorite insulation and make sure the walls are designed to use it effectively. From a heating standpoint, it doesn't really matter if you use fiberglass, foam, insulated concrete forms, or blown-in cellulose as long as the wall assemblies have the R-value your looking for and everything is built and installed correctly. In a cold climate, reducing heating fuel consumption will have a far greater impact over the useful life of the insulation than choosing &quot;green&quot; materials. That said, some materials are clearly more sustainable than others. Refer to [Zach's answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/897/462) for more information on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're buying an existing but under-insulated home you might want blown-in cellulose because it can be installed in uninsulated cavities without tearing apart the wall. It's also very simple to add a layer in the attic. If/when you need to replace the siding, you might want to install foam boards between the wall and the new siding. Foam boards are also a good option for masonry or concrete walls. Wood-framed structures will probably give you more options for adding insulation than masonry or concrete walls will because wood-framed walls have cavities that can be filled with just about any type of insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also keep in mind that insulation only prevents heat transfer through itself. Studs between insulated cavities will conduct heat better than you'd like no matter what. Ideally, your home will have a continuous &quot;shell&quot; of insulation that is broken only by windows, doors, plumbing penetrations, and exhaust outlets/air intakes. That said, some insulation is better than none, and at some point the cost just isn't worth it unless you have a whole lot of money to throw around." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="904" RevisionGUID="4400033d-9a1f-4d85-8469-13fbc8bd6926" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Combining wind turbine and solar panel is my favorite (that has not come to reality by now...). Both of them are weather dependent but in an almost anti-correlated way. It means they complement each other very well most of the time of the year.  &#xD;&#xA;Here in continental Europe, usually when it's a sunny day it's rarely windy. And when the weather is changing or in winter, it's cloudy and windy. So you'd profit from **solar panels during sunny and summer days** and profit from **wind turbine on bad weather and winter/late autumn days**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The points made by [EnergyNumbers][1] are all valid but I'd stress an importance of a storage because you mention an old generator. It probably means you're not grid-connected. You'll have to balance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You'd still need some (back-up) generator - much smaller and much less used than the previous one. The main sources would be PV panels and wind turbine(s).&#xD;&#xA;- Adding some kind of batteries to the system. Storing energy increases the build costs which you want to minimize. But the more you store the smaller and less used generator would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/875/60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="905" RevisionGUID="1b4b5900-73bc-4316-b6cb-8670b4ef6e1d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I see many questions on this site about the sustainability of various products or practices. I also see that some things which are considered sustainable in one context may be *less* sustainable when looked at in another – for instance, [hybrid cars][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of hybrids, the answer appears to lie with close study of [life-cycle assessments][2]. But what about products which don't have a clear life cycle? Or practices like recycling, which is generally sustainable but [not in every case][3]? What about complicated industries and supply chains, like those surrounding biofuels?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that in many cases, whether a system is sustainable or not [depends upon how the system is defined][4]. So who defines the systems in question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general: how is the sustainability of a product or practice determined, and by whom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10/how-to-determine-whether-hybrid-cars-are-really-more-sustainable-than-traditiona&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/453/35&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/460/35&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/586/35" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="930" RevisionGUID="d2cef3b7-a22b-4603-8cfa-a80b7f914fb2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'll split this answer into two parts: the political and the personal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Political impact&#xD;&#xA;Whatever political system you live in, you have some route to make a political impact. The amount of impact will depend on your exact circumstance, but you will have some impact somewhere: through your elected representative, through a national political party, through a religious body, or through economic influence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you've identified a person of influence in one of those spheres, next find out what motivates them, what sort of language they use to describe problems and solutions, and what their priorities are.  Then, explain to them how catastrophic anthropogenic global warming will worsen some of those problems; and give them three good tactical approaches to preventing that from happening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###An example&#xD;&#xA;In a representative democracy, there are routes to power through party-political structures, and through elected members. One can join a political party that is free of policies you find completely unacceptable, and work within it to develop policies to mitigate global warming. If the party's main message is one of protecting the weak and creating an equitable society, then your approach would be to talk about how catastrophic global warming would make the poorest suffer, and how it would divert resources away from tackling wealth inequity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The three tactical approaches might be:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. working with international partners to put in place rapid decarbonisation targets;&#xD;&#xA;2. transferring part of the source of taxation from something that is held to be a good thing, such as employment, onto greenhouse-gas emissions; and combining this with an equivalent import duty on goods and services that contain [embedded carbon][1].&#xD;&#xA;3. introduce capital grants to low-income households, to enable them to buy photovoltaic panels extremely cheaply, and then to sell their surplus power back to the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Personal impact&#xD;&#xA;For almost all of us, our own personal emissions are very small in the scheme of things. And yet, if each of us can take personal actions to halve our total greenhouse gas impact, then global emissions will halve. So together, our impact can be huge. Furthermore, wherever there are some market forces in place, then changing your demand from high-carbon goods and services to low-carbon ones, will incentivise commerce and industry to decarbonise at the margins. The main thing is to work out where your biggest personal impact is, and to start there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###An example&#xD;&#xA;For anyone who flies or drives a lot, their travel is probably a very large part of their personal carbon footprint. If the long trips can be shifted to train, and the shorter drives can be shifted to bus, tram, metro, walking or cycling, then that can have a big impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone living a climate where a large part of the year requires space-heating, and that's done through gas, oil, coal or high-carbon electricity, then investing in insulation and reducing draughts should save you money in the long run, and will reduce your personal emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[If you have a choice of electricity provider, then in some cases, changing provider can make a difference.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/richard-conlin/but-what-about-embedded-carbon&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/682/48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="945" RevisionGUID="eb01d1d8-9ca2-4f4a-bf3e-6a38c89d9a3d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="First of all, it sounds like there might be some confusion regarding the claim.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*As I read it*, the claim is not that steel is inherently better than plastic.  It's not an apples-to-apples comparison.  The claim is that one **reusable** steel bottle is better than continually buying many *disposable* plastic bottles.  Certainly, one steel bottle has a much bigger impact than one plastic bottle, but if you buy a nice $10 stainless steel water bottle, hopefully it'll get used over and over again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you might suspect, this depends on many factors.  You can probably find many analyses online, but all of them will have to make some assumption about the rate at which bottles are recycled.  That may not be relevant to your decision.  **You** probably know how likely **you** are to recycle plastic bottles, which might be much more than the average person.  For that average person, giving them a shiny possession (the steel bottle) might help discourage them from throwing away a seemingly *cheap* plastic bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reasonable write-up of this issue was [one I found on the NY Times site](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/04/19/opinion/20090419bottle.html?_r=0).  Their conclusion was:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What it comes down to is this: if your stainless steel bottle takes&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the place of 50 plastic bottles, the climate is better off, and if it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gets used 500 times, it beats plastic in all the environment-impact&#xD;&#xA;&gt; categories studied in a life cycle assessment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you reuse a steel bottle 50 times (the climate change balance point)?  Or do you lose bottles/lids too easily (or do like me and drive off with them on top of your car)?  And, again, do you religiously recycle plastic bottles, or only do so if a recycle bin is convenient?  Also, [I'm going to plug another question I asked here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/923/486), as I think it's relevant, if you recycle via public bins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to remember that in general, with sustainability, you want to try to **reduce** consumption first, if you can't do that, **reuse** resources second, and only if that's not practical, **recycle** last.  Recycling is an imperfect process, [especially with plastic bottles](http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/no-more-downcycling-breakthrough-organic-catalyst-more-effective-pet-plastic-recycling.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, it's worth noting that although not strictly a *sustainability* issue, [many believe stainless steel bottles to be better for your health](http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/plastic-drink-bottles-safe-reuse-drinking-water-3110.html), as a result of fewer harmful substances leaching into your water, compared to plastic bottles.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="950" RevisionGUID="4a503a0e-0b9c-4d6c-9276-e8966eef7b02" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="In addition to [@user1205935's suggestion to dry them for use in hot tea](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/949/486), we also save a few of them for use in our **garbage disposer** (inline sink food waste grinder, *aka* &quot;garbage disposal&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, I [don't recommend heavy use of a garbage disposer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/684/486) to get rid of food waste that could be composted, but you generally will have *a little* food waste that goes down the drain, and if you have a garbage disposer to take care of that, you might want to maintain the appliance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pushing some orange peel down the disposer, and grinding it up, can help fight bacteria growth, and improve the smell of your disposer unit.  (I also recommend tearing the peel into 5 to 10 pieces before putting down the disposer)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="960" RevisionGUID="36ff341f-ece8-45f1-aff9-f10c1ef402a2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="As I understand it, the bulk compost made by one of our local businesses is produced by using heavy machinery to regularly scoop up and turn the source material and keep it active. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How much fossil fuel tends to be used by the machinery in such an operation to produce, say, 1kg of compost?** It would also be helpful to know the scale of the operation (eg in kg/yr output or input) for any particular measurement, as there may be strong economies of scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there will be a higher environmental impact than just the fuel used, but let's just look at the fuel use aspect for this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related question: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/956/compost-yourself-or-let-the-city-handle-the-organic-waste" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="978" RevisionGUID="7f74d0d0-80b3-4da5-be9b-f4d4d25f702c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Insulation doesn't care about directions, so whatever keeps a house warm in a cold climate will help keep it cool in a hot climate. Vapor barriers are different--my understanding is that the vapor barrier should go on the side of the wall that sees the most humidity. But insulation simply slows down heat transfer in all directions, so as long as you have a way to cool off the interior, whether it's AC or a cool night breeze, any insulation will hold the day's heat at bay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consult a local professional about the best insulation and vapor barrier choices for your area, because humidity and local pests can influence the effectiveness and longevity of your system. Make your decision based on factors such as those, because as far as heat transfer goes, an R-value is an R-value. If your energy comes from sustainable sources, the &quot;green&quot; insulating materials will be clear winners for sustainability, but otherwise just get the best insulation your budget allows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/897/462) gives a good overview of some of the insulating materials you might consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have questions regarding the effectiveness and durability of insulating materials, the folks at [Home Improvement](https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/insulation) can probably help you out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="986" RevisionGUID="db5701ce-1373-42f0-95cd-c8c5980f155a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Where I am living, there are a lot of sheep, hence enough wool to go around for everybody. I saw a show at some point stating that sheep wool is one of the best natural insulates for homes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true? What kind of treatment does it need to go through from the natural state to the final product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For completeness reasons: a follow up question related to this one: [best insulation][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and also this one: [newspaper insulation][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/992/48&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/998/what-needs-to-be-done-to-reuse-newspapers-for-insulation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="989" RevisionGUID="ac96a039-47b6-4f99-8f90-c0b00f8f038e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="As I mentioned in [my answer][1] to https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/26/164  photo-voltaic double glazing - a form of [Building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV)][2] may become more popular in the future as the economics of scale improves for low efficiency thin film PV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low cost [thin film PV][3] has the potential to be substantially cheaper than using crystalline silicon cells, but since it generally has a lower efficiency it isn't as interesting. For windows though, low efficiency has its advantages. Since thin films are layered on top of transparent glass, any light not converted into electricity passes through. Many glass fronted buildings already attenuate the incident light anyway, to minimise air-conditioning costs or reduce glare, so converting that light into energy rather then turning it into heat or reflecting it out of the building has a certain appeal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of anyone producing home double glazing units featuring BIPV modules yet, but I know that machines for creating the glass panels for large scale BIPV projects have been around for years (I used to work on them in the mid to late naughties).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is certainly an area I will be keeping an eye on, as the idea of unclipping my existing double glazing units and clipping in replacement double glazing units with integrated PV holds a lot of appear for me personally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't suggest any specific suppliers&lt;sup&gt;&amp;dagger;&lt;/sup&gt; but the important thing is the term **BIPV**, which should allow you to search out [current suppliers](https://www.google.com/search?q=BIPV).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;dagger;&lt;sub&gt;Even if I knew that information (which I don't, I worked at the [B2B](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business-to-business) end of the industry) that side of the question is a poor fit for stack exchange as the information goes out of date too quickly, so is unlikely to benefit future visitors. For more information, see [Q&amp;A is Hard, Let’s Go Shopping!](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/qa-is-hard-lets-go-shopping/). &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/299/164&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BIPV#Forms&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_film_solar_cell" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="992" RevisionGUID="c026b734-b69c-473b-89f1-4ce1bc9d4f51" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Following on from the question https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/986/48 , where I started my answer with:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &gt;  Is it one of the best natural insulators? Well, that would depend on your definition of best.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the OP asked in a comment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &gt; Maybe you can share your thoughts regarding the best insulation product!?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realised that this isn't a simple question. It's not just about the highest R-value (or equivalently, lowest U-value). In some cases, the answer might be triple-glazing; in some cases, the answer might be aerogel; in others, something else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where are the trade-offs in the attributes of insulation? Or, to put it another way, how do the criteria for *best* building insulation change depending on context?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1003" RevisionGUID="4af00b88-3f3d-45d7-bc90-11ad0ea865ee" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question is basically a follow-up question on something EnergyNumbers mentioned in [his answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/930/99) to [this now closed question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/928/99). He wrote that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  together, our impact (on fighting global warming) can be huge .... The main thing is to work out where your biggest personal impact is, and to start there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: how do I determine what my biggest personal impact is on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally I would need to calculate the carbon footprint of all products I buy and activities I do, but that doesn't really seem feasible. Or are there any tools or standard calculations that can help here? I know there are carbon footprint calculators and [ecological footprint calculators](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/91/99) freely available on the internet but AFAIK these only show you one single measure as end result. I haven’t been able to find a calculator that identifies a top 5 of worst activities I do or products I buy from a sustainability point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize this is a rather broad question and a lot of factors are probably involved. Perhaps an accurate answer will be too long to provide here. To narrow it down a bit more, my main interest is in tools, tips or starting points for researching my personal impact myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1005" RevisionGUID="2dd96706-6ed4-436e-b710-d56663e8c97a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I share your frustration with some of the online &quot;carbon footprint&quot; calculators, but if you really care about analyzing the components of your impact, you can still get useful information out of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, I think a disclaimer is necessary.  Any such calculation is going to have to make quite a few assumptions.  Some assumptions may lead to slightly skewed results in individual cases, but averaged over all cases, they do a reasonable job.  In general, it's still a better way to estimate your impact than it would be to simply rely on **intuition**, which sadly is what most people (even the eco-sensitive among us) do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think it's important not to make the *perfect* the enemy of the *good*.  We in the developed world probably need to [reduce our carbon footprints by about 80%](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-3.html) (or 90% in places like the [US, Canada and Australia](http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/graph-showing-each-countrys.html)), so it's better to start cutting now, where you can, than to wait for the perfect data to guide you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Online Calculators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, here's a [list of some online carbon footprint calculators](http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/the-15-best-carbon-calculators) (US-biased, I should note).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the US Environmental Protection Agency's calculator, they actually let you [download the spreadsheet containing their math, directly](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/GHGCalculator.xls).  You can use that to hone in on your family's problem areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This nature.org calculator](http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/) does actually produce a pie chart at the end of your input, showing relative contributions to your carbon footprint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Typical Scenarios&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think using a **combination** of online carbon footprint calculators is the best bet to get a pretty good feeling for where you contribute the most to global warming.  But, for many people, these tend to be problem areas (with links for further reading):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Food** - what type of diet do you have?  [Meat, then poultry and fish,][2] and then fruits and veggies tend to have the biggest impacts on greenhouse gas emissions (not just carbon, but methane from agriculture is a big problem, especially in the &quot;short&quot; term of the next 100 years).  Note: *locality* tends to be an overrated aspect of your food's impact, as transportation to market is a fairly small part of the energy required to produce food (it does matter, [but not as much as choice of food types](http://psufoodscience.typepad.com/psu_food_science/files/es702969f.pdf)).  Do you waste food ([1/3 or more of food globally is wasted][3]), or eat more than your body really needs (pleasure eating)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Heating** - how do you heat (or cool) your home?  Homes like apartments or condos are fundamentally easier than houses to keep at a constant temperature, both because they tend to be smaller, and because each unit doesn't have 5 sides that are exposed to the outside air.  Are you using a relatively efficient technology like a heat pump, or a [less efficient one like electric baseboard heating][4]? [Is your home well-insulated?][5]  Do you keep your home warm in the winter, rather than turning down the thermostat and adding more clothing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Local Transport** - do you drive, or take the bus/walk?  If you drive, do you drive electric (most efficient, and best for GHG if you use renewable electricity), use biodiesel (not as thermodynamically *efficient*, but most of the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; released was already in the air), drive a hybrid, a petro-diesel or gasoline car?  *For the most part*, that's the [order of least to most impact on global warming][6] (with each general technology having a range depending on many factors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Flying** - [airline travel][7] is horrible for climate change.  Not only does it consume massive quantities of fossil fuels in a short period of time, but it's going to be much more difficult to *green* commercial aviation than it is to *green* automobiles, because power-to-weight ratio is so critical in airplanes.  [There isn't a huge difference in impact between flying and driving to the same remote destination][8], but the choice really is whether to take those long trips at all.  If you fly, especially across oceans (e.g. regularly for business or vacations), your *raw* carbon footprint will be large, no matter what else you do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **General Consumption** - do you buy a lot of *stuff*?  Toys for kids.  New tools for your home or garden.  New appliances with more features.  Big TVs.  New clothes when old ones are out of style.  Everything we buy takes energy to make.  When we throw it away (or even recycle it), it causes more energy to be used, and greenhouse gases to be produced (e.g. [trash decomposing in landfills][9]).  Getting into the mindset of buying only what you **need**, not just what you want, and keeping things you buy for a long time (or fixing them when they break), can reduce your impact substantially.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Reproduction** - this isn't going to make people happy, as it's a taboo subject, but the number of children you have has a huge impact on climate change.  It's important not to get lured into the trap of considering only *per capita* carbon footprints, because the environment knows nothing about the number of people ... only the total amount of greenhouse gas we produce.  More people mean more emissions, and at 7 billion and counting, it's simply no longer a reasonable argument to contend that we need to produce 2+ children per couple to sustain the human race.  Parents also frequently fall into the trap of thinking that because they live an eco-friendly lifestyle, their children will, too, when grown.  Kids are influenced by their parents, but also by the society they live in.  Right now, their society is a profoundly negative influence in this regard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Pets** - while this is another issue that upsets people, choosing to keep pets is a significant part of many families' impacts.  It certainly depends on the animal, its size, and activity level.  But, a large dog can easily add as much greenhouse gas in a year (mostly due to the fact that it probably consumes a meat-intensive, high-calorie diet) [as an SUV][10].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Home Electricity** (non-HVAC) - I'm going to gloss over this one, both because it's comprised of many small contributors and because I think many who read this will already have taken *obvious* steps, like [using energy-efficient lighting][11].  I think the other issues are more likely to make it into your top 5 list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M6NWB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/suistainability/pdf/Global_Food_Losses_and_Food_Waste.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/electric-resistance-heating&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/882/486&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www.zeroghg.com/flight_carbon_calculators.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.befrugal.com/tools/fly-or-drive-calculator/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://phys.org/news176582720.html&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/343/486" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1011" RevisionGUID="82aa0629-70bd-420e-a117-ca2d524d8d27" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think this is a great example of how *sustainability* really is multi-faceted.  LED lighting may be great from an energy consumption standpoint, and not as good with respect to finite material usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy Use vs Material Supply&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's important, however, to apply some *weighting* to the different factors.  I don't believe we're **yet** at a critical point with respect to rare earth material supply, but I believe we are already at a critical point with respect to climate change (primarily, that we have already passed the [350 ppm CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;][4] threshold that many climate scientists believe is necessary to preserve the climate that humans have flourished in).  So, in my opinion, it would be poor strategy to pass up energy-saving technologies in favor of technologies that save raw materials that we aren't running out of yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Light bulbs are unique devices, because they're small, but use lots of energy over their lifetimes.  Their relative material footprint isn't that big, compared to their energy footprint.  LED lights are expensive to produce, and use much more scarce material than incandescent bulbs, but they last for years (or decades).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LED lights are already the most energy efficient lighting solution available for most residential applications, and there is good reason to think [they'll soon pass compact fluorescents by a significant margin][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Short Term Supply Constraints&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is a report on GE's website about rare earth supply constraints][1].  It's important to note, however, that current price spikes in these materials are largely an *economic* phenomenon.  95% of these materials are currently supplied by China, because China's policy is heavily influenced by **engineers** who saw this trend coming.  [China is also imposing export quotas][2]. There are significant rare earth material reserves in the [US (e.g. Nevada) and Australia][3], but the higher cost of labor here/there hasn't yet convinced those countries' companies or governments to ramp up production.  It also takes years to bring new mines online.  So, I would expect in the future, as climate problems worsen, and China's economy surpasses that of the US, this **supply** limitation will ease.  Whether it will ease enough to satisfy increased **demand** requires a crystal ball (also a rare earth material).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another issue sometimes brought up is *recylability*.  It's important not to assume that because a material isn't currently recycled, it's not recyclable.  This assumption is [made repeatedly with electric car batteries][6].  Until products like LED lights are getting disposed of in large numbers, economic factors limit the opportunities for recycling them.  That's not a long-term problem though, if LED lights (and other rare earth applications) catch on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Long Term&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that the theoretical potential for renewable energy is enormous.  Just between solar and wind power, there is thousands of times more energy hitting the earth than we need ([and even the *harvestable* potential is much more than we need][7]).  We're just not harvesting much of it now, in favor of consuming ten million year old sunlight stored in fossil fuels.  But, in the long term future, we may be able to (once again) use technologies that use more energy, if the energy is *renewable*.  At that point, we may decide to reduce, or reinvent LED lighting.  But for now, I think the large energy saving potential of LED lighting makes it a good *medium term* (0 - 50 years) sustainability choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/rare-earth-elements/downloads/GE_RareEarthPaper_7.20.11.pdf&#xD;&#xA; [2]: http://ledsmagazine.com/features/8/2/7&#xD;&#xA; [3]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20021139-54/pay-dirt-why-rare-earth-metals-matter-to-tech-faq/&#xD;&#xA; [4]: http://350.org/en/understanding-350&#xD;&#xA; [5]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/887/486&#xD;&#xA; [6]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/612/486&#xD;&#xA; [7]: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/27/10933.full?sid=0de8da4b-cff2-461f-a2de-e31dced9bda5" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1024" RevisionGUID="6fbfcc2d-414a-44d4-9143-985bbd4a04d9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Solar PV panels are clearly more efficient at converting sunlight to electricity if they are mounted on racks that rotate to track the sun's apparent travel across the sky. However, tracking mounts are more expensive than static mounts and typically need to be installed on the ground rather than on a roof. Both active and passive tracking systems are available. Both seem to require more maintenance than static mounts because of the moving parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do tracking mounts improve the return-on-investment of a home solar PV system after installation and maintenance costs are factored in? If the answer is &quot;yes&quot; in some cases but &quot;no&quot; in others, under what conditions do tracking systems improve ROI?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:**&#xD;&#xA;After reading [this answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1027/462), I played with the [NREL tool](http://gisatnrel.nrel.gov/PVWatts_Viewer/index.html) Nate recommends for a couple of minutes and it looks like 1-axis tracking has more of an advantage over fixed arrays than 2-axis tracking has over 1-axis. So even if one is cost-effective, the other may not be depending on initial and ongoing costs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1067" RevisionGUID="622abf0a-68e9-4f5c-85e3-8f1893ec96cf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Per the clarifying [comment below the question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/977/what-is-the-sustainable-house-insulation-suitable-for-a-very-hot-climate#comment1710_977), I think it's also important to note a *non-insulation* solution to the same problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a climate that's hot, keeping sunshine out of your home helps immensely in reducing the need for cooling.  Remember that a building with windows represents the original *greenhouse effect* (letting in visible light, but not letting out infrared radiation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a couple other good solutions to this problem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Window coverings, that you manually pull down when the outside air is less comfortable than the air inside (*i.e.* in the hot summer, you keep coverings closed in the day, and in the cold winter, you keep them closed at night, and vice versa).  I particularly like [light-colored honeycomb window shades](https://www.google.com/search?q=honeycomb+window+shades&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=5MXIUZWHAuLMiQKUqoDQBw&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&amp;biw=1920&amp;bih=830).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Plant bushes and trees outside your home's windows, on the side(s) that face the sun.  If your home is hot in the summer, and cold in the winter, then you should pick [deciduous plants](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deciduous), that will block sun with leaves in the summer, and lose their leaves, allowing sun in during the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using this strategy, I've comfortably kept my house at 80&amp;deg;F or lower at **all** times, with **zero air conditioning**, even as temperatures in my area can approach 100&amp;deg;F on the hottest summer days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1080" RevisionGUID="2327fe3e-bf45-45f5-b216-268e8be431b9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's various options depending on the level of accuracy desired.  To be most useful to a general audience, *not just this question's asker*, I'll mention a couple rough methods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The way you should track your energy choices in general is fairly simple:  monitor your energy bills monthly, **before and after** making the change (in this case, before and after installing the solar hot water system).  Energy utilities are often quite good at giving you detailed information on your bill.   While this method is rough, and fails when you make multiple changes at once (e.g. add a baby at the same time that you add solar hot water), it also has the benefit of encompassing all losses in the system, which you will not get if you only monitor *in situ* at the panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. You could conduct a short experiment, and then extrapolate results to get your monthly, or yearly savings.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The experiment might involve switching off all other electric devices in the house (I recommend doing so at the circuit breakers, not by unplugging appliances individually).  &#xD;&#xA; - Leave your hot water system to operate normally.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With a simple thermometer, take some cold water from your tap to measure its temperature.  Note the hot water setting at your house if you have a fixed *setpoint* (e.g. 60&amp;deg;C), or measure it again by drawing **hot** water from the tank's drain valve, or a nearby faucet.  Now you have your &amp;Delta;T (change in water temperature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Start with the hot water at equilibrium (after the tank temperature is stable ... not right after a shower, or running the clothes washer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Record the initial electricity reading at your home's meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Have your family take your normal daily showers.  Note the exact length of the showers, in seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wait a few hours, or until you're sure that water tank temperature has recovered to the steady state value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You'll need to know the flow rate of your shower.  It should be stamped on the shower head itself, but you may need to calibrate that number with a separate experiment: run the shower into a large bucket of known size and time how long it takes to fill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - With this information, you can determine that total water consumed is equal to the total shower time in seconds, times the flow rate in liters per second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Once again, measure electricity consumed at the house meter.  Subtract the initial reading to get total grid electricity consumed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The total heat added to the water is the volume of water used, times &amp;rho; (1 kg/liter), times &amp;Delta;T, times the heat capacity of water (1 calorie / gram / &amp;deg;C).  The heat added by the solar system is approximately the total heat, minus the heat added by the electrical heater.  You measured the **electrical energy** input, so **heat** input from the electric element will be that number, multiplied by the electric water heater's [Energy Factor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_factor).&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; 3. If you don't want your food to start spoiling during the experiment, simply get one [plug-in power meter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_A_Watt) to use with your refrigerator, so you can measure and subtract the fridge's energy from the meter reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. If you want to also run through a cycle with your clothes washer, or dish washer, then add them to the experiment.  Again, use a plug-in meter on the appliance when it's being used, so you can separate that energy usage from what you read at the home's meter.  If your dish washer has an option to provide water heat, [which I don't tend to use](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/850/486), you might turn that off for the experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For a clothes washer, if it drains to a utility sink, you can stop the sink up, and monitor how many times it fills (opening the sink before it overflows, of course), to measure the water consumed during a **hot** cycle.  I'm guessing you have a cold rinse, which you wouldn't want to measure for this test.  Cycles that mix hot and cold might be harder to measure ... I'll have to get back to you on that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For the dish washer, you might just have to search for manufacturer's data on your model, to see how much hot water per cycle it uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Extrapolating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you just perform this experiment once, it's obviously dependent on how sunny that day was.  Repeating the experiment several times, during different seasons/conditions, can allow you to get an average result.  You could also try to simply determine what the day's sunshine was like, relative to the average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have access to a [Pyranometer](http://www.vernier.com/products/sensors/pyr-bta/), you can measure sunshine during the experiment, and compare it to other days (the other days can simply be to monitor sunshine, without the hot water tests).  You can also lookup [climate data for your location](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/mcdw/mcdw.html) to determine how sunny your area is, month by month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this information, you can determine that during your test, your output might be 10% above normal, or 25% below normal, and use that adjustment when you multiply by 30, or 365 to get monthly and yearly estimates.  Remember that if you add activities like clothes or dish washing, that don't happen *daily*, you'll need to account for that when projecting for the full month, or year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** if you do the experiment, and feel that your hot water temperature is not constant (not recovering all the way between uses), then you can make the results more precise by measuring hot water temperature at each step (each shower, each wash cycle, etc.) and performing the calculation for each hot water consuming activity separately, with a different &amp;Delta;T value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like [EnergyNumbers is going to provide a more precise technique](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1079/486) for measuring output (at the panels?), so I'll leave my answer with just these rough measures for approximating the answer.  For the majority of home users, I think this is more than sufficient to track your energy efficiency improvements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14589" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="98a8742b-8e1b-4197-95d0-072300f6fde0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with everything in [EnergyNumbers' answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1081/486), but would like to add some more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##(Other) Advantages of Electric Motors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along the lines of *&quot;easier to maintain&quot;*, **an electric motor is likely to last much longer**, for example, in an automotive application, than an internal combustion engine (ICE).  An EV traction motor may very well last 1,000,000 miles, versus perhaps one quarter of that for most ICEs.  While it's true that current EVs tend to use batteries to power the motors, and batteries may need to be replaced at a comparable interval to an ICE timing belt, an EV with a new battery is going to run much more like a new vehicle than an ICE with a new timing belt.  The regenerative braking associated with the electric motor will also prolong brake life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Electric motors are more quiet than ICEs.**  This is a controversial topic.  I believe noise pollution to be a problem, and thus, a quieter car to be better (especially with respect to *sustainability*).  Some are concerned about pedestrian safety with quieter electric motors.  While this can be, and is being, addressed by adding noise makers to electric cars, I believe this solution is actually misguided.  The basis for this aversion to quiet cars partly draws from a [multi-year study][1] in the US concerning pedestrian accidents with hybrid vehicles.  The hybrid vehicles had a 40% higher rate of pedestrian accidents than non-hybrids.  However, the study did not correct for the fact that in the US, hybrids tend to be owned by city-dwellers, and the rate of pedestrian accidents is twice as high in cities vs. rural areas, for all cars.  I believe this factor alone can explain the 40% result.  Also, during this study, which involved thousands of hybrid cars, not a single blind person was killed by a quiet hybrid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Size matters**.  In an application-agnostic answer, it's important to note that for some applications, electric motors are more versatile because of the variety of sizes they come in.  Hopefully, it's obvious that an ICE to make your phone vibrate is not an option, but a motor works quite well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Disadvantages of Electric Motors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without specifying your application, I'll try to discuss multiple transportation applications.  For cars or trains, the excess **weight** of a battery pack that drives an electric motor is not a huge penalty.  The road provides extra normal force to balance the vehicle weight.  However, in aerospace applications, power-to-weight ratio is more critical.  So, for airplanes, using electric motors for propulsion is still not practical.  Liquid fuels have a [higher energy density][4] compared to batteries, which makes petro-fuels or biofuels more attractive for airborne propulsion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is less of a problem for cars, which [do not yet have to levitate][5].  Also, it should be noted that comparisons of energy density for liquid fuels vs. batteries distort the true picture, because **total weight** is what's important, and an ICE system requires a heavy ICE, and a heavy transmission.  When the whole system is considered, battery EVs suffer a noticeable, but acceptable, weight penalty for their lower energy-density fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Battery range** (capacity) is also a problem for EVs.  However, I believe this issue to be exaggerated, as the average US driver (who drives a lot!) still only drives 40 miles on an average day.  In the future, more charging stations will also minimize the range problem for electric cars.  However, for now, range versatility has to be considered an advantage of ICE vehicles.  An interesting compromise is made by Chevy's [Volt EV][3], which is fundamentally an electric car, but which carries an on-board generator for recharging the battery by burning liquid petro-fuel.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;**Temperature** constraints can be a disadvantage for electric motors, *due to the batteries themselves*.  High temperatures can shorten battery life, and very low temperatures can (temporarily) reduce the useful capacity of the battery.  Note that *normal* temperatures here on earth are well-suited to battery EVs, so this issue is more a problem if your area has temperature extremes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Economic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is difficult to answer without a more specific question.  Electric motors will draw their fuel from different sources than internal combustion engines.  Each country will have different economics regarding their electric grid, and oil consumption.  If your country has more abundant resources to produce electricity (coal, natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear), you may consider electric motors an economic benefit.  If you're in an oil country, maybe not.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you add biofuels to the mix, you add agriculture as a factor.  Most internal combustion engines can use varying levels of biofuels.  An [Otto cycle engine needs modest engine modifications to run rich ethanol blends][2].  Many modern diesel engines need no modifications to run biodiesel (although winter cold can limit the blend).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, ICEs can provide a domestic economic boost if your country can grow its own biofuel feedstock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that pollution (which includes greenhouse gas) and energy efficiency are the most important factors here, and those favor electric motors for many applications.  EnergyNumbers' answer covers those well.  I simply wanted to add a few more pros *and cons* to round out the topic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## More&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Disclaimer: biased owner of an electric vehicle, but I've certainly owned ICEs, too :)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A related question about Electric Cars on Sustainable Living](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/612/486)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** more sources coming later ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811204.PDF&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.slideshare.net/sughoshdeshmukh/ethanol-engine-modifications&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm237341696/tt0181689" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1084" RevisionGUID="58842b17-5019-4376-b660-77d552b04896" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm in England, and currently on a single-price electricity tariff, that's measured by a (very) old-style electricity meter (mine says &quot;property of Eastern Electricity Board&quot; on it, so it's well over 20 years old).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After my previous question on how to decarbonise my home heating - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/319/48 - I think my best bet is to to put in electricity storage heaters, and a hot water tank with electric immersion heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to move to a time-of-use tariff, such as Economy Seven, then that would require more sophisticated metering. At the very least, a second old-style meter, which has been standard practice for dwellings on Economy 7 or Economy 10 for 30-odd years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, Britain is just starting the process of switching from old-style meters to smart meters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I want to move to a time-of-use electricity tariff, how do I get an appropriate meter fitted, and what should I be looking for, if I want to take part in the forthcoming demand-side response market?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I get my electricity and gas from [Ecotricity][1], if that makes a difference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://ecotricity.co.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1131" RevisionGUID="1b578091-8211-442a-b928-1c3706c8a150" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="##Short Answer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, let me say that I *love* rain barrels, and have them installed at both homes I've owned (both older homes that are already fully landscaped).  I think rain barrels are great water saving devices, and can provide *some* buffer against run-off.  They're also cheap and easy to install, and can often repurpose existing containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would still answer **&quot;No, they should not be considered substitutes for rain gardens in building codes&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Why&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, we need to understand what the purpose of a building code is.  It's not a way to create the **best** possible residential units.  It's a means to provide sort of a *lowest-common-denominator* solution.  A *minimum* acceptable standard for something - in this case, stormwater management.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone such as yourself, who's in tune with these issues, an active gardener, and motivated to consider sustainability, might very well be able to improve upon the building code's solutions.  But, the code isn't so much for **you**, as it is for those who don't care about this stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For rain barrels to perform a stormwater management function, requires some active management on your part.  As [Highly Irregular said][1], you have to watch the fill level of your barrels constantly.  Most residents won't do this reliably.   A 55 gallon rain barrel can fill up fast, so it's easy to envision that in a short time, it might have *zero* benefit for stormwater management.  If the barrel is full, and has to drain via the overflow tube, you get absolutely no drainage benefit.  The rain garden is much more work to setup, but in my opinion, once it's working, it should continue to function with less intervention, compared to the rain barrel.  If the right native species are planted, once established, you should only have to make sure somebody doesn't completely mow over the garden.  Any other maintenance should be few and far between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, building codes primarily serve to govern plans for **new** buildings.  When you have an empty lot that's yet to be landscaped, it's less work to install a good rain garden.  After the home/building and yard are complete, and you want to add *additional* water management, I think rain barrels offer a reasonable retrofit solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Parallels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, this also reminds me of *geoengineering* solutions, which I generally tend to be opposed to.  For example, a proposal to combat global warming by injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere.  True, this would block sunlight, which would have a cooling effect.  But, sun is a good thing.  Blocking it would have other detrimental effects, and this &quot;*solution*&quot; does nothing to fight the non-warming problems associated with increasing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels (e.g. ocean acidification).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actively managed rain barrels might serve the purpose of stormwater management, but a plastic barrel isn't a plant.  Rain gardens are also good because they involve planting native species, keeping greenspace green instead of turning it into concrete, patio or deck area, and they also promote good biodiversity.  Rain barrels by themselves don't do these things.  The only thing they're assured of doing is saving some water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saving water is good.  I use rain barrels, and especially recommend them for retrofits, where the yard is already planted (with or without rain garden).  I just don't think they're a *substitute* for rain gardens in building codes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1130/486" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1148" RevisionGUID="299a01db-5d8f-4673-a616-fbd1e5b9eecf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't know much about aquaponics, aeroponics or fogponics, but I from what I've read on wikipedia I think those require more maintenance and resources than a simple vegetation-covered roof. Therefore I will focus my answer on the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most low-maintenance, low-resources solution probably is to build a green roof covered with sedum plants. Sedum can survive under many circumstances. In warm climates you may need to water the plants occasionally, but this is not necessary in moderate climates. The only maintenance required is to check your water drains once or twice a year and unclog them if needed. You might want to remove the weeds once every year, but this is not strictly necessary. Basic instructions on how to build a sedum-covered roof can be found [here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/94/99). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of sedum you can grow herbs and/or grasses on your roof, but these require a sturdier roof, more maintenance, more water and possibly also some fertilizer (depending on the types of plants). It's even possible to grow bushes and trees, but you'll need an even stronger roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Requirements:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - All vegetation-covered roofs&#xD;&#xA;   - a good waterproof and root-resistant layer, preferably not older than 10 years.&#xD;&#xA;   - good drainage&#xD;&#xA;   - slope preferably less than 15 degrees. Depending on the type of roof, a bigger slope may be possible, but this will make construction and maintenance more complicated&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sedum&#xD;&#xA;   - the roof has to support an extra 40-80 kg/m2&#xD;&#xA;   - roof edge must be at least 10cm high&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Grass/herbs&#xD;&#xA;   - the roof has to support an extra 100-150 kg/m2&#xD;&#xA;   - roof edge must be at least 15-20cm high&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bushes/trees&#xD;&#xA;   - the roof has to support over 250kg/m2 extra&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1149" RevisionGUID="cda7d63d-2752-4479-92a2-ec302155daaf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="It's widespread knowledge that paper or cardboard contaminated with oil can cause problems in the recycling process, and an often stated rule is that contaminated material should not be recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it would make sense that low levels of contamination are ok.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there any widely accepted tolerance levels for contamination by oil, or does it differ depending on the recycler (or worse, do they not even define it)?** What are the acceptable levels, if there are any?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If information is available on acceptable levels of contamination with other substances, that would also be of interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somewhat related questions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/740/are-pizza-cardboards-stained-with-oil-still-recyclable&#xD;&#xA; - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/242/is-it-better-to-recycle-or-compost-brown-paper-bags?rq=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1173" RevisionGUID="9ab60608-f757-4a99-98eb-dfba5bccdf69" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Someone *has* done it.  A majority of the electricity [I buy comes from geothermal energy][1] &amp;dagger;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, I live in the Pacific Northwest of North America, which puts me close to a tectonic plate boundary.  This presents good conditions for extracting geothermal heat ([since the earth's crust is thinner at such boundaries][2] ... making shallower wells productive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Limitations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of *why* it isn't more widely used, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that at least some of the following factors apply:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It's new.  Give it time.  This recent estimate predicts a [13% annual growth rate in geothermal production][4] in coming years.&#xD;&#xA; - Political reasons contribute to the status quo (fossil fuels) maintaining market share as long as possible (this includes both *lobbying* by existing fossil fuel business interests, and [general ideological leanings by the political Right][6]).&#xD;&#xA; - Building the plants can involve hydraulic fracturing, somewhat like shale gas extraction does.  There are environmental issues associated with that, or any type of drilling, especially in earthquake zones (although for the geothermal application, I believe they're far outweighed by the low carbon footprint per kWh of geothermal energy)&#xD;&#xA; - As I alluded to before, not all sites are equally desirable, geologically.&#xD;&#xA; - I don't want to get into regulations here, because they vary with every location, but in some places, utilities have been required to buy the very cheapest electricity, with no regard to pollution/carbon-neutrality.  This could rule out geothermal, even if it's cost-competitive, so long as there's one available source with lower cost.&#xD;&#xA; - You didn't limit your question to one particular region, but [here's a link discussing some regional issues in my corner of the world][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Another Opinion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From this source][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The major impediments which this industry faces include initial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; financing of large scale projects, resource development risks like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; failure of drilling wells and insufficient productivity, lack of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; skilled labor to work on the projects, issues related to drilling rigs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and market and network issues like proximity to the market and network&#xD;&#xA;&gt; capital costs. Also, there are some environmental problems in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; producing geothermal energy like release of hydrogen sulfide and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disposal of toxic geothermal fluids while extraction.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Challenges to this industry are carrying out efficient programs for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; land leasing where reserves of geothermal energy are located, better&#xD;&#xA;&gt; drilling assistance in terms of accurate positioning of the site and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its viability, and significant financial support needed to establish&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plants at the desired locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The &quot;Cost&quot; Thing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue that should **no longer** be considered a primary factor limiting deployment of geothermal power is *cost*.  From [the US Energy Information Association][5], the pro-rated cost of new power plants (excluding externalities like pollution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Plant type                        Total system levelized cost (2011 $/MWh)&#xD;&#xA;    ----------                        ----------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Conventional Coal                                   100.1&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Coal                                       123.0&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Coal with CCS                              135.5&#xD;&#xA;    Natural Gas&#xD;&#xA;      Conventional Combined Cycle                        67.1&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced Combined Cycle                            65.6&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced CC with CCS                               93.4&#xD;&#xA;      Conventional Combustion Turbine                   130.3&#xD;&#xA;      Advanced Combustion Turbine                       104.6&#xD;&#xA;    Advanced Nuclear                                    108.4&#xD;&#xA;    Geothermal                                           89.6&#xD;&#xA;    Biomass                                             111.0&#xD;&#xA;    Wind                                                 86.6&#xD;&#xA;    Wind (Offshore)                                     221.5&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV                                            144.3&#xD;&#xA;    Solar Thermal                                       261.5&#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectric                                        90.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this data is an estimate for cost, including well / plant development, averaged over the electricity produced (kWh).  While I can't speak to the metrics used in board rooms, I believe this to be fundamentally better than the $/kW *capacity* data [featured in this answer][8].  That data cannot provide a basis for comparison between sources like wind and geothermal, because geothermal plants can run at 90%+ capacity continually, while wind farms do not (wind is inherently variable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, geothermal is *already* a cost-competitive technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm certainly a proponent of geothermal energy, and I think its future looks bright.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.  I read your question to be about **large-scale** energy production, but [geothermal is also a legitimate small-scale solution, too][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;dagger; &lt;sub&gt;- of course, as with most green energy utility programs, my electricity is the same as that of my neighboor, who doesn't participate in the program.  My utility payments simply subsidize renewable projects (such as Raft River geothermal).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.seattle.gov/light/Green/greenPower/Statrpt1.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/geothermal-energy-market-global-industry-analysis-size-share-growth-trends-and-forecast-2012-2018-262290.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.asdreports.com/news.asp?pr_id=156&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.livescience.com/29195-conservatives-energy-efficient-bulbs.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1175/486&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.usgeothermal.com/faq.aspx#8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1234" RevisionGUID="cceaa208-6220-41d0-b950-7d2cc9dc8d86" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm considering to have my car engine chip tuned. I'd like to increase the fuel efficiency of the engine. Increasing the power of the engine would be only a secondary advantage of doing so. Most of the chip tuning companies in my country offer tuning for max power or for max fuel economy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is this: **is there anything like economy car engine chip tuning that really works? How much improvement can I expect or what are your real-life results (if any)?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are [other ways of increasing fuel economy (mileage)][1], but this is an important one. There is a general consensus that bigger and especially diesel (turbo) engines are better to tune. My car is a 2007 VW Golf 1.9 TDI, but I wouldn't limit answers by that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/486/how-to-drive-to-be-the-most-fuel-efficient" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1243" RevisionGUID="e13497bb-da33-49cb-bbf1-4293b1be4838" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="There isn't an easy answer on offsetting time: in theory, the sooner the better, because every year that passes with higher greenhouse gas levels. increases the heat content of the Earth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted it just to come out net zero addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, over the PV's whole lifetime, then reckon on 20 years if it's monocrystalline. Maybe 15 years if it's thin film. We don't have a lot of experience of the latest thin-film tech, so lifetimes are a bit uncertain, but 15-20 years won't be too far from the end result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for average production, [there are sites like PVGIS to help you calculate that][1]; here in Britain, and in Germany, average capacity factors are 9-10%, so you might reckon on say 800 full-load hours equivalent, per year. So if a system was 1kW peak, that would be 800 kWh each year. Accumulated over 20 years, that's 16,000 kWh. You might want to reduce that by 10-15% to account for the greenhouse-gas footprint of manufacture of the PV system itself: specifics would vary, depending on the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/155/48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1253" RevisionGUID="5cda5f88-2687-40fd-8f24-b86b0e147ad6" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/666/99) it was asked how economic it is to turn your car's engine off when waiting for a traffic light. In the [accepted answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/670/99) it is said that it becomes more economical to turn it off if you are waiting for more than 10-15 seconds (in a comment someone said it's more likely 9-12 seconds, but still). If I understood correctly, this number applies to turning your engine off yourself manually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: **what is the break-even point when using a built-in start-stop system? How can I calculate this threshold for my own car?** More specifically, I drive a [Skoda Fabia Greenline](http://new.skoda-auto.com/en/models/fabia-greenline/) and want to know how long I should keep my engine turned off before it is more economical than leaving it running when stopped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that start-stop systems for non-hybrid engines only work when the motor is already warm and that such engines are usually able to restart within half a second, so if you only consider fuel a start-stop restart is more efficiently than a manual restart. But start-stop restarting still costs extra battery power. I suspect that if I only stop the car for 1 second and then restart I will have used more power than if I kept it running, but I don't know if that's really the case and if so where the break-even point is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1262" RevisionGUID="b11fc6d7-1d42-4351-a8f2-03c435af3ef3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Making a good compost requires the [right Carbon-Nitrogen ratio][1] of the mixture. But most of the compostable household wastes don't have an ideal 25-30:1 ratio and we call them [&quot;greens&quot; or &quot;browns&quot;][2]. And each of those has a different C:N ratio and that's why a different amount of each material is needed to achieve the same balancing effect. What are the Carbon-Nitrogen ratios of most common household &quot;greens&quot; and &quot;browns&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The C:N ratio is always some kind of average but I'd like to see some scale of strong &quot;browns/greens&quot;, medium and week ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/56/60&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/290/60" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1295" RevisionGUID="a4771f04-9561-44df-818d-713bcbf2f9da" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think I agree with [THelper](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/99/thelper) that the term `algae lamp` is a bit of a misnomer, however...it's complicated.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make a 'lamp' from bio-luminescent algae - but this is a much different thing than the photosynthesis process charging a battery and then running a regular light off of that store energy.  If you could do this (and I'm not saying you can't, but I suspect it would be awfully difficult), why not use grass?  Or bamboo?  Or tomatoes?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, I think the only thing that's limiting you from having an algae lamp (as opposed to an [algae nightlight](http://hackaday.com/2013/04/18/living-night-light-with-glowing-algae/)) is the amount of area you're willing to devote to the project.  Bio-luminescent algae in natural conditions can illuminate entire shorelines - but that's a *lot* of algae.  Not to say it's impossible, as you can [purchase](http://empco.org/edu/index.php/pyrocystis-fusiformis-11.html) and culture this algae.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After culturing your giant algae bed, you'd also need a way to mechanically stimulate it, as this is where the light comes from, but I think after the work needed to culture a large amount of algae, this would be trivial.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1297" RevisionGUID="868b04a2-2337-48ca-a61d-fc6d71d53ed7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Dangers&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Most of plastic materials when burning in a conventional fire decompose to toxic substances which have bad health effect on many living organisms including humans. Many of the substances are carcinogenic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dangerous substances are mainly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [dioxins][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [furans][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [styrenes][3]&#xD;&#xA; - some plastics can produce extremely and acutely toxic [hydrogen cyanide][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [carbon monooxide][5]&#xD;&#xA; - [aldehydes][6]&#xD;&#xA; - [heavy metals][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... and a lot of other dangerous substances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;As [dax wrote][8] the best solution is to recycle the plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different solutions are based on various techniques of safe decomposition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incineration&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[Incineration][9] is controlled burning of various waste at high temperatures with filtering of the produced substances. At high temperatures the dangerous organic compounds are further decomposed to less dangerous substances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pyrolysis&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;[Pyrolysis][10] is a decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in absence of oxygen. The products of pyrolysis can be used for example as a fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bacterial decomposition and biodegradable plastics&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Certain bacteria can help decomposition of plastics. See for example: [In what new ways can bacteria help shrink our landfills?][11] -- [Plastic-eating bacteria found in 'ocean desert,' scientist says][12]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also special plastics being produced which can be easily decomposed by common bacteria - [biodegradable plastics][13]. Unfortunately they can be [ecologically harmful][14].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxins_and_dioxin-like_compounds&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furan&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styrenes&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_cyanide&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldehyde&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_%28chemistry%29&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1296/642&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/bacteria-landfill1.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/30/plastic-eating-bacteria-found-in-ocean-desert-scientist-says/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_plastic&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/18/greenwash-biodegradeable-plastic-bags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2320" RevisionGUID="7491b1f4-826b-4061-be28-949a243f89f7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I respectfully disagree with [this answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1216/99). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like I myself asked the question. You described my home, my heat pump, my climate, an therefore my problem, exactly! YES, the infrared heaters make ALL the difference. Worth every penny of which I am not spending more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each winter is different so I'm not going to claim a savings. But, we have never exceeded our highest winter bill since purchasing the heaters and most importantly, we are WARM! Wearing sweaters, sweat pants, 2 pair of socks, and donning a blanket, while paying out the nose and still being cold is a thing of the past. Problem solved!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2334" RevisionGUID="6a1b1111-b6ee-4cab-856d-8fc9248fef46" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Some options for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Flyto][1]'s suggestion in the comments of assuming that pilot lights are similar, and have somebody with a metered supply do the measurement, is very good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Install a gas meter. Not only will it allow you to answer your question about pilot lights, but will give you data that you can use to assess the efficiency of each of the uses of your propane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Measure the heat flux out of the boiler, after it's been on only the pilot light for many hours. If you know the heat flux through the boiler case per unit area, then you can multiply that by the surface area of the boiler, to calculate the heat lost by the boiler per unit time. Assuming the boiler is in thermal equilibrium, the rate of heat loss will equal the rate of heat input from the pilot light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/812/flyto" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14603" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2383" RevisionGUID="e9945b82-bdb4-45ad-b4aa-82f9378ef201" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I've heard that in some countries (e.g. Germany) christmas trees are sprayed with pesticides and fungicides to make the trees look better and to make them bug-free. I've also heard that this may be harmful to your health, especially if you keep your christmas tree indoors and don't open the windows for fresh air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried google for more information but could hardly find anything on this topic.&#xD;&#xA;So are these just rumours or is it true? &#xD;&#xA;And if it is true, how do I know if my Christmas tree is non-toxic? Is there a way to test this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT**: the source apparently is an article in a German newspaper (see also [this answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2391/99)). I'm still curious whether this is a problem only in Germany (probably not), or also in other (European) countries.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2402" RevisionGUID="7f155432-efea-4595-8ff8-b725c5c1cb51" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="The answer is [waste sorting][1]. I mean that there must be no such thing as garbage in the world at all. Everything must be recicled and biowaste is not anyhow different. I do not understand why you raise the questions so selectively: I will separate only the bio-waste from the rest of my waste? Why not separate the rest also?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I argue that an [appartment is the utmost ecofriendly system in the world.][2] It leaves 10-100 times _less footprint_ in the nature and composting is not a problem when it is a social system, like electricity. I live in a appartment in the city of Tallinn, _in Estonia_, where since 2005 **compost container was mandatory in front of every block of flats**. Waste sorting is what you need in New York. I use a pretty small separate compost container, wrapped with a thin disposable plastic bags in the flat and carry the bag over into the public container once a while. I do not buy the plastic bags. They are given for free in our all-about-packaging economy when you buy fruits or vegetables. It is a thin and mandatory disposable since 2005 in Estonia. And it does not smell because what I compost is mostly vegetable rather than animal organics and _vegan diet does not smell at all_ (neither as compost nor when you fart). There are other containers of plastic/metal packaging, glass and paper. These do not smell at all. The food packaging could but you rinse them to avoid smell and improve the quality of the recicling materials that you deliver. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should also _reduce the amount of detergents when washing_ anything so that we could safely head the sewage on our crop fields. I mean that liquid fraction should also be composted efficiently but our owners head us to poison the waters with their products.&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, if you want to do everything individually, as consumerist, why do you care about resource conservation and don't you want to grow electricity by your personal generator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_sorting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2398/476" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2422" RevisionGUID="8a4f7268-0411-4562-b6fb-a69f55f1113d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I am sure that washing machine is a waste of everything. You hardly ever need hot water and toxic washing substances to contaminate the sewage. But stupid machine does not understand that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[At first, you should live in a block of flats][1]. This means that you consume 100 times less energy than individual cottage villager. Here we speak about 1 vs 100 energy (and other) savings is much more substantial than 211 vs 220, ok? But, you cannot afford for so much savings, right? This accounts for thermal electricity, which means that the [power plants that produce electricity also heat your buildings][2] and supply the hot water for free - you do not need neither additional heater nor heating in the washing machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, the machines are stupid. As human, you can see that most of the meals are not fat (yougurt is not fatty, just put your dish under the jet of cool water, help it with your had and see that the dish has cleaned up completely). Only pan after heavy fried pork needs some dishwashing liquids. Everything else (including yogurt) can be washed by the cool water, without dishwashing liquids. Such clean sewage is worth supplied on the fields, for crops growing as opposed to dishwashing liquid contaminated toxins and wastes 0 calories. The washing machines are expensive to produce, waste space and stupid - they do not see that 95% (and 100% for those who do not eat pork) of dishes do not need neither water contamination, nor energy. You just live your dishes in the water to soak for a while. The soaked dishes are easy to rinse with water to clean up. This is the same time you place the dishes into the washing machine and extract them afterwards. But machine is worse - it is stupid and treats all you dishes as absolutely fat. It wastes tons of electricity, dishwashing liquids and contaminates the waters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Asking which dishwaser to use for sustainability is a mockery over the sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PS** You need clean water only to wash the dirt away at the last stage of washing. The water is not clean anymore after you do that. However, you can reuse it to soak new dishes you want to wash later. (Remember, you need to soak in order the dirt to wash away effortlessly). I often do it. Additionally, I save my time. It takes time to wash and fill some container with water to soak. But, if I combine two processes, I save the environment and time simultaneously. Hardly, washing machine can reuse the gray water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2402/476&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2398/476" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2446" RevisionGUID="99da8c8a-8e26-4a22-b5ba-37d8e3cb81bc" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="If your goal is to save money you'll need to do the calculations based on your exact location and costs. In Australia the main use of small battery-backed solar systems is for off-grid locations but people are increasingly looking at going off-grid as the cost of the grid keeps rising (mostly due to cheap air-conditioners) while the cost of PV systems drops. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're trying to reduce your total environmental impact the calculations become much more complex because you need to first decide what counts as &quot;environmental impact&quot; and how you're going to compare different sorts ([see this question, for example][1]), then for each option work out what the impact actually is. I'm going to assume you're just using money as your measure since the method is the same but the process is simpler. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To do the calculations you really must know not just how much electricity you use, but how much of that use can be eliminated, reduced, substituted or time-shifted. The value proposition for all of those changes when you're looking at off-grid power because of the cost of generating and storing it. You can get extremely efficient fridges, for example, but they're expensive. But off-grid the reduction in power consumption is often cheaper than generating the extra power using PV and storing it in batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sort of battery technology used for houses hasn't changed significantly in the last 20 years, it's still lead-acid based. There are a few lithium battery systems just starting to enter the market now, but if you are not happy with lead-acid batteries I would not suggest buying a lithium one until that market matures. It's still very &quot;version one&quot; right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other way to save money and reduce your environmental impact is to reuse materials. If you're in an urban area you may be able to get &quot;ready to recycle&quot; lead-acid traction batteries, for example, that no longer work in their original application but are fine for you (an electric forklift that only runs for half a day is effectively useless, but a 50kWh rated battery that's down to 20kWh actual capacity is excellent value for $500). Similarly, buying second hand panels and supports might save you money and significantly reduce your environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you're in Australia I suggest you join the [Alternative Technology Association][2] and read the relevant issues of their Renew magazine as this the viability of opting off the grid has been discussed recently. They've been talking about off-grid power system in Australia since they were founded (20-odd years IIRC).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2396/accounting-for-ecological-foot-print-of-non-renewable-resources&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://ata.org.au" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2486" RevisionGUID="1b123705-1026-4d8c-95d0-4a370d089de4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Instead of buying [Kill-a-Watt type device][1], I advise to share it with your neighbours since you do not need it all the time - you measure how much everything consumes in different modes of use only once and then keep results in mind. You better share the power meter with the others than support the capitalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But **simplest method to measure the energy is with your hands**. The power is lost when it is translated into the heat! The devices that produce heat consume more. That is why you can be sure that &quot;sleep&quot; and power-off your PC makes no difference. Just put a hand on the device and it is safe if it is cold. Use Kill-a-Watt-like power meter to check that I am right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But one thing bothers me. There are different modes of load ([power factor][2]) and it may happen that though there is no effective load (and Kill-a-Watt indicates 0), the electrical grid (or some types of electricity meter) are severely loaded. My father says that our summer house is inhabitable during winter but electricity meter counts 1 KWh in month and blames the switching power supplies. I am not sure. I would make this a question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2482/476&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2500" RevisionGUID="f26adb14-9f82-41e4-8ebc-8082b811c681" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="You don't make clear what type of heating system you have at present, or what the Kentucky Utility Meter measures (electricity? Gas?). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it sounds as though it may be some sort of heat pump system where &quot;aux / emergency&quot; mode turns on a resistive electrical heater. If this is the case, then you may find the answers to [this question][1] useful, and perhaps [this one][2] in particular. If this is not the type of system that you have, then it would be worth clarifying for people to better help you :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1213/is-it-practical-to-use-an-infrared-space-heater-along-with-a-heat-pump-system&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2325/812" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2502" RevisionGUID="f689046e-5724-40aa-b9dc-8b250721fb18" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I followed a video on building my own worm farm using styrofoam boxes. The video suggested having a box underneath the main box to collect the worm castings, so it required I put holes in the base of the main box and have an empty box underneath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The instructions also suggested placing fly screen at the base of the top box to stop worms leaving and other insects from infesting from below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have added my worms and everything has been going smoothly and the worms are processing a large tub full of scraps every week, however the lower box is completely empty?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The boxes I am using are about 1 - 1.5 foot deep. I filled the top box with about 3/4 of soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wanting to know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Is the bottom box even necessary if I [stack a box on top][1] once the bottom one is full? I can empty out the bottom soil and use in the garden etc, right?&#xD;&#xA;- If it is a good thing to do, is it maybe either the fly screen or I put in too much soil to start with?&#xD;&#xA;- Was it even necessary to put that much soil in to begin with? I am curious because when the container is completely full and I add a top container do I need to semi-fill it with soil?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2449/110" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2504" RevisionGUID="efa30f4a-f81a-48f4-b261-b1e94fccb9ad" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="- An extra box below a main box with holes can be used for 2 purposes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. **Capturing fluids**. The holes make sure that a surplus of fluids can escape and your box doesn't get too wet. Holes used for draining only are usually small.&#xD;&#xA;   2. **Harvesting compost**. When using a continuous flow approach (a.k.a. flow-through approach), you regularly remove compost that is ready to be used from the bottom of your box. In this case there are usually large holes or a mesh at the bottom of your box, optionally with a bar for scraping. More info on [different continuous flow systems here](http://www.wormfarmingrevealed.com/continuous-flow-through-bins.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you use a stacked approach and have a good method of draining fluids (e.g. a tap), then an extra box below your main box is not necessary. Like you said yourself, if you stack you can empty the bottom box once the worms have moved to the upper box. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your approach seems fine. Just make sure the conditions in the bin remain ok (not too wet and not too dry). When you start composting, you can add a little bit of soil so the worms have some space to roam around. There is no need to start a bin with lots of soil but it won't harm the worms either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your third question has already been answered [here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2449/99). There is no need to add new soil when adding a new box on top." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2505" RevisionGUID="30840066-bfbb-4968-9bce-eb54667b24dd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Merchants say][1] that I can have 1 watt of energy per every $1.5 invested. Yet, I have heard from people &quot;from the business&quot; that the installation alone (forget mining the ores and smelting the parts) takes so much energy that the wind will never pay it back. I could not figure out the costs from [this huge Wikipedia article at all][2] at all. Can you expose the balance? How much is it different than one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see that there is [a similar question regarding the Solar Power][3]. It introduces &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Energy Returned On (Energy) Invested, also known as EROI and as EROEI.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is calculated by dividing the total energy delivered by the system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; throughout its whole lifetime, divided by the total energy required to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; build, operate, maintain (and ideally decommission) the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which I also want answered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Update&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The expert says][4] that [EROEI of 18 for the wind][5] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumes turbine lifespan of 30 years whereas it is 10-20 years indeed,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; which trims the EROEI at 12. Furthermore, the constant wind is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; assumed, which is not true and EROEI is only 5.5. Next, dismantling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; costs reduce EROEI to 3.0. It is not known if concrete production (it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is very energy-consuming), used in the basement, is accounted or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it right correction? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1013&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://crustgroup.livejournal.com/79199.html?thread=10792799#t10792799&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2540" RevisionGUID="b10653d2-f054-4c17-bf34-49df6ae62966" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this answer][1] Russel says solar panels are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a sandwich of glass + bonder + silicon PV cells + bonder + backsheet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This got me wondering how much of those materials are needed to make the solar cells easy to transport and/or install. Assuming (for the sake of this question) that I invent a robot that will 3D-print solar cells directly on to my roof, how could such a machine work, and would it still need all those layers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: to clarify, the main thrust of my question is: isn't the backsheet (and its bonder) just needed for ease of transportation? And isn't the glass needed for protection? (e.g. so if I am putting silicon PV cells directly on the roof, and not needing to transport/install big panels, can this glass be much, much thinner, or even done away with completely, and some simple waterproof spray used instead?). I.e. do the backsheet and glass layers do anything beyond make the panels easier to transport and install?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, and especially as this is the Sustainable Living site, how might their overall energy cost compare? E.g. we have solar cars, so a robot crawling over my roof using only solar-power seems reasonable. Assume I have a good source of sand within 1km. Can I just pour sand in to get the silicon, or is making silicon from sand in your own back-yard not reasonable, and is always going to require a big facility?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I'm not asking how to do the above *today*. I'm wondering with say 5-20 years of direct R&amp;D effort, what kind of product might be possible. (And I'm thinking not just roofs, but also robots that paint solar panels on top of deserts, or over radioactive areas of Fukushima, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2536/961" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2554" RevisionGUID="2c09bb98-a6fd-457e-bf03-01e09fae75dd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Ӎσᶎ summed up what corporate sustainability is about](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2551/96). I want to try a different angle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, at all scales the basic question is the same: What goes into your system (stuff, energy), what comes out (stuff, waste), where does is all come from and go to? What does this mean for sustainability? What can I change (choosing different inputs, avoiding some outputs) to improve sustainability? How much do I, do we care?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, on a personal scale (you, your household or familiy, the group of friends with whom you travel/have a soccer club/share a makerspace ...) it's all about sharing the enthusiasm for improving sustainability and finding ways to changea and improve the same. You don't have toanalyze avery change in light of monetary costs. Maybe you'll look at the cost and benefit of changing lightbulbs to more efficient ones, but you probably won't put a money value on the time you spend separating waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a moneymaking scale, the entitiy (big or small) has to do this. Every additional hour of working time will have to be justified. That's why, even if there are well meaning people within a company, the policies that get implemented are typically the ones that cost nothing or bring a public relations boost - as described in Ӎσᶎ answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2594" RevisionGUID="032467d4-1cf5-4ab7-95f1-feef748f8290" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="There often is confusion about compostable plastics (see for example [this question on greenware items](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/55/99) or [this gardening question on plastic bags](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/8985/1916)).&#xD;&#xA;'Compostable' suggests that you can compost the plastic yourself, but most compostable plastics are made of [PLA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid) and that can only be composted in industrial composting facilities. This is because PLA requires high temperatures for several days to decompose. If you throw the plastic on your home compost pile it most likely won't degrade (or else very slowly) because the temperatures are often too low. However, plastics that can be composted at home do exist. I'd like to compile a list of plastics types that can be composted in home compost piles so we can refer people with questions about it to this post. Since I'm asking for a list of things, I've made this question community-wiki.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What plastic types can you compost safely at home. Or which labels/certification schemes guarantee that you can compost it yourself? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please only answer if the label explicitly mentions that the plastic will break down in **home** compost piles, or if you've verified yourself that the plastic does break down. Please also include the method of composting (hot/cold composting).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2620" RevisionGUID="6b52481d-7025-4052-8d11-61ae99854aaf" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="The opther answers are all basically ok, but I want to add some details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first issue is nutrients: By adding your leftovers to the river, you practically add fertilizer that can lead to algae blooms and, ultimately, [eutrophication](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication). Of course, fish also poop in the river, but they also eat from the river, so they don't add much nutrients. Soil ecosystems have different problems with too much nutrients, but generally you have to watch out for surface water far more. Also consider [this question and it's answers](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/414/how-are-pollution-and-sustainability-related) for more background.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second issue is health and parasites. You can add and spread pathogens with your waste. Proper composting, done by you or others, will destroy most pathogens. But based on your amounts I would not stress this point too much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what to do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Stop freezing your waste. This costs serious energy, find another solution to avoid smell in your flat - look around this site, and maybe ask another question&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;* Consider to keep using the Whole Foods compost bin. You don't cost them much, and it seems to be the easiest way for you to properly compost your wastes. And always remeber: Sometimes it's easier to ask forgiveness than seek permission." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2624" RevisionGUID="3f8dc4a3-35d3-49ac-a017-fac2976a93ea" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I don't know an answer to your question, but I think it depends on how much you drive. I would imagine that a car that is in good shape is best used by someone, who needs a car, but doesn't drive very often and not for very long distances. Like an elderly person, who only uses the car to go shopping at the store 3 miles away, maybe twice a week. If that's you, you should probably keep the car ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you drive every day, then it might be better to sell the car to someone, who will not use it everyday and for long distances. Of course, once you sell it, you have no control over how the car is used, but it's probably worth using the car to the end of its life-cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also try to increase your fuel efficiency. Until recently I drove a usually fully loaded 2001 Renault Clio (Limousine) with twice the efficiency (5.5l/100km = 42MPG) (only city as well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have discussed some strategies here: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/486/how-to-drive-to-be-the-most-fuel-efficient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2753" RevisionGUID="f896f04a-88f6-48f0-8a15-257434a8039e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Well, I'm by no means an expert on giving this answer, and yet I'll take a go at providing something reasonable. Assuming a 1ha biodiverse, properly hydrated, young stage forest with optimal leaf coverage that gives us a solar catchment area of 10,000 square metres. Subtract say 20% to account for immature trees amongst the larger growth, another 20% for damaged trees and other incidental issues like leaf blight or whatever else might go wrong and you're at 6,000 square metres of catchment. A single mid-stage growth tree can capture and sequester 48kg of carbon per year. Assuming a mid-stage tree head diameter of 2m that means that you have 3000 trees sequestering 144,000kg of carbon per hectare per annum. Using techniques like coppicing and pollarding in the forest increases the efficiency of aboveground tree growth which means a more rapid turnaround to go from a bare patch to a tree catching sunlight. As such we can probably up that 48kg per year figure to in the realm of say 60kg/yr pushing us up to 180,000kg per annum unless I've totally gone wrong with my maths somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That 180,000kg is largely bound up in the form of cellulose and lignin. When you have good, seasoned wood ready for use in a furnace/fireplace it ends up representing about half of the weight of the wood as much of that is still bound up as water/sap and other compounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, a single hectare can supply about 9m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;/hectare according to [this](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/467/1375) answer here on this site. That's enough firewood to supply about 3 families with 3m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; each of wood for home heating and cooking needs, or 9 families 1m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; provided they are using fuel efficient heating like Rocket Mass Heaters or Kachelofens for heating and rocket stoves for cooking. Assuming we are talking moderately efficient kinds of woods dehydrated to 12% moisture content, that averages out to be in the ballpark of 600kg/cu.m which works out to be 5,400kg. Assuming a carbon content of 49.5% for the wood, that works out to be 2673kg of carbon re-released per year. This means in net, a single sustainably harvested 1ha forest will affix 67 times the amount of carbon that is released from the burning of the wood that comes from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does that help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2768" RevisionGUID="1231eb38-3ca2-4a63-a3dc-4d059cd09fa2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="We've covered [Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR)][1] before here, and it's been the ventilation method of choice for [Passivhaus][2] buildings for many years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I heard something interesting recently: that some Nordic countries, having been concentrating on MVHR in super-insulated dwellings for some time, were now moving to Positive Input Ventilation (PIV), whereby a fan in the roof space brings fresh air into the building, and the increased pressure pushes out stale air elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true, and if so, what's behind the shift?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/241/48&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.passivehouse-international.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2771" RevisionGUID="98607e2e-f2fe-484c-af6d-637f229a9e9d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="OK, given the clarifications in comments (that there's no hot water tank, so this is presumably a combi boiler doing &quot;instant&quot; water heating, and that the bathroom has a radiator and no towel rail):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hot water&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no hot water storage - the boiler warms it at the time that you run the tap - so timings are irrelevant to this. The only variable left is the temperature that you would like hot water to be provided at, which is probably the dial marked for water on the boiler is. This is partly down to personal taste, but as a starting point I usually tune it so that the thing that I use the hottest water for - in my case, washing up - can be done with water straight from the hot tap. But, it probably makes little difference in energy terms. Be careful about setting it too high, or you may be able to scald yourselves on tapwater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One question that I forgot to ask in comments was whether the shower actually uses hot water from the boiler, or whether it does its own electric water heating - many do - but this doesn't make much practical difference, because there's little you can do about it either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heating&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;You have a few more controls to play with here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Set the timer for when you would like the heating to be on; this will presumably require negotiation.&#xD;&#xA;If you both go out during the day then I suggest a period in the evening (for comfort, and for having a warm bedroom when you go to bed) and a period just before you get up in the morning (so you're not shivering when leaving your duvet!). There's no point in heating a house when nobody is there, and unless you've in a very cold climate (or there are health reasons), no point in heating a house when everybody is asleep. When choosing the times, bear in mind that the house will take some time to warm up from the start time that you set - perhaps anywhere between 10 and 60 minutes, depending on many factors. Some experimentation will be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that contrary to myth, it is *not* more energy-efficient to keep a house warm throughout the day than to let it cool off when unoccupied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dial for heating on the boiler will control the temperature that water is heated to when sent to the radiators. Think of this as the rate at which the boiler can transfer heat into your rooms. The higher this is, the more &quot;power&quot; the system will have, the faster it will respond, and the better it will cope with cold days, but the less energy efficient it will be (because heat leaks faster from hotter pipes). &#xD;&#xA;You may find that having this set high causes a &quot;cycling&quot; behaviour where the boiler runs for many short periods with gaps inbetween, and that having it set lower means that it is on more constantly, at a lower power. This may be important when you're considering the noise in your bedroom, and so long as you don't put it so low that the system can't heat the house, you can probably tweak this without your housemate even noticing! See also this question: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2617/setting-radiator-temperature-to-save-energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third control that you have here is the overall house thermostat. If this instrument thinks that the house is warm enough, then the heating will be switched off - regardless of what the individual thermostats on the radiators reckon. If it's been sited well this shouldn't be a problem. You should use this to set the overall temperature that you would like your house to be at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fourth control that you have here is the individual thermostats on the radiators. You can use these to control the *relative* temperatures between different rooms, allowing some variation from the setting of the main thermostat. You'll only get these right through experimentation and (in shared areas) negotiation, but as a starting point I would have the bedrooms slightly cooler than the living areas. Sometimes these devices are labelled with temperatures (Fahrenheit or Celsius) and sometimes just with numbers. If you have temperatures, ignore them - these things aren't usually very well calibrated - and just go with trial and error :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in summer, you *could* just rely on the thermostats to keep the heating off... but if the temperature dropped slightly below the hall thermostat's setting, it would fire up the boiler and burn a load of fuel to raise it back again, when you or I would know that the sun would do that in half an hour anyway. So you may choose to turn the heating off completely. If you want to do this, do it by turning the heating dial to minimum, and then it will probably never come on. Do not use the boiler's overall &quot;off&quot; switch, as that will probably turn off water heating as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Towel-drying&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the tricky bit. In winter, it's easy, as the bathroom radiator will be warm. In summer it's trickier. You *could* leave the heating on, set the house thermostat high, and set every other radiator thermostat to minimum so that only the bathroom radiator comes on. But that would be quite wasteful. Instead, remember that you don't always need heat to dry things - airflow can be helpful too. Can you hang your towel up by an open window or something :-)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2803" RevisionGUID="67dd11fe-01c8-494a-b572-240f68c2812e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="At best, **the pond is a local source of mosquitoes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Predators such as dragonflies can only achieve a balance: if the mosquito numbers decline, so will the dragonflies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Frogs**  &#xD;&#xA;If the pond cannot be covered or drained, I would encourage you to consider frogs, as [Mσᶎ suggested](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2802/1325). Worldwide, [frogs are in decline](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_amphibian_populations), so introducing local species to the pond would seem to be a positive in sustainability terms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But nothing comes for free: the dragonfly larvae will also be eaten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Goldfish**  &#xD;&#xA;While a few ordinary goldfish (or, as the Wikipedia article you linked says, guppies) will enthusiastically eat the larvae, they too will only achieve a balance. The total number of mosquitoes will be lower, but they will still be present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Goldfish](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfish) are omnivorous, so when they cannot find mosquito larvae, small crustaceans, or zooplankton, they'll eat vegetation and detritus. So they will not decline when the mosquitoes are eaten.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, any predator will also eat the dragonfly larvae, frogspawn, and tadpoles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other fish?**  &#xD;&#xA;You do not mention your location, so we cannot know what indigenous fish could be introduced to the pond. It would have to be a species that copes well with still water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**  &#xD;&#xA;In order of preference: frogs, local fish, cover or drain the pond. Avoid goldfish, since they are an introduced species and could escape." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2804" RevisionGUID="82a16dd5-dae2-48c7-a252-8699b0ee4674" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Butcher's paper was suggested to me as a sustainable material for [storing food in the freezer][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I found [this site][2] that suggests it is sometimes oiled or waxed. Perhaps it coated in plastic sometimes too?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My goal in the other question linked above was to find a material suitable for freezer use that would be recyclable, compostable, or at least reusable many times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I'm going to compost butcher's paper, then it's clear I would need to find out whether the supplier of the paper treats the paper with wax (food oil would probably be ok though), or plastic. Can anyone tell me what the norm is for treatment of butcher paper?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/652/15&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ehow.com/how_7436396_recycle-butcher-paper.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2839" RevisionGUID="420d7a64-436e-439a-9dae-fa87d5a39620" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Methods #&#xD;&#xA;There are several methods of livestock disposal to choose from, each has its own benefits and drawbacks. While there may be no *correct* answer for everyone, there are *better* approaches - especially as we factor in sustainability.  Inspiration for this Q&amp;A layout is drawn primarily from Amundson (2013).  While this book concerns husbandry (see [tag:husbandry]) of goats, I have tried to fill out her proposals to make them more applicable to a general audience (to include pet-disposal).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*No part of this answer shall be construed as providing legal advice.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Incineration ##&#xD;&#xA;This solution is often preferred where there has been large-scale contamination or infection by disease (see &quot;Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease&quot; in *Rendering* below).  This method often results in an undesirable smell, and can be noxious to neighbors.  Has low biosecurity risks, but true incineration must occur at high temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within sustainable-frameworks, incineration could be combined with some type of energy-recovery from the waste-heat.  Wikipedia offers some suggestions, but they seem more suited to industrial incinerators:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Incineration with energy recovery is one of several waste-to-energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (WtE) technologies such as gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; digestion. While incineration and gasification technologies are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; similar in principle, the energy product from incineration is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; high-temperature heat whereas combustible gas is often the main energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; product from gasification. Incineration and gasification may also be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; implemented without energy and materials recovery. {[Wikipedia article, &quot;Incinerate&quot;][Wiki-Incinerate]}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In many jurisdictions, open-burning is prohibited.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Composting ##&#xD;&#xA;[A terrific treatment of meat-scrap composting has already been presented by @Jay-Bazuzi][1] on this site for the question: &quot;&lt;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/38/why-shouldnt-meat-be-placed-in-my-compost-pile&gt;&quot; I will attempt to expand upon this answer to cover a larger scale (entire animal at-a-time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sawdust, straw, or other carbon should be increased to at least one foot *(0.3 meter)* underneath and surrounding the animal corpse.  Straw is convenient because it might already be on-hand for animal bedding or plant insulation (to help a plant &quot;winter&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting methods are often prescribed by law within the US, to include: primary and secondary composting (decomposition) bins, structural impermeability, setback distances from established water-sources, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Livestock that perish from suspect neurological concerns are prohibited (at least in Illinois) from being composted and must be incinerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Burial ##&#xD;&#xA;Another least-desirable method of animal disposal, second in my opinion to rendering, is burial. Burial is the unscientific dumping of an animal corpse beneath the ground.  This method has a high potential for ground-water or well-water contamination.  If buried too shallow, scavengers or pests will come to visit and potentially spread disease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Rendering plants ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rendering is a process that converts waste animal tissue into stable,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; value-added materials. Rendering can refer to any processing of animal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; products into more useful materials, or more narrowly to the rendering&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of whole animal fatty tissue into purified fats like lard or tallow.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rendering can be carried out on an industrial, farm, or kitchen scale.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The majority of tissue processed comes from slaughterhouses, but also&#xD;&#xA;&gt; includes restaurant grease and butcher shop trimmings, expired meat&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from grocery stores, and the carcasses of euthanized and dead animals&#xD;&#xA;&gt; from animal shelters, zoos and veterinarians. This material can&#xD;&#xA;&gt; include the fatty tissue, bones, and offal, as well as entire&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carcasses of animals condemned at slaughterhouses, and those that have&#xD;&#xA;&gt; died on farms, in transit, etc. The most common animal sources are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; beef, pork, sheep, and poultry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While at first-glance, rendering might be seen as the embodiment of the *reduce-reuse-recycle* motto, biosecurity concerns have made rendering one of the least-sustainable disposal methods (*in my opinion*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the most widely-covered, biosecurity events in recent times was the &quot;Mad-Cow&quot; disease outbreak.  Properly called **[Bovine spongiform encephalopathy][Wiki-BSE]**, this disease was spread to humans through contaminated beef which could not be rendered safe through cooking.  When passed to humans, it is referred to as **&quot;variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease&quot;**. The wiki article extract is below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease or CJD is a degenerative neurological&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disorder that is incurable and invariably fatal. CJD is at times&#xD;&#xA;&gt; called a human form of mad cow disease (bovine spongiform&#xD;&#xA;&gt; encephalopathy or BSE). However, **given that BSE is believed to be the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cause of variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob (vCJD) disease in humans**, the two&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are often confused. {[excerpt from Wikipedia][Wiki-CJD]} [emphasis mine]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### References ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Amundson, Carol (2013). *&quot;How to Raise Goats: Everything you need to know.&quot;* &lt;http://ow.ly/xBAAp&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - [Bazuzi, Jay][@Jay-Bazuzi]. Untitled response. *&quot;&lt;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/38/why-shouldnt-meat-be-placed-in-my-compost-pile&gt;&quot;*. Last accessed 7-Jun-2014.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Bovine spongiform encephalopathy,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_cow_disease&gt;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt%E2%80%93Jakob_disease&gt;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Illinois Dead Animal Disposal Act,&quot; Title 8 of the Illinois State Code (CH. I, '90 SUBCHAPTER b), as retrieved from &lt;http://web.extension.illinois.edu/clmt/Workbook/WK_FILES/DEAD_A_W.DOC&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Incinerate,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incinerate&gt;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Rendering,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendering_%28industrial%29&gt;.&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Specified risk material,&quot; Wikipedia Article, &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_risk_materials&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/48/1446&#xD;&#xA;  [@Jay-Bazuzi]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/27/jay-bazuzi&#xD;&#xA;  [Wiki-BSE]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_cow_disease&#xD;&#xA;  [Wiki-CJD]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt%E2%80%93Jakob_disease&#xD;&#xA;  [Wiki-Incinerate]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incinerate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14624" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2846" RevisionGUID="b2df91b8-2a83-4488-89e4-ca24b4a424eb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="In general most collected garbage will be either incinerated or end up in land fills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The garbage that is &quot;recycled&quot; (like PET bottles, say) is usually [downcycled](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling) (into carpets, say).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A well-known motto is&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Reduce &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Reuse &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Recycle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (in that order)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for point one, there are more and more products, which are sold with a lifetime warranty. This might be primarily for marketing purposes, but the warranty at least keeps the manufacturer partially accountable for their product. Disposable or low-quality products are never sold with a lifetime warranty, because they're expected to be &quot;chucked&quot; rather sooner than later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For point two, there are initiatives which try to help consumers reuse certain packaging. Second-hand books/clothes/furniture is one obvious aspect. Another would be [large-scale reuse of glass bottles](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/592/large-scale-reuse-of-glass-bottles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For point three, the &quot;last resort&quot; is to buy and throw away products which are recyclable. Organic materials (food, in particular) can be composted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, the consumer has the power of choosing more sustainable products and **less waste is always more sustainable than more waste**..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2864" RevisionGUID="d9368b30-34a0-47ef-a763-b7634e24bb57" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Inspired by [this question][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the current UK (2014) generation mix, would changing a house from gas to electric heating increase or decrease its carbon footprint? The original question was about resistive storage heating, but I'd be interested in a 3-way comparison that included heat pumps as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1084/im-in-england-and-want-to-move-to-a-time-of-use-electricity-tariff-how-do-i-g" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14626" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3002" RevisionGUID="fff16bbf-7e60-4d55-ae65-f8f60c5ad40c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I moved my whole composting site to another place of my garden. Before the place was on a mild slope, now it's much more level. The shading is similar, maybe a bit more shady now. The inputs didn't change radically. I mostly compost grass clippings with added torn cardboard to improve the [C/N ratio][1]. It seems the degradation process is still OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I've noticed **much more liquid is produced from the compost**. Is it only weather caused (this summer was rather rainy in Europe) or **is there some problem with the process of composting?** There surely must be some liquid coming from the compost but I hadn't noticed the amount of it before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've thought about putting some gravel below the composting bin and digging some drain canal filled with gravel to let the waste water to drain more easily. Would it be a good and lasting solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1262/what-are-the-carbon-nitrogen-ratios-of-common-household-wastes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3004" RevisionGUID="f53130b9-310c-4c65-b737-c85b715f4afb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm in the process of building my first Rocket Stove, that will give me highly sustainable energy (if one considers burning wood to be sustainable).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the heat riser I'm looking for heat resistant materials. Must I choose a metal or a mineral heat riser?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would be nice to have a few references. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See the following post for a Rocket Stove design: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/3005/1688" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3008" RevisionGUID="a813bf65-7c97-4891-b9e7-6fa703d65029" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Composting is a great way of turning common wastes into a usable product. The compost should be wet enough to allow the composting process to happen. But when composting wet wastes there is some excess of liquid which drains out.  &#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't usually care much about it unless [there was too much draining liquid][1] (making the vicinity of compost muddy and slippery).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How much excess liquid is produced when composting common household and garden wastes?&#xD;&#xA;- Is it advisable to try to lower the excess liquid somehow? If yes, what would be a good strategy to do so?&#xD;&#xA;- Is there any connection between excess liquid and [C/N ratio][2] in the compost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3002/why-is-there-much-more-liquid-draining-from-compost&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1262/what-are-the-carbon-nitrogen-ratios-of-common-household-wastes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14629" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3020" RevisionGUID="d14d6a34-45e5-4a77-90ce-8886e044603f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="We now have a large house (a guesthouse) with capacity for generating a lot of compostable waste.  At our previous house we used a number of static compost bins, turning between them.  In the new house we'd like to accelerate the process for some proportion of the waste.  This has led us to think of getting a rotary composter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read the answers to [this question][1], but that's about *building* one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone advise us about the reality of speed-of-composting of a rotary composter vs. a static heap?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in the UK if that affects things (I can see that it might - ambient temperature etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1181/how-can-i-build-an-effective-rotary-composter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3035" RevisionGUID="0e0dd5c4-475a-4d1b-b433-0cedc1626db2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I was wondering what the limits were to planting into organic pre-compost material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an experiment my father has grown a few things be simply planting them in a pile of used tea bags. This seems to work and teabags are amazingly swift become new compost if placed on the top of potted plants. (They also keep the moisture in the soil when it gets hot).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an indoor only apartment what sort of limits can I run into by allowing any composting to take place while the material is already host to the plant(s)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to make my own compost and use the compostable material my home generates which is why I asked about https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2973/indoor-composting-with-limited-space and have started to wonder about letting the growing roots of the plants do some of the work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously I do not want to risk disease to my plants or a bad smell to my home but cannot find much information online about using this approach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3037" RevisionGUID="e23fa421-4fb7-4f3f-a49c-23a1e66dad4f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Kate is correct](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2852/reducing-the-setpoint-by-1-degree-c-will-save-7-energy-whats-the-origin-of-th#comment3396_2852), and it is a good example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turn it around the other way: 7% for a 1 degree setback amounts to an average heating regime of 14 degrees C.  Multiply by 365 days a year, this corresponds to a 5100 degree day heating climate.  That's about a 9000 F degree days.  That corresponds to a very cold climate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worse:  A house has to be badly designed to no solar heat to some degree.  My house, not anywhere close to R-2000 standards doesn't require us to turn on the furnace until the outside temperature is close to freezing.  In addition internal waste energy gives the house a nudge.  Lights, cooking, domestic hot water, all help warm the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[EnergyNumbers has another good example](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2852/reducing-the-setpoint-by-1-degree-c-will-save-7-energy-whats-the-origin-of-th#comment3395_2852).  As the climate gets closer to inside temps, the benefit of lowering the set point increases.  Since a 5100C degree day heating season is at the cold end, the claim is actually quite conservative.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3089" RevisionGUID="f5be9852-de6a-4b55-88f1-5b59dad280c3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, it can be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fitters might need to temporarily remove the secondary glazing in order to get sufficient room to manouevre when installing the double glazing. So you will have to check with the fitters before placing the order. The sales people won't know, and will just say whatever it takes to get the order, so do get a fitter round. Local suppliers tend to be better at this: the *national* double-glazing companies in Britain are pretty much the worst for shady sales practices (but some of the local ones are sharks too).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There'd be no point in putting in trickle ventilation in the double-glazing (that's assuming your secondary glazing has no trickle ventilation - it usually doesn't), so make sure it comes without that. After all, the trickle vents would just be another route for the noise to get in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will need someone to check compliance with Part F (the Building Regulations regarding ventilation). The trickle vents have been used as a lazy way to ensure compliance, even when they haven;t been necessary. Sometimes, when air-tightening is done, you can make a place so airtight that it becomes unhealthy. This is not often a problem in Britain, because our buildings are so leaky, but check it anyway, otherwise you could get problems with mould, and (if you're in a radon area) with trapped radon or other pollutants - I've seen it happen. [We have another question that deals with ventilation strategies - check out the answers][1], as well as the answers to this other question about using [secondary glazing with double-glazing][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/114/48&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/310/48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14633" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3132" RevisionGUID="5b0d670d-334b-4174-991c-444038217a2f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="The problem with PLA-based plastic is that it requires high temperatures and moist conditions for a relatively long period to actually degrade and turn into compost. Theoretically it is possible to compost it along with all other compostables (food leftovers, garden wastes), but PLA takes much longer to fully decompose than 'normal' organic waste and it seems most municipal composting centers don't bother doing this. Instead they filter out any plastics or large objects and either dump them in landfills or incinerate them,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 things you can do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Throw it in the 'general' or 'compostables' waste bin**. In both cases, the plastic either gets either dumped in a landfill which would be unfortunate, or it gets incinerated in which case it may be useful as an energy source.&#xD;&#xA;2. **Try and compost it yourself using hot composting**. However, proper hot composting isn't easy as you need to monitor the temperatures in your compost pile and turn the materials regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever you do, **do not dispose of it along with other plastics**. If compostable plastics end up being recycled along with other plastics, the quality of the recycled plastic will be impacted severely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you'd like to know more about this there are two related questions on this website:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [How is compostable plastic recycled/composted industrially?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2607/99) &#xD;&#xA; - [Which compostable plastic types can be composted at home?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2594/99)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3194" RevisionGUID="e8192875-7673-429d-a8d5-19e4b4cde01b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="In [this question on an alternative way of heating](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/3180/99) a [comment]( https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3180/use-waste-heat-of-electrical-appliances-in-place-of-traditional-heating/3192?noredirect=1#comment3900_3192) was made that  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There are significant potential health risks with lowering a house to 16 degrees C &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What kind of potential health risks are we talking about here? And under which conditions would they occur?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this question a bit more concrete: in our home we tend to only heat the living room, kitchen and bathroom. The bed rooms, hallway and toilet are hardly ever heated and temperatures there may drop to 15-16 degrees in winter time (about 60 degrees Fahrenheit). Could this cause health problems?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3239" RevisionGUID="37b24d61-3246-476a-9be3-b2c73a4681c2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="What is the best existing non-interactive comparison of the ecological impacts of different personal lifestyle choices? The obvious domains might be housing, transport, food, personal consumption and waste. Perhaps it could be by dollar spent, or dollar saved, or hour spent, or year of commitment. A good carbon-impact comparison would be a second-best alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The public debate on these issues is full of sweeping generalizations supported by absolute figures (usually tons, sometimes hectares), which are meaningless to most people. What is most needed is relative figures, if possible with a graphical component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly there is a huge knowledge gap on this subject, and as a result at least some people are focusing their efforts in the wrong areas. The net outcome may not be positive if consumers make trivial changes, sometimes involving real effort, and then consider themselves absolved of further responsibility for the global ecological crisis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The obvious example of a &quot;micro&quot; choice is low-energy lightbulbs, but there are plenty of others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - recycling household plastic&#xD;&#xA; - passing up meat more often&#xD;&#xA; - replacing a car or electrical appliance with a more efficient version&#xD;&#xA; - taking shorter showers or turning down heating or aircon&#xD;&#xA; - postponing the replacement of a mobile phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such deeds can certainly add up to something significant. But how significant? Together, can they ever become as significant as a single &quot;macro&quot; choice? Such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - becoming vegetarian&#xD;&#xA; - moving to an urban apartment&#xD;&#xA; - not flying&#xD;&#xA; - cycling to work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How many avoided hamburgers does it take a suburbanite to cancel out the SUV? Roughly. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Ecological footprint&quot; – the amount of land required to support an individual lifestyle – is supposed to measure these things. Calculators include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/calculators/&#xD;&#xA; - http://ecologicalfootprint.com/&#xD;&#xA; - http://myfootprint.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general these are either unusably ugly or extremely simplistic, and more importantly (1) they require fastidious form-filling and (2, as pointed out in a [similar question][1] here) they do not detail the figures behind their algorithms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/91/how-do-i-estimate-my-personal-ecological-footprint" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3244" RevisionGUID="730b3362-17b4-468d-8ea0-163791b9648f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm going to focus my answer on 'recycling' the wastes and let someone else answer how to reduce kitchen waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your municipality doesn't collect and process kitchen and garden wastes then you can start composting (a lot of) the kitchen waste yourself. Basically you have 3 options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **'Regular' composting:** create a compost pile or setup a compost bin in your garden. It's easy to do, but with regular composting it will take a while before the wastes are fully decomposed and you have good compost. Also some materials are less suited to be placed on a compost pile, for example greasy foods and large batches of citrus fruits because that will slow the decomposition process down. Also meat is less suitable (see [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/38/99) for an explanation). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Vermicomposting**: this is similar to regular composting, but then you use a compost bin in which you put specific types of earthworms that speed up decomposition. The worms also excrete castings that improve the quality of the compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Bokashi composting**: buy two airtight bins and start filling one bin with food scraps and a bokashi bran (bought in a store or made yourself). When the bin is full, leave it closed for 2-3 weeks to ferment all material. During this period you can use and fill your second bin. Once fermentation is done you can bury the waste in the ground for a few weeks so it turns into soil, or you can apply it slowly to a compost heap or wormbin. The main advantage is that you can process more materials (also cooked and greasy foods), but the drawback is that you'll need to buy or create new microorganisms regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on this you can browse the questions and answers of the following tags [tag:composting], [tag:vermicomposting] and [tag:bokashi]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14637" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4314" RevisionGUID="daf32345-0e8a-4fda-989c-8f907a5f05d3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Refining is done by heating and cracking petrol and then sorting out the different components in a tall distillation column. Diesel is heavier than gasoline so it is overall easier to refine. There is a nice simplified figure [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That being said, the differences are not as important as those in the engine.&#xD;&#xA;As [EnergyNumbers][2] pointed out in another answer, diesel is more efficient, at the cost of higher emissions. This is true especially on older engines. On modern engines, from petrol to wheel, diesel is about [20% more efficient][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/oil-refining4.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/48/energynumbers&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Fuel_economy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4325" RevisionGUID="72fc6380-5723-41b7-aeb9-7c3ad0a44afd" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="No, in all likelyhood not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you achieve with adding thermal mass: Wood stoves are cleanest and most efficient when they burn 'at full throttle.' Thermal mass allows you to have short intervals of high heat in the oven, that you store and give to the room in a smooth way. For this to really work, you need a lot of mass - see [Sherwoods anser](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/3234/96). But you only profit from your stored heat when the thermal mass is where you are. Unless you live in the basement, addin mass to your stove there won't help.  &#xD;&#xA;Without knowing more about your house and your goals, it's impossible to say what you could or should do with the stove in your basement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4337" RevisionGUID="d7643045-a39f-418b-addc-f90255590b25" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Our Houston area HOA does not allow roof top solar panels and I doubt they would survive our hurricanes too. I discovered NRG Energy sells [these portable solar panels][1] under their goal zero brand. &#xA;&#xA;If we used these solar panel kits to simply charge our phones everyday, how much energy would we take off the grid?&#xA;&#xA;Our monthly utility bill is about $40 while gas is about $90. How much money would buying one kit or several kits save?&#xA;&#xA;[Related SL question][2] &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.goalzero.com/mobile/solar-kits&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/1242/279" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4394" RevisionGUID="0d451519-f0a6-468f-ae07-ae4d8338501c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Another user [asked](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4335/prevent-concrete-roof-from-absorbing-too-much-heat-during-summer/4343#4343) the question, and I think the question is important enough to deserve it's own post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard that white roofs drive away clouds and cause global warming. How can this be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4418" RevisionGUID="720dd256-4bca-43de-9469-bba86ea7dae5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Inspired from https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3202/what-s-the-carbon-footprint-of-an-email and other recent questions that made me reconsider the &quot;immaterial&quot; internet usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious about updated statistics about the carbon footprint browsing the internet (it should probably be divided by service, since facebook and gmail recently claimed to be have moved to sustainable data centers, while I haven't any idea about amazon web service, or stackoverflow :) ) and about computer usage in general. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a nice idea in cloud carbon, [a chrome extension that shows your carbon footprint](https://github.com/chrisallick/FacebookCarbonFootprintChromeExtension/blob/master/README.md), but it's still far from accurate (for example, looking in the source code, you see that they just estimated facebook carbon footprint equal to the computer usage). There is also a [project from Microsoft](http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/joulemeter/default.aspx) but I can't try it now.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4447" RevisionGUID="5d584e8a-4b8f-4c05-8c6a-db6089776556" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="What you are asking is generally referred to as the '*allocation problem*'. There are a number of allocation methods that are often used in assessing the environmental impact of a product or service, but each allocation method has it pros and cons. Since the chosen method can have a big influence on the outcome of a study, allocation is an important and even controversial topic as experts have different opinions on which allocation method is best in which situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of often used allocation methods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **portion of mass reused**: relatively easy to determine for physical products, leads to low impacts, if you reuse the entire product the impact is 0 (as you mentioned in your question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **portion of (embodied) energy**:&#xD;&#xA;   similar to mass reused, but may be more difficult to determine&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - **market value**:&#xD;&#xA;   this is nicely explained [in Highly Irregular's answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4442/99),&#xD;&#xA;   value may be difficult to determine correctly, prices can be volatile&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - **no/avoided allocation**:  may not be very realistic, leads to higher impacts, in your case you have the full impact.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Which method is chosen in practice depends on various things; the type of product, what environmental impact you want to measure, what data is available to you. Personally, in your case I'd go with market value." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4480" RevisionGUID="6c88e8ab-bb61-41b4-9a7e-00402c5bd22b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="TLDR; don't use them for lighting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that you could keep your incandescent bulbs for when your current energy-efficient (I will assume CCFL) bulbs need replacing, your choice boils down to: buy a new CCFL; or use an incandescent that has already been manufactured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This helpful analysis](http://www.thewatt.com/?q=node/175) gives the embodied energy in a CCFL as 1.7 kWh.  Let's assume that the CCFL lasts 8000 hours and uses 15W, while your equivalent incandescent lasts 1000 hours and uses 60W (also from the same source, though these are pretty standard numbers).  Total energy usage (in kWh) is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                CCFL                 Incandescent&#xD;&#xA;    embodied energy             1.7                  n/a as &quot;sunk cost&quot;   &#xD;&#xA;    energy used over lifetime   8000 * 0.015 = 120   1000 * 0.06 = 60     &#xD;&#xA;    total over lifetime         121.7                60                   &#xD;&#xA;    total over 8000 hours       121.7                480                  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you're better off not using the incandescents for lighting, even though that means buying new CCFLs.  That's because the energy to produce the bulbs is dwarfed by the energy used in using one.  The comparison would be even starker for LEDs as these are even more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question remains, what *should* you do with them, if not lighting?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You could use them for applications where the heat is useful, not wasted (this could include lighting your home - provided you are also heating it around the same times you are lighting it)&#xD;&#xA; - You may be able to recycle them (see e.g. [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2699/99))&#xD;&#xA; - You could just throw them into landfill.  Being largely glass and metal, at least they won't break down to produce greenhouse gases like methane&#xD;&#xA; - You could sell them, though given that incandescent bulbs are being outlawed (in Europe) this may enable someone to use them who would otherwise have been forced to use a CCFL or LED, so there may be an indirect energy cost there.  The embodied energy in an incandescent bulb is about 0.3 kWh, so really quite small.&#xD;&#xA; - You could keep them in the attic until long after all incandescent bulbs have been outlawed, then donate them to a museum ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4484" RevisionGUID="1055c26e-3285-49e3-acda-e14b337bde30" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think both the answers of [Russell McMahon](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4482/99) and [Highly Irregular](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4483/99) are great. On the one hand the council should keep things simple so the recycling system is easy to use for everyone, but on the other hand the council should give more detailed information for people who really care and want to do the best they can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to actually answer your question: marking of plastic packaging in the EU is voluntary, so if the packaging doesn't contain any symbol it's up to you or your recycling center to determine the type. My experience is that compostable plastic normally does have a marking (probably for promotional purposes) and has the word 'compostable' and/or a logo like this one on it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/hL8Vv.gif&quot; width=&quot;180&quot; height=&quot;200&quot; alt=&quot;EU compostable plastic logo&quot;/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is really nothing on it the help you identify it, chances are the plastic is PP, PE, PET or perhaps PS. Other types are uncommon for food packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your council doesn't provide information how to handle an object, you can use these two general guidelines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If a plastic is compostable, don't throw it away with other plastics. Instead throw it away with other organic material, or else in the 'other/general' waste.&#xD;&#xA;This is because compostable plastics will degrade the quality of recycled traditional plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If you cannot determine the plastic type, throw the plastic away in the plastics waste stream. Any good recycling center will have methods to filter out unwanted objects from a recycling stream, so even if the plastic turns out to be non-recyclable it most probably will be filtered out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously the second guideline is a 'last resort' measure. It's best to first try to find out what kind of material it is and what the preferred method of disposal is according to your council &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hL8Vv.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4485" RevisionGUID="d0acbe14-01b2-4ede-a666-4a6a6e2ca389" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the only difference of using leaves compared to toilet paper is that you'll be adding more nitrogen to the mix. This means that your C:N ratio will change, but you can solve this easily by adding more browns (carbon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples of good browns are straw, cardboard or sawdust. You can check the [table in this answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1280/99) to see the C:N ratio of some common household wastes and see what else you can use. Higher numbers mean more carbon. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4548" RevisionGUID="5223c9bb-bf13-4438-b247-dcd642189b6f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="**General recommendations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In many households in the developed world the largest sources of CO2 emissions are transportation (car fuel), electricity, heating and food. This means that the average household can reduce its carbon footprint most effectively by taking measures such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - installing PV panels to generate electricity&#xD;&#xA; - buying an electric vehicle (assuming you can charge it with renewable energy)&#xD;&#xA; - take public transport more often&#xD;&#xA; - switching to a meatless diet&#xD;&#xA; - insulate your home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirect CO2 emisisons from stuff you buy may also have a big impact, so it's always a good idea to reduce your consumption where possible, and reuse things as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Personalised recommendations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personalised recommendations are rather difficult. There can be very big differences in the CO2 emissions of the average household per country (see for example [this list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita)), but it could also be that you've already taken measures and that you are far from being an 'average household'. Consequently it's best to carefully investigate your own lifestyle yourself to see where improvements can be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good way to start is to check a few online carbon footprint calculators to find out how much CO2 emissions you are currently responsible for.&#xD;&#xA;Carbon footprint calculators are far from perfect (see also [this article](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583613002168)), but it's  probably the best we have for personalized recommendations.&#xD;&#xA;There is a short list of calculators in this site's [carbon footprint tag information](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/carbon-footprint/info), but there are also many others. &#xD;&#xA;Some calculators, like the [Cool California calculator](http://www.coolcalifornia.org/calculator) for example, show intermediate results for different categories. This way you can see what currently is your biggest contribution to CO2 emissions, and by tweaking with the parameters you can try to find out what reductions may be possible for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get the most accurate result I recommend selecting calculators that were developed in your country of residence, or that at least allow you to select the country where you live (and hope they use recent and accurate data to make the calculations). I also recommend checking the results of more than 1 calculator, unless you are quite positive the calculator is founded on scientifically sound principles and uses recent and relevant data. Note that not all calculators include indirect CO2 emissions (that were emitted to manufacture a product or service before you started using it), so be careful when comparing results between several calculators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively if you really want to make an effort and love spreadsheets and tweaking parameters, I recommend using the [GHG emissions spreadsheet](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/GHGCalculator.xls) created by the EPA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tree planting**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK there are no carbon footprint calculators that also show how much you can reduce your CO2 footprint by participating in a tree planting scheme. The efficiency of such a scheme would depend on many things such as; the type of tree planted, the geographical location where they are planted, the amount of space a tree has to grow, and the lifespan of the tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A figure you encounter often is that a tree can absorp up to 48 lbs of CO2 per year, but note that [this figure is a maximum](http://urbanforestrynetwork.org/benefits/air%20quality.htm) so the average CO2 absorption during it's lifespan will be lower. To give a rough estimate: [a tree will generally absorb around 1 tonne (about 2200 lbs) of CO2 during it's life-time](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/plantingtrees.html). However, the actual reduction of CO2 will be lower than this calculated amount because the CO2 will be released again once the tree dies. Tree planting alone will never be enough to compensate for all the CO2 that is emitted, so ultimately other solutions are needed. If you do decide to participate in a tree planting scheme, be careful that the particular scheme is legit and doesn't introduce monocultures because this may reduce biodiversity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4551" RevisionGUID="cf254275-c005-4c14-949a-da34c20e2281" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Living in a dense (vertical) city with public transport. I explained it in details all over the place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2417/476 - you cannot use trees to capture CO2&#xD;&#xA;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2398/476 - using neighbours for heat isolation&#xD;&#xA;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2402/476 - composting in NY city&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This way, you can reduce energy and all other wastes tenfolds compared to average &quot;middle class&quot; lifestyle and achieve sustainability. Bill Rees, the author of &quot;ecofootprint concept&quot;, has finally came to the same conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://youtu.be/ugv0OY6LyuE&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afterwards you can look at lightening electronics, garbage separation/recycling and more vegetarian diet. But these are ridiculously tiny savings compared to what you save migrating from your suburb into a dense city. In dense city you have 10-100 closer distances to everything and share almost every piece of infrastructure, whereas suburbs enable/demand evrything privately, and you consume immense reousrces starting from the precious lands. You consume tens times more lands if you own a beatiful house with grass than living in a flat in 10-floor building. You heat not only your flat but living rooms of your neigbours, so heating is shared, whereas in private house you have a large surface area leaking the heat. Furthermore, heat power plants produce hot water and heating, which can be used only in a dense city because you cannot distribute hot water over large distances. You get heat for free in dense cities! The pipes, electiricty channels all are tens or thouthands times shorter in dense city. One street lamp in a vertical illuminates thouthands of people whereas ten lamps are needed to illuminate a single person in suburbs (see these sick astronomers look at the form of the lamps and do not notice that they can have 1000x less of them if collapse all this 1-floor infrastructure into one big building). Guess what savings and light pollution is in both cases. Public transport is more effective than car (energy waste per person/distance) and travels considerably shorter distances, giving 10-100 time energy savings over private car in a &quot;human friendly suburb&quot;. See, we have 10-100 overconsumption of everything, thanks to horizontal infrastructure of private cottages. Capitalists need to increase consumption, regardless of the Earth consequences. Sustainability is a communist thing. That is why ruling class will tell you distract you looking for &quot;new sources&quot; and &quot;sequestration&quot; instead of saving that your dream, to have a nice house in beatiful place, is what causes all the environment collapse. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4569" RevisionGUID="49b3c885-40d3-49a3-aefc-ed56f33b5e89" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="## Software ##&#xD;&#xA;The most basic, free tool to create an LCA would simply be a spreadsheet like OpenOffice Calc. However, dedicated LCA software does make things easier for you, but most software is not free. The few good and free LCA software packages I know are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [**OpenLCA**](http://www.openlca.org): open-source software, supports databases in EcoSpold or ILCD format, also has free and paid datasources via its [Nexus service](https://nexus.openlca.org/)&#xD;&#xA; - **[Carnegie-Mellon's EIO-LCA tool**](http://www.eiolca.net/), however this uses a different approach to LCA which has it's own pros and cons (see also [Jack Ryan's answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2441/99) for more details)&#xD;&#xA; - [**CMLCA from Leiden University**](http://www.cmlca.eu) free tool that is intended to support the technical steps of the LCA procedure, specifically designed for students and scientists&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are however quite a number of free tools that focus specifically on a particular impact or use case. Some examples are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Greenhouse Gas Protocol Calculation Tools](http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools): consists basically of Excel sheets with instructions for calculating the GHG emissions of various materials or activities.&#xD;&#xA; - [Athena LCA software](http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/overview/) for the construction sector (registration required)&#xD;&#xA; - [Economy Map 2.0](http://www.economymap.org), an interactive map of the US economy and its environmental impacts (registration required)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most popular commercial software packages for a full process-based LCA are without a doubt SimaPro and GaBi. They are not free, but&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - SimaPro does offer [a free demo version](http://www.pre-sustainability.com/simapro-demo) (with limited functionality) of their software&#xD;&#xA; - [GaBi](http://www.gabi-software.com/) is free for educational purposes (for college students and teachers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Learning ##&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned that you are looking for software preferably for &quot;the casual user&quot;. Conducting a full process-based LCA however, is not for the casual user no matter which tool you are using. To draw up such an LCA you need to know about things like reference flows, unit processes, cut-off rules, allocation, impact assessment, ISO 14040 guidelines and other LCA conventions.&#xD;&#xA;If you don't have at least a basic understanding your LCA will be worthless. To learn about these LCA concepts, I can recommend:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  following the free online course [How Green Is That Product? An Introduction to Life Cycle Environmental Assessment](https://www.coursera.org/course/introtolca) which will teach you all the basic concepts. The course is given once a year. The home work assignments use spreadsheets to learn how to perform an LCA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - reading the [free e-book &quot;LCA Quantitative Approaches for Decisions That Matter&quot; written by Matthews et al.](http://www.lcatextbook.com) specifically aimed at (under)graduate students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More resources can be found in this site's [LCA tag wiki](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/life-cycle-analysis/info)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4677" RevisionGUID="32ee1027-853a-4bd7-9645-636213caaedb" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I'm researching the degradation of polyethylene (PE) plastic films such as in plastic bags, and am trying to figure if they degrade chemically.&#xD;&#xA;If so: under what conditions, and into what byproducts.&#xD;&#xA;Most sources for PE say that it is inert, but it seems to be referring to the pellets used in manufacturing rather than the film/end product.  I don't know if surface area has a significant effect here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know they mechanically break down (fragment) due to heat, sunlight (UV), physical stress, etc.  Does anyone know how small these fragments can get and if they can be moved through water (possibly a separate question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is about either high- or low-density PE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more context, see: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4665/removing-agricultural-plastic-film-waste-after-10-years-degradation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4684" RevisionGUID="55c07e36-f450-4a1f-88ec-51cd6d7dc25b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="1. There is a market for human hair:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hair can be sold to people who create wigs or hair extensions. There is even an [online calculator](http://hairsellon.com/hair-price-calculator/) to determine the value of your hair.&#xD;&#xA; - Apparently hair is a good animal repellent so some gardeners will gladly take it (altough others say there is no proof for the effectiveness).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Hair is an organic material that can be composted. It will probably slow down composting if added in large amounts, so you need to spread out the hair over a compost heap. It counts as a nitrogen source, so be sure to add some browns (carbon-rich materials such as cardboard for example) to get a good [C:N ratio](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/1262/99) for composting. According to [this article](http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening/human-hair-fertilizer.aspx) there are some disadvantages: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - hair does take a long time, 1 or 2 years, to break down &#xD;&#xA; - you may need to be careful with chemically treated hair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  More info on research on composting hair [in this article on sciencedaily.com](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229104704.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Someone suggested to [use human hair as a substitute for toilet paper](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2665/99), but personally I'm rather unsure if this was a serious proposal and if it would really work (the post in question currently has a -2 score).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4687" RevisionGUID="4ad8d27c-fad4-4a5e-99c6-98a1e9d5b9f5" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Good call mentioning [American Textile Recycling Service](http://atrscorp.com) in [this answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4650/). You can find convenient ATRS Clothing &amp; Shoe Recycling drop offs in over 13 states nationwide. And it's easy to mail in a box of recycling too! Everything is reused, repurposed or redistributed - nothing goes to waste. Every pound is diverted from our landfill and helps a local charity along the way. Thanks to all for commenting and being environmental stewards in your community!! :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4727" RevisionGUID="c55d7f1c-e7a7-4773-af97-941b0f2195f7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="One thing not explicitly mentioned in [Highly Irregular's answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4267/2451):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you can buy the product online or in a physical store, choose for the store.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This lets you investigate with your hands and eyes. Photos on websites often do not show that a product is assembled out of cheap parts, that its finish is cheap paint, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you e.g. want to buy a stereo and it has wobbly plastic controls, you know it can't be high quality.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Or it can be as simple as weighing an object: a heavy ice scoop ;-) is probably better than a lightweight one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also dare to generalize and say that local stores where you can talk to people provide better service/warranties than an online shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4750" RevisionGUID="4cfa6df7-6888-4c49-ad05-85b26f23bced" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I already provided an answer to this question [here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4548/99), which was written based on personal experience and knowledge, but in this answer I wanted to address some interesting details and specific measures I found in a [recent news article](http://nos.nl/artikel/2061311-bereken-online-wat-milieubewust-leven-oplevert.html) and [related infographics](http://www.klimaatklappers.nl). The article and infographics are based on scientific research by a Dutch NGO, who's goal it is to inform the public about energy and the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The average Dutch household (2.2 persons) emits 23 tons of CO2 per year. The 3 largest areas are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Transportation      5.6 tons CO2/year per family, &#xD;&#xA;                        4.0 for car use&#xD;&#xA;                        1.4 for flying&#xD;&#xA;                        0.2 for public transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food                5.6 tons CO2/year per family, &#xD;&#xA;                        2.3 for plant-based food&#xD;&#xA;                        1.9 for animal products&#xD;&#xA;                        1.3 for other (including bars and restaurants)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Energy use at home  4.1 tons CO2/year per family&#xD;&#xA;                        3.0 ton natural gas&#xD;&#xA;                        1.1 for electricity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dutch NGO also investigated the best measures you can take to reduce this footprint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Take the train to work instead of the car (about 180km return trip) 7500kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 2. Don't fly to your holiday destination (24000 km return trip)        5400kg CO2&#xD;&#xA; 3. Place 15 solar panels on your roof                                  1800kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 4. Insulate your walls                                                 1600kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 5. Insulate your roof                                                  1400kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 6. Insulate your floor                                                  600kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 7. Buy a smaller car (and rent a bigger car when you really need one)   500kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 8. Use an energy monitor and check which appliances consume most        400kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 9. Efficient/reduced heating (close doors, turn down heat at night)     360kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 10. Reduce food waste by a half                                         350kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 11. Don't eat meat 2 days a week                                        320kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 12. For short distances take a bike instead of a car                    310kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 13. Drive your car efficiently                                          290kg CO2/year &#xD;&#xA;    (shift to high gear quickly, use cruise control, check tyre pressure)&#xD;&#xA; 14. Don't buy food that's flown in or is grown in heated green houses   200kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 15. Evict high-consuming energy appliance                               190kg CO2/year &#xD;&#xA;    (e.g. aquarium, 2nd fridge, waterbed, sauna)                         &#xD;&#xA; 16. Install a more efficient shower head                                120kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 17. Dry your clothes outside instead of in the dryer                     90kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 18. Shower one minute shorter                                            60kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 19. Wash clothes at low temperatures                                     25kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source (in Dutch): http://www.klimaatklappers.nl " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4757" RevisionGUID="d4beeab5-7f71-4164-ae4e-c2c4f4febbde" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="To supplement the existing answer, it's worth mentioning that using a hot wash may well incur more electricity costs in water heating than the washing machine incurs in actually washing, assuming you use electricity to heat your water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According to this][1], 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity will only get you around 18 litres of hot water. I'd guess that most washing machines would use less than 1KWh of electricity for a cycle, but a full hot wash could easily use more than 18 litres of hot water. It pays to use a cold wash if you can!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1200/15" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4762" RevisionGUID="4f5220d2-f6a6-44c4-847e-98f1ed7d5009" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="# Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [Professor Bugbee][1]'s [presentation][2], he [describes][3] some drawbacks of vertical farming (VF) versus traditional horizontal agriculture. Most of Bugbee's arguments against VF hinge on grow lamp efficiency. In July of 2015, a [step towards][4] a 400lm/W monolithic white laser was [announced][5]. Laser lights are several times brighter than LEDs and use much less energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He illustrates a compelling argument as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Solar and Agriculture][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Arrows represent relative inputs and outputs. Sunlight, being large and free, dwarfs fossil fuels (black), water (blue), and crop yield (green).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bugbee's calculations with respect to his assumptions about photon energy conversion into biomass appear to be correct. Therefore his conclusion also seems to be correct: vertical farms are far less efficient than traditional agriculture (for growing tomatoes). This doesn't necessarily mean they aren't viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Questions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the assumptions above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What is the lumens per watt efficiency necessary to allow vertical farming to compete with horizontal agriculture (in terms of energy usage and production)?&#xD;&#xA;1. How did you calculate that efficiency?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: While [PAR][7] is the preferred way to measure photon use by plants, it is onerous to [convert][8] PAR into the theoretical luminous efficiency of grow lamps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, barring [compact fusion][9], can can we wholly replace (in time) traditional plant-based agriculture farming by growing indoors using technology? (For **example**, concentrated [solar capture][10] at 85%, [batteries][11] with 85% storage efficiency, 95% [transmission][12] efficiency, and highly-efficient grow lamps could be in the ballpark. I don't know, hence the question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Addendum &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4759/hypothetical-energy-requirements-calculations-for-vertical-farms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cpl.usu.edu/htm/about-us/directory/memberID=5316&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cornellcea.com/resourcesPublications/otherResources/PSC%20departmental%20seminar%20-%20Vertical%20farming-Turning%20fossil%20fuels%20into%20food.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISAKc9gpGjw&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/semiconductors/devices/the-first-white-laser&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://nanophotonics.asu.edu/paper/Fan-NatureNanotech2015.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/t7hHq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetically_active_radiation&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www.egc.com/useful_info_lighting.php&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/compact-fusion.html&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/11/04/why-are-solar-panels-so-inefficient/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraBattery#DC.E2.80.93DC_efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-achieve-superconductivity-at-room-temperature" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14657" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4824" RevisionGUID="be98626c-14c1-4e22-9d7e-281362797ae3" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="One of the many advantages of GNU/Linux systems, and probably *NIX in general, is that they can run on older and lesser hardware than the children of Microsoft can, i.e. has lower &quot;system requirements&quot;. A similar sentiment about Linux is expressed in [this question][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems reasonable to think that power cosumption and even wear of the hardware is lower in *NIX compared to Windows. Is this true or at least plausible? I'm also interested what other effects there may be. In fact, I found one [article][2] that says Linux servers on average run twice longer (~6-8yrs) that Windows ones (~3yrs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, if this is a more viable/correct question: Is some software more sustainable than other for the same task?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/3148/2661&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/1246762/Report-Linux-open-source-greener-than-Windows" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4841" RevisionGUID="0371a599-5a15-491b-b7c9-4eba00546c20" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I had bamboo pillowcases before, they are very soft but not very durable.  So I have to disagree with the con No 2 in [Sempie's post](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4574/99). I do know that bamboo fabric need more water to produce, which increases overall environmental impact.  However, since bamboo grows really fast, I am not aware of any producer heavily using fertilizer, which is a pro comparing to cotton." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4844" RevisionGUID="76aea833-baec-449b-8463-d798977b61a4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I agree with the [answer given by EnergyNumbers](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4843/99). At best you can get a rough estimate of your carbon footprint. If you want an accurate result you would need  to do a carbon footprint analysis of all products you buy, all services you use, and all activities you do, and then aggregate the results. And even then the accuracy of the end result is questionable. As EnergyNumbers also mentioned, we have to make a lot of assumptions because there are so many unknowns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nevertheless, there are some things you can do to get better results, or have to keep in mind when interpreting the results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Consult a carbon footprint calculator that has been made specifically for your country of residence. This is because many calculators rely on national (average) data.&#xD;&#xA;  2. If possible, try to consult multiple calculators. The ones with the most questions and parameters are more likely to give a better, more accurate result for your specific situation.&#xD;&#xA;  3. Be careful when comparing the results of different calculators because calculators often do not have the same scope. For example, not all calculators include indirect CO2 emissions (that were emitted to manufacture a product or service before you started using it). Often comparison between calculators is impossible, because many calculators don't make their exact scope clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of my favourite carbon footprint calculators is the [CoolCalifornia calculator](http://coolcalifornia.org/calculator) because it includes indirect emissions, shows the results for individual categories and has quite a bit of parameters. It does have it's downsides though; default settings (and probably underlying data model) are for US residents, there is no option for electric cars, and personally I do think it is a bit negative when it comes to emissions for transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, US residents can use the [EPA carbon footprint calculator](http://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/) but it lacks (indirect) emissions from things like food, clothing and services. The nice thing however is that the EPA also provides a spreadsheet, which allows you to see all the used calculations and parameters. So if you really want to make an effort and know what you are doing, you could tweak those parameters to make results more specific for your situation (perhaps even for your country of residence if you are not a US resident).&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;I've read that the [Carbon Story calculator](https://www.carbonstory.org/calculator/calculate) is quite good as it was created to meet the principles identified in [this research](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583613002168), but I haven't tried that one myself yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4851" RevisionGUID="0fff953a-173b-42de-9d55-0628608d3e9d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="**TLDR:** CDs and DVDs can be safely reused or recycled as long as you don't heat them. Specialized recycling companies can recycle them for you, but this may cost you money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;CDs and DVDs are mainly plastic (polycarbonate), with a thin reflective layer (usually aluminum), and a protective acrylic lacquer. CD cases are usually made from polystyrene and DVD cases are polypropylene. I've never heard of CDs or DVDs containing cyanide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these materials can be safely cut, but as you mentioned in your question you have to watch out for sharp edges and splinters. Some people heat plastics so they can reshape them (e.g. see [this Youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc3m29kV-Oc)), but I can't recommend this because harmful fumes may be released when plastics are heated (see also [this question about melting and molding plastics](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/225/99))&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Reuse&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Reusing CDs and DVDs is more environmentally friendly than recycling as no energy is needed to convert the materials to usable resources, but it requires some effort on your part. You can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - sell you old music CDs or video DVDs, or give them away on websites like [The Freecycle Network](https://www.freecycle.org/)&#xD;&#xA; - use them to create art (mosaics, ornaments)&#xD;&#xA; - turn them into a clock, or [light](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/408068416209499758/)&#xD;&#xA; - reuse them as coasters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More reuse suggestions can be found here [10 Reuse Ideas for CDs and DVDs](http://earth911.com/news/2012/01/12/10-reuse-ideas-for-cds-and-dvds/) or in [this Youtube video](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/225/99). I'm sure that if you search the internet you can find a whole lot more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h3&gt;Recycling&lt;/h3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There are specialized companies that recycle CDs, DVDs, and sometimes also videotapes or computer hard drives, but often you have to pay them and not all companies accept materials from households. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in the US, there are a number of recycling centers where you can drop CDs and DVDs. You can check the [recycling locator on the Earth 911 website](http://www.earth911.com/recycling-guide/how-to-recycle-cds-tapes/) for addresses. Some companies allow you to send CDs and DVDs and you only pay for shipping, e.g. the [CD Recycling Center of America](http://www.cdrecyclingcenter.org/) in Salem, NH and [Back thru the future CD/DVD Recycling](http://backthruthefuture.com/free-cddvd-recycling) in Franklin, NJ. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling centers usually ask you to separate sleeves, casings, paper inserts and discs, but regulations may vary per recycling center.&#xD;&#xA;The Recycling Center of America made [this Youtube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv8pJfCCwxI) showing how they want you to collect and send everything, and how they process it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are also specialized companies with drop-off points or mailing possibilities in many European countries. If you live elsewhere I suggest you contact your local recycling center and ask if they have a specific recycling scheme for CDs and DVDs (other than incineration). Or you can search the Internet for specialized recycling companies or drop-off boxes in your area." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4946" RevisionGUID="1d144705-5a07-4ba2-9248-627849b6fde4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="This question reminds me of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/225/can-i-recycle-plastics-at-home-by-melting-and-molding/229#229&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2904/recycling-paper-at-home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in that it is asking if it is possible to do some industrialized process at home. Well, of course it is, but that's *only because anything is possible*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there are two ways of making bamboo fabric, sometimes called &quot;bamboo rayon&quot; and &quot;bamboo linen&quot; to distinguish them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bamboo rayon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process for making bamboo rayon is described on [OrganicClothing.blogs.com](http://organicclothing.blogs.com/my_weblog/2007/09/bamboo-facts-be.html) (direct quote):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Bamboo leaves and the soft, inner pith from the hard bamboo trunk are extracted and crushed;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. The crushed bamboo cellulose is soaked in a solution of 15% to 20% sodium hydroxide at a temperature between 20 degrees C to 25 degrees C for one to three hours to form alkali cellulose;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. The bamboo alkali cellulose is then pressed to remove any excess sodium hydroxide solution. The alkali cellulose is crashed by a grinder and left to dry for 24 hours;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Roughly a third as much carbon disulfide is added to the bamboo alkali cellulose to sulfurize the compound causing it to jell;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Any remaining carbon disulfide is removed by evaporation due to decompression and cellulose sodium xanthogenate is the result;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. A diluted solution of sodium hydroxide is added to the cellulose sodium xanthogenate dissolving it to create a viscose solution consisting of about 5% sodium hydroxide and 7% to 15% bamboo fiber cellulose.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. The viscose bamboo cellulose is forced through spinneret nozzles into a large container of a diluted sulfuric acid solution which hardens the viscose bamboo cellulose sodium xanthogenate and reconverts it to cellulose bamboo fiber threads which are spun into bamboo fiber yarns to be woven into reconstructed and regenerated bamboo fabric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### tl;dr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right, too long, didn't read, i.e. don't try this at home!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bamboo linen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently bamboo can also be processed into &quot;bamboo linen&quot;, i.e. using the same process as with flax or hemp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have processed bamboo before, not for fabric, but for (Japanese) [basket weaving](https://goo.gl/awltOk) and I have to admit that I find it difficult to imagine that you can get any joy out of it if you have to do it at home. Bamboo is very hard (after all, you can [build houses](https://goo.gl/1CsNKm) out of it). Also, we have used natural bamboo baskets in the kitchen (as sieve, storage baskets, etc.), some items for up to 10 years, washing with dish-washing liquid as usual and the bamboo didn't mould or break. This long exposure to water without any kind of breaking down should also mean that processing it into fabric (where it should break down) is more difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One commercial producer of bamboo linen is Litrax. Its bamboo linens are described/advertised [on textileworld.com](http://www.textileworld.com/textile-world/quality-fabric-of-the-month/2010/04/litrax-natural-bamboo-the-real-deal/). The processing, however, uses &quot;fine-tuned enzymatic cocktails&quot;, as is to be expected. Again, this probably means you should give up on trying to make bamboo fabrics at home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're mainly interested in processing bamboo, I can warmly recommend basket weaving. With a handful simple tools (some of which can be improvised), you can cut, dry, process and weave bamboo into baskets that are almost indestructible (and look pretty, too). Searching Google for [images of 竹細工](https://www.google.de/search?q=%E7%AB%B9%E7%B4%B0%E5%B7%A5&amp;safe=off&amp;client=safari&amp;hl=en-de&amp;prmd=imnv&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwig56L4tu3MAhVJXhQKHRwyADMQ_AUIBygB&amp;biw=1024&amp;bih=672) (Japanese bamboo basket weaving) gives a good idea of what is possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4960" RevisionGUID="cfd75fef-c5a3-4218-839d-70880fc67295" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Sustainability is a complex thing, not least because there are a lot of different meanings attached to it. [This question][1] goes into that a little more. So unless you define what you mean by &quot;sustainable&quot; people won't know. Is it just greenwash &quot;sustainable coal power&quot; or is it 100% recycleable, or what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The EarthBag website talks about about LEEDs characteristics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reading of it is that table 1 is the key summary, and I've copied that here for when that link breaks. [The LEED system][2] evaluates a house on a list of criteria and the table lists those and describes how the house fulfils each one. A lot of those criteria may not matter to you, but they're key to some people's definitions of sustainable so they are in there. You can ignore them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the first item &quot;ND Neighbourhood&quot; they summarise that as &quot;promote responsible land development&quot; which they differentiate from the next item &quot;avoid environmentally sensitive areas&quot; so I take that to be talking about social sustainability rather than ecological. In other words, this is about not going into a poor/affordable neighbourhood and buying a house there that you're going to knock down and replace with a much more expensive one (gentrification). They're achieving that via &quot;design decisions&quot; which I assume means &quot;not buying a site in a poor neighbourhood&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That goes for every point on the list, but because LEED is a proprietary system you need to pay to get access to the details. That IMO makes it less useful as only the people who pay know what it means. By using it you're saying &quot;I'm sustainable, but I'm not going to tell you any details&quot;. If a major corporation said that would you believe them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How does barbed wire compare to steel rebar, and how do the quantities (or weights) compare with similar square footage? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be extremely hard to use the same weight of barbed wire as a concrete house would use steel reinforcing, I'd expect 1/10th or less weight of wire. And it's weight that matters here. As well, and probably more important, making the cement in the concrete uses huge amounts of energy where the adobe house uses little to no cement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How sustainable are polypropylene bags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They're not. But in many ways that's the wrong question. Two more important questions are: where do the bags come from?; and what's the alternative? From the link:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *typically burlap or polypropylene feed sacks in 50 or 100 pound sizes*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That looks as though they're reusing bags that would otherwise be sent to landfill or if we're lucky, recycled. [Reuse is better][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the alternative? Pure adobe houses take skill to build and have limited ability to withstand rain, so they're not suitable for all locations. Using bags like this probably enhances their rain-resistance and also lowers the skill level required of the builder. They're also fairly slow to build unless you have a solid stream of hot days for several months while building. The bag system doesn't require that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other alternatives are rammed earth and (sundried) mud bricks, which like adobe requires formwork and sun. The EarthShip tyure system is more labour-intensive and uses tyres. Tyres have more material in them than bags, so are less sustainable there, but are also harder to recycle and thus more likely to end up stored rather than recycled. But it's also much harder to build a whole house from tyres, so EarthShips inevitably have a lot of non-tyre structure (and the labour cost means they often only have a &quot;feature wall&quot; of tyres)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On balance I'd say the bag system is better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/905/how-is-sustainability-determined-for-a-product-or-system-and-by-whom&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.usgbc.org/leed&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4OygH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L2CSC.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2522/what-does-reduce-reuse-recycle-actually-mean" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4992" RevisionGUID="8f6d21a3-b34c-44a4-aac3-91f7746e699c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="The sustainability of fiber farming Cotton, Bamboo, and Hemp all depend heavily on the cultivation methods being used. That being said we can compare the function stacking ability of these crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organic Cotton is an [perennial plant that is grown as an annual crop][1] so requires effort and Energy every year to get the crop started. It also require a great deal of effort in managing it during the growth cycle since you need to limit vegetative growth to get a good yield of cotton. It is grown specifically for the fiber found in the cotton flower while the rest of the plant goes unused with the exception of the seeds which get pressed for cottonseed oil. I am unsure of guild relationships with the cotton plant, but generally it is grown in a mono-culture so that is of little concern here. The fact that it is, for the most part, grown in mono-culture with &quot;conventional&quot; (even if it is organic) agriculture means that the soil is not being cared for properly which is a **really** bad thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bamboo is a perennial grass! It forms a thick matted root layer that suppresses growth of other plants, so it doesn't have plant guild dynamics, but acts as a great way to suppress the spread of plants from one place to another. Bamboo also has several other uses other than harvesting for fiber. It is grown as a windbreak or hedge / living fence. The young shoots are human edible, or used for forage. Older stalks can also be used as [goat &amp; sheep forage][2], so you can obtain, wool, leather, milk, &amp; meat from a mixed production bamboo forage system as well as bamboo fiber! Of note: due to the very high water holding capacity of bamboo textiles they will take more energy to dry than cotton will. If you use a cloths line instead of a dryer then this isn't an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hemp is an annual crop that grows invasively like a weed so there should be very little environmental concerns with organic mono-cultures as long as a cover crop gets planted from late fall to early spring. Read [this article][4] to see which companion plants are great to grow alongside hemp to reduce pest issues. Additionally Hemp can be grown as a companion plant to potatoes to help fend off late blight. Hemp yields a large quantity of seed, which is [considered a superfood][6]. I have heard of hemp being used as an [amendment to cattle feed][3], so I am sure other animals would do well with it as well. Hemp also has found use as a [source of graphene][3] for technological applications. The hemp fibers are also useful for making [Hempcrete][5] which allows for buildings that sequester carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Work is currently being done to use bamboo fiber in a similar way with Magnesium Oxide cement instead of a lime based cement like portland cement, but Hempcrete is a far more established technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as THelper recommended in a comment on your question, have a look at [this question][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.soilcropandmore.info/crops/CottonInformation/B1252/b1252.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.permies.com/t/30971/goats/Sheep-Bamboo&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.globalhemp.com/2004/05/hemp-is-the-not-so-secret-ingredient-in-farmers-cow-feed.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.hightimes.com/read/grow-qa-companion-plants-pot&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.americanlimetechnology.com/what-is-hempcrete/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.leafly.com/news/health/why-are-hemp-seeds-considered-a-superfood&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/4553/99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5056" RevisionGUID="38545889-9f73-4791-8421-98889ea8a25c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="What is the scrap value of the materials in a typical wind turbine - the entire unit? Take a typical 1.5 MW turbine, just the raw material value, no labor or overhead cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand high purity silicon is the bulk of panel costs, while turbines contain tons of expensive carbon fiber. I estimate based on the responses that there is 2 tons of [carbon fiber](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1125/can-carbon-fibre-be-recycled) in the blades worth $16/lb, or 30k+ just for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon fiber and other fiberglass costs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/glass-fiber-and-basalt-fiber-industries.html?m=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5061" RevisionGUID="d274cd09-b1dc-4806-9146-db971bba7a08" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="**TLDR:** in this particular case, where the buyer lives very close to the shop, it's likely that buying in a brick-and-mortar shop has a lower carbon footprint compared to buying online. &#xD;&#xA;Online shopping may become greener when the distance to the shop is more than 14 - 50km (depending on your shopping behavior and on which scientific study you consult).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fully agree with the answer given by [Maxfield Solar](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5055/99) that 1.) you should make a distinction between sustainability and environmental impact and that 2.) it's very difficult to go into a specific situation because you don't know all relevant details. This being said, there have been a number of interesting scientific studies about shopping online versus shopping in a brick-and-mortar shop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Important factors** to consider are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- method of transportation (for both the consumer and the retailer),&#xD;&#xA;- distance to the brick-and-mortar shop, &#xD;&#xA;- number of items that are bought in one go, &#xD;&#xA;- consumer shopping behavior (e.g. orientation trips, time spent browsing online, ordering express delivery, number of items that are returned),&#xD;&#xA;- missed deliveries (e.g. when a delivery truck tries to deliver a package multiple times, but the recipient is not at home).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some conclusions** you often encounter in those studies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Transportation is the biggest contributor to carbon emissions&#xD;&#xA;- Delivery trucks are more efficient per item compared to the average consumer's  car because trucks optimize routing and deliver multiple items to various places in one go. Consequently driving to a brick-and-mortar store yourself usually just adds to the carbon footprint of a product.&#xD;&#xA;- Express delivery (often by air) and returned items can both have a significant impact on the total carbon footprint&#xD;&#xA;- Brick-and-mortar shops use more electricity and storage space compared to one central location used in online shopping.&#xD;&#xA;- Online shopping uses more packaging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one study which seems to be particularly relevant for this case. Looking at carbon footprint, [this German study done in 2012](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920912000521) has found that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; online retailing causes lower CO2 emissions under many conditions. Nevertheless, the brick-and-mortar channel is more environmentally friendly when travel distances are small. The radius for which brick-and-mortar shopping has an advantage increases when returns, shifts in the use of public transport and information behavior are also considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have access to the full article, but I did find [this online article](http://persquaremile.com/2013/08/21/what-is-more-energy-efficient-shopping-online-or-in-stores/) where more details where provided: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At short distances—less than 8.6 miles or 14 km one-way—in-store shoppers slightly edged out online customers per transaction, about 73.8 g CO2 vs 77.9 g CO2. But over that, online shoppers’ footprints remained relatively stable while store goers emissions skyrocketed to as high as 451.4 g CO2 per transaction if they had to travel over 62 miles or 100 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an older Swedish study done in 1999 which was quoted [here](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1799327) they found a similar result, except that the distance to the brick-and-mortar shop has to be at most 50km. Alternatively, you would also be greener if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; online shopping replaces 3.5 traditional shopping trips, [or] if 25 orders are delivered at the same time..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that different studies make different assumptions and use different cut-off rules (what is and isn't included in the measurements). As a result a definitive answer cannot be given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Weideli, D. (2013) &quot;Environmental Analysis of US Online Shopping&quot;, Master Thesis Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, carried out at  MIT Center for Transportation &amp; Logistics&#xD;&#xA;Available at http://ctl.mit.edu/library/environmental_analysis_us_online_shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Wiese, A. et al. (2012) &quot;Transport-related CO2 effects of online and brick-and-mortar shopping: a comparison and sensitivity analysis of clothing retailing&quot;, in *Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 17*, Issue 6, pp 473-477. Available via http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920912000521&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Plepys, A. (2002) &quot;The Grey Side of ICT&quot;, *Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 22*, No. 5, pp 509-523. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1799327" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5064" RevisionGUID="eab00ec8-3332-4567-9188-b84bbe3c5413" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Which [type of pencil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pencil#By_manufacture) is the most sustainable one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Wooden pencil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Automatic (propelling) pencil/Clutch pencil &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The types I'm referring to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read related questions about comparing pens and pencils:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[What is more sustainable, using a mechanical pencil or a pen?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4989/what-is-more-sustainable-using-a-mechanical-pencil-or-a-pen)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Are “eco-friendly” pens and pencils actually more sustainable than the conventional models?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1118/are-eco-friendly-pens-and-pencils-actually-more-sustainable-than-the-conventio)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but I'm interested in comparing the environmental footprints of these 2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of the complexity of such an analysis (which resources are renewable, energy and transport for non-reusable parts and potential waste production) and while I'm interested in as a comprehensive answer as possible, any steps of the solution are welcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zHqgp.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5111" RevisionGUID="56bdbae4-8913-4f40-9e35-0f7457086d5a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="From what I've read the bacteria can completely degrade PET-film in 6 weeks via two enzymes that turn PET into terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol. Both substances are both environmentally benign.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that we may be able to use these bacteria to clean up plastics in the environment. However this may not be very easy because a PET bottle for example is different from PET film. PET bottles are made from highly crystallised PET. In [this article](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-11/plastic-eating-bacterium-can-break-down-pet/7238614) the lead scientist is quoted:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dr Miyamoto said that it was not as simple as unleashing armies of PET-metabolising bacteria into landfills to break down waste plastic. &quot;Because of its crystal structure, the rate of degradation is very slow. However, after heat-treatment at 260 degrees, the crystal structure breaks down, allowing these micro-organisms to easily decompose the plastic,&quot; he said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the slow-degradation problem is solved, the question remains whether there are any unwanted effects if the bacteria are used on a large scale (e.g. release of toxic substances that are often present in plastics, or increase in CO2 emissions). Also, it isn't probable that the current strain of bacteria can be used to clean plastic in the oceans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I think it's more likely that the bacterium can be used in a new method of recycling PET. Terephthalic acid and ethylene glycol are the building blocks of PET, so in controlled conditions the bacteria may be able to convert old PET into these resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scientists are probably going to search for other new bacteria with similar and perhaps even more beneficial properties. Who knows what they are going to find. So as [Fred also mentioned in his answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5110/99), it's too soon to tell what the exact consequences are going the be. A lot will depend on how this will develop further. Can we find or engineer better bacteria, are there unwanted side effects, and what are the costs going to be for using the bacteria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5159" RevisionGUID="45154098-c80b-4e29-a870-9fe5a46cf003" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Life cycle assessment (LCA) is about assessing the environmental impacts of a product, process or service over it's full life cycle, so from production, usage and disposal. This assessment includes the impact of all subcomponents/subprocesses down to the (extraction of) the natural resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There isn't really a single 'best use' for a LCA. LCAs are usually issued by companies but sometimes also by NGOs or governments for various reasons. Some examples why companies do this are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - improving the ecological footprint of a product,&#xD;&#xA; - getting a clearer picture of the main factors that are involved in producing a product,&#xD;&#xA; - saving money by using other or less resources,&#xD;&#xA; - meeting company CSR standards,&#xD;&#xA; - providing proof that a product complies with environmental or industry standards, or with government regulations,&#xD;&#xA; - providing basic LCA information to customers and promote a product or brand as being sustainable (marketing).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically you can do an LCA study for any type product as long as you are able to access or gather the necessary data. What this data exactly is depends on the goal of your study. For example, for a quick hot-spot analysis of the energy usage of product you need less detail than for an elaborate comparison between two related products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to perform an LCA for a phone or computer, but this is far from easy because both are rather complicated objects with lots of different parts. You'd need to investigate the impacts of the production, use and disposal of all (major) parts and this will take a lot of time and effort. Additionally, if there is no existing LCA data for a particular component, you would need the cooperation of the up-stream suppliers that are involved in producing that component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know Samsung has performed LCAs for several of their mobile phones. There is some brief info of the results in [this PDF](http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/sustainability/environment/eco_products/download/Life-Cycle-Assessment-for-Mobile-Phone_final.pdf). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're interested in learning more about LCA, there are some good free resources listed in the ['learn more' section](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/life-cycle-analysis/info) of this site's [tag:life-cycle-analysis] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5163" RevisionGUID="966a4e6e-d60c-4a8f-a96c-c757d1aeea69" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="The amount of power you consume/power costs are surprisingly unrelated to the cost effective-ness of solar power. To be more accurate, they are &quot;slightly&quot; related.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you install a solar panel you will start generating power. Then there will be four things that can happen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. excess power will go directly towards your power supplier.&#xD;&#xA; 2. excess power will be stored in some sort of battery and once this is&#xD;&#xA;    full, direct the rest to the power supplier.&#xD;&#xA; 3. excess power will be lost&#xD;&#xA; 4. Excess power will be stored in some sort of batter until it's full&#xD;&#xA;    and the overflow will be lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Selling to the supplier##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does it mean when power goes to your supplier? It means they will pay you for your excess power. This means that your solar panels may generate you profit. The thing you should note is that you will receive less money for the power you send to the supplier than the costs to receive power from the supplier. This is why it's always in your best interest to have a battery to power your house at night and rainy days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why your electricity bill doesn't really have an impact on the effectiveness on the solar panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the optimal situation, you will have a battery that will nearly always have power stored in it. This means you will never receive an &quot;electricity bill&quot;. Instead you will receive money from this bill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I would advise to calculate how much sun/power you can produce with a solar panel at your location. Then inform yourself on how much power you use, get a [battery][1] that can hold x amount of power for Y hours/days. If you have good connections with your power supplier you will be able to strike a good deal on selling them power. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: you will be selling power, this will be a form of income, so I don't know to what degree income taxes are involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## calculating effectiveness without selling ##&#xD;&#xA;If you cannot sell to your supplier (see @Thelper's comment). Then you'll want to calculate this to be more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many solar panels can only supply you with a certain amount of power per hour/day/month. What you'd want to calculate is how much you use during your &quot;light&quot; hour and how much you use during your &quot;dark&quot; hours. The larger your battery is, the less accurate you need to be with your calculations. Assuming you have a gigantic battery you will want to calculate how much power you use within an average day/month. And then look for a solar panel that can provide these amounts at your location. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Expect to need more power during the winter and less power during the summer. &#xD;&#xA;Look at the time period you wish to start benefitting from your solar setup. Chances are that you may not be able to get back the amount you invested until year X. Especially if you can't sell to your provider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5098/which-battery-is-best-for-solar-power" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5178" RevisionGUID="42629379-af73-4e0a-b124-b69c74bfa951" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="**Sustainability** = the ability to continue a particular behavior, lifestyle or process indefinitely &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Living off the grid** = living without using public supplies of utilities such as water, electricity or natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Green** = beneficial to the environment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem with the above definitions is that many people will disagree and define these terms differently. As Ⴖuі also mentioned in [his comment](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5166/sustainable-living-off-the-grid-vs-green#comment6684_5166), especially sustainability is hard to define and there is no single agreed-upon definition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fully agree that the 3 terms are distinct. You can life off the grid and shoot endangered animals for food which would not be green or sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;Or you can plant trees in the desert which could be considered an attempt to be green, but is not sustainable&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I do think that green and sustainability have a lot of common ground. If you are not green and are damaging the environment a lot that's not going to be sustainable in the long run because ultimately we all live from what nature provides us. &#xD;&#xA;Living off the grid, or trying to be independent can be sustainable or green, but personally I believe that living off grid only makes being green and sustainable harder. There is a lot that could be improved in the society we are living in today, but isolating yourself from that is not going to help much. We are in this together, we should fix it together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;This may not be entirely true if you use the right techniques, see for example the [Sahara forest project](http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/16/africa/sahara-forest-project-tunisia-feat/index.html) which is part of the larger [The Great Green Wall](http://www.greatgreenwall.org/great-green-wall/#great-green-wall-internal) initiative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="f4de62f8-c037-46e2-9d84-b1e6ba8bce49" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="The ecological footprint method does not directly convert consumed resources into global hectares, at least not via a single conversion factor. &#xD;&#xA;Instead first the amount of required land/sea area in physical hectares is calculated by dividing the amount of resources by the yield of the specific land/sea area where those resources were harvested. The physical hectares for each land type are then converted into global hectares by multiplying with both 'yield factors' (YF) and 'equivalence factors' (EQF).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a formula:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; EcoFootprint = (amount resource used / national average resource yield) * YF * EQF&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Yield and equivalence factors###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **yield factor** for a land type is the ratio between the national average yield and the world average yield on that type of land. In other words it accounts for land type productivity differences between countries. Obviously yield factors vary per country and per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **equivalence factor** for a land type indicates how much higher/lower the productivity of that land type is compared to the world average productivity. In other words, it allows aggregating different land types into one common global hectare measure. Equivalence factors vary per year but by definition not per location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Global Footprint Network (GFN) regularly publishes yield and equivalence factors in reports and data packages, but you have to pay a fee to obtain those unless you qualify for non-commercial educational usage ([this page on the GFN website](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/public) mentions the exact requirements).&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively you can find other  reports on the Internet that mention factors for particular years. For example page 15 of [this report](http://www.sern.eu/sern/docs/publications/buratti.pdf) shows the equivalence factors for 2005, and page 22 of [this report](https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/3779578583278/Valada%20(2010)%20Ecological%20Footprint.pdf) mentions those for 2006&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                    2005    2006&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA; Primary cropland   2.644   2.39&#xD;&#xA; Forest             1.333   1.24&#xD;&#xA; Grazing land       0.497   0.51&#xD;&#xA; Fishing grounds    0.397   0.41&#xD;&#xA; Built-up land      2.644   2.39&#xD;&#xA; Carbon             1.333&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second report also mentions the yield factors for a few countries in 2006&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;               Cropland Forest Grazing Fishing&#xD;&#xA; Algeria         0.6     0.4     0.7     0.9&#xD;&#xA; Germany         2.1     4.1     2.2     3.0&#xD;&#xA; Hungary         1.4     2.6     1.9     0.0&#xD;&#xA; Japan           1.5     1.4     2.2     0.8  &#xD;&#xA; Jordan          1.0     1.5     0.4     0.7&#xD;&#xA; New Zealand     1.9     2.0     2.5     1.0&#xD;&#xA; Zambia          0.5     0.2     1.5     0.0&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chances are this data is not very useful to you, but many online reports do demonstrate how ecological footprint calculations are done. If it's only for one country you may be able to follow the reports as an example and gather the required data yourself using public information?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Usage data###&#xD;&#xA;If you want to calculate the EF for a product or organisation you also need to determine the amount of consumed primary inputs. This can be rather challenging as there is no single accepted procedure here. For example, the person doing the calculation defines the exact boundaries of what is and isn't included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read somewhere that there is (some?) product information available in the GFN National Footprint Accounts reports, but I can't verify this myself at the moment.&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively there are both open-source and proprietary life-cycle analysis (LCA) databases that provide information about the resources used to produce certain products or services (see also the [info wiki](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/life-cycle-analysis/info) of the [tag:life-cycle-analysis] tag).  Whether or not data is publicly available depends on the product or service you are looking for. Note that older LCA data or data from other countries can be used, but may be less accurate for the product or process you are interested in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5197" RevisionGUID="d5d7d58d-34ca-4adc-a777-b9214f4b7638" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="More/less related https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4610/how-food-producers-calculate-best-before-date: eat it if it looks good - expiration date is just best wish of producer, food may be perfectly fine after expiration date." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5212" RevisionGUID="46855469-8164-4bca-a0b6-23ccd7418678" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I live in the country and have space on the north-side of my house where it doesn't get too hot in the summer. I think this could be a good place to implant a water-less or [dry toilet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_toilet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read [here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3076/how-to-improve-energy-efficiency-of-composting-toilet) and [there](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2757/how-to-construct-a-composting-toilet) of guys who work with electricity to dry the manure. But do I really need to use electricity to dry the stuff? Because I heard it was possible for it to self compost, e.g. with large collecting volume or with worms? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to avoid using electricity for drying.&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking of doing it myself, but I'm not sure where to start. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you think of this project? I'm looking for experience feedback here. &#xD;&#xA;How much could this cost? How much time should I plan for it to make it run and compost fine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5213" RevisionGUID="e0c17f98-41e2-427f-a72b-b9ce6ef199e1" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Conventional plastics&#xD;&#xA;---------------------&#xD;&#xA;All conventional plastics marked with the [1 to 6 resin identification codes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code) are recyclable. Some types are more easy to recycle than others, for example recycling PVC is more difficult than PET. Also very little polystyrene (PS) is recycled simply because it is not cost-effective to do so. &#xD;&#xA;The majority of conventional plastics is downcycled into a lower grade plastic and as a result plastics are usually only recycled once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compostable plastics&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;Most bioplastics are compostable plastics and I've heard mixed stories about their recyclability. Some claim that compostable plastics cannot be recyclable because this quality interferes with the plastic recycling progress. Others say that a compostable plastic like [PLA for example can be recycled](http://plasticredesignproject.org/files/NWRecyclePsntn.pdf), at least in theory. In any case different plastic types need to be recycled separately. If you throw a compostable plastic in a batch of conventional plastics, it just acts as a contaminant and lowers the quality of the recycled plastic. You need a large and constant supply of a particular plastic type before recycling becomes cost-effective. So far I've not heard of a recycling facility that actually does recycle a compostable plastic (not counting composting or thermal recycling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrary to popular belief compostable plastics like PLA are not compostable in your home compost heap (see also [Which compostable plastic types can be composted at home?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2594/99)). PLA can be composted industrially, but it seems very little recycling companies do this and most compostable plastics are incinerated (see also [How is compostable plastic recycled/composted industrially?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2607/99))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bioderived polyethylene&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;The Wikipedia article on bioplastics mentions one type of bioplastic that is recyclable which is [Bio-derived polyethylene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic#Bio-derived_polyethylene). This is exactly the same material as traditional PE made from fossil-fuels, but in this case it's made from ethanol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OXO-biodegradable plastic&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Some people say that [OXO-biodegradable plastic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxo_Biodegradable) is a recyclable bioplastic, but this specific type of plastic is a bit controversial. It's made from conventional polymers with some added salts that catalize the degradation process, so it isn't really a bioplastic. The manufacturer claims that oxo-biodegradable plastics do not just fall apart into tiny plastic pieces and are really biodegradable. However so far no independent research has confirmed this. For more information on this see also [Do oxo-degradable plastics really biodegrade?](http://www.eppm.com/materials/do-oxo-degradable-plastics-really-biodegrade/) and [Mexico’s PE suppliers denounce oxo-biodegradables](http://www.bioplasticsmagazine.com/en/news/meldungen/20140808_oxo-mexico.php).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5221" RevisionGUID="3e825b78-5ca6-4971-94a2-8e065a5149d4" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Building on the garden answer][1] :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turn your lawn into a native plant garden. Six or Seven years ago I turned the front lawn of my house (roughly 30' x 50') into a (mostly) native plant garden. The trick is to pick plants that will thrive in the conditions of your yard as well as maintain a manageable size and shape. Be very wary of invasive and/or spreading species such as bamboo or ivies. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This garden took quite a while to get going, but I have done almost no maintenance on it for three years now, and it still looks good. The house is now a rental property and they leave it be. The shurbs need to be pruned when whey grow into the driveway, but other than that nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steps for yard conversion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cover all grass with cardboard (stores that sell appliances are a&#xD;&#xA;    great resource).&#xD;&#xA; 2. Cover cardboard with mulch (bark works well) to avoid the eyesore&#xD;&#xA;    and stop the cardboard from blowing away.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Wait about a year.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Start planting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can avoid the waiting by digging out and backfilling the lawn, but that will be time consuming or expensive if you hire it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5217/215" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5230" RevisionGUID="00bf6723-c43c-400d-940e-e7b54a6f49ec" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Based on [a previous discussion](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/38891/discussion-between-energynumbers-and-mustang), it appears panels are being sold at less than 10% of their raw material cost. What is making up the difference? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: The answer seems to be that... solar is viable as long as silicon is below about $50/kg. Which is odd considering panel prices were roughly the same in the late 2000s yet silicon was much higher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit 2: Were getting contradictory statements on solar costs from energynumbers. https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5204/establishing-a-small-commercial-solar-plant/5232?noredirect=1#comment6801_5232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5235" RevisionGUID="8b52458d-38c3-49ed-bb5f-0ff4395713e2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="You certainly can use it as water to grow plants. But better not drinking it, since it can host bacteria in the long run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is good stuff about it here: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/08/how_gross_is_the_water_that_drips_from_air_conditioners.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can also be linked here in the site: someone thought about filtering it before drinking - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3228/water-condensation-using-air-conditioners&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But anyway, this water wouldn't have any minerals in it, so no good for drinking for the every-day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5257" RevisionGUID="7e7f9cfb-0510-49b9-a6a7-298066c44c8d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="The first link in [that search][1] gives you [a cup anemometer that puts out a standard 4-20mA signal][2] that can be logged by a standard industrial data logger, meaning you can buy whatever duration you want. It's likely overkill for you, though (ie, expensive). The [second result sells a kit][3] which is likely much cheaper, but requires a Windows PC to do the data logging. You might find once you buy it that the output can be logged by something smaller and cheaper like a Raspberry Pi, one of the &quot;windows on a USB stick&quot; devices or similar. I log my PV system output using a Pi, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your second question probably makes this pointless though:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I will do this at home and I want to calculate the potential wind power and is it worth to install a wind turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both answers to &quot;[are home windmills sustainable][4]&quot; addresses this, and to summarise... small urban wind generation doesn't work, so it's not sustainable or economical. The [(Australian) Alternative Technology Association study][5] is probably worth reading if you want more technical detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=anemometers%20with%20ability%20to%20log%20data&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://au.omega.com/pptst/WMS-20.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.inspeed.com/wind_data_logging/Windware_Wind_Speed_Data_kit.asp&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2625/at-what-point-are-home-windmills-sustainable/2630#2630&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/409" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="3ce78092-7746-460a-baad-1a40456d290b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="From some old school yoga &amp; ayurveda folks I've heard of the following for shaving: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Raw Milk - I haven't tried this as yet but hope to do so when I get some unheated/ unpasteurized milk. It can be thinned down with water apparently and would still work as a Preshave facial lubricant/ friction reducer &amp; moisturizer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Yogurt - I have tried this and it words wonders for the skin, but given the texture/ colloidal &amp; viscous nature &amp; maybe some stickiness the cut/ shaved facial hair pieces &amp; fragments get stuck in between the &quot;Multi Blade Safety Razors&quot; (Gillette Mach 3). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Despite a bunch of washing with water its harder to clean the blades. This is something that definitely does not happen with commercial Shaving Foam  &#xD;&#xA;  - I might try a &quot;diluted&quot; and &quot;beaten&quot; mixture with water i.e. Buttermilk which has less colloidal matter, less viscous and is more liquid  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Shave Oils - I have read about some commercial pre shave oils but not had a chance to use or verify how effective they are. If so, maybe we could look up its ingredients list to find the active elements? Or maybe someone could suggest some &quot;natural&quot; oils that are maybe gifted in this direction could I try out for myself? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts on the above 3 and maybe other organic &amp; natural substances. I'd prefer to avoid &quot;chemicals&quot; if possible. I posted &amp; like some of the answers in that direction: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Deo: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/261/2891  &#xD;&#xA; - Toothpaste:  &#xD;&#xA;  https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4429/what-are-the-natural-alternatives-for-toothpaste  &#xD;&#xA; https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4945/2891   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5367" RevisionGUID="762e1dd2-5b9d-4ec1-a89d-d2584ae57a3e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="**1. Try to reuse**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reuse is always better than recycling or disposal because it 1) saves energy that is needed for the recycling process and 2) saves energy and materials for manufacturing and transporting new envelopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides relabeling and resending you can also reuse the envelopes for other purposes, for example as knee pads for gardening work. If you have lots of envelopes you can give them away to friends and family or on websites like freecycle.org.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Check with your local recycling facility**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard that there are a few recycling companies that accept paper/plastic-composite materials. Although they seem to be very rare, it doesn't hurt to check this first. While you are at it also check which types of plastic your local recycling facility accepts (for the next step).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Try to separate the paper and plastic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned it's impossible to separate the paper and plastic in your case and for some types of envelopes this is very true, but sometimes cutting the envelope open first with a scissor gives you better access to the bubble wrap allowing you to separate it after all. However separating only makes sense if you can recycle the paper and/or plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can separate but the plastic isn't of a type that is recycled by your local recycling company, you can try upcycling plastics by melting them into something else (see also [Fusing plastic bags](http://etsylabs.blogspot.nl/2007/05/long-overdue-fusing-plastic-bag.html)). Be careful when you do this, because [melting plastics may release toxic fumes](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/225/99)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. Check with the envelope manufacturer/sender**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't separate the paper and plastic of if you can't find out what kind of plastic was used (most likely it's [LDPE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene)), contact the envelope manufacturer. They may be able to provide you with this information or with alternative recycling options. If the manufacturer has no good recycling options urge them to become more environmentally aware. You can also contact the envelope sender and ask them to start using recyclable bubble mailers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="2ace005b-2c95-471e-b34c-92b945713f8e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This meta study on the crop yield gap][1] suggests that organic farming has about 80% the yield of conventional farming at the field level, yields may vary widely and organic yields can surpass conventional yields. The authors state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our analysis of yield gaps was at crop and field level. The results cannot readily be upscaled to higher system levels. Organic agriculture relies for its crop nutrients on natural soil fertility, legume crops, compost and manure. When legumes are grown as a green manure crop instead of a food or fodder crop to add nitrogen to the system, the average yield of food and fodder crops over the entire rotation is reduced. [...] We did not perform an in-depth analysis of this issue for our data, but it may be assumed that at crop rotation or farm level at least some organic yields in our database would have to be reduced to account for non-productive green manure crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another important source of nutrients in organic farming is manure. Some of the successful organic production systems are dependent on relatively large manure applications imported from outside the farming system (e.g. Clark et al., 1999; Jaim and Al Kader, 1998). If these systems were to be adopted more widely in a given region, manure may become a limiting resource, thus reducing overall organic food crop yields (e.g. Jaim and Al Kader, 1998). [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In conclusion, a thorough analysis of the productivity of organic and conventional agriculture at crop rotation, farm and regional level is needed that accounts for the availability of crop nutrients. Since maintaining soil fertility is generally a greater challenge for organic systems (e.g. Nguyen and Haynes, 1995), we hypothesize that at higher system levels yield gaps of organic agriculture may be larger than 20%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm looking for research that compares organic with conventional agriculture at the farm level, as at this level the diminished yields due to green fertilization would be taken into account. Crucially for me to understand are the nutrient/fertilizer flows, so ideally the study would also compare organic yields at different (external) fertilizer inputs. But I'll take what I can get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This info would be helpful to someday finish [my answer][2] to [this question on food without fossil fertilizer][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4273/96&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/4271/96" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5389" RevisionGUID="c5ec71fd-bfc0-4eba-b16f-f28d31e89a1a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="The assertion that the answer to this question is &quot;yes&quot; was made in an answer to another question here: [Which solar power technology has the highest energy return on investment (EROI aka EROEI)?][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The user (@DJSims/@NeilTyson/@Mustang) posted these two graphics as evidence:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[![Historical prices for polysilicon and oil][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the poster did not provide a source for either chart, however a quick google image search indicates that they are likely indicative of actual trends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, a quick glance at these charts does indicate that the prices seem to track. However, the most striking feature is the boom leading to 2008, and the bust thereafter. I am not an economist, but I suspect that historical pricing for any two randomly selected commodities (with the possible exception of gold) would look pretty similar in the years immediately before and after 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, do oil and polysilicon prices actually depend on each other? Are these charts sufficient to decide one way or another? Or is more information needed? Is there enough data post-2008 to decide if the trend would continue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5369/3379&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8Cg4I.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14686" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5395" RevisionGUID="097aec23-fdfa-40e4-b3a9-b0d5eb0ff11c" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="After toilet paper is flushed down a toilet and it goes to a water treatment plant, what happens next?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Does it decompose, if so what gasses are released? Is the carbon sequestered in any significant way?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is it present in a solid form in the outflow of the treatment plant? (i.e. in to the sea?) Does that affect wildlife?&#xD;&#xA; 3. What, if anything, is consumed as it is processed? (e.g. are chemicals consumed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see there is a questions about [alternatives to toilet paper][1]. I'd like to understand the impacts of using it. Of course there is the impact of its production, transportation, etc, but I think that is a separate question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/82/alternative-to-toilet-paper" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5426" RevisionGUID="00e5dd99-fb1c-46d7-bfd3-83f288159923" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Are there any retailers selling clothes made out of naturally processed bamboo fibre, not the *viscose/rayon* (see [here][1]) method? I am talking of the alternative proposed in [this answer][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Apparently bamboo can also be processed into &quot;bamboo linen&quot;, i.e. using the same process as with flax or hemp.&#xD;&#xA;One commercial producer of bamboo linen is Litrax. Its bamboo linens are described/advertised on textileworld.com. The processing, however, uses &quot;fine-tuned enzymatic cocktails&quot;, as is to be expected. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At [this][3] page, more information on the method used by Litrax can be found. From the same page:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  the typical rayon production process used for most&#xD;&#xA;manufactured fiber derived from bamboo uses caustic chemicals whose emissions can harm not only&#xD;&#xA;factory workers but also the environment when not properly controlled within the factory. And the&#xD;&#xA;resulting fiber — whether processed using the rayon process or a closed-loop, eco-friendly,&#xD;&#xA;modified lyocell process — does not resemble bamboo at all in its original form. In addition,&#xD;&#xA;widespread claims that the fiber offers antimicrobial properties cannot be substantiated, and its&#xD;&#xA;biodegradability has been questioned because it does not break down within a reasonably short time&#xD;&#xA;after disposal in a landfill or in a recycling scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [Litrax][4] seems to produce only yarns and fibres, and doesn't sell any clothing itself. In my case, I am looking for something that can be purchasable commercially, but can't find any sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically I'm most interested in availability to the UK, including online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayon#Production_method&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4946/2451&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.textileworld.com/textile-world/quality-fabric-of-the-month/2010/04/litrax-natural-bamboo-the-real-deal/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.litrax.com/fibers/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5457" RevisionGUID="54025b77-04b5-40c8-b6bd-4ef8e2ffb1c2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="A [recent question on what to do with harvested rainwater][1] got me thinking about pumped energy storage systems. Since both systems require storage of water for later use, is there a cost-effective way in which the two could be combined? Specifically in small-scale applications (farms, rural communities, campuses) where rooftops are already available for rainwater harvesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As background, pumped energy storage involves pumping water to an elevated storage reservoir when energy is cheap and plentiful (excess wind, low demand, unused solar, etc) then letting it run through a turbine to generate power at times of low supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some ideas about how this might work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Rain water caught on the roofs of tall and/or elevated buildings could flow through a turbine (generating power) to shorter/lower reservoirs where it could be used for irrigation or other purposes&#xD;&#xA; - Overhead water tanks could be fitted with solar panels to drive pumps bringing up rain water from lower rooftops, where it would later be flowed through a turbine to provide power&#xD;&#xA; - A reservoir or tank could be built near a community or farm requiring water. Wind or solar power could pump water into the tank. When water is needed it could be flowed through a turbine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have any such systems been implemented? Could it be cost-effective, or would it simply over-complicate things?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/370/3379" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5467" RevisionGUID="521c843c-a749-4b74-955b-f0973b3569d8" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Instead of comparing the impact of each travelling modality with 1 traveller, you want to compare modalities per passenger-kilometer or passenger-mile with average load. This means that you divide the total impact by the number of passengers and the distance travelled. Energy efficiency or CO2 emissions is almost always used as a proxy for impact as it is relatively easy to determine, but there are [other environmental impacts](https://www.people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/tenvitbl.html) as well, e.g. noise pollution, land usage, animals being run over, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following transportation methods are listed from low-impact to high-impact:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Walking&#xD;&#xA; - Bicycling&#xD;&#xA; - Sailing boat (no engines)&#xD;&#xA; - Train (electric)&#xD;&#xA; - Bus (petrol)&#xD;&#xA; - Car (petrol)&#xD;&#xA; - Campervan (petrol)&#xD;&#xA; - Airplane (kerosine)&#xD;&#xA; - Cruise ship (bunker fuel)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list is loosely based on [this chart by David MacKay](http://withouthotair.com/c20/page_128.shtml) as well as some articles I read in the past. Do keep in mind that this list is very much a simplification because in real life the exact impact depends on lots of factors, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Exact type of vehicle (e.g. a large family car consumes more fuel than a small family car)&#xD;&#xA; - Type of engine and fuel (e.g. cruise ship running on gas oil, diesel oil, or bunker fuel)&#xD;&#xA; - Number of occupants (e.g. a car with 4 people has almost half the impact per passenger-mile than the same car with 2 people in it).&#xD;&#xA; - Distance travelled without stops (making intermediate stops can cost a lot of energy, that's also why short flights have a bigger impact per passenger-kilometer than long flights)&#xD;&#xA; - Weather conditions (headwind or not)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Some airplane companies and train operating companies list estimated CO2 emissions for your trip when you plan it with their software so that can give you some indication, but be careful when comparing results between different organizations as the used method of calculation can be rather different (see [this answer comparing different sites for the same trip](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/108/99) for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW if you are interested in other tips to make your holiday more sustainable I can recommend reading the free [Lonely Planet's Guide to Responsible Travel](http://mydigimag.rrd.com/publication/?i=164489)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5551" RevisionGUID="cb68c93d-224c-4c8d-85d4-a12ca94e07be" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="In this [question about rooftop hydro][1] I covered the efficiency question almost as an aside. I can't find an actual plant with efficiency over 80%, only claims that that might be possible. The average efficiency will be much lower than the peak, as a lot of plants are old and have efficiencies around 60% (although some have been refitted to boost efficiency). Since we're dealing with big civil engineering projects changing the design is usually a big, expensive project. Published efficiency figures often fail to separate natural inflow from pumped, although thanksfully the engineers seem to dominate these discussions so they generally say &quot;{year} input *x* GWh, output *y* GWh (including natural inflows)&quot;. Otherwise a few plants would have efficiencies over 100% some years :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started with the link William also found to the [Energy Storage Association][2] who appear to be a trade group promoting the idea.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; these plants are typically highly efficient (round-trip efficiencies reaching greater than 80%) and can prove very beneficial in terms of balancing load within the overall power system. Pumped-storage facilities can be very economical due to peak tand off-peak price differentials and their potential to provide critical ancillary grid services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia make a similar claim][3]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the round-trip energy efficiency of PSH varies in practice between 70% and 80%, with some claiming up to 87%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But they give references. Unfortunately the Hawaiian Electric Company claim of 87% round-trip is no longer on their web page and I can't find an archived version. They don't appear to have built an actual plant with that efficiency, so I suspect they were repeating advertising claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The people [promoting trains for energy storage][4] say that 70-75% or more realistic (via The Economist):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Its system uses modified railway cars on a specially built track ... delivers more power for the same height differential. He also says it is more efficient, with a round-trip efficiency—the ratio of energy out to energy in—of more than 85%, compared with 70-75% for Pumped Storage Hydro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Storing Energy: with Special Reference to Renewable Energy Sources&#xD;&#xA;By Trevor M. Letcher][5] says 60% for older plants and up to 80% for newer ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5457/can-pumped-water-energy-storage-be-combined-with-rainwater-harvesting/5460#5460&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydroelectric-storage&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.economist.com/node/21548495?frsc=dg%7Ca&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&amp;lr=&amp;id=TPReBwAAQBAJ&amp;oi=fnd&amp;pg=PA25&amp;dq=info:1fSw0yVikpMJ:scholar.google.com&amp;ots=nOV5mvjb3R&amp;sig=-mVET6C_qQosE11doraPLlwi0e0&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5581" RevisionGUID="dc07120f-0439-4abd-8712-1361a4937978" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="It may sound contradictory, but according to scientist and statistician Hans Rosling, the main criterion to limit population growth is a **reduction of the child mortality rate** (see also [his Ted Talk on the topic](https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen) and the stats below). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Child mortality vs Population Growth][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;*Child mortality rate vs Country population growth rate (including migration) in 2011,&lt;br/&gt; &#xD;&#xA;Each bubble is a country, bubble color indicates continent, bubble size relates to number of babies per woman*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the next decades most population growth is expected to be in developing countries where child mortality is high. This is especially the case in the sub-Saharan countries, where children are an insurance that there is someone to take care of you when you are old. Population growth rates in developed countries are much lower. In some countries like Germany, Russia and Japan it is even zero or negative (not counting recent immigration, see also [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lower child mortality can be achieved by **better living conditions and better health services. This in turn can be achieved by better education and higher income**. Also women who are better educated tend to marry later and get children at a higher age.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As Móż has also mentioned in [his comment](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5563/what-are-ethical-ways-to-curb-the-global-human-population-increase#comment7573_5564), another big influence on population growth can be **government policy and incentives**. China for example still has one of the lowest population growth rates in Asia (although I do not consider their former 1-child policy ethical).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information about population growth can be found on the website of Hans Rosling's [Gapminder.org](http://gapminder.org) organisation. The site also has a great [interactive graphical statistics tool](https://www.gapminder.org/tools/) that shows the relationship between child mortality, babies born per woman, education, income, health services and many other factors, plus their changes since 1960.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fK0OY.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5609" RevisionGUID="9c5d3a74-780e-4cf1-be81-c5db9d4d4929" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="In Australia, most cars are automatic, and most people stay on &quot;drive&quot; while braking when stopped at a red light (i.e. if they weren't breaking, the car would drive forward).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if moving the gear handle to &quot;neutral&quot; when stopping for a couple of minutes would help save a non-negligeable amount of petrol?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of the following existing question but I consider my question to be different enough to ask it:&#xD;&#xA;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1253/when-does-using-a-cars-start-stop-system-become-more-economical&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5638" RevisionGUID="241cace7-1b81-4904-bcea-9e35752e8b82" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="An exchange in the comments on [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5634/3379) got me thinking: what is the standard definition for sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it include such things as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Geographic extent&#xD;&#xA; - Time frame&#xD;&#xA; - Economics&#xD;&#xA; - Other factors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5643" RevisionGUID="c7e8a1dd-724b-4390-bfda-1a3e4501af6f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Yes, we should leave the larger part of all known fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Scientists have calculated that if we want to keep global temperature rise under 2 degrees C (which was agreed upon in the Paris climate agreement), then we cannot use more than 1/3 of all currently known reserves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2 °C. ([source](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7533/full/nature14016.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fossil fuels that are in the ground are usually stored safely there and do not contribute to global warming. But once you take them out their stored carbon content is almost always added to the atmosphere in the form of greenhouse gas emissions at one time or another. Your statement that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using fossil fuel to make plastics does not necessarily produce more CO2 than production of bio-plastics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;is only true in theory. It only holds for plastics that are stored safely at the end of their lifetime. In practice however large amounts of fossil-fuel-based waste plastics are incinerated and when that happens they add CO2 to the atmosphere. When bio-plastics are incinerated they also add CO2, but the difference here is that the biomass that was used to create the plastic has taken CO2 out of the atmosphere when it was growing. That's why bio-plastics are carbon neutral (if you neglect the emissions from their manufacturing process).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do agree that we should '*use fossil fuels wherever their end use would have less environmental impact than the alternatives*', but there are very few uses of fossil fuels for which there isn't a more environmentally-friendly alternative. The only thing I can think of right now is jet fuel, but according to [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5628/99) they are working on that, and of course reduction (less flying) would be even better from an environmental point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more information in this Guardian article: [Leave fossil fuels buried to prevent climate change, study urges](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/much-worlds-fossil-fuel-reserve-must-stay-buried-prevent-climate-change-study-says)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5662" RevisionGUID="aaa7a076-7e22-4ab3-8bdc-c3e2b899a98f" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I live on the ground floor of a block of flats (apartments) in London, UK. Below me (basement / -1 level) is the block’s communal boiler providing hot water for the taps and hot water for the radiators in each flat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately my flat gets hotter than I would like. I rarely use the radiators and make the educated guess that it is heat rising from the equipment downstairs conducting through the floor (concrete slab / screed etc.). To illustrate I have record temperatures of 12 degrees Celsius / 45 Fahrenheit outside whilst 26 degrees / 79 Fahrenheit inside my flat with radiators off.  I am trying to address the issue at source with the block’s owners / management however a year on little movement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As part of renovating the flat I am replacing flooring with an engineered wood floor. It feels that I may as well try and add some thermal insulation whilst doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On this forum I have seen [someone refer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/421) to insulation in issues of conduction being most effective when between the heat source and the conductive material / layer. In this instance this would be to insulate the ceiling downstairs in the boiler room. There is already some insulation down there and I will continue to press the issue for a more / better insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I would be interested in opinions on if it is worth me insulating my side?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will use a damp proof layer / vapour layer between the insulation and the chipboard / engineered wood floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One concern I have is could it make the heat issue worse in my flat?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5674" RevisionGUID="d02f7810-6531-43ba-af17-86003ff7a852" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think you're right that building your own is likely to be necessary (we're in the same position). What I've discovered in Australia is broadly applicable in the global north, so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An [earthship](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/search?q=earthship) can't be sustainable, and is not designed to be sustainable - they are about being self-contained within a very narrow definition of the term. They rely on free labour from outsiders for the build. Lots and lots of free labour. If you have to pay for the labour, very few people can afford the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The [TinyHouse movement][1] is as much about [not building more  than you need][2] as about going tiny, and everyone can do that. I have used some of their ideas to adjust my expectations, but I'm also that way inclined to start with, so our current plans are under 60m² habitable space for a couple with a spare bedroom. We're using a &quot;dutch bed&quot; or bed-in-cupboard with a separate office/computer room, for example, rather than a &quot;master bedroom&quot;, so one of us can sleep while the other works/plays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* the Hanse House looks like a bigger version of what I've ended up wanting. Or more accurately, I want more workshop space and less single-purpose interior space, so I've made different design choices. But broadly, yes, design a small house, add a spare room, and build that. The spare room will end up being used, so put it in when you build - they're expensive to add later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* refitting a run-down house can be done, but the usual reason is so that a DIY builder can avoid needing a construction loan and to reduce the number of permits required (and the property can be inhabited throughout the build... note that I didn't say &quot;habitable&quot;, just &quot;inhabited&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* buying an existing house is best done so you can rent it out and live in the new granny-flat you build on the block of land. It's called &quot;in-fill development&quot; and many local governments are keen on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have done a bunch of research locally, and ended up wanting to use SIPS purely for the ease of getting a passivhaus standard build (although likely not paying for the certification). That standard is hard to reach with conventional build processes, not least because fixing problems and re-attempting certification can be insanely expensive and require compromising the structure or philosophy (you start with a nice green insulation material, but then you discover air leaks and either tear half the house down or re-seal with sprayfoam... as one example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth paying a builder who has done this before just to save you a great deal of &quot;first time woes&quot;, even if that means getting someone from across the country. Ideally you'll find a local who wants to get into it, and they will work with an existing builder from somewhere else. We may yet end up using a Tasmanian company in Sydney because they want to expand this way. The benefit is they're likely to give you a discount/better service because they want you to be their demonstration and ideally a bit of a show home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest being open to your local experts, too. It doesn't matter if you have chosen the best technology/product in the world if you can't get it installed and working properly. Much better to go with what the local green technician likes, because they will also likely know about the maintenance and warranty issues. We contacted a company in another state who sell a combined solar hot water + electricity installation service and asked them, they recommended a couple of local installers, and one of them looked at my idea and said &quot;cheaper and simpler to have separate hot water and PV&quot;... and convinced me. He does do the combined product, but only on demand and only with a five year warranty. Apparently after 7-10 years they fall apart and can't be repaired. You will have different products with different problems... ask the local expert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that any expert is almost certain to tell you that off-grid is an expensive, silly idea. It's anti-social so it fails that leg of the sustainability test, but it also means paying for a great deal of capacity that you will very rarely use. Much better in many ways to go grid-optional with 2-10 days of runtime depending on the season. You may also struggle to get off-grid sewer treatment approved at all for a single dwelling (and it will be expensive, in NSW you're looking at more than $1000/quarter for testing and certification for the smallest system because they expect that &quot;smallest system&quot; will be a subdivision).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found our local &quot;[Alternative Technology Association (ATA)][3]&quot; very useful for this stuff. I suggest trying to find something similar in the UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thetinylife.com/what-is-the-tiny-house-movement/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://rockymountaintinyhouses.com/about/philosophy/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://ata.org.au" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5692" RevisionGUID="7716d0f9-f00b-4301-bd44-7854eb4080e2" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="[This question][1] is based on the premise that using &quot;cheap&quot; biofuel in a diesel engine to power a generator (and not using batteries) is better than the alternatives. My understanding is that if you must grow crops to generate electricity that burning more of the plant is better - the cogen/trigen units I've seen mostly run of primarily-cellulose pellets rather than plant oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 25kW generator will use about [2 gallons an hour][2] at full power, perhaps 0.5 at idle, so I'm guessing 20 gallons a day. I suspect using a battery instead of idling could drop that but exact numbers are hard to find because RAPS using backup generators dominate the search results. Oilseed crops run as high as [240 gallons/acre/year][3] (gross yield, not net!) and at a societal level [we can't both eat and drive biodiesels][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;20 gallons of fuel a day is about 7000 gallons/year requiring somewhere between 30 and 300 acres of arable land to grow. Alternatively, the average deep-fryer shop should need to dispose of about 5 gallons of oil a week but in practice it seems to be less than half that. So 140 gallons a week will mean visiting about 30 fast food outlets, plus a few extra to supply the vehicle fuel for those pickups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it really better to burn plant oil than the whole plant?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As secondary questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. is it more efficient to use a battery pack instead of idling the generator at low-demand times?&#xD;&#xA; 1. are my numbers for fuel consumption and DIY oil cropping right?&#xD;&#xA; 1. is it practical to run a generator off scrounged vege oil like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5689/is-3-phase-electrical-generation-more-efficient-to-utilize-than-single-phase&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.dieselserviceandsupply.com/Diesel_Fuel_Consumption.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://articles.extension.org/pages/28006/oilseed-crops-for-biodiesel-production&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://biofuel.org.uk/land-use.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5721" RevisionGUID="c313369f-73af-47d2-876b-e9159fced774" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I like adding carbon to the scraps I compost by mixing in some shredded newspaper and Yellow/White Pages books (bot not glossy magazines). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What should I check for to make sure I am not adding chemicals that might have a negative impact on the soil or my health (after eating vegetables grown in that compost)? Those chemicals could be in the paper itself or the ink on the paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What specifically should I ask the people who print the newspapers and other publications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**NB**: I am aware of [this](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4842/composting-used-white-shredded-paper) related question, but my question is related to commercially printed material, not office/home-printed paper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5761" RevisionGUID="1b8e8f2a-f1fc-46b7-a085-fb1ed36c5f57" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="The issue with answering this question is that there are inherent assumptions in how one creates a boundary for answering.  For example, [Voreno's answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2650/) suggests comparing two similar products in terms of the eco-footprint of their lifecycle.  This is sound, but assumes that use of any product is warranted, and that levels of use and maintenance are fixed.  For example, I have recently gone from switching from standard shampoo to more eco-friendly shampoo products, to washing my hair less often, to not buying shampoo at all and only using baking soda with water.  I might also cut my hair shorter so that I don't need so much cleanser for my hair.  Or perhaps braid or dread my hair so that washing is less needed on a regular basis.  Then I could start to question why we wash our hair at all and truly minimize the activity itself, along with all of the products that go with it.  The cleanliness of the water is another point that impacts the need for shampoo.  What if I went down to the nearby river or ocean to wash myself?  This would reduce impact too.  Or how about indirect impacts?  Instead of spending my time mixing my own shampoo, I could shower with my family members, or I could petition my local government to allow the reuse of shower water or to outlaw harmful shampoo ingredients.  This could multiply my potential impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that the answer depends highly on one's assumed boundaries.  In the hair-washing example, I could assume that I am only considering direct impacts on my personal footprint, am not interested in bathing activities anywhere other than my shower at home, and am unwilling to shower less frequently than weekly.  So these assumptions will frame the limits of how I am comparing &quot;sustainable&quot; options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, therefore, something that has helped me in growing my confidence for assessing sustainability is by enlarging my framework and realizing where I am making assumptions.  You can do this by having conversations with people from extremely different contexts to your own.  This will help you identify and critique your own assumptions.  Learning how indigenous cultures in your area survived in your ecosystem can be a nice source of information, as well as studying fields such as permaculture or social-ecological-systems theory.  Getting into the meta-level can take you to a new place that helps make those leaps from comparing bottled water with soda, to finding out where your tapwater comes from and how much hydration your body really needs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5783" RevisionGUID="afe2fc32-5fb0-4cca-8d31-2d5ec61c7f92" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="If you run your worm farm properly then it doesn't smell. It will give of a earthy scent. However if things go wrong because your worm farm contains too much water or nitrogen then it will start to smell sour or rotten. So make sure you have proper drainage and keep an eye on the [C:N ratio](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/1262/99) of whatever you put in the farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are using your worms to process food leftovers and want to be on the safe side regarding smells, you can bury food under already processed compost. Also make sure mice, rats and other rodents don't have access to the heap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth; I have my own worm farm in a small container in our  shed and I never had any problems with bad smells or vermin, but I am somewhat selective of what I feed my worms (no meat, dairy or oily foods)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5802" RevisionGUID="4a5424db-74ac-4645-91cb-fd4acc525441" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="[Chris Goldie's answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5795/3379) to a question on sustainable web infrastructure brought this question up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From the US Environmental Protection Agency](https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/renewable-energy-certificates-recs):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A **renewable energy certificate, or REC** (pronounced: rěk), is a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; market-based instrument that represents the property rights to the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; environmental, social and other non-power attributes of renewable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electricity generation. RECs are issued when one megawatt-hour (MWh)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of electricity is generated and delivered to the electricity grid from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a renewable energy resource.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Certificate_(United_States)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; RECs allow for purchasers [of electric power] to support renewable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; energy generation and allows the economic forces of supply and demand&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to spur the further development of renewable energy generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these sources reference the RECs in the US, however the concept is similar around the world (based on answers/comments so far, similar systems exist in at least: Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Norway).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the purchase of RECs an effective means to reduce the environmental impact of a business or industry? Does this system work in practice, or is it simply a PR play? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stated another way, does the increase of investment in renewable sources of electricity translate to reduction in environmental impact of the businesses which use electricity from the grid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5842" RevisionGUID="56d814ec-8b1d-4d60-a6e4-bf09bdb5439a" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="While researching for [another question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5834/3379), I found some data for the US that might be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EIA's 2009 [Residential Energy Consumption Survey](https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/index.php?view=characteristics#sh) includes thermostat settings organized in several ways, including by state, income, census region, type of home, etc. Here's a sample of what the data looks like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hx6yA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5844" RevisionGUID="ccf0577a-0f9e-49db-b63e-9ccc0d42d05d" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="First, independently between wood and pellets, it depends how sustainably the wood you will use is farmed. Let's assume its farmed the same, so we rule this factor out - and France forest are among the most sustainably farmed I think&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inconvenient of pellets:&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;* (little) amount of energy to drive the feeding mechanism  &#xD;&#xA;* mechanism can dysfunction&#xD;&#xA;* another amount of energy to produce the pellets, I mean &quot;extra&quot; energy compared to the production of simple firewood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advantages:&#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;* saved heating energy because pellets should come with less moisture&#xD;&#xA;* storage is easier&#xD;&#xA;* automatic feeding &#xD;&#xA;* continuous heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except the first one, this is mostly for comfort... I see no real advantage in the use of pellets, put aside the fact that you'll probably need to by them from a remote place, compared to the closeness where you can buy your firewood (sorry poor English). Moreover, from [JD answer here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5047/3293) it looks like pellets aren't the best way to go in the long run: they become less sustainable because of increasing demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And not even sure pellets can apply right to the use of a [mass stove heater](http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-build-a-Rocket-Mass-Heater/), which on the other hand is said to have very high efficiency to burn wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5845" RevisionGUID="65a49770-cbaf-4a0d-9253-a2522452ed52" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="Have to start by saying, a much better idea to heat with an electric than with a gas stove: as mentioned in [this excellent question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/657/4252), gas stoves emit toxic carbon monoxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, there are several major issues with heating with your electric oven, some of which [this article from ehow.com points out](http://www.ehow.com/info_10021074_dangers-heating-house-electric-oven.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Melting dials, etc.  Ovens are not designed to be run open, hence to do so can set up the risk of melting plastic dials or other plastic parts.  That being said, provided you take standard precautions, it's probably not an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Breakdowns.  This is obviously somewhat variable, but generally, I expect an oven to break down between 5-10 years, though [one online article](http://www.wisebread.com/this-is-how-long-these-6-appliances-should-last) says you can expect 10-15 years.  Obviously, the more you use the oven, the sooner it is likely to break.  And needless to say, the cost of replacing *or* fixing a range is significantly higher than the cost of a space heater.  You can easily get a decent space heater for well under a tenth of the price of an range.  So even if your space heater only lasts 2-3 years and you need two of them to do the job of the oven, it comes out cheaper, *plus giving a more even heat.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I add two extras, which don't have to do with the *oven itself*, as your question, but as long as we're on the topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Cost.  There is a price tag attached to heating with an electric oven: the oven was designed for even heating of a cooking substance, not heating the outside air.  Thus, it outputs less heat per amount of energy burned than a simple space heater, which is designed to pump all the hot air out quickly and evenly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Accidents.  Obviously, if you ever have children around, an open oven at top temp is an invitation for disaster.  Even for adults, a slip or a trip could result in burns.  That being said, you could counter that issue by simply placing it in a safe place or erecting protective grill.  This is obviously no worse than a wood or coal stove." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5853" RevisionGUID="dfcd2c32-e226-4205-bbbc-cb6ad29bf5b9" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="I think the closest measure to what you are asking is the ecological footprint. It's a commonly-used measure for the amount of productive land and sea area one needs to support a particular activity, lifestyle, person, or group of people. The ecological footprint is expressed in number of Earths or in [global hectares](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_hectare). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One global hectare represents the average productivity of all biologically productive areas (measured in hectares) on earth in a given year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world ecological footprint is estimated to be around 1.6 Earths (source: [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ecological-footprint/#worldfootprint)). That means that on average each person on Earth consumes 1.6 times as much resources than the Earth can replenish. I can't find the latest figures but in 2011 the Earth had around 12 billion hectares of productive land and water. With 7 billion people this means each person can use 1.72 global hectares (source: [Footprintnetwork.org](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/glossary/)). Actual usage was 1.72 * 1.6 = 2.7 global hectares (gha) per person. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the paper LShaver mentioned in [his comment](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5846/one-single-persons-equal-share-in-the-worlds-resources) there is a breakdown into different types of land. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Relative area of land use types worldwide in hectares and global hectares, 2008][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Relative area of land use types worldwide in hectares and global hectares, 2008* ([source](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X12002968))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested you can get a rough estimate of your own ecological footprint by using an online calculator, for example [this one](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/). The wiki of the [tag:ecological-footprint] tag has a [short list of calculators](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/ecological-footprint/info)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IvUMN.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5856" RevisionGUID="231680e5-4953-4367-a06d-829bea76d7c7" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="To expand on [THelper's answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5853/3379), and to provide an answer to just one part of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How much land would each person have if everything were distributed evenly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The back-up research to the [Footprint Calculator](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/) is found primarily in two documents:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Accounting for demand and supply of the biosphere's regenerative capacity: The National Footprint Accounts’ underlying methodology and framework](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X12002968)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010 (pdf)](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.660.8339&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Land categories&#xD;&#xA;The second of these two resources gives 2007 figures (and cites sources) for land in five different categories, and the total amount of land available:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Cropland&#xD;&#xA; 2. Grazing land (for livestock)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Forests (for timber and forest products, and CO2 uptake)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Fisheries (including inland freshwater and continental shelf)&#xD;&#xA; 5. Built-up land (cities, roads, bridges, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Totals and per capita&#xD;&#xA;If we bring all of this data together, here is how it breaks down per person (using land data from 2007 and a population of 6.6708 billion):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Land type		ha (mil.)	EQF		gha (mil.)	ha per capita	gha per capita &#xD;&#xA;    ---------		---------	---		----------	-------------	--------------&#xD;&#xA;    Cropland		 1,560		2.51	 3,905		0.24			0.61&#xD;&#xA;    Grazing land	 3,377		0.46	 1,552		0.52			0.24&#xD;&#xA;    Forest			 3,944		1.26	 4,962		0.59			0.75&#xD;&#xA;    Fishing			 2,840		0.37	 1,049		0.43			0.16&#xD;&#xA;    Built-up		   174		2.51	   426		0.03			0.06&#xD;&#xA;    TOTAL			11,895				11,895		1.81			1.81&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **ha (mil):** million hectares. &#xD;&#xA; - **EQF - equivalence factors.** The EQF is used to cmpare different types of land, based on how much human-useful resources can be produced from each type. It assumes that the most productive land is cropland, followed by forests, then grazing land. The calculation then looks at yields to determine how much crops could be produced if grazing land were converted to cropland, forests to cropland, etc. Fisheries are equated through protein yields compared to grazing land, and built-up land is compared to crop-land, as it is assumed that the majority of built-up land (cities) would make suitable crop-land. Ultimately, **area** times **EQF** equals ***global* area**.&#xD;&#xA; -  **gha (mil):** million global hectares.&#xD;&#xA; - **A note on totals:** The values in the bottom row include more precise figures than what's shown in the table, so the sum of the rows as shown may not add to the totals as shown.&#xD;&#xA; - **YF - yield factors (not shown).** To compare nation to nation, yield factors (YF) compare productivity between nations, within each category. For example, grazing land in New Zealand is more productive than world average grazing land, due to precipitation and other factors. The YF is baked into the calculations in the tables from the Footprint Atlas, but I was not able to find a listing of the YF per category, per country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A real-world example&#xD;&#xA;If, like me, you don't have much concept of a hectare, [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare#Interior_of_all-weather_athletics_track) is quite helpful: The grass area inside a standard outdoor athletic track is equal to one hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hansen_Field.JPG#/media/File:Hansen_Field.JPG&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Hansen_Field.JPG/300px-Hansen_Field.JPG&quot; alt=&quot;Hansen Field.JPG&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;By &lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Illini&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Grad&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IlliniGradResearch&quot; class=&quot;mw-redirect&quot; title=&quot;User:IlliniGradResearch&quot;&gt;Research&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;span class=&quot;int-own-work&quot; lang=&quot;en&quot;&gt;Own work&lt;/span&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0&quot; title=&quot;Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0&quot;&gt;CC BY-SA 3.0&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7507206&quot;&gt;Link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, each person gets just under two of these. A family of five would get a hair over nine. Here's how their land use would break down:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These numbers are in absolute (not global) terms, thus related to the actual land usage, not the productivity of the land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, roughly speaking, this family would have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Four fields for crops and animal pasture&#xD;&#xA; - Three fields forested&#xD;&#xA; - Two fields filled with lakes for fishing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Housing, barns, workshops, etc would be spread throughout all areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kIQym.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5862" RevisionGUID="cd643cf7-17a5-4811-9c04-d0902a542dc0" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="There's a great answer about [heating water with electricity][1], where anyone can easily get an idea how much would it cost to heat water just by applying one's price for kWh. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for the same calculation, but for gas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: My gas is billed in 15kg gas cylinders, but feel free to allow for liters of gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also think the efficiency of gas furnaces needs to be taken into account. Whereas the electric heater converts close to 100% of the heat into heating the water just by the virtue of having the rods surrounded by water, I am seriously afraid that is not the case with gas furnaces, that sip a significant amount of heat into the surrounding air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1199/how-many-kilowatt-hours-of-electricity-does-it-take-to-heat-180-litres-of-water" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5863" RevisionGUID="ead14607-0788-433a-ac55-13a670d9ce56" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="## The amount of energy needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [EnergyNumber's answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1200/3379) to the electricity version of this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...the energy needed is 180,000 x 45 x 4.2 = **34 MJ**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1kWh = 1000W x 3600s = 3.6 MJ&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hence, the energy needed is 34/3.6 = 9.5 kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Types of gas and units of measure&#xD;&#xA;Two types of gas are typically used for heating and cooking purposes in homes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **LPG** or liquefied petroleum gas, which is typically a mixture of propane and butane&#xD;&#xA;  - Stored compressed in bottles or tanks, typically sold by the **kilogram** (kg) or **liter** (L)&#xD;&#xA; - **Natural gas**, which is mostly methane with some mixture of ethane&#xD;&#xA;  - Often piped directly to homes, and sold in units of **hundred cubic feet** (ccf) or the nearly equivalent **therm**, defined as the quantity of gas containing 100,000 BTU of heat content &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Conversions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    FUEL			UNIT		MJ / UNIT	QUANTITY FOR 34 MJ&#xD;&#xA;    ----            ----		---------	------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Natural gas 	therm		105.5		0.322&#xD;&#xA;    				ccf			105.5		0.322&#xD;&#xA;    LPG				kg			46.0		0.739&#xD;&#xA;    				L			25.8		1.318&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Accounting for heating efficiency&#xD;&#xA;Again quoting from EnergyNumbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to account for the heating efficiency, just divide by it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So if your heater is 100% efficient, you divide by 1 - which is why we&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ignore it in the above calculation. If your heater is 95% efficient,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you divide by 0.95, to get 10 kWh. This calculation works whatever the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; type of heater it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Wikipedia: [Liquefied petroleum gas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_petroleum_gas)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Wikipedia: [Therm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therm)&#xD;&#xA; 3. The Engineering Toolbox: [Gross and net heating values for some common gases](http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gross-net-heating-values-d_420.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5872" RevisionGUID="5e46da29-ddfb-4ef5-a8ab-0b8504453b8b" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="It seems the bottom line of the question is low cost spinning wheel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dodeca wheeldesign is available [free on line](http://www.interweave.com/wp-content/uploads/5661.Dodec-Spinning-Wheel-Brochure.pdf).   This   [has been noted in another post](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1183/4303). Porter also sells this wheel and a similar wheel at a very low cost for a spinning wheel. &#xD;&#xA;http://porterthreads.weebly.com/store/p4/Dodec_Spinning_Wheel.html. &#xD;&#xA;![Dodeca Spinning Wheel](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6TUOA.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Budget Wheel, seemingly derived from the Dodeca, with a circular wheel, is available on etsy.  &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/208198231/budget-spindle-wheel-beginner-spinning?ref=shop_home_active_3. &#xD;&#xA;![Budget Spindle Wheel](https://i.stack.imgur.com/n67sF.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a similar design published by popular mechanics, called a Penguin Quill spinning wheel.   Plans are available online and posted in Pintrest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plans are available on Etsy to make the Thrifty Fox Spinning wheel.   &#xD;&#xA;https://www.etsy.com/listing/198762832/thrifty-fox-spinning-wheel-digital-pdf?  &#xD;&#xA;![Thrifty Fox Spinning Wheel](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bXYt1.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are all spindle wheels--no bobbins, flyers etc.  They employ the same method as [the Great Wheel/walking wheel](https://youtu.be/z1KWQ1RE69E), [charkha](https://youtu.be/R8KvukFPRJc), [Mother Marion kick spindle](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cutoutandkeep.net/projects/building-a-kick-spindle.amp?client=ms-android-verizon),&#xD;&#xA;   [Navaho spindle spinning](https://youtu.be/D_p7OIghMVw)--spinning off the tip of the spindle, reversing, then reversing again to wind the yarn further back on the shaft, and out to the tip to continue spinning.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea behind all of these, is to run a drive belt from the shaft ofta stationary horizontal spindle, to a wheel that multipies the man power supplied from a peddle/treadle.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dodeca,  Budget Spindle Wheel, and the Penguin Quill Wheel, all are castle style designs that stack the spindle above the wheel, above the peddle.   The Thrifty Fox uses a horizontal design:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are sites that offer free plans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This PDF provides plans for the wheel as either a spindle wheel, or with bobbin and flyer:&#xD;&#xA;http://seadreamhobbies.yolasite.com/resources/version1%20spinning%20wheel.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------   &#xD;&#xA;More complicated designs that include bobbins and flyers  are more involved, more  costly to make...and thus, more expensive.   &#xD;&#xA;This plan includes bobbin and flyer:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.craftsmanspace.com/free-projects/spinning-wheel-plan.html &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Free Spinning Wheel plan](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PxHhg.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5903" RevisionGUID="8cb6a415-2310-42a0-9717-f5c9ac9d9d57" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="An answer to a question about [the carbon footprint of cheese](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5901/3379) inspired this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cheeses_by_animal%27s_milk), cheese can be made from the milk of several animals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - cows&#xD;&#xA; - goats&#xD;&#xA; - sheep&#xD;&#xA; - buffalo&#xD;&#xA; - reindeer&#xD;&#xA; - yak&#xD;&#xA; - donkey&#xD;&#xA; - moose&#xD;&#xA; - camel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another key ingredient in cheese making is **[rennet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rennet)**, which can be made from animal, vegetable, and/or microbial sources. For this question I am not concerned with the environmental impact of rennet, assuming that its carbon footprint can be calculated separately from that of the rest of the cheese production process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, which type of cheese has the lowest carbon footprint? Is it simply a factor of which type of livestock has the lowest carbon footprint, or are other factors involved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5932" RevisionGUID="00a12561-f2e8-435e-a585-c4fcd776fc08" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:49:28.870" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/ with https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/" Text="In new buildings and homes I've noticed wall outlets with USB chargers popping up more and more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/oCF0b.jpg&quot; width=&quot;200&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answers at [another question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/4888/3379) indicate that these outlets waste energy just like traditional chargers (&quot;wall warts&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, **how much energy is wasted?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5919" RevisionGUID="a164cd25-b602-43c7-b53d-f251bc86cf3e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:50:29.877" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://earthscience.stackexchange.com/ with https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/" Text="What is the benefit, in terms of carbon footprint, of replacing a diesel fueled vehicle with an identical one with a CNG engine?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not convinced I can simply take the carbon intensities of these two fuels (kg CO2/kWh) as I'm not entirely sure the relationship from powerplants holds for vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need the answer to further refine [my answer to this question on earthscience][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/a/9953/117" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="93" RevisionGUID="88f8261c-ce4f-4748-be83-baa3a6724ace" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:52:14.423" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://travel.stackexchange.com/ with https://travel.stackexchange.com/" Text="Are there any objective resources to estimate the ecological impact of various travel alternatives? Sites like [Bahn.de](http://www.bahn.de) offer to calculate it, but they obviously favour trains. I've asked [a question on ferries on Travel SE](https://travel.stackexchange.com/q/10041/2509), but didn't get a complete answer taking everything into account. For electrical trains it obviously depends on the mode the electricity is produced. Are there any canonical resources to decide about the trade-off between ecology and other factors when planning travel? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5462" RevisionGUID="ae894640-602a-46ec-a1d9-62a865b50129" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:53:20.333" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://health.stackexchange.com/ with https://health.stackexchange.com/" Text="In my furnished apartment I found a 0.6 litres SIGG bottle from unknown year and previous tenant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes the water taste bad (not clearly a metallic taste, somewhat different or more in addition to that) and also I found out that old SIGG bottles release BPA: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/07/some-aluminum-water-bottles-still-contain-bpa/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supposing I decide not to use it anymore due to taste and/or BPA, any idea how to put it to use? I don't like to throw it away but the small opening does not allow many uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since BPA may not be a real issue&#xD;&#xA;https://health.stackexchange.com/questions/1868/is-bpa-in-can-linings-a-health-concern&#xD;&#xA;how could I clean it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - in the cap there is a &quot;4&quot; between a tilted &quot;C&quot; letter and a standard PP symbol. Maybe from 2004?&#xD;&#xA; - the SIGG logo seems different from the current bottles, see photo&#xD;&#xA; - the internal surface is lined with a golden material, see photo&#xD;&#xA; - to clean the inside and to test the thermal insulation I filled it with some boiling water mixed with dish soap and rinsed very well&#xD;&#xA; - the water still tastes strange when I tried it, after the cleaning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1BwT7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="414" RevisionGUID="16349e60-74c1-4f29-ba00-f141d9e2614e" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:54:44.577" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://politics.stackexchange.com/ with https://politics.stackexchange.com/" Text="In discussing &quot;green&quot; policies, the words &quot;sustainability&quot; and &quot;pollution&quot; are occasionally mixed together, as if they were antonyms. My gut feeling is that something that is polluting is by definition not sustainable, but I don't have a very clear view over the definitions of the two terms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question is inspired by a discussion at Politics.SE [as to whether pollution can be sustainable](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/960/what-neoconservative-or-neoliberal-libertarian-alternative-policies-for-sust#comment3719_960). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can a behaviour be polluting while still being sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5784" RevisionGUID="9d0ac335-f27a-43b6-8a31-c41c894a3d11" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:06.607" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Effects of extreme temps on solar panels&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer on Chemistry.SE](https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/15068/37235) lists the three major factors which lead to solar cell degradation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Temperature&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. UV exposure&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Mechanical damage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically for temperature: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **High temperatures** reduce the internal shunt resistance ([lowering efficiency](https://retc-ca.com/?goto=cell)), and contribute to degradation of the anti-reflective coating&#xD;&#xA; - **Thermal cycling** also degrades the coating and can stress other components of the system (causing cell cracking, flexing, delamination, etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;A few specification examples&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went on Home Depot's website and pulled up specifications for the first five brands listed by searching &quot;solar panel.&quot; Here's what I found regarding temperature specifications:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Grape Solar (pdf)](http://www.grapesolar.com/docs/GS-S-160-Fab8.pdf): -40C to +85C&#xD;&#xA; - [Ramsond](http://www.ramsond.com/sp100/): &quot;resilient to ... extreme temperatures&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - [Wagan Tech](http://wagan.com/wagan-tech/solar-products/solar-e-power-cube-1500-plus.html): no specs for panels, but inverter limited to 0C to 40C&#xD;&#xA; - Goal Zero: no specs listed&#xD;&#xA; - Nature Power: no temperature specs listed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume that Grape Solar has not exceedingly outperformed the industry average with their temperature rating: at 40C, you are well within the limit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for thermal cycling, in the winter this may be an issue due to cold nights followed by warm sunshine. Since this will occur anywhere in the world to some level, resistance to its effects will be built in to any panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, you may want to use light duty aluminum frames (which wouldn't be rigid enough to flex the panels when they contract) and/or rubber gaskets at attachment points to reduce the impact of thermal cycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Other considerations&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you will install chargers, batteries, and inverters inside the home, extreme outdoor temperatures shouldn't affect the performance of these items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cabling you will want to make sure and use outdoor rated types, for which extreme temperatures won't be an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Snow cover, obviously, will reduce panel output. Though your output will be reduced in the winter anyway, it's probably a good idea to clear the snow off periodically to reduce the payback time. As noted in the comments, you may even consider giving the panels a bit steeper of a tilt to prevent snow accumulation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5914" RevisionGUID="06df4f62-d854-4a6d-9b76-8513ef58d265" CreationDate="2017-04-13T12:57:06.607" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/ with https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/" Text="### Stovetop vs water heater efficiency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gas stove-top is about **44% efficient** ([source](http://blog.us.schott.com/boiling-point-putting-induction-electric-and-gas-to-the-test/)), and a modern natural gas water heater with a tank is up to **67% efficient** ([source (pdf)](https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/new_specs/downloads/water_heaters/WaterHeaterAnalysis_Final.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Basic formula&#xD;&#xA;From [this answer on Chemistry.SE](https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/a/27312/37235), the energy needed to heat a liquid from one temperature to another is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q = (mass)*(specific heat)*(change in temperature)`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For water, the specific heat is simply 1 kcal/(kg °C), so we can leave this out. The mass of water is 1 kg per L.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Total energy needed&#xD;&#xA;Applying the formula:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`Q = (5kg)*(100°C - 8°C) = 460kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Energy needed from each source&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starting with cold water in the pipes, volume is *length* * π * *radius*² = approximately 1.5L:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In the pot we'll need to heat this 1.5L from 8°C to 100°C = 138kcal&#xD;&#xA; - The remaining 3.5L is heated from 8°C to 49°C in the water heater = 143.5kcal...&#xD;&#xA; - ...and then the rest of the way to 100°C in the pot: 178.5kcal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the water at the tap is already hot, the breakdown is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Heat from 8°C to 49°C in the water heater = 205kcal&#xD;&#xA; - And from 49°C to 100°C in the pot = 255kcal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Final comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Stovetop only: `460kcal / 44% = 1045kcal`&#xD;&#xA; - Using the water heater, starting with **cold** water at the tap:&#xD;&#xA;  - `(138+178.5)/44% + 143.5/67% = 934kcal`&#xD;&#xA; - Using the water heater, starting with **hot** water at the tap:&#xD;&#xA;  - `255/44% + 205/67% = 886kcal`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So using hot water from the tap will save anywhere between 11% and 15% compared to using just cold water.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14719" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4353" RevisionGUID="fdbfbc5f-59e4-43fc-b82b-d35df283eb08" CreationDate="2017-04-14T04:40:07.377" UserId="3379" Comment="Edited tags" Text="|water|life-cycle-analysis|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5948" RevisionGUID="448d37c2-185e-48dd-8756-c1a0391a9320" CreationDate="2017-04-14T10:28:53.663" UserId="4456" Text="**I will answer you question on the Environmental impact of Bamboo:**&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we already know, growing bamboo requires a small amount of pesticides and fertilizers which are great for the environment. However, we should take note that the bamboo has to go through several processes before it is converted into a finished product. There are two methods that are widely used to convert the bamboo into bamboo fibers: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Mechanical&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bamboo is crushed and mixed with natural enzymes to aid in the breakdown and then drawn into fibers. This method is eco-friendly but it more expensive owing to the labor involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Chemical&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[It is mixed in a cocktail of Chemicals][1](NaOH and Carbon Disulphide) and heated. This gives out harmful fumes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result,environment-friendliness of bamboo clothing is, mainly dependant on the process involved in the making of Bamboo fiber.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-fashion/whatever-happened-bamboo-clothing.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5949" RevisionGUID="4578e7d6-3396-4209-a94c-8cfb5d71020d" CreationDate="2017-04-15T06:22:03.823" UserId="4457" Text="Any water heater built in the last 10 years will be significantly more energy efficient than your stove. At the same time you might want to consider a number of other variables if you are really into crunching the numbers on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) you mentioned that your pipes are not insulated but didn't say how much pipe the water travels through before reaching your kitchen sink, or how close that pipping may or may not be much colder areas such as exterior walls, unfinished basements etc. Without knowing that kind of information no one can really say how much energy you are loosing in between your water heater and your sink. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The time of year, and whether you are trying to heat or cool your home, matters a great deal if you are thinking about how either choice plays out in terms of CO2 emissions. If you are boiling water in the winter, a lot of the energy that your stove &quot;wastes&quot; while heating up a pot of water goes into the kitchen's air and is helping to heat your home. That might matter a lot if you have a pretty wasteful forced air system attached to an older furnace, or might not really help if you have an efficient radiant floor set up or a geothermal heat pump etc. Conversely, turning your stove top on in the summer will make your AC to run, which in turn compels the nearest coal or natural gas power plant to burn more fuel. Make no mistake, even if you have solar panels, everyone who is tied to the grid is consuming at least some dirty energy at night, cloudy days, and any time appliances are drawing more than panels provide at that precise second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are really concerned about this you also might want to look at a solar water heater on your roof which is way cheaper than PV solar panels, eligible for a 30% tax rebate, and will drop your water heater bill by anywhere from 50%-80%&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14723" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4356" RevisionGUID="c1304897-797a-4fa1-8073-26dbc82fa91e" CreationDate="2017-04-16T03:09:38.090" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/853445247828987904" />
  <row Id="14724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5950" RevisionGUID="171ea570-12b8-47d5-9a99-07cde2960eeb" CreationDate="2017-04-16T11:02:34.330" UserId="3297" Text="If I face the choice of organic, packaged food and non-organic non-packaged food - which is more sustainable? http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/ tells me the negative impact of packaging is twice as big in terms of ecological footprint compared to non-organic foods. Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5950" RevisionGUID="171ea570-12b8-47d5-9a99-07cde2960eeb" CreationDate="2017-04-16T11:02:34.330" UserId="3297" Text="Organic or packaging free food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5950" RevisionGUID="171ea570-12b8-47d5-9a99-07cde2960eeb" CreationDate="2017-04-16T11:02:34.330" UserId="3297" Text="|plastic|ecological-footprint|packaging|pesticides|organic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="51eb199d-1b76-4255-a56c-db6a7fa4f753" CreationDate="2017-04-17T02:26:01.087" UserId="3456" Text="I'm looking for a sustainable overnight (read: long lasting, high-absorbancy) diaper for my 3yo daughter. She has been cloth diapered since she was a newborn, but now I just can't find an overnight cloth diaper that won't leak and I can't just change her bedsheets every day until she can use the toilet on her own. That, itself, is not sustainable for the environment or my energy! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to find a disposable diaper that won't outlive my grandchildren in a landfill. Something at least a little friendlier to the environment than your more mainstream (insert popular brand here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help me find a sustainable alternative for the next year or so?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14728" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="51eb199d-1b76-4255-a56c-db6a7fa4f753" CreationDate="2017-04-17T02:26:01.087" UserId="3456" Text="Sustainable diapers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14729" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="51eb199d-1b76-4255-a56c-db6a7fa4f753" CreationDate="2017-04-17T02:26:01.087" UserId="3456" Text="|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14730" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="5f5e2ffc-f36a-4e8e-9395-d771dec068ec" CreationDate="2017-04-17T09:18:19.153" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/853900418123956224" />
  <row Id="14731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5952" RevisionGUID="58eaaa58-8aa8-463f-9ed3-c0521a68cdca" CreationDate="2017-04-17T10:14:26.790" UserId="4417" Text="Dessler and Parson, [The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate](https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0521519241) (2009, 190p) on climate ?  (Sustainability is an even larger topic.)  Don't know about &quot;canonical&quot;, but [MacKay](http://withouthotair.com/) says &quot;helpful further reading&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14732" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5950" RevisionGUID="73b917ff-2656-45ff-8a91-e284b1a5c1dd" CreationDate="2017-04-17T18:23:22.603" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/854037585924149250" />
  <row Id="14733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5953" RevisionGUID="b799d2e6-aa1b-4580-8385-94b4b3216925" CreationDate="2017-04-18T07:18:41.570" UserId="3293" Text="It's all a matter of how you do the counting! If you take into account how much diversity you destroy, non-organic food is worse than &quot;too much&quot; *cardboard* packaging. But how do you count this? Life has no price, and damages are potentialities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the more you use &quot;non-organic&quot; method for farming, the more you need them. So it's even worse on the long run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is the study only accounts for what is accountable as for today in terms of carbon footprint, and doesn't apply to what is destroyed by non-organic farming." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="fe150583-b575-4874-bedd-092700b57c77" CreationDate="2017-04-18T10:56:50.517" UserId="4462" Text="I live in tropical region.  Have pretty hot summers (44 degree C ).&#xA;The question is regarding houses built with brick and mortar ( walls ) and RC made flat roofs. In this forum i have come across other discussions on solutions for reducing heat absorption for roofs. But the problem is not complete just with the roof. Much of the solutions suggested for roofs can't be applied to vertical walls. &#xA;&#xA;In short my question is &quot; how to reduce heat absorption by walls of the house? Goal is to cool down interior of the home and there by reducing AC utilisation and improve sustainability. &#xA;&#xA;Assume: Techniques for roof cooling has been done (white roofing), Tinted glass and light colour curtains used.&#xA;&#xA;Challenges: Walls are many times painted non heat friendly colours,  can't make shades on walls for high raises (plants, truss etc ), " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="fe150583-b575-4874-bedd-092700b57c77" CreationDate="2017-04-18T10:56:50.517" UserId="4462" Text="What techniques or solutions are available for reducing heat absorption by walls?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="fe150583-b575-4874-bedd-092700b57c77" CreationDate="2017-04-18T10:56:50.517" UserId="4462" Text="|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5955" RevisionGUID="df0466f1-1c4b-4170-a991-99bfe8df4506" CreationDate="2017-04-18T15:53:02.510" UserId="3955" Text="# Use some thermodynamics&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the basic thermodynamics principle of [black-bodies][1], your goal should be to change the [emissivity][2] of the surfaces of your house. Each surface has a measure of its ability to both absorb and emit EM radiation (at the temperatures we live at, this radiation is primarily in the Infra-red range). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This heat transfer is radiative, not convective or conductive and it is important to note how it works. While conductive and convection heat transfer always go from hot to cold, a cooler wall can and will emit radiative heat into warmer outdoor air. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your house will be receiving radiative heat transfer from the sun. This will be much more significant than any heat your house could shed. Therefore, on sun facing sides, you want your house to have a very low emissivity, for example white paint or bare aluminum. This will reduce the amount that the walls and roof of your house heat up in the sun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some sides of your house may never receive direct sunlight. On my house, I have a north-facing wall that never receives direct sunlight. This wall will be heated primarily by convection from the surrounding air. Convection is not affected by emissivity, but the radiation that it loses as IR is. Therefore, on this non-sun-facing wall, I would want a very high emissivity (black paint or glass). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat transfer on this wall could (depending on the temperature delta between inside your house and outside) be a net flow out of your house. The same principle could be extended to any other surfaces of your house that do not ever see sunlight. If you have an awning or an overhanging porch, you could install windows in that area to radiate heat away from your house while not absorbing heat into your house. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, this principle is more usually used for the opposite purpose, keeping your cold-weather house from leaking too much radiative heat. Window panes, for example, are huge heat emitters, as you can see by looking at anyone's house with an IR camera in the winter. But this very thing you want to avoid in Chicago in the winter can be used to your advantage in Miami in the summer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, this princple is probably more useful to consider when designing a new structure, but there may be some ways to implement it on the house you have. For example, painting the non-sun-facing side of your house a darker color, or covering sunward-facing windows with a white awning. You'd have to look at the specifics of your house to determine what you can do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="7f1bddb9-4c8c-4716-9f00-7ddbfbf8e4ea" CreationDate="2017-04-18T16:25:33.073" UserId="3955" Comment="Spelling and acronyms" Text="I live in tropical region.  Have pretty hot summers (44 degree C ).&#xD;&#xA;The question is regarding houses built with brick and mortar (walls) and reinforced concrete flat roofs. In this forum i have come across other discussions on solutions for reducing heat absorption for roofs. But the problem is not complete just with the roof. Many of the solutions suggested for roofs can't be applied to vertical walls. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short my question is &quot;how to reduce heat absorption by walls of the house?&quot; Goal is to cool down interior of the home and there by reducing AC utilization and improve sustainability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume: Techniques for roof cooling has been done (white roofing), Tinted glass and light color curtains used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Challenges: Walls are many times painted non heat friendly colors,  can't make shades on walls for high raises (plants, truss etc ), " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14739" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="7f1bddb9-4c8c-4716-9f00-7ddbfbf8e4ea" CreationDate="2017-04-18T16:25:33.073" Comment="Proposed by 3955 approved by -1 edit id of 470" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="9e564aae-8d91-4a0a-a706-7255d6db1cf8" CreationDate="2017-04-18T16:25:33.073" UserId="3379" Comment="Spelling and acronyms - colour/utilisation correct as non-American spelling" Text="I live in tropical region.  Have pretty hot summers (44 degree C).&#xD;&#xA;The question is regarding houses built with brick and mortar (walls) and reinforced concrete flat roofs. In this forum I have come across other discussions on solutions for reducing heat absorption for roofs. But the problem is not complete just with the roof. Many of the solutions suggested for roofs can't be applied to vertical walls. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short my question is &quot;how to reduce heat absorption by walls of the house?&quot; Goal is to cool down interior of the home and there by reducing AC utilisation and improve sustainability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume: Techniques for roof cooling has been done (white roofing), tinted glass and light colour curtains used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Challenges: Walls are many times painted non heat friendly colours, can't make shades on walls for high raises (plants, truss etc)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14741" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="cfbdebf3-58f5-463f-a1dd-a47ef6b51d81" CreationDate="2017-04-19T07:28:08.837" UserId="3293" Comment="added tag for better indexing" Text="|cooling|building|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14742" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="cfbdebf3-58f5-463f-a1dd-a47ef6b51d81" CreationDate="2017-04-19T07:28:08.837" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 99 edit id of 471" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14743" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5954" RevisionGUID="da4ba028-2b31-43ee-bd9a-7edcee4ad4e2" CreationDate="2017-04-19T12:45:24.487" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/854677309068103680" />
  <row Id="14744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5956" RevisionGUID="81f606f0-65b8-4a5e-82ab-c6c021fba026" CreationDate="2017-04-20T07:10:55.513" UserId="3293" Text="A solution is to grow vegetation along your wall. Here in Europe we see some mansion with huge wine or ivy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be beautiful. Not sure what kind of wine you can grow in your place, but it's worth saying, ain't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/N0UM5.png&quot; height=&quot;400&quot; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q2gkO.png&quot; height=&quot;400&quot; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/N0UM5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q2gkO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5957" RevisionGUID="7a703348-b629-4f81-b26a-cfde05da2667" CreationDate="2017-04-20T23:40:51.560" UserId="4470" Text="1% Ferric Sulphate or Ferric Chloride w/w,&#xD;&#xA;5% lime solution w/w (50grm/ltr solution,&#xD;&#xA;1.5% Bentonite solution (50gr/ltr solution),&#xD;&#xA;1% Perlite body aid w/w.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some are wary of Ferric Chloride due to it's corrosive nature and other wary of Ferric Sulphate due to it's sulphate increase in the exit filtrate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mix lime first with waste paint, then ferric chloride, then wait a few minutes for pH reactions to settle.  Mix in Bentonite solution and then Perlite last.  Mix well with low shear action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pump through a filter press and you'll get approximately 25% residual moisture in the collected solids with very clear exit filtrate.  You'll get even better results if the solutions added are at around 35 to 40 Deg C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With waster based latex bound paint, there is no free lunch with regard to separating the solids from the liquid.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stay away from drum filters and belt filters.  The mess will drive you nuts and you'll end up going postal on fellow co-workers due to the enormous maintenance requirements.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5957" RevisionGUID="d04f34a3-d7eb-461f-b0a5-49c45f98b654" CreationDate="2017-04-21T00:16:54.477" UserId="4470" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="1% Ferric Sulphate or Ferric Chloride w/w,&#xD;&#xA;5% lime solution w/w (50grm/ltr solution,&#xD;&#xA;1.5% Bentonite solution (50gr/ltr solution),&#xD;&#xA;1% Perlite body aid w/w.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some are wary of Ferric Chloride due to it's corrosive nature and other wary of Ferric Sulphate due to it's sulphate increase in the exit filtrate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mix lime first with waste paint, then ferric chloride, then wait a few minutes for pH reactions to settle.  Mix in Bentonite solution and then Perlite last.  Mix well with low shear action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pump through a filter press and you'll get approximately 25% residual moisture in the collected solids with very clear exit filtrate.  You'll get even better results if the solutions added are at around 35 to 40 Deg C. The cake (collected solids) will drop cleanly from the filter cloth and there'll be no incremental clogging or blinding of the filter cloth like you'll find in drum filters or belt filters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With water based latex bound paint, there is no free lunch with regard to separating the solids from the liquid.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stay away from drum filters and belt filters.  The mess will drive you nuts and you'll end up going postal on fellow co-workers due to the enormous maintenance requirements.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5957" RevisionGUID="76f4289a-e59b-49ba-be15-ce029cedd1b1" CreationDate="2017-04-21T00:22:30.393" UserId="4470" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="This is easy, but it means additives and process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1% Ferric Sulphate or Ferric Chloride w/w,&#xD;&#xA;5% lime solution w/w (50grm/ltr solution,&#xD;&#xA;1.5% Bentonite solution (50gr/ltr solution),&#xD;&#xA;1% Perlite body aid w/w.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some are wary of Ferric Chloride due to it's corrosive nature and other wary of Ferric Sulphate due to it's sulphate increase in the exit filtrate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mix lime first with waste paint, then ferric chloride, then wait a few minutes for pH reactions to settle.  Mix in Bentonite solution and then Perlite last.  Mix well with low shear action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pump through a filter press and you'll get approximately 25% residual moisture in the collected solids with very clear exit filtrate.  You'll get even better results if the solutions added are at around 35 to 40 Deg C. The cake (collected solids) will drop cleanly from the filter cloth and there'll be no incremental clogging or blinding of the filter cloth like you'll find in drum filters or belt filters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With water based latex bound paint, there is no free lunch with regard to separating the solids from the liquid.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stay away from drum filters and belt filters.  The mess will drive you nuts and you'll end up going postal on fellow co-workers due to the enormous maintenance requirements.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5958" RevisionGUID="8719c5eb-45a5-4ca2-9a92-108dbdf98ac5" CreationDate="2017-04-21T10:01:52.353" UserId="99" Text="The Global Footprint Network recently started publishing ecological footprint data free of charge: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Global Footprint Network’s National Footprint Accounts 2017 Public Data Package is provided at no charge to academics, educators, NGOs, the media, and private and public analysts, as long as they register and clearly indicate and acknowledge the source in every public use of the data ([source](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/licenses/public-data-package-free-edition-copy/))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their 2017 national footprint accounts dataset is available at https://data.world/footprint/nfa-2017-edition. You'll have to sign-up to get access, but signing up is free. I quickly looked at it and didn't see any yield factors, but perhaps you can calculate them using this data?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively you can sometimes find older yields and equivalence factors in scientific reports (e.g. see [my answer here](http://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5195/99)), but you have to be lucky to find exactly the one you are looking for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5959" RevisionGUID="97ea72f8-a976-4dc0-8059-06f630c68aed" CreationDate="2017-04-21T17:40:27.497" UserId="1210" Text="I'm currently decorating a room and conscious of how much water it's taking to clean the paint out of a paint roller.  **At what point does the environmental cost of cleaning exceed the environmental cost of binning it and using a new one?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Details:  I'm using water-based paint and painting walls. Using a 9&quot; roller as a balance between speed and amount of paint left in roller. While more of the colour is going to be needed the next day I'm bagging up the roller rather than cleaning it; but now I've done with that colour. I'm UK based. It only makes sense to clean with clean tap water (I prefer to keep our limited stock of soft rainwater for other purposes and would not risk contamination of the pile with grit etc. as that would defeat the point). I'm soaking the roller for as long as feasible, rather than just running it under a tap. Roller is synthetic pile on a plastic cylinder.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14750" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5959" RevisionGUID="97ea72f8-a976-4dc0-8059-06f630c68aed" CreationDate="2017-04-21T17:40:27.497" UserId="1210" Text="Is it environmentally sensible to clean a paint roller?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14751" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5959" RevisionGUID="97ea72f8-a976-4dc0-8059-06f630c68aed" CreationDate="2017-04-21T17:40:27.497" UserId="1210" Text="|water|environmental-impact|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5960" RevisionGUID="0feb2d83-c619-413e-8757-529a0a073d85" CreationDate="2017-04-22T07:53:37.053" UserId="48" Text="As you're in the UK, the environmental cost of tap water is pretty low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And given that the alternative is to replace the roller, then although I haven't looked at a full lifecycle analysis, I'd be willing to bet that rinsing the old on is going to have lower impact than buying a new one: materials tend to be quite energy-intensive compared to the energy costs of purifying rain water and pumping it around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wouldn't apply if you were in a country that used desalination plants a lot: in those cases, the balance might be a lot trickier.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14754" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5959" RevisionGUID="044138cb-63f8-4ccc-adf7-ee991f80aa69" CreationDate="2017-04-22T10:15:20.220" Comment="http://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/855726706463789062" />
  <row Id="14755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5952" RevisionGUID="f8c9806c-e2f3-4588-9c60-f51a8021b6d8" CreationDate="2017-04-22T10:16:16.183" UserId="4417" Comment="+ Minogue" Text="Dessler and Parson, [The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate](https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0521519241) (2009, 190p) on climate ?  (Sustainability is an even larger topic.)  Don't know about &quot;canonical&quot;, but [MacKay](http://withouthotair.com/) says &quot;helpful further reading&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Minogue, [Politics: A Very Short Introduction](https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0192853880) (1995, 118 p)&#xD;&#xA;is not about sustainability at all, but is 2 σ thought and writing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The nicest thing to do with a hard choice is to evade it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5961" RevisionGUID="9a74c8eb-db40-4acf-8c8c-4e03ae020237" CreationDate="2017-04-23T07:44:26.650" UserId="2718" Text="Not an answer directly, but can make the resource gap wider: I'm similarly concerned about the amount of water used and found that the amount of water used considerably reduced, by making (or probably buying) a drill attachment to spin the roller sleeve. Last time I painted, I bodged something up -the amount of paint flung off was impressive even though my device had some slippage. It needs to be in a bucket or a length of 4&quot; pipe or something similar - maybe even a 2l bottle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5962" RevisionGUID="b9d0cbf5-b741-4b81-ad70-95626366b561" CreationDate="2017-04-23T11:27:42.540" UserId="4475" Text="Ok here goes I am looking to build a small natural pond ( no filters or pumps ) in a polytunnel, the last step in designing this is the water aeration method, I've seen various options for solar powered aeration devices but I'd like to aerate it in a completly natural way if possible.&#xD;&#xA;Is this possible? &#xD;&#xA;If so how? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5962" RevisionGUID="b9d0cbf5-b741-4b81-ad70-95626366b561" CreationDate="2017-04-23T11:27:42.540" UserId="4475" Text="How do I Aerate a small 3mtrX5mtr pond without using any electricity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5962" RevisionGUID="b9d0cbf5-b741-4b81-ad70-95626366b561" CreationDate="2017-04-23T11:27:42.540" UserId="4475" Text="|ponds|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5962" RevisionGUID="82e97322-031e-4e9a-a1b7-36de689607b8" CreationDate="2017-04-23T11:32:12.240" UserId="99" Comment="fixed punctuation" Text="I am looking to build a small natural pond (no filters or pumps) in a polytunnel. The last step in designing this is the water aeration method. I've seen various options for solar-powered aeration devices but I'd like to aerate it in a completely natural way if possible.&#xD;&#xA;Is this possible? &#xD;&#xA;If so how? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14761" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5962" RevisionGUID="82e97322-031e-4e9a-a1b7-36de689607b8" CreationDate="2017-04-23T11:32:12.240" UserId="99" Comment="fixed punctuation" Text="How do I aerate a small 3x5 meter pond without using any electricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5963" RevisionGUID="09ba7e1c-893d-4bfd-8e2a-f23c0608134a" CreationDate="2017-04-24T09:26:16.270" UserId="2345" Text="One method that has been used to aerate water in larger water treatment plants is to [cascade the water][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the amount of land available, you might be able to install a stepped cascade, prior to the water entering the main pond - see page 43 in the link. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.internationaljournalssrg.org/IJCE/2015/Special-Issue/NCRACCESS-2015/Part-2/IJCE-NCRACCESS-P106.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5964" RevisionGUID="a7c6ce5f-86ed-4350-b72b-1d561f6f6abb" CreationDate="2017-04-25T06:30:04.187" UserId="3293" Text="I would say a good sustainable way is to move to [agroforestery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroforestry).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That way you won't need to remove all the trees that are here, and you'll keep a fair part of the underground life system safe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this can't work if you want to use extensive mechanization to plant and harvest in the future... but that's not what &quot;sustainable&quot; is to me.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5965" RevisionGUID="8d5aca91-cea9-492f-9c2c-524263ce5fc7" CreationDate="2017-04-25T09:07:07.837" UserId="99" Text="Different foods require different refrigeration temperatures and methods, hence the different (energy) costs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can transport foods chilled or frozen. The chosen temperature depends on the type of food, travel duration, how long you want to preserve the food, and the desired quality. Some examples; meat and fish are generally kept at temperatures between -18°C and -30°C depending on the type. Many fruits on the other hand are kept just above 0°C because frost causes damage. Some exceptions are oranges which are kept around 5°C and bananas that are stored around 12°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also some foods require special treatment. Butter for example needs to be flash frozen to prevent quality loss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's more detailed information in [GDV's Container Handbook](http://www.containerhandbuch.de/chb_e/scha/index.html?/chb_e/scha/scha_16_01.html) or in [their Transport Information Service](http://www.tis-gdv.de/tis_e/ware/inhaltx.htm) (scroll down to see links to information about different foods)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5966" RevisionGUID="c8e9d3d2-79fe-4b82-96ca-4db4d932f3e2" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:31:06.837" UserId="3379" Text="After I get done washing the dishes there is often a decent collection of food scraps in the drain trap -- perhaps a few tablespoons worth. This is, of course, mixed in with some soap suds. If I put this into my compost, will it cause any problems? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of my 5 liter compost pail, there would be maybe 200 to 300 mL of this soapy food scrap mixture by the time it's full. The dish soap I use is advertised as natural and biodegradable, but the list of ingredients includes a few hard-to-pronounce chemicals and things described as preservatives." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14766" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5966" RevisionGUID="c8e9d3d2-79fe-4b82-96ca-4db4d932f3e2" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:31:06.837" UserId="3379" Text="Will small quantities of soap in my compost cause problems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14767" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5966" RevisionGUID="c8e9d3d2-79fe-4b82-96ca-4db4d932f3e2" CreationDate="2017-04-25T20:31:06.837" UserId="3379" Text="|composting|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5964" RevisionGUID="a0b53167-342d-4e30-a078-20fe0d43b1b9" CreationDate="2017-04-26T06:30:04.207" UserId="3293" Comment="explained what agroforestry is to avoid people to have to change sites." Text="I would say a good sustainable way is to move to [**Agroforestry**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroforestry).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **What is Agroforestry?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a farming technique of mixing trees, shrubs, herbs and plants on the same farming land. It is most probably the firs form of farming that appeared for forest dwelling humanity: if you stay in the same place generation after generation, select the plants that are useful, edible, and favor there development against others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Why is it sustainable?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That way you won't need to remove all the trees that are here, and you'll keep a fair part of the underground life system safe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, You'll keep a higher biodiversity, and it's quite obvious to me how this is sustainable. But don't hesitate to ask if you need explanation on that point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this can't work if you want to use extensive mechanization to plant and harvest in the future... but that's not what &quot;sustainable&quot; is to me.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5967" RevisionGUID="3eb5eabf-5e07-49c1-95ad-43832d24a5e2" CreationDate="2017-04-26T09:50:08.280" UserId="3293" Text="The worse problem with dish soap water in composting medium is the **salt** which can prevent good composting and arm sensible vegetables once used. Maybe desalinate compost is possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your product is said to be &quot;biodegradable&quot;, this means ***its components will be decomposed in reduce time***. However, there are various composting environment, I heard for industries in Europe there are (at least) 2 degrees of biodegradability, depending of the temperature reached inside the compost - the easiest being around 56°C - difficult to reach at home for a whole composting pile!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you leave your compost 2-3 years in place before using it for your vegetables, I guess there will be few to no problem (compare this to what you'll get from vegetables you'll eat from conventional farming!)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5968" RevisionGUID="d09ffe45-4464-461a-afca-fea09f77bd4d" CreationDate="2017-04-26T09:58:50.157" UserId="3293" Text="Look for the adult stuff... I [read here](https://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/adult-diapers-clog-landfills-too.html) they advise &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to use a **booster pad** or &quot;diaper doubler&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this is a solution for your case?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also they are talking about &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **&quot;long-lasting&quot; diaper** typically found in Europe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(btw Are you in the States?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5971" RevisionGUID="2bc6bd2d-5c5a-430f-bb8a-7309a637372b" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:32:59.973" UserId="4488" Text="I was surprised to find out recently that solar power plants tend to be more expensive than traditional energy plants based on depletable resources like coal and oil. Why is that? It seems as though the main expense of a power plant should be the natural resource being exploited, and the last I heard sunrays are free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14777" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5971" RevisionGUID="2bc6bd2d-5c5a-430f-bb8a-7309a637372b" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:32:59.973" UserId="4488" Text="Why is solar energy so expensive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14778" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5971" RevisionGUID="2bc6bd2d-5c5a-430f-bb8a-7309a637372b" CreationDate="2017-04-27T15:32:59.973" UserId="4488" Text="|solar-power|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5971" RevisionGUID="8c536dd6-0f24-4112-a5f1-11798965ade8" CreationDate="2017-04-27T16:11:29.847" UserId="4488" Comment="added 199 characters in body" Text="I was surprised to find out recently that solar power plants tend to be more expensive than traditional energy plants based on depletable resources like coal and oil. Why is that? It seems as though the main expense of a power plant should be the natural resource being exploited, and the last I heard sunrays are free. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article](http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-israeli-desert-worlds-highest-solar-tower-looks-to-future/) for example reports in the name of Eran Gartner that solar power is twice as expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="3d7185ca-ff9a-4657-88b7-b1b018d5351b" CreationDate="2017-04-27T20:10:36.510" UserId="3955" Text="# It is not, necessarily&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The initial capital cost of a plant is not the same thing as its lifecycle costs. The best way to analyze the cost impact of an energy source is to look at the total expected costs over the lifetime of the plant, and compare to expected energy generation. This gives you a simple measure that you can use to compare systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three main variables in the lifetime cost of a power source: capital costs (upfront money to build the plant), operations and maintenance (paying to keep the plant operational) and fuel. Obviously, not all plants have fuel costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing to keep in mind is that the numbers calculated by various groups use various methodologies, and these methodologies are surely tweaked to represent the user's ideological interests. Therefore, it is smart to get the opinion of both ends of the spectrum in our polarized world; the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Data Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a graphic from the Institute for Energy Research, which is generally aligned with free market energy solutions. However, the underlying data comes from the [EIA's][1] 2013 report. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next set of information comes from Energy Innovation Policy and Technology, LLC; with the underlying data from [Lazard's][3] 2014 cost of energy analysis. There was no graphic I could embed, so you'll have to settle for [a link][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can compare the two sources to see the range of estimates for the total lifetime energy expense of various power sources in dollars per MWh:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                       EIA  Lazard's&#xD;&#xA;    Conventional Coal 100.1   110&#xD;&#xA;    Gas Combined Cycle 67.1    73&#xD;&#xA;    Nuclear           108.4   113&#xD;&#xA;    Onshore Wind       86.6    60&#xD;&#xA;    Geothermal         89.6   116&#xD;&#xA;    Solar Thermal     261.5   124&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV          144.3    80&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the same comparison for initial capital investment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                       EIA  Lazard's&#xD;&#xA;    Conventional Coal  65.7    77&#xD;&#xA;    Gas Combined Cycle 15.8    39&#xD;&#xA;    Nuclear            83.4    92&#xD;&#xA;    Onshore Wind       70.3    48&#xD;&#xA;    Geothermal         76.2    81&#xD;&#xA;    Solar Thermal     214.2   107&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV          130.4    72&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Discussion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three relevant things to point out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, both data sets are obviously biased for/against renewable energy. While fossil fuel and nuclear costs are similar, there are widely different interpretations of the costs of wind and solar. I'm not particularly interested in attempting to interpret differing methodologies, so lets just say the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the linked example is Solar Thermal. This type of plant is the most expensive for both lifetime return on the dollar and initial capital investment, for both datasets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, given that solar thermal is more expensive, it appears that the quoted statement could be true about solar thermal compared to fossil fuel for initial capital investment according to the Lazard's source, or it could be true about total lifetime levelized cost according to the EIA. So either interpretation could be supported with the data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/index.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yndyL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-100/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://energyinnovation.org/2015/02/07/levelized-cost-of-energy/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="fe8b9377-26e1-46ff-b6a3-b089158da154" CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:17:36.180" UserId="3379" Text="If it were possible to flip a switch and convert farms (including factory farms, family farms, and subsistence farms) across the world from traditional methods to organic methods, would there be enough land, labor, and infrastructure, to produce the amount of food necessary to feed the world? If so, would the majority of people still be able to afford enough food?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What research has been done to determine if organic practices (which are clearly more sustainable from an environmental perspective) are also more economically sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14783" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="fe8b9377-26e1-46ff-b6a3-b089158da154" CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:17:36.180" UserId="3379" Text="Could organic farming feed the world?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14784" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="fe8b9377-26e1-46ff-b6a3-b089158da154" CreationDate="2017-04-27T23:17:36.180" UserId="3379" Text="|farming|organic|gmo|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="fc030063-6870-472e-a94d-f336e315a53c" CreationDate="2017-04-28T00:07:10.923" UserId="3379" Comment="added 353 characters in body; edited title" Text="If it were possible to flip a switch and convert farms (including factory farms, family farms, and subsistence farms) across the world from traditional methods to organic methods, would there be enough land, labor, and infrastructure, to produce the amount of food necessary to feed the world? If so, would the majority of people still be able to afford enough food?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What research has been done to determine if organic practices (which are clearly more sustainable from an environmental perspective) are also more economically sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the key contentions in the on-going debate about GMOs is that such technology is necessary to feed the world. A common counter-argument is that widespread application of organic farming and permaculture can do the job better, with less risk. I'm wondering if this is true, without requiring a utopia where everyone maintains a rooftop garden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14786" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="fc030063-6870-472e-a94d-f336e315a53c" CreationDate="2017-04-28T00:07:10.923" UserId="3379" Comment="added 353 characters in body; edited title" Text="Can organic farming feed the world?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5971" RevisionGUID="dfc4b148-6484-4501-b808-0ddb22c6db7e" CreationDate="2017-04-28T07:03:14.707" UserId="4488" Comment="added 93 characters in body" Text="I was surprised to find out recently that solar power plants tend to be more expensive than traditional energy plants based on depletable resources like coal and oil. Why is that? It seems as though the main expense of a power plant should be the natural resource being exploited, and the last I heard sunrays are free. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article](http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-israeli-desert-worlds-highest-solar-tower-looks-to-future/) for example reports in the name of Eran Gartner that solar power is twice as expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is O&amp;M (operations and maintenance) so high for solar, both photovoltaic and thermal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="e3a45a84-0280-4f4c-bac0-dabfe655cb77" CreationDate="2017-04-28T15:51:12.293" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarifications" Text="If it were possible to flip a switch and convert farms (including factory farms, family farms, and subsistence farms) across the world from traditional methods to organic methods, would there be enough land, labor, and infrastructure, to produce the amount of food necessary to feed the world? If so, would the majority of people still be able to afford enough food?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What research has been done to determine if organic practices (which are clearly more sustainable from an environmental perspective) are also more economically sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the key contentions in the on-going debate about GMOs is that such technology is necessary to feed the world. On the other side, it is argued that more intelligent and careful farming (using such methods as organic farming, permaculture, etc) can do the job better, with less risk. I'm wondering if this is true, without requiring a utopia where everyone maintains a rooftop garden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14793" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="20988b17-14c3-4af8-92fc-9fe180051cef" CreationDate="2017-04-28T16:53:27.483" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/858001224263663617" />
  <row Id="14794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="ddbf155f-796f-4091-aef8-b09432431cc4" CreationDate="2017-04-28T18:06:26.857" UserId="4188" Text="I've been reading around ([here][1], [here][2], [here][3] and [here][4]) and I can't really find an answer to this question: is it better to throw, for example, dog poop, inside a pure plastic bag or use biodegradable plastic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read that biodegradable plastic is not really a &quot;holy&quot; material and that they are actually bad. But is it worse than pure plastic?. Let's assume that the following events:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Dog Poops&#xD;&#xA; 2. Owner collects the poop in a bag&#xD;&#xA; 3. The bag goes in the trash bin&#xD;&#xA; 4. The trash bin is transported to the landfill&#xD;&#xA; 5. The poop and the bag are both in the landfill which is exposed to normal ambient condition and gradually, filled over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which would impact the environment more: Pure Plastic or Biodegradable Plastic?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any answer or source would be highly appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2509/why-do-we-think-of-biodegradable-plastic-as-recycled-and-sustainable&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5027/alternatives-to-garbage-plastic-bags&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.rover.com/blog/truth-about-biodegradable-poop-bags-in/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.livescience.com/44732-eliminating-pet-poop-pollution.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14795" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="ddbf155f-796f-4091-aef8-b09432431cc4" CreationDate="2017-04-28T18:06:26.857" UserId="4188" Text="Pure Plastic vs Biodegradable Plastic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14796" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="ddbf155f-796f-4091-aef8-b09432431cc4" CreationDate="2017-04-28T18:06:26.857" UserId="4188" Text="|plastic|biodegradable-waste|plastic-alternatives|compostable-plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14797" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5975" RevisionGUID="8f48c7b8-a0c8-4bc2-9c1a-c087133ccb12" CreationDate="2017-04-29T14:11:04.840" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/858322748153761792" />
  <row Id="14799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5976" RevisionGUID="b66716ce-3f83-47d1-aa8d-a1a6eab95ad7" CreationDate="2017-05-01T00:33:31.143" UserId="3379" Text="It doesn't appear that there are any specific studies comparing the environmental impact of dog waste disposed of in biodegradable vs non-biodegradable bags, however there's quite a bit of work that's been done to compare these two types of plastic, considering production, use, and disposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Bio-based and petrol-based plastic production comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the best studies I could find looking at the production phase is [&quot;Sustainability Metrics: Life Cycle Assessment and Green Design in Polymers&quot; (pdf)](http://www.news.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/documents/TaboneLandis_etal.pdf). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this study the authors perform an LCA on the production processes for 12 different polymers, comparing both life cycle environmental impacts and adherence to green design principles. The major findings are summarized in the chart below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **environmental impacts** analyzed are: acidification, carcinogenic human health hazards, ecotoxicity, eutrophication, global warming potential, noncarcinogenic human health hazards, ozone depletion, respiratory effects, smog, and nonrenewable energy use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Green design principles** look at such things as: avoided waste, material efficiency, avoided pollution, energy efficiency, use of renewable resources, use of local resources, design for recycling, design for biodegradability, and cost effectiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on their findings, the authors conclude: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Results from this study show a qualified positive correlation between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adherence to green design principles and a reduction of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; environmental impacts of production. The qualification results from a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disparity between biopolymers and petroleum  polymers. While&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biopolymers rank highly in terms of green design, they exhibit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relatively large environmental impacts from production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the main reasons that some petrol-based plastics perform better than bio-based plastics is that the plants used as feedstocks for bio-plastics often may involve petroleum-derived fertilizers and pesticides, and the chemical processes for bio-plastic synthesis can be energy and/or chemical intensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The authors note that their study does not include LCA for use and end-of-life, due to the fact that the plastics produced are raw materials for a plethora of different products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Application to dog waste bags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this result, it would seem clear that bio-based plastics are preferable to petrol-based in any situation where the product would be re-used several times. However, in the case of dog waste bags, it is obvious that the product will only be used **once**. Therefore, it's harder to say whether a bio-based bag will be preferable to a petrol-based bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On that question, I'll keep digging a bit to see if I can find any additional information. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Td5G9.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L3C81.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5953" RevisionGUID="ec5605d5-9f9c-473c-b0f1-d611a0e139a8" CreationDate="2017-05-01T11:16:21.600" UserId="3293" Comment="added 1106 characters in body" Text="It's all a matter of how you do the counting! If you take into account how much diversity you destroy, non-organic food is worse than &quot;too much&quot; *cardboard* packaging. But how do you count this? Life has no price, and damages are potentialities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the more you use &quot;non-organic&quot; method for farming, the more you need them. So it's even worse on the long run. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is the study only accounts for what is accountable as for today in terms of carbon footprint, and doesn't apply to what is destroyed by non-organic farming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;**My point is environmentally friendly produced food is far better because it helps keeping balance between the species** - even better if you buy them &quot;package free&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I will add to my point, as Uli seems to suggest its better to buy free food from conventional agroindustry... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't tell the figures: there is a whole variety of possibles between ligthly-packaged with recycled products and over-packaged with brand new cardboard from forest devastating firms!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing is sure, farming has a huge (17% of all) impact on greenhouse gas effect, compared to packaging that could be a small part of Industrial processes (4%) or Manufacturing (13%)  (see Washington Resources Institute 2007:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;found on [this site](https://marvellemedia.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/vesco-agricultural-technologies-setting-a-new-standard-in-no-till-farming-equipment/)&#xD;&#xA;, but figures I saw later where even greater)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus reducing the &quot;agriculture's footprint&quot; seems more important from this point of view too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gG3q5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5976" RevisionGUID="d810f811-38a6-4ed2-9e41-5bdaaa7c274b" CreationDate="2017-05-01T16:52:37.527" UserId="3379" Comment="Added additional references." Text="It doesn't appear that there are any specific studies comparing the environmental impact of dog waste disposed of in biodegradable vs non-biodegradable bags, however there's quite a bit of work that's been done to compare these two types of plastic, considering production, use, and disposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Bio-based and petrol-based plastic production comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the best studies I could find looking at the production phase is [&quot;Sustainability Metrics: Life Cycle Assessment and Green Design in Polymers&quot; (pdf)](http://www.news.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/documents/TaboneLandis_etal.pdf). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this study the authors perform an LCA on the production processes for 12 different polymers, comparing both life cycle environmental impacts and adherence to green design principles. The major findings are summarized in the chart below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **environmental impacts** analyzed are: acidification, carcinogenic human health hazards, ecotoxicity, eutrophication, global warming potential, noncarcinogenic human health hazards, ozone depletion, respiratory effects, smog, and nonrenewable energy use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Green design principles** look at such things as: avoided waste, material efficiency, avoided pollution, energy efficiency, use of renewable resources, use of local resources, design for recycling, design for biodegradability, and cost effectiveness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on their findings, the authors conclude: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Results from this study show a qualified positive correlation between&#xD;&#xA;&gt; adherence to green design principles and a reduction of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; environmental impacts of production. The qualification results from a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; disparity between biopolymers and petroleum  polymers. While&#xD;&#xA;&gt; biopolymers rank highly in terms of green design, they exhibit&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relatively large environmental impacts from production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the main reasons that some petrol-based plastics perform better than bio-based plastics is that the plants used as feedstocks for bio-plastics often may involve petroleum-derived fertilizers and pesticides, and the chemical processes for bio-plastic synthesis can be energy and/or chemical intensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The authors note that their study does not include LCA for use and end-of-life, due to the fact that the plastics produced are raw materials for a plethora of different products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Application to dog waste bags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this result, it would seem clear that bio-based plastics are preferable to petrol-based in any situation where the product would be re-used several times. However, in the case of dog waste bags, it is obvious that the product will only be used **once**. Therefore, it's harder to say whether a bio-based bag will be preferable to a petrol-based bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one study ([&quot;Bioplastics and Petroleum-based Plastics: Strengths and Weaknesses&quot;](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233135576_Bioplastics_and_Petroleum-based_Plastics_Strengths_and_Weaknesses)) indicates that petroleum based polyethylene (PE or PET) bags outperform one type of bio-based bags ([Mater-bi](http://materbi.com/en/), a patented biodegradable plastic product) in end of life when comparing recycling of PET to composting of the bio-bags. So, considering that dog waste bags will *not* be recycled, this could indicate that bio-bags will perform better in that use case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Td5G9.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L3C81.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="0d09012c-2aa3-4d30-8f2b-7b5934addad5" CreationDate="2017-05-01T23:34:13.327" UserId="4504" Text="This is my first post on the Sustainable Living stack exchange, which I did not know existed. I am extremely excited to become an active member on this exchange, because I try to live as sustainable as I possibly can, and love discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I have invested in a worm bin for my college dorm room. It has been going great for about two months; the worms even underwent a reproduction phase where there were many small baby worms in the bin. I typically did not over react / over protect the worms, and just let them work. After feeding them multiple apples in a row, however, I started to notice that the worms (especially the small ones) balled up into a mass. It was very difficult to determine why, as the &quot;squeeze test&quot; and my moisture meter said that it was properly moist (although  perhaps I was reading them incorrectly). I read on some sources that overfeeding nutrient rich food can lead to some form of poisoning. To address this, and the potential high moisture levels, I added a significant (1/4 block) amount of coir and some paper bedding. Then I noticed it was too dry and added some water (about two days later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ever since then my worms have appeared to be very weak and not healthy. The worm bin has always smelled very good and earthy, but the worms themselves don't seem to reflect that. I check the moisture levels every so often; I believe I am on the upper end of the &quot;ok&quot; range for moisture. I notice very little activity at the top of the bin. Just recently (just before typing this), I mixed the bin and noticed that there were a significant amount of variously sized worms near the bottom. Yet, to me, the bottom felt extremely moist (like a damp sponge). Additionally, the worms are not eating the small apple bits I just gave them (2 days ago, I have about a pound of worms). Finally, more worms than before have fallen (or have crawled) into the collection basin of the worm bin, yet none of them are trying to escape the top sides of the bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My questions:** &#xD;&#xA;What could be going wrong with my bin? Is it the moisture? Is it over-feeding? Is it a mix of both? My moisture meter, that came with the bin, gives me a reading of about 5-6.5 everywhere in the bin (about 1&quot;-2&quot; deep). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my worm bin fine now, and I should just calm down and let them readjust? Would it be better to restart somehow, or should I just let time take its course?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, is there any definite way to determining the health of the worms? I.e. could I sacrifice a sample of the worms to analyze? Am I overthinking this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2724/how-can-i-tell-whether-my-earthworms-are-healthy, although I don't feel it perfectly answers my situation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14803" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="0d09012c-2aa3-4d30-8f2b-7b5934addad5" CreationDate="2017-05-01T23:34:13.327" UserId="4504" Text="Worm Bin Health" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14804" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="0d09012c-2aa3-4d30-8f2b-7b5934addad5" CreationDate="2017-05-01T23:34:13.327" UserId="4504" Text="|composting|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14806" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5977" RevisionGUID="ebf7166a-565d-48f8-b7ba-3e5479af663c" CreationDate="2017-05-02T11:39:21.437" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/859371728392388608" />
  <row Id="14823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="1ad631d6-a81c-4dd1-912c-95cdf68c626f" CreationDate="2017-05-04T12:07:17.360" UserId="4516" Comment="updated formatting" Text="@techjerk I too live in India and have the same problem. I don't want to use aircon because it consumes too much energy by local standards.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have so far considered the following: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Painting the concrete roof white &#xD;&#xA; 2. Adding a layer of roof tiles (placed directly on floor of roof) which allow air to circulate under and over, but keep convectional heating of the roof slab to a minimum). This layer of roof tiles is fragile inherently and roof cannot be used for walking, etc &#xD;&#xA; 3. Building another sloped tiled roof over current flat concrete roof supported by metal columns. [roof is usable] as shown [here][1]. Image shown is for a factory but imagine the same for a mid sized home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something needs to be done about west facing walls too. Mid-day to evening is when the house seems to absorb most heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was also thinking about contacting The/Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TERI) who have done a lot of studies/work in sustainable housing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMHO, the paint/material of inner side of roof will not make any difference. The heating must be managed on the outer side of roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://thane.all.biz/industrial-trusses-g376134#.VPBBB-JocxU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14824" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4342" RevisionGUID="1ad631d6-a81c-4dd1-912c-95cdf68c626f" CreationDate="2017-05-04T12:07:17.360" Comment="Proposed by 4516 approved by 99 edit id of 472" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="3af66169-2c99-4077-bcfb-7c9ece27d85b" CreationDate="2017-05-05T05:08:53.653" UserId="2891" Comment="added 237 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am looking for organic natural materials &amp; receipes for Hair clay, wax, pomade, mousse, gel for hair styling, not shampoo. If there are some examples please point me to them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Any that can be easily DIY home made with organic/ plant based ingredients?  &#xD;&#xA;- Also open to finding available products that are made in a more sustainable, organic fashion without/ lesser use of chemicals; especially toxic ones. What kind of stuff do they use?    &#xD;&#xA;- Even better, if some of this is bio sourced and bio degradable.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14827" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="3af66169-2c99-4077-bcfb-7c9ece27d85b" CreationDate="2017-05-05T05:08:53.653" UserId="2891" Comment="added 237 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Organic natural sustainable alternatives to commercial Hair Styling products; clay, wax, pomade, mousse, gel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14828" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="3af66169-2c99-4077-bcfb-7c9ece27d85b" CreationDate="2017-05-05T05:08:53.653" UserId="2891" Comment="added 237 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|toilet|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5982" RevisionGUID="972c0b8b-865b-43c6-b5e2-dca54be5dbd2" CreationDate="2017-05-05T18:20:25.170" UserId="99" Text="The variously sized worms lower in your bin are a good sign. Apparently they are still procreating, so there doesn't seem to be an immediate danger of extinction. You mentioned that the bottom of your bin feels like a damp sponge. That is more or less the moisture level you should be aiming for; a damp, wrung-out sponge. Some types of worms, like the [European Nightcrawler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_nightcrawler),&#xD;&#xA;prefer their living conditions a bit wetter than the more commonly-used [Red Wiggler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenia_fetida). In case of doubt, it's better to make your bin wetter rather than drier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not 100% sure a lack of water explains the balled up worms. When the top is too dry, I'd expect all worms to crawl down a bit deeper and be okay. The only explanation I can think of is that hungry worms go to the top for food and then dry out. Besides adding more water, you can try and bury some food deeper down and see how the worms like that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the moisture level isn't the problem I can think of several other potential causes (but they seem less likely):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Overfeeding:** many new vermicomposters tend to overfeed a bin in the beginning. Only add new food when the old food in the bin has shrunk quite a bit or has almost disappeared. Later on when your bin is more mature you can increase the feeding rate. However overfeeding will usually make a bin start to smell and from your description it doesn't look like this is the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Harmful foods**: some people claim that their worms were affected by pesticides on fruit peels. Especially bananas, apples and citrus fruits have a reputation for having lots of pesticides. It's difficult to verify these claims, but in theory it's certainly possible that a particular batch of food contains an unusually large amount of pesticides and that the worms were affected. If you want to be on the safe side, try feeding your worms organic food as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;When starting a bin, I also recommend not feeding citrus foods and unions. Later on you can add these in small quantities. Never feed worms meat, dairy or salty, spicy or oily foods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Too much nitrogen:** I'm sure you know you need to keep a good balance between greens (nitrogen-rich food) and browns when feeding your worms. It's not necessary to use a C:N ratio calculator as some fanatic composters do to keep [an ideal ratio of 25:1](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/5762/1916), just mixing greens and browns regularly works fine. However keep in mind that the C:N ratio is different from the volumes you feed the worms. Roughly you need to keep a 30:70 volume ratio of green and brown material.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK there are no possibilities to determine the cause of your problem other than experimenting a bit and see if your worms improve. When experimenting  do this only in a part of the bin if possible, so worms have a chance to escape to safer, unaffected parts if your experiment fails. This is also a good tactic for adding new food. If decomposing foods heat up too much, worms should have room to escape." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5983" RevisionGUID="b2d02214-5a9b-4713-acf3-2c63fced70ed" CreationDate="2017-05-05T22:46:16.683" UserId="404" Text="Really good breakdown in [U.S. Photovoltaic Prices and&#xD;&#xA;Cost Breakdowns: Q1 2015&#xD;&#xA;Benchmarks for Residential,&#xD;&#xA;Commercial, and Utility-Scale&#xD;&#xA;Systems](http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf) from National Renewable Energy Laboratory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the comparisons of utility, commercial and residential solar systems in the report, initial capital costs come out to 58-66% of the costs for solar. The predominant majority of the remaining costs for those sectors is engineering - imagine a panel goes offline, a team has to go out to the site of the plant to fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![\[Source: \[NREL\](http://www.nrel.gov/d][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [NREL](http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the residential sector, where the cost of solar is significantly higher ($3.09/W vs $2.15/W for the commercial sector), installation costs are 45% of the total mostly due to the higher costs associated with residential customer acquisition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also of interest to you, residential solar tends to be much higher in the US than Germany, for example, due not only to subsidies, but also looser regulatory frameworks in Germany [energytransition.org](https://energytransition.org/2015/05/solar-twice-as-expensive-in-us-as-in-germany/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TwOd7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14831" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="a931bfb8-1879-4a93-bc9f-946c338d272b" CreationDate="2017-05-06T09:12:29.493" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/860784320822300673" />
  <row Id="14832" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5971" RevisionGUID="a31c3b2d-2327-42e4-bad9-36e67fcdc40c" CreationDate="2017-05-06T21:15:36.087" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/860966296929918976" />
  <row Id="14833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5983" RevisionGUID="58d57920-fc18-4630-9611-a9519f7d5efe" CreationDate="2017-05-07T18:58:30.260" UserId="404" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Really good breakdown in [U.S. Photovoltaic Prices and&#xD;&#xA;Cost Breakdowns: Q1 2015&#xD;&#xA;Benchmarks for Residential,&#xD;&#xA;Commercial, and Utility-Scale&#xD;&#xA;Systems](http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf) from National Renewable Energy Laboratory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the comparisons of utility, commercial and residential solar systems in the report, initial capital costs come out to 58-66% of the costs for solar. The predominant majority of the remaining costs for those sectors is engineering - imagine a panel goes offline, a team has to go out to the site of the plant to fix it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![\[Source: \[NREL\](http://www.nrel.gov/d][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [NREL](http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the residential sector, where the cost of solar is significantly higher ($3.09/W vs $2.15/W for the commercial sector), installation costs are 45% of the total mostly due to the higher costs associated with residential customer acquisition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also of interest to you, residential solar tends to be much higher in the US than Germany, for example, due not only to subsidies but also looser regulatory frameworks in Germany that speed up installation [energytransition.org](https://energytransition.org/2015/05/solar-twice-as-expensive-in-us-as-in-germany/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TwOd7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5983" RevisionGUID="61ade304-aba7-4f54-9249-951493aeb2b6" CreationDate="2017-05-08T01:54:17.350" UserId="404" Comment="clarify answer wrt utility, commercial soft costs" Text="Really good breakdown in [U.S. Photovoltaic Prices and&#xD;&#xA;Cost Breakdowns: Q1 2015&#xD;&#xA;Benchmarks for Residential,&#xD;&#xA;Commercial, and Utility-Scale&#xD;&#xA;Systems](http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf) from National Renewable Energy Laboratory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the comparisons of utility, commercial and residential solar systems in the report, initial capital costs come out to 58-66% of the costs for solar. The predominant majority of the remaining costs for those sectors is engineering - *imagine a panel goes offline, a team has to go out to the site of the plant to fix it* (see clarification below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![\[Source: \[NREL\](http://www.nrel.gov/d][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [NREL](http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/64746.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the residential sector, where the cost of solar is significantly higher ($3.09/W vs $2.15/W for the commercial sector), installation costs are 45% of the total mostly due to the higher costs associated with residential customer acquisition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also of interest to you, residential solar tends to be much higher in the US than Germany, for example, due not only to subsidies but also looser regulatory frameworks in Germany that speed up installation [energytransition.org](https://energytransition.org/2015/05/solar-twice-as-expensive-in-us-as-in-germany/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Clarification**: NREL characterizes commercial and utility soft costs as &quot;EPC (engineering, procurement, and construction) overhead/profit and development costs&quot; (pg v). This does indeed include installation costs associated with installation and planning - exclusive of installation labor and hardware. Later the report characterizes development costs as costs associated throughout project development that typically do not rise with project size (ie development costs are relatively fixed per project regardless of size, pg 26).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggests *system* O&amp;M is actually low, or at least not exceptionally high. I would imagine, any reported high O&amp;M solar costs are more implicitly implying high business O&amp;M (customer procurement, engineering, design can be considered business O&amp;M but are associated with project installation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NREL's [http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe_re_cost_est.html](http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe_re_cost_est.html) corroborates this suggestion. They estimate O&amp;M costs of &lt;1% for solar PV, ~1-2% for wind, ~2% for Combined Cycle Heat and Power (gas), and 0.5-1% for solar thermal. Note, that these percentages are relative to installation capacity for each of the technologies and do include government incentives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TwOd7.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="d4e76ee6-526c-4d1a-9285-5d6d1d1d1e93" CreationDate="2017-05-08T06:10:45.983" UserId="471" Text="I gone thorough many ideas of protect books so that book last for long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My old books get small insects in books and also odours,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So please let me know best and sustainable way to protect books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to protect books page to turn yellow?&#xD;&#xA;How to protect books get odours?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14836" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="d4e76ee6-526c-4d1a-9285-5d6d1d1d1e93" CreationDate="2017-05-08T06:10:45.983" UserId="471" Text="Sustainable best way to protect books" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14837" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="d4e76ee6-526c-4d1a-9285-5d6d1d1d1e93" CreationDate="2017-05-08T06:10:45.983" UserId="471" Text="|smell|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="ec7f3534-1be6-4888-9f64-e0fbac0aa124" CreationDate="2017-05-08T08:51:33.220" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="general cleanup (language)" Text="I gone through many ideas to protect books so that they last for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My old books get small insects in them, and also odours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are sustainable ways to protect books?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to protect the pages from turning yellow?&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;How to prevent odours?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14839" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="ec7f3534-1be6-4888-9f64-e0fbac0aa124" CreationDate="2017-05-08T08:51:33.220" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="general cleanup (language)" Text="Sustainable way to protect books" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14840" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="ec7f3534-1be6-4888-9f64-e0fbac0aa124" CreationDate="2017-05-08T08:51:33.220" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 471 edit id of 473" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="4d33f7bf-74e2-490d-8d9a-45b26106d0a3" CreationDate="2017-05-08T08:59:57.163" UserId="471" Comment="added 270 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I gone through many ideas to protect books so that they last for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideas i have applied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-&gt; Tried phenile tablet in storage&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;-&gt; Use to add preservative oil to wooden storage to not get humidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My old books get small insects in them, and also odours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are sustainable ways to protect books?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to protect the pages from turning yellow?&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;How to prevent odours?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in **India, Ahmedabad** where weather stats are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Temperature :** 20'C TO 45'C &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**Humidity:** Near about 30%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14842" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="4d33f7bf-74e2-490d-8d9a-45b26106d0a3" CreationDate="2017-05-08T08:59:57.163" UserId="471" Comment="added 270 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="745f63df-e8c9-45c1-81fd-128ff6f63605" CreationDate="2017-05-08T18:33:47.510" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified meaning of organic" Text="If it were possible to flip a switch and convert farms (including factory farms, family farms, and subsistence farms) across the world from traditional methods to organic methods, would there be enough land, labor, and infrastructure, to produce the amount of food necessary to feed the world? If so, would the majority of people still be able to afford enough food?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What research has been done to determine if organic practices (which are clearly more sustainable from an environmental perspective) are also more economically sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the key contentions in the on-going debate about GMOs is that such technology is necessary to feed the world. On the other side, it is argued that more intelligent and careful farming (using such methods as organic farming, permaculture, etc) can do the job better, with less risk. I'm wondering if this is true, without requiring a utopia where everyone maintains a rooftop garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: by &quot;organic&quot; I'm referring to farming without fossil-fuel based or synthesized fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides. My understanding is that organic farming still includes mechanized methods.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5985" RevisionGUID="9fdbe0fa-6f81-4d2c-ad03-cac2404e7600" CreationDate="2017-05-09T06:48:18.183" UserId="4290" Text="My house has a boiler in the attic that provides hot water for taps and for central heating. On the opposite side of the attic is a chimney pipe for the fireplace on the ground floor. I was thinking of running the boiler's intake along that chimney pipe, coiling around it for instance, so that when a fire is burning the heat that leaves the chimney would heat up the cold water that the boiler takes in, thereby reducing the amount of gas the boiler requires to heat the water. This is similar to the idea of a heat exchanger than runs waste water from the shower along the intake water line to re-use the heat that was flushed down the drain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the fireplace isn't always burning, and the chimney is basically an open pipe to the cold outside. I'm wondering if I'm not actually going to _cool_ the water that goes into the boiler most of the time, thereby defeating the purpose. Then again, the chimney is inside, so possibly it's always at more or less room temperature, which is by definition warmer than the water from the water mains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anyone with experience doing the same? Any calculations I could look at?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5985" RevisionGUID="9fdbe0fa-6f81-4d2c-ad03-cac2404e7600" CreationDate="2017-05-09T06:48:18.183" UserId="4290" Text="Running boiler intake along chimney" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14846" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5985" RevisionGUID="9fdbe0fa-6f81-4d2c-ad03-cac2404e7600" CreationDate="2017-05-09T06:48:18.183" UserId="4290" Text="|heating|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5985" RevisionGUID="f77d5af3-e55d-4aae-8425-e5443f0774d5" CreationDate="2017-05-09T12:42:23.247" UserId="4290" Comment="added 330 characters in body" Text="My house has a boiler in the attic that provides hot water for taps and for central heating. On the opposite side of the attic is a chimney pipe for the fireplace on the ground floor. I was thinking of running the boiler's intake along that chimney pipe, coiling around it for instance, so that when a fire is burning the heat that leaves the chimney would heat up the cold water that the boiler takes in, thereby reducing the amount of gas the boiler requires to heat the water. This is similar to the idea of a heat exchanger than runs waste water from the shower along the intake water line to re-use the heat that was flushed down the drain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the fireplace isn't always burning, and the chimney is basically an open pipe to the cold outside. I'm wondering if I'm not actually going to _cool_ the water that goes into the boiler most of the time, thereby defeating the purpose. Then again, the chimney is inside, so possibly it's always at more or less room temperature, which is by definition warmer than the water from the water mains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anyone with experience doing the same? Any calculations I could look at?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I'm reading up on this some more and realized that cooling the air in the chimney could have an adverse effect on the chimney's draft and even cause condensation within the chimney... not good. Still, I'm annoyed that so much heat is just flying out of the house rather than stored. There must be some way to utilize it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14848" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5985" RevisionGUID="aca79d29-e08d-4d75-b68d-e8e1a528cdb3" CreationDate="2017-05-09T16:59:35.670" UserId="3379" Comment="Edited tags, title" Text="Running boiler intake along chimney for preheating" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14849" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5985" RevisionGUID="aca79d29-e08d-4d75-b68d-e8e1a528cdb3" CreationDate="2017-05-09T16:59:35.670" UserId="3379" Comment="Edited tags, title" Text="|heating|water-heating|fireplace|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14850" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5985" RevisionGUID="80c01709-f043-40f0-86c2-eb7cad60a325" CreationDate="2017-05-09T18:33:25.277" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/862012646404575233" />
  <row Id="14851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5986" RevisionGUID="3672b7a3-e14a-4a4b-a786-033d442424c4" CreationDate="2017-05-10T09:01:30.903" UserId="4533" Text="People are completely mistaken about palm oil. This is the most efficient way of producing fat matter for use in cooking. Look at the yields of different oil-producing plants. Now palm has thus become the most common crop, so it is grown on most deforested surfaces for oil production purpose, but if you used a less efficient oil plant (sunflower, coconut, olive, canola, safflower, you name it) you would deforest more. So palm oil is a blessing for ecology and the question is whether we should eat less fatty food. It is clearly ridiculous to go for palmoil-free spreads of all kind, you are then behaving less environment-friendly than with palmoil ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is really quite astounding how silly people's reasonings are, especially compared to how radically aggressive their ensuing behavior is against aplm oil. There is a big prolem with media lacking any form of humility, believing self-righteous to impose their opinion on people, and people then relaying that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14852" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="b0881620-b77d-466a-ae5f-99b7e86ac029" CreationDate="2017-05-10T12:41:23.723" UserId="471" Comment="38" />
  <row Id="14855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4661" RevisionGUID="e3c60262-9792-45c0-8a5a-13fd10d8d918" CreationDate="2017-05-10T12:56:44.260" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Removed fluff, added whitespace" Text="I have chosen to embrace coconut oil over palm oil for MCT's deliberately because the creation of coconuts also creates coco husks which are amazingly excellent at hydroponic media, and can be directly used for more farming. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the meat of the coconut is carbohydrate, when combined with greens like kale and chia seed in a proportion of 4 fat to 1 (carbohydrate + protein), allows proper vegan weight management that really works wonders on the restoration of morbidly obese people who do not know the magic, technology, and chemistry of the vegan alkaline ketosis restoration of morbidly obese people to functional normalcy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once someone finds out, they never go back.  The only way to get the acidic meat and bad fat and harsh cheetos dye which has become the adipose tissue of the morbidly obese people, is to reverse the acidic fat storage process by becoming an alkaline, primarily ketosis-based metabolism on conjunction with vegan kale/broccoli consumption. Once morbidly obese Americans find out that they can reverse their &quot;death culture cheeseburger obesity&quot; with sustainable, green, healthy vegan carbs, there will be a tremendous upsurge in coconut oil farms, kale farms, broccoli farms, and hopefully this planet-killing madness can stop. Palm oil plantations wreck the last ecological zones for orangutans and Sumatran rhinos." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14856" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4661" RevisionGUID="e3c60262-9792-45c0-8a5a-13fd10d8d918" CreationDate="2017-05-10T12:56:44.260" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 474" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5987" RevisionGUID="c42fde7c-5cb3-4c12-9c0f-af7d48c697d6" CreationDate="2017-05-10T13:38:32.680" UserId="2345" Text="Not all books can be saved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the problem is the materials from which some books have been made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some cheaper or older books are made of paper that involved using acid as part of the paper making process. Some of the acid always remains in the paper &amp; over time the acid reacts with moisture in the air &amp; the paper eventually disintegrates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In recent times, there has been a push to make quality books from [acid-free paper][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If paper has been made from wood pulp that has not had lignin removed, the paper will turn yellow, becomes brittle and deteriorates over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Older books tend to be made from poorer quality paper. To preserve such books, you need to consult an expert at conserving documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid-free_paper" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14858" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="bbc2306e-d970-47ff-832e-0ded8cbf4db2" CreationDate="2017-05-10T15:35:25.710" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/862330241255133184" />
  <row Id="14859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="2724c9ff-c2c1-4b5f-bd7a-747f9ad59ee9" CreationDate="2017-05-11T20:09:45.423" UserId="3955" Comment="added 117 characters in body" Text="# It is not, necessarily&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The initial capital cost of a plant is not the same thing as its lifecycle costs. The best way to analyze the cost impact of an energy source is to look at the total expected costs over the lifetime of the plant, and compare to expected energy generation. This gives you a simple measure that you can use to compare systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three main variables in the lifetime cost of a power source: capital costs (upfront money to build the plant), operations and maintenance (paying to keep the plant operational) and fuel. Obviously, not all plants have fuel costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing to keep in mind is that the numbers calculated by various groups use various methodologies, and these methodologies are surely tweaked to represent the user's ideological interests. Therefore, it is smart to get the opinion of both ends of the spectrum in our polarized world; the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Data Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a graphic from the Institute for Energy Research, which is generally aligned with free market energy solutions. However, the underlying data comes from the [EIA's][1] 2013 report. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The color key has an error where Fixed O&amp;M and Capital cost are swapped][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The color key has an error where Fixed O&amp;M and Capital cost are swapped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next set of information comes from Energy Innovation Policy and Technology, LLC; with the underlying data from [Lazard's][3] 2014 cost of energy analysis. There was no graphic I could embed, so you'll have to settle for [a link][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Summary&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can compare the two sources to see the range of estimates for the total lifetime energy expense of various power sources in dollars per MWh:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                       EIA  Lazard's&#xD;&#xA;    Conventional Coal 100.1   110&#xD;&#xA;    Gas Combined Cycle 67.1    73&#xD;&#xA;    Nuclear           108.4   113&#xD;&#xA;    Onshore Wind       86.6    60&#xD;&#xA;    Geothermal         89.6   116&#xD;&#xA;    Solar Thermal     261.5   124&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV          144.3    80&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the same comparison for initial capital investment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                       EIA  Lazard's&#xD;&#xA;    Conventional Coal  65.7    77&#xD;&#xA;    Gas Combined Cycle 15.8    39&#xD;&#xA;    Nuclear            83.4    92&#xD;&#xA;    Onshore Wind       70.3    48&#xD;&#xA;    Geothermal         76.2    81&#xD;&#xA;    Solar Thermal     214.2   107&#xD;&#xA;    Solar PV          130.4    72&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Discussion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three relevant things to point out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, both data sets are obviously biased for/against renewable energy. While fossil fuel and nuclear costs are similar, there are widely different interpretations of the costs of wind and solar. I'm not particularly interested in attempting to interpret differing methodologies, so lets just say the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, the linked example is Solar Thermal. This type of plant is the most expensive for both lifetime return on the dollar and initial capital investment, for both datasets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, given that solar thermal is more expensive, it appears that the quoted statement could be true about solar thermal compared to fossil fuel for initial capital investment according to the Lazard's source, or it could be true about total lifetime levelized cost according to the EIA. So either interpretation could be supported with the data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope that helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/index.cfm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yndyL.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-100/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://energyinnovation.org/2015/02/07/levelized-cost-of-energy/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5988" RevisionGUID="6d744cce-4496-4e32-ac25-bdc278e14779" CreationDate="2017-05-12T11:51:01.173" UserDisplayName="user4539" Text="I'm not so sure. If you do a Google search for &quot;Microsoft sustainability,&quot; you will find that they are doing quite a bit in terms of creating sustainable solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, the fact that UNIX operating systems can run on older systems is a plus for Linux's sustainability, but there are versions of Windows that will run on very low powered devices as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question is a complicated one, and it is important to take all of the various factors into consideration. Those factors include, but are not limited to: public pressure on the company to be sustainable, government pressure on the company to be sustainable, the company's ability to increase profits through sustainable practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am no expert, but I would venture to guess that Microsoft is just as sustainable as Linux.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.joesmemos.com/2017/05/can-computers-be-environmentally.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14863" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="72c34b9c-f51b-4e43-a160-77557b05c6b3" CreationDate="2017-05-13T00:14:17.007" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="14866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5990" RevisionGUID="218e72ee-d4cb-47fc-80e3-ab63931d2523" CreationDate="2017-05-14T08:00:24.360" UserId="4328" Text="I have seen pictures of homes and buildings in dry climates were they have used glass bottles in the walls with what looks like either concrete or mud.  Is this just for aesthetics?  Do they provide any structural and insulating properties?   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5990" RevisionGUID="218e72ee-d4cb-47fc-80e3-ab63931d2523" CreationDate="2017-05-14T08:00:24.360" UserId="4328" Text="Using glass bottles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5990" RevisionGUID="218e72ee-d4cb-47fc-80e3-ab63931d2523" CreationDate="2017-05-14T08:00:24.360" UserId="4328" Text="|recycling|reuse|building|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14869" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5990" RevisionGUID="02e79ac8-f178-42ce-9b61-3e8a6315c028" CreationDate="2017-05-14T08:51:45.960" UserId="2345" Comment="Clarified the title of the question" Text="Using glass bottles in walls of buildings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14870" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="5990" RevisionGUID="a159b5d2-f4d2-4ae4-bb03-ce7be4364d32" CreationDate="2017-05-15T06:33:21.817" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[885],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3293,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;J. Chomel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="14871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5991" RevisionGUID="6f8227dd-f8fa-4c9b-959e-e78145300f1d" CreationDate="2017-05-15T07:07:44.033" UserId="4290" Text="I found an article online from somebody who built a rig consisting of a number of pc fans mounted under a radiator, blowing upwards. A temperature sensor ensured the fans would kick in as soon as the radiator reached 30 degrees Celsius or higher. The idea was that by pushing air upwards through the radiator it would boost the convection effect, allowing the radiator to heat up the air more efficiently, which resulted in the author being able to save on gas by being able to turn down the central heating's boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's an interesting idea, and was wondering if anyone else had tried a similar technique. Reading up on the practice I found a number of people expanding on the theory by using pulse width modulation to gradually increase the fan speed based on heat necessity, but I'm kind of wondering if that's worth the extra parts, time and complexity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5991" RevisionGUID="6f8227dd-f8fa-4c9b-959e-e78145300f1d" CreationDate="2017-05-15T07:07:44.033" UserId="4290" Text="Boosting radiator convection with fans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5991" RevisionGUID="6f8227dd-f8fa-4c9b-959e-e78145300f1d" CreationDate="2017-05-15T07:07:44.033" UserId="4290" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5992" RevisionGUID="e0f770bc-b20f-43fb-bf71-fec5b88ac898" CreationDate="2017-05-15T16:45:00.777" UserId="3379" Text="### Use a ceiling fan instead&#xD;&#xA;For the reasons you discuss, ceiling fans are often installed and used in winter to draw air upward, from [this answer](https://diy.stackexchange.com/a/110013) on diy.SE:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This directs the relatively warm air above the fan outward and then&#xD;&#xA;&gt; downward, making the rest of the room feel warmer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### But building it yourself is &lt;strike&gt;cooler&lt;/strike&gt; more awesome!&#xD;&#xA;The cheapest PWM fan I could find [on Digikey](https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/delta-electronics/AUB0812VH-SP00/603-1157-ND/1850526) at a reasonable DC voltage is $8 USD. But if there's a university/college/school anywhere near you, it may be possible to find old PCs and salvage the fans from those. (My university, University of Wisconsin, has a [warehouse](https://swap.wisc.edu/) with bins of non-working PCs where you can pull out parts for cheap.) Typically anything with four wires will work with PWM control. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adafruit sells a custom micro-controller with PWM control--the [Metro Mini 328](https://www.adafruit.com/product/2590)--for just $12.50 in the US. For a bit more, an [Arduino Nano](https://store.arduino.cc/usa/arduino-nano) will also do the trick. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that you'll need a dc power supply, a thermistor (depending on the fan--some will include this), and assorted wires and connectors. I'd estimate $10 to $30 for all of this stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Budget&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you're able to scrounge at least a few of the parts you need, I estimate you could do this for $30 per radiator if you're going to make at least four or five for your home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Savings?&#xD;&#xA;Doing a bit of back-of-the-envelope engineering, if you use four fans per radiator like the one I linked, and it's running for six hours per day on average for six months of the year, your electric usage per radiator will be about 10 kWh. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we assume your electric cost is $0.15/kWh, and the system will last at least five years, then the annual cost will be about $8 per radiator per year. So as long as it saves you this much in heating costs per year, then it's a win!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality, two or three fans would probably do, and they'll probably last longer than five years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Other things to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If your electricity supply is from renewable sources, then by using electricity to reduce your need to burn gas for heating, you're saving the planet.&#xD;&#xA; - While you're doing all of this work, you'll be burning calories, which will enable you to lower your thermostat and reduce heating costs.&#xD;&#xA; - The time you spend doing this is inconsequential, because it's **fun!** and you'll be *learning stuff!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;*&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sub&gt;Figuring out how much this will actually save you per year will either require lots of work, or lots of assumptions, or both. I'll let someone else tackle that part of the problem.&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14875" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5991" RevisionGUID="e07b6c4c-59f3-4c37-a8a9-53988cc8f02e" CreationDate="2017-05-16T06:57:23.027" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/864374198046740480" />
  <row Id="14876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5993" RevisionGUID="e3d0696c-6aa1-4a06-9128-e7d2f3599585" CreationDate="2017-05-16T08:47:41.733" UserId="15" Text="Getting the heat out of the radiator isn't the only important thing. It's also important to get the heat to where it's felt, otherwise it's essentially being wasted. As cool as they might be, small fans may extract the heat from the radiator more efficiently, but unless they can circulate the warm air more evenly throughout the room the warm air may just gently rise to the ceiling and be wasted. This effect will be stronger if for taller ceilings or poorly insulated ceilings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that wall mounted radiators are intended to radiate heat (hence the name) horizontally towards the centre of the room, if the proposed solution causes them to be somewhat cooler then the heat radiated will be reduced. The net effect may actually be that the room feels cooler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you could increase the efficiency of the radiation effect by insulating the back of the radiator panel? This could be done by covering the wall-facing with aluminium foil (shiny metal surfaces radiate less heat). Bear in mind though that this solution may cause the radiator to be hotter unless you turn down the boiler. Running hotter could void a warranty, cause fire safety issues or be a risk for small children or animals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14877" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5966" RevisionGUID="aca9c10e-169f-4759-bf3b-1cbcf4e41523" CreationDate="2017-05-17T06:58:26.673" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/864736853118812160" />
  <row Id="14878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5993" RevisionGUID="d2d8ea8b-eb2e-4c82-aaa1-f4fabe038d08" CreationDate="2017-05-17T09:59:41.777" UserId="15" Comment="add missing word" Text="Getting the heat out of the radiator isn't the only important thing. It's also important to get the heat to where it's felt, otherwise it's essentially being wasted. As cool as they might be, small fans may extract the heat from the radiator more efficiently, but unless they can circulate the warm air more evenly throughout the room the warm air may just gently rise to the ceiling and be wasted. This effect will be stronger if for taller ceilings or poorly insulated ceilings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that wall mounted radiators are intended to radiate heat (hence the name) horizontally towards the centre of the room, if the proposed solution causes them to be somewhat cooler then the heat radiated will be reduced. The net effect may actually be that the room feels cooler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you could increase the efficiency of the radiation effect by insulating the back of the radiator panel? This could be done by covering the wall-facing side with aluminium foil (shiny metal surfaces radiate less heat). Bear in mind though that this solution may cause the radiator to be hotter unless you turn down the boiler. Running hotter could void a warranty, cause fire safety issues or be a risk for small children or animals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5994" RevisionGUID="851daa2d-6a00-4710-9b4c-a0ad6e5aa20f" CreationDate="2017-05-17T20:02:42.420" UserId="4560" Text="We have the same problem for our house in India. For the roof, we are considering a combination of greenhouse rooftop, solar panels and heat reflective coating. There are other things you can do on the inside and the walls too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="60406dc3-573f-4d8d-9d2c-b72569a1eb53" CreationDate="2017-05-17T23:41:30.620" UserId="4504" Text="My first year of college has finally ended, and I will be moving from a suite style room to a single room, both student dorming. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My room will have temperature control, however it will be restricted from 65 - 75 (I believe) Fahrenheit. I understand that moving the set temperature closer to the outside temperature can help save energy... but will it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have so many questions, but I'll just ask one very broad question: **What is the best, most eco-friendly way to cool my windowless dormroom?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Setting my room to the outside temperature might increase the activity of neighboring room thermostats, who are trying to bring it down to a 'comfortable' temperature.&#xD;&#xA; 2. If I used a fan, I'd need to use it fairly often. It can get to &gt;100 dF easily where I live, in the summer, and easily &lt;40 in the winter. &#xD;&#xA; 3. I can't open my window. I have a south-facing window, but it is of a modern type that cannot open (not only south facing but also facing a building, so not much sun at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I'm thinking the answer is an energy efficient fan, but perhaps there is some evaporation system that I could use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've already read https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4380/how-to-keep-a-small-room-cool-using-wet-curtains, but I don't think it answers my question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14882" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="60406dc3-573f-4d8d-9d2c-b72569a1eb53" CreationDate="2017-05-17T23:41:30.620" UserId="4504" Text="Most sustainable way to cool a dorm-room" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14883" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="60406dc3-573f-4d8d-9d2c-b72569a1eb53" CreationDate="2017-05-17T23:41:30.620" UserId="4504" Text="|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14884" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="83e4f13f-4414-41cb-86da-08f0e2c77625" CreationDate="2017-05-18T05:10:13.270" UserId="471" Comment="38" />
  <row Id="14885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="1faef3ae-abbc-4198-ba9c-aed42d091929" CreationDate="2017-05-18T07:02:11.980" UserId="99" Comment="added temperatures in Celsius for international users" Text="My first year of college has finally ended, and I will be moving from a suite style room to a single room, both student dorming. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My room will have temperature control, however it will be restricted from 65 - 75 (I believe) Fahrenheit (18 - 24 Celsius). I understand that moving the set temperature closer to the outside temperature can help save energy... but will it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have so many questions, but I'll just ask one very broad question: **What is the best, most eco-friendly way to cool my windowless dormroom?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Setting my room to the outside temperature might increase the activity of neighboring room thermostats, who are trying to bring it down to a 'comfortable' temperature.&#xD;&#xA; 2. If I used a fan, I'd need to use it fairly often. It can get to &gt;100 F (&gt;36 C) easily where I live, in the summer, and easily &lt;40F (&lt;4 C) in the winter. &#xD;&#xA; 3. I can't open my window. I have a south-facing window, but it is of a modern type that cannot open (not only south facing but also facing a building, so not much sun at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now I'm thinking the answer is an energy efficient fan, but perhaps there is some evaporation system that I could use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've already read https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4380/how-to-keep-a-small-room-cool-using-wet-curtains, but I don't think it answers my question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5996" RevisionGUID="8cac25c5-234d-491b-bc4e-5948e4e74def" CreationDate="2017-05-18T09:09:27.813" UserId="3293" Text="#I would say it could.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question has been here for quite long, so I'll try to answer it with my basic understanding of organic vs. &quot;conventional&quot; farming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Say Organic farming produces 25% less&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [this CNN article](http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/26/world/organic-food-yield/index.html), Organic yields are 25% lower. Let's by it as it is, even if we should not trust anything we read on the Internet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* But the worl produces far enough&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hear (French mainstream radio) and read in many places ([e.g. here](http://quiet-environmentalist.com/world-produces-enough-food-for-12-billion-people/)) world produces enough to feed 12 billion people (projected population by yeqr 2100). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since your good at math, its easy to get that the world can feed the 7.5 billion people we are today with organic farming. Now we know that today, we cannot feed everybody because there are huge inequities. Some of it produced by &quot;conventional&quot; farming. So what I'm thinking is there wouldn't be more starvation if you turn conventional into organic farming. Thing is industrial won't probably let you do it. They can pay people to speak against it (sorry, getting political). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Additional discussion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, I would still include GMO in organic-raised crops as long as they are not coupled with chemicals.  e.g. I saw on TV GMO could lead to drought resistant crops...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large-scale organic could also have side effects. I'm thinking of nitrates that would leak from intrants. But it's only replacing a polluant by another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14887" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5995" RevisionGUID="06ca1a37-e82e-41cc-9572-896ba7cf15a0" CreationDate="2017-05-18T15:58:33.873" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/865235166859538432" />
  <row Id="14888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5997" RevisionGUID="ae5e0ea9-cef2-42f5-aab8-21a73c0ab5ea" CreationDate="2017-05-19T06:35:43.320" UserId="3293" Text="&gt; The best eco-friendly energy is the one you do not use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So one of the solution I propose is you **heat your dorm room as little possible** in order to avoid having to cool it down:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Do not cook in there.&#xD;&#xA;* Use low temperature lights.&#xD;&#xA;* Do not use electronic devices. If you do, shut them down as soon as you can.&#xD;&#xA;* A refrigerator will heat your room far more than you think.&#xD;&#xA;* Take cool showers (and as short as possible, to avoid moisture making the warmness feeling worse).&#xD;&#xA;* Stay outside most of the time, because after all this, you're probably the thing that is heating the most in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can stand it, it is ok to keep the thermostat as high as possible. It's probably a shared system, so you won't have a big effect on neighbors ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5986" RevisionGUID="4e741335-8611-4c28-bafe-b242e3f8313d" CreationDate="2017-05-19T22:24:42.300" UserId="4533" Comment="added 317 characters in body" Text="People are completely mistaken about palm oil. This is the most efficient way of producing fat matter for use in cooking. Look at the yields of different oil-producing plants. Nowadays, as a consequence of this productive efficiency, palm has been chosen and become the most common crop for oil production and it has good properties for cooking purposes, so it is grown on most (necessarily deforested) surfaces for oil production purpose. But if you used a less efficient oil plant (sunflower, coconut, olive, canola, safflower, you name it) you would deforest more. The situation would be much worse than with palmtree. So palm oil is a blessing for ecology and the question of reducing deforestation due to our food needs is whether we should eat less fatty food. It is clearly ridiculous to go for palmoil-free spreads of all kind, if you do you are behaving less environment-friendly than with palmoil ones, you promote deforestation compared to palmoil spreads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is really quite astounding how simple and wrong people's reasonings are, given how radically aggressive their ensuing decisions and behavior are against palm oil. There is a big prolem with media lacking any form of humility, believing self-righteous to impose their opinion on people, and people then relaying that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5998" RevisionGUID="d91ccbf8-6233-4a49-ad64-fbc6d503d6a6" CreationDate="2017-05-21T08:28:15.560" UserId="4567" Text="Actually this may be the wrong question to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your goal in sustainability, and not just a fuzzy warm feeling of *true* farming, then [vertical farming][1] is the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vertical farming yields exceed traditional farming by 10x-30x times, while consuming less labor, resources and territory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vertical farming, combined with responsible GMO usage, is the most efficient and eco-friendly way to feed the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=vetrical%20farming" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="5999" RevisionGUID="0ad385d6-d88d-4ffc-a275-f49e9f846809" CreationDate="2017-05-21T22:08:25.950" UserId="4570" Text="Solar panels are more efficient in sunny regions, but even in places that receives less sunlight, there are hot days when electricity consumption peaks because of air conditioning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More sun = worm day. So I am  wondering, is there a rough formula, possibly latitude invariant, that can tell you how many square meters of solar panels do you need to power air conditioning for given venue area? I&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14892" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="5999" RevisionGUID="0ad385d6-d88d-4ffc-a275-f49e9f846809" CreationDate="2017-05-21T22:08:25.950" UserId="4570" Text="How large should be solar panel to power air conditioner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14893" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="5999" RevisionGUID="0ad385d6-d88d-4ffc-a275-f49e9f846809" CreationDate="2017-05-21T22:08:25.950" UserId="4570" Text="|solar-power|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6000" RevisionGUID="eaefed28-7a31-44a1-87ae-a62c811d62ac" CreationDate="2017-05-22T02:10:11.200" UserId="2345" Text="The two main things that need to be considered are the power requirements of the air conditioner (in kW) and the power that each type of solar panel can provide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that you can determine how many solar panels are required to operate a given air conditioner. The number of panels multiplied by the area of each panel will give the area required for that particular type of solar panel to supply the air conditioner being considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tricky part is deciding on whether you want the solar panels to provide all the electricity required to operate the air conditioner  and if so how to account for the variable amount of electricity generated because of varying sun conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you only consider the power output during sunny periods you risk not having enough power to operate the air conditioner when it is hot and cloudy. If you design using the power output for totally overcast conditions you then risk having an over supply of electricity during totally sunny periods and you then need to consider what to do with the excess electricity. If you have battery storage you can choose a midway point and even out electricity supply and demand that way." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5999" RevisionGUID="d75bc172-6d73-4816-96df-c4577997dd10" CreationDate="2017-05-22T09:07:43.203" UserId="3293" Comment="fixed typo, proposed formatting" Text="Solar panels are more efficient in sunny regions, but even in places that receives less sunlight, there are hot days when electricity consumption peaks because of air conditioning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`More sun = warmer day`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; So I am  wondering, is there a rough formula, possibly latitude invariant, that can tell you how many square meters of solar panels do you need to power air conditioning for given venue area? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14896" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5999" RevisionGUID="d75bc172-6d73-4816-96df-c4577997dd10" CreationDate="2017-05-22T09:07:43.203" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 99 edit id of 475" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14897" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5941" RevisionGUID="60aebe15-2a98-4ccd-83e1-6b81b02270b8" CreationDate="2017-05-22T16:22:14.347" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/866690675919785985" />
  <row Id="14898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="d76393da-bef9-453d-81da-b17e08e8a814" CreationDate="2017-05-22T18:10:49.113" UserDisplayName="user3719" Text="There must be natural alternatives for deodorant that at least to some degree help in covering body odor caused by perspiration. I have tried to live without antiperspirant, but I don't consider it feasible even when showering more often than once a day.  &#xD;&#xA;I own a mineral deodorant stick (ammonium alum, aqua) that should last a year or two, but haven't yet used it long enough to form an opinion. I of course prefer a self-contained natural solution that I don't have to purchase from a store. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Liquid (roll-on, cream) and solid deodorants are more environmental-friendly than aerosol sprays, but often suffer from overpackaging; I've owned products that weigh like lead.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="d76393da-bef9-453d-81da-b17e08e8a814" CreationDate="2017-05-22T18:10:49.113" UserDisplayName="user3719" Text="What are sustainable alternatives for deodorant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="d76393da-bef9-453d-81da-b17e08e8a814" CreationDate="2017-05-22T18:10:49.113" UserDisplayName="user3719" Text="|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14901" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="51e6c3bf-02f5-4832-9f9b-49867e2f6da4" CreationDate="2017-05-23T00:26:45.520" UserDisplayName="user3719" Comment="modified tags" Text="|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14902" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="51e6c3bf-02f5-4832-9f9b-49867e2f6da4" CreationDate="2017-05-23T00:26:45.520" Comment="Proposed by 3719 approved by 147 edit id of 476" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6002" RevisionGUID="efdcae60-2fce-4579-8b87-cf95e64fa9b5" CreationDate="2017-05-23T06:07:47.080" UserId="3293" Text="#Baking Soda&#xD;&#xA;[baking soda is said to be a great alternative to deodorant](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/261/3293). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Aloe Vera&#xD;&#xA;I myself sometimes use aloe vera. It stays moist a little longer, but the you'll also protect your skin as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6002" RevisionGUID="cdd757d5-6217-4c19-99ca-67aca75ac968" CreationDate="2017-05-23T08:00:20.413" UserId="3293" Comment="added 206 characters in body" Text="#Baking Soda&#xD;&#xA;[baking soda is said to be a great alternative to deodorant](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/261/3293). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Aloe Vera&#xD;&#xA;I myself sometimes use aloe vera. It stays moist a little longer, but the you'll also protect your skin as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Mother Dirt&#xD;&#xA;Someone also spoke about a thing called [mother dirt](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5233/3293) which would prevent corporal odors to develop by replacing ill-smelling bacteria" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6003" RevisionGUID="e41463cb-d4c5-41cf-97aa-5921c2e4e843" CreationDate="2017-05-23T10:40:42.503" UserId="4312" Text="I've been writing an informal essay on the [true cost of everything](https://leonstafford.github.io/essays/true_cost.html) and as per the question asked at the end, I want to approximate the average human's impact on habitat destruction/human sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this, I then aim to elaborate how much action would need to be taken by how many people in order to counter the effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this even measurable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14906" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6003" RevisionGUID="e41463cb-d4c5-41cf-97aa-5921c2e4e843" CreationDate="2017-05-23T10:40:42.503" UserId="4312" Text="What is the average net impact of a human on the sustainability of our habitat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14907" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6003" RevisionGUID="e41463cb-d4c5-41cf-97aa-5921c2e4e843" CreationDate="2017-05-23T10:40:42.503" UserId="4312" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="0033e17a-6ad9-41ee-9b1f-0220a9891c5a" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:41:15.663" UserId="1924" Comment="Edited to provide clarity, an explicit answer and additional supporting evidence." Text="Every food source comes with some complexities when considering the source, impact and price. [This article](http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/351723) includes details around the popular practice of macaques exploited to pick coconuts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would appear that, for macaques, coconut oil has a greater ecological impact because of the above exploitation by humans when contrasted against [research by Matthew Luskin](https://news.mongabay.com/2015/12/palm-oil-expansion-triggers-ecological-cascade-boosting-pigs-but-hurting-other-species/) of the University of California at Berkely that indicates that macaques (along with wild pigs) actually benefit from and thrive amidst oil palm expansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(As you get closer to a particular region the details of ecosystems and cultures come into focus and some broader or higher level measurements might need to be rethought. Complexity or some specific concerns present themselves much like measuring a coastline at ever-increasing resolutions. I present my answer to provide a concern for those who weigh the disturbance and exploitation of animals much more heavily in their ecological assessment. Although it was not stated, I see no need to rule out the person posting the question placing a priority on wildlife ecology and macaques in particular.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="ef804afa-dd95-47a7-b52b-1a595647070f" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:53:03.700" UserId="1924" Comment="Clarified the kind of ecological impact coconut oil has" Text="Every food source comes with some complexities when considering the source, impact and price. [This article](http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/351723) includes details around the popular practice of macaques exploited to pick coconuts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would appear that, for macaques, coconut oil has a greater negative ecological impact because of the above exploitation by humans when contrasted against [research by Matthew Luskin](https://news.mongabay.com/2015/12/palm-oil-expansion-triggers-ecological-cascade-boosting-pigs-but-hurting-other-species/) of the University of California at Berkely that indicates that macaques (along with wild pigs) actually benefit from and thrive amidst oil palm expansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(As you get closer to a particular region the details of ecosystems and cultures come into focus and some broader or higher level measurements might need to be rethought. Complexity or some specific concerns present themselves much like measuring a coastline at ever-increasing resolutions. I present my answer to provide a concern for those who weigh the disturbance and exploitation of animals much more heavily in their ecological assessment. Although it was not stated, I see no need to rule out the person posting the question placing a priority on wildlife ecology and macaques in particular.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4760" RevisionGUID="669009ef-eb72-43ea-bc15-11c7198d3d03" CreationDate="2017-05-23T11:58:29.397" UserId="1924" Comment="Indicated intention to support alternative, relevant viewpoints when answering the question" Text="Every food source comes with some complexities when considering the source, impact and price. [This article](http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/351723) includes details around the popular practice of macaques exploited to pick coconuts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would appear that, for macaques, coconut oil has a greater negative ecological impact because of the above exploitation by humans when contrasted against [research by Matthew Luskin](https://news.mongabay.com/2015/12/palm-oil-expansion-triggers-ecological-cascade-boosting-pigs-but-hurting-other-species/) of the University of California at Berkely that indicates that macaques (along with wild pigs) actually benefit from and thrive amidst oil palm expansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(As you get closer to a particular region the details of ecosystems and cultures come into focus and some broader or higher level measurements might need to be rethought. Complexity or some specific concerns present themselves much like measuring a coastline at ever-increasing resolutions. I present my answer to provide a concern for those who weigh the disturbance and exploitation of animals much more heavily in their ecological assessment. Also, because species and wildlife ecology were mentioned broadly, I see no need to rule out the person posting the question or others investigating the topic placing a priority on specific wildlife ecology and macaques in particular.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4419" RevisionGUID="54ee83b1-30d5-49ae-8470-c7919df3f94d" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:41:54.367" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="Not a full answer to your question, I do not know the footprint of the servers running the StackExchange sites, but it could be estimated from the information [here][1]. Good performance automatically means it uses as little resources (energy included) as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could measure your own carbon footprint while using StackOverflow if you are using an UPS that also measures your use. See my answer to the question &quot;[Is it possible/easy to determine how much power a program is using?][2]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a screenshot of what my computer is was using after a day of rendering 3D (Povray) scenes:&#xD;&#xA;![Energy consumption with heavy processor usage][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The figures may seen shocking, but rendering 3D scenes uses 100% processing capacity of all 8 cores in my workstation. Browsing any site, including Stack-Exchange sites, would only use a fraction of that. Unfortunately I cannot do a measurement of only using Stack-Exchange at this moment. To do that I would have to stop the current process which would be the same as throwing away a few hours worth of rendering (quite some CO2) which I am not prepared to do :-).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a laptop or tablet, the footprint will be allot less than on a desktop or workstation, so a real estimation could only be made by knowing what type of devices are connecting (server logs could provide a good estimation I guess).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://stackexchange.com/performance&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/20920522/659778&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JdXMd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5190" RevisionGUID="465f3bd5-4c4a-4dc6-87dc-2f3d39216428" CreationDate="2017-05-23T12:41:54.367" UserId="-1" Comment="replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/" Text="In fact there is an actual increase in energy consumption, though not much. What is done at the end devices is one thing (the encoding-decoding part). [This][1] answer from stackoverflow provides a good example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When Google switched Gmail to use HTTPS, no additional resources were&#xD;&#xA;&gt; required; no network hardware, no new hosts. It only increased CPU&#xD;&#xA;&gt; load by about 1%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But you also must take into account the protocol overhead (i.e. the additional information that must be exchanged between the 2 end points). Overhead means that more bits of information must be transmitted. Since communication networks are composed by several intermediate devices (e.g. wireless access points, switches, routers, .etc), there is an extra energy consumption, due to transmission and processing, at each of these nodes. Regarding the overhead added by a specific encryption protocol (TLS), some details are provided [here][2]. You may use this information to compute an average overhead (in %).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a communications engineer, and without having made any detailed calculation, I tend to agree with the other answers, the additional environmental cost *seems* to be negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/548029/how-much-overhead-does-ssl-impose&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1615882/how-much-network-overhead-does-tls-add-compared-to-a-non-encrypted-connection" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14913" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="432db4f1-53cc-4123-ab33-257bada7d5f6" CreationDate="2017-05-23T18:26:11.837" UserDisplayName="user3719" Comment="modified tags" Text="|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14914" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="432db4f1-53cc-4123-ab33-257bada7d5f6" CreationDate="2017-05-23T18:26:11.837" Comment="Proposed by 3719 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 477" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14915" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="37d66c5c-e417-4322-8b5f-c822606b53ae" CreationDate="2017-05-24T04:29:07.523" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/867235990909456384" />
  <row Id="14916" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5999" RevisionGUID="b86d4e8d-7de2-4622-b398-642d815eeafb" CreationDate="2017-05-24T19:29:09.627" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/867462492032831488" />
  <row Id="14921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6005" RevisionGUID="c59b0b65-8891-43e1-874b-28a038907c14" CreationDate="2017-05-25T20:53:25.503" UserId="4583" Text="I heard that if citizens don't use enough water, the infrastructure (tubes etc.) takes damage. In order to keep the tubes clean, government agencies flood them with huge amounts of water. Thereby &quot;wasting&quot; the water you tried to safe. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6005" RevisionGUID="c59b0b65-8891-43e1-874b-28a038907c14" CreationDate="2017-05-25T20:53:25.503" UserId="4583" Text="Does it make sense to safe water in cities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6005" RevisionGUID="c59b0b65-8891-43e1-874b-28a038907c14" CreationDate="2017-05-25T20:53:25.503" UserId="4583" Text="|water-management|water-conservation|water-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6005" RevisionGUID="e6dea884-cccc-460c-8756-ce7a7d19fd15" CreationDate="2017-05-25T21:47:02.687" UserId="15" Comment="Fixed spelling" Text="I heard that if citizens don't use enough water, the infrastructure (tubes etc.) takes damage. In order to keep the tubes clean, government agencies flood them with huge amounts of water. Thereby &quot;wasting&quot; the water you tried to save. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14925" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6005" RevisionGUID="e6dea884-cccc-460c-8756-ce7a7d19fd15" CreationDate="2017-05-25T21:47:02.687" UserId="15" Comment="Fixed spelling" Text="Does it make sense to save water in cities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14926" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6003" RevisionGUID="db60d3a7-975c-4334-b31a-e2263f1ddb0a" CreationDate="2017-05-26T10:47:40.130" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/868056030248349696" />
  <row Id="14927" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="7d01f53e-eb8a-4b6f-8ce2-c061af141788" CreationDate="2017-05-26T10:57:17.827" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="14928" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="6d60a178-8076-4b87-b308-e0d014f1e682" CreationDate="2017-05-26T14:41:06.033" UserId="3293" Comment="added hygiene tag" Text="|alternatives|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14929" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="6d60a178-8076-4b87-b308-e0d014f1e682" CreationDate="2017-05-26T14:41:06.033" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 478" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14930" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6005" RevisionGUID="65badc45-6b5d-4cfa-85d3-5b0d59ad0e98" CreationDate="2017-05-27T01:47:50.900" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/868282568013205505" />
  <row Id="14931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6006" RevisionGUID="cb4d3ca6-bfda-4064-b933-2ef7f0eb2685" CreationDate="2017-05-29T10:47:45.503" UserId="2891" Text="Sustainability &amp; Production: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Production: Needs examples of well performing methods &amp; techniques utilizing organic farming methods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are tons of examples all over the place how Organic farming methods not just give high production, but are also in long term better for the &quot;soil quality&quot; over decades. Chemical farming can and tends to destroy the soils nutrient qualities over time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will attempt to cite and link more and more examples of such kind below here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **This farmer from Bihar is growing world record amounts of rice, the organic way**&#xD;&#xA;https://yourstory.com/2015/11/sumant-kumar-darveshpura/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Bihar potato farmer sets new world record**  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bihar-potato-farmer-sets-new-world-record-513698  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- More..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainability requires access and not restricted privileged control by a few:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The GMO companies want to control seeds and the food supply. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food and seeds are given by nature and no organization, people or company should have exclusive ownership of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeds are inherent to existence and nature as is any creature that thrives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural seeds bring thousands of years of diversity and evolution that makes them varied and sustainability friendly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations that conserve seeds i.e. Seed Banks and so on will tell you the importance of i; unless they are bought out by the Big US Agri Chem Pesticide makers. PS: Placeholder to provide graphic of how few GMO/ Pesticide makers have now control over most of the US Seed organizations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations like Navdanya and others wish to free Seeds from the hands of few corrupt corporations who have cronies sitting at the FDA and similar places.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are times when an organic Non-GMO farmer had mostly crop of his own and somehow, nature (winds, birds) / neighboring farms had some accidental spill over and some of the crop yield had found GMO seeds in it, for no intent, action or fault of theirs, and they were sued by the GMO corporations for money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be the other way around, that if GMO's are found where they were not intentionally requested or executed they companies ought to be fined for corrupting the Non GMO crops.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="2bc28b85-6a80-4869-8b87-9debc6528ece" CreationDate="2017-05-29T13:25:56.717" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved formatting and clarified what I'm looking for" Text="### Organic farming saves the planet...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proponents of organic, non-GMO farming argue that such methods are necessary to preserve the long-term health of the soil and the environment as a whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### But conventional farming feeds the world?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, proponents of &quot;conventional&quot; farming methods, which include GMOs, chemical pesticides and herbicides, and petroleum-based fertilizers, argue that organic farming is too labor intensive, and does not produce high enough yields, to provide enough produce to meet the world's needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What does the evidence say?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I personally believe that organic farming is more environmentally sustainable, I'm interested in the **evidence** for one small part of this debate: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If organic farming were implemented around the world, could it provide enough food to feed everyone, without being prohibitively expensive or labor intensive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6006" RevisionGUID="b557de00-e2d7-4042-820c-0592ee333566" CreationDate="2017-05-30T07:16:42.277" UserId="2891" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="Sustainability &amp; Production: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Production: Needs examples of well performing methods &amp; techniques utilizing organic farming methods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are tons of examples all over the place how Organic farming methods not just give high production, but are also in long term better for the &quot;soil quality&quot; over decades. Chemical farming can and tends to destroy the soils nutrient qualities over time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will attempt to cite and link more and more examples of such kind below here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **This farmer from Bihar is growing world record amounts of rice, the organic way**&#xD;&#xA;https://yourstory.com/2015/11/sumant-kumar-darveshpura/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Bihar potato farmer sets new world record**  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bihar-potato-farmer-sets-new-world-record-513698  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **For Farmers in Bihar, A Simple Solution for More Crops**  &#xD;&#xA;https://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/for-farmers-in-bihar-a-simple-solution-for-more-crops/?_r=0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Enhancing agricultural livelihoods through community institutions in Bihar, India (English)**  &#xD;&#xA;http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/467261468258525242/Enhancing-agricultural-livelihoods-through-community-institutions-in-Bihar-India  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/ &#xD;&#xA;  - http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/aboutme.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- More..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainability requires access and not restricted privileged control by a few:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The GMO companies want to control seeds and the food supply. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food and seeds are given by nature and no organization, people or company should have exclusive ownership of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seeds are inherent to existence and nature as is any creature that thrives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural seeds bring thousands of years of diversity and evolution that makes them varied and sustainability friendly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations that conserve seeds i.e. Seed Banks and so on will tell you the importance of i; unless they are bought out by the Big US Agri Chem Pesticide makers. PS: Placeholder to provide graphic of how few GMO/ Pesticide makers have now control over most of the US Seed organizations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations like Navdanya and others wish to free Seeds from the hands of few corrupt corporations who have cronies sitting at the FDA and similar places.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are times when an organic Non-GMO farmer had mostly crop of his own and somehow, nature (winds, birds) / neighboring farms had some accidental spill over and some of the crop yield had found GMO seeds in it, for no intent, action or fault of theirs, and they were sued by the GMO corporations for money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be the other way around, that if GMO's are found where they were not intentionally requested or executed they companies ought to be fined for corrupting the Non GMO crops.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6006" RevisionGUID="87f1cb83-41bc-4be7-b810-98c9dad48c61" CreationDate="2017-05-30T07:33:23.457" UserId="2891" Comment="Updates, references, images" Text="Sustainability &amp; Production: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Production: Needs examples of well performing methods &amp; techniques utilizing organic farming methods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are tons of examples all over the place how Organic farming methods not just give high production, but are also in long term better for the &quot;soil quality&quot; over decades. Chemical farming can and tends to destroy the soils nutrient qualities over time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will attempt to cite and link more and more examples of such kind below here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **This farmer from Bihar is growing world record amounts of rice, the organic way**&#xD;&#xA;https://yourstory.com/2015/11/sumant-kumar-darveshpura/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Bihar potato farmer sets new world record**  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bihar-potato-farmer-sets-new-world-record-513698  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **For Farmers in Bihar, A Simple Solution for More Crops**  &#xD;&#xA;https://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/for-farmers-in-bihar-a-simple-solution-for-more-crops/?_r=0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Enhancing agricultural livelihoods through community institutions in Bihar, India (English)**  &#xD;&#xA;http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/467261468258525242/Enhancing-agricultural-livelihoods-through-community-institutions-in-Bihar-India  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/ &#xD;&#xA;  - http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/aboutme.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- More..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainability requires access and not restricted privileged control by a few:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The GMO companies want to control seeds and the food supply. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Food and seeds are given by nature and no organization, people or company should have exclusive ownership of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Seeds are inherent to existence and nature as is any creature that thrives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Natural seeds bring thousands of years of diversity and evolution that makes them varied and sustainability friendly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations that conserve seeds i.e. Seed Banks and so on will tell you the importance of it; unless they are bought out by the Big US Agri Chem Pesticide makers as shown below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Placeholder to provide graphic of how few GMO/ Pesticide makers have now control over most of the US Seed organizations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Seed Industry Consolidation by Pesticide Chemical Companies - Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:  &#xD;&#xA; - https://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/seedindustry.jpg  &#xD;&#xA; - https://msu.edu/~howardp/seedindustry.pdf  &#xD;&#xA; - http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2017/feb/27-2  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations like Navdanya and others wish to free Seeds from the hands of few corrupt corporations who have cronies sitting at the FDA and similar places.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are times when an organic Non-GMO farmer had mostly crop of his own and somehow, nature (winds, birds) / neighboring farms had some accidental spill over and some of the crop yield had found GMO seeds in it, for no intent, action or fault of theirs, and they were sued by the GMO corporations for money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be the other way around, that if GMO's are found where they were not intentionally requested or executed they companies ought to be fined for corrupting the Non GMO crops.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ctxJj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6006" RevisionGUID="3d4fdf23-d0b4-4a3d-ab7a-5f43a756e3d6" CreationDate="2017-05-30T07:41:22.717" UserId="2891" Comment="Updates, references, images" Text="Sustainability &amp; Production: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Production: Needs examples of well performing methods &amp; techniques utilizing organic farming methods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are tons of examples all over the place how Organic farming methods not just give high production, but are also in long term better for the &quot;soil quality&quot; over decades. Chemical farming can and tends to destroy the soils nutrient qualities over time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will attempt to cite and link more and more examples of such kind below here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **This farmer from Bihar is growing world record amounts of rice, the organic way**&#xD;&#xA;https://yourstory.com/2015/11/sumant-kumar-darveshpura/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Bihar potato farmer sets new world record**  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bihar-potato-farmer-sets-new-world-record-513698  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **For Farmers in Bihar, A Simple Solution for More Crops**  &#xD;&#xA;https://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/for-farmers-in-bihar-a-simple-solution-for-more-crops/?_r=0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Enhancing agricultural livelihoods through community institutions in Bihar, India (English)**  &#xD;&#xA;http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/467261468258525242/Enhancing-agricultural-livelihoods-through-community-institutions-in-Bihar-India  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/ &#xD;&#xA;  - http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/aboutme.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- More..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainability requires access and not restricted privileged control by a few:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The GMO companies want to control seeds and the food supply. The ability &amp; freedom to grow Food needs to be open and free to whoever chooses to do so.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Food and seeds are given by nature and no organization, people or company should have exclusive ownership of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Seeds are inherent to existence and nature as is any creature that thrives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Natural seeds bring thousands of years of diversity and evolution that makes them varied and sustainability friendly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- GMO corps want control, and their primary objective with seeds/ crops is control. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In addition to control, their crops are designed to be able tolerate &quot;heavy&quot; &quot;toxic&quot; pesticides, so that more stuff like **Glyophosate (Roundup)** is sprayed that can damage/ kill you and natural plants, do not kill their GMO plants.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EU declared Monsanto weedkiller safe after intervention from controversial US official**&#xD;&#xA;http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2017/may/24  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations that conserve seeds i.e. Seed Banks and so on will tell you the importance of it; unless they are bought out by the Big US Agri Chem Pesticide makers as shown below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Placeholder to provide graphic of how few GMO/ Pesticide makers have now control over most of the US Seed organizations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Seed Industry Consolidation by Pesticide Chemical Companies - Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:  &#xD;&#xA; - https://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/seedindustry.jpg  &#xD;&#xA; - https://msu.edu/~howardp/seedindustry.pdf  &#xD;&#xA; - http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2017/feb/27-2  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations like Navdanya and others wish to free Seeds from the hands of few corrupt corporations who have cronies sitting at the FDA and similar places.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are times when an organic Non-GMO farmer had mostly crop of his own and somehow, nature (winds, birds) / neighboring farms had some accidental spill over and some of the crop yield had found GMO seeds in it, for no intent, action or fault of theirs, and they were sued by the GMO corporations for money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be the other way around, that if GMO's are found where they were not intentionally requested or executed they companies ought to be fined for corrupting the Non GMO crops.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ctxJj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6006" RevisionGUID="d61ed4c2-234e-4ae1-810e-18dc5c6bfe50" CreationDate="2017-05-30T07:50:06.050" UserId="2891" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="Sustainability &amp; Production: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Production: Needs examples of well performing methods &amp; techniques utilizing organic farming methods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are tons of examples all over the place how Organic farming methods not just give high production, but are also in long term better for the &quot;soil quality&quot; over decades. Chemical farming can and tends to destroy the soils nutrient qualities over time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will attempt to cite and link more and more examples of such kind below here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **This farmer from Bihar is growing world record amounts of rice, the organic way**&#xD;&#xA;https://yourstory.com/2015/11/sumant-kumar-darveshpura/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Bihar potato farmer sets new world record**  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bihar-potato-farmer-sets-new-world-record-513698  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **For Farmers in Bihar, A Simple Solution for More Crops**  &#xD;&#xA;https://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/for-farmers-in-bihar-a-simple-solution-for-more-crops/?_r=0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Enhancing agricultural livelihoods through community institutions in Bihar, India (English)**  &#xD;&#xA;http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/467261468258525242/Enhancing-agricultural-livelihoods-through-community-institutions-in-Bihar-India  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/ &#xD;&#xA;  - http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/aboutme.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flip side: Damage via Chemical Farming:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Why It’s Time to Stop Punishing Our Soils with Fertilizers**  &#xD;&#xA;http://e360.yale.edu/features/why-its-time-to-stop-punishing-our-soils-with-fertilizers-and-chemicals  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In a world where government agencies and agribusiness have long pursued the holy grail of maximum crop yield, Haney preaches a different message: The quest for ever-greater productivity — using fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and whatever other chemicals are at hand — is killing our soil and threatening our farms.&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt; In the face of a proposed 21 percent cut in the USDA’s budget by the Trump administration, Haney also stressed the importance of unbiased, government studies in a field where research is often dominated by the very corporations that benefit from overuse of fertilizers and chemicals. “We need more independent research,” Haney maintains. “We are only at the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we understand about how soil functions and its biology.” &lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- More..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainability requires access and not restricted privileged control by a few:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The GMO companies want to control seeds and the food supply. The ability &amp; freedom to grow Food needs to be open and free to whoever chooses to do so.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Food and seeds are given by nature and no organization, people or company should have exclusive ownership of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Seeds are inherent to existence and nature as is any creature that thrives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Natural seeds bring thousands of years of diversity and evolution that makes them varied and sustainability friendly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- GMO corps want control, and their primary objective with seeds/ crops is control. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In addition to control, their crops are designed to be able tolerate &quot;heavy&quot; &quot;toxic&quot; pesticides, so that more stuff like **Glyophosate (Roundup)** is sprayed that can damage/ kill you and natural plants, do not kill their GMO plants.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EU declared Monsanto weedkiller safe after intervention from controversial US official**&#xD;&#xA;http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2017/may/24  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations that conserve seeds i.e. Seed Banks and so on will tell you the importance of it; unless they are bought out by the Big US Agri Chem Pesticide makers as shown below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Placeholder to provide graphic of how few GMO/ Pesticide makers have now control over most of the US Seed organizations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Seed Industry Consolidation by Pesticide Chemical Companies - Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:  &#xD;&#xA; - https://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/seedindustry.jpg  &#xD;&#xA; - https://msu.edu/~howardp/seedindustry.pdf  &#xD;&#xA; - http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2017/feb/27-2  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations like Navdanya and others wish to free Seeds from the hands of few corrupt corporations who have cronies sitting at the FDA and similar places.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are times when an organic Non-GMO farmer had mostly crop of his own and somehow, nature (winds, birds) / neighboring farms had some accidental spill over and some of the crop yield had found GMO seeds in it, for no intent, action or fault of theirs, and they were sued by the GMO corporations for money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be the other way around, that if GMO's are found where they were not intentionally requested or executed they companies ought to be fined for corrupting the Non GMO crops.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ctxJj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6006" RevisionGUID="18713cd9-b892-45b7-94f1-05bc11564dd0" CreationDate="2017-05-30T09:06:26.027" UserId="2891" Comment="added 721 characters in body" Text="Sustainability &amp; Production: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Production: Needs examples of well performing methods &amp; techniques utilizing organic farming methods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are tons of examples all over the place how Organic farming methods not just give high production, but are also in long term better for the &quot;soil quality&quot; over decades. Chemical farming can and tends to destroy the soils nutrient qualities over time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will attempt to cite and link more and more examples of such kind below here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **This farmer from Bihar is growing world record amounts of rice, the organic way**&#xD;&#xA;https://yourstory.com/2015/11/sumant-kumar-darveshpura/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Bihar potato farmer sets new world record**  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bihar-potato-farmer-sets-new-world-record-513698  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **For Farmers in Bihar, A Simple Solution for More Crops**  &#xD;&#xA;https://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/for-farmers-in-bihar-a-simple-solution-for-more-crops/?_r=0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Enhancing agricultural livelihoods through community institutions in Bihar, India (English)**  &#xD;&#xA;http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/467261468258525242/Enhancing-agricultural-livelihoods-through-community-institutions-in-Bihar-India  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Zero Budget farming (leverages natural forest growth fundamentals):**   http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/ &#xD;&#xA;  - http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/aboutme.aspx  &#xD;&#xA;  - Interested in Natural Farming? Try Zero Budget Natural Farming  &#xD;&#xA;http://isha.sadhguru.org/blog/social-impact/environment/try-zero-budget-natural-farming/  &#xD;&#xA;  - Subhash palekar zero budget farming Complete Training (Youtube Playlist)  &#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrdO-dbESZVV7qDHA-tLGhZLO-AfhSyr8  &#xD;&#xA;  - FAO - Zero Budget Natural Farming in India - FAO - Food &amp; Agriculture Organization - United Nations  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl990e.pdf  &#xD;&#xA;  - This Banker Quit His Job to Practice Zero-Budget Natural Farming. And He’s Loving It!  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.thebetterindia.com/84742/sankalp-sharma-banking-natural-farming-madhya-pradesh/  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Flip side: Damage via Chemical Farming:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Why It’s Time to Stop Punishing Our Soils with Fertilizers**  &#xD;&#xA;http://e360.yale.edu/features/why-its-time-to-stop-punishing-our-soils-with-fertilizers-and-chemicals  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In a world where government agencies and agribusiness have long pursued the holy grail of maximum crop yield, Haney preaches a different message: The quest for ever-greater productivity — using fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and whatever other chemicals are at hand — is killing our soil and threatening our farms.&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt; In the face of a proposed 21 percent cut in the USDA’s budget by the Trump administration, Haney also stressed the importance of unbiased, government studies in a field where research is often dominated by the very corporations that benefit from overuse of fertilizers and chemicals. “We need more independent research,” Haney maintains. “We are only at the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we understand about how soil functions and its biology.” &lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- More..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainability requires access and not restricted privileged control by a few:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The GMO companies want to control seeds and the food supply. The ability &amp; freedom to grow Food needs to be open and free to whoever chooses to do so.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Food and seeds are given by nature and no organization, people or company should have exclusive ownership of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Seeds are inherent to existence and nature as is any creature that thrives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Natural seeds bring thousands of years of diversity and evolution that makes them varied and sustainability friendly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- GMO corps want control, and their primary objective with seeds/ crops is control. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In addition to control, their crops are designed to be able tolerate &quot;heavy&quot; &quot;toxic&quot; pesticides, so that more stuff like **Glyophosate (Roundup)** is sprayed that can damage/ kill you and natural plants, do not kill their GMO plants.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EU declared Monsanto weedkiller safe after intervention from controversial US official**&#xD;&#xA;http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2017/may/24  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations that conserve seeds i.e. Seed Banks and so on will tell you the importance of it; unless they are bought out by the Big US Agri Chem Pesticide makers as shown below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Placeholder to provide graphic of how few GMO/ Pesticide makers have now control over most of the US Seed organizations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Seed Industry Consolidation by Pesticide Chemical Companies - Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:  &#xD;&#xA; - https://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/seedindustry.jpg  &#xD;&#xA; - https://msu.edu/~howardp/seedindustry.pdf  &#xD;&#xA; - http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2017/feb/27-2  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations like Navdanya and others wish to free Seeds from the hands of few corrupt corporations who have cronies sitting at the FDA and similar places.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are times when an organic Non-GMO farmer had mostly crop of his own and somehow, nature (winds, birds) / neighboring farms had some accidental spill over and some of the crop yield had found GMO seeds in it, for no intent, action or fault of theirs, and they were sued by the GMO corporations for money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be the other way around, that if GMO's are found where they were not intentionally requested or executed they companies ought to be fined for corrupting the Non GMO crops.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ctxJj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6006" RevisionGUID="efd28455-b286-4e18-a7cf-90fe992ff85c" CreationDate="2017-05-30T09:38:02.550" UserId="2891" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="Sustainability &amp; Production: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Production: Needs examples of well performing methods &amp; techniques utilizing organic farming methods**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are tons of examples all over the place how Organic farming methods not just give high production, but are also in long term better for the &quot;soil quality&quot; over decades. Chemical farming can and tends to destroy the soils nutrient qualities over time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will attempt to cite and link more and more examples of such kind below here: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **This farmer from Bihar is growing world record amounts of rice, the organic way**&#xD;&#xA;https://yourstory.com/2015/11/sumant-kumar-darveshpura/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Bihar potato farmer sets new world record**  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bihar-potato-farmer-sets-new-world-record-513698  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **For Farmers in Bihar, A Simple Solution for More Crops**  &#xD;&#xA;https://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/for-farmers-in-bihar-a-simple-solution-for-more-crops/?_r=0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Enhancing agricultural livelihoods through community institutions in Bihar, India (English)**  &#xD;&#xA;http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/467261468258525242/Enhancing-agricultural-livelihoods-through-community-institutions-in-Bihar-India  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Zero Budget farming (leverages natural forest growth fundamentals):**   http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/ &#xD;&#xA;  - http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/aboutme.aspx  &#xD;&#xA;  - Interested in Natural Farming? Try Zero Budget Natural Farming  &#xD;&#xA;http://isha.sadhguru.org/blog/social-impact/environment/try-zero-budget-natural-farming/  &#xD;&#xA;  - Subhash palekar zero budget farming Complete Training (Youtube Playlist)  &#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrdO-dbESZVV7qDHA-tLGhZLO-AfhSyr8  &#xD;&#xA;  - Zero Budget Natural Farming in India | **Food &amp; Agriculture Organization, United Nations**  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl990e.pdf  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;“ I had 5 - 6 loans during my chemical farming days - a loan for my daughter’s marriage, others for seedlings , stems, and fertilizers. Now my farm expenses are so low, and everything I get is an income for the family. I owe nothing to anyone. ” — ZBNF farmer, Bijapur&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - This Banker Quit His Job to Practice Zero-Budget Natural Farming. And He’s Loving It!  &#xD;&#xA;http://www.thebetterindia.com/84742/sankalp-sharma-banking-natural-farming-madhya-pradesh/  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Flip side: Damage via Chemical Farming:**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Why It’s Time to Stop Punishing Our Soils with Fertilizers**  &#xD;&#xA;http://e360.yale.edu/features/why-its-time-to-stop-punishing-our-soils-with-fertilizers-and-chemicals  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In a world where government agencies and agribusiness have long pursued the holy grail of maximum crop yield, Haney preaches a different message: The quest for ever-greater productivity — using fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and whatever other chemicals are at hand — is killing our soil and threatening our farms.&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt; In the face of a proposed 21 percent cut in the USDA’s budget by the Trump administration, Haney also stressed the importance of unbiased, government studies in a field where research is often dominated by the very corporations that benefit from overuse of fertilizers and chemicals. “We need more independent research,” Haney maintains. “We are only at the tip of the iceberg in terms of what we understand about how soil functions and its biology.” &lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- More..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sustainability requires access and not restricted privileged control by a few:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The GMO companies want to control seeds and the food supply. The ability &amp; freedom to grow Food needs to be open and free to whoever chooses to do so.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Food and seeds are given by nature and no organization, people or company should have exclusive ownership of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Seeds are inherent to existence and nature as is any creature that thrives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Natural seeds bring thousands of years of diversity and evolution that makes them varied and sustainability friendly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- GMO corps want control, and their primary objective with seeds/ crops is control. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In addition to control, their crops are designed to be able tolerate &quot;heavy&quot; &quot;toxic&quot; pesticides, so that more stuff like **Glyophosate (Roundup)** is sprayed that can damage/ kill you and natural plants, do not kill their GMO plants.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **EU declared Monsanto weedkiller safe after intervention from controversial US official**&#xD;&#xA;http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2017/may/24  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations that conserve seeds i.e. Seed Banks and so on will tell you the importance of it; unless they are bought out by the Big US Agri Chem Pesticide makers as shown below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Placeholder to provide graphic of how few GMO/ Pesticide makers have now control over most of the US Seed organizations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Seed Industry Consolidation by Pesticide Chemical Companies - Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:  &#xD;&#xA; - https://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/seedindustry.jpg  &#xD;&#xA; - https://msu.edu/~howardp/seedindustry.pdf  &#xD;&#xA; - http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2017/feb/27-2  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organizations like Navdanya and others wish to free Seeds from the hands of few corrupt corporations who have cronies sitting at the FDA and similar places.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are times when an organic Non-GMO farmer had mostly crop of his own and somehow, nature (winds, birds) / neighboring farms had some accidental spill over and some of the crop yield had found GMO seeds in it, for no intent, action or fault of theirs, and they were sued by the GMO corporations for money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be the other way around, that if GMO's are found where they were not intentionally requested or executed they companies ought to be fined for corrupting the Non GMO crops.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ctxJj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6008" RevisionGUID="80f361d3-3bbd-4184-8c6e-34f62ae47263" CreationDate="2017-05-30T13:14:49.893" UserId="4594" Text="After running the dishwasher last night it struck he how much energy it must consume: from heating large amounts of water to the motorized pumps and spinners to the heated plate drying. Then there's also the potential water pollution by the detergents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Got me wondering about the impact of paper plates. How much energy goes into making one dishwasher load amount of paper plates (50 plates)? What are the total pollution costs? For the sake of argument, let's say these are non-dyed, 100% natural, biodegradable (possibly recyclable) paper plates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is most harmful to the Earth? The creation of 50 paper plates or machine-washing 50 ceramic plates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14941" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6008" RevisionGUID="80f361d3-3bbd-4184-8c6e-34f62ae47263" CreationDate="2017-05-30T13:14:49.893" UserId="4594" Text="Dishwasher or paper plates: which are worse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14942" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6008" RevisionGUID="80f361d3-3bbd-4184-8c6e-34f62ae47263" CreationDate="2017-05-30T13:14:49.893" UserId="4594" Text="|recycling|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14944" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="e1283d63-7c0a-43fe-9453-4f71bc80f062" CreationDate="2017-05-30T15:14:40.627" UserId="2891" Comment="improved title" Text="Can organic farming sustainably feed the world?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14945" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5973" RevisionGUID="e1283d63-7c0a-43fe-9453-4f71bc80f062" CreationDate="2017-05-30T15:14:40.627" Comment="Proposed by 2891 approved by 2345, 3379 edit id of 479" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14946" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6008" RevisionGUID="2742a0af-3ff9-4da2-923d-24294dd21be9" CreationDate="2017-05-31T02:11:25.097" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/869738050775109636" />
  <row Id="14947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6009" RevisionGUID="18334468-fef6-4826-97de-afd2a5d7ab80" CreationDate="2017-05-31T13:19:37.303" UserId="4601" Text="Before people start comments about rocket mass heaters, PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH. Here is a web site for an educated answer: https://www.richsoil.com/rocket-stove-mass-heater.jsp    Erica and Ernie Wisner are without a doubt two of the most knowledgeable people around when it comes to thermal mass and rocket stove mass heaters. There is really no safe practical way to modify a conventional wood stove to add thermal mass - best solution is a wood stove design that incorporates thermal mass. I have NO interest with these individuals, I just believe in the correct information being available for all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mad science brain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6009" RevisionGUID="d9912b5b-f6a5-4207-a22e-71f4cc25fe1b" CreationDate="2017-05-31T13:34:50.273" UserId="4601" Comment="added 331 characters in body" Text="Before people start comments about rocket mass heaters, PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH. Here is a web site for an educated answer: https://www.richsoil.com/rocket-stove-mass-heater.jsp    Erica and Ernie Wisner are without a doubt two of the most knowledgeable people around when it comes to thermal mass and rocket stove mass heaters. There is really no safe practical way to modify a conventional wood stove to add thermal mass - best solution is a wood stove design that incorporates thermal mass. I have NO interest with these individuals, I just believe in the correct information being available for all. Let us be honest here for a moment - the definition of mass should answer this question up front... and PLEASE do not heat water with a wood stove in any type of a sealed container unless you are a competent engineer - overheated water = steam = BIG EXPLOSION. Please be safe when playing with fire. Life is too precious to waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;mad science brain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="029041af-6cae-4b9d-a326-da3f58d76272" CreationDate="2017-06-01T19:02:01.773" UserId="4504" Text="Hello again sustainable living,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it's summer break and I can no longer walk everywhere like I could at university, I've been having to drive my car a lot. For a 2001 model, it gets excellent gas mileage (or so I assume, I've never driven anything else; I can drive it for about a week and a quarter and then refill for $20), yet I feel awful driving it. It's like the same feeling if I knew I left the stove on, but I can't go back and turn it off. I just hate knowing that I am directly pumping literal gallons of greenhouse gases into the air. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've done as much as I can do reasonably to bump up my gas mileage. I don't use air conditioning and I use cruise control whenever possible, I don't trail other cars, etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, recently I've been looking into EVs in my price range, like the smart EV. So my question is this: do the costs of buying a used or new EV outweigh the benefit of not producing emissions? When would the carbon footprint of getting a new car be matched by how much I save in not polluting? If that makes any sense... is it worth it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14950" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="029041af-6cae-4b9d-a326-da3f58d76272" CreationDate="2017-06-01T19:02:01.773" UserId="4504" Text="New Vehicle: do the cost outweigh the benefits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14951" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="029041af-6cae-4b9d-a326-da3f58d76272" CreationDate="2017-06-01T19:02:01.773" UserId="4504" Text="|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6011" RevisionGUID="95047ea4-d86b-4c2f-8c98-baa9e12b2022" CreationDate="2017-06-01T21:16:51.017" UserId="4604" Text="Renewable Energy Certificates seem like a great way to prove your green. I like the idea. My Electric company is offering to sell me RECs along with the electricity I consume. They market it like I'm helping renewables along. Thing is, as I think about it, I'm really not sure I can trust my electric company isn't just trying to sell the same horse twice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With their existing green generators in place, lets say the company generates 50% green electricity and 50% coal electricity. In doing this, they also generate RECs. If I go along with their plan (and lets say that I consume 1% of the total energy available), do I have any guarantee that the energy company would work to change their portfolio to 51% green energy to accommodate the newly purchased RECs??" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14953" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6011" RevisionGUID="95047ea4-d86b-4c2f-8c98-baa9e12b2022" CreationDate="2017-06-01T21:16:51.017" UserId="4604" Text="Is there any way to know if by purchasing renewable energy certificates from my provider is actually modifying their portfolio?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14954" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6011" RevisionGUID="95047ea4-d86b-4c2f-8c98-baa9e12b2022" CreationDate="2017-06-01T21:16:51.017" UserId="4604" Text="|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14955" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6012" RevisionGUID="7106f7e4-9d3e-4f45-9d14-8c7cdd8e1f88" CreationDate="2017-06-02T00:34:47.750" UserId="4605" Text="It's possible that the source was talking about a practice called jetting that municipalities use to clean their sanitary sewer systems. I know one town that cleaned their system this way every other year. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="e82bc0b8-4a8e-40b3-a6ba-fe88610f7cea" CreationDate="2017-06-02T02:06:36.867" UserId="2868" Text="[Adidas][1] has a new collection made with recycled plastic bottles recovered from the oceans. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been trying to find the real environmental impact of this collection but it has been difficult to find any relevant figures. The most I have been able to find is [some webpages][2] claiming that one pair of sneakers corresponds to 11 recycled plastic bottles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in order to measure the impact of this collection I am especially interested in the following: what is the impact of producing a pair of sneakers using recycled plastic bottles compared with a pair of the [same model of sneakers][3] using non recycled materials?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.adidas.com/us/parley&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.designboom.com/technology/adidas-x-parley-ocean-plastic-ultraboost-04-24-2017/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.adidas.com/us/ultraboost-shoes/CG4086.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14957" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="e82bc0b8-4a8e-40b3-a6ba-fe88610f7cea" CreationDate="2017-06-02T02:06:36.867" UserId="2868" Text="What is the real impact of the new Adidas collection made with recycled plastic bottles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14958" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="e82bc0b8-4a8e-40b3-a6ba-fe88610f7cea" CreationDate="2017-06-02T02:06:36.867" UserId="2868" Text="|recycling|plastic|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14959" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6011" RevisionGUID="1d1a453f-5559-4653-b7b4-29030292877a" CreationDate="2017-06-02T07:14:17.810" UserId="3293" Comment="added tag for better web indexing" Text="|electricity-generation|economy|economics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14960" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6011" RevisionGUID="1d1a453f-5559-4653-b7b4-29030292877a" CreationDate="2017-06-02T07:14:17.810" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 99 edit id of 480" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14961" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="17cc92bd-39c0-458d-b71b-671123c2a9f7" CreationDate="2017-06-02T07:34:05.267" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|environmental-impact|plastic|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6014" RevisionGUID="0ec9c68b-b80f-477d-a150-7ea129f2db6a" CreationDate="2017-06-02T08:19:27.440" UserId="15" Text="The best way to find out would probably be to try to obtain a contact in the company who is responsible for running the program, or at least for answering questions about it, and arranging a meeting to give them a friendly but intensive interview grilling about it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they seemed reluctant, offering to write up an article for sharing with the media may help (and if they're unhappy about that idea, then they're probably being dishonest!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that they're likely to consider it acceptable to sell certificates for their existing 50% green generation without necessarily investing in new green generation. ie they might consider that until they sell certificates for all of the existing 50%, they don't need to invest in more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14963" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="d05324df-6efb-4813-95eb-1dd6d00ff0e8" CreationDate="2017-06-02T17:18:53.117" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/870691196246437889" />
  <row Id="14964" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6011" RevisionGUID="0839ad3e-beb7-4b45-873d-332fc6feeef9" CreationDate="2017-06-03T11:26:57.877" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/870965022113099780" />
  <row Id="14965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6015" RevisionGUID="9483f0c5-a233-43db-881a-5e4ef1e8f009" CreationDate="2017-06-03T13:15:24.383" UserId="3604" Text="The impact is multifold. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Marketing &#xD;&#xA;--&gt; Awareness about trash in the Ocean&#xD;&#xA;2. Durability&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; On average shoes last longer than one way plastic bottles.&#xD;&#xA;3. Energy expenditure.&#xD;&#xA;--&gt; It is probably easier to just pump the oil up and refine it vs. sending a ship out to sea to harvest plastic, transport it to shore, sort the different plastic types, melt the plastic, make it into pellets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My obviously unscientific summary would be: I'd prefer the harvested plastic to be used for more durable items like benches and tables vs just another consumer product like shoes that will end up in the trash or the ocean eventually anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6016" RevisionGUID="f05295ae-ec05-458e-ad52-799b79a078cb" CreationDate="2017-06-03T13:19:09.860" UserId="3604" Text="1. if not recycled --&gt; Transporting woodchuck to wood. Chucking wood using fuel, transporting wood to milling plant. Transporting extracted cellulose to paper plant. Packaging plates. Transporting plates to super market, transporting plates to your home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Electricity from renewables + bio-degradable detergent + water + some fuel to pump the water to your place&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just the amount of mass that needs to be moved in order to get those plates from the trees to your place is way higher than the amount of water used by the dishwasher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6019" RevisionGUID="cd3d88ad-693b-4d22-96a9-d83d08e15326" CreationDate="2017-06-05T01:24:42.683" UserId="4612" Text="Very good idea of storing heat energy in water. Since my biggest use of solar energy I expect to be is in the form of heat this might be a good idea for me. One can increase the storage capacity of water by adding Glauber's salt (forgot the chemical formula). It absorbs a lot of heat going into solution and gives it off going out of solution. I myself planted a small patch of sunflower plants. They will grow 6' or more and produce seeds containing oil. The plants themselves will provide more cellulose than grass would on a similar area also. I mow my acre of grass and am in the process of pressing the clippings into large pellets and storing them in small paper bags. When ready to burn in my stove for heat I'll pour kerosene on them. I did the same with store bought wood pellets. They are inexpensive and work very well. This is true use of solar energy from the Summer! I will need to store the ground sunflowers in metal containers to keep mice etc from eating them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14974" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="434" RevisionGUID="1e5a172d-ac2f-4685-b2a8-ecceab21ce47" CreationDate="2017-06-05T11:39:30.430" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/871692954242433024" />
  <row Id="14975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="8372c5bd-a460-4901-b3b1-9ae4ac33f4a3" CreationDate="2017-06-05T13:38:30.340" UserId="4594" Text="I'm not typically an answer-my-own-question kind of person, but this has been on the back of my mind for days.  The challenge in answering this is that we do not have an apples-to-apples kind of comparison.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the one hand we have dishwashers whose primary impact is energy&#xD;&#xA;   they consume for electric motors / heating of water and the impact of creating the dishwasher (which will not last&#xD;&#xA;   forever).&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - On the other had we have paper plates that use wood pulp and the&#xD;&#xA;   energy requirements of transportation and production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this an apples-to-apples comparison, we can compare based on cost.  The heuristic is that when we pay for dishwashing or paper plates, we are paying for the summation of the resources that went into their production.  Thus we can use cost as a proxy for environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This website][1] estimates that it costs $0.63 per load to run the dishwasher (cost of the dishwasher being factored in).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [cheapest paper plates][2] I could find online are $18.86 for 600.  If we assume 100% markup for retail items (i.e. the difference in cost it took the manufacturer to produce the product from the price they are charging in stores) then the cost per plate is about $.016 per plate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that a dishwasher can wash 50 plates in a load, the equivalent for paper plates would cost $0.78.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Since $0.78 &gt; $0.63 we can reasonably assume that paper plates have a greater environmental cost than a load of dishes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thesimpledollar.com/saving-pennies-or-dollars-dishwasher-or-hand-washing/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://jet.com/product/detail/576f614b6fc54eddb6eef91f9517ad07" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6019" RevisionGUID="c5c6417d-a1b7-44fa-95bf-d531709f4a6f" CreationDate="2017-06-05T15:27:50.650" UserId="99" Comment="Added link to Wikipedia to explain Glauber's salt" Text="Very good idea of storing heat energy in water. Since I expect my biggest use of solar energy to be in the form of heat this might be a good idea for me. One can increase the storage capacity of water by adding [Glauber's salt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_sulfate#Thermal_storage). It absorbs a lot of heat going into solution and gives it off going out of solution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself planted a small patch of sunflower plants. They will grow 6' or more and produce seeds containing oil. The plants themselves will provide more cellulose than grass would on a similar area also. I mow my acre of grass and am in the process of pressing the clippings into large pellets and storing them in small paper bags. When ready to burn in my stove for heat I'll pour kerosene on them. I did the same with store bought wood pellets. They are inexpensive and work very well. This is true use of solar energy from the Summer! I will need to store the ground sunflowers in metal containers to keep mice etc from eating them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6023" RevisionGUID="7cea1f9a-c75b-48fe-bd79-2eeb5b130a4b" CreationDate="2017-06-07T06:55:12.613" UserId="3297" Text="The biggest impact is that you will contribute to the problem of [microplastic pollution][1]. I cannot find any studies on this but I would think that this negative effect would outweigh the positive effect of bringing attention to ocean pollution. In fact, by presenting the products as a solution you might prevent a real solution to *all* plastic pollution (including microplastic pollution) because people will continue to buy (recycled) plastic clothing (one of the main contributors to this pollution) and therefore think they have done their share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you want to do is to avoid plastic all together, especially tires on vehicles (maybe bicycles are ok, but we should look for alternatives) and plastic clothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/microplastics-microbeads-ocean-sea-serious-health-risks-united-nations-warns-a7041036.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6009" RevisionGUID="1c205fda-d0bb-4b9f-b638-bc921beaf4ce" CreationDate="2017-06-08T07:00:38.370" UserId="99" Comment="revised answer order so it's clear this does answer the question" Text="There is really no safe practical way to modify a conventional wood stove to add thermal mass - best solution is a wood stove design that incorporates thermal mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before people start comments about rocket mass heaters, PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH. Here is a web site for an educated answer: https://www.richsoil.com/rocket-stove-mass-heater.jsp    Erica and Ernie Wisner are without a doubt two of the most knowledgeable people around when it comes to thermal mass and rocket stove mass heaters. I have NO interest with these individuals, I just believe in the correct information being available for all. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us be honest here for a moment - the definition of mass should answer this question up front... and PLEASE do not heat water with a wood stove in any type of a sealed container unless you are a competent engineer - overheated water = steam = BIG EXPLOSION. Please be safe when playing with fire. Life is too precious to waste." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6024" RevisionGUID="b7ac97ec-a382-4e8a-868c-470a1479c6ed" CreationDate="2017-06-08T19:45:54.233" UserId="4626" Text="I want to put green roof on my top floor by using a plastic caret, putting it soil of 4 inches with planting grass on it.&#xD;&#xA;want to cover whole roof with same green grass plastic caret.&#xD;&#xA;does this process will help to reduce the heat gain in my original roof and will it help to reduce the heat temp of internal rooms in summer.&#xD;&#xA;if yes, then what will be the temp difference with and without green grass plastic cart." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14985" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6024" RevisionGUID="b7ac97ec-a382-4e8a-868c-470a1479c6ed" CreationDate="2017-06-08T19:45:54.233" UserId="4626" Text="green grass plastic caret" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14986" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6024" RevisionGUID="b7ac97ec-a382-4e8a-868c-470a1479c6ed" CreationDate="2017-06-08T19:45:54.233" UserId="4626" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6025" RevisionGUID="edabd14d-2c8d-46e3-91f9-e23e2fd9a6a7" CreationDate="2017-06-09T08:00:36.390" UserId="99" Text="Green roofs help reduce heat significantly. For example in [this study](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866712000647)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mean daily temperature reductions achieved were 18.0 °C at the soil surface and 27.5 °C below the module &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [this EPA study](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/greenroofscompendium.pdf) mentions 2 studies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chicago compared summertime surface temperatures on a green roof with a&#xD;&#xA;neighboring building. On an August day in the early afternoon, with temperatures in the 90s, the green roof surface temperature ranged from 91 to 119°F (33 to 48°C), while the dark, conventional roof of the adjacent building was 169°F (76°C). The near-surface air temperature above the green roof was about 7°F (4°C) cooler than that over the conventional roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A similar study in Florida found that the average maximum surface temperature of a green roof was 86°F (30°C) while the adjacent light-colored roof was 134°F (57°C)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Infrared Image of Chicago City Hall Green Roof and conventional roof, source http://ccap.org/what-does-climate-resilience-look-like*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much temperature reduction you will get is somewhat difficult to predict because it depends on the thickness of the soil layer, how well the grass is growing and most importantly how much moisture is retained (more moisture means more evaporation and larger cooling effect). Moreover to predict how much lower temperatures will be inside your house you need to know how much heat is currently transferred from the roof, and how much from other sources (e.g. windows, doors, cracks).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bnROS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14988" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6024" RevisionGUID="2fa6d59d-3422-4e5c-a01b-e1590892ecae" CreationDate="2017-06-09T08:03:41.413" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags, fixed spelling and grammar, improved question title" Text="|cooling|green-roof|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6024" RevisionGUID="2fa6d59d-3422-4e5c-a01b-e1590892ecae" CreationDate="2017-06-09T08:03:41.413" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags, fixed spelling and grammar, improved question title" Text="I want to put a green roof on my top floor by using a plastic caret, adding a 4&quot; layer of soil and planting grass. I want to cover the whole roof with this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will it help to reduce the heat gain from my original roof and will it help to reduce the heat temperature of the internal rooms in summer? If so, what will be the temperature difference with and without the green roof?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14990" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6024" RevisionGUID="2fa6d59d-3422-4e5c-a01b-e1590892ecae" CreationDate="2017-06-09T08:03:41.413" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags, fixed spelling and grammar, improved question title" Text="How much temperature reduction will I get from a green grass-covered roof?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6025" RevisionGUID="ca0f3718-e098-4157-a229-d9d6cdad6cde" CreationDate="2017-06-09T08:11:24.243" UserId="99" Comment="add warning about checking roof beam support" Text="Green roofs help reduce heat significantly. For example in [this study](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866712000647)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mean daily temperature reductions achieved were 18.0 °C at the soil surface and 27.5 °C below the module &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and [this EPA study](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/greenroofscompendium.pdf) mentions 2 studies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chicago compared summertime surface temperatures on a green roof with a&#xD;&#xA;neighboring building. On an August day in the early afternoon, with temperatures in the 90s, the green roof surface temperature ranged from 91 to 119°F (33 to 48°C), while the dark, conventional roof of the adjacent building was 169°F (76°C). The near-surface air temperature above the green roof was about 7°F (4°C) cooler than that over the conventional roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A similar study in Florida found that the average maximum surface temperature of a green roof was 86°F (30°C) while the adjacent light-colored roof was 134°F (57°C)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Infrared Image of Chicago City Hall Green Roof and conventional roof, source http://ccap.org/what-does-climate-resilience-look-like*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much temperature reduction you will get is somewhat difficult to predict because it depends on the thickness of the soil layer, how well the grass is growing and most importantly how much moisture is retained (more moisture means more evaporation and larger cooling effect). Moreover to predict how much lower temperatures will be inside your house you need to know how much heat is currently transferred from the roof, and how much from other sources (e.g. windows, doors, cracks).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be aware that grass roofs can add a lot of weight, especially when it rains and lots of water is retained. For grass-covered roofs you need to take an extra 100-150 kg/m2 into account (and for sedum-covered roofs 40-80 kg/m2), so make sure your roof can handle this before you start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bnROS.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14992" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="752f3820-8abd-477b-b6e8-33c38cf99c22" CreationDate="2017-06-12T00:44:29.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="14993" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6024" RevisionGUID="60b3ebb0-4f85-4752-b645-c79881b0d1fd" CreationDate="2017-06-14T00:17:28.450" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/874782804709711872" />
  <row Id="14994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5937" RevisionGUID="173f1ad8-7245-499c-974e-3eff90f9be4c" CreationDate="2017-06-14T18:55:43.730" UserId="3955" Comment="edited body" Text="# TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chart is misleading since it compares carbon imprint by mass instead of a measure of how much a human needs to survive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Argument&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chart you link contains false comparisons. They are comparing _mass_ of foods against each other. However, you don't eat for mass, you eat for calories (or protein or nutriment, or whatever). A better comparison would be to multiply each 1 kg of food by the calories in that food. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I got my numbers from [here][1], with data sourced from USDA. The numbers in my chart below are kilograms carbon per 1000 calories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Lamb         20.85&#xD;&#xA;    Beef         13.78&#xD;&#xA;    Turkey        5.83&#xD;&#xA;    Broccoli      5.71&#xD;&#xA;    Tuna          5.26&#xD;&#xA;    Salmon        5.15&#xD;&#xA;    Cheese        4.47&#xD;&#xA;    Pork          4.45&#xD;&#xA;    Yogurt        3.49&#xD;&#xA;    Chicken       3.37&#xD;&#xA;    Milk          3.17&#xD;&#xA;    Eggs          3.06&#xD;&#xA;    Rice          2.08&#xD;&#xA;    Potatoes      1.46&#xD;&#xA;    Beans         1.40&#xD;&#xA;    Tomato        1.39&#xD;&#xA;    Tofu          1.38&#xD;&#xA;    Lentils       0.78&#xD;&#xA;    Peanut Butter 0.42&#xD;&#xA;    Nuts          0.39&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used the cooked option of each food when available. For the numbers with some options, I used whole milk, pinto beans, plain lowfat yogurt, almonds for the nuts, and part-skim mozarella cheese. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My first conclusion, is that Cheese doesn't have such a high footprint after all. It is just a little higher than Yogurt, which is just a little higher than Milk, which is about even with eggs. All the animal products dominate the top of the list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My other conclusions are that this is kind of a garbage comparison anyways. Broccoli doesn't provide calories, but it has more vitamin K than everything else on the chart combined. The peanut butter and nuts are really calorie efficient, but so what? If you try to live on peanut butter instead of rice you'll die of heart disease because you are getting 70% of your calories from fat and three times the recommended saturated fat dosage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/71/2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6026" RevisionGUID="6c61b0ec-af23-41b9-ac46-16a8026de37b" CreationDate="2017-06-14T19:51:33.507" UserId="1177" Text="If a household puts all its organic waste, from both the kitchen and the bathroom, into a biodigester, will it produce enough methane for the household's space heating? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References to some real experiments are very much appreciated. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6026" RevisionGUID="6c61b0ec-af23-41b9-ac46-16a8026de37b" CreationDate="2017-06-14T19:51:33.507" UserId="1177" Text="Can a household's organic waste alone produce enough methane for its own space heating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6026" RevisionGUID="6c61b0ec-af23-41b9-ac46-16a8026de37b" CreationDate="2017-06-14T19:51:33.507" UserId="1177" Text="|heating|biogas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6026" RevisionGUID="9a9faa86-b2d2-4a6b-ad7f-6f951c532c13" CreationDate="2017-06-14T19:57:37.113" UserId="1177" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="If a household puts all its organic waste, from both the kitchen and the bathroom, into a biodigester, will it produce enough methane for the household's space heating in a low -25 °C to high -15 °C climate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References to some real experiments are very much appreciated. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="14999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="d4561d8a-f729-4de7-a361-e1ab8fe8e9cf" CreationDate="2017-06-16T02:38:39.683" UserId="4640" Text="I want to install a solar water-pump or a windmill water pump to extract water from an aquifer without stop during the day (constant flow). The solar water-pump is less expensive and comes with the extra feature of using solar panels I have. My question is, is it somehow bad for the battery and/or the solar pump to be running 8/10 hours a day every day? should I better consider the windmill water pump?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15000" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="d4561d8a-f729-4de7-a361-e1ab8fe8e9cf" CreationDate="2017-06-16T02:38:39.683" UserId="4640" Text="Solar water-pump working continuously" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15001" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="d4561d8a-f729-4de7-a361-e1ab8fe8e9cf" CreationDate="2017-06-16T02:38:39.683" UserId="4640" Text="|solar-power|water|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15002" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6026" RevisionGUID="2750d83b-8e17-4d34-a228-5cb9018438af" CreationDate="2017-06-16T09:41:05.943" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/875649421798555648" />
  <row Id="15003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6028" RevisionGUID="a2d21bf5-e568-4017-8e9e-40a25ee0154c" CreationDate="2017-06-16T10:17:53.513" UserId="96" Text="Let's see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This paper][1] states numbers for organic waste production from 0.14 - 0.32 kg/ person day for developing countries. Elsewhere it is said that the total amount of organic wastes differs little between high- and low income countries, but the composition changes: More kitchen scraps, peelings etc. in low incom countries vs. meal leftovers in high income ocuntries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To calculatio biogas yield, we need to know the specific yield in Nl / kg VS (Normliter per kg volatile solids), the VS as percentage of TS (Total Solids) and the TS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This study investigates heating a student dorm in Sweden, using organic wastes &amp; biodigestion. They give these ranges for organic wastes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* TS 15-35 %&#xD;&#xA;* VS 80-96% (of TS)&#xD;&#xA;* biogas yield:303 - 435 Nl / kg VS&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the huge variability - waste is not waste and every project will need a local sampling campaign to get the actual biogas potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume the middle of each range for a rough approximation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * 0.23 kg / day organic waste&#xD;&#xA; * 27 % TS - 0,062 kg TS / day&#xD;&#xA; * 88 % VS - 0,055 kg VS / day&#xD;&#xA; * 370 Nl / kg VS - 20 Nl / day biogas production&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;20 Nl / day, with methane content of 55% (again an average value) turns (@ ~10 kWh/m³ methane) out to be 0.11 kWh usable energy per day. Let's say 0.5 kWh/d for a 4 person household as an optimistic value. This does not take into account own energy demand of digestion (which can be 0-30 % of the heat produced).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Germany a typical 4 person household needs 70 kWh/d for heating, a low value is 30 kWh/d.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy demand for heationg in a temperate cliamte is by orders of magnitude higher than what can be derived from household waste, when applied at household level. Organic waste will be produced year round, while most heat demand will be in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, 0.5 kWh/d would be not too far aaway from the cooking needs of a household (~1.5 kWh/day for Germany), so here biogas could at least supplement conventional energy usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://miun.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:321886/FULLTEXT01.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="be5bc7b7-dede-4e41-9427-c99c293bfc3d" CreationDate="2017-06-16T14:15:06.353" UserId="1177" Text="[Russian scientists find 7,000 Siberian hills possibly filled with explosive gas][1]. I wonder if it makes business sense to harvest these explosive gases and turn them into liquid natural gas for later use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/27/russian-scientists-find-7000-siberian-hills-possibly-filled-with-explosive-gas/?utm_term=.b72e03a88d6c" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="be5bc7b7-dede-4e41-9427-c99c293bfc3d" CreationDate="2017-06-16T14:15:06.353" UserId="1177" Text="Can Siberia's greenhouse gas be harvested?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="be5bc7b7-dede-4e41-9427-c99c293bfc3d" CreationDate="2017-06-16T14:15:06.353" UserId="1177" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="850c194f-eae7-4d00-86ea-d19732acf808" CreationDate="2017-06-16T16:55:51.867" UserId="1177" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="[Russian scientists find 7,000 Siberian hills possibly filled with explosive gas][1]. I wonder if it makes business sense to harvest these explosive gases and turn them into liquid natural gas for later use, or to build power plants on the spot and extract energy out of no man's land in the form of electricity instead of LNG.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/27/russian-scientists-find-7000-siberian-hills-possibly-filled-with-explosive-gas/?utm_term=.b72e03a88d6c" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="f623cc3f-d993-4319-ac7b-29c2ffbeab94" CreationDate="2017-06-16T17:27:24.400" UserId="1177" Text="If a compost contains RAM (restricted animal material), what are the indicators one should look at in order to determine whether it is safe for pasture use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15009" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="f623cc3f-d993-4319-ac7b-29c2ffbeab94" CreationDate="2017-06-16T17:27:24.400" UserId="1177" Text="When is a compost considered safe if it contains RAM?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15010" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="f623cc3f-d993-4319-ac7b-29c2ffbeab94" CreationDate="2017-06-16T17:27:24.400" UserId="1177" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6032" RevisionGUID="ad1218a8-afba-4401-8096-03cc61897272" CreationDate="2017-06-17T05:20:32.860" UserId="4644" Text="Here is my thinking on renewable resources. Biomass is the absolute worst way to go because it releases CO2 and damages habitats.&#xA;&#xA;Geothermal is not far behind but is for a different reason. Geothermal is stable but has a low power output. Geothermal energy is better used as heat than electricity.&#xA;&#xA;Water power can mean damage to aquatic and thus land habitats but more importantly, there is a minimum useful flow rate.&#xA;&#xA;Wind power has a maximum useful speed and is unreliable.&#xA;&#xA;Solar power is unreliable but as long as sunlight isn't at 0, it is useful.&#xA;&#xA;In other words, the more reliable the source of energy, the worse for either producing electricity(geothermal) or for the environment(water and biomass). And the less boundaries the better when it comes to an already unreliable source.&#xA;&#xA;But is my reasoning true? Is solar power really the best choice for renewable energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15013" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6032" RevisionGUID="ad1218a8-afba-4401-8096-03cc61897272" CreationDate="2017-06-17T05:20:32.860" UserId="4644" Text="Is solar the best?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15014" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6032" RevisionGUID="ad1218a8-afba-4401-8096-03cc61897272" CreationDate="2017-06-17T05:20:32.860" UserId="4644" Text="|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15015" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6027" RevisionGUID="9aae6cd0-9410-4107-ab85-b0e6e3097c8e" CreationDate="2017-06-17T06:46:56.477" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/875967981666304000" />
  <row Id="15018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6033" RevisionGUID="6b446c64-b0dd-4bb2-bcfa-45d28479559b" CreationDate="2017-06-17T11:29:17.957" UserId="99" Text="The validity of your assumptions depend very much on your location and on the amount of energy you want to generate. Some small-scale solutions do not suffer from the same drawback as large-scale solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Biomass**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CO2 emitted by burning biomass is CO2 from the atmosphere that was taken up by plants and trees. This means that energy from biomass can be generated CO2-neutral, provided the biomass that is burned is replaced by the same amount of new trees and plants (and ignoring the use of non-renewable energy for transporting the biomass). There can be other drawbacks of biomass like atmospheric pollution, or edible biomass competing with food/feed and driving up prices.&#xD;&#xA;However using crop residues or manure to generate methane (in a biodigester) for example and do not have these disadvantages. In this case economic viability can be a problem depending on the scale and availability of biomass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Geothermal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geothermal is indeed very efficient for providing heat and less so for providing energy, but that doesn't mean it's totally unsuitable. For example in [Iceland 29% of the generated electrical energy comes from geothermal sources](http://www.nea.is/geothermal/electricity-generation/) and [9 out of 10 households are heated with geothermal energy](http://www.nea.is/geothermal/direct-utilization/). Obviously in other countries with less volcanic activity geothermal energy is more costly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hydro-electricity**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with you that hydro-electricity is one of the most environmental unfriendly renewable energy sources. It disrupts river flows, hinders procreation of certain types of fish, and causes methane emissions by flooding areas with vegetation. But these problems apply primarily to new to-be-built dams. [Small scale hydro-electricity](http://www.dailytech.com/SmallScale+Hydroelectric+Power+Plant+is+EnvironmentallyFriendly+Cost+Effective/article19941.htm) can solve most of these problems, and existing dams in Norway are much more environmentally friendly than dams in the tropics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wind and solar power** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both wind and solar power are efficient and cost-effective and have good scaling capabilities. That's also the reason these two are the fastest growing renewable energy sources. Obviously they are only suitable for regions with plenty of sunshine or wind. It's assumed that solar power is not efficient at high latitudes, but [some researchers are trying to prove otherwise](http://www.nordicenergy.org/article/solar-power-at-the-arctic-circle/).&#xD;&#xA;The biggest drawback of both wind and solar is that energy storage is costly and difficult, but the expectations are that the popularity of both energy sources will stimulate research for better and cheaper battery technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There isn't a single, renewable energy source that will solve all our problems. All renewable energy sources have their pros and cons and which type of renewable energy is best depends very much on the local circumstances and the scale you want. Often a mixture of different renewable energy sources is the best solution. In many cases solar and wind energy are the good options because they can compete with and even outperform non-renewable energy sources in terms of cost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15019" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6032" RevisionGUID="77171952-d3e0-4c63-995f-21ce00c8e545" CreationDate="2017-06-17T11:29:41.757" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags, improved question title" Text="|solar-power|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6032" RevisionGUID="77171952-d3e0-4c63-995f-21ce00c8e545" CreationDate="2017-06-17T11:29:41.757" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags, improved question title" Text="Here is my thinking on renewable resources. Biomass is the absolute worst way to go because it releases CO2 and damages habitats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Geothermal is not far behind but is for a different reason. Geothermal is stable but has a low power output. Geothermal energy is better used as heat than electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water power can mean damage to aquatic and thus land habitats but more importantly, there is a minimum useful flow rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind power has a maximum useful speed and is unreliable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar power is unreliable but as long as sunlight isn't at 0, it is useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the more reliable the source of energy, the worse for either producing electricity (geothermal) or for the environment (water and biomass). And the less boundaries the better when it comes to an already unreliable source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is my reasoning true? Is solar power really the best choice for renewable energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15021" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6032" RevisionGUID="77171952-d3e0-4c63-995f-21ce00c8e545" CreationDate="2017-06-17T11:29:41.757" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags, improved question title" Text="Is solar energy the best renewable source of energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6035" RevisionGUID="f7801760-d2e8-4957-ae9d-ef8316cf9232" CreationDate="2017-06-17T14:24:33.203" UserId="4273" Text="I've done some web searches, but I don't see anything very current on how close we are to having a home energy storage flywheel system that's comparable in price and performance to a battery system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as a bonus, what is the current state of a domestic-scale flywheel system in terms of maximum energy storage, power output, and usable energy (maximum energy minus minimum energy -- assuming there's a minimum speed they must maintain, unless there's not)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6035" RevisionGUID="f7801760-d2e8-4957-ae9d-ef8316cf9232" CreationDate="2017-06-17T14:24:33.203" UserId="4273" Text="Domestic flywheel energy storage: how close are we?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6035" RevisionGUID="f7801760-d2e8-4957-ae9d-ef8316cf9232" CreationDate="2017-06-17T14:24:33.203" UserId="4273" Text="|home|energy-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6036" RevisionGUID="4b1fac7d-d940-4143-92b0-726d5c5f7995" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:46:35.773" UserId="4645" Text="My interest here is in biomass. I say for my region of the country or world biomass is about as renewable as u can get! I am mowing my 1 acre of grass and compressing the dry clippings into pellets for burning in my stove during Winter. I once calculated how many pounds of cellulose material this is. I also planted a small patch of sunflowers which should grow to over 6' plus produce some oil in the seeds. This should be a lot more biomass per unit of land than grass. This is true use of solar energy since the Sun gave the plants energy to grow. All the CO2 going into the air during Winter is no more than what was absorbed during the Summer. As a wide scale solution in an urban environment almost clearly there would be unacceptable smoke from this. Maybe some smokestack scrubbers could be used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6036" RevisionGUID="088ef052-d2e7-4d2c-bbd4-93ff77289fa3" CreationDate="2017-06-17T15:54:55.830" UserId="4645" Comment="added 317 characters in body" Text="My interest here is in biomass. I say for my region of the country or world biomass is about as renewable as u can get! I am mowing my 1 acre of grass and compressing the dry clippings into pellets for burning in my stove during Winter. I once calculated how many pounds of cellulose material this is. I also planted a small patch of sunflowers which should grow to over 6' plus produce some oil in the seeds. This should be a lot more biomass per unit of land than grass. This is true use of solar energy since the Sun gave the plants energy to grow. All the CO2 going into the air during Winter is no more than what was absorbed during the Summer. As a wide scale solution in an urban environment almost clearly there would be unacceptable smoke from this.&#xD;&#xA;Maybe some smokestack scrubbers could be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another efficient use of solar energy is to make zinc air rechargeable batteries with removable zinc plates that can be replated during the Summer when excess solar energy can be collected by solar cells. The plates could be stored separately until ready to use again in Winter when much less solar is available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6038" RevisionGUID="b3de56c4-d93b-48a0-9516-9ff44a8493c1" CreationDate="2017-06-18T16:47:48.780" UserId="4005" Text="My knee jerk reaction: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I know of mechanical systems, anything mechanical introduces losses due to friction in the form of heat, sound, and vibration. How would you even begin to use the mechanical energy stored in a flywheel? Simply storing the energy induces massive losses. Transferring the energy to its appliances introduces transfer problems such as losses, torquing rods, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My reading after I wrote my knee-jerk reaction:&#xD;&#xA;Article showing state-of-art flywheel progress, with efficiency of 85%. Flywheels operate in vacuum. &#xD;&#xA;https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-flywheel-design/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Big $$ spent by Boeing on specialty-use flywheel:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.uaf.edu/files/acep/BoeingFlywheelOverview_06_20_2012.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Afterthought: &#xD;&#xA;This seems to be something for specialty use. The promising flywheels seem to need uber-clean, highly maintained conditions. This is unlikely to be something for use in the home anytime soon. I expect that it is already in prototype experimentation in some factory. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="5e5ca01e-675b-4d8f-ab96-55a1f5b16ada" CreationDate="2017-06-18T17:50:50.660" UserId="2072" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Lets check the pros and cons on flywheel energy storage and whether those apply to domestic use ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Compared with other ways to store electricity, FES systems have long lifetimes (lasting decades with little or no maintenance;[2] full-cycle lifetimes quoted for flywheels range from in excess of 10^5, up to 10^7, cycles of use),[5] high specific energy (100–130 W·h/kg, or 360–500 kJ/kg),[5][6] and large maximum power output. The energy efficiency (ratio of energy out per energy in) of flywheels, also known as round-trip efficiency, can be as high as 90%. Typical capacities range from 3 kWh to 133 kWh.[2] Rapid charging of a system occurs in less than 15 minutes.[7] The high specific energies often cited with flywheels can be a little misleading as commercial systems built have much lower specific energy, for example 11 W·h/kg, or 40 kJ/kg.[8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - long lifetime -&gt; that would be a nice thing but not of the utmost priority. With 100,000 cycles (minimum taken from Wikipedia) it significantly outperforms rechargable battiers such as [Tesla's Powerwall 1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Powerwall) with 5,000 cycles within warranty. Other [sources](http://amberkinetics.com/products-2/) report a design life time of 30 years (though for utility scale storage systems not for residential use)&#xD;&#xA; - capacity starting from 3 kWh -&gt; A few to a few tens of kWh would put it well in a useful range for domestic use. &#xD;&#xA; - Specific energy of 11 Wh/kg (typical commercial system, value taken from Wikipedia) -&gt; With an usable capacity of 13,5 kWh at 120 kg system weight [Powerwall 2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Powerwall) outperforms commercial flywheels tenfold.&#xD;&#xA; - price -&gt; While I did not find any good numbers for small home-use flywheels but I somewhat doubt they beat the 5.5k US-$ for a Powerwall 2.&#xD;&#xA; - round-trip efficiency (charge/discharge) of up to 90% -&gt; in the range of what Powerwall claims (92.5%, [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Powerwall#Technology))&#xD;&#xA; - large maximum power output -&gt; Again, no numbers for smale-scale systems but a high power throughput is not a primary concern for domestic use (7 kW peak; 5 kW continuous of the Powerwall seem quite reasonable for that use case). &#xD;&#xA; - safety -&gt; It's hard to compare the risk from batteries (fire) to catastrophic failures of flywheels (kill'em all projectiles from a disc turning at 50,000 rpm). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion: with all the effort put into development of rechargeable batteries and upscaling of a whole industry to massproduce and market them I would doubt that flywheels are ever going to fly (pun intended) any time soon in a residential setting. I would rather expect to see them as grid energy storage in utility-scale levels that would benefit from the advantage of a high power output and where a higher capacity warrants the complexity of such systems (moving parts, vacuum, mag-lev).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15035" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="a95eb407-025e-4e7f-8ecd-8b21452ca4a6" CreationDate="2017-06-18T18:58:39.130" UserId="1177" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="[Russian scientists find 7,000 Siberian hills possibly filled with explosive gas][1]. I wonder if it makes business sense to harvest these explosive gases and turn them into liquid natural gas for later use, or to build power plants on the spot and extract energy out of no man's land in the form of electricity instead of LNG.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If oil and coal prices continue to rise, at what point is it profitable to collect these gases that are already leaking into the atmosphere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/27/russian-scientists-find-7000-siberian-hills-possibly-filled-with-explosive-gas/?utm_term=.b72e03a88d6c" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="5f7a65ac-27a5-4f56-8911-d021f4866286" CreationDate="2017-06-18T20:57:18.250" UserId="1177" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="If a compost contains [RAM][1](restricted animal material), what are the indicators one should look at in order to determine whether it is safe for pasture use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://becfeedsolutions.com.au/faq-items/what-is-restricted-animal-material-ram/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1120" RevisionGUID="d4b81b44-6dec-4a1d-9e5e-12f3635f1931" CreationDate="2017-06-19T05:43:53.763" UserId="85" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I have been harvesting and processing bamboo for crafts (mainly household items) and am interested in [rattan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rattan), which is more flexible than bamboo and can be used where otherwise one might use plastic rope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is rattan something that can be grown and harvested in a garden (temperate to tropical climate)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15038" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="a77a2a28-3d02-4f52-bdeb-8fe4d9561c3b" CreationDate="2017-06-20T10:04:47.363" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/877104935648862209" />
  <row Id="15039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6040" RevisionGUID="48c2fa28-006a-4272-a243-56d7a8220f2a" CreationDate="2017-06-20T22:52:16.443" UserId="2228" Text="Are you on a biodynamic septic system?  Flush them.  The bacteria should chew them up happily." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="aa18b4e7-b4ca-45a1-81f5-94732afb1a0f" CreationDate="2017-06-21T14:25:03.910" UserId="4656" Text="I am designing an aquaponics system for my basement.  I am thinking about one large fish tank approximately 3500 gallons.  The grow beds will be above the fish tank and consist of twelve 45 gallon beds.  Assuming after adding the grow medium, water volume will be reduced to about 35 gallons each.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means on a one pump system, the most water that will be removed from the fish tank is 420 (12 x 35) gallons.  I am thinking that this will have a nominal effect on the fish in the tank so no sump tank should be necessary.  Is my reasoning sound?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="aa18b4e7-b4ca-45a1-81f5-94732afb1a0f" CreationDate="2017-06-21T14:25:03.910" UserId="4656" Text="Sump tank neccesity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="aa18b4e7-b4ca-45a1-81f5-94732afb1a0f" CreationDate="2017-06-21T14:25:03.910" UserId="4656" Text="|aquaponics|water-management|fish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6042" RevisionGUID="c3a4ad98-f95c-461f-b953-34cde1210e3b" CreationDate="2017-06-21T21:22:23.123" UserId="4658" Text="Renewables shouldn't be thought of as an either / or proposition. If we're thinking about an entire economy you want a variety of sources at a variety of scales, with a variety of storage systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The availability of individual solar panels, wind turbines etc. can vary a lot over time. But with a sufficiently distributed network the availability becomes much more predictable and reliable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This report is old (2010) but presents a study showing just how reliable an economy scale supply of renewable energy would be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/renewables-24-7/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6043" RevisionGUID="f7ec0d3a-b409-4dab-8e45-f7231c9d31f2" CreationDate="2017-06-22T08:19:26.437" UserId="1567" Text="Get a pig. Or some chickens. You still need to follow some hygiene rules before feeding them meat scraps, check your local agri/health advisory office." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5994" RevisionGUID="e2f75786-2b1b-4b9a-aae2-b084cc5bbc98" CreationDate="2017-06-22T14:19:25.900" UserId="4560" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="We have the same problem for our house in India. For the roof, we are considering a combination of greenhouse rooftop, solar panels and heat reflective coating. There's a green-colored tarp type material that's cheap (few thousands in Rs.) that seems effective too. There are other things you can do on the inside and the walls too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15046" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="c81062a2-1369-422a-b84a-a6e6bf506208" CreationDate="2017-06-22T16:19:04.213" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/877923901480849408" />
  <row Id="15047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6044" RevisionGUID="f39f2096-d45f-469d-a0cd-e3444881f761" CreationDate="2017-06-22T16:47:31.167" UserId="99" Text="I still recommend composting. You can use a closed compost bin with small airholes so vermin cannot enter. If it's meal leftovers with grease and salt, then normal composting can be slow and smelly. In this case it would be better to first do [bokashi composting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokashi_composting#Bokashi). You 'pre-process' the materials in a airtight bin with micro-organisms. After 2 weeks you can safely compost it further on a compost heap or bury it in your garden. The only downside is that you have to buy or create your own effective micro-organisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively you can feed everything to animals like a dog, chickens or pigs, but not everything may be healthy for them, and local regulations may not allow it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5986" RevisionGUID="114d4a7e-09e8-42e0-9373-1e028ab483b0" CreationDate="2017-06-23T01:45:16.087" UserId="4533" Comment="Added refs." Text="People are completely mistaken about palm oil. This is the most efficient way of producing fat matter for use in cooking. Look at the yields of different oil-producing plants. Nowadays, as a consequence of this productive efficiency, palm has been chosen and become the most common crop for oil production and it has good properties for cooking purposes, so it is grown on most (necessarily deforested) surfaces for oil production purpose. But if you used a less efficient oil plant (sunflower, coconut, olive, canola, safflower, you name it) you would deforest more. The situation would be much worse than with palmtree. So palm oil is a blessing for ecology and the question of reducing deforestation due to our food needs is whether we should eat less fatty food. It is clearly ridiculous to go for palmoil-free spreads of all kind, if you do you are behaving less environment-friendly than with palmoil ones, you promote deforestation compared to palmoil spreads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is really quite astounding how simple and wrong people's reasonings are, given how radically aggressive their ensuing decisions and behavior are against palm oil. There is a big prolem with media lacking any form of humility, believing self-righteous to impose their opinion on people, and people then relaying that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;[Yield numbers][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[More Yield numbers][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't hesitate to search google if you doubt. But it is quite intuitive that if people grow so much palm it's because there are simple reasons and yield must be very high. Again, if you tell me that americans should eat less fat I would agree heartily but if you just want to replace palm oil with any other, keeping other things unchanged you are going to hurt our ecology badly. This is what people usually propose, switching to other oils than palm, and this is just plainly silly; this was my point and it still is, now critics of my answer should look at their navel a little critically. Can you make a point against me apart from exerting your power downvoting my post?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.soyatech.com/Palm_Oil_Facts.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6044" RevisionGUID="baa94017-4fbc-48b9-b559-57b3fb877c13" CreationDate="2017-06-23T18:14:10.573" UserId="99" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="I still recommend composting. You can use a closed compost bin with small air-holes so vermin cannot enter. If it's meal leftovers with grease and salt, then normal composting can be slow and smelly. In this case it would be better to first do [bokashi composting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokashi_composting#Bokashi). You 'pre-process' the materials in a airtight bin with micro-organisms. After 2 weeks you can safely compost it further on a compost heap or bury it in your garden. The only downside is that you have to buy or create your own effective micro-organisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, as others have also suggested here, you can feed leftovers to animals if you have them (like a dog, chickens or pigs). However not all foods may be healthy for them and local regulations may not allow it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15050" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6035" RevisionGUID="a8e70100-2888-4ed5-b068-f6b1b344da1a" CreationDate="2017-06-24T10:20:30.503" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/878558442293800961" />
  <row Id="15052" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="11272106-70a9-4c06-b398-a39c64e9cd6d" CreationDate="2017-06-25T14:48:40.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6047" RevisionGUID="4b28811d-0cba-4e35-9962-51749c06e0e6" CreationDate="2017-06-27T22:13:15.117" UserId="4677" Text="what would be the best type of plastic to melt into a clay mold, to produce a small figurine, something that a person would have normally, already in their household? such as soda bottles, milk bottles, plastic container, plastic silverware, ect. im making butterflys using feathers as the wings, and i would like to make the bodies using recycled plastic somehow. I have 2 of these already that someone gave me so i can make the mold initially using the imprint from the 2 &quot;bodies&quot; that i had prior to starting this project. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15055" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6047" RevisionGUID="4b28811d-0cba-4e35-9962-51749c06e0e6" CreationDate="2017-06-27T22:13:15.117" UserId="4677" Text="what would be the best type of plastic to melt into a clay mold to produce a small figurine, that a person would have normally in their household?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15056" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6047" RevisionGUID="4b28811d-0cba-4e35-9962-51749c06e0e6" CreationDate="2017-06-27T22:13:15.117" UserId="4677" Text="|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15058" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="750" RevisionGUID="b9c9c739-8f1e-47ad-87bb-848cbfb125e4" CreationDate="2017-06-28T09:15:22.327" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6047" RevisionGUID="ee2e212e-df94-4527-9e59-e5b509159639" CreationDate="2017-06-28T11:14:26.370" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="General cleanup" Text="What would be the best type of plastic to melt into a clay mold, to produce a small figurine, something that a person would have normally, already in their household - such as soda bottles, milk bottles, plastic container, plastic silverware, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm making butterflies using feathers as the wings, and I would like to make the bodies using recycled plastic somehow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15060" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6047" RevisionGUID="ee2e212e-df94-4527-9e59-e5b509159639" CreationDate="2017-06-28T11:14:26.370" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="General cleanup" Text="Best type of recyclable plastic to melt into a clay mold to produce a small figurine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15061" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6047" RevisionGUID="ee2e212e-df94-4527-9e59-e5b509159639" CreationDate="2017-06-28T11:14:26.370" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="General cleanup" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15062" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6047" RevisionGUID="ee2e212e-df94-4527-9e59-e5b509159639" CreationDate="2017-06-28T11:14:26.370" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 482" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6048" RevisionGUID="f68b6762-bc5e-46bd-924c-912c3cfae271" CreationDate="2017-06-28T22:58:15.627" UserId="4680" Text="I can tell you that you can find some great examples in Pinterest. About how to do it, there are some articles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You can use soldering iron to give more shapes (there's plenty other articles here in this sciencing site for you): http://sciencing.com/melt-plastic-soldering-iron-8210366.html&#xD;&#xA;- And here is some example based on what you are about to do (clay mold): http://www.atomicshrimp.com/st/content/plastic_moulding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you must always use apropriate equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6048" RevisionGUID="d1ed18a3-8e6e-49da-a69b-f384577f4675" CreationDate="2017-06-29T14:29:27.227" UserId="4680" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="I edited my answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you want to know what plastic you can use to melt into your mold right? The hard ones are recommended: plastic containers and bottle caps. You will shred them into small pieces and them melt them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The soda bottles can be melted but it might give you a different result if you mix it with other plastic sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some example based on what you are about to do (clay mold): http://www.atomicshrimp.com/st/content/plastic_moulding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you must always use apropriate equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope it helps.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15065" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6048" RevisionGUID="76eca7d1-53d0-4569-86d7-87cf59127ef0" CreationDate="2017-06-29T17:09:33.027" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Removed fluff" Text="So you want to know what plastic you can use to melt into your mold right? The hard ones are recommended: plastic containers and bottle caps. You will shred them into small pieces and them melt them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The soda bottles can be melted but it might give you a different result if you mix it with other plastic sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is some example based on what you are about to do (clay mold): http://www.atomicshrimp.com/st/content/plastic_moulding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you must always use apropriate equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15066" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6048" RevisionGUID="76eca7d1-53d0-4569-86d7-87cf59127ef0" CreationDate="2017-06-29T17:09:33.027" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 4680 edit id of 483" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="5e7d34fa-ddc3-4291-8ab0-ce6ae70c048b" CreationDate="2017-06-29T18:23:55.153" UserId="2734" Text="A neighbourhood school wants to start an Environ-friendly awareness and action project for the children. The idea is to collect plastic water bottles (preferably of the same size and shape) and stuff them with non-bio-degradable dry wastes such as polythene covers, chocolate wrappers, biscuit packet wrappers etc. There are a few online articles, (ex: [here][1] and [here][2]) about bottle bricks or eco bricks , which refer to the trash-stuffing practice, and there are numerous others which talk about filling sand (not the point of this question). There have been reports of using them for structural use (such as building) or [other non-structural uses][3]. It is hoped that the bottle bricks made at the school can be used somewhere like that or to be sent to environ care agencies that can use them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are there any demerits to this idea ? One possible demerit, I had thought (before learning about the above links on bottle bricks) was: In case the bottle is not used in the brick form after stuffing, it may make the plastic bottle tough or impossible to recycle in traditional ways. I hear, usually, the plastic bottles are crushed, to make pellets and then recycled back into bottles. Stuffing the bottles may make pellet-crushing difficult ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Are there any special aspects that should be taken care of, before taking up this stuffing project ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.shareable.net/blog/how-to-transform-plastic-%E2%80%9Cwaste%E2%80%9D-into-a-bottle-brick&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cosmo.ph/lifestyle/motivation/what-to-do-plastic-manila-a667-20170214&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.earthbench.org/how-to-bottle-brick.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15068" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="5e7d34fa-ddc3-4291-8ab0-ce6ae70c048b" CreationDate="2017-06-29T18:23:55.153" UserId="2734" Text="Bottle Bricks : Are there any demerits to stuffing plastic bottles with non-bio-degradable dry waste ex:polythene covers,chocolate wrappers etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15069" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="5e7d34fa-ddc3-4291-8ab0-ce6ae70c048b" CreationDate="2017-06-29T18:23:55.153" UserId="2734" Text="|building-materials|plastic-bottles|dry-waste|non-bio-degradable|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15070" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="b0681394-74a2-4ef2-b65a-da6fcaf3372c" CreationDate="2017-06-29T19:03:29.533" UserId="2734" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="A neighbourhood school wants to start an Environ-friendly awareness and action project for the children. The idea is to collect plastic water bottles (preferably of the same size and shape) and stuff them with non-bio-degradable dry wastes such as polythene covers, chocolate wrappers, biscuit packet wrappers etc. There are a few online articles, (ex: [here][1] and [here][2]) about bottle bricks or eco bricks , which refer to the trash-stuffing practice, and there are numerous others which talk about filling sand (not the point of this question). There have been reports of using them for structural use (such as building) or [other non-structural uses][3]. It is hoped that the bottle bricks made at the school can be used somewhere like that or to be sent to environ care agencies that can use them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are there any demerits to this idea ? One possible demerit, I had thought (before learning about the above links on bottle bricks) was: In case the bottle is not used in the brick form after stuffing, it may make the plastic bottle tough or impossible to recycle in traditional ways. I hear, usually, the plastic bottles are crushed, to make pellets and then recycled back into bottles. Stuffing the bottles may make crushing-pelleting route difficult ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Are there any special aspects that should be taken care of, before taking up this stuffing project ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.shareable.net/blog/how-to-transform-plastic-%E2%80%9Cwaste%E2%80%9D-into-a-bottle-brick&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cosmo.ph/lifestyle/motivation/what-to-do-plastic-manila-a667-20170214&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.earthbench.org/how-to-bottle-brick.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6050" RevisionGUID="a24138ad-f6a1-498e-9912-3ea6f933e4ff" CreationDate="2017-06-29T20:29:43.360" UserId="4687" Text="Pigs &amp; chickens.  The chickens follow the pig for all left. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6044" RevisionGUID="0c204413-9ca4-4870-83c4-fe86e789b06f" CreationDate="2017-06-30T07:22:00.597" UserId="99" Comment="elaborated on regulations and unhealthy foods" Text="I recommend composting  in a closed compost bin with small air-holes so vermin cannot enter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's meal leftovers with grease and salt, then normal composting can be slow and smelly. A closed bin can reduce the smell, but in this case it would be even better to do [bokashi composting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokashi_composting#Bokashi). With Bokashi you 'pre-process' the materials in a airtight bin with micro-organisms. After 2 weeks you can safely compost the materials further on a regular compost heap or bury it in your garden. The only downside is that you have to buy or create your own effective micro-organisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, as others have also suggested here, you can feed leftovers to animals if you have them (like a dog, chickens or pigs). However local regulations may not allow this. For example in [England you are not allowed to feed kitchen scraps from an 'unregulated' kitchen to chickens](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/gardening-blog/2013/dec/18/feeding-kitchen-scraps-chickens). Also not all leftovers may be healthy for your animals. Chickens for example can die from salt poisoning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6044" RevisionGUID="3aaa418d-b273-4ec6-b578-5ad0878bdd49" CreationDate="2017-06-30T07:39:10.127" UserId="99" Comment="elaborated on regulations and unhealthy foods" Text="I recommend **composting  in a closed compost bin** with small air-holes so vermin cannot enter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's meal leftovers with grease and salt, then normal composting can be slow and smelly. A closed bin can reduce the smell, but in this case it would be even better to do [bokashi composting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokashi_composting#Bokashi). With Bokashi you 'pre-process' the materials in a airtight bin with micro-organisms. After 2 weeks you can safely compost the materials further on a regular compost heap or bury it in your garden. The only downside is that you have to buy or create your own effective micro-organisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, as others have also suggested here, you can **feed leftovers to animals** if you have them (like a dog, chickens or pigs). However local regulations may not allow this. For example in [England you are not allowed to feed kitchen scraps from an 'unregulated' kitchen to chickens](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/gardening-blog/2013/dec/18/feeding-kitchen-scraps-chickens) and [a similar rule applies to pigs](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/14/food-waste-fed-to-pigs). Also not all leftovers may be healthy for your animals. &#xD;&#xA;For example raw meat is bad because of the risk of bacterial contamination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6044" RevisionGUID="343deb98-fe2f-489e-9bd8-682cf4364dae" CreationDate="2017-06-30T07:48:42.303" UserId="99" Comment="elaborated on regulations and unhealthy foods" Text="I recommend **composting  in a closed compost bin** with small air-holes so vermin cannot enter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's meal leftovers with grease and salt, then normal composting can be slow and smelly. A closed bin can reduce the smell, but in this case it would be even better to do [bokashi composting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokashi_composting#Bokashi). With Bokashi you 'pre-process' the materials in a airtight bin with micro-organisms. After 2 weeks you can safely compost the materials further on a regular compost heap or bury it in your garden. The only downside is that you have to buy or create your own effective micro-organisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, as others have also suggested here, you can **feed leftovers to animals** if you have them (like a dog, chickens or pigs). However local regulations may not allow this. For example in the EU you are not allowed to feed kitchen scraps from an 'unregulated' kitchen to farm animals like [chickens](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/gardening-blog/2013/dec/18/feeding-kitchen-scraps-chickens) and [pigs](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/14/food-waste-fed-to-pigs). Also not all leftovers may be healthy for your animals. &#xD;&#xA;For example raw meat is bad because of the risk of bacterial contamination." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6044" RevisionGUID="63d93f2b-9137-4bb8-bd2b-c791ebf823d3" CreationDate="2017-06-30T07:55:44.273" UserId="99" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="I recommend **composting  in a closed compost bin** with small air-holes so vermin cannot enter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's meal leftovers with grease and salt, then normal composting can be slow and smelly. A closed bin can reduce the smell, but in this case it would be even better to do [bokashi composting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokashi_composting#Bokashi). With Bokashi you 'pre-process' the materials in a airtight bin with micro-organisms. After 2 weeks you can safely compost the materials further on a regular compost heap or bury it in your garden. The only downside is that you have to buy or create your own effective micro-organisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, as others have also suggested here, you can **feed some leftovers to animals** if you have them (like a dog, chickens or pigs). However local regulations may not allow this! For example in the EU you are not allowed to feed kitchen scraps from an 'unregulated' kitchen to farm animals like [chickens](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/gardening-blog/2013/dec/18/feeding-kitchen-scraps-chickens) and [pigs](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/14/food-waste-fed-to-pigs). Also not all leftovers may be healthy for your animals. &#xD;&#xA;For example raw meat is bad for all animals because of the risk of bacterial contamination, avocado is poisonous to chickens, and chocolate and unions are very bad for dogs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15076" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6047" RevisionGUID="ecabbf16-785c-4a72-9840-18200a4c35c8" CreationDate="2017-06-30T17:12:28.273" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/880836443467386880" />
  <row Id="15077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6044" RevisionGUID="961a19b3-82ad-4a87-97b3-3aa1bff2f044" CreationDate="2017-06-30T18:29:28.860" UserId="99" Comment="added eating it yourself as most sustainable option" Text="The most sustainable way is reuse. Perhaps you can **eat the leftovers later**, or use it as ingredients for soup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have also suggested here, you can **feed leftovers to animals** if you have them (like a dog, chickens or pigs). But be warned that local regulations may not allow this! For example in the EU you are not allowed to feed kitchen scraps from an 'unregulated' kitchen to farm animals like [chickens](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/gardening-blog/2013/dec/18/feeding-kitchen-scraps-chickens) and [pigs](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/14/food-waste-fed-to-pigs). Also not all leftovers may be healthy for your animals. For example raw meat is bad for all animals because of the risk of bacterial contamination, avocado is poisonous to chickens, and chocolate and unions are very bad for dogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you cannot eat it anymore, I recommend **composting  in a closed compost bin** with small air-holes so vermin cannot enter. If the leftovers contain much grease and salt, then normal composting can be slow and smelly. A closed bin can reduce the smell, but in this case it would be even better to do [bokashi composting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokashi_composting#Bokashi). With Bokashi you 'pre-process' the materials in a airtight bin with micro-organisms. After 2 weeks you can safely compost the materials further on a regular compost heap or bury it in your garden. The only downside is that you have to buy or create your own effective micro-organisms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15078" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6049" RevisionGUID="13b4f629-3d43-40ae-838a-86ef04c9de6f" CreationDate="2017-07-01T11:17:38.693" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/881109536798633984" />
  <row Id="15079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="fd5b9e87-53ac-4027-b456-4347d1637d75" CreationDate="2017-07-01T12:05:04.307" UserId="4693" Text="Non-native english speaker here, wanted to share a concept for a possible cheap large scale energy storage concept that has been at the back of my head for quite some time. I couldn‘t find a reason that would make this concept both technically or financially unviable, so I‘m eager to hear any criticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Physical principle**&#xD;&#xA;Ocean water has a mean salt content of 3.5% per mass (3.5 g/L).&#xD;&#xA;If you put water with less salinity in a bag, it will float, with more it will sink in the ocean. &#xD;&#xA;The maximum possible salt content is  359 g/L. &#xD;&#xA;Thus one can calculate the potential energy of a bag of water with 360g salt dissolved that is at sea level, and sea ground is 300 m below sea level as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E= (0.36 kg – 0.035 kg )* 300 m * 10 m/s^2 =  975 J.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pure water doesn‘t have any potential energy, and we also need to subtract the salt content of the sea water. Only the difference of the salinity (effective weight) leads to potential energy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: With water having a higher salinity than ocean water it is possible to store energy at sea level with respect to the ocean floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actual Implementation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The desalination plant in Carlsbad, Calif produces 50 million gallons of fresh water a day &lt;https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2017/02/13/can-desalination-plants-quench-californias-thirst-for-water-in-a-clean-way/#43a5ccde77c8&gt; . For desalination, they produce high salinity water (20% salt, see article) that is piped back into the ocean. &#xD;&#xA;But in this concept, this is an effective weight of 189271 metric tons, or at 300 m height difference, this is 557024553000 J or 154729 Kwh of stored energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An energy storage system using this high salinity water would need 3 main components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A tank at sea level. Here one could think of building an artifical lake at the coast using a damn, or putting a large plastic bag into the ocan near the coast, and securing it against the waves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A tank at ocean floor level. Again, this would be mainly a large plastic bag, but  one needs to make sure that it is possible to empty this bag fully for maximal energy storage. A height difference of a magnitude &gt; 100 m can be often found within 10 km of the coast (this is actually the case at Carlsbad)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A pump/turbine + pipelines. In order to use pressurized pipelines, one would need to operate the pump/turbine at the ocean floor tank. Using suction enabled pipelines (for example steel) one could also operate the pump turbine onshore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Limitations of the system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* need for big amounts of high salinity water. Operation thus only close to desalination plants, or close to potash mines ( They often have large salt heaps, at least in Germany)&#xD;&#xA;* Environmental impact (1): Placing the sea level tank on the coast line will have drastic impact on maritime life. It should be  also possible to install the tank offshore, but with the additional need for large floating structures keeping the tank adrift.&#xD;&#xA;* Environmental impact (2): The tank on the ocean floor will also impact maritime live. However, in depths of &gt; 100 m, maritime live on the floor isn‘t too abundant anymore because of the lack of light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Economic viability**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I‘m not an engineer, and costs clearly depend on the solution, especially where and how to construct the upper tank. 	&#xD;&#xA;However, I think that the costs should within 1-3 times of that of a usual hydroelectric storage system, with &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* costs for power electronics + O&amp;M: 1002.5$/kw (not per Kwh! Additionaly capacity doesn‘t affect the price here)&#xD;&#xA;* cost for storage unit + load balancing: 12.5$/kwh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see here for details: &lt;http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/T48/Analysis%20of%20the%20Cost%20per%20Kilowatt%20Hour%20to%20Store%20Electricity%20final%20published.pdf&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means the system is easily competitive with current battery technology, with the further upside of having an infinite number of charge/recharge cycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;I think this concept might be viably both commercially and technically. The environmental impact needs to be verified, but might be similar to hydroelectric pump storage, and could be reduced by installing all tanks offshore with the additional need for floating devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, desailination plants at the coast might use this concept to generate electrical energy without using any tanks, by just installing a pipeline to a deep spot at the ocean floor, and letting the high salinity water sink down. But in that case, it needs to be checked if the diffusion of the salt might be too fast, so that no actual water is moved. This could be solved by small temporary tanks on the ocean floor that can be  used as a one way sluice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="fd5b9e87-53ac-4027-b456-4347d1637d75" CreationDate="2017-07-01T12:05:04.307" UserId="4693" Text="(New) Energy stroage idea: Pumped hydroelectric storage in ocean using difference in salt content" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="fd5b9e87-53ac-4027-b456-4347d1637d75" CreationDate="2017-07-01T12:05:04.307" UserId="4693" Text="|electricity-generation|energy-management|storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6052" RevisionGUID="7d6949aa-9fa1-4e5c-8bef-df60b2abedaf" CreationDate="2017-07-01T18:35:09.857" UserId="4695" Text="This all seems highly inefficient. Your one calculation based om m\*g\*h is meaningless, g is not 9.8 here. You have to displace the sea water which is almost as dense as the saltier water you want to descend. I do not understand how you regard bringing slightly heavier water down as &quot;energy storage&quot;. Once the saltier water is down, you want to have caught most of its potential energy or it will have moved into the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you would want to do anything like this, it would be far easier to just dig up some sand from the beach (heavier than sea water) and drop that into your pipes. Then the sea will wash it back onto the shore for you. But I do not think this would be worth while either." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15083" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6032" RevisionGUID="16947160-1a7a-4015-b778-71829eaa39d1" CreationDate="2017-07-01T20:24:49.987" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/881247240987258880" />
  <row Id="15084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="46562acf-eac8-4f4e-bdc9-9c9fc7c7ca37" CreationDate="2017-07-02T09:33:15.320" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="General cleanup (links)" Text="I wanted to share a concept for a possible cheap large scale energy storage concept that has been at the back of my head for quite some time. I couldn't find a reason that would make this concept both technically or financially unviable, so I'm eager to hear any criticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Physical principle**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ocean water has a mean salt content of 3.5% per mass (3.5 g/L).&#xD;&#xA;If you put water with less salinity in a bag, it will float, with more it will sink in the ocean.&lt;br /&gt; &#xD;&#xA;The maximum possible salt content is 359 g/L. &#xD;&#xA;Thus one can calculate the potential energy of a bag of water with 360g salt dissolved that is at sea level, and sea ground is 300 m below sea level as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E= (0.36 kg – 0.035 kg )* 300 m * 10 m/s^2 =  975 J.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pure water doesn‘t have any potential energy, and we also need to subtract the salt content of the sea water. Only the difference of the salinity (effective weight) leads to potential energy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: With water having a higher salinity than ocean water it is possible to store energy at sea level with respect to the ocean floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actual Implementation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The desalination plant in Carlsbad, California produces 50 million gallons of fresh water a day (Source: [Can Desalination Plants Quench California's Thirst For Water In A Clean Way?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2017/02/13/can-desalination-plants-quench-californias-thirst-for-water-in-a-clean-way/#43a5ccde77c8)).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For desalination, they produce high salinity water (20% salt, see article) that is piped back into the ocean. &#xD;&#xA;But in this concept, this is an effective weight of 189271 metric tons, or at 300 m height difference, this is 557024553000 J or 154729 Kwh of stored energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An energy storage system using this high salinity water would need 3 main components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A tank at sea level. Here one could think of building an artifical lake at the coast using a damn, or putting a large plastic bag into the ocan near the coast, and securing it against the waves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A tank at ocean floor level. Again, this would be mainly a large plastic bag, but  one needs to make sure that it is possible to empty this bag fully for maximal energy storage. A height difference of a magnitude &gt; 100 m can be often found within 10 km of the coast (this is actually the case at Carlsbad)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A pump/turbine + pipelines. In order to use pressurized pipelines, one would need to operate the pump/turbine at the ocean floor tank. Using suction enabled pipelines (for example steel) one could also operate the pump turbine onshore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Limitations of the system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* need for big amounts of high salinity water. Operation thus only close to desalination plants, or close to potash mines ( They often have large salt heaps, at least in Germany)&#xD;&#xA;* Environmental impact (1): Placing the sea level tank on the coast line will have drastic impact on maritime life. It should be  also possible to install the tank offshore, but with the additional need for large floating structures keeping the tank adrift.&#xD;&#xA;* Environmental impact (2): The tank on the ocean floor will also impact maritime live. However, in depths of &gt; 100 m, maritime live on the floor isn‘t too abundant anymore because of the lack of light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Economic viability**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I‘m not an engineer, and costs clearly depend on the solution, especially where and how to construct the upper tank. 	&#xD;&#xA;However, I think that the costs should within 1-3 times of that of a usual hydroelectric storage system, with &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* costs for power electronics + O&amp;M: 1002.5$/kw (not per Kwh! Additionaly capacity doesn‘t affect the price here)&#xD;&#xA;* cost for storage unit + load balancing: 12.5$/kwh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See here for details: [Analysis of the Cost per Kilowatt Hour to Store Electricity](http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/T48/Analysis%20of%20the%20Cost%20per%20Kilowatt%20Hour%20to%20Store%20Electricity%20final%20published.pdf)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(IEEE Transactions on energy conversion, vol. 23, no. 2, June 2008, page 529, PDF)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means the system is easily competitive with current battery technology, with the further upside of having an infinite number of charge/recharge cycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;I think this concept might be viably both commercially and technically. The environmental impact needs to be verified, but might be similar to hydroelectric pump storage, and could be reduced by installing all tanks offshore with the additional need for floating devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, desailination plants at the coast might use this concept to generate electrical energy without using any tanks, by just installing a pipeline to a deep spot at the ocean floor, and letting the high salinity water sink down. But in that case, it needs to be checked if the diffusion of the salt might be too fast, so that no actual water is moved. This could be solved by small temporary tanks on the ocean floor that can be  used as a one way sluice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15085" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="46562acf-eac8-4f4e-bdc9-9c9fc7c7ca37" CreationDate="2017-07-02T09:33:15.320" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="General cleanup (links)" Text="Energy storage idea: Pumped hydroelectric storage in ocean using difference in salt content" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15086" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="46562acf-eac8-4f4e-bdc9-9c9fc7c7ca37" CreationDate="2017-07-02T09:33:15.320" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 484" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="b4dc830f-81b0-443e-8660-5daf077c5d63" CreationDate="2017-07-02T10:21:39.177" UserId="15" Comment="Fix spelling, minor grammar improvements" Text="I wanted to share a concept for a possible cheap large scale energy storage concept that has been at the back of my head for quite some time. I couldn't find a reason that would make this concept both technically or financially unviable, so I'm eager to hear any criticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Physical principle**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ocean water has a mean salt content of 3.5% per mass (3.5 g/L).&#xD;&#xA;If you put water with less salinity in a bag, it will float, with more it will sink in the ocean.&lt;br /&gt; &#xD;&#xA;The maximum possible salt content is 359 g/L. &#xD;&#xA;Thus one can calculate the potential energy of a bag of water with 360g salt dissolved that is at sea level, and sea ground is 300 m below sea level as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E= (0.36 kg – 0.035 kg )* 300 m * 10 m/s^2 =  975 J.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pure water doesn‘t have any potential energy, and we also need to subtract the salt content of the sea water. Only the difference of the salinity (effective weight) leads to potential energy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: With water having a higher salinity than ocean water it is possible to store energy at sea level with respect to the ocean floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actual Implementation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The desalination plant in Carlsbad, California produces 50 million gallons of fresh water a day (Source: [Can Desalination Plants Quench California's Thirst For Water In A Clean Way?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2017/02/13/can-desalination-plants-quench-californias-thirst-for-water-in-a-clean-way/#43a5ccde77c8)).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For desalination, they produce high salinity water (20% salt, see article) that is piped back into the ocean. &#xD;&#xA;But in this concept, this is an effective weight of 189271 metric tons, or at 300 m height difference, this is 557024553000 J or 154729 Kwh of stored energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An energy storage system using this high salinity water would need 3 main components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A tank at sea level. Here one could think of building an artificial lake at the coast using a dam, or putting a large plastic bag into the ocean near the coast, and securing it against the waves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A tank at ocean floor level. Again, this would be mainly a large plastic bag, but one needs to make sure that it is possible to empty this bag fully for maximal energy storage. A height difference of a magnitude &gt; 100 m can be often found within 10 km of the coast (this is actually the case at Carlsbad)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A pump/turbine + pipelines. In order to use pressurized pipelines, one would need to operate the pump/turbine at the ocean floor tank. Using suction enabled pipelines (for example steel) one could also operate the pump turbine onshore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Limitations of the system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* need for big amounts of high salinity water. Operation thus only close to desalination plants, or close to potash mines (they often have large salt heaps, at least in Germany)&#xD;&#xA;* Environmental impact (1): Placing the sea level tank on the coast line will have drastic impact on maritime life. It should be  also possible to install the tank offshore, but with the additional need for large floating structures keeping the tank adrift.&#xD;&#xA;* Environmental impact (2): The tank on the ocean floor will also impact maritime life. However, in depths of &gt; 100 m, maritime life on the floor is less abundant because of the lack of light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Economic viability**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I‘m not an engineer, and costs clearly depend on the solution, especially where and how to construct the upper tank. 	&#xD;&#xA;However, I think that the costs should within 1-3 times of that of a usual hydroelectric storage system, with &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* costs for power electronics + O&amp;M: 1002.5$/kw (not per Kwh! Additionally capacity doesn‘t affect the price here)&#xD;&#xA;* cost for storage unit + load balancing: 12.5$/kwh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See here for details: [Analysis of the Cost per Kilowatt Hour to Store Electricity](http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/T48/Analysis%20of%20the%20Cost%20per%20Kilowatt%20Hour%20to%20Store%20Electricity%20final%20published.pdf)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(IEEE Transactions on energy conversion, vol. 23, no. 2, June 2008, page 529, PDF)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means the system is easily competitive with current battery technology, with the further upside of having an infinite number of charge/recharge cycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;I think this concept might be viable both commercially and technically. The environmental impact needs to be verified, but might be similar to hydroelectric pump storage, and could be reduced by installing all tanks offshore with the additional need for floating devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, desalination plants at the coast might use this concept to generate electrical energy without using any tanks, by just installing a pipeline to a deep spot at the ocean floor, and letting the high salinity water sink down. But in that case, it needs to be checked if the diffusion of the salt might be too fast, so that no actual water is moved. This could be solved by small temporary tanks on the ocean floor that can be  used as a one way sluice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6053" RevisionGUID="93f1997b-aa41-4919-9a42-b1798378a14b" CreationDate="2017-07-02T16:50:20.513" UserId="4699" Text="I was told to ask this question here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: This question is in the context of reducing trash at home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say I buy some meat at the grocery store. I would prefer to bring my own container and not use their packaging, but they do not allow me. So, I thought that I could just take the packaging out, dump it in their trashcan (or recycling?), and then put the meat in my container. I would like to do that for all products (such as bread, chicken, vegetables, toys, tools, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know it would be weird, but **is it ethical**? If it is not even legal, let me know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question (for curiosity): What about doing it **after** you took the products to home? Is it ethical to return to the store to dump the packaging?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15089" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6053" RevisionGUID="93f1997b-aa41-4919-9a42-b1798378a14b" CreationDate="2017-07-02T16:50:20.513" UserId="4699" Text="Is it ethical to dump packaging of products at the same store you bought them from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15090" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6053" RevisionGUID="93f1997b-aa41-4919-9a42-b1798378a14b" CreationDate="2017-07-02T16:50:20.513" UserId="4699" Text="|packaging|consumption|grocery|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6054" RevisionGUID="c942f6af-82b5-4f0a-b9d4-e419f96502ac" CreationDate="2017-07-02T18:40:48.937" UserId="4695" Text="I don't think so and I do not think it would be an effective statement. The store will likely have practical reasons for packaging and could not change their ways even if they wanted to. And they would probably be happy to dispose of your trash for you as long as you buy from them. But ethically, I would say once you buy it, it is your responsibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some products it may be feasible though to do without packaging. The best thing to do in my opinion would be to express your concern, ask for unpackaged versions and take your business elsewhere if they cannot help you. This may mean you will not have your favorite whatever at all because your request is not marketable yet. But someone has to start creating the market..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="03cd2b0b-01cc-45c8-959e-4da595b4f6b2" CreationDate="2017-07-04T06:18:13.320" UserId="4688" Text="I am in need of setting up an off-grid power supply for a 10k btu air conditioner (plus some extra power for light use, like laptop charging). The AC runs at 7-8 amps 110v, but I'm unsure of it's initial load amperage or exact wattage (somewhere around 1000w I think).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I purchase the following it should accomplish the job, but I need some help understanding what will suit my needs as far as wiring them and what components I'll need based on these voltage and amperage specs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x 325W 24v PV panels&#xD;&#xA;6x 100Ah 12v batteries&#xD;&#xA;40A MPPT charge controller (24V or 48V?)&#xD;&#xA;2000W sine wave inverter (24V or 48V?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q. 1) &#xD;&#xA;I'm unsure if I should run the PV panels in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 48V 15A) or just run them parallel at 24V 30A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q. 2) &#xD;&#xA;Likewise similar question for the batteries: should run them in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 24V 15A), can I just run them parallel at 12V 30A, or if I'm running the PV array at 48V do I need to match the 48V so that the battery controller is 48V both in/out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I'm unsure what will suit my needs best and best balanced. Also this may help aid me in which charge controller and inverter I need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15094" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="03cd2b0b-01cc-45c8-959e-4da595b4f6b2" CreationDate="2017-07-04T06:18:13.320" UserId="4688" Text="PV and Battery circuitry for DIY off-grid solar power" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15095" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="03cd2b0b-01cc-45c8-959e-4da595b4f6b2" CreationDate="2017-07-04T06:18:13.320" UserId="4688" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6056" RevisionGUID="602a825e-bf1f-46c8-aa3a-e6bad9ca3655" CreationDate="2017-07-04T08:25:19.443" UserId="48" Text="It may be technically feasible. But in reality, for places that do desalination, it's never going to be economical, because there's already an easier way to do things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Storage on the grid is useful because it enables more supply to be matched to more demand. It does that by shifting energy from the time it is generated to the time it is used. There is another way to match more supply to demand, and that's by shifting demand to times when supply is available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Desalination provides a great opportunity to time-shift demand. A desalination plant can run at full power whenever there's enough power available, running far higher than the demand for pure water at that time would require. All the surplus pure water can be stored for later. And then, when there's much less powre available, the water supply system can draw on that stored surplus pure water, and the desalination plant can be turned down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this works, because storing pure water is much easier, cheaper and more scalable than storing energy; and because in a system with desalination, that process is a high consumer of energy and power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5997" RevisionGUID="ed804b6e-53d6-4291-b3e0-968ab88e0f6f" CreationDate="2017-07-04T13:46:22.687" UserId="3293" Comment="added 481 characters in body" Text="&gt; The best eco-friendly energy is the one you do not use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So one of the solution I propose is you **heat your dorm room as little possible** in order to avoid having to cool it down:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Do not cook in there.&#xD;&#xA;* Use low temperature lights.&#xD;&#xA;* Do not use electronic devices. If you do, shut them down as soon as you can.&#xD;&#xA;* A refrigerator will heat your room far more than you think.&#xD;&#xA;* Take cool showers (and as short as possible, to avoid moisture making the warmness feeling worse).&#xD;&#xA;* Stay outside most of the time, because after all this, you're probably the thing that is heating the most in there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can stand it, it is ok to keep the thermostat as high as possible. It's probably a shared system, so you won't have a big effect on neighbors ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit*&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you have a collective air extractor from the bathroom and kitchen, you may use a fan directed towards moist drawers, clothes or towels. By drying (it is necessary for moist to get evacuated if you want this to work), the water will decrease temperature around.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if it gets unbearable for your health, more advice here: [*keeping-cool-without-air-conditioning.at.greenterrafirma.com*](http://greenterrafirma.com/keeping-cool-without-air-conditioning.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="f8d3e4a4-08ee-45c1-bc0b-89137d619e57" CreationDate="2017-07-05T02:20:35.847" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="general cleanup (layout)" Text="I am in need of setting up an off-grid power supply for a 10k btu air conditioner (plus some extra power for light use, like laptop charging). The AC runs at 7-8 amps 110v, but I'm unsure of it's initial load amperage or exact wattage (somewhere around 1000w I think).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I purchase the following it should accomplish the job, but I need some help understanding what will suit my needs as far as wiring them and what components I'll need based on these voltage and amperage specs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x 325W 24v PV panels&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;6x 100Ah 12v batteries&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;40A MPPT charge controller (24V or 48V?)&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2000W sine wave inverter (24V or 48V?)&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question 1: I'm unsure if I should run the PV panels in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 48V 15A) or just run them parallel at 24V 30A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question 2: Likewise similar question for the batteries: should run them in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 24V 15A), can I just run them parallel at 12V 30A, or if I'm running the PV array at 48V do I need to match the 48V so that the battery controller is 48V both in/out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I'm unsure what will suit my needs best and best balanced. Also this may help aid me in which charge controller and inverter I need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15099" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="f8d3e4a4-08ee-45c1-bc0b-89137d619e57" CreationDate="2017-07-05T02:20:35.847" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 3379, 2345 edit id of 485" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6057" RevisionGUID="85502025-4249-4f3e-950a-00cee4a60cce" CreationDate="2017-07-05T18:18:06.650" UserId="3955" Text="This is not ethical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an economic ethics point of view, you are throwing away your own trash (which you bought and thus acquired a responsibility for) in someone else's dumpster. This basically amounts to stealing, since someone else is paying to have that trash disposed of. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an environmental ethics point of view, you are not reducing the amount of trash you are generating by buying the same products, so your actions are neutral." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6058" RevisionGUID="fe4ef378-3688-4787-a656-9e44778da0ff" CreationDate="2017-07-05T18:31:23.820" UserId="3955" Text="The article you linked says that the salt content of the seawater released by the desalinization plant is increased by 20%, not that the effluent is 20% salt. This means that normal 3.5% salt seawater becomes something like 4.2% salt seawater. Plug that difference into your mgh equation and desalinization plant numbers you get 110 kwH per day of desalinated water, assuming both 100% efficiency and a 300m (!!) height differential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no way that these small amounts of stored electricity will be worth the equipment used to operate the system. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6059" RevisionGUID="cc420b0b-57b8-4975-9338-375b088474e6" CreationDate="2017-07-06T04:15:17.470" UserId="15" Text="If a store offers a publicly accessible rubbish bin, then **it would be ethical to ask the store for permission** to discretely transfer their product to your own containers inside or near the store and discard the packaging in their bin. In some cases it's already normal to discard packaging near or in the store, such as in a food court or mall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your suggested approach is an interesting one, but is unlikely to be seen as particularly constructive or positive. Stores certainly wouldn't welcome additional mess to clean up (such as spilled product), and may want to retain a more professional and polished image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A Different Approach**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are clearly willing to put substantial effort into the goal of reducing waste, which is fantastic. A more constructive approach would be to open communication with stores, as @martin-maat suggests. If you researched some options for improvement that could work for the store, they might be willing to work with you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example you could ask what it would take to get them to change to recyclable packaging, or to allow bringing of one's own container. They might agree to do it if you get support from 100 or 1000 customers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of a high complexity store like a supermarket, there's not going to be a quick fix, especially when changing their processes involves increases in cost or inconvenience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Bigger Picture**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are waste management groups that look at this kind of problem from a high level perspective; perhaps you should try to find one and see what you'd need to do to get involved?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6060" RevisionGUID="681bcf7b-bfa7-4943-8c55-da3680ce2c6d" CreationDate="2017-07-06T06:46:08.643" UserId="4708" Text="I am from India and there is no availability of vegan condom. I am a hardcore practitioner of sustainable living and don't wanted to create waste with single-use condom which is definitely resulting in some environmental issues. Getting a solution, I shall definitely spread the word in public. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any alternative? I cannot find any solution. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15104" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6060" RevisionGUID="681bcf7b-bfa7-4943-8c55-da3680ce2c6d" CreationDate="2017-07-06T06:46:08.643" UserId="4708" Text="Is there any eco-friendly option for condom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15105" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6060" RevisionGUID="681bcf7b-bfa7-4943-8c55-da3680ce2c6d" CreationDate="2017-07-06T06:46:08.643" UserId="4708" Text="|waste|environmental-impact|building-materials|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15106" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6060" RevisionGUID="88eaa45e-4d86-427d-a99f-d5d781144e1b" CreationDate="2017-07-06T08:31:49.007" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags" Text="|waste|environmental-impact|city-living|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15107" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="43f9bb35-456e-46de-bd8e-47b199f01479" CreationDate="2017-07-06T23:46:10.520" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/883109849189539840" />
  <row Id="15108" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="1def462b-1208-4e52-aadb-b6d4398f0d1b" CreationDate="2017-07-07T07:40:01.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15112" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5196" RevisionGUID="1c79a048-69a3-489b-99b5-67c41ed6097d" CreationDate="2017-07-08T02:46:10.107" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/883517535026634757" />
  <row Id="15113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6062" RevisionGUID="f6e7d1bd-8989-413d-adc5-dc838ff62733" CreationDate="2017-07-08T17:42:53.940" UserId="1053" Text="Where I live, stores do not recycle as thoroughly as people do. Therefore, when I buy meat on a Styrofoam tray, I want to put that (rinsed) tray in my home recycle, not the stories generally mixed-together trash or garbage. So your approach isn't going to be effective as a short term way to reduce food packaging in the landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the people who take care of the garbage probably don't look in it at all. If they do, and see packaging, they are more likely to think someone removed the packaging as part of stealing the product than as an objection to the existence of packaging. So your approach isn't going to be effective as a longer term way to reduce packaging used by that store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can work is to buy somewhere else. For example my supermarket has prepackaged meat on Styrofoam trays, but it also has a butcher counter with more expensive meat that is wrapped in paper for you as you ask for it. There is also a butcher in town that does the same. I buy my veggies as part of a CSA from a farm, and the vegetables are often not wrapped at all. They sell eggs, but we all bring our cartons back and they get reused over and over. If you buy somewhere else, and write the old store a letter saying what you are doing and why, you may see more options available at the old store some day. But even if they never change, you have, and you've reduced the waste you caused." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="4fa914bb-a340-4f48-9e8e-418c8be96cc0" CreationDate="2017-07-08T20:53:59.273" UserId="4693" Comment="added 102 characters in body" Text="Note: Updated the calculcation, found an error. With that, the concept isn't economically viable any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to share a concept for a possible cheap large scale energy storage concept that has been at the back of my head for quite some time. I couldn't find a reason that would make this concept both technically or financially unviable, so I'm eager to hear any criticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Physical principle**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ocean water has a mean salt content of 3.5% per mass (3.5 g/L).&#xD;&#xA;If you put water with less salinity in a bag, it will float, with more it will sink in the ocean.&lt;br /&gt; &#xD;&#xA;The maximum possible salt content is 359 g/L. &#xD;&#xA;Thus one can calculate the potential energy of a bag of water with 360g salt dissolved that is at sea level, and sea ground is 300 m below sea level as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E= (0.36 kg – 0.035 kg )* 300 m * 10 m/s^2 =  975 J.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pure water doesn‘t have any potential energy, and we also need to subtract the salt content of the sea water. Only the difference of the salinity (effective weight) leads to potential energy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: With water having a higher salinity than ocean water it is possible to store energy at sea level with respect to the ocean floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actual Implementation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The desalination plant in Carlsbad, California produces 50 million gallons of fresh water a day (Source: [Can Desalination Plants Quench California's Thirst For Water In A Clean Way?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2017/02/13/can-desalination-plants-quench-californias-thirst-for-water-in-a-clean-way/#43a5ccde77c8)).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For desalination, they produce high salinity water (20% raised salinity, see article) that is piped back into the ocean. &#xD;&#xA;But in this concept, this is an effective weight of 6624 metric tons, or at 300 m height difference, this is 5415.52 KWh of stored energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An energy storage system using this high salinity water would need 3 main components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A tank at sea level. Here one could think of building an artificial lake at the coast using a dam, or putting a large plastic bag into the ocean near the coast, and securing it against the waves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A tank at ocean floor level. Again, this would be mainly a large plastic bag, but one needs to make sure that it is possible to empty this bag fully for maximal energy storage. A height difference of a magnitude &gt; 100 m can be often found within 10 km of the coast (this is actually the case at Carlsbad)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A pump/turbine + pipelines. In order to use pressurized pipelines, one would need to operate the pump/turbine at the ocean floor tank. Using suction enabled pipelines (for example steel) one could also operate the pump turbine onshore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Limitations of the system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* need for big amounts of high salinity water. Operation thus only close to desalination plants, or close to potash mines (they often have large salt heaps, at least in Germany)&#xD;&#xA;* Environmental impact (1): Placing the sea level tank on the coast line will have drastic impact on maritime life. It should be  also possible to install the tank offshore, but with the additional need for large floating structures keeping the tank adrift.&#xD;&#xA;* Environmental impact (2): The tank on the ocean floor will also impact maritime life. However, in depths of &gt; 100 m, maritime life on the floor is less abundant because of the lack of light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Economic viability**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I‘m not an engineer, and costs clearly depend on the solution, especially where and how to construct the upper tank. 	&#xD;&#xA;However, I think that the costs should within 1-3 times of that of a usual hydroelectric storage system, with &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* costs for power electronics + O&amp;M: 1002.5$/kw (not per Kwh! Additionally capacity doesn‘t affect the price here)&#xD;&#xA;* cost for storage unit + load balancing: 12.5$/kwh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See here for details: [Analysis of the Cost per Kilowatt Hour to Store Electricity](http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/T48/Analysis%20of%20the%20Cost%20per%20Kilowatt%20Hour%20to%20Store%20Electricity%20final%20published.pdf)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(IEEE Transactions on energy conversion, vol. 23, no. 2, June 2008, page 529, PDF)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means the system is easily competitive with current battery technology, with the further upside of having an infinite number of charge/recharge cycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;I think this concept might be viable both commercially and technically. The environmental impact needs to be verified, but might be similar to hydroelectric pump storage, and could be reduced by installing all tanks offshore with the additional need for floating devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, desalination plants at the coast might use this concept to generate electrical energy without using any tanks, by just installing a pipeline to a deep spot at the ocean floor, and letting the high salinity water sink down. But in that case, it needs to be checked if the diffusion of the salt might be too fast, so that no actual water is moved. This could be solved by small temporary tanks on the ocean floor that can be  used as a one way sluice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="51d837e7-efcf-410a-8e4c-18e0564d91c9" CreationDate="2017-07-10T13:02:16.817" UserId="3664" Text="I would like to learn more about solar energy alternatives and apply them to our apartment. Most of the solutions I've found are very expensive and beyond the reach of regular people with regular apartments/houses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm searching for information on solar energy alternatives that are accessible to people like me. For example, I live in an apartment with a rooftop, and I want to use solar energy for one appliance (ie. the refrigerator). What *small-scale* alternatives are there for things like that? Or maybe I just want to just power my A/C. Are these options available?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that I live in the tropics and electricity here is very expensive, I believe there are many of people interested in implementing solar energy alternatives in their homes. But most are put-off when the cost hovers into the thousands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An idea of a solar-energy alternative that I would be interested in: maybe finding a solution where I can connect one appliance without spending a fortune." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="51d837e7-efcf-410a-8e4c-18e0564d91c9" CreationDate="2017-07-10T13:02:16.817" UserId="3664" Text="Solar energy alternatives for regular people?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="51d837e7-efcf-410a-8e4c-18e0564d91c9" CreationDate="2017-07-10T13:02:16.817" UserId="3664" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15118" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="75cafbb7-970f-40c6-869a-62afeb1fc02b" CreationDate="2017-07-10T17:33:35.360" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|apartment|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15119" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="acdef6fe-4318-4eed-a692-dcae2f0c8f90" CreationDate="2017-07-10T18:28:23.497" UserId="3664" Comment="edited title" Text="Low-cost solar energy to power a single appliance in an apartment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="e750fe32-d870-48c2-b937-7fbeb32e478a" CreationDate="2017-07-10T18:33:25.207" UserId="3664" Comment="edited title" Text="I'm searching for information on solar energy alternatives that are accessible to people like me without having to break the budget. For example, I live in an apartment with a rooftop, and I want to use solar energy for one appliance (ie. the refrigerator). What *small-scale* alternatives are there for things like that? Or maybe I just want to just power my A/C. Are these options available?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering that I live in the tropics where we get very hot sun throughout the year, and that electricity here is very expensive, I believe there are many of people interested in implementing solar energy alternatives in their homes. But most are put-off when the cost hovers into the thousands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An idea of a solar-energy alternative that I would be interested in: maybe finding a solution where I can connect one appliance without spending a fortune.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We don't get any help from the government for moving to other alternatives of energy. The only benefit is a lower monthly bill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15121" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="e750fe32-d870-48c2-b937-7fbeb32e478a" CreationDate="2017-07-10T18:33:25.207" UserId="3664" Comment="edited title" Text="Low-cost solar energy alternatives to power a single appliance in an apartment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15125" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="2cb42f5b-3ef9-404a-bca1-3990f99d9896" CreationDate="2017-07-12T01:44:36.980" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6065" RevisionGUID="b534c7fd-bdd1-40fa-bcad-f4abb329971c" CreationDate="2017-07-12T12:23:46.277" UserId="4727" Text="You would need to set up a small solar system with a charge controller, batteries for energy storage, AC inverter, and panels of course. I've added an image below. You would just have to make sure you have enough solar to generate the needed wattage that you need to run something bigger like and A/C or refrigerator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![solar diagram][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/M9Bz6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6066" RevisionGUID="687aa63d-b94d-473d-bbcd-b6173172fda6" CreationDate="2017-07-12T14:16:40.783" UserId="4728" Text="PNG images can be optimized in different ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing PNG size for websites seems to be a good choice in order to reduce bandwidth usage and data transport (and reduce the impact on environment). It's recommended by Google and other services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But does optimize PNG have an impact on CPU load when the computer read it to render it? In other words, is reducing PNG size to optimize size always a good idea to limit environment impact or is there some caveats?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6066" RevisionGUID="687aa63d-b94d-473d-bbcd-b6173172fda6" CreationDate="2017-07-12T14:16:40.783" UserId="4728" Text="PNG optimization for website and environment impact" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6066" RevisionGUID="687aa63d-b94d-473d-bbcd-b6173172fda6" CreationDate="2017-07-12T14:16:40.783" UserId="4728" Text="|environmental-impact|computing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6020" RevisionGUID="600a32c7-d797-4d37-b1b4-08fa14675c8d" CreationDate="2017-07-12T14:21:44.003" UserId="4594" Comment="added note explaining the tenuous nature of the answer" Text="I'm not typically an answer-my-own-question kind of person, but this has been on the back of my mind for days.  The challenge in answering this is that we do not have an apples-to-apples kind of comparison.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - On the one hand we have dishwashers whose primary impact is energy&#xD;&#xA;   they consume for electric motors / heating of water and the impact of creating the dishwasher (which will not last&#xD;&#xA;   forever).&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - On the other had we have paper plates that use wood pulp and the&#xD;&#xA;   energy requirements of transportation and production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this an apples-to-apples comparison, we can compare based on cost.  The heuristic is that when we pay for dishwashing or paper plates, we are paying for the summation of the resources that went into their production.  Thus we can use cost as a proxy for environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This website][1] estimates that it costs $0.63 per load to run the dishwasher (cost of the dishwasher being factored in).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [cheapest paper plates][2] I could find online are $18.86 for 600.  If we assume 100% markup for retail items (i.e. the difference in cost it took the manufacturer to produce the product from the price they are charging in stores) then the cost per plate is about $.016 per plate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that a dishwasher can wash 50 plates in a load, the equivalent for paper plates would cost $0.78.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Since $0.78 &gt; $0.63 we can assume (under this hypothesis) that paper plates have a greater environmental cost than a load of dishes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:** The above estimates are based on some pretty big guesses.  E.g. 100% markup for retail items.  If there is %200 markup on paper plates then that reverses the conclusion.  Further, as others have pointed out, even if we can accurately determine total $ cost, that does not not necessarly translate to environmental cost.  Some part of production may have low $ cost, but high environmental cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thesimpledollar.com/saving-pennies-or-dollars-dishwasher-or-hand-washing/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://jet.com/product/detail/576f614b6fc54eddb6eef91f9517ad07" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6067" RevisionGUID="7515bfdd-8580-4dc6-8121-a6f77e622407" CreationDate="2017-07-12T19:48:31.633" UserId="4729" Text="Modern computer devices are quite capable of dealing with the rendering without too much power usage.  I would say that, having gained wide usage, this is a good format.  I do most of my PC work on a &quot;green&quot; machine with a 10 Watt motherboard and have haven't noticed any problems with .png files.  Very large graphics in any format can slow things down as can uncompressed formats like bitmaps (.bmp). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6068" RevisionGUID="a00a825d-514f-406f-aa5b-b66f4f6e2d82" CreationDate="2017-07-12T20:16:34.850" UserId="4729" Text="In most countries, legislation limits the amount of power a device on standby, i.e. under power but not performing a function, are allowed to use.  In Europe it's 0.5 Watts.  I expect it's the same in the USA.  Modern switch-mode supplies can do much better than this and I wouldn't expect most to consume a measurable amount of power when not being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can't be created or destroyed so the easiest way to tell is to feel the surface of your socket outlet to see if it is warming up.  **If it is, investigate!**  It might be a badly designed USB supply or it could be a bad connection where electricity being used somewhere else on that circuit is looped through the back of the socket!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TOP TIP!  If you can borrow a thermal imaging camera it's an excellent way of identifying things inside your house consuming energy, bad connections &amp; wiring problems.  Looking at the outside of your house in the heating season will help you spot where you are losing heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15135" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6063" RevisionGUID="d41f0393-7ec1-432b-8df2-b4324623193f" CreationDate="2017-07-13T02:07:23.540" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/885319715823820801" />
  <row Id="15136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6069" RevisionGUID="f78fc2c5-0105-4cfb-b275-d7995ccf4534" CreationDate="2017-07-13T06:46:29.423" UserId="986" Text="I have just moved into a semi-detached house (rented) made out of cob, heated with a wood burner which also heats up the water for radiators and washing. There is also a large boiler,electrically heated, for hot water in the summer. The house is on two floors and there is a loft under the main roof . This seems to act as a buffer in warm  a days, releasing heat at night. Unfortunately the windows are single glazed and although the walls are insulating, all the heat escapes through the windows and there is a lot of condensation too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could be some strategies to improve heat management especially in the winter?![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VTWEE.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15137" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6069" RevisionGUID="f78fc2c5-0105-4cfb-b275-d7995ccf4534" CreationDate="2017-07-13T06:46:29.423" UserId="986" Text="Heat escaping very old cob house" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15138" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6069" RevisionGUID="f78fc2c5-0105-4cfb-b275-d7995ccf4534" CreationDate="2017-07-13T06:46:29.423" UserId="986" Text="|home|heating|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6068" RevisionGUID="918256ef-5807-4e56-8da2-6f1516f3620f" CreationDate="2017-07-13T08:06:49.747" UserId="99" Comment="added reference to EU regulation" Text="In most countries, legislation limits the amount of power a device on standby, i.e. under power but not performing a function, are allowed to use.  In Europe it's 0.5 Watts (see [EC Regulation No. 1275/2008](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EC_Regulation_No._1275/2008)).  I expect it's the same in the USA.  Modern switch-mode supplies can do much better than this and I wouldn't expect most to consume a measurable amount of power when not being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can't be created or destroyed so the easiest way to tell is to feel the surface of your socket outlet to see if it is warming up.  **If it is, investigate!**  It might be a badly designed USB supply or it could be a bad connection where electricity being used somewhere else on that circuit is looped through the back of the socket!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TOP TIP!  If you can borrow a thermal imaging camera it's an excellent way of identifying things inside your house consuming energy, bad connections &amp; wiring problems.  Looking at the outside of your house in the heating season will help you spot where you are losing heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4750" RevisionGUID="087b2868-14f0-4b3b-89fc-917e3eaae3bc" CreationDate="2017-07-14T08:09:26.760" UserId="99" Comment="added new article from Lund University" Text="I already provided an answer to this question [here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4548/99), which was written based on personal experience and knowledge, but in this second answer I wanted to address some interesting details and specific measures I found online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 1**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A recent survey paper from the University of Lund](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170711215821.htm) says that the best lifestyle choices to reduce your footprint are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Having 1 less child              saves about 58.6 tons CO2e/year*&#xD;&#xA; 2. Living car free                  saves about  2.4 tons CO2e/year&#xD;&#xA; 3. Avoiding air travel              saves about  1.6 tons CO2e/year&#xD;&#xA; 4. Eating a plant-based diet        saves about  0.8 tons CO2e/year&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Assuming you live in a developed country.&#xD;&#xA;This number will be lower if a developed country reduces its footprint&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Paper 2**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar measures but with different numbers were presented in [this Dutch news article from 2015](http://nos.nl/artikel/2061311-bereken-online-wat-milieubewust-leven-oplevert.html). The article was based on scientific research by a Dutch NGO called 'Milieucentraal', who's goal it is to inform the public about energy and the environment. According to Milieucentraal the average Dutch household (2.2 persons) emits 23 tons of CO2 per year. The 3 largest areas are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Transportation      5.6 tons CO2/year per family, &#xD;&#xA;                        4.0 for car use&#xD;&#xA;                        1.4 for flying&#xD;&#xA;                        0.2 for public transport&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food                5.6 tons CO2/year per family, &#xD;&#xA;                        2.3 for plant-based food&#xD;&#xA;                        1.9 for animal products&#xD;&#xA;                        1.3 for other (including bars and restaurants)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Energy use at home  4.1 tons CO2/year per family&#xD;&#xA;                        3.0 ton natural gas&#xD;&#xA;                        1.1 for electricity&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Source (in Dutch): [NOS news article](http://nos.nl/artikel/2061311-bereken-online-wat-milieubewust-leven-oplevert.html). Note that the latest version of the [Milieucentraal website](https://www.milieucentraal.nl/klimaatklappers) has slightly different numbers for the totals but doesn't list subcategories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Milieucentraal also investigated the best measures you can take to reduce this footprint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Take the train to work instead of the car (about 180km return trip) 7500kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 2. Don't fly to your holiday destination (24000 km return trip)        5400kg CO2&#xD;&#xA; 3. Place 15 solar panels on your roof                                  1800kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 4. Insulate your walls                                                 1600kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 5. Insulate your roof                                                  1400kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 6. Insulate your floor                                                  600kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 7. Buy a smaller car (and rent a bigger car when you really need one)   500kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 8. Use an energy monitor and check which appliances consume most        400kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 9. Efficient/reduced heating (close doors, turn down heat at night)     360kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 10. Reduce food waste by a half                                         350kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 11. Don't eat meat 2 days a week                                        320kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 12. For short distances take a bike instead of a car                    310kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 13. Drive your car efficiently                                          290kg CO2/year &#xD;&#xA;    (shift to high gear quickly, use cruise control, check tyre pressure)&#xD;&#xA; 14. Don't buy food that's flown in or is grown in heated green houses   200kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 15. Evict high-consuming energy appliance                               190kg CO2/year &#xD;&#xA;    (e.g. aquarium, 2nd fridge, waterbed, sauna)                         &#xD;&#xA; 16. Install a more efficient shower head                                120kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 17. Dry your clothes outside instead of in the dryer                     90kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 18. Shower one minute shorter                                            60kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA; 19. Wash clothes at low temperatures                                     25kg CO2/year&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source (in Dutch): http://www.klimaatklappers.nl " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6070" RevisionGUID="3f4b19c8-6c01-4e91-9aca-b07c85723524" CreationDate="2017-07-14T08:13:33.363" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="Curtains; especially in winter when its dark anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Insulation tape in the cracks between frame and window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also try to fit an extra 'window' (even a makeshift one) in the outer frame, i.e. on the outside of your current window. Results vary on what's available and how well it fits, but it creates an extra air buffer, and that will really help. Downside is that you can't open the window, and you may move the condensation to the new pane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current situation is so bad that anything helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="5ea771fb-0728-4f74-a5d1-eb5732a1f60a" CreationDate="2017-07-14T08:44:30.610" UserId="2734" Text="I was shopping and as a trial, I bought a talcum powder in a tin container instead of the usual ones that comes packaged in a plastic box. The material looks like a tin, although one cannot tell from the image. Are the tins more sustainable than the plastic boxes ? I did read this [question on tin containers .vs. tetrapak][1], though not a direct comparison with plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the famous video clip called [Story of Stuff][2] recently and it compounded my question.  If we were to include the total upstream cost of the packaging, it looks like a tin container may be more costly (from a environ view). That why this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it helps for the context, I live in small Indian town, where there are very few choices for responsible waste disposal, except the local scrap shop, who I hope segregates well. Or, if I submit well-segregated waste, at least he wont mix it with unsegregated ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3000/are-tetrapack-tomatos-more-sustainable-than-tinned&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15143" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="5ea771fb-0728-4f74-a5d1-eb5732a1f60a" CreationDate="2017-07-14T08:44:30.610" UserId="2734" Text="Are talcum powder tins more sustainable than the ones that come in plastic boxes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15144" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="5ea771fb-0728-4f74-a5d1-eb5732a1f60a" CreationDate="2017-07-14T08:44:30.610" UserId="2734" Text="|plastic|packaging|dry-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="8ab3d035-0140-450a-af91-e57ee27b90d9" CreationDate="2017-07-14T08:57:09.080" UserId="2734" Comment="added image and image link to clarify" Text="I was shopping and as a trial, I bought a talcum powder in a tin container instead of the usual ones that comes packaged in a plastic box. The material looks like a tin, although one cannot tell from the [image][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Yardley Gold Talcum Power Tin][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Are the tins more sustainable than the plastic boxes ? I did read this [question on tin containers .vs. tetrapak][3], though not a direct comparison with plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the famous video clip called [Story of Stuff][4] recently and it compounded my question.  If we were to include the total upstream cost of the packaging, it looks like a tin container may be more costly (from a environ view). That why this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it helps for the context, I live in small Indian town, where there are very few choices for responsible waste disposal, except the local scrap shop, who I hope segregates well. Or, if I submit well-segregated waste, at least he wont mix it with unsegregated ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://data:image/jpeg;base64,[encoded data, 12344 characters]&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aZMeg.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3000/are-tetrapack-tomatos-more-sustainable-than-tinned&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6067" RevisionGUID="392f25e9-43e5-4171-a266-bb3d604c216a" CreationDate="2017-07-14T10:39:15.380" UserId="4729" Comment="More detail." Text="It's a better question than it appears at first.  Consider the amount of energy consumed by data centres, the proportion of data held and transferred in graphic formats and the increasing use of png.  The effect on power usage in data centres and communication systems will be an important consideration for the decision makers.  The end user's energy use, probably less so.  The energy requirement at both ends will be affected by the level of compression.  There's a good discussion about this [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern computer devices are quite capable of dealing with the rendering without too much power usage.  I would say that, having gained wide usage, this is a good format.  I do most of my PC work on a &quot;green&quot; machine with a 10 Watt motherboard which is low in comparisons with most desktops.  Large .jpgs are noticeable slow.  I haven't noticed any problems with .png files and I have come to use the format routinely.  Very large graphics in any format can slow things down as can uncompressed formats like bitmaps (.bmp). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/69655/what-does-the-compression-setting-do-to-a-png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15149" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="412f81c5-b2f6-4981-8de5-c296c62b6554" CreationDate="2017-07-16T13:23:23.620" UserId="4688" Comment="Rollback to [03cd2b0b-01cc-45c8-959e-4da595b4f6b2] - Edit approval overridden by post owner or moderator" Text="I am in need of setting up an off-grid power supply for a 10k btu air conditioner (plus some extra power for light use, like laptop charging). The AC runs at 7-8 amps 110v, but I'm unsure of it's initial load amperage or exact wattage (somewhere around 1000w I think).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I purchase the following it should accomplish the job, but I need some help understanding what will suit my needs as far as wiring them and what components I'll need based on these voltage and amperage specs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x 325W 24v PV panels&#xD;&#xA;6x 100Ah 12v batteries&#xD;&#xA;40A MPPT charge controller (24V or 48V?)&#xD;&#xA;2000W sine wave inverter (24V or 48V?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q. 1) &#xD;&#xA;I'm unsure if I should run the PV panels in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 48V 15A) or just run them parallel at 24V 30A. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q. 2) &#xD;&#xA;Likewise similar question for the batteries: should run them in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 24V 15A), can I just run them parallel at 12V 30A, or if I'm running the PV array at 48V do I need to match the 48V so that the battery controller is 48V both in/out?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically I'm unsure what will suit my needs best and best balanced. Also this may help aid me in which charge controller and inverter I need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15150" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="14df8b5b-d24b-42cd-9a02-d4add572f2cc" CreationDate="2017-07-16T14:14:14.697" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/886589797506064384" />
  <row Id="15151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6073" RevisionGUID="cec2824b-6df5-4f4e-a1e1-2b30ff45c264" CreationDate="2017-07-16T18:40:56.647" UserId="4736" Text="Similar to [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3190/what-is-the-environmental-impact-of-replacing-a-vehicle) (except that's about cars), if I can buy more efficient light bulbs than the ones I'm using right now, should I? Or is it better to wait until my current light bulbs expire, based on the environmental cost of creating new light bulbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15152" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6073" RevisionGUID="cec2824b-6df5-4f4e-a1e1-2b30ff45c264" CreationDate="2017-07-16T18:40:56.647" UserId="4736" Text="Should I replace existing inefficient light bulbs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15153" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6073" RevisionGUID="cec2824b-6df5-4f4e-a1e1-2b30ff45c264" CreationDate="2017-07-16T18:40:56.647" UserId="4736" Text="|energy|light|energy-use|industrial-production|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15154" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6073" RevisionGUID="a1348330-478c-4f90-82e9-9b072a74f7eb" CreationDate="2017-07-17T06:55:39.133" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|environmental-impact|light|energy-use|industrial-production|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15161" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6073" RevisionGUID="abe8ce46-fa71-4e3c-9a08-3f4b936a35c8" CreationDate="2017-07-18T02:15:51.737" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/887133786495778816" />
  <row Id="15162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6077" RevisionGUID="12848624-6ec5-4083-a40a-86bacc8e4f5b" CreationDate="2017-07-18T04:39:07.073" UserId="400" Text="Sort of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the pay back time.  high efficiency lights are expensive. Expense is, at least in part, a measure of the resources used to make it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replacing the fixtures in the kitchen where the lights are on 8-10 hours a day is probably a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replacing the lights in the hall closet that runs 20 minutes a week is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replace the lights in the high use area, saving the bulbs for reuse in low use areas.  We have replaced all lights in our rooms in our house with screw in fluorescents except for the furnace room, one stairwell, and a few closets, and the front porch.  No one makes a high efficiency light that works at -40.  I think we have 5 tungsten bulbs still in stock.  Once they are used up we will replace them with fluorescents or LED bulbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6079" RevisionGUID="198eae69-6f63-43cb-8c0f-a4117ed53253" CreationDate="2017-07-21T12:09:04.470" UserId="4756" Text="Something I've been experimenting with for lighting is called the &quot;Alum Battery&quot; (a good search phrase for youtube or google). If you can find a cheap enough source of aluminum sulfate, you can actually take a battery that will no longer start your car, lawn tractor, motor cylce etc. and convert it to a different kind of battery by replacing the Acid with pickling alum (or equiv.). I won't go into details about doing that, but you can find videos and other DIY's. I recommend you watch as many as you can find though to make sure you learn how to do it safely. Some of the videos show some pretty unsafe practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I have made about a half a dozen or so of these Alum batteries and with a small (15 to 30 watt) solar panel I can run a 40 watt equiv. DC bulb from dusk until dawn every day. Even in Michigan winters. As far as appliances, I haven't gotten that far in my experiments yet, but I've noticed that my small chest freezer only uses about 90 watts of AC. The problem is that translates to much higher power when converting from AC to DC and the need for an inverter. Unfortunately these batteries don't usually work very well with an inverter because they seldom hold a full 12 volts, and inverters stop drawing at about 11 volts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My alum batteries range from about 7 volts to about 11 1/2 volts fully charged. I design most of my LED lighting circuits accordingly. The ones that hold 8 volts or more will run some 12 volt DC LED bulbs until the voltage drops to about 7 volts or so. I have one lawn tractor battery (converted) that holds 11 1/2 volts and when I first converted it and after I formed it, I ran a 5 watt (40 watt equiv) DC bulb 24/7 for two weeks on it. The second week the bulb grew pretty dim. After two weeks when I disconnected it, it was still glowing. So there is a lot of potential for these batteries IF you can get the alum cheap enough. Ordering 99.5% Aluminum sulfate on ebay I've got my cost down to about $4(US) for a typical lawn tractor battery and about $8(US) for a typical car battery. The formula I use is 2 cups aluminum sulfate to a gallon of distilled (or rain) water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The higher the quality battery produces the better the conversion results. If they don't hold ANY voltage I would advise not to waste your time converting them. I have a couple of batteries that I went ahead and converted that only produce about 3 or 4 volts. The lower voltage batteries were real junk before I converted them. If you have one that doesn't start your car good enough any more but still holds around 12 volts you will probably have better results. Obviously deep cycle batteries have better plates so they will usually work the best. I'm going to try to use one of those 3 to 4 volt conversions for a scarecrow idea I have to chase off critters using a wolf halloween mask and low watt led bulbs to light up the eyes. Other than that those two batteries don't have much value. The ones that came out to six or more volts are very useful for small dc lights. Eventually I plan to have a light in every room of my house run by these batteries and to use them every day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used brand name alum from the local grocery store for my first two conversions, but it was costing me about $30 to convert one car battery (too much imo). I should mention that they say these batteries will last ten or fifteen years. You can run them completely dead and not harm them. Sitting on the shelf they say they will run down faster than acid, but they'll charge back up a couple years later. I tend to think it's better to use them on a regular or semi-regular basis, but I have no data to support that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do have one battery that was a dried up old deep cycle off the front of an old camper I bought that I've been using for about 3 years to light three &quot;Mighty Lights&quot; (as seen on TV) and that battery is still going strong. I use two 1 watt hobby solar panels to charge it. No solar charge regulator is needed because the wattage is so low. I just have a diode to stop back flow and it's hooked straight to the battery. And the lights are also hooked straight to the battery. They have both light and motion switches built in and each have only 2 led's. They work well for navigation during power failures. If I install it in my house I'll be sure to include a low amp fuse for safety. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do off gas like a lead acid, but very little, especially with these low draw lights I'm using. While they do contain some acid, they are quite safe compared to lead acid from what I've heard from the experts on Youtube. I leave it to you to research how to convert one if you decide to experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an FB group that I'm starting about alt energy. Eventually I plan to put some of the data from my research on the lead alum battery on there, and if someone is interested in seeing some of that it will motivate me to do it sooner. Here's the link if you're interested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Alternative Energy Economics Discussion Group][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.facebook.com/groups/AlternativeEnergyEconomics/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6080" RevisionGUID="0d251c6e-fc60-4384-bceb-cda4075299bf" CreationDate="2017-07-21T12:32:52.773" UserId="4757" Text="Probably because it's currently more of a novelty. Until hemp use goes mainstream again the cost of production on a small scale will be higher than it would be on a larger scale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6081" RevisionGUID="f6a29497-3f9c-4128-8e0a-ff1bd3148ae2" CreationDate="2017-07-21T13:17:51.610" UserId="4757" Text="Lead crystal batteries (at least the ones I'm familiar with) are batteries that use salt crystals as the electrolyte. There are many different crystals that can be used. I have been experimenting with converting lead acid batteries to lead crystal batteries. You can find videos  on how to do this on Youtube and at various DIY websites by doing a search. The ones I make are called &quot;lead alum&quot; batteries. I mix aluminum sulfate with rain water or distilled water and use that to replace the acid in the battery. These DIY batteries have a lot of potential for low wattage applications like LED lighting, which is what I use them for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard that there is one Chinese company that uses a similar technology for batteries used in those little scooters and runabouts, so with the right formula they apparently have much more potential than what I'm doing with them right now. I'm hoping eventually to find a way to use them to run a freezer or refrigerator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get Alum at a local grocery store. It's used for canning pickles. But, to make an alum battery it's too expensive. About $30 to convert a typical car battery in my experience. I order 99.5% pure Aluminum Sulphate that I can get for about $25(US) for 3 lbs on Ebay. I can convert maybe 3 or 4 typical car batteries with that. I estimate it costs me about $7 or $8 per car battery. I'm looking into possibly buying it in a different form cheaper, but until I do some testing I won't go into that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By converting old junk car and lawn tractor batteries I am now able to run (on some of them) a 5 watt (40 watt equiv) LED bulb that I ordered from China for about $2 every night, all night using a 15 watt solar panel. I'm in Michigan and we get a lot of clouds in the winter and the days are pretty short, but with a 20 watt panel I'm certain that I can do that all year long. I use a photo switch mounted outside to automatically turn the light off and on. With the battery, the bulb, a cheap charge controller and a 15 watt Harbor freight solar panel (from a 3 panel kit) it cost me about $65(US)  for this setup, not counting the fuses, which might add another dollar or two. (Actually $55, but I'm counting the $10 I would have gotten if I had returned the battery for a refund of the core charge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say these used batteries will last another 10 to 15 years or longer. I have one I've been using to light some smaller LED &quot;Mighty Lights&quot;, which have motion and light sensing built in, for the past 3 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a guy on Youtube who has a video comparing lead crystal batteries to other battery technology for a solar system he was setting up in Africa for his house. He seemed to like the crystal batteries and apparently had a source for ones that can be used for solar. So there's a lot more information out there on this technology, and it looks like it has at least some potential for a battery that is probably a lot safer than using acid, although the lead is still an environmental concern if not disposed of properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have started a discussion group on Facebook about economical alternative energies, and I have some computer data on the experiments that I'm doing with lead crystal batteries if you're interested. I haven't posted any of that data yet, but if someone asks me it will motivate me to post it sooner. Eventually I plan to post some of that data. Especially if someone else is interested in experimenting with it and having discussions about results, practical uses, environmentally safe disposal practices etc. The group is about more than just solar and battery technology. Anything to do with alternative energy and sustainable living can be discussed there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the link:&#xD;&#xA;[Alternative Energy Economics Discussion Group][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.facebook.com/groups/AlternativeEnergyEconomics/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6082" RevisionGUID="34d2d44b-8259-4caf-a622-e01f4bf5fb9e" CreationDate="2017-07-21T14:00:07.213" UserId="4757" Text="There is a small DIY circuit called a &quot;joule thief&quot; that will take a AAA or AA battery down to about a half a volt or less. Most of my AAAs are from my computer keyboard which starts acting up when the battery reaches about 1 volt. I can take that battery and put it in a joule thief circuit and it will run an LED for maybe 24 to 48 hours. The joule thieves I make only take the battery down to about .7 volts, but there are better ones that will take it as low as .35 volts. Here's a link to a Youtube video that shows how to make the circuit. It can be made from components salvaged from old electronics too. The guy in the video is an expert, so I'm pretty sure if you followed his instructions exactly it might take the battery down to maybe a third of a volt. The LED would probably run for several days on a dead battery as opposed to my 1 or 2 days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[How to make an authentic joule thief][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K53beWYdIpc&amp;t=1656s" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15179" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6069" RevisionGUID="142d039a-3ea7-466c-95fe-1342d2a2016f" CreationDate="2017-07-25T10:42:36.617" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/889798029619974144" />
  <row Id="15180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6085" RevisionGUID="6fb185a2-6278-40e5-8cb7-d82121dfc879" CreationDate="2017-07-25T12:28:42.257" UserId="4769" Text="I have a very old, very large cortland apple tree near my garden. Every other year it bombards me with far more apples than I can use. I simply toss them into my garden without any fuss and let the cold New England winter do the rest. They break down on their own and by Spring thaw are completely incorporated into the soil. Loads of happy, fat earthworms keep the soil so aerated I don't even have to till. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15181" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="c488428d-3bc9-4893-b49c-ea36d016e700" CreationDate="2017-07-25T15:33:22.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6086" RevisionGUID="22e04282-5f88-414f-aa4e-33bd1a3c877c" CreationDate="2017-07-27T15:20:23.800" UserId="4778" Text="I stay in Malaysia, our weather here is either rain or just plain hot. Same as you, solar solutions here ain't cheap either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some affordable tips I can offer you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Grow potted plants on the roof, prefer leafy plants. Water them in the morning and by noon time they'll produce maximum O2 and water vapour. Which will cool the pot and the roof a lot, this will help reduce your cost when using AC.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Tint your window and have curtain, this will block most of the Infra red entering your home and heating it up. When I on the AC, I ensure the doors and windows don't leak too much. Yearly maintenance on the AC will ensure more efficient cooling.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Ensure proper ventilation around your fridge as it needs moving air to remove heat away from it's inside; making it more efficient. Place a pan of water on top of the fridge, it cools faster via evaporation. Just make sure no insects are breeding there.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Place a black pail of water under the sun, the water will store the heat and you can have a nice warm bath at night." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6087" RevisionGUID="2f69e547-2f0e-4577-8c22-097c933e78b2" CreationDate="2017-07-28T08:04:22.363" UserId="1567" Text="If you don't have that refrigerator yet and you are a small household, consider what they sometimes have in camping vans. They put a solar panel on the roof and use it to top up a normal 12 volt car battery. This is then used to run a little 12 volt camping refrigerator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your needs are small then this is a cheap and mobile way to solve your problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6091" RevisionGUID="fe3b8747-aac7-45a2-b5d1-d27678bb949c" CreationDate="2017-07-30T20:08:36.033" UserId="4786" Text="I would like to suggest coconut oil mixed with baking soda, perhaps some calcium carbonate powdered and or a little salt and a flavoring agent, no fluoride since that is so toxic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flavor might be almost anything in the mint family." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6091" RevisionGUID="aab2e666-d167-4929-9412-9aedd59d6b53" CreationDate="2017-07-30T20:34:46.743" UserId="4786" Comment="addition, was going to site hardness of enamel and baking soda and calcium carbonate, could not find information" Text="I would like to suggest coconut oil mixed with baking soda, perhaps some calcium carbonate powdered and or a little salt and a flavoring agent, no fluoride since that is so toxic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flavor might be almost anything in the mint family even turmeric might be used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The coconut oil is a natural anti fungal, anti bacterial and since decay is caused by bacteria is sure to help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since it can be made when need from ingredients kept individually not much packaging." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6092" RevisionGUID="ce51a64c-81d0-4100-9ae3-917266dc7271" CreationDate="2017-07-30T20:43:34.540" UserId="4786" Text="First sweat does not smell much until bacteria work on it, so an anti bacterial like coconut oil combined with a very small amount of another anti bacterial essential oil might work very well. Note, more than one essential oil might be used such as cloves or lemon and so forth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Anti sweating agents should never be used since they are poisons especially do not use anything with aluminum in it in any form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15194" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="6cd1c72f-90f1-4b7d-b3f0-999fc86e5a4d" CreationDate="2017-07-31T15:49:48.747" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title" Text="Is a sump tank necessary for my proposed aquaponics system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6094" RevisionGUID="81edfa37-8ac8-4724-af25-424de8019543" CreationDate="2017-08-01T05:28:16.810" UserId="4790" Text="I have the same system that has the same result as yours, my lettuce seeds germinate but later all the plants wilted. My suggestion and what I have done in my system was just let the grow-bed &quot;mature&quot; let the water cycle for a week.The reason might be the water may not have enough nutrients for it to grow and support plants. By cycling or continually flooding and draining or just let water flow continuously to your grow-bed for few days. By doing it, your grow bed  will be colonized with different bacteria and ( micro-fauna when the system is old) that is responsible for the conversion of fish waste. It happens as they consume the fish waste by the process they turn the waste into nutrients that the plants need for them to thrive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this help. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mfe3D.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6095" RevisionGUID="641d46e3-411f-40ab-82ea-569b96969aa5" CreationDate="2017-08-01T12:06:25.340" UserId="1701" Text="We are designing a root cellar for a landscape client, and have read the literature on passive venting. We're going to use a solar panel/battery setup to power a small light inside, but were wondering if it might also be good to add a fan to the vent system that could react to internal/external clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are NOT looking to do this as inexpensively as possible, and if there is any real benefit to actively managing humidity or temp through ventilation control, we would be interested in figuring out how to do it using the same solar power system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would such a system give better results or a more stable/controllable environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15197" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6095" RevisionGUID="641d46e3-411f-40ab-82ea-569b96969aa5" CreationDate="2017-08-01T12:06:25.340" UserId="1701" Text="Would a root cellar benefit from an active ventilation system activated by temperature or humidity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15198" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6095" RevisionGUID="641d46e3-411f-40ab-82ea-569b96969aa5" CreationDate="2017-08-01T12:06:25.340" UserId="1701" Text="|storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6094" RevisionGUID="73f5e577-f646-42a3-8aac-56b98f5651ea" CreationDate="2017-08-01T19:37:23.833" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed grammar and formatting." Text="I had the same system with the same result as yours; my lettuce seeds germinated but later all the plants wilted. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestion, and what I have done in my system, is just let the grow-bed &quot;mature&quot; -- let the water cycle for a week. The reason might be that the water may not have enough nutrients for it to grow and support plants. Try cycling, continually flooding and draining, or just let water flow continuously to your grow-bed for few days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By doing it, your grow bed will be colonized with different bacteria (and micro-fauna when the system is older) that are responsible for the conversion of fish waste. As they consume the fish waste they turn it into nutrients that the plants need to thrive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an illustration of the nitrogen cycle for reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mfe3D.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6097" RevisionGUID="252242c7-b93f-4de6-aff0-37d4ac1dba34" CreationDate="2017-08-02T07:40:01.937" UserId="4796" Text="I have one light that is my old bulb user.  I figure it does cost more to use them but I get use out of them.  I only have one light that uses incandescent bulbs.  I kind of use it as a shrine to ancient tech and a way of comparing the quality of light of LED bulbs I buy.  So I have 32 lights in my house, 30 of them are LED and 1 is incandescent and one is CFL.  I have 30 CFL bulbs and 180 (don't ask why but if you must know contractors that built my house left a pile in my attic) incandescent.  So I will just feed the respective lights replacements of like type until they are gone.  Not saying this is the best way to save energy but IMHO it is nice to have some old technology for comparison and a shrine to inefficiency to remind you of why you changed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15211" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6095" RevisionGUID="e49b44e8-4133-461e-a889-9e6bf08cba71" CreationDate="2017-08-03T20:50:23.957" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/893212473599438851" />
  <row Id="15219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6101" RevisionGUID="ec823e8f-46ae-470c-90ca-fe2b00d782ee" CreationDate="2017-08-05T20:46:18.600" UserId="4802" Text="I'd replace working incandescent bulbs with LEDs.  We did this in just one heavily used room (with about 300 watts worth of incandescent bulbs) and saw our electric bill go down. My husband did not like the light from CFLs in our &quot;office.&quot;  We ended up replacing various CFLs also except in cases where comparable LEDs were not readily available. (For instance, one of our light fixtures has five small CFLs that burn only 7 watts apiece. We could find no replacement.)  At least in rural Iowa, LEDs seem to be less expensive all the time (i.e. under $2 as opposed to $8 or $9 a few years ago) and use about 11 watts to produce more light than a 75 watt incandescent. In short, our LEDs use half as much energy as our CFLs were using. On a nationwide scale, this is a huge improvement.  Therefore, I have also switched CFL bulbs to LEDs as they became available.  I wanted to support the technology and help prices come&#xD;&#xA;down." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15220" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6013" RevisionGUID="95098ff3-f871-44f7-9d23-23e6042096c7" CreationDate="2017-08-06T08:28:19.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="98ca3b5f-538a-42b6-a919-ac11e4c49fa7" CreationDate="2017-08-06T11:15:42.937" UserId="4800" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]I am new to StackExchange and trying my best to stay within the rules. I have invented an efficient mechanism - a rotating mass magnetically attached inside a closed loop (GB 2517244)- I am attempting to apply an EMF system into the mechanism to make an 'at source' electricity generator. The mechanism is based on the Kinetic (Chinese) Wheel yoyo.  I am using a 1.5Kg flywheel assembly rolling 0.5 m down a 3 degree slope. The mechanism, using a battery, sensors and electromagnets to rock a counter-balanced beam (as the engine), is made to complete an 'orbit' at 1 metre per second @ approximately 1600RPM. Leaving aside 'start up' considerations and given each GPE renewal costs two 0.33amps inputs from the electromagnets.  Can I achieve more electrical output from an EMF arrangement along the transits than is needed to rock the mechanism?][&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wrR4T.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="98ca3b5f-538a-42b6-a919-ac11e4c49fa7" CreationDate="2017-08-06T11:15:42.937" UserId="4800" Text="Getting power from an innovative new mechanism" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="98ca3b5f-538a-42b6-a919-ac11e4c49fa7" CreationDate="2017-08-06T11:15:42.937" UserId="4800" Text="|electricity|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6103" RevisionGUID="fb606889-69c3-4ba5-8a3a-11f48adff529" CreationDate="2017-08-07T11:36:29.223" UserId="48" Text="No, you cannot get more energy out than you put in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, you cannot invent a perpetual motion machine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6104" RevisionGUID="a5ac9580-f94d-4cac-a6aa-22868fa0946e" CreationDate="2017-08-07T13:16:19.450" UserId="80" Text="I like using rechargeable batteries (AA and AAA) rather than buying single-use ones, for obvious reasons. The issue is, I often have to prematurely discard them because they leak. I suspect it has to do with storing them together in the same box, and with the weather (I live in a sub-tropical region where temperatures can get very high and there is a dry season and a wet season).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I store my rechargeable batteries in order to really use them to their full potential in the long term?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6104" RevisionGUID="a5ac9580-f94d-4cac-a6aa-22868fa0946e" CreationDate="2017-08-07T13:16:19.450" UserId="80" Text="How to store rechargeable batteries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15229" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6104" RevisionGUID="a5ac9580-f94d-4cac-a6aa-22868fa0946e" CreationDate="2017-08-07T13:16:19.450" UserId="80" Text="|batteries|storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15230" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6105" RevisionGUID="3e362bcc-6236-47b5-8acc-fef66cb05766" CreationDate="2017-08-08T05:49:01.593" UserId="4778" Text="Leaking AA / AAA batteries are mostly due to overcharge when you use those chargers that charge them in pairs. See picture below for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get a dedicated slow charger that is able to charge single cell, that way you'll able to safely charge your battery to full without overcharging. Never get those fast charger as they tend to heat up your battery to much and may damage it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for storing, keep them in a cool dry place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y3I06.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="b5a0fbd8-3525-4fe3-aa55-2dd36b1c3c35" CreationDate="2017-08-08T08:02:36.873" UserId="48" Comment="edited body" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]I am new to StackExchange and trying my best to stay within the rules. I have invented an efficient mechanism - a rotating mass magnetically attached inside a closed loop (GB 2517244)- I am attempting to apply an EMF system into the mechanism to make an 'at source' electricity generator. The mechanism is based on the Kinetic (Chinese) Wheel yoyo.  I am using a 1.5Kg flywheel assembly rolling 0.5 m down a 3 degree slope. The mechanism, using a battery, sensors and electromagnets to rock a counter-balanced beam (as the engine), is made to complete an 'orbit' at 1 metre per second @ approximately 1600RPM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving aside 'start up' considerations and given each GPE renewal costs two 0.33amps inputs from the electromagnets, can I achieve more electrical output from an EMF arrangement along the transits than is needed to rock the mechanism?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wrR4T.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6106" RevisionGUID="d6ecc3ed-665e-429b-a0fc-75e0f3bac6d1" CreationDate="2017-08-08T09:54:43.457" UserId="3293" Text="Here is your misconception: kinetic energy comes from within your system! To move something, you need energy, and when you collect electricity from that movement, you collect **LESS** energy that what is needed to move it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6106" RevisionGUID="b9463995-5f69-4f20-b41f-818e5a1c7873" CreationDate="2017-08-08T10:58:00.473" UserId="3293" Comment="added 494 characters in body" Text="[High technology watches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolex_Sea_Dweller) with no battery do exist, but they use the movement of the bearer against earth gravity as a source of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is your misconception: kinetic energy comes from within your system! To move something, you need energy, and when you collect electricity from that movement, you collect **LESS** energy that what is needed to move it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to user earth gravity as a source for energy, it only works until you reach the center of the earth. Then if you want to harvest more, you have to bring the mass where it began. And you need ***more*** energy than you could possibly collect in the first place by going down the first time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6106" RevisionGUID="0244a2ec-ca4c-428a-ac50-9a2d4cf3afe4" CreationDate="2017-08-08T11:10:54.487" UserId="3293" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="[High technology watches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolex_Sea_Dweller) with no battery do exist, but they use the movement of the bearer against earth gravity as a source of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is your misconception: kinetic energy comes from within your system! To move something, you need energy, and when you collect electricity from that movement, you collect **LESS** energy that what is needed to move it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to user earth gravity as a source for energy, it only works until you reach the center of the earth. Then if you want to harvest more, you have to bring the mass where it began. And you need ***more*** energy than you could possibly collect in the first place by going down the first time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other terms, your system is consuming latent energy, which makes it another failed attempt at [Perpetual motion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![troll physic][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;http://imgarcade.com/troll-physics-magnet-car.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pmNnq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6106" RevisionGUID="e1a4d955-5919-4c9f-98e8-1a9b861ed630" CreationDate="2017-08-08T11:22:42.483" UserId="3293" Comment="added 1043 characters in body" Text="[Sophisticated watches](https://www.amazon.com/Seiko-SKA515-Kinetic-Battery-Required/dp/B00756GC68) with no battery do exist, but they use the movement of the bearer against earth gravity as a source of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is your misconception: kinetic energy comes from within your system! To move something, you need energy, and when you collect electricity from that movement, you collect **LESS** energy that what is needed to move it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to user earth gravity as a source for energy, it only works until you reach the center of the earth. Then if you want to harvest more, you have to bring the mass where it began. And you need ***more*** energy than you could possibly collect in the first place by going down the first time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other terms, your system is consuming latent energy, which makes it another failed attempt at [Perpetual motion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![troll physic][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;http://imgarcade.com/troll-physics-magnet-car.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if you allow me, it's not a new idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Perpetual_Motion_by_Norman_Rockwell.jpg#/media/File:Perpetual_Motion_by_Norman_Rockwell.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Perpetual_Motion_by_Norman_Rockwell.jpg/1200px-Perpetual_Motion_by_Norman_Rockwell.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Perpetual Motion by Norman Rockwell.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;By &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Rockwell&quot; class=&quot;extiw&quot; title=&quot;en:Norman Rockwell&quot;&gt;Norman Rockwell&lt;/a&gt; - Downloaded &lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009-06-29&amp;amp;action=edit&amp;amp;redlink=1&quot; class=&quot;new&quot; title=&quot;2009-06-29 (page does not exist)&quot;&gt;2009-06-29&lt;/a&gt; from &lt;a rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; class=&quot;external text&quot; href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=pykDAAAAMBAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&quot;&gt;Popular Science magazine, Vol.97, No.4 (October 1920), Bonnier Corp. New York, ISSN 0161-7370, front cover&lt;/a&gt; on Google Books, Public Domain, &lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7163243&quot;&gt;Link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pmNnq.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="5d5e9cac-46d9-4367-b590-6d4fc70fed4c" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:33:39.637" UserId="4800" Comment="I have added a selection of pictures to show how the rotational energy is accumulated, and I have a working model (mechanical).  If any electrical resistance is minimised in the emf system used, 1.5kg constantly rolling downhill will induce a current.  If it can be made to produce more than the 0.33" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1][![enter image description here][2]][2]I am new to StackExchange and trying my best to stay within the rules. I have invented an efficient mechanism - a rotating mass magnetically attached inside a closed loop (GB 2517244)- I am attempting to apply an EMF system into the mechanism to make an 'at source' electricity generator. The mechanism is based on the Kinetic (Chinese) Wheel yoyo.  I am using a 1.5Kg flywheel assembly rolling 0.5 m down a 3 degree slope. The mechanism, using a battery, sensors and electromagnets to rock a counter-balanced beam (as the engine), is made to complete an 'orbit' at 1 metre per second @ approximately 1600RPM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving aside 'start up' considerations and given each GPE renewal costs two 0.33amps inputs from the electromagnets, can I achieve more electrical output from an EMF arrangement along the transits than is needed to rock the mechanism?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zhro4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wrR4T.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="fd0f79c9-2944-4ce9-893c-f611f06df218" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:53:34.170" UserId="2734" Text="Recurring waste has been a recurring theme in my questions about waste management. Want to ensure recyclability or reduce waste in everyday use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are these biscuit wrappers recyclable ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A neighbourhood school has been having a environ-care project for children, urging them to collect wrappers. However, it now looks like the local scrap shop dealer does not know whether they are really recyclable or whether these are destined to the landfill anyway, whether or nor seggregated. Some articles on the Internet seem to mention that, these are not recyclable, is it true ?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it helps in context: This is in a small town in India, options for responsible disposal are limited. Only the local scrapdealer, even that with limited knowledge of overall impact or options. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://bengaluru.citizenmatters.in/1582-reduce-reuse-recyle-waste-1582&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, they are best avoided. But setting that aside, are they recyclable and whether they can be dumped with other plastic such as polythene covers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![A Good Day Biscuit packet][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Good Day Biscuit Cover, when opened][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When unfolded : (washed and dried) : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Good Day Biscuit Cover, inner, unfolded][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ga85K.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5wy2B.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9yMoK.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="fd0f79c9-2944-4ce9-893c-f611f06df218" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:53:34.170" UserId="2734" Text="Are biscuit wrappers (the shiny looking ones) recyclable ? Can I dump them in regular dry waste collecting containers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="fd0f79c9-2944-4ce9-893c-f611f06df218" CreationDate="2017-08-08T15:53:34.170" UserId="2734" Text="|recycling|plastic|dry-waste|waste-segregation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6108" RevisionGUID="20e4d912-7d15-4fda-952a-e1ade4180668" CreationDate="2017-08-08T16:00:01.550" UserId="2734" Text="Now, in management of recurring everyday waste, this is something totally unavoidable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are tablet strips (what they call blister pack strips), after use, recyclable ? Can they be dumped with dry waste along with other plastic such as polythene covers ? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been collecting them for over a month now, with the hope that there must be a responsible way to dispose them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Uxo2T.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LqTNO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6108" RevisionGUID="20e4d912-7d15-4fda-952a-e1ade4180668" CreationDate="2017-08-08T16:00:01.550" UserId="2734" Text="Are tablet strips (emptied) (blister strips) recyclable ? Can they be dumped with other dry-waste in the plastic category?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6108" RevisionGUID="20e4d912-7d15-4fda-952a-e1ade4180668" CreationDate="2017-08-08T16:00:01.550" UserId="2734" Text="|packaging|dry-waste|segregation|household-waste|medical-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6108" RevisionGUID="5d962c37-69a3-424b-85e1-1d0ead5f666a" CreationDate="2017-08-08T19:09:45.237" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title/formatting, removed redundant image, edited tags." Text="Now, in management of recurring everyday waste, this is something totally unavoidable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are tablet strips (what they call blister pack strips), after use, recyclable? Can they be dumped with dry waste along with other plastic such as polythene covers? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been collecting them for over a month now, with the hope that there must be a responsible way to dispose of them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LqTNO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15244" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6108" RevisionGUID="5d962c37-69a3-424b-85e1-1d0ead5f666a" CreationDate="2017-08-08T19:09:45.237" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title/formatting, removed redundant image, edited tags." Text="Are used &quot;blister packs&quot; recyclable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15245" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6108" RevisionGUID="5d962c37-69a3-424b-85e1-1d0ead5f666a" CreationDate="2017-08-08T19:09:45.237" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title/formatting, removed redundant image, edited tags." Text="|recycling|waste|packaging|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6109" RevisionGUID="ba1a5a64-3882-4526-9bb8-b92cbfa9fa3f" CreationDate="2017-08-09T10:29:19.260" UserId="2617" Text="In terms of whether this makes sense, it depends on the current glazing. 2G varies quite a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Condensation&#xD;&#xA;This is an issue; it depends whether the tertiary glazing is fixed or openable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting a proper seal is difficult, you have to consider air infiltration from the outside. To that end I would suggest openable units so you can manage the condensation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Positioning&#xD;&#xA;A bit more on positioning. Generally the optimum gap is about 18mm for energy saving. Below that you get more conductivity through the air, above it circulation can occur leading to convection aided energy transfer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are optimising for sound reduction, you would want a larger gap." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6110" RevisionGUID="3eb746c6-73ee-460d-bf73-a54556b9455c" CreationDate="2017-08-09T10:38:59.357" UserId="2617" Text="The glib answer is to use less energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way of doing that is fixing the fabric of the house - massively increasing insulation, massively decreasing air permeability (and as a result fitting a ventilation system).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no technical-wizardry answer. The simplest solution is best (but unfortunately outrageously expensive)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6111" RevisionGUID="3e443be4-c58f-4215-b129-1cf41d20dfa2" CreationDate="2017-08-09T12:49:59.457" UserId="929" Text="I have a passive house with air ventilation and heating in the floor. In the question of the temperature of the air and the floor I have found the optimum, but I'm absolute without any knowledge, how to set up air humidity.&#xD;&#xA;The system allows me to setup humidity in percentage value.&#xD;&#xA;Is it any different in the summer or winter?&#xD;&#xA;What is the best for the ventilation system?&#xD;&#xA;What is the best for the humans living in the house?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6111" RevisionGUID="3e443be4-c58f-4215-b129-1cf41d20dfa2" CreationDate="2017-08-09T12:49:59.457" UserId="929" Text="How to set up optimal Air humidity in passive house?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15250" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6111" RevisionGUID="3e443be4-c58f-4215-b129-1cf41d20dfa2" CreationDate="2017-08-09T12:49:59.457" UserId="929" Text="|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6106" RevisionGUID="d5668f51-6a11-4d6e-a4ff-7d9df4ac927b" CreationDate="2017-08-09T13:13:41.047" UserId="3293" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="[Sophisticated watches](https://www.amazon.com/Seiko-SKA515-Kinetic-Battery-Required/dp/B00756GC68) with no battery do exist, but they use the movement of the bearer against earth gravity as a source of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is your misconception: kinetic energy comes from within your system! To move something, you need energy, and when you collect electricity from that movement, you collect **LESS** energy that what is needed to move it. ***My opinion is you mix potential energy and renewable energy in your system***.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to user earth gravity as a source for energy, it only works until you reach the center of the earth. Then if you want to harvest more, you have to bring the mass where it began. And you need ***more*** energy than you could possibly collect in the first place by going down the first time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other terms, your system is consuming latent energy, which makes it another failed attempt at [Perpetual motion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![troll physic][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;http://imgarcade.com/troll-physics-magnet-car.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if you allow me, it's not a new idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Perpetual_Motion_by_Norman_Rockwell.jpg#/media/File:Perpetual_Motion_by_Norman_Rockwell.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Perpetual_Motion_by_Norman_Rockwell.jpg/1200px-Perpetual_Motion_by_Norman_Rockwell.jpg&quot; alt=&quot;Perpetual Motion by Norman Rockwell.jpg&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;By &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Rockwell&quot; class=&quot;extiw&quot; title=&quot;en:Norman Rockwell&quot;&gt;Norman Rockwell&lt;/a&gt; - Downloaded &lt;a href=&quot;//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009-06-29&amp;amp;action=edit&amp;amp;redlink=1&quot; class=&quot;new&quot; title=&quot;2009-06-29 (page does not exist)&quot;&gt;2009-06-29&lt;/a&gt; from &lt;a rel=&quot;nofollow&quot; class=&quot;external text&quot; href=&quot;http://books.google.com/books?id=pykDAAAAMBAJ&amp;amp;printsec=frontcover&quot;&gt;Popular Science magazine, Vol.97, No.4 (October 1920), Bonnier Corp. New York, ISSN 0161-7370, front cover&lt;/a&gt; on Google Books, Public Domain, &lt;a href=&quot;https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7163243&quot;&gt;Link&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pmNnq.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="d0d7c68a-669d-40f0-a875-418ee0740922" CreationDate="2017-08-09T15:14:36.480" UserId="3379" Comment="spelled out acronyms" Text="I am new to StackExchange and trying my best to stay within the rules. I have invented an efficient mechanism -- a rotating mass magnetically attached inside a closed loop (GB 2517244). I am attempting to apply an EMF (electro-magneto force) system into the mechanism to make an 'at source' electricity generator. The mechanism is based on the Kinetic (Chinese) Wheel yoyo.  I am using a 1.5kg flywheel assembly rolling 0.5 m down a 3 degree slope. The mechanism, using a battery, sensors and electromagnets to rock a counter-balanced beam (as the engine), is made to complete an 'orbit' at 1 metre per second @ approximately 1600RPM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving aside 'start up' considerations and given each GPE (gravitational potential energy) renewal costs two 0.33amps inputs from the electromagnets, can I achieve more electrical output from an EMF arrangement along the transits than is needed to rock the mechanism?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1][![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zhro4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wrR4T.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15253" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="d0d7c68a-669d-40f0-a875-418ee0740922" CreationDate="2017-08-09T15:14:36.480" UserId="3379" Comment="spelled out acronyms" Text="|energy|electricity|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15254" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6108" RevisionGUID="c83ca857-f031-4540-aa65-52e6c7b4466e" CreationDate="2017-08-09T17:56:43.463" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/895343095134523393" />
  <row Id="15255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6112" RevisionGUID="dbfb29d5-4550-457a-8321-6ca4e94259f8" CreationDate="2017-08-09T19:58:40.550" UserId="4813" Text="Considering my home doesn't have a heating system nor chimneys, I wonder if it's worthwhile to heat using only candles. There are multiple dimensions to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Does it cost less than electric heating? Does it maybe even cost less than oil, gas or even wood?&#xD;&#xA;1. Compared to common heating sources, how does it stand environmentally?&#xD;&#xA;1. Are there any health risks like fine dust? Let's leave the fire danger aside here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6112" RevisionGUID="dbfb29d5-4550-457a-8321-6ca4e94259f8" CreationDate="2017-08-09T19:58:40.550" UserId="4813" Text="Is heating with candles economically and/or ecologically worthwhile?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6112" RevisionGUID="dbfb29d5-4550-457a-8321-6ca4e94259f8" CreationDate="2017-08-09T19:58:40.550" UserId="4813" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15258" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6112" RevisionGUID="b0b6a531-3607-4dd6-a809-bb8d0ddd57ef" CreationDate="2017-08-09T21:15:18.450" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags" Text="|heating|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15259" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6112" RevisionGUID="4125219e-d7a4-4f66-b91c-b17a197a0941" CreationDate="2017-08-09T21:19:26.947" UserId="4813" Comment="edited tags" Text="|home|heating|environmental-impact|carbon-footprint|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6113" RevisionGUID="a3a9b9f9-dce0-49b9-a5ee-9d30c940e416" CreationDate="2017-08-10T03:00:18.873" UserId="2345" Text="A related question was asked on SE Skeptics - [Is this tealight-flowerpot heater more efficient than just tealights?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the third answer, it is claimed the heat produced by one tea light candle is 0.75 MJ per candle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I live, one of the domestic gas suppliers sells gas for 2.78 cents per MJ. The energy value of the gas is 38.713 MJ per cubic metre of gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To produce the same heat as one cubic metre of gas I would need to burn 51.62 candles (38.713/.75 = 51.62)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [cost of candles][2] can vary from 50 cents to 30 dollars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 50 cents per candle the cost of 52 candles is $26.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cost of one cubic metre of gas from one of my local suppliers is $1.07 (38.713*2.78/100).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, The cost of using candles for heating is far more expensive than using natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, candles produce soot, which pollutes the air in the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18338/is-this-tealight-flowerpot-heater-more-efficient-than-just-tealights&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://candles.org/facts-figures-2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6113" RevisionGUID="0c451a44-e4ea-4d0b-9634-52763b5fb539" CreationDate="2017-08-10T09:10:18.107" UserId="2345" Comment="Added details about CO2 &amp; CO" Text="A related question was asked on SE Skeptics - [Is this tealight-flowerpot heater more efficient than just tealights?][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the third answer, it is claimed the heat produced by one tea light candle is 0.75 MJ per candle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I live, one of the domestic gas suppliers sells gas for 2.78 cents per MJ. The energy value of the gas is 38.713 MJ per cubic metre of gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To produce the same heat as one cubic metre of gas I would need to burn 51.62 candles (38.713/.75 = 51.62)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [cost of candles][2] can vary from 50 cents to 30 dollars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 50 cents per candle the cost of 52 candles is $26.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cost of one cubic metre of gas from one of my local suppliers is $1.07 (38.713*2.78/100).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, The cost of using candles for heating is far more expensive than using natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, candles produce soot, which pollutes the air in the room &amp; can lead to respiratory health issues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***EDIT:***&#xD;&#xA;The other negative thing about burning anything in a closed environment, such as a room or a house, is the burning process produces carbon dioxide and it may also produce carbon monoxide, which in high concentrations can be fatal or cause brain damage due to oxygen starvation on cells in the brain. If you need to been anything in doors, ensure a flue or chimney removes the gaseous products of combustion to the atmosphere outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18338/is-this-tealight-flowerpot-heater-more-efficient-than-just-tealights&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://candles.org/facts-figures-2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6114" RevisionGUID="9834557a-08a5-4c4f-96e7-de077e8372be" CreationDate="2017-08-10T09:27:22.820" UserId="99" Text="Yes, [blister packs are recyclable](http://www.zygreenmachine.com/products/Aluminum-plastic-recycling-line/Aluminum-plastic-recycling-line.html) but chances are there's no recycling company in your area that will accept and recycle it unless you are able to separate the different materials yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blister packs like the one you posted typically consist of plastic (PET or PVC) and aluminium. The problem with composite waste materials is that they are more difficult and costly to recycle compared to homogeneous materials, because you need to separate the different materials.&#xD;&#xA;Additionally plastic-aluminium composites only form a relatively small waste stream, which makes it difficult to make the recycling process economical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling companies that recycle blister packs do exist, for example [this US and UK-based recycler](http://www.terracycle.com/en-US/zero_waste_boxes/gum-packaging) but I think that's one of the few and it seems you actually have to pay them to get a waste collection box you can send back after it's filled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different recycling companies make different choices as to which types of waste they process and how they collect and process it. That's why it's always best to **ask your local recycling company** whether they recycle a particular product, and what the appropriate way of disposal is. If your local recycling company doesn't recycle it you could try and find another company further away and ask them, but if you do find a recycler that accepts it keep in mind that moving trash around may cause more environmental damage than you gain from recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW when inquiring about the recyclability of a particular material, always check the recyclers definition of 'recyclable'. Many recyclers will say they do 'thermal recycling' which means it will be incinerated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="b07b21fa-ffb6-418c-a86f-35eae208b66e" CreationDate="2017-08-10T11:27:12.613" UserId="4800" Comment="The latest picture synopsis should afford one with a focussed understanding with the proposed concept." Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]I am new to StackExchange and trying my best to stay within the rules. I have invented an efficient mechanism -- a rotating mass magnetically attached inside a closed loop (GB 2517244). I am attempting to apply an EMF (electro-magneto force) system into the mechanism to make an 'at source' electricity generator. The mechanism is based on the Kinetic (Chinese) Wheel yoyo.  I am using a 1.5kg flywheel assembly rolling 0.5 m down a 3 degree slope. The mechanism, using a battery, sensors and electromagnets to rock a counter-balanced beam (as the engine), is made to complete an 'orbit' at 1 metre per second @ approximately 1600RPM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving aside 'start up' considerations and given each GPE (gravitational potential energy) renewal costs two 0.33amps inputs from the electromagnets, can I achieve more electrical output from an EMF arrangement along the transits than is needed to rock the mechanism?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2][![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R86yL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wrR4T.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="035901c8-a494-46a3-a368-75e3b3fa2a61" CreationDate="2017-08-10T13:37:09.773" UserId="3293" Comment="image 2 was removed" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]I am new to StackExchange and trying my best to stay within the rules. I have invented an efficient mechanism -- a rotating mass magnetically attached inside a closed loop (GB 2517244). I am attempting to apply an EMF (electro-magneto force) system into the mechanism to make an 'at source' electricity generator. The mechanism is based on the Kinetic (Chinese) Wheel yoyo.  I am using a 1.5kg flywheel assembly rolling 0.5 m down a 3 degree slope. The mechanism, using a battery, sensors and electromagnets to rock a counter-balanced beam (as the engine), is made to complete an 'orbit' at 1 metre per second @ approximately 1600RPM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving aside 'start up' considerations and given each GPE (gravitational potential energy) renewal costs two 0.33amps inputs from the electromagnets, can I achieve more electrical output from an EMF arrangement along the transits than is needed to rock the mechanism?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/R86yL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wrR4T.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15265" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="035901c8-a494-46a3-a368-75e3b3fa2a61" CreationDate="2017-08-10T13:37:09.773" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 487" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6115" RevisionGUID="0dc74c78-cf6a-4931-abed-926c4cc0f5bb" CreationDate="2017-08-10T14:12:31.893" UserId="4800" Text="Only thermo plastics have a recycle value, thermoset plastics do not. Even the thermo plastics are limited as recyclate - grade 1 recyclate, by grade 2 the polymers strands will no longer bond and the resultant product will develop weaknesses and start to split. As stated in the first answer, 'Yes... ...need to separate the different materials' it is this which poses one of the biggest problems in recycling plastics, it's best done at source (at home if you like) as the cost of doing it on mass is high.  Hope this helps and enlightens.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15267" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6107" RevisionGUID="9c1f3a3b-bb36-47ed-8e92-f20dfae05114" CreationDate="2017-08-10T17:19:59.250" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6108],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2734,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Whirl Mind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15268" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="2d839372-5447-4ecf-ad18-47bf6c7bfefa" CreationDate="2017-08-11T02:21:53.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6116" RevisionGUID="f7232fcd-2954-4cc6-9c4e-f56d5d64a45e" CreationDate="2017-08-11T13:08:22.627" UserId="4817" Text="Many [online resources](https://thegreentoilet.blogspot.de/2008/02/so-why-is-toilet-paper-white-anyway.html) suggest that processed Chlorine free (PCF) and TCF toilet papers are more environmentally friendly than elemental Chlorine free (ECF) toilet papers. Although I can find a lot of actually existing PCF products, I couldn't find any actual TCF toilet papers. Do they really exist in reality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15270" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6116" RevisionGUID="f7232fcd-2954-4cc6-9c4e-f56d5d64a45e" CreationDate="2017-08-11T13:08:22.627" UserId="4817" Text="Do totally Chlorine free (TCF) toilet papers exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15271" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6116" RevisionGUID="f7232fcd-2954-4cc6-9c4e-f56d5d64a45e" CreationDate="2017-08-11T13:08:22.627" UserId="4817" Text="|paper|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="c3543150-bdba-4503-820c-bc0fdf6ad16f" CreationDate="2017-08-11T13:19:18.593" UserId="986" Text="I have been experimenting with a very old (made and installed in the 60s) woodburning stove in my new house in Devon, UK. I have started to learn that hardwood burns for longer than softwood, that well seasoned wood burns more quickly and more cleanly (it releases less creosote). &#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately my chimney doesn't have a flue all the way to the top, and the landlord doesn't seem to be interested in installing one soon. &#xD;&#xA;This may be one of the causes of my temperatures (around 100-200 C) which do not take off easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to ask for references that describe in detail the properties of different firewoods, comparing several species of UK trees. I haven't been able to find such a reference. I have read [The woodburner's companion][1] but it doesn't contain any discussion of wood selection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=4&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwien4anos_VAhUGJ8AKHa_iAE0QFgilATAD&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.co.uk%2Fbooks%2Fabout%2FThe_Woodburner_s_Companion.html%3Fid%3DeJRKAAAAYAAJ&amp;usg=AFQjCNE7QIJrUFuYPRLIzC7qIhN4qhWTAQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15273" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="c3543150-bdba-4503-820c-bc0fdf6ad16f" CreationDate="2017-08-11T13:19:18.593" UserId="986" Text="Woodburning stoves: what wood and why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15274" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="c3543150-bdba-4503-820c-bc0fdf6ad16f" CreationDate="2017-08-11T13:19:18.593" UserId="986" Text="|firewood|woodstove|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6118" RevisionGUID="0dc619b3-eae7-4469-9eb2-362df3fdb1ce" CreationDate="2017-08-11T14:43:04.570" UserId="99" Text="The table on [this Conservatree.org webpage](http://www.conservatree.org/paper/PaperTypes/CFDisc.shtml) explains that Processed Chlorine Free (PCF) means it's Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) plus it has recycled content. So all the PCF papers you found are also TCF. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conservatree.org also has [listings](http://www.conservatree.org/paper/PaperMasterList.shtml) for recycled and PCF paper products, including [this relatively large list of toilet paper for consumer usage](http://www.conservatree.org/paper/PaperGuide/Tissue/consumerbath.shtml) (US and Canada oriented). I'm not aware of any toilet paper that is TCF and not PCF." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15276" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6116" RevisionGUID="078b426a-0e80-40e8-970e-a2d805b25460" CreationDate="2017-08-11T14:46:43.500" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|paper|manufacturing|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15277" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6112" RevisionGUID="991dd6d3-631f-41d7-8ea9-a791f7ccd998" CreationDate="2017-08-12T09:01:42.947" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/896295619370917888" />
  <row Id="15280" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6111" RevisionGUID="d960e750-6cdc-47a1-ac7c-381e98d75e49" CreationDate="2017-08-15T00:06:08.203" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/897247999864299520" />
  <row Id="15282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6114" RevisionGUID="d8af4b5d-628e-47c8-846e-6fb4a7a8b303" CreationDate="2017-08-15T06:37:59.187" UserId="99" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="​​Yes, blister packs are recyclable (for example with machines like [this one](http://www.zygreenmachine.com/products/Aluminum-plastic-recycling-line/Aluminum-plastic-recycling-line.html)) but chances are there's no recycling company in your area that will accept and recycle it unless you are able to separate the different materials yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Blister packs like the one you posted typically consist of plastic (usually PET or PVC) and aluminium. The problem with composite waste materials is that they are more difficult and costly to recycle compared to homogeneous materials, because you need to separate the different materials. Additionally plastic-aluminium composites only form a relatively small-volume waste stream, which makes it difficult to make the recycling process economical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling companies that recycle blister packs do exist, for example [this US and UK-based recycler](http://www.terracycle.com/en-US/zero_waste_boxes/gum-packaging) but I think that's one of the few and it seems you actually have to pay them to get it recycled (you have to buy a waste collection box and send it back once it's full).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general it's always best to **ask your local recycling company** whether they recycle a particular product, and what the appropriate way of disposal is. That's because different recycling companies make different choices as to which types of waste they process and how exactly they collect and process it. If your local recycling company doesn't recycle it you could try and find another company a bit further away, but if you do find a suitable recycler keep in mind that moving trash around may cause more environmental damage than you gain from recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW when inquiring about the recyclability of a particular material, always check the recycler's definition of 'recyclable'. Many recyclers will say they do 'thermal recycling' which means it will be incinerated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="61ecaf8c-e049-49a2-9564-dad413c8bf63" CreationDate="2017-08-15T20:43:32.770" UserId="80" Text="I own two &quot;dumbphones&quot; that are now useless in Australia because they rely on the 2G network, which is being phased out entirely this year (2017).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two phones work perfectly fine, an I'd rather see them further used before being recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any program that sends working phones to e.g. developing countries where that network might be in use for several more years?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15284" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="61ecaf8c-e049-49a2-9564-dad413c8bf63" CreationDate="2017-08-15T20:43:32.770" UserId="80" Text="How can I extend the life of mobile phones that can't be used in my country anymore?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15285" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="61ecaf8c-e049-49a2-9564-dad413c8bf63" CreationDate="2017-08-15T20:43:32.770" UserId="80" Text="|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15286" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="47a47d2b-a191-46f5-b1b2-63b655fb1843" CreationDate="2017-08-16T06:09:13.017" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/897701759837143048" />
  <row Id="15287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6121" RevisionGUID="c9f86090-796c-49fa-93b4-2af31eedd5c3" CreationDate="2017-08-16T11:38:22.177" UserId="4728" Text="Assuming I use it all day long, should I shutdown my (recent) laptop every night and power it up every morning, or just let it sleep by closing it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15288" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6121" RevisionGUID="c9f86090-796c-49fa-93b4-2af31eedd5c3" CreationDate="2017-08-16T11:38:22.177" UserId="4728" Text="Laptop nights: shutdown or sleep?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15289" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6121" RevisionGUID="c9f86090-796c-49fa-93b4-2af31eedd5c3" CreationDate="2017-08-16T11:38:22.177" UserId="4728" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6122" RevisionGUID="bae55f93-83c6-4b7b-9b01-7d6026080b9c" CreationDate="2017-08-16T12:30:52.837" UserId="2345" Text="To determine the power used when the computer is in sleep mode you can acquire a power meter that plugs into a power outlet &amp; measures the electricity used by devices that are connected to the power meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has been done by one person who [posted the results online][1]. The summary states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The standby mode power consumption is just a bit more than leaving the computer plugged in but off. So I can use standby mode without any significant additional cost.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; While I'm away for more than 8 hours it makes sense to turn the computer off at the power strip. At this point no electricity is being used by any of the devices on the power strip. I usually do this when I am done using the computer in the evening or plan to be away for a while. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why the [computer uses power while it is in sleep mode][2] is because all the computer processes are stored in RAM, which requires powers to maintain things in memory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It comes down to you. Do you want to use electricity keeping the computer's memory active while you are not using the computer for long periods of time and then to have the computer be instantly available when you open it up again, or do you want to use no electricity and wait for the computer to boot up and go through its initialization procedures when you turn it on, after not using it for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thegeoexchange.org/standby-mode-power-consumption/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://superuser.com/questions/408737/what-happens-when-a-computer-goes-to-sleep" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15292" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6095" RevisionGUID="fb96172a-1f02-4967-9ac1-b7b67531da33" CreationDate="2017-08-16T12:52:09.547" UserId="1701" Comment="39" />
  <row Id="15293" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="e8c49483-7fa6-4b26-af29-920bf06b41d1" CreationDate="2017-08-16T14:52:00.853" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Added australia tag" Text="|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15294" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6120" RevisionGUID="e8c49483-7fa6-4b26-af29-920bf06b41d1" CreationDate="2017-08-16T14:52:00.853" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 2345, 3379 edit id of 488" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15295" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6104" RevisionGUID="20b15465-9f2b-42be-9200-c137ebc063b0" CreationDate="2017-08-17T06:04:24.663" UserId="80" Comment="add type of battery" Text="I like using rechargeable [NiMH](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93metal_hydride_battery) batteries (AA and AAA) rather than buying single-use ones, for obvious reasons. The issue is, I often have to prematurely discard them because they leak. I suspect it has to do with storing them together in the same box, and with the weather (I live in a sub-tropical region where temperatures can get very high and there is a dry season and a wet season).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I store my rechargeable batteries in order to really use them to their full potential in the long term?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6123" RevisionGUID="eb9069cc-a9b6-4a42-8382-87cba67f354a" CreationDate="2017-08-17T09:30:11.830" UserId="4829" Text="your fundamental logic is all wrong in your question.  My limited brain cell matter suggests that Method B means the fridge door is open 10 seconds longer than Method A?!!!  If you reverse the question you might be able to apply some maths theory to find the correct answer.....!  I agree that keeping fridge door open as short a time as possible will help contribute to a significant reduction in global energy usage. I refer you to study by Dr Dr. Claus and Barthel Thomas Götz http://www.bigee.net/media/filer_public/2012/12/04/bigee_doc_2_refrigerators_freezers_worldwide_potential_20121130.pdf .  They report about 1,4 billion domestic refrigerators and freezers are in use world- wide. With an average annual electricity consumption of 450 kWh each, altogether they account for almost 14 % of the total electricity consumption from the residential sector and cause worldwide annual greenhouse gas emissions of 450 million tons of CO2eq.  Households all round the world are currently using 1,4 billion refrigerators, fridge freezers and freezers. The average annual consumption of all these cold appliances amounts to about 453 kWh. In total, this causes an annual electricity consumption of 649 TWh, which is more than the total electricity consumption of Germany, for example. Now will you close the fridge door as soon as possible ?!!!!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6124" RevisionGUID="e50e0fd5-9d83-46ff-aaaf-29b3de6d27e2" CreationDate="2017-08-17T23:54:54.083" UserId="4834" Text="https://chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm lists the energy content of a wide range of wood types." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="05c93698-9053-4f0d-b11c-9076987eb7b6" CreationDate="2017-08-18T06:38:28.887" UserId="99" Comment="cleaned up link" Text="I have been experimenting with a very old (made and installed in the 60s) woodburning stove in my new house in Devon, UK. I have started to learn that hardwood burns for longer than softwood, that well seasoned wood burns more quickly and more cleanly (it releases less creosote). &#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately my chimney doesn't have a flue all the way to the top, and the landlord doesn't seem to be interested in installing one soon. &#xD;&#xA;This may be one of the causes of my temperatures (around 100-200 C) which do not take off easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to ask for references that describe in detail the properties of different firewoods, comparing several species of UK trees. I haven't been able to find such a reference. I have read [The woodburner's companion][1] but it doesn't contain any discussion of wood selection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Woodburner_s_Companion.html?id=eJRKAAAAYAAJ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6124" RevisionGUID="443f1b19-84e6-4167-b088-81f390797ce5" CreationDate="2017-08-18T11:19:36.810" UserId="4834" Comment="added 1379 characters in body" Text="https://chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm lists the energy content of a wide range of wood types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples that are perhaps relevant to you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Beech, Blue (Carpinus caroliniana): 23.7 MBTU/cord&#xD;&#xA;* Ash, Black (Fraxinus nigra): 17.9 MBTU/cord&#xD;&#xA;* Sycamore, American (Platanus occidentalis): 17.9 MBTU/cord&#xD;&#xA;* Larch (Larix laricina): 19.5 MBTU/cord&#xD;&#xA;* Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa): 12.6 MBTU/cord&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that Ash is well-known for its low moisture content even with green and so typically requires much less seasoning than other species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also be that, given the age of your woodburning stove, the species of wood you burn isn't the most important factor.  Wood stoves of the era you refer to are typically dirty and inefficient compared to modern wood stoves (which themselves are fairly dirty and inefficient).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also bear in mind that creosote isn't just a sign of inefficiency but is a major safety hazard.  If you often burn low temperature fires, and particularly if you burn unseasoned wood, creosote can build up in the chimney (flue or no) and result in a chimney fire (which can burn your house down, shake your chimney down, and generally _ruin_ your day).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make sure you've studied up on the safety considerations that go with operating a wood stove.  Perhaps also consider replacing your current stove with a safer model - perhaps something like a [rocket mass heater][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://richsoil.com/rocket-stove-mass-heater.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15306" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6121" RevisionGUID="96b01fbd-1201-44d4-97c7-3665d4d9911c" CreationDate="2017-08-20T18:32:26.707" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/899338350448058368" />
  <row Id="15307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="c3833c65-b0eb-4487-bb5d-cd97db4196ff" CreationDate="2017-08-20T23:32:50.303" UserId="4170" Text="I live in a small apartment with limited space (there is a small outdoor patio).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to start using a compost bin, but all the models I've found are quite large and seem to include mechanisms for turning or agitating the compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if this was absolutely necessary to do and, if possible, could I just use a normal container or some sort and 'turn' the compost every so often when I extract the degraded soil to use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advice is appreciated. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15308" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="c3833c65-b0eb-4487-bb5d-cd97db4196ff" CreationDate="2017-08-20T23:32:50.303" UserId="4170" Text="Is it absolutely necessary to agitate/rotate a compost bin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15309" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="c3833c65-b0eb-4487-bb5d-cd97db4196ff" CreationDate="2017-08-20T23:32:50.303" UserId="4170" Text="|composting|apartment|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="41149677-d920-43b4-b1ca-26e39cb93c0d" CreationDate="2017-08-21T06:08:35.833" UserId="3293" Text="The bigger the composting pile is, the least turning it need, because most of the pile is hidden from the dry / temperature-changing outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to have a compost at your place with limited space to handle it, the best is probably to turn towards [vermicompost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermicompost). You don't need a big pile for this, and worms will do the turning for you. Great soil will come out of this in relative short time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is to have a big compost for the whole building. But neighbors kindness is needed for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6127" RevisionGUID="776070a7-d79a-41e4-83a6-943f65061da5" CreationDate="2017-08-21T06:17:16.493" UserId="3293" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The bigger the composting pile is, the least turning it needs, because most of the pile remains sheltered from the dry / temperature-changing outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to have a compost at your place with limited space to handle it, the best is probably to turn towards [vermicompost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermicompost). You don't need a big pile for this, and worms will do the turning for you. Great soil will come out of this in relative short time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is to have a big compost for the whole building. But neighbors kindness is needed for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15312" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="1ed5b6b9-814f-4dfc-bf63-b5f47fa4a85f" CreationDate="2017-08-22T06:35:42.860" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/899882755567362048" />
  <row Id="15313" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6104" RevisionGUID="3d478a91-4eec-407c-8f46-b3cf8c426b85" CreationDate="2017-08-22T18:36:24.460" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/900064123681202176" />
  <row Id="15314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6126" RevisionGUID="5a8eac12-aa6c-47e0-8822-91f271fdf1d6" CreationDate="2017-08-22T22:20:04.397" UserId="4170" Comment="edited body" Text="I live in a small apartment with limited space (there is a small outdoor patio).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to start using a compost bin, but all the models I've found are quite large and seem to include mechanisms for turning or agitating the compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if this was absolutely necessary to do and, if possible, could I just use a normal container of some sort and 'turn' the compost every so often when I extract the degraded soil to use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advice is appreciated. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6128" RevisionGUID="fdf716c9-0a74-4559-9252-acf634d38006" CreationDate="2017-08-23T09:40:05.150" UserId="3293" Text="If your venting system can be started depending on a given (and changeable) humidity degree, then this is a very good thing for the cellar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, extracting humidity circulates air in the basement. We could think this is an issue because it will warm the place, which could be bad if you intend to keep, say, fruits and vegetable for later use. (I myself am considering branching the cool output of my heat pump - for hot water -  to my cellar to really keep it cool in summer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the fact that humidity is extracted leads to evaporation, which will cool the walls and counterbalance the hot air dragged inside. This retro-effect depends on the inside/outside temperature difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A great benefit from this is that you will be able to keep (relative *(1)*) constant humidity and temperature. This has great advantage when it comes to store some valuable goods like Vine, craftsmanship collections, ...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(1)* Here I say *relative*, because depending on the power you'll have, the air circulation might not be adequate to the size of the cellar you build." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6128" RevisionGUID="0e5f5cb5-6f33-4955-af03-ae3541485428" CreationDate="2017-08-23T09:47:48.030" UserId="3293" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="If your venting system can be started depending on a given (and changeable) humidity degree, then this is a very good thing for the cellar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, extracting humidity circulates air in the basement. We could think this is an issue because it will warm the place, which could be bad if you intend to keep, say, fruits and vegetable for later use. (I myself am considering branching the cool output of my heat pump - for hot water -  to my cellar to really keep it cool in summer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the fact that humidity is extracted leads to evaporation, which will cool the walls and counterbalance the hot air dragged inside. This retro-effect depends on the inside/outside temperature difference, the size of the cellar and the volume of air being circulated each day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A great benefit from this is that you will be able to keep (relative *(1)*) constant humidity and temperature. This has great advantage when it comes to store some valuable goods like Vine, craftsmanship collections, ...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(1)* Here I say *relative*, because depending on the power you'll have, the air circulation might not be adequate to the size of the cellar you build." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15319" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6095" RevisionGUID="a7286895-f475-432b-a7fc-7e2bcd68ce61" CreationDate="2017-08-23T13:54:41.883" UserId="1701" Comment="39" />
  <row Id="15320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6128" RevisionGUID="6b295f7f-b4a8-407c-8546-675759078f50" CreationDate="2017-08-23T14:03:51.200" UserId="3293" Comment="edited body" Text="If your venting system can be started depending on a given (and changeable) humidity degree, then this is a very good thing for the cellar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, extracting humidity circulates air in the basement. We could think this is an issue because it will warm the place, which could be bad if you intend to keep, say, fruits and vegetable for later use. (I myself am considering branching the cool output of my heat pump - for hot water -  to my cellar to really keep it cool in summer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the fact that humidity is extracted leads to evaporation, which will cool the walls and counterbalance the hot air dragged inside. This retro-effect depends on the inside/outside temperature difference, the size of the cellar and the volume of air being circulated each day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A great benefit from this is that you will be able to keep (relative *(1)*) constant humidity and temperature. This has great advantage when it comes to store some valuable goods like wine, craftsmanship collections, ...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(1)* Here I say *relative*, because depending on the power you'll have, the air circulation might not be adequate to the size of the cellar you build." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="1bb39cf2-9317-4793-ab18-355d7d2e5729" CreationDate="2017-08-24T00:36:36.200" UserId="4847" Text="My goal is to convert human waste into (less disgusting and more useful) plant mass while decreasing CO2 (for the sake of it) and I want to find seriously the most proper plant for that (which is why it should be invasive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've delved into invasive plants, thought to use Kudzu. But it turned out that Kudzu actually contributes to global warming. I'm no plant expert, so I hope someone can guide me what plants should I look at. Also, C4 or C3 plants? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="1bb39cf2-9317-4793-ab18-355d7d2e5729" CreationDate="2017-08-24T00:36:36.200" UserId="4847" Text="Is there an invasive plant that can grow on human waste and fix co2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="1bb39cf2-9317-4793-ab18-355d7d2e5729" CreationDate="2017-08-24T00:36:36.200" UserId="4847" Text="|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="4dba2af7-1781-47b4-a5ae-3f5a919ddc8c" CreationDate="2017-08-24T09:29:05.030" UserId="3293" Comment="edited from comments" Text="My goal is to convert human waste into (less disgusting and more useful) plant mass while decreasing CO2 (for the sake of it) and I want to find seriously the most proper plant for that (I would think is kind of an invasive plant due to its robustness and quick growth).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've delved into invasive plants, thought to use Kudzu. But it turned out that Kudzu actually contributes to global warming. I'm no plant expert, so I hope someone can guide me what plants should I look at. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would C4 or C3 plants be a solution? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15325" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="4dba2af7-1781-47b4-a5ae-3f5a919ddc8c" CreationDate="2017-08-24T09:29:05.030" UserId="3293" Comment="edited from comments" Text="What the best plant to grow on human waste and fix CO2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15326" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="4dba2af7-1781-47b4-a5ae-3f5a919ddc8c" CreationDate="2017-08-24T09:29:05.030" UserId="3293" Comment="edited from comments" Text="|waste|plants|biomass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15327" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="4dba2af7-1781-47b4-a5ae-3f5a919ddc8c" CreationDate="2017-08-24T09:29:05.030" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 4847 edit id of 489" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="6299dd01-25c6-41c0-b7ef-e35679627550" CreationDate="2017-08-24T09:40:24.697" UserId="4847" Comment="climate information" Text="My goal is to convert human waste into (less disgusting and more useful) plant mass while decreasing CO2 (for the sake of it) and I want to find seriously the most proper plant for that (I would think is kind of an invasive plant due to its robustness and quick growth).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've delved into invasive plants, thought to use Kudzu. But it turned out that Kudzu actually contributes to global warming. I'm no plant expert, so I hope someone can guide me what plants should I look at. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would C4 or C3 plants be a solution? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The climate of interest is humid continental, but it will be indoors, so most climate conditions could be imitated" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6130" RevisionGUID="352aa875-9cad-4b62-8500-a36e33df8fc7" CreationDate="2017-08-24T15:37:33.867" UserId="3297" Text="[This paper][1] argues that flying and taking the train compares in terms of energy - can this really be true?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008/pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6130" RevisionGUID="352aa875-9cad-4b62-8500-a36e33df8fc7" CreationDate="2017-08-24T15:37:33.867" UserId="3297" Text="Is flying more sustainable than taking the train?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6130" RevisionGUID="352aa875-9cad-4b62-8500-a36e33df8fc7" CreationDate="2017-08-24T15:37:33.867" UserId="3297" Text="|transport|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6131" RevisionGUID="6d64b5f8-1f55-4c3f-ba2b-3f5ab95d1373" CreationDate="2017-08-24T15:37:33.867" UserId="3297" Text="It seems that although the emissions from construction for railways is more than twice as large as that from the construction of airports, on a passenger-kilometer basis, the emissions from the flights themselves dwarfs those of trains no matter what fuel source are used for the trains. The following table is from Sweden where there is a relatively large portion of hydropower used to power the trains, but it is hard to imagine any fuel mix exceeding those of flights:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Table showing Life Cycle emissions of various modes of transportation, broken down by construction and use][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The figure can be found in [this report from Swedish IVA][2], and is based on the freely availble (although in Swedish) calculator found [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer also debunks the answer to [this question][4] and I would be happy if anyone could link to this answer from that question (I am short on points to do so myself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5nu3l.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.iva.se/globalassets/rapporter/ett-energieffektivt-samhalle/201411-iva-energieffektivisering-rapport9-english-d.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.trafikverket.se/tjanster/system-och-verktyg/Prognos--och-analysverktyg/Klimatkalkyl/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/38122/is-flying-the-worst-choice-of-travelling-considering-the-greenhouse-effect-and/38179#38179" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15333" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="c0db5ab7-18f8-4ab0-8afe-827cb4b680fb" CreationDate="2017-08-24T15:40:24.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="0ee20aab-bede-42a7-813c-c3c92174fe16" CreationDate="2017-08-27T17:14:48.207" UserDisplayName="user4844" Comment="Add superscript text no. 2 and include link to the said article on Internet Archive Wayback Machine." Text="I was curious about which trees absorb the most CO2 and Googled for this a while back. I found that there are several websites that list trees that are good in absorbing carbon, e.g. [this website](http://environment.about.com/od/whatyoucando/a/best_trees.htm) and [this website](http://www.ehow.com/info_8609132_trees-absorb-carbon-dioxide.html). Both sites list trees like: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Pine (Ponderosa, red, white and Hispaniolan pines)&#xD;&#xA; - Oake (Scarlet, Red and Virginia Live Oak)&#xD;&#xA; - Douglas fir &#xD;&#xA; - Bald Cypress&#xD;&#xA; - Common Horse-chestnut &#xD;&#xA; - Black Walnut&#xD;&#xA; - London Plane&#xD;&#xA; - American Sweetgum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there is [one site](http://www.everything71.com/2012/02/10-type-of-trees-most-carbon-dioxide.html)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; &lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; that has an entirely different list:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Trembesi a.k.a rain tree (Samanea saman)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo (Bambuseae)&#xD;&#xA; - Cassia (Cassia sp)&#xD;&#xA; - Cananga/Kenanga (Canangium odoratum)&#xD;&#xA; - Pingku (Dysoxylum excelsum)&#xD;&#xA; - Banyan/Beringin (Ficus benyamina)&#xD;&#xA; - Krey Payung (Fellicium decipiens)&#xD;&#xA; - Matoa (Pometia pinnata)&#xD;&#xA; - Mahogany (Swettiana mahagoni)&#xD;&#xA; - Saga (Adenanthera pavonina)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As also mentioned by [theUg](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/786/which-tree-consumes-most-carbon-dioxide-and-poisonous-gases#comment1265_788) and [Blue_hat](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/315/blue-hat) in their comments below, the first list probably applies to temperate climates, and the second one to tropical climates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that for good sustainability you will have to consider more things than simply the amount of CO2 a tree can absorb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all not all trees grow in all places. The tree you have in mind should be appropriate for the region and climate. If you have to water it, add fertilizer regularly or package it during cold winters to survive, etc. then it will be less sustainable. If the factory does indeed exhaust poisonous(?) gases as you said, then trees may not grow at all near it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, think about what will you do with the trees once they are mature. If you harvest them and plant new trees then you can capture more CO2. But if let the tree fall down and rot or if you burn wood from harvested trees, then the captured CO2 will be released again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; update Jan 2015: sadly the link has died, but I found the same list in this forum post along with some statistics on how much CO2 the trees take up&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; update Aug 2017: the linked article can be viewed in [this capture dated 27 Jun 2012](https://web.archive.org/web/20120627080935/www.everything71.com/2012/02/10-type-of-trees-most-carbon-dioxide.html) on Internet Archive Wayback Machine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15337" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="788" RevisionGUID="0ee20aab-bede-42a7-813c-c3c92174fe16" CreationDate="2017-08-27T17:14:48.207" Comment="Proposed by 4844 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 490" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6133" RevisionGUID="9c79c052-f542-4776-97ef-d52d322aa9b6" CreationDate="2017-08-28T08:21:59.463" UserId="3293" Text="Growing plants inside to consume CO2 will need a huge energy input. If your plants are indoors **behind a huge window** with long sun exposure, then it is ok. If you intend to provide artificial light to them, then it won't be *environmentally* sustainable at all: your light input will need so much energy and reject so much CO2...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, this set aside, a good choice should be bamboo, since it grow pretty everywhere, and provide great material for doing various things, from house building material, plant tutoring, little wood goods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this is helpful; Good luck with your project!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6124" RevisionGUID="604bbe54-866b-42d9-99f9-65b1334872de" CreationDate="2017-08-28T12:18:29.253" UserId="4834" Comment="edited body" Text="https://chimneysweeponline.com/howood.htm lists the energy content of a wide range of wood types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some examples that are perhaps relevant to you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Beech, Blue (Carpinus caroliniana): 23.7 MBTU/cord&#xD;&#xA;* Ash, Black (Fraxinus nigra): 17.9 MBTU/cord&#xD;&#xA;* Sycamore, American (Platanus occidentalis): 17.9 MBTU/cord&#xD;&#xA;* Larch (Larix laricina): 19.5 MBTU/cord&#xD;&#xA;* Cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa): 12.6 MBTU/cord&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that Ash is well-known for its low moisture content even when green and so typically requires much less seasoning than other species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also be that, given the age of your woodburning stove, the species of wood you burn isn't the most important factor.  Wood stoves of the era you refer to are typically dirty and inefficient compared to modern wood stoves (which themselves are fairly dirty and inefficient).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also bear in mind that creosote isn't just a sign of inefficiency but is a major safety hazard.  If you often burn low temperature fires, and particularly if you burn unseasoned wood, creosote can build up in the chimney (flue or no) and result in a chimney fire (which can burn your house down, shake your chimney down, and generally _ruin_ your day).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make sure you've studied up on the safety considerations that go with operating a wood stove.  Perhaps also consider replacing your current stove with a safer model - perhaps something like a [rocket mass heater][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://richsoil.com/rocket-stove-mass-heater.jsp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6130" RevisionGUID="b5f69e2e-9191-4803-a98e-a4047e7604cf" CreationDate="2017-08-29T19:42:18.130" UserId="3297" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text="[This paper][1] argues that flying and taking the train compares in terms of energy - can this really be true? I am thinking that energy is a reasonable measure of sustainability although comparing emissions might have been more relevant if sustainability was the goal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008/pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6131" RevisionGUID="62b572db-4f48-4b29-9af9-2ee3febd2d9e" CreationDate="2017-08-29T19:59:46.690" UserId="3297" Comment="added 1659 characters in body" Text="I am not able to find any studies comparing the energy consumption. But if we look at a paper investigating emissions directly, which one could argue is an even better proxy for sustainability than energy, it seems that although the emissions from construction for railways is more than twice as large as that from the construction of airports, on a passenger-kilometer basis, the emissions from the flights themselves dwarfs those of trains no matter what fuel source are used for the trains. The following table is from Sweden where there is a relatively large portion of hydropower used to power the trains, but it is hard to imagine any fuel mix exceeding those of flights:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Table showing Life Cycle emissions of various modes of transportation, broken down by construction and use][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The figure can be found in [this report from Swedish IVA][2], and is based on the freely available (although in Swedish) calculator found [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one was to try to convert the figures above to energy, as the paper above argues, it would be hard to imagine an energy mix that reversed the picture. If we first concentrate on the construction component, it could be argued that both construction processes have a similar emission per energy during the pre-operational phase. Thus it is hard to imaging the construction emissions for rail becoming much bigger than for air travel. Second if we look at emissions during operation, these are really then there are no current economically feasible ways to make flights significantly less emission intensive. However, it might be the the train below is for the [Swedish energy mix which has 100 g CO2 per kWh][4]. However if we look at [comparisons of emissions during operations for diesel trains and flights][5], one needs to travel consistently at quarter-full carriages to compare to flights. So if you are on all diesel the benefit of travelling by train is not that big. But at the same time it is important to also show the authorities and the investors that people want to take the train, the likelihood is than higher that they will electrify them (which makes sense economically too as renewables are getting cheaper).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer also debunks the answer to [this question][6] and I would be happy if anyone could link to this answer from that question (I am short on points to do so myself).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5nu3l.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.iva.se/globalassets/rapporter/ett-energieffektivt-samhalle/201411-iva-energieffektivisering-rapport9-english-d.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.trafikverket.se/tjanster/system-och-verktyg/Prognos--och-analysverktyg/Klimatkalkyl/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.svenskenergi.se/Elfakta/Miljo-och-klimat/Klimatpaverkan/Hur-mycket-koldioxid-medfor-din-elanvandning/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.treehugger.com/cars/trains-vs-planes-is-rail-always-the-low-carbon-option.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/38122/is-flying-the-worst-choice-of-travelling-considering-the-greenhouse-effect-and/38179#38179" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6134" RevisionGUID="96a27acd-b7e1-4a64-a0b1-bb7863b55b2b" CreationDate="2017-08-30T00:12:10.733" UserId="4856" Text="I've developed a water pump that is powered by a 1 watt solar air pump.  In 24 hours it pumps 54 gallons to a height of 30 feet.  How much energy have I harvested?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15345" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6134" RevisionGUID="96a27acd-b7e1-4a64-a0b1-bb7863b55b2b" CreationDate="2017-08-30T00:12:10.733" UserId="4856" Text="How much energy am I harvesting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15346" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6134" RevisionGUID="96a27acd-b7e1-4a64-a0b1-bb7863b55b2b" CreationDate="2017-08-30T00:12:10.733" UserId="4856" Text="|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15347" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6129" RevisionGUID="5cbc336e-63f9-4b77-8eb2-c09502a7888d" CreationDate="2017-08-30T03:53:35.187" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/902741057066213376" />
  <row Id="15348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6135" RevisionGUID="66381a63-8448-4598-8331-de168ac2a2a9" CreationDate="2017-08-30T06:47:27.257" UserId="4857" Text="I don't have enough reputation yet to write a comment, so don't see this as an answer, more like a recommendation. I grew up with a wood stove, so maybe I can help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This may be one of the causes of my temperatures (around 100-200 C) which do not take off easily.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is definitely not a good temperature to burn wood. You want the fire to be &gt;300°C for a clean, efficient burn. As you noted, hardwood burns longer than softwood, but it is also harder to get started. I'd start the fire with soft wood. It's much easier to get a blazing fire that way. Once your stove is up to temperature, switch to hardwood. If your fire ist still misbehaving (as it sometimes does for me with certain weather conditions), you can add a log of softwood every now and then to keep it up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="fed664cb-deb7-4cd4-b80f-7ee182eeeb4f" CreationDate="2017-08-30T12:01:46.013" UserId="1701" Text="I live on an island dealing with water shortage issues in our sole source aquifer. The community has enacted a number of irrigation restricting laws, and there is significant discussion about various other water-saving practices such as turning off the water when you do the dishes, shorter showers, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To clarify, the sole source aquifer under our island is like a lense of fresh water surrounded by salt water. If too much water is pumped out without recharge from rain, the saline water moves inland and can affect wells. So there is an obvious need for water conservation. But is water from an extended shower or letting the tap run for a long time &quot;lost&quot; as it would be in a municipal system drawing from a reservoir? My thinking is that such water is returned directly to the source, and would therefore not be lost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that irrigation is a completely different situation.&#xD;&#xA;I also understand that in some areas huge amounts of pumping could supercede the ability of water from the septic system to return to the aquifer AND that it might exceed the ability of the system to contain the water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in general, drawing water from the aquifer for use in a shower, and then returning it underground would have a negligible effect on the net amount of water in the aquifer. Is this thinking flawed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15350" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="fed664cb-deb7-4cd4-b80f-7ee182eeeb4f" CreationDate="2017-08-30T12:01:46.013" UserId="1701" Text="If I have a well, is gray-water really &quot;wasted&quot; when discharged directly in a septic system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15351" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="fed664cb-deb7-4cd4-b80f-7ee182eeeb4f" CreationDate="2017-08-30T12:01:46.013" UserId="1701" Text="|water-management|greywater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6137" RevisionGUID="0a6f3610-2b8d-41b4-8227-20d5c98f7c20" CreationDate="2017-08-30T12:16:25.383" UserId="2345" Text="The main problem with recharging an aquifer with grey water is contamination, or further contamination of the water in the aquifer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the aquifer is the island's sole source of drinking water it is best not to contaminate the aquifer by putting grey water into it. Very soon the water from the aquifer will become undrinkable &amp; the island's population will have an even bigger problems than it currently has." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6138" RevisionGUID="3732cbe3-f146-41aa-9eb2-cf9c01f41e28" CreationDate="2017-08-30T15:45:12.937" UserId="3379" Text="### Energy in the pumped water &#xD;&#xA; 1. 54 gallons is about 200 L, equivalent to 200 kg&#xD;&#xA; 2. 30 feet is about 9 m&#xD;&#xA; 3. Using the formula @JanDoggen mentioned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; m ⨉ g ⨉ h = (200kg)(9.81m/s²)(9m) ≅ 18,000 kg*m²/s²&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. This is the same as 18,000 joules (J) or 18 kJ&#xD;&#xA; 5. We can convert this to watt-hours (Wh) easily:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 18,000 J / (60 s ⨉ 60 m) = 5 Wh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Energy produced by the pump&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming a rough efficiency of 80% for the pump, this means the solar panel would need to produce about 6 Wh of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Net energy output&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Energy harvested:     6 Wh&#xD;&#xA;    Energy lost:          1 Wh&#xD;&#xA;    Useful stored energy: 5 Wh" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15354" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="e577df08-c79d-4e0e-b1e0-282658dbadd1" CreationDate="2017-08-30T16:08:06.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15355" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6139" RevisionGUID="c00e73de-5385-48f7-b011-3e49b4559db4" CreationDate="2017-08-30T19:38:39.840" UserId="4834" Text="I'm glad you found that the extra information about the problems of cooling down your chimney pipe.  That is the first point I was going to make in this answer (and I'll make it anyway).  You do *not* want to cool your chimney exhaust gases.  Chimneys rely on a temperature difference between the exhaust gasses and the surrounding environment to create the chimney effect which pulls those gases out of your living space.  There is some amount of &quot;waste&quot; in the heat of these gases but some portion of the heat escaping is doing a job for you: it's keeping your fire from smoking back and choking you out of the house.  If there is a lot of extra heat (that is, flue gases at a temperature in excess of that required to generate the necessary chimney effect) you could steal some of this for pre-heating but you will have no particularly reliable way to know how much you can steal nor to regulate how much you're stealing on a dynamic basis as the conditions in your fireplace change (eg when your fire starts, the flue gases are colder, there is less heat for you to steal before you cause a chimney stall and smoke yourself out).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there's the matter of creosote buildup as a result of condensing flue gases and the resulting risk of a chimney fire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So: **don't do this**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you can do is explore alternate forms of wood heat.  A fireplace is indeed a very low efficiency heating device.  I recommend learning about rocket mass heaters and then trying to determine if one can be made to work in your living space.  The three basic ideas of a rocket mass heater are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Combust all of the fuel.  A conventional fireplace or woodstove wastes a significant portion of the fuel, often intentionally.  Combustables are left in the flue gases due to insufficient temperature or oxygen to burn them.&#xD;&#xA;  * Use the increased chimney effect from higher combustion temperature to drive a more substantial chimney, allowing for greater heat exchange.&#xD;&#xA;  * Incorporate a significant thermal mass to soak up the resulting increased heat production for slow radiation over a number of hours or days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rocket mass heater burns hot and fast and then radiates slowly to provide heat while it's not burning.  By only ever burning at top efficiency, much less energy is wasted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Erica &amp; Ernie Wisner][1] have substantial additional information, both on their website, other online forums, and in a number of published books.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ernieanderica.info/rocketstoves" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6140" RevisionGUID="d6d1fa9c-9192-44ab-ae35-4075a9645111" CreationDate="2017-09-01T06:06:09.783" UserId="99" Text="Not all developed countries are phasing out 2G. Here in The Netherlands for example several major providers still support 2G and say that they will continue to support it for the coming years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could try and sell your phones on online, on E-Bay for example, but shipping to the nearest country that still has 2G may cost quite a bit and also has a footprint of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of any program that sends 2G phones collectively to other countries, but you could reuse (one of) the phones yourself as a watch/alarm clock. Your 2G phone may even be more energy efficient than a regular alarm clock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these reuse options don't work for you, consider donating it to a good cause that will recycle it. Some good causes collect old and broken mobile phones because they get money for it from recyclers. I did a quick Google search and found one Australian organization called [PhoneCycle](https://www.phonecycle.com.au/donatephones). They will assess the value of your phone and send this money to a charity of your choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="cca00880-0e4e-43f8-bb3d-eba563c9ef96" CreationDate="2017-09-03T10:08:13.850" UserId="4863" Text="My wife, I love her dearly, eats more Altoids in a year than she eats food. She's addicted. It's crazy I know, but we have hundreds of empty cans and have already recycled thousands. I was thinking I could put them to good use at home. Looking for ideas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="cca00880-0e4e-43f8-bb3d-eba563c9ef96" CreationDate="2017-09-03T10:08:13.850" UserId="4863" Text="Ideas for Altoid cans?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="cca00880-0e4e-43f8-bb3d-eba563c9ef96" CreationDate="2017-09-03T10:08:13.850" UserId="4863" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15361" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6060" RevisionGUID="6fc6e046-f17e-48c1-933a-8919ca976de1" CreationDate="2017-09-03T10:09:40.703" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/904285255720476672" />
  <row Id="15362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6142" RevisionGUID="0953e65b-b3cf-4be1-8543-0bd2f039568c" CreationDate="2017-09-03T14:11:46.213" UserId="4864" Text="Burlap sacks from feed or buy empty from the feed store. Watch they dont sell you plastic ones. They are easy to spray off and dry outside and alt them if you are patience. I think they cost too much to set them on the curb unless u are using them for animal feed. But local prices vary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6144" RevisionGUID="e647e04d-9ea5-453b-9fde-e82976b6af60" CreationDate="2017-09-04T08:21:40.357" UserId="812" Text="That's an interesting paper that you've linked. From a non-expert skim, three things spring to mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, that it doesn't compare like with like. Air travel is compared with commuter rail, and urban light rail. This is, perhaps, representative of the uses of such modes in the USA, but isn't really helpful. I suspect - but cannot be sure - that this disadvantages rail, and that a comparison of intercity services might come out more in rail's favour. &#xD;&#xA;(short distance rail services are likely to be domianted by acceleration rather than cruise, and hence will have higher energy consumption in use  - but it could also work the other way, as arguably more passenger-km may be obtained per km of infrastructure than on intercity routes. Plus, higher speeds are more expensive.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, despite this probable disadvantage, rail still comes out on top in terms of energy per passenger km and greenhouse gases. So the short answer to your question is &quot;no&quot; - the paper shows that rail beats air on energy consumption, even under the possibly-unfair comparison made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rail does lose out to air on NOx and SO2, depending on which rail system is considered, but this appears to be down to the energy mix in the local power grid - where fossil fuel power stations will tend to burn heavier, dirtier fuels than aircraft do. As electricity supply is decarbonised, this will naturally improve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What this paper doesn't consider, when it comes to emissions, is where those emissions are made. IANAatmospheric scientist, but my understanding is that greenhouse cases released in the stratosphere are more damaging than those released at sea level - so this may tip things more in rail's favour." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6145" RevisionGUID="490eef74-843e-4dbd-8528-80d7075555a3" CreationDate="2017-09-04T14:44:34.857" UserId="96" Text="It seems you are correct: As long as your greywater lands in a septic system that ultimately infiltrates the greywater into the aquifer, you are not really wasting water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as you indicate, irrigation would be an other issue due to evapotranspiration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I don't know is how the freshwater treatment on your island works. If, as you say, there's a problem with nitrates they may well have some pretreatment for denitrification, thus expending energy for every liter that leaves your tap. Maybe ask your municipality/water works?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What might also help the water situation of your island is some greywater treatment - horizontal flow constructed wetlands are generally considerd to be good at denitrification and could be built at low cost, if land is not scarce. I'm sure there's other approaches." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15368" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="d7dd8002-c65f-41a6-bc5b-aa7300a24dca" CreationDate="2017-09-04T22:09:41.333" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/904828840014438405" />
  <row Id="15369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="90c1ad6f-e969-4ea4-b762-d3c20ea92bb5" CreationDate="2017-09-05T00:50:42.100" UserId="4869" Text="Wind and solar require steel, which is made with coal and/or natural gas to create using the Bessemer process, BOS, and other standard steelmaking practices. How do you get around this? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15370" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="90c1ad6f-e969-4ea4-b762-d3c20ea92bb5" CreationDate="2017-09-05T00:50:42.100" UserId="4869" Text="Are renewables sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15371" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="90c1ad6f-e969-4ea4-b762-d3c20ea92bb5" CreationDate="2017-09-05T00:50:42.100" UserId="4869" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="36bfa093-b83d-4cec-a6a8-239f6e3d5abf" CreationDate="2017-09-05T13:23:30.867" UserId="4873" Text="We are a small NGO in Nepal working to help people after the recent earthquakes of 2015 and now the floods of this year's monsoon of 2017. There is a stone here that is used as an astringent/after shave when men go to the barber for a shave. Our agency would like to mold this stone into a small soap-shaped bar to sell as a fundraiser. As it turns out, it is an excellent hand sanitizer and I've used it for years, since moving to Nepal 7 years ago. This is the same stone being used for deodorant bars. It is called alum stone or fitkiri. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will be ever so grateful for any suggestions. It melts at a low temperature, but we cannot get it to hold together as it solidifies. Every time I have shown a guest the stone they've been eager to have one. If we can mold it into a small shape it will help to keep many people from getting the typical traveler's stomach upset. This is even more important for people going up into the Himalayas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="36bfa093-b83d-4cec-a6a8-239f6e3d5abf" CreationDate="2017-09-05T13:23:30.867" UserId="4873" Text="How can alum stone be melted and molded into small shapes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15374" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="36bfa093-b83d-4cec-a6a8-239f6e3d5abf" CreationDate="2017-09-05T13:23:30.867" UserId="4873" Text="|environmental-impact|ecological-footprint|economy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="4276f4b8-5949-406a-a3fa-c7c9c523009c" CreationDate="2017-09-06T07:17:18.417" UserId="99" Comment="Added link to wikipedia, added tags that are more relevant" Text="We are a small NGO in Nepal working to help people after the recent earthquakes of 2015 and now the floods of this year's monsoon of 2017. There is a stone here that is used as an astringent/after shave when men go to the barber for a shave. Our agency would like to mold this stone into a small soap-shaped bar to sell as a fundraiser. As it turns out, it is an excellent hand sanitizer and I've used it for years, since moving to Nepal 7 years ago. This is the same stone being used for deodorant bars. It is called [alum stone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alum) or fitkiri. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will be ever so grateful for any suggestions. It melts at a low temperature, but we cannot get it to hold together as it solidifies. Every time I have shown a guest the stone they've been eager to have one. If we can mold it into a small shape it will help to keep many people from getting the typical traveler's stomach upset. This is even more important for people going up into the Himalayas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15376" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="4276f4b8-5949-406a-a3fa-c7c9c523009c" CreationDate="2017-09-06T07:17:18.417" UserId="99" Comment="Added link to wikipedia, added tags that are more relevant" Text="|alternatives|manufacturing|personal-hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15377" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5325" RevisionGUID="725cedbe-1b82-435e-82f9-6ef0f48c9ca9" CreationDate="2017-09-06T07:19:54.220" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|alternatives|organic|personal-hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15378" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="ca169963-f596-4151-8014-9fe9ea53472b" CreationDate="2017-09-06T07:20:30.117" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|alternatives|personal-hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15379" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="247" RevisionGUID="fb584e30-1cff-43ca-8f28-b38de52d2368" CreationDate="2017-09-06T07:21:30.783" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|packaging|personal-hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="0390bb82-ef66-4790-ad83-4f7e6d47bbd0" CreationDate="2017-09-06T07:26:12.603" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15381" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6148" RevisionGUID="0390bb82-ef66-4790-ad83-4f7e6d47bbd0" CreationDate="2017-09-06T07:26:12.603" UserId="99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15382" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6149" RevisionGUID="58aed880-ff71-407a-acb7-deb0a86dd4eb" CreationDate="2017-09-06T07:26:12.603" UserId="99" Text="bowl and/or location for urination and defecation&#xD;&#xA;For questions about [personal-hygiene] use that tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6149" RevisionGUID="58aed880-ff71-407a-acb7-deb0a86dd4eb" CreationDate="2017-09-06T07:26:12.603" UserId="99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15384" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5076" RevisionGUID="4fededa3-f6b9-4382-973d-1ff7595b2c09" CreationDate="2017-09-06T07:27:46.987" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|alternatives|biodegradable-waste|organic|personal-hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15385" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6147" RevisionGUID="5e97dcfc-4286-42a2-a993-f16ce9fcde25" CreationDate="2017-09-06T10:15:20.667" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/905373845330251776" />
  <row Id="15386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="14b249b1-bed3-4e7b-b60b-ae79db7bd1f4" CreationDate="2017-09-06T14:23:44.837" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15387" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6150" RevisionGUID="14b249b1-bed3-4e7b-b60b-ae79db7bd1f4" CreationDate="2017-09-06T14:23:44.837" UserId="99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6151" RevisionGUID="847a573a-909f-4251-a86b-390556313399" CreationDate="2017-09-06T14:23:44.837" UserId="99" Text="keeping one's body healthy and clean, see also [hygiene], [health]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15389" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6151" RevisionGUID="847a573a-909f-4251-a86b-390556313399" CreationDate="2017-09-06T14:23:44.837" UserId="99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6152" RevisionGUID="bf16c4aa-136d-441c-8ed5-643c0373e9c7" CreationDate="2017-09-06T17:41:26.080" UserId="4874" Text="The internet is full of altoids tins ideas -- they are very popular for creating little pocket survival kits and much more. [22 Ways to Reuse an Altoids Tin][1] and [227 Best Geeky Altoids Tin Projects on Pinterest][2] are the first two hits on a simple google search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjYu_qNjZHWAhXNzCYKHQQsD0wQFggoMAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artofmanliness.com%2F2011%2F01%2F30%2F22-manly-ways-to-reuse-an-altoids-tin%2F&amp;usg=AFQjCNELTBVqOPV9ZuHFy1sdpmb3UAAFqg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=2&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjYu_qNjZHWAhXNzCYKHQQsD0wQFggvMAE&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fcharlesbuchwald%2Fgeeky-altoids-tin-projects%2F&amp;usg=AFQjCNHF2YXGGsJ7DtDqRTmdwUxwHeJVcQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6152" RevisionGUID="3e91c993-c945-4d93-9084-eac24bb99254" CreationDate="2017-09-07T06:52:38.067" UserId="99" Comment="Removed google referal" Text="The Internet is full of Altoids tins ideas -- they are very popular for creating little pocket survival kits and much more. [22 Ways to Reuse an Altoids Tin][1] and [227 Best Geeky Altoids Tin Projects on Pinterest][2] are the first two hits on a simple Google search.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2011/01/30/22-manly-ways-to-reuse-an-altoids-tin/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.pinterest.com/charlesbuchwald/geeky-altoids-tin-projects/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15395" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="8d9bcd6b-0cc9-47d8-bd0d-e5793b4543a9" CreationDate="2017-09-07T06:57:14.383" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6154" RevisionGUID="5d1a9bf5-80f1-4297-b52d-24c578b5032e" CreationDate="2017-09-07T13:32:25.883" UserId="99" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15397" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6154" RevisionGUID="5d1a9bf5-80f1-4297-b52d-24c578b5032e" CreationDate="2017-09-07T13:32:25.883" UserId="99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6155" RevisionGUID="642eeef0-9499-4c45-8fac-5b7f16fe59fc" CreationDate="2017-09-07T13:32:25.883" UserId="99" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="the effect of sustainability improvements on people's health. See also [hygiene] or [personal-hygiene]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15399" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6155" RevisionGUID="642eeef0-9499-4c45-8fac-5b7f16fe59fc" CreationDate="2017-09-07T13:32:25.883" UserId="99" Comment="added 4 characters in body" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6156" RevisionGUID="e4795530-fad4-4061-b4b0-d38da6c3fb90" CreationDate="2017-09-08T00:18:23.347" UserId="20" Text="[Yellow jackets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowjacket) (technically a kind of wasp) can be very annoying when trying to eat outside as they are attracted to food, and especially to meats.  When there are lots of them, if you are not careful, you can even take a bite with one on your food.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are some ways of killing them off effectively that minimizes the harm to the environment around your home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15401" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6156" RevisionGUID="e4795530-fad4-4061-b4b0-d38da6c3fb90" CreationDate="2017-09-08T00:18:23.347" UserId="20" Text="What is a low-toxic way to kill yellow Jackets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15402" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6156" RevisionGUID="e4795530-fad4-4061-b4b0-d38da6c3fb90" CreationDate="2017-09-08T00:18:23.347" UserId="20" Text="|alternatives|insects|pesticides|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6157" RevisionGUID="42a7a92c-a17d-4b72-b66e-0ab0efd2f44f" CreationDate="2017-09-08T00:18:23.347" UserId="20" Text="One method that I have found to be particularly good is using a soap with surfactants in a Hand Pump Garden Sprayer which can be found for under $20, for example [here is one on Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/Chapin-20000-Fertilizer-Herbicides-Pesticides/dp/B000E28UQU) that looks similar to the one I have.  Fill the tank with some water and enough mild dishwashing soap such as Dawn to make a soapy feeling liquid between your fingers.  I found less than one tablespoon of liquid soap per quart of water is plenty.  You can experiment to find out how much is needed to be effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once ready, pump up your unit well and you can spray them when they land, you can even get them in flight with a little bit of practice.  Once his by the stream, they will fall to the ground and stop moving after about 30 seconds if they were sprayed with enough soapy water.  If they are not dying, then you may need to add more soap to your solution or spray them with more solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please be careful when doing this and cover your body with long sleeve clothing for an extra level of protection.  They can get angry if provoked and go on the offence.  Mornings are good because they tend to be less active at that time of day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the way it works is the soap breaks down the water's surface tension and thus when you spray the yellow jackets the water fills and covers their breathing pores and they drown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to take on a whole nest, be extra careful and consider doing it early in the morning and from a distance using a garden hose spray mixer (something like [this one on Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/Chapin-G362-Professional-Fertilizer-Herbicides/dp/B00UER1S2I)) that allows you to send a stream of the soapy water a couple yards away from where you stand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While surfactants are not great for the environment, they are way better than any typically found poisons spray cans for killing them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15404" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="8aba5195-d748-493f-b565-191831443b83" CreationDate="2017-09-08T06:25:43.697" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|alternatives|packaging|personal-hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6158" RevisionGUID="c9e83c48-1186-4cc9-8f47-69bff7650fad" CreationDate="2017-09-08T09:51:16.850" UserId="4877" Text="I just turned my empty altoid can into a pill box where I keep my aleves and Tylenol pills etc " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="6d51015e-e0ea-485f-a58d-c5140d2ecd0e" CreationDate="2017-09-08T14:40:39.143" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Inserted pic so that the rest of the world knows what you're talking about" Text="My wife is 'addicted' to Altoids. We have hundreds of empty cans and have already recycled thousands. I was thinking I could put them to good use at home. Looking for ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;'altoid tins' by 'secret agent josephine' on Flickr&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wkmcD.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15408" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6141" RevisionGUID="6d51015e-e0ea-485f-a58d-c5140d2ecd0e" CreationDate="2017-09-08T14:40:39.143" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 2345, 3379 edit id of 491" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15411" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="3ed4eb5e-b6e6-4595-b991-c4e08eeae3cf" CreationDate="2017-09-10T03:18:45.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6160" RevisionGUID="950a75ed-7b84-4078-8843-842a3269a818" CreationDate="2017-09-10T08:14:04.697" UserId="4863" Text="I personally use a combination of d-limonene &amp; borax. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, borax is a natural occurring salt from lake beds and d-limonene is basically just orange oil, a solvent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mix the two together and spray on nest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*****NOTE*****&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the d-limonene is a solvent, it will disolve plastics &amp; rubber seals. Use a solvent safe sprayer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use just about any type of cleaner that contains orange oil. The solvent not only will kill the insects, but will also prevent them from coming back and building another nest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15413" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6130" RevisionGUID="3d8efcd2-e521-4862-ab58-98c1ba8080cf" CreationDate="2017-09-10T10:24:15.173" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/906825638446862336" />
  <row Id="15414" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8" RevisionGUID="4994dbff-f38e-49ea-a8e4-062516033274" CreationDate="2017-09-12T06:50:41.977" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|cleaning|hygiene|safe-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6161" RevisionGUID="baee65eb-2669-4090-ba77-3dc7bc49229d" CreationDate="2017-09-13T05:50:55.243" UserId="4857" Text="Another way is to use a trap to get rid of them. I _hate_ wasps and these devices work quite good and most importantly passively (i.e. you don't have to spray the wasps). It's also very easy to [build one yourself](http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Wasp-Trap) if you want to try it out without spending money. The traps work by luring the wasps in with something they like (e.g. sweet soda). Due to the trap's geometry, the wasps will try to climb the walls or fly to the top, where they are held back and thus can't escape. Good thing wasps aren't too clever... I've never seen any bees getting trapped, maybe the occasional fly.  &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]   &#xD;&#xA;_example from Pinterest_  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imo this is the least harmful device for the environment (there are versions made with glass, if PET isn't your thing) as it basically uses sugar as its &quot;chemical&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KqkPB.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6162" RevisionGUID="f7361dfa-5412-4a0f-b4cf-76fad347e4ba" CreationDate="2017-09-13T23:05:27.863" UserId="1104" Text="I really like, and have fully switched to for 6 months now, thai salt rock crystals, you can find them on various online stores, or at health food stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just remember to reapply if you go for a swim, because it rinses right off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that it lasts until the next day easily. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rock can last a year easily. It can come in a basket or small plastic dish so it is very minimal trash." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6163" RevisionGUID="d093d8fa-0153-4faf-9f01-67dc15988078" CreationDate="2017-09-14T11:39:57.437" UserId="4863" Text="There are three ways I know of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: High PH (alkaline) cleaner such as borax, soda ash, baking soda. If you are able to raise the PH above the PH of the charcoal, it will come right off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: Natural solvents such as orange oil or lemon/lime juice. Natural solvents that contain citric acid will dissolve it as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: Distilled white vinegar. Opposite on PH scale so it will neutralize and allow you to rinse off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6164" RevisionGUID="fc97580d-a467-49dc-b624-835dbcc468c4" CreationDate="2017-09-14T11:43:23.580" UserId="4863" Text="I am pulling out the carpet in my house. I live in a cold area. I want to heat my flooring, but don't want to spend an arm and a leg doing so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the most cost effective and energy efficient way to heat the floor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6164" RevisionGUID="fc97580d-a467-49dc-b624-835dbcc468c4" CreationDate="2017-09-14T11:43:23.580" UserId="4863" Text="Most cost effective heated flooring?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6164" RevisionGUID="fc97580d-a467-49dc-b624-835dbcc468c4" CreationDate="2017-09-14T11:43:23.580" UserId="4863" Text="|energy-efficiency|heating|carpet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6165" RevisionGUID="8cb4b35a-34e4-4781-98a9-a921657cedfb" CreationDate="2017-09-14T12:24:40.360" UserId="48" Text="It will depend on your local cost of fuels and of equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most energy-efficient way to do it would be to have a ground-source or water-source heat-pump that fed your under-floor heating. However, the capital costs of that are going to be very high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a cheap sustainable supply of biomass, then a biomass boiler feeding a wet under-floor heating system might be cost-effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electrical resistance heating under the floor might be the cheapest to install, but could well be the most expensive to run." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15423" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5196" RevisionGUID="d81ae543-529d-4652-80d7-6b02a16c7bf1" CreationDate="2017-09-14T13:20:54.670" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|diy|personal-hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15424" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6164" RevisionGUID="449c7995-e9d1-42c1-9a1b-c68158673e6e" CreationDate="2017-09-14T13:22:35.030" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy-efficiency|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6166" RevisionGUID="f3e4a5bd-a1a6-4989-9c61-75bcf96d5744" CreationDate="2017-09-14T13:58:36.930" UserId="4834" Text="The most cost effective and energy efficient heat is the heat that you don't lose through the envelope of your house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at the whole house system and consider whether improving insulation (in the ceiling, in the walls, around the foundation) will be a better investment.  It may be that you can improve the comfort level in your house *without* an additional ongoing heating cost - just by utilizing the heat already in the house better by not letting it escape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also be able to solve the problem with a inexpensive few pairs of warm slippers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no real way to say for sure what the most cost effective or efficient solution to the underlying problem (&quot;my house is too cold&quot; or &quot;my floors are too cold&quot;) will be without knowing a lot more details of your situation (what kind of floor?  is there a basement underneath?  what is your foundation like?  what heating system is in place already?  how cold is &quot;cold&quot; and how far away from comfortable is the current situation?  what local renewable energy sources are affordable?  etc) - but a (potentially complicated) heating system with ongoing energy inputs is likely to score worse than a solution that avoids this.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6166" RevisionGUID="0d5d0982-afb7-4f68-a63c-5c5ebaa0eb87" CreationDate="2017-09-14T14:40:26.000" UserId="4834" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The most cost effective and energy efficient heat is the heat that you don't lose through the envelope of your house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at the whole house system and consider whether improving insulation (in the ceiling, in the walls, around the foundation) will be a better investment.  It may be that you can improve the comfort level in your house *without* an additional ongoing heating cost - just by utilizing the heat already in the house better by not letting it escape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also be able to solve the problem with few pairs of inexpensive warm slippers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no real way to say for sure what the most cost effective or efficient solution to the underlying problem (&quot;my house is too cold&quot; or &quot;my floors are too cold&quot;) will be without knowing a lot more details of your situation (what kind of floor?  is there a basement underneath?  what is your foundation like?  what heating system is in place already?  how cold is &quot;cold&quot; and how far away from comfortable is the current situation?  what local renewable energy sources are affordable?  etc) - but a (potentially complicated) heating system with ongoing energy inputs is likely to score worse than a solution that avoids this.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6167" RevisionGUID="d10da218-e9bb-4501-bb3b-a243146bb00e" CreationDate="2017-09-14T23:53:58.313" UserId="4885" Text="Completely traditional: Shaving brush and soap:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Soak the (preferably badger hair) brush for a 30 seconds in warm&#xD;&#xA;    water.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Thoroughly wet your face (while brush is soaking)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Shake excess water from brush&#xD;&#xA; 4. Wet soap (a bit)&#xD;&#xA; 5. Work the brush on the soap until there is some soap on it&#xD;&#xA; 6. Work the brush on your (wet) face until it has a thick, creamy&#xD;&#xA;    consistency, similar to the consistency of spray can shaving foam&#xD;&#xA; 7. Spread it around the area to be shaved&#xD;&#xA; 8. Shave!&#xD;&#xA; 9. Clean the brush and let it dry for tomorrow&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6168" RevisionGUID="d3bd6d58-c294-4435-b38c-71dbe4ab9869" CreationDate="2017-09-15T12:31:43.143" UserId="4885" Text="Stuffing plastic bottles with other plastic items makes them unsuitable for recycling. In recycling processing centres, plastic items are sorted by type prior to reprocessing into raw material. By filling the bottles with many different types of plastic (PET, HDPE, PVC, LDPE, PP, etc) it makes the sorting task much more difficult/impossible/uneconomic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stuffed plastic bottles, as a building material, would likely be a fire hazard and infringe local building regulations/codes, especially if used to build an enclosed space. Decorative walls or outside benches would probably be quite safe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6169" RevisionGUID="ae514ed7-1788-4fd2-bd94-ca1314cbe9dd" CreationDate="2017-09-15T13:10:07.573" UserId="4885" Text="Recently reported research carried out by Rocky De Nys of James Cook University, Australia, has found that a 2% seaweed feed supplement for cattle substantially reduces the methane production in cattle rumen, thereby reducing the greenhouse gas emission of cattle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that you use seaweed fed cows' milk to make your cheese." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6169" RevisionGUID="4cbe347f-a07e-4e28-8c09-4357b2395f96" CreationDate="2017-09-15T15:44:44.870" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Added sources" Text="Recently reported research carried out by Rocky De Nys of James Cook University, Australia, has found that a 2% seaweed feed supplement for cattle substantially reduces the methane production in cattle rumen, thereby reducing the greenhouse gas emission of cattle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest that you use seaweed fed cows' milk to make your cheese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Popular article: [Feeding cows seaweed could slash global greenhouse gas emissions, researchers say](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-19/environmental-concerns-cows-eating-seaweed/7946630)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research paper: [Seaweed as a protein source for mono-gastric livestock ](https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/45653/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here, we critically appraise the literature and quantitatively assess seaweeds as a protein source in livestock feeds by assembling a database of amino acid data for 121 seaweed species and comparing the quality and concentration of protein to 'traditional' protein sources (soybean meal and fishmeal) and then benchmarking the seaweeds against the amino acid requirements of mono gastric livestock (chicken, swine and fish).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Key findings and conclusions: The quality of protein (% of essential amino acids in total amino acids) of many seaweeds is similar to, if not better than, traditional protein sources. However, seaweeds without exception have substantially lower concentrations of total essential amino acids, methionine and lysine (on a whole biomass basis, % dw) than traditional protein sources. Correspondingly, seaweeds contain an insufficient concentration of protein, and specifically insufficient essential amino acids, to meet the requirements of most mono-gastric livestock in the whole seaweed form. Consequently, the concentration or extraction of protein from seaweeds will be the most important goal in their development as an alternative source of protein for mono-gastric livestock. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15431" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6169" RevisionGUID="4cbe347f-a07e-4e28-8c09-4357b2395f96" CreationDate="2017-09-15T15:44:44.870" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 4885 edit id of 492" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6170" RevisionGUID="c8b3b532-a819-4139-bbb7-edb49a709f33" CreationDate="2017-09-15T17:20:51.327" UserId="4885" Text="Depending on the size (esp height) of your growing spacec. One of the following would work: willow (Salix spp), elephant grass (Miscanthus fuscu), or as @JChomel mentions, bamboo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Willow is especially useful as it can grow in ground that is saturated for much of the time. Occasional flooding with the human waste would be less of an issue. It makes an excellent biomass crop. As there are around 400 species, there may be several that are native to your particular region, lessening the need to us an invasive species." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15437" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6156" RevisionGUID="99bd3770-e853-404c-93bf-1a78e09f270d" CreationDate="2017-09-17T13:36:48.213" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/909410809360547846" />
  <row Id="15440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6175" RevisionGUID="24eee073-8fb2-4827-b825-df74f23dfcdf" CreationDate="2017-09-17T15:36:48.840" UserId="4885" Text="There's another completely natural and sustainable and reusable alternative, although NOT vegan. Its the lambskin condom, made from lamb's intestines. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="313" RevisionGUID="459c80be-9db6-4a26-a6fc-b527bee6eb2b" CreationDate="2017-09-18T07:23:54.040" UserId="96" Comment="added paragraph about pests etc." Text="Do you know the rationale behind washing the containers? There's a large-scale system for, among others, plastic containers in place in Germany, and here you are explicitly advised not to wash the containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gut reply would be to not wash the containers. This is based on the assumption that they will either be recycled, and no recycling plant can rely on you washing your peanut butter jars sufficiently for their purposes, and they can probably wash them more efficiently at their plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or the plastic waste is incinerated (in this case the separate collection may be because plastic waste is high value fuel) and then it really doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot really depends on what actually happens with the plastics. Note that recycling can mean almost anything except landfill in the terms of the relevant laws: thermal recycling = incineration, material recycling = smelting and reuse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I see no sustainability argument for washing, there's a health aspect - containers with food remains can attract pests, stink, or be a reservoir for pathogens. Depending on where you live and how you store the packaging, this may be an issue (thx @WhirlWind for pointing this out!)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6163" RevisionGUID="eda0c7fd-3997-4807-9e25-6bbc3db8e8ad" CreationDate="2017-09-19T09:04:02.670" UserId="4863" Comment="Corrected grammar. Changed &quot;dissolve&quot; to &quot;remove&quot;." Text="There are three ways I know of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1: High PH (alkaline) cleaner such as borax, soda ash, baking soda. If you are able to raise the PH above the PH of the charcoal, it will come right off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2: Natural solvents such as orange oil or lemon/lime juice. Natural solvents that contain citric acid will remove it as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3: Distilled white vinegar. Opposite on PH scale so it will neutralize and allow you to rinse off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6176" RevisionGUID="52bdc8b7-ce9e-4dab-8df0-8f5e15b90dc3" CreationDate="2017-09-19T16:15:13.143" UserId="4885" Text="Native timber species (that just might be offered to you) as fuel (all 5% moisture):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Beech 17Mj/kg&#xD;&#xA; - Oak 16MJ/kg&#xD;&#xA; - Pine 17MJ/kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTU/cord would be little understood in these islands)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that pine is substantially less dense than the hardwoods&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A source for the info: [UN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORG WOOD FUELS&#xD;&#xA;HANDBOOK][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most important: CLEAN YOUR CHIMNEY!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out in other posts, soot buildup is a serious fire hazard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;btw, &quot;flue&quot; is the same as &quot;chimney&quot;. I suspect that when you state that your &quot;flue doesn't go all the way to the top...&quot;, you actually mean that the stove pipe (the pipe that connects your stove to the flue) feeds into a chimney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ensure that the seal around the stovepipe is good and that the flue has only one outlet (at the roof level). This should improve the &quot;draw&quot; in the flue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4441e.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6176" RevisionGUID="aa5ffeb7-f40b-4fe8-a061-189b6968ac86" CreationDate="2017-09-19T16:21:37.063" UserId="4885" Comment="added 376 characters in body" Text="Native timber species (that just might be offered to you) as fuel (all 5% moisture):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Beech 17Mj/kg&#xD;&#xA; - Oak 16MJ/kg&#xD;&#xA; - Pine 17MJ/kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(BTU/cord would be little understood in these islands)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember that pine is substantially less dense than the hardwoods&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A source for the info: [UN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORG WOOD FUELS&#xD;&#xA;HANDBOOK][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most important: CLEAN YOUR CHIMNEY!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out in other posts, soot buildup is a serious fire hazard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;btw, &quot;flue&quot; is the same as &quot;chimney&quot;. I suspect that when you state that your &quot;flue doesn't go all the way to the top...&quot;, you actually mean that the stove pipe (the pipe that connects your stove to the flue) feeds into a chimney.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you want to achieve is a sealed system with all air entering through the air intake of the stove, and existing at the top of the chimney. The allows all the air entering the system to be directly available to the burning timber. Ensure that the seal around the stovepipe is good and that the flue has only one outlet (at the roof level). You can seal any dodgy joints with fire cement, available in cans. This should improve the &quot;draw&quot; in the flue.&#xD;&#xA;Ensure that all door seals are good. Install new sealing rope if necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4441e.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="4a81ac80-2d65-4bc4-b796-aabcd915da8e" CreationDate="2017-09-21T01:07:39.493" UserId="4834" Text="I currently have a house under construction.  The overall design is for a tight, well-insulated building with a balanced active air exchange system.   I live in the US northeast where firewood is plentiful and I have long wanted an efficient, safe wood stove to use as a primary heating source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've had vague concerns about what happens when putting a rocket mass heater into a tight structure for some time now.  At last, construction has proceeded to the point where I really need to answer some questions about chimneys and airflow.  My general contractor (in whom I put a lot of trust) has concerns about what the air flow from the rocket mass heater will do to the living space.  The very fancy ERV being installed seems like it will do a great job of maintaining healthy air quality in the absence of an underpressure such as that created by the RMH.  It's not clear it will operate well with the RMH running (at least, it will not be able to follow the different amounts of airflow that come at different points in a burn).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What options exist for addressing this apparently incompatibility?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="4a81ac80-2d65-4bc4-b796-aabcd915da8e" CreationDate="2017-09-21T01:07:39.493" UserId="4834" Text="How can a rocket mass heater be combined with a tight modern construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="4a81ac80-2d65-4bc4-b796-aabcd915da8e" CreationDate="2017-09-21T01:07:39.493" UserId="4834" Text="|home|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15454" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="67017496-675a-449a-af0d-498ce9e6c074" CreationDate="2017-09-21T10:50:12.680" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/910818437982801921" />
  <row Id="15455" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="51cbd7ac-e182-416f-a1db-7cedfbf9a3c3" CreationDate="2017-09-21T11:04:27.900" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Explanatory links" Text="I currently have a house under construction.  The overall design is for a tight, well-insulated building with a balanced active air exchange system.   I live in the US northeast where firewood is plentiful and I have long wanted an efficient, safe wood stove to use as a primary heating source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've had vague concerns about what happens when putting a [rocket mass heater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_mass_heater) into a tight structure for some time now.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Construction has now proceeded to the point where I really need to answer some questions about chimneys and airflow.  My general contractor (in whom I put a lot of trust) has concerns about what the air flow from the rocket mass heater will do to the living space.  The very fancy [ERV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_recovery_ventilation) being installed seems like it will do a great job of maintaining healthy air quality in the absence of an underpressure such as that created by the RMH.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not clear it will operate well with the RMH running (at least, it will not be able to follow the different amounts of airflow that come at different points in a burn).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What options exist for addressing this apparent incompatibility?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15456" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="51cbd7ac-e182-416f-a1db-7cedfbf9a3c3" CreationDate="2017-09-21T11:04:27.900" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 4834 edit id of 493" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15457" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6177" RevisionGUID="c4949927-fa65-48a5-aae2-ae8b75b2f567" CreationDate="2017-09-21T11:09:25.933" UserId="4834" Comment="explain balanced air some and talk about how the ERV is controlled" Text="I currently have a house under construction.  The overall design is for a tight, well-insulated building with a balanced active air exchange system (an ERV: a unit with two blowers, one in and one out, with vents spread throughout the house).  I live in the US northeast where firewood is plentiful and I have long wanted an efficient, safe wood stove to use as a primary heating source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've had vague concerns about what happens when putting a [rocket mass heater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_mass_heater) into a tight structure for some time now.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Construction has now proceeded to the point where I really need to answer some questions about chimneys and airflow.  My general contractor (in whom I put a lot of trust) has concerns about what the air flow from the rocket mass heater will do to the living space.  The very fancy [ERV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_recovery_ventilation) being installed seems like it will do a great job of maintaining healthy air quality in the absence of an underpressure such as that created by the RMH.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not clear it will operate well with the RMH running (at least, it will not be able to follow the different amounts of airflow that come at different points in a burn).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current plan is to have a vent for the out-blowing fan (a &quot;return&quot;) in the kitchen where the RMH is planned.  The venting isn't placed yet so there's still the possibility of adjusting this it the ERV can help somehow.  The ERV has settings for the CFM to bring in and take out.  These _can_ be set independently but I don't understand why you would do this.  The settings are via manual controls on the unit.  I could imagine setting the out blower low and relying on a running RMH to take care of exhausting stale air but I don't relish the prospect of making two ERV adjustments per RMH burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What options exist for addressing this apparent incompatibility?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6178" RevisionGUID="e489d9c5-f5cc-4a66-a11c-940b6e32464d" CreationDate="2017-09-21T11:55:38.050" UserId="96" Text="I'm throwing a few ideas about to help you get started. You should get independent review of your plans (wether you go with my ideas below or others). Ventilation of rooms with furnaces is a safety issue, worst case is that underpressure (from your ventilation system) draws exhaust into the room and kills you. If not already done, consider a CO detector for the room with the RMH. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see two ways to go forward, if they are actually doable will depend on your specific setup:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Control in-blower for pressure*: Install a differential pressure sensor that measures the difference between outside and the room with the RMH. The out-blower is adjuste manually to the air change you want to achieve, the in-blower adjusts automatically to always maintain a slight overpressure (e.g. X Pa). In practice this means that the in-blower will have a higher flowrate (then the other blower) when the RMH is active. You want a warning when the pressure diff. is negative for longer than 10 or 20 seconds, because this could mean you draw smoke into your living room!  &#xD;&#xA;This could impact the ERV, as the flows will be mismatched.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Separate Air supply for RMH:* see if the RMH can get it's own dedicated  air supply from the outside. This could be as simple as a hole in the wall with a mesh and a flap, or may need a separate blower (again controlled for delta P) - I don't know enough of your RMH and the layout of your house to really say. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15464" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="2e493eba-35d2-446a-8277-27708238efd5" CreationDate="2017-09-23T16:19:45.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15465" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6117" RevisionGUID="ba2eb7f5-c5b8-4f6e-8b15-094f2a9c0ce9" CreationDate="2017-09-24T08:11:44.347" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/911865720480440320" />
  <row Id="15466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6181" RevisionGUID="7bb92b12-93a9-4d78-b78b-3a4fd66c6963" CreationDate="2017-09-24T13:48:20.590" UserId="4911" Text="This is not a problem if you use a basin to wash dishes.  As I soap dishes it goes in an empty basin in one half the sink.  I rinse the dishes in the basin one at a time and put in rack.  As I do so the basin fills up with the soapy rinse water.  I have a full basin at the end of the wash.  I can use this water to wash a kitchen rag to wipe down counters and/or I can use this water to rinse off another load of dirty dishes and/or I can use this water to rinse out recyclable containers like the above-mentioned peanut butter jar.  Then this water I pour into a greywater bucket to water plants outside.  So this potable water has potentially five uses: rinsing, washing rag, rinsing dirty dishes, rinsing dirty recyclable containers, watering outdoor plants." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="afea22ac-8d92-433c-8f0a-cdce29e86154" CreationDate="2017-09-24T15:27:39.017" UserId="2734" Text="For the past two months, I have been investing some attention and effort in taking care of setting aside all my dry waste in my room's bin. I wish to separate the recyclable ones and the unrecyclable ones. Dispose the recycled ones. I don't know what to do with unrecyclable ones, such as shiny cookie wrappers, I might do some handi-work to make a pillow or some thing out of it. There is no proper collection mechanism or disposal mechanism in the small Indian town I live. I was originally inspired by the famous video &quot;The Story of Stuff&quot;. Ironically, a depressing point mentioned in the video is the reason for this question. &#xD;&#xA; In the later half, it mentions the following : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, the waste coming out of our houses is just the tip of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iceberg. For every one garbage can of waste that you put out on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; curb, seventy garbage cans of waste where made upstream, just to make&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the junk in that one garbage can you put out on the curb. So even if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; we could recycle a hundred percent of the waste coming out of our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; households, it doesn't get to the core of the problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It set me thinking whether there would be any point at all in me taking so much care for segregation, reuse and recycling, since whatever household effort in dry waste disposal is miniscule compared to industrial waste. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a principle, as a recycling philosophy and, more rationally, why should individuals bother to take the pains for household dispoal in comparison to industrial waste disposal ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="afea22ac-8d92-433c-8f0a-cdce29e86154" CreationDate="2017-09-24T15:27:39.017" UserId="2734" Text="Why should we bother to recycle household waste if it's only a small portion of all waste that is generated?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="afea22ac-8d92-433c-8f0a-cdce29e86154" CreationDate="2017-09-24T15:27:39.017" UserId="2734" Text="|recycling|home|dry-waste|waste-segregation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="aaab1dfc-3da2-4bce-8742-c20bc16b9710" CreationDate="2017-09-24T15:33:09.103" UserId="2734" Comment="spelling mistake corrected. " Text="For the past two months, I have been investing some attention and effort in taking care of setting aside all my dry waste in my room's bin. I wish to separate the recyclable ones and the unrecyclable ones. Dispose the recycled ones. I don't know what to do with unrecyclable ones, such as shiny cookie wrappers, I might do some handi-work to make a pillow or some thing out of it. There is no proper collection mechanism or disposal mechanism in the small Indian town I live. I was originally inspired by the famous video &quot;The Story of Stuff&quot;. Ironically, a depressing point mentioned in the video is the reason for this question. &#xD;&#xA; In the later half, it mentions the following : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, the waste coming out of our houses is just the tip of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iceberg. For every one garbage can of waste that you put out on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; curb, seventy garbage cans of waste were made upstream, just to make&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the junk in that one garbage can you put out on the curb. So even if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; we could recycle a hundred percent of the waste coming out of our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; households, it doesn't get to the core of the problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It set me thinking whether there would be any point at all in me taking so much care for segregation, reuse and recycling, since whatever household effort in dry waste disposal is miniscule compared to industrial waste. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a principle, as a recycling philosophy and, more rationally, why should individuals bother to take the pains for household dispoal in comparison to industrial waste disposal ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15471" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="960096e2-3513-4a72-814d-a2dfda4a24f1" CreationDate="2017-09-25T11:17:17.703" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/912274804643893248" />
  <row Id="15473" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6184" RevisionGUID="63793428-6439-498e-ad5d-6c98c046662d" CreationDate="2017-09-26T01:34:11.347" UserId="4914" Text="Gray water has grease in it. Soap etc. For this reason you need a grease pit above the holding tank.  Septic tank. The water can then filter from there back into the ground. Both need cleaned regular. No overflow. I live on a island also.  Our water is charcoal filtered for the tap. Some what like America used in the 60s. Our well water I do not drink. Chemicals or minerals. In the valley of ore's. We have it all. iron lead gold silver zinc in the ground. So you do not know a good well from a bad well unless tested. We are more volcanic rock area. You do not want to plug the pours in said rock up. So grease removal is important there. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6185" RevisionGUID="ea9d6c96-960c-43a2-9ebb-d6e36160ac89" CreationDate="2017-09-26T18:05:14.067" UserId="4917" Text="The problem with using NiMH batteries in place of a Ni-Cd in a solar light. NiMh charge at a higher voltage which means they will not receive a full charge if much at all and will not last very long when the sun goes down. Is best to use the same type of battery that the solar light was designed for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15477" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6136" RevisionGUID="25c89f27-c7ab-4e62-b1cb-f0086f504fe5" CreationDate="2017-09-28T05:36:26.260" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/913276188839354369" />
  <row Id="15478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6186" RevisionGUID="5cf26acc-5d2a-4c0a-8b83-7a56d5c39f76" CreationDate="2017-09-28T09:40:05.057" UserId="4921" Text="It is true that household recycling alone is not going to solve the problem of stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I personally still recycle because it increases my awareness of the resources I consume and the kinds of waste I generate. Which increases the opportunities of finding ways to reduce and reuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion this is one small step toward creating a culture of responsibility for our actions. And industry will feel it when enough of us &quot;vote with our feet&quot; and [opt-out of wanton consumerism][1] to instead support more environmentally friendly alternatives. Industry is made up of individuals after all, and it will change when those on the inside and the outside exert economic pressure to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever I feel discouraged that my actions are too insignificant to make a difference I remember the [story of the starfish][2] by Loren Eiseley.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While wandering a deserted beach at dawn, stagnant in my work, I saw a man in the distance bending and throwing as he walked the endless stretch toward me. As he came near, I could see that he was throwing starfish, abandoned on the sand by the tide, back into the sea. When he was close enough I asked him why he was working so hard at this strange task. He said that the sun would dry the starfish and they would die. I said to him that I thought he was foolish. There were thousands of starfish on miles and miles of beach. One man alone could never make a difference. He smiled as he picked up the next starfish. Hurling it far into the sea he said, &quot;It makes a difference for this one.&quot; I abandoned my writing and spent the morning throwing starfish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.alternet.org/environment/if-recycling-doesnt-actually-help-planet-then-what-should-we-do&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/56782.Loren_Eiseley" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6187" RevisionGUID="55dd7a17-7527-4505-b114-f057230b84f9" CreationDate="2017-09-28T09:43:06.140" UserId="99" Text="If 70 people recycle their waste, does that mean that the 71th person doesn't have to? The answer obviously is no, this person should recycle his/her garbage just like those other 70 people are doing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's certainly true that there is far more industrial waste than residential waste, but I don't think the 70:1 ratio is correct. While an exact number cannot be given because we know little about how much waste is generated world-wide, rough estimates indicate that it's lower than that. If we look at the US, one of the world's biggest waste producer, a figure that is cited often is a [97:3 ratio](https://discardstudies.com/2016/03/02/municipal-versus-industrial-waste-a-3-97-ratio-or-something-else-entirely/) between industrial waste and municipal solid waste. However somewhere around 70%-90% of all industrial waste is liquid. If you compare industrial **solid** waste to residential solid waste it's likely more of a 2:1 or 3:2 ratio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numbers aside, I think the point the &quot;Story of Stuff&quot; is trying to make is that buying things has a much larger impact than you might think. If you really want to minimize your environmental footprint, it's best to think twice about buying something. Do you really need it? By not buying you can make a much bigger positive contribution than by buying and recycling (although most economists will probably disagree with this)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15481" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6116" RevisionGUID="8983f329-7961-4cc7-a244-5d3a012727ed" CreationDate="2017-09-28T14:36:40.017" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/913412141847400449" />
  <row Id="15482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="d6b2442a-9a3d-49b0-9a98-18fbef51aa60" CreationDate="2017-09-28T18:24:43.973" UserId="2734" Comment="corrected typos." Text="For the past two months, I have been investing some attention and effort in taking care of setting aside all my dry waste in my room's bin. I wish to separate the recyclable ones and the unrecyclable ones. Dispose the recyclable ones responsibly. I don't know what to do with unrecyclable ones, such as shiny cookie wrappers, I might do some handi-work to make a pillow or some thing out of it. There is no proper collection mechanism or disposal mechanism in the small Indian town I live. I was originally inspired by the famous video &quot;[The Story of Stuff][1]&quot;. Ironically, a depressing point mentioned in the video is the reason for this question. &#xD;&#xA; In the later half, it mentions the following : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, the waste coming out of our houses is just the tip of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iceberg. For every one garbage can of waste that you put out on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; curb, seventy garbage cans of waste were made upstream, just to make&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the junk in that one garbage can you put out on the curb. So even if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; we could recycle a hundred percent of the waste coming out of our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; households, it doesn't get to the core of the problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It set me thinking whether there would be any point at all in me taking so much care for segregation, reuse and recycling, since whatever household effort in dry waste disposal is miniscule compared to industrial waste. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a principle, as a recycling philosophy and, more rationally, why should individuals bother to take the pains for household disposal in comparison to industrial waste disposal ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6182" RevisionGUID="adf72b99-d236-4c22-991a-7e300a1258a3" CreationDate="2017-09-28T18:30:47.767" UserId="2734" Comment="edited typo, added link before" Text="For the past two months, I have been investing some attention and effort in taking care of setting aside all my dry waste in my room's bin. I wish to separate the recyclable ones and the unrecyclable ones. Dispose the recyclable ones responsibly. I don't know what to do with unrecyclable ones, such as shiny cookie wrappers, I might do some handi-work to make a pillow or bag or some thing out of it. There is no proper collection mechanism or disposal mechanism in the small Indian town I live. I was originally inspired by the famous video &quot;[The Story of Stuff][1]&quot;. Ironically, a depressing point mentioned in the video is the reason for this question. &#xD;&#xA; In the later half, it mentions the following : &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, the waste coming out of our houses is just the tip of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; iceberg. For every one garbage can of waste that you put out on the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; curb, seventy garbage cans of waste were made upstream, just to make&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the junk in that one garbage can you put out on the curb. So even if&#xD;&#xA;&gt; we could recycle a hundred percent of the waste coming out of our&#xD;&#xA;&gt; households, it doesn't get to the core of the problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It set me thinking whether there would be any point at all in me taking so much care for segregation, reuse and recycling, since whatever household effort in dry waste disposal is miniscule compared to industrial waste. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as a principle, as a recycling philosophy and, more rationally, why should individuals bother to take the pains for household disposal in comparison to industrial waste disposal ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6188" RevisionGUID="c846e898-9f49-44b4-9aa8-be901fa3747f" CreationDate="2017-09-28T22:40:53.737" UserId="4922" Text="This answer is not very scientific. but the closer you get to the cheese maker and the closer that cheese maker is to the milk supplier, the lower the carbon footprint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could buy a cheese made with the lowest carbon impact ever, but if that cheese is transported using petrochemical, or even electrical car, the carbon footprint will shoot right up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's the distance the cheese traveled and not really how it was made. Especially if the cheese came from overseas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6189" RevisionGUID="8df8b8b1-5443-40e4-867b-7cfe87d91b19" CreationDate="2017-09-29T11:36:51.420" UserId="3664" Text="Well, last week we got hit by cat 5 hurricane Maria. So I'm thinking, one of the things I miss the most right now is ice.&#xA;&#xA;Considering the amount of sunlight that we have, does a battery-powered portable freezer that can be charged by sunlight exist?&#xA;&#xA;This is what I'm thinking: I buy a portable freezer/fridge that somehow runs with a battery. This battery would somehow be charged by a device/panel that charges the battery with the sun. The freezer would be running about 8 hours/day. After 8 hours, I simply switch the battery with another (recently charged) battery.&#xA;&#xA;Considering the advances made with solar technology, does something like this exist?&#xA;&#xA;I've been thinking about a regular gas generator, but considering the amount of sheer sunlight that we have, there has to be something else besides gasoline/diesel. Also, gasoline is quite scarce.&#xA;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15486" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6189" RevisionGUID="8df8b8b1-5443-40e4-867b-7cfe87d91b19" CreationDate="2017-09-29T11:36:51.420" UserId="3664" Text="Solar/battery powered portable freezer or fridge?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15487" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6189" RevisionGUID="8df8b8b1-5443-40e4-867b-7cfe87d91b19" CreationDate="2017-09-29T11:36:51.420" UserId="3664" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15488" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="f6a1cc1a-d2da-4508-8159-dacac3ae5835" CreationDate="2017-09-29T16:35:45.883" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6190" RevisionGUID="dafbde3f-6b19-49a4-a58c-27fdeb3304ba" CreationDate="2017-10-01T10:39:01.687" UserId="4927" Text="The only thing I can think of is a Coleman cooler box. Runs on 12v. Made to run on a vehicle battery. Or a kooltron. You find these in truckstops. They do not freeze but get cold inside. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15490" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6189" RevisionGUID="cc3bae44-c2d6-4cde-a300-f71289afa4ce" CreationDate="2017-10-01T14:47:28.600" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/914502025861320704" />
  <row Id="15494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5874" RevisionGUID="4370e89b-87d3-4d73-aacb-c7645a819259" CreationDate="2017-10-03T05:15:20.270" UserId="4304" Comment="Added details" Text="I am a guy living in **Kerala, India**. I have a plot of 5 [cents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cent_(area)) (about 200 square meter) in my backyard. I would like to know which plants would be helpful for planting in the plot (edible fruits or vegetables), that require less care in a later stage after planting them. &#xD;&#xA;My intention is to grow them for daily use like cooking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6192" RevisionGUID="fd73d36c-2827-4f65-b652-9b118ac4e0bd" CreationDate="2017-10-03T13:25:52.887" UserId="4155" Text="Yes, there are plenty available - just look for those designed for use in a Motorhome/Caravan. These are designed to run off of 12v, so you can connect them to a deep-cycle leisure battery and charge that using solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many are also &quot;3-way&quot;, in that they can run off 12v, 240v mains or gas (lpg/cooking gas, not petrol/gasoline). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15505" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="6032" RevisionGUID="c9023a9c-6db0-4949-99e9-a9c7517e9a29" CreationDate="2017-10-04T08:28:20.193" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15510" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6146" RevisionGUID="197162ee-09c2-42f3-adaa-4815e01ee4f1" CreationDate="2017-10-04T08:32:09.563" UserId="99" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6192" RevisionGUID="b032b3be-ffa9-4a5f-8721-9b7e024b046d" CreationDate="2017-10-04T12:19:04.300" UserId="4155" Comment="added extra info from comments" Text="Yes, there are plenty available - just look for those designed for use in a Motorhome/Caravan. These are designed to run off of 12v, so you can connect them to a deep-cycle leisure battery and charge that using solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many are also &quot;3-way&quot;, in that they can run off 12v, 240v mains or gas (lpg/cooking gas, not petrol/gasoline). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To set up such a system, you'll need, in addition to the fridge, a suitable battery, a solar panel, a charge controller (the bit that enables the solar panels to charge the battery correctly without overcharging it), and the necessary wiring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The battery needs to be big enough to run the fridge overnight (so kWh of the fridge * number of hours without sun + margin), and the solar panel big enough to fully charge the battery while also running the fridge (kW / number of hours of sun + kWh of the fridge). Of course, if your existing fridge is efficient enough, you could even get a charge controller with a built-in mains inverter, and plug your normal fridge into that - but fridges use a lot of power, especially at startup, so you'd need a hefty inverter and battery...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should be able to get all the bits from any decent RV/Caravan/Motorhome supplier, or, as you're in a coastal region, you should also be able to get them from a chandlers (boat supplier) - particularly if you've got one nearby that deals a lot with leisure yachts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example of a solar charging kit, containing most of the bits you'll need (and with a list of what else is required): [uk.rs-online.com/web/p/photovoltaic-solar-panels/7067924][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://Here's%20an%20example:%20uk.rs-online.com/web/p/photovoltaic-solar-panels/7067924" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="08f8af3c-47e9-4331-9eef-3bb26619e844" CreationDate="2017-10-05T12:41:32.933" UserId="4886" Text="It's probably not the answer you want to hear, but **no sensible options exist** for running a RMH inside of a tightly sealed building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, that's the case if you are talking about the stereotypical J-tube RMH that is all-the-rage on permies.com and other similar places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The frequent feeding required by a RMH means that if you plumb in an external air inlet, then every time you unseal the feed tube you will fill the room with smoke.  With 'normal' wood heaters, you only feed them infrequently, and well into the coal phase, so negligible smoking occurs.  With a RMH you are always burning fresh wood and producing smoke at the bottom of the feed tube.  This battle can't be won without modifying the RMH.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are able and willing to experiment and mod the basic J-tube design, then you could run your external air inlet into the bottom of the feeder tube and install a butterfly valve in it.  Every time you wanted to feed the RMH you would have to simultaneously constrict flow in the external air pipe using the valve, whilst unsealing the top of the feeder tube.  Good luck with that.  It's time consuming and never quite works.  End result:  Smoke in the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In ideal circumstances (no high or low pressure zones outside, no wind) you could eventually get it dialled-in, but we don't live on a world where those sort of conditions exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that tight sealing / heat recovery ventilators is a divergent path that embraces active and artificial systems.  You're basically **creating a house that needs an artificial lung for the rest of its existence** when you tightly seal a house.  That choice inevitably makes other solutions impractical or impossible to implement, because those solutions only work in moderately sealed thermal envelopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I designed my house recently I faced the same issues.  I have an infinite supply of free wood, and a limited capacity to generate electricity during winter.  I went with a wood heater / outdoor air combo and didn't push for tight sealing.  If I was in a colder climate and/or didn't have a really good passive solar design, then I would have gone RMH / indoor air instead of the wood heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like trees, I like wood heat, I don't like the constant drone of HRVs, I don't have much in the way of surplus solar in winter to run pumps continuously, and I like the idea of a house that can breath without mechanical assistance.  I didn't tightly seal the house, and I have no regrets about that choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on tightly sealing your house, and insist on installing a RMH, then the simplest solution is to crack open a window whilst using the RMH.  Not really sensible, but it would work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6198" RevisionGUID="e23c0e7b-29f7-4ca9-ab1a-587024d9a7e9" CreationDate="2017-10-05T18:11:17.440" UserId="4938" Text="I'm starting a garden and wondering if worm that are sold for fishing bait can be used in a garden? I'm adding corn meal peels, manure, etc, into the soil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15514" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6198" RevisionGUID="e23c0e7b-29f7-4ca9-ab1a-587024d9a7e9" CreationDate="2017-10-05T18:11:17.440" UserId="4938" Text="Can you use worm bait for a garden" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15515" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6198" RevisionGUID="e23c0e7b-29f7-4ca9-ab1a-587024d9a7e9" CreationDate="2017-10-05T18:11:17.440" UserId="4938" Text="|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="5c16e920-72dc-45be-9c60-5a528dac74cb" CreationDate="2017-10-06T00:41:06.507" UserId="4886" Comment="added 686 characters in body" Text="It's probably not the answer you want to hear, but **no sensible options exist** for running a RMH inside of a tightly sealed building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, that's the case if you are talking about the stereotypical J-tube RMH that is all-the-rage on permies.com and other similar places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The frequent feeding required by a RMH means that if you plumb in an external air inlet, then every time you unseal the feed tube you will fill the room with smoke.  With 'normal' wood heaters, you only feed them infrequently, and well into the coal phase, so negligible smoking occurs.  With a RMH you are always burning fresh wood and producing smoke at the bottom of the feed tube.  This battle can't be won without modifying the RMH.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are able and willing to experiment and mod the basic J-tube design, then you could run your external air inlet into the bottom of the feeder tube and install a butterfly valve in it.  Every time you wanted to feed the RMH you would have to simultaneously constrict flow in the external air pipe using the valve, whilst unsealing the top of the feeder tube.  Good luck with that.  It's time consuming and never quite works.  End result:  Smoke in the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In ideal circumstances (no high or low pressure zones outside, no wind) you could eventually get it dialled-in, but we don't live on a world where those sort of conditions exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that tight sealing / heat recovery ventilators is a divergent path that embraces active and artificial systems.  You're basically **creating a house that needs an artificial lung for the rest of its existence** when you tightly seal a house.  That choice inevitably makes other solutions impractical or impossible to implement, because those solutions only work in moderately sealed thermal envelopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I designed my house recently I faced the same issues.  I have an infinite supply of free wood, and a limited capacity to generate electricity during winter.  I went with a wood heater / outdoor air combo and didn't push for tight sealing.  If I was in a colder climate and/or didn't have a really good passive solar design, then I would have gone RMH / indoor air instead of the wood heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like trees, I like wood heat, I don't like the constant drone of HRVs, I don't have much in the way of surplus solar in winter to run pumps continuously, and I like the idea of a house that can breath without mechanical assistance.  I didn't tightly seal the house, and I have no regrets about that choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on tightly sealing your house, and insist on installing a RMH, then the simplest solution is to crack open a window whilst using the RMH.  Not really sensible, but it would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach, which reduces the smoking issue but does not eliminate it, is with something like this: naturalhomes.org/permahome/rocket-mass-heater-basics.htm. The problem with that approach is that when wind blows against the side of the house with the external air inlet, it forces air into the room and a venturi effect kicks in when you open the hatch to add fuel... pulling smoke up the feeder and pushing it into the room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another (functional, but not very sensible) solution is to split your RMH between two rooms.  Have the feeder in a non-tightly-sealed room (e.g. a mud room) then have the burn chamber pass through a wall and have the rest of the RMH (riser and thermal mass) be located in an adjacent room.  This solves all of the pressure issues caused by a tight seal, but it makes operation of the RMH more complex.  Normally you place the feeder somewhere that is convenient and which you pass by frequently — so you can just glance in and top up as and when required.  If you put the feeder into a different room you need to make dedicated trips into a different (and usually much colder) room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6199" RevisionGUID="91c9bb79-ed1d-4324-87c3-bbf7fdef2a55" CreationDate="2017-10-06T18:10:25.247" UserId="1701" Text="Yes, you can use fishing worms in your garden. However there are a few things to be aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Worms sold for bait are typically one of the larger species. Canadian Night Crawlers and Alabama Jumpers are two varieties commonly sold for bait. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worms used in vermicomposting are most often Red Wigglers. These are quite small, and wouldn't make the best bait for that reason. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Red Wigglers are preferred for vermicomposting because they breed rapidly and consume great amounts of vegetable matter. They tend to live within the compost at the surface rather than deeper in the soil. This limits their utility in a garden as they would not carry organic matter deep into the soil column, offer the other soil engineering benefits that their larger cousins do. Their &quot;above ground&quot; habit also limits their ability to survive harsh winters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Night Crawlers and Jumpers, on the other hand, live much deeper in the ground. They come to the surface to feed on organic matter, and then carry that up to several feet deep where it is deposited in their castings. These larger worms are also more useful in a garden setting because their deeper burrows promote soil aeration and drainage, too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15518" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="6c1f289b-1be1-48b6-8702-6ac79b57b8ea" CreationDate="2017-10-07T23:30:15.963" UserId="4886" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="It's probably not the answer you want to hear, but **no sensible options exist** for running a RMH inside of a tightly sealed building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, that's the case if you are talking about the stereotypical J-tube RMH that is all-the-rage on permies.com and other similar places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The frequent feeding required by a RMH means that if you plumb in an external air inlet, then every time you unseal the feed tube you will fill the room with smoke.  With 'normal' wood heaters, you only feed them infrequently, and well into the coal phase, so negligible smoking occurs.  With a RMH you are always burning fresh wood and producing smoke at the bottom of the feed tube.  This battle can't be won without modifying the RMH.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are able and willing to experiment and mod the basic J-tube design, then you could run your external air inlet into the bottom of the feeder tube and install a butterfly valve in it.  Every time you wanted to feed the RMH you would have to simultaneously constrict flow in the external air pipe using the valve, whilst unsealing the top of the feeder tube.  Good luck with that.  It's time consuming and never quite works.  End result:  Smoke in the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In ideal circumstances (no high or low pressure zones outside, no wind) you could eventually get it dialled-in, but we don't live on a world where those sort of conditions exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that tight sealing / heat recovery ventilators is a divergent path that embraces active and artificial systems.  You're basically **creating a house that needs an artificial lung for the rest of its existence** when you tightly seal a house.  That choice inevitably makes other solutions impractical or impossible to implement, because those solutions only work in moderately sealed thermal envelopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I designed my house recently I faced the same issues.  I have an infinite supply of free wood, and a limited capacity to generate electricity during winter.  I went with a wood heater / outdoor air combo and didn't push for tight sealing.  If I was in a colder climate and/or didn't have a really good passive solar design, then I would have gone RMH / indoor air instead of the wood heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like trees, I like wood heat, I don't like the constant drone of HRVs, I don't have much in the way of surplus solar in winter to run pumps continuously, and I like the idea of a house that can breath without mechanical assistance.  I didn't tightly seal the house, and I have no regrets about that choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on tightly sealing your house, and insist on installing a RMH, then the simplest solution is to crack open a window whilst using the RMH.  Not really sensible, but it would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach, which *reduces* the smoking issue, but does not eliminate it, is with something like this: http://www.naturalhomes.org/permahome/rocket-mass-heater-basics.htm. Ignore the text, focus on the image.  See how they have added a manifold/hood over the feeder and inject external air through that?  The problem with that approach is that when wind blows against the side of the house with the external air inlet, it forces air into the room and a venturi effect kicks in when you open the hatch to add fuel... pulling smoke up the feeder and pushing it into the room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another (functional, but not very sensible) solution is to split your RMH between two rooms.  Have the feeder in a non-tightly-sealed room (e.g. a mud room) then have the burn chamber pass through a wall and have the rest of the RMH (riser and thermal mass) be located in an adjacent room.  This solves all of the pressure issues caused by a tight seal, but it makes operation of the RMH more complex.  Normally you place the feeder somewhere that is convenient and which you pass by frequently — so you can just glance in and top up as and when required.  If you put the feeder into a different room you need to make dedicated trips into a different (and usually much colder) room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="31120671-aa71-4f95-b0bb-859b9b16ff0f" CreationDate="2017-10-07T23:36:56.713" UserId="4886" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="It's probably not the answer you want to hear, but **no sensible options exist** for running a RMH inside of a tightly sealed building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, that's the case if you are talking about the stereotypical J-tube RMH that is all-the-rage on [permies.com](https://permies.com/f/260/rocket-mass-heaters) and other similar places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The frequent feeding required by a RMH means that if you plumb in an external air inlet, then every time you unseal the feed tube you will fill the room with smoke.  With 'normal' wood heaters, you only feed them infrequently, and well into the coal phase, so negligible smoking occurs.  With a RMH you are always burning fresh wood and producing smoke at the bottom of the feed tube.  This battle can't be won without modifying the RMH.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are able and willing to experiment and mod the basic J-tube design, then you could run your external air inlet into the bottom or side of the feeder tube and install a butterfly valve in it.  Every time you wanted to feed the RMH you would have to simultaneously constrict flow in the external air pipe using the valve, whilst unsealing the top of the feeder tube.  Good luck with that.  It's time consuming and never quite works.  End result:  Smoke in the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In ideal circumstances (no high or low pressure zones outside, no wind) you could eventually get it dialled-in, but we don't live on a world where those sorts of conditions exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that tight sealing / heat recovery ventilators is a divergent path that embraces active and artificial systems.  You're basically **creating a house that needs an artificial lung for the rest of its existence** when you tightly seal a house.  That choice inevitably makes other solutions impractical or impossible to implement, because those solutions only work in moderately sealed thermal envelopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I designed my house recently I faced the same issues.  I have an infinite supply of free wood, and a limited capacity to generate electricity during winter.  I went with a wood heater / outdoor air combo and didn't push for tight sealing.  If I was in a colder climate and/or didn't have a really good passive solar design, then I would have gone RMH / indoor air instead of the wood heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like trees, I like wood heat, I don't like the constant drone of HRVs, I don't have much in the way of surplus solar in winter to run pumps continuously, and I like the idea of a house that can breath without mechanical assistance.  I didn't tightly seal the house, and I have no regrets about that choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on tightly sealing your house, and insist on installing a RMH, then the simplest solution is to crack open a window whilst using the RMH.  Not really sensible, but it would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach, which *reduces* the smoking issue, but does not eliminate it, is with something like this: http://www.naturalhomes.org/permahome/rocket-mass-heater-basics.htm. Ignore the text, focus on the image.  See how they have added a manifold/hood over the feeder and inject external air through that?  The problem with that approach is that when wind blows against the side of the house with the external air inlet, it forces air into the room and a venturi effect kicks in when you open the hatch to add fuel... pulling smoke up the feeder and pushing it into the room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another (functional, but not very sensible) solution is to split your RMH between two rooms.  Have the feeder in a non-tightly-sealed room (e.g. a mud room) then have the burn chamber pass through a wall and have the rest of the RMH (riser and thermal mass) be located in an adjacent room.  This solves all of the pressure issues caused by a tight seal, but it makes operation of the RMH more complex.  Normally you place the feeder somewhere that is convenient and which you pass by frequently — so you can just glance in and top up as and when required.  If you put the feeder into a different room you need to make dedicated trips into a different (and usually much colder) room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="273b32aa-e306-4f8a-aa8c-ada97ccf4405" CreationDate="2017-10-07T23:48:31.167" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="It's probably not the answer you want to hear, but **no sensible options exist** for running a RMH inside of a tightly sealed building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, that's the case if you are talking about the stereotypical J-tube RMH that is all-the-rage on [permies.com](https://permies.com/f/260/rocket-mass-heaters) and other similar places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The frequent feeding required by a RMH means that if you plumb in an external air inlet, then every time you unseal the feed tube you will fill the room with smoke.  With 'normal' wood heaters, you only feed them infrequently, and well into the coal phase, so negligible smoking occurs.  With a RMH you are always burning fresh wood and producing smoke at the bottom of the feed tube.  This battle can't be won without modifying the RMH.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are able and willing to experiment and mod the basic J-tube design, then you could run your external air inlet into the bottom or side of the feeder tube and install a butterfly valve in it.  Every time you wanted to feed the RMH you would have to simultaneously constrict flow in the external air pipe using the valve, whilst unsealing the top of the feeder tube.  Good luck with that.  It's time consuming and never quite works.  End result:  Smoke in the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In ideal circumstances (no high or low pressure zones outside, no wind) you could eventually get it dialled-in, but we don't live on a world where those sorts of conditions exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that tight sealing / heat recovery ventilators is a divergent path that embraces active and artificial systems.  You're basically **creating a house that needs an artificial lung for the rest of its existence** when you tightly seal a house.  That choice inevitably makes other solutions impractical or impossible to implement, because those solutions only work in moderately sealed thermal envelopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I designed my house recently I faced the same issues.  I have an infinite supply of free wood, and a limited capacity to generate electricity during winter.  I went with a wood heater / outdoor air combo and didn't push for tight sealing.  If I was in a colder climate and/or didn't have a really good passive solar design, then I would have gone RMH / indoor air instead of the wood heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like trees, I like wood heat, I don't like the constant drone of HRVs, I don't have much in the way of surplus solar in winter to run pumps continuously, and I like the idea of a house that can breath without mechanical assistance.  I didn't tightly seal the house, and I have no regrets about that choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on tightly sealing your house, and insist on installing a RMH, then the simplest solution is to crack open a window whilst using the RMH.  Not really sensible, but it would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach, which *reduces* the smoking issue, but does not eliminate it, is with something like the design shown at: http://www.naturalhomes.org/permahome/rocket-mass-heater-basics.htm. Focus on the image.  See how they have added a manifold/hood over the feeder and inject external air through that?  The problem with that approach is that when wind blows against the side of the house with the external air inlet, it forces air into the room and a venturi effect kicks in when you open the hatch to add fuel... pulling smoke up the feeder and pushing it into the room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another (functional, but not very sensible) solution is to split your RMH between two rooms.  Have the feeder in a non-tightly-sealed room (e.g. a mud room) then have the burn chamber pass through a wall and have the rest of the RMH (riser and thermal mass) be located in an adjacent room.  This solves all of the pressure issues caused by a tight seal, but it makes operation of the RMH more complex.  Normally you place the feeder somewhere that is convenient and which you pass by frequently — so you can just glance in and top up as and when required.  If you put the feeder into a different room you need to make dedicated trips into a different (and usually much colder) room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="a1565f87-2bdc-40bc-b308-552f84a331e5" CreationDate="2017-10-07T23:59:36.603" UserId="4886" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="It's probably not the answer you want to hear, but **no sensible options exist** for running a RMH inside of a *tightly* sealed building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, that's the case if you are talking about the stereotypical J-tube RMH that is all-the-rage on [permies.com](https://permies.com/f/260/rocket-mass-heaters) and other similar places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The frequent feeding required by a RMH means that if you plumb in an external air inlet, then every time you unseal the feed tube you will end up with smoke in the room.  With 'normal' wood heaters, you only feed them infrequently, and well into the coal phase, so negligible smoking occurs.  With a RMH you are always burning fresh wood and producing smoke at the bottom of the feed tube.  This battle can't be won without modifying the RMH.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are able and willing to experiment and mod the basic J-tube design, then you could run your external air inlet into the bottom or side of the feeder tube and install a butterfly valve in it.  Every time you wanted to feed the RMH you would have to simultaneously constrict flow in the external air pipe using the valve, whilst unsealing the top of the feeder tube.  Good luck with that.  It's time consuming and never quite works.  End result:  Smoke in the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In ideal circumstances (no high or low pressure zones outside, no wind) you could eventually get it dialled-in, but we don't live on a world where those sorts of conditions exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that tight sealing / heat recovery ventilators is a divergent path that embraces active and artificial systems.  You're basically **creating a house that needs an artificial lung for the rest of its existence** when you tightly seal a house.  That choice inevitably makes other solutions impractical or impossible to implement, because those solutions only work in moderately sealed thermal envelopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I designed my house recently I faced the same issues.  I have an infinite supply of free wood, and a limited capacity to generate electricity during winter.  I went with a wood heater / outdoor air combo and didn't push for tight sealing.  If I was in a colder climate and/or didn't have a really good passive solar design, then I would have gone RMH / indoor air instead of the wood heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like trees, I like wood heat, I don't like the constant drone of HRVs, I don't have much in the way of surplus solar in winter to run pumps continuously, and I like the idea of a house that can breath without mechanical assistance.  I didn't tightly seal the house, and I have no regrets about that choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on tightly sealing your house, and insist on installing a RMH, then the simplest solution is to crack open a window whilst using the RMH.  Not really sensible, but it would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach, which *reduces* the smoking issue, but does not eliminate it, is with something like the design shown at: http://www.naturalhomes.org/permahome/rocket-mass-heater-basics.htm. Focus on the image.  See how they have added a manifold/hood over the feeder and inject external air through that?  The problem with that approach is that when wind blows against the side of the house with the external air inlet, it forces air into the room and a venturi effect kicks in when you open the hatch to add fuel... pulling smoke up the feeder and pushing it into the room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another (functional, but not very sensible) solution is to split your RMH between two rooms.  Have the feeder in a non-tightly-sealed room (e.g. a mud room) then have the burn chamber pass through a wall and have the rest of the RMH (riser and thermal mass) be located in an adjacent room.  This solves all of the pressure issues caused by a tight seal, but it makes operation of the RMH more complex.  Normally you place the feeder somewhere that is convenient and which you pass by frequently — so you can just glance in and top up as and when required.  If you put the feeder into a different room you need to make dedicated trips into a different (and usually much colder) room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6200" RevisionGUID="136a787e-6d1c-4653-b524-0c8bc9b0ca7a" CreationDate="2017-10-08T06:43:13.530" UserId="4886" Text="I think this is the &quot;gaping hole&quot; you are looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in sea water is about 40,000ppm.  Thus for every 1,000L of sea water distilled, you would have 40L of solids left behind after distillation.  The amount of room left for water (i.e. the capacity of the 'hole') would thus *decrease by 4% each time it was used*.  The 'hole' would be 50% full of solids after only 17 uses and 90% full after 56 uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you designed your system to go through one distillation cycle every day, your holes would no longer be viable — and would need to be abandoned — roughly every two months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To rub salt into the wound, you would leave behind hypersaline pits that would kill all nearby plant life.  As you dug more and more pits along the countryside, you would progressively turn the environment into a barren wasteland, devoid of life, and subject to extreme erosion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, the illustrated design degrades quickly, scales poorly, and has grave, long-term environmental consequences.  That's why a solar (sea) water still would be for individual, emergency use only, and not for long-term provision of water to the public." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6200" RevisionGUID="177cc40c-cf6e-4647-87b6-1c580200a9c3" CreationDate="2017-10-08T06:48:49.767" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I think this is the &quot;gaping hole&quot; you are looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in sea water is about 40,000ppm.  Thus for every 1,000L of sea water distilled, you would have 40L of solids left behind after distillation.  The amount of room left for water (i.e. the capacity of the 'hole') would thus *decrease by 4% each time it was used*.  The 'hole' would be 50% full of solids after only 17 uses and 90% full after 56 uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you designed your system to go through one distillation cycle every day, your holes would no longer be viable — and would need to be abandoned — roughly every two months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To rub salt into the wound, you would leave behind hypersaline pits that would kill virtually all nearby plant life.  As you dug more and more pits along the countryside, you would progressively turn the environment into a barren wasteland, devoid of life, and subject to extreme erosion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, the illustrated design degrades quickly, scales poorly, and has grave, long-term environmental consequences.  That's why a solar sea water still would be for individual, infrequent use only, and unsuitable for long-term provision of water to the public." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6200" RevisionGUID="8864c491-eff2-4159-beb7-48cdab96b9b1" CreationDate="2017-10-08T06:53:50.387" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I think this is one of the &quot;gaping holes&quot; you are looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in sea water is about 40,000ppm.  Thus for every 1,000L of sea water distilled, you would have 40L of solids left behind after distillation.  The amount of room left for water (i.e. the capacity of the 'hole') would thus *decrease by 4% each time it was used*.  The 'hole' would be 50% full of solids after only 17 uses and 90% full after 56 uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you designed your system to go through one distillation cycle every day, your holes would no longer be viable — and would need to be abandoned — roughly every two months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To rub salt into the wound, you would leave behind hypersaline pits that would kill virtually all nearby plant life.  As you dug more and more pits along the countryside, you would progressively turn the environment into a barren wasteland, devoid of life, and subject to extreme erosion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, the illustrated design degrades quickly, scales poorly, and has grave, long-term environmental consequences.  That's why a solar sea water still could be suitable for infrequent, individual use, but would be unsuitable for long-term provision of water to the public." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6201" RevisionGUID="fce0ea46-7320-4ef7-b3bd-dff36724acf4" CreationDate="2017-10-08T10:01:45.187" UserId="4886" Text="Pretty much everything is toxic if you have **too much** of it.  Water, for example, can be toxic to humans.  The trick to not going insane in this world is to stop looking at lists on websites that claim things are toxic and just approach the issue with logic and caution instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no grass in your paddock, your sheep are starving, and you put up a new fence made from freshly-cut locust, then sure, the sheep will rush the fence and eat what they can as fast as they can because it's new and different and they want to get in before the other sheep eat it all.  A few hours later they may get sick and a few days later some may die.  The problem is **not** the species of tree you are using — it's the fact you're starving your animals and you introduced a large amount of alternative 'feed' quite suddenly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sheep (pretty much all livestock) will preferentially eat the feed that tastes the best first.  Then they'll eat the feed that tastes ok.  They'll avoid eating bad-tasting feed until they get hungry.  They'll avoid eating 'toxic' feed — that they know has made them sick before — until they are starving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introduce new feed in a small, controlled amount.  Let them taste it.  Let *them* see if they end up with undesirable side-effects.  If nothing bad happens, expose them to a slightly larger amount of the feed a few (three or more) days later.  Observe.  Monitor.  Repeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach will prevent animals from getting a &quot;massive dose&quot; from the initial — curiosity-driven — exposure.  It will also give them a chance to assess the feed's palatability and to decide how hungry they need to be before they resort to eating it.  When they see it coming back again and again, the novelty factor will wear off.  If the feed isn't palatable then they'll ignore it and go back to eating what they did before — unless you starve them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add blocks of pure arsenic in the middle of your field quite safely if you do it this way.  **It's not the feed — it's how you introduce it** that determines what the outcome will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 1 — Put a piece of locust firewood, or about a foot worth of post, into their field in an 'obvious place'.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 4 — If they've just nibbed at the wood, you haven't spotted any strange-coloured faeces, and none are exhibiting any unusual behaviours, add a second, and perhaps third piece of wood to the pile.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 7 — If all seems normal, lean a full post up against some part of the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 10 — If all seems normal, lean two or three more posts against the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 14 — If all seems normal, lean half-a-dozen more posts against the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 21 — If all seems normal, fence in a new paddock entirely with locust.  Make sure they have plenty of regular feed (i.e. lots of good grass, maybe some supplementary feed as well) and water — lots of feed options that you know they like more than the fence posts.  Move the sheep in.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 30 — Build a campfire and burn the printout from the website that claims that black locust is poisonous to sheep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In nature, wild animals are free to pick and choose what they will eat.  Accumulated wisdom (from the herd and the individual) means they don't eat things in quantities that are toxic to them.  When you farm animals in a cage or a paddock, you are 100% responsible for the diet of your livestock.  You need to give your animals opportunities to develop dietary wisdom.  If you don't, and your animals suffer and die, then it's not a random plant's fault — it's yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing toxic to farm animals are bad farmers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15527" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6201" RevisionGUID="3126ce67-d0d0-429c-b198-4cb9e0353213" CreationDate="2017-10-08T10:14:52.923" UserId="4886" Comment="added 625 characters in body" Text="Pretty much everything is toxic if you have **too much** of it.  Water, for example, can be toxic to humans.  The trick to not going insane in this world is to stop looking at lists on websites that claim things are toxic and just approach the issue with logic and caution instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no grass in your paddock, your sheep are starving, and you put up a new fence made from freshly-cut locust, then sure, the sheep will rush the fence and eat what they can as fast as they can because it's new and different and they want to get in before the other sheep eat it all.  A few hours later they may get sick and a few days later some may die.  The problem is **not** the species of tree you are using — it's the fact you're starving your animals and you introduced a large amount of alternative 'feed' quite suddenly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sheep (pretty much all livestock) will preferentially eat the feed that tastes the best first.  Then they'll eat the feed that tastes ok.  They'll avoid eating bad-tasting feed until they get hungry.  They'll avoid eating 'toxic' feed — that they know has made them sick before — until they are starving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introduce new feed in a small, controlled amount.  Let them taste it.  Let *them* see if they end up with undesirable side-effects.  If nothing bad happens, expose them to a slightly larger amount of the feed a few (three or more) days later.  Observe.  Monitor.  Repeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach will prevent animals from getting a &quot;massive dose&quot; from the initial — curiosity-driven — exposure.  It will also give them a chance to assess the feed's palatability and to decide how hungry they need to be before they resort to eating it.  When they see it coming back again and again, the novelty factor will wear off.  If the feed isn't palatable then they'll ignore it and go back to eating what they did before — unless you starve them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add blocks of pure arsenic in the middle of your field quite safely if you do it this way.  **It's not the feed — it's how you introduce it** that determines what the outcome will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 1 — Put a piece of locust firewood, or about a foot worth of post, into their field in an 'obvious place'.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 4 — If they've just nibbed at the wood, you haven't spotted any strange-coloured faeces, and none are exhibiting any unusual behaviours, add a second, and perhaps third piece of wood to the pile.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 7 — If all seems normal, lean a full post up against some part of the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 10 — If all seems normal, lean two or three more posts against the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 14 — If all seems normal, lean half-a-dozen more posts against the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 21 — If all seems normal, fence in a new paddock entirely with locust.  Make sure they have plenty of regular feed (i.e. lots of good grass, maybe some supplementary feed as well) and water — lots of feed options that you know they like more than the fence posts.  Move the sheep in.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 30 — Build a campfire and burn the printout from the website that claims that black locust is poisonous to sheep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In nature, wild animals are free to pick and choose what they will eat.  Accumulated wisdom (from the herd and the individual) means they don't eat things in quantities that are toxic to them.  When you farm animals in a cage or a paddock, you are 100% responsible for the diet of your livestock.  If you intend to change their dietary options you need to give your animals the opportunity to develop dietary wisdom.  If you don't, and your animals suffer and die, then it's not a random plant's fault — it's yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing toxic to farm animals are bad farmers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust fence posts will last longer if you strip off the bark.&#xD;&#xA; - In wet and clayey soil, giving the end that goes into the ground (plus about 10cm that sticks out of the ground) a sealing coat is advisable.&#xD;&#xA; - In sandy and free-draining soil, a band of sealant +/-10cm around the ground contact line is all that is advisable. &#xD;&#xA; - A cap on the top will stop water from being drown down into a post and further extend its life.&#xD;&#xA; - If you debark the posts they'll be really, really hard to staple three months later.  You're better off pre-drilling holes for the staples in the comfort of your shed if you leave them that long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6201" RevisionGUID="ced53996-e74a-405b-be07-219a29ef60d0" CreationDate="2017-10-08T10:20:43.117" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="Pretty much everything is toxic if you have **too much** of it.  Water, for example, can be toxic to humans.  The trick to not going insane in this world is to stop looking at lists on websites that claim things are toxic and just approach the issue with logic and caution instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no grass in your paddock, your sheep are starving, and you put up a new fence made from freshly-cut locust, then sure, the sheep will rush the fence and eat what they can as fast as they can because it's new and different and they want to get in before the other sheep eat it all.  A few hours later they may get sick and a few days later some may die.  The problem is **not** the species of tree you are using — it's the fact you're starving your animals and you introduced a large amount of alternative 'feed' quite suddenly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sheep (pretty much all livestock) will preferentially eat the feed that tastes the best first.  Then they'll eat the feed that tastes ok.  They'll avoid eating bad-tasting feed until they get hungry.  They'll avoid eating 'toxic' feed — that they know has made them sick before — until they are starving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introduce new feed in a small, controlled amount.  Let them taste it.  Let *them* see if they end up with undesirable side-effects.  If nothing bad happens, expose them to a slightly larger amount of the feed a few (three or more) days later.  Observe.  Monitor.  Repeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach will prevent animals from getting a &quot;massive dose&quot; from the initial — curiosity-driven — exposure.  It will also give them a chance to assess the feed's palatability and to decide how hungry they need to be before they resort to eating it.  When they see it coming back again and again, the novelty factor will wear off.  If the feed isn't palatable then they'll ignore it and go back to eating what they did before — unless you starve them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add blocks of pure arsenic in the middle of your field quite safely if you do it this way.  **It's not the feed — it's how you introduce it** that determines what the outcome will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 1 — Put a piece of locust firewood, or about a foot worth of post, into their field in an 'obvious place'.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 4 — If they've just nibbed at the wood, you haven't spotted any strange-coloured faeces, and none are exhibiting any unusual behaviours, add a second, and perhaps third piece of wood to the pile.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 7 — If all seems normal, lean a full post up against some part of the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 10 — If all seems normal, lean two or three more posts against the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 14 — If all seems normal, lean half-a-dozen more posts against the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 21 — If all seems normal, fence in a new paddock entirely with locust.  Make sure they have plenty of regular feed (i.e. lots of good grass, maybe some supplementary feed as well) and water — lots of feed options that you know they like more than the fence posts.  Move the sheep in.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Day 30 — Build a campfire and burn the printout from the website that claims that black locust is poisonous to sheep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In nature, wild animals are free to pick and choose what they will eat.  Accumulated wisdom (from the herd and the individual) means they don't eat things in quantities that are toxic to them.  When you farm animals in a cage or a paddock, you are 100% responsible for the diet of your livestock.  If you intend to change their dietary options you need to give your animals the opportunity to develop dietary wisdom.  If you don't, and your animals suffer and die, then it's not a random plant's fault — it's yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing toxic to farm animals are bad farmers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust fence posts will last longer if you strip off the bark.&#xD;&#xA; - In wet and clayey soil, giving the end that goes into the ground (plus about 10cm that sticks out of the ground) a sealing coat is advisable.&#xD;&#xA; - In sandy and free-draining soil, a band of sealant +/-10cm around the ground contact line is all that is advisable. &#xD;&#xA; - A cap on the top will stop water from being drawn down into a post and further extend its life.&#xD;&#xA; - If you debark the posts they'll be really, really hard to staple three months later.  You're better off pre-drilling holes for the staples in the comfort of your shed if you leave them that long.&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust posts that have been debarked and left out in the elements for three months are so hard that animals would have a hard time eating them even if they wanted to.  No need to worry about anything beyond this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6201" RevisionGUID="367d0c83-75b7-414f-a6c5-5e476da145ec" CreationDate="2017-10-08T10:26:19.930" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="Pretty much everything is toxic if you have **too much** of it.  Water, for example, can be toxic to humans.  The trick to not going insane in this world is to stop looking at lists on websites that claim things are toxic and just approach the issue with logic and caution instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no grass in your paddock, your sheep are starving, and you put up a new fence made from freshly-cut locust, then sure, the sheep will rush the fence and eat what they can as fast as they can because it's new and different and they want to get in before the other sheep eat it all.  A few hours later they may get sick and a few days later some may die.  The problem is **not** the species of tree you are using — it's the fact you're starving your animals and you introduced a large amount of alternative 'feed' quite suddenly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sheep (pretty much all livestock) will preferentially eat the feed that tastes the best first.  Then they'll eat the feed that tastes ok.  They'll avoid eating bad-tasting feed until they get hungry.  They'll avoid eating 'toxic' feed — that they know has made them sick before — until they are starving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introduce new feed in a small, controlled amount.  Let them taste it.  Let *them* see if they end up with undesirable side-effects.  If nothing bad happens, expose them to a slightly larger amount of the feed a few (three or more) days later.  Observe.  Monitor.  Repeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach will prevent animals from getting a &quot;massive dose&quot; from the initial — curiosity-driven — exposure.  It will also give them a chance to assess the feed's palatability and to decide how hungry they need to be before they resort to eating it.  When they see it coming back again and again, the novelty factor will wear off.  If the feed isn't palatable then they'll ignore it and go back to eating what they did before — unless you starve them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add blocks of pure arsenic in the middle of your field quite safely if you do it this way.  **It's not the feed — it's how you introduce it** that determines what the outcome will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Day 1 — Put a piece of locust firewood, or about a foot worth of&#xD;&#xA;   post, into their field in an 'obvious place'.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 4 — If they've just nibbed at the wood, you haven't spotted any&#xD;&#xA;   strange-coloured faeces, and none are exhibiting any unusual&#xD;&#xA;   behaviours, add a second, and perhaps third piece of wood to the&#xD;&#xA;   pile.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 7 — If all seems normal, lean a full post up against some part of&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 10 — If all seems normal, lean two or three more posts against&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 14 — If all seems normal, lean half-a-dozen more posts against&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 21 — If all seems normal, fence in a new paddock entirely with&#xD;&#xA;   locust.  Make sure they have plenty of regular feed (i.e. lots of&#xD;&#xA;   good grass, maybe some supplementary feed as well) and water — lots&#xD;&#xA;   of feed options that you know they like more than the fence posts. &#xD;&#xA;   Move the sheep in.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 30 — Build a campfire and burn the printout from the website that&#xD;&#xA;   claims that black locust is poisonous to sheep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In nature, wild animals are free to pick and choose what they will eat.  Accumulated wisdom (from the herd and the individual) means they don't eat things in quantities that are toxic to them.  When you farm animals in a cage or a paddock, you are 100% responsible for the diet of your livestock.  If you intend to change their dietary options you need to give your animals the opportunity to develop dietary wisdom.  If you don't, and your animals suffer and die, then it's not a random plant's fault — it's yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The only thing toxic to farm animals are bad farmers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust fence posts will last longer if you strip off the bark.&#xD;&#xA; - In wet and clayey soil, giving the part of the post that goes into the ground (plus about 10cm that sticks out of the ground) a sealing coat is advisable.&#xD;&#xA; - In sandy and free-draining soil, a band of sealant +/-10cm around the ground contact line is all that is advisable. &#xD;&#xA; - A cap on the top will stop water from being drawn down into a post and further extend its life.&#xD;&#xA; - If you debark the posts they'll be really, really hard to staple three months later.  You're better off pre-drilling holes for the staples in the comfort of your shed if you leave them that long.&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust posts that have been debarked and left out in the elements for three months are so hard that animals would have a hard time eating them even if they wanted to.  No need to worry about anything beyond this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15530" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6201" RevisionGUID="bf78d7a0-0c7d-4ab7-b9c4-eeaaf2fa3f1b" CreationDate="2017-10-08T10:40:55.530" UserId="4886" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Pretty much everything is toxic if you have **too much** of it.  Water, for example, can be toxic to humans.  The trick to not going insane in this world is to stop looking at lists on websites that claim things are toxic and just approach the issue with logic and caution instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no grass in your paddock, your sheep are starving, and you put up a new fence made from freshly-cut locust, then sure, the sheep will rush the fence and eat what they can as fast as they can because it's new and different and they want to get in before the other sheep eat it all.  A few hours later they may get sick and a few days later some may die.  The problem is **not** the species of tree you are using — it's the fact you're starving your animals and you introduced a large amount of alternative 'feed' quite suddenly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sheep (pretty much all livestock) will preferentially eat the feed that tastes the best first.  Then they'll eat the feed that tastes ok.  They'll avoid eating bad-tasting feed until they get hungry.  They'll avoid eating 'toxic' feed — that they know has made them sick before — until they are starving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introduce new feed in a small, controlled amount.  Let them taste it.  Let *them* see if they end up with undesirable side-effects.  If nothing bad happens, expose them to a slightly larger amount of the feed a few (three or more) days later.  Observe.  Monitor.  Repeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach will prevent animals from getting a &quot;massive dose&quot; from the initial — curiosity-driven — exposure.  It will also give them a chance to assess the feed's palatability and to decide how hungry they need to be before they resort to eating it.  When they see it coming back again and again, the novelty factor will wear off.  If the feed isn't palatable then they'll ignore it and go back to eating what they did before — unless you starve them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add blocks of pure arsenic in the middle of your field quite safely if you do it this way.  **It's not the feed — it's how you introduce it** that determines what the outcome will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Day 1 — Put a piece of locust firewood, or about a foot worth of&#xD;&#xA;   post, into their field in an 'obvious place'.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 4 — If they've just nibbed at the wood, you haven't spotted any&#xD;&#xA;   strange-coloured faeces, and none are exhibiting any unusual&#xD;&#xA;   behaviours, add a second, and perhaps third piece of wood to the&#xD;&#xA;   pile.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 7 — If all seems normal, lean a full post up against some part of&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 10 — If all seems normal, lean two or three more posts against&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 14 — If all seems normal, lean half-a-dozen more posts against&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 21 — If all seems normal, fence in a new paddock entirely with&#xD;&#xA;   locust.  Make sure they have plenty of regular feed (i.e. lots of&#xD;&#xA;   good grass, maybe some supplementary feed as well) and water — lots&#xD;&#xA;   of feed options that you know they like more than the fence posts. &#xD;&#xA;   Move the sheep in.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 30 — Build a campfire and burn the printout from the website that&#xD;&#xA;   claims that black locust is poisonous to sheep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In nature, wild animals are free to pick and choose what they will eat.  Accumulated wisdom (from the herd and the individual) means they don't eat things in quantities that are toxic to them.  When you farm animals in a cage or a paddock, you are 100% responsible for the diet of your livestock.  If you intend to change their dietary options you need to give your animals the opportunity to develop/update their dietary wisdom.  If you don't, and your animals suffer and die, then it's not a random plant's fault — it's yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The only thing toxic to farm animals are bad farmers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust fence posts will last longer if you strip off the bark.&#xD;&#xA; - In wet and clayey soil, giving the part of the post that goes into the ground (plus about 10cm that sticks out of the ground) a sealing coat is advisable.&#xD;&#xA; - In sandy and free-draining soil, a band of sealant +/-10cm around the ground contact line is all that is advisable. &#xD;&#xA; - A cap on the top will stop water from being drawn down into a post and further extend its life.&#xD;&#xA; - If you debark the posts they'll be really, really hard to staple three months later.  You're better off pre-drilling holes for the staples in the comfort of your shed if you leave them that long.&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust posts that have been debarked and left out in the elements for three months are so hard that animals would have a hard time eating them even if they wanted to.  No need to worry about anything beyond this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6202" RevisionGUID="5e071e80-e019-4fb5-9fcd-dd5ca299eda5" CreationDate="2017-10-08T11:49:16.803" UserId="99" Text="**Summary:** According to [this independent study](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-cycle-assessment-of-supermarket-carrierbags-a-review-of-the-bags-available-in-2006) if you look at global warming potential, for a sturdy LDPE bag you need to use it at least 4 times, for an even sturdier non-woven PP bag with inserts it's at least 11 times, and for a cotton bag at least 131 times. These numbers are higher if you reuse your single-use HDPE bags for other purposes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2006 the governmental Environment Agency of the UK issued an independent study to find out which type of shopping bags are most environmentally friendly. They compared a  conventional light-weight bag made from HDPE with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A paper bag&#xD;&#xA; - A thick-gauged or heavy-duty LDPE bag&#xD;&#xA; - An even more durable bag made from non-woven PP, including stiffening inserts&#xD;&#xA; - A cotton bag&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The study concluded that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The paper, LDPE, non-woven PP and cotton bags should be reused at least 3, 4, 11 and 131 times respectively to ensure that they have lower global warming potential than conventional HDPE carrier bags that are not reused. The number of times each would have to be reused when different proportions of conventional (HDPE) carrier bags are reused are shown in the table below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![The amount of primary use required to take reusable bags below the global warming potential of HDPE bags with and without secondary use][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The full report is available here: [Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrierbags: a review of the bags available in 2006](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-cycle-assessment-of-supermarket-carrierbags-a-review-of-the-bags-available-in-2006)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there are some caveats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Although the study did investigate other impacts, the table shown only takes global warming potential into account.&#xD;&#xA; - This particular study is about 6 years old and uses data on bags that were used 10 years ago. New production techniques used today may lead to different results.&#xD;&#xA; - The result of a life-cycle assessment study done in the UK may not translate to other countries. To investigate this you need to carefully check all the geographical dependent data that was used.&#xD;&#xA; - Other life-cycle assessment studies have different conclusions, but some of the industry-sponsored studies are known to make assumptions that tend to favor certain types of bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qP4fE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15532" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5840" RevisionGUID="3af23734-4c4b-45c4-b2b3-bf1e16f32521" CreationDate="2017-10-08T12:27:31.660" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|plastic|reuse|plastic-alternatives|grocery|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="e6227a28-8105-4585-9117-916d0b4884e5" CreationDate="2017-10-08T12:53:17.480" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="It's probably not the answer you want to hear, but **no sensible options exist** for running a RMH inside of a *tightly* sealed building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, that's the case if you are talking about the stereotypical J-tube RMH that is all-the-rage on [permies.com](https://permies.com/f/260/rocket-mass-heaters) and other similar places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The frequent feeding required by a RMH means that if you plumb in an external air inlet, then every time you unseal the feed tube you will end up with smoke in the room.  With 'normal' wood heaters, you only feed them infrequently, and well into the coal phase, so negligible smoking occurs.  With a RMH you are always burning fresh wood and producing smoke at the bottom of the feed tube.  This battle can't be won without modifying the RMH.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are able and willing to experiment and mod the basic J-tube design, then you could run your external air inlet into the bottom or side of the feeder tube and install a butterfly valve in it.  Every time you wanted to feed the RMH you would have to simultaneously constrict flow in the external air pipe using the valve, whilst unsealing the top of the feeder tube.  Good luck with that.  It's time consuming and never quite works.  End result:  Smoke in the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In ideal circumstances (no high or low pressure zones outside, no wind) you could eventually get it dialled-in, but we don't live on a world where those sorts of conditions exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that tight sealing / heat recovery ventilators is a divergent path that embraces active and artificial systems.  You're basically **creating a house that needs an artificial lung for the rest of its existence** when you tightly seal a house.  That choice inevitably makes other solutions impractical or impossible to implement, because those solutions only work in moderately sealed thermal envelopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I designed my house recently I faced the same issues.  I have an infinite supply of free wood, and a limited capacity to generate electricity during winter.  I went with a wood heater / outdoor air combo and didn't push for tight sealing.  If I was in a colder climate and/or didn't have a really good passive solar design, then I would have gone RMH / indoor air instead of the wood heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like trees, I like wood heat, I don't like the constant drone of HRVs, I don't have much in the way of surplus solar in winter to run pumps continuously, and I like the idea of a house that can breath without mechanical assistance.  I didn't tightly seal the house, and I have no regrets about that choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on tightly sealing your house, and insist on installing a RMH, then the simplest solution is to crack open a window whilst using the RMH.  Not really sensible, but it would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach, which *reduces* the smoking issue, but does not eliminate it, is with something like the design shown at: http://www.naturalhomes.org/permahome/rocket-mass-heater-basics.htm. Focus on the image.  See how they have added a manifold/hood over the feeder and inject external air through that?  The problem with that approach is that when wind blows against the side of the house with the external air inlet, it forces air into the room and a venturi effect kicks in when you open the hatch to add fuel... pulling smoke up the feeder and pushing it into the room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another (functional, but not very sensible) solution is to split your RMH between two rooms.  Have the feeder in a non-tightly-sealed room (e.g. a mud room) then have the burn chamber pass through a wall and have the rest of the RMH (riser and thermal mass) be located in an adjacent room.  This solves all of the pressure issues caused by a tight seal, but it makes operation of the RMH more complex.  Normally you place the feeder somewhere that is convenient and which you pass by frequently — so you can just glance in and top up as and when required.  If you put the feeder into another room you need to make dedicated trips into a different (and usually much colder) room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15534" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5568" RevisionGUID="9b57344a-1f02-413a-aee9-0fd0a9082912" CreationDate="2017-10-08T14:54:00.220" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/917040383913353217" />
  <row Id="15535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6203" RevisionGUID="9cafd6d9-f5cc-4bc0-abca-930e32652db9" CreationDate="2017-10-08T21:17:30.690" UserId="4944" Text="I live in another country, approximately 2000 miles away from my family. Now, my parents have really hard time understanding the kind of personal sacrifices which are necessary to keep the world a habitable place. This of course includes the convenience of air travel. Despite numerous conversations I've tried having with them I keep getting the _&quot;So what, are we supposed to ride on a bus for three days or something?!&quot;_ argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't spend very much time with them, because of the physical distance between us. Mostly I just come home for Easter and Christmas. I feel like this makes them feel like I'm a bad son, especially compared to my sister who is happy to fly home every month or two (she also lives away). They frequently comment on how little I am home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently my dad came up with an idea to go on holiday to a pretty remote location and as always, my sister was instantly on board. I would love to go with them, it would mean a lot to me and I know how much that would meant to them, but frankly I feel pretty conflicted about casually blowing off another 1.3 tonnes of CO2 off my personal carbon budget. Does anyone have any experience or advice on how to deal with these kind of situations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15536" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6203" RevisionGUID="9cafd6d9-f5cc-4bc0-abca-930e32652db9" CreationDate="2017-10-08T21:17:30.690" UserId="4944" Text="How can I make my family understand my CO2-emissions-related hesitation to fly in order to spend time with them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15537" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6203" RevisionGUID="9cafd6d9-f5cc-4bc0-abca-930e32652db9" CreationDate="2017-10-08T21:17:30.690" UserId="4944" Text="|carbon-footprint|transport|family|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="4e01f6d8-bf51-4940-9aec-04d8756b904f" CreationDate="2017-10-09T08:44:59.900" UserId="4886" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~300 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.057% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to single-occupant four-cylinder cars, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  **The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of the inevitable emissions and see your parents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="29156d45-9767-4c9c-bd12-11879746dfb1" CreationDate="2017-10-09T09:01:05.363" UserId="4886" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~300 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.057% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to single-occupant four-cylinder cars, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.943% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of the inevitable emissions and see your parents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="e3fcf9cb-8dcd-4db3-b38e-0e05b947ac64" CreationDate="2017-10-09T09:06:06.977" UserId="4886" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~300 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.057% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to single-occupant four-cylinder cars, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.943% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of the inevitable emissions and go visit your parents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="4f539663-b8f5-4cbf-bc55-6b477a1ee637" CreationDate="2017-10-09T09:15:47.287" UserId="4886" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to single-occupant four-cylinder cars, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of the inevitable emissions and go visit your parents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="cfd05568-c9a2-4876-ab67-bb72e4219a15" CreationDate="2017-10-09T09:47:24.487" UserId="4886" Comment="added 550 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to single-occupant four-cylinder cars, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of the inevitable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  Just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 82kg worth of CO2 emissions... a far, far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="91934fb1-5353-4104-b32b-d4d1726c02e5" CreationDate="2017-10-09T10:07:09.177" UserId="4886" Comment="added 772 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to single-occupant four-cylinder cars, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of the inevitable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  Just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 82kg worth of CO2 emissions... a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic would/could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is only 50% booked, no manager in the world would use that to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either, or 70%.  Above 70% then yes, you may be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  So don't do it.  Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and the issue is avoided entirely, and you do the environment a favour at the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="723eda1a-0c05-466c-85d0-4174a311ad85" CreationDate="2017-10-09T10:19:18.267" UserId="4886" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to single-occupant four-cylinder cars, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of the inevitable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  Just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 82kg worth of CO2 emissions... a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic would/could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use that to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either, or 70%.  Above 70% then yes, you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% your probably would.  At 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and the issue is avoided entirely, and you do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  produces far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="eeeeef19-eb1a-4c04-acd6-5d74a0dcb76f" CreationDate="2017-10-09T10:24:41.570" UserId="4886" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to single-occupant four-cylinder cars, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of the inevitable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 82kg worth of CO2 emissions... a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic would/could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use that to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either.  Around 70% you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% your probably would.  At 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  **Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.**  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and the issue is avoided entirely, and you do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  produces far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="62a9d7d5-08f9-478a-916c-b9d51e8e7f06" CreationDate="2017-10-09T10:30:24.797" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to single-occupant four-cylinder cars, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of the inevitable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 69kg worth of CO2 emissions... a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic would/could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use that to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either.  Around 70% you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% your probably would.  Above 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  **Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.**  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and the issue is avoided entirely, and you do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  produces far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="5462d33e-1b4c-4346-8d0c-058ebaecf26c" CreationDate="2017-10-09T10:38:22.910" UserId="4886" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one extra person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to single-occupant four-cylinder cars driving long distances, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of inevitable/unavoidable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 69kg worth of CO2 emissions... a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic would/could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use that to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either.  Around 70% you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% your probably would.  Above 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  **Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.**  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and the issue is avoided entirely, and you do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  produces far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="a9907101-5519-4a29-90f7-6c7abd2d3898" CreationDate="2017-10-09T10:57:19.463" UserId="4886" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one extra person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to people ride-sharing in four-cylinder cars over long distances, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of inevitable/unavoidable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 69kg worth of CO2 emissions... a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic would/could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use *your* booking to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either.  Around 70% you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% you probably would.  Above 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  **Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.**  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and the issue is avoided entirely, and you do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  produces far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="893a9a92-73fc-47b3-a8aa-b06835247cb6" CreationDate="2017-10-09T11:03:03.217" UserId="4886" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one extra person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to people ride-sharing in four-cylinder cars over long distances, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of inevitable/unavoidable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 69kg worth of CO2 emissions — a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic would/could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use *your* booking to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either.  Around 70% you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% you probably would be generating pressure.  Above 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  **Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.**  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and not only is the issue avoided entirely, but you also do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  produces far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="821fc32d-c29b-4c1b-b32f-e384c0c725ea" CreationDate="2017-10-09T11:19:51.283" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one extra person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to people ride-sharing in four-cylinder cars over long distances, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of inevitable/unavoidable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 69kg worth of CO2 emissions — a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use *your* booking to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either.  Around 70% you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% you probably would be generating pressure.  Above 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  **Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.**  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and not only is the issue avoided entirely, but you also do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  produces far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="6900d58f-9b51-4e48-b8b0-8d0a75269a7d" CreationDate="2017-10-09T11:29:21.037" UserId="4886" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours as the plane flies from A -&gt; B.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one extra person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to people ride-sharing in four-cylinder cars over long distances, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of inevitable/unavoidable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 69kg worth of CO2 emissions — a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use *your* booking to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either.  Around 70% you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% you probably would be generating pressure.  Above 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  **Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.**  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and not only is the issue avoided entirely, but you also do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  produces far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="40de47ca-8715-4e2a-8e66-6a1c5058d783" CreationDate="2017-10-09T11:34:23.157" UserId="4886" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number **you** actually need to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours as the plane flies from A -&gt; B.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one extra person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to people ride-sharing in four-cylinder cars over long distances, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of inevitable/unavoidable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 69kg worth of CO2 emissions — a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use *your* booking to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either.  Around 70% you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% you probably would be generating pressure.  Above 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  **Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever for airlines to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.**  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and not only is the issue avoided entirely, but you also do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  produces far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="7c349d51-7754-4380-afaa-81655c706551" CreationDate="2017-10-09T12:00:00.717" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number you actually *need* to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours as the plane flies from A -&gt; B.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one extra person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to people ride-sharing in four-cylinder cars over long distances, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of inevitable/unavoidable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 69kg worth of CO2 emissions — a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use *your* booking to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either.  Around 70% you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% you probably would be generating pressure.  Above 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  **Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever for airlines to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.**  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and not only is the issue avoided entirely, but you also do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  produces far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15554" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="488c824a-dfcd-40ee-b353-8bd8b794b0b9" CreationDate="2017-10-09T12:06:38.913" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number you actually *need* to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours as the plane flies from A -&gt; B.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one extra person inside*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless you object to people ride-sharing in four-cylinder cars over long distances, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance plane flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of inevitable/unavoidable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 69kg worth of CO2 emissions — a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use *your* booking to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either.  Around 70% you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% you probably would be generating pressure.  Above 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  **Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever for airlines to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.**  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and not only is the issue avoided entirely, but you also do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  results in far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="927969d5-1866-4e01-b751-08f0df738de9" CreationDate="2017-10-09T12:56:55.227" UserId="4886" Text="**Primary productivity** is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deciduous temperate forests** have a net primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/sq.m/yr&#xD;&#xA; - ~16k Cal/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/sq.m/d&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/sq.m/d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.4kWh/d) is spent on heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.4/0.0186 = 387sq.m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the heating needs of households can be provided by a harvestable area only 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the houses themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since deciduous trees around here mature and thus can be harvested on about a 30 year rotation, **for true sustainability, your woodlot needs to be at least**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;387 * 30 = **11,610sq.m == 1.16Ha == 2.87ac in size**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local (or hypothetical) conditions to calculate the woodlot size that will work for you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="0dc534bc-cc89-453e-8085-38a11c25df6e" CreationDate="2017-10-09T13:02:53.227" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="**Primary productivity** is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deciduous temperate forests** have a net primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/sq.m/yr&#xD;&#xA; - ~16k Cal/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/sq.m/d&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/sq.m/d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.4kWh/d) is spent on heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.4/0.0186 = 387sq.m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since deciduous trees around here mature and thus can be harvested on about a 30 year rotation, **for true sustainability, your woodlot needs to be at least**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;387 * 30 = **11,610sq.m == 1.16Ha == 2.87ac in size**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local (or hypothetical) conditions to calculate the woodlot size that will work for you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="2c9eae4c-3662-4e06-9734-ce2af58349fc" CreationDate="2017-10-09T13:07:57.837" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="**Primary productivity** is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deciduous temperate forests** have a net primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/sq.m/yr&#xD;&#xA; - ~16k Cal/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/sq.m/d&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/sq.m/d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.4kWh/d) is spent on heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.4/0.0186 = 387sq.m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since deciduous trees around here mature and thus can be harvested on about a 30 year rotation, **for true sustainability, your woodlot needs to be at least**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;387 * 30 = **11,610sq.m == 1.16Ha == 2.87ac in size**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local (or hypothetical) conditions and calculate the woodlot size that will work for you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="d5e51752-289b-4d7b-ace7-dd9117ce063c" CreationDate="2017-10-09T13:13:03.453" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="**Primary productivity** is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deciduous temperate forests** have a net primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/sq.m/yr&#xD;&#xA; - ~16k Cal/sq.m/d&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/sq.m/d&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/sq.m/d&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.4kWh/d) is spent on heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.4/0.0186 = 387sq.m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the yearly heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only about 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since deciduous trees around here mature and thus can be harvested on about a 30 year rotation, **for true sustainability, your woodlot needs to be at least**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;387 * 30 = **11,610sq.m == 1.16Ha == 2.87ac in size**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local (or hypothetical) conditions and calculate the minimum woodlot size that will work for you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="2f4b21bb-2dd4-41a4-8638-70098bd79a4d" CreationDate="2017-10-09T13:23:50.670" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number you actually *need* to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the weight of passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours as the plane flies from A -&gt; B.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one extra person inside*.  So, unless you object to people ride-sharing in four-cylinder cars over long distances, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of inevitable/unavoidable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 69kg worth of CO2 emissions — a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use *your* booking to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either.  Around 70% you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% you probably would be generating pressure.  Above 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  **Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever for airlines to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.**  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and not only is the issue avoided entirely, but you also do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  results in far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="de0fa58a-8b51-4deb-898a-1f2b5c279cb1" CreationDate="2017-10-09T13:37:21.753" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number you actually *need* to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the mass of the passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours as the plane flies from A -&gt; B.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one extra person inside*.  So, unless you object to people ride-sharing in four-cylinder cars over long distances, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of inevitable/unavoidable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 69kg worth of CO2 emissions — a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use *your* booking to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either.  Around 70% you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% you probably would be generating pressure.  Above 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  **Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever for airlines to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.**  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and not only is the issue avoided entirely, but you also do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  results in far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="b3c8bd94-c0c2-402b-b429-bda9d8bb89ad" CreationDate="2017-10-09T23:26:15.253" UserId="4886" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="**Primary productivity** is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deciduous temperate forests** have a net primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/sq.m/year&#xD;&#xA; - ~16k Cal/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.4kWh/day) is spent on heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.4/0.0186 = 387sq.m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the yearly heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only about 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since deciduous trees around here mature and thus can be harvested on about a 30 year rotation, **for true sustainability, your woodlot needs to be at least**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;387 * 30 = **11,610sq.m == 1.16Ha == 2.87ac in size**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local (or hypothetical) conditions and calculate the minimum woodlot size that will work for you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15562" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="204fb16f-017c-4206-8e0e-28aac9b3eb2b" CreationDate="2017-10-10T03:40:09.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15563" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="056665a2-7688-4f18-b095-bc7632cadd4b" CreationDate="2017-10-10T03:46:21.567" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="**Primary productivity** is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deciduous temperate forests** have a net primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/sq.m/year&#xD;&#xA; - ~16 kCal/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.4kWh/day) is spent on heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.4/0.0186 = 387sq.m&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the yearly heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only about 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since deciduous trees around here mature and thus can be harvested on about a 30 year rotation, **for true sustainability, your woodlot needs to be at least**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;387 * 30 = **11,610sq.m == 1.16Ha == 2.87ac in size**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local (or hypothetical) conditions and calculate the minimum woodlot size that will work for you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="123648cc-1b6e-4beb-9f62-7f94c8e33580" CreationDate="2017-10-10T03:56:16.980" UserId="4886" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="**Primary productivity** is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deciduous temperate forests** have a net primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/sq.m/year&#xD;&#xA; - ~16 kCal/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.4kWh/day) is spent on heating.  **To provide that energy would require**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.4/0.0186 = **387sq.m** of deciduous temperate forest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the yearly heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only about 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since deciduous trees around here mature and thus can be harvested on about a 30 year rotation, **for true sustainability, your woodlot needs to be at least**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;387 * 30 = **11,610sq.m == 1.16Ha == 2.87ac in size**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local (or hypothetical) conditions and calculate the minimum woodlot size that will work for you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6206" RevisionGUID="2777519f-a678-4ce0-a183-e111e4badad0" CreationDate="2017-10-10T10:25:06.487" UserId="15" Text="Carbon offsets aren't a perfect solution by any means, but provided the activity being funded by the offset is genuine and sensible for the long term, carbon offsets could certainly be considered to be a good solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you help fund technology that reduces fossil fuel use that wouldn't otherwise have been able to be funded, then you could argue your net fossil fuel use has been reduced. When I did a Google search for carbon offsets, it looked like good quality results were found." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6203" RevisionGUID="e202c561-b0de-4704-b03b-d2ea0744e234" CreationDate="2017-10-10T14:06:36.277" UserId="4944" Comment="clarification" Text="I live in another country, approximately 2000 miles away from my family. Now, my parents have really hard time understanding the kind of personal sacrifices which are necessary to keep the world a habitable place. This of course includes the convenience of air travel. Despite numerous conversations I've tried having with them I keep getting the _&quot;So what, are we supposed to ride on a bus for three days or something?!&quot;_ argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't spend very much time with them, because of the physical distance between us. Mostly I just come home for Easter and Christmas. I feel like this makes them feel like I'm a bad son, especially compared to my sister who is happy to fly home every month or two (she also lives away). They frequently comment on how little I am home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently my dad came up with an idea to go on holiday to a pretty remote location and as always, my sister was instantly on board. I would love to go with them, it would mean a lot to me and I know how much that would meant to them, but frankly I feel pretty conflicted about casually blowing off another 1.3 tonnes of CO2 off my personal carbon budget. Does anyone have any experience or advice on how to deal with these kind of situations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: This question was meant to be less about the specific flight and more about how to negotiate a lifestyle choice where some sacrifices need to be made in order to form a sustainable society." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15567" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6203" RevisionGUID="e202c561-b0de-4704-b03b-d2ea0744e234" CreationDate="2017-10-10T14:06:36.277" UserId="4944" Comment="clarification" Text="|carbon-footprint|transport|lifestyle|family|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="418a7b59-c7fa-4834-a877-ab14f0f10012" CreationDate="2017-10-11T02:25:54.477" UserId="4886" Comment="added 870 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number you actually *need* to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the mass of the passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours as the plane flies from A -&gt; B.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one extra person inside*.  So, unless you object to people ride-sharing in four-cylinder cars over long distances, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of inevitable/unavoidable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 69kg worth of CO2 emissions — a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use *your* booking to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either.  Around 70% you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% you probably would be generating pressure.  Above 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  **Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever for airlines to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.**  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and not only is the issue avoided entirely, but you also do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  results in far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPPS:  All of the above refers to *long distance international flights*.  It is almost unheard-of (in modern commercial aviation) for scheduled international flights to be cancelled due to low passenger numbers — the plane, crew, and cargo still need to get from A -&gt; B because they are already booked to go on to C -&gt; D -&gt; E... after that.  Short-distance (&lt;1600km) domestic flights are *a different matter entirely*.  Some of the airlines that service such routes can and do consolidate and cancel flights if passenger numbers are low.  If you refuse to fly such routes, there is a *small* probability that, one day, you might actually be responsible for a plane not taking off.  **Math supports a strategy of reducing emissions by avoiding short-distance domestic flights — it does NOT support a strategy of boycotting long-distance and/or international air travel.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6204" RevisionGUID="d4bf4558-01eb-4271-b130-34d6c0064589" CreationDate="2017-10-11T02:41:29.993" UserId="4886" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]; added 5 characters in body" Text="&quot;1.3 tonnes of CO2&quot; is a figure that someone came up with by averaging the fuel per passenger trip and then converting it to emissions.  It's not a number you actually *need* to worry about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it this way:  A flight from A -&gt; B will depart at the scheduled time *regardless of how many passengers are on board*.  Virtually the same amount of fuel will be consumed regardless of the number of passengers on the plane because the mass of the passengers (and their luggage) is only a small fraction of the total mass of a loaded plane.  For example, the ~266 passengers (and their luggage) make up only 17% of the mass of most Airbus A 300-600 flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, whether you board the plane, or sit at home, the same amount of CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere over the next few hours as the plane flies from A -&gt; B.  The airline will **not** cancel the flight just because you decided not to board.  1.3 tonnes of CO2 will **not** be prevented from going into the atmosphere every time you refuse to fly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single additional person adds a trivial 0.064% to the emissions of a given flight.  For a 2,000km trip it's *roughly on par with a four-cylinder car with one extra person inside*.  So, unless you object to people ride-sharing in four-cylinder cars over long distances, you actually have no reason to object to being a passenger on a long-distance flight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember:  The plane will still fly regardless of whether or not you are on board.  **99.936% of the emissions will still be released, regardless of whether or not you are on board.**  You may as well make use of inevitable/unavoidable emissions and go visit your parents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I just calculated some more specific numbers for the *opportunity cost* of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip.  Assuming the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo, passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel.  That's it.  **You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel consumed by the plane over the entire trip.**  That's about 69kg worth of CO2 emissions — a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.  How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  A commenter asserted that the above logic could result in the airline scheduling additional flights.  That line of reasoning only holds true if you try to get onto a flight that is already at or near capacity.  If you take advantage of a flight that is up to 50% booked, no manager in the world would use *your* booking to justify more flights.  Wouldn't happen at 60% either.  Around 70% you *may* be starting to generate a bit of pressure.  At 80% you probably would be generating pressure.  Above 90% you definitely would.  So... don't do it.  **Avoid flights that are already near capacity and you avoid exerting any pressure whatsoever for airlines to increase the number of flights servicing a particular route.**  Catch a flight with a low number of passengers and not only is the issue avoided entirely, but you also do the environment a favour at the same time (because opportunistically flying 2,000km  results in far fewer emissions than driving the same distance in any sort of petrol-powered car).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPPS:  All of the above refers to *long distance international flights*.  It is almost unheard-of (in modern commercial aviation) for scheduled international flights to be cancelled due to low passenger numbers — the plane, crew, and cargo still need to get from A -&gt; B because they are already booked to go on to C -&gt; D -&gt; E... after that.  Short-distance (&lt;1600km) domestic flights are *a different matter entirely*.  Some of the airlines that service such routes can and do consolidate and cancel flights if passenger numbers are low.  If you refuse to fly such routes, there is a *small* probability that, one day, you might actually be responsible for a plane not taking off.  **Math supports a strategy of reducing emissions by minimising short-distance domestic air travel — it does NOT support a strategy of boycotting long-distance and/or international air travel.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15571" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6208" RevisionGUID="d73366aa-554d-4e5f-b40d-9273e7a6d5fd" CreationDate="2017-10-11T06:49:29.117" UserId="4886" Text="KubaFYI, in light of the update you made to your question, I am submitting a second answer for your consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title of the question is &quot;How can I **make my family understand** my CO2-emissions-related hesitation to fly in order to spend time with them?&quot;  In the update you say that &quot;This question was meant to be ... more about how to **negotiate a lifestyle choice** where some sacrifices need to be made in order to form a sustainable society.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem that the two highlighted sections are at odds with each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Negotiation is a dialogue between parties to address a point of conflict and obtain (usually via compromise) a beneficial outcome for one or more of the parties.  If you have adopted a stance that is non-negotiable, then this has nothing to do with negotiation and all about imposing your choice on others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do note, however, that you visit at Easter and Christmas... so it could be that you feel you have already made concessions to your &quot;no fly&quot; rule and you may feel it is unreasonable of your family to expect any more?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, think if it from your family's point-of-view:  &quot;We love our son.  We gave birth to him, raised him, provided for him, educated him, and now he's run off to a foreign land and we barely get to see him any more.  He doesn't even think it's worth using a little bit of fuel to come visit us.  Family visit each other — that's what families do.  If they don't visit then they're nothing more than strangers.  It's like he's deliberately trying to avoid us.  What's wrong with him?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it would be presumptuous of me to say I know exactly what your family is thinking — the above is presented just to get you thinking about what *might* be going through their minds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, your dad might have thought &quot;Well, if our son doesn't think it's worth visiting us at home like he normally does, maybe if we spice it up by going somewhere different he will be more likely to want to spend time with us?&quot;  Maybe your father loves you and is willing to spend a whole lot of money to lure you to that remote location so that he/they can spend more time with you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at it from that perspective, **the issue seems to have nothing at all to do with emissions and sustainability and everything to do with observing cultural norms and maintaining the strength of the family unit**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I faced the same issue when I moved several hundred kilometres away from home for education and work reasons a few decades ago, and so have millions (perhaps billions) of other people over the ages.  It's nothing new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parents can understand children not visiting if it is *simply not possible* for them to do so (e.g. they are working, don't have enough money, car has broken down, have to look after livestock, medical issues, etc.) but that is **not** the case here.  In this case you are *choosing* not to visit.  Your reasons are *irrelevant*.  Nothing is *preventing* you from visiting — you are making a *choice* not to visit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your parents don't (can't) understand or accept that choice because &quot;maintaining the strength of the family unit&quot; is *supremely important* to them.  Bonds between family members are *emotional* — they are not *logical*.  Logical arguments (emissions) do not apply to emotional bonds (kinship) — such arguments are like water off a duck's back.  **Love trumps all.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we distill your situation to its *very essence* I think it ends up looking something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You do not value family bonds as much as other members of your family do&#xD;&#xA; - For 'reasons' you choose not to visit them as frequently as you are able to&#xD;&#xA; - They feel that your choices are threatening the strength of the family unit&#xD;&#xA; - Frustration is felt by both sides because 'the other party' just doesn't get it&#xD;&#xA; - Communication will improve if you both speak the same 'language'&#xD;&#xA; - This is an emotional issue, not a logical one&#xD;&#xA; - Emotional intelligence, language and arguments will be needed to resolve the issue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and at that point we are well outside of the scope of the Sustainable Living.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are resolved to pursuing this path (despite there being no mathematically-supported need to do so), then the [Interpersonal Skills.SE](https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/) is perhaps a better forum to consult for advice on how to tactfully talk to your family and get them to accept the fact that you don't care about them as much as they care about you... because that's what it boils down to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note (for anyone feeling triggered at this point):  None of the above should be taken as a personal attack.  It is *absolutely normal* for there to be children who don't value family as much as their siblings or parents.  (I, in fact, am one of them.)  History is littered with individuals that reject social norms and/or close family ties.  History is also littered with individuals that take ideological stands on issues — often at great personal cost.  All that I am trying to do is to make *the real issue* as clear as possible to assist the OP in moving forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  **It's not about the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; — it's all about the feels.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6208" RevisionGUID="61c1c74c-4b29-45f1-ba17-bfe912160490" CreationDate="2017-10-11T06:55:08.707" UserId="4886" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="KubaFYI, in light of the update you made to your question, I am submitting a second answer for your consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title of the question is &quot;How can I **make my family understand** my CO2-emissions-related hesitation to fly in order to spend time with them?&quot;  In the update you say that &quot;This question was meant to be ... more about how to **negotiate a lifestyle choice** where some sacrifices need to be made in order to form a sustainable society.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem that the two highlighted sections are at odds with each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Negotiation is a dialogue between parties to address a point of conflict and obtain (usually via compromise) a beneficial outcome for one or more of the parties.  If you have adopted a stance that is non-negotiable, then this has nothing to do with negotiation and all about imposing your choice on others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do note, however, that you visit at Easter and Christmas... so it could be that you feel you have already made concessions to your &quot;no fly&quot; rule and you may feel it is unreasonable of your family to expect any more?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, think if it from your family's point-of-view:  &quot;We love our son.  We gave birth to him, raised him, provided for him, educated him, and now he's run off to a foreign land and we barely get to see him any more.  He doesn't even think it's worth using a little bit of fuel to come visit us.  Family visit each other — that's what families do.  If they don't visit then they're nothing more than strangers.  It's like he's deliberately trying to avoid us.  What's wrong with him?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it would be presumptuous of me to say I know exactly what your family is thinking — the above is presented just to get you thinking about what *might* be going through their minds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, your dad might have thought &quot;Well, if our son doesn't think it's worth visiting us at home like he normally does, maybe if we spice it up by going somewhere different he will be more likely to come?&quot;  Maybe your father loves you so much that he is willing to spend a whole lot of money to lure you to that remote location just so that he/they can spend a few more days with you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at it from that perspective, **the issue seems to have nothing at all to do with emissions and sustainability and everything to do with observing cultural norms and maintaining the strength of the family unit**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I faced the same issue when I moved several hundred kilometres away from home for education and work reasons a few decades ago, and so have millions (perhaps billions) of other people over the ages.  It's nothing new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parents can understand children not visiting if it is *simply not possible* for them to do so (e.g. they are working, don't have enough money, car has broken down, have to look after livestock, medical issues, etc.) but that is **not** the case here.  In this case you are *choosing* not to visit.  Your reasons are *irrelevant*.  Nothing is *preventing* you from visiting — you are making a *choice* not to visit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your parents don't (can't) understand or accept that choice because &quot;maintaining the strength of the family unit&quot; is *supremely important* to them.  Bonds between family members are *emotional* — they are not *logical*.  Logical arguments (emissions) do not apply to emotional bonds (kinship) — such arguments are like water off a duck's back.  **Love trumps all.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we distill your situation to its *very essence* I think it ends up looking something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You do not value family bonds as much as other members of your family do&#xD;&#xA; - For 'reasons' you choose not to visit them as frequently as you are able to&#xD;&#xA; - They feel that your choices are threatening the strength of the family unit&#xD;&#xA; - Frustration is felt by both sides because 'the other party' just doesn't get it&#xD;&#xA; - Communication will improve if you both speak the same 'language'&#xD;&#xA; - This is an emotional issue, not a logical one&#xD;&#xA; - Emotional intelligence, language and arguments will be needed to resolve the issue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and at that point we are well outside of the scope of the Sustainable Living.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are resolved to pursuing this path (despite there being no mathematically-supported need to do so), then the [Interpersonal Skills.SE](https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/) is perhaps a better forum to consult for advice on how to tactfully talk to your family and get them to accept the fact that you don't care about them as much as they care about you... because that's what it boils down to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note (for anyone feeling triggered at this point):  None of the above should be taken as a personal attack.  It is *absolutely normal* for there to be children who don't value family as much as their siblings or parents.  (I, in fact, am one of them.)  History is littered with individuals that reject social norms and/or close family ties.  History is also littered with individuals that take ideological stands on issues — often at great personal cost.  All that I am trying to do is to make *the real issue* as clear as possible to assist the OP in moving forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  **It's not about the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; — it's all about the feels.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15573" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6208" RevisionGUID="0297983f-cebb-46bb-bef8-5ba72d11702b" CreationDate="2017-10-11T07:01:12.110" UserId="4886" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="KubaFYI, in light of the update you made to your question, I am submitting a second answer for your consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The title of the question is &quot;How can I **make my family understand** my CO2-emissions-related hesitation to fly in order to spend time with them?&quot;  In the update you say that &quot;This question was meant to be ... more about how to **negotiate a lifestyle choice** where some sacrifices need to be made in order to form a sustainable society.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem that the two highlighted sections are at odds with each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Negotiation is a dialogue between parties to address a point of conflict and obtain (usually via compromise) a beneficial outcome for one or more of the parties.  If you have adopted a stance that is non-negotiable, then this has nothing to do with negotiation and all about imposing your choice on others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do note, however, that you visit at Easter and Christmas... so it could be that you feel you have already made concessions to your &quot;no fly&quot; rule and you may feel it is unreasonable of your family to expect any more?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, think if it from your family's point-of-view:  &quot;We love our son.  We gave birth to him, raised him, provided for him, educated him, and now he's run off to a foreign land and we barely get to see him any more.  He doesn't even think it's worth using a little bit of fuel to come visit us.  Family visit each other — that's what families do.  If they don't visit then they're nothing more than strangers.  It's like he's deliberately trying to avoid us.  What's wrong with him?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course it would be presumptuous of me to say I know exactly what your family is thinking — the above is presented just to get you thinking about what *might* be going through their minds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, your dad might have thought &quot;Well, if our son doesn't think it's worth visiting us at home like he normally does, maybe if we spice it up by going somewhere different he will be more likely to come?&quot;  Maybe your father loves you so much that he is willing to spend a whole lot of money to lure you to that remote location just so that he/they can spend a few more days with you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we look at it from that perspective, **the issue seems to have nothing at all to do with emissions and sustainability and everything to do with observing cultural norms and maintaining the strength of the family unit**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I faced the same issue when I moved several hundred kilometres away from home for education and work reasons a few decades ago, and so have millions (perhaps billions) of other people over the ages.  It's nothing new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parents can understand children not visiting if it is *simply not possible* for them to do so (e.g. they are working, don't have enough money, car has broken down, have to look after livestock, medical issues, etc.) but that is **not** the case here.  In this case you are *choosing* not to visit.  Your reasons are *irrelevant*.  Nothing is *preventing* you from visiting — you are making a *choice* not to visit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your parents don't (perhaps can't) understand or accept that choice because &quot;maintaining the strength of the family unit&quot; is *supremely important* to them.  Bonds between family members are *emotional* — they are not *logical*.  Logical arguments (emissions) do not apply to emotional bonds (kinship) — such arguments are like water off a duck's back.  **Love trumps all.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we distill your situation to its *very essence* I think it ends up looking something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You do not value family bonds as much as other members of your family do&#xD;&#xA; - For 'reasons' you choose not to visit them as frequently as you are able to&#xD;&#xA; - They feel that your choices are threatening the strength of the family unit&#xD;&#xA; - Frustration is felt by both sides because 'the other party' just doesn't get it&#xD;&#xA; - Communication will improve if you both speak the same 'language'&#xD;&#xA; - This is an emotional issue, not a logical one&#xD;&#xA; - Emotional intelligence, language and arguments will be needed to resolve the issue&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and at that point we are well outside of the scope of the Sustainable Living.SE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are resolved to pursuing this path (despite there being no mathematically-supported need to do so), then the [Interpersonal Skills.SE](https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/) is perhaps a better forum to consult for advice on how to tactfully talk to your family and get them to accept the fact that you don't care about them as much as they care about you... because that's what it boils down to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note (for anyone feeling triggered at this point):  None of the above should be taken as a personal attack.  It is *absolutely normal* for there to be children who don't value family as much as their siblings or parents.  (I, in fact, am one of them.)  History is littered with individuals that reject social norms and/or close family ties.  History is also littered with individuals that take ideological stands on issues — often at great personal cost.  All that I am trying to do is to make *the real issue* as clear as possible to assist the OP in moving forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  **It's not about the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; — it's all about the feels.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6209" RevisionGUID="86833142-8e35-480e-8a8d-f17dc70a0a4a" CreationDate="2017-10-11T11:53:06.343" UserId="3293" Text="If you ***buy*** that plane ticket, it will go to the &quot;more fossil fuel economy&quot;. That's how the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; figure is important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then an argument would be to say that you are saving the money for the flight to **invest it into environment protecting projects**, e.g. like try to [save India from mass thirst](http://isha.sadhguru.org/rally-for-rivers/) or into sustainable energy production projects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caring for the environment is also caring for your family (however less for the elders, that's how I understand it is difficult for them to understand)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6201" RevisionGUID="9c22c0de-812a-4f68-b304-58e360d5d7d8" CreationDate="2017-10-11T16:21:04.747" UserId="4886" Comment="added 348 characters in body" Text="Pretty much everything is toxic if you have **too much** of it.  Water, for example, can be toxic to humans.  The trick to not going insane in this world is to stop looking at lists on websites that claim things are toxic and just approach the issue with logic and caution instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no grass in your paddock, your sheep are starving, and you put up a new fence made from freshly-cut locust, then sure, the sheep will rush the fence and eat what they can as fast as they can because it's new and different and they want to get in before the other sheep eat it all.  A few hours later they may get sick and a few days later some may die.  The problem is **not** the species of tree you are using — it's the fact you're starving your animals and you introduced a large amount of alternative 'feed' quite suddenly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note:  For the purpose of this answer, anything that livestock can physically eat is considered to be 'feed' — not just the stuff that you buy in a sack that comes with a nutrition label.  Sheep can't read labels, so the only way for them to find out if something is feed or not is to chew on it, eat it, and see if it makes them sick or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sheep (pretty much all livestock) will preferentially eat the feed that tastes the best first.  Then they'll eat the feed that tastes ok.  They'll avoid eating bad-tasting feed until they get hungry.  They'll avoid eating 'toxic' feed — that they know has made them sick before — until they are starving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introduce new feed in a small, controlled amount.  Let them taste it.  Let *them* see if they end up with undesirable side-effects.  If nothing bad happens, expose them to a slightly larger amount of the feed a few (three or more) days later.  Observe.  Monitor.  Repeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach will prevent animals from getting a &quot;massive dose&quot; from the initial — curiosity-driven — exposure.  It will also give them a chance to assess the feed's palatability and to decide how hungry they need to be before they resort to eating it.  When they see it coming back again and again, the novelty factor will wear off.  If the feed isn't palatable then they'll ignore it and go back to eating what they did before — unless you starve them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add blocks of pure arsenic in the middle of your field quite safely if you do it this way.  **It's not the feed — it's how you introduce it** that determines what the outcome will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Day 1 — Put a piece of locust firewood, or about a foot worth of&#xD;&#xA;   post, into their field in an 'obvious place'.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 4 — If they've just nibbed at the wood, you haven't spotted any&#xD;&#xA;   strange-coloured faeces, and none are exhibiting any unusual&#xD;&#xA;   behaviours, add a second, and perhaps third piece of wood to the&#xD;&#xA;   pile.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 7 — If all seems normal, lean a full post up against some part of&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 10 — If all seems normal, lean two or three more posts against&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 14 — If all seems normal, lean half-a-dozen more posts against&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 21 — If all seems normal, fence in a new paddock entirely with&#xD;&#xA;   locust.  Make sure they have plenty of regular feed (i.e. lots of&#xD;&#xA;   good grass, maybe some supplementary feed as well) and water — lots&#xD;&#xA;   of feed options that you know they like more than the fence posts. &#xD;&#xA;   Move the sheep in.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 30 — Build a campfire and burn the printout from the website that&#xD;&#xA;   claims that black locust is poisonous to sheep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In nature, wild animals are free to pick and choose what they will eat.  Accumulated wisdom (from the herd and the individual) means they don't eat things in quantities that are toxic to them.  When you farm animals in a cage or a paddock, you are 100% responsible for the diet of your livestock.  If you intend to change their dietary options you need to give your animals the opportunity to develop/update their dietary wisdom.  If you don't, and your animals suffer and die, then it's not a random plant's fault — it's yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The only thing toxic to farm animals are bad farmers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust fence posts will last longer if you strip off the bark.&#xD;&#xA; - In wet and clayey soil, giving the part of the post that goes into the ground (plus about 10cm that sticks out of the ground) a sealing coat is advisable.&#xD;&#xA; - In sandy and free-draining soil, a band of sealant +/-10cm around the ground contact line is all that is advisable. &#xD;&#xA; - A cap on the top will stop water from being drawn down into a post and further extend its life.&#xD;&#xA; - If you debark the posts they'll be really, really hard to staple three months later.  You're better off pre-drilling holes for the staples in the comfort of your shed if you leave them that long.&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust posts that have been debarked and left out in the elements for three months are so hard that animals would have a hard time eating them even if they wanted to.  No need to worry about anything beyond this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6201" RevisionGUID="8e8e0e6e-c0b9-4a3d-8762-129f840eb299" CreationDate="2017-10-11T17:01:44.330" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="Pretty much everything is toxic if you have **too much** of it.  Water, for example, can be toxic to humans.  The trick to not going insane in this world is to stop looking at lists on websites that claim things are toxic and just approach the issue with logic and caution instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no grass in your paddock, your sheep are starving, and you put up a new fence made from freshly-cut locust, then sure, the sheep will rush the fence and eat what they can as fast as they can because it's new and different and they want to get in before the other sheep eat it all.  A few hours later they may get sick and a few days later some may die.  The problem is **not** the species of tree you are using — it's the fact you're starving your animals and you introduced a large amount of alternative 'feed' quite suddenly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note:  For the purpose of this answer, anything that livestock can physically eat is considered to be 'feed' — not just the stuff that you buy in a sack that comes with a nutrition label.  Sheep can't read labels, so the only way for them to find out if something is feed or not is to chew on it, eat it, and see if it makes them sick or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sheep (pretty much all livestock) will preferentially eat the feed that tastes the best first.  Then they'll eat the feed that tastes ok.  They'll avoid eating bad-tasting feed until they get hungry.  They'll avoid eating 'toxic' feed — that they know has made them sick before — until they are starving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introduce new feed in a small, controlled amount.  Let them taste it.  Let *them* see if they end up with undesirable side-effects.  If nothing bad happens, expose them to a slightly larger amount of the feed a few (three or more) days later.  Observe.  Monitor.  Repeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach will prevent animals from getting a &quot;massive dose&quot; from the initial — curiosity-driven — exposure.  It will also give them a chance to assess the feed's palatability and to decide how hungry they need to be before they resort to eating it.  When they see it coming back again and again, the novelty factor will wear off.  If the feed isn't palatable then they'll ignore it and go back to eating what they did before — unless you starve them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add blocks of pure arsenic in the middle of your field quite safely if you do it this way.  **It's not the feed — it's how you introduce it that determines what the outcome will be**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Day 1 — Put a piece of locust firewood, or about a foot worth of&#xD;&#xA;   post, into their field in an 'obvious place'.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 4 — If they've just nibbed at the wood, you haven't spotted any&#xD;&#xA;   strange-coloured faeces, and none are exhibiting any unusual&#xD;&#xA;   behaviours, add a second, and perhaps third piece of wood to the&#xD;&#xA;   pile.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 7 — If all seems normal, lean a full post up against some part of&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 10 — If all seems normal, lean two or three more posts against&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 14 — If all seems normal, lean half-a-dozen more posts against&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 21 — If all seems normal, fence in a new paddock entirely with&#xD;&#xA;   locust.  Make sure they have plenty of regular feed (i.e. lots of&#xD;&#xA;   good grass, maybe some supplementary feed as well) and water — lots&#xD;&#xA;   of feed options that you know they like more than the fence posts. &#xD;&#xA;   Move the sheep in.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 30 — Build a campfire and burn the printout from the website that&#xD;&#xA;   claims that black locust is poisonous to sheep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In nature, wild animals are free to pick and choose what they will eat.  Accumulated wisdom (from the herd and the individual) means they don't eat things in quantities that are toxic to them.  When you farm animals in a cage or a paddock, you are 100% responsible for the diet of your livestock.  If you intend to change their dietary options you need to give your animals the opportunity to develop/update their dietary wisdom.  If you don't, and your animals suffer and die, then it's not a random plant's fault — it's yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The only thing toxic to farm animals are bad farmers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust fence posts will last longer if you strip off the bark.&#xD;&#xA; - In wet and clayey soil, giving the part of the post that goes into the ground (plus about 10cm that sticks out of the ground) a sealing coat is advisable.&#xD;&#xA; - In sandy and free-draining soil, a band of sealant +/-10cm around the ground contact line is all that is advisable. &#xD;&#xA; - A cap on the top will stop water from being drawn down into a post and further extend its life.&#xD;&#xA; - If you debark the posts they'll be really, really hard to staple three months later.  You're better off pre-drilling holes for the staples in the comfort of your shed if you leave them that long.&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust posts that have been debarked and left out in the elements for three months are so hard that animals would have a hard time eating them even if they wanted to.  No need to worry about anything beyond this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6201" RevisionGUID="eebf7edd-b17a-4890-8ba4-22ae8b2af331" CreationDate="2017-10-11T17:15:42.027" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Pretty much everything is toxic if you have **too much** of it.  Water, for example, can be toxic to humans.  The trick to not going insane in this world is to stop looking at lists on websites that claim things are toxic and just approach the issue with logic and caution instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no grass in your paddock, your sheep are starving, and you put up a new fence made from freshly-cut locust, then sure, the sheep will rush the fence and eat what they can as fast as they can because it's new and different and they want to get in before the other sheep eat it all.  A few hours later they may get sick and a few days later some may die.  The problem is **not** the species of tree you are using — it's the fact you're starving your animals and you introduced a large amount of alternative 'feed' quite suddenly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note:  For the purpose of this answer, anything that livestock can physically eat is considered to be 'feed' — not just the stuff that you buy in a sack that comes with a nutrition label.  Sheep can't read labels, so the only way for them to find out if something is food or not is to chew on it, eat it, and see if it makes them sick. So grain is feed, hay is feed, fence posts are feed, tool handles are feed, tyres are feed, baling twine is feed, pallets are feed, barn doors are feed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sheep (pretty much all livestock) will preferentially eat the feed that tastes the best first.  Then they'll eat the feed that tastes ok.  They'll avoid eating bad-tasting feed until they get hungry.  They'll avoid eating 'toxic' feed — that they know has made them sick before — until they are starving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introduce new feed in a small, controlled amount.  Let them taste it.  Let *them* see if they end up with undesirable side-effects.  If nothing bad happens, expose them to a slightly larger amount of the feed a few (three or more) days later.  Observe.  Monitor.  Repeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach will prevent animals from getting a &quot;massive dose&quot; from the initial — curiosity-driven — exposure.  It will also give them a chance to assess the feed's palatability and to decide how hungry they need to be before they resort to eating it.  When they see it coming back again and again, the novelty factor will wear off.  If the feed isn't palatable then they'll ignore it and go back to eating what they did before — unless you starve them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add blocks of pure arsenic in the middle of your field quite safely if you do it this way.  **It's not the feed — it's how you introduce it that determines what the outcome will be**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Day 1 — Put a piece of locust firewood, or about a foot worth of&#xD;&#xA;   post, into their field in an 'obvious place'.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 4 — If they've just nibbed at the wood, you haven't spotted any&#xD;&#xA;   strange-coloured faeces, and none are exhibiting any unusual&#xD;&#xA;   behaviours, add a second, and perhaps third piece of wood to the&#xD;&#xA;   pile.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 7 — If all seems normal, lean a full post up against some part of&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 10 — If all seems normal, lean two or three more posts against&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 14 — If all seems normal, lean half-a-dozen more posts against&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 21 — If all seems normal, fence in a new paddock entirely with&#xD;&#xA;   locust.  Make sure they have plenty of regular feed (i.e. lots of&#xD;&#xA;   good grass, maybe some supplementary feed as well) and water — lots&#xD;&#xA;   of feed options that you know they like more than the fence posts. &#xD;&#xA;   Move the sheep in.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 30 — Build a campfire and burn the printout from the website that&#xD;&#xA;   claims that black locust is poisonous to sheep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In nature, wild animals are free to pick and choose what they will eat.  Accumulated wisdom (from the herd and the individual) means they don't eat things in quantities that are toxic to them.  When you farm animals in a cage or a paddock, you are 100% responsible for the diet of your livestock.  If you intend to change their dietary options you need to give your animals the opportunity to develop/update their dietary wisdom.  If you don't, and your animals suffer and die, then it's not a random plant's fault — it's yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The only thing toxic to farm animals are bad farmers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust fence posts will last longer if you strip off the bark.&#xD;&#xA; - In wet and clayey soil, giving the part of the post that goes into the ground (plus about 10cm that sticks out of the ground) a sealing coat is advisable.&#xD;&#xA; - In sandy and free-draining soil, a band of sealant +/-10cm around the ground contact line is all that is advisable. &#xD;&#xA; - A cap on the top will stop water from being drawn down into a post and further extend its life.&#xD;&#xA; - If you debark the posts they'll be really, really hard to staple three months later.  You're better off pre-drilling holes for the staples in the comfort of your shed if you leave them that long.&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust posts that have been debarked and left out in the elements for three months are so hard that animals would have a hard time eating them even if they wanted to.  No need to worry about anything beyond this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6210" RevisionGUID="962e9a26-4fc0-4b49-8e68-ae8eb4b33104" CreationDate="2017-10-12T03:04:46.013" UserId="4951" Text="You should contact your county agricultural extension agent to check about the use of worms in the garden as well as what species. There are areas where fishing bait worms are considered an invasive species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Invasive Earthworms Denude Forests in U.S. Great Lakes Region][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Long considered a gardener’s friend, earthworms can loosen and aerate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the soil. But the story is different in the Great Lakes region. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; last Ice Age wiped out native earthworms 10,000 years ago, and ever&#xD;&#xA;&gt; since the Northeast forest has evolved without the crawlers, Hale&#xD;&#xA;&gt; says. But now earthworms are back, a product of fishers who toss their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worms into the forest, of off-road vehicles and lumber trucks that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carry them in the treads of their tires, and of people who bring in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mulch—and any worms that might be in it—from other areas.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As invasive creatures, the earth­worms wreak the most havoc with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hardwood forests, such as those consisting of maple, basswood, red&#xD;&#xA;&gt; oak, poplar or birch species. (Conifer-dominated forests seem to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; experience less dramatic impacts.) According to Peter Groffman, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; microbial ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Millbrook, N.Y., northern hardwood forests have relied on thick layers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of leaf litter that serve as a rooting medium. The earth­worms,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Groffman reports, “come into an area with a thick organic mat, and two&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to five years later that layer is gone.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [What's the big deal about earthworms in Minnesota?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non-native &quot;red wiggler&quot; earthworms are sold and shipped all over the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; country for home compost piles and vermicomposting (worm composting)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operations. Thus far, they are not known to survive Minnesota winters.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, if they or other species are able to survive winter and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; escape from compost piles they could further harm native forests. If&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you have a compost pile in a forested area, do not introduce&#xD;&#xA;&gt; additional non-native earthworms. If you are concerned about spreading&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-native worms with your compost, you can kill worms and their eggs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by freezing the compost for at least 1 week.  See the brochure &quot;A B&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C's of Composting with Earthworms Safely&quot; pdf This link leads to an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; external site. by Great Lakes Worm Watch for more info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[European worms harming North American forest diversity][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just about all the earthworms found in Northland forests are foreign,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including nightcrawlers and angleworms, and their impacts are most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noticeable in vegetation on the forest floor, the study reports.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those changes include a decline in native plant species diversity,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increased non-native plants from Europe (like buckthorn) and an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increase in grasses moving into forests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/invasive-earthworms-denude-forests/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialanimals/earthworms/index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/4117692-european-worms-harming-north-american-forest-diversity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="32b91c04-6be6-45f5-9f52-57b171b5de57" CreationDate="2017-10-12T11:52:52.640" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15580" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="32b91c04-6be6-45f5-9f52-57b171b5de57" CreationDate="2017-10-12T11:52:52.640" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6212" RevisionGUID="dd0701e0-d28d-4bd2-a512-3cf7248c4eac" CreationDate="2017-10-12T11:52:52.640" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6212" RevisionGUID="dd0701e0-d28d-4bd2-a512-3cf7248c4eac" CreationDate="2017-10-12T11:52:52.640" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="2610fccf-0eb9-49b2-9ad0-e58e24732aef" CreationDate="2017-10-12T13:15:58.500" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="&gt;How much energy could we actually gain from biomass from a given forest size if it was actually green?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Primary productivity** is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deciduous temperate forests** have a net primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/sq.m/year&#xD;&#xA; - ~16 kCal/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/sq.m/day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.2kWh/day) is spent on heating.  **To provide that energy would require**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.2/0.0186 = **387sq.m** of deciduous temperate forest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the yearly heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only about 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since deciduous trees around here mature and thus can be harvested on about a 30 year rotation, **for true sustainability, your woodlot needs to be at least**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;387 * 30 = **11,610sq.m == 1.16Ha == 2.87ac in size**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local (or hypothetical) conditions and calculate the minimum woodlot size that will work for you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6201" RevisionGUID="327e769c-5824-4434-9301-dcb41bf2b597" CreationDate="2017-10-13T16:25:11.773" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Pretty much everything is toxic if you have **too much** of it.  Water, for example, can be toxic to humans.  The trick to not going insane in this world is to stop looking at lists on websites that claim things are toxic and just approach the issue with logic and caution instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no grass in your paddock, your sheep are starving, and you put up a new fence made from freshly-cut locust, then sure, the sheep will rush the fence and eat what they can as fast as they can because it's new and different and they want to get in before the other sheep eat it all.  A few hours later they may get sick and a few days later some may die.  The problem is **not** the species of tree you are using — it's the fact you're starving your animals and you introduced a large amount of alternative 'feed' quite suddenly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Note:  For the purpose of this answer, anything that livestock can physically eat is considered to be 'feed' — not just the stuff that you buy in a sack that comes with a nutrition label.  Sheep can't read labels, so the only way for them to find out if something is food or not is to chew on it, eat it, and see if it makes them sick. So grain is feed, hay is feed, fence posts are feed, tool handles are feed, tyres are feed, baling twine is feed, pallets are feed, barn doors are feed...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sheep (pretty much all livestock) will preferentially eat the feed that tastes the best first.  Then they'll eat the feed that tastes ok.  They'll avoid eating bad-tasting feed until they get hungry.  They'll avoid eating 'toxic' feed — that they think will make them sick — until they are starving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Introduce new feed in a small, controlled amount.  Let them taste it.  Let *them* see if they end up with undesirable side-effects.  If nothing bad happens, expose them to a slightly larger amount of the feed a few (three or more) days later.  Observe.  Monitor.  Repeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This approach will prevent animals from getting a &quot;massive dose&quot; from the initial — curiosity-driven — exposure.  It will also give them a chance to assess the feed's palatability and to decide how hungry they need to be before they resort to eating it.  When they see it coming back again and again, the novelty factor will wear off.  If the feed isn't palatable then they'll ignore it and go back to eating what they did before — unless you starve them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can add blocks of pure arsenic in the middle of your field quite safely if you do it this way.  **It's not the feed — it's how you introduce it that determines what the outcome will be**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Day 1 — Put a piece of locust firewood, or about a foot worth of&#xD;&#xA;   post, into their field in an 'obvious place'.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 4 — If they've just nibbed at the wood, you haven't spotted any&#xD;&#xA;   strange-coloured faeces, and none are exhibiting any unusual&#xD;&#xA;   behaviours, add a second, and perhaps third piece of wood to the&#xD;&#xA;   pile.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 7 — If all seems normal, lean a full post up against some part of&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 10 — If all seems normal, lean two or three more posts against&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 14 — If all seems normal, lean half-a-dozen more posts against&#xD;&#xA;   the fence.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 21 — If all seems normal, fence in a new paddock entirely with&#xD;&#xA;   locust.  Make sure they have plenty of regular feed (i.e. lots of&#xD;&#xA;   good grass, maybe some supplementary feed as well) and water — lots&#xD;&#xA;   of feed options that you know they like more than the fence posts. &#xD;&#xA;   Move the sheep in.  Observe.  Monitor.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Day 30 — Build a campfire and burn the printout from the website that&#xD;&#xA;   claims that black locust is poisonous to sheep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In nature, wild animals are free to pick and choose what they will eat.  Accumulated wisdom (from the herd and the individual) means they don't eat things in quantities that are toxic to them.  When you farm animals in a cage or a paddock, you are 100% responsible for the diet of your livestock.  If you intend to change their dietary options you need to give your animals the opportunity to develop/update their dietary wisdom.  If you don't, and your animals suffer and die, then it's not a random plant's fault — it's yours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The only thing toxic to farm animals are bad farmers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust fence posts will last longer if you strip off the bark.&#xD;&#xA; - In wet and clayey soil, giving the part of the post that goes into the ground (plus about 10cm that sticks out of the ground) a sealing coat is advisable.&#xD;&#xA; - In sandy and free-draining soil, a band of sealant +/-10cm around the ground contact line is all that is advisable. &#xD;&#xA; - A cap on the top will stop water from being drawn down into a post and further extend its life.&#xD;&#xA; - If you debark the posts they'll be really, really hard to staple three months later.  You're better off pre-drilling holes for the staples in the comfort of your shed if you leave them that long.&#xD;&#xA; - Black locust posts that have been debarked and left out in the elements for three months are so hard that animals would have a hard time eating them even if they wanted to.  No need to worry about anything beyond this point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6214" RevisionGUID="3d085197-50f2-43c9-932c-ea954f0ed4ef" CreationDate="2017-10-13T17:29:11.963" UserId="3664" Text="I'm thinking of purchasing a [Koolatron P20 compact cooler][1] and this [ExpertPower 12200 battery][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How long will cooler last with this battery at full charge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this the correct battery to use for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will it cool room-temperature products? For example, warm beverages? We don't have electricity, so anything that I put in the cooler will be warm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can the battery be charged with a regular AC plug? What would I need for this? Our office has electricity, so I can charge it there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can it charge other devices?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Koolatron-P-20-Thermo-Electric-12-Volt/dp/B00009PGNS&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.amazon.com/ExpertPower-EXP12200-Rechargeable-Threaded-Terminals/dp/B00KC39BE6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1507914324&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=exp12200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6214" RevisionGUID="3d085197-50f2-43c9-932c-ea954f0ed4ef" CreationDate="2017-10-13T17:29:11.963" UserId="3664" Text="How long will Koolatron cooler last with 12V battery?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6214" RevisionGUID="3d085197-50f2-43c9-932c-ea954f0ed4ef" CreationDate="2017-10-13T17:29:11.963" UserId="3664" Text="|home|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6215" RevisionGUID="245c0143-d422-46b6-9397-6fdac3ca07d7" CreationDate="2017-10-13T19:22:55.390" UserId="3379" Text="Despite advertising &quot;low power draw,&quot; the power is not available in any materials I can find, but the current is given as &quot;approximately 4.5 amps.&quot; The technology used is [thermoelectric refrigeration (or Peltier cooling)](https://www.koolatron.com/CA/en/thermoelectric-refrigeration) meaning that the unit is essentially always drawing 4.5 amps, not cycling on and off like a traditional refrigerator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The battery you linked has a capacity of 20Ah -- or 20 amps x hours. This means it can supply 20 amps for one hour, 10 amps for 2 hours, etc (though the actual relationship isn't perfectly linear, depending on the current draw and ambient temperature, among other factors). In the case of the cooler, this means the battery could power it for **20Ah / 4.5A = 4.44 hours**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, fully discharging the battery reduces it's useful life -- discharging to 30% or less is a [common guideline](http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/lead_based_batteries). This would give you about **an hour and 20 minutes** of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are planning to use the cooler in a situation where you will not have continuous power supply, I would recommend buying a larger, &quot;deep cycle&quot; battery. This will enable you to use more of the battery's capacity -- up to 70% in many cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this deep cycle battery (Amazon link)](http://a.co/4SDD6KR) has a capacity of 35Ah. At 4.5A, you could run the cooler for **nearly 5.5 hours** before reaching 70% depth of discharge. While it costs $25 more, it will work better and last longer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6214" RevisionGUID="8f1253f0-2fb9-4b4c-943d-bdb2d1b9c608" CreationDate="2017-10-13T20:55:22.140" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title/formatting, added tags" Text="I'm thinking of purchasing a [Koolatron P20 compact cooler][1] and this [ExpertPower 12200 battery][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How long will cooler last with this battery at full charge?&#xD;&#xA; - Is this the correct battery to use for this?&#xD;&#xA; - Will it cool room-temperature products? For example, warm beverages?&#xD;&#xA;   We don't have electricity, so anything that I put in the cooler will&#xD;&#xA;   be warm.&#xD;&#xA; - Can the battery be charged with a regular AC plug? What would I need&#xD;&#xA;   for this? Our office has electricity, so I can charge it there.&#xD;&#xA; - Can it charge other devices?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.amazon.com/Koolatron-P-20-Thermo-Electric-12-Volt/dp/B00009PGNS&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.amazon.com/ExpertPower-EXP12200-Rechargeable-Threaded-Terminals/dp/B00KC39BE6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1507914324&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=exp12200" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15593" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6214" RevisionGUID="8f1253f0-2fb9-4b4c-943d-bdb2d1b9c608" CreationDate="2017-10-13T20:55:22.140" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title/formatting, added tags" Text="How long will a 12V Koolatron compact cooler last with 12Ah battery?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15594" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6214" RevisionGUID="8f1253f0-2fb9-4b4c-943d-bdb2d1b9c608" CreationDate="2017-10-13T20:55:22.140" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title/formatting, added tags" Text="|energy|home|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15595" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6203" RevisionGUID="35f1680d-ffb4-4bf8-9f78-32848a2b89fa" CreationDate="2017-10-14T06:06:16.303" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/919081903050973184" />
  <row Id="15596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6216" RevisionGUID="a92d8355-ec6f-4a21-a850-1066b93d92fe" CreationDate="2017-10-14T14:10:25.627" UserId="3664" Text="How long would it take to charge this [deep cycle battery (Amazon link)][1] with a regular household electricity plug?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://a.co/4SDD6KR" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6216" RevisionGUID="a92d8355-ec6f-4a21-a850-1066b93d92fe" CreationDate="2017-10-14T14:10:25.627" UserId="3664" Text="How long to charge 12v deep cycle battery?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6216" RevisionGUID="a92d8355-ec6f-4a21-a850-1066b93d92fe" CreationDate="2017-10-14T14:10:25.627" UserId="3664" Text="|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="c725bc75-fe1c-4d84-9f84-51c5b14bc931" CreationDate="2017-10-14T14:13:19.393" UserId="3664" Text="We don't have any electricity, so we're thinking of purchasing this [Koolatron cooler][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the drinks I put in it (refreshment cans, water bottles, etc) will be warm/room-temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will it make these things cold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What else do you suggest?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B00009PGNS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="c725bc75-fe1c-4d84-9f84-51c5b14bc931" CreationDate="2017-10-14T14:13:19.393" UserId="3664" Text="Will Koolatron cooler cool warm stuff?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="c725bc75-fe1c-4d84-9f84-51c5b14bc931" CreationDate="2017-10-14T14:13:19.393" UserId="3664" Text="|food|cooling|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6215" RevisionGUID="f110235d-2dd6-4190-8eba-8d4ac3b8c09b" CreationDate="2017-10-14T19:34:34.747" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified." Text="Despite advertising &quot;low power draw,&quot; the power is not available in any materials I can find, but the current is given as &quot;approximately 4.5 amps.&quot; The technology used is [thermoelectric refrigeration (or Peltier cooling)](https://www.koolatron.com/CA/en/thermoelectric-refrigeration) meaning that the unit is essentially always drawing 4.5 amps, not cycling on and off like a traditional refrigerator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The battery you linked has a capacity of 20Ah -- or 20 amps x hours. This means it can supply 20 amps for one hour, 10 amps for 2 hours, etc (though the actual relationship isn't perfectly linear, depending on the current draw and ambient temperature, among other factors). In the case of the cooler, this means the battery could power it for **20Ah / 4.5A = 4.44 hours**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, fully discharging the battery reduces it's useful life -- discharging to 30% or less is a [common guideline](http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/lead_based_batteries). This would give you about **an hour and 20 minutes** of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are planning to use the cooler in a situation where you will not have continuous power supply, I would recommend buying a larger, &quot;deep cycle&quot; battery. This will enable you to use more of the battery's capacity -- up to 70% in many cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [this deep cycle battery (Amazon link)](http://a.co/4SDD6KR) has a capacity of 35Ah. At 4.5A, you could run the cooler for **nearly 5.5 hours** before 70% of the charge is used up. While it costs $25 more, it will work better and last longer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6218" RevisionGUID="54e1721e-10dd-4dba-86c8-6a382432bae9" CreationDate="2017-10-14T23:46:34.967" UserId="4834" Text="Recharging details for lead-acid batteries are detailed in many places ([for example][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting the linked site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Recharge time can be approximated by dividing the amp hours to be&#xD;&#xA;    replaced by 90% of the rated output of the charger. For example, a 100 &#xD;&#xA;    amp hour battery with a 10 % discharge would need 10 amps replaced. &#xD;&#xA;    Using a 5 amp charger, we have 10 amp hours divided by 90% of 5 amps &#xD;&#xA;    (.9x5) amps = 2.22 hour recharge time estimate.  A deeply discharged &#xD;&#xA;    battery deviates from this formula, requiring more time per amp to be &#xD;&#xA;    replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying this to your example, the linked battery is marked as 35Ah.  If the battery is 50% discharged (you certainly wouldn't want to discharge a deep cycle/marine lead-acid battery further than this with any regularity if you care about its useful lifespan) then you have 17.5Ah to replace.  If you have a 2 amp charger (not too uncommon), divide 17.5Ah by 90% of 2 to arrive at 9.7 hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only a rough estimate, of course (and as warned, the deeper the discharge, the less accurate the estimate; real charging time will likely be longer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could reasonably increase the size of the charger used on this battery to 25% of 35Ah - around 8 amps.  However, my personal experience suggests that you won't actually get a much faster complete charge at 8 amps than you will at 2 amps.  With an 8 amp charger, the voltage will rise much more quickly but this will largely reflect a surface charge which dissipates quickly on use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also find it more effective to use a smarter charger which can apply a bulk charge phase, followed by an absorb charge phase, followed by a float charge phase.  The different characteristics of these phases (with high amperage during bulk charging and long duration during absorb charging) produces the fastest complete charge.  The above formulate doesn't purport to estimate how long it would take using such a charger but my personal experience suggests it would probably be around ... 10 to 12 hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.chargingchargers.com/tutorials/charging.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6219" RevisionGUID="0c4f3502-6e06-4505-9ea9-6440ebe52779" CreationDate="2017-10-15T04:09:03.333" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15605" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6219" RevisionGUID="0c4f3502-6e06-4505-9ea9-6440ebe52779" CreationDate="2017-10-15T04:09:03.333" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6220" RevisionGUID="041159ec-6718-4827-8efd-68f71c722608" CreationDate="2017-10-15T04:09:03.333" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15607" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6220" RevisionGUID="041159ec-6718-4827-8efd-68f71c722608" CreationDate="2017-10-15T04:09:03.333" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6212" RevisionGUID="2c31863e-3660-4844-a92f-781fa7b1f467" CreationDate="2017-10-15T07:54:51.497" UserId="4951" Comment="added 458 characters in body" Text="lifestyle tag is used for questions that involve the design of day to day living activities. This tag is used with questions concerning  the criteria for choices that help in making day to day activities sustainable activities. This tag is for questions concerning the pros and cons of specific actions or how specific actions can be improved and made more effective. Use this tag for questions as to why, what, and how activities lead to sustainable living." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15609" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6212" RevisionGUID="2c31863e-3660-4844-a92f-781fa7b1f467" CreationDate="2017-10-15T07:54:51.497" Comment="Proposed by 4951 approved by -1 edit id of 497" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6212" RevisionGUID="04b041c1-62a8-4205-9ed2-c3d1ec13ba49" CreationDate="2017-10-15T07:54:51.497" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 376 characters in body" Text="for questions about the sustainability and impact of day-to-day living activities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="e0b21c34-449a-4a03-9f78-0fa09fbdf717" CreationDate="2017-10-15T07:55:46.887" UserId="4951" Comment="added 638 characters in body" Text="lifestyle is the style and form and shape of a person's daily activities. Choices made about what one does during the day and how one organizes and manages daily activities influences how effective are efforts to lead a sustainable life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Choices about reducing, reusing, and recycling materials as well as choices about day to day activities such as energy use have a large contribution to measurements such as carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By making choices that improve energy efficiency and material usage people can influence how much their day to day activities can reduce the use of non-renewable resources hence being sustainable living." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15612" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6211" RevisionGUID="e0b21c34-449a-4a03-9f78-0fa09fbdf717" CreationDate="2017-10-15T07:55:46.887" Comment="Proposed by 4951 approved by 99 edit id of 496" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6219" RevisionGUID="2268bf03-6945-4647-ab86-c55674e6a172" CreationDate="2017-10-15T07:57:34.963" UserId="4951" Comment="added 1947 characters in body" Text="A battery is a device for the storage of electrical energy. The applications for which a battery is acceptable will depend on how the battery is used in the device or electrical systems being designed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two main types of batteries: primary batteries and secondary batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [primary cell or primary battery][1] is assembled from materials which create a battery that is already charged and able to provide electricity. These batteries are made up of materials and designed so that they are a source of electrical energy after being assembled. These batteries are not designed to be recharged and should not be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [secondary cell or secondary battery][2] is assembled from materials which create a battery that needs to be charged. These batteries are made up of materials and designed so that they can store electrical energy once they are charged. These batteries are designed to be recharged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both primary batteries and secondary batteries come in a large variety of sizes and materials and technologies. Different materials provide different operational characteristics such as recharge or not, how many times a battery can be recharged, and how does recharging affect the capacity of the battery over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic characteristics of a battery, shared by both types, is the voltage the battery is designed to provide and the amps of electrical energy that can be stored in the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Batteries may be connected in series to provide a higher voltage with the same amps or they may be connected in parallel to provide the same voltage with higher amps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words two 9 volt batteries each of which has 500 milliamps can be connected in series to provide a single 18 volt battery of 500 milliamps or can be connected in parallel to provide a single 9 volt battery of 1,000 milliamps capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_cell&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15614" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6219" RevisionGUID="2268bf03-6945-4647-ab86-c55674e6a172" CreationDate="2017-10-15T07:57:34.963" Comment="Proposed by 4951 approved by 99 edit id of 498" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6210" RevisionGUID="05b8cc78-fecb-4ac2-a6b0-9453c7e0391a" CreationDate="2017-10-15T16:08:58.597" UserId="4951" Comment="added link to the Great Lakes Worm Watch" Text="You should contact your county agricultural extension agent to check about the use of worms in the garden as well as what species. There are areas where fishing bait worms are considered an invasive species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Invasive Earthworms Denude Forests in U.S. Great Lakes Region][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Long considered a gardener’s friend, earthworms can loosen and aerate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the soil. But the story is different in the Great Lakes region. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; last Ice Age wiped out native earthworms 10,000 years ago, and ever&#xD;&#xA;&gt; since the Northeast forest has evolved without the crawlers, Hale&#xD;&#xA;&gt; says. But now earthworms are back, a product of fishers who toss their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; worms into the forest, of off-road vehicles and lumber trucks that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; carry them in the treads of their tires, and of people who bring in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; mulch—and any worms that might be in it—from other areas.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As invasive creatures, the earth­worms wreak the most havoc with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; hardwood forests, such as those consisting of maple, basswood, red&#xD;&#xA;&gt; oak, poplar or birch species. (Conifer-dominated forests seem to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; experience less dramatic impacts.) According to Peter Groffman, a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; microbial ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Millbrook, N.Y., northern hardwood forests have relied on thick layers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of leaf litter that serve as a rooting medium. The earth­worms,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Groffman reports, “come into an area with a thick organic mat, and two&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to five years later that layer is gone.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources [What's the big deal about earthworms in Minnesota?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Non-native &quot;red wiggler&quot; earthworms are sold and shipped all over the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; country for home compost piles and vermicomposting (worm composting)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; operations. Thus far, they are not known to survive Minnesota winters.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, if they or other species are able to survive winter and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; escape from compost piles they could further harm native forests. If&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you have a compost pile in a forested area, do not introduce&#xD;&#xA;&gt; additional non-native earthworms. If you are concerned about spreading&#xD;&#xA;&gt; non-native worms with your compost, you can kill worms and their eggs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; by freezing the compost for at least 1 week.  See the brochure &quot;A B&#xD;&#xA;&gt; C's of Composting with Earthworms Safely&quot; pdf This link leads to an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; external site. by Great Lakes Worm Watch for more info.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[European worms harming North American forest diversity][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just about all the earthworms found in Northland forests are foreign,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; including nightcrawlers and angleworms, and their impacts are most&#xD;&#xA;&gt; noticeable in vegetation on the forest floor, the study reports.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those changes include a decline in native plant species diversity,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increased non-native plants from Europe (like buckthorn) and an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; increase in grasses moving into forests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Great Lakes Worm Watch][4] is a web site with information about earthworms as an invasive species group as there are a number of different species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/invasive-earthworms-denude-forests/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialanimals/earthworms/index.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/4117692-european-worms-harming-north-american-forest-diversity&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://greatlakeswormwatch.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6221" RevisionGUID="62358883-1db3-4e55-a7f7-1e59b8631764" CreationDate="2017-10-18T00:14:55.983" UserId="4964" Text="They cool slow. So overnight yes they will be cool. Do you have water &amp; a down hill slope? If so a drop cooler. Run water slow let it drop pool drop pool drop. 3 foot at a time. The more drops it makes the colder it gets.  At 3 drops in 10 foot water will be 50f if shaded. In the tropics. Colder water will be colder. This is a very primitive way of cooling used only in a few locations in mountains. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15617" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6198" RevisionGUID="578afdc7-17c1-4f6e-a528-7585bc13a8ab" CreationDate="2017-10-18T12:11:36.487" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/920623394248372225" />
  <row Id="15619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2927" RevisionGUID="6a6191e6-3608-462f-b708-a749854f1738" CreationDate="2017-10-18T18:24:06.750" UserId="99" Comment="revised answer as Greenpeace has finally published new ratings again" Text="There are 3 websites I recommend visiting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. **[Rankabrand.org](http://rankabrand.org)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This site rankes brands of all kinds of products, [including electronics](http://www.rankabrand.org/electronics). &#xD;&#xA;  Rankings are based on all information that can be found on a company's website and in their annual reports. Rankabrand assesses brands on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;   their environmental performances, climate change efforts and labour conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If no information is present on a particular topic, the brand gets 0 points so it is indirectly ranking transparency as well. A drawback is that small companies/brands are often not included. Also a ranking is for the company/brand as a whole so not specific for a product type such as laptops. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. **[Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/cool-it/Campaign-analysis/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/)**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This site is similar to Rankabrand.org, but only for major consumer electronics companies and Greenpeace does use a different rating mechanism. They have looked primarily at:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &gt; three critical impact areas tied to product design and responsible supply chain management across the electronics sector:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Energy: Reduction of greenhouse gases through efficiency and renewable energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Resource Consumption: sustainable design and use of recycled materials&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Chemicals: Elimination of hazardous chemicals from both the product itself and manufacturing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Labour conditions and other social responsibilities are not included. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  3. **[Conflict minerals company rankings](https://enoughproject.org/reports/taking-conflict-out-consumer-gadgets-company-rankings-conflict-minerals-2012)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This site rates the largest electronics companies on their usage of what they call &quot;conflict-free&quot; minerals in their products.&#xD;&#xA;  I'm not sure how accurate the list still is, the last update was in August 2012. However [elsewhere on the site](https://enoughproject.org/blog/2017-conflict-minerals-company-rankings) they say that a 2017 version is in the making!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ratings from Rankabrand and Greenpace are somewhat similar. Fairphone leads in both rankings, but they sell smartphones and not laptops. Best laptop seller on both lists is Apple. Apple did score low in the 2012 conflict minerals, but I think they have been making quite some progress in recent years, so it would be interesting to see if this is reflected in the 2017 conflict minerals rankings that should be published somewhere this year. After Apple, HP scores reasonably well on all 3 rankings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I have no affiliation with any of the sites or brands mentioned in this post. The only exception is that I do give a small donation to Greenpeace every month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2927" RevisionGUID="4084447d-31f3-49a7-8242-7fed6ec5842c" CreationDate="2017-10-19T06:33:07.710" UserId="99" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="There are 3 websites I recommend visiting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. **[Rankabrand.org](http://rankabrand.org)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This site rankes brands of all kinds of products, [including electronics](http://www.rankabrand.org/electronics). &#xD;&#xA;  Rankings are based on all information that can be found on a company's website and in their annual reports. Rankabrand assesses brands on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;   their environmental performances, climate change efforts and labour conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If no information is present on a particular topic, the brand gets 0 points so it is indirectly ranking transparency as well. A drawback is that small companies/brands are often not included. Also a ranking is for the company/brand as a whole so not specific for a product type such as laptops. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. **[Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/cool-it/Campaign-analysis/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/)**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This site is similar to Rankabrand.org, but only rates major consumer electronics companies using a slightly different rating mechanism. Greenpeace primarily looks at:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &gt; three critical impact areas tied to product design and responsible supply chain management across the electronics sector:&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; - Energy: Reduction of greenhouse gases through efficiency and renewable energy&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; - Resource Consumption: sustainable design and use of recycled &#xD;&#xA;  materials&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; - Chemicals: Elimination of hazardous chemicals from both the product itself and manufacturing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Labour conditions and other social responsibilities are not included. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  3. **[Conflict minerals company rankings](https://enoughproject.org/reports/taking-conflict-out-consumer-gadgets-company-rankings-conflict-minerals-2012)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This site rates the largest electronics companies on their usage of what they call &quot;conflict-free&quot; minerals in their products.&#xD;&#xA;  I'm not sure how accurate the list still is, the last update was in August 2012. However [elsewhere on the site](https://enoughproject.org/blog/2017-conflict-minerals-company-rankings) they say that a 2017 version is in the making!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ratings from Rankabrand and Greenpace are somewhat similar. Fairphone leads in both rankings, but they sell smartphones and not laptops. Best laptop seller on both lists is Apple. Apple did score low in the 2012 conflict minerals, but I think they have been making quite some progress in recent years, so it would be interesting to see if this is reflected in the 2017 conflict minerals rankings that should be published somewhere this year. After Apple, HP scores reasonably well on all 3 rankings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I have no affiliation with any of the sites or brands mentioned in this post. The only exception is that I do give a small donation to Greenpeace every month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6220" RevisionGUID="d9cd910e-6684-4c4e-89bc-9077d1cb4fe2" CreationDate="2017-10-19T06:36:43.400" UserId="4951" Comment="added 426 characters in body" Text="batteries are storage devices for electrical energy. There are a large number of types and kinds of batteries which are categorized by the material used in the battery (lead acid, NiCd, NiMH, Lithium, etc.) This tag should be used for questions concerning choosing between various battery technologies for a particular application as well as questions about the number, size, and wiring of batteries into an electrical system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15622" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6220" RevisionGUID="d9cd910e-6684-4c4e-89bc-9077d1cb4fe2" CreationDate="2017-10-19T06:36:43.400" Comment="Proposed by 4951 approved by -1 edit id of 499" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6220" RevisionGUID="48e87560-4ff9-4ded-914a-68254617e746" CreationDate="2017-10-19T06:36:43.400" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 102 characters in body" Text="storage devices for electrical energy. Use this tag for questions about selecting and using the (most sustainable) various battery technologies for a particular application as well as questions about the number, size, and wiring of batteries into an electrical system. The later is also on topic on electrical engineering SE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6222" RevisionGUID="6f294ded-166f-4584-bbb3-186dfd2278eb" CreationDate="2017-10-20T14:31:00.557" UserId="400" Text="Yes this is possible.  It is not a good use of your resources. This makes  sense if you are going off grid, but for something that is only going to be used when your power goes out, it makes more sense to buy a small generator.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to run your fridge/freezer you need several hundred watts.  If you want to run it at night you need a battery bank, and a bunch of controller circuitry to do it right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It has more uses:  Take it camping.  Use it to power your tools on the back 40 (where mine is right now) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's a single item, not a combination of panel, controller, batteries, inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You can sell it, loan it to your father-in-law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A cheap generator is a few hundred dollars.  They aren't very efficient, but you will be able to run your fridge for a few hours a day to keep it cold, keep the sump pump running, etc.  In power outages here we find it takes about 3-4 gallons a day to keep the freezer, the fridge and the sump pump going.  This leaves it idling most of the time.  Since I have two mowers, a chainsaw, an auger, soil mixer, farm pickup, and two tractors, I have 4 each of gas and diesel jerries that cycle several times a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next step up are ones that are really quiet.  These are the ones that people with motor homes buy.  1 to 2 kW and you hardly know they are there.  About double the price.  They are also more efficient, slowing down under light load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After that, you have a raft of options between diesel, natural gas, propane and gasoline, electric start, whole house systems, automatic transfer to the generator when the power goes out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before you buy, rent one.  Verify that it will run all the things that you need.  Set up conditions that could shoot you in the foot:  E.g. Compressors draw a lot of current starting.  What happens if your freezer and your fridge start at the same moment?  Might just slow the generator down.  Might stall it, or trip the breaker on the genset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Store it empty.  Have a couple of gas jerries.  When you get a hurricane warning, fill the jerries.  Use them up in the lawnmower later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gas has a limited shelf life.  Gas with ethanol only a month or so at warm temperatures.   If you want to store full jerries, then get no-ethanol gas (premium usually) and add a cap full of gas-saver to it.  Store them out of the sun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you need a generator to be ready, fill it up with your preserved gas, start it, get it going well, then shut off the valve on the fuel line until it quits.  This leaves little or no gas in the carburetor to dry and gum things up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6223" RevisionGUID="5a8fa82d-b524-41a8-8b8d-9adc6c8cefb8" CreationDate="2017-10-20T14:46:57.963" UserId="400" Text="I tell you why I do it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Saves me time.  I don't have the luxury of garbage pickup.  I live on a farm, and I have to take my own garbage to the dump.  We have three classes of garbage:  Bluebag (recycables) dry matter (construction waste mostly), and kitchen (food waste.)   We also compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We produce 2 bags of kitchen waste a month, another two bags of recycleables a month, and a garbage can of dry waste a month.  When it's not hot, I can get away with doing the garbage about every 2-3 months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also have container recycling.  Here all liquor, beverage, and milk containers have a deposit.  It's a nuisance to go to the recycling centre, so I have a corner of a shed set up for this.  I go to the bottle depot when I have a full pickup load -- about every 2 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to why should *YOU* do it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now it's a small part of the solution.  (I'd like to know what's included in those 70 bins of other....)  But that's how we learn how to do things.  Meanwhile you can double the life span of municipal landfills, lowering your taxes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Baby steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="69059d00-031b-483d-a9d5-f5762c0f89e1" CreationDate="2017-10-20T15:33:19.213" UserId="400" Text="Jean-Paul's answer is part of the story.  Charging rate influences the life of the battery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* High power rate batteries (car starters) maximize the plate surface.  They are designed to deliver a lot of current for a short period of time.  They can be charged faster too, but suffer on deep discharge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Deep discharge batteries supply less current for a much longer period of time, and tolerate being run down much further.  But they shouldn't be charged as fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way to charge a battery IMHO is with a smart trickle charger.  These typically cost about 30-50 bucks, and will charge at 2 A peak.  They also monitor the battery voltage, and will shut off when the voltage gets to a certain point, and restart after it drops a certain amount.  It can take several days to charge a flat battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best bet is to to the maker's web site, and see what they recommend for charging rates." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6225" RevisionGUID="337f7999-417b-4e40-ad5a-71421f50f3e9" CreationDate="2017-10-20T15:53:00.353" UserId="400" Text="This is easy to do.  The RMS is outside.  Or rather a high efficiency wood burner is outside.  You run it flat out for a couple hours at a time, and instead of heating several tons of brick and clay you heat several tons of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construction at first blush is like these outdoor wood burners you see in the back of Mother Earth News.  Differences:  You don't use a water jacket, but rather have heating tubes in an insulated firebox.  You want the firebox to be as low mass as possible, as you essentially lose all the heat in it.  Having a staged firebox (like a russian masonry stove, but bigger channels) will still allow natural draft, and greater heat capture.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.  You have a firebox at the bottom.  You have 3 chambers above it that are sized to make working on the plumbing easy.  All exhaust passes through all 3 chambers.  You have a stack to increase the draft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In operation water flows down -- enters the top chamber first, and moves downward. Coldest water is warmed by the coldest gas.  Basic principle of a counterflow each exchanger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hot water is stored in a large underground tank.  This tank still needs to insulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hot water from the tank is used for radiant floor heating in the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok.  It's NOT that simple.  Between firings the outdoor burner gets cold.  So you have to circulate antifreeze in the primary loop.  This loop heats the underground tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The temp in the tank can be as high as 90 C or as low as 30 C.  This is difficult to control in a household system, so you probably want a buffer tank in the house that you keep at the optimum temp for the in-floor system.  So the big tank heats the in-house tank, which circulates through the zone system.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Build the furnace out of lightweight ceramics.  If you are really into DIY, perlite and clay. You will need some structural elements in it.  Masonry stoves are challenging due to the temperature shifts and differential expansion.  It may make sense to build it horizontally rather than vertically except for the stack at the end.This would allow you to put some form of expansion joint between successive chambers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6226" RevisionGUID="d0136376-b0a9-4e1b-b011-88b22d75b09a" CreationDate="2017-10-20T15:56:57.070" UserId="400" Text="The easiest way to warm your floors, if you have access to the joists from the floor/crawl space below them is to run a PEX line through each joist space.  (Easier to run from one edge, and put a double loop in  each space.  Anchor the lines to the joist, not the subfloor, then insulate the floor space.  R12 backed by paper or plastic air barrier is sufficient.  Warm air tends to rise.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Power this with a small high efficiency natural gas hot water heater.  These are much cheaper than boilers. Get a tank based one.  You need the tank for buffering anyway.  You will need to replace the safety valve which is temperature/and pressure release with one that has a higher temperature release.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternative:  If you live rurally and have access to lots of biomass, use an outdoor rocket stove based water heater and heat up a large water store.  Run the heater whenever the big tank gets cold.  Since this tank will fluctuate in temperature over a wide range, you probably will still need a buffer tank in the house." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6227" RevisionGUID="f568f19d-ed4f-41b6-b2bd-864a72e7b7cb" CreationDate="2017-10-20T17:20:17.527" UserId="4971" Text="I learned about this method from Stephen Harris of solar 1234.com. A small tabletop ice-maker may be the way to go to continuously make about 10lb of ice a day while the sun is out if aolar, or 25 lb of ice if running 24/7 via batteries or generator or car powered inverter. But i think 10 lb a day would be Enough to to keep a single cooler chilled The table top units draw approx 130 watts so it is only a fraction if what even a small generator will be producing. So you can run a few off a generator if you have the $ and energy budget. .  a regular full size frig pulls about 200 watts. Also The table top ice makers are sort of portable by car, and can be run from smaller inverters of 200 to 300 watts running from your car or solar system.  These are more efficient for this amount of wattage load than a big inverter of say 1500 watts. The car inverter method requires you to allocate fuel and time to babysit the car and keep turning it on periodically when the battery gets down to the low 12v range (a 12 volt battery is closer to 13v when charged fully and is well drained by the time it gets to 12volts so dont let it drop or stay long past 11.3v. If you wont be using the car and fuel to power the inverter you cam look into a solar array with a battery. I  guess a 300 to 400 watt array would be sufficient on a sunny day.  The reason the table top unit is better than a conventional freezer is it is more specialized and efficient than a regular freezer in that the h2o being cooled is in direct contact with the cold metal / the evaporator. The ice cube making tray essentially has the evaporator built right into it so the metal pulls heat from the water faster than cold air would in a conventional freezer.  So it doesn't have to run as long. overall in theory would use less power. It eliminates the cooling and circulation of air. ice-maker is more efficient than conventional freezer at making ice more directly from the cold metal of the evaporator unit rather than calling air which in turn caused the ice. &#xD;&#xA;Making the most of your 130 watts per hour. Also check out Sundazer brand of super efficient 100watt chest freezers. Chest style is better than a front door style that lets the cool air run out when the door opens. And steer away from an auto defrost freezer if running on limited power. Defrost cycles increases power consumption. Hope this is helpful. I baby sat my frig during irma.  But should have transferred items to a chest freezer  beforehand. Listen to stephen harris podcast on dealing with power outages at Solar1224.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6228" RevisionGUID="37c9488f-166d-4d01-82b1-f360b2d7b4c5" CreationDate="2017-10-20T19:43:20.883" UserId="2942" Text="My dog poops in my backyard and it is either a) forgotten or b) picked up in a biodegradable bag and thrown in the trash which is ultimately incinerated by my municipality. Both options are not ideal: option A is terrible because I inevitably &quot;find&quot; it in an undesirable way; and option B requires using dog bags and adding more trash to the municipality's load which may not be necessary. Out and about on walks I understand the need for dog bags, but in the backyard..?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have plans to start a backyard composting heap, enclosed by heat-treated wood pallets. This will be for yard waste (cut grass, herbaceous and woody plant scraps) as well as raw plant-based kitchen scraps. I'm wondering, is it a safe option to use [one of those scooper tools][1] to simply move the dog droppings from the yard into the compost heap? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to turn the compost heap every 1-3 weeks with a pitch fork and remove well-composted black fluffy material with a shovel whenever there's a decent amount ready. Is mixing dog poop into this going to risk spread of disease, or somehow disturb a healthy (effective, not too smelly or attractive to flies) composting process? I understand feces is high in Nitrogen and requires additional Carbon to balance that out, and I can adjust the heap's ingredients accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/567/mulching-or-mini-septic-for-solid-dog-waste/573#573 but this post is more about the septic idea and doesn't directly address heap composting as a solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.chewy.com/precision-pet-products-little/dp/102026?utm_source=google-product&amp;utm_medium=cpc&amp;utm_campaign=hg&amp;utm_content=Precision%20Pet%20Products&amp;utm_term=&amp;gclid=Cj0KCQjwvabPBRD5ARIsAIwFXBkfoWrgP6DL1er6pSCcfPXz0ozvYRUsfvO-KGW50EMHn0QA42Zf3FoaAo3SEALw_wcB&amp;gclsrc=aw.ds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15631" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6228" RevisionGUID="37c9488f-166d-4d01-82b1-f360b2d7b4c5" CreationDate="2017-10-20T19:43:20.883" UserId="2942" Text="Can solid dog waste be safely added to a backyard composting heap?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15632" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6228" RevisionGUID="37c9488f-166d-4d01-82b1-f360b2d7b4c5" CreationDate="2017-10-20T19:43:20.883" UserId="2942" Text="|composting|waste|health|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6229" RevisionGUID="5bdcbed1-7884-43b2-add0-03fe5ade2e24" CreationDate="2017-10-20T19:58:27.357" UserId="4973" Text="If you want commercial products check out [Good Guide][1], they rank products based on ingredient hazards and larger environmental impact.  They have an extremely large database and rank things from cleaners to food to makeup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://goodguide.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6228" RevisionGUID="b47fd6d5-c646-4d8d-aa41-e01ce69b419f" CreationDate="2017-10-20T20:13:03.110" UserId="2942" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="My dog poops in my backyard and the poop is either a) forgotten or b) picked up in a biodegradable bag and thrown in the trash which is ultimately incinerated for electricity by my municipality. Both options are not ideal: option A is terrible because I inevitably &quot;find&quot; it in an undesirable way; and option B requires using dog bags and adding more trash to the municipality's load which may not be necessary. Out and about on walks I understand the need for dog bags, but in the backyard..?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have plans to start a backyard composting heap, enclosed by heat-treated wood pallets. This will be for yard waste (cut grass, herbaceous and woody plant scraps) as well as raw plant-based kitchen scraps. I'm wondering, is it a safe option to use [one of those scooper tools][1] to simply move the dog droppings from the yard into the compost heap? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to turn the compost heap every 1-3 weeks with a pitch fork and remove well-composted black fluffy material with a shovel whenever there's a decent amount ready. Is mixing dog poop into this going to risk spread of disease, or somehow disturb a healthy (effective, not too smelly or attractive to flies) composting process? I understand feces is high in Nitrogen and requires additional Carbon to balance that out, and I can adjust the heap's ingredients accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/567/mulching-or-mini-septic-for-solid-dog-waste/573#573 but this post is more about the septic idea and doesn't directly address heap composting as a solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.chewy.com/precision-pet-products-little/dp/102026?utm_source=google-product&amp;utm_medium=cpc&amp;utm_campaign=hg&amp;utm_content=Precision%20Pet%20Products&amp;utm_term=&amp;gclid=Cj0KCQjwvabPBRD5ARIsAIwFXBkfoWrgP6DL1er6pSCcfPXz0ozvYRUsfvO-KGW50EMHn0QA42Zf3FoaAo3SEALw_wcB&amp;gclsrc=aw.ds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6218" RevisionGUID="88f2f9ae-cb49-4d8b-8ddb-016317081003" CreationDate="2017-10-21T00:57:27.130" UserId="4834" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="Recharging details for lead-acid batteries are detailed in many places ([for example][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoting the linked site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Recharge time can be approximated by dividing the amp hours to be&#xD;&#xA;    replaced by 90% of the rated output of the charger. For example, a 100 &#xD;&#xA;    amp hour battery with a 10 % discharge would need 10 amps replaced. &#xD;&#xA;    Using a 5 amp charger, we have 10 amp hours divided by 90% of 5 amps &#xD;&#xA;    (.9x5) amps = 2.22 hour recharge time estimate.  A deeply discharged &#xD;&#xA;    battery deviates from this formula, requiring more time per amp to be &#xD;&#xA;    replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Applying this to your example, the linked battery is marked as 35Ah.  If the battery is 50% discharged (you certainly wouldn't want to discharge a deep cycle/marine lead-acid battery further than this with any regularity if you care about its useful lifespan) then you have 17.5Ah to replace.  If you have a 2 amp charger (not too uncommon), divide 17.5Ah by 90% of 2 to arrive at 9.7 hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is only a rough estimate, of course (and as warned, the deeper the discharge, the less accurate the estimate; real charging time will likely be longer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could reasonably increase the size of the charger used on this battery to 25% of 35Ah - around 8 amps.  However, my personal experience suggests that you won't actually get a much faster complete charge at 8 amps than you will at 2 amps.  With an 8 amp charger, the voltage will rise much more quickly but this will largely reflect a surface charge which dissipates quickly on use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also find it more effective to use a smarter charger which can apply a bulk charge phase, followed by an absorb charge phase, followed by a float charge phase.  The different characteristics of these phases (with high amperage during bulk charging and long duration during absorb charging) produces the fastest complete charge.  The above formulate doesn't purport to estimate how long it would take using such a charger but my personal experience suggests it would probably be around ... 10 to 12 hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does it take around the same amount of time to charge at 2 amps and at 8 amps?  Because the 8 amp charge is wasting a lot of power as heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.chargingchargers.com/tutorials/charging.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6228" RevisionGUID="8d732aec-4433-4add-8e17-cb4fc6870118" CreationDate="2017-10-21T02:01:36.530" UserId="2942" Comment="added section on _where_ compost would be removed to" Text="My dog poops in my backyard and the poop is either a) forgotten or b) picked up in a biodegradable bag and thrown in the trash which is ultimately incinerated for electricity by my municipality. Both options are not ideal: option A is terrible because I inevitably &quot;find&quot; it in an undesirable way; and option B requires using dog bags and adding more trash to the municipality's load which may not be necessary. Out and about on walks I understand the need for dog bags, but in the backyard..?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have plans to start a backyard composting heap, enclosed by heat-treated wood pallets. This will be for yard waste (cut grass, herbaceous and woody plant scraps) as well as raw plant-based kitchen scraps. I'm wondering, is it a safe option to use [one of those scooper tools][1] to simply move the dog droppings from the yard into the compost heap? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to turn the compost heap every 1-3 weeks with a pitch fork and remove well-composted black fluffy material with a shovel whenever there's a decent amount ready. Is mixing dog poop into this going to risk spread of disease, or somehow disturb a healthy (effective, not too smelly or attractive to flies) composting process? I understand feces is high in Nitrogen and requires additional Carbon to balance that out, and I can adjust the heap's ingredients accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where the compost is removed to is important - I have a range of different places I can use compost, and if certain compost is only good for spreading on grass lawn that is still better than it going in municipal trash imo. I have vegetable patches that could use compost, but they don't need to use the yard waste pile (I also have kitchen scrap vermiculture). I have other plants like trees which can use compost - is composted dog poop OK in there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/567/mulching-or-mini-septic-for-solid-dog-waste/573#573 but this post is more about the septic idea and doesn't directly address heap composting as a solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.chewy.com/precision-pet-products-little/dp/102026?utm_source=google-product&amp;utm_medium=cpc&amp;utm_campaign=hg&amp;utm_content=Precision%20Pet%20Products&amp;utm_term=&amp;gclid=Cj0KCQjwvabPBRD5ARIsAIwFXBkfoWrgP6DL1er6pSCcfPXz0ozvYRUsfvO-KGW50EMHn0QA42Zf3FoaAo3SEALw_wcB&amp;gclsrc=aw.ds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6231" RevisionGUID="4855664f-c159-4d9c-bb6b-b0cf88348e05" CreationDate="2017-10-21T14:10:26.760" UserId="4834" Text="You've hinted at the main concerns with putting poop in a compost pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will putting dog poop in the compost pile spread disease?  This could happen either in the act of moving the dog poop, while the dog poop is fresh in the pile, or when you remove and spread the compost.  Fresh poop is the most likely source of any disease issues.  By using a tool and good hygiene, you should protect yourself from problems at this stage.  Arguably, your alternatives are to either leave the poop in the yard or to pick it up and put it in the trash.  The former option is probably more of a health hazard and the latter is exactly equivalent.  So by putting the dog poop in your compost pile, you're doing something at least as safe and healthy as anything else you could do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will having dog poop composting in the pile spread disease?  While the dog poop is fresh, if someone or something were to go digging in the pile, they are risking contamination.  If you have problems with animals digging through your piles you may be increasing their risk of exposure (an animal may be attracted by kitchen scrapes and inadvertently contact the dog poop).  Additionally, an animal digging in the pile may make a mess that you need to clean up.  In this event, you now have a second risk of exposure.  To mitigate this, I think you would want a well-sealed bin.  If you plan to use pallets, you may want something like a chicken-wire barrier to make it more animal-proof.  I've seen 4x4 designs that create a very tight box (you do need to allow for air to get in to let the composting process work, though).  That might be another option to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will using the composted dog poop spread disease?  If your compost pile reaches high enough temperature for long enough, any likely disease material in it should be destroyed.  You can find a number of guides online (https://deepgreenpermaculture.com/diy-instructions/hot-compost-composting-in-18-days/, http://www.soilfoodweb.com/Thermal_Compost.html, etc) for ensuring you get a hot compost pile.  These approaches mostly require turning more often than you suggested was your plan but they also produce results fairly quickly so it may still be something you can do.  If you can't produce a hot pile, you can substitute a long composting period instead.  A common reference for _human_ poop composting is [The Humanure Handbook].  Not exactly the same thing but for the purposes of health concerns much of the same information likely applies.  According to this source, two years in a cold pile (never turned) is long enough to destroy any pathogens.  If you have room for several separate piles (for example, your new pile that's being added to, your pile from last year, and your pile from the year before) then after a startup period you still have a reasonably continuous supply of finished compost and you don't have the labor of turning (the same resource also suggests you retain more nitrogen in cold piles as compared to hot piles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, not many people recommend using even properly finished (quick &amp; hot or long &amp; cold) _human_ poop on vegetables for human consumption.  I'd probably go along with this for dog poop too and stick to grass, shrubs &amp; trees (but I'd be comfortable with trees producing food for human consumption - fruit trees, nut trees, etc - but I wouldn't spread close to harvest time (which you normally wouldn't do anyway)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as grass application goes, though, if the dog poop was _scooped_ from your lawn then there's hardly any risk of further contamination by spreading the result in the same place (ie, it already had fresh poop on it, anything composted at all is going to be less likely to cause problems).  So if that's a useful place to spread the material, you may get away with a slightly less complete composting process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, will putting dog poop in your compost pile inhibit the composting process?  This will depend on a lot of variables but I suspect that in most common cases, no.  Compare the quantity of dog poop with the quantity of other material.  If you have many dogs you _might_ generate enough dog poop to tip the balance.  However, a lot of kitchen waste (again, it depends on exactly what _you're_ doing) is pretty low nitrogen (people tend to eat the nitrogen parts).  I wouldn't think a little bit of poop will make a noticeable difference.  Will it attract flies or other insect pests?  Yes, if you don't cover it.  But the same is true of your kitchen scrapes so you're probably already covering (or planning to cover) those.  If not, plan on it.  Chances are, if the poop _does_ bring any excess of nitrogen, it will be balanced out by the brown cover material you put over it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://humanurehandbook.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="c4bd5d7b-2e56-4da3-a12a-c3fe1f621a72" CreationDate="2017-10-22T07:18:32.567" UserId="4886" Text="I don't think the *number* of trees really matters.  A fixed amount of energy from the sun falls onto a certain **area** and plant life will emerge to cover all of that area and capture all of the energy.  If you plant fewer trees, each will get a bigger share of the energy and end up larger.  If you plant more trees they will each get a smaller share of the energy and end up smaller.  A *closed canopy is a closed canopy* and more trees will not result in more energy/photosynthesis/firewood (but probably will result in straighter trees).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as what **area** is needed to cover your needs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Primary productivity** is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deciduous temperate forests** have a net primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/year&#xD;&#xA; - ~16 kCal/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.2kWh/day) is spent on heating.  **To provide that energy would require**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.2/0.0186 = **387m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;** of deciduous temperate forest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the yearly heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only about 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local situation and plant (or allow existing trees to sucker) at least that area each and every year and you'll be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have suggested, it's a good idea to mix up the species.  Not only do you end up with different burn characteristics, but if your woodlot is hit by a disease or invaded by insects, there's less chance that *all* of your trees will be wiped out at the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="a640f354-6df1-455d-8ce2-94db1315f259" CreationDate="2017-10-23T01:06:05.247" UserId="4886" Comment="added 301 characters in body" Text="I don't think the *number* of trees really matters.  A fixed amount of energy from the sun falls onto a certain **area** and plant life will emerge to cover all of that area and capture all of the energy.  If you plant fewer trees, each will get a bigger share of the energy and end up larger.  If you plant more trees they will each get a smaller share of the energy and end up smaller.  A *closed canopy is a closed canopy* and more trees will not result in more energy/photosynthesis/firewood (but probably will result in straighter trees).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as what **area** is needed to cover your needs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Primary productivity** is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deciduous temperate forests** have a net primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/year&#xD;&#xA; - ~16 kCal/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.2kWh/day) is spent on heating.  **To provide that energy would require**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.2/0.0186 = **387m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;** of deciduous temperate forest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the yearly heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only about 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local situation and plant (or allow existing trees to sucker) at least that area each and every year and you'll be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If your trees reach harvestable age in (say) 20 years, then you're harvesting on a 20-year rotation and would need a woodlot 20x the annual harvest area (387m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) for it to be sustainable.  In the above case that would mean a woodlot (20x387=) 7740m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; or 0.774Ha in size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have suggested, it's a good idea to mix up the species.  Not only do you end up with different burn characteristics, but if your woodlot is hit by a disease or invaded by insects, there's less chance that *all* of your trees will be wiped out at the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="43baca60-5d74-4ef0-9774-8c8d4aa1d619" CreationDate="2017-10-23T01:12:25.400" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="I don't think the *number* of trees really matters.  A fixed amount of energy from the sun falls onto a certain **area** and plant life will emerge to cover all of that area and capture all of the energy.  If you plant fewer trees, each will get a bigger share of the energy and end up larger.  If you plant more trees they will each get a smaller share of the energy and end up smaller.  A *closed canopy is a closed canopy* and more trees will not result in more energy/photosynthesis/firewood (but probably will result in straighter trees).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as what **area** is needed to cover your needs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Primary productivity&quot; is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a **net** (i.e. useful) primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/year&#xD;&#xA; - ~16 kCal/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.2kWh/day) is spent on heating.  **To provide that energy would require**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.2/0.0186 = **387m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;** of deciduous temperate forest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the yearly heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only about 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local situation and plant (or allow existing trees to sucker) at least that area each and every year and you'll be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If your trees reach harvestable age in (say) 20 years, then you're harvesting on a 20-year rotation and would need a woodlot 20x the annual harvest area (387m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) for it to be sustainable.  In the above case that would mean a woodlot (20x387=) 7740m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; or 0.774Ha in size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have suggested, it's a good idea to mix up the species.  Not only do you end up with different burn characteristics, but if your woodlot is hit by a disease or invaded by insects, there's less chance that *all* of your trees will be wiped out at the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="cfb0a4e2-b360-4c7c-ae15-19d46b84241d" CreationDate="2017-10-23T01:29:24.103" UserId="4886" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="I don't think the *number* of trees really matters.  A fixed amount of energy from the sun falls onto a certain **area** and plant life will emerge to cover all of that area and capture all of the energy.  If you plant fewer trees, each will get a bigger share of the energy and end up larger.  If you plant more trees they will each get a smaller share of the energy and end up smaller.  A *closed canopy is a closed canopy* and more trees will not result in more energy/photosynthesis/firewood (but probably will result in straighter trees).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as what **area** is needed to cover your needs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Primary productivity&quot; is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a **net** (i.e. useful) primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/year&#xD;&#xA; - ~16 kCal/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.2kWh/day) is spent on heating.  **To provide that energy would require**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.2/0.0186 = **387m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;** of deciduous temperate forest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the yearly heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only about 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course you wouldn't be logging the *same* 20x20m area each year, you'd be logging a *different* 20x20m area each year to give time for trees to (re-)grow in the previously-logged area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local situation and plant (or allow existing trees to sucker) at least that area each and every year and you'll be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If your trees reach harvestable age in (say) 20 years, then you're harvesting on a 20-year rotation and would need a woodlot 20x the annual harvest area (387m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) for it to be sustainable.  In the above case that would mean a woodlot (20x387=) 7740m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; or 0.774Ha in size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have suggested, it's a good idea to mix up the species.  Not only do you end up with different burn characteristics, but if your woodlot is hit by a disease or invaded by insects, there's less chance that *all* of your trees will be wiped out at the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="1ed29259-71af-43a6-9445-36580d02a02b" CreationDate="2017-10-23T01:44:58.703" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I don't think the *number* of trees really matters.  A fixed amount of energy from the sun falls onto a certain **area** and plant life will emerge to cover all of that area and capture the energy.  If you plant fewer trees, each will get a bigger share of the energy and end up larger.  If you plant more trees they will each get a smaller share of the energy and end up smaller.  A *closed canopy is a closed canopy* and more trees will not result in more energy/photosynthesis/firewood (but probably will result in straighter trees).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as what **area** is needed to cover your needs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Primary productivity&quot; is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a **net** (i.e. useful) primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/year&#xD;&#xA; - ~16 kCal/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.2kWh/day) is spent on heating.  **To provide that energy would require**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.2/0.0186 = **387m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;** of deciduous temperate forest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the yearly heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only about 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course you wouldn't be logging the *same* 20x20m area each year, you'd be logging a *different* 20x20m area each year — that gives time for trees to (re-)grow in previously-logged areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local situation and plant (or allow existing trees to sucker) at least that area each and every year and you'll be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If your trees reach harvestable age in (say) 20 years, then you're harvesting on a 20-year rotation and would need a woodlot 20x the annual harvest area (387m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) for it to be sustainable.  In the above case that would mean a woodlot (20x387=) 7740m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; or 0.774Ha in size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have suggested, it's a good idea to mix up the species.  Not only do you end up with different burn characteristics, but if your woodlot is hit by a disease or invaded by insects, there's less chance that *all* of your trees will be wiped out at the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="e756faa5-c700-4d55-8967-c304da772ca3" CreationDate="2017-10-23T01:56:31.840" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body" Text="I don't think the *number* of trees really matters.  A fixed amount of energy from the sun falls onto a certain **area** and plant life will emerge to cover all of that area and capture the energy.  If you plant fewer trees, each will get a bigger share of the energy and end up larger.  If you plant more trees they will each get a smaller share of the energy and end up smaller.  A *closed canopy is a closed canopy* and more trees will not result in more energy/photosynthesis/firewood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as what **area** is needed to cover your needs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Primary productivity&quot; is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a **net** (i.e. useful) primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/year&#xD;&#xA; - ~16 kCal/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.2kWh/day) is spent on heating.  **To provide that energy would require**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.2/0.0186 = **387m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;** of deciduous temperate forest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the yearly heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only about 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course you wouldn't be logging the *same* 20x20m area each year, you'd be logging a *different* 20x20m area each year — that gives time for trees to (re-)grow in previously-logged areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local situation and plant (or allow existing trees to sucker) at least that area each and every year and you'll be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If your trees reach harvestable age in (say) 20 years, then you're logging on a 20-year rotation and would need a woodlot 20x the annual logged area (387m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) for it to be sustainable.  In the above case that would mean a woodlot (20x387=) 7740m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; or 0.774Ha in size.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have suggested, it's a good idea to mix up the species.  Not only do you end up with different burn characteristics, but if your woodlot is hit by a disease or invaded by insects, there's less chance that *all* of your trees will be wiped out at the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6232" RevisionGUID="c31d1731-cf4d-4299-9c5e-c7328f5f2b67" CreationDate="2017-10-23T02:01:47.117" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body" Text="I don't think the *number* of trees really matters.  A fixed amount of energy from the sun falls onto a certain **area** and plant life will emerge to cover all of that area and capture the energy.  If you plant fewer trees, each will get a bigger share of the energy and end up larger.  If you plant more trees they will each get a smaller share of the energy and end up smaller.  A *closed canopy is a closed canopy* and more trees will not result in more energy/photosynthesis/firewood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as what **area** is needed to cover your needs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Primary productivity&quot; is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a **net** (i.e. useful) primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/year&#xD;&#xA; - ~16 kCal/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.2kWh/day) is spent on heating.  **To provide that energy would require**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.2/0.0186 = **387m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;** of deciduous temperate forest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the yearly heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only about 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Of course you wouldn't be logging the *same* 20x20m area each year, you'd be logging a *different* 20x20m area each year — that gives time for trees to (re-)grow in previously-logged areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local situation and plant (or allow existing trees to sucker) at least that area each and every year and you'll be right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If your trees reach harvestable age in (say) 20 years, then you're logging on a 20-year rotation and would need a woodlot 20x the annual logged area (387m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) for it to be sustainable (i.e. a woodlot at least (20x387=) 7740m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (0.774Ha) in size).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have suggested, it's a good idea to mix up the species.  Not only do you end up with different burn characteristics, but if your woodlot is hit by a disease or invaded by insects, there's less chance that *all* of your trees will be wiped out at the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15646" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6197" RevisionGUID="498d937c-424a-4c52-a0db-eadc8bc43cd1" CreationDate="2017-10-23T02:13:46.447" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It's probably not the answer you want to hear, but **no sensible options exist** for running a RMH inside of a *tightly* sealed building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least, that's the case if you are talking about the stereotypical J-tube RMH that is all-the-rage on [permies.com](https://permies.com/f/260/rocket-mass-heaters) and other similar places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The frequent feeding required by a RMH means that if you plumb in an external air inlet, then every time you unseal the feed tube you will end up with smoke in the room.  With 'normal' wood heaters, you only feed them infrequently, and well into the coal phase, so negligible smoking occurs.  With a RMH you are always burning fresh wood and producing smoke at the bottom of the feed tube.  This battle can't be won without modifying the RMH.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are able and willing to experiment and mod the basic J-tube design, then you could run your external air inlet into the bottom or side of the feeder tube and install a butterfly valve in it.  Every time you wanted to feed the RMH you would have to simultaneously constrict flow in the external air pipe using the valve, whilst unsealing the top of the feeder tube.  Good luck with that.  It's time consuming and never quite works.  End result:  Smoke in the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In ideal circumstances (no high or low pressure zones outside, no wind) you could eventually get it dialled-in, but we don't live on a world where those sorts of conditions exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that tight sealing / heat recovery ventilators is a divergent path that embraces active and artificial systems.  You're basically **creating a house that needs an artificial lung for the rest of its existence** when you tightly seal a house.  That choice inevitably makes other solutions impractical or impossible to implement, because those solutions only work in moderately sealed thermal envelopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I designed my house recently I faced the same issues.  I have an infinite supply of free wood, and a limited capacity to generate electricity during winter.  I went with a wood heater / outdoor air combo and didn't push for tight sealing.  If I was in a colder climate and/or didn't have a really good passive solar design, then I would have gone RMH / indoor air instead of the wood heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I like trees, I like wood heat, I don't like the constant drone of HRVs, I don't have much in the way of surplus solar in winter to run pumps continuously, and I like the idea of a house that can breathe without mechanical assistance.  I didn't tightly seal the house, and I have no regrets about that choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you insist on tightly sealing your house, and insist on installing a RMH, then the simplest solution is to crack open a window whilst using the RMH.  Not really sensible, but it would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another approach, which *reduces* the smoking issue, but does not eliminate it, is with something like the design shown at: http://www.naturalhomes.org/permahome/rocket-mass-heater-basics.htm. Focus on the image.  See how they have added a manifold/hood over the feeder and inject external air through that?  The problem with that approach is that when wind blows against the side of the house with the external air inlet, it forces air into the room and a venturi effect kicks in when you open the hatch to add fuel... pulling smoke up the feeder and pushing it into the room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another (functional, but not very sensible) solution is to split your RMH between two rooms.  Have the feeder in a non-tightly-sealed room (e.g. a mud room) then have the burn chamber pass through a wall and have the rest of the RMH (riser and thermal mass) be located in an adjacent room.  This solves all of the pressure issues caused by a tight seal, but it makes operation of the RMH more complex.  Normally you place the feeder somewhere that is convenient and which you pass by frequently — so you can just glance in and top up as and when required.  If you put the feeder into another room you need to make dedicated trips into a different (and usually much colder) room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15649" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="b14cfb9d-4f0d-4719-ad6c-1fb8958d0db5" CreationDate="2017-10-23T17:15:06.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="d1fbfd59-07f3-404e-98c6-773d8d0d2eaa" CreationDate="2017-10-24T21:28:43.750" UserId="80" Text="As I ask myself the question and start thinking about it, I realise it might obvious that it *is* worth it. But I'd thought I'd ask anyway as someone might have a nice analysis to share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other day, I cleaned a [lightweight plastic bag](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_shopping_bag) (I don't usually do it, I put them in the bin when they are filthy) and thought it was a lot of water for a small single-use bag. It go me thinking: is the amount of water I used to clean that bag (I'd say about one litre) more than the water used for its manufacture and transport? Looking at both a recycled bag and one made from fossil raw materials would be great." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15652" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="d1fbfd59-07f3-404e-98c6-773d8d0d2eaa" CreationDate="2017-10-24T21:28:43.750" UserId="80" Text="Is it worth washing a plastic bag to reuse it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15653" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="d1fbfd59-07f3-404e-98c6-773d8d0d2eaa" CreationDate="2017-10-24T21:28:43.750" UserId="80" Text="|water|plastic|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6234" RevisionGUID="2b28b496-9f28-4f5f-9005-b770442cdcd9" CreationDate="2017-10-24T23:55:33.330" UserId="400" Text="Typical costs of water is 50 cents per 1000 gallons.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typical low flow kitchen tap is 2 gpm.  20 seconds of spray -- under 1 gallon. Fraction of a cent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More to the point is the value of your time.  My usual problem is drying them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our rule here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Breadbags come in, they get the crumbs shaken out and stored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2nd use is usually breaking up bulk food bought from Costco.  If it's a dry food, it goes into the stored bin again.  If it's used for something wet, (meat, fish) it's discarded.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ziplock get reused more agressively, but still are discarded after meat/fish use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6235" RevisionGUID="86304f79-1176-4c92-9cb4-2b847c40c9aa" CreationDate="2017-10-27T17:09:41.933" UserId="3379" Text="A [recent blog post](https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/06/iea-gets-hilariously-slammed-continuously-pessimistic-renewable-energy-forecasts/) lampooned the fact that the International Energy Agency has under-estimated the growth of solar energy in every single one of their predictions from 1994 to 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the electric vehicle world, in September 2017 Tesla sold more cars than Mitsubishi, Volvo, or Porsche (not including trucks/SUVs)([source](http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, while economics, policy, and regulation, have been important factors, something else less precise and harder to predict has driven adoption of these technologies beyond expectations -- *customer preference*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric vehicles and solar panels are visible and cool-looking. In the case of solar panels, even those who can't purchase their own (renters, for example) have made their preference known, resulting in higher rate of adoption by utilities, businesses, and municipalities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will this same factor drive adoption of stationary battery energy storage systems (BESS), which aren't visible or cool-looking? **Is consumer preference for BESS enough to drive adoption faster than what economics, policy, and regulation would predict?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rather than speculation, I'm interested in what the research/analysis/industry says about this.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15657" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6235" RevisionGUID="86304f79-1176-4c92-9cb4-2b847c40c9aa" CreationDate="2017-10-27T17:09:41.933" UserId="3379" Text="Will customer preference drive adoption of energy storage the same way as EVs and solar power?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15658" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6235" RevisionGUID="86304f79-1176-4c92-9cb4-2b847c40c9aa" CreationDate="2017-10-27T17:09:41.933" UserId="3379" Text="|energy|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6235" RevisionGUID="9e81d971-3486-4020-ac74-ce16b3f3546d" CreationDate="2017-10-27T18:35:36.887" UserId="3379" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="A [recent blog post](https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/06/iea-gets-hilariously-slammed-continuously-pessimistic-renewable-energy-forecasts/) lampooned the fact that the International Energy Agency has under-estimated the growth of solar energy in every single one of their predictions from 1994 to 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the electric vehicle world, in September 2017 Tesla sold more cars in the U.S. than Mitsubishi, Volvo, or Porsche (not including trucks/SUVs)([source](http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, while economics, policy, and regulation, have been important factors, something else less precise and harder to predict has driven adoption of these technologies beyond expectations -- *customer preference*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric vehicles and solar panels are visible and cool-looking. In the case of solar panels, even those who can't purchase their own (renters, for example) have made their preference known, resulting in higher rate of adoption by utilities, businesses, and municipalities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will this same factor drive adoption of stationary battery energy storage systems (BESS), which aren't visible or cool-looking? **Is consumer preference for BESS enough to drive adoption faster than what economics, policy, and regulation would predict?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Rather than speculation, I'm interested in what the research/analysis/industry says about this.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6236" RevisionGUID="a4a88281-e6c0-43df-ba4f-4067d070dc96" CreationDate="2017-10-28T08:22:19.007" UserId="48" Text="Customer preference has been crucial at the *start* of adoption. Early adopters are driven more by non-financial features than by price. However, those early adopters only take a market so far. At the moment, they are the people buying Teslas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they are not the main market for PV, and globally haven't been for a decade or so (they will still be in niche markets, but not in the global market) - there, adoption is price-driven. This started at scale in Germany with the feed-in tariffs, which were the economic incentive that drove take-up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's not to say there isn't a customer-preference angle there too, there always is; it's just that it forms a smaller and smaller share of the market as adoption grows. We do still see that customer preference in the UK domestic PV market, where [houses exhibit a sort of &quot;contagion&quot; - you've more likely to get PV on your house, if your neighbours already have it.](http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en9030210)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you say, there is less attractiveness in that, if the signal isn't public: an electric vehicle is a very visible signal of wealth, taste and virtue, as is PV. That's really not true of storage. **There will still be early adopters who purchase storage despite the economics, but there won't be the same social cachet, nor the same contagion effect.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worth noting that the IEA's prediction on solar didn't fail through lack of accounting for consumer preference. Their predictions were wrong mostly because they got the economics wrong, they did not grasp how effective policies would be, and they modelled linear growth, assuming the first derivative of growth would drop to zero, despite having been strongly positive for years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15661" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6235" RevisionGUID="0c0f2ebe-b668-42bb-ab2e-f8fe510c254e" CreationDate="2017-10-28T12:45:22.983" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/924255772577599490" />
  <row Id="15662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6237" RevisionGUID="146c50c2-d966-4570-85cf-a664ab615e66" CreationDate="2017-10-28T20:33:54.973" UserId="4988" Text="I had a recent argument with a coworker (we are both engineers) that the amount of pollution (trash+water+air) generated by a person increases with the person's income (we both agreed on that) but my coworker claimed that the fact that person lives in a big city or in a small town does not affect the amount of pollution, which I don't agree. However I agree that it is hard to estimate the average pollution generated by these two different lifestyles since in the in big cities people are more inclined to use public transportation, will have smaller residences which in turn will require less heating (we are in France, so assume Paris), but consume more disposable items and the foodstock have to be transported from more distant places. However people in big cities have higher income on average, thus they probably generate more pollution based on this, according to my coworker. Thus, for the same income which lifestyle is more environmentally sustainable? Are there studies on this subject?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15663" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6237" RevisionGUID="146c50c2-d966-4570-85cf-a664ab615e66" CreationDate="2017-10-28T20:33:54.973" UserId="4988" Text="For the exactly same income, does a person pollutes more when living in a big city or in a small town?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15664" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6237" RevisionGUID="146c50c2-d966-4570-85cf-a664ab615e66" CreationDate="2017-10-28T20:33:54.973" UserId="4988" Text="|pollution|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15666" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6237" RevisionGUID="26590e53-85be-4b3b-8b6d-38f44592c033" CreationDate="2017-10-29T09:45:55.243" UserId="4951" Comment="reformatted large block of text and made a few flow improvements, added lifestyle tag" Text="I had a recent argument with a coworker (we are both engineers) that the amount of pollution (trash+water+air) generated by a person increases with the person's income (we both agreed on that) but my coworker claimed that the fact that person lives in a big city or in a small town does not affect the amount of pollution, which I don't agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that it is hard to estimate the average pollution generated by these two different lifestyles. In big cities people are more inclined to use public transportation, will have smaller residences which in turn will require less heating (we are in France, so assume Paris), but they also consume more disposable items and the foodstock have to be transported from more distant places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand people in big cities have higher income on average, thus they probably generate more pollution based on this, according to my coworker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, for the same income which lifestyle is more environmentally sustainable? Are there studies on this subject?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15667" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6237" RevisionGUID="26590e53-85be-4b3b-8b6d-38f44592c033" CreationDate="2017-10-29T09:45:55.243" UserId="4951" Comment="reformatted large block of text and made a few flow improvements, added lifestyle tag" Text="|pollution|city-living|lifestyle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15668" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6237" RevisionGUID="26590e53-85be-4b3b-8b6d-38f44592c033" CreationDate="2017-10-29T09:45:55.243" Comment="Proposed by 4951 approved by 3379, 99 edit id of 500" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15669" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6237" RevisionGUID="f4238de3-3b5e-4599-bcad-1e6d06156f0d" CreationDate="2017-10-29T12:48:01.290" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/924618824439222272" />
  <row Id="15671" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="47c6f93c-9bdc-475f-bf0e-d460795b844f" CreationDate="2017-10-29T17:32:51.883" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="3ea38005-9a7c-493d-be86-9dada4d2a44b" CreationDate="2017-10-29T22:25:18.563" UserId="4992" Text="I am currently working on a device that requires omnidirectional to be directed downwards through a vertical tube. I think it would be a very similar design to a whirlybird, but the air would have to flow inwards rather than outwards. Could this be achieved by create several curved blades and arranging them in a 360 degree pattern, and then maybe having a second fan in the tube itself? Would one-way valves also be required to ensure that air is flowing into the tube?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15674" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="3ea38005-9a7c-493d-be86-9dada4d2a44b" CreationDate="2017-10-29T22:25:18.563" UserId="4992" Text="Is it possible to reverse the air flow of a roof turbine/whirlybird?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15675" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="3ea38005-9a7c-493d-be86-9dada4d2a44b" CreationDate="2017-10-29T22:25:18.563" UserId="4992" Text="|renewables|diy|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15676" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6240" RevisionGUID="0727a3b7-f62b-4a57-b298-912cfdd907be" CreationDate="2017-10-30T14:16:43.423" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/12564/for-the-exactly-same-income-does-a-person-pollute-more-when-living-in-a-big-cit" />
  <row Id="15677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6241" RevisionGUID="495a9db6-95a0-4d19-aba0-f823e6188cdb" CreationDate="2017-10-29T07:18:02.130" UserDisplayName="JeopardyTempest" Text="**Quick summary:**  &#xD;&#xA;The city and the country both have positives and negatives in pollution production... the data here suggests perhaps the urban core produces slightly less pollution (depending upon how you score follow-on effects)...  &#xD;&#xA;But both areas fall far far short of the exurbs, where people combine the negatives of both the city and the country for increased comfort and wealth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;hr&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can get a great look at the issue by looking at the US... particularly the [CoolClimate Maps][1] from UC-Berkeley.  Hopefully it's all the data detail you're hoping for and more... with not just a map, but a breakdown of the different contributions for local transportation, housing, food, goods, and services needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, looking at that, it appears the actual answer to your question is probably **it depends**, but there's a third party area that outweighs them both...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To take a greater look I selected Oklahoma since it shows a reasonably fair mix of some important features (and I have a large connection to the region).  But you'll see the same thing almost anywhere when comparing it to a map.  The image shows the overall carbon footprint per household:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Oklahoma Pollution][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the pollution level within the three largest cities themselves (which account for over 1/4 of the state's population just within those three city limits) is actually quite low.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise though, the very distant rural areas -- large distances from the big cities -- tend to also avoid the darkest oranges and reds primarily.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much of it indeed goes back to all of your hypotheses... yes, urban areas likely have to have food and such travel further to reach them.  But the rural folks also counteract that to varying degrees... by having to travel much greater distances for much smaller resource scales.  Whether it's visiting friends/family, having the mail delivered, seeking entertainment, following up medical needs, or many other things, it takes more gas.  This image (attributed to CoolClimate Berkeley, but found on Business Insider) shows the additional travel done when living out in the country:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Travel Distances][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, economics generally causes large bulks of resources to be moved in the most efficient way possible in urban areas, whereas often folks will travel many many miles for small objects that can be obtained more easily in cities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus resources like power and water require more pollution to transport over larger distances or generate locally than they do in the more streamlined bigger cities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In rural areas, there is some important variability in these maps.  &#xD;&#xA;I believe a lot of it comes back to a very central choice made in the calculation methodology: what part of rural pollution for travel and goods should actually be attributed to the urban areas?  &#xD;&#xA;Why do I say that?  Because it seems the yellower and oranger rural areas line up a great deal with the following map ([from the USDA Census of Agriculture][4]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It appears that greater agricultural production hurts regions.  Western Oklahoma (you can see the border on the far left side of my screenshot) is a big wheat area and shows up yellow, as does much of the corn belt nearer the Great Lakes on the larger map (on the website)... while the lighter areas in southeast Oklahoma grow much less... and if you look for greenest colors overall on the larger US map... much of the western half stands out like a &quot;green thumb&quot;... not-so-coincidentally where very little is grown in the deserts sand mountains.  (If you look carefully, you can probably pick out the [Central Valley of California][6] as a duller green overall, despite its high efficiency)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What causes the agricultural areas to show higher pollution?  Probably because they must run significant machinery through the year, and have greater transportation requirements to get in supplies and then deliver their harvest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the question then goes to: how much are the resource these agricultural areas using properly being broken down between the rural producers and the urban consumers?  In the end, I know not.  But it's certainly worth considering.  In the end, it might just as well be fair to consider the agricultural resource needs to be more of a [sunk cost][7], as someone must produce the food regardless... and to henceforth instead spread it around equally to all consumers rather than laying it to the fault of the agricultural regions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, though, the most troubled areas always appear to fall in the same locations: suburban communities.  See this map of Atlanta:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the left is the pollution image.  On the right is the loosely matched up city limits of all the larger-sized suburbs around the Atlanta area.  And the result again is that not only is downtown Atlanta (the star) not too bad... but even many of the nearby suburbs aren't too bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, near/beyond the black ring (which is about 25 miles), you hit the worst.  Atlanta has a lot of sprawl.  But I checked dozens of decent-sized cities all around the US, every one showed the same structure, with a greener inner-core, and then a redder area around the edge of the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People in such distant suburbs go there seeking to take advantage of the best mashup of the economic benefits of a big city yet with the cheaper costs and rural feel of living nearer the county.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, they end up merging up the greater consumption and larger food import distances of the big city with the greater required travel distances for wants and needs plus decreased efficiency.  And the combination ends up being the worst of both worlds, at least in terms of carbon dioxide production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/maps&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SVoOu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WM5Ol.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Farms/Land_in_Farms_and_Land_Use/07-M079.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vRPec.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_(California)&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qyApZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6240" RevisionGUID="62763ecc-0594-4ce4-9d64-b15c03c4fc80" CreationDate="2017-10-28T18:56:39.890" UserId="4988" Text="I had a recent argument with a coworker (we are both engineers) that the amount of pollution generated by a person increases with the person's income (we both agreed on that)... but my coworker claimed that the fact that person lives in a big city or in a small town does not affect the amount of pollution, which I don't agree with. However I do agree that it is hard to estimate the average pollution generated by these two different lifestyles since in the in big cities people are more inclined to use public transportation, will have smaller residences which in turn will require less heating (we are in France, so assume Paris), but consume more disposable items and the foodstock have to be transported from more distant places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However people in big cities have higher income on average, thus they probably generate more pollution based on this, according to my coworker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, for the same income, do both lifestyles, on average, generate the same amount of pollution or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15679" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6240" RevisionGUID="62763ecc-0594-4ce4-9d64-b15c03c4fc80" CreationDate="2017-10-28T18:56:39.890" UserId="4988" Text="For the exactly same income, does a person pollute more when living in a big city or in a small town?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15680" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6240" RevisionGUID="62763ecc-0594-4ce4-9d64-b15c03c4fc80" CreationDate="2017-10-28T18:56:39.890" UserId="4988" Text="|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15681" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6241" RevisionGUID="04b6c352-a854-410a-8e06-502878df13d5" CreationDate="2017-10-30T14:16:43.423" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/12564/for-the-exactly-same-income-does-a-person-pollute-more-when-living-in-a-big-cit/12569#12569" />
  <row Id="15683" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6237" RevisionGUID="eba301b5-0b24-43e5-a890-e0e468378d4b" CreationDate="2017-10-30T15:14:39.380" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6240],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15684" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6240" RevisionGUID="b9f80cd8-c2f5-4dd6-9bd9-87b23a684aad" CreationDate="2017-10-30T15:15:37.313" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|pollution|city-living|lifestyle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="8b1800ec-9725-4f6a-991b-a4d297054545" CreationDate="2017-10-30T15:16:35.247" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Added explanatory link" Text="I am currently working on a device that requires omnidirectional to be directed downwards through a vertical tube. I think it would be a very similar design to a [whirlybird](https://www.google.nl/search?q=whirlybird&amp;client=firefox-b&amp;dcr=0&amp;tbm=isch), but the air would have to flow inwards rather than outwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this be achieved by create several curved blades and arranging them in a 360 degree pattern, and then maybe having a second fan in the tube itself? Would one-way valves also be required to ensure that air is flowing into the tube?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15686" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="8b1800ec-9725-4f6a-991b-a4d297054545" CreationDate="2017-10-30T15:16:35.247" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 501" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="7d248734-b173-455b-bd7b-6cae337cfef7" CreationDate="2017-10-31T11:26:36.613" UserId="2734" Text="I am about to get my first pair of spectacles. From where I am, glass lenses need a frame. Fiber-plastic lenses can be frameless. It's well known Fiber lenses are much more durable and longlasting. However, between the two, which is more sustainable ? I am hoping to take good care of glass lenses so as not to break. I know glass doesn't decay and the glass industry may have people in hazardous environments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.s. Assume, &quot;not wearing spectacles&quot; or &quot;doing eye exercises&quot; are not good enough options. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15688" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="7d248734-b173-455b-bd7b-6cae337cfef7" CreationDate="2017-10-31T11:26:36.613" UserId="2734" Text="Which is more sustainable for eyewear/spectacles : Glass lenses or Fiber-plastic lenses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15689" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="7d248734-b173-455b-bd7b-6cae337cfef7" CreationDate="2017-10-31T11:26:36.613" UserId="2734" Text="|plastic|glass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6224" RevisionGUID="5f02ae81-7cbb-494e-a4f6-18bbc9a2b620" CreationDate="2017-10-31T13:47:13.000" UserId="400" Comment="added 375 characters in body" Text="Jean-Paul's answer is part of the story.  Charging rate influences the life of the battery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* High power rate batteries (car starters) maximize the plate surface.  They are designed to deliver a lot of current for a short period of time.  They can be charged faster too, but suffer on deep discharge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Deep discharge batteries supply less current for a much longer period of time, and tolerate being run down much further.  But they shouldn't be charged as fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way to charge a battery IMHO is with a smart trickle charger.  These typically cost about 30-50 bucks, and will charge at 2 A peak.  They also monitor the battery voltage, and will shut off when the voltage gets to a certain point, and restart after it drops a certain amount.  It can take several days to charge a flat battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best bet is to to the maker's web site, and see what they recommend for charging rates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you get to battery systems -- say off grid use for a house, then you use smarter charging systems.  Microprocessor controlled; a memory of the history of the charging, charge leveling to get the charge in each battery the same, voltage monitoring so that failing batteries can be spotted early.  Battery controllers have a significant cost relative to the batteries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6243" RevisionGUID="fde1d83a-57e1-422d-86c0-ad2996b11906" CreationDate="2017-10-31T15:24:01.097" UserId="1053" Text="My contribution to pollution comes from three main areas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - my travel, both the daily commute as well as shopping, visiting, and recreation&#xD;&#xA; - how I heat my house&#xD;&#xA; - stuff I buy and throw out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you truly want to hold everything else constant, the country-dweller will have far more travel (since everything is further apart.) It is my experience, however, that people don't move to the country and then commute one hour longer each day. They move there and work from home, for example, as I do. Most days I do not leave my house. About once a week I drive for an hour or two total for shopping or visiting. I also have two trips a month to the Big City for medical reasons, but I generally do those by public transit. So I will argue that the countryside self-selects for people who drive, and in general travel, **less** than the city-dwellers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here in Canada, country people are more likely to heat, at least partially, with wood, which is quite a polluting thing to do. Generally we can't get gas, so oil and electric are the main options. I think electric is the least polluting here, because much of it is either hydro or nuclear. Your country may vary on that. Since city people can get gas, they are more likely to pollute from their heating, though I expect the use of wood is a bigger factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally on the stuff front, country people can have a compost pile, they can pile their leaves and brush somewhere in the woods instead of burning them or expecting the municipality to collect them, and they often have to take large things to the dump themselves, which I  can tell you is a powerful motivator to keep things for longer. The country folks I know consume less. We also grow at least some of our own food. (I get my food straight from a farm, usually by riding my bike to pick up my &quot;share&quot; once a week. In the summer I can go far longer than a week between those trips to town to shop as a result.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think I personally pollute far less than most people, and at least some of that is because of where I live. Things that are easy for me to do are hard for city people to do. (For example I can take stuff out to the compost whenever I want instead of waiting for the weekly city pickup, and I don't have to use plastic bags for my compostable waste, I just take it out to the pile.) I am not sure your theoretical question can be answered in general, but I would tend to the &quot;less polluting&quot; side of things.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15692" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6240" RevisionGUID="f7af264f-5cc0-49ee-b05c-b395506d4cfb" CreationDate="2017-11-01T00:53:24.897" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/925526151963074560" />
  <row Id="15693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6244" RevisionGUID="1bffb0b7-4656-4fe5-beac-f3386bf7bbe9" CreationDate="2017-11-01T03:25:23.047" UserId="400" Text="There are a bunch of different materials called alum.  The most common, is potassium aluminum sulfate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;KAl(SO4)2 * 12 H2O&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The material is very soluble in hot water, and melts at 92.5 C (less than boiling point for water.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of it's general solubility, I don't know if the stones sold are pure alum.  You may want to add some form of filler that would reduce the water contacting the surface.  I would suggest trying talc powder. (baby powder), or cabosil (fumed silica).  Avoid organic fillers such as corn starch, husks, psyllium as they will likely mold or mildew.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Methods of prep:  Haven't done this.  This advice worth what you paid for it. &lt;grin&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a.  Barely cover the bottom of a pan with water, and get it hot.  Add alum crystal to it.  As they dissolve, keep adding more.  Continue until you have a temperature just under the melting point.  A cheap electronic thermometer may be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1b.  Put alum in the upper pot of a double boiler, and let it heat with a lid on it until it melts and is clear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Stir in filler compounds. How much?  Experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Pour into molds. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15694" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6245" RevisionGUID="7c0b79e7-2fcc-495f-8787-7dea98aea592" CreationDate="2017-11-01T03:37:56.107" UserId="400" Text="See Mark Shepperd's &quot;Restoration Agriculture&quot; for a good example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actual polyculture can be aggravating to run.  Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shepperd advocates rows of chestnuts, alternating with hazelnuts as the main trees, but also runs apples with grapes growing on the lower apple branches and raspberries in rows between the apple rows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elsewhere he advocates pigs for cleaning up the windfall apples.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Picking apples with the tree shoulder high in grape plants isn't asnwered.  Neither is keeping the pigs from trampling the raspberries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OTOH Shelterbelts every 200 feet across the prevailing winter wind makes a big differece in marginally dry country for dryland grain farming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general the management issues grow with, I suspect, the factorial of the number of species you work with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Running two crops -- an annual and a perennial works ok, particularly if one is finished before the other one needs attention.  (E.g. You can get your grain off the field before the chestnuts fall.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general I think it works better to do your multicropping in time rather than in space.  E.g. traditional mixed use agriculture, where you may have 2-3 different grain crops, a hay crop, a pasture, raising at least two different meat animals and doing intensive grazing.  This is still a handful, but you find yourself not needing to clone yourself during the busy times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="83732ce1-421f-4379-8dae-af7e0d88cc4d" CreationDate="2017-11-01T09:23:47.307" UserId="2914" Comment="kill thanks" Text="We don't have any electricity, so we're thinking of purchasing this [Koolatron cooler][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the drinks I put in it (refreshment cans, water bottles, etc) will be warm/room-temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will it make these things cold?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What else do you suggest?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/B00009PGNS" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15696" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="83732ce1-421f-4379-8dae-af7e0d88cc4d" CreationDate="2017-11-01T09:23:47.307" Comment="Proposed by 2914 approved by 99 edit id of 502" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6246" RevisionGUID="2be28277-de91-4b2b-92cf-4671dceba841" CreationDate="2017-11-01T12:36:52.727" UserId="4998" Text="i suggest reuse many times then recycle nth times or compost if not possible. btw, paper pulp are forever recycable.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5552" RevisionGUID="21c54f55-e895-4619-acfd-bb3993e2c450" CreationDate="2017-11-01T13:31:59.553" UserId="3837" Comment="improved formatting, added clarification" Text="One method of making a composting toilet is to connect the outlet of a regular flush toilet to a ~1 cubic meter flowbin (just a container with a sufficient inlet and outlet). And then you fill it 1/3 to half way with mulching material (woodchips work well) and a kilogram of earthworms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What will happen is the solids will get trapped in the flowbin by the mulch and get processed by the earthworms and the liquids will drain out. The liquids should then go into a greywater system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've been using this method for 2 years by ~3 people/day (sometimes 10-12 people over the course of a week) and haven't had to empty the flowbin yet. When it comes time to empty, we'll stop using it for a bit so that it can be fully processed by the worms. Or at least enough that it's not a horrible job. How long that is, is still to be determined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say only do this if you're somewhat familiar with using composting toilets already (a good one to start with would be a dry composting toilet). Also note that there is the potential to kill your earthworms by taking strong worm medicine internally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The performance of the system is brilliant. There is literally no smell unless you stick your head right inside the flowbin. And it functions just like a regular toilet that everyones used to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources - Personal experience and &quot;Solviva&quot; by Ana Edey (the design comes from this book)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5552" RevisionGUID="aab52751-1a11-42dd-82a6-44d2cb03c83f" CreationDate="2017-11-01T13:42:39.670" UserId="3837" Comment="more clarification" Text="One method of making a composting toilet is to connect the outlet of a regular flush toilet to a ~1 cubic meter flowbin (just a container with an inlet at the top and outlet at the lowest point). And then you fill it a third to half way with mulching material (woodchips work well) and a kilogram of earthworms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What will happen is the solids will get trapped in the flowbin by the mulch and get processed by the earthworms and the liquids will drain out. The liquids should then go into a greywater system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've been using this method for 2 years by ~3 people/day (sometimes 10-12 people over the course of a week) and haven't had to empty the flowbin yet. When it comes time to empty, we'll stop using it for a bit so that it can be fully processed by the worms. Or at least enough that it's not a horrible job. How long that is, is still to be determined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would say only do this if you're somewhat familiar with using composting toilets already (a good one to start with would be a dry composting toilet). Also note that there is the potential to kill your earthworms by taking strong worm medicine internally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The performance of the system is brilliant. There is literally no smell unless you stick your head right inside the flowbin. And it functions just like a regular toilet that everyones used to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources - Personal experience and &quot;Solviva&quot; by Ana Edey (the design comes from this book)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15700" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6242" RevisionGUID="de3566c5-21fe-4ba7-89a1-706356587db0" CreationDate="2017-11-02T03:56:05.103" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/925934510298009601" />
  <row Id="15701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="0a25344a-9da9-4057-88d3-09d65a84378a" CreationDate="2017-11-03T02:30:40.710" UserId="80" Comment="typos" Text="As I ask myself the question and start thinking about it, I realise it might be obvious that it *is* worth it. But I thought I'd ask anyway as someone might have a nice analysis to share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other day, I cleaned a [lightweight plastic bag](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_shopping_bag) (I don't usually do it, I put them in the bin when they are filthy) and thought it was a lot of water for a small single-use bag. It got me thinking: is the amount of water I used to clean that bag (I'd say about one litre) more than the water used for its manufacture and transport? Looking at both a recycled bag and one made from fossil raw materials would be great." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6248" RevisionGUID="961f32dd-1074-46f0-addf-5b360eb64119" CreationDate="2017-11-05T14:00:50.110" UserId="5008" Text="Lets say I have an existing solar power system.  If I want to add a wind turbine or I get more solar panels, is it as easy as just attaching the new sources of energy to my charge controller (in series or parallel) or is it more involved than this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to start with a small system, one panel.  But I want to be able to easily add more sources, like other panels or wind turbines.  I want to make sure that I make the correct choices now, before I buy any equipment, to allow for easy extensibility." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6248" RevisionGUID="961f32dd-1074-46f0-addf-5b360eb64119" CreationDate="2017-11-05T14:00:50.110" UserId="5008" Text="How to attach more sources of energy to your charge controller" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6248" RevisionGUID="961f32dd-1074-46f0-addf-5b360eb64119" CreationDate="2017-11-05T14:00:50.110" UserId="5008" Text="|solar-power|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15709" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6228" RevisionGUID="d8636c7b-2bd2-42ab-a83a-d77c44558e0e" CreationDate="2017-11-05T19:03:26.140" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/927250016120524800" />
  <row Id="15710" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6248" RevisionGUID="6d48bd67-6f47-4559-b743-73ed2c9bd5cc" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:08:40.317" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/927568422745100288" />
  <row Id="15711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6249" RevisionGUID="c7af793b-647c-43ad-8711-7e731e5ee497" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:17:09.537" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15712" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6249" RevisionGUID="c7af793b-647c-43ad-8711-7e731e5ee497" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:17:09.537" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6250" RevisionGUID="77039f40-19b9-4777-b431-d8283e1cbb67" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:17:09.537" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15714" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6250" RevisionGUID="77039f40-19b9-4777-b431-d8283e1cbb67" CreationDate="2017-11-06T16:17:09.537" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6250" RevisionGUID="c84bf518-fba1-428b-aa17-eb0dfdaa4e6e" CreationDate="2017-11-07T08:34:38.387" UserId="4099" Comment="added 247 characters in body" Text="This is a special tag that is designed to be used only by the system for questions that have had all of their other tags removed. Do not add this tag to existing questions, it is reserved for use by the system to identify posts with no valid tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15727" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6250" RevisionGUID="c84bf518-fba1-428b-aa17-eb0dfdaa4e6e" CreationDate="2017-11-07T08:34:38.387" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 99 edit id of 503" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6255" RevisionGUID="def3b0a5-7cf7-40e2-8efb-bda27abd4fa2" CreationDate="2017-11-07T12:45:25.360" UserId="4886" Text="If you have a single-string MPPT charge controller, then you should **not** even think of trying to combine your two generators (i.e. PV array and wind turbine) onto a single input and feeding that in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The voltage produced by most simple (i.e. cheap/beginner/entry-level/DIY) wind turbines varies with wind speed.  If you combine this in series with your PV array you could easily exceed the maximum input voltage of your charge controller and pop it.  If you combine it in parallel then the voltages will always be different and you'll end up with seriously reduced combined output (although no damage to your panels and not much risk of damage to your turbine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to improve this is to get a multi-string MPPT charge controller.  Feed in your PV array on one string and your wind turbine on the other string.  The two are isolated from (and hence would not interfere with) each other.  You would need to size the controller for the maximum possible voltage and current that either generator could possibly produce, or risk it going pop.  The output from each generator would get optimised independently before being fed into the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As good as a multi-string MPPT charge controller may be, you need to keep in mind that most of them are designed to accept the output from PV arrays.  One good thing about solar panels is that (once the batteries are full) the charge controller can simply stop accepting power from them and nothing will happen to the panels (they will not be damaged).  The same *cannot* be said about wind turbines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheap/beginner/entry-level/DIY turbines can't just turn themselves off when their output is no longer needed.  The power has to go *somewhere* or it can result in the turbine itself being damaged (by increased angular velocities).  Thus most turbine charge controllers have a shunt — an alternate circuit (e.g. a hot water heater) that surplus power can be diverted to (dumped into) when the batteries are full.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More expensive/smarter wind turbines have electronics that monitor the current flow and adjust blade angles (or perform other tricks) so as to reduce power generation when the energy is not needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although some hybrid solar/wind charge controllers do exist, there aren't many of them, they are more expensive, and they will not scale with your needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, you are better off keeping the two systems distinct.  Have a dedicated wind controller (with shunt) for your turbine, and a dedicated PV controller (with no shunt) for your array.  Feed them into different batteries/circuits/loads, and if one system fails at least you have the other one as a backup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you want to do is easy if you have $20-30,000 dollars to spend and never plan on upgrading.  It's much harder to do on a small budget, very difficult to scale in any meaningful way, and you really need to appreciate that wind power and solar power are two entirely different beasts that need to be handled and tamed in different ways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6255" RevisionGUID="76997c6d-ce0c-4157-9c3c-ebcfbf49ae72" CreationDate="2017-11-07T12:54:07.793" UserId="4886" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="If you have a single-string MPPT charge controller, then you should **not** even think of trying to combine your two generators (i.e. PV array and wind turbine) onto a single input and feeding that in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The voltage produced by most simple (i.e. cheap/beginner/entry-level/DIY) wind turbines varies with wind speed.  If you combine this in series with your PV array you could easily exceed the maximum input voltage of your charge controller and pop it.  If you combine it in parallel then the voltages will always be different and you'll end up with seriously reduced combined output (although no damage to your panels and not much risk of damage to your turbine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to improve this is to get a multi-string MPPT charge controller.  Feed in your PV array on one string and your wind turbine on the other string.  The two are isolated from (and hence would not interfere with) each other.  You would need to size the controller for the maximum possible voltage and current that either generator could possibly produce, or risk it going pop.  The output from each generator would get optimised independently before being fed into the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As good as a multi-string MPPT charge controller may be, you need to keep in mind that most of them are designed to accept the output from PV arrays.  One good thing about solar panels is that (once the batteries are full) the charge controller can simply stop accepting power from them and nothing will happen to the panels (they will not be damaged).  The same *cannot* be said about wind turbines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheap/beginner/entry-level/DIY turbines can't just turn themselves off when their output is no longer needed.  The power has to go *somewhere* or it can result in the turbine itself being damaged (by increased angular velocities).  Thus most turbine charge controllers have a shunt — an alternate circuit (e.g. a hot water heater) that surplus power can be diverted to (dumped into) when the batteries are full.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More expensive/smarter wind turbines have electronics that monitor the current flow and adjust blade angles (or perform other tricks) so as to reduce power generation when the energy is not needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although some hybrid solar/wind charge controllers do exist, there aren't many of them, they are more expensive, and they will not scale with your needs (unless you spend several thousand dollars and ridiculously over-spec your controller on Day 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, you are better off keeping the two systems distinct.  Have a dedicated wind controller (with shunt) for your turbine, and a dedicated PV controller (with no shunt) for your array.  Feed them into different batteries/circuits/loads, and if one system fails at least you have the other one as a backup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you want to do is easy if you have $20-30,000 dollars to spend and never plan on upgrading.  It's much harder to do on a small budget, very difficult to scale in any meaningful way, and you really need to appreciate that wind power and solar power are two entirely different beasts that need to be handled and tamed in different ways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6245" RevisionGUID="4e750c53-b701-47b2-b48d-7697e23a68ab" CreationDate="2017-11-07T16:29:20.770" UserId="400" Comment="Expanded." Text="See Mark Shepperd's &quot;Restoration Agriculture&quot; for a good example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actual polyculture can be aggravating to run.  Example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shepperd advocates rows of chestnuts, alternating with hazelnuts as the main trees, but also runs apples with grapes growing on the lower apple branches and raspberries in rows between the apple rows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elsewhere he advocates pigs for cleaning up the windfall apples.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Picking apples with the tree shoulder high in grape plants isn't asnwered.  Neither is keeping the pigs from trampling the raspberries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are using equipment then you have to deal with a lot of edges.  This is why shelterbelts have lost popularity:  It's difficult to cultivate next to the trees without damaging the roots.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mixing grazing and tree crops also have issues.  One of the ways to clear land here, is to graze it.  In wet weather, the weight of the cow on that sharp edged hoof breaks poplar roots, and breaks off brush stems.  If the grazing is light enough, the trees will recover, but it means running at about 1/4 of cows per acre compared to pasture.  You can get away from this by using portable fencing and fencing the shelterbelts, or groves of trees when the soil is soft, and permit grazing only in late summer (hard soils) or in winter (frozen soils)  But it becomes another management issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multiple grazing systems can work well:  E.g. Intensive grazing consists of putting too many animals on a patch, letting them eat everything, and moving them, giving the land lots of recovery time.  This forces the grazers to eat the weeds as well as the stuff they like.  You can extract more out of this by grazing with a succession of animals:  E.g.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cows with calves.  They get first pick of the best stuff to get growth/milk.&#xD;&#xA;* Cows without calves.  Second pick.&#xD;&#xA;* Sheep. Will eat things cows wont.&#xD;&#xA;* Turkeys or chickens. Will eat weed seeds, seeds in scat, bugs such as ticks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The timing for this is critical, and you have to balance what each group eats.  Doing this, and maintaining access for each group to water can also be a challenge.  Poultry and sheep have to be protected from coyotes.  Poultry have to be protected from foxes.  Smaller poultry have to be protected from birds of prey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OTOH Shelterbelts every 200 feet across the prevailing winter wind makes a big difference in marginally dry country for dryland grain farming. There is no reason this shelterbelt can't be a food crop.  It may require close mowing under the trees if the crop is one that falls out of trees (chestnuts, hazelnuts) or require significant pruning (conventional fruit)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some cover crop systems may work well.  E.g. planting a small annual legume with a corn crop may decrease the amount of nitrogen you need for the following crop, and also reduce the weeding, but you aren't harvesting the legume crop as such.  (Although if you process the corn stalks as cattle feed, having the legume mixed in would help.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are sequences of crops that can be used to deal with weedy land.  E.g. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cultivate in spring, killing most of the spring crop of weeds.&#xD;&#xA;* Plant buckwheat, which practically germinates as it falls into the dirt.&#xD;&#xA;* Plough under the buckwheat as soon as it finishes blooming, and plant annual peas.&#xD;&#xA;* Plough under hte peas when they finish blooming, and plant annual rye.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rye doesn't have time to set seed before winter.  In each case you are planting a cover crop that grows faster than the weeds, but not letting it go to seed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general the management issues grow with, I suspect, the factorial of the number of species you work with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Running two crops -- an annual and a perennial works ok, particularly if one is finished before the other one needs attention.  (E.g. You can get your grain off the field before the chestnuts fall.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general I think it works better to do your multicropping in time rather than in space.  E.g. traditional mixed use agriculture, where you may have 2-3 different grain crops, a hay crop, a pasture, raising at least two different meat animals and doing intensive grazing.  This is still a handful, but you find yourself not needing to clone yourself during the busy times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6256" RevisionGUID="d1e98a1b-8100-4e9a-8056-930df7e3ef23" CreationDate="2017-11-07T16:39:41.400" UserId="400" Text="Not really an answer, but an extended comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Power is dispatched on a very short time scale.  If I know that I'm likely to have lots of wind power at 3 p.m. today, I'll start to lower the feed rate to the coal fired boilers at 2 p.m. picking up the slack with gas turbines, shutting down the gas as the wind picks up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forecasts a few hours ahead are quite accurate.  (I routinely get rain forecasts that are accurate to within 15 minutes 6 hours ahead)  I don't think short term forecasts are much of a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long term, you are working with climate data.  Your non-renewables need to be able to cope with full renewable shutdown anyway, so any renewables you get just decrease your operating expenses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PV is more predictable.  You know the envelope -- no power at night. And even cloudy days produce reasonable amounts of power.  (Germany with it's gloomy skies still generates about 800 kWh/year/installed kW while Arizona doesn't quite make double that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6255" RevisionGUID="9c9d0724-e28a-41a5-a14f-8b591d4a6e1c" CreationDate="2017-11-08T08:11:37.630" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="If you have a single-string MPPT charge controller, then you should **not** even think of trying to combine your two generators (i.e. PV array and wind turbine) onto a single input and feeding that in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The voltage produced by most simple (i.e. cheap/beginner/entry-level/DIY) wind turbines varies with wind speed.  If you combine this in series with your PV array you could easily exceed the maximum input voltage of your charge controller and pop it.  If you combine it in parallel then the voltages will always be different and you'll end up with seriously reduced combined output (although no damage to your panels and not much risk of damage to your turbine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to improve this is to get a multi-string MPPT charge controller.  Feed in your PV array on one string and your wind turbine on the other string.  The two are isolated from (and hence would not interfere with) each other.  You would need to size the controller for the maximum possible voltage and current that either generator could possibly produce, or risk it going pop.  The output from each generator would get optimised independently before being fed into the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As good as a multi-string MPPT charge controller may be, you need to keep in mind that most of them are designed to accept the output from PV arrays.  One good thing about solar panels is that (once the batteries are full) the charge controller can simply stop accepting power from them and nothing will happen to the panels (they will not be damaged).  The same *cannot* be said about wind turbines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheap/beginner/entry-level/DIY turbines can't just turn themselves off when their output is no longer needed.  The power has to go *somewhere* or it can result in the turbine itself being damaged (by increased angular velocities).  Thus most turbine charge controllers have a shunt — an alternate circuit (e.g. a hot water heater) that surplus power can be diverted to (dumped into) when the batteries are full.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More expensive/smarter wind turbines have electronics that monitor the current flow and adjust blade angles (or perform other tricks) so as to reduce power generation when the energy is not needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although some hybrid solar/wind charge controllers do exist, there aren't many of them, they are more expensive, and they will not scale with your needs (unless you spend several thousand dollars and ridiculously over-spec your controller on Day 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, you are better off keeping the two systems distinct.  Have a dedicated wind controller (with shunt) for your turbine, and a dedicated PV controller (with no shunt) for your array.  Feed them into different batteries/circuits/loads, and if one system fails at least you have the other one as a backup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you want to do is easy if you have $20-30,000 to spend and never plan on upgrading.  It's much harder to do on a small budget, very difficult to scale in any meaningful way, and you really need to appreciate that wind power and solar power are two entirely different beasts that need to be handled and tamed in different ways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="99b6f756-b422-4914-b088-7a6bd39f6080" CreationDate="2017-11-08T11:51:03.053" UserId="5019" Text="It's known that bitcoin has a high carbon footprint [1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some have started to compare the environmental footprint of a bitcoin transaction and a standard visa transaction [2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the carbon footprint of traditional cash? Is cash the most sustainable money?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: [One Bitcoin Transaction Now Uses as Much Energy as Your House in a Week](https://motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/ywbbpm/bitcoin-mining-electricity-consumption-ethereum-energy-climate-change)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]: [A Single Bitcoin Transaction Takes Thousands of Times More Energy Than a Credit Card Swipe](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ypkp3y/bitcoin-is-still-unsustainable)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="99b6f756-b422-4914-b088-7a6bd39f6080" CreationDate="2017-11-08T11:51:03.053" UserId="5019" Text="What's the carbon environmental footprint of good old cash?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="99b6f756-b422-4914-b088-7a6bd39f6080" CreationDate="2017-11-08T11:51:03.053" UserId="5019" Text="|money|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6258" RevisionGUID="2a88e7f9-b06d-431a-9204-a4207cd0f7c6" CreationDate="2017-11-08T13:26:40.813" UserId="99" Text="**Summary**: storing music locally most likely uses a bit less energy than streaming music, but it depends on things like if you replay the same song multiple times and if the music streaming service caches data on your device for reuse. You also need to consider how much of the used energy is green and here there are big differences between music streaming services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to focus on energy use in my answer. You can listen to music with many different devices in different ways, but for simplicity let's focus on streaming music over the Internet versus buying and downloading an mp3 online. In this case you need to compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   - energy consumption of the servers of the music streaming service that is attributable to you (how much that is exactly is debatable)&#xD;&#xA;   - energy consumption of streaming the song data over the Internet&#xD;&#xA;   - energy consumption of the device that's storing the data temporarily and playing the song&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;versus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - energy consumption of the online store selling the mp3 that is attributable to you (again debatable how much that is)&#xD;&#xA;  - energy consumption of downloading the song&#xD;&#xA;  - energy consumption of the device that's storing the data permanently and playing the music.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;You can see that if you play a song only once then both situations are very much alike and the energy consumption is likely similar. However when you play the same song 10 times, then the buying and downloading of an mp3 still is done only once, so in this case the mp3 will use less energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This difference may not be much, as a streaming services like Spotify will cache data on your device, but suppose you replay a song a year later then your cache probably doesn't contain the song anymore and the entire song has to be re-transferred. When the song is still in the cache or you've downloaded it for off-line usage, playing the song will still result in a small amount of data being send to the service provider (to track usage information) but the energy consumption for this may be very small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's very difficult to come up with numbers to quantify the scenario above. This has to do with the many varying estimates for the energy consumption of downloading data on the Internet, but also with streaming music providers not making public how much energy their data centers actually consume. What we do know is that there are big differences between music providers in terms of renewable energy usage. Greenpeace investigates regularly how much clean energy big internet service providers use and publishes this in their yearly [Clicking Clean report](http://www.clickclean.org/international/en/). Here are the clean energy percentages from their 2017 report (category music):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - iTunes/Apple Music 83%&#xD;&#xA; - Spotify 56% &#xD;&#xA; - Google Play 56% &#xD;&#xA; - Amazon 17%&#xD;&#xA; - SoundCloud 17%&#xD;&#xA; - Melon 2%&#xD;&#xA; - Naver 2%&#xD;&#xA; - Genie 2%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a closer look at Spotify as the leading music streaming service. Spotify scores relatively well because it uses Google's servers and Google is committed to making the transition to 100% renewables, just like Apple is.  However the final score for Spotify from Greenpeace is a low 'D' because there is no indication whatsoever that Spotify cares about the environment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Greenpeace Clicking Clean statistics for music apps 2017][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Greenpeace Clicking Clean statistics for music apps 2017, [source](http://www.clickclean.org/international/en/)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BHoUq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6259" RevisionGUID="4260fd04-a865-478f-9d10-304921695936" CreationDate="2017-11-08T14:39:04.823" UserId="5020" Text="Are there any, if so what are, the existing procedures for the recycling of electric vehicle car batteries (in particular those used in the Volkswagen E-Golf, though general information is appreciated too). Thanks in advance.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6259" RevisionGUID="4260fd04-a865-478f-9d10-304921695936" CreationDate="2017-11-08T14:39:04.823" UserId="5020" Text="Recyclability of electric vehicle car batteries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6259" RevisionGUID="4260fd04-a865-478f-9d10-304921695936" CreationDate="2017-11-08T14:39:04.823" UserId="5020" Text="|batteries|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6259" RevisionGUID="05c78b9b-0afe-4f45-b8f7-d92df0cbd801" CreationDate="2017-11-08T23:00:25.297" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title/formatting, added tags" Text="Are there any existing procedures for the recycling of electric vehicle car batteries, and if so what are they? In particular I'm interested in those used in the Volkswagen E-Golf, though general information is appreciated too.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15741" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6259" RevisionGUID="05c78b9b-0afe-4f45-b8f7-d92df0cbd801" CreationDate="2017-11-08T23:00:25.297" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title/formatting, added tags" Text="To what extent (if any) are electric vehicle batteries recyclable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15742" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6259" RevisionGUID="05c78b9b-0afe-4f45-b8f7-d92df0cbd801" CreationDate="2017-11-08T23:00:25.297" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title/formatting, added tags" Text="|recycling|cars|batteries|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15743" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="77ef8e09-efdb-43e9-9724-863d21e79942" CreationDate="2017-11-09T00:42:13.447" UserId="15" Comment="Added carbon-footprint tag" Text="|carbon-footprint|money|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15745" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="f0609f48-b68b-4c9e-b444-bc808674e675" CreationDate="2017-11-09T04:04:22.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15746" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6257" RevisionGUID="ca56b75f-4b4f-4b81-bb10-7400d0f39e46" CreationDate="2017-11-09T04:10:14.513" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/928474787722223617" />
  <row Id="15747" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6259" RevisionGUID="04ca489d-7e29-4407-9dc4-99455a62bc8a" CreationDate="2017-11-09T13:12:45.190" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/928611315165343744" />
  <row Id="15748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6261" RevisionGUID="4e42ec36-99f1-42e6-84b0-15267540efc0" CreationDate="2017-11-11T22:38:17.027" UserId="5033" Text="Sugarcane and natural fiber are your best bets, but even they won't hold up to hot wet food over time.  You could consider corn-based plastic, but these are biodegradable rather than compostable; still that's better than styrofoam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also be able to find better prices on your heavy duty lined sugarcane or natural fiber containers if you buy very large quantities through a site like alibaba.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6262" RevisionGUID="0ab26f85-afb1-4118-b59e-8b43b2d2aef9" CreationDate="2017-11-11T23:16:38.067" UserId="80" Text="When buying chocolate or coffee, I like to make sure that I choose the better option for farmers and the environment, especially because it always comes from countries that don't fare as well economically in the global market. (I live in Australia.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those products, the three certification labels is see the most often are UTZ, Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if someone could explain how those three stack up environmentally and socially, and if they think one of them should be preferred over the others to have a more positive impact on sustainability in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15750" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6262" RevisionGUID="0ab26f85-afb1-4118-b59e-8b43b2d2aef9" CreationDate="2017-11-11T23:16:38.067" UserId="80" Text="How do UTZ, Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade certifications compare?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15751" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6262" RevisionGUID="0ab26f85-afb1-4118-b59e-8b43b2d2aef9" CreationDate="2017-11-11T23:16:38.067" UserId="80" Text="|coffee|utz|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15752" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6233" RevisionGUID="f59b976c-8ac1-436d-8727-a4af21002290" CreationDate="2017-11-12T04:15:34.533" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/929563294825926657" />
  <row Id="15753" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6262" RevisionGUID="e1c32050-1565-41eb-859c-fe45ca15b645" CreationDate="2017-11-12T19:18:52.600" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/929790616879411200" />
  <row Id="15758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2523" RevisionGUID="52054f7b-1b42-46b0-b6b5-e1e9531db620" CreationDate="2017-11-14T15:54:14.227" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed typos." Text="The [*mantra*][1] of ***Reduce - Reuse - Recycle*** is one of the most common in environmentalism/sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mantra and thus logo distills the essence of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reduce what you use, reuse what you can, recycle what you can't [reuse]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, your primary responsibility to the environment and to the generations to come is to minimise your use of the world's resources (*Reduce*). An example of this is turning off the lights in rooms you aren't using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where you cannot avoid using those resources in the first place, your secondary responsibility is to get maximum utility out of those resources (*Reuse*). For example, if you forget to take your reusable shopping bag to the supermarket and have to take a new bag, then reuse those shopping bags as bin liners. Reusing effectively reduces your need for replacements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, where you cannot maximise the utility of those resources yourself, you should facilitate others to maximise their utility (*Recycle*). For example, you may not be able to make further use of your old coke bottles, but if they are correctly recycled then the plastic can be melted down or shredded to form [new products][2] made of plastic. Recycling is effectively passing on items to other people for them to reuse and can prevent materials from ending up in landfills (just big holes in the ground).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three have an effect of sustainability, since all three aim to ultimately minimise the need for raw materials, however they are ordered because not everything which can be reused can be recycled, and not everything can be recycled, so it is better to *Reduce* than *Reuse* and it is better to *Reuse* than to *Recycle*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6264" RevisionGUID="69e5e2e3-9bcb-46e5-a659-7baafeb3a763" CreationDate="2017-11-15T08:22:51.820" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6264" RevisionGUID="69e5e2e3-9bcb-46e5-a659-7baafeb3a763" CreationDate="2017-11-15T08:22:51.820" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6265" RevisionGUID="367b58e8-c964-42ea-ab06-76f2731efd1d" CreationDate="2017-11-15T08:22:51.820" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6265" RevisionGUID="367b58e8-c964-42ea-ab06-76f2731efd1d" CreationDate="2017-11-15T08:22:51.820" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6265" RevisionGUID="df418fc7-4ba9-4c53-90d8-a67315722a7d" CreationDate="2017-11-15T09:08:06.897" UserId="3293" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="UTZ Certified is a label for sustainable farming " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15765" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6265" RevisionGUID="df418fc7-4ba9-4c53-90d8-a67315722a7d" CreationDate="2017-11-15T09:08:06.897" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 99 edit id of 506" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6264" RevisionGUID="03b98fba-9a08-4d25-ba49-dbaa4edca586" CreationDate="2017-11-15T09:09:21.447" UserId="3293" Comment="added 81 characters in body" Text="UTZ term comes from &quot;Utz Kapeh&quot; meaning &quot;Good Café&quot; in the Mayan language Quiché." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15767" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6264" RevisionGUID="03b98fba-9a08-4d25-ba49-dbaa4edca586" CreationDate="2017-11-15T09:09:21.447" Comment="Proposed by 3293 approved by 99 edit id of 505" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2523" RevisionGUID="5049e6a5-ecb2-46f9-aac4-f5fffee58480" CreationDate="2017-11-15T14:54:53.217" UserId="164" Comment="In British English, the term is &quot;Landfill&quot; and the spelling is &quot;distils&quot;." Text="The [*mantra*][1] of ***Reduce - Reuse - Recycle*** is one of the most common in environmentalism/sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mantra and thus logo distils the essence of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reduce what you use, reuse what you can, recycle what you can't [reuse]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, your primary responsibility to the environment and to the generations to come is to minimise your use of the world's resources (*Reduce*). An example of this is turning off the lights in rooms you aren't using.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where you cannot avoid using those resources in the first place, your secondary responsibility is to get maximum utility out of those resources (*Reuse*). For example, if you forget to take your reusable shopping bag to the supermarket and have to take a new bag, then reuse those shopping bags as bin liners. Reusing effectively reduces your need for replacements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, where you cannot maximise the utility of those resources yourself, you should facilitate others to maximise their utility (*Recycle*). For example, you may not be able to make further use of your old coke bottles, but if they are correctly recycled then the plastic can be melted down or shredded to form [new products][2] made of plastic. Recycling is effectively passing on items to other people for them to reuse and can prevent materials from ending up in landfill (really just a big hole in the ground).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three have an effect of sustainability, since all three aim to ultimately minimise the need for raw materials, however they are ordered because not everything which can be reused can be recycled, and not everything can be recycled, so it is better to *Reduce* than *Reuse* and it is better to *Reuse* than to *Recycle*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="01755977-11a0-4b63-8e41-093923f1148f" CreationDate="2017-11-16T10:23:15.577" UserId="1233" Text="I am considering the purchase of a retrofitted Ford Transit with a Diesel motor to have a more flexible option for travel and accomodation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I aspire to reduce my footprint (and increase my handprint) whilst aiming for this lifestyle change, i was wondering what strategies, both technical and behavioural, I could apply in this endeavour. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My background is not technical at all, so I have trouble understanding or imaging in what ways I could go about this goal with the van. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideas are a solar heater, LED lighting, solar panel or getting the car to be electric. Please comment on these (or own) ideas in terms of feasibility, impact and cost. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15771" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="01755977-11a0-4b63-8e41-093923f1148f" CreationDate="2017-11-16T10:23:15.577" UserId="1233" Text="Being a sustainable Digital Nomad in a Van - First Steps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15772" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="01755977-11a0-4b63-8e41-093923f1148f" CreationDate="2017-11-16T10:23:15.577" UserId="1233" Text="|energy|solar-thermal|lifestyle|vehicle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15773" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5354" RevisionGUID="b288c80c-2f2e-411b-9239-1710a5bf1ce4" CreationDate="2017-11-16T13:56:08.773" UserId="3500" Comment="Fixed grammar" Text="My question is in the header. It would seem to be a major environmental benefit if toilets used saltwater in stead of potable fresh water, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15774" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="a38d734e-c62c-497f-a766-e36b11ad2496" CreationDate="2017-11-16T15:45:43.013" UserId="3379" Comment="updated tags" Text="|energy|home|transport|vehicle|lifestyle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6267" RevisionGUID="36d0850a-43cc-48fe-aadc-4802ff824516" CreationDate="2017-11-17T03:28:02.260" UserId="400" Text="Two routes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: Your van has all your worldly possessions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B: In addition you have a place you can store stuff.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### A: Everything is in your van.   &#xD;&#xA; 1.  Consider removing the back doors and buiding a box that fits into this space.  The back panel folds down to make a table.  A propane tank and a gas stove is how you cook.  Or you have a rocket stove you can feet twigs. The rest of this compartment is a few pots, a few dishes, a jerry of water, and food.  We did this in an explorer (venturer) post I was in.  This was the kitchen.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Hot water.  If you are going to be parked a lot, then solar is the way to go.  Build it on the roof, and build it so that it can be tilted to match the sun.  If you are going to be driving consistently every day, then extend the van's cooling system and run a heat exchanger through a small water tank. Warning:  The hot water in the tank can be VERY hot.  Pressure test the tank to 300 psi.  An off the shelf tank will not do.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Cold water.  Jerry in the kitchen box.  Or a bladder on the roof, under the solar array.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Extra electricity.  PV on the roof.  This may be a better way to heat your water.  Electricity is more multipurpose than hot water, and is easier to store on this sort of scale.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Storage.  Go pretend to buy a yacht or sail boat.  Naval architects have the storage problem down to a science.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### B: You have a place somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. You can store extras.  This allow you to buy in bulk, take advantage of freebies.  It gives you a place to brew cider from windfall apples, make biodiesel from used fryer oil. A place to keep tools, and bits of stuff that might be useful sometime. &#xD;&#xA; 2. It gives you a place to park.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this sort of life is short term beneficial, you aren't building any capital.  Capital isn't always money.  Capital is land and the knowledge of how to make it feed you.  Capital is being in one place long enough to know the experts around you.  Capital is learning one thing well enough to be an expert for those same neighbours.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are young, single, and seeing the world, I applaud your venture.  But a time will come when you will need to set down roots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6268" RevisionGUID="b24a20b8-16a4-4920-84c8-d75bdbc99033" CreationDate="2017-11-17T03:42:59.397" UserId="400" Text="Li-Ion batteries are worth recycling just for the lithium in them.  This material can be re-refined, and made into new batteries.  In this use they should show similar cost savings to recycled vs new aluminum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the prospect of repurposing a worn battery for stationary use.  E.g. It stores 30 kWh in your car for 3 years, then stores 10 kWh in your house for the next 3-10 years.  One source I read proposed that the used battery market would help older EV's hold value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6267" RevisionGUID="5abd3a18-c152-4e5e-80d3-6205564379ce" CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:19:17.237" UserId="400" Comment="Added more cautions about engine hot water heat." Text="Two routes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: Your van has all your worldly possessions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B: In addition you have a place you can store stuff.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### A: Everything is in your van.   &#xD;&#xA; 1.  Consider removing the back doors and buiding a box that fits into this space.  The back panel folds down to make a table.  A propane tank and a gas stove is how you cook.  Or you have a rocket stove you can feet twigs. The rest of this compartment is a few pots, a few dishes, a jerry of water, and food.  We did this in an explorer (venturer) post I was in.  This was the kitchen.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Hot water.  If you are going to be parked a lot, then solar is the way to go.  Build it on the roof, and build it so that it can be tilted to match the sun.  If you are going to be driving consistently every day, then extend the van's cooling system and run a heat exchanger through a small water tank. Warning:  The hot water in the tank can be VERY hot.  Pressure test the tank to 300 psi.  An off the shelf tank will not do.  You will need a pressure release valve that vents outside the van.  You should also set it up with a temperature mixing valve to bring the water temperature down to something that isn't instant 3rd degree burn.  Some form of thermostat regulation is in order, but since this is also engine cooling, it requires two remote valves.  This starts getting tricky to do in a high reliable system way.  You need to add warning lights, guages...  Overheated water can occur with solar systems, but not as easily.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Cold water.  Jerry in the kitchen box.  Or a bladder on the roof, under the solar array.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Extra electricity.  PV on the roof.  This may be a better way to heat your water.  Electricity is more multipurpose than hot water, and is easier to store on this sort of scale.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Storage.  Go pretend to buy a yacht or sail boat.  Naval architects have the storage problem down to a science.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### B: You have a place somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. You can store extras.  This allow you to buy in bulk, take advantage of freebies.  It gives you a place to brew cider from windfall apples, make biodiesel from used fryer oil. A place to keep tools, and bits of stuff that might be useful sometime. &#xD;&#xA; 2. It gives you a place to park.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this sort of life is short term beneficial, you aren't building any capital.  Capital isn't always money.  Capital is land and the knowledge of how to make it feed you.  Capital is being in one place long enough to know the experts around you.  Capital is learning one thing well enough to be an expert for those same neighbours.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are young, single, and seeing the world, I applaud your venture.  But a time will come when you will need to set down roots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6267" RevisionGUID="0ab67b61-d67f-4637-bad0-46e0036b18ba" CreationDate="2017-11-17T19:48:41.720" UserId="400" Comment="Expansion" Text="Two routes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: Your van has all your worldly possessions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B: In addition you have a place you can store stuff.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### A: Everything is in your van.   &#xD;&#xA; 1.  Consider removing the back doors and buiding a box that fits into this space.  The back panel folds down to make a table.  A propane tank and a gas stove is how you cook.  Or you have a rocket stove you can feet twigs. The rest of this compartment is a few pots, a few dishes, a jerry of water, and food.  We did this in an explorer (venturer) post I was in.  This was the kitchen.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Hot water.  If you are going to be parked a lot, then solar is the way to go.  Build it on the roof, and build it so that it can be tilted to match the sun.  If you are going to be driving consistently every day, then extend the van's cooling system and run a heat exchanger through a small water tank. Warning:  The hot water in the tank can be VERY hot.  Pressure test the tank to 300 psi.  An off the shelf tank will not do.  You will need a pressure release valve that vents outside the van.  You should also set it up with a temperature mixing valve to bring the water temperature down to something that isn't instant 3rd degree burn.  Some form of thermostat regulation is in order, but since this is also engine cooling, it requires two remote valves.  This starts getting tricky to do in a high reliable system way.  You need to add warning lights, guages...  Overheated water can occur with solar systems, but not as easily. The more I think about this, the better I like PV to charge a battery and hot water on demand.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Cold water.  Jerry in the kitchen box.  Or a bladder on the roof, under the solar array.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Extra electricity.  PV on the roof.  This may be a better way to heat your water.  Electricity is more multipurpose than hot water, and is easier to store on this sort of scale.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Storage.  Go pretend to buy a yacht or sail boat.  Naval architects have the storage problem down to a science.  &#xD;&#xA; 6. Toilet.  There are various types of camping toilets out there.  I know that many white water rafting companies have to provide them at their lunch sites.  They are  reasonably leak tight.  &#xD;&#xA; 7. Clothes washing.  I have washed clothing in a bucket on canoe trips.  Less than satisfactory.  Periodic visits to laundromat.  Choose your wardrobe to be able to do everything together so that you don't need to run multiple loads.  You won't have space to store large quantities of clothing, so washing will have to happen fairly frequently.&#xD;&#xA; 8. Parking: Canadian Walmarts allow an RV to park on their lots with no charge.  RV parks are expensive, but often include ammenities like showers and bathrooms. You may be able to arrange to park an like minded owners of rural places and trade a small rental fee, or a few hours of chores a month for bathroom and fridge access.&#xD;&#xA; 9. Refrigeration.  Look into a 12v bar fridge (RV accessory places, camping and outdoor stores. &#xD;&#xA; 10. Sleeping:  Setting up some kind of platform bed is fairly easy. Set it at a height that can be used as a desk if you flip the mattress up. Space other than the knee hole can be drawers.  You may have an overhead shelf in this space too.  Again look to ship design to get dimensions.&#xD;&#xA; 11. Washing.  There is a lack of good ways to put a shower in a van.  Options: * YMCA/Gym membership * Some work locations provide shower facilities. * Some truckstops have pay for showers. * All pool facilities have showers, although often with cool water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### B: You have a place somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 12. You can store extras.  This allow you to buy in bulk, take advantage of freebies.  It gives you a place to brew cider from windfall apples, make biodiesel from used fryer oil. A place to keep tools, and bits of stuff that might be useful sometime. &#xD;&#xA; 7. Showers.  Cleaning with a wash cloth gets old fast.  There is no good way for a shower in a van, and getting sufficient hot water for an outdoor shower would be difficult. In a place to park, you can set up a black oildrum solar collector on a platform for decent showers.&#xD;&#xA; 2. It gives you a place to park.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on your life style, and how far you have to commute, it's not clear if this is a sustainbility win.  Other options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Instead use a car towable RV trailer.  This reduces the amount of fuel used to drag your turtle will all you own around.  2nd hand RV trailers are much cheaper than tiny homes, and often are a better starting point for DIY efforts.  But you have to have a place to park it.  This allows you a place where you can stand upright inside, cook without standing in the rain etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Get a canvas wall tent and live bush.  They can accept a wood stove.  We knew people as a child that lived in one for 2 years (with 2 babies) while they built their house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this sort of life is short term beneficial, you aren't building any capital.  Capital isn't always money.  Capital is also land and the knowledge of how to make it feed you.  Capital is being in one place long enough to know the experts around you.  Capital is learning one thing well enough to be an expert for those same neighbours.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are young, single, and seeing the world, I applaud your venture.  But a time will come when you will need to set down roots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6269" RevisionGUID="06ec355d-3c58-4b27-a390-0787253608aa" CreationDate="2017-11-20T23:12:30.343" UserId="5061" Text="I have recently wondered what I should be doing with my used kitchen oils having seen a news article about an enormous fatberg clogging the sewer in London.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously putting it down the sink really doesn't do anyone any good for the above reason. I've tried to look around online for answers and most articles suggest reusing it, taking it to a collection center, making soap or bird feed balls or just throwing it in the trash (in a container).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these feel like a real solution to me. Throwing it in the trash is obviously damaging for the environment, especially if you have put it in a plastic or other non-biodegradable container. I believe that after oils are taken to collection points, it is then processed into biodiesel which is also going to be bad for the environment in the long-run. Making bird feeds or soap is good and all but people don't have time for this and how much soap and bird feeds do you really need?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm wondering is whether there is a scientific way to actually break the oil down into something that isn't damaging so that it no longer poses any sort of environmental threat. I've tried to have a look around for any information/research/products related to this but have found very little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read that there are enzymes that can break down oils but would this be suitable in a residential environment? Perhaps not if it doesn't already exist as a solution? What would the reasons for this be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15780" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6269" RevisionGUID="06ec355d-3c58-4b27-a390-0787253608aa" CreationDate="2017-11-20T23:12:30.343" UserId="5061" Text="Breaking down cooking oils" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15781" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6269" RevisionGUID="06ec355d-3c58-4b27-a390-0787253608aa" CreationDate="2017-11-20T23:12:30.343" UserId="5061" Text="|recycling|reuse|oil|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15782" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6269" RevisionGUID="42d87ae4-64ed-477c-9952-33d88a3cff41" CreationDate="2017-11-21T02:54:27.063" UserId="15" Comment="updated title" Text="How to sustainably dispose of or break down used cooking oils?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15783" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6269" RevisionGUID="6bc1fa42-ea00-4912-b8d2-d96b59e5030a" CreationDate="2017-11-21T13:28:20.543" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/932963892279627777" />
  <row Id="15784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6270" RevisionGUID="e8a3092a-728a-424b-8291-db1b4db52aed" CreationDate="2017-11-21T13:28:51.717" UserId="4155" Text="While you have dismissed it in your question, I'd say that the best way to dispose of old oil is to convert it to Bio-Diesel and burn it - that reduces the amount of conventional Diesel that is dug from the ground, or made from virgin plant oil (which has the associated issues of using fertile ground for fuel instead of food).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oil-fuelled vehicles are going to be around for quite some time yet, so why not use a better fuel in the same vehicle in the interim?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="13cfa57d-3055-41ec-898a-418ab049cf12" CreationDate="2017-11-22T14:42:36.530" UserId="80" Text="I keep dreaming of a certification body that has stringent and ever-evolving standards for a sustainable agriculture that looks after the environment and humans, with a rigorous but open mind when it comes to technologies that could help us get to a more sustainable and ethical food production system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, GMOs are unjustifiably seen as an entirely evil thing by a big chunk of the population. I acknowledge the fact that some are associated with the use of potentially dangerous pesticides, and the fact that some companies that commercialise them demonstrate unethical practices. However, I understand that genetic engineering has the potential of helping humanity solve issues related to food security and the impact of agriculture on the environment by developing varieties that are more nutritious, grow more efficiently, require less resources, are drought resistant and defend themselves against pests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a label (i.e. a certification body) that integrates soundly developed and tested GMOs as a part of the solution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="13cfa57d-3055-41ec-898a-418ab049cf12" CreationDate="2017-11-22T14:42:36.530" UserId="80" Text="Is there a sustainable agriculture certification that sees GMOs as potentially beneficial?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="13cfa57d-3055-41ec-898a-418ab049cf12" CreationDate="2017-11-22T14:42:36.530" UserId="80" Text="|ecolabel|gmo|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6269" RevisionGUID="c90053a0-7083-459b-b89f-5213f7cbdce4" CreationDate="2017-11-22T15:31:44.963" UserId="5061" Comment="added 577 characters in body" Text="I have recently wondered what I should be doing with my used kitchen oils having seen a news article about an enormous fatberg clogging the sewer in London.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously putting it down the sink really doesn't do anyone any good for the above reason. I've tried to look around online for answers and most articles suggest reusing it, taking it to a collection center, making soap or bird feed balls or just throwing it in the trash (in a container).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of these feel like a real solution to me. Throwing it in the trash is obviously damaging for the environment, especially if you have put it in a plastic or other non-biodegradable container. Making bird feeds or soap is good and all but people don't have time for this and how much soap and bird feeds do you really need? I believe that after oils are taken to collection points, it is then processed into biodiesel which is also going to be bad for the environment in the long-run. Biodiesel produced from cooking oils does in fact produce 45-65% less greenhouse gas emissions than petrodiesel. This is great, don't get me wrong and I agree that this is probably the best option for now. It does however rely on you're local government providing this service or on you personally owning a diesel vehicle if you wanted to do some DIY production. In an age where electric cars seem to be the future, this really only seems like a stopgap solution as I envisage combustion engines will only decline in popularity as electric cars become more financially viable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm wondering is whether there is a scientific way to actually break the oil down into something that isn't damaging so that it no longer poses any sort of environmental threat. I've tried to have a look around for any information/research/products related to this but have found very little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read that there are enzymes that can break down oils but would this be suitable in a residential environment? Perhaps not if it doesn't already exist as a solution? What would the reasons for this be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="a01c1681-14a5-4217-a8f8-35b72edf2ebf" CreationDate="2017-11-22T15:59:24.060" UserId="4886" Text="Given that you can't &quot;soundly test&quot; the long-term effects of GMOs on humans without first *exposing humans to GMOs for a long time (decades, even generations)* I don't see how such a label would be of any use whatsoever to inform the purchasing decisions of the first few million/billion &lt;strike&gt;guinea pigs&lt;/strike&gt; &lt;strike&gt;informed volunteers&lt;/strike&gt; unwitting victims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that a few million/billion people might be seriously ill or dead by the time the &quot;sound testing&quot; for a particular GMO was completed, and the liability bill could financially ruin any corporation, I don't see why anyone would run the risk of creating or backing such a label.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if such &quot;sound testing&quot; did occur, do you seriously believe that *negative results* would be made public?  I don't.  I'd expect the shredders to be running hot whenever testing data made its way back to head office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Grass-fed Beef&quot; has been around for thousands of years, and has an established track-record of safety.  Monsanto's &quot;Moo-231987422/A&quot; has been around for a few months, and is made by perhaps the most evil company in the world — with a track record of making bad things that do bad stuff to animals, plants, and humans.  Most rational people — interested in self preservation — will opt for Grass-fed Beef on their plate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Profit-driven corporations are immoral or, at the very least, amoral.  Time and time again they have shown this to be true.  The public don't trust them because they have a track record of deception, lies, and generally not caring about their customers.  If the public can't trust the companies, they can't trust the products they make, either.  The 99% of corporations that are untrustworthy have ruined it for the 1% of corporations that are actually trying to do the right thing.  It's not the consumer's fault — it's corporate culture driven by greed that's at fault; it's capitalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any certification body ever comes into existence to perform the function you desire then I think you'll find it is funded by the very corporations that would profit from its labelling.  A mere puppet that can falsely promote customer confidence and be quickly liquidated when the class action lawsuits come rolling in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very heart of the problem, though, is the fact that you can't label a GMO as 'safe' without exposing people (and their unborn children) to unknown levels of harm first.  It's a Catch-22.  You need willing tests subjects to verify that something is safe, but those test subjects want to know that it is safe before they eat it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if it's even possible to solve that problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="b3a165dc-2526-4542-bfaa-f2e90ccb904e" CreationDate="2017-11-22T16:05:17.910" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="Given that you can't &quot;soundly test&quot; the long-term effects of GMOs on humans without first *exposing humans to GMOs for a long time (decades, even generations)* I don't see how such a label would be of any use whatsoever to inform the purchasing decisions of the first few million/billion &lt;strike&gt;willing volunteers&lt;/strike&gt; &lt;strike&gt;unwitting victims&lt;/strike&gt; guinea pigs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that a few million/billion people might be seriously ill or dead by the time the &quot;sound testing&quot; for a particular GMO was completed, and the liability bill could financially ruin any corporation, I don't see why anyone would run the risk of creating or backing such a label.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if such &quot;sound testing&quot; did occur, do you seriously believe that *negative results* would be made public?  I don't.  I'd expect the shredders to be running hot whenever testing data made its way back to head office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Grass-fed Beef&quot; has been around for thousands of years, and has an established track-record of safety.  Monsanto's &quot;Moo-231987422/A&quot; has been around for a few months, and is made by perhaps the most evil company in the world — with a track record of making nasty things that do bad stuff to animals, plants, and humans.  Most rational people — interested in self-preservation — will opt for Grass-fed Beef on their plate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Profit-driven corporations are immoral or, at the very least, amoral.  Time and time again they have shown this to be true.  The public don't trust them because they have a track record of deception, lies, and generally not caring about their customers.  If the public can't trust the companies, they can't trust the products they make, either.  The 99% of corporations that are untrustworthy have ruined it for the 1% of corporations that are actually trying to do the right thing.  It's not the consumer's fault — it's corporate culture driven by greed that's at fault; it's capitalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any certification body ever comes into existence to perform the function you desire then I think you'll find it is funded by the very corporations that would profit from its labelling.  A mere puppet that can falsely promote customer confidence and be quickly liquidated when the class action lawsuits come rolling in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very heart of the problem, though, is the fact that you can't label a GMO as 'safe' without exposing people (and their unborn children) to unknown levels of harm first.  It's a Catch-22.  You need willing tests subjects to verify that something is safe, but those test subjects want to know that it is safe before they eat it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if it's even possible to solve that problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15792" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="1450a19c-b950-431b-aa68-dd73560f787f" CreationDate="2017-11-22T18:06:43.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="ee431cb2-2bbc-4eb9-a413-1524f488ff99" CreationDate="2017-11-22T18:21:47.943" UserId="5067" Text="recently I've heard degrowth proponents often mention how they found the whole advertising industry problematic and the topic seems to be treated as if advertisements themself were the problem. I understand their point but think that advertising per se doesn't have to lead to growth or unsustainable behaviour. Is there any discussion about this topic on a systemic level in academic literature? Do you know about any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15794" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="ee431cb2-2bbc-4eb9-a413-1524f488ff99" CreationDate="2017-11-22T18:21:47.943" UserId="5067" Text="What are ideas to change the advertising system towards sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15795" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="ee431cb2-2bbc-4eb9-a413-1524f488ff99" CreationDate="2017-11-22T18:21:47.943" UserId="5067" Text="|alternatives|consumption|degrowth|academia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6274" RevisionGUID="3781f316-4927-4aa0-95dd-fccf5811d963" CreationDate="2017-11-22T19:57:43.920" UserId="5064" Text="You *can* compost the oil / grease if you have the room. It's just not as easy to do as most kitchen waste. Oil tends to make your compost pile anaerobic, so its gets smelly and can attract vermin. But if you have the space for a second (or more) composter / compost pile, and can control the vermin, it will work. Since the pile will likely be anaerobic, just expect it to take a couple years to break down. I, for example have one aerobic system breaking down my regular green and brown material every couple of months for the garden, then I have another &quot;digester&quot; for pet waste, and a third for the other hard to break down stuff and things that need more time, like oils, dairy, and diseased plants I don't want in the regular bin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="6b3ff983-833d-4c91-9984-da074356acda" CreationDate="2017-11-22T23:02:40.387" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed typo" Text="Recently I've heard degrowth proponents often mention how they found the whole advertising industry problematic and the topic seems to be treated as if advertisements themself were the problem. I understand their point but think that advertising per se doesn't have to lead to growth or unsustainable behaviour. Is there any discussion about this topic on a systemic level in academic literature? Do you know about any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6275" RevisionGUID="3a4b2df2-afba-4163-9160-a6477f695346" CreationDate="2017-11-23T02:57:55.880" UserId="5003" Text="We S Pacific. Use this way. Before our holding tank. We have a grease pit. The oil floats to the top there. Or most. Before going to the holding tank. Once a year we have both removed. The grease pit is opened. It stinks! The grease removed bagged. Took to the candle factory for use.  The pit or holding tank pumped out for use on the rice fields. This presents some other problems. As food is raised in human manure. We  don't eat salads but steam vegetables. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6276" RevisionGUID="39168202-ae83-46c7-9be0-9da35da3d340" CreationDate="2017-11-23T03:59:58.507" UserId="5003" Text="It should read. Increase. In this way you have spent more in your local store. Helped the economy, increased jobs. Reuse what you can. This saves you money. Once used up put in the trash. Not yours to recycle. Once at the dump the dump pickers will remove all that can be recycled. This helps the poor. Keeps landfills from filling. Gives them some money to spend. This is under trickle down economics as the way to go. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6272" RevisionGUID="c6bd4140-62ae-473d-8819-007b61d30b00" CreationDate="2017-11-23T17:32:35.507" UserId="4886" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="Given that you can't &quot;soundly test&quot; the long-term effects of GMOs on humans without first *exposing humans to GMOs for a long time (decades, even generations)* I don't see how such a label would be of any use whatsoever to inform the purchasing decisions of the first few million/billion &lt;strike&gt;willing volunteers&lt;/strike&gt; &lt;strike&gt;unwitting victims&lt;/strike&gt; guinea pigs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that a few million/billion people might be seriously ill or dead by the time the &quot;sound testing&quot; for a particular GMO was completed, and the liability bill could financially ruin any corporation, I don't see why anyone would run the risk of creating or backing such a label.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if such &quot;sound testing&quot; did occur, do you seriously believe that *negative results* would be made public?  I don't.  I'd expect the shredders to be running hot whenever testing data made its way back to head office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Grass-fed Beef&quot; has been around for thousands of years, and has an established track-record of safety.  Monsanto's &quot;Moo-231987422/A&quot; has been around for a few months, and is made by perhaps the most evil company in the world — with a track record of making nasty things that do bad stuff to animals, plants, and humans.  Most rational people — interested in self-preservation — will opt for Grass-fed Beef on their plate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Profit-driven corporations are immoral or, at the very least, amoral.  Time and time again they have shown this to be true.  The public don't trust them because they have a track record of deception, lies, and generally not caring about their customers.  If the public can't trust the companies, they can't trust the products they make, either.  The 99% of corporations that are untrustworthy have ruined it for the 1% of corporations that are actually trying to do the right thing.  It's not the consumer's fault — it's corporate culture driven by greed that's at fault; it's capitalism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If any certification body ever comes into existence to perform the function you desire then I think you'll find it is funded by the very corporations that would profit from its labelling.  A mere puppet that can falsely promote customer confidence and be quickly liquidated when the class action lawsuits come rolling in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very heart of the problem, though, is the fact that you can't label a GMO as 'safe' without exposing people (and their unborn children) to unknown levels of harm first.  It's a Catch-22.  You need willing tests subjects to verify that something is safe, but those test subjects want to know that it is safe before they're willing to eat it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if it's even possible to solve that problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15801" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="d9191ba1-d7f2-4c07-be31-944bd819bb63" CreationDate="2017-11-24T04:39:10.880" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/933917887315791872" />
  <row Id="15805" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6273" RevisionGUID="7c682392-2ab7-4386-9149-4b2b1f2ba352" CreationDate="2017-11-25T07:42:57.730" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/934326526467862528" />
  <row Id="15807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="d95fa068-d67a-433f-b6d1-37b2f9dedc03" CreationDate="2017-11-25T22:50:22.143" UserId="5073" Text="When I first moved to my property, I started a gaggle of Turkey's and for about 2 years regularly fed them in the morning. It was nice because my kids got to see them and around the holiday season I was able to have a nice meal for my family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have since vanished, my guess would be neighbors also hunting them, natural predators, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to do is encourage the Turkey's that roam on the other side of the river to stop by regularly. I have thrown corn on my side of the river with no luck. I imagine Turkey's might not like to cross rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good method to get the Turkey's onto my land? I have considered building a bridge, but I would prefer not to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There isn't a tag for Turkey's so if a person with a high enough rep could add it, it would be appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15808" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="d95fa068-d67a-433f-b6d1-37b2f9dedc03" CreationDate="2017-11-25T22:50:22.143" UserId="5073" Text="How to encourage Turkey's onto my land without encouraging other wild life?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15809" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="d95fa068-d67a-433f-b6d1-37b2f9dedc03" CreationDate="2017-11-25T22:50:22.143" UserId="5073" Text="|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="42e3d4a6-5930-4fd2-bf01-73624a210cff" CreationDate="2017-11-26T20:47:16.597" UserId="1210" Text="(A question with looking for answers from a UK perspective, preferably) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any pointers to, or have the knowledge to answer, the question of the larger-scale environmental arguments weighing the balance between the classic home delivery by milkmen of milk in glass bottles, vs. the purchase of milk in supermarkets in plastic bottles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise there are multiple issues here in terms of weight of packaging, re-use/recyclability, fuel/CO2 costs, deterioration of plastic in recycling and the impact of plastic waste in oceans etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="42e3d4a6-5930-4fd2-bf01-73624a210cff" CreationDate="2017-11-26T20:47:16.597" UserId="1210" Text="Relative merits of 'milkman' glass vs. 'supermarket' plastic milk bottles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="42e3d4a6-5930-4fd2-bf01-73624a210cff" CreationDate="2017-11-26T20:47:16.597" UserId="1210" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15813" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="ccd266ae-1e10-4e83-aeb9-2010a42a0866" CreationDate="2017-11-26T21:15:27.080" UserId="15" Comment="A" Text="|environmental-impact|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15814" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="93c4c703-2321-41fb-9fe5-cfafe56258cb" CreationDate="2017-11-27T07:49:31.210" UserId="15" Comment="Updated tags" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="0778af5f-3358-4d5a-a1fb-8ade010331ef" CreationDate="2017-11-27T16:10:09.073" UserId="5073" Comment="deleted 111 characters in body" Text="When I first moved to my property, I started a gaggle of Turkey's and for about 2 years regularly fed them in the morning. It was nice because my kids got to see them and around the holiday season I was able to have a nice meal for my family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have since vanished, my guess would be neighbors also hunting them, natural predators, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to do is encourage the Turkey's that roam on the other side of the river to stop by regularly. I have thrown corn on my side of the river with no luck. I imagine Turkey's might not like to cross rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good method to get the Turkey's onto my land? I have considered building a bridge, but I would prefer not to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6280" RevisionGUID="7c1891c1-7dab-4ce3-867d-b1c9cf7f1b94" CreationDate="2017-11-27T16:27:01.833" UserId="400" Text="The two options are not exclusive.  We have supermarkets in Vancouver that sell milk in glass bottles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tradeoffs:&#xD;&#xA;Glass is cheaper if you have the infra-structure in place.&#xD;&#xA;* You have the crates to move filled bottles around&#xD;&#xA;* Trucks move between dairy and store, with no holding point between.&#xD;&#xA;* The diary has the automatic washing equipment.&#xD;&#xA;* The transport distance isn't huge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disposable containers make more sense:&#xD;&#xA;* Haulage distances are large (takes less room)&#xD;&#xA;* Not a direct connection between the bottling plant and the store&#xD;&#xA;* Disposing of used containers in landfill is cheap, or there is an efficient recycling program in effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can get the industry to standardize on a single bottle of each size, then glass gets points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting this established is difficult.  You need a dairy that is large enough to supply a reasonable chain of stores to get the volume you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, plastic milk containers run about 30 cents more (~10%) than cardboard. Not sure why people still buy plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Alberta for decades we had a standard size 12 oz beer bottle, called the 'stubby' Every brewery used it, and on the average a bottle made 6 round trips before being lost or broken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They stopped making this a requirement, and there are now many different beer bottles -- too many to sort effectively.  Bottles are broken for cullet and made into new bottles, a process only slighly cheaper than starting from sand and lime." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6281" RevisionGUID="fd16f4f1-ce4a-4259-bfce-aab62191b0ab" CreationDate="2017-11-27T16:31:12.847" UserId="400" Text="I suspect your best bet is to start another gaggle.  Wild turkeys are capable of flight, but aren't built for long distance flying.   Much depends on the width of the river.  If it's only a few feet, I would expect them to cross.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Work on habitat for them.  Put out patches of corn on your side of the river.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make sure there are trees where they can roost at night.  Talk to your local wildlife people and find out what shrubs and trees will make it a better place for turkeys.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6282" RevisionGUID="2ce9de79-423a-4a06-83dd-a9bf89404474" CreationDate="2017-11-27T16:42:59.263" UserId="400" Text="Steps that would make a difference:&#xD;&#xA;### Regulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: A truth in advertising policy.  Go after them hard for deceptive practices, especially 'life style' ads.  (The attractive young lady does NOT come with the red convertible.) Hold them to the exact literal truth of anything said on public media.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B: Tax advertising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C: Go back to regulating media.  When I was a kid, FM stations were limited to 4 minutes of advertising per hour, and TV prime time was limited to I think 6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Education&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modify the school curriculum as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Teach formal logic.  (All men are mortal; I am a man; therefore I am mortal...)&#xD;&#xA;* Teach logical fallacies. &#xD;&#xA;* Include &quot;How to lie with graphs and stats&quot; as part of the math curriculum.&#xD;&#xA;* Include discussion of highly emotive words, and connotative differences as part of language arts.&#xD;&#xA;* Teach a course in advertising and propaganda.&#xD;&#xA;* Teach the asking of questions: &quot;Who benefits from this stance?  Who paid for this research?  Where did the money come from, where did it go?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea here is that if kids learn from the time they enter junior high how the media is attempting to manipulate them, they will have higher resistance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="2c46c056-5cc0-44e7-ab44-e4c374c07a71" CreationDate="2017-11-27T16:46:58.777" UserId="3379" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="When I first moved to my property, I started a gaggle of turkeys and for about 2 years regularly fed them in the morning. It was nice because my kids got to see them and around the holiday season I was able to have a nice meal for my family.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have since vanished, my guess would be neighbors also hunting them, natural predators, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to do is encourage the turkeys that roam on the other side of the river to stop by regularly. I have thrown corn on my side of the river with no luck. I imagine turkeys might not like to cross rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good method to get the turkeys onto my land? I have considered building a bridge, but I would prefer not to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15820" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="2c46c056-5cc0-44e7-ab44-e4c374c07a71" CreationDate="2017-11-27T16:46:58.777" UserId="3379" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="How to encourage turkeys onto my land without encouraging other wild life?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6283" RevisionGUID="b9c6109c-5a2e-472e-8fc6-fdb47faf9b7e" CreationDate="2017-11-27T16:52:27.270" UserId="400" Text="A: Reexamine your life style.  How are you producing this fat?  Can you produce less?  Looking at our life, we probably produce about 4-5 tin cans of fat a year.  When the can is full, it goes in the food garbage if it didn't get sidetracked to the dog dishes.  (We have 3 garbage streams -- anything with food; recyclables -- paper, plastic, metal all meeting certain standards; dry goods -- dirty cardboard, construction waste, lawn waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B:  Another use for small amounts of fats is to add it to your pet's food.  We have 3 border collies and they quite like any flavourings we add to the kibble.  In this sense the tin can becomes a holding spot so they don't get too much at once. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C:  If it's liquid fat, you can mix it about 1:20 with dirt or kitty-litter and put onto the compost heap.  You can do this with solid fat too if you melt it first.  Chunks of fat are more likely to attract mice and rates.  Bacteria will eat it over the course of a year.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6284" RevisionGUID="38476abf-9df3-47de-9d55-f6e8eaaf3dab" CreationDate="2017-11-27T17:04:28.403" UserId="400" Text="Very low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While a dollar bill costs money to make, it will be used in hundreds of transactions before being retired as worn out. And a 20 dollar bill costs about the same as a one dollar bill to make. (The Fed's website says 5 to 20 cents for a paper bill.  The $50 is the most expensive to produce.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coins often cost more to make than their face value (especially true for small value coins)  but a coin will be used for thousands of transactions.  The penny costs 1.6 c to make, the nickle 8.5 c, according to an article in the washingtoon post.  The others cost less to make than their face value." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15823" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="d4ea7219-5fae-4b8c-8b5f-2b4900734354" CreationDate="2017-11-27T19:47:27.900" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/935233628858208258" />
  <row Id="15824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6284" RevisionGUID="e3426098-33c9-4178-a03a-052b79364655" CreationDate="2017-11-28T16:32:59.110" UserId="400" Comment="Added links." Text="Very low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While a dollar bill costs money to make, it will be used in hundreds of transactions before being retired as worn out. And a 20 dollar bill costs about the same as a one dollar bill to make. (The Fed's website says 5 to 20 cents for a paper bill.  The $50 is the most expensive to produce.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference:  https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12771.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bills last 5-20 years, with higher denominations lasting much longer, as they are often used to 'store' value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure that a bill on the average is taken out of a bank machine, and likely spent within two weeks.  The shop keeper deposits it.  So there is two trans actions.  Buyer to shop keeper, shopkeeper to bank.  If it's a smaller bill, it has about a 50% chance of being used for making change, I'm guessing.  So call it 5 transactions per month.  5 years then means a bill is used in about 300 transactions.  This is a sloppy estimate.  Could be as low as 100.  Might be as much as a thousand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coins often cost more to make than their face value (especially true for small value coins)  but a coin will be used for thousands of transactions.  The penny costs 1.6 c to make, the nickle 8.5 c, according to an article in the washingtoon post.  The others cost less to make than their face value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/15/it-cost-1-7-cents-to-make-a-penny-this-year-and-8-cents-to-make-a-nickel/?utm_term=.5fb440d6c1c2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the Royal Mint, british coins have an average life span of 40 years.  No details about how they got this figure.  http://www.royalmint.com/help/help/life-expectancy-of-a-coin&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6285" RevisionGUID="cc66e813-1e5c-4dc1-9098-c71ba0bec134" CreationDate="2017-11-28T18:24:38.230" UserId="3379" Text="The issue is not advertising per se, but what drives it. In a capitalist system, businesses pursue higher revenues and lower costs in order to maximize profits. Advertising is a part of this system which businesses use to entice customers to spend as much money as possible, thereby increasing revenue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To change advertising so that it doesn't lead to unsustainable growth the motivation behind advertising must be changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One proposal to do just that is the **[Triple Bottom Line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line)**. The idea of the triple bottom line proposes expanding the single bottom line of *profit*, adding a bottom line for *people* and the *planet*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;People, the social equity bottom line:&quot;** a business must measure impact to employees (fair wages, safe work environment, etc) and the citizens of the community where it operates, or where its products are produced and used.&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;Planet, the environmental bottom line:&quot;** a business must measure and reduce environmental impact, minimize consumption of non-renewable resources, and design its products and goods to be reusable or recyclable.&#xD;&#xA; - **&quot;Profit, the economic bottom line:&quot;** in addition to the standard definition of profit, a business must also measure and seek to increase the economic benefit it brings to all stake-holders, not just simply the share-holders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The challenge of implementing a triple bottom line system is that the real motivation for pursuing these objectives needs to be translated into something that can be measured and maximized objectively -- such as the role money serves for understanding profit. Their explanation goes beyond the scope of this question, but systems to implement the other two bottom lines include health and safety codes, emissions cap and trade schemes, and corporate social responsibility requirements, among others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under a triple bottom line system, businesses would use advertising not only to increase their profit bottom line, but also their people and planet bottom lines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15826" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="6c54c837-fc53-4049-a653-8d5a4b92e70a" CreationDate="2017-11-28T18:26:09.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6286" RevisionGUID="8de3515e-3179-435b-8a43-9dcb6d8cea86" CreationDate="2017-11-28T23:15:35.207" UserId="400" Text="Much depends on the local hierarchy of settlement.  Canada tends to have smaller numbers of larger cities.  There are relatively few cities in the 50-100K class.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At present I live on a farm. (I grow landscape trees)&#xD;&#xA; * It's 6 miles to the nearest village.  This is where I pickup parcels, and sometimes milk. It's also where I can take my lawnmower to be fixed, and buy an oil filter for my tractor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * It's 15 miles to the nearest hardware/lumber store. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * It's 35 miles to the nearest town that has two grocery stores.  This is also the distance to the nearest movie theatre.  This is also my opthamalogist (I have glaucoma -- frequent eye checkups.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * It's 50 miles to the nearest large city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our gasoline bill is lower now than when we lived in the city.  We make fewer trips and more of the mileage is at highway speed. We work hard to combine multiple errands into a single trip.  Still we are putting about 20,000 miles a year on our vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our natural gas bill is about the same year round.  We heat mostly with wood.  NG heats hot water, and one bathroom.  I have 15 acres that I manage as a woodlot.  This is not possible in the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We tend to almost all of our grocery shopping on one day a month.  One of the big city chains gives 15% off on the first Tuesday of the month.  We run two freezers, but they are outside on the porch, and don't run very often in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A side effect of this is that we eat proportionally more frozen veg than fresh veg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We own a lot of steel:  Two cars, a pickup truck, one 3 ton tractor, 1 3/4 ton tractor, two trailers, a few tons of implements.  In addition to the IC engines on the tractors, we have two riding lawnmowers, a push mower, an auger, a soil mixer, a generator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;We have one set of friends in Nordegg, AB.  For them Nordegg is their Warburg, Rocky Mountain House is 120 km away, is a town of about 5000.  Another 120 km will get them to Red Deer which is about 80K people -- one of the few midsize towns.  Or they can do 180 instead and get into Edmonton.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in the eastern part of the province, the small towns 500 to 2K are still fairly common, but you may drive for 2 hours to get to a town that has multiple grocery stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We  have other friends who run a B&amp;B in Vancouver.  They have 5 grocery stores within a 6 block radius.  Prices tend to be about 40% higher than here, mostly due to much higher land prices.  But they don't have to pay for vehicle usage to go grocery shopping.  Because they have to carry or cart the grocs uphill, they tend to buy only enough for a few days.  This is much more common in Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Overall I would say I have a much larger carbon footprint than my vancouver friends, but not as large as the more rural parts of the province.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6287" RevisionGUID="a084cf0a-5d28-4f2f-8951-3040b338826f" CreationDate="2017-11-28T23:28:10.303" UserId="5003" Text="The most sustainable method I have seen.  Was in S.America. Were you went to the store with your container. Bought your milk from there 15 gallon carton. You then took it home &amp; heated it as it was raw milk. Something on that line would probably work. If improved. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6288" RevisionGUID="b607b4eb-e149-40a2-a635-71ffbcab2ce3" CreationDate="2017-11-28T23:38:09.683" UserId="400" Text="Battery storage has a few of strikes against it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's not cool.  If you cover half your roof with PV, everyone knows it. If you have a quarter of your garage filled with batteries, it's a lot harder to show off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's not a separate thing.  E.g. You can buy a Tesla, and as a car it works.  You just plug it in at night.  It's a drop in replacement for a Subaru if you don't live in rural Alberta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are grid connected, battery storage requires significant modification to your house electrical system.  At a minimum you need a transfer switch, so that your electrical system doesn't kill a lineman fixing the lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you aren't connected to the grid, you need about 5 days worth of storage if you are using renewables.  And your capacity has to be gauged to winter usage when sunlight is thin, and winds tend to be at higher elevations.  This is a lot of battery that will be mostly charge most of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; In either case to make best use of the battery storage, you want to run as much of your house as possible using low to mid voltage DC.  This requires having two separate wiring systems in your house.  Unlike ships and airplanes, houses are not generally built to be maintained, running more wires means having to take walls apart or have surface mounted cable ways in interesting places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Battery tech is in flux.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Li-Ion batteries are getting more mature, but there is probably another factor of 2-3 that will be squeezed out of them.  There are a raft of other technologies in the wings Lithium-Air; Sodium-Air, Sulfur air.   Flow batteries vs plate batteries.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example:  Current work with sulfur air looks like around 40 Wh/liter of solution, so 4 50 gallon drums hold 8 kWh -- about what a house uses in a day.  And putting a 3 kW PV array on a 2 car garage would generate about 3000 kWh/year or about 250 kWh/month which is about 8 kWh/day.  If you want to be on grid, then you have a system that will allow uninterupped usage for up to a 1 day power outage, just on battery.  For 8 months of the year you could probably hold your own on that with what the recharge did during the day.  You might have to be a bit more conscious about not using heavy demand items.  Of course in the winter you are only getting 2-3 kWh/day.  That sucks.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Note these estimates are done for Edmonton -- Latitude 54 degrees north.  8 hour days mid winter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway conclusion:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's too early for consumer preferences to get a big hold.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Battery storage is going to be a utility thing long before it's a consumer thing.  You will see the utility coming to you and saying, &quot;We have 4 households on this transformer.  We will pay you $60 a month on your electric bill if we can have a 5x5 space in your garage to put an energy storage system.  This will allow you and your neighbors PV systems to charge the batteries during the day while you are at work, so that you can plug in your EVs to charge at night." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6289" RevisionGUID="e289bdb4-107b-4c0a-b377-431ba5d6c594" CreationDate="2017-11-28T23:47:24.917" UserId="400" Text="Not a big problem, but also not a great benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dog feces are not high in nitrogen.  They will decompose quite readily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are a hazard for e-coli (common to most crap) and if your dog catches rodents will also have worm eggs.  The latter is of some concern, as if your pile doesn't get hot, they won't be killed.  Tapeworm, round worm and hook worm are the most likely locally.  There are other nasties in warmer climates *(I'm in Alberta)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said:  I've worked with dogs for 40 years, haven't been outstandingly persnickety about hygiene, and have yet to pick up a parasite.  We have 3 dogs, have a massive yard cleanup at the end of our 6 month winter, and have nephews and nieces and grandkids playing on the yard a few weeks later.  No issues.  Perhaps I've been lucky.  Certainly our dogs get worms.  We worm them twice a year.  But they are ardent gopher hunters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15834" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6279" RevisionGUID="8a6eac1c-677e-46c7-9999-7fe22bfdecd0" CreationDate="2017-11-29T01:51:59.987" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/935687755681681408" />
  <row Id="15836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6284" RevisionGUID="93d7136c-9838-45b4-9f90-103e4162133e" CreationDate="2017-11-29T15:42:07.340" UserId="400" Comment="Added links, caveats in using money as a proxy for carbon footprint." Text="Very low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to use manufacturing costs as a proxy for environmental footprint.  This is realistic up to the point that ignores extrinsic costs, and ignores financial costs.  E.g. making the paper can be done with essentially no carbon foot print, or a fairly large one.  In general I regard costs as being a good first order proxy, unless you can show some unusual circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bitcoin calculations have to be redone on a transactional basis.  Suppose that this was cheap and only took a kWh of electricity.  Then the cost per transaction, ignoring equipment would be on the close order of 10 cents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A debit card transaction typically costs the merchant 15 to 35 cents.  The biggest part of this is to the company that runs the database.  The non-material costs are a large fraction of this.  (Where my proxy breaks down...) E.g. Database, data centre, are all manufactures that need to be amortized over all the transacations, but advertising, marketing both to customers and to merchants, dispute handling.  I will arbitrarily call the cost of this transaction 1/2 of the merchant fee at 10-20 cents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Credit cards, for reasons I don't know, are much more expensive for the merchant.  Partly fraud, partly borrowed money, mostly making credit card companies wealthy.  There is no intrinsic reason for it to be different from debit card.  This difference is another example of monetary cost not being a good proxy for footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While a dollar bill costs money to make, it will be used in hundreds of transactions before being retired as worn out. And a 20 dollar bill costs about the same as a one dollar bill to make. (The Fed's website says 5 to 20 cents for a paper bill.  The $50 is the most expensive to produce.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference:  https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12771.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bills last 5-20 years, with higher denominations lasting  longer, as they are often used to 'store' value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure that a bill on the average is taken out of a bank machine, and likely spent within two weeks.  The shop keeper deposits it.  So there is two transactions.  Buyer to shop keeper, shopkeeper to bank.  If it's a smaller bill, it has about a 50% chance of being used for making change, I'm guessing.  So call it 5 transactions per month.  5 years then means a bill is used in about 300 transactions.  This is a sloppy estimate.  Could be as low as 100.  Might be as much as a thousand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coins often cost more to make than their face value (especially true for small value coins)  but a coin will be used for thousands of transactions.  The penny costs 1.6 c to make, the nickle 8.5 c, according to an article in the washingtoon post.  The others cost less to make than their face value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/15/it-cost-1-7-cents-to-make-a-penny-this-year-and-8-cents-to-make-a-nickel/?utm_term=.5fb440d6c1c2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the Royal Mint, british coins have an average life span of 40 years.  No details about how they got this figure. In particular I don't know if they correct for the increased number of coins in circulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; http://www.royalmint.com/help/help/life-expectancy-of-a-coin&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6291" RevisionGUID="2c8f7ced-43f6-4ba0-9355-05e90bd3843c" CreationDate="2017-11-29T15:53:32.883" UserId="400" Text="Not with a whirlybird ventilator.  The idea here is that it acts as a centrifugal fan.  Air will always go from the centre to the outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To do what you want, you need to decouple the whirlybird from the ventilation.  E.g.  Put the whirlbird higher up,  with only an axel coming down.  This axel powers a fan in the duct.  This can be directed either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simpler way to get air in is with a wind scoop.  There are various weathervane chimney caps on the market that pivot away from the wind.  You would need to add a tail to make it pivot into the wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A chimney doesn't move all that much air. If the purpose of this is to replace air conditioning, you will need substantial channels.  Wind scoops are a big part of design in hot climates with prevailing winds, but are typically feet across." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6267" RevisionGUID="31ebdbf2-30c9-41e6-8a91-f69f4bbe6ece" CreationDate="2017-11-29T16:15:33.680" UserId="400" Comment="added material" Text="Three routes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: Your van has all your worldly possessions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B: In addition you have a place you can store stuff. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C: Use a car towable R.V. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### A: Everything is in your van.   &#xD;&#xA; 1.  Consider removing the back doors and buiding a box that fits into this space.  The back panel folds down to make a table.  A propane tank and a gas stove is how you cook.  Or you have a rocket stove you can feet twigs. The rest of this compartment is a few pots, a few dishes, a jerry of water, and food.  We did this in an explorer (venturer) post I was in.  This was the kitchen.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Hot water.  If you are going to be parked a lot, then solar is the way to go.  Build it on the roof, and build it so that it can be tilted to match the sun.  If you are going to be driving consistently every day, then extend the van's cooling system and run a heat exchanger through a small water tank. Warning:  The hot water in the tank can be VERY hot.  Pressure test the tank to 300 psi.  An off the shelf tank will not do.  You will need a pressure release valve that vents outside the van.  You should also set it up with a temperature mixing valve to bring the water temperature down to something that isn't instant 3rd degree burn.  Some form of thermostat regulation is in order, but since this is also engine cooling, it requires two remote valves.  This starts getting tricky to do in a high reliable system way.  You need to add warning lights, guages...  Overheated water can occur with solar systems, but not as easily. The more I think about this, the better I like PV to charge a battery and hot water on demand.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Cold water.  Jerry in the kitchen box.  Or a bladder on the roof, under the solar array.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Extra electricity.  PV on the roof.  This may be a better way to heat your water.  Electricity is more multipurpose than hot water, and is easier to store on this sort of scale.  You will need to add batteries along with a system that keeps one battery isolated to start the vehicle.  (You want the engine to charge all the batteries, but you want your non-engine battery use to leave the engine battery alone.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Storage.  Go pretend to buy a yacht or sail boat.  Naval architects have the storage problem down to a science.  &#xD;&#xA; 6. Toilet.  There are various types of camping toilets out there.  I know that many white water rafting companies have to provide them at their lunch sites.  They are  reasonably leak tight.  &#xD;&#xA; 7. Clothes washing.  I have washed clothing in a bucket on canoe trips.  Less than satisfactory.  Periodic visits to laundromat.  Choose your wardrobe to be able to do everything together so that you don't need to run multiple loads.  You won't have space to store large quantities of clothing, so washing will have to happen fairly frequently.&#xD;&#xA; 8. Parking: Canadian Walmarts allow an RV to park on their lots with no charge.  RV parks are expensive, but often include ammenities like showers and bathrooms. You may be able to arrange to park an like minded owners of rural places and trade a small rental fee, or a few hours of chores a month for bathroom and fridge access.&#xD;&#xA; 9. Refrigeration.  Look into a 12v bar fridge (RV accessory places, camping and outdoor stores. &#xD;&#xA; 10. Sleeping:  Setting up some kind of platform bed is fairly easy. Set it at a height that can be used as a desk if you flip the mattress up. Space other than the knee hole can be drawers.  You may have an overhead shelf in this space too.  Again look to ship design to get dimensions.&#xD;&#xA; 11. Washing.  There is a lack of good ways to put a shower in a van.  Options: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* YMCA/Gym membership &#xD;&#xA;* Some work locations provide shower facilities. &#xD;&#xA;* Some truckstops have pay-for showers. &#xD;&#xA;* All pool facilities have showers, although often with cool water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### B: You have a place somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 12. You can store extras.  This allow you to buy in bulk, take advantage of freebies.  It gives you a place to brew cider from windfall apples, make biodiesel from used fryer oil. A place to keep tools, and bits of stuff that might be useful sometime. &#xD;&#xA; 7. Showers.  Cleaning with a wash cloth gets old fast.  There is no good way for a shower in a van, and getting sufficient hot water for an outdoor shower would be difficult. In a place to park, you can set up a black oildrum solar collector on a platform for decent showers.&#xD;&#xA; 2. It gives you a place to park. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The downside of this approach:  It's hard to find a place that is both close to the city where the jobs are, and is permissive enough to allow such use.  If you have active permaculture groups in your area, you may be able to rent a corner of land from them. Downscale rural acreages are another possible area.  If you have money you may be able to buy an empty acreage, but this will decrease your ability to pull up stakes and move on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on your life style, and how far you have to commute, it's not clear if this is a sustainbility win.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###C: Car towable RV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Instead use a car towable RV trailer.  This reduces the amount of fuel used to drag your turtle will all you own everywhere you go.  2nd hand RV trailers are much cheaper than tiny homes, and often are a better starting point for DIY efforts.  But you have to have a place to park it.  A place to park means you can have a cooking tarp outside -- a bit of sprawling room.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An RV  allows you a place where you can stand upright inside, cook without standing in the rain, put on your pants without hitting your head, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Set up in a RV camp.  Daily rates around here run about 25 bucks a night, but long term rates are much less -- as low as $200/month.  This gives you water and sewer hookup, and usually access to washing machines, and showers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Get a canvas wall tent and live bush.  They can accept a wood stove.  When I was a kid, my parents had friends that lived in one for 2 years (with 2 babies) while they built their house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this sort of life is short term beneficial, you aren't building any capital.  Capital isn't always money.  Capital is also land and the knowledge of how to make it feed you.  Capital is being in one place long enough to know the experts around you.  Capital is learning one thing well enough to be an expert for those same neighbours.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you are young, single, and seeing the world, I applaud your venture.  But a time will come when you will need to set down roots." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6294" RevisionGUID="2fd1e3b3-38a0-4cd7-a3c6-74cb636455e3" CreationDate="2017-12-02T20:17:57.500" UserId="3379" Text="I live in an apartment building with three units, but only one gas meter, one electric meter, and one water meter. It's a small enough building that the cost of renovating to separate utilities doesn't make financial sense. As a result, there is no inherent incentive to save water and energy, and no fair way to allocate utility expenses among residents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought of a way if I owned such a building, to create an incentive for tenants to save water and energy that would be fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. With a year or two of historical bills, set the rent where it makes sense to cover all utilities without putting effort into reducing usage.&#xD;&#xA; 2. As the owner, invest a bit in simple ways to save such as replacing lights with LED bulbs, installing a programmable thermostat, re-caulking windows, etc.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Over the course of the year, each resident, to the extent they're able, does their best to reduce water and energy usage by their behavior.&#xD;&#xA; 4. At the end of the year, calculate how much money was saved compared to historical expenses.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Take off some amount (say 20%) to cover the owner's investment, then divide the rest among the residents in proportion to the rent they pay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see some issues of residents being upset if one is traveling frequently and others are home often, but since it's a bonus and proportional to the rent, I think it's a bit of an easier sell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Has anyone seen such a system in place, or are there examples of similar systems which have been used?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15844" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6294" RevisionGUID="2fd1e3b3-38a0-4cd7-a3c6-74cb636455e3" CreationDate="2017-12-02T20:17:57.500" UserId="3379" Text="Energy saving &quot;bonus&quot; for apartment renters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15845" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6294" RevisionGUID="2fd1e3b3-38a0-4cd7-a3c6-74cb636455e3" CreationDate="2017-12-02T20:17:57.500" UserId="3379" Text="|energy|water|housing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15846" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6294" RevisionGUID="541bdcd4-4d2e-4234-a586-95ae166d78b9" CreationDate="2017-12-02T21:07:18.173" UserId="15" Comment="Added tag" Text="|energy|water|housing|renting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15848" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6266" RevisionGUID="14fcec17-6137-488a-9279-afde062ec8f9" CreationDate="2017-12-03T11:05:53.940" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/937276699745705984" />
  <row Id="15851" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6294" RevisionGUID="cc5d0275-81d0-41b8-b066-c72fbb8dddf2" CreationDate="2017-12-04T08:07:45.043" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/937594255127826432" />
  <row Id="15856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6294" RevisionGUID="db96ac89-993f-431e-8faa-4eb7c9150e14" CreationDate="2017-12-05T15:50:49.233" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified why separate utilities is not an option." Text="I live in an apartment building with three units, but only one gas meter, one electric meter, and one water meter. As a result, there is no inherent incentive to save water and energy, and no fair way to allocate utility expenses among residents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, separating the utilities for each apartment is impractical due to the small size and the age of the building. There are a number of other reasons why it may be impractical in other cases as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought of a way if I owned such a building, to create an incentive for tenants to save water and energy that would be fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. With a year or two of historical bills, set the rent where it makes sense to cover all utilities without putting effort into reducing usage.&#xD;&#xA; 2. As the owner, invest a bit in simple ways to save such as replacing lights with LED bulbs, installing a programmable thermostat, re-caulking windows, etc.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Over the course of the year, each resident, to the extent they're able, does their best to reduce water and energy usage by their behavior.&#xD;&#xA; 4. At the end of the year, calculate how much money was saved compared to historical expenses.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Take off some amount (say 20%) to cover the owner's investment, then divide the rest among the residents in proportion to the rent they pay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see some issues of residents being upset if one is traveling frequently and others are home often, but since it's a bonus and proportional to the rent, I think it's a bit of an easier sell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Has anyone seen such a system in place, or are there examples of similar systems which have been used?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6298" RevisionGUID="ba6a1137-961d-421d-af93-7dac68a41e73" CreationDate="2017-12-05T19:27:07.977" UserId="5197" Text="If you have a rolling trash can that you have to roll out to the street once a week or, however often he city's garbage department comes and picks it up, if you are one of those customers than you could try doing what I did when I lived in a rental house. I got a couple 5 gallon buckets with lids on craigslist for free (I see them all the time out on the curb for pickup) I used those around my house and just threw my trash straight in there, I would take any cardboard or newspapers or spam mail I had and throw it in my rolling bin first so that stuff wouldnt get stuck to the bottom when they dumped it, and they had these trucks that would pick it up and hang it up over the back of the truck like 15ft in the air and turn it upside down then lower it kind of fast then stop it abruptly to empty it. The reason I say to get buckets with lids is because if ever one started to smell bad that lid would keep it from stinking up your house or if you set it outside itll keep cats or raccoons out of it.&#xA;&#xA;I also had a friend that had 3 big dogs and bought those tall bags of dog food so he used and reused those bags, this was when I lived in an area with locals only public dumping areas around the County this was in a  very larg and spread out but low populated agricultural area of georgia so having public trash pick up would have costed the city a lot of money for how far the trucks would have had to drive and a lot of road were dirt roads." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="a29a348a-a0d0-4647-af37-974312e5ec7f" CreationDate="2017-12-06T22:21:41.090" UserId="5117" Text="I've travelled a bit in Africa, Middle East, and Asia.&#xD;&#xA;What strikes me, in all of these places, is that often in the most poverty-striken areas, things that people look up to are big cars, and smartphones. Not sanitation, hygeine, food security etc . This brings up an interesting question: if developing countries have the potential to 'skip' a heavy fossil fuel burning energy intensive stage in their development, how can this be achieved if the example being set is still very inefficient and fossil-fuel based?&#xD;&#xA;What I'm getting at is how can developing nations be convinced that being green is something to look up to?&#xD;&#xA;If in Ethiopia, where car ownership is less than 10 per 1000 people, instead of looking up to the owning of a big Toyota Land Cruiser, people look up to sustainable options..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="a29a348a-a0d0-4647-af37-974312e5ec7f" CreationDate="2017-12-06T22:21:41.090" UserId="5117" Text="Mindset change in developing countries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6299" RevisionGUID="a29a348a-a0d0-4647-af37-974312e5ec7f" CreationDate="2017-12-06T22:21:41.090" UserId="5117" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|transport|cars|global-warming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6300" RevisionGUID="14d3a55a-6f70-4459-a39f-bb482e3cbdfa" CreationDate="2017-12-06T22:23:22.193" UserId="5117" Text="Emissions per passenger kilometre will be high in your van, unless you carry more people! Consider picking up hitchhikers or doing ride sharing :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6301" RevisionGUID="6b95345e-3f7a-44c1-b21f-ab88d1740f8f" CreationDate="2017-12-06T23:12:12.647" UserId="5003" Text="People world wide like status. I return to the S Pacific I take WallMart bags from America. The lady's love to go to town with them. It means some one in our family is rich enough to go there or our friend can go there. Same with the big cell phone. A vehicle says I can out run you, ford deeper rivers &amp; climb up the side of a mountain faster to get away from the gun fire. As for green of the main road most are. Tropical soil is very sensitive. To make it last takes effort. They take it as farms need last for the next generation. Americans just don't recognise the farming methods used. Waste the kids walk the beach after storms &amp; typhoons. All that is good is salvaged. Go by the dumps. The dump pickers remove all that can be reused. It town set a bottle down. Turn your back on it. Gone some kid has it for deposit. Electric? the wire will come in 20 years they hope. Litter is picked up by the poor if it can be sold. Nothing goes to waste in Asia. There much more green than America is. In most ways. Asians are very clean. They bath dayly or more. Africa is different.  It was to be the mirical of the 21st century. It is the last place in the world were food production can be increased 10 fold.Mineral rich. So we went in &amp; showed some how to do this. Maze went from 20 bushel to 100 bushel to the acre. The next week the village over attacks. You have more than them. Go to there school they need pens. So take a gross with you. But they can not use them. Why. There are 30 students. Yes. But you only have 24 pens. Yes. They will kill each other over the pens. Soon Africa will be invaded. The world needs the food. The Africans will not raise.  There is the problem. Give a man a job. He will work one day. The next day he comes with his wife. To tell her how to do the job. So what is the answer? You want green? leave no scrap behind like in S E.Asia to go to waste. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6298" RevisionGUID="6e08614f-8530-4b1a-baf2-1f7a90375db2" CreationDate="2017-12-07T11:39:20.280" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Removed all unnecessary text + plus duplicate answer about pet food bags." Text="If you have a rolling trash can that you have to roll out to the street e.g. once a week, get a couple 5 gallon buckets with lids on craigslist for free (I see them all the time out on the curb for pickup), and use those to collect the garbage. Empty them into the rolling trash can when they're full.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I say to get buckets with lids is because if ever one started to smell bad that lid would keep it from stinking up your house or if you set it outside it'll keep cats or raccoons out of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use cardboard or paper to throw it in the rolling bin first so that stuff doesn't get stuck to the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15864" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6298" RevisionGUID="6e08614f-8530-4b1a-baf2-1f7a90375db2" CreationDate="2017-12-07T11:39:20.280" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 3293, 1053 edit id of 508" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15865" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="da567de3-0384-4f9a-bff8-54b87473437b" CreationDate="2017-12-07T16:57:34.723" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15870" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="8cad4746-425f-4a7b-b7d5-5551f6c1eafc" CreationDate="2017-12-09T04:12:10.077" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="58f37175-9b86-4575-aeb0-ff37d443c9b4" CreationDate="2017-12-10T00:19:48.197" UserId="5216" Text="Industrialisation and globalisation seem to want to just mass produce everything from products to food. They then are given power from the government and seem to be able to do what ever they want with disregard to the environment ie. stronger pesticides and pump the livestock full of antibiotics &#xA;&#xA;Do we need to localise and become smaller epicurean style communities to have less impact on the land and become more sustainable " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="58f37175-9b86-4575-aeb0-ff37d443c9b4" CreationDate="2017-12-10T00:19:48.197" UserId="5216" Text="Is sustainable living basically the opposite of industrialisation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="58f37175-9b86-4575-aeb0-ff37d443c9b4" CreationDate="2017-12-10T00:19:48.197" UserId="5216" Text="|defining-sustainability|farming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6304" RevisionGUID="6c2c243c-24dc-4a3a-b655-5291fc402ed4" CreationDate="2017-12-10T14:22:43.937" UserId="4951" Text="Industrialization and globalization don't really want to &quot;do&quot; anything. These are social descriptions to abstract the behavior and actions of people. The problem is that a capitalistic society tends to not allocate costs properly, especially environmental costs, without government regulation. Feedback loops that would ordinarily limit or constrain people and organizational behavior are attenuated and ineffective because there is not a strong and direct consequence to poor behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Localizing and being smaller does not necessarily reduce impact to land and other resources nor is it necessarily more sustainable. What makes for impact reduction and sustainability is having the necessary feedback loops in place so that behavior changes and having the necessary technology that allows people to make the changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example a town that depends on firewood which in turn leads to deforestation as well as health problems due to wood smoke may be turned around by installing solar cell technology and using propane fueled cooking, both of which are products of industrialization. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6304" RevisionGUID="74e44594-246f-4133-ba21-b81380dd3a19" CreationDate="2017-12-11T20:04:16.177" UserId="4951" Comment="added two feedbacks, law suits and changing consumer preferences." Text="Industrialization and globalization don't really want to &quot;do&quot; anything. These are social descriptions to abstract the behavior and actions of people. The problem is that a capitalistic society tends to not allocate costs properly, especially environmental costs, without government regulation. Feedback loops that would ordinarily limit or constrain people and organizational behavior are attenuated and ineffective because there is not a strong and direct consequence to poor behavior.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Localizing and being smaller does not necessarily reduce impact to land and other resources nor is it necessarily more sustainable. What makes for impact reduction and sustainability is having the necessary feedback loops in place so that behavior changes and having the necessary technology that allows people to make the changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example a town that depends on firewood which in turn leads to deforestation as well as health problems due to wood smoke may be turned around by installing solar cell technology and using propane fueled cooking, both of which are products of industrialization.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One type of feed back loop is Law suits by people that are affected by industrial agriculture practices. See this about nitrate contamination of surface water from run off [Growers Face Lawsuit for Water Nitrate Pollution](https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/blogs/1-covering-no-till/post/4493-growers-face-lawsuit-for-water-nitrate-pollution) however in this case I believe the lawsuit was dismissed [With Water Works' lawsuit dismissed, water quality is the legislature's problem](https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/agriculture/2017/03/17/judge-dismisses-water-works-nitrates-lawsuit/99327928/) so now the feedback changes from direct civil lawsuit to indirect government regulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also evidence that consumer preference changes affects the practices of industrial farming when those practices have been identified as problematic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See this article [For the First Time, Antibiotic Use in Farm Animals Drops](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/12/antibiotics-farm-animal/547904/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This year’s report could just be the beginning. In January of this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; year, the FDA implemented a policy three years in the making: It asked&#xD;&#xA;&gt; manufacturers to stop selling antibiotics important for human&#xD;&#xA;&gt; medicine, such as penicillin and tetracycline, for growth promotion in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; animals. So the sales numbers will likely drop further in the next&#xD;&#xA;&gt; report.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 2016 report is also the first time the FDA has broken down&#xD;&#xA;&gt; antibiotic sales by species. The chicken industry has, thus far, been&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the focus of reducing antibiotic use. Fast-food companies including&#xD;&#xA;&gt; McDonald’s, Burger King, and KFC have vowed to cut antibiotics from&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their chicken, and at this point, almost all of the major chicken&#xD;&#xA;&gt; suppliers have done the same." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15877" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="b4f5bdd6-c16b-4cd4-a57e-74b6f5bbc896" CreationDate="2017-12-11T22:45:28.010" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="175ff92f-34dc-49e9-927b-9957410f624c" CreationDate="2017-12-11T23:03:35.590" UserId="5216" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Industrialisation and globalisation seem to want to just mass produce everything from products to food. They agricultural lobbing groups are  given power from the government and do a lot of bad things with disregard to the environment ie. stronger pesticides and pump the livestock full of antibiotics &#xA;&#xA;Do we need to localise and become smaller epicurean style communities to have less impact on the land and become more sustainable " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6303" RevisionGUID="b3c550fc-16b9-4f06-ad7f-8d325067fd7f" CreationDate="2017-12-11T23:40:31.810" UserId="5216" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Industrialisation and globalisation seem to want to just mass produce everything from products to food. The agricultural lobbing groups are given power from the government and do a lot of bad things with disregard to the environment ie. stronger pesticides and pump the livestock full of antibiotics &#xA;&#xA;Do we need to localise and become smaller epicurean style communities to have less impact on the land and become more sustainable " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6305" RevisionGUID="86b69cba-e74f-4ff9-b8cc-94cd894ac436" CreationDate="2017-12-12T00:20:55.097" UserId="5216" Text="Say you want to read some document, like an newspaper article, &#xA;&#xA;If you read it online you still have to power a screen, which is powered by a computer or mobile device, which these days are becoming ever more demanding of power as consumers want more &#xA;&#xA;Vs if you read it in the newspaper, which is printed on a thin sheet of low quality paper, sure the paper remains after you read it but you can always recycle it&#xA;&#xA;Does anyone know the enviromonics of paper vs digital, and is going paperless, just a Silicon Valley fad to sell more computers and mobile devices or does it significantly reduce the impact we have on the environment &#xA;&#xA;Thanks &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6305" RevisionGUID="86b69cba-e74f-4ff9-b8cc-94cd894ac436" CreationDate="2017-12-12T00:20:55.097" UserId="5216" Text="Is going paperless really that much better for the environment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6305" RevisionGUID="86b69cba-e74f-4ff9-b8cc-94cd894ac436" CreationDate="2017-12-12T00:20:55.097" UserId="5216" Text="|recycling|paper|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6307" RevisionGUID="8927fb07-6e1a-46ed-9b54-39627facffe1" CreationDate="2017-12-12T16:11:30.277" UserId="5224" Text="How much money would you need to live off grid in a wooden hut in Alaska or somewhere else remote on Earth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's presume we do this at 30 years old and live to 100.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only costs I can think of are fuel (for generator), food and basic clothing, toiletries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6307" RevisionGUID="8927fb07-6e1a-46ed-9b54-39627facffe1" CreationDate="2017-12-12T16:11:30.277" UserId="5224" Text="How much money to live &quot;off-grid&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6307" RevisionGUID="8927fb07-6e1a-46ed-9b54-39627facffe1" CreationDate="2017-12-12T16:11:30.277" UserId="5224" Text="|money|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6308" RevisionGUID="02589474-f6e6-4b39-b80a-099a60d8ca9e" CreationDate="2017-12-13T10:41:46.623" UserId="5227" Text="One way of defining sustainability is: &quot;Satisfying our need without compromising future generation needs&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This usually comprises environmental, social and economic sustainability (commonly known as the 'sustainability triangle')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to reduce it to one 'opposite to' word my best guess is sustainability is opposite to consumerism.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6309" RevisionGUID="9c02046b-8c3c-4e7d-8f31-d487b5d47950" CreationDate="2017-12-13T10:51:08.537" UserId="5227" Text="The link below gives you net calorific values and energy densities for different woods with different moisture content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[http://www.woodenergy.ie/woodasafuel/listandvaluesofwoodfuelparameters-part1/][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6310" RevisionGUID="9b52e001-7816-4698-86f4-943f32a8cc6f" CreationDate="2017-12-13T11:04:26.753" UserId="5227" Text="In 2015 Chris Froome during a Tour of France climb achieved an average of 414 W during a time period of 41 minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how fit you are...." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6311" RevisionGUID="c6870ea2-f1d7-47f4-9358-cb1e6627bdae" CreationDate="2017-12-13T11:18:42.353" UserId="5227" Text="With a heat meter. If you need to calculate it for legal purposes it has to be a Class II heat meter (in UK).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially you need to measure the mass flow and the temperature difference between the fluid in the pipe going from the collector to the tank (hottest one) and the pipe going from the hot water tank to the collector (coldest one).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The equation is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q = m x Cp x dT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;being:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q == energy in [kW]&#xD;&#xA;m ==  fluid mass flow in [kg/s]&#xD;&#xA;Cp == escpecific heat of the working fluid in  [kJ / (kg x K)]&#xD;&#xA;dT == Temperature difference as explained above in [K]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6312" RevisionGUID="7db0b6b5-6b00-4209-bad7-a68fb0922b11" CreationDate="2017-12-13T11:26:29.570" UserId="5227" Text="The answer is clearly no due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. One consequence of this law is that heat always transfers spontaneously from a hot body to a cold one and never the other way round. If you want to reverse the flow, you have to apply work to the system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that you have no electricity you are not applying work to the system. As that box is insulated, the drinks inside will be a bit warmer or a bit cooler that the surrounding environment for a while(time lag for heat to trasfer). As soon as you open the box inside and outside temperatures will reach equilibrium. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6313" RevisionGUID="c11509f7-b966-4fe9-829f-5304afaeb6af" CreationDate="2017-12-13T11:31:20.127" UserId="5227" Text="Your battery is a lead acid one. Based on battery university guidance (link below), and assuming you are using a 'standard charger' should take 12 - 16 hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Battery University][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_the_lead_acid_battery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="128c77e2-80c9-4152-84c0-72a9a1e843a5" CreationDate="2017-12-13T12:00:24.450" UserId="5227" Text="Human comfort depends mainly on the combination of temperature - humidity. And the optimum varies depending of the physical activity, clothing etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'tool' used to know whether you are in the comfort area or not is a [Psychometric Chart][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 'standard' home activity and clothing the 'sweet spot' for comfort is 20 degrees C and 40% relative humidity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrometrics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6315" RevisionGUID="d50b73e9-c3f3-431d-ab2f-22a53e5e7714" CreationDate="2017-12-13T12:03:03.970" UserId="5227" Text="No, you cannot due to the second law of thermodynamics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15897" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6305" RevisionGUID="7a9571e8-e134-4d91-932e-e7aac3d09d63" CreationDate="2017-12-13T17:31:52.450" UserId="48" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[487],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="15898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="8b031424-66f5-431e-a6bc-9b8d9965dca1" CreationDate="2017-12-13T17:54:42.570" UserId="5231" Text="One of parameter that involve in water quality assessment is ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3N). Where does these ammoniacal nitrogen comes from in river? What factor cause high and low of this parameter? Specifically in secondary forest stream." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15899" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="8b031424-66f5-431e-a6bc-9b8d9965dca1" CreationDate="2017-12-13T17:54:42.570" UserId="5231" Text="Water Quality Assessment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15900" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="8b031424-66f5-431e-a6bc-9b8d9965dca1" CreationDate="2017-12-13T17:54:42.570" UserId="5231" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="a6b773d1-176a-4048-81e3-3ff51d08ecb3" CreationDate="2017-12-13T18:18:29.243" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title/formatting, added tags" Text="One parameter that's involved in water quality assessment is ammoniacal nitrogen (NH3-N), a measure of ammonia. Where does ammonia come from in natural water sources, such as a river? What factor causes high and low values of this parameter? I am specifically interested in secondary forest streams." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15902" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="a6b773d1-176a-4048-81e3-3ff51d08ecb3" CreationDate="2017-12-13T18:18:29.243" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title/formatting, added tags" Text="Ammoniacal Nitrogen (NH3-N) test and sources of ammonia in natural bodies of water" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15903" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="a6b773d1-176a-4048-81e3-3ff51d08ecb3" CreationDate="2017-12-13T18:18:29.243" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title/formatting, added tags" Text="|water|pollution|water-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="a828664d-dd4d-418a-b021-481d4cf9b638" CreationDate="2017-12-13T21:00:58.457" UserId="4188" Text="From time to time I see on different papers &quot;Printed with eco-friendly ink,&quot; so I assume that it is the soy-based ink. I have read a bit about it, and the opinions about soy-ink being eco-friendly are split, but I would say that it's definitely better than oil-based, as it contains less volatile substances. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I wanted to buy one for my printer and... surprise! I cannot really find a trustworthy website (in my opinion) where one can buy it. Now my question is... Why? Why don't we see an abundance of such eco-friendly solutions? And where do the manufacturers of eco-friendly printouts find it? Or is it just a marketing text without any cover? Is there any label that can vouch for that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15905" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="a828664d-dd4d-418a-b021-481d4cf9b638" CreationDate="2017-12-13T21:00:58.457" UserId="4188" Text="Why the eco-friendly soy ink is not abundent on the market?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15906" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="a828664d-dd4d-418a-b021-481d4cf9b638" CreationDate="2017-12-13T21:00:58.457" UserId="4188" Text="|environmental-impact|economics|printing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6309" RevisionGUID="8accaf67-a146-45f9-92a0-d001f3a1ca08" CreationDate="2017-12-13T21:15:07.960" UserId="15" Comment="Fixed link" Text="The link below gives you net calorific values and energy densities for different woods with different moisture content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.woodenergy.ie/woodasafuel/listandvaluesofwoodfuelparameters-part1/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6318" RevisionGUID="e74d8744-8f43-4cf2-bcb6-7b6f56222854" CreationDate="2017-12-14T07:23:08.557" UserId="5040" Text="Vehicles and Factories produce air-pollution like Nitrogen Dioxide(NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) and Sulfur Dioxide(SO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plants use Fertilizer with those same compounds (NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; &amp; SO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any existing method to capture air-pollution and recycle it as fertilizer ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15909" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6318" RevisionGUID="e74d8744-8f43-4cf2-bcb6-7b6f56222854" CreationDate="2017-12-14T07:23:08.557" UserId="5040" Text="Is there any way to recycle air-pollution into fertilizer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15910" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6318" RevisionGUID="e74d8744-8f43-4cf2-bcb6-7b6f56222854" CreationDate="2017-12-14T07:23:08.557" UserId="5040" Text="|manufacturing|vehicle|air-pollution|fertilizer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6318" RevisionGUID="89babc37-0d1e-4ab7-b438-9844403ac8ed" CreationDate="2017-12-14T07:28:19.520" UserId="5040" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Vehicles and Factories produce air-pollution like Nitrogen Dioxide(NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) and Sulfur Dioxide(SO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plants use Fertilizer with those same compounds (NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; &amp; SO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is there any method to capture air-pollution and recycle it as fertilizer ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6319" RevisionGUID="18567170-d1c7-4dd8-a746-86e953d923f8" CreationDate="2017-12-14T08:21:07.360" UserId="3641" Text="You can use [**scrubbers**][1] to remove NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (or better NO&lt;sub&gt;X&lt;/sub&gt;) and SO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; from exhaust gas emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scrubbers are used in large industrial facilities, power plants, and large ships to clean-up the exhaust gas emissions -- mainly in order to comply with emission thresholds. They are not applied in small-scale combustion facilities such as cars or residential heating facilities. There are different types of scrubbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, scrubbers do not only remove NO&lt;sub&gt;X&lt;/sub&gt; and SO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; from exhaust gas but also other air pollutants such as organic pollutants or heavy metals (as briefly described in the section '[Mercury Removal][2]' of the Wikipedia article on scrubbers). Therefore, a recycling of scrubber water (when wet scrubbers are used) in general seems to be quite complex. However, in some applications it might be possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particularly coal but also crude oil contains heavy metals, which are released during the combustion process. Natural gas / methane, in contrast, is quite pure. Therefore, exhaust gas emissions of methane combustion are _cleaner_ with respect to heavy metals. Also in some industrial (non-combustion) applications, the removed air pollutants might be recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, using a scrubber is energy intensitive. Recycling the scrubber-output is energy intensitive. Therefore, it might not be reasonable from as sustainability-point-of-view to do that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrubber&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrubber#Mercury_removal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6318" RevisionGUID="0d97817e-711a-4e70-a836-1354080cd040" CreationDate="2017-12-14T08:29:40.540" UserId="3641" Comment="minor typos" Text="Vehicles and Factories produce air-pollution like Nitrogen Dioxide (NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plants use Fertilizer with those same compounds (NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; &amp; SO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is there any method to capture air pollutants and recycle them as fertilizer? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15914" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6318" RevisionGUID="0d97817e-711a-4e70-a836-1354080cd040" CreationDate="2017-12-14T08:29:40.540" Comment="Proposed by 3641 approved by 5040 edit id of 509" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15915" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6317" RevisionGUID="eb509097-4448-42e7-a5b8-a3ebd01227f7" CreationDate="2017-12-14T11:42:12.333" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/941272103256580096" />
  <row Id="15916" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6316" RevisionGUID="dff8c233-b7a2-48f1-b646-b75ee461e1bd" CreationDate="2017-12-14T14:42:18.353" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/941317426867769347" />
  <row Id="15917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="4d7e629d-450a-479a-b048-742175551e79" CreationDate="2017-12-14T15:12:14.650" UserId="929" Comment="typo fix psychometrics -&gt; +r" Text="Human comfort depends mainly on the combination of temperature - humidity. And the optimum varies depending of the physical activity, clothing etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 'tool' used to know whether you are in the comfort area or not is a [Psychrometric Chart][1] (name fixed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 'standard' home activity and clothing the 'sweet spot' for comfort is 20 degrees C and 40% relative humidity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychrometrics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15918" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6314" RevisionGUID="4d7e629d-450a-479a-b048-742175551e79" CreationDate="2017-12-14T15:12:14.650" Comment="Proposed by 929 approved by 5227 edit id of 510" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="bd8ba75c-3f6d-4d49-adf4-6ba1fc6f8b6c" CreationDate="2017-12-14T15:15:04.617" UserId="5232" Text="I am an avid recycler - whenever I get the chance to recycle, I do it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only problem is, I can't mix materials when recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to recycle the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/v2Zur.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jfUyG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's wrapping for candy - in this case Toblerone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The outer layer looks like plastic, but the inner layer looks like aluminum (or maybe some other material).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this material solely plastic or is it mixed with something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15920" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="bd8ba75c-3f6d-4d49-adf4-6ba1fc6f8b6c" CreationDate="2017-12-14T15:15:04.617" UserId="5232" Text="Is this material plastic or is it mixed with something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15921" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="bd8ba75c-3f6d-4d49-adf4-6ba1fc6f8b6c" CreationDate="2017-12-14T15:15:04.617" UserId="5232" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="15eae37f-3e20-4ed6-9c74-f03aec815073" CreationDate="2017-12-14T19:55:59.643" UserId="5233" Text="For electronics, I've watch some online videos explaining commercial shredding operations and some home based scrappers showing how they strip insulation from common house wiring.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fail to see how either shredding or compression-stripping methods can be used for net environmental benefit in recycling ribbon cables, string lights, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet a local electronics recycling operation accepts string mini lights, the kind typically used as xmas decoration.   What am I missing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15923" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="15eae37f-3e20-4ed6-9c74-f03aec815073" CreationDate="2017-12-14T19:55:59.643" UserId="5233" Text="recycling small cables and xmas mini lights" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15924" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="15eae37f-3e20-4ed6-9c74-f03aec815073" CreationDate="2017-12-14T19:55:59.643" UserId="5233" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="3a982797-d40f-4e11-bffe-a0f0b49e508a" CreationDate="2017-12-14T20:06:10.620" UserId="5233" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited title" Text="For electronics, I've watch some online videos explaining commercial shredding operations and some home based scrapper videos showing how they strip insulation from common household electrical wiring.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fail to see how either shredding or compression-stripping methods can be used for net environmental benefit in recycling ribbon cables, string lights, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet a local electronics recycling operation accepts string mini lights, the kind typically used as xmas decoration.   What am I missing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15926" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="3a982797-d40f-4e11-bffe-a0f0b49e508a" CreationDate="2017-12-14T20:06:10.620" UserId="5233" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited title" Text="recycling small cables from electronics and xmas mini lights" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6322" RevisionGUID="bad2b54f-34f0-4a2b-9e95-f6e9dc70a03e" CreationDate="2017-12-14T20:18:24.263" UserId="3379" Text="**tl;dr:** A lot of soy ink is used, but mixed with petroleum-based ink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy_ink#Disadvantages):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A major problem with soy ink is that it takes more time to dry than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; petroleum-based inks, due to its lack of evaporative solvents in the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; form of VOCs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;VOCs&quot; are Volatile Organic Compounds -- organic in the chemistry sense, not the farming-process sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This drying problem means that the use of soy ink is limited to purpose-made printers and/or papers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While VOCs can be both synthetic or natural, the synthetic variety are associated with long-term health risks, air quality problems, and carbon emissions. So adding synthetic VOCs to soy-based inks to eliminate the need for special equipment or papers would defeat the purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way around this problem is to simply produce soy ink that's only partially soy ink. The standard for what percentage of an ink must come from soybeans is set by the American Soybean Association (ASA), which authorizes the use of this seal by inks which meet the standard:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [the standard they publish](https://soygrowers.com/news-media/soy-ink-seal/), no ink needs to be more than 40% soy to earn the seal, and some specialized inks (such as heat-set ink) can earn the seal even with 10% soy or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, it seems that this mixing is done across the industry. According to the same Wikipedia entry, soy ink was developed in the 1970's to hedge against rising petroleum costs. Use of soy ink (mixed with conventional ink) is widespread in the printing industry -- according to [this article from 1999](https://www.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/1999/12/13/focus2.html), at the time 90% of daily newspapers and 25% of commercial printers were using soy ink, purchased from an industry with over 100 producers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9jpzu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15928" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6318" RevisionGUID="dbc057a1-ed00-4daa-a3bb-afbf69decf32" CreationDate="2017-12-15T02:44:50.530" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/941499259526017024" />
  <row Id="15929" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6323" RevisionGUID="3cd44158-ce52-4c02-9b77-9d0793778ec3" CreationDate="2017-12-15T08:11:34.340" UserId="99" Text="As with most candy wrappers, it's indeed a combination of plastic and aluminium. The material is hard to recycle because it's difficult to separate the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are recyclers that accept this material but not a lot. It's best to check with your local recycling company what to do with it, but chances are it will be incinerated or dumped on a landfill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15930" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="aae928b1-ebb3-46bf-ad45-a0f77d2c6101" CreationDate="2017-12-15T08:15:08.993" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to make the question more canonical (and better to find), added tags" Text="What is this candy wrapper made of? Plastic or mixed with something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15931" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="aae928b1-ebb3-46bf-ad45-a0f77d2c6101" CreationDate="2017-12-15T08:15:08.993" UserId="99" Comment="improved title to make the question more canonical (and better to find), added tags" Text="|recycling|waste|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15932" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="71dc1932-73c1-49d2-aa41-23b574a5a6b6" CreationDate="2017-12-15T08:44:51.017" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/941589858035826689" />
  <row Id="15933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="1da3a4c9-cdd5-49f1-b7e9-8ef84516562a" CreationDate="2017-12-15T09:15:33.590" UserId="99" Comment="improved title" Text="For electronics, I've watched some online videos explaining commercial shredding operations and some home based scrapper videos showing how they strip insulation from common household electrical wiring.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fail to see how either shredding or compression-stripping methods can be used for net environmental benefit in recycling ribbon cables, string lights, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet a local electronics recycling operation accepts string mini lights, the kind typically used as xmas decoration.   What am I missing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15934" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="1da3a4c9-cdd5-49f1-b7e9-8ef84516562a" CreationDate="2017-12-15T09:15:33.590" UserId="99" Comment="improved title" Text="Environmental benefit of recycling small cables from electronics and Christmas mini lights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6323" RevisionGUID="bc3655d0-38b2-4bfc-acb1-4dd4a88e5fe1" CreationDate="2017-12-15T11:54:55.830" UserId="99" Comment="added links to resources for more information" Text="As with most candy wrappers, it's a combination of plastic and aluminium also known as [metallised plastic or metallised film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallised_film). The material is hard to recycle because it's difficult to separate the two materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few recyclers that accept this material (e.g.[TerraCycle in the US](https://www.terracycle.com/en-US/zero_waste_boxes/candy-and-snack-wrappers) and [the UK](https://www.terracycle.co.uk/en-UK/brigades/22) or the [Recycle program in Australia](http://www.redcycle.net.au)) but not many do. It's best to check with your local recycling company what to do with it, but chances are it will be incinerated or dumped on a landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more information on the recycling issues of candy wrappers in this [Earth911.com webpage](https://earth911.com/food/recycling-mysteries-candy-wrappers/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15936" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6320" RevisionGUID="ef0cb861-738c-4796-8654-cb85c8caf0ad" CreationDate="2017-12-15T14:14:24.470" UserId="5232" Comment="Improved title" Text="What is this candy wrapper made of? Solely plastic or mixed with something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6324" RevisionGUID="40328fd5-81c0-42e6-88ea-955863bdc4f0" CreationDate="2017-12-15T14:22:38.307" UserId="4155" Text="Your system involves a 1.5kg weight rolling down a 0.5m slope of 3 degrees. Therefore, each time you reverse the mechanism you are raising the weight by 0.026m (basic trigonomety - sin 3 * 0.5m). To raise a 1.5kg weight by 0.026m takes 0.38J of energy. If you're doing this 26.6 times per second (1600RPM) you'll need 10.13W - at 0.33A you system must therefore be running off 30V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you assume there are no other losses, the most energy you can get out is therefore 0.38J as the weight rolls back to the lower level - it has 0.38J more potential energy at the top than it does at the bottom. It is physically impossible to get more energy out than you put in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="9e62570b-90a2-4fce-8c3b-166040425045" CreationDate="2017-12-15T15:03:30.893" UserId="2914" Text="Please state your source that fertilizer containes NO2 and SO2.  Those are gases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fertilizer will contain solid forms of N and S.  For example Ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Convert the gas to a solid form would be expensive.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="913740d3-2491-4fbd-9604-9b4af6d01940" CreationDate="2017-12-15T15:13:50.060" UserId="2914" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Please state your source that fertilizer contain NO2 and SO2.  Those are gases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fertilizer will contain solid forms of N and S.  For example Ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Convert the gas to a solid form would be expensive.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6326" RevisionGUID="cf70664f-960d-489d-a2e9-0861b5890ac9" CreationDate="2017-12-15T22:36:12.527" UserId="5237" Text="BBC1's &quot;Bang Goes the Theory&quot; demonstrated a human-powered home in a TK programme.  In [this segment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C93cL_zDVIM), 8.5 kW of power required 70 cyclists, of fairly typical fitness, or about 107W per cyclist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [full programme](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPxuuB_ZBuk) shows running a household of four for twelve hours utilising 80 cyclists, working with breaks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The example isn't highlighting low-power draws, but does suggest that over  a sustained period, about 100W is a good baseline assumption for power output of a human on a bicycle attached to a generator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="9c183334-a736-47a6-aef1-d28511aabad6" CreationDate="2017-12-16T07:14:31.020" UserId="-1" Comment="created specific questions; removed religous term." Text="For electronics, I've watched some online videos explaining commercial shredding operations and some home based scrapper videos showing how they strip insulation from common household electrical wiring.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fail to see how either shredding or compression-stripping methods can be used for net environmental benefit in recycling ribbon cables, string lights, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet a local electronics recycling operation accepts string mini lights, the kind typically used as xmas decoration.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: After manually removing the interior computer cables (seen in video), how does the facility separate the insulation from the conductor and is there a net environmental benefit? or do they send them to the landfill?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15943" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="9c183334-a736-47a6-aef1-d28511aabad6" CreationDate="2017-12-16T07:14:31.020" UserId="-1" Comment="created specific questions; removed religous term." Text="Environmental benefit of recycling small cables from electronics and holiday mini lights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15944" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="9c183334-a736-47a6-aef1-d28511aabad6" CreationDate="2017-12-16T07:14:31.020" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 812, 99 edit id of 511" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6315" RevisionGUID="2b5f1a69-79eb-4de7-88a7-f446ac593ce1" CreationDate="2017-12-16T07:15:08.440" UserId="2914" Comment="definition" Text="No, you cannot due to the second law of thermodynamics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that &quot;in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15946" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6315" RevisionGUID="2b5f1a69-79eb-4de7-88a7-f446ac593ce1" CreationDate="2017-12-16T07:15:08.440" Comment="Proposed by 2914 approved by 812, 99 edit id of 512" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6327" RevisionGUID="0edebbff-3456-4163-9c71-622ce7cb29a5" CreationDate="2017-12-16T15:28:37.037" UserId="5237" Text="This is a complex issue and one that's hard to address succinctly.  It gets into the larger matter of media and its role and interaction with society, which is profound.  This includes political and social elements going far beyond consumerism and consumption, though those are part of the dynamic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a short answer:  advertising is not _the only_ problem, but is a large component of a set of conflicts concerning information and media.  It both directly and indirectly promotes disinformation and misinformation, opens avenues to propaganda and manipulation, and fails to promote and support high-quality content.  **It also has very real costs:  globally advertising is a $600 billion/year industry,** largely paid out of consumer spending among the world's 1 billion or so wealthy inhabitants of Europe, North America, and Japan.  **This works out to about $600/year _per person_ in direct expense.**  On top of the indirect and negative-externality factors.  Internet advertising is roughly $100 billion, or $100/yr. per person if you live in the US, Canada, EU, UK, Japan, Australia, or New Zealand.  **The &quot;free&quot; Internet is not free.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the system itself is directly implicated in a tremendous amount of the breakdown of media, politics, and society over the past several years.  Jonathan Albright, ex-Googler and now a scholar of media at the Tow Center (and its director), Columbia University in New York, &quot;[Who Hacked the Election? Ad Tech did. Through “Fake News,” Identity Resolution and Hyper-Personalization](https://medium.com/tow-center/who-hacked-the-election-43d4019f705f)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **[S]cores of highly sophisticated technology providers — mostly US-based companies** that specialize in building advanced solutions for audience “identity resolution,” content tailoring and personalization, cross-platform targeting, and A/B message testing and optimization — **are running the data show behind the worst of these “fake news” sites.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Emphasis in original.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of a longer response, I'd suggest some reading, of which I've been doing a great deal.  Among the starting points I'd suggest the following, in rough order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Hamilton Holt, [_Commercialism and Journalism_](https://archive.org/details/commercialismjou00holtuoft) (1909) is a brief, easy, and fact-filled account of the American publishing industry, especially of newspapers and magazines, at the dawn of the 20th century.  Holt was himself a publisher, of _The Independent_, and delivered this book as a lecture at the University of California.  It gives an account of the previous 50 years or so of development in publishing, including various technologies, but putting the greatest impact on advertising.  I'm not aware that this is particularly well-noted, but I find it a wonderfully concise summary of many of the issues, and a view from near the start of the current system.  Holt includes this quote from an unnamed New York journalist:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; There is no such thing in America as an independent press.  I am paid for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with.  If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation, like Othello's, would be gone.  The business of a New Yourk journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the foot of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread.  We are the tools or vassals of the rich men behind the scenes.  Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men.  We are intellectual prostitutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Jerry Mander](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Mander), [_Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television_](https://www.worldcat.org/title/four-arguments-for-the-elimination-of-television/oclc/49786854&amp;referer=brief_results).  This is a 1970s classic that's held its value.  Mander is an ad executive himself, though he took his talents to the Environmental movement, working closely with David Brower of the Sierra Club.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Adam Curtis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis), BBC documentarian, most especially [_The Century of the Self_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self) ([part 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04), [part 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEsPOt8MG7E), [part 3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub2LB2MaGoM), and [part 4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VouaAz5mQAs)), and [_Hypernormalisation_](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fny99f8amM).  These documentaries, the first a four-part series, the second a self-contained 2h40m single session, focus on media and propaganda.  The first especially on Bernays, Freud (Bernays' uncle), advertising, and propaganda.  The second on Vladimir Putin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Edward S. Herman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_S._Herman) and [Noam Chomsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky), [_Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media_](https://www.worldcat.org/title/printing-press-as-an-agent-of-change-communications-and-cultural-transformations-in-early-modern-europe/oclc/717305507&amp;referer=brief_results).  The title itself comes from Walter Lippmann and his earlier work, [_Public Opinion_](https://www.worldcat.org/title/public-opinion/oclc/1004363057&amp;referer=brief_results), which is something of a guide to its manufacture, _and_ the genesis of &quot;modern&quot; 20th century media.  **The notion of mass media as having a political economy is a critical element in answering your question.**  That is:  media is _inherently_ political _and_ economic, and advertising and propaganda (or as it was rebranded, &quot;public relations&quot;), all the more so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Robert W. McChesney](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._McChesney) has been continuing the exploration of media from a political-economic perspective and has [an extensive bibliography](https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3Amcchesney+robert+w&amp;fq=yr%3A1980..2040+%3E+%3E+x0%3Abook&amp;qt=advanced&amp;dblist=638).  His [_Communication Revolution_](https://www.worldcat.org/title/communication-revolution-critical-junctures-and-the-future-of-media/oclc/260208807&amp;referer=brief_results) in particular discusses his own path through the field, including extensive references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Marshall McLuhan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan), particularly [_The Gutenberg Galaxy_](https://www.worldcat.org/title/gutenberg-galaxy/oclc/980793302&amp;referer=brief_results) and [_The Medium is the Message_](https://www.worldcat.org/title/the-medium-is-the-message/oclc/179926590&amp;referer=brief_results).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Elisabeth Eisenstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Eisenstein), either her book [_The Printing Press as an Agent of Change_](https://www.worldcat.org/title/printing-press-as-an-agent-of-change-communications-and-cultural-transformations-in-early-modern-europe/oclc/717305507&amp;referer=brief_results) or the earlier (and much shorter) article that pressaged it, &quot;[Some Conjectures about the Impact of Printing on Western Society and Thought:  A Preliminary Report](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1877720)&quot; (more interesting than its title, I promise).  Eisenstein draws heavily on, and improves greatly on the rigour of, McLuhan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Generally:  [H.L. Mencken](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._L._Mencken), [I.F. Stone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._F._Stone), and perhaps [Walter Lippmann](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann) and [John Dewey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey).  Mencken and Stone are particularly given to shorter essays (see especially _The I.F. Stone Reader_ and his _New York Review of Books_ articles) which can be readily digested.  Mencken's &quot;[Bayard vs. Lionheart](https://amomai.blogspot.com/2008/10/hl-mencken-bayard-vs-lionheart.html)&quot; whilst not specifically concerning advertising largely describes the crowd-psychology inherent in mediocre or pathological social-political outcomes, and is a short and brilliant read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Edward Bernays](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays), especially [_Propaganda_](https://www.worldcat.org/title/propaganda/oclc/761162684&amp;referer=brief_results) and [_Public Relations_](https://www.worldcat.org/title/public-relations/oclc/5458074&amp;referer=brief_results).  Bernays _created_ the field of public relations, and largely drove the popular support of &quot;democracy&quot; (a WWI war bonds advertising slogan) [in favour of the earlier &quot;liberty&quot;](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=democracy%2Cliberty&amp;case_insensitive=on&amp;year_start=1900&amp;year_end=2000&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=3&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t4%3B%2Cdemocracy%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bdemocracy%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDemocracy%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDEMOCRACY%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cliberty%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bliberty%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BLiberty%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BLIBERTY%3B%2Cc0).  For Stone, I cannot recommend his [Day at Night interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV3gO3zxQ1g) (~1974) highly enough.  30 minutes.  [Bernays' _New York Times_ obituary](http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/10/obituaries/edward-bernays-father-public-relations-leader-opinion-making-dies-103.html) makes interesting reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Charles-Marie Gustave Le Bon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Le_Bon), [_The Crowd:  A study of the popular mind_](https://www.worldcat.org/title/crowd-a-study-in-popular-mind/oclc/610318460&amp;referer=brief_results).    &quot;[C]onsidered one of the seminal works of crowd psychology.&quot;  [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crowd:_A_Study_of_the_Popular_Mind).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Charles Mackay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Mackay_\(author\)), [_Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds_](https://www.worldcat.org/title/extraordinary-popular-delusions-and-the-madness-of-crowds/oclc/868035296&amp;referer=brief_results) (1841).  &quot;[O]ften cited as the best book ever written about market psychology.&quot;  [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have yet to read _all_ of these works, though they're on my list, and I've at least reviewed most of the works and authors and am familiar with major themes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also really just a starting point, though I hope it's a good one.  Media isn't my field, or rather, I'd thought that, working in technology, it wasn't, but I've come to realise that (1) &quot;information technology&quot; is in very large part &quot;media technology&quot;, and (2) the interactions of media systems and society, politics, economics, even culture as a whole, are beyond deep, and highly underappreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The role of mass media in the spread of early-20th century Fascism is a particularly sobering story.  See &quot;[Radio and the Rise of The Nazis in Prewar Germany](https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/130/4/1885/1916582)&quot;, and recognise that you could include cinema, magnetic audio tape recording, public address systems (it's hard to address [three quarters of a million people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Rally) without amplification).  More recently, [radio has been studied in conjunction with the 1994 Rwandan genocide](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1998.tb02762.x/full).  These remain extant issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6328" RevisionGUID="1e472522-b344-437a-8019-768571a24ea3" CreationDate="2017-12-16T19:00:53.883" UserId="5040" Text="Just found a patent for this: https://www.google.com/patents/US20070154374&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *Method for removing sulfur dioxide and other acid gases, mercury, and nitrogen oxides from a gas stream with the optional production of ammonia based fertilizers*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IId04.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3000" RevisionGUID="6372c39b-6601-446f-a101-a0ed75c006c2" CreationDate="2017-12-16T19:11:52.827" UserDisplayName="user4844" Comment="Fix typo in title and body text. Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tetra_Pak) noted that: Tetra Pak (plural Tetra Paks)." Text="Lots of UK supermarkets have recently started selling chopped tomatoes in Tetra Paks, rather than the tins they were always in. My first thought was that this was environmentally bad - given recycling facilities for Tetra Paks are much harder to come by, compared to tins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are also obvious positives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. I imagine far more energy is needed to form/recycle a metal can, than a Tetra Pak.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Tetra Paks tessellate far more neatly - less space between cans on a lorry = less lorries.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Tetra Paks would be lighter than cans, therefore, again, less fuel used to transport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, would this appear to be an environmental decision from the supermarkets, or a financial one, for the supermarkets margins? (I'd imagine Tetra Paks are definitely cheaper to produce than cans.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15950" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3000" RevisionGUID="6372c39b-6601-446f-a101-a0ed75c006c2" CreationDate="2017-12-16T19:11:52.827" UserDisplayName="user4844" Comment="Fix typo in title and body text. Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tetra_Pak) noted that: Tetra Pak (plural Tetra Paks)." Text="Are Tetra Pak tomatoes more sustainable than tinned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15951" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3000" RevisionGUID="6372c39b-6601-446f-a101-a0ed75c006c2" CreationDate="2017-12-16T19:11:52.827" Comment="Proposed by 4844 approved by 1687 edit id of 513" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6325" RevisionGUID="1010f041-e6b5-48e4-b441-528a911d2f07" CreationDate="2017-12-16T20:19:38.880" UserId="2914" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="Please state your source that fertilizer contain NO2 and SO2.  Those are gases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remove NO2 and SO2 is required by emission laws.  Scrubbers have been used for this since the 40's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fertilizer will contain solid forms of N and S.  For example Ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Convert the gas to a solid form would be expensive.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3065" RevisionGUID="00fa9294-303e-4922-9998-84fd9475392c" CreationDate="2017-12-17T07:30:01.057" UserDisplayName="user4844" Comment="Fix typo and grammar. Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tetra_Pak) noted that: Tetra Pak (plural Tetra Paks)." Text="Currently, tins or aluminum cans are easier and more environmentally recycled than Tetra Paks. That said, Tetra Pak is working hard to improve their product. One issue is that they mixed many materials in the Tetra Pak, while a tin can have a relatively simple recycling process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metals have also been recycled for a longer amount of time, so there are more places to take them and more people are familiar with the process and prepared to process them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, Tetra Pak is more accurately comparable to other polymer packages. It has harder time competing with metal cans, glass bottles, and the like where tradition helps recycling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15954" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3065" RevisionGUID="00fa9294-303e-4922-9998-84fd9475392c" CreationDate="2017-12-17T07:30:01.057" Comment="Proposed by 4844 approved by -1 edit id of 514" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3065" RevisionGUID="abe0e9b8-596d-4703-b1a2-9940de51cad4" CreationDate="2017-12-17T07:30:01.057" UserId="99" Comment="Fix typo and grammar. Wiktionary (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tetra_Pak) noted that: Tetra Pak (plural Tetra Paks)." Text="Currently, tin or aluminum cans are easier and more environmentally recycled than Tetra Paks. That said, [Tetra Pak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra_Pak) is working hard to improve their product. One issue is that they mixed many materials in the Tetra Pak, while a tin can have a relatively simple recycling process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metals have also been recycled for a longer amount of time, so there are more places to take them and more people are familiar with the process and prepared to process them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, Tetra Pak is more accurately comparable to other polymer packages. It has a harder time competing with metal cans, glass bottles, and the like where tradition helps recycling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6329" RevisionGUID="49c5adb1-deb9-4276-883b-42c706b9f4b8" CreationDate="2017-12-17T08:48:51.420" UserDisplayName="user4844" Text="This is a similar but *not* the exact answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my recent web search result, I happened to visit this page: [Recycling &amp; Waste Minimization][1] by Office of Sustainability, The University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Their recycling approach had some resemblance of what have been described the question. I have noted the following points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Point 1.** Item example is &quot;Styrofoam&quot; (may be a coincidence)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following text have been quoted from above link, which included the anchor link tab &quot;How Recycling Works at UIC&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **START WITH SMART MATERIALS**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; It begins when the materials available for use on campus are chosen based on compatibility within our recycling program. If an item (for example, Styrofoam cups) is provided for use on campus, it is everyone’s responsibility to ask why it was chosen in the first place. Watch how Joe Iosbaker, UIC Recycling Coordinator, explains the recycling system in [this short video][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Point 2.** Links to a video on YouTube&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;This short video&quot; is linked to a video on YouTube. The video has length of 3:46 minutes and the description has been quoted at below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; UIC Recycling Program Basics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; UIC Office of Sustainability&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Published on Feb 16, 2012&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Joe Iosbaker, UIC Recycling Assistant, goes over how the UIC Recycling Program works. Recorded and edited by Andre Thomas, UIC Office of Sustainability Media Intern, Fall 2011.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Point 3.** Have bins at central point i.e. &quot;Hallway Recycling&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an inline image under the quoted text. I have captured the top-half of the image and transcribed relevant text from the image.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Partial screenshot of How Recycling Works at UIC][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Desk-Side Recycling - Place all recyclable materials in the small blue bin by your desk.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hallway Recycling - If you don't have a desk-side bin, or when the bin is full, sort the materials in the hallway stations. We all have a responsibility to properly recycle at UIC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nonetheless, UIC is an English speaking university.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Missing points**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the resemblance, there are few missing points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* No mention of &quot;no longer put trash cans in each individual office&quot; (However &quot;Desk-Side Recycling&quot; seems to be not necessary, as hinted by description text for &quot;Hallway Recycling&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* No mention of &quot;good reasons&quot; why the approach was established as such at their university (They only explain how their approach works).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* No mention of &quot;needed to recycle styrofoam and such&quot; (Besides the brief mention of &quot;Styrofoam cups&quot; as example and other solid waste such as food scraps collected at their dining halls; bottles and cans).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* No mention of &quot;different people were interviewed&quot; (There is only one person who explain the recycling steps in the video).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, this answer might not be the one that OP was looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish there were more reliable clues in the question to figure out how they managed to remove trash cans from the office at all. Based on the broad clues of &quot;English speaking university&quot; and &quot;no trash cans&quot;, I can guess of only one place: Singapore. Although, I only heard that Singapore provides no trash cans in public area and not aware of waste management inside the buildings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://sustainability.uic.edu/campus-resources/recycling-waste-minimization/#HowRecyclingWorksatUIC&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYXkcVdHFPo&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zm70f.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15960" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6029" RevisionGUID="66675d41-a9ea-4af7-93cf-ed889a5fce9b" CreationDate="2017-12-18T08:50:56.720" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/942678555397378048" />
  <row Id="15961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6331" RevisionGUID="4dd27b65-e028-458e-999d-0c8338767949" CreationDate="2017-12-18T08:57:53.667" UserId="5244" Text="Slices of stale bread are a good alternative. I keep crusts / the ends of loaves in the freezer and place 4 to 6 on a tray to cover the tray. You then just place your fried food on top to drain. The bread is fine to go in the compost afterwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6332" RevisionGUID="2046e621-d4be-4ec3-92e3-e0d80431952f" CreationDate="2017-12-18T14:54:23.633" UserId="5040" Text="Use woven/organic undyed cloth piece, and then wash it along with other clothes. Keep this piece only for draining food. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: &#xD;&#xA;https://www.amazon.com/Reusable-Organic-Cheesecloth-ColorGrown-Ubleached/dp/B07622VQVM/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="35b8bc26-ee06-41cf-9373-4b4957ade1f3" CreationDate="2017-12-18T19:17:38.363" UserId="5246" Text="Which one is more efficient and has longer operating life, thin metal or nano paper core in a HRV?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be used in a nordic country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm searching for a heat recovery ventilator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of what kind of Core are they using here in north Europe, but they claim it has **effeciency of up to 95%**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ones I find at the chinese market are &quot;nano paper&quot; core. They do not state the effeciency of the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15964" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="35b8bc26-ee06-41cf-9373-4b4957ade1f3" CreationDate="2017-12-18T19:17:38.363" UserId="5246" Text="Heat Recovery Ventilator HRV, metal vs paper core?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15965" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="35b8bc26-ee06-41cf-9373-4b4957ade1f3" CreationDate="2017-12-18T19:17:38.363" UserId="5246" Text="|heating|air-conditioning|ventilation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6334" RevisionGUID="bfcbcb38-1581-44d0-b239-688c1ebd5ee7" CreationDate="2017-12-18T19:30:47.167" UserId="5246" Text="What those countries has in common are non-existant infrastructure like banking system, electricity and sewage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So comfort in everyday life is not there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good car delivers instant gratification. It is more affordable than a house, has air conditioning and temporary isolation from the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A terrible long term solution, but a great one for the short term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If solar cells, recycling, etc. are affordable, available and convenient, (solar cells and health care are not) AND produces instant comfort or relief from everyday situation, I don't think anyone will oppose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See how the majority of immigrants do in their hosting countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15967" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4810" RevisionGUID="6380c11a-707e-4149-8d56-5f3e09eea760" CreationDate="2017-12-18T20:50:59.613" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/942859762059923456" />
  <row Id="15968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="bdbf96a1-893e-4ec6-9caf-6a3380eec2bb" CreationDate="2017-12-18T20:56:27.060" UserId="15" Comment="fixed spelling" Text="Which one is more efficient and has longer operating life, thin metal or nano paper core in a HRV?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will be used in a Nordic country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm searching for a heat recovery ventilator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not aware of what kind of Core are they using here in north Europe, but they claim it has **efficiency of up to 95%**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ones I find at the Chinese market are &quot;nano paper&quot; core. They do not state the efficiency of the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6336" RevisionGUID="0bab80d2-9053-43a3-bd41-348738bb4226" CreationDate="2017-12-19T13:02:18.753" UserId="48" Text="One expert colleague of mine had heard of this in the past. Once. So it's not unknown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amongst the experts I talked to, there was deep scepticism about the [paper core](http://www.microairsun.com/en/index.php?s=/Product/detail/id/142.html); the unlikely heat recovery rate (75%) ascribed to it; the low expected speed of water-vapour propagation through it; and its lifetime - particularly in an environment where it would be likely to pick up grease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passivhaus-approved MVHRs will hit over 90% heat recovery. There are some MVHRs that have heat-exchangers which are designed to be pretty easy to remove and clean, and it might be worth considering one of these (in addition to appropriate filters). If you want the best in class, then find one certified by the Passivhaus Institut - they group them into [small](https://database.passivehouse.com/en/components/list/ventilation_small) and [large](https://database.passivehouse.com/en/components/list/ventilation_big), with the threshold between the two categories being 600 cubic metres per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been some recent attention paid to fine-wire heat exchangers in MVHR, but I don't know if there's much independent verification yet of their performance, their lifetime, and the ease of cleaning &amp; maintaining them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6336" RevisionGUID="676ad29c-9f1c-4ce2-8ac5-5a617f112361" CreationDate="2017-12-19T15:04:09.937" UserId="48" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="One expert colleague of mine had heard of this in the past. Once. So it's not unknown. Another thought that it might not be that uncommon, but that it wouldn't be wise to buy one that hadn't passed a high, independent, certification standard&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Amongst the experts I talked to, there was scepticism about the [paper core](http://www.microairsun.com/en/index.php?s=/Product/detail/id/142.html); the heat recovery rate (75%) ascribed to it; the low expected speed of water-vapour propagation through it; and its lifetime - particularly in an environment where it would be likely to pick up grease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passivhaus-approved MVHRs will hit over 90% heat recovery. There are some MVHRs that have heat-exchangers which are designed to be pretty easy to remove and clean, and it might be worth considering one of these (in addition to appropriate filters). If you want the best in class, then find one certified by the Passivhaus Institut - they group them into [small](https://database.passivehouse.com/en/components/list/ventilation_small) and [large](https://database.passivehouse.com/en/components/list/ventilation_big), with the threshold between the two categories being 600 cubic metres per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There has been some recent attention paid to fine-wire heat exchangers in MVHR, but I don't know if there's much independent verification yet of their performance, their lifetime, and the ease of cleaning &amp; maintaining them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6301" RevisionGUID="fdcc1154-2b05-451e-a4ff-8882ca3f1e17" CreationDate="2017-12-19T16:11:57.583" UserId="3379" Comment="Grammar, puncuation, formatting." Text="People world-wide like status. I return to the South Pacific I take WalMart bags from America. The ladies love to go to town with them. It means someone in our family is rich enough to go there or our friend can go there. Same with the big cell phone. A vehicle says I can out run you, ford deeper rivers and climb up the side of a mountain faster to get away from the gun fire. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for green of the main road most are. Tropical soil is very sensitive. To make it last takes effort. They take it as farms need to last for the next generation. Americans just don't recognize the farming methods used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Waste -- the kids walk the beach after storms and typhoons. All that is good is salvaged. Go by the dumps -- the dump pickers remove all that can be reused. In town set a bottle down. Turn your back on it. Gone -- some kid has it for deposit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric? the wire will come in 20 years they hope. Litter is picked up by the poor if it can be sold. Nothing goes to waste in Asia. They're much more green than America is, in most ways. Asians are very clean. They bath daily or more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Africa is different. It was to be the miracle of the 21st century. It is the last place in the world were food production can be increased tenfold. Mineral rich. So we went in and showed some how to do this. Maize went from 20 bushel to 100 bushel to the acre. The next week the next village over attacks. You have more than them. Go to their school -- they need pens. So take a gross with you. But they can not use them. Why? There are 30 students. Yes, but you only have 24 pens. Yes? They will kill each other over the pens. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Soon Africa will be invaded. The world needs the food. The Africans will not raise. There is the problem. Give a man a job. He will work one day. The next day he comes with his wife. To tell her how to do the job. So what is the answer? You want green? leave no scrap behind like in SE Asia to go to waste. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2546" RevisionGUID="e85f9acd-8f13-4bb9-bcea-fb89c676ea78" CreationDate="2017-12-19T19:53:47.937" UserId="400" Comment="Added links." Text="This is a very open ended question.  Much of this depends on the scale of operation, and your climate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You specifically said grey water, so I'm assuming this means laundry, dishwater and bathwater.  The chief grey components are going to be food waste, body dirt, and soap.  There will be a minor component of oil or grease.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good system would have a float separation of grease.  Run the effluent into a large tank.  Both input and output should be several inches below the surface.  The tank should be sized to hold several day's waste water.   Inlet and outlets should be designed to not stir up the water much.  Using 4&quot; pipe with lots of 3/4&quot; holes is a good way to do this.  (2 feet of pipe with 6 holes every 3 inches.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can check if you need this by taking some samples of grey water in a bucket, and see if a film of grease forms on the surface.  If no grease forms, then you don't need this step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the grease separation, run it through a straw column.  Build this with a couple of plastic barrels.  Every 6&quot; in height run 3 chunks of small diameter ABS sewer line through the barrel, alterting direction each level.  These fit loosely into holes in the barrel, as you need to remove them periodically to add straw.  On one side drill 3/4 inch holes every 2.5 inches.  Fill the column, inserting the pipes as needed, hole side down.  This keeps the column from collapsing into a sodden mess, and allows air into the column.  Your effluent is sprayed onto the top of the straw collumn at the rate of a couple gallons a minute.  You will need a small storage tank -- enough for a day's use, and a float switch to operate the pump.  You need to either use a pump that can handle solids, or you need to put a filter before the pump. You will have to replace the straw in the column a couple times a year.  Add to the compost pile.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternative way:  Pile of straw on 4 pallets.  Pallets are on a tarp.  Tarp drains into edge of pond.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Run it to long, narrow shallow pond.  The pond should be between 12 and 18&quot; deep.  Plant the pond with cattails.  They will remove most of the phosphates from the soap, and generally remove harmful bacteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second pond that acts as storage until you need the water.  Having duckweed in this pond will act as a secondary biofilter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use the water first you need to filter it.  Do this in several stages.  First stage is a trash filter.  This is a coarse mesh filter that keeps chunks out of the plumbing.  Availalbe at any farm store.  This filter should be on a float, with the filter itself about a foot to two feet under the surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondary filter is a screen filter.  These are availble in mesh sizes from about 40 to about 150.  You may need several in series with progressively finer meshes.  Get ones that you don't have to disassemble to clean, but that you can just back flush.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tertiary filtering can be either a sand filter or a disk filter.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point you need to start taking water samples and send them off for checks for bacterial contamination.  Most pubic health offices in rural locations can do this for you.  Contact them for sampling technique.  If the bacteria count is too high, you can either use bleach or UV or ozone as a purifying step.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the water is clean enough at the end of the cattails to use as water for your lawn and garden.  Filter enough for whatever pumping system you use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Caveats:  Pond based filters don't work when they are frozen.  If you live in a climate with consistend sub freezing or near freezing conditions, then you need to size your ponds to hold a year's water supply.  You will also need to add a pump to circulate the water during the good part of the year.  It doesn't have to circulate very fast.  Once a week will do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Numbers:  Family of 4.  1 load of dishes (20 gal) 4 baths (150 gal) 2 batches of laundry (50 gal).  Misc other 30 gal.  Total 200 gallons.  That's about 25 cubic feet.  A 1 year pond then will need 400 x 25 (rounding days per year up) = 10,000 cubic feet.  If the pond is 2 feet deep that's 5000 square feet.  If you make the pond 10 feet wide it's 500 feet long.  You can make the pond serpentine, so it fits into an area 50 x 100 feet.  Or you can make it wander around the edge of your property as a water feature.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To circulate the water on a once a week basis during the thawed season you need to move 10,000 cubic feet / 600,000 seconds -- about a half a quart per second, or about 6 gallons a minute.  You can use larger flows for the sunny part of the day and run it off a PV cell.  There is very little height difference between one end and the other.  Main power loss will be friction in the piping.  You want low head pumps. Heating system circulation pumps, or aquarium pumps are candidates.  Take the time to calcuate the power usage.  It's going to run a LOT of hours.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a moderate climate, you can put the water based bio filter in a green house.  This will keep it active all year, or at most a much shorter down time.  This means you don't need to store a year's worth of pond, but only a week or two.   Make the green house twice as large as necessary, and attach it to the house as a sun room.  This will provide some heat for the house, and give a pleasant place on a winter's day.  Plastic sheathed hoop houses are inexpensive to build.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further info:  Wastewater treatment biofilter layouts compared.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22508136  This one is for blackwater use on a municipal scale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiki article about biofiltration in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofilter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using wood chips and straw as a support for biofilms.  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144860907000581&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This page has a forum for discussion aquaponics.  For many a biofilter is part of the system to denitrofy the water from the fish crap.  Not a direct comparison, but similar hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6337" RevisionGUID="15dfbe7a-059a-472b-812e-cea0937b2d2d" CreationDate="2017-12-20T11:54:03.807" UserId="5250" Text="What is the best - cost, minimising negative environmental impact, simple - way to process grey water outflow? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I plan to build an off-grid cabin, I will be harvesting rainwater, using it in my sinks/shower with some 'eco' detergents and soap and then I am not sure what to do with it. We won't have a washing machine or dishwasher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I just let it drain into the soil, how do I disperse it and how can I minimise the negative environmental impact? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read about reed bed systems but I would like to explore simpler, cheaper options as well. I'm in the West of Ireland and the soil is shallow and pretty wet for a lot of the year.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15977" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6337" RevisionGUID="15dfbe7a-059a-472b-812e-cea0937b2d2d" CreationDate="2017-12-20T11:54:03.807" UserId="5250" Text="Processing grey water (sink, shower) in off-grid situation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15978" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6337" RevisionGUID="15dfbe7a-059a-472b-812e-cea0937b2d2d" CreationDate="2017-12-20T11:54:03.807" UserId="5250" Text="|water|waste-water|greywater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15979" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6337" RevisionGUID="701025c2-3722-43bc-967a-12b435072a5a" CreationDate="2017-12-20T23:56:09.547" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/943631135715799042" />
  <row Id="15980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6338" RevisionGUID="fd72e2cd-6da1-4b67-9299-9bb01d8ec766" CreationDate="2017-12-21T16:03:26.380" UserId="1177" Text="The climate is similar to Alberta's. If there is a case study, that will be perfect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6338" RevisionGUID="fd72e2cd-6da1-4b67-9299-9bb01d8ec766" CreationDate="2017-12-21T16:03:26.380" UserId="1177" Text="Is it feasible to use constructed wetlands for greywater treatment in places where lakes freeze for more than half of the year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6338" RevisionGUID="fd72e2cd-6da1-4b67-9299-9bb01d8ec766" CreationDate="2017-12-21T16:03:26.380" UserId="1177" Text="|waste-water|greywater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6338" RevisionGUID="11abeeee-d132-4823-a849-bb155f419c52" CreationDate="2017-12-21T16:36:54.813" UserId="1177" Comment="Added detail." Text="Let's say village-sized community discharging grey water from shower water, human and animal wastes and laundry water. These villages use modern detergent and medicine (especially antibiotics), have electricity, no sewage line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The climate is similar to Alberta's. If there is a case study, that will be perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below: Most of these villages are no more than 60 years old. I believe they are discharging grey waterdirectly into the environment.&#xD;&#xA;[![villages][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below: This is Heilongjiang province where these villages are located:&#xD;&#xA;[![location][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vE2bQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pZbpw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6338" RevisionGUID="fa46fe4a-5ec6-47e0-8834-653765a5930e" CreationDate="2017-12-21T17:23:37.950" UserId="1177" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="Let's say village-sized community discharging grey water from shower water, human and animal wastes and laundry water. These villages use modern detergent and medicine (especially antibiotics), have electricity, no sewage line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The climate is similar to Alberta's. If there is a case study, that will be perfect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below: Every tiny speck in the green is a village; most of these villages are no more than 60 years old. I believe they are discharging grey waterdirectly into the environment.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below: This is Heilongjiang province where these villages are located:&#xD;&#xA;[![location][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MnelG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pZbpw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15985" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6339" RevisionGUID="7792135e-eb54-4f1a-8c35-398d9e95edf8" CreationDate="2017-12-21T17:38:09.627" UserId="3379" Text="# Extracting natural gas from pingos is likely not cost-effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the article cited in the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A count of 7,000 pingos, alternative included, was likely an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; underestimate, in Romanovsky’s view. Across the entire Arctic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; permafrost, he estimated there may be as many as 100,000. But he could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not say how many fell into which category — a symptom, in part, of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relatively poor resolution of imaging satellites that travel above the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tundra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this sounds like a lot, the &quot;alternative pingos&quot; are the ones which contain methane (the primary component of natural gas) in sufficient concentrations to be considered explosive. They are a tenth the size of the &quot;traditional&quot; pingos, measuring 50 to 100 meters across.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article also says that only a &quot;handful&quot; of these alternative pingos have been found, and only as craters -- after the bubble burst. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, several factors combine to indicate that extraction of natural gas from alternative pingos would not be cost-effective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The quantity and distribution is not well known&#xD;&#xA; - The pingos must be found before they have burst&#xD;&#xA; - Each pingo is small, and only yields one harvest&#xD;&#xA; - They are located in remote regions with limited infrastructure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Shale gas productivity is up, and costs are down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if a path to cost-effective extraction of methane from pingos could be proposed, there is little incentive to spend money in this direction, as other sources currently exist -- namely, shale gas plays in North America. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Production from shale gas is [increasing rapidly](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26552): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...while at the same time, costs are declining:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# A possible &quot;next&quot; source of natural gas -- methane clathrates -- is already being explored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From the BBC](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-39971667):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; China has for the first time extracted gas from an ice-like substance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; under the South China Sea considered key to future global energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Methane clathrates (also called methane hydrates) are frozen deposits of natural gas mixed with water which are located throughout the oceans, typically at or near continental shelves. It is estimated that natural gas stored in these deposits is equivalent to ten times the quantity in on-shore shale gas deposits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dL21W.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AEgUL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6340" RevisionGUID="8b876e73-59f1-44f4-8283-4638de8d4cb9" CreationDate="2017-12-21T17:51:49.130" UserId="99" Text="**Summary**: Fairtrade International gives priority to social problems (alleviating poverty and good working conditions), Rainforest Alliance to environmental aspects (protecting natural resources) and UTZ is somewhere in between. There are indications that Fairtrade International is the most strict label and Rainforest Alliance the least, but all 3 labels have their strengths and weaknesses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UTZ, Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade have a lot in common. All 3 organizations try to transform agricultural production and trade systems, improve the working and living conditions of farmers, forbid child labor, and protect biodiversity and ecosystems. The 3 organizations [cooperate with each other to achieve this, but they also said that they believe each label has it's own value](http://www.fairtradeafrica.net/news/joint-statement-by-fairtrade-rainforest-alliance-and-utz/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference between the 3 organizations is which goals they feel are most important and how they try to achieve those goals. Roughly speaking Fairtrade International gives priority to social problems (alleviating poverty and good working conditions), Rainforest Alliance to environmental aspects (protecting natural resources like wildlife and forests) and UTZ is somewhere in between.&#xD;&#xA;You can see this more clearly in how each label does business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fairtrade International (FI)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FI gives farmers a minimum trade price and premium which are set in advance. This gives farmers more income security, but the downside is that it reduces the incentive to keep the quality of the products up (although there is still an incentive to sell high quality products at a higher price). People have [criticized the fair-trade model for being unrealistic with too high prices](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2004/nov/24/foodanddrink.shopping1) and consequently not being sustainable nor applicable to all farmers world-wide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rainforest Alliance (RA)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RA does not offer minimum prices or mandatory premiums. Farmers have to meet a list of sustainable agriculture principles like conserving local wildlife, forests and water resources, minimize soil erosion and treat workers fairly.&#xD;&#xA;Unlike FI, RA doesn't have a license fee which makes their scheme cheaper for food companies.&#xD;&#xA;RA has been criticized for having [too close relations with major buyers such as Kraft, not stepping in when Chiquita plantations violated the RA label standards](https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/fair-expectations-rainforest-alliance-v-fairtrade#close) and for being not strict enough, for example [by allowing labelled coffee to have a minimum of 30% certified beans](https://benclapton.id.au/2013/04/17/fair-trade-rainforest-alliance-or-utz-seeing-the-wood-amongst-the-trees/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UTZ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UTZ can be classified somewhere in between FI and RA (but closer to RA than FI). UTZ doesn't specify minimum prices. Instead they teach farmers sustainable and efficient farming methods which should increase yield and quality, and thus improve income. Farmers do [get a premium for certified products](https://utz.org/better-business-hub/strengthening-your-reputation/utz-certified-farmers-get-paid-premium/), but how much has to be negotiated between farmers and the first buyer.&#xD;&#xA;UTZ also teaches how to improve working and living conditions.&#xD;&#xA;Use of pesticides is allowed by UTZ, if those pesticides are also allowed in countries like the US, European and Japan and not exceed the recommended quantities. &#xD;&#xA;UTZ is the only organization of the 3 that has an independent third-party certification body for auditing and monitoring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's difficult to say which label is best. There are indications that FI is the most strict label and Rainforest Alliance the least, but all 3 labels have their strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately your label of choice will probably depend on which goal you feel is more important; social problems for farmers, maintaining biodiversity and ecosystems, or a combination of both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting development is that UTZ and RA announced a few months ago that [they will soon merge and continue with 1 certification scheme under the name Rainforest Alliance](https://utz.org/merger/). The new standard will be published early 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Ben Clapton's blog &quot;Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance or UTZ: seeing the wood amongst the trees&quot;](https://benclapton.id.au/2013/04/17/fair-trade-rainforest-alliance-or-utz-seeing-the-wood-amongst-the-trees/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Organic consumer's criticism on Rainforest Alliance](https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/fair-expectations-rainforest-alliance-v-fairtrade)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [UTZ's webpage &quot;What’s the difference between UTZ, Fairtrade and the Rainforest Alliance?&quot;](https://utz.org/better-business-hub/marketing-sustainable-products/whats-difference-utz-fairtrade-rainforest-alliance/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Rainforest Alliance's FAQ &quot;What Is The Difference Between Rainforest Alliance Certification, Fairtrade, And UTZ Certification?&quot;](https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/faqs/difference-rainforest-alliance-certified-fair-trade-utz)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15987" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6333" RevisionGUID="5ea76fd0-3216-41b1-a595-ebc7c4290a00" CreationDate="2017-12-21T20:58:28.340" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/943948807783505921" />
  <row Id="15988" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6341" RevisionGUID="af06ec42-f001-4752-b664-2e75edc707ac" CreationDate="2017-12-21T22:41:47.070" UserId="5003" Text="Your start up is expensive. Land remote. $10,000 U.S. for 2 hector. More for best ground. This is were you will be 100 &amp; electric will still not come to you. Tools, $2,000. Water Buffalo $1,000. Pigs, chickens, goat. $200 for start up. $500 to build hut. Add $500 for extras. $2,000 a year for 3 years getting all going. Income $700 to $1,000 a year. If you work hard. Expenses $600 a year. Big expense is drilling a well. 2 inch pipe &amp; sand point. Generator will bankrupt you. 1 solar plate only. Add 1 mountain girl, children buy 5 hector to start.  You will make out fine. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6339" RevisionGUID="7539ecb2-742d-4b64-ad46-ec496a245b0d" CreationDate="2017-12-22T16:00:25.943" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting." Text="## Extracting natural gas from pingos is likely not cost-effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the article cited in the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A count of 7,000 pingos, alternative included, was likely an&#xD;&#xA;&gt; underestimate, in Romanovsky’s view. Across the entire Arctic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; permafrost, he estimated there may be as many as 100,000. But he could&#xD;&#xA;&gt; not say how many fell into which category — a symptom, in part, of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; relatively poor resolution of imaging satellites that travel above the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tundra.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this sounds like a lot, the &quot;alternative pingos&quot; are the ones which contain methane (the primary component of natural gas) in sufficient concentrations to be considered explosive. They are a tenth the size of the &quot;traditional&quot; pingos, measuring 50 to 100 meters across.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article also says that only a &quot;handful&quot; of these alternative pingos have been found, and only as craters -- after the bubble burst. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, several factors combine to indicate that extraction of natural gas from alternative pingos would not be cost-effective:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The quantity and distribution is not well known&#xD;&#xA; - The pingos must be found before they have burst&#xD;&#xA; - Each pingo is small, and only yields one harvest&#xD;&#xA; - They are located in remote regions with limited infrastructure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Shale gas productivity is up, and costs are down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if a path to cost-effective extraction of methane from pingos could be proposed, there is little incentive to spend money in this direction, as other sources currently exist -- namely, shale gas plays in North America. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Production from shale gas is [increasing rapidly](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26552): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...while at the same time, costs over the last several years are declining:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## A possible &quot;next&quot; source of natural gas -- methane clathrates -- is already being explored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From the BBC](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-39971667):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; China has for the first time extracted gas from an ice-like substance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; under the South China Sea considered key to future global energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Methane clathrates (also called methane hydrates) are frozen deposits of natural gas mixed with water which are located throughout the oceans, typically at or near continental shelves. It is estimated that natural gas stored in these deposits is equivalent to ten times the quantity in on-shore shale gas deposits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dL21W.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AEgUL.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15991" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="54655819-89ef-4272-9c12-8f75576d0a4c" CreationDate="2017-12-22T18:18:08.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15992" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="7e3a8a27-03ed-4ade-9c87-0f3621631d75" CreationDate="2017-12-23T18:23:51.780" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="15993" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6338" RevisionGUID="5bb1bc2c-6099-4e16-9275-7f631de6630f" CreationDate="2017-12-24T12:06:42.497" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/944902148369903617" />
  <row Id="15994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6340" RevisionGUID="88c2f04f-7945-4424-9159-4b8119d7642f" CreationDate="2017-12-24T13:33:44.340" UserId="99" Comment="added positive note about Rainforest Alliance" Text="**Summary**: Fairtrade International gives priority to social problems (alleviating poverty and good working conditions), Rainforest Alliance to environmental aspects (protecting natural resources) and UTZ is somewhere in between. There are indications that Fairtrade International is the most strict label and Rainforest Alliance the least, but all 3 labels have their strengths and weaknesses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UTZ, Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade have a lot in common. All 3 organizations try to transform agricultural production and trade systems, improve the working and living conditions of farmers, forbid child labor, and protect biodiversity and ecosystems. The 3 organizations [cooperate with each other to achieve this, but they also said that they believe each label has its own value](http://www.fairtradeafrica.net/news/joint-statement-by-fairtrade-rainforest-alliance-and-utz/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference between the 3 organizations is which goals they feel are most important and how they try to achieve those goals. Roughly speaking Fairtrade International gives priority to social problems (alleviating poverty and good working conditions), Rainforest Alliance to environmental aspects (protecting natural resources like wildlife and forests) and UTZ is somewhere in between.&#xD;&#xA;You can see this more clearly in how each label does business.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fairtrade International (FI)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FI gives farmers a minimum trade price and premium which are set in advance. This gives farmers more income security, but the downside is that it reduces the incentive to keep the quality of the products up (although there is still an incentive to sell high quality products at a higher price). People have [criticized the fair-trade model for being unrealistic with too high prices](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2004/nov/24/foodanddrink.shopping1) and consequently not being sustainable nor applicable to all farmers world-wide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rainforest Alliance (RA)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;RA does not offer minimum prices or mandatory premiums. Farmers have to meet a list of sustainable agriculture principles like conserving local wildlife, forests and water resources, minimize soil erosion and treat workers fairly.&#xD;&#xA;Unlike FI, RA doesn't have a license fee which makes their scheme cheaper for food companies. RA has been criticized for having [too close relations with major buyers such as Kraft, not stepping in when Chiquita plantations violated the RA label standards](https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/fair-expectations-rainforest-alliance-v-fairtrade#close) and for being not strict enough, for example [by allowing labelled coffee to have a minimum of 30% certified beans](https://benclapton.id.au/2013/04/17/fair-trade-rainforest-alliance-or-utz-seeing-the-wood-amongst-the-trees/).&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand RA claims that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  In 2014, the State of Sustainability Initiatives Review completed a study which reviewed independent organizations on social, environmental, and economic indices. The Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable Agriculture Network scored the highest overall average (84 percent) in terms of social impact, above Fairtrade (73 percent), UTZ (58 percent), and Organic (51 percent). ([source](https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/faqs/difference-rainforest-alliance-certified-fair-trade-utz))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UTZ**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UTZ can be classified somewhere in between FI and RA (but closer to RA than FI). UTZ doesn't specify minimum prices. Instead they teach farmers sustainable and efficient farming methods which should increase yield and quality, and thus improve income. Farmers do [get a premium for certified products](https://utz.org/better-business-hub/strengthening-your-reputation/utz-certified-farmers-get-paid-premium/), but how much has to be negotiated between farmers and the first buyer.&#xD;&#xA;UTZ also teaches how to improve working and living conditions.&#xD;&#xA;Use of pesticides is allowed by UTZ, if those pesticides are also allowed in countries like the US, European and Japan and not exceed the recommended quantities. &#xD;&#xA;UTZ is the only organization of the 3 that has an independent third-party certification body for auditing and monitoring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's difficult to say which label is best. There are indications that FI is the most strict label and Rainforest Alliance the least, but all 3 labels have their strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately your label of choice will probably depend on which goal you feel is more important; social problems for farmers, maintaining biodiversity and ecosystems, or a combination of both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting development is that UTZ and RA announced a few months ago that [they will soon merge and continue with 1 certification scheme under the name Rainforest Alliance](https://utz.org/merger/). The new standard will be published early 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Ben Clapton's blog &quot;Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance or UTZ: seeing the wood amongst the trees&quot;](https://benclapton.id.au/2013/04/17/fair-trade-rainforest-alliance-or-utz-seeing-the-wood-amongst-the-trees/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Organic consumer's criticism on Rainforest Alliance](https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/fair-expectations-rainforest-alliance-v-fairtrade)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [UTZ's webpage &quot;What’s the difference between UTZ, Fairtrade and the Rainforest Alliance?&quot;](https://utz.org/better-business-hub/marketing-sustainable-products/whats-difference-utz-fairtrade-rainforest-alliance/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Rainforest Alliance's FAQ &quot;What Is The Difference Between Rainforest Alliance Certification, Fairtrade, And UTZ Certification?&quot;](https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/faqs/difference-rainforest-alliance-certified-fair-trade-utz)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6342" RevisionGUID="61917217-a4a4-4fa5-90e4-87510f653ce2" CreationDate="2017-12-28T07:13:04.267" UserId="5265" Text="Repainted altoids tins make great cigarette box...I know, hit me" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="15996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6343" RevisionGUID="b1928f0e-8b5b-456b-b69d-87ab174e6106" CreationDate="2017-12-28T07:35:11.710" UserId="5265" Text="You are correct in that a separate sump tank is not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as you have access to service pumps and filters, it can certainly all be in one reservoir. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16001" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="7a39d75d-fcb8-4026-8c32-a8f5b8db3dbe" CreationDate="2017-12-29T16:33:13.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16002" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6345" RevisionGUID="2003f1b0-c9ef-4a42-9c2a-38612391fad3" CreationDate="2017-12-30T03:06:34.277" UserId="5216" Text="From a little bit of research on bitcoin, I have discovered that they remove the centralised middle man from individuals transactions ie. a Bank, PayPal, ect.. and make it easier to transfer money peer to peer.&#xA;&#xA;Obviously bitcoin is not ready to go mainstream as yet as there have been heaps of hacking, but I’m thinking about a future in which people will be able to use a more secure version. &#xA;&#xA;I am making the assumption that decentralised communities are more sustainable, but I think crypto currencies seem to make this decentralisation &#xA; more of a reality.  &#xA;&#xA;Is this thinking correct? Or am I making false conclusions ? &#xA;&#xA;I don’t want to ask this question in a bitcoin forum as the responses I would like are based on bitcoin potentials to help the earths environment sustainability thought enabling decentralisation, &#xA;&#xA;This not a pure question about bitcoin itself and please don’t answer with the intricacies of bitcoin.&#xA;&#xA;Thanks,&#xA;Ben &#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6345" RevisionGUID="2003f1b0-c9ef-4a42-9c2a-38612391fad3" CreationDate="2017-12-30T03:06:34.277" UserId="5216" Text="Will bitcoin help us to decentralise our communities and help us live a more sustainably" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6345" RevisionGUID="2003f1b0-c9ef-4a42-9c2a-38612391fad3" CreationDate="2017-12-30T03:06:34.277" UserId="5216" Text="|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6347" RevisionGUID="6368271d-e732-48f6-a770-6ae89b8506de" CreationDate="2017-12-30T09:52:13.140" UserId="4925" Text="&gt; they remove the centralised middle man from individuals transactions&#xA;&#xA;Indeed. However, this doesn't mean that the resulting system is more sustainable.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; people will be able to use a more secure version.&#xA;&#xA;Security is not the #1 concern with BTC. I would be much more worried about volatility. Providing security is an engineering exercise. Stability, however, is not at all straightforward to achieve.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6348" RevisionGUID="5db00494-812f-45ec-8bd5-48463e07b2be" CreationDate="2017-12-30T11:54:55.453" UserId="48" Text="No, decentralised currencies won't help society be more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removing the role of a Central Bank makes it much harder to cope with macroeconomic changes in circumstances. There's nothing sustainable about making the whole economy more volatile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; am making the assumption that decentralised communities are more sustainable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a really big assumption, and I'm not sure it's tenable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6349" RevisionGUID="1347464a-0a5e-463d-9637-138a1656d3e1" CreationDate="2017-12-30T16:41:15.310" UserId="4951" Text="Communities are more than what currency they are using, whether Bitcoin or cash or debit/credit cards (considering a debit/credit card as a proxy for cash). Thinking about what makes a currency useful there are a couple of important characteristics: stability of value, portability, and acceptability for transactions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bitcoin fails on two of these at the moment, stability of value and acceptability. Acceptability is improving as more people are willing to accept Bitcoin as a currency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because Bitcoin is a peer to peer currency and digital and pseudo-anonymous [Wikipedia topic Bitcoin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin). So it does have characteristics that are attractive to people who want to be as independent as possible. And there are crypto-currencies other than Bitcoin [The 6 Most Important Cryptocurrencies Other Than Bitcoin](https://www.investopedia.com/tech/6-most-important-cryptocurrencies-other-bitcoin/) and it appears at this time that since the value of these currencies vary depending on the Bitcoin market rate and that Bitcoin seems to be a kind of commodity, it will probably remain fairly volatile in value. See [Meet the millennials making big money riding China's bitcoin wave](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/11/meet-the-millennials-making-big-money-riding-chinas-bitcoin-wave).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What provides national currencies such as the dollar and the euro their reasonable level of stability of value is the central bank. One reason the US created the Federal Reserve was to provide stability of value, [History of central banking in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United_States).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The characteristics of sustainable communities (see Wikipedia topic [Sustainable community](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_community) and [Sustainable Communities at HUD](https://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/) ) tend to be different for different people. The main principle most agree on is [Sustainable living](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_living) however what that actually means varies depending on the community being discussed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Decentralized community&quot; is actually a pretty vague term though this paper, [Decentralization and Community Empowerment: Does community empowerment deepen democracy and improve service delivery?](http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadh325.pdf) has a nice discussion on the concept and how it promotes a more egalitarian society.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A decentralized community is not necessarily more sustainable in terms of reduced ecological footprint, carbon and other emissions, etc. Sustainable communities are communities where the people living there pursue sustainable life styles and they pursue these life styles together supporting each other. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some parts of a high density, sustainable community which requires centralization in order to be economically viable and sustainable. While high density and sustainable don't seem to go together, people are migrating from rural, low density communities to urban, high density communities all over the world. See [URBANIZATION AND THE MASS MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE TO CITIES](https://graylinegroup.com/urbanization-catalyst-overview/) and [Migration and Its Impact on Cities](http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Migration_Impact_Cities_report_2017_low.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [What drives cities to pursue sustainability policies?](http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/03/what-drives-cities-pursue-sustainability-policy) and the postings in [World Bank blogs - Sustainable Cities](https://blogs.worldbank.org/category/tags/sustainable-cities) as well as [Pursuing Sustainable Communities: Looking Back, Looking Forward](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=983502)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6350" RevisionGUID="4c886fc1-8a33-4409-8769-c57a1db69525" CreationDate="2017-12-31T10:40:26.937" UserId="85" Text="Another sustainability aspect of bitcoin (and cryptocurrencies in general) is the electricity consumption of mining:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;[The electricity used to mine bitcoin this year is bigger than the annual usage of 159 countries](http://www.businessinsider.de/bitcoin-mining-electricity-usage-2017-11?r=US&amp;IR=T)&quot; (http://businessinsider.de)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16013" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6345" RevisionGUID="c436e02e-295d-4229-8d0c-0e0b8d627afc" CreationDate="2017-12-31T13:37:13.213" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|defining-sustainability|economics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6352" RevisionGUID="3d63a908-e2c6-4346-95b8-60b2a97f7228" CreationDate="2018-01-02T02:35:06.027" UserId="5274" Text="Some pines can act as abortifacients and possibly cause renal damage because they contain isocupressic acid. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ponderosa pine][1] is the one I know of, because we have some near our goat pasture and have to keep them fenced out of it. I have heard that juniper and a few other conifers might have this problem too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, our goats love douglas fir needles and young bark, and have eaten it regularly for 9 years with no miscarriages. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://csuvth.colostate.edu/poisonous_plants/Plants/Details/68" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="1c5ef569-87f8-40e7-873c-350a155a36f2" CreationDate="2018-01-02T03:47:38.877" UserId="3379" Text="When fresh vegetables aren't an option, many sources indicate that frozen vegetables are generally better than canned (see [here](http://www.sparkpeople.com/blog/blog.asp?post=which_is_better_canned_or_frozen_vegetables), [here](http://www.foodnetwork.com/healthyeats/2016/04/fresh-vs-canned-vs-frozen-whats-the-best-produce-to-buy), and [here](https://www.heathernicholds.com/nutrition/frozen-vs-canned-vegetables), for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, how do the environmental impacts compare? I can think of a few pros and cons for each:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Canning is more energy-intensive process initially, due to the need for making and sealing the can&#xD;&#xA; - Cans are heavy, and canned veggies are stored in water usually, adding shipping weight&#xD;&#xA; - Cans can be recycled, where many types of frozen veggie packaging can't&#xD;&#xA; - Freezing takes a lot of energy&#xD;&#xA; - Frozen veggies must be shipped and stored in the freezer, meaning continuous energy consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are likely other factors I am not thinking of as well. How do all of these stack up? Are canned veggies sufficiently better for the environment than frozen that I should just eat a few more to make up for the (minor) loss of nutrients?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16021" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="1c5ef569-87f8-40e7-873c-350a155a36f2" CreationDate="2018-01-02T03:47:38.877" UserId="3379" Text="Which has a smaller footprint -- canned or frozen vegetables?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16022" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="1c5ef569-87f8-40e7-873c-350a155a36f2" CreationDate="2018-01-02T03:47:38.877" UserId="3379" Text="|food|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6354" RevisionGUID="277d6853-3db4-40a0-9ef1-a2060affddb6" CreationDate="2018-01-02T05:37:14.347" UserId="4951" Text="So mostly your decision should be based on environmental impact of canned versus frozen since it appears the nutritional content is about the same. However from my reading of labels of canned foods, the sodium content can be much higher than plain frozen vegetables and added sugar may be a problem with some products such as yams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Fresh, Frozen and Canned Vegetables: Is There Really A Difference in Nutrient Levels?](https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2012/09/fresh-frozen-and-canned-vegetables-is-there-really-a-difference-in-nutrient-levels.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to a number of studies, fresh vegetables lose about half of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their vitamins in just a matter of days after being harvested, if not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; properly chilled or sustained. And even after you refrigerate the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; veggies they still lose at least 50 percent of their nutritional value&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in about a week's time.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So unless you and your neighborhood rabbits are eating the stuff right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out of the ground, you're going to lose quite a bit of the potential&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nutrition upfront.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The good news, according to Amy Jamieson-Petonic, a registered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dietician and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; based in Cleveland, is that there is actually very little difference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between fresh, canned or frozen vegetables, so consumers shouldn’t&#xD;&#xA;&gt; blindly plunk down extra money for fresh produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure that there is much energy difference between canning and freezing vegetables. Both must be processed though several stages of preparation before either being canned or being frozen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However once canned, canned vegetables require much less energy since they can just be stored. Frozen vegetables require continued energy use to maintain being frozen. The difference in energy is when being stored and when being transported.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you pointed out cans may be recycled and I know that I do. Plastic will not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article comes to the conclusion that canned versus frozen so much as production impact are about even. [Buying Frozen Veggies Versus Canned: Which is Greener?](https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/buying-frozen-veggies-versus-canned-which-is-greener.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All told, for 450g of corn, the can totals out to be 2,306 kcal, while&#xD;&#xA;&gt; freezing requires 2,272 kcal. Pretty much a dead heat...Except when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you consider that you can store the can in the cupboard without any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; additional input of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Food, Energy &amp; Security assumes that it's going to take about 120&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kcal/month of energy to store each package of frozen corn. That means&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that if that corn sits around in a freezer for more than about 100&#xD;&#xA;&gt; days, the very slight advantage it has over canned corn is gone.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The verdict: In terms of energy usage in packaging and processing,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; freezing and canning come out pretty even.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6354" RevisionGUID="3c505983-5ca9-4318-8609-76dc908dec8d" CreationDate="2018-01-02T05:43:06.973" UserId="4951" Comment="added link to Silgan Containers web pages." Text="So mostly your decision should be based on environmental impact of canned versus frozen since it appears the nutritional content is about the same. However from my reading of labels of canned foods, the sodium content can be much higher than plain frozen vegetables and added sugar may be a problem with some products such as yams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Fresh, Frozen and Canned Vegetables: Is There Really A Difference in Nutrient Levels?](https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2012/09/fresh-frozen-and-canned-vegetables-is-there-really-a-difference-in-nutrient-levels.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to a number of studies, fresh vegetables lose about half of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their vitamins in just a matter of days after being harvested, if not&#xD;&#xA;&gt; properly chilled or sustained. And even after you refrigerate the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; veggies they still lose at least 50 percent of their nutritional value&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in about a week's time.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So unless you and your neighborhood rabbits are eating the stuff right&#xD;&#xA;&gt; out of the ground, you're going to lose quite a bit of the potential&#xD;&#xA;&gt; nutrition upfront.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The good news, according to Amy Jamieson-Petonic, a registered&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dietician and spokesperson for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics&#xD;&#xA;&gt; based in Cleveland, is that there is actually very little difference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between fresh, canned or frozen vegetables, so consumers shouldn’t&#xD;&#xA;&gt; blindly plunk down extra money for fresh produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also this article from Silgan Containers [Canned Foods: Frequently Asked Questions](https://www.silgancontainers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/CansGetYouCookingTM_FAQ_2013.pdf) which provides some information about canned foods as well as this page from the company about canned foods and sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure that there is much energy difference between canning and freezing vegetables. Both must be processed though several stages of preparation before either being canned or being frozen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However once canned, canned vegetables require much less energy since they can just be stored. Frozen vegetables require continued energy use to maintain being frozen. The difference in energy is when being stored and when being transported.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you pointed out cans may be recycled and I know that I do. Plastic will not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article comes to the conclusion that canned versus frozen so much as production impact are about even. [Buying Frozen Veggies Versus Canned: Which is Greener?](https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/buying-frozen-veggies-versus-canned-which-is-greener.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All told, for 450g of corn, the can totals out to be 2,306 kcal, while&#xD;&#xA;&gt; freezing requires 2,272 kcal. Pretty much a dead heat...Except when&#xD;&#xA;&gt; you consider that you can store the can in the cupboard without any&#xD;&#xA;&gt; additional input of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Food, Energy &amp; Security assumes that it's going to take about 120&#xD;&#xA;&gt; kcal/month of energy to store each package of frozen corn. That means&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that if that corn sits around in a freezer for more than about 100&#xD;&#xA;&gt; days, the very slight advantage it has over canned corn is gone.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The verdict: In terms of energy usage in packaging and processing,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; freezing and canning come out pretty even.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16025" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6345" RevisionGUID="fffaa5c3-b477-4e96-a447-629be0491955" CreationDate="2018-01-02T06:39:23.117" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/948081265739255808" />
  <row Id="16026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6355" RevisionGUID="c5e98a8b-21fd-4af1-bd52-220050cfbe21" CreationDate="2018-01-02T15:46:22.997" UserId="5276" Text="Cut off the upper section of a plastic beverage bottle, leaving the top opening as thick as the newly planted tree.  Put shaving cream under the dome and duct tape it to the tree.  The plastic dome won't allow the rain to rinse off the cream and it will last many weeks.  Leaf cutters won't cross a line of shaving cream." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16028" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="73a807ec-659f-46f8-862b-e3e196c7db61" CreationDate="2018-01-06T17:00:46.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6356" RevisionGUID="4f2deb58-e77c-4204-b914-56bd6ddeefdc" CreationDate="2018-01-08T05:35:27.533" UserId="5293" Text="I see similar questions to this one, but mine is slightly different, so here goes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in Seattle, where the winters are mild, with days in the 40s and nights in the low 30s at worst. I live in an 8-bedroom house with all bedrooms occupied (tenants). The house has no outer wall insulation at all, but windows are double-pane and we have checked for and fixed drafts. I have a newer heat pump tied to an electric furnace, also newer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer a house at 64, but my tenants are all comfortable at mid-70s and I have argued to no avail. My heating bill is way too high for me now. What I am left with is the choice between turning the house up to 74 or so, or keeping it at 68 and buying them new space heaters with adjustable thermostats (they all have older ones now with no thermostats). They already turn the heaters off when they are not home. I see lots of good science on this site, although most of it is over my head, but I can understand the basics. Should I heat the whole house or trust the space heaters? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16030" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6356" RevisionGUID="4f2deb58-e77c-4204-b914-56bd6ddeefdc" CreationDate="2018-01-08T05:35:27.533" UserId="5293" Text="Newer heat pump vs new space heaters in Seattle winter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16031" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6356" RevisionGUID="4f2deb58-e77c-4204-b914-56bd6ddeefdc" CreationDate="2018-01-08T05:35:27.533" UserId="5293" Text="|energy-efficiency|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6356" RevisionGUID="25e1a274-80f1-4afe-b199-be4e3757e16b" CreationDate="2018-01-08T07:44:52.773" UserId="99" Comment="added temperatures in Celsius for international users, added heating tag" Text="I see similar questions to this one, but mine is slightly different, so here goes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in Seattle, where the winters are mild, with days in the 40s°F (4-10°C) and nights in the low 30s°F (around -1°C) at worst. I live in an 8-bedroom house with all bedrooms occupied (tenants). The house has no outer wall insulation at all, but windows are double-pane and we have checked for and fixed drafts. I have a newer heat pump tied to an electric furnace, also newer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer a house at 64°F (18°), but my tenants are all comfortable at mid-70s°F (24°C) and I have argued to no avail. My heating bill is way too high for me now. What I am left with is the choice between turning the house up to 74°F (23°C) or so, or keeping it at 68°F (20°C) and buying them new space heaters with adjustable thermostats (they all have older ones now with no thermostats). They already turn the heaters off when they are not home. I see lots of good science on this site, although most of it is over my head, but I can understand the basics. Should I heat the whole house or trust the space heaters? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16033" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6356" RevisionGUID="25e1a274-80f1-4afe-b199-be4e3757e16b" CreationDate="2018-01-08T07:44:52.773" UserId="99" Comment="added temperatures in Celsius for international users, added heating tag" Text="|energy-efficiency|home|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6357" RevisionGUID="8fe495e7-007e-491b-bd5e-e36868daaa8d" CreationDate="2018-01-08T19:34:55.770" UserId="4834" Text="There are at least two possible considerations I can see in your question.  First, the implied consideration of efficiency/environmentalism/sustainability.  I assume you want to minimize your power use for heating purposes to satisfy this consideration.  Second, the stated consideration of your &quot;preference&quot;.  You don't say whether this is a comfort preference or some other sort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of comfort, a solution with multiple thermostats is presumably going to win out.  This will let everyone in the building have their main living space at the temperature they prefer.  This could be a heat pump (mini-split?) and a number of thermostat-controlled space heaters (electric resistive, presumably).  Or it could be a multi-split heat pump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of efficiency/etc, air-sealing and insulation are going to factor heavily into the solution.  Nothing you do in terms of changing the thermostat or introducing additional heating zones to the building is going to save as much power as reducing your heating losses to the outside environment.  Your best move is probably to consult with a heating efficiency expert - likely have a blower-door test, air sealing, and perhaps insulation installed.  In very cold climates, this can easily pay for itself in a small number of years.  In a more moderate climate like yours, it may take a bit longer but it's still a pretty smart bet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once this is done, even if you resort to electric resistive space heaters (much less efficient than the heat pump) to bring extra heat to some parts of the house, you're at least keeping that heat where it's desired for longer and so it's not _as_ inefficient.  A multi-split heat pump set up would be even better but is certainly going to have a higher up-front cost.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6358" RevisionGUID="199287db-6d01-48de-bcf6-c4ebaf6b1d1e" CreationDate="2018-01-08T20:46:00.853" UserId="5298" Text="Fruit my be dropped due to many reasons including premature fruit drop and disease. However my question regards how much fruit goes to waste which can otherwise be picked and consumed. I would also like some statistics on this.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Also,would it be sustainable to employ people to pick it up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6358" RevisionGUID="199287db-6d01-48de-bcf6-c4ebaf6b1d1e" CreationDate="2018-01-08T20:46:00.853" UserId="5298" Text="How much of dropped fruit is wasted? How much could be consumed, ideally?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6358" RevisionGUID="199287db-6d01-48de-bcf6-c4ebaf6b1d1e" CreationDate="2018-01-08T20:46:00.853" UserId="5298" Text="|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6358" RevisionGUID="0923dd24-c696-4194-bdad-12d8f4236f38" CreationDate="2018-01-10T08:59:47.160" UserId="3293" Comment="formatted for better undertanding;" Text="Fruit might be dropped due to many reasons including premature fruit drop and disease. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I wonder how much fruit goes to waste which could otherwise be picked and consumed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Are there any statistics on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Also, would it be sustainable to employ people to pick them up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16041" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6358" RevisionGUID="0923dd24-c696-4194-bdad-12d8f4236f38" CreationDate="2018-01-10T08:59:47.160" UserId="3293" Comment="formatted for better undertanding;" Text="|fruits-and-vegetables|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6359" RevisionGUID="4c06fbfa-ef0c-4fdd-8264-417a8c397648" CreationDate="2018-01-10T12:49:56.743" UserId="1662" Text="I have a small coffee farm, and I occasionally employ someone to pick the coffee.  At commodity prices, it is not even sustainable to pick the coffee, much less get someone to pick up the ones that fall on the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally, after 3 years of 'practice', can earn about 50 cents an hour picking coffee beans, probably up to double with a really good harvest.  But of course even at 1 dollar an hour I am losing money by not doing almost literally anything else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each different fruit would have to be analyzed, but if they drop it and leave it, its probably not viable to pick it up.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Value added products can also change the calculation.  Instead of selling our beans as a commodity product, we process and roast them, yielding a higher value product.  When I was a kid, my father and I collected fallen apples from trees in the suburbs to make applesauce with.  It was worth it to pick up that fallen fruit, although no one was using it for mainstream agriculture, and since we clean and boil the apples it didn't matter that they had been dropped on the ground." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6361" RevisionGUID="0c6be104-0810-415f-af99-b58fa54eca21" CreationDate="2018-01-10T15:06:49.093" UserId="5305" Text="How can I dispose of a box full of non-biodegradable glitter in an ecologically friendly way? Everything i read about melting or burning plastic gives me conflicting information about toxins and i don't want to just throw it in the bin so the tiny pieces end up in our ground/food chain/water. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16049" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6361" RevisionGUID="0c6be104-0810-415f-af99-b58fa54eca21" CreationDate="2018-01-10T15:06:49.093" UserId="5305" Text="Non-Biodegradable Glitter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16050" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6361" RevisionGUID="0c6be104-0810-415f-af99-b58fa54eca21" CreationDate="2018-01-10T15:06:49.093" UserId="5305" Text="|plastic|non-bio-degradable|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6359" RevisionGUID="f88f6d95-6875-4a99-a3a1-6e1d97d90ef5" CreationDate="2018-01-10T18:43:29.810" UserId="1662" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="I have a small coffee farm, and I occasionally employ someone to pick the coffee.  At commodity prices, it is hardly even economically sustainable to pick the coffee from the plant, much less get someone to pick up the ones that fall on the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally, after 3 years of 'practice', can earn about 50 cents an hour picking coffee beans, probably up to double with a really good harvest.  But of course even at 1 dollar an hour I am losing money by not doing almost literally anything else.  More experienced coffee pickers in good harvests can earn 20 to 25 dollars a day picking coffee, and they are definitely not slowing down to pick any off the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each different fruit would have to be analyzed, but if industry standard is to drop it and leave it, its probably not viable to pick it up.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Value added products can also change the calculation.  Instead of selling our beans as a commodity product, we process and roast them, yielding a higher value product.  When I was a kid, my father and I collected fallen apples from trees in the suburbs to make applesauce with.  It was worth it in that case to pick up that fallen fruit, although no one had picked through it first, and because we cleaned and boiled the apples it didn't matter that they had been dropped on the ground." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6362" RevisionGUID="781a548d-d0ca-420b-8177-08a49cf44a17" CreationDate="2018-01-10T19:30:49.763" UserId="5307" Text="I watch a lot of online video. I'd assume that for example videos on Youtube in 720p use less power than the same videos in 1080p. I think this might be because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- more power is used by sending network to read more data and then send it&#xD;&#xA;- more power is used by intermediate network (internet) to transfer more data&#xD;&#xA;- more power is used on my end to recieve data&#xD;&#xA;- more power is used on my end to actually render the video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have nothing to back up my theory. I've heard that one Google search uses the equivalent of boiling one litre of water, so I'm guessing it might be significant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference? How much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6362" RevisionGUID="781a548d-d0ca-420b-8177-08a49cf44a17" CreationDate="2018-01-10T19:30:49.763" UserId="5307" Text="How much, if any, does resolution effect the net power consumption of watching online video?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6362" RevisionGUID="781a548d-d0ca-420b-8177-08a49cf44a17" CreationDate="2018-01-10T19:30:49.763" UserId="5307" Text="|energy-efficiency|electricity|carbon-footprint|alternatives|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16055" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6363" RevisionGUID="328ab513-2b87-4d76-8fe2-1ea507d8481f" CreationDate="2018-01-10T20:34:14.120" UserId="3379" Text="The Natural Resources Defense Council commissioned a study in late 2015 to understand the energy consumption from 4K TVs, titled *[The Big Picture: Ultra High-Definition Televisions Could Add $1 Billion to Viewers' Annual Electric Bills](https://www.nrdc.org/resources/big-picture-ultra-high-definition-televisions-could-add-1-billion-viewers-annual-electric)*. While this doesn't *exactly* answer your question as regards the resolution of You-Tube videos, it gives some solid clues.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the study finds that **&quot;UHD televisions use an average of 30 percent more power than HD televisions of a similar size.&quot;** This finding is illustrated in Figure 9 from the report:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/2V4wA.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this means that if you have an HD or UHD capable screen, you are likely using more power than a screen which is not capable of showing higher resolution video.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, the authors compared energy consumption on the same TVs for HD vs 4K content: **&quot;Feeding a 4K television, a higher-resolution (4K) version of HD video material did tend to increase energy use by an average of 10 percent, but there were large differences between models.&quot;** Figure 16 illustrates this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/t0COn.png&quot; width=&quot;650&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, it seems that when you are viewing higher resolution video you will indeed be consuming more energy, but the exact difference varies significantly by model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the authors find a bit of a silver lining: **&quot;Meanwhile, streaming higher-resolution content via the Internet instead of playing it from a disc did not make a significant difference in energy use, which is good news as people increasingly stream content over the Internet.&quot;**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16056" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="66bcf702-f91f-4686-82b9-f89aa94356ff" CreationDate="2018-01-10T22:45:30.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6362" RevisionGUID="04538d16-08f1-4b4a-9870-fa607f09c83f" CreationDate="2018-01-11T10:37:10.880" UserId="5307" Comment="Prevent propagating incorrect information" Text="I watch a lot of online video. I'd assume that for example videos on Youtube in 720p use less power than the same videos in 1080p. I think this might be because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- more power is used by sending network to read more data and then send it&#xD;&#xA;- more power is used by intermediate network (internet) to transfer more data&#xD;&#xA;- more power is used on my end to recieve data&#xD;&#xA;- more power is used on my end to actually render the video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have nothing to back up my theory. I've heard the [most likely incorrect rumour][1] that one Google search uses the equivalent of boiling one litre of water, so I'm guessing it might be significant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference? How much?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5584/99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5584" RevisionGUID="240e704d-b789-495e-93aa-8905c73defe6" CreationDate="2018-01-11T13:03:18.493" UserId="99" Comment="updated with 2016 numbers, added part about generating renewable energy" Text="As LShaver and Gerrit also mentioned in their comments, an exact answer would depend on the scope and method of calculation. You've already mentioned you are only interested in the search itself so I guess this &#xD;&#xA;means you don't want to include (part of) the footprint of Google's servers, the web-indexing process, or information storage about your query. But what about the energy for transferring the data via various internet servers? And do you agree that Google's carbon offsetting program or the renewable energy they generate, both count as a negative component in the calculation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the numbers that has been circulating on the Internet for years, is that a single Google search has a carbon footprint of 7 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;This number allegedly was based on calculations done by Alex Wissner-Gross and was published in the Sunday Times in 2009, but after publication [Wissner-Gross claimed he never mentioned such a number](https://techcrunch.com/2009/01/12/revealed-the-times-made-up-that-stuff-about-google-and-the-tea-kettles/). In any case [Google's response to the article](https://googleblog.blogspot.nl/2009/01/powering-google-search.html) was that the calculation is incorrect and that **0.2 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per search** is more accurate. This number includes energy for some pre-query processes, such as building Google's search index.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It wasn't until 2011 that Google made its company energy usage public for the first time. At the time they repeated the 0.2 g CO2 per search. At the moment of writing this, the [latest data from Google](https://environment.google) is from their 2017 environmental report. Google says that the entire company is responsible for about 2.9 million metric tonnes of CO2e (data 2016), all of which is off-setted by '*purchasing high-quality carbon offsets*'. Google claims that [by buying carbon offsets they have been carbon-neutral since 2007](https://googleblog.blogspot.nl/2009/05/reducing-our-carbon-footprint.html) and that [in 2017 they will generate enough renewable energy to compensate the energy consumption of all Google operations](https://blog.google/topics/environment/100-percent-renewable-energy/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to find recent data on a single Google search, but Google does say in their 2014 online environmental report that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;If you take an active Google user—someone who does 25 searches and watches 60 minutes of YouTube a day, has a Gmail account and uses our other services—Google emits about 8 grams of CO2 per day to serve that user. In other words, serving a Google user for a month is like driving a car one mile ([source](https://web.archive.org/web/20160601015141/http://www.google.com:80/green/bigpicture))&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Note that this number was derived by Google itself. It doesn't seem possible to check it and find out what exactly is or is not included in that footprint. Interestingly the same 8 grams was already reported in 2013 based on 2012 data. With all the measures Google has taken in recent years, I expect it is a lower number now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**More information:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Copy of 2009 Sunday Times article where the 7 grams CO2 was first mentioned](http://www.ict-21.ch/com-ict/IMG/html/article5488934.ece.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [Guardian article about Google's first company footprint publication in 2011](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/08/google-carbon-footprint)&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16060" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6361" RevisionGUID="706471c4-4945-4313-913e-adc905e1cc48" CreationDate="2018-01-11T13:08:15.513" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/951440619460808711" />
  <row Id="16064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6365" RevisionGUID="a3666405-fe65-46f2-ac6c-8135264e3f3f" CreationDate="2018-01-12T02:41:31.450" UserId="5315" Text="If she is addicted to them, there are recipes online for DIY Altoids. They could be kept in the tins you have. That would also prevent you from accumulating more tins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have said, there are a lot of projects online utilizing the tins. Either you could make the projects, or find a vendor on Etsy or the like that would be interested in lot quantities of Altoid tins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16069" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="9caa2015-3088-4428-8f5a-fe89783b3080" CreationDate="2018-01-12T11:58:03.910" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6366" RevisionGUID="32dc34b2-5f71-42d8-b224-763d29896d69" CreationDate="2018-01-12T18:27:23.207" UserId="3379" Text="I looked into this question a bit today and it seems that the industry is not yet mature enough to determine a narrow, consistent range for the energy in to energy out (EIEO) ratio of biofuels for aviation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[&quot;Are Advanced Biofuels for Airplanes Ready for Takeoff?&quot;](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-advanced-biofuels-for-airplanes-ready-for-takeoff/)** (*Scientific American,* May 2017)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This excellent SA piece discusses the industry forces behind development of biofuels for aviation. Like many nascent industries, a lot of players entered the field when airlines and governments began expressing interest in using biofuels, however very few survived very long. It seems the economics of producing jet fuels from biofuel sources are still being worked out, despite significant interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[&quot;Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Land Use Change from *Jatropha Curcas*-Based Jet Fuel in Brazil&quot;](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es1019178)** (*Environmental Science and Technology*, October 2010)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article is behind a paywall so I wasn't able to read the full text (and it's a bit old) but one quote from the abstract stands out: **&quot;...aggregate emissions vary from ... an 85% decrease from the reference scenario, to ... a 60% increase over the reference scenario.&quot;** The difference in total life cycle emissions was attributed largely to whether the crops were grown on existing agricultural lands, or if new forest was cleared for biofuel crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[&quot;Life-cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from renewable jet fuel production&quot;](https://biotechnologyforbiofuels.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13068-017-0739-7)** (*Biotechnology for Biofuels*, March 2017)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While again behind a paywall, this more recent article includes this conclusion in the abstract: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fischer–Tropsch pathways yield the highest GHG emission reduction compared to fossil jet fuel (86–104%) of the pathways in scope, followed by Hydrothermal Liquefaction (77–80%) and sugarcane- (71–75%) and corn stover-based Alcohol-to-Jet (60–75%). Feedstock cultivation, hydrogen and conversion inputs were shown to be major contributors to the overall WtWa GHG emission performance. The choice of allocation method mainly affects pathways yielding high shares of co-products or producing co-products which effectively displace carbon intensive products (e.g., electricity).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these articles and few others which I read, it seems like more research and development into aviation biofuel production processes is needed before a definitive conclusion regarding potential impact on GHG emissions from the aviation sector can be reached.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16071" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6362" RevisionGUID="3f8a07bd-1ab8-408a-9dea-9ff2627d8ffa" CreationDate="2018-01-12T19:08:15.860" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/951893604972277765" />
  <row Id="16073" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6356" RevisionGUID="644d49ea-bddb-4a07-9ece-bd88019e90fe" CreationDate="2018-01-13T07:09:16.517" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/952075054468292608" />
  <row Id="16080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6369" RevisionGUID="001d67ed-20b7-40f7-b5f3-7b1f94ddfc72" CreationDate="2018-01-15T12:56:54.817" UserId="2734" Text="After the bath soaps have been used, tiny bits remain. Note that this is not about re-using half-used or little-used soaps such as found in hotels. I am aware there are charities such as [Sundara Fund][1] that upcycle them. I want to know what can be done with tiny lefover bits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it helps for context : I am from India and the soaps I use are :  [Mysore Sandal][2], or [Lux][3] , there is no information on whether they are bio-degradable. (I think they might). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sundarafund.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://rukminim1.flixcart.com/image/832/832/soap/r/e/y/mysore-750-sandal-soap-original-imaek26zzyzkegww.jpeg?q=70&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://images-eu.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41-7wCseqmL._SY355_.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6369" RevisionGUID="001d67ed-20b7-40f7-b5f3-7b1f94ddfc72" CreationDate="2018-01-15T12:56:54.817" UserId="2734" Text="How can I reuse or upcycle used, leftover, tiny bath soap bar bits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6369" RevisionGUID="001d67ed-20b7-40f7-b5f3-7b1f94ddfc72" CreationDate="2018-01-15T12:56:54.817" UserId="2734" Text="|reuse|personal-hygiene|upcycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16083" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6369" RevisionGUID="5dcfcccb-cf42-49f3-aaf4-6a04357c0f26" CreationDate="2018-01-15T19:22:28.977" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/952984347078004737" />
  <row Id="16084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6370" RevisionGUID="2bb2cfb2-02dd-4084-9511-22f42c262e35" CreationDate="2018-01-15T22:14:37.817" UserId="5327" Text="I'm not sure about donating leftover bits... But for recycling/reusing, what I normally do is grab a new bar, and at the end of my shower/bath, get both the new bar and the small used piece(s) wet and squeeze them together relatively firmly.  Leave it in the soap dish / on the shelf and they will dry that way. &#xD;&#xA; The next time you shower/bathe, you'll have a slightly larger bar of soap, and you won't have wasted any of the old soap!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A similar question was asked over on LifeHacks, check out some of the answers there!][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://lifehacks.stackexchange.com/q/14198/4379" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6371" RevisionGUID="4ee45a39-478f-46f7-91d4-25d7c638e24f" CreationDate="2018-01-15T22:34:35.400" UserId="5328" Text="I recently returned to NZ after visiting family in the UK for Christmas. This is a round trip of some 40,000km. My solution is to pay for some 60 trees to be planted, here in NZ.&#xD;&#xA;This is not a perfect solution, I know, but it salves my conscience somewhat and is definitely better than doing nothing.&#xD;&#xA;IMO, Tim’s answer above is accounting sophistry that is used so that nobody takes personal responsibility for their carbon emissions. It’s tantamount to the tragedy of the commons. i.e. it may be true for the individual but it breaks down when everybody applies it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16086" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6358" RevisionGUID="eeb6d3aa-815c-441a-a1cc-a8780cc5a323" CreationDate="2018-01-16T01:22:27.237" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/953074937350287361" />
  <row Id="16087" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="0af84f4f-bd83-4a60-a2b7-34c9f6695ac2" CreationDate="2018-01-16T09:37:50.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6372" RevisionGUID="69a2704e-9b84-49bc-95bc-f1e82c08baeb" CreationDate="2018-01-16T15:10:05.163" UserId="2914" Text="You can dissolve the bits in water to make liquid soap." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6373" RevisionGUID="9db58887-60c3-4be1-a87c-2cb1124dca47" CreationDate="2018-01-17T00:59:15.027" UserId="5003" Text="We set them in a jar lid. With a hole in the bottom to drain. Set on sink. Small left over soap is good for washing your hands. Once supper small. Throw in bucket with a little water. Use to soak panties overnight &amp; such. Before washing by hand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6374" RevisionGUID="44e68efb-9fda-4122-8f5e-445193edd89d" CreationDate="2018-01-17T01:27:13.513" UserId="5003" Text="Only in family. Dropped fruit. From the tree the goats or pigs will eat. Early fruit with worms or such. Picking time the fruit is picked with long poles With a small bucket &amp; rake on it. It is looked at. Put in the cart under the tree. That is took to the main road &amp; sold. The boys 11 to 15 go up the trees to get what can not be reached drop it down to a person to catch it. Bad or damaged fruit is put in a pile on the ground. That is picked threw by the women for canning fruit.  The rest is turned to mash. That is took back into the hills a bit.  That is refined down into a drink. 1st run is saved for family use. 2nd run is harsh. That is if rumor true sold. These are family farms not large plantations. Were more automation is used.  Some is also traded for rice, or other products with the neighbors. This is more than 1 farm at picking. Grandmothers, Mom, uncles, aunts, wives.  So kind of in family. Family work together on labor. But very little waste. If you include animal feed from bad fruit, We even use the coconut hulls to cook with once dried. This is Philippines not America. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6375" RevisionGUID="c6249183-3c90-48cd-a54f-4db9c28c1d5f" CreationDate="2018-01-17T06:46:47.853" UserId="5300" Text="Another option would be to use a cheese grater to turn the soap into flakes for use as laundry soap. Lux, in fact, is available as laundry flakes from the supermarket.&#xD;&#xA;Cannot comment on the biodegradability of Mysore Sandal, however the MSDS for Lux claims the product is biodegradable. Unfortunately no information on eco-toxicity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6376" RevisionGUID="9591fdcc-395a-48b7-bd44-471a66b4cc45" CreationDate="2018-01-17T07:10:22.363" UserId="5300" Text="Here in New Zealand we are lucky enough to have a weekly recycling collection, and need only leave our plastics and other recyclables at the kerb once per week. Though I accept we are perhaps luckier than most. I cannot know what country you are in but would encourage you to check the internet or local telephone directory for a plastics recycler or recycling depot in your area. Small pieces of plastic are seriously affecting our environment and wildlife. It is essential we stop this madness, and the solution rests with all of us doing our part." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6377" RevisionGUID="d1b26fdd-c919-489d-bf56-802682291889" CreationDate="2018-01-17T09:59:10.230" UserId="5332" Text="If it's for buildings and you are a student, One Click LCA is another option: it allows full Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing calculations that are compliant with ISO standards and access to the biggest LCA database of construction materials on the market. You can read more here: [www.oneclicklca.com][1] and request a student license [here][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.oneclicklca.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.oneclicklca.com/support/faq-and-guidance/get-one-click-lca/student-license/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6378" RevisionGUID="17946f04-28ba-4d46-a5a7-651522c88152" CreationDate="2018-01-17T14:00:44.623" UserId="1567" Text="I live in an apple growing area. A viable farm has a lot of trees, so they use migrant labour to pick apples. You have to pay the labour more money than you get for the bruised fruit (it goes to the juice factory). The amount that falls on the ground varies by weather (rain, wind) and how much rain the trees got in summer. In a bad year it will hail and they are all juice apples. These get shaken down instead of picked.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The farmers' extended families pick up the fallen fruit and take it to the juicery in the evenings, where it is exchanged for juice vouchers. You see them with whole trailers full. The juicery will take even the smallest amounts, even a granny with a basketful will get paid. Sometimes farmers let the kindergarten do it and keep the cash. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6377" RevisionGUID="42d0299d-e486-44be-9c5c-6dc9d744f1fb" CreationDate="2018-01-17T14:13:22.497" UserId="5332" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="If it's for buildings and you are a student, One Click LCA is another option: it allows full Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing calculations that are compliant with ISO standards and access to the biggest LCA database of construction materials on the market. You can read more here: [www.oneclicklca.com][1] and request a student license [here][2]. &#xD;&#xA;As a disclaimer, this is the company I work for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.oneclicklca.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.oneclicklca.com/support/faq-and-guidance/get-one-click-lca/student-license/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6379" RevisionGUID="a947386c-14ed-469c-88a8-18f9aaa4a9a4" CreationDate="2018-01-18T07:13:19.007" UserId="5338" Text="How much electric energy, on average, would a typical studio apartment consume per month in the winter (in the north) if everything inside is powered by electricity (heater, hot water, stove, etc.)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6379" RevisionGUID="a947386c-14ed-469c-88a8-18f9aaa4a9a4" CreationDate="2018-01-18T07:13:19.007" UserId="5338" Text="How much electric energy would a studio apartment use per month if everything inside is powered by electricity (heater, water, stove, etc.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6379" RevisionGUID="a947386c-14ed-469c-88a8-18f9aaa4a9a4" CreationDate="2018-01-18T07:13:19.007" UserId="5338" Text="|electricity|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16099" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6379" RevisionGUID="e9a4f107-4e6a-4437-b1f6-7e332e9cf7a8" CreationDate="2018-01-18T07:40:58.067" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|electricity|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6379" RevisionGUID="d2a9ce1e-a458-45ab-9c5a-41509290c6bf" CreationDate="2018-01-18T07:52:10.570" UserId="5338" Comment="Add more information" Text="How much electric energy, on average, would a typical *one-person* studio apartment consume per month in the winter if everything inside is powered by electricity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional Information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Location of the apartment: Wyoming, US&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Main appliances: heater, hot water, stove and oven, a typical household refrigerator, microwave oven, light bulbs, etc. (There might be other minor things, but those are the main appliances)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6379" RevisionGUID="8f82e2e1-9f8b-469d-986a-77bebf59209d" CreationDate="2018-01-18T07:57:34.357" UserId="5338" Comment="Add more information" Text="How much electric energy, on average, would a typical *one-person* studio apartment consume per month in the winter if everything inside is powered by electricity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional Information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Apartment Location: Wyoming, US&#xD;&#xA; - Number of people: 1&#xD;&#xA; - The studio is neither insulated nor surrounded by other apartments on all sides, but is &quot;not too bad&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - Main appliances: electric heaters, hot water, stove and oven, a typical household refrigerator, microwave oven, light bulbs, etc. (There might be other minor things, but these are the main ones)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="91db53dc-a560-4d33-92ba-9298f7fc027a" CreationDate="2018-01-18T10:12:55.407" UserId="4757" Text="I've been doing quite a bit of reading and other research in the area of using solar for hot water tanks. There are quite a few Youtube videos by people who have been using PV (Photo Voltaic solar panels or arrays) to either produce or supplement their hot water tanks with solar electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this may be one of the more financially productive ways to use solar in a non-off-grid scenario, to save on the electric bill. Much of this has been discussed in some of the comments above, but here are some things that I have been researching and considering in this area that I hope might help anyone seek ways to use solar besides just to charge batteries or for a grid tied system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one wanted to heat their water off grid, temperature would be a very important consideration, because if the water is not heated to a high enough temperature there is a risk of biological organisms contaminating the water. This consideration would be especially important in an off grid situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another idea for off-grid would be to use the hot water tank as a dump load for when your batteries are full. Again the water temperature would be the biggest concern, and I'm not sure exactly how high a tank would need to be heated and how often it would have to be heated to that temperature in order to prevent a dangerous level of biological contamination. If I were to guess I would say that it would have to be heated to at least 150 or 160 degrees F at least once per day in order to be safe. Biological contamination would be a concern even if you were only using the water for heating purposes. Perhaps this would be a good question for another post, and it's one I personally can't answer with any accuracy except to say that this would probably be one of the biggest concerns in using solar electric for heating hot water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one wanted to simply lower their electric bill without having to get into grid tie, Photo Voltaics for heating water may be one of the simplest and most cost effective ways to do that, but there is still a lot to consider in order for it to be effective. One idea would be to use a regular hot water tank off grid to preheat the water and then use small &quot;point of use&quot; water heaters (using the mains power) to bring the water to the desired temperatures when the solar isn't available or not enough. The temperature of the preheated water would still be an important factor here, as even if you killed any biological material with the point of use water heater, I'm sure it would still have a foul smell (at the very least) if the water sat too long in the preheating tank at too low a temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most household hot water tanks, at least where I live, have two heating elements, an upper and a lower. So, another idea might be to continue using mains power for the upper element and putting a DC element and DC regulator on the lower element power by solar PV. With careful calculation it's possible that no MPPT or PWM controller would even be required as long as the DC regulator and element you put in the tank can handle the array's maximum voltage and amperage (of course fuses would be a must in any case). And with a high temperature regulator on the upper element (the one powered by the mains) it's doubtful that one would have to worry about biological contamination of the tank. Of course this would be a small supplemental use of the stored heat from the solar panels, but such a small system would almost certainly pay for itself much sooner than a grid tied system as long as any other potential problems (such as biological contamination) were addressed in the design. The whole system could probably be set up by an expert in less than a day and would probably lower the electric bill (in my case anyway) by $5 to maybe $30 per month depending on usage and weather conditions. The only problem I perceive with this type of system is that with too many panels you would have to figure out a productive way of using the extra energy on really sunny days. On the other hand if you used 300 watts or less of solar, the panels would almost certainly be productive most of the time, but then I don't have enough information yet to determine whether or not such a small supplement would meet my daily hot water needs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is something I'm considering trying myself and most of my research is done from a practical perspective, based on my own budget and the results I'm looking for. I realize that my comment here may raise more questions than give answers, but I'm certain that the questions I may have raised (and couldn't answer) here are ones that must be considered by anyone looking to use a PV system to store hot water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen where quite a few people are using PV to heat water both off grid and as a grid supplemental solution, and most of them say that it can be an economically productive way to use solar energy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="975d36f9-6976-4221-bf1b-d039898e91ee" CreationDate="2018-01-18T10:32:21.373" UserId="4757" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I've been doing quite a bit of reading and other research in the area of using solar for hot water tanks. There are quite a few Youtube videos by people who have been using PV (Photo Voltaic solar panels or arrays) to either produce or supplement their hot water tanks with solar electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this may be one of the more financially productive ways to use solar in a non-off-grid scenario, to save on the electric bill. Much of this has been discussed in some of the comments above, but here are some things that I have been researching and considering in this area that I hope might help anyone seek ways to use solar besides just to charge batteries or for a grid tied system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one wanted to heat their water off grid, temperature would be a very important consideration, because if the water is not heated to a high enough temperature there is a risk of biological organisms contaminating the water. This consideration would be especially important in an off grid situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another idea for off-grid would be to use the hot water tank as a dump load for when your batteries are full. Again the water temperature would be the biggest concern, and I'm not sure exactly how high a tank would need to be heated and how often it would have to be heated to that temperature in order to prevent a dangerous level of biological contamination. If I were to guess I would say that it would have to be heated to at least 150 or 160 degrees F at least once per day in order to be safe. Biological contamination would be a concern even if you were only using the water for heating purposes. Perhaps this would be a good question for another post, and it's one I personally can't answer with any accuracy except to say that this would probably be one of the biggest concerns in using solar electric for heating hot water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one wanted to simply lower their electric bill without having to get into grid tie, Photo Voltaics for heating water may be one of the simplest and most cost effective ways to do that, but there is still a lot to consider in order for it to be effective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One method would be to use a regular hot water tank off grid to preheat the water and then use small &quot;point of use&quot; water heaters (using the mains power) to bring the water to the desired temperatures when the solar isn't available or the water not quite hot enough for your needs. The temperature of the preheated water would still be an important factor here, as even if you killed any biological material with the point of use water heater, I'm sure it would still have a foul smell (at the very least) if the water sat too long in the preheating tank at too low a temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most household hot water tanks, at least where I live, have two heating elements, an upper and a lower. So, another idea might be to continue using mains power for the upper element and putting a DC element and DC regulator on the lower element power by solar PV. With careful calculation it's possible that no MPPT or PWM controller would even be required as long as the DC regulator and element you put in the tank can handle the array's maximum voltage and amperage (of course fuses would be a must in any case). And with a high temperature regulator on the upper element (the one powered by the mains) it's doubtful that one would have to worry about biological contamination of the tank. Of course this would only be a supplemental use of the stored heat from the solar panels, but such a small system would almost certainly pay for itself much sooner than a grid tied system as long as it was designed well. The whole system could probably be set up by an expert in less than a day and would probably lower the electric bill (in my case anyway) by $5 to $30 per month (or more) depending on usage and weather conditions. One problem I do see with this type of system is that with too many panels you would have to figure out a productive way of using the extra energy on really sunny days. On the other hand if you used 300 watts or less of solar, the panels would almost certainly be productive most of the time, but then I don't have enough information yet to determine whether or not such a small supplement would meet one's daily hot water needs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is something I'm considering trying myself and most of my research is done from a practical perspective, based on my own budget and the results I'm looking for. I realize that my comment here may raise more questions than give answers, but I'm certain that the questions I have raised (and couldn't answer) here are ones that must be considered by anyone looking to use a PV system to store hot water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen where quite a few people are using PV to heat water both off grid and as a grid supplement, and most of them say that it is (or at least can be with the right design) an economically practical and productive way to use solar electricity. But, all of these questions must be considered and calculated into the design of such a system in order to make such a project worthwhile from a practical perspective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6380" RevisionGUID="d44478d1-7296-49b9-a7d5-11e46bb8c83d" CreationDate="2018-01-18T10:40:52.027" UserId="4757" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="I've been doing quite a bit of reading and other research in the area of using solar for hot water tanks. There are quite a few Youtube videos by people who have been using PV (Photo Voltaic solar panels or arrays) to either produce or supplement their hot water tanks with solar electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this may currently be one of the more productive ways to use solar for both sustainability and economics. Much of this has been covered in some of the comments above, so I'll try not to repeat much of that. But here are some things that I have been researching and considering in this area that I hope might help anyone seek ways to use solar besides just to charge batteries or for a grid tied system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one wanted to heat their water off grid, temperature would be a very important consideration, because if the water is not heated to a high enough temperature there is a risk of biological organisms contaminating the water. This consideration would be especially important in an off grid situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another idea for off-grid would be to use the hot water tank as a dump load for when your batteries are full. Again the water temperature would be the biggest concern, and I'm not sure exactly how high a tank would need to be heated and how often it would have to be heated to that temperature in order to prevent a dangerous level of biological contamination. If I were to guess I would say that it would have to be heated to at least 150 or 160 degrees F at least once per day in order to be safe. Biological contamination would be a concern even if you were only using the water for heating purposes. Perhaps this would be a good question for another post, and it's one I personally can't answer with any accuracy except to say that this would probably be one of the biggest concerns in using solar electric for heating hot water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one wanted to simply lower their electric bill without having to get into grid tie, Photo Voltaics for heating water may be one of the simplest and most cost effective ways to do that, but there is still a lot to consider in order for it to be effective. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One method would be to use a regular hot water tank off grid to preheat the water and then use small &quot;point of use&quot; water heaters (using the mains power) to bring the water to the desired temperatures when the solar isn't available or the water not quite hot enough for your needs. The temperature of the preheated water would still be an important factor here, as even if you killed any biological material with the point of use water heater, I'm sure it would still have a foul smell (at the very least) if the water sat too long in the preheating tank at too low a temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most household hot water tanks, at least where I live, have two heating elements, an upper and a lower. So, another idea might be to continue using mains power for the upper element and putting a DC element and DC regulator on the lower element power by solar PV. With careful calculation it's possible that no MPPT or PWM controller would even be required as long as the DC regulator and element you put in the tank can handle the array's maximum voltage and amperage (of course fuses would be a must in any case). And with a high temperature regulator on the upper element (the one powered by the mains) it's doubtful that one would have to worry about biological contamination of the tank. Of course this would only be a supplemental use of the stored heat from the solar panels, but such a small system would almost certainly pay for itself much sooner than a grid tied system as long as it was designed well. The whole system could probably be set up by an expert in less than a day and would probably lower the electric bill (in my case anyway) by $5 to $30 per month (or more) depending on usage and weather conditions. One problem I do see with this type of system is that with too many panels you would have to figure out a productive way of using the extra energy on really sunny days. On the other hand if you used 300 watts or less of solar, the panels would almost certainly be productive most of the time, but then I don't have enough information yet to determine whether or not such a small supplement would meet one's daily hot water needs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is something I'm considering trying myself and most of my research is done from a practical perspective, based on my own budget and the results I'm looking for. I realize that my comment here may raise more questions than give answers, but I'm certain that the questions I have raised (and couldn't answer) here are ones that must be considered by anyone looking to use a PV system to store hot water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen where quite a few people are using PV to heat water both off grid and as a grid supplement, and most of them say that it is (or at least can be with the right design) an economically practical and productive way to use solar electricity. But, all of these questions must be considered and calculated into the design of such a system in order to make such a project worthwhile from a practical perspective. Of course experimentation in this area has a value of it's own as long as one can afford it and can do it safely. There is a great need for such experimentation to help bring progress to alternative energy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16106" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6353" RevisionGUID="47bf836c-4cdf-4d0e-a1f8-808ac1fb5a86" CreationDate="2018-01-18T22:38:50.590" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/954120927134060544" />
  <row Id="16107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6381" RevisionGUID="4a68e3b7-617f-4f9b-9b4e-78e41c2b5978" CreationDate="2018-01-19T18:02:13.477" UserId="5349" Text="http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~gdrg/readings/2005/12/07/Williams_EnergyChemicalUse.pdf&#xD;&#xA;following the above link you will find there on page 2(185):&quot;According the 1997 National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, average electricity consumption was 1.4 kWh per square centimeter of silicon wafer processed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I do not think figures are much lower now. Besides, they are do not include assembly, transportation and buffer. If there was  EROI=1 it would be a magic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16113" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="d59082b9-ea07-4bd0-8f92-1f57f338920b" CreationDate="2018-01-21T18:52:28.307" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6383" RevisionGUID="19fe877c-6b2b-42e7-b8d3-2e7519f5a6e8" CreationDate="2018-01-22T11:36:19.733" UserId="2187" Text="I am teaching a class on waste management to students who are primarily environmental management masters students.  For one of the sessions I plan to discuss the role of consumer/waste generator behavior in the waste management system.  A colleague will present a basic introduction to some theories of behavior.  I, however, would like to discuss consumer behavior from the **perspective of the waste manager**.  For example, a municipal waste manager may be faced with a limited budget for education and public participation.  Should she spend the funds on waste prevention initiatives with respect to purchasing, with respect to reuse and repair, or on efforts to increase recycling participation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there are many interesting questions environmental education, policy engagement and the like raised by these choices, in this instance I am interested in the **efficacy of efforts to influence waste-related choices and behaviors and the associated quantitative impact on the waste stream**.  In simpler terms, how much impact does, for example, a good campaign to increase recycling participation have on actual recycling levels?  How long do the effects persist?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I am looking for literature that grapples (preferably in quantitative terms )with behavior and waste from this perspective.  While studies of individual interventions/initiatives are helpful, what would be of most interest would be research that compares the efficacy of varied approaches or which reviews multiple studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any suggestions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6383" RevisionGUID="19fe877c-6b2b-42e7-b8d3-2e7519f5a6e8" CreationDate="2018-01-22T11:36:19.733" UserId="2187" Text="Research on consumer behavior and waste management" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6383" RevisionGUID="19fe877c-6b2b-42e7-b8d3-2e7519f5a6e8" CreationDate="2018-01-22T11:36:19.733" UserId="2187" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="a56d6cb7-a837-49a3-b4e0-0063584a0476" CreationDate="2018-01-22T16:31:14.153" UserId="5357" Text="I've read multiple threads about this but I've yet to come across an answer to this question.... would it be possible to have a small bank of led lights power multiple solar panels? For instance, if I were to build a dome of solar panels facing inward toward a few led lights placed on the bottom of the dome, would that be enough to power anything substantial? I understand that most dolor panels are only about 15% efficient but could this design offset that efficiency rating to produce more power than it actually uses? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16119" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="a56d6cb7-a837-49a3-b4e0-0063584a0476" CreationDate="2018-01-22T16:31:14.153" UserId="5357" Text="Led powered solar panels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16120" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="a56d6cb7-a837-49a3-b4e0-0063584a0476" CreationDate="2018-01-22T16:31:14.153" UserId="5357" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16121" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="1496c21d-42f7-4e9d-9350-89f1b5d00a2d" CreationDate="2018-01-22T17:24:54.770" UserId="5357" Comment="I've read the thread about less facing a solar panel but I'm wondering if using multiple panels around fewer leds would provide as much or more power" Text="I've read multiple threads about this but I've yet to come across an answer to this question.... would it be possible to have a small bank of led lights power multiple solar panels? For instance, if I were to build a dome of solar panels facing inward toward a few led lights placed on the bottom of the dome, would that be enough to power anything substantial? I understand that most solar or panels are only about 15% efficient but could this design offset that efficiency rating to produce more power than it actually uses? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16122" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="ac2afe9a-338b-48d6-8602-20959860f019" CreationDate="2018-01-22T18:56:56.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6385" RevisionGUID="67535c59-3a6c-449f-9d28-539f6e8eac16" CreationDate="2018-01-22T19:21:14.810" UserId="2914" Text="Why not just use the power that is powering the LED lights?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot produce more power than you consume. That would be a perpetual motion machine and is generally accepted as not possible.      &#xD;&#xA;[Perpetual motion][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not getting how a dome offsets efficiency.  You do know the light is absorbed by the panel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16124" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="99ae926f-e47e-4c7d-8a75-0afda1003fcd" CreationDate="2018-01-22T19:56:42.963" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2658],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:15,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Highly Irregular&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6385" RevisionGUID="479ff109-ff19-44b2-b68e-fb500f5c7ab7" CreationDate="2018-01-22T20:09:50.617" UserId="2914" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Why not just use the power that is powering the LED lights?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot produce more power than you consume. That would be a perpetual motion machine and is generally accepted as not possible.  [Perpetual motion][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not getting how a dome offsets efficiency.  You do know the light is absorbed by the panel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6385" RevisionGUID="bcc27a2e-64aa-4992-b5bd-1bd009f2060d" CreationDate="2018-01-22T20:14:56.183" UserId="2914" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Why not just use the power that is powering the LED lights?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot produce more power than you consume. That would be a perpetual motion machine and is generally accepted as not possible.  [Perpetual motion][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not getting how a dome offsets efficiency.  You do know the light is absorbed by the panel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sorry no duplicate was marked before I answered.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="b73a1bed-9eb6-4c8d-b393-b51a58e5207a" CreationDate="2018-01-23T06:30:50.333" UserId="5300" Text="I am building an 'Off Grid' tiny home, with my primary energy supply from solar + battery storage. I intend to utilise low voltage everything possible with the exception of a standard home washing machine and a chest freezer converted to chest refrigerator, which I intend to power via inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is using inverters in this way an efficient use of power, and will I run into reliability issues with either the appliance or inverter? (or does this come down to purchasing quality products)&#xD;&#xA; - Also, What rating inverter should I purchase with respect to the rated draw of the appliance? (I am aware these appliances have high startup current Draw)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any inverter 101 advice appreciated. Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="b73a1bed-9eb6-4c8d-b393-b51a58e5207a" CreationDate="2018-01-23T06:30:50.333" UserId="5300" Text="Inverter Advice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="b73a1bed-9eb6-4c8d-b393-b51a58e5207a" CreationDate="2018-01-23T06:30:50.333" UserId="5300" Text="|solar-power|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="4aa8bde9-f373-4e9e-9614-2fd5d7c60acc" CreationDate="2018-01-23T15:05:47.457" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title, tags. Minor editing." Text="I am building an 'Off Grid' tiny home, with my primary energy supply from solar + battery storage. I intend to utilise low voltage everything possible with the exception of a standard home washing machine and a chest freezer converted to chest refrigerator, which I intend to power via inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is using inverters in this way an efficient use of power, and will I run into reliability issues with either the appliance or inverter? (or does this come down to purchasing quality products?)&#xD;&#xA; - Also, what rating inverter should I purchase with respect to the rated draw of the appliance? (I am aware these appliances have high startup current.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16131" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="4aa8bde9-f373-4e9e-9614-2fd5d7c60acc" CreationDate="2018-01-23T15:05:47.457" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title, tags. Minor editing." Text="Size and reliability of inverter for refrigerator in an off-grid tiny home" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16132" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="4aa8bde9-f373-4e9e-9614-2fd5d7c60acc" CreationDate="2018-01-23T15:05:47.457" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title, tags. Minor editing." Text="|solar-power|electricity|off-grid|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6387" RevisionGUID="586e7033-15f7-4130-9e82-c825ac073075" CreationDate="2018-01-23T17:51:13.867" UserId="3379" Text="Searching for small- to medium-sized chest freezers on Home Depot I found that GE provides details on current draw for [5 cubic foot](https://www.homedepot.com/p/GE-5-0-cu-ft-Manual-Defrost-Chest-Freezer-in-White-FCM5SKWW/206943512) and 7 cubic foot models (140 and 200 liters, respectively).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In their wiring recommendations, the manuals specify a 15 or 20 amp breaker (at 115 volts). Thus we can assume that the maximum current draw for either is under 15 amps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverters are typically provided with a maximum power rating. To satisfy a peak of 15A at 115V, your inverter will need to supply **1725 watts:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     V   *  I  =   P&#xD;&#xA;    115V * 15A = 1725W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you'll also have a washer, you'd want to have a bit of overage designed into the system. You could easily do with a 2000W inverter, such as this one: [2000-Watt 12-Volt Off-Grid Pure-Sine Wave Battery Inverter](https://www.homedepot.com/p/Renogy-2000-Watt-12-Volt-Off-Grid-Pure-Sine-Wave-Battery-Inverter-with-Cables-INVT-2000-12V/301738232)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16134" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="bfea2518-00b5-4f29-962e-1695c7af64b3" CreationDate="2018-01-23T23:31:24.897" UserId="5361" Text="Question: which has a greater embodied energy: a cup of tea/coffee or a can of coke - or maybe some other stimulating drink? I have made some estimates of my own, but there are some areas I haven't been able to figure out e.g. transportation, and I am looking for someone who may be better informed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Factors&#xD;&#xA;Cup of tea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Production of packaging&#xD;&#xA; 2. Transportation from country of origin&#xD;&#xA; 3. Heating water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can of coke:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Production of packaging&#xD;&#xA;2. Transportation of raw ingredients&#xD;&#xA;3. Manufacture&#xD;&#xA;4. Transportation of product from the factory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# My estimates:&#xD;&#xA;## Boiling one cup of tea: 0.11 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;500 g water (minimum amount for typical kettles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Q = mcΔT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Q = Heating required&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;m = Mass of water = 0.5 kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;c = Specific heat capacity of water = 4.18 kJ/kgK [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΔT = 75 Kelvin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Q = 157 kJ = 43.6 Wh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Efficiency of electrical power grid (e.g. in the US) [2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Generation: 40%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Transmission: 94%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Net effy = 38%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So total energy cost of a cuppa I'd reckon is 413 kJ = 0.110 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Al can production: 0.28 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;14.9 g : Mass of an empty can [3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;183e9 kWh : US total Aluminium industry energy consumption (2003) [4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9.6e6 tonnes : US Aluminium industry raw materials used (2003) [4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This gives 19.1 kWh/kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or 0.28 kWh/can&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Manufacture: ?&#xD;&#xA;Not sure about energy required in manufacturing coke or blending tea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Transportation: ?&#xD;&#xA;Suspect transportation is fairly negligible in both cases as neither are perishable so probably transported by sea and road, which is relatively efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# References&#xD;&#xA;[1]“Water - Thermophysical Properties.” [Online]. Available: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html. [Accessed: 23-Jan-2018].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]“Energy Efficiency in the Power Grid - NEMA,” mafiadoc.com. [Online]. Available: https://mafiadoc.com/energy-efficiency-in-the-power-grid-nema_59842ba91723ddcf69a39c32.html. [Accessed: 23-Jan-2018].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] “How much does an empty soda can weigh?,” Reference. [Online]. Available: https://www.reference.com/food/much-empty-soda-can-weigh-2e7e0417d7a8ec29. [Accessed: 23-Jan-2018].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4]E. Efficiency, “US Energy Requirements for Aluminum Production,” 2007. Available: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/11/f4/al_theoretical.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16135" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="bfea2518-00b5-4f29-962e-1695c7af64b3" CreationDate="2018-01-23T23:31:24.897" UserId="5361" Text="More sustainable pick-me-up: can of coke or cup of tea/coffee?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16136" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="bfea2518-00b5-4f29-962e-1695c7af64b3" CreationDate="2018-01-23T23:31:24.897" UserId="5361" Text="|energy-efficiency|embodied-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16137" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="6c5ecee4-d1f7-4eda-984e-b4a31b1891c2" CreationDate="2018-01-24T07:52:49.513" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/956072280446193664" />
  <row Id="16142" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6383" RevisionGUID="3d360edd-aa5a-404f-b32d-0a9a5f449215" CreationDate="2018-01-25T07:52:55.660" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/956434693725081600" />
  <row Id="16143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6390" RevisionGUID="adc1a3d1-f73f-4027-bced-335c0e32e6fc" CreationDate="2018-01-25T10:11:00.427" UserId="4886" Text="Your system fails immediately when prices rise.  Since prices rising is inevitable, your system will inevitably fail.  Even if it did work for a year, you hit diminishing returns instantly, and there goes the motivation for further/continuing effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a problem that _cannot be solved_ by playing with numbers on a spreadsheet.  **Group rewards don't promote individual responsibility** because the benefits of individual sacrifice get too diluted.  Only individual meters will promote individual responsibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root of the problem that you are trying to solve has nothing to do with the tenants — the problem is with the landlord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Landlords are, by definition, [rent seekers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking).  They want passive income for minimal, preferably _no_ effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as the landlord can just 'pass the buck' down to the tenants (i.e. get them to pay all the bills, regardless of how large those bills get), they will do so.  They don't care about responsibility.  They don't care about fairness.  They don't care about the environment.  They just want profits.  And they don't want to spend a cent or lift a finger to collect those profits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Installing individual meters is entirely possible, and not even that expensive (especially for only three dwellings).  But what motivation has the landlord got to install such things as long as he can legally force the tenants to pay the bills?  Absolutely none.  _The bills don't affect the landlord so the landlord doesn't care about the bills._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Your only hope of solving the problem is to make the landlord care about the bills.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since landlord rights are enshrined in law, that would most logically be what needs to change in order to solve the problem.  Good luck with that.  Once rackets are sanctioned/protected by law they are incredibly difficult to dismantle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this day and age, **perhaps a more appropriate way would be to publicly shame landlords into action?**  Create a website which acts as a register.  People from around the world could report that their dwelling has a shared meter and, as a result, they are stuck paying huge bills because their wasteful neighbours don't take any responsibility for their utility usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If such a register became widely known and used/checked then dwellings with no individual metering would see their occupancy levels drop over time.  This would affect landlord incomes.  This would make landlords care about utility bills.  Landlords would want to see their properties removed from the register.  This would prompt the installation of individual meters.  This would solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tenants could scan/photograph a utility bill and upload it to the website, along with the address details.  The website operator could quickly view the bill to verify that the bill is a shared one and that the address matches the one provided.  Click a button and bang, the address goes public and appears on the register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make it free to report dwellings with shared meters, many will do so.  If it becomes a popular place for would-be-renters to check, then traffic levels will be high, which could cover or exceed the cost of hosting.  Submitted scans/photos need not be stored on the website, they can be down/offloaded and archived so they don't count towards storage quotas.  All you need to keep is an address.  Less than a 1 kB per dwelling.  Very minimal setup, very cheap as far as running costs are concerned.  World-wide scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The internal (or even public) project name could be **Sha**red **Me**ter **R**egistry (ShaMeR)...  ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, Yelp is based on a business model of publicly shaming companies that provide bad services.  I see no reason why *crowd-sourced reporting* can't be leveraged to shame landlords into installing meters so that tenants receive the information they need to be more responsible in their resource usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise that none of the above actually answers your question, but I do think that the problem you have highlighted is a very important one — affecting many, many people and consequently having a noteworthy environmental impact — so it is worth discussing and finding a solution for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was more generic (e.g. 'Shared meters do not encourage responsible resource usage — how can we change that?') then perhaps the net could be cast wider and more potential solutions could be presented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6390" RevisionGUID="f77c68b4-cb73-46ab-b84b-031a47632304" CreationDate="2018-01-25T10:17:39.457" UserId="4886" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Your system fails immediately when prices rise.  Since prices rising is inevitable, your system will inevitably fail.  Even if it did work for a year, you hit diminishing returns instantly, and there goes the motivation for further/continuing effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a problem that _cannot be solved_ by playing with numbers on a spreadsheet.  **Group rewards don't promote individual responsibility** because the benefits of individual sacrifice get too diluted.  Only individual meters will promote individual responsibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root of the problem that you are trying to solve has nothing to do with the tenants — the problem is with the landlord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Landlords are, by definition, [rent seekers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking).  They want passive income for minimal, preferably _no_ effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as the landlord can just 'pass the buck' down to the tenants (i.e. get them to pay all the bills, regardless of how large those bills get), they will do so.  They don't care about responsibility.  They don't care about fairness.  They don't care about the environment.  They just want profits.  And they don't want to spend a cent or lift a finger to collect those profits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Installing individual meters is entirely possible, and not even that expensive (especially for only three dwellings).  But what motivation has the landlord got to install such things as long as he can legally force the tenants to pay the bills?  Absolutely none.  _The bills don't affect the landlord so the landlord doesn't care about the bills._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Your only hope of solving the problem is to make the landlord care about the bills.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since landlord rights are enshrined in law, that would most logically be what needs to change in order to solve the problem.  Good luck with that.  Once rackets are sanctioned/protected by law they are incredibly difficult to dismantle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this day and age, **perhaps a more appropriate way would be to publicly shame landlords into action?**  Create a website which acts as a register.  People from around the world could report that their dwelling has a shared meter and, as a result, they are stuck paying huge bills because their wasteful neighbours don't take any responsibility for their utility usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If such a register became widely known and used/checked then dwellings with no individual metering would see their occupancy levels drop over time.  This would affect landlord incomes.  This would make landlords care about utility bills.  Landlords would want to see their properties removed from the register.  This would prompt the installation of individual meters.  This would solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tenants could scan/photograph a utility bill and upload it to the website, along with the address details.  The website operator could quickly view the bill to verify that the bill is a shared one and that the address matches the one provided.  Click a button and bang, the address goes public and appears on the register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make it free to report dwellings with shared meters, many will do so.  If it becomes a popular place for would-be-renters to check, then traffic levels will be high, so ad revenues could cover or exceed the cost of hosting.  Submitted scans/photos need not be stored on the website — they could be down-/off-loaded and archived so they don't count towards storage quotas.  All you need to keep is an address.  Less than a 1 kB per dwelling.  Very minimal setup, very cheap as far as running costs are concerned.  World-wide scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The internal (or even public) project name could be the **Sha**red **Me**ter **R**egister (ShaMeR)...  ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, Yelp is based on a business model of publicly shaming companies that provide bad services.  I see no reason why *crowd-sourced reporting* can't be leveraged to shame landlords into installing meters so that tenants receive the information they need to be more responsible in their utility usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise that none of the above actually answers your question, but I do think that the problem you have highlighted is a very important one — affecting many, many people and consequently having a noteworthy environmental impact — so it is worth discussing and finding a solution for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was more generic (e.g. 'Shared meters do not encourage responsible utility usage — how can we change that?') then perhaps the net could be cast wider and more potential solutions could be presented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6390" RevisionGUID="e9fb58ba-9885-422d-bc26-089eb0fbff12" CreationDate="2018-01-25T10:23:22.083" UserId="4886" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Your system fails immediately when prices rise.  Since prices rising is inevitable, your system will inevitably fail.  Even if it did work for a year, you hit diminishing returns right-away, and there goes the motivation for further/continuing effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a problem that _cannot be solved_ by playing with numbers on a spreadsheet.  **Group rewards don't promote individual responsibility** because the benefits of individual sacrifice get too diluted.  Only individual meters will promote individual responsibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The root of the problem that you are trying to solve has nothing to do with the tenants — the problem is with the landlord.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Landlords are, by definition, [rent seekers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking).  They want passive income for minimal, preferably _no_ effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as the landlord can just 'pass the buck' down to the tenants (i.e. get them to pay all the bills, regardless of how large those bills get), they will do so.  They don't care about responsibility.  They don't care about fairness.  They don't care about the environment.  They just want profits.  And they don't want to spend a cent or lift a finger to collect those profits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Installing individual meters is entirely possible, and not even that expensive (especially for only three dwellings).  But what motivation has the landlord got to install such things as long as he can legally force the tenants to pay the bills?  Absolutely none.  _The bills don't affect the landlord so the landlord doesn't care about the bills._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Your only hope of solving the problem is to make the landlord care about the bills.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since landlord rights are enshrined in law, that would most logically be what needs to change in order to solve the problem.  Good luck with that.  Once rackets are sanctioned/protected by law they are incredibly difficult to dismantle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this day and age, **perhaps a more appropriate way would be to publicly shame landlords into action?**  Create a website which acts as a register.  People from around the world could report that their dwelling has a shared meter and, as a result, they are stuck paying huge bills because their wasteful neighbours don't take any responsibility for their utility usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If such a register became widely known and used/checked then dwellings with shared meters would see their occupancy levels drop over time.  This would affect landlord incomes.  This would make landlords care about utility bills.  Landlords would want to see their properties removed from the register.  This would prompt the installation of individual meters.  This would solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tenants could scan/photograph a utility bill and upload it to the website, along with the address details.  The website operator could quickly view the bill to verify that the bill is a shared one and that the address matches the one provided.  Click a button and bang, the address goes public and appears on the register.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make it free to report dwellings with shared meters, many disgruntled tenants will do so.  If it becomes a popular place for would-be-renters to check, then traffic levels will be high, so ad revenues could cover or exceed the cost of hosting.  Submitted scans/photos need not be stored on the website — they could be down-/off-loaded and archived so they don't count towards storage quotas.  All you need to keep is an address.  Less than a 1 kB per dwelling.  Very minimal setup, very cheap as far as running costs are concerned.  World-wide scope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The internal (or even public) project name could be the **Sha**red **Me**ter **R**egister (ShaMeR)...  ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, Yelp is based on a business model of publicly shaming companies that provide bad services.  I see no reason why *crowd-sourced reporting* can't be leveraged to shame landlords into installing meters so that tenants receive the information they need to be more responsible in their utility usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise that none of the above actually answers your question, but I do think that the problem you have highlighted is a very important one — affecting many, many people and consequently having a noteworthy environmental impact — so it is worth discussing and finding a solution for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question was more generic (e.g. '**Shared meters do not encourage responsible utility usage — how can we change that?**') then perhaps the net could be cast wider and more potential solutions could be presented?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6391" RevisionGUID="27cbfb12-41e0-4121-8817-25fea99d095d" CreationDate="2018-01-25T14:22:30.177" UserId="4886" Text="10kBTU = 2.93kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat pumps typically provide 2-4x as much heating/cooling as they consume power, so if we take a 3x factor, then a 2.93/3= 977W draw seems right in the ballpark.  8x110 = 880W also gets you into the same area — given power factor fuzziness.  1000W is a safe call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start-up current for ACs is highly variable, but commonly 2-6x continuous current.  Unless you have more details, and if we take the average of 4x, then the initial current draw of your AC will be 4x1000= 4kW which is double the capacity of your inverter.  This will pose problems if your batteries are low, the sun is shining, and you turn on the AC — the inverter may trip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone going off-grid should buy a variable speed &quot;inverter&quot; AC unit.  They ramp up speed slowly so aren't as punishing to off-grid electrical systems as the ordinary types that expect 100A+ to always be available from the mains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x 100Ah batteries -&gt; 600Ah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;600Ah @ 12V -&gt; 7200Wh == 7.2kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You haven't specified the type of battery, so *useful* capacity is unknown.  Let's assume your batteries are AGM and you want them to last at least 5 years, so you don't discharge them below 50%.  So DoD is 50%.&#xD;&#xA;7.2*0.5= 3.6kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.6kWh of usable power will run your lights, laptop and AC for ~3 hours once the sun starts to set late in the afternoon.  That's not exactly a long time.  Hope you plan to go to bed early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x325W panels = 1950W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 12V = 162.5A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;162 &gt;&gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, you're not going to have a 12V battery bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 24V = 81.25A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;81 &gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, a 24V bank won't work either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 48V = 40.625A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we're in the ballpark... but you can't create a 48V battery bank using 6 batteries — you need either 8 or 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 1) I'm unsure if I should run the PV panels in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 48V 15A) or just run them parallel at 24V 30A.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 325W panel that outputs at 24V should be producing 325/24= 13.5A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 in parallel x 2 in series should generate 40.5A@48V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6 in parallel should generate 81A@24V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current values seem to be out by a factor of 2.7?  Might want to work out why." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6391" RevisionGUID="a0fccb76-da09-4e35-9bfd-b3d28bdd8247" CreationDate="2018-01-25T14:39:31.990" UserId="4886" Comment="added 850 characters in body" Text="10kBTU = 2.93kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat pumps typically provide 2-4x as much heating/cooling as they consume power, so if we take a 3x factor, then a 2.93/3= 977W draw seems right in the ballpark.  8x110 = 880W also gets you into the same area — given power factor fuzziness.  1000W is a safe call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start-up current for ACs is highly variable, but commonly 2-6x continuous current.  Unless you have more details, and if we take the average of 4x, then the initial current draw of your AC will be 4x1000= 4kW which is double the capacity of your inverter.  This will pose problems if your batteries are low, the sun is shining, and you turn on the AC — the inverter may trip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone going off-grid should buy a variable speed &quot;inverter&quot; AC unit.  They ramp up speed slowly so aren't as punishing to off-grid electrical systems as the ordinary types that expect 100A+ to always be available from the mains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x 100Ah batteries -&gt; 600Ah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;600Ah @ 12V -&gt; 7200Wh == 7.2kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You haven't specified the type of battery, so *useful* capacity is unknown.  Let's assume your batteries are AGM and you want them to last at least 5 years, so you don't discharge them below 50%.  So DoD is 50%.&#xD;&#xA;7.2*0.5= 3.6kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.6kWh of usable power will run your lights, laptop and AC for ~3 hours once the sun starts to set late in the afternoon.  That's not exactly a long time.  Hope you plan to go to bed early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x325W panels = 1950W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 12V = 162.5A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;162 &gt;&gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, you're not going to have a 12V battery bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 24V = 81.25A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;81 &gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, a 24V bank won't work either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 48V = 40.625A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we're in the ballpark... but you can't create a 48V battery bank using 6 batteries — you need either 8 or 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 1) I'm unsure if I should run the PV panels in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 48V 15A) or just run them parallel at 24V 30A.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 325W panel that outputs at 24V should be producing 325/24= 13.5A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 in parallel x 2 in series should generate 40.5A@48V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6 in parallel should generate 81A@24V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current values seem to be out by a factor of 2.7?  Might want to work out why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 2) Likewise similar question for the batteries: should run them in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 24V 15A), can I just run them parallel at 12V 30A, or if I'm running the PV array at 48V do I need to match the 48V so that the battery controller is 48V both in/out?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your bottleneck is the 40A charge controller.  If that's the maximum current it can feed into the batteries, and you want to be able to absorb all 1950W of power from the panels, then you need to be outputting no less than 48V to the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given 12V batteries, you need 4 of them in series to get to 48V, so your battery bank will consist of one or more such strings.  That means either 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, or ... batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't turn 6 batteries into a viable 48V bank, so get two more — 8 batteries in total — and have 2 parallel strings of 4 batteries in series... at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the incoming voltage from the PV array does not need to match the outgoing voltage to the battery bank.  In this case the charge controller is so marginal that you don't have any other option.  If you went with a 60-80A charge controller you would have more flexibility, would get better charging efficiency, and would be able to take advantage of cloud-edge effects when the current can briefly spike up to 50% above normal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6391" RevisionGUID="c3936985-a56d-44fb-b67e-41d0a5e69f9d" CreationDate="2018-01-25T14:45:17.320" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="10kBTU = 2.93kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat pumps typically provide 2-4x as much heating/cooling as they consume in electrical power, so if we take a 3x factor, then a 2.93/3= 977W draw seems right in the ballpark.  8x110 = 880W also gets you into the same area — given power factor fuzziness.  1000W is a safe call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start-up current for ACs is highly variable, but commonly 2-6x continuous current.  Unless you have more details, and if we take the average of 4x, then the initial current draw of your AC will be 4x1000= 4kW which is double the capacity of your inverter.  This will pose problems if your batteries are low, the sun is shining, and you turn on the AC — the inverter may trip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone going off-grid should buy a variable speed &quot;inverter&quot; AC unit.  They ramp up speed slowly so aren't as punishing to off-grid electrical systems as the ordinary types that expect 100A+ to always be available from the mains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x 100Ah batteries = 600Ah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;600Ah @ 12V = 7200Wh = 7.2kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You haven't specified the type of battery, so *useful* capacity is unknown.  Let's assume your batteries are AGM and you want them to last at least 5 years, so you don't discharge them below 50%.  So DoD is 50%.&#xD;&#xA;7.2*0.5= 3.6kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.6kWh of usable power will run your lights, laptop and AC for ~3 hours once the sun starts to sink late in the afternoon.  That's not exactly a long time.  Hope you plan to go to bed early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x325W panels = 1950W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 12V = 162.5A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;162 &gt;&gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, you're not going to have a 12V battery bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 24V = 81.25A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;81 &gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, a 24V bank won't work either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 48V = 40.625A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we're in the ballpark... but you can't create a 48V battery bank using 6 batteries — you need either 8 or 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 1) I'm unsure if I should run the PV panels in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 48V 15A) or just run them parallel at 24V 30A.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 325W panel that outputs at 24V should be producing 325/24= 13.5A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 in parallel x 2 in series should generate 40.5A@48V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6 in parallel should generate 81A@24V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current values seem to be out by a factor of 2.7?  Might want to work out why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 2) Likewise similar question for the batteries: should run them in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 24V 15A), can I just run them parallel at 12V 30A, or if I'm running the PV array at 48V do I need to match the 48V so that the battery controller is 48V both in/out?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your bottleneck is the 40A charge controller.  If that's the maximum current it can feed into the batteries, and you want to be able to absorb all 1950W of power from the panels, then you need to be outputting no less than 48V to the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given 12V batteries, you need 4 of them in series to get to 48V, so your battery bank will consist of one or more such strings.  That means either 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, or n*4 batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't turn 6 batteries into a viable 48V bank, so get two more — 8 batteries in total — and have 2 parallel strings of 4 batteries in series... at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the incoming voltage from the PV array does not need to match the outgoing voltage to the battery bank.  In this case the charge controller is so marginal that you don't have any other option.  If you went with a 60-80A charge controller you would have more flexibility, would get better charging efficiency, and would be able to take advantage of cloud-edge effects when the current can briefly spike up to 50% above normal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6391" RevisionGUID="6d1cd449-fd5a-4cac-a59a-2ea9d3f306e6" CreationDate="2018-01-25T14:51:00.860" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="10kBTU = 2.93kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat pumps typically provide 2-4x as much heating/cooling as they consume in electrical power, so if we take a 3x factor, then a 2.93/3= 977W draw seems right in the ballpark.  8x110 = 880W also gets you into the same area — given power factor fuzziness.  1000W is a safe call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start-up current for ACs is highly variable, but commonly 2-6x continuous current.  Unless you have more details, and if we take the average of 4x, then the initial current draw of your AC will be 4x1000= 4kW which is double the capacity of your inverter.  This will pose problems if your batteries are low, the sun is shining, and you turn on the AC — the inverter may trip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone going off-grid should buy a variable speed &quot;inverter&quot; AC unit.  They ramp up speed slowly so aren't as punishing to off-grid electrical systems as the ordinary types that expect 100A+ to always be available from the mains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x 100Ah batteries = 600Ah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;600Ah @ 12V = 7200Wh = 7.2kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You haven't specified the type of battery, so *useful* capacity is unknown.  Let's assume your batteries are AGM and you want them to last at least 5 years, so you don't discharge them below 50%.  So DoD is 50%.&#xD;&#xA;7.2*0.5= 3.6kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.6kWh of usable power will run your lights, laptop and AC for ~3 hours once the sun starts to sink late in the afternoon.  That's not exactly a long time.  Hope you plan to go to bed early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x325W panels = 1950W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 12V = 162.5A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;162 &gt;&gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, you're not going to have a 12V battery bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 24V = 81.25A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;81 &gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, a 24V bank won't work either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 48V = 40.625A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we're in the ballpark... but you can't create a 48V battery bank using 6 batteries — you need a multiple of 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 1) I'm unsure if I should run the PV panels in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 48V 15A) or just run them parallel at 24V 30A.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 325W panel that outputs at 24V should be producing 325/24= 13.5A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 in parallel x 2 in series should generate 40.5A@48V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6 in parallel should generate 81A@24V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current values seem to be out by a factor of 2.7?  Might want to work out why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 2) Likewise similar question for the batteries: should run them in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 24V 15A), can I just run them parallel at 12V 30A, or if I'm running the PV array at 48V do I need to match the 48V so that the battery controller is 48V both in/out?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your bottleneck is the 40A charge controller.  If that's the maximum current it can feed into the batteries, and you want to be able to absorb all 1950W of power from the panels, then you need to be outputting at no less than 48V to the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given 12V batteries, you need 4 of them in series to get to 48V, so your battery bank will consist of one or more such strings.  That means either 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, or n*4 batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't turn 6 batteries into a viable 48V bank, so get two more — 8 batteries in total — and have 2 parallel strings of 4 batteries in series... at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the incoming voltage from the PV array does not need to match the outgoing voltage to the battery bank.  In this case the charge controller is so marginal that you don't have any other option.  If you went with a 60-80A charge controller you would have more flexibility, would get better charging efficiency, and would be able to take advantage of cloud-edge effects when the current can briefly spike up to 50% above normal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6294" RevisionGUID="f7f37c05-8a66-44f1-aa92-b16e8e94b5d8" CreationDate="2018-01-25T17:11:01.897" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified." Text="I live in an apartment building with three units, but only one gas meter, one electric meter, and one water meter. As a result, there is no inherent incentive to save water and energy, and no fair way to allocate utility expenses among residents. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, separating the utilities for each apartment is impractical -- it was originally a single-family dwelling which was split into apartments, and in many cases a single circuit serves two or even all three apartments. There are a number of other reasons why it may be impractical in other cases as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought of a way if I owned such a building, to create an incentive for tenants to save water and energy that would be fair.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. With a year or two of historical bills, set the rent where it makes sense to cover all utilities without putting effort into reducing usage.&#xD;&#xA; 2. As the owner, invest a bit in simple ways to save such as replacing lights with LED bulbs, installing a programmable thermostat, re-caulking windows, etc.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Over the course of the year, each resident, to the extent they're able, does their best to reduce water and energy usage by their behavior.&#xD;&#xA; 4. At the end of the year, calculate how much money was saved compared to historical expenses.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Take off some amount (say 20%) to cover the owner's investment, then divide the rest among the residents in proportion to the rent they pay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see some issues of residents being upset if one is traveling frequently and others are home often, but since it's a bonus and proportional to the rent, I think it's a bit of an easier sell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Has anyone seen such a system in place, or are there examples of similar systems which have been used?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16151" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6055" RevisionGUID="13df9970-bc63-4a1d-ad41-28d96b7a19b8" CreationDate="2018-01-25T19:56:42.290" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/956616838527504384" />
  <row Id="16152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="55552503-da10-4dea-89f4-23529fe25be7" CreationDate="2018-01-25T21:43:15.863" UserId="5361" Comment="edited body" Text="Question: which has a greater embodied energy: a cup of tea/coffee or a can of coke - or maybe some other stimulating drink? I have made some estimates of my own, but there are some areas I haven't been able to figure out e.g. transportation, and I am looking for someone who may be better informed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Factors&#xD;&#xA;Cup of tea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Production of packaging&#xD;&#xA; 2. Transportation from country of origin&#xD;&#xA; 3. Heating water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can of coke:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Production of packaging&#xD;&#xA;2. Transportation of raw ingredients&#xD;&#xA;3. Manufacture&#xD;&#xA;4. Transportation of product from the factory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# My estimates:&#xD;&#xA;## Boiling one cup of tea: 0.11 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;500 g water (minimum amount for typical kettles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Q = mcΔT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Q = Heating required&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;m = Mass of water = 0.5 kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;c = Specific heat capacity of water = 4.18 kJ/kgK [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;ΔT = 85 Kelvin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Q = 178 kJ = 49.4 Wh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Efficiency of electrical power grid (e.g. in the US) [2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Generation: 40%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Transmission: 94%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Net effy = 38%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So total energy cost of a cuppa I'd reckon is 413 kJ = 0.110 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Al can production: 0.28 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;14.9 g : Mass of an empty can [3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;183e9 kWh : US total Aluminium industry energy consumption (2003) [4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;9.6e6 tonnes : US Aluminium industry raw materials used (2003) [4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This gives 19.1 kWh/kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or 0.28 kWh/can&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Manufacture: ?&#xD;&#xA;Not sure about energy required in manufacturing coke or blending tea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Transportation: ?&#xD;&#xA;Suspect transportation is fairly negligible in both cases as neither are perishable so probably transported by sea and road, which is relatively efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# References&#xD;&#xA;[1]“Water - Thermophysical Properties.” [Online]. Available: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html. [Accessed: 23-Jan-2018].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]“Energy Efficiency in the Power Grid - NEMA,” mafiadoc.com. [Online]. Available: https://mafiadoc.com/energy-efficiency-in-the-power-grid-nema_59842ba91723ddcf69a39c32.html. [Accessed: 23-Jan-2018].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] “How much does an empty soda can weigh?,” Reference. [Online]. Available: https://www.reference.com/food/much-empty-soda-can-weigh-2e7e0417d7a8ec29. [Accessed: 23-Jan-2018].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4]E. Efficiency, “US Energy Requirements for Aluminum Production,” 2007. Available: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/11/f4/al_theoretical.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6391" RevisionGUID="e9eee75d-232a-43fb-a96c-6cce8ecf373e" CreationDate="2018-01-26T05:04:51.480" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="10kBTU = 2.93kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat pumps typically provide 2-4x as much heating/cooling as they consume in electrical power, so if we take a 3x factor, then a 2.93/3= 977W draw seems right in the ballpark.  8x110 = 880W also gets you into the same area — given power factor fuzziness.  1000W is a safe call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start-up current for ACs is highly variable, but commonly 2-6x continuous current.  Unless you have more details, and if we take the average of 4x, then the initial current draw of your AC will be 4x1000= 4kW which is double the capacity of your inverter.  This will pose problems if your batteries are low, the sun is shining, and you turn on the AC — the inverter may trip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone going off-grid should buy a variable speed &quot;inverter&quot; AC unit.  They ramp up speed slowly so aren't as punishing to off-grid electrical systems as the ordinary types that expect 100A+ to always be available from the mains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x 100Ah batteries = 600Ah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;600Ah @ 12V = 7200Wh = 7.2kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You haven't specified the type of battery, so *useful* capacity is unknown.  Let's assume your batteries are AGM and you want them to last at least 5 years, so you don't discharge them below 50%.  So DoD is 50%.&#xD;&#xA;7.2*0.5= 3.6kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.6kWh of usable power will run your lights, laptop and AC for ~3 hours once the sun starts to sink late in the afternoon.  That's not exactly a long time.  Hope you plan to go to bed early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x325W panels = 1950W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 12V = 162.5A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;162 &gt;&gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, you're not going to have a 12V battery bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 24V = 81.25A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;81 &gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, a 24V bank won't work either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 48V = 40.625A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we're in the ballpark... but you can't create a 48V battery bank using 6 batteries — you need a multiple of 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 1) I'm unsure if I should run the PV panels in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 48V 15A) or just run them parallel at 24V 30A.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 325W panel that outputs at 24V should be producing 325/24= 13.5A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 in parallel x 2 in series should generate 40.5A@48V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6 in parallel should generate 81A@24V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current values seem to be out by a factor of 2.7 — might want to work out why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 2) Likewise similar question for the batteries: should run them in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 24V 15A), can I just run them parallel at 12V 30A, or if I'm running the PV array at 48V do I need to match the 48V so that the battery controller is 48V both in/out?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your bottleneck is the 40A charge controller.  If that's the maximum current it can feed into the batteries, and you want to be able to absorb all 1950W of power from the panels, then you need to be outputting at no less than 48V to the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given 12V batteries, you need 4 of them in series to get to 48V, so your battery bank will consist of one or more such strings.  That means either 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, or n*4 batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't turn 6 batteries into a viable 48V bank, so get two more — 8 batteries in total — and have 2 parallel strings of 4 batteries in series... at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the incoming voltage from the PV array does not need to match the outgoing voltage to the battery bank.  In this case the charge controller is so marginal that you don't have any other option.  If you went with a 60-80A charge controller (or *two* 40A charge controllers) you would have more flexibility, would get better charging efficiency, and would be able to take advantage of cloud-edge effects when the current can briefly spike up to 50% above normal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6391" RevisionGUID="8f4e8187-a1c2-4a1f-9a41-22a6312f2811" CreationDate="2018-01-26T05:19:06.793" UserId="4886" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="10kBTU = 2.93kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat pumps typically provide 2-4x as much heating/cooling as they consume in electrical power, so if we take a 3x factor, then a 2.93/3= 977W draw seems right in the ballpark.  8x110 = 880W also gets you into the same area — given power factor fuzziness.  1000W is a safe call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start-up current for ACs is highly variable, but commonly 2-6x continuous current.  Unless you have more details, and if we take the average of 4x, then the initial current draw of your AC will be 4x1000= 4kW which is double the capacity of your inverter.  This will pose problems if your batteries are low, the sun is shining, and you turn on the AC — the inverter may trip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone going off-grid should buy a variable speed &quot;inverter&quot; AC unit.  They ramp up speed slowly so aren't as punishing to off-grid electrical systems as the ordinary — fixed speed — types that expect 100A+ to always be available from the mains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x 100Ah batteries = 600Ah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;600Ah @ 12V = 7200Wh = 7.2kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You haven't specified the type of battery, so *useful* capacity is unknown.  Let's assume your batteries are AGM and you want them to last at least 5 years, so you don't discharge them below 50%.  So DoD is 50%.&#xD;&#xA;7.2*0.5= 3.6kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.6kWh of usable power will run your lights, laptop and AC for ~3 hours once the sun starts to sink late in the afternoon.  That's not exactly a long time.  Hope you plan to go to bed early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x325W panels = 1950W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 12V = 162.5A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;162 &gt;&gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, you're not going to have a 12V battery bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 24V = 81.25A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;81 &gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, a 24V bank won't work either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 48V = 40.625A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we're in the ballpark... but you can't create a 48V battery bank using 6 batteries — you need a multiple of 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 1) I'm unsure if I should run the PV panels in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 48V 15A) or just run them parallel at 24V 30A.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 325W panel that outputs at 24V should be producing 325/24= 13.5A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 in parallel x 2 in series should generate 40.5A@48V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6 in parallel should generate 81A@24V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current values seem to be out by a factor of 2.7 — might want to work out why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 2) Likewise similar question for the batteries: should run them in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 24V 15A), can I just run them parallel at 12V 30A, or if I'm running the PV array at 48V do I need to match the 48V so that the battery controller is 48V both in/out?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your bottleneck is the 40A charge controller.  If that's the maximum current it can feed into the batteries, and you want to be able to absorb all 1950W of power from the panels, then you need to be outputting at no less than 48V to the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given 12V batteries, you need 4 of them in series to get to 48V, so your battery bank will consist of one or more such strings.  That means either 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, or n*4 batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't turn 6 batteries into a viable 48V bank, so get two more — 8 batteries in total — and have 2 parallel strings of 4 batteries in series... at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the incoming voltage from the PV array does not need to match the outgoing voltage to the battery bank.  In this case the charge controller is so marginal that you don't have any other option.  If you went with a 60-80A charge controller (or *two* 40A charge controllers) you would have more flexibility, would get better charging efficiency, and would be able to take advantage of cloud-edge effects when the current can briefly spike up to 50% above normal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6391" RevisionGUID="85b987f7-ffaf-448d-bb50-6c8df652222e" CreationDate="2018-01-26T05:37:22.627" UserId="4886" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="10kBTU = 2.93kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat pumps typically provide 2-4x as much heating/cooling as they consume in electrical power, so if we take a 3x factor, then a 2.93/3= 977W draw seems right in the ballpark.  8x110 = 880W also gets you into the same area — given power factor fuzziness.  1000W is a safe call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start-up current for ordinary ACs is highly variable, but commonly 2-6x continuous current.  Unless you have more details, and if we take the average of 4x, then the initial current draw of your AC will be 4x1000= 4kW which is double the capacity of your inverter.  This will pose problems if your batteries are low, the sun is shining, and you turn on the AC — the inverter may trip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone going off-grid should buy a variable speed &quot;inverter&quot; AC unit.  They ramp up to speed slowly so aren't as punishing to off-grid electrical systems as the ordinary — fixed speed — types that expect 100-200A to always be available from the mains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x 100Ah batteries = 600Ah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;600Ah @ 12V = 7200Wh = 7.2kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You haven't specified the type of battery, so *useful* capacity is unknown.  Let's assume your batteries are AGM and you want them to last at least 5 years, so you don't discharge them below 50%.  So DoD is 50%.&#xD;&#xA;7.2*0.5= 3.6kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.6kWh of usable power will run your lights, laptop and AC for ~3 hours once the sun starts to sink late in the afternoon.  That's not exactly a long time.  Hope you plan to go to bed early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x325W panels = 1950W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 12V = 162.5A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;162 &gt;&gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, you're not going to have a 12V battery bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 24V = 81.25A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;81 &gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, a 24V bank won't work either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 48V = 40.625A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we're in the ballpark... but you can't create a 48V battery bank using 6 batteries — you need a multiple of 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 1) I'm unsure if I should run the PV panels in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 48V 15A) or just run them parallel at 24V 30A.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 325W panel that outputs at 24V should be producing 325/24= 13.5A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 in parallel x 2 in series should generate 40.5A@48V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6 in parallel should generate 81A@24V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current values seem to be out by a factor of 2.7 — might want to work out why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 2) Likewise similar question for the batteries: should run them in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 24V 15A), can I just run them parallel at 12V 30A, or if I'm running the PV array at 48V do I need to match the 48V so that the battery controller is 48V both in/out?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your bottleneck is the 40A charge controller.  If that's the maximum current it can feed into the batteries, and you want to be able to absorb all 1950W of power from the panels, then you need to be outputting at no less than 48V to the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given 12V batteries, you need 4 of them in series to get to 48V, so your battery bank will consist of one or more such strings.  That means either 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, or n*4 batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't turn 6 batteries into a viable 48V bank, so get two more — 8 batteries in total — and have 2 parallel strings of 4 batteries in series... at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the incoming voltage from the PV array does not need to match the outgoing voltage to the battery bank.  In this case the charge controller is so marginal that you don't have any other option.  If you went with a 60-80A charge controller (or *two* 40A charge controllers) you would have more flexibility, would get better charging efficiency, and would be able to take advantage of cloud-edge effects when the current can briefly spike up to 50% above normal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6391" RevisionGUID="3b7b9aaf-4ff8-4dec-9aec-e0dc68bad70e" CreationDate="2018-01-26T05:43:54.557" UserId="4886" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="10kBTU = 2.93kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat pumps typically provide 2-4x as much heating/cooling as they consume in electrical power, so if we take a 3x factor, then a 2.93/3= 977W draw seems right in the ballpark.  8x110 = 880W also gets you into the same area — given power factor fuzziness.  1000W is a safe call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start-up current for ordinary ACs is highly variable, but commonly 2-6x continuous current.  Unless you have more details, and if we take the average of 4x, then the initial current draw of your AC will be 4x1000= 4kW which is double the capacity of your inverter.  This will pose problems if your batteries are low, the sun is shining, and you turn on the AC — the inverter may trip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone going off-grid should buy a variable speed &quot;inverter&quot; AC unit.  They ramp up to speed slowly so aren't as punishing to off-grid electrical systems as the ordinary — fixed speed — types that expect 100-200A to always be available from the mains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x 100Ah batteries = 600Ah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;600Ah @ 12V = 7200Wh = 7.2kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You haven't specified the type of battery, so *useful* capacity is unknown.  Let's assume your batteries are AGM and you want them to last at least 5 years, so you don't discharge them below 50%.  So DoD is 50%.&#xD;&#xA;7.2*0.5= 3.6kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.6kWh of usable power will run your lights, laptop and AC for ~3 hours once the sun starts to sink late in the afternoon.  That's not exactly a long time.  Hope you plan to go to bed early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x325W panels = 1950W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 12V = 162.5A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;162 &gt;&gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, you're not going to have a 12V battery bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 24V = 81.25A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;81 &gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, a 24V bank won't work either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 48V = 40.625A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we're in the ballpark... but you can't create a 48V battery bank using 6 batteries — you need a multiple of 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 1) I'm unsure if I should run the PV panels in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 48V 15A) or just run them parallel at 24V 30A.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 325W panel that outputs at 24V should be producing 325/24= 13.5A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 in parallel x 2 in series should generate 40.5A@48V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6 in parallel should generate 81A@24V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current values seem to be out by a factor of 2.7 — might want to work out why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 2) Likewise similar question for the batteries: should run them in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 24V 15A), can I just run them parallel at 12V 30A, or if I'm running the PV array at 48V do I need to match the 48V so that the battery controller is 48V both in/out?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your bottleneck is the 40A charge controller.  If that's the maximum current it can feed into the batteries, and you want to be able to absorb all 1950W of power from the panels, then you need to be outputting at no less than 48V to the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given 12V batteries, you need 4 of them in series to get to 48V, so your battery bank will consist of one or more such strings.  That means either 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, or n*4 batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't turn 6 batteries into a viable 48V bank, so get two more — 8 batteries in total — and have 2 parallel strings of 4 batteries in series... at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the incoming voltage from the PV array does not need to match the outgoing voltage to the battery bank.  In this case the charge controller is so marginal that you don't have any other option.  If you went with a 60-80A charge controller (or *two* 40A charge controllers) you would have more flexibility, would get better charging efficiency, and would be able to take advantage of cloud-edge effects when the current can briefly spike up to 50% above normal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6391" RevisionGUID="9a755fc0-2867-473a-bfdb-be9c3cd7f505" CreationDate="2018-01-26T07:28:16.870" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 31 characters in body" Text="10kBTU = 2.93kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat pumps typically provide 2-4x as much heating/cooling as they consume in electrical power, so if we take a 3x factor, then a 2.93/3= 977W draw seems right in the ballpark.  8x110 = 880W also gets you into the same area.  1000W is a safe call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start-up current for ordinary ACs is highly variable, but commonly 2-6x continuous current.  Unless you have more details, and if we take the average of 4x, then the initial current draw of your AC could be 4x1000= 4kW which is double the capacity of your inverter.  This will pose problems if your batteries are low, the sun is shining, and you turn on the AC — the inverter may trip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone going off-grid should buy a variable speed &quot;inverter&quot; AC unit.  They ramp up to speed slowly so aren't as punishing to off-grid electrical systems as the ordinary — fixed speed — types that expect 100-200A to always be available from the mains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x 100Ah batteries = 600Ah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;600Ah @ 12V = 7200Wh = 7.2kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You haven't specified the type of battery, so *useful* capacity is unknown.  Let's assume your batteries are AGM and you want them to last at least 5 years, so you don't discharge them below 50%.  So DoD is 50%.&#xD;&#xA;7.2*0.5= 3.6kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.6kWh of usable power will run your lights, laptop and AC for ~3 hours once the sun starts to sink late in the afternoon.  That's not exactly a long time.  Hope you plan to go to bed early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x325W panels = 1950W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 12V = 162.5A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;162 &gt;&gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, you're not going to have a 12V battery bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 24V = 81.25A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;81 &gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, a 24V bank won't work either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 48V = 40.625A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we're in the ballpark... but you can't create a 48V battery bank using 6 batteries — you need a multiple of 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 1) I'm unsure if I should run the PV panels in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 48V 15A) or just run them parallel at 24V 30A.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 325W panel that outputs at 24V should be producing 325/24= 13.5A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 in parallel x 2 in series should generate 40.5A@48V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6 in parallel should generate 81A@24V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current values seem to be out by a factor of 2.7 — might want to work out why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 2) Likewise similar question for the batteries: should run them in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 24V 15A), can I just run them parallel at 12V 30A, or if I'm running the PV array at 48V do I need to match the 48V so that the battery controller is 48V both in/out?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your bottleneck is the 40A charge controller.  If that's the maximum current it can feed into the batteries, and you want to be able to absorb all 1950W of power from the panels, then you need to be outputting at no less than 48V to the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given 12V batteries, you need 4 of them in series to get to 48V, so your battery bank will consist of one or more such strings.  That means either 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, or n*4 batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't turn 6 batteries into a viable 48V bank, so get two more — 8 batteries in total — and have 2 parallel strings of 4 batteries in series... at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the incoming voltage from the PV array does not need to match the outgoing voltage to the battery bank.  In this case the charge controller is so marginal that you don't have any other option.  If you went with a 60-80A charge controller (or *two* 40A charge controllers) you would have more flexibility, would get better charging efficiency, and would be able to take advantage of cloud-edge effects when the current can briefly spike up to 50% above normal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6391" RevisionGUID="78cd2069-21eb-42ac-ba83-79e09393ab91" CreationDate="2018-01-26T10:45:42.267" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="10kBTU = 2.93kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat pumps typically provide 2-4x as much heating/cooling as they consume in electrical power, so if we take a 3x factor, then a 2.93/3= 977W draw seems right in the ballpark.  8x110 = 880W also gets you into the same area.  1000W is a safe call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start-up current for ordinary ACs is highly variable, but commonly 2-6x continuous current.  Unless you have more details, and if we take the average of 4x, then the initial current draw of your AC could be 4x1000= 4kW which is double the capacity of your inverter.  This will pose problems if your batteries are low, the sun is shining, and you turn on the AC — the inverter may trip.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyone going off-grid should buy a variable speed &quot;inverter&quot; AC unit.  They ramp up to speed slowly so aren't as punishing to off-grid electrical systems as the ordinary — fixed speed — types that expect 100-200A to always be available from the mains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x 100Ah batteries = 600Ah.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;600Ah @ 12V = 7200Wh = 7.2kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You haven't specified the type of battery, so *useful* capacity is unknown.  Let's assume your batteries are AGM and you want them to last at least 5 years, so you don't discharge them below 50%.  So DoD is 50%.&#xD;&#xA;7.2*0.5= 3.6kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.6kWh of usable power will run your lights, laptop and AC for ~3 hours once the sun starts to sink late in the afternoon.  That's not exactly a long time.  Hope you plan to go to bed early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6x 325W panels = 1950W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 12V = 162.5A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;162 &gt;&gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, you're not going to have a 12V battery bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 24V = 81.25A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;81 &gt;&gt; 40 so, obviously, a 24V bank won't work either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1950W @ 48V = 40.625A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now we're in the ballpark... but you can't create a 48V battery bank using 6 batteries — you need a multiple of 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 1) I'm unsure if I should run the PV panels in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 48V 15A) or just run them parallel at 24V 30A.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 325W panel that outputs at 24V should be producing 325/24= 13.5A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 in parallel x 2 in series should generate 40.5A@48V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6 in parallel should generate 81A@24V.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current values seem to be out by a factor of 2.7 — you might want to work out why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Q. 2) Likewise similar question for the batteries: should run them in 3 parallel series (3 groups of 2 @ 24V 15A), can I just run them parallel at 12V 30A, or if I'm running the PV array at 48V do I need to match the 48V so that the battery controller is 48V both in/out?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your bottleneck is the 40A charge controller.  If that's the maximum current it can feed into the batteries, and you want to be able to absorb all 1950W of power from the panels, then you need to be outputting at no less than 48V to the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given 12V batteries, you need 4 of them in series to get to 48V, so your battery bank will consist of one or more such strings.  That means either 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, or n*4 batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can't turn 6 batteries into a viable 48V bank, so get two more — 8 batteries in total — and have 2 parallel strings of 4 batteries in series... at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, the incoming voltage from the PV array does not need to match the outgoing voltage to the battery bank.  In this case the charge controller is so marginal that you don't have any other option.  If you went with a 60-80A charge controller (or *two* 40A charge controllers) you would have more flexibility, would get better charging efficiency, and would be able to take advantage of cloud-edge effects when the current can briefly spike up to 50% above normal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6392" RevisionGUID="0cad9ce0-f8a3-4f81-9ceb-01f76806676d" CreationDate="2018-01-26T22:25:39.283" UserId="400" Text="Junk to useful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic barrels:  Take a vertical slice off of one side, leaving an opening about 16&quot;  Adjust as needed.  Good bad weather generator cover. Would also make a good barbecue cover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic pails:  I scrounge them by the thousand, wash them put 12 1&quot; holes in the sides as use them for nursery pots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carpet:  Lay upside down in the garden for mud free paths.  Roll up and store dry overwinter will double their life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood scraps:  We have a company in industrial centre that collects all the 2x4 and 2x6 off cuts from several truss companies, a millwork company, and three mobile home/camp unit makers.  They chip and shred them and sell it as horse bedding.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pallets:  Lean against each other in pairs, and tie one edge with baling twine. Instant snow fence.  Assemble 9 as and extended E or 8 in a swastica and you have a 4 bin composter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sawdust, wood chips.  Wood pellet heating.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16161" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="e9d2b383-44b8-4fc2-9a8d-22a2e2186868" CreationDate="2018-01-27T07:41:58.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16162" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6386" RevisionGUID="ed600bed-9cc7-45dc-9543-eae9a83e3d08" CreationDate="2018-01-27T11:00:07.140" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/957206577882324992" />
  <row Id="16163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6393" RevisionGUID="e70225d7-c1fb-421f-bf45-950672cf4cdc" CreationDate="2018-01-27T17:41:42.840" UserId="5374" Text="I think this is a very good question which is quite a challenge to permaculture. The answer depends on what it is you are trying to sustain. My understanding of the aims of permaculture is that it attempts to sustain the people dependant on the system while minimising other impacts. So it aims at sustainability at the household scale. What this doesn't address is how these solutions scale in practice where the biggest problem is land use. The land used depends on the property size. A typical minimum rural property size in many parts of Australia where it originated is 40ha. This is not scalable to support 7 billion people as there is less than 1ha per person of habitable land. Permaculture properties are usually very unproductive, maybe because there's little point in producing more than you can use. I've also seen PC production where much of the produce isn't harvested - maybe it's too much work or you can buy nicer food. I have heard claims that high production is possible but have been unable to substantiate these. Some view the sustainability as a trade off between sustaining production long term and short term production intensity. When I have discussed this with permaculturalists I have had the response that there are too many people. If this is the case then under permaculture the human population would not be sustained. The problem with less intensive agricultural production is that more land is required and this impacts biodiversity, which is not sustained. To sustain the maximum amount of biodiversity it is preferable to use as little land as possible to produce our food.&#xD;&#xA;Sources:PDC course 1990, permaculture farm tour, France, 2015, government scientist in NRM, PhD on impact of agriculture without petrochemicals on biodiversity, published papers on this and visited many PC properties." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6394" RevisionGUID="c8a98232-15c6-4558-bd06-13dec7393a7e" CreationDate="2018-01-27T20:34:38.150" UserId="5375" Text="How would I compensate 250 tons of CO₂ emissions that I've created in my life? Is there a sustainable way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know trees can absorb a lot of CO₂, but once they die, the absorbed CO₂ is back in the cycle.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please try to avoid answers which refer to current lifestyle or habits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6394" RevisionGUID="c8a98232-15c6-4558-bd06-13dec7393a7e" CreationDate="2018-01-27T20:34:38.150" UserId="5375" Text="How to compensate past CO₂ emissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6394" RevisionGUID="c8a98232-15c6-4558-bd06-13dec7393a7e" CreationDate="2018-01-27T20:34:38.150" UserId="5375" Text="|carbon-footprint|global-warming|trees|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6395" RevisionGUID="d9afc7c8-d249-43fe-8e1b-103eec8ef602" CreationDate="2018-01-28T01:55:35.947" UserId="15" Text="Some teabags are made (or partially made) of polyester fibres, and stay intact in compost after everything else has broken down. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a quick way to test whether a teabag contains polyester, as compared to paper (and cotton, when a thread with a tag is attached)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any other non-biodegradable materials used in teabags, such as nylon?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6395" RevisionGUID="d9afc7c8-d249-43fe-8e1b-103eec8ef602" CreationDate="2018-01-28T01:55:35.947" UserId="15" Text="How to test whether a teabag has polyester fibres or not, without waiting for it to compost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6395" RevisionGUID="d9afc7c8-d249-43fe-8e1b-103eec8ef602" CreationDate="2018-01-28T01:55:35.947" UserId="15" Text="|composting|materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6396" RevisionGUID="a9ea8c31-8538-436c-9710-44486a6f4fd8" CreationDate="2018-01-28T10:26:17.530" UserId="5361" Text="If you are currently living there then you can work it out based on your energy bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is difficult to estimate how much energy would be used on ** heating** the house as it can vary widely, depending on how the house was built and your preferences (how long you have it on for). Average energy usage in Wyoming is  894 kWh Per Month, but that is averaged over all types of residence [https://www.electricchoice.com/blog/electricity-on-average-do-homes/]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; You could try this tool: http://hec.est.org.uk/. Click on more details to see energy usage (not just price)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16171" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6394" RevisionGUID="2c8200b0-2007-4ed2-9c56-af507d75a94f" CreationDate="2018-01-28T11:02:49.037" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/957569645166432256" />
  <row Id="16172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6397" RevisionGUID="08ec7bd7-407a-4b2f-873b-42a65bc4a159" CreationDate="2018-01-28T16:13:57.143" UserId="3379" Text="I went down a few rabbit holes to figure this one out -- ultimately the search that got me going the right direction was [&quot;estimate savings on heating bills from adding insulation&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?q=estimate+savings+on+heating+bills+from+adding+insulation&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;client=firefox-b-1-ab). The first few results there are helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, this calculator provides the answers you're looking for: [&quot;Home Heat Loss Calculator&quot;](https://www.builditsolar.com/References/Calculators/HeatLoss/HeatLoss.htm) from [Build it Solar](https://www.builditsolar.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Designing for a typical minimum lowest temperature of -20F (-30C), and assuming 8,000 heating degree days in Montana (based on [this map](http://www.cellulose.org/images/annualheatingDD.gif)), for an 800sqft (75m2) house, using the [DOE recommended insulation values](http://www.cellulose.org/images/DOE_Insulation_map-R-Value.jpg) for a home in Florida, your total electric usage on an annual basis would be **22,309 kWh**. (To get this number I just put the electric cost as $1/kWh, then the value in the &quot;fuel cost&quot; column will be in kWh.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using this [Degree Days Calculator](http://www.degreedays.net/), it looks like there are about 1,000 heating degree days per winter month in Billings, MT. Thus you can divide the total usage (for 8,000 heating degree days) by 8 to determine energy usage in an average winter month: **2,789 kWh**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend using the tool yourself and adjusting the numbers to get a more accurate answer for your needs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16173" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="312f82e6-c4a0-41ec-a0a8-f2dc9969a417" CreationDate="2018-01-28T16:59:24.120" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16174" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6395" RevisionGUID="f2609bba-d59b-48cb-a3bc-adb8fb7da12c" CreationDate="2018-01-29T11:07:23.037" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/957933181717680128" />
  <row Id="16177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6393" RevisionGUID="4261e1e0-fd60-4761-ba32-465a1e5b6fcf" CreationDate="2018-01-29T19:15:55.637" UserId="5374" Comment="split into paragraphs, as requested. Clarification." Text="I think this is a very good question which is quite a challenge to permaculture. The answer depends on what it is you are trying to sustain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding of the aims of permaculture is that it attempts to sustain the people dependant on the system while minimising other impacts. So it aims at sustainability at the household scale. What this doesn't address is how these solutions scale in practice where the biggest problem is land use. The land used depends on the property size. A typical minimum rural property size in many parts of Australia where it originated is 40ha. This is not scalable to support 7 billion people as there is less than 1ha per person of habitable land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Permaculture properties are usually very unproductive per unit area, maybe because there's little point in producing more than you can use. I've also seen PC production where much of the produce isn't harvested - maybe it's too much work or you can buy nicer food. I have heard claims that high production is possible but have been unable to substantiate these. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some view the sustainability as a trade off between sustaining production long term and short term production intensity. When I have discussed global land constraints with permaculturalists I have had the response that there are too many people. If this is the case then under permaculture the human population would not be sustained. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with less intensive agricultural production is that more land is required and this impacts biodiversity, which is not sustained. To sustain the maximum amount of biodiversity it is preferable to use as little land as possible to produce our food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:PDC course 1990, permaculture farm tour, France, 2015, government scientist in NRM, PhD on impact of agriculture without petrochemicals on biodiversity, published papers on this and visited many PC properties." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6399" RevisionGUID="4a71b611-31ca-44a4-9992-b8f5d93b9d68" CreationDate="2018-01-29T22:40:15.517" UserId="5379" Text="In my household unfortunately we must take a number of tablets daily on permanent repeat prescriptions, mainly from plastic/aluminium bubble packs. But some are supplied in totally aluminium packs, which are readily re-cyclable. So there is an alternative - which is for drug manufacturers to be forced by law to use only single-material packaging. If some can, why not the rest? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6400" RevisionGUID="3623b4e8-f02a-42e4-9a53-a62eb3c7da53" CreationDate="2018-01-30T00:10:42.263" UserId="5361" Text="Producing soya beans is responsible for some significant amounts of deforestation in tropical areas and relying on soya introduces a demand for transportation in countries where soya is not grown. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that soya is used as a feed for livestock. I don't know the statistics for dairy livestock, but an advantage of cows is that they can produce food from local land which is only able to support grass but not crops, and they produce manure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question is how much soya, if any, is *typically* used in developed countries to produce a glass of ordinary full-fat/semi-skimmed milk? How do more developed compare with less?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6400" RevisionGUID="3623b4e8-f02a-42e4-9a53-a62eb3c7da53" CreationDate="2018-01-30T00:10:42.263" UserId="5361" Text="How much soya in a glass of milk?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6400" RevisionGUID="3623b4e8-f02a-42e4-9a53-a62eb3c7da53" CreationDate="2018-01-30T00:10:42.263" UserId="5361" Text="|food|environmental-impact|farming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16182" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6400" RevisionGUID="3e56ba9f-50b9-4987-9a8f-9d897d4f3e15" CreationDate="2018-01-30T00:58:07.240" UserId="15" Comment="Updated title to clarify that we aren't talking about soy &quot;milk&quot;" Text="How much soya is needed to produce a glass of cow's milk?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6401" RevisionGUID="2ba144a5-8422-4dc6-b810-8165419d63b3" CreationDate="2018-01-30T09:25:36.263" UserId="5361" Text="To summarise @EnergyNumbers's response which applies for UK milk, I will quote a section from the report he linked:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Between 60 and 112 litres of milk produced for each kilo of soya meal fed to cows,&#xD;&#xA;7.5 litres of milk produced from each kilo of soya beans turned into soya milk&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The report points out that the UK has a better climate for grass (read rainy), and that there are some farmers who produce pasture-only or avoid use of soya in their feeds. Other reasons to avoid soya are the use of Roundup which is a listed carcinogen, the use of nickel and hexane as solvents in the production of soya oil for livestock feeds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="aba5bc5e-1178-4f11-a167-04cbe6682242" CreationDate="2018-01-31T08:03:43.197" UserId="3293" Comment="added 927 characters in body" Text="You must read The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Kieth:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bookdepository.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Lierre-Keith/9781604860801&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an excellent book, well cited and rich in information, presenting a factual viewpoint that my vegetarian-of-17-years self had to stand up and take notice of. Such a complicated topic, this book really opened my eyes. Needless to say i am no longer a vegetarian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added By J. Cho:&#xD;&#xA;Excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; exposes the destructive history of agriculturecausing the devastation ofprairies and forests, driving countless species extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoiland asserts that, in order to save the planet, food must come from within living communities. In order for this to happen, the argument champions eating locally and sustainably and encourages those with the resources to grow their own food. Further examining the question of what to eat from the perspective of both human and environmental health, the account goes beyond health choices and discusses potential moral issues from eatingor not eatinganimals. Through the deeply personal narrative of someone who practiced veganism for 20 years, this unique exploration also discusses alternatives to industrial farming, reveals the risks of a vegan diet, and explains why animals belong on ecologically sound farms.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16187" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6400" RevisionGUID="77ba3f3d-d877-466c-8da5-c3e038fc79c6" CreationDate="2018-01-31T23:13:45.727" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/958840756722176003" />
  <row Id="16188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6402" RevisionGUID="92a94940-afee-48bf-9284-9690e9f89b38" CreationDate="2018-02-01T02:26:13.920" UserId="5388" Text="Another strategy with human &amp; animal waste involved is growing algae from the effluent to purify the water, recycling it then cheap and easy, uniits are insulated, LEDs via fiber optics climate controlled for 24x7 growing.&#xA;&#xA;This supplies biodiesel to the village, enough for heat &amp; to replace diesel use, vehicles to snowmobiles.&#xA;&#xA;Nobody makes the bioreactors or growing units, too bad, it's an old idea, pre-WW2 algae growers had 50% oil species." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6403" RevisionGUID="8be6032b-f795-4fcc-8616-3e3029b4572c" CreationDate="2018-02-01T13:19:17.553" UserId="2187" Text="What is the conceptual difference between sustainable and responsible consumption, if any?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16190" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6403" RevisionGUID="8be6032b-f795-4fcc-8616-3e3029b4572c" CreationDate="2018-02-01T13:19:17.553" UserId="2187" Text="Sustainable vs. responsible consumption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16191" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6403" RevisionGUID="8be6032b-f795-4fcc-8616-3e3029b4572c" CreationDate="2018-02-01T13:19:17.553" UserId="2187" Text="|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6405" RevisionGUID="02472529-0793-4b46-aab3-bf1f3c9b65f0" CreationDate="2018-02-01T21:44:37.983" UserId="5394" Text="Each offset program is problematic in its own way. We can't (feasibly) put carbon back; we can only try to store away what's already out there, or give more people more options to develop without hydrocarbons. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider giving to organizations that protect forests and other natural areas to preserve existing trees through policy action or by buying land, especially in places like the Amazon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't like reforestation, there are companies that take offset money and use it to set up small-scale windmill/hydro/methane systems in developing countries. The goal is to ensure people have access to power without using hydrocarbons. Of course, you have to be sure the governance is good and that the money is going where you think it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no such thing as a true &quot;offset;&quot; any action can try and reduce *future* emissions, via saving a tree or offering someone renewable power, but you can't really take back your carbon. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6407" RevisionGUID="e725aaa2-ea26-4794-bf87-5ec27e5f7555" CreationDate="2018-02-02T01:04:02.830" UserId="15" Text="Perhaps it's just a simple difference: It would be irresponsible to deny a plastic bottle of water to a person dying of thirst, however it is unsustainable to use plastic bottles that go to landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore you could argue that some responsible consumption is unsustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see sustainability as being a long term issue; we need to change our actions now to avoid long term problems. From a big picture perspective, it is perhaps less useful (dare I say it, even irresponsible, in some cases) to try to live a 100% sustainable life now because doing so may reduce the chance of solving long term sustainability problems for a greater number of people. I say this because those of us that understand the need for sustainability need to be able to help educate and set an example to others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be sustainable to retreat to a self-sufficient life in the remote countryside, shun unsustainable technology, and refuse to use life-extending unsustainable healthcare systems, but that is unlikely to help encourage others to be more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get to the point, it makes some sense that an end goal of sustainability justifies an unsustainable means to get there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16198" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6408" RevisionGUID="bc8d323f-3622-40d0-8dbe-41c017533908" CreationDate="2018-02-02T01:15:27.730" UserId="5397" Text="This is my first question here, so go easy :-)  I plan to setup my first vermi-composting system using red wigglers in my garage, modeled after the one shown by YouTuber *Larry Hall* ([video link][1]). One minor difference is that I'll use two 5-gallon buckets instead of one. Top for bedding/worms and lower for excess moisture.  I plan to use peat moss as the bedding like Larry did, and feed them shredded or blended kitchen scraps.  My understanding is the in addition to what I feed the worms on the surface, they will also consume the peat and eventually turn it into castings. My goal is to have a 5 gallon bucket of castings, and start over, adding more buckets as needed as the worm population grows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is not explained in the video (or any other I've seen) is how deep to lay make the initial bedding/peat in the bucket when I start out.   Knowing red wigglers stay within 6&quot; of the top makes me think I should start with about 6-7&quot; of peat.  So I'd lay some newspaper on the bottom of the bucket, with a 7&quot; layer of moist (not wet) peat over it, and the worms on top, and some moist bedding (newspaper/cardboard) over that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any flaws in my plan?  Should I fill up the bucket to within 6&quot; of the top with peat, and somehow the worms will convert everything into castings over time?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm excited to get started, but want to be sure I do it right, so any help or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VET7nzkuy8U" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6408" RevisionGUID="bc8d323f-3622-40d0-8dbe-41c017533908" CreationDate="2018-02-02T01:15:27.730" UserId="5397" Text="How deep should my bedding be in my bucket vermicomposter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6408" RevisionGUID="bc8d323f-3622-40d0-8dbe-41c017533908" CreationDate="2018-02-02T01:15:27.730" UserId="5397" Text="|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6408" RevisionGUID="fa42d928-2100-4d62-8a54-aca9d1e382e5" CreationDate="2018-02-02T04:10:20.217" UserId="3379" Comment="Typos / SI conversions." Text="I plan to set up my first vermi-composting system using red wigglers in my garage, modeled after the one shown by YouTuber *Larry Hall* ([video link][1]). One minor difference is that I'll use two 5-gallon (20L) buckets instead of one. Top for bedding/worms and lower for excess moisture.  I plan to use peat moss as the bedding like Larry did, and feed them shredded or blended kitchen scraps.  My understanding is that in addition to what I feed the worms on the surface, they will also consume the peat and eventually turn it into castings. My goal is to have a bucket of castings, and start over, adding more buckets as needed as the worm population grows. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is not explained in the video (or any other I've seen) is how deep to make the initial bedding/peat in the bucket when I start out.  Knowing red wigglers stay within 6 inches (15cm) of the top makes me think I should start with about 6-7 inches (15-18cm) of peat.  So I'd lay some newspaper on the bottom of the bucket, with a 7 inch (18cm) layer of moist (not wet) peat over it, and the worms on top, and some moist bedding (newspaper/cardboard) over that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any flaws in my plan?  Should I fill up the bucket to within 6 inches (15cm) of the top with peat, and somehow the worms will convert everything into castings over time?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm excited to get started, but want to be sure I do it right, so any help or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VET7nzkuy8U" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16202" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6408" RevisionGUID="fa42d928-2100-4d62-8a54-aca9d1e382e5" CreationDate="2018-02-02T04:10:20.217" UserId="3379" Comment="Typos / SI conversions." Text="|composting|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6409" RevisionGUID="81b25689-c81c-493e-a42c-8e08b797b2a5" CreationDate="2018-02-02T04:11:13.373" UserId="5398" Text="how much cred do I need? to post" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16204" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6409" RevisionGUID="3958cc2a-a60d-434d-aed6-01fe63289d88" CreationDate="2018-02-02T04:11:18.357" UserId="5398" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5398,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Peter from dracoshempemporium.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16205" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6409" RevisionGUID="f9b9f40c-d706-4d9a-b2bc-81fb1af31b60" CreationDate="2018-02-02T04:25:40.397" UserId="5398" Comment="had to see if I had enough cred to give a sample answer. shared insights from my years in the industry." Text="As a hemp clothing retailer I can tell you that I mostly just get the product from the manufacturer and pay about 50% of what they sell it for. I dont mark it up to the full 100 though but nobody is really buying that stuff right now so in that way it is more of a novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the manufacturer knows I will pay those prices, but their sales probably aren't as consistent as a corporate chain. Another thing is inflation, most economists agree that deflation is like the worst thing that can happen to the economy. But is it possible that the old bubble has to burst in order to begin the cycle of renewal? I don't always find the prices at the groccery store that sustainable either. For vegan living the portions and quality of the produce... sometimes I'd rather just grow my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hemp brands which are made in the USA sustainably, fair trade and everything are $70 dollars for swim shorts these days but they're stitched together in the U.S.  I've thought about making my own line of hemp clothing but I can assure you I have no experience and it wouldn't match the quality of Hempys goods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many Hemp companies will acquire additional revenue for lobbying efforts and court fees as well, everythings more expensive in California, and people feel entitled to the wages that will make the dream a reality. But with every industry too big to fail(jail) we have all these economists telling us the economy is doing good inflation is a good thing. For some maybe, idk about the middle class." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16206" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6409" RevisionGUID="8c35734f-fbae-432b-8a1e-2d645284a975" CreationDate="2018-02-02T04:30:08.473" UserId="5398" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5398,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Peter from dracoshempemporium.&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6409" RevisionGUID="3772cce0-ecd2-4a0d-8686-ddc9243322e0" CreationDate="2018-02-02T04:35:27.443" UserId="5398" Comment="had to see if I had enough cred to give a sample answer. shared insights from my years in the industry." Text="[Fed says inflation will rise but not fast enough][1]As a hemp clothing retailer I can tell you that I mostly just get the product from the manufacturer and pay about 50% of what they sell it for. I dont mark it up to the full 100 though but nobody is really buying that stuff right now so in that way it is more of a novelty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because the manufacturer knows I will pay those prices, but their sales probably aren't as consistent as a corporate chain. Another thing is inflation, most economists agree that deflation is like the worst thing that can happen to the economy. But is it possible that the old bubble has to burst in order to begin the cycle of renewal? I don't always find the prices at the groccery store that sustainable either. For vegan living the portions and quality of the produce... sometimes I'd rather just grow my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hemp brands which are made in the USA sustainably, fair trade and everything are $70 dollars for swim shorts these days but they're stitched together in the U.S.  I've thought about making my own line of hemp clothing but I can assure you I have no experience and it wouldn't match the quality of Hempys goods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many Hemp companies will require additional revenue for lobbying efforts and court fees as well, everythings more expensive in California (designer fashion), and people feel entitled to the wages that will make the dream a reality. But with every industry too big to fail(jail) we have all these economists telling us the economy is doing good inflation is a good thing. For some maybe, idk about the middle class. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But much like natural treatment options for disease management, The main financial interests in our society just dont always align what's right with what's economical or &quot;mainstream&quot; I tried getting used to modern living only to find I had to return to a more plaeo frugivore lifestyle. The best things in life money just can't buy. I always wonder, if there was a Johnny Appleseed what on earth happened to all the apple trees?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed/fed-leaves-rates-unchanged-sees-inflation-rising-this-year-idUSKBN1FK0IQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16208" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="66365ac9-19a6-432c-8985-402191ce78bd" CreationDate="2018-02-02T14:27:53.957" UserId="3379" Comment="edited title; edited body" Text="Why are hemp clothes so expensive?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5352" RevisionGUID="66365ac9-19a6-432c-8985-402191ce78bd" CreationDate="2018-02-02T14:27:53.957" UserId="3379" Comment="edited title; edited body" Text="Being hemp so easy, sustainable and economic to grow, one would expect it to be much cheaper than it is at the moment. Why, therefore, is it so expensive compared to cotton?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it because of the scarce economy of scale in the current market?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6410" RevisionGUID="6ae2891b-4360-47d2-b029-17c27696676c" CreationDate="2018-02-02T19:41:21.023" UserId="5003" Text="What can you wear all your life? Then give to your son to wear the rest of his life?  It is hemp trousers. Good hemp you may only need buy 2 outfits in your life. So you have a change to wear. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6407" RevisionGUID="7031bab3-483e-40f9-967f-0fe693d39a5d" CreationDate="2018-02-03T07:13:43.597" UserId="15" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Perhaps it's just a simple difference: It would be irresponsible to deny a plastic bottle of water to a person dying of thirst, however it is unsustainable to use plastic bottles that go to landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore you could argue that some responsible consumption is unsustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see sustainability as being a long term issue; we need to change our actions now to avoid long term problems. From a big picture perspective, it is perhaps less useful (dare I say it, even irresponsible, in some cases) to try to live a 100% sustainable life now because doing so may reduce the chance of solving long term sustainability problems for a greater number of people. I say this because those of us that understand the need for sustainability need to be able to help educate and set a *visible* example to others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be sustainable to retreat to a self-sufficient life in the remote countryside, shun unsustainable technology, and refuse to use life-extending unsustainable healthcare systems, but that is unlikely to help encourage others to be more sustainable due to its lack of visibility and its extreme differences to more common lifestyle choices. It may be better to live a less sustainable, but more visible, lifestyle while still being substantially more sustainable than accepted norms. Constantly pushing that boundary over time may be the best way to get everybody living more sustainably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get to the point, it makes some sense that an end goal of sustainability justifies an unsustainable means to get there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16213" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6408" RevisionGUID="55d37670-eb79-4e6a-911c-4ea3e3f68e40" CreationDate="2018-02-03T08:17:38.947" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/959702405930774528" />
  <row Id="16214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6411" RevisionGUID="22a6e0a2-0808-4c6f-a33a-747a9217e298" CreationDate="2018-02-03T16:02:50.613" UserId="4037" Text="I have a brook at the bottom of my property, currently a culvert empties into a small pool that then flows further downhill in the brook. I'm interested in adding a few more feet of depth to the pool by build a small dam at the other end and perhaps building a micro - hydro wheel. Now I understand there are both legal implication and ecological implications and I want to be cautious of both. I was contemplating doing a few things to address the ecological implications. If I constrict something that has a pipe at the very bottom that allows a continues flow of water, however, I'm not certain if the flow will be to great for fish to make it through, or if they would even go through such an opening. Another thought I had was to make the center of the dam completely removable, So that periodically I can change the level and the flow back to normal. I also think that temporary solutions like the [Aqua barrier][1]  or [Watergate][2] are intersting solutions &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAY9ni451xk&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuoFdkpH_-4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16215" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6411" RevisionGUID="22a6e0a2-0808-4c6f-a33a-747a9217e298" CreationDate="2018-02-03T16:02:50.613" UserId="4037" Text="How can I build an ecologically conscious dam on a small brook" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16216" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6411" RevisionGUID="22a6e0a2-0808-4c6f-a33a-747a9217e298" CreationDate="2018-02-03T16:02:50.613" UserId="4037" Text="|water-management|ponds|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6411" RevisionGUID="e79a8a12-1ca7-4811-b05e-79af478a505d" CreationDate="2018-02-03T18:14:23.483" UserId="3379" Comment="Typos, tags, paragraphs." Text="I have a brook at the bottom of my property; currently a culvert empties into a small pool that then flows further downhill to the brook. I'm interested in adding a few more feet of depth to the pool by build a small dam at the other end and perhaps building a micro-hydro wheel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I understand there are both legal implication and ecological implications and I want to be cautious of both. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was contemplating doing a few things to address the ecological implications. I could construct something that has a pipe at the very bottom that allows a continuous flow of water, however, I'm not certain if the flow will be too great for fish to make it through, or if they would even go through such an opening. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thought I had was to make the center of the dam completely removable, So that periodically I can change the level and the flow back to normal. I also think that temporary solutions like the [Aqua barrier][1]  or [Watergate][2] are interesting solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAY9ni451xk&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuoFdkpH_-4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16218" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6411" RevisionGUID="e79a8a12-1ca7-4811-b05e-79af478a505d" CreationDate="2018-02-03T18:14:23.483" UserId="3379" Comment="Typos, tags, paragraphs." Text="How can I build an ecologically conscious dam on a small brook?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16219" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6411" RevisionGUID="e79a8a12-1ca7-4811-b05e-79af478a505d" CreationDate="2018-02-03T18:14:23.483" UserId="3379" Comment="Typos, tags, paragraphs." Text="|electricity-generation|water-management|ponds|hydroelectricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6412" RevisionGUID="fdd94426-8774-41f6-a5e4-b25f265aa7af" CreationDate="2018-02-03T18:31:01.537" UserId="5401" Text="I got a goat thats been sick for years and the pasture she's in is in the middle of a pine forest (bull pine to be exact.) when ever she's out and about she always takes a nibble on some pine trees and its impossible to get her away until she satisfied. I found a way to use this to my advantage and even out the harmfulness with the helpful. I take molasses and glaze some over the pine trees, to single out the trees they like and the I but about half a cup of loose minerals over it. it encourages them to eat there minerals and to lesson the amount of pine they eat. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6412" RevisionGUID="ce48d961-2b1a-404e-815d-fe5328afbeb2" CreationDate="2018-02-04T01:09:26.383" UserId="3379" Comment="Typos" Text="I have a goat that's been sick for years and the pasture she's in is in the middle of a pine forest (bull pine to be exact). Whenever she's out and about she always takes a nibble on some pine trees and it's impossible to get her away until she is satisfied. I found a way to use this to my advantage and even out the harmful with the helpful. I take molasses and glaze some over the pine trees, to single out the trees they like, and then I put about half a cup of loose minerals over it. It encourages them to eat their minerals and to lessen the amount of pine they eat. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6414" RevisionGUID="d83180b2-7786-45f7-b745-8b2fb8d37a82" CreationDate="2018-02-04T07:30:33.550" UserId="5300" Text="Currently, if I understand correctly, the pool overflows into the brook with sufficient flow for fish to escape and to maintain water quality in the pond.&#xD;&#xA;Raising the level of the pond will only affect that outflow during the time required to fill to the desired level. Once achieved the original outflow volume will need to be maintained. Whether this is sufficient relative to the new total volume of the pool is impossible to say without more detail. The design of the outflow is important as it should provide sufficient water movement that fish are likely to follow the current.&#xD;&#xA;Many small hydro power plants such as the 'Turbulent' brand mentioned by @LShaver claim to be fish friendly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16226" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6411" RevisionGUID="785867cf-df42-4ca3-b9d6-eab91c3d8a8d" CreationDate="2018-02-04T11:18:19.513" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/960110262534787072" />
  <row Id="16227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6415" RevisionGUID="4c626265-ff4e-4113-a4d6-2d2eed37211b" CreationDate="2018-02-04T19:28:17.163" UserId="5403" Text="At the risk of suggesting something too obvious: contact the manufacturer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hats off to Wendy from Moral Fibres for doing some research on this:&#xD;&#xA;&lt;http://moralfibres.co.uk/is-there-plastic-in-your-tea/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16228" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="eb373e2b-5ee3-443e-b512-d552fe667ca3" CreationDate="2018-02-05T17:34:28.137" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="ba91bdae-d110-42c6-aee0-9fb3aaedf3ab" CreationDate="2018-02-06T21:02:52.507" UserId="5413" Text="Is it better to heat house with gas or electricity? We have gas insert and gas heating but am looking at other options for sustainable energy use. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="ba91bdae-d110-42c6-aee0-9fb3aaedf3ab" CreationDate="2018-02-06T21:02:52.507" UserId="5413" Text="better to heat house with gas or with electricity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="ba91bdae-d110-42c6-aee0-9fb3aaedf3ab" CreationDate="2018-02-06T21:02:52.507" UserId="5413" Text="|electricity|home|heating|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16234" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6356" RevisionGUID="fca7f07f-fa84-49a6-a962-fecfd798ca81" CreationDate="2018-02-07T20:04:09.553" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6417" RevisionGUID="a8cb6d0b-8e3a-418e-be94-38b9ffdc684c" CreationDate="2018-02-08T16:44:20.190" UserId="5420" Text="Having found several images of boats constructed primarily of plastic bottles, the boy scout within me was interested by the idea. However, I know that plastic bottles biodegrade in sunlight, and the byproducts of plastic biodegration are a major pollution concern. All of the resources I encountered when researching this idea state that the rate of biodegration is heavily affected by the flexibility, density, and pigmentation of the plastic in question, but I was not able to find resources detailing the specifics.&lt;/p&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Due to its availability, I am mainly considering a boat made of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET, PETE), which is used for standard two-liter soda bottles and Gatorade bottles. I am interested in what effects this material will have on both the lifetime of the boat and the rate/amount of pollution the boat will contribute to.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6417" RevisionGUID="a8cb6d0b-8e3a-418e-be94-38b9ffdc684c" CreationDate="2018-02-08T16:44:20.190" UserId="5420" Text="Environmental concerns of a plastic bottle boat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6417" RevisionGUID="a8cb6d0b-8e3a-418e-be94-38b9ffdc684c" CreationDate="2018-02-08T16:44:20.190" UserId="5420" Text="|reuse|diy|plastic-bottles|boat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6419" RevisionGUID="f11b6134-880a-4111-b046-231e10da4967" CreationDate="2018-02-09T14:54:15.710" UserId="929" Text="The boat made from plastic bottles is a nonsense. One day it falls apart and makes more pollution to the environment, than the recycled bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the boat is motorized, then this could be the source of the pollution too, as the bottle shapes usually are not optimized for hydrodynamics processes and the boat is usually very slow and consumes much more fuel than a regular boat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would not worry so much about sunlight degradation, as this could be a very slow process with PET bottles. Bottles will [become yellow][1] on the sunlight. Here is the whole [study][2]. This can cause some problems due to recycling. The question of what chemicals are produced by PET during such exposure is [here][3]. It could be: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ethyl Benzene&#xD;&#xA; - Benzoic acid&#xD;&#xA; - 4-methyl Benzoic acid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but potential health issues were not analyzed and are unknown. Sunlight degradation of the bottles could be stopped by UV stabilizers, but usually is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My conclusion is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - RECYCLE&#xD;&#xA; - do not use plastic bottles for construction in the exterior, gardening etc.&#xD;&#xA; - buy or construct a ship of a suitable material and shape and you will save the nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.rheothing.com/2015/07/real-world-uv-degradation-of-pet.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://plastictechnologies.com/media/64858/Plastic-Technologies-How-Light-Impacts-rPET-characteristics-white-paper-final.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chemistry.oregonstate.edu/courses/ch224-6/ch226/2007/Photo%20degradation%20of%20plastics.ppt" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6420" RevisionGUID="a5099735-1214-4651-8a98-5355ef935557" CreationDate="2018-02-09T17:50:04.803" UserId="5003" Text="Black plastic is recycled. After hand sorting. May cost to much there. Only plastic not recycled is red meat bags. Were I live. Bio hazard so no hand handling. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16242" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="c9714ef7-5be6-4c29-90a5-3c35e06a1b07" CreationDate="2018-02-09T23:09:48.777" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3030" RevisionGUID="cd73f20d-697e-4abe-955d-4e83afe7bdb6" CreationDate="2018-02-10T06:17:28.643" UserId="1704" Comment="update to explain the steel cap I ultimately ended up getting for fellow Kleen Kanteen users." Text="I'm trying to find a leak-proof reusable water bottle and have had a lot of difficulty with this task.  So far, the best I've been able to do as far as strictly the leak-proof issue is a [Nalgeen][1] water bottle with a screw on cap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I've been starting to wonder about the negative long term effects on my health of using a plastic water bottle for a long period of time.  Which has me back to using my old [Kleen Kanteen][2], which does leak occasionally.  Thus, I'm back to the issue of trying to find a good water bottle that won't leak on me occasionally.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if anyone knows of any caps bottle caps that I could buy for my current Kleen Kanteen which would eliminate the leaking issue, I'd love to just buy a new bottle cap for my existing bottle rather than an entirely new water bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**: StackExchange just told me that this post is getting a lot of views so I wanted to update with what I ultimately ended up doing that worked for me.  The accepted solution is a great one for people who don't have a water bottle yet.  But if you're in the situation I was in and happen to have a Kleen Kanteen that leaks through the cap's poor seal, I found this: [https://www.kleankanteen.com/products/stainless-loop-cap][3].  I replaced the original cap with this one and it never leaked again.  I'm just annoyed that Kleen Kanteen didn't send this out standard with the water bottle because it has a much better seal than their standard water bottle cap.  I bought the cap on Amazon years ago but they don't appear to sell it at the moment, though it's still available on Kleen Kanteen's website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://nalgene.com/product/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kleankanteen.com/products/klean-kanteens.php&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.kleankanteen.com/products/stainless-loop-cap" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6420" RevisionGUID="2be72b06-a2c7-4f27-8167-40cc874917b4" CreationDate="2018-02-10T13:22:16.503" UserId="1053" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="Where I live, black plastic **is** recycled after hand sorting. Perhaps that costs too much where you live. The only plastic that is not recycled is red meat bags. They are a bio hazard, so no hand handling. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3055" RevisionGUID="95a4d83e-faf2-47c8-979d-cbc6d8ce7a9d" CreationDate="2018-02-10T17:29:28.060" UserId="3379" Comment="removed broken link" Text="I've had a few KOR water bottles since they started and they're BPA free but I've switched over to the CamelBak eddy insulated stainless steel water bottle - dropped it so many times and still going while backpacking and out and about in the world. Keeps drinks cool for hours, best thing ever. Just make sure to keep the bite valve clean and inner straw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE:** Looks like the Eddy model is no longer available - other [CamelBak stainless steel water bottles](https://www.camelbak.com/en/bottles/stainless-steel) are available in insulated versions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="1fdc9cb1-7fdf-4c70-9844-44e6254cdf4f" CreationDate="2018-02-11T00:06:31.173" UserId="5431" Text="For my class, I was given a hypothetical situation that uses the concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield to see how much fish I should harvest. I am given an initial population, a growth rate, and a carrying capacity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then with these given values, I was supposed to use this information to calculate for next year's population which I easily did with the logistic growth formula. I got a population of 368 (which is obviously rounded to a whole number). From what I know, with this initial population of 368 that I calculated, it would a bit over the one-half capacity but not over the carrying capacity of the environment that was given to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point, I don't know how to apply the Maximum Sustainable Yield concept here. I am not sure on how much I should harvest this year if the current fish population is 368. I don't want to harvest all 368 fish because that would mean that I wiped out the entire population for this year, correct? So would it make sense if I harvested half this number while still have enough fish for next year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to look at this graph I found as a reference but I'm not too sure how to apply it: &#xD;&#xA;[MSY GRAPH HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ji5eT.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am made a misstep in my process, please do share. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="1fdc9cb1-7fdf-4c70-9844-44e6254cdf4f" CreationDate="2018-02-11T00:06:31.173" UserId="5431" Text="How to use Maximum Sustainable Yield concept with given a given population, growth rate and carrying capacity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="1fdc9cb1-7fdf-4c70-9844-44e6254cdf4f" CreationDate="2018-02-11T00:06:31.173" UserId="5431" Text="|population|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6422" RevisionGUID="bbf3d804-a8ab-4e59-b786-55b2dba85e20" CreationDate="2018-02-11T08:25:35.083" UserId="5433" Text="we lived in the coal mines area .we face 45 degrees temperature in  the summer... our rooms become boilers...but we tried to protect concrete roof from direct focus to sun ...that is one the cheapest method is covering roof with Paper cortons(large sized). I have been following this method for many years.but needs some weight on that to protect from high winds.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6422" RevisionGUID="7d5217c4-86f0-4a3b-b3d7-1a33a3fe5dda" CreationDate="2018-02-11T11:25:46.663" UserId="2345" Comment="corrected spelling error" Text="we lived in the coal mines area .we face 45 degrees temperature in  the summer... our rooms become boilers...but we tried to protect concrete roof from direct focus to sun ...that is one the cheapest method is covering roof with Paper cartons(large sized). I have been following this method for many years.but needs some weight on that to protect from high winds.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16251" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="5085f3b6-c1fd-45d1-b8a6-1d92584ee701" CreationDate="2018-02-11T12:29:52.783" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6422" RevisionGUID="1f2d6a79-3d42-4dc7-b5a4-acf74b0e8332" CreationDate="2018-02-11T20:26:39.803" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="removed non-essential text" Text="A cheap method is covering the roof with large size paper cartons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need some weight on that to protect from high winds.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16253" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6422" RevisionGUID="1f2d6a79-3d42-4dc7-b5a4-acf74b0e8332" CreationDate="2018-02-11T20:26:39.803" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by -1 edit id of 515" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6422" RevisionGUID="70f0f16c-bd03-4b3a-acc5-4de8db0e0c8c" CreationDate="2018-02-11T20:26:39.803" UserId="3379" Comment="removed non-essential text" Text="A cheap method to reduce direct sunlight is covering the roof with large size paper cartons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need some weight on that to protect from high winds.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16256" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="4335" RevisionGUID="228840ab-a749-441c-a2c7-c9f19504e600" CreationDate="2018-02-12T07:36:20.343" UserId="99" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6423" RevisionGUID="10ba1dfd-69c8-464d-8f82-64c303dcd622" CreationDate="2018-02-12T07:53:28.160" UserId="99" Text="Since this is a homework question I will help you, but not give away the answer (which I cannot do anyway, because you didn't include the necessary information for that). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are correct that you only want to harvest part of the population. Harvesting all fish will indeed wipe out the population and harvesting most of the fish will slow down population growth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quote from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_sustainable_yield): &quot;*the concept of MSY aims to maintain the population size at the point of maximum growth rate by harvesting the individuals that would normally be added to the population, allowing the population to continue to be productive indefinitely*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The graph you added to your post already shows at what point this is; (Carrying Capacity / 2), so you need to calculate where that is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this doesn't help and you're unsure your are doing it right, feel free to add your calculation steps to your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="1e5de364-0be8-4dfd-a8c3-079cec161c94" CreationDate="2018-02-12T07:55:59.297" UserId="99" Comment="added balanced-ecosystems tag, included graph in question" Text="For my class, I was given a hypothetical situation that uses the concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield to see how much fish I should harvest. I am given an initial population, a growth rate, and a carrying capacity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then with these given values, I was supposed to use this information to calculate for next year's population which I easily did with the logistic growth formula. I got a population of 368 (which is obviously rounded to a whole number). From what I know, with this initial population of 368 that I calculated, it would a bit over the one-half capacity but not over the carrying capacity of the environment that was given to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point, I don't know how to apply the Maximum Sustainable Yield concept here. I am not sure on how much I should harvest this year if the current fish population is 368. I don't want to harvest all 368 fish because that would mean that I wiped out the entire population for this year, correct? So would it make sense if I harvested half this number while still have enough fish for next year?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to look at this graph I found as a reference but I'm not too sure how to apply it: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![MSY GRAPH HERE][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ji5eT.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am made a misstep in my process, please do share. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16259" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6421" RevisionGUID="1e5de364-0be8-4dfd-a8c3-079cec161c94" CreationDate="2018-02-12T07:55:59.297" UserId="99" Comment="added balanced-ecosystems tag, included graph in question" Text="|population|balanced-ecosystems|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6423" RevisionGUID="a50730e8-578a-4140-ba3a-4c2d642b9432" CreationDate="2018-02-12T08:00:53.237" UserId="99" Comment="added 111 characters in body" Text="Since this is a homework question I will help you, but not give away the answer (which I cannot do anyway, because you didn't include the necessary information for that). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are correct that you only want to harvest part of the population. Harvesting all fish will indeed wipe out the population and harvesting most of the fish will slow down population growth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quote from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_sustainable_yield): &quot;*the concept of MSY aims to maintain the population size at the point of maximum growth rate by harvesting the individuals that would normally be added to the population, allowing the population to continue to be productive indefinitely*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The graph you added to your post already shows at what point this is; (Carrying Capacity / 2), so you need to calculate where that is. Note that I'm assuming here that the growth curve of the fish follows a similar pattern as the graph you found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this doesn't help and you're unsure your are doing it right, feel free to add your calculation steps to your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6423" RevisionGUID="7f9de539-2946-401a-8686-612f46017f86" CreationDate="2018-02-12T13:29:31.040" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 112 characters in body" Text="Since this is a homework question I will help you, but not give away the answer (which I cannot do anyway, because you didn't include the necessary information for that). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are correct that you only want to harvest part of the population. Harvesting all fish will indeed wipe out the population and harvesting most of the fish will slow down population growth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quote from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_sustainable_yield): &quot;*the concept of MSY aims to maintain the population size at the point of maximum growth rate by harvesting the individuals that would normally be added to the population, allowing the population to continue to be productive indefinitely*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The graph you added to your post already shows where the maximum growth point is; (Carrying Capacity / 2) because that's where the curve is the steepest. The population size at that point should be fairly easy to calculate. Note that I'm assuming here that the growth curve of the fish follows a similar pattern as the graph you found." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16262" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6417" RevisionGUID="83062f7d-e788-46a9-b3fd-a7965931a181" CreationDate="2018-02-13T00:14:57.413" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/963204811368919040" />
  <row Id="16263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6424" RevisionGUID="4bd45d0f-e110-49b3-b49e-953a69821fbe" CreationDate="2018-02-14T15:05:47.677" UserId="5441" Text="I have an aquaponics system with 20 Koi fish and different plants  which works by the Siphon method , and the fish water is about 22-26°c, which is usually less for plants of 2°c degrees.&#xD;&#xA;The water is constantly pumped and rotated in the system, and the plants are constantly in the water. Oxygen and three filters are always working in fish tank, and I used synthetic light for the plants in low sunlight hours.&#xD;&#xA;I add nutrient and potassium solutions and vitamins in the system, but unfortunately plants and vegetables are after a few days ,or dry their leaves or shedding flowers exp. (tomatoes, cucumbers and green beans ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really do not know what is the problem ? and what should I do?&#xD;&#xA;I am thankful with your guidance.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7XX7q.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yZVhd.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6424" RevisionGUID="4bd45d0f-e110-49b3-b49e-953a69821fbe" CreationDate="2018-02-14T15:05:47.677" UserId="5441" Text="What is the problem in my system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6424" RevisionGUID="4bd45d0f-e110-49b3-b49e-953a69821fbe" CreationDate="2018-02-14T15:05:47.677" UserId="5441" Text="|diy|plants|aquaponics|fertilizer|hydroponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6425" RevisionGUID="e9bda57f-e426-4439-95ef-7758e4c400f0" CreationDate="2018-02-15T02:06:38.837" UserId="15" Text="To determine if lighting levels are responsible, I suggest you put similar plants (tomatoes, cucumbers and green beans) into self-contained pots (using potting mix) and sit them within the same lighting as what the aquaponics system gets, and see how well they grow. You will of course need to water them manually as appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may also be worth double checking that you've added the nutrients at the correct concentration for the system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16267" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6426" RevisionGUID="8cab2f69-6e2f-4ae3-bff6-7c14e08e1127" CreationDate="2018-02-15T09:21:02.030" UserId="5389" Text="Your local USDA Cooperative Extension Service Office will be able to answer these questions for free with regards to local, state, and federal regulations in an authoritative manner.&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to find the local field office in your county: https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16268" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="c9b98eca-43fe-481e-9fd5-ec58b92e80ba" CreationDate="2018-02-15T10:18:48.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6427" RevisionGUID="c4a01114-241d-4189-9945-75f785155853" CreationDate="2018-02-15T23:22:28.483" UserId="5444" Text="When should I get rid of a product and buy a new more efficient/useful version?  The existing product works okay for its primary use case so I don't want to throw it away or recycle it and then spend the resources to produce the new item, but I do want the benefits form the new item.  For example I have a plastic container for holding food and for health reasons I want to switch to a glass/metal container.  Or I have a functioning desk, but for health reasons I want to replace it with a standing desk. Or if I have power supply in my desktop computer and I want to replace it with an energy efficient version." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16270" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6427" RevisionGUID="c4a01114-241d-4189-9945-75f785155853" CreationDate="2018-02-15T23:22:28.483" UserId="5444" Text="When should I get rid of a product and buy a new more efficient/useful version?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16271" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6427" RevisionGUID="c4a01114-241d-4189-9945-75f785155853" CreationDate="2018-02-15T23:22:28.483" UserId="5444" Text="|waste|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6427" RevisionGUID="0cbb9da1-8223-4f65-a39e-d9ba0f544d58" CreationDate="2018-02-16T01:56:31.853" UserId="5444" Comment="Updated the question based on comments from other people." Text="When should I get rid of a product and buy a new more efficient/useful version?  The existing product works okay for its primary use case so I don't want to throw it away or recycle it and then spend the resources to produce the new item, but I do want the benefits form the new item. I am interested in a decision tree or flowchart or sorts to help you decide when to replace items in a general sense.  What kind of conditions should I check?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example I have a plastic container for holding food and for health reasons I want to switch to a glass/metal container.  Or I have a functioning desk, but for health reasons I want to replace it with a standing desk. Or if I have power supply in my desktop computer and I want to replace it with an energy efficient version.  Is there a generic set of attributes I should look at to help decide if the benefits of buying a new item out way the environmental costs of getting rid of the old item and acquiring a newly produced one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6428" RevisionGUID="eade3a68-7499-4af4-9a87-afcfc3cc8d98" CreationDate="2018-02-16T13:16:30.150" UserId="5446" Text="I'm actually into lowering as much as possible my expendable consumptions. This already has an effect on my daily expenses: as I buy in hort cycle and second-hand, and as I have a relative high income, I keep sparing money at the end of the month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question is: Do you have in mind websites, or structures where I could go to finance projects pursuing sustainability actions? the key points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I won't obviously buy new useless stuff,&#xD;&#xA; - I don't want to invest in senselesses companies in stock market, or in basic bank products,&#xD;&#xA; - I'm not really into funding around the globe, I prefer to boost my country/region change for sustainability (France/IDF/Paris),&#xD;&#xA; - It's better to keep it as funding and not donation (as there will be much money involved on the long term), so it comes with projects, return on investments etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16274" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6428" RevisionGUID="eade3a68-7499-4af4-9a87-afcfc3cc8d98" CreationDate="2018-02-16T13:16:30.150" UserId="5446" Text="Where can I find sustainable investments?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16275" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6428" RevisionGUID="eade3a68-7499-4af4-9a87-afcfc3cc8d98" CreationDate="2018-02-16T13:16:30.150" UserId="5446" Text="|money|local|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6428" RevisionGUID="4ad9b1d2-2a1e-44e6-a399-a7f591a22af0" CreationDate="2018-02-16T15:09:59.770" UserId="3379" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="I'm currently into lowering as much as possible my consumption of expendable goods. This has already had an effect on my daily expenses: I buy in short-cycle and second-hand, and as I have a relatively high income, I keep having spare money at the end of the month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question is: Do you know of websites, or institutions where I could go to finance projects pursuing sustainability actions? the key points:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I obviously don't want to buy new useless stuff,&#xD;&#xA; - I don't want to invest in senseless companies in stock market, or in basic bank products,&#xD;&#xA; - I'm not really into funding around the globe, I prefer to boost my country/region to change for sustainability (France/IDF/Paris),&#xD;&#xA; - It's better to fund/finance than to donate (so there will be more money available in the long term), so I'm looking for projects, return on investments etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6429" RevisionGUID="65debb24-e504-4d89-9d13-3d5c8ae72586" CreationDate="2018-02-16T19:40:10.673" UserId="3293" Text="In France there is an interesting investment solution in sustainable development called [La Nef](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Nef_(entreprise)), *Nouvelle Économie Fraternelle*. [Here is the official site](https://www.lanef.com/la-nef/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are here for quite a long time and offer investments in projects that are ***positive*** to people and nature:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* socially responsible (32%)&#xD;&#xA;* environmental(63%) &#xD;&#xA;* artistic(5%)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are even invited to release part of the interest to the profit of various associative projects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Declared values are:&#xD;&#xA;* Transparency: the list of [funded projects year by year](https://www.lanef.com/la-nef/publications/?target=liste%20des%20pr%C3%AAts) is publicly available&#xD;&#xA;* Ecology: around 60% of the money goes to &quot;ecological&quot; projects!&#xD;&#xA;* Cooperate: each investor is a member of the cooperation (not sure of the exact meaning in English)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I myself have placement here for years. The yield is not the greatest you can find, but at least you know where your money goes, and capital is secure. You can even invest your time in the projects reviews and in the governance. This part I know less." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6430" RevisionGUID="fecd527c-ada1-496e-aeef-b29795192692" CreationDate="2018-02-17T13:03:21.330" UserId="5450" Text="My parent's house has a pretty bad case of the cockroaches currently and I'm wondering if there is an eco-friendly way to deal with them. I don't find the use of poisons appealing at all seeing as this is the room where all our food is prepared in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some sort of natural predator of cockroaches you can introduce that will get rid of them, I'm open to suggestions, I just don' want to use poisons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16280" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6430" RevisionGUID="fecd527c-ada1-496e-aeef-b29795192692" CreationDate="2018-02-17T13:03:21.330" UserId="5450" Text="Is there a way to remove cockroaches without having to use poison?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16281" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6430" RevisionGUID="fecd527c-ada1-496e-aeef-b29795192692" CreationDate="2018-02-17T13:03:21.330" UserId="5450" Text="|pest-management|pesticides|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6424" RevisionGUID="2758cbc7-13c6-4695-be53-7235cb705355" CreationDate="2018-02-18T06:58:13.200" UserId="99" Comment="added 212 characters in body; edited title" Text="I have an aquaponics system with 20 Koi fish and different plants  which works by the Siphon method , and the fish water is about 22-26°c, which is usually less for plants of 2°c degrees.&#xD;&#xA;The water is constantly pumped and rotated in the system, and the plants are constantly in the water. Oxygen and three filters are always working in fish tank, and I used synthetic light for the plants in low sunlight hours.&#xD;&#xA;I add nutrient and potassium solutions and vitamins in the system, but unfortunately plants and vegetables are after a few days ,or dry their leaves or shedding flowers exp. (tomatoes, cucumbers and green beans ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I really do not know what is the problem ? and what should I do?&#xD;&#xA;I am thankful with your guidance.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7XX7q.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yZVhd.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**EDIT:** I think I found the answer to my question, the water hardness of my system is over 21 (GH&gt;21)=425, in your opinion, could this cause me sluggish plant growth and low fertility and plant destruction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16285" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6424" RevisionGUID="2758cbc7-13c6-4695-be53-7235cb705355" CreationDate="2018-02-18T06:58:13.200" UserId="99" Comment="added 212 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the problem in my aquaponics system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6432" RevisionGUID="bb4eafec-8917-4d8e-829a-caad24417bd0" CreationDate="2018-02-19T01:20:55.330" UserId="5451" Text="Chameleons, Lizards in the house.  It is rare to see a roach in a house in the tropics. Chameleons yes.  But they wander in &amp; out. Cold weather is not good on them..  For insects all or most 1-1-1 works. 1 cup water, 1 cup borax powder or welding flux. Seep water dissolve borax. add 1 cup honey. Mix. spray around edges under fridge &amp; such. It is safe to use. honey draws most insects to eat it Roach's ants etc. It makes the borax stick to them. Borax drills a hole in there shell or cuts them inside. Insects can not repair themselves from cuts. So bleed to death. They carry it back to the nest. Slow but kills all insects that come in contact with it. That is tropical honey thinner than in cold climates. So 3/4 cup? Some use sugar in it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6433" RevisionGUID="2293c2e9-4a50-4511-9836-65320fd593c4" CreationDate="2018-02-19T05:28:20.207" UserId="5452" Text="i suppose it would depend on your location- in my state most of our power still comes from coal burning plants so gas burns &quot;cleaner&quot; in my case (i dont know where our gas is sourced from, if its fracked that would be another factor to consider)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6432" RevisionGUID="b61c6216-49c0-4dcb-a0a1-01ca137fa9ef" CreationDate="2018-02-19T14:28:16.910" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="General cleanup (language)" Text="For most insects a mixture of 1 cup water, 1 cup borax powder or welding flux, and 1 cup honey works. Dissolve the borax in water, add the honey, and mix. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spray around edges, under the fridge etc. It is safe to use. Honey draws most insects to eat it. The borax sticks to them and perforates their shells, so that they 'bleed' to death. They also carry it back to the nest. It is slow but kills all insects that come in contact with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16293" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6432" RevisionGUID="b61c6216-49c0-4dcb-a0a1-01ca137fa9ef" CreationDate="2018-02-19T14:28:16.910" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 99 edit id of 516" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16297" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6430" RevisionGUID="da7000d8-9fad-424f-be01-3e182341823f" CreationDate="2018-02-20T15:51:51.607" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/965977306002051073" />
  <row Id="16298" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="cb03d35c-cd43-4782-a414-499be10d5a3c" CreationDate="2018-02-20T19:49:39.810" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16299" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="60afc6a7-c7f3-47c4-a666-319e8974c51d" CreationDate="2018-02-21T15:17:46.667" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87896/how-to-recycle-almond-shells" />
  <row Id="16300" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6437" RevisionGUID="465b46be-5fe9-489d-ad71-c74a1dbe03f6" CreationDate="2018-02-21T15:17:46.667" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87896/how-to-recycle-almond-shells/87897#87897" />
  <row Id="16301" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6438" RevisionGUID="332229d3-0f85-4a60-b5c9-d058a3a4c841" CreationDate="2018-02-21T15:17:46.667" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87896/how-to-recycle-almond-shells/87898#87898" />
  <row Id="16302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6437" RevisionGUID="1283f82f-33e2-4183-8737-9b6dd32af78d" CreationDate="2018-02-21T05:04:42.410" UserDisplayName="Ecnerwal" Text="Composting them works. I would spare your equipment the joy of grinding them up unless you want to ruin it faster. Time and exposure to moisture will break them down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of any mosquito-repellency from burning them, but I suppose you could burn some and make the experiment. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6438" RevisionGUID="ae32ba55-a497-4368-aa23-31bef7c646ef" CreationDate="2018-02-21T07:06:00.440" UserId="2846" Text="They compost slowly even by the standards of my undersized compost bins. But the big lumps can always go back in for another go. If you have access to a garden shredder, put them through that first. It's designed to handle wood, unlike your kitchen equipment. In the garden they can also be used as a mulch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burn them (for heat perhaps) if you've got the means to do it. You could always store them to burn with other stuff if you use something like a fire basket outside in summer. Even a barbecue when you've finished cooking. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="da6632ad-6ca6-4c59-ab54-dc2680fb0009" CreationDate="2018-02-21T04:21:21.747" UserId="5461" UserDisplayName="Gaurang Tandon" Text="I have seen this [related question][1] - but it was about the almond peels and not their shells:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I recycle these? My relatives advised me to burn it all up, as it drives away mosquitoes&lt;sup&gt;[citation needed]&lt;/sup&gt;. Others said to just bury it into the soil and it will compost itself away, but I doubt if this will ever happen (as these are hard shells). Powdering these shells came to my mind, but I don't know what to do with the powder either (and if my mixer grinder can sustain those hard shells in the first place).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thing is that I have nearly a kilogram of these almond shells, so I want them to the best use. Thank you for your suggestions!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59079/what-to-do-with-leftover-almond-peel&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D6AS4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="da6632ad-6ca6-4c59-ab54-dc2680fb0009" CreationDate="2018-02-21T04:21:21.747" UserId="5461" UserDisplayName="Gaurang Tandon" Text="How to recycle almond shells?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="da6632ad-6ca6-4c59-ab54-dc2680fb0009" CreationDate="2018-02-21T04:21:21.747" UserId="5461" UserDisplayName="Gaurang Tandon" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16307" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="8c26cde0-b658-4a68-85d6-be92e2d9e8e2" CreationDate="2018-02-21T15:21:50.257" UserId="5461" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16308" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="1fd75aa3-154b-4ebf-baef-d03295597b4a" CreationDate="2018-02-21T15:24:26.563" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|composting|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6439" RevisionGUID="ad4a985d-d0d9-4104-9439-e4e53ec8c6bf" CreationDate="2018-02-21T18:18:42.783" UserId="4574" Text="I am thinking about using open source wiki designs from [allpowerlabs][1] to construct a wood gas generator.  The motivation came from experiencing a 10 day power outage after super storm Sandy.  The utility company could not provide power due to damaged transformers, power lines, and other grid infrastructure.  Most of the gasoline service stations did not have backup power to run the pumps and meters and those that did had huge queues to wait through.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile there was tons of biomass available in my 2 acre yard.  I used some of the wood in our wood stove for heating and some cooking but did not have a way of getting the energy stored in wood and other biomass to electrical energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution is a wood gas generator that converts the [stored solar energy][2] in wood to a gas that can be combusted in a hacked generator to provide electrical power.  Allpowerlabs.com has a turn key solution all ready to go but it is beyond my budget, but they offer the open source build it yourself GEK (Gasifier Electricity Kit), mentioned earlier, that I would like to build.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of using the wood gas to run a hacked Briggs and Stratton  generator, I would prefer to route it to a BIY (Build It Yourself) fuel cell.  Wood gas consists of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and small amounts of other.  For fuel considerations hydrogen(H2) and carbon monoxide(CO) are usable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While [molten carbonate][3] and [solid oxide][2] fuel cells can use CO, the operating temperatures are too high to be practical and we want to sequester the carbon instead of releasing to atmosphere.  I would like to separate the carbon oxides from the wood gas and use the H2 directly into a [fuel cell][4] or [store it][5] for later use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that we can remove CO2 from the wood gas or exhaust with low cost or Brew it yourself sodium hydroxide (NaOH), via [caustic scrubbing][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: How can we cost effectively separate the CO from the wood gas?  I am not sure how NaOH reacts with hydrogen gas and CO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wiki.gekgasifier.com/w/page/52196806/GEK%20v4x%20Fabrication%20Instructions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4450/what-alternatives-are-there-to-store-solar-energy-besides-a-battery/4455#4455&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_carbonate_fuel_cell&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkaline_fuel_cell&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6439" RevisionGUID="ad4a985d-d0d9-4104-9439-e4e53ec8c6bf" CreationDate="2018-02-21T18:18:42.783" UserId="4574" Text="How can I separate carbon monoxide from wood gas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6439" RevisionGUID="ad4a985d-d0d9-4104-9439-e4e53ec8c6bf" CreationDate="2018-02-21T18:18:42.783" UserId="4574" Text="|building-physics|decarbonisation|carbon-sequestration|biofuels|biogas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16312" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="73782167-505c-4ac8-afa3-da5e21c95c06" CreationDate="2018-02-21T19:00:06.423" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6440" RevisionGUID="ae88852b-4118-48c5-9570-11fcd1a1d71e" CreationDate="2018-02-22T00:05:27.507" UserId="4574" Text="I am designing a thermo-electric generation system that would generate electricity from the heat of my wood stove.  The active components are bismuth telluride TEG cells that use the Seeback effect in reverse to convert a temperature difference into an electrical voltage.&#xA;&#xA;The surface of the flat cell facing away from the wood stove needs to be cooled by a heat sink and fan so the semiconductor is not damaged.&#xA;&#xA;I would like to fashion an aluminum heat sink out of waste aluminum  (foils baking sheets, trays, etc)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6440" RevisionGUID="ae88852b-4118-48c5-9570-11fcd1a1d71e" CreationDate="2018-02-22T00:05:27.507" UserId="4574" Text="How can I form heat sinks from waste aluminum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6440" RevisionGUID="ae88852b-4118-48c5-9570-11fcd1a1d71e" CreationDate="2018-02-22T00:05:27.507" UserId="4574" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16316" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="c4fbbcf2-2b9a-4497-8dcd-c98764d19537" CreationDate="2018-02-22T12:02:02.660" UserDisplayName="user3719" Comment="removed information about mineral deodorant (aluminium ingredient was added by accident)" Text="There must be natural alternatives for deodorant that at least to some degree help in covering body odor caused by perspiration. I have tried to live without antiperspirant, but I don't consider it feasible even when showering more often than once a day.  &#xD;&#xA;I of course prefer a self-contained natural solution that I don't have to purchase from a store. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Liquid (roll-on, cream) and solid deodorants are more environmental-friendly than aerosol sprays, but often suffer from overpackaging; I've owned products that weigh like lead.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16317" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6001" RevisionGUID="c4fbbcf2-2b9a-4497-8dcd-c98764d19537" CreationDate="2018-02-22T12:02:02.660" UserDisplayName="user3719" Comment="removed information about mineral deodorant (aluminium ingredient was added by accident)" Text="What are alternatives for deodorant?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6440" RevisionGUID="7daada48-0a41-44f4-9467-a0e313423e19" CreationDate="2018-02-22T16:03:36.530" UserId="4574" Comment="referances" Text="I am designing a [thermo-electric generation][1] system that would generate electricity from the heat of my wood stove.  The active components are bismuth telluride TEG cells that use the [Seebeck effect][2] in reverse to convert a temperature difference into an electrical voltage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The surface of the flat cell facing away from the wood stove needs to be cooled by a heat sink and fan so the semiconductor is not damaged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to fashion an aluminum heat sink out of waste aluminum  (foils, baking sheets, trays, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: What I had in mind was a metal brake and bending system to fashion the fins and then bonding the fins to a flat piece of aluminum with a layer of heat sink compound adhesive.  Since the waste aluminum is thin and easily malleable, this should be trivial.  Melting it down and pouring into a mold in a vacuum would not be worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_generator&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect#Seebeck_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6441" RevisionGUID="57b23f1e-05e8-46f5-ac3a-dc92ae7b1af6" CreationDate="2018-02-23T16:52:36.190" UserId="5470" Text="I keep many species of ants including leafcutters and what we use in the hobby is barriers like extra virgin olive oil or fluon to keep them from climbing up the walls of containers and escaping, leafcutters are poor climbers of smooth surfaces, so if you apply this barrier to some material(preferably something smooth like a pipe) and have that around the trunk of the plant they won't be able to get to it as long as it's not touching the ground or other plants that would give them another route. You could also make a little roof over the barrier so rain won't wash it off. The good news is that the barriers are non toxic and can last a good while before you need to reapply it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6443" RevisionGUID="d616eb15-e312-43b8-9dd1-db790a3dd7bc" CreationDate="2018-02-24T20:38:23.183" UserId="2846" Text="Forget the foil.  Even if you laminate it, you'll never eliminate tiny air gaps, which will make it into a fairly effective insulator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen (copper) heatsinks made from thin precision-cut fins, soldered to a thicker spreader plate.  Solder is better than thermal epoxy, but doesn't work on aluminium.  This was necessary for a specific purpose, but not as effective as a similar-sized extruded aluminium heatsink despite the higher thermal conductivity of copper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to use recycled heatsinks, I suggest you use recycled heatsinks: Old computer heatsinks are effective (I had a collection from Pentium 2s that were very useful; they were huge as the only fan in those systems was a pathetic one in the PSU, with a duct pulling from the CPU heatsink." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6444" RevisionGUID="2e2c4d20-a6da-4aa6-a723-26f1819df827" CreationDate="2018-02-25T13:23:05.693" UserId="5474" Text="Ultrasonic Pest Repellent. If you have any pet mice, then this device could be cruel. Otherwise, it's a really effective, harm-free, &amp; eco-friendly tool." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6445" RevisionGUID="195055b4-fd18-4d0c-a572-2a06c665a826" CreationDate="2018-02-26T07:18:51.390" UserId="5475" Text="I have a big bag of potatoes I bought that aren't organic and I didn't eat all of them.  They have reached a point where they really aren't worth the trouble to use for food.  Can I cut them up and use them to fertilize/mulch my organic garden without contradicting USDA Organic standards?  It would seem like such a waste to simply throw them in the trash." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6445" RevisionGUID="195055b4-fd18-4d0c-a572-2a06c665a826" CreationDate="2018-02-26T07:18:51.390" UserId="5475" Text="Can a bag of non-organic potatoes that have gone bad be used to mulch an organic garden?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6445" RevisionGUID="195055b4-fd18-4d0c-a572-2a06c665a826" CreationDate="2018-02-26T07:18:51.390" UserId="5475" Text="|gardening|organic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16330" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="7d5f09b7-2536-4136-bc81-0bfb6649ecb4" CreationDate="2018-02-26T07:52:17.337" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6446" RevisionGUID="1f7d3fd6-5a9d-4629-b08f-0a6142fa664d" CreationDate="2018-02-26T13:12:58.383" UserId="4574" Text="Yes, as stated in other answers, but you can increase efficiency by using [ecm fan motors][1] for central forced air systems.  The heating system consists of a heat source (furnace) and a thermal distribution system (fan air handler for forced air systems).  It is common to underestimate the energy consumption of the latter.  A lot of times, the thermostat can be kept at a lower temperature when unequal heating distribution factors are minimized.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The faster the fan motor turns the more electrical energy is consumed.  In many situations, the air handler only has 2 speed settings.  Being unable to fine tune the rpm of the fan motor for the minimum rpm needed for thermal distribution costs much in energy consumption particularly if the thermostat is kept constant day and night. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ecm motor is actually an electronically commutated dc (direct current) motor whose speed is infinitesimally adjusted by an automatic control system for optimum air flow for ambient conditions.  It also has the benefit of running much quieter since much of the time the fan runs at a very slow speed maintaining the plateaued thermal inertia throughout the heated space.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.advanceair.net/what-is-an-ecm-motor/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6447" RevisionGUID="9517c04a-094b-43d2-abd1-fbf96521565e" CreationDate="2018-02-27T00:11:29.647" UserId="5479" Text="If you have access to enough green electricity to heat your home (and you will need a lot) then electric will be better.  If you're grid connected then almost certainly gas (possibly even wood, especially if you burn oxygen starved and bury the biochar) is better.  Consider that increasingly gas is a power source used on the grid, so if you use electricity you're going `gas -&gt; heat -&gt; electricity -&gt; heat` whereas if you use gas directly that's just `gas -&gt; heat`, cutting out several steps which introduce efficiency losses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="ebf1e48f-153f-4f23-937e-600ffed69b27" CreationDate="2018-02-27T09:31:32.600" UserId="5481" Text="My wife and I recently moved from London to a lovely old cottage in the countryside with electricity, no gas and a wood-burning stove. We are incrementally improving insulation to make the house more efficient but currently heat the house by burning wood that we bought from a local tree surgeon in the stove and using the woefully inefficient (and expensive) electric radiators. There is a coal bin outside where the previous tenants left a fair amount of coal. My question is, what should I do with the coal to be most ecologically sound?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gut instinct is that to burn it would be bad as I am releasing all that fossilised CO2 from millions of years ago back into today's atmosphere. Should I bury it? Should I burn it because the electricity for the radiators is probably partly coming from coal-fired power stations anyway? Interested to hear what people think. Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="ebf1e48f-153f-4f23-937e-600ffed69b27" CreationDate="2018-02-27T09:31:32.600" UserId="5481" Text="What should I do with coal that I have been given?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="ebf1e48f-153f-4f23-937e-600ffed69b27" CreationDate="2018-02-27T09:31:32.600" UserId="5481" Text="|energy|heating|carbon-footprint|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16339" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6448" RevisionGUID="578fbe54-bd25-4407-9370-16d9520fadb2" CreationDate="2018-02-27T13:19:09.677" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/968475592994754560" />
  <row Id="16340" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="e6d16138-6cd9-414a-8198-d09ee03adc9a" CreationDate="2018-02-27T17:56:49.990" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6450" RevisionGUID="03b892cd-1de2-4a71-8699-1246f624abf9" CreationDate="2018-02-27T18:58:00.533" UserId="4574" Text="[This master's thesis][1] by Dahiru Rufai Ahmed at the university of Oulu provides a comprehensive background into the removal of CO2 from wood gas.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On pages 36-37 it mentions the **water-gas shift** (WGS) reaction as a method of adjusting the hydrogen/carbon monoxide mixture or removing CO entirely to get pure H2.  &quot;The WGS reaction is an exothermic reaction&#xD;&#xA;(∆Hr = -41.1 kJ/mol) that converts excess carbon monoxide into hydrogen (Basu 2010 304; Schulz et al. 2013).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO + H2O --&gt;  CO2 + H2 + heat&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;At low temperature the reaction can be catalyzed by catalysts based on copper, aluminum and zinc oxides. (Basu, P. (2010). Biomass gasification and pyrolysis: Practical Design and Theory. 1st ed., Elsevier Inc. 365pp. ISBN: 9780123749888.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in recent times, interest has been shifted to a catalyst-membrane system that incorporates the WGS reaction and H2 separation via a hydrogen selective membrane (Mendes, D., Chibante, V., Zheng, J-M., Tosti, S., Borgognoni, F., Memdes, A. and Madeira, L. M. (2010). Enhancing the production of hydrogen via water-gas shift reaction using Pd-based membrane reactors. Inter J Hydrogen Energy. 35 (22), 12596–12608.).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article][2] describes a membrane based catalyst for the WGS reaction.  The catalyst in the membrane uses Palladium alloys with Silver and Copper due to their higher selectivity and permeability to Hydrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Palladium is an expensive noble metal and since [catalytic converters for automobiles][3] already use Palladium for CO oxidation, I am considering using an automobile catalytic converter (CAT) for this purpose.  The CAT uses oxidation rather than WGS to convert CO, but I don't think it affects hydrogen.  Any useful comments and feedback appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/nbnfioulu-201310301823.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sphinxsai.com/Vol.3No.3/Chem/pdf/CT=79(1520-1525)JS11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Kinetics/Case_Studies%3A_Kinetics/Catalytic_Converters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16342" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6439" RevisionGUID="51dd5858-7e4d-4b85-b780-03041fae93da" CreationDate="2018-02-27T20:20:09.190" UserId="4574" Comment="deleted tag" Text="|decarbonisation|carbon-sequestration|biofuels|biogas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6450" RevisionGUID="afcdcafb-8254-4416-b007-601be7979a92" CreationDate="2018-02-27T20:27:13.547" UserId="4574" Comment="grammar" Text="[This master's thesis][1] by Dahiru Rufai Ahmed at the university of Oulu provides a comprehensive background into the removal of CO2 from wood gas.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On pages 36-37 it mentions the **water-gas shift** (WGS) reaction as a method of adjusting the hydrogen/carbon monoxide mixture or removing CO entirely to get pure H2.  &quot;The WGS reaction is an exothermic reaction&#xD;&#xA;(∆Hr = -41.1 kJ/mol) that converts excess carbon monoxide into hydrogen.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO + H2O --&gt;  CO2 + H2 + heat&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&quot;At low temperature the reaction can be catalyzed by catalysts based on copper, aluminum and zinc oxides. (Basu, P. (2010). Biomass gasification and pyrolysis: Practical Design and Theory. 1st ed., Elsevier Inc. 365pp. ISBN: 9780123749888.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in recent times, interest has been shifted to a catalyst-membrane system that incorporates the WGS reaction and H2 separation via a hydrogen selective membrane (Mendes, D., Chibante, V., Zheng, J-M., Tosti, S., Borgognoni, F., Memdes, A. and Madeira, L. M. (2010). Enhancing the production of hydrogen via water-gas shift reaction using Pd-based membrane reactors. Inter J Hydrogen Energy. 35 (22), 12596–12608.).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article][2] describes a membrane based catalyst for the WGS reaction.  The catalyst in the membrane uses Palladium alloys with Silver and Copper due to their higher selectivity and permeability to Hydrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Palladium is an expensive noble metal and since [catalytic converters for automobiles][3] already use Palladium for CO oxidation, I am considering using an automobile catalytic converter (CAT) for this purpose.  The CAT uses oxidation rather than WGS to convert CO, so I am concerned that it would also oxidize the hydrogen.  However, I think the CAT would perform WGS if the input gas mixture is lacking oxygen which would be the case for wood gas.  Any useful comments and feedback appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/nbnfioulu-201310301823.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://sphinxsai.com/Vol.3No.3/Chem/pdf/CT=79(1520-1525)JS11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Kinetics/Case_Studies%3A_Kinetics/Catalytic_Converters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16346" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6445" RevisionGUID="b7fe66b9-eeda-492e-80a6-4fb6e64e3cce" CreationDate="2018-02-27T22:19:09.827" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/968611488339562496" />
  <row Id="16347" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6427" RevisionGUID="3d0601b2-20f6-4028-9f3e-de0026804539" CreationDate="2018-02-28T06:16:49.150" UserId="5444" Comment="edited tags" Text="|waste|environmental-impact|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6452" RevisionGUID="5a0d559c-1c8b-4423-a95e-3635a3835663" CreationDate="2018-02-28T14:49:21.440" UserId="1210" Text="I'm considering a stove fan to distribute heat from a small wood burner. The prices of commercial Peltier-type stove fans seem to range from £25 to £100.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there likely to be a significant difference between them in efficiency, or is this just marketing hype.  If there are functional differences, what should I be looking for in the specifications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Notes: I'm UK based, should that be relevant for supplier and pricing answers. I'm aware these can be made DIY but that's not what I'm asking here.  I'm also aware of Stirling Engine versions (starting ~£150) but that's probably off-budget unless there's a really good reason I should buy one of those instead.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16350" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6452" RevisionGUID="5a0d559c-1c8b-4423-a95e-3635a3835663" CreationDate="2018-02-28T14:49:21.440" UserId="1210" Text="Are all Peltier-type stove fans the same?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16351" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6452" RevisionGUID="5a0d559c-1c8b-4423-a95e-3635a3835663" CreationDate="2018-02-28T14:49:21.440" UserId="1210" Text="|energy-efficiency|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16352" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5091" RevisionGUID="f7663e8e-3d5a-4455-bb05-c883faec4d7b" CreationDate="2018-02-28T15:51:39.360" UserId="3068" Comment="added 768 characters in body" Text="I live off-grid, so I did a lot of study on this topic. All used coffee grounds make good fertilizer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drip machines seem to use a lot of energy, and they seem to use it for a lot of time. They also use disposable filters. Drip machines are kind of on the off-grid &quot;blacklist&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Percolators waste a lot of energy because they have to keep the water boiling for a while, but they don't have any waste products. (I bet they also lose more steam.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Espresso Machines may use more energy per volume because it heats the water hotter and uses a pump. The coffee also must be ground finer, but it's so much more concentrated that it might balance the energy consumption out. (I guess more extensive studies may be necessary.) They also don't have any waste products. Some people choose espresso because of the superior flavor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;French Press uses the least energy (depending on how the water is heated) as you only have to heat the water up once. The coffee is supposed to be a coarse ground, which can also save trace amounts of energy. It has no waste products. If you want to heat the water with electricity, electric teapots (with the heating element actually inside the water) seem to be very efficient and fast. With no waste products and maximum efficiency, French Press is often considered the best way to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to minimize your energy use and increase your sustainability, then you can grind it by hand, but other than that, it's hard to know if pre-ground or home ground is more efficient. If you buy in bulk, that definitely reduces shipping and packaging waste. Overall, your list looks pretty good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------Update--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've started making cold brew coffee, and I love it. I've got a 1-gallon water dispenser that has a large cylindrical strainer in it. You scoop your coffee grounds into the strainer, you fill the dispenser with cold water, and then leave it in the fridge for about 20 hours. It is the easiest coffee to make ever. You can store it in the refrigerator for a week, and it still tastes fresh. If you already have a fridge, this method uses virtually no energy to make the coffee. Of course, it still takes energy to roast, grind, and transport the beans. In my tests, my cold brew tastes better than my french press, but your mileage may vary. The one I'm using is called &quot;Cold Brew On Tap,&quot; but there are many other comparable products." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="6b16a6cd-1548-459f-b389-deb066acf550" CreationDate="2018-03-02T08:18:41.557" UserId="4886" Text="Given that the 'efficiency' of Peltier/Seebeck/thermoelectric systems is very, very bad *even under ideal conditions*, if one manufacturer comes up with a low-efficiency design, you are effectively comparing very, very bad with very, very, very bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want one of these things because they just look cool, then fine.  If you want to use it to impress your friends, then fine.  If you want to use it as an educational tool, then fine.  If you are off-grid and have zero access to electricity, then fine.  Otherwise, if you just want to mix the air in your room efficiently and inexpensively, consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 'large' 12V computer fan (e.g. the 200mm NF-A20 FLX from Noctua) can draw less than 1W when running at maximum speed (actually 0.96W @ 800RPM).  All 3-Pin fans can run at lower speeds (and be much quieter) by simply dropping the voltage.  A Low Noise Adapter is included with each of the above fans, does just that, and drops RPM down to 550 and power draw to 0.66W.  At that speed it's virtually silent and circulates 100.8m&amp;sup3; per hour — which is more than sufficient, I reckon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your search showed thermoelectric oven fans ranging between &amp;pound;25 and &amp;pound;100, then the middle of that range would be &amp;pound;62.50.  Given that a NF-A20 costs &amp;pound;27 from Amazon.uk with free delivery, you'd have &amp;pound;35.50 left over if you bought one of those instead.  If you are paying 15p/kWh, then &amp;pound;35.50 would pay for 236.667kWh of electricity.  It would take the NF-A20 about (236667/0.66=) 355,000 hours / 14,791 days / 40.5 years of *continuous use* to consume 236.67kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Mean Time Between Failure of the NF-A20 is 150,000 hours / 6,250 days / 17.1 years of *continuous use* and Noctua backs that up with a 6-year warranty.  By contrast, most thermoelectric oven fans have warranties of only a year and die around then.  Some of the better ones have 2 year warranties.  I haven't personally seen any with a 3 year (or longer) warranty.  I'd say that precisely zero have a 6 year warranty.  Most of the ones I've read about lasted between 1 and 2 years before failing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - thermoelectric fans on a seasonal duty cycle last ~2 years&#xD;&#xA; - computer fans on continuous cycle can last ~17 years&#xD;&#xA; - the money you save buying the latter can power it for ~40 years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little bit of easy math shows that thermoelectric oven fans don't make financial sense if you have access to electricity and moving air efficiently and inexpensively is what you are actually trying to accomplish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computer fans are not the only way to mix air.  Heck, even a regular ceiling fan would probably end up cheaper (and more effective) in the long run.  You can also do the same thing with some copper/aluminium pipe and a pipe bender — although that is definitely a different aesthetic.  There are lots of choices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before spending money on a thermoelectric oven fan of any kind, I'd encourage you to look into the other options." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16354" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="2af0830d-05fc-4234-8add-1dd7880b8fdb" CreationDate="2018-03-02T08:30:44.990" UserId="4886" Comment="added 141 characters in body" Text="Given that the 'efficiency' of Peltier/Seebeck/thermoelectric systems is very, very bad *even under ideal conditions*, if one manufacturer comes up with a low-efficiency design, you are effectively comparing very, very bad with very, very, very bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want one of these things because they just look cool, then fine.  If you want to use it to impress your friends, then fine.  If you want to use it as an educational tool, then fine.  If you are off-grid and have zero access to electricity, then fine.  Otherwise, if you just want to mix the air in your room efficiently and inexpensively, consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 'large' 12V computer fan (e.g. the 200mm NF-A20 FLX from Noctua) can draw less than 1W when running at maximum speed (actually 0.96W @ 800RPM).  All 3-Pin fans can run at lower speeds (and be much quieter) by simply dropping the voltage.  A Low Noise Adapter is included with each of the above fans, does just that, and drops RPM down to 550 and power draw to 0.66W.  At that speed it's virtually silent and circulates 100.8m&amp;sup3; per hour — which is more than sufficient, I reckon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your search showed thermoelectric oven fans ranging between &amp;pound;25 and &amp;pound;100, then the middle of that range would be &amp;pound;62.50.  Given that a NF-A20 costs &amp;pound;27 from Amazon.uk with free delivery, you'd have &amp;pound;35.50 left over if you bought one of those instead.  If you are paying 15p/kWh, then &amp;pound;35.50 would pay for 236.667kWh of electricity.  It would take the NF-A20 about (236667/0.66=) 355,000 hours / 14,791 days / 40.5 years of *continuous use* to consume 236.67kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Mean Time Between Failure of the NF-A20 is 150,000 hours / 6,250 days / 17.1 years of *continuous use* and Noctua backs that up with a 6-year warranty.  By contrast, most thermoelectric oven fans have warranties of only a year and die around then.  Some of the better ones have 2 year warranties.  I haven't personally seen any with a 3 year (or longer) warranty.  I'd say that precisely zero have a 6 year warranty.  Most of the ones I've read about lasted between 1 and 2 years before failing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - thermoelectric fans on a seasonal duty cycle last ~2 years&#xD;&#xA; - computer fans on continuous cycle can last ~17 years&#xD;&#xA; - the money you save buying the latter can power it for ~40 years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little bit of easy math shows that thermoelectric oven fans don't make financial sense if you have access to electricity and moving air efficiently and inexpensively is what you are actually trying to accomplish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computer fans are not the only way to mix air.  Heck, even a regular ceiling fan would probably end up cheaper (and more effective) in the long run.  You can also do the same thing with some copper/aluminium pipe and a pipe bender — although that is definitely a different aesthetic.  There are lots of choices (none of which exploit the thermoelectric effect, and some of which are completely passive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before spending money on a thermoelectric oven fan of any kind, I'd encourage you to look into the other options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, thermoelectric oven fans are primarily an expensive gimmick/toy.  It makes virtually no sense for the vast majority of the population to own one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="5a151aab-7b1a-4cb3-8f2c-c6b62d8ee65e" CreationDate="2018-03-02T08:37:32.030" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="Given that the 'efficiency' of Peltier/Seebeck/thermoelectric systems is very, very bad *even under ideal conditions*, if one manufacturer comes up with a low-efficiency design, you are effectively comparing very, very bad with very, very, very bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want one of these things because they just look cool, then fine.  If you want to use it to impress your friends, then fine.  If you want to use it as an educational tool, then fine.  If you are off-grid and have zero access to electricity, then fine.  Otherwise, if you just want to mix the air in your room efficiently and inexpensively, consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 'large' 12V computer fan (e.g. the 200mm NF-A20 FLX from Noctua) can draw less than 1W when running at maximum speed (actually 0.96W @ 800RPM).  All 3-Pin fans can run at lower speeds (and be much quieter) by simply dropping the voltage.  A Low Noise Adapter is included with each of the above fans, does just that, and drops RPM down to 550 and power draw to 0.66W.  At that speed it's virtually silent and circulates 100.8m&amp;sup3; per hour — which is more than sufficient, I reckon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your search showed thermoelectric oven fans ranging between &amp;pound;25 and &amp;pound;100, then the middle of that range would be &amp;pound;62.50.  Given that a NF-A20 costs &amp;pound;27 from Amazon.uk with free delivery, you'd have &amp;pound;35.50 left over if you bought one of those instead.  If you are paying 15p/kWh, then &amp;pound;35.50 would pay for 236.667kWh of electricity.  It would take the NF-A20 about (236667/0.66=) 355,000 hours / 14,791 days / 40.5 years of *continuous use* to consume 236.67kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Mean Time Between Failure of the NF-A20 is 150,000 hours / 6,250 days / 17.1 years of *continuous use* and Noctua backs that up with a 6-year warranty.  By contrast, most thermoelectric oven fans have warranties of only a year and die around then.  Some of the better ones have 2 year warranties.  I haven't personally seen any with a 3 year (or longer) warranty.  I'd say that precisely zero have a 6 year warranty.  Most of the ones I've read about lasted between 1 and 2 years before failing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - thermoelectric fans on a seasonal duty cycle last ~2 years&#xD;&#xA; - computer fans on continuous cycle can last ~17 years&#xD;&#xA; - the money you save buying the latter can power it for ~40 years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little bit of easy math shows that thermoelectric oven fans don't make financial sense if you have access to electricity and mixing air efficiently and inexpensively is what you are actually trying to accomplish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computer fans are not the only way to mix air.  Even a regular ceiling fan would probably end up cheaper (and more effective) in the long run.  You can also do the same thing with some copper/aluminium pipe and a pipe bender — although that is definitely a different aesthetic.  There are lots of choices (none of which exploit the thermoelectric effect, and some of which are completely passive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before spending money on a thermoelectric oven fan of any kind, I'd encourage you to look into the other options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, thermoelectric oven fans are primarily an expensive gimmick/toy.  It makes virtually no sense for the vast majority of the population to own one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="94334a69-08b3-4af5-9b46-68220b221c5d" CreationDate="2018-03-02T12:47:07.890" UserId="4886" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="Given that the 'efficiency' of Peltier/Seebeck/thermoelectric systems is very, very bad *even under ideal conditions*, if one manufacturer comes up with a low-efficiency design, you are effectively comparing very, very bad with very, very, very bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want one of these things because they just look cool, then fine.  If you want to use it to impress your friends, then fine.  If you want to use it as an educational tool, then fine.  If you are off-grid and have zero access to electricity, then fine.  Otherwise, if you just want to mix the air in your room efficiently and inexpensively, consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 'large' 12V computer fan (e.g. the 200mm NF-A20 FLX from Noctua) can draw less than 1W when running at maximum speed (actually 0.96W @ 800RPM).  All 3-pin fans can run at lower speeds (and be much quieter) by simply dropping the voltage.  A Low Noise Adapter is included with each of the above fans, does just that, and drops RPM down to 550 and power draw to 0.66W.  At that speed it's virtually silent and circulates 100.8m&amp;sup3; per hour — which I suspect would be more than sufficient to meet your needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your search showed thermoelectric oven fans ranging between &amp;pound;25 and &amp;pound;100, then the middle of that range would be &amp;pound;62.50.  Given that a NF-A20 costs &amp;pound;27 from Amazon.uk with free delivery, you'd have &amp;pound;35.50 left over if you bought one of those instead.  If you are paying 15p/kWh, then &amp;pound;35.50 would pay for 236.667kWh of electricity.  It would take the NF-A20 about (236667/0.66=) 355,000 hours / 14,791 days / 40.5 years of *continuous use* to consume 236.67kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Mean Time Between Failure of the NF-A20 is 150,000 hours / 6,250 days / 17.1 years of *continuous use* and Noctua backs that up with a 6-year warranty.  By contrast, most thermoelectric oven fans have warranties of only a year and die around then.  Some of the better ones have 2 year warranties.  I haven't personally seen any with a 3 year (or longer) warranty.  I'd say that precisely zero have a 6 year warranty.  Most of the ones I've read about lasted between 1 and 2 years before failing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - thermoelectric fans on a seasonal duty cycle last ~2 years&#xD;&#xA; - computer fans on continuous cycle can last ~17 years&#xD;&#xA; - the money you save buying the latter can power it for ~40 years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little bit of easy math shows that thermoelectric oven fans don't make financial sense if you have access to electricity and mixing air efficiently and inexpensively is what you are actually trying to accomplish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computer fans are not the only way to mix air.  Even a regular ceiling fan would probably end up cheaper (and more effective) in the long run.  You can also do the same thing with some copper/aluminium pipe and a pipe bender — although that is definitely a different aesthetic.  There are lots of choices (none of which exploit the thermoelectric effect, and some of which are completely passive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before spending money on a thermoelectric oven fan of any kind, I'd encourage you to look into the other options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, thermoelectric oven fans are primarily an expensive gimmick/toy.  It makes virtually no sense for the vast majority of the population to own one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="c0148862-a4c7-40cd-b547-e25d09ca46d6" CreationDate="2018-03-02T12:55:38.477" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="Given that the 'efficiency' of Peltier/Seebeck/thermoelectric systems is very, very bad *even under ideal conditions*, if one manufacturer comes up with a low-efficiency design, you are effectively comparing very, very bad with very, very, very bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want one of these things because they just look cool, then fine.  If you want to use it to impress your friends, then fine.  If you want to use it as an educational tool, then fine.  If you are off-grid and have zero access to electricity, then fine.  Otherwise, if you just want to mix the air in your room efficiently and inexpensively, consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 'large' 12V computer fan (e.g. the 200mm NF-A20 FLX from Noctua) can draw less than 1W when running at maximum speed (actually 0.96W @ 800RPM).  All 3-pin fans can run at lower speeds (and be much quieter) by simply dropping the voltage.  A Low Noise Adapter is included with each of the above fans, does just that, and drops RPM down to 550 and power draw to 0.66W.  At that speed it's virtually silent and circulates 100.8m&amp;sup3; per hour — which I suspect would be more than sufficient to meet your needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your search showed thermoelectric oven fans ranging between &amp;pound;25 and &amp;pound;100, then the middle of that range would be &amp;pound;62.50.  Given that a NF-A20 costs &amp;pound;27 from Amazon.uk with free delivery, you'd have &amp;pound;35.50 left over if you bought one of those instead.  If you are paying 15p/kWh, then &amp;pound;35.50 would pay for 236.667kWh of electricity.  It would take the NF-A20 about (236667/0.66=) 355,000 hours / 14,791 days / 40.5 years of *continuous use* to consume 236.667kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Mean Time Between Failure of the NF-A20 is 150,000 hours / 6,250 days / 17.1 years of *continuous use* and Noctua backs that up with a 6-year warranty.  By contrast, most thermoelectric oven fans have warranties of only a year and die around then.  Some of the better ones have 2 year warranties.  I haven't personally seen any with a 3 year (or longer) warranty.  I'd say that precisely zero have a 6 year warranty.  Most of the ones I've read about lasted between 1 and 2 years before failing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - thermoelectric fans on a seasonal duty cycle last ~2 years&#xD;&#xA; - computer fans on continuous cycle can last ~17 years&#xD;&#xA; - the money you save buying the latter can power it for ~40 years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little bit of easy math shows that thermoelectric oven fans don't make financial sense if you have access to electricity and mixing air efficiently and inexpensively is what you are actually trying to accomplish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computer fans are not the only way to mix air.  Even a regular ceiling fan would probably end up cheaper (and more effective) in the long run.  You can also do the same thing with some copper/aluminium pipe and a pipe bender — although that is definitely a different aesthetic.  There are lots of choices (none of which exploit the thermoelectric effect, and some of which are completely passive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before spending money on a thermoelectric oven fan of any kind, I'd encourage you to look into the other options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, thermoelectric oven fans are primarily an expensive gimmick/toy.  It makes virtually no sense for the vast majority of the population to buy one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16358" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="3aae42a5-ba00-4529-8e32-d0cabaccaf10" CreationDate="2018-03-02T13:01:19.803" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="Given that the 'efficiency' of Peltier/Seebeck/thermoelectric systems is very, very bad — *even under ideal conditions* — if one manufacturer comes up with a low-efficiency design, you are effectively comparing very, very bad with very, very, very bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want one of these things because they just look cool, then fine.  If you want to use it to impress your friends, then fine.  If you want to use it as an educational tool, then fine.  If you are off-grid and have zero access to electricity, then fine.  Otherwise, if you just want to mix the air in your room efficiently and inexpensively, consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 'large' 12V computer fan (e.g. the 200mm NF-A20 FLX from Noctua) can draw less than 1W when running at maximum speed (actually 0.96W @ 800RPM).  All 3-pin fans can run at lower speeds (and be much quieter) by simply dropping the voltage.  A Low Noise Adapter is included with each of the above fans, does just that, and drops RPM down to 550 and power draw to 0.66W.  At that speed it's virtually silent and circulates 100.8m&amp;sup3; per hour — which I suspect would be more than sufficient to meet your needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your search showed thermoelectric oven fans ranging between &amp;pound;25 and &amp;pound;100, then the middle of that range would be &amp;pound;62.50.  Given that a NF-A20 costs &amp;pound;27 from Amazon.uk with free delivery, you'd have &amp;pound;35.50 left over if you bought one of those instead.  If you are paying 15p/kWh, then &amp;pound;35.50 would pay for 236.667kWh of electricity.  It would take the NF-A20 about (236667/0.66=) 355,000 hours / 14,791 days / 40.5 years of *continuous use* to consume 236.667kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Mean Time Between Failure of the NF-A20 is 150,000 hours / 6,250 days / 17.1 years of *continuous use* and Noctua backs that up with a 6-year warranty.  By contrast, most thermoelectric oven fans have warranties of only a year and die around then.  Some of the better ones have 2 year warranties.  I haven't personally seen any with a 3 year (or longer) warranty.  I doubt that any have a 6 year warranty.  Most of the ones I've read about lasted between 1 and 2 years before failing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - thermoelectric oven fans on a seasonal duty cycle last ~2 years&#xD;&#xA; - computer fans on continuous cycle can last ~17 years&#xD;&#xA; - the money you save buying the latter can power it for ~40 years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little bit of easy math shows that thermoelectric oven fans don't make financial sense if you have access to electricity and mixing air efficiently and inexpensively is what you are actually trying to accomplish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computer fans are not the only way to mix air, of course.  Even a regular ceiling fan would probably end up cheaper (and more effective) in the long run.  You can also do the same thing with some copper/aluminium pipe and a pipe bender — although that is definitely a different aesthetic.  There are lots of choices (none of which exploit the thermoelectric effect, and some of which are completely passive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before spending money on a thermoelectric oven fan of any kind, I'd encourage you to look into the other options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, thermoelectric oven fans are primarily an expensive gimmick/toy.  It makes virtually no sense for the vast majority of the population to buy one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="9e0c84d0-e60c-46d4-99e6-862325ab6c83" CreationDate="2018-03-02T13:14:56.070" UserId="4886" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Given that the 'efficiency' of Peltier/Seebeck/thermoelectric systems is very, very bad — *even under ideal conditions* — if one manufacturer comes up with a low-efficiency design, you are effectively comparing very, very bad with very, very, very bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want one of these things because they just look cool, then fine.  If you want to use it to impress your friends, then fine.  If you want to use it as an educational tool, then fine.  If you are off-grid and have zero access to electricity, then fine.  Otherwise, if you just want to mix the air in your room efficiently and inexpensively, consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 'large' 12V computer fan (e.g. the 200mm NF-A20 FLX from Noctua) can draw less than 1W when running at maximum speed (actually 0.96W @ 800RPM).  All 3-pin fans can run at lower speeds (and be much quieter) by simply dropping the voltage.  A Low Noise Adapter is included with each of the above fans, does just that, and drops RPM down to 550 and power draw to 0.66W.  At that speed it's virtually silent and circulates 100.8m&amp;sup3; per hour — which I suspect would be more than sufficient to meet your needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your search showed thermoelectric oven fans ranging between &amp;pound;25 and &amp;pound;100, then the middle of that range would be &amp;pound;62.50.  Given that a NF-A20 costs &amp;pound;27 from Amazon.uk with free delivery, you'd have &amp;pound;35.50 left over if you bought one of those instead.  If you are paying 15p/kWh, then &amp;pound;35.50 would pay for 236.667kWh of electricity.  It would take the NF-A20 about (236667/0.66=) 355,000 hours / 14,791 days / 40.5 years of *continuous use* to consume 236.667kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Mean Time Between Failure of the NF-A20 is 150,000 hours / 6,250 days / 17.1 years of *continuous use* and Noctua backs that up with a 6-year warranty.  By contrast, most thermoelectric oven fans have warranties of only a year and die around then.  Some of the better ones have 2 year warranties.  I haven't personally seen any with a 3 year (or longer) warranty.  I doubt that any have a 6 year warranty.  Most of the ones I've read about lasted between 1 and 2 years before failing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - thermoelectric oven fans on a seasonal duty cycle last ~2 years&#xD;&#xA; - computer fans on continuous cycle can last ~17 years&#xD;&#xA; - the money you save buying the latter can power it for ~40 years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little bit of easy math shows that thermoelectric oven fans don't make financial sense if you have access to electricity and mixing air efficiently and inexpensively is what you are actually trying to accomplish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computer fans are not the only way to mix air, of course.  Even a regular ceiling fan would probably end up cheaper (and be more effective) in the long run.  You can also do the same thing with some copper/aluminium pipe and a pipe bender — although that is definitely a different aesthetic.  There are lots of choices (none of which exploit the thermoelectric effect, and some of which are completely passive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before spending money on a thermoelectric oven fan of any kind, I'd encourage you to look into the other options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, thermoelectric oven fans are primarily an expensive gimmick/toy.  It makes virtually no sense for the vast majority of the population to buy one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6454" RevisionGUID="2f9436f5-86ce-49ee-91fc-368022e986b6" CreationDate="2018-03-03T09:46:38.010" UserId="5493" Text="In an &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.utdallas.edu/~jiezhang/Journals/JIE_2014_JEE_correlation.pdf&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; by Zhang et al., the authors describe how the (normalized) forecast errors of different renewable energy sources (like solar panels and wind mills) are correlated. To that end, they compute Pearson's correlation coefficient for different pairs of solar panels and wind mills. (See, for instance, page 5 of the paper.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, these pairs of renewable energy sources are located at (approximately) the same place. I wonder how the Pearson correlation coefficient for the forecast error changes according to change in distance between the two energy sources. I guess that, the bigger the distance gets, the smaller the correlation coefficient becomes. At some point, it ought to be (almost) zero. Then the forecast error distributions are independent of one another. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my questions are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; what is the relationship between the distance between two renewable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; energy sources and the Pearson correlation coefficient of their&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respective forecast error distributions? Are there any articles&#xD;&#xA;&gt; describing this relationship?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16361" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6454" RevisionGUID="2f9436f5-86ce-49ee-91fc-368022e986b6" CreationDate="2018-03-03T09:46:38.010" UserId="5493" Text="Are there any articles that describe to correlation between the forecast errors for renewable energy resources, depending on the distance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16362" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6454" RevisionGUID="2f9436f5-86ce-49ee-91fc-368022e986b6" CreationDate="2018-03-03T09:46:38.010" UserId="5493" Text="|energy|renewables|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16366" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="4904" RevisionGUID="f1927792-fd2e-4ee2-b96b-e2c251229655" CreationDate="2018-03-03T16:38:50.463" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6456" RevisionGUID="1b258273-9c48-42b4-95b2-31205304e7bd" CreationDate="2018-03-03T21:34:00.913" UserId="2183" Text="**Sustainable Consumption and Responsible Consumption are complementary terms**. Perfect sustainability means minimal environmental burden, which often leads to a reduced quality of life and sometimes, ironically, increased input consumption. Responsible consumption takes into account more factors including quality of life &amp; resource use over time but still does so in [the most efficient terms possible][1]. **Thinking through both should give the best of all worlds.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, **if an older, still working refrigerator is replaced** with a newer, more energy efficient model it involves **increased production &amp; disposal costs** to the environment but since [**the energy saved &amp; feature benefits are tremendous**][2] it mostly **offsets the burden**. If someone **sets aside a poorer quality stock pot** that has to be replaced yearly for a **much sturdier/more heat efficient pot** that will use less cooking energy, burn food less often &amp; last many, many years before needing replacement, strictly speaking, it's a non-needed purchase but again, [decreases material use overall][3] such that **it's actually the more responsible choice**. There are many, many more real-world examples, but these will get you started in a helpful decision-making path. **Good luck with your process!**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ase.org/resources/top-5-reasons-be-energy-efficient&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://homeguides.sfgate.com/decide-replace-refrigerator-26898.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.culinarylore.com/tools:tips-for-choosing-an-affordable-but-quality-stockpot" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6457" RevisionGUID="e8922909-d6a6-48a0-8ec5-732654d55dc7" CreationDate="2018-03-03T22:07:46.947" UserId="5497" Text="Well, if you are really into it and quite handy, you could turn it into activated charcoal, and then add it to your soil!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grind it into small bits, heat it anaerobically, then introduce high-pressure steam. The result will be charcoal with many fissures and cracks, which is ideal for gardening purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, before introducing it to your garden, pee on it for several weeks. Really! Collect your urine and soak the activated charcoal in it. Otherwise, it will soak up nitrogen from your soil, becoming a &quot;negative fertilizer.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, when you mix it with your garden soil, it will gently, timed-release the nitrogen you provided it, wile providing homes for lots of soil-friendly bacteria!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you get to both sequester carbon, and grow tomatoes!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that process is a bit too much, I'd think that grinding it into fine powder and soaking it in urine will be fairly effective in prepping it for &quot;terra preta&quot; use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5085" RevisionGUID="c900c690-ec8c-4062-8541-1fe6f0781b52" CreationDate="2018-03-03T23:55:50.383" UserId="2851" Comment="added economic benefit of french press coffee" Text="Which method of brewing coffee is the most sustainable? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The criteria being: minimal waste, minimal energy (no matter where it's produced)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess for the optimal solution it would be necessary to...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. use organic and fair trade coffee&#xD;&#xA; 2. not heat more water than necessary &#xD;&#xA; 3. use a French press or a similar system that produces zero waste (filters, capsules, etc.). A French pressed coffee also contains more coffeine, so that I can drink less of it. &#xD;&#xA; 4. reuse or recycle the coffee grounds, for example as garden fertilizer. &#xD;&#xA; 5. buy the coffee beans in bigger bags (to minimize waste) and grind them myself &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I missing on something or is something from this list not really necessary? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6458" RevisionGUID="e06b1720-00c4-4a41-9f4e-dd541360becd" CreationDate="2018-03-03T23:59:30.477" UserId="5498" Text="If you have access to electricity that comes from renewable sources (sun, wind, hydro, waves, biofuel) or from nuclear, then I would recommend getting a heat pump. Simply said a heat pump takes energy from the outside and puts it on the inside, sort of like a refrigerator, but done the other way around. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat pumps lower the electric usage significantly compared to heating with electricity directly, which you don’t really want to do. It can reduce your electric heating bill to a quarter [1]. I have one taking energy from the bedrock with two 100 m deep drilled holes, connected to my water bourne heating system. But you can take energy from the soil or a lake. If you have a heating system that doesn’t have water radiators then you can take the energy from the surrounding air. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-and-cool/heat-pump-systems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6459" RevisionGUID="63897c4b-2db0-426a-814e-27ac5eae7543" CreationDate="2018-03-04T00:10:57.047" UserId="5498" Text="Sustainability isn’t just about energy. It also involves other pollutants and water usage. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tea uses 100 times the volume you drink to be produced. [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And according to this [2] it takes 65 times the volume of water for one litre of Coke. But that doesn’t take into account the mining of the metal for the can, nor the transport of the Coke can (water for your tea is local), or the recycling required to melt the aluminium can again. Whereas tea is generally drunk from a reusable cup. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that the Coke is worse for the environment overall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/13/food-water-footprint_n_5952862.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] https://www.quora.com/I-have-read-that-it-takes-9-liters-of-water-to-produce-1-liter-of-Coca-Cola-Is-it-true" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6460" RevisionGUID="05586713-5deb-4d3c-898d-460eee90653e" CreationDate="2018-03-04T00:50:16.837" UserId="5499" Text="You can replace the existing &quot;dome&quot; luminaire under your ceiling fan with a &quot;fitter&quot; type luminaire.  Then you can use three or four standard Edison/E27 base 100-watt equivalent LED lamps instead of three candelabra base 40-watt equivalent LED lamps.  You'll get more light and better light distribution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A replacement &quot;ceiling fan light kit&quot; costs $25-$40 at your local hardware store and you can install it in 30 minutes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1055" RevisionGUID="7ec06612-b3bb-40f4-8215-e7dc597cb047" CreationDate="2018-03-04T06:15:39.733" UserId="610" Comment="New rating and noting my source" Text="As the question has inferred, it is logical that by not using bleach in paper products (in this case the household consumer type) it would cut cost and also save the toxins from the environment. To find the answer one must look at the bigger picture for it has to do with a number of contributing factors much larger than the bleaching of a piece of paper.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of these contributing factors is the fact that our current economic model puts zero value in nature or ecosystems.  It is based on a business mentality of survival of the fittest with “survival” meaning those that can make money in the economic conditions.  There is no benefit in conservation in a model that has no way of equating such with cost, profit, ROI, etc.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Another contributing factor is that the corporations had been given an exorbitant amount of power back in the late 1800’s.  Since this time, corporate power has increasingly gained traction in the political arena through (among other things) the power of lobbying, the landmark decision that  a corporation is a person and the filling out of the Cabinet by corporate VPs, CEOs, Board Members etc.  This ensures that the corporations’ best interests are looked out for when drafting and revising new bills. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the controlling powers in the tissue industry (wood pulp) are long-standing corporations that first made their mark in logging old growth forests such as Weyerhauser, GP and Kimberly Clark.  They like all corporations that profit off the exploitative harvesting of a natural resource that is exhaustible go through a boom and bust cycle.  When they run out of the natural resource their profit margins go down.  However, they maintain a high degree of power and influence in the political arena.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet another factor is that the pulp and paper business is what one may consider an old sector of the economy such as the railroads, mining, etc.  In such large corporations that began so long ago they are adverse to change and when they do it is much slower in comparison to say, nanotechnology.  They do not adapt well like the new sectors because their infrastructure has basically stayed the same for more than a century.  In contrast computers, chips, etc. have been made to adapt because their marketplace changes virtually overnight.       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What does this big picture stuff have to do with unbleached toilet paper you ask?**&#xD;&#xA;Nearly everything. I have just laid out a number of factors and to summarize: The “power brokers” of the logging pulp and paper industry have no incentive to change. Their business model is adverse to change. The early industrial age business model was not designed like that of today's information age companies. Not previously mentioned there is also a large, powerful industrial chemical complex that doesn’t want to lose business that will be replaced with nothing. These corporations have to answer to the board members and stockholders about projected quarterly earnings. (However, we as consumers have the power to change this through our buying habits). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there are several retail companies such as Seventh Generation and other reputable companies offer unbleached tissue but the price is expensive compared to bleached toilet paper (which is illogical unless you take into consideration the above and the next statements) .  [Seventh Generation is the #2 rated company on the planet][1] by Better World Shopper based on their overall social and environmental records.  This rating is achieved by a [5 step process which starts with over 20 years worth of data collected][2] from [a wide range of public, private and nonprofit sources.][3] To be ethical costs money in a capitalist free-market economy that does not value natural resources and workers rights (hours, wage, age, etc.). This can be applied to many things that seem illogical like organic food.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is good news. Thanks to authors like Paul Hawkens and William McDonough there is progress. There are a number of think tanks around the world such as [NEF][4], [Happy Planet Index][5], [Paecon][6] and the Cambridge Trust for New Economic Thinking that are working together to create a new economic model that values nature.  There are also more immediate action views like [Kick It Over][7] Although, these positive points may not pertain to the question, I did not want to leave my answer sounding so pessimistic ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.betterworldshopper.com/topten.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.betterworldshopper.com/rankings.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.betterworldshopper.org/research.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.neweconomics.org/our-work/entry/environment&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.happyplanetindex.org/data/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://kickitover.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6461" RevisionGUID="72cf9219-2e19-4d37-807c-2180847ce06f" CreationDate="2018-03-04T07:43:22.660" UserId="610" Text="Harte Hannks Direct Marketing and Valassis Direct Mail Inc are two major direct marketing companies you can remove yourself from.  I have provided a website with .pdf that has two mail-in removal requests for the aforementioned along with 5 steps to reducing junk mail. Having recently used it for a deceased relative I know the links provided are still good.&#xD;&#xA;[Stopwaste.org 5 Ways to Reduce Junk Mail][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a great phone app called Paper Karma that was free and works very well for ease of use and results.  One has to literally just snap a picture of the mail and more than half it recognizes the company, then click submit.  It will find the offender and report back to you when you are removed. Sometimes it will ask you to choose from a list which company it is &amp; if not shown you will need to type it in.  It keeps record of everything you have submitted with results.  It was free for years but alas all good things come to an end.  Unfortunately it is now available for purchase for $5 a month or $20 a yr.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.stopwaste.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Stop%20Junk%20Mail%20Kit.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16376" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6452" RevisionGUID="d46173d6-633e-4907-a2ad-10c8830702a5" CreationDate="2018-03-05T13:30:54.610" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/970652876879155200" />
  <row Id="16377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6462" RevisionGUID="3ae3182c-9c70-4101-8811-650b37cf6761" CreationDate="2018-03-06T22:32:49.783" UserId="5505" Text="I'm confused by what this website is telling me about the tax-credit for a geothermal heat pump:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.energy.gov/savings/residential-renewable-energy-tax-credit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A taxpayer may claim a credit of 30% of qualified expenditures for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system that serves a dwelling unit located in the United States that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is owned and used as a residence by the taxpayer. Expenditures with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; respect to the equipment are treated as made when the installation is&#xD;&#xA;&gt; completed. If the installation is at a new home, the &quot;placed in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; service&quot; date is the date of occupancy by the homeowner. Expenditures&#xD;&#xA;&gt; include labor costs for on-site preparation, assembly or original&#xD;&#xA;&gt; system installation, and for piping or wiring to interconnect a system&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to the home. If the federal tax credit exceeds tax liability, the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; excess amount may be carried forward to the succeeding taxable year.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The maximum allowable credit, equipment requirements and other details&#xD;&#xA;&gt; vary by technology, as outlined below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, it sounds like there is a 30% personal tax credit. Further down the page, there is a section specific to geothermal heat pumps, that says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Geothermal heat pumps&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 30% for systems placed in service by 12/31/2019&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 26% for systems placed in service after 12/31/2019 and before 01/01/2021&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 22% for systems placed in service after 12/31/2020 and before 01/01/2022&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - There is no maximum credit for systems placed in service after 2008.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Systems must be placed in service on or after January 1, 2008, and on or before December 31, 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The geothermal heat pump must meet federal Energy Star criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The home served by the system does not have to be the taxpayer’s principal residence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you can see the first bullet seems to confirm that it's a 30% tax credit for systems installed by 12/31/2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, then the 5th bullet throws me off. It says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Systems must be placed in service on or after January 1, 2008, and on or before December 31, 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does that 5th bullet mean? Doesn't it contradict the first bullet? I'm just trying to understand what the current tax credit is? Can anyone explain that to me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6462" RevisionGUID="3ae3182c-9c70-4101-8811-650b37cf6761" CreationDate="2018-03-06T22:32:49.783" UserId="5505" Text="What is the current tax-credit for homeowners who install a geothermal heat pump system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6462" RevisionGUID="3ae3182c-9c70-4101-8811-650b37cf6761" CreationDate="2018-03-06T22:32:49.783" UserId="5505" Text="|geothermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6463" RevisionGUID="5aa8d256-2ee3-41af-a86e-544823cf389e" CreationDate="2018-03-06T22:54:19.453" UserId="3379" Text="The [DOE page](https://www.energy.gov/savings/residential-renewable-energy-tax-credit) you linked copied this text verbatim from [DSIRE](http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/1235), the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. It looks like this specific incentive program has changed a few times, and in the process of updating the text, the conflicting bits were not corrected. Either way, from the DSIRE page, you can get to the actual IRS documents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[IRS Form 5695 (pdf)](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5695.pdf) is the 2017 tax form you would complete to get your credit for the 2017 tax year. **This form confirms the 30% credit for geothermal systems:** &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you go to the [instructions for form 5695 (pdf)](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5695.pdf), you'll find this note under &quot;What's New:&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA) extended credits.** The BBA reinstated the nonbusiness energy property credit for 2017, and it reinstated the residential energy efficient property credit for qualified small wind energy property costs, qualified geothermal heat pump property costs, and qualified fuel cell property costs to the end of 2021.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Thus, under the BBA, the 30% credit applies for all geothermal systems purchased between 1/1/2008 and 12/31/2021.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bit further down in the instructions, &quot;qualified geothermal heat pump property costs&quot; are defined (emphasis mine):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Qualified &#xD;&#xA;geothermal heat pump property costs are costs for qualified &#xD;&#xA;geothermal heat pump property installed on or in connection &#xD;&#xA;with your home located in the United States. **Qualified &#xD;&#xA;geothermal heat pump property is any equipment that uses the &#xD;&#xA;ground or ground water as a thermal energy source to heat your &#xD;&#xA;home or as a thermal energy sink to cool your home.** To qualify &#xD;&#xA;for the credit, **the geothermal heat pump property must meet the &#xD;&#xA;requirements of the Energy Star program that are in effect at the &#xD;&#xA;time of purchase**. The home doesn't have to be your main home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aKnx8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16381" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6462" RevisionGUID="bebaa52d-05f1-4454-a31f-7536eaed5266" CreationDate="2018-03-06T22:56:11.853" UserId="15" Comment="Added USA tag" Text="|usa|geothermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16386" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="02c41415-e3b7-479b-b484-bdb81615a4ba" CreationDate="2018-03-07T18:32:59.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16387" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1302" RevisionGUID="9c5d31c4-344e-445b-9aa6-4339e7ea3e53" CreationDate="2018-03-08T07:00:23.783" UserId="85" Comment="edited body" Text="I understand that the main principle in permaculture and related (e.g. Fukuoka) is that of planting a garden, which is more or less a perpetual motion machine, self-sustaining and strong enough to support a person/family/community living off it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In accordance to this principle, the most important point is to design a garden that self-sustains. For example, one idea is the fruit forest, which is supposed to be like an abandoned orchard, with plants at seven levels, as you say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Root crops are not in one particular place, but &quot;crop up&quot; all over the garden. You should only dig, when you want to harvest. And you should only harvest so much that a couple of plants flower and &quot;crop up&quot; in the next season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that sense, I think that traditional permaculture à la Mollison doesn't deal much with crops that are rotational in nature. In particular, Mollison suggests in several places that potatoes should be the staple for any gardener.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fukuoka, however, has developed a method to rotate rice and wheat (by sowing the grain in form of clay pellets to protect them from birds and insects) which is much in line with permaculture principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the basic idea is to not rotate crops, because you don't really have &quot;crops&quot;. You have a big and abundant garden, which produces fruit &amp; vegetables all year round, without having to have a sowing and harvesting season. The extent to which this works out is, of course, dependent on your climate. The reason this can work at all, according to permaculture, is good design." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1102" RevisionGUID="a75660c5-9375-47fc-96ee-4bf8e23d9d72" CreationDate="2018-03-08T20:08:53.780" UserId="1548" Comment="Corrected several inconsistencies. Organized Ideas. Added relevant information." Text="**Permaculture** is a design discipline for developing human communities &#xD;&#xA;integrated with natural environments in a sustainable way. It is founded on 3 ethical principles resumed as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Earth care&#xD;&#xA; - People care&#xD;&#xA; - Fair share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These ethics guide the use of several **design principles**, as (for example) no production of waste and the observation and interaction with natural ecosystems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term was initially developed and coined by *Bill Mollison* and *David Holmgren* in the 1970s. It was a contraction of &quot;permanent agriculture&quot; but later got expanded to mean permanent culture, due to the more broad meaning of the discipline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16395" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1102" RevisionGUID="a75660c5-9375-47fc-96ee-4bf8e23d9d72" CreationDate="2018-03-08T20:08:53.780" Comment="Proposed by 1548 approved by 85 edit id of 517" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="c52b1823-a6bc-4dba-aa07-d012dbd0d443" CreationDate="2018-03-08T23:12:19.627" UserDisplayName="user5515" Text="One thing that I do in my life is earn extra money just so I can afford organic food as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in this higher-earning job (which is not organic farming and thus not sustainable production itself), I am literally creating a bigger footprint somewhere else just to buy organic food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a metric to measure average 'environmental impact' per economic dollar, and can this then be compared to a metric for 'environmental impact' of organic vs. conventional food so that the offset of the former from the latter can be calculated?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is fine to use an isolated example for the metric on the production side if need be, e.g. organic tomatoes vs. conventional tomatoes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16399" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="c52b1823-a6bc-4dba-aa07-d012dbd0d443" CreationDate="2018-03-08T23:12:19.627" UserDisplayName="user5515" Text="How much is the environmental benefit of organic food offset by its higher economic cost when purchased?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16400" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="c52b1823-a6bc-4dba-aa07-d012dbd0d443" CreationDate="2018-03-08T23:12:19.627" UserDisplayName="user5515" Text="|environmental-impact|ecological-footprint|economics|organic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16401" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6468" RevisionGUID="f372ac25-b59a-4b39-9024-3e700bab5533" CreationDate="2018-03-09T02:49:59.260" UserId="3379" Text="I travel often for work and stay in hotels. I have observed that with no direct incentive, it's often hard to stay motivated to make such sustainable choices as taking shorter showers, running the A/C less, etc. At home I know this both saves the environment, and my pocketbook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there hotels which charge guests for the water and energy (electric and/or natural gas) which they use during their stay?** If not, what sorts of barriers prevent this from being done? Is it technological, legal, financial, cultural?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many hotels now feature a personalized &quot;channel&quot; when you turn on the TV -- I am envisioning that in addition to a greeting and weather, this could also show accumulated water and energy usage during the stay." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6468" RevisionGUID="f372ac25-b59a-4b39-9024-3e700bab5533" CreationDate="2018-03-09T02:49:59.260" UserId="3379" Text="Is it feasible and/or legal for hotels to charge guests for the utilities they use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6468" RevisionGUID="f372ac25-b59a-4b39-9024-3e700bab5533" CreationDate="2018-03-09T02:49:59.260" UserId="3379" Text="|energy|economics|water-conservation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6453" RevisionGUID="3e24472d-54a0-4747-8ffd-c9b316397d69" CreationDate="2018-03-09T12:41:18.993" UserId="4886" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Given that the 'efficiency' of Peltier/Seebeck/thermoelectric systems is very, very bad — *even under ideal conditions* — if one manufacturer comes up with a low-efficiency design, you are effectively comparing very, very bad with very, very, very bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want one of these things because they just look cool, then fine.  If you want to use it to impress your friends, then fine.  If you want to use it as an educational tool, then fine.  If you are off-grid and have zero access to electricity, then fine.  Otherwise, if you just want to mix the air in your room efficiently and inexpensively, consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 'large' 12V computer fan (e.g. the 200mm NF-A20 FLX from Noctua) can draw less than 1W when running at maximum speed (actually 0.96W @ 800RPM).  All 3-pin fans can run at lower speeds (and be much quieter) by simply dropping the voltage.  A Low Noise Adapter is included with each of the above fans, does just that, and drops RPM down to 550 and power draw to 0.66W.  At that speed it's virtually silent and circulates 100.8m&amp;sup3; per hour — which I suspect would be more than sufficient to meet your needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your search showed thermoelectric stove fans ranging between &amp;pound;25 and &amp;pound;100, then the middle of that range would be &amp;pound;62.50.  Given that a NF-A20 costs &amp;pound;27 from Amazon.uk with free delivery, you'd have &amp;pound;35.50 left over if you bought one of those instead.  If you are paying 15p/kWh, then &amp;pound;35.50 would pay for 236.667kWh of electricity.  It would take the NF-A20 about (236667/0.66=) 355,000 hours / 14,791 days / 40.5 years of *continuous use* to consume 236.667kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Mean Time Between Failure of the NF-A20 is 150,000 hours / 6,250 days / 17.1 years of *continuous use* and Noctua backs that up with a 6-year warranty.  By contrast, most thermoelectric stove fans have warranties of only a year and die around then.  Some of the better ones have 2 year warranties.  I haven't personally seen any with a 3 year (or longer) warranty.  I doubt that any have a 6 year warranty.  Most of the ones I've read about lasted between 1 and 2 years before failing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - thermoelectric stove fans on a seasonal duty cycle last ~2 years&#xD;&#xA; - computer fans on continuous cycle can last ~17 years&#xD;&#xA; - the money you save buying the latter can power it for ~40 years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little bit of easy math shows that thermoelectric stove fans don't make financial sense if you have access to electricity and mixing air efficiently and inexpensively is what you are actually trying to accomplish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computer fans are not the only way to mix air, of course.  Even a regular ceiling fan would probably end up cheaper (and be more effective) in the long run.  You can also do the same thing with some copper/aluminium pipe and a pipe bender — although that is definitely a different aesthetic.  There are lots of choices (none of which exploit the thermoelectric effect, and some of which are completely passive).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before spending money on a thermoelectric stove fan of any kind, I'd encourage you to look into the other options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, thermoelectric stove fans are primarily an expensive gimmick/toy.  It makes virtually no sense for the vast majority of the population to buy one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6469" RevisionGUID="865ebe83-d50c-45de-b344-921c50e3ee9f" CreationDate="2018-03-09T17:57:52.597" UserId="5517" Text="I'm thinking of installing some panels on the roof. It's unshaded but only pitched at 5 degrees on long run roofing iron.&#xA;&#xA;Would I be better off racking optimizing for winter sun, or just lie them flat and add more panels to compensate for lack of racking? &#xA;&#xA;I'm in Wellington, New Zealand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6469" RevisionGUID="865ebe83-d50c-45de-b344-921c50e3ee9f" CreationDate="2018-03-09T17:57:52.597" UserId="5517" Text="Is solar racking more expensive than more panels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6469" RevisionGUID="865ebe83-d50c-45de-b344-921c50e3ee9f" CreationDate="2018-03-09T17:57:52.597" UserId="5517" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6470" RevisionGUID="8eb09ada-5f45-409d-ad92-64f8729e5486" CreationDate="2018-03-09T18:06:35.293" UserId="5517" Text="They'll just rot on the ground so not useful for a mulch.&#xA;&#xA;Just put them into your compost bin, or bury them so that they might sprout for the next season though many store bought spuds are treated with sprout inhibitors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6471" RevisionGUID="e78fc3a8-556a-486c-afd4-1da4094daf8b" CreationDate="2018-03-09T19:39:16.220" UserId="3379" Text="According to the New Zealand [Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (pdf)](http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/sectors-industries/energy/energy-data-modelling/statistics/prices/electricity-prices/sales-based-residential-prices.pdf), the average home in New Zealand uses 7,046 kWh per year, and pays a rate of $0.2879/kWh (NZD). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used this as a starting point to set up a simulated solar array using [PVWatts](http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php), a very useful tool developed by the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I set up a system for Wellington, New Zealand, with the following parameters. For your purposes you'd want to determine the correct values for your proposed system and utility, and adjust the highlighted parameters accordingly. I set the azimuth to 0 degrees, meaning the simulated system is facing due north, which I assume would be optimal for a solar array in the southern hemisphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a bit of trial and error I determined that the optimal tilt for such a system is 32 degrees. The outputs for this system, and an identical system at 5 degree tilt, are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    32 degree tilt: 1,318 kWh     $380   &#xD;&#xA;     5 degree tilt: 1,211 kWh     $348&#xD;&#xA;                    -----         ----&#xD;&#xA;                      107 kWh     $ 32&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus the optimal tilt improves output by about 8%, equating to about $0.32 NZD per watt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we ignore the time value of money and assume a 20 year lifespan, you'd have `$0.32 x 20 = $6.40` to spend on labor and materials (per watt) for setting up racking at 32 degrees, or additional panels. With quotes for panels and racking installation, you could quickly determine which approach made the most sense -- though I suspect the answer will be more panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VZJ8q.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="66a9430a-80c3-4dcc-89c9-cb9ef8a4c38c" CreationDate="2018-03-09T22:36:07.657" UserId="5517" Text="The person quoting me on an off grid solution is suggesting lead nano carbon batteries instead of Lithium Ion or ordinary lead acid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this technology mature enough yet?  And is this now the way to go for off-grid solutions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16411" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="66a9430a-80c3-4dcc-89c9-cb9ef8a4c38c" CreationDate="2018-03-09T22:36:07.657" UserId="5517" Text="Lead nano carbon batteries over Lithium?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16412" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="66a9430a-80c3-4dcc-89c9-cb9ef8a4c38c" CreationDate="2018-03-09T22:36:07.657" UserId="5517" Text="|off-grid|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="12417089-fd55-4168-a6b7-d11cfde51b6f" CreationDate="2018-03-10T20:48:50.803" UserId="5517" Text="Due to limitations on the street fuse we are going to make a new house ( 50 m2 ) a hybrid off-grid solution that is at the rear of an existing house which is on the grid.  So, this means we can charge any batteries during the night ( eg. 23:00 - 8:00 ) from the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if we can say estimate that the max draw from the new house is 30A, and estimate heating and other expected loads, how do we size the batteries and PV array.  And given that we can charge from the grid, do we even need a PV array?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16414" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="12417089-fd55-4168-a6b7-d11cfde51b6f" CreationDate="2018-03-10T20:48:50.803" UserId="5517" Text="How to size an PV array?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16415" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="12417089-fd55-4168-a6b7-d11cfde51b6f" CreationDate="2018-03-10T20:48:50.803" UserId="5517" Text="|solar-power|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6469" RevisionGUID="df2a5a62-d4cd-407f-803c-d75aa5876963" CreationDate="2018-03-10T22:06:29.730" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title, tags. Minor editing." Text="I'm thinking of installing some panels on the roof. It's unshaded but only pitched at 5 degrees on long run roofing iron.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would I be better off racking at an angle to optimize for winter sun, or just lie them flat and add more panels to compensate for lack of racking? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in Wellington, New Zealand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16417" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6469" RevisionGUID="df2a5a62-d4cd-407f-803c-d75aa5876963" CreationDate="2018-03-10T22:06:29.730" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title, tags. Minor editing." Text="Cost benefit analysis of a PV array with racking to set optimal angle, vs a larger array" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16418" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6469" RevisionGUID="df2a5a62-d4cd-407f-803c-d75aa5876963" CreationDate="2018-03-10T22:06:29.730" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title, tags. Minor editing." Text="|energy|solar-power|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16419" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6468" RevisionGUID="0d0b8aaf-194e-4f18-a027-3fd97da1db64" CreationDate="2018-03-11T07:43:56.997" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/972739888725528576" />
  <row Id="16421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6474" RevisionGUID="3936baae-c51e-4205-b420-dfd25259ad88" CreationDate="2018-03-11T11:19:11.760" UserId="2345" Text="One of the issues I think would be cost of installing water and electricity meters for each room, including the associated labor cost. It would add to the capital cost of the building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other issue is with reading the meters. Do you trust a human to correctly read the meters on a daily basis, at check-out times? This adds to the operating costs of the hotel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid this, all the meters could be rigged to be read electronically, which again, would add to the capital cost of the hotel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, someone has to pay for such additional costs and that will be the people staying at the hotels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this were to happen, then all hotels would need to be made to install such technology otherwise those that don't will have a price advantage over those that do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6474" RevisionGUID="58a84579-b100-4530-a4fc-07b2c8c497af" CreationDate="2018-03-11T13:19:49.360" UserId="2345" Comment="added more details" Text="One of the issues I think would be cost of installing water and electricity meters for each room, including the associated labor cost. It would add to the capital cost of the building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other issue is with reading the meters. Do you trust a human to correctly read the meters on a daily basis, at check-out times? This adds to the operating costs of the hotel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To avoid this, all the meters could be rigged to be read electronically, which again, would add to the capital cost of the hotel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, someone has to pay for such additional costs and that will be the people staying at the hotels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this were to happen, then all hotels would need to be made to install such technology otherwise those that don't will have a price advantage over those that do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**_Edit:_**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things that I have noticed how hotels try to limit the amount of electricity and water people use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some hotels I have seen notices in bathrooms asking people to consider placing used towels on the towel rack, if they are staying in the room for more than one night, so the towel can be reused by the occupants again. This supposedly saves water and electricity that would have been used to wash the towels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most hotel rooms have limited numbers of available power outlets for occupants to plug in personal devices and sometimes the power outlets are in awkward locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing that I noticed is some hotels have limited numbers of lights in the room and the lights are low wattage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some hotels that still use keys for access sometimes attach a plastic &quot;tag&quot; attached to the key ring and if the occupant wants to use the air conditioner the tag has to be placed into a special slot near the door. When the occupant leaves the room the keys are removed from the slot and the air conditioner automatically turns off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6475" RevisionGUID="703f0392-c068-4c52-9452-705957ea6c6c" CreationDate="2018-03-11T19:49:28.720" UserId="5517" Text="Unless you have your own biogas reactor then gas is not a renewable resource. Furthermore, you may be paying for both a line charge for gas as well as the line charges for electricity.&#xA;&#xA;Heat pumps are also the most efficient way to heat your house in most, but not all climates, and run on electricity.&#xA;&#xA;Ultimately it depends on how the electricity is generated, and if there is a significant component of that power generation from non renewable resources then you may be better off with gas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16424" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="0eb786a5-c910-4382-ac31-5317e12351d2" CreationDate="2018-03-11T22:13:38.360" UserId="15" Comment="Added tag" Text="|batteries|off-grid|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16425" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="1ddf1de5-c1a6-48eb-ad01-3e89d0d02fc0" CreationDate="2018-03-11T23:49:57.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6475" RevisionGUID="86acd960-337f-4ed5-b002-006a9c8981b1" CreationDate="2018-03-12T17:36:26.453" UserId="5517" Comment="added more data" Text="Unless you have your own or community biogas reactor then gas is not a renewable resource.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Since the 1970s, China has been promoting the use of underground, individual household scale, anaerobic digesters to process rural organic wastes. There are approximately 5,000,000 households using anaerobic digesters in China. The digesters produce biogas that is used as an energy source by the households, and produce fertilizer that is used in agricultural production.&#xA;&#xA;http://www.cityfarmer.org/biogasPaul.html&#xA;&#xA; Furthermore, you may be paying for both a line charge for gas as well as the line charges for electricity with dual connections.&#xA;&#xA;Heat pumps are also the most efficient way to heat your house in most, but not all climates, and run on electricity.&#xA;&#xA;Ultimately it depends on how the electricity is generated, and if there is a significant component of that power generation from non renewable resources then you may be better off with gas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="d73061a1-c28b-4602-bbf5-2f3b725723ea" CreationDate="2018-03-12T21:26:40.900" UserId="5517" Text="The bedding is there for the worms to escape problems if the feed becomes toxic, or too hot so you'll need enough for all the worms to hide there.&#xA;&#xA;https://www.mjguide.com/tutorials/Organics/1723.htm&#xA;&#xA;And a warning ...&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Avoid Common Worm Bedding Mistakes&#xA;&#xA;The correct mix of different worm bedding materials is very important.  For instance, one of my new worm farmers called.  He was using 100% peat moss  as bedding for his worm growing beds.  If he had continued using this mix of worm bedding, the result would have been disastrous.  Why?&#xA;Peat moss, when used exclusively, must be changed out every 14 days or a very unhealthy bedding condition will result.  This unhealthy condition sickens the worms and they will eventually die or crawl away.&#xA;&#xA;After a couple of weeks, peat moss becomes coated and sticky, worms develop protein poisoning and become unable to digest their food.  Protein poisoning is the most common reason for worm die-off and must be avoided at all costs.&#xA;&#xA;Solution?  Combine peat moss, in a 50/50 ratio, with:&#xA;&#xA;Aged horse/cow manure&#xA;&#xA;Shredded paper&#xA;&#xA;Shavings&#xA;&#xA;Aged saw dust&#xA;&#xA;Moisten these bedding materials at least 36 hours ahead of time.  Before introducing your worms, check the PH level and moisture content. &#xA;&#xA;http://www.wormfarmbusiness.com/2011/01/worm-bedding-for-worm-farm.html?m=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6477" RevisionGUID="8412e3d4-482b-462f-86fb-cced3259d93f" CreationDate="2018-03-12T23:00:47.507" UserId="5478" Text="FWIW: over 30° they can **basically** be considered self-cleaning; below that, not so much. If your location is dusty, know that you may lose as much as *15%-20%* in dirt-based occlusion between cleanings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back when I was working for a renewable energy contractor, we'd advise the angle just based on that alone; the exception to that was if the user was utility grid-tied and on time-of-use metering, sometimes the better $$ was to not angle, if the timing of their best sun angle aligned with their peak cost of power. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you ***are*** grid-tied, look at your power purchase agreement: if ***not*** time of use, *angle them*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6478" RevisionGUID="f3a34d04-39b5-4091-a41f-51077bf1a498" CreationDate="2018-03-12T23:00:55.257" UserId="5523" Text="I don't know about to what extent it currently exists, but I can imagine it could be implemented successfully with a &quot;reasonable usage&quot; policy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my experience as a customer, being asked to pay very exact, tiny amounts for one thing or another is often frustrating, especially if I've paid good money for something like a hotel room. However, when my phone company says I will not  be charged excess for roaming (EU laws) but there is a reasonable usage policy, that seems perfect - I don't have to count KBs and I can feel comfortable checking my email abroad. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my experience having help run a hostel, reputation is everything, and making big outlays for equipment is difficult for a small business (electricity meters, water meters etc.) This is where it gets difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a business did have the funds to put electricity meters on every room and retrofit water meters etc., you'd have to ask if monitoring/charging people for what they use was more ecological in the long run, than investing in Solar PV, solar water, Rainwater harvesting etc. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6476" RevisionGUID="06139ba5-d889-4f05-b738-5a659dd0580a" CreationDate="2018-03-12T23:11:54.287" UserId="5517" Comment="formatting " Text="The bedding is there for the worms to escape problems if the feed becomes toxic, or too hot so you'll need enough for all the worms to hide there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.mjguide.com/tutorials/Organics/1723.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a warning ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Avoid Common Worm Bedding Mistakes**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The correct mix of different worm bedding materials is very important.  For instance, one of my new worm farmers called.  He was using 100% peat moss  as bedding for his worm growing beds.  If he had continued using this mix of worm bedding, the result would have been disastrous.  Why?&#xD;&#xA;Peat moss, when used exclusively, must be changed out every 14 days or a very unhealthy bedding condition will result.  This unhealthy condition sickens the worms and they will eventually die or crawl away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a couple of weeks, peat moss becomes coated and sticky, worms develop protein poisoning and become unable to digest their food.  Protein poisoning is the most common reason for worm die-off and must be avoided at all costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solution?  Combine peat moss, in a 50/50 ratio, with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Aged horse/cow manure&#xD;&#xA; 2. Shredded paper&#xD;&#xA; 3. Shavings&#xD;&#xA; 4. Aged saw dust&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(ie. mainly high carbon sources.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moisten these bedding materials at least 36 hours ahead of time.  Before introducing your worms, check the PH level and moisture content. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.wormfarmbusiness.com/2011/01/worm-bedding-for-worm-farm.html?m=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6472" RevisionGUID="d9c7f5a6-3f43-4a1e-9a3a-0d20f8aeb0f1" CreationDate="2018-03-12T23:32:39.543" UserId="5517" Comment="added more explanation" Text="The person quoting me on an off grid solution is suggesting lead nano carbon batteries instead of Lithium Ion or ordinary lead acid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this technology mature enough yet?  And is this now the way to go for off-grid solutions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** This the [link](http://en.naradapower.com/index.php/products/info/14?ctype=46) I was given by the supplier. These are Chinese batteries that don't mention __nano__ at all.  This seems to be technology which allows the battery to operate at partial state of charge without the same risks of hard sulphation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ALC is being tested as a replacement for the classic starter battery in start-stop applications and in 48V micro and mild hybrid systems. Rapid charging on regenerative breaking is a decisive advantage with these batteries, a task that is difficult to achieve with regular lead acid. Although larger and heavier than Li-ion, the ALC is low-cost, operates at subfreezing temperatures and does not need active cooling — advantages Li-ion cannot claim. Unlike regular lead acid, lead carbon can operate between 30 and 70 percent state-of-charge without fear of becoming sulfated. The ALC is said to outlive the regular lead acid battery, but the negative is a rapid voltage drop on discharge, resembling that of a supercapacitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/new_lead_acid_systems" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6479" RevisionGUID="ed487fb3-e032-4ba8-8ebd-b1de84fcef24" CreationDate="2018-03-12T23:40:42.480" UserId="5517" Text="The reason to practice crop rotation, and that basically means avoiding planting the same plants (or same family of plants) in the same location, is for pest and disease avoidance.  Some vegetables and herbs such as garlic, beans etc are prone to rust so you want to practice a 3 year rotation to avoid diseases.  And in addition you want to practice growing green manures to replenish the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Quite often the reason why accomplished vegetable gardeners run into major issues with productivity and diseases in their vegetable garden is because they’re not practising crop rotation. They may make the mistake of designing a permanent garden patch for tomatoes, or putting aside a favourite spot in the garden for growing broccoli, and then  plant the same vegetables in the same location, year after year, which is a sure recipe for garden problems!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://deepgreenpermaculture.com/articles-and-discussions-2/crop-rotation-systems-for-annual-vegetables/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6480" RevisionGUID="399cb148-bbbb-487e-ab33-baeb8d530fd9" CreationDate="2018-03-13T11:19:17.997" UserId="5524" Text="You could try cow dung as a &quot;fine-tuned enzymatic cocktail&quot;. Cows break down grass by hosting lots of mirco-organisms. They might do the work for you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16434" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="50d1bbde-11bf-47a4-83d5-2f31a0bd95f1" CreationDate="2018-03-13T12:52:49.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6481" RevisionGUID="f614e5e1-beda-445e-bdab-5d71a534ed2d" CreationDate="2018-03-13T14:52:57.147" UserId="5478" Text="*If* a given homeowner is generally technically capable &amp; often home, maintenance for single-axis trackers can be dealt with easily: the primary reason solar installers and integrators have avoided trackers has been that the most common ***failure** modes* result in the tracker canting sideways to one or the other arc endstops, meaning that array then runs at **worst** efficacy through most of the diurnal cycle until repaired.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt; *If* the owner is observant, has the skills, and repairs the given tracker immediately, typical gains are ~ 20%; this is why more panels is a better bet for the $$!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16437" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6469" RevisionGUID="fac46d9f-4378-412d-a8b0-04cfa27af164" CreationDate="2018-03-13T19:50:30.373" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/973647508982452225" />
  <row Id="16439" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6467" RevisionGUID="e09b9ae4-ddfe-41ea-8c75-743aa49f0a00" CreationDate="2018-03-14T10:50:36.003" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/973874024102158336" />
  <row Id="16440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6482" RevisionGUID="6981045a-3e0f-4995-9c76-9a52c0459400" CreationDate="2018-03-14T18:03:45.540" UserId="1692" Text="&gt; Is there a metric to measure average 'environmental impact' per economic dollar?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that this is possible. If you're working in the oil and gas sector, your environmental impact per dollar you earn is going to be very high. If, on the other hand, you work at a telecommunications company like I do, or at a law firm, your environmental impact per dollar you earn is going to be very low. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same thing goes for farming. It's also worth noting that there are better ways to reduce the carbon footprint of produce than organic farming. No-till methods are one of them. But try getting that added as some kind of thing that you see in the grocery store. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6483" RevisionGUID="0e577cab-fc56-404e-b964-e2a7c1c612b3" CreationDate="2018-03-14T18:23:40.563" UserId="1692" Text="&gt; The only option that I can see which would be win-win would be to take public transport to the supermarket and use my reusable bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hardly. I present, the bike trailer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For five years, I actually had a trailer specifically for hauling my two kids around in (the Cheetah Chariot 2 kid version, now owned by Thule), but it would do double-duty as a stroller *and* a shopping cart while I was in the store. Then, I'd hook it up to the bike, full of groceries (and kid!), and I could drive it right to my door, making it even more convenient than driving a car. The Cheetah was also great in that it did a very good job of keeping its contents out of the weather. If the kids weren't in it, I could fit as much stuff as you can put in the trunk of practically any car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your circumstances may vary, but for those five years, I did not own a car at all. I didn't own a car for the five years previous to that either, but the trailer I only got after we started having kids. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second best option, which is more expensive and not quite as good for the environment, is to just buy an electric car. That's the way we do it now, but it's mostly a function of where we live, to help care for my father-in-law. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FYsU5.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6484" RevisionGUID="f0ae2bba-ac99-45bd-8e82-f54513df57f1" CreationDate="2018-03-14T20:15:02.853" UserId="3379" Text="[This answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/945/3379) to another question brought up the point that &quot;recycling&quot; of plastic is often more accurately &quot;**downcycling**.&quot; From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Downcycling**, also referred to as **cascading**, describes the recycling of waste in cases where the recycled material is of lower quality and functionality than the original material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is this effect quantified in the case of plastics? For instance, if I send in 100 high-quality plastic water bottles for recycling, what sorts of things can be made from the resulting materials? And what after that? How many steps are there? At what point do the intermediate steps become unusable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16443" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6484" RevisionGUID="f0ae2bba-ac99-45bd-8e82-f54513df57f1" CreationDate="2018-03-14T20:15:02.853" UserId="3379" Text="How many times can plastic be recylced?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16444" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6484" RevisionGUID="f0ae2bba-ac99-45bd-8e82-f54513df57f1" CreationDate="2018-03-14T20:15:02.853" UserId="3379" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6486" RevisionGUID="f9139034-10f5-4b4a-9006-efd7031788ef" CreationDate="2018-03-14T23:37:25.237" UserId="5517" Text="HDPE plastic, which is the most common plastic recycled, can be recycled indefinitely. However, some industries that use HDPE for their products eg. garden pots, ropes etc it is cheaper to use recycled HDPE than purchase virgin HDPE.  And this is why it is downcycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it is not autoclavable it is not possible to do non-destructive sterilization of food containers made from HDPE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recycling HDPE has many benefits. For example, it is more cost efficient to produce a product from recycled HDPE than it is to manufacture ‘virgin’ plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HDPE, like many plastic polymers, is produced using considerable amounts of fossil fuels and it takes a total of 1.75kg of oil to manufacture just 1kg of HDPE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16447" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6484" RevisionGUID="914e58a3-083f-4e65-a49e-66367eba57e9" CreationDate="2018-03-15T14:02:56.220" UserId="5517" Comment="typo correction" Text="How many times can plastic be recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16448" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6484" RevisionGUID="914e58a3-083f-4e65-a49e-66367eba57e9" CreationDate="2018-03-15T14:02:56.220" Comment="Proposed by 5517 approved by 3379 edit id of 520" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6487" RevisionGUID="f9457e79-45d7-4b96-854c-e41bd69929fe" CreationDate="2018-03-15T14:39:49.363" UserId="4834" Text="Specifically to the point of what you can do while complying with [the relevant USDA Organic standards][1] (and disregarding what might be a &quot;good idea&quot; or &quot;fine with you or me&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot apply them directly to your organic garden without contradicting the USDA Organic standards ((c)(3) - &quot;in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by ... residues of prohibited substances&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot compost them and apply the compost to your organic garden without contradicting the USDA Organic standards ((d)(1) - &quot;The producer must not use ... Any ... composted plant ... material that contains a synthetic substance not included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may compost them, apply the compost to a non-organic biomass production system (for example, sod/hay), cultivate that non-organic biomass production system for three years in a manner which allows you to transition to organic biomass production at the end of that period, then apply biomass collected from that system to your organic garden (either directly as mulch or after composting).  (This is harder to cite: essentially, but the idea here is that you can use them as a non-approved input and then spend the three years converting to Organic, then use the output - which is Organic - as an approved input.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=def7997a8ff17a81a5f7494c8a367002&amp;mc=true&amp;node=se7.3.205_1203&amp;rgn=div8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6488" RevisionGUID="66bf71d2-ba53-4ea1-9373-31b12889709a" CreationDate="2018-03-15T15:19:33.600" UserId="4834" Text="The maximum draw won't have a _huge_ impact on your decisions about battery and panel capacity.  Instead, the maximum draw imposes a requirement on the inverter you'll use to convert direct current (DC) from the batteries to alternating current (AC) for the house.  Assuming you want AC in the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you try to draw more than the maximum the inverter you select is capable of, you'll trip a breaker in the inverter and lose power until you reset it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To determine the battery capacity, you need to determine how much power you think you will actually use and then decide what proportion of that you want the battery to be able to supply.  Then you need to decide on a charging schedule (I will assume 1 full charge per day for the rest of this post).  For example, if you use 10kWh/day and you want the battery to supply half of that (with the balance made up by daytime PV production, grid draw, or disrupted service), then you need a battery that can supply 5kWh.  (If your power usage took the form of a single instantaneous load, there would be additional factors.  I will assume it is relatively evenly spread through a 24 hour power, perhaps with a few peak usage times that are around twice off-peak usage.  Note also that taking power from the battery is not 100% efficient so you will actually have less than 5kWh delivered to household loads at the point that you have taken 5kWh from the battery.  Factor this in by making the battery slightly larger than you think.  Exactly how much larger depends on how efficient you think the system might be.  Higher DC voltages tend to be more efficient than lower DC voltages.  The inverter will have an efficiency rating.  Consider these and come up with a number.  75% efficient might be a reasonable ballpark guess, ignorant of any specifics of what system components you select.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The maximum regular depth of discharge of a lead-acid battery is 50%.  This means that a 10kWh lead-acid battery can supply your 5kWh (50% of the total rated capacity).  Lead-acid battery lifetime is greatly extended by reducing depth of discharge.  If you wanted to limit yourself to 25% depth of discharge you would need 20kWh (of which 5kWh is 25%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you select a battery capacity, you can size your solar panels.  The panels need to be able to replace the power you take from the batteries.  If you plan to take 5kWh from the battery each day, you need to replace 5kWh each day.  (Again, putting power into the battery is not 100% efficient.  You will need to generate more than 5kWh to put 5kWh into your battery.)  Next, decide how much power you want to replace from PV and how much you want to replace from the grid.  If you select lead-acid, you don't _really_ have the option not to recharge fully once each day.  The act of _existing_ at a low state of charge (even with no load) damages lead-acid batteries and reduces their lifespan.  You don't want to take a 50% discharge from your battery and then spend a week recharging it.  You want it back to 100% as soon as possible (with a daily charge cycle many folks take about 12 hours to get back to 100% charge).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, consider what the point of all this is.  You have a grid tie.  You don't seem overly concerned with cutting your carbon footprint (you asked whether you should bother with PV at all).  You will end up spending a lot of money for this equipment.  If you don't go with PV to charge your batteries, all you're doing is introducing inefficiency into the system (well, if you set it up right, you may be gaining backup power for grid failures, too).  You said this project is &quot;due to limitations on the street fuse&quot;.  If that's the case, how do you plan to use the grid to recharge your batteries?  Maybe you're trying to use the batteries as a load leveling system?  If that's the case, many of the factors involved may be different and a different set of technologies may be more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6488" RevisionGUID="1783667e-2066-488e-9ac5-e46ed38ef759" CreationDate="2018-03-15T19:30:56.700" UserId="4834" Comment="some comments about battery technology" Text="The maximum draw won't have a _huge_ impact on your decisions about battery and panel capacity.  Instead, the maximum draw imposes a requirement on the inverter you'll use to convert direct current (DC) from the batteries to alternating current (AC) for the house.  Assuming you want AC in the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you try to draw more than the maximum the inverter you select is capable of, you'll trip a breaker in the inverter and lose power until you reset it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To determine the battery capacity, you need to determine how much power you think you will actually use and then decide what proportion of that you want the battery to be able to supply.  Then you need to decide on a charging schedule (I will assume 1 full charge per day for the rest of this post).  For example, if you use 10kWh/day and you want the battery to supply half of that (with the balance made up by daytime PV production, grid draw, or disrupted service), then you need a battery that can supply 5kWh.  (If your power usage took the form of a single instantaneous load, there would be additional factors.  I will assume it is relatively evenly spread through a 24 hour power, perhaps with a few peak usage times that are around twice off-peak usage.  Note also that taking power from the battery is not 100% efficient so you will actually have less than 5kWh delivered to household loads at the point that you have taken 5kWh from the battery.  Factor this in by making the battery slightly larger than you think.  Exactly how much larger depends on how efficient you think the system might be.  Higher DC voltages tend to be more efficient than lower DC voltages.  The inverter will have an efficiency rating.  Consider these and come up with a number.  75% efficient might be a reasonable ballpark guess, ignorant of any specifics of what system components you select.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The maximum regular depth of discharge of a lead-acid battery is 50%.  This means that a 10kWh lead-acid battery can supply your 5kWh (50% of the total rated capacity).  Lead-acid battery lifetime is greatly extended by reducing depth of discharge.  If you wanted to limit yourself to 25% depth of discharge you would need 20kWh (of which 5kWh is 25%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you select a battery capacity, you can size your solar panels.  The panels need to be able to replace the power you take from the batteries.  If you plan to take 5kWh from the battery each day, you need to replace 5kWh each day.  (Again, putting power into the battery is not 100% efficient.  You will need to generate more than 5kWh to put 5kWh into your battery.)  Next, decide how much power you want to replace from PV and how much you want to replace from the grid.  If you select lead-acid, you don't _really_ have the option not to recharge fully once each day.  The act of _existing_ at a low state of charge (even with no load) damages lead-acid batteries and reduces their lifespan.  You don't want to take a 50% discharge from your battery and then spend a week recharging it.  You want it back to 100% as soon as possible (with a daily charge cycle many folks take about 12 hours to get back to 100% charge).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for battery type, chances are lead-acid is going to be the best choice for you.  Lithium-ion is sexy right now but consider its advantages: energy density.  If you're building a car, great: pack as much energy in to as little mass as you can.  If you're filling a battery shed... well, chances are you're _not_ *filling* it.  You're going to have space left over.  And what are the disadvantages of lithium-ion: high total cost of ownership (higher per-Wh cost, lower cycle count than lead-acid).  So you can have sexy but you've got to pay for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be special circumstances where the general reasoning doesn't follow but you haven't given any hints that you're in such a circumstance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(One interesting case may be that you already own an electric car or two.  In that case, you have your battery already.  It's in your car.  Why buy another one?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, consider what the point of all this is.  You have a grid tie.  You don't seem overly concerned with cutting your carbon footprint (you asked whether you should bother with PV at all).  You will end up spending a lot of money for this equipment.  If you don't go with PV to charge your batteries, all you're doing is introducing inefficiency into the system (well, if you set it up right, you may be gaining backup power for grid failures, too).  You said this project is &quot;due to limitations on the street fuse&quot;.  If that's the case, how do you plan to use the grid to recharge your batteries?  Maybe you're trying to use the batteries as a load leveling system?  If that's the case, many of the factors involved may be different and a different set of technologies may be more appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6489" RevisionGUID="7b3dcacd-aabe-4248-8b22-7a7f0f411b49" CreationDate="2018-03-16T03:50:25.297" UserId="5530" Text="I have an assignment to research innovate design solutions to increase recycling rates, in particular recycling rates among university students.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found an excellent research report on topic (but no innovative design solutions), and an Australian university's report on their recycling program, which focused on things like adding recycling bins next to general waste bins, and other general strategies, but I am having trouble finding (or Googling) innovate design solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16453" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6489" RevisionGUID="7b3dcacd-aabe-4248-8b22-7a7f0f411b49" CreationDate="2018-03-16T03:50:25.297" UserId="5530" Text="Innovative design solutions to increase recycling rates among university students" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16454" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6489" RevisionGUID="7b3dcacd-aabe-4248-8b22-7a7f0f411b49" CreationDate="2018-03-16T03:50:25.297" UserId="5530" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="e64494c8-9bef-4ca4-ab03-ef32c9c2cf4e" CreationDate="2018-03-16T11:58:15.943" UserId="5532" Text="Our new house has a garden and part of the fence needs to be replaced. Part of what needs replacing is the pole that holds the lock for the garden-door.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last year, we replaced that part of the fence with a fence made of woven branches, 2 to 5 cm in diameter. We did not use the garden enterance then, but i really want to start using it (because dragging the bicycle through the house to the garden shed is a pain.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyaway, a year after we put the fence up, half the branches were completely rotten, and the whole thing litteraly fell apart. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe hanging a untreated fence made of woven branches or bamboo about 30 cm off the ground would make it a lot more durable. If we go for this option we would just need a durable pole to put in the ground. There is a pole of something like concrete at the other end, we could suspend the fence in-between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or we could put up a fence that starts at ground level, at least making it less easy for neighbour's cats to come shit in our garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - impregnated wood: the greenish type. Either just the pole or a whole fence.&#xD;&#xA; - a 'baked' wood pole or entire fence. Heating the wood makes it suitable for outdoor use, but also quite expensive.&#xD;&#xA; - a tar-impregnated woorden pole, hang untreated fence from it.&#xD;&#xA; - a stone, brick or concrete pole, hang untreated fence from it. (Is this a DYI project?&#xD;&#xA; - a plastic pole of fence?&#xD;&#xA; - ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="e64494c8-9bef-4ca4-ab03-ef32c9c2cf4e" CreationDate="2018-03-16T11:58:15.943" UserId="5532" Text="Garden fence - order options by most sustainable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="e64494c8-9bef-4ca4-ab03-ef32c9c2cf4e" CreationDate="2018-03-16T11:58:15.943" UserId="5532" Text="|gardening|woodwork|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="e32bbbd7-6cbe-456e-87f6-e8676754feb6" CreationDate="2018-03-16T12:13:42.443" UserId="5532" Comment="Edded link to explain thermally modified wood" Text="Our new house has a garden and part of the fence needs to be replaced. Part of what needs replacing is the pole that holds the lock for the garden-door.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last year, we replaced that part of the fence with a fence made of woven branches, 2 to 5 cm in diameter. We did not use the garden enterance then, but i really want to start using it (because dragging the bicycle through the house to the garden shed is a pain.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyaway, a year after we put the fence up, half the branches were completely rotten, and the whole thing litteraly fell apart. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe hanging a untreated fence made of woven branches or bamboo about 30 cm off the ground would make it a lot more durable. If we go for this option we would just need a durable pole to put in the ground. There is a pole of something like concrete at the other end, we could suspend the fence in-between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or we could put up a fence that starts at ground level, at least making it less easy for neighbour's cats to come shit in our garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - impregnated wood: the greenish type. Either just the pole or a whole fence.&#xD;&#xA; - a ['baked' wood][1] pole or entire fence. Heating the wood makes it suitable for outdoor use, but also quite expensive.&#xD;&#xA; - a tar-impregnated woorden pole, hang untreated fence from it.&#xD;&#xA; - a stone, brick or concrete pole, hang untreated fence from it. (Is this a DYI project?&#xD;&#xA; - a plastic pole of fence?&#xD;&#xA; - ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermally_modified_wood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="1365c7aa-17d0-4275-8d80-92d1b5e40a2f" CreationDate="2018-03-16T14:15:40.853" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Added an actual question" Text="Our new house has a garden, and part of the fence needs to be replaced. Part of what needs replacing is the pole that holds the lock for the garden-door.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last year, we replaced that part of the fence with a fence made of woven branches, 2 to 5 cm in diameter. We did not use the garden entrance then, but I really want to start using it (because dragging the bicycle through the house to the garden shed is a pain.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, a year after we put the fence up, half the branches were completely rotten, and the whole thing literally fell apart. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe hanging a untreated fence made of woven branches or bamboo about 30 cm off the ground would make it a lot more durable. If we go for this option we would just need a durable pole to put in the ground. There is a pole of something like concrete at the other end, we could suspend the fence in-between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or we could put up a fence that starts at ground level, at least making it less easy for our neighbour's cats to come shit in our garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - impregnated wood: the greenish type. Either just the pole or a whole fence.&#xD;&#xA; - a ['baked' wood][1] pole or entire fence. Heating the wood makes it suitable for outdoor use, but also quite expensive.&#xD;&#xA; - a tar-impregnated woorden pole, hang untreated fence from it.&#xD;&#xA; - a stone, brick or concrete pole, hang untreated fence from it. (Is this a DYI project?&#xD;&#xA; - a plastic pole of fence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you recommend as a sustainable solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermally_modified_wood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16460" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="1365c7aa-17d0-4275-8d80-92d1b5e40a2f" CreationDate="2018-03-16T14:15:40.853" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 5532 edit id of 521" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6491" RevisionGUID="1eb14ecd-4a15-4ce3-8d1d-d67c474c8b7a" CreationDate="2018-03-16T16:55:24.293" UserId="4834" Text="A wooden fence of a rot-resistant material should give you many years of service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the various parts of the United States, consider Thuja plicata (&quot;Western red cedar&quot;), Robinia pseudoacacia (&quot;Black locust&quot;), or another similar material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can probably search for a rot-resistant wood that is more readily available in your area (or update your question to indicate generally what part of the world you are in and perhaps someone else can find a good option for you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16462" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6486" RevisionGUID="888b3cc4-ae2d-4a0b-83ab-51c159282b02" CreationDate="2018-03-16T21:28:19.060" UserId="5517" Comment="added comments into the answer" Text="HDPE plastic is usually shredded, melted and then pelletized where the pellets are then used to create new HDPE products.  It can theoretically be recycled indefinitely except that usually contamination appears from other plastic fibres and the contents of HDPE containers so that this is practically limited to 7-8 recycles. One company, Carbios, has developed an enzymatic approach to recycle PET to potentially allow [infinite recycling](https://waste-management-world.com/a/enzymatic-recycling-process-to-allow-infinite-recycling-of-pet-developed-in-france), and they are attempting to expand their process to include [other plastics](https://labiotech.eu/carbios-technipfmc-pet-recycling/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For many non-food HDPE products it is cheaper to purchase recycled pellets to use in manufacturing than to use virgin plastics. If one considers plant containers etc to be of a lower utility than food containers then one could say that this is downcycling of the plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recycling HDPE has many benefits. For example, it is more cost efficient to produce a product from recycled HDPE than it is to manufacture ‘virgin’ plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HDPE, like many plastic polymers, is produced using considerable amounts of fossil fuels and it takes a total of 1.75kg of oil to manufacture just 1kg of HDPE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it is not autoclavable it is not possible to do non-destructive sterilization of food containers made from HDPE.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16463" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6411" RevisionGUID="8344d6a8-dbba-4ed2-a9dc-bdeb6719c9e2" CreationDate="2018-03-17T10:14:49.860" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16464" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="4b861392-b304-48e6-9a67-c0bfa075d5fa" CreationDate="2018-03-17T11:12:46.520" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/974966768887312385" />
  <row Id="16465" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="ea9d05d7-a012-4a4c-94de-39285218587c" CreationDate="2018-03-17T11:14:50.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6468" RevisionGUID="dbb7a705-fb6b-4ed3-bd32-f8fd85b8e516" CreationDate="2018-03-17T15:04:50.010" UserId="3379" Comment="Added sources, limited scope." Text="I travel often for work and stay in hotels. I have observed that with no direct incentive, it's often hard to stay motivated to make such sustainable choices as taking shorter showers, running the A/C less, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure enough, research indicates that when homeowners are empowered to read their electric bill, or given regular reminders of the amount of electricity that they use, they tend to reduce their consumption:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Reduction of residential consumption of electricity through simple monthly feedback&quot;](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1901/jaba.1981.14-81/full)&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Effects of self-monitoring and feedback on residential electricity consumption&quot;](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1901/jaba.1979.12-173/full)&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Reducing household energy consumption: a qualitative and quantitative field study&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494498901050)&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;The impact of informational feedback on energy consumption—A survey of the experimental evidence&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544209003387)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last paper is a meta-analysis of 12 studies in Europe and North America covering utility pilot programs where in-home displays (IHDs) of electricity consumption information were implemented. The authors state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our review indicates that the direct feedback provided by IHDs encourages consumers to make more efficient use of energy. We find that consumers who actively use an IHD can reduce their consumption of electricity on average by about 7 percent when prepayment of electricity is not involved. When consumers both use an IHD and are on an electricity prepayment system, they can reduce their electricity consumption by about twice that amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would this finding translate to hotels? To what extent? Why or why not?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume that technological and legal challenges to such a system are minimal -- first it makes sense to determine if it could have the desired effect, before looking into implementation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16467" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6468" RevisionGUID="dbb7a705-fb6b-4ed3-bd32-f8fd85b8e516" CreationDate="2018-03-17T15:04:50.010" UserId="3379" Comment="Added sources, limited scope." Text="Could hotels charge guests for the utilities they use to encourage conservation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5425" RevisionGUID="cac75b56-fcb4-4f67-a623-204f12e7c5c8" CreationDate="2018-03-17T15:16:16.530" UserId="3379" Comment="Expanded sources and limited scope of question." Text="The production of livestock is responsible for a massive share of the methane that is released into the atmosphere, and is a major contributor to global warming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Lancet: [&quot;Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health&quot;](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61256-2/abstract?cc=y=)&#xD;&#xA; - The UN: [&quot;Growing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Due to Meat Production&quot;](https://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=92)&#xD;&#xA; - Cambridge University: [&quot;Mitigating climate change: the role of domestic livestock&quot;](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal/article/mitigating-climate-change-the-role-of-domestic-livestock/4937AEA227D69068AA571905BBF433C5)&#xD;&#xA; - Nature Climate Change: [&quot;Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector&quot;](https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2925)&#xD;&#xA; - The IPCC: see section 6.3.3.2 (&quot;Methane Emissions&quot;) of chapter 6 (&quot;Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles&quot;) of [Working Group I's contribution](http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/) to the fifth assessment report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Would levying taxes on meat be an effective means to reduce consumption and thus reduce the environmental harm?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6492" RevisionGUID="5273d4cb-cccd-4f72-80a9-f077bb99ff3f" CreationDate="2018-03-17T20:12:33.913" UserId="4886" Text="Yes, hotels *could* implement room-based monitoring systems for electricity and water consumption, but they have no financial motivation to do so and the effects of doing so are marginal verging on insignificant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the 7% reduction (due to IHDs, determined by the meta study) is accurate and translates to hotels, and given that rooms account for only ~63% of total hotel usage ([source][1]), installing monitoring/feedback systems would translate to a mere 4.4% reduction in total electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since such systems would merely 'pass through the costs/savings' directly to the guests, there would be no financial return to the hotel.  With no return on investment, hotels would actually _lose money_ by installing such systems (as the hardware/software/labour costs involved in operating and maintaining such systems would still be incurred).  There seems to be no ROI and thus no business case for installing such systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since operating and maintenance costs are independent of use, they translate to fixed fees which would be added to all guest bills.  Everyone would pay extra regardless of how much they use — undermining any savings that may have been made by guests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that guest/room consumption of water only accounts for ~34% of total hotel use ([source][2]) then everything above applies doubly for water.  Not only is there still no ROI for the hotels, but the net savings is an insignificant 2.4% (assuming a 7% reduction) and bills will increase to cover the fixed fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zero ROI, increased bills, and total resource savings from 2.4-4.4% is a combination that I, personally, can't spin hard enough to turn into a compelling argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, the idea of &quot;feedback on usage resulting in lower consumption&quot; seems plausible.  In reality, it is only marginally effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[The question of energy reduction: The problem(s) with feedback][3]&quot; the authors write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;only households that were **already interested** or involved in energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; savings were willing to use energy monitors and learn from them...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even when households received free IHDs they **did not use them**... 59%&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of bill-payers expressed **no interest** in having an IHD installed in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their homes... that initial savings in electricity consumption of 7.8%&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after 4 months **were not sustained** 15 months later&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty damning, actually... and it casts some doubt on the 7% reduction figure that we've been using — the real figure may be *much lower*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What it boils down to is that feedback is only useful to that fraction of the population _that already has_ conservation tendencies.  Beyond the 'novelty' stage, **feedback does not change the behaviour of the vast majority of the population** (who don't have conservation tendencies).  Over half the population isn't interested in feedback *at all*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since 'attitudes' are something that guests *do* take with them into a hotel, what *can* be said (with great confidence) is that 'consumption-sensitive' guests will continue to be consumption-sensitive, and the rest won't.  The presence — or not — of feedback systems won't change that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem — in order to reduce resource consumption in hotels — you 'simply' need to make more of the population consumption-sensitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hotelnewsnow.com/Articles/25821/How-to-reduce-energy-consumption-in-hotels&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.greenhotelier.org/know-how-guides/water-management-and-responsibility-in-hotels/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/the-question-of-energy-reduction.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6492" RevisionGUID="663b9333-7053-4785-b768-3cf2ec0a1e25" CreationDate="2018-03-17T20:19:03.700" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Yes, hotels *could* implement room-based monitoring systems for electricity and water consumption, but they have no financial motivation to do so and the effects of doing so are marginal verging on insignificant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the 7% reduction (due to IHDs, determined by the meta study) is accurate and translates to hotels, and given that rooms account for only ~63% of total hotel usage ([source][1]), installing monitoring/feedback systems would translate to a mere 4.4% reduction in total electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since such systems would just 'pass through the costs/savings' directly to the guests, there would be no financial return to the hotel.  With no return on investment, hotels would actually _lose money_ by installing such systems (as the hardware/software/labour costs involved in operating and maintaining such systems would still be incurred).  There seems to be no ROI and thus no business case for installing such systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since operating and maintenance costs are independent of use, they translate to fixed fees which would be added to *all* guest bills.  *Everyone* would pay extra regardless of how much they use — undermining any savings that may be made by guests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that guest/room consumption of water only accounts for ~34% of total hotel use ([source][2]) then everything above applies doubly for water.  Not only is there still no ROI for the hotels, but the net savings is an insignificant 2.4% (assuming a 7% reduction) and bills will have to increase (again) to cover the fixed fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zero ROI, increased bills, and total resource savings from 2.4-4.4% is a combination that I, personally, can't spin hard enough to turn into a compelling argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, the idea of &quot;feedback on usage resulting in lower consumption&quot; seems plausible.  In reality, it is only marginally effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[The question of energy reduction: The problem(s) with feedback][3]&quot; the authors write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;only households that were **already interested** or involved in energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; savings were willing to use energy monitors and learn from them...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even when households received free IHDs they **did not use them**... 59%&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of bill-payers expressed **no interest** in having an IHD installed in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their homes... that initial savings in electricity consumption of 7.8%&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after 4 months **were not sustained** 15 months later&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty damning, actually... and it casts some doubt on the 7% reduction figure that we've been using — the real figure may be *much lower*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What it boils down to is that feedback is only useful to that fraction of the population _that already has_ conservation tendencies.  Beyond the 'novelty' stage, **feedback does not change the behaviour of the vast majority of the population** (who don't have conservation tendencies).  Over half the population isn't interested in feedback *at all*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since 'attitudes' are something that guests *do* take with them into a hotel, what *can* be said (with great confidence) is that 'consumption-sensitive' guests will continue to be consumption-sensitive, and the rest won't.  The presence — or not — of feedback systems won't change that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem — in order to reduce resource consumption in hotels — you 'simply' need to make more of the population consumption-sensitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hotelnewsnow.com/Articles/25821/How-to-reduce-energy-consumption-in-hotels&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.greenhotelier.org/know-how-guides/water-management-and-responsibility-in-hotels/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/the-question-of-energy-reduction.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6492" RevisionGUID="86f4f8cb-6c9c-4839-9d14-e74bce01f628" CreationDate="2018-03-17T20:29:36.333" UserId="4886" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="Yes, hotels *could* implement room-based monitoring systems for electricity and water consumption, but they have no financial motivation to do so and the effects of doing so are marginal verging on insignificant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the 7% reduction (due to IHDs, determined by the meta study) is accurate and translates to hotels, and given that rooms account for only ~63% of total hotel usage ([source][1]), installing monitoring/feedback systems would translate to a mere 4.4% reduction in total electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since such systems would just 'pass through the costs/savings' directly to the guests, there would be no financial return to the hotel.  With no return on investment, hotels would actually _lose money_ by installing such systems (as the hardware/software/labour costs involved in operating and maintaining such systems would still be incurred).  There seems to be no ROI and thus no business case for installing such systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since operating and maintenance costs are independent of use, they translate to fixed fees which would be added to *all* guest bills.  *Everyone* would pay extra regardless of how much they use — undermining any savings that may be made by guests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that guest/room consumption of water only accounts for ~34% of total hotel use ([source][2]) then everything above applies doubly for water.  Not only is there still no ROI for the hotels, but the net savings is an insignificant 2.4% (assuming a 7% reduction) and bills will have to increase (again) to cover the fixed fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zero ROI, increased bills, and total resource savings from 2.4-4.4% is a combination that I, personally, can't spin hard enough to turn into a compelling argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, the idea of &quot;feedback on usage resulting in lower consumption&quot; seems plausible.  In reality, it is only marginally effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[The question of energy reduction: The problem(s) with feedback][3]&quot; the authors write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;a recent nationally representative UK survey revealed that...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only households that were **already interested** or involved in energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; savings were willing to use energy monitors and learn from them...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even when households received free IHDs they **did not use them**... 59%&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of bill-payers expressed **no interest** in having an IHD installed in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their homes... that initial savings in electricity consumption of 7.8%&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after 4 months **were not sustained** 15 months later&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty damning, actually... and it casts doubt on the 7% reduction figure that we've been using — the real figure may be *much lower*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What it boils down to is that feedback is only useful to that fraction of the population _that already has_ conservation tendencies.  Beyond the 'novelty' stage, **feedback does not change the behaviour of the vast majority of the population** (who don't have conservation tendencies).  Over half the population isn't interested in feedback *at all*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since 'entrenched attitudes' are something that guests *do* take with them into a hotel, what *can* be said (with great confidence) is that 'consumption-sensitive' guests will continue to be consumption-sensitive, and the rest won't.  The presence — or lack — of feedback systems won't change that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem — in order to reduce resource consumption in hotels — you 'simply' need to make more of the population consumption-sensitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hotelnewsnow.com/Articles/25821/How-to-reduce-energy-consumption-in-hotels&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.greenhotelier.org/know-how-guides/water-management-and-responsibility-in-hotels/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/the-question-of-energy-reduction.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6492" RevisionGUID="31b7aebc-7d62-4ecf-8565-48d401a91673" CreationDate="2018-03-17T20:35:52.813" UserId="4886" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Yes, hotels *could* implement room-based monitoring systems for electricity and water consumption, but they have no financial motivation to do so and the effects of doing so are marginal verging on insignificant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the 7% reduction (due to IHDs, determined by the meta study) is accurate and translates to hotels, and given that rooms account for only ~63% of total hotel usage ([source][1]), installing monitoring/feedback systems would translate to a mere 4.4% reduction in total electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since such systems would just 'pass through the costs/savings' directly to the guests, there would be no financial return to the hotel.  With no return on investment, hotels would actually _lose money_ by installing such systems (as the hardware/software/labour costs involved in operating and maintaining such systems would still be incurred).  There seems to be no ROI and thus no business case for installing such systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since operating and maintenance costs are independent of use, they translate to fixed fees which would be added to *all* guest bills.  *Everyone* would pay extra regardless of how much they use — undermining any savings that may be made by guests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that guest/room consumption of water only accounts for ~34% of total hotel use ([source][2]) then everything above applies doubly for water.  Not only is there still no ROI for the hotels, but the net savings is an insignificant 2.4% (assuming a 7% reduction) and bills will have to increase (again) to cover the fixed fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zero ROI, increased bills, and total resource savings from 2.4-4.4% is a combination that I, personally, can't spin hard enough to turn into a compelling argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, the idea of &quot;feedback on usage resulting in lower consumption&quot; seems plausible.  In reality, it is only marginally effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[The question of energy reduction: The problem(s) with feedback][3]&quot; the authors write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;a recent nationally representative UK survey revealed that...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only households that were **already interested** or involved in energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; savings were willing to use energy monitors and learn from them...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even when households received free IHDs they **did not use them**... 59%&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of bill-payers expressed **no interest** in having an IHD installed in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their homes... that initial savings in electricity consumption of 7.8%&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after 4 months **were not sustained** 15 months later&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty damning, actually... and it casts doubt on the 7% reduction figure that we've been using — the real figure may be *much lower*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What it boils down to is that feedback is only useful to that fraction of the population _that already has_ conservation tendencies.  Beyond the 'novelty' stage, **feedback does not change the behaviour of the vast majority of the population** (who don't have conservation tendencies).  Over half the population isn't interested in feedback *at all*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since 'entrenched attitudes' are something that guests *do* take with them into a hotel, what *can* be said (with great confidence) is that 'consumption-sensitive' guests will continue to be consumption-sensitive, and the rest won't.  The presence — or lack — of feedback systems won't change that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem — in order to reduce resource consumption in hotels — you 'simply' need to make more of the population consumption-sensitive before they even check in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hotelnewsnow.com/Articles/25821/How-to-reduce-energy-consumption-in-hotels&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.greenhotelier.org/know-how-guides/water-management-and-responsibility-in-hotels/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/the-question-of-energy-reduction.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6492" RevisionGUID="9fa8665c-84a0-4d81-b0bd-62f87fa6bda6" CreationDate="2018-03-17T23:43:48.280" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Yes, hotels *could* implement room-based monitoring systems for electricity and water consumption, but they have no financial motivation to do so and the effects of doing so are marginal verging on insignificant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the 7% reduction (due to IHDs, determined by the meta study) is accurate and translates to hotels, and given that rooms account for only ~63% of total hotel usage ([source][1]), installing monitoring/feedback systems would translate to a mere 4.4% reduction in total electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since such systems would just 'pass through the costs/savings' directly to the guests, there would be no financial return to the hotel.  With no return on investment, hotels would actually _lose money_ by installing such systems (as the hardware/software/labour costs involved in operating and maintaining such systems would still be incurred).  There seems to be no ROI and thus no business case for installing such systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since operating and maintenance costs are independent of use, they translate to fixed fees which would be added to *all* guest bills.  *Everyone* would pay extra regardless of how much they use — undermining any savings that may be made by guests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that guest/room consumption of water only accounts for ~34% of total hotel use ([source][2]) then everything above applies doubly for water.  Not only is there still no ROI for the hotels, but the net savings is an insignificant 2.4% (assuming a 7% reduction) and bills will have to increase (again) to cover the fixed fees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zero ROI, increased bills, and total resource savings from 2.4-4.4% is a combination that I, personally, can't spin hard enough to turn into a compelling argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, the idea of &quot;feedback on usage resulting in lower consumption&quot; seems plausible.  In reality, it is only marginally effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In &quot;[The question of energy reduction: The problem(s) with feedback][3]&quot; the authors write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;a recent nationally representative UK survey revealed that...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; only households that were **already interested** or involved in energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt; savings were willing to use energy monitors and learn from them...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; even when households received free IHDs they **did not use them**... 59%&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of bill-payers expressed **no interest** in having an IHD installed in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; their homes... initial savings in electricity consumption of 7.8%&#xD;&#xA;&gt; after 4 months **were not sustained** 15 months later&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty damning, actually... and it casts doubt on the 7% reduction figure that we've been using — the real figure may be *much lower*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What it boils down to is that feedback is only useful to that fraction of the population _that already has_ conservation tendencies.  Beyond the 'novelty' stage, **feedback does not change the behaviour of the vast majority of the population** (who don't have conservation tendencies).  Over half the population isn't interested in feedback *at all*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since 'entrenched attitudes' are something that guests *do* take with them into a hotel, what *can* be said (with great confidence) is that 'consumption-sensitive' guests will continue to be consumption-sensitive, and the rest won't.  The presence — or lack — of feedback systems won't change that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem — in order to reduce resource consumption in hotels — you 'simply' need to make more of the population consumption-sensitive before they even check in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://hotelnewsnow.com/Articles/25821/How-to-reduce-energy-consumption-in-hotels&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.greenhotelier.org/know-how-guides/water-management-and-responsibility-in-hotels/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/the-question-of-energy-reduction.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16474" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6484" RevisionGUID="fe3c9c90-a734-41d9-a507-e1f506a80729" CreationDate="2018-03-18T23:20:28.870" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/975512290048053248" />
  <row Id="16475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6493" RevisionGUID="23750063-dc7e-44da-bfc5-e1c48f346e06" CreationDate="2018-03-19T09:47:03.773" UserId="2431" Text="I usually travel by bike, and it's a great vehicle and is mostly sustainable. I love travelling by bike, but what all the pro-bike propaganda **never** mentions is that one very major problem - the rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter how much I invest in &quot;waterproof&quot; equipment, biking under heavy rain is an awful experience. Even with &quot;waterproof&quot; shoes eventually a leak comes and waters poor into my socks, making my feet feel like sponges. Same goes for hands. Not to mention having to spend the day being dressed up weirdly with rainboots and looking even more like a weirdo than I already do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a vehicle that can at the same time shelter it's driver from bad weather and be more sustainable than conventional cars ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6493" RevisionGUID="23750063-dc7e-44da-bfc5-e1c48f346e06" CreationDate="2018-03-19T09:47:03.773" UserId="2431" Text="Most sustainable vehicle that shelters from rain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6493" RevisionGUID="23750063-dc7e-44da-bfc5-e1c48f346e06" CreationDate="2018-03-19T09:47:03.773" UserId="2431" Text="|vehicle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6493" RevisionGUID="f9848a87-664b-4c61-825a-372843ab74a8" CreationDate="2018-03-19T10:35:47.573" UserId="2431" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="I usually travel by bike, and it's a great vehicle and is mostly sustainable. I love travelling by bike when the weather is nice, but what all the pro-bike propaganda **never** mentions is that one very major problem - the rain (and, to a lesser extant, the wind and the cold)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter how much I invest in &quot;waterproof&quot; equipment, biking under heavy rain is an awful experience. Even with &quot;waterproof&quot; shoes eventually a leak comes and waters poor into my socks, making my feet feel like sponges. Same goes for hands. Not to mention having to spend the day being dressed up weirdly with rainboots and looking even more like a weirdo than I already do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a vehicle that can at the same time shelter it's driver from bad weather and be more sustainable than conventional cars ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6494" RevisionGUID="47be251b-e489-486f-a67d-22caa0ac4358" CreationDate="2018-03-19T11:56:53.190" UserId="99" Text="There are recumbent bicycles that shield you from rain and wind, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Recumbent bike with full shielding][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;*[Image by Gandalf24 at da.wikipedia - Own work, Public Domain](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6887208)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The shielding is called [fairing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_fairing).&#xD;&#xA;According to [this Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicycle#Fairings):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Fairings are also available for upright bikes, but are much less common&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if they refer to a fairing that completely shields the biker though. Here in The Netherlands (which is the worlds no.1 country when it comes to the number of bikes per inhabitant) I occasionally see a recumbent bike that's totally shielded, but I've never seen anything like that for an upright bike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This Dutch website](http://www.ligfiets.net/product/bike) (no affiliation) has a list of recumbent bike manufacturers and some of them sell these kind of bikes. I found 1 that has a price indication for a [building kit](http://www.ligfiets.net/product/bike/654/bouwpakket-alleweder-a8.html) which starts at 3495,- euros. There are several others as well, but those seem to be much more expensive (e.g. [this one](http://www.ligfiets.net/product/bike/645/orca-velomobile.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AtETZ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6495" RevisionGUID="6c3540c2-fed1-47be-a669-9109b38ffcbb" CreationDate="2018-03-19T17:11:14.007" UserId="1692" Text="Wouldn't a tax on $SOMETHING have environmental benefits?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, here's some statistics from British Columbia's trumpeted carbon tax, supposedly the most successful such tax in... well, the world:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Ref: https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/british-columbia-carbon-tax-failed-experiment-market-based-solutions-climate-change*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The BC government, of course will say &quot;But! But! But! The economy has grown during this period!&quot; That's nice, so has the rest of Canada's:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nine percent. Over the course of seven years. This isn't a solution to anything, it's a pithy half-measure like Daylight Savings Time that makes politicians look like they're doing something. All I hear in the comments section of every news story about the astronomical price of gas in this province isn't &quot;Well, that means I'll just buy an electric car!&quot; but &quot;WE HAVE A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO CHEAP GAS!!!1!ONE!&quot; and the usual conservative/oil industry propaganda about how an EV isn't a solution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sin taxes don't do anything. If you want real change, start a revolution and institute a ban.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KhmEH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2DIN2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6496" RevisionGUID="7a2ada7a-43be-4ea2-a4f1-88e268641cbf" CreationDate="2018-03-20T04:00:31.750" UserId="5517" Text="This site links to a number of enclosed [human powered vehicles](http://www.contemporist.com/5-examples-of-enclosed-bike-designs-that-are-taking-over-the-roads/) but the only one that is available for me to purchase locally is the ELF.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ELF 2FR][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What could be more fun than riding your ELF? Riding with friends on board, of course! The ELF 2FR allows multiple passengers to ride along with you, seated on a comfortable padded seat behind the driver’s seat. A separate lockable cargo compartment behind the passenger seat is handy for carrying those extra items, and a CON-Pearl® floor adds safety for your precious cargo, as well as a quieter ride and extra storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds a bit pricey for $8,895.00 – $9,794.95 for basically some plastic and a battery but it's sustainable!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gXbSV.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6497" RevisionGUID="2787c05b-a3b8-4383-8b32-12edeaa7e502" CreationDate="2018-03-20T07:48:01.903" UserId="5517" Text="As part of the site clearance for the in-fill house I'm building at the rear of the section I have had to remove a 100 year plus old pine ( which the neighbour wanted to remove as he felt it was threatening his house ) as well as a number of self seeded native bush trees. I had them placed into a pile, and then covered with the top soil and other rubbish ( well, I couldn't get the builders to be selective about this ) to form a hugelkultur.  This was to prevent the sudden release of all the carbon captured in the wood - that pine tree took a team of three arborists to remove.  I turned the [pine cones into biochar](https://youtu.be/VzeCjp_EG-4) using that iron bath seen on the right.  The height is about 5 foot based on the 8 foot height of the sunchokes on the far left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't allowed on site while the builders were working so the whole thing is now covered in [black nightshade](http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/learning/colleges/college-of-sciences/clinics-and-services/weeds-database/black-nightshade.cfm).  And the corn I planted which you can see at the top was eaten by rats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read the general principles of using a hugelkultur, and that one should plant fruit trees at the bases to capture nutrient flows from the top.  And various sites talk about not planting some plants in the first years, and one shouldn't use pine due to inhibition of other plants etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the sites don't really discuss how best to plant one this high, and also since I have appear to have a lot of top soil on top of the the wood, I wonder if I really have to follow those principles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, does anyone have experience on how to best manage one this size? I'm living in a cool temperate climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![hugelkultur][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Swjuj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6497" RevisionGUID="2787c05b-a3b8-4383-8b32-12edeaa7e502" CreationDate="2018-03-20T07:48:01.903" UserId="5517" Text="How to manage a largish hugelkultur" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6497" RevisionGUID="2787c05b-a3b8-4383-8b32-12edeaa7e502" CreationDate="2018-03-20T07:48:01.903" UserId="5517" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6490" RevisionGUID="3bd26b96-c543-405f-afac-bdbaa9aedb1f" CreationDate="2018-03-20T10:32:02.873" UserId="5532" Comment="Added location information." Text="Our new house has a garden, and part of the fence needs to be replaced. Part of what needs replacing is the pole that holds the lock for the garden-door.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last year, we replaced that part of the fence with a fence made of woven branches, 2 to 5 cm in diameter. We did not use the garden entrance then, but I really want to start using it (because dragging the bicycle through the house to the garden shed is a pain.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, a year after we put the fence up, half the branches were completely rotten, and the whole thing literally fell apart. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe hanging a untreated fence made of woven branches or bamboo about 30 cm off the ground would make it a lot more durable. If we go for this option we would just need a durable pole to put in the ground. There is a pole of something like concrete at the other end, we could suspend the fence in-between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or we could put up a fence that starts at ground level, at least making it less easy for our neighbour's cats to come shit in our garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - impregnated wood: the greenish type. Either just the pole or a whole fence.&#xD;&#xA; - a ['baked' wood][1] pole or entire fence. Heating the wood makes it suitable for outdoor use, but also quite expensive.&#xD;&#xA; - a tar-impregnated woorden pole, hang untreated fence from it.&#xD;&#xA; - a stone, brick or concrete pole, hang untreated fence from it. (Is this a DYI project?&#xD;&#xA; - a plastic pole of fence?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do you recommend as a sustainable solution? I live in the Netherlands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermally_modified_wood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2927" RevisionGUID="51e7494a-71b1-4455-bc8e-af8ae14e3eea" CreationDate="2018-03-20T11:48:37.167" UserId="99" Comment="added link to latest conflict minerals report, updated results" Text="There are 3 websites I recommend visiting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. **[Rankabrand.org](http://rankabrand.org)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This site rankes brands of all kinds of products, [including electronics](http://www.rankabrand.org/electronics). &#xD;&#xA;  Rankings are based on all information that can be found on a company's website and in their annual reports. Rankabrand assesses brands on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &gt;   their environmental performances, climate change efforts and labour conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If no information is present on a particular topic, the brand gets 0 points so it is indirectly ranking transparency as well. A drawback is that small companies/brands are often not included. Also a ranking is for the company/brand as a whole so not specific for a product type such as laptops. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. **[Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/cool-it/Campaign-analysis/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/)**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This site is similar to Rankabrand.org but only rates major consumer electronics companies using a slightly different rating mechanism. Greenpeace primarily looks at:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &gt; three critical impact areas tied to product design and responsible supply chain management across the electronics sector:&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; - Energy: Reduction of greenhouse gases through efficiency and renewable energy&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; - Resource Consumption: sustainable design and use of recycled &#xD;&#xA;  materials&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; - Chemicals: Elimination of hazardous chemicals from both the product itself and manufacturing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Labour conditions and other social responsibilities are not included. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  3. **[Conflict minerals company rankings](https://enoughproject.org/reports/demand-the-supply)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This report rates the largest electronics companies on their usage of what they call &quot;conflict-free&quot; minerals in their products.&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Companies were ranked based on four core categories of criteria:&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; 1. Conducting Conflict Minerals Sourcing Due Diligence and Reporting&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; 2. Developing a Conflict-Free Minerals Trade and Sourcing Conflict-Free Minerals from Congo, Particularly Gold&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; 3. Supporting and Improving Livelihoods for Artisanal Mining Communities in Eastern Congo&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; 4. Conflict-Free Minerals Advocacy&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;The ratings from Rankabrand and Greenpace are somewhat similar. Fairphone leads in both rankings, but they sell smartphones and not laptops. Best laptop seller on both lists is Apple, followed by HP. Apple and HP also score well in the conflict minerals report. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW, I have no affiliation with any of the sites or brands mentioned in this post. The only exception is that I do give a small donation to Greenpeace every month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16489" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6497" RevisionGUID="533b6ac0-4d22-4c81-a201-e1f5b5cbaa17" CreationDate="2018-03-20T20:26:47.640" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/976193355905462273" />
  <row Id="16490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6498" RevisionGUID="436fa77e-8943-48f1-9fe0-adaeaa46f8c5" CreationDate="2018-03-21T01:46:19.790" UserId="80" Text="I sometimes use some essential oil / extracts in my washing machine as they can have some disinfecting effect and give a nice smell to the clothes (e.g. a capful of eucalyptus oil for one load). However, I was wondering if that was counter-productive when it comes to saving detergent and efficiently washing clothes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the detergent wasted on the added essential oil, given that detergent is designed to coat lipid droplets and render them soluble in the waste-water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16491" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6498" RevisionGUID="436fa77e-8943-48f1-9fe0-adaeaa46f8c5" CreationDate="2018-03-21T01:46:19.790" UserId="80" Text="Does adding essential oil to a wash waste detergent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16492" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6498" RevisionGUID="436fa77e-8943-48f1-9fe0-adaeaa46f8c5" CreationDate="2018-03-21T01:46:19.790" UserId="80" Text="|cleaning|clothing|waste-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6499" RevisionGUID="51af12b9-e024-427f-b4d2-db5a627df443" CreationDate="2018-03-21T04:39:04.753" UserId="5537" Text="From what I've been able to read online, it doesn't look like the addition of a couple drops of an essential oil would be enough to affect the surfactants from doing their job, unless your clothes are soaked in oil and grease. I've just looked [here](https://theorganicgoatlady.com/15-essential-oils-to-use-in-the-laundry/) and [here](https://www.hunker.com/13422628/how-to-use-essential-oils-in-your-laundry) and both sites recommend adding a couple drops, though I'm not sure how many drops would go in a capful. Hope this was helpful!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6500" RevisionGUID="a1a36b5d-1e58-4280-80d4-90d988fd4809" CreationDate="2018-03-21T06:28:35.047" UserId="5517" Text="There are plenty of sites selling reconditioned laptops or second hand laptops. Some companies upgrade regularly and this releases perfectly serviceable computers to the public. These surely have better credentials for sustainability than a new eco laptop.&#xA;&#xA;I won't link to sites to avoid providing advertising but I must have purchased three laptops in this fashion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16495" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6493" RevisionGUID="7479121c-d3d4-403b-9f21-0b4bb72e007e" CreationDate="2018-03-21T11:27:01.440" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/976419906211237888" />
  <row Id="16496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6501" RevisionGUID="b6f8363d-ffb9-4038-a92b-87560b6888c9" CreationDate="2018-03-21T15:23:00.730" UserId="5546" Text="No!!! I guess you live in the US, right? None organic food is heavily contaminated with pesticides and probably genetically modified. Not a proper addition to compost for organic gardening.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="fefdc02a-278c-4279-8499-48e7a867ecdf" CreationDate="2018-03-21T15:35:12.247" UserId="5546" Text="It is mindbogglingly to me that there is still so much plastic out on our oceans, floating around for years and ever growing and nothing is being done about it. Governments should work together, companies should pool efforts! We all, as human kind, should get together and clean it up. Lets do it!!! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="fefdc02a-278c-4279-8499-48e7a867ecdf" CreationDate="2018-03-21T15:35:12.247" UserId="5546" Text="How can we all together clean up the vast plastic carpets in our Oceans?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="fefdc02a-278c-4279-8499-48e7a867ecdf" CreationDate="2018-03-21T15:35:12.247" UserId="5546" Text="|recycling|waste|environmental-impact|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6503" RevisionGUID="7d4bdbb1-bbd7-4620-bb87-fc9cfa0932c4" CreationDate="2018-03-21T16:01:17.097" UserId="4834" Text="If you don't add additional detergent to your wash (nor do additional wash loads because you believe your cloths come out without being cleaned as well) to compensate for any effects (real, imagined, or otherwise) of the added oils then you cannot be wasting detergent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are using the same amount of detergent whether you add the essential oils or not.  The difference in detergent used is zero.  Therefore, the essential oils are not a factor in detergent waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do add more detergent or run more wash cycles (with detergent) then the result is more detergent used.  You could argue that this additional detergent is wasted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16502" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6498" RevisionGUID="f7c4a627-4dde-4a8c-b032-bc39e4f0a5c8" CreationDate="2018-03-22T11:30:43.413" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/976783225224822784" />
  <row Id="16503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="e36dfd2b-d819-4114-8899-7b45cf790314" CreationDate="2018-03-22T17:02:06.723" UserId="5546" Comment="added 589 characters in body" Text="It is mindbogglingly to me that there is still so much plastic out on our oceans, floating around for years and ever growing and nothing is being done about it. Governments should work together, companies should pool efforts! We all, as human kind, should get together and clean it up.&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a solution, only know it needs to be done urgently. There are many clean ups along shore lines, which I know of. I live on the shore as well and clean up whenever the tide washes wast from the ocean in. But this is not enough. If you know of any clean up efforts out on the ocean, anything big scale, I would be very glad to hear about. I would so much like to support such efforts. The plastic dilutes into our food chain and killing wild life. This needs to stop. Maybe we can come up with a good plan together here...I know this is a big question to ask but it has to start somewhere. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="22355781-6478-452d-acb4-73918585b156" CreationDate="2018-03-22T18:25:41.370" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed typos, broke up paragraphs." Text="It is mind-boggling to me that there is still so much plastic out in our oceans, floating around for years and ever growing and nothing is being done about it. Governments should work together, companies should pool efforts! We all, as human kind, should get together and clean it up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a solution, only know it needs to be done urgently. There are many clean-ups along shore lines, which I know of. I live on the shore as well and clean up whenever the tide washes waste from the ocean in. But this is not enough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you know of any clean up efforts out on the ocean, anything big scale, I would be very glad to hear about.** I would so much like to support such efforts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plastic dilutes into our food chain and kills wild life. This needs to stop. Maybe we can come up with a good plan together here...I know this is a big question to ask but it has to start somewhere. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16505" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="22355781-6478-452d-acb4-73918585b156" CreationDate="2018-03-22T18:25:41.370" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed typos, broke up paragraphs." Text="How can we all together clean up the vast plastic carpets in our oceans?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16506" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="22355781-6478-452d-acb4-73918585b156" CreationDate="2018-03-22T18:25:41.370" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed typos, broke up paragraphs." Text="|water|waste|environmental-impact|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16508" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="e7253fcf-3ed6-496e-8508-3d7c82676727" CreationDate="2018-03-22T20:46:25.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6505" RevisionGUID="9717da04-392f-481e-bb58-19e341213521" CreationDate="2018-03-23T00:23:25.740" UserId="5517" Text="It might even be more environmentally friendly to dispense with using flush toilets altogether by switching to using negative pressure toilets.  Vacuum toilets are used on planes and also help to remove the unwanted odours as well as prevent the [toilet plume aerosol](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4692156/) caused by flush toilets.  Vacuum toilets are available commercially for domestic use and use a small amount of water for washing the toilet bowl.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The collected waste can then be [safely composted](http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/98-resource-recovery-from-excreta-or-faecal-sludge/4949-low-cost-decentralized-sanitation-system-based-on-vacuum-collection-and-reuse-of-excreta-and-kitchen-waste-chinese-academy-of-sciences-china).  And in space, it can potentially be [recycled for use as food](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/astronauts-food-human-waste-marmite-iss-international-space-station-nasa-a8179451.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16511" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="ff0a28d0-7d92-429d-88ba-a0ac6c53a71c" CreationDate="2018-03-23T19:57:22.210" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6506" RevisionGUID="0b8320e0-2283-46f7-9fed-9643a391a998" CreationDate="2018-03-25T10:25:47.787" UserId="3293" Text="Has anyone ever used self-made, Eco-friendly sealing compound for outdoor? &#xD;&#xA;* What receipt?&#xD;&#xA;* How long does the receipt you used last?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I intend to use this sealing to stop wasps from getting in and out my walls and removing insulation styrofoam from them (damn wasps) to build their nest. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6506" RevisionGUID="0b8320e0-2283-46f7-9fed-9643a391a998" CreationDate="2018-03-25T10:25:47.787" UserId="3293" Text="Alternative to sealing compound" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6506" RevisionGUID="0b8320e0-2283-46f7-9fed-9643a391a998" CreationDate="2018-03-25T10:25:47.787" UserId="3293" Text="|home|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6506" RevisionGUID="7ca4fe0f-8545-4d35-92d3-65a21f4a00d8" CreationDate="2018-03-25T12:03:02.577" UserId="3379" Comment="formatting/typos" Text="Has anyone ever used self-made, eco-friendly sealing compound for outdoors? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What recipe?&#xD;&#xA;* How long does the recipe you used last?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I intend to use this sealing compound to stop wasps from getting in and out of my walls and removing styrofoam insulation (damn wasps) to build their nest. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6496" RevisionGUID="2b697e54-959c-41fc-a982-fc9ae5c030d6" CreationDate="2018-03-26T07:38:43.327" UserId="5517" Comment="added more information" Text="This site links to a number of enclosed [human powered vehicles](http://www.contemporist.com/5-examples-of-enclosed-bike-designs-that-are-taking-over-the-roads/) but the only one that is available for me to purchase locally is the ELF.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ELF 2FR][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What could be more fun than riding your ELF? Riding with friends on board, of course! The ELF 2FR allows multiple passengers to ride along with you, seated on a comfortable padded seat behind the driver’s seat. A separate lockable cargo compartment behind the passenger seat is handy for carrying those extra items, and a CON-Pearl® floor adds safety for your precious cargo, as well as a quieter ride and extra storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds a bit pricey for $8,895.00 – $9,794.95 for basically some plastic and a battery but it's sustainable!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gXbSV.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And from the Kickstarter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Power Source**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Solar and pedal -- two **unlimited resources derived from the sun and&#xD;&#xA;   you**.  60 watt solar panel (standard, upgrades available) 750 watt&#xD;&#xA;   **permanent** neodymium magnet motors 480w  lithium battery PWM&#xD;&#xA;   controller CVT drivetrain (continuously variable transmission) Body&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   Vacuum formed Trylon (composite of **85% recycled ABS and Solarcote**)&#xD;&#xA;   Windshield made from UV resistant polycarbonate LED lighting&#xD;&#xA;   including headlights, brake lights, markers, and turn signals Frame&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;   45% **recycled aluminum** 26&quot; high volume wheels front and rear with 20mm&#xD;&#xA;   through axles and 36 spokes Disc brakes Coroplast wheel covers&#xD;&#xA;   Storage compartment with room for eight bags of groceries/350lbs&#xD;&#xA;   cargo Performance&#xD;&#xA; - 1800 MPGe (gets 1800 miles for the energy equivalent of 1 gallon of&#xD;&#xA;   gas) 30 mile range with each 8 pound battery pack Potential to&#xD;&#xA;   **mitigate 28,000 lbs of CO2 per year** per unit Classified as a bicycle in all 50 states (of the USA)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6508" RevisionGUID="550965fc-5d05-4e4b-9fee-79261b26e223" CreationDate="2018-03-27T02:51:37.370" UserId="400" Text="Indians, and later voyageurs used a mix of wood ash, spruce resin and lard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spruce resin is just collected off of trees. Melt. Once it flows well, filter the sticks and bugs out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add wood ash to the point where it is less sticky -- about the same volume as the spruce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add a bit of lard to keep it from cracking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a recipe off hand.  The drier (harder) the pitch is, the more lard you will need.  Too little, and it cracks.  Too much then on a warm day it flows out of the seam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a stationary application like this, I wouldn't worry about the lard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would try other fillers too.  drywall powder should work.  If the cracks are large, try adding a measure of unground wheat bran, or oat husks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6509" RevisionGUID="4579184b-025e-4f38-a7e0-387005f85ad5" CreationDate="2018-03-27T03:04:43.067" UserId="400" Text="I ran through a bunch of similar calculations here.  Setting your panels at your latitude is a pretty good approximation.  Here, we use more power in winter, so I would use latitude plus 20 to optimize for winter, although I take about a 15% hit for the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Racking is simple to do.  If you use metal, make them up first, then get them powder coated for rust resistance.  This includes having all holes predrilled.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood, then use treated wood, and figure out ways for water to dry quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given what a pain you have when you have to replace the roof I would put the panels on their own structure if room permits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here I can get used power poles 35 feet long for $CDN 28 each.  One pole provides 2 supports one 14 feet  long with 4 feet in the ground, and one 21 feet with 5 feet in the ground. A 16 foot double joist is bolted on either side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This structure is repeated every 8 feet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;16 foot 2x4s are set on edge as purlons on these frames with distance chosen to match the panel dimensions.  All wiring is carried underneath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wiring is done in a  modular manner with a connecting point under the shelter of the panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At refurbishment time (about every 10-20 years, you build a new frame at the end, move one set of panels to the end. refurbish that frame, move the next set of panels.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6510" RevisionGUID="7fc47079-647d-48f5-a440-7d70868a46cf" CreationDate="2018-03-27T03:21:21.673" UserId="400" Text="If you are going to use wood gas to run a generator, don't bother removing the CO. Burn it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3KipK49v7g is a vid on making a woodgas powered truck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said:  Consider getting a manual transfer switch, and a gas or diesel powered generator.  While the power may have been off for 10 days this time, I found in our (shorter) outages that a 2 kW genset could keep the sump pump running, the fridge and freezer running, and by changing the extension cords I could refill the water tank from the well.  It took about 5 gallons of gas a day.  So a drum of fuel would get you through a 10 day outage.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally such a generator is hooked up to natural gas. (In 20 years here we have had several half day to day and a half power outages a year, but have yet to have a gas outage.) No storage issues.  Second best of propane, which is a pain to fill, keeps indefinitely.  Gas and diesel both have limited storage spans.  There are tricks you can use to lengthen this.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your project makes a lot of sense for someone who was going off grid.  But the total cost of this is way over what a generator, switch and fuel storage would cost.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="51bf15e0-9879-4a01-921b-0c17b552faad" CreationDate="2018-03-27T18:12:47.447" UserId="4351" Text="Diva cups only last about 5 years so I was wondering if there was a lot of waste produced in the process of making them (compared to tampons) that might outweigh the benefits of using them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems like a no brainer, but I was wondering if anyone had actually done the analysis on the difference in total waste throughout the product life cycle of each product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="51bf15e0-9879-4a01-921b-0c17b552faad" CreationDate="2018-03-27T18:12:47.447" UserId="4351" Text="Is using a diva cup better for the environment than using pads or tampons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="51bf15e0-9879-4a01-921b-0c17b552faad" CreationDate="2018-03-27T18:12:47.447" UserId="4351" Text="|waste|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="6e789bcd-5536-4dcb-a8fc-a53dddd768e6" CreationDate="2018-03-27T20:30:14.563" UserId="4574" Text="I was at a university agricultural research farm and I noticed that sheep had maintained grass height on a pasture to less than 1 inch.  I asked the person in charge if they used a lawn mower and he said &quot;no, not needed&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I never throw away my grass clippings and always use them for compost.  But after seeing this self sustaining agricultural cycle, I am looking for ways to implement this.  The township ordinances will not allow me to rent livestock for &quot;mowing the lawn&quot; but I was wondering if I can take the grass clippings to farm for livestock feed.  Will livestock consume grass clippings? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="6e789bcd-5536-4dcb-a8fc-a53dddd768e6" CreationDate="2018-03-27T20:30:14.563" UserId="4574" Text="Can grass clippings be used for livestock feed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="6e789bcd-5536-4dcb-a8fc-a53dddd768e6" CreationDate="2018-03-27T20:30:14.563" UserId="4574" Text="|balanced-ecosystems|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6513" RevisionGUID="a8f72765-a809-4309-b5b8-2a42169398b7" CreationDate="2018-03-28T05:43:37.913" UserId="5300" Text="I live on a farm and can say with certainty that cattle and sheep will absolutely eat grass clippings. All of our grass clippings from the around the house go to the animals, along with a significant amount of other garden waste. They not only eat grass but will strip leaves off tree trimmings, and eat fruit and vegetables that may no longer be suitable for human consumption for whatever reason." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16533" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="8a984219-45f6-434b-ae61-03dc1624aecd" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:23:44.180" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16534" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="ea26e294-ac93-4de1-93cc-ca8df74ef5a6" CreationDate="2018-03-28T08:48:14.217" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/978916661062496256" />
  <row Id="16535" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="24f2601f-8a9c-4715-9d00-1bff07ae299c" CreationDate="2018-03-28T13:00:34.623" UserId="2134" Text="I live in a country where my utility company does not offer net-metering or a feed-in rate for electricity produced by a residential photovoltaics installation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I want to set up a photovoltaics array to offset a part of my own consumption whenever the sun is out. When my demand is higher than what the PV array supplies, the rest should be automatically be taken from the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I do this right, in the sense that my utility company does not have something against it? Means, is it ok to supply the grid with electricity &quot;for free&quot;, or do I have to prevent the PV array from &quot;leaking&quot; electricity to the grid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16536" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="24f2601f-8a9c-4715-9d00-1bff07ae299c" CreationDate="2018-03-28T13:00:34.623" UserId="2134" Text="How to set up grid-tied photovoltaics without feed-in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16537" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="24f2601f-8a9c-4715-9d00-1bff07ae299c" CreationDate="2018-03-28T13:00:34.623" UserId="2134" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="537e275c-0f85-45e6-b70b-1f2041f36599" CreationDate="2018-03-28T14:12:19.200" UserId="2134" Comment="adding explanations about the location" Text="I live currently in Morocco, where the utility companies do not offer net-metering or a feed-in rate for electricity produced by a residential photovoltaics installation. (Net metering is offered for plants connected to the high-voltage network, with the rest planned but not implemented.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, I want to set up a photovoltaics array to offset a part of my own consumption whenever the sun is out. When my demand is higher than what the PV array supplies, the rest should be automatically be taken from the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I do this right, in the sense that my utility company does not have something against it? Means, is it ok to supply the grid with electricity &quot;for free&quot;, or do I have to prevent the PV array from &quot;leaking&quot; electricity to the grid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6515" RevisionGUID="199a6931-9b12-4715-969f-979866190a09" CreationDate="2018-03-28T14:54:12.207" UserId="3379" Text="## Prevalence of garbage in the oceans&#xD;&#xA;A recent study in *Nature Scientific Reports* finds that the &quot;Great Pacific Garbage Patch&quot; is massive, and keeps growing. From the article, [&quot;Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is rapidly accumulating plastic&quot;](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22939-w) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our model, calibrated with data from multi-vessel and aircraft surveys, predicted at least 79 (45–129) thousand tonnes of ocean plastic are floating inside an area of 1.6 million km2; a figure **four to sixteen times higher** than previously reported. We explain this difference through the use of more robust methods to quantify larger debris... Finally, our results suggest that **ocean plastic pollution within the [Great Pacific Garbage Patch] is increasing exponentially** and at a faster rate than in surrounding waters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The study doesn't address them, but there's also an [Indian Ocean Garbage Patch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_garbage_patch) and a [North Atlantic Garbage Patch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_garbage_patch). Depending on how you define &quot;garbage patch,&quot; there are also corresponding patches in the South Pacific and South Atlantic.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The Ocean Cleanup&#xD;&#xA;The study has been generating a fair bit of press, in part due to the fact that the work was supported by, and much of the data was provided by, [The Ocean Cleanup](https://www.theoceancleanup.com/). From their website:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Ocean Cleanup is a non-profit organization, developing advanced technologies to rid the world’s oceans of plastic. By utilizing the ocean currents to our advantage, our passive drifting systems are estimated to clean up half the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in 5 years’ time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;passive drifting systems&quot; are comprised of U-shaped floating booms up to two kilometers in length with weighted screens below them. In theory, as ocean currents carry the heavy booms, lighter pieces of garbage are trapped against the screen and drift toward the center of the U, where they accumulate and can easily be collected by ships.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I say &quot;in theory&quot; because tests have so far been [under-whelming](https://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/an-update-from-the-north-sea/). A 100-meter prototype less than 20km offshore in the North Sea lasted less than two months. Other critics ([KCET.org](https://www.kcet.org/redefine/6-reasons-that-floating-ocean-plastic-cleanup-gizmo-is-a-horrible-idea), [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/26/ocean-cleanup-project-environment-pollution-boyan-slat), [Sciencemag](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/critics-say-plan-drifting-ocean-trash-collectors-unmoored)) have voiced concerns that the boom system will not effectively capture garbage, harm sea life, and ultimately break apart, causing an *increase* in marine litter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The 5 Gyres Institute&#xD;&#xA;One of the critics of the Ocean Cleanup is the [5 Gyres Institute](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/critics-say-plan-drifting-ocean-trash-collectors-unmoored). 5 Gyres focuses on original research, education, and citizen involvement. Their research on microbeads lead to environmental regulations in the U.S. From the [FAQ](https://www.5gyres.org/faq/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; During a 2012 5 Gyres expedition, we found plastic microbeads—tiny round microplastics used in personal care products—in the Great Lakes in an open-water setting. That research started a movement, which culminated in President Obama signing the Microbead Free Waters Act in 2015. The law will go into effect in 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5Gyres research and advocacy has driven coalitions of communities and organizations that focus on reducing the amount of pollution flowing into the oceans, understanding the impact of pollution, and educating citizens and decision-makers on those impacts and how behaviors and regulations can be changed to reduce it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How to contribute&#xD;&#xA;While the large-scale technological approach of the Ocean Cleanup is really attractive, ultimately it seems that financially supporting 5 Gyres would be more beneficial, as their methods have a broader foundation of research, and a history of effectively driving regulatory changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if you're not able to contribute financially, 5 Gyres provides a list of 10 different ways you can take action immediately to reduce the pollution that goes into the oceans:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![5 Gyres &quot;take action&quot; list][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;*Note: I have no ties to either organization.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/inxXU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16541" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="ca02fc63-722d-486e-98fe-b89ae028ba76" CreationDate="2018-03-29T18:35:11.547" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16542" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="4dbce758-29b7-452a-971d-cbe37213c403" CreationDate="2018-03-29T20:52:50.007" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/979461399599513600" />
  <row Id="16543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6516" RevisionGUID="51857ef9-8aa9-4a3a-bdb7-bf60feed78ab" CreationDate="2018-03-30T04:38:15.137" UserId="5497" Text="To stop wasps, use metal window screen. (The plastic eventually decomposes.) Use a staple gun and simply cover gaps and holes. If you want a neater look, you can trip with some moulding or rough-sawn wood strips to match your decor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6517" RevisionGUID="227a444f-23a9-4ad3-bcb4-2d48433b806a" CreationDate="2018-03-30T07:14:14.087" UserId="5300" Text="My advice would be to use a solar + battery setup. The battery storage would take up the slack in times when demand is greater than solar supply. During the day, when the batteries are charged, the excess can be dumped into hot water. You would only require grid power to top up your battery if there is any shortfall in solar supply. You don't necessarily require a large battery bank. A couple of days worth could work depending on your needs and budget." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="dcb5b5ac-be4c-45e6-9beb-d97187757135" CreationDate="2018-03-30T12:13:33.817" UserId="2134" Text="# 1. Basic cases for feed-in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What options you have for feed-in differ a lot by country due to regulation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Export to the grid is rewarded.** Utility companies may offer net-metering or to buy the electricity produced locally, based on an export meter reading. Limits of ho&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Export to the grid is rewarded, but limited.** Same as above, but with a regulatory limit on the allowable export that can be either a percentage of current production, or an absolute limit in kW, or a requirement to smooth out short-term fluctuations (&quot;[solar smoothing][1]&quot;, which usually needs a small battery in the system).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Export to the grid is allowed but not paid.** The utility company will accept feed-in to its grid but not pay for it. In this case, a normal grid-tie inverter can be installed. However, the utility company may also have limits for acceptable export to the grid, in which case the inverter needs to support export limiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Export results in higher electricity bills.** This happens in cases where the utility company's electricity meter can only count in one direction, and does so both for incoming and outgoing electricity. In this case, or when unsure if the installed meter is of this type, an inverter with a zero-export solution will help (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Feed-in is forbidden, without enforcement.** Feed-in is forbidden in several countries / areas (incl. Spain, Hawaii, …), but usually this is only a regulation only. To comply with it, an inverter with a zero-export solution will work. There are also multiple variants how strict the regulation is. Some require a minimal consumption, to prevent short-term minimal export to the grid that otherwise can be a result of regulation overshoot in a zero-export solution ([source][2], chp. 4.3.12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Feed-in is forbidden and not tolerated.** In this case, feed-in is absolutely not tolerated, even for a second. Some prepaid electricity meters in South-Africa will fall into this category and disconnect a household from the grid when they detect exporting to the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This follows an [overview by Victron Energy](https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ess:design-installation-manual#pv).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 2. Creating an export limited grid-tie installation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for **the general rule**, in cases where no feed-in program is offered (such as here), a normal grid-tie inverter may or may not be acceptable (see above). If it is not acceptable, or if unsure, an inverter with an export limiting solution may be acceptable. For that, ask the utility company, as they often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, accept equipment that is certified elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the **case of Morocco**, where this question is about, no feed-in program is offered *and* the power company does not allow feed-in. Usually they require that a manual transfer switch is used so that an installation functions either as off-grid installation during or as normal AC-connected household without own production. However, they may not have heard about zero-export devices. It is best to ask. (A local electrician said that a zero-export inverter can be installed without permission as it does not affect the grid negatively – assuming it also comes with the usual anti-islanding function that switches off the inverter when the grid switches off, in order to protect line workers. That is technically correct and may be local practice, but is not &quot;the proper way&quot; regarding the regulation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To create an export limited (or zero export) grid-tied photovoltaics installation, the following technical options are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **String inverter(s) with export limiting.** This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][3] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][4]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][5]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][6]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][7], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][8]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][9]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][10])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [Venus is open source software][11] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][12], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][13].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][14]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Micro-inverters with export limiting.** Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **SolarFighter.** A Spanish company providing a [zero-export solution][15] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][16]). Not sure so far if multiple microinverters can be connected to one controller box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][17], [#28][18], [#46][19]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **GNT [ZED 1][20] and any micro-inverters.** See below at &quot;zero-export devices&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Zero export devices.** These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][21].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent, while being able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][20].** As seen in the picture of the device, it can switch up to 6 inverters (or groups of inverters) on and off selectively, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. This is supported by the &quot;anti-islanding function&quot; of all grid-tie inverters, meant to turn off generation immediately in case of grid failure to protect line workers. This principle of function makes the device independent of inverter models, while not allowing it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all – that seems to be the disadvantage of this generic solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **[Solar Zero Export Controller][22].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **[PicoGrid ZX][23].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **[ComAP InteliPro PV][24].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **[carbonTRACK][1].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Increasing self-consumption.** This is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution (regulation-wise) where feed-in is forbidden, as it's not &quot;certified&quot;. However, where feed-in is allowed but just not rewarded, a DIY solution that regulates local consumers (esp. water heaters) to consume everything that is produced is a useful addition. (Options to create this are best discussed in another question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ess:design-installation-manual#configuration&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="aa4888cd-1f5c-48bd-b947-0de024077a97" CreationDate="2018-03-30T12:48:56.300" UserId="2134" Comment="more on the SolarFighter alternative" Text="# 1. Basic cases for feed-in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What options you have for feed-in differ a lot by country due to regulation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Export to the grid is rewarded.** Utility companies may offer net-metering or to buy the electricity produced locally, based on an export meter reading. Limits of ho&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Export to the grid is rewarded, but limited.** Same as above, but with a regulatory limit on the allowable export that can be either a percentage of current production, or an absolute limit in kW, or a requirement to smooth out short-term fluctuations (&quot;[solar smoothing][1]&quot;, which usually needs a small battery in the system).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Export to the grid is allowed but not paid.** The utility company will accept feed-in to its grid but not pay for it. In this case, a normal grid-tie inverter can be installed. However, the utility company may also have limits for acceptable export to the grid, in which case the inverter needs to support export limiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Export results in higher electricity bills.** This happens in cases where the utility company's electricity meter can only count in one direction, and does so both for incoming and outgoing electricity. In this case, or when unsure if the installed meter is of this type, an inverter with a zero-export solution will help (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Feed-in is forbidden, without enforcement.** Feed-in is forbidden in several countries / areas (incl. Spain, Hawaii, …), but usually this is only a regulation only. To comply with it, an inverter with a zero-export solution will work. There are also multiple variants how strict the regulation is. Some require a minimal consumption, to prevent short-term minimal export to the grid that otherwise can be a result of regulation overshoot in a zero-export solution ([source][2], chp. 4.3.12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Feed-in is forbidden and not tolerated.** In this case, feed-in is absolutely not tolerated, even for a second. Some prepaid electricity meters in South-Africa will fall into this category and disconnect a household from the grid when they detect exporting to the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This follows an [overview by Victron Energy](https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ess:design-installation-manual#pv).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# 2. Creating an export limited grid-tie installation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for **the general rule**, in cases where no feed-in program is offered (such as here), a normal grid-tie inverter may or may not be acceptable (see above). If it is not acceptable, or if unsure, an inverter with an export limiting solution may be acceptable. For that, ask the utility company, as they often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, accept equipment that is certified elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the **case of Morocco**, where this question is about, no feed-in program is offered *and* the power company does not allow feed-in. Usually they require that a manual transfer switch is used so that an installation functions either as off-grid installation during or as normal AC-connected household without own production. However, they may not have heard about zero-export devices. It is best to ask. (A local electrician said that a zero-export inverter can be installed without permission as it does not affect the grid negatively – assuming it also comes with the usual anti-islanding function that switches off the inverter when the grid switches off, in order to protect line workers. That is technically correct and may be local practice, but is not &quot;the proper way&quot; regarding the regulation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To create an export limited (or zero export) grid-tied photovoltaics installation, the following technical options are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **String inverter(s) with export limiting.** This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][3] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][4]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][5]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][6]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][7], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][8]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][9]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][10])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [Venus is open source software][11] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][12], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][13].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][14]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Micro-inverters with export limiting.** Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **SolarFighter.** A Spanish company providing a [very nice zero-export solution][15] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][16]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][17]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][18]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][19], [#28][20], [#46][21]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Any micro-inverters with [GNT ZED 1][22].** See below at &quot;zero-export devices&quot; for how this works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Zero export devices.** These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Circutor [Dynamic Power Controller CDP-0 / CDP-G][23].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][24]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][25].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent, while being able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][22].** As seen in the picture of the device, it can switch up to 6 inverters (or groups of inverters) on and off selectively, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. This is supported by the &quot;anti-islanding function&quot; of all grid-tie inverters, meant to turn off generation immediately in case of grid failure to protect line workers. This principle of function makes the device independent of inverter models, while not allowing it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all – that seems to be the disadvantage of this generic solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **[Solar Zero Export Controller][26].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **[PicoGrid ZX][27].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **[ComAP InteliPro PV][28].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **[carbonTRACK][1].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Increasing self-consumption.** This is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution (regulation-wise) where feed-in is forbidden, as it's not &quot;certified&quot;. However, where feed-in is allowed but just not rewarded, a DIY solution that regulates local consumers (esp. water heaters) to consume everything that is produced is a useful addition. (Options to create this are best discussed in another question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ess:design-installation-manual#configuration&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6519" RevisionGUID="58e3cda5-0947-4e5c-8faf-e766a3d08759" CreationDate="2018-03-30T13:02:22.593" UserId="2134" Text="When researching about photovoltaics feed-in to grid options in my area, I came across various terms: net metering, feed-in limit, zero export / zero feed-in, solar smoothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody explain the various alternatives of how feed-in is realized, and what devices are required to keep the rules of each alternative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6519" RevisionGUID="58e3cda5-0947-4e5c-8faf-e766a3d08759" CreationDate="2018-03-30T13:02:22.593" UserId="2134" Text="What do the different rules for photovoltaics feed-in mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6519" RevisionGUID="58e3cda5-0947-4e5c-8faf-e766a3d08759" CreationDate="2018-03-30T13:02:22.593" UserId="2134" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6520" RevisionGUID="df3fffe2-0d3d-474f-9709-b0403be499a7" CreationDate="2018-03-30T13:02:22.593" UserId="2134" Text="The options you have for feed-in differ a lot by country due to regulation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Export to the grid is rewarded.** Utility companies may offer net-metering or to buy the electricity produced locally, based on an export meter reading. Net metering means that your electricity meter runs forward (when you consume from the grid) or backward (when you produce more than you consume, and export the rest to the grid). So you are only charged for your &quot;net&quot; consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Export to the grid is rewarded, but limited.** Same as above, but with a regulatory limit on the allowable export that can be either a percentage of current production, or an absolute limit in kW, or a requirement to smooth out short-term fluctuations (&quot;[solar smoothing][1]&quot;, which usually needs a small battery in the system).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Export to the grid is allowed but not paid.** The utility company will accept feed-in to its grid but not pay for it. In this case, a normal grid-tie inverter can be installed. However, the utility company may also have limits for acceptable export to the grid, in which case the inverter needs to support export limiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Export results in higher electricity bills.** This happens in cases where the utility company's electricity meter can only count in one direction, and does so both for incoming and outgoing electricity. In this case, or when unsure if the installed meter is of this type, an inverter with a zero-export solution will help (see below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Feed-in is forbidden, without enforcement.** Feed-in is forbidden in several countries / areas (incl. Spain, Hawaii, …), but usually this is only a regulation only. To comply with it, an inverter with a zero-export solution will work. There are also multiple variants how strict the regulation is. Some require a minimal consumption, to prevent short-term minimal export to the grid that otherwise can be a result of regulation overshoot in a zero-export solution ([source][2], chp. 4.3.12).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Feed-in is forbidden and not tolerated.** In this case, feed-in is absolutely not tolerated, even for a second. Some prepaid electricity meters in South-Africa will fall into this category and disconnect a household from the grid when they detect exporting to the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This follows an [overview by Victron Energy][3]. Most of these rules have a technical justification about keeping the grid electricity supply easy enough to manage dependably and safe for workers, but the wide differences between countries also show that a lot of political choices are involved as well (supporting solar energy vs. protecting utility company business models).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ess:design-installation-manual#pv" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="ebc05671-8375-44a0-88d0-bc30ccb020e2" CreationDate="2018-03-30T13:11:02.080" UserId="2134" Comment="more on the SolarFighter alternative; migrating part of the answer to other question" Text="**General case.** For cases where no feed-in program is offered (such as here), a normal grid-tie inverter may or may not be acceptable, depending if your utility company accepts feed-in (just not rewarding it) or outright forbids it. If a normal inverter is not acceptable, an inverter with an export limiting solution may be. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) So, simply ask the utility company. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Specificially for Morocco.** In the case of Morocco, where this question is about, no feed-in program is offered *and* the power company does not allow feed-in. Usually they require that a manual transfer switch is used so that an installation functions either as off-grid installation during or as normal AC-connected household without own production. However, they may not have heard about zero-export devices. It is best to ask. (A local electrician said that a zero-export inverter can be installed without permission as it does not affect the grid negatively – assuming it also comes with the usual anti-islanding function that switches off the inverter when the grid switches off, in order to protect line workers. That is technically correct and may be local practice, but is not &quot;the proper way&quot; regarding the regulation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To create an export limited (or zero export) grid-tied photovoltaics installation, the following technical options are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **String inverter(s) with export limiting.** This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Micro-inverters with export limiting.** Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **SolarFighter.** A Spanish company providing a [very nice zero-export solution][14] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][15]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][16]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][17]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][18], [#28][19], [#46][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Any micro-inverters with [GNT ZED 1][21].** See below at &quot;zero-export devices&quot; for how this works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Zero export devices.** These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **Circutor [Dynamic Power Controller CDP-0 / CDP-G][22].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][23]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][24].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent, while being able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][21].** As seen in the picture of the device, it can switch up to 6 inverters (or groups of inverters) on and off selectively, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. This is supported by the &quot;anti-islanding function&quot; of all grid-tie inverters, meant to turn off generation immediately in case of grid failure to protect line workers. This principle of function makes the device independent of inverter models, while not allowing it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all – that seems to be the disadvantage of this generic solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **[Solar Zero Export Controller][25].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **[PicoGrid ZX][26].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **[ComAP InteliPro PV][27].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * **[carbonTRACK][28].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Increasing self-consumption.** This is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution (regulation-wise) where feed-in is forbidden, as it's not &quot;certified&quot;. However, where feed-in is allowed but just not rewarded, a DIY solution that regulates local consumers (esp. water heaters) to consume everything that is produced is a useful addition. (Options to create this are best discussed in another question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16552" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="a1da50d9-748b-4bc2-bcfe-c4a93ece8270" CreationDate="2018-03-30T13:20:55.647" UserId="2134" Comment="addition: feed-in is indeed not allowed in Morocco" Text="In my current place (Morocco), the electrical utility operator does not allow feed-in. How can I create a photovoltaics installation that respects this rule? I would like to create a grid-tied installation so that grid power can be used when locally produced power is not sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Details: feed-in regulation in Morocco**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The utility operator does not offer net-metering or a feed-in rate for electricity produced by a residential photovoltaics installation. (Net metering is offered for plants connected to the high-voltage network, with the rest planned in laws but not implemented yet.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, no feed-in program is offered and the power company does not allow feed-in. The typical solution (accepted by the utility) is a manual transfer switch so that an installation functions either as off-grid installation during the day, or as normal AC-connected household without own production during the night. This setup needs batteries, though. I hope there are other option?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="b25510f6-2972-449c-a50d-97e6309482bb" CreationDate="2018-03-30T13:43:53.530" UserId="2134" Text="In a location where feed-in to the grid is not rewarded, it makes sense to consume &quot;oversupply&quot; locally produced photovoltaics energy with non-critical consumers, such as water heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I implement this in an automated way (not having to switch anything manually)? I am looking for solutions for cases (1) where feed-in is not rewarded and (2) where feed-in is forbidden. (For an explanation of the different cases, see [this question][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="b25510f6-2972-449c-a50d-97e6309482bb" CreationDate="2018-03-30T13:43:53.530" UserId="2134" Text="How to consume all my photovoltaic electricity locally?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="b25510f6-2972-449c-a50d-97e6309482bb" CreationDate="2018-03-30T13:43:53.530" UserId="2134" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="277b2723-4cba-4819-80b4-78fd7d0a880a" CreationDate="2018-03-30T13:44:25.947" UserId="2134" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Where feed-in is forbidden, a normal grid-tie inverter is not acceptable to the utility. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) However, an inverter plus a zero export solution can be acceptable. I propose to use this (options listed below), as it gets around the need for batteries (which are expensive and tend to break …).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, simply ask the utility operator. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In some countries, utilities may not yet have heard about zero export solutions, but a local electrician might agree to install an inverter with zero-export since it does not affect the grid negatively. This is technically true, as it does not export to the grid and all grid-tie inverters also come with anti-islanding (they switch off when the grid goes down, in order to protect line workers). However, even if the local electrician offers this, as it happened to me, it is probably not &quot;according to the letter of the law&quot;. Proceed at your own responsibility, as always.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following, I list **zero export solutions without batteries**. All options also allow export limiting to a non-zero value, for cases where that is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. String inverter(s) with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Micro-inverters with export limiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarFighter.** A Spanish company providing a [very nice zero-export solution][14] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][15]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][16]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][17]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][18], [#28][19], [#46][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Any micro-inverters with [GNT ZED 1][21].** See below at &quot;zero-export devices&quot; for how this works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. Zero export devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor Dynamic Power Controller [CDP-0][22] / [CDP-G][23].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][24]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][25].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent, while being able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][21].** As seen in the picture of the device, it can switch up to 6 inverters (or groups of inverters) on and off selectively, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. This is supported by the &quot;anti-islanding function&quot; of all grid-tie inverters, meant to turn off generation immediately in case of grid failure to protect line workers. This principle of function makes the device independent of inverter models, while not allowing it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all – that seems to be the disadvantage of this generic solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Solar Zero Export Controller][26].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[PicoGrid ZX][27].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ComAP InteliPro PV][28].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[carbonTRACK][29].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 4. Increasing self-consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, to my knowledge, no certified industrial device that uses increased self-consumption as the only way to guarantee zero or limited export to the grid, so this is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution with respect to regulation where feed-in is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the solutions mentioned above have the option to control the consumption of non-critical electrical consumers (like a water heater), and there are DIY ways for that as well. So it is a useful addition to utilize &quot;oversupply&quot; local electricity meaningfully. This is best discussed in [another question][30].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6521" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6522" RevisionGUID="d956ff27-8b2e-4c8b-a079-c6f1a27dda28" CreationDate="2018-03-30T13:57:06.543" UserId="2134" Text="For the case where feed-in is forbidden, you need a zero export mechanism (see [this answer][1] for options) that also includes demand management.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of the following devices that can do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor [Dynamic Power Controller CDP-G][2].** Includes an electricity meter, relays to switch non-critical consumers (&quot;demand management&quot;) and, as ultima ratio to achieve zero export, a mechanism that can throttle inverters of various brands. Ca. 800 EUR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][3].** Same mode of funcation as the CDP-G.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting and zero feed-in is possible with this setup ([source][4]).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;And fortunately, [Venus is open source software][5] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][6]. So in principle, it should be possible to build a sophisticated DIY solution that can adjust local demand to consume all locally produced energy. It's not an off-the-shelf solution though, but a flexible one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6518&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16558" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="6e356059-bd25-46ee-ad1f-877d47d45cf8" CreationDate="2018-03-30T14:07:06.320" UserId="2134" Comment="added 98 characters in body" Text="In my current place (Morocco), the electrical utility operator does not allow feed-in. How can I create a photovoltaics installation that respects this rule? I would like to create a grid-tied installation so that grid power can be used when locally produced power is not sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Details: feed-in regulation in Morocco**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The utility operator does not offer net-metering or a feed-in rate for electricity produced by a residential photovoltaics installation. (Net metering is offered for plants connected to the high-voltage network, with the rest planned in laws but not implemented yet – [see][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, no feed-in program is offered and the power company does not allow feed-in. The typical solution (accepted by the utility) is a manual transfer switch so that an installation functions either as off-grid installation during the day, or as normal AC-connected household without own production during the night. This setup needs batteries, though. I hope there are other option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://renewablesnow.com/news/morocco-amends-renewable-energy-law-507698/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6519" RevisionGUID="e6f8f820-3423-4412-956d-52f803cdd198" CreationDate="2018-03-30T17:25:25.040" UserId="2134" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="When researching about photovoltaics feed-in to grid options in my area, I came across various terms: net metering, feed-in limit, zero export / zero feed-in, solar smoothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can somebody explain the various alternatives of how feed-in is realized, and what devices are required to keep within the rules of each?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="8e17767f-a7ca-422b-9260-6b10037b07e7" CreationDate="2018-03-30T18:38:37.903" UserId="2134" Comment="content error fixes" Text="Where feed-in is forbidden, a normal grid-tie inverter is not acceptable to the utility. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) However, an inverter plus a zero export solution can be acceptable. I propose to use this (options listed below), as it gets around the need for batteries (which are an additional expense and incur replacement costs due to normal degradation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, simply ask the utility operator. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In some countries, utilities may not yet have heard about zero export solutions, but a local electrician might agree to install an inverter with zero-export since it does not affect the grid. This is technically true if the inverter also has the anti-islanding feature (switching off when the grid goes down, to protect line workers; most grid-tie inverters have it, some reportedly don't, so check before). However, even if the local electrician offers this, as it happened to me, it is probably not &quot;according to the letter of the law&quot;. Proceed at your own responsibility, as always.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following, I list **zero export solutions without batteries**. All options also allow export limiting to a non-zero value, for cases where that is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. String inverter(s) with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Micro-inverters with export limiting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarFighter.** A Spanish company providing a [very nice zero-export solution][14] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][15]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][16]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][17]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][18], [#28][19], [#46][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Any micro-inverters with [GNT ZED 1][21].** See below at &quot;zero-export devices&quot; for how this works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. Zero export devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor Dynamic Power Controller [CDP-0][22] / [CDP-G][23].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][24]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][25].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent, while being able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][21].** As seen in the picture of the device, it can switch up to 6 inverters (or groups of inverters) on and off selectively, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. This is supported by the &quot;anti-islanding function&quot; of all grid-tie inverters, meant to turn off generation immediately in case of grid failure to protect line workers. This principle of function makes the device independent of inverter models, while not allowing it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all – that seems to be the disadvantage of this generic solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Solar Zero Export Controller][26].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[PicoGrid ZX][27].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ComAP InteliPro PV][28].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[carbonTRACK][29].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 4. Increasing self-consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, to my knowledge, no certified industrial device that uses increased self-consumption as the only way to guarantee zero or limited export to the grid, so this is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution with respect to regulation where feed-in is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the solutions mentioned above have the option to control the consumption of non-critical electrical consumers (like a water heater), and there are DIY ways for that as well. So it is a useful addition to utilize &quot;oversupply&quot; local electricity meaningfully. This is best discussed in [another question][30].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6521" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6522" RevisionGUID="aea27e18-3a4b-403e-ae0e-077ac09eae8b" CreationDate="2018-03-30T19:02:42.137" UserId="2134" Comment="application examples" Text="For the case where feed-in is forbidden, you need a zero export mechanism (see [this answer][1] for options) that also includes demand management.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of the following devices that can do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor [Dynamic Power Controller CDP-G][2].** Includes an electricity meter, three relays to switch non-critical electrical consumers (&quot;demand management&quot;) and, as ultima ratio to achieve zero export, a mechanism that can throttle inverters of various brands. Ca. 800 EUR. According to [the datasheet][3], the three load-management relays can switch up to 6 A * 230 V AC = 1380 W each. (To drive even higher loads, it should be possible to connect a secondary relay to a relay output.) For each relay output, a connected power consumption can be configured so that the device can choose what device to switch on when depending on the available surplus power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][4].** Same mode of function as the Circutor CDP-G.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting and zero feed-in is possible with this setup ([source][5]).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;And fortunately, [Venus is open source software][6] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][7]. So in principle, it should be possible to build a sophisticated DIY solution that can adjust local demand to consume all locally produced energy. It's not an off-the-shelf solution though, but a flexible one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of loads that can be controlled by these devices, most according to the [list by Circutor][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* water pumps, esp. with elevated storage tanks (storing potential energy)&#xD;&#xA;* heat pumps&#xD;&#xA;* air compressors (storing energy in compressed air)&#xD;&#xA;* heating hot water in tanks for residential use and / or in swimming pools&#xD;&#xA;* cooling water in isolated tanks, for later use in air conditioning&#xD;&#xA;* fridges or freezers with cold accumulators (as used in campervans, but maybe there are larger versions?)&#xD;&#xA;* cryptocurrency mining&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6518&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://circutor.com/docs/FT_CDP-G_EN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail#applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="aee12b6f-1532-49a3-8ed2-e86fef4b33aa" CreationDate="2018-03-31T00:28:42.477" UserId="2134" Comment="just removing a dot …" Text="Where feed-in is forbidden, a normal grid-tie inverter is not acceptable to the utility. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) However, an inverter plus a zero export solution can be acceptable. I propose to use this (options listed below), as it gets around the need for batteries (which are an additional expense and incur replacement costs due to normal degradation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, simply ask the utility operator. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In some countries, utilities may not yet have heard about zero export solutions, but a local electrician might agree to install an inverter with zero-export since it does not affect the grid. This is technically true if the inverter also has the anti-islanding feature (switching off when the grid goes down, to protect line workers; most grid-tie inverters have it, some reportedly don't, so check before). However, even if the local electrician offers this, as it happened to me, it is probably not &quot;according to the letter of the law&quot;. Proceed at your own responsibility, as always.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following, I list **zero export solutions without batteries**. All options also allow export limiting to a non-zero value, for cases where that is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. String inverter(s) with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Micro-inverters with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarFighter.** A Spanish company providing a [very nice zero-export solution][14] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][15]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][16]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][17]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][18], [#28][19], [#46][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Any micro-inverters with [GNT ZED 1][21].** See below at &quot;zero-export devices&quot; for how this works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. Zero export devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor Dynamic Power Controller [CDP-0][22] / [CDP-G][23].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][24]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][25].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent, while being able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][21].** As seen in the picture of the device, it can switch up to 6 inverters (or groups of inverters) on and off selectively, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. This is supported by the &quot;anti-islanding function&quot; of all grid-tie inverters, meant to turn off generation immediately in case of grid failure to protect line workers. This principle of function makes the device independent of inverter models, while not allowing it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all – that seems to be the disadvantage of this generic solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Solar Zero Export Controller][26].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[PicoGrid ZX][27].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ComAP InteliPro PV][28].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[carbonTRACK][29].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 4. Increasing self-consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, to my knowledge, no certified industrial device that uses increased self-consumption as the only way to guarantee zero or limited export to the grid, so this is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution with respect to regulation where feed-in is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the solutions mentioned above have the option to control the consumption of non-critical electrical consumers (like a water heater), and there are DIY ways for that as well. So it is a useful addition to utilize &quot;oversupply&quot; local electricity meaningfully. This is best discussed in [another question][30].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6521" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16563" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6512" RevisionGUID="2526559d-054f-4694-aa15-f07a04cd95a4" CreationDate="2018-03-31T02:56:17.563" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/979915255336882176" />
  <row Id="16564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6523" RevisionGUID="5e1e77fd-2611-4f02-a1d5-ccf7c8f7c9fe" CreationDate="2018-03-31T05:58:53.460" UserId="5517" Text="The Honeywell Hot Water Timer, the [ST9100C](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Honeywell-ST9100C1006-Single-Channel-Timeswitch/dp/B001HB2Q1W) is an inexpensive way to send solar power to your hot water cylinder. You can switch it so that it only uses power during the day and turns off at night.  It has 3 on/off periods per day so you can use the mains to heat up in the early hours of the morning if necessary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6525" RevisionGUID="845e2f46-3e17-4992-876f-5f98425f4f88" CreationDate="2018-04-01T12:43:25.753" UserId="4886" Text="I was faced with a similar question a couple of years ago.  The best solution I could come up with was to feed the grey water into an area occupied by plants that consumed 'large' quantities of water and continuously dropped leaf litter.  The leaf litter would layer on top of the particulates in the grey water and provide protection to the micro-organisms that break it down into plant-accessible form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ended up going with a combination of **three different species of bamboo**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bamboo sucks up all the water I can throw at it, ultimately consumes all the nutrients, provides shelter from the wind, offers shade in summer, offers privacy all-year-round, and in about two more years will start granting a harvestable crop of culms that I can use for various purposes (e.g. chicken pens, alpaca shelters, gardening stakes, footbridges, biochar).  Since I have no interest in eating bamboo shoots, this approach does not impact on my food chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know you didn't say that you wanted to *make use of* your grey water, but I figured I'd let you know what I came up with in case that sparked some ideas.  Dispersal is good... but crops are better!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6525" RevisionGUID="a16f1181-e06c-44b6-9eaf-d8a42cb18546" CreationDate="2018-04-01T13:03:20.257" UserId="4886" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I was faced with a similar question a couple of years ago.  The best solution I could come up with was to feed the grey water into an area occupied by plants that consumed 'large' quantities of water and continuously dropped leaf litter.  The leaf litter would layer on top of the particulates in the grey water and provide protection to the micro-organisms that break it down into plant-accessible form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ended up going with a combination of **three different species of bamboo**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bamboo sucks up all the water I can throw at it, ultimately consumes all the nutrients, provides shelter from the wind, offers shade in summer, offers privacy all-year-round, and in about two more years will start granting a regularly-harvestable crop of culms that I can use for various purposes (e.g. chicken pens, alpaca shelters, gardening stakes, footbridges, biochar).  Since I have no interest in eating bamboo shoots, this approach does not impact on my food chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know you didn't say that you wanted to *make use of* your grey water, but I figured I'd let you know what I came up with in case that sparked some ideas.  Dispersal is good... but crops are better!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="266838a4-7436-475d-a70c-dd22df63637a" CreationDate="2018-04-01T20:44:55.667" UserId="5532" Text="Based on [this Dutch site][1] and the [answer by Jean-Paul Calderone][2] i have compiled a ranking. &#xD;&#xA;The fence and the pole for the door-lock can be seen as two separate problems, so solutions for the first (a hedge, woven branches, planks) can be combined with one of the solutions for the second (wood, composite, concrete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ranking for the fence:###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Hedge**: it's renewable and provides shelter for small animals. Some plants like Thuja and Holly will stay green over winter. &#xD;&#xA; 2. **Untreated branches** or **untreated bamboo**.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Planking made of **un-impregnated FSC wood** (for example hardwood or thermally modified softwood) / a **stone wall** from stones mined locally or in neighbouring countries / a **metal fence**&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Un-impregnated non-FSC wood** / **stones** mined far away / **composite** material.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Non-FSC hardwood from the tropics / brick&#xD;&#xA; 6. Impregnated softwood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Ranking for the pole:###&#xD;&#xA; 1. **FSC Hardwood** like Red Cedar, char the underside to get extra durability (thanks [Jan Steinman][3])/ **Thermally modified FSC softwood** &#xD;&#xA; 2. **Concrete** pole (not as renewable but apparently durable)&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Un-impregnated non-FSC wood** / **Composite**&#xD;&#xA; 4. Non-FSC hardwood from the tropics&#xD;&#xA; 5. Impregnated softwood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was surprised by the iron fence being ranked as high as wood, but apparetly it's a tradeof between durability and renewability and in theory a metal fence may last decades. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unrated tricks to prolong the fence-life of wooden poles are placing them in metal holders or just wrapping the under-side in a sturdy plastic bag like the bags compost is sold in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.milieucentraal.nl/in-en-om-het-huis/tuinieren/tuinontwerp/schuttingen-en-hagen/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6491/5532&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/5497/jan-steinman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6525" RevisionGUID="d21d42b7-7135-478b-afc9-9743a34635cd" CreationDate="2018-04-02T01:54:30.013" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I was faced with a similar question a couple of years ago.  The best solution I could come up with was to feed the grey water into an area occupied by plants that consumed 'large' quantities of water and continuously dropped leaf litter.  The leaf litter would layer on top of the particulates in the grey water and provide protection to the micro-organisms that break it down into plant-accessible form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ended up going with a combination of **three different species of bamboo**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bamboo sucks up all the water I can throw at it, ultimately consumes all the nutrients, provides shelter from the wind, offers shade in summer, grants privacy all-year-round, and in about two more years will start yielding a regularly-harvestable crop of culms that I can use for various purposes (e.g. chicken pens, alpaca shelters, gardening stakes, footbridges, biochar).  Since I have no interest in eating bamboo shoots, this approach does not impact on my food chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know you didn't say that you wanted to *make use of* your grey water, but I figured I'd let you know what I came up with in case that sparked some ideas.  Dispersal is good... but crops are better!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16571" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="5e5d8869-ddfa-4e29-b997-a3d46902c364" CreationDate="2018-04-03T00:55:00.147" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="737174a0-3c21-4d6c-b0b7-f18047432917" CreationDate="2018-04-03T09:13:56.757" UserId="5595" Text="Ebooks and normal paper books both contribute to environmental damage in some way. &#xA;&#xA;I want to know, **which of those two contributes to less environmental damage, on average?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="737174a0-3c21-4d6c-b0b7-f18047432917" CreationDate="2018-04-03T09:13:56.757" UserId="5595" Text="Use Ebooks or normal books?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="737174a0-3c21-4d6c-b0b7-f18047432917" CreationDate="2018-04-03T09:13:56.757" UserId="5595" Text="|environmental-impact|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5050" RevisionGUID="f2a6b4b6-da23-4698-875d-005fcf2af0f1" CreationDate="2018-04-03T13:56:37.177" UserId="3379" Comment="added title of document in case link breaks" Text="There is a very detailed and interesting document of the British Government ([Impact Assessment DECC0009: &quot;Smart meter roll-out for the domestic and small and medium non-domestic sectors&quot;][1]) where the saving in costs (divided in a lot of categories, as a saving of £1.21bn in carbon related activities) and in emissions is explained carefully.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that document you can find a section of more than 30 pages explaining the results for the domestic sector which addresses your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/276656/smart_meter_roll_out_for_the_domestic_and_small_and_medium_and_non_domestic_sectors.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6506" RevisionGUID="4e02a503-faad-4306-8b5c-351aa4c46750" CreationDate="2018-04-03T14:13:39.883" UserId="3293" Comment="Answer to questions" Text="Has anyone ever used self-made, eco-friendly sealing compound for outdoors? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* What recipe?&#xD;&#xA;* How long does the recipe you used last?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I intend to use this sealing compound to stop wasps from getting in and out of my walls and removing styrofoam insulation (damn wasps) to build their nest. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Details:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The gaps are no more than 2 centimeters wide; &#xD;&#xA;* Environment is central Europe, not too warm, not too moist climate;&#xD;&#xA;* It is to fill the gaps between wood planks and concrete." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6528" RevisionGUID="7a2a0fa1-074b-446b-8a19-57a309ed47cb" CreationDate="2018-04-04T09:16:31.233" UserId="5230" Text="Just starting my power closet to power my off grid mobile home&#xD;&#xA;I've come to question everyone that I belive would know with no concrete answer&#xD;&#xA;Is there a difference between using a modified sine or pure sine inverter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6528" RevisionGUID="7a2a0fa1-074b-446b-8a19-57a309ed47cb" CreationDate="2018-04-04T09:16:31.233" UserId="5230" Text="Are pure or modified sine inverters different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6528" RevisionGUID="7a2a0fa1-074b-446b-8a19-57a309ed47cb" CreationDate="2018-04-04T09:16:31.233" UserId="5230" Text="|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16580" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="63cd9abf-542e-411c-9a38-6e83d59b60a1" CreationDate="2018-04-04T14:42:31.533" UserId="3379" Comment="42" />
  <row Id="16581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6529" RevisionGUID="1c9a69cb-bf58-456e-9f53-c26ad49f931a" CreationDate="2018-04-04T17:40:20.690" UserId="5600" Text="I'm looking at building a sustainable energy project that will convert biogas (methane) into electricity. I haven't found any biogas or methane electric generators for sale. It seems that there are some projects that are using generators to convert the methane gas into electricity, however, I can't tell if this is special kind of generator and I just don't know what it's called or if it is a natural gas or propane generator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So will off the shelf natural gas or propane generators also run off of methane?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, how would I go about trying to calculate how much methane it would take to run the generator to produce enough electricity to say charge a cell phone or another small appliance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6529" RevisionGUID="1c9a69cb-bf58-456e-9f53-c26ad49f931a" CreationDate="2018-04-04T17:40:20.690" UserId="5600" Text="Will natural gas or propane generators also run off of methane?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6529" RevisionGUID="1c9a69cb-bf58-456e-9f53-c26ad49f931a" CreationDate="2018-04-04T17:40:20.690" UserId="5600" Text="|renewables|diy|fuel-efficiency|biofuels|biogas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6530" RevisionGUID="f51d767f-cc08-45ca-81de-aa0a392e110b" CreationDate="2018-04-04T18:20:41.443" UserId="3379" Text="### Natural gas is just really, really old biogas ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The terms &quot;natural gas&quot; and &quot;biogas&quot; both describe a mix of gaseous hydrocarbons primarily composed of methane; the different names depend on the origin. According to [the U.S. Energy Information Administration](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=natural_gas_home):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Natural gas occurs deep beneath the earth's surface. Natural gas consists mainly of methane, a compound with one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. Natural gas also contains small amounts of hydrocarbon gas liquids and nonhydrocarbon gases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast (from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Biogas typically refers to a mixture of different gases produced by the breakdown of organic matter in the absence of oxygen. [...] Biogas is primarily methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) and may have small amounts of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), moisture and siloxanes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Propane is a by-product of natural gas extraction&#xD;&#xA;Unlike natural gas and biogas which are mixtures of methane plus various other gases, propane is just one gas (from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Propane is a three-carbon alkane with the molecular formula C3H8. [...] A by-product of natural gas processing and petroleum refining, it is commonly used as a fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Natural gas, biogas, and methane are interchangeable*, propane is not ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because natural gas and biogas are primarily composed of methane, you can generally use them interchangeably. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*That said, certain types of equipment (whether combustion generators or otherwise) likely require a certain minimum methane concentration, which will vary for natural gas and biogas depending on the source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, propane is an entirely different chemical compound, meaning equipment designed for propane will most likely not work with any other gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### A note on fuel cells&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It seems that there are some projects that are using generators to convert the methane gas into electricity, however, I can't tell if this is special kind of generator and I just don't know what it's called or if it is a natural gas or propane generator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like you may be referring to **fuel cells**. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A fuel cell is an electrochemical cell that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through an electrochemical reaction of hydrogen fuel with oxygen or another oxidising agent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of different fuel cell technologies, some of which involve extracting hydrogen from methane, propane, or other hydrocarbons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="1b3471d0-3fd2-403a-be5e-59e0811c7404" CreationDate="2018-04-05T21:39:21.550" UserId="5606" Text="First timer here, just getting into homesteading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I bought a pack of sawdust from Tractor Supply the other night. Finest variety they had:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/tractor-supply-co-fine-premium-pine-shavings-covers-55-cu-ft?cm_vc=-10005&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks like very thin pine shavings, raging from 1/8 in to about 3/8 in. These are kiln-dried natural wood, no treated stuff, plywood etc. I think they market it for chick beds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this appropriate for composting toilet? Or do I need the fine powdered stuff like what comes out of a table saw?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, (gross-out alert, but I'm truly being serious) when using the toilet, do I need to dust the urine/feces until dry, or completely cover it up to where the level of sawdust is flat &amp; dry?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="1b3471d0-3fd2-403a-be5e-59e0811c7404" CreationDate="2018-04-05T21:39:21.550" UserId="5606" Text="Does Sawdust for Humanure/Composting Toilet need to be Powder?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="1b3471d0-3fd2-403a-be5e-59e0811c7404" CreationDate="2018-04-05T21:39:21.550" UserId="5606" Text="|composting|diy|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16588" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6529" RevisionGUID="224a395e-7278-47d4-923b-df2e905d1c96" CreationDate="2018-04-06T00:14:54.497" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/982048968891920385" />
  <row Id="16589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="f1c420e6-9588-4c65-8301-a32d5c8673e2" CreationDate="2018-04-06T02:45:21.087" UserId="4886" Text="The role of the sawdust/shavings is four-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Visually hide your waste so the next person using the toilet doesn't need to see it&#xD;&#xA; - Trap the air immediately above the waste so that it doesn't waft into the room&#xD;&#xA; - Absorb some of the fluids/urine&#xD;&#xA; - Add carbon to the high-nitrogen mix so that the composting process can begin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The labelled 'quality' of the sawdust/shavings is pretty-much irrelevant.  'Premium' doesn't mean anything.  Don't pay extra for it.  Use the cheapest sawdust/shavings you can find.  As long as they come from pure wood (not manufactured products with glue/paint/resins in them) and are dry you'll be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the most important characteristic of the sawdust/shavings is how easily they can be scattered.  You want to quickly apply a layer over everything without having to think too much or spend a lot of time on it.  If the sawdust/shavings tend to clump rather than scatter, then you may want to consider a different source/type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many commercial products are compressed, so if you are using them straight from their original bag, they will tend to clump.  This can be most easily solved by using an intermediate pail/bucket/tin.  When you transfer the sawdust/shavings from the bag to the pail/bucket/tin clumps have an opportunity to break up.  When you then actually use it it has a second chance to break up.  Loose/fluffy cover is good cover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the *amount* you want to be using, keep in mind that you want a 30:1 C:N ratio in a regular compost pile for the bacteria to be happy.  That translates to a lot more sawdust/shavings than people think.  When you're paying for the cover material, there is financial pressure to minimise the amount you use.  Many folks tend to apply less than they should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fresh container should have about 6-10cm of sawdust/shavings placed in the bottom before it is even used.  Most of your urine/liquid waste will make its way to the bottom of the container, so you need something there to help sop it up.  Applying roughly 3cm of cover over fresh waste should be adequate.  *Not being able to see any waste* except for the odd corner of toilet paper is a good guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest challenge with composting toilets is the water content.  People drinking a lot of water tend to generate a lot of dilute urine.  Purchased sawdust/shavings makes for an expensive sponge.  Depending on your domestic arrangements and conditions, having males (and females that are able) urinate somewhere else relieves a *huge* burden from the compositing toilet.  If you can have a separate toilet just for urine, that's one way to solve it.  If you have fruit trees out back that can do with direct fertilising, that's an even better way.  Excessive fluids in the container is the most common way to saturate the mix and turn it into a stinky, anaerobic mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use sawdust that comes from processing own firewood with chainsaws and from woodworking projects in the shed.  Sawdust is collected and stored (suspended off the ground) in highly porous bags for at least one summer.  It's then ready to use inside.  Since our sawdust is a by-product (essentially 'free'), and I produce far more than we need, we can apply cover material liberally and don't have odour issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="7523b8ba-57df-4e3c-bb97-a1695c28dd07" CreationDate="2018-04-06T02:52:51.603" UserId="4886" Comment="added 285 characters in body" Text="The role of the sawdust/shavings is four-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Visually hide your waste so the next person using the toilet doesn't need to see it&#xD;&#xA; - Trap the air immediately above the waste so that it doesn't waft into the room&#xD;&#xA; - Absorb some of the fluids/urine&#xD;&#xA; - Add carbon to the high-nitrogen mix so that the composting process can begin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The labelled 'quality' of the sawdust/shavings is pretty-much irrelevant.  'Premium' doesn't mean anything.  Don't pay extra for it.  Use the cheapest sawdust/shavings you can find.  As long as they come from pure wood (not manufactured products with glue/paint/resins in them) and are dry you'll be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the most important characteristic of the sawdust/shavings is how easily they can be scattered.  You want to quickly apply a layer over everything without having to think too much or spend a lot of time on it.  If the sawdust/shavings tend to clump rather than scatter, then you may want to consider a different source/type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many commercial products are compressed, so if you are using them straight from their original bag, they will tend to clump.  This can be most easily solved by using an intermediate pail/bucket/tin.  When you transfer the sawdust/shavings from the bag to the pail/bucket/tin clumps have an opportunity to break up.  When you then actually use it it has a second chance to break up.  Loose/fluffy cover is good cover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the *amount* you want to be using, keep in mind that you want a 30:1 C:N ratio in a regular compost pile for the bacteria to be happy.  That translates to a lot more sawdust/shavings than people think.  When you're paying for the cover material, there is financial pressure to minimise the amount you use.  Many folks tend to apply less than they should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fresh container should have about 6-10cm of sawdust/shavings placed in the bottom before it is even used.  Most of your urine/liquid waste will make its way to the bottom of the container, so you need something there to help sop it up.  Applying roughly 3cm of cover over fresh waste should be adequate.  *Not being able to see any waste* — except for the odd corner of toilet paper — is a good guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest challenge with composting toilets is the water content.  People drinking a lot of water tend to generate a lot of dilute urine.  Purchased sawdust/shavings makes for an expensive sponge.  Depending on your domestic arrangements and conditions, having males (and females that are able) urinate somewhere else relieves a *huge* burden from the compositing toilet.  If you can have a separate toilet just for urine, that's one way to solve it.  If you have fruit trees out back that can do with direct fertilising, that's an even better way.  Excessive fluids in the container is the most common way to saturate the mix and turn it into a stinky, anaerobic mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can reduce the amount of fluids going into the container, you can get away with using less (sometimes a *lot* less) sawdust/shavings.  This means your container needs to be swapped-out/emptied less frequently and (if you purchase your cover material) you save money as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use sawdust that comes from processing own firewood with chainsaws and from woodworking projects in the shed.  Sawdust is collected and stored (suspended off the ground) in highly porous bags for at least one summer.  It's then ready to use inside.  Since our sawdust is a by-product (essentially 'free'), and I produce far more than we need, we can apply cover material liberally and don't have odour issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="faddba50-9cc4-460c-9f86-040c9885279c" CreationDate="2018-04-06T03:12:20.670" UserId="4886" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The role of the sawdust/shavings is four-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Visually hide your waste so the next person using the toilet doesn't need to see it&#xD;&#xA; - Trap the air immediately above the waste so that it doesn't waft into the room&#xD;&#xA; - Absorb some of the fluids/urine&#xD;&#xA; - Add carbon to the high-nitrogen mix so that the composting process can begin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The labelled 'quality' of the sawdust/shavings is pretty-much irrelevant.  'Premium' doesn't mean anything.  Don't pay extra for it.  Use the cheapest sawdust/shavings you can find.  As long as they come from pure wood (not manufactured products with glue/paint/resins in them) and are dry you'll be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the most important characteristic of the sawdust/shavings is how easily they can be scattered.  You want to quickly apply a layer over everything without having to think too much or spend a lot of time on it.  If the sawdust/shavings tend to clump rather than scatter, then you may want to consider a different source/type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many commercial products are compressed, so if you are using them straight from their original bag, they will tend to clump.  This can be most easily solved by using an intermediate pail/bucket/tin.  When you transfer the sawdust/shavings from the bag to the pail/bucket/tin clumps have an opportunity to break up.  When you then actually use it clumps has a second chance to break up.  Loose/fluffy cover is good cover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the *amount* you want to be using, keep in mind that you want a 30:1 C:N ratio in a regular compost pile for the bacteria to be happy.  That translates to a lot more sawdust/shavings than people think.  When you're paying for the cover material, there is financial pressure to minimise the amount you use.  Many folks tend to apply less than they should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fresh container should have about 6-10cm of sawdust/shavings placed in the bottom before it is even used.  Most of your urine/liquid waste will make its way to the bottom of the container, so you need something there to help sop it up.  Applying roughly 3cm of cover over fresh waste should be adequate.  *Not being able to see any waste* — except for the odd corner of toilet paper — is a good guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest challenge with composting toilets is the water content.  People drinking a lot of water tend to generate a lot of dilute urine.  Purchased sawdust/shavings makes for an expensive sponge.  Depending on your domestic arrangements and conditions, having males (and females that are able) urinate somewhere else relieves a *huge* burden from the compositing toilet.  If you can have a separate toilet just for urine, that's one way to solve it.  If you have fruit trees out back that can do with direct fertilising, that's an even better way.  Excessive amounts of fluid in the container is the most common way to saturate the mix and turn it into a stinky, anaerobic mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can reduce the amount of fluids going into the container, you can get away with using less (sometimes a *lot* less) sawdust/shavings.  This means your container needs to be swapped-out/emptied less frequently and (if you purchase your cover material) you save money as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use sawdust that comes from processing own firewood with chainsaws and from woodworking projects in the shed.  Sawdust is collected and stored (suspended off the ground) in highly porous bags for at least one summer.  It's then ready to use inside.  Since our sawdust is a by-product (essentially 'free'), and I produce far more than we need, we can apply cover material liberally and don't have odour issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6533" RevisionGUID="ab1f71a2-4ca1-4813-8267-a780fb18cfd9" CreationDate="2018-04-06T08:54:48.950" UserId="15" Text="&gt; Both types of inverter will provide power to AC appliances, however Pure Sine is high quality equal to (or better than) the power in your home, Modified sine wave power is an simpler form of power and is adequate for simple electronics, but may damage more complex ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://www.baintech.com.au/what-is-the-difference-between-a-pure-sine-and-modified-sine-inverter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6534" RevisionGUID="a8e34dd0-7dc4-4105-94f1-1f43c7376fac" CreationDate="2018-04-06T08:59:37.437" UserId="5608" Text="My wife and I have a bunch of random broken things from our previous lives that we're trying to get rid of correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of them is a few left over soda stream canisters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many recycling centers in NSW at least don't seem to take on gas canisters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a place in Australia (preferably in Sydney) that would recycle these or dispose of them correctly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6534" RevisionGUID="a8e34dd0-7dc4-4105-94f1-1f43c7376fac" CreationDate="2018-04-06T08:59:37.437" UserId="5608" Text="Recycling soda stream cannisters in Australia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6534" RevisionGUID="a8e34dd0-7dc4-4105-94f1-1f43c7376fac" CreationDate="2018-04-06T08:59:37.437" UserId="5608" Text="|recycling|waste|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="1c0f82e7-4114-4b72-9d65-ef93d17b362f" CreationDate="2018-04-06T11:40:31.667" UserId="4886" Text="SodaStream canisters don't have anything in them except for carbon dioxide.  One way or the other that's going into the atmosphere — it's not getting re-used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just bleed the CO2 out of the top of the canister by pushing it down against a concrete paver or something.  Then, when it's empty, unscrew the valve or drive a large nail through the side so it can't be re-pressurised.  From that point on it's nothing but scrap metal.  Put it in your recycle bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once-upon-a-time you could get a refund for these things (the princely sum of AU$1), but I believe they shut that program down a four or so years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all that, the canisters *are* solidly built and are tested to 250bar.  If you're a bit of a hacker you can empty it, swap out the valve, and do some cool things with it at much lower pressures.  Those things really are worth the tens of dollars you paid for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16598" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="c5bfb5de-d175-4275-95a8-8b716324ffac" CreationDate="2018-04-06T11:47:33.293" UserId="4886" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="SodaStream canisters don't have anything in them except for carbon dioxide.  One way or the other that's going into the atmosphere — it's not getting re-used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just bleed the CO2 out of the top of the canister by pushing it down against a concrete paver or something hard and rough.  Then, when it's empty, unscrew the valve or drive a large nail through the side so it can't be re-pressurised.  From that point on it's nothing but harmless scrap metal — put it in your recycle bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once-upon-a-time you could get a refund for these things (the princely sum of AU$1), but I believe they shut that program down about four years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all that, the canisters *are* solidly built and are tested to 250bar.  If you're a bit of a hacker you can empty it, swap out the valve, and do some cool things with it at much lower pressures.  Those things really are worth the tens of dollars you paid for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="9fdaf68d-9cae-4e5e-9522-17d655bcb92a" CreationDate="2018-04-06T11:52:59.087" UserId="4886" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="SodaStream canisters don't have anything in them except for carbon dioxide.  One way or the other that's going into the atmosphere — it's not getting re-used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just bleed the CO2 out of the top of the canister by pushing it down against a concrete paver or something hard and rough.  Then, when it's empty, unscrew the valve or drive a large nail through the side so it can't be re-pressurised.  From that point on it's nothing but harmless scrap metal — put it in your recycle bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once-upon-a-time you could get a refund for these things (the princely sum of AU$1), but I believe they shut that program down about four years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all that, the canisters *are* solidly built and are tested to 250bar.  If you're a bit of a hacker you can empty it, swap out the valve, and do some cool things with it at much lower pressures (e.g. brew beer, nerf gun, spud launcher, toroidal vortex air cannon).  Those things really are worth the tens of dollars you paid for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="dcf1f6c9-712e-4dd2-b255-61d59e304ea8" CreationDate="2018-04-06T12:29:20.983" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The role of the sawdust/shavings is four-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Visually hide your waste so the next person using the toilet doesn't need to see it&#xD;&#xA; - Trap the air immediately above the waste so that it doesn't waft into the room&#xD;&#xA; - Absorb some of the fluids/urine&#xD;&#xA; - Add carbon to the high-nitrogen mix so that the composting process can begin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The labelled 'quality' of the sawdust/shavings is pretty-much irrelevant.  'Premium' doesn't mean anything.  Don't pay extra for it.  Use the cheapest sawdust/shavings you can find.  As long as they come from pure wood (not manufactured products with glue/paint/resins in them) and are dry you'll be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the most important characteristic of the sawdust/shavings is how easily they can be scattered.  You want to quickly apply a layer over everything without having to think too much or spend a lot of time on it.  If the sawdust/shavings tend to clump rather than scatter, then you may want to consider a different source/type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many commercial products are compressed, so if you are using them straight from their original bag, they will tend to clump.  This can be most easily solved by using an intermediate pail/bucket/tin.  When you transfer the sawdust/shavings from the bag to the pail/bucket/tin clumps have an opportunity to break up.  When you then actually use it clumps have a second chance to break up.  Loose/fluffy cover is good cover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the *amount* you want to be using, keep in mind that you want a 30:1 C:N ratio in a regular compost pile for the bacteria to be happy.  That translates to a lot more sawdust/shavings than people think.  When you're paying for the cover material, there is financial pressure to minimise the amount you use.  Many folks tend to apply less than they should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fresh container should have about 6-10cm of sawdust/shavings placed in the bottom before it is even used.  Most of your urine/liquid waste will make its way to the bottom of the container, so you need something there to help sop it up.  Applying roughly 3cm of cover over fresh waste should be adequate.  *Not being able to see any waste* — except for the odd corner of toilet paper — is a good guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest challenge with composting toilets is the water content.  People drinking a lot of water tend to generate a lot of dilute urine.  Purchased sawdust/shavings makes for an expensive sponge.  Depending on your domestic arrangements and conditions, having males (and females that are able) urinate somewhere else relieves a *huge* burden from the compositing toilet.  If you can have a separate toilet just for urine, that's one way to solve it.  If you have fruit trees out back that can do with direct fertilising, that's an even better way.  Excessive amounts of fluid in the container is the most common way to saturate the mix and turn it into a stinky, anaerobic mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can reduce the amount of fluids going into the container, you can get away with using less (sometimes a *lot* less) sawdust/shavings.  This means your container needs to be swapped-out/emptied less frequently and (if you purchase your cover material) you save money as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use sawdust that comes from processing own firewood with chainsaws and from woodworking projects in the shed.  Sawdust is collected and stored (suspended off the ground) in highly porous bags for at least one summer.  It's then ready to use inside.  Since our sawdust is a by-product (essentially 'free'), and I produce far more than we need, we can apply cover material liberally and don't have odour issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="0d472a02-85a3-482b-b1d6-c06cba1ac8d5" CreationDate="2018-04-06T13:43:42.627" UserId="3379" Comment="added image." Text="First timer here, just getting into homesteading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I bought a pack of sawdust from Tractor Supply the other night. Finest variety they had. [Fine premium pine shavings](https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/tractor-supply-co-fine-premium-pine-shavings-covers-55-cu-ft?cm_vc=-10005):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks like very thin pine shavings, raging from 1/8 in to about 3/8 in. These are kiln-dried natural wood, no treated stuff, plywood etc. I think they market it for chick beds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this appropriate for composting toilet? Or do I need the fine powdered stuff like what comes out of a table saw?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, (gross-out alert, but I'm truly being serious) when using the toilet, do I need to dust the urine/feces until dry, or completely cover it up to where the level of sawdust is flat &amp; dry?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rLKim.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6536" RevisionGUID="05b5ea9e-5b83-4a45-9c85-721c849d9d41" CreationDate="2018-04-06T18:34:31.693" UserId="5606" Text="I was thinking of building a rainwater catchment system at my place in the boonies, but ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***I want to make sure -- priority one -- I'm not going to get toxic stuff in my water.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked at the galvanized corrugated roofing (impossible/difficult to walk on it)&#xD;&#xA;I looked at the steel sheets (what's in that paint?)&#xD;&#xA;Finally I looked at just plain aluminum sheets laid out in a shingle type pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminum doesn't seem too bad at first glance. Acidic soda beverages are shipped in them. Many water bottles &amp; thermoses are made from them. Cookware is made from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any proven scientific basis for not using aluminum on the roof? Am I overlooking a more obvious cheaper material?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and ... if I do choose aluminum, what's the best alloy choice? 6061, etc?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6536" RevisionGUID="05b5ea9e-5b83-4a45-9c85-721c849d9d41" CreationDate="2018-04-06T18:34:31.693" UserId="5606" Text="Are aluminum sheets appropriate for rainwater catchment roof?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6536" RevisionGUID="05b5ea9e-5b83-4a45-9c85-721c849d9d41" CreationDate="2018-04-06T18:34:31.693" UserId="5606" Text="|water|water-management|toxic-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16606" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="d543f663-c86e-43ad-b1fc-a088b0056eba" CreationDate="2018-04-06T19:09:43.747" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="bd034209-a43a-4a87-9e27-12ae83fa8c2e" CreationDate="2018-04-07T01:59:12.357" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The role of the sawdust/shavings is four-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Visually hide your waste so the next person using the toilet doesn't need to see it&#xD;&#xA; - Trap the air immediately above the waste so that it doesn't waft into the room&#xD;&#xA; - Absorb some of the fluids/urine&#xD;&#xA; - Add carbon to the high-nitrogen mix so that the composting process can begin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The labelled 'quality' of the sawdust/shavings is pretty-much irrelevant.  'Premium' doesn't mean anything.  Don't pay extra for it.  Use the cheapest sawdust/shavings you can find.  As long as they come from pure wood (not manufactured products with glue/paint/resins in them) and are dry you'll be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the most important characteristic of the sawdust/shavings is how easily they can be scattered.  You want to quickly apply a layer over everything without having to think too much or spend a lot of time on it.  If the sawdust/shavings tend to clump rather than scatter, then you may want to consider a different source/type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many commercial products are compressed, so if you are using them straight from their original bag, they will tend to clump.  This can be most easily solved by using an intermediate pail/bucket/tin.  When you transfer the sawdust/shavings from the bag to the pail/bucket/tin clumps have an opportunity to break up.  When you then actually use it clumps have a second chance to break up.  Loose/fluffy cover is good cover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the *amount* you should be using, keep in mind that you want a 30:1 C:N ratio in a regular compost pile for the bacteria to be happy.  That translates to a lot more sawdust/shavings than people think.  When you're paying for the cover material, there is financial pressure to minimise the amount you use.  Many folks tend to apply less than they should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fresh container should have about 6-10cm of sawdust/shavings placed in the bottom before it is even used.  Most of your urine/liquid waste will make its way to the bottom of the container, so you need something there to help sop it up.  Applying roughly 3cm of cover over fresh waste should be adequate.  *Not being able to see any waste* — except for the odd corner of toilet paper — is a good guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest challenge with composting toilets is the water content.  People drinking a lot of water tend to generate a lot of dilute urine.  Purchased sawdust/shavings makes for an expensive sponge.  Depending on your domestic arrangements and conditions, having males (and females that are able) urinate somewhere else relieves a *huge* burden from the compositing toilet.  If you can have a separate toilet/urinal just for urine, that's one way to solve it.  If you have fruit trees out back that can do with direct fertilising, that's an even better way.  Excessive amounts of fluid in the container is the most common way to saturate the mix and turn it into a stinky, anaerobic mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can reduce the amount of fluids going into the container, you can get away with using less (sometimes a *lot* less) sawdust/shavings.  This means your container needs to be swapped-out/emptied less frequently and (if you purchase your cover material) you save money as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use sawdust that comes from processing own firewood with chainsaws and from woodworking projects in the shed.  Sawdust is collected and stored (suspended off the ground) in highly porous bags for at least one summer.  It's then ready to use inside.  Since our sawdust is a by-product (essentially 'free'), and I produce far more than we need, we can apply cover material liberally and don't have odour issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="97f89a23-8b07-47bc-b0dc-889eca967c89" CreationDate="2018-04-07T02:19:35.873" UserId="4886" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The role of the sawdust/shavings is four-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Visually hide your waste so the next person using the toilet doesn't need to see it&#xD;&#xA; - Trap the air immediately above the waste so that it doesn't waft into the room&#xD;&#xA; - Absorb some of the fluids/urine&#xD;&#xA; - Add carbon to the high-nitrogen mix so that the composting process can begin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The labelled 'quality' of the sawdust/shavings is pretty-much irrelevant.  'Premium' doesn't mean anything.  Don't pay extra for it.  Use the cheapest sawdust/shavings you can find.  As long as they come from pure wood (not manufactured products with glue/paint/resins in them) and are dry you'll be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the most important characteristic of the sawdust/shavings is how easily they can be scattered.  You want to quickly apply a layer over everything without having to think too much or spend a lot of time on it.  If the sawdust/shavings tend to clump rather than scatter, then you may want to consider a different source/type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many commercial products are compressed, so if you are using them straight from their original bag, they will tend to clump.  This can be most easily solved by using an intermediate pail/bucket/tin.  When you transfer the sawdust/shavings from the bag to the pail/bucket/tin clumps have an opportunity to break up.  When you then actually use it clumps have a second chance to break up.  Loose/fluffy cover is good cover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the *amount* you should be using, keep in mind that you want a 30:1 C:N ratio in a regular compost pile for the bacteria to be happy.  That translates to a lot more sawdust/shavings than people think.  When you're paying for the cover material, there is financial pressure to minimise the amount you use.  Many folks tend to apply less than they should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fresh container should have about 6-10cm of sawdust/shavings placed in the bottom before it is even used.  Most of your urine/liquid waste will make its way to the bottom of the container, so you need something there to help sop it up.  Applying roughly 3cm of cover over fresh waste should be adequate.  *Not being able to see any waste* — except for the odd corner of toilet paper — is a good guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest challenge with composting toilets is the water content.  People drinking a lot of water tend to generate a lot of dilute urine.  Purchased sawdust/shavings makes for an expensive sponge.  Depending on your domestic arrangements and conditions, having males (and females that are able) urinate somewhere else relieves a *huge* burden from the compositing toilet.  If you can have a separate toilet/urinal just for urine, that's one way to solve the problem.  If you have fruit trees out back that can do with direct fertilising, that's an even better way.  Excessive amounts of fluid in the container is the most common way to saturate the mix and turn it into a stinky, anaerobic mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can reduce the amount of fluids going into the container, you can get away with using less (sometimes a *lot* less) sawdust/shavings.  This means your container needs to be swapped-out/emptied less frequently and (if you purchase your cover material) you save money as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use sawdust that comes from processing own firewood with chainsaws and from woodworking projects in the shed.  Sawdust is collected and stored (suspended off the ground) in highly porous bags for at least one summer.  It's then ready to use inside.  Since our sawdust is a by-product (essentially 'free'), and I produce far more than we need, we apply cover material liberally and don't have odour issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="75911937-b1a6-4334-a022-14a041baa3bd" CreationDate="2018-04-07T02:26:37.990" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The role of the sawdust/shavings is four-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Visually hide your waste so the next person using the toilet doesn't need to see it&#xD;&#xA; - Trap the air immediately above the waste so that it doesn't waft into the room&#xD;&#xA; - Absorb some of the fluids/urine&#xD;&#xA; - Add carbon to the high-nitrogen mix so that the composting process can begin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The labelled 'quality' of the sawdust/shavings is pretty-much irrelevant.  'Premium' doesn't mean anything.  Don't pay extra for it.  Use the cheapest sawdust/shavings you can find.  As long as they come from pure wood (not manufactured products with glue/paint/resins in them), and are dry, you'll be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the most important characteristic of the sawdust/shavings is how easily they can be scattered.  You want to quickly apply a layer over everything without having to think too much or spend a lot of time on it.  If the sawdust/shavings tend to clump rather than scatter, then you may want to consider a different source/type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many commercial products are compressed, so if you are using them straight from their original bag, they will tend to clump.  This can be most easily solved by using an intermediate pail/bucket/tin.  When you transfer the sawdust/shavings from the bag to the pail/bucket/tin clumps have an opportunity to break up.  When you then actually use it clumps have a second chance to break up.  Loose/fluffy cover is good cover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the *amount* you should be using, keep in mind that you want a 30:1 C:N ratio in a regular compost pile for the bacteria to be happy.  That translates to a lot more sawdust/shavings than people think.  When you're paying for the cover material, there is financial pressure to minimise the amount you use.  Many folks tend to apply less than they should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fresh container should have about 6-10cm of sawdust/shavings placed in the bottom before it is even used.  Most of your urine/liquid waste will make its way to the bottom of the container, so you need something there to help sop it up.  Applying roughly 3cm of cover over fresh waste should be adequate.  *Not being able to see any waste* — except for the odd corner of toilet paper — is a good guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest challenge with composting toilets is the water content.  People drinking a lot of water tend to generate a lot of dilute urine.  Purchased sawdust/shavings makes for an expensive sponge.  Depending on your domestic arrangements and conditions, having males (and females that are able) urinate somewhere else relieves a *huge* burden from the compositing toilet.  If you can have a separate toilet/urinal just for urine, that's one way to solve the problem.  If you have fruit trees out back that can do with direct fertilising, that's an even better way.  Excessive amounts of fluid in the container is the most common way to saturate the mix and turn it into a stinky, anaerobic mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can reduce the amount of fluids going into the container, you can get away with using less (sometimes a *lot* less) sawdust/shavings.  This means your container needs to be swapped-out/emptied less frequently and (if you purchase your cover material) you save money as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use sawdust that comes from processing our own firewood with chainsaws, and from woodworking projects in the shed.  Sawdust is collected and stored (suspended off the ground) in highly porous bags for at least one summer.  It's then ready to use inside.  Since our sawdust is a by-product (essentially 'free'), and I produce far more than we need, we apply cover material liberally and don't have odour issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="80f55447-0b35-4c64-9b2a-b9e7649df367" CreationDate="2018-04-07T10:33:19.953" UserId="4886" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="SodaStream canisters don't have anything in them except for carbon dioxide.  One way or the other that's going into the atmosphere — it's not getting re-used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just bleed the CO2 out of the top of the canister by pushing it down against a concrete paver or something hard and rough.  Then, when it's empty, unscrew the valve or drive a large nail through the side so it can't be re-pressurised.  From that point on it's nothing but harmless scrap metal — put it in your recycle bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once-upon-a-time you could get a refund for these things (the princely sum of AU$1), but I believe they shut that program down about four years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all that, the canisters *are* solidly built and are tested to 250bar.  If you're a bit of a hacker you can empty it, swap out the valve, and do some cool things with it at much lower pressures (e.g. brew beer, nerf gun, spud launcher, toroidal vortex air cannon).  Those canisters really are worth the tens of dollars you paid for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="b7019e84-daf2-4b53-85bc-61265510b264" CreationDate="2018-04-07T12:11:12.933" UserId="4886" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="SodaStream gas cylinders don't have anything in them except carbon dioxide.  One way or the other that's going into the atmosphere — it's not getting reclaimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just bleed the CO&amp;#8322; out of the top of the cylinder by pushing it down against a concrete paver or something hard and rough.  Then, when it's empty, unscrew the valve or drive a large nail through the side of it so it can't be re-pressurised.  From that point on it's nothing but harmless scrap metal — put it in your recycle bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once-upon-a-time you could get a refund for these things (the princely sum of AU$1), but I believe they shut that program down about four years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all that, the cylinders *are* solidly built and are tested to 250 bar.  If you're a bit of a hacker you can empty it, swap out the valve, and do some cool things with it at much lower pressures (e.g. brew beer, nerf gun, spud launcher, toroidal vortex air cannon).  Those cylinders *really are* worth the tens of dollars you paid for them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6532" RevisionGUID="7482fbe3-36db-4b34-a363-452e5348a3fb" CreationDate="2018-04-07T12:30:16.200" UserId="4886" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="The role of sawdust/shavings in composting toilets is four-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Visually hide your waste so the next person using the toilet doesn't need to see it&#xD;&#xA; - Trap gases immediately above the waste so that they don't waft into the room&#xD;&#xA; - Absorb some of the fluids/urine&#xD;&#xA; - Add carbon to the high-nitrogen mix so that the composting process can begin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The labelled 'quality' of the sawdust/shavings is pretty-much irrelevant.  'Premium' doesn't mean anything.  Don't pay extra for it.  Use the cheapest sawdust/shavings you can find.  As long as they come from pure wood (not manufactured products with glue/paint/resins in them), and are dry, you'll be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the most important characteristic of the sawdust/shavings is how easily they can be scattered.  You want to quickly apply a layer over everything without having to think too much about the process or spend a lot of time doing it.  If the sawdust/shavings tend to clump rather than scatter, then you may want to consider a different source/type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that many commercial products are compressed, so if you are using them straight from their original bag, they will tend to clump.  This can be most easily solved by using an intermediate pail/bucket/tin.  When you transfer the sawdust/shavings from the bag to the pail/bucket/tin clumps have an opportunity to break up.  When you then actually use it clumps have a second chance to break up.  Loose/fluffy cover is good cover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the *amount* you should be using, keep in mind that you want a 30:1 C:N ratio in a regular compost pile for the bacteria to be happy.  That translates to a lot more sawdust/shavings than people think.  When you're paying for the cover material, there is financial pressure to minimise the amount you use.  Many folks tend to apply less than they should.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fresh container should have about 6-10cm of sawdust/shavings placed in the bottom before it is even used.  Most of your urine/liquid waste will make its way to the bottom of the container, so you need something there to help sop it up.  Applying roughly 3cm of cover over fresh waste should be adequate.  *Not being able to see any waste* — except for the odd corner of toilet paper — is a good guide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest challenge with composting toilets is the water content.  People drinking a lot of water tend to generate a lot of dilute urine.  Purchased sawdust/shavings makes for an expensive sponge.  Depending on your domestic arrangements and conditions, having males (and females that are able) urinate somewhere else relieves a *huge* burden from the compositing toilet.  If you can have a separate toilet/urinal just for urine, that's one way to solve the problem.  If you have fruit trees out back that can do with direct fertilising, that's an even better way.  Excessive amounts of fluid in the container is the most common way to saturate the mix and turn it into a stinky, anaerobic mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can reduce the amount of fluids going into the container, you can get away with using less (sometimes a *lot* less) sawdust/shavings.  This means your container needs to be swapped-out/emptied less frequently and (if you purchase your cover material) you save money as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use sawdust that comes from processing our own firewood with chainsaws, and from woodworking projects in the shed.  Sawdust is collected and stored (suspended off the ground) in highly porous bags for at least one summer.  It's then ready to use inside.  Since our sawdust is a by-product (essentially 'free'), and I produce far more than we need, we apply cover material liberally and don't have odour issues." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16613" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6531" RevisionGUID="ffe2781b-64fa-41b2-8bd8-73d8abc0baf6" CreationDate="2018-04-07T15:20:01.727" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/982639137558843392" />
  <row Id="16614" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6527" RevisionGUID="cba70745-876e-452f-b6a8-b28744879df6" CreationDate="2018-04-07T17:53:14.963" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[487],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3293,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;J. Chomel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4886,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Tim&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6537" RevisionGUID="43300e49-36ef-4fdb-ab0f-4a49fb479297" CreationDate="2018-04-08T21:16:31.427" UserId="5606" Text="As it turns there are several solutions. And as I've discovered, the headline is: aluminum is probably fine. *HOWEVER* ... in my case I think it will be cost-prohibitive, since a 4x8 sheet costs ~$100.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the documents that @Dispenser referred to, and luckily, they were commissioned by the Texas Water Development Board.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[TWDB Document 1](http://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/contracted_reports/doc/0804830855_RainwaterHarvestingV1.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[TWDB Document 2](http://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/contracted_reports/doc/0804830855_roofingmaterial.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here they state that most roofing materials are fine, with the exception of anything containing lead, and that the green roofing runoff should not be treated with chlorine. But also, the results from regular galvanized roofing turned in pretty good results, except *perhaps* for lead. In one graph I think, the lead was around 5ug/L, which is about 1/4 the EPA action level after the first-flush.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[EPA Lead Action Level](https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/3ts-reducing-lead-drinking-water-testing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I've researched, I've found Home Depot sells these panels:&#xD;&#xA;[Fabral 26 in. x 8 ft. Galvanized Steel 5V Crimp Roof Panel](https://www.homedepot.com/p/Fabral-26-in-x-8-ft-Galvanized-Steel-5V-Crimp-Roof-Panel-4737001000/202081787)&#xD;&#xA;[![Galvanized Roofing][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YmMKx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These panels will cost about $18 after taxes and cover 24 sq ft, at about $0.75/sq ft. So I think that my solution will be to use these panels (or another panel variety coated with Galvalume or Kydar), but not the wavy corrugated stuff, simply because it's difficult to walk on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Build the roof with galvanized roofing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1a) Build a small portion of the roof and send a sample (after first-flush) off for testing before going full scale&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Aluminum or plastic gutters to an FDA approved potable water container&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Run the water through a high-quality filter (like a Big Berkey) before drinking, cooking or washing dishes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Bathe and water garden with unfiltered (or minimally filtered) water from the tank (depending on test results)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="b51ba1ba-0eb7-4539-916b-e94346953c2b" CreationDate="2018-04-09T04:51:54.893" UserId="4886" Text="You've raised a few issues in your posts, so having just built a new house I'll address those I'm able to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with, I live in a country/area where corrugated steel roofing is the absolute norm and has been for over half a century.  In my town less than 1% of roofs are clad in anything else.  Everyone collects rainwater.  Everyone uses that rainwater.  Most people drink that rainwater.  There are no health issues associated with a properly built and serviced rainwater harvesting system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common rainwater tank material around here has historically been zincalume (combination of zinc and aluminium).  So drinking water has been stored for *years* in containers significantly made of aluminium.  Once again, no negative health effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brand new zincalume tanks do leach *zinc* into the water intially, and this is what gives water held in those tanks its 'metallic' taste.  But zinc is actually a mineral that humans need, so (apart from the taste) that's not a problem.  Every season the amount of leached zinc decreases.  Whilst the impact on taste is quite noticeable in the first year, you can barely taste it after about five years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminium does not leach into water like zinc does.  The amount of aluminium that will end up in your water if you have aluminium roof sheeting, gutters, downpipes, or tanks is negligible *providing* the aluminium is not subject to mechanical abrasion.  The most likely cause of abrasion is the impact of falling branches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in an area surrounded by trees, and the wind blows small branches onto your roof on a regular basis, then that's a problem.  The kinetic energy of a falling branch is sufficient to break through the aluminium oxide layer upon impact and gouge out a small amount of the soft metal.  These tiny specs invariably make their way into your water tank and ultimately into you.  If you're always clearing twigs/sticks out of your gutters, I'd either clear away the trees causing the problem or go with (hard) steel roof cladding instead of (soft) aluminium roof cladding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Price is also an issue.  Local economics have a huge influence on the (relative) price of different types of metals, and here aluminium roof sheeting is 3x as expensive as steel.  In other areas both are about the same.  YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why you say that corrugated roof sheeting is &quot;impossible/difficult to walk on&quot;.  I've never had a problem and I've spent countless hours up on corrugated roofs over the last 40 years or so.  If that view is gathered from third-parties, I'd advise not paying them much more attention.  Continuous corrugations make for a uniform surface that is *much* less prone to tripping than the type of surface depicted in the image in your second post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the subject of profiles, the profile of that Fabral panel has large amounts of flat surface.  Flat surfaces tend to accumulate clumps of debris (e.g. dust/dirt/pollen/leaves) because water always takes the path of least resistance and tends to flow *around* obstructions rather than trying to push through them.  Thus if your area has long periods of no rainfall, debris will build up and the first (usually light) rains will *not* wash off the debris.  The intensity/duration of the rainfall needs to increase before flat surface debris is dislodged — and by that time your first flush diverter is already full and the clumps of debris go straight into your tank &gt; tap &gt; you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrugated profiles are 50% valley, 50% ridge.  Debris naturally ends up in the valleys and, because that's where *all* the water is forced to go, is pushed downstream immediately — even in light rain.  Corrugated profiles are thus the best profile to have if you want to have a 'self-cleaning' roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrugated profiles *complement* first-flush diverters.  Flat profiles *undermine* first-flush diverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving on, we have the issue of gutters.  Steel gutters rust out (and begin leaking) in as little as seven years around here.  They are terrible.  That's partly due to the material, but also mainly to do with how downpipes are connected to the gutters.  Local tradesman cut a hole in the gutter, pop in an insert, rivet it in place and put a bead of silicone around it.  The downpipe is then friction-fit (or riveted) to the part of the pop that extends below/outside the gutter.  The pop/silicone creates a ridge inside the gutter which allows water to pool and debris to collect, which fosters microbial activity, turns the water acidic and rusts out the gutter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going with aluminium or plastic gutters is a good idea as it mitigates what would otherwise typically be the first point of failure in a typical roof-based rainwater harvesting system.  (Note, however, that plastic may not be allowed, and isn't a good idea, if your house is located in a bushfire-prone region.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same 'self-cleaning' logic that applies to roof cladding applies to gutters as well.  A gutter with a flat bottom and corners will accumulate debris and undermine your first-flush diverter.  A 'half-round' gutter focuses everything to the bottom, self-cleans, and complements your first-flush diverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small detail that most people don't pay much attention to is the type of bracket used to connect the gutter to the fascia.  It is normal around here to 'hide the brackets' by using a type that is inside the gutter.  Such internal brackets may make the gutter look more streamlined, but they block the gutter and force you to climb up on a ladder a few times a year to clean the gutters out by hand.  Or precariously walk along the edge of your roof with a brush on a stick.  Both are dangerous and/or dirty jobs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;External brackets hold the gutter in place from the outside.  They do not obstruct the gutter.  That means you can attach a brush to the end of a pole and (assuming you have a single-storey house) sweep clean your gutters *from ground level*.  As far as I'm concerned, that's *pure awesome*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My house has corrugated steel roofing and half-round aluminium gutters with external brackets because that combination was the most self-cleaning I could come up with.  I clean my gutters from ground level.  Apart from having to maintain the wood heater flue, I have no reason or need to go up on the roof.  Rainwater quality is excellent and I will be long dead before either my roof or gutters fail and need to be replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry about the length of this response.  Hopefully there's something of value in amongst it all for you to ponder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="8378247a-cd6e-4591-8738-490edcb0613f" CreationDate="2018-04-09T04:58:02.067" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You've raised a few issues in your posts, so having just built a new house I'll address those I'm able to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with, I live in a country/area where corrugated steel roofing is the absolute norm and has been for over half a century.  In my town less than 1% of roofs are clad in anything else.  Everyone collects rainwater.  Everyone uses that rainwater.  Most people drink that rainwater.  There are no health issues associated with a properly built and serviced rainwater harvesting system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common rainwater tank material around here has historically been zincalume (combination of zinc and aluminium).  So drinking water has been stored for *years* in containers significantly made of aluminium.  Once again, no negative health effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brand new zincalume tanks do leach *zinc* into the water intially, and this is what gives water held in those tanks its 'metallic' taste.  But zinc is actually a mineral that humans need, so (apart from the taste) that's not a problem.  Every season the amount of leached zinc decreases.  Whilst the impact on taste is quite noticeable in the first year, you can barely taste it after about five years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminium does not leach into water like zinc does.  The amount of aluminium that will end up in your water if you have aluminium roof sheeting, gutters, downpipes, or tanks is negligible *providing* the aluminium is not subject to mechanical abrasion.  The most likely cause of abrasion is the impact of falling branches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in an area surrounded by trees, and the wind blows small branches onto your roof on a regular basis, then that's a problem.  The kinetic energy of a falling branch is sufficient to break through the aluminium oxide layer upon impact and gouge out a small amount of the soft metal.  These tiny specs invariably make their way into your water tank and ultimately into you.  If you're always clearing twigs/sticks out of your gutters, I'd either clear away the trees causing the problem or go with (hard) steel roof cladding instead of (soft) aluminium roof cladding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Price is also an issue.  Local economics have a huge influence on the (relative) price of different types of metals, and here aluminium roof sheeting is 3x as expensive as steel.  In other areas both are about the same.  YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why you say that corrugated roof sheeting is &quot;impossible/difficult to walk on&quot;.  I've never had a problem and I've spent countless hours up on corrugated roofs over the last 40 years or so.  If that view is gathered from third-parties, I'd advise not paying them much more attention.  Continuous corrugations make for a uniform surface that is *much* less prone to tripping than the type of surface depicted in the image in your second post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the subject of profiles, the profile of that Fabral panel has large amounts of flat surface.  Flat surfaces tend to accumulate clumps of debris (e.g. dust/dirt/pollen/leaves) because water always takes the path of least resistance and tends to flow *around* obstructions rather than trying to push through them.  Thus if your area has long periods of no rainfall, debris will build up and the first (usually light) rains will *not* wash off the debris.  The intensity/duration of the rainfall needs to increase before flat surface debris is dislodged — and by that time your first flush diverter is already full and the clumps of debris go straight into your tank &gt; tap &gt; you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrugated profiles are half valley, half ridge.  Debris naturally ends up in the valleys and, because that's where *all* the water is forced to go, is pushed downstream immediately — even in light rain.  Corrugated profiles are thus the best profile to have if you want to have a 'self-cleaning' roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrugated profiles *complement* first-flush diverters.  Flat profiles *undermine* first-flush diverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving on, we have the issue of gutters.  Steel gutters rust out (and begin leaking) in as little as seven years around here.  They are terrible.  That's partly due to the material, but also mainly to do with how downpipes are connected to the gutters.  Local tradesman cut a hole in the gutter, pop in an insert, rivet it in place and put a bead of silicone around it.  The downpipe is then friction-fit (or riveted) to the part of the pop that extends below/outside the gutter.  The pop/silicone creates a ridge inside the gutter which allows water to pool and debris to collect, which fosters microbial activity, turns the water acidic and rusts out the gutter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going with aluminium or plastic gutters is a good idea as it mitigates what would otherwise typically be the first point of failure in a typical roof-based rainwater harvesting system.  (Note, however, that plastic may not be allowed, and isn't a good idea, if your house is located in a bushfire-prone region.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same 'self-cleaning' logic that applies to roof cladding applies to gutters as well.  A gutter with a square profile (flat bottom and corners) will accumulate debris and undermine your first-flush diverter.  A 'half-round' gutter focuses everything to the bottom, self-cleans, and complements your first-flush diverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small detail that most people don't pay much attention to is the type of bracket used to connect the gutter to the fascia.  It is normal around here to 'hide the brackets' by using a type that fits inside the gutter.  Such internal brackets may make the gutter look more streamlined, but they block the gutter and force you to either climb up on a ladder a few times a year to clean the gutters out by hand, or precariously walk along the edge of your roof with a brush on a stick.  Both are dangerous and/or dirty jobs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;External brackets hold the gutter in place from the outside.  They do not obstruct the gutter.  That means you can attach a brush to the end of a pole and (assuming you have a single-storey house) sweep clean your gutters *from ground level*.  As far as I'm concerned, that's *pure awesome*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My house has corrugated steel roofing and half-round aluminium gutters with external brackets because that combination was the most self-cleaning I could come up with.  I clean my gutters from ground level.  Apart from having to maintain the wood heater flue, I have no reason or need to go up on the roof.  Rainwater quality is excellent and I will be long dead before either my roof or gutters fail and need to be replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry about the length of this response.  Hopefully there's something of value in amongst it all for you to ponder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="8b41e988-dc3d-4fbc-8196-d0a3192fbb54" CreationDate="2018-04-09T05:08:39.757" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="You've raised a few issues in your posts, so having just built a new house I'll address those I'm able to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with, I live in a country/area where corrugated steel roofing is the absolute norm and has been for over half a century.  In my town less than 1% of roofs are clad in anything else.  Everyone collects rainwater.  Everyone uses that rainwater.  Most people drink that rainwater.  There are no health issues associated with properly built and serviced rainwater harvesting systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common rainwater tank material around here has historically been zincalume (combination of zinc and aluminium).  So drinking water has been stored for *years* in containers significantly made of aluminium.  Once again, no negative health effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brand new zincalume tanks do leach *zinc* into the water intially, and this is what gives water held in those tanks its 'metallic' taste.  But zinc is actually a mineral that humans need, so (apart from the taste) that's not a problem.  Every season the amount of leached zinc decreases.  Whilst the impact on taste is quite noticeable in the first year, you can barely taste it after about five years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminium does not leach into water like zinc does.  The amount of aluminium that will end up in your water if you have aluminium roof sheeting, gutters, downpipes, or tanks is negligible *providing* the aluminium is not subject to mechanical abrasion.  The most likely cause of abrasion is the impact of falling branches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in an area surrounded by trees, and the wind blows small branches onto your roof on a regular basis, then that's a problem.  The kinetic energy of a falling branch is sufficient to break through the aluminium oxide layer upon impact and gouge out a small amount of the soft metal.  These tiny specs invariably make their way into your water tank and ultimately into you.  If you're always clearing twigs/sticks out of your gutters, I'd either clear away the trees causing the problem or go with (hard) steel roof cladding instead of (soft) aluminium roof cladding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Price is also an issue.  Local economics have a huge influence on the (relative) price of different types of metals, and here aluminium roof sheeting is 3x as expensive as steel.  In other areas both are about the same.  YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why you say that corrugated roof sheeting is &quot;impossible/difficult to walk on&quot;.  I've never had a problem and I've spent countless hours up on corrugated roofs over the last 40 years or so.  If that view is gathered from third-parties, I'd advise not paying them much more attention.  Continuous corrugations make for a uniform surface that is *much* less prone to tripping than the type of surface depicted in the image in your second post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the subject of profiles, the profile of that Fabral panel has large amounts of flat surface.  Flat surfaces tend to accumulate clumps of debris (e.g. dust/dirt/pollen/leaves) because water always takes the path of least resistance and tends to flow *around* obstructions rather than trying to push through them.  Thus if your area has long periods of no rainfall, debris will build up and the first (usually light) rains will *not* wash off the debris.  The intensity/duration of the rainfall needs to increase before flat surface debris is dislodged — and by that time your first flush diverter is already full and the clumps of debris go straight into your tank &gt; tap &gt; you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrugated profiles are half valley, half ridge.  Debris naturally ends up in the valleys and, because that's where *all* the water is forced to go, is pushed downstream immediately — even in light rains.  Corrugated profiles are thus the best profile to have if you want to have a 'self-cleaning' roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrugated profiles *complement* first-flush diverters.  Flat profiles *undermine* first-flush diverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving on, we have the issue of gutters.  Steel gutters rust out (and begin leaking) in as little as seven years around here.  They are terrible.  That's partly due to the material, but also mainly to do with how downpipes are connected to the gutters.  Local tradesman cut a hole in the gutter, pop in an insert, rivet it in place and put a bead of silicone around it.  The downpipe is then friction-fit (or riveted) to the part of the pop that extends below/outside the gutter.  The pop/silicone creates a ridge inside the gutter which allows water to pool and debris to collect, which fosters microbial activity, turns the water acidic and rusts out the gutter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going with aluminium or plastic gutters is a good idea as it mitigates what would otherwise typically be the first point of failure in a typical roof-based rainwater harvesting system.  (Note, however, that plastic may not be allowed, and isn't a good idea, if your house is located in a bushfire-prone region.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same 'self-cleaning' logic that applies to roof cladding applies to gutters as well.  A gutter with a square profile (flat bottom and corners) will accumulate debris and undermine your first-flush diverter.  A 'half-round' gutter focuses everything to the bottom, self-cleans, and complements your first-flush diverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small detail that most people don't pay much attention to is the type of bracket used to connect the gutter to the fascia.  It is normal around here to 'hide the brackets' by using a type that fits inside the gutter.  Such internal brackets may make the gutter look more streamlined, but they block the gutter and force you to either climb up on a ladder a few times a year to clean the gutters out by hand, or precariously walk along the edge of your roof with a brush on a stick.  Both are dangerous and/or dirty jobs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;External brackets hold the gutter in place from the outside.  They do not obstruct the gutter.  That means you can attach a brush to the end of a pole and (assuming you have a single-storey house) sweep clean your gutters *from ground level*.  As far as I'm concerned, that's *pure awesome*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My house has corrugated steel roofing and half-round aluminium gutters with external brackets because that combination was the most self-cleaning I could come up with.  I clean my gutters from ground level.  Apart from having to maintain the wood heater flue, I have no reason or need to go up on the roof.  Rainwater quality is excellent and I will be long dead before either my roof or gutters fail and need to be replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry about the length of this response.  Hopefully there's something of value in amongst it all for you to ponder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="244a19b0-2197-4188-bae2-3762427f3e5a" CreationDate="2018-04-09T05:13:43.250" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="You've raised a few issues in your posts, so having just built a new house I'll address those I'm able to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with, I live in a country/area where corrugated steel roofing is the absolute norm and has been for over half a century.  In my town less than 1% of roofs are clad in anything else.  Everyone collects rainwater.  Everyone uses that rainwater.  Most people drink that rainwater.  There are no health issues associated with properly built and serviced rainwater harvesting systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common rainwater tank material around here has historically been zincalume (combination of zinc and aluminium).  So drinking water has been stored for *years* in containers significantly made of aluminium.  Once again, no negative health effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brand new zincalume tanks do leach *zinc* into the water intially, and this is what gives water held in those tanks its 'metallic' taste.  But zinc is actually a mineral that humans need, so (apart from the taste) that's not a problem.  Every season the amount of leached zinc decreases.  Whilst the impact on taste is quite noticeable in the first year, you can barely taste it after about five years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminium does not leach into water like zinc does.  The amount of aluminium that will end up in your water if you have aluminium roof sheeting, gutters, downpipes, or tanks is negligible *providing* the aluminium is not subject to mechanical abrasion.  The most likely cause of abrasion is the impact of falling branches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in an area surrounded by trees, and the wind blows small branches onto your roof on a regular basis, then that's a problem.  The kinetic energy of a falling branch is sufficient to break through the aluminium oxide layer upon impact and gouge out a small amount of the soft metal.  These tiny specs invariably make their way into your water tank and ultimately into you.  If you're always clearing twigs/sticks out of your gutters, I'd either clear away the trees causing the problem or go with (hard) steel roof cladding instead of (soft) aluminium roof cladding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Price is also an issue.  Local economics have a huge influence on the (relative) price of different types of metals, and here aluminium roof sheeting is 3x as expensive as steel.  In other areas both are about the same.  YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why you say that corrugated roof sheeting is &quot;impossible/difficult to walk on&quot;.  I've never had a problem and I've spent countless hours up on corrugated roofs over the last 40 years or so.  If that view is gathered from third-parties, I'd advise not paying them much more attention.  Continuous corrugations make for a uniform surface that is *much* less prone to tripping than the type of surface depicted in the image in your second post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the subject of profiles, the profile of that Fabral panel has large amounts of flat surface.  Flat surfaces tend to accumulate clumps of debris (e.g. dust/dirt/pollen/leaves) because water always takes the path of least resistance and tends to flow *around* obstructions rather than trying to push through them.  Thus if your area has long periods of no rainfall, debris will build up and the first (usually light) rains will *not* wash off the debris.  The intensity/duration of the rainfall needs to increase before flat surface debris is dislodged — and by that time your first flush diverter is already full and the clumps of debris go straight into your tank &gt; tap &gt; you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrugated profiles are half valley, half ridge.  Debris naturally ends up in the valleys and, because that's where *all* the water is forced to go, is pushed downstream immediately — even in light rains.  Corrugated profiles are thus the best profile to have if you want to have a 'self-cleaning' roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrugated profiles *complement* first-flush diverters.  Flat profiles *undermine* first-flush diverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving on, we have the issue of gutters.  Steel gutters rust out (and begin leaking) in as little as seven years around here.  They are terrible.  That's partly due to the material, but mainly to do with how downpipes are connected to the gutters.  Local tradesman cut a hole in the gutter, pop in an insert, rivet it in place and put a bead of silicone around it.  The downpipe is then friction-fit (or riveted) to the part of the pop that extends below/outside the gutter.  The pop/silicone creates a ridge inside the gutter which allows water to pool and debris to collect, which fosters microbial activity, turns the water acidic and rusts out the gutter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going with aluminium or plastic gutters is a good idea as it mitigates what would otherwise typically be the first point of failure in a typical roof-based rainwater harvesting system.  (Note, however, that plastic may not be allowed, and isn't a good idea, if your house is located in a bushfire-prone region.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same 'self-cleaning' logic that applies to roof cladding applies to gutters as well.  A gutter with a square profile (flat bottom and corners) will accumulate debris and undermine your first-flush diverter.  A 'half-round' gutter focuses everything to the bottom, self-cleans, and complements your first-flush diverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small detail that most people don't pay much attention to is the type of bracket used to connect the gutter to the fascia.  It is — unfortunately — normal around here to 'hide the brackets' by using a type that fits inside the gutter.  Such internal brackets may make the gutter look more streamlined, but they block the gutter and force you to either climb up on a ladder a few times a year to clean the gutters out by hand, or precariously walk/crawl along the edge of your roof with a brush/scoop.  Both are dangerous and/or dirty jobs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;External brackets hold the gutter in place from the outside.  They do not obstruct the gutter.  That means you can attach a brush to the end of a pole and (assuming you have a single-storey house) sweep clean your gutters *from ground level*.  As far as I'm concerned, that's *pure awesome*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My house has corrugated steel roofing and half-round aluminium gutters with external brackets because that combination was the most self-cleaning I could come up with.  I clean my gutters from ground level.  Apart from having to maintain the wood heater flue, I have no reason or need to go up on the roof.  Rainwater quality is excellent and I will be long dead before either my roof or gutters fail and need to be replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry about the length of this response.  Hopefully there's something of value in amongst it all for you to ponder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="d5d1d104-f1e4-434c-8c23-45fbfe0ea87f" CreationDate="2018-04-09T05:21:04.823" UserId="4886" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="You've raised a few issues in your posts, so having just built a new house I'll address those I'm able to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with, I live in a country/area where corrugated steel roofing is the absolute norm and has been for over half a century.  In my town less than 1% of roofs are clad in anything else.  Everyone collects rainwater.  Everyone uses that rainwater.  Most people drink that rainwater.  There are no health issues associated with properly built and serviced rainwater harvesting systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common rainwater tank material around here has historically been zincalume (combination of zinc and aluminium).  So drinking water has been stored for *years* in containers significantly made of aluminium.  Once again, no negative health effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brand new zincalume tanks do leach *zinc* into the water intially, and this is what gives water held in those tanks its 'metallic' taste.  But zinc is actually a mineral that humans need, so (apart from the taste) that's not a problem.  Every season the amount of leached zinc decreases.  Whilst the impact on taste is quite noticeable in the first year, you can barely taste it after about five years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminium does not leach into water like zinc does.  The amount of aluminium that will end up in your water if you have aluminium roof sheeting, gutters, downpipes, or tanks is negligible *providing* the aluminium is not subject to mechanical abrasion.  The most likely cause of abrasion is the impact of falling branches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in an area surrounded by trees, and the wind blows small branches onto your roof on a regular basis, then that's a problem.  The kinetic energy of a falling branch is sufficient to break through the aluminium oxide layer upon impact and gouge out a small amount of the soft metal.  These tiny specs invariably make their way into your water tank and ultimately into you.  If you're always clearing twigs/sticks out of your gutters, I'd either clear away the trees causing the problem or go with (hard) steel roof cladding instead of (soft) aluminium roof cladding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Price is also an issue.  Local economics have a huge influence on the (relative) price of different types of metals, and here aluminium roof sheeting is 3x as expensive as steel.  In other areas both are about the same.  YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why you say that corrugated roof sheeting is &quot;impossible/difficult to walk on&quot;.  I've never had a problem and I've spent countless hours up on corrugated roofs over the last 40 years or so.  If that view is gathered from third-parties, I'd advise not paying them much more attention.  Continuous corrugations make for a uniform surface that is *much* less prone to tripping than the type of surface depicted in the image in your second post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the subject of profiles, the profile of that Fabral panel has large amounts of flat surface.  Flat surfaces tend to accumulate clumps of debris (e.g. dust/dirt/pollen/leaves) because water always takes the path of least resistance and tends to flow *around* obstructions rather than trying to push through them.  Thus if your area has long periods of no rainfall, debris will build up and the first (usually light) rains will *not* wash off the debris.  The intensity/duration of the rainfall needs to increase before flat surface debris is dislodged — and by that time your first flush diverter is already full and the clumps of debris go straight into your tank &gt; tap &gt; you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrugated profiles are half valley, half ridge.  Debris naturally ends up in the valleys and, because that's where *all* the water is forced to go, is pushed downstream immediately — even in light rains.  Corrugated profiles are thus the best profile to have if you want to have a 'self-cleaning' roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrugated profiles *complement* first-flush diverters.  Flat profiles *undermine* first-flush diverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving on, we have the issue of gutters.  Steel gutters rust out (and begin leaking) in as little as seven years around here.  They are terrible.  That's partly due to the material, but mainly to do with how downpipes are connected to the gutters.  Local tradesman cut a hole in the gutter, pop in an insert, rivet it in place and put a bead of silicone around it.  The downpipe is then friction-fit (or riveted) to the part of the pop that extends below/outside the gutter.  The pop/silicone creates a ridge inside the gutter which allows water to pool and debris to collect, which fosters microbial activity, turns the water acidic and rusts out the gutter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going with aluminium or plastic gutters is a good idea as it mitigates what would otherwise typically be the first point of failure in a typical roof-based rainwater harvesting system.  (Note, however, that plastic may not be allowed, and isn't a good idea, if your house is located in a bushfire-prone region.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same 'self-cleaning' logic that applies to roof cladding applies to gutters as well.  A gutter with a square profile (flat bottom and corners) will accumulate debris and undermine your first-flush diverter.  A 'half-round' gutter focuses everything to the bottom, self-cleans, and complements your first-flush diverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small detail that most people don't pay much attention to is the type of bracket used to connect the gutter to the fascia.  It is — unfortunately — normal around here to 'hide the brackets' by using a type that fits inside the gutter.  Such internal brackets may make the gutter look more streamlined, but they block the gutter and force you to either climb up on a ladder a few times a year to clean the gutters out by hand, or precariously walk/crawl along the edge of your roof with a brush/scoop.  Both are dangerous and/or dirty jobs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;External brackets hold the gutter in place from the outside.  They do not obstruct the gutter.  That means you can attach a brush to the end of a pole and (assuming you have a single-storey house) sweep clean your gutters *from ground level*.  As far as I'm concerned, that's *pure awesome*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My house has corrugated steel roofing and half-round aluminium gutters with external brackets because that combination was the most self-cleaning I could come up with.  I clean my gutters from ground level.  Apart from having to maintain the wood heater chimney/cowl, I have no need to go up on the roof.  Rainwater quality is excellent and I will be long dead before either my roof or gutters fail and need to be replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry about the length of this response.  Hopefully there's something of value in amongst it all for you to ponder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="986fc8a0-99ae-4e95-9ffe-b34f51fb4197" CreationDate="2018-04-09T09:13:55.533" UserId="4886" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="You've raised a few issues in your posts, so having just built a new house I'll address those I'm able to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with, I live in a country/area where corrugated steel roofing is the absolute norm and has been for over half a century.  In my town less than 1% of roofs are clad in anything else.  Everyone collects rainwater.  Everyone uses that rainwater.  Most people drink that rainwater.  There are no health issues associated with properly built and serviced rainwater harvesting systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common rainwater tank material around here has historically been zincalume (combination of zinc and aluminium).  So drinking water has been stored for *years* in containers significantly made of aluminium.  Once again, no negative health effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brand new zincalume tanks do leach *zinc* into the water intially, and this is what gives water held in those tanks its 'metallic' taste.  But zinc is actually a mineral that humans need, so (apart from the taste) that's not a problem.  Every season the amount of leached zinc decreases.  Whilst the impact on taste is quite noticeable in the first year, you can barely taste it after about five years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminium does not leach into water like zinc does.  The amount of aluminium that will end up in your water if you have aluminium roof sheeting, gutters, downpipes, or tanks is negligible *providing* the aluminium is not subject to mechanical abrasion.  The most likely cause of abrasion is the impact of falling branches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in an area surrounded by trees, and the wind blows small branches onto your roof on a regular basis, then that's a problem.  The kinetic energy of a falling branch is sufficient to break through the aluminium oxide layer upon impact and gouge out a small amount of the soft metal.  These tiny specs invariably make their way into your water tank and ultimately into you.  If you're always clearing twigs/sticks out of your gutters, I'd either clear away the trees causing the problem or go with (hard) steel roof cladding instead of (soft) aluminium roof cladding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Price is also an issue.  Local economics have a huge influence on the (relative) price of different types of metals, and here aluminium roof sheeting is 3x as expensive as steel.  In other areas both are about the same.  YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why you say that corrugated roof sheeting is &quot;impossible/difficult to walk on&quot;.  I've never had a problem and I've spent countless hours up on corrugated roofs over the last 40 years or so.  If that view is gathered from third-parties, I'd advise not paying them much more attention.  Continuous corrugations make for a uniform surface that is *much* less prone to tripping than the type of surface depicted in the image in your second post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the subject of profiles, the profile of that Fabral panel has large amounts of flat surface.  Flat surfaces tend to accumulate clumps of debris (e.g. dust/dirt/pollen/leaves) because water always takes the path of least resistance and tends to flow *around* obstructions rather than trying to push through them.  Thus if your area has long periods of no rainfall, debris will build up and the first (usually light) rains will *not* wash off the debris.  The intensity/duration of the rainfall needs to increase before flat surface debris is dislodged — and by that time your first flush diverter is already full and the clumps of debris go straight into your tank &gt; tap &gt; you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrugated profiles are half valley, half ridge.  Debris naturally ends up in the valleys and, because that's where *all* the water is forced to go, is pushed downstream immediately — even in light rains.  Corrugated profiles are thus the best profile to have if you want to have a 'self-cleaning' roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrugated profiles *complement* first-flush diverters.  Flat profiles *undermine* first-flush diverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving on, we have the issue of gutters.  Steel gutters rust out (and begin leaking) in as little as seven years around here.  They are terrible.  That's partly due to the material, but mainly to do with how downpipes are connected to the gutters.  Local tradesman cut a hole in the gutter, pop in an insert, rivet it in place and put a bead of silicone around it.  The downpipe is then friction-fit (or riveted) to the part of the pop that extends below/outside the gutter.  The pop/silicone creates a ridge inside the gutter which allows water to pool and debris to collect, which fosters microbial activity, turns the water acidic and rusts out the gutter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going with aluminium or plastic gutters is a good idea as it mitigates what would otherwise typically be the first point of failure in your average roof-based rainwater harvesting system.  (Note, however, that plastic may not be allowed, and isn't a good idea, if your house is located in a bushfire-prone region.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same 'self-cleaning' logic that applies to roof cladding applies to gutters as well.  A gutter with a square profile (flat bottom with sharp corners) will accumulate debris and undermine your first-flush diverter.  A 'half-round' gutter focuses everything to the bottom, self-cleans, and complements your first-flush diverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small detail that most people don't pay much attention to is the type of bracket used to connect the gutter to the fascia.  It is — unfortunately — normal around here to 'hide the brackets' by using a type that fits inside the gutter.  Such internal brackets may make the gutter look more streamlined, but they block the gutter and force you to either climb up on a ladder a few times a year to clean the gutters out by hand, or precariously walk/crawl along the edge of your roof with a brush/scoop.  Both are dangerous and/or dirty jobs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;External brackets hold the gutter in place from the outside.  They do not obstruct the gutter.  That means you can attach a brush to the end of a pole and (assuming you have a single-storey house) sweep clean your gutters *from ground level*.  As far as I'm concerned, that's *pure awesome*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My house has corrugated steel roofing and half-round aluminium gutters with external brackets because that combination was the most self-cleaning I could come up with.  I clean my gutters from ground level.  Apart from having to maintain the wood heater chimney/cowl, I have no need to go up on the roof.  Rainwater quality is excellent and I will be long dead before either my roof or gutters fail and need to be replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry about the length of this response.  Hopefully there's something of value in amongst it all for you to ponder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16622" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6538" RevisionGUID="cf9fdf55-e0a2-4cc1-83d0-197e6190c004" CreationDate="2018-04-09T13:28:24.567" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="You've raised a few issues in your posts, so having just built a new house I'll address those I'm able to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with, I live in a country/area where corrugated steel roofing is the absolute norm and has been for over half a century.  In my town less than 1% of roofs are clad in anything else.  Everyone collects rainwater.  Everyone uses that rainwater.  Most people drink that rainwater.  There are no health issues associated with properly built and serviced rainwater harvesting systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common rainwater tank material around here has historically been zincalume (combination of zinc and aluminium).  So drinking water has been stored for *years* in containers significantly made of aluminium.  Once again, no negative health effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brand new zincalume tanks do leach *zinc* into the water intially, and this is what gives water held in those tanks its 'metallic' taste.  But zinc is actually a mineral that humans need, so (apart from the taste) that's not a problem.  Every season the amount of leached zinc decreases.  Whilst the impact on taste is quite noticeable in the first year, you can barely taste it after about five years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminium does not leach into water like zinc does.  The amount of aluminium that will end up in your water if you have aluminium roof sheeting, gutters, downpipes, or tanks is negligible *providing* the aluminium is not subject to mechanical abrasion.  The most likely cause of abrasion is the impact of falling branches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in an area surrounded by trees, and the wind blows small branches onto your roof on a regular basis, then that's a problem.  The kinetic energy of a falling branch is sufficient to break through the aluminium oxide layer upon impact and gouge out a small amount of the soft metal.  These tiny specs invariably make their way into your water tank and ultimately into you.  If you're always clearing twigs/sticks out of your gutters, I'd either clear away the trees causing the problem or go with (hard) steel roof cladding instead of (soft) aluminium roof cladding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Price is also an issue.  Local economics have a huge influence on the (relative) price of different types of metals, and here aluminium roof sheeting is 3x as expensive as steel.  In other areas both are about the same.  YMMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why you say that corrugated roof sheeting is &quot;impossible/difficult to walk on&quot;.  I've never had a problem and I've spent countless hours up on corrugated roofs over the last 40 years or so.  If that view is gathered from third-parties, I'd advise not paying them much more attention.  Continuous corrugations make for a uniform surface that is *much* less prone to tripping than the type of surface depicted in the image in your second post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the subject of profiles, the profile of that Fabral panel has large amounts of flat surface.  Flat surfaces tend to accumulate clumps of debris (e.g. dust/dirt/pollen/leaves) because water always takes the path of least resistance and tends to flow *around* obstructions rather than trying to push through them.  Thus if your area has long periods of no rainfall, debris will build up and the first (usually light) rains will *not* wash off the debris.  The intensity/duration of the rainfall needs to increase before flat surface debris is dislodged — and by that time your first flush diverter is already full and the clumps of debris go straight into your tank &gt; tap &gt; you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrugated profiles are half valley, half ridge.  Debris naturally ends up in the valleys and, because that's where *all* the water is forced to go, is pushed downstream immediately — even in light rains.  Corrugated profiles are thus the best profile to have if you want to have a 'self-cleaning' roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrugated profiles *complement* first-flush diverters.  Flat profiles *undermine* first-flush diverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving on, we have the issue of gutters.  Steel gutters rust out (and begin leaking) in as little as seven years around here.  They are terrible.  That's partly due to the material, but mainly to do with how downpipes are connected to the gutters.  Local tradesman cut a hole in the gutter, pop in an insert, rivet it in place and put a bead of silicone around it.  The downpipe is then friction-fit (or riveted) to the part of the pop that extends below/outside the gutter.  The pop/silicone creates a ridge inside the gutter that allows water to pool and debris to collect, which fosters microbial activity, turns the water acidic and rusts out the gutter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going with aluminium or plastic gutters is a good idea as it mitigates what would otherwise typically be the first point of failure in your average roof-based rainwater harvesting system.  (Note, however, that plastic may not be allowed, and isn't a good idea, if your house is located in a bushfire-prone region.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same 'self-cleaning' logic that applies to roof cladding applies to gutters as well.  A gutter with a square profile (flat bottom with sharp corners) will accumulate debris and undermine your first-flush diverter.  A 'half-round' gutter focuses everything to the bottom, self-cleans, and complements your first-flush diverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small detail that most people don't pay much attention to is the type of bracket used to connect the gutter to the fascia.  It is — unfortunately — normal around here to 'hide the brackets' by using a type that fits *inside* the gutter.  Such internal brackets may make the gutter look more streamlined, but they block the gutter and force you to either climb up on a ladder a few times a year to clean the gutters out by hand, or precariously walk/crawl along the edge of your roof with a brush/scoop.  Both are dangerous and/or dirty jobs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;External brackets hold the gutter in place from the *outside*.  They do not obstruct the gutter.  That means you can attach a brush to the end of a pole and (assuming you have a single-storey house) sweep clean your gutters *from ground level*.  As far as I'm concerned, that's *pure awesome*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My house has corrugated steel roofing and half-round aluminium gutters with external brackets because that combination was the most self-cleaning I could come up with.  I clean my gutters from ground level.  Apart from having to maintain the wood heater chimney/cowl, I have no need to go up on the roof.  Rainwater quality is excellent and I will be long dead before either my roof or gutters fail and need to be replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry about the length of this response.  Hopefully there's something of value in amongst it all for you to ponder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6539" RevisionGUID="bfb393c5-02bc-4e92-9088-a405c600486f" CreationDate="2018-04-09T14:43:48.730" UserId="5619" Text="Books that stay in your library could be viewed as a form of carbon storage. Newspapers and magazines are much more likely to be recycled very quickly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a huge pre-consumer waste in the print market in as much as most titles print many more copies than will be sold, particularly in magazines. This results not only in recycling the product, but creates a lot of waste in packing, transporting and storing it. How you would account for all this I do not know." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6540" RevisionGUID="ca278757-64ec-4ccc-917a-170836415607" CreationDate="2018-04-09T14:52:48.903" UserId="5619" Text="I used to dry grass clippings as hay, then bag and store until winter and feed to goats. They seemed to much prefer it to regular hay. I think it is more nutritious too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="c73c70fb-2e4d-4777-ba60-237f4c711455" CreationDate="2018-04-10T11:01:42.500" UserId="5602" Text="During WW2 there were some ideas to build landing strips on ice built as composite of coconut matting with ice, being transported to their operation area as a kind of raft. This construction was considered as being very stable and melting of ice should be reduced by insulation effect of the coconut mat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if thinking of transporting a huge volume of ice (e.g. from North Pole) to another place this could be an idea to follow. My idea would be to include pipes into the raft to extract the temperature continuously with brine. Well constructed the raft could be of multiple use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It must be considered that most large cities with huge consumption of energy for air condition in summer are located close to the coast. Could become an interesting business." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6544" RevisionGUID="a9253d6f-c68f-4d6e-9667-57309cf9b3ea" CreationDate="2018-04-10T16:12:44.333" UserId="5622" Text="It will be more nutritious if, instead of &quot;clippings&quot;, you use a scythe and rake up the cut grass. Grass clippings from a lawn mower oxidize very quickly since they are so finely chopped up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6529" RevisionGUID="b649d5d5-c735-41de-a842-437f52d0eea0" CreationDate="2018-04-10T16:29:20.373" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, minor formatting." Text="I'm looking at building a sustainable energy project that will convert biogas (methane) into electricity. I haven't found any biogas or methane electric generators for sale. It seems that there are some projects that are using generators to convert the methane gas into electricity, however, I can't tell if this is special kind of generator and I just don't know what it's called or if it is a natural gas or propane generator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So will off-the-shelf natural gas or propane generators also run off of methane?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, how would I go about trying to calculate how much methane it would take to run the generator to produce enough electricity to say charge a cell phone or another small appliance?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16636" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6529" RevisionGUID="b649d5d5-c735-41de-a842-437f52d0eea0" CreationDate="2018-04-10T16:29:20.373" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, minor formatting." Text="|renewables|biofuels|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="7130dca9-ed3e-430a-bc64-176399d877bc" CreationDate="2018-04-10T17:56:29.853" UserId="5624" Text="I have a composting worm farm &amp; would like a definitive answer as what I've read so far is confusing. &#xD;&#xA;When adding uneaten raw dog bones,  beaf or lamb, also inedible  (for small dog breeds) chicken bones, what can I add to even things out in this hot bed of worm activity?  &#xD;&#xA;Thankyou in advance any help.&#xD;&#xA;Oldhand " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="7130dca9-ed3e-430a-bc64-176399d877bc" CreationDate="2018-04-10T17:56:29.853" UserId="5624" Text="Composting worms - Bones" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="7130dca9-ed3e-430a-bc64-176399d877bc" CreationDate="2018-04-10T17:56:29.853" UserId="5624" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="d933ad18-243c-4a03-ad95-4480f259464c" CreationDate="2018-04-10T19:19:23.627" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, minor editing" Text="I have a composting worm farm and would like a definitive answer, as what I've read so far is confusing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When adding uneaten raw dog bones from beef or lamb, or inedible (for small dog breeds) chicken bones, what can I add to ensure healthy worms in this hot bed of worm activity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16641" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="d933ad18-243c-4a03-ad95-4480f259464c" CreationDate="2018-04-10T19:19:23.627" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, minor editing" Text="|composting|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16642" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="d933ad18-243c-4a03-ad95-4480f259464c" CreationDate="2018-04-10T19:19:23.627" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, minor editing" Text="Composting bones in a worm bin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16643" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6502" RevisionGUID="49c771e9-4917-4e53-8d83-fc8c487e614a" CreationDate="2018-04-10T19:37:11.557" UserId="48" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:400,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Sherwood Botsford&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3293,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;J. Chomel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6543" RevisionGUID="e2c68706-2e9a-4691-bff0-4a1969929990" CreationDate="2018-04-10T20:41:20.487" UserId="5602" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="Beer factories in Germany used ice in cellars for their production throughout the year. A/C will require far more and may even heat up the cellars, so that more ice will be needed to bring them back to normal temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During WW2 there were some ideas to build landing strips on ice built as composite of coconut matting with ice, being transported to their operation area as a kind of raft. This construction was considered as being very stable and melting of ice should be reduced by insulation effect of the coconut mat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if thinking of transporting a huge volume of ice (e.g. from North Pole) to another place this could be an idea to follow. My idea would be to include pipes into the raft to extract the temperature continuously with brine. Well constructed the raft could be of multiple use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It must be considered that most large cities with huge consumption of energy for air condition in summer are located close to the coast. Could become an interesting business." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16645" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4767" RevisionGUID="8861f660-c7ab-41ef-b1b0-e33f3cec8ec1" CreationDate="2018-04-11T00:33:17.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6547" RevisionGUID="4c71cbd3-b24b-4975-bd41-0dda82a18412" CreationDate="2018-04-11T07:25:49.127" UserId="99" Text="**Meat**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's certainly possible to add meat to your worm farm, but many people warn against this because of the [risk of attracting vermin and the possible bad smell of decaying meat](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/38/99). To reduce these risks it's best to add only a few small pieces of meat at a time and bury them under other material. Alternatively you can pre-process food left-overs in a [bokashi bin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Bokashi) first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bones** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also add bones to a worm bin or compost heap, but bones won't decompose in any reasonable amount of time, so there is little point to do so. If you have the tools, you could [create your own bone meal](http://homeguides.sfgate.com/make-liquid-bone-meal-fertilizer-40172.html), but bone meal can be applied directly to one's garden so again there is not much point to add it to your worm farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**General guidelines**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When adding food to a worm bin there is always a chance that the worms (initially) won't like the food because it's not yet decaying or because it's too sour, too moist, too greasy, etc. Usually the problem resolves itself after a while when microbes and fungi have affected the food and it starts decaying. To speed-up decomposition it's best to chop up food in small pieces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want to add food to only a part of your worm farm, so the worms can escape to safer places for the time being. This is especially important when adding nitrogen-rich foods that will warm up the food as it decomposes. You also want to keep the [carbon-nitrogen ratio](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/1262/99) in balance to prevent bad smells and keep decomposition going. This means that when you add meat (which is relatively nitrogen-rich) you also need to add 'brown' (carbon-rich) materials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6547" RevisionGUID="9110d4b6-049f-4fd3-bcfb-bf1867fb7073" CreationDate="2018-04-11T07:35:42.380" UserId="99" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="**Meat**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's certainly possible to add meat to your worm farm, but many people warn against this because of the [risk of attracting vermin and the possible bad smell of decaying meat](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/38/99). To reduce these risks it's best to use a closed worm bin so critters can't enter, add only a few small pieces of meat at a time and bury the meat pieces under other material. Alternatively you can pre-process food left-overs in a [bokashi bin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Bokashi) first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bones** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also add bones to a worm bin or compost heap, but bones won't decompose in any reasonable amount of time, so there is little point to do so. If you have the tools, you could [create your own bone meal](http://homeguides.sfgate.com/make-liquid-bone-meal-fertilizer-40172.html), but bone meal can be applied directly to one's garden so again there is not much point to add it to your worm farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**General guidelines**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When adding food to a worm bin there is always a chance that the worms (initially) won't like the food because it's not yet decaying or because it's too sour, too moist, too greasy, etc. Usually the problem resolves itself after a while when microbes and fungi have affected the food and it starts decaying. To speed-up decomposition it's best to chop up food in small pieces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want to add food to only a part of your worm farm, so the worms can escape to safer places for the time being. This is especially important when adding nitrogen-rich foods that will warm up the food as it decomposes. You also want to keep the [carbon-nitrogen ratio](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/1262/99) in balance to prevent bad smells and keep decomposition going. This means that when you add meat (which is relatively nitrogen-rich) you also need to add 'brown' (carbon-rich) materials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6547" RevisionGUID="7a2d0e48-675d-48e4-b8b3-2f5b677afbd8" CreationDate="2018-04-11T11:10:43.630" UserId="99" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="**Meat**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's certainly possible to add meat to your worm farm, but many people warn against this because of the [risk of attracting vermin and the possible bad smell of decaying meat](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/38/99). To reduce these risks it's best to use a closed worm bin so critters can't enter, add only a few small pieces of meat at a time and bury the meat pieces under other material. Alternatively you can pre-process food left-overs in a [bokashi bin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Bokashi) first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bones** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also add bones to a worm bin or compost heap, but bones won't decompose in any reasonable amount of time, so there is little point to do so. If you have the tools, you could [create your own bone meal](http://homeguides.sfgate.com/make-liquid-bone-meal-fertilizer-40172.html), but bone meal can be applied directly to one's garden so again there is not much point to add it to your worm farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**General guidelines**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When adding food to a worm bin there is always a chance that the worms (initially) won't like the food because it's not yet decaying or because it's too sour, too moist, too greasy, etc. Usually the problem resolves itself after a while when microbes and fungi have affected the food and it starts decaying. To speed-up decomposition it's best to chop up food in small pieces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want to add food to only a part of your worm farm, so the worms can escape to safer places for the time being. This is especially important when adding nitrogen-rich foods that will warm up the food as it decomposes. You also want to keep the [carbon-nitrogen ratio](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/1262/99) in balance to prevent bad smells and keep decomposition going. This means that when you add meat or bone meal (both of which are nitrogen-rich) you also need to add 'brown' (carbon-rich) materials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16654" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="e374a754-d06b-41c7-9c2f-2dc5b17ac344" CreationDate="2018-04-11T18:31:44.523" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/984136935219310594" />
  <row Id="16655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6548" RevisionGUID="f6b1c8de-0a9a-4435-a5c7-52b75f43df37" CreationDate="2018-04-11T19:59:29.320" UserId="3851" Text="Given the high price of the enclosed pedal powered vehicles described above, it seems that the better option is to get an e-bike (so you can ride in heavy clothing without sweating too much and carry all the gear with you), and fit panniers so that you can carry your wet weather gear at all times. You could afford to really go to town on clothing and still spend less than an enclosed vehicle and consume way less energy than driving. Full face helmet, sealskinz socks (no affiliation), waterproof shoes AND rubber overshoes, over trousers, waterproof coat, ski gloves. Choose an e-bike with mudguards and a chain guard. Bring dry clothes with you to change if all that still doesn't work. This is more or less what I do on my commute in the wonderful UK weather. The enclosed bikes look cool and are very fast, but just seem to lose too many of the benefits of a bike/e-bike without gaining enough of the benefits of a car.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6547" RevisionGUID="224b7557-bf7c-42bf-9126-20ec8a27ebfa" CreationDate="2018-04-12T07:44:20.707" UserId="99" Comment="explained what a brown material is" Text="I'm not sure if the bones still contain meat, so I'll answer for both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Meat**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's certainly possible to add meat to your worm farm, but many people warn against this because of the [risk of attracting vermin and the possible bad smell of decaying meat](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/38/99). To reduce these risks it's best to use a closed worm bin so critters can't enter, add only a few small pieces of meat at a time and bury the meat pieces under other material. Alternatively you can pre-process food left-overs in a [bokashi bin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Bokashi) first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bones** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also add bones to a worm bin or compost heap, but without any treatment bones won't decompose in any reasonable amount of time, so there is little point to do so. If you have the tools, you could [create your own bone meal](http://homeguides.sfgate.com/make-liquid-bone-meal-fertilizer-40172.html), but bone meal can be applied directly to one's garden so again there is not much point to add it to your worm farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**General guidelines**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When adding food to a worm bin there is always a chance that the worms (initially) won't like the food because it's not yet decaying or because it's too sour, too moist, too greasy, etc. Usually the problem resolves itself after a while when microbes and fungi have affected the food and it starts decaying. To speed-up decomposition it's best to chop up food in small pieces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want to add food to only a part of your worm farm at a time, so the worms can escape to safer places if necessary. This is especially important when adding nitrogen-rich foods that will warm up the food as it decomposes. You also want to keep the [carbon-nitrogen ratio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-to-nitrogen_ratio) (C:N ratio for short) in balance to prevent bad smells and keep decomposition going. This means that when you add meat or bone meal (both of which are nitrogen-rich) you also need to add 'brown' (carbon-rich) materials. All materials that have a higher ratio than 30:1 in [this answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1280/99) count as a brown material." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16663" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="2f48179a-74f4-48da-9c51-64d17293cb7a" CreationDate="2018-04-12T13:50:13.190" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6550" RevisionGUID="10c8fc57-e285-477f-aed3-4b8ab93c52bb" CreationDate="2018-04-12T14:11:35.430" UserId="3379" Text="In the spirit of [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3118/best-way-to-dry-hands) about paper towels vs electric dryers, which types of faucets are most sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The marketing reasons for using motion-activated faucets are that they reduce water usage, and since they don't need to be touched, require less time and chemicals for cleaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, they do require electricity and motors, and when (as often happens) the motion activation part isn't working well, people touch them anyway (or hit them, grab them, squeeze them, etc, as they grow more and more frustrated (not that I would know anything about that...)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like something with a bumper (like many drinking fountains) or a foot pedal would offer the best of both worlds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16665" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6550" RevisionGUID="10c8fc57-e285-477f-aed3-4b8ab93c52bb" CreationDate="2018-04-12T14:11:35.430" UserId="3379" Text="Are motion activated faucets more sustainable than traditional faucets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16666" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6550" RevisionGUID="10c8fc57-e285-477f-aed3-4b8ab93c52bb" CreationDate="2018-04-12T14:11:35.430" UserId="3379" Text="|water|water-management|personal-hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6545" RevisionGUID="9419225d-2920-4327-8c31-591ab650d904" CreationDate="2018-04-12T14:13:39.587" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified question based on comments" Text="I have a composting worm farm and would like a definitive answer, as what I've read so far is confusing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When adding scraps of dog bones from beef or lamb, or inedible (for small dog breeds) chicken bones, what can I add to maintain the proper carbon-nitrogen ratio in this hot bed of worm activity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16668" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="5861be25-78c2-4dec-9c68-5286eac13d44" CreationDate="2018-04-12T15:50:12.540" UserId="-1" Comment="42" />
  <row Id="16669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6551" RevisionGUID="716fdc7d-7746-408f-956e-0156e54e8cad" CreationDate="2018-04-13T14:11:07.210" UserId="5619" Text="I don't think there is a clear answer to this question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a public environment where there is the risk of someone leaving the water running, then almost certainly yes. In a household where people can be taught and trusted to use water respectfully, especially hot water, then probably no, because the negligible resources saved is likely to be offset by the need for batteries or mains power. There is also the issue of complex equipment like this being more likely to fail than a standard tap, and less likely to be repairable. I'm a strong believer in KISS when it comes to issues of sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Motion activated taps do have other advantages though, in terms of hygiene and ease of use for some with certain disabilities. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="d6e29470-f266-4edc-b1cb-4dad93c1324a" CreationDate="2018-04-13T23:55:02.987" UserId="5602" Text="In Europe there are discussions about free public transportation to reduce pollution in cities. Apart from politics I wonder how many cities worldwide provide free public transportation already? Hope this question fits to this community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="d6e29470-f266-4edc-b1cb-4dad93c1324a" CreationDate="2018-04-13T23:55:02.987" UserId="5602" Text="Which cities provide free public transportation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="d6e29470-f266-4edc-b1cb-4dad93c1324a" CreationDate="2018-04-13T23:55:02.987" UserId="5602" Text="|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16673" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="183a656f-d672-41a3-8d13-d67ddc8f888f" CreationDate="2018-04-14T19:56:28.033" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6553" RevisionGUID="c14e5e4a-d457-4631-8772-361338c93971" CreationDate="2018-04-15T08:10:21.473" UserId="5629" Text="There are many photos of the ocean, which in some parts is littered with all sorts of waste, often plastic bags, containers etc. But I just wonder - how do such large amounts land in the ocean/sea? Isn't waste disposed at secure sites - so such a bug would either be recycled or in the worst case end up on some landfill? Of course rogue companies or entities could occasionally dump some thrash into the ocean, but the massive amounts of it seem surprising to me. Beside, often the argument is to not use plastic bags, containers etc. but simply USING them doesn't put them in the sea. So what does, and can it be stopped?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6553" RevisionGUID="c14e5e4a-d457-4631-8772-361338c93971" CreationDate="2018-04-15T08:10:21.473" UserId="5629" Text="How do plastic bags and other waste end up in the ocean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6553" RevisionGUID="c14e5e4a-d457-4631-8772-361338c93971" CreationDate="2018-04-15T08:10:21.473" UserId="5629" Text="|waste|plastic|bags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6554" RevisionGUID="2d5d2bf9-fbdc-44bd-ac40-b826ae5a7f06" CreationDate="2018-04-15T12:35:34.300" UserId="5602" Text="There are many ways how plastic waste ends up in the sea. A non-complete list would include the following: Micro-plastics from our washing processes, they are in almost everything like shampoo, peelings, cosmetics, etc., but also our clothes contain a lot of plastics which leaves the washing machines continuously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next are ships, loosing load, leaving old fishing nets in the oceans and of course (even when forbidden internationally) there are still a lot of ships simply dumping waste into the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A big problem are underdeveloped countries, especially the poor suburbs of bis cities, where there is neither a sensibility or eduction on plastic waste nor are there treatments, collection or deposits to recycle plastic waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also a lot of people (not only in underdeveloped countries) leave a lot of plastic waste at beaches where next high tide takes it to the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people are thinking about catching plastics out of the sea, but avoidance of introduction of plastic waste is a major topic as well. As it is difficult to educate so many people the general avoidance of plastic may be an important step." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6554" RevisionGUID="4b4317b8-d623-4c71-bad2-1be440903b3c" CreationDate="2018-04-15T12:49:37.863" UserId="5602" Comment="added 361 characters in body" Text="There are many ways how plastic waste ends up in the sea. A non-complete list would include the following: Micro-plastics from our washing processes, they are in almost everything like shampoo, peelings, cosmetics, etc., but also our clothes contain a lot of plastics which leaves the washing machines continuously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next are ships, loosing load, leaving old fishing nets in the oceans and of course (even when forbidden internationally) there are still a lot of ships simply dumping waste into the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A big problem are underdeveloped countries, especially the poor suburbs of bis cities, where there is neither a sensibility or eduction on plastic waste nor are there treatments, collection or deposits to recycle plastic waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also a lot of people (not only in underdeveloped countries) leave a lot of plastic waste at beaches where next high tide takes it to the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even in the developed countries we have an enormous exportation of plastic waste (previously collected and assumed to be recycled or deposited locally) to other countries, declared to be &quot;cheaper recycled&quot; there. In many cases nobody really knows what happens with this waste once it has reached its destination country - if it reaches them at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people are thinking about catching plastics out of the sea, but avoidance of introduction of plastic waste is a major topic as well. As it is difficult to educate so many people the general avoidance of plastic may be an important step." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6554" RevisionGUID="bfc46489-f943-4680-bbec-825606bf87a3" CreationDate="2018-04-15T13:31:38.047" UserId="5602" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="There are many ways how plastic waste ends up in the sea. A non-complete list would include the following: Micro-plastics from our washing processes, they are in almost everything like shampoo, peelings, cosmetics, etc., but also our clothes contain a lot of plastics which leaves the washing machines continuously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next are ships, loosing load, leaving old fishing nets in the oceans and of course (even when forbidden internationally) there are still a lot of ships simply dumping waste into the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A big problem are underdeveloped countries, especially the poor suburbs of bis cities, where there is neither a sensibility or eduction on plastic waste nor are there treatments, collection or deposits to recycle plastic waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also a lot of people (not only in underdeveloped countries) leave a lot of plastic waste at beaches where next high tide takes it to the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even in the developed countries we have an enormous exportation of plastic waste (previously collected and assumed to be recycled or deposited locally) to other countries, declared to be &quot;cheaper recycled&quot; there. In many cases nobody really knows what happens with this waste once has reached its destination country - if it reaches those countries at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people are thinking about catching plastics out of the sea, but avoidance of introduction of plastic waste is a major topic as well. As it is difficult to educate so many people the general avoidance of plastic may be an important step." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6555" RevisionGUID="bdbf0964-e2bf-4d61-a888-1661e86a4136" CreationDate="2018-04-15T18:03:35.113" UserId="4886" Text="Carelessness, wind and rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Humans are careless, so leave all manner of plastic outside in their yards.  A gust of wind catches the plastic and deposits it onto a nearby road.  It rains, and the plastic is washed into the gutter and stormwater system, where it travels through drains, culverts, creeks, rivers and ultimately out to sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why pollution at outflow pipes is always worst after a storm... where wind and rain go hand in hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commercial and industrial premises are just as bad as residential ones — if not worse — but the cause is still the same:  Carelessness, wind and rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we can blame winds for toppling garbage bins set out for collection, and animals for digging through trash, and the homeless for rummaging through dumpsters and leaving the lids open, and kids for unwrapping their toys outside, and transport companies for poorly wrapped pallets, and construction companies for a plethora of loose wraps on building sites, and children for posting 'lost dog' signs on electricity poles, and nationalists for flying flags, and Christians for decorating outdoor Christmas trees, and any of a million other people or groups for putting/leaving lightweight plastics outside where the elements can relocate them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, having garbage that 'disappears on its own accord' is probably seen as a good thing by the 'average' person, not a bad thing, so I doubt you can change peoples behaviour by any degree that would make a measurable difference.  As long as 'trash' is something people 'put outside' and ultimately 'someone' or 'something' makes it disappear, this problem will persist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Out of sight, out of mind&quot; is a powerful force." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6553" RevisionGUID="4cd6a008-23d6-4e7a-9b15-cfddf93c9838" CreationDate="2018-04-15T22:29:39.363" UserId="15" Comment="spelling" Text="There are many photos of the ocean, which in some parts is littered with all sorts of waste, often plastic bags, containers etc. But I just wonder - how do such large amounts land in the ocean/sea? Isn't waste disposed at secure sites - so such a bag would either be recycled or in the worst case end up on some landfill? Of course rogue companies or entities could occasionally dump some thrash into the ocean, but the massive amounts of it seem surprising to me. Beside, often the argument is to not use plastic bags, containers etc. but simply USING them doesn't put them in the sea. So what does, and can it be stopped?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16682" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="8d5d8a90-87e9-43de-9543-5043fe4dc618" CreationDate="2018-04-15T23:10:45.293" UserId="5602" Comment="edited title" Text="In which cities &quot;free&quot; public transportation generated positive impact, no impact or negative impact to sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6555" RevisionGUID="86fe1a2a-eec9-4664-b762-e22dde0b07e2" CreationDate="2018-04-16T04:05:06.077" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Carelessness, wind and rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Humans are careless, so leave all manner of plastic outside in their yards.  A gust of wind catches the plastic and blows it onto a nearby road.  It rains, and the plastic is washed into the gutter and stormwater system, where it travels through drains, culverts, creeks, rivers and ultimately out to sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why pollution at outflows is always worst after a storm... where wind and rain go hand in hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commercial and industrial premises are just as bad as residential ones — if not worse — but the cause is still the same:  Carelessness, wind and rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, we can blame winds for toppling garbage bins set out for collection, and animals for digging through trash, and the homeless for rummaging through dumpsters and leaving the lids open, and kids for unwrapping their toys outside, and transport companies for poorly wrapped pallets, and construction companies for a plethora of loose materials on building sites, and children for posting 'lost dog' signs on electricity poles, and nationalists for flying flags, and Christians for decorating outdoor Christmas trees, and any of a million other groups of people for putting/leaving lightweight plastics outside where the elements can relocate them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, having garbage that 'disappears on its own accord' is probably seen as a good thing by the 'average' person, not a bad thing, so I doubt you can change peoples behaviour by any degree that would make a measurable difference.  As long as 'trash' is something people 'put outside' and ultimately 'someone' or 'something' makes it 'disappear', this problem will persist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Out of sight, out of mind&quot; is a powerful enemy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6556" RevisionGUID="5045d43a-a66d-4c18-b1e8-55751b34cff8" CreationDate="2018-04-16T06:10:33.730" UserId="1056" Text="Yes, using a menstrual cup (such as DivaCup) is much better for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I located a [thesis paper](https://cdn.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/science/environmental-science-program/Honours%20Theses/2015/ThesisWeir.pdf) written by a student at Dalhousie University for her BSc in Environmental Science and Gender and Women Studies which compares the financial and environmental costs of various menstrual products. Here's the relevant part of the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The environmental externalities of product raw materials show that for a temporal scale of one unit and one cycle or longer, the products with the least environmental effect are the tampon without applicator and the reusable menstrual cup respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here are some of the quantitative results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It takes as much fossil fuel to produce one DivaCup as about 8 tampons.&#xD;&#xA;- The break-even point in fossil fuel usage between generic tampons and the DivaCup is about one cycle.&#xD;&#xA;- The DivaCup uses about 93% less fossil fuel over the course of one year.&#xD;&#xA;- Similar results are observed for global warming potential, acidification, and eutrophication.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An article in [CHOICE](https://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/reproductive-health/womens-health/articles/menstrual-cups-and-period-underwear#what's%20the%20verdict) came to the same conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's impossible to deny the profound environmental reasons for switching to the reusable cups and underpants. There's also a clear cost benefit over a number of years of use for the menstrual cup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a menstrual cup (such as a DivaCup) for even just a couple months is an improvement over tampons and other products. If the DivaCup is consistently used over its entire lifecycle, the difference in environmental impact is huge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6557" RevisionGUID="0a5c293c-285e-46cc-9ced-3441a436e143" CreationDate="2018-04-16T06:24:26.307" UserId="1056" Text="As of January 2018 the standards for paper recycling have been tightened and even a small amount of contamination will now render paper loads inacceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main driving force here is that China has clamped down on contaminated imports of paper and other products in an initiative called [National Sword](https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-01-01/mountains-us-recycling-pile-china-restricts-imports). The new contamination limit is 0.5%, which is remarkably more difficult to achieve than the older limit of 1.5%. However, it's not exactly clear to me what this percentage is specifying. Does it mean that up to 0.5% of the bale mass can be contaminants, or does it mean that up to 0.5% of the cardboard surface may have contaminants on it? This answer is hard to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many countries send paper recycling to China, or at least they were doing so up until this year. That means that this change is likely to affect many cities in developed nations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point, my recommendation to end-users is that cardboard and paper is only acceptable if there is **no observable contamination** with food particles or oils. Any brown cardboard that has been visibly darkened by oils should be composted or trashed instead of being mixed into recycling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6558" RevisionGUID="6f86bec9-b20a-4f53-a477-5c2609c17fe9" CreationDate="2018-04-16T06:40:23.620" UserId="1056" Text="Insect farming has been [hailed by some](https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/cricket-farming-sustainable/) as a sustainable alternative to animal agriculture because the requirements for land and water are much lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But just as [livestock depend on plant food](https://www.coursera.org/learn/feedingtheworld/lecture/ZkK4y/land-use-animal-feeding-systems-and-major-food-feed-crops) that requires large areas of land to grow, insects also need to get their food from somewhere. [Crickets](http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-380-russia-assassinations-cricket-farms-madeleine-l-engle-s-grandkids-disney-social-clubs-and-more-1.4565659/bugs-as-livestock-a-canadian-insect-farm-is-taking-cricket-powder-mainstream-1.4565666) seem to be one of the most commonly farmed insects in North America right now so I'll ask about them specifically. What kind of food is used to feed the crickets, and would it otherwise be human-edible? Are any pre- or post-consumer food waste products used in the raising of insects that will be processed into food for humans?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If crickets are being given food that would otherwise be human-edible, that seems like it would be a net loss in the efficiency of food production." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6558" RevisionGUID="6f86bec9-b20a-4f53-a477-5c2609c17fe9" CreationDate="2018-04-16T06:40:23.620" UserId="1056" Text="What feed is typically used in insect farming?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6558" RevisionGUID="6f86bec9-b20a-4f53-a477-5c2609c17fe9" CreationDate="2018-04-16T06:40:23.620" UserId="1056" Text="|food|alternatives|meat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="cfb04355-7030-4f1e-abb4-f4b89c87c4e1" CreationDate="2018-04-16T09:23:19.527" UserId="5602" Comment="added 880 characters in body" Text="In Europe there are discussions about free public transportation to reduce pollution in cities. Even when in Germany first attempts failed due to economical and political arguments, the discussion about it is not yet finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially I was looking for cities that have introduced &quot;free public transport&quot; to estimate in a second step what impact it might have had on sustainability of the respective ambient (e.g. consumption of area for streets and parking, climate in cities, pollution on fruits from urban gardening, life style in general, mobility, animals in cities, total energy consumption, ability to electrify transport systems, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meantime I discovered lists of cities where &quot;free public transport&quot; was introduced, not knowing whether these lists are complete. [link]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_public_transport_routes. The second link points to some Pros and Cons. But they do not cover all aspects of sustainability, focussing rather more on political, economical or social aspects [link]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this question now fits to this community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="9c31f142-4d99-454d-a56a-c772183f3652" CreationDate="2018-04-16T09:58:03.753" UserId="5602" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="In Europe there are discussions about free public transportation to reduce pollution in cities. Even when in Germany first attempts failed due to economical and political arguments, the discussion about it is not yet finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially I was looking for cities that have introduced &quot;free public transport&quot; to estimate in a second step what impact it might have had on sustainability of the respective ambient (e.g. consumption of area for streets and parking, climate in cities, pollution on fruits from urban gardening, life style in general, mobility, animals in cities, total energy consumption, ability to electrify transport systems, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meantime I discovered lists of cities where &quot;free public transport&quot; was introduced, not knowing whether these lists are complete. &lt;en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_public_transport_routes&gt;. The second link points to some Pros and Cons. But they do not cover all aspects of sustainability, focussing rather more on political, economical or social aspects &lt;en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this question now fits to this community." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="8727c93a-138e-48d5-a8da-72909760f48c" CreationDate="2018-04-16T10:04:18.310" UserId="5602" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="In Europe there are discussions about free public transportation to reduce pollution in cities. Even when in Germany first attempts failed due to economical and political arguments, the discussion about it is not yet finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially I was looking for cities that have introduced &quot;free public transport&quot; to estimate in a second step what impact it might have had on sustainability of the respective ambient (e.g. consumption of area for streets and parking, climate in cities, pollution on fruits from urban gardening, life style in general, mobility, animals in cities, total energy consumption, ability to electrify transport systems, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meantime I discovered lists of cities where &quot;free public transport&quot; was introduced, not knowing whether these lists are complete. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_public_transport_routes/][1]. The second link points to some Pros and Cons. But they do not cover all aspects of sustainability, focussing rather more on political, economical or social aspects [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport/][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this question now fits to this community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_public_transport_routes/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6552" RevisionGUID="2eb3e881-55ab-4c61-8be9-f18078c9a0f8" CreationDate="2018-04-16T10:14:53.303" UserId="5602" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="In Europe there are discussions about free public transportation to reduce pollution in cities. Even when in Germany first attempts failed due to economical and political arguments, the discussion about it is not yet finished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially I was looking for cities that have introduced &quot;free public transport&quot; to estimate in a second step what impact it might have had on sustainability of the respective ambient (e.g. consumption of area for streets and parking, climate in cities, pollution on fruits from urban gardening, life style in general, mobility, animals in cities, total energy consumption, ability to electrify transport systems, etc.). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the meantime I discovered lists of cities where &quot;free public transport&quot; was introduced, not knowing whether these lists are complete. [Free public transport cities 1][1] and [Free public transportation cities 2][2]. The further link points to some Pros and Cons. But they do not cover all aspects of sustainability, focussing rather more on general political, economical or social aspects [Free public transport][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this question now fits to this community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://freepublictransport.info/city/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_public_transport_routes&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16693" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6411" RevisionGUID="6197b4af-d5fc-4566-b07f-c411453c7956" CreationDate="2018-04-16T11:07:05.067" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16694" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="b8f38d00-a946-44b4-8090-99966b69ecf3" CreationDate="2018-04-16T12:07:04.903" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6559" RevisionGUID="cd98121c-21d1-4cf5-b788-8f71267556b8" CreationDate="2018-04-16T13:43:26.707" UserId="5602" Text="As long as eating crickets is still not that common in the western world raising of crickets is rather used to feed e.g. iguanas, chicken, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general crickets are not that selective about their food, they take wet and dry food, could even be fed by waste food. But people, raising iguanas and other animals eating crickets take care to raise healthy crickets only, because they do not want to have sick animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At large volume in deed there is a high volume of food (proteins) needed, simply imagine what a  plague of locusts can achieve. So if waste food is used first it needs to be sterilized so that no disease can be transported and secondly even crickets need vitamins, so that food should include a variety of different ingredients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of eating insects implies a large number of insects available. When they need to be farmed in large volumes the effect compared to other animals is probably limited." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6559" RevisionGUID="edf15ad4-b806-4174-93a8-a8fa4affdebc" CreationDate="2018-04-16T14:43:07.357" UserId="5602" Comment="added 221 characters in body" Text="As long as eating crickets is still not that common in the western world raising of crickets is rather used to feed e.g. iguanas, chicken, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general crickets are not that selective about their food, they take wet and dry food, could even be fed by waste food. But people, raising iguanas and other animals eating crickets take care to raise healthy crickets only, because they do not want to have sick animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At large volume in deed there is a high volume of food (proteins) needed, simply imagine what a plague of locusts can achieve. So if waste food is used first it needs to be sterilized so that no disease can be transported and secondly even crickets need vitamins, so that food should include a variety of different ingredients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The favourite selection of **dry food diet** is among others: Compressed pellets from chicks, fish food, oat flakes, flakes made from vegetables, dry food for cats and dogs, wheat bran. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wet food diet** among others: Fruits, salads, dandelion, carrots, herbs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if **food from animals, preferably &quot;dry&quot;**, due to need of sterilization where as **vegetable food can be &quot;wet&quot; and &quot;dry&quot;**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2934" RevisionGUID="419579e3-677d-4056-b8f5-c90f074de22c" CreationDate="2018-04-16T15:13:07.690" UserId="3379" Comment="Inserted spaces between words" Text="You must read The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Kieth:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.bookdepository.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Lierre-Keith/9781604860801&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's an excellent book, well cited and rich in information, presenting a factual viewpoint that my vegetarian-of-17-years self had to stand up and take notice of. Such a complicated topic, this book really opened my eyes. Needless to say i am no longer a vegetarian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added By J. Cho:&#xD;&#xA;Excerpt:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The book] exposes the destructive history of agriculture causing the devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil and asserts that, in order to save the planet, food must come from within living communities. In order for this to happen, the argument champions eating locally and sustainably and encourages those with the resources to grow their own food. Further examining the question of what to eat from the perspective of both human and environmental health, the account goes beyond health choices and discusses potential moral issues from eating or not eating animals. Through the deeply personal narrative of someone who practiced veganism for 20 years, this unique exploration also discusses alternatives to industrial farming, reveals the risks of a vegan diet, and explains why animals belong on ecologically sound farms.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6559" RevisionGUID="9857f56b-bad6-4851-8306-86f26e6661fe" CreationDate="2018-04-16T17:35:25.377" UserId="1056" Comment="trying to make this answer readable and relevant to the site and this specific question" Text="In general crickets are not that selective about their food, they take wet and dry food, could even be fed waste food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Dry food examples: compressed pellets from chicks, fish food, oat flakes, flakes made from vegetables, dry food for cats and dogs, wheat bran.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Wet food examples: fruits, salads, dandelion, carrots, herbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If animal-based food wastes are used, they need to be sterilized so that no disease can be communicated. Therefore only vegetable foods are given as options for wet food, because wet foods from animals are probably not sterile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And even crickets need vitamins, so their diet should include a variety of different ingredients." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16699" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6559" RevisionGUID="9857f56b-bad6-4851-8306-86f26e6661fe" CreationDate="2018-04-16T17:35:25.377" Comment="Proposed by 1056 approved by 5602 edit id of 523" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16700" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6558" RevisionGUID="480b255d-df98-44e4-a720-871cf0a19d0a" CreationDate="2018-04-16T18:49:37.767" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/985953375958257665" />
  <row Id="16702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="3d6b2023-cca5-4b4f-9ce8-f4c6d6843fe0" CreationDate="2018-04-18T23:07:51.350" UserId="164" Text="We have been living in our home for a year now, so have seen both summer and winter, and we are now looking to solve the heating and cooling problems we have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The walls and roof of the house are well insulated, and upstairs only has Velux windows, so apart from a brief spell when the combi-boiler stopped working (blocked condensate pipe) upstairs never has a problem with heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The open plan downstairs however is laminate flooring on concrete with minimal insulation, so the floor is always cold, and it's always a struggle to get it to feel warm in winter. Even with the heating water turned up to 80°C (176°F), the downstairs radiators fully on, and the upstairs radiators cold, a huge temperature differential remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Cooling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far we haven't had many problems with downstairs being too warm in summer, but upstairs can get uncomfortably hot, especially in our bedroom. Neither of us sleep too well if too hot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Some Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All radiators except the upstairs bathroom bypass towel radiator are thermostatically controlled. We will probably convert them to smart TRVs at some point, but this is unlikely to help with the problems described here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downstairs consists of a small downstairs loo, plus a large open plan area consisting of living and dining areas, stair well and kitchen which is also open to the conservatory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The central heating is a relatively recent, so the gas combi-boiler is quite efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the UK gas is much cheaper for heating than electricity, we currently pay 3p/kWh for gas and 11p/kWh for electricity (that's 3 &amp; 16 cents/kWh at current exchange rates) so we would prefer the bulk of the heating load to be carried by the gas central heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Down the line we would like under floor heating downstairs, but we can't justify that right now. We will also eventually get around to replacing the patio doors and the conservatory, which should help with insulation downstairs, but again those are longer term plans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we equalise the temperature between upstairs and downstairs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought of just fitting an insulated duct and a fan which extracts air from upstairs and pipes it downstairs, but the only place I could fit such a duct would be in the stair well, and it feels like the air would just end up rising straight back upstairs. Other than that we would need to take a duct outside, which feels like a lot of work for an indeterminate benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have sought out quotes for a standard split air conditioner unit to cool upstairs, but that won't help with heating downstairs and I'm not happy about how much this will cost to run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was hoping that there may be solutions which could pump heat from upstairs to downstairs, but I don't know if split air conditioner systems can be configured to take advantage of temperature differentials like this.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="3d6b2023-cca5-4b4f-9ce8-f4c6d6843fe0" CreationDate="2018-04-18T23:07:51.350" UserId="164" Text="Temperature equalisation throughout the house" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="3d6b2023-cca5-4b4f-9ce8-f4c6d6843fe0" CreationDate="2018-04-18T23:07:51.350" UserId="164" Text="|heating|air-conditioning|heat-pump|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="5c1aea25-69b1-409f-a5ff-b7cec889a5d8" CreationDate="2018-04-19T03:16:04.867" UserId="1056" Text="Does anyone know what to do with these containers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though some of them are labelled &quot;#3 Please recycle this container&quot; I'm quite sure they can't be put with mixed paper or cardboard recycling [because of the food bits](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/1149/1056) and residual oils on them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm pretty sure they aren't made with any plastic because it was easy to tear like paper or cardboard. I also used the &quot;fire test&quot; and found that it burns instead of melting, though the flame quickly went out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could they be compostable? They have a waxy lining. Are all waxes safe for compost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![a waxy cardboard box covered in food residue and viewed from two angles][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm located in the Greater Vancouver area of British Columbia if it makes a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hdjE8.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="5c1aea25-69b1-409f-a5ff-b7cec889a5d8" CreationDate="2018-04-19T03:16:04.867" UserId="1056" Text="Can I recycle waxy cardboard?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="5c1aea25-69b1-409f-a5ff-b7cec889a5d8" CreationDate="2018-04-19T03:16:04.867" UserId="1056" Text="|recycling|composting|paper|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6562" RevisionGUID="a50c7fe1-a4c0-4dbf-8157-017f6f36f5d5" CreationDate="2018-04-19T06:36:52.720" UserId="5644" Text="The City of Vancouver’s Waste Wizard says put them in the green bin. They also have a hotline you can call. Why wait for an answer here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6562" RevisionGUID="e9e19b16-db12-4ae4-88cc-0773e4190061" CreationDate="2018-04-19T06:42:50.207" UserId="5644" Comment="added 68 characters in body" Text="The City of Vancouver’s Waste Wizard says put them in the green bin. They also have a hotline you can call. Why wait for an answer here?![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/IjJQh.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16712" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6553" RevisionGUID="fe35b9d5-a840-4ade-a32f-1b77dc517f9f" CreationDate="2018-04-19T06:58:20.103" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/986861536479236096" />
  <row Id="16713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="91d80f64-1a15-422b-b125-44168eb8b158" CreationDate="2018-04-19T10:44:09.497" UserId="164" Comment="added 468 characters in body" Text="We have been living in our home for a year now, so have seen both summer and winter, and we are now looking to solve the heating and cooling problems we have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The walls and roof of the house are well insulated, and upstairs only has Velux windows, so apart from a brief spell when the combi-boiler stopped working (blocked condensate pipe) upstairs never has a problem with heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The open plan downstairs however is laminate flooring on concrete with minimal insulation, so the floor is always cold, and it's always a struggle to get it to feel warm in winter. Even with the heating water turned up to 80°C (176°F), the downstairs radiators fully on, and the upstairs radiators cold, a huge temperature differential remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Cooling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far we haven't had many problems with downstairs being too warm in summer, but upstairs can get uncomfortably hot, especially in our bedroom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of us sleep too well if too hot, so we are currently looking at options for air-conditioning. I am concerned about our environmental footprint however and would prefer a more sustainable solution if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Some Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All radiators except the upstairs bathroom towel radiator (which acts as a bypass radiator) are thermostatically controlled. We will probably convert them to smart TRVs at some point, but this is unlikely to help with the problems described here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downstairs consists of a small toilet room (2m²/22ft²), plus a large open plan area consisting of living and dining areas, stair well and kitchen which is also open to the conservatory (39m²/416ft²). All external doors open into this area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The central heating is relatively new, so the condensing gas combi-boiler is quite efficient. It has a heat output of 24.9kW (to heat 77m² / 826ft² of house) and a [SEDBUK][1] rating of 90%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the UK gas is much cheaper for heating than electricity, we currently pay 3p/kWh for gas (at 90% boiler efficiency) and 11p/kWh for electricity (that's 3 &amp; 16 cents/kWh at current exchange rates) so we would prefer the bulk of the heating load to be carried by the gas central heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Down the line we would like under floor heating downstairs, but we can't justify that right now. We will also eventually get around to replacing the patio doors and the conservatory, which should help with insulation downstairs, but again those are longer term plans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we equalise the temperature between upstairs and downstairs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought of just fitting an insulated duct and a fan which extracts air from upstairs and pipes it downstairs, but the only place I could fit such a duct would be in the stair well, and it feels like the air would just end up circulating straight back upstairs. Other than that we would need to take a duct outside, which feels like a lot of work for an indeterminate benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have sought out quotes for a standard split air conditioner unit to cool upstairs, but that won't help with heating downstairs and I'm not happy about the environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was hoping that there may be solutions which could pump heat from upstairs to downstairs, but I don't know if split air conditioner systems can be configured to take advantage of temperature differentials like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensing_boiler#Efficiency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6563" RevisionGUID="602cfeae-67ac-42a6-8ca1-fb23fe7b4384" CreationDate="2018-04-19T15:40:18.010" UserId="3379" Text="*As a coffee drinker, I was most interested in the comparison between coffee and a can of soda. At a later date I'll add some analysis regarding tea.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TL;DR -- Per liter, coffee is two to four times *worse* for the environment than carbonated beverages (based on preperation method, and looking at equivalent CO2 emissions).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analysis you're attempting to undertake is called **life-cycle assessment**. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Life-cycle assessment** (**LCA**, also known as **life-cycle analysis**, **ecobalance**, and **cradle-to-grave analysis**) is a technique to assess environmental impacts associated with all the stages of a product's life from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Carbonated soft-drinks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [&quot;Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft-drinks&quot;](https://www.academia.edu/29046870/Life_cycle_environmental_impacts_of_carbonated_soft_drinks):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you asked about a *can* of coke, the number we're interested in is **312 gCO2eq/l**. (Note that this study is specific for the UK. )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coca-Cola UK also commissioned [the Carbon Trust](https://www.carbontrust.com/home/) to calculate the [carbon footprint of a can of Coke](http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/stories/whats-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-coca-cola). Their finding is actually a bit higher, at **515 gCO2eq/l**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Coffee&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [&quot;Life Cycle Assessment of coffee consumption: comparison of single-serve coffee and bulk coffee brewing&quot; (pdf)](http://www.pac.ca/assets/pac0680-full-lca.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This chart is for an 8 ounce cup of coffee -- converting ounces to liters to match the first chart, the range of values is **828 to 1395 gCO2eq/l**, which is **two to four times greater than for soda in cans**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this seems high, it roughly matches the value found in [another study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652609001474) (numbers available [here](http://www.appropedia.org/LCA_of_coffee)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Sugar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting side note from the first study -- the &quot;worst&quot; ingredient in carbonated soft drinks, in terms of global warming potential (GWP), is the sugar: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you add sugar to your coffee, it's even worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VSfIh.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dBfUU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/i4kLz.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16715" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="06baa78b-6100-4a72-9619-ccc42bc5a5f8" CreationDate="2018-04-19T18:58:30.150" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/987042772573179905" />
  <row Id="16716" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="d7f041ce-cd8b-4a8d-9fde-26b22cfcd222" CreationDate="2018-04-19T19:42:01.853" UserId="15" Comment="Updated title due to importance of location" Text="Can I recycle waxy cardboard (in Greater Vancouver)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6553" RevisionGUID="6f633c6b-3377-4b42-a672-1e1c508f30b7" CreationDate="2018-04-21T06:32:07.057" UserId="5648" Comment="Broke the wall of text up to make for easier reading." Text="There are many photos of the ocean, which in some parts is littered with all sorts of waste, often plastic bags, containers etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I just wonder - how do such large amounts of plastic land in the ocean/sea?** Isn't waste disposed of at secure sites - so such a bag would either be recycled or in the worst case end up on some landfill? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course rogue companies or entities could occasionally dump some trash into the ocean, but the massive amounts of it seem surprising to me. Besides, often the argument is to not use plastic bags, containers etc. Simply USING them shouldn't put them in the sea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So what does, and can it be stopped?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16720" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6553" RevisionGUID="6f633c6b-3377-4b42-a672-1e1c508f30b7" CreationDate="2018-04-21T06:32:07.057" Comment="Proposed by 5648 approved by 99 edit id of 525" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="cd4d0953-aaa7-4117-872f-843491773b7b" CreationDate="2018-04-21T06:53:34.713" UserId="5648" Comment="Changed question so it wasn't brand specific " Text="Menstrual cups can last between 5 to 10 years depending on the brand and care in use. There are many different brands and designs. E.g. Diva cups only last about the average of 5 years, while Mooncup advertises 10 years with proper care. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if there was a lot of waste produced in the process of making them (compared to pads and tampons) that might outweigh the benefits of using them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems like a no brainer. I was wondering if anyone had actually done the analysis on the difference in total waste, throughout the product life cycle of each product type. Eg cup vs pad vs tampon. Let's use an average life span of 5 years per cup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16722" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="cd4d0953-aaa7-4117-872f-843491773b7b" CreationDate="2018-04-21T06:53:34.713" UserId="5648" Comment="Changed question so it wasn't brand specific " Text="Is using a menstrual cup better for the environment than using pads or tampons?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16723" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6511" RevisionGUID="cd4d0953-aaa7-4117-872f-843491773b7b" CreationDate="2018-04-21T06:53:34.713" Comment="Proposed by 5648 approved by 99 edit id of 524" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="19077e21-4cdd-49d5-b27d-e4db5c302d54" CreationDate="2018-04-21T09:51:43.743" UserId="5602" Text="No doubt vegetables, fruits and salads produced locally in most cases provide local jobs and usually best fresh quality. In change a lot of animal food (soy, corn, and others) are shipped around the world to feed animals close to those locations where they are later slaughtered, sold and consumed. The marketing slogan in those cases is also &quot;buy local&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However wouldn't it be more sustainable and less energy consuming to feed the animals where their food is being produced and ship after slaughter just only those (animal) products being for final consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16725" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="19077e21-4cdd-49d5-b27d-e4db5c302d54" CreationDate="2018-04-21T09:51:43.743" UserId="5602" Text="Is &quot;buying local&quot; sustainable, considering food from animals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16726" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="19077e21-4cdd-49d5-b27d-e4db5c302d54" CreationDate="2018-04-21T09:51:43.743" UserId="5602" Text="|food|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16727" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="2a2497eb-00ba-4e92-b9ad-4b1b83d2072b" CreationDate="2018-04-21T10:27:04.737" UserId="5602" Comment="edited title" Text="Is &quot;buying local&quot; sustainable, considering food made from animals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16728" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="c0480aa2-168c-45b3-bb7a-2e23b48eaefa" CreationDate="2018-04-21T14:13:52.087" UserId="5602" Comment="edited title" Text="Is &quot;buying local&quot; sustainable, with reference to food made from animals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6565" RevisionGUID="2e7d0b07-a917-4f4d-9728-f81cfef26953" CreationDate="2018-04-21T21:33:04.363" UserId="5300" Text="A good question, but one for which the answer will differ for different locations around the world. Here in New Zealand, for example, very little feed is brought in from outside of the farm upon which the animals are being raised (for cattle and sheep). Livestock are grass fed and the norm is for each farm to produce enough hay/silage to get them through each winter. Naturally, unforeseeable weather events can impact upon this. Abattoirs are also generally located close to farming centers. So for this location, 'buy local' does hold true for livestock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="718ba46c-94dd-4f75-8b50-a2ff122615d9" CreationDate="2018-04-22T10:58:17.880" UserId="5602" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="No doubt vegetables, fruits and salads produced locally in most cases provide local jobs and usually best fresh quality. On the other hand a lot of animal food (soy, corn, and others) are shipped around the world to feed animals close to those locations where they are later slaughtered, sold and consumed. The marketing slogan in those cases is also &quot;buy local&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However wouldn't it be more sustainable and less energy consuming to feed the animals where their food is being produced and ship after slaughter just only those (animal) products being for final consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="708c06e9-476f-4e11-972d-72848588dc66" CreationDate="2018-04-22T19:19:36.503" UserDisplayName="user5650" Text="Assumptions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. 250k m2 tree farm&#xD;&#xA;2. 1 mwh per tree. Based on 1mwh per ton and 1 ton trees.&#xD;&#xA;3. 10m2 per tree&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means 25 gwh of tree power. Comparable 5mw turbine produces 1gwh per year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are trees far more productive than wind turbines? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="708c06e9-476f-4e11-972d-72848588dc66" CreationDate="2018-04-22T19:19:36.503" UserDisplayName="user5650" Text="Are trees more productive than wind turbines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="708c06e9-476f-4e11-972d-72848588dc66" CreationDate="2018-04-22T19:19:36.503" UserDisplayName="user5650" Text="|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16736" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="d219c009-8629-49ee-b81d-42de33f7c113" CreationDate="2018-04-22T20:03:02.467" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6569" RevisionGUID="f805d276-49ff-4bad-8451-48f6091d2ef9" CreationDate="2018-04-22T22:06:40.103" UserId="5602" Text="Wind turbines do not turn the ground between them into desert. There is still farming and growth of various plants (even trees) possible. That should not be excluded in those comparisons and calculations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16740" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6569" RevisionGUID="bcc9881d-eebf-4908-ad3b-dab6ee4f827b" CreationDate="2018-04-22T22:25:23.863" UserId="5602" Comment="added 157 characters in body" Text="Wind turbines do not turn the ground between them into desert. There is still farming and growth of various plants (even trees) possible. It should not be excluded in those comparisons and calculations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A wind turbine with 3MW power, rotor diameter of 100 meters rotating at a hub hight of 100 meters may allow growing plants with a height up to 25 meters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16741" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6569" RevisionGUID="66606ffc-060a-417d-abb2-5bb01270b532" CreationDate="2018-04-22T22:30:44.440" UserId="5602" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Wind turbines do not turn the ground between them into desert. There is still farming and growth of various plants (even trees) possible. It should not be excluded in those comparisons and calculations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A wind turbine with 3MW power, rotor diameter of 100 meters rotating at a hub hight of 100 meters may allow growing plants with a height up to 25 meters (~ 80 ft)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="c40e5e2e-74f1-4beb-ac85-a4e184f43829" CreationDate="2018-04-23T02:18:09.873" UserId="4886" Text="Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their rotor lengths for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a rotor diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees are more productive if the average wind speed at the location is &lt; 23km/h**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 23km/h**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="c83e65f2-9b59-4fb8-b579-02f08b987694" CreationDate="2018-04-23T02:27:46.243" UserId="4886" Comment="added 33 characters in body" Text="Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their rotor lengths for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a rotor diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees are more productive if the average wind speed at the location is &lt; 23km/h**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 23km/h**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16746" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="74597e7b-700f-4ecd-b236-07ca9bb9d973" CreationDate="2018-04-23T02:33:24.787" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their rotor lengths for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a rotor diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 23km/h**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 23km/h**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="4d5c13c3-e804-48df-af29-8ab3c6432847" CreationDate="2018-04-23T02:43:11.723" UserId="4886" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="The (highly suspect) assumptions make it sound like a homework question.  Since the question *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer below based on some real-world numbers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their rotor lengths for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a rotor diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 23km/h**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 23km/h**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="e8452672-2a6f-4a78-a4e2-66b6e51b84c3" CreationDate="2018-04-23T03:01:09.057" UserId="4886" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="The (highly suspect) assumptions make it sound like a homework question.  Since the question *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer below based on some real-world numbers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their rotor lengths for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a rotor diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 23km/h**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 23km/h**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  6.36m/s *average* wind-speed is *very* windy and only occurs in a small number of places.  If you happen to be in the US, look for areas coded magenta (or to the right of it) on this map:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TB9z3.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="e30bcad1-4c7c-4ca7-a7c8-f63e9d07634d" CreationDate="2018-04-23T03:09:48.663" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 63 characters in body" Text="The (highly suspect) assumptions make it sound like a homework question.  Since the question *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer below based on some real-world numbers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their rotor lengths for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a rotor diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 23km/h**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 23km/h**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  6.36m/s *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="2e4c1dd0-3696-4388-bcb3-def7f91966cc" CreationDate="2018-04-23T03:21:46.157" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The (highly suspect) assumptions make it sound like a homework question.  Since the question *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer below based on some real-world numbers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their rotor lengths for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a rotor diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  6.36m/s *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="6f153c74-2b0c-4fd8-bfb0-0eb9c44c013e" CreationDate="2018-04-23T03:29:54.297" UserId="4886" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The (highly suspect) assumptions make it sound like a homework question.  However, since the question posed *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer to that based on some real-world numbers and more credible assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their rotor lengths for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a rotor diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  6.36m/s *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="abd61fa6-15f2-41b5-97dd-2f4d88a22211" CreationDate="2018-04-23T03:36:26.893" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The (highly suspect) assumptions make it sound like a homework question.  However, since the question posed *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer to that based on some real-world numbers and more credible assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their rotor lengths for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a rotor diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A 6.36m/s *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16753" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6564" RevisionGUID="f076178a-8ce0-4c02-9a87-5e09c5fc307a" CreationDate="2018-04-23T13:11:07.200" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/988404902220230656" />
  <row Id="16757" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="ade3d9fe-f0b0-445b-b10a-91e547ed408e" CreationDate="2018-04-23T15:58:10.270" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The (highly suspect) assumptions make it sound like a homework question.  However, since the question posed *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer to that based on some real-world numbers and more credible assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their sweep diameters for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a sweep diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A 6.36m/s *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="bbc20d08-f207-464f-9b60-c5619915f78b" CreationDate="2018-04-23T16:20:15.273" UserId="4886" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="The (highly suspect) assumptions make it sound like a homework question.  However, since the question posed *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer to that based on some real-world numbers and more credible assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their sweep diameters for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a sweep diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The turbine power output equation — P = 0.5 * &amp;rho; * A * Cp * V&amp;sup3; * Ng * Nb — is then rearranged to calculate the wind-speed required to hit the power target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox bearing efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A 6.36m/s *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16759" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="08d3f612-af32-4c3d-80ad-30b5dcc16acd" CreationDate="2018-04-23T17:17:54.073" UserId="4886" Comment="added 552 characters in body" Text="The (highly suspect) assumptions make it sound like a homework question.  However, since the question posed *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer to that based on some real-world numbers and more credible assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their sweep diameters for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a sweep diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The turbine power output equation — P = 0.5 * &amp;rho; * A * Cp * V&amp;sup3; * Ng * Nb — is then rearranged to calculate the wind-speed required to hit the power target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox bearing efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A 6.36m/s *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  You can look up the NPP of various ecosystems [here][1].  Convert from g (grams Carbon) to Joules by multiplying by ~20,000 (for deciduous hardwoods).  Then divide by 31,556,952 to convert J/yr to Watts.  Example:  Temperate Deciduous Forest has NPP of 1200g/m&amp;sup2;/yr.  1200 * 20000 / 31556952 = 0.76W/m&amp;sup2;.  It's possible to get more accurate numbers if you know the mix of species and the latitude, but for general use you can just use the Wikipedia numbers for a good approximation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production#Primary_Production_and_Plant_Biomass_for_the_Earth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="855d15e4-5dac-4132-b04f-cc27831661a9" CreationDate="2018-04-23T17:23:08.473" UserId="4886" Comment="added 552 characters in body" Text="The (highly suspect) assumptions make it sound like a homework question.  However, since the question posed *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer to that based on some real-world numbers and more credible assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their sweep diameters for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a sweep diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The turbine power output equation — P = 0.5 * &amp;rho; * A * Cp * V&amp;sup3; * Ng * Nb — is then rearranged to calculate the wind-speed required to hit the power target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox bearing efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A 6.36m/s *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  You can look up the NPP of various ecosystems [here][1].  Convert from grams to Joules by multiplying by ~20,000 (for deciduous hardwoods).  Then divide by 31,556,952 to convert J/yr to Watts.  Example:  Temperate Deciduous Forest has NPP of 1200g/m&amp;sup2;/yr.  1200 * 20000 / 31556952 = 0.76W/m&amp;sup2;.  It's possible to get more accurate numbers if you know the mix of species and the latitude, but for general use you can just use the Wikipedia numbers for a satisfactory approximation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production#Primary_Production_and_Plant_Biomass_for_the_Earth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="6745e1f1-220a-4d4b-8f9d-16db6bbd9624" CreationDate="2018-04-23T17:28:41.277" UserId="4886" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="The (highly suspect) assumptions make it sound like a homework question.  However, since the question posed *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer to that based on some real-world numbers and more credible assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their sweep diameters for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a sweep diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The turbine power output equation — P = 0.5 * &amp;rho; * A * Cp * V&amp;sup3; * Ng * Nb — is then rearranged to calculate the wind-speed required to hit the power target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox bearing efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A 6.36m/s *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  You can look up the Mean NPP of various ecosystems [here][1].  Convert from grams to Joules by multiplying by ~20,000 (for deciduous hardwoods).  Then divide by 31,556,952 to convert J/yr to Watts.  Example:  Temperate Deciduous Forests have a NPP of 1200g/m&amp;sup2;/yr.  1200 * 20000 / 31556952 = 0.76W/m&amp;sup2;.  It's possible to get more accurate numbers if you know the mix of species and the latitude, or if you have access to journals behind paywalls, but for general use you can just use the Wikipedia numbers for a satisfactory approximation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production#Primary_Production_and_Plant_Biomass_for_the_Earth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16762" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="cd78babe-1f24-498e-8e31-6e3c9a515a5e" CreationDate="2018-04-23T17:36:13.077" UserId="4886" Comment="added 51 characters in body" Text="The (highly suspect) assumptions make it sound like a homework question.  However, since the question posed *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer to that based on some real-world numbers and more credible assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.  (Refer to postscript for source and explanation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their sweep diameters for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a sweep diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The turbine power output equation — P = 0.5 * &amp;rho; * A * Cp * V&amp;sup3; * Ng * Nb — is then rearranged to calculate the wind-speed required to hit the power target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox bearing efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07m/s (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36m/s (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 6.36m/s**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A 6.36m/s *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  You can look up the Mean NPP of various ecosystems [here][1].  Convert from grams to Joules by multiplying by ~20,000 (for deciduous hardwoods).  Then divide by 31,556,952 to convert J/yr to Watts.  Example:  Temperate Deciduous Forests have a NPP of 1200g/m&amp;sup2;/yr.  1200 * 20000 / 31556952 = 0.76W/m&amp;sup2;.  It's possible to get more accurate numbers if you know the mix of species and the latitude, or if you have access to journals behind paywalls, but for general use you can just use the Wikipedia numbers for a satisfactory approximation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production#Primary_Production_and_Plant_Biomass_for_the_Earth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="c980ebe5-468e-4bb8-a02e-7b707d839cfb" CreationDate="2018-04-23T17:55:17.357" UserId="4886" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="The (highly suspect) assumptions make it sound like a homework question.  However, since the question posed *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer to that based on some real-world numbers and more credible assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.  (Refer to postscript for source and explanation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their sweep diameters for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a sweep diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The turbine power output equation — P = 0.5 * &amp;rho; * A * Cp * V&amp;sup3; * Ng * Nb — is then rearranged to calculate the wind-speed required to hit the power target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox bearing efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; (~18km/h).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; (~23km/h) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  You can look up the Mean NPP of various ecosystems [here][1].  Convert from grams to Joules by multiplying by ~20,000 (for deciduous hardwoods).  Then divide by 31,556,952 to convert J/yr to Watts.  Example:  Temperate Deciduous Forests have a NPP of 1200g/m&amp;sup2;/yr.  1200 * 20000 / 31556952 = 0.76W/m&amp;sup2;.  It's possible to get more accurate numbers if you know the mix of species and the latitude, or if you have access to journals behind paywalls, but for general use you can just use the Wikipedia numbers for a satisfactory approximation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production#Primary_Production_and_Plant_Biomass_for_the_Earth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="8adc5ab2-5b85-4f3a-8d27-4fdd10e3e555" CreationDate="2018-04-23T18:00:19.377" UserId="4886" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="The (highly suspect) assumptions make it sound like a homework question.  However, since the question posed *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer to that based on some real-world numbers and more credible assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.  (Refer to postscript for source and explanation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their sweep diameters for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a sweep diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The turbine power output equation — ***P = 0.5 &amp;times; &amp;rho; &amp;times; A &amp;times; Cp &amp;times; V&amp;sup3; &amp;times; Ng &amp;times; Nb*** — is then rearranged to calculate the wind-speed required to hit the power target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox bearing efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; (~18kmh&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; (~23kmh&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  You can look up the Mean NPP of various ecosystems [here][1].  Convert from grams to Joules by multiplying by ~20,000 (for deciduous hardwoods).  Then divide by 31,556,952 to convert J/yr to Watts.  Example:  Temperate Deciduous Forests have a NPP of 1200g/m&amp;sup2;/yr.  1200 * 20000 / 31556952 = 0.76W/m&amp;sup2;.  It's possible to get more accurate numbers if you know the mix of species and the latitude, or if you have access to journals behind paywalls, but for general use you can just use the Wikipedia numbers for a satisfactory approximation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production#Primary_Production_and_Plant_Biomass_for_the_Earth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16765" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6561" RevisionGUID="2d775e3d-d7ba-482e-ab2f-58898a53ffe9" CreationDate="2018-04-23T22:14:50.940" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/988541735293906945" />
  <row Id="16766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6572" RevisionGUID="8ee9b097-cc91-4a9f-808f-51f696fe5a50" CreationDate="2018-04-24T07:27:28.160" UserId="5655" Text="I know that vermicompost needs to &quot;breath&quot; as it has living matter within. I've tried in vain to find out what material I should use for packaging, as I need to ship the compost to customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any idea? Cost is a factor, so I'd prefer a bag format rather than bins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advise would be much appreciated. Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16767" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6572" RevisionGUID="8ee9b097-cc91-4a9f-808f-51f696fe5a50" CreationDate="2018-04-24T07:27:28.160" UserId="5655" Text="What packaging should I use to ship vermicompost to customers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16768" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6572" RevisionGUID="8ee9b097-cc91-4a9f-808f-51f696fe5a50" CreationDate="2018-04-24T07:27:28.160" UserId="5655" Text="|composting|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6572" RevisionGUID="ced311c0-dcfd-40eb-9855-5ca1ec6a0cb0" CreationDate="2018-04-24T08:17:46.700" UserId="5655" Comment="added 48 characters in body" Text="I know that vermicompost needs to &quot;breath&quot; as it has living matter within. I've tried in vain to find out what material I should use for packaging, as I need to ship (by truck, upto 1500 km, in a tropical climate) the compost to customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any idea? Cost is a factor, so I'd prefer a bag format rather than bins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advise would be much appreciated. Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16771" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6573" RevisionGUID="99f9ade1-9328-437d-ad74-09bdeaa1e75e" CreationDate="2018-04-24T08:52:28.957" UserId="3173" Text="Yesterday I went through my garden and removed the first snails of the year from my tomatoes. The same question as every time: What to do with them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throwing them into a bucket of water is no good; wait five minutes and they are out. The beer-trap will just attract more of them and if it's raining it will be rendered down to being useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I used baking soda (the cheapest) and it seems they're still on the bottom of the bucket.&#xD;&#xA;Today first thing in the morning was to remove the snails which came during the night. Curious if they would survive in that baking-soda water I dropped them into it and... seems they died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my knowledge baking soda and water will create a weak organic acid. If baking soda is applied on snails directly it will apparently dehydrate the snail. (correct me if I'm wrong)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how does a night-old bucket of water with a reasonable amount of baking-soda affect snails?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16772" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6573" RevisionGUID="99f9ade1-9328-437d-ad74-09bdeaa1e75e" CreationDate="2018-04-24T08:52:28.957" UserId="3173" Text="Baking Soda and Snails" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16773" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6573" RevisionGUID="99f9ade1-9328-437d-ad74-09bdeaa1e75e" CreationDate="2018-04-24T08:52:28.957" UserId="3173" Text="|gardening|safe-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="d154d79a-637a-4f13-b7f6-13b26d5cae01" CreationDate="2018-04-24T13:17:03.797" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified, formatted" Text="Tree farm assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. 250,000 square meters (m2) tree farm&#xD;&#xA;2. A 1 ton tree contains 1 MWh of energy&#xD;&#xA;3. Each tree takes 10 m2 of space&#xD;&#xA;4. Total energy for this farm is thus 25 GWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind farm assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. 5 MW turbine&#xD;&#xA;2. Requires 250,000 m2 of space&#xD;&#xA;3. Produces 1 GWh per year&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus it appears trees far more productive than wind turbines. Is this true? Are these assumptions correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16777" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="d154d79a-637a-4f13-b7f6-13b26d5cae01" CreationDate="2018-04-24T13:17:03.797" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified, formatted" Text="|renewables|wind-power|biofuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6573" RevisionGUID="e6ae4c2f-7ad7-4c88-a5e8-0b174f0709ba" CreationDate="2018-04-24T15:01:42.240" UserId="3173" Comment="Added one hint" Text="Yesterday I went through my garden and removed the first snails of the year from my tomatoes. The same question as every time: What to do with them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throwing them into a bucket of water is no good; wait five minutes and they are out. The beer-trap will just attract more of them and if it's raining it will be rendered down to being useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I used baking soda (the cheapest) and it seems they're still on the bottom of the bucket.&#xD;&#xA;Today first thing in the morning was to remove the snails which came during the night. Curious if they would survive in that baking-soda water I dropped them into it and... seems they died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my knowledge baking soda and water will create a weak organic acid. If baking soda is applied on snails directly it will apparently dehydrate the snail. (correct me if I'm wrong)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how does a night-old bucket of water with a reasonable amount of baking-soda affect snails?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit one: Apparently Baking Soda causes a reaction which creates Carbonic Acid inside the snail. Just. How? [Source][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article167123199/Gegen-Nacktschnecken-hilft-mechanischer-Mord.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6563" RevisionGUID="0094452a-f187-4439-a65c-81d81f35b7fc" CreationDate="2018-04-24T15:07:54.037" UserId="3379" Comment="Reformated and added new source." Text="**TL;DR -- The best option, per liter, is tea. Soda is about twice as &quot;bad,&quot; and coffee is two times worse than that.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To compare the environmental impact of various beverages we need to perform a **life-cycle assessment**. From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Life-cycle assessment** (**LCA**, also known as **life-cycle analysis**, **ecobalance**, and **cradle-to-grave analysis**) is a technique to assess environmental impacts associated with all the stages of a product's life from raw material extraction through materials processing, manufacture, distribution, use, repair and maintenance, and disposal or recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2010, [Nestle Waters North America](https://www.nestle-watersna.com/en) commissioned a study to look at the environmental impact of various beverage choices. They hired [Quantis](https://quantis-intl.com/about/our-story/whowhatwhere/) to do this study. According to their website, Quantis &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] guide[s] top organizations to define, shape and implement intelligent environmental sustainability solutions [...] We are [...] sustainability’s scientists, experts, strategists, innovators and visionaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The study is titled [&quot;Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Drinking Water Alternatives and Consumer Beverage Consumption in North America&quot;](https://www.nestle-watersna.com/asset-library/documents/nwna_lca_report_020410.pdf), and looked at 13 popular beverages in North America, including coffee, tea, and soda. The report includes new research as well as reviews of existing studies, and provides the following chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A table showing the values per liter (and references) is provided later in the report:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, this table shows the weighted average of hot tea and iced tea. From the chart though it's clear that hot tea has a much lower overall carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion: hot tea is the most sustainable pick-me-up. A can of coke is about twice as bad, and a cup of coffee is about four times worse.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Corroboration*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The previous version of this answer had a few different sources that corroborate the chart/table above, without the nice comparison:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft-drinks&quot;](https://www.academia.edu/29046870/Life_cycle_environmental_impacts_of_carbonated_soft_drinks). Carbonated beverage in an aluminum can: 312 gCO2eq/l. (Note that this study is specific for the UK.)&#xD;&#xA; - Coca-Cola UK also commissioned [the Carbon Trust](https://www.carbontrust.com/home/) to calculate the [carbon footprint of a can of Coke](http://www.coca-cola.co.uk/stories/whats-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-coca-cola). Their finding is actually a bit higher, at 515 gCO2eq/l.&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Life Cycle Assessment of coffee consumption: comparison of single-serve coffee and bulk coffee brewing&quot; (pdf)](http://www.pac.ca/assets/pac0680-full-lca.pdf): The range of values for coffee is 828 to 1395 gCO2eq/l.&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Life cycle assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alternatives (drip filter and capsule espresso)&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652609001474) (numbers available [here](http://www.appropedia.org/LCA_of_coffee)): drip coffee: 1,140 gCO2eq/l.&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Life cycle assessment of tea produced in Kenya&quot;](http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/Climate_change/kenya/Navaisha_wkp_1/FAO_Uni_Manchester_AZAPAGIC_LCA_of_tea.pdf): hot tea, depending on country of origin: 105 to 209 gCO2eq/l.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mSCCA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PFTIS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6572" RevisionGUID="8430287d-6b34-43b7-89ef-27c59873700e" CreationDate="2018-04-24T21:49:33.877" UserId="15" Comment="fix spelling" Text="I know that vermicompost needs to &quot;breathe&quot; as it has living matter within. I've tried in vain to find out what material I should use for packaging, as I need to ship (by truck, up to 1500 km, in a tropical climate) the compost to customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any idea? Cost is a factor, so I'd prefer a bag format rather than bins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advise would be much appreciated. Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6576" RevisionGUID="c08ba669-aaab-438f-8d85-babd7de12cda" CreationDate="2018-04-24T22:09:01.750" UserId="15" Text="I'll assume the quantity you're looking at sending is smaller than say a box of a dozen wine bottles, perhaps with an end goal to help people start their own worm farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If an unexpected delay in shipping or other unexpected circumstances caused the package to start to leak, you may find that you're liable for any damage caused. To avoid such leakages, the outer layer of the packaging should be largely watertight, and some absorbent material underneath that layer would help soak up any minor seepage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suggest wrapping the vermicompost in non-glossy newspaper (without squashing it too much, as you don't want it to decay anaerobically), then padding it with a layer of scrunched newspaper to allow air to be retained within the packaging. A layer of (biodegradable preferably) plastic to avoid leakage around that will help prevent spills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how rough your shipping business is, and how leaky the vermicompost can be, and your tolerance for risk, another layer of newspaper and another layer of plastic may be needed to be sure you can avoid problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6577" RevisionGUID="4d95bba0-7f0f-47fc-ad20-28fe55548cf0" CreationDate="2018-04-25T06:52:07.530" UserId="5664" Text="Passive solar thermal taking cool air at bottom and hot air out at top is easy.&#xD;&#xA;But can the same 'hot air rising' system be made to work horizontally. &#xD;&#xA;IE long black tube on a narrowboat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas other than a fan ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16786" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6577" RevisionGUID="4d95bba0-7f0f-47fc-ad20-28fe55548cf0" CreationDate="2018-04-25T06:52:07.530" UserId="5664" Text="Can hot air move horizontally without a fan (vertical is easy)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16787" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6577" RevisionGUID="4d95bba0-7f0f-47fc-ad20-28fe55548cf0" CreationDate="2018-04-25T06:52:07.530" UserId="5664" Text="|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6577" RevisionGUID="acd5fe39-b891-4a30-9bdb-0e23fbcd5a37" CreationDate="2018-04-25T07:55:38.393" UserId="5664" Comment="added more tags" Text="Passive solar thermal, taking cool air at bottom and hot air out at top is easy.&#xD;&#xA;But can the same 'hot air rising' system be made to work horizontally. &#xD;&#xA;IE long black tube on a narrowboat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas other than a fan ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16789" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6577" RevisionGUID="acd5fe39-b891-4a30-9bdb-0e23fbcd5a37" CreationDate="2018-04-25T07:55:38.393" UserId="5664" Comment="added more tags" Text="|solar-power|heating|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6555" RevisionGUID="7b812edd-a2e2-4ed7-8abf-82584a63b7a7" CreationDate="2018-04-25T17:03:29.007" UserId="4886" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="Carelessness, wind and rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Humans are careless, so leave all manner of plastic outside in their yards.  A gust of wind catches the plastic and blows it onto a nearby road.  It rains, and the plastic is washed into the gutter and stormwater system, where it travels through drains, culverts, creeks, rivers and ultimately out to sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why pollution at outflows is always worst after a storm... where wind and rain go hand in hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commercial and industrial premises are just as bad as residential ones — if not worse — but the cause is still the same:  Carelessness, wind and rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course we can (if we want) specifically blame winds for toppling garbage bins set out for collection, and animals for digging through trash, and the homeless for rummaging through dumpsters and leaving the lids open, and kids for unwrapping their toys outside, and transport companies for poorly wrapped pallets, and construction companies for a plethora of loose materials on building sites, and children for posting 'lost dog' signs on electricity poles, and nationalists for flying flags, and Christians for decorating outdoor Christmas trees, and any of a million other groups of people for putting/leaving lightweight plastics outside where the elements can relocate them... but the root cause is still the same for all of them — so it makes more sense to focus on the root cause. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, having garbage that 'disappears on its own accord' is probably seen as a *good* thing by the 'average' person, not a bad thing, so I doubt you can change peoples behaviour by any degree that would make a measurable difference.  As long as 'trash' is something people 'put outside' and ultimately 'someone' or 'something' makes it 'disappear', this problem will persist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Out of sight, out of mind&quot; is a powerful enemy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6555" RevisionGUID="4bc0be79-1076-40eb-8fd7-ea2c8479277f" CreationDate="2018-04-25T17:14:25.043" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="Carelessness, wind and rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Humans are careless, so leave all manner of plastic outside in their yards.  A gust of wind catches the plastic and blows it onto a nearby road.  It rains, and the plastic is washed into the gutter and stormwater system, where it travels through drains, culverts, creeks, rivers and ultimately out to sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's why pollution at outflows is always worst after a storm... where wind and rain go hand in hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commercial and industrial premises are just as bad as residential ones — if not worse — but the cause is still the same:  Carelessness, wind and rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course we can (if we want) specifically blame winds for toppling garbage bins set out for collection, and animals for digging through trash, and the homeless for rummaging through dumpsters and leaving the lids open, and kids for unwrapping their toys outside, and transport companies for poorly wrapped pallets, and construction companies for a plethora of loose materials on building sites, and children for posting 'lost dog' signs on electricity poles, and nationalists for flying flags, and Christians for decorating outdoor Christmas trees, and any of a million other groups of people for putting/leaving lightweight plastics outside where the elements can relocate them... but the root cause is still the same for all of them — so it makes more sense to focus on the root cause. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, having garbage that 'disappears on its own accord' is probably seen as a *good thing* by the 'average' person, not a bad thing, so I doubt you can change people's behaviour enough to make a measurable difference.  As long as 'trash' is something people 'put outside' and ultimately 'someone' or 'something' makes it 'disappear', this problem will persist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Out of sight, out of mind&quot; is a powerful enemy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="48ee475c-f144-4edc-ae8f-5115f526e511" CreationDate="2018-04-25T18:16:51.880" UserId="4886" Text="Buoyancy acts vertically, so in most circumstances the answer is &quot;no&quot; (or at least &quot;not with any level of efficiency that would make it worth doing&quot;).  If you don't care about efficiency (or aesthetics), and are so hard-pressed for heat that you're prepared to invest a lot of time/money/energy for meagre returns, then there are a few edge cases that can be explored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)  Slope.  Perfectly level pipes generate negligible draft (only a tiny bit at the ends).  However air is a fluid and, being a fluid, it only requires a very small slope to get it to naturally flow.  Slope a rigid pipe as little as 1-in-100 and you'll be surprised how much warm air flows out of the higher end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)  Friction.  The thing that retards airflow within a pipe is primarily the friction between the inner walls of the pipe and the air molecules next to it.  A pipe with very smooth inner walls will reduce friction and maximise airflow.  Rough — especially corrugated — pipes should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)  Vertical pumps.  On something like a narrowboat, it's easy to fit a long pipe horizontally at roof level on the side, paint it black, and have that heat the air inside.  To pump that heat into the cabin, you can have a single vertical section on one end — the inlet end — that goes down the wall, through the deck/wall and to floor level in the cabin.  The vertical section that is external and exposed can be painted black and enclosed in a mini greenhouse (an offset, semi-circular shroud made of transparent plastic that reduces convection losses).  This single, short vertical section can *easily* generate enough buoyancy on the inlet side to merrily pump out a horizontal pipe 10x its own length — especially if you minimise friction on the horizontal section.  Basically, instead of the entire pipe being responsible for both heating and pumping the air, you separate the functions and dedicate long horizontal sections for heating and short vertical sections for pumping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)  Internal auger.  If you study the airflow within a pipe that is exposed to the sun on one side, you'll notice that the internal air rises on the side exposed to the sun and falls on the side in the shade.   This motion is normally useless as it generates motion along the cross-section of the pipe, not along its length.  However, if you insert something like a plastic auger inside the pipe, then the shape of the auger itself forces both rising and falling air molecules to head in the same direction... inducing a slow but steady longitudinal airflow within the pipe.&#xD;&#xA;[![Plastic auger inside a pipe][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Suction chimney.  Install a flue/chimney in your cabin.  Paint the exposed, external section black.  Insulate the internal section and have it extend all of the way to the floor.  When the sun shines the exposed section will heat up and create buoyancy at the top of the chimney.  This will suck cold air from the floor of the cabin up and out.  Assuming your cabin is relatively-well sealed this will turn the cabin into a low-pressure zone.  Now install a horizontal pipe near the roof on the sunny side and use it to neutralise the pressure and act as a warm air inlet at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said, all edge cases but, if you really, really need the heat, then they may be worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've omitted moving solutions (e.g. folding outriggers) because I don't see them being particularly practical on a canal with walking paths along the edges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zjarn.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="409f3ce9-c43f-4f2b-aed1-b2d25398585c" CreationDate="2018-04-25T18:26:13.177" UserId="4886" Comment="added 345 characters in body" Text="Buoyancy acts vertically, so in most circumstances the answer is &quot;no&quot; (or at least &quot;not with any level of efficiency that would make it worth doing&quot;).  If you don't care about efficiency (or aesthetics), and are so hard-pressed for heat that you're prepared to invest a lot of time/money/energy for meagre returns, then there are a few edge cases that can be explored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)  Slope.  Perfectly level pipes generate negligible draft (only a tiny bit at the ends).  However air is a fluid and, being a fluid, it only requires a very small slope to get it to naturally flow.  Slope a rigid pipe as little as 1-in-100 and you'll be surprised how much warm air flows out of the higher end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)  Friction.  The thing that retards airflow within a pipe is primarily the friction between the inner walls of the pipe and the air molecules next to it.  A pipe with very smooth inner walls will reduce friction and maximise airflow.  Rough — especially corrugated — pipes should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)  Vertical pumps.  On something like a narrowboat, it's easy to fit a long pipe horizontally at roof level on the side, paint it black, and have that heat the air inside.  To pump that heat into the cabin, you can have a single vertical section on one end — the inlet end — that goes down the wall, through the deck/wall and to floor level in the cabin.  The vertical section that is external and exposed can be painted black and enclosed in a mini greenhouse (an offset, semi-circular shroud made of transparent plastic that reduces convection losses).  This single, short vertical section can *easily* generate enough buoyancy on the inlet side to merrily pump out a horizontal pipe 10x its own length — especially if you minimise friction on the horizontal section.  Basically, instead of the entire pipe being responsible for both heating and pumping the air, you separate the functions and dedicate long horizontal sections for heating and short vertical sections for pumping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)  Internal auger.  If you study the airflow within a pipe that is exposed to the sun on one side, you'll notice that the internal air rises on the side exposed to the sun and falls on the side in the shade.   This motion is normally useless as it generates motion along the cross-section of the pipe, not along its length.  However, if you insert something like a plastic auger inside the pipe, then the shape of the auger itself forces both rising and falling air molecules to head in the same direction... inducing a slow but steady longitudinal airflow within the pipe.&#xD;&#xA;[![Plastic auger inside a pipe][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Suction chimney.  Install a flue/chimney in your cabin.  Paint the exposed, external section black.  Insulate the internal section and have it extend all of the way to the floor.  When the sun shines the exposed section will heat up and create buoyancy at the top of the chimney.  This will suck cold air from the floor of the cabin up and out.  Assuming your cabin is relatively-well sealed this will turn the cabin into a low-pressure zone.  Now install a horizontal pipe near the roof on the sunny side and use it to neutralise the pressure and act as a warm air inlet at the same time.  Essentially, this is just a variant of 3) above, however, you can install *more than one* suction chimney to increase the airflow.  You also have the option of a single, long, folding external chimney that can be raised/lowered as desired and which would simply look like a &quot;mast&quot; to the casual observer — which is perhaps more acceptable aesthetically (especially if you use it to fly some sort of flag).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said, all edge cases but, if you really, really need the heat, then they may be worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've omitted lateral moving solutions (e.g. folding outriggers) because I don't see them being particularly practical on a canal with walking paths along the edges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zjarn.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="5a5c17f2-aea6-40bb-a503-9589589280e5" CreationDate="2018-04-25T18:40:50.467" UserId="4886" Comment="added 267 characters in body" Text="Buoyancy acts vertically, so in most circumstances the answer is &quot;no&quot; (or at least &quot;not with any level of efficiency that would make it worth doing&quot;).  If you don't care about efficiency (or aesthetics), and are so hard-pressed for heat that you're prepared to invest significant amounts of time/money/energy for meagre returns, then there are a few edge cases that can be explored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)  Slope.  Perfectly level pipes generate negligible draft (only a tiny bit at the ends).  However air is a fluid and, being a fluid, it only requires a very small slope to get it to naturally flow.  Slope a rigid pipe as little as 1-in-100 and you'll be surprised how much warm air flows out of the higher end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)  Friction.  The thing that retards airflow within a pipe is primarily the friction between the inner walls of the pipe and the air molecules next to it.  A pipe with very smooth inner walls will reduce friction and maximise airflow.  Rough — especially corrugated — pipes should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)  Vertical pumps.  On something like a narrowboat, it's easy to fit a long pipe horizontally at roof level on the side, paint it black, and have that heat the air inside.  To pump that heat into the cabin, you can have a single vertical section on one end — the inlet end — that goes down the wall, through the deck/wall and to floor level in the cabin.  The vertical section that is external and exposed can be painted black and enclosed in a mini greenhouse (an offset, semi-circular shroud made of transparent plastic that reduces convection losses).  This single, short vertical section can *easily* generate enough buoyancy on the inlet side to merrily pump out a horizontal pipe 10x its own length — especially if you minimise friction on the horizontal section.  Basically, instead of the entire pipe being responsible for both heating and pumping the air, you separate the functions and dedicate long horizontal sections for heating and short vertical sections for pumping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)  Internal auger.  If you study the airflow within a pipe that is exposed to the sun on one side, you'll notice that the internal air rises on the side exposed to the sun and falls on the side in the shade.   This motion is normally useless as it generates motion along the cross-section of the pipe, not along its length.  However, if you insert something like a plastic auger inside the pipe, then the shape of the auger itself forces both rising and falling air molecules to head in the same direction... inducing a slow but steady longitudinal airflow within the pipe.&#xD;&#xA;[![Plastic auger inside a pipe][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're thinking of combining this with 3) or 5) then realise that having a solid central core doesn't really help us.  A flat spring (made of thin plastic) would be preferable in that case...&#xD;&#xA;[![Flat spring][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Suction chimney.  Install a flue/chimney in your cabin.  Paint the exposed, external section black.  Insulate the internal section and have it extend all of the way to the floor.  When the sun shines the exposed section will heat up and create buoyancy at the top of the chimney.  This will suck cold air from the floor of the cabin up and out.  Assuming your cabin is relatively-well sealed this will turn the cabin into a low-pressure zone.  Now install a horizontal pipe near the roof on the sunny side and use it to neutralise the pressure and act as a warm air inlet at the same time.  Essentially, this is just a variant of 3) above, however, you can install *more than one* suction chimney to increase the airflow.  You also have the option of a single, long, folding external chimney that can be raised/lowered as desired and which would simply look like a &quot;mast&quot; to the casual observer — which is perhaps more acceptable aesthetically (especially if you use it to fly some sort of flag).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said, all edge cases but, if you really, really need the heat, then they may be worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've omitted lateral moving solutions (e.g. folding outriggers) because I don't see them being particularly practical on a canal with walking paths along the edges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zjarn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bPGh8.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="486d5877-307c-4a97-9c80-212a90eece9d" CreationDate="2018-04-25T22:09:16.277" UserId="4886" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Buoyancy acts vertically, so in most circumstances the answer is &quot;no&quot; (or at least &quot;not with any level of efficiency that would make it worth doing&quot;).  If you don't care about efficiency (or aesthetics), and are so hard-pressed for heat that you're prepared to invest significant amounts of time/money/energy for meagre returns, then there are a few edge cases that can be explored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)  Slope.  Perfectly level pipes generate negligible draft (only a tiny bit at the ends).  However air is a fluid and, being a fluid, it only requires a very small slope to get it to naturally flow.  Slope a rigid pipe as little as 1-in-100 and you'll be surprised how much warm air flows out of the higher end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)  Friction.  The thing that retards airflow within a pipe is primarily the friction between the inner walls of the pipe and the air molecules next to it.  A pipe with very smooth inner walls will reduce friction and maximise airflow.  Rough — especially corrugated — pipes should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)  Vertical pumps.  On something like a narrowboat, it's easy to fit a long pipe horizontally at roof level on the side, paint it black, and have that heat the air inside the pipe.  To pump that heat into the cabin, you can have a single vertical section on one end — the inlet end — that goes down the wall, through the deck/wall and to floor level in the cabin.  The vertical section that is external and exposed can be painted black and enclosed in a mini greenhouse (an offset, semi-circular shroud made of transparent plastic that reduces convection losses).  This single, short vertical section can *easily* generate enough buoyancy on the inlet side to merrily pump out a horizontal pipe 10x its own length — especially if you minimise friction on the horizontal section.  Basically, instead of the entire pipe being responsible for both heating and pumping the air, you separate the functions and dedicate long horizontal sections for heating and short vertical sections for pumping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)  Internal auger.  If you study the airflow within a pipe that is exposed to the sun on one side, you'll notice that the internal air rises on the side exposed to the sun and falls on the side in the shade.   This motion is normally useless as it generates motion along the cross-section of the pipe, not along its length.  However, if you insert something like a plastic auger inside the pipe, then the shape of the auger itself forces both rising and falling air molecules to head in the same direction... inducing a slow but steady longitudinal airflow within the pipe.&#xD;&#xA;[![Plastic auger inside a pipe][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're thinking of combining this with 3) or 5) then realise that having a solid central core doesn't really help us.  A flat spring (made of thin plastic) would be preferable in that case...&#xD;&#xA;[![Flat spring][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Suction chimney.  Install a flue/chimney in your cabin.  Paint the exposed, external section black.  Insulate the internal section and have it extend all of the way to the floor.  When the sun shines the exposed section will heat up and create buoyancy at the top of the chimney.  This will suck cold air from the floor of the cabin up and out.  Assuming your cabin is relatively-well sealed this will turn the cabin into a low-pressure zone.  Now install a horizontal pipe near the roof on the sunny side and use it to neutralise the pressure and act as a warm air inlet at the same time.  Essentially, this is just a variant of 3) above, however, you can install *more than one* suction chimney to increase the airflow.  You also have the option of a single, long, folding external chimney that can be mounted on the roof of the cabin, raised/lowered as desired and which would simply look like a &quot;mast&quot; to the casual observer — which is perhaps more aesthetically acceptable (especially if you use it to fly some sort of flag).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said, all edge cases but, if you really, really need the heat, then they may be worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've omitted lateral moving solutions (e.g. folding outriggers) because I don't see them being particularly practical on a canal with walking paths along the edges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zjarn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bPGh8.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="f99c8b0a-66aa-48d3-bd22-2fca872657eb" CreationDate="2018-04-25T22:14:17.900" UserId="4886" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Buoyancy acts vertically, so in most circumstances the answer is &quot;no&quot; (or at least &quot;not with any level of efficiency that would make it worth doing&quot;).  If you don't care about efficiency (or aesthetics), and are so hard-pressed for heat that you're prepared to invest significant amounts of time/money/energy for meagre returns, then there are a few edge cases that can be explored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)  Slope.  Perfectly level pipes generate negligible draft (only a tiny bit at the ends).  However air is a fluid and, being a fluid, it only requires a very small slope to get it to naturally flow.  Slope a rigid pipe as little as 1-in-100 and you'll be surprised how much warm air flows out of the higher end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)  Friction.  The thing that retards airflow within a pipe is primarily the friction between the inner walls of the pipe and the air molecules next to it.  A pipe with very smooth inner walls will reduce friction and maximise airflow.  Rough — especially corrugated — pipes should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)  Vertical pumps.  On something like a narrowboat, it's easy to fit a long pipe horizontally at roof level on the side, paint it black, and have that heat the air inside the pipe.  To pump that heat into the cabin, you can have a single vertical section on one end — the inlet end — that goes down the wall, through the deck/wall and to floor level in the cabin.  The vertical section that is external and exposed can be painted black and enclosed in a mini greenhouse (an offset, semi-circular shroud made of transparent plastic that reduces convection losses).  This single, short vertical section can *easily* generate enough buoyancy on the inlet side to merrily pump out a horizontal pipe 10x its own length — especially if you minimise friction on the horizontal section.  Basically, instead of the entire pipe being responsible for both heating and pumping the air, you separate the functions and dedicate long horizontal sections for heating and short vertical sections for pumping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)  Internal auger.  If you study the airflow within a pipe that is exposed to the sun on one side, you'll notice that the internal air rises on the side exposed to the sun and falls on the side in the shade.   This motion is normally useless as it generates motion along the cross-section of the pipe, not along its length.  However, if you insert something like a plastic auger inside the pipe, then the shape of the auger itself forces both rising and falling air molecules to head in the same direction... inducing a slow but steady longitudinal airflow within the pipe.&#xD;&#xA;[![Plastic auger inside a pipe][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're thinking of combining this with 3) or 5) then realise that having a solid central core would probably end up causing more harm than good.  A flat spring (made of thin plastic, with about half its diameter being hollow) would be preferable in that scenario.  Can't find an exact image, but something like this:&#xD;&#xA;[![Flat spring][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Suction chimney.  Install a flue/chimney in your cabin.  Paint the exposed, external section black.  Insulate the internal section and have it extend all of the way to the floor.  When the sun shines the exposed section will heat up and create buoyancy at the top of the chimney.  This will suck cold air from the floor of the cabin up and out.  Assuming your cabin is relatively-well sealed this will turn the cabin into a low-pressure zone.  Now install a horizontal pipe near the roof on the sunny side and use it to neutralise the pressure and act as a warm air inlet at the same time.  Essentially, this is just a variant of 3) above, however, you can install *more than one* suction chimney to increase the airflow.  You also have the option of a single, long, folding external chimney that can be mounted on the roof of the cabin, raised/lowered as desired and which would simply look like a &quot;mast&quot; to the casual observer — which is perhaps more aesthetically acceptable (especially if you use it to fly some sort of flag).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said, all edge cases — but, if you really, really need the heat, then they may be worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've omitted lateral moving solutions (e.g. folding outriggers) because I don't see them being particularly practical on a canal with walking paths along the edges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zjarn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bPGh8.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="1fc333c5-8181-4fc1-ba48-ed1be24c0c0f" CreationDate="2018-04-25T22:22:15.633" UserId="4886" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="Buoyancy acts vertically, so in most circumstances the answer is &quot;no&quot; (or at least &quot;not with any level of efficiency that would make it worth doing&quot;).  If you don't care about efficiency (or aesthetics), and are so hard-pressed for heat that you're prepared to invest significant amounts of time/money/energy for meagre returns, then there are a few edge cases that can be explored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)  Slope.  Perfectly level pipes generate negligible draft (only a tiny bit at the ends).  However air is a fluid and, being a fluid, it only requires a very small slope to get it to naturally flow.  Slope a rigid pipe as little as 1-in-100 and you'll be surprised how much warm air flows out of the higher end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)  Friction.  The thing that retards airflow within a pipe is primarily the friction between the inner walls of the pipe and the air molecules next to it.  A pipe with very smooth inner walls will reduce friction and maximise airflow.  Rough — especially corrugated — pipes should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)  Vertical pumps.  On something like a narrowboat, it's easy to fit a long pipe horizontally at roof level on the side, paint it black, and have that heat the air inside the pipe.  To pump that heat into the cabin, you can have a single vertical section on one end — the inlet end — that goes down the wall, through the deck/wall and to floor level in the cabin.  The vertical section that is external and exposed can be painted black and enclosed in a mini greenhouse (an offset, semi-circular shroud made of transparent plastic that reduces convection losses).  This single, short vertical section can *easily* generate enough buoyancy on the inlet side to merrily pump out a horizontal pipe 10x its own length — especially if you minimise friction on the horizontal section.  Basically, instead of the entire pipe being responsible for both heating and pumping the air, you separate the functions and dedicate long horizontal sections for heating and short vertical sections for pumping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)  Internal auger.  If you study the airflow within a pipe that is exposed to the sun on one side, you'll notice that the internal air rises on the side exposed to the sun and falls on the side in the shade.   This motion is normally useless as it generates motion along the cross-section of the pipe, not along its length.  However, if you insert something like a plastic auger inside the pipe, then the shape of the auger itself forces both rising and falling air molecules to head in the same direction... inducing a slow but steady longitudinal airflow within the pipe.&#xD;&#xA;[![Plastic auger inside a pipe][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're thinking of combining this with 3) or 5) then realise that having a solid central core would probably end up causing more harm than good.  A flat spring (made of thin plastic, with about half its diameter being hollow) would be preferable in that scenario.  Can't find an ideal image, but something like this:&#xD;&#xA;[![Flat spring][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Suction chimney.  Install a flue/chimney in your cabin.  Paint the exposed, external section black.  Insulate the internal section and have it extend all of the way to the floor.  When the sun shines the exposed section will heat up and create buoyancy at the top of the chimney.  This will suck cold air from the floor of the cabin up and out.  Assuming your cabin is relatively-well sealed this will turn the cabin into a low-pressure zone.  Now install a horizontal pipe near the roof on the sunny side and use it to neutralise the pressure and act as a warm air inlet at the same time.  Essentially, this is just a variant of 3) above, however, you can install *more than one* suction chimney to increase the airflow and have a *lot* of flexibility with regards to placement (toilet compartment — I'm looking at you).  You also have the option of a single, long, folding external chimney that can be mounted on the roof of the cabin, raised/lowered as desired and which would simply look like a &quot;mast&quot; to the casual observer — which is perhaps more aesthetically acceptable (especially if you use it to fly some sort of flag).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said, all edge cases — but, if you really, really need the heat, then they may be worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've omitted lateral moving solutions (e.g. folding outriggers) because I don't see them being particularly practical on a canal with walking paths along the edges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zjarn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bPGh8.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="5e410159-aed2-4b29-8e9c-e3e607bd94c4" CreationDate="2018-04-25T22:30:25.090" UserId="4886" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="Buoyancy acts vertically, so in most circumstances the answer is &quot;no&quot; (or at least &quot;not with any level of efficiency that would make it worth doing&quot;).  If you don't care about efficiency (or aesthetics), and are so hard-pressed for heat that you're prepared to invest significant amounts of time/money/energy for meagre returns, then there are a few edge cases that can be explored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)  Slope.  Perfectly level pipes generate negligible draft (only a tiny bit at the ends).  However air is a fluid and, being a fluid, it only requires a very small slope to get it to naturally flow.  Slope a rigid pipe as little as 1-in-100 and you'll be surprised how much warm air flows out of the higher end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)  Friction.  The thing that retards airflow within a pipe is primarily the friction between the inner walls of the pipe and the air molecules next to it.  A pipe with very smooth inner walls will reduce friction and maximise airflow.  Rough — especially corrugated — pipes should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)  Vertical pumps.  On something like a narrowboat, it's easy to fit a long pipe horizontally at roof level on the side, paint it black, and have that heat the air inside the pipe.  To pump that heat into the cabin, you can have a single vertical section on one end — the inlet end — that goes down the wall, through the deck/wall and to floor level in the cabin.  The vertical section that is external and exposed can be painted black and enclosed in a mini greenhouse (an offset, semi-circular shroud made of transparent plastic that reduces convection losses).  This single, short vertical section can *easily* generate enough buoyancy on the inlet side to merrily pump out a horizontal pipe 10x its own length — especially if you minimise friction on the horizontal section.  Basically, instead of the entire pipe being responsible for both heating and pumping the air, you separate the functions and dedicate long horizontal sections for heating and short vertical sections for pumping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)  Internal auger.  If you study the airflow within a pipe that is exposed to the sun on one side, you'll notice that the internal air rises on the side exposed to the sun and falls on the side in the shade.   This motion is normally useless as it generates motion along the cross-section of the pipe, not along its length.  However, if you insert something like a plastic auger inside the pipe, then the shape of the auger itself forces both rising and falling air molecules to head in the same direction... inducing a slow but steady longitudinal airflow within the pipe.&#xD;&#xA;[![Plastic auger inside a pipe][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're thinking of combining this with 3) or 5) then realise that having a solid central core would probably end up causing more harm than good.  A flat spring (made of thin plastic, with about half its diameter being hollow) would be preferable in that scenario.  Can't find an ideal image, but something like this:&#xD;&#xA;[![Flat spring][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this sort of approach functions optimally when the sun is low in the sky — winter / mornings / high latitudes.  Its performance degrades rapidly as the sun gets higher in the sky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to create the auger/spring is to print interlocking sections on a 3D printer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Suction chimney.  Install a flue/chimney in your cabin.  Paint the exposed, external section black.  Insulate the internal section and have it extend all of the way to the floor.  When the sun shines the exposed section will heat up and create buoyancy at the top of the chimney.  This will suck cold air from the floor of the cabin up and out.  Assuming your cabin is relatively-well sealed this will turn the cabin into a low-pressure zone.  Now install a horizontal pipe near the roof on the sunny side and use it to neutralise the pressure and act as a warm air inlet at the same time.  Essentially, this is just a variant of 3) above, however, you can install *more than one* suction chimney to increase the airflow and have a *lot* of flexibility with regards to placement (toilet compartment — I'm looking at you).  You also have the option of a single, long, folding external chimney that can be mounted on the roof of the cabin, raised/lowered as desired and which would simply look like a &quot;mast&quot; to the casual observer — which is perhaps more aesthetically acceptable (especially if you use it to fly some sort of flag).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said, all edge cases — but, if you really, really need the heat, then they may be worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've omitted lateral moving solutions (e.g. folding outriggers) because I don't see them being particularly practical on a canal with walking paths along the edges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zjarn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bPGh8.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="1437af6f-40fd-4b20-b0a1-79570d9c9db1" CreationDate="2018-04-25T22:30:51.867" UserId="2828" Text="I have taken to collecting our dog’s fæces in lavatory paper and flushing them rather than using the little plastic bags one can buy for the purpose and putting those in the (non-recycling) rubbish bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions consider using them in the garden, but I am not sure if that works for us, and for many it is just not an option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6228/can-solid-dog-waste-be-safely-added-to-a-backyard-composting-heap&#xD;&#xA;* https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/567/mulching-or-mini-septic-for-solid-dog-waste&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Questions&#xD;&#xA;* How does flushing stack up against garbage or composting for environmental impact?&#xD;&#xA;* Does flushing have other downsides (e.g. are dog fæces so different from the human variety as to cause problems in sewage processing) or upsides (e.g. chance to recover valuable compounds)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="1437af6f-40fd-4b20-b0a1-79570d9c9db1" CreationDate="2018-04-25T22:30:51.867" UserId="2828" Text="Is flushing dog faeces down the lavatory better than bagging and binning them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="1437af6f-40fd-4b20-b0a1-79570d9c9db1" CreationDate="2018-04-25T22:30:51.867" UserId="2828" Text="|waste|biodegradable-waste|pets|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="fdc9f3d4-5c9e-459d-a5c2-90a6b1bec6cb" CreationDate="2018-04-25T22:42:23.973" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 354 characters in body" Text="Buoyancy acts vertically, so in most circumstances the answer is &quot;no&quot; (or at least &quot;not with any level of efficiency that would make it worth doing&quot;).  If you don't care about efficiency (or aesthetics), and are so hard-pressed for heat that you're prepared to invest significant amounts of time/money/energy for meagre returns, then there are a few edge cases that can be explored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)  Slope.  Perfectly level pipes generate negligible draft (only a tiny bit at the ends).  However air is a fluid and, being a fluid, it only requires a very small slope to get it to naturally flow.  Slope a rigid pipe as little as 1-in-100 and you'll be surprised how much warm air flows out of the higher end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)  Friction.  The thing that retards airflow within a pipe is primarily the friction between the inner walls of the pipe and the air molecules next to it.  A pipe with very smooth inner walls will reduce friction and maximise airflow.  Rough — especially corrugated — pipes should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)  Vertical pumps.  On something like a narrowboat, it's easy to fit a long pipe horizontally at roof level on the side, paint it black, and have that heat the air inside the pipe.  To pump that heat into the cabin, you can have a single vertical section on one end — the inlet end — that goes down the wall, through the deck/wall and to floor level in the cabin.  The vertical section that is external and exposed can be painted black and enclosed in a mini greenhouse (an offset, semi-circular shroud made of transparent plastic that reduces convection losses).  This single, short vertical section can *easily* generate enough buoyancy on the inlet side to merrily pump out a horizontal pipe 10x its own length — especially if you minimise friction on the horizontal section.  Basically, instead of the entire pipe being responsible for both heating and pumping the air, you separate the functions and dedicate long horizontal sections for heating and short vertical sections for pumping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)  Internal auger.  If you study the airflow within a pipe that is exposed to the sun on one side, you'll notice that the internal air rises on the side exposed to the sun and falls on the side in the shade.   This motion is normally useless as it generates motion along the cross-section of the pipe, not along its length.  However, if you insert something like a plastic auger inside the pipe, then the shape of the auger itself forces both rising and falling air molecules to head in the same direction... inducing a slow but steady longitudinal airflow within the pipe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Plastic auger inside a pipe][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this sort of approach functions optimally when the sun is low in the sky — winter / mornings / high latitudes.  Its performance degrades rapidly as the sun gets higher in the sky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to create the auger is to print interlocking sections on a 3D printer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Suction chimney.  Install a flue/chimney in your cabin.  Paint the exposed, external section black.  Insulate the internal section and have it extend all of the way to the floor.  When the sun shines the exposed section will heat up and create buoyancy at the top of the chimney.  This will suck cold air from the floor of the cabin up and out.  Assuming your cabin is relatively-well sealed this will turn the cabin into a low-pressure zone.  Now install a horizontal pipe near the roof on the sunny side and use it to neutralise the pressure and act as a warm air inlet at the same time.  Essentially, this is just a variant of 3) above, however, you can install *more than one* suction chimney to increase the airflow and have a *lot* of flexibility with regards to placement (toilet compartment — I'm looking at you).  You also have the option of a single, long, folding external chimney that can be mounted on the roof of the cabin, raised/lowered as desired and which would simply look like a &quot;mast&quot; to the casual observer — which is perhaps more aesthetically acceptable (especially if you use it to fly some sort of flag).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said, all edge cases — but, if you really, really need the heat, then they may be worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've omitted lateral moving solutions (e.g. folding outriggers) because I don't see them being particularly practical on a canal with walking paths along the edges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zjarn.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6578" RevisionGUID="ef63ec33-9620-4974-aa47-f44affe81ddc" CreationDate="2018-04-25T22:53:41.550" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Buoyancy acts vertically, so in most circumstances the answer is &quot;no&quot; (or at least &quot;not with any level of efficiency that would make it worth doing&quot;).  If you don't care about efficiency (or aesthetics), and are so hard-pressed for heat that you're prepared to invest significant amounts of time/money/energy for meagre returns, then there are a few edge cases that can be explored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)  Slope.  Perfectly level pipes generate negligible draft (only a tiny bit at the ends).  However air is a fluid and, being a fluid, it only requires a very small slope to get it to naturally flow.  Slope a rigid pipe as little as 1-in-100 and you'll be surprised how much warm air flows out of the higher end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)  Friction.  The thing that retards airflow within a pipe is primarily the friction between the inner walls of the pipe and the air molecules next to it.  A pipe with very smooth inner walls will reduce friction and maximise airflow.  Rough — especially corrugated — pipes should be avoided.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)  Vertical pumps.  On something like a narrowboat, it's easy to fit a long pipe horizontally at roof level on the side, paint it black, and have that heat the air inside the pipe.  To pump that heat into the cabin, you can have a single vertical section on one end — the inlet end — that goes down the wall, through the deck/wall and to floor level in the cabin.  The vertical section that is external and exposed can be painted black and enclosed in a mini greenhouse (an offset, semi-circular shroud made of transparent plastic that reduces convection losses).  This single, short vertical section can *easily* generate enough buoyancy on the inlet side to merrily pump out a horizontal pipe 10x its own length — especially if you minimise friction on the horizontal section.  Basically, instead of the entire pipe being responsible for both heating and pumping the air, you separate the functions and dedicate long horizontal sections for heating and short vertical sections for pumping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)  Internal auger.  If you study the airflow within a pipe that is exposed to the sun on one side, you'll notice that the internal air rises on the side exposed to the sun and falls on the side in the shade.   This motion is normally useless as it is generated along the cross-section of the pipe, not along its length.  However, if you insert something like a plastic auger inside the pipe, then the shape of the auger itself forces both rising and falling air molecules to head in the same direction... inducing a slow but steady longitudinal airflow within the pipe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Plastic auger inside a pipe][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this sort of approach functions optimally when the sun is low in the sky — winter / mornings / high latitudes.  Its performance degrades rapidly as the sun gets higher in the sky.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to create the auger is to print interlocking sections on a 3D printer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5) Suction chimney.  Install a flue/chimney in your cabin.  Paint the exposed, external section black.  Insulate the internal section and have it extend all of the way to the floor.  When the sun shines the exposed section will heat up and create buoyancy at the top of the chimney.  This will suck cold air from the floor of the cabin up and out.  Assuming your cabin is relatively-well sealed this will turn the cabin into a low-pressure zone.  Now install a horizontal pipe near the roof on the sunny side and use it to neutralise the pressure and act as a warm air inlet at the same time.  Essentially, this is just a variant of 3) above, however, you can install *more than one* suction chimney to increase the airflow and have a *lot* of flexibility with regards to placement (toilet compartment — I'm looking at you).  You also have the option of a single, long, folding external chimney that can be mounted on the roof of the cabin, raised/lowered as desired and which would simply look like a &quot;mast&quot; to the casual observer — which is perhaps more aesthetically acceptable (especially if you use it to fly some sort of flag).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like I said, all edge cases — but, if you really, really need the heat, then they may be worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've omitted lateral moving solutions (e.g. folding outriggers) because I don't see them being particularly practical on a canal with walking paths along the edges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zjarn.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="3cb0c984-459e-4087-b5bb-b5609d9d31c0" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:08:57.333" UserId="4886" Comment="added 776 characters in body" Text="A tree farm of that size in a temperate climate would only produce ~1.7GWh/y (net). You are *overestimating* the productive value of trees by a factor of ~**15**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 5MW wind turbine can produce a maximum of ~44GWh a year.  Your assumed figure of 1GWh is only **2.3%** of its rated capacity.  No-one would bother financing/building a turbine on that site if they could only harness 2.3% of the maximum energy possible.  The average load factor of on-shore wind turbines in Denmark over a 20-year period was ~21%, so based on those, you are *underestimating* the productive value of wind turbines by a factor of ~**9**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, having assumed that trees are 15x more productive than they are in the real-world, and having assumed that wind turbines are 9x less productive than they are in the real world, it is clear that **your assumptions are wildly incorrect**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question posed *in the title itself* is an interesting one, and since it may be of interest to others, I'll present an answer to that based on some real-world numbers and more credible assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.  (Refer to postscript for source and explanation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their sweep diameters for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a sweep diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The turbine power output equation — ***P = 0.5 &amp;times; &amp;rho; &amp;times; A &amp;times; Cp &amp;times; V&amp;sup3; &amp;times; Ng &amp;times; Nb*** — is then rearranged to calculate the wind-speed required to hit the power target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox bearing efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; (~18kmh&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; (~23kmh&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  You can look up the Mean NPP of various ecosystems [here][1].  Convert from grams to Joules by multiplying by ~20,000 (for deciduous hardwoods).  Then divide by 31,556,952 to convert J/yr to Watts.  Example:  Temperate Deciduous Forests have a NPP of 1200g/m&amp;sup2;/yr.  1200 * 20000 / 31556952 = 0.76W/m&amp;sup2;.  It's possible to get more accurate numbers if you know the mix of species and the latitude, or if you have access to journals behind paywalls, but for general use you can just use the Wikipedia numbers for a satisfactory approximation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production#Primary_Production_and_Plant_Biomass_for_the_Earth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="dee8d108-bba8-43c0-980b-42cd40a0ced5" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:15:42.810" UserId="4886" Comment="added 776 characters in body" Text="A tree farm of that size in a temperate climate would only produce ~1.7GWh/y (net). You are *overestimating* the productive value of trees by a factor of ~**15**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 5MW wind turbine can produce a maximum of ~44GWh a year.  Your assumed figure of 1GWh is only **2.3%** of its rated capacity.  No-one would bother financing/building a turbine on that site if they could only harness 2.3% of the maximum energy possible.  The average load factor of on-shore wind turbines in Denmark over a 20-year period was ~21%, so based on those, you are *underestimating* the productive value of wind turbines by a factor of ~**9**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, having assumed that trees are 15x more productive than they are in the real-world, and having assumed that wind turbines are 9x less productive than they are in the real world, it is clear that **your assumptions are wildly incorrect** and thus so is your conclusion/suggestion that trees are (or may be) 25x more productive than wind turbines.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question posed *in the title itself* is interesting — if a bit vague — so I'll refine the question a bit and present an answer to that based on some *real-world* numbers and more *credible* assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&quot;Under what conditions are trees more productive than wind turbines?&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.  (Refer to postscript for source and explanation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their sweep diameters for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a sweep diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The turbine power output equation — ***P = 0.5 &amp;times; &amp;rho; &amp;times; A &amp;times; Cp &amp;times; V&amp;sup3; &amp;times; Ng &amp;times; Nb*** — is then rearranged to calculate the wind-speed required to hit the power target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox bearing efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; (~18kmh&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; (~23kmh&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive if the average wind speed is &lt; 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;**&#xD;&#xA; - **A wind turbine would be more productive if the average wind speed is &amp;ge; 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  You can look up the Mean NPP of various ecosystems [here][1].  Convert from grams to Joules by multiplying by ~20,000 (for deciduous hardwoods).  Then divide by 31,556,952 to convert J/yr to Watts.  Example:  Temperate Deciduous Forests have a NPP of 1200g/m&amp;sup2;/yr.  1200 * 20000 / 31556952 = 0.76W/m&amp;sup2;.  It's possible to get more accurate numbers if you know the mix of species and the latitude, or if you have access to journals behind paywalls, but for general use you can just use the Wikipedia numbers for a satisfactory approximation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production#Primary_Production_and_Plant_Biomass_for_the_Earth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="48ec4cba-c539-43a2-89b2-109049f9f1c2" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:40:10.377" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="A tree farm of that size in a temperate climate would only produce ~1.7GWh/y (net). You are *overestimating* the productive value of trees by a factor of ~**15**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 5MW wind turbine can produce a maximum of ~44GWh a year.  Your assumed figure of 1GWh is only **2.3%** of its rated capacity.  No-one would bother financing/building a turbine on that site if they could only harness 2.3% of the maximum energy possible.  The average load factor of on-shore wind turbines in Denmark over a 20-year period was ~21%, so based on those, you are *underestimating* the productive value of wind turbines by a factor of ~**9**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, having assumed that trees are 15x more productive than they are in the real-world, and having assumed that wind turbines are 9x less productive than they are in the real world, it is clear that **your assumptions are wildly incorrect** and thus so is your conclusion/suggestion that trees are (or may be) 25x more productive than wind turbines.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question posed *in the title itself* is interesting — if a bit vague — so I'll refine the question a bit and present an answer to that based on some *real-world* numbers and more *credible* assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&quot;Under what conditions are trees more productive than wind turbines?&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.  (Refer to postscript for source and explanation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their sweep diameters for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a sweep diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The turbine power output equation — ***P = 0.5 &amp;times; &amp;rho; &amp;times; A &amp;times; Cp &amp;times; V&amp;sup3; &amp;times; Ng &amp;times; Nb*** — is then rearranged to calculate the wind-speed required to hit the power target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox bearing efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.07ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; (~18kmh&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; (~23kmh&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive on sites with average wind speed &lt; 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;**&#xD;&#xA; - **Wind turbines would be more productive on sites with average wind speed &amp;ge; 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A 6.36ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  You can look up the Mean NPP of various ecosystems [here][1].  Convert from grams to Joules by multiplying by ~20,000 (for deciduous hardwoods).  Then divide by 31,556,952 to convert J/yr to Watts.  Example:  Temperate Deciduous Forests have a NPP of 1200g/m&amp;sup2;/yr.  1200 * 20000 / 31556952 = 0.76W/m&amp;sup2;.  It's possible to get more accurate numbers if you know the mix of species and the latitude, or if you have access to journals behind paywalls, but for general use you can just use the Wikipedia numbers for a satisfactory approximation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production#Primary_Production_and_Plant_Biomass_for_the_Earth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6571" RevisionGUID="2510f6d1-7da5-4977-b686-e2eae9b84908" CreationDate="2018-04-26T22:51:25.883" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="A tree farm of that size in a temperate climate would only produce ~1.7GWh/y (net). You are *overestimating* the productive value of trees by a factor of ~**15**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 5MW wind turbine can produce a maximum of ~44GWh a year.  Your assumed figure of 1GWh is only **2.3%** of its rated capacity.  No-one would bother financing/building a turbine on that site if they could only harness 2.3% of the maximum energy possible.  The average load factor of on-shore wind turbines in Denmark over a 20-year period was ~21%, so based on those, you are *underestimating* the productive value of wind turbines by a factor of ~**9**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, having assumed that trees are 15x more productive than they are in the real-world, and having assumed that wind turbines are 9x less productive than they are in the real world, it is clear that **your assumptions are wildly incorrect** and thus so is your conclusion/suggestion that trees are (or may be) 25x more productive than wind turbines.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question posed *in the title itself* is interesting — if a bit vague — so I'll refine the question a bit and present an answer to that based on some *real-world* numbers and more *credible* assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&quot;Under what conditions are trees more productive than wind turbines?&quot;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deciduous temperate forests have a net primary productivity of ~0.0186 kWh/m&amp;sup2;/day.  That translates to ~0.775W/m&amp;sup2;.  (Refer to postscript for source and explanation.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we use a forest as a guide, a 250,000m&amp;sup2; tree farm could thus produce ~193,750W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000m&amp;sup2; is a circle 282m in radius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbines need to be separated by 3-10x their sweep diameters for a variety of reasons (flow interference being the main one).  Given that site details are unknown, let's use the average of 6.5x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 282m radius field could thus support a single turbine with a sweep diameter of (282*2/6.5=) 86m.  Such a diameter sweeps an area of ~5800m&amp;sup2;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The turbine power output equation — ***P = 0.5 &amp;times; &amp;rho; &amp;times; A &amp;times; Cp &amp;times; V&amp;sup3; &amp;times; Ng &amp;times; Nb*** — is then rearranged to calculate the wind-speed required to hit the power target.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming 95% gearbox bearing efficiency, 80% generator efficiency, Betz Limit coefficient of performance (0.56), and sea-level air density, the average wind-speed required to generate 193,750W from a 5800m&amp;sup2; sweep area is 5.1ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; (~18kmh&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;).  This is the best-case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a more realistic generator efficiency (65%) and coefficient of performance (0.35) means that an average wind-speed of 6.4ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; (~23kmh&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;) is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in short, assuming your climate is temperate, and your site is 'average':&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Trees would be more productive on sites with average wind speed &lt; 6.4ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;**&#xD;&#xA; - **Wind turbines would be more productive on sites with average wind speed &amp;ge; 6.4ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A 6.4ms&amp;#8315;&amp;sup1; *average* wind-speed is *quite* windy and only occurs in a limited number of places:&#xD;&#xA;[![Global Mean Wind Speed][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  You can look up the Mean NPP of various ecosystems [here][1].  Convert from grams to Joules by multiplying by ~20,000 (for deciduous hardwoods).  Then divide by 31,556,952 to convert J/yr to Watts.  Example:  Temperate Deciduous Forests have a NPP of 1200g/m&amp;sup2;/yr.  1200 * 20000 / 31556952 = 0.76W/m&amp;sup2;.  It's possible to get more accurate numbers if you know the mix of species and the latitude, or if you have access to journals behind paywalls, but for general use you can just use the Wikipedia numbers for a satisfactory approximation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_production#Primary_Production_and_Plant_Biomass_for_the_Earth&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/d0/d3/99d0d3e4311a5f581c1af1114f6ace89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6581" RevisionGUID="b2dc32ea-6bfc-41cc-a850-a1f112268490" CreationDate="2018-04-26T23:41:24.693" UserId="5602" Text="Well, dogs excrements seem to be something special. First of all, they will not cause any problem to sewage-treatment facilities, as long as they do not come together with bags. It might rather be a problem to bring the excrements to the toilets because of the stench it may emit during its transport in the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To take up the excrements bags should be used or dustpans used exclusively for this purpose due to the bacteria (coli, salmonella, etc.) involved. There are sustainable bags made from corn, etc. However they also should not be put into the toilets because they may block the drain pipe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting dogs excrements is possible, but should not be used in composts used to support plants that will be used as food later. There is a latent risk of transfer of parasites (e.g. tapeworms) which must be avoided. It was also observed that cows and horses refused food being planted on compost with dogs excrements. Being meat-eaters the amino acids in the excrements are taken up from the plants (grass, wheat, etc.) and seem to change the smell or taste of the food. As dogs initially were hunters and marked their territory by excrements this seems to influence other animals still today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However people growing earthworms seem to love dogs excrements to feed their worms. It seems to be the best food for them since it is soft and can be eaten by the worms easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case dogs excrements should not be composted or put to the toilets when dogs receive medicine or antibiotics. They influence sewage-treatment facilities negatively and reduce the activity in every compost. They are also bad for worms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6581" RevisionGUID="be68fbf5-3415-4d98-95cb-c178f0de9b67" CreationDate="2018-04-26T23:48:25.207" UserId="5602" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="Well, dogs excrements seem to be something special. First of all, they will not cause any problem to sewage-treatment facilities, as long as they do not come together with bags. It might rather be a problem to bring the excrements to the toilets because of the stench it may emit during its transport in the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To take up the excrements bags should be used or dustpans used exclusively for this purpose due to the bacteria (coli, salmonella, etc.) involved. There are sustainable bags made from corn, etc. However they also should not be put into the toilets because they may block the drain pipe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting dogs excrements is possible, but should not be used in composts used to support plants that will be used as food later. There is a latent risk of transfer of parasites (e.g. tapeworms) which must be avoided. It was also observed that cows and horses refused food being planted on compost with dogs excrements. Being meat-eaters the amino acids in the excrements are taken up from the plants (grass, wheat, etc.) and seem to change the smell or taste of the food. As dogs initially were hunters and marked their territory by excrements this seems to influence other animals still today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However people growing earthworms seem to love dogs excrements to feed their worms. It seems to be the best food for them since it is soft and can be eaten by the worms easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case dogs excrements should not be composted or put to the toilets when dogs receive medicine or antibiotics. They influence sewage-treatment facilities negatively and reduce the activity in every compost. They are also bad for worms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the question. If there is no medicine involved and if nobody in house minds about the smell then taking up dogs excrements with a dustpan and bringing it to the toilet would be the best sustainable solution. All other involve additional material like bags, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6582" RevisionGUID="3b14c029-1f42-4c52-89ff-70a0fb5e9faf" CreationDate="2018-04-27T01:34:28.517" UserId="3379" Text="The back-and-forth in the comments on [this answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6571/3379) sent me searching for a simple tool that would enable a user to put in a location, wind turbine size, and a few other parameters, in order to estimate power output. Essentially [PVWatts](https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/), but for wind turbines. Does such a tool exist? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6582" RevisionGUID="3b14c029-1f42-4c52-89ff-70a0fb5e9faf" CreationDate="2018-04-27T01:34:28.517" UserId="3379" Text="Is there a simple on-line tool for estimating wind turbine power output?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6582" RevisionGUID="3b14c029-1f42-4c52-89ff-70a0fb5e9faf" CreationDate="2018-04-27T01:34:28.517" UserId="3379" Text="|solar-power|renewables|electricity-generation|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6583" RevisionGUID="21c017cd-8410-4c95-a11b-c9f549a53f76" CreationDate="2018-04-27T06:42:50.723" UserId="48" Text="https://www.renewables.ninja/ will give you a crude estimate. But it's not very useful - it will often be very wrong for onshore wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, for any onshore wind, or any offshore wind close to shore, we're some time away from being able to do this usefully. The input data that's required just isn't available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a much more difficult problem for wind, than for PV, because local factors have a much stronger effect for wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For PV, as long as the proposed PV installation isn't over-shaded, then having the solar and temperature data averaged for the local 25km x 25km grid square or so (and knowing the latitude) is sufficient to get a good estimate of average PV generation, and how it varies over the year. That sort of data is readily available for the whole world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for wind, local factors make a huge difference, and the available data just isn't granular enough to be able to have a general estimator: the location of one tree here or there, one building here or there, how wind moves around the nearest hill in the direction of the prevailing wind, can all make a big difference. So local site surveys and site-specific modelling are always needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6573" RevisionGUID="3e6dedf6-b01c-4355-9e01-c3f128bf1678" CreationDate="2018-04-27T07:45:55.730" UserId="3173" Comment="Slugs, not snails" Text="Yesterday I went through my garden and removed the first slugs of the year from my tomatoes. The same question as every time: What to do with them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throwing them into a bucket of water is no good; wait five minutes and they are out. The beer-trap will just attract more of them and if it's raining it will be rendered down to being useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I used baking soda (the cheapest) and it seems they're still on the bottom of the bucket.&#xD;&#xA;Today first thing in the morning was to remove the slugs which came during the night. Curious if they would survive in that baking-soda water I dropped them into it and... seems they died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my knowledge baking soda and water will create a weak organic acid. If baking soda is applied on slugs directly it will apparently dehydrate the slug. (correct me if I'm wrong)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how does a night-old bucket of water with a reasonable amount of baking-soda affect slugs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit one: Apparently Baking Soda causes a reaction which creates Carbonic Acid inside the slug. Just. How? [Source][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article167123199/Gegen-Nacktschnecken-hilft-mechanischer-Mord.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16817" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6573" RevisionGUID="3e6dedf6-b01c-4355-9e01-c3f128bf1678" CreationDate="2018-04-27T07:45:55.730" UserId="3173" Comment="Slugs, not snails" Text="Baking Soda and Slugs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16818" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="5735e622-d6a3-4fa4-ab47-c3f900ecccec" CreationDate="2018-04-27T09:22:29.277" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16819" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="e4156300-847d-4733-95c0-121cc4b49717" CreationDate="2018-04-27T10:42:39.160" UserId="164" Comment="added 377 characters in body" Text="We have been living in our home for a year now, so have seen both summer and winter, and we are now looking to solve the heating and cooling problems we have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The walls and roof of the house are well insulated, and upstairs only has Velux windows, so apart from a brief spell when the combi-boiler stopped working (blocked condensate pipe) upstairs never has a problem with heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The open plan downstairs however is laminate flooring on concrete with minimal insulation, so the floor is always cold, and it's always a struggle to get it to feel warm in winter. Even with the heating water turned up to 80°C (176°F), the downstairs radiators fully on, and the upstairs radiators cold, a huge temperature differential remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Cooling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far we haven't had many problems with downstairs being too warm in summer, but upstairs can get uncomfortably hot, especially in our bedroom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of us sleep too well if too hot, so we are currently looking at options for air-conditioning. I am concerned about our environmental footprint however and would prefer a more sustainable solution if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Some Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All radiators except the upstairs bathroom towel radiator (which acts as a bypass radiator) are thermostatically controlled. We will probably convert them to smart TRVs at some point, but this is unlikely to help with the problems described here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downstairs consists of a small toilet room (2m²/22ft²), plus a large open plan area consisting of living and dining areas, stair well and kitchen which is also open to the conservatory (39m²/416ft²). All external doors open into this area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The central heating is relatively new, so the condensing gas combi-boiler is quite efficient. It has a heat output of 24.9kW (to heat 77m² / 826ft² of house) and a [SEDBUK][1] rating of 90%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the UK gas is much cheaper for heating than electricity, we currently pay 3p/kWh for gas (at 90% boiler efficiency) and 11p/kWh for electricity (that's 3 &amp; 16 cents/kWh at current exchange rates) so we would prefer the bulk of the heating load to be carried by the gas central heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Down the line we would like under floor heating downstairs, but we can't justify that right now. We will also eventually get around to replacing the patio doors and the conservatory, which should help with insulation downstairs, but again those are longer term plans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we equalise the temperature between upstairs and downstairs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought of just fitting an insulated duct and a fan which extracts air from upstairs and pipes it downstairs, but the only place I could fit such a duct would be in the stair well, and it feels like the air would just end up circulating straight back upstairs. Other than that we would need to take a duct outside, which feels like a lot of work for an indeterminate benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have sought out quotes for a standard split air conditioner unit to cool upstairs, but that won't help with heating downstairs and I'm not happy about the environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was hoping that there may be solutions which could pump heat from upstairs to downstairs, but I don't know if split air conditioner systems can be configured to take advantage of temperature differentials like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Note, I'm not looking for product recommendations, or someone to do a complete analysis of our situation, the detail is more to illustrate an example of the more general problem. What I am looking for is what would be considered a sustainable solution to the more generic problem of equalising temperature throughout a house with differing levels of heating and insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensing_boiler#Efficiency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6584" RevisionGUID="34bdefb6-7586-42b0-bf8f-152b0d4d18ac" CreationDate="2018-04-27T15:16:05.670" UserId="4834" Text="Ducks will eat slugs and produce duck eggs (hens), duck meat (hens and drakes), and high-nitrogen contributions (poop) to your compost pile or directly in your garden area.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6585" RevisionGUID="57ceace1-2e37-4bf9-a224-0b33b64e987c" CreationDate="2018-04-27T22:42:08.907" UserId="5619" Text="Enclosing the stairwell would be a big help with the heating if it can be done with your floorplan. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6586" RevisionGUID="e380d548-0569-4e5b-aa41-5b2564d11f26" CreationDate="2018-04-28T06:38:49.560" UserId="5517" Text="Flushing down the toilet is a lot better than have it end up in a city dump where it will remain as long as the bag that contains it lasts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can purchase dedicated [pet waste composting units](https://www.zingbokashi.co.nz/product/ensopet-pet-waste-composting-kit/) or make your own.  I have a bucket with lots of holes drilled in the bottom and have it half buried in the ground on the verge so that I can open it up, and drop the dog waste inside.  However, it's painful to empty it out of the non biodegradable bags that I use which also have to be disposed of. The holes in the bottom are for worms to enter and leave. Of course if my dog relieved himself in a convenient location I wouldn't have the bag problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16823" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="8e883c1c-59e4-4cce-a846-7c51b81e57b6" CreationDate="2018-04-28T19:23:55.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6587" RevisionGUID="0ee2f024-223e-420a-b71c-f3a9a4118744" CreationDate="2018-04-28T19:42:43.877" UserId="5670" Text="I live in Hungary where everyone has access to loads of clean water.&#xD;&#xA;Still, common knowledge says that one shouldn't waste water.&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the economic factors, like cleaning the water,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; why is it bad (for the environment) if I waste water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6587" RevisionGUID="0ee2f024-223e-420a-b71c-f3a9a4118744" CreationDate="2018-04-28T19:42:43.877" UserId="5670" Text="What are the consequences of wasting water in a water-rich country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6587" RevisionGUID="0ee2f024-223e-420a-b71c-f3a9a4118744" CreationDate="2018-04-28T19:42:43.877" UserId="5670" Text="|waste|water-management|waste-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="f4513847-b710-4a72-afa1-470bcfef8a5c" CreationDate="2018-04-28T21:42:27.727" UserId="4886" Text="Your parents taught you not to &quot;waste water&quot; because *they paid the water bills*.  Thus **the negative connotations associated with &quot;wasting water&quot; are *purely* (or at least *overwhelmingly*) economic**.  It does not logically follow that &quot;wasting water&quot; is bad for the environment.  Your question &quot;why is it bad...&quot; is thus loaded.  You've assumed something that shouldn't be assumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To break free of the cultural conditioning you were subjected to as a child, consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reservoir was established in a natural watershed in the hills near a small town.  The elevation difference between the reservoir and the town is sufficient to provide an adequate amount of water pressure thanks to gravity alone.  No pumps are needed.  No electricity is consumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The catchment area for the reservoir is not subject to excessive contamination from windborne pollutants.  It's not downwind of an industrial zone.  It doesn't need much in the way of filtering, and certainly doesn't need treatment with poisons like chlorine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The township is in a relatively dry climate (call it Mediterranean).  So the water tables tend to be relatively low and surface vegetation doesn't have access to huge amounts of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let's say that you live in this town, and you divert your greywater to a leach field in your back yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, clean water is made available to your house, and pours out of your taps, with no need for electricity or chemicals.  When you wash the dishes or have a shower, the water goes into the leach field, which moistens the ground beneath your garden and lets you grow vegetables.  Surplus water percolates harmlessly down through the soil and ends up back in the same unconfined aquifer that it originally came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The net effect of this is that your use of such a system hydrates the local soil and allows you to grow local crops — reducing the need to have diesel-fuelled trucks bring in vegetables from remote farms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more water you use, the more your soil gets hydrated, and the more produce you can grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you &quot;waste water&quot; in such a situation (e.g. have long showers, use heaps of water in the kitchen), it is actually **good for the environment** — not bad.  Since extra water lest you grow extra food, it's probably good for your wallet as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;common knowledge&quot; that it's &quot;bad&quot; to &quot;waste water&quot; is totally incorrect in such conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now compare and contrast that scenario with a city established in the middle of a desert, to which water needs to be pumped long distances from a power-hungry desalination plant on the coast, treated with chemicals in the process, and which (after use) is simply flushed down a common drain and ends up in some distant, polluted place — out of mind and out of sight of the residents.  That is clearly bad for the environment and for wallets, so &quot;waste is bad&quot; makes sense there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two different scenarios, two different outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Wasting water&quot; is almost totally an *economic concept*, not an environmental one.  For it to be environmental you need to focus on *how you get your water* and *what happens to it after the initial/primary use*.  Your original post doesn't go into detail on either of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expand your question to include details on where your water comes from, and what you do with it after you first use it, then we might be able to shed some light on whether you, in your particular situation, are hurting the environment, helping the environment, or having no real affect on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever may be the case in your particular situation, that answer doesn't necessarily apply to your friend in the next town, or your next-door neighbour.  Their circumstances may be different, so whether it's good/bad for you is irrelevant to them.  Every property owner deserves to be assessed on their particular circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  Because an entire lifetime of cultural conditioning is hard (and may even be impossible) to break free of, it may help to stop using the phrase &quot;waste water&quot; entirely.  Replacing it with &quot;use more potable tap water than the absolute minimum required for a primary purpose, with no regard for secondary uses&quot; may be less convenient, but should get your brain thinking that there's much more going on that needs to be considered before jumping to conclusions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="767ada36-7be1-4b4e-8420-fe64fe60ca5c" CreationDate="2018-04-28T21:49:11.663" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="Your parents taught you not to &quot;waste water&quot; because *they paid the water bills*.  Thus **the negative connotations associated with &quot;wasting water&quot; are *purely* (or at least *overwhelmingly*) economic**.  It does not logically follow that &quot;wa$ting water&quot; is bad for the environment.  Your question &quot;why is it bad...&quot; is thus loaded.  You've assumed something that shouldn't be assumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To break free of the cultural conditioning you were subjected to as a child, consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reservoir was established in a natural watershed in the hills near a small town.  The elevation difference between the reservoir and the town is sufficient to provide an adequate amount of water pressure thanks to gravity alone.  No pumps are needed.  No electricity is consumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The catchment area for the reservoir is not subject to excessive contamination from windborne pollutants.  It's not downwind of an industrial zone.  It doesn't need much in the way of filtering, and certainly doesn't need treatment with poisons like chlorine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The township is in a relatively dry climate (call it Mediterranean).  So the water tables tend to be relatively low and surface vegetation doesn't have access to large amounts of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let's say that you live in this town, and you divert your greywater to a leach field in your back yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, clean water is made available to your house, and pours out of your taps, with no need for electricity or chemicals.  When you wash the dishes or have a shower, the water goes into the leach field, which moistens the ground beneath your garden and lets you grow vegetables.  Surplus water percolates harmlessly down through the soil and ends up back in the same unconfined aquifer that it originally came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The net effect of this is that your use of such a system hydrates the local soil and allows you to grow local crops — reducing the need to have diesel-fuelled trucks bring in vegetables from remote farms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more water you use, the more your soil gets hydrated, and the more produce you can grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you &quot;wa$te water&quot; in such a situation (e.g. have long showers, use heaps of water in the kitchen), it is actually **good for the environment** — not bad.  Since extra water lest you grow extra food, it's probably good for your wallet as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;common knowledge&quot; that it's &quot;bad&quot; to &quot;wa$te water&quot; is totally incorrect in such conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now compare and contrast that scenario with a city established in the middle of a desert, to which water needs to be pumped long distances from a power-hungry desalination plant on the coast, treated with chemicals in the process, and which (after use) is simply flushed down a common drain and ends up in some distant, polluted place — out of mind and out of sight of the residents.  That is clearly bad for the environment and for wallets, so &quot;wa$te is bad&quot; makes sense there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two different scenarios, two different outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Wa$ting water&quot; is almost totally an *economic concept*, not an environmental one.  For it to be environmental you need to focus on *how you get your water* and *what happens to it after the initial/primary use*.  Your original post doesn't go into detail on either of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expand your question to include details on where your water comes from, and what you do with it after you first use it, then we might be able to shed some light on whether you — in your particular situation — are hurting the environment, helping the environment, or having no real affect on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever may be the case in your particular situation, that answer doesn't necessarily apply to your friend in the next town, or your next-door neighbour.  Their circumstances may be different, so whether it's good/bad for you is irrelevant to them.  Every property owner deserves to be assessed on their particular circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  Because an entire lifetime of cultural conditioning is hard (and may even be impossible) to break free of, it may help to stop using the phrase &quot;wa$te water&quot; entirely.  Replacing it with &quot;use more potable tap water than the absolute minimum required for a primary purpose, with no regard for secondary uses&quot; may be less convenient, but should get your brain thinking that there's much more going on that needs to be considered before jumping to conclusions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="022d3568-2765-4918-92e6-fd429258bb1c" CreationDate="2018-04-28T21:54:27.840" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Your parents taught you not to &quot;waste water&quot; because *they paid the water bills*.  Thus **the negative connotations associated with &quot;wasting water&quot; are *purely* (or at least *overwhelmingly*) economic**.  It does not logically follow that &quot;wa$ting water&quot; is bad for the environment.  Your question &quot;why is it bad...&quot; is thus loaded.  You've assumed something that shouldn't be assumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To break free of the cultural conditioning you were subjected to as a child, consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reservoir was established in a natural watershed in the hills near a small town.  The elevation difference between the reservoir and the town is sufficient to provide an adequate amount of water pressure thanks to gravity alone.  No pumps are needed.  No electricity is consumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The catchment area for the reservoir is not subject to excessive contamination from windborne pollutants.  It's not downwind of an industrial zone.  It doesn't need much in the way of filtering, and certainly doesn't need treatment with poisons like chlorine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The township is in a relatively dry climate (call it Mediterranean).  So the water tables tend to be relatively low and surface vegetation doesn't have access to large amounts of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let's say that you live in this town, and you divert your greywater to a leach field in your back yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, clean water is made available to your house, and pours out of your taps, with no need for electricity or chemicals.  When you wash the dishes or have a shower, the water goes into the leach field, which moistens the ground beneath your garden and lets you grow vegetables.  Surplus water percolates harmlessly down through the soil and ends up back in the same unconfined aquifer that it originally came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The net effect of this is that your use of such a system hydrates the local soil and allows you to grow local crops — reducing the need to have diesel-fuelled trucks bring in vegetables from remote farms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more water you use, the more your soil gets hydrated, and the more produce you can grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you &quot;wa$te water&quot; in such a situation (e.g. have long showers, use heaps of water in the kitchen), it is actually **good for the environment** — not bad.  Since extra water lest you grow extra food, it's probably good for your wallet as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;common knowledge&quot; that it's &quot;bad&quot; to &quot;wa$te water&quot; is totally incorrect in such conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now compare and contrast that scenario with a city established in the middle of a desert, to which water needs to be pumped long distances from a power-hungry desalination plant on the coast, treated with chemicals in the process, and which (after use) is simply flushed down a common drain and ends up in some distant, polluted place — out of mind and out of sight of the residents.  That is clearly bad for the environment and for wallets, so &quot;wa$te is bad&quot; makes sense there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two different scenarios, two different outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Wa$ting water&quot; is almost totally an *economic concept*, not an environmental one.  For it to be environmental you need to focus on *how you get your water* and *what happens to it after the initial/primary use*.  Your original post doesn't go into detail on either of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expand your question to include details on where your water comes from, and what you do with it after you first use it, then we might be able to shed some light on whether you — *in your particular situation* — would be hurting the environment, helping the environment, or having no real affect on the environment, were you to use more water than the absolute minimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever may be the case in your particular situation, that answer doesn't necessarily apply to your friend in the next town, or your next-door neighbour.  Their circumstances may be different, so whether it's good/bad for you is irrelevant to them.  Every property owner deserves to be assessed on their particular circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  Because an entire lifetime of cultural conditioning is hard (and may even be impossible) to break free of, it may help to stop using the phrase &quot;wa$te water&quot; entirely.  Replacing it with &quot;use more potable tap water than the absolute minimum required for a primary purpose, without regard for secondary uses&quot; may be less convenient, but should get your brain thinking that there's much more going on that needs to be considered before jumping to conclusions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16830" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="dec7c7cf-f4ad-4878-b0d0-9c08c10bd447" CreationDate="2018-04-28T22:00:24.463" UserId="4886" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Your parents taught you not to &quot;waste water&quot; because *they paid the water bills*.  Thus **the negative connotations associated with &quot;wasting water&quot; are *purely* (or at least *overwhelmingly*) economic**.  It does not logically follow that &quot;wa$ting water&quot; is bad for the environment.  Your question &quot;why is it bad...&quot; is thus loaded.  You've assumed something that shouldn't be assumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To break free of the cultural conditioning you were subjected to as a child, consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reservoir was established in a natural watershed in the hills near a small town.  The elevation difference between the reservoir and the town is sufficient to provide an adequate amount of water pressure thanks to gravity alone.  No pumps are needed.  No electricity is consumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The catchment area for the reservoir is not subject to excessive contamination from windborne pollutants.  It's not downwind of an industrial zone.  It doesn't need much in the way of filtering, and certainly doesn't need treatment with poisons like chlorine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The township is in a relatively dry climate (call it Mediterranean).  So the water tables tend to be relatively low and surface vegetation doesn't have access to large amounts of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let's say that you live in this town, and you divert your greywater to a leach field in your back yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, clean water is made available to your house, and pours out of your taps, with no need for electricity or chemicals.  When you wash the dishes or have a shower, the water goes into the leach field, which moistens the ground beneath your garden and lets you grow vegetables.  Surplus water percolates harmlessly down through the soil and ends up back in the same unconfined aquifer that it originally came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The net effect of this is that your use of such a system hydrates the local soil and allows you to grow local crops — reducing the need to have diesel-fuelled trucks bring in vegetables from remote farms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more water you use, the more your soil gets hydrated, and the more produce you can grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you &quot;wa$te water&quot; in such a situation (e.g. have long showers, use heaps of water in the kitchen), it is actually **good for the environment** — not bad.  Since extra water lest you grow extra food, it's probably good for your wallet as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;common knowledge&quot; that it's &quot;bad&quot; to &quot;wa$te water&quot; is totally incorrect in such conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now compare and contrast that scenario with a city established in the middle of a desert, to which water needs to be pumped long distances from a power-hungry desalination plant on the coast, treated with chemicals in the process, and which (after use) is simply flushed down a common drain and ends up in some distant, polluted place — out of mind and out of sight of the residents.  That is clearly bad for the environment *and* for wallets, so &quot;wa$te is bad&quot; would be true there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two different scenarios, two different outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Wa$ting water&quot; is almost totally an *economic concept*, not an environmental one.  For it to be environmental you need to focus on *how you get your water* and *what happens to it after the initial/primary use*.  Your original post doesn't go into detail on either of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expand your question to include details on where your water comes from, and what you do with it after you first use it, then we might be able to shed some light on whether you — *in your particular situation* — would be hurting the environment, helping the environment, or having no real affect on the environment, by using more water than absolutely necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever may be the case in your particular situation, that answer doesn't necessarily apply to your friend in the next town, or your next-door neighbour.  Their circumstances may be different, so whether it's good/bad for you is irrelevant to them.  Every property owner deserves to be assessed on their particular circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  Because an entire lifetime of cultural conditioning is hard (maybe even impossible) to break free of, it may help to stop using the phrase &quot;wa$te water&quot; entirely.  Replacing it with &quot;use more potable tap water than the absolute minimum required for a primary purpose, without regard for secondary uses&quot; may be less convenient, but should get your brain thinking that there's much more going on that needs to be considered before jumping to conclusions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="9369adbc-3b8a-494c-bfd9-646a075016b8" CreationDate="2018-04-28T23:25:35.607" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="Your parents taught you not to &quot;waste water&quot; because *they paid the water bills*.  Thus **the negative connotations associated with &quot;wasting water&quot; are *purely* (or at least *overwhelmingly*) economic**.  It does not logically follow that &quot;wa$ting water&quot; is bad for the environment.  Your question &quot;why is it bad...&quot; is thus loaded.  You've assumed something that shouldn't be assumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To break free of the cultural conditioning you were subjected to as a child, consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reservoir was established in a natural watershed in the hills near a small town.  The elevation difference between the reservoir and the town is sufficient to provide an adequate amount of water pressure thanks to gravity alone.  No pumps are needed.  No electricity is consumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The catchment area for the reservoir is not subject to excessive contamination from windborne pollutants.  It's not downwind of an industrial zone.  It doesn't need much in the way of filtering, and certainly doesn't need treatment with poisons like chlorine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The township is in a relatively dry climate (call it Mediterranean).  So the water tables tend to be relatively low and surface vegetation doesn't have access to large amounts of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let's say that you live in this town, and you divert your greywater to a leach field in your back yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, clean water is made available to your house, and pours out of your taps, with no need for electricity or chemicals.  When you wash the dishes or have a shower, the water goes into the leach field, which moistens the ground beneath your garden and lets you grow vegetables.  Surplus water percolates harmlessly down through the soil and ends up back in the same unconfined aquifer that it originally came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The net effect of this is that your use of such a system hydrates the local soil and allows you to grow local crops — reducing the need to have diesel-fuelled trucks bring in vegetables from remote farms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more water you use, the more your soil gets hydrated, and the more produce you can grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you &quot;wa$te water&quot; in such a situation (e.g. have long showers, use heaps of water in the kitchen), it is actually **good for the environment** — not bad.  Since extra water lets you grow extra food, it's probably good for your wallet as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;common knowledge&quot; that it's &quot;bad&quot; to &quot;wa$te water&quot; is totally incorrect in such conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now compare and contrast that scenario with a city established in the middle of a desert, to which water needs to be pumped long distances from a power-hungry desalination plant on the coast, treated with chemicals in the process, and which (after use) is simply flushed down a common drain and ends up in some distant, polluted place — out of mind and out of sight of the residents.  That is clearly bad for the environment *and* for wallets, so &quot;wa$te is bad&quot; would be true there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two different scenarios, two different outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Wa$ting water&quot; is almost totally an *economic concept*, not an environmental one.  For it to be environmental you need to focus on *how you get your water* and *what happens to it after the initial/primary use*.  Your original post doesn't go into detail on either of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expand your question to include details regarding where your water comes from, and what you do with it after you first use it, then we might be able to shed some light on whether you — *in your particular situation* — would be hurting the environment, helping the environment, or having no real affect on the environment, by using more water than absolutely necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever may be the case in your particular situation, that answer doesn't necessarily apply to your friend in the next town, or your next-door neighbour.  Their circumstances may be different, so whether it's good/bad for you is irrelevant to them.  Every property owner deserves to be assessed on their particular circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  Because an entire lifetime of cultural conditioning is hard (maybe even impossible) to break free of, it may help to stop using the phrase &quot;wa$te water&quot; entirely.  Replacing it with &quot;use more potable tap water than the absolute minimum required for a primary purpose, without regard for secondary uses&quot; may be less convenient, but should get your brain thinking that there's much more going on that needs to be considered before jumping to conclusions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="08ea4c63-c0f3-4251-a942-613a6084e7a7" CreationDate="2018-04-28T23:30:48.837" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="Your parents taught you not to &quot;waste water&quot; because *they paid the water bills*.  Thus **the negative connotations associated with &quot;wasting water&quot; are *purely* (or at least *overwhelmingly*) economic**.  It does not logically follow that &quot;wa$ting water&quot; is bad for the environment.  Your question &quot;why is it bad...&quot; is thus loaded.  You've assumed something that shouldn't be assumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To break free of the cultural conditioning you were subjected to as a child, consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reservoir was established in a natural watershed in the hills near a small town.  The elevation difference between the reservoir and the town is sufficient to provide an adequate amount of water pressure thanks to gravity alone.  No pumps are needed.  No electricity is consumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The catchment area for the reservoir is not subject to excessive contamination from windborne pollutants.  It's not downwind of an industrial zone.  It doesn't need much in the way of filtering, and certainly doesn't need treatment with poisons like chlorine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The township is in a relatively dry climate (call it Mediterranean).  So the water tables tend to be relatively low and surface vegetation doesn't have access to large amounts of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let's say that you live in this town, and you divert your greywater to a leach field in your back yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, clean water is made available to your house, and pours out of your taps, with no need for electricity or chemicals.  When you wash the dishes or have a shower, the water goes into the leach field, which moistens the ground beneath your garden and lets you grow vegetables.  Surplus water percolates harmlessly down through the soil and ends up back in the same unconfined aquifer that it originally came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The net effect of this is that your use of such a system hydrates the local soil and allows you to grow local crops — reducing the need to have diesel-fuelled trucks bring in vegetables from remote farms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more water you use, the more your soil gets hydrated, and the more produce you can grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you &quot;wa$te water&quot; in such a situation (e.g. have long showers, use heaps of water in the kitchen), it is actually **good for the environment** — not bad.  Since extra water lets you grow extra food, it's probably good for your wallet as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;common knowledge&quot; that it's &quot;bad&quot; to &quot;wa$te water&quot; is totally incorrect in such conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now compare and contrast that scenario with a city established in the middle of a desert, to which water needs to be pumped long distances from a power-hungry desalination plant on the coast, treated with chemicals in the process, and which (after use) is simply flushed down a common drain and ends up in some distant, polluted place — out of mind and out of sight of the residents.  That is clearly bad for the environment *and* for wallets, so &quot;wa$te is bad&quot; would be true there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two different scenarios, two different outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Wa$ting water&quot; is almost totally an *economic concept*, not an environmental one.  For it to be environmental you need to focus on *how you get your water* and *what happens to it after the initial/primary use*.  Your original post doesn't go into detail on either of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expand your question to include details regarding where your water comes from, and what you do with it after you first use it, then we might be able to shed some light on whether you — *in your particular situation* — would be hurting the environment, helping the environment, or having no real affect on the environment, by using more water than absolutely necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever may be the case in your particular situation, that answer doesn't necessarily apply to your friend in the next town, or your next-door neighbour.  Their circumstances may be different, so whether it's good/bad for you is irrelevant to them.  Every property owner deserves to be assessed on their particular circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  Because an entire lifetime of cultural conditioning is hard (maybe even impossible) to break free of, it may help to stop using the phrase &quot;wa$te water&quot; entirely.  Replacing it with &quot;use more potable mains water than the absolute minimum required for a primary purpose, without regard for secondary uses&quot; may be less convenient, but should get your brain thinking that there's much more going on that needs to be considered before jumping to conclusions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16833" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6550" RevisionGUID="f911fc46-aed5-4729-8aa1-3c251679df7a" CreationDate="2018-04-29T01:21:42.730" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/990400701116375040" />
  <row Id="16834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6589" RevisionGUID="6d346dcd-aab3-4db8-86ed-d1c2f3e9a002" CreationDate="2018-04-29T16:49:44.683" UserId="3379" Text="Regardless of where you live, one or more of the following most likely applies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Damaging ecosystems by removing scarce water.** If you live in an arid place, the water you waste would have been used somewhere else. Note this may also apply in areas that don't meet the definition of arid, but are experiencing drought conditions.&#xD;&#xA; - **Damaging ecosystems by inserting excess water.** Again, in the context of some place that's arid, the water you send down the drain may be entering an ecosystem that isn't adapted for dealing with that excess water.&#xD;&#xA; - **Increased GHG emissions and pollution from unneeded energy/goods for purification.** In many rich countries municipal water is purified to safe drinking levels and softened. This requires energy and chemicals that are most likely produced and/or transported by processes that harm the environment. Your waste thus produces additional emissions and pollution.&#xD;&#xA; - **Increased GHG emissions and pollution from unneeded energy/goods for sewage treatment.** Like the point above, the water you send down the drain will be cleaned up before being returned to the ecosystem.&#xD;&#xA; - **Increased GHG emissions and pollution from unneeded energy for water heating.** If you're using more warm/hot water than you need, then the energy used to heat that water has been wasted.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6587" RevisionGUID="a2ca94e1-02af-40d4-b789-f972cd05f9e2" CreationDate="2018-04-29T19:02:21.060" UserId="5670" Comment="added more details" Text="I live in Hungary where everyone has access to loads of clean water.&#xD;&#xA;Still, common knowledge says that one shouldn't waste water.&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the economic factors, like cleaning the water,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&gt; why is it bad (for the environment) if I waste water?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some more details: I live in a major city, Budapest, in an apartment, so I don't use my greywater, it just goes back to the Danube after some cleaning. I've read about the cleaning procedure and apparently they check various parameters of the waste water and clean it until these get into a certain range. So as long as I just let the tap run, my waste water shouldn't really require any cleaning, i.e., this part shouldn't damage the environment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16836" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="23d4a19f-1ac6-45c0-9257-aa250260fa10" CreationDate="2018-04-30T01:21:58.767" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/990763155415621632" />
  <row Id="16837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="98837a8b-c77c-43a3-8df4-3f773055b656" CreationDate="2018-04-30T12:27:56.923" UserId="2828" Comment="More details: breed/weight, technique. Organise better." Text="I have taken to collecting our dog’s fæces in lavatory paper and flushing them rather than using the little plastic bags one can buy for the purpose and putting those in the (non-recycling) rubbish bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dog is a White West Highland, a bit under 10 kg, so the quantity is moderate. I do not use a dustpan, but collect it in 3 layers of lavatory paper, which I put between more paper in a resealable freezer bag which I use until it no longer works satisfactorily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### My questions&#xD;&#xA;* How does flushing stack up against garbage or composting for environmental impact?&#xD;&#xA;* Does flushing have other downsides (e.g. are dog fæces so different from the human variety as to cause problems in sewage processing) or upsides (e.g. chance to recover valuable compounds)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Related questions&#xD;&#xA;These questions consider using them in the garden, but I am not sure if that works for us, and for many it is just not an option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6228/can-solid-dog-waste-be-safely-added-to-a-backyard-composting-heap&#xD;&#xA;* https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/567/mulching-or-mini-septic-for-solid-dog-waste" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16838" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6579" RevisionGUID="e1935f6c-6d6d-434e-8ec1-0a063358d3d7" CreationDate="2018-04-30T12:35:20.257" UserId="2828" Comment="[tag:alternatives]." Text="|waste|alternatives|biodegradable-waste|pets|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16839" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6291" RevisionGUID="0370e009-e02b-455f-a176-e884a5f50853" CreationDate="2018-04-30T14:54:13.513" UserId="4886" Comment="provided image to illustrate a mentioned type of cowl" Text="Not with a whirlybird ventilator.  The idea here is that it acts as a centrifugal fan.  Air will always go from the centre to the outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To do what you want, you need to decouple the whirlybird from the ventilation.  E.g.  Put the whirlbird higher up,  with only an axel coming down.  This axel powers a fan in the duct.  This can be directed either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simpler way to get air in is with a wind scoop.  There are various weathervane chimney caps on the market that pivot away from the wind.  You would need to add a tail to make it pivot into the wind.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A chimney doesn't move all that much air. If the purpose of this is to replace air conditioning, you will need substantial channels.  Wind scoops are a big part of design in hot climates with prevailing winds, but are typically feet across.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/W8vGR.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16840" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6291" RevisionGUID="0370e009-e02b-455f-a176-e884a5f50853" CreationDate="2018-04-30T14:54:13.513" Comment="Proposed by 4886 approved by 3379, 3293 edit id of 527" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="46bcdd88-7b8d-4ca8-8fb1-835acf581733" CreationDate="2018-04-30T14:54:29.417" UserId="4886" Comment="clarified what 'omnidirectional' was referring to" Text="I am currently working on a device that requires omnidirectional air currents (e.g. breezes/winds) to be directed downwards through a vertical tube. I think it would be a very similar design to a [whirlybird](https://www.google.nl/search?q=whirlybird&amp;client=firefox-b&amp;dcr=0&amp;tbm=isch), but the air would have to flow inwards rather than outwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this be achieved by create several curved blades and arranging them in a 360 degree pattern, and then maybe having a second fan in the tube itself? Would one-way valves also be required to ensure that air is flowing into the tube?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16842" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6239" RevisionGUID="46bcdd88-7b8d-4ca8-8fb1-835acf581733" CreationDate="2018-04-30T14:54:29.417" Comment="Proposed by 4886 approved by 3379, 3293 edit id of 526" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16846" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6587" RevisionGUID="2a57c0ca-9bdd-4b6f-9461-ade7417ccc4c" CreationDate="2018-04-30T22:22:13.077" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/991080305602842624" />
  <row Id="16847" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6582" RevisionGUID="9e5d5388-2233-4bb3-bdf4-f53960d00ee5" CreationDate="2018-05-01T07:22:14.133" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/991216205489999872" />
  <row Id="16848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6591" RevisionGUID="10f1d7d2-649f-4fe0-8df7-18c38df6528a" CreationDate="2018-05-01T15:54:21.273" UserId="2846" Text="You seem to be having issues with convection taking warm air upstairs, especially if you have extractors or vents taking air from upstairs bathrooms to the outside world.  I have similar issues resulting in upstairs being too warm at the same time as downstairs is cooler than ideal if the heating has been on for some time, again in a well-insulated house.  Like you I've got to the point of considering building in a fan to take air from the landing to downstairs (which is a hall plus an open plan living area in my case), but I can't find a way to fit it nicely.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thick carpets or rugs and closing downstairs curtains will help a little with the winter temperatures. Shutting the bedroom door in the evening with the TRV in there low or off  can reduce the amount of warm air convected in there, especially if it has an en-suite. The conservatory will be costing you a lot of heat.  If you can't close it off with doors, consider (thermal) curtains across the opening, or adding any sort of window insulation you can in there&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summer, shading south-facing windows and opening windows only when outside is cooler than inside goes quite a long way.  UK weather of course isn't consistent enough to experiment thoroughly. Opening downstairs windows at night makes a huge difference to convection but also to security so I can't recommend it for you. I'm ~100&amp;nbsp; km west of the location in your profile so similar climate but wetter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="057e680f-6356-4e9b-ab62-41af66bb5f1a" CreationDate="2018-05-01T16:16:40.303" UserId="5602" Text="Today where there exist more than one mail and parcel service to distribute deliveries I wonder about sustainability effects, e.g. when you receive several deliveries a day. In change when everybody has to pass one or more central delivery point(s) every day to know about deliveries doesn't seem to be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is not related to the costs which have to be borne either by postal services or the recipients. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="057e680f-6356-4e9b-ab62-41af66bb5f1a" CreationDate="2018-05-01T16:16:40.303" UserId="5602" Text="Is delivery of mail to house doors by postal services more sustainable than picking up mail from a central location?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="057e680f-6356-4e9b-ab62-41af66bb5f1a" CreationDate="2018-05-01T16:16:40.303" UserId="5602" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 3.0" />
  <row Id="16852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="7bfb1c43-1be1-4e80-8aae-8a47f1f16bbe" CreationDate="2018-05-02T00:47:34.210" UserId="4886" Comment="added 4027 characters in body" Text="Your parents taught you not to &quot;waste water&quot; because *they paid the water bills*.  Thus **the negative connotations associated with &quot;wasting water&quot; are *purely* (or at least *overwhelmingly*) economic**.  It does not logically follow that &quot;wa$ting water&quot; is bad for the environment.  Your question &quot;why is it bad...&quot; is thus loaded.  You've assumed something that shouldn't be assumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To break free of the cultural conditioning you were subjected to as a child, consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reservoir was established in a natural watershed in the hills near a small town.  The elevation difference between the reservoir and the town is sufficient to provide an adequate amount of water pressure thanks to gravity alone.  No pumps are needed.  No electricity is consumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The catchment area for the reservoir is not subject to excessive contamination from windborne pollutants.  It's not downwind of an industrial zone.  It doesn't need much in the way of filtering, and certainly doesn't need treatment with poisons like chlorine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The township is in a relatively dry climate (call it Mediterranean).  So the water tables tend to be relatively low and surface vegetation doesn't have access to large amounts of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let's say that you live in this town, and you divert your greywater to a leach field in your back yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, clean water is made available to your house, and pours out of your taps, with no need for electricity or chemicals.  When you wash the dishes or have a shower, the water goes into the leach field, which moistens the ground beneath your garden and lets you grow vegetables.  Surplus water percolates harmlessly down through the soil and ends up back in the same unconfined aquifer that it originally came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The net effect of this is that your use of such a system hydrates the local soil and allows you to grow local crops — reducing the need to have diesel-fuelled trucks bring in vegetables from remote farms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more water you use, the more your soil gets hydrated, and the more produce you can grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you &quot;wa$te water&quot; in such a situation (e.g. have long showers, use heaps of water in the kitchen), it is actually **good for the environment** — not bad.  Since extra water lets you grow extra food, it's probably good for your wallet as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;common knowledge&quot; that it's &quot;bad&quot; to &quot;wa$te water&quot; is totally incorrect in such conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now compare and contrast that scenario with a city established in the middle of a desert, to which water needs to be pumped long distances from a power-hungry desalination plant on the coast, treated with chemicals in the process, and which (after use) is simply flushed down a common drain and ends up in some distant, polluted place — out of mind and out of sight of the residents.  That is clearly bad for the environment *and* for wallets, so &quot;wa$te is bad&quot; would be true there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two different scenarios, two different outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Wa$ting water&quot; is almost totally an *economic concept*, not an environmental one.  For it to be environmental you need to focus on *how you get your water* and *what happens to it after the initial/primary use*.  Your original post doesn't go into detail on either of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expand your question to include details regarding where your water comes from, and what you do with it after you first use it, then we might be able to shed some light on whether you — *in your particular situation* — would be hurting the environment, helping the environment, or having no real affect on the environment, by using more water than absolutely necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever may be the case in your particular situation, that answer doesn't necessarily apply to your friend in the next town, or your next-door neighbour.  Their circumstances may be different, so whether it's good/bad for you is irrelevant to them.  Every property owner deserves to be assessed on their particular circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  Because an entire lifetime of cultural conditioning is hard (maybe even impossible) to break free of, it may help to stop using the phrase &quot;wa$te water&quot; entirely.  Replacing it with &quot;use more potable mains water than the absolute minimum required for a primary purpose, without regard for secondary uses&quot; may be less convenient, but should get your brain thinking that there's much more going on that needs to be considered before jumping to conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Due to additional information being provided in the question and also in the comments of various answers, as well as some research.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Budapest is blessed with over 120 natural springs.  These springs contribute a bit over a quarter of the city's total water consumption (especially to public baths) and is the reason why locals believe they have abundant water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potable water is from wells dug into either islands on (or banks of) the Danube upstream.  Sand is primarily responsible for filtering the water.  UV and chlorine are responsible for disinfecting the water/pipes.  Potable water is pumped into a number of elevated reservoirs.  Electrical power for such power is provided primarily by Hungary's Pak nuclear plants.  Overall, grid CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions have been steadily declining for the last two decades and the country is ahead of its renewable targets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wastewater is treated before being released back into the Danube.  Chemical usage is proportional to waste content, not water content, so whether you concentrate the waste by using less water, or dilute it by using more water, makes no difference.  Nutrient enrichment of the Danube is the same regardless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in untangling the question and getting to an answer you first need to deal with the notion of &quot;a water-rich country&quot;.  The water used in public baths is not the same water that comes out of the taps.  Because of the springs, Budapest has an abundance of non-potable water, but it does not have an abundance of potable water.  Potable water is harvested and treated the same way that it is in countless other cities built on rivers — Budapest is not special in this regard.  Budapest is not a *potable* water-rich city.  Since you are talking about leaving the tap open longer, and only potable water comes out of the tap, that's an important distinction to make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that out of the way, the question of &quot;*how additional potable water use impacts on the environment*&quot; hinges on two factors:  Electricity and chlorine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hungary's electricity can be characterised as &quot;dominated by nuclear and steadily getting greener&quot;.  In my view **renewables &gt; nuclear &gt; fossil fuels** (others are free to have their own opinion) so as far as I'm concerned, the environmental impact of additional electricity usage (for things like pumping and UV disinfection) are minimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chlorine is primarily produced in the EU by electrolysis of salt water.  The surrounding oceans and seas have plenty of salt water, and the EU has plenty of green energy, so recycling the chlorine from the water has minimal environmental effect as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary:  Since you live in an apartment in a city, you are unable to close any meaningful nutrient loops so your waste simply enriches the nutrient content of the Danube downstream.  Waste concentration is irrelevant.  Your perception of abundance is not due to potable water, so you should put that to one side.  The methods and energy used to create and distribute the potable water in Budapest are on &quot;the good side of average&quot;.  Chlorine — the only chemical that's noteworthy in this discussion — is abundant and easily harvested using energy from a green-ish grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using additional *potable* water is definitely not going to make the environment better in your particular situation, but it is also not going to make the environment measurably worse.  If I were you I wouldn't leave taps open and waste potable water just for the hell of it.  Just use as much potable/tap water as you need.  If using a bit more water (e.g. by having longer showers) makes your life *measurably better*, and you can afford the bills, then go ahead — no need to feel guilty.  Take advantage of the public baths (and other uses for Budapest's abundant, non-potable spring water) whenever you can — it's a blessing that few other places enjoy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Potable tap water:  Use more *only* if it makes a noticeable positive&#xD;&#xA;   difference to your life.&#xD;&#xA; - Non-potable spring water:  Go nuts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6588" RevisionGUID="9bf58d57-a51e-4da5-819e-32ead1c3b0a5" CreationDate="2018-05-02T00:55:09.400" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Your parents taught you not to &quot;waste water&quot; because *they paid the water bills*.  Thus **the negative connotations associated with &quot;wasting water&quot; are *purely* (or at least *overwhelmingly*) economic**.  It does not logically follow that &quot;wa$ting water&quot; is bad for the environment.  Your question &quot;why is it bad...&quot; is thus loaded.  You've assumed something that shouldn't be assumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To break free of the cultural conditioning you were subjected to as a child, consider the following example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reservoir was established in a natural watershed in the hills near a small town.  The elevation difference between the reservoir and the town is sufficient to provide an adequate amount of water pressure thanks to gravity alone.  No pumps are needed.  No electricity is consumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The catchment area for the reservoir is not subject to excessive contamination from windborne pollutants.  It's not downwind of an industrial zone.  It doesn't need much in the way of filtering, and certainly doesn't need treatment with poisons like chlorine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The township is in a relatively dry climate (call it Mediterranean).  So the water tables tend to be relatively low and surface vegetation doesn't have access to large amounts of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, let's say that you live in this town, and you divert your greywater to a leach field in your back yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this situation, clean water is made available to your house, and pours out of your taps, with no need for electricity or chemicals.  When you wash the dishes or have a shower, the water goes into the leach field, which moistens the ground beneath your garden and lets you grow vegetables.  Surplus water percolates harmlessly down through the soil and ends up back in the same unconfined aquifer that it originally came from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The net effect of this is that your use of such a system hydrates the local soil and allows you to grow local crops — reducing the need to have diesel-fuelled trucks bring in vegetables from remote farms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more water you use, the more your soil gets hydrated, and the more produce you can grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you &quot;wa$te water&quot; in such a situation (e.g. have long showers, use heaps of water in the kitchen), it is actually **good for the environment** — not bad.  Since extra water lets you grow extra food, it's probably good for your wallet as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;common knowledge&quot; that it's &quot;bad&quot; to &quot;wa$te water&quot; is totally incorrect in such conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now compare and contrast that scenario with a city established in the middle of a desert, to which water needs to be pumped long distances from a power-hungry desalination plant on the coast, treated with chemicals in the process, and which (after use) is simply flushed down a common drain and ends up in some distant, polluted place — out of mind and out of sight of the residents.  That is clearly bad for the environment *and* for wallets, so &quot;wa$te is bad&quot; would be true there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two different scenarios, two different outcomes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Wa$ting water&quot; is almost totally an *economic concept*, not an environmental one.  For it to be environmental you need to focus on *how you get your water* and *what happens to it after the initial/primary use*.  Your original post doesn't go into detail on either of those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expand your question to include details regarding where your water comes from, and what you do with it after you first use it, then we might be able to shed some light on whether you — *in your particular situation* — would be hurting the environment, helping the environment, or having no real affect on the environment, by using more water than absolutely necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever may be the case in your particular situation, that answer doesn't necessarily apply to your friend in the next town, or your next-door neighbour.  Their circumstances may be different, so whether it's good/bad for you is irrelevant to them.  Every property owner deserves to be assessed on their particular circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  Because an entire lifetime of cultural conditioning is hard (maybe even impossible) to break free of, it may help to stop using the phrase &quot;wa$te water&quot; entirely.  Replacing it with &quot;use more potable mains water than the absolute minimum required for a primary purpose, without regard for secondary uses&quot; may be less convenient, but should get your brain thinking that there's much more going on that needs to be considered before jumping to conclusions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Due to additional information being provided in the question and also in the comments of various answers, as well as some research.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Budapest is blessed with over 120 natural springs.  These springs contribute a bit over a quarter of the city's total water consumption (especially to industry and public baths) and is the reason why locals believe they have abundant water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potable water is from wells dug into either islands on (or banks of) the Danube upstream.  Sand is primarily responsible for filtering the water.  UV and chlorine are responsible for disinfecting the water/pipes.  Potable water is pumped into a number of elevated reservoirs.  Electrical power for such power is provided primarily by Hungary's Pak nuclear plants.  Overall, grid CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions have been steadily declining for the last two decades and the country is ahead of its renewable targets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wastewater is treated before being released back into the Danube.  Chemical usage is proportional to waste content, not water content, so whether you concentrate the waste by using less water, or dilute it by using more water, makes no difference.  Nutrient enrichment of the Danube is the same regardless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in untangling the question and getting to an answer you first need to deal with the notion of &quot;a water-rich country&quot;.  The water used in public baths is not the same water that comes out of the taps.  Because of the springs, Budapest has an abundance of non-potable water, but it does not have an abundance of potable water.  Potable water is harvested and treated the same way that it is in countless other cities built on rivers — Budapest is not special in this regard.  Budapest is not a *potable* water-rich city.  Since you are talking about leaving the tap open longer, and only potable water comes out of the tap, that's an important distinction to make.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that out of the way, the question of &quot;*how additional potable water use impacts on the environment*&quot; hinges on two factors:  Electricity and chlorine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hungary's electricity can be characterised as &quot;dominated by nuclear and steadily getting greener&quot;.  In my view **renewables &gt; nuclear &gt; fossil fuels** (others are free to have their own opinion) so as far as I'm concerned, the environmental impact of additional electricity usage (for things like pumping and UV disinfection) are minimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chlorine is primarily produced in the EU by electrolysis of salt water.  The surrounding oceans and seas have plenty of salt water, and the EU has plenty of green energy, so recycling the chlorine from the water has minimal environmental effect as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary:  Since you live in an apartment in a city, you are unable to close any meaningful nutrient loops so your waste simply enriches the nutrient content of the Danube downstream.  Waste concentration is irrelevant.  Your perception of abundance is not based on potable water, so you should put that to one side.  The methods and energy used to create and distribute the potable water in Budapest are on &quot;the good side of average&quot;.  Chlorine — the only chemical that's noteworthy in this discussion — is abundant and easily harvested using energy from a green-ish grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using additional *potable* water is definitely not going to make the environment better in your particular situation, but it is also not going to make the environment measurably worse.  If I were you I wouldn't leave taps open and waste potable water just for the hell of it.  Just use as much potable/tap water as you need.  If using a bit more water (e.g. by having longer showers) makes your life *measurably better*, and you can afford the bills, then go ahead — no need to feel guilty.  Take advantage of the public baths (and other uses for Budapest's abundant, non-potable spring water) whenever you can — it's a blessing that few other places enjoy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Potable tap water:  Use more *only* if it makes a noticeable positive&#xD;&#xA;   difference to your life.&#xD;&#xA; - Non-potable spring water:  Go nuts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6593" RevisionGUID="3a326365-3d02-4ba3-8204-59b1b17754aa" CreationDate="2018-05-02T04:26:17.573" UserId="1056" Text="Apparently China has been processing about [half the world's waste](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/11/world/china-recyclables-ban.html) until this year, and most of that waste is transported over the ocean in large container ships. Recycling plastic uses less energy and fossil fuels than producing virgin plastic, so some amount of fossil fuel is saved by recycling. But moving large ships across the ocean burns a lot of fuel, so some fossil fuel is used to support the recycling process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an energy/fuel use perspective, are the benefits of recycling plastic offset by the need to transport it part way around the world? _(I understand there is also value in avoiding accumulation of solid waste, but that's not what I'm asking about here._)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6593" RevisionGUID="3a326365-3d02-4ba3-8204-59b1b17754aa" CreationDate="2018-05-02T04:26:17.573" UserId="1056" Text="Does transporting plastic offset the benefits of recycling it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6593" RevisionGUID="3a326365-3d02-4ba3-8204-59b1b17754aa" CreationDate="2018-05-02T04:26:17.573" UserId="1056" Text="|recycling|energy|energy-efficiency|waste|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16860" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6593" RevisionGUID="75dd4653-7666-42a0-84eb-90d3f35c81f1" CreationDate="2018-05-02T13:23:12.797" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/991669436179460098" />
  <row Id="16861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="733fc84f-0a26-4313-b766-ffb43dd8ebaf" CreationDate="2018-05-02T15:23:14.947" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, minor formatting." Text="Today there exists more than one mail and parcel services to distribute deliveries. I wonder about sustainability effects, especially when you receive several deliveries a day. When everybody has to pass one or more central delivery point(s) every day, home deliveries doesn't seem to be better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is not related to the costs which have to be borne either by postal services or the recipients. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16862" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="733fc84f-0a26-4313-b766-ffb43dd8ebaf" CreationDate="2018-05-02T15:23:14.947" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, minor formatting." Text="|environmental-impact|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="c476a5b6-ee8a-418a-bb34-658ac4389c5a" CreationDate="2018-05-02T16:18:09.020" UserId="5677" Text="Suppose 10 million new solar panels will be installed in some country this year, and there are two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: the solar panels go onto the roofs of 1 million individual houses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B: the solar panels go into 1 thousand large solar farms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With option A, there is a great deal of expense dispatching workers to all the houses, doing all the electrical hookups at each house, advertising to the individual buyers, etc. Then many of the panels will be installed at sub-optimal angles, be partially blocked by trees, go in cloudy locations, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With option B, it is presumably much cheaper and faster to install and maintain the solar panels. It does require some extra land; does option A have any other advantages besides that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16864" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="c476a5b6-ee8a-418a-bb34-658ac4389c5a" CreationDate="2018-05-02T16:18:09.020" UserId="5677" Text="Are there advantages to putting solar panels on individual homes rather than in large solar farms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16865" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="c476a5b6-ee8a-418a-bb34-658ac4389c5a" CreationDate="2018-05-02T16:18:09.020" UserId="5677" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16866" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6592" RevisionGUID="b5664549-95bf-4260-bc58-4e14915a7f9a" CreationDate="2018-05-02T16:23:12.663" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/991714734322962432" />
  <row Id="16867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="bcbe8e75-ffa3-42d9-a026-d5aad34c847f" CreationDate="2018-05-02T19:12:59.337" UserId="5677" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="Suppose 10 million new solar panels will be installed in some country this year, and there are two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A: the solar panels go onto the roofs of 1 million individual houses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B: the solar panels go into 1 thousand large solar farms&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With option A, there is a great deal of expense dispatching workers to all the houses, doing all the electrical hookups at each house, advertising to the individual buyers, etc. Then many of the panels will be installed at sub-optimal angles, be partially blocked by trees, go in cloudy locations, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With option B, it is presumably much cheaper and faster to install and maintain the solar panels. It does require some extra land; does option A have any other economic advantages besides that? (Of course, there may be advantages such as people signalling their support of solar power by displaying the panels, but I'd like to focus on direct economic advantages.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6597" RevisionGUID="8b612e16-6dd7-463d-a2e1-fe86e3f26dbf" CreationDate="2018-05-02T20:32:34.337" UserId="3379" Text="To simplify and clarify the discussion a bit, I'll refer to option A as distributed generation solar photovoltaics (**DGPV**) -- that is, solar power systems installed at energy consumer's sites. The primary purpose is to provide local power and/or offset the need to purchase power from a power producer or utility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option B I'll refer to as **utility-scale solar** -- solar power installations installed and operated by a utility for the purpose of putting power on the grid to sell to power consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a (non-exhaustive) list of the pros and cons of each:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**DGPV advantages:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Depending on location and regulations, DPGV can provide back-up power when grid power is not available&#xD;&#xA; - Financing and approval of DGPV projects can be simpler and easier for public institutions&#xD;&#xA; - On-site renewables are worth more than off-site when seeking LEED status&#xD;&#xA; - DGPV systems can be installed on rooftops that can't be used for much else&#xD;&#xA; - DGPV systems can be combined with thermal hot water systems, further reducing a building's total energy costs&#xD;&#xA; - For a given amount of solar power being added to the grid, DGPV systems are less likely to create a need for greater transmission and distribution capacity than utility-scale systems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**DGPV disadvantages:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As mentioned, small sites (particularly rooftops) have limited flexibility when trying to install an optimized solar system&#xD;&#xA; - Operating and maintenance costs increase proportionally as system size decreases&#xD;&#xA; - Localities with a high ratio of DGPV are prone to grid instability (voltage spikes/troughs and/or shifts away from the default 50/60Hz), particularly on days with fast-moving, spotty cloud cover&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Utility-scale solar advantages:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As mentioned, economies of scale result in greatly reduced cost per watt of installed solar systems&#xD;&#xA; - Within a given utility service territory, solar plants can be installed strategically to meet growing demand or relieve transmission congestion&#xD;&#xA; - Larger solar installations can be paired more cost-effectively with storage or gas-fired peaking power units to offset destabilizing effects and reduce levelized power costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Utility-scale solar disadvantages:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Most installations take up space that could have been used for something else&#xD;&#xA; - Larger capital projects take longer and require more stringent approvals&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The upshot:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 9 out of 10 cases it's likely that the economies-of-scale advantage for utility-scale systems will outweigh all other considerations. However, sex appeal aside, there are certain factors which may warrant a local DGPV installation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6597" RevisionGUID="80e620f3-c76c-49a0-92e4-366b9bfa2712" CreationDate="2018-05-02T21:54:33.470" UserId="3379" Comment="Reformatted." Text="# Option A is distributed generation solar photovoltaics (**DGPV**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, solar power systems installed at energy consumer's sites (typically on a rooftop). The power produced is primarily used locally, with excess power sold back to the grid in some cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Advantages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Depending on location and regulations, DPGV can provide back-up power when grid power is not available&#xD;&#xA; - Financing and approval of DGPV projects can be simpler and easier for public institutions&#xD;&#xA; - On-site renewables are worth more than off-site when seeking LEED status&#xD;&#xA; - DGPV systems can be installed on rooftops which may not be useful for anything else&#xD;&#xA; - DGPV systems can be combined with thermal hot water systems, further reducing a building's total energy costs&#xD;&#xA; - For a given amount of solar power being added to the grid, DGPV systems are less likely to create a need for greater transmission and distribution capacity than utility-scale systems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Disadvantages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As mentioned, small sites (particularly rooftops) have limited flexibility when trying to install an optimized solar system&#xD;&#xA; - Operating and maintenance costs increase proportionally as system size decreases&#xD;&#xA; - Localities with a high ratio of DGPV are prone to grid instability (voltage spikes/troughs and/or shifts away from the default 50/60Hz), particularly on days with fast-moving, spotty cloud cover. Costs to utilities (often passed on to end-users) to avoid these problems are higher with distributed installations than larger, centralized systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Option B is utility-scale solar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, large-scale solar power systems installed and operated by a utility for the purpose of putting power on the grid to sell to power consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Advantages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As mentioned, economies of scale result in greatly reduced cost per watt of installed solar systems&#xD;&#xA; - Within a given utility service territory, solar plants can be installed strategically to meet growing demand or relieve transmission congestion&#xD;&#xA; - Larger solar installations can be paired more cost-effectively with storage or gas-fired peaking power units to offset destabilizing effects and reduce levelized power costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Disadvantages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Most installations take up space that could have been used for something else&#xD;&#xA; - Larger capital projects take longer and require more stringent, time-consuming approvals processes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The upshot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 9 out of 10 cases it's likely that the economies-of-scale advantage for utility-scale systems will outweigh all other considerations. However, sex appeal aside, there are certain factors which may warrant a local DGPV installation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16870" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6577" RevisionGUID="b6c139ea-6b7b-4aa4-999e-997de27b7ef4" CreationDate="2018-05-02T22:23:17.020" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/991805349542940672" />
  <row Id="16871" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="5d7f0f3b-b05c-405a-8cad-70d237defbc5" CreationDate="2018-05-02T22:34:34.007" UserId="5602" Text="Both types of roofs have advantages. Green roofs do not produce energy (in some cases just fruits) but they do not consume that much energy for production of panels, installation and control and do not need treatment after use. So what are the either advantages and disadvantages compared with each other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16872" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="5d7f0f3b-b05c-405a-8cad-70d237defbc5" CreationDate="2018-05-02T22:34:34.007" UserId="5602" Text="Are green roofs more sustainable than roofs with photo voltaic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16873" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="5d7f0f3b-b05c-405a-8cad-70d237defbc5" CreationDate="2018-05-02T22:34:34.007" UserId="5602" Text="|photovoltaics|green-roof|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6600" RevisionGUID="e0aaa5c4-57e1-4d3c-9e9d-3a6f598654c9" CreationDate="2018-05-03T08:09:38.543" UserId="5681" Text="I would put these two things in separate categories of sustainable technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Green roofs are sustainable in the sense that the provide extra insulation and the building the cover will require less energy. They also require a great deal of maintenance and energy so the benefits are mostly superficial while the dis advantages in terms of cost and effort to maintain is high. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Photovoltaics, roof top solar panels, are going to have a much bigger impact of sustainability in the big picture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think green roofs are gorgeous and must be fun for architects to design but solar panels are what you want if you care about sustainability. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6601" RevisionGUID="af0b515e-0c84-4209-b7d5-cccc38a19263" CreationDate="2018-05-03T08:14:24.930" UserId="5681" Text="Has anyone ever used vermicompost tea with aquaponics? I have found little formal research on the area and am curious if the two nitrogen cycles can be combined. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16879" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6601" RevisionGUID="af0b515e-0c84-4209-b7d5-cccc38a19263" CreationDate="2018-05-03T08:14:24.930" UserId="5681" Text="Aquaponics + Vermicompost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16880" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6601" RevisionGUID="af0b515e-0c84-4209-b7d5-cccc38a19263" CreationDate="2018-05-03T08:14:24.930" UserId="5681" Text="|aquaponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16881" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6598" RevisionGUID="c5a3ff71-7e0b-425e-b4bb-0e9c40b1a405" CreationDate="2018-05-03T10:23:18.743" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/991986550673199104" />
  <row Id="16882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6602" RevisionGUID="080e0b93-173c-4319-a407-49ff38f3104d" CreationDate="2018-05-03T11:34:09.217" UserId="1701" Text="We have a client who is considering options for building a compacted aggregate path and driveway. One of the products the stone company offers it called copper slag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Copper slag][1] is the waste product of copper smelting, and in this case the term is NOT just a description of the color of some natural stone. It is truly copper slag from smelting operations. Apparently it is used for a number of things including sand-blasting, addition to concrete mix, and as a &quot;gravel.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not seen much discussion of the potential for toxic leachates, and wonder if anyone has experience with or knowledge of the potential downside in terms of environmental contamination of such a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_slag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6602" RevisionGUID="080e0b93-173c-4319-a407-49ff38f3104d" CreationDate="2018-05-03T11:34:09.217" UserId="1701" Text="What chemicals does copper slag release into the soil or water table when it is recycled as a gravel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6602" RevisionGUID="080e0b93-173c-4319-a407-49ff38f3104d" CreationDate="2018-05-03T11:34:09.217" UserId="1701" Text="|toxic-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6603" RevisionGUID="a37c67a5-5a99-4aac-b12b-a4b714ff6abf" CreationDate="2018-05-03T13:43:35.583" UserId="5602" Text="I found a (eventually political) [study made by NABU Hamburg][1] from 2013 about copper slag. They state, that several materials are included with toxic and hazardous to health impact, among others (per 1000 t of slag): lead (1t), manganese (1t), arsenic (0.37t), nickel (0.2 t), cobalt (0.3t) and some others, like antimony, cadmium, tin and chromatics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of them can be washed out to ground water at short or long term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Other source][2] speaks about &quot;highly dioxin contaminated sports field&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.isebek-initiative.de/uploads/sn/BSG_1310_CUS_Quellen_Zitate.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030438949500039W" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6604" RevisionGUID="5195784f-10ff-48c1-af55-8cfe5987639f" CreationDate="2018-05-03T15:32:07.793" UserId="4604" Text="So we've been considering getting a rain barrel, and I like the idea - It doesn't make sense to just have the water run off into my yard creating a rut, I'd rather put it to good use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problem is, my house is a bilevel with no real water consumers on the lower level -- I'd need a pump to get the water into toilets, I don't believe it'd have the pressure to run as a sprinkler, and I don't really want to use it for cooking, but I'd like to collect it for some purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize this is open ended, but what are some uses for the high volume but relatively low pressure provided by a rain barrel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16887" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6604" RevisionGUID="5195784f-10ff-48c1-af55-8cfe5987639f" CreationDate="2018-05-03T15:32:07.793" UserId="4604" Text="How does on utilize the low pressure of a rain barrel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16888" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6604" RevisionGUID="5195784f-10ff-48c1-af55-8cfe5987639f" CreationDate="2018-05-03T15:32:07.793" UserId="4604" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6604" RevisionGUID="cc89dc20-6bc4-4c5f-b184-8009ad989b1f" CreationDate="2018-05-03T16:25:38.253" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed typos, tabs" Text="We've been considering getting a rain barrel, and I like the idea -- it doesn't make sense to just have the water run off into my yard creating a rut; I'd rather put it to good use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Problem is, my house is a bilevel with no real water consumers on the lower level -- I'd need a pump to get the water into toilets, I don't believe it'd have the pressure to run as a sprinkler, and I don't really want to use it for cooking, but I'd like to collect it for some purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize this is open ended, but what are some uses for the high volume but relatively low pressure provided by a rain barrel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16890" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6604" RevisionGUID="cc89dc20-6bc4-4c5f-b184-8009ad989b1f" CreationDate="2018-05-03T16:25:38.253" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed typos, tabs" Text="How does one utilize the low pressure of a rain barrel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16891" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6604" RevisionGUID="cc89dc20-6bc4-4c5f-b184-8009ad989b1f" CreationDate="2018-05-03T16:25:38.253" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed typos, tabs" Text="|water|water-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6605" RevisionGUID="01ccc148-d880-4edf-9b0f-6d551d7713f1" CreationDate="2018-05-03T19:40:04.180" UserId="5477" Text="Do you you mean the proverbial &quot;black beauty&quot; ? If so , it has little to do with copper slag. If real copper slag : copper smelters do not throw copper away so the copper level would be in the low ppm range. And copper does not develop water soluble product under atmospheric conditions , that is why copper roofs/flashing does not wash away, it just turns green" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16895" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2794" RevisionGUID="eff2a78a-da56-40c8-984d-c1529fd2f924" CreationDate="2018-05-04T08:06:55.353" UserId="85" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:85,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Earthliŋ&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="16896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6554" RevisionGUID="9a777e5f-84c0-4a9b-b9b9-82284cd589c1" CreationDate="2018-05-04T10:32:54.270" UserId="5602" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There are many ways how plastic waste ends up in the sea. A non-complete list would include the following: Micro-plastics from our washing processes, they are in almost everything like shampoo, peelings, cosmetics, etc., but also our clothes contain a lot of plastics which leaves the washing machines continuously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next are ships, loosing load, leaving old fishing nets in the oceans and of course (even when forbidden internationally) there are still a lot of ships simply dumping waste into the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A big problem are underdeveloped countries, especially the poor suburbs of big cities, where there is neither a sensibility or education on plastic waste nor are there treatments, collection or deposits to recycle plastic waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also a lot of people (not only in underdeveloped countries) leave a lot of plastic waste at beaches where next high tide takes it to the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even in the developed countries we have an enormous exportation of plastic waste (previously collected and assumed to be recycled or deposited locally) to other countries, declared to be &quot;cheaper recycled&quot; there. In many cases nobody really knows what happens with this waste once has reached its destination country - if it reaches those countries at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people are thinking about catching plastics out of the sea, but avoidance of introduction of plastic waste is a major topic as well. As it is difficult to educate so many people the general avoidance of plastic may be an important step." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16897" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6601" RevisionGUID="71b02544-77c4-4df6-a75e-1e1dcf3ef0c8" CreationDate="2018-05-04T16:25:15.683" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/992440025815142401" />
  <row Id="16898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6573" RevisionGUID="398d217f-42cb-40c6-87e7-06856f61e04c" CreationDate="2018-05-04T22:52:18.647" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="inserted comment answer" Text="Yesterday I went through my garden and removed the first slugs of the year from my tomatoes. The same question as every time: What to do with them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throwing them into a bucket of water is no good; wait five minutes and they are out. The beer-trap will just attract more of them and if it's raining it will be rendered down to being useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I used baking soda (~15g in 1/8l) and it seems they're still on the bottom of the bucket.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Today first thing in the morning was to remove the slugs which came during the night. Curious if they would survive in that baking-soda water I dropped them into it and... seems they died.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my knowledge baking soda and water will create a weak organic acid. If baking soda is applied on slugs directly it will apparently dehydrate the slug. (Correct me if I'm wrong)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how does a night-old bucket of water with a reasonable amount of baking-soda affect slugs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit one: Apparently Baking Soda causes a reaction which creates Carbonic Acid inside the slug. Just. How? [Source][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article167123199/Gegen-Nacktschnecken-hilft-mechanischer-Mord.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16899" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6573" RevisionGUID="398d217f-42cb-40c6-87e7-06856f61e04c" CreationDate="2018-05-04T22:52:18.647" Comment="Proposed by 2451 approved by 3379, 3173 edit id of 528" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6607" RevisionGUID="e9e01009-9bae-4e63-92cc-efe92a9842fc" CreationDate="2018-05-05T10:05:39.230" UserId="5602" Text="Compared to a battery an elevated water tank is the better energy storage for times without sun or wind if the energy is solely needed for water pumping. Double conversion of energy (to electricity and back to use) and loss of energy in the battery, which even will age, will waste a lot of energy and money. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hight of water tank depends on the pressure you need to distribute the water later. In many cases it must not be very high. Which kind of &quot;energy converter&quot; you should use depends on the availability of wind or sun and technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the country side a wind turbine may operate the water pump directly without electrical energy conversion. So it is even much easier to repair. If there is sufficient wind available that would be my preferred solution, even when it appears to be quite old fashioned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6608" RevisionGUID="dea7a7bc-8040-4d64-a7f6-48d45e8df9e2" CreationDate="2018-05-06T00:22:11.017" UserId="5602" Text="Ok, collecting water is one thing. My first question would be &quot;why collecting water at base level?&quot; Just one meter (yard) higher could generate some pressure to distribute the water better. Most water could be collected at 2 meters (yards) next to gutter. Then a lot of applications could follow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16904" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6596" RevisionGUID="6dc13745-8a9c-4df7-b848-f8f94106b743" CreationDate="2018-05-06T07:28:57.957" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/993029838607994880" />
  <row Id="16905" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6602" RevisionGUID="e7f0da34-5329-4b19-845d-a2f8fd2b515a" CreationDate="2018-05-06T10:28:57.607" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/993075135627350016" />
  <row Id="16906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6608" RevisionGUID="faeba243-d9f1-44c6-a4e8-774565952ff3" CreationDate="2018-05-06T16:14:38.823" UserId="5602" Comment="added 128 characters in body" Text="Ok, collecting water is one thing. My first question would be &quot;why collecting water at base level?&quot; Just one meter (yard) higher could generate some pressure to distribute the water better. Most water could be collected at 2 meters (yards) next to gutter. Then a lot of applications could follow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Probably a pressure washer will not require too much input pressure. So it might be useful for cleaning surfaces or the car." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16907" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="62c7af90-68bb-43a3-99cd-96daf38887f4" CreationDate="2018-05-06T19:36:30.343" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="6b848797-20a0-45c7-9f20-37907e4f2c3a" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:10:18.570" UserId="5602" Text="Lifetime is running out for a large number of fibreglass boats produced about 50 years ago. Many shipyards where they have been produced do no longer exist and last users frequently do not have the budget to pay expensive disposal of their boats. After having been chopped and shredded the only further (but still expensive) use of the fibreglass seems to be as a waste component in concrete or asphalt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there really no better use for it, where it even may be considered as a value? If not, we are running a high risk that many boats and other fibreglass products in future will end up in the sea as an additional waste load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[GE reports about some recycling of wind turbine blades][1], which may be true or just to reassure some critics. However, I fear that there will come a lot of none recycled fibreglass waste to nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ge.com/reports/comeback-kids-company-gives-old-wind-turbine-blades-second-life/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16914" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="6b848797-20a0-45c7-9f20-37907e4f2c3a" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:10:18.570" UserId="5602" Text="Is there any useful recycling of fibreglass boats or other products made of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16915" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="6b848797-20a0-45c7-9f20-37907e4f2c3a" CreationDate="2018-05-07T15:10:18.570" UserId="5602" Text="|recycling|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16916" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="4de6f8f7-0a9e-40e0-977f-8797b7edd4c5" CreationDate="2018-05-08T01:08:39.770" UserId="1056" Comment="less lingo in the title" Text="When is a compost considered safe if it contains animal material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16917" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="4de6f8f7-0a9e-40e0-977f-8797b7edd4c5" CreationDate="2018-05-08T01:08:39.770" Comment="Proposed by 1056 approved by -1 edit id of 529" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16918" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6030" RevisionGUID="212d8cae-3dc4-4de9-9344-a7ae7053d427" CreationDate="2018-05-08T01:08:39.770" UserId="3379" Comment="less jargon in the title" Text="When is a compost considered safe if it contains restricted animal material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6612" RevisionGUID="867ffab7-93cc-400e-8c15-c815d186f851" CreationDate="2018-05-08T09:49:22.923" UserId="2605" Text="PTFE-based coating seems to be potentially harmful to humans and mortal for birds. PFOA, which is used for making teflon, persists in the environment and our bodies for long periods of time (see [cancer.org][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to go for something better for the environment. I need a non-stick pot, so something like stainless steel would not do. I've found that enameled cast iron could be a good  alternative, though it's quite expensive (anyway, I'll go for it if there's no choice). Are there any other alternatives to consider?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/teflon-and-perfluorooctanoic-acid-pfoa.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16920" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6612" RevisionGUID="867ffab7-93cc-400e-8c15-c815d186f851" CreationDate="2018-05-08T09:49:22.923" UserId="2605" Text="ecofriendly alternatives to PTFE-based (teflon) pots?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16921" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6612" RevisionGUID="867ffab7-93cc-400e-8c15-c815d186f851" CreationDate="2018-05-08T09:49:22.923" UserId="2605" Text="|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6613" RevisionGUID="4517856f-64c9-4a87-8d81-ab0fbe00d4e8" CreationDate="2018-05-08T12:22:06.917" UserId="4834" Text="Cast iron, correctly seasoned and maintained, is very effective at providing a non-stick surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many cast iron pans are available &quot;pre-seasoned&quot; but this cannot generally be relied upon to be a complete seasoning.  Regardless, periodic re-seasoning (and correct use in the interim) is required.  Re-seasoning involves a thorough cleaning to remove the old, damaged non-stick surface (possibly not necessary for the initial seasoning) followed by a sequence of high-temperature &quot;firings&quot; with a coating of a cooking oil.  Repeating this process 5 to 7 times creates a new non-stick surface by polymerizing the cooking oil.  It takes some practice to perfect this technique.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Correct use mainly consists of avoid breaking the non-stick polymer layer created during seasoning: avoid rough scraping during cooking or cleaning, don't use soap when cleaning.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result, however, is a non-stick pan which will last for decades _at least_ and is made from extremely mundane materials with a simple manufacturing process.  And cast iron is relatively affordable compared to the other non-stick options.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6614" RevisionGUID="247b97ea-9a45-4c2b-a2a9-a0d38248f9cd" CreationDate="2018-05-08T15:55:08.470" UserId="3379" Text="###The two are not mutually exclusive, and in fact installing PV panels over a green roof improves PV performance anywhere from 1 to 10% due to the cooling effect of the green roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the presentation [&quot;Interaction between PV-systesm and extensive green roofs&quot;](http://www.worldgreenroof.org/files/pdf/Manfred-KoehlerMinneapolisPV.pdf) given at the Fifth Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference, Awards and Trade Show in 2007 (emphasis added): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The energy output of PV-panels depends on several factors. In this survey of over approximately 5 years of data, the effect of the green roof has been estimated at an **average 6% increase in yields**. But the green roof is only one factor in enhancing the efficiency of PV-panels.  **The total range of increased energy output varies between 1 and 10%**. PV over green roofs can be mounted on fixed frames. The costs are lower in comparison to the tracking systems, which follow the sun. Under the PV panels, a variety of extensive green roof vegetation can be grown. In the case of UFA it was originally a Sedum roof but this was subsequently changed to include a wide variety of plantings. Minimum garden roof maintenance is required to reduce taller growing plants. The PV – cells must be without shade. The estimated benefit of a higher Power output from a green roof can help to offset the cost of green roof installations.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This effect is attributable to the fact that [solar panels are more efficient when kept cooler](http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2668), which a green roof facilitates through evaporative cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several other research studies verify this finding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Quantification of the passive cooling of photovoltaics using a green roof&quot;](https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/11242) uses TRNSYS building energy modeling software to estimate a small (&lt;1%) improvement in power output for a city in the Northeast US, but notes that the dual use of space increases the PV system's value regardless.&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Green roof integrated PV canopies -- an empirical study and teaching tool for low income students in the South Bronx&quot;](https://ases.conference-services.net/resources/252/2859/pdf/SOLAR2012_0183_full%20paper.pdf) uses a number of student-planned and -built test setups to measure a 2.4% increase in PV system output, and a 4.6% reduction in interior temperature over an eight-month period (covering summer, fall, and the beginning of winter).&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Photovoltaic-green roofs: An experimental evaluation of system performance&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191301026X) measured increased PV output of 1.3 to 3.3% over a five-day period in the summer in Spain.&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Integration of green roof and solar photovoltaic systems&quot;](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sam_C_M_Hui/publication/281901499_Integration_of_green_roof_and_solar_photovoltaic_systems/links/55fd676908ae07629e26bfc9.pdf) used EnergyPlus modeling software on a hypothetical building in Hong Kong to predict a slight decrease in cooling needs, and an 8.3% increase in PV system output." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6597" RevisionGUID="340266ee-8324-4927-bef7-6bd29cbe1ac2" CreationDate="2018-05-08T16:51:40.950" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified, added note about combining DGPV with green roofs" Text="# Option A is distributed generation solar photovoltaics (**DGPV**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, solar power systems installed at energy consumer's sites (typically on a rooftop). The power produced is primarily used locally, with excess power sold back to the grid in some cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Advantages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Depending on location and regulations, DPGV can provide back-up power when grid power is not available&#xD;&#xA; - Financing and approval of DGPV projects can be simpler and easier for public institutions&#xD;&#xA; - On-site renewables are worth more than off-site when seeking LEED status&#xD;&#xA; - DGPV systems can be installed on rooftops which may not be useful for anything else&#xD;&#xA; - DGPV systems can be combined with thermal hot water systems, further reducing a building's total energy costs&#xD;&#xA; - DGPV systems can be [combined with green roofs](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6598/are-green-roofs-more-sustainable-than-roofs-with-photo-voltaic/6614#6614) to improve their performance, increase utilization of the space, and decrease the building cooling load&#xD;&#xA; - For a given amount of solar power being added to the grid, DGPV systems (emphasizing &quot;D&quot; for *distributed*) are less likely to create a need for greater transmission and distribution capacity than *centralized* utility-scale systems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Disadvantages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As mentioned, small sites (particularly rooftops) have limited flexibility when trying to install an optimized solar system&#xD;&#xA; - Operating and maintenance costs increase proportionally as system size decreases&#xD;&#xA; - Localities with a high ratio of DGPV are prone to grid instability (voltage spikes/troughs and/or shifts away from the default 50/60Hz), particularly on days with fast-moving, spotty cloud cover. Costs to utilities (often passed on to end-users) to avoid these problems are higher with distributed installations than larger, centralized systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Option B is utility-scale solar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is, large-scale solar power systems installed and operated by a utility for the purpose of putting power on the grid to sell to power consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Advantages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As mentioned, economies of scale result in greatly reduced cost per watt of installed solar systems&#xD;&#xA; - Within a given utility service territory, solar plants can be installed strategically to meet growing demand or relieve transmission congestion&#xD;&#xA; - Larger solar installations can be paired more cost-effectively with storage or gas-fired peaking power units to offset destabilizing effects and reduce levelized power costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Disadvantages&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Most installations take up space that could have been used for something else&#xD;&#xA; - Larger capital projects take longer and require more stringent, time-consuming approvals processes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# The upshot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*For a fixed amount of capital,* in 9 out of 10 cases it's likely that the economies-of-scale advantage for utility-scale systems will outweigh all other considerations. But since DGPV doesn't really compete with utility-scale solar, both types of systems can happily co-exist. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5370" RevisionGUID="266af09e-1351-4d32-8274-0da49f102222" CreationDate="2018-05-08T20:12:40.107" UserId="3516" Comment="added link to new paper on the subject" Text="Background&#xD;&#xA;==========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, for a given transportation medium, modes of transport that are more densely populated are more efficient than those that are more sparsely populated. For example, it is not a complete comparison to say your Prius gets 50 mpg and the city bus only gets 5 mpg, therefore your Prius is an order of magnitude more efficient than the bus. This is because that bus also moved twenty people at once. So the per-person fuel efficiency of the bus is actually an order of magnitude higher than the per-person fuel efficiency of your Prius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this does not necessarily hold up when comparing modalities from different transportation media (for example, flying versus taking the train). This is because of the differing challenges facing a given medium _de facto_, such as the fuel spent keeping an airplane aloft rather than propelling it forward, whereas the train is held aloft by static rails.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question&#xD;&#xA;========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In deciding on a vacation, how can I determine the more sustainable option between, for example, a train tour of the continent and a commercial cruise to Mexico? The ship likely has an order of magnitude more passengers than the train, but the expense of pushing the hull through water is significant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Update for 2018&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent research suggests that vacationing is not only bad for the environment in general, the energy usage from our vacationing is getting worse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Here, we quantify tourism-related global carbon flows between 160 countries, and their carbon footprints under origin and destination accounting perspectives. We find that, between 2009 and 2013, tourism’s global carbon footprint has increased from 3.9 to 4.5 GtCO2e, four times more than previously estimated, accounting for about 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Via [Nature Climate Change](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0141-x)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, if at all possible, find the most ecological means of vacationing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6616" RevisionGUID="6771e7ef-6115-4da9-bcb6-1850e6405f8c" CreationDate="2018-05-08T21:01:47.400" UserId="1053" Text="This [2009 article][1] explains that making the bus (but not the subways) in New York free would save businesses that rely on currently-congested roads so much money that the city would be ahead based on the increased taxes charged to those companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [update][2] about the same spreadsheet in 2017 is more focused on charging a congestion charge, but may contain useful information.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Toronto, the train line from downtown to the airport, called the UP Express, started at a fare of 27.50 and had very low ridership, [dropped][3] to $12.50 and saw a huge increase, and now [plans][4] to drop to $3. These articles and others you could find by searching on some words from them include armwaving about how this will increase ridership.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You then need to get from A to B in terms of the environmental benefits you hope to see  - parking, pollution, etc - since not every extra rider means less cars on the road - but it's a starting point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/07/03/how-driving-a-car-into-manhattan-costs-160/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8x53xb/meet-the-spreadsheet-that-can-solve-nyc-transit-and-the-man-who-made-it&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/union-pearson-express-price-1.3459482&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.blogto.com/city/2018/03/up-express-cost-fare-pearson-toronto/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6618" RevisionGUID="e87e7727-7222-4cf7-877a-a6b5530c7817" CreationDate="2018-05-09T19:02:48.127" UserId="5602" Text="The page [HealWithFood][1] describes four alternatives to Teflon and declares: &quot;The manufacturing process for PTFE (Teflon) cookware uses a chemical called perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, which has been shown to contribute to the development of certain types of tumors in laboratory animals and which seems to increase the risk of thyroid disease in humans. PFOA has also been shown to kill birds when its fumes are released into the air.&quot; The four alternatives &quot;Cast Iron Frying Pans&quot;, &quot;Stainless Steel Skillets&quot;, &quot;Thermolon-Coated Pans&quot; and &quot;The Bottom Line&quot; are described with their pros and cons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other four alternatives can be found on [RodalesOrganicLife][2] with &quot;Enameled Cast Iron&quot;, &quot;Stainless Steel&quot;, &quot;Glass&quot; and &quot;Stoneware&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other pages with information are: [GroovyGreenLiving][3] and [TheKitchn][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The decision is up to you now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.healwithfood.org/articles/non-toxic-alternatives-teflon-frying-pans.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.rodalesorganiclife.com/home/4-safe-alternatives-to-nonstick-teflon-cookware/slide/1&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://groovygreenliving.com/teflon-alternatives/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.thekitchn.com/what-are-the-best-alternatives-104745" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="d3389440-2673-4461-a39b-6816ea1518cf" CreationDate="2018-05-09T19:43:53.313" UserId="5602" Comment="added 416 characters in body" Text="Lifetime is running out for a large number of fibreglass boats produced about 50 years ago. Many shipyards where they have been produced do no longer exist and last users frequently do not have the budget to pay expensive disposal of their boats. After having been chopped and shredded the only further (but still expensive) use of the fibreglass seems to be as a waste component in concrete or asphalt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there really no better use for it, where it even may be considered as a value? If not, we are running a high risk that many boats and other fibreglass products in future will end up in the sea as an additional waste load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[GE reports about some recycling of wind turbine blades][1], which may be true or just to reassure some critics. However, I fear that there will come a lot of none recycled fibreglass waste to nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As building riffs with waste fibreglass materials was suggested as an alternative I would like to point on [**this study**][2] which states in its conclusion: &quot;**Evidence of matrix and interphase contribution in environmental degradation is shown by crack density measurements, transverse strength degradation, and fiber surface morphology**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ge.com/reports/comeback-kids-company-gives-old-wind-turbine-blades-second-life/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=851502" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6620" RevisionGUID="a436110d-4032-49f6-ab0c-17bdb78c9888" CreationDate="2018-05-11T08:44:41.583" UserId="5602" Text="I know it is not easy, but **it starts when you are looking for a new flat** to rent. That is the moment when you can influence most your later possibilities to save energy or to live sustainable. Beside of other aspects ask yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When and how was the house build? As long as cheap construction is profitable and if everyone accepts cheap construction with low standards on sustainability your later efforts inside the flat will be useless.&#xD;&#xA; - How is its inside climate managed and what are your neighbours standards? In most cases inside insulation from flat to flat is weak. In winter your neighbours will heat your flat and in summer they will cool it down. A retrofit installation of insulation against other flats will consume, your available space, more energy and money. When you leave the flat you will have to remove it.&#xD;&#xA; - What will your landlord allow you to do inside and outside your flat and what is technically possible at all, e.g. is it possible to install awnings to the windows or cover them in summer my other means?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beside the flat itself look how it is connected to public transit and how can you arrange your life in a sustainable way with that flat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6620" RevisionGUID="69a90b8e-5480-48c1-a626-23b4bc534f49" CreationDate="2018-05-11T12:28:43.340" UserId="5602" Comment="edited body" Text="I know it is not easy, but **it starts when you are looking for a new flat** to rent. That is the moment when you can influence most your later possibilities to save energy or to live sustainable. Beside of other aspects ask yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When and how was the house build? As long as cheap construction is profitable and if everyone accepts cheap construction with low standards on sustainability your later efforts inside the flat will be useless.&#xD;&#xA; - How is its inside climate managed and what are your neighbours standards? In most cases inside insulation from flat to flat is weak. In winter your neighbours will heat your flat and in summer they will cool it down. A retrofit installation of insulation against other flats will consume, your available space, more energy and money. When you leave the flat you will have to remove it.&#xD;&#xA; - What will your landlord allow you to do inside and outside your flat and what is technically possible at all, e.g. is it possible to install awnings to the windows or cover them in summer by other means?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beside the flat itself look how it is connected to public transit and how can you arrange your life in a sustainable way with that flat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16939" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6621" RevisionGUID="5571b1ff-2310-4303-9b14-fa3f7c45a6c4" CreationDate="2018-05-11T15:48:14.683" UserId="3379" Text="From the [press release](http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05-09_building_standards_adopted_nr.html) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moving to cut energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent, the California Energy Commission [CEC] today adopted building standards that **require solar photovoltaic systems starting in 2020**. The building energy efficiency standards, which are the first in the nation to require solar, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to taking 115,000 fossil fuel cars off the road.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read a few different articles about the new standards, and spent some time reviewing [the standard itself](http://energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/rulemaking/documents/2018-05-09_hearing/2019_Revised_EnergyCode.php), but I have one big question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How much solar will each new home need to include?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[An infographic](http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Residential_Standards.pdf) from the CEC gives a figure of $9,500 for the initial cost, but what is this based on? Will the amount of solar required vary depending on the size of the house, number of bedrooms, location or location type (urban, rural, etc), or some other factor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6621" RevisionGUID="5571b1ff-2310-4303-9b14-fa3f7c45a6c4" CreationDate="2018-05-11T15:48:14.683" UserId="3379" Text="What capacity solar system is required for new homes under the new California building standards?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6621" RevisionGUID="5571b1ff-2310-4303-9b14-fa3f7c45a6c4" CreationDate="2018-05-11T15:48:14.683" UserId="3379" Text="|solar-power|energy|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="de5da7bb-41ea-4a40-8a2e-b01f766d860a" CreationDate="2018-05-11T21:42:13.307" UserId="5602" Comment="added 115 characters in body" Text="Lifetime is running out for a large number of fibreglass boats produced about 50 years ago. Many shipyards where they have been produced do no longer exist and last users frequently do not have the budget to pay expensive disposal of their boats. After having been chopped and shredded the only further (but still expensive) use of the fibreglass seems to be as a waste component in concrete or asphalt. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there really no better use for it, where it even may be considered as a value? If not, we are running a high risk that many boats and other fibreglass products in future will end up in the sea as an additional waste load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[GE reports about some recycling of wind turbine blades][1], which may be true or just to reassure some critics. However, I fear that there will come a lot of none recycled fibreglass waste to nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As building riffs with waste fibreglass materials was suggested as an alternative I would like to point on [**this study**][2] which states in its conclusion: &quot;**Evidence of matrix and interphase contribution in environmental degradation is shown by crack density measurements, transverse strength degradation, and fiber surface morphology**.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even when it decomposes slowly and takes some hundred years to do, that doesn't make it better for the ambient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ge.com/reports/comeback-kids-company-gives-old-wind-turbine-blades-second-life/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=851502" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16943" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="45554bf0-28a1-43ac-9483-f57448a28f92" CreationDate="2018-05-12T06:46:05.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16944" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="f2950516-2385-4bf9-be23-be70ad0f08ad" CreationDate="2018-05-12T14:46:09.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16945" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6622" RevisionGUID="12f9950f-d5fe-4018-bf8a-1dcba9a20ec6" CreationDate="2018-05-13T05:55:55.570" UserId="1056" Text="I received the following answer after emailing a company that raises crickets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We use a agricultural feed that includes feed beans, buckwheat, and feed corn non of which are edible by humans. We don't use any pre- or post-consumer waste to feed the crickets for two reasons: we can't control the consistency of taste with a non-regular feed stock and our food regulations won't allow us to feed them waste to then feed to humans. The companies using crickets and other insects as feed stock for fish and poultry are having a lot of success using pre- and post-consumer waste to feed their crickets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer surprised me quite a bit. I've been eating beans, buckwheat, and corn for quite a while so I'm not sure why they're described as non-edible by humans. I thought maybe they were talking about some other part of the plant that humans don't eat, but they went on to say they don't use any pre-consumer waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems like insect farms either need to grow/purchase agricultural food as feed for crickets, or they need to sell their crickets as feed for larger animals. Either way, that's a diversion of useful food energy that could have gone toward humans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like insect farming is less sustainable than growing plant-based food for humans." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6623" RevisionGUID="6f53252b-beea-4dfa-b22e-886971f2927f" CreationDate="2018-05-13T06:08:48.127" UserId="1056" Text="The Minnesota Department of Agriculture provides a guide to [composting animal mortalities](https://www.mda.state.mn.us/news/publications/animals/compostguide.pdf) which suggests that a compost pile is safe when the internal temperature is recorded above 130ºF or 55ºC for seven days in a row.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Once the pile reaches at least 130º F, it should stay above that temperature for at least one week. Do not start counting the days until the area that you added to the pile last reaches this temperature. When the temperature drops, the pile is ready to be turned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [British Columbia](http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/18_2002#division_d2e969), a temperature of 50º C for ten consecutive days is sufficient to produce compost graded as &quot;Class A&quot; safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;... at a temperature of not less than 50° Celsius for at least 10 consecutive days. The process must be configured (batch, plug flow, staged) to maintain sufficient retention time to ensure that pathogen and volatile solids destruction is reliably achieved.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16947" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6550" RevisionGUID="353f2d20-f5d9-4f79-9ad7-75893d285a1b" CreationDate="2018-05-13T14:51:13.690" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="898c856c-acea-4401-a27a-b1a71e86d1ec" CreationDate="2018-05-13T23:33:30.620" UserId="1056" Text="Sometimes produce is packaged in mesh bags, such as the bag of oranges shown below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are these bags made of, and can they be recycled? If they cannot be recycled, can we do something else with them other than throwing them in the waste bin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![oranges in a red mesh produce bag][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ypG9B.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16949" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="898c856c-acea-4401-a27a-b1a71e86d1ec" CreationDate="2018-05-13T23:33:30.620" UserId="1056" Text="Can mesh produce bags be recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16950" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="898c856c-acea-4401-a27a-b1a71e86d1ec" CreationDate="2018-05-13T23:33:30.620" UserId="1056" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="fec8e431-6c9d-46b9-ab63-5442004e88ed" CreationDate="2018-05-14T06:30:37.383" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Short version&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;I want to know of methods (and devices) of selecting the biggest/heaviest bean and grain seeds from my garden, to re-sow the next season. I would like to hear from people that have done this, how they went about this, and if the results were satisfactory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Longer explanation&#xD;&#xA;===&#xD;&#xA;I have a few different crops of legumes (green beans, mung beans, peas - might try chickpeas, lentils etc. in future) and grains (maize, might try quinoa in future) that I have grown from heirloom seeds. The main idea with heirloom seeds is to have a perpetual cycle since one **saves a few seeds at harvest, to sow again the next season**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, heirloom seeds are originally obtained from a commercial supplier or, better still, friend - which means the seeds were originally produced elsewhere where the climate, soil and other conditions may have been slightly different and *perhaps* your own garden might now be slightly less optimal. (I have still obtained satisfactory results until now, so this is not a big worry.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, it should be possible to **improve your crops for your own local conditions** by **selecting seeds with the most desirable traits** for resowing the next season, for at least a few generations. (My grandparents and parents were commercial papaya growers that grew their own seedlings for each year's plantation, so I have known about the concept - and practical application, even if not very advanced as judged by modern scientific methods - from an early age :-). )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With some crops (e.g. tomatoes and squash families) I would probably look at the fruits yielded and then take seeds from the most desirable ones. However, for **legume and grain** crops the part you eat is exactly the same as the seed, so my thinking is that the bigger the seed size, the more desirable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, one would not take seed from only one fruit or one plant. Having seeds from a nice overall selection might help to maintain some genetic diversity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all this in mind: If I have a container of seeds (maybe 200 - 1000 seeds in total) what is a good way to separate and sort them by size? So that I can keep the biggest (say) 20% and eat the rest. Spreading them on a towel and eyeballing them, picking out some with tweezers, seems to be cheap, but very time consuming, labor intensive, and not very exact. Any better suggestion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Added:&lt;/b&gt; I've also recently sprouted mung beans (for eating) and noticed that some kernels did not germinate; those seemed to be smaller than the successful ones (not a pleasant surprise on the teeth...) So perhaps this might be a consideration for removing the smallest (not completely developed) seeds from a harvest too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16954" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="fec8e431-6c9d-46b9-ab63-5442004e88ed" CreationDate="2018-05-14T06:30:37.383" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16955" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5361" RevisionGUID="fec8e431-6c9d-46b9-ab63-5442004e88ed" CreationDate="2018-05-14T06:30:37.383" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 3379, 3293 edit id of 531" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6626" RevisionGUID="9b03d0cc-abe0-403e-a906-572e33805cac" CreationDate="2018-05-14T10:03:43.687" UserId="5602" Text="Various people already have made their [thoughts about it][1]. Except depositing it in the waste there are two general applications. Using them as [storage for other items][2] or simply to create [some kind of decoration][3] out of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used a (stronger) mesh, combined with a doormat for further stabilization, to wash out gravel, but could be done by multiple layer of other meshes as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://wolfram.org/writing/howto/1.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.zerowasteweek.co.uk/reuse-mesh-string-produce-bags/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.thriftyfun.com/tf/Green_Living/Reusing/Reusing-Mesh-Produce-Bags.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sm6XW.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16958" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6624" RevisionGUID="cddacdfc-8ef0-474d-89a5-61a6d93dd7d2" CreationDate="2018-05-14T13:36:53.280" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/996021532165136384" />
  <row Id="16959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6627" RevisionGUID="867518e4-3723-4688-8a73-b467db9d6c5f" CreationDate="2018-05-14T20:44:54.700" UserId="5602" Text="It is an estimation, made by &quot;[The California Energy Commission][1]&quot; not considering a specific product. They calculate: &quot;Single-family homes built with the 2019 standards will use about 7 percent less energy due to energy efficiency measures versus those built under the 2016 standards. Once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, homes built under the 2019 standards will use about 53 percent less energy than those under the 2016 standards. This will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 700,000 metric tons over three years, equivalent to taking 115,000 fossil fuel cars off the road. Nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting upgrades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;.....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On average, the 2019 standards will increase the cost of constructing a new home by about $9,500 but will save $19,000 in energy and maintenance costs over 30 years. Based on a 30-year mortgage, the Energy Commission estimates that the standards will add about $40 per month for the average home, but save consumers $80 per month on heating, cooling and lighting bills. &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6621" RevisionGUID="fb1ceb07-31d1-4dcf-922c-20403665cbed" CreationDate="2018-05-14T20:48:13.037" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified the question." Text="From the [press release](http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05-09_building_standards_adopted_nr.html) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moving to cut energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent, the California Energy Commission [CEC] today adopted building standards that **require solar photovoltaic systems starting in 2020**. The building energy efficiency standards, which are the first in the nation to require solar, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to taking 115,000 fossil fuel cars off the road.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read a few different articles about the new standards, and spent some time reviewing [the standard itself](http://energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/rulemaking/documents/2018-05-09_hearing/2019_Revised_EnergyCode.php), but I have one big question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For a specific home, how will the builder determine the exact capacity of solar system that must be installed?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[An infographic](http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Residential_Standards.pdf) from the CEC gives a figure of $9,500 for the initial cost, but what is this based on? Will the amount of solar required vary depending on the size of the house, number of bedrooms, location or location type (urban, rural, etc), or some other factor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16961" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="30ddebe4-2dc2-4f30-aff8-72178e954bf2" CreationDate="2018-05-14T20:53:36.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6629" RevisionGUID="59f19a05-4891-45b6-8503-4fadb3ffea97" CreationDate="2018-05-15T17:10:56.850" UserId="4922" Text="I would recommend some reading up on 'landrace' crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Highly Irregular is correct, that you should consider more than just seed size in you selection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article may have some info http://gardenseeds.org/landrace/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6629" RevisionGUID="9e273c63-f978-4e38-bbfb-0f9fb101ce6c" CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:03:26.917" UserId="4922" Comment="added 517 characters in body" Text="I would recommend some reading up on 'landrace' crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(from wikipedia with a source)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Landrace plants are grown from seeds which have not been systematically selected and marketed by seed companies, nor developed by plant breeders. The label landraces includes all those regional cultigens that are highly heterogeneous, but with enough characteristics in common to permit their recognition as a group.[citation needed]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This includes all cultigens cultivated without any specific nomenclature and value. A landrace identified with a unique feature, and selected for uniformity over a period of time for maintenance of the characteristic features of the population, can evolve into a &quot;farmers' variety&quot;, or even a modern cultivar as in many crops (for example, Cajanus cajan 'Maruti' in the case of pigeon peas).[21]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conversely, a modern cultivar grown over time can &quot;evolve&quot; into a landrace, especially when self-seeded and some human selection is applied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Friis-Hansen, Esbern; Sthapit, Bhuwon (eds.) (2000). Participatory Approaches to the Conservation and Use of Plant Genetic Resources. Rome, Italy: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. p. 199. ISBN 92-9043-444-9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Landrace is typically a term applied to animals, but the principal remains the same here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By allowing your crops to continually reproduce, and use all the seeds not just the ones you like, you develop genetic diversity, where the selective pressure is applied by the soil conditions and climate unique to your location. You might throw away a small seed, but that seed might be resistant to disease, or adapted for drought.  I'm not familiar on the flavor aspects of this, perhaps someone else could weigh in. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Highly Irregular is correct, that you should consider more than just seed size in you selection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article may have some info http://gardenseeds.org/landrace/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16974" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5871" RevisionGUID="90df7ff2-afdf-4d2d-9b55-3e6f16e5d814" CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:39:10.017" UserId="3379" Comment="tags" Text="|recycling|paper|life-cycle-analysis|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16975" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3118" RevisionGUID="4692582f-0c32-4294-922d-5cfe1f207e76" CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:39:31.007" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="bb7716ce-a491-424e-8dbd-e77e6a82b7d1" CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:42:46.243" UserId="3379" Comment="tags and formatting" Text="Question: which has a greater embodied energy: a cup of tea/coffee or a can of Coke (or Pepsi, or other caffeinated soft drink) -- or maybe some other stimulating drink? I have made some estimates of my own, but there are some areas I haven't been able to figure out e.g. transportation, and I am looking for someone who may be better informed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Factors&#xD;&#xA;Cup of tea/coffee:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Production of packaging&#xD;&#xA; 2. Transportation from country of origin&#xD;&#xA; 3. Heating water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can of Coke:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Production of packaging&#xD;&#xA;2. Transportation of raw ingredients&#xD;&#xA;3. Manufacture&#xD;&#xA;4. Transportation of product from the factory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# My estimates:&#xD;&#xA;## Boiling one cup of tea: 0.11 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    500 g water (minimum amount for typical kettles)&#xD;&#xA;    Q = mcΔT&#xD;&#xA;    Q = Heating required&#xD;&#xA;    m = Mass of water = 0.5 kg&#xD;&#xA;    c = Specific heat capacity of water = 4.18 kJ/kgK [1]&#xD;&#xA;    ΔT = 85 Kelvin&#xD;&#xA;    Q = 178 kJ = 49.4 Wh&#xD;&#xA;    Efficiency of electrical power grid (e.g. in the US) [2]:&#xD;&#xA;    Generation: 40%&#xD;&#xA;    Transmission: 94%&#xD;&#xA;    Net effy = 38%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So total energy cost of a cuppa I'd reckon is 413 kJ = 0.110 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Aluminum can production: 0.28 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    14.9 g : Mass of an empty can [3] &#xD;&#xA;    183e9 kWh : US total Aluminium industry energy consumption (2003) [4]&#xD;&#xA;    9.6e6 tonnes : US Aluminium industry raw materials used (2003) [4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gives 19.1 kWh/kg, or 0.28 kWh/can&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Manufacture: ?&#xD;&#xA;Not sure about energy required in manufacturing coke or blending tea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Transportation: ?&#xD;&#xA;Suspect transportation is fairly negligible in both cases as neither are perishable so probably transported by sea and road, which is relatively efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. “Water - Thermophysical Properties.” [Online]. Available: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html. [Accessed: 23-Jan-2018].&#xD;&#xA; 2. “Energy Efficiency in the Power Grid - NEMA,” mafiadoc.com. [Online]. Available: https://mafiadoc.com/energy-efficiency-in-the-power-grid-nema_59842ba91723ddcf69a39c32.html. [Accessed: 23-Jan-2018].&#xD;&#xA; 3. “How much does an empty soda can weigh?,” Reference. [Online]. Available:&#xD;&#xA;    https://www.reference.com/food/much-empty-soda-can-weigh-e7e0417d7a8ec29.    [Accessed: 23-Jan-2018].&#xD;&#xA; 4. E. Efficiency, “US Energy Requirements for Aluminum Production,” 2007. Available: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/11/f4/al_theoretical.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16977" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6388" RevisionGUID="bb7716ce-a491-424e-8dbd-e77e6a82b7d1" CreationDate="2018-05-15T20:42:46.243" UserId="3379" Comment="tags and formatting" Text="|energy-efficiency|life-cycle-analysis|embodied-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16981" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6612" RevisionGUID="e0deafa7-b217-44a9-953e-43026f591670" CreationDate="2018-05-16T04:37:01.063" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/996610445044862976" />
  <row Id="16983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="4cbe1023-1c1b-4ad3-87c4-a1abba30c947" CreationDate="2018-05-16T10:54:03.223" UserId="5723" Text="In previously sustainable countries, westernization brings unmanageable waste: we get flooded with plastic but don't even have garbage collection. Apparently the result is that 40%  of the world's trash is burned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Around me most people deal with their unsorted waste in 2 ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - bury in their land, that is the place where food is grown&#xD;&#xA; - burn in the open air on their land &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions for something more efficient?&#xD;&#xA;I guess sorting is the first step with composting organic stuff. But what about plastic? Burning seems the most toxic but won't burying plastic slowly pollute the ground (especially with tropical rain)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="4cbe1023-1c1b-4ad3-87c4-a1abba30c947" CreationDate="2018-05-16T10:54:03.223" UserId="5723" Text="Dealing with waste by ourselves" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="4cbe1023-1c1b-4ad3-87c4-a1abba30c947" CreationDate="2018-05-16T10:54:03.223" UserId="5723" Text="|waste|pollution|health|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="95b37231-3e88-444b-b946-b7a71b410f0c" CreationDate="2018-05-16T11:05:12.403" UserId="2828" Text="High-quality [go equipment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_equipment) is made from various natural materials such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Slate** for the black stones.&#xD;&#xA;* **Mussel shells** for the white stones. (I am not sure about the species.)&#xD;&#xA;* **Spruce**, **katsura**, **bamboo** or **kaya** wood for the boards.&#xD;&#xA;* **Mulberry**, **quince** (_karin_ in Japanese), **kaya**, **cherry**, **keyaki** or **rosewood** for better and **beech**, **chestnut** or **bamboo** for cheaper bowls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cheaper alternatives are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Glass** or **plastic** for stones.&#xD;&#xA;* **Cheaper wood**, **plywood** or **plastic** for boards and bowls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should like to buy some attractive equipment and am wondering which choices are ethically acceptable, whereby I imagine that sustainability of ecosystems is more or less the only significant issue. I fear that the more pleasing the equipment, especially the stones, the worse their impact is, though probably many natural materials are better than plastic. Once bought, the equipment would of course have a long lifetime and, I hope, be passed on after my death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone give me any suggestions as to how far I can responsibly go, or information to take into account?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16987" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="95b37231-3e88-444b-b946-b7a71b410f0c" CreationDate="2018-05-16T11:05:12.403" UserId="2828" Text="How sustainable is the use of elements such as slate, mussel shells and wood for go stones and boards?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16988" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="95b37231-3e88-444b-b946-b7a71b410f0c" CreationDate="2018-05-16T11:05:12.403" UserId="2828" Text="|environmental-impact|materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6633" RevisionGUID="17026d2a-721e-4c77-9610-a2654d7137bc" CreationDate="2018-05-16T11:06:55.837" UserId="5723" Text="It will not be achieved. There is a budget of around 500 billions USD worldwide (advertising spending per year) to make sure that people look up to big cars  and smartphones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For any poor country, you can compare the communication budget of the environment agency against that of advertising and you can get an idea of the rate of environmental destruction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="eead70d8-2d7f-4c68-bcf6-d5732870263d" CreationDate="2018-05-16T12:11:11.017" UserId="2828" Comment="Outline of what I suspect is the case." Text="High-quality [go equipment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_equipment) is made from various natural materials such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Slate** for the black stones.&#xD;&#xA;* **Mussel shells** for the white stones. (I am not sure about the species.)&#xD;&#xA;* **Spruce**, **katsura**, **bamboo** or **kaya** wood for the boards.&#xD;&#xA;* **Mulberry**, **quince** (_karin_ in Japanese), **kaya**, **cherry**, **keyaki** or **rosewood** for better and **beech**, **chestnut** or **bamboo** for cheaper bowls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cheaper alternatives are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Glass** or **plastic** for stones.&#xD;&#xA;* **Cheaper wood**, **plywood** or **plastic** for boards and bowls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should like to buy some attractive equipment and am wondering which choices are ethically acceptable, whereby I imagine that sustainability of ecosystems is more or less the only significant issue. I fear that the more pleasing the equipment, especially the stones, the worse their impact is, though probably many natural materials are better than plastic. Once bought, the equipment would of course have a long lifetime and, I hope, be passed on after my death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the slate is not a great problem, bamboo even less, some trees more so and mussel shells the greatest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone give me any suggestions as to how far I can responsibly go, or information to take into account?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16992" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="84dd9d43-0e50-40fb-bcb1-184879888a3d" CreationDate="2018-05-16T13:06:57.027" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="16993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="07022b43-6088-48ec-8913-4f5d40182ec4" CreationDate="2018-05-16T14:06:09.690" UserId="3379" Comment="minor grammar, title improvements" Text="In previously sustainable countries, westernization brings unmanageable waste: We get flooded with plastic but don't even have garbage collection. Apparently the result is that 40%  of the world's trash is burned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Around me most people deal with their unsorted waste in two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - bury in their land, which also is the place where food is grown&#xD;&#xA; - burn in the open air on their land &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions for something more sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess sorting is the first step, with composting organic stuff. But what about plastic? Burning seems the most toxic, but won't burying plastic slowly pollute the ground (especially with tropical rain)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16994" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="07022b43-6088-48ec-8913-4f5d40182ec4" CreationDate="2018-05-16T14:06:09.690" UserId="3379" Comment="minor grammar, title improvements" Text="|waste|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16995" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6631" RevisionGUID="07022b43-6088-48ec-8913-4f5d40182ec4" CreationDate="2018-05-16T14:06:09.690" UserId="3379" Comment="minor grammar, title improvements" Text="Dealing with waste in countries without waste management infrastructure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6634" RevisionGUID="7fbab21b-7379-4ef7-9969-b6792e9bc1bc" CreationDate="2018-05-16T14:39:40.417" UserId="4922" Text="I compost all organic material, with the exception of paper. I bury meat and animal bones bc it can attract other animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have been known to re-use cardboard as a one-season box garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be true that recycling is not energetically a win in a cost benefit analysis, while there may not be a local pickup, you could ask around if there is a recycling center, or you could even build one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When my dad lived where there was no recycling pickup, he drove us to the local dump/recycling center, we fount plenty of cool old furniture, and the it was actually a clean and approachable place, you could save your recyclables and drive them to a place that can reuse them. Creating a place like that could be the answer to the problems, and even turn a tiny profit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there isn't a convenient place to take recyclables, and you don't want to build a recycling center you should sort and store, and then find ways to repurpose, or re-use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For metals you could always build a mini forge, and melt down ingots of aluminum or tin into something useful. This can be dangerous as heck, so don't go lighting fires or building forges without doing serious research.&#xD;&#xA;Youtube video provided to give you an idea what it looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A7w3mFcmUk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are absolutely right that burning or burying plastic can pollute the ground. I live in the city rather close to a large university, so sometimes I drop my plastic and aluminum in their recycling bins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some folk knit blankets out of plastic grocery bags, and donate them to the homeless. (which sounds embarrassing, why not knit a real blanket instead of a trash blanket, and give that to them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that the best thing we can do as consumers is to avoid buying unnecessary plastic. However, we cannot consume our way out of ecological devastation, and we need radical change in our government and economy if we are going to stop wasting and polluting with petroleum products like plastic. At least glass will turn back into sand, and is easy to reshape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let me know what you come up with, I would love to hear about any nifty re-use you can come up with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="16999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6636" RevisionGUID="f0af36e0-5868-4105-8f17-5ffb0135827e" CreationDate="2018-05-16T15:04:50.633" UserId="5602" Text="The question has two general aspects. First how to collect plastics efficiently and second how to treat it afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best supporter for collection is to generate a value that people perceive and motivate to collect, as it works with bottles, cans and paper. In these areas even poor people are motivated to collect and separate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The treatment of plastics can be different. There are thermoplastics that can be brought into an other form by thermal treatment. In general all plastics can be heated at higher temperatures to generate e.g. diesel by pyrolysis. [Here is shown how it works][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Operation of factory and sale of diesel generate values that must be used to pay collection of waste. Unfortunately in many countries the generated values dilute by corruption and such projects fail. Especially in poor countries this cycle of value should be financed and controlled by UN organisations, instead of financing sophisticated, highly developed projects to catch the plastics out of the seas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best of course would be to avoid artificial plastics at all and only allow plastics that rot in a short period of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzGLsGkdSvI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="d032aadf-97f1-478a-8ee3-e0ec9321850b" CreationDate="2018-05-16T18:29:24.157" UserId="2828" Comment="Mussel (a mistranslation) replaced by clam (species still unclear). " Text="High-quality [go equipment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_equipment) is made from various natural materials such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Slate** for the black stones.&#xD;&#xA;* **Clam shells** for the white stones. (I am not sure about the species.)&#xD;&#xA;* **Spruce**, **katsura**, **bamboo** or **kaya** wood for the boards.&#xD;&#xA;* **Mulberry**, **quince** (_karin_ in Japanese), **kaya**, **cherry**, **keyaki** or **rosewood** for better and **beech**, **chestnut** or **bamboo** for cheaper bowls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cheaper alternatives are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Glass** or **plastic** for stones.&#xD;&#xA;* **Cheaper wood**, **plywood** or **plastic** for boards and bowls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I should like to buy some attractive equipment and am wondering which choices are ethically acceptable, whereby I imagine that sustainability of ecosystems is more or less the only significant issue. I fear that the more pleasing the equipment, especially the stones, the worse their impact is, though probably many natural materials are better than plastic. Once bought, the equipment would of course have a long lifetime and, I hope, be passed on after my death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the slate is not a great problem, bamboo even less, some trees more so and clam shells the greatest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote the linked Wikipedia article: _Due to a single clam shell yielding only a limited number of stones (around three), white stones are expensive to produce. The clamshells used to make the white stones used to be farmed from Japan, but since the supply is dwindling, most clamshells are harvested from Baja California in Mexico._ Go stones are lens-shaped, 22mm diameter and vary in thickness from 4mm to 12.8mm, high quality tends to mean at least 7mm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone give me any suggestions as to how far I can responsibly go, or information to take into account?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Edits&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2018-05-16 20:30 _Mussel_ (a mistranslation) replaced by _clam_ (species still unclear).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17001" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="d032aadf-97f1-478a-8ee3-e0ec9321850b" CreationDate="2018-05-16T18:29:24.157" UserId="2828" Comment="Mussel (a mistranslation) replaced by clam (species still unclear). " Text="How sustainable is the use of elements such as slate, clam shells and wood for go stones and boards?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="ebdbe1d3-f0ba-42f5-8576-baacdad9b992" CreationDate="2018-05-16T18:40:27.267" UserId="2828" Comment="Mussel (a mistranslation) replaced by clam (species still unclear). Details about stones and board added. Structure improved." Text="I should like to buy some attractive [go equipment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_equipment) and am wondering which choices are ethically acceptable, whereby I imagine that sustainability of ecosystems is more or less the only significant issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone give me any suggestions as to how far I can responsibly go, or information to take into account?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Details&#xD;&#xA;High-quality equipment is made from various natural materials such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Slate** for the black stones.&#xD;&#xA;* **Clam shells** for the white stones. (I am not sure about the species.)&#xD;&#xA;* **Spruce**, **katsura**, **bamboo** or **kaya** wood for the boards. (One piece, c. 42mm × 45mm × 15mm)&#xD;&#xA;* **Mulberry**, **quince** (_karin_ in Japanese), **kaya**, **cherry**, **keyaki** or **rosewood** for better and **beech**, **chestnut** or **bamboo** for cheaper bowls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cheaper alternatives are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Glass** or **plastic** for stones.&#xD;&#xA;* **Cheaper wood**, **plywood** or **plastic** for boards and bowls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fear that the more pleasing the equipment, especially the stones, the worse their impact is, though probably many natural materials are better than plastic. Once bought, the equipment would of course have a long lifetime and, I hope, be passed on after my death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the slate is not a great problem, bamboo even less, some trees more so and clam shells the greatest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_equipment#Stones): _Due to a single clam shell yielding only a limited number of stones (around three), white stones are expensive to produce. The clamshells used to make the white stones used to be farmed from Japan, but since the supply is dwindling, most clamshells are harvested from Baja California in Mexico._ Go stones are lens-shaped, 22mm diameter and vary in thickness from 4mm to 12.8mm, high quality tends to mean at least 7mm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Edits&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2018-05-16 20:30 _Mussel_ (a mistranslation) replaced by _clam_ (species still unclear).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="bd8dc7d2-928b-4474-becb-15aa12ce3282" CreationDate="2018-05-16T19:01:10.703" UserId="5726" Text="My community has single-bin recycling. Most consumer-level metal, plastic, and paper can go in there to be sorted at a recycling center. They don't take plastic grocery bags, cellophane, paper towels, and pizza boxes. Most of these I can recycle at a more specialized location if I'm feeling like a good citizen.&#xA;&#xA;So most of garbage is food, paper towels, and cellophane.&#xA;&#xA;I'm researching composting, and it seems like the only &quot;organic&quot; things I can't compost are cooked meat and dairy products. A site I'm reading mentions &quot;some paper&quot;. Maybe that means paper towels.&#xA;&#xA;But what I'm wondering is, what would be left after disposing of everything I can using the above methods? I get that this is a question with technically an unbounded answer. The sites I've read so far say something like &quot;everything else!&quot; I get that. But what do most people regularly consume and dispose of that wouldn't go in the &quot;trash&quot; bin if they had bins for trash, recycling, compost?&#xA;&#xA;The first thing that jumps to mind is batteries, but those shouldn't be thrown in the trash if we followed their instructions. Big items like old computers or broken chairs (or whatever) don't normally go in the bin, and generally have better options for getting rid of them (donations, etc.).&#xA;&#xA;So if I'm doing the mostly bare minimum but still following the basic rules on all of the above, what would be left? Dirty diapers and greasy pizza boxes and blocks of cheese that went bad?&#xA;&#xA;I feel like I must be forgetting something obvious.&#xA;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="bd8dc7d2-928b-4474-becb-15aa12ce3282" CreationDate="2018-05-16T19:01:10.703" UserId="5726" Text="What isn't recyclable or compostable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="bd8dc7d2-928b-4474-becb-15aa12ce3282" CreationDate="2018-05-16T19:01:10.703" UserId="5726" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="d4c845d9-39a1-4401-ab50-46cd79ceed8a" CreationDate="2018-05-16T19:07:03.893" UserId="2828" Comment="‘Materials’ preferable to ‘elements’. More links." Text="I should like to buy some attractive [go equipment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_equipment) and am wondering which choices are ethically acceptable, whereby I imagine that sustainability of ecosystems is more or less the only significant issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone give me any suggestions as to how far I can responsibly go, or information to take into account?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Details&#xD;&#xA;High-quality equipment is made from various natural materials such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Slate** for the black stones.&#xD;&#xA;* **Clam shells** for the white stones. (I am not sure about the species.)&#xD;&#xA;* **Spruce**, **katsura**, **bamboo** or **kaya** wood for the boards. (One piece, c. 42mm × 45mm × 15mm)&#xD;&#xA;* **Mulberry**, **quince** (_karin_ in Japanese), **kaya**, **cherry**, **keyaki** or **rosewood** for better and **beech**, **chestnut** or **bamboo** for cheaper bowls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cheaper alternatives are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Glass** or **plastic** for stones.&#xD;&#xA;* **Cheaper wood**, **plywood** or **plastic** for boards and bowls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fear that the more pleasing the equipment, especially the stones, the worse their impact is, though probably many natural materials are better than plastic. Once bought, the equipment would of course have a long lifetime and, I hope, be passed on after my death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the slate is not a great problem, bamboo even less, some trees more so and clam shells the greatest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_equipment#Stones): _Due to a single clam shell yielding only a limited number of stones (around three), white stones are expensive to produce. The clamshells used to make the white stones used to be farmed from Japan, but since the supply is dwindling, most clamshells are harvested from Baja California in Mexico._ Go stones are lens-shaped, 22mm diameter and vary in thickness from 4mm to 12.8mm, high quality tends to mean at least 7mm; one needs 150 white (and 151 black) stones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Links&#xD;&#xA;* Specifications:&#xD;&#xA; * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_equipment&#xD;&#xA; * https://senseis.xmp.net/?Equipment, https://senseis.xmp.net/?GoStones etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Selected edits&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;_(With a significant impact on the information presented)_&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;2018-05-16 20:30 _Mussel_ (a mistranslation) replaced by _clam_ (species still unclear).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17007" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="d4c845d9-39a1-4401-ab50-46cd79ceed8a" CreationDate="2018-05-16T19:07:03.893" UserId="2828" Comment="‘Materials’ preferable to ‘elements’. More links." Text="How sustainable is the use of materials such as slate, clam shells and wood for go stones and boards?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6632" RevisionGUID="06b73e14-36db-4d1d-a537-288612338969" CreationDate="2018-05-16T19:29:27.887" UserId="2828" Comment="Correct number of stones needed." Text="I should like to buy some attractive [go equipment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_equipment) and am wondering which choices are ethically acceptable, whereby I imagine that sustainability of ecosystems is more or less the only significant issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone give me any suggestions as to how far I can responsibly go, or information to take into account?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Details&#xD;&#xA;High-quality equipment is made from various natural materials such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Slate** for the black stones.&#xD;&#xA;* **Clam shells** for the white stones. (I am not sure about the species.)&#xD;&#xA;* **Spruce**, **katsura**, **bamboo** or **kaya** wood for the boards. (One piece, c. 42mm × 45mm × 15mm)&#xD;&#xA;* **Mulberry**, **quince** (_karin_ in Japanese), **kaya**, **cherry**, **keyaki** or **rosewood** for better and **beech**, **chestnut** or **bamboo** for cheaper bowls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cheaper alternatives are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Glass** or **plastic** for stones.&#xD;&#xA;* **Cheaper wood**, **plywood** or **plastic** for boards and bowls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fear that the more pleasing the equipment, especially the stones, the worse their impact is, though probably many natural materials are better than plastic. Once bought, the equipment would of course have a long lifetime and, I hope, be passed on after my death.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the slate is not a great problem, bamboo even less, some trees more so and clam shells the greatest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To quote the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_equipment#Stones): _Due to a single clam shell yielding only a limited number of stones (around three), white stones are expensive to produce. The clamshells used to make the white stones used to be farmed from Japan, but since the supply is dwindling, most clamshells are harvested from Baja California in Mexico._ Go stones are lens-shaped, 22mm diameter and vary in thickness from 4mm to 12.8mm, high quality tends to mean at least 7mm; one needs about 180 white (and 181 black) stones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Links&#xD;&#xA;* Specifications:&#xD;&#xA; * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_equipment&#xD;&#xA; * https://senseis.xmp.net/?Equipment, https://senseis.xmp.net/?GoStones etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Selected edits&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;_(With a significant impact on the information presented)_&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br/&gt;2018-05-16 20:30 _Mussel_ (a mistranslation) replaced by _clam_ (species still unclear).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="66d24bc9-27c9-43eb-a926-c9f7d698c9e6" CreationDate="2018-05-16T20:10:07.187" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, minor formatting" Text="My community has single-bin recycling. Most consumer-level metal, plastic, and paper can go in there to be sorted at a recycling center. They don't take plastic grocery bags, cellophane, paper towels, and pizza boxes. Most of these I can recycle at a more specialized location if I'm feeling like a good citizen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So most of garbage is food, paper towels, and cellophane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm researching composting, and it seems like the only &quot;organic&quot; things I can't compost are cooked meat and dairy products. A site I'm reading mentions &quot;some paper&quot;. Maybe that means paper towels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what I'm wondering is, **what would be left after disposing of everything I can using the above methods?** I get that this is a question with technically an unbounded answer. The sites I've read so far say something like &quot;everything else!&quot; I get that. But what do most people **regularly** consume and dispose of that wouldn't go in the &quot;trash&quot; bin if they had bins for trash, recycling, and compost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing that jumps to mind is batteries, but those shouldn't be thrown in the trash if we followed their instructions. Big items like old computers or broken chairs (or whatever) don't normally go in the bin, and generally have better options for getting rid of them (donations, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if I'm doing the mostly bare minimum but still following the basic rules on all of the above, what would be left? Dirty diapers and greasy pizza boxes and blocks of cheese that went bad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel like I must be forgetting something obvious." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17010" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="66d24bc9-27c9-43eb-a926-c9f7d698c9e6" CreationDate="2018-05-16T20:10:07.187" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, minor formatting" Text="|recycling|composting|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6514" RevisionGUID="5f520dc7-dee3-4216-b474-545f5ab7e01e" CreationDate="2018-05-16T20:40:50.667" UserId="2134" Comment="more reasons against transfer switch; spelling" Text="In my current place (Morocco), the electrical utility operator does not allow feed-in. How can I create a photovoltaics installation that respects this rule? I would like to create a grid-tied installation so that grid power can be used when locally produced power is not sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Details: feed-in regulation in Morocco**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The utility operator does not offer net-metering or a feed-in rate for electricity produced by a residential photovoltaics installation. (Net metering is offered for plants connected to the high-voltage network, with the rest planned in laws but not implemented yet – [see][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, no feed-in program is offered and the power company does not allow feed-in. The typical solution here (accepted by the utility) is a manual transfer switch so that an installation functions either as off-grid installation during the day, or as normal AC-connected household without own production during the night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This solution needs buffer batteries though, an inconvenient manual transfer twice daily, and a relatively large inverter as it has to cover all loads in the house. Also, the switch will first switch to a neutral position before switching over, disconnecting everything in the house for a moment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope there are other options?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://renewablesnow.com/news/morocco-amends-renewable-energy-law-507698/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6638" RevisionGUID="fa4c5fee-6619-43c1-8647-de600405da1f" CreationDate="2018-05-16T21:02:28.213" UserId="4922" Text="Composting Meat and Dairy is entirely possible, I recommend Burying it. Otherwise it may become extra smelly and could attracts scavengers like raccoons, bears, possums etc. I typically bury items I am worried will attract critters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computer Recycling centers are a thing where I live, and my workplace has a battery recycling bin. Your local recycling center may have a battery option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an article on dairy composting: http://homeguides.sfgate.com/dairy-composting-78325.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a post where people discuss compositing meat:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.houzz.com/discussions/1686413/whats-best-way-to-compost-meat-and-dairy?m_refid=us-ptr-mpl-ir-5454-372747-10078&amp;irgwc=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Believe it or not I found an article about composting pizza boxes.&#xD;&#xA;http://keenforgreen.com/b/composting-pizza-boxes&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6639" RevisionGUID="1d133972-a670-498d-abf2-3fdbc5189024" CreationDate="2018-05-16T21:06:20.293" UserId="4922" Text="If you ship stuff from far away it increases the carbon footprint of whatever you buy. You could find some dark and light river stones in your local river, or find a beach and look for shells. Buying exotic material from far away places, regardless of how sustainable the material is not sustainable bc it creates a bigger carbon footprint to transport the material.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6640" RevisionGUID="53846c5f-82d4-4a87-b91d-57cd44320b97" CreationDate="2018-05-16T21:20:05.797" UserId="4922" Text="There are a few chapters of a good book that come to mind about the state of Confined Animal Feeding Operations or CAFO's. The book is called [&quot;The Omnivore's Dilemma&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Omnivore's_Dilemma) by Michael Pollan&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much of the corn and soy in the united states is subsidized by our government for use in feeding at CAFO's which are not at all local, feeding corn to ruminants like cows also creates huge problems for the animals which is why so much commercial animals are given antibiotics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corn and soy are not normal animal food. New Zealand is an excellent model for sustainable agricultural practices relating to producing meat and fowl. There are other practices such as rotational grazing and recycling food waste as animal feed, pigs are great at eating our food waste, and we already generate tons of food waste. There are some great documentaries about this, notably [&quot;Wasted&quot;](http://www.wastedfilm.com/videos/) link is to  a trailer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17016" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="479" RevisionGUID="efa6130a-da6d-4201-9549-ca0ab885e31b" CreationDate="2018-05-16T22:37:01.067" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/996882236061437954" />
  <row Id="17017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="f4f5f953-b8fc-4346-9882-f4b54d0d7314" CreationDate="2018-05-17T05:51:42.103" UserId="2828" Comment="Clarify as per questioner’s comment that it is about sustainable farming. Rearrange to clarify referent of ‘that’." Text="For a sustainable farm in Minnesota (USA), I'm looking for an egg-laying duck that won't need wing clipping, will survive a snowy winter, and will produce good eggs. What should I look into?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17018" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="f4f5f953-b8fc-4346-9882-f4b54d0d7314" CreationDate="2018-05-17T05:51:42.103" Comment="Proposed by 2828 approved by 3379, 3293 edit id of 532" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17019" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5534" RevisionGUID="e69a6355-c8b5-4c5e-8a44-4c875149fb67" CreationDate="2018-05-17T05:52:29.720" UserId="3293" Comment="Added relevant tag" Text="|animals|farming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17022" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6639" RevisionGUID="e2ee15e1-c21b-41b4-976c-361ffd3f15c7" CreationDate="2018-05-17T06:52:31.740" UserId="99" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17023" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6639" RevisionGUID="77a65963-9a94-42ef-b910-7a008b9434a8" CreationDate="2018-05-17T06:52:47.437" UserId="99" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="494a830e-cf81-46f9-a44a-bfccc8d28a0e" CreationDate="2018-05-18T06:18:11.820" UserId="80" Text="Some areas might have a **local soft plastic recycler**, like [RedCycle](http://www.redcycle.net.au/what-to-redcycle/) in Autralia (which lists them as &quot;Netting produce bags (any metal clips removed)&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see them as being reused as a **carry bag**, if several are somehow attached together, but again, it depends on how durable the material is, and I suspect if vastly differ depending on the type of plastic used. A big sturdy one, however, might only need a handle and could live for a while.&#xD;&#xA;Smaller ones can be used to put one type of produce in at the (super)markets before getting weighed, instead of requesting new paper/plastic bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone I know has used it to put woodchips in and place in a slopey garden to prevent erosion, but I would not recommend it (*or any use of it in the environment*, like for bird feeders) as it can break down in small pieces after being exposed to the sun, or kill wildlife that gets entangled in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of my favourite ideas, gathered from the links @salt provided and other websites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - hanging **bath toys** so they drip dry;&#xD;&#xA; - storing little bits of **leftover soap** to still be able to use them;&#xD;&#xA; - gathering **small items in the dishwasher**;&#xD;&#xA; - sew/rubber band a couple of tough ones together (or around an old cloth) as a **non-scratch dish scrubber**;&#xD;&#xA; - storing **anything that needs to breath**, really;&#xD;&#xA; - placing at the **bottom of a flower pot** to keep the dirt in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6645" RevisionGUID="92bc8ac0-272d-4ac1-8819-8f6fd9dd65f7" CreationDate="2018-05-19T13:27:55.270" UserId="1053" Text="The big challenge for recycling is composite materials. Say a &quot;juice box&quot; tetra pak which is cardboard lined with foil. The foil prevents it from going in the &quot;cardboard and paper&quot; stream and the cardboard prevents it from going in the &quot;foil&quot; stream. Shiny &quot;foil&quot; wrapping paper presents the same problem. Plastic lined cardboard cartons are another problem composite. IF you can, don't buy things in containers like these. Find a brand that comes in a can or a glass bottle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned paper towels - they can be composted even in a home compost heap if they were used, for example, when eating a peach. Dirty diapers are welcomed in many municipal compost systems, as are paper towels with nastier contents than peach juice (bacon fat, dog vomit, whatever.) Film plastic including plastic bags are less commonly taken, but I happen to live in a place that takes them. Batteries are &quot;hazardous household waste&quot; and there is often a day for them once a year; in North America many electronics stores will take them (look for a large cardboard bin vaguely near the door, usually sort of hidden behind things they can make money selling.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on where you live, things like Styrofoam egg cartons might not be taken - so choose the eggs that come in cardboard. (I take egg cartons back to the farm where I got the eggs, to be filled again for someone else.) If you buy berries in those green gridded punnets they generally can't be recycled -- I take those to the farm also so she can use them for her berries. I also reuse fruit and veggie bags many many times before recycling them. Some places don't do the clear rigid plastic that bakeries use. Some places don't do plastic plant pots, though generally the place that sold them to you with seedlings in them will take them back afterwards. By finding other forms of packaging, or other places to take the packaging back to, you can cover a lot of ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big difficulties in North America are the waxy/plasticky liners of cereal boxes, potato chip bags, and composites. This is why my mother has to throw out one small (grocery-sized) bag of garbage every six months. Everything else goes in her (or my) recycling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17033" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6646" RevisionGUID="e96e1677-7915-4950-b0b2-b9fc8da7d54a" CreationDate="2018-05-19T23:23:11.250" UserId="2914" Text="A typical [compost][1] is organic.  There is a natural chemical process for the organics to break down and can then be used in the lawn or garden.  It will tolerate some paper.  Paper came from trees so it technically is organic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycle like plastic would take much much longer to break down. They would also interfere with the natural chemical process of the organics. Plastics do not have food value plants.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastics break down with UV leaving them out in sun would be better than compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6647" RevisionGUID="88932e0c-3e70-4e31-bd53-68c3b8a6815e" CreationDate="2018-05-20T12:53:08.533" UserId="400" Text="Not much is left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made a game of it one year when I was single.  I heated with wood.  This also handled all my paper waste.  Vegetable matter went onto the compost heap.  Meat, fat, and most bones went to the dog.  I didn't buy stuff in tetrapacks.  Polyethylene is essentially a heavy wax, so with care to do it with a hot fire, it could go that way too.  So my waste stream was about 1 bag a month -- more in summer when I didn't use the fire.  Some plastics I wasn't sure of, glass jars, a few tin cans lid ends from frozen juice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Degredation time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some years ago in an oil field in, I think Oklahoma the engineers of the field collection network heard that PE didn't degrade.  So they made the network out of PE pipe.  MUCH easier to work with than steel.  Three years later the pipes were failing -- oil field had a bacteria that thought that PE was a good source of energy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I told this story to my brother, who is a professional microbiologist.  &quot;Sure,&quot; he said. &quot;If there is a chemical reaction that produces energy at reasonable temperatures there is almost certainly a bacteria that will exploit it.&quot;  I refer to this now as &quot;Skipper's Law&quot;  Not always easy to find the bacteria that will do what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem of waste is one of economics, and is fairly easily solved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A.  Require companies to accept their own products back for recycling.  This in effect requires a reverse distribution network.  It is now to the companies advantage to make products that can be easily recycled at a place closer than the factory.  They then contract their recycle obligation to a more local source. This hits products such as tetrapaks hard.  No one is willing to take them apart.  I suspect that these would quickly vanish to be replaced with plastic coated cardboard, using a plastic that was easily burnable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; B.  We used to recycle bottles.  Beer bottles in particular were universal, and made 6-12 round trips before getting lost or chipped.  The introduction of the long neck, then fancy shapes, and colours made this more difficult.  So this problem can be solved in a different way with a tax incentive.  Create a set of categories (dripper size, beverage, soft foods, hand access) and sizes.  The most popular of each container gets the lowest tax.  Something like 20c/liter base charge, then 10R^2, where R is the popularity ranking for that category most popular, rank 0, next most rank 1.  A company that uses a custom bottle now has an absurdly high rank, and pays an enormous surcharge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C. Everything is barcoded or rfid coded or taggant coded with the part and material. (A taggant is a tracer added to explosives.  It consists of a thin chunk of ceramic coated with multiple coloured glazes, then ground up.  The glazes aren't harmed by the explosion, and they can be easily sequenced with a microscope. Should be ammenable to robot sorting.)  Fluorescent dyes could be added to materials.  this allows material to be sorted by their fluorescent spectrum under UV scan. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;D.  Robotics, and machine vision.  Clever machines can sort most of the material." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="4e54a5b8-68f4-4ba3-bd69-317a77187025" CreationDate="2018-05-21T16:48:04.023" UserId="3379" Text="From Greentech Media's recent article, [Everything You Need to Know About California’s New Solar Roof Mandate](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/everything-you-need-to-know-about-californias-new-solar-roof-mandate#gs.BiyNtqQ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The solar mandate will be climate zone-specific and based on the floor area of the dwelling unit. The PV system must be sized to net out the annual kilowatt-hour energy usage of the dwelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr: For an average-sized 100 square meter house, a system of 1.7 to 3.1kW will be required, depending on climate zone.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The formula ###&#xD;&#xA;Digging in to [the code](http://energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/rulemaking/documents/2018-05-09_hearing/2019_Revised_EnergyCode.php), I found the formula on page 304, in [Part 6, Chapter 8](http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-02/TN223257-3_20180423T083004_2019_Standards_Part_6_Chapter_8_Section_1501_Revised_Express_Te.pdf), Section 150.1(c)14:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    kWPV   = (CFA x A)/1000 + (NDwell x B)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       where:&#xD;&#xA;    kWPV   = kWdc size of the PV system&#xD;&#xA;    CFA    = Conditioned floor area&#xD;&#xA;    NDwell = Number of dwelling units&#xD;&#xA;    A      = Adjustment factor from Table 150.1-C&#xD;&#xA;    B      = Dwelling adjustment factor from Table 150.1-C  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`NDwell` is 1 when looking at a single home, and `CFA` is the total floor area that will be heated and/or cooled year round (so excluding porches and balconies, etc). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Scaling and adjustment factors ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The table of values for `A` and `B` is on page 306. Based on climate zone (see below), `A` scales the floor area up or down, and `B` is an adder, or minimum requirement per dwelling, regardless of floor area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Climate zone definitions ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Climate zones are detailed in [Joint Appendix JA2-1](http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-02/TN223245-2_20180420T095408_2019_Reference_Joint_Appendix_21_JA2_Revised_Express_Terms.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Average system size ###&#xD;&#xA;Assuming an average home size of 100 m2, the range of values for required size of a PV system will be **1.7 to 3.1 kW.** Before adding `B`, the dwelling adjustment factor, the requirement is 6.2 to 16.8 watts of PV capacity per square meter of floor area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EGgk3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lonN1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="02e33986-d8e2-4bc2-827b-c41e0f4cdb07" CreationDate="2018-05-22T11:00:07.780" UserId="5602" Text="Except generating a different kind of &quot;money value&quot; crypto currencies do not generate any additional value, like food production, industry factories or any other kind of enterprises. Compared to currencies working with sophisticated papers and metals that have to be changed after some time of use by new notes and coins, crypto currencies do not seem to consume materials. However, they are generated in big data centres that need a lot of power to run. They say that the [Bitcoin-System already consumes as much energy like the whole Swiss economy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can data centres operated with sustainable energies make crypto currencies sustainable or will their power demand always be above sustainable regeneration of power? I take into account that complexity of future algorithms will increase. So I wonder whether less energy consumption of data centres combined with more efficient sustainable power generation can lead to a sustainable solutions of crypto currencies or will they fail due to this conflict?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read the [other question according to Bitcoins][2], but think that my question is dfferent to that one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/bitcoin-energieverbrauch-fuer-produktion-und-verwaltung-a-1208635.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6345/will-bitcoin-help-us-to-decentralise-our-communities-and-help-us-live-a-more-sus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="02e33986-d8e2-4bc2-827b-c41e0f4cdb07" CreationDate="2018-05-22T11:00:07.780" UserId="5602" Text="Will crypto currencies fail due to failure sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="02e33986-d8e2-4bc2-827b-c41e0f4cdb07" CreationDate="2018-05-22T11:00:07.780" UserId="5602" Text="|solar-power|energy-efficiency|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17039" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="df0f7c26-3b8d-487f-a8a8-6cd238f5cb1b" CreationDate="2018-05-22T11:08:26.447" UserId="3293" Comment="edited tags" Text="|solar-power|energy|energy-efficiency|wind-power|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="17d353e0-2b1f-4386-a232-f2cfcbd5b4d6" CreationDate="2018-05-22T19:38:32.420" UserId="5602" Comment="added 202 characters in body" Text="Except generating a different kind of &quot;money value&quot; crypto currencies do not generate any additional value, like food production, industry factories or any other kind of enterprises. Compared to currencies working with sophisticated papers and metals that have to be changed after some time of use by new notes and coins, crypto currencies do not seem to consume materials. However, they are generated in big data centres that need a lot of power to run. They say that the [Bitcoin-System already consumes as much energy like the whole Swiss economy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An [other article of the author][2] may probably make clearer his assumptions .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can data centres operated with sustainable energies make crypto currencies sustainable or will their power demand always be above sustainable regeneration of power? I take into account that complexity of future algorithms will increase. So I wonder whether less energy consumption of data centres combined with more efficient sustainable power generation can lead to a sustainable solutions of crypto currencies or will they fail due to this conflict?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read the [other question according to Bitcoins][3], but think that my question is dfferent to that one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/bitcoin-energieverbrauch-fuer-produktion-und-verwaltung-a-1208635.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/alex-de-vries-bitcoins-growing-energy-problem-crypto-mining-article-analysis/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6345/will-bitcoin-help-us-to-decentralise-our-communities-and-help-us-live-a-more-sus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17041" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="0c30f331-85d0-484b-a267-07196ffec870" CreationDate="2018-05-22T20:32:28.103" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="3744ebf4-6e57-41f2-815f-c709786c1e25" CreationDate="2018-05-22T22:11:02.230" UserId="5602" Comment="With respect to the made comments I edited title and text to open the question to more general aspects." Text="Except generating a different kind of &quot;money value&quot;, what is the sustainable value of crypto currencies compared to the energy consumed to generate them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to currencies working with sophisticated papers and metals that have to be changed after some time of use by new notes and coins, crypto currencies do not seem to consume materials. However, they are generated in big data centres that need a lot of power to run. They say that the [Bitcoin-System already consumes as much energy like the whole Swiss economy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the assumptions of the author were considered as &quot;flawed&quot; I recommend to read [his thoughts and study][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read the [other question according to Bitcoins][3], but think that my question is different to that one, even after having edited title and text, which now allows to discuss above the used technology or algorithms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/bitcoin-energieverbrauch-fuer-produktion-und-verwaltung-a-1208635.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118301776?_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_origin=gateway&amp;_docanchor=&amp;md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6345/will-bitcoin-help-us-to-decentralise-our-communities-and-help-us-live-a-more-sus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17044" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="3744ebf4-6e57-41f2-815f-c709786c1e25" CreationDate="2018-05-22T22:11:02.230" UserId="5602" Comment="With respect to the made comments I edited title and text to open the question to more general aspects." Text="Are crypto currencies sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6650" RevisionGUID="0cfef4c9-feea-4c20-95a4-ceda52017fba" CreationDate="2018-05-23T12:55:37.893" UserId="4886" Text="The cryptos that require large/increasing/exponential amount of processing power/electricity to function are not sustainable according to the (resource-related) meaning of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, however, we ignore those — because they will clearly self-terminate — and just look at the cryptos that *don't* require huge amounts of energy to exist, then we've got a more even playing field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately for cryptos, they are now competing against an established monetary system where the vast majority of all current 'money' is already electronic.  Physical cash makes up a negligible percentage of total financial transactions in the developed world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the real sustainability question is not really about whether &quot;cryptographic hashing is more environmentally sustainable than plastic notes and metal coins&quot;, rather it's about whether &quot;the modern electronic financial system is more environmentally sustainable than a DLT system&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the modern electronic financial system is fiat and backed quite literally by nation states bullying each other and bombing each other out of existence with their armed forces, one could quite easily posit the notion that the environmental impact of such a system is *profound*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since non-government DLT systems are decentralised and backed by math, not war, it is easy to posit the notion that such a system can be sustainably powered by ever-greening electrical grid and therefore have a much lower long-term environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr**:  Not all cryptocurrencies are sustainable.  Those that aren't will go extinct in short order.  Those that remain need to be contrasted with a primarily cashless modern financial system.  Upon doing so, the forces that back the two come into play.  At that point you are comparing greening grid math to war machines.  Ergo: **Cryptocurrencies are *more* sustainable, but not the cryptos you're thinking of, and not for the obvious reasons**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6650" RevisionGUID="415d38b4-d751-464c-a0c1-45183bb2337c" CreationDate="2018-05-23T13:02:44.787" UserId="4886" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="The cryptos that require large/increasing/exponential amount of processing power/electricity to function are not sustainable according to the (resource-related) meaning of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, however, we ignore those — because they will clearly self-terminate — and just look at the cryptos that *don't* require huge amounts of energy to exist, then we've got a more even playing field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately for cryptos, they are now competing against an established monetary system where the vast majority of all current 'money' is already electronic.  Physical cash makes up a negligible percentage of total financial transactions in the developed world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the real sustainability question is not really about whether &quot;cryptographic hashing is more environmentally sustainable than plastic notes and metal coins&quot;, rather it's about whether &quot;the modern electronic financial system is more environmentally sustainable than a DLT system&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the modern electronic financial system is fiat and backed quite literally by nation states bullying each other and bombing each other out of existence with their armed forces, one could quite easily posit the notion that the environmental impact of such a system is *profound*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since non-government DLT systems are decentralised and backed by math, not war, it is easy to posit the notion that such a system can be sustainably powered by ever-greening electrical grid and therefore have a much lower long-term environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr**:  Not all cryptocurrencies are sustainable.  Those that aren't will go extinct in short order.  Those that remain need to be contrasted with a primarily cashless modern financial system.  Upon doing so, the forces that back the two come into play.  At that point you are comparing greening grid math to war machines.  Ergo: **Cryptocurrencies are *more* sustainable, but not the cryptos you're thinking of, and not for the superficially-obvious reasons**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6650" RevisionGUID="cfe1a365-2b25-4f5d-8ca9-6bc290fa470f" CreationDate="2018-05-23T13:16:02.590" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The cryptos that require large/increasing/exponential amount of processing power/electricity to function are not sustainable according to the (resource-related) meaning of the word.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, however, we ignore those — because they will clearly self-terminate — and just look at the cryptos that *don't* require huge amounts of energy to exist, then we've got a more even playing field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately for cryptos, they are now competing against an established monetary system where the vast majority of all current 'money' is already electronic.  Physical cash makes up a negligible percentage of total financial transactions in the developed world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the real sustainability question is not really about whether &quot;cryptographic hashing is more environmentally sustainable than plastic notes and metal coins&quot;, rather it's about whether &quot;the modern electronic financial system is more environmentally sustainable than a DLT system&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the modern electronic financial system is fiat and backed quite literally by nation states bullying each other and bombing each other out of existence with their armed forces, one could quite easily posit the notion that the environmental impact of such a system is *profound*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since non-government DLT systems are decentralised and backed by math, not war, it is easy to posit the notion that such systems can be sustainably powered by ever-greening electrical grid and therefore have a much lower long-term environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr**:  Not all cryptocurrencies are sustainable.  Those that aren't will go extinct in short order.  Those that remain need to be contrasted with a primarily cashless modern financial system.  Upon doing so, the forces that back the two come into play.  At that point you are comparing greening grid math to war machines.  Ergo: **Cryptocurrencies are *more* sustainable, but not the cryptos you're thinking of, and not for the superficially-obvious reasons**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17048" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6648" RevisionGUID="98496d6e-463d-4745-88e1-189deba00f3c" CreationDate="2018-05-23T15:29:37.243" UserId="3379" Comment="resized images" Text="From Greentech Media's recent article, [Everything You Need to Know About California’s New Solar Roof Mandate](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/everything-you-need-to-know-about-californias-new-solar-roof-mandate#gs.BiyNtqQ):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The solar mandate will be climate zone-specific and based on the floor area of the dwelling unit. The PV system must be sized to net out the annual kilowatt-hour energy usage of the dwelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This gave me a starting point to dig into the code -- a text search on &quot;floor area&quot; finally led to the section with the formula used to determine the exact capacity, detailed below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr: For an average-sized 100 square meter house, a system of 1.7 to 3.1kW will be required, depending on climate zone.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The formula ###&#xD;&#xA;Digging in to [the code](http://energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/rulemaking/documents/2018-05-09_hearing/2019_Revised_EnergyCode.php), I found the formula on page 304, in [Part 6, Chapter 8](http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-02/TN223257-3_20180423T083004_2019_Standards_Part_6_Chapter_8_Section_1501_Revised_Express_Te.pdf), Section 150.1(c)14:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    kWPV   = (CFA x A)/1000 + (NDwell x B)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       where:&#xD;&#xA;    kWPV   = kWdc size of the PV system&#xD;&#xA;    CFA    = Conditioned floor area&#xD;&#xA;    NDwell = Number of dwelling units&#xD;&#xA;    A      = Adjustment factor from Table 150.1-C&#xD;&#xA;    B      = Dwelling adjustment factor from Table 150.1-C  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`NDwell` is 1 when looking at a single home, and `CFA` is the total floor area that will be heated and/or cooled year round (so excluding porches and balconies, etc). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Scaling and adjustment factors ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The table of values for `A` and `B` is on page 306. Based on climate zone (see below), `A` scales the floor area up or down, and `B` is an adder, or minimum requirement per dwelling, regardless of floor area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Table 105.1-C -- CFA and Dwelling adjustment Factors][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Climate zone definitions ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Climate zones are detailed in [Joint Appendix JA2-1](http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-BSTD-02/TN223245-2_20180420T095408_2019_Reference_Joint_Appendix_21_JA2_Revised_Express_Terms.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![California Building Climate Zones][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Average system size ###&#xD;&#xA;Assuming an average home size of 100 m2, the range of values for required size of a PV system will be **1.7 to 3.1 kW.** Before adding `B`, the dwelling adjustment factor, the requirement is 6.2 to 16.8 watts of PV capacity per square meter of floor area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EGgk3l.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lonN1l.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6651" RevisionGUID="7eb86335-f64a-4af7-a404-7eb1796aeffa" CreationDate="2018-05-23T21:33:16.170" UserId="5746" Text="I say go back to mailing envelopes of heavy brown paper, like the used paper bags in the Super markets.   Why did this plastic bubble inside and outside take the front runner as protecting the contents?  Let's pack our mailings with extra newspaper (that is biodegradable). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="55bcaa25-c6e2-4169-bdf7-be21ff8816da" CreationDate="2018-05-24T18:12:09.453" UserId="4604" Text="I have a sealed tumbler compost bin because I read that the high heat can help neutralize seeds from weed cast offs, that said I've also been considering the benefits of vermicomposting. As I pay more attention to what I'm throwing away I find I really do produce enough waste (junk mail, kitchen scraps, coffee grounds, leaves) to maintain two seperate, but preferably pipelined compost projects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to keep the hot composter because it's high heat can kill weed seeds, I've tossed pretty much every weed in there since I started, it's nice to not have it filling my garbage bin. Having read that vermicomposted soil is generally better for your garden then hot composted soil, I'd like to look into that as well, but not as an alternative to hot composting. Would worms be able to make further use of hot-composted soil (after allowing it to cool for a minute), or do they need fresh veggie scraps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="55bcaa25-c6e2-4169-bdf7-be21ff8816da" CreationDate="2018-05-24T18:12:09.453" UserId="4604" Text="Is hotcomposted material still beneficial to worms, or have the worm suitable nutrients already been consumed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="55bcaa25-c6e2-4169-bdf7-be21ff8816da" CreationDate="2018-05-24T18:12:09.453" UserId="4604" Text="|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6653" RevisionGUID="bc90c7da-1783-4200-ab8b-13616e319dc2" CreationDate="2018-05-24T18:42:47.677" UserId="4604" Text="I'm considering vermicomposting as a next step to hot composting, release the red worms directly into my garden bed ([using this method][1]), but wanted to check before ordering a batch of worms -- are these worms considered invasive in any way? It would be a bit of a faux pas to harm the ecosystem while trying to help it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, I'm in southeast Kansas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/vermicompost-right-in-your-garden-make-a-worm-bucket.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17055" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6653" RevisionGUID="bc90c7da-1783-4200-ab8b-13616e319dc2" CreationDate="2018-05-24T18:42:47.677" UserId="4604" Text="Are the red worms suggested for vermicomposting considering an invasive species in any localities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17056" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6653" RevisionGUID="bc90c7da-1783-4200-ab8b-13616e319dc2" CreationDate="2018-05-24T18:42:47.677" UserId="4604" Text="|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="e6468ba3-94b8-43dd-aa3d-5c01d087a47a" CreationDate="2018-05-24T19:08:59.937" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, minor formatting" Text="I have a sealed tumbler compost bin because I read that the high heat can help neutralize seeds from weed cast offs, that said I've also been considering the benefits of vermicomposting. As I pay more attention to what I'm throwing away I find I really do produce enough waste (junk mail, kitchen scraps, coffee grounds, leaves) to maintain two separate, but preferably pipelined compost projects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to keep the hot composter because it's high heat can kill weed seeds, I've tossed pretty much every weed in there since I started, it's nice to not have it filling my garbage bin. Having read that vermicomposted soil is generally better for your garden then hot composted soil, I'd like to look into that as well, but not as an alternative to hot composting. Would worms be able to make further use of hot-composted soil (after allowing it to cool for a minute), or do they need fresh veggie scraps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17058" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="e6468ba3-94b8-43dd-aa3d-5c01d087a47a" CreationDate="2018-05-24T19:08:59.937" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, minor formatting" Text="Is hot composted material still beneficial to worms, or have the worm suitable nutrients already been consumed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17059" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="e6468ba3-94b8-43dd-aa3d-5c01d087a47a" CreationDate="2018-05-24T19:08:59.937" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, minor formatting" Text="|composting|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17060" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6653" RevisionGUID="a74ec0b3-4fb3-423e-a07f-70b9e3d13a6b" CreationDate="2018-05-24T19:11:10.203" UserId="3379" Comment="Title tweaks, minor edits." Text="I'm considering vermicomposting as a next step to hot composting, and plan to release the red worms directly into my garden bed ([using a worm bucket][1]), but wanted to check before ordering a batch of worms -- are these worms considered invasive in any way? It would be a bit of a faux pas to harm the ecosystem while trying to help it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, I'm in southeast Kansas, USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.treehugger.com/green-food/vermicompost-right-in-your-garden-make-a-worm-bucket.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17061" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6653" RevisionGUID="a74ec0b3-4fb3-423e-a07f-70b9e3d13a6b" CreationDate="2018-05-24T19:11:10.203" UserId="3379" Comment="Title tweaks, minor edits." Text="Are the red worms suggested for vermicomposting considered an invasive species?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17062" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6653" RevisionGUID="a74ec0b3-4fb3-423e-a07f-70b9e3d13a6b" CreationDate="2018-05-24T19:11:10.203" UserId="3379" Comment="Title tweaks, minor edits." Text="|environmental-impact|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6654" RevisionGUID="870090f4-3c87-42c7-a9d8-37e0584099bc" CreationDate="2018-05-24T21:06:54.107" UserId="5602" Text="Does [this][1] help you? If not probably the following articles may help you in more detail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Redwormcomposting][2] (... there doesn’t seem to be strong evidence suggesting that they pose a threat to natural ecosystems) and [Allaboutwildlife][3] and [NYtimes][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that most people consider red worms as beneficial, but all consequences are not yet known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_earthworms_of_North_America&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.redwormcomposting.com/general-commentary/do-composting-worms-pose-a-threat-as-invasive-species/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.allaboutwildlife.com/invasive-species/invasive-eartworms-in-american-soil/4545&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/science/researchers-build-a-case-for-earthworm-s-slimy-reputation.html?scp=1&amp;sq=invasive%20worms&amp;st=cse&amp;pagewanted=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6655" RevisionGUID="fc7f66be-ee13-444f-9370-86585f474343" CreationDate="2018-05-24T22:45:43.480" UserId="4834" Text="Worms don't eat a lot of fresh veggie scraps.  Instead, they eat [&quot;living organisms such as nematodes, protozoans, rotifers, bacteria, fungi in soil.&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you manage your compost pile so that it is teeming with these soil organisms (&quot;hot composting&quot; or [&quot;thermal composting&quot;][2] might do this or it might not, there are a _lot_ of variations covered by this term and the processes and end results are quite different), there will be plenty of great stuff in it for worms to eat.  Of course, it seems that they'd be just as happy eating it in your backyard as they would be eating it in a carefully managed worm bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.learner.org/jnorth/search/WormNotes3.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.soilfoodweb.com/Thermal_Compost.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17065" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6637" RevisionGUID="4868de4e-828e-4b4c-b000-caf35b4ff108" CreationDate="2018-05-24T22:54:13.057" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/999785667063410688" />
  <row Id="17066" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="e0254761-3d9c-4352-adb9-7778c4b1203f" CreationDate="2018-05-25T12:44:45.510" UserId="3293" Comment="43" />
  <row Id="17067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6656" RevisionGUID="dfa4f025-2d40-4b5a-955d-4f3f4b203f64" CreationDate="2018-05-25T16:37:57.857" UserId="3379" Text="**Yes, solar panels can be recycled -- in Europe this is required by law, and technology exists and is quickly being improved to facilitate this.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Legal requirements&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe, recycling of solar panels is required by law. Perhaps you've seen this symbol on some of your electronics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The WEEE symbol][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the symbol for the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive. [From Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Electrical_and_Electronic_Equipment_Directive):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The WEEE Directive is the European Community Directive 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) which, together with the RoHS Directive 2002/95/EC, became European Law in February 2003. The WEEE Directive set collection, recycling and recovery targets for all types of electrical goods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This symbol now appears on all solar panels in EU countries. From an [International Energy Agency - Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme  (IEA-PVPS) report on PV recycling technologies](http://iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=459):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The WEEE] addresses the waste management of all electronics, including waste PV modules, in the EU member states. It requires 75%/65% (recovery/recycling rate) of waste PV modules by mass to be recycled through 2016, then increases to 80%/75% through 2018 and to 85%/80% thereafter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**From 2019 onwards, the EU will require 80% of solar panels to be recycled at the end of life, with greater than 85% recovery of usable materials.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## PV recycling technology trends&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The IEA-PVPS performs periodic technical reviews of PV recycling technologies and trends. This work is a collaborative effort of government organizations, non-profit organizations, and academic researchers from the U.S., the Netherlands, China, Japan, Korea, Belgium, and the European Union.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The report quoted above, titled &quot;[End‐of‐Life Management of Photovoltaic Panels: Trends in PV Module Recycling Technologies](http://iea-pvps.org/index.php?id=459)&quot;, goes on to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In addition to such a regulatory scheme [as the WEEE], it is obvious that recycling technologies must be available to meet the increasing requirements of WEEE. Available recycling facilities that treat PV modules can meet current WEEE requirements; additional research and development (R&amp;D) is required to meet subsequent WEEE requirements at reasonable cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A review of patents and R&amp;D spending on PV recycling technologies is then performed. The authors identify 178 different patents related to PV recycling technologies since 1976, with the rate increasing dramatically since 2009.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Notable examples&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **First Solar**, one of the largest solar panel manufacturers with operations in the US, Germany, and Malaysia, has [a process which can recover up to 90% of the materials](http://www.firstsolar.com/en/Modules/Recycling) from the panels they produce.&#xD;&#xA; - **PV Cycle**, a European waste management program for manufacturers and sellers, [developed a process which can recover up to 96% of materials](http://www.pvcycle.org/press/breakthrough-in-pv-module-recycling/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lvI5It.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="92a75ba5-422b-4cac-8ecc-5b7dcbe7708b" CreationDate="2018-05-27T03:57:15.507" UserId="2272" Text="In many ways, history repeats itself, when the introduction of most none natives (with-in an ecosystem) the impact often is not good. I'm not studied on the red worm per se, but I promote the feeding of soil.  I found this link http://nesoil.com/properties/horizons/sld003.htm that talks about &quot;O Horizon&quot; being the layers of soil similar to those found in nature. &#xD;&#xA; It is wise to know if one's methods promote or deter soil biodiversity. Permaculture ideas are aware of the need for soil biodiversity however in the context of balance wherein production, product and waste all meet within a complete circle and do not interfere with the natural ecosystem.  If the red worm in question was introduced into a balanced ecosystem there would presumably be no concern. However, the concern would be the misuse of a model and to assume it okay.  It might be beneficial to know if there are any natural predators of red worms which might be within the ecosystem where red worms are being used. Then those natural predators would balance the red worms. Besides reptiles and frogs, there are centipedes and millipedes that attack worms so there should be a balance within to encourage the overall practice worthy.        " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6658" RevisionGUID="ec27d5b6-6749-4004-94ca-c881508d57a7" CreationDate="2018-05-27T05:33:06.740" UserId="2272" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="In many ways, history repeats itself, when the introduction of most none natives (with-in an ecosystem) the impact often is not good. I'm not studied on the red worm per se, but I promote the feeding of soil.  I found this link http://nesoil.com/properties/horizons/sld003.htm that talks about &quot;O Horizon&quot; being the layers of soil similar to those found in nature. &#xD;&#xA; It is wise to know if one's methods promote or deter soil biodiversity. One needs to be aware of the need for soil biodiversity however in the context of balance wherein production, product and waste all meet within a complete circle and do not interfere with the natural ecosystem.  If the red worm in question was introduced into a balanced ecosystem there would presumably be no concern. However, the concern would be the misuse of a model and to assume it okay.  It might be beneficial to know if there are any natural predators of red worms which might be within the ecosystem where red worms are being used. Then those natural predators would balance the red worms. Besides reptiles and frogs, there are centipedes and millipedes that attack worms so there should be a balance within to encourage the overall practice worthy.        " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17074" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="28b46cfd-38d5-4cf1-9505-bb09e61be5b6" CreationDate="2018-05-27T09:49:23.843" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17078" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6653" RevisionGUID="812ce0d8-c408-4045-b36f-560a3b98c015" CreationDate="2018-05-27T22:55:39.930" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1000873195157803008" />
  <row Id="17079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6654" RevisionGUID="f8167a03-ff37-475a-8115-4b9cc9e2b319" CreationDate="2018-05-28T11:37:57.393" UserId="5602" Comment="added 1471 characters in body" Text="The article [Earthworms as invasive species in Wikipedia][1] starts with a clear statement: &quot;Earthworms are invasive species throughout the world.&quot; So there seems to be no doubt about general invasion of worms - They are invasive and they are already distributed over the world. However, questions should be others, like &quot;are they already in my area?&quot; and &quot;If so, did they change things, like driving out other species or threaten our basis for life?&quot; and in this case &quot;What about the &quot;Red Wiggler?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[About North America][2] the article doesn't stress about the red worm (wiggler), which at least implies that red worms didn't come up as a major problem yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Redwormcomposting][3]: &quot;For one thing, these worms don’t tend to occur in “natural” habitats at all – but rather, tend to be found in concentrations of very rich organic matter such as manure and compost heaps. It’s not so much that they won’t survive in decaying leaf litter (they likely would) – it’s more that the chances of them actually thriving in this environment seems quite unlikely. Some experts cite the inability of Red Worms to withstand cold winter temperatures as one of the main reasons for there being less of a concern with them – I’ve actually found them to be quite cold-tolerant, so I’m somewhat less inclined to build an argument around that, but I guess it would be location dependent (they seem to do ok with minimal protection here in Southern Ontario – but in more northerly regions, and/or in more of a “natural” environment, perhaps they don’t overwinter nearly as easily).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further sources: [Allaboutwildlife][4] and [NYtimes][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that most people consider red worms as beneficial and probably not dangerous for nature, but all consequences are not yet known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthworms_as_invasive_species&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_earthworms_of_North_America&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.redwormcomposting.com/general-commentary/do-composting-worms-pose-a-threat-as-invasive-species/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.allaboutwildlife.com/invasive-species/invasive-eartworms-in-american-soil/4545&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/science/researchers-build-a-case-for-earthworm-s-slimy-reputation.html?scp=1&amp;sq=invasive%20worms&amp;st=cse&amp;pagewanted=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="edd10151-0f9e-4971-8f79-989b8b2a5f4a" CreationDate="2018-05-29T02:49:02.047" UserId="2942" Text="USB cables seem to be a small but relentless part of throw-away culture. Inevitably, cables stop working well and/or get lost, and a new one is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there any USB cables produced with minimal environmental footprint in mind?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I try to search the web for this sort of thing, all I get is gimmicky plastic garbage designed to harness renewable energy (i.e. &quot;window mounted portable solar panel to charge your phone from the sun during your commute!&quot; - the irony is killing me, among other things) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17081" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="edd10151-0f9e-4971-8f79-989b8b2a5f4a" CreationDate="2018-05-29T02:49:02.047" UserId="2942" Text="What's the most environmentally friendly micro USB charging cable...if any?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17082" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="edd10151-0f9e-4971-8f79-989b8b2a5f4a" CreationDate="2018-05-29T02:49:02.047" UserId="2942" Text="|ecological-footprint|green-it|product-design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17083" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6652" RevisionGUID="343f0e51-5d66-4ae3-83d6-abb27b22c7fe" CreationDate="2018-05-29T04:56:08.667" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1001326300886429696" />
  <row Id="17084" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6660" RevisionGUID="9b5a63b9-ae55-4d26-88d7-3f3f3f65ea67" CreationDate="2018-05-29T07:56:09.197" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1001371601575825408" />
  <row Id="17085" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="152" RevisionGUID="7dc18ebb-0146-45ba-8a0b-956e0a63c88e" CreationDate="2018-05-29T09:01:19.030" UserId="3293" Comment="43" />
  <row Id="17086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6661" RevisionGUID="08d42c18-4e8f-4114-84f4-257ed1147768" CreationDate="2018-05-29T10:24:08.863" UserId="5762" Text="I have been told that pine is a natural de-wormer for goats. I always give mine a few descent size branches when they show signs of worms. They usually will try their hardest to get to the branches even when they have plenty to forage on. Never had any issues and the worm problem is usually eliminated.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17088" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6621" RevisionGUID="cf887afc-afc7-4471-9b8f-0f60ac32cb94" CreationDate="2018-05-29T13:58:56.673" UserId="3379" Comment="edited title" Text="What capacity solar system is required for new homes under the California 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6663" RevisionGUID="3d987f46-ebf7-46bd-a979-375c05175834" CreationDate="2018-05-29T19:21:36.857" UserId="4922" Text="You can always learn to solder, and make your own cables. By re-using electronic scrap you'll prevent the need for new cables. Then it can be as long as you need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6664" RevisionGUID="784bd57d-aa8a-47f8-be9c-26763bd37437" CreationDate="2018-05-30T22:55:38.173" UserId="2914" Text="Just buy a used USB cable.  You can go to a computer recycler and they will have thousands." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17093" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6621" RevisionGUID="c723df4c-367a-4bd0-8db9-1c7716267946" CreationDate="2018-05-31T02:02:49.707" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1002007460155150337" />
  <row Id="17094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="00a47ecd-fd4e-4163-b1d8-a2c44d8e2a31" CreationDate="2018-05-31T03:29:50.870" UserId="5769" Text="I currently am a recent graduate and I am living in a place that does not have AC. I am looking to buy a portable AC or to buy a dehumidifier. I currently live in Minnesota and sleeping at night when its 75+ in the room is not my style. Is it better to invest in a dehumidifier or a portable AC at this point? If the Portable AC I need one that is going to be able to fit through a 17inch by 64 inch window... Please any help is greatly appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17095" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="00a47ecd-fd4e-4163-b1d8-a2c44d8e2a31" CreationDate="2018-05-31T03:29:50.870" UserId="5769" Text="Portable AC or Dehumidifier?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17096" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="00a47ecd-fd4e-4163-b1d8-a2c44d8e2a31" CreationDate="2018-05-31T03:29:50.870" UserId="5769" Text="|home|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6665" RevisionGUID="a0e3a7aa-51e5-4d4e-b521-4a3a1a647eb1" CreationDate="2018-05-31T07:34:27.197" UserId="99" Comment="added international units" Text="I currently am a recent graduate and I am living in a place that does not have AC. I am looking to buy a portable AC or to buy a dehumidifier. I currently live in Minnesota and sleeping at night when its 75+°F (24+°C) in the room is not my style. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it better to invest in a dehumidifier or a portable AC at this point? If the Portable AC I need one that is going to be able to fit through a 17 x 64 inch (43 x 162 cm) window... Please any help is greatly appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6666" RevisionGUID="cbc2de27-b155-45e8-92a4-981e2d344db7" CreationDate="2018-05-31T14:34:28.970" UserId="4922" Text="In more outhouse oriented times, folk would use old corn cobs. Giving us the expression 'corn-hole'" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6667" RevisionGUID="4998c5a9-4602-4a4b-ab81-5cdef0d35e92" CreationDate="2018-05-31T17:56:45.873" UserId="3379" Text="**tl;dr: No, shipping plastic waste to China for recycling does not offset the benefits, as it reduces the net energy savings by 3% or less.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The most common plastic&#xD;&#xA;To answer this question I'll look at polyethylene (PE), which is the most common plastic (according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three main categories of polyethylene (also [from Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **PET** (polyethylene terephthalate), used in polyester fibers, drink bottles, tote bags, furniture, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - **HDPE** (High-density polyethylene), used in bottles, playground equipment, plastic lumber, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - **LDPE** (Low-density polyethylene), used in plastic bags, six pack rings, tubing, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Oil and gas for PE production&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PE is made from ethylene, which can be made from either natural gas or crude oil. Since ethylene production also generates other useful products, the amount of oil or gas used to produce PE (as a raw material) is a bit tricky to track down. However based on [the global production of ethylene](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b04573), PE production uses less than 3% of [global crude oil production](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production), and less than 4% of [global natural gas production](https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/natural-gas/natural-gas-production.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy savings from PE recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More significant, and easier to track, is the amount of **energy** used in PE production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [2003 life cycle assessment from the University of Naples](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02978432) found that recycling of PE takes from 40 to 55 MJ per kg, while production from raw materials requires 77 to 80 MJ per kg. The difference is a savings of 22 to 40 megajoules (MJ) per kg (roughly **6 to 11 kWh/kg**). This study is specific to Italy, and unfortunately the details are behind a paywall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2010 the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR), the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), and the PET Resin Association (PETRA) funded a life cycle analysis of PET and HDPE recycling. The study is available here [&quot;Life Cycle Inventory of 100% Postconsumer HDPE and PET Recycled Resin from Postconsumer Containers and Packaging&quot;](https://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news-releases/New-Study-Confirms-Recycling-Plastics-Significantly-Reduces-Energy-Use-and-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This report provides the following data on energy use of recycled vs &quot;virgin&quot; plastic production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Raw HDPE takes 35.8 MMBtu per 1,000 lbs (23 kWh/kg), while recycled HDPE requires 3.87 to 4.24 MMBtu per 1,000 lbs (2.5 to 2.7 kWh/kg), depending on whether collection is allocated by weight or volume. **This is a savings of roughly 20 kWh/kg.**&#xD;&#xA; - Raw PET takes 31.9 MMBtu per 1,000 lbs (20.6 kWh/kg), while recycled PET requires 5.18 to 5.45 MMBtu per 1,000 lbs (3.3 to 3.5 kWh/kg). **This is a savings of roughly 17 kWh/kg.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This assessment is for the US, and includes collection and processing of plastics for recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Shipping across the Pacific&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming an average speed of 15 knots, energy usage is between 0.004 and 0.008 kWh per nautical mile per tonne (kWh/n.m./DWT) for larger classes of ships [(source)](http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents/E-book.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the ports and route, shipping from the US to China involves [a journey of 6,000 to 11,000 nautical miles](https://sea-distances.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus shipping plastic from the U.S. to China will require from **24 to 88 kWh/tonne**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Energy savings from recycling:   6,000 to 20,000 kWh/tonne&#xD;&#xA;The specific energy savings from PE recycling depends on the type of PE and the allocation method used (whether by weight or volume).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Energy consumption for shipping:    24 to     88 kWh/tonne&#xD;&#xA;This value depends on the vessel, speed, and route between the U.S. and China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In the worst-case scenario (including shipping the plastic back to the U.S.), shipping plastic for recycling reduces the energy savings by **2.9%** .&#xD;&#xA; - In the best case scenario, savings are reduced by **0.12%**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling plastic saves so much energy (a good thing!) and shipping things across the ocean uses so little energy (also a good thing!), that shipping our dirty plastic to China for recycling isn't actually terrible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6668" RevisionGUID="45d84fb4-d16c-4ac8-a92d-8bc3d0a96a5e" CreationDate="2018-05-31T19:50:39.630" UserId="3379" Text="**No.** The letter rankings cannot be compared between nations in the EU, as each nation has a different number of grades (or no grades at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [&quot;A comparative analysis of the energy performance certificates schemes within the European Union: Implementing options and policy recommendations&quot;](https://www.eceee.org/library/conference_proceedings/eceee_Summer_Studies/2011/2-current-energy-efficiency-policies-on-stage-and-backstage/a-comparative-analysis-of-the-energy-performance-certificates-schemes-within-the-european-union-implementing-options-and-policy-recommendations/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Blockquote][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because each nation has its own method (within EU guidelines) for how EPCs are developed. It's possible that grades may be comparable between two specific nations, however you'd need to look at each nation's specific legislation around EPCs in order to compare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Hiam4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="6bf330f7-cf74-419a-a62b-85c72c32cdb1" CreationDate="2018-06-01T00:54:39.747" UserId="80" Comment="typos" Text="Some areas might have a **local soft plastic recycler**, like [RedCycle](http://www.redcycle.net.au/what-to-redcycle/) in Autralia (which lists them as &quot;Netting produce bags (any metal clips removed)&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see them as being reused as a **carry bag**, if several are somehow attached together, but again, it depends on how durable the material is, and I suspect it vastly differs depending on the type of plastic used. A big sturdy one, however, might only need a handle and could live for a while.&#xD;&#xA;Smaller ones can be used to put one type of produce in at the (super)markets before getting weighed, instead of requesting new paper/plastic bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone I know has used it to put woodchips in and place in a slopey garden to prevent erosion, but I would not recommend it (*or any use of it in the environment*, like for bird feeders) as it can break down in small pieces after being exposed to the sun, or kill wildlife that gets entangled in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of my favourite ideas, gathered from the links @salt provided and other websites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - hanging **bath toys** so they drip dry;&#xD;&#xA; - storing little bits of **leftover soap** to still be able to use them;&#xD;&#xA; - gathering **small items in the dishwasher**;&#xD;&#xA; - sew/rubber band a couple of tough ones together (or around an old cloth) as a **non-scratch dish scrubber**;&#xD;&#xA; - storing **anything that needs to breath**, really;&#xD;&#xA; - placing at the **bottom of a flower pot** to keep the dirt in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6667" RevisionGUID="3d58177a-424a-4e0d-993b-43a3de4957fa" CreationDate="2018-06-01T12:56:11.497" UserId="3379" Comment="typos, formatting" Text="**tl;dr: No, shipping plastic waste to China for recycling does not offset the benefits, as it reduces the net energy savings by 3% or less.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Polyethylene, The most common plastic&#xD;&#xA;According to Wikipedia, **[polyethylene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene)** is the most common type of plastic. There are three main categories of polyethylene (also [from Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **PET** (polyethylene terephthalate), used in polyester fibers, drink bottles, tote bags, furniture, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - **HDPE** (High-density polyethylene), used in bottles, playground equipment, plastic lumber, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - **LDPE** (Low-density polyethylene), used in plastic bags, six pack rings, tubing, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Oil and gas for PE production&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PE is made from ethylene, which can be produced from either natural gas or crude oil. Since ethylene production also generates other useful products, the amount of oil or gas specifically used to produce PE is a bit tricky to track down. However based on [the global production of ethylene](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b04573), PE production uses less than 3% of [global crude oil production](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production), and less than 4% of [global natural gas production](https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/natural-gas/natural-gas-production.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Energy savings from PE recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More significant, and easier to track, is the amount of **energy** used in PE production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [2003 life cycle assessment from the University of Naples](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02978432) found that recycling of PE takes from 40 to 55 MJ per kg, while production from raw materials requires 77 to 80 MJ per kg. The difference is a savings of 22 to 40 megajoules (MJ) per kg (roughly **6 to 11 kWh/kg**). This study is specific to Italy, and unfortunately the details are behind a paywall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2010 the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR), the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), and the PET Resin Association (PETRA) funded a life cycle analysis of PET and HDPE recycling. The study is available here: [&quot;Life Cycle Inventory of 100% Postconsumer HDPE and PET Recycled Resin from Postconsumer Containers and Packaging&quot;](https://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news-releases/New-Study-Confirms-Recycling-Plastics-Significantly-Reduces-Energy-Use-and-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The report provides the following data on energy use of recycled vs &quot;virgin&quot; plastic production. These figures are for the U.S., and include the energy used to collect, transport, and process the plastic after its first use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Raw HDPE takes 35.8 MMBtu per 1,000 lbs (23 kWh/kg), while recycled HDPE requires 3.87 to 4.24 MMBtu per 1,000 lbs (2.5 to 2.7 kWh/kg), depending on whether collection is allocated by weight or volume. **This is a savings of roughly 20 kWh/kg.**&#xD;&#xA; - Raw PET takes 31.9 MMBtu per 1,000 lbs (20.6 kWh/kg), while recycled PET requires 5.18 to 5.45 MMBtu per 1,000 lbs (3.3 to 3.5 kWh/kg). **This is a savings of roughly 17 kWh/kg.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Shipping across the Pacific&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming an average speed of 15 knots, energy usage is between 0.004 and 0.008 kWh per nautical mile per tonne (kWh/n.m./DWT) for larger classes of ships [(source)](http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/AirPollution/Documents/E-book.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the ports and route, shipping from the US to China involves [a journey of 6,000 to 11,000 nautical miles](https://sea-distances.org/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus shipping plastic from the U.S. to China will require from **24 to 88 kWh/tonne**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Energy savings from recycling:   6,000 to 20,000 kWh/tonne&#xD;&#xA;The specific energy savings from PE recycling depends on the type of PE and the allocation method used (whether by weight or volume).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Energy consumption for shipping:    24 to     88 kWh/tonne&#xD;&#xA;This value depends on the vessel, speed, and route between the U.S. and China.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In the worst-case scenario (including shipping the plastic back to the U.S.), shipping plastic for recycling reduces the energy savings by **2.9%** .&#xD;&#xA; - In the best case scenario, savings are reduced by **0.12%**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling plastic saves so much energy (a good thing!) and shipping things across the ocean uses so little energy (also a good thing!), that shipping our dirty plastic to China for recycling isn't actually terrible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6669" RevisionGUID="15cf55b9-1d7c-4ba1-868c-26048bf90017" CreationDate="2018-06-01T15:25:26.747" UserId="4922" Text="I don't know if I would mix the tea with the aquaculture, maybe feed the fish worms instead? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that by adding the nitrogen from the tea, you would just be adding more nitrogen to a system with it's own nitrogen input (fish poo), possibly more than the plants could take up, which could lead to algal blooms, and de-oxygenation, which might kill your fish. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are good systems, and perhaps could work together, the vermiculture taking inputs from roots and unused garden bits from the aquaculture, and the fish getting a wormy treat from time to time. &#xD;&#xA;Doubling the nitrogen at one point in one cycle makes less sense to me than combining the inputs and outputs of both systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've not practiced either of these systems, so I'm just speculating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6671" RevisionGUID="868ce900-57ec-483b-a343-866f19579297" CreationDate="2018-06-03T21:24:25.510" UserId="5775" Text="I was looking for similar information and came across this article: https://www.howtogeek.com/231886/tested-should-you-unplug-chargers-when-youre-not-using-them/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems that, while some of the wall warts may draw more power, modern ones use almost nothing. Probably not worth buying anything fancy to address the &quot;problem&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6671" RevisionGUID="be5e32f7-56e2-410a-8c4b-ac89957a9bb7" CreationDate="2018-06-03T21:37:59.780" UserId="3379" Comment="Added link title." Text="I was looking for similar information and came across this article: [&quot;Tested: Should You Unplug Chargers When You’re Not Using Them?&quot;](https://www.howtogeek.com/231886/tested-should-you-unplug-chargers-when-youre-not-using-them/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seems that, while some of the wall warts may draw more power, modern ones use almost nothing. Probably not worth buying anything fancy to address the &quot;problem&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17113" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6573" RevisionGUID="50b3cfa6-69df-4860-bd77-d47a5181df0c" CreationDate="2018-06-03T23:10:28.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6672" RevisionGUID="4d4142ca-7418-483c-abf8-a87fb651a600" CreationDate="2018-06-04T07:20:14.613" UserId="3293" Text="# Move them far away in a place they like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The strategy I use is to move them to a remote place of the yard (at least 30 meters away). It will take them long to come back, and the journey may be dangerous for them. That's also the point of gathering them: attracting predators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course this works if you have a large-enough yard. Otherwise, someone of your neighbors may have an appropriate place for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Let them work for you&#xD;&#xA;Gathering all the slugs in one places attracts their predators here. On my composting pile, they work for me in accelerating the degradation process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My composting pile is a very good place for this because it is under tree shades near a small stream. The slug diseases are also prone to develop widely in a slug-crowded place. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#How to collect the sticky little creatures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Collect them with (old-recycled) plumbing pliers and put them into a bucket with water at the bottom, and moving the water within the bucket detaches the slugs that try to escape from the sides. Then unload the slug bucket on your composting pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may also find helpful tips [here](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/928/what-is-the-best-organic-way-to-defeat-slugs/34098#34098).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6673" RevisionGUID="33a6cb24-00e3-4310-9593-1ab51ca02a01" CreationDate="2018-06-04T09:16:17.760" UserId="5602" Text="Asphalt and concrete are substances where a lot of heavy metals and other materials being hazardous to one's health are being &quot;deposited&quot;. But what to do with them when concrete and asphalt have passed their life time or when they are substituted by better materials or even obsolete, e.g. due to different transportation systems no longer requiring streets? I read this [question about Concrete vs Asphalt][1], but it aims to a different doubt trying to evaluate one against the other. My question is about long term effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4948/concrete-vs-asphalt-which-is-better-in-terms-of-sustainability" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6673" RevisionGUID="33a6cb24-00e3-4310-9593-1ab51ca02a01" CreationDate="2018-06-04T09:16:17.760" UserId="5602" Text="Can Asphalt and concrete be recycled at long term?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6673" RevisionGUID="33a6cb24-00e3-4310-9593-1ab51ca02a01" CreationDate="2018-06-04T09:16:17.760" UserId="5602" Text="|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="0586b6a1-cd80-4608-982b-a27e2c0ef45d" CreationDate="2018-06-04T20:42:15.243" UserId="3379" Text="According to Wikipedia, a **[meal-kit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meal_kit)** is...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...a subscription service that sends customers pre-portioned food ingredients and recipes for them to prepare homecooked meals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well-known examples include Blue Apron, Hello Fresh, and Green Chef.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One advantage to such services is **reduced food waste** -- each kit contains the exact amount of all perishable ingredients needed for the recipe, meaning there's no excess produce to spoil once the meal is made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the entire thing requires boxes, ice packs, plastic packaging (not all of which is recyclable) and shipping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem that the latter concerns outweigh the reduced food waste, but I'm wondering if anyone has crunched the numbers on this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17120" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="0586b6a1-cd80-4608-982b-a27e2c0ef45d" CreationDate="2018-06-04T20:42:15.243" UserId="3379" Text="What is the environmental impact of meal kit subscriptions (Blue Apron, etc)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17121" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="0586b6a1-cd80-4608-982b-a27e2c0ef45d" CreationDate="2018-06-04T20:42:15.243" UserId="3379" Text="|food|environmental-impact|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17122" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="c5eea5dd-d433-4d96-928e-bca0b1b68485" CreationDate="2018-06-05T01:35:51.830" UserId="5602" Text="There is quite a range of different meal kit services. To subscribe means to take that service for a longer period. We (in Germany) have different services. Some of those services just provide a weekly box of vegetables, potatoes, etc. with recommendations as receipts. That is ok, but leaves you with the decision to take what you like according to your receipts or intuition. Those boxes contain almost no plastics, are being returned by next delivery and so their impact to ambient is reduced to transport (more or less). I would see that as a positive effect to urban living people. However, it means that you have to know about shelf life, apart from the fresh vegetables and spices you may need something else if you are not vegan and it is assumed that you have available common kitchen ingredients, like sugar, salt, pepper, curry, etc. But it is fine for people not having a garden, but knowing to cook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand there are other services that focus on just that meals for an evening, etc. I do not think that people knowing to cook would use that service. But it could be an approach for people having no idea of cooking. They sometimes provide everything including a detailed receipt, but just in the dimensions needed for that specific meal. This means they have small bags with sugar, salt, pepper, etc. and in worst case everything is delivered in plastics. So a lot of plastic waste is involved. TV tests showed that even such supplies in many cases expected that some things are available in kitchen, like the mentioned salt, pepper, sugar, oil, etc. If you don't have that you will suffer from that service and will never use it again, because if you have to go shopping anyway ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meal kits are under strong competition. There are people knowing to cook which in extreme cases order weekly boxes for organic products. Others order ready made meals. I assume that the market for meal kits to prepare the meal at home is small and will never reach a volume that allows economic figures with fresh products. Or the people learn to cook or they will not, but kits will not help them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6676" RevisionGUID="863ebe6f-c0ee-4027-a3d4-fe392502b73e" CreationDate="2018-06-05T08:26:27.653" UserId="4586" Text="I don’t eat meat but anything I need to freeze, I normally slice it up and keep it in reused glass jars and freeze  it . It works perfectly and you end up reusing old glass jars. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17124" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6676" RevisionGUID="869b762e-7127-4769-90d7-c1bb4e3e7ed0" CreationDate="2018-06-05T08:31:44.763" UserId="4586" Comment="added 138 characters in body" Text="I don’t eat meat but anything I need to freeze, I normally slice it up and keep it in reused glass jars and freeze  it . It works perfectly and you end up reusing old glass jars. Although i believe that if you truly worried about sustainability the best think to do is stop contributing to meat and diary industry . &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6676" RevisionGUID="0806caa8-652b-4cb7-b6b1-21063b5e9617" CreationDate="2018-06-05T09:23:27.743" UserId="15" Comment="spelling" Text="I don’t eat meat but anything I need to freeze, I normally slice it up and keep it in reused glass jars and freeze  it . It works perfectly and you end up reusing old glass jars. Although i believe that if you truly worried about sustainability the best think to do is stop contributing to meat and dairy industry . &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="5f18cedd-1cde-4895-9852-63b94b2e6533" CreationDate="2018-06-05T09:33:26.603" UserId="5602" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="There is quite a range of different meal kit services. To subscribe means to take that service for a longer period. We (in Germany) have different services. Some of those services just provide a weekly box of vegetables, potatoes, etc. with recommendations as receipts. That is ok, but leaves you with the decision to take what you like according to your receipts or intuition. Those boxes contain almost no plastics, are being returned by next delivery to be reused and so their impact to ambient is reduced to transport (more or less). I would see that as a positive effect to urban living people. However, it means that you have to know about shelf life, apart from the fresh vegetables and spices you may need something else if you are not vegan and it is assumed that you have available common kitchen ingredients, like sugar, salt, pepper, curry, etc. But it is fine for people not having a garden, but knowing to cook.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand there are other services that focus on just that meals for an evening, etc. I do not think that people knowing to cook would use that service. But it could be an approach for people having no idea of cooking. They sometimes provide everything including a detailed receipt, but just in the dimensions needed for that specific meal. This means they have small bags with sugar, salt, pepper, etc. and in worst case everything is delivered in plastics. So a lot of plastic waste is involved. TV tests showed that even such supplies in many cases expected that some things are available in kitchen, like the mentioned salt, pepper, sugar, oil, etc. If you don't have that you will suffer from that service and will never use it again, because if you have to go shopping anyway ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meal kits are under strong competition. There are people knowing to cook which in extreme cases order weekly boxes for organic products. Others order ready made meals. I assume that the market for meal kits to prepare the meal at home is small and will never reach a volume that allows economic figures with fresh products. Or the people learn to cook or they will not, but kits will not help them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="7bfcbc82-6910-4158-a7a4-df0ae35f7840" CreationDate="2018-06-05T09:39:09.060" UserId="5602" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="There is quite a range of different meal kit services. To subscribe means to take that service for a longer period. We (in Germany) have different services. Some of those services just provide a weekly box of vegetables, potatoes, etc. with recommendations as receipts. That is ok, but leaves you with the decision to take what you like according to your receipts or intuition. Those boxes contain almost no plastics, are being returned by next delivery to be reused and so their impact to ambient is reduced to transport (more or less). I would see that as a positive effect to urban living people. However, it means that you have to know about shelf life, apart from the fresh vegetables and spices you may need something else if you are not vegan and it is assumed that you have available common kitchen ingredients, like sugar, salt, pepper, curry, etc. But it is fine for people not having a garden, but knowing to cook. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They mainly provide fruits and vegetables of the season and less on demand. The advantage is that most products are from free field. The disadvantage is that deliveries frequently contain products you don't like and which finally are being wasted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand there are other services that focus on just that meals for an evening, etc. ordered on demand. I do not think that people knowing to cook would use that service. But it could be an approach for people having no idea of cooking. They sometimes provide everything including a detailed receipt, but just in the dimensions needed for that specific meal. This means they have small bags with sugar, salt, pepper, etc. and in worst case everything is delivered in a lot of plastics. TV tests showed that even such supplies in many cases expected that some things are available in kitchen, like the mentioned salt, pepper, sugar, oil, etc. If you don't have that you will suffer from that service and will never use it again, because if you have to go shopping anyway ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meal kits are under strong competition. There are people knowing to cook which in extreme cases order weekly boxes for organic products. Others order ready made meals. I assume that the market for meal kits to prepare the meal at home is small and will never reach a volume that allows economic figures with fresh products. Or the people learn to cook or they will not, but kits will not help them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17128" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="97fe26d5-48b3-4f29-9ef6-eb0ae1489f5e" CreationDate="2018-06-05T14:12:38.473" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1004003062619561984" />
  <row Id="17129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="292ea416-b7bf-4682-ac78-a26fcba12605" CreationDate="2018-06-05T14:40:03.773" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="We see more and more trucks riding through our streets delivering individual items. This hardly looks sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how the transport footprint compares with the 'old' delivery model of goods being shipped to stores and bought by customers going there.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Please ignore stuff like packaging (the question is already complicated enough).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume the following (current) situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- We start at vendor warehouses across the country. Goods arrive there from the manufacturers. This first part does not show large differences. We ignore direct manufacturer to customer delivery, this happens much less frequently.&#xD;&#xA;- From the warehouses goods go either to stores (**store** scenario) or are delivered to individual households (**doorstep** scenario). Pick up locations are still uncommon.&#xD;&#xA;- Vendors use multiple delivery services; these do not combine their streams&#xD;&#xA;- Transport is done by delivery truck&#xD;&#xA;- Culture is European/American. Societies are wealthy enough that most people have a car and there are good transport systems. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In the **store** scenario we (can) go to the stores using different modes of transport. We often combine several shops in one trip. This is a major difference in cities/towns where most people live nowadays.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Note that US cities are much more car oriented than Europe, so the answers may be limited to one of the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many factors are involved of course: *population density* and *city design* translate to distances. This will determine what transport people use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not so much interested in opinions as I am in data: have studies been done on this? What are the results?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If I have forgotten major assumptions or factors please comment and I will edit them into the question&#xD;&#xA;2. There is the very much related question [How do I calculate if it is more sustainable to have my groceries delivered?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/408/how-do-i-calculate-if-it-is-more-sustainable-to-have-my-groceries-delivered) but that also includes packaging and assumes individual car transport only. The current two answers there address only the bags and refute the car assumption.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="292ea416-b7bf-4682-ac78-a26fcba12605" CreationDate="2018-06-05T14:40:03.773" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="Home delivery versus going to stores: how does fuel usage for transport compare? Any studies available?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="292ea416-b7bf-4682-ac78-a26fcba12605" CreationDate="2018-06-05T14:40:03.773" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="e9450f9a-6837-45cd-a9d8-23a58923b5bf" CreationDate="2018-06-05T14:46:02.057" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="We see more and more trucks riding through our streets delivering individual items. This hardly looks sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder how the transport footprint compares with the 'old' delivery model of goods being shipped to stores and bought by customers going there.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Please ignore stuff like packaging (the question is already complicated enough).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume the following (current) situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- We start at vendor warehouses across the country. Goods arrive there from the manufacturers. This first part does not show large differences. We ignore direct manufacturer to customer delivery, this happens much less frequently.&#xD;&#xA;- From the warehouses goods go either to stores (**store** scenario) or are delivered to individual households (**doorstep** scenario). Pick up locations are still uncommon.&#xD;&#xA;- Vendors use multiple delivery services; these do not combine their streams&#xD;&#xA;- Transport is done by (delivery) truck&#xD;&#xA;- Culture is European/American. Societies are wealthy enough that most people have a car and there are good transport systems. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;In the **store** scenario we (can) go to the stores using different modes of transport. We often combine several shops in one trip. This is a major difference with the **doorstep** scenario in cities/towns - where most people live nowadays.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Note that US cities are much more car oriented than Europe, so the answers may be limited to one of the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many factors are involved of course: *population density* and *city design* translate to distances. This will determine what transport people use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not so much interested in opinions as I am in data: have studies been done on this? What are the results?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If I have forgotten major assumptions or factors please comment and I will edit them into the question&#xD;&#xA;2. There is the very much related question [How do I calculate if it is more sustainable to have my groceries delivered?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/408/how-do-i-calculate-if-it-is-more-sustainable-to-have-my-groceries-delivered) but that also includes packaging and assumes individual car transport only. The current two answers there address only the bags and refute the car assumption.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17133" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6604" RevisionGUID="92f6056c-a851-4939-9112-8bed80f6742b" CreationDate="2018-06-05T16:34:25.763" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17134" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6673" RevisionGUID="3ba58e74-d652-49a4-8680-d5b5c672dd1a" CreationDate="2018-06-05T17:12:38.307" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1004048360570007553" />
  <row Id="17135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6678" RevisionGUID="4c741d57-f7c3-470f-bb46-bae4868908b5" CreationDate="2018-06-05T19:16:27.187" UserId="2674" Text="In case you are open to other ideas, a fan with a cooling system behind it can be a cheaper and effective option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something like following image (source google) can be made with little investment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are simple version of the same. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PgFZn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YpC12.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All images sourced from google." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17136" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5579" RevisionGUID="bd9f56cd-55d3-4849-b715-8bf682a0bb8e" CreationDate="2018-06-05T20:37:51.727" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17137" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6601" RevisionGUID="5520c1db-7c19-446a-9abe-e04a4d3ca890" CreationDate="2018-06-05T21:02:48.640" UserId="15" Comment="Updated title to state implied question, added tag" Text="Can vermicompost tea be used with aquaponics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17138" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6601" RevisionGUID="5520c1db-7c19-446a-9abe-e04a4d3ca890" CreationDate="2018-06-05T21:02:48.640" UserId="15" Comment="Updated title to state implied question, added tag" Text="|aquaponics|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6680" RevisionGUID="c57b52c7-b269-4038-86ab-b8094ecb4025" CreationDate="2018-06-06T14:00:35.913" UserId="5771" Text="We need to replace our (tank) propane water heater. We'd like to switch to a tankless heater, but we're waffling between propane and electric. I saw [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/568/propane-vs-electric-vs-heat-pump), which was really helpful, but we've got a few other factors that may have an impact on the best solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're unable to do solar panels on the roof at this time, but we're signing up for community solar, which means that 80-90% of our annual electricity will come from solar panels at an off-site grid. (We're in the Northeast US, so this means that in the winter, when we'll probably use more hot water, we'll still be burning natural gas or whatever the electric company uses to produce power, while in the summer, our solar panels will be producing enough for multiple households.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read online that electric heaters are 98% efficient, while propane are only about 85% efficient. Propane being a fossil fuel, and with our electricity (mostly) coming from a renewable resource, it seems like a no-brainer to go with electric. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However - and this is where my confusion comes in - I've gotten multiple in-person recommendations to stick with a propane fuel source. People have said that electric water heaters aren't hardy enough, and will not provide enough hot water for our household (3 people, plus regular guests, and I will admit we like our hot showers). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are electric water heaters, despite being 98% efficient, somehow less effective than propane? Does anyone have any other factors I should take into account, or any personal experience with tankless water heaters, either propane/natural gas or electric? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17141" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6680" RevisionGUID="c57b52c7-b269-4038-86ab-b8094ecb4025" CreationDate="2018-06-06T14:00:35.913" UserId="5771" Text="on demand water heater - propane vs electric?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17142" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6680" RevisionGUID="c57b52c7-b269-4038-86ab-b8094ecb4025" CreationDate="2018-06-06T14:00:35.913" UserId="5771" Text="|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6681" RevisionGUID="e59271bb-02f6-4125-9742-913efc9515ed" CreationDate="2018-06-06T18:17:59.077" UserId="5602" Text="The principal question about using electric heaters is, where does the electricity come from. If it must be generated from fossil energies more than 50% of initial input energy gets lost. This is the case when the heat generated from turbines or generators is not used to heat-up water or used for other application. Big power plants frequently waste such energy in big chillers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, as in your case, the electric energy is generated directly by solar panels or wind power generators it is different and heating water with electricity may be more efficient. I understand that electricity is generated between 80% and 90% of the time by solar power in your case and fulfils 100% of need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other 10% - 20% do not mean that there is no electricity at all, right? There may be additional energy needed to stabilize the network. When it comes from the grid you should not be worried. It is their task to make the grid sustainable. If your network is isolated from the grid your power company must do something to stabilize the network anyway. In most cases he can do that with more efficiency than you can do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering your description and assuming that the grid is stable my first answer from the heart would be: Use the electric heater." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6682" RevisionGUID="9a4b91e3-8aa7-4869-ac4e-14c119c4ba46" CreationDate="2018-06-07T01:45:54.873" UserId="4351" Text="Biogas seems to be a really great idea but I'm wondering how much energy you get out vs. what you need to put in.  I know natural gas is around [10.0][1] and I was wondering how biogas stacks up by this metric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you have any source with the EROI for biogas or other related information or similar measurements, that would be awesome, thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17145" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6682" RevisionGUID="9a4b91e3-8aa7-4869-ac4e-14c119c4ba46" CreationDate="2018-06-07T01:45:54.873" UserId="4351" Text="What are the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) values like for biogas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17146" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6682" RevisionGUID="9a4b91e3-8aa7-4869-ac4e-14c119c4ba46" CreationDate="2018-06-07T01:45:54.873" UserId="4351" Text="|energy|waste|biogas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6683" RevisionGUID="53b668af-7894-4b2c-8faa-19166a63674c" CreationDate="2018-06-07T08:01:49.763" UserId="99" Text="First of all, EROI depends on the calculation method (what is included and excluded), on the production method, and on the used resources. This means that there isn't one uniform EROI for biogas. It can vary from researcher to researcher and from site to site. This also means that it's often possible to find very positive and very negative numbers, depending on who did the research (as you can also see in the varying numbers in [this answer on EROI of solar panels](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2988/99) for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now some numbers for biogas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [This 2013 paper](http://homepages.uc.edu/~becktl/shaka-eroi.pdf) mentions an EROI of 3.5 for a biogas power plant. Sadly the paper lacks details on the production process and used materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [This paper from 2014](http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/conferences/dlsu_research_congress/2014/_pdf/proceedings/SEE-III-023-FT.pdf) covers biogas production from different combinations of pig manure and jatropha press-cake and they estimate the EROI to be between -0.16 and 0.32, depending on the usage rate of both resources. The researchers do mention that they didn't take into account any EROI from by-products of the biogas production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Another 2014 paper](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263505370_Energy_balance_of_algal_biogas_production) estimates an EROI of biogas from micro-algal biomass to be between 2.3 and 3.4&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* This is in contrast with [this 2015 paper](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261915001221#b0030) that mentions an EROI of 0.6 in an algal biomass production plant in Italy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17149" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6677" RevisionGUID="161e523e-4d9d-4d7c-bbf8-cd4181442ec1" CreationDate="2018-06-07T08:20:43.460" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1004639275592404992" />
  <row Id="17150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6684" RevisionGUID="29a74cd9-b508-41a3-97bc-ec6af0245d27" CreationDate="2018-06-07T09:10:47.250" UserId="5782" Text="I've just read this article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/6/17433206/microsoft-underwater-data-center-project-natick&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the cooling of a data center is a problem. Data centers produce huge amounts of heat, and they have to run at normal temperatures, otherwise the hardware gets damaged. The cooling is much easier when there is a lot of cool water available, so most data centers are built in countries with a cool climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at the same time, the countries with a cool climate consume a lot of energy to warm up water for their heatings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does Microsoft experiment with a data center under sea, instead of using the data center's warm water to heat surrounding buildings? There are similar solutions in other areas, e.g. [combined heat and power][1] facilities with [district heating][2] schemes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found some articles about [data][3] [centers][4] [involved in][5] [district heating][6], but I'm wondering why this isn't done more often. Are there any obstacles, hidden costs, or other problems (like, keeping the location of the data center a secret)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/11/22/16684102/amazon-data-center-district-heating&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/content-tracks/power-cooling/facebooks-denmark-data-center-will-supply-heat-to-city/98926.fullarticle&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/content-tracks/power-cooling/uk-data-center-turns-to-district-heating/80795.fullarticle&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217314548" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6684" RevisionGUID="29a74cd9-b508-41a3-97bc-ec6af0245d27" CreationDate="2018-06-07T09:10:47.250" UserId="5782" Text="Can the heat generated in a data center be used to heat households and offices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6684" RevisionGUID="29a74cd9-b508-41a3-97bc-ec6af0245d27" CreationDate="2018-06-07T09:10:47.250" UserId="5782" Text="|energy|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6684" RevisionGUID="e3614ee2-53f8-48b5-9270-41adb995e4e0" CreationDate="2018-06-07T09:30:08.710" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Better link" Text="I've just read the article [Microsoft sinks a data center off the Scottish coast](https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/6/17433206/microsoft-underwater-data-center-project-natick) (The Verge, 6 June 2018)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the cooling of a data center is a problem. Data centers produce huge amounts of heat, and they have to run at normal temperatures, otherwise the hardware gets damaged. The cooling is much easier when there is a lot of cool water available, so most data centers are built in countries with a cool climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at the same time, the countries with a cool climate consume a lot of energy to warm up water for their heatings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why does Microsoft experiment with a data center under sea, instead of using the data center's warm water to heat surrounding buildings? There are similar solutions in other areas, e.g. [combined heat and power][1] facilities with [district heating][2] schemes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've found some articles about [data][3] [centers][4] [involved in][5] [district heating][6], but I'm wondering why this isn't done more often. Are there any obstacles, hidden costs, or other problems (like, keeping the location of the data center a secret)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/11/22/16684102/amazon-data-center-district-heating&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/content-tracks/power-cooling/facebooks-denmark-data-center-will-supply-heat-to-city/98926.fullarticle&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/content-tracks/power-cooling/uk-data-center-turns-to-district-heating/80795.fullarticle&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544217314548" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6685" RevisionGUID="33d321ab-a908-4a3b-840c-4d736e486937" CreationDate="2018-06-07T09:32:40.643" UserId="106" Text="District heating requires infrastructure.  In some countries, like Sweden, there is considerable district heating infrastructure, and adding additional sources of heat (such as a data center) is relatively easy.  In other countries, like the United Kingdom, such infrastructure is rare.  To benefit from the rest heat of a data center or power plant, hot water would need to be piped to offices and households.  Another difference is that in Sweden, people commonly live in apartments, whereas in the United Kingdom, people more commonly live in houses.  Apartments are easier to heat with district heating, although both are possible.  Building the necessary infrastructure in either case requires considerable collective capital investment.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17155" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6682" RevisionGUID="02539737-3540-4e0b-9a1d-18586df7e7ad" CreationDate="2018-06-07T11:20:43.730" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1004684575291904000" />
  <row Id="17156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6686" RevisionGUID="b93e53d4-1f2a-4ef0-a9d3-1443c0315479" CreationDate="2018-06-07T14:10:09.280" UserId="3379" Text="### Yes, when the data center is located near heating loads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO features a prime example of this, at the [Energy Systems Integration Facility](https://www.nrel.gov/computational-science/waste-heat-energy-reuse.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With heat exchangers, heat energy in the energy recovery water (ERW) loop becomes available to heat the facility's process hot water (PHW) loop. Once heated, the PHW loop supplies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Active chilled beams to heat the office space&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Air handlers to heat the conference and high bay spaces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Snow melt loop in the courtyard of the ESIF's main entrance&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - District heating loop: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - If additional heat is needed for the building, the PHW loop can draw heat from the campus heating loop&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   - If surplus heat is available, the PHW loop can provide heat to the campus heating loop. During transition months (April and October), excess heat from the ESIF has been sufficient to provide heat for other buildings, shortening the time boilers are needed to provide campus heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This was one project I was aware of, but I googled a bit and found a few lists with other examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Data Centers that Recycle Waste Heat&quot;](http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/data-centers-that-recycle-waste-heat), from DataCenterKnowledge.com&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Going Green with Data Center Heat Recovery - Yes, It's an Option&quot;](http://www.ledesigngroup.com/blog/data-center/going-green-data-center-heat-recovery/), from the Leading Edge Design Group&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Using Waste Heat from the Data Center&quot;](https://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-content?type=webcontent&amp;articleId=5287761), from Cisco&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### But often, data centers are located far from other buildings and population centers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a picture [from Google](https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/inside/locations/mayes-county/) of one of their data centers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Google data center in Mayes County, Oklahoma][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you click through the lists of data centers for [Google](https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/inside/locations/index.html), [Amazon](https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/data-center/data-centers/), and [IBM](https://www.ibm.com/cloud-computing/bluemix/data-centers#datacentermap), you see that many of them are in suburban or rural areas. There are several reasons for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Land is cheaper&#xD;&#xA; - Construction costs are lower&#xD;&#xA; - No need for a large workforce&#xD;&#xA; - Can be co-sited with wind and/or solar power&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one down-side to rural areas is that a high-speed telecommunication network may not be readily available -- but it seems that in many cases the data center operator finds it cheaper to pay the costs to bring one in, than to locate the data center in an area with better telecom infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y30FIm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6687" RevisionGUID="516b5627-44b3-4084-8d4e-4feab1d84a3f" CreationDate="2018-06-07T19:58:53.043" UserId="5602" Text="Yes, a German company ([www.cloudandheat.com][1]) provides small scale data centres. They can be installed into cellars and take the heat directly from the hottest chips (CPU, etc.). The heat is transported with water to the the heating cycle of the building. The small scaled data centre can heat an apartment house starting from 6 apartments. The system is scalable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that people and am convinced that there are more companies providing something comparable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.cloudandheat.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6680" RevisionGUID="79590f07-3542-4167-9411-5c915c10e36a" CreationDate="2018-06-08T15:47:14.417" UserId="5771" Comment="slight edit to emphasize the question" Text="We need to replace our (tank) propane water heater. We'd like to switch to a tankless heater, but we're waffling between propane and electric. I saw [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/568/propane-vs-electric-vs-heat-pump), which was really helpful, but we've got a few other factors that may have an impact on the best solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're unable to do solar panels on the roof at this time, but we're signing up for community solar, which means that 80-90% of our annual electricity will come from solar panels at an off-site grid. (We're in the Northeast US, so this means that in the winter, when we'll probably use more hot water, we'll still be burning natural gas or whatever the electric company uses to produce power, while in the summer, our solar panels will be producing enough for multiple households.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read online that electric heaters are 98% efficient, while propane are only about 85% efficient. Propane being a fossil fuel, and with our electricity (mostly) coming from a renewable resource, it seems like a no-brainer to go with electric. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However - and this is where my confusion comes in - I've gotten multiple in-person recommendations to stick with a propane fuel source. People have said that electric water heaters aren't hardy enough, and will not provide enough hot water for our household (3 people, plus regular guests, and I will admit we like our hot showers). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why are electric water heaters, despite being 98% efficient, somehow considered less effective than propane? Does anyone have any other factors I should take into account, or any personal experience with tankless water heaters, either propane/natural gas or electric?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6688" RevisionGUID="0d7cfd3c-aa06-41eb-99e3-c53d013f9e25" CreationDate="2018-06-09T17:41:54.953" UserId="5789" Text="I'm building a solar installation for a summer camp, and we were looking at [the following kit][1] (1000W, 12V) We wanted to have the regulator+inverter in a closed little stall, but that stall is usually in the middle of the campsite so we need to have the solar panels at a distance.&#xD;&#xA;As far as I know the distance from panels to regulator should be as small as possible, but it can be extended using bigger cables and/or using an MPPT regulator instead of PWM. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible/smart to have the panels be like 30 meters away from the regulator, inverter and battery? And what would it take to do that? The kit I listed above has a PWM regulator + inverter, would it be worth it getting a MPPT regulator instead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://autosolar.es/kit-solar-aislada/kit-panel-solar-1000w-12v-2000whdia-con-cargador" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17161" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6688" RevisionGUID="0d7cfd3c-aa06-41eb-99e3-c53d013f9e25" CreationDate="2018-06-09T17:41:54.953" UserId="5789" Text="How can I install solar panels far from the regulator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17162" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6688" RevisionGUID="0d7cfd3c-aa06-41eb-99e3-c53d013f9e25" CreationDate="2018-06-09T17:41:54.953" UserId="5789" Text="|solar-power|off-grid|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6689" RevisionGUID="f40100d7-d4ea-40f2-bd0d-d82b3a1c091e" CreationDate="2018-06-09T22:41:06.917" UserId="5594" Text="In your question you assume that &quot;oils are taken to collection points, it is then processed into biodiesel&quot;. This is not always the case, for example it can be converted in lubricating oil and glycerol to make soap. In the abstract of   [this paper][1] many examples of applications apart from biodiesels are listed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It can be processed to obtain pyrolytic oil, hydrogen gas, biodiesel or electricity production by direct burning. Applications like combined heat and power generation (CHP) can utilize WCO with utmost efficiently. &#xD;&#xA;It can also be  processed chemically to obtained biodegradable  polyurethane  sheets, greases, biolubricants, soaps and alkyd resins. Properly purified and sterilized WCO can  be  used  as  a  carbon  source  in  fermentation processes  for  the  production  of rhamnolipid   biosurfactant   and   polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ijche.com/article_11253_54b41ee620eb7a8972ee3e37776dad5f.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6690" RevisionGUID="d058b0e4-0cfc-419a-8669-1bd7de6b261e" CreationDate="2018-06-10T07:16:08.147" UserId="5594" Text="Unfortunately there are not many studies available on this subject and, as you wrote, the answer depends a lot on the country and on the city.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;This article on [the Guardian][1] analyses a [study][2] investigating the effects of home shopping on vehicle operations and greenhouse gas emissions in Newark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simulation results showed that home shopping will put additional burden on Newark transportation network, as identified through four measures of effectiveness (MOEs) which were travel time, delay, average speed and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the researchers one of the reason is that people use the time saved by doing online shopping in doing other activities that involve using a car.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “We found that the total number of vehicles miles travelled hasn’t decreased at all with the growth of online shopping,” says study leader Arde Faghri, professor of civil and environmental engineering and director of the Delaware Center for Transportation. “This suggests that people are using the time they save by shopping on the internet to do other things like eating out at restaurants, going to the movies, or visiting friends.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more general study is available [here][3] but the results are not really conclusive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Some of the changes result in increased pressure for road traffic&#xD;&#xA;networks in sensitive areas (for example residential areas). At the same time the changes also provide opportunities for the use of vehicles powered by alternative fuels thereby supporting certain sustainability strategies. However, the changes are complex and patterns are not the same from one country to another thus the impacts on city logistics are also varied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/17/how-green-is-online-shopping&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504509.2015.1124471?journalCode=tsdw20&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877042814014906/1-s2.0-S1877042814014906-main.pdf?_tid=efd2645d-e0a0-4676-9ed5-34d67b8d8fc7&amp;acdnat=1528612592_6806f5fabfc81b736767a70e83047fb2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17166" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6689" RevisionGUID="891c6b38-5ef1-4fca-87de-6fa1ddc615ea" CreationDate="2018-06-10T09:23:55.173" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Better link; removed confusing first half of quote " Text="In your question you assume that *it is then processed into biodiesel*. This is not always the case, for example it can be converted in lubricating oil and glycerol to make soap. In the abstract of the paper [Applications of Waste Cooking Oil Other Than Biodiesel: A Review][1] many examples of applications apart from biodiesels are listed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It can be processed to obtain pyrolytic oil, hydrogen gas, biodiesel or electricity production by direct burning. Applications like combined heat and power generation (CHP) can utilize WCO with utmost efficiently. &#xD;&#xA;It can also be  processed chemically to obtained biodegradable  polyurethane  sheets, greases, biolubricants, soaps and alkyd resins. Properly purified and sterilized WCO can  be  used  as  a  carbon  source  in  fermentation processes  for  the  production  of rhamnolipid   biosurfactant   and   polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ijche.com/article_11253_54b41ee620eb7a8972ee3e37776dad5f.pdf&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6690" RevisionGUID="2e3e0f97-c362-44e5-957f-7031ad705ecc" CreationDate="2018-06-10T14:33:18.583" UserId="5594" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="Unfortunately there are not many studies available on this subject and, as you wrote, the answer depends a lot on the country and on the city.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;[This article][1] on the Guardian analyses the study [Impacts of home shopping on vehicle operations and greenhouse gas emissions: multi-year regional study][2]. This study investigates the effects of home shopping on vehicle operations and greenhouse gas emissions in Newark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Simulation results showed that home shopping will put additional burden on Newark transportation network, as identified through four measures of effectiveness (MOEs) which were travel time, delay, average speed and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the researchers one of the reason is that people use the time saved by doing online shopping in doing other activities that involve using a car.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “We found that the total number of vehicles miles travelled hasn’t decreased at all with the growth of online shopping,” says study leader Arde Faghri, professor of civil and environmental engineering and director of the Delaware Center for Transportation. “This suggests that people are using the time they save by shopping on the internet to do other things like eating out at restaurants, going to the movies, or visiting friends.” &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more general study can be found in [Home Delivery and the Impacts on Urban Freight Transport: A Review][3] but the results are not really conclusive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Some of the changes result in increased pressure for road traffic&#xD;&#xA;networks in sensitive areas (for example residential areas). At the same time the changes also provide opportunities for the use of vehicles powered by alternative fuels thereby supporting certain sustainability strategies. However, the changes are complex and patterns are not the same from one country to another thus the impacts on city logistics are also varied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/17/how-green-is-online-shopping&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504509.2015.1124471?journalCode=tsdw20&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ac.els-cdn.com/S1877042814014906/1-s2.0-S1877042814014906-main.pdf?_tid=efd2645d-e0a0-4676-9ed5-34d67b8d8fc7&amp;acdnat=1528612592_6806f5fabfc81b736767a70e83047fb2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6675" RevisionGUID="39cd8770-46c4-4d92-a82c-7af7ec2c1a58" CreationDate="2018-06-10T20:47:09.877" UserId="1053" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="There is quite a range of different meal kit services. To subscribe means to take that service for a longer period. We (in Germany) have different services. Some of those services just provide a weekly box of vegetables, potatoes, etc. with recommendations for recipes. That is ok, but leaves you with the decision to take what you like according to your recipes or intuition. Those boxes contain almost no plastics, are being returned by next delivery to be reused and so their impact to ambient is reduced to transport (more or less). I would see that as a positive effect to urban living people. However, it means that you have to know about shelf life, apart from the fresh vegetables and spices you may need something else if you are not vegan and it is assumed that you have available common kitchen ingredients, like sugar, salt, pepper, curry, etc. But it is fine for people not having a garden, but knowing to cook. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They mainly provide fruits and vegetables of the season and less on demand. The advantage is that most products are from free field. The disadvantage is that deliveries frequently contain products you don't like and which finally are being wasted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand there are other services that focus on just that meals for an evening, etc. ordered on demand. I do not think that people knowing to cook would use that service. But it could be an approach for people having no idea of cooking. They sometimes provide everything including a detailed recipe, but just in the amounts needed for that specific meal. This means they have small bags with sugar, salt, pepper, etc. and in worst case everything is delivered in a lot of plastics. TV tests showed that even such supplies in many cases expected that some things are available in kitchen, like the mentioned salt, pepper, sugar, oil, etc. If you don't have that you will suffer from that service and will never use it again, because if you have to go shopping anyway ....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meal kits are under strong competition. There are people knowing to cook which in extreme cases order weekly boxes for organic products. Others order ready made meals. I assume that the market for meal kits to prepare the meal at home is small and will never reach a volume that allows economic figures with fresh products. Or the people learn to cook or they will not, but kits will not help them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="ada1e0f4-36ec-4763-b915-a860e2e603d5" CreationDate="2018-06-10T23:36:14.277" UserId="3379" Comment="Narrowed and clarified the question" Text="According to Wikipedia, a **[meal-kit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meal_kit)** is...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...a subscription service that sends customers pre-portioned food ingredients and recipes for them to prepare homecooked meals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well-known examples include Blue Apron, Hello Fresh, and Green Chef. These kits include single meal proportions of meats, produce, and seasonings, typically assuming that customers will only have at home such basics as oil, salt, and water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One *claimed* advantage to such services is **reduced food waste** -- each kit contains the exact amount of all perishable ingredients needed for the recipe, meaning there's no excess produce to spoil once the meal is made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the entire thing requires boxes, ice packs, and plastic packaging -- not all of which is recyclable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For now, let's ignore the question of [home delivery vs going to stores](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6677/3379). My question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Do meal-kits reduce total food waste?&#xD;&#xA; - Do meal-kits increase the amount of packaging waste produced per meal?&#xD;&#xA; - Finally, is the (assumed) reduced food waste enough to offset the (assumed) increase in packaging?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="802f1d68-33f5-4bec-86b8-63a1b7ddade6" CreationDate="2018-06-11T02:35:10.980" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="According to Wikipedia, a **[meal-kit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meal_kit)** is...&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...a subscription service that sends customers pre-portioned food ingredients and recipes for them to prepare homecooked meals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well-known examples include Blue Apron, Hello Fresh, and Green Chef. These kits include single meal portions of meats, produce, and seasonings, typically assuming that customers will only have at home such basics as oil, salt, and water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One *claimed* advantage to such services is **reduced food waste** -- each kit contains the exact amount of all perishable ingredients needed for the recipe, meaning there's no excess produce to spoil once the meal is made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the entire thing requires boxes, ice packs, and plastic packaging -- not all of which is recyclable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For now, let's ignore the question of [home delivery vs going to stores](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6677/3379). My question is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Do meal-kits reduce total food waste?&#xD;&#xA; - Do meal-kits increase the amount of packaging waste produced per meal?&#xD;&#xA; - Finally, is the (assumed) reduced food waste enough to offset the (assumed) increase in packaging?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17172" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="82a8562b-a323-4010-ac9a-238fa9a5891f" CreationDate="2018-06-11T07:31:15.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17173" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="a2a3ff8e-6a16-4dc2-b515-c5aef2527751" CreationDate="2018-06-11T15:38:27.740" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6691" RevisionGUID="c1e2e754-71ed-44aa-8660-24fa749ddbfe" CreationDate="2018-06-11T16:09:56.143" UserId="3379" Text="### Shorter cables vs thicker cables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason why it is recommended to keep the cable distances shorter is because longer cables have higher resistances. A cable with a higher resistance will dissipate power, meaning that the total power output of your system will be reduced (a minor annoyance), and the cables will heat up (a possible fire hazard).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The formula for the resistance `R` of the cable is `R = (ρ x L) / A`, where `ρ` is resistivity (a function of the cable material), `L` is length, and `A` is the cross-sectional area of the cable. Two important things to note from this formula:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As you double the length `L`, the total resistance will double&#xD;&#xA; - As you double the area `A`, the total resistance will halve&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it is obviously cheaper to use shorter cables than thicker cables, the manufacturer always recommends keeping the cables as short as possible. In your case, a possible &quot;off-label&quot; recommendation would be to double the cable diameter each time you double the length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The kit includes 5m of cable with 6mm^2 cable for the connection from panel to regulator. To get to 30m (a 6x increase), you'd theoretically need 36mm^2 cable. You can use [this calculator](http://www.endmemo.com/physics/resistance.php) to play around with different cable lengths, materials, and diameters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Higher voltage, lower current&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to reduce the amount of power that the cable is dissipating. If we combine the formula for power (`P = V x I`) with Ohm's Law (`V = I x R`) we can establish two relationships for power:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `P = I^2 x R`&#xD;&#xA; - `P = V^2 / R`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in this case the entire current `I` generated by the panels will be passing through the cable -- so if we double the system current, the cable will have to dissipate four times as much power. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the voltage `V` in this case is the voltage measured from one end of the cable to the other -- it is *not* the total system voltage. So, doubling the system voltage will *not* have the same quadrupling effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we want to minimize the current output. Incidentally, for a system with the same total power output, this can be accomplished by increasing the system voltage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `10A x 10V = 100W`, or&#xD;&#xA; - `1A x 100V = 100W`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Recommendations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the above discussion, I see three options for your case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Use the proposed kit, but buy your own, thicker, cables to connect from the panels to the regulator.&#xD;&#xA; - Choose a different kit which has a higher system voltage for the same total power output. You may still need to increase the cable thickness, but not to the same extent.&#xD;&#xA; - Assuming you will be using the AC power output from the inverter, you could install *all* system components outside the camp (meaning less distance between panels and regulator) and use an AC extension cord to bring power to the camp. A single AC extension cord of sufficient gauge will likely be cheaper than the larger DC power cables you'd need to buy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Regarding MPPT chargers:** I didn't discuss this, because for your application I don't think it makes sense. MPPT chargers are more expensive, and while they will reduce battery charging time, you shouldn't need this in your proposed system which is a camp (meaning lower power needs than a home) used only in the summer (when higher solar output is available). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17175" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6684" RevisionGUID="2065e0e0-a809-4230-bb19-68b1d51b7c1d" CreationDate="2018-06-11T17:50:57.830" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1006232332758667264" />
  <row Id="17176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6691" RevisionGUID="1ef456f0-9fd2-44bf-ab30-86613b9a4339" CreationDate="2018-06-11T19:29:46.257" UserId="3379" Comment="clarified/shortened" Text="## Shorter cables vs thicker cables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shorter cables are recommended because longer cables have higher resistances. A cable with a higher resistance will dissipate more power, reducing the total power output of your system (a minor annoyance), and causing the cables to heat up (a possible fire hazard).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The formula for the resistance `R` of the cable is `R = (ρ x L) / A`, where `ρ` is resistivity (a property of the conductor material), `L` is length, and `A` is the cross-sectional area of the cable. Two important things to note from this formula:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As you double the length `L`, the total resistance will double&#xD;&#xA; - As you double the area `A`, the total resistance will halve&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it is cheaper to use shorter cables than thicker cables, the manufacturer always recommends keeping the cables as short as possible. In your case, a possible &quot;off-label&quot; recommendation would be to double the cable diameter each time you double the length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The kit includes 5m of cable with 6mm^2 area for the connection from panel to regulator. To get to 30m (a 6x increase), you'd theoretically need 36mm^2 cable. You can use [this calculator](http://www.endmemo.com/physics/resistance.php) to play around with different cable lengths, materials, and diameters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Higher voltage, lower current&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to reduce the amount of power that the cable is dissipating. If we combine the formula for power (`P = V x I`) with Ohm's Law (`V = I x R`) we can establish two relationships for power dissipated by the cables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `P = I^2 x R`&#xD;&#xA; - `P = V^2 / R`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in this case the entire current `I` generated by the panels will be passing through the cable -- so if we double the system current, the cable will have to dissipate four times as much power. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the voltage `V` in this case is the voltage measured from one end of the cable to the other -- it is *not* the total system voltage. So, doubling the system voltage will *not* have the same quadrupling effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we want to minimize the current output. Incidentally, for a system with the same total power output, this can be accomplished by increasing the system voltage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `80A x 12.5V = 1000W`, or&#xD;&#xA; - `40A x 25.0V = 1000W`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The kit you linked includes two 12V solar panels, one 12V battery, and one 12V regulator. These voltages are all nominal values. As specified, the two panels are to be wired in parallel. With a 24V battery (or two 12V batteries) and 24V charger, you could wire the panels in series, after confirming that the maximum charger input was greater than twice the maximum voltage output of the two panels (in this case, 22.97V x 2 = 45.94V). The maximum voltage output is given in the technical specs as V&lt;sub&gt;OC&lt;/sub&gt;, the open-circuit voltage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Recommendations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the above points, I see three options for your case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Use the proposed kit, but separately buy thicker cables to connect from the panels to the regulator.&#xD;&#xA; - Choose a different kit which has a higher system voltage for the same total power output. You may still need to increase the cable thickness, but not to the same extent.&#xD;&#xA; - Assuming you will be using the AC power output from the inverter, you could install *all* system components outside the camp (meaning less distance between panels and regulator) and use an AC extension cord to bring power to the camp. A single AC extension cord of sufficient gauge will likely be cheaper than the larger DC power cables you'd need to buy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Regarding MPPT chargers &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't discuss this, because for your application I don't think it makes sense. MPPT chargers are more expensive, and while they will reduce battery charging time, you shouldn't need this in your proposed system which is a camp (meaning lower power needs than a home) used only in the summer (when higher solar output is available)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6692" RevisionGUID="4f6634ca-a5d0-4eaa-9aff-097a067251f7" CreationDate="2018-06-11T21:40:55.847" UserId="3379" Text="## Price&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To understand the difference, I did a quick search on the Home Depot website for tankless gas and electric water heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For [tankless gas water heaters in the 4 to 4.5 gallon per minute (gpm) supply range](https://www.homedepot.com/b/Plumbing-Water-Heaters-Tankless-Gas/4-45/N-5yc1vZc1u0Z2bcu8f?NCNI-5), there are two results with an average price of about **$230**. &#xD;&#xA;  - This appears to be on the small end for tankless gas heaters -- selections increase when you get to the 6+ gpm range. &#xD;&#xA; - For [tankless electric water heaters](https://www.homedepot.com/b/Plumbing-Water-Heaters-Tankless-Electric/4-45/N-5yc1vZc1tyZ2bcu8f?NCNI-5) with the same flowrate, there are eight results with an average price of about **$620**. &#xD;&#xA;  - This appears to be on the large end for tankless electric -- the greatest selection is in the 1 to 3 gpm range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Power&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, I looked at the [specifications for Rheem brand tankless electric heaters (pdf)](https://cdn.globalimageserver.com/FetchDocument.aspx?ID=FC3235B7-7CD0-42CD-93BC-7169EA92BE31). Units supplying 5 gpm require a 30 or 60 amp breaker -- at 7 gpm and above, up to four 40 amp breakers at 240V may be required. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, [natural gas tankless heaters (pdf)](https://s3.amazonaws.com/WebPartners/ProductDocuments/C3ACBE3D-76EC-4753-B203-F325170A0CB6.pdf) from the same manufacturer require 120,000 to 200,000 BTU per hour. This is comparable to the range for a standard home heating furnace (though 200,000 BTU/h would be quite large).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the advice you've been receiving is based on the fact that a sufficiently large tankless electric water heater would cost a lot more than a gas unit, and use a relatively large portion of the electric power supplied to your home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6692" RevisionGUID="002c9220-f358-45be-bf0c-2349fabf4382" CreationDate="2018-06-11T22:02:04.253" UserId="3379" Comment="added more detail for comparison" Text="## Price&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To understand the difference, I did a quick search on the Home Depot website for tankless gas and electric water heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For [tankless gas water heaters in the 4 to 4.5 gallon per minute (gpm) supply range](https://www.homedepot.com/b/Plumbing-Water-Heaters-Tankless-Gas/4-45/N-5yc1vZc1u0Z2bcu8f?NCNI-5), there are two results with an average price of about **$230**. &#xD;&#xA;  - This appears to be on the small end for tankless gas heaters -- selections increase when you get to the 6+ gpm range. &#xD;&#xA; - For [tankless electric water heaters](https://www.homedepot.com/b/Plumbing-Water-Heaters-Tankless-Electric/4-45/N-5yc1vZc1tyZ2bcu8f?NCNI-5) with the same flowrate, there are eight results with an average price of about **$620**. &#xD;&#xA;  - This appears to be on the large end for tankless electric -- the greatest selection is in the 1 to 3 gpm range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Power&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, I looked at the [specifications for Rheem brand tankless electric heaters (pdf)](https://cdn.globalimageserver.com/FetchDocument.aspx?ID=FC3235B7-7CD0-42CD-93BC-7169EA92BE31). Units supplying 5 gpm require a 30 or 60 amp breaker -- at 7 gpm and above, up to four 40 amp breakers at 240V may be required. Compare this to a [very large whole home air conditioner](https://www.homedepot.com/p/Kelvinator-5-Ton-14-SEER-R-410A-Split-System-Package-Heat-Pump-System-JT4BE-060KA/206084776), which requires a single 30 amp breaker (also at 240V).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, [natural gas tankless heaters (pdf)](https://s3.amazonaws.com/WebPartners/ProductDocuments/C3ACBE3D-76EC-4753-B203-F325170A0CB6.pdf) from the same manufacturer require 120,000 to 200,000 BTU per hour, and have a higher capacity (up to 9 gpm). This is comparable to the range for a standard [home heating furnace](https://www.homedepot.com/b/Heating-Venting-Cooling-Heaters-Forced-Air-Furnaces/90000-120000/N-5yc1vZc4lkZ2bctnj?NCNI-5&amp;Ns=P_REP_PRC_MODE%7C1) (though 200,000 BTU/h would be quite large).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like the advice you've been receiving is based on the fact that a sufficiently large tankless electric water heater would cost a lot more than a gas unit, and use a relatively large portion of the electric power supplied to your home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6693" RevisionGUID="f39d12f0-c76f-425e-b5f9-53f2560e4f52" CreationDate="2018-06-12T07:22:17.480" UserId="5792" Text="I have following components :-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– 2 * 250 watt solar panels v-guard&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– 1 * 12 volt, 150ah battery mtekpower&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– 1 * 900va inverter v-guard&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;– 1 * 12/24 volt , 50amp charge controller v-guard&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the connection wire length is about 4 metres.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have connected the solar panels in parallel. but the charge controller showing the error message &quot;High PV Voltage Shutdown&quot; . and no longer supplying charge to battery.Is there any problem in connection or any component needs to be added ? how to make this setup works ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6693" RevisionGUID="f39d12f0-c76f-425e-b5f9-53f2560e4f52" CreationDate="2018-06-12T07:22:17.480" UserId="5792" Text="How to setup the below solar configurations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6693" RevisionGUID="f39d12f0-c76f-425e-b5f9-53f2560e4f52" CreationDate="2018-06-12T07:22:17.480" UserId="5792" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17182" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6680" RevisionGUID="dc608eab-0ca6-45d8-8be6-955b242dcb11" CreationDate="2018-06-12T08:52:45.513" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1006459276704014336" />
  <row Id="17183" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6550" RevisionGUID="2c18bac5-6bb8-4811-86da-061942391785" CreationDate="2018-06-12T15:49:18.407" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6692" RevisionGUID="ec9d2ac7-14b6-48a0-bcde-b47a141bfd1d" CreationDate="2018-06-12T16:45:06.960" UserId="3379" Comment="formatting, efficiency" Text="### Price&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at tankless electric water heaters on the website for Home Depot, a large home improvement product retailer in the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For gas water heaters (natural gas or propane) in the 4 to 4.5 gallon per minute (gpm) (15 to 17 liters per minute, lpm) supply range, there are [two choices](https://www.homedepot.com/b/Plumbing-Water-Heaters-Tankless-Gas/4-45/N-5yc1vZc1u0Z2bcu8f?NCNI-5) with an average price of about **$230**. &#xD;&#xA;  - This is on the small end -- most of these heaters supply 6 gpm (23 lpm) or greater. &#xD;&#xA; - For electric water heaters with the same flowrate, there are [eight choices](https://www.homedepot.com/b/Plumbing-Water-Heaters-Tankless-Electric/4-45/N-5yc1vZc1tyZ2bcu8f?NCNI-5) with an average price of about **$620**. &#xD;&#xA;  - This is on the large end -- most of these heaters supply 1 to 3 gpm (4 to 11 lpm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Power&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparing the two options within one brand, Rheem, provides insight into the power demand differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Rheem electric heaters (pdf)](https://cdn.globalimageserver.com/FetchDocument.aspx?ID=FC3235B7-7CD0-42CD-93BC-7169EA92BE31) supplying 5 gpm (19 lpm) require a 30 or 60 amp breaker -- at 7 gpm (26 lpm) and above, up to four 40 amp breakers at 240V may be required to supply up to 36 kW.&#xD;&#xA;  - Compare this to a [very large whole home air conditioner](https://www.homedepot.com/p/Winchester-5-Ton-14-SEER-Residential-Whole-House-Unit-Sweat-A-C-System-with-30-ft-Line-Set-14SAC60-30/207069365), which requires a maximum of 50 amps to supply up to 6 kW.&#xD;&#xA; - [Natural gas heaters (pdf)](https://s3.amazonaws.com/WebPartners/ProductDocuments/C3ACBE3D-76EC-4753-B203-F325170A0CB6.pdf) require 120,000 to 200,000 BTU per hour (35 to 60 kW), and have a higher capacity (up to 9 gpm). &#xD;&#xA;  - This is comparable to the range for [home heating furnaces](https://www.homedepot.com/b/Heating-Venting-Cooling-Heaters-Forced-Air-Furnaces/90000-120000/N-5yc1vZc4lkZ2bctnj?NCNI-5&amp;Ns=P_REP_PRC_MODE%7C1) (though 200,000 BTU/h / 60kW would be quite large).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Efficiency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted in the question, electric tankless water heaters are more efficient. Based on the Rheem units linked above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Tankless water heater efficiency:&#xD;&#xA;     - Electric:               99.8%&#xD;&#xA;     - Natural gas or propane: 93.0%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the high cost and relative power demand of tankless electric water heaters, it would seem that they are most often used in cases where supplying natural gas or propane is not practical, despite the greater efficiency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6691" RevisionGUID="839dbf82-a11c-4786-acba-71943b8660a8" CreationDate="2018-06-12T17:03:41.177" UserId="3379" Comment="added detail on MPPT" Text="## Shorter cables vs thicker cables&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shorter cables are recommended because longer cables have higher resistances. A cable with a higher resistance will dissipate more power, reducing the total power output of your system (a minor annoyance), and causing the cables to heat up (a possible fire hazard).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The formula for the resistance `R` of the cable is `R = (ρ x L) / A`, where `ρ` is resistivity (a property of the conductor material), `L` is length, and `A` is the cross-sectional area of the cable. Two important things to note from this formula:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - As you double the length `L`, the total resistance will double&#xD;&#xA; - As you double the area `A`, the total resistance will halve&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it is cheaper to use shorter cables than thicker cables, the manufacturer always recommends keeping the cables as short as possible. In your case, a possible &quot;off-label&quot; recommendation would be to double the cable area each time you double the length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The kit includes 5m of cable with 6mm^2 area for the connection from panel to regulator. To get to 30m (a 6x increase), you'd theoretically need 36mm^2 cable. You can use [this calculator](http://www.endmemo.com/physics/resistance.php) to play around with different cable lengths, materials, and diameters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Higher voltage, lower current&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to reduce the amount of power that the cable is dissipating. If we combine the formula for power (`P = V x I`) with Ohm's Law (`V = I x R`) we can establish two relationships for power dissipated by the cables:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `P = I^2 x R`&#xD;&#xA; - `P = V^2 / R`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in this case the entire current `I` generated by the panels will be passing through the cable -- so if we double the system current, the cable will have to dissipate four times as much power. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the voltage `V` in this case is the voltage measured from one end of the cable to the other -- it is *not* the total system voltage. So, doubling the system voltage will *not* have the same quadrupling effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we want to minimize the current output. Incidentally, for a system with the same total power output, this can be accomplished by increasing the system voltage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - `80A x 12.5V = 1000W`, or&#xD;&#xA; - `40A x 25.0V = 1000W`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The kit you linked includes two 12V solar panels, one 12V battery, and one 12V regulator. These voltages are all nominal values. As specified, the two panels are to be wired in parallel. With a 24V battery (or two 12V batteries) and 24V charger, you could wire the panels in series, after confirming that the maximum charger input was greater than twice the maximum voltage output of the two panels (in this case, 22.97V x 2 = 45.94V). The maximum voltage output is given in the technical specs as V&lt;sub&gt;OC&lt;/sub&gt;, the open-circuit voltage. Note that you may still need to increase the cable thickness with such an arrangement, but not to the same extent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically for these higher voltage systems, an **MPPT charger** would be a better choice, as it will have a higher efficiency over a broader range of input voltages. For a 12V system with panels in parallel, it's usually not worth the cost -- but for systems at 24V and higher, with panels wired in series, the broader range of voltage input means that the additional cost of an MPPT system makes more sense, as the charging efficiency gains will be significant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Another option for reducing current:** Assuming you will be using the AC power output from the inverter, you could install *all* system components outside the camp (meaning less distance between panels and regulator) and use an AC extension cord to bring power to the camp. A single AC extension cord of sufficient gauge will likely be cheaper than the larger DC power cables you'd need to buy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17186" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6692" RevisionGUID="a6af0bb6-7e7b-44e4-a4be-02e0435a9641" CreationDate="2018-06-12T17:59:55.967" UserId="3379" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="### Price&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at tankless water heaters on the website for Home Depot, a large home improvement product retailer in the US:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - For gas water heaters (natural gas or propane) in the 4 to 4.5 gallon per minute (gpm) (15 to 17 liters per minute, lpm) supply range, there are [two choices](https://www.homedepot.com/b/Plumbing-Water-Heaters-Tankless-Gas/4-45/N-5yc1vZc1u0Z2bcu8f?NCNI-5) with an average price of about **$230**. &#xD;&#xA;  - This is on the small end -- most of these heaters supply 6 gpm (23 lpm) or greater. &#xD;&#xA; - For electric water heaters with the same flowrate, there are [eight choices](https://www.homedepot.com/b/Plumbing-Water-Heaters-Tankless-Electric/4-45/N-5yc1vZc1tyZ2bcu8f?NCNI-5) with an average price of about **$620**. &#xD;&#xA;  - This is on the large end -- most of these heaters supply 1 to 3 gpm (4 to 11 lpm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Power&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparing the two options within one brand, Rheem, provides insight into the power demand differences:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Rheem electric heaters (pdf)](https://cdn.globalimageserver.com/FetchDocument.aspx?ID=FC3235B7-7CD0-42CD-93BC-7169EA92BE31) supplying 5 gpm (19 lpm) require a 30 or 60 amp breaker -- at 7 gpm (26 lpm) and above, up to four 40 amp breakers at 240V may be required to supply up to 36 kW.&#xD;&#xA;  - This is significantly more power than a [very large whole home air conditioner](https://www.homedepot.com/p/Winchester-5-Ton-14-SEER-Residential-Whole-House-Unit-Sweat-A-C-System-with-30-ft-Line-Set-14SAC60-30/207069365), which requires a maximum of 50 amps to supply up to 6 kW.&#xD;&#xA; - [Rheem Natural gas heaters (pdf)](https://s3.amazonaws.com/WebPartners/ProductDocuments/C3ACBE3D-76EC-4753-B203-F325170A0CB6.pdf) require 120,000 to 200,000 BTU per hour (35 to 60 kW), and have a higher capacity (up to 9 gpm). &#xD;&#xA;  - This is comparable to the range for [home heating furnaces](https://www.homedepot.com/b/Heating-Venting-Cooling-Heaters-Forced-Air-Furnaces/90000-120000/N-5yc1vZc4lkZ2bctnj?NCNI-5&amp;Ns=P_REP_PRC_MODE%7C1) (though 200,000 BTU/h / 60kW would be quite large).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Efficiency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As noted in the question, electric tankless water heaters are more efficient. Based on the Rheem units linked above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Tankless water heater efficiency:&#xD;&#xA;     - Electric:               99.8%&#xD;&#xA;     - Natural gas or propane: 93.0%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the high cost and relative power demand of electric tankless water heaters, it would seem that they are most often used in cases where supplying natural gas or propane is not practical, despite the greater efficiency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17190" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6473" RevisionGUID="57789f07-ac0b-4777-a855-a24deebe73af" CreationDate="2018-06-13T21:19:47.900" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17192" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6688" RevisionGUID="89894623-bf50-422b-9798-2f0b1a654cf6" CreationDate="2018-06-14T03:04:08.830" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1007096321554239489" />
  <row Id="17194" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="a17cee4d-0bae-437c-84a0-202dda9b1a76" CreationDate="2018-06-15T13:53:16.927" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="1ef6b7e8-6a9e-40b5-b97f-8a6d3a7c34de" CreationDate="2018-06-16T19:24:40.613" UserId="5803" Text="Greetings Sustainable Livers! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am on a quest to discover which is the most sustainable **sheet material** &#xD;&#xA;for making **furniture**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Found this article on Bamboo Plywood: &quot;_Is **Bamboo Plywood** an **Eco-Friendly** Option?_&quot; &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.ambientbp.com/blog/bamboo-plywood-eco-friendly-option&#xD;&#xA;it's _well-written_, however the post states at the top of the page:&#xD;&#xA;&quot;_brought to you by **ambient bamboo flooring**_&quot;&#xD;&#xA;![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/194400/41501354-d79e0e94-719a-11e8-955a-c1e245bd076b.png)&#xD;&#xA;i.e. clearly &quot;sponsored&quot; (_biased_).&#xD;&#xA;So I am not treating it as a &quot;reliable&quot; or &quot;scientific&quot; source ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MIT published their findings on the engineering properties of Bamboo:&#xD;&#xA;http://news.mit.edu/2014/researchers-study-bamboo-for-engineered-building-material-0723 &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;but _sadly_ no mention is made of the environmental sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my research the Bamboo Plywood is **more expensive** ([_twice the price_](https://github.com/nelsonic/standing-desk/issues/15#issuecomment-376142106))&#xD;&#xA;and I need a _strong_ justification to spend the extra money, e.g: if Bamboo Plywood is _twice_ as sustainable (_environmentally friendly_) I can spend/invest the extra $$$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone knows of reliable/scientific research indicating which is the most sustainable sheet material, (_please share links_),&#xD;&#xA;I would be very grateful! _Thanks in advance!_&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17196" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="1ef6b7e8-6a9e-40b5-b97f-8a6d3a7c34de" CreationDate="2018-06-16T19:24:40.613" UserId="5803" Text="Is Bamboo Plywood More Sustainable than (&quot;traditional&quot;) Birch Plywood?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17197" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="1ef6b7e8-6a9e-40b5-b97f-8a6d3a7c34de" CreationDate="2018-06-16T19:24:40.613" UserId="5803" Text="|building-materials|materials|furniture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17198" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6695" RevisionGUID="6b29abf0-f1f2-4a11-bfbc-ee4a150f8a74" CreationDate="2018-06-17T15:18:35.907" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1008368315633455104" />
  <row Id="17202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6697" RevisionGUID="062bb3c7-d497-4296-b956-2cec95db2041" CreationDate="2018-06-19T21:16:27.910" UserId="5811" Text="We buy some cheap transparent plastic at a sewing store. Kind of like clear plastic sandwich bag plastic but thicker. We cut it into half circles of various sizes - usually 6-9 inches long and maybe 4-6&quot; high at the top of the half circle. We then use cheap elastic maybe 1/4&quot; wide (also from a sewing store) and then attach these half circles, circle side down, wrapping them around the trees or plants in a skirt-like shape and tying them tight at the top with the elastic. Imagine them as a clear mini-skirt for a plant or small tree trunk. Obviously for a larger tree you'd need a much bigger half-circle of plastic.&#xD;&#xA;Note that it doesn't have to be transparent, it just looks better to us that way. Also note it could be aluminum foil or any slick surface but we like this transparent plastic and it's cheap.&#xD;&#xA;A less &quot;pretty&quot; way is to just use small grocery or store bags, and tie them with the elastic or rubber bands at the top.&#xD;&#xA;The concept is that the ants go up the stalk and can't get through due to the elastic tied tight over the plastic. Then they don't want to crawl along the inside of the skirt either because it's slippery. So they go away.&#xD;&#xA;This has been the ONLY thing that works for us. &#xD;&#xA;Sometimes some of the &quot;bait&quot; type poison works but many times it does not as these leaf cutter ants are extremely intelligent re their farming and they come to recognize that the poison bait is bad for them so they won't carry it back to their &quot;farm&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6699" RevisionGUID="f9bbf43a-76d4-46da-8f06-84f80dc132e8" CreationDate="2018-06-20T16:07:53.297" UserId="5816" Text="This depends on the amount of CO2 generated by both sources.  Propane (LPG) generates around 230g CO2 per kWh used (source https://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/CO2-spez/index_e.php ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Divide this by the efficiency of your water heater:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. 230 / 85% = 271 gCO2 / kWh of water heated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the electric heated water, you need to know the carbon intensity of your local electricity grid.  Looking at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.electricitymap.org/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This varies widely between grids e.g. right-now, we have Sweden at 36 g/kWh and Estonia at 984 g/kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in Sweden the electric water heater is going to be better, and in Estonia, propane wins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... but you can also do better than straight electric by using a heat pump.   This doesn't just use the electricity to heat the water directly, it moves heat from outside the building into the water.  Because of this it can achieve an efficiency greater than 100%.  e.g. 250% (CoP of 2.5) is common for heat pump water heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For my local grid this would bring the carbon intensity of water heating down from 250 g/kWh (for direct electric heating) to 100 g/kWh (heat pump electric heating)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="955" RevisionGUID="b8ec4fbe-aeb3-4701-9d1c-54fd5a2a9be5" CreationDate="2018-06-20T16:19:47.270" UserId="571" Comment="deleted 277 characters in body" Text="We spend lots of resources and time on social networking websites from all over the world. How we justify social networking sites are brings people, society together? Are there net gain or net loss?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1015" RevisionGUID="6d7df116-f964-4636-9784-b6dfba1afebd" CreationDate="2018-06-20T16:25:22.980" UserId="571" Comment="deleted 41 characters in body" Text="Can anyone suggests Good Documentary Videos like &#xD;&#xA;*The Home, Story of Stuff*, and *The Inconvenient Truth* which highlights the society issues, problems and their respective solutions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                                &#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6700" RevisionGUID="f2f1836d-3588-4538-8020-14e0ccaa7571" CreationDate="2018-06-21T12:09:27.837" UserId="5818" Text="If you're in the UK - https://www.ethex.org.uk/ and https://www.abundanceinvestment.com/ are awesome in what they provide.  Green Bonds are growing in popularity and are often used by renewable energy companies that are fundraising - so would also look out for those in your country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6701" RevisionGUID="a55595c5-984a-47bf-8b22-327057f3b89f" CreationDate="2018-06-21T15:50:47.020" UserId="4155" Text="There seem to be a lot of resources out there for sourcing sustainably/ethically grown vegetables, but many of the ones I can find seem to be aimed primarily at vegetarians/vegans, and so don't have meat products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My wife and I want to live more sustainably and ethically, and so we'd like to make sure that all the food we buy fits with our beliefs - so we'd like to buy meat that was grown in an ethical manner (i.e. high animal welfare, humane slaughter, etc) and as sustainably as possible. We've already started growing our own veg, so our main focus at the moment is meat, non-food produce, and other harder-to-produce-ourselves staples such as rice and pasta.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any resources or websites (ideally UK, but also general) for how to source such produce? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We currently buy the &quot;organic&quot; branded meat from our local supermarket, but they have a very limited range, it's often out of stock, and is almost all pre-packaged in plastic, which we'd also like to avoid for sustainability reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6701" RevisionGUID="a55595c5-984a-47bf-8b22-327057f3b89f" CreationDate="2018-06-21T15:50:47.020" UserId="4155" Text="How to source sustainable/ethical meat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6701" RevisionGUID="a55595c5-984a-47bf-8b22-327057f3b89f" CreationDate="2018-06-21T15:50:47.020" UserId="4155" Text="|food|meat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17214" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="b6948300-6c88-4279-ad74-56bdf1372d20" CreationDate="2018-06-21T16:27:55.797" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/14468/why-is-the-per-capita-co2-emissions-so-much-higher-in-wyoming-than-in-the-northe" />
  <row Id="17215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="cdfcd7d9-bc87-4590-8195-ad7c6af8613b" CreationDate="2018-06-20T22:19:26.603" UserDisplayName="T.D." Text="Per capita CO2 emissions are several times higher in the &quot;red&quot; states of the West and South than it is in the Northeast.  I cannot imagine why.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="cdfcd7d9-bc87-4590-8195-ad7c6af8613b" CreationDate="2018-06-20T22:19:26.603" UserDisplayName="T.D." Text="Why is the per capita CO2 emissions so much higher in Wyoming than in the Northeast?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="cdfcd7d9-bc87-4590-8195-ad7c6af8613b" CreationDate="2018-06-20T22:19:26.603" UserDisplayName="T.D." Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17218" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="8f41cab9-4d85-4432-bb4f-bc07b974ec8d" CreationDate="2018-06-21T17:17:15.577" UserId="48" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="3a881dc7-5659-4581-a5bd-bcb85e391b39" CreationDate="2018-06-21T19:59:43.910" UserId="3379" Comment="added source and map" Text="Per capita CO2 emissions are several times higher in the &quot;red&quot; states of the West and South than it is in the Northeast.  I cannot imagine why.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [&quot;List of U.S. states by carbon dioxide emissions&quot;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions) on Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![States by CO2 emissions][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SOY4O.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17220" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="0b53b61f-1d8b-498b-815d-678787641d15" CreationDate="2018-06-21T20:56:14.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="d0c2b89a-f639-4b2c-91b0-cd53a2649964" CreationDate="2018-06-21T23:44:18.310" UserId="3532" Text="I've heard that garden giant mushrooms will breakdown fecal matter, and was wondering if it would be a good enough idea to put some inside the septic tank to have it break down fecal matter to make it less necessary to suck out the septic tank." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17222" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="d0c2b89a-f639-4b2c-91b0-cd53a2649964" CreationDate="2018-06-21T23:44:18.310" UserId="3532" Text="Will garden giant mushrooms survive in a normal septic tank?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17223" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="d0c2b89a-f639-4b2c-91b0-cd53a2649964" CreationDate="2018-06-21T23:44:18.310" UserId="3532" Text="|waste|mushrooms|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6704" RevisionGUID="e6bcdcfa-8926-442d-be9d-23afddfd6e87" CreationDate="2018-06-22T06:50:56.653" UserId="5822" Text="We are looking at air to air heat pumps (aka reverse cycle AC units) to replace our existing electrical heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air to air heat pumps claim a multiplier of 3 or 4 to 1 in the manufacturing literature. However when I was looking at the graph presented to me by the salesman it only showed about 1.25 to 1 at 11 degrees C and less for lower temperature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since people do not generally heat their homes until the temperature gets low, I'm wondering what the true efficiency of there units is in the range of say 10 degrees C to -5 degrees C (the typical UK winter). Does anyone have decent data on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6704" RevisionGUID="e6bcdcfa-8926-442d-be9d-23afddfd6e87" CreationDate="2018-06-22T06:50:56.653" UserId="5822" Text="What is the actual efficiency of an air to air heat pump in the winter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6704" RevisionGUID="e6bcdcfa-8926-442d-be9d-23afddfd6e87" CreationDate="2018-06-22T06:50:56.653" UserId="5822" Text="|air-conditioning|heat-pump|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6705" RevisionGUID="f61070ae-dc9b-4fc4-b765-8f5cb852b7a7" CreationDate="2018-06-22T10:50:55.833" UserId="679" Text="There's a small piece of land used for burning tree branches on bonfire (because that's the easiest way to get rid of them). Most of the material gets burnt to ashes but some of it only turns into charcoal. That charcoal pieces are between 5 and 20 millimeters in diameter and mixed with ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every time a bonfire is run new and new charcoal pieces remain because what remains from the previous bonfire simply doesn't heat enough and fails to burn further. So those pieces of charcoal accumulate in the ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Charcoal doesn't degrade - it's almost pure carbon and noone wants to eat it - and so it remains there forever. It's easy to crush it but that just yields charcoal dust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would I get rid of that charcoal other than gathering it and dumping it somewhere (out of sight, out of mind)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could gather it (together with some ashes, but whatever) and try to burn it but it looks like it would be problematic because setting such small pieces of charcoal on fire is non-trivial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a good way to get rid of charcoal?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17228" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6705" RevisionGUID="f61070ae-dc9b-4fc4-b765-8f5cb852b7a7" CreationDate="2018-06-22T10:50:55.833" UserId="679" Text="How do I get rid of numerous small pieces of charcoal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17229" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6705" RevisionGUID="f61070ae-dc9b-4fc4-b765-8f5cb852b7a7" CreationDate="2018-06-22T10:50:55.833" UserId="679" Text="|waste|reuse|pollution|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17230" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6704" RevisionGUID="dc3f1239-27bc-4455-aa95-e3dc05b84ed0" CreationDate="2018-06-22T15:26:36.000" UserId="5822" Comment="added 140 characters in body" Text="We are looking at air to air heat pumps (aka reverse cycle AC units) to replace our existing electrical heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air to air heat pumps claim a COP of 3 or 4 to 1 in the manufacturing literature. However when I was looking at the graph presented to me by the salesman it only showed about 1.25 to 1 at 11 degrees C and less for lower temperature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since people do not generally heat their homes until the temperature gets low, I'm wondering what the true efficiency of there units is in the range of say 10 degrees C to -5 degrees C (the typical UK winter). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if there is a standard benchmark by which COP is measured and also if there is proper data of how COP varies with temperature for different heat pumps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="9c71bb70-78c8-46a2-be41-012e55c9ff1f" CreationDate="2018-06-22T17:57:14.883" UserId="4886" Text="There's a bit of data at [here][1] that you could selectively analyse to get a few numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their approach was to test heat pumps with reported COPs to see how many °C they would boost the inlet air temperature.  Although this information is not immediately useful, if you know you have to raise the external air temperature by a certain number of °C to make the internal temperature comfortable, then you can read the charts *backward* to work out what the COP would be of heat pumps capable of doing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the summary it says: &quot;**Linear fits to each data set suggest that COP [of Air Source Heat Pumps] falls by 0.67-1.07 for every 10°C temperature rise.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you just want an easy-to-remember rule-of-thumb, then you could probably just use &amp;Delta;T/10.  An Air Source Heat Pump required to pump heat from -5°C (outside) to 20°C (inside) would thus see its COP drop by (20 - (-5))/10 = 25/10 = 2.5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flow on from this is that if the ASHP/airconditioner only had a heating COP of 3.5 to start with, then its *effective* COP would be 3.5-2.5= 1.0 which is no better than a (direct) electric heater (e.g. baseboard, radiant, wall) anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/1073992/A_review_of_domestic_heat_pump_coefficient_of_performance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="45e25ff6-f600-4076-a963-01e9e13e7e77" CreationDate="2018-06-22T18:04:51.453" UserId="4886" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]; deleted 5 characters in body" Text="There's a bit of data at [here][1] that you could selectively analyse to get a few numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their approach was to test heat pumps with reported COPs to see how many °C they would boost the inlet air temperature.  Although this information is not immediately useful, if you know you have to raise the external air temperature by a certain number of °C to make the internal temperature comfortable, then you can read the charts *backward* to work out what the COP would be of heat pumps capable of doing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the summary it says: &quot;**Linear fits to each data set suggest that COP [of Air Source Heat Pumps] falls by 0.67-1.07 for every 10°C temperature rise.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want an easy-to-remember rule-of-thumb, then you could probably just use &amp;Delta;T/10.  An Air Source Heat Pump required to pump heat from -5°C (outside) to 20°C (inside) would thus see its COP drop by (20 - (-5))/10 = 25/10 = 2.5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flow on from this is that if the ASHP/airconditioner only had a heating COP of 3.5 to start with, then its *effective* COP would be 3.5-2.5= 1.0 which is no better than a (direct) electric heater (e.g. baseboard, radiant, wall) anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/1073992/A_review_of_domestic_heat_pump_coefficient_of_performance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="f318c843-0b81-470c-b6e9-a1aaf52c6c1b" CreationDate="2018-06-22T18:12:28.183" UserId="4886" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="There's a bit of data at [here][1] that you could selectively analyse to get a few numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their approach was to test heat pumps with reported COPs to see how many °C they would boost the inlet air temperature.  Although this information is not immediately useful, if you know you have to raise the external air temperature by a certain number of °C to make the internal temperature comfortable, then you can read the charts *backward* to work out what the COP would be of heat pumps capable of doing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the summary they say: &quot;**Linear fits to each data set suggest that COP [of Air Source Heat Pumps] falls by 0.67-1.07 for every 10°C temperature rise.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want an easy-to-remember rule-of-thumb, then you could probably just use &amp;Delta;T/10.  An Air Source Heat Pump required to pump heat from -5°C (outside) to 20°C (inside) would thus see its COP drop by (20 - (-5))/10 = 25/10 = 2.5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flow on from this is that if the ASHP/airconditioner in that scenario only had a heating COP of 3.5 to start with, then its *effective* COP would be 3.5-2.5= 1.0 which is no better than a (direct) electric heater (e.g. baseboard, radiant, wall, bar) anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/1073992/A_review_of_domestic_heat_pump_coefficient_of_performance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="a71e8c3c-68cc-4e70-b6f8-deeb63a4efe5" CreationDate="2018-06-22T18:18:49.313" UserId="4886" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="There's a bit of data at [here][1] that you could selectively analyse to get a few numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their approach was to test heat pumps with reported COPs to see how many °C they would boost the inlet air temperature.  Although this information is not immediately useful, if you know you have to raise the external air temperature by a certain number of °C to make the internal temperature comfortable, then you can read the charts *backward* to work out what the COP would be of heat pumps capable of doing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the summary they say: &quot;**Linear fits to each data set suggest that COP [of Air Source Heat Pumps] falls by 0.67-1.07 for every 10°C temperature rise.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want an easy-to-remember rule-of-thumb, then you could probably just use &amp;Delta;T/10.  Applying that to an example:  An ASHP/airconditioner required to pump heat from -5°C (outside) to 20°C (inside) would thus see its COP drop by (20 - (-5))/10 = 25/10 = 2.5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting consequence of COP reductions of this magnitude is that if the ASHP/airconditioner in the example only had a heating COP of 3.5 to start with, then its *effective* COP would be 3.5-2.5= 1.0 which is no better than a (direct) electric heater (e.g. baseboard, radiant, wall, bar) anyway.  When it's really, really cold outside it *might* make more sense to turn on an electric radiator, or a bunch of incandescent light bulbs, than run the airconditioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/1073992/A_review_of_domestic_heat_pump_coefficient_of_performance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17236" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6702" RevisionGUID="feb48696-53bd-4399-8daa-6e9c90e38a02" CreationDate="2018-06-22T21:48:30.277" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1010278378396684289" />
  <row Id="17238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6708" RevisionGUID="deed8c26-7358-4daf-8a5e-f75b1f0aba26" CreationDate="2018-06-23T06:37:54.970" UserId="4886" Text="If you only focus on daily running costs, then an efficient dishwasher that consumes only a few litres of rainwater, and electricity from solar panels on your roof, will win — hands-down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, that dishwasher may only last 10 years, and may only complete 3,650-ish wash cycles, before failing in a manner that requires its complete replacement.  So if you expand your time-frame to 10 years then it is almost certain that mass-produced, &quot;non-dyed, 100% natural, biodegradable&quot; paper plates will have a lower environmental impact.  You don't even need to do math to know that more resources will go into a high-tech dishwasher than 3,650-ish low-impact place settings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use plates and utensils made of [waste sugarcane pulp][1] when camping... so there's no need to even fell any trees... or to use 'paper' at all.  The pulp is a waste product that would have otherwise been burned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can latch onto a *local* supplier of low-impact disposable place settings then I think you're onto a winner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://biopak.com.au/products/plates-bowls-and-trays/sugarcane-plates" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6709" RevisionGUID="0229ba2f-74bc-42fb-9746-7708a67cc9e3" CreationDate="2018-06-23T06:52:44.497" UserId="4886" Text="You are talking about **black gold** that has a value of AU$40 per 25 litre bag in my area.  Either sell it or put it back into the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6709" RevisionGUID="b7e1ed6d-b1ea-45eb-9505-535462478d1f" CreationDate="2018-06-23T07:11:10.037" UserId="4886" Comment="added 164 characters in body" Text="You are talking about **black gold** that has a value of AU$40 per 25 litre bag in my area.  Either sell it or put it back into the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can collect cool charcoal in a plastic bag until you have a volume worth doing something serious with.  Because it's pure carbon it will store indefinitely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6710" RevisionGUID="fd7e764a-9f85-4235-95ff-99deca0cab5b" CreationDate="2018-06-23T08:54:15.053" UserId="5828" Text="My mum told me that during the war she went out to find hollow stemmed weeds from the fields to dry in the oven to make drinking straws. Unfortunately she's not here now to tell me what plant was used. I think it might be a good idea to ask members of the older generations who have a wealth of knowledge in these matters." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="b1bf749d-df72-4b4d-a56a-495a9b9898bf" CreationDate="2018-06-23T10:09:16.117" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="There's a bit of data at [here][1] that you could selectively analyse to get a few numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their approach was to test heat pumps with reported COPs to see how many °C they would boost the inlet air temperature.  Although this information is not immediately useful, if you know you have to raise the air temperature by a certain number of °C to make the internal temperature comfortable, then you can read the charts *backward* to work out what the COP would be of heat pumps capable of doing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the summary they say: &quot;**Linear fits to each data set suggest that COP [of Air Source Heat Pumps] falls by 0.67-1.07 for every 10°C temperature rise.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want an easy-to-remember rule-of-thumb, then you could probably just use &amp;Delta;T/10.  Applying that to an example:  An ASHP/airconditioner required to pump heat from -5°C (outside) to 20°C (inside) would thus see its COP drop by (20 - (-5))/10 = 25/10 = 2.5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting consequence of COP reductions of this magnitude is that if the ASHP/airconditioner in the example only had a heating COP of 3.5 to start with, then its *effective* COP would be 3.5-2.5= 1.0 which is no better than a (direct) electric heater (e.g. baseboard, radiant, wall, bar) anyway.  When it's really, really cold outside it *might* make more sense to turn on an electric radiator, or a bunch of incandescent light bulbs, than run the airconditioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/1073992/A_review_of_domestic_heat_pump_coefficient_of_performance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6711" RevisionGUID="2ed07cf1-43ed-4ffb-a509-2b753d073737" CreationDate="2018-06-23T12:38:13.803" UserId="400" Text="There are a bunch of possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Long cold winters.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This creates a high demand for heating fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long winters also mean that 'carbon friendly' commuting (bike, walk, scooter, motorbike) has a shorter season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* High elevation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you adjust your engine to run leaner, you will tend to use too much fuel. (Modern engines may adjust for this, but anything with a carburetor won't)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Dry climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vehicles don't rust very fast.  This encourages people to hold on to them longer.  Older cars are less efficient.  On top of that the low population, and more expensive transport will raise new car prices, further encouraging long term use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Low density population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People drive more, compared to north-easterners.  Where you are going is far from where you are.  The low density also means that public transport system are either non-existant, or are low on convenience.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of Wyoming people are rural -- farm and ranch folk -- which makes this worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Land is cheap.  It's reasonable to own a quarter section 20 miles from town.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* High infra-structure costs per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It costs the same to run a snowplow over a road whether that road is used by 20 people an hour or 300 people per hour.  Roads deteriorate from use, (especially heavy trucks) but also from weather.  Freeze thaw cycles are tough on roads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is significant coal fired electricity in Wyoming, and they export power to neighbouring states, even one large power plant will raise the average for the entire state.  Even if they don't export, generating power for a small dispersed population is inefficient.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* High fossil fuel exploration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The search for gas and oil is expensive in terms of energy.  In oil fields gas is often just flared off unless there is a local use for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="8bdbaf6f-c64d-4b11-be4f-44d3a6d03f73" CreationDate="2018-06-23T16:15:22.333" UserId="4886" Comment="added 520 characters in body" Text="There's a bit of data at [here][1] that you could selectively analyse to get a few numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their approach was to test heat pumps with reported COPs to see how many °C they would boost the inlet air temperature.  Although this information is not immediately useful, if you know you have to raise the air temperature by a certain number of °C to make the internal temperature comfortable, then you can read the charts *backward* to work out what the COP would be of heat pumps capable of doing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the summary they say: &quot;**Linear fits to each data set suggest that COP [of Air Source Heat Pumps] falls by 0.67-1.07 for every 10°C temperature rise.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want an easy-to-remember rule-of-thumb, then you could probably just use &amp;Delta;T/10.  Applying that to an example:  An ASHP/airconditioner required to pump heat from -5°C (outside) to 20°C (inside) would thus see its COP drop by (20 - (-5))/10 = 25/10 = 2.5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting consequence of COP reductions of this magnitude is that if the ASHP/airconditioner in the example only had a heating COP of 3.5 to start with, then its *effective* COP would be 3.5-2.5= 1.0 which is no better than a (direct) electric heater (e.g. baseboard, radiant, wall, bar) anyway.  When it's really, really cold outside it *might* make more sense to turn on an electric radiator, or a bunch of incandescent light bulbs, than run the airconditioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst rules-of-thumb are great for estimating things in 'normal' ranges, they aren't so good when you approach operational limits.  If an AC's operating range goes down to 5°C then don't expect *linear* degradation of performance past or even near that limit.  Our AC, for instance, actually ices up and stalls at about 3°C — so COP has rapidly reduced to zero (or perhaps even a negative number) at that point.  As always, results and observations in the real world trump formulae presented on Internet forums.  ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/1073992/A_review_of_domestic_heat_pump_coefficient_of_performance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6709" RevisionGUID="07db57ef-4ebe-4d03-b063-c74447969336" CreationDate="2018-06-23T16:39:38.440" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You are talking about **black gold** that has a value of AU$40 per 25 litre bag in my area.  Either sell it or put it back into the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can collect (cool) charcoal in a plastic bag until you have a volume worth doing something serious with.  Because it's pure carbon it will store indefinitely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="686" RevisionGUID="fd63a654-51c6-4635-9c0e-97a8da3a8545" CreationDate="2018-06-24T13:15:00.793" UserId="400" Comment="added shakes." Text="Much depends on what you consider sustainable. The two major sustainability questions concern the energy to produce it,  and the resource used to produce it.  Additional concerns are the difficulty to recycle/dispose of at end of life, and the costs of both moving the resource to manufacturing point, and moving the product to the use point.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK there is no general purpose definition.  Here's some comparisons and tradeoffs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Group 1.  Plastic/Petrochemical&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Vinyl** -- probably one of the worst picks.  All sorts of poisonous byproducts in it's manufacture, and in disposal.  Relatively innocuous in use.  Lifetime 15-25 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Shingle** -- Similar to the standard asphalt and fiber and rock shingles used on roofs, but designed to be used vertically.  Tend to last longer as siding than they do as roof, because there is no snow load, no hail, less sun.  Not terribly hard on the environment -- basically the same material as roads with glass fiber added.  As long as we are going to use fossil fuel, we will have a surplus of asphalt.  Of this group, I consdier this one most sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Group 2:  Wood based.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood is the only fully renewable material on this list, so in that sense is the most sustainable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wood slab.**  Formed from the first cut off the side of a log, bark scraped off, and a half lap rabbeted on each side.  Requires new coat of log oil every 5 years or so. Very sustainable -- better use than for fuel, which is otherwise what happens to slabs. Very time consuming to put on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Clapboard.**  Requires large trees as feed stock, and so competes with the other uses for large trees.  If Cedar clapboard is used, puts higher demand on an already high demand wood.  Requires regular painting.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Tongue &amp; Groove Milled siding.**  Similar to clapboard but both thicker and narrower.  Can be made with smaller trees.  Uses more wood overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Chip based siding** -- Made from slash and scrap wood. Requires regular painting. Requires significant petrochemical resins to bond the chips together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Split wood shake** -- usually cedar, but redwood, and large spruce can also be used.  Shakes can be made from short log ends, and stumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Group 3 Metal based. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metal siding requires careful attention to the details around doors and windows.  It also has zero water permiability, so some form of ventilation or rain screen needs to be behind the siding. Metal siding usually won't require care once up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Aluminum siding.**  High initial embodied energy cost, but will last a very very long time.  Subject to dents.  Aluminum recycles quite well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Steel siding.**  Lower energy than aluminum, but also lower lifetime.  Better dent resistance.    Also endlessly recyclable.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Group 4.  Cementaceous based siding.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relatively high emboddied energy, and low recycleability.  Used material is only good for fill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Portland cement and fiber:** Portland cement is one of the highest energy materials out there -- a significant amount of our cultures total energy budget is spent making portland cement.  In that sense it's unsustainnable.  The raw material is limestone, and we have whole mountains made of it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fiber can be one of several minerals, indlcuding asbestos, serpentine, rock wool from slag, spun glass from recycled glass.  Coloring can be either embedded mineral pigments, or painted.  If embedded will last a very long time.  Essentially impossible to recycle -- use as fill.  Note that it requires a lab test to determine if the fiber component is asbestos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Lime/Earth Plaster:**  See any resource on strawbale building.  The energy cost of lime is much smaller than for portland cement, and earth based is just clay and fine sand.  However the usual use is with buildings with wide eaves to reduce the amount of rain hitting them.  They are very labour intensive to apply, and require attention to maintenance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Stucco:**  Relatively cheap, long lasting, but very limited in available colours.  While it can be painted, it seldom is.  Stucco housing developments tend to be grey and dreary looking. Stucco is also based on portland cement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, My opinion is that the wood slab siding is the most sustainable.  The resource is renewable, the energy costs moderate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second on my list are the lime/earth based plasters if you have a house/climate that allow it. Stucco comes close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third on my list is steel siding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better answer than this would require  deciding which factors are most important, as well as energy and resource use of the particular product and manufacturer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ultimate sustainable action is to do nothing.  It requires no energy, no resources.  If the present siding works and is not harming you while present, the the most sustainable siding is the present siding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Original Answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it's not a health concern.  Right now it's locked up as siding.  If you remove it, you will break it up, make dust, which IS a health problem, but sitting there bonded to concrete on the side of your house it is harmless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep it painted to keep dust from spalling off of it. although that is a pretty minor concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even asbestos insulation is largely harmless once in place.  The hazard is in working around it, with it, but asbestos bonded into tile or cement siding is reasonably safe unless some process is turning it into powder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6712" RevisionGUID="30aa36f1-d958-4113-b3c4-95c7423f6292" CreationDate="2018-06-24T13:22:40.767" UserId="5831" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use up batteries (both recyclable and not) at an exceedingly slow rate. stockpiling batteries for proper disposal is not realistic as I will do so for years, if not decades. All the more so, since I live in a very tiny place,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I do my errands in a milk-run, stopping off at a box store to dispose of (say) a pair of AA batteries, I wondered whether the environmental cost of restarting the car was worse than simply putting the batteries in the garbage. I am cognizant that starting a car uses a lot of fuel, probably equating to 30 seconds of idling. It makes me wonder about the whole wisdom of it all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that it is a complex question, since it entails speculative quantification of complex facors. But are there any big factors that render the choice clear?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natural follow-on question would be at what volume of spent batteries would it be worthwhile to stop the car. This is a tougher question, as it is more nuanced than simply looking for big factors that clearly indicate which of two options is better.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6712" RevisionGUID="30aa36f1-d958-4113-b3c4-95c7423f6292" CreationDate="2018-06-24T13:22:40.767" UserId="5831" Text="Rough cost-benefit of stopping car to recycle batteries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17249" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6712" RevisionGUID="30aa36f1-d958-4113-b3c4-95c7423f6292" CreationDate="2018-06-24T13:22:40.767" UserId="5831" Text="|recycling|batteries|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6713" RevisionGUID="916d1007-e949-4cfc-93df-4e272825f24c" CreationDate="2018-06-24T13:30:23.713" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="There is much more at stake here that just the car fuel. Batteries contain all kinds of metals that have to be mined and processed, that are a danger when released into the environment (e.g. seeping out of landfills), and that can be re-used when the batteries are properly recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just collect your spent batteries and then once of twice a year, hand them in at a proper place for recycling. Especially if you are already doing other shopping nearby, my opinion (I don't have hard data about all the life cycle factors involved here) is you're doing the second best thing&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* The first best being to reduce your battery usage (reduce - reuse - recycle)&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17251" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6712" RevisionGUID="3eb97cb4-99b7-4604-81a5-3c8fb7e9429f" CreationDate="2018-06-24T16:21:52.357" UserId="3379" Comment="typos, formatting" Text="I use up batteries (both recyclable and not) at an exceedingly slow rate. Stockpiling batteries for proper disposal is not realistic as I will do so for years, if not decades. All the more so, since I live in a very tiny place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I do my errands in a milk-run, stopping off at a box store to dispose of (say) a pair of AA batteries, I wondered whether the environmental cost of restarting the car was worse than simply putting the batteries in the garbage. I am cognizant that starting a car uses a lot of fuel, probably equating to 30 seconds of idling. It makes me wonder about the whole wisdom of it all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that it is a complex question, since it entails speculative quantification of complex factors. But are there any big factors that render the choice clear?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natural follow-on question would be at what volume of spent batteries would it be worthwhile to stop the car. This is a tougher question, as it is more nuanced than simply looking for big factors that clearly indicate which of two options is better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="e1fea4a2-9a8b-4ce7-9342-8cbdda4af5df" CreationDate="2018-06-24T17:55:31.060" UserId="3379" Text="## CO2 emissions by sector&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the [EPA's FLIGHT database](https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#myModal) (Facility Level Information on Green House gases Tool -- a terrible, terrible acronym) I compared Wyoming to New York, being the largest state in the Northeast (geographically and by population). Data is for 2014 to match the map in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For both Wyoming and New York, the largest source of CO2 emissions is the power sector, by a lot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New York**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![NY CO2e emissions by sector, 2014][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wyoming**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![WY CO2e emissions by sector, 2014][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Power generation by source&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next stop is the Energy Information Administration's [Detailed State Electricity Data](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/). From this data I put together a chart of power sources by type for the two states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Power generation by source, WY and NY, 2014][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From here you can see that coal dominates in Wyoming, while natural gas and nuclear are the dominant sources in NY.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Carbon emissions by electric generation source&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same EIA page provides data on carbon emissions by state by fuel source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because [coal-fired generation emits CO2 at about twice the rate of natural gas-fired generation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources), Wyoming's coal-fired generation results in nearly double the CO2 emissions of NY's natural gas-fired generation, despite NY using more power from natural gas than Wyoming does from coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why does Wyoming use so much coal, while NY uses natural gas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, despite the way the question is worded, this has more to do with economics than politics. Coal is mined in Wyoming, so it's burned there. Natural gas is extracted in Pennsylvania, NY's neighbor to the south and west. Hydro power makes sense in NY because of the rivers and the Great Lakes. Nuclear power is prevalent in NY because when the U.S. was building nuclear power plants, there was a dense enough population in NY to justify this, along with abundant surface water for cooling, and a skilled workforce. Wyoming didn't have any of these, so the nukes were built in the Northeast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent *trends* in power generation sources have to do with politics -- NY is shutting down coal and nuclear and adding more wind and solar -- but the current state of affairs was brought about by the economics of cheap, abundant natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fy2bH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WiOFR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LVnQT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/shmhu.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="33ea4a25-72c0-415c-8796-5cc01bd49915" CreationDate="2018-06-25T01:44:05.360" UserId="3379" Comment="switched to per capita analysis" Text="## CO2 emissions by sector&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the [EPA's FLIGHT database](https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#myModal) (Facility Level Information on Green House gases Tool -- a terrible, terrible acronym) I compared Wyoming to New York, being the largest state in the Northeast (geographically and by population). Data is for 2014 to match the map in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For both Wyoming and New York, the largest point source of CO2 emissions is the power sector, by a lot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New York**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![NY CO2e emissions by sector, 2014][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wyoming**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![WY CO2e emissions by sector, 2014][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Carbon emissions by electric generation source&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Energy Information Administration's [Detailed State Electricity Data](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/) provides data on carbon emissions by fuel source, by state, for electric power generation. Combining the 2014 data with the populations for that year, we can see that coal in Wyoming dominates the emissions for both states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carbon emissions per capita, by fuel source, NY and WY (2014)][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are few things that explain this huge disparity, but it still leaves some questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total generation for NY in 2014 was about 138 TWh, or about 7,000 kWh per person (population of around 20 million). In contrast, total generation in WY was about 50 TWh, or about 85,000 kWh per person (population of around 0.5 million).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why does the average person in Wyoming use 10 times as much power as a person in New York?** One clue comes from [EIA data on interstate and international flows of electric power](https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/sum_btu_totcb.html&amp;sid=US). New York had net imports of 34 TWh in 2014, while Wyoming was a net exporter of 95 TWh. The numbers are murky, however, as the total generation for WY is only 50 TWh, meaning the accounting used in the two databases doesn't match up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, because [coal-fired generation emits CO2 at about twice the rate of natural gas-fired generation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources), Wyoming's coal-fired generation results in nearly double the CO2 emissions of NY's natural gas-fired generation, despite NY using more power from natural gas than Wyoming does from coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why does Wyoming use so much coal, while NY uses natural gas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, despite the way the question is worded, this has more to do with economics than politics. Coal is mined in Wyoming, so it's burned there. Natural gas is extracted in Pennsylvania, NY's neighbor to the south and west. Hydro power makes sense in NY because of the rivers and the Great Lakes. Nuclear power is prevalent in NY because when the U.S. was building nuclear power plants, there was a dense enough population in NY to justify this, along with abundant surface water for cooling, and a skilled workforce. Wyoming didn't have any of these, so the nukes were built in the Northeast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent *trends* in power generation sources have to do with politics -- NY is shutting down coal and nuclear and adding more wind and solar -- but the current state of affairs was brought about by the economics of cheap, abundant natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about transportation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FLIGHT data at the top only includes point sources. In the transportation sector, Wyoming wins out. From the EIA's data on [retail gasoline sales](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_refmg_d_SWY_VTR_mgalpd_a.htm), the average New Yorker used about 94 L of gasoline in 2014, while the average Wyomingite used 29 L. However, at 2.3 kg CO2 per liter of gasoline, NY's total of 4.3 million metric tons of CO2 from gasoline still pales in comparison to the 34 million metric tons from the power sector.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fy2bH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WiOFR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9Md94.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="ef3ad0f4-6a61-41e0-9ed0-187ee5adbfb7" CreationDate="2018-06-25T02:25:17.360" UserId="3379" Comment="Added end use data." Text="## CO2 emissions by sector&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the [EPA's FLIGHT database](https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#myModal) (Facility Level Information on Green House gases Tool -- a terrible, terrible acronym) I compared Wyoming to New York, being the largest state in the Northeast (geographically and by population). Data is for 2014 to match the map in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For both Wyoming and New York, the largest point source of CO2 emissions is the power sector, by a lot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New York**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![NY CO2e emissions by sector, 2014][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wyoming**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![WY CO2e emissions by sector, 2014][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Carbon emissions by electric generation source&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Energy Information Administration's [Detailed State Electricity Data](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/) provides data on carbon emissions by fuel source, by state, for electric power generation. Combining the 2014 data with the populations for that year, we can see that coal in Wyoming dominates the emissions for both states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carbon emissions per capita, by fuel source, NY and WY (2014)][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are few things that explain this huge disparity, but it still leaves some questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total generation for NY in 2014 was about 138 TWh, or about 7,000 kWh per person (population of around 20 million). In contrast, total generation in WY was about 50 TWh, or about 85,000 kWh per person (population of around 0.5 million).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why does the average person in Wyoming use 10 times as much power as a person in New York?** One clue comes from [EIA data on interstate and international flows of electric power](https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/sum_btu_totcb.html&amp;sid=US). New York had net imports of 34 TWh in 2014, while Wyoming was a net exporter of 95 TWh. The numbers are murky, however, as the total generation for WY is only 50 TWh, meaning the accounting used in the two databases doesn't match up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another clue comes from end use of power by sector, from [EIA's electric sales data](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.php#sales):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Per capita electric sales by sector (kWh, NY and WY, 2014)][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the residential and commercial sectors, usage is about double, likely due to lower costs of land, power, and labor. The industrial sector is about 20 times greater. While sales of electricity to industry is greater as a whole in NY, the per capita sales in Wyoming are far greater, meaning on average more Wyomingites are involved in industry than New Yorkers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way, because [coal-fired generation emits CO2 at about twice the rate of natural gas-fired generation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources), Wyoming's coal-fired generation results in nearly double the CO2 emissions of NY's natural gas-fired generation, despite NY using more power from natural gas than Wyoming does from coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why does Wyoming use so much coal, while NY uses natural gas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, despite the way the question is worded, this has more to do with economics than politics. Coal is mined in Wyoming, so it's burned there. Natural gas is extracted in Pennsylvania, NY's neighbor to the south and west. Hydro power makes sense in NY because of the rivers and the Great Lakes. Nuclear power is prevalent in NY because when the U.S. was building nuclear power plants, there was a dense enough population in NY to justify this, along with abundant surface water for cooling, and a skilled workforce. Wyoming didn't have any of these, so the nukes were built in the Northeast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent *trends* in power generation sources have to do with politics -- NY is shutting down coal and nuclear and adding more wind and solar -- but the current state of affairs was brought about by the economics of cheap, abundant natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about transportation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FLIGHT data at the top only includes point sources. In the transportation sector, Wyoming wins out. From the EIA's data on [retail gasoline sales](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_refmg_d_SWY_VTR_mgalpd_a.htm), the average New Yorker used about 94 L of gasoline in 2014, while the average Wyomingite used 29 L. However, at 2.3 kg CO2 per liter of gasoline, NY's total of 4.3 million metric tons of CO2 from gasoline still pales in comparison to the 34 million metric tons from the power sector.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fy2bH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WiOFR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9Md94.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lLz3V.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TrteY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="1f7596ae-fc24-4a29-88d9-a3b7ddedb973" CreationDate="2018-06-25T03:34:02.120" UserId="3379" Comment="added detail." Text="## CO2 emissions by sector&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the [EPA's FLIGHT database](https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#myModal) (Facility Level Information on Green House gases Tool -- a terrible, terrible acronym) I compared Wyoming to New York, being the largest state in the Northeast (geographically and by population). All data throughout this post is for 2014 to match the map in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For both Wyoming and New York, the largest point source of CO2 emissions is the power sector, by a lot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New York**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![NY CO2e emissions by sector, 2014][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wyoming**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![WY CO2e emissions by sector, 2014][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Carbon emissions by electric generation source&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Energy Information Administration's [Detailed State Electricity Data](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/) provides data on power generation and associated carbon emissions by fuel source, by state. Here's the breakdown of generation sources for the two states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Generation by source, WY and NY, 2014][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because [coal-fired generation emits CO2 at about twice the rate of natural gas-fired generation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources), we start to see why Wyoming's emissions are so high. New York's emissions are limited by it's reliance on hydro, nuclear, and less carbon-intense natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is confirmed by combining the above data with the populations for 2014:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carbon emissions per capita, by fuel source, NY and WY (2014)][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The disparity here is massive. A few things explain this. First, **on a per capita basis, Wyoming generates 10 times as much power as New York**: Total generation for NY in 2014 was about 138 TWh, or about 7,000 kWh per person (population of around 20 million). In contrast, total generation in WY was about 50 TWh, or about 85,000 kWh per person (population of around 0.5 million).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **that doesn't directly correlate to what each person uses**. According to [EIA's electric sales data](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.php#sales), total sales of electricity in NY were 147 TWh, compared to in-state generation of 138 TWh. This means that 11 TWh, or about 7.5%, of the power consumed in NY was produced in other states (and some in Canada). In contrast, generation in Wyoming totaled 50 TWh, compared to sales of 17 TWh -- **meaning Wyoming exported 66% of the power it produced**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the per capita breakdown by sector for each state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Per capita electric sales by sector (kWh, NY and WY, 2014)][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the residential and commercial sectors, usage is about double, likely due to lower costs of land, power, and labor. The industrial sector is about 20 times greater. While sales of electricity to industry is greater as a whole in NY, the per capita sales in Wyoming are far greater, meaning on average more Wyomingites are involved in industry than New Yorkers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why does Wyoming use so much coal, while NY uses natural gas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately this has more to do with economics than politics. Coal is mined in Wyoming, so it's burned there. Natural gas is extracted in Pennsylvania, NY's neighbor to the south and west. Moving electricity is easier than moving coal, so it's burned where it's mined (especially lignite coal). In the northeast, natural gas is piped around for heating, so the infrastructure backbone to move it around for electric generation is already there. Hydro power makes sense in NY because of the abundance of freshwater. Nuclear power is prevalent in NY because when the U.S. was building nuclear power plants, there was a dense enough population in NY to justify this, along with abundant surface water for cooling, and a skilled workforce. Wyoming didn't have any of these, so the nukes were built in the Northeast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent *trends* in power generation sources have to do with politics -- NY is shutting down coal and nuclear and adding more wind and solar -- but the current state of affairs was brought about by the economics of cheap, abundant natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about transportation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FLIGHT data at the top only includes point sources. In the transportation sector, Wyoming wins out. From the EIA's data on [retail gasoline sales](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_refmg_d_SWY_VTR_mgalpd_a.htm), the average New Yorker used about 94 L of gasoline in 2014, while the average Wyomingite used 29 L. However, at 2.3 kg CO2 per liter of gasoline, NY's total of 4.3 million metric tons of CO2 from gasoline still pales in comparison to the 34 million metric tons from the power sector.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fy2bH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WiOFR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YSUtp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9Md94.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TrteY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="d6d390f0-77aa-4194-8ad1-d2c78c3a7076" CreationDate="2018-06-25T10:42:04.433" UserId="4886" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="There's a bit of data in a paper titled [A Review of Domestic Heat Pump Coefficient of Performance][1] (by Iain Staffell, 2009-04) that you could selectively analyse to get a few numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His approach was to collate heat pumps with reported COPs to see how many °C they would boost the inlet air temperature.  Although this information is not immediately useful, if you know you have to raise the air temperature by a certain number of °C to make the internal temperature comfortable, then you can read the charts *backward* to work out what the COP would be of heat pumps capable of doing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the summary they say: &quot;**Linear fits to each data set suggest that COP [of Air Source Heat Pumps] falls by 0.67-1.07 for every 10°C temperature rise.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want an easy-to-remember rule-of-thumb, then you could probably just use &amp;Delta;T/10.  Applying that to an example:  An ASHP/airconditioner required to pump heat from -5°C (outside) to 20°C (inside) would thus see its COP drop by (20 - (-5))/10 = 25/10 = 2.5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting consequence of COP reductions of this magnitude is that if the ASHP/airconditioner in the example only had a heating COP of 3.5 to start with, then its *effective* COP would be 3.5-2.5= 1.0 which is no better than a (direct) electric heater (e.g. baseboard, radiant, wall, bar) anyway.  When it's really, really cold outside it *might* make more sense to turn on an electric radiator, or a bunch of incandescent light bulbs, than run the airconditioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst rules-of-thumb are great for estimating things in 'normal' ranges, they aren't so good when you approach operational limits.  If an AC's operating range goes down to 5°C then don't expect *linear* degradation of performance past or even near that limit.  Our AC, for instance, actually ices up and stalls at about 3°C — so COP has rapidly reduced to zero (or perhaps even a negative number) at that point.  As always, results and observations in the real world trump formulae presented on Internet forums.  ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/1073992/A_review_of_domestic_heat_pump_coefficient_of_performance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="d6138de0-4bca-4d1c-b27d-436994ac280d" CreationDate="2018-06-25T10:56:37.680" UserId="4886" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="There's a bit of data in a paper titled [A Review of Domestic Heat Pump Coefficient of Performance][1] (by Dr Iain Staffell, Imperial College London, Centre for Environmental Policy, 2009-04) that you could selectively analyse to get a few numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His approach was to collate heat pumps with reported COPs to see how many °C they would boost the inlet air temperature.  Although this information is not immediately useful, if you know you have to raise the air temperature by a certain number of °C to make the internal temperature comfortable, then you can read the charts *backward* to work out what the COP would be of heat pumps capable of doing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the summary they say: &quot;**Linear fits to each data set suggest that COP [of Air Source Heat Pumps] falls by 0.67-1.07 for every 10°C temperature rise.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want an easy-to-remember rule-of-thumb, then you could probably just use &amp;Delta;T/10.  Applying that to an example:  An ASHP/airconditioner required to pump heat from -5°C (outside) to 20°C (inside) would thus see its COP drop by (20 - (-5))/10 = 25/10 = 2.5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting consequence of COP reductions of this magnitude is that if the ASHP/airconditioner in the example only had a heating COP of 3.5 to start with, then its *effective* COP would be 3.5-2.5= 1.0 which is no better than a (direct) electric heater (e.g. baseboard, radiant, wall, bar) anyway.  When it's really, really cold outside it *might* make more sense to turn on an electric radiator, or a bunch of incandescent light bulbs, than run the airconditioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst rules-of-thumb are great for estimating things in 'normal' ranges, they aren't so good when you approach operational limits.  If an AC's operating range goes down to 5°C then don't expect *linear* degradation of performance past or even near that limit.  Our AC, for instance, actually ices up and stalls at about 3°C — so COP has rapidly reduced to zero (or perhaps even a negative number) at that point.  As always, results and observations in the real world trump formulae presented on Internet forums.  ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/1073992/A_review_of_domestic_heat_pump_coefficient_of_performance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6706" RevisionGUID="c9f3fb28-9615-4346-ad11-41013ca2afae" CreationDate="2018-06-25T13:31:56.177" UserId="4886" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="There's a bit of data in a paper titled [A Review of Domestic Heat Pump Coefficient of Performance][1] (by Dr Iain Staffell, Imperial College London, Centre for Environmental Policy, 2009-04) that you could selectively analyse to get a few numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;His approach was to collate heat pumps with reported COPs and see how many °C they would boost the inlet air temperature by.  Although this information is not immediately useful, if you know you have to raise the air temperature by a certain number of °C to make the internal temperature comfortable, then you can read the charts *backward* to work out what the COP would be of heat pumps capable of doing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the summary he says: &quot;**Linear fits to each data set suggest that COP [of Air Source Heat Pumps] falls by 0.67-1.07 for every 10°C temperature rise.**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want an easy-to-remember rule-of-thumb, then you could probably just use &amp;Delta;T/10.  Applying that to an example:  An ASHP/airconditioner required to pump heat from -5°C (outside) to 20°C (inside) would thus see its COP drop by (20 - (-5))/10 = 25/10 = 2.5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting consequence of COP reductions of this magnitude is that if the ASHP/airconditioner in the example only had a heating COP of 3.5 to start with, then its *effective* COP would be 3.5-2.5= 1.0 which is no better than a (direct) electric heater (e.g. baseboard, radiant, wall, bar) anyway.  When it's really, really cold outside it *might* make more sense to turn on an electric radiator, or a bunch of incandescent light bulbs, than run the airconditioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst rules-of-thumb are great for estimating things in 'normal' ranges, they aren't so good when you approach operational limits.  If an AC's operating range goes down to 5°C then don't expect *linear* degradation of performance past or even near that limit.  Our AC, for instance, actually ices up and stalls at about 3°C — so COP has rapidly reduced to zero (or perhaps even a negative number) at that point.  As always, results and observations in the real world trump formulae presented on Internet forums.  ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/1073992/A_review_of_domestic_heat_pump_coefficient_of_performance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="cc806605-3d7b-4306-9e26-20cf1a9c830a" CreationDate="2018-06-25T14:08:20.737" UserId="3379" Comment="added tldr" Text="**tl;dr -** Comparing Wyoming to, say, New York, the largest source of CO2 emissions in both states is the power sector. Wyoming uses mostly coal for power, which emits more CO2 per kWh generated than any other source, while NY uses a mix of mostly natural gas, with nuclear and hydro. Additionally, Wyoming exports power (increasing emissions counts) while NY imports (reducing emissions counts). Finally, the average Wyomingite uses about four times the power of the average New Yorker, possibly due to higher participation in industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## CO2 emissions by sector&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the [EPA's FLIGHT database](https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#myModal) (Facility Level Information on Green House gases Tool -- a terrible, terrible acronym) I compared Wyoming to New York, being the largest state in the Northeast (geographically and by population). All data throughout this post is for 2014 to match the map in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For both Wyoming and New York, the largest point source of CO2 emissions is the power sector, by a lot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New York**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![NY CO2e emissions by sector, 2014][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wyoming**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![WY CO2e emissions by sector, 2014][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Carbon emissions by electric generation source&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Energy Information Administration's [Detailed State Electricity Data](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/) provides data on power generation and associated carbon emissions by fuel source, by state. Here's the breakdown of generation sources for the two states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Generation by source, WY and NY, 2014][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because [coal-fired generation emits CO2 at about twice the rate of natural gas-fired generation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources), we start to see why Wyoming's emissions are so high. New York's emissions are limited by its reliance on hydro, nuclear, and less carbon-intense natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is confirmed by combining the above data with the populations for 2014:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carbon emissions per capita, by fuel source, NY and WY (2014)][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The disparity here is massive. A few things explain this. First, **on a per capita basis, Wyoming generates 10 times as much power as New York**: Total generation for NY in 2014 was about 138 TWh, or about 7,000 kWh per person (population of around 20 million). In contrast, total generation in WY was about 50 TWh, or about 85,000 kWh per person (population of around 0.5 million).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **that doesn't directly correlate to what each person uses**. According to [EIA's electric sales data](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.php#sales), total sales of electricity in NY were 147 TWh, compared to in-state generation of 138 TWh. This means that 11 TWh, or about 7.5%, of the power consumed in NY was produced in other states (and some in Canada). In contrast, generation in Wyoming totaled 50 TWh, compared to sales of 17 TWh -- **meaning Wyoming exported 66% of the power it produced**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the per capita breakdown by sector for each state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Per capita electric sales by sector (kWh, NY and WY, 2014)][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the residential and commercial sectors, usage is about double, likely due to lower costs of land, power, and labor. The industrial sector is about 20 times greater. While sales of electricity to industry is greater as a whole in NY, the per capita sales in Wyoming are far greater, meaning on average more Wyomingites are involved in industry than New Yorkers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why does Wyoming use so much coal, while NY uses natural gas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately this has more to do with economics than politics. Coal is mined in Wyoming, so it's burned there. Natural gas is extracted in Pennsylvania, NY's neighbor to the south and west. Moving electricity is easier than moving coal, so it's burned where it's mined (especially lignite coal). In the northeast, natural gas is piped around for heating, so the infrastructure backbone to move it around for electric generation is already there. Hydro power makes sense in NY because of the abundance of freshwater. Nuclear power is prevalent in NY because when the U.S. was building nuclear power plants, there was a dense enough population in NY to justify this, along with abundant surface water for cooling, and a skilled workforce. Wyoming didn't have any of these, so the nukes were built in the Northeast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent *trends* in power generation sources have to do with politics -- NY is shutting down coal and nuclear and adding more wind and solar -- but the current state of affairs was brought about by the economics of cheap, abundant natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about transportation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FLIGHT data at the top only includes point sources. In the transportation sector, Wyoming wins out. From the EIA's data on [retail gasoline sales](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_refmg_d_SWY_VTR_mgalpd_a.htm), the average New Yorker used about 94 L of gasoline in 2014, while the average Wyomingite used 29 L. However, at 2.3 kg CO2 per liter of gasoline, NY's total of 4.3 million metric tons of CO2 from gasoline still pales in comparison to the 34 million metric tons from the power sector.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fy2bH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WiOFR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YSUtp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9Md94.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TrteY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6714" RevisionGUID="fd96df1f-78bf-47d4-8b57-287d17c5bf82" CreationDate="2018-06-25T14:19:19.383" UserId="3379" Comment="added tldr" Text="**tl;dr -** Comparing Wyoming to, say, New York, the largest source of CO2 emissions in both states is the power sector. Wyoming uses mostly coal for power, which emits more CO2 per kWh generated than any other source, while NY uses a mix of mostly natural gas, with nuclear and hydro. Additionally, Wyoming exports power (increasing emissions counts) while NY imports (reducing emissions counts). Finally, the average Wyomingite uses about four times the power of the average New Yorker, possibly due to higher participation in industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## CO2 emissions by sector&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the [EPA's FLIGHT database](https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#myModal) (Facility Level Information on Green House gases Tool -- a terrible, terrible acronym) I compared Wyoming to New York, being the largest state in the Northeast (geographically and by population). All data throughout this post is for 2014 to match the map in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For both Wyoming and New York, the largest point source of CO2 emissions is the power sector, by a lot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**New York**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![NY CO2e emissions by sector, 2014][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wyoming**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![WY CO2e emissions by sector, 2014][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Carbon emissions by electric generation source&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Energy Information Administration's [Detailed State Electricity Data](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/) provides data on power generation and associated carbon emissions by fuel source, by state. Here's the breakdown of generation sources for the two states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Generation by source, WY and NY, 2014][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because [coal-fired generation emits CO2 at about twice the rate of natural gas-fired generation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources), we start to see why Wyoming's emissions are so high. New York's emissions are limited by its reliance on hydro, nuclear, and less carbon-intense natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is confirmed by combining the above data with the populations for 2014:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Carbon emissions per capita, by fuel source, NY and WY (2014)][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The disparity here is massive. A few things explain this. First, **on a per capita basis, Wyoming generates 10 times as much power as New York**: Total generation for NY in 2014 was about 138 TWh, or about 7,000 kWh per person (population of around 20 million). In contrast, total generation in WY was about 50 TWh, or about 85,000 kWh per person (population of around 0.5 million).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **that doesn't directly correlate to what each person uses**. According to [EIA's electric sales data](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.php#sales), total sales of electricity in NY were 147 TWh, compared to in-state generation of 138 TWh. This means that 11 TWh, or about 7.5%, of the power consumed in NY was produced in other states (and some in Canada). In contrast, generation in Wyoming totaled 50 TWh, compared to sales of 17 TWh -- **meaning Wyoming exported 66% of the power it produced**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the per capita breakdown by sector for each state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Per capita electric sales by sector (kWh, NY and WY, 2014)][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the residential and commercial sectors, usage is about double, likely due to lower costs of land, power, and labor. The industrial sector is about 20 times greater. While sales of electricity to industry is greater as a whole in NY, the per capita sales in Wyoming are far greater, meaning on average more Wyomingites are involved in industry than New Yorkers. (The data to back this assumption up is likely available from the [Bureau of Labor Statistics](https://www.bls.gov), but I don't have the patience to dig through and find it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Why does Wyoming use so much coal, while NY uses natural gas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately this has more to do with economics than politics. Coal is mined in Wyoming, so it's burned there. Natural gas is extracted in Pennsylvania, NY's neighbor to the south and west. Moving electricity is easier than moving coal, so it's burned where it's mined (especially lignite coal). In the northeast, natural gas is piped around for heating, so the infrastructure backbone to move it around for electric generation is already there. Hydro power makes sense in NY because of the abundance of freshwater. Nuclear power is prevalent in NY because when the U.S. was building nuclear power plants, there was a dense enough population in NY to justify this, along with abundant surface water for cooling, and a skilled workforce. Wyoming didn't have any of these, so the nukes were built in the Northeast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent *trends* in power generation sources have to do with politics -- NY is shutting down coal and nuclear and adding more wind and solar -- but the current state of affairs was brought about by the economics of cheap, abundant natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about transportation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FLIGHT data at the top only includes point sources. In the transportation sector, Wyoming wins out. From the EIA's data on [retail gasoline sales](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_refmg_d_SWY_VTR_mgalpd_a.htm), the average New Yorker used about 94 L of gasoline in 2014, while the average Wyomingite used 29 L. However, at 2.3 kg CO2 per liter of gasoline, NY's total of 4.3 million metric tons of CO2 from gasoline still pales in comparison to the 34 million metric tons from the power sector.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fy2bH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WiOFR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YSUtp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9Md94.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TrteY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4724" RevisionGUID="a9c1c27b-ae55-4590-a24d-1c8df797d6ab" CreationDate="2018-06-25T15:36:29.150" UserId="3379" Comment="added picture" Text="I've been noticing gas-fueled flame pit displays outside some &quot;hip&quot; restaurants, such as [this one shown in a Portland Monthly article][1]. I find myself reacting to them with disgust; it looks like they're blowing fossil carbon into the sky like there's literally no tomorrow. The one in the linked article at least has people sitting around it; sometimes they're just alone out front, advertising the owner's environmental folly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fire pit][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I don't know how much CO2 such a display actually emits. Our environmental instincts aren't very accurate, and I fear that I may be getting huffy about these minor displays while blindly causing far more emissions elsewhere in my life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my question is this: how much CO2 does such a display emit relative to an average person's total environmental load? Is it equivalent to one percent of an average person's total emissions? All of a single person's? One hundred people's? Or you could compare it to other typical fuel-related activities: is it a Prius doing 35 mph? A Hummer doing 75 mph? Twenty loaded tractor-trailers on the highway? The [Allure of the Seas][3] carrying a full load of vacationers across the Caribbean? (Well, probably not the last one...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a baseline, use three of this [Uptown Fire Pit Table][4]s. It has a 12&quot; x 42&quot; burner (powered by a 20 pound propane tank in the base), and claims to [produce up to 88,000 BTUs][5], although I'll assume [they mean 88,000 BTU/hour][6]. So, the baseline would be a 12&quot; x 10' burner emitting 264,000 BTUs/hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.pdxmonthly.com/articles/2011/7/22/portland-dining-firepits-august-2011&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tEmsFm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Allure_of_the_Seas&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.outdoorrooms.com/store/fire-pits-fireplaces/fire-pits/uptown-fire-pit-table-with-1224-burner-424.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.outdoorrooms.com//wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Uptown-Sell-Sheet1.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6716" RevisionGUID="5ae861fb-6d9a-4c57-b591-df9b707feff9" CreationDate="2018-06-25T17:05:49.280" UserId="5835" Text="There were two great related articles in *The New York Times* last month concerning recycling:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Your Recycling Gets Recycled, Right? Maybe, or Maybe Not][1]&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; -  [6 Things You’re Recycling Wrong][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the latter article they specifically address the subject of pizza boxes as one of the six:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pizza boxes are among the most common offenders when it comes to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; contamination, waste managers say. The problem is that oil often seeps&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into the cardboard. The oil cannot be separated from the fiber, making&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that material less valuable, and less marketable, to buyers.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; But that’s not to say you can never recycle a pizza box, said Marjorie&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Griek, executive director of the National Recycling Coalition, which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; promotes recycling in the United States. “If you’ve got a few crumbs&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in there, that’s not an issue,” she said.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Pizza boxes with “small amounts of grease” are O.K. to recycle in New&#xD;&#xA;&gt; York City, a sanitation department spokeswoman said. If the grease&#xD;&#xA;&gt; seeps through the cardboard, the box should be put in a composting bin&#xD;&#xA;&gt; or thrown out, she said.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Remember, there are also two sides to a pizza box. If there’s a side&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that’s not oily, tear that off and recycle it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing I loved about this article is that it introduced to me the phrase/concept of &quot;aspirational recycling&quot;... that is the act of recycling items that you *hope* will be recyclable.  In many cases items flowing into the recycling stream that not truly recyclable may result in the entire batch being discarded (this topic is covered in depth in the former article).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion being that you really need to know if greasy pizza boxes are recyclable ***in your area***.  If you are just *acting on your hope* they are you may be doing much more harm than good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/climate/recycling-landfills-plastic-papers.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/climate/recycling-wrong-mistakes.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17267" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="1c03b900-9c79-4465-9be6-425d046b3a2f" CreationDate="2018-06-25T21:00:12.753" UserId="2371" Comment="45" />
  <row Id="17268" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="2624e8ad-d0dc-4ad5-81f1-4d2951cbb983" CreationDate="2018-06-25T21:49:28.287" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1011365785195962368" />
  <row Id="17269" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="b9c217ec-51ac-4bdb-8b71-265322fe5604" CreationDate="2018-06-26T10:20:41.930" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6717" RevisionGUID="17023d0d-7c12-49b0-9b0f-59832ef4a9f4" CreationDate="2018-06-26T14:41:44.463" UserId="3379" Text="I live in a second floor apartment with a small balcony. In my kitchen I have a small vented container where I place kitchen scraps as I'm preparing food -- like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Kitchen counter compost bucket][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About once a week when this gets full, I transfer everything into a 20 L sealed plastic pail on my balcony, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![5 gallon bucket][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once *that* is full (about every six to eight weeks), I take it in my car (while doing other errands, of course) to a nearby community garden where a coworker has a plot and dump it in the communal compost bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is, does storing compost made of kitchen scraps in a sealed container for up to eight weeks cause any problems for the open-air compost bin where I eventually place it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few points on my compost:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Scraps are about 80% raw fruit and vegetable peelings, with some egg shells, produce that has gone bad, and a few odds and ends from houseplants.&#xD;&#xA; - The bucket is sealed airtight to keep out the rain.&#xD;&#xA; - It is on a balcony facing east, so receives full morning sunlight.&#xD;&#xA; - Climate is humid continental -- highs of 35C in the summer, lows of -20C in the winter.&#xD;&#xA; - I have no need for the humus myself -- I compost to reduce the volume of waste going to the landfill, and keep the smells out of my house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: There are some great answers to the question [&quot;Is it feasible to compost in an apartment in a city like New York?&quot;](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/7/3379), but nothing on my specific question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fdYH1t.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QGkp0t.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6717" RevisionGUID="17023d0d-7c12-49b0-9b0f-59832ef4a9f4" CreationDate="2018-06-26T14:41:44.463" UserId="3379" Text="Any problem with storing compost in a sealed container for several weeks? Alternatives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6717" RevisionGUID="17023d0d-7c12-49b0-9b0f-59832ef4a9f4" CreationDate="2018-06-26T14:41:44.463" UserId="3379" Text="|composting|apartment|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17273" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6704" RevisionGUID="746005ab-89ab-4e0f-8500-896a0ab6db37" CreationDate="2018-06-26T18:49:50.313" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1011682966983061504" />
  <row Id="17274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6718" RevisionGUID="244b654a-8fa3-4eb2-ab77-69b3aaebd403" CreationDate="2018-06-26T19:59:55.940" UserId="4922" Text="I can't imagine this will cause you any problems. The only difference is the anaerobic (no oxygen) bacteria will be doing more work in your sealed container instead of  aerobic bacteria (requiring oxygen). Aerobic is faster. But as you have no use for the hummus (sad). You should be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a link: [if you are more interested](https://www.dummies.com/home-garden/green-living/aerobic-versus-anaerobic-composting/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6719" RevisionGUID="e2ed6878-342c-4614-9e30-b0efb39595ce" CreationDate="2018-06-26T20:40:38.600" UserId="4922" Text="I have used small charcoal bits from my own fire-pit to create small terrariums.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hard wood ash can be used to make lye. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6720" RevisionGUID="0555ebb6-fbc7-4cc5-af43-8f561f4a13d5" CreationDate="2018-06-26T21:27:28.753" UserId="4922" Text="Google is your friend, a cursory search for &quot;ethical butcher UK&quot; came up with some good results. You want a local butcher, who you can develop a relationship and trust with. There are some great books out there as well, on the question of buying meat. The vegetarians are right that eating lower on the foodchain can reduce your carbon footprint, but farming can be done with animals (grass fed) that puts more carbon into the soil, where it belongs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6721" RevisionGUID="ce183dac-ad0a-4e6d-b3bd-bb87160616d8" CreationDate="2018-06-27T02:39:04.463" UserId="3532" Text="There is a method of fermenting kitchen scraps called bokashi, so you won't have any problem fermenting your compost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6703" RevisionGUID="c800fb1a-693b-4141-97e1-1c289fe1f04a" CreationDate="2018-06-27T02:42:39.723" UserId="3532" Comment="further details" Text="I've heard that garden giant mushrooms will breakdown fecal matter, and was wondering if it would be a good idea to put some inside the septic tank to have it break down fecal matter to make it less necessary to suck out the septic tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do I do this without destroying the septic tank?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paul Stamets did something similar above ground: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSKQyMFw8GM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17279" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6717" RevisionGUID="98efb24c-6769-4a15-952e-eae9cc871f80" CreationDate="2018-06-27T03:49:50.243" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1011818862227132417" />
  <row Id="17280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6722" RevisionGUID="8c93f545-6c87-42ee-bcd4-3d28cb73687d" CreationDate="2018-06-27T07:03:14.500" UserId="99" Text="When you seal everything airtight the contents of your bin will start to decompose anaerobically. There are no big problems with this, but there are a few downsides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - anaerobic decomposition is slower than 'regular' aerobic composting&#xD;&#xA; - during anaerobic decomposition methane gas is formed which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than the CO2 that comes from aerobic composting&#xD;&#xA; - when you open up your bin the decomposing materials will smell badly.&#xD;&#xA; - switching from an anaerobic to an aerobic decomposition process takes extra time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The disadvantages can be reduced a bit if the person maintaining the aerobic compost heap loosens up the decomposing material so it can 'breathe' and switch to aerobic composting faster. Burying the materials in the heap will reduce the smell." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6709" RevisionGUID="c6f9e432-6be6-4a68-99b6-ddde9bacca6c" CreationDate="2018-06-27T07:17:23.270" UserId="4886" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="You are talking about **black gold** that has a value of AU$40 per 25 litre bag in my area.  I would suggest either selling it or putting it back into the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can collect (cool) charcoal in a plastic bag until you have a volume worth doing something serious with.  Because it's pure carbon it will store indefinitely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6709" RevisionGUID="675c50d1-5547-4348-8be2-d478092cbe3c" CreationDate="2018-06-27T07:27:54.760" UserId="4886" Comment="added 390 characters in body" Text="You are talking about **black gold** that has a value of AU$40 per 25 litre bag in my area.  I would suggest either selling it or putting it back into the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can collect (cool) charcoal in a plastic bag until you have a volume worth doing something serious with.  Because it's pure carbon it will store indefinitely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternately, if you rake out the old charcoal, set up your new fire, then put the charcoal on top, then I think you'll find that it does indeed burn.  Wood ash tends to be very fluffy and acts as a good insulator — which is why charcoal tends to accumulate in a bed of ash.  If you separate the charcoal from the ash then it's no-longer insulated, and getting it to burn is much easier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever you do, don't pour *ash* onto a fire.  That's about the same as throwing sand onto a fire — something that folks do (in a pinch) to put a fire *out*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6722" RevisionGUID="862c22d7-adec-446c-9323-44e17eb5482d" CreationDate="2018-06-27T09:18:15.553" UserId="99" Comment="added warning about potential methane build-up" Text="When you seal everything airtight the contents of your bin will start to decompose anaerobically. There are no big problems with this, but there are a few downsides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - anaerobic decomposition is slower than 'regular' aerobic composting&#xD;&#xA; - during anaerobic decomposition methane gas is formed which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than the CO2 that comes from aerobic composting&#xD;&#xA; - methane build-up in a very tightly sealed (metal) container can potentially be dangerous (but the plastic bin you posted is not 100% airtight, so I don't expect problems there).&#xD;&#xA; - when you open up your bin after a few weeks the decomposing materials will smell badly.&#xD;&#xA; - switching from an anaerobic to an aerobic decomposition process takes extra time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The disadvantages can be reduced a bit if the person maintaining the aerobic compost heap loosens up the decomposing material so it can 'breathe' and switch to aerobic composting faster. Burying the materials in the heap will reduce the smell." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6709" RevisionGUID="93254462-8f65-40e6-ba83-43ed2c4f4dcc" CreationDate="2018-06-27T12:17:56.590" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You are talking about **black gold** that has a value of AU$40 per 25 litre bag in my area.  I would suggest either selling it or putting it back into the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can collect (cool) charcoal in a plastic bag until you have a volume worth doing something serious with.  Because it's pure carbon it will store indefinitely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if you rake out the old charcoal, set up your new fire, then put the charcoal on top, then I think you'll find that it does indeed burn.  Wood ash tends to be very fluffy and acts as a good insulator — which is why charcoal tends to accumulate in a bed of ash.  If you separate the charcoal from the ash then it's no-longer insulated, and getting it to burn is much easier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever you do, don't pour *ash* onto a fire.  That's about the same as throwing sand onto a fire — something that folks do (in a pinch) to put a fire *out*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17285" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6723" RevisionGUID="199042df-cbba-4ea4-81f5-426e95ad654c" CreationDate="2018-06-27T20:04:17.073" UserId="3379" Text="A google search for [&quot;comparing LED, CFL, and, incandescent brightness&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?q=comparing+LED+CFL+and+incandescent+brightness&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwim0vaT0PTbAhWX14MKHbTiB4UQ_AUICygC&amp;biw=1844&amp;bih=1018) returns hundreds of charts showing what equivalent wattage of LEDs and CFLs are to match an incandescent bulb. This is fine for figuring out what bulb to use at home -- I'm interested in more rigorous, evidence-based studies showing how they actually compare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is anyone aware of such a study, or where to look for it?** There are a few promising leads on a google scholar search of peer-reviewed publications, but without paying for access to multiple journals I can't see if any are worth the cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally I'd like to see, for various brands and wattages of LEDs, the range of wattages for CFLs and incandescent bulbs with an equivalent luminosity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6723" RevisionGUID="199042df-cbba-4ea4-81f5-426e95ad654c" CreationDate="2018-06-27T20:04:17.073" UserId="3379" Text="Large-scale test data on LED, CFL, and incandescent brightness and longevity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17287" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6723" RevisionGUID="199042df-cbba-4ea4-81f5-426e95ad654c" CreationDate="2018-06-27T20:04:17.073" UserId="3379" Text="|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="c1468e9a-d5c3-4296-8148-55393aa11c0d" CreationDate="2018-06-27T20:49:05.303" UserId="3464" Text="During the summer is it more desirable to have storm windows open, partially open, or closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have old wooden, single-pane windows with aluminum storm windows and I have installed energy film on the windows.  There is some draft if I do not weather seal properly each winter season.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the loss from drafts greater than the miniature hothouse heat gain from conduction through the single pane glass?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="c1468e9a-d5c3-4296-8148-55393aa11c0d" CreationDate="2018-06-27T20:49:05.303" UserId="3464" Text="Summer Storm Windows Positioning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17290" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="c1468e9a-d5c3-4296-8148-55393aa11c0d" CreationDate="2018-06-27T20:49:05.303" UserId="3464" Text="|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17291" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="422" RevisionGUID="0e5be37a-fba6-49e8-b2d0-1253a445751c" CreationDate="2018-06-27T21:49:51.253" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1012090657366859776" />
  <row Id="17292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6725" RevisionGUID="104dcb57-a8b5-4abe-9687-8e79dcb9da50" CreationDate="2018-06-28T04:25:39.983" UserId="5840" Text="I have installed/changed out halogen, incandescent and cfl's for led in various houses.  The Halo recessed trim I recently used to replace 100 halogen recessed was spectacular and much brighter than would have been indicated by the wattage.  Definitely need a dimmer!  Much improved light.  In general, if you can, go for 2700 kelvin and 90 cri or more.  It really makes a difference.  I believe the Halo was 3000 kelvin and 90 cri.  Completely transformed the space but you have to actually do it to know.  The effect was very different than the numbers would indicate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17293" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="0fecccea-83c7-495b-9ad4-ddf919d2c77e" CreationDate="2018-06-28T17:14:37.157" UserId="3464" Comment="added 396 characters in body" Text="During the summer is it more desirable to have storm windows open, partially open, or closed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have old wooden, single-pane windows with aluminum storm windows and I have installed energy film on the windows.  There is some draft if I do not weather seal properly each winter season.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the loss from drafts greater than the miniature hothouse heat gain from conduction through the single pane glass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a central air unit properly sized for my home.  Usually keep it at 26C and it usually kept at this temperature since my wife works from home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live at approximately 38N in the central mid-western US, with the seasonal highs of between 29C and 33C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;~15% of the southern face of the house has glazing and is subjected to constant sunlight after about noon.  One window is constantly shaded." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6726" RevisionGUID="a2c8df03-66e9-4e04-91a3-2c727eacf6b4" CreationDate="2018-06-28T21:47:51.440" UserId="3379" Text="**Keeping your storm windows closed in the summer will result in net energy savings due to reduced ventilation.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using [eQUEST](http://www.doe2.com/), a building energy simulation software based on research from the U.S. Department of Energy, I built a simple model of a roughly 500 m2, two-story home with 15% glass on the southern (equator-facing) side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Simple house model][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then modeled three different changes caused by closing the storm windows to see how they affected total energy use for space cooling and space heating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Modest improvement in U-value of the southern-facing windows.** Change from 0.50 to 0.38 (U-value is roughly the inverse of R-value). This would tend to reduce the rate at which thermal energy passes through the windows (so heat stays inside in winter, and outside in summer).&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Modest increase in solar heat gain coefficient.** Change from 0.4 to 0.5. This is the hothouse or greenhouse effect, meaning that more of the sun's energy will be turned into heat inside the house.&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Significant reduction in ventilation.** I assumed that the baseline ventilation rate is about 0.50 m3 per person, meaning that for every person in the house, 0.50 m3 of air is exhausted per minute. The closure of the storm windows is modeled as a reduction to about 0.25 m3/minute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the resulting effect on energy use for cooling:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Energy savings for cooling][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that during the summer the increased SHGC causes an increase in energy usage, which is more than offset by the reduction in ventilation rate. This particular model keeps the cooling system active year-round, which is why there's an increase in energy usage in the winter -- in real life you'd obviously switch the AC off during the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the same chart for heating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Energy savings for heating][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here all three measures result in energy savings, as you'd expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fqxkb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zeD0c.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OhwRH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="34c7e693-d398-4b0d-b23f-0eb53497e406" CreationDate="2018-06-29T11:48:43.020" UserId="679" Text="Every here and there I hear sayings like &quot;plastic is bad, because it only degrades in hundreds/thousands/gazillion years, while paper is much better because it degrades fast&quot; which are followed by implications that producing tons of disposable paper cups is okay. I saw quite a lot of trash in forests nearby (left by tourists or illegal waste companies) and I have to say that even old paper cups and other paper package looks quite good and not that degraded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to setup an experiment - take a piece of paper something and put it somewhere and see how fast it degrades. I have access to a piece of land where this can be done without much harm and without disturbing anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I have a paper cup (like one used for coffee in McDonald's/KFC/Burger King). What next?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where do I put it? Do I drop it onto ground and let if cover is leaves in autumn? Do I put it into a compost pile? Do I dig it into the ground (how deep should it be)? How often do I inspect the cup? What do I wait for - paper turning into what exactly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically what would be an experiment that would validate a claim that &quot;whatever, paper package degrades quickly&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17296" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="34c7e693-d398-4b0d-b23f-0eb53497e406" CreationDate="2018-06-29T11:48:43.020" UserId="679" Text="How do I setup a relevant waste biodegradation experiment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17297" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6727" RevisionGUID="34c7e693-d398-4b0d-b23f-0eb53497e406" CreationDate="2018-06-29T11:48:43.020" UserId="679" Text="|waste|paper|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6726" RevisionGUID="b827a71d-c32c-43ed-97f5-842f00148899" CreationDate="2018-06-29T12:56:48.313" UserId="3379" Comment="added 339 characters in body" Text="**Keeping your storm windows closed in the summer will result in net energy savings due to reduced ventilation.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using [eQUEST](http://www.doe2.com/), a building energy simulation software based on research from the U.S. Department of Energy, I built a simple model of a roughly 500 m2, two-story home with 15% glass on the southern (equator-facing) side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Simple house model][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then modeled three different changes caused by closing the storm windows to see how they affected total energy use for space cooling and space heating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Modest improvement in U-value of the southern-facing windows.** Change from 0.50 to 0.38 (U-value is roughly the inverse of R-value). This would tend to reduce the rate at which thermal energy passes through the windows (so heat stays inside in winter, and outside in summer).&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Modest increase in solar heat gain coefficient.** Change from 0.4 to 0.5. This is the hothouse or greenhouse effect, meaning that more of the sun's energy will be turned into heat inside the house.&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Significant reduction in ventilation.** I assumed that the baseline ventilation rate is about 0.50 m3 per person, meaning that for every person in the house, 0.50 m3 of air is exhausted per minute. The closure of the storm windows is modeled as a reduction to about 0.25 m3/minute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the resulting effect on energy use for cooling:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Energy savings for cooling][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the measures are cumulative, so the final measure (in gray) includes the effects from the first two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that during the summer the increased SHGC causes an increase in energy usage, which is more than offset by the reduction in ventilation rate. This particular model keeps the cooling system active year-round, which is why there's an increase in energy usage in the winter -- in real life you'd obviously switch the AC off during the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the same chart for heating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Energy savings for heating][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here all three measures result in energy savings, as you'd expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, as the saying goes, *all models are wrong, but some are useful.* Your best bet would be to test this yourself over a period of a few days, if you've got access to look at your electric meter reading periodically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fqxkb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zeD0c.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OhwRH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17299" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6724" RevisionGUID="91c18dfb-6560-43bf-9415-fe3a3e35292f" CreationDate="2018-07-01T17:09:08.470" UserId="3379" Comment="improved title" Text="Should storm windows be left open in the summer to reduce hothouse heat gain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6728" RevisionGUID="be82c91d-3ee5-4525-bdd9-47a1f8666b27" CreationDate="2018-07-01T18:56:06.183" UserId="99" Text="What the best recycling policy is is a political question. As you mentioned in your question there are many aspects to this and all good recycling policies will address issues such as cost, environmental impact, human health impact, end-user awareness, convenience of using the system, compliance, amount of generated waste, worker safety and more. Which aspect is considered to be most important is often reflected in national or local waste processing laws. Besides politics, local circumstances such as market prices of recycled materials and the availability of processing facilities and landfill areas can have a big influence.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Europe&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not very familiar with recycling policies outside of Europe, but many European countries put emphasis on achieving high recycling rates. &#xD;&#xA;If you look at [this blog post](http://www.planetaid.org/blog/global-recycling-rates) for example you can see that several European countries (and South Korea) score high on municipal recycling rates. Part of the reason why European countries score this high has to do with the various EU directives on waste processing and environmental protection. [EU directive 2004/12/EC](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32004L0012) for example says that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recovery and recycling of packaging waste should be further increased to reduce its environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Implementation of this directive is however left up to each EU member state and consequently there are big differences between EU countries. Countries like Germany, Slovenia and Austria score 55%+, where as others such as Slovak Republic, Greece and Portugal score 11 - 26% &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Municipal waste disposal and recovery rates for OECD countries]][1] &#xD;&#xA;*Source: [page 50 of the OECD document 'Environment at a Glance 2015](https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/environment-at-a-glance-2015_9789264235199-en#page52)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To achieve high recycling rates, multiple waste streams are a necessity, because mixing different waste streams causes contamination of the materials and reduces their recyclability. However, keep in mind that recycling rates can be misleading. They are difficult to compare because of the different definitions of (municipal) waste and the different methods of calculation. Also municipal waste (which I assume your question is primarily about), is only a small fraction of all generated waste. Roughly about 10% of all waste is municipal waste, but it does account for about 1/3 of the costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of waste policy [EU directive 2008/98/EC](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1530420447878&amp;uri=CELEX:32008L0098) is interesting which says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first objective of any waste policy should be to minimise the negative effects of the generation and management of waste on human health and the environment. Waste policy should also aim at reducing the use of resources, and favour the practical application of the waste hierarchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [waste hierarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_hierarchy) describes the methods to process waste from most favourable (e.g. reuse) to least favourable (e.g. dumping in landfills). What you often see is that countries over time slowly work their way up the hierarchy and start using more 'advanced' waste processing methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The Netherlands&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;As an implementation example, let's look at The Netherlands (because I live there and because it does fairly well). The Netherlands has a recycling rate of 51%. In Europe only Austria, Germany and Belgium are doing better in terms of recycling rates (based on page 13 in [this document](https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-municipal-solid-waste))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All cities here separately collect wastes types such as glass, paper and cardboard, kitchen and garden wastes, glass, PET bottles, clothing, and batteries. Some cities also have a separate stream for what they call PMD which stands for Plastics, Metals and Drink cartons (e.g. Tetrapak) and claim that separating these waste types by end users is the most effective method of recycling. Other cities disagree with this and claim that separating these from a 'general other' waste stream is most effective. So far I haven't seen a final conclusion in this debate.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;This week the Secretary of State who is responsible for waste management announced that The Netherlands has to transform into a full circular economy in 2050 ([news article in Dutch](https://nos.nl/artikel/2239149-kabinet-wil-einde-plastic-wegwerpspullen-al-het-afval-recyclen.html)). One of the major steps to achieve this is to make improvements in product design; all products should become repairable, reusable and/or recyclable by design and may not contain any harmful substances. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EdK9s.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17301" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4595" RevisionGUID="2995d448-7591-4ceb-94db-8fa2a9de056a" CreationDate="2018-07-01T22:28:24.037" UserId="2371" Comment="45" />
  <row Id="17302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6709" RevisionGUID="b8ca1d67-dbef-4894-9726-29693b492490" CreationDate="2018-07-02T08:55:56.053" UserId="4886" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="You are talking about **black gold** that has a value of AU$40 per 25 litre bag in my area.  I would suggest either selling it or putting it back into the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar for uses of charcoal as a soil amendment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can collect (cool) charcoal in a plastic bag until you have a volume worth doing something serious with.  Because it's pure carbon it will store indefinitely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, if you rake out the old charcoal, set up your new fire, then put the charcoal on top, then I think you'll find that it does indeed burn.  Wood ash tends to be very fluffy and acts as a good insulator — which is why charcoal tends to accumulate in a bed of ash.  If you separate the charcoal from the ash then it's no-longer insulated, and getting it to burn is much easier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever you do, don't pour *ash* onto a fire.  That's about the same as throwing sand onto a fire — something that folks do (in a pinch) to put a fire *out*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6728" RevisionGUID="63c2348e-bf9b-442f-b600-73563a42f89b" CreationDate="2018-07-02T14:43:55.650" UserId="99" Comment="added line about EU banning single-use plastics, fixed double mention of glass" Text="What the best recycling policy is is a political question. As you mentioned in your question there are many aspects to this and all good recycling policies will address issues such as cost, environmental impact, human health impact, end-user awareness, convenience of using the system, compliance, amount of generated waste, worker safety and more. Which aspect is considered to be most important is often reflected in national or local waste processing laws. Besides politics, local circumstances such as market prices of recycled materials and the availability of processing facilities and landfill areas can have a big influence.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Europe&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not very familiar with recycling policies outside of Europe, but many European countries put emphasis on achieving high recycling rates. &#xD;&#xA;If you look at [this blog post](http://www.planetaid.org/blog/global-recycling-rates) for example you can see that several European countries (and South Korea) score high on municipal recycling rates. Part of the reason why European countries score this high has to do with the various EU directives on waste processing and environmental protection. [EU directive 2004/12/EC](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32004L0012) for example says that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recovery and recycling of packaging waste should be further increased to reduce its environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Implementation of this directive is however left up to each EU member state and consequently there are big differences between EU countries. Countries like Germany, Slovenia and Austria score 55%+, where as others such as Slovak Republic, Greece and Portugal score 11 - 26% &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Municipal waste disposal and recovery rates for OECD countries]][1] &#xD;&#xA;*Source: [page 50 of the OECD document 'Environment at a Glance 2015](https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/environment-at-a-glance-2015_9789264235199-en#page52)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To achieve high recycling rates, multiple waste streams are a necessity, because mixing different waste streams causes contamination of the materials and reduces their recyclability. However, keep in mind that recycling rates can be misleading. They are difficult to compare because of the different definitions of (municipal) waste and the different methods of calculation. Also municipal waste (which I assume your question is primarily about), is only a small fraction of all generated waste. Roughly about 10% of all waste is municipal waste, but it does account for about 1/3 of the costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of waste policy [EU directive 2008/98/EC](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1530420447878&amp;uri=CELEX:32008L0098) is interesting which says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The first objective of any waste policy should be to minimise the negative effects of the generation and management of waste on human health and the environment. Waste policy should also aim at reducing the use of resources, and favour the practical application of the waste hierarchy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [waste hierarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_hierarchy) describes the methods to process waste from most favourable (e.g. reuse) to least favourable (e.g. dumping in landfills). What you often see is that countries over time slowly work their way up the hierarchy and start using more 'advanced' waste processing methods. For example, the EU recently proposed to [ban single-use plastics](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-environment-plastics/eu-moves-to-ban-single-use-plastics-idUSKCN1IT160), which is a measure that belongs at the top of the waste hierarchy (prevention and minimization).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;The Netherlands&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;As an implementation example, let's look at The Netherlands (because I live there and because it does fairly well). The Netherlands has a recycling rate of 51%. In Europe only Austria, Germany and Belgium are doing better in terms of recycling rates (based on page 13 in [this document](https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/managing-municipal-solid-waste))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All cities here separately collect wastes types such as paper and cardboard, kitchen and garden wastes, glass, PET bottles, clothing, and batteries. Some cities also have a separate stream for what they call PMD which stands for Plastics, Metals and Drink cartons (e.g. Tetrapak) and claim that separating these waste types by end users is the most effective method of recycling. Other cities disagree with this and claim that separating these 3 waste types from a 'general other' waste stream is more effective. So far I haven't seen a final conclusion in this debate.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;This week the Secretary of State who is responsible for waste management announced that The Netherlands has to transform into a full circular economy ([news article in Dutch](https://nos.nl/artikel/2239149-kabinet-wil-einde-plastic-wegwerpspullen-al-het-afval-recyclen.html)). This goal should be achieved by 2050. One of the major steps towards this is to make improvements in product design; all products should become repairable, reusable and/or recyclable by design, and may not contain any harmful substances. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EdK9s.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6729" RevisionGUID="5a90d672-bd30-4ba8-99fb-0cb36d35b3db" CreationDate="2018-07-02T16:26:23.417" UserId="3379" Text="THelper's [excellent answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6728/3379) to the question [&quot;What is current best practice for setting up recycling?&quot;](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/4595/3379) includes a chart showing that New Zealand sends nearly 100% of its garbage to landfills. In a follow-up, THelper shared this link: [&quot;Countries Who Produce the Most Garbage&quot;](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-generating-the-most-trash-per-capita.html), which shows that 11 of the top 13 garbage-producing nations (per capita) are island nations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Kuwait, 5.72 kilograms per capita per day&#xD;&#xA;2. **Antigua**, 5.50 kilograms per capita per day&#xD;&#xA;3. **St. Kitts and Nevis**, 5.45 kilograms per capita per day&#xD;&#xA;4. Guyana, 5.33 kilograms per capita per day&#xD;&#xA;5. **Sri Lanka**, 5.10 kilograms per capita per day&#xD;&#xA;6. **Barbados**, 4.75 kilograms per capita per day&#xD;&#xA;7. **St. Lucia**, 4.35 kilograms per capita per day&#xD;&#xA;8. **Solomon Islands**, 4.30 kilograms per capita per day&#xD;&#xA;9. **Tonga**, 3.71 kilograms per capita per day&#xD;&#xA;10. **New Zealand**, 3.68 kilograms per capita per day&#xD;&#xA;11. **Ireland**, 3.58 kilograms per capita per day&#xD;&#xA;12. **Vanuatu**, 3.28 kilograms per capita per day&#xD;&#xA;13. **The Bahamas**, 3.25 kilograms per capita per day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why do island nations produce so much garbage per person?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The source is cited as &quot;World Bank data,&quot; and would seem to be this report: [&quot;What a Waste : A Global Review of Solid Waste Management&quot;](https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/17388). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the high per capita figures for islands, the report says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The countries with the highest per capita rates are islands, likely due to waste generated by the tourism industry, and a more complete accounting of all wastes generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this explanation stand up to scrutiny? I'm skeptical that these two factors alone could account for such consistently high rates for islands." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6729" RevisionGUID="5a90d672-bd30-4ba8-99fb-0cb36d35b3db" CreationDate="2018-07-02T16:26:23.417" UserId="3379" Text="Why do island nations generate so much garbage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6729" RevisionGUID="5a90d672-bd30-4ba8-99fb-0cb36d35b3db" CreationDate="2018-07-02T16:26:23.417" UserId="3379" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="346b713a-b939-4c5c-9181-1942a1161d2a" CreationDate="2018-07-02T19:10:23.747" UserId="4886" Text="I think you are asking the wrong question.  I've had a look at that report, threw some of the data into a spreadsheet and noticed the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10/13 of the smallest (sub-100,000 population) nations in the world make up **half** of the Top-20 most garbage-generating nations in the world (per-capita).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just so happens that small islands can generally only support small populations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a better question would be &quot;**Why do SMALL nations generate so much garbage?**&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="9f032a2b-6e0a-4d75-96d3-e3fd5d209d03" CreationDate="2018-07-02T19:15:45.470" UserId="4886" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="I think you are asking the wrong question.  I've had a look at that report, threw some of the data into a spreadsheet and noticed the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10/13 of the smallest (sub-100,000 population) nations in the world make up **half** of the Top-20 most garbage-generating nations in the world (per-capita).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just so happens that small islands can generally only support small populations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a better question would be &quot;**Why do SMALL nations generate so much garbage?**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst some of the characteristics of islands (e.g. isolation) no doubt contribute to the high waste production rate, I would wager that the core of the issue revolves simply around *scale*." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="1f4056a1-6ecd-46b9-8604-e9fa17cae7d6" CreationDate="2018-07-02T19:46:40.923" UserId="4886" Comment="added 402 characters in body" Text="I think you are asking the wrong question.  I've had a look at that report, threw some of the data into a spreadsheet and noticed the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10/13 of the smallest (sub-100,000 population) nations in the world make up **half** of the Top-20 most garbage-generating nations in the world (per-capita).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just so happens that small islands can generally only support small populations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a better question would be &quot;**Why do SMALL nations generate so much garbage?**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst some of the characteristics of islands (e.g. isolation) no doubt contribute to the high waste production rate, I would wager that the core of the issue revolves simply around *scale*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting thing from the report was the *nature* of the waste produced:  The fraction of waste that was **organic** ranged from a low of 28% for 'High income' countries to 64% for 'Low income' countries.  Basically, people in richer countries produce more of the 'bad' type of garbage than people in poorer countries.  Only 1 out of the 13 smallest nations was classified as 'Low income'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="15a317e3-2eea-4c4a-905f-9e07286ed9b1" CreationDate="2018-07-02T19:52:25.117" UserId="4886" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="I think you are asking the wrong question.  I've had a look at that report, threw some of the data into a spreadsheet and noticed the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10/13 of the smallest (sub-100,000 population) nations in the world make up **half** of the Top-20 most garbage-generating nations in the world (per-capita).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just so happens that small islands can generally only support small populations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a better question would be &quot;**Why do SMALL nations generate so much garbage?**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst some of the characteristics of islands (e.g. isolation) no doubt contribute to the high waste production rate, I would wager that the core of the issue revolves simply around *scale*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting thing from the report was the *nature* of the waste produced:  The fraction of waste that was **organic** ranged from a low of 28% for 'High income' countries to 64% for 'Low income' countries.  Basically, people in richer countries produce more of the 'bad' type of garbage than people in poorer countries.  Only 1 out of the 13 smallest nations was classified as 'Low income'.  Only 1 out of the 20 most garbage-producing countries was classified as 'Low income'.  That one country, in both cases, was Vanuatu." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="bb3750bc-6bbc-4e6c-8f9d-2cc5bc605a9e" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:02:16.503" UserId="4886" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="I think you are asking the wrong question.  I've had a look at that report, threw some of the data into a spreadsheet and noticed the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10/13 of the smallest (sub-100,000 population) nations in the world make up **half** of the Top-20 most garbage-generating nations in the world (per-capita).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just so happens that small islands can generally only support small populations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a better question would be &quot;**Why do SMALL nations generate so much garbage?**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst some of the characteristics of islands (e.g. isolation) no doubt contribute to the high waste production rate, I would wager that the core of the issue revolves simply around *scale*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting thing from the report was the *nature* of the waste produced:  The fraction of waste that was **organic** ranged from a low of 28% for 'High income' countries to 64% for 'Low income' countries.  Basically, people in richer countries produce more of the 'bad' type of garbage than people in poorer countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only 1 out of the 13 smallest nations was classified as 'Low income'.  Only 1 out of the 20 most garbage-producing countries was classified as 'Low income'.  That one country, in both cases, was Vanuatu — an outlier in the data, it would seem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17312" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="1deec963-53eb-4666-bfb5-5f3d28d60335" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:13:19.257" UserId="4886" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="I think you are asking the wrong question.  I've had a look at that report, threw some of the data into a spreadsheet and noticed the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10/13 of the smallest (sub-100,000 population) nations in the world make up **half** of the Top-20 most garbage-generating nations in the world (per-capita).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just so happens that small islands can generally only support small populations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a better question would be &quot;**Why do SMALL nations generate so much garbage?**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst some of the characteristics of islands (e.g. isolation) no doubt contribute to the high waste production rate, I would wager that the core of the issue revolves simply around *scale*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting thing from the report was the *nature* of the waste produced:  The fraction of waste that was **organic** ranged from a low of 28% for 'High income' countries to 64% for 'Low income' countries.  Basically, people in richer countries produce more of the 'bad' type of garbage — the type that doesn't decompose quickly — than people in poorer countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only 1 out of the 13 smallest nations was classified as 'Low income'.  Only 1 out of the 20 most garbage-producing countries was classified as 'Low income'.  That one country, in both cases, was Vanuatu — an outlier in the data, it would seem.  In Vanuatu it is *private companies* that handle waste — not government.  Hmmm...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  The report was written in 2012 and aggregated data stretching back at least as far as 2001 so the *current* numbers are likely to have changed quite a bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6730" RevisionGUID="2476c81e-35c2-450a-9c15-88fc3722c77f" CreationDate="2018-07-02T20:21:58.883" UserId="4886" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="I think you are asking the wrong question.  I've had a look at that report, threw some of the data into a spreadsheet and noticed the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10/13 of the smallest (sub-100,000 population) nations in the world make up **half** of the Top-20 most garbage-generating nations in the world (per-capita).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just so happens that small islands can generally only support small populations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a better question would be &quot;**Why do SMALL nations generate so much garbage?**&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst some of the characteristics of islands (e.g. isolation, tourism) no doubt contribute to the high waste production rate, I would wager that the core of the issue revolves simply around *scale*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting thing from the report was the *nature* of the waste produced:  The fraction of waste that was **organic** ranged from a low of 28% for 'High income' countries to 64% for 'Low income' countries.  Basically, people in richer countries produce more of the 'bad' type of garbage — the type that doesn't decompose quickly — than people in poorer countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only 1 out of the 13 smallest nations was classified as 'Low income'.  Only 1 out of the 20 most garbage-producing countries was classified as 'Low income'.  That one country, in both cases, was Vanuatu — an outlier in the data, it would seem.  In Vanuatu it is *private companies* that handle waste — not government.  Hmmm...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  The report was written in 2012 and aggregated data stretching back at least as far as 2001 so the *current* numbers are likely to have changed quite a bit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="ec839115-6e33-4197-b285-3daddba09d83" CreationDate="2018-07-03T06:50:17.137" UserId="5844" Text="I am from india and planning to build a house which consumes less cement, steel and sand. I am looking to keep the temperature inside the home to be minimal since temperature will touch around 44 degree C during summer.Is there any alternative solution which helps building a two storey building which absorbs less heat so that i don't need to run a aircon. Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17315" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="ec839115-6e33-4197-b285-3daddba09d83" CreationDate="2018-07-03T06:50:17.137" UserId="5844" Text="Non concreet roof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17316" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="ec839115-6e33-4197-b285-3daddba09d83" CreationDate="2018-07-03T06:50:17.137" UserId="5844" Text="|home|heating|alternatives|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6732" RevisionGUID="43ca730f-04ab-4e44-94ae-a83cd37349f8" CreationDate="2018-07-03T09:31:08.367" UserId="4886" Text="Maybe you could use natural building materials? Do you have access to lots of clay and straw/other fibres? If so, then maybe cob would be an option. Look around, see what sort of natural materials are in your environment, and add them to your question. Might spark a few ideas. Also describe your rainfall situation (especially whether you have to deal with torrential monsoon rain events).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, do you have (or are willing to develop) bricklaying skills? I find vault construction like this quite inspirational:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[youtube.com/watch?v=PB8TWMKHHMQ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I realise you want to use less sand, but mortar and concrete use vastly different amounts, so clay bricks might be an option.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://youtube.com/watch?v=PB8TWMKHHMQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6732" RevisionGUID="cd3c6ebd-595d-4c08-8d1c-20a0104a3c52" CreationDate="2018-07-03T09:37:06.887" UserId="4886" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Maybe you could use natural building materials? Do you have access to lots of clay and straw/other fibres? If so, then maybe cob would be an option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look around, see what sort of natural materials are in your environment, and add them to your question. Might spark a few ideas. Also describe your rainfall situation (especially whether you have to deal with torrential monsoon rain events).  Some solutions that are fine for a hot dry season may fail completely in a wet season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, do you have (or are willing to develop) bricklaying skills? I find vault construction like this quite inspirational:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Vault Construction][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[youtube.com/watch?v=PB8TWMKHHMQ][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I realise you want to use less sand, but mortar and concrete use vastly different amounts, so clay bricks might be an option.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://youtube.com/watch?v=PB8TWMKHHMQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EGite.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17319" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6732" RevisionGUID="c8d3856c-e47a-4132-a1e3-50ebe5386970" CreationDate="2018-07-03T09:42:31.390" UserId="4886" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="Maybe you could use natural building materials? Do you have access to lots of clay and straw/other fibres? If so, then maybe [cob][1] would be an option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look around, see what sort of natural materials are in your environment, and add them to your question. Might spark a few ideas. Also describe your rainfall situation (especially whether you have to deal with torrential monsoon rain events).  Some solutions that are fine for a hot dry season may fail completely in a wet season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have (or are you willing to develop) bricklaying skills? If so, I find vault construction like this quite inspirational:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Vault Construction][2]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[youtube.com/watch?v=PB8TWMKHHMQ][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I realise you want to use less sand, but mortar and concrete use vastly different amounts, so clay bricks might be an option.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cob_%28material%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3D5wZ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://youtube.com/watch?v=PB8TWMKHHMQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17320" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="6c470970-9615-4adf-a684-8064bc11240c" CreationDate="2018-07-03T09:47:34.083" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, added insulation, building-materials and construction tag, removed heating and cooling tags" Text="I am from India and planning to build a house with as little cement, steel and sand as possible. I am looking to keep the temperature inside the home to be minimal since temperature will touch around 44 degree C (111 F) during summer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any alternative solution which helps building a two story building which absorbs less heat so that I don't need to run an aircon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17321" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="6c470970-9615-4adf-a684-8064bc11240c" CreationDate="2018-07-03T09:47:34.083" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, added insulation, building-materials and construction tag, removed heating and cooling tags" Text="|home|alternatives|building-materials|insulation|construction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6732" RevisionGUID="5f6a9ac3-3e34-4d34-b5ea-74d18f0b528f" CreationDate="2018-07-03T09:52:44.177" UserId="4886" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Maybe you could use natural building materials? Do you have access to lots of clay and straw/other fibres? If so, then maybe [cob][1] would be an option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look around, see what sort of natural materials are in your environment, and add them to your question. Might spark a few ideas. Also describe your rainfall situation (especially whether you have to deal with torrential monsoon rain events).  Some solutions that are fine for a hot dry season may fail completely in a wet season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have (or are you willing to develop) bricklaying skills? If so, I find vault construction like this quite inspirational:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Vault Construction][2]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Video at [youtube.com/watch?v=PB8TWMKHHMQ][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I realise you want to use less sand, but mortar and concrete use vastly different amounts, so clay bricks might be an option.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cob_%28material%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3D5wZ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://youtube.com/watch?v=PB8TWMKHHMQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17323" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6732" RevisionGUID="e837bd12-48a7-4b9f-b044-71d677a253a3" CreationDate="2018-07-03T10:02:08.763" UserId="4886" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="Maybe you could use natural building materials? Do you have access to lots of clay and straw/other fibres? If so, then maybe [cob][1] would be an option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look around, see what sort of natural materials are in your environment, and add them to your question. Might spark a few ideas. Also describe your rainfall situation (especially whether you have to deal with torrential monsoon rain events).  Some solutions that are fine for a hot dry season may fail completely in a wet season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have (or are you willing to develop) bricklaying skills? If so, I find vault construction like this quite inspirational:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Vault Construction][2]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Video at [youtube.com/watch?v=PB8TWMKHHMQ][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I realise you want to use less sand, but mortar and concrete use vastly different amounts, so clay bricks might be an option.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could them lime wash or render the outer surface and make it white — which should reflect up to 40% of the incoming heat from the sun and help moderate the temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cob_%28material%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3D5wZ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://youtube.com/watch?v=PB8TWMKHHMQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6732" RevisionGUID="252f7fd4-55cf-4524-8ec3-5864e7aa94d2" CreationDate="2018-07-03T10:09:05.893" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Maybe you could use natural building materials? Do you have access to lots of clay and straw/other fibres? If so, then maybe [cob][1] would be an option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look around, see what sort of natural materials are in your environment, and add them to your question. Might spark a few ideas. Also describe your rainfall situation (especially whether you have to deal with torrential monsoon rain events).  Some solutions that are fine for a hot dry season may fail completely in a wet season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have (or are you willing to develop) bricklaying skills? If so, I find vault construction like this quite inspirational:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Vault Construction][2]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Video at [youtube.com/watch?v=PB8TWMKHHMQ][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I realise you want to use less sand, but mortar and concrete use vastly different amounts, so clay bricks might be an option.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could then lime-wash, render, or paint the outer surface white — which should reflect up to 40% of the incoming heat from the sun and help moderate the temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cob_%28material%29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3D5wZ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://youtube.com/watch?v=PB8TWMKHHMQ" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17325" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="463547f8-254e-4ade-9bbc-d7c7802cf347" CreationDate="2018-07-03T18:51:19.680" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1014220056853610496" />
  <row Id="17326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="56c1d089-f19c-4700-8fa8-215748980929" CreationDate="2018-07-03T19:09:23.743" UserId="4886" Comment="placed degree symbols (°) where appropriate" Text="I am from India and planning to build a house with as little cement, steel and sand as possible. I am looking to keep the temperature inside the home to be minimal since temperature will touch around 44°C (111°F) during summer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any alternative solution which helps building a two story building which absorbs less heat so that I don't need to run an aircon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17327" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="56c1d089-f19c-4700-8fa8-215748980929" CreationDate="2018-07-03T19:09:23.743" Comment="Proposed by 4886 approved by 3379, 2451 edit id of 534" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17328" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6704" RevisionGUID="330ca0aa-ca40-4961-a38c-db35c9438aff" CreationDate="2018-07-04T07:05:17.537" UserId="2371" Comment="Adding link to [COP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance)" Text="We are looking at air to air heat pumps (aka reverse cycle AC units) to replace our existing electrical heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air to air heat pumps claim a [COP][1] of 3 or 4 to 1 in the manufacturing literature. However when I was looking at the graph presented to me by the salesman it only showed about 1.25 to 1 at 11 degrees C and less for lower temperature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since people do not generally heat their homes until the temperature gets low, I'm wondering what the true efficiency of there units is in the range of say 10 degrees C to -5 degrees C (the typical UK winter). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know if there is a standard benchmark by which COP is measured and also if there is proper data of how COP varies with temperature for different heat pumps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17329" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6704" RevisionGUID="330ca0aa-ca40-4961-a38c-db35c9438aff" CreationDate="2018-07-04T07:05:17.537" Comment="Proposed by 2371 approved by 3379, 3293 edit id of 535" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17330" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6573" RevisionGUID="6e9afb56-e1f3-47c9-8ab4-e4223e0fe206" CreationDate="2018-07-04T07:51:59.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6733" RevisionGUID="a7b0b268-561e-48c0-9cc3-f4ab4f12e8fd" CreationDate="2018-07-06T15:33:36.403" UserId="3379" Text="A useful metric for vehicle efficiency is [miles per gallon, kilometers per liter, or liters per 100 km](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles#Units_of_measure). The amount of gasoline used by a given vehicle can easily be understood and compared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Energy use intensity](https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/facility-owners-and-managers/existing-buildings/use-portfolio-manager/understand-metrics/what-energy) is a similarly useful and intelligible method for understanding and comparing energy usage of buildings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, **metrics for setting greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets are varied and confusing**, and based on the inherently context-dependent *percentage:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - National Grid [announced a target today](https://www.utilitydive.com/news/national-grid-targets-80-carbon-cut-across-buildings-transport-power/525839/) to reduce emissions by 20% (compared to 1990 levels) by 2050.&#xD;&#xA; - In 2015 [the U.S. pledged](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/31/fact-sheet-us-reports-its-2025-emissions-target-unfccc) to reduce emissions by 26 to 28% (compared to 2005 levels) by 2025.&#xD;&#xA; - The E.U. [has a target](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/2030_en) of a 40% reduction (from 1990 levels) by 2030.&#xD;&#xA; - [This article in Energy Live News](https://www.energylivenews.com/2018/07/06/uk-increases-public-sector-greenhouse-gas-emissions-target-for-2020/) discusses an increase in the U.K.'s target to 43% reduction by 2030, but doesn't mention the baseline year (or what the old target was, for that matter -- this could simply be an example of shoddy journalism).&#xD;&#xA; - Oil company ConocoPhillips has a (not so) [long-term target](http://www.conocophillips.com/environment/climate-change/climate-change-strategy/greenhouse-gas-emissions-intensity-target/) to reduce &quot;emissions intensity&quot; by 5 to 15% (compared to 2017 levels) by 2030.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With different target years, baseline years, and definitions of &quot;emissions,&quot; these targets cannot be compared in a straight-forward way. National Grid's 20% reduction sounds better than ConocoPhillips' 5 to 15%, but the latter is targeted for 20 years sooner. Additionally, the choice of baseline year seems arbitrary and a convenient way to game the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine trying to buy a car when one manufacturer tells you the gallons per 100 miles, one gives average commuting time per tank, and another lists wheel revolutions per liter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, does there exist a metric for greenhouse gas emissions target that is robust and easy to understand and compare?** Could the examples given above be translated into this metric in order to compare them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6733" RevisionGUID="a7b0b268-561e-48c0-9cc3-f4ab4f12e8fd" CreationDate="2018-07-06T15:33:36.403" UserId="3379" Text="A more useful metric for greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6733" RevisionGUID="a7b0b268-561e-48c0-9cc3-f4ab4f12e8fd" CreationDate="2018-07-06T15:33:36.403" UserId="3379" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5835" RevisionGUID="126eaab6-1d7d-4289-8bca-3d7e171b16ab" CreationDate="2018-07-06T23:58:48.230" UserId="3379" Comment="Changed to reflect different/updated data at the linked sites." Text="&lt;H1&gt;Original answer (which had a long explanation):&lt;/H1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I proposed using degree days information to determine a baseload value for consumption of electricity and natural gas by region, and assume anything above this baseload was used for heating and cooling. This assumed that all seasonal changes in energy consumption were for heating and cooling only (so no change in lighting, cooking, water heating, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H1&gt;New (short) answer:&lt;/H1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[@ChrisH ](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5834/how-much-could-the-us-reduce-its-electricity-demand-if-people-moved-from-texas-b/5835?noredirect=1#comment8135_5835) made a comment on my original answer which sent me searching, and in the process I found some better resources. Here's the new process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Determine how much of each type of fuel (electricity, natural gas, propane, oil) is used for heating and air conditioning, by state.&#xD;&#xA; 2. For electricity, determine the fuel mix by state.&#xD;&#xA; 3. For each fuel, determine the carbon emissions.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Put it all together to determine per capita energy use and carbon emissions for heating and cooling, by state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H1&gt;New long explanation:&lt;/H1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H3&gt;1. Fuel consumption by residential end use, by state&lt;/H3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This information is available in the [2009 EIA Residential Energy Consumption Survey](https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/index.php?view=consumption#end-use-by-fuel):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Excerpt from RECS data][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*([2015 RECS data](https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/) is available as of early 2017.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H3&gt;2. Fuel consumption for electricity generation, by state&lt;/H3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Also from the EIA: [consumption of fuels for electricity generation](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm#consumption). To match the end use survey, take the data from 2009. For each state, add up all the fuels to determine what percent comes from each fuel type. Monthly data is available if you want to look at seasonal variation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;H3&gt;3. Emissions factors by fuel type&lt;/H3&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**For electricity:** The EIA &lt;s&gt;provides&lt;/s&gt; used to provide a summary of carbon emissions per kWh of electricity produced, by fuel source. Now they provide [a list of the data and conversion factors needed](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&amp;t=11) to make this determination per state. I did the math for the U.S. and the two states in the question title.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Metric tons of CO2 per MWh of electricity generated by region:&#xD;&#xA;      US total&#xD;&#xA;       - Coal          1.02 &#xD;&#xA;       - Natural gas   0.45&#xD;&#xA;      Texas&#xD;&#xA;       - Coal          1.05 &#xD;&#xA;       - Natural gas   0.48&#xD;&#xA;      Ohio&#xD;&#xA;       - Coal          0.97 &#xD;&#xA;       - Natural gas   0.45&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The variations from state to state depend on the type of coal used, how plants are operated, and the age, efficiency, and emissions controls of the plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For heating fuels:** The data in step 1 above gives consumption by BTU and physical units (kWh, cubic feet, gallons, etc). [This summary](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.cfm) gives the carbon dioxide factors by both measures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VV1K2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17335" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6729" RevisionGUID="041938b8-b64e-446f-bf18-9f5922fc108a" CreationDate="2018-07-08T03:52:53.937" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1015805899254976513" />
  <row Id="17336" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6733" RevisionGUID="d3511859-e15b-496f-b9f8-2267f4071f29" CreationDate="2018-07-08T12:54:24.530" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1015942174733684737" />
  <row Id="17338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6734" RevisionGUID="9fdb6c0c-2338-4378-862c-7dcb54c0e2f6" CreationDate="2018-07-10T13:16:33.490" UserId="1701" Text="It wouldn't work in a normal septic tank. Normal septic tanks tend to get anaerobic as resident bacteria use up all the oxygen very quickly. This would prevent fungal mycelium from surviving since they do require oxygen - even though they can do well with lower levels than we could. In addition, bacteria are far more suited for breaking down organic matter with high nitrogen like septic inputs. Mushrooms are more competitive in lower nitrogen substrates - like a pile of wood chips. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that you could solve the oxygen problem fairly easily, but then you'd also be improving the bacteria's ability to deal with the fecal matter. Basically bacteria are a much better processor of septic waste than fungi." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6735" RevisionGUID="21066ef4-0353-4ae8-9da7-fc07ae64f14c" CreationDate="2018-07-10T22:53:47.810" UserId="400" Text="Much depends on the density of deliveries.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that the average distance between customers was 1 km, and the warehouse is 10 km away. A simple approximation says 9 km driving between customers, and 2 10 km trips from and back to the warehouse.  Net travel 30 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If each customer has to travel to the warehouse, you have 10 * (10+10) = 200 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as you pointed out customers are likely to combine errands.  But I seriously doubt that many people will combine 10 or more errands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, it's not that simple:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a customer is out for a non-deliverable, say, taking Susan to soccer practice, then it may still make sense for the customer to pick up at warehouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the vendor, it may make sense to consolidate deliveries by time.  If you say NW Edmonton only gets deliveries on Tuesday, then instead of 10 customers you have 50.  The average distance drops by a factor of 5, at the price of people needing to wait longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also make sense for people to have drop boxes.  E.g. Elon Musk sets up a new company that provides 1 cubic meter boxes for rent on an hourly to monthly basis.  Acme Widget drops off my new widget, not to my house but to Hold'em Warehouse.  Employess put it in my box for later pickup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A day later my order from Bilbo's Bookstore arrives.  It's added to my box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three hours later Superstore foods drops my groceries off.  They go in my box, and an alert goes to me:  Milk delivered to your box.  Perishable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point either I go by an empty my box, or I phone up EM Transport, and arrange for it to be delivered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By setting up distribution networks like this you reduce the delivery costs, but increase the handling costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure where the optimum balance point is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17340" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6674" RevisionGUID="499c4630-db57-4e19-87c5-78d38c49971e" CreationDate="2018-07-11T02:43:01.887" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17341" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="f4852bc9-61cf-44e4-aced-6e17bf5a2429" CreationDate="2018-07-11T07:44:55.663" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17342" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6735" RevisionGUID="417ec213-4f8c-4dd3-9c7a-8e0e5567bf76" CreationDate="2018-07-11T13:08:17.240" UserId="400" Comment="added details about canada post." Text="Much depends on the density of deliveries.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that the average distance between customers was 1 km, and the warehouse is 10 km away. A simple approximation says 9 km driving between customers, and 2 10 km trips from and back to the warehouse.  Net travel 30 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If each customer has to travel to the warehouse, you have 10 * (10+10) = 200 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as you pointed out customers are likely to combine errands.  But I seriously doubt that many people will combine 10 or more errands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alas, it's not that simple:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a customer is out for a non-deliverable, say, taking Susan to soccer practice, then it may still make sense for the customer to pick up at warehouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the vendor, it may make sense to consolidate deliveries by time.  Say NW Edmonton only gets deliveries on Tuesday, then instead of 10 customers you have 50.  The average distance drops by a factor of 5, at the price of people needing to wait longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would also make sense for people to have drop boxes.  E.g. Elon Musk sets up a new company that provides 1 cubic meter boxes for rent on an hourly to monthly basis.  Acme Widget drops off my new widget, not to my house but to Hold'em Warehouse.  Employess put it in my box for later pickup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A day later my order from Bilbo's Bookstore arrives.  It's added to my box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three hours later Superstore foods drops my groceries off.  They go in my box, and an alert goes to me:  Milk delivered to your box.  Perishable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point either I go by an empty my box, or I phone up EM Transport, and arrange for it to be delivered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By setting up distribution networks like this you reduce the delivery costs, but increase the handling costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure where the optimum balance point is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Canada we are going to &quot;Super Boxes&quot;  Instead of delivery to your door, there is a superbox usually at the point where your road connects to distributor road.  A set will server about 30-60 houses.  Boxes are available in various sizes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we get a parcel that is too big for our box, the postman leaves a card for you to pick up at the local postoffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are on Amazon Prime.  Most of the in country shipping is free, and most arrives in 3 business days.  (They say 2, but don't count the day you place the order) But Amazon is big enough that whole semi-trailers/747's go to major points.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get decent rates from the post office here you have to have volume.  And your packages have to be sorted by postal code.  We have a local tree company, tree time, that during the shipping season in spring is sendout out 2 27 foot vans of parcels a day.  But they have to pallet them by postal code&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17343" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="52a4a5de-1288-4176-a2a1-829058943e79" CreationDate="2018-07-11T15:47:07.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17344" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6723" RevisionGUID="cd30d20b-4799-49d9-8419-9f51886e62db" CreationDate="2018-07-12T12:59:40.847" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1017393052888043521" />
  <row Id="17345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6736" RevisionGUID="ec53afde-a22c-48aa-84f2-1f2d767eee3f" CreationDate="2018-07-14T07:42:24.550" UserId="99" Text="While reading your question I get the feeling there are some misconceptions here, so let me start by clarifying a few things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Paper cups are not solely made of paper but [have a plastic or wax lining](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_cup). It's to prevent the cup from failing apart when it gets wet,&#xD;&#xA;but it also prevents or slows down (bio)degradation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Plastic degrades into increasingly smaller pieces of plastic, primarily under the influence of sunlight and heat.&#xD;&#xA;Paper on the other hand [**bio**degrades](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradation) when micro-organisms, fungi and worms turn the paper into CO2, water and compost.&#xD;&#xA;Although scientists recently found bacteria that can 'eat' a specific type of plastic like PET very slowly (see [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5109/99)), it's still uncommon to refer to degradation of traditional plastics like PP, LDPE, PET as biodegradation.&#xD;&#xA;The exception is if you are referring to plastics that were specifically designed to be biodegradable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Not all paper biodegrades quickly. Laminated paper, waxed paper, large quantities of paper, or paper put in dry or cold conditions will  biodegrade much slower. I'll explain more below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Circumstances&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How fast something biodegrades depends on many variables, but an important aspect is the availability of micro-organisms. This in turn is influenced greatly by&#xD;&#xA;the amount of oxygen and water that is present, and the ambient temperature (among others). Paper, or any other compostable material for that matter, will degrade more quickly if you do one of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Make sure the materials stay moist (not dry or soaked)!&#xD;&#xA;2. Keep temperatures around 40-60 degrees C&#xD;&#xA;3. Bury it under other degrading or already-degraded materials&#xD;&#xA;4. Aerate regularly by turning the materials&#xD;&#xA;5. Keep a carbon-nitrogen balance of materials of around 25:1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most plastics on the other hand will degrade most quickly if you expose it to sunlight (UV radiation and heat). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your experiment the choice of environment will affect the outcome. Any situation you choose will most likely be more favorable for either plastic or paper. &#xD;&#xA;I think the fairest comparison is when you try to mimic what generally happens with litter; just leave it exposed somewhere between or on top of organic materials like grass or dirt.&#xD;&#xA;You could place it on some stones similar to litter in a gutter or on the pavement, but then you'd probably have to wait much longer for anything to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Setup&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest creating some sort of small enclosing on your land with chicken wire or perhaps something with a finer mesh. Basically anything to keep the materials you put into it from being blown away, &#xD;&#xA;but still leave them exposed to the elements. Then just leave the materials alone. For pure paper without any finish or lining you want to check weekly what's happening. For plastics or paper cups it will most likely take quite some time &#xD;&#xA;before anything happens, so at first I'd check that monthly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though it would be most interesting to compare degradation of a plastic cup with a paper cup, I do **not recommend** using any traditional plastic or a plastic-lined paper cup.&#xD;&#xA;When the plastic degrades it will contaminate the soil with the toxic additives that are present in the plastic. Also the tiny pieces of (micro)plastics are very hard or impossible to remove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;My own experiences&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I regularly add paper napkins or cardboard to my worm bin to keep a proper carbon-nitrogen balance in the bin. I've had very mixed results depending on the type and thickness of the paper or cardboard&#xD;&#xA;and on the time of year. In summertime a small piece of paper napkin buried in the bin will be gone in 2-3 weeks. Multiple pieces of thick cardboard placed along the inside edges of the bin in late autumn (as extra insulation)&#xD;&#xA;remained fairly intact for up to a year. Also a small piece of compostable plastic (most likely PLA) remained fully intact after being in the bin for more than a year. I recently bought something that came in a [certified 'home-compostable' plastic](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2594/99) wrapper so I started a new experiment and added a few pieces to my worm bin, but I have yet to check how that is going.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6736" RevisionGUID="f45b0ab8-ac4f-4abc-a54a-ec1bcf7a1343" CreationDate="2018-07-14T07:47:32.330" UserId="99" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="While reading your question I get the feeling there are some misconceptions here, so let me start by clarifying a few things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Paper cups are not solely made of paper but [have a plastic or wax lining](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_cup). It's to prevent the cup from failing apart when it gets wet,&#xD;&#xA;but it also prevents or slows down (bio)degradation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Plastic degrades into increasingly smaller pieces of plastic, primarily under the influence of sunlight and heat.&#xD;&#xA;Paper on the other hand [**bio**degrades](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradation) when micro-organisms, fungi and worms turn the paper into CO2, water and compost.&#xD;&#xA;Although scientists recently found bacteria that can 'eat' a specific type of plastic like PET very slowly (see [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5109/99)), it's still uncommon to refer to degradation of traditional plastics like PP, LDPE, PET as biodegradation.&#xD;&#xA;The exception is if you are referring to plastics that were specifically designed to be biodegradable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Not all paper biodegrades quickly. Laminated paper, waxed paper, large quantities of paper, or paper put in dry or cold conditions will  biodegrade much slower. I'll explain more below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Circumstances&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How fast something biodegrades depends on many variables, but an important aspect is the availability of micro-organisms. This in turn is influenced greatly by&#xD;&#xA;the amount of oxygen and water that is present, and the ambient temperature (among others). Paper, or any other compostable material for that matter, will degrade more quickly if you do one of the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Make sure the materials stay moist (not dry or soaked)!&#xD;&#xA;2. Keep temperatures around 40-60 degrees C&#xD;&#xA;3. Bury it under other degrading or already-degraded materials, so more surface of the material is exposed to micro-organisms (and cut thick material into pieces)&#xD;&#xA;4. Aerate regularly by turning the materials&#xD;&#xA;5. Keep a carbon-nitrogen balance of materials of around 25:1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most plastics on the other hand will degrade most quickly if you expose it to sunlight (UV radiation and heat). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your experiment the choice of environment will affect the outcome. Any situation you choose will most likely be more favorable for either plastic or paper. &#xD;&#xA;I think the fairest comparison is when you try to mimic what generally happens with litter; just leave it exposed somewhere between or on top of organic materials like grass or dirt.&#xD;&#xA;You could place it on some stones similar to litter in a gutter or on the pavement, but then you'd probably have to wait much longer for anything to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Setup&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest creating some sort of small enclosing on your land with chicken wire or perhaps something with a finer mesh. Basically anything to keep the materials you put into it from being blown away, &#xD;&#xA;but still leave them exposed to the elements. Then just leave the materials alone. For pure paper without any finish or lining you want to check weekly what's happening. For plastics or paper cups it will most likely take quite some time &#xD;&#xA;before anything happens, so at first I'd check that monthly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though it would be most interesting to compare degradation of a plastic cup with a paper cup, I do **not recommend** using any traditional plastic or a plastic-lined paper cup.&#xD;&#xA;When the plastic degrades it will contaminate the soil with the toxic additives that are present in the plastic. Also the tiny pieces of (micro)plastics are very hard or impossible to remove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;My own experiences&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth, I regularly add paper napkins or cardboard to my worm bin to keep a proper carbon-nitrogen balance in the bin. I've had very mixed results depending on the type and thickness of the paper or cardboard&#xD;&#xA;and on the time of year. In summertime a small piece of paper napkin buried in the bin will be gone in 2-3 weeks. Multiple pieces of thick cardboard placed along the inside edges of the bin in late autumn (as extra insulation)&#xD;&#xA;remained fairly intact for up to a year. Also a small piece of compostable plastic (most likely PLA) remained fully intact after being in the bin for more than a year. I recently bought something that came in a [certified 'home-compostable' plastic](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2594/99) wrapper so I started a new experiment and added a few pieces to my worm bin, but I have yet to check how that is going.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17347" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="c02fe6dd-1bc5-4a54-b349-aeccb5544ffe" CreationDate="2018-07-16T08:54:49.797" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/14623/can-earth-sustain-100-vegetarian-population" />
  <row Id="17348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="7c78986f-b9e4-43fb-a550-e8676f4cf3ac" CreationDate="2018-07-16T05:07:17.083" UserId="5873" UserDisplayName="user41965" Text="I'm not asking what will happen if everyone in the world suddenly turned to vegetarian/vegan. In an ideal world with current population, can everyone follow a vegetarian diet (except for people who may need to eat meat if they have allergies to some other vegetarian alternative). I've tried to search for answers but all I found was things like what would happen if everyone suddenly turned vegetarian or things like that. But I want to know can everyone turn into vegetarian in some time? If yes/no, how much population can Earth sustain if everyone is always vegetarian. And animals are only breeded in zoological parks or for medical or some other science related needs (or for exceptional cases)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="7c78986f-b9e4-43fb-a550-e8676f4cf3ac" CreationDate="2018-07-16T05:07:17.083" UserId="5873" UserDisplayName="user41965" Text="can earth sustain 100% vegetarian population" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="7c78986f-b9e4-43fb-a550-e8676f4cf3ac" CreationDate="2018-07-16T05:07:17.083" UserId="5873" UserDisplayName="user41965" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="7bbf0531-d64b-4c52-b117-6af0ab742b63" CreationDate="2018-07-16T10:16:36.780" UserId="99" Comment="added relevant tags" Text="I'm not asking what will happen if everyone in the world suddenly turned to vegetarian/vegan. In an ideal world with current population, can everyone follow a vegetarian diet (except for people who may need to eat meat if they have allergies to some other vegetarian alternative)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to search for answers but all I found was things like what would happen if everyone suddenly turned vegetarian or things like that. But I want to know can everyone turn into vegetarian in some time? If yes/no, how much population can Earth sustain if everyone is always vegetarian. And animals are only breed in zoological parks or for medical or some other science related needs (or for exceptional cases)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17352" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="7bbf0531-d64b-4c52-b117-6af0ab742b63" CreationDate="2018-07-16T10:16:36.780" UserId="99" Comment="added relevant tags" Text="Can Earth sustain 100% vegetarian population" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17353" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="7bbf0531-d64b-4c52-b117-6af0ab742b63" CreationDate="2018-07-16T10:16:36.780" UserId="99" Comment="added relevant tags" Text="|food|population|vegetarianism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6738" RevisionGUID="15981949-91f4-4071-a17b-3d9dd77f5117" CreationDate="2018-07-17T11:28:41.837" UserId="5870" Text="There are blister packs which appear to be made entirely from aluminium and I put these in the recycle bin in their entirety. I have also been recycling the blister packs made from plastic and aluminium.  I do this by occasionally separating the aluminium from the plastic in a sort of game of 'patients' by trying to separate as much of the aluminium from the plastic as possible.  With some blister packs, eg asprin, it is possible to achieve 100% and most others around 60 to 90%.  However, with some, especially where the blisters are very small, I give up after a few seconds if I am struggling however I have occasionally achieved 100%.  Needless to say the aluminium gets recycled and the remaining pack has been discarded.  I can while away an hour or so on this when I have things I need to think over quietly or I have little else to do. &#xD;&#xA;Far better than this would be a National/International campaign to have all blister packs made entirely out of aluminium; it is done by some and can surely be done for all medicines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17355" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="cb9449c0-a629-4d72-b02f-774ba638ebaa" CreationDate="2018-07-17T12:34:05.243" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17356" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="cb9449c0-a629-4d72-b02f-774ba638ebaa" CreationDate="2018-07-17T12:34:05.243" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 3293, -1 edit id of 536" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6278" RevisionGUID="9f44da8a-0ce5-420a-9246-c41ce2ba0a10" CreationDate="2018-07-17T12:34:05.243" UserId="3379" Comment="tags edited, detail from comments added" Text="I am a homesteader. When I first moved to my property, I started a gaggle of turkeys and for about two years regularly fed them in the morning. It was nice because my kids got to see them and around the holiday season I was able to have a nice meal for my family. I used to be able to have turkey to eat as opposed to having to go to the grocery store. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have since vanished, my guess would be neighbors also hunting them, natural predators, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I would like to do is encourage the turkeys that I see roaming on the other side of the river to stop by regularly. I have thrown corn on my side of the river with no luck. I imagine turkeys might not like to cross rivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a good method to get the turkeys onto my land? I have considered building a bridge, but I would prefer not to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6739" RevisionGUID="7f0f5070-4f79-487a-88cc-c631edcc0a91" CreationDate="2018-07-17T13:30:10.210" UserId="4834" Text="[Earth's total land area is 196.9 million square miles.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The proportion of this which is farmable is 37.7%.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the total farmable land area is 74 million square miles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Intensively cultivated corn yields 15 million kcal per acre.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 640 acres per square mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore intensively cultivated corn yields 9.6 billion kcal per square mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore intensively cultivating corn on all farmable land on earth would produce 7.1 * 10^17 kcal (9.6 * 10^9 * 74 * 10^6).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each human needs 7.3 * 10^5 kcal per year (based on 2000 kcal/day).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the number of humans that can be fed if all farmable land on earth grows corn is 970 billion ((7.1 * 10^17) / (7.3 * 10^5)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you like eating corn all day, every day, that is.  Also, it's a good thing there's an unlimited supply of natural gas because this is a required feedstock in producing all that corn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=what%20is%20earth%27s%20land%20area&amp;oq=what%20is%20earth%27s%20land%20area&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sciencing.com/much-earths-land-farmable-16685.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/in-defense-of-corn-the-worlds-most-important-food-crop/2015/07/12/78d86530-25a8-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17359" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6739" RevisionGUID="3f94f60a-fa52-43fb-b4b4-a29845db8756" CreationDate="2018-07-17T13:38:49.330" UserId="4834" Comment="cite natural gas requirement" Text="[Earth's total land area is 196.9 million square miles.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The proportion of this which is farmable is 37.7%.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the total farmable land area is 74 million square miles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Intensively cultivated corn yields 15 million kcal per acre.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 640 acres per square mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore intensively cultivated corn yields 9.6 billion kcal per square mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore intensively cultivating corn on all farmable land on earth would produce 7.1 * 10^17 kcal (9.6 * 10^9 * 74 * 10^6).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each human needs 7.3 * 10^5 kcal per year (based on 2000 kcal/day).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the number of humans that can be fed if all farmable land on earth grows corn is 970 billion ((7.1 * 10^17) / (7.3 * 10^5)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you like eating corn all day, every day, that is.  Also, it's a good thing there's an unlimited supply of natural gas because [this is a required feedstock in producing all that corn][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=what%20is%20earth%27s%20land%20area&amp;oq=what%20is%20earth%27s%20land%20area&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sciencing.com/much-earths-land-farmable-16685.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/in-defense-of-corn-the-worlds-most-important-food-crop/2015/07/12/78d86530-25a8-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Sources_of_hydrogen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="cd18d448-daab-4b23-9fdb-ec4ab2a1516c" CreationDate="2018-07-18T13:41:21.093" UserId="4886" Text="The carrying capacity of planet Earth is about 1 billion Humans.  We're in overshoot.  Our current population is only possible because we are exploiting non-renewable energy sources.  Once they are gone the population will crash and ultimately stabilise at an equilibrium level — a small fraction of what it is now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point it really doesn't matter what you eat.  The best thing you can do to sustain life on Earth is to refuse to have children." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="31b77cee-db3f-45d9-ad71-63f021185da1" CreationDate="2018-07-18T13:48:11.100" UserId="4886" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="The carrying capacity of planet Earth is about 1 billion Humans (with lifestyles similar to the USA in 1999).  We're in overshoot.  Our current population is only possible because we are exploiting non-renewable energy sources.  Once they are gone the population will crash and ultimately stabilise at an equilibrium level — a small fraction of what it is now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point it really doesn't matter what you eat.  The best thing you can do to sustain life on Earth is to refuse to have children." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="215a4f28-c98c-43b0-bd3e-9995438f1a0c" CreationDate="2018-07-18T14:06:09.193" UserId="4886" Comment="added 526 characters in body" Text="The carrying capacity of planet Earth is about 1 billion Humans (with lifestyles similar to the USA in 1999).  We're in overshoot.  Our current population is only possible because we are exploiting non-renewable energy sources.  Once they are gone the population will crash and ultimately stabilise at an equilibrium level — a small fraction of what it is now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point it really doesn't matter what you eat.  The best thing you can do to sustain life on Earth is to refuse to have children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trivia:  Each Joule of energy you get from corn requires the same amount in oil to produce.  Apples and Chicken require about 7x as much oil as they yield in nutritional energy.  Milk is ~2x.  Pork is ~12x.  Beef is about ~22x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The depletion of non-renewable energy sources (oil, specifically) will *force* the Human species to find more efficient food sources... but that won't lift the carrying capacity of the planet because solar panels displace photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overshoot is overshoot.  Unless someone invents **Free and Unlimited Energy™** we're in for a rude shock when the crude runs out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="cd54c33c-e0de-487b-b758-5cb4e2eaff9f" CreationDate="2018-07-18T14:11:36.147" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="The carrying capacity of planet Earth is about 1 billion Humans (with lifestyles similar to the USA in 1999).  We're in overshoot.  Our current population is only possible because we are exploiting non-renewable energy sources.  Once they are gone the population will crash and ultimately stabilise at an equilibrium level — a small fraction of what it is now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point it really doesn't matter what you eat.  The best thing you can do to sustain life on Earth is to refuse to have children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trivia:  Each Joule of energy you get from corn requires the same amount in oil to produce.  Apples and Chicken require about 7x as much oil as they yield in nutritional energy.  Milk is ~2x.  Pork is ~12x.  Beef is about ~23x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The depletion of non-renewable energy sources (oil, specifically) will *force* the Human species to find more efficient food sources... but that won't lift the carrying capacity of the planet because solar panels displace photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overshoot is overshoot.  Unless someone invents **Free and Unlimited Energy™** we're in for a rude shock when the crude runs out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="95dfed4d-d976-4fe8-93bd-bf24c1a3d837" CreationDate="2018-07-18T14:21:31.230" UserId="4886" Comment="added 278 characters in body" Text="The carrying capacity of planet Earth is about 1 billion Humans (with lifestyles similar to the USA in 1999).  There are over 7.6 billion people on the planet right now.  We're in overshoot.  Our current population is only possible because we are exploiting non-renewable energy sources.  Once they are gone the population will crash and ultimately stabilise at an equilibrium level — a small fraction of what it is now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point it really doesn't matter what you eat.  The best thing you can do to sustain life on Earth is to avoid having children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trivia:  Each Joule of energy you get from corn requires the same amount in oil to produce.  Apples and Chicken require about 7x as much oil as they yield in nutritional energy.  Milk is ~2x.  Pork is ~12x.  Beef is ~23x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The average US diet a few years ago required 9 Joules of fossil fuels for every 1 Joule of food consumed.  It is tempting to use this as a mathematical basis for saying &quot;the planet can support 11x as many vegetarians as is can normal people&quot; — but that would be a mistake.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The depletion of non-renewable energy sources (oil, specifically) will *force* the Human species to find more efficient food sources... but that won't lift the carrying capacity of the planet because solar panels displace photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overshoot is overshoot.  Unless someone invents **Free and Unlimited Energy™** we're in for a rude shock when the crude runs out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="78d0c7bf-b3b1-4cb2-b4f7-01ab2858e276" CreationDate="2018-07-18T14:29:31.467" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="The carrying capacity of planet Earth is about 1 billion Humans (with lifestyles similar to the USA in 1999).  There are over 7.6 billion people on the planet right now.  We're in overshoot.  Our current population is only possible because we are exploiting non-renewable energy sources.  Once they are gone the population will crash and ultimately stabilise at an equilibrium level — a small fraction of what it is now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point it really doesn't matter what you eat.  The best thing you can do to sustain life on Earth is to avoid having children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trivia:  Each Joule of energy you get from corn requires the same amount in oil to produce.  Apples and chicken require about 7x as much oil as they yield in nutritional energy.  Milk is ~2x.  Pork is ~12x.  Beef is ~23x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The average US diet a few years ago required 9 Joules of fossil fuels for every 1 Joule of food consumed.  It is tempting to use this as a mathematical basis for saying &quot;the planet can support 11x as many vegetarians as is can normal people&quot; — but that would be a mistake.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The depletion of non-renewable energy sources (oil, specifically) will *force* the Human species to find more *economical* food sources... but that won't lift the carrying capacity of the planet because solar panels displace photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overshoot is overshoot.  Unless someone invents **Free and Unlimited Energy™** we're in for a rude shock when the crude runs out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="19d1dfe1-09e2-40d1-9a87-65056d2a9b9c" CreationDate="2018-07-18T14:34:17.440" UserId="4886" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="The carrying capacity of planet Earth is about 1 billion Humans (with lifestyles similar to the USA in 1999).  There are over 7.6 billion people on the planet right now.  We're in overshoot.  Our current population is only possible because we are exploiting non-renewable energy sources.  Once they are gone the population will crash and ultimately stabilise at an equilibrium level — a small fraction of what it is now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point it really doesn't matter what you eat.  The best thing you can do to sustain life on Earth is to avoid having children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trivia:  Each Joule of energy you get from corn requires the same amount in oil to produce.  Apples and chicken require about 7x as much oil as they yield in nutritional energy.  Milk is ~2x.  Pork is ~12x.  Beef is ~23x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The average US diet a few years ago required 9 Joules of fossil fuels for every 1 Joule of food consumed.  It is tempting to use this as a mathematical basis for saying &quot;the planet can support 11x as many vegetarians as is can normal people&quot; — but that would be a mistake.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The depletion of non-renewable energy sources (oil, specifically) will *force* the Human species to find more *economical* food sources... but that won't lift the carrying capacity of the planet because solar panels displace photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overshoot is overshoot.  Unless someone manages a way to defy the laws of physics and invent **Free and Unlimited Energy™** we're in for a rude shock when the crude runs out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="8b38ddaa-7b9e-4ade-80bf-623b86b64d6d" CreationDate="2018-07-18T14:57:07.630" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="The carrying capacity of planet Earth is about 1 billion Humans (with lifestyles similar to the USA in 1999).  There are over 7.6 billion people on the planet right now.  We're in overshoot.  Our current population is only possible because we are exploiting non-renewable energy sources.  Once they are gone the population will crash and ultimately stabilise at an equilibrium level — a small fraction of what it is now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point it really doesn't matter what you eat.  The best thing you can do to sustain life on Earth is to avoid having children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trivia:  Each Joule of energy you get from corn requires the same amount in oil to produce.  Apples and chicken require about 7x as much oil as they yield in nutritional energy.  Milk is ~2x.  Pork is ~12x.  Beef is ~23x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The average US diet a few years ago required 9 Joules of fossil fuels for every 1 Joule of food consumed.  It is tempting to use this as a mathematical basis for saying &quot;the planet can support 11x as many vegetarians as is can normal people&quot; — but that would be a mistake.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The depletion of non-renewable energy sources (oil, specifically) will *force* the Human species to find more *economical* food sources... but that won't lift the carrying capacity of the planet because solar panels displace photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overshoot is overshoot.  Unless someone manages to defy the laws of physics and invent **Free and Unlimited Energy™** we're in for a rude shock when the crude runs out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17369" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="a93652c6-2679-4b5c-9f08-2a5a3b743deb" CreationDate="2018-07-18T15:35:57.950" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="The carrying capacity of planet Earth is about 1 billion Humans (with lifestyles similar to the USA in 1999).  There are over 7.6 billion people on the planet right now.  We're in overshoot.  Our current population is only possible because we are exploiting non-renewable energy sources.  As they run out the population will crash and ultimately stabilise at an equilibrium level — a small fraction of what it is now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point it really doesn't matter what you eat.  The best thing you can do to sustain life on Earth is to avoid having children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trivia:  Each Joule of energy you get from corn requires the same amount in oil to produce.  Apples and chicken require about 7x as much oil as they yield in nutritional energy.  Milk is ~2x.  Pork is ~12x.  Beef is ~23x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The average US diet a few years ago required 9 Joules of fossil fuels for every 1 Joule of food consumed.  It is tempting to use this as a mathematical basis for saying &quot;the planet can support 11x as many vegetarians as is can normal people&quot; — but that would be a mistake.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The depletion of non-renewable energy sources (oil, specifically) will *force* the Human species to find more *economical* food sources... but that won't lift the carrying capacity of the planet because solar panels displace photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overshoot is overshoot.  Unless someone manages to defy the laws of physics and invent **Free and Unlimited Energy™** we're in for a rude shock when the crude runs out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="9631c6e9-d5aa-4f71-8f80-50287ffdc57b" CreationDate="2018-07-18T15:46:41.200" UserId="4886" Comment="added 356 characters in body" Text="The carrying capacity of planet Earth is about 1 billion Humans (with lifestyles similar to the USA in 1999).  There are over 7.6 billion people on the planet right now.  We're in overshoot.  Our current population is only possible because we are exploiting non-renewable energy sources.  As they run out the population will crash and ultimately stabilise at an equilibrium level — a small fraction of what it is now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point it really doesn't matter what you eat.  The best thing you can do to sustain life on Earth is to avoid having children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trivia:  Each Joule of energy you get from corn requires the same amount in oil to produce.  Apples and chicken require about 7x as much oil as they yield in nutritional energy.  Milk is ~2x.  Pork is ~12x.  Beef is ~23x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The average US diet a few years ago required 9 Joules of fossil fuels for every 1 Joule of food consumed.  It is tempting to use this as a mathematical basis for saying &quot;the planet can support 11x as many vegetarians as is can normal people&quot; — but that would be a mistake.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The depletion of non-renewable energy sources (oil, specifically) will *force* the Human species to find more *economical* food sources... but that won't lift the carrying capacity of the planet because solar panels displace photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overshoot is overshoot.  Unless someone manages to defy the laws of physics and invent **Free and Unlimited Energy™** we're in for a rude shock when the crude runs out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  **The Earth cannot sustainably support the current population, regardless of what they eat.  Switching from an omnivorous to a vegetarian diet won't change that.**  The Earth can, however support about 1 billion people.  When natural forces reduce our population back down to that level no-one will care what people eat.  Diet is not the problem — (over)population and lifestyle are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6726" RevisionGUID="bc48c413-f584-404b-ba9d-e4c322083e2d" CreationDate="2018-07-18T16:40:10.810" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed scale on heating chart. Improved model to show reduced winter cooling load." Text="**Keeping your storm windows closed in the summer will result in net energy savings due to reduced ventilation.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*EDIT: model updated to eliminate cooling load during the winter.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using [eQUEST](http://www.doe2.com/), a building energy simulation software based on research from the U.S. Department of Energy, I built a simple model of a roughly 500 m2, two-story home with 15% glass on the southern (equator-facing) side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Simple house model][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I then modeled three different changes caused by closing the storm windows to see how they affected total energy use for space cooling and space heating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Modest improvement in U-value of the southern-facing windows.** Change from 0.50 to 0.38 (U-value is roughly the inverse of R-value). This would tend to reduce the rate at which thermal energy passes through the windows (so heat stays inside in winter, and outside in summer).&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Modest increase in solar heat gain coefficient.** Change from 0.4 to 0.5. This is the hothouse or greenhouse effect, meaning that more of the sun's energy will be turned into heat inside the house.&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Significant reduction in ventilation.** I assumed that the baseline ventilation rate is about 0.50 m3 per person, meaning that for every person in the house, 0.50 m3 of air is exhausted per minute. The closure of the storm windows is modeled as a reduction to about 0.25 m3/minute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the resulting effect on energy use for cooling:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Energy savings for cooling][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the measures are cumulative, so the final measure (in gray) includes the effects from the first two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the summer, the reduced ventilation reduces the need for the AC. The interesting thing is that in the shoulder seasons (particularly April and October), this increases the need for AC. Thus during the spring and fall it makes sense to open the windows in the morning and evening when the ambient air is cool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the same chart for heating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Energy savings for heating][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here all three measures result in energy savings, as you'd expect. Note that the scale here is an order of magnitude larger -- meaning that keeping the storm windows closed saves a *bit* of energy in the summer, and a *lot* of energy in the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, as the saying goes, *all models are wrong, but some are useful.* Your best bet would be to test this yourself over a period of a few days, if you've got access to look at your electric meter reading periodically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fqxkb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/igwhJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xg1b9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BtuFj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6740" RevisionGUID="3005bc07-791e-4032-bc20-b1c3c444f359" CreationDate="2018-07-19T01:39:56.040" UserId="4886" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="The carrying capacity of planet Earth is about 1 billion Humans (with lifestyles similar to the USA in 1999).  There are over 7.6 billion people on the planet right now.  We're in overshoot.  Our current population is only possible because we are exploiting non-renewable energy sources.  As they run out the population will crash and ultimately stabilise at an equilibrium level — a small fraction of what it is now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point it really doesn't matter what you eat.  The best thing you can do to sustain life on Earth is to avoid having children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trivia:  Each Joule of energy you get from corn requires the same amount in oil to produce.  Apples and chicken require about 7x as much oil as they yield in nutritional energy.  Milk is ~2x.  Pork is ~12x.  Beef is ~23x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The average US diet a few years ago required 9 Joules of fossil fuels for every 1 Joule of food consumed.  It is tempting to use this as a mathematical basis for saying &quot;the planet can support 11x as many vegetarians as is can normal people&quot; — but that would be a mistake.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The depletion of non-renewable energy sources (oil, specifically) will *force* the Human species to find more *economical* food sources... but that won't lift the carrying capacity of the planet because solar panels displace photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overshoot is overshoot.  Unless someone manages to defy the laws of physics and invent **Free and Unlimited Energy™** we're in for some rude shocks as the crude runs out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  **The Earth cannot sustainably support the current population, regardless of what they eat.  Switching from an omnivorous to a vegetarian diet won't change that.**  The Earth can, however, sustainably support about 1 billion people.  When natural forces reduce our population back down to that level folks will have more pressing issues on their minds and no-one will care what people eat.  Diet is not the problem — (over)population and extravagant (energy-demanding) lifestyles are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6739" RevisionGUID="176b19ab-8cdb-42a9-81e6-5d5fc4fdb8d3" CreationDate="2018-07-19T14:42:27.177" UserId="4834" Comment="in the abstract, I suppose you could find another hydrogen source" Text="[Earth's total land area is 196.9 million square miles.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The proportion of this which is farmable is 37.7%.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the total farmable land area is 74 million square miles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Intensively cultivated corn yields 15 million kcal per acre.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 640 acres per square mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore intensively cultivated corn yields 9.6 billion kcal per square mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore intensively cultivating corn on all farmable land on earth would produce 7.1 * 10^17 kcal (9.6 * 10^9 * 74 * 10^6).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each human needs 7.3 * 10^5 kcal per year (based on 2000 kcal/day).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the number of humans that can be fed if all farmable land on earth grows corn is 970 billion ((7.1 * 10^17) / (7.3 * 10^5)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you like eating corn all day, every day, that is.  Also, it's a good thing there's an unlimited supply of natural gas because [this is a (practically) required feedstock in producing all that corn][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=what%20is%20earth%27s%20land%20area&amp;oq=what%20is%20earth%27s%20land%20area&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sciencing.com/much-earths-land-farmable-16685.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/in-defense-of-corn-the-worlds-most-important-food-crop/2015/07/12/78d86530-25a8-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Sources_of_hydrogen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6741" RevisionGUID="09fc46bc-e33f-4a3f-8f0f-68d7c054836d" CreationDate="2018-07-19T16:45:40.053" UserId="2942" Text="Of course buying used vs. new makes a big difference, but in any case, if one is set on purchasing a BBQ grill, is there less environmental impact in the production &amp; use of a charcoal vs. a propane grill?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figure charcoal doesn't necessarily rely on industrial fossil-fuel based infrastructure to produce it, the way propane does. Therefore in theory purchasing propane is more commitment to fossil fuels and purchasing charcoal is not. But in practice, they are both industrially produced fuels, I imagine with similar impacts all things considered. In terms of equipment, I think charcoal is much simpler with less precision-manufacturing required both at the grill and throughout the production and transportation process of the equipment &amp; fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, cooking on a propane grill always seems to me a lot like cooking on a regular stove top. I don't know if that plays into environmental footprint considerations here, but it might with stove tops as a natural gas or electric alternative to propane cooking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6741" RevisionGUID="09fc46bc-e33f-4a3f-8f0f-68d7c054836d" CreationDate="2018-07-19T16:45:40.053" UserId="2942" Text="Which type of BBQ grill has less of an environmental footprint, charcoal or propane or what?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6741" RevisionGUID="09fc46bc-e33f-4a3f-8f0f-68d7c054836d" CreationDate="2018-07-19T16:45:40.053" UserId="2942" Text="|environmental-impact|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17377" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6741" RevisionGUID="29603789-22a9-4f48-aa23-2b382f4a9aa8" CreationDate="2018-07-19T16:57:28.493" UserId="2942" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|cooking|consumer-behavior|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17383" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="bb7fb501-cedc-4673-ad67-2c7789758642" CreationDate="2018-07-20T19:07:18.323" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1020384671409098752" />
  <row Id="17387" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="80da705f-ad3b-491d-b1a3-02345df5b4a1" CreationDate="2018-07-21T21:46:23.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6745" RevisionGUID="e5a1240d-f97d-42ef-946a-c7fb3c66ba6e" CreationDate="2018-07-24T02:32:33.217" UserId="5884" Text="A good sustainable substitute for wood is Clay and Stone as they are renewable and stronger than wood. Although it is costy, it is worth it " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6746" RevisionGUID="8dc2c84a-9e4b-4e35-ac88-f9d365f1869e" CreationDate="2018-07-24T15:30:19.173" UserId="5886" Text="I don't think there is. Most organic labels even prohibit the use of GMO's. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Are there &quot;sustainable&quot; labels, that do not require the &quot;organic&quot; part?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6747" RevisionGUID="5bf8e035-0281-4e9a-80ce-6c7e534905ed" CreationDate="2018-07-25T01:54:50.790" UserId="5889" Text="Wondering how efficient different cooking methods are (for the sake of example, assume a dish in a cast iron pot heated by stovetop vs. oven).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stove seems to use less energy than an oven (as the heating elements are smaller), but both of the former seem to leak a lot of heat into the kitchen. The oven presumably uses a lot more energy because it's bigger, but since it's much better insulated (assuming you don't open the oven door a ton) I am guessing a lot more heat actually goes towards cooking the food vs. heating the kitchen area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've cooked the same dish in oven and stovetop, and it seems like the stovetop actually heats my kitchen more (it's a hot summer, so I notice additional heat), but not sure if that's a figment of my imagination or not. I'm trying to barely run my air conditioning to save energy, unsure how to balance that against also trying to cook my own food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17395" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6747" RevisionGUID="5bf8e035-0281-4e9a-80ce-6c7e534905ed" CreationDate="2018-07-25T01:54:50.790" UserId="5889" Text="Differences in efficiency between oven, toaster oven, and stove?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17396" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6747" RevisionGUID="5bf8e035-0281-4e9a-80ce-6c7e534905ed" CreationDate="2018-07-25T01:54:50.790" UserId="5889" Text="|energy|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17397" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6746" RevisionGUID="9ccd30d8-1d87-4e27-9adb-deb45dc189c8" CreationDate="2018-07-25T09:01:02.120" UserId="99" Comment="46" />
  <row Id="17398" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6747" RevisionGUID="908cba56-d29b-4b1a-8f09-3bbf5a8928e9" CreationDate="2018-07-25T09:07:41.673" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|electricity|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6752" RevisionGUID="f52471af-dc51-44a7-8b07-f859c1cf9e6d" CreationDate="2018-07-25T23:10:33.683" UserId="3379" Text="*This question prompted by discussion regarding [this answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6740/3379) to a question about vegetarianism.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently came across a U.N. review of studies seeking to determine the earth's maximum sustainable human population: [&quot;One Planet, How Many People? &#xD;&#xA;A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity&quot;](https://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/geas_jun_12_carrying_capacity.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The review itself is from 2012, when the world's population was [7.1 billion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates#1950_to_present). The population today is around 7.5 billion. The range of estimates reviewed goes from 2 billion to 1 **trillion(?!)**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Estimates of Earth's carrying capacity][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conveniently, most studies put the limit at 8 billion, a number just below the present population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In the six years since this review, has a more robust, consensus-driven method been developed to determine the limit? What limit has been determined?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested both in the estimate itself, and a discussion of how the methodology used to make the estimate has improved over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zQVYrl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17404" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6752" RevisionGUID="f52471af-dc51-44a7-8b07-f859c1cf9e6d" CreationDate="2018-07-25T23:10:33.683" UserId="3379" Text="What is the maximum sustainable population of the earth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17405" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6752" RevisionGUID="f52471af-dc51-44a7-8b07-f859c1cf9e6d" CreationDate="2018-07-25T23:10:33.683" UserId="3379" Text="|environmental-impact|ecological-footprint|population|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6739" RevisionGUID="be331769-7f02-442e-9003-ad93f212c2b5" CreationDate="2018-07-26T00:46:27.413" UserId="4834" Comment="corn production numbers are all secretly for field corn, woops" Text="[Earth's total land area is 196.9 million square miles.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The proportion of this which is farmable is 37.7%.][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the total farmable land area is 74 million square miles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Intensively cultivated corn yields 15 million kcal per acre.][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 640 acres per square mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore intensively cultivated corn yields 9.6 billion kcal per square mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore intensively cultivating corn on all farmable land on earth would produce 7.1 * 10^17 kcal (9.6 * 10^9 * 74 * 10^6).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each human needs 7.3 * 10^5 kcal per year (based on 2000 kcal/day).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, the number of humans that can be fed if all farmable land on earth grows corn is 970 billion ((7.1 * 10^17) / (7.3 * 10^5)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you like eating (field!) corn all day, every day, that is.  Also, it's a good thing there's an unlimited supply of natural gas because [this is a (practically) required feedstock in producing all that corn][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=what%20is%20earth%27s%20land%20area&amp;oq=what%20is%20earth%27s%20land%20area&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sciencing.com/much-earths-land-farmable-16685.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/in-defense-of-corn-the-worlds-most-important-food-crop/2015/07/12/78d86530-25a8-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Sources_of_hydrogen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17407" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="89913436-1561-4bac-a29b-df367c7f1eed" CreationDate="2018-07-26T05:40:11.310" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="|global-warming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17408" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="928" RevisionGUID="89913436-1561-4bac-a29b-df367c7f1eed" CreationDate="2018-07-26T05:40:11.310" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 2451, 3293 edit id of 537" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17412" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="4752" RevisionGUID="8df73d6f-8942-4ae7-ae54-3edda4cbf319" CreationDate="2018-07-26T06:37:28.453" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6753" RevisionGUID="3a9f75bf-79e7-42c7-b9c9-dcb2bf2bd7b4" CreationDate="2018-07-26T08:44:02.440" UserId="3653" Text="I know what is the [irradiance in my region][1], therefore I know what is the maximum expected production when the solar panels are placed optimally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the direction of my roof and the tilt (slope) are fixed and likely not optimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I calculate the expected production given the abovementioned parameters? (obviously the latitude is known)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://globalsolaratlas.info/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17414" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6753" RevisionGUID="3a9f75bf-79e7-42c7-b9c9-dcb2bf2bd7b4" CreationDate="2018-07-26T08:44:02.440" UserId="3653" Text="How to calculate the estimated production by solar PV panels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17415" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6753" RevisionGUID="3a9f75bf-79e7-42c7-b9c9-dcb2bf2bd7b4" CreationDate="2018-07-26T08:44:02.440" UserId="3653" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6753" RevisionGUID="043f5e85-e8ad-41b3-8dfa-94792c5950a0" CreationDate="2018-07-26T09:00:33.753" UserId="3653" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="I know what is the [irradiance in my region][1], therefore I know what is the maximum expected production when the solar panels are placed [optimally][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the direction of my roof and the tilt (slope) are fixed and likely not optimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I calculate the expected production given the abovementioned parameters? (obviously the latitude is known)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://globalsolaratlas.info/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.solarpaneltilt.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6753" RevisionGUID="20b5d921-11d7-4464-b361-264f3aaf1e4c" CreationDate="2018-07-26T09:24:27.463" UserId="3653" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="I know what is the [irradiance in my region][1], therefore I know what is the maximum expected production when the solar panels are placed [optimally][2] (interestingly, the two links provide different optimal angles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the direction of my roof and the tilt (slope) are fixed and likely not optimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I calculate the expected production given the abovementioned parameters? (obviously the latitude is known)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://globalsolaratlas.info/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.solarpaneltilt.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17418" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6753" RevisionGUID="3af4ed32-bb92-47cf-a179-e48899543ddc" CreationDate="2018-07-26T10:23:20.503" UserId="3653" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="I know what is the [irradiance in my region][1], therefore I know what is the maximum expected production when the solar panels are placed [optimally][2] (interestingly, the two links provide different optimal angles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the direction of my roof and the tilt (slope) are fixed and likely not optimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I calculate the expected production given the abovementioned parameters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://globalsolaratlas.info/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.solarpaneltilt.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17419" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="6ad6a695-f53e-4272-b8c1-80ab8241d556" CreationDate="2018-07-26T11:00:47.170" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17420" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6752" RevisionGUID="44f10515-fe03-4558-aedf-f813bb77922b" CreationDate="2018-07-26T12:00:58.753" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1022451710218985472" />
  <row Id="17421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="d7b1ab15-045b-44a4-b2fa-8e8f7db1a8d6" CreationDate="2018-07-26T12:30:42.333" UserId="3379" Text="###PVWatts&#xD;&#xA;[PVWatts](https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/) provides exactly what you're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a solar calculator maintained by the National Renewable Energy Lab of the U.S. Department of Energy. To use the tool:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Enter the location of the proposed solar system.** PVWatts will show you nearby weather stations for the simulation, and uses the most relevant solar irradiation data.&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Enter the system parameters.** You can enter either basic info (size, orientation, angle) or provide more detail (inverter efficiency, system losses, etc). You can even draw an outline of your system on the satellite imagery of the proposed location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **results** include monthly solar radiation and AC power production values. If you included your utility rate, it will provide the value of this power as well. You can also download hourly data which includes much more detailed information on irradiance and factors such as temperature and wind speed which affect the output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###PWVatts irradiance data&#xD;&#xA;PVWatts has up-to-date, high-resolution solar irradiance data is for most of North America, the northern half of South America, and the Indian subcontinent. For other parts of the world, older and less precise data sets are used which vary by location. These aren't as accurate as the NREL data, but suitable for rough estimates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###A note on optimal angles&#xD;&#xA;The reason you're getting different answers is probably because the definition of &quot;optimal&quot; for a given location varies according to preference. Are you looking for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Any easy-to-remember formula? Install the panels at latitude tilt.&#xD;&#xA; - Greater energy output over the course of the year? Consider laying them a bit flatter.&#xD;&#xA; - Greater power output in the winter? Lay them a bit steeper.&#xD;&#xA; - Less need to clean the panels off? Steeper still.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The topic likely deserves a separate question, but for your purposes playing around with PVWatts will hopefully give you the guidance you need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6756" RevisionGUID="ae98d1ed-b9c8-4a1b-85f9-9cfe583eef24" CreationDate="2018-07-27T19:59:54.183" UserId="5898" Text="I am looking for an environmentally conscious replacement of white yogurt. I do have couple of ideas for foods that could work well, but I have very little clue if they are better choice from the environmental perspective. Similarly, I do not have much information on how the different substituents compare to white yogurt in terms of nutritional value and mineral and vitamin contents. Although I care about the latter as well, my primary question is about the former, i.e. environmental assessment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are options I am comparing (feel free to add another, if you know about any):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1)	2x White Yogurt, packed in 500g plastic cups with Alu cover; produced in Switzerland from Swiss milk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2)	1l Almond “Milk” https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-drink-mandeln-ungesuesst&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3)	1l Oat “Milk” https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-haferdrink-kalzium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4)	1l Cashew “Milk” https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-cashewdrink-natur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5)	1l Rice “Milk” https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-reisdrink-natur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6)	1l Soy “Milk” https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-sojadrink-kalzium&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7)	1x 500ml Coconut Milk https://produkte.migros.ch/thai-kitchen-kokosnussmilch-158570000000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Facts:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a)	I live in Switzerland&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b)	The yogurt is produced in Switzerland from Swiss milk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c)	The standards for animal welfare in Switzerland are very high (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_and_rights_in_Switzerland)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d)	The above consumption is roughly per one week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e)	The above links should give you an idea about where and how the products are manufactured. Unfortunately, they rarely give complete information, but you can safely assume that all but the Soy and Oat &quot;Milk&quot; are produced from ingredients that come out of Europe (not 100% sure for Soy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;f)	All the milk replacements including the coconut milk are packed in Tetra-Pak kind of container. This is not recycled in Switzerland. Neither the plastic cup from the white yogurt. The Alu cover is recyclable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;g)	 The coconut milk (option 8)) can be packed in aluminum can. How does this change its environmental impact, assuming all other things being equal? (Aluminum cans are recyclable in Switzerland)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remarks:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that answering the question rigorously is very difficult and requires lot of information that may not be readily available. I hope to see answers from some Europeans that may have worked in nutrition and environmental research and may have invested some time earlier to dig to diverse aspects of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [answer](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/10160/co2-emissions-per-calorie-food/10177#10177) is potentially useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6756" RevisionGUID="ae98d1ed-b9c8-4a1b-85f9-9cfe583eef24" CreationDate="2018-07-27T19:59:54.183" UserId="5898" Text="What is an environmentally-conscious replacement for white yogurt?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6756" RevisionGUID="ae98d1ed-b9c8-4a1b-85f9-9cfe583eef24" CreationDate="2018-07-27T19:59:54.183" UserId="5898" Text="|food|environmental-impact|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17427" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6756" RevisionGUID="74b31dad-9ed0-4710-b1c6-e072c1692e39" CreationDate="2018-07-28T04:16:57.583" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting and links" Text="I am looking for an environmentally conscious replacement for white yogurt. I do have a couple of ideas for foods that could work well, but I have very little clue if they are a better choice from the environmental perspective. Similarly, I do not have much information on how the different substitutes compare to white yogurt in terms of nutritional value and mineral and vitamin content. Although I care about the latter as well, my primary question is about the former, i.e. environmental assessment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are **options I am comparing** (feel free to add another, if you know about any):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.	2x White Yogurt, packed in 500g plastic cups with Alu cover; produced in Switzerland from Swiss milk&#xD;&#xA; 2. 1l [Almond “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-drink-mandeln-ungesuesst)&#xD;&#xA; 3.	1l [Oat “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-haferdrink-kalzium)&#xD;&#xA; 4.	1l [Cashew “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-cashewdrink-natur)&#xD;&#xA; 5.	1l [Rice “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-reisdrink-natur)&#xD;&#xA; 6.	1l [Soy “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-sojadrink-kalzium)&#xD;&#xA; 7.	1x 500ml [Coconut Milk](https://produkte.migros.ch/thai-kitchen-kokosnussmilch-158570000000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Facts:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I live in Switzerland&#xD;&#xA; - The yogurt is produced in Switzerland from Swiss milk&#xD;&#xA; - The standards for animal welfare in Switzerland are very high: [Wikipedia].(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_and_rights_in_Switzerland)&#xD;&#xA; - The above consumption is roughly per one week.&#xD;&#xA; - The above links should give you an idea about where and how the products are manufactured. Unfortunately, they rarely give complete information, but you can safely assume that all but the Soy and Oat &quot;Milk&quot; are produced from ingredients that come out of Europe (not 100% sure for Soy).&#xD;&#xA; - All the milk replacements including the coconut milk are packed in Tetra-Pak kind of container. This is not recycled in Switzerland. Neither the plastic cup from the white yogurt. The Al cover is recyclable.&#xD;&#xA; - The coconut milk (option 7) can be packed in aluminum can. How does this change its environmental impact, assuming all other things being equal? (Aluminum cans are recyclable in Switzerland)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remarks:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that answering the question rigorously is very difficult and requires lot of information that may not be readily available. I hope to see answers from some Europeans that may have worked in nutrition and environmental research and may have invested some time earlier to dig to diverse aspects of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer is potentially useful: [CO2 emissions per calorie (food)](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/a/10177/7741)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6756" RevisionGUID="c4e6dbc1-28c3-4cb3-9535-efb8c2d5a695" CreationDate="2018-07-28T13:48:36.223" UserId="3379" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="I am looking for an environmentally conscious replacement for white yogurt. I do have a couple of ideas for foods that could work well, but I have very little clue if they are a better choice from the environmental perspective. Similarly, I do not have much information on how the different substitutes compare to white yogurt in terms of nutritional value and mineral and vitamin content. Although I care about the latter as well, my primary question is about the former, i.e. environmental assessment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are **options I am comparing** (feel free to add another, if you know about any):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.	2x White Yogurt, packed in 500g plastic cups with Alu cover; produced in Switzerland from Swiss milk&#xD;&#xA; 2. 1l [Almond “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-drink-mandeln-ungesuesst)&#xD;&#xA; 3.	1l [Oat “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-haferdrink-kalzium)&#xD;&#xA; 4.	1l [Cashew “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-cashewdrink-natur)&#xD;&#xA; 5.	1l [Rice “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-reisdrink-natur)&#xD;&#xA; 6.	1l [Soy “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-sojadrink-kalzium)&#xD;&#xA; 7.	1x 500ml [Coconut Milk](https://produkte.migros.ch/thai-kitchen-kokosnussmilch-158570000000)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Facts:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I live in Switzerland&#xD;&#xA; - The yogurt is produced in Switzerland from Swiss milk&#xD;&#xA; - The standards for animal welfare in Switzerland are very high ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_and_rights_in_Switzerland)).&#xD;&#xA; - The above consumption is roughly per one week.&#xD;&#xA; - The above links should give you an idea about where and how the products are manufactured. Unfortunately, they rarely give complete information, but you can safely assume that all but the Soy and Oat &quot;Milk&quot; are produced from ingredients that come out of Europe (not 100% sure for Soy).&#xD;&#xA; - All the milk replacements including the coconut milk are packed in Tetra-Pak kind of container. This is not recycled in Switzerland. Neither the plastic cup from the white yogurt. The Al cover is recyclable.&#xD;&#xA; - The coconut milk (option 7) can be packed in aluminum can. How does this change its environmental impact, assuming all other things being equal? (Aluminum cans are recyclable in Switzerland)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remarks:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that answering the question rigorously is very difficult and requires lot of information that may not be readily available. I hope to see answers from some Europeans that may have worked in nutrition and environmental research and may have invested some time earlier to dig to diverse aspects of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer on EarthScience.SE is potentially useful: [CO2 emissions per calorie (food)](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/a/10177/7741)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17429" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="efb19f33-6fda-42f7-a061-4c3169139eab" CreationDate="2018-07-29T03:13:24.650" UserId="5517" Text="I'm thinking that it would be useful to have a pellet mill at home to turn biowaste into fuel pellets. It would be nice to turn sawdust and wood shavings into fuel pellets as well but that I think is a different ball game as it requires much greater ability to grind and extrude the wood, and heat it to fuse the lignin so that the pellets stay coherent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, are the food pellet machines suitable for making biofuel pellets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17430" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="efb19f33-6fda-42f7-a061-4c3169139eab" CreationDate="2018-07-29T03:13:24.650" UserId="5517" Text="What sort of pellet mill can be used for biofuels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17431" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="efb19f33-6fda-42f7-a061-4c3169139eab" CreationDate="2018-07-29T03:13:24.650" UserId="5517" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6758" RevisionGUID="93af8720-8b1d-4518-be48-9e2313c2c678" CreationDate="2018-07-29T11:20:05.880" UserId="5895" Text="This is more of an elaborate comment on the answer by the user &quot;That Idiot&quot; to demonstrate how we can do calculations on these things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using [this resource][1] (sorry, in Dutch), I assume…:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. a car has cost already 3800 liters (1000 gallons) to get produced. &#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 2. the PO's &quot;CO2&quot;-Karma is reset to 0 at the moment we start our&#xD;&#xA;    analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Using the metric system instead: [ I assume ] the PO's current car uses 1 liter of petrol per 10 km, and a new fuel efficient car uses 1 liter of petrol per 20 km. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. the only environmental impact of a car is it's CO2 impact. (it's not)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. the impact of disposing a new car can be neglected (it can't)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can now create a graph with the *liters of fuel used* on the Ordinate (y-axis) and the *kilometers traveled* on the Abscissa (x-axis). The current car is represented by the red line, the new car is represented by the green line. The vertical blue line represents the amount of kilometers after which the burden of producing a new car is compensated by the new car's better fuel efficiency. This is around 78000 km or 50 000 miles (!) This might indeed be between 5 and 10 years of use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old car has already been produced ages ago and is approaching it's end-of-life, so this line starts at the origin. (That's what I mean with the PO's CO2-karma is thought to be reset at the moment of analysis.) The new car is produced as a result of the PO's wish to buy a new fuel-efficient car, and starts it's life with 3800 liters of fuel already used. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*** DISCUSSION ***: the 3800 liters mentioned seems to be for a Prius. I believe a conventional small car like a VW-UP might take considerably less to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*** REQUEST: If somebody could help getting these numbers more accurate,... then: please :)***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hetkanwel.net/2011/10/21/nieuwe-auto-kopen-of-de-oude-houden-wat-is-beter-voor-het-milieu/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gLQX7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3190" RevisionGUID="a205e59d-bf10-4734-8f52-ea98ea60f2e4" CreationDate="2018-07-29T16:13:27.560" UserId="3379" Comment="SI units" Text="I'm currently driving a Suzuki SX4 2008.  It gets (supposedly) 30 MPG (9.4 l/100km) on highways, though I suspect it's much lower now because of the beating I have given the poor car and lack of proper maintenance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I regret the choice because I turned down a cheaper more fuel-efficient vehicle for it when I purchased it.  At the time I had not anticipated how much driving I would be doing (a side effect of volunteering).  I did over 15 hours of driving last week, almost exclusively highway.  My usual week isn't quite that bad, but I do 30 minutes per day for work, and probably at least 3-5 hours a week for volunteer activities, likely more.  A more fuel-efficient vehicle will definitely help.  I'm considering either an electric or a tiny two-seater for my next vehicle, depending on how much they actual cost to purchase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, replacing a car has an environmental impact as well.  The cost of building a new car releases a significant amount of pollution.  I'm trying to figure out how the harm of purchasing a new car weighs against the harm of the pollution of an older, less fuel efficient, and poorly maintained vehicle.  I figure keeping the old car would likely work out as environmentally better, but by how much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6760" RevisionGUID="5ffce47b-158f-4733-a5e0-d200ff000dba" CreationDate="2018-07-30T10:52:38.197" UserId="5901" Text="This is my first question on this site, it could be that it is better suited to the Electronics SE site.  OK, disclaimer aside, what I'm interested to know is the breakdown of energy production by individual EU country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the [EU I found this site][1], it's good, but it does not offer the kind of breakdown I'm interested in - I'd like to see it in the format of 'stacked, one country, at a time' (i.e. all energy production, but one country at a time) rather than showing the country comparison 'sector by sector' (e.g. all solar for all countries).  I could download the data from here to a .csv file, but if something exists online, that would be better and easier to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in the UK and what I'd like is something like the UK [Gridwatch site][2] which shows an interesting summary just for a single country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/content/energy-modelling-interactive-graphs?type=stackedarea2d&amp;themes=s_38_gross-electricity-generation-by-source&amp;second_scenario=undefined&amp;index_year=#container-charts-controls&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gridwatch.co.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6760" RevisionGUID="5ffce47b-158f-4733-a5e0-d200ff000dba" CreationDate="2018-07-30T10:52:38.197" UserId="5901" Text="European energy production figures and graphs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17437" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6760" RevisionGUID="5ffce47b-158f-4733-a5e0-d200ff000dba" CreationDate="2018-07-30T10:52:38.197" UserId="5901" Text="|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6760" RevisionGUID="8c1c2c65-4caf-4352-8300-1468776732df" CreationDate="2018-07-30T11:14:39.020" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Removed disclaimer" Text="I'm interested in the breakdown of energy production by individual EU country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the [EU I found this site][1], it's good, but it does not offer the kind of breakdown I'm interested in - I'd like to see it in the format of 'stacked, one country, at a time' (i.e. all energy production, but one country at a time) rather than showing the country comparison 'sector by sector' (e.g. all solar for all countries).  I could download the data from here to a .csv file, but if something exists online, that would be better and easier to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in the UK and what I'd like is something like the UK [Gridwatch site][2] which shows an interesting summary just for a single country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/content/energy-modelling-interactive-graphs?type=stackedarea2d&amp;themes=s_38_gross-electricity-generation-by-source&amp;second_scenario=undefined&amp;index_year=#container-charts-controls&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gridwatch.co.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17439" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6760" RevisionGUID="41af66a9-2a34-4775-b1f6-2dd06e38a20d" CreationDate="2018-07-30T11:35:23.167" UserId="5901" Comment="added screen shot" Text="I'm interested in the breakdown of energy production by individual EU country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the [EU I found this site][1], it's good, but it does not offer the kind of breakdown I'm interested in - I'd like to see it in the format of 'stacked, one country, at a time' (i.e. all energy production, but one country at a time) rather than showing the country comparison 'sector by sector' (e.g. all solar for all countries).  I could download the data from here to a .csv file, but if something exists online, that would be better and easier to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in the UK and what I'd like is something like the UK [Gridwatch site][2] which shows an interesting summary just for a single country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Additonal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Limitations of the EU website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![EU website screen shot][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/content/energy-modelling-interactive-graphs?type=stackedarea2d&amp;themes=s_38_gross-electricity-generation-by-source&amp;second_scenario=undefined&amp;index_year=#container-charts-controls&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gridwatch.co.uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5I0zi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6760" RevisionGUID="1fa0c1bc-8d63-4308-9103-552f43a9a83a" CreationDate="2018-07-30T11:45:02.287" UserId="5901" Comment="added some extra info and clarification as to what I am interested in" Text="I'm interested in the breakdown of energy production by individual EU country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the [EU I found this site][1], it's good, but it does not offer the kind of breakdown I'm interested in - I'd like to see it in the format of 'stacked, one country, at a time' (i.e. all energy production, but one country at a time) rather than showing the country comparison 'sector by sector' (e.g. all solar for all countries).  I could download the data from here to a .csv file, but if something exists online, that would be better and easier to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in the UK and what I'd like is something like the UK [Gridwatch site][2] which shows an interesting summary just for a single country; I am particularly interested in the 6 large electricity production graphs on this site (daily, monthly and yearly) - ideally I would like to see something similar for any other European countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Additonal**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Limitations of the EU website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![EU website screen shot][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/content/energy-modelling-interactive-graphs?type=stackedarea2d&amp;themes=s_38_gross-electricity-generation-by-source&amp;second_scenario=undefined&amp;index_year=#container-charts-controls&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://gridwatch.co.uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5I0zi.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6761" RevisionGUID="92a384b6-42bd-45df-8259-e9655451f478" CreationDate="2018-07-30T14:11:43.573" UserId="5901" Text="Electricity production in [Germany][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity production in [Spain][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity production in [France][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah, it seems I've hit [the jackpot][4], Windeurope.org has data per country and per electricity source.  You can pick and choose which countries you want to view.  They also have some interesting summaries on wind generated electricity too - Denmark, UK and Portugal doing very well on their wind turbines at the time of writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Global link][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://demanda.ree.es/visiona/peninsula/demanda/acumulada/2018-07-30&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://clients.rte-france.com/lang/an/visiteurs/vie/prod/realisation_production.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://windeurope.org/about-wind/daily-wind/electricity-mix?utf8=%E2%9C%93&amp;areas=PT%2CGB&amp;commit=Apply%20filters&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Historical-Electricity-Generation-Statistics#tspQvChart" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6761" RevisionGUID="0a69d852-f6cc-4a1a-93af-f269ab125420" CreationDate="2018-07-30T14:27:15.797" UserId="5901" Comment="Added an additional link to a post on the OpenData SE" Text="Electricity production in [Germany][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity production in [Spain][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity production in [France][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ah, it seems I've hit [the jackpot][4], Windeurope.org has data per country and per electricity source.  You can pick and choose which countries you want to view.  They also have some interesting summaries on wind generated electricity too - Denmark, UK and Portugal doing very well on their wind turbines at the time of writing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Global link][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ALSO - see this [excellent post][6] on the OpenData Stack Exchange, thanks to Jan Doggen for finding this!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://demanda.ree.es/visiona/peninsula/demanda/acumulada/2018-07-30&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://clients.rte-france.com/lang/an/visiteurs/vie/prod/realisation_production.jsp&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://windeurope.org/about-wind/daily-wind/electricity-mix?utf8=%E2%9C%93&amp;areas=PT%2CGB&amp;commit=Apply%20filters&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Historical-Electricity-Generation-Statistics#tspQvChart&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://opendata.stackexchange.com/questions/7377/examples-of-near-real-time-energy-dashboards-or-portals" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6762" RevisionGUID="f6f1b5bb-96ae-4df9-acf8-aec0fbc7b5d5" CreationDate="2018-07-30T16:52:59.397" UserId="4922" Text="I would say it depends on the circumstances you are replacing it for. If your desire is for tangy flavor in baking you could use a cultured sourdough starter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would do what Ideogram suggests and just make you're own. If you're concerned about using CO2 just because cooking you're going to find yourself a very hungry sustainability person. It's not like the folk packaging yogurt don't also have to heat it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Homemade crème fraîche requires no heating, and only heavy cream, and buttermilk to make a tasty tangy creme, that is a bit sweeter and less thick than sour cream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are looking for alternative for vegan reasons, then many of the substitutes you've listed are ok, but won't really have the consistency of yogurt if you're wanting to use them as a substitute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dairy can be high impact, but good dairy farms can put more carbon in the ground depending on their practices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17447" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6741" RevisionGUID="5b2769ae-f158-4b7c-a988-cfbaebd81f17" CreationDate="2018-07-31T00:01:04.220" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1024082478401769472" />
  <row Id="17448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6763" RevisionGUID="9eeb9a09-c540-410d-9039-22ede3ca78da" CreationDate="2018-07-31T07:33:50.383" UserId="3293" Text="#Diversify&#xD;&#xA;In a paper unearthed recently by our friend LShaver [question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6752/what-is-the-maximum-sustainable-population-of-the-earth?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1), a key point is that the worst identified menace today is **Biodiversity loss**, beyond Nitrogen cycle disruption, and way beyond Climate change...&#xD;&#xA;[![safety guides of 9 earth process][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my answer will encourage you to **diversify!**, locally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, think about the extremes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* if there is only milk - too many cows, farmland everywhere, high nitrogen into our underground water and so on.&#xD;&#xA;* if there is no milk - no cows, this means &quot;open&quot; alpine landscape disappears replaced by only forests, with loss of diversity associated to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Documented study&#xD;&#xA;In [this documented paper for milk replacements](http://esu-services.ch/fileadmin/download/wenzel-2017-LCA-vegan-drinks.pdf) (esu-services ***.ch***, maybe colleagues of yours?), the figures stacks so:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Environmental impact of whole milk][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Leaving Cashew and Coconut out of the scope, this seems to point to oat drink as the optimal replacement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RKuOA.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1NPnd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17449" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6756" RevisionGUID="63782bf0-2438-4edc-a13c-e1b6e566a515" CreationDate="2018-07-31T09:01:01.910" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1024218364380631040" />
  <row Id="17450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="472c4571-a0d7-40aa-be32-691297035f0f" CreationDate="2018-08-01T14:20:49.657" UserId="3379" Text="Yesterday Kraft Foods [announced](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-31/ketchup-packets-to-get-makeover-in-kraft-heinz-recycling-push) that by 2025 all of its packaging will be recyclable. (Note that while they include &quot;reusable&quot; and &quot;compostable&quot; in the announcement, they talk almost exclusively about &quot;recyclable.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier, Starbucks announced that it was eliminating all single-use straws and switching to a &quot;sippy cup&quot; lid. However, it seems that this new lid, while recyclable, may actually [use more plastic](https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/07/10/starbucks-to-ditch-plastic-straws-worldwide-for-adult-sippy-cups/#769b2559c9eb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poor recycling rates around the world are already well-documented in several answers on this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [What percentage of plastic drinking bottles is recycled after use, worldwide?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/47/3379)&#xD;&#xA; - [What is current best practice for setting up recycling?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6728/3379)&#xD;&#xA; - [How much of paper gets recycled?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/3191/3379)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems intuitive that if people are already bad at recycling, increasing the share of products which are truly recyclable will actually result in recycling rates decreasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there any companies or organizations which are pursuing better alternatives than recycling?** Obviously as eco-conscious consumers we have a responsibility to *reduce,* but manufacturers could work on making their packaging reusable, or at the very least compostable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17451" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="472c4571-a0d7-40aa-be32-691297035f0f" CreationDate="2018-08-01T14:20:49.657" UserId="3379" Text="Are any companies or organization pursuing better alternatives to recyclable packaging?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17452" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="472c4571-a0d7-40aa-be32-691297035f0f" CreationDate="2018-08-01T14:20:49.657" UserId="3379" Text="|recycling|reuse|packaging|reduce|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17453" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="bab21452-93b2-4adf-a58e-b381fd78a916" CreationDate="2018-08-01T14:28:51.510" UserId="3379" Comment="edited title" Text="Are any companies or organizations pursuing better alternatives to recyclable packaging?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17454" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="f8a66e8b-ab15-42e2-8433-6d5bc30b4d55" CreationDate="2018-08-01T18:49:30.893" UserId="3379" Comment="Narrowed scope" Text="Yesterday Kraft Foods [announced](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-31/ketchup-packets-to-get-makeover-in-kraft-heinz-recycling-push) that by 2025 all of its packaging will be recyclable. (Note that while they include &quot;reusable&quot; and &quot;compostable&quot; in the announcement, they talk almost exclusively about &quot;recyclable.&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earlier, Starbucks announced that it was eliminating all single-use straws and switching to a &quot;sippy cup&quot; lid. However, it seems that this new lid, while recyclable, may actually [use more plastic](https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/07/10/starbucks-to-ditch-plastic-straws-worldwide-for-adult-sippy-cups/#769b2559c9eb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poor recycling rates around the world are already well-documented in several answers on this site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [What percentage of plastic drinking bottles is recycled after use, worldwide?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/47/3379)&#xD;&#xA; - [What is current best practice for setting up recycling?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6728/3379)&#xD;&#xA; - [How much of paper gets recycled?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/3191/3379)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems intuitive that if people are already bad at recycling, increasing the share of products which are truly recyclable will actually result in recycling rates decreasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there any large restaurant chains which are pursuing better alternatives than recycling?** Obviously as eco-conscious consumers we have a responsibility to *reduce,* but manufacturers could work on making their packaging reusable, or at the very least compostable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll also include large food manufacturing brands (Kraft, Nestle, Dannon/Danone, etc). Essentially, any large company producing large volumes of food or beverage in their own, branded packaging. Restaurants sell this in their own stores, manufacturers sell it in someone else's stores." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17455" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="f8a66e8b-ab15-42e2-8433-6d5bc30b4d55" CreationDate="2018-08-01T18:49:30.893" UserId="3379" Comment="Narrowed scope" Text="Are any large restaurant chains pursuing better alternatives to recyclable packaging?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6756" RevisionGUID="eb27ab25-9a02-4448-896e-aac41ce08e89" CreationDate="2018-08-01T19:58:51.243" UserId="5898" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="I am looking for an environmentally conscious replacement for white yogurt. I do have a couple of ideas for foods that could work well, but I have very little clue if they are a better choice from the environmental perspective. Similarly, I do not have much information on how the different substitutes compare to white yogurt in terms of nutritional value and mineral and vitamin content. Although I care about the latter as well, my primary question is about the former, i.e. environmental assessment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are **options I am comparing** (feel free to add another, if you know about any):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.	2x White Yogurt, packed in 500g plastic cups with Alu cover; produced in Switzerland from Swiss milk&#xD;&#xA; 2. 1l [Almond “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-drink-mandeln-ungesuesst)&#xD;&#xA; 3.	1l [Oat “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-haferdrink-kalzium)&#xD;&#xA; 4.	1l [Cashew “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-cashewdrink-natur)&#xD;&#xA; 5.	1l [Rice “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-reisdrink-natur)&#xD;&#xA; 6.	1l [Soy “Milk”](https://produkte.migros.ch/alnatura-sojadrink-kalzium)&#xD;&#xA; 7.	1x 500ml [Coconut Milk](https://produkte.migros.ch/thai-kitchen-kokosnussmilch-158570000000) (assuming dilution 1:1 with water)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Facts:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I live in Switzerland&#xD;&#xA; - The yogurt is produced in Switzerland from Swiss milk&#xD;&#xA; - The standards for animal welfare in Switzerland are very high ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_and_rights_in_Switzerland)).&#xD;&#xA; - The above consumption is roughly per one week.&#xD;&#xA; - The above links should give you an idea about where and how the products are manufactured. Unfortunately, they rarely give complete information, but you can safely assume that all but the Soy and Oat &quot;Milk&quot; are produced from ingredients that come out of Europe (not 100% sure for Soy).&#xD;&#xA; - All the milk replacements including the coconut milk are packed in Tetra-Pak kind of container. This is not recycled in Switzerland. Neither the plastic cup from the white yogurt. The Al cover is recyclable.&#xD;&#xA; - The coconut milk (option 7) can be packed in aluminum can. How does this change its environmental impact, assuming all other things being equal? (Aluminum cans are recyclable in Switzerland)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Remarks:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that answering the question rigorously is very difficult and requires lot of information that may not be readily available. I hope to see answers from some Europeans that may have worked in nutrition and environmental research and may have invested some time earlier to dig to diverse aspects of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer on EarthScience.SE is potentially useful: [CO2 emissions per calorie (food)](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/a/10177/7741)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17459" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="5455" RevisionGUID="45cec6f7-ee2d-4d13-98ad-e0e098568473" CreationDate="2018-08-06T05:23:49.600" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="2f4ceb9b-8112-4c68-977b-39b76f30ec16" CreationDate="2018-08-07T18:34:17.160" UserId="4834" Comment="Remove the ambiguity created by use of &quot;vegan&quot; in one place when the request of the question talks about &quot;vegetarian&quot;" Text="I'm not asking what will happen if everyone in the world suddenly turned to vegetarian. In an ideal world with current population, can everyone follow a vegetarian diet (except for people who may need to eat meat if they have allergies to some other vegetarian alternative)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to search for answers but all I found was things like what would happen if everyone suddenly turned vegetarian or things like that. But I want to know can everyone turn into vegetarian in some time? If yes/no, how much population can Earth sustain if everyone is always vegetarian. And animals are only breed in zoological parks or for medical or some other science related needs (or for exceptional cases)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17467" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="2f4ceb9b-8112-4c68-977b-39b76f30ec16" CreationDate="2018-08-07T18:34:17.160" Comment="Proposed by 4834 approved by 3379, 2451 edit id of 538" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1233" RevisionGUID="8a3374ec-5ba5-4195-872d-af8a6e085b0a" CreationDate="2018-08-08T15:04:54.503" UserId="3379" Comment="updated links, added Greenpeace image." Text="While you may not be able to get them refilled yourself, HP does run a recycling program for them, free of charge: [HP Product Return and Recycling](http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-information/environment/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Didn't look in to whether they simply refill and resell them or if they actually melt the cartridges down and start from scratch... either way it's better than the landfill. Unfortunately, you're still stuck buying new cartridges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lexmark &lt;s&gt;runs&lt;/s&gt; ran a similar program that rewards you with a free cartridge for every 5 you send in to be recycled... better than getting nothing in return. They also give you a free one for every 5 you buy. **UPDATE:** [Lexmark has ended their rewards program](https://www.lexmark.com/en_us/products/supplies-and-accessories/lexmark-rewards-po/toner-rewards-programs.html): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thank you for your interest in the Toner Rewards program. At this time, Lexmark is no longer accepting new enrollments into the program.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as companies go, HP appears to be near setting the bar for environmentally friendly electronics: [Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics 2017](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/cool-it/Campaign-analysis/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/L0xUX.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6769" RevisionGUID="8cc0cf07-3e75-4736-8dea-82eaddba48a3" CreationDate="2018-08-09T00:57:59.247" UserId="400" Text="Look at rammed earth construction. While it uses cement it uses much less cement that a poured concrete wall.  It's fairly fast, and reasonably resistant to rain erosion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have agricultural waste, (straw, dry husks, stems) you can mix with clay to make cob.  Straw can be used to make leichtlehm for walls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a roof, it's hard to beat a galvanized or painted steel sloped roof with an airspace, and insulation.  The metal gets hot, but the insulation keeps the heat out of the house.  The metal keeps the insulation dry.  Steel makes for an expensive roof, but properly designed, they last many decades." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17480" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="d9cdd9c4-3b04-4024-b0c5-a00f1fd41f3d" CreationDate="2018-08-09T01:09:52.360" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title" Text="Alternatives to concrete for a flat roof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17481" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="37d585e4-7fb5-48da-80a6-9d2bc041b7bc" CreationDate="2018-08-10T08:02:31.847" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17482" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="eb2b00e7-1c46-45a9-bf96-a356408b528c" CreationDate="2018-08-10T15:01:43.470" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1027933014192517126" />
  <row Id="17483" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="329da9ec-e286-403e-890b-f35e0853f978" CreationDate="2018-08-11T05:07:47.813" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="|lifestyle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17484" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5656" RevisionGUID="329da9ec-e286-403e-890b-f35e0853f978" CreationDate="2018-08-11T05:07:47.813" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 3379, 2187 edit id of 539" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="e466d87c-99d1-427b-ba6f-87b4dea712e1" CreationDate="2018-08-14T07:34:52.310" UserId="5895" Text="What do we use water for in every life? And can we use untreated seawater instead? Because: untreated seawater is what the PO's is supposed to use instead of fresh water. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bathing. **Maybe** Either in the sea of in the bath tub.Yes, if you want to cool down and don't mind the salt. No, not if you want to get really clean. Or should we update our definition of 'clean'?&#xD;&#xA; - Cooking: **Maybe** Interesting. Usually, food is salty of savoury and boiling it kills bacteria... so yeah: I would say: Yes!&#xD;&#xA; - Drinking: **No**&#xD;&#xA; - Doing dishes. **Yes, maybe.** But you might want to rinse them with a bit of fresh water afterward. But it could still help&#xD;&#xA; - Laundry: Maybe. **Help needed answering this**. Is salt bad for my clothes? Does salt effect the effectiveness of soap?&#xD;&#xA; - Flushing the toilet. **Yes**&#xD;&#xA; - Wahsing my hands. **Yes** (?)&#xD;&#xA; - Showering. **Maybe**. See --&gt; Bathing&#xD;&#xA; - Irigation (not pictured). **No**. Salt is not good for the land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: this picture (How much water do you use in liters) [![How much water do you use in liters][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: this is not a 100% complete answer. I hope it contributes by providing a list and some quantitive data on the current use of fresh water. I hope it will start a discussion, so we can fill in the **maybe**'s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TZDSI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="2808c846-b3a1-46c3-bfb7-c5573bba8939" CreationDate="2018-08-14T07:48:07.360" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, added picture source" Text="What do we use water for in every-day life? And can we use untreated seawater instead? Because: untreated seawater is what the PO's is supposed to use instead of fresh water. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bathing. **Maybe** Either in the sea or in the bathtub. Yes, if you want to cool down and don't mind the salt. No, not if you want to get really clean. Or should we update our definition of 'clean'?&#xD;&#xA; - Cooking: **Maybe** Interesting. Usually, food is salty of savoury and boiling it kills bacteria... so yeah: I would say: Yes!&#xD;&#xA; - Drinking: **No**&#xD;&#xA; - Doing dishes. **Yes, maybe.** But you might want to rinse them with a bit of fresh water afterward. But it could still help&#xD;&#xA; - Laundry: Maybe. **Help needed answering this**. Is salt bad for my clothes? Does salt effect the effectiveness of soap?&#xD;&#xA; - Flushing the toilet. **Yes**&#xD;&#xA; - Washing my hands. **Yes** (?)&#xD;&#xA; - Showering. **Maybe**. See --&gt; Bathing&#xD;&#xA; - Irigation (not pictured). **No**. Salt is not good for the land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: this picture (How much water do you use in liters) [![How much water do you use in liters][1]][1]*Source: https://www.vitens.nl/service/hoeveel-water-gebruiken-we-per-dag*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: this is not a 100% complete answer. I hope it contributes by providing a list and some quantitive data on the current use of fresh water. I hope it will start a discussion, so we can fill in the **maybe**'s&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TZDSI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="8b373b48-8b65-4a9b-a270-80862ab895ed" CreationDate="2018-08-14T11:01:21.780" UserId="5895" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="What do we use water for in every-day life? And can we use untreated seawater instead? Because: untreated seawater is what the PO's is supposed to use instead of fresh water. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bathing. **Maybe** Either in the sea or in the bathtub. Yes, if you want to cool down and don't mind the salt. No, not if you want to get really clean. Or should we update our definition of 'clean'?&#xD;&#xA; - Cooking: **No / Maybe ** Interesting. Food is salty of savoury and boiling it kills bacteria, but might still be too contaminated. (see comments). How about steaming food? &#xD;&#xA; - Drinking: **No**&#xD;&#xA; - Doing dishes. **Yes, maybe.** But you might want to rinse them with a bit of fresh water afterward. But it could still help&#xD;&#xA; - Laundry: Maybe. **Help needed answering this**. Is salt bad for my clothes? Does salt effect the effectiveness of soap?&#xD;&#xA; - Flushing the toilet. **Yes**&#xD;&#xA; - Washing my hands. **Yes** (?)&#xD;&#xA; - Showering. **Maybe**. See --&gt; Bathing&#xD;&#xA; - Irigation (not pictured). **No**. Salt is not good for the land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: this picture (How much water do you use in liters) [![How much water do you use in liters][1]][1]*Source: https://www.vitens.nl/service/hoeveel-water-gebruiken-we-per-dag*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: this is not a 100% complete answer. I hope it contributes by providing a list and some quantitative data on the current use of fresh water. I hope it will start a discussion, so we can fill in the **maybe**'s The answers I've written after every application are only intuitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TZDSI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17493" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="781" RevisionGUID="c8660c5a-5b0e-44b9-a9cd-b6360b44d28d" CreationDate="2018-08-14T11:20:14.253" UserId="85" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="To produce fresh water from sea water sustainably (i.e. sustainable in usage, if not in production), I think solar stills are your best bet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article &quot;Solar Thermal Technologies for Seawater Desalination: state of the art&quot; by Jenny Lindblom ([PDF](https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:995032/FULLTEXT01.pdf)) states that a single-layer solar still can produce up to 6 litres per day, per square metre. More intricate (double-layer) designs may provide better insulation and consequently yield even more water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For long-term improvement, I would also consider investigating why the river now carries less water than before. An forest upstream may be able to store a lot of water, induce rain and stabilize the flow of the river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Irrespective of the abundance or shortening of water, it would also be a good idea to reduce the use of water in the household &amp; reuse grey water where possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seawater itself may have other applications as well. One example would be a [seawater greenhouse](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater_greenhouse)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17494" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="a1a97fff-8680-4e2d-bf29-49897b1eaed0" CreationDate="2018-08-14T12:27:53.997" UserId="5895" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ideogram&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6772" RevisionGUID="bdd0d647-db91-40fb-8069-89c96a46a3f9" CreationDate="2018-08-14T16:00:25.647" UserId="3379" Text="I have a vision for a model of grocery store that would buy food in bulk and package on-site into packaging which is 100% reusable or truly compostable (unlike many types of so-called &quot;compostable plastics&quot; which require specific conditions to truly break down). Customers would receive a hefty deposit when they return the packaging, and the store would wash and re-use on site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been thinking through how each of the items I regularly purchase at the grocery store could be packaged to fit this model, and a few things have me stuck. The first is **cheese.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What sort of packaging could be used for cheese, that meets requirements for safety and storage, but could be readily and repeatedly re-used?** What sort of complications would this introduce?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing that comes to mind is **wax,** however I wonder about issues of individually wrapped cheeses sticking together, and the fact that most wax is made from petroleum. Also it seems that expensive equipment would be needed to melt the returned was pieces and reuse them for new blocks of cheese." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17496" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6772" RevisionGUID="bdd0d647-db91-40fb-8069-89c96a46a3f9" CreationDate="2018-08-14T16:00:25.647" UserId="3379" Text="Re-usable packaging options for cheese?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17497" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6772" RevisionGUID="bdd0d647-db91-40fb-8069-89c96a46a3f9" CreationDate="2018-08-14T16:00:25.647" UserId="3379" Text="|food|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6773" RevisionGUID="53e961e1-88f6-449a-b0ad-a6309ae371fb" CreationDate="2018-08-14T17:06:53.147" UserId="5933" Text="Depends the type of cheese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_cheese).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hard (type gouda) to half-hard half-soft (type monastery cheese) cheeses have a more or less hard crust (rind?). There is no more packaging needed if sold in one piece (unless maybe the rind is edible and should be wrapped for keeping it clean).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slices of hard/semi-hard cheese: let the customers bring their own containers. Otherwise I think you will need paper (waxed? or with a plastic foil) that can be recycled. Or put them in reusable plastic trays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Soft cheese (type brie) could be sold in one piece (with crust/rind) and wrapped in a small paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course there are the fresh cheeses than can be sold in closed reusable plastic or glass jars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6773" RevisionGUID="33aefd67-c600-4097-bb7e-5c59cb26b7d4" CreationDate="2018-08-14T17:17:08.730" UserId="5933" Comment="some more about brie" Text="Depends the type of cheese (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_cheese).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hard (type gouda) to half-hard half-soft (type monastery cheese) cheeses have a more or less hard crust (rind?). There is no more packaging needed if sold in one piece (unless maybe the rind is edible and should be wrapped for keeping it clean).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Slices of hard/semi-hard cheese: let the customers bring their own containers. Otherwise I think you will need paper (waxed? or with a plastic foil) that can be recycled. Or put them in reusable plastic trays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Soft cheese (type brie) could be sold in one piece (with crust/rind) and put in a plastic reusable container. Typically brie and camembert are sold in round wooden boxes (not reusable really, and nowadays they wrap the piece of cheese in plastic and put that in a wooden box)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course there are the fresh cheeses than can be sold in closed reusable plastic or glass jars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6774" RevisionGUID="19cf4a1f-0111-4cf9-8246-4ee0cb8347e5" CreationDate="2018-08-14T18:48:53.740" UserId="986" Text="I live in Devon, and tap water in my household does not taste consistently. When I move in my current property, the neighbours warned me that they had been buying bottled water since 20 years, because of the bad taste and other suspects about the quality of the water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, for the first time in my life, last year I started buying water bottled in plastic, and have done so until now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if there is any valid alternative that does not require the application of a permanent filter (I am a tenant). Back in Sicily, where I grew up, we used to go to a spring in the mountains once a month, to refill our glass and plastic bottles. In other countries, water refill stations exist. Is there anything of the sort in the South West of England?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17501" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6774" RevisionGUID="19cf4a1f-0111-4cf9-8246-4ee0cb8347e5" CreationDate="2018-08-14T18:48:53.740" UserId="986" Text="Alternatives to bottled water in the UK" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17502" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6774" RevisionGUID="19cf4a1f-0111-4cf9-8246-4ee0cb8347e5" CreationDate="2018-08-14T18:48:53.740" UserId="986" Text="|water|plastic|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6775" RevisionGUID="9498fd59-72c9-4111-b954-3155c8b2f78c" CreationDate="2018-08-15T05:35:27.190" UserId="4886" Text="[**Plastic bottles: Free water refill points rolled out to cut waste**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2018-01-25&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Shops, cafes and businesses will offer free water refill points in every major city and town in England by 2021.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Industry body Water UK says its scheme could cut disposable plastic bottle use by tens of millions a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The move comes amid growing concern about the effect of plastic waste on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whitbread, which owns Costa Coffee and Premier Inn, is the first to sign up to the initiative and will provide water in all of its branches from March 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refill stations and public fountains will be able to be found via an app or window signs pointing people in the direction of the nearest one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and the article continues...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Water UK press release can be found [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42808302&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.water.org.uk/news-water-uk/latest-news/new-national-drinking-water-scheme-water-companies-cut-plastic-bottle-use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6775" RevisionGUID="2314aeb4-2de9-492c-81ae-d785db7773e6" CreationDate="2018-08-15T05:41:12.443" UserId="4886" Comment="added 35 characters in body" Text="[**Plastic bottles: Free water refill points rolled out to cut waste**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2018-01-25&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Shops, cafes and businesses will offer free water refill points in every major city and town in England by 2021.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Industry body Water UK says its scheme could cut disposable plastic bottle use by tens of millions a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The move comes amid growing concern about the effect of plastic waste on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whitbread, which owns Costa Coffee and Premier Inn, is the first to sign up to the initiative and will provide water in all of its branches from March 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refill stations and public fountains will be able to be found via an app or window signs pointing people in the direction of the nearest one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and the article continues...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details are available on the Water UK press release that can be found [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42808302&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.water.org.uk/news-water-uk/latest-news/new-national-drinking-water-scheme-water-companies-cut-plastic-bottle-use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6775" RevisionGUID="3b4d7d3b-d0de-49a4-9420-052b8bc3bef4" CreationDate="2018-08-15T06:47:09.543" UserId="99" Comment="Made clear what part is quoted" Text="From [**Plastic bottles: Free water refill points rolled out to cut waste**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2018-01-25&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Shops, cafes and businesses will offer free water refill points in every major city and town in England by 2021.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Industry body Water UK says its scheme could cut disposable plastic bottle use by tens of millions a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The move comes amid growing concern about the effect of plastic waste on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whitbread, which owns Costa Coffee and Premier Inn, is the first to sign up to the initiative and will provide water in all of its branches from March 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Refill stations and public fountains will be able to be found via an app or window signs pointing people in the direction of the nearest one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and the article continues...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details are available on the Water UK press release that can be found [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42808302&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.water.org.uk/news-water-uk/latest-news/new-national-drinking-water-scheme-water-companies-cut-plastic-bottle-use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6775" RevisionGUID="bd1d398c-a4f0-4d2b-a9b1-517663e2dd76" CreationDate="2018-08-15T06:54:36.233" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="From the BBC:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[**Plastic bottles: Free water refill points rolled out to cut waste**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;2018-01-25&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Shops, cafes and businesses will offer free water refill points in every major city and town in England by 2021.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Industry body Water UK says its scheme could cut disposable plastic bottle use by tens of millions a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The move comes amid growing concern about the effect of plastic waste on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whitbread, which owns Costa Coffee and Premier Inn, is the first to sign up to the initiative and will provide water in all of its branches from March 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Refill stations and public fountains will be able to be found via an app or window signs pointing people in the direction of the nearest one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details are available on the Water UK press release that can be found [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42808302&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.water.org.uk/news-water-uk/latest-news/new-national-drinking-water-scheme-water-companies-cut-plastic-bottle-use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6775" RevisionGUID="fec14c5f-6a15-444b-ad6f-f6fecf2858f7" CreationDate="2018-08-15T06:57:08.813" UserId="4886" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="From a BBC article on 2018-01-25:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[**Plastic bottles: Free water refill points rolled out to cut waste**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Shops, cafes and businesses will offer free water refill points in every major city and town in England by 2021.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Industry body Water UK says its scheme could cut disposable plastic bottle use by tens of millions a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The move comes amid growing concern about the effect of plastic waste on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whitbread, which owns Costa Coffee and Premier Inn, is the first to sign up to the initiative and will provide water in all of its branches from March 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Refill stations and public fountains will be able to be found via an app or window signs pointing people in the direction of the nearest one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details are available on the [Water UK press release][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42808302&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.water.org.uk/news-water-uk/latest-news/new-national-drinking-water-scheme-water-companies-cut-plastic-bottle-use" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6775" RevisionGUID="931f9fe2-9beb-4f49-b8b4-ef331d99b207" CreationDate="2018-08-15T07:04:48.220" UserId="4886" Comment="added 123 characters in body" Text="From a BBC article on 2018-01-25:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[**Plastic bottles: Free water refill points rolled out to cut waste**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Shops, cafes and businesses will offer free water refill points in every major city and town in England by 2021.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Industry body Water UK says its scheme could cut disposable plastic bottle use by tens of millions a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The move comes amid growing concern about the effect of plastic waste on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whitbread, which owns Costa Coffee and Premier Inn, is the first to sign up to the initiative and will provide water in all of its branches from March 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Refill stations and public fountains will be able to be found via an app or window signs pointing people in the direction of the nearest one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details are available on the [Water UK press release][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Refill.org.uk][3] is where you can go to find refill stations / download the app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42808302&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.water.org.uk/news-water-uk/latest-news/new-national-drinking-water-scheme-water-companies-cut-plastic-bottle-use&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.refill.org.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6775" RevisionGUID="8ea0cac5-bafa-45c2-9e5a-2c4e1467c5ed" CreationDate="2018-08-15T07:10:42.727" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="From a BBC article on 2018-01-25:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[**Plastic bottles: Free water refill points rolled out to cut waste**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Shops, cafes and businesses will offer free water refill points in every major city and town in England by 2021.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Industry body Water UK says its scheme could cut disposable plastic bottle use by tens of millions a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The move comes amid growing concern about the effect of plastic waste on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whitbread, which owns Costa Coffee and Premier Inn, is the first to sign up to the initiative and will provide water in all of its branches from March 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Refill stations and public fountains will be able to be found via an app or window signs pointing people in the direction of the nearest one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details are available on the [Water UK press release][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Refill.org.uk][3] is where you can go to download the app and find refill stations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42808302&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.water.org.uk/news-water-uk/latest-news/new-national-drinking-water-scheme-water-companies-cut-plastic-bottle-use&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.refill.org.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6775" RevisionGUID="b14d1b34-0c06-4260-a942-820c56076e68" CreationDate="2018-08-15T07:19:39.993" UserId="4886" Comment="added 96 characters in body" Text="From a BBC article on 2018-01-25:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[**Plastic bottles: Free water refill points rolled out to cut waste**][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Shops, cafes and businesses will offer free water refill points in every major city and town in England by 2021.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Industry body Water UK says its scheme could cut disposable plastic bottle use by tens of millions a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The move comes amid growing concern about the effect of plastic waste on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Whitbread, which owns Costa Coffee and Premier Inn, is the first to sign up to the initiative and will provide water in all of its branches from March 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Refill stations and public fountains will be able to be found via an app or window signs pointing people in the direction of the nearest one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details are available in the [Water UK press release][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Refill.org.uk][3] is where you can go to download the app and find refill stations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refill stations exist in [Devon itself][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42808302&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.water.org.uk/news-water-uk/latest-news/new-national-drinking-water-scheme-water-companies-cut-plastic-bottle-use&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.refill.org.uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.recycledevon.org/RefillDevon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6776" RevisionGUID="89a32476-db84-41d0-8ad1-16715c7d04ff" CreationDate="2018-08-15T07:20:45.493" UserId="99" Text="I was looking at the website of South West Water, the company that supplies tap water for Devon, and they have a page on [Tastes and smells](https://www.southwestwater.co.uk/water-advice-and-services/drinking-water-services/drinking-water-quality/tastes-and-smells/) where they say that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...often unusual tastes or odours relate to issues with private plumbing or appliances in your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And they provide a list of possible problems and solutions.&#xD;&#xA;So perhaps that's something to check first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The website also says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It’s normal to notice a slight taste or smell of chlorine in your water as we add a small, safe amount to protect it from harmful bacteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so perhaps the bad taste comes from the added chlorine. In that case you would need to go to an area that is served by a different drinking water company that doesn't add as much chlorine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17512" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="ed325b61-10b8-4767-bb10-551dade58e6e" CreationDate="2018-08-15T08:49:17.090" UserId="5895" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5895,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Ideogram&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6771" RevisionGUID="577c7fdb-7ed1-4132-bbc9-bde7d536b56e" CreationDate="2018-08-15T08:52:39.883" UserId="5895" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="What do we use water for in every-day life? And can we use untreated seawater instead? Because: untreated seawater is what the PO's is supposed to use instead of fresh water. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bathing. **Maybe** Either in the sea or in the bathtub. Yes, if you want to cool down and don't mind the salt. No, not if you want to get really clean. Or should we update our definition of 'clean'?&#xD;&#xA; - Cooking: **No / Maybe ** Interesting. Food is salty of savoury and boiling it kills bacteria, but might still be too contaminated. (see comments). How about steaming food? &#xD;&#xA; - Drinking: **No**&#xD;&#xA; - Doing dishes. **Yes, maybe.** But you might want to rinse them with a bit of fresh water afterward. But it could still help&#xD;&#xA; - Laundry: Maybe. **Help needed answering this**. Is salt bad for my clothes? Does salt effect the effectiveness of soap? (The comments suggest it does so in a negative way)&#xD;&#xA; - Flushing the toilet. **Maybe** (see comments) The sewege system might not like the salt water.&#xD;&#xA; - Washing my hands. **Yes** (?)&#xD;&#xA; - Showering. **Maybe**. See --&gt; Bathing&#xD;&#xA; - Irigation (not pictured). **No**. Salt is not good for the land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: this picture (How much water do you use in liters) [![How much water do you use in liters][1]][1]*Source: https://www.vitens.nl/service/hoeveel-water-gebruiken-we-per-dag*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: this is not a 100% complete answer. I hope it contributes by providing a list and some quantitative data on the current use of fresh water. I hope it will start a discussion, so we can fill in the **maybe**'s The answers I've written after every application are only intuitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TZDSI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="7f490703-6173-4bb5-bb2d-236400f47086" CreationDate="2018-08-15T14:54:33.093" UserId="3379" Comment="added 11 characters in body; edited title" Text="Here in my place there is a shortage of river water during these days because of lack of rain. People are demanding to use sea water where we can so please suggest the ways in which we can use sea water..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17515" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="773" RevisionGUID="7f490703-6173-4bb5-bb2d-236400f47086" CreationDate="2018-08-15T14:54:33.093" UserId="3379" Comment="added 11 characters in body; edited title" Text="How to use sea water in daily life?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17516" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6774" RevisionGUID="a24eff5a-3321-447b-aa36-a38e59dae600" CreationDate="2018-08-15T15:05:40.510" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|water|plastic|alternatives|uk|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17517" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6774" RevisionGUID="a24eff5a-3321-447b-aa36-a38e59dae600" CreationDate="2018-08-15T15:05:40.510" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="I live in Devon, and tap water in my household does not taste consistently. When I moved in my current property, the neighbours warned me that they had been buying bottled water since 20 years, because of the bad taste and other suspects about the quality of the water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, for the first time in my life, last year I started buying water bottled in plastic, and have done so until now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if there is any valid alternative that does not require the application of a permanent filter (I am a tenant). Back in Sicily, where I grew up, we used to go to a spring in the mountains once a month, to refill our glass and plastic bottles. In other countries, water refill stations exist. Is there anything of the sort in the South West of England?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6777" RevisionGUID="e6f3ce9b-779b-4883-93bc-ee89c746178e" CreationDate="2018-08-15T15:31:42.970" UserId="2914" Text="There a jugs with filters.  This happens to to a Brita.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pKQBm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17519" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6776" RevisionGUID="757a01b6-e2ec-496d-b78f-77aabd2087ac" CreationDate="2018-08-15T16:56:13.100" UserId="99" Comment="clarified both options" Text="I was looking at the website of South West Water, the company that supplies tap water for Devon, and they have a page on [Tastes and smells](https://www.southwestwater.co.uk/water-advice-and-services/drinking-water-services/drinking-water-quality/tastes-and-smells/) where they say that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...often unusual tastes or odours relate to issues with private plumbing or appliances in your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And they provide a list of possible problems and solutions.&#xD;&#xA;So perhaps you can check if it's only a problem in your building. If so you could try talking to your landlord.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the website also says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It’s normal to notice a slight taste or smell of chlorine in your water as we add a small, safe amount to protect it from harmful bacteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so perhaps the bad taste is more widespread and comes from the added chlorine. In that case you could go to an area that is served by a different drinking water company that doesn't add as much chlorine, and fill up big canisters there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17520" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6777" RevisionGUID="90319b75-0813-443b-aa6b-a74d5d9955f3" CreationDate="2018-08-15T17:53:45.187" UserId="3379" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="There are jugs with filters.  This happens to be a Brita.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pKQBm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6778" RevisionGUID="bb65892a-ee17-4578-8507-622de980a94e" CreationDate="2018-08-15T18:00:55.030" UserId="5897" Text="If the toaster oven is an option, it would generally be more efficient than a full-sized oven (unless the toaster oven is on it's last legs and the oven is a brand-new version, or something to that effect). Because the toaster oven is much smaller, it would require much less energy in order to create enough heat to cook your food, whereas the full-sized oven needs to heat the entire inside in order to fully cook your food. Plus, it takes much less time to heat up a toaster oven, and releases much less heat as it cools back down." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17522" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6774" RevisionGUID="7e519483-2482-4155-b045-39481e17dd57" CreationDate="2018-08-15T21:02:03.023" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1029835632187768832" />
  <row Id="17523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6779" RevisionGUID="5bdc436b-38ac-48ac-a56c-ec81918c988c" CreationDate="2018-08-16T01:46:40.973" UserId="5602" Text="I wonder of the impact ash (probably combined with still existing coal) might have to compost. I know that coal is used to clean water and air. But does it improve compost or does it reduce activities inside of compost heaps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that ash is cold and nothing inside is burning!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6779" RevisionGUID="5bdc436b-38ac-48ac-a56c-ec81918c988c" CreationDate="2018-08-16T01:46:40.973" UserId="5602" Text="Impact of ash from barbecue on compost heap" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6779" RevisionGUID="5bdc436b-38ac-48ac-a56c-ec81918c988c" CreationDate="2018-08-16T01:46:40.973" UserId="5602" Text="|composting|coal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6780" RevisionGUID="dca82c0c-bebf-4bff-8eaf-64f39714b6b0" CreationDate="2018-08-16T02:52:08.807" UserId="5939" Text="The loss through storage due to friction by using a flywheel seems like it wouldn't matter much. In Florida there is plenty of sun. Who cares if some energy is lost. Anything collected is free. We as homeowners don't need a high tech composite spinning at high speeds. We should put a heavy steel one in the ground only turning at a safe slow speed. It would be a one time cost compared to batteries, that have to be replaced often. I'm sure the battery makers don't want to see flywheels on the market. It would be bad for their business. Flywheel is a new technology. The battery makers will make it seem like it's unsafe, but it's the perfect solution to energy storage. Municipalities won't go for it either, without a lot of money for licensing and even insurance. They're afraid of their own shadow. God forbid there's a spinning heavy disk in the ground outside my window. You'll never see them domestically. No company could ever guarantee that they'd be safe. The energy companies also don't want individuals to be self-sufficient. They want us to buy energy from them. They have a good thing going for themselves and they don't want anyone rocking the boat. Imagine thousands of homeowners not needing to pay an electric bill anymore. I visualize a one ton flywheel about 15 feet in diameter turning at 100 - 200 rpm. It would probably have to be in a cement enclosure, and in Florida a sump pump to keep it dry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6781" RevisionGUID="6c2d6024-63d9-4579-8965-3db6042037cf" CreationDate="2018-08-16T14:59:15.523" UserId="3379" Text="**TL;DR - Because of how flywheel energy storage scales it is unlikely that significant efforts will be made to develop the technology for home use.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to the case for windmills, where the power output increases as the square of the diameter, and the cube of the wind speed (which itself doubles roughly every 20m of elevation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the Engineering Toolbox, the equations governing [flywheel kinetic energy](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flywheel-energy-d_945.html) are:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    E_f = 1/2 × I × ω²&#xD;&#xA;    I   = k × m × r²&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    E_f = flywheel kinetic energy&#xD;&#xA;    I   = moment of intertia&#xD;&#xA;    ω   = angular velocity (measured in radians/second, proportional to RPM)&#xD;&#xA;    k   = inertial constant (a value from 0 to 1 which depends on the flywheel shape)&#xD;&#xA;    m   = mass of the flywheel&#xD;&#xA;    r   = radius of the flywheel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were to assume all flywheels have the same shape, roll all the constants together in to some value `K`, and combine the two equations, we'd get something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`(flywheel kinetic energy) = (K) × (RPM)² × (mass) × (radius)²`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus to maximize the energy storage of a flywheel we would focus on making it **larger** (increasing the radius) and **faster**, as the total energy will increase proportionally to the square of these factors. Note from @Ghanima's answer we know that efficiencies are already greater than 90%, so there isn't much potential there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - double the **radius**, quadruple the energy&#xD;&#xA; - double the **speed**, quadruple the energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a fun [calculator](http://www.botlanta.org/converters/dale-calc/flywheel.html) you can use to see this in practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For domestic applications, making things larger is not an option -- it has to fit in a home. Thus to advance the tech for home use, designers would have to increase the speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Increases in speed are limited by safety concerns and technology costs -- faster motors cost more. Given that energy potential increases for this application are already limited by size constraints, it simply doesn't make sense to put more money into the motor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6782" RevisionGUID="8c50091f-0cc3-4d35-818c-49eb7e77b67e" CreationDate="2018-08-16T17:00:17.787" UserId="5897" Text="I'm not sure of the science behind it, but I know that my local compost collector is fine with accepting fireplace ashes, but has a ban on coal and charcoal ashes. They use heat-treating on the compost as well, so if that can't handle coal and charcoal ashes, maybe be wary of using it for your at-home pile. Incidentally, if you do want more information about it, I'm sure that someone at [Bennett Compost][1] (my local compost company) would be able to talk to you about it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bennettcompost.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17529" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6782" RevisionGUID="fee4e3d3-dd1e-440c-af5f-3861f4d15ee4" CreationDate="2018-08-16T17:00:31.567" UserId="5897" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5897,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Shelby Guercio&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17530" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6782" RevisionGUID="f674de68-3e9a-4ad6-bec3-64d54d39a452" CreationDate="2018-08-16T17:02:41.217" UserId="5897" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5897,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Shelby Guercio&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6783" RevisionGUID="223c562b-63d8-4b5f-bff7-1ae606374bef" CreationDate="2018-08-17T11:49:01.363" UserId="4886" Text="The problem with store-bought BBQ fuel is that they often add binders, accelerants and other things to the basic fuel in order to make it easier to manufacture/shape/pack/light/burn.  Whilst the vast majority of store-bought BBQ fuel won't impart anything particularly bad into the food being cooked overhead, what is left over (ash and partially-burnt coals) was never mean to come into contact with food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the ashes of BBQ fuels were never meant to be reinjected into the food stream, their content is not regulated anywhere (that I know of).  There are no safety protections in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ash, in particular, is no longer 'organic'.  The heat of the fire has reduced it to mineral status.  Whether there are things like heavy metals in there is anyone's guess.  Putting that stuff into a compost pile won't 'help make it safe' because the bacteria/fungus in a compost pile feed off organic molecules, not inorganic minerals.  Nothing can turn cadmium into carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there BBQ fuels being sold in stores that are 100% natural with no additives?  Sure, but in my area you have to look hard to find them, they usually aren't cheap, and they often don't &quot;work as well&quot; as the ones that have been heavily bound and doped with accelerants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make wise purchasing decisions in the store, you can throw as many coals into the compost pile as you like and they will act as moisture and nutrient stores, as well as hotels for microbes and fungii — all positive with no downsides.  Small amounts of ash (less than a cup a week) will also be fine, and provide trace minerals that various organisms can use (without messing with the pH too much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're producing more than a cup of ash a week, the typical 4-person compost pile won't be able to handle the load, and you should scatter the rest of the ashes evenly out into fields/pastures (assuming you don't want to use it to make lye for soap or any of a pile of other things).  Treat the ash as a mineral cocktail that most plants can handle in small doses, and you'll be fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17532" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6783" RevisionGUID="ca8cb0c6-0810-405e-b06a-8153d7e3cd34" CreationDate="2018-08-17T11:55:44.960" UserId="4886" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="The problem with store-bought BBQ fuel is that they often add binders, accelerants and other things to the basic fuel in order to make it easier to manufacture/shape/pack/light/burn.  Whilst the vast majority of store-bought BBQ fuel won't impart anything particularly bad into the food being cooked overhead, what is left over (ash and partially-burnt coals) was never mean to come into contact with food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the ashes of BBQ fuels were never meant to be reinjected into the food stream, their content is not regulated anywhere (that I know of).  There are no safety protections in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ash, in particular, is no longer 'organic' after being burnt.  The heat of the fire has reduced it to mineral status.  Whether there are things like heavy metals in there is anyone's guess.  Putting that stuff into a compost pile won't 'help make it safe' because the bacteria/fungus in a compost pile feed off organic molecules, not inorganic minerals.  Nothing can turn cadmium into carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there BBQ fuels being sold in stores that are 100% natural with no additives?  Sure, but in my area you have to look hard to find them, they usually aren't cheap, and they often don't &quot;work as well&quot; as the ones that have been heavily bound and doped with accelerants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make wise purchasing decisions in the store, you can throw as many coals into the compost pile as you like and they will act as moisture and nutrient stores, as well as hotels for microbes and fungii — all positive with no downsides.  Small amounts of ash (less than a cup a week) will also be fine, and provide trace minerals that various organisms can use (without messing with the pH too much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're producing more than a cup of ash a week, the typical 4-person compost pile won't be able to handle the load, and you should scatter the rest of the ashes evenly out into fields/pastures, or under trees and bushes (assuming you don't want to use it to make lye for soap or any of a pile of other things).  Treat the ash as a mineral cocktail that most plants can handle in small doses, and you'll be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you dump a pail of ashes into a single spot on a weekly basis, I can pretty-much guarantee that you will kill everything there.  I know of no plants or organisms that can survive that sort of abuse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17533" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6783" RevisionGUID="9361fa5c-e503-4928-8858-481a3b3dc280" CreationDate="2018-08-17T12:04:55.703" UserId="4886" Comment="added 200 characters in body" Text="The problem with store-bought BBQ fuel is that they often add binders, accelerants and other things to the basic fuel in order to make it easier to manufacture/shape/pack/light/burn.  Whilst the vast majority of store-bought BBQ fuel won't impart anything particularly bad into the food being cooked overhead, what is left over (ash and partially-burnt coals) was never mean to come into contact with food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the ashes of BBQ fuels were never meant to be reinjected into the food stream, their content is not regulated anywhere (that I know of).  There are no safety protections in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ash, in particular, is no longer 'organic' after being burnt.  The heat of the fire has reduced it to mineral status.  Whether there are things like heavy metals in there is anyone's guess.  Putting that stuff into a compost pile won't 'help make it safe' because the bacteria/fungus in a compost pile feed off organic molecules, not inorganic minerals.  Nothing can turn cadmium into carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there BBQ fuels being sold in stores that are 100% natural with no additives?  Sure, but in my area you have to look hard to find them, they usually aren't cheap, and they often don't &quot;work as well&quot; as the ones that have been heavily bound and doped with accelerants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make wise purchasing decisions in the store, you can throw as many coals into the compost pile as you like and they will act as moisture and nutrient stores, as well as hotels for microbes and fungi — all positive with no downsides.  Small amounts of ash (less than a cup a week) will also be fine, and provide trace minerals that various organisms can use (without messing with the pH too much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're producing more than a cup of ash a week, the typical 4-person compost pile won't be able to handle the load, and you should scatter the rest of the ashes evenly out onto fields/pastures, or under trees and bushes (assuming you don't want to use it to make lye for soap or any of a pile of other things).  Treat the ash as a mineral cocktail that most plants can handle in small doses, and you'll be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  Since ash raises the pH of the soil onto which it is applied, it follows that plants that prefer acidic soils won't appreciate it.  Avoid dusting the ground around such plants with ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you dump a pail of ashes into a single spot on a weekly basis, I can pretty-much guarantee that you will kill everything there.  I know of no plants or organisms that can survive that sort of abuse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6783" RevisionGUID="c142187d-d9b3-4b12-8204-04864d4bdab4" CreationDate="2018-08-17T12:10:09.773" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="The problem with store-bought BBQ fuel is that they often add binders, accelerants and other things to the basic fuel in order to make it easier to manufacture/shape/pack/light/burn.  Whilst the vast majority of store-bought BBQ fuel won't impart anything particularly bad into the food being cooked, the by-products (ash and partially-burnt coals) were never meant to come into contact with food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the ashes of BBQ fuels were never meant to be reinjected into the food stream, their content is not regulated anywhere (that I know of).  There are no safety protections in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ash, in particular, is no longer 'organic' after being burnt.  The heat of the fire has reduced it to mineral status.  Whether there are things like heavy metals in there is anyone's guess.  Putting that stuff into a compost pile won't 'help make it safe' because the bacteria/fungus in a compost pile feed primarily off organic molecules, not inorganic minerals.  Nothing can turn cadmium into carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there BBQ fuels being sold in stores that are 100% natural with no additives?  Sure, but in my area you have to look hard to find them, they usually aren't cheap, and they often don't &quot;work as well&quot; as the ones that have been heavily bound and doped with accelerants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make wise purchasing decisions in the store, you can throw as many coals into the compost pile as you like and they will act as moisture and nutrient stores, as well as hotels for microbes and fungi — all positive with no downsides.  Small amounts of ash (less than a cup a week) will also be fine, and provide trace minerals that various organisms can use (without messing with the pH too much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're producing more than a cup of ash a week, the typical 4-person compost pile won't be able to handle the load, and you should scatter the rest of the ashes evenly out onto fields/pastures, or under trees and bushes (assuming you don't want to use it to make lye for soap or any of a pile of other things).  Treat the ash as a mineral cocktail that most plants can handle in small doses, and you'll be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  Since ash raises the pH of the soil onto which it is applied, it follows that plants that prefer acidic soils won't appreciate it.  Avoid dusting the ground around such plants with ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you dump a pail of ashes into a single spot on a weekly basis, I can pretty-much guarantee that you will kill everything there.  I know of no plants or organisms that can survive that sort of abuse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17535" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6783" RevisionGUID="2c280097-c12d-4344-bd4f-421bdc3c2b01" CreationDate="2018-08-17T12:15:22.923" UserId="4886" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="The problem with store-bought BBQ fuel is that they often add binders, accelerants and other things to the basic fuel in order to make it easier to manufacture/shape/pack/light/burn.  Whilst the vast majority of store-bought BBQ fuel won't impart anything particularly bad into the food being cooked, the by-products (ash and partially-burnt coals) were never meant to come into contact with food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the ashes of BBQ fuels were never meant to be reinjected into the food stream, their content is not regulated anywhere (that I know of).  There are no safety protections in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ash, in particular, is no longer 'organic' after being burnt.  The heat of the fire has reduced it to mineral status.  Whether there are things like heavy metals in there is anyone's guess.  Putting that stuff into a compost pile won't 'help make it safe' because the bacteria/fungus in a compost pile feed primarily off organic molecules, not inorganic minerals.  Nothing can turn cadmium into carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there BBQ fuels being sold in stores that are 100% natural with no additives?  Sure, but in my area you have to look hard to find them, they usually aren't cheap, and they often don't &quot;work as well&quot; as the ones that have been heavily bound and doped with accelerants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make wise purchasing decisions in the store, you can throw as many coals into the compost pile as you like and they will act as moisture and nutrient stores, as well as hotels for microbes and fungi — all positive with no downsides.  Small amounts of ash (less than a cup a week) will also be fine, and provide trace minerals that various organisms can use (without messing with the pH too much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're producing more than a cup of ash a week, the typical 4-person compost pile won't be able to handle the load, and you should scatter the rest of the ashes evenly out onto fields/pastures, or under trees and bushes (assuming you don't want to use it to make lye for soap or any of a pile of other things).  Treat the ash as a mineral cocktail that most plants can handle in very small doses, and you'll be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  Since ash raises the pH of the soil onto which it is applied, it follows that plants that prefer acidic soils won't appreciate it.  Avoid dusting the ground around such plants with ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you dump a pail of ashes into a single spot on a weekly basis, I can pretty-much guarantee that you will kill everything there.  I know of no plants or organisms that can survive that sort of abuse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6783" RevisionGUID="34ad9f29-6171-47b4-9ae3-546857e3b77f" CreationDate="2018-08-17T12:29:52.153" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The problem with store-bought BBQ fuel is that they often add binders, accelerants and other things to the basic fuel in order to make it easier to manufacture/shape/pack/light/burn.  Whilst the vast majority of store-bought BBQ fuel won't impart anything particularly bad into the food being cooked, the by-products (ash and partially-burnt coals) were never meant to come into contact with food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the ashes of BBQ fuels were never meant to be reinjected into the food stream, their content is not regulated anywhere (that I know of).  There are no safety protections in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ash, in particular, is no longer 'organic' after being burnt.  The heat of the fire has reduced it to mineral status.  Whether there are things like heavy metals in there is anyone's guess.  Putting that stuff into a compost pile won't 'help make it safe' because the bacteria/fungus in a compost pile feed primarily off organic molecules, not inorganic minerals.  Nothing can turn cadmium into carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there BBQ fuels being sold in stores that are 100% natural with no additives?  Sure, but in my area you have to look hard to find them, they usually aren't cheap, and they often don't &quot;work as well&quot; as the ones that have been heavily bound and doped with accelerants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make **wise purchasing decisions** in the store, you can throw as many coals into the compost pile as you like and they will act as moisture and nutrient stores, as well as habitat for microbes and fungi — all positive with no downsides.  Small amounts of ash (less than a cup a week) will also be fine, and provide trace minerals that various organisms can use (without messing with the pH too much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're producing more than a cup of ash a week, the typical 4-person compost pile won't be able to handle the load, and you should scatter the rest of the ashes evenly out onto fields/pastures, or under trees and bushes (assuming you don't want to use it to make lye for soap or any of a pile of other things).  Treat the ash as a mineral cocktail that most plants can handle in very small doses, and you'll be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  Since ash raises the pH of the soil onto which it is applied, it follows that plants that prefer acidic soils won't appreciate it.  Avoid dusting the ground around such plants with ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you dump a pail of ashes into a single spot on a weekly basis, I can pretty-much guarantee that you will kill everything there.  I know of no plants or organisms that can survive that sort of abuse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6783" RevisionGUID="cf426cf4-3968-4ebb-9bae-1f49fcf54977" CreationDate="2018-08-17T12:35:03.573" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The problem with store-bought BBQ fuel is that they often add binders, accelerants and other things to the basic fuel in order to make it easier to manufacture/shape/pack/light/burn.  Whilst the vast majority of store-bought BBQ fuel won't impart anything particularly bad into the food being cooked, the by-products (ash and partially-burnt coals) were never meant to come into contact with food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the ashes of BBQ fuels were never meant to be reinjected into the food stream, their content is not regulated anywhere (that I know of).  There are no safety protections in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ash, in particular, is no longer 'organic' after being burnt.  The heat of the fire has reduced it to mineral status.  Whether there are things like heavy metals in there is anyone's guess.  Putting that stuff into a compost pile won't 'help make it safe' because the bacteria/fungus in a compost pile feed primarily off organic molecules, not inorganic minerals.  Nothing can turn cadmium into carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there BBQ fuels being sold in stores that are 100% natural with no additives?  Sure, but in my area you have to look hard to find them, they usually aren't cheap, and they often don't &quot;work as well&quot; as the ones that have been heavily bound and doped with accelerants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make **wise purchasing decisions** in the store, you can throw as many coals into the compost pile as you like and they will act as moisture and nutrient stores, as well as habitat for microbes and fungi — all positive with no downsides.  Small amounts of ash (less than a cup a week) will also be fine, and provide trace minerals that various organisms can use (without messing with the pH too much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're producing more than a cup of ash a week, the typical 4-person compost pile won't be able to handle the load, and you should scatter the rest of the ashes evenly out onto fields/pastures, or under trees and bushes (assuming you don't want to use it to make lye for soap or any of a pile of other things).  **Treat the ash as a mineral cocktail that most plants can handle in very small doses, and you'll be fine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  Since ash raises the pH of the soil onto which it is applied, it follows that plants that prefer acidic soils won't appreciate it.  Avoid dusting the ground around such plants with ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you dump a pail of ashes into a single spot on a weekly basis, I can pretty-much guarantee that you will kill everything there.  I know of no plants or organisms that can survive that sort of abuse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6784" RevisionGUID="919e4f4a-07ff-4a98-baf8-09934c616185" CreationDate="2018-08-17T16:16:11.623" UserId="5477" Text="Do you mean charcoal ash from a BBQ or coal ash ? Wood ash will add K which is very beneficial and some alkalinity , likely good as decaying organics in compost are acidic. Coal ash will have much more mineral content; silica ( sand), iron oxides, ( the pink or reddish color) some K and alkalinity ( eg. calcium oxide). Coal ash composition will depend on the source of the coal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6784" RevisionGUID="4ffbc08b-9811-4546-9cd8-de79d12b2a84" CreationDate="2018-08-17T16:27:17.590" UserId="5477" Comment="additional info" Text="Do you mean charcoal ash from a BBQ or coal ash ? Wood ash will add K which is very beneficial and some alkalinity , likely good as decaying organics in compost are acidic. Coal ash will have much more mineral content; silica ( sand), iron oxides, ( the pink or reddish color) aluminum oxides, some K and alkalinity ( eg. calcium oxide). Coal ash composition will depend on the source of the coal. If you want count the minuscule traces , like sea water , it contains about every element ( If you have the analytical equipment to find it). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6785" RevisionGUID="a6b6e7e3-5ea3-4f7c-a9e5-926ef8a707bf" CreationDate="2018-08-17T21:00:52.107" UserId="5292" Text="An UDDT seems to be the most environmentally friendly alternative, but for some contexts, a composting toilet might seem preferable (like rentals, or camping sites where people don't always remember to use the toilets correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the disadvantages of using a composting toilet in terms of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Waste generation: does the composting chamber generates black water? gases?&#xD;&#xA;* Odour: does the presence of moisture and greater humidity contribute generate unpleasant odours? &#xD;&#xA;* Maintainability: how often do you have to take care of the compost? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what I have gathered, a double chamber UDDT needs to be maintained once a year, does not generates waste and, since it's dry, it doesn't smell bad. Can all these characteristics be achieved by some composting toilet design?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6785" RevisionGUID="a6b6e7e3-5ea3-4f7c-a9e5-926ef8a707bf" CreationDate="2018-08-17T21:00:52.107" UserId="5292" Text="Composting toilet v/s urine-diverting dry toilet (UDDT)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6785" RevisionGUID="a6b6e7e3-5ea3-4f7c-a9e5-926ef8a707bf" CreationDate="2018-08-17T21:00:52.107" UserId="5292" Text="|composting|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6785" RevisionGUID="6e535347-2db0-426d-abda-e82d2b959700" CreationDate="2018-08-17T21:27:06.723" UserId="5292" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="An UDDT seems to be the most environmentally friendly alternative, but for some contexts, a composting toilet might seem preferable (like rentals, or camping sites where people don't always remember to use the toilets correctly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the disadvantages of using a composting toilet in terms of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Waste generation: does the composting chamber generates black water? gases?&#xD;&#xA;* Odour: does the presence of moisture and greater humidity contribute to the generation of unpleasant odours? &#xD;&#xA;* Maintainability: how often do you have to take care of the compost? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what I have gathered, a double chamber UDDT needs to be maintained once a year, does not generates waste and, since it's dry, it doesn't smell bad. Can all these characteristics be achieved by some composting toilet design?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="d182a2e7-478d-4c5b-99fd-54395aa3e9e1" CreationDate="2018-08-17T22:31:30.870" UserId="5945" Text="I would like to know what parts i would need to charge a 36v lithium battery for an ebike? I want to charge the battery while riding the bike for greater range." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17546" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="d182a2e7-478d-4c5b-99fd-54395aa3e9e1" CreationDate="2018-08-17T22:31:30.870" UserId="5945" Text="solar charging a lithium battery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17547" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="d182a2e7-478d-4c5b-99fd-54395aa3e9e1" CreationDate="2018-08-17T22:31:30.870" UserId="5945" Text="|solar-power|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6783" RevisionGUID="65645c16-abee-4bf3-80e8-1339abaa21ed" CreationDate="2018-08-18T01:54:30.450" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="The problem with store-bought BBQ fuel is that they often add binders, accelerants and other things to the basic fuel in order to make it easier to manufacture/shape/pack/light/burn.  Whilst the vast majority of store-bought BBQ fuels won't impart anything particularly bad into the food being cooked, the by-products (ash and partially-burnt coals) were never meant to come into contact with food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the ashes of BBQ fuels were never meant to be reinjected into the food stream, their content is not regulated anywhere (that I know of).  There are no safety protections in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ash, in particular, is no longer 'organic' after being burnt.  The heat of the fire has reduced it to mineral status.  Whether there are things like heavy metals in there is anyone's guess.  Putting that stuff into a compost pile won't 'help make it safe' because the bacteria/fungus in a compost pile feed primarily off organic molecules, not inorganic minerals.  Nothing can turn cadmium into carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there BBQ fuels being sold in stores that are 100% natural with no additives?  Sure, but in my area you have to look hard to find them, they usually aren't cheap, and they often don't &quot;work as well&quot; as the ones that have been heavily bound and doped with accelerants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make **wise purchasing decisions** in the store, you can throw as many coals into the compost pile as you like and they will act as moisture and nutrient stores, as well as habitat for microbes and fungi — all positive with no downsides.  Small amounts of ash (less than a cup a week) will also be fine, and provide trace minerals that various organisms can use (without messing with the pH too much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're producing more than a cup of ash a week, the typical 4-person compost pile won't be able to handle the load, and you should scatter the rest of the ashes evenly out onto fields/pastures, or under trees and bushes (assuming you don't want to use it to make lye for soap or any of a pile of other things).  **Treat the ash as a mineral cocktail that most plants can handle in very small doses, and you'll be fine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  Since ash raises the pH of the soil onto which it is applied, it follows that plants that prefer acidic soils won't appreciate it.  Avoid dusting the ground around such plants with ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you dump a pail of ashes into a single spot on a weekly basis, I can pretty-much guarantee that you will kill everything there.  I know of no plants or organisms that can survive that sort of abuse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6783" RevisionGUID="ea8fa0c5-7c94-4617-a83e-c85825d79ad7" CreationDate="2018-08-18T02:30:40.427" UserId="4886" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="The problem with store-bought BBQ fuel is that they often add binders, accelerants and other things to the basic fuel in order to make it easier to manufacture/shape/pack/light/burn.  Whilst the vast majority of store-bought BBQ fuels won't impart anything particularly bad into the food being cooked, the by-products (ash and partially-burnt coals) were never meant to come into contact with food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the ashes of BBQ fuels were never meant to be reinjected into the food stream, their content is not regulated anywhere (that I know of).  There are no safety protections in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ash, in particular, is no longer 'organic' after being burnt.  The heat of the fire has reduced it to mineral status.  Whether there are things like heavy metals in there is anyone's guess.  Putting that stuff into a compost pile won't 'help make it safe' because the bacteria/fungus in a compost pile feed primarily off organic molecules, not inorganic minerals.  Nothing can turn cadmium into carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there BBQ fuels being sold in stores that are 100% natural with no additives?  Sure, but in my area you have to look hard to find them, they usually aren't cheap, and they often don't &quot;work as well&quot; as the ones that have been heavily bound and doped with accelerants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you make **wise purchasing decisions** in the store, you can throw as many coals into the compost pile as you like and they will act as moisture and nutrient stores, as well as habitat for microbes and fungi — all positive with no downsides.  Small amounts of ash (less than a cup a week) will also be fine, and provide trace minerals that various organisms can use (without messing with the pH too much).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're producing more than a cup of ash a week, the typical 4-person compost pile won't be able to handle the load, and you should scatter the rest of the ashes evenly out onto fields/pastures, or under trees and bushes (assuming you don't want to use it to make lye for soap or any of a pile of other things).  **Treat the ash as a mineral cocktail that most plants can handle in very small doses, and you'll be fine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  Since ash raises the pH of the soil onto which it is applied, it follows that plants that prefer acidic soils won't appreciate it.  Avoid dusting the ground around such plants with ashes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you dump a pail of ashes into a single spot on a weekly basis — compost pile, base of tree, doesn't matter — I can pretty-much guarantee that you will kill everything there.  I know of no plants or organisms that can survive that sort of abuse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17550" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="017b84d9-b34c-4289-aa0f-a39728871133" CreationDate="2018-08-18T03:01:06.127" UserId="4886" Comment="making the title more specific" Text="solar charging an e-bike's lithium battery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6787" RevisionGUID="aeac58a7-b64d-492b-bec1-4929ad5a4266" CreationDate="2018-08-18T05:48:37.463" UserId="4886" Text="Before you worry about charging, consider this:  It takes about 85W to propel a 75kg cyclist at 20km/h under ideal conditions. Thin film (i.e. flexible) solar panels have an efficiency of ~9% and when deployed as an overhead canopy would likely deliver no more than 50W/m² in mid-latitudes. To generate the required 85W you thus would need a panel 1.7m² in size. That's a **big** panel (which turns into a big sail when it gets windy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you weigh more than 75kg, or want to ride in the morning or afternoon, or it's windy or cloudy, or you want to ride through even gently undulating hills, or the road conditions are not perfect, or your bike isn't brand new, then the situation gets a lot worse.  Small solar panels are almost worthless for the average e-bike — they just don't harvest enough energy in 'typical' conditions to be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want longer range then consider a tow-behind trailer with a (more efficient) mono/poly-crystalline solar panel as a lid, and a power coupling to the bike. You can store your gear in it, have extra batteries in it, and unhitch it whenever you don't want or need it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17552" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6785" RevisionGUID="f20229b9-aaee-416d-bf03-1c301cc62d33" CreationDate="2018-08-18T06:00:48.960" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1030695993057177600" />
  <row Id="17553" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="32343550-6731-4a8d-b297-dd34bb51bc2d" CreationDate="2018-08-19T08:17:36.337" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title to better reflect content, added cycling and photovoltaics tags" Text="I would like to know what parts I would need to charge a 36V lithium battery for an ebike? I want to charge the battery while riding the bike for greater range." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17554" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="32343550-6731-4a8d-b297-dd34bb51bc2d" CreationDate="2018-08-19T08:17:36.337" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title to better reflect content, added cycling and photovoltaics tags" Text="Solar charging an e-bike's lithium battery while riding" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17555" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="32343550-6731-4a8d-b297-dd34bb51bc2d" CreationDate="2018-08-19T08:17:36.337" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title to better reflect content, added cycling and photovoltaics tags" Text="|solar-power|energy-efficiency|photovoltaics|cycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17556" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4391" RevisionGUID="018d548a-2453-483d-b089-e6340bedd4c6" CreationDate="2018-08-19T08:22:24.450" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|electricity-generation|cycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17557" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="d2872430-aa6d-49fa-b9ab-aabb7d61f039" CreationDate="2018-08-19T08:25:27.103" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|solar-power|electricity-generation|photovoltaics|cycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="857dbe64-eb50-472e-8037-f6df60c3dc8c" CreationDate="2018-08-20T14:40:53.980" UserId="3379" Text="From [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Prime):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Amazon Prime** is a paid subscription service offered by Amazon that gives users access to free two-day delivery (one-day in some areas) [...] and other benefits for a monthly or yearly fee. In April 2018, Amazon reported Prime had more than 100 million subscribers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's my understanding that express shipping like this involves shipping multiple smaller packages from various locations (instead of combining shipments), and sending things by airplane and small trucks or cars instead of slower ships, large trucks, or trains. It seems clear that all of these changes result in increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to standard shipping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any research or analysis on how much increase in GHG emissions is caused by Amazon Prime?** Obviously some assumption must be made about how often Prime users would opt for express shipping were Prime not available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="857dbe64-eb50-472e-8037-f6df60c3dc8c" CreationDate="2018-08-20T14:40:53.980" UserId="3379" Text="How much increase in GHG emissions is caused by Amazon Prime?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="857dbe64-eb50-472e-8037-f6df60c3dc8c" CreationDate="2018-08-20T14:40:53.980" UserId="3379" Text="|transport|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6789" RevisionGUID="0ec02760-e9ac-4c49-9376-be00e5eb3f89" CreationDate="2018-08-20T14:50:04.493" UserId="106" Text="Is the environmental impact of pesticide use on greenhouse crops substantially different from the impact of pesticide use in open-air crops?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that, at least in theory, a greenhouse should have the opportunity to keep pests out by being a closed environment.  When pests are kept out in the first place, less or no pesticide should be needed to kill them.  Or, if pesticide is being used, it may be less likely to escape into the natural environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does my imagination have anything to do with reality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17562" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6789" RevisionGUID="0ec02760-e9ac-4c49-9376-be00e5eb3f89" CreationDate="2018-08-20T14:50:04.493" UserId="106" Text="How do greenhouses affect pesticide use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17563" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6789" RevisionGUID="0ec02760-e9ac-4c49-9376-be00e5eb3f89" CreationDate="2018-08-20T14:50:04.493" UserId="106" Text="|pesticides|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17565" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="1f5ee106-5575-4730-9f7d-257939e38a6a" CreationDate="2018-08-20T17:53:41.883" UserId="5933" Text="To a general question this general answer: I don't know, but in general I don't think so ;-) but then again, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First: a greenhouse is not a closed environment. It is aerated (insects can come in and go out) and (unless the water is drained in an isolated way) water escapes via the soil (residue pesticide escapes also).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second: pesticides can be a lot of things: herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, bactericides etc. depending on what is bugging you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A greenhouse doesn't keep any pests out (unless you mean rabbits maybe?) and can create its own kind of problems (it is a hot and moisty environment that is ideal for some insects and fungi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing is: when you have to spray pesticides of any kind, there is some direct protection for neighboring parcels (that don't get acutely polluted). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you have to use biocides (like wasps) they are more likely to stay in the greenhouse (not sure)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6791" RevisionGUID="cc6b7db1-ce23-44e1-a9f1-7d03827a1531" CreationDate="2018-08-20T18:08:27.630" UserId="5950" Text="I'm a big fun of reusing and if I really need to buy something, I buy it used. For example, I've been using second hand or refurbished phones for many years. However, while that is good for the environment (because less phones need to be produced), it doesn't affect the phone market. Phone makers decide which kind of phone to produce based on which phone sells better, and not considering the second hand market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that point of view, the people who can influence phone producers' decisions are those who buy new phones. That's the concept of &quot;[dollar voting][1]&quot;, where your purchase acts like a &quot;vote&quot; for a phone. The phone lines with more &quot;votes&quot; are the ones phone makers will keep producing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under that logic, if the phones growing more in sells were the modular, easy to repair, and ethically sourced ones. The companies would privilege the production of those phones. An example of such phone is the British [FairPhone][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I tend to think that getting another refurbished phone produces the less short-term environmental impact. However, it doesn't affect the phone market, which is what we need for a reduced long-term impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone help me to find a rationale to decide when it is better to reuse and when it is better to &quot;dollar vote&quot;?**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that when I say &quot;dollar vote&quot;, I'm referring to buy a product that dramatically changes the market paradigma in a way that is better for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_voting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.fairphone.com/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6791" RevisionGUID="cc6b7db1-ce23-44e1-a9f1-7d03827a1531" CreationDate="2018-08-20T18:08:27.630" UserId="5950" Text="Reuse or &quot;dollar vote&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6791" RevisionGUID="cc6b7db1-ce23-44e1-a9f1-7d03827a1531" CreationDate="2018-08-20T18:08:27.630" UserId="5950" Text="|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6792" RevisionGUID="3a7a873f-8eff-4d93-ac99-6c924a389a29" CreationDate="2018-08-20T18:09:26.703" UserId="5951" Text="There are already aerogels used in residential that are blankets and much more resilient than other legacy products available. They roll out easily and hVe none of the issues as fiberglass and other insulation materials. The product is amorphous silica so comparable to sand. Completely safe and come in forms that are also waterproof, offer sound dampening and heat resistance up to 1200F. In Europe, they are standardizing the product for its safety and longevity benefits. One of the latest manufacturers uses aerogel.com website, but are sold through global contractors. It’s expensive, but for high end home or capital investment, small price to pay for quality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6791" RevisionGUID="0000c795-b60a-45fe-979f-e543083fb514" CreationDate="2018-08-20T18:17:26.147" UserId="5950" Comment="added 116 characters in body" Text="I'm a big fun of reusing and if I really need to buy something, I buy it used. For example, I've been using second hand or refurbished phones for many years. However, while that is good for the environment (because less phones need to be produced), it doesn't affect the phone market. Phone makers decide which kind of phone to produce based on which phone sells better, and not considering the second hand market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that point of view, the people who can influence phone producers' decisions are those who buy new phones. That's the concept of &quot;[dollar voting][1]&quot;, where your purchase acts like a &quot;vote&quot; for a phone. The phone lines with more &quot;votes&quot; are the ones phone makers will keep producing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under that logic, if the phones growing more in sells were the modular, easy to repair, and ethically sourced ones. The companies would privilege the production of those phones. An example of such phone is the British [FairPhone][2] (in fact the one I'm considering to buy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I tend to think that getting another refurbished phone produces the less short-term environmental impact. However, it doesn't affect the phone market, which is what we need for a reduced long-term impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone help me to find a rationale to decide when it is better to reuse and when it is better to &quot;dollar vote&quot;?**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that when I say &quot;dollar vote&quot;, I'm referring to buy a product that dramatically changes the market paradigma in a way that is better for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is the &quot;dollar voting&quot; idea just another trick to boots consumption?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_voting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.fairphone.com/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17571" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6791" RevisionGUID="d9c31b02-814c-4405-88f4-776a05a65023" CreationDate="2018-08-20T20:24:29.557" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="FairPhone is not British" Text="I'm a big fun of reusing and if I really need to buy something, I buy it used. For example, I've been using second hand or refurbished phones for many years. However, while that is good for the environment (because less phones need to be produced), it doesn't affect the phone market. Phone makers decide which kind of phone to produce based on which phone sells better, and not considering the second hand market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that point of view, the people who can influence phone producers' decisions are those who buy new phones. That's the concept of &quot;[dollar voting][1]&quot;, where your purchase acts like a &quot;vote&quot; for a phone. The phone lines with more &quot;votes&quot; are the ones phone makers will keep producing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under that logic, if the phones growing more in sells were the modular, easy to repair, and ethically sourced ones. The companies would privilege the production of those phones. An example of such phone is the [FairPhone][2] (in fact the one I'm considering to buy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I tend to think that getting another refurbished phone produces the less short-term environmental impact. However, it doesn't affect the phone market, which is what we need for a reduced long-term impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone help me to find a rationale to decide when it is better to reuse and when it is better to &quot;dollar vote&quot;?**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that when I say &quot;dollar vote&quot;, I'm referring to buy a product that dramatically changes the market paradigma in a way that is better for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is the &quot;dollar voting&quot; idea just another trick to boots consumption?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_voting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.fairphone.com/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6793" RevisionGUID="af9b397a-ed22-4cfb-ad1f-f9737551ef3b" CreationDate="2018-08-20T22:07:14.917" UserId="5954" Text="When storing ice pops for retail customers, I need to package them in a freezer-safe ,clear wrapping. I would like for it to be compostable, but apparently the compostable cellophane options are not freezer safe, and ruin the flavor of the contents inside. I have looked into polypropylene which is recyclable but not biodegradable.&#xD;&#xA;I've also looked into wax paper, butcher paper, and all of them either seem to absorb too much moisture or cannot protect from freezer burn. Can anyone shed some light on something that may be more sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6793" RevisionGUID="af9b397a-ed22-4cfb-ad1f-f9737551ef3b" CreationDate="2018-08-20T22:07:14.917" UserId="5954" Text="Freezing Ice Pops Sustainably" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6793" RevisionGUID="af9b397a-ed22-4cfb-ad1f-f9737551ef3b" CreationDate="2018-08-20T22:07:14.917" UserId="5954" Text="|food|plastic|storage|plastic-alternatives|compostable-plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6791" RevisionGUID="94bd14f9-5a67-4c8e-818c-2f25c023d07b" CreationDate="2018-08-21T04:37:00.970" UserId="4886" Comment="correct two typos" Text="I'm a big fun of reusing and if I really need to buy something, I buy it used. For example, I've been using second hand or refurbished phones for many years. However, while that is good for the environment (because less phones need to be produced), it doesn't affect the phone market. Phone makers decide which kind of phone to produce based on which phone sells better, and not considering the second hand market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that point of view, the people who can influence phone producers' decisions are those who buy new phones. That's the concept of &quot;[dollar voting][1]&quot;, where your purchase acts like a &quot;vote&quot; for a phone. The phone lines with more &quot;votes&quot; are the ones phone makers will keep producing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under that logic, if the phones growing more in sells were the modular, easy to repair, and ethically sourced ones. The companies would privilege the production of those phones. An example of such phone is the [FairPhone][2] (in fact the one I'm considering to buy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I tend to think that getting another refurbished phone produces the less short-term environmental impact. However, it doesn't affect the phone market, which is what we need for a reduced long-term impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone help me to find a rationale to decide when it is better to reuse and when it is better to &quot;dollar vote&quot;?**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that when I say &quot;dollar vote&quot;, I'm referring to buy a product that dramatically changes the market paradigm in a way that is better for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is the &quot;dollar voting&quot; idea just another trick to boost consumption?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_voting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.fairphone.com/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6794" RevisionGUID="ccac20e7-51cc-43d3-ac19-8dda2bd5c3be" CreationDate="2018-08-21T05:13:49.330" UserId="4886" Text="Interesting question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second-hand market is only relevant to companies that engage in it.  Tractor manufacturers, for example, often have dealerships that sell new, accept trade-ins, and thus sell second hand... so they have the ability to profit not only on the original sale, but subsequent sales as well.  The vast majority of companies, though, fire and forget their products — for these only new sales matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, then, I'd say that **dollar voting** has more of an impact on companies that focus on new sales, and **re-use** has more of an impact on companies that produce long-lived (&quot;durable&quot;) products that can have multiple owners during the course of their lives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that your choice ultimately promotes a ***business model*** — not a product, or a company, or even the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we ignore the specific phone example you used, your fundamental (generic) question might actually be &quot;What business model is best for the environment?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally believe that 'the production of goods that are durable, can be maintained and repaired by the end-user, and that are unlikely to be rendered obsolete any time soon' is in the best, long-term interests of the environment... so I'm happy to pay a premium to acquire such goods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a company has a flashy website, with an attractive &quot;new products&quot; list, but no &quot;spare parts&quot; list, then warning bells immediately sound and I quickly look elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My recommendation would thus be — all other factors being equal — to **buy products (new/used — doesn't matter) that are built by companies that offer long-term support for their products**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maintain &gt; Repair &gt; Re-use &gt; Re-/up-cycle &gt; Replace" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17577" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6794" RevisionGUID="536f4676-10c7-4195-ab59-5a5192d5bc2e" CreationDate="2018-08-21T05:19:11.423" UserId="4886" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]; deleted 1 character in body" Text="Interesting question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second-hand market is only relevant to companies that engage in it.  Tractor manufacturers, for example, often have dealerships that sell new, accept trade-ins, and thus sell second hand... so they have the ability to profit not only on the original sale, but subsequent sales as well.  The vast majority of companies, though, fire and forget their products — for them only new sales matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, then, I'd say that **dollar voting** has more of an impact on companies that focus on new sales, and **re-use** has more of an impact on companies that produce long-lived (&quot;durable&quot;) products that can have multiple owners during the course of their lives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that your choice ultimately promotes a ***business model*** — not a product, or a company, or even the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we ignore the specific phone example you used, your fundamental (generic) question might actually be &quot;What business model is best for the environment?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally believe that 'the production of goods that are durable, can be maintained and repaired by the end-user, and that are unlikely to be rendered obsolete any time soon' is in the best, long-term interests of the environment... so I'm happy to pay a premium to acquire such goods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a company has a flashy website, with an attractive &quot;new products&quot; list, but no &quot;spare parts&quot; list, then warning bells immediately sound and I quickly look elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My recommendation would thus be — all other factors being equal — to **buy products (new/used — doesn't matter) that are built by companies that offer long-term, end-user support for their products**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maintain &gt; Repair &gt; Re-use &gt; Re-/up-cycle &gt; Replace" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17578" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6791" RevisionGUID="ce0e008c-6f81-4cf6-9ef9-10e441b18904" CreationDate="2018-08-21T07:33:06.777" UserId="4886" Comment="a couple more typos caught, and small phrasing improvements" Text="I'm a big fan of reusing and if I really need to buy something, I buy it used. For example, I've been using second hand or refurbished phones for many years. However, while that is good for the environment (because fewer phones need to be produced), it doesn't affect the phone market. Phone makers decide which kind of phone to produce based on which phone sells better, and not considering the second hand market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that point of view, the people who can influence phone producers' decisions are those who buy new phones. That's the concept of &quot;[dollar voting][1]&quot;, where your purchase acts like a &quot;vote&quot; for a phone. The phone lines with more &quot;votes&quot; are the ones phone makers will keep producing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under that logic, if the phones growing more in sales were the modular, easy to repair, and ethically sourced ones, then companies would privilege the production of those phones. An example of such phone is the [FairPhone][2] (in fact the one I'm considering to buy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I tend to think that getting another refurbished phone produces the less short-term environmental impact. However, it doesn't affect the phone market, which is what we need for a reduced long-term impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Can anyone help me to find a rationale to decide when it is better to reuse and when it is better to &quot;dollar vote&quot;?**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that when I say &quot;dollar vote&quot;, I'm referring to buy a product that dramatically changes the market paradigm in a way that is better for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is the &quot;dollar voting&quot; idea just another trick to boost consumption?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_voting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.fairphone.com/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6792" RevisionGUID="a6e239de-a97a-46c5-8cf4-43c0d497f06d" CreationDate="2018-08-21T07:35:52.827" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="There are already aerogels used in residents that are blankets and much more resilient than other legacy products available. They roll out easily and have none of the issues as fiberglass and other insulation materials. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The product is amorphous silica so comparable to sand, completely safe and comes in forms that are also waterproof, offer sound dampening and heat resistance up to 1200°F (650°C). In Europe, they are standardizing the product for its safety and longevity benefits. One of the latest manufacturers uses aerogel.com website, but are sold through global contractors. It’s expensive, but for high-end home or capital investment it's a small price to pay for quality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17580" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="2642" RevisionGUID="e456c6ea-53ac-4887-8d93-fe97f9a1ef2d" CreationDate="2018-08-21T07:36:39.467" UserId="99" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17581" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6793" RevisionGUID="81b0a4e9-3eec-4d0f-8b86-283a341f32b4" CreationDate="2018-08-21T09:01:27.090" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1031828614248054784" />
  <row Id="17582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6794" RevisionGUID="aaf47145-18db-4f10-b33a-37a15fcf3483" CreationDate="2018-08-21T13:02:00.170" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Interesting question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second-hand market is only relevant to companies that engage in it.  Tractor manufacturers, for example, often have dealerships that sell new, accept trade-ins, and thus sell second hand... so they have the ability to profit not only on the original sale, but subsequent sales as well.  The vast majority of companies, though, fire and forget their products — for them only new sales matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, then, I'd say that **dollar voting** has more of an impact on companies that focus on new sales, and **re-use** has more of an impact on companies that produce longer-lived (&quot;durable&quot;) products that can have multiple owners during the course of their lives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that your choice ultimately promotes a ***business model*** — not a product, or a company, or even the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we ignore the specific phone example you used, your fundamental (generic) question might actually be &quot;What business model is best for the environment?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally believe that the production of goods that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - are durable&#xD;&#xA; - can be maintained and repaired by the end-user, and&#xD;&#xA; - are unlikely to be rendered obsolete any time soon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...is in the best, long-term interests of the environment — so I'm happy to pay a premium to acquire such goods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a company has a flashy website, with an attractive &quot;new products&quot; list, but no &quot;spare parts&quot; list, then warning bells immediately sound and I quickly look elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My recommendation would thus be — all other factors being equal — to **buy products (new/used — doesn't matter) that are built by companies that offer long-term, end-user support for their products**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maintain &gt; Repair &gt; Re-use &gt; Re-/up-cycle &gt; Replace" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6794" RevisionGUID="fb3a3bdf-7a70-40f0-824f-accee60b0b56" CreationDate="2018-08-21T13:27:21.147" UserId="4886" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="Interesting question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second-hand market is only relevant to companies that engage in it.  Tractor manufacturers, for example, often have dealerships that sell new, accept trade-ins, and thus sell second hand... so they have the ability to profit not only on the original sale, but subsequent sales as well.  The vast majority of companies, though, fire and forget their products — for them only new sales matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a general rule, then, I'd say that **dollar voting** has more of an impact on companies that focus on new sales, and **re-use** has more of an impact on companies that produce longer-lived (&quot;durable&quot;) products that can have multiple owners during the course of their lives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that your choice ultimately promotes a ***business model*** — not a product, or a company, or even the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we ignore the specific phone example you used, your fundamental (generic) question might actually be &quot;What business model is best for the environment?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally believe that the production of goods that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - are durable&#xD;&#xA; - can be maintained and repaired by the end-user, and&#xD;&#xA; - are unlikely to be rendered obsolete any time soon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...is in the best, long-term interests of the environment — so I'm happy to pay a premium to acquire such goods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a company has a flashy website, with an attractive &quot;new products&quot; list, but no &quot;spare parts&quot; list, then warning bells immediately sound and I quickly look elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My recommendation would thus be — all other factors being equal — to **buy products (new/used — doesn't matter) that are built by companies that offer long-term, end-user support for their products**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maintain &gt; Repair &gt; Re-use &gt; Re-/up-cycle &gt; Replace&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put another way:  I believe that [planned obsolescence][1] is a pervasive, environment-harming business model — one that we should strive to phase out by financially punishing companies that use it (i.e. by not spending money on any of their products — new or used).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6795" RevisionGUID="0d1aadfd-70bd-4662-96cd-d08ab7220e7f" CreationDate="2018-08-21T14:00:55.527" UserId="3293" Text="For everyone to know, the process was developed by and is now known by the name of [Jean Pain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Pain) Composting process. The man used the technique to heat water for house heating and hot water needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]raw materials of Pain's compost heap were saplings, branches, and underbrush&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question also addressed on our prefered network ;)&#xD;&#xA;[Would a Jean Pain heater work well for heating in a USDA Zone 4A](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/41497/would-a-jean-pain-heater-work-well-for-heating-in-a-usda-zone-4a).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6796" RevisionGUID="20b96718-19b2-479d-bce7-c243f9cd622a" CreationDate="2018-08-22T07:04:11.443" UserId="99" Text="I looked into a similar question 2 years ago and came to the conclusion that it's impossible to answer this. The problem is that [Amazon doesn't disclose any information about their carbon footprint](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-reluctant-to-share-carbon-emissions-data/). In fact in 2011 when an investor proposed that Amazon would participate in the Carbon Disclosure Project, the Amazon Board of Directors actively encouraged their shareholders to vote against this proposal and said that they:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; do not believe that preparing an ad hoc climate change report is an efficient use of time and resources (source: [Amazon shareholder meeting PDF](http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9OTA4OTR8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&amp;t=1&amp;))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However it has been suggested that the real reason behind this is that Amazon uses the services of many 3rd party vendors and suppliers, which means that it's rather difficult to&#xD;&#xA;come to a complete carbon footprint calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though Amazon does now disclose some information on renewable energy usage (e.g. see their [Sustainability webpage](https://www.aboutamazon.com/sustainability)) they still do not provide carbon footprint information, at least not to the [CDP](https://www.cdp.net/en/responses?per_page=10&amp;queries%5Bname%5D=Amazon.com+Inc&amp;sort_by=project_year&amp;sort_dir=desc) or on their own website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So best we can do is take a wild guess. Most likely Amazon Prime's rush delivery will cause some extra inefficiency in transportation thus causing extra transport. However given the 140 Amazon warehouses spread out over the US and the large amount of items that need to be transported every day anyway, I suspect that the difference will actually be small. &#xD;&#xA;My guess is that the larger part of the extra carbon footprint caused by Amazon Prime comes from the extra stuff people buy (and don't really need) since Amazon Prime subscribers will think less before ordering something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17589" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="b4cc14c4-4740-49bc-b047-859bf310f2fd" CreationDate="2018-08-22T07:06:48.267" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|carbon-footprint|transport|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6797" RevisionGUID="372c270d-6963-4063-b43d-2d4536176cbd" CreationDate="2018-08-22T16:21:05.783" UserId="5958" Text="I avoid using disposable plates as much as possible, but there are situations where that's not an option, such as at company events. And in those situations, I'm sometimes faced with deciding between a paper plate and a plastic plate. My guess is that plastic plates in the landfill are worse than paper ones, since paper seems more biodegradable... but is this the case? Has the difference in environmental impact been quantified anywhere?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6797" RevisionGUID="372c270d-6963-4063-b43d-2d4536176cbd" CreationDate="2018-08-22T16:21:05.783" UserId="5958" Text="Paper plates vs plastic plates in the landfill" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6797" RevisionGUID="372c270d-6963-4063-b43d-2d4536176cbd" CreationDate="2018-08-22T16:21:05.783" UserId="5958" Text="|plastic|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6798" RevisionGUID="fb580188-7ed0-463c-a630-8f37ac5d1d4b" CreationDate="2018-08-22T18:13:48.680" UserId="1177" Text="If I recycle the waste heat emitted by a Mcdonald's, can a well-placed Mcdonald's take the place of a community heating boiler?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6798" RevisionGUID="fb580188-7ed0-463c-a630-8f37ac5d1d4b" CreationDate="2018-08-22T18:13:48.680" UserId="1177" Text="How many Kilowatt hours of heat does a 4000 sq-feet McDonalds emit on a typical day?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6798" RevisionGUID="fb580188-7ed0-463c-a630-8f37ac5d1d4b" CreationDate="2018-08-22T18:13:48.680" UserId="1177" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6797" RevisionGUID="e6c0145a-05f8-40bb-995c-a7848c58421f" CreationDate="2018-08-22T20:27:43.240" UserId="5958" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="I avoid using disposable plates as much as possible, but there are situations where that's not an option, such as at company events. And in those situations, I'm sometimes faced with deciding between a paper plate and a plastic plate. My guess is that plastic plates in the landfill are worse than paper ones, since paper seems more biodegradable... but is this the case? Has the difference in environmental impact been quantified anywhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The plate that gets used will go into the trash&#xD;&#xA; - All leftover plates that don't get used at the event do not go into the trash" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6799" RevisionGUID="e7627af2-a4e5-43ba-bb65-2242e0deaee1" CreationDate="2018-08-22T21:08:21.053" UserId="5959" Text="I found a face scrub that states Polyacrylamide as an ingredient. Should I avoid it because Polyacrylamide is used to make the microbeads?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17598" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6799" RevisionGUID="e7627af2-a4e5-43ba-bb65-2242e0deaee1" CreationDate="2018-08-22T21:08:21.053" UserId="5959" Text="Is Polyacrylamide a material used to make microbeads?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17599" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6799" RevisionGUID="e7627af2-a4e5-43ba-bb65-2242e0deaee1" CreationDate="2018-08-22T21:08:21.053" UserId="5959" Text="|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6800" RevisionGUID="cafcb5de-6c5f-41fa-9fc2-deaff0501a19" CreationDate="2018-08-22T22:03:42.433" UserId="3379" Text="**No, polyacrylamide is not used to make plastic microbeads.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyacrylamide), polyacrylamide &quot;is highly water-absorbent, forming a soft gel when hydrated.&quot; This property makes it useful for several functions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Manufacture of soft contact lenses&#xD;&#xA; - As a thickener and suspending agent&#xD;&#xA; - As a filler in facial cosmetic surgery&#xD;&#xA; - As a soil conditioner to increase soil porosity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When polyacrylamide breaks down (as a result of mechanical, thermal, or chemical action), the result is typically ammonia and some form of carboxylic acid -- both of which are naturally occurring substances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some concern that commercially available polyacrylamide may contain, or break down into, the neurotoxin acrylamide. However it is believed that this is either highly unlikely, or the resulting quantities are too small to cause adverse health effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6800" RevisionGUID="987a1eec-1293-4c31-9899-5a9198e13dc4" CreationDate="2018-08-22T22:24:28.673" UserId="3379" Comment="added definition of microbeads" Text="## No, polyacrylamide is not used to make plastic microbeads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyacrylamide), polyacrylamide &quot;is highly water-absorbent, forming a soft gel when hydrated.&quot; This property makes it useful for several functions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Manufacture of soft contact lenses&#xD;&#xA; - As a thickener and suspending agent&#xD;&#xA; - As a filler in facial cosmetic surgery&#xD;&#xA; - As a soil conditioner to increase soil porosity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When polyacrylamide breaks down (as a result of mechanical, thermal, or chemical action), the result is typically ammonia and some form of carboxylic acid -- both of which are naturally occurring substances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some concern that commercially available polyacrylamide may contain, or break down into, the neurotoxin acrylamide. However it is believed that this is either highly unlikely, or the resulting quantities are too small to cause adverse health effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## To avoid microbeads, look for these ingredients&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the 5 Gyres Institute, a research and advocacy group focused on policy changes to clean up the oceans, if you want to avoid products with microbeads, [this is what you should check for](https://www.5gyres.org/microbeads/): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - polyethylene&#xD;&#xA; - polypropylene&#xD;&#xA; - polylactic acid (PLA)&#xD;&#xA; - polystyrene&#xD;&#xA; - polyethylene terephthalate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6800" RevisionGUID="9307dea5-d8b3-490e-88e7-d7e9cc1a4de3" CreationDate="2018-08-22T23:27:53.163" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="## No, polyacrylamide is not used to make plastic microbeads&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyacrylamide), polyacrylamide &quot;is highly water-absorbent, forming a soft gel when hydrated.&quot; This property makes it useful for several functions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Manufacture of soft contact lenses&#xD;&#xA; - As a thickener and suspending agent&#xD;&#xA; - As a filler in facial cosmetic surgery&#xD;&#xA; - As a soil conditioner to increase soil porosity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When polyacrylamide breaks down (as a result of mechanical, thermal, or chemical action), the result is typically ammonia and some form of carboxylic acid -- both of which are naturally occurring substances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some concern that commercially available polyacrylamide may contain, or break down into, the neurotoxin acrylamide. However it is believed that this is either highly unlikely, or the resulting quantities are too small to cause adverse health effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## To avoid microbeads, avoid these ingredients&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the 5 Gyres Institute, a research and advocacy group focused on policy changes to clean up the oceans, if you want to avoid products with microbeads, [this is what you should check for](https://www.5gyres.org/microbeads/): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - polyethylene&#xD;&#xA; - polypropylene&#xD;&#xA; - polylactic acid (PLA)&#xD;&#xA; - polystyrene&#xD;&#xA; - polyethylene terephthalate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17603" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6799" RevisionGUID="2e0df88c-1955-40fb-a7d8-41e9d2cb5a5c" CreationDate="2018-08-23T07:47:07.197" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|plastic|personal-hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17604" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6741" RevisionGUID="9bc5685b-4ec8-4af3-b3da-74c030144bfc" CreationDate="2018-08-23T08:04:45.383" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags; edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|cooking|manufacturing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6797" RevisionGUID="13501859-f809-45fb-bb89-ca07d25bbe64" CreationDate="2018-08-23T13:55:28.340" UserId="5958" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="I avoid using disposable plates as much as possible, but there are situations where that's not an option, such as at company events. And in those situations, I'm sometimes faced with deciding between a paper plate and a plastic plate. My guess is that plastic plates in the landfill are worse than paper ones, since paper seems more biodegradable... but is this the case? Has the difference in environmental impact been quantified anywhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Theses are regular plastic plates. Not biodegradable.&#xD;&#xA; - The plate that gets used will go into the trash&#xD;&#xA; - All leftover plates that don't get used at the event do not go into the trash" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17608" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6797" RevisionGUID="e4a50332-478b-408f-b902-cbb8a7c744eb" CreationDate="2018-08-23T15:01:32.987" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1032644012291833856" />
  <row Id="17609" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="6f2c9259-2d27-4914-a036-22dccb17d621" CreationDate="2018-08-23T16:00:11.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17615" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="cdaddf1b-da8f-4173-b41d-b4b54e5a9a5f" CreationDate="2018-08-24T14:44:27.267" UserId="400" Comment="Added lots." Text="I suggest that you question some of your assumptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off-grid is HARD, and generally isn't worth it unless you are a long ways from the power lines.  If you are looking at one acre, you probably aren't that far away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grid connected solar,with surplus feeding the grid makes much more sense economically, and can be worth doing even if you only get credit on your bill for the surplus.  (In some areas they have to buy the power back at the maximum price they are paying anyone.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building your own house.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Start with a trailer or RV (caravan, I think you call them)  You can often get these dirt cheap used, and it gives you a place that is warm and dry while building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Consider leichtlehm (light straw) Think of packing straw into forms that has been dampened with a clay/water slurry.  It's finished with a coat of plaster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advantages:  You start by building a pole frame or timber frame house.  YOu get the roof on first.  NOW you have a dry place to work -- at least when the wind isn't blowing.  It goes up reasonably fast and the weights are fairly easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that leichtlehm is the basic technique used in Tudor times -- hence the dark beams with white fill, so if you get good at it, you may be able to work as a restorer.  Flip that around:  Work for a restorer, to learn how to do it right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Straw bale construction is also viable.  No frame needed for a single story building.  Typical building envelope costs are on par to slightly higher than convention construction, but since more of it is doable yourself, you can pay with sweat instead of cash. Strawbale can also be done as infill on a pole barn house, which is worth doing if you have a rainy climate, or are skeptical about getting the roof on in a single dry season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With any alternative building system, get the local building people on side first -- before you buy the land.  Some are much more open to innovation than others.  You may find that by being in another jurisdiction you have less hidebound building inspector.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 acre isn't really enough for independence. You may find a better deal 15 minutes further from civilization. The usual trade off is commute time versus land size.  Here, (Alberta, Canada) 45 minutes is the magic number.  We bought 80 acres and 2500 square feet for the half of what we'd have paid for a similar size house on a fractional acre lot in Edmonton.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get your septic in early.  You can run the caravan's waste to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spend time designing your house to fit your climate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overbuild the air circulation system.  A house that depends mostly on solar gain for heating/ open windows for cooling is going to have heat or coolth in the wrong places a lot of the time.  Having larger ducts, and bigger fans allows you to move warmth where it's needed, or bring a flood of cool air in during the night.  Open concept living spaces can just use a ceiling fan -- about 12 watts on slow speed.  Bedrooms can be considerably chillier than main living rooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are going off grid or near off grid, there are other changes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plan for multiple electrical systems.  Lots of caravan equipment is designed to work on 24v DC.  Anything you can use straight off the battery avoids the inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You aren't going to get it right the first time, so make ALL your utilities accessible.  Put wiring in raceways disguised as chair rails.  Where surface mount wiring isn't workable, put in conduit so 6 years from now you can fish another wire pair to the living room.  Wall plumbing has a closet on the other side with a removable panel.  Drains are accessible their full length, and have lots of cleanout ports.  Keep the grey water separate from the black water.  You can use the greywater in the garden, or get two uses once as grey, once as black.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Keep the roof simple.  Simple roofs (No valleys) are less likely to leak, and have simpler setups for collecting rain water.  A metal roof puts less junk than a asphalt shingle roof into your water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Make the roof bigger than the house.  Roof is fairly cheap, especially if it's simple.  It keeps water off the walls, and provides storage for wood, tools, empty canning jars.  It's also a place for the kids when it's raining&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plan your house for using wood/peat for heat in colder months.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do your homework.  Become the local expert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6802" RevisionGUID="5bd748f9-e5c9-4669-9f71-1ea479df62b8" CreationDate="2018-08-24T15:19:00.390" UserId="5963" Text="The largest predictor of sustainable consumption is poverty. The diverse rich all consume far more resources. Because there is a robust relationship between income and health, and even between income and happiness, I would expect that across large populations the happiest are behaving less sustainably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3322505/Environment-damage-of-rich-countries-on-poor.html&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://qz.com/1211957/how-much-money-do-people-need-to-be-happy/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6802" RevisionGUID="db61cec7-1bc6-4855-9bd1-ec0984b9c0b1" CreationDate="2018-08-24T16:01:01.157" UserId="5963" Comment="added link summaries" Text="The largest predictor of sustainable consumption is poverty. The diverse rich all consume far more resources. Because there is a robust relationship between income and health, and even between income and happiness, I would expect that across large populations the happiest are behaving less sustainably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The environmental behavior of rich countries affects poor countries much more than the reverse, even given the much lower population of rich countries:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3322505/Environment-damage-of-rich-countries-on-poor.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Happiness increases linearly with income, and then plateaus&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://qz.com/1211957/how-much-money-do-people-need-to-be-happy/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6803" RevisionGUID="d855d8fa-b8b2-4d0a-812e-917dbcb30be4" CreationDate="2018-08-24T16:25:53.910" UserId="400" Text="This is not an answer, but rather my attempt at a road map of what you need to know to answer your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much depends on externalities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood is an awfully cheap resource.  You plant trees, and mostly ignore the land for 20 to 80 years depending on what you want.  (Not quite true:  It is usually worth your while to thin about 1/4 of the way through.  High value hardwood plywood peeler logs are worth trimming the lower branches to 16 feet once the tree is 24 feet tall.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bamboo grows fast, but due to the nodes, I expect that processing it into plywood is more difficult.  You need to be able to compare square meters of plywood per hectare per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plywood is a specialized product.  There is good reason that most plywood in house construction is now done with oriented strand board -- it's easier to make, and uses up more of the tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This in turn means that the relative merits are going to depend on alternate uses for the parts of the tree not used to make the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both wood and bamboo use nutrients from the land.  Most softwoods get adequate nitrogen from the air (NOx from lightning, nitrogen fixing plants) but several cycles of forestry and harvest can deplete soils of other elements.  Good forestry ideally removes only the usable wood, and leaves the bark, branches, leaves/needles.  In some cases this promotes pests, and can require some degree of processing (burning, burying, pesticides...) to complete the cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another factor is transport.  If it fits into a sea can, transport is very low cost on the ocean.  But getting from the forest to the plywood plant and from the port to the user can be expensive.  These costs however are not external, and will be built into the price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another non-external cost is the glue to hold it together.  Off hand I don't know why it would be different, but given the variety used in ordinary plywood, it wouldn't surprise me to find that bamboo has different requirements.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Glues however have their on external costs.  In production many can produce some pretty ugly byproducts.  After production some can outgas undelightful chemicals for some time.  (Formaldehyde being one...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you have a list of external costs, you need to put some kind of measure on them.  That alone is non-trivial. (How does a pound of formaldehyde released over the first 10 years post process compare to 30% more waste?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17621" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="c6f9a008-3676-4588-9982-63d207ba5372" CreationDate="2018-08-25T12:00:50.017" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17628" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1249" RevisionGUID="29ce366b-e01f-43de-9f8c-b1464e28fa0a" CreationDate="2018-08-27T13:46:03.103" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed typos" Text="What is the most efficient way to deal with electronic waste like old computers, TVs, etc?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically, I have some old CDs and DVDs. I don't want to just dump them. What should I do with these old CDs, DVDs, and ancient floppy disks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17629" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="1249" RevisionGUID="29ce366b-e01f-43de-9f8c-b1464e28fa0a" CreationDate="2018-08-27T13:46:03.103" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed typos" Text="What is the most efficient way to deal with electronic waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17638" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6791" RevisionGUID="d44c8d9c-c40e-46ac-85fa-c80ab11fee46" CreationDate="2018-08-30T09:01:25.103" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1035090097543241728" />
  <row Id="17639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6807" RevisionGUID="4a5e2161-f4ad-458a-8fe9-20307403f988" CreationDate="2018-08-30T19:43:58.407" UserId="5971" Text="Propane releases 59 kg CO2/GJ, which works out to ~0.06 g/BTU.&#xD;&#xA;On a 70000 BTU grill, that's 4000 g, or 4 kg, or 8.8 lbs CO2 per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas releases 49 kg CO2/GJ, or about ~0.05 g/BTU, or 3500 g, or 7.7 lbs CO2 per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's are a lot of variation in types of charcoal due to different binders used, but consensus it's that about double natural gas. 15 lbs CO2/hour. On the other hand, charcoal can be sustainably harvested, if it's made from dead wood. If we're taking wood that was decaying anyway and accelerating that decay, it could be carbon neutral or even positive, if we prevent decay to methane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which is really most sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric grills, of course, win hands down. The Weber Q2400 electric grill gets rave reviews. Thanks to more efficient heating, the 1500 W or 5400 Btu/hr Q2400 can grill a steak as quickly as a propane barbeque of similar size. Electrical heating is efficient and eliminates the cost of buying consumables. It also means you're not cooking your food in the presence of carcinogenic gases, which the combustion byproducts of most fuels are. When electricity comes from dirty fuel sources, there are pollution controls and heat recovery at an industrial scale that can't exist on personal equipment. Miss the smoky flavor? Add some liquid smoke or a smoky barbeque sauce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a portable electric grill isn't enough power (and their output is limited by 120V 15A circuits), then look at 240V built-in grills like the 3 kW Kenyon Texan." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6807" RevisionGUID="cd6ed741-f3d7-4888-86f6-3dc2aae513f2" CreationDate="2018-08-31T08:11:43.317" UserId="5971" Comment="a few clarifications" Text="Propane releases 59 kg CO2/GJ, which works out to ~0.06 g/BTU.&#xD;&#xA;On a 70000 BTU grill, that's 4000 g, or 4 kg, or 8.8 lbs CO2 per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas releases 49 kg CO2/GJ, or about ~0.05 g/BTU, or 3500 g, or 7.7 lbs CO2 per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's are a lot of variation in types of charcoal due to different binders used, but consensus it's that about double natural gas. 15 lbs CO2/hour. On the other hand, charcoal can be sustainably harvested, if it's made from dead wood. If we're taking wood that was decaying anyway and accelerating that decay, it could be carbon neutral or effectively carbon negative (if harvesting prevents decay to methane).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which is really most sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric grills, of course, win hands down. The Weber Q2400 electric grill gets rave reviews. Thanks to more efficient heating, the 1500 W or 5400 Btu/hr Q2400 can grill a steak as quickly as a propane barbeque of similar size. Electrical heating is efficient and eliminates the cost of buying consumables. It also means you're not cooking your food in the presence of carcinogenic gases, which the combustion byproducts of most fuels are. Even when the electricity comes from dirty fuel sources, there are pollution controls and heat recovery in power plants at an industrial scale that can't exist on consumer equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Miss the smoky flavor? Add some liquid smoke or a smoky barbeque sauce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a portable electric grill isn't enough power (and their output is limited by 120V 15A circuits), then look at 240V built-in grills like the 3 kW Kenyon Texan." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5704" RevisionGUID="244fce09-00e9-489a-8947-233109f11b2c" CreationDate="2018-08-31T12:58:36.877" UserId="400" Comment="Added downsides of off grid; formatting" Text="I suggest that you question some of your assumptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Difficulties of off-grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off-grid is HARD, and generally isn't worth it unless you are a long ways from the power lines.  If you are looking at one acre, you probably aren't that far away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at what goes into off grid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grid connected solar means you size your PV to provide about as much power per year as you use.  Off grid means you size it provide enough power to run essentials during the darkest, coldest time of the year.  At my latitude and climate (Central Alberta -- about equivalent to Edinburgh) that worked out to be between 2 and 2.5 times the year round grid.  For me, on a small farm I needed 20 KW installed capacity.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For off grid, you need to store this.  Current thinking is you need to store 5 days power, but you really need to model this with your climate, and determine how many 'brown out' or 'fire up the generator' days per year you will tolerate.  Battery tech is getting better and cheaper, but for me I figured I needed to store 80 kWh.  PV arrays need to be kept clean.  It's amazing how much power a big blob of seagull poop costs you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factor your batteries into it.  Lead acid typically need to be replaced every 3-5 years, assuming an average of 30% discharge on a daily cycle. This can be increased with appropriate battery maintenance.  Good chargers, inverters, and battery monitors.  A controlled environment to keep them in.  (Can't just be stuffed in a corner of the garage.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You lose a fair bit of energy doing the DC-&gt;Battery Charger -&gt; Inverter, so there is a win in using DC for your big power loads, and having smart enough controllers that you can tap power directly off the charger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grid connected solar,with surplus feeding the grid makes much more sense economically, and can be worth doing even if you only get credit on your bill for the surplus.  (In some areas they have to buy the power back at the maximum price they are paying anyone.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, most 1 acre properties would be on city water.  Going off grid for water either means being a fanatic about rain collection, or having a well or spring or creek, or trucking it in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Heat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I figure you can get 1 cord of firewood per acre of woods sustainably.  I've done it here for 20 years and the woods look pretty much like they always have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good house design will reduce your heating needs, and in much of Great Britain may eliminate space heating. Domestic hot water may still be an issue. The key for that is large storage tanks to match the time of hot water generation to times of use.  Where a 30 gallon (120 liter) tank is suitable for most households that use electric or gas heaters, if you are heating hot water with the sun, I'd suggest putting in at least 200 gallons.    If you are grid connected it may make more sense to have a smaller electric tank, and more PV cells. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can truck in propane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Sewage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are various ways to dispose of waste, but here you can't use a septic field on properties under 10 acres.  The closest you can come to off grid is to use composting toilets, reuse grey water in the garden, and try to reduce what goes into the pump out tank.  I doubt you will be able to get permits to build without some provision for sewage disposal.  Here, composting toilets aren't popular with building inspectors, and grey water usage is illegal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're connected to the world net.  Sure you can use your phone's data plan, but check how much data you use per month.  For lots of us a fixed connection is worth it.  We're connected via WiLAN to the world.  Setting up that connection was pricey because we needed a 70 foot tower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Building your own house.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Start with a trailer or RV (caravan, I think you call them)  You can often get these dirt cheap used, and it gives you a place that is warm and dry while building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Consider leichtlehm (light straw) Think of packing straw into forms that has been dampened with a clay/water slurry.  It's finished with a coat of plaster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Advantages:  You start by building a pole frame or timber frame house.  YOu get the roof on first.  NOW you have a dry place to work -- at least when the wind isn't blowing.  It goes up reasonably fast and the weights are fairly easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that leichtlehm is the basic technique used in Tudor times -- hence the dark beams with white fill, so if you get good at it, you may be able to work as a restorer.  Flip that around:  Work for a restorer, to learn how to do it right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Straw bale construction is also viable.  No frame needed for a single story building.  Typical building envelope costs are on par to slightly higher than convention construction, but since more of it is doable yourself, you can pay with sweat instead of cash. Strawbale can also be done as infill on a pole barn house, which is worth doing if you have a rainy climate, or are skeptical about getting the roof on in a single dry season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cob is suitable for England's climate.  A mix of mud and straw, it insulates better than stone, but not by a lot.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With any alternative building system, get the local building people on side first -- before you buy the land.  Some are much more open to innovation than others.  You may find that by being in another jurisdiction you have less hidebound building inspector.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 acre isn't really enough for food independence.  Raising enough food is difficult, and your neighbours may object to chickens and pigs.  You may find a better deal 15 minutes further from civilization. The usual trade off is commute time versus land size.  Here, (Alberta, Canada) 45 minutes is the magic number.  We bought 80 acres and 2500 square feet for the half of what we'd have paid for a similar size house on a fractional acre lot in Edmonton.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get your septic in early.  You can run the caravan's waste to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spend time designing your house to fit your climate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overbuild the air circulation system.  A house that depends mostly on wood heater and/or solar gain for heating/ open windows for cooling is going to have heat or coolth in the wrong places a lot of the time.  Having larger ducts, and bigger fans allows you to move warmth where it's needed, or bring a flood of cool air in during the night.  Open concept living spaces can just use a ceiling fan -- about 12 watts on slow speed.  Bedrooms can be considerably chillier than main living rooms.  Monitor humidity though.  High humidity can lead to mildew.  Look at mildew resistant paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are going off grid or near off grid, there are other changes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plan for multiple electrical systems.  Lots of caravan equipment is designed to work on 24v DC.  Anything you can use straight off the battery avoids the inverter.  In some cases you can run it directly from the PV cells, but this requires some smart circuitry.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You aren't going to get it right the first time, so make ALL your utilities accessible.  Put wiring in raceways disguised as chair rails.  Where surface mount wiring isn't workable, put in conduit so 6 years from now you can fish another wire pair to the living room.  Wall plumbing has a closet on the other side with a removable panel.  Drains are accessible their full length, and have lots of cleanout ports.  Keep the grey water separate from the black water.  You can use the greywater in the garden, or get two uses once as grey, once as black.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Keep the roof simple.  Simple roofs (No valleys) are less likely to leak, and have simpler setups for collecting rain water.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A metal roof puts less junk than a asphalt shingle roof into your water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Make the roof bigger than the house.  Roof is fairly cheap, especially if it's simple.  It keeps water off the walls, and provides storage for wood, tools, empty canning jars.  It's also a place for the kids when it's raining.  Lots of farm jobs are more pleasant if you can be outside, but dry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plan your house for using wood/peat for heat in colder months.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do your homework.  Become the local expert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6808" RevisionGUID="da5d7ae8-3d44-4b71-8633-15e7e70db245" CreationDate="2018-08-31T13:10:34.947" UserId="400" Text="The bulk of the waste heat in a fast food joint ends up either warming air, or evaporating water.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grills and fryers always have a vent above them, drawing air at a considerable rate. The one industrial kitchen I worked in had a 3 HP fan over the stove, grill and fryer.  This ventilation is necessary to keep the grease and smoke from cooking from filling the kitchen with fog, and to keep from cooking the cooks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ours had fire detectors set at 140 F -- 60 C.  If you got that hot, everything was covered in a foot of foam, and you were closed down until everything was cleaned up.  Never saw it happen.  So I assume that temps in the hood were well below that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to answer your question.  Wild A** Guesses here:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Industrial fryer 20 kW.  Probably have 4 units, with one being in use the entire open time, and the other 3 having various amounts of time depending on traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Grill  20 kW each.  Probably 2 of them in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Heated food tables.  2 kW per shelf?  4 shelves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Walk in cooler and freezer  10 kW?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing they would have a 250 kW service, and would average somewhere between 70 KW and 150 kW for open times.  If that's 18 hours a day at 100 kW that would be 1800 kWh/day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6809" RevisionGUID="1ac89350-9cd0-4757-b639-fa8a73b73475" CreationDate="2018-08-31T13:32:24.927" UserId="400" Text="If the plates are going to a landfill it doesn't matter.  Recently in Los Angeles they had reason to dig in a landfill, and found that 50 year old newspapers were still readable.  In the anaerobic conditions in a landfill decomposition is nil.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the decision of paper vs plastic needs to be made for other reasons:  Look at the energy used to make them, ship them, resources used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another consideration is 're-usable plastic' I've seen an upsurge here for 'party plates'  They are thin shiny plastic, fairly stiff that will accept a few dozen washings.  Too light for the dishwasher though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are the coordinator of such events, you can also rent plates.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6810" RevisionGUID="a9dba9c7-6467-4ca9-bf63-9b9f0773ecd1" CreationDate="2018-08-31T13:39:13.013" UserId="400" Text="Weed control is easier in greenhouses, so herbicides aren't used much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the higher humidity levels and more constant temperatures make both insect and fungi much larger pests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The expense of operating a greenhouse also pushes to maximize production per square foot, so the use of fertilizers is increased.  I would expect more pesticide use per tonne of product in greenhouse production." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6811" RevisionGUID="6d9b802b-577c-493b-80ab-26f2a6ae55bf" CreationDate="2018-08-31T15:00:29.030" UserId="5973" Text="what are crisp packets made from, specifically, tyrrells or walkers. I am doing a school project on single use plastic crisp packets. I am finding it difficult to find infomation online. please help" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17646" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6811" RevisionGUID="6d9b802b-577c-493b-80ab-26f2a6ae55bf" CreationDate="2018-08-31T15:00:29.030" UserId="5973" Text="what are crisp packets made from, specifically, tyrrells or walkers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17647" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6811" RevisionGUID="6d9b802b-577c-493b-80ab-26f2a6ae55bf" CreationDate="2018-08-31T15:00:29.030" UserId="5973" Text="|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17648" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6788" RevisionGUID="95f90066-0665-4a5a-9624-bd172e41424a" CreationDate="2018-08-31T15:00:58.673" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1035542971385622531" />
  <row Id="17649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6812" RevisionGUID="c34dae0a-f735-42e7-8fa3-37a6cedc8868" CreationDate="2018-08-31T17:26:44.783" UserId="4586" Text="I have  the same problem and for months bought glass bottled water which was way to expensive and not really the ideal either! Recently I bought a decent filter [enter link description here][1] even though it was a bit costly, I am sure it purifies my water , and I can take it anywhere with me if I move house !&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://propur.uk/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6812" RevisionGUID="778353ce-9115-4062-9c7b-e96eb42a53bc" CreationDate="2018-08-31T18:54:12.717" UserId="99" Comment="link removed because it looks like spam" Text="I have  the same problem and for months bought glass bottled water which was way to expensive and not really the ideal either! Recently I bought a decent filter even though it was a bit costly, I am sure it purifies my water , and I can take it anywhere with me if I move house !" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6813" RevisionGUID="3e9aceae-bd8e-4608-9d1b-614e8ad7ef3a" CreationDate="2018-08-31T19:03:33.363" UserId="99" Text="I'm not familiar with the brands you name (they don't sell those where I live), but crisps bags are most commonly made from a combination of aluminium and one or more plastics like [polypropylene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polypropylene) and [low-density polyethylene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene).&#xD;&#xA;This is also known as aluminium-plastic laminate, or [metalized film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallised_film)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many crisps bags have a thin aluminium inside-layer to keep light, oxygen and moisture out and thus increase the shelf life of the crisps.&#xD;&#xA;Aluminium tears quickly, so that's why the outside is usually made of one or more plastic layer. Unfortunately the plastic and aluminium are &#xD;&#xA;hard to separate and since the amount of used aluminium is so small, most recycling companies do not recycle crisps bags as it's not worthwhile economically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also crisps bags that consists of multiple layers of plastic (so no aluminium), but they are much less common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW [this website](https://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/Article/2013/06/06/Sustainable-packaging-materials-for-snacks) says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is a growing trend among snack producers to add a Matte finish to these metalized polypropylene films. UK Premium snack brand Tyrell’s Crisps for example uses a Matte surface to create its nostalgic branding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the article is from 2013 and I'm not sure if Tyrell's crisps packaging has changed since then." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6811" RevisionGUID="85723675-ccf4-44f4-901c-698122f22d72" CreationDate="2018-08-31T19:07:04.487" UserId="99" Comment="added recycling tag to make the question more on-topic, improved capitalization" Text="What are crisp packets made from, specifically Tyrrells or Walkers. I am doing a school project on single use plastic crisp packets. I am finding it difficult to find information online." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17653" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6811" RevisionGUID="85723675-ccf4-44f4-901c-698122f22d72" CreationDate="2018-08-31T19:07:04.487" UserId="99" Comment="added recycling tag to make the question more on-topic, improved capitalization" Text="What are crisp packets made from?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17654" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6811" RevisionGUID="85723675-ccf4-44f4-901c-698122f22d72" CreationDate="2018-08-31T19:07:04.487" UserId="99" Comment="added recycling tag to make the question more on-topic, improved capitalization" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6813" RevisionGUID="64456da4-2e49-4b43-902f-f4b1df7a3e14" CreationDate="2018-08-31T19:09:33.463" UserId="99" Comment="added 65 characters in body" Text="I'm not familiar with the brands you name (they don't sell those where I live), but crisps bags are most commonly made from a combination of aluminium and one or more plastics like [polypropylene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polypropylene) and [low-density polyethylene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene).&#xD;&#xA;This is also known as aluminium-plastic laminate, or [metalized film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallised_film)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many crisps bags have a thin aluminium inside-layer to keep light, oxygen and moisture out and thus increase the shelf life of the crisps.&#xD;&#xA;Aluminium tears quickly, so that's why the outside is usually made of one or more plastic layer. Unfortunately the plastic and aluminium are &#xD;&#xA;hard to separate and since the amount of used aluminium is so small, most recycling companies do not recycle crisps bags as it's not worthwhile economically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also crisps bags that consists of multiple layers of plastic (so no aluminium), but they are much less common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW [this website](https://www.bakeryandsnacks.com/Article/2013/06/06/Sustainable-packaging-materials-for-snacks) says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is a growing trend among snack producers to add a Matte finish to these metalized polypropylene films. UK Premium snack brand Tyrell’s Crisps for example uses a Matte surface to create its nostalgic branding&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggests that Tyrells crisps also have a metalized polypropylene film. However the article is from 2013 and I'm not sure if their packaging has changed since then." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6814" RevisionGUID="69712074-3f4f-4ec6-8685-bc714ef23d11" CreationDate="2018-09-01T02:00:16.913" UserId="400" Text="Check this out:  http://www.strawbalecentral.com/cinva/sunnyjohn.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a 'mouldering toilet'  It composts, but slowly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downsides:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bulky:  You need room to move a drum in and out under the seat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Needs to be kept warm to work. (True of most non sewage toilets)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upsides: Simple, stink free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6815" RevisionGUID="44ff3cce-983d-46ff-a176-77ba704e8d6c" CreationDate="2018-09-01T02:04:01.513" UserId="400" Text="Locally some grocers buy whole cheeses and cut them onsite.  The usual wrap is one or more layers of cling film.  I don't think you could wash a reusable container for the price of a couple square feet of cling wrap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Bring Your Own Container has it's own costs:  You need to ask someone to pick up your chunk and put it your container.  More time, and time = money...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6816" RevisionGUID="a3c8b44b-d689-49ea-a530-c53f7f7fbe86" CreationDate="2018-09-01T02:13:57.070" UserId="400" Text="If you can, using a covered container in a microwave generally has the highest efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toaster oven:  small counter top appliance running off &lt; 15A at 110v supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oven:  larger appliance with multiple cubic foot capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stove: appliance with one or more hot plates on top.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In North America most of the time the stove and the oven are a single appliance, usually on a 30A, 220v (6 kVA) breaker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stove/Ovens also come in gas versions.  These are almost always much more efficient than anything electic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For electric oven vs toaster oven, it mostly depends on how long the cook cycle is.  Our oven takes half a forever to get to temp, but, once there stays hot for hours after turning it off.  It's great for cooking turkeys, baked beans....Short cooking items (fish fillets, spring rolls) are more efficient in the toaster oven." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6817" RevisionGUID="0b379f00-2685-4475-88df-80ab3ceb94f1" CreationDate="2018-09-03T14:44:27.213" UserId="5963" Text="The largest issue with answering this question is that it depends heavily on other factors, some of which are quite hard to predict. Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity , which measures how efficient nations are at powering their needs. Consider all environmental impacts (not just energy &amp; climate change), this is a popular formula: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This formula describes the impact of human activity on the environment as the product of three factors: Population, Affluence, and Technology.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; I = P × A × T    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also notice that even when people or countries become more efficient, that doesn't necessarily reduce damage, since use may then rise:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you made assumptions for all of these factors and their dependencies and interactions, as well as unspecified behaviors (e.g., diet) then one could make a rough estimate of the carrying capacity of the Earth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6818" RevisionGUID="8599231a-1b27-4b31-bb2b-97b67e7f0a7b" CreationDate="2018-09-03T17:30:19.203" UserId="400" Text="Given the variability of biowaste available to the home owner, I suspect that such a machine isn't practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Workaround 1:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Develop a means to use a conventional pellet feeder in a common wood heater.  This would allow you to use pellets when you are going to be away longer than the normal run time of the stove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This can be of two forms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Always present.  The unit feeds into a corner of the wood heater, so that you can set it up ahead of time, and it starts to feed when the stove temp drops below a certain point.  For this it needs some form of ignition system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Quick conversion.  You decide when the stove is cold whether it's going to next run on a load of wood or a load of pellets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Workaround 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at your biowaste and see if you can find other ways to burn it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Burn directly.  Wood chips and sawdust both will burn fine with a grate, and forced air.  Downdraft stoves tend to do better at this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Form into shapes other than pellets.  Fusing is difficult.  May have to use some cheap adhesive.  I'd give first look at sodium/potassium silicates for this.  (Waterglass) they are cheap and environmentally benign.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  Insurance companies take a dim view of wood heat at the best of times.  You are going to have troubles with any DIY uncertified unit.  Consider generating heat in an external, uninsured building, and moving heat as hot water to your house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This opens a third possibility of having rapid very hot fires used to heat a large tank of water, which in turn can be circulated to the house as needed.  Insulate the tank well, and you have a system where you make a fire once every two weeks for domestic hot water in the summer, and every day during a February cold snap." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6819" RevisionGUID="03387c8b-9108-4277-834b-9870f3b23fc2" CreationDate="2018-09-03T17:42:14.817" UserId="400" Text="Not having room to store spent batteries sounds implausible.  This requires a value of 'tiny' that implies you don't store a day's food, have only one change of clothes, and roll up the tatami mats each morning so you have room to dress.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Figure out a way to cache spent batteries until you get a worthwhile number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A can on top of the fridge, or on a bookcase that isn't stuffed yet.&#xD;&#xA;* A bag hung on a doorknob on the back side of a closet door.&#xD;&#xA;* A new shelf added just below ceiling level for containers that don't get accessed very often&#xD;&#xA;* In the same box where you keep new batteries.  Mark the spent ones with a felt tip.&#xD;&#xA;* A container with lid that you keep in the car where you accumulate the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in an apartment set up spot in the laundry facility and collect not just yours, but all the batteries for the building" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6711" RevisionGUID="fb8d5261-1ecf-496f-a817-9ab02d81f182" CreationDate="2018-09-03T17:50:36.553" UserId="400" Comment="Made answer more general" Text="Good answer elsewhere that points out that Wyoming generates and exports a lot of coal source power, which badly skews the data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's just look at the more general question:  Why does a Wyoming resident USE more energy than someone in a more urban setting?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a bunch of possibilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Long cold winters.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A high plains winter is no joke.  Much of Wyoming still has several FEET on snow in mid May. This creates a high demand for heating fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long winters also mean that 'carbon friendly' commuting (bike, walk, scooter, motorbike) has a shorter season, and that due to that shorter season is chosen by fewer people even when it is an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* High elevation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much of Wyoming is close to 7000' Unless you adjust your engine to run leaner, you will tend to use too much fuel. (Modern engines may adjust for this, but anything with a carburetor won't)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Dry climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vehicles don't rust very fast.  This encourages people to hold on to them longer.  Older cars are less efficient.  On top of that the low population, and more expensive transport will raise new car prices, further encouraging long term use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Low density population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People drive more, compared to north-easterners.  Where you are going is far from where you are.  The low density also means that public transport system are either non-existant, or are low on convenience.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of Wyoming people are rural -- farm and ranch folk -- which makes this worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Land is cheap.  It's reasonable to own a quarter section 20 miles from town.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* High infra-structure costs per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It costs the same to run a snowplow over a road whether that road is used by 20 people an hour or 300 people per hour.  Roads deteriorate from use, (especially heavy trucks) but also from weather.  Freeze thaw cycles are tough on roads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6820" RevisionGUID="004ca8e2-7efa-4c36-b60b-9d19bb1295c7" CreationDate="2018-09-03T19:17:23.277" UserId="5517" Text="It would seem from this [article](https://wood-pellet-line.com/recycling-coffee-grounds-into-biomass-pellets-for-home-heating/) that a food pellet machine is not suitable, and you need a wood pellet machine though this may be a biased article as the site is a pellet machine supplier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food pellet machines don't produce enough heat to fuse the lignin in coffee grounds to allow the pellets to retain their shape." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6821" RevisionGUID="fb3d5d86-d37b-4e79-9bb6-4afe604c6812" CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:08:24.410" UserId="400" Text="Asphalt is already recycled extensively.  Locally when repaving streets, they chip up 2-3 inches of the existing road bed, heat it, add a bit more asphalt to the mix, and repave the street.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps this is actually reuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where shipping is expensive concrete is broken up, and used as aggregate to make new concrete.  You don't have to ship very far before the cost favours this re-use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I am skeptical about roads be replaced any time soon.  Even if mass transit becomes good enough that main arteries vanish in cities, I think you will need the equivalent of roads in place to build the transit systems.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6822" RevisionGUID="68c4506f-b69a-4072-aada-c6bf4b7afc46" CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:16:06.183" UserId="400" Text="Plant a birch tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Run a hose from the barrel to the tree.  Put a soaker hose on the hose, and set it far enough from the tree to go round once.  E.g. for a 50 foot soaker hose it would about 8 feet from the trunk.  Bury the hose 6&quot; down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now everytime it rains, the birch gets water delivered straight to it's roots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I mention this, because birch trees here are chronically underwatered, and as a result tend to die at about 30 years.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pumps are cheap.  In Canada try Princess Auto.  In the U.S. Northern Tool.  $50 to $100 will get you a pump that will put 30-50 psi at 5 gpm out the other end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Build a crib of wood, and put the barrel closer to the roof&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6823" RevisionGUID="b27c40b3-5ac0-4fc1-be37-19e83ff8b2fb" CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:25:18.430" UserId="400" Text="Start here:  https://globalwindatlas.info/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provides an estimate of the potential wind resource in the region, along with the wind distribution speed, the wind direction distribution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6824" RevisionGUID="7a22f6b7-6d10-46a7-9ab5-6a8d03c9c755" CreationDate="2018-09-03T20:54:25.830" UserId="400" Text="The question assumes a false dichotomy:  Trees or turbines.  The actual turbine footprint is small, leaving most of the land available for other purposes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;250,000 m2 is roughly 500m x 500m  A 100m diameter rotor needs to be more than 500m away from the next one, probably around twice that.  This article:  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110120111332.htm suggests 15 rotor diameters.  This favours the argument for trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In rolling country, siting turbines on ridges and using valleys for some other function makes sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the tradeoff is to grow biomass for fuel use, you have a whole bunch of other considerations.  The bugbears of biomass use for fuel in temperate climates &#xD;&#xA;are harvest, transport, and seasonal storage.  Efficiency of the biomass to electricity is a problem too.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The uses don't have to be exclusive:  One prominent biofuel candidate is switch grass.  Because it doesn't get tree tall, it can be grown right up to the tower right of way.  It also has advantages that many farmers already have the equipment to harvest and package (bale) it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the terrain is rougher, then space between turbines can be used for pasture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6825" RevisionGUID="2337d83e-c253-437c-a6d4-bdb8885f8a34" CreationDate="2018-09-03T21:03:46.320" UserId="400" Text="Issue 1:  Cold floor downstairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Installing a few ceiling fans that kept the air near the floor moving would help a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place area rugs where people's feet park helps a lot too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the slab is insulated below, then removing the laminate floor, adding radiant heat tubing to the floor, and casting another inch of concrete may be the best, but more expensive solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Issue 2:  Overheated upstairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My grandparents house had grates in the floor upstairs over the kitchen.  This allowed warm kitchen air (wood stove) to circulate to the bedrooms.  The downside was the decrease in noise isolation.  Many secrets were discovered at these grates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Siting these grates is a balancing act:  If you can put them over the ceiling fans, the those fans can be used to augment the circulation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also tap into the power use by lights for an embedded fan -- think of a 14&quot; box fan between the floor joists with a grill on the ceiling below, and the floor above.  A smaller fan is noisier than a large fan, and uses more power per thousand cubic feet of air moved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6826" RevisionGUID="87c8c17c-0e00-4ab5-ac0a-5d0c5cbf25bf" CreationDate="2018-09-04T12:21:47.870" UserId="400" Text="The units themselves aren't terribly complex.  The valves use the pressure of the water to open and shut.  There is a small solenoid with a mechanism similar to a retractable ball point pen.  One surge of power, clicks open, second surge, clicks shut.  The rest is a simple motion detector.  For a sink this is just a photocell that measures the light reflected off the sink bowl. When the light drops the circuit runs the solenoid.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are variations in design.  May run for X seconds.  May run for Y seconds after the light returns to normal.  May have a max of Z seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway:  Simple design + large quantities + low cost = low resource usage  (first approximation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the next question:  Do they save water?  A faucet with an aerator screen (makes the volume seem greater) runs about 2 liters  a minute -- a cup every 5-8 seconds.  Most bathroom hand washers are really hand rinsers, and only run the tap for a few seconds.  Probably a large fraction use under 1/2 cup about 1/8 of a liter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Payback:  Another post mentions buying used ones for 60 bucks.  Used plumbing at our local habitat for humanity Re-store tends to run 1/3 to 1/2 of new costs.  Suppose a new one was $300.  If water is scarce you may be paying as much as $5/cubic meter, or .5 c/liter (For comparison, my cost is about 10 c/cubic meter) Suppose that motion activated cuts water usage in half, to 1/16 of a liter.  32 handwashes per liter saved.  32,000 hand washes per cubic meter, 192,000 hand washes to pay for the faucet.  If they have a 5 year life span, that's under 40,000 per year, about 5 per hour in a 24 hour facility, like an airport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If water is cheaper (likely) the payoff is longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare this to the 1 gallon (4 liters) used to flush a toilet, or the 1 liter to flush a urinal, this is small usage.  Add to that some large fraction of people don't wash their hands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a sustainability standpoint this is NOT low hanging fruit.  Automated urinals that were smart enough to flush only every 3-4th usage if urine was close to clear would save more water.  Or a system that used a mist to rinse down the sides of the urinal.  Or a downdraft air current that whisked away the stink using no water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Motion activated faucets have other merits:  Conventionally, people with soiled hands are turning the faucet on, washing their hands, then turning the faucet off, recontaminating their fingers.  More significantly, they are doing so with not just their germs, but with strangers germs.  It may actually be safer to NOT wash your hands -- you are likely used to your own germs, and contacting people with only one set instead of 50 sets may be safer for them too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6825" RevisionGUID="dba2b8a8-6b44-4f91-998d-6acb942f1ac5" CreationDate="2018-09-05T15:15:05.290" UserId="400" Comment="Attepted to make the grate explanation clearer." Text="Issue 1:  Cold floor downstairs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Installing a few ceiling fans that kept the air near the floor moving would help a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place area rugs where people's feet park helps a lot too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the slab is insulated below, then removing the laminate floor, adding radiant heat tubing to the floor, and casting another inch of concrete may be the best, but more expensive solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Issue 2:  Overheated upstairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My grandparents house had grates in the floor upstairs over the kitchen.  This allowed warm kitchen air (wood stove) to circulate to the bedrooms.  The downside was the decrease in noise isolation.  Many secrets were discovered at these grates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Siting these grates is a balancing act:  If you can put them over the ceiling fans, the those fans can be used to augment the circulation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have the opposite problem  it's too hot upstairs.  With a return path through grates, putting a ceiling fan in the stairwell may be sufficient.  Failing that, put a fan in each grate.  Not sure if these fans would work better blowing up with air returning through the stairwell, or blowing down.  You want some form of speed control on these fans otherwise they can be obnoxiously noisy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the grate is above a ceiling fan, the ceiling fan may provide sufficient air pressure to make air flow through the grate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also tap into the power use by lights for an embedded fan -- think of a 14&quot; box fan between the floor joists with a grill on the ceiling below, and the floor above.  A smaller fan is noisier than a large fan, and uses more power per thousand cubic feet of air moved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17675" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5479" RevisionGUID="408ab663-132d-4cd2-8e98-cc23e53a790a" CreationDate="2018-09-06T02:46:00.553" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17676" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5479" RevisionGUID="408ab663-132d-4cd2-8e98-cc23e53a790a" CreationDate="2018-09-06T02:46:00.553" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 2345, 3532 edit id of 540" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17677" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6811" RevisionGUID="9cfe58c1-a423-4c8f-a1d3-a502e1e9c150" CreationDate="2018-09-06T03:00:49.920" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1037536068072038401" />
  <row Id="17678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2493" RevisionGUID="32cd956e-eaf5-49d2-83f1-d38e515884da" CreationDate="2018-09-07T16:42:00.453" UserId="106" Comment="SI units" Text="If you have the property, and resources, make sure your house is tight.  Then, dig a four foot trench that zigzags across a suitable part of your yard, taking care to call Mis Dig for location of underwater electrical, water, and gas lines.  Lay PVC pipe into the trench, making sure it's water tight.  Bring one end up from the ground, above the maximum snow depth, with a u fitting that points the pipe toward the ground.  The other end of the pipe is brought inside your home, with an airtight fitting around the entry point.  Place no-see-em proof screen on the outside pipe end.  Install a wind-tubine driven, whole house fan to expell old air.  The lower inside pressure will cause to outside air to travel through the buried pipe, and pre-warm it before it enters the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I most of the nation, even up where I live in U.P. Michigan, the temperature 4 foot (1.2 metre) underground remains at about 45 degrees F (7°C).  It may not be toasty warm, but the fresh air will be much warmer than the direct, above ground air.  As a bonus, hot supper air is replaced by cooler fresh air that again flows through the underground pipe in summer.  You get free air conditioning, and air heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another very good product is the Evacuated Tube Solar Collector.  It works at any outside temperature.  It's used to heat water, which can surround a heat exchanger through which your outside air gains access to your home, or run the hot water through room radiators to directly heat your home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="c99a24e1-b9b0-4589-855f-f0c00f192686" CreationDate="2018-09-07T16:52:40.960" UserId="106" Text="Never use a wood fireplace, certainly not if you are in a city!&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning wood results in more particulate matter than a diesel truck and carries more carcinogens than a diesel or petrol exhaust.  In the United Kingdom, wood burning generates twice as much PM2.5 as all traffic combined.  In many urban areas, burning wood is prohibited.  Biomass burning [kills 250,000 per year](http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/biomass-burning-kills-250000-people-a-year/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an environmental point of view, burning solid fuel at home may be the worst thing you can do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this article in The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/22/wood-diesel-indoor-stoves-cities-pollution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wood smoke is thick with the tiny particulates, known as PM2.5, that are linked to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia and various other ailments. What’s more, the claims about a climate benefit from wood use are questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cars and trucks get more attention but nationally, domestic wood burning is the largest single source of PM2.5. According to one analysis of government data, it produces more than twice as much as all road traffic. While concerns about diesel vehicles focus largely on the nitrogen dioxide they produce, the evidence tying particulates to death and disease is even more powerful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to Leigh Crilley, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Birmingham, wood smoke also carries more carcinogens than diesel or petrol exhaust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The increasing popularity of wood fires, scientists warn, threatens to erase any progress big cities might achieve in reducing pollution from traffic. “It’s overtaking the gains we’re making,” Crilley said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  One study from 2014 found that wood smoke was adding more particle pollution to London’s air than the first two phases of the city’s low-emission zone were expected to remove. In London and Birmingham, King’s College researchers reported wood accounted for up to 31% of locally produced particulates. And across Europe, wood burning is worsening pollution in capitals such as Paris, Berlin and Lisbon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cities are moving toward it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in September for the power to ban solid fuel use (wood, coal and the like) in high-pollution areas of the city, starting in 2025, which would require amending the Clean Air Act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Really, wood fireplaces ought to be outlawed completely.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6828" RevisionGUID="fcbee77f-cf20-457a-bd57-d42bad69748d" CreationDate="2018-09-07T17:17:30.463" UserId="106" Text="Have it renovated up to Passivhaus standards.  This is possible with British terraced housing,  For example, see [this end-of-terrace house in Lancaster, UK](https://passivhausprojekte.de/index.php?lang=en#d_5083), which from the outside looks like any other leaky British home, but has been renovated up to Passivhaus standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a climate with winters as warm as the UK, there should be no need to actively heat any building." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="0d8545bf-7dbb-4875-9d8c-afb3cb9dc167" CreationDate="2018-09-07T17:24:36.503" UserId="106" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Never use a wood fireplace, certainly not if you are in a city!&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning wood results in more particulate matter than a diesel truck and carries more carcinogens than a diesel or petrol exhaust.  In the United Kingdom, wood burning generates twice as much PM2.5 as all traffic combined.  In many urban areas, burning wood is prohibited.  Biomass burning [kills 250,000 people per year](http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/biomass-burning-kills-250000-people-a-year/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an environmental point of view, burning solid fuel at home may be the worst thing you can do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this article in The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/22/wood-diesel-indoor-stoves-cities-pollution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wood smoke is thick with the tiny particulates, known as PM2.5, that are linked to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia and various other ailments. What’s more, the claims about a climate benefit from wood use are questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cars and trucks get more attention but nationally, domestic wood burning is the largest single source of PM2.5. According to one analysis of government data, it produces more than twice as much as all road traffic. While concerns about diesel vehicles focus largely on the nitrogen dioxide they produce, the evidence tying particulates to death and disease is even more powerful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to Leigh Crilley, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Birmingham, wood smoke also carries more carcinogens than diesel or petrol exhaust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The increasing popularity of wood fires, scientists warn, threatens to erase any progress big cities might achieve in reducing pollution from traffic. “It’s overtaking the gains we’re making,” Crilley said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  One study from 2014 found that wood smoke was adding more particle pollution to London’s air than the first two phases of the city’s low-emission zone were expected to remove. In London and Birmingham, King’s College researchers reported wood accounted for up to 31% of locally produced particulates. And across Europe, wood burning is worsening pollution in capitals such as Paris, Berlin and Lisbon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cities are moving toward it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in September for the power to ban solid fuel use (wood, coal and the like) in high-pollution areas of the city, starting in 2025, which would require amending the Clean Air Act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Really, wood fireplaces ought to be outlawed completely.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="bfc2233c-652b-4363-9d81-30f3d9baa829" CreationDate="2018-09-08T09:57:47.720" UserId="106" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="Never use a wood fireplace, certainly not if you are in a city!&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning wood results in more particulate matter than a diesel truck and carries more carcinogens than a diesel or petrol exhaust.  In the United Kingdom, wood burning generates twice as much PM2.5 as all traffic combined.  In many urban areas, burning wood is prohibited.  Biomass burning [kills 250,000 people per year](http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/biomass-burning-kills-250000-people-a-year/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an environmental point of view, burning solid fuel at home may be the worst thing you can do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this article in The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/22/wood-diesel-indoor-stoves-cities-pollution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wood smoke is thick with the tiny particulates, known as PM2.5, that are linked to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia and various other ailments. What’s more, the claims about a climate benefit from wood use are questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cars and trucks get more attention but nationally, domestic wood burning is the largest single source of PM2.5. According to one analysis of government data, it produces more than twice as much as all road traffic. While concerns about diesel vehicles focus largely on the nitrogen dioxide they produce, the evidence tying particulates to death and disease is even more powerful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to Leigh Crilley, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Birmingham, wood smoke also carries more carcinogens than diesel or petrol exhaust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The increasing popularity of wood fires, scientists warn, threatens to erase any progress big cities might achieve in reducing pollution from traffic. “It’s overtaking the gains we’re making,” Crilley said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  One study from 2014 found that wood smoke was adding more particle pollution to London’s air than the first two phases of the city’s low-emission zone were expected to remove. In London and Birmingham, King’s College researchers reported wood accounted for up to 31% of locally produced particulates. And across Europe, wood burning is worsening pollution in capitals such as Paris, Berlin and Lisbon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cities are moving toward it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in September for the power to ban solid fuel use (wood, coal and the like) in high-pollution areas of the city, starting in 2025, which would require amending the Clean Air Act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Really, wood fireplaces ought to be outlawed completely in areas whether alternatives are clearly available, in particular in populated areas.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="af62dff0-ca8f-46b4-835a-e666bfecf70e" CreationDate="2018-09-08T13:16:38.720" UserId="106" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Never use a wood fireplace, certainly not if you are in a city!&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning wood results in more particulate matter than a diesel truck and carries more carcinogens than a diesel or petrol exhaust.  In the United Kingdom, wood burning generates twice as much PM2.5 as all traffic combined.  In many urban areas, burning wood is prohibited.  Biomass burning [kills 250,000 people per year](http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/biomass-burning-kills-250000-people-a-year/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an environmental point of view, burning solid fuel at home may be the worst thing you can do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this article in The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/22/wood-diesel-indoor-stoves-cities-pollution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wood smoke is thick with the tiny particulates, known as PM2.5, that are linked to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia and various other ailments. What’s more, the claims about a climate benefit from wood use are questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cars and trucks get more attention but nationally, domestic wood burning is the largest single source of PM2.5. According to one analysis of government data, it produces more than twice as much as all road traffic. While concerns about diesel vehicles focus largely on the nitrogen dioxide they produce, the evidence tying particulates to death and disease is even more powerful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to Leigh Crilley, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Birmingham, wood smoke also carries more carcinogens than diesel or petrol exhaust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The increasing popularity of wood fires, scientists warn, threatens to erase any progress big cities might achieve in reducing pollution from traffic. “It’s overtaking the gains we’re making,” Crilley said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  One study from 2014 found that wood smoke was adding more particle pollution to London’s air than the first two phases of the city’s low-emission zone were expected to remove. In London and Birmingham, King’s College researchers reported wood accounted for up to 31% of locally produced particulates. And across Europe, wood burning is worsening pollution in capitals such as Paris, Berlin and Lisbon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cities are moving toward it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in September for the power to ban solid fuel use (wood, coal and the like) in high-pollution areas of the city, starting in 2025, which would require amending the Clean Air Act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Really, wood fireplaces ought to be outlawed completely in populated areas where alternatives are clearly available, in particular in populated areas.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="c2b67127-c22a-4b64-a7f8-4165b9ca6fd7" CreationDate="2018-09-08T13:31:41.647" UserId="106" Comment="added 677 characters in body" Text="If you can avoid it, do not use a wood fireplace — in particular not in a city.&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning wood results in more particulate matter than a diesel truck and carries more carcinogens than a diesel or petrol exhaust.  In the United Kingdom, wood burning generates twice as much PM2.5 as all traffic combined.  In many urban areas, burning wood is prohibited.  Biomass burning [kills 250,000 people per year](http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/biomass-burning-kills-250000-people-a-year/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an environmental point of view, burning solid fuel at home may be the worst thing you can do.  Wood may be (at least potentially) be carbon neutral, that does not mean the exhaust is anywhere near healthy to breathe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this article in The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/22/wood-diesel-indoor-stoves-cities-pollution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wood smoke is thick with the tiny particulates, known as PM2.5, that are linked to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia and various other ailments. What’s more, the claims about a climate benefit from wood use are questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cars and trucks get more attention but nationally, domestic wood burning is the largest single source of PM2.5. According to one analysis of government data, it produces more than twice as much as all road traffic. While concerns about diesel vehicles focus largely on the nitrogen dioxide they produce, the evidence tying particulates to death and disease is even more powerful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to Leigh Crilley, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Birmingham, wood smoke also carries more carcinogens than diesel or petrol exhaust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The increasing popularity of wood fires, scientists warn, threatens to erase any progress big cities might achieve in reducing pollution from traffic. “It’s overtaking the gains we’re making,” Crilley said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  One study from 2014 found that wood smoke was adding more particle pollution to London’s air than the first two phases of the city’s low-emission zone were expected to remove. In London and Birmingham, King’s College researchers reported wood accounted for up to 31% of locally produced particulates. And across Europe, wood burning is worsening pollution in capitals such as Paris, Berlin and Lisbon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cities are moving toward it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in September for the power to ban solid fuel use (wood, coal and the like) in high-pollution areas of the city, starting in 2025, which would require amending the Clean Air Act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live equatorward of 60°, there is in theory no need to actively heat your home.  The most sustainable thing you can do, if you can afford it, is to upgrade your home to [passive house](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house) standards and you can dispense with any sources of heating altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may exist specialised high pressure/temperature or perhaps heavily filtered wood fireplaces that exhaust much less or no particulate matter.  If you insist on burning wood, investigate the particulate matter exhaust of your choice.  Being carbon neutral is not enough; air quality must be part of your sustainability budget, in particular if you live in a populated area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: This answer is focussing purely on what is best from a sustainability point of view.  Of course, many people around the world cannot afford any other source of cooking or heating than wood fires.  Humanity must all work together to improve the economic situation of rural and urban people around the world such that we can all sustainably stay warm and cook.  However, if you are purely asking from a sustainability point of view, there are far better alternatives than burning wood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="d03db9d2-0284-4f13-ba87-6ba9242a21c5" CreationDate="2018-09-08T21:01:44.827" UserId="106" Comment="added 465 characters in body" Text="Be careful with wood fireplaces — most emit A LOT of very bad particulate matter!&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning wood results in more particulate matter than a diesel truck and carries more carcinogens than a diesel or petrol exhaust.  In the United Kingdom, wood burning generates twice as much PM2.5 as all traffic combined.  In many urban areas, burning wood is prohibited.  Biomass burning [kills 250,000 people per year](http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/biomass-burning-kills-250000-people-a-year/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an environmental point of view, burning solid fuel at home may be *much* worse than you think, depending on the type of fireplace you have.  Wood may be (at least potentially) be carbon neutral, that does not mean the exhaust is anywhere near healthy to breathe.  Check the characteristics of *your* fireplace before you assume that wood is carbon neutral and therefore environmentally friendly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this article in The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/22/wood-diesel-indoor-stoves-cities-pollution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wood smoke is thick with the tiny particulates, known as PM2.5, that are linked to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia and various other ailments. What’s more, the claims about a climate benefit from wood use are questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cars and trucks get more attention but nationally, domestic wood burning is the largest single source of PM2.5. According to one analysis of government data, it produces more than twice as much as all road traffic. While concerns about diesel vehicles focus largely on the nitrogen dioxide they produce, the evidence tying particulates to death and disease is even more powerful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to Leigh Crilley, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Birmingham, wood smoke also carries more carcinogens than diesel or petrol exhaust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The increasing popularity of wood fires, scientists warn, threatens to erase any progress big cities might achieve in reducing pollution from traffic. “It’s overtaking the gains we’re making,” Crilley said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  One study from 2014 found that wood smoke was adding more particle pollution to London’s air than the first two phases of the city’s low-emission zone were expected to remove. In London and Birmingham, King’s College researchers reported wood accounted for up to 31% of locally produced particulates. And across Europe, wood burning is worsening pollution in capitals such as Paris, Berlin and Lisbon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cities are moving toward it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in September for the power to ban solid fuel use (wood, coal and the like) in high-pollution areas of the city, starting in 2025, which would require amending the Clean Air Act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live equatorward of 60°, there is in theory no need to actively heat your home.  The most sustainable thing you can do, if you can afford it, is to upgrade your home to [passive house](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house) standards and you can dispense with any sources of heating altogether.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may exist specialised high pressure/temperature or perhaps heavily filtered wood fireplaces that exhaust much less or no particulate matter.  If you insist on burning wood, investigate the particulate matter exhaust of your choice.  Being carbon neutral is not enough; air quality must be part of your sustainability budget, in particular if you live in a populated area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: This answer is focussing purely on what is best from a sustainability point of view.  Of course, many people around the world cannot afford any other source of cooking or heating than wood fires, just like they cannot afford access to clean water, access to sewage, or the only vehicle they can afford is a very dirty scooter.  Sustainable solutions often cost more out of pocket, which puts policy makers in a very difficult dilemma.  Humanity must all work together to improve the economic situation of rural and urban people around the world such that we can all sustainably stay warm and cook.  However, if you are purely asking from a sustainability point of view, there are far better alternatives than burning wood — in particular if your fireplace is typical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="be763515-4918-4631-931f-13280b1bbd9e" CreationDate="2018-09-08T21:07:26.647" UserId="106" Comment="added 465 characters in body" Text="Be careful with wood fireplaces — most emit A LOT of very bad particulate matter!&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning wood in a common type of stove may result in more particulate matter than a diesel truck and may carry more carcinogens than a diesel or petrol exhaust.  In the United Kingdom, where many people have such stoves or even open hearths, wood burning generates twice as much PM2.5 as all traffic combined.  In many urban areas, burning wood is prohibited.  Globally, biomass [is estimated to be responsible for 250,000 casualties per year](http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/biomass-burning-kills-250000-people-a-year/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an environmental point of view, burning solid fuel at home may be *much* worse than you think, depending on the type of fireplace you have.  Wood may be (at least potentially) be carbon neutral, that does not mean the exhaust is anywhere near healthy to breathe.  Check the characteristics of *your* fireplace before you assume that wood is carbon neutral and therefore environmentally friendly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this article in The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/22/wood-diesel-indoor-stoves-cities-pollution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wood smoke is thick with the tiny particulates, known as PM2.5, that are linked to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia and various other ailments. What’s more, the claims about a climate benefit from wood use are questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cars and trucks get more attention but nationally, domestic wood burning is the largest single source of PM2.5. According to one analysis of government data, it produces more than twice as much as all road traffic. While concerns about diesel vehicles focus largely on the nitrogen dioxide they produce, the evidence tying particulates to death and disease is even more powerful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to Leigh Crilley, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Birmingham, wood smoke also carries more carcinogens than diesel or petrol exhaust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The increasing popularity of wood fires, scientists warn, threatens to erase any progress big cities might achieve in reducing pollution from traffic. “It’s overtaking the gains we’re making,” Crilley said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  One study from 2014 found that wood smoke was adding more particle pollution to London’s air than the first two phases of the city’s low-emission zone were expected to remove. In London and Birmingham, King’s College researchers reported wood accounted for up to 31% of locally produced particulates. And across Europe, wood burning is worsening pollution in capitals such as Paris, Berlin and Lisbon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cities are moving toward it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in September for the power to ban solid fuel use (wood, coal and the like) in high-pollution areas of the city, starting in 2025, which would require amending the Clean Air Act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live equatorward of 60°, there is in theory no need to actively heat your home.  The most sustainable thing you can do, if you can afford it, is to upgrade your home to [passive house](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house) standards and you can dispense with any sources of space heating altogether (you still need hot water, of course, but most wood fireplaces are impractical for this purpose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may exist specialised high pressure/temperature or perhaps heavily filtered wood fireplaces that exhaust much less or no particulate matter.  If you insist on burning wood, investigate the particulate matter exhaust of your technological choice.  Being carbon neutral is not enough; air quality must be part of your sustainability budget, in particular if you live in a populated area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: This answer is focussing purely on what is best from a sustainability point of view.  Of course, many people around the world cannot afford any other source of cooking or heating than wood fires, just like they cannot afford access to clean water, access to sewage, or the only vehicle they can afford is a very dirty scooter.  Sustainable solutions often cost more out of pocket, which puts policy makers in a very difficult dilemma.  Humanity must all work together to improve the economic situation of rural and urban people around the world such that we can all sustainably stay warm and cook.  However, if you are purely asking from a sustainability point of view, there are far better alternatives than burning wood — in particular if your fireplace is typical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17691" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="6a84914b-682e-403e-930d-ddc551be946a" CreationDate="2018-09-09T09:01:27.870" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1038713987876175872" />
  <row Id="17692" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="20f0f176-a332-4b27-b047-3ae4a2a006f2" CreationDate="2018-09-09T09:01:50.080" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="cab7bfe7-24c5-4997-b249-313a217e9c2c" CreationDate="2018-09-09T13:26:53.570" UserId="106" Comment="added 170 characters in body" Text="Be careful with wood fireplaces — most emit A LOT of very bad particulate matter!&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning wood in a common type of stove may result in more particulate matter than a diesel truck and may carry more carcinogens than a diesel or petrol exhaust.  In the United Kingdom, where many people have such stoves or even open hearths, wood burning generates twice as much PM2.5 as all traffic combined.  In many urban areas, burning wood is prohibited (I don't know if those bylaws make exceptions for modern, cleaner stoves).  Globally, biomass [is estimated to be responsible for 250,000 casualties per year](http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/biomass-burning-kills-250000-people-a-year/), as the overwhelming majority of biomass burning takes place with open fire or primitive stoves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From an environmental point of view, burning solid fuel at home may be *much* worse than you think, depending on the type of fireplace you have.  Wood may be (at least potentially) be carbon neutral, that does not mean the exhaust is anywhere near healthy to breathe.  Check the characteristics of *your* fireplace before you assume that wood is carbon neutral and therefore environmentally friendly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [this article in The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/22/wood-diesel-indoor-stoves-cities-pollution):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wood smoke is thick with the tiny particulates, known as PM2.5, that are linked to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia and various other ailments. What’s more, the claims about a climate benefit from wood use are questionable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Cars and trucks get more attention but nationally, domestic wood burning is the largest single source of PM2.5. According to one analysis of government data, it produces more than twice as much as all road traffic. While concerns about diesel vehicles focus largely on the nitrogen dioxide they produce, the evidence tying particulates to death and disease is even more powerful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to Leigh Crilley, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Birmingham, wood smoke also carries more carcinogens than diesel or petrol exhaust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The increasing popularity of wood fires, scientists warn, threatens to erase any progress big cities might achieve in reducing pollution from traffic. “It’s overtaking the gains we’re making,” Crilley said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  One study from 2014 found that wood smoke was adding more particle pollution to London’s air than the first two phases of the city’s low-emission zone were expected to remove. In London and Birmingham, King’s College researchers reported wood accounted for up to 31% of locally produced particulates. And across Europe, wood burning is worsening pollution in capitals such as Paris, Berlin and Lisbon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cities are moving toward it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in September for the power to ban solid fuel use (wood, coal and the like) in high-pollution areas of the city, starting in 2025, which would require amending the Clean Air Act.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live equatorward of 60°, there is in theory no need to actively heat your home.  The most sustainable thing you can do, if you can afford it, is to upgrade your home to [passive house](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house) standards and you can dispense with any sources of space heating altogether (you still need hot water, of course, but most wood fireplaces are impractical for this purpose).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may exist specialised high pressure/temperature or perhaps heavily filtered wood fireplaces that exhaust much less or no particulate matter.  If you insist on burning wood, investigate the particulate matter exhaust of your technological choice.  Being carbon neutral is not enough; air quality must be part of your sustainability budget, in particular if you live in a populated area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: This answer is focussing purely on what is best from a sustainability point of view.  Of course, many people around the world cannot afford any other source of cooking or heating than wood fires, just like they cannot afford access to clean water, access to sewage, or the only vehicle they can afford is a very dirty scooter.  Sustainable solutions often cost more out of pocket, which puts policy makers in a very difficult dilemma.  Humanity must all work together to improve the economic situation of rural and urban people around the world such that we can all sustainably stay warm and cook.  However, if you are purely asking from a sustainability point of view, there are far better alternatives than burning wood — in particular if your fireplace is typical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="f336d47c-f07c-4d19-9b0d-f729914524f1" CreationDate="2018-09-10T12:26:12.237" UserId="2134" Comment="adding new information about some devices" Text="Where feed-in is forbidden, a normal grid-tie inverter is not acceptable to the utility. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) However, an inverter plus a zero export solution can be acceptable. I propose to use this (options listed below), as it gets around the need for batteries (which are an additional expense and incur replacement costs due to normal degradation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, simply ask the utility operator. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In some countries, utilities may not yet have heard about zero export solutions, but a local electrician might agree to install an inverter with zero-export since it does not affect the grid. This is technically true if the inverter also has the anti-islanding feature (switching off when the grid goes down, to protect line workers; most grid-tie inverters have it, some reportedly don't, so check before). However, even if the local electrician offers this, as it happened to me, it is probably not &quot;according to the letter of the law&quot;. Proceed at your own responsibility, as always.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the following, I list **zero export solutions without batteries**. All options also allow export limiting to a non-zero value, for cases where that is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. String inverter(s) with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Micro-inverters with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][18], [#28][19], [#46][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;SolarFighter&lt;/strike&gt;.** A Spanish company providing a [very nice zero-export solution][14] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][15]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][16]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][17]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The **problem** with this solution is that the zero export feature does not seem to work as advertised, according to my own tests. The controller box will set the production limit values in the inverter correctly, but for every value &gt;20 W the inverter will produce unthrottled, while for every value ≤20 W it will not produce anything. SolarFighter support confirmed that the behavior is not normal and exchanged the inverter on warranty, but so far the problem persists. This is esp. sad as otherwise this would be the *only* accessible zero-export solution for small installations. And *all* residential installations in countries where export to the grid is forbidden are small (&lt;1 kW(p)) – simply because more generation capacity than needed by the household cannot be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. Zero export devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor Dynamic Power Controller [CDP-0][22] / [CDP-G][23].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. The CDP-G version also includes three relays to power non-critical electrical consumers before having to throttle the inverter (see the [datashee][24]). Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][25]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][26].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent and able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off. No price or convenient purchase option found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Solar Zero Export Controller][27].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[PicoGrid ZX][28].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ComAP InteliPro PV][29].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[carbonTRACK][30].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][21]&lt;/strike&gt;.** No longer a suitable option because &quot;GNT Engineering have ceased operations and the ZED 1 is no longer commercially available.&quot; ([source][21]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This was a device that could control up to 6 inverters, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. Control happens via &quot;selective switching or 4-bit binary control&quot; ([source][21]). In addition to 4-bit digital control it can also use 6-bit control and RS485 ([source][31]), making it compatible with many brands of inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Selective switching&quot; simply means to open a switch in the inverter's output connection, thereby turning off generation immediately. This shuld not hurt any inverter, since they are prepare for grid failure to happen (&quot;anti-islanding function&quot; etc.). This control mode works with all inverter models, but does not allow it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all. It is better to use inverters that can be throttled by this device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 4. Increasing self-consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, to my knowledge, no certified industrial device that uses increased self-consumption as the *only* way to guarantee zero or limited export to the grid, so this is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution with respect to regulation where feed-in is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the solutions mentioned above have the option to control the consumption of non-critical electrical consumers (like a water heater), and there are DIY ways for that as well. So it is a useful addition to throttling inverters, as it utilizes the &quot;oversupply&quot; electricity meaningfully. This is best discussed in [another question][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://circutor.com/docs/FT_CDP-G_EN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://bcjcontrols.com.au/zero-export-devices-zed-1-2-3-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6521" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6522" RevisionGUID="e22f6edf-f474-4572-9efb-39722258d3bb" CreationDate="2018-09-10T12:49:04.207" UserId="2134" Comment="better wording" Text="For the case where feed-in is forbidden, you need a zero export mechanism (see [this answer][1] for options). In addition, since you want to consume all your electricity locally, it should includes a demand management feature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of the following devices that fulfill both requirements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor [Dynamic Power Controller CDP-G][2].** Includes an electricity meter, three relays to switch non-critical electrical consumers (&quot;demand management&quot;) and, as ultima ratio to achieve zero export, a mechanism that can throttle inverters of various brands. Ca. 800 EUR. According to [the datasheet][3], the three load-management relays can switch up to 6 A * 230 V AC = 1380 W each. (To drive even higher loads, it should be possible to connect a secondary relay to a relay output.) For each relay output, a connected power consumption can be configured so that the device can choose what device to switch on when depending on the available surplus power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][4].** Same mode of function as the Circutor CDP-G.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting and zero feed-in is possible with this setup ([source][5]).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;And fortunately, [Venus is open source software][6] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][7]. So in principle, it should be possible to build a sophisticated DIY solution that can adjust local demand to consume all locally produced energy. It's not an off-the-shelf solution though, but a flexible one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of loads that can be controlled by these devices, most according to the [list by Circutor][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* water pumps, esp. with elevated storage tanks (storing potential energy)&#xD;&#xA;* heat pumps&#xD;&#xA;* air compressors (storing energy in compressed air)&#xD;&#xA;* heating hot water in tanks for residential use and / or in swimming pools&#xD;&#xA;* cooling water in isolated tanks, for later use in air conditioning&#xD;&#xA;* fridges or freezers with cold accumulators (as used in campervans, but maybe there are larger versions?)&#xD;&#xA;* cryptocurrency mining&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6518&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://circutor.com/docs/FT_CDP-G_EN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail#applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="40dbd7c5-8763-4a29-bc17-b67e6432e859" CreationDate="2018-09-10T13:16:21.857" UserId="2134" Comment="adding one more option" Text="Where feed-in is forbidden, a normal grid-tie inverter is not acceptable to the utility. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) However, an inverter plus a zero export solution can be acceptable. I propose to use this (options listed below), as it gets around the need for batteries (which are an additional expense and incur replacement costs due to normal degradation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, simply ask the utility operator. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In some countries, utilities may not yet have heard about zero export solutions, but a local electrician might agree to install an inverter with zero-export since it does not affect the grid. This is technically true if the inverter also has the anti-islanding feature (switching off when the grid goes down, to protect line workers; most grid-tie inverters have it, some reportedly don't, so check before). However, even if the local electrician offers this, as it happened to me, it is probably not &quot;according to the letter of the law&quot;. Proceed at your own responsibility, as always.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All options I list below also allow export limiting to a non-zero value, for cases where that is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. String inverter(s) with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Micro-inverters with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][18], [#28][19], [#46][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;SolarFighter&lt;/strike&gt;.** A Spanish company providing a [very nice zero-export solution][14] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][15]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][16]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][17]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The **problem** with this solution is that the zero export feature does not seem to work as advertised, according to my own tests. The controller box will set the production limit values in the inverter correctly, but for every value &gt;20 W the inverter will produce unthrottled, while for every value ≤20 W it will not produce anything. SolarFighter support confirmed that the behavior is not normal and exchanged the inverter on warranty, but so far the problem persists. This is esp. sad as otherwise this would be the *only* accessible zero-export solution for small installations. And *all* residential installations in countries where export to the grid is forbidden are small (&lt;1 kW(p)) – simply because more generation capacity than needed by the household cannot be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. Zero export devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor Dynamic Power Controller [CDP-0][22] / [CDP-G][23].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. The CDP-G version also includes three relays to power non-critical electrical consumers before having to throttle the inverter (see the [datashee][24]). Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][25]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][26].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent and able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off. No price or convenient purchase option found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Solar Zero Export Controller][27].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[PicoGrid ZX][28].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ComAP InteliPro PV][29].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[carbonTRACK][30].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][21]&lt;/strike&gt;.** No longer a suitable option because &quot;GNT Engineering have ceased operations and the ZED 1 is no longer commercially available.&quot; ([source][21]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This was a device that could control up to 6 inverters, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. Control happens via &quot;selective switching or 4-bit binary control&quot; ([source][21]). In addition to 4-bit digital control it can also use 6-bit control and RS485 ([source][31]), making it compatible with many brands of inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Selective switching&quot; simply means to open a switch in the inverter's output connection, thereby turning off generation immediately. This shuld not hurt any inverter, since they are prepare for grid failure to happen (&quot;anti-islanding function&quot; etc.). This control mode works with all inverter models, but does not allow it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all. It is better to use inverters that can be throttled by this device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 4. Increasing self-consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, to my knowledge, no certified industrial device that uses increased self-consumption as the *only* way to guarantee zero or limited export to the grid, so this is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution with respect to regulation where feed-in is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the solutions mentioned above have the option to control the consumption of non-critical electrical consumers (like a water heater), and there are DIY ways for that as well. So it is a useful addition to throttling inverters, as it utilizes the &quot;oversupply&quot; electricity meaningfully. This is best discussed in [another question][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 5. Buffer battery and with solar and grid chargers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not yet a ready-made solution but I think it would currently be the cheapest variant for small installations &lt;1 kW or even &lt;2 kW. It would consist of the components of a &quot;normal&quot; off-grid home: solar panels, lead-acid batteries (assuming 24 V DC here), a solar charge controller with DC output to the batteries, and an inverter that is not tied to the grid (and therefore much cheaper). Differences from a normal off-grid setup would be: the batteries can be much smaller, only covering a few seconds under max. load. And there will be grid-based battery chargers that are connected and disconnected from the batteries automatically: whenever solar electricity is not enough, they will be connected. (Perhaps, this function can simply be controlled from a load output available on many solar charge controllers. It will power a load when the battery reaches a configurable minimum voltage. In our case, that load would be a relay that *disconnects* the grid-based battery chargers.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, there will be conversion losses in the 230 V AC → 24 V DC → 230 V AC path. So it makes sense to size the solar panel installation so that it can meet the house's demand at most times. As an alternative, one could run the whole house on 24 V DC, eliminating the conversion losses in the inverter. 230 V AC directly from the grid would still be available outside the house, or even in parallel cabling inside the house, for devices that are not available in 24 V DC variants. Most devices can however easily be obtained as a 24 V DC variant: LED lighting bulbs, DC-DC converters to power notebooks and all other devices that came with an external AC adapter etc..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an additional advantage, this setup will power the house also during (short) grid outages because it has a battery buffer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://circutor.com/docs/FT_CDP-G_EN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://bcjcontrols.com.au/zero-export-devices-zed-1-2-3-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6521" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6831" RevisionGUID="939ec730-efc2-41e6-8a2e-f04b9d32a7f3" CreationDate="2018-09-10T20:35:06.203" UserId="3379" Text="**Increase broadcast coverage of television soap operas**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the abstract of a research paper titled [&quot;Soap Operas and Fertility: Evidence from Brazil&quot; (pdf):](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.125/app.4.4.1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We estimate the effect of television on fertility in Brazil, where soap operas portray small families. We exploit differences in the timing of entry into different markets of Globo, the main novela producer. Women living in areas covered by Globo have significantly lower fertility. The effect is strongest for women of lower socioeconomic status and in the central and late phases of fertility, consistent with stopping behavior. The result does not appear to be driven by selection in Globo entry. We provide evidence that novelas, and not just television, affected individual choices, based on children's naming patterns and novela content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [CNN article](http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/10/brazil.novelas.study/) referencing the paper notes that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Despite a religious culture that condemns modern family planning methods, birth rates in Brazil have decreased from 6.3 children per woman in 1963 to 2.3 in 2000. This drop is of a similar scale to that seen in China, where the government has played an extensive and controversial role in controlling population numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while [spurious correlation](http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations) is certainly a possibility, the fact that the decline in Brazil's fertility rate matches that of a country with an official policy effort devoted to reducing fertility rates, means that *something* significant is happening." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="cf964cc2-035e-42f0-ad47-b655168d2efe" CreationDate="2018-09-10T21:36:32.553" UserId="2134" Comment="better description of the new solution" Text="Where feed-in is forbidden, a normal grid-tie inverter is not acceptable to the utility. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) However, an inverter plus a zero export solution can be acceptable. I propose to use this (options listed below), as it gets around the need for batteries (which are an additional expense and incur replacement costs due to normal degradation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, simply ask the utility operator. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In some countries, utilities may not yet have heard about zero export solutions, but a local electrician might agree to install an inverter with zero-export since it does not affect the grid. This is technically true if the inverter also has the anti-islanding feature (switching off when the grid goes down, to protect line workers; most grid-tie inverters have it, some reportedly don't, so check before). However, even if the local electrician offers this, as it happened to me, it is probably not &quot;according to the letter of the law&quot;. Proceed at your own responsibility, as always.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All options I list below also allow export limiting to a non-zero value, for cases where that is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. String inverter(s) with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Micro-inverters with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][18], [#28][19], [#46][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;SolarFighter&lt;/strike&gt;.** A Spanish company providing a [very nice zero-export solution][14] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][15]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][16]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][17]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The **problem** with this solution is that the zero export feature does not seem to work as advertised, according to my own tests. The controller box will set the production limit values in the inverter correctly, but for every value &gt;20 W the inverter will produce unthrottled, while for every value ≤20 W it will not produce anything. SolarFighter support confirmed that the behavior is not normal and exchanged the inverter on warranty, but so far the problem persists. This is esp. sad as otherwise this would be the *only* accessible zero-export solution for small installations. And *all* residential installations in countries where export to the grid is forbidden are small (&lt;1 kW(p)) – simply because more generation capacity than needed by the household cannot be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. Zero export devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor Dynamic Power Controller [CDP-0][22] / [CDP-G][23].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. The CDP-G version also includes three relays to power non-critical electrical consumers before having to throttle the inverter (see the [datashee][24]). Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][25]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][26].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent and able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off. No price or convenient purchase option found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Solar Zero Export Controller][27].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[PicoGrid ZX][28].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ComAP InteliPro PV][29].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[carbonTRACK][30].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][21]&lt;/strike&gt;.** No longer a suitable option because &quot;GNT Engineering have ceased operations and the ZED 1 is no longer commercially available.&quot; ([source][21]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This was a device that could control up to 6 inverters, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. Control happens via &quot;selective switching or 4-bit binary control&quot; ([source][21]). In addition to 4-bit digital control it can also use 6-bit control and RS485 ([source][31]), making it compatible with many brands of inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Selective switching&quot; simply means to open a switch in the inverter's output connection, thereby turning off generation immediately. This shuld not hurt any inverter, since they are prepare for grid failure to happen (&quot;anti-islanding function&quot; etc.). This control mode works with all inverter models, but does not allow it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all. It is better to use inverters that can be throttled by this device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 4. Increasing self-consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, to my knowledge, no certified industrial device that uses increased self-consumption as the *only* way to guarantee zero or limited export to the grid, so this is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution with respect to regulation where feed-in is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the solutions mentioned above have the option to control the consumption of non-critical electrical consumers (like a water heater), and there are DIY ways for that as well. So it is a useful addition to throttling inverters, as it utilizes the &quot;oversupply&quot; electricity meaningfully. This is best discussed in [another question][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 5. Controllable UPS plus solar charger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just my own idea and not a finished solution. But I think the system has potential:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It would be by far the cheapest variant for small installations &lt;2 kW.&#xD;&#xA;* It can be developed and built in DIY manner without concerning the utility company, since only consumers are ever connected to the grid, not any device that could produce electricity.&#xD;&#xA;* It provides automatic backup power during (short) grid outages because it has a battery buffer.&#xD;&#xA;* The system controller can easily be extended with a function to use up all photovoltaics electricity locally (&quot;demand management&quot;, as discussed in [this question](/q/6521)).&#xD;&#xA;* It can be used where any grid-tied inverter is forbidden, even if it has a zero-export function. (Usually, the power company will cite concerns for the safety of line workers, even though that should be covered by the anti-islanding function of the grid-tie inverter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would consist of solar panels, a solar charge controller to charge batteries (24 V system assumed here) and a UPS (uninterrupted power supply system) as widely used in homes with unstable grids, e.g. in India. These UPS consist of a battery charger, inverter and automatic transfer switch. The latter guarantees that the inverter is never grid-tied: electricity comes either from the battery through the inverter, or from the grid. Switchover is fast (ca. 10 ms) so that consumers are not switched off by the transfer. The three components of the UPS can also be combined as individual devices: an inverter (not for grid-tie operation), a transfer switch, and a battery charger with grid input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, we'd need a microcontroller or small computer (like a Raspberry Pi) that can control all components. (Of course the components have to be sufficiently controllable, and I am not sure yet that these exist.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast to a normal UPS setup, the battery can be much smaller as it will cover at most a few seconds under a high load before the transfer switch will switch over to the grid. A starter battery of a car will be a good option, and should last &gt;10 years. Likewise, the inverter does not have to be particularly powerful, as all loads can be transferred to the  AC grid by the automatic transfer switch in case of inverter overload.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The control algorithm would be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The solar charge controller is always connected to the battery, and the system controller dynamically adjusts the grid connected charge controller (that is connected in parallel) so that the power output of both add up to the current load but the solar charge controller can run at its full capacity, according to the current solar irradiation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The system controller can also allow a certain net draw from the battery if it predicts that the solar charge controller can provide enough output to recharge the battery again in a short time. This should consider grid electricity price, battery depth of discharge, battery depreciation etc. to make economically meaningful decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Loads are by default connected to an inverter (for example a 2000 W model for ca. 150 EUR) that is fed by the battery, which is fed in turn by both the solar and grid-tied chargers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* However when there is zero or negligible solar output (evening and night), the transfer switch would connect all loads to the grid directly. This saves the conversion losses that would otherwise occur on the 230 V AC → 24 V DC → 230 V AC path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Also if the current load on the inverter has to be supplied for the major part by the grid-based charger and the battery (when the grid-based charger is already working at capacity), the transfer switch will transfer all loads to the grid. The conversion losses and battery depreciation would be higher than the savings from utilizing own solar energy. The same would happen in inverter overload conditions, to protect the inverter from damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a system will work most economically when the solar electricity covers all the load of the house, as in such a case there are no conversion losses of the grid-based charger. The solar panels should be sized accordingly; 250-500 W will usually cover the base load already if there is no electrical cooking or water heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative with even lower conversion losses, one could run the whole house on 24 V DC. 230 V AC directly from the grid would still be available outside the house, or even in parallel cabling inside the house, for high-powered devices and devices that are not available in 24 V DC variants. Most devices can however easily be obtained as a 24 V DC variant: LED lighting bulbs, DC-DC converters to power notebooks and all other devices that came with an external AC adapter etc..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: http://circutor.com/docs/FT_CDP-G_EN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://bcjcontrols.com.au/zero-export-devices-zed-1-2-3-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6521" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="d4d3471c-f103-4bce-866a-8f91b0b19652" CreationDate="2018-09-10T22:50:07.163" UserId="2134" Comment="adding yet another idea" Text="Where feed-in is forbidden, a normal grid-tie inverter is not acceptable to the utility. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) However, an inverter plus a zero export solution can be acceptable. I propose to use this (options listed below), as it gets around the need for batteries (which are an additional expense and incur replacement costs due to normal degradation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, simply ask the utility operator. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In some countries, utilities may not yet have heard about zero export solutions, but a local electrician might agree to install an inverter with zero-export since it does not affect the grid. This is technically true if the inverter also has the anti-islanding feature (switching off when the grid goes down, to protect line workers; most grid-tie inverters have it, some reportedly don't, so check before). However, even if the local electrician offers this, as it happened to me, it is probably not &quot;according to the letter of the law&quot;. Proceed at your own responsibility, as always.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All options I list below also allow export limiting to a non-zero value, for cases where that is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. String inverter(s) with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Micro-inverters with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][14], [#28][15], [#46][16]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;SolarFighter&lt;/strike&gt;.** A Spanish company providing a [very nice zero-export solution][17] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][18]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][19]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The **problem** with this solution is that the zero export feature does not seem to work as advertised, according to my own tests. The controller box will set the production limit values in the inverter correctly, but for every value &gt;20 W the inverter will produce unthrottled, while for every value ≤20 W it will not produce anything. SolarFighter support confirmed that the behavior is not normal and exchanged the inverter on warranty, but so far the problem persists. This is esp. sad as otherwise this would be the *only* accessible zero-export solution for small installations. And *all* residential installations in countries where export to the grid is forbidden are small (&lt;1 kW(p)) – simply because more generation capacity than needed by the household cannot be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. Zero export devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor Dynamic Power Controller [CDP-0][21] / [CDP-G][22].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. The CDP-G version also includes three relays to power non-critical electrical consumers before having to throttle the inverter (see the [datashee][23]). Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][24]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][25].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent and able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off. No price or convenient purchase option found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Solar Zero Export Controller][26].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[PicoGrid ZX][27].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ComAP InteliPro PV][28].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[carbonTRACK][29].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][30]&lt;/strike&gt;.** No longer a suitable option because &quot;GNT Engineering have ceased operations and the ZED 1 is no longer commercially available.&quot; ([source][30]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This was a device that could control up to 6 inverters, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. Control happens via &quot;selective switching or 4-bit binary control&quot; ([source][30]). In addition to 4-bit digital control it can also use 6-bit control and RS485 ([source][31]), making it compatible with many brands of inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Selective switching&quot; simply means to open a switch in the inverter's output connection, thereby turning off generation immediately. This shuld not hurt any inverter, since they are prepare for grid failure to happen (&quot;anti-islanding function&quot; etc.). This control mode works with all inverter models, but does not allow it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all. It is better to use inverters that can be throttled by this device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 4. Increasing self-consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, to my knowledge, no certified industrial device that uses increased self-consumption as the *only* way to guarantee zero or limited export to the grid, so this is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution with respect to regulation where feed-in is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the solutions mentioned above have the option to control the consumption of non-critical electrical consumers (like a water heater), and there are DIY ways for that as well. So it is a useful addition to throttling inverters, as it utilizes the &quot;oversupply&quot; electricity meaningfully. This is best discussed in [another question][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 5. Controllable UPS plus solar charger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just my own idea and not a finished solution. But I think the system has potential:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It would be by far the cheapest variant for small installations &lt;2 kW.&#xD;&#xA;* It can be developed and built in DIY manner without concerning the utility company, since only consumers are ever connected to the grid, not any device that could produce electricity.&#xD;&#xA;* It provides automatic backup power during (short) grid outages because it has a battery buffer.&#xD;&#xA;* The system controller can easily be extended with a function to use up all photovoltaics electricity locally (&quot;demand management&quot;, as discussed in [this question](/q/6521)).&#xD;&#xA;* It can be used where any grid-tied inverter is forbidden, even if it has a zero-export function. (Usually, the power company will cite concerns for the safety of line workers, even though that should be covered by the anti-islanding function of the grid-tie inverter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would consist of solar panels, a solar charge controller to charge batteries (24 V system assumed here) and a UPS (uninterrupted power supply system) as widely used in homes with unstable grids, e.g. in India. These UPS consist of a battery charger, inverter and automatic transfer switch. The latter guarantees that the inverter is never grid-tied: electricity comes either from the battery through the inverter, or from the grid. Switchover is fast (ca. 10 ms) so that consumers are not switched off by the transfer. The three components of the UPS can also be combined as individual devices: an inverter (not for grid-tie operation), a transfer switch, and a battery charger with grid input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, we'd need a microcontroller or small computer (like a Raspberry Pi) that can control all components. (Of course the components have to be sufficiently controllable, and I am not sure yet that these exist.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast to a normal UPS setup, the battery can be much smaller as it will cover at most a few seconds under a high load before the transfer switch will switch over to the grid. A starter battery of a car will be a good option, and should last &gt;10 years. Likewise, the inverter does not have to be particularly powerful, as all loads can be transferred to the  AC grid by the automatic transfer switch in case of inverter overload.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The control algorithm would be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The solar charge controller is always connected to the battery, and the system controller dynamically adjusts the grid connected charge controller (that is connected in parallel) so that the power output of both add up to the current load but the solar charge controller can run at its full capacity, according to the current solar irradiation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The system controller can also allow a certain net draw from the battery if it predicts that the solar charge controller can provide enough output to recharge the battery again in a short time. This should consider grid electricity price, battery depth of discharge, battery depreciation etc. to make economically meaningful decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Loads are by default connected to an inverter (for example a 2000 W model for ca. 150 EUR) that is fed by the battery, which is fed in turn by both the solar and grid-tied chargers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* However when there is zero or negligible solar output (evening and night), the transfer switch would connect all loads to the grid directly. This saves the conversion losses that would otherwise occur on the 230 V AC → 24 V DC → 230 V AC path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Also if the current load on the inverter has to be supplied for the major part by the grid-based charger and the battery (when the grid-based charger is already working at capacity), the transfer switch will transfer all loads to the grid. The conversion losses and battery depreciation would be higher than the savings from utilizing own solar energy. The same would happen in inverter overload conditions, to protect the inverter from damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a system will work most economically when the solar electricity covers all the load of the house, as in such a case there are no conversion losses of the grid-based charger. The solar panels should be sized accordingly; 250-500 W will usually cover the base load already if there is no electrical cooking or water heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative with even lower conversion losses, one could run the whole house on 24 V DC. 230 V AC directly from the grid would still be available outside the house, or even in parallel cabling inside the house, for high-powered devices and devices that are not available in 24 V DC variants. Most devices can however easily be obtained as a 24 V DC variant: LED lighting bulbs, DC-DC converters to power notebooks and all other devices that came with an external AC adapter etc..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 6. Off-grid setup and programmable transfer switch&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a simplified variant of my &quot;controllable UPS plus solar charger&quot; idea from above. No UPS or grid-based battery charger is needed here, just a standalone, programmable [automatic transfer switch][33]. Again, only a small battery and inverter is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, supplementing solar electricity with grid electricity on the DC level is not possible directly. Instead, shallow cycling of the battery can be used where some solar electricity is available, but not enough for all current needs of the house: let the system run on battery for a few minutes (consuming more than can be provided by solar power), then switch all consumers over to the grid while the battery recharges from solar power. When it is recharged or nearly recharged, repeat the cycle. It remains to be seen if such shallow battery cycling can be economical, or if not, if it can be made economical by using supercapacitors instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other control functions would be the same as in the idea above: transfer loads to the grid on inverter overlodad and when no solar power at all is generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/docs/FT_CDP-G_EN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://bcjcontrols.com.au/zero-export-devices-zed-1-2-3-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6521&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_switch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="3eaaf6d2-c329-4dc1-8596-c34b9403215e" CreationDate="2018-09-11T22:49:57.520" UserId="2134" Comment="adding supercaps variant for latest idea" Text="Where feed-in is forbidden, a normal grid-tie inverter is not acceptable to the utility. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) However, an inverter plus a zero export solution can be acceptable. I propose to use this (options listed below), as it gets around the need for batteries (which are an additional expense and incur replacement costs due to normal degradation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, simply ask the utility operator. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In some countries, utilities may not yet have heard about zero export solutions, but a local electrician might agree to install an inverter with zero-export since it does not affect the grid. This is technically true if the inverter also has the anti-islanding feature (switching off when the grid goes down, to protect line workers; most grid-tie inverters have it, some reportedly don't, so check before). However, even if the local electrician offers this, as it happened to me, it is probably not &quot;according to the letter of the law&quot;. Proceed at your own responsibility, as always.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All options I list below also allow export limiting to a non-zero value, for cases where that is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. String inverter(s) with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Micro-inverters with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][14], [#28][15], [#46][16]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;SolarFighter&lt;/strike&gt;.** A Spanish company providing a [very nice zero-export solution][17] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][18]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][19]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The **problem** with this solution is that the zero export feature does not seem to work as advertised, according to my own tests. The controller box will set the production limit values in the inverter correctly, but for every value &gt;20 W the inverter will produce unthrottled, while for every value ≤20 W it will not produce anything. SolarFighter support confirmed that the behavior is not normal and exchanged the inverter on warranty, but so far the problem persists. This is esp. sad as otherwise this would be the *only* accessible zero-export solution for small installations. And *all* residential installations in countries where export to the grid is forbidden are small (&lt;1 kW(p)) – simply because more generation capacity than needed by the household cannot be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. Zero export devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor Dynamic Power Controller [CDP-0][21] / [CDP-G][22].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. The CDP-G version also includes three relays to power non-critical electrical consumers before having to throttle the inverter (see the [datashee][23]). Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][24]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][25].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent and able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off. No price or convenient purchase option found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Solar Zero Export Controller][26].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[PicoGrid ZX][27].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ComAP InteliPro PV][28].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[carbonTRACK][29].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][30]&lt;/strike&gt;.** No longer a suitable option because &quot;GNT Engineering have ceased operations and the ZED 1 is no longer commercially available.&quot; ([source][30]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This was a device that could control up to 6 inverters, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. Control happens via &quot;selective switching or 4-bit binary control&quot; ([source][30]). In addition to 4-bit digital control it can also use 6-bit control and RS485 ([source][31]), making it compatible with many brands of inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Selective switching&quot; simply means to open a switch in the inverter's output connection, thereby turning off generation immediately. This shuld not hurt any inverter, since they are prepare for grid failure to happen (&quot;anti-islanding function&quot; etc.). This control mode works with all inverter models, but does not allow it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all. It is better to use inverters that can be throttled by this device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 4. Increasing self-consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, to my knowledge, no certified industrial device that uses increased self-consumption as the *only* way to guarantee zero or limited export to the grid, so this is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution with respect to regulation where feed-in is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the solutions mentioned above have the option to control the consumption of non-critical electrical consumers (like a water heater), and there are DIY ways for that as well. So it is a useful addition to throttling inverters, as it utilizes the &quot;oversupply&quot; electricity meaningfully. This is best discussed in [another question][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 5. Controllable UPS plus solar charger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just my own idea and not a finished solution. But I think the system has potential:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It would be by far the cheapest variant for small installations &lt;2 kW.&#xD;&#xA;* It can be developed and built in DIY manner without concerning the utility company, since only consumers are ever connected to the grid, not any device that could produce electricity.&#xD;&#xA;* It provides automatic backup power during (short) grid outages because it has a battery buffer.&#xD;&#xA;* The system controller can easily be extended with a function to use up all photovoltaics electricity locally (&quot;demand management&quot;, as discussed in [this question](/q/6521)).&#xD;&#xA;* It can be used where any grid-tied inverter is forbidden, even if it has a zero-export function. (Usually, the power company will cite concerns for the safety of line workers, even though that should be covered by the anti-islanding function of the grid-tie inverter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would consist of solar panels, a solar charge controller to charge batteries (24 V system assumed here) and a UPS (uninterrupted power supply system) as widely used in homes with unstable grids, e.g. in India. These UPS consist of a battery charger, inverter and automatic transfer switch. The latter guarantees that the inverter is never grid-tied: electricity comes either from the battery through the inverter, or from the grid. Switchover is fast (ca. 10 ms) so that consumers are not switched off by the transfer. The three components of the UPS can also be combined as individual devices: an inverter (not for grid-tie operation), a transfer switch, and a battery charger with grid input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, we'd need a microcontroller or small computer (like a Raspberry Pi) that can control all components. (Of course the components have to be sufficiently controllable, and I am not sure yet that these exist.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast to a normal UPS setup, the battery can be much smaller as it will cover at most a few seconds under a high load before the transfer switch will switch over to the grid. A starter battery of a car will be a good option, and should last &gt;10 years. Likewise, the inverter does not have to be particularly powerful, as all loads can be transferred to the  AC grid by the automatic transfer switch in case of inverter overload.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The control algorithm would be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The solar charge controller is always connected to the battery, and the system controller dynamically adjusts the grid connected charge controller (that is connected in parallel) so that the power output of both add up to the current load but the solar charge controller can run at its full capacity, according to the current solar irradiation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The system controller can also allow a certain net draw from the battery if it predicts that the solar charge controller can provide enough output to recharge the battery again in a short time. This should consider grid electricity price, battery depth of discharge, battery depreciation etc. to make economically meaningful decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Loads are by default connected to an inverter (for example a 2000 W model for ca. 150 EUR) that is fed by the battery, which is fed in turn by both the solar and grid-tied chargers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* However when there is zero or negligible solar output (evening and night), the transfer switch would connect all loads to the grid directly. This saves the conversion losses that would otherwise occur on the 230 V AC → 24 V DC → 230 V AC path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Also if the current load on the inverter has to be supplied for the major part by the grid-based charger and the battery (when the grid-based charger is already working at capacity), the transfer switch will transfer all loads to the grid. The conversion losses and battery depreciation would be higher than the savings from utilizing own solar energy. The same would happen in inverter overload conditions, to protect the inverter from damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a system will work most economically when the solar electricity covers all the load of the house, as in such a case there are no conversion losses of the grid-based charger. The solar panels should be sized accordingly; 250-500 W will usually cover the base load already if there is no electrical cooking or water heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative with even lower conversion losses, one could run the whole house on 24 V DC. 230 V AC directly from the grid would still be available outside the house, or even in parallel cabling inside the house, for high-powered devices and devices that are not available in 24 V DC variants. Most devices can however easily be obtained as a 24 V DC variant: LED lighting bulbs, DC-DC converters to power notebooks and all other devices that came with an external AC adapter etc..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 6. Off-grid setup and programmable transfer switch&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a simplified variant of my &quot;controllable UPS plus solar charger&quot; idea from above. No UPS or grid-based battery charger is needed here, just a standalone, programmable [automatic transfer switch][33]. Again, only a small inverter and small battery (or supercaps) are required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the grid-based charger, supplementing solar electricity with grid electricity on the DC level is not possible directly. Instead, shallow cycling of the battery can be used where some solar electricity is available, but not enough for all current needs of the house: let the system run on battery for a few minutes (consuming more than can be provided by solar power), then switch all consumers over to the grid while the battery recharges from solar power. When it is recharged or nearly recharged, repeat the cycle. It remains to be seen if such shallow battery cycling can be economical. An advantage is certainly that the setup avoids the losses inherent in the 220 V → 24 V DC conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other control functions would be the same as in the idea above: transfer loads to the grid on inverter overlodad and when no solar power at all is generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, exchanging the battery for a supercapacitor bank quite certainly makes economic sense (and this is so far my favourite solution of them all):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cycling causes virtually no degradation of supercaps, so the system does not incur regular replacement costs or maintenance efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Charge / discharge efficiency is higher in supercaps, meaning less loss of energy than with batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Since frequent cycling is ok, the supercap bank can be small: 10 Wh usable capacity should be enough for a small house. At the max. load the inverter can handle (say 1000 W, somewhat above baseload) and negligible PV input, this would equate to a worst-case discharge time of (10 Wh * 3600 s/h) / 1000 W = 36 s. Since inverters usually only work within the limits of 10-15 V or 20-30 V input, we cannot use the full energy in the supercaps but only about half. Still, that would mean 20 Wh capacity, or about 200 EUR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The charge controller for the supercaps needs a balancer (usually a component of the supercap bank) but is otherwise very simple when not desiring MPPT charging: it only needs to stop when the supercaps are full, to not damage them. Due to this, it can be replaced with a simple relay, controlled by the microcontroller that also controls the transfer switch. Since we will cycle the supercaps within the voltage range of lead-acid batteries to match the input requirements of the inverter, the driving efficiency of the solar panels would be equivalent to what a PWM charge controller achieves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;automatic transfer switch&quot; in our case would be a simple changeover relay with open transfer, with its default (de-energized) position connecting the loads to the grid. It would be made &quot;automatic&quot; through a microcontroller. Instead of a changeover relay, combining two single relays and switching them with a short delay will also work. They should be both normally-open to not backfeed to the grid in case of failure – with the ugly side effect that a controller failure blackouts the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rough cost calculation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Changeover relay, 240 V, 16 A: 40 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* Relay for solar panel disconnect, 30 V, 40 A: 25 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* Microcontroller: 15 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* Relay control board, AC current sensor, DC current sensor, DC voltage sensor: 60 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* inverter, 20-30 V to 240 W, 1000 W pure sinus: 140 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* supercaps, 20 Wh: 200 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* supercaps balancer: 20 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* cables, connectors, case etc.: 50 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* **sum:** 550 EUR, range 350-600 EUR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/docs/FT_CDP-G_EN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://bcjcontrols.com.au/zero-export-devices-zed-1-2-3-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6521&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_switch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="9ca36671-e1d1-4b8d-8d1c-f260500a897a" CreationDate="2018-09-11T23:01:49.977" UserId="2134" Comment="adding safety remark" Text="Where feed-in is forbidden, a normal grid-tie inverter is not acceptable to the utility. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) However, an inverter plus a zero export solution can be acceptable. I propose to use this (options listed below), as it gets around the need for batteries (which are an additional expense and incur replacement costs due to normal degradation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, simply ask the utility operator. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In some countries, utilities may not yet have heard about zero export solutions, but a local electrician might agree to install an inverter with zero-export since it does not affect the grid. This is technically true if the inverter also has the anti-islanding feature (switching off when the grid goes down, to protect line workers; most grid-tie inverters have it, some reportedly don't, so check before). However, even if the local electrician offers this, as it happened to me, it is probably not &quot;according to the letter of the law&quot;. Proceed at your own responsibility, as always.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All options I list below also allow export limiting to a non-zero value, for cases where that is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. String inverter(s) with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Micro-inverters with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][14], [#28][15], [#46][16]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;SolarFighter&lt;/strike&gt;.** A Spanish company providing a [very nice zero-export solution][17] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][18]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][19]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The **problem** with this solution is that the zero export feature does not seem to work as advertised, according to my own tests. The controller box will set the production limit values in the inverter correctly, but for every value &gt;20 W the inverter will produce unthrottled, while for every value ≤20 W it will not produce anything. SolarFighter support confirmed that the behavior is not normal and exchanged the inverter on warranty, but so far the problem persists. This is esp. sad as otherwise this would be the *only* accessible zero-export solution for small installations. And *all* residential installations in countries where export to the grid is forbidden are small (&lt;1 kW(p)) – simply because more generation capacity than needed by the household cannot be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. Zero export devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor Dynamic Power Controller [CDP-0][21] / [CDP-G][22].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. The CDP-G version also includes three relays to power non-critical electrical consumers before having to throttle the inverter (see the [datashee][23]). Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][24]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][25].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent and able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off. No price or convenient purchase option found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Solar Zero Export Controller][26].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[PicoGrid ZX][27].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ComAP InteliPro PV][28].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[carbonTRACK][29].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][30]&lt;/strike&gt;.** No longer a suitable option because &quot;GNT Engineering have ceased operations and the ZED 1 is no longer commercially available.&quot; ([source][30]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This was a device that could control up to 6 inverters, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. Control happens via &quot;selective switching or 4-bit binary control&quot; ([source][30]). In addition to 4-bit digital control it can also use 6-bit control and RS485 ([source][31]), making it compatible with many brands of inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Selective switching&quot; simply means to open a switch in the inverter's output connection, thereby turning off generation immediately. This shuld not hurt any inverter, since they are prepare for grid failure to happen (&quot;anti-islanding function&quot; etc.). This control mode works with all inverter models, but does not allow it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all. It is better to use inverters that can be throttled by this device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 4. Increasing self-consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, to my knowledge, no certified industrial device that uses increased self-consumption as the *only* way to guarantee zero or limited export to the grid, so this is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution with respect to regulation where feed-in is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the solutions mentioned above have the option to control the consumption of non-critical electrical consumers (like a water heater), and there are DIY ways for that as well. So it is a useful addition to throttling inverters, as it utilizes the &quot;oversupply&quot; electricity meaningfully. This is best discussed in [another question][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 5. Controllable UPS plus solar charger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just my own idea and not a finished solution. But I think the system has potential:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It would be by far the cheapest variant for small installations &lt;2 kW.&#xD;&#xA;* It can be developed and built in DIY manner without concerning the utility company, since only consumers are ever connected to the grid, not any device that could produce electricity.&#xD;&#xA;* It provides automatic backup power during (short) grid outages because it has a battery buffer.&#xD;&#xA;* The system controller can easily be extended with a function to use up all photovoltaics electricity locally (&quot;demand management&quot;, as discussed in [this question](/q/6521)).&#xD;&#xA;* It can be used where any grid-tied inverter is forbidden, even if it has a zero-export function. (Usually, the power company will cite concerns for the safety of line workers, even though that should be covered by the anti-islanding function of the grid-tie inverter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would consist of solar panels, a solar charge controller to charge batteries (24 V system assumed here) and a UPS (uninterrupted power supply system) as widely used in homes with unstable grids, e.g. in India. These UPS consist of a battery charger, inverter and automatic transfer switch. The latter guarantees that the inverter is never grid-tied: electricity comes either from the battery through the inverter, or from the grid. Switchover is fast (ca. 10 ms) so that consumers are not switched off by the transfer. The three components of the UPS can also be combined as individual devices: an inverter (not for grid-tie operation), a transfer switch, and a battery charger with grid input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, we'd need a microcontroller or small computer (like a Raspberry Pi) that can control all components. (Of course the components have to be sufficiently controllable, and I am not sure yet that these exist.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast to a normal UPS setup, the battery can be much smaller as it will cover at most a few seconds under a high load before the transfer switch will switch over to the grid. A starter battery of a car will be a good option, and should last &gt;10 years. Likewise, the inverter does not have to be particularly powerful, as all loads can be transferred to the  AC grid by the automatic transfer switch in case of inverter overload.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The control algorithm would be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The solar charge controller is always connected to the battery, and the system controller dynamically adjusts the grid connected charge controller (that is connected in parallel) so that the power output of both add up to the current load but the solar charge controller can run at its full capacity, according to the current solar irradiation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The system controller can also allow a certain net draw from the battery if it predicts that the solar charge controller can provide enough output to recharge the battery again in a short time. This should consider grid electricity price, battery depth of discharge, battery depreciation etc. to make economically meaningful decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Loads are by default connected to an inverter (for example a 2000 W model for ca. 150 EUR) that is fed by the battery, which is fed in turn by both the solar and grid-tied chargers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* However when there is zero or negligible solar output (evening and night), the transfer switch would connect all loads to the grid directly. This saves the conversion losses that would otherwise occur on the 230 V AC → 24 V DC → 230 V AC path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Also if the current load on the inverter has to be supplied for the major part by the grid-based charger and the battery (when the grid-based charger is already working at capacity), the transfer switch will transfer all loads to the grid. The conversion losses and battery depreciation would be higher than the savings from utilizing own solar energy. The same would happen in inverter overload conditions, to protect the inverter from damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a system will work most economically when the solar electricity covers all the load of the house, as in such a case there are no conversion losses of the grid-based charger. The solar panels should be sized accordingly; 250-500 W will usually cover the base load already if there is no electrical cooking or water heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative with even lower conversion losses, one could run the whole house on 24 V DC. 230 V AC directly from the grid would still be available outside the house, or even in parallel cabling inside the house, for high-powered devices and devices that are not available in 24 V DC variants. Most devices can however easily be obtained as a 24 V DC variant: LED lighting bulbs, DC-DC converters to power notebooks and all other devices that came with an external AC adapter etc..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 6. Off-grid setup and programmable transfer switch&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a simplified variant of my &quot;controllable UPS plus solar charger&quot; idea from above. No UPS or grid-based battery charger is needed here, just a standalone, programmable [automatic transfer switch][33]. Again, only a small inverter and small battery (or supercaps) are required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the grid-based charger, supplementing solar electricity with grid electricity on the DC level is not possible directly. Instead, shallow cycling of the battery can be used where some solar electricity is available, but not enough for all current needs of the house: let the system run on battery for a few minutes (consuming more than can be provided by solar power), then switch all consumers over to the grid while the battery recharges from solar power. When it is recharged or nearly recharged, repeat the cycle. It remains to be seen if such shallow battery cycling can be economical. An advantage is certainly that the setup avoids the losses inherent in the 220 V → 24 V DC conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other control functions would be the same as in the idea above: transfer loads to the grid on inverter overlodad and when no solar power at all is generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, exchanging the battery for a supercapacitor bank quite certainly makes economic sense (and this is so far my favourite solution of them all):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cycling causes virtually no degradation of supercaps, so the system does not incur regular replacement costs or maintenance efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Charge / discharge efficiency is higher in supercaps, meaning less loss of energy than with batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Since frequent cycling is ok, the supercap bank can be small: 10 Wh usable capacity should be enough for a small house. At the max. load the inverter can handle (say 1000 W, somewhat above baseload) and negligible PV input, this would equate to a worst-case discharge time of (10 Wh * 3600 s/h) / 1000 W = 36 s. Since inverters usually only work within the limits of 10-15 V or 20-30 V input, we cannot use the full energy in the supercaps but only about half. Still, that would mean 20 Wh capacity, or about 200 EUR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The charge controller for the supercaps needs a balancer (usually a component of the supercap bank) but is otherwise very simple when not desiring MPPT charging: it only needs to stop when the supercaps are full, to not damage them. Due to this, it can be replaced with a simple relay, controlled by the microcontroller that also controls the transfer switch. Since we will cycle the supercaps within the voltage range of lead-acid batteries to match the input requirements of the inverter, the driving efficiency of the solar panels would be equivalent to what a PWM charge controller achieves. And since there is no real charge controller, a major cost esp. of scaling is elimited, and there are no limits for oversizing the photovoltaics array either – the supercaps will handle more or less any inrush current an array of PV panels can throw at them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;automatic transfer switch&quot; in our case would be a simple changeover relay with open transfer, with its default (de-energized) position connecting the loads to the grid. It would be made &quot;automatic&quot; through a microcontroller. Instead of a changeover relay, combining two single relays and switching them with a short delay would also be possible, but a bad idea (it is not fail safe in case of a controller software bug that would connect both relays, enabling backfeeding to the grid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rough cost calculation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Changeover relay, 240 V, 16 A: 40 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* Relay for solar panel disconnect, 30 V, 40 A: 25 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* Microcontroller: 15 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* Relay control board, AC current sensor, DC current sensor, DC voltage sensor: 60 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* inverter, 20-30 V to 240 W, 1000 W pure sinus: 140 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* supercaps, 20 Wh: 200 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* supercaps balancer: 20 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* cables, connectors, case etc.: 50 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* **sum:** 550 EUR, range 350-600 EUR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/docs/FT_CDP-G_EN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://bcjcontrols.com.au/zero-export-devices-zed-1-2-3-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6521&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_switch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6832" RevisionGUID="be6a1d43-fc9f-4684-b32a-7f8583faae40" CreationDate="2018-09-12T07:20:37.353" UserId="99" Text="[Red worms (Eisenia Fetida)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenia_fetida) are non-native to the USA, but whether they are harmful is difficult to say. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earthworms in general can reduce the thickness of the layer of organic materials on the ground and thus change the amount of available nutrients. It's certainly possible that&#xD;&#xA;this drives away plants that require specific conditions for reproduction or survival. For example &#xD;&#xA;[this article of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources](https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialanimals/earthworms/index.html)&#xD;&#xA;describes some of the negative effects caused by non-native worms in Minnesota's hardwood forests&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Invading earthworms eat the leaves that create the duff layer and are capable of eliminating it completely. Big trees survive, but many young seedlings perish, along with many ferns and wildflowers. Some species return after the initial invasion, but others disappear. In areas heavily infested by earthworms, soil erosion and leaching of nutrients may reduce the productivity of forests and ultimately degrade fish habitat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article also mentions that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;they [earthworms] are not known to survive Minnesota winters. However, if they or other species are able to survive winter and escape from compost piles they could further harm native forests. If you have a compost pile in a forested area, do not introduce additional non-native earthworms. If you are concerned about spreading non-native worms with your compost, you can kill worms and their eggs by freezing the compost for at least 1 week. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another interesting article on the matter is [this blog on redwormcomposting.com](https://www.redwormcomposting.com/general-commentary/do-composting-worms-pose-a-threat-as-invasive-species/). It lists some of the research findings which seems to be inconclusive on red worms. It then goes on to say that it's unlikely that red worms would thrive in the wild, at least not in Northern US states.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in short, red worms can potentially be invasive but so far there is no evidence that they are. If you live near a forest you may want to play it safe and not start an open vermicompost heap. You would also need to make sure you kill all worms and eggs before spreading the vermicompost in your garden." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="9d843f5f-c64b-4fb5-8f8e-51aacc36495f" CreationDate="2018-09-12T11:55:24.123" UserId="2134" Comment="more additions to the last idea :)" Text="Where feed-in is forbidden, a normal grid-tie inverter is not acceptable to the utility. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) However, an inverter plus a zero export solution can be acceptable. I propose to use this (options listed below), as it gets around the need for batteries (which are an additional expense and incur replacement costs due to normal degradation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, simply ask the utility operator. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In some countries, utilities may not yet have heard about zero export solutions, but a local electrician might agree to install an inverter with zero-export since it does not affect the grid. This is technically true if the inverter also has the anti-islanding feature (switching off when the grid goes down, to protect line workers; most grid-tie inverters have it, some reportedly don't, so check before). However, even if the local electrician offers this, as it happened to me, it is probably not &quot;according to the letter of the law&quot;. Proceed at your own responsibility, as always.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All options I list below also allow export limiting to a non-zero value, for cases where that is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. String inverter(s) with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Micro-inverters with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][14], [#28][15], [#46][16]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;SolarFighter&lt;/strike&gt;.** A Spanish company providing a [very nice zero-export solution][17] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][18]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][19]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The **problem** with this solution is that the zero export feature does not seem to work as advertised, according to my own tests. The controller box will set the production limit values in the inverter correctly, but for every value &gt;20 W the inverter will produce unthrottled, while for every value ≤20 W it will not produce anything. SolarFighter support confirmed that the behavior is not normal and exchanged the inverter on warranty, but so far the problem persists. This is esp. sad as otherwise this would be the *only* accessible zero-export solution for small installations. And *all* residential installations in countries where export to the grid is forbidden are small (&lt;1 kW(p)) – simply because more generation capacity than needed by the household cannot be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. Zero export devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor Dynamic Power Controller [CDP-0][21] / [CDP-G][22].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. The CDP-G version also includes three relays to power non-critical electrical consumers before having to throttle the inverter (see the [datashee][23]). Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][24]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][25].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent and able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off. No price or convenient purchase option found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Solar Zero Export Controller][26].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[PicoGrid ZX][27].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ComAP InteliPro PV][28].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[carbonTRACK][29].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][30]&lt;/strike&gt;.** No longer a suitable option because &quot;GNT Engineering have ceased operations and the ZED 1 is no longer commercially available.&quot; ([source][30]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This was a device that could control up to 6 inverters, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. Control happens via &quot;selective switching or 4-bit binary control&quot; ([source][30]). In addition to 4-bit digital control it can also use 6-bit control and RS485 ([source][31]), making it compatible with many brands of inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Selective switching&quot; simply means to open a switch in the inverter's output connection, thereby turning off generation immediately. This shuld not hurt any inverter, since they are prepare for grid failure to happen (&quot;anti-islanding function&quot; etc.). This control mode works with all inverter models, but does not allow it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all. It is better to use inverters that can be throttled by this device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 4. Increasing self-consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, to my knowledge, no certified industrial device that uses increased self-consumption as the *only* way to guarantee zero or limited export to the grid, so this is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution with respect to regulation where feed-in is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the solutions mentioned above have the option to control the consumption of non-critical electrical consumers (like a water heater), and there are DIY ways for that as well. So it is a useful addition to throttling inverters, as it utilizes the &quot;oversupply&quot; electricity meaningfully. This is best discussed in [another question][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 5. Controllable UPS plus solar charger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just my own idea and not a finished solution. But I think the system has potential:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It would be by far the cheapest variant for small installations &lt;2 kW.&#xD;&#xA;* It can be developed and built in DIY manner without concerning the utility company, since only consumers are ever connected to the grid, not any device that could produce electricity.&#xD;&#xA;* It provides automatic backup power during (short) grid outages because it has a battery buffer.&#xD;&#xA;* The system controller can easily be extended with a function to use up all photovoltaics electricity locally (&quot;demand management&quot;, as discussed in [this question](/q/6521)).&#xD;&#xA;* It can be used where any grid-tied inverter is forbidden, even if it has a zero-export function. (Usually, the power company will cite concerns for the safety of line workers, even though that should be covered by the anti-islanding function of the grid-tie inverter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would consist of solar panels, a solar charge controller to charge batteries (24 V system assumed here) and a UPS (uninterrupted power supply system) as widely used in homes with unstable grids, e.g. in India. These UPS consist of a battery charger, inverter and automatic transfer switch. The latter guarantees that the inverter is never grid-tied: electricity comes either from the battery through the inverter, or from the grid. Switchover is fast (ca. 10 ms) so that consumers are not switched off by the transfer. The three components of the UPS can also be combined as individual devices: an inverter (not for grid-tie operation), a transfer switch, and a battery charger with grid input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, we'd need a microcontroller or small computer (like a Raspberry Pi) that can control all components. (Of course the components have to be sufficiently controllable, and I am not sure yet that these exist.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast to a normal UPS setup, the battery can be much smaller as it will cover at most a few seconds under a high load before the transfer switch will switch over to the grid. A starter battery of a car will be a good option, and should last &gt;10 years. Likewise, the inverter does not have to be particularly powerful, as all loads can be transferred to the  AC grid by the automatic transfer switch in case of inverter overload.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The control algorithm would be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The solar charge controller is always connected to the battery, and the system controller dynamically adjusts the grid connected charge controller (that is connected in parallel) so that the power output of both add up to the current load but the solar charge controller can run at its full capacity, according to the current solar irradiation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The system controller can also allow a certain net draw from the battery if it predicts that the solar charge controller can provide enough output to recharge the battery again in a short time. This should consider grid electricity price, battery depth of discharge, battery depreciation etc. to make economically meaningful decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Loads are by default connected to an inverter (for example a 2000 W model for ca. 150 EUR) that is fed by the battery, which is fed in turn by both the solar and grid-tied chargers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* However when there is zero or negligible solar output (evening and night), the transfer switch would connect all loads to the grid directly. This saves the conversion losses that would otherwise occur on the 230 V AC → 24 V DC → 230 V AC path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Also if the current load on the inverter has to be supplied for the major part by the grid-based charger and the battery (when the grid-based charger is already working at capacity), the transfer switch will transfer all loads to the grid. The conversion losses and battery depreciation would be higher than the savings from utilizing own solar energy. The same would happen in inverter overload conditions, to protect the inverter from damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a system will work most economically when the solar electricity covers all the load of the house, as in such a case there are no conversion losses of the grid-based charger. The solar panels should be sized accordingly; 250-500 W will usually cover the base load already if there is no electrical cooking or water heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative with even lower conversion losses, one could run the whole house on 24 V DC. 230 V AC directly from the grid would still be available outside the house, or even in parallel cabling inside the house, for high-powered devices and devices that are not available in 24 V DC variants. Most devices can however easily be obtained as a 24 V DC variant: LED lighting bulbs, DC-DC converters to power notebooks and all other devices that came with an external AC adapter etc..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 6. Off-grid setup and programmable transfer switch&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a simplified variant of my &quot;controllable UPS plus solar charger&quot; idea from above. No UPS or grid-based battery charger is needed here, just a standalone, programmable [automatic transfer switch][33]. Again, only a small inverter and small battery (or supercaps) are required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the grid-based charger, supplementing solar electricity with grid electricity on the DC level is not possible directly. Instead, shallow cycling of the battery can be used where some solar electricity is available, but not enough for all current needs of the house: let the system run on battery for a few minutes (consuming more than can be provided by solar power), then switch all consumers over to the grid while the battery recharges from solar power. When it is recharged or nearly recharged, repeat the cycle. It remains to be seen if such shallow battery cycling can be economical. An advantage is certainly that the setup avoids the losses inherent in the 220 V → 24 V DC conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other control functions would be the same as in the idea above: transfer loads to the grid on inverter overlodad and when no solar power at all is generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, exchanging the battery for a supercapacitor bank quite certainly makes economic sense (and this is so far my favourite solution of them all):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cycling causes virtually no degradation of supercaps, so the system does not incur regular replacement costs or maintenance efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Charge / discharge efficiency is higher in supercaps, meaning less loss of energy than with batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Since frequent cycling is ok, the supercap bank can be small: 10 Wh usable capacity should be enough for a small house. At the max. load the inverter can handle (say 1000 W, somewhat above baseload) and negligible PV input, this would equate to a worst-case discharge time of (10 Wh * 3600 s/h) / 1000 W = 36 s. Since inverters usually only work within the limits of 10-15 V or 20-30 V input, we cannot use the full energy in the supercaps but only about half. Still, that would mean 20 Wh capacity, or about 200 EUR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The charge controller for the supercaps needs a balancer (usually a component of the supercap bank) but is otherwise very simple when not desiring MPPT charging: it only needs to stop when the supercaps are full, to not damage them. Due to this, it can be replaced with a simple relay, controlled by the microcontroller that also controls the transfer switch. Since we will cycle the supercaps within the voltage range of lead-acid batteries to match the input requirements of the inverter, the driving efficiency of the solar panels would be equivalent to what a PWM charge controller achieves. And since there is no real charge controller, a major cost esp. of scaling is elimited, and there are no limits for oversizing the photovoltaics array either – the supercaps will handle more or less any inrush current an array of PV panels can throw at them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;automatic transfer switch&quot; in our case would be a simple changeover relay with open transfer, with its default (de-energized) position connecting the loads to the grid. It would be made &quot;automatic&quot; through a microcontroller. Instead of a changeover relay, combining two single relays and switching them with a short delay would also be possible, but a bad idea (it is not fail safe in case of a controller software bug that would connect both relays, causing unsynchronized and anyway forbidden backfeeding to the grid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several useful but optional extensions are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* House-wide DC cabling to power small 24 V devices directly from the 20-30 V DC supercaps, since they should accept that voltage range. This saves conversion losses (esp. for electronics and other DC consumers), but  will only work during daylight hours as there is no battery storage. A small battery in addition to the supercaps may be advised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Connecting the supercap banks of neighboring houses into a [SELV][34] microgrid, further reducing dependence on the grid by leveling out excess supply and demand of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Adding a backup system to prepare for grid outage and even off-rid operation. A small generator (fueled by locally produced biogas maybe) that runs occasionally and outputs 30 V DC directly to the supercaps seems better than a battery, as there is no battery degradation and it provides independence from solar conditions. Even batteries would hardly degrade, as they would be hardly in use. The generator will probably be cheaper than a battery bank covering 3-6 days of low solar irradiation and the increased amount of panels necessary to cover off-grid use in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rough cost calculation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Changeover relay, 240 V, 16 A: 40 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* Relay for solar panel disconnect, 30 V, 40 A: 25 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* Microcontroller: 15 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* Relay control board, AC current sensor, DC current sensor, DC voltage sensor: 60 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* inverter, 20-30 V to 240 W, 1000 W pure sinus: 140 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* supercaps, 20 Wh: 200 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* supercaps balancer: 20 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* cables, connectors, case etc.: 50 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* **sum:** 550 EUR, range 350-600 EUR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/docs/FT_CDP-G_EN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://bcjcontrols.com.au/zero-export-devices-zed-1-2-3-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6521&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_switch&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-low_voltage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17708" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6779" RevisionGUID="4ea80f24-65b2-40fd-b9b9-79c2c2eeef93" CreationDate="2018-09-12T12:00:21.430" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1039846171278237696" />
  <row Id="17709" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6799" RevisionGUID="0937adf2-8497-413e-b1b8-2e2755ca962b" CreationDate="2018-09-12T15:01:23.027" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1039891727954395138" />
  <row Id="17710" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6786" RevisionGUID="d9d82960-cec6-481e-a5ab-49fd6f090e91" CreationDate="2018-09-13T00:02:54.660" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1040028007887462401" />
  <row Id="17711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="aa885e35-2a44-4ecc-b477-cdbcd9d7710d" CreationDate="2018-09-13T09:47:59.910" UserId="2134" Comment="listing more advantages and options of the last idea" Text="Where feed-in is forbidden, a normal grid-tie inverter is not acceptable to the utility. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) However, an inverter plus a zero export solution can be acceptable. I propose to use this (options listed below), as it gets around the need for batteries (which are an additional expense and incur replacement costs due to normal degradation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, simply ask the utility operator. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In some countries, utilities may not yet have heard about zero export solutions, but a local electrician might agree to install an inverter with zero-export since it does not affect the grid. This is technically true if the inverter also has the anti-islanding feature (switching off when the grid goes down, to protect line workers; most grid-tie inverters have it, some reportedly don't, so check before). However, even if the local electrician offers this, as it happened to me, it is probably not &quot;according to the letter of the law&quot;. Proceed at your own responsibility, as always.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All options I list below also allow export limiting to a non-zero value, for cases where that is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. String inverter(s) with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Micro-inverters with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][14], [#28][15], [#46][16]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;SolarFighter&lt;/strike&gt;.** A Spanish company providing a [very nice zero-export solution][17] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][18]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][19]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The **problem** with this solution is that the zero export feature does not seem to work as advertised, according to my own tests. The controller box will set the production limit values in the inverter correctly, but for every value &gt;20 W the inverter will produce unthrottled, while for every value ≤20 W it will not produce anything. SolarFighter support confirmed that the behavior is not normal and exchanged the inverter on warranty, but so far the problem persists. This is esp. sad as otherwise this would be the *only* accessible zero-export solution for small installations. And *all* residential installations in countries where export to the grid is forbidden are small (&lt;1 kW(p)) – simply because more generation capacity than needed by the household cannot be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. Zero export devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor Dynamic Power Controller [CDP-0][21] / [CDP-G][22].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. The CDP-G version also includes three relays to power non-critical electrical consumers before having to throttle the inverter (see the [datashee][23]). Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][24]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][25].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent and able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off. No price or convenient purchase option found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Solar Zero Export Controller][26].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[PicoGrid ZX][27].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ComAP InteliPro PV][28].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[carbonTRACK][29].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][30]&lt;/strike&gt;.** No longer a suitable option because &quot;GNT Engineering have ceased operations and the ZED 1 is no longer commercially available.&quot; ([source][30]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This was a device that could control up to 6 inverters, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. Control happens via &quot;selective switching or 4-bit binary control&quot; ([source][30]). In addition to 4-bit digital control it can also use 6-bit control and RS485 ([source][31]), making it compatible with many brands of inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Selective switching&quot; simply means to open a switch in the inverter's output connection, thereby turning off generation immediately. This shuld not hurt any inverter, since they are prepare for grid failure to happen (&quot;anti-islanding function&quot; etc.). This control mode works with all inverter models, but does not allow it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all. It is better to use inverters that can be throttled by this device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 4. Increasing self-consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, to my knowledge, no certified industrial device that uses increased self-consumption as the *only* way to guarantee zero or limited export to the grid, so this is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution with respect to regulation where feed-in is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the solutions mentioned above have the option to control the consumption of non-critical electrical consumers (like a water heater), and there are DIY ways for that as well. So it is a useful addition to throttling inverters, as it utilizes the &quot;oversupply&quot; electricity meaningfully. This is best discussed in [another question][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 5. Controllable UPS plus solar charger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just my own idea and not a finished solution. But I think the system has potential:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It would be by far the cheapest variant for small installations &lt;2 kW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It only uses readily available off-the-shelf components available from many manufacturers. This is way better than vendor lock-in for a highly specialized &quot;micro inverter with zero export&quot; or &quot;zero export device&quot;, as these products might be discontinued, their manufacturer might go out of business or provide poor support in cases of issues or warranty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It can be developed and built in DIY manner without concerning the utility company, since only consumers are ever connected to the grid, not any device that could produce electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It provides automatic backup power during (short) grid outages because it has a battery buffer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The system controller can easily be extended with a function to use up all photovoltaics electricity locally (&quot;demand management&quot;, as discussed in [this question](/q/6521)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It can be used even where any grid-tied inverter is forbidden, including those with a zero-export function. (Usually, in these cases the power company will cite concerns for the safety of line workers, even though that should be covered by the anti-islanding function of the grid-tie inverter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would consist of solar panels, a solar charge controller to charge batteries (24 V system assumed here) and a UPS (uninterrupted power supply system) as widely used in homes with unstable grids, e.g. in India. These UPS consist of a battery charger, inverter and automatic transfer switch. The latter guarantees that the inverter is never grid-tied: electricity comes either from the battery through the inverter, or from the grid. Switchover is fast (ca. 10 ms) so that consumers are not switched off by the transfer. The three components of the UPS can also be combined as individual devices: an inverter (not for grid-tie operation), a transfer switch, and a battery charger with grid input.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, we'd need a microcontroller or small computer (like a Raspberry Pi) that can control all components. (Of course the components have to be sufficiently controllable, and I am not sure yet that these exist.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast to a normal UPS setup, the battery can be much smaller as it will cover at most a few seconds under a high load before the transfer switch will switch over to the grid. A starter battery of a car will be a good option, and should last &gt;10 years. Likewise, the inverter does not have to be particularly powerful, as all loads can be transferred to the  AC grid by the automatic transfer switch in case of inverter overload.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The control algorithm would be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The solar charge controller is always connected to the battery, and the system controller dynamically adjusts the grid connected charge controller (that is connected in parallel) so that the power output of both add up to the current load but the solar charge controller can run at its full capacity, according to the current solar irradiation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The system controller can also allow a certain net draw from the battery if it predicts that the solar charge controller can provide enough output to recharge the battery again in a short time. This should consider grid electricity price, battery depth of discharge, battery depreciation etc. to make economically meaningful decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Loads are by default connected to an inverter (for example a 2000 W model for ca. 150 EUR) that is fed by the battery, which is fed in turn by both the solar and grid-tied chargers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* However when there is zero or negligible solar output (evening and night), the transfer switch would connect all loads to the grid directly. This saves the conversion losses that would otherwise occur on the 230 V AC → 24 V DC → 230 V AC path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Also if the current load on the inverter has to be supplied for the major part by the grid-based charger and the battery (when the grid-based charger is already working at capacity), the transfer switch will transfer all loads to the grid. The conversion losses and battery depreciation would be higher than the savings from utilizing own solar energy. The same would happen in inverter overload conditions, to protect the inverter from damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a system will work most economically when the solar electricity covers all the load of the house, as in such a case there are no conversion losses of the grid-based charger. The solar panels should be sized accordingly; 250-500 W will usually cover the base load already if there is no electrical cooking or water heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative with even lower conversion losses, one could run the whole house on 24 V DC. 230 V AC directly from the grid would still be available outside the house, or even in parallel cabling inside the house, for high-powered devices and devices that are not available in 24 V DC variants. Most devices can however easily be obtained as a 24 V DC variant: LED lighting bulbs, DC-DC converters to power notebooks and all other devices that came with an external AC adapter etc..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 6. Off-grid setup and programmable transfer switch&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a simplified variant of my &quot;controllable UPS plus solar charger&quot; idea from above. No UPS or grid-based battery charger is needed here, just a standalone, programmable [automatic transfer switch][33]. Again, only a small inverter and small battery (or supercaps) are required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the grid-based charger, supplementing solar electricity with grid electricity on the DC level is not possible directly. Instead, shallow cycling of the battery can be used where some solar electricity is available, but not enough for all current needs of the house: let the system run on battery for a few minutes (consuming more than can be provided by solar power), then switch all consumers over to the grid while the battery recharges from solar power. When it is recharged or nearly recharged, repeat the cycle. It remains to be seen if such shallow battery cycling can be economical. An advantage is certainly that the setup avoids the losses inherent in the 220 V → 24 V DC conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other control functions would be the same as in the idea above: transfer loads to the grid on inverter overlodad and when no solar power at all is generated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, exchanging the battery for a supercapacitor bank quite certainly makes economic sense (and this is so far my favourite solution of them all):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cycling causes virtually no degradation of supercaps, so the system does not incur regular replacement costs or maintenance efforts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Charge / discharge efficiency is higher in supercaps, meaning less loss of energy than with batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Since frequent cycling is ok, the supercap bank can be small: 10 Wh usable capacity should be enough for a small house. At the max. load the inverter can handle (say 1000 W, somewhat above baseload) and negligible PV input, this would equate to a worst-case discharge time of (10 Wh * 3600 s/h) / 1000 W = 36 s. Since inverters usually only work within the limits of 10-15 V or 20-30 V input, we cannot use the full energy in the supercaps but only about half. Still, that would mean 20 Wh capacity, or about 200 EUR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The charge controller for the supercaps needs a balancer (usually a component of the supercap bank) but is otherwise very simple when not desiring MPPT charging: it only needs to stop when the supercaps are full, to not damage them. Due to this, it can be replaced with a simple relay, controlled by the microcontroller that also controls the transfer switch. Since we will cycle the supercaps within the voltage range of lead-acid batteries to match the input requirements of the inverter, the driving efficiency of the solar panels would be equivalent to what a PWM charge controller achieves. And since there is no real charge controller, a major cost esp. of scaling is elimited, and there are no limits for oversizing the photovoltaics array either – the supercaps will handle more or less any inrush current an array of PV panels can throw at them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;automatic transfer switch&quot; in our case would be a simple changeover relay with open transfer, with its default (de-energized) position connecting the loads to the grid. It would be made &quot;automatic&quot; through a microcontroller. Instead of a changeover relay, combining two single relays and switching them with a short delay would also be possible, but a bad idea (it is not fail safe in case of a controller software bug that would connect both relays, causing unsynchronized and anyway forbidden backfeeding to the grid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several useful but optional extensions are possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* House-wide DC cabling to power small 24 V devices directly from the 20-30 V DC supercaps, since they should accept that voltage range. This saves conversion losses (esp. for electronics and other DC consumers), but  will only work during daylight hours as there is no battery storage. A small battery in addition to the supercaps may be advised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Connecting the supercap banks of neighboring houses into a [SELV][34] microgrid, further reducing dependence on the grid by leveling out excess supply and demand of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Demand management to utilize the solar electricity fully. The controller would simply switch non-essential 24 V DC devices on and off, powered directly by the supercaps bank as long as on average more electricity is produced than consumed. On average, because the supercaps can average out some differences: it would be ok to run a washing machine for 30 s at 500 W if 250 W excess production recharges the supercaps in the next 60 s again, at which point the cycle would repeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Adding a backup system to prepare for grid outage and even off-rid operation. A small generator (fueled by locally produced biogas maybe) that runs occasionally and outputs 30 V DC directly to the supercaps seems better than a battery, as there is no battery degradation and it provides independence from solar conditions. Even batteries would hardly degrade, as they would be hardly in use. The generator will probably be cheaper than a battery bank covering 3-6 days of low solar irradiation and the increased amount of panels necessary to cover off-grid use in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rough cost calculation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Changeover relay, 240 V, 16 A: 40 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* Relay for solar panel disconnect, 30 V, 40 A: 25 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* Microcontroller: 15 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* Relay control board, AC current sensor, DC current sensor, DC voltage sensor: 60 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* inverter, 20-30 V to 240 W, 1000 W pure sinus: 140 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* supercaps, 20 Wh: 200 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* supercaps balancer: 20 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* cables, connectors, case etc.: 50 EUR&#xD;&#xA;* **sum:** 550 EUR, range 350-600 EUR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/docs/FT_CDP-G_EN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://bcjcontrols.com.au/zero-export-devices-zed-1-2-3-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6521&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_switch&#xD;&#xA;  [34]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra-low_voltage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6833" RevisionGUID="e1c0534c-fb28-4b3f-bd0b-260b881e17d8" CreationDate="2018-09-13T13:24:38.413" UserId="5998" Text="The government (specifically the US, and by governemnt I mean local, state, and federal) is responsible for many public works, social welfare programs, and public safety projects that span locally to nationally. My question is why does the government either not sponsor/subsidize recycling companies or perform recycling itself? Many recycling companies do not recycling certain materials because of the cost or lack of ease of recycling (multi-layer plastics, small items, bulky items, contaminated items, etc.). Items like styrofoam, single-use flatware, blister packs, chip bags, or a plethora of items that can be recycled, but aren't. If you are unfamiliar, check out [TerraCycle][1] which offers services for many hard-to-recycle products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, private companies recycle for profit, thus will not recycle non-profitable items, including easy-to-recycle items if they receive too many contaminants, so they can't sell their bales. Even really cheap and easy items like glass, which as become such a commodity, some places don't take glass anymore. Wouldn't it make sense for the government to pick up on this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the government has the best interests in the public's welfare, despite the cost, it would be no different than other government-ran/sponsored programs such as medicare/medicaid, state parks, educational grants, scholarships, roads, sanitation, and so forth. Government programs are to help people via health, public safety, convenience, leisure, and education. So why not ecology? Even if private companies continued to handle recycling, the government could give tax breaks or incentives for these companies to handle hard-to-recycle materials. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.terracycle.com/en-US/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6833" RevisionGUID="e1c0534c-fb28-4b3f-bd0b-260b881e17d8" CreationDate="2018-09-13T13:24:38.413" UserId="5998" Text="Why is recycling (or trash collection) not a government subsidized or ran project?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6833" RevisionGUID="e1c0534c-fb28-4b3f-bd0b-260b881e17d8" CreationDate="2018-09-13T13:24:38.413" UserId="5998" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6833" RevisionGUID="a223af43-cc23-4436-b67d-45730f12b2ce" CreationDate="2018-09-13T14:20:24.380" UserId="5998" Comment="Clarification on what kind of answer(s) I'm looking for" Text="The government (specifically the US, and by governemnt I mean local, state, and federal) is responsible for many public works, social welfare programs, and public safety projects that span locally to nationally. My question is why does the government either not sponsor/subsidize recycling companies or perform recycling itself? Many recycling companies do not recycling certain materials because of the cost or lack of ease of recycling (multi-layer plastics, small items, bulky items, contaminated items, etc.). Items like styrofoam, single-use flatware, blister packs, chip bags, or a plethora of items that can be recycled, but aren't. If you are unfamiliar, check out [TerraCycle][1] which offers services for many hard-to-recycle products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, private companies recycle for profit, thus will not recycle non-profitable items, including easy-to-recycle items if they receive too many contaminants, so they can't sell their bales. Even really cheap and easy items like glass, which as become such a commodity, some places don't take glass anymore. Wouldn't it make sense for the government to pick up on this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the government has the best interests in the public's welfare, despite the cost, it would be no different than other government-ran/sponsored programs such as medicare/medicaid, state parks, educational grants, scholarships, roads, sanitation, and so forth. Government programs are to help people via health, public safety, convenience, leisure, and education. So why not ecology? Even if private companies continued to handle recycling, the government could give tax breaks or incentives for these companies to handle hard-to-recycle materials. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I understand this doesn't have a definite answer and there are answers such as &quot;Because politicians don't generally care for reform unless profitable and any system currently in place is only still there because it's current&quot;, but are there other reasons? Maybe government can't interfere with these businesses, maybe they've tried and it doesn't work, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.terracycle.com/en-US/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="e88461ce-e10d-4bde-8878-59fdad197072" CreationDate="2018-09-13T21:48:27.327" UserId="2134" Comment="outsourcing two ideas, it's becoming too much for here" Text="Where feed-in is forbidden, a normal grid-tie inverter is not acceptable to the utility. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) However, an inverter plus a zero export solution can be acceptable. I propose to use this (options listed below), as it gets around the need for batteries (which are an additional expense and incur replacement costs due to normal degradation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, simply ask the utility operator. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In some countries, utilities may not yet have heard about zero export solutions, but a local electrician might agree to install an inverter with zero-export since it does not affect the grid. This is technically true if the inverter also has the anti-islanding feature (switching off when the grid goes down, to protect line workers; most grid-tie inverters have it, some reportedly don't, so check before). However, even if the local electrician offers this, as it happened to me, it is probably not &quot;according to the letter of the law&quot;. Proceed at your own responsibility, as always.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All options I list below also allow export limiting to a non-zero value, for cases where that is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. String inverter(s) with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Micro-inverters with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][14], [#28][15], [#46][16]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;SolarFighter&lt;/strike&gt;.** A Spanish company providing a [very nice zero-export solution][17] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][18]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][19]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The **problem** with this solution is that the zero export feature does not seem to work as advertised, according to my own tests. The controller box will set the production limit values in the inverter correctly, but for every value &gt;20 W the inverter will produce unthrottled, while for every value ≤20 W it will not produce anything. SolarFighter support confirmed that the behavior is not normal and exchanged the inverter on warranty, but so far the problem persists. This is esp. sad as otherwise this would be the *only* accessible zero-export solution for small installations. And *all* residential installations in countries where export to the grid is forbidden are small (&lt;1 kW(p)) – simply because more generation capacity than needed by the household cannot be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. Zero export devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor Dynamic Power Controller [CDP-0][21] / [CDP-G][22].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. The CDP-G version also includes three relays to power non-critical electrical consumers before having to throttle the inverter (see the [datashee][23]). Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][24]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][25].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent and able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off. No price or convenient purchase option found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Solar Zero Export Controller][26].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[PicoGrid ZX][27].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ComAP InteliPro PV][28].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[carbonTRACK][29].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][30]&lt;/strike&gt;.** No longer a suitable option because &quot;GNT Engineering have ceased operations and the ZED 1 is no longer commercially available.&quot; ([source][30]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This was a device that could control up to 6 inverters, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. Control happens via &quot;selective switching or 4-bit binary control&quot; ([source][30]). In addition to 4-bit digital control it can also use 6-bit control and RS485 ([source][31]), making it compatible with many brands of inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Selective switching&quot; simply means to open a switch in the inverter's output connection, thereby turning off generation immediately. This shuld not hurt any inverter, since they are prepare for grid failure to happen (&quot;anti-islanding function&quot; etc.). This control mode works with all inverter models, but does not allow it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all. It is better to use inverters that can be throttled by this device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 4. Increasing self-consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, to my knowledge, no certified industrial device that uses increased self-consumption as the *only* way to guarantee zero or limited export to the grid, so this is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution with respect to regulation where feed-in is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the solutions mentioned above have the option to control the consumption of non-critical electrical consumers (like a water heater), and there are DIY ways for that as well. So it is a useful addition to throttling inverters, as it utilizes the &quot;oversupply&quot; electricity meaningfully. This is best discussed in [another question][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 5. Supercap buffering with automated transfer switching&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an own idea and so far my favourite proposal because it is cheaper (esp. for small installations &lt;1 kW(p)), more do-it-yourself, and more maintainable. A small-ish supercapacitor bank is recharged by photovoltaics panels and the house runs either on the grid or from that supercap bank via a cheap, non-grid-tie inverter. An automatic transfer switch switches over seamlessly every few minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I explore the idea in detail here: &quot;[A DIY solution for photovoltaics self-consumption][33]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/docs/FT_CDP-G_EN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://bcjcontrols.com.au/zero-export-devices-zed-1-2-3-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6521&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: https://edgeryders.eu/t/9030" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6834" RevisionGUID="d9eb5a14-9ae5-45f3-90ee-f91bae7dd8fc" CreationDate="2018-09-13T23:08:03.407" UserId="5788" Text="In 2020 all new homes built in the state of CA will require rooftop solar in their construction, to accommodate on grid net-metering, as well as off-grid living standards for those who can not meet a  grid. However, the answer to the question may very well be something between bi-partisan and non-partisan. It's non-conclusive, and destabilizes any argument. Governor Jerry Brown did after all sign two bills last week stating that  would  curb new offshore oil drilling in California by barring the construction of pipelines demanded from the Trump Administration, through CA state land.  It seems like it could go any direction, or something could be hiding behind a house of cards. After all 20 + years is a long time. Ultimately, look at the benefits of home solar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good News:&#xD;&#xA;* Renewable energy in solar is viable to consumers with or without a 100% clean energy state in 2045&#xD;&#xA;* Renewable energy in solar, is cost effective for consumers to buy it on their own&#xD;&#xA;* Independently installing solar, either way, will be cheaper if it is on your own rooftop&#xD;&#xA;* Consumers building new homes after 2020, will find clarity in what installing your own solar actually does&#xD;&#xA;    * Mitigates your carbon footprint&#xD;&#xA;    * Reduces your bills&#xD;&#xA;    * Sets a good example&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, lets get past the fuss and ask another question? Where do I go to get it without being ripped off? As you may be asking, I do work for a one stop shop solution, HahaSmart is A - Z, they save you 25% off of competition by giving you competitive solar panel and accessories, as well as giving best deals on installation from know-how. Then with all of the cost savings in taxes you’re getting an additional 30% off. Assess your system size and costs for rooftop solar using the price-checker tools online. (https://hahasmart.com/price-checker)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17718" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="6834" RevisionGUID="9c1d74cc-d3ae-47d4-8b9a-337a313f9fd0" CreationDate="2018-09-14T06:41:28.910" UserId="48" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6836" RevisionGUID="067e676b-1aa2-4a35-81c4-7b7070086896" CreationDate="2018-09-15T13:09:55.437" UserId="4477" Text="**TLDR:** Regarding water consumption and plain land use, Brazil nuts are the winners, and by far -- at least from the numbers in [this old report][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the current answers ignore an important factor: Water consumption. (The question also already is a bit old.) I also included land use data further down, both from [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to around page 14 of [this report][2], green + blue water consumption (from rain and from lakes, rivers, tab water and the like) was on global average, between 1996 and 2005: &#xD;&#xA;(in m³ / ton)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Shelled:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds: 13'080 &#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts: 9'810 &#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts*: 3'740 &#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts: 7'740&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Unshelled:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds:  6'540&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts:  250 (!)&#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts*: 2'620&#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts: 4'900&#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts: 4'100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Ground-nuts = peanuts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Don't know/same:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cashew nuts: 13'770&#xD;&#xA; - Pistachios: 10'700&#xD;&#xA; - Shea nut: 3'360&#xD;&#xA; - Sunflower Seeds: 3'170&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I couldn't find information on Pecans, Macadamia, Mongongo, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Of course, there could have been big changes in production since 2005.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is water consumption per weight, but I would guess that most nuts have similar calorie-per-weight ratios, so a comparison of these values should make sense. The couple I checked had between 560 to 620 kcal/100g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, water is only one aspect. Transport and pesticide use would be others. [This article][1] covers other aspects, with lots of sources. For example, growing Brazil nuts apparently doesn't destroy but protect the Amazon rainforest [4]. And Peanuts require few to no pesticides, they say.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Production per area,* also from [\[1\]][1], in ton/(yr*hr) - higher is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cashew nuts:	1.99 / 3.24 = 0.6&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds:	1.57 / 1.63 = 0.96&#xD;&#xA; - Pistachios:	0.47 / 0.45 = 1.0&#xD;&#xA; - Sunflower seed: 25.8 / 21.0 = 1.2&#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts:	35.5 / 23.1 = 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts:	0.74 / 0.51 = 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts:	1.35 / 0.61 = 2.2&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts:	(No land use, so = infinity. - they apparently [grow inside of intact rainforest only][3] )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://grist.org/food/what-are-the-most-eco-friendly-nuts/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report47-WaterFootprintCrops-Vol2.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/species/brazil-nut-tree" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6836" RevisionGUID="8c767208-043b-4b30-9412-0fd230d80ec9" CreationDate="2018-09-15T13:15:21.273" UserId="4477" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**TLDR:** Regarding water consumption and plain land use, Brazil nuts are the winners, and by far -- at least from the numbers in [this old report][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the current answers ignore an important factor: Water consumption. (The question also already is a bit old.) I also included land use data further down, both from [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to around page 14 of [the report][2], green + blue water consumption (from rain and from lakes, rivers, tab water and the like) was on global average, between 1996 and 2005: &#xD;&#xA;(in m³ / ton)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Shelled:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds: 13'080 &#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts: 9'810 &#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts*: 3'740 &#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts: 7'740&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Unshelled:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds:  6'540&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts:  250 (!)&#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts*: 2'620&#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts: 4'900&#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts: 4'100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Ground-nuts = peanuts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Don't know/same:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cashew nuts: 13'770&#xD;&#xA; - Pistachios: 10'700&#xD;&#xA; - Shea nut: 3'360&#xD;&#xA; - Sunflower Seeds: 3'170&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I couldn't find information on Pecans, Macadamia, Mongongo, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Of course, there could have been big changes in production since 2005.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is water consumption per weight, but I would guess that most nuts have similar calorie-per-weight ratios, so a comparison of these values should make sense. The couple I checked had between 560 to 620 kcal/100g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, water is only one aspect. Transport and pesticide use would be others. [This article][1] covers other aspects, with lots of sources. For example, growing Brazil nuts apparently doesn't destroy but protect the Amazon rainforest [4]. And Peanuts require few to no pesticides, they say.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Production per area,* also from [\[1\]][1], in ton/(yr*hr) - higher is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cashew nuts:	1.99 / 3.24 = 0.6&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds:	1.57 / 1.63 = 0.96&#xD;&#xA; - Pistachios:	0.47 / 0.45 = 1.0&#xD;&#xA; - Sunflower seed: 25.8 / 21.0 = 1.2&#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts:	35.5 / 23.1 = 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts:	0.74 / 0.51 = 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts:	1.35 / 0.61 = 2.2&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts:	(No land use, so = infinity. - they apparently [grow inside of intact rainforest only][3] )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://grist.org/food/what-are-the-most-eco-friendly-nuts/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report47-WaterFootprintCrops-Vol2.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/species/brazil-nut-tree" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6836" RevisionGUID="644f27fa-f712-4e32-8cb5-95123e705da3" CreationDate="2018-09-15T13:30:58.693" UserId="4477" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="**TLDR:** Regarding water consumption and plain land use, Brazil nuts are the winners, and by far -- at least from the numbers in [this old report][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the current answers ignore an important factor: Water consumption. (The question also already is a bit old.) I also included land use data further down, both from [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to around page 14 of [the report][2], green + blue water consumption (from rain and from lakes, rivers, tab water and the like) was on global average, between 1996 and 2005: &#xD;&#xA;(in m³ / ton)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Shelled:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds: 13'080 &#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts: 9'810 &#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts*: 3'740 &#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts: 7'740&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Unshelled:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds:  6'540&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts:  250 (!)&#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts*: 2'620&#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts: 4'900&#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts: 4'100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Ground-nuts = peanuts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Don't know/same:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cashew nuts: 13'770&#xD;&#xA; - Pistachios: 10'700&#xD;&#xA; - Shea nut: 3'360&#xD;&#xA; - Sunflower Seeds: 3'170&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I couldn't find information on Pecans, Macadamia, Mongongo, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Of course, there could have been big changes in production since 2005.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is water consumption per weight, but I would guess that most nuts have similar calorie-per-weight ratios, so a comparison of these values should make sense. The couple I checked had between 560 to 620 kcal/100g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, water is only one aspect. Transport and pesticide use would be others. [This article][1] covers other aspects, with lots of sources. For example, growing Brazil nuts apparently doesn't destroy but protect the Amazon rainforest[\[3\]][3]. And Peanuts require few to no pesticides, they say.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Production per area,* also from [\[1\]][1], in ton/(yr*hr) - higher is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cashew nuts:	1.99 / 3.24 = 0.6&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds:	1.57 / 1.63 = 0.96&#xD;&#xA; - Pistachios:	0.47 / 0.45 = 1.0&#xD;&#xA; - Sunflower seed: 25.8 / 21.0 = 1.2&#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts:	35.5 / 23.1 = 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts:	0.74 / 0.51 = 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts:	1.35 / 0.61 = 2.2&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts:	(No land use, so = infinity. - they apparently [grow inside of intact rainforest only][3] )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://grist.org/food/what-are-the-most-eco-friendly-nuts/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report47-WaterFootprintCrops-Vol2.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/species/brazil-nut-tree" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17723" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6836" RevisionGUID="5da4ccf3-d1ff-4656-809d-26dec289c3f9" CreationDate="2018-09-15T14:03:10.433" UserId="4477" Comment="added 500 characters in body" Text="**TLDR:** Regarding water consumption and plain land use, Brazil nuts are the winners, and by far -- at least from the numbers in [this old report][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the current answers ignore an important factor: Water consumption. (The question also already is a bit old.) I also included land use data further down, both from [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to around page 14 of [the report][2], green + blue water consumption (from rain and from lakes, rivers, tab water and the like) was on global average, between 1996 and 2005: &#xD;&#xA;(in m³ / ton)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Shelled:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds: 13'080 &#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts: 9'810 &#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts*: 3'740 &#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts: 7'740&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Unshelled:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds:  6'540&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts:  250 (!)&#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts*: 2'620&#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts: 4'900&#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts: 4'100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Ground-nuts = peanuts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Don't know/same:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cashew nuts: 13'770&#xD;&#xA; - Pistachios: 10'700&#xD;&#xA; - Shea nut: 3'360&#xD;&#xA; - Sunflower Seeds: 3'170&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I couldn't find information on Pecans, Macadamia, Mongongo, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Of course, there could have been big changes in production since 2005.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is water consumption per weight, but I would guess that most nuts have similar calorie-per-weight ratios, so a comparison of these values should make sense. The couple I checked had between 560 to 620 kcal/100g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, water is only one aspect. Transport and pesticide use would be others. [This article][1] covers other aspects, with lots of sources. For example, growing Brazil nuts apparently doesn't destroy but protect the Amazon rainforest[\[3\]][3]. And Peanuts require few to no pesticides, they say.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Production per area,* also from [\[1\]][1], in ton/(yr*hr) - higher is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cashew nuts:	1.99 / 3.24 = 0.6&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds:	1.57 / 1.63 = 0.96&#xD;&#xA; - Pistachios:	0.47 / 0.45 = 1.0&#xD;&#xA; - Sunflower seed: 25.8 / 21.0 = 1.2&#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts:	35.5 / 23.1 = 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts:	0.74 / 0.51 = 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts:	1.35 / 0.61 = 2.2&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts:	(No land use, so = infinity. - they apparently [grow inside of intact rainforest only][3] )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this post even longer, here's a comparison of ***water consumption, nuts vs. meat***.&#xD;&#xA;Numbers are based on the report, 4. below, and other calorie-listing websites which I'd post if this were not beyond my link-posting limit:&#xD;&#xA;(in gallons / kcal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Chicken: 0.3&#xD;&#xA; - Pork: 0.7&#xD;&#xA; - Beef: 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds: 0.6&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts: 0.01&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  4: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-g-how-water-hungry-are-californias-nuts-20150408-htmlstory.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://grist.org/food/what-are-the-most-eco-friendly-nuts/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report47-WaterFootprintCrops-Vol2.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/species/brazil-nut-tree" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6836" RevisionGUID="70efc204-8233-4b10-a546-160bbdabedd0" CreationDate="2018-09-16T15:37:40.823" UserId="4477" Comment="adding source" Text="**TLDR:** Regarding water consumption and plain land use, Brazil nuts are the winners, and by far -- at least from the numbers in [this old report][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the current answers ignore an important factor: Water consumption. (The question also already is a bit old.) I also included land use data further down, both from [here][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to around page 14 of [the report][2], green + blue water consumption (from rain and from lakes, rivers, tab water and the like) was on global average, between 1996 and 2005: &#xD;&#xA;(in m³ / ton)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Shelled:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds: 13'080 &#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts: 9'810 &#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts*: 3'740 &#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts: 7'740&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Unshelled:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds:  6'540&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts:  250 (!)&#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts*: 2'620&#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts: 4'900&#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts: 4'100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Ground-nuts = peanuts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Don't know/same:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cashew nuts: 13'770&#xD;&#xA; - Pistachios: 10'700&#xD;&#xA; - Shea nut: 3'360&#xD;&#xA; - Sunflower Seeds: 3'170&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I couldn't find information on Pecans, Macadamia, Mongongo, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Of course, there could have been big changes in production since 2005.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is water consumption per weight, but I would guess that most nuts have similar calorie-per-weight ratios, so a comparison of these values should make sense. The couple I checked had between 560 to 620 kcal/100g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, water is only one aspect. Transport and pesticide use would be others. [This article][1] covers other aspects, with lots of sources. For example, growing Brazil nuts apparently doesn't destroy but protect the Amazon rainforest[\[3\]][3]. And Peanuts require few to no pesticides, they say.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Production per area,* also from [\[1\]][1], in ton/(yr*hr) - higher is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cashew nuts:	1.99 / 3.24 = 0.6&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds:	1.57 / 1.63 = 0.96&#xD;&#xA; - Pistachios:	0.47 / 0.45 = 1.0&#xD;&#xA; - Sunflower seed: 25.8 / 21.0 = 1.2&#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts:	35.5 / 23.1 = 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts:	0.74 / 0.51 = 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts:	1.35 / 0.61 = 2.2&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts:	(No land use, so = infinity. - they apparently [grow inside of intact rainforest only][3] )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this post even longer, here's a comparison of ***water consumption, nuts vs. meat***.&#xD;&#xA;Numbers are based on the report, 4. below, and other calorie-listing websites which I'd post if this were not beyond my link-posting limit:&#xD;&#xA;(in gallons / kcal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Chicken: 0.3&#xD;&#xA; - Pork: 0.7&#xD;&#xA; - Beef: 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds: 0.6&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts: 0.01&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  4: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-g-how-water-hungry-are-californias-nuts-20150408-htmlstory.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **Edit:** Title of the [report][2]:  &#xD;&#xA;Mekonnen, Hoekstra, 2010: *&quot;The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Volume 2: Appendices. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 47 &quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://grist.org/food/what-are-the-most-eco-friendly-nuts/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report47-WaterFootprintCrops-Vol2.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/species/brazil-nut-tree" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6836" RevisionGUID="64bdbb11-b6bb-4a70-b331-1f52178e977f" CreationDate="2018-09-16T16:06:56.143" UserId="4477" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="**TLDR:** Regarding water consumption and plain land use, Brazil nuts are the winners, and by far -- at least from the numbers in [this old report][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the current answers ignore an important factor: Water consumption. (The question also already is a bit old.) I also included land use data further down, both from [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to around page 14 of [the report][1], green + blue water consumption (from rain and from lakes, rivers, tab water and the like) was on global average, between 1996 and 2005: &#xD;&#xA;(in m³ / ton)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Shelled:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds: 13'080 &#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts: 9'810 &#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts*: 3'740 &#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts: 7'740&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Unshelled:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds:  6'540&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts:  250 (!)&#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts*: 2'620&#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts: 4'900&#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts: 4'100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Ground-nuts = peanuts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Don't know/same:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cashew nuts: 13'770&#xD;&#xA; - Pistachios: 10'700&#xD;&#xA; - Shea nut: 3'360&#xD;&#xA; - Sunflower Seeds: 3'170&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I couldn't find information on Pecans, Macadamia, Mongongo, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Of course, there could have been big changes in production since 2005.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is water consumption per weight, but I would guess that most nuts have similar calorie-per-weight ratios, so a comparison of these values should make sense. The couple I checked had between 560 to 620 kcal/100g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, water is only one aspect. Transport and pesticide use would be others. [This article][2] covers other aspects, with lots of sources. For example, growing Brazil nuts apparently doesn't destroy but protect the Amazon rainforest[\[3\]][3] (but see [this paper][4], as pointed out by THelper).  And Peanuts require few to no pesticides, they say.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Production per area,* also from [\[1\]][2], in ton/(yr*hr) - higher is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cashew nuts:	1.99 / 3.24 = 0.6&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds:	1.57 / 1.63 = 0.96&#xD;&#xA; - Pistachios:	0.47 / 0.45 = 1.0&#xD;&#xA; - Sunflower seed: 25.8 / 21.0 = 1.2&#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts:	35.5 / 23.1 = 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts:	0.74 / 0.51 = 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts:	1.35 / 0.61 = 2.2&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts:	(No land use, so = infinity. - they apparently [grow inside of intact rainforest only][3] )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this post even longer, here's a comparison of ***water consumption, nuts vs. meat***.&#xD;&#xA;Numbers are based on the report, 5. below, and other calorie-listing websites which I'd post if this were not beyond my link-posting limit:&#xD;&#xA;(in gallons / kcal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Chicken: 0.3&#xD;&#xA; - Pork: 0.7&#xD;&#xA; - Beef: 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds: 0.6&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts: 0.01&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  5: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-g-how-water-hungry-are-californias-nuts-20150408-htmlstory.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **Edit:** Title of the [report][1]:  &#xD;&#xA;Mekonnen, Hoekstra, 2010: *&quot;The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Volume 2: Appendices. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 47 &quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report47-WaterFootprintCrops-Vol2.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://grist.org/food/what-are-the-most-eco-friendly-nuts/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/species/brazil-nut-tree&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534704000771" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6837" RevisionGUID="28e0b0d9-ed39-4705-b0d3-85d0f754563a" CreationDate="2018-09-16T16:44:39.333" UserId="4477" Text="Adding **Power-to-(natural-)Gas**, since no one mentioned it yet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By now, it's also possible to transform the energy from solar panels not only to hydrogen, but further into  methane, ['the main component of natural gas'][1]. Then you can either store it at home or feed it into the local gas grid. The PSI considers an efficiency of 60% a realistic benchmark [(same article)][1], though that would mean, of course, they do not currently reach this number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feed gas into the local gas grid, of course you don't store it for yourself, but how I see it is: If you get money for it, you can later use that money to take gas back out of the grid. Big upside: You don't have to worry about building a gas container at your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently read about a house in Switzerland that is using this technology, and heard about bigger projects in the US doing the same, but couldn't find the sources right now. I will add them if I find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.psi.ch/media/turning-electricity-into-gas-and-back-into-electricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17729" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6837" RevisionGUID="06491cf7-82c9-40a2-bd12-a2b7d6f16f7a" CreationDate="2018-09-16T16:59:34.277" UserId="4477" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="Adding **Power-to-(natural-)Gas**, since no one mentioned it yet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By now, it's also possible to transform the energy from solar panels not only to hydrogen, but further into  methane, ['the main component of natural gas'][1]. Then you can either store it at home or feed it into the local gas grid. The PSI considers an efficiency of 60% a realistic benchmark [(same article)][1], though that would mean, of course, they do not currently reach this number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feed gas into the local gas grid, of course you don't store it for yourself, but how I see it is: If you get money for it, you can later use that money to take gas back out of the grid. Big upside: You don't have to worry about building a gas container at your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently read about a house in Switzerland that is using this technology [here][2] (article in German only) and heard about bigger projects in the US doing the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.psi.ch/media/turning-electricity-into-gas-and-back-into-electricity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nzz.ch/zuerich/in-der-vernetzung-liegt-die-energiezukunft-ld.1351095" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6837" RevisionGUID="f2f70458-c578-463f-b0a3-8046115b8fed" CreationDate="2018-09-16T17:21:27.660" UserId="4477" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="Adding **Power-to-(natural-)Gas**, since no one mentioned it yet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By now, it's also possible to transform the energy from solar panels not only to hydrogen, but further into  methane, ['the main component of natural gas'][1]. Then you can either store it at home or feed it into the local gas grid. The PSI considers an efficiency of 60% a realistic benchmark [(same article)][1], though that would mean, of course, they do not currently reach this number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feed gas into the local gas grid, of course you don't store it for yourself, but how I see it is: If you get money for it, you can later use that money to take gas back out of the grid. Big upside: You don't have to worry about building a gas container at your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently read about a house in Switzerland that is using this technology [here][2] (article in German only). But their electricity-to-gas transformation still happens externally. It seems the 'key' part of the system is city-owned and uses CO2 coming from a sewage plant, and energy from a waste-burning facility, as well as from this house. So *I'm not sure how easy it would be to build such a system at home.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also heard about bigger projects in the US doing something similar, so I hope there's going to be more progress soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.psi.ch/media/turning-electricity-into-gas-and-back-into-electricity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nzz.ch/zuerich/in-der-vernetzung-liegt-die-energiezukunft-ld.1351095" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6837" RevisionGUID="b62cd4a4-2fbf-48b5-9925-defe4da36a1d" CreationDate="2018-09-16T17:33:49.707" UserId="4477" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="Adding **Power-to-(natural-)Gas**, since no one mentioned it yet:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By now, it's also possible to transform the energy from solar panels not only to hydrogen, but further into  methane, ['the main component of natural gas'][1]. **Edit: This might not be possible to do for a single home yet, see below.** Then you could either store the gas at home or feed it into the local gas grid.&#xD;&#xA;The PSI considers an efficiency of 60% a realistic benchmark [(same article)][1], though that would mean, of course, they do not currently reach this number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you feed gas into the local gas grid, of course you don't store it for yourself, but how I see it is: If you get money for it, you can later use that money to take gas back out of the grid. Big upside: You would not have to worry about building a gas container at your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently read about a house in Switzerland that is using this technology [here][2] (article in German only). But their electricity-to-gas transformation still happens externally. It seems the 'key' part of the system is city-owned and uses CO2 coming from a sewage plant, and energy from a waste-burning facility, as well as from this house. So *I'm not sure how easy it would be to build such a system at home.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also heard about bigger projects in the US doing something similar, so I hope there's going to be more progress soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.psi.ch/media/turning-electricity-into-gas-and-back-into-electricity&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nzz.ch/zuerich/in-der-vernetzung-liegt-die-energiezukunft-ld.1351095" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6838" RevisionGUID="c409fc40-95cf-4832-ab63-650e1b172d14" CreationDate="2018-09-17T18:29:50.843" UserId="3379" Text="I just read the article [&quot;Oregon Launches First Statewide Refillable Bottle System In U.S.&quot;](https://n.pr/2NlzpOL). Discussing the environmental impact of this system, the article says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Until that facility [in Portland, OR] is built — likely by 2020 — all the refillable bottles will be sent to a facility in Montana to be washed. But even with that drive, Schoening said, the carbon savings of refillable bottles are big. &quot;Every time that bottle gets reused, you're cutting the carbon footprint of that bottle in half,&quot; Schoening said. &quot;It's the most sustainable choice in the beer aisle.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 50% reduction (if true) is good, but how much is that in concrete terms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For a standard 500ml beverage container, what is the environmental impact of production from virgin materials, compared to recycled materials?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I am interested in aluminum, glass, and clear plastic (PET).&#xD;&#xA; - Environmental impact includes, at a minimum, the energy and water required for production of all feedstocks, and the total carbon emissions of the production process.&#xD;&#xA; - Do not include labels and transportation -- I'm interested in a &quot;cradle to factory gate&quot; analysis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17733" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6838" RevisionGUID="c409fc40-95cf-4832-ab63-650e1b172d14" CreationDate="2018-09-17T18:29:50.843" UserId="3379" Text="What is the environmental impact of recycling beverage containers, by material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17734" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6838" RevisionGUID="c409fc40-95cf-4832-ab63-650e1b172d14" CreationDate="2018-09-17T18:29:50.843" UserId="3379" Text="|recycling|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6839" RevisionGUID="7ff236d8-aed4-4f14-b520-f7515eefb79c" CreationDate="2018-09-17T18:37:47.657" UserId="3379" Text="The state of Oregon (U.S.) just began a beer bottle re-use system: [&quot;Oregon Launches First Statewide Refillable Bottle System In U.S.&quot;](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/09/17/645548896/oregon-launches-first-statewide-refillable-bottle-system-in-u-s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottles are collected throughout the state by the infrastructure that already exists to collect bottles for recycling. From the article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [The] new bottle [was] developed by the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative, the group that runs the state's bottle deposit system with support from major beverage distributors.&#xD;&#xA;[...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottles are specifically designed for reuse:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The new bottles — which can be refilled up to 40 times — are made mostly from recycled glass at the Owens-Illinois glass manufacturing plant in Northeast Portland. The bottles were designed to be easily separated from the rest of the glass in the existing bottle deposit system, Schoening said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adoption by brewers is small but growing: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Initially, the refillable bottles are being used by seven breweries — including Double Mountain, Widmer Brothers, Buoy Beer, Gigantic, Good Life, Rock Bottom and Wild Ride — for some of their beers. But Schoening said he expects the numbers to grow. He's already talking with interested cider makers and wineries about using refillable bottles that might come in different colors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6834" RevisionGUID="67b220aa-6820-4a3b-bef0-8373d3c3f41f" CreationDate="2018-09-17T20:16:20.123" UserId="5788" Comment="deleted 751 characters in body" Text="You will more than likely need as much power as you need to consume, actual standards for CA going 100% renewable do not start until 2045 so this has not been defined yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2020 all new homes built in the state of CA will require rooftop solar in their construction, to accommodate on grid net-metering, as well as off-grid living standards for those who can not meet a  grid. However, the answer to the question may very well be something between bi-partisan and non-partisan. It's non-conclusive, and destabilizes any argument.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all 20 + years is a long time. Ultimately, look at the benefits of home solar.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, new homes in zoning require solar panel systems. This does not mean you need excess power, because the rest is going onto the grid. But the homes will need to be able to satisfy an electricity bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;System size can be judged by sizing your total system, based on your average utility bill and the amount you will need to reach this number. This quantity is assessed by the size of your home in combination with the bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17737" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="6834" RevisionGUID="52b68d0c-c670-470b-8e42-b4715697abe6" CreationDate="2018-09-18T05:45:48.790" UserId="48" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:48,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;EnergyNumbers&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3139" RevisionGUID="f9845f53-9171-464e-9e4f-cd6011115586" CreationDate="2018-09-22T07:50:11.323" UserId="99" Comment="added 2017 data, fixed broken links" Text="Currently we have [over 7.6 billion people in the world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population) (data from 2018). In 2010 the UN made several projections for world population growth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Picture from \[wikipedia\]](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1cCXQ.png)&#xD;&#xA;*World population estimates from 1800 to 2100, based on &quot;high&quot;, &quot;medium&quot; and &quot;low&quot; United Nations projections in 2010 [(source wikipedia)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/World-Population-1800-2100.svg/640px-World-Population-1800-2100.svg.png).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worst case scenario (red line) is that the world population will continue to grow and we’ll have about 10.5 billion people in 2050. The best case scenario (green line) is that the population will stop growing soon and we’ll have a peak of 8 billion people somewhere around 2045.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The UN scenario that is generally thought to be the most plausible is that the world population will continue to grow to around 9.3 in 2050 and 10.1 billion people at the end of the 21st century and then remain stable (the yellow line). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the [2012 revision of these figures](https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2012_HIGHLIGHTS.pdf) changed these 'most likely' numbers to 9.6 billion in 2050 and 10.9 billion in 2100, and in the [2015 revision](https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/Key_Findings_WPP_2015.pdf) the numbers were raised to 9.7 and 11.2 respectively. In the [2017 revision](https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf) the numbers changed slightly (see table below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                       2050    2100&#xD;&#xA;    --------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    1994 revision  |   9.8           &#xD;&#xA;    2000 revision  |   9.3           &#xD;&#xA;    2002 revision  |   8.9          &#xD;&#xA;    2010 revision  |   9.306  10.125    &#xD;&#xA;    2012 revision  |   9.551  10.854 &#xD;&#xA;    2015 revision  |   9.725  11.213   &#xD;&#xA;    2017 revision  |   9.772  11.184 &#xD;&#xA;*Table 1: UN (medium) projections of the expected world population in billions of people*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A statistical study published in 2014](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/09/17/science.1257469) says that the UN projections are inaccurate and claims that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion people, will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion in 2100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [critics on this new study](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26231-global-population-may-boom-well-beyond-the-year-2050.html#.VGpo_PmG-So) say that it doesn't take improvements to female education in Africa into account, which is a key driver in (slowing) population growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1994 https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&amp;id=85zBAAAAIAAJ&#xD;&#xA;- 2000 http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2000/highlights.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- 2002 http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2002/WPP2002-HIGHLIGHTSrev1.PDF&#xD;&#xA;- 2010 https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/WPP2010/WPP2010_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- 2012 https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2012_HIGHLIGHTS.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- 2015 https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/Key_Findings_WPP_2015.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- 2017 https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6842" RevisionGUID="59aaaf76-68d5-465a-b983-acbc0ff04069" CreationDate="2018-09-22T12:44:53.303" UserId="2301" Text="Maybe my answer is naive, but have you thought about a battery like the Tesla Powerwall? Storing energy during daylight and using at night increases dramatically the auto-consumption rate (~98%)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17751" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="3eb3151b-51b7-487a-83ae-dbdc6bb860ce" CreationDate="2018-09-22T16:02:01.720" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="324ec613-b44b-4ea0-b257-8ef526343c62" CreationDate="2018-09-24T07:52:19.600" UserId="80" Text="I am wondering about a specific carbon footprint comparison (i.e. total global warming potential per litre) between soy milk and cow's milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would of course depend on where and how they are produced, but I'd like to know if people have sources that could potentially be gathered (or an article that already did a meta-analysis of some sort!) to have a general idea of the order of magnitude of the difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Related question*: [Which is more sustainable: almond, soy, coconut, cashew or other milk?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4880/which-is-more-sustainable-almond-soy-coconut-cashew-or-other-milk)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="324ec613-b44b-4ea0-b257-8ef526343c62" CreationDate="2018-09-24T07:52:19.600" UserId="80" Text="Carbon footprint of soy milk versus cow's milk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="324ec613-b44b-4ea0-b257-8ef526343c62" CreationDate="2018-09-24T07:52:19.600" UserId="80" Text="|food|carbon-footprint|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6844" RevisionGUID="6aa688fd-82fa-44cf-b75a-cebb9698625a" CreationDate="2018-09-24T09:47:05.197" UserId="6019" Text="See also:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080225072624.htm&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps turn your garden into a carbon sink?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17756" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6844" RevisionGUID="addf59a7-0738-4bd8-8650-1194bfd685de" CreationDate="2018-09-24T11:44:04.183" UserId="99" Comment="48" />
  <row Id="17757" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="53ea6760-a20c-43ff-b951-ae5c3b4a9a62" CreationDate="2018-09-24T12:01:10.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17758" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6843" RevisionGUID="30dc0b84-e385-429c-9b9b-b880e2b28e50" CreationDate="2018-09-24T15:00:08.057" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1044240067907194882" />
  <row Id="17759" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="43db5f1e-e41e-4633-bcf8-d5ae90de3071" CreationDate="2018-09-24T18:24:57.807" UserId="6021" Text="I'm a software engineer, and lately I've been thinking whether it's possible to delineate the environmental impact of a software product - say a web service, a website, an app for your phone, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes resources to create it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Developers, who use the company facilities while working on the software.&#xD;&#xA;* Equipment - laptops, desktops, monitors, whatever else&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes resources to run it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cloud-based software runs in a datacenter, and enjoys the economy of scale a datacenter provides&#xD;&#xA;* More traditional software runs on dedicated servers you have to manage yourself.&#xD;&#xA;* A more inefficient algorithm may require more CPU cycles than an equivalent, but more efficient, algorithm&#xD;&#xA;* Depending on longevity, this software may be running in the datacenter, or on people's phones, for many years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also takes resources to deprecate/decommission software. Taken together, I wonder if there's a way to apply Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology to software products akin to how it's done to more traditional &quot;physical&quot; products. So much of our modern life runs on software that I suspect it's not going to end up being very cheap, when taken on its global scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is anyone aware of efforts (or even theoretical studies) of applying LCA to software?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17760" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="43db5f1e-e41e-4633-bcf8-d5ae90de3071" CreationDate="2018-09-24T18:24:57.807" UserId="6021" Text="Life-cycle assessment of software products?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17761" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="43db5f1e-e41e-4633-bcf8-d5ae90de3071" CreationDate="2018-09-24T18:24:57.807" UserId="6021" Text="|environmental-impact|carbon-footprint|life-cycle-analysis|green-it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6846" RevisionGUID="23480361-7e3a-4efe-9f3c-7a24cf552a99" CreationDate="2018-09-24T20:57:36.397" UserId="6022" Text="I live in a city that doesn't have composting facilities that ordinary citizens like myself could easily use.&#xD;&#xA;Although I recycle most of the plastic, metal, glass and paper I lay my hands on, getting rid of food scraps has always been a problem for me. While I do try to be as thoughtful as possible when I have time (turn orange peel into candy, use tea and coffee grains as colorants etc), most of the scraps will still go directly into trash. I know there are ways to compost at home, but I don't have enough dedication or room to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much damage are my actions causing to the environment compared to throwing away the same amount of unrecycled plastic, glass and metal? I always thought that since compostable things are not toxic and are of organic nature, they will fairly quickly decompose anyway and not cause significant environmental damage, regardless of whether they end up in landfill or are burned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6846" RevisionGUID="23480361-7e3a-4efe-9f3c-7a24cf552a99" CreationDate="2018-09-24T20:57:36.397" UserId="6022" Text="I throw compostable food into trash — how much harm do I cause?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6846" RevisionGUID="23480361-7e3a-4efe-9f3c-7a24cf552a99" CreationDate="2018-09-24T20:57:36.397" UserId="6022" Text="|composting|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="1e89fd37-46dd-4df4-bdb0-f126151a35ca" CreationDate="2018-09-25T14:50:29.330" UserId="3379" Text="Food that we eat is turned into the energy that keeps us alive. Food that we compost is turned into nutrients that keep plants and animals alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But food that we throw away is turned into methane that contributes to global warming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article from basmati.com](https://basmati.com/2016/12/01/what-happens-food-scraps-are-thrown-away) explains the difference well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A compost pile [...] is a train station full of living organisms; worms, snails, bugs and bacteria all munch away at the decomposing material. Moisture and air is allowed in and out, creating an aerobic environment that generates heat and releases carbon dioxide instead of toxic methane gas. The resulting compost can be used to fertilize young plants, start seeds, or offer an inviting place for worms to continue the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, many landfills in the U.S. now utilize a **&quot;dry tomb&quot;** system (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The landfills are lined with geo-textiles and clay, creating a shield of sorts between the waste and the earth surrounding it. Landfill managers then fill with waste, compact it, cover each day’s material with earth, and finally “cap” the pile with another layer of clay and geo-textiles. Fluid run-off is collected and treated, lowering the moisture level of the “tombs.” **Organic materials decompose, but in a very different, anaerobic environment that does not favor natural biological activity. Methane and other gases build up in this setting.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article notes that since 1996, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [requires large landfills to monitor methane emissions](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&amp;SID=9dd547da709a41416ae82bf206af61c9&amp;mc=true&amp;r=SECTION&amp;n=se40.27.258_123). Methane above specific concentrations must be disposed of -- either by flaring, or captured for [use as an energy source](https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While such waste-to-energy systems are far better than releasing or flaring methane, if their main feedstock is wasted food, they are still worse than composting: burning methane puts carbon dioxide directly in the atmosphere, while composting puts at least a portion of it into the soil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And ultimately, in modern agricultural systems, the energy to produce food comes from oil, meaning that food waste is like pouring oil out on the ground. From Scientific American: [Waste Land: Does the Large Amount of Food Discarded in the U.S. Take a Toll on the Environment?](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talk-waste-land/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [R]esearchers at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) concluded in a 2009 study that each year a quarter of U.S. water consumption and over 300 million barrels of oil (four percent of U.S. oil consumption) go into producing and distributing food that ultimately ends up in landfills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What should we do?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, **limit food waste** as much as possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Any food and grocery buying systems that lead to less food waste?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2538/3379)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, **compost** to the extent practical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Is it feasible to compost in an apartment in a city like New York?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/7/3379)&#xD;&#xA; - [What alternative to composting is there to manage organic waste at home?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/226/3379)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **advocate**! Exercise your right to vote and civic participation to encourage your local municipality to either begin compost collection, or at a minimum to capture and convert landfill gas, if it's not being done already." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="e5ac8ee6-5b92-44c0-81e6-12490ccca70c" CreationDate="2018-09-25T15:03:53.940" UserId="3379" Comment="added 431 characters in body" Text="Food that we eat is turned into the energy that keeps us alive. Food that we compost is turned into nutrients that keep plants and animals alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But food that we throw away is turned into methane that contributes to global warming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article from basmati.com](https://basmati.com/2016/12/01/what-happens-food-scraps-are-thrown-away) explains the difference well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A compost pile [...] is a train station full of living organisms; worms, snails, bugs and bacteria all munch away at the decomposing material. Moisture and air is allowed in and out, creating an aerobic environment that generates heat and releases carbon dioxide instead of toxic methane gas. The resulting compost can be used to fertilize young plants, start seeds, or offer an inviting place for worms to continue the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, many landfills in the U.S. now utilize a **&quot;dry tomb&quot;** system (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The landfills are lined with geo-textiles and clay, creating a shield of sorts between the waste and the earth surrounding it. Landfill managers then fill with waste, compact it, cover each day’s material with earth, and finally “cap” the pile with another layer of clay and geo-textiles. Fluid run-off is collected and treated, lowering the moisture level of the “tombs.” **Organic materials decompose, but in a very different, anaerobic environment that does not favor natural biological activity. Methane and other gases build up in this setting.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article notes that since 1996, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [requires large landfills to monitor methane emissions](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&amp;SID=9dd547da709a41416ae82bf206af61c9&amp;mc=true&amp;r=SECTION&amp;n=se40.27.258_123). Methane above specific concentrations must be disposed of -- either by flaring, or captured for [use as an energy source](https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, food that's sent to a landfill has a few options after it is decomposed into methane gas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Released into the atmosphere, where it is [34 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Flared (burned), causing CO2 emissions and a waste of energy&#xD;&#xA; 3. Captured for use directly as biogas for heating or electricity generation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While waste-to-energy systems are far better than the first two options, if the main feedstock is wasted food, it is still worse than composting: burning methane puts carbon dioxide directly in the atmosphere, while composting puts at least a portion of it into the soil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And ultimately, in modern agricultural systems, the energy to produce food comes from oil, meaning that food waste is like pouring oil out on the ground. From Scientific American: [Waste Land: Does the Large Amount of Food Discarded in the U.S. Take a Toll on the Environment?](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talk-waste-land/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [R]esearchers at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) concluded in a 2009 study that each year a quarter of U.S. water consumption and over 300 million barrels of oil (four percent of U.S. oil consumption) go into producing and distributing food that ultimately ends up in landfills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What should we do instead?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, **limit food waste** as much as possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Any food and grocery buying systems that lead to less food waste?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2538/3379)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, **compost** to the extent practical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Is it feasible to compost in an apartment in a city like New York?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/7/3379)&#xD;&#xA; - [What alternative to composting is there to manage organic waste at home?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/226/3379)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **advocate**! Exercise your right to vote and civic participation to encourage your local municipality to either begin compost collection, or at a minimum to capture and convert landfill gas, if it's not being done already." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6849" RevisionGUID="d6421a1d-06c0-4393-a731-7cb09b15b965" CreationDate="2018-09-25T16:14:54.103" UserId="3379" Text="There's a term used to apply to such a lifestyle: **freeganism.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeganism):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Freeganism** is a practice and ideology of limited participation in the conventional economy and minimal consumption of resources, particularly through recovering wasted goods like food. The word &quot;freegan&quot; is a portmanteau of &quot;free&quot; and &quot;vegan&quot;. While vegans might avoid buying animal products as an act of protest against animal exploitation, freegans—at least in theory—avoid buying anything as an act of protest against the food system in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Freeganism is often presented as synonymous with &quot;dumpster diving&quot; for discarded food, although freegans are distinguished by their association with an anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist ideology and their engagement in a wider range of alternative living strategies, such as voluntary unemployment, squatting abandoned buildings, and &quot;guerilla gardening&quot; in unoccupied city parks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Freegans have organized themselves a bit, and have a website: [freegan.info: strategies for sustainable living beyond capitalism](https://freegan.info/). On this website you could find more information about strategies and even meetings of local like-minded individuals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6849" RevisionGUID="3a3dc617-f1e4-4dc2-81e7-fef610d80f09" CreationDate="2018-09-25T17:20:31.243" UserId="3379" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="There's a term used which *may* apply to such a lifestyle: **freeganism.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeganism):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Freeganism** is a practice and ideology of limited participation in the conventional economy and minimal consumption of resources, particularly through recovering wasted goods like food. The word &quot;freegan&quot; is a portmanteau of &quot;free&quot; and &quot;vegan&quot;. While vegans might avoid buying animal products as an act of protest against animal exploitation, freegans—at least in theory—avoid buying anything as an act of protest against the food system in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Freeganism is often presented as synonymous with &quot;dumpster diving&quot; for discarded food, although freegans are distinguished by their association with an anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist ideology and their engagement in a wider range of alternative living strategies, such as voluntary unemployment, squatting abandoned buildings, and &quot;guerilla gardening&quot; in unoccupied city parks. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Freegans have organized themselves a bit, and have a website: [freegan.info: strategies for sustainable living beyond capitalism](https://freegan.info/). On this website you could find more information about strategies and even meetings of local like-minded individuals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as @Tim points out in the comments, while the freegan ethos relates to a fundamental rejection of capitalism, your participation in the economy as a worker means you aren't (yet?) a freegan." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6850" RevisionGUID="06087483-a86c-402c-9f3f-fd5c794751e2" CreationDate="2018-09-25T20:17:37.657" UserId="5292" Text="I've noticed that most thermally efficient constructions limit the use of windows due to glass' low [R-value][1]. According to this, one is forced to choose between well-lit spaces or thermally efficient ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earthships, contrary to this, use plenty of windows facing the sun. Is this because the double panel glass corridor (used as a greenhouse) provides more thermal resistance than a glass wall alone? Since enclosed air cavities have higher R-values, I assume this to be the case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under which conditions  will this hold? What should be the dimensions of this corridor? Is the temperature inside the double panel wall bearable or is it too high to be used as a living space?  Can window shades or deciduous trees be used to regulate temperature in these cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-value_(insulation)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17773" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6850" RevisionGUID="06087483-a86c-402c-9f3f-fd5c794751e2" CreationDate="2018-09-25T20:17:37.657" UserId="5292" Text="Can an internal greenhouse improve the thermal resistance of a glass panel wall?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17774" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6850" RevisionGUID="06087483-a86c-402c-9f3f-fd5c794751e2" CreationDate="2018-09-25T20:17:37.657" UserId="5292" Text="|thermal-regulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="6d963bea-7597-4ec9-86b1-80a1ae0e663d" CreationDate="2018-09-25T21:20:57.553" UserId="3379" Comment="Added some non-U.S. context" Text="Food that we eat is turned into the energy that keeps us alive. Food that we compost is turned into nutrients that keep plants and animals alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But food that we throw away is turned into methane that contributes to global warming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article from basmati.com](https://basmati.com/2016/12/01/what-happens-food-scraps-are-thrown-away) explains the difference well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A compost pile [...] is a train station full of living organisms; worms, snails, bugs and bacteria all munch away at the decomposing material. Moisture and air is allowed in and out, creating an aerobic environment that generates heat and releases carbon dioxide instead of toxic methane gas. The resulting compost can be used to fertilize young plants, start seeds, or offer an inviting place for worms to continue the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, many landfills (such as those in the U.S.) now utilize a **&quot;dry tomb&quot;** system (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The landfills are lined with geo-textiles and clay, creating a shield of sorts between the waste and the earth surrounding it. Landfill managers then fill with waste, compact it, cover each day’s material with earth, and finally “cap” the pile with another layer of clay and geo-textiles. Fluid run-off is collected and treated, lowering the moisture level of the “tombs.” **Organic materials decompose, but in a very different, anaerobic environment that does not favor natural biological activity. Methane and other gases build up in this setting.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article notes that since 1996, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [requires large landfills to monitor methane emissions](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&amp;SID=9dd547da709a41416ae82bf206af61c9&amp;mc=true&amp;r=SECTION&amp;n=se40.27.258_123). Methane above specific concentrations must be disposed of -- either by flaring, or captured for [use as an energy source](https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas). This practice is also soon in other countries around the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, food that's sent to a landfill has a few options after it is decomposed into methane gas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Released into the atmosphere, where it is [34 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Flared (burned), causing CO2 emissions and a waste of energy&#xD;&#xA; 3. Captured for use directly as biogas for heating or electricity generation -- the carbon content is still released to the atmosphere, but some of the energy is captured in the process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While waste-to-energy systems are far better than the first two options, if the main feedstock is wasted food, it is still worse than composting: burning methane puts carbon dioxide directly in the atmosphere, while composting puts at least a portion of it into the soil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And ultimately, in modern agricultural systems, the energy to produce food comes from oil, meaning that food waste is like pouring oil out on the ground. From Scientific American: [Waste Land: Does the Large Amount of Food Discarded in the U.S. Take a Toll on the Environment?](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talk-waste-land/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [R]esearchers at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) concluded in a 2009 study that each year a quarter of U.S. water consumption and over 300 million barrels of oil (four percent of U.S. oil consumption) go into producing and distributing food that ultimately ends up in landfills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What should we do instead?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, **limit food waste** as much as possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Any food and grocery buying systems that lead to less food waste?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2538/3379)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, **compost** to the extent practical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Is it feasible to compost in an apartment in a city like New York?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/7/3379)&#xD;&#xA; - [What alternative to composting is there to manage organic waste at home?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/226/3379)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **advocate**! Exercise your rights to vote and participate in civic discourse to encourage your local municipality to either begin compost collection, or at a minimum to capture and convert landfill gas, if it's not being done already." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17776" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6850" RevisionGUID="1e236f73-4767-41d6-9d6a-924f901cad45" CreationDate="2018-09-25T22:34:55.563" UserId="5292" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="I've noticed that most thermally efficient constructions limit the use of windows due to glass' low [R-value][1]. According to this, one is forced to choose between well-lit spaces or thermally efficient ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earthships, contrary to this, use plenty of windows facing the sun. Is this because the double panel glass corridor (used as a greenhouse) provides more thermal resistance than a glass wall alone? Since enclosed air cavities have higher R-values, I assume this to be the case. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Earthship greenhouse][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under which conditions  will this hold? What should be the dimensions of this corridor? Is the temperature inside the double panel wall bearable or is it too high to be used as a living space?  Can window shades or deciduous trees be used to regulate temperature in these cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-value_(insulation)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Be7Od.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="9e56cb34-7914-4836-bf8f-a51fd389fa08" CreationDate="2018-09-25T23:02:42.207" UserId="3379" Comment="edited body" Text="Food that we eat is turned into the energy that keeps us alive. Food that we compost is turned into nutrients that keep plants and animals alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But food that we throw away is turned into methane that contributes to global warming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article from basmati.com](https://basmati.com/2016/12/01/what-happens-food-scraps-are-thrown-away) explains the difference well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A compost pile [...] is a train station full of living organisms; worms, snails, bugs and bacteria all munch away at the decomposing material. Moisture and air is allowed in and out, creating an aerobic environment that generates heat and releases carbon dioxide instead of toxic methane gas. The resulting compost can be used to fertilize young plants, start seeds, or offer an inviting place for worms to continue the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, many landfills (such as those in the U.S.) now utilize a **&quot;dry tomb&quot;** system (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The landfills are lined with geo-textiles and clay, creating a shield of sorts between the waste and the earth surrounding it. Landfill managers then fill with waste, compact it, cover each day’s material with earth, and finally “cap” the pile with another layer of clay and geo-textiles. Fluid run-off is collected and treated, lowering the moisture level of the “tombs.” **Organic materials decompose, but in a very different, anaerobic environment that does not favor natural biological activity. Methane and other gases build up in this setting.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article notes that since 1996, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [requires large landfills to monitor methane emissions](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&amp;SID=9dd547da709a41416ae82bf206af61c9&amp;mc=true&amp;r=SECTION&amp;n=se40.27.258_123). Methane above specific concentrations must be disposed of -- either by flaring, or captured for [use as an energy source](https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas). This practice is also seen in other countries around the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, food that's sent to a landfill has a few options after it is decomposed into methane gas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Released into the atmosphere, where it is [34 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Flared (burned), causing CO2 emissions and a waste of energy&#xD;&#xA; 3. Captured for use directly as biogas for heating or electricity generation -- the carbon content is still released to the atmosphere, but some of the energy is captured in the process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While waste-to-energy systems are far better than the first two options, if the main feedstock is wasted food, it is still worse than composting: burning methane puts carbon dioxide directly in the atmosphere, while composting puts at least a portion of it into the soil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And ultimately, in modern agricultural systems, the energy to produce food comes from oil, meaning that food waste is like pouring oil out on the ground. From Scientific American: [Waste Land: Does the Large Amount of Food Discarded in the U.S. Take a Toll on the Environment?](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talk-waste-land/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [R]esearchers at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) concluded in a 2009 study that each year a quarter of U.S. water consumption and over 300 million barrels of oil (four percent of U.S. oil consumption) go into producing and distributing food that ultimately ends up in landfills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What should we do instead?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, **limit food waste** as much as possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Any food and grocery buying systems that lead to less food waste?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2538/3379)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, **compost** to the extent practical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Is it feasible to compost in an apartment in a city like New York?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/7/3379)&#xD;&#xA; - [What alternative to composting is there to manage organic waste at home?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/226/3379)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **advocate**! Exercise your rights to vote and participate in civic discourse to encourage your local municipality to either begin compost collection, or at a minimum to capture and convert landfill gas, if it's not being done already." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="885c35bf-0055-4183-9435-5aceb1f7e97d" CreationDate="2018-09-26T04:55:04.243" UserId="4886" Text="Earthships are one very romantic notion of what a house should be, but the massive amount of glazing usually leads to thermal problems.  This is particularly true of the earlier designs (from the 1970s onwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/earthship-hype-and-earthship-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long, long, *long* history of failed earthships that you really should study before trying to fix what is inherently a broken design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All** visible light ultimately ends up as low-grade thermal heat.  There is no way around that — it's basic physics.  You can't let the light in without letting the heat in.  Just.  Not.  Possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you filter out the UV and the infrared, you end up with &gt;40% of total solar energy as visible.  That's as much as ~315W of heat per m² of glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can solve the problem of what to do with the heat that builds up once visible light degrades in the living space, there's no point worrying about what's happening in the corridor/greenhouse outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth coupling is usually the first (and best) option to consider to store/sink heat and moderate internal temperatures, but that depends entirely on your local climate (which you haven't described).  It might not even be a viable option.  If it isn't, then things get complicated really quickly, with alternatives introducing new problems of their own that then need to be resolved by adding/doing other things.  Bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;least broken&quot; designs I've seen don't try to move light into the living space, they instead break up the living space and then move the fraction of the living space that genuinely needs it into the light.  A fundamentally different approach, which seems to work well in the right climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, when I went through this process recently for my own home (in a warm temperate climate), I ended up with a well-insulated lightweight frame, double-glazed/argon-filled/low-e/high-SHGC windows everywhere, a 2.4m deep verandah around the whole house with translucent sheeting towards the equator, and an exposed earth-coupled polished concrete slab insulated only around the edges.  Less complexity, much easier to build, much less active management required, and very thermally self-regulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-world performance &gt;&gt; romantic ideals (at least in my book)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="187b460b-4b15-419f-a406-15a75ebeabc9" CreationDate="2018-09-26T05:01:27.790" UserId="4886" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Earthships are one very romantic notion of what a house should be, but the massive amount of glazing usually leads to thermal problems.  This is particularly true of the earlier designs (from the 1970s onwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/earthship-hype-and-earthship-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long, long, *long* history of failed earthships that you really should study before trying to fix what is inherently a broken design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All** visible light ultimately ends up as low-grade thermal heat.  There is no way around that — it's basic physics.  You can't let the light in without letting the heat in.  Just.  Not.  Possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you filter out the UV and the infrared, you end up with &gt;40% of total solar energy as visible.  That's as much as ~315W of heat per m² of glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can solve the problem of what to do with the heat that builds up once visible light degrades in the living space, there's no point worrying about what's happening in the corridor/greenhouse outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth coupling is usually the first (and best) option to consider to store/sink heat and moderate internal temperatures, but that depends entirely on your local climate (which you haven't described).  It might not even be a viable option.  If it isn't, then things get complicated really quickly, with alternatives introducing new problems of their own that then need to be resolved by adding/doing other things.  Bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;least broken&quot; designs I've seen don't try to move light into the living space, they instead break up the living space and then move the fraction of the living space that genuinely needs it into the light.  A fundamentally different approach, which seems to work well in the right climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, when I went through this process recently for my own home (in a warm temperate climate), I ended up with a well-insulated lightweight frame, an *appropriate* amount of double-glazed/argon-filled/low-e/high-SHGC windows primarily on the equator-facing wall, a 2.4m deep verandah around the whole house with translucent sheeting towards the equator, and an exposed earth-coupled polished concrete slab insulated only around the edges.  Less complexity, much easier to build, much less active management required, and very thermally self-regulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-world performance &gt;&gt; romantic ideals (at least in my book)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17784" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="0fb7df83-4366-41e6-94f4-34e550b73282" CreationDate="2018-09-26T05:11:44.493" UserId="4886" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Earthships are one very romantic notion of what a house should be, but the massive amount of glazing usually leads to thermal problems.  This is particularly true of the earlier designs (from the 1970s onwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/earthship-hype-and-earthship-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long, long, *long* history of failed earthships that you really should study before trying to fix what is inherently a broken design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All** visible light ultimately ends up as low-grade thermal heat.  There is no way around that — it's basic physics.  You can't let the light in without letting the heat in.  Just.  Not.  Possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you filter out the UV and the infrared, you end up with ~42% of total solar energy as visible.  That's as much as ~315W of heat per m² of glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can solve the problem of what to do with the heat that builds up once visible light degrades in the living space, there's no point worrying about what's happening in the corridor/greenhouse outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth coupling is usually the first (and best) option to consider to store/sink heat and moderate internal temperatures, but that depends entirely on your local climate (which you haven't described).  It might not even be a viable option.  If it isn't, then things get complicated really quickly, with alternatives introducing new problems of their own that then need to be resolved by adding/doing other things.  Bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;least broken&quot; designs I've seen don't try to move light into the living space, they instead break up the living space and then move the fraction of the living space that genuinely needs it into the light.  A fundamentally different approach, which seems to work well in the right climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, when I went through this process recently for my own home (in a warm temperate climate), I ended up with a well-insulated lightweight frame, an *appropriate* amount of double-glazed/argon-filled/low-e/high-SHGC windows primarily on the equator-facing wall, a 2.4m deep verandah around the whole house with translucent sheeting towards the equator, and an exposed earth-coupled polished concrete slab insulated only around the edges.  Less complexity, much easier to build, much less active management required, and very thermally self-regulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-world performance &gt;&gt; romantic ideals (at least in my book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In an earthship with a greenhouse corridor out front, incoming light gets absorbed by plants and paths, converted to low-grade heat, and re-emitted as long-wave IR.  The glazing between the greenhouse and the living space is (now) usually double-glazed.  Since glass is opaque to long-wave IR, the outer pane of glass absorbs the heat from the greenhouse and then re-emits it in both directions.  Even in the absence of a low-e coating, half of the heat goes back into the greenhouse.  So it's not &quot;the enclosed air gap&quot; that really increases the R value, it's primarily radiation dynamics and how different parts of the spectrum interact with the glazing between the greenhouse and the living space." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17785" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="c29776d6-c9c1-45f7-876b-6cc91816f228" CreationDate="2018-09-26T05:21:02.437" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Earthships are one very romantic notion of what a house should be, but the massive amount of glazing usually leads to thermal problems.  This is particularly true of the earlier designs (from the 1970s onwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/earthship-hype-and-earthship-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long, long, *long* history of failed earthships that you really should study before trying to fix what is inherently a broken design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All** visible light ultimately ends up as low-grade thermal heat.  There is no way around that — it's basic physics.  You can't let the light in without letting the heat in.  Just.  Not.  Possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you filter out the UV and the infrared, you end up with ~42% of total solar energy as visible.  That's as much as ~315W of heat per m² of glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can solve the problem of what to do with the heat that builds up once visible light degrades in the living space, there's no point worrying about what's happening in the corridor/greenhouse outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth coupling is usually the first (and best) option to consider to store/sink heat and moderate internal temperatures, but that depends entirely on your local climate (which you haven't described).  It might not even be a viable option.  If it isn't, then things get complicated really quickly, with alternatives introducing new problems of their own that then need to be resolved by adding/doing other things.  Bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;least broken&quot; designs I've seen don't try to move light into the living space, they instead break up the living space and then move the fraction of the living space that genuinely needs it into the light.  A fundamentally different approach, which seems to work well in the right climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, when I went through this process recently for my own home (in a warm temperate climate), I ended up with a well-insulated lightweight frame, an *appropriate* amount of double-glazed/argon-filled/low-e/high-SHGC windows primarily on the equator-facing wall, a 2.4m deep verandah around the whole house with translucent sheeting towards the equator, and an exposed earth-coupled polished concrete slab insulated only around the edges.  Less complexity, much easier to build, much less active management required, and very thermally self-regulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-world performance » romantic ideals (at least in my book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In an earthship with a greenhouse/corridor out front, incoming light gets absorbed by plants and paths, converted to low-grade heat, and re-emitted as long-wave IR.  The glazing between the greenhouse and the living space is (now) usually double-glazed.  Since glass is opaque to long-wave IR, the outer pane of the IGU absorbs the heat from the greenhouse, heats up, and then re-emits it in both directions.  Even in the absence of a low-e coating, half of the heat goes back into the greenhouse.  So it's not &quot;the enclosed air gap&quot; that really increases the R value, it's primarily radiation dynamics and how different parts of the spectrum interact with the glazing between the greenhouse and the living space." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="e4746582-32da-498b-80d7-cff8d59bc3b8" CreationDate="2018-09-26T05:26:08.797" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Earthships are one very romantic notion of what a house should be, but the massive amount of glazing usually leads to thermal problems.  This is particularly true of the earlier designs (from the 1970s onwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/earthship-hype-and-earthship-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long, long, *long* history of failed earthships that you really should study before trying to fix what is inherently a broken design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All** visible light ultimately ends up as low-grade thermal heat.  There is no way around that — it's basic physics.  You can't let the light in without letting the heat in.  Just.  Not.  Possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you filter out the UV and the infrared, you end up with ~42% of total solar energy as visible.  That's as much as ~315W of heat per m² of glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can solve the problem of what to do with the heat that builds up once visible light degrades in the living space, there's no point worrying about what's happening in the corridor/greenhouse outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth coupling is usually the first (and best) option to consider to store/sink heat and moderate internal temperatures, but that depends entirely on your local climate (which you haven't described).  It might not even be a viable option.  If it isn't, then things get complicated really quickly, with alternatives introducing new problems of their own that then need to be resolved by adding/doing other things.  Bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;least broken&quot; designs I've seen don't try to move light into the living space, they instead break up the living space and then move the fraction of the living space that genuinely needs it into the light.  A fundamentally different approach, which seems to work well in the right climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, when I went through this process recently for my own home (in a warm temperate climate), I ended up with a well-insulated lightweight frame, an *appropriate* amount of double-glazed/argon-filled/low-e/high-SHGC windows primarily on the equator-facing wall, a 2.4m deep verandah around the whole house with translucent sheeting towards the equator, and an exposed earth-coupled polished concrete slab insulated only around the edges.  Less complexity, much easier to build, much less active management required, and very thermally self-regulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-world performance » romantic ideals (at least in my book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In an earthship with a greenhouse/corridor out front, incoming light gets absorbed by plants and paths, converted to low-grade heat, and re-emitted as long-wave IR.  The glazing between the greenhouse and the living space is (now) usually double-glazed.  Since glass is opaque to long-wave IR, the outer pane of the IGU absorbs the heat from the greenhouse, heats up, and then re-emits it in both directions.  Even in the absence of a low-e coating, half of the heat goes *back* into the greenhouse.  So it's not &quot;the enclosed air gap&quot; that really increases the R value, it's primarily radiation dynamics and how different parts of the spectrum interact with the glazing between the greenhouse and the living space.  The physics wasn't well understood in the 1970s when the first earthships were built.  Now the physics is understood, but most folk can't comprehend and/or apply it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="0f380eba-a3e5-42c8-8ce9-9fbbbc799b51" CreationDate="2018-09-26T05:35:59.233" UserId="4886" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="Earthships are one very romantic notion of what a house should be, but the massive amount of glazing usually leads to thermal problems.  This is particularly true of the earlier designs (from the 1970s onwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/earthship-hype-and-earthship-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long, long, *long* history of failed earthships that you really should study before trying to fix what is inherently a broken design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All** visible light ultimately ends up as low-grade thermal heat.  There is no way around that — it's basic physics.  You can't let the light in without letting the heat in.  Just.  Not.  Possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you filter out the UV and the infrared, you end up with ~42% of total solar energy as visible.  That's as much as ~315W of heat per m² of glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can solve the problem of what to do with the heat that builds up once visible light degrades in the living space — in the order of GlazingArea*315*cos(latitude) — there's no point worrying about what's happening in the corridor/greenhouse outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth coupling is usually the first (and best) option to consider to store/sink heat and moderate internal temperatures, but that depends entirely on your local climate (which you haven't described).  It might not even be a viable option.  If it isn't, then things get complicated really quickly, with alternatives introducing new problems of their own that then need to be resolved by adding/doing other things.  Bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;least broken&quot; designs I've seen don't try to move light into the living space, they instead break up the living space and then move the fraction of the living space that genuinely needs it into the light.  A fundamentally different approach, which seems to work well in the right climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, when I went through this process recently for my own home (in a warm temperate climate), I ended up with a well-insulated lightweight frame, an *appropriate* amount of double-glazed/argon-filled/low-e/high-SHGC windows primarily on the equator-facing wall, a 2.4m deep verandah around the whole house with translucent sheeting towards the equator, and an exposed earth-coupled polished concrete slab insulated only around the edges.  Less complexity, much easier to build, much less active management required, and very thermally self-regulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-world performance » romantic ideals (at least in my book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In an earthship with a greenhouse/corridor out front, incoming light gets absorbed by plants and paths, converted to low-grade heat, and re-emitted as long-wave IR.  The glazing between the greenhouse and the living space is (now) usually double-glazed.  Since glass is opaque to long-wave IR, the outer pane of the IGU absorbs the heat from the greenhouse, heats up, and then re-emits it in both directions.  Even in the absence of a low-e coating, half of the heat goes *back* into the greenhouse.  So it's not &quot;the enclosed air gap&quot; that really increases the R value, it's primarily radiation dynamics and how different parts of the spectrum interact with the glazing between the greenhouse and the living space.  The physics wasn't well understood in the 1970s when the first earthships were built.  Now the physics is understood, but most folk can't comprehend and/or apply it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="9162ee79-96d2-45c9-b964-4d8c58c81c2a" CreationDate="2018-09-26T05:41:24.397" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="Earthships are one very romantic notion of what a house should be, but the massive amount of glazing usually leads to thermal problems.  This is particularly true of the earlier designs (from the 1970s onwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/earthship-hype-and-earthship-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long, long, *long* history of failed earthships that you really should study before trying to fix what is inherently a broken design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All** visible light ultimately ends up as low-grade thermal heat.  There is no way around that — it's basic physics.  You can't let the light in without letting the heat in.  Just.  Not.  Possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you filter out the UV and the infrared, you end up with ~42% of total solar energy as visible.  That's as much as ~315W of heat per m² of glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can solve the problem of what to do with the heat that builds up once visible light degrades in the living space — in the order of GlazingArea*315*cos(latitude) — there's no point worrying about what's happening in the corridor/greenhouse outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth coupling is usually the first (and best) option to consider to store/sink heat and moderate internal temperatures, but that depends entirely on your local climate (which you haven't described).  It might not even be a viable option.  If it isn't, then things get complicated really quickly, with alternatives introducing new problems of their own that then need to be resolved by adding/doing other things.  Bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;least broken&quot; designs I've seen don't try to move light into the living space, they instead break up the living space and then move the fraction of the living space that genuinely needs it into the light.  A fundamentally different approach, which seems to work well in the right climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, when I went through this process recently for my own home (in a warm temperate climate), I ended up with a well-insulated lightweight frame, an *appropriate* amount of double-glazed/argon-filled/low-e/high-SHGC windows primarily on the equator-facing wall, a 2.4m deep verandah around the whole house with translucent sheeting towards the equator, and an exposed earth-coupled polished concrete slab insulated only around the edges.  Less complexity, much easier to build, much less active management required, and very thermally self-regulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-world performance » romantic ideals (at least in my book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In an earthship with a greenhouse/corridor out front, incoming light gets absorbed by plants and paths, converted to low-grade heat, and re-emitted as long-wave IR.  The glazing between the greenhouse and the living space is (now) usually double-glazed.  Since glass is opaque to long-wave IR, the outer pane of the IGU absorbs the heat from the greenhouse, heats up, and then re-emits it in both directions.  Even in the absence of a low-e coating, *half of the heat goes back into the greenhouse*.  So it's not &quot;the enclosed air gap&quot; that really increases the R value, it's primarily radiation dynamics and how different parts of the spectrum interact with the glazing between the greenhouse and the living space.  The physics wasn't well understood in the 1970s when the first earthships were built.  Now the physics is understood, but most folk can't comprehend and/or apply it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17789" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="ff02a56d-447c-4e2e-a797-24cc6cc566ec" CreationDate="2018-09-26T05:48:10.860" UserId="4886" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Earthships are one very romantic notion of what a house should be, but the massive amount of glazing usually leads to thermal problems.  This is particularly true of the earlier designs (from the 1970s onwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/earthship-hype-and-earthship-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long, long, *long* history of failed earthships that you really should study before trying to fix what is inherently a broken design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All** visible light ultimately ends up as low-grade thermal heat.  There is no way around that — it's basic physics.  You can't let the light in without letting the heat in.  Just.  Not.  Possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you filter out the UV and the infrared, you end up with ~42% of total solar energy as visible.  That's as much as ~315W of heat per m² of glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can solve the problem of what to do with the heat that builds up once visible light degrades in the living space — in the order of GlazingArea*315*cos(latitude) — there's no point worrying about what's happening in the corridor/greenhouse outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth coupling is usually the first (and best) option to consider to store/sink heat and moderate internal temperatures, but that depends entirely on your local climate (which you haven't described).  It might not even be a viable option.  If it isn't, then things get complicated really quickly, with alternatives introducing new problems of their own that then need to be resolved by adding/doing other things.  Bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;least broken&quot; designs I've seen don't try to move light into the living space, they instead break up the living space and then move the fraction of the living space that genuinely needs it into the light.  A fundamentally different approach, which seems to work well in the right climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, when I went through this process recently for my own home (in a warm temperate climate), I ended up with a well-insulated lightweight frame, an *appropriate* amount of double-glazed/thermally-broken/argon-filled/low-e/high-SHGC windows primarily on the equator-facing wall, a 2.4m deep verandah around the whole house with translucent sheeting towards the equator, and an exposed/earth-coupled/polished concrete slab insulated only around the edges.  Less complexity, much easier to build, much less active management required, and very thermally self-regulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-world performance » romantic ideals (at least in my book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In an earthship with a greenhouse/corridor out front, incoming light gets absorbed by plants and paths, converted to low-grade heat, and re-emitted as long-wave IR.  The glazing between the greenhouse and the living space is (now) usually double-glazed.  Since glass is opaque to long-wave IR, the outer pane of the IGU absorbs the heat from the greenhouse, heats up, and then re-emits it in both directions.  Even in the absence of a low-e coating, *half of the heat goes back into the greenhouse*.  So it's not really &quot;the enclosed air gap&quot; that increases the R value, it's primarily radiation dynamics and how different parts of the spectrum interact with the glazing between the greenhouse and the living space.  The physics wasn't well understood in the 1970s when the first earthships were built.  Now the physics is understood, but most folk can't comprehend and/or apply it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="14d0fed4-ff3e-4f2c-8b7a-d75df0f09f3d" CreationDate="2018-09-26T05:54:55.543" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Earthships are one very romantic notion of what a house should be, but the massive amount of glazing usually leads to thermal problems.  This is particularly true of the earlier designs (from the 1970s onwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/earthship-hype-and-earthship-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long, long, *long* history of failed earthships that you really should study before trying to fix what is inherently a broken design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All** visible light ultimately ends up as low-grade thermal heat.  There is no way around that — it's basic physics.  You can't let the light in without letting the heat in.  Just.  Not.  Possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you filter out the UV and the infrared, you end up with ~42% of total solar energy as visible.  That's as much as ~315W of heat per m² of glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can solve the problem of what to do with the heat that builds up once visible light degrades in the living space — in the order of GlazingArea*315*cos(latitude) — there's no point worrying about what's happening in the corridor/greenhouse outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth coupling is usually the first (and best) option to consider to store/sink heat and moderate internal temperatures, but that depends entirely on your local climate (which you haven't described).  It might not even be a viable option.  If it isn't, then things get complicated really quickly, with alternatives introducing new problems of their own that then need to be resolved by adding/doing other things.  Bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;least broken&quot; designs I've seen don't try to move light into the living space, they instead break up the living space and then move the fraction of the living space that genuinely needs it into the light.  A fundamentally different approach, which seems to work well in the right climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, when I went through this process recently for my own home (in a warm temperate climate), I ended up with a well-insulated lightweight frame, an *appropriate* amount of double-glazed/thermally-broken/argon-filled/low-e/high-SHGC windows primarily on the equator-facing wall, a 2.4m deep verandah around the whole house with translucent sheeting towards the equator, and an exposed/earth-coupled/polished concrete slab insulated only around the edges.  Less complexity, much easier to build, much less active management required, and very thermally self-regulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-world performance » romantic ideals (at least in my book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In an earthship with a greenhouse/corridor out front, incoming light gets absorbed by plants and paths, converted to low-grade heat, and re-emitted as long-wave IR.  The glazing between the greenhouse and the living space is (now) usually double-glazed.  Since glass is opaque to long-wave IR, the outer pane of the IGU absorbs the heat from the greenhouse, heats up, and then re-emits it in both directions.  Even in the absence of a low-e coating, *half of the heat goes back into the greenhouse*.  So it's not really &quot;the enclosed air gap&quot; that increases the R value, it's primarily radiation dynamics and how different parts of the spectrum interact with the glazing between the greenhouse and the living space.  The physics wasn't well understood in the 1970s when the first earthships were built.  Now the physics is understood, but most folk can't grasp/apply it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="f7cbae96-e28c-4ed0-93f8-8344467e1a3c" CreationDate="2018-09-26T06:01:08.427" UserId="4886" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Earthships are one very romantic notion of what a house should be, but the massive amount of glazing usually leads to thermal problems.  This is particularly true of the earlier designs (from the 1970s onwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/earthship-hype-and-earthship-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long, long, *long* history of failed earthships that you really should study before trying to fix what is inherently a broken design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All** visible light ultimately ends up as low-grade thermal heat.  There is no way around that — it's basic physics.  You can't let the light in without letting the heat in.  Just.  Not.  Possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you filter out the UV and the infrared, you end up with ~42% of total solar energy as visible.  That's as much as ~315W of heat per m² of glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can solve the problem of what to do with the heat that builds up once visible light degrades in the living space — in the order of GlazingArea*315*cos(latitude) — there's no point worrying about what's happening in the corridor/greenhouse outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth coupling is usually the first (and best) option to consider to store/sink heat and moderate internal temperatures, but that depends entirely on your local climate (which you haven't described).  It might not even be a viable option.  If it isn't, then things get complicated really quickly, with alternatives introducing new problems of their own that then need to be resolved by adding/doing other things.  Bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;least broken&quot; designs I've seen don't try to move light into the living space, they instead break up the living space and then move the fraction of the living space that genuinely needs it into the light.  A fundamentally different approach, which seems to work well in the right climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, when I went through this process recently for my own home (in a warm temperate climate), I ended up with a well-insulated lightweight frame, an *appropriate* amount of double-glazed/thermally-broken/argon-filled/low-e/high-SHGC windows primarily on the equator-facing wall, a 2.4m deep verandah around the whole house with translucent sheeting towards the equator, and an exposed/earth-coupled/polished concrete slab insulated only around the edges.  Less complexity, much easier to build, much less active management required, and very thermally self-regulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-world performance » romantic ideals (at least in my book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In an earthship with a greenhouse/corridor out front, incoming light gets absorbed by plants and paths, converted to low-grade heat, and re-emitted as long-wave IR.  The glazing between the greenhouse and the living space is (now) usually double-glazed.  Since glass is opaque to long-wave IR, the outer pane of the IGU absorbs the heat from the greenhouse, heats up, and then re-emits it in both directions.  Even in the absence of a low-e coating, *half of the heat goes back into the greenhouse*.  So it's not really &quot;the enclosed air gap&quot; that increases the R value, it's primarily radiation dynamics and how different parts of the spectrum interact with the glazing between the greenhouse and the living space.  The physics wasn't well understood in the 1970s when the first earthships were built.  Now the physics is understood, but most folk can't seem to grasp/apply it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="9471485b-0ce1-494e-b0d8-bf9f2f8f5f82" CreationDate="2018-09-26T07:29:25.343" UserId="4886" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Earthships are one very romantic notion of what a house should be, but the massive amount of glazing usually leads to thermal problems.  This is particularly true of the earlier designs (from the 1970s onwards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/earthship-hype-and-earthship-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long, long, *long* history of failed earthships that you really should study before trying to fix what is inherently a broken design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All** visible light ultimately ends up as low-grade thermal heat.  There is no way around that — it's basic physics.  You can't let the light in without letting the heat in.  Just.  Not.  Possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you filter out the UV and the infrared, you end up with ~42% of total solar energy as visible.  That's as much as ~315W of heat per m² of glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can solve the problem of what to do with the heat that builds up once visible light degrades in the living space — in the order of GlazingArea*315*cos(latitude) Watts — there's no point worrying about what's happening in the corridor/greenhouse outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth coupling is usually the first (and best) option to consider to store/sink heat and moderate internal temperatures, but that depends entirely on your local climate (which you haven't described).  It might not even be a viable option.  If it isn't, then things get complicated really quickly, with alternatives introducing new problems of their own that then need to be resolved by adding/doing other things.  Bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;least broken&quot; designs I've seen don't try to move light into the living space, they instead break up the living space and then move the fraction of the living space that genuinely needs it into the light.  A fundamentally different approach, which seems to work well in the right climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, when I went through this process recently for my own home (in a warm temperate climate), I ended up with a well-insulated lightweight frame, an *appropriate* amount of double-glazed/thermally-broken/argon-filled/low-e/high-SHGC windows primarily on the equator-facing wall, a 2.4m deep verandah around the whole house with translucent sheeting towards the equator, and an exposed/earth-coupled/polished concrete slab insulated only around the edges.  Less complexity, much easier to build, much less active management required, and very thermally self-regulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-world performance » romantic ideals (at least in my book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In an earthship with a greenhouse/corridor out front, incoming light gets absorbed by plants and paths, converted to low-grade heat, and re-emitted as long-wave IR.  The glazing between the greenhouse and the living space is (now) usually double-glazed.  Since glass is opaque to long-wave IR, the outer pane of the IGU absorbs the heat from the greenhouse, heats up, and then re-emits it in both directions.  Even in the absence of a low-e coating, *half of the heat goes back into the greenhouse*.  So it's not really &quot;the enclosed air gap&quot; that increases the R value, it's primarily radiation dynamics and how different parts of the spectrum interact with the glazing between the greenhouse and the living space.  The physics wasn't well understood in the 1970s when the first earthships were built.  Now the physics is understood, but most folk can't seem to grasp/apply it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="8dd11701-35d0-41be-ab2e-cab10c3f7e92" CreationDate="2018-09-26T08:59:17.853" UserId="502" Comment="Reword" Text="Has the metal 'consumption' of consumers has risen over the last, say 30 years (arbitarily choosen number - anything similar scale would be interesting). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in both the amount that is 'held' (this laptop, my knives and forks), and the amount that is thrown away/recycled. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="3318e861-9df8-48b2-a2c9-0d6e6cee2cd4" CreationDate="2018-09-26T09:45:18.343" UserId="4886" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Earthships are one very romantic notion of what a house should be, but the massive amount of glazing usually leads to thermal problems.  This is particularly true of the earlier designs (1970s through the 1990s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/earthship-hype-and-earthship-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long, long, *long* history of failed earthships that you really should study before trying to fix what is inherently a broken design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All** visible light ultimately ends up as low-grade thermal heat.  There is no way around that — it's basic physics.  You can't let the light in without letting the heat in.  Just.  Not.  Possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you filter out the UV and the infrared, you end up with ~42% of total solar energy as visible.  That's as much as ~315W of heat per m² of glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can solve the problem of what to do with the heat that builds up once visible light degrades in the living space —  _in the order of GlazingArea*cos(latitude)*315W_  — there's no point worrying about what's happening in the corridor/greenhouse outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth coupling is usually the first (and best) option to consider to store/sink heat and moderate internal temperatures, but that depends entirely on your local climate (which you haven't described).  It might not even be a viable option.  If it isn't, then things get complicated really quickly, with alternatives introducing new problems of their own that then need to be resolved by adding/doing other things.  Bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;least broken&quot; designs I've seen don't try to move light into the living space, they instead break up the living space and then move the fraction of the living space that genuinely needs it into the light.  A fundamentally different approach, which seems to work well in the right climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, when I went through this process recently for my own home (in a warm temperate climate), I ended up with a well-insulated lightweight frame, an *appropriate* amount of double-glazed/thermally-broken/argon-filled/low-e/high-SHGC windows primarily on the equator-facing wall, a 2.4m deep verandah around the whole house with translucent sheeting towards the equator, and an exposed/earth-coupled/polished concrete slab insulated only around the edges.  Less complexity, much easier to build, much less active management required, and very thermally self-regulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-world performance » romantic ideals (at least in my book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In an earthship with a greenhouse/corridor out front, incoming light gets absorbed by plants and paths, converted to low-grade heat, and re-emitted as long-wave IR.  The glazing between the greenhouse and the living space is (now) usually double-glazed.  Since glass is opaque to long-wave IR, the outer pane of the IGU absorbs the radiation from the greenhouse, heats up, and then re-emits it in both directions.  Even in the absence of a low-e coating, *half of the heat goes back into the greenhouse*.  So it's not really &quot;the enclosed air gap&quot; that increases the R value, it's primarily radiation dynamics and how different parts of the spectrum interact with the glazing between the greenhouse and the living space.  The physics wasn't well understood in the 1970s when the first earthships were built.  Now the physics is understood, but most folk can't seem to grasp/apply it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="d5068f5a-fa3c-40fd-a8ed-b39fbf2e7e2f" CreationDate="2018-09-26T10:00:49.597" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Earthships are one very romantic notion of what a house should be, but the massive amount of glazing usually leads to thermal problems.  This is particularly true of the earlier designs (1970s through the 1990s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/earthship-hype-and-earthship-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long, long, *long* history of failed earthships that you really should study before trying to fix what is inherently a broken design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All** visible light ultimately ends up as low-grade thermal heat.  There is no way around that — it's basic physics.  You can't let the light in without letting the heat in.  Just.  Not.  Possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you filter out the UV and the infrared, you end up with ~42% of total solar energy as visible.  That's as much as ~315W of heat per m² of glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can solve the problem of what to do with the heat that builds up once visible light degrades in the living space —  _in the order of GlazingArea*cos(latitude)*315W_  — there's no point worrying about what's happening in the corridor/greenhouse outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth coupling is usually the first (and best) option to consider to store/sink heat and moderate internal temperatures, but that depends entirely on your local climate (which you haven't described).  It might not even be a viable option.  If it isn't, then things get complicated really quickly, with alternatives introducing new problems of their own that then need to be resolved by adding/doing other things.  Bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;least broken&quot; designs I've seen don't try to move light into the living space, they instead break up the living space and then move the fraction of the living space that *genuinely needs it* into the light.  A fundamentally different approach, which seems to work well in the right climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, when I went through this process recently for my own home (in a warm temperate climate), I ended up with a well-insulated lightweight frame, an *appropriate* amount of double-glazed/thermally-broken/argon-filled/low-e/high-SHGC windows primarily on the equator-facing wall, a 2.4m deep verandah around the whole house with translucent sheeting towards the equator, and an exposed/earth-coupled/polished concrete slab insulated only around the edges.  Less complexity, much easier to build, much less active management required, and very thermally self-regulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-world performance » romantic ideals (at least in my book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In an earthship with a greenhouse/corridor out front, incoming light gets absorbed by plants and paths, converted to low-grade heat, and re-emitted as long-wave IR.  The glazing between the greenhouse and the living space is (now) usually double-glazed.  Since glass is opaque to long-wave IR, the outer pane of the IGU absorbs the radiation from the greenhouse, heats up, and then re-emits it in both directions.  Even in the absence of a low-e coating, *half of the heat goes back into the greenhouse*.  So it's not really &quot;the enclosed air gap&quot; that increases the R value, it's primarily radiation dynamics and how different parts of the spectrum interact with the glazing between the greenhouse and the living space.  The physics wasn't well understood in the 1970s when the first earthships were built.  Now the physics is understood, but most folk can't seem to grasp/apply it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17796" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6850" RevisionGUID="68fc6f97-3923-4728-958d-745b866cc970" CreationDate="2018-09-26T12:00:58.483" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1044919756812374017" />
  <row Id="17797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6853" RevisionGUID="002d7bef-fafa-4f72-a9ea-62dc297a1e9c" CreationDate="2018-09-26T18:44:39.417" UserId="5477" Text="Depends on how you count &quot;consumption&quot;. For example , is the 50+ tons of steel in the typical mono-pod for each commercial windmill averaged for the people in that electric grid, or for that country, or for whole earth ?  Also the great majority of structural metals are recycled ; is that deducted from the &quot;consumed&quot; ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6854" RevisionGUID="54a6f961-af1a-45b0-ae2a-4cdc24f8bce7" CreationDate="2018-09-26T19:28:52.487" UserId="6027" Text="Recycle your worn out shoes (any type) at [TerraCycle][1]  a Toronto based company.  They recycle a variety of other products.  To recycle shoes you need to purchase a box from small - large.  A bit pricey but you could try to run a shoe recycling day at work and get your employer to pay for.  Good PR and good for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.terracycle.ca/en-CA/zero_waste_boxes/28#how-it-works" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="9195488c-83cd-4201-9eec-73a1a744d72f" CreationDate="2018-09-28T07:25:36.077" UserId="6028" Text="According to &quot;E = A * r * H * PR&quot; global formula to estimate energy generated, the solar irradiance value is needed. I have Horizontal irradiance, Tilted irradiance, and Normal irradiance values but which measure of irradiance to use here? Or is it that all of these measures are used to calculate one value that is the total irradiance falling on a solar panel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17811" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="9195488c-83cd-4201-9eec-73a1a744d72f" CreationDate="2018-09-28T07:25:36.077" UserId="6028" Text="Which measure of solar irradiance is needed to calculate the energy output of PV systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17812" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="9195488c-83cd-4201-9eec-73a1a744d72f" CreationDate="2018-09-28T07:25:36.077" UserId="6028" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17813" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="23d583e8-370e-4e2c-a71d-52dd35f946dc" CreationDate="2018-09-28T09:40:25.030" UserId="6028" Comment="edited tags" Text="|solar-power|renewables|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6856" RevisionGUID="1629a046-1fac-41da-b3ad-d44099558f5c" CreationDate="2018-09-28T15:08:15.313" UserId="400" Text="I have a friend who has made a very nice mobile Tiny House.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reports I've read on the prices of these make them pretty dear.  In many places for zoning reasons they have to still be nominally mobile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't understand what the big draw is over a towed RV&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some:  A tiny house in principle can be both wider and taller than an RV    This may make them more efficient to heat, and make better use of space.  RVs often are designed for more occasional occupancy even in  use. E.g. they sleep 6, but don't have a good place to put the lawn mower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The width of single wide mobile homes OTOH can be 13 to 16 feet (depending on highway regulations)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what's the attraction of a purpose built Tiny House?&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6856" RevisionGUID="1629a046-1fac-41da-b3ad-d44099558f5c" CreationDate="2018-09-28T15:08:15.313" UserId="400" Text="What are the advantages of a purpose build Tiny House versus a RV trailer versus a Mobile Home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6856" RevisionGUID="1629a046-1fac-41da-b3ad-d44099558f5c" CreationDate="2018-09-28T15:08:15.313" UserId="400" Text="|housing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6857" RevisionGUID="8e32baa9-86be-4de1-bd12-4a7a7bf78ed5" CreationDate="2018-09-28T15:37:33.803" UserId="400" Text="Your best bet is to move.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Failing that, here are some ideas that may be able to help:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Do you need air conditioning?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be sufficient to augment air flow.  A typical breezebox fan (2 foot square) will move between 3000 and 6000 cubic feet of air a minute.  A 1000 square foot unit has about 8000 cubic feet, so you are getting an air change every 1-3 minutes.  Note that to do this, the fan has to fit the opening snugly so air doesn't cheat and go back round.  Easy to do with cardboard and duct tape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Do you need to air condition all the time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the house doesn't store coolth during the day, can you put the AC on a timer and turn it on an hour before you come home?  Depending on the unit, you may be able to use a smart thermostat, and set it up to not start until 2 p.m. try to bring the house down to 95, then at 3, try to bring it down to 90, and at 4 down to 85.  This way on not so hot days, it doesn't run as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Do you need to air condition everything?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summer doesn't last forever.  Is it reasonable to wall off all but one room, air condition that room and live there.  Mind you my understanding is that Oklahoma winters aren't great either.  This may be as simple as hanging shower curtains at doors, and putting phone books over certain ducts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Temper the changes with thermal mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have access to the utilities you can do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buy containers.  Used barrels work well.  Fill them with water in a basement room.  You need significant numbers -- 20 barrels.  You can stack them 2 high, so 18 barrels would fit in just over a 6 x 6 foot space.  Fill them with water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At night you pull in cold air run it past the barrels and send it back outside.  In the day, your air conditioner pulls air from beside the barrels.  Your AC then is at least starting with cooler air and doesn't have to work as hard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if you are in a humid climate the barrels with have condensation on them.  Not a big issue of they are in the laundry room on a concrete floor with a drain.  Bad idea if they are in a carpeted room.  If the AC unit is outside, you may be able to keep the barrels outside too and do some form of clever ducting to guide the air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Can you paint the roof white?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here we can get waste paint form the recycle centre.  After checking for lead they sort into water vs oil base, and then white, offwhite, and dark.  The paint then is sold in 5 gallon pails for about $10/pail.  If you have standard asphalt shingles, then you want oil base paint.  On a day the roof is dry, roll on a coat of white paint.  The paint won't stick that well. Probably have to repeat yearly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Can you cool with water?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you set up an intermittent sprinkler system that keeps the surfaces that absorb all the heat damp.  Irrigation companies will sell you a timer that can be set to run 10 seconds to several minutes at intervals of a few minutes to several hours.  low pressure fog nozzles run a few gallons per hour each.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will not make the house cool, but it may make it less hot, and reduce the load on the air conditioner.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mist nozzles can make outside living more reasonable too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6858" RevisionGUID="51ebdf8c-eaaa-4c5e-b076-c8bda59f84a1" CreationDate="2018-09-28T16:17:25.350" UserId="400" Text="Insulate the house.  It's worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are better off to run the heat warm enough to make your tenants happy, then restrict the heat to your part of the house.  If you are using conventional forced air heating, then putting adjustable grates in the tenants rooms will be sufficient.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thermostat is in your part of the house.  Set it for 64.  Because your vents are partially blocked to get your part of the house to 64 will put your tenants at some higher temp.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your tenants then say that their room is too cold, but you are comfortable, you block more of your vents, making the heating system work harder. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Insulating the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is moderately expensive no matter how you do it.  If PU foam is legal where you are, you can drill holes in the siding, fill with foam, then cap the holes.  Improperly mixed PU resulted in formaldehyde poisoning.  This is NOT a DIY option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can blow cellulose or fiberglass insulation into the wall cavities from either inside or outside.  This settles, and so needs to be redone.  But having the bottom 7 feet of the wall insulated would be better than none.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If re-siding the house is in your future, you can apply a layer of breathable foam panels.  (The foam is in effect needle punched to allow it to breath).  2 inches would give you about R8 to R14 depending on which foam.  It's a good idea to build in a rain screen -- a very narrow space between the foam and the wall that allows either incoming rain, or outgoing condensation to drain out of the wall.  Note that window and door trim has to be built up to match the new wall thickness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6848" RevisionGUID="a7c6d908-c3ef-43b1-83c9-1dc31870f972" CreationDate="2018-09-28T21:29:11.387" UserId="3379" Comment="Dialed back the argument against waste-to-energy systems" Text="Food that we eat is turned into the energy that keeps us alive. Food that we compost is turned into nutrients that keep plants and animals alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But food that we throw away is largely turned into methane that contributes to global warming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article from basmati.com](https://basmati.com/2016/12/01/what-happens-food-scraps-are-thrown-away) explains the difference well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A compost pile [...] is a train station full of living organisms; worms, snails, bugs and bacteria all munch away at the decomposing material. Moisture and air is allowed in and out, creating an aerobic environment that generates heat and releases carbon dioxide instead of toxic methane gas. The resulting compost can be used to fertilize young plants, start seeds, or offer an inviting place for worms to continue the process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, many landfills (such as those in the U.S.) now utilize a **&quot;dry tomb&quot;** system (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The landfills are lined with geo-textiles and clay, creating a shield of sorts between the waste and the earth surrounding it. Landfill managers then fill with waste, compact it, cover each day’s material with earth, and finally “cap” the pile with another layer of clay and geo-textiles. Fluid run-off is collected and treated, lowering the moisture level of the “tombs.” **Organic materials decompose, but in a very different, anaerobic environment that does not favor natural biological activity. Methane and other gases build up in this setting.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article notes that since 1996, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [requires large landfills to monitor methane emissions](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&amp;SID=9dd547da709a41416ae82bf206af61c9&amp;mc=true&amp;r=SECTION&amp;n=se40.27.258_123). Methane above specific concentrations must be disposed of -- either by flaring, or captured for [use as an energy source](https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas). This practice is also seen in other countries around the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, food that's sent to a landfill has a few options after it is decomposed into methane gas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Released into the atmosphere, where it is [34 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Flared (burned), causing CO2 emissions and a waste of energy&#xD;&#xA; 3. Captured for use directly as biogas for heating or electricity generation -- the carbon content is still released to the atmosphere, but some of the energy is captured in the process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While waste-to-energy systems are far better than the first two options, if the main feedstock is wasted food, it is probably still worse than composting: burning methane puts carbon dioxide directly in the atmosphere, while composting puts at least a portion of it into the soil. In addition, food that's composted for use at home doesn't required energy expenditure for transport to a landfill, and offsets a portion of the demand for fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And ultimately, in modern agricultural systems, the energy to produce food comes from oil, meaning that food waste is like pouring oil out on the ground. From Scientific American: [Waste Land: Does the Large Amount of Food Discarded in the U.S. Take a Toll on the Environment?](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talk-waste-land/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [R]esearchers at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) concluded in a 2009 study that each year a quarter of U.S. water consumption and over 300 million barrels of oil (four percent of U.S. oil consumption) go into producing and distributing food that ultimately ends up in landfills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What should we do instead?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, **limit food waste** as much as possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Any food and grocery buying systems that lead to less food waste?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2538/3379)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, **compost** to the extent practical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Is it feasible to compost in an apartment in a city like New York?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/7/3379)&#xD;&#xA; - [What alternative to composting is there to manage organic waste at home?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/226/3379)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, **advocate**! Exercise your rights to vote and participate in civic discourse to encourage your local municipality to either begin compost collection, or at a minimum to capture and convert landfill gas, if it's not being done already." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="693f931c-c73d-4938-9a43-67b37ecf3d90" CreationDate="2018-09-28T21:44:42.560" UserId="3379" Text="Food waste is a big problem in the U.S. and (presumably) many other parts of the world as well. From [Scientific American](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talk-waste-land/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Loss Project, we throw away more than 25 percent—some 25.9 million tons—of all the food we produce for domestic sale and consumption. A 2004 University of Arizona study pegs the figure at closer to 50 percent [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency [has requirements in place](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&amp;SID=9dd547da709a41416ae82bf206af61c9&amp;mc=true&amp;r=SECTION&amp;n=se40.27.258_123) for landfills to monitor methane emissions, and capture these emissions at higher concentrations. Again, I presume similar regulations are in place for many countries around the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, **is it safe to assume that methane emissions from landfills come predominantly from food waste?** The only other significant source I can think of is pet waste, but I doubt the quantity would compare to food waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is true, **how much of the energy stored in food waste is ultimately captured?** This could be by incineration and/or conversion to biogas. Ultimately I'm interested in a global figure, but values for specific countries around the world would also be interesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;*Inspired by the question [I throw compostable food into trash — how much harm do I cause?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6846/3379)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="693f931c-c73d-4938-9a43-67b37ecf3d90" CreationDate="2018-09-28T21:44:42.560" UserId="3379" Text="What percentage of waste food is turned into electricity and/or biogas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17823" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="693f931c-c73d-4938-9a43-67b37ecf3d90" CreationDate="2018-09-28T21:44:42.560" UserId="3379" Text="|biogas|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17826" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6860" RevisionGUID="890f6c64-1b57-4147-9686-d7a53d6aba60" CreationDate="2018-09-29T10:47:31.107" UserId="80" Text="I am wondering if foam netting sleeves that are often used to protect glass bottles in transport (see picture) can be recycled in a soft plastic stream? (like [RedCycle](http://www.redcycle.net.au) in Australia)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xczj5.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17827" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6860" RevisionGUID="890f6c64-1b57-4147-9686-d7a53d6aba60" CreationDate="2018-09-29T10:47:31.107" UserId="80" Text="Are foam netting sleeves recyclable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17828" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6860" RevisionGUID="890f6c64-1b57-4147-9686-d7a53d6aba60" CreationDate="2018-09-29T10:47:31.107" UserId="80" Text="|recycling|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6861" RevisionGUID="65147f4c-b52b-4b9e-ae01-797b32c58ca7" CreationDate="2018-09-29T11:32:23.993" UserId="6031" Text="You may buy a simple petrol car and have LPG (propane) conversion, which is cheaper to drive and more eco-friendly (before the expensive hybrids or pure electric options). Though, it depends on the availability of LPG dispensers in your region" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6862" RevisionGUID="23e6c422-ea61-456e-b23d-372f6411238d" CreationDate="2018-09-29T11:55:26.820" UserId="80" Text="Actually I think I can answer my own question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is probably **yes and no**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like [most of those foam netting sleeves](https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/bottle-foam-sleeve-net.html) are **EPE**, i.e. **[expanded polyethylene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_polyethylene)**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The soft plastic recycling company I mentioned, RedCycle, [specifies that any kind of foam](http://www.redcycle.net.au/what-to-redcycle/) should not go into their stream (although there is no mention of EPE specifically). This might be counter-intuitive because [most of the stream must be polyethylene](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_film#Materials).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[For it to be viable](https://www.foamequipment.com/blog/bid/78789/recycling-polyethylene-and-polypropylene-foam-products), recycling of EPE has to be separate of other foam products like polystyrene-based ones, and the material has to be compacted for efficient transport, and has to remain compacted as it has a high memory of its original shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [recycling of EPE does happen](http://www.greenmax-machine.com/what-kind-of-polyethylene-material-can-be-recycled.html), and it is often melted to produce recycled polyethylene pellets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess that a company accepting EPE or not in their plastic recycling stream will depend on (1) if polyethylene is part of what materials they recover, and (2) if they consider it to be worth their while given that it often takes up so much space for so little mass (i.e. how is the waste handled during storage, transport and processing)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17835" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6864" RevisionGUID="c00f32fd-99d5-4072-9af2-dbf75d6a8e7e" CreationDate="2018-10-01T07:19:04.253" UserId="99" Text="I recently found more information about this, so I'll self-answer. While pesticide can have a big impact on the environment, the biggest problem with palm oil seems to be the clearing of rainforests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Organic label&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This webpage](https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/topics/palm-oil/questions-and-answers#start) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While organic farming prohibits the use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers and genetic engineering, organic labels do not establish standards against rainforest destruction and land grabbing. Furthermore, vast industrial monocultures – including those that fulfill organic production standards – can hardly be deemed environmentally sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and as an example they say that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Agro Palma – the largest palm oil producer in Brazil – states that it operates 39,000 hectares of oil palm plantations on former rainforest land in the state of Pará in the Amazon. Its certified organic palm oil is produced on the 4,107-hectare Hacienda CPA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies that forests have been cleared for organic palm plantations. Of course this is only 1 viewpoint, but I haven't been able to find any other sources that backup or refute the claims that are made.&#xD;&#xA;So it seems LShaver is correct with [his comment](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5727/how-environmentally-friendly-is-palm-oil-with-a-certified-organic-label#comment8002_5727) that **organic-certified palm oil is no guarantee for a sustainable, low-environmental impact product**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;RSPO label&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same article also says that RSPO label is hardly a guarantee either;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The RSPO does not rule out the clearing of rainforest. Only primary and “high conservation value” (HCV) forests have been considered off-limits for palm oil plantations under the label since November 2005. An internationally recognized definition of HCV areas has not been established, however, and the transitions between primary and secondary rainforests are blurred in practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Rainforest Alliance label&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Rainforest Alliance says](https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/articles/rainforest-alliance-certified-palm-oil) that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the clearing of natural forests is forbidden on Rainforest Alliance Certified oil palm plantations, which helps to protect the habitat of endangered wildlife such as orangutans. And farmers we work with who once relied on harmful pesticides and chemicals are now reducing or eliminating these harmful substances and replacing them with ecologically sound alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This treehugger blog](https://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/what-does-rainforest-alliance-certification-mean-palm-oil.html) confirms the above. &#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to find any reports that say that for palm oil Rainforest Alliance does not live up to their claims, so it looks like a Rainforest Alliance label is best of the 3 labels from an overall-sustainability point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Final note:**&#xD;&#xA;Boycotting palm oil all together is not a solution because companies would need to switch to alternative oils which will require more agricultural land &#xD;&#xA;for an equivalent yield (see also https://www.huiledepalmedurable.org/le-boycott-est-il-la-solution/?lang=en)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17836" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="4bcc1608-1130-4a5e-9e1e-5878bf70d05c" CreationDate="2018-10-01T07:26:22.490" UserId="99" Text="Vegetable oil is a fatty liquid extracted from the seeds or fruits of plants. It's used often for consumption but also for other purposes such as bio-fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of vegetable oils are olive oil, palm oil, coconut oil, sunflower oil, rapeseed oil and soybean oil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17837" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6865" RevisionGUID="4bcc1608-1130-4a5e-9e1e-5878bf70d05c" CreationDate="2018-10-01T07:26:22.490" UserId="99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="5e37880b-4570-47cb-8924-f2a97c42b095" CreationDate="2018-10-01T07:26:22.490" UserId="99" Text="fatty liquid extracted from seeds or fruits of plants, used often for consumption but also as biofuel. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17839" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6866" RevisionGUID="5e37880b-4570-47cb-8924-f2a97c42b095" CreationDate="2018-10-01T07:26:22.490" UserId="99" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6864" RevisionGUID="2d2524dd-f68b-4f09-8e22-882d376b6c6f" CreationDate="2018-10-01T13:50:31.510" UserId="99" Comment="added link that explains RSPO" Text="I recently found more information about this, so I'll self-answer. While pesticide can have a big impact on the environment, the biggest problem with palm oil seems to be the clearing of rainforests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Organic label&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This webpage](https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/topics/palm-oil/questions-and-answers#start) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While organic farming prohibits the use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers and genetic engineering, organic labels do not establish standards against rainforest destruction and land grabbing. Furthermore, vast industrial monocultures – including those that fulfill organic production standards – can hardly be deemed environmentally sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and as an example they say that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Agro Palma – the largest palm oil producer in Brazil – states that it operates 39,000 hectares of oil palm plantations on former rainforest land in the state of Pará in the Amazon. Its certified organic palm oil is produced on the 4,107-hectare Hacienda CPA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This implies that forests have been cleared for organic palm plantations. Of course this is only 1 viewpoint, but I haven't been able to find any other sources that backup or refute the claims that are made.&#xD;&#xA;So it seems LShaver is correct with [his comment](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5727/how-environmentally-friendly-is-palm-oil-with-a-certified-organic-label#comment8002_5727) that **organic-certified palm oil is no guarantee for a sustainable, low-environmental impact product**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;RSPO label&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same article also says that the [RSPO label](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundtable_on_Sustainable_Palm_Oil) is hardly a guarantee either;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The RSPO does not rule out the clearing of rainforest. Only primary and “high conservation value” (HCV) forests have been considered off-limits for palm oil plantations under the label since November 2005. An internationally recognized definition of HCV areas has not been established, however, and the transitions between primary and secondary rainforests are blurred in practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Rainforest Alliance label&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Rainforest Alliance says](https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/articles/rainforest-alliance-certified-palm-oil) that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the clearing of natural forests is forbidden on Rainforest Alliance Certified oil palm plantations, which helps to protect the habitat of endangered wildlife such as orangutans. And farmers we work with who once relied on harmful pesticides and chemicals are now reducing or eliminating these harmful substances and replacing them with ecologically sound alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This treehugger blog](https://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/what-does-rainforest-alliance-certification-mean-palm-oil.html) confirms the above. &#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to find any reports that say that for palm oil Rainforest Alliance does not live up to their claims, so it looks like a Rainforest Alliance label is best of the 3 labels from an overall-sustainability point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Note:**&#xD;&#xA;Boycotting palm oil all together is not a solution because companies would need to switch to alternative oils which will require more agricultural land &#xD;&#xA;for an equivalent yield (see also https://www.huiledepalmedurable.org/le-boycott-est-il-la-solution/?lang=en)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17843" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6833" RevisionGUID="6c3464c4-3ddb-4df4-9b9b-bbcabbea4fc8" CreationDate="2018-10-01T17:10:18.870" UserId="-1" Comment="105" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3293,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;J. Chomel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:164,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Mark Booth&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6868" RevisionGUID="6f92e23e-3a60-4add-a6ee-62e9b68596c5" CreationDate="2018-10-02T15:27:11.857" UserId="1445" Text="Tesco (a large UK supermarket chain) have carbon footprinted a large number of their products - https://www.tescoplc.com/assets/files/cms/Tesco_Product_Carbon_Footprints_Summary(1).pdf.  For fresh milk and soya milk these figures were certified by the Carbon Trust.  The numbers they give are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Fresh milk average 1.42 kgCO2e/l (range: 1.23 - 1.58)&#xD;&#xA; - Soya milk average 0.95 kgCO2e/l (range: 0.7-1.4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The highest values for soya milk are for the sweetened versions; the unsweetened products are at the lower end of the range.  For milk, skimmed milk had the lowest and whole milk the highest CO2e." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="5ab2b124-ccd0-499a-99f2-b125c6fdd24a" CreationDate="2018-10-02T15:36:44.407" UserId="6038" Text="How can I easily tell which plastics are Biodegradable and which are not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="5ab2b124-ccd0-499a-99f2-b125c6fdd24a" CreationDate="2018-10-02T15:36:44.407" UserId="6038" Text="How can I easily tell which plastics are Biodegradable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="5ab2b124-ccd0-499a-99f2-b125c6fdd24a" CreationDate="2018-10-02T15:36:44.407" UserId="6038" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6871" RevisionGUID="0079c1ed-dcb8-4cea-8d8c-c063467e060a" CreationDate="2018-10-02T16:34:28.690" UserId="6038" Text="What can and cannot be sent to an Incinerator plant (Virginia) for the use of solar powered energy? Can there be anything other than plastics, metals, and paper products in the bin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6871" RevisionGUID="0079c1ed-dcb8-4cea-8d8c-c063467e060a" CreationDate="2018-10-02T16:34:28.690" UserId="6038" Text="Incinerator info for solar power" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6871" RevisionGUID="0079c1ed-dcb8-4cea-8d8c-c063467e060a" CreationDate="2018-10-02T16:34:28.690" UserId="6038" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6872" RevisionGUID="da8030d5-1126-43bb-940c-1c6fb41680d0" CreationDate="2018-10-02T16:47:22.837" UserId="5669" Text="Biodegradable plastics will oftentimes be labeled as such if they are for consumer use.  As an example, a biodegradable plastic cups at a restaurant will often be labeled as such, mostly for marketing purposes so the restaurant can claim they are being environmentally friendly.  The best bet, however, would be to try and find out the source of the plastic or an ingredients list.  Biodegradable plastics are often made with plant-based ingredients instead of the more harmful chemicals contained in traditional plastics.  But be wary of biodegradable plastics.  They only biodegrade if they are disposed of in a specific way, i.e. composted properly.  If you throw them in the trash can they will not biodegrade in a landfill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6873" RevisionGUID="d36fabad-8a8b-48d7-be1f-8678db14fc7a" CreationDate="2018-10-02T16:54:02.513" UserId="5669" Text="The most obvious solution is to insulate your house.  You will spend loads less money on heating by insulating the exterior walls, which will prevent heat from escaping into the outdoors.  Right now I imagine your heating system is working very hard to maintain even a &quot;cool&quot; indoor temperature of 64, let alone temperatures in the 70s.  Insulating will be an upfront expense, obviously, but in the long run it will save a lot of money on your heating bill (and it's better for the environment).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6874" RevisionGUID="aaacf2f8-fc9d-433c-8a27-64732e95a7c6" CreationDate="2018-10-02T21:32:32.120" UserId="2942" Text="How can ceramics be recycled? Does the answer vary greatly depending on glaze or other factors, and if so, how can those factors be determined (i.e. how can I tell if a glaze contains lead or not)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My municipality says ceramics and pottery should either be re-used somehow (e.g. ceramic tiles donated if unneeded) but otherwise should be discarded as trash. I've read about how broken pottery, if it cannot be repurposed, could be smashed up and restored to clay which can either be absorbed by soil/compost or re-used for new pottery. I don't know much about pottery though, and I imagine that 'break down to raw materials' approach is only appropriate for certain types of pottery finishing. For example, if a ceramic was finished with a lead-containing glaze, I wouldn't want to add that to compost which would go to my vegetable garden and I probably shouldn't add that to any soil fill in any case. Also, breaking down any glazed ceramic back to dust would result in not just regular clay but also the glaze, which I imagine is a mixture not as suitable for making pottery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17856" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6874" RevisionGUID="aaacf2f8-fc9d-433c-8a27-64732e95a7c6" CreationDate="2018-10-02T21:32:32.120" UserId="2942" Text="How can ceramics be recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17857" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6874" RevisionGUID="aaacf2f8-fc9d-433c-8a27-64732e95a7c6" CreationDate="2018-10-02T21:32:32.120" UserId="2942" Text="|recycling|waste|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17858" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6871" RevisionGUID="c83c4227-f571-43fb-9a35-bfb1eb5a9aa9" CreationDate="2018-10-03T06:40:19.173" UserId="99" Comment="fixed meaning, added relevant tags" Text="What can and cannot be sent to an incinerator plant (Virginia) for producing electricity from heat? Can there be anything other than plastics, metals, and paper products in the bin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17859" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6871" RevisionGUID="c83c4227-f571-43fb-9a35-bfb1eb5a9aa9" CreationDate="2018-10-03T06:40:19.173" UserId="99" Comment="fixed meaning, added relevant tags" Text="What can be used to power an incinerator that produces electricity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17860" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6871" RevisionGUID="c83c4227-f571-43fb-9a35-bfb1eb5a9aa9" CreationDate="2018-10-03T06:40:19.173" UserId="99" Comment="fixed meaning, added relevant tags" Text="|waste|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2508" RevisionGUID="c712bfdd-bbe7-4601-a2fa-3bb8bba062fa" CreationDate="2018-10-03T07:15:55.130" UserId="99" Comment="Added BPI Compostable and Home-compostable logos, explained oxo-biodegradable controversy" Text="Most non-biodegradable plastic bags are made of [Polyethylene (PE)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene) and often have a marking or logo like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![High-Density Polyethylene resin identification logo][1]![Low-Density Polyethylene resin identification logo][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may also be a marking that say 'PE', 'PE-HD', 'LDPE' or 'PE-LD'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bags that are biodegradable usually have a logo on it containing the words 'biodegradable' and/or 'compostable', e.g. something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![EU compostable plastic logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;![Australia's home compostable logo][4]&#xD;&#xA;![USA BPI compostable plastic logo][5]&#xD;&#xA;Note that there is 1 [controversial type of plastic called 'Oxo-biodegradable'](https://www.mrw.co.uk/latest/gove-reignites-oxo-bio-plastics-controversy/10030381.article). Opponents say that oxo-biodegradable plastic just falls apart into microplastics that continue to pollute the environment. The manufacturer however refutes this and says it falls apart into biodegradable components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Oxo-biodegradable plastic logo][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no logo or description on the plastic it's most likely PE, but you can't know for sure unless you get the bag tested in a lab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW all types of plastic will degrade very slowly under normal circumstances. I don't think biodegradable plastics degrade much faster than non-biodegradable plastics. Most biodegradable plastic bags are made from [Polythene film](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodegradable_polythene_film) or corn-based materials like [Polyactic Acid (PLA)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid). For biodegradable plastics to degrade (in a reasonable timeframe) they need to be heated to very high temperatures for several days. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Dd155.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CGaoU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hL8Vv.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BReGk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FgzPk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7TWjJ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6875" RevisionGUID="94cbb946-cad6-4f5a-8bae-fa48758bb942" CreationDate="2018-10-03T11:42:15.830" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="A full answer will be very broad, so let me point out some things.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm writing from a West-European perspective)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically: Anything that burns, and to a certain extent even non-burning material is acceptable. It's all a matter of efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Before separating the compost fraction from household waste was common, even that wet fraction was burned in the incinerator. It just resulted in a lower burn temperature, so less efficiency.&lt;br /&gt;(Actually, history was the other way around: When we reduced the wet fraction, temperatures went up, to a point where the first incinerators doing this had more problems with wear of the oven cladding.)&#xD;&#xA;- If you burn hazardous waste you need higher temperatures to avoid toxic chemicals in the smoke (or the ashes). Generally, things like biowaste and hazardous chemicals are burned in specialist ovens with a much higher temperature than 'ordinary' household/industrial waste.&#xD;&#xA;- What we see more over the last couple of years is adding agricultural and forestry material to the waste/fuel stream, because this counts as 'green energy'.&#xD;&#xA;- A certain amount of non-burning material is unavoidable in waste streams. Things like building rubble (stone) and metals are diverted into separate streams, but some of this your oven can handle. You will just get more ashes and slag, and will need to find a destination/purpose for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to plan building an incinerator, you would do a calculation of the waste streams available to you (size, composition, transport distance and methods), the waste products you would have to get rid of, and design your oven around that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17863" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="33832a02-5350-4aaf-a676-3bafc3f17d00" CreationDate="2018-10-03T20:00:15.180" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17864" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6874" RevisionGUID="b0fe6dec-3a72-4e71-b772-9d5079c5c1c7" CreationDate="2018-10-03T21:00:17.097" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1047592193316331523" />
  <row Id="17865" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6673" RevisionGUID="9cb44032-e96c-4530-a673-c633ccdb8838" CreationDate="2018-10-03T21:01:03.697" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="d01476ab-6f6f-45c6-a37f-3b2909626d96" CreationDate="2018-10-03T21:49:34.313" UserId="6040" Text="I am looking to get into beekeeping. I have a plot of land ~20x50m that I would like to put some hives on. There are multiple nearby fields with horses - minimum distance ~ 50m to nearest such field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would there be any problems with getting the bees with regards to the horses?&#xD;&#xA;Would the neighbours be likely to be aggravated by the introduction of bees?&#xD;&#xA;Are the horses likely to be hurt by bees?&#xD;&#xA;Would the law forbid keeping of bees near to horses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have found this site: http://www.beekeeping.org.uk/bee_law.pdf which suggests a beekeeper HAS been held accountable for bees resulting in a death, but supposedly the beekeeper behaved unreasonably, so I am unsure how relevant it would be. I haven't been able to find any more such cases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17867" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="d01476ab-6f6f-45c6-a37f-3b2909626d96" CreationDate="2018-10-03T21:49:34.313" UserId="6040" Text="UK - would there be any problem with keeping bees on a plot if the neighbours have horses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17868" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="d01476ab-6f6f-45c6-a37f-3b2909626d96" CreationDate="2018-10-03T21:49:34.313" UserId="6040" Text="|gardening|farming|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6877" RevisionGUID="6c304604-7df2-46d1-8cc0-48d90408b814" CreationDate="2018-10-04T08:51:34.993" UserId="4155" Text="It largely depends on the sort of driving you do - if you do lost of short journeys, buy petrol (or electric), if you mostly do long journeys, buy Diesel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best thing you can do to reduce the impact is simply to drive it less - The fewer miles you do, the less emissions you create, so consider using the train instead wherever possible, and walk/cycle for shorter journeys - this latter point is most important, as Diesel cars are very inefficient when cold, and so are very bad for short journeys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make sure the car is well maintained, particularly any emission controls such as Diesel particulate filters and echaust gas recirculation systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep the tyres in good condition and correctly inflated - a significant proportion of the particulate emissions from a car comes from tyre, road and brake wear. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Older Diesel cars will run on vegetable oil, which doesn't really help with the point-of-use emissions, but does reduce the overall impact, as you're not using as much unsustainable fossil fuel. Similarly keeping the car going for as long as possible - it may not directly reduce the particulates in the immediate vicinity, but it's better for the overall environment than scrapping it and creating a new vehicle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17870" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="117ea638-fc65-4307-a4bd-9f2da003f6c1" CreationDate="2018-10-04T09:00:28.237" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1047773434334334976" />
  <row Id="17872" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6876" RevisionGUID="fd0dd955-c06a-416b-b413-974ee2dc23f4" CreationDate="2018-10-04T12:00:32.440" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1047818750274277377" />
  <row Id="17873" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6497" RevisionGUID="89cd166c-8880-4d85-a0f4-5164eabb8133" CreationDate="2018-10-05T08:28:05.670" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="How to manage a largish hugelkultur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17874" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6497" RevisionGUID="89cd166c-8880-4d85-a0f4-5164eabb8133" CreationDate="2018-10-05T08:28:05.670" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17875" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6497" RevisionGUID="89cd166c-8880-4d85-a0f4-5164eabb8133" CreationDate="2018-10-05T08:28:05.670" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 2451, 99 edit id of 541" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="645ac818-f457-4f7c-a583-22ab34c7ece2" CreationDate="2018-10-05T08:28:34.920" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="I gone through many ideas to protect books so that they last for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideas I have applied:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I tried phenile tablet in storage&#xD;&#xA;- I used to add preservative oil to wooden storage as to not get humid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My old books get small insects in them, and also odours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are sustainable ways to protect books?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to protect the pages from turning yellow?  &#xD;&#xA;How to prevent odours?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in **India, Ahmedabad** where weather stats are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Temperature :** 20&amp;deg;C TO 45&amp;deg;C  &#xD;&#xA;**Humidity:** Near about 30%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17877" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="645ac818-f457-4f7c-a583-22ab34c7ece2" CreationDate="2018-10-05T08:28:34.920" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="|preservation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17878" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5984" RevisionGUID="645ac818-f457-4f7c-a583-22ab34c7ece2" CreationDate="2018-10-05T08:28:34.920" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 2451, 99 edit id of 542" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17879" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6877" RevisionGUID="78401312-fcf1-4f53-b221-caee28655684" CreationDate="2018-10-05T09:52:26.440" UserId="4155" Comment="added references" Text="It largely depends on the sort of driving you do - if you do lost of short journeys, buy petrol (or electric), if you mostly do long journeys, buy Diesel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best thing you can do to reduce the impact is simply to drive it less - The fewer miles you do, the less emissions you create, so consider using the train instead wherever possible, and walk/cycle for shorter journeys - this latter point is most important, as Diesel cars are very inefficient when cold, and so are very bad for short journeys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make sure the car is well maintained, particularly any emission controls such as Diesel particulate filters and echaust gas recirculation systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep the tyres in good condition and correctly inflated - a significant proportion of the particulate emissions from a car comes from tyre, road and brake wear - this [Defra Report][1] (pages 84-85) suggests that in 2009, 12.4ktonnes of PM2.5 emissions came from vehicle exhausts, and 7.8ktonnes from non-exhaust vehicle emissions - but by 2020, the exhaust emissions are predicted to fall to just 2ktonnes, while the non-exhaust emissions would increase to 8.8.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Older Diesel cars will run on vegetable oil, which doesn't really help with the point-of-use emissions, but does reduce the overall impact, as you're not using as much unsustainable fossil fuel. Similarly keeping the car going for as long as possible - it may not directly reduce the particulates in the immediate vicinity, but it's better for the overall environment than scrapping it and creating a new vehicle. This [Telegraph Article][2], quoting from Mike Berners-Lee's book &quot;How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Nearly Everything&quot;, calculates the CO2 emissions from a new Golf to be 22t for manufacturing + 40,000 miles (the average in the UK for 5 year's worth of driving), compared with 11t for buying a 10-year-old one and driving it for another 40,000 miles - and if you make the concious effort to reduce your milage, the old one would be 5.5t for 20k miles, whereas the new one would be 19.9t - an even bigger difference. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat11/1212141150_AQEG_Fine_Particulate_Matter_in_the_UK.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/green-motoring/11187483/New-or-old-which-is-greener.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17880" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6693" RevisionGUID="f8baa616-b9d6-4912-8eb9-48c95f8157d9" CreationDate="2018-10-05T10:49:42.407" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:60,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Peter Ivan&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:164,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Mark Booth&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1445,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;aucuparia&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:471,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Yadav Chetan&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="13ee55fe-657c-46ec-80ba-7a1a2e7832f6" CreationDate="2018-10-06T02:39:54.920" UserId="2914" Text="In know this will vary by soil and growing season.  But say you have a 4-6 month growing season and there is farming in the area so soil must be OK.  A small green house for like lettuce and herbs.  Supplement with dried beans and pasta.  Will can for the off months.  Nominally how large of a garden per person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="13ee55fe-657c-46ec-80ba-7a1a2e7832f6" CreationDate="2018-10-06T02:39:54.920" UserId="2914" Text="How big a garden for one person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="13ee55fe-657c-46ec-80ba-7a1a2e7832f6" CreationDate="2018-10-06T02:39:54.920" UserId="2914" Text="|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6879" RevisionGUID="103f9fdb-c891-47c9-88cb-0b3ba846aea9" CreationDate="2018-10-06T03:22:09.113" UserId="6045" Text="Human activities cause about 10% of total co2 emissions. However, humans cultivate about half of the earths land surface. These plants potentially cause photosynthesis and lower atmospheric co2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do human activities lower co2? If not, could they lower co2 if done differently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17886" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6879" RevisionGUID="103f9fdb-c891-47c9-88cb-0b3ba846aea9" CreationDate="2018-10-06T03:22:09.113" UserId="6045" Text="Does human activity result in a net increase or decrease in co2?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17887" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6879" RevisionGUID="103f9fdb-c891-47c9-88cb-0b3ba846aea9" CreationDate="2018-10-06T03:22:09.113" UserId="6045" Text="|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="bd4d6c19-59ec-484f-ba4f-147c0fc99066" CreationDate="2018-10-06T11:45:43.827" UserId="2914" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="In know this will vary by soil and growing season.  But say you have a 4-6 month growing season and there is farming in the area so soil must be OK.  A small green house for like lettuce and herbs.  Supplement with dried beans and pasta.  Will can for the off months.  Nominally how large of a garden to feed one person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17889" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="bd4d6c19-59ec-484f-ba4f-147c0fc99066" CreationDate="2018-10-06T11:45:43.827" UserId="2914" Comment="added 4 characters in body; edited title" Text="How big a garden to feed one person?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6880" RevisionGUID="a11dcbe0-8edb-4121-88cc-47a2d34581c0" CreationDate="2018-10-06T15:06:05.140" UserId="4834" Text="[Humans have released around 3 × 10^11 tons of carbon since the industrial revolution][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Agriculture, particularly modern industrial agriculture, releases massive amounts of carbon from the soil which then forms CO2.  [Since the dawn of agriculture, 8% of the world's soil carbon (1 × 10^11 tons of carbon) has been &quot;lost&quot;][2] - released to form atmospheric CO2 (or oceanic carbon).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This puts the agricultural contribution to carbon emissions at close to one third of the overall human emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO2 taken up by plants during photosynthesis is largely returned to the atmosphere when those plants are consumed.  Thus, photosynthesis as involved in industrial agriculture has only short term effects and essentially balances out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, agriculture does not offset carbon emissions.  Instead, it is a significant contribution to it.  If agricultural practices were changed to sequester carbon instead of releasing it, there would still be a net release of carbon from human activities (though it would be very significantly reduced compared to current levels).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=125&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.carbonbrief.org/worlds-soils-have-lost-133bn-tonnes-of-carbon-since-the-dawn-of-agriculture" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6881" RevisionGUID="29ccb99d-d0b3-4dd2-89df-a670d6f2a9d2" CreationDate="2018-10-07T06:39:07.203" UserId="3540" Text="To have enough garden to grow enough stuff for one person will also be the same size necessary to grow food for a family or to give to neighbors.  The excess produce will be preserved via canning, dehydration, freezing or storing in a 'potato cellar'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've a 40 foot by 25 foot greenhouse built over the garden beds.  We are just two people plus animals.  You have to take into account *rotation* of different families of vegetables harvested.  Grow one crop of potatoes in a bed (my beds are 6'X 8') and then none of that family can be grown in that soil for a minimum of two years. This is simply basic rules of common sense that should be followed. Of course, one can most likely get a harvest of potatoes the next year but they are risking a total crop decimation from disease.  It truly is a 50/50 risk.  To lose crops to a single fungal spore, a single bacterial spore is very sad.  Been there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This just means one needs more garden real estate just to grow enough for that one person.  That same real estate can easily feed a family or two if done properly and there are no surprises.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are the beds with differing pHs to accommodate plants such as potatoes and blueberries who love an abnormal low pH than other plants.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is there is a minimum of garden real estate to do a proper job of a minimal harvest.  I enlarge my garden real estate by using pots.  With potting soil, not garden soil.  Easier to control pH.  Easier to move from indoors to out of doors for acclimation, emergencies, snap frosts. There seems to be a minimum threshold of garden space if one wants to grow food seriously.  Not as a whim but with a harvest as a goal.  A harvest one is able to preserve for later.  Even for just one person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer would be 1000 square feet supplemented with pots and potting soil to allow proper rotation of plant families.  Otherwise, I would definitely double that to 2000 square feet.  For one person who wants to preserve enough harvest to live by the rest of the year.  And feed friends and neighbors for sure as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much room were you considering? What zone are you living in?  What kind of soil? What are you imagining for a greenhouse?  Artificial lighting? Have you ever had a vegetable garden before that was productive?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17892" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6882" RevisionGUID="0a4277d7-949a-44b8-944e-8d8e68a2bcc7" CreationDate="2018-10-07T19:56:02.440" UserId="6047" Text="A single person is limited by being just that,one person. If you work a full time job,a smaller garden will be easier. I did a 20x30ft garden and it’s almost a second job in spring it seems like. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6883" RevisionGUID="9a7d2ade-cb55-4ff9-9e83-9d3565e4130a" CreationDate="2018-10-08T01:14:39.270" UserId="3379" Text="Let's say I have the option to send my food scraps to either a composting site, or a biogas digester. Both are industrial scale, following best practices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The output from each is high quality and replaces conventional product in the market, to the extent possible (i.e., humus from the compost operation is sold in stores, and biogas from the digester is used for heating and/or electricity production). Let's assume in both cases the quantity is insufficient to significantly distort the market (i.e., the biogas digester will offset some level of natural gas combustion, but won't put the power plant out of business).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which of these two options is better for the environment?** I'm most interested in CO2 emissions (or global warming potential), but would also be interested in data on toxicity, water use, air pollution, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few related questions which prompted this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5849/3379&#xD;&#xA; - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/226/3379&#xD;&#xA; - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6846/3379" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17894" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6883" RevisionGUID="9a7d2ade-cb55-4ff9-9e83-9d3565e4130a" CreationDate="2018-10-08T01:14:39.270" UserId="3379" Text="Which is best for dealing with food waste -- composting or a biogas digester?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17895" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6883" RevisionGUID="9a7d2ade-cb55-4ff9-9e83-9d3565e4130a" CreationDate="2018-10-08T01:14:39.270" UserId="3379" Text="|composting|biodegradable-waste|biogas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17897" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6846" RevisionGUID="7437b2f7-e69a-4c35-9df1-44f1555aa95d" CreationDate="2018-10-08T03:01:02.557" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1049132532334301186" />
  <row Id="17898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6884" RevisionGUID="4344d0bd-0077-43db-9bb8-f25f0a99f908" CreationDate="2018-10-08T14:06:03.627" UserId="4264" Text="Carbon dioxide release occurs when compounds containing carbon are oxidised. In conventional aerobic decomposition, this process is relatively direct and carried out by a range of organisms. In a biogas digester, whilst there is no initial release of carbon dioxide, it is released when the resulting methane is burnt. At the end of both processes, you are left with carbon compounds that are only very slowly decomposed. So the in effect they are equivalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is anaerobic digesters make it easier to recover energy from waste (although it is possible to extract heat from compost piles). They also have an advantage over composting in that most compost piles release some methane and other greenhouse gases. These gases are captured during the recovery of gas in an anaerobic digester and then combusted to carbon dioxide which has a lower warming potential than methane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So probably best to use an anaerobic digester first." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17899" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6772" RevisionGUID="1fd72d7d-93b7-4465-8561-76c433f20e89" CreationDate="2018-10-08T21:00:14.643" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1049404122724753408" />
  <row Id="17900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6885" RevisionGUID="d1448109-7676-49c6-a50c-7b533521d690" CreationDate="2018-10-08T22:21:17.360" UserId="400" Text="Historically to completely feed yourself using hand labour takes about an acre per person.  This allows mixed ag so you have chickens and pigs to eat, a cow to milk etc.  Certain crops do better.  Oats are more productive than wheat, but are lower in protein.  Rice and beans each are incomplete proteins, but together rice and a legume work well.  Corn and a legume also are balanced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17901" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6886" RevisionGUID="4073c5c2-222a-4207-a2b7-bf9a140daed6" CreationDate="2018-10-08T22:23:12.973" UserId="400" Text="Not worth it.  Clay is cheap.  Breaking up clay is more expensive than getting new clay.  The big expense in ceramics are the energy to fire it, and the transport to move it.  The ingrediants are, by comparison, free.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6887" RevisionGUID="bf42d465-18a1-4ac5-97a9-6fe2c0e12e59" CreationDate="2018-10-08T23:15:27.193" UserId="2914" Text="Use them to line the bottom of a pot for drainage.  Line a walk way.  Fill in a pot hole.  Treat them like gravel." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6888" RevisionGUID="b4e60698-7776-428e-a562-769349fbafe9" CreationDate="2018-10-09T02:24:14.567" UserId="400" Text="Any organic material decomposing in a anaerobic or near anaerobic situation will produce methane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I question your assumption that the source in landfills is mostly food in origin from individuals. Other sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Processing waste -- All those corn husks, apple pulp from making applejuice.&#xD;&#xA;* Grocery store waste -- imperfect veggies, old food.&#xD;&#xA;* Yard waste. Grass clippings, pruning&#xD;&#xA;* Wood waste.  Construction, wood chips from arborists. &#xD;&#xA;* Agricultural waste.  Probably not a big component.  Most ag waste is used on the farm in one way or another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:  One of the scariest methane sources in our future is likely the thawing of the Arctic permafrost, and the warming of the Arctic continental shelves.  google 'arctic methane sources climate change' " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6889" RevisionGUID="bab3ace7-8a13-414c-8958-f62e18fa1ee4" CreationDate="2018-10-09T02:29:28.990" UserId="400" Text="You don't want to do it this way.  It gets really messy and you need to take into account your climate, sunny hours per day through the year, time of year and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead try looking up &quot;solar potential atlas&quot;  For Canada this is a big spreadsheet listing values by month for every city and village in the nation.  I'm sure there are equivalents for your country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example for me, if I have an array facing south sloped at my latitude, I get 1250 kWh per kW installed capacity.  So a 1 kW array generates for me about $100 worth of electricity per year.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6881" RevisionGUID="43828753-20a4-4d6f-8400-58131feaa2d8" CreationDate="2018-10-09T04:44:41.167" UserId="3540" Comment="pictures" Text="[![first year beds][1]][1]To have enough garden to grow enough stuff for one person will also be the same size necessary to grow food for a family or to give to neighbors.  The excess produce will be preserved via canning, dehydration, freezing or storing in a 'potato cellar'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've a 40 foot by 25 foot greenhouse built over the garden beds.  We are just two people plus animals.  You have to take into account *rotation* of different families of vegetables harvested.  Grow one crop of potatoes in a bed (my beds are 6'X 8') and then none of that family can be grown in that soil for a minimum of two years. This is simply basic rules of common sense that should be followed. Of course, one can most likely get a harvest of potatoes the next year but they are risking a total crop decimation from disease.  It truly is a 50/50 risk.  To lose crops to a single fungal spore, a single bacterial spore is very sad.  Been there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This just means one needs more garden real estate just to grow enough for that one person.  That same real estate can easily feed a family or two if done properly and there are no surprises.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are the beds with differing pHs to accommodate plants such as potatoes and blueberries who love an abnormal low pH than other plants.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is there is a minimum of garden real estate to do a proper job of a minimal harvest.  I enlarge my garden real estate by using pots.  With potting soil, not garden soil.  Easier to control pH.  Easier to move from indoors to out of doors for acclimation, emergencies, snap frosts. There seems to be a minimum threshold of garden space if one wants to grow food seriously.  Not as a whim but with a harvest as a goal.  A harvest one is able to preserve for later.  Even for just one person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My answer would be 1000 square feet supplemented with pots and potting soil to allow proper rotation of plant families.  Otherwise, I would definitely double that to 2000 square feet.  For one person who wants to preserve enough harvest to live by the rest of the year.  And feed friends and neighbors for sure as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much room were you considering? What zone are you living in?  What kind of soil? What are you imagining for a greenhouse?  Artificial lighting? Have you ever had a vegetable garden before that was productive?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![same beds 2 years later with a green house built over the whole garden zone 3 ][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FVAxZ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2ndu6.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17906" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="42b55644-9c9b-48bb-9a7e-8a5b9c8d6c9a" CreationDate="2018-10-09T10:00:58.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6885" RevisionGUID="b66f9f54-3f79-4991-a540-404ae6fb69c2" CreationDate="2018-10-09T17:36:20.910" UserId="400" Comment="MAJOR expansion for suburban dwellers." Text="Historically to completely feed yourself using hand labour takes about an acre per person.  This allows mixed ag so you have chickens and pigs to eat, a cow to milk etc.  Certain crops do better.  Oats are more productive than wheat, but are lower in protein.  Rice and beans each are incomplete proteins, but together rice and a legume work well.  Corn and a legume also are balanced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that self sufficiency is a full time job.  I know hobby farm families that come close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are limited by a conventional suburban lot, then you have to prioritize:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can take two approaches:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * How to I maximize the amount of food (calories)?&#xD;&#xA; * How do I use my land to minimize my grocery bill?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is simple.  Plant potatoes.  Do it intensively using bale or barrel culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second requires more thought and more work.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly analyze your grocery bills, and list out what you have been buying in the veggie department.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Take out the items that don't grow where you live.  For me, in Alberta that means I won't try to grow oranges, avocados or peaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Look at the rest and for each one decide:  &quot;Can a grow a better one at home than I can buy&quot;  &quot;Can I grow a cheaper one at home than I can buy&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one, IMHO includes tomatoes. If you can grow them it will include peaches, and indeed, most stone fruit.  It won't include the common veggies like carrots and corn and broccoli.  It may include veggies you don't see in the store.  It should include a lot of the stuff you eat raw -- salad greens, green onions, radishes etc.  These generally are high value items that are easy to grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second category includes apples, pears, some berries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take into account the time involved.  Shucking peas by hand is slow work.  Instead plant crops that normally have a large hand labour component.  Fruit, Asparagus, eggplant -- anything that has to be planted, picked, or weeded by hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meat.  It's not practical to keep a cow, and even a goat is pushing it.  Lots of cities look down on chickens often with unstated thoughts of 'poor white trash'.  What's left?  Guinea pigs and rabbits.  Guinea pigs are VERY efficient at turning garden scraps and anything leftover in terms of food into meat. A guinea pig has about the same meat as 2 pieces of chicken.  Rabbits are larger, and are a lot easier to keep in colder climates. Note that this can be a hard sell to the kids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(When I was in Peru one summer, I found barbecued guinea pig there was the equivalent of hot dogs here.  Buy them on the street.  5 sols each.  I found out that every house, rich and poor alike had a guinea pig hutch.  This was their equivalent to a garburator.  All the kitchen scraps went to the guinea pigs.  Sometimes you'd get a guinea pig from a street vendor that had been finished on fish scraps.  Instead of chicken, it tasted like tuna.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another action you can take is to set up a community trading group.  Some fruit trees like plums, will produce more plums than you know what to do with -- one year in three.  A full grown standard sized apple tree will produce a thousand pounds of apples a year.  Given that most people will only handle a couple boxes (~120 lbs) before they go bad, this is too much of a good thing.  A community where I can trade my extra apples for your extra winter squash is a double win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preserving food becomes a big thing too.  If you have community land, maybe figure out how to make a series of community root cellars. (Different veggies have different storage conditions) Drying, Canning, Pickling all have their place.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small greenhouse is terribly inefficient.  Don't think of trying to grow veggies all year in it.  However a greenhouse allows you to start about 6 weeks sooner in spring, and to carry on a similar period of time in the fall, especially if you plant cold tolerant crops in the end seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some areas people are setting up community gardens, or planting orchards on the edges of parks and school grounds.  This gives you a way to expand  your effective growing area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at organizing community groups on the lines of the way condo associations work, but without the mandatory membership part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6890" RevisionGUID="0548abac-8d03-4758-964e-359ea3527565" CreationDate="2018-10-09T17:44:23.263" UserId="400" Text="Way too much depends on your circumstances.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start with a small one -- 15 x 20 or 24 x 40.  In general larger greenhouses are easier to keep at even temperatures.  If you're not sure, get the wider one to start but only buy half the frames for it, then extend it as you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heating them can be a step backward in terms of global sustainability.  Solar greenhoouses are hard to do, and the more extreme your climate the harder it is.  Most greenhouses are used only 3 seasons of the year.  (In southern regions, you can't cool them enough.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greenhouse frames themselves are quite inexpensive, and you can make them moreso if you bend your own tubing.  Poly covered greenhouses require new poly about every 3-5 years, depending on the quality you get.  Poly is pretty much the standard for most production greenhouses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the land, look at buying a big frame -- say 40 x 100, and putting a mobile home inside it.  Because most of your heat is from the greenhouse, you don't care if it's an old ratty one with crap insulation.  YOu do need roll up sides on your greenhouse to keep from getting cooked in summer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't plant all of it, the kids have a place outside on a rainy day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17910" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6869" RevisionGUID="345138e8-393b-4c25-854d-ada6db3dd0ee" CreationDate="2018-10-10T06:46:53.247" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2507],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4886,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Tim&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:15,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Highly Irregular&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6891" RevisionGUID="6bc135a5-94f1-44a7-9556-c9661707b1fb" CreationDate="2018-10-10T12:44:06.067" UserId="1513" Text="The closely related &#xD;&#xA;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2535 Suggests that it is possible to make solar cells without fossil fuels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wondering if there are currently any solar panels on available commercially that are built (*including material acquisition*) entirely with solar power/energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17912" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6891" RevisionGUID="6bc135a5-94f1-44a7-9556-c9661707b1fb" CreationDate="2018-10-10T12:44:06.067" UserId="1513" Text="Are there currently any solar panels that are produced/built entirely with solar power/energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17913" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6891" RevisionGUID="6bc135a5-94f1-44a7-9556-c9661707b1fb" CreationDate="2018-10-10T12:44:06.067" UserId="1513" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17915" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6855" RevisionGUID="595619bd-7a81-440a-ab9e-d3bbd4bda3f4" CreationDate="2018-10-10T18:01:17.003" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1050083861303046144" />
  <row Id="17917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6892" RevisionGUID="236e363a-55c4-4c01-ab96-834d8d0cdbd1" CreationDate="2018-10-11T07:26:06.050" UserId="80" Text="Recycling ceramics [is possible](http://zerowasteinstitute.org/?page_id=56), but it looks like it is still rare. [This](http://zerowasteinstitute.org/?page_id=1441) is an example of a business crushing bathroom porcelain into fine clay to then melt it again in a kiln and produce tiles. The same business and another one are mentioned on [this website](https://recyclenation.com/2015/02/how-to-recycle-ceramic-and-porcelain-tiles/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The similarity between glass and ceramic materials might mean there are ways to use them in a similar recycling path, which can give more options for businesses looking into valorising the material. (See [this paper](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344917304019) for example.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't find a local business that recycles it to make new ceramic objects, it is probably a good idea to drop it at a local &quot;tip&quot; where different materials will be sorted, and where someone might find a use for them. (This increases the likelihood of it being recycled, when compared to mixing it straight into the general rubbish that is destined to landfill.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd argue that, given the difficulty and cost of recycling _and transporting_ such materials, the diversity of glazes used in them, and the fact that not many people have a recycler close-by, the way to maximise the value of the ceramic pieces is to make use of its durability and looks. The shine and colour that the pieces probably have will make them valuable to people who want to reuse them artistically, in mosaics and decorations. Creating news tiles with patterns from ceramic pieces can be great for the outside or the inside of a home, or for bigger community projects like a school's mural or a local council's arty footpath.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If no one is interested in taking it, using it broken down as gravel or a filler is the next option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17918" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6454" RevisionGUID="a7bb92be-ea68-4887-950f-f3301dcad93b" CreationDate="2018-10-11T09:00:35.403" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1050310179533873153" />
  <row Id="17919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6893" RevisionGUID="c279cc97-2e0a-40ec-b15b-b14f5438c670" CreationDate="2018-10-11T19:20:07.267" UserId="6058" Text="I'm a newbie, so please forgive my just dumping a few ideas here...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hinge on the freezer department/ice tray door in the top of your fridge is a weak point, no-one ever defrosted the freezer box regularly so when it backs up a little, with frost and ice but you still want the fish fingers? Then you force it and the little plastic hinge on one side or the other breaks, the seal never works properly again and the sensor ramps up the motor to keep the temperature right down, so it fills with ice quicker than it ever did. Moral of the story - buy a fridge without an ice box in the top, it won't self destruct AND YOU GET AN EXTRA SHELF!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6894" RevisionGUID="54fd5ec9-46e5-4545-8a8b-8d9bca45cd8a" CreationDate="2018-10-11T19:42:19.313" UserId="6058" Text="Sink units/Vanity units&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you buy a flat pack unit, find the really thin screw and nut that goes down thru the ctr of the plug drain which pulls the waste water elbow up to the seal on the underside of the sink. Replace this screw and nut with stainless copies. The sink might be stainless but this screw and nut are usually supllied cheap anodised and will rust out, but you won't know until the flood that comes after the drain elbow drops away. The shelf below the sink is chipboard with a cheap covering, the water gets into the chipboard so it expands and bursts the shelf out along the edges - it's never the same unit again and is much closer to the skip/dumpster as a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just a replacement screw and nut to fix the inbuilt obsolescence." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17921" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6883" RevisionGUID="4afee781-78dc-48d9-bac6-1273fb7661a0" CreationDate="2018-10-12T09:00:15.273" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1050672482628198402" />
  <row Id="17922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6895" RevisionGUID="d52faef5-75e3-4514-bf7e-e01c4b19a134" CreationDate="2018-10-12T17:37:14.387" UserId="6062" Text="We have a 25ft used travel trailer (Fleetwood Prowler). It is easy to pull to many different locations, even over distance. Buying used they can be quite economical and a good way to experiment if small-space living is something you'll like. Since the cost is low, there is also the possibility of stripping it down to the base and building a tiny house in it's place, perhaps even reusing some of the appliances. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6895" RevisionGUID="54d4e34a-f334-483b-9180-2b99d1532178" CreationDate="2018-10-12T18:20:41.013" UserId="6062" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Travel trailer is probably easier to pull to many different locations and over longer distances than are tiny houses (trailer is usually more streamlined).&#xD;&#xA;Travel trailer (especially used) would be a less expensive way to experiment with small-space living and see if you really like it -- so it could be transitional (start with RV then built tiny house).&#xD;&#xA;You could also start with a used RV and have the option of stripping it down to build a tiny house in it's place. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4360" RevisionGUID="b92572e8-2af5-4a38-b1e4-7c4abc3cc0b5" CreationDate="2018-10-13T02:35:19.347" UserId="-1" Comment="Tile, the grass roof, anything that reauires additional weight can collapse your roof if it is not built to hold it. " Text="Method 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally you want a material with a low taber number:  You want a material that is very reflective in the visible spectrum, but close to black in the infrared.  Try for paints that use titanium dioxide for the pigment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method 2:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's a flat roof, and water is cheap, put a pond on top.  Even 2 inches of water will absorb a lot of heat, and evaporate off.  It's possible that this would make a mosquito problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method 3.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put mist nozzles and a timer that turns them on on a regular basis, or uses a photocell that can tell the difference between a dry roof and a wet one.  Make sure your cement roof can handle the extra weight of tile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17925" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4360" RevisionGUID="b92572e8-2af5-4a38-b1e4-7c4abc3cc0b5" CreationDate="2018-10-13T02:35:19.347" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by  edit id of 543" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17926" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6321" RevisionGUID="71cebe47-5744-48b9-abdc-1d0f7f7c7cac" CreationDate="2018-10-13T03:00:10.170" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1050944252346331137" />
  <row Id="17927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6896" RevisionGUID="88dbdc2d-3fa0-4fed-a9ee-d37f3012e7da" CreationDate="2018-10-13T07:24:00.787" UserId="2942" Text="Consider a bed or a chair, one made of wood, another of plastic, another of metal. All else being kept similar between the materials to the extent feasible, **is the wood product generally the most environmentally friendly?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each material has a method of production, a supply chain and equipment and fuel and waste involved. Wood is the most renewable resource, as the wood can regrow and forests provide lots of benefits. Depending on forest management, the supply chain and overall effects of using the wood might not even be bad, aside from probably using tons of fossil fuels if it's not an artisan craft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic and metal on the other hand both require more extensive processing I imagine, and both are less renewable resources. Metal is finite (though plentiful for many types) and I imagine more costly environmentally to mine and extract vs. growing, living forests. Plastic is not only using fossil fuels in production processes, but also in the very materials plastics are made up of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of environmentally friendly, there are a lot of angles to look at it. Lower impact on air quality, less net carbon in atmosphere, socio-economic aspects of production and supply chain, environmental externalities (positive and negative) from the different material options." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17928" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6896" RevisionGUID="88dbdc2d-3fa0-4fed-a9ee-d37f3012e7da" CreationDate="2018-10-13T07:24:00.787" UserId="2942" Text="Wood vs. plastic vs. metal furniture and other items, is the wood product generally most environmentally friendly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17929" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6896" RevisionGUID="88dbdc2d-3fa0-4fed-a9ee-d37f3012e7da" CreationDate="2018-10-13T07:24:00.787" UserId="2942" Text="|environmental-impact|materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17930" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6897" RevisionGUID="ae82e731-f3a1-41c7-a24b-55e225866736" CreationDate="2018-10-13T07:54:36.880" UserId="48" Text="No, there aren't: fossil fuels penetrate the entire global economy, currently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible. It will be common in some years time (maybe as little as 10, maybe as much as 30, depending on when politicians and voters finally decide to get serious about mitigating catastrophic climate change), but it's not happening anywhere right now, partly because so many of the input materials are transported by fossil-fuelled vehicles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="9a30414d-06bf-47d4-a6a3-924691b594b3" CreationDate="2018-10-13T11:16:17.603" UserId="99" Text="There is something to be said for both tiny houses and RVs. [This Treehugger blog](https://www.treehugger.com/tiny-houses/tiny-houses-vs-trailers-campers.html) lists a number of pros for both. In short tiny houses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... look like a house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tiny homes are more weatherproofed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; One can choose the materials and finishes that one wants in a custom-made tiny house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Customization. Tiny homes come in all shapes, sizes, builds and aesthetics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand RVs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... are more mobile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Building codes, insurance..... In many places, tiny homes occupy a bit of a grey area - they are often built as workarounds to local codes and regulations, and can be difficult to insure as such&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A vintage camper is much cheaper to buy as a fixer-upper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They can blend in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in the end it's really a matter of personal preference. In my experience eco-minded people are often also progressive and thus are more inclined to select new options. As Jean Paul Calderone rightfully [comments](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/4834/jean-paul-calderone) RVs have a bit of a old-fashioned image. Tiny houses on the other hand are often promoted as &quot;[sustainable living for people who otherwise cannot afford it&quot;](https://greenfuture.io/sustainable-living/tiny-houses-sustainable-living/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW at the bottom of the Treehugger blog you can vote on which you prefer. At the moment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 31% of voters are in favor of tiny houses&#xD;&#xA;- 30% go for a conventional RVs &#xD;&#xA;- 18% is for a custom designed, eco-friendly RV and &#xD;&#xA;- 19% vote for renovated, retrofitted, eco-friendly vintage campers, trailers, &#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;- 2% other" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17935" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6896" RevisionGUID="80b83eae-0c87-4c02-8719-a55d0803f698" CreationDate="2018-10-13T18:00:22.373" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1051170796067000320" />
  <row Id="17937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6900" RevisionGUID="f30f128b-efab-4805-ac2d-86808ac2c4de" CreationDate="2018-10-14T05:11:20.613" UserId="6068" Text="So I bought this handy and mobile solar charger for my cell phone. I wonder if it's a sustainable buy and looking for a report or similar that compares the production cost(carbon dioxide and resources) vs continuing charging by power connector. Keywords to such a report is lifetime of solar cell, efficiency, usage and more.  Not to forget if electricity is powered by wind as well. Are the some well documented articles on this or similar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17938" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6900" RevisionGUID="f30f128b-efab-4805-ac2d-86808ac2c4de" CreationDate="2018-10-14T05:11:20.613" UserId="6068" Text="Solar cell phone charger a sustainable choice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17939" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6900" RevisionGUID="f30f128b-efab-4805-ac2d-86808ac2c4de" CreationDate="2018-10-14T05:11:20.613" UserId="6068" Text="|solar-power|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17940" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6871" RevisionGUID="6375fc66-8897-430f-84c8-3b9b638c18ab" CreationDate="2018-10-14T18:00:43.603" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1051533272751230976" />
  <row Id="17942" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6860" RevisionGUID="e40e415d-996e-4058-8e1d-022e7612b657" CreationDate="2018-10-15T09:00:23.530" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1051759681218187264" />
  <row Id="17947" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6902" RevisionGUID="8dd144e9-e7be-4bd8-81f6-d24b86c9cc95" CreationDate="2018-10-16T22:42:24.580" UserId="2228" Text="A quick search of AliExpress turns up many small scale wood (or other biomass) pellet machines such as [this one][1].  Pellet mills vary internally in their grinding and screening/pressing die sizes, but they all operate in about the same manner: they grind material, then press it through a die to create a pellet.  Pressure is what ends up creating the pellet, and nothing more.  The primary reason, at least to my understanding, that you don't want to use a food mill for biofuels is that the biofuel raw material (sawdust, dried maure, rice husks, etc.) will gum up the works and make it unusable for food again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/small-pellet-machine-family-use-small-wood-pellet-mill-small-pelletizer/32505845921.html?spm=2114.search0104.3.50.2ad03555X9wehJ&amp;ws_ab_test=searchweb0_0,searchweb201602_2_10065_10068_10130_318_10547_319_10546_317_10548_10545_10696_450_10084_10083_10618_452_535_534_533_10307_532_204_10059_10884_10887_100031_320_10103_448_449,searchweb201603_60,ppcSwitch_0&amp;algo_expid=75a09dfd-aa8c-4630-97a6-0451c270d841-8&amp;algo_pvid=75a09dfd-aa8c-4630-97a6-0451c270d841" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17949" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6900" RevisionGUID="90710c2c-00c2-4d60-bcd7-c24b8a65076e" CreationDate="2018-10-17T06:00:42.857" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1052439239403679744" />
  <row Id="17953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="9e0c713e-b3a2-4b7c-8376-36bbd6d6b97e" CreationDate="2018-10-17T12:00:41.997" UserId="2134" Comment="link update, updates on the SolarFighter devices" Text="Where feed-in is forbidden, a normal grid-tie inverter is not acceptable to the utility. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) However, an inverter plus a zero export solution can be acceptable. I propose to use this (options listed below), as it gets around the need for batteries (which are an additional expense and incur replacement costs due to normal degradation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, simply ask the utility operator. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In some countries, utilities may not yet have heard about zero export solutions, but a local electrician might agree to install an inverter with zero-export since it does not affect the grid. This is technically true if the inverter also has the anti-islanding feature (switching off when the grid goes down, to protect line workers; most grid-tie inverters have it, some reportedly don't, so check before). However, even if the local electrician offers this, as it happened to me, it is probably not &quot;according to the letter of the law&quot;. Proceed at your own responsibility, as always.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All options I list below also allow export limiting to a non-zero value, for cases where that is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. String inverter(s) with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Micro-inverters with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][14], [#28][15], [#46][16]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;SolarFighter&lt;/strike&gt;.** A Spanish company providing a [small zero-export solution][17] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][18]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW(p)) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][19]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The **problem** with this solution is that the zero export feature does not seem to work as advertised, according to my own tests. The controller box will set the production limit values in the inverter correctly, but for every value &gt;20 W the inverter will produce unthrottled, while for every value ≤20 W it will not produce anything. SolarFighter support confirmed that the behavior is not normal and exchanged the inverter on warranty, but so far the problem persists. There are also other problems with software quality and maintenance: the controller box shows more than twice the actual solar yield by calculating the &quot;accumulated energy&quot; value wrong, the &quot;total exported energy&quot; value is also wrong (always the same as &quot;total imported energy&quot;), the statistics functions are not available as their online portal does not allow registration (it seems unmaintained), and the forms in the controller box user interface have a bad user experience (no conditionally shown parts etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    That the SolarFighter system is not recommendable is esp. sad as otherwise this would be the *only* accessible zero-export solution for small installations. And *all* residential installations in countries where export to the grid is forbidden are small (&lt;1 kW(p)) – simply because more generation capacity than needed by the household cannot be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. Zero export devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor Dynamic Power Controller [CDP-0][21] / [CDP-G][22].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. The CDP-G version also includes three relays to power non-critical electrical consumers before having to throttle the inverter (see the [datashee][23]). Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][24]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][25].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent and able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off. No price or convenient purchase option found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Solar Zero Export Controller][26].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[PicoGrid ZX][27].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW(p), and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ComAP InteliPro PV][28].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[carbonTRACK][29].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][30]&lt;/strike&gt;.** No longer a suitable option because &quot;GNT Engineering have ceased operations and the ZED 1 is no longer commercially available.&quot; ([source][30]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This was a device that could control up to 6 inverters, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. Control happens via &quot;selective switching or 4-bit binary control&quot; ([source][30]). In addition to 4-bit digital control it can also use 6-bit control and RS485 ([source][31]), making it compatible with many brands of inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Selective switching&quot; simply means to open a switch in the inverter's output connection, thereby turning off generation immediately. This shuld not hurt any inverter, since they are prepare for grid failure to happen (&quot;anti-islanding function&quot; etc.). This control mode works with all inverter models, but does not allow it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all. It is better to use inverters that can be throttled by this device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 4. Increasing self-consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, to my knowledge, no certified industrial device that uses increased self-consumption as the *only* way to guarantee zero or limited export to the grid, so this is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution with respect to regulation where feed-in is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the solutions mentioned above have the option to control the consumption of non-critical electrical consumers (like a water heater), and there are DIY ways for that as well. So it is a useful addition to throttling inverters, as it utilizes the &quot;oversupply&quot; electricity meaningfully. This is best discussed in [another question][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 5. Supercap buffering with automated transfer switching&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an own idea and so far my favourite proposal because it is cheaper (esp. for small installations &lt;1 kW(p)), more do-it-yourself, and more maintainable. A small-ish supercapacitor bank is recharged by photovoltaics panels and the house runs either on the grid or from that supercap bank via a cheap, non-grid-tie inverter. An automatic transfer switch switches over seamlessly every few minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I explore the idea in detail here: &quot;[A much better solution for solar self-consumption][33]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/docs/FT_CDP-G_EN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://bcjcontrols.com.au/zero-export-devices-zed-1-2-3-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6521&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: https://edgeryders.eu/t/9030" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17954" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6904" RevisionGUID="8d85b413-9ee3-4a07-9994-37d2a7caf8b0" CreationDate="2018-10-18T05:01:47.777" UserId="6071" Text="I suggest fewer on the grounds that livestock consumption of feed is part of a cycle. That is, the livestock consume the feed and excrete part of that, which in turn aids the production of more feed. Without the excretion being fed back as manure in one form or another there would not be as much plant growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, the consumption of livestock is really just a partial subtraction of the total energy of the plant growth which is continuously cycling (with the addition of sunlight and rain in each cycle of course). Take livestock out of the cycle and the growth will be retarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different forms of livestock feeding practices also affect this. Where I live in NZ most livestock graze on grass year-round with the addition in Winter of mostly hay or silage (often grown on the same farm) and occasionally root crops. This could not be consumed directly by humans and so would require changes in crops from forage grasses to something else. I cannot think what this would be on a hill country farm that is not amenable to mechanised cropping but is suited to sheep grazing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17962" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="82" RevisionGUID="3e68bc52-9a0f-4b15-a91d-1f9f870b1676" CreationDate="2018-10-20T17:10:42.237" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="17964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6906" RevisionGUID="569d85fa-9eb4-4b7d-af33-7cac922ba7e2" CreationDate="2018-10-20T17:50:34.947" UserId="6087" Text="If you buy for fuel economy, then scuffed wheels from a scrapyard search service or classified ads are OK. Ebay here in the UK has a good way of narrowing-down a quick search. I found one seller charging the same amount for old alloys as people charge for new plastic covers - fifteen UK pounds reduced from twenty-five. I don't know how much I'd pay on a scrapyard search service or to someone with an add saying &quot;breaking XXX vehicle close to you&quot; but it would be the same kind of amount I suppose. Partshark has one add for my type of car with a price of &quot;please call&quot; and courier fees to pay on top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a suggestion. If anyone here runs a scrapyard parts ordering service, why not add a category for ugly scuffed allow wheels for sale to fuel economisers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6906" RevisionGUID="58476b83-75a5-453c-8604-a1d43415f137" CreationDate="2018-10-20T17:56:24.320" UserId="6087" Comment="heading" Text="Wheel price&#xD;&#xA;===========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you buy for fuel economy, then scuffed wheels from a scrapyard search service or classified ads are OK. Ebay here in the UK has a good way of narrowing-down a quick search. I found one seller charging the same amount for old alloys as people charge for new plastic covers - fifteen UK pounds x 4 reduced from twenty-five x 4. I don't know how much I'd pay on a scrapyard search service or to someone with an add saying &quot;breaking XXX vehicle close to you&quot; but it would be the same kind of amount I suppose. Partshark has one add for my type of car with a price of &quot;please call&quot; and courier fees to pay on top. Anyway it could be as low as a tenth of what someone further up the thread saw as the price of alloys bought new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a suggestion. If anyone here runs a scrapyard parts ordering service, why not add a category for ugly scuffed allow wheels for sale to fuel economisers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6906" RevisionGUID="9440b448-23db-4d81-a958-c7f6e18882c4" CreationDate="2018-10-20T18:03:50.543" UserId="6087" Comment="heading" Text="Wheel price&#xD;&#xA;===========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you buy for fuel economy, then scuffed wheels from a scrapyard search service or classified ads are OK. Ebay here in the UK has a good way of narrowing-down a quick search. I found one seller charging the same amount for old alloys as people charge for new plastic covers - fifteen UK pounds x 4 reduced from twenty-five x 4. I don't know how much I'd pay on a scrapyard search service or to someone with an add saying &quot;breaking XXX vehicle close to you&quot; but it would be the same kind of amount I suppose. Partshark has one add for my type of car with a price of &quot;please call&quot; and courier fees to pay on top. Anyway it could be as low as a tenth of what someone further up the thread saw as the price of alloys bought new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're interested in economy or the environment, you might not charge for the time spend buying the wheels but then there's the cost of changing the wheels. That's either an unfamiliar, time-consuming job or a job that costs as much as my wheels depending on where you go. There are web sites about cheap tyres that note the price of tyre fitting - often mobile tyre fitting - which is about the same per wheel as the wheels themselves. I guess that wheel-changing and tyre-fitting is about double.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a suggestion. If anyone here runs a scrapyard parts ordering service, why not add a category for ugly scuffed allow wheels for sale to fuel economisers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if anyone runs a mobile tyre fittings service why not add an &quot;ugly old alloy wheels if available&quot; option to the price list?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6906" RevisionGUID="6ee775d5-529e-4a60-bcf2-349738ea93cb" CreationDate="2018-10-20T18:10:35.897" UserId="6087" Comment="tyretown quote" Text="Wheel price&#xD;&#xA;===========&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you buy for fuel economy, then scuffed wheels from a scrapyard search service or classified ads are OK. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;$600 for a set of alloy wheels. Given the costs I saw at Tiretown ... prices were over that per wheel, let alone per set&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ebay here in the UK has a good way of narrowing-down a quick search. I found one seller charging the same amount for old alloys as people charge for new plastic covers - fifteen UK pounds x 4 reduced from twenty-five x 4. I don't know how much I'd pay on a scrapyard search service or to someone with an add saying &quot;breaking XXX vehicle close to you&quot; but it would be the same kind of amount I suppose. Partshark has one add for my type of car with a price of &quot;please call&quot; and courier fees to pay on top. Anyway it could be way-under the $600 per wheel break-even point quoted further up the thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you enjoy economy or protecting the environment, you might not factor-in the time spent buying wheels but then there's the cost of changing the wheels. That's either an unfamiliar, time-consuming job with difficulties in wheel-balancing or a job you pay other people to do. There are web sites about cheap tyres that note the price of tyre fitting - often mobile tyre fitting - which is about the same per wheel as the wheels themselves. I guess that tyre fitters double the price if you want them to change a wheel as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a suggestion. If anyone here runs a scrapyard parts ordering service, why not add a category for ugly scuffed allow wheels for sale to fuel economisers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if anyone runs a mobile tyre fittings service why not add an &quot;ugly old alloy wheels if available&quot; option to the price list?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6906" RevisionGUID="df9dcabc-2e75-417b-bfd3-609d2eb789cf" CreationDate="2018-10-20T18:26:14.890" UserId="6087" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; added 39 characters in body" Text="Wheel price is low&#xD;&#xA;==================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you buy for fuel economy, then scuffed wheels from a scrapyard search service or classified ads are OK. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;$600 for a set of alloy wheels. Given the costs I saw at Tiretown ... prices were over that per wheel, let alone per set&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ebay here in the UK has a good way of narrowing-down a quick search. I found one seller charging the same amount for old alloys as people charge for new plastic covers - fifteen UK pounds x 4 reduced from twenty-five x 4. I don't know how much I'd pay on a scrapyard search service or to someone with an add saying &quot;breaking XXX vehicle close to you&quot; but it would be the same kind of amount I suppose. Partshark, a scrapper search site, has one add for my type of car with a price of &quot;please call&quot; and courier fees to pay on top. Anyway it could be way-under the $600 per wheel break-even point quoted further up the thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you enjoy economy or protecting the environment, you might not factor-in the time spent buying wheels but then there's the cost of changing the wheels. That's either an unfamiliar, time-consuming job with difficulties in wheel-balancing or a job you pay other people to do. There are web sites about cheap tyres that note the price of tyre fitting - often mobile tyre fitting - which is about the same per wheel as the wheels themselves. I guess that tyre fitters double the price if you want them to change a wheel as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a suggestion. If anyone here runs a scrapyard parts ordering service, why not add a category for ugly scuffed alloy wheels for sale to misers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if anyone runs a mobile tyre fittings service why not add an &quot;scuffed old alloy wheels if available&quot; option to the price list?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6906" RevisionGUID="02bbd5a7-d8b2-4808-9fe4-f6fc4bec32bc" CreationDate="2018-10-20T18:34:21.083" UserId="6087" Comment="added 108 characters in body" Text="Wheel price is low&#xD;&#xA;==================&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you buy for fuel economy, then scuffed wheels from a scrapyard search service or classified ads are OK. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*&quot;$600 for a set of alloy wheels. Given the costs I saw at Tiretown ... prices were over that per wheel, let alone per set&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ebay here in the UK has a good way of narrowing-down a quick search. I found one seller charging the same amount for old alloys as people charge for new plastic covers - fifteen UK pounds x 4 reduced from twenty-five x 4. I don't know how much I'd pay on a scrapyard search service or to someone with an add saying &quot;breaking XXX vehicle close to you&quot; but it would be the same kind of amount I suppose. Partshark, a scrapper search site, has one add for my type of car with a price of &quot;please call&quot; and courier fees to pay on top. Anyway it could be way-under the $600 per wheel break-even point quoted further up the thread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you enjoy economy or protecting the environment, you might not factor-in the time spent learning what wheels fit your car, buying wheels, and reselling if you get it wrong, but then there's the cost of changing the wheels for real with blown-up tyres on them. That's either an unfamiliar, time-consuming job with difficulties in wheel-balancing or a job you pay other people to do. There are web sites about cheap tyres that note the price of tyre fitting - often mobile tyre fitting - which is about the same per wheel as the wheels themselves. I guess that tyre fitters double the price if you want them to change a wheel as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a suggestion. If anyone here runs a scrapyard parts ordering service, why not add a category for ugly scuffed alloy wheels for sale to misers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or if anyone runs a mobile tyre fittings service why not add an &quot;scuffed old alloy wheels if available&quot; option to the price list?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17970" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6747" RevisionGUID="bdf6b92e-0835-4a75-b3a1-d8155a06330a" CreationDate="2018-10-21T03:00:39.690" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1053843479120564225" />
  <row Id="17974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="de668f56-5a21-4388-aaac-8f77f3c40707" CreationDate="2018-10-22T02:49:23.667" UserId="6090" Text="Does anyone know anything about Dominion Energy's solar standby charge (in Virginia) ? All I can find about it is generic information such as &quot;Dominion plans to charge $4.19 per kilowatt for a solar customer's average peak usage of the company's electricity each month&quot; for systems of 10 kilowatts AC or larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I currently have a system that is 10.6 kW AC/9.44 kW DC. I'm not getting charged a standby fee, though, despite my system being larger than 10 kW AC - I assume it's because I'm less than 10 kW DC, but I don't know for sure. I'm looking into adding 6 more 300W panels, which would bring me up to 10.6 kW AC/11.24 kW DC and would presumably trigger the standby charge. I don't know what that charge would actually be, though, so I have no idea how to calculate the ROI on the additional panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know what I might pay in standby charges or what I would need to calculate it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="de668f56-5a21-4388-aaac-8f77f3c40707" CreationDate="2018-10-22T02:49:23.667" UserId="6090" Text="Dominion Energy (Virginia) solar standby charges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17976" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="de668f56-5a21-4388-aaac-8f77f3c40707" CreationDate="2018-10-22T02:49:23.667" UserId="6090" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4628" RevisionGUID="f508a545-7971-4bb5-a027-b7092e6d364f" CreationDate="2018-10-22T07:17:38.703" UserId="99" Comment="revised answer, added edible chopstick option, fixed broken link" Text="**TLDR;** it's impossible to answer your question without life-cycle analysis data and without a precise definition of &quot;better&quot; or &quot;environmentally sound&quot;. The chopstick you reuse most is probably your best option. They are still rare, but [edible chopsticks](https://concreteplayground.com/sydney/food-drink/food-2/someone-has-invented-edible-chopsticks/) could have a low impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Life cycle assessment&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally questions like these are answered by performing a life-cycle assessment (LCA) of both products. An LCA study investigates all the processes that are involved in the full life-cycle of a product and lists all the used materials and energy as well as generated waste products. Once you have such a detailed list, you can do an assessment and compare multiple factors you are interested in. The final decision which is better however would still depend on what you think is most important. Is it the contribution to ecotoxicity of both products, is it global warming potential, eutrophication, acidification, land-use? Or perhaps a combination of all these things?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that LCAs do have their limits. They are rather time-consuming and costly to perform. LCA results may not translate to other countries (e.g. transport of materials may affect the outcome) or become obsolete in time (due to changing manufacturing processes or waste processing). Also some things are not measured in LCAs like labour conditions or land-use because those are rather hard to quantify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Best guess&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now back to your question. I wasn't able to find an LCA study that compares bamboo versus plastic chopsticks, so this makes an answer rather hard. If I had to guess, I'd say that bamboo chopsticks are better because bamboo grows rather quickly and is compostable. However AFAIK almost all bamboo in the US is imported (more info [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20160911071457/http://madeinusachallenge.com/2012/help-grow-the-bamboo-industry-in-the-usa/)), so transportation most likely would have an effect. Also the way bamboo is grown (water, fertilizer and pesticide use) may have a negative influence on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Best alternative option&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to make a contribution, don't use disposable chopsticks! The chopstick with the smallest environmental footprint is the one you reuse most (as long as you don't use loads of soap and water for cleaning)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparenty there are only 2 restaurants in Tokyo that have them, but [edible chopsticks](https://concreteplayground.com/sydney/food-drink/food-2/someone-has-invented-edible-chopsticks/) could potentially have a low environmental impact. I've read they don't taste great, but you can put them to good use when you're (almost) done eating.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17978" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="79a4f6f8-ad27-4905-be94-d44409babae1" CreationDate="2018-10-22T17:00:35.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="17979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="92d98013-f025-487e-8a6a-874ab3de9534" CreationDate="2018-10-22T17:28:26.863" UserId="3379" Text="## Calculating your bill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The charges do not depend on the size of your solar system once you have exceeded 10kW, and only apply if you are enrolled in Net Metering billing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming both of these are true, your standby charge would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  $2.68 per kW of demand, less the distribution kWh charge:&#xD;&#xA;   - 2.1558 cents per kWh up to 800 kWh&#xD;&#xA;   - 1.2212 cents per kWh over 800 kWh&#xD;&#xA; -  $1.35 per kW of demand, less the transmission kWh charge of 0.97 cents/kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we assume that in an average month you use 1,000 kWh from the grid, and your peak monthly demand from the grid is 10kW, your **standby charges** would be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Distribution standby charge:&#xD;&#xA;       2.68     x   10 kW  =   $26.80&#xD;&#xA;     - 0.021558 x  800 kWh = - $17.25&#xD;&#xA;     - 0.012212 x  200 kWh = - $ 2.44&#xD;&#xA;                  Total    =   $ 7.11 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Generation standby charge: &#xD;&#xA;       1.35     x   10 kW  =   $13.50&#xD;&#xA;     - 0.0097   x 1000 kWh = - $ 9.70&#xD;&#xA;                  Total    =   $ 3.80&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Grand Total:               $10.91&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This standby charge is *in addition* to the already calculated distribution and generation charges -- meaning your bill includes the line items for $17.25, $2.44, and $9.70 calculated above, but you aren't double-charged for them in the standby charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, your **Rider T1** charge would be the lesser of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    0.001770 x 1000 kWh = $1.77&#xD;&#xA;    0.255    x   10 kW  = $2.55&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;## Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with all questions about electric rates and incentive programs in the U.S., I started with a look at the [Database of State Incentives for Renewables &amp; Efficiency](http://www.dsireusa.org/). Their page on [Net Metering in Virginia](http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/40) led me through a broken link which I finally resolved to the [Net Metering FAQs](https://www.dominionenergy.com/large-business/renewable-energy-programs/traditional-net-metering/net-metering-faqs) on Dominion Energy Virginia's website, where I found this explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **What is the Standby charge?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The standby charge only applies to Net Metering customers served on Virginia Residential Schedule 1 with a generation system size in excess of 10 kW AC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Residential customers served under Virginia Schedule 1 normally pay for electric system capacity (or electric system demand) through their kilowatt hour rate. This is different from other rate schedules that have a separate demand charge component in the rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The standby charge is based on the customer’s generation system size and the customer’s net energy consumption. The standby charge consists of a distribution standby charge, an electricity supply service (transmission) standby charge, and a Rider T1 standby charge. Refer to Virginia Residential Schedule 1 for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details from [Virginia Residential Schedule 1 (pdf)](https://www.dominionenergy.com/library/domcom/media/home-and-small-business/rates-and-regulation/residential-rates/virginia/schedule-1.pdf?la=en):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Standby Charges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Distribution Service Charges:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plus, where the Customer receives service in accordance with Paragraph XXV – NET METERING of the Company’s TERMS AND CONDITIONS and where the alternating current capacity of the Renewable Fuel Generator exceeds 10 kW, the Customer shall be billed a Distribution Standby Charge of $2.68 per kW of demand, minus the charge under II.A.2.,&#xD;&#xA;above, but not less than zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II.A.2. is the Distribution kWh charge -- 2.1558 cents per kWh for the first 800 kWh, and 1.2212 cents per kWh for each additional kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Electricity Supply Charges:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plus, where the Customer receives service in accordance with Paragraph XXV – NET METERING of the Company’s TERMS AND CONDITIONS and where the alternating current capacity of the Renewable Fuel Generator exceeds 10 kW, the Customer shall be billed a Transmission Standby Charge of $1.35 per kW of demand, minus the charge under II.B.2.a., above, but not less than zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II.B.2.a. is the Transmission kWh charge -- 0.97 cents for each kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Rider charges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same rate schedule the Rider charges are mentioned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plus, where the Customer receives service in accordance with Paragraph XXV – NET METERING of the Company’s TERMS AND CONDITIONS and where the alternating current capacity of the Renewable Fuel Generator exceeds 10 kW, each measured kW of Demand is subject to all applicable riders, included in the Exhibit of Applicable Riders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicable rider in this case is [Rider T1 - Transmission (pdf)](https://www.dominionenergy.com/library/domcom/media/home-and-small-business/rates-and-regulation/residential-business-rates-shared/virginia/rider-t1.pdf?la=en). The Electricity Supply kWh Charge is 0.1770 cents per kWh, and the Demand Charge is $0.255/kW. The footnote on this schedule says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Applied to kW of Demand only for net-metering applications where generation is sized above 10 kW. Such installations will pay the Rider T1 energy charge or the &#xD;&#xA;Rider T1 demand charge, whichever is less. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6910" RevisionGUID="5ca3171f-6065-4927-8785-767f7de3a5bf" CreationDate="2018-10-23T02:24:58.893" UserId="1056" Text="The [Water Abundance X-Prize](https://water.xprize.org/prizes/water-abundance) was recently [awarded](https://water.xprize.org/prizes/water-abundance/articles/waxp-grand-prize-winner) to the [Skysource/Skywater alliance](http://www.skysource.org/skywater/) for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... developing an easily deployable high-volume water generator that can be used in any climate, meeting the competition parameters of extracting a minimum of 2,000 liters of water per day from the atmosphere using 100 percent renewable energy, at a cost of no more than two cents per liter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that sounds great! However, I've had a hard time nailing down actual numbers about energy usage. That leaves me with two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How much input energy is required per litre of produced freshwater? And how does that compare to energy required by a desalination plant?&#xD;&#xA;- What is the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions (per litre of water) that are produced when the water generator is operating under ideal conditions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17981" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6910" RevisionGUID="5ca3171f-6065-4927-8785-767f7de3a5bf" CreationDate="2018-10-23T02:24:58.893" UserId="1056" Text="What is the energy and greenhouse gas footprint of Skysource/Skywater water generator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17982" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6910" RevisionGUID="5ca3171f-6065-4927-8785-767f7de3a5bf" CreationDate="2018-10-23T02:24:58.893" UserId="1056" Text="|energy|water|environmental-impact|carbon-footprint|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6911" RevisionGUID="1101c9cc-e98b-49a7-96b0-944a26c9e820" CreationDate="2018-10-23T02:46:19.573" UserId="1056" Text="The recent [IPCC SR15 Report](http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/) has garnered a lot of press coverage because it warns that we must dramatically reduce CO2 emissions by the year 2030, less than 12 years away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Global net anthropogenic CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions [must] decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know which of the well-known and scalable emission mitigation strategies are still viable on such a short timeframe. Specifically, I am looking for answers in two categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Which emission mitigation strategies, if any, are unlikely to produce a net reduction in emissions within the 12 year timeframe? For example, early solar photovoltaic panels had an energy payback as high as 20 years, which would have made them non-viable on a 12 year timeframe. _(Modern PV panels have a much faster payback, closer to 2 years.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Which emission mitigation strategies, if any, are likely to cause a net reduction in emissions of **greater than 45%** within 12 years? In order to hit our target of 45% reduction by 2030 we will need a mix of techniques and technologies with varying payback. Which solutions are able to beat the target in this short timeframe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17984" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6911" RevisionGUID="1101c9cc-e98b-49a7-96b0-944a26c9e820" CreationDate="2018-10-23T02:46:19.573" UserId="1056" Text="Which climate change solutions take longer than 12 years to see a net benefit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17985" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6911" RevisionGUID="1101c9cc-e98b-49a7-96b0-944a26c9e820" CreationDate="2018-10-23T02:46:19.573" UserId="1056" Text="|carbon-footprint|greenhouse-gas-emissions|decarbonisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17986" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6911" RevisionGUID="aedf1b01-7d4c-40b6-bfde-bfbdb52443d8" CreationDate="2018-10-23T02:58:10.320" UserId="1056" Comment="edit title to better match with language used in IPCC SR15" Text="Which climate change mitigations take longer than 12 years to see a net benefit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6912" RevisionGUID="138d7a74-cf19-40e2-8e47-5a0ed4785c88" CreationDate="2018-10-23T10:31:07.560" UserId="48" Text="Almost all of the well-known mitigation tools yield fast benefits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PV's payback is around a year. Onshore wind around 3 months, offshore wind around 9 months. The payback time on each of these three depends on the weather regime where it's located. Biomass when done well less has a payback of less than a year. Most energy efficiency measures less than a decade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Big hydro takes longer, but is worth doing anyway, as part of the larger long-term decarbonisation strategy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this really isn't a case of looking for reasons to exclude mitigation tools on the basis of urgency alone: we must cut emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and we must also cut them by 100% by about 2050." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6912" RevisionGUID="d1e08a70-1b22-4fb7-8c4c-678ba5206793" CreationDate="2018-10-23T10:43:40.073" UserId="48" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Almost all of the well-known mitigation tools yield fast benefits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PV's payback is around a year. Onshore wind around 3 months, offshore wind around 9 months. The payback time on each of these three depends on the weather regime where it's located. Biomass when done well less has a payback of less than a year. Most energy efficiency measures take less than a decade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Big hydro takes longer, but is worth doing anyway, as part of the larger long-term decarbonisation strategy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this really isn't a case of looking for reasons to exclude mitigation tools on the basis of urgency alone: we must cut emissions by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, and we must also cut them by 100% by about 2050." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6913" RevisionGUID="302b801d-858f-4c17-9b0d-14145907324c" CreationDate="2018-10-23T11:02:04.510" UserId="48" Text="There's a little bit of information on their FAQ:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Energy ranges from less than .4KWH/Liter to over kWh depending upon climatic conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's just as they've written it. The upper limit is indeed missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From their products page, the smallest model consumes 0.8-1.8 kW, and generates 30 (presumably US) gallons per day at most. The largest model consumes 4.1-8.2 kW, and generates 300 gallons per day at most.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 US gallon is about 3.8 litres, so the largest model generates about 47&#xD;&#xA; litres an hour. At 8kW consumption, that's 0.17 kWh/l. Note that this doesn't match their other figure. I can't reconcile their FAQ with their products-page data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And energy use per litre of potable water will vary hugely depending on humidity and temperatures. For somewhere cold and arid, energy consumption is going to be very large per litre of potable water. And for now, there aren't any customer data reports that I could find, so there's no information of how it actually performs in the real world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17990" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="91f406bb-a2e1-48fc-b807-6784c90d9509" CreationDate="2018-10-23T12:52:55.087" UserId="6026" Text="Empty plastic bottles are often dumped carelessly without being flattened but the cap on. I assume no human can flatten such a 1.5l bottle (see example image), but can a garbage truck? I want to convince my local community to at least loosen the top (so that others can compact the bottles) because otherwise&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. garbage containers fill up more quickly so latecomers will&#xD;&#xA;    dump theirs around;&#xD;&#xA; 2. we pay more as we practically pay the&#xD;&#xA;    company that collects our garbage to transport air;&#xD;&#xA; 3. --&#xD;&#xA;    and I'm not sure about this -- the garbage truck fills up more&#xD;&#xA;    quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore I want to know whether **a garbage truck** (such as the one depicted below) **can exert pressure or has some other means that can crush an empty but closed plastic bottle.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondarily, I want to know **how much pressure force is required to crush an empty but closed 1.5l plastic bottle**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/HP1yq.jpg&quot; height=&quot;250&quot;&gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/HEtnj.jpg&quot; height=&quot;250&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17991" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="91f406bb-a2e1-48fc-b807-6784c90d9509" CreationDate="2018-10-23T12:52:55.087" UserId="6026" Text="Can garbage trucks crush empty but closed plastic bottles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17992" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6914" RevisionGUID="91f406bb-a2e1-48fc-b807-6784c90d9509" CreationDate="2018-10-23T12:52:55.087" UserId="6026" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6915" RevisionGUID="3df3fed0-6b4c-4ae3-ac6a-bdf51f9c3e1c" CreationDate="2018-10-23T14:43:51.603" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="Quoting from an [answer on Quora](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-force-of-a-garbage-truck-compactor):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] ~16.2 MPa [...], which works out to almost 160 atmospheres of pressure. To give you some context, every 33 feet (10 meter) you travel underwater increases the pressure acting on you by 1 atmosphere. [...] You would need to go almost 1 mile below see level (5247 ft) to reach 160 atmospheres. According to wikipedia [Submarine depth ratings](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_depth_ratings), modern nuclear submarines will be crushed at less than half of this depth (~2400 ft, ~73 atm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **there really is no need to screw the caps from the bottles**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The [original source](http://www.cimc.com/res/products_en/vehicle/sanitation/compactor/201005/t20100520_6257.shtml) is dead).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6915" RevisionGUID="82936307-f02d-4d59-91a4-d8c3fc0e3733" CreationDate="2018-10-23T14:49:31.663" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added 402 characters in body" Text="Quoting from an [answer on Quora](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-force-of-a-garbage-truck-compactor):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...] ~16.2 MPa [...], which works out to almost 160 atmospheres of pressure. To give you some context, every 33 feet (10 meter) you travel underwater increases the pressure acting on you by 1 atmosphere. [...] You would need to go almost 1 mile below see level (5247 ft) to reach 160 atmospheres. According to wikipedia [Submarine depth ratings](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_depth_ratings), modern nuclear submarines will be crushed at less than half of this depth (~2400 ft, ~73 atm).&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you Google for [garbage truck compactor specifications](https://www.google.com/search?q=garbage+truck+compactor+specifications) you find similar numbers: [170 bar](http://www.aplusgroup.com.my/files/aplus%20compactor.pdf), [Main system pressure: 2500 psi](http://www.ci.lancaster.oh.us/DocumentCenter/View/1911/2015-Front-Load-Garbage-Truck-Bid-Proposal?bidId=) = 17 MPa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **there really is no need to screw the caps from the bottles**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*(The [original source](http://www.cimc.com/res/products_en/vehicle/sanitation/compactor/201005/t20100520_6257.shtml) is dead).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6915" RevisionGUID="cc557552-f296-4d93-b188-4528750b7950" CreationDate="2018-10-23T15:24:36.340" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added 38 characters in body" Text="Quoting from an [answer on Quora](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-force-of-a-garbage-truck-compactor):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [the force of a garbage truck compactor] is ~16.2 MPa [...], which works out to almost 160 atmospheres of pressure. To give you some context, every 33 feet (10 meter) you travel underwater increases the pressure acting on you by 1 atmosphere. [...] You would need to go almost 1 mile below see level (5247 ft) to reach 160 atmospheres. According to wikipedia [Submarine depth ratings](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_depth_ratings), modern nuclear submarines will be crushed at less than half of this depth (~2400 ft, ~73 atm).&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you Google for [garbage truck compactor specifications](https://www.google.com/search?q=garbage+truck+compactor+specifications) you find similar numbers: [170 bar](http://www.aplusgroup.com.my/files/aplus%20compactor.pdf), [Main system pressure: 2500 psi](http://www.ci.lancaster.oh.us/DocumentCenter/View/1911/2015-Front-Load-Garbage-Truck-Bid-Proposal?bidId=) = 17 MPa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **there really is no need to screw the caps from the bottles**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;*(The [original source](http://www.cimc.com/res/products_en/vehicle/sanitation/compactor/201005/t20100520_6257.shtml) is dead).&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="17999" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6911" RevisionGUID="5bb72e6b-701c-403b-a47b-22c189a25b93" CreationDate="2018-10-23T18:00:05.990" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1054794605873545217" />
  <row Id="18000" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6910" RevisionGUID="e9f9d36d-49af-442c-882b-f5e1b86579c4" CreationDate="2018-10-24T09:01:04.990" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1055021345636016128" />
  <row Id="18001" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="e24d0fd4-ad30-4c68-9740-6db13ab20a6d" CreationDate="2018-10-24T13:01:00.980" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6913" RevisionGUID="272d562f-4403-4a99-8f9b-6242a363f513" CreationDate="2018-10-24T14:50:50.007" UserId="3379" Comment="Added link to FAQ" Text="There's a little bit of information on their [FAQ](http://www.skysource.org/faq/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Energy ranges from less than .4KWH/Liter to over kWh depending upon climatic conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's just as they've written it. The upper limit is indeed missing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From their products page, the smallest model consumes 0.8-1.8 kW, and generates 30 (presumably US) gallons per day at most. The largest model consumes 4.1-8.2 kW, and generates 300 gallons per day at most.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 US gallon is about 3.8 litres, so the largest model generates about 47&#xD;&#xA; litres an hour. At 8kW consumption, that's 0.17 kWh/l. Note that this doesn't match their other figure. I can't reconcile their FAQ with their products-page data.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And energy use per litre of potable water will vary hugely depending on humidity and temperatures. For somewhere cold and arid, energy consumption is going to be very large per litre of potable water. And for now, there aren't any customer data reports that I could find, so there's no information of how it actually performs in the real world." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="b72c2cbe-ff71-433c-a01a-f80e95854418" CreationDate="2018-10-24T20:50:39.067" UserId="1056" Text="Are there any published academic studies which compare per-capita carbon footprint against discretionary carbon footprint (ie. lifestyle-connected emissions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **per-capita footprint** is the result of dividing a country's total emissions by its number of citizens.&#xD;&#xA;- **discretionary carbon footprint** is the sum total of lifestyle activities, each calculated on an life cycle analysis (LCA) basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The per-capita footprint is likely to be higher than discretionary carbon footprint due to industries outside the direct control of individuals. For example, per-capita footprint assigns each citizen a share of emissions from military activities, but those are outside the power of individuals to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But discretionary carbon footprint could also be higher than expected if the country spends a lot of money on imports. For example, if a very rich country was powered entirely by imported electricity (or imported solar panels) then it would have seemingly low emissions on a national basis because the emissions from producing electricity would be accounted for in a different country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18009" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="b72c2cbe-ff71-433c-a01a-f80e95854418" CreationDate="2018-10-24T20:50:39.067" UserId="1056" Text="Discretionary Carbon Footprint vs. Per-capita footprint" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18010" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="b72c2cbe-ff71-433c-a01a-f80e95854418" CreationDate="2018-10-24T20:50:39.067" UserId="1056" Text="|environmental-impact|carbon-footprint|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6920" RevisionGUID="0d67ff49-b445-42f6-8686-ee3821e441ff" CreationDate="2018-10-24T20:52:20.483" UserId="1056" Text="I'm only aware of one study, [The role of trade in the greenhouse gas footprints of EU diets](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.08.007), which performs a comparative analysis of consumption-based emissions vs. production-based emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great to see similar comparisons for other countries and other industrial sectors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6920" RevisionGUID="39231557-37d0-4aef-9ce6-c05bc5f6c014" CreationDate="2018-10-24T20:58:52.737" UserId="1056" Comment="add quote" Text="I'm only aware of one study, [The role of trade in the greenhouse gas footprints of EU diets](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.08.007), which performs a comparative analysis of consumption-based emissions vs. production-based emissions. It had something pretty interesting to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Developed OECD countries continue to displace environmental pressures onto non-OECD countries, which is observable when the accounting is based on consumption instead of the production perspective. In our accounting framework, consumption based accounting increases by more than 40% the EU emissions compared to production based accounting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great to see similar comparisons for other countries and other industrial sectors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6920" RevisionGUID="6e59e4bd-0c5a-4a0d-af33-c22555f6daba" CreationDate="2018-10-24T21:22:10.750" UserId="1056" Comment="add C40 report on virtual emissions from import of goods into cities" Text="I'm only aware of one study, [The role of trade in the greenhouse gas footprints of EU diets](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.08.007), which performs a comparative analysis of consumption-based emissions vs. production-based emissions. It had something pretty interesting to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Developed OECD countries continue to displace environmental pressures onto non-OECD countries, which is observable when the accounting is based on consumption instead of the production perspective. In our accounting framework, consumption based accounting increases by more than 40% the EU emissions compared to production based accounting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the [2018 C40 report on cities](https://www.c40.org/researches/consumption-based-emissions) which compares consumption-based emissions against production-based. This is a pretty good report with graphics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Total consumption-based emissions of the 79 C40 cities included in this study are 3.5 GtCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e (for the reference year 2011). This represents a 60% increase on the 2.2 GtCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e emissions estimated for the same cities using the GPC (Global Protocol for Community-Scale GHG Emission Inventories), and reflects the difference in GHG emissions embodied in imported and exported goods and services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great to see similar comparisons for other countries and other industrial sectors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="b57cdd80-cc3f-4779-963e-c37760dee001" CreationDate="2018-10-24T21:46:36.700" UserId="1056" Comment="add keywords discovered in the C40 report" Text="Are there any published academic studies which compare per-capita carbon footprint against discretionary carbon footprint (ie. lifestyle-connected emissions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **per-capita footprint** is the result of dividing a country's total emissions by its number of citizens.&#xD;&#xA;- **discretionary carbon footprint** is the sum total of lifestyle activities, each calculated on an life cycle analysis (LCA) basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The per-capita footprint is likely to be higher than discretionary carbon footprint due to industries outside the direct control of individuals. For example, per-capita footprint assigns each citizen a share of emissions from military activities, but those are outside the power of individuals to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But discretionary carbon footprint could also be higher than expected if the country spends a lot of money on imports. For example, if a very rich country was powered entirely by imported electricity (or imported solar panels) then it would have seemingly low emissions on a national basis because the emissions from producing electricity would be accounted for in a different country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related keywords: global multi-region input–output, PAS 2070 – A specification for assessing city greenhouse gas emissions, environmentally extended input-output (EEIO) model." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6919" RevisionGUID="9e5d2975-5289-429a-a671-18cc9fa6773d" CreationDate="2018-10-24T22:03:08.620" UserId="1056" Comment="more keywords" Text="Are there any published academic studies which compare per-capita carbon footprint against discretionary carbon footprint (ie. lifestyle-connected emissions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **per-capita footprint** is the result of dividing a country's total emissions by its number of citizens.&#xD;&#xA;- **discretionary carbon footprint** is the sum total of lifestyle activities, each calculated on an life cycle analysis (LCA) basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The per-capita footprint is likely to be higher than discretionary carbon footprint due to industries outside the direct control of individuals. For example, per-capita footprint assigns each citizen a share of emissions from military activities, but those are outside the power of individuals to change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But discretionary carbon footprint could also be higher than expected if the country spends a lot of money on imports. For example, if a very rich country was powered entirely by imported electricity (or imported solar panels) then it would have seemingly low emissions on a national basis because the emissions from producing electricity would be accounted for in a different country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Related keywords: global multi-region input–output, PAS 2070 – A specification for assessing city greenhouse gas emissions, environmentally extended input-output (EEIO) model, Classification of Individual &#xD;&#xA;Consumption According to Purpose (COICOP) structure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6921" RevisionGUID="15ba88aa-a65a-4e7a-b310-647c91fe5d1d" CreationDate="2018-10-24T23:04:48.783" UserId="1056" Text="Great question! I'm not sure if there is a globally agreed-upon standard, but here is what I would propose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### A Shared Baseline&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first problem is that all countries and cities are approaching the task of reducing emissions from different starting points. Some countries have been very wealthy with high emissions, and others have been very poor with low emissions. It doesn't seem fair for both countries to reduce their emissions by 50%, because the initial imbalance persists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we have the concept of **one-planet living** **, which is defined as the level of material consumption and waste production per capita that could be enjoyed indefinitely by everyone on Earth without jeopardizing global life-support. It doesn't matter exactly where we draw this baseline, as long as it is used consistently between countries and cities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The Sustainability Gap&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between what we use and what is available to us on an equitable basis (one-planet living) is the **sustainability gap**. Using a globally shared baseline means it is not possible to game the system by selecting a year in which national or citywide emissions were particularly high or low. This prevents gaming the system through choice of baseline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The magnitude of the sustainability gap provides perspective on how much change is needed for a particular city or country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Gap Points Per Annum (GPA)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then in order to factor out the effect of target years, we should also report targets in terms of annual rate of change. For this, I suggest &quot;gap points&quot; per annum&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, consider a country where the citizens are using twice their share of resources. The country is using 200% of resources compared to one-planet living, which means the sustainability gap is 100%. If they set a target to completely close that sustainability gap in 20 years, that could be presented as 5 gap points per annum (5 gpa).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes it much easier to compare annual progress! For example, a short-term target of 50 gap points in 10 years would be the same rate: 5 gpa.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing this measure would not represent is the relative difficulty of implementing measures to achieve reduction targets. It's going to be much, much easier for a city with 400 gap points to reduce 5 gpa than a city which is exactly at the baseline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;** *(This wording was borrowed from [Worldwatch International](blogs.worldwatch.org/sustainabilitypossible/greenest-city/).)*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18018" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6922" RevisionGUID="124b7fd1-b949-4b9b-8b89-80f4feb40d5c" CreationDate="2018-10-24T23:54:22.970" UserId="1056" Text="## Vegan cheese has the lowest carbon footprint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, let's take a look at cheese from dairy milk. Let's go with the lowest estimate and say that cheese has a carbon footprint of **5.13 kg CO2e/kg yield**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For cheddar, as sold at retail (63.2 % milk solids), the carbon footprint using the IPCC 2007 factors is 8.60 kg CO2e/kg cheese consumed with a 95 % confidence interval (CI) of 5.86–12.2 kg CO2e/kg. For mozzarella, as sold at retail (51.4 % milk solids), the carbon footprint is 7.28 kg CO2e/kg mozzarella consumed, with a 95 % CI of 5.13–9.89 kg CO2e/kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Source: [Life cycle assessment of cheese and whey production in the USA](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-013-0553-9)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now let's consider two different vegan cheeses with two different compositions. First up is Miyoko's cheese where the main ingredient cashews, has a carbon footprint around **2.3 kg CO2e/kg yield**. This is likely to represent an upper bound because adding water (second ingredient) reduces the carbon footprint per kg of yield.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Miyoko's](https://miyokos.com/collections/vegan-cheese-wheel/products/garlic-herb-cheese) -  Organic Cashews, Filtered Water, Organic Coconut Oil, Organic Parsley, Organic Rice Miso (Organic Rice, Water, Salt, Alcohol, Koji Culture), Organic Garlic, Organic Herbs, Sea Salt, Nutritional Yeast, Cultures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And let's look at Daiya cheese. One [life cycle analysis of cassava starch](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212827115000700) found that dry starch (like tapioca starch) had a footprint of **0.594 kg CO2e/kg yield**. Again, this is likely to represent an upper bound because the first ingredient is just water. Vegetable oils (canola/safflower) can get as high as 4 kg CO2e/kg yield, but even if Daiya was made of 100% oil it would still be less than dairy cheese.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Daiya](https://daiyafoods.com/our-foods/blocks/medium-cheddar/) - Filtered water, tapioca starch, coconut oil, vegan natural flavours, pea protein isolate, non-GMO expeller pressed: canola and/or safflower oil, chicory root extract, sea salt, xanthan gum, lactic acid (vegan), tricalcium phosphate, pea starch, potato protein, vegan enzyme, cane sugar, annatto (colour), coconut cream" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6920" RevisionGUID="4bcc298e-02b2-4524-a0bf-cb26ce81be81" CreationDate="2018-10-25T00:30:17.690" UserId="1056" Comment="fix intro sentence" Text="I found one study, [The role of trade in the greenhouse gas footprints of EU diets](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.08.007), which performs a comparative analysis of consumption-based emissions vs. production-based emissions. It had something pretty interesting to say:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Developed OECD countries continue to displace environmental pressures onto non-OECD countries, which is observable when the accounting is based on consumption instead of the production perspective. In our accounting framework, consumption based accounting increases by more than 40% the EU emissions compared to production based accounting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the [2018 C40 report on cities](https://www.c40.org/researches/consumption-based-emissions) which compares consumption-based emissions against production-based. This is a pretty good report with graphics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Total consumption-based emissions of the 79 C40 cities included in this study are 3.5 GtCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e (for the reference year 2011). This represents a 60% increase on the 2.2 GtCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e emissions estimated for the same cities using the GPC (Global Protocol for Community-Scale GHG Emission Inventories), and reflects the difference in GHG emissions embodied in imported and exported goods and services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be great to see similar comparisons for other countries and other industrial sectors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6923" RevisionGUID="cdfc5d6c-967c-4c1b-9ead-90156d70fcd5" CreationDate="2018-10-25T01:02:28.130" UserId="1056" Text="[Ripple Foods](https://www.ripplefoods.com/), the California-based producers of non-dairy milks made from pea protein, commissioned a Life Cycle Analysis of different milk products that included both soy milk and cow/dairy milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They concluded that soy milk has a smaller carbon footprint than dairy milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/d1az6.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://www.ripplefoods.com/pdf/Ripple_LCA_Report.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18027" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6850" RevisionGUID="98d3ac28-7090-40c1-9fe3-dc8c3a06014f" CreationDate="2018-10-26T10:01:04.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18028" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6852" RevisionGUID="476b78db-2046-4ffe-9b96-3d6e2058d4f3" CreationDate="2018-10-26T17:36:44.190" UserId="4886" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Earthships are one very romantic notion of what a house should be, but the massive amount of glazing usually leads to thermal problems.  This is particularly true of the earlier designs (1970s through the 1990s).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/earthship-hype-and-earthship-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a long, long, *long* history of failed earthships that you really should study before trying to fix what is inherently a broken design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All** visible light ultimately ends up as low-grade thermal heat.  There is no way around that — it's basic physics.  You can't let the light in without letting the heat in.  Just.  Not.  Possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you filter out the UV and the infrared, you end up with ~42% of total solar energy as visible.  That's as much as ~315W of heat per m² of glazing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you can solve the problem of what to do with the heat that builds up once visible light degrades in the living space —  _in the order of GlazingArea*cos(latitude)*315W_  — there's no point worrying about what's happening in the corridor/greenhouse outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth coupling is usually the first (and best) option to consider to store/sink heat and moderate internal temperatures, but that depends entirely on your local climate (which you haven't described).  It might not even be a viable option.  If it isn't, then things get complicated really quickly, with alternatives introducing new problems of their own that then need to be resolved by adding/doing other things.  Bandaids on top of bandaids on top of bandaids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;least broken&quot; designs I've seen don't try to move light into the living space, they instead break up the living space and then move the fraction of the living space that *genuinely needs it* into the light.  A fundamentally different approach, which seems to work well in the right climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that said, when I went through this process recently for my own home (in a warm temperate climate), I ended up with a well-insulated lightweight frame, an *appropriate* amount of double-glazed/thermally-broken/argon-filled/low-e/high-SHGC windows primarily on the equator-facing wall, a 2.4m deep verandah around the whole house with translucent sheeting towards the equator, and an exposed/earth-coupled/polished concrete slab insulated only around the edges.  Less complexity, much easier to build, much less active management required, and very thermally self-regulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-world performance » romantic ideals (at least in my book).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In an earthship with a greenhouse/corridor out front, incoming light gets absorbed by plants and paths, converted to low-grade heat, and re-emitted as long-wave IR.  The glazing between the greenhouse and the living space is (now) usually double-glazed.  Since glass is opaque to long-wave IR, the outer pane of the IGU absorbs the radiation from the greenhouse, heats up, and then re-emits it in both directions.  Even in the absence of a low-e coating, *half of the heat goes back into the greenhouse*.  So **it's not really &quot;the enclosed air gap&quot; that increases the R value**, it's primarily radiation dynamics and how different parts of the spectrum interact with the glazing between the greenhouse and the living space.  The physics wasn't well understood in the 1970s when the first earthships were built.  Now the physics is understood, but most folk can't seem to grasp/apply it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18029" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6427" RevisionGUID="88d406ea-29b4-4fb7-93cd-55fbd6438291" CreationDate="2018-10-27T09:00:52.330" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[523],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1056,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6622" RevisionGUID="3a32e7a0-6f7a-4e6b-b547-da12c64c679b" CreationDate="2018-10-27T16:35:04.620" UserId="1056" Comment="add interview from CBC Daybreak Kamloops" Text="I received the following answer after emailing a company that raises crickets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We use a agricultural feed that includes feed beans, buckwheat, and feed corn non of which are edible by humans. We don't use any pre- or post-consumer waste to feed the crickets for two reasons: we can't control the consistency of taste with a non-regular feed stock and our food regulations won't allow us to feed them waste to then feed to humans. The companies using crickets and other insects as feed stock for fish and poultry are having a lot of success using pre- and post-consumer waste to feed their crickets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer surprised me quite a bit. I've been eating beans, buckwheat, and corn for quite a while so I'm not sure why they're described as non-edible by humans. I thought maybe they were talking about some other part of the plant that humans don't eat, but they went on to say they don't use any pre-consumer waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems like insect farms either need to grow/purchase agricultural food as feed for crickets, or they need to sell their crickets as feed for larger animals. Either way, that's a diversion of useful food energy that could have gone toward humans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like insect farming is less sustainable than growing plant-based food for humans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Oct 2018 Update* I just listened to an [interview](https://www.cbc.ca/listen/shows/daybreak-kamloops/episode/15619001) with a couple farmers from [Caspian Acres](https://www.instagram.com/caspian_acres/?hl=en) near Kamloops, BC. At 6:10 the interview confirms that the black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) are fed entirely on food scraps from restaurants in the city, then the matured BSFL are used to feed ducks and other animals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18031" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6908" RevisionGUID="5ba0242f-8391-464b-975c-fdaec9d0fd37" CreationDate="2018-10-28T03:00:47.240" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1056380225855152128" />
  <row Id="18032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6925" RevisionGUID="f0c814e9-0fd8-4ed9-a418-6066cbbf18d6" CreationDate="2018-10-29T03:51:54.980" UserId="2942" Text="Is it more efficient to heat a bedroom with whole house's forced-air natural-gas burning furnace, or only an electric space heater in the bedroom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a very location-specific application, electric space heaters seem like an efficient option just by virtue of focusing the energy of heating on an easier area to heat. Especially with an older, draftier house that probably loses efficiency throughout the forced air delivery system, as compared to a warming spaceheater right at the toe of the bed or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding to this, electricity can be sourced from renewable sources, which can't be said for the fracked natural gas fueled furnace. So shifting energy use onto electric serves as a divestment from fossil fuels and an investment in renewables." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18033" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6925" RevisionGUID="f0c814e9-0fd8-4ed9-a418-6066cbbf18d6" CreationDate="2018-10-29T03:51:54.980" UserId="2942" Text="Overight heating, is it more efficient to use an electric spaceheater in the bedroom vs. a whole house forced-air gas-burning furnace?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18034" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6925" RevisionGUID="f0c814e9-0fd8-4ed9-a418-6066cbbf18d6" CreationDate="2018-10-29T03:51:54.980" UserId="2942" Text="|energy-efficiency|home|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6926" RevisionGUID="df516f2c-5d3b-4ca1-803e-4995c80f8445" CreationDate="2018-10-29T06:20:03.500" UserId="48" Text="In terms of energy-efficiency within your own home (i.e. when we ignore energy losses outside the home), it will almost certainly be more efficient to use the electric space heater. It will be close to 100% efficient, and all the heat will get delivered where it's needed. So there will be reduced heat loss from the rest of the house. Fossil-gas furnaces tend to be inefficient (it could be in the range 60-80%, though a modern modulating condensing one could get up to 90%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of cost-efficiency, there's a good chance that using fossil-gas will be cheaper. Particularly if the electricity network you are on uses fossil-gas to generate electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of resource-efficiency and sustainability, the better option will depend on your electricity contract and supplier. If your buying of more electricity increases investment in renewables, or if your supplier is already 100% renewables, then the electric heater is definitely better. If your electricity supplier burns fossil gas, then both options are problematic, and the balance will depend on all the combined inefficiencies in each system: a CCGT gas plant will throw away 50% of the energy from the gas, and the transmission and distribution system might throw away another 5%. Your furnace might throw away 15-40%, and the internal losses within your house might be another 10-40%. If your electricity supplier burns coal, then the gas furnace will be better than the electric space heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, the best resource efficiency will almost certainly come from properly insulating and ventilating the property so that very little artificial heating is needed in winter, and very little artificial cooling is needed in summer. The [EnerPHit][1] standard and accompanying guides are probably the best way to go about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://europhit.eu/content/enerphit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18036" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6925" RevisionGUID="3a9826a9-972e-4a22-ba2f-c9e900118aee" CreationDate="2018-10-29T14:24:15.947" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified title" Text="Is it more efficient to heat a bedroom with whole house's forced-air natural-gas burning furnace, or only an electric space heater in the bedroom?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a very location-specific application, electric space heaters seem like an efficient option just by virtue of focusing the energy of heating on an easier area to heat. Especially with an older, draftier house that probably loses heat throughout the forced air delivery system, as compared to a warming space heater right at the toe of the bed or something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding to this, electricity can be sourced from renewable sources, which can't be said for the fracked natural gas fueled furnace. So shifting energy use onto electric serves as a divestment from fossil fuels and an investment in renewables." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18037" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6925" RevisionGUID="3a9826a9-972e-4a22-ba2f-c9e900118aee" CreationDate="2018-10-29T14:24:15.947" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified title" Text="For overnight heating, is it more efficient to use an electric space heater in a bedroom or a whole house natural gas furnace?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6889" RevisionGUID="bdec5a2b-8fda-4d55-ada0-1d86ca4ffce8" CreationDate="2018-10-29T14:29:45.077" UserId="400" Comment="added 1399 characters in body" Text="You don't want to do it this way.  It gets really messy and you need to take into account your climate, sunny hours per day through the year, time of year and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead try looking up &quot;solar potential atlas&quot;  For Canada this is a big spreadsheet listing values by month for every city and village in the nation.  I'm sure there are equivalents for your country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example for me, if I have an array facing south sloped at my latitude, I get 1250 kWh per kW installed capacity.  So a 1 kW array generates for me about $100 worth of electricity per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which value to use?  They are all going to be equivalent -- with a bit of trigonometry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normal in this case I assume means normal to the sunlight path.  You will have an additional factor of cos(d) where d is the angle difference between the angle of the sun and the angle of the PV array.  This varies by 47 degrees over the course of the year.  Rule of thumb:  Angle the array facing the equator tilted at an angle equal to your latitude from horizontal.  The sun wanders 23.5 degrees north and south of normal to this plane, which makes about a 5% difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bigger change is due to the sun not always being to your south.  With stationary panels. the sun is at an angle to the east in the morning and west in the afternoon.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At my latitude (51 degrees) the horizontal incidence fluctuates by a factor of 10 between summer and winter, but for a latitude tilted panel it varies only by about a factor of 3.  In summer the early morning and later afternoon sun is lost because it's rising 40 degrees north of east and setting 40 degrees north of west.  The panel is self shading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would see a much larger difference if you used a tracking array, because it avoids this self shading.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(For me it wouldn't matter.  My max demand is in winter. A non tracking array gets about 80% of what a tracking array does.  My money is better spent on more cells, and bigger batteries.)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="a23c2d03-daef-4bcf-bc24-d332869051e2" CreationDate="2018-10-30T01:36:12.897" UserId="2914" Text="Dual pane window with a narrow difference is a different dynamic.  You basically just double each widow. A large room still just doubles each window pane.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Glass has low thermal capacitance and is translucent.  Opposite of Trombe wall." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18040" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6712" RevisionGUID="01136a70-0097-476f-bbfd-075e71822cee" CreationDate="2018-10-30T09:00:47.283" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1057195598829576193" />
  <row Id="18041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6927" RevisionGUID="af5e5ece-30b8-400c-b2cc-6e0c5c3ddb33" CreationDate="2018-10-31T00:17:37.100" UserId="2914" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="Dual pane window with a narrow difference is a different dynamic.  You basically just double each widow. A large room still just doubles each window pane.  Air free to move is low R value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Glass has low thermal capacitance and is translucent.  Opposite of Trombe wall." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5528" RevisionGUID="d5c8b448-2a98-4df0-b928-5c8c17d6177f" CreationDate="2018-10-31T09:05:05.667" UserId="60" Comment="Changed the question to ask about sustainability principles of writing ball-point pens." Text="What are the design principles of a sustainable writing ball-point pen?  &#xD;&#xA;Is there any academic work or industry standards on sustainability of writing ball-point pens?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18043" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6558" RevisionGUID="beb3f6ca-0482-492e-933d-4108d0f09947" CreationDate="2018-10-31T13:09:57.853" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Q and A are all about crickets. Other insects would have different answers" Text="What feed is typically used in cricket farming?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18044" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6878" RevisionGUID="40ef8583-b42a-428d-896c-1b367a65ca41" CreationDate="2018-11-01T00:01:09.197" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1057784571159343105" />
  <row Id="18045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6909" RevisionGUID="1c2da036-3c24-49ce-a30c-3614fe66e6f8" CreationDate="2018-11-02T15:06:39.033" UserId="3379" Comment="Added detail on net metering" Text="## Calculating your bill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The charges do not depend on the size of your solar system once you have exceeded 10kW, and only apply if you are enrolled in Net Metering billing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming both of these are true, your standby charge would be&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  $2.68 per kW of demand, less the distribution kWh charge:&#xD;&#xA;   - 2.1558 cents per kWh up to 800 kWh&#xD;&#xA;   - 1.2212 cents per kWh over 800 kWh&#xD;&#xA; -  $1.35 per kW of demand, less the transmission kWh charge of 0.97 cents/kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we assume that in an average month you use 1,000 kWh from the grid*, and your peak monthly demand from the grid* is 10kW, your **standby charges** would be as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Distribution standby charge:&#xD;&#xA;       2.68     x   10 kW  =   $26.80&#xD;&#xA;     - 0.021558 x  800 kWh = - $17.25&#xD;&#xA;     - 0.012212 x  200 kWh = - $ 2.44&#xD;&#xA;                  Total    =   $ 7.11 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Generation standby charge: &#xD;&#xA;       1.35     x   10 kW  =   $13.50&#xD;&#xA;     - 0.0097   x 1000 kWh = - $ 9.70&#xD;&#xA;                  Total    =   $ 3.80&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Grand Total:               $10.91&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This standby charge is *in addition* to the already calculated distribution and generation charges -- meaning your bill includes the line items for $17.25, $2.44, and $9.70 calculated above, but you aren't double-charged for them in the standby charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, your **Rider T1** charge would be the lesser of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    0.001770 x 1000 kWh = $1.77&#xD;&#xA;    0.255    x   10 kW  = $2.55&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## *Usage from the grid vs actual usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that Dominion Energy only sees your net usage and demand from the grid. From their [Net Metering FAQ page](https://www.dominionenergy.com/large-business/renewable-energy-programs/traditional-net-metering/net-metering-faqs) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Your electric bill does not show all of the energy your system produced. **The energy you produce that is consumed by your home does not pass through the Dominion Energy meter**. The net meter measures electricity that is delivered from Dominion Energy to you, and any electricity that is produced by you and returned to the electric grid. The net meter cannot measure the total amount of electricity produced by your system because **your home or business uses the electricity produced by the system first**, and that electricity does not go through the meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that if your home's peak demand is 12 kW at a time when your solar system is producing 2 kW, the demand charge assessed by Dominion Energy will be based on the net peak of 10 kW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;## Sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with all questions about electric rates and incentive programs in the U.S., I started with a look at the [Database of State Incentives for Renewables &amp; Efficiency](http://www.dsireusa.org/). Their page on [Net Metering in Virginia](http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/40) led me through a broken link which I finally resolved to the [Net Metering FAQs](https://www.dominionenergy.com/large-business/renewable-energy-programs/traditional-net-metering/net-metering-faqs) on Dominion Energy Virginia's website, where I found this explanation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **What is the Standby charge?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The standby charge only applies to Net Metering customers served on Virginia Residential Schedule 1 with a generation system size in excess of 10 kW AC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Residential customers served under Virginia Schedule 1 normally pay for electric system capacity (or electric system demand) through their kilowatt hour rate. This is different from other rate schedules that have a separate demand charge component in the rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The standby charge is based on the customer’s generation system size and the customer’s net energy consumption. The standby charge consists of a distribution standby charge, an electricity supply service (transmission) standby charge, and a Rider T1 standby charge. Refer to Virginia Residential Schedule 1 for more details.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the details from [Virginia Residential Schedule 1 (pdf)](https://www.dominionenergy.com/library/domcom/media/home-and-small-business/rates-and-regulation/residential-rates/virginia/schedule-1.pdf?la=en):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Standby Charges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Distribution Service Charges:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plus, where the Customer receives service in accordance with Paragraph XXV – NET METERING of the Company’s TERMS AND CONDITIONS and where the alternating current capacity of the Renewable Fuel Generator exceeds 10 kW, the Customer shall be billed a Distribution Standby Charge of $2.68 per kW of demand, minus the charge under II.A.2.,&#xD;&#xA;above, but not less than zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II.A.2. is the Distribution kWh charge -- 2.1558 cents per kWh for the first 800 kWh, and 1.2212 cents per kWh for each additional kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Electricity Supply Charges:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plus, where the Customer receives service in accordance with Paragraph XXV – NET METERING of the Company’s TERMS AND CONDITIONS and where the alternating current capacity of the Renewable Fuel Generator exceeds 10 kW, the Customer shall be billed a Transmission Standby Charge of $1.35 per kW of demand, minus the charge under II.B.2.a., above, but not less than zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II.B.2.a. is the Transmission kWh charge -- 0.97 cents for each kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Rider charges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same rate schedule the Rider charges are mentioned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plus, where the Customer receives service in accordance with Paragraph XXV – NET METERING of the Company’s TERMS AND CONDITIONS and where the alternating current capacity of the Renewable Fuel Generator exceeds 10 kW, each measured kW of Demand is subject to all applicable riders, included in the Exhibit of Applicable Riders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The applicable rider in this case is [Rider T1 - Transmission (pdf)](https://www.dominionenergy.com/library/domcom/media/home-and-small-business/rates-and-regulation/residential-business-rates-shared/virginia/rider-t1.pdf?la=en). The Electricity Supply kWh Charge is 0.1770 cents per kWh, and the Demand Charge is $0.255/kW. The footnote on this schedule says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Applied to kW of Demand only for net-metering applications where generation is sized above 10 kW. Such installations will pay the Rider T1 energy charge or the &#xD;&#xA;Rider T1 demand charge, whichever is less. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="6072d3e9-3368-4593-8907-fdf281b05b04" CreationDate="2018-11-02T17:22:35.470" UserId="6119" Text="This may sound like a weird question, but the other night I was about to throw away a plastic package which didn't have any recycling information on it, and I hesitated before throwing it in the waste bin and thought to myself *&quot;Should I chuck it in the recycling bin and hope for the best or destine this little package for the landfill?&quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What has a bigger environmental impact?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - attempting to recycle an unrecyclable item or;&#xD;&#xA; - putting a recyclable item in the landfill?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18047" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="6072d3e9-3368-4593-8907-fdf281b05b04" CreationDate="2018-11-02T17:22:35.470" UserId="6119" Text="Is it better to put something unrecyclable in the recycling bin or to put something recyclable in the waste bin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18048" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="6072d3e9-3368-4593-8907-fdf281b05b04" CreationDate="2018-11-02T17:22:35.470" UserId="6119" Text="|recycling|waste|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6929" RevisionGUID="336cbdd5-ca3a-4522-9190-8915fbc5ade4" CreationDate="2018-11-02T19:38:58.737" UserId="4155" Text="It may depend on your local rules, but here it's certainly better to put a recyclable thing in the bin than a non-recyclable thing in the recycling. That's because our council don't have any sorting facilities, so if they deem the recycling to be 'contaminated', they'll send the whole load to the incinerator - whereas if you put it in the normal rubbish, it's just that one item that's wasted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This might vary in areas with a more enlightened local authority." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6930" RevisionGUID="9e37ecc2-506f-4b0d-8816-d1148fafb4a5" CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:02:00.973" UserId="5602" Text="Most recycling symbols are protected and not used by the producers of packaging due to the licensing fees to be paid or other conditions to be followed. In Germany the &quot;Green Point&quot; was used to finance separation and recycling facilities. Since 2009 packages from companies participating do no longer need to carry the symbol to participate in the system. Since then all plastic and recyclable goods, even when they are not marked with a recycling symbol, can be put into the recycling bins. I guess that after having built they now need more input so that I would not hesitate to practice that in other countries likewise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18051" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="d8d2f671-5d20-4255-ad2d-12c2637ba2ac" CreationDate="2018-11-02T21:41:54.420" UserId="6119" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|waste|environmental-impact|uk|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18053" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="3262e7af-135f-421f-b189-c4ca3365d155" CreationDate="2018-11-03T15:00:35.677" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1058735698583396352" />
  <row Id="18054" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="1654d9d8-b4c6-4006-99b8-e699bd9a74f1" CreationDate="2018-11-03T18:00:35.637" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1058780996965933056" />
  <row Id="18057" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6931" RevisionGUID="6a979c1a-1e0c-4dea-b065-49003f9693ee" CreationDate="2018-11-06T01:55:54.217" UserId="6124" Text="From the North East USA, get to St John's Newfoundland.  Fly 4 hours on Westjet to Dublin Ireland (shortest transatlantic flight). Minimize flying time, taking train from NYC or Boston to Montreal, train to Halifax, bus and passenger ferry to Newfoundland." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6932" RevisionGUID="84968824-5912-49a0-8cdf-d04c96a7b7cc" CreationDate="2018-11-06T02:44:25.773" UserId="3379" Text="Wood is the best choice for furniture from an environmental perspective &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found three different research articles that address this exact question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Furniture and construction materials industries in Switzerland&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Life Cycle Impacts and Benefits of Wood along the Value Chain: The Case of Switzerland](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jiec.12486)&#xD;&#xA;(Florian Suter, Bernhard Steubing, and Stefanie Hellweg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First the authors categorize how wood (domestic or imported) is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Switzerland, most of the wood is utilized in energy (approximately 50%) and paper production (approximately 25%). The remaining share goes into the production of&#xD;&#xA;various commodities, namely, buildings (approximately 10%), furniture (approximately 3%), and packaging (approximately 3%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going further, they identify &quot;52 processes that produce 40 wood-based products cover-&#xD;&#xA;ing the different sectors of the wood market up to semifinished products.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6932" RevisionGUID="0b8f3faf-cdf2-42db-8b18-0249c0aad726" CreationDate="2018-11-06T03:33:57.430" UserId="3379" Comment="Hit &quot;submit&quot; too soon the last time..." Text="**TL;DR -- Wood is the best choice for furniture from an environmental perspective, and substituting wood where possible for other products would have a net environmental benefit.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Literature review&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good starting point is a literature review produced by the Australian government in 2003:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *[Review of the Environmental Impact of Wood Compared with Alternative Products Used in the Production of Furniture](https://www.fwpa.com.au/images/marketaccess/PN03.2103%20furniture%20review%20WEB.pdf)* Australian Government Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. 2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In all the examples studied, wood has been found to have the lowest environmental impact compared to other materials.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Timber from sustainable forestry practices is a renewable resource whereas the production of plastics and metals is not. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The incineration of timber for energy production can be regarded as CO2 neutral. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The use of other materials in the production of timber furniture (such as metal and plastic trimming, glues, varnishes etc) drastically increases the environmental burden of the furniture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Furniture and construction materials industries in Switzerland&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *[Life Cycle Impacts and Benefits of Wood along the Value Chain: The Case of Switzerland](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jiec.12486)*&#xD;&#xA;Florian Suter, Bernhard Steubing, and Stefanie Hellweg. 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This study goes into greater depth, compiling and comparing life cycle analyses from all wood products produced in Switzerland, and all feasible products that wood could replace. First the authors categorize how wood (domestic and imported) is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Switzerland, most of the wood is utilized in energy (approximately 50%) and paper production (approximately 25%). The remaining share goes into the production of&#xD;&#xA;various commodities, namely, buildings (approximately 10%), furniture (approximately 3%), and packaging (approximately 3%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going further, they identify&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 52 processes that produce 40 wood-based products covering the different sectors of the wood market up to semifinished products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For each process and product, the production impacts of wood and a substitute product were compared. Only paper was not included in this comparison due to limited availability of equivalent substitutes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;End of life treatment for each product was also estimated based on research on waste streams from Zurich (Switzerland's largest city, with a metro area population of 1.8 million). For each product, an average percent sent for landfilling, recycling, or incineration was calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, life cycle analysis for all products and substitutes was compiled. The chart below shows the results:&#xD;&#xA;[![Suter et al, substitution effects as climate change impacts from wood use in Switzerland][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three scenarios (minimum benefit, likely benefit, and maximum benefit) represent different levels to which wood is used to substitute for other products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within each chart, the rows show the global warming potential (GWP) of wood production, wood end of life, wood substitution for other products, and end of life of the substituted products (respectively). The caption says **&quot;for each scenario, a blue line indicates the cumulative total net effect from wood use.&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this it is clear that even when wood replaces only a fraction of the alternatives, the net benefit is a decrease in total greenhouse gas emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AVeYo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6933" RevisionGUID="55e77a62-5439-4075-a6d3-5ffeac2a5928" CreationDate="2018-11-06T04:19:09.800" UserId="1655" Text="Some places, like Roseville, California, handle their own sorting. Everything gets put into one bin and a huge machine separates stuff out using magnets and shredders and stuff. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6929" RevisionGUID="03d267c7-f9f0-46e7-9706-4525f86d7681" CreationDate="2018-11-06T10:55:15.347" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Changed the 'our' to more generic" Text="It may depend on your local rules, but here it's certainly better to put a recyclable thing in the bin than a non-recyclable thing in the recycling. That is, *if* your council doesn't have any sorting facilities: if they deem the recycling to be 'contaminated', they'll send the whole load to the incinerator - whereas if you put it in the normal rubbish, it's just that one item that's wasted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will vary in areas where the recycable materials are sorted: there the 'unwanted' items are picked out (often by humans) and discarded. You then assume that they will know what you are unsure about." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18063" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6928" RevisionGUID="0725a719-7919-4fc3-892e-e207ec5a2609" CreationDate="2018-11-06T10:58:04.467" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Title: *potentially* unrecyclable" Text="Is it better to put something potentially unrecyclable in the recycling bin or to put something recyclable in the waste bin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="ad6c78aa-4703-42a7-ba13-15cebdf45f31" CreationDate="2018-11-06T12:21:21.327" UserId="5602" Comment="Updated to recent new information in press" Text="Except generating a different kind of &quot;money value&quot;, what is the sustainable value of crypto currencies compared to the energy consumed to generate them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to currencies working with sophisticated papers and metals that have to be changed after some time of use by new notes and coins, crypto currencies do not seem to consume materials. However, they are generated in big data centres that need a lot of power to run. They say that the [Bitcoin-System already consumes as much energy like the whole Swiss economy][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the assumptions of the author were considered as &quot;flawed&quot; I recommend to read [his thoughts and study][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read the [other question according to Bitcoins][3], but think that my question is different to that one, even after having edited title and text, which now allows to discuss above the used technology or algorithms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As new information of today (Nov. 2018) they [(Spiegel)][4] state that Bitcoin consumes more energy than total Danmark. In addition the consumed energy is frequently produced in &quot;dirty&quot; coal power plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/bitcoin-energieverbrauch-fuer-produktion-und-verwaltung-a-1208635.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118301776?_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_origin=gateway&amp;_docanchor=&amp;md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6345/will-bitcoin-help-us-to-decentralise-our-communities-and-help-us-live-a-more-sus&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/bitcoin-schuerfer-verbrauchen-mehr-strom-als-ganz-daenemark-a-1236988.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18065" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="ad6c78aa-4703-42a7-ba13-15cebdf45f31" CreationDate="2018-11-06T12:21:21.327" UserId="5602" Comment="Updated to recent new information in press" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|energy-use|coal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18066" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6932" RevisionGUID="d9eb4ccc-f355-4d8c-bed1-fbaaebd6e331" CreationDate="2018-11-06T15:15:33.970" UserId="3379" Comment="added 506 characters in body" Text="**Wood is the best choice for furniture from an environmental perspective, and substituting wood where possible for other products would have a net environmental benefit.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2003 review of available studies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good starting point is a review produced by the Australian government in 2003 which looked at about a dozen different studies including [life cycle analyses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment) (LCAs) of both furniture and building materials:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *[Review of the Environmental Impact of Wood Compared with Alternative Products Used in the Production of Furniture](https://www.fwpa.com.au/images/marketaccess/PN03.2103%20furniture%20review%20WEB.pdf)* Australian Government Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation. 2003.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - In all the examples studied, wood has been found to have the lowest environmental impact compared to other materials.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Timber from sustainable forestry practices is a renewable resource whereas the production of plastics and metals is not. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The incineration of timber for energy production can be regarded as CO2 neutral. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The use of other materials in the production of timber furniture (such as metal and plastic trimming, glues, varnishes etc) drastically increases the environmental burden of the furniture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Furniture and construction materials industries in Switzerland&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *[Life Cycle Impacts and Benefits of Wood along the Value Chain: The Case of Switzerland](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jiec.12486)*&#xD;&#xA;Florian Suter, Bernhard Steubing, and Stefanie Hellweg. 2016.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This study aggregates LCAs from all wood products produced in Switzerland, and all feasible products that wood could replace. First the authors categorize how wood is used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Switzerland, most of the wood is utilized in energy (approximately 50%) and paper production (approximately 25%). The remaining share goes into the production of various commodities, namely, buildings (approximately 10%), furniture (approximately 3%), and packaging (approximately 3%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going further, they identify&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 52 processes that produce 40 wood-based products covering the different sectors of the wood market up to semifinished products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For each process and product, the production impacts of wood and a substitute product were compared. (Paper was not included in this comparison due to limited availability of equivalent substitutes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[End-of-life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-of-life_(product)) treatment (EOL) for each product was also estimated based on research on waste streams from Zurich (Switzerland's largest city, with a metro area population of 1.8 million). For each product, an average percent sent to landfills, recycled, or incinerated was calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the LCAs and EOLs for all products and substitutes was compiled:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Suter et al, substitution effects as climate change impacts from wood use in Switzerland][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Interpreting the chart:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chart shows the climate impact of wood use in three scenarios. Positive numbers show increasing [global warming potential](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential) (GWP), and negative numbers show reduced GWP -- in this case, negative numbers are better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three scenarios (minimum benefit, likely benefit, and maximum benefit) represent different levels to which wood is used to substitute for other products. The blue line shows the net effect of wood use in each scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within each chart, the rows represent: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Impacts from the production of wood products&#xD;&#xA; - Impacts from wood product EOL treatment&#xD;&#xA; - Net impacts from using wood in place of other products &#xD;&#xA; - Net impacts from EOL treatment of those wood products compared to the products they replaced&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each color represents a different product that wood is replacing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this it is clear that even when wood replaces only a fraction of the alternatives, the net benefit is a decrease in total greenhouse gas emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AVeYo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6934" RevisionGUID="2f417ab8-a132-4246-a878-26a6039fd90e" CreationDate="2018-11-06T22:33:21.783" UserId="3379" Text="**TL;DR:** At the tailpipe, a diesel vehicle and a CNG vehicle have **roughly equal greenhouse gas emissions**. But taking into account leaks in the natural gas production systems, **the diesel vehicle is probably the better choice from a climate change perspective.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Scholar returns a surprising number of results when you search [&quot;vehicle carbon emissions CNG vs diesel&quot; (since 2017)](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2017&amp;q=vehicle+carbon+emissions+CNG+vs+diesel&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0,50). Many of the results are locked behind paywalls, but one of the most interesting is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First is the [Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation (AFLEET) Tool](https://greet.es.anl.gov/index.php?content=afleet) from the U.S. Argonne National Lab. From the description: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The tool uses data from Argonne's Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) fuel-cycle model to generate necessary well-to-wheels petroleum use and GHG emission co-efficients for key fuel production pathways and vehicle types. In addition, Environmental Protection Agency's MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) and certification data are used to estimate tailpipe air pollutant emissions. Various sources are used to provide default cost data, including the Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act awards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I downloaded the tool and compared light-duty gasoline, diesel, battery electric, and CNG vehicles. Here's the result in terms of [externality costs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality) for the four types of vehicles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To remove the ambiguity inherent in how externalities are counted, here's the raw emissions data (&quot;LD&quot; is for &quot;light duty,&quot; the vehicle type I selected):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question directly at this point... over 15 years and 247,500 miles traveled (approximately 400,000 km):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A diesel vehicle will produce 4400 kg CO2 equivalent&#xD;&#xA; - A similar vehicle fueled by CNG will produce 4500 kg CO2 equivalent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Leaks in natural gas production systems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it looks like a wash at this point, as @THelper pointed out, one other factor to consider is methane leakage from natural gas production systems, as methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 in the short-term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An article in *Science* on this topic made headlines earlier this year. The article, [&quot;Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain&quot;](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/06/20/science.aar7204.full), is behind a paywall, but Phys.org has a [good summary](https://phys.org/news/2018-06-oil-gas-methane-emissions-percent.html). Here's the most significant finding (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [R]esearchers found most of the emissions came from leaks, equipment malfunctions and other &quot;abnormal&quot; operating conditions. **The climate impact of these leaks in 2015 was roughly the same as the climate impact of carbon dioxide emissions from all all U.S. coal-fired power plants** operating in 2015, they found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9wwR0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/butHs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6935" RevisionGUID="1f5fddff-22cf-4abe-96a1-02724ddaca4a" CreationDate="2018-11-07T01:35:23.853" UserId="2134" Text="From [an article about the traditional composting toilet system in Kabul][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sunni people use soil for anal cleansing, maintaining a largely dry latrine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no more information about what kind of soil and how to use it, though. I can see the benefit for a combination with urine separating dry toilets though, as it will help dry the feces instead of adding water to it. That helps to lower the humidity to a point where the aerobic digestion (=composting) process can start. Usually this is achieved with litter like sawdust or leaves, but soil would also work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.susana.org/_resources/documents/default/2-1618-83-dry-toilets-in-urban-crises--the-case-of-kabul-j-patinet.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6936" RevisionGUID="3964d659-23f7-4bbb-b1b4-14ddc9bf9d34" CreationDate="2018-11-07T05:13:28.167" UserId="6126" Text="Whenever oil booms, wind booms too. Whenever oil prodicton crashes wind crashes too. The us added about 5gw or 2 million barrels of oil equivalent this year of wind and 300 million barrels of oil in the Permian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When will wind stop being 1% of oil production and crashing whenever oil goes down?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18070" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6936" RevisionGUID="3964d659-23f7-4bbb-b1b4-14ddc9bf9d34" CreationDate="2018-11-07T05:13:28.167" UserId="6126" Text="Why does wind just track the economy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18071" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6936" RevisionGUID="3964d659-23f7-4bbb-b1b4-14ddc9bf9d34" CreationDate="2018-11-07T05:13:28.167" UserId="6126" Text="|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6936" RevisionGUID="a26ab98f-91e9-4bed-8e14-2bf0a997c58c" CreationDate="2018-11-07T07:19:37.503" UserId="99" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="Whenever oil booms, wind booms too. Whenever oil production crashes wind crashes too. The US added about 5GW or 2 million barrels of oil equivalent this year of wind and 300 million barrels of oil in the Permian. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When will wind stop being 1% of oil production and crashing whenever oil goes down?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18073" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6936" RevisionGUID="a26ab98f-91e9-4bed-8e14-2bf0a997c58c" CreationDate="2018-11-07T07:19:37.503" UserId="99" Comment="added 1 character in body; edited tags" Text="|energy|wind-power|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6937" RevisionGUID="d37917ed-7210-4196-aacd-9f681d3c5d7e" CreationDate="2018-11-07T14:11:59.950" UserId="6127" Text="I work in a few schools where children have been taught to turn off the monitors to save energy.  Unfortunately, this is all that they turn off.  Every Monday morning I find 30+ computers running with powered down monitors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is best for the greater good?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Train them to shut down and leave the monitors in hibernation or, shut the monitors down with the risk of the hard drive and processor running for days on end?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18075" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6937" RevisionGUID="d37917ed-7210-4196-aacd-9f681d3c5d7e" CreationDate="2018-11-07T14:11:59.950" UserId="6127" Text="Energy use for monitor vs pc tower" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18076" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6937" RevisionGUID="d37917ed-7210-4196-aacd-9f681d3c5d7e" CreationDate="2018-11-07T14:11:59.950" UserId="6127" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6938" RevisionGUID="b6706297-a712-40d6-8303-f24caf6100c0" CreationDate="2018-11-07T15:29:49.367" UserId="3379" Text="**It doesn't.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you're referring to wind *capacity* additions, it most closely tracks the political winds in the U.S., in the form of the [Production Tax Credit](http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/734) (PTC), a federal incentive program for construction of new wind capacity. The Department of Energy's [Wind Vision report](https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/maps/wind-vision) makes this relationship clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This chart ends at 2013, but the most current data for new capacity since then ends in 2017. This wouldn't be enough time to notice a new trend yet, since new shale gas wells come online much faster than wind sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RsrUd.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6939" RevisionGUID="b49f7cf4-a06e-4c8f-be49-d406bd499d06" CreationDate="2018-11-07T16:03:36.793" UserId="2828" Text="Before you go shopping – whether on-line or bricks-and-mortar – inform yourself about the product in question and keep an open mind about alternative ways of achieving whatever it is you ultimately want the product for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How to get information&#xD;&#xA;It pays to check reviews in magazines (possibly on-line) about the products you are interested in. You may be able to glean useful information even from reviews that are not primarily environmentally oriented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Familiarise yourself with the various labels used in your country, some of which may give the impression of evaluating the environmental aspects of products while actually being more concerned with other ethical aspects such as fair trade or animal welfare, or just with quality; some are almost pure eyewash and merely stand for producers’ associations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can also – of course! – ask questions here, though I am not sure how we view questions about specific brands or products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Sources of information&#xD;&#xA;_I am familiar with the situation in Germany, but perhaps others can contribute similar tips for other countries._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the labels given in the information for Germany are internationally used, and the NABU judgement on them (thumbs-up/-down etc.) can be understood without reading German, though that is needed to understand the detailed evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### In Germany&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Look at the reviews in the magazine [Öko-Test](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96ko-Test) (German Wikipedia article) Their web-site is http://www.oekotest.de/ .&#xD;&#xA;    * Bear in mind that Öko-Test often evaluates products from the point of view of consumers’ health rather than environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;* For a gallery of labels evaluated for their significance for the environment, see http://siegelcheck.nabu.de/ by the German environmental organisation NABU. This labels the labels as below. Clicking on a label tells you more about the criteria it represents and how the NABU regards it.&#xD;&#xA;    * Genuinely green: one or two green thumbs-up&#xD;&#xA;    * Sometimes helpful: a sideways thumb&#xD;&#xA;    * Allows no conclusions about environment impact: (no thumb)&#xD;&#xA;    * To be avoided: a red thumbs-down&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6790" RevisionGUID="a681242a-4825-4516-a496-48e235abf12f" CreationDate="2018-11-07T17:21:45.613" UserId="5933" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="To a general question this general answer: I don't know, but in general I don't think so ;-) but then again, ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First: a greenhouse is not a closed environment. It is aerated (insects can come in and go out) and (unless the water is drained in an isolated way) water escapes via the soil (residue pesticide escapes also).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second: pesticides can be a lot of things: herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, bactericides etc. depending on what is bugging you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A greenhouse doesn't keep any pests out (unless you mean rabbits maybe?) and can create its own kind of problems (it is a hot and moisty environment that is ideal for some insects and fungi).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only thing is: when you have to spray pesticides of any kind, there is some direct protection for neighboring parcels (that don't get acutely polluted). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you have to use biological biocides (like wasps) they are more likely to stay in the greenhouse (not sure)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18080" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6649" RevisionGUID="95c31f17-98cc-4669-bfec-479eca402e2c" CreationDate="2018-11-07T21:00:31.397" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1060275828897001473" />
  <row Id="18081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6938" RevisionGUID="107e1c28-910c-4746-b8cf-fd4c0d2248f4" CreationDate="2018-11-07T22:21:55.050" UserId="3379" Comment="Added more detail on PTC extension beyond the charted years." Text="**It doesn't.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you're referring to wind *capacity* additions, it most closely tracks the political winds in the U.S., in the form of the [Production Tax Credit](http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/734) (PTC), a federal incentive program for construction of new wind capacity. The U.S. Department of Energy's [Wind Vision report](https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/maps/wind-vision) makes this relationship clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This chart ends at 2013 when the PTC was renewed for an additional two years. In 2015 it was renewed again for five years, but with a 20% per year phase-out. This means that the full impact of factors other than the PTC won't be visible until after 2020 (assuming the PTC won't be renewed again, which is likely as [other factors](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/5-factors-that-will-cushion-the-ptc-phase-us-wind) will at that point be more important for driving new investment in wind).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RsrUd.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18082" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="d1fd33f3-2087-4cc3-9557-3c997a15a720" CreationDate="2018-11-08T03:02:55.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18083" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6939" RevisionGUID="c1ec33c0-76c6-447f-82ba-b4275c8a8c3f" CreationDate="2018-11-08T14:50:39.813" UserId="2828" />
  <row Id="18084" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6939" RevisionGUID="c1ec33c0-76c6-447f-82ba-b4275c8a8c3f" CreationDate="2018-11-08T14:50:39.813" UserId="2828" Comment="Make community wiki, so other countries may be added." Text="Before you go shopping – whether on-line or bricks-and-mortar – inform yourself about the product in question and keep an open mind about alternative ways of achieving whatever it is you ultimately want the product for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How to get information&#xD;&#xA;It pays to check reviews in magazines (possibly on-line) about the products you are interested in. You may be able to glean useful information even from reviews that are not primarily environmentally oriented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Familiarise yourself with the various labels used in your country, some of which may give the impression of evaluating the environmental aspects of products while actually being more concerned with other ethical aspects such as fair trade or animal welfare, or just with quality; some are almost pure eyewash and merely stand for producers’ associations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One can also – of course! – ask questions here, though I am not sure how we view questions about specific brands or products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Sources of information&#xD;&#xA;_I am familiar with the situation in Germany, but perhaps others can contribute similar tips for other countries – I have marked this as community wiki._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the labels given in the information for Germany are internationally used, and the NABU judgement on them (thumbs-up/-down etc.) can be understood without reading German, though that is needed to understand the detailed evaluation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### In Germany&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Look at the reviews in the magazine [Öko-Test](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96ko-Test) (German Wikipedia article) Their web-site is http://www.oekotest.de/ .&#xD;&#xA;    * Bear in mind that Öko-Test often evaluates products from the point of view of consumers’ health rather than environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;* For a gallery of labels evaluated for their significance for the environment, see http://siegelcheck.nabu.de/ by the German environmental organisation NABU. This labels the labels as below. Clicking on a label tells you more about the criteria it represents and how the NABU regards it.&#xD;&#xA;    * Genuinely green: one or two green thumbs-up&#xD;&#xA;    * Sometimes helpful: a sideways thumb&#xD;&#xA;    * Allows no conclusions about environment impact: (no thumb)&#xD;&#xA;    * To be avoided: a red thumbs-down&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6940" RevisionGUID="75e3527d-e81e-4bbf-b6c1-8f46a6b7d5b7" CreationDate="2018-11-08T17:23:37.887" UserId="3379" Text="I will soon be moving into a new home with a very old electric clothes dryer. I expect that before too long it will fail and need replacing. I would like to replace this with a more efficient model. I am considering natural gas, conventional electric, or heat pump electric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which type of dryer will be the most sustainable?** I am wondering if others have faced this decision, and how they made their choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/570/3379) considers a similar question for home and water heating, but doesn't seem to apply in the case of a clothes dryer. In fact, I thought my question was fairly straightforward, but that answer indicates there may be some issues with heat pump systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, I live in [Wisconsin](https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WI#tabs-4), where the energy mix for electricity generation is about 30% natural gas, 50% coal, 10% nuclear, and 10% renewable (hydro, wind, and solar)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18086" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6940" RevisionGUID="75e3527d-e81e-4bbf-b6c1-8f46a6b7d5b7" CreationDate="2018-11-08T17:23:37.887" UserId="3379" Text="How to choose between an electric, natural gas, or heat pump clothes dryer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18087" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6940" RevisionGUID="75e3527d-e81e-4bbf-b6c1-8f46a6b7d5b7" CreationDate="2018-11-08T17:23:37.887" UserId="3379" Text="|energy-efficiency|home|appliance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="e721bc19-0507-4965-bfcf-367b91afc21c" CreationDate="2018-11-09T04:19:12.910" UserId="4886" Text="I faced the same question with our new home recently.  Ultimately I went with a conventional electric dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the trend in the last decade or so has been to ridicule/dismiss conventional electric dryers because they are &quot;inefficient&quot;, I believe that mentality is simplistic and outdated.  The argument only really holds true if your dryer is connected to the grid, and grid electricity is expensive and fossil-fuel based.  In certain circumstances, *efficiency is irrelevant*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we only generally do clothes once a week, and have a two-person household, the amount of dryer cycles is relatively low — maybe two per week on average.  If the weather permits, we use the outdoor clothes line.  If it doesn't, then we use the dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we consume electricity to dry clothes, the energy comes from a renewable source.  We have a decent-sized PV array, and over the long run we generate (far) more power than we use.  The inverter is grid-tied so the surplus helps 'green the grid' for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we time dryer cycles right (e.g. look outside, upwind, and see if we have ~30 minutes of blue sky ahead of us) then not only is all the power free, but it doesn't even draw down (wear out) batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a conventional electric dryer also means that we benefit from reducing humidity in the house during winter as humid internal air ends up being vented to the outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason is that conventional dryers are far simpler to manufacture and thus much, *much* cheaper in this part of the world (compared to the heat pump variety).  The money saved is enough to purchase two ~300W solar panels — the output of which generate power bill savings sufficient to replace the dryer every two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, and following on from the above, because they are an old and simple technology, conventional electric dryers seem to last forever.  Very little to go wrong.  Long warranties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we went with a conventional electric dryer because, in our situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They are free to operate&#xD;&#xA; - They are very reliable&#xD;&#xA; - They are much cheaper to purchase&#xD;&#xA; - The initial savings lets our PV array grow larger, so effectively not only does the first dryer pay for itself in two years, but we effectively get free replacements forever&#xD;&#xA; - They are simple to build&#xD;&#xA; - It improves our air quality during winter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, if you have a decent solar setup, then conventional electric dryers are free to acquire, free to operate, free to replace, last a long time, and require the least amount of resources to construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our situation, the actual *efficiency* of the units is completely irrelevant.  A 1700W draw for ~30 minutes, twice a week for maybe a third of the year, is absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  The intial savings (made by purchasing a conventional electric dryer instead of a heat pump dryer locally) would pay for ~2640 cycles.  That's about 1320 weeks or 77 years at our current rate of use.  I don't know how things are in the rest of the world, but in Australia the only people buying heat pump dryers are those that can't do math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I have nothing to say about gas dryers.  They aren't 'a thing' here.  In half a century I've never seen one.  I've never known anyone who has mentioned owning one.  I have never seen one advertised for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="7f378e98-77b6-4626-92ef-bf636471bef9" CreationDate="2018-11-09T04:26:22.340" UserId="4886" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="I faced the same question with our new home recently.  Ultimately I went with a conventional electric dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the trend in the last decade or so has been to ridicule/dismiss conventional electric dryers because they are &quot;inefficient&quot;, I believe that mentality is simplistic and outdated.  The argument only really holds true if your dryer is connected to the grid, and grid electricity is expensive and fossil-fuel based.  In certain circumstances, *efficiency is irrelevant*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we only generally do clothes once a week, and have a two-person household, the amount of dryer cycles is relatively low — maybe two per week on average.  If the weather permits, we use the outdoor clothes line.  If it doesn't, then we use the dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we consume electricity to dry clothes, the energy comes from a renewable source.  We have a decent-sized PV array, and over the long run we generate (far) more power than we use.  The inverter is grid-tied so the surplus helps 'green the grid' for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we time dryer cycles right (e.g. look outside, upwind, and see if we have ~30 minutes of blue sky ahead of us) then not only is all the power free, but it doesn't even draw down (wear out) batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a conventional electric dryer also means that we benefit from reducing humidity in the house during winter as humid internal air ends up being vented to the outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason is that conventional dryers are far simpler to manufacture and thus much, *much* cheaper in this part of the world (compared to the heat pump variety).  The money saved is enough to purchase two ~300W solar panels — the output of which generate power bill savings sufficient to replace the dryer every two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, and following on from the above, because they are an old and simple technology, conventional electric dryers seem to last forever.  Very little to go wrong.  Long warranties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we went with a conventional electric dryer because, in our situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They are free to operate&#xD;&#xA; - They are very reliable&#xD;&#xA; - They are much cheaper to purchase&#xD;&#xA; - The initial savings lets our PV array grow larger, so effectively not only does the first dryer pay for itself in two years, but we effectively get free replacements forever&#xD;&#xA; - They are simple to build&#xD;&#xA; - It improves our air quality during winter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, if you have a decent solar setup, then conventional electric dryers are free to acquire, free to operate, free to replace, last a long time, can help control humidity, and require the least amount of resources to construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our situation, the actual *efficiency* of the units is completely irrelevant.  A 1700W draw for ~30 minutes, twice a week for maybe a third of the year, is absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  The intial savings (made by purchasing a conventional electric dryer instead of a heat pump dryer locally) would pay for ~2640 cycles.  That's about 1320 weeks or 77 years at our current rate of use.  I don't know how things are in the rest of the world, but in Australia the only people buying heat pump dryers are those that can't do math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I have nothing to say about gas dryers.  They aren't 'a thing' here.  In half a century I've never seen one.  I've never known anyone who has mentioned owning one.  I have never seen one advertised for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18091" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="c725317f-d812-4616-9850-401aca3c0fe1" CreationDate="2018-11-09T04:32:07.157" UserId="4886" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I faced the same question with our new home recently.  Ultimately I went with a conventional electric dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the trend in the last decade or so has been to ridicule/dismiss conventional electric dryers because they are &quot;inefficient&quot;, I believe that mentality is simplistic and outdated.  The argument only really holds true if your dryer is solely connected to the grid, and grid electricity is expensive and fossil-fuel based.  In certain circumstances, *efficiency is irrelevant*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we only generally do clothes once a week, and have a two-person household, the amount of dryer cycles is relatively low — maybe two per week on average.  If the weather permits, we use the outdoor clothes line.  If it doesn't, then we use the dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we consume electricity to dry clothes, the energy comes from a renewable source.  We have a decent-sized PV array, and over the long run we generate (far) more power than we use.  The inverter is grid-tied so the surplus helps 'green the grid' for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we time dryer cycles right (e.g. look outside, upwind, and see if we have ~30 minutes of blue sky ahead of us) then not only is all the power free, but it doesn't even draw down (wear out) batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a conventional electric dryer also means that we benefit from reducing humidity in the house during winter as humid internal air ends up being vented to the outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason is that conventional dryers are far simpler to manufacture and thus much, *much* cheaper in this part of the world (compared to the heat pump variety).  The money saved is enough to purchase two ~300W solar panels — the output of which generate power bill savings sufficient to replace the dryer every two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, and following on from the above, because they are an old and simple technology, conventional electric dryers seem to last forever.  Very little to go wrong.  Long warranties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we went with a conventional electric dryer because, in our situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They are free to operate&#xD;&#xA; - They are very reliable&#xD;&#xA; - They are much cheaper to purchase&#xD;&#xA; - The initial savings lets our PV array grow larger, so effectively not only does the first dryer pay for itself in two years, but we effectively get free replacements forever&#xD;&#xA; - They are simple to build&#xD;&#xA; - It improves our air quality during winter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, if you have a decent solar setup, then conventional electric dryers are free to acquire, free to operate, free to replace, last a long time, can help control humidity, and require the least amount of resources to construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our situation, the actual *efficiency* of the units is completely irrelevant.  A 1700W draw for ~30 minutes, twice a week for maybe a third of the year, is absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  The intial savings (made by purchasing a conventional electric dryer instead of a heat pump dryer locally) would pay for ~2640 cycles.  That's about 1320 weeks or 77 years at our current rate of use.  I don't know how things are in the rest of the world, but in Australia the only people buying heat pump dryers are those that can't do math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I have nothing to say about gas dryers.  They aren't 'a thing' here.  In half a century I've never seen one.  I've never known anyone who has mentioned owning one.  I have never seen one advertised for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="995fb2ee-8eb4-4f7e-ad6e-86fa05bebee4" CreationDate="2018-11-09T04:40:54.377" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="I faced the same question with our new home recently.  Ultimately I went with a conventional electric dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the trend in the last decade or so has been to ridicule/dismiss conventional electric dryers because they are &quot;inefficient&quot;, I believe that mentality is simplistic and outdated.  The argument only really holds true if your dryer is solely connected to the grid, and grid electricity is expensive and fossil-fuel based.  In certain circumstances, *efficiency is irrelevant*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we only generally do clothes once a week, and have a two-person household, the amount of dryer cycles is relatively low — maybe two per week on average.  If the weather permits, we use the outdoor clothes line.  If it doesn't, then we use the dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we consume electricity to dry clothes, the energy comes from a renewable source.  We have a decent-sized PV array, and over the long run we generate (far) more power than we use.  The inverter is grid-tied so the surplus helps 'green the grid' for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we time dryer cycles right (e.g. look outside, upwind, and see if we have ~30 minutes of blue sky ahead of us) then not only is all the power free, but it doesn't even draw down (wear out) batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a conventional electric dryer also means that we benefit from reducing humidity in the house during winter as humid internal air ends up being vented to the outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason is that conventional dryers are far simpler to manufacture and thus much, *much* cheaper in this part of the world (compared to the heat pump variety).  The money saved is enough to purchase two ~300W solar panels — the output of which generate power bill savings sufficient to replace the dryer every two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, and following on from the above, because they are an old and simple technology, conventional electric dryers seem to last forever.  Very little to go wrong.  Long warranties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we went with a conventional electric dryer because, in our situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They are free to operate&#xD;&#xA; - They are very reliable&#xD;&#xA; - They are simple to build&#xD;&#xA; - They are much cheaper to purchase&#xD;&#xA; - The initial savings lets our PV array grow larger, so effectively not only does the first dryer pay for itself in two years, but we effectively get free replacements forever&#xD;&#xA; - It improves our air quality during winter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, if you (one day will) have a decent solar setup, then conventional electric dryers are free to acquire, free to operate, free to replace, last a long time, can help control humidity, and require the least amount of resources to construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our situation, the actual *efficiency* of the units is completely irrelevant.  A 1700W draw for ~30 minutes, twice a week for maybe a third of the year, is absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  The intial savings (made by purchasing a conventional electric dryer instead of a heat pump dryer locally) would pay for ~2640 cycles.  That's about 1320 weeks or 77 *years* at our current rate of use.  I don't know how things are in the rest of the world, but in Australia the only people buying heat pump dryers are those that can't do math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I have nothing to say about gas dryers.  They aren't 'a thing' here.  In half a century I've never seen one.  I've never known anyone who has mentioned owning one.  I have never seen one advertised for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="900230c8-3c07-4f7d-8ca4-bf7be78021df" CreationDate="2018-11-09T04:47:13.627" UserId="4886" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I faced the same question with our new home recently.  Ultimately I went with a conventional electric dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the trend in the last decade or so has been to ridicule/dismiss conventional electric dryers because they are &quot;inefficient&quot;, I believe that mentality is simplistic and outdated.  The argument only really holds true if your dryer is solely connected to the grid, and grid electricity is expensive and fossil-fuel based.  In certain circumstances, *efficiency is irrelevant*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we only generally do clothes once a week, and have a two-person household, the amount of dryer cycles is relatively low — maybe two per week on average.  If the weather permits, we use the outdoor clothes line.  If it doesn't, then we use the dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we consume electricity to dry clothes, the energy comes from a renewable source.  We have a decent-sized PV array, and over the long run we generate (far) more power than we use.  The inverter is grid-tied so the surplus helps 'green the grid' for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we time dryer cycles right (e.g. look outside, upwind, and see if we have ~30 minutes of blue sky ahead of us) then not only is all the power free, but it doesn't even draw down (wear out) batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a conventional electric dryer also means that we benefit from reducing humidity in the house during winter as humid internal air ends up being vented to the outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason is that conventional dryers are far simpler to manufacture and thus much, *much* cheaper in this part of the world (compared to the heat pump variety).  The money saved is enough to purchase two ~300W solar panels — the output of which generate power bill savings sufficient to replace the dryer every two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, and following on from the above, because they are an old and simple technology, conventional electric dryers seem to last forever.  Very little to go wrong.  Long warranties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we went with a conventional electric dryer because, in our situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They are free to operate&#xD;&#xA; - They are very reliable&#xD;&#xA; - They are simple to build&#xD;&#xA; - They are much cheaper to purchase&#xD;&#xA; - The initial savings lets our PV array grow larger, so effectively not only does the first dryer pay for itself in two years, but we effectively get free replacements forever&#xD;&#xA; - It improves our air quality during winter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, if you (one day will) have a decent solar setup, then conventional electric dryers are free to acquire, free to operate, free to replace, last a long time, can help control humidity, and require the least amount of resources to construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our situation, the actual *efficiency* of the units is completely irrelevant.  A 1700W draw for ~30 minutes, twice a week for maybe a third of the year, is absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  The intial savings (made by purchasing a conventional electric dryer instead of a heat pump dryer locally) would pay for ~2640 cycles.  That's about 1320 weeks or 77 *years* at our current rate of use.  I don't know how things are in the rest of the world, but in Australia the only people buying heat pump dryers are those that can't do math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I have nothing to say about gas dryers.  They aren't 'a thing' here.  In half a century I've never come across one.  I've never known anyone who has mentioned owning one.  I have never seen one advertised for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="dfa1e972-b7fd-474a-8d50-e01b0c3dc6de" CreationDate="2018-11-09T04:52:16.473" UserId="4886" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="I faced the same question with our new home recently.  Ultimately I went with a conventional electric dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the trend in the last decade or so has been to ridicule/dismiss conventional electric dryers because they are &quot;inefficient&quot;, I believe that mentality is simplistic and outdated.  The argument only really holds true if your dryer is solely connected to the grid, and grid electricity is expensive and fossil-fuel based.  In certain circumstances, *efficiency is irrelevant*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we only generally do clothes once a week, and have a two-person household, the amount of dryer cycles is relatively low — maybe two per week on average.  If the weather permits, we use the outdoor clothes line.  If it doesn't, then we use the dryer.  About two-thirds of the year we use the outdoor clothes line, so the dryer is only used about a third of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we consume electricity to dry clothes, the energy comes from a renewable source.  We have a decent-sized PV array, and over the long run we generate (far) more power than we use.  The inverter is grid-tied so the surplus helps 'green the grid' for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we time dryer cycles right (e.g. look outside, upwind, and see if we have ~30 minutes of blue sky ahead of us) then not only is all the power free, but it doesn't even draw down (wear out) batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a conventional electric dryer also means that we benefit from reducing humidity in the house during winter as humid internal air ends up being vented outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason is that conventional dryers are far simpler to manufacture and thus much, *much* cheaper in this part of the world (compared to the heat pump variety).  The money saved is enough to purchase two ~300W solar panels — the output of which generate power bill savings sufficient to replace a conventional electric dryer every two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, and following on from the above, because they are an old and simple technology, conventional electric dryers seem to last forever.  Very little to go wrong.  Longer warranties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we went with a conventional electric dryer because, in our situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They are free to operate&#xD;&#xA; - They are very reliable&#xD;&#xA; - They are simple to build&#xD;&#xA; - They are much cheaper to purchase&#xD;&#xA; - The initial savings lets our PV array grow larger, so effectively not only does the first dryer pay for itself in two years, but we effectively get free replacements forever&#xD;&#xA; - It improves our air quality during winter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, if you (one day will) have a decent solar setup, then conventional electric dryers are free to acquire, free to operate, free to replace, last a long time, can help control humidity, and require the least amount of resources to construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our situation, the actual *efficiency* of the units is completely irrelevant.  A 1700W draw for ~30 minutes, twice a week for maybe a third of the year, is absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  The intial savings (made by purchasing a conventional electric dryer instead of a heat pump dryer locally) would pay for ~2640 cycles.  That's about 1320 weeks or 77 *years* at our current rate of use.  I don't know how things are in the rest of the world, but in Australia the only people buying heat pump dryers are those that can't do math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I have nothing to say about gas dryers.  They aren't 'a thing' here.  In half a century I've never come across one.  I've never known anyone who has mentioned owning one.  I have never seen one advertised for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="9be6b2f1-48e8-4f27-8ef2-76b690ad176a" CreationDate="2018-11-09T05:13:28.937" UserId="4886" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="I faced the same question with our new home recently.  Ultimately I went with a conventional electric dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the trend in the last decade or so has been to ridicule/dismiss conventional electric dryers because they are &quot;inefficient&quot;, I believe that mentality is simplistic and outdated.  The argument only really holds true if your dryer is solely connected to the grid, and grid electricity is expensive and fossil-fuel based.  In many cases, some of those do not apply.  In some cases, *efficiency is completely irrelevant*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we only generally do clothes once a week, and have a two-person household, the amount of dryer cycles is relatively low — maybe two per week on average.  If the weather permits, we use the outdoor clothes line.  If it doesn't, then we use the dryer.  About two-thirds of the year we use the outdoor clothes line, so the dryer is only used about a third of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we consume electricity to dry clothes, the energy comes from a renewable source.  We have a decent-sized PV array, and over the long run we generate (far) more power than we use.  The inverter is grid-tied so the surplus helps 'green the grid' for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we time dryer cycles right (e.g. look outside, upwind, and see if we have ~30 minutes of blue sky ahead of us) then not only is all the power free, but it doesn't even draw down (wear out) batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a conventional electric dryer also means that we benefit from reducing humidity in the house during winter as humid internal air ends up being vented outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventional dryers are far simpler to manufacture and thus much, *much* cheaper in this part of the world (compared to the heat pump variety).  The money saved is enough to purchase two ~300W solar panels — the output of which generate power bill savings sufficient to replace a conventional electric dryer every two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, because they are an old and simple technology, conventional electric dryers seem to last forever.  Very little to go wrong.  Longer warranties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we went with a conventional electric dryer because, in our situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They are free to operate&#xD;&#xA; - They are very reliable&#xD;&#xA; - They are simple to build&#xD;&#xA; - They are much cheaper to purchase&#xD;&#xA; - The initial savings lets our PV array grow larger, so effectively not only does the first dryer pay for itself in two years, but we effectively get free replacements forever&#xD;&#xA; - It improves our air quality during winter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, if you (one day will) have a decent solar setup, then conventional electric dryers are free to acquire, free to operate, free to replace, last a long time, can help control humidity, and require the least amount of resources to construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our situation, the actual *efficiency* of the units is completely irrelevant.  A 1700W draw for ~30 minutes, twice a week for maybe a third of the year, is absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  The intial savings (made by purchasing a conventional electric dryer instead of a heat pump dryer locally) would pay for ~2640 cycles.  That's about 1320 weeks or 77 *years* at our current rate of use.  I don't know how things are in the rest of the world, but in Australia the only people buying heat pump dryers are those that can't do math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I have nothing to say about gas dryers.  They aren't 'a thing' here.  In half a century I've never come across one.  I've never known anyone who has mentioned owning one.  I have never seen one advertised for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="18205915-1e30-49f3-837f-6c845dfa1ddb" CreationDate="2018-11-09T05:23:02.983" UserId="4886" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I faced the same question with our new home recently.  Ultimately I went with a conventional electric dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the trend in the last couple of decades has been to ridicule/dismiss conventional electric dryers because they are &quot;inefficient&quot;, I believe that mentality is simplistic and outdated.  The argument only really holds true if your dryer is solely connected to the grid, and grid electricity is expensive and fossil-fuel based.  In many cases, some of those do not apply.  In some cases, none apply — *rendering efficiency completely irrelevant*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we only generally do clothes once a week, and have a two-person household, the amount of dryer cycles is relatively low — maybe two per week on average.  If the weather permits, we use the outdoor clothes line.  If it doesn't, then we use the dryer.  About two-thirds of the year we use the outdoor clothes line, so the dryer is only used about a third of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we consume electricity to dry clothes, the energy comes from a renewable source.  We have a decent-sized PV array, and over the long run we generate (far) more power than we use.  The inverter is grid-tied so surplus power generation helps 'green the grid' for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we time dryer cycles right (e.g. look outside, upwind, and see if we have ~30 minutes of blue sky ahead of us) then not only is all the power free, but it doesn't even draw down (wear out) batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a conventional electric dryer also means that we benefit from reducing humidity in the house during winter as humid internal air ends up being vented outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventional dryers are far simpler to manufacture and thus much, *much* cheaper in this part of the world (compared to the heat pump variety).  The money saved is enough to purchase two ~300W solar panels — the output of which generate power bill savings sufficient to replace a conventional electric dryer every two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, because they are an old and simple technology, conventional electric dryers seem to last forever.  Very little to go wrong.  Longer warranties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we went with a conventional electric dryer because, in our situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They are free to operate&#xD;&#xA; - They are very reliable&#xD;&#xA; - They are simple to build&#xD;&#xA; - They are much, much cheaper to purchase&#xD;&#xA; - The initial savings lets our PV array grow larger, so effectively not only does the first dryer pay for itself in two years, but we effectively get free replacements forever&#xD;&#xA; - It improves our air quality during winter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, if you (one day will) have a decent solar setup, then conventional electric dryers are free to acquire, free to operate, free to replace, last a long time, can help control humidity, and require the least amount of resources to construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our situation, the actual *efficiency* of the units is completely irrelevant.  A 1700W draw for ~30 minutes, twice a week for maybe a third of the year, is absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  The intial savings (made by purchasing a conventional electric dryer instead of a heat pump dryer locally) would pay for ~2640 cycles.  That's about 1320 weeks or 77 *years* at our current rate of use.  I don't know how things are in the rest of the world, but in Australia the only people buying heat pump dryers are those that can't do math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I have nothing to say about gas dryers.  They aren't 'a thing' here.  In half a century I've never come across one.  I've never known anyone who has mentioned owning one.  I have never seen one advertised for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18097" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="72d18e6c-bb26-4d69-ada4-0e15eea55ba5" CreationDate="2018-11-09T08:45:31.310" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I faced the same question with our new home recently.  Ultimately I went with a conventional electric dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the trend in the last couple of decades has been to ridicule/dismiss conventional electric dryers because they are &quot;inefficient&quot;, I believe that mentality is simplistic and outdated.  The argument only really holds true if your dryer is solely connected to the grid, and grid electricity is expensive and fossil-fuel based.  In many cases, not all of those apply.  In some cases, none apply — *rendering efficiency completely irrelevant*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we only generally wash clothes once a week, and have a two-person household, the amount of dryer cycles is relatively low — maybe two per week on average.  If the weather permits, we use the outdoor clothes line.  If it doesn't, then we use the dryer.  About two-thirds of the year we use the outdoor clothes line, so the dryer is only used about a third of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we consume electricity to dry clothes, the energy comes from a renewable source.  We have a decent-sized PV array, and over the long run we generate (far) more power than we use.  The inverter is grid-tied so surplus power generation helps 'green the grid' for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we time dryer cycles right (e.g. look outside, upwind, and see if we have ~30 minutes of blue sky ahead of us) then not only is all the power free, but it doesn't even draw down (wear out) batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a conventional electric dryer also means that we benefit from reducing humidity in the house during winter as humid internal air ends up being vented outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventional dryers are far simpler to manufacture and thus much, *much* cheaper in this part of the world (compared to the heat pump variety).  The money saved is enough to purchase two ~300W solar panels — the output of which generate power bill savings sufficient to replace a conventional electric dryer every two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, because they are an old and simple technology, conventional electric dryers seem to last forever.  Very little to go wrong.  Longer warranties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we went with a conventional electric dryer because, in our situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They are free to operate&#xD;&#xA; - They are very reliable&#xD;&#xA; - They are simple to build&#xD;&#xA; - They are much, much cheaper to purchase&#xD;&#xA; - The initial savings lets our PV array grow larger, so effectively not only does the first dryer pay for itself in two years, but we effectively get free replacements forever&#xD;&#xA; - It improves our air quality during winter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, if you (one day will) have a decent solar setup, then conventional electric dryers are free to acquire, free to operate, free to replace, last a long time, can help control humidity, and require the least amount of resources to construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our situation, the actual *efficiency* of the units is completely irrelevant.  A 1700W draw for ~30 minutes, twice a week for maybe a third of the year, is absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  The intial savings (made by purchasing a conventional electric dryer instead of a heat pump dryer locally) would pay for ~2640 cycles.  That's about 1320 weeks or 77 *years* at our current rate of use.  I don't know how things are in the rest of the world, but in Australia the only people buying heat pump dryers are those that can't do math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I have nothing to say about gas dryers.  They aren't 'a thing' here.  In half a century I've never come across one.  I've never known anyone who has mentioned owning one.  I have never seen one advertised for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="6ba9837f-86d2-4026-b023-04dc1f82e9fa" CreationDate="2018-11-09T08:52:17.423" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="I faced the same question with our new home recently.  Ultimately I went with a conventional electric dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the trend in the last couple of decades has been to ridicule/dismiss conventional electric dryers because they are &quot;inefficient&quot;, I believe that mentality is simplistic and outdated.  The argument only really holds true if your dryer is solely connected to the grid, and grid electricity is expensive and fossil-fuel based.  In many cases, not all of those apply.  In some cases, none apply — *rendering efficiency completely irrelevant*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we generally only wash clothes once a week, and have a two-person household, the amount of dryer cycles is relatively low — maybe two per week on average.  If the weather permits, we use the outdoor clothes line.  If it doesn't, then we use the dryer.  About two-thirds of the year we use the outdoor clothes line, so the dryer is only used about a third of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we consume electricity to dry clothes, the energy comes from a renewable source.  We have a decent-sized PV array, and over the long run we generate (far) more power than we use.  The inverter is grid-tied so surplus power generation helps 'green the grid' for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we time dryer cycles right (e.g. look outside, upwind, and ensure that we have ~30 minutes of blue sky ahead of us) then not only is all the power free, but it doesn't even draw down (wear out) batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a conventional electric dryer also means that we benefit from reducing humidity in the house during winter as humid internal air ends up being vented outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventional dryers are far simpler to manufacture and thus much, *much* cheaper in this part of the world (compared to the heat pump variety).  The money saved is enough to purchase two ~300W solar panels — the output of which generate power bill savings sufficient to replace a conventional electric dryer every two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, because they are an old and simple technology, conventional electric dryers seem to last forever.  Very little to go wrong.  Longer warranties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we went with a conventional electric dryer because, in our situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They are free to operate.&#xD;&#xA; - They are very reliable.&#xD;&#xA; - They are simple to build.&#xD;&#xA; - They are much, much cheaper to purchase.&#xD;&#xA; - The initial savings lets our PV array grow larger, so effectively not only does the first dryer pay for itself in two years, but we effectively get free replacements forever.&#xD;&#xA; - It improves our air quality during winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, if you (one day will) have a decent solar setup, then conventional electric dryers are free to acquire, free to operate, free to replace, last a long time, can help control humidity, and require the least amount of resources to construct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our situation, the actual *efficiency* of the units is completely irrelevant.  A 1700W draw for ~30 minutes, twice a week for maybe a third of the year, is absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  The intial savings (made by purchasing a conventional electric dryer instead of a heat pump dryer locally) would pay for ~2640 cycles.  That's about 1320 weeks or 77 *years* at our current rate of use.  I don't know how things are in the rest of the world, but in Australia the only people buying heat pump dryers are those that can't do math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I have nothing to say about gas dryers.  They aren't 'a thing' here.  In half a century I've never come across one.  I've never known anyone who has mentioned owning one.  I have never seen one advertised for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="17067df6-21e8-4f63-8d68-cc10560cc315" CreationDate="2018-11-09T08:59:51.300" UserId="4886" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I faced the same question with our new home recently.  Ultimately I went with a conventional electric dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the trend in the last couple of decades has been to ridicule/dismiss conventional electric dryers because they are &quot;inefficient&quot;, I believe that mentality is simplistic and outdated.  The argument only really holds true if your dryer is solely connected to the grid, and grid electricity is expensive and fossil-fuel based.  In many cases, not all of those apply.  In some cases, none apply — *rendering efficiency completely irrelevant*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we generally only wash clothes once a week, and have a two-person household, the amount of dryer cycles is relatively low — maybe two per week on average.  If the weather permits, we use the outdoor clothes line.  If it doesn't, then we use the dryer.  About two-thirds of the year we use the outdoor clothes line, so the dryer is only used about a third of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we consume electricity to dry clothes, the energy comes from a renewable source.  We have a decent-sized PV array, and over the long run we generate (far) more power than we use.  The inverter is grid-tied so surplus power generation helps 'green the grid' for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we time dryer cycles right (e.g. look outside, upwind, and ensure that we have ~30 minutes of blue sky ahead of us) then not only is all the power free, but it doesn't even draw down (wear out) batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a conventional electric dryer also means that we benefit from reducing humidity in the house during winter as humid internal air ends up being vented outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventional dryers are far simpler to manufacture and thus much, *much* cheaper in this part of the world (compared to the heat pump variety).  The money saved is enough to purchase two ~300W solar panels — the output of which generate power bill savings sufficient to replace a conventional electric dryer every two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, because they are an old and simple technology, conventional electric dryers seem to last forever.  Very little to go wrong.  Longer warranties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we went with a conventional electric dryer because, in our situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They are free to operate.&#xD;&#xA; - They are very reliable.&#xD;&#xA; - They are simple to build.&#xD;&#xA; - They are much, much cheaper to purchase.&#xD;&#xA; - The initial savings lets our PV array grow larger, so effectively not only does the first dryer pay for itself in two years, but we effectively get free replacements forever.&#xD;&#xA; - It improves our air quality during winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, if you (one day will) have a decent solar setup, then conventional electric dryers require the least amount of resources to construct, are free to acquire, free to operate, last a long time, are free to replace, and can help control humidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our situation, the actual *efficiency* of the units is completely irrelevant.  A 1700W draw for ~30 minutes, twice a week for maybe a third of the year, is absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  The intial savings (made by purchasing a conventional electric dryer instead of a heat pump dryer locally) would pay for ~2640 cycles.  That's about 1320 weeks or 77 *years* at our current rate of use.  I don't know how things are in the rest of the world, but in Australia the only people buying heat pump dryers are those that can't do math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I have nothing to say about gas dryers.  They aren't 'a thing' here.  In half a century I've never come across one.  I've never known anyone who has mentioned owning one.  I have never seen one advertised for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="253e96ca-b2cf-4fcb-926f-c5713be99283" CreationDate="2018-11-09T09:10:52.820" UserId="4886" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I faced the same question with our new home recently.  Ultimately I went with a conventional electric dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the trend in the last couple of decades has been to ridicule/dismiss conventional electric dryers because they are &quot;inefficient&quot;, I believe that mentality is simplistic and outdated.  The argument only really holds true if your dryer is solely connected to the grid, and grid electricity is expensive and fossil-fuel based.  In many cases, not all of those apply.  In some cases, none apply — *rendering efficiency completely irrelevant*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we generally only wash clothes once a week, and have a two-person household, the amount of dryer cycles is relatively low — maybe two per week on average.  If the weather permits, we use the outdoor clothes line.  If it doesn't, then we use the dryer.  About two-thirds of the year we use the outdoor clothes line, so the dryer is only used about a third of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we consume electricity to dry clothes, the energy comes from a renewable source.  We have a decent-sized PV array, and over the long run we generate (far) more power than we use.  The inverter is grid-tied so surplus power generation helps 'green the grid' for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we time dryer cycles right (e.g. look outside, upwind, and ensure that we have ~30 minutes of blue sky ahead of us) then not only is all the power free, but it doesn't even draw down (wear out) batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a conventional electric dryer also means that we benefit from reducing humidity in the house during winter as humid internal air ends up being vented outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventional dryers are far simpler to manufacture and thus much, *much* cheaper in this part of the world (compared to the heat pump variety).  The money saved is enough to purchase two ~300W solar panels — the output of which generate power bill savings sufficient to replace a conventional electric dryer every two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, because they are an old and simple technology, conventional electric dryers seem to last forever.  Very little to go wrong.  Longer warranties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we went with a conventional electric dryer because, in our situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They are free to operate.&#xD;&#xA; - They are very reliable.&#xD;&#xA; - They are simple to build.&#xD;&#xA; - They are much, much cheaper to purchase.&#xD;&#xA; - The initial savings lets our PV array grow larger, so effectively not only does the first dryer pay for itself in two years, but we effectively get free replacements forever.&#xD;&#xA; - It improves our air quality during winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, if you (one day will) have a decent solar setup, then conventional electric dryers require the least amount of resources to construct, are free to acquire, free to operate, last a long time, are free to replace, and can help control humidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our situation, the actual *efficiency* of the units is completely irrelevant.  A 1700W draw for ~30 minutes, twice a week for maybe a third of the year, means absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  The intial savings (made by purchasing a conventional electric dryer instead of a heat pump dryer locally) would pay for ~2640 cycles.  That's about 1320 weeks or 77 *years* at our current rate of use.  I don't know how things are in the rest of the world, but in Australia the only people buying heat pump dryers are those that can't do math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I have nothing to say about gas dryers.  They aren't 'a thing' here.  In half a century I've never come across one.  I've never known anyone who has mentioned owning one.  I have never seen one advertised for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6943" RevisionGUID="b1c34231-b65f-4c7b-88a7-308de41c1e7f" CreationDate="2018-11-09T10:24:37.390" UserId="106" Text="You need neither a tumble dryer nor a drying cabinet.  I haven't used either for years, and we are a two person household as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By far the most sustainable way to dry clothes is by line drying.  Tumble dryers use  a lot of energy and damage your clothes.  Drying cabinets use a lot of energy.  Line drying uses the least energy and does not damage your clothes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can either line dry indoors or outdoors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you line dry indoors in winter, there is some excess energy usage (unless you are fortunate enough to live in a passive house) because some of your space heating will be end up as latent heat instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can line dry outdoors any time of year.  See [line drying in winter](https://homesteading.com/line-drying-clothes-winter/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the luxury of a home with more than one room, there is no problem in line drying at all.  Just put your clothes horse in a room you are not presently in and make sure the room is well ventilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have even more luxury of access to a garden or balcony, you can of course dry your clothes there when it's not raining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6943" RevisionGUID="09138c22-9e0f-4c31-974a-cec059ae9068" CreationDate="2018-11-09T10:34:03.500" UserId="106" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="You need neither a tumble dryer nor a drying cabinet.  I haven't used either for years, and we are a two person household in a 36m² studio apartment in England (so winters are rather humid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By far the most sustainable way to dry clothes is by line drying.  Tumble dryers use  a lot of energy and damage your clothes.  Drying cabinets use a lot of energy.  Line drying uses the least energy and does not damage your clothes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can either line dry indoors or outdoors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you line dry indoors in winter, there is some excess energy usage (unless you are fortunate enough to live in a passive house) because some of your space heating will be end up as latent heat instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can line dry outdoors any time of year (unless it's one of those [dreich](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/254247/21009) winter days).  See line drying in winter, [here](https://homesteading.com/line-drying-clothes-winter/) or [here](https://104homestead.com/line-dry-clothes-winter/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the luxury of a home with more than one room, there is no problem in line drying at all.  Just put your clothes horse in a room you are not presently in and make sure the room is well ventilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have even more luxury of access to a garden or balcony, you can of course dry your clothes there when it's not raining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6943" RevisionGUID="267134f1-fd46-4b9d-8117-deb8c1f8a759" CreationDate="2018-11-09T10:39:24.457" UserId="106" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="You need neither a tumble dryer nor a drying cabinet.  I haven't used either for years, and we are a two person household in a 36m² studio apartment in England (so winters are rather humid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By far the most sustainable way to dry clothes is by line drying.  Tumble dryers use  a lot of energy and damage your clothes.  Drying cabinets use a lot of energy.  Line drying uses the least energy and does not damage your clothes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can either line dry indoors or outdoors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you line dry indoors in winter, there is some excess energy usage (unless you are fortunate enough to live in a passive house) because some of your space heating will be end up as latent heat instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can line dry outdoors any time of year (unless it's one of those [dreich](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/254247/21009) winter days).  See line drying in winter, [here](https://homesteading.com/line-drying-clothes-winter/) or [here](https://104homestead.com/line-dry-clothes-winter/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the luxury of a home with more than one room, there is no problem in line drying at all.  Just put your clothes horse in a room you are not presently in and make sure the room is well ventilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have even more luxury of access to a garden or balcony, you can of course dry your clothes there when it's not raining or dreich (crisp -20°C sunny winter days as you get in Wisconsin are totally fine)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6942" RevisionGUID="a3f1d48e-2b1c-4951-8fda-05a26bfdac99" CreationDate="2018-11-09T11:16:42.067" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I faced the same question with our new home recently.  Ultimately I went with a conventional electric dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the trend in the last couple of decades has been to ridicule/dismiss conventional electric dryers because they are &quot;inefficient&quot;, I believe that mentality is simplistic and outdated.  The argument only really holds true if your dryer is solely connected to the grid, and grid electricity is expensive and fossil-fuel based.  In many cases, not all of those apply.  In some cases, none apply — *rendering 'efficiency' completely irrelevant*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since we generally only wash clothes once a week, and have a two-person household, the amount of dryer cycles is relatively low — maybe two per week on average.  If the weather permits, we use the outdoor clothes line.  If it doesn't, then we use the dryer.  About two-thirds of the year we use the outdoor clothes line, so the dryer is only used about a third of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we consume electricity to dry clothes, the energy comes from a renewable source.  We have a decent-sized PV array, and over the long run we generate (far) more power than we use.  The inverter is grid-tied so surplus power generation helps 'green the grid' for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we time dryer cycles right (e.g. look outside, upwind, and ensure that we have ~30 minutes of blue sky ahead of us) then not only is all the power free, but it doesn't even draw down (wear out) batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having a conventional electric dryer also means that we benefit from reducing humidity in the house during winter as humid internal air ends up being vented outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conventional dryers are far simpler to manufacture and thus much, *much* cheaper in this part of the world (compared to the heat pump variety).  The money saved is enough to purchase two ~300W solar panels — the output of which generate power bill savings sufficient to replace a conventional electric dryer every two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, because they are an old and simple technology, conventional electric dryers seem to last forever.  Very little to go wrong.  Longer warranties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we went with a conventional electric dryer because, in our situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - They are free to operate.&#xD;&#xA; - They are very reliable.&#xD;&#xA; - They are simple to build.&#xD;&#xA; - They are much, much cheaper to purchase.&#xD;&#xA; - The initial savings lets our PV array grow larger, so effectively not only does the first dryer pay for itself in two years, but we effectively get free replacements forever.&#xD;&#xA; - It improves our air quality during winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In essence, if you (one day will) have a decent solar setup, then conventional electric dryers require the least amount of resources to construct, are free to acquire, free to operate, last a long time, are free to replace, and can help control humidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our situation, the actual *efficiency* of the units is completely irrelevant.  A 1700W draw for ~30 minutes, twice a week for maybe a third of the year, means absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  The intial savings (made by purchasing a conventional electric dryer instead of a heat pump dryer locally) would pay for ~2640 cycles.  That's about 1320 weeks or 77 *years* at our current rate of use.  I don't know how things are in the rest of the world, but in Australia the only people buying heat pump dryers are those that can't do math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I have nothing to say about gas dryers.  They aren't 'a thing' here.  In half a century I've never come across one.  I've never known anyone who has owned one.  I have never seen one advertised for sale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6940" RevisionGUID="7730f27f-6f1a-4ade-8c26-96cde54f5f88" CreationDate="2018-11-09T15:00:44.467" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified dryer type" Text="I will soon be moving into a new home with a very old electric clothes dryer. I expect that before too long it will fail and need replacing. I would like to replace this with a more efficient model. I am considering natural gas, conventional electric (tumble dryer), or heat pump electric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which type of dryer will be the most sustainable?** I am wondering if others have faced this decision, and how they made their choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/570/3379) considers a similar question for home and water heating, but doesn't seem to apply in the case of a clothes dryer. In fact, I thought my question was fairly straightforward, but that answer indicates there may be some issues with heat pump systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, I live in [Wisconsin](https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WI#tabs-4), where the energy mix for electricity generation is about 30% natural gas, 50% coal, 10% nuclear, and 10% renewable (hydro, wind, and solar)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6943" RevisionGUID="76000f85-c61b-47f3-8d7b-1f45a86af2d0" CreationDate="2018-11-09T16:01:10.580" UserId="106" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="You need neither a tumble dryer nor a drying cabinet.  I haven't used either for years, and we are a two person household in a 36m² studio apartment in England (so winters are rather humid).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By far the most sustainable way to dry clothes is by drying on a line or a clothes horse.  Tumble dryers use  a lot of energy and damage your clothes.  Drying cabinets use a lot of energy.  Line drying uses the least energy and does not damage your clothes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can either line dry indoors or outdoors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you line dry indoors in winter, there is some excess energy usage (unless you are fortunate enough to live in a passive house) because some of your space heating will be end up as latent heat instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can line dry outdoors any time of year (unless it's one of those [dreich](https://english.stackexchange.com/a/254247/21009) winter days).  See line drying in winter, [here](https://homesteading.com/line-drying-clothes-winter/) or [here](https://104homestead.com/line-dry-clothes-winter/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the luxury of a home with more than one room, there is no problem in line drying at all.  Just put your clothes horse in a room you are not presently in and make sure the room is well ventilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have even more luxury of access to a garden or balcony, you can of course dry your clothes there when it's not raining or dreich (crisp -20°C sunny winter days as you get in Wisconsin are totally fine)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6944" RevisionGUID="e5e736ef-0d78-4e83-abfa-2e70471ad0ad" CreationDate="2018-11-09T17:48:51.880" UserId="5933" Text="As mentioned by other members there are some websites that do the selection for you. One that isn't mentioned yet is BuyMeOnce. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note that this a commercial webshop that has found an interesting niche of consumers who (at least think they) care. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the criteria behind the choice of the stuff they are showing or selling is not really transparent of course, there could be some product-placement-sponsoring behind this... But they claim to co-operate with ifixit. It can give us some ideas, that credit we have to give them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Always keep some own logic in mind (as explained by other members here) before making a choice. Especially do not replace a working non-durable thing by a durable one before it has broken down and cannot be fixed, and buy it somewhere in your neighborhood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I would rather have made this a comment but not enough reputation yet ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6934" RevisionGUID="ef49c775-9caf-419b-92b7-0a89ce83701d" CreationDate="2018-11-09T18:53:09.953" UserId="3379" Comment="Math." Text="**TL;DR:** At the tailpipe, a diesel vehicle and a CNG vehicle have **roughly equal greenhouse gas emissions**. But taking into account leaks in the natural gas production systems, **the diesel vehicle is probably the better choice from a climate change perspective.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Scholar returns a surprising number of results when you search [&quot;vehicle carbon emissions CNG vs diesel&quot; (since 2017)](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2017&amp;q=vehicle+carbon+emissions+CNG+vs+diesel&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0,50). Many of the results are locked behind paywalls, but one of the most interesting is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First is the [Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation (AFLEET) Tool](https://greet.es.anl.gov/index.php?content=afleet) from the U.S. Argonne National Lab. From the description: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The tool uses data from Argonne's Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) fuel-cycle model to generate necessary well-to-wheels petroleum use and GHG emission co-efficients for key fuel production pathways and vehicle types. In addition, Environmental Protection Agency's MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) and certification data are used to estimate tailpipe air pollutant emissions. Various sources are used to provide default cost data, including the Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act awards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I downloaded the tool and compared light-duty gasoline, diesel, battery electric, and CNG vehicles. Here's the result in terms of [externality costs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality) for the four types of vehicles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To remove the ambiguity inherent in how externalities are counted, here's the raw emissions data (&quot;LD&quot; is for &quot;light duty,&quot; the vehicle type I selected):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question directly at this point... per year, when driving 16,500 miles (26,500 km):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A diesel vehicle will produce 4445 kg CO2 equivalent&#xD;&#xA; - A similar vehicle fueled by CNG will produce 4536 kg CO2 equivalent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Leaks in natural gas production systems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it looks like a wash at this point, as @THelper pointed out, one other factor to consider is methane leakage from natural gas production systems, as methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 in the short-term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An article in *Science* on this topic made headlines earlier this year. The article, [&quot;Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain&quot;](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/06/20/science.aar7204.full), is behind a paywall, but Phys.org has a [good summary](https://phys.org/news/2018-06-oil-gas-methane-emissions-percent.html). Here's the most significant finding (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [R]esearchers found most of the emissions came from leaks, equipment malfunctions and other &quot;abnormal&quot; operating conditions. **The climate impact of these leaks in 2015 was roughly the same as the climate impact of carbon dioxide emissions from all all U.S. coal-fired power plants** operating in 2015, they found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9wwR0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/butHs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3176" RevisionGUID="8a2bb51d-8cc5-4ba4-a132-c102cf5ee36c" CreationDate="2018-11-09T20:12:24.483" UserId="400" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="I'm assuming that you are in part of the world that has a monsoon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the dry season, the evaporation of water can make a significant temperature difference.  Google &quot;Swamp cooler&quot;  or &quot;evaporative cooler&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the rainy season, your humidity tends to be absolute.  Evaporation doesn't help much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much depends on how cold it gets at night. If nights are cooler, then you can circulate water over a very shallow pond (1/8&quot; thick)  It will cool to ambient temperature quickly.  The cooler water can be stored until the hot part of the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a supply of cooler water can be used to make a conventional air conditioner more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can reduce the heating by painting both roof and walls with titanium dioxide paint.  TiO2 is a common paint pigment.  It is black in IR so is a good radiator, but white in visible so it's a bad absorber.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6945" RevisionGUID="ab742b22-bea6-49c1-b5f6-2a63de8aa59e" CreationDate="2018-11-10T09:13:35.530" UserId="6138" Text="The oil heaters at least mine pull a large amount of energy 1200 watts a piece i have 2.. I use 2 halogen heaters now.. heats faster and lowers my energy bill. Also you can warm up super fast by standing in front lol not with oil, and having 2 oil heaters and other electronics on same line throws breakers when the extra 2400 watts kick in together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1309" RevisionGUID="4579295a-d952-4bc8-b70e-c545fe0b1a76" CreationDate="2018-11-10T12:10:24.257" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="I'll take a slightly different line to Mark Booth's excellent answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**fan heater:** If you've got a lot of still air, and / or if you only want the heater on for short bursts, then the fan heater is probably best, because it will get the warm air circulating in the room, and it will respond quickly to being turned on and off. However, dust can settle on the heating element, and you can't reach it to clean it, so you get the smell of burnt dust.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**oil-filled radiator:** If you want a slow-to-respond heater that will have a lot of thermal mass, so it will warm up slowly, and cool down slowly, that will give comfort advantages, but if you turn it off when you no longer need the heat, it will continue to radiate for some time, as the oil in it cools down, and that could be a waste of energy. If part of the heater's duty will be to help dry clothes, this radiator might be your best option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**infra-red lamp:** If it's for a room where you'll spend a time with a lot of skin exposed, and if you're ok with the air being relatively cold but your skin feeling warm (like being in full sun on a winter's day), then the infra-red heater is the thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6946" RevisionGUID="bceaf868-26bd-4cae-8f46-fc3039d8a230" CreationDate="2018-11-10T16:47:24.263" UserId="2134" Text="*(Take this whole answer with caution as I'm not a solar professional or electrical engineer.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. Proposal: House on UPS, fed by solar charger and current limited AC charger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an experimental proposal as I have not tried it yet. If it works, it would be nice though as it uses nearly exclusively off-the-shelf, standard products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is to always run the house from the UPS (means, don't connect the grid input to the UPS, so it will always &quot;think&quot; that the grid is down). Instead, AC electricity will be mixed in (when available and solar is not enough) with an AC based battery charger connected to the UPS's battery, in parallel to a solar charge controller connected to the same battery. The UPS now always runs &quot;on battery&quot;, but the battery is fed from solar and grid at the same time. Thus, if the momentary power draw of the inverter is matched by the output of the two battery chargers, there is no cycling and thus no degrading of the battery involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lead-acid batteries, two chargers connected in parallel can usually work together without interfering with each other. What you'll need to prioritize the input of the solar charger over that of the grid-based charger is a kind of current limiter in one wire of the connected AC-fed charger. It would only permit as much current as needed to maintain the float charging voltage of the lead-acid battery – which can be zero ampere if the solar panel output alone can cover the house's power draw. That current limiter is the only non-standard device. But since it deals with 12 V or 24 V DC electricity only, it is relatively safe to create it in a DIY manner, for example from a PWM controller for DC motors, a battery voltage sensor and an Arduino microcontroller. Using a PWM controller to pulse-charge the battery will not harm it as current and voltage of the pulses are kept within spec by the battery charger itself ([see][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Disadvantages:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It *might* limit the maximum power available in the house, as it's now limited to the maximum power output of the UPS even when the grid is available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There is a wasteful AC → DC → AC conversion involved. But if you have enough solar panels and low power needs overnight, that wastage is quite low as the house will mostly operate on solar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* When the AC-fed charger is not as powerful as the UPS, during peak loads some slight battery cycling can happen (example: UPS draws 2000 W for powertool usage, while the AC-fed charger provides a maximum of 750 W and there is no sun). That's probably no issue as peak loads are generally short and a lead-acid battery can cope with very shallow cycling for years (see: use as automotive batteries).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Alternative: UPS plus grid-connected inverter without feed-in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an alternative where you'd have a grid-tied setup but [without feed-in][2] and when the grid goes down, your UPS takes over as it usually does. The solar panels would feed into the grid-tied inverter and in parallel into the battery of the UPS (by connecting a battery charger to it). It avoids the wasteful AC → DC → AC conversion of the solution proposed above, however there are other issues so that I don't think this solution would work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Disadvantages:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It can take a few minutes for grid-tied inverters to detect that the grid is down and to stop producing AC (so-called &quot;anti-islanding feature&quot;), and in that period the UPS could repeatedly switch back and forth as it &quot;sees&quot; some AC electricity on its grid side. It will depend on the inverter's switching behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You'd need both a grid-tied inverter and a UPS, which includes another inverter. And grid-tied inverters are much more expensive than those in a UPS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/170799&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6514" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18116" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6934" RevisionGUID="45a79341-c9b8-413d-b037-d3bd5a353cd3" CreationDate="2018-11-12T22:31:45.500" UserId="3379" Comment="Added link to web-based version" Text="**TL;DR:** At the tailpipe, a diesel vehicle and a CNG vehicle have **roughly equal greenhouse gas emissions**. But taking into account leaks in the natural gas production systems, **the diesel vehicle is probably the better choice from a climate change perspective.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Scholar returns a surprising number of results when you search [&quot;vehicle carbon emissions CNG vs diesel&quot; (since 2017)](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2017&amp;q=vehicle+carbon+emissions+CNG+vs+diesel&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0,50). Many of the results are locked behind paywalls, but one of the most interesting is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First is the [Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation (AFLEET) Tool](https://greet.es.anl.gov/index.php?content=afleet) from the U.S. Argonne National Lab. From the description: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The tool uses data from Argonne's Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) fuel-cycle model to generate necessary well-to-wheels petroleum use and GHG emission co-efficients for key fuel production pathways and vehicle types. In addition, Environmental Protection Agency's MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) and certification data are used to estimate tailpipe air pollutant emissions. Various sources are used to provide default cost data, including the Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act awards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I downloaded the tool and compared light-duty gasoline, diesel, battery electric, and CNG vehicles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***UPDATE:** Argonne National Lab just released a [web-based version of AFLEET](https://afleet-web.es.anl.gov/afleet/) where you can do the same comparison yourself.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the result in terms of [externality costs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality) for the four types of vehicles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To remove the ambiguity inherent in how externalities are counted, here's the raw emissions data (&quot;LD&quot; is for &quot;light duty,&quot; the vehicle type I selected):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question directly at this point... per year, when driving 16,500 miles (26,500 km):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A diesel vehicle will produce 4445 kg CO2 equivalent&#xD;&#xA; - A similar vehicle fueled by CNG will produce 4536 kg CO2 equivalent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Leaks in natural gas production systems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it looks like a wash at this point, as @THelper pointed out, one other factor to consider is methane leakage from natural gas production systems, as methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 in the short-term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An article in *Science* on this topic made headlines earlier this year. The article, [&quot;Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain&quot;](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/06/20/science.aar7204.full), is behind a paywall, but Phys.org has a [good summary](https://phys.org/news/2018-06-oil-gas-methane-emissions-percent.html). Here's the most significant finding (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [R]esearchers found most of the emissions came from leaks, equipment malfunctions and other &quot;abnormal&quot; operating conditions. **The climate impact of these leaks in 2015 was roughly the same as the climate impact of carbon dioxide emissions from all all U.S. coal-fired power plants** operating in 2015, they found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9wwR0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/butHs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18117" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6946" RevisionGUID="be4b3929-6a26-4fb5-903a-878ea319d014" CreationDate="2018-11-13T00:45:33.190" UserId="2134" Comment="wording" Text="*(Take this whole answer with caution as I'm not a solar professional or electrical engineer.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. Proposal: House on UPS, fed by solar charger and current-controlled AC charger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an experimental proposal as I have not tried it yet. If it works, it would be nice though as it uses nearly exclusively off-the-shelf, standard products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is to always run the house from the UPS (means, don't connect the grid input to the UPS, so it will always &quot;think&quot; that the grid is down). Instead, AC electricity will be mixed in (when available and solar is not enough) with an AC based battery charger connected to the UPS's battery, in parallel to a solar charge controller connected to the same battery. The UPS now always runs &quot;on battery&quot;, but the battery is fed from solar and grid at the same time. Thus, if the momentary power draw of the inverter is matched by the output of the two battery chargers, there is no cycling and thus no degrading of the battery involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lead-acid batteries, two chargers connected in parallel can usually work together without interfering with each other. What you'll need to prioritize the input of the solar charger over that of the grid-based charger is a kind of current limiter in one wire of the connected AC-fed charger. It would only permit as much current as needed to maintain the float charging voltage of the lead-acid battery – which can be zero ampere if the solar panel output alone can cover the house's power draw. That current limiter is the only non-standard device. But since it deals with 12 V or 24 V DC electricity only, it is relatively safe to create it in a DIY manner, for example from a PWM controller for DC motors, a battery voltage sensor and an Arduino microcontroller. Using a PWM controller to pulse-charge the battery will not harm it as current and voltage of the pulses are kept within spec by the battery charger itself ([see][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Disadvantages:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It *might* limit the maximum power available in the house, as it's now limited to the maximum power output of the UPS even when the grid is available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* There is a wasteful AC → DC → AC conversion involved. But if you have enough solar panels and low power needs overnight, that wastage is quite low as the house will mostly operate on solar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* When the AC-fed charger is not as powerful as the UPS, during peak loads some slight battery cycling can happen (example: UPS draws 2000 W for powertool usage, while the AC-fed charger provides a maximum of 750 W and there is no sun). That's probably no issue as peak loads are generally short and a lead-acid battery can cope with very shallow cycling for years (see: use as automotive batteries).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Alternative: UPS plus grid-connected inverter without feed-in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an alternative where you'd have a grid-tied setup but [without feed-in][2] and when the grid goes down, your UPS takes over as it usually does. The solar panels would feed into the grid-tied inverter and in parallel into the battery of the UPS (by connecting a battery charger to it). It avoids the wasteful AC → DC → AC conversion of the solution proposed above, however there are other issues so that I don't think this solution would work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Disadvantages:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It can take a few minutes for grid-tied inverters to detect that the grid is down and to stop producing AC (so-called &quot;anti-islanding feature&quot;), and in that period the UPS could repeatedly switch back and forth as it &quot;sees&quot; some AC electricity on its grid side. It will depend on the inverter's switching behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You'd need both a grid-tied inverter and a UPS, which includes another inverter. And grid-tied inverters are much more expensive than those in a UPS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/170799&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6514" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="1578ef4d-2f77-4bee-ab7f-2aa50a4c5fc1" CreationDate="2018-11-15T09:59:03.710" UserId="3285" Text="Looking briefly at the recent IPCC report it presents a number of pathways for keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees celsius by 2100. These follow a spectrum from enormous reductions in consumption through to a business-as-usual situation, albeit with enormous carbon capture and storage (CCS) and higher risk of temporary overshoot of the 1.5 degree target. The latter pathway is described as pathway 4 in the [policymaker summary][1] and pathway S5 in [chapter 2][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What isn't described in close proximity to this pathway is (1) the level of risk associated with the temporary overshoot, and (2) the likely economic requirements of implementing all the CCS the pathway needs (and hence the likelihood of actually being able to implement it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the answers to (1) and (2)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="1578ef4d-2f77-4bee-ab7f-2aa50a4c5fc1" CreationDate="2018-11-15T09:59:03.710" UserId="3285" Text="The least sustainable pathway of the IPCC SR15 report" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="1578ef4d-2f77-4bee-ab7f-2aa50a4c5fc1" CreationDate="2018-11-15T09:59:03.710" UserId="3285" Text="|energy|environmental-impact|global-warming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="21c51f20-c6a1-4523-b9d3-6ebf89b479b7" CreationDate="2018-11-15T18:48:39.850" UserId="3285" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="Looking briefly at the recent IPCC report it presents a number of pathways for keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees celsius by 2100. These follow a spectrum from enormous reductions in consumption through to a business-as-usual situation, albeit with enormous carbon capture and storage (CCS) and higher risk of temporary overshoot of the 1.5 degree target. The latter pathway is described as pathway 4 in the [policymaker summary][1] and pathway S5 in [chapter 2][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What isn't described in close proximity to this pathway is (1) the level of risk associated with the temporary overshoot, and (2) the likely economic requirements of implementing all the CCS the pathway needs (and hence the likelihood of actually being able to implement it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know further details on this pathway (likely encompassing both (1) and (2) above)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter2.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6949" RevisionGUID="cdecf3c7-ca46-4d5c-9b9b-a92ffb64d66a" CreationDate="2018-11-15T18:57:07.330" UserId="6150" Text="My challenge was slightly different.  I was purchasing new NorthStar windows to replace all of the old windows in my house but wanted to make sure I was getting what I paid for, as the windows would look fine, but was their R-value or U-factor and SHGC  performing as advertised.  I used an IR scanner around the edges after install to look for possible insulation gaps - digital read compared to base value  allowed me to detect to windows where the insulation was missed near a corner and they fixed the issue.  The problem with this digital scanner is that it does not work well against a reflective or clear surface, such as the glass window pane. But what about how efficient the window was performing - if it had been jostled and  a seal cracked, losing argon gas, how would I know.  I did two things.  I used an IR thermal camera to look at the house and compare visually if the windows were different colors.  I had one window that had not yet been replaced and from outside (in winter) it was visibly different which told me the new windows appeared to have less heat loss. I then went inside and performed the same thermal imaging,  and could tell that the old window was colder and therefore more cold was coming in through that window than the others. I then used a solar meter and compared the old window value with the new window value and could tell that  the new windows had a lower value, so the coating was reducing UV and solar light.  The final test I did was use a heat source against the outside of the window (can be a heat lamp or hair drier) and checked the IR heat  and compared that to now window with the IR heat reader same distance,  and also on the old window.  The IR heat reading was considerably lower on the new windows. No one tool or test would give an easy ability to test the manufacturers claimed U-factor and SGHC on the new &quot;energy efficient windows.  Even on the cheap, it cost me about $600.00 in purchasing the thermal- imager to attach to my iPhone, IR scanner, and heat scanner.  IT could have cost several thousand if I had purchased better quality tools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, to me, the verification of window integrity on its E-value U-Factor SGHC is something that the window manufacturer/ installer should do for you as part of the install, especially when you are paying high value to get the best E-value windows installed to reduce your heating cooling costs.  Although I have a lifetime warranty on the windows. I would have had no way to know if they were not performing properly unless there was visible evidence of a crack, broken seal, or condensation/fogging on the inside of the double pane glass." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18125" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="a324efef-07b6-40eb-a08e-68d75a0f5cac" CreationDate="2018-11-15T23:02:40.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6949" RevisionGUID="306f41d8-f2eb-4ed4-a1b7-4d2451b02cfa" CreationDate="2018-11-16T15:55:59.033" UserId="99" Comment="broken up wall of text" Text="My challenge was slightly different. I was purchasing new NorthStar windows to replace all of the old windows in my house but wanted to make sure I was getting what I paid for, as the windows would look fine, but was their R-value or U-factor and SHGC  performing as advertised.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used an IR scanner around the edges after install to look for possible insulation gaps - digital read compared to base value  allowed me to detect to windows where the insulation was missed near a corner and they fixed the issue.  The problem with this digital scanner is that it does not work well against a reflective or clear surface, such as the glass window pane. But what about how efficient the window was performing - if it had been jostled and  a seal cracked, losing argon gas, how would I know.  I did two things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  I used an IR thermal camera to look at the house and compare visually if the windows were different colors.  I had one window that had not yet been replaced and from outside (in winter) it was visibly different which told me the new windows appeared to have less heat loss. I then went inside and performed the same thermal imaging,  and could tell that the old window was colder and therefore more cold was coming in through that window than the others. I then used a solar meter and compared the old window value with the new window value and could tell that  the new windows had a lower value, so the coating was reducing UV and solar light. &#xD;&#xA;2. The final test I did was use a heat source against the outside of the window (can be a heat lamp or hair drier) and checked the IR heat  and compared that to now window with the IR heat reader same distance,  and also on the old window.  The IR heat reading was considerably lower on the new windows. No one tool or test would give an easy ability to test the manufacturers claimed U-factor and SGHC on the new &quot;energy efficient windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even on the cheap, it cost me about $600.00 in purchasing the thermal- imager to attach to my iPhone, IR scanner, and heat scanner.  IT could have cost several thousand if I had purchased better quality tools. However, to me, the verification of window integrity on its E-value U-Factor SGHC is something that the window manufacturer/ installer should do for you as part of the install, especially when you are paying high value to get the best E-value windows installed to reduce your heating cooling costs.  Although I have a lifetime warranty on the windows. I would have had no way to know if they were not performing properly unless there was visible evidence of a crack, broken seal, or condensation/fogging on the inside of the double pane glass." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6950" RevisionGUID="fd5eaa1e-3b99-4ceb-bebd-047c33b004bc" CreationDate="2018-11-17T07:02:31.313" UserId="6152" Text="Is it possible to subject plant leaves to bacterial digestion to harness methane production therefrom. Is so what are the limitations. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6950" RevisionGUID="fd5eaa1e-3b99-4ceb-bebd-047c33b004bc" CreationDate="2018-11-17T07:02:31.313" UserId="6152" Text="Bacterial digestion of leaves" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6950" RevisionGUID="fd5eaa1e-3b99-4ceb-bebd-047c33b004bc" CreationDate="2018-11-17T07:02:31.313" UserId="6152" Text="|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18131" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6951" RevisionGUID="eb098882-dc26-4d5d-bac9-4194f7e92013" CreationDate="2018-11-18T01:59:35.840" UserId="48" Text="Yes, plant leaves, like pretty much all other organic matter, can be digested by the right bacteria to produce methane, and a nutrient-rich byproduct which can be reused in agriculture as fertiliser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard method is to used [anaerobic digestion](http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/about/feedstocks/) in a closed unit. When done well, this cuts out the risk of fugitive methane emissions, and that's very important, because (as blacksmith37 notes), it's a very potent greenhouse gas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="3d26648e-dbc0-4bb7-9230-67fd1319fa5f" CreationDate="2018-11-18T12:52:06.457" UserId="6154" Text="I am new in Germany, and I am failing in recycle, thus I couldn't help but posting here, asking for help, let me know if this is off-topic!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My bottles are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Plastic bottle of orange juice ([sample][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Glass bottle of extra virgin olive oil ([sample][2])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Carton bottle of milk (sample)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which ones of the above are eligible for recycling in Germany (of course I will clean them first)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think 1 yes, 3 no, after reading [How does German Pfand system work?][3], but still it's unclear about 2. I have to go by foot to the nearest recycling machine, so an answer will be much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I guess what's the answer for any US/European country would fit Germany as well..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.olympos.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/fresko_epilegmeno_gala-1LT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.iliaki-elaiourgia.gr/media/1179/olympia_organic_500ml.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://liveworkgermany.com/2017/05/how-does-the-german-pfand-system-work-and-is-it-effective/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="3d26648e-dbc0-4bb7-9230-67fd1319fa5f" CreationDate="2018-11-18T12:52:06.457" UserId="6154" Text="Towards understanding how recycling bottles works in Germany" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="3d26648e-dbc0-4bb7-9230-67fd1319fa5f" CreationDate="2018-11-18T12:52:06.457" UserId="6154" Text="|recycling|glass|plastic-bottles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6953" RevisionGUID="fc1a39c9-4da1-47e5-8ed1-dd221534eb1d" CreationDate="2018-11-18T19:39:24.420" UserId="6156" Text="Good question, the german recycling system can sometimes be a little overwhelming.&#xD;&#xA;First, don't mix up &quot;Pfand&quot; and &quot;Recycling&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Pfand&quot;-bottles will go back to the manufacturer, be cleaned and reused. None of your pictures belongs to the &quot;Pfand&quot; system. But all three can be recycled. The glass-bottle should be the easiest: search for the nearest &quot;Glas-Container&quot; und put it in there (e.g. [link to picture][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottle #1 and the milk-carton should go into your local recycling system, organized by an organization called &quot;Grüner Punkt&quot;. Your community (&quot;Landkreis&quot;) should either have a yellow-ton (&quot;Gelbe Tonne&quot; [picture][2]) or a yellow-sack (&quot;Gelber Sack&quot; [picture][3]) available for each household. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short &quot;Grüner Punkt&quot; collects money from every manufacturer of outer packaging, and uses it to organize the recycling process.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit: fix broken image link&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.esslinger-zeitung.de/cms_media/module_img/37/18813_1_fullwide_1310200913ca04m1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nabu.de/imperia/md/nabu/images/umwelt/abfall/150817-nabu-gelbe-tonne-helge-may6.jpeg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://cdn1.stuttgarter-nachrichten.de/media.media.2e3ea9a4-2248-4760-acab-0d2ddddb3279.normalized.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="b59b942b-7d80-4773-b384-0a0b39cad2c5" CreationDate="2018-11-18T21:43:28.033" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting and tags" Text="I am new in Germany, and I am failing in recycling, thus I couldn't help but posting here, asking for help, let me know if this is off-topic!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My bottles are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Plastic bottle of orange juice][1]&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Glass bottle of extra virgin olive oil][2]&#xD;&#xA; 3. Carton bottle of milk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which ones of the above are eligible for recycling in Germany (of course I will clean them first)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think 1 yes, 3 no, after reading [How does German Pfand system work?][3], but still it's unclear about 2. I have to go by foot to the nearest recycling machine, so an answer will be much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I guess what's the answer for any US/European country would fit Germany as well..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.olympos.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/fresko_epilegmeno_gala-1LT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.iliaki-elaiourgia.gr/media/1179/olympia_organic_500ml.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://liveworkgermany.com/2017/05/how-does-the-german-pfand-system-work-and-is-it-effective/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18137" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="b59b942b-7d80-4773-b384-0a0b39cad2c5" CreationDate="2018-11-18T21:43:28.033" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting and tags" Text="|recycling|glass|plastic-bottles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18138" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="b59b942b-7d80-4773-b384-0a0b39cad2c5" CreationDate="2018-11-18T21:43:28.033" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting and tags" Text="Understanding how bottle recycling works in Germany" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="c55b5679-e6ec-4ab1-b908-9f86087f79b6" CreationDate="2018-11-19T08:01:01.370" UserId="6154" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="I am new in Germany, and I am failing in recycling, thus I couldn't help but posting here, asking for help, let me know if this is off-topic!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My bottles are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Plastic bottle of orange juice][1]&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Glass bottle of extra virgin olive oil][2]&#xD;&#xA; 3. [Carton bottle of milk][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which ones of the above are eligible for recycling in Germany (of course I will clean them first)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think 1 yes, 3 no, after reading [How does German Pfand system work?][4], but still it's unclear about 2. I have to go by foot to the nearest recycling machine, so an answer will be much appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: I guess what's the answer for any US/European country would fit Germany as well..&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.olympos.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/fresko_epilegmeno_gala-1LT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.iliaki-elaiourgia.gr/media/1179/olympia_organic_500ml.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.edekanord-shop.de/product-images/192208/0/image496x496&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://liveworkgermany.com/2017/05/how-does-the-german-pfand-system-work-and-is-it-effective/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6954" RevisionGUID="7ee9bd43-cda7-4ec0-86cb-67d4ab01acfb" CreationDate="2018-11-20T15:47:57.317" UserId="3379" Text="Seim, Gravdahl, and Adaramola compared three kinematic wake models to actual wind farm data in their 2017 paper [&quot;Validation of kinematic wind turbine wake models in complex terrain using actual windfarm production data&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544217301470).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article is behind a paywall, but some of the results are indicated in the abstract: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]he accuracy of the Jensen-, Larsen- and Ishihara model are tested in eight single-wake cases with regard to several key aspects. [...] The Larsen model correlated well with the measured data regarding the normalized power deficit, while both the Jensen- and Ishihara model clearly overestimated the power deficit. At the wake centerline, the Larsen model was by far the most accurate, with a mean absolute error of 7%. The Jensen- and Ishihara model had a mean absolute error of 21% and 34% respectively. Both the Jensen- and Ishihara model agreed well with the observed wake width. The Larsen model widely overestimated the wake width in all cases, but with an almost constant offset. For the energy loss in the wake, the Larsen model performed best for the three investigated wake cases with a mean absolute error of 29%, although all the three wake models showed a varying performance with a tendency to underestimate the energy loss." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6954" RevisionGUID="28d8de95-65d6-4826-a9ab-d25c86465eba" CreationDate="2018-11-20T17:13:20.787" UserId="3379" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Seim, Gravdahl, and Adaramola compared three kinematic wake models to actual wind farm data in their 2017 paper [&quot;Validation of kinematic wind turbine wake models in complex terrain using actual windfarm production data&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544217301470).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article is behind a paywall, but some of the results are indicated in the abstract: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]he accuracy of the Jensen-, Larsen- and Ishihara model are tested in eight single-wake cases with regard to several key aspects. [...] The Larsen model correlated well with the measured data regarding the normalized power deficit, while both the Jensen- and Ishihara model clearly overestimated the power deficit. At the wake centerline, **the Larsen model was by far the most accurate, with a mean absolute error of 7%. The Jensen- and Ishihara model had a mean absolute error of 21% and 34% respectively**. Both the Jensen- and Ishihara model agreed well with the observed wake width. The Larsen model widely overestimated the wake width in all cases, but with an almost constant offset. For the energy loss in the wake, the Larsen model performed best for the three investigated wake cases with a mean absolute error of 29%, although all the three wake models showed a varying performance with a tendency to underestimate the energy loss." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6955" RevisionGUID="46b187ec-6425-4004-b588-4e09e4b061a5" CreationDate="2018-11-21T03:33:01.207" UserId="3379" Text="While shopping for bath tissue at the store today I saw Seventh Generation brand with this information on the label:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Seventh Generation **100% recycled** bath tissue minimum **50% post-consumer recycled** paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How can both of these things be true?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately I went with a cheaper brand that had only one fact on the label -- 90% post-consumer recycled paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mSJAs.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6955" RevisionGUID="46b187ec-6425-4004-b588-4e09e4b061a5" CreationDate="2018-11-21T03:33:01.207" UserId="3379" Text="How can bath tissue be both &quot;100% recycled&quot; and &quot;50% post-consumer recycled material&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6955" RevisionGUID="46b187ec-6425-4004-b588-4e09e4b061a5" CreationDate="2018-11-21T03:33:01.207" UserId="3379" Text="|recycling|hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6956" RevisionGUID="931db623-dda8-4c99-bfbf-cce878734401" CreationDate="2018-11-21T07:18:43.023" UserId="1056" Text="The other 50% is recovered process waste - material that has been processed and recycled before it was ever sold to the consumer. It’s all recycled, but originates from different phases of the product lifecycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further reading:&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-consumer_recycling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6957" RevisionGUID="ccade0f2-341f-49e8-bfaf-93a76cac8405" CreationDate="2018-11-21T12:28:19.703" UserId="5998" Text="There are a lot of factors and different ways to view environmental impact and it depends on your priorities. If you prioritize energy used to produce, assuming Nate's citation is correct, the steel is only good when the energy required to produce (mine, refine, smelt, forge, transport, etc.) is less than the energy used to produce an equivalent amount of plastic bottles. Keep in mind, plastic water bottles are a cheap commodity but a pallet of water (35 bottles, 10 per layer, 6 layers) contains over 2300lbs of water alone (without plastic). The plastic also has to be recycled or is discarded into a landfil, if not thrown on the side of the road. Energy consumption seems to be the trendy environmentalist action but I'd argue unsustainable material waste is more important. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stainless steel is infinitely recyclable, will break down in a healthier manner (I mean that it will totally degrade eventually, unlike plastic which will eventually degrade into [microplastics][1]. This is somewhat of an unfair comparison (reusable stainless steel bottle vs single-use plastic water bottles). As long as the reusable product's life isn't terminated shortly, it will be the winner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now say, a reliable and reusable plastic bottle (say a [Camelbak Eddy][2]) will likely break faster vs a [Hydro Flask][3]. I've had my Eddy for 6-7 years, same bottle, same lid, same straw, with only the bite-valve replaced once. I have two Hydro Flasks (one for 5ish years and the other for 4ish years. I use them at least 5 days a week, netting up to 72 fl oz of water, equivalent to 4.2 standard water bottles (16.9 fl oz). If I used 4.2 water bottles a day for 5 days/week (260 days) over 4 years, that uses almost 4200 plastic water bottles, which you must also account for the lids which most facilities don't accept, the bottles that are rejected due to contaminated batches, and services that simply throw recyclables into landfills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would always opt for the stainless steel as long as you don't plan on tossing the bottle after a miniscule number of uses. Considering plastic takes hundreds of years (with varying lengths per source, from 100 to 500 years), either way, the plastic remnants will stay around for decades and may pose an environmental hazard to lifeforms that ingest it. If a plastic bottle is used for 50 years, it will still have a great environmental footprint if not recycled properly and completely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.camelbak.com/en/bottles/R02003--eddy_75L?bvstate=pg%3A3%2Fct%3Ar&amp;color=0d6b2cefdb354443bc429222885bfb87&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.hydroflask.com/21-oz-standard-mouth-flex/color,mint,a,92,o,52" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="d0536bac-15d7-4cf2-86ae-f5139e40bdbf" CreationDate="2018-11-21T13:11:05.877" UserId="6159" Text="A research done in my city's main train station showed 400,000 pm2.5 particles per square centimetre. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking into printing pamphlets and wanted to enquire how does spending half an hour in a 400,000/cm^2 environment compare with smoking when it comes to lungs damage. It can be a rough estimation, something along the lines of: &quot;Spending half an hour in those condition is equivalent to smoking 5 cigarettes&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="d0536bac-15d7-4cf2-86ae-f5139e40bdbf" CreationDate="2018-11-21T13:11:05.877" UserId="6159" Text="Comparing train station pollution with smoking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="d0536bac-15d7-4cf2-86ae-f5139e40bdbf" CreationDate="2018-11-21T13:11:05.877" UserId="6159" Text="|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="45b9089c-b86c-46c2-8f26-2c380bd8181a" CreationDate="2018-11-21T13:32:19.723" UserId="5998" Text="We all know IKEA is known for affordable, stylish, and easy-to-assemble home goods. I've furnished my apartment with several products but was recently questioning if I should continue to purchase to maintain quality furniture. I've been aiming more towards quality furniture (trying to get away from cheaper MDF with vinyl coatings) and always thought of IKEA as cheaper but realized some of their stuff is decent. Problem is, I don't know *how* decent. I usually judge by heft of the product for build quality, material density, strength, and durability. I have some of the HEMNES series and they seem pretty solid (granted I've had the oldest piece for &lt;6 months). My coffee table was on the cheaper end (I forget the series). I certainly feel I'll have to replace that within several years even if decently maintained (due to surface damage and wear and tear).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also heard IKEA is doing a [buyback/trade-in service][1] which they'll give credit for items and recondition them (if profitable) for resale, which given how some people treat furniture as disposable items, this seems like a good incentive. I also appreciate their minimalist and 100% recyclable packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I keep using IKEA for furniture? Should I only use their higher quality furniture sets? Or should I go for even higher-quality builds like hardwood pieces from a furniture store? Anyone have furniture pieces that have lasted years in good condition?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ikea.com/ms/en_JP/customer-service/about-services/relive/index.html?icid=iba%7Cjp%7Chptr_service_buyback%7C201801230743513197_4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18158" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="45b9089c-b86c-46c2-8f26-2c380bd8181a" CreationDate="2018-11-21T13:32:19.723" UserId="5998" Text="Is IKEA a good furniture brand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18159" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6961" RevisionGUID="45b9089c-b86c-46c2-8f26-2c380bd8181a" CreationDate="2018-11-21T13:32:19.723" UserId="5998" Text="|furniture|durability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6962" RevisionGUID="ff345f84-1c05-4620-a3e1-d27e4b7ae336" CreationDate="2018-11-21T15:22:13.283" UserId="5324" Text="You can *easily* conduct an LCA for a software product. What is probably most important is your underlying database though as I suppose you do not want to get engaged in primary collection. You can use open source software like http://openlca.org/. There, are also basic tutorials available for free on the website. The basic principle of an LCA is always the same you just have to use other data input." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18161" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="71d4e104-b162-427a-80fe-5acf5abf0fdc" CreationDate="2018-11-21T17:02:05.350" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18162" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6955" RevisionGUID="d5c609f5-60ac-42d0-9066-2f8949ca67f4" CreationDate="2018-11-21T21:00:26.920" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1065349240480849920" />
  <row Id="18163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="8810325f-ccc7-4243-abf4-91367bfc97a3" CreationDate="2018-11-22T10:55:24.920" UserId="6159" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="A research done in my city's main train station showed 400,000 pm2.5 particles per square centimetre. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking into printing pamphlets and wanted to enquire how does spending half an hour in a 400,000/cm^2 environment compare with smoking when it comes to lungs damage. It can be a rough estimation, something along the lines of: &quot;Spending half an hour in those condition is equivalent to smoking 5 cigarettes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The research:&#xD;&#xA;http://www.sviva.gov.il/InfoServices/ReservoirInfo/DocLib4/R0401-R0500/R0420.pdf&#xD;&#xA;English starts on page 12" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6963" RevisionGUID="f3211e57-5978-4a0f-bbd3-ce1741267b6b" CreationDate="2018-11-22T18:26:47.413" UserId="3379" Text="On average, smoking one cigarette results in inhalation of roughly 600 billion ultrafine particles (UFP).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From a joint research study by universities in Lebanon, the U.S., and France:  [&quot;Comparison of carcinogen, carbon monoxide, and ultrafine particle emissions from narghile waterpipe and cigarette smoking: Sidestream smoke measurements and assessment of second-hand smoke emission factors&quot;](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801144/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The average adult human inhales about 10 liters of air per minute while standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From research by the California Environmental Protection Agency: [&quot;Research Note 94-11: Topic = How Much Air Do We Breathe?&quot;](https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/resnotes/notes/94-11.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus breathing air at the station with a concentration of 400,000 UFP particles per cm3 for one hour is the same as smoking 0.4 cigarettes; or **every 2.5 hours spent at the station is the same as smoking one cigarette.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18166" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6948" RevisionGUID="0dc4b008-6581-4bc0-9dd1-8589fef31963" CreationDate="2018-11-23T00:00:29.317" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1065756936786857984" />
  <row Id="18167" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6952" RevisionGUID="c5a8891d-9ac1-4930-91b6-4a611ac8d478" CreationDate="2018-11-23T03:00:47.947" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1065802313602875392" />
  <row Id="18171" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="588259b2-0d45-49a7-8dfa-5bed36dfd5b6" CreationDate="2018-11-23T06:51:11.197" UserId="2846" Comment="Typo" Text="Your grinder *may* be less efficient than a commercial unit, and shipping beans rather than ground coffee *may* affect the bulk for shipping. If you use extra (hot) water in washing a permanent filter you may be better off using unbleached paper filters and composting them along with the grounds. I find that you can't put lots of coffee grounds through a dishwasher without clogging the filter so pre-rinsing is necessary there. A drip machine used with paper filters doesn't need to be washed every time it's used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the many cases where you're trading off water, energy and materials, so a direct comparison isn't possible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18172" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6966" RevisionGUID="6ca3ce08-f78f-47d2-94bf-21d81f7e3661" CreationDate="2018-11-23T09:03:03.813" UserId="6174" Text="The overall environmental impact of furniture is largely determined by three factors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Material source;&#xD;&#xA; - Transport distance from source to consumer;&#xD;&#xA; - Product lifespan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A sustainable furniture product is therefore made from sustainable materials (certified wood), locally produced and long-lasting. If you have any businesses in your area that make high-quality products from locally (and sustainably) sourced wood, that would be my first pick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IKEA is by far the world's largest consumer of wood for furniture production (making it highly efficient), and sources its wood from sustainable forestry (FSC certified). Depending on your location the transport distance can be considerable, as most of IKEA's wood comes from Eastern Europe, China and Russia. The lifespan of IKEA products is indeed dependent on its quality, but a big plus is that most products can be disassembled, allowing for multiple service lives. Higher quality IKEA products that can be disassembled would therefore be a good second choice. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18175" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="f642e5ec-184d-4b6a-87fb-7a20776b2a73" CreationDate="2018-11-23T13:01:15.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6963" RevisionGUID="8f544bdc-10d3-4954-871b-8a81a0feb7d0" CreationDate="2018-11-23T16:51:30.723" UserId="3379" Comment="Added the math" Text="On average, smoking one cigarette results in inhalation of roughly 600 billion ultrafine particles (UFP).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From a joint research study by universities in Lebanon, the U.S., and France:  [&quot;Comparison of carcinogen, carbon monoxide, and ultrafine particle emissions from narghile waterpipe and cigarette smoking: Sidestream smoke measurements and assessment of second-hand smoke emission factors&quot;](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801144/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The average adult human inhales about 10 liters of air per minute while standing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; From research by the California Environmental Protection Agency: [&quot;Research Note 94-11: Topic = How Much Air Do We Breathe?&quot;](https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/resnotes/notes/94-11.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus breathing air at the station with a concentration of 400,000 UFP particles per cm3 for one hour is the same as smoking 0.4 cigarettes; or **every 2.5 hours spent at the station is the same as smoking one cigarette.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (1000 cm3 / l) * (10 l / min) * (60 min / hr) * (400,000 UFP / cm3) * &#xD;&#xA;    (1 cigarette / 600,000,000,000 UFP) = 0.4 cigarette / hr&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18177" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6950" RevisionGUID="f819cf66-398c-4f26-8f12-326d3b74e2d0" CreationDate="2018-11-23T18:00:30.863" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1066028734241808384" />
  <row Id="18178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="a4c254ca-1b25-4e3d-aff0-f779e1da3d2e" CreationDate="2018-11-23T20:47:16.127" UserId="3379" Comment="Corrected cm2 references to cm3" Text="A research done in my city's main train station showed 400,000 UPF particles per cubic centimetre. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking into printing pamphlets and wanted to inquire how does spending half an hour in a 400,000/cm^3 environment compare with smoking when it comes to lungs damage. It can be a rough estimation, something along the lines of: &quot;Spending half an hour in those conditions is equivalent to smoking 5 cigarettes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The research: [&quot;Measurements of air pollution with nanoparticles and evaluation of the passengers' exposure in the Jerusalem central bus station and in the departing buses and also in the Shalom train station and in the departing trains&quot; (pdf)](http://www.sviva.gov.il/InfoServices/ReservoirInfo/DocLib4/R0401-R0500/R0420.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;English starts on page 12." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18179" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="69e047c7-389c-4796-9fa6-55c0510dd9f8" CreationDate="2018-11-24T12:14:18.127" UserId="4103" Text="I was talking to some friends and one of them claims that it is more efficient to combat global warming by cutting the trees and replanting them because growing forest consumes more co2 (Firstly newly planted forest will require human effort planting the trees equipment that uses petrol and makes more of co2, also cutting equipment and such but let's ignore that). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was looking for some data online that would show that growing forest of the same kind of trees (let's [say pines][1]) will consume more co2 than a fully grown one, but couldn't get any properly scientific data, just some anecdotal stories from biased parties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which consume more carbon dioxide fully grown forest or newly planted one that is growing? (Ignoring the planting co2 costs)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/786/which-tree-consumes-most-carbon-dioxide-and-poisonous-gases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="69e047c7-389c-4796-9fa6-55c0510dd9f8" CreationDate="2018-11-24T12:14:18.127" UserId="4103" Text="Which consume more carbon dioxide fully grown forest or newly planted one that is growing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="69e047c7-389c-4796-9fa6-55c0510dd9f8" CreationDate="2018-11-24T12:14:18.127" UserId="4103" Text="|environmental-impact|pollution|plants|forestry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6969" RevisionGUID="8315ca41-9e72-4ea5-9011-d1c50c14c410" CreationDate="2018-11-25T03:25:34.770" UserId="6176" Text="Just to expand on Werner's excellent response as well as your [original linked article][1]: Pfand eligible bottles will usually have some sort of designation on the bottle itself; often times there will be an [icon like this][2] and / or the term &quot;Pfandflasche&quot; on the label. Most grocery stores will have an automated kiosk [like this][3] to return them and you will receive cash back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://liveworkgermany.com/2017/05/how-does-the-german-pfand-system-work-and-is-it-effective/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.br.de/radio/bayern1/inhalt/experten-tipps/einweg-flaschen-102~_v-img__16__9__xl_-d31c35f8186ebeb80b0cd843a7c267a0e0c81647.jpg?version=00689&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.abendzeitung-muenchen.de/media.media.bd509e6b-662a-48dc-87ef-db47f0f985b6.original1024.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6969" RevisionGUID="5d5895cf-5b6e-42c5-b7ec-735817079268" CreationDate="2018-11-25T08:06:03.907" UserId="99" Comment="adding link to answer in case more answers are added later or user changes his username" Text="Just to expand on [Werner's excellent response](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6953) as well as your [original linked article][1]: Pfand eligible bottles will usually have some sort of designation on the bottle itself; often times there will be an [icon like this][2] and / or the term &quot;Pfandflasche&quot; on the label. Most grocery stores will have an automated kiosk [like this][3] to return them and you will receive cash back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://liveworkgermany.com/2017/05/how-does-the-german-pfand-system-work-and-is-it-effective/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.br.de/radio/bayern1/inhalt/experten-tipps/einweg-flaschen-102~_v-img__16__9__xl_-d31c35f8186ebeb80b0cd843a7c267a0e0c81647.jpg?version=00689&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.abendzeitung-muenchen.de/media.media.bd509e6b-662a-48dc-87ef-db47f0f985b6.original1024.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6960" RevisionGUID="793ee13f-b4b2-4de3-bfbc-142999ed5dc7" CreationDate="2018-11-25T19:19:08.533" UserId="6159" Comment="edited body" Text="A research done in my city's main train station showed 400,000 UFP particles per cubic centimetre. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am looking into printing pamphlets and wanted to inquire how does spending half an hour in a 400,000/cm^3 environment compare with smoking when it comes to lungs damage. It can be a rough estimation, something along the lines of: &quot;Spending half an hour in those conditions is equivalent to smoking 5 cigarettes&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The research: [&quot;Measurements of air pollution with nanoparticles and evaluation of the passengers' exposure in the Jerusalem central bus station and in the departing buses and also in the Shalom train station and in the departing trains&quot; (pdf)](http://www.sviva.gov.il/InfoServices/ReservoirInfo/DocLib4/R0401-R0500/R0420.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;English starts on page 12." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18197" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="d54b2e7e-651d-4abe-8356-2428f7cb3cf7" CreationDate="2018-11-26T15:24:32.107" UserId="4099" Comment="typos corrected, formatting" Text="I was talking to some friends and one of them claims that it is more efficient to combat global warming by cutting the trees and replanting them because a growing forest consumes more CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. (Firstly, a newly planted forest will require human effort planting the trees equipment that uses petrol and makes more CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, also cutting equipment and such, but let's ignore that.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was looking for some data online that would show that a growing forest of the same kind of trees (let's [say pines][1]) will consume more CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; than a fully grown one, but couldn't get any properly scientific data, just some anecdotal stories from biased parties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which consumes more carbon dioxide: a fully grown forest or a newly planted one that is growing (ignoring the planting CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; costs)?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/786/which-tree-consumes-most-carbon-dioxide-and-poisonous-gases" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18198" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="d54b2e7e-651d-4abe-8356-2428f7cb3cf7" CreationDate="2018-11-26T15:24:32.107" UserId="4099" Comment="typos corrected, formatting" Text="Which consumes more carbon dioxide: a fully grown forest or a newly planted one that is growing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18199" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="d54b2e7e-651d-4abe-8356-2428f7cb3cf7" CreationDate="2018-11-26T15:24:32.107" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 99 edit id of 546" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18200" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="baf4d443-723c-40e1-b270-fb24594bd338" CreationDate="2018-11-26T20:33:47.277" UserId="1057" Comment="50" />
  <row Id="18201" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="94c727b5-48c4-4800-b4df-caaac74e70f7" CreationDate="2018-11-26T21:00:36.170" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1067161218417377281" />
  <row Id="18202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="4fa3d0e1-dd16-40a9-845f-73f1dda82f78" CreationDate="2018-11-27T00:32:15.920" UserId="3379" Text="## A forest of mature trees sequesters more carbon per year than a forest with the same quantity of young trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first saw this question I thought I knew the answer -- trees grow faster when they're young, therefore they sequester carbon at a higher rate. When I went looking for the data to back this up, I found that this is still a somewhat controversial topic. However, based on some recent and comprehensive research, it seems that **older trees actually sequester more carbon than young trees.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2014, a group of 38 researchers from public and private institutions around the world did a study titled [&quot;Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size&quot;](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12914) ([pdf here](http://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/regulations/proposed_rule_packages/working_forest_management_plan/attachment_5_stephenson_rate_of_tree_carbon.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the study, the researchers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  conducted a global analysis in which [they] directly&#xD;&#xA;estimated mass growth rates from repeated measurements of 673,046&#xD;&#xA;trees belonging to 403 tropical, subtropical and temperate tree species,&#xD;&#xA;spanning every forested continent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They found that (emphasis added)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In absolute terms, trees 100 cm in trunk diameter typically add from&#xD;&#xA;10 kg to 200 kg of aboveground dry mass each year (depending on species),&#xD;&#xA;averaging 103 kg per year. This is nearly three times the rate for trees of&#xD;&#xA;the same species at 50 cm in diameter, **and is the mass equivalent to&#xD;&#xA;adding an entirely new tree of 10–20 cm in diameter to the forest each&#xD;&#xA;year.** Our findings further indicate that the extraordinary growth recently&#xD;&#xA;reported in an intensive study of large *Eucalyptus regnans* and *Sequoia&#xD;&#xA;sempervirens* [redwood], which included some of the world’s most massive individual trees, is not a phenomenon limited to a few unusual species. Rather, **rapid growth in giant trees is the global norm, and can exceed 600 kg per year in the largest individuals.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, even though old trees are adding mass at a slower rate, kg per kg, than young trees, they are adding more net mass per year because they are already so much larger. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These lines from the abstract sum up the findings nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, large, old trees do not act simply as senescent carbon reservoirs but actively fix large amounts of carbon compared to smaller trees; at the extreme, a single big tree can add the same amount of carbon to the forest within a year as is contained in an entire mid-sized tree.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="2752bce1-788f-4166-a6c0-d08af4a8c234" CreationDate="2018-11-27T07:00:00.133" UserId="4886" Text="As LShaver writes, large trees sequester more carbon than small, *but only if they are still growing.*  In a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest (as per the title) that process has ended — decay and regrowth are in equilibrium.  Fully-grown forests are carbon-neutral.  All of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon rainforest — all 5,500,000km² of it — is carbon neutral.  If you plant a single apple tree in your back yard, you are sequestering more carbon each year (on a net basis) than the entire Amazon rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any newly-planted forest will consume more CO₂ than a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest.  Provided that by &quot;fully-grown&quot; you actually mean it (the average age of the trees is equal to the lifespan of the species).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequestration rates start off low when the trees are small, increase each year as the trees grow and become larger adults, and then reduce as they start dying off due to old age.  If the lifespan of a particular tree species is, say, 50 years, then the rate of carbon sequestration for a newly-planted forest will typically peak in the late 30s/early 40s before dropping to zero from 50 onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree planting — as a carbon sequestration strategy — thus depends almost entirely on the growth profile of the species.  If you want to remove large amounts of CO₂ quickly, plant short-lived species.  If you want to remove the largest possible amount, plant long-lived species that are capable of growing to great heights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="10b931be-640d-47cf-96c2-0d50d1b495cf" CreationDate="2018-11-27T07:06:28.547" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="As LShaver writes, large trees sequester more carbon than small, *but only if they are still growing.*  In a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest (as per the title) that process has ended — decay and regrowth are in equilibrium.  Fully-grown forests are carbon-neutral.  All of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon rainforest — all 5,500,000km² of it — is carbon neutral.  If you plant a single apple tree in your back yard, you are sequestering more carbon each year (on a net basis) than the entire Amazon rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any newly-planted forest will consume more CO₂ than a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest.  Provided that by &quot;fully-grown&quot; you actually mean it (the average age of the trees is equal to the lifespan of the species).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequestration rates start off low when the trees are small, increase each year as the trees grow larger, and then reduce as they start dying off due to old age.  If the lifespan of a particular tree species is, say, 50 years, then the rate of carbon sequestration for a newly-planted forest will typically peak in the late 30s/early 40s before dropping to zero from 50 onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree planting — as a carbon sequestration strategy — thus depends almost entirely on the growth profile of the species.  If you want to remove large amounts of CO₂ quickly, plant fast-growing species.  If you want to remove the largest possible amount, plant long-lived species that are capable of growing to great heights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="3f70d5ad-00ba-4cbd-8b14-7a5e60e81965" CreationDate="2018-11-27T07:11:56.703" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 18 characters in body" Text="As LShaver writes, large trees sequester more carbon than small, *but only if they are still growing.*  In a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest (as per the title) that process has ended — decay and regrowth are in equilibrium.  Fully-grown forests are carbon-neutral.  All of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon rainforest — all 5,500,000km² of it — is carbon neutral.  If you plant a single apple tree in your back yard, you are sequestering more carbon each year (on a net basis) than the entire Amazon rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any newly-planted forest will consume more CO₂ than a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest.  Provided that by &quot;fully-grown&quot; you actually mean it (the average age of the trees is equal to the lifespan of the species).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequestration rates start off low when the trees are small, increase each year as the trees grow larger, and then reduce as they start dying off due to old age.  If the lifespan of a particular tree species is, say, 50 years, then the rate of carbon sequestration for a newly-planted forest will typically peak in the late 30s/early 40s before dropping to zero from 50 onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree planting — as a carbon sequestration strategy — thus depends almost entirely on the growth profile of the species.  If you want to remove large amounts of CO₂ quickly, plant fast-growing species.  If you want to remove the largest possible amount, plant long-lived species that are capable of growing to great heights.  Regardless of which approach you take, once the forest has matured it ceases to act as a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A forest acts like a big sponge (except for carbon).  Hard to wet at first, then it gets really 'thirsty', but once it's saturated any extra water added to it just leaks back out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="00ce2550-f0c5-4344-bb67-20254c17bd6b" CreationDate="2018-11-27T07:28:10.080" UserId="4886" Comment="added 896 characters in body" Text="As LShaver writes, large trees sequester more carbon than small, *but only if they are still growing.*  In a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest (as per the title) that process has ended — decay and regrowth are in equilibrium.  Fully-grown forests are carbon-neutral.  All of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon rainforest — all 5,500,000km² of it — is carbon neutral.  If you plant a single apple tree in your back yard, you are sequestering more carbon each year (on a net basis) than the entire Amazon rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any newly-planted forest will consume more CO₂ than a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest.  Provided that by &quot;fully-grown&quot; you actually mean it (the average age of the trees is equal to the lifespan of the species).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequestration rates start off low when the trees are small, increase each year as the trees grow larger, and then reduce as they start dying off due to old age.  If the lifespan of a particular tree species is, say, 50 years, then the rate of carbon sequestration for a newly-planted forest will typically peak in the late 30s/early 40s before dropping to zero from 50 onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree planting — as a carbon sequestration strategy — thus depends almost entirely on the growth profile of the species.  If you want to remove large amounts of CO₂ quickly, plant fast-growing species.  If you want to remove the largest possible amount, plant long-lived species that are capable of growing to great heights.  Regardless of which approach you take, once the forest has matured it ceases to act as a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A forest acts like a big sponge (except for carbon).  Hard to wet at first, then it gets really 'thirsty', but once it's saturated any extra water added to it just leaks back out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a tree dies (or is killed) then the decay process begins, and the carbon ends up going back into the atmosphere/environment.  Cutting/harvesting a forest is like squeezing a sponge.  Burn it and the carbon is released quickly.  Turn it into building materials for houses that last 40 years, and you delay its return to circulation by 40 years.  Convert it to biochar and you can keep about half of it out of the atmosphere for centuries, if not millennia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cutting down forests is never good for short-term atmospheric carbon levels.  Whether it is good for mid- and long-term atmospheric carbon levels depends on what you do with the timber (and the roots), and whether the new species that is going in can ultimately sequester more kg/m² of carbon than the old species.  Cutting and replanting with the same (or similar) species makes no sense whatsoever from a carbon-sequestration point of view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="96825152-4552-41be-9b5d-3cdc40c6f825" CreationDate="2018-11-27T07:34:00.363" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="As LShaver writes, large trees sequester more carbon than smaller trees, *but only if they are still growing.*  In a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest (as per the title) that process has ended — decay and regrowth are in equilibrium.  Fully-grown forests are carbon-neutral.  All of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon rainforest — all 5,500,000km² of it — is carbon neutral.  If you plant a single apple tree in your back yard, you are sequestering more carbon each year (on a net basis) than the entire Amazon rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any newly-planted forest will consume more CO₂ than a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest.  Provided that by &quot;fully-grown&quot; you actually mean it (the average age of the trees is equal to the lifespan of the species).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequestration rates start off low when the trees are small, increase each year as the trees grow larger, and then reduce as they start dying off due to old age.  If the lifespan of a particular tree species is, say, 50 years, then the rate of carbon sequestration for a newly-planted forest will typically peak in the late 30s/early 40s before dropping to zero from 50 onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree planting — as a carbon sequestration strategy — thus depends almost entirely on the growth profile of the species.  If you want to remove large amounts of CO₂ quickly, plant fast-growing species.  If you want to remove the largest possible amount, plant long-lived species that are capable of growing to great heights.  Regardless of which approach you take, once the forest has matured it ceases to act as a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A forest acts like a big sponge (except for carbon).  Hard to wet at first, then it gets really 'thirsty', but once it's saturated any extra water added to it just leaks back out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a tree dies (or is cut) then the decay process begins, and the carbon ends up going back into the atmosphere/environment.  Cutting/harvesting a forest is like squeezing a sponge.  Burn it and the carbon is released quickly.  Turn it into building materials for houses that last 40 years, and you delay its return to circulation by 40 years.  Convert it to biochar and you can keep about half of it out of the atmosphere for centuries, if not millennia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cutting down forests is never good for short-term atmospheric carbon levels.  Whether it is good for mid- and long-term atmospheric carbon levels depends on what you do with the timber (and the roots), and whether the new species that is going in can ultimately sequester more kg/m² of carbon than the old species.  Cutting and replanting with the same (or similar) species makes no sense whatsoever from a carbon-sequestration point of view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18210" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="dc921212-1f85-4a52-9d17-987d9a01f314" CreationDate="2018-11-27T07:41:49.970" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="As LShaver writes, larger trees sequester more carbon than smaller trees, *but only if they are still growing.*  In a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest (as per the title) that process has ended — decay and regrowth are in equilibrium.  Fully-grown forests are carbon-neutral.  All of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon rainforest — all 5,500,000km² of it — is carbon neutral.  If you plant a single apple tree in your back yard, you are sequestering more carbon each year (on a net basis) than the entire Amazon rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any newly-planted forest will consume more CO₂ than a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest.  Provided that by &quot;fully-grown&quot; you actually mean it (the average age of the trees is equal to the lifespan of the species).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequestration rates start off low when the trees are small, increase each year as the trees grow larger, and then reduce as they start dying off due to old age.  If the lifespan of a particular tree species is, say, 50 years, then the rate of carbon sequestration for a newly-planted forest will typically peak in the late 30s/early 40s before dropping to zero from 50 onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree planting — as a carbon sequestration strategy — thus depends almost entirely on the growth profile of the species.  If you want to remove large amounts of CO₂ quickly, plant fast-growing species.  If you want to remove the largest possible amount, plant long-lived species that are capable of growing to great heights.  Regardless of which approach you take, once the forest has matured it ceases to act as a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A forest acts like a big sponge (except for carbon).  Hard to wet at first, then it gets really 'thirsty', but once it's saturated any additional water just leaks back out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a tree dies (or is cut) then the decay process begins, and the carbon ends up going back into the atmosphere/environment.  Cutting/harvesting a forest is like squeezing a sponge.  Burn it and the carbon is released quickly.  Turn it into building materials for houses that last 40 years, and you delay its return to circulation by 40 years.  Convert it to biochar and you can keep about half of it out of the atmosphere for centuries, if not millennia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cutting down forests is never good for short-term atmospheric carbon levels.  Whether it is good for medium- and long-term atmospheric carbon levels depends on what you do with the timber (and the roots), and whether the new species that is going in can ultimately sequester more kg/m² of carbon than the old species.  Cutting and replanting with the same (or similar) species makes no sense whatsoever from a carbon-sequestration point of view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="5428f28d-11a6-4b3c-8ea0-85fa7dca3964" CreationDate="2018-11-27T07:48:26.243" UserId="4886" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="As LShaver writes, larger trees sequester more carbon than smaller trees, *but only if they are still growing.*  In a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest (as per the title) that process has ended — decay and regrowth are in equilibrium.  Fully-grown forests are carbon-neutral.  All of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon rainforest — all 5,500,000km² of it — is carbon neutral.  If you plant a single apple tree in your back yard, you are sequestering more carbon each year (on a net basis) than the entire Amazon rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any newly-planted forest will consume more CO₂ than a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest.  Provided that by &quot;fully-grown&quot; you actually mean *fully* grown (the average age of the trees is equal to the lifespan of the species).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequestration rates start off low when the trees are small, increase each year as the trees grow larger, and then reduce as they start dying off due to old age.  If the lifespan of a particular tree species is, say, 50 years, then the rate of carbon sequestration for a newly-planted forest will typically peak in its 30s or early 40s before dropping to zero from age 50 onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree planting — as a carbon sequestration strategy — thus depends almost entirely on the growth profile of the species.  If you want to remove large amounts of CO₂ quickly, plant fast-growing species.  If you want to remove the largest possible amount for the longest possible time, plant long-lived species that are capable of growing to great heights.  Regardless of which approach you take, once the forest has matured it ceases to act as a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as carbon is concerned, a forest acts like a big sponge — hard to wet at first, then it gets really 'thirsty', but once it's saturated any additional water just leaks back out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a tree dies (or is cut) then the decay process begins, and the carbon ends up going back into the atmosphere/environment.  Cutting/harvesting a forest is like squeezing a sponge.  Burn it and the carbon is released quickly.  Turn it into building materials for houses that last 40 years, and you delay its return to circulation by 40 years.  Convert it to biochar and you can keep about half of it out of the atmosphere for centuries, if not millennia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cutting down forests is never good for short-term atmospheric carbon levels.  Whether it is good for medium- and long-term atmospheric carbon levels depends on what you do with the timber (and the roots), and whether the new species that is going in can ultimately sequester more kg/m² of carbon than the old species.  Cutting and replanting with the same (or similar) species makes no sense whatsoever from a carbon-sequestration point of view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="63be848b-3628-4790-9872-db8a957e87f9" CreationDate="2018-11-27T07:53:49.617" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="As LShaver writes, larger trees sequester more carbon than smaller trees, *but only if they are still growing.*  In a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest (as per the title) that process has ended — decay and regrowth are in equilibrium.  Fully-grown forests are carbon-neutral.  All of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon rainforest — all 5,500,000km² of it — is carbon neutral.  If you plant a single apple tree in your back yard, you are sequestering more carbon each year (on a net basis) than the entire Amazon rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any newly-planted forest will consume more CO₂ than a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest.  Provided that by &quot;fully-grown&quot; you actually mean *fully* grown (the average age of the trees is equal to the lifespan of the species).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequestration rates start off low when the trees are small, increase each year as the trees grow larger, and then reduce as they start dying off due to old age.  If the lifespan of a particular tree species is, say, 50 years, then the rate of carbon sequestration for a newly-planted forest will typically peak in its 30s or early 40s before dropping to zero from age 50 onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree planting — as a carbon sequestration strategy — thus depends almost entirely on the growth profile of the species.  If you want to remove large amounts of CO₂ quickly, plant fast-growing species.  If you want to remove the largest possible amount for the longest possible time, plant long-lived species that are capable of growing to great heights.  Regardless of which approach you take, once the forest has matured it ceases to act as a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as carbon is concerned, a forest acts like a big sponge — hard to wet at first, then it gets really 'thirsty', but once it's saturated any additional water just leaks back out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a tree dies (or is cut) then the decay process begins, and the carbon starts making its way back into the atmosphere/environment.  Cutting/harvesting a forest is like squeezing a sponge.  Burn it and the carbon is released quickly.  Turn it into building materials for houses that last 40 years, and you delay its return to circulation by 40 years.  Convert it to biochar and you can keep about half of it out of the atmosphere for centuries, if not millennia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cutting down forests is *never* good for short-term atmospheric carbon levels.  Whether it is good for medium- and long-term atmospheric carbon levels depends on what you do with the timber (and the roots), and whether the new species that is going in can ultimately sequester more kg/m² of carbon than the old species.  Cutting and replanting with the same (or similar) species makes no sense whatsoever from a carbon-sequestration point of view." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="7820f61f-549b-498b-9042-e5a31b3044d1" CreationDate="2018-11-27T08:02:52.243" UserId="4886" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="As LShaver writes, larger trees sequester more carbon than smaller trees, *but only if they are still growing.*  In a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest (as per the title) that process has ended — decay and regrowth are in equilibrium.  Fully-grown forests are carbon-neutral.  All of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon rainforest — all 5,500,000km² of it — is carbon neutral.  If you plant a single apple tree in your back yard, you are sequestering more carbon each year (on a net basis) than the entire Amazon rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any newly-planted forest will consume more CO₂ than a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest.  Provided that by &quot;fully-grown&quot; you actually mean *fully* grown (the average age of the trees is equal to the lifespan of the species).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequestration rates start off low when the trees are small, increase each year as the trees grow larger, and then reduce as they start dying off due to old age.  If the lifespan of a particular tree species is, say, 50 years, then the rate of carbon sequestration for a newly-planted forest will typically peak in its 30s or early 40s before dropping to zero from age 50 onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree planting — as a carbon sequestration strategy — thus depends almost entirely on the growth profile of the species.  If you want to remove large amounts of CO₂ quickly, plant fast-growing species.  If you want to remove the largest possible amount for the longest possible time, plant long-lived species that are capable of growing to great heights.  Regardless of which approach you take, once the forest has matured it ceases to act as a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as carbon is concerned, a forest acts like a big sponge — hard to wet at first, then it gets really 'thirsty', but once it's saturated any additional water just leaks back out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a tree dies (or is cut) then the decay process begins, and the carbon starts making its way back into the atmosphere/environment.  Cutting/harvesting a forest is like squeezing a sponge.  Burn it and the carbon is released quickly.  Turn it into building materials for houses that last 40 years, and you delay its return to circulation by 40 years.  Convert it to biochar and you can keep about half of it out of the atmosphere for centuries, if not millennia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cutting down forests is *never* good for short-term atmospheric carbon levels.  Whether it is good for medium- and long-term atmospheric carbon levels depends on what you do with the timber (and the roots), and whether the new species that is going in can ultimately sequester more kg/m² of carbon than the old species.  Cutting and replanting with the same (or similar) species makes no sense whatsoever from a carbon-sequestration point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Clearing forests == bad&#xD;&#xA; - Replacing forests == usually neutral and thus pointless&#xD;&#xA; - Planting new forests == good&#xD;&#xA; - Fast-growing species == good in the short term&#xD;&#xA; - Long-lived and tall species == good in the long term" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="504fea9e-e395-4c69-8148-fa25a7402e79" CreationDate="2018-11-27T08:11:14.350" UserId="4886" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="As LShaver writes, larger trees sequester more carbon than smaller trees, *but only if they are still growing.*  In a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest (as per the title) that process has ended — decay and regrowth are in equilibrium.  Fully-grown forests are carbon-neutral.  All of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon rainforest — all 5,500,000km² of it — is carbon neutral.  If you plant a single apple tree in your back yard, you are sequestering more carbon each year (on a net basis) than the entire Amazon rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any newly-planted forest will consume more CO₂ than a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest.  Provided that by &quot;fully-grown&quot; you actually mean *fully* grown (the average age of the trees is equal to the lifespan of the species).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequestration rates start off low when the trees are small, increase each year as the trees grow larger, and then reduce as they start dying off due to old age.  If the lifespan of a particular tree species is, say, 50 years, then the rate of carbon sequestration for a newly-planted forest will typically peak in its 30s or early 40s before dropping to zero from age 50 onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree planting — as a carbon sequestration strategy — thus depends almost entirely on the growth profile of the species.  If you want to remove large amounts of CO₂ quickly, plant fast-growing species.  If you want to remove the largest possible amount for the longest possible time, plant long-lived species that are capable of growing to great heights.  Regardless of which approach you take, once the forest has matured it ceases to act as a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as carbon is concerned, a forest acts like a big sponge — hard to wet at first, then it gets really 'thirsty', but once it's saturated any additional water just leaks back out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a tree dies (or is cut) then the decay process begins, and the carbon starts making its way back into the atmosphere/environment.  Cutting/harvesting a forest is like squeezing a sponge.  Burn it and the carbon is released quickly.  Turn it into building materials for houses that last 40 years, and you delay its return to circulation by 40 years.  Convert it to biochar and you can keep about half of it out of the atmosphere for centuries, if not millennia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cutting down forests is *never* good for short-term atmospheric carbon levels.  Whether it is good for medium- and long-term atmospheric carbon levels depends on what you do with the timber (and the roots), and whether the new species that is going in can ultimately sequester more kg/m² of carbon than the old species.  Cutting and replanting with the same (or similar) species makes no sense whatsoever from a carbon-sequestration point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Clearing existing forests == carbon-negative&#xD;&#xA; - Replacing forests == usually carbon-neutral and thus pointless&#xD;&#xA; - Planting new forests == carbon-positive&#xD;&#xA; - Fast-growing species == more short-term impact&#xD;&#xA; - Long-lived and tall species == more long-term impact&#xD;&#xA; - Immature forests == carbon-positive&#xD;&#xA; - Mature forests == carbon-neutral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="9efd0171-e0ad-40cd-8f72-6aaf7aa22450" CreationDate="2018-11-27T11:55:01.067" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="As LShaver writes, larger trees sequester more carbon than smaller trees, *but only if they are still growing.*  In a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest (as per the title) that process has ended — decay and regrowth are in equilibrium.  Fully-grown forests are carbon-neutral.  All of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon rainforest — all 5,500,000km² of it — is carbon neutral.  If you plant a single apple tree in your back yard, you are sequestering more carbon each year (on a net basis) than the entire Amazon rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any newly-planted forest will consume more CO₂ than a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest.  Provided that by &quot;fully-grown&quot; you actually mean *fully* grown (the age of the forest is ≥ the lifespan of the species).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequestration rates start off low when the trees are small, increase each year as the trees grow larger, and then reduce as they start dying off due to old age.  If the lifespan of a particular tree species is, say, 50 years, then the rate of carbon sequestration for a newly-planted forest will typically peak in its 30s or early 40s before dropping to zero from age 50 onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree planting — as a carbon sequestration strategy — thus depends almost entirely on the growth profile of the species.  If you want to remove large amounts of CO₂ quickly, plant fast-growing species.  If you want to remove the largest possible amount for the longest possible time, plant long-lived species that are capable of growing to great heights.  Regardless of which approach you take, once the forest has matured it ceases to act as a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as carbon is concerned, a forest acts like a big sponge — hard to wet at first, then it gets really 'thirsty', but once it's saturated any additional water just leaks back out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a tree dies (or is cut) then the decay process begins, and the carbon starts making its way back into the atmosphere/environment.  Cutting/harvesting a forest is like squeezing a sponge.  Burn it and the carbon is released quickly.  Turn it into building materials for houses that last 40 years, and you delay its return to circulation by 40 years.  Convert it to biochar and you can keep about half of it out of the atmosphere for centuries, if not millennia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cutting down forests is *never* good for short-term atmospheric carbon levels.  Whether it is good for medium- and long-term atmospheric carbon levels depends on what you do with the timber (and the roots), and whether the new species that is going in can ultimately sequester more kg/m² of carbon than the species it is replacing.  Cutting and replanting with the same (or similar) species makes no sense whatsoever from a carbon-sequestration point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Clearing existing forests == carbon-negative&#xD;&#xA; - Replacing forests == usually carbon-neutral and thus pointless&#xD;&#xA; - Planting new forests == carbon-positive&#xD;&#xA; - Fast-growing species == more short-term impact&#xD;&#xA; - Long-lived and tall species == more long-term impact&#xD;&#xA; - Immature forests == carbon-positive&#xD;&#xA; - Mature forests == carbon-neutral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="d4b6979e-7921-4ef5-89cb-b0d071247a74" CreationDate="2018-11-27T12:00:16.233" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 14 characters in body" Text="As LShaver writes, larger trees sequester more carbon than smaller trees, *but only if they are still growing.*  In a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest (as per the title) that process has ended — decay and regrowth are in equilibrium.  Fully-grown forests are carbon-neutral.  All of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon rainforest — all 5,500,000km² of it — is carbon neutral.  If you plant a single apple tree in your back yard, you are sequestering more carbon each year (on a net basis) than the entire Amazon rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any newly-planted forest will consume more CO₂ than a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest.  Provided that by &quot;fully-grown&quot; you actually mean *fully* grown (the age of the forest is ≥ the lifespan of the species).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequestration rates start off low when the trees are small, increase each year as the trees grow larger, and then reduce as they start dying off due to old age.  If the lifespan of a particular tree species is, say, 50 years, then the rate of carbon sequestration for a newly-planted forest will typically peak in its 30s or early 40s before dropping to zero from age 50 onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree planting — as a carbon sequestration strategy — thus depends almost entirely on the growth profile of the species.  If you want to remove large amounts of CO₂ quickly, plant fast-growing species.  If you want to remove the largest possible amount for the longest possible time, plant long-lived species that are capable of growing to great heights.  Regardless of which approach you take, once the forest has matured it ceases to act as a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as carbon is concerned, a forest acts like a big sponge — hard to wet at first, then it gets really 'thirsty', but once it's saturated any additional water just leaks back out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a tree dies (or is cut) then the decay process begins, and the carbon starts making its way back into the atmosphere/environment.  Cutting/harvesting a forest is like squeezing a sponge.  Burn it and the carbon is released quickly.  Turn it into building materials for houses that last 40 years, and you delay its return to circulation by 40 years.  Convert it to biochar and you can keep about half of it out of the atmosphere for centuries, if not millennia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cutting down forests is *never* good for short-term atmospheric carbon levels.  Whether it is good for medium- and long-term atmospheric carbon levels depends on what you do with the timber (and the roots), and whether the new species that is going in can ultimately sequester more kg/m² of carbon than the species it is replacing.  Cutting and replanting with the same (or similar) species makes no sense whatsoever from a carbon-sequestration point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Clearing existing forests == carbon-negative&#xD;&#xA; - Replacing forests == carbon-neutral and pointless if a similar species is used&#xD;&#xA; - Planting new forests == carbon-positive&#xD;&#xA; - Fast-growing species == more short-term impact&#xD;&#xA; - Long-lived and tall species == more long-term impact&#xD;&#xA; - Immature forests == carbon-positive&#xD;&#xA; - Mature forests == carbon-neutral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="f2dace37-1c95-443a-ad7b-1d7c5b95e1e2" CreationDate="2018-11-27T13:29:14.247" UserId="4886" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="As LShaver writes, larger trees sequester more carbon than smaller trees, *but only if they are still growing.*  In a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest (as per the title) that process has ended — decay and regrowth are in equilibrium.  Fully-grown forests are carbon-neutral.  All of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon rainforest — all 5,500,000km² of it — is carbon neutral.  If you plant a single apple tree in your back yard, you are sequestering more carbon each year (on a net basis) than the entire Amazon rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any newly-planted forest will extract more CO₂ from the atmosphere than a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest.  Provided that by &quot;fully-grown&quot; you actually mean *fully* grown (the age of the forest is ≥ the lifespan of the species).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequestration rates start off low when the trees are small, increase each year as the trees grow larger, and then reduce as they start dying off due to old age.  If the lifespan of a particular tree species is, say, 50 years, then the rate of carbon sequestration for a newly-planted forest will typically peak in its 30s or early 40s before dropping to zero from age 50 onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree planting — as a carbon sequestration strategy — thus depends almost entirely on the growth profile of the species.  If you want to remove large amounts of CO₂ quickly, plant fast-growing species.  If you want to remove the largest possible amount for the longest possible time, plant long-lived species that are capable of growing to great heights.  Regardless of which approach you take, once the forest has matured it ceases to act as a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as carbon is concerned, a forest acts like a big sponge — hard to wet at first, then it gets really 'thirsty', but once it's saturated any additional water just leaks back out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a tree dies (or is cut) then the decay process begins, and the carbon starts making its way back into the atmosphere/environment.  Cutting/harvesting a forest is like squeezing a sponge.  Burn it and the carbon is released quickly.  Turn it into building materials for houses that last 40 years, and you delay its return to circulation by 40 years.  Convert it to biochar and you can keep about half of it out of the atmosphere for centuries, if not millennia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cutting down forests is *never* good for short-term atmospheric carbon levels.  Whether it is good for medium- and long-term atmospheric carbon levels depends on what you do with the timber (and roots), and whether the new species that is going in can ultimately sequester more kg/m² of carbon than the species it is replacing.  Cutting and replanting with the same (or similar) species makes no sense whatsoever from a carbon-sequestration point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Clearing existing forests == carbon-negative&#xD;&#xA; - Replacing forests == carbon-neutral and pointless if a similar species is used&#xD;&#xA; - Planting new forests == carbon-positive&#xD;&#xA; - Fast-growing species == more short-term impact&#xD;&#xA; - Long-lived and tall species == more long-term impact&#xD;&#xA; - Immature forests == carbon-positive&#xD;&#xA; - Mature forests == carbon-neutral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6973" RevisionGUID="4cfdd49f-a7e9-4209-adf2-1c22780409a1" CreationDate="2018-11-27T15:05:37.537" UserId="6182" Text="Not everybody leaves their home every day - or drives past the same pickup-place every time they leave their home. Reasons are numberable and not really point of the discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, yes, there could be some positive ecological effect from requiring customers to pick up their purchases. On the other hand, additional traffic may be created by customers having to drive longer ways or by creating extra journeys from people who wouldn't have left their homes otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reasonable choice would be the last mile delivery by only one vehicle/service. Packages from all carriers would be collected at a local location and then distributed by one vehicle per area. Maybe delivery areas would get smaller, maybe you'd have to wait for your package a day longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best choice - at least in urban areas - would be the use of large cargo bikes operating from depots within the city quarters. This is already tested in several European cities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18219" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6972" RevisionGUID="b81c576e-aab6-4f49-b983-29c7f18289cc" CreationDate="2018-11-27T23:08:34.490" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="As LShaver writes, larger trees sequester more carbon than smaller trees, *but only if they are still growing.*  In a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest (as per the title) that process has ended — decay and regrowth are in equilibrium.  Fully-grown forests are carbon-neutral.  All of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Amazon rainforest — all 5,500,000km² of it — is carbon neutral.  If you plant a single apple tree in your back yard, you are sequestering more carbon each year (on a net basis) than the entire Amazon rainforest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus any newly-planted forest will extract more CO₂ from the atmosphere than a &quot;fully-grown&quot; forest.  Provided that by &quot;fully-grown&quot; you actually mean *fully* grown (the age of the forest is ≥ the lifespan of the species).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequestration rates start off low when the trees are small, increase each year as the trees grow larger, and then reduce as they start dying off due to old age.  If the lifespan of a particular tree species is, say, 50 years, then the rate of carbon sequestration for a newly-planted forest will typically peak in its 30s or early 40s before dropping to zero from age 50 onwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tree planting — as a carbon sequestration strategy — thus depends almost entirely on the growth profile of the species.  If you want to remove large amounts of CO₂ quickly, plant fast-growing species.  If you want to remove the largest possible amount for the longest possible time, plant long-lived species that are capable of growing to great heights.  Regardless of which approach you take, once the forest has matured it ceases to act as a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as carbon is concerned, a forest acts like a big sponge — hard to wet at first, then it gets really 'thirsty', but once it's saturated any additional water just leaks back out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once a tree dies (or is cut) then the decay process begins, and the carbon starts making its way back into the atmosphere/environment.  Cutting/harvesting a forest is like squeezing a sponge.  Burn it and the carbon is released quickly.  Turn it into building materials for houses that last 40 years, and you delay its return to circulation by 40 years.  Convert it to biochar and you can keep about half of it out of the atmosphere for centuries, if not millennia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cutting down forests is *never* good for short-term atmospheric carbon levels.  Whether it is good for medium- and long-term atmospheric carbon levels depends on what you do with the timber (and roots), and whether the new species that is going in can ultimately sequester more kg/m² of carbon than the species it is replacing.  Cutting and replanting with the same (or similar) species makes no sense whatsoever from a carbon-sequestration point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Clearing existing forests == carbon-positive&#xD;&#xA; - Replacing forests == carbon-neutral and pointless if a similar species is used&#xD;&#xA; - Planting new forests == carbon-negative&#xD;&#xA; - Fast-growing species == more short-term impact&#xD;&#xA; - Long-lived and tall species == more long-term impact&#xD;&#xA; - Immature forests == carbon-negative&#xD;&#xA; - Mature forests == carbon-neutral" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="17d91c65-2c7c-4c5a-a8cc-aef8ee456c27" CreationDate="2018-11-28T15:43:09.950" UserId="3379" Comment="Added explanation of &quot;mature&quot; vs &quot;large&quot;" Text="## A forest of old trees sequesters more carbon per year than a forest with the same quantity of young trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first saw this question I thought I knew the answer -- trees grow faster when they're young, therefore they sequester carbon at a higher rate. When I went looking for the data to back this up, I found that this is still a somewhat controversial topic. However, based on some recent and comprehensive research, it seems that **older trees actually sequester more carbon than young trees, up until their death.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a 2014 study titled [&quot;Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size&quot;](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12914) ([pdf here](http://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/regulations/proposed_rule_packages/working_forest_management_plan/attachment_5_stephenson_rate_of_tree_carbon.pdf)), a group of 38 researchers from public and private institutions around the world &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  conducted a global analysis in which [they] directly&#xD;&#xA;estimated mass growth rates from repeated measurements of 673,046&#xD;&#xA;trees belonging to 403 tropical, subtropical and temperate tree species,&#xD;&#xA;**spanning every forested continent**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They found that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In absolute terms, trees 100 cm in trunk diameter typically add from&#xD;&#xA;10 kg to 200 kg of aboveground dry mass each year (depending on species),&#xD;&#xA;averaging 103 kg per year. This is nearly three times the rate for trees of&#xD;&#xA;the same species at 50 cm in diameter, **and is the mass equivalent to&#xD;&#xA;adding an entirely new tree of 10–20 cm in diameter to the forest each&#xD;&#xA;year.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, even though old trees are adding mass at a slower rate, kg per kg, than young trees, they are adding more net mass per year because they are already so much larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These lines from the abstract sum up the findings nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, large, old trees do not act simply as senescent carbon reservoirs but actively fix large amounts of carbon compared to smaller trees; **at the extreme, a single big tree can add the same amount of carbon to the forest within a year as is contained in an entire mid-sized tree.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about &quot;mature&quot; trees?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our experience, species we're familiar with such as dogs, cats, and humans reach a maximum size when they've still got well over half of their lives left (barring dietary issues). Thus we might think the same is true of trees -- after a certain number of years, they &quot;mature,&quot; and then no longer increase in mass -- meaning they stop sequestering CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in primary school we all learned that trees add a new ring each year -- this is how we can tell how old they are. So even when a tree stops getting taller, it keeps adding rings, meaning it's increasing mass throughout the trunk and branches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a 2008 study, [&quot;Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks&quot;](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276) [(pdf here)](https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/ThreatsForestHealth/Climate/CI-LuyssaertNature08Old_growth_carbon_sink.pdf), the authors look at the basis for the idea that forests &quot;mature&quot; and become carbon neutral (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The commonly accepted and long-standing view that old-growth forests are carbon neutral [...] was originally based on ten years’ worth of data from a single site**. It is supported by the observed decline of stand-level NPP [net primary productivity] with age in plantations, but is not apparent in some ecoregions. Yet a decline in NPP is commonly assumed in ecosystem models. Moreover, it has led to the view that old-growth forests are redundant in the global carbon cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The authors then go on to explain the findings of their study, which included analysis of data from over 500 sites in boreal and temperate forests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If, however, the hypothesis of carbon neutrality were correct, the&#xD;&#xA;expected probabilities of observing a sink or source would be equal and around one-half, the average sink strength for a random ensemble of forests 200 years old and above would be zero, and the mean CO2 release from heterotrophic respiration would equal the mean CO2 sequestration through NPP [...].&#xD;&#xA;However, we observe this ratio to be well below one on average and not to increase with age. **Hence, all three quantitative tests fail to support the hypothesis of carbon neutrality. The currently available data consistently indicate that carbon accumulation continues in forests that are centuries old.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They go on to hypothesize a mechanism supporting their observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If old-growth forests reach high above-ground biomass and lose individuals owing to competition or small-scale disturbances, there is generally new recruitment or an abundant second canopy layer waiting in the shade of the upper canopy to take over and maintain productivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although tree mortality is a relatively rapid event (instantaneous to several years long), decomposition of tree stems can take decades. Therefore, the CO2 release from the decomposition of dead wood adds to the atmospheric carbon pool over decades, whereas natural regeneration or in-growth occurs on a much shorter timescale. Thus, old-growth forest stands with tree losses do not necessarily become carbon sources, as has been observed in even-aged plantations (that is, where trees are all of the same age).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this study did not look at tropical forests, [other](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181187) [studies](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112711004348) provide smaller-scale data that the same analysis does hold in the tropics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## In fact, young forests may actually be carbon sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same 2008 study, the authors present some evidence that young forests may be carbon sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In fact, young forests rather than old-growth forests are very often conspicuous sources of CO2 because the creation of new forests (whether naturally or by humans) frequently follows disturbance to soil and the previous vegetation, resulting in a decomposition rate of coarse woody debris, litter and soil organic matter (measured as  heterotrophic  respiration)  that  exceeds  the  NPP  of  the regrowth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="17619ac1-64e3-44db-9cc2-39d759d2c481" CreationDate="2018-11-28T17:03:47.767" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="## A forest of old trees sequesters more carbon per year than a forest with the same quantity of young trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first saw this question I thought I knew the answer -- trees grow faster when they're young, therefore they sequester carbon at a higher rate. When I went looking for the data to back this up, I found that this is still a somewhat controversial topic. However, based on some recent and comprehensive research, it seems that **older trees actually sequester more carbon than young trees, up until their death.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a 2014 study titled [&quot;Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size&quot;](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12914) ([pdf here](http://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/regulations/proposed_rule_packages/working_forest_management_plan/attachment_5_stephenson_rate_of_tree_carbon.pdf)), a group of 38 researchers from public and private institutions around the world &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  conducted a global analysis in which [they] directly&#xD;&#xA;estimated mass growth rates from repeated measurements of 673,046&#xD;&#xA;trees belonging to 403 tropical, subtropical and temperate tree species,&#xD;&#xA;**spanning every forested continent**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They found that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In absolute terms, trees 100 cm in trunk diameter typically add from&#xD;&#xA;10 kg to 200 kg of aboveground dry mass each year (depending on species),&#xD;&#xA;averaging 103 kg per year. This is nearly three times the rate for trees of&#xD;&#xA;the same species at 50 cm in diameter, **and is the mass equivalent to&#xD;&#xA;adding an entirely new tree of 10–20 cm in diameter to the forest each&#xD;&#xA;year.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, even though old trees are adding mass at a slower rate, kg per kg, than young trees, they are adding more net mass per year because they are already so much larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These lines from the abstract sum up the findings nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, large, old trees do not act simply as senescent carbon reservoirs but actively fix large amounts of carbon compared to smaller trees; **at the extreme, a single big tree can add the same amount of carbon to the forest within a year as is contained in an entire mid-sized tree.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about &quot;mature&quot; trees?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our experience, species we're familiar with such as dogs, cats, and humans reach a maximum size when they've still got well over half of their lives left (barring dietary issues). Thus we might think the same is true of trees -- after a certain number of years, they &quot;mature,&quot; and then no longer increase in mass -- meaning they stop sequestering CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in primary school we all learned that trees add a new ring each year -- this is how we can tell how old they are. So even when a tree stops getting taller, it keeps adding rings, meaning it's increasing mass throughout the trunk and branches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a 2008 study, [&quot;Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks&quot;](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276) [(pdf here)](https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/ThreatsForestHealth/Climate/CI-LuyssaertNature08Old_growth_carbon_sink.pdf), the authors look at the basis for the idea that forests &quot;mature&quot; and become carbon neutral (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The commonly accepted and long-standing view that old-growth forests are carbon neutral [...] was originally based on ten years’ worth of data from a single site**. It is supported by the observed decline of stand-level NPP [net primary productivity] with age in plantations, but is not apparent in some ecoregions. Yet a decline in NPP is commonly assumed in ecosystem models. Moreover, it has led to the view that old-growth forests are redundant in the global carbon cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The authors then go on to explain the findings of their study, which included analysis of data from over 500 sites in boreal and temperate forests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If, however, the hypothesis of carbon neutrality were correct, the&#xD;&#xA;expected probabilities of observing a sink or source would be equal and around one-half, the average sink strength for a random ensemble of forests 200 years old and above would be zero, and the mean CO2 release from heterotrophic respiration would equal the mean CO2 sequestration through NPP [...].&#xD;&#xA;However, we observe this ratio to be well below one on average and not to increase with age. **Hence, all three quantitative tests fail to support the hypothesis of carbon neutrality. The currently available data consistently indicate that carbon accumulation continues in forests that are centuries old.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They go on to hypothesize a mechanism supporting their observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If old-growth forests reach high above-ground biomass and lose individuals owing to competition or small-scale disturbances, there is generally new recruitment or an abundant second canopy layer waiting in the shade of the upper canopy to take over and maintain productivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although tree mortality is a relatively rapid event (instantaneous to several years long), decomposition of tree stems can take decades. Therefore, the CO2 release from the decomposition of dead wood adds to the atmospheric carbon pool over decades, whereas natural regeneration or in-growth occurs on a much shorter timescale. Thus, old-growth forest stands with tree losses do not necessarily become carbon sources, as has been observed in even-aged plantations (that is, where trees are all of the same age).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this study did not look at tropical forests, [other](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181187) [studies](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112711004348) provide smaller-scale evidence that the same analysis does hold in the tropics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Young forests may actually be carbon sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same 2008 study, the authors present some evidence that young forests may be carbon sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In fact, young forests rather than old-growth forests are very often conspicuous sources of CO2 because the creation of new forests (whether naturally or by humans) frequently follows disturbance to soil and the previous vegetation, resulting in a decomposition rate of coarse woody debris, litter and soil organic matter (measured as  heterotrophic  respiration)  that  exceeds  the  NPP  of  the regrowth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="8223e8c4-2e40-4a8c-b30a-67ccb8c63bc3" CreationDate="2018-11-30T06:00:17.067" UserId="5803" Text="Greetings Sustainable Livers!☀️ &lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to determine if investing in a couple of Tesla Powerwall units to store solar energy is a *wise* financial decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My energy cost is **$0.1649/kWh**. The installed price of the two Powerwall units is **$15k**. I expect fully charge and discharge the Powerwall 300 days per year (based on historical average sunshine hours per month) and use **24kWh** each night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these assumptions I calculate that: 300 days x 24 kWh x $0.1649 = $1187.28 per year so (15000/1187.28 =) **13 Years** &quot;pay back period&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Warranty on the product is 10 Years and the useful life is claimed to be 15 years. However many people claim that the performance (storage capacity) will degrade down to 70% of original capacity after 10 years so this calculation should factor that in too ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it *economical* to buy a Tesla Powerwall or simply pay &quot;the grid&quot; (our major energy supplier) for (renewable) power at night?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you a Powerwall owner? Have you done a similar calculation? What is the conclusion? **`#discuss`**!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Note**: I'm a _huge_ fan of what Elon is doing and have much love for Tesla as a company, &#xD;&#xA;but I want to know from a *purely economic* perspective, does it make sense to invest in a Powerwall?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference I've expanded on this calculation and included all the supporting research and references in: https://github.com/dwyl/home/issues/25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="8223e8c4-2e40-4a8c-b30a-67ccb8c63bc3" CreationDate="2018-11-30T06:00:17.067" UserId="5803" Text="Is Telsa Powerwall a Good Investment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="8223e8c4-2e40-4a8c-b30a-67ccb8c63bc3" CreationDate="2018-11-30T06:00:17.067" UserId="5803" Text="|energy|solar-power|electricity|electricity-generation|storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6975" RevisionGUID="e0bcb7e5-18bd-478f-b183-1a1890519976" CreationDate="2018-11-30T11:18:58.707" UserId="1462" Text="No it is not. Your calculations of 13year ROI is based on the assumption that charging the power wall is free during the day time. It is not.&#xA;&#xA;Depending on your locale, either you need to factor in the cost of additional solar capacity or lost feed in revenue. &#xA;&#xA;This will easily push your ROI into the 20 year territory.&#xA;&#xA;Assuming that your locale supports feed in, you would invariably reach break even with heavier investment on the solar front." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18228" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6971" RevisionGUID="2cc903fa-1043-4531-9da9-1e9358116032" CreationDate="2018-11-30T12:50:27.353" UserId="3379" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="## A forest of old trees sequesters more carbon per year than a forest with the same quantity of young trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I first saw this question I thought I knew the answer -- trees grow faster when they're young, therefore they sequester carbon at a higher rate. When I went looking for the data to back this up, I found that this is still a somewhat controversial topic. However, based on some recent and comprehensive research, it seems that **older trees actually sequester more carbon than young trees, up until their death.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a 2014 study titled [&quot;Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size&quot;](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12914) ([pdf here](http://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/regulations/proposed_rule_packages/working_forest_management_plan/attachment_5_stephenson_rate_of_tree_carbon.pdf)), a group of 38 researchers from public and private institutions around the world &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  conducted a global analysis in which [they] directly&#xD;&#xA;estimated mass growth rates from repeated measurements of 673,046&#xD;&#xA;trees belonging to 403 tropical, subtropical and temperate tree species,&#xD;&#xA;**spanning every forested continent**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They found that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In absolute terms, trees 100 cm in trunk diameter typically add from 10 kg to 200 kg of aboveground dry mass each year (depending on species), averaging 103 kg per year. This is nearly three times the rate for trees of the same species at 50 cm in diameter, **and is the mass equivalent to adding an entirely new tree of 10–20 cm in diameter to the forest each year.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, even though old trees are adding mass at a slower rate, kg per kg, than young trees, they are adding more net mass per year because they are already so much larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These lines from the abstract sum up the findings nicely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus, large, old trees do not act simply as senescent carbon reservoirs but actively fix large amounts of carbon compared to smaller trees; **at the extreme, a single big tree can add the same amount of carbon to the forest within a year as is contained in an entire mid-sized tree.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about &quot;mature&quot; trees?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our experience, species we're familiar with such as dogs, cats, and humans reach a maximum size when they've still got well over half of their lives left (barring dietary issues). Thus we might think the same is true of trees -- after a certain number of years, they &quot;mature,&quot; and then no longer increase in mass -- meaning they stop sequestering CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in primary school we all learned that trees add a new ring each year -- this is how we can tell how old they are. So even when a tree stops getting taller, it keeps adding rings, meaning it's increasing mass throughout the trunk and branches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a 2008 study, [&quot;Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks&quot;](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276) [(pdf here)](https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/ThreatsForestHealth/Climate/CI-LuyssaertNature08Old_growth_carbon_sink.pdf), the authors look at the basis for the idea that forests &quot;mature&quot; and become carbon neutral (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **The commonly accepted and long-standing view that old-growth forests are carbon neutral [...] was originally based on ten years’ worth of data from a single site**. It is supported by the observed decline of stand-level NPP [net primary productivity] with age in plantations, but is not apparent in some ecoregions. Yet a decline in NPP is commonly assumed in ecosystem models. Moreover, it has led to the view that old-growth forests are redundant in the global carbon cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The authors then go on to explain the findings of their study, which included analysis of data from over 500 sites in boreal and temperate forests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If, however, the hypothesis of carbon neutrality were correct, the&#xD;&#xA;expected probabilities of observing a sink or source would be equal and around one-half, the average sink strength for a random ensemble of forests 200 years old and above would be zero, and the mean CO2 release from heterotrophic respiration would equal the mean CO2 sequestration through NPP [...]. However, we observe this ratio to be well below one on average and not to increase with age. **Hence, all three quantitative tests fail to support the hypothesis of carbon neutrality. The currently available data consistently indicate that carbon accumulation continues in forests that are centuries old.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They go on to hypothesize a mechanism supporting their observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If old-growth forests reach high above-ground biomass and lose individuals owing to competition or small-scale disturbances, there is generally new recruitment or an abundant second canopy layer waiting in the shade of the upper canopy to take over and maintain productivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The &quot;if&quot; here is important because the research excludes the impact of large-scale disturbances such as fire, insect outbreak, avalanches, etc, as these are not a function of the forest itself.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although tree mortality is a relatively rapid event (instantaneous to several years long), decomposition of tree stems can take decades. Therefore, the CO2 release from the decomposition of dead wood adds to the atmospheric carbon pool over decades, whereas natural regeneration or in-growth occurs on a much shorter timescale. Thus, old-growth forest stands with tree losses do not necessarily become carbon sources, as has been observed in even-aged plantations (that is, where trees are all of the same age).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While this study did not look at tropical forests, [other](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181187) [studies](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112711004348) provide smaller-scale evidence that the same analysis does hold in the tropics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Young forests may actually be carbon sources&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same 2008 study, the authors present some evidence that young forests may be carbon sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In fact, young forests rather than old-growth forests are very often conspicuous sources of CO2 because the creation of new forests (whether naturally or by humans) frequently follows disturbance to soil and the previous vegetation, resulting in a decomposition rate of coarse woody debris, litter and soil organic matter (measured as  heterotrophic  respiration)  that  exceeds  the  NPP  of  the regrowth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18233" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6967" RevisionGUID="5fa74d38-d170-41f5-8a0e-cbaf1ebe1305" CreationDate="2018-12-03T11:37:12.207" UserId="1057" Comment="50" />
  <row Id="18234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="044a1582-5018-4395-b01b-2bdcb7e67e1b" CreationDate="2018-12-03T15:10:57.183" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Removed call for discussion" Text="I'm trying to determine if investing in a couple of Tesla Powerwall units to store solar energy is a wise *financial* decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My energy cost is **$0.1649/kWh**. The installed price of the two Powerwall units is **$15k**. I expect fully charge and discharge the Powerwall 300 days per year (based on historical average sunshine hours per month) and use **24kWh** each night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these assumptions I calculate that: 300 days x 24 kWh x $0.1649 = $1187.28 per year so (15000/1187.28 =) **13 Years** &quot;pay back period&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Warranty on the product is 10 Years and the useful life is claimed to be 15 years. However many people claim that the performance (storage capacity) will degrade down to 70% of original capacity after 10 years so this calculation should factor that in too ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it *economical* to buy a Tesla Powerwall or simply pay &quot;the grid&quot; (our major energy supplier) for (renewable) power at night?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you a Powerwall owner? Have you done a similar calculation? What is the conclusion? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Note**: I'm a _huge_ fan of what Elon is doing and have much love for Tesla as a company, &#xD;&#xA;but I want to know from a *purely economic* perspective if it makes sense to invest in a Powerwall?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference: I've expanded on this calculation and included all the supporting research and references in: https://github.com/dwyl/home/issues/25" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18235" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="044a1582-5018-4395-b01b-2bdcb7e67e1b" CreationDate="2018-12-03T15:10:57.183" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Removed call for discussion" Text="Is Tesla Powerwall a good investment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6978" RevisionGUID="d684cf4b-0721-43e4-ba47-f0f4a546f369" CreationDate="2018-12-04T14:25:45.260" UserId="6197" Text="I have about 10 credit cards which I ended up not using for various reasons and I feel bad for having to throw them away in the trash, this is the case for many other things, but seems quite inefficient to just cut them up and throw them... Surely there must be a better way to recycle/re-use them? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6978" RevisionGUID="d684cf4b-0721-43e4-ba47-f0f4a546f369" CreationDate="2018-12-04T14:25:45.260" UserId="6197" Text="Is there an efficient way to dispose of credit cards?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6978" RevisionGUID="d684cf4b-0721-43e4-ba47-f0f4a546f369" CreationDate="2018-12-04T14:25:45.260" UserId="6197" Text="|recycling|plastic|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6979" RevisionGUID="09af1134-a5de-49b5-b846-433f02eed162" CreationDate="2018-12-04T15:30:09.680" UserId="99" Text="Before doing anything make sure your credit cards are not usable/active anymore. You don't want anyone to misuse them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reuse**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reuse is almost always preferred over recycling because that usually doesn't require new resources. &#xD;&#xA;One reuse option is to [cut your cards into guitar picks](https://instructables.com/id/Credit-Card-Guitar-Picks). Several other&#xD;&#xA;reuse options are listed [here](https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/8-crafty-ways-recycle-reuse-credit-cards-1273.php) but I'm sure there are plenty of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Recycling**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This website](https://livegreen.recyclebank.com/column/because-you-asked/can-i-recycle-credit-cards) says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first thing you should do is verify whether or not your municipality accepts number 3 plastic, and specifically credit cards, membership cards, or gift cards. If they do, play it safe and cut off any holograms or chips, which should go in the trash&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend to also make sure the magnetic strip isn't readable anymore if your card has one. Better safe than sorry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the chance that your municipality will accept credit cards is low. The same site explains that recycling credit cards is hard because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cards these days contain all kinds of technology that interfere with the recycling process......[for example] contamination problems from holograms, scratch-off material, and embedded chips&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6980" RevisionGUID="c709f26e-0137-4108-8219-f0953b6dbe05" CreationDate="2018-12-05T05:22:06.443" UserId="6201" Text="Delhi has acute pollution issues once a year during the time farmers around Delhi burn the waste after the crop has been harvested, this combined with adverse wind directions or weather conditions makes the problem worse. The major part of the problem come from outside Delhi rather than within Delhi, banning stubble burning would and should IMO to a large extent help in reducing the pollution. Agreed that Delhi's AQI isn't great even without all the stubble burning but those problems require long term policy decisions such as moving towards BS-VI fuel, CNG powered public transport, electric vehicles and regulating polluting industries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="c8644ae1-4d1d-46d3-8d71-8a05bf914ab0" CreationDate="2018-12-05T12:43:53.413" UserId="6205" Text="If you come across this answer and have measured your idle systems power consumption please extend the list by editing this answer or adding a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Power Consumption Measured by Users &#xD;&#xA;Power consumption of running systems doing nothing. Does not include external devices like monitors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 18 W business laptop from 2011. CPU: i5. GPU: integrated.&#xD;&#xA;- 60 W desktop PC from ???. CPU: Pentium 4&#xD;&#xA;- 80 W desktop PC from 2014. CPU: i5. GPU: GTX 660&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18248" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="450b780e-b7cf-41e7-8eea-df62ca4932b2" CreationDate="2018-12-05T12:43:53.413" UserId="6205" />
  <row Id="18249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="660f4945-05cc-48ca-9466-78b76fae9abd" CreationDate="2018-12-05T13:09:39.923" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="I started to write a comment under the question https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6978/is-there-an-efficient-way-to-dispose-of-credit-cards about the dangers of burning PVC, because this can lead to dangerous chlorine compounds in the smoke (notable: dioxine).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Upon searching for evidence for that I came across several links confirming this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [The dangers of PVC](http://www.pulpworksinc.com/dangers-of-pvc.html), at pulpworksinc.com, a maker of compostable plastic blister-pack replacement.&#xD;&#xA;- [Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)](http://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/polyvinyl-chloride-pvc-environment-health/) from www.greenspec.co.uk, a firm involved in green building products and materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... as well as links suggesting that this no longer is the case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [PVC incineration/dioxins](http://www.pvc.org/en/p/pvc-incineration-dioxins) at pvc.org, i.e. The European Council of Vinyl Manufacturers&#xD;&#xA;- [PVC: To Burn or Not to Burn? ](https://waste-management-world.com/a/pvc-to-burn-or-not-to-burn), at waste-management-world.com, the  International Solid Waste Management Association (ISWA).&#xD;&#xA;- [7 Myths About PVC – Debunked](https://www.carlislesyntec.com/download.aspx?id=5534&amp;fileID=6830), a (PDF) white paper from Carlisle SynTec Systems, a manufacturer of roofing materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these sources may not be objective.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the current, state-of-the-art, objective knowledge that we have about burning municipal waste with PVC in waste incineration facilities?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not asking about [home burning](http://www.wecf.eu/cms/download/2004-2005/homeburning_plastics.pdf) or open fires; I'm asking about controlled burning in waste incineration facilities.&#xD;&#xA;- The question is not about phthalates being used as plastic softeners during the lifetime of the product; only when incinerating.&#xD;&#xA;- This is not just about credit cards, e.g. there's far more PVC landing in our waste because of blister packaging, and from pipes, vinyl flooring, hoses, cable coatings, medical devices, plumbing and automotive parts, upholstery, housewares, shower curtains, raincoats, toys, school supplies, food packaging, and shoes. &#xD;&#xA;- The question could be extended to all halogenated plastics, i.e. made from chlorine or fluorine; not just PVC. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="660f4945-05cc-48ca-9466-78b76fae9abd" CreationDate="2018-12-05T13:09:39.923" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="Is burning PCV with municipal waste 'acceptable' nowadays?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="660f4945-05cc-48ca-9466-78b76fae9abd" CreationDate="2018-12-05T13:09:39.923" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="|waste|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6983" RevisionGUID="a6d719ef-2b56-42c1-985a-bf791fac6726" CreationDate="2018-12-05T14:06:03.397" UserDisplayName="user6204" Text="I am looking to calculate the CO2 emission of an average male human while arguing/debating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is my understanding that the amount of CO2 emitted will be based on the respiratory rate of any given human over a period of time. According to [this seemingly well-researched post][1] an average adult human is estimated to produce between 700 and 900g of CO2 per day based on food intake (former estimate) and breaths per day at 16 breaths per minute (latter estimate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a helpful start, but in my case I am interested in humans actively debating/conversing, would conversing result in more breaths per minute and added exertion and CO2 emission, or would it be negligible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this even measurable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archived-posts/sciblog/2008/08/11/release-of-carbon-dioxide-by-individual-humans/comment-page-1/index.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18253" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6983" RevisionGUID="a6d719ef-2b56-42c1-985a-bf791fac6726" CreationDate="2018-12-05T14:06:03.397" UserDisplayName="user6204" Text="What is the average CO2 emission for a human while debating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18254" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6983" RevisionGUID="a6d719ef-2b56-42c1-985a-bf791fac6726" CreationDate="2018-12-05T14:06:03.397" UserDisplayName="user6204" Text="|carbon-footprint|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6984" RevisionGUID="e5894d5f-528b-4565-9940-d81024f6b529" CreationDate="2018-12-05T16:26:03.683" UserId="1581" Text="Carbon emission trading is supposed to use market mechanisms to make carbon-intense processes less attractive. Unfortunately, the EU market is flooded with emission certificates, such that the mechanism does not work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, it would be most ecologic to leave the charcoal where it is. But since this does not happen, instead of buying emission certificates, it *may* be more effective to buy and store/sink charcoal to cut emissions and drive up the price. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, what good ways are there store/sink charcoal? Just sinking large quantities of coal in the oceans is probably be a bad idea, and can have disastrous side effects. So what is known in this direction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6984" RevisionGUID="e5894d5f-528b-4565-9940-d81024f6b529" CreationDate="2018-12-05T16:26:03.683" UserId="1581" Text="Shortcut carbon emission trading by buying and sinking charcoal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6984" RevisionGUID="e5894d5f-528b-4565-9940-d81024f6b529" CreationDate="2018-12-05T16:26:03.683" UserId="1581" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|decarbonisation|coal|co2|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18258" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="827d1393-f118-46fa-9820-f7f08cefcb1b" CreationDate="2018-12-05T19:59:43.313" UserId="99" Comment="edited title" Text="Is burning PVC with municipal waste 'acceptable' nowadays?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="7132b94c-a44b-4c54-80ba-3b42a26fc934" CreationDate="2018-12-05T22:00:57.853" UserId="6205" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="If you come across this answer and have measured your idle system's power consumption please extend the list by editing this answer or adding a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Power Consumption Measured by Users &#xD;&#xA;Power consumption of running systems doing nothing. Does not include external devices like monitors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 18 W business laptop from 2011. CPU: i5. GPU: integrated.&#xD;&#xA;- 60 W desktop PC from ???. CPU: Pentium 4&#xD;&#xA;- 80 W desktop PC from 2014. CPU: i5. GPU: GTX 660&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="18e97a7f-56c0-476b-a61c-c125659db695" CreationDate="2018-12-06T08:29:16.353" UserId="48" Text="I think you've misunderstood the CO2 issue. The problem with greenhouse gases, the way in which they present a threat to the very existence of human civilisations, is because we are **adding** C/CO2 to the carbon cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing food, eating food, metabolising food, exhaling CO2, is wholly **within** the carbon cycle: that is, it does not in itself **add** extra C/CO2 to the cycle. Any C/CO2 that **is** added, comes about from fossil-fuel uses in the food supply chain, or greenhouse gas emissions from land-use changes or from livestock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, not only is CO2 exhaled by living creatures irrelevant to the greenhouse gas problem, but you also may have misunderstood human metabolism. Conversing uses negligible additional amounts of energy relative to standing there saying nothing, so the additional exhalation of CO2 is miniscule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6985" RevisionGUID="ad379a00-6944-4c03-b49a-18e31f4a397d" CreationDate="2018-12-06T10:30:38.000" UserId="48" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I think you've misunderstood the CO2 issue. The problem with greenhouse gases, the way in which they present a threat to the very existence of human civilisations, is because we are **adding** C/CO2 to the carbon cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing food, eating food, metabolising food, exhaling CO2, is wholly **within** the carbon cycle: that is, it does not in itself **add** extra C/CO2 to the cycle. Some food production does add C/CO2 to the carbon cycle: fossil-fuel uses in the food supply chain, or greenhouse gas emissions from land-use changes or from livestock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, not only is CO2 exhaled by living creatures irrelevant to the greenhouse gas problem, but you also may have misunderstood human metabolism. Conversing uses negligible additional amounts of energy relative to standing there saying nothing, so the additional exhalation of CO2 is miniscule." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6984" RevisionGUID="e3934371-48eb-4a9c-994a-e5a050b757d5" CreationDate="2018-12-06T11:55:06.790" UserId="99" Comment="changed charcoal to coal as this seems to be what the OP means" Text="Carbon emission trading is supposed to use market mechanisms to make carbon-intense processes less attractive. Unfortunately, the EU market is flooded with emission certificates, such that the mechanism does not work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, it would be most ecologic to leave the coal where it is. But since this does not happen, instead of buying emission certificates, it *may* be more effective to buy and store/sink coal to cut emissions and drive up the price. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, what good ways are there store/sink coal? Just sinking large quantities of coal in the oceans is probably be a bad idea, and can have disastrous side effects. So what is known in this direction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18264" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6984" RevisionGUID="e3934371-48eb-4a9c-994a-e5a050b757d5" CreationDate="2018-12-06T11:55:06.790" UserId="99" Comment="changed charcoal to coal as this seems to be what the OP means" Text="Shortcut carbon emission trading by buying and sinking coal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18268" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6896" RevisionGUID="b611ac4f-31bf-4399-81f8-30d70ac283b2" CreationDate="2018-12-06T15:14:08.997" UserId="2942" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6987" RevisionGUID="f2c151ee-3b04-41cd-a8d8-be789c681674" CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:41:02.030" UserId="3379" Text="I have heard that employees who work in organizations or buildings with a focus on sustainability are more likely to make more sustainable choices in their personal lives and homes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if an office requires employees to separate recyclables, composting, and waste, the employees will tend to be better educated about how to implement this at home. While this seems intuitive, I'm wondering if this is true in practice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any research indicating whether employees in offices with a focus on sustainability make more sustainable choices in their personal lives and homes?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested to know if there's a relationship, and how strong the effect is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18270" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6987" RevisionGUID="f2c151ee-3b04-41cd-a8d8-be789c681674" CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:41:02.030" UserId="3379" Text="Do people who work in sustainable offices make sustainable choices at home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18271" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6987" RevisionGUID="f2c151ee-3b04-41cd-a8d8-be789c681674" CreationDate="2018-12-06T20:41:02.030" UserId="3379" Text="|lifestyle|careers|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6988" RevisionGUID="a4a2fc97-77ea-4ea1-9872-b9d4468325d1" CreationDate="2018-12-07T16:46:31.350" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="I'm afraid it will be very hard to find evidence for this, but I can think of two arguments in favor of a *Yes* answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If people know that others 'do the right thing', they will be more likely to do that themselves. This is one of the reasons for taking action that e.g. [Per Espen Stokness](http://stoknes.no/) writes about in his book [What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming](https://www.amazon.com/What-Think-About-Global-Warming/dp/1603585834), and you will find this confirmed in other places. In your example, that extends even to the families of the employees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Knowledge is shared between the household and the company about what and how to recycle. Actually, not only knowledge but also perceptions, e.g. that is actually very easy to separate pour waste streams." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18273" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6978" RevisionGUID="4eec72ad-52ae-4dfd-b086-76639ce63f69" CreationDate="2018-12-07T21:00:18.590" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1071147412197122049" />
  <row Id="18275" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="fb14a00e-1be8-4a6f-9831-4eb06f9d9fd2" CreationDate="2018-12-08T04:03:23.687" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6990" RevisionGUID="8985de75-7e8e-4e19-8ad4-aceb345319fc" CreationDate="2018-12-08T23:14:04.017" UserId="6213" Text="I thought the idea of LED is, that the light bulb has a very long life and uses very little electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not invested in full LED lighting but tried the LED bulbs, you screw in your normal sockets and I have to replace them pretty frequently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also tend to lose a lot of their performance over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I have had something like that in my house:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lv01D.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have also tried a lot of other bulbs, some of which were LED. I always have the same problems with all new school bulbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When you switch the light on, it takes time to reach its full brightness (this problem seems to occur less in recent times)&#xD;&#xA; - The light gradually loses its brightness, which is maddening and forces you to replace the bulb, before its broken. The maddening part is, that it is never the same level of brightness, you are either on a continuous progress to less bright, or make a big jump in brightness when you replace the bulb.&#xD;&#xA; - They cost a ton of money. I could live with that if they'd perform better.&#xD;&#xA; - They never seem to achieve the warm light of a 100W old school bulb, even if you buy the expensive stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what am I doing wrong here? Do I have wrong expectations or am I buying the wrong equipment?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6990" RevisionGUID="8985de75-7e8e-4e19-8ad4-aceb345319fc" CreationDate="2018-12-08T23:14:04.017" UserId="6213" Text="Why are led light bulbs so short lived?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6990" RevisionGUID="8985de75-7e8e-4e19-8ad4-aceb345319fc" CreationDate="2018-12-08T23:14:04.017" UserId="6213" Text="|electricity|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6992" RevisionGUID="49c407bb-014d-4c8b-9285-9384676d1cb3" CreationDate="2018-12-10T10:32:22.980" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="Consumer tests have shown that there are good and bad LED lights; indeed some of them do not reach their advertized life span.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I also have some bad experiences with LEDs dying long before their advertised end-of life, but that's anecdotes, not evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can imagine that actually testing these is hard, it takes a long time!&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A major Dutch consumer organization has been testing LEDs since at least 2013 and [they report](https://www.consumentenbond.nl/led-lamp/levensduur-ledlampen):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our latest extra long life test shows that 75% of the LED lamps from a sample reach 20,000 burning hours. At the end of 2014, we reported that 80% of the lamps from that sample achieved 15,000 burning hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, 20% die before 15000 hours, 25% before 20000 hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A detailed 2015 breakdown of brands and models [is here](https://www.consumentenbond.nl/led-lamp/geteste-lampen).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I would add: buy from regular well-known brands and avoid cheap non-name products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for diminishing intensity they state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our test shows that there is often some deterioration of the amount of light, but usually it remains limited. If a lamp emits 80% of the initial quantity after 15,000 hours, we consider it as: still working well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some tips they give:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Preferably do not use a LED lamp in a closed luminaire. It won't be able to get rid of its warmth and will soon be broken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this may be something specifically to watch out for. Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Because there can be a lower quality copy lights in a batch for all brands, our advice remains: keep the proof of purchase and the box of LED lights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether that last thing helps you depends on the consumer laws in your country. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that [irregular voltages and spikes can have an impact](http://patriotled.com/2017/06/23/surge-protectors-important-led-lighting/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... these high-tech lights have very sensitive electronics in them that can be damaged permanently by a spike in electricity.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, LED lights often do not only show a guaranteed number of hours on the packaging, but also a number of on/off switches. Excessive (automatic?) switching may reduce their life time.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6992" RevisionGUID="c9f8960b-0f54-4c02-b6f9-7aef7dbb08ad" CreationDate="2018-12-10T13:37:18.023" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Consumer tests have shown that there are good and bad LED lights; indeed some of them do not reach their advertized life span.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I also have some bad experiences with LEDs dying long before their advertised end-of life, but that's anecdotes, not evidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can imagine that actually testing these is hard, it takes a long time!&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A major Dutch consumer organization has been testing LEDs since at least 2013 and [they report](https://www.consumentenbond.nl/led-lamp/levensduur-ledlampen):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our latest extra long life test shows that 75% of the LED lamps from a sample reach 20,000 burning hours. At the end of 2014, we reported that 80% of the lamps from that sample achieved 15,000 burning hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, 20% die before 15000 hours, 25% before 20000 hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A detailed 2015 breakdown of brands and models [is here](https://www.consumentenbond.nl/led-lamp/geteste-lampen).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I would add: buy from regular well-known brands and avoid cheap non-name products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for diminishing intensity they state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our test shows that there is often some deterioration of the amount of light, but usually it remains limited. If a lamp emits 80% of the initial quantity after 15,000 hours, we consider it as: still working well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some tips they give:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Preferably do not use a LED lamp in a closed luminaire. It won't be able to get rid of its warmth and will soon be broken.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So this may be something specifically to watch out for. Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Because there can be a lower quality lights in a batch (for any brand), our advice remains: keep the proof of purchase and the box of LED lights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether that last thing helps you depends on the consumer laws in your country. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that [irregular voltages and spikes can have an impact](http://patriotled.com/2017/06/23/surge-protectors-important-led-lighting/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... these high-tech lights have very sensitive electronics in them that can be damaged permanently by a spike in electricity.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, LED lights often do not only show a guaranteed number of hours on the packaging, but also a number of on/off switches. Excessive (automatic?) switching may reduce their life time.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6990" RevisionGUID="17a87385-fb94-4f31-aa2d-14c3021719f4" CreationDate="2018-12-10T15:11:45.940" UserId="3379" Comment="resized image" Text="I thought the idea of LED is, that the light bulb has a very long life and uses very little electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not invested in full LED lighting but tried the LED bulbs, you screw in your normal sockets and I have to replace them pretty frequently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also tend to lose a lot of their performance over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Specifically, I have had something like that in my house:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lv01Db.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I have also tried a lot of other bulbs, some of which were LED. I always have the same problems with all new school bulbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - When you switch the light on, it takes time to reach its full brightness (this problem seems to occur less in recent times)&#xD;&#xA; - The light gradually loses its brightness, which is maddening and forces you to replace the bulb, before its broken. The maddening part is, that it is never the same level of brightness, you are either on a continuous progress to less bright, or make a big jump in brightness when you replace the bulb.&#xD;&#xA; - They cost a ton of money. I could live with that if they'd perform better.&#xD;&#xA; - They never seem to achieve the warm light of a 100W old school bulb, even if you buy the expensive stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what am I doing wrong here? Do I have wrong expectations or am I buying the wrong equipment?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18287" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="3ea08eb4-e801-4dd7-ab25-2b6e25ed7082" CreationDate="2018-12-10T18:00:30.497" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1072189327071948801" />
  <row Id="18290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="b4350472-f0e9-49bb-9a57-5b71d072c1e9" CreationDate="2018-12-11T17:51:03.460" UserId="2942" Text="Anything single-use is suspicious in terms of sustainability, especially if it goes to the trash afterwards and is not recyclable. Considering that, and the [disproportionate use of paper towels by the United States][1], it makes me wonder if a more sustainable but also safe/hygienic alternative to paper towels is single-use-then-wash rags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases rags can be used multiple times before needing to be washed (e.g. wiping up water spills separate from cooking surfaces). With the nastiest messes (e.g. vomit or a pet going to the bathroom indoors) rags from a designated &quot;dirtiest rags&quot; pile could be used and washed immediately after. Rags for various uses can be sourced from recycled material such as ripped clothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even using a washing machine and hot water to wash these rags, intuitively I'd think the rag approach is still using way less energy and has a lesser environmental impact than using paper towels. Is there anymore supporting evidence to confirm or deny that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some key assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Domestic washing machine and hot water is already in use in most American homes so switching from paper towels to rags would only increase use of those things, not require the fixed cost/impact of initially getting large appliances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Some of the nastiest messes require more energy for more thorough washing and use of hot water. To some extent this balances out as plenty of rags can be washed at once whereas these nastier messes can require many single-use paper towels to clean up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Aside from the absorbant material being used - recycled &amp; reusable rag or single-use paper towel - cleaning methods would be basically constant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Paper towels are packaged in throw-away plastic (even when bought in bulk) and even if they're sourced from post-consumer recycled material or sustainable forestry, there is still industrial processing to begin with and large-scale waste management to end with (incineration in our case, landfills in most other places).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see similar questions in https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/907/reusable-vs-disposable-diapers-which-is-better?rq=1 and especially https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2376/tissues-or-cloth-to-clean-a-baby-whats-more-sustainable which both seem to support rags being better than single-use/disposable items like tissues or diapers. Does the same apply to paper towels?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/12/paper-towels-us-use-consume/577672/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18291" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="b4350472-f0e9-49bb-9a57-5b71d072c1e9" CreationDate="2018-12-11T17:51:03.460" UserId="2942" Text="Are machine-washed rags more sustainable than paper towels for any &amp; all household messes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18292" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="b4350472-f0e9-49bb-9a57-5b71d072c1e9" CreationDate="2018-12-11T17:51:03.460" UserId="2942" Text="|home|paper|cleaning|fabric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18294" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6990" RevisionGUID="f4f13de7-92dc-4ee8-9c91-84ff683a84a3" CreationDate="2018-12-11T20:08:52.880" UserId="99" Comment="edited title" Text="Why are my LED light bulbs so short lived?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="1b859fe2-a55f-4c8a-8a60-bd1c4c1e0b2e" CreationDate="2018-12-12T15:53:55.217" UserId="99" Text="Some time ago I saw a documentary/infotainment program on television where they said that on average storing 1TB of data in the cloud costs 41 kWh of electricity per year.&#xD;&#xA;There was no further explanation, but I wrote that statistic down because I wanted to lookup more information on this later. I recently searched the Internet and found [this paper](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.06973.pdf) that says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ...a server-based architecture for a 1TB plan has an annual consumption of 1700 kWh&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;This is a rather different figure than 41 kWh, so which figure makes more sense? 1700 or 41 kWh?&#xD;&#xA;Is there any other scientific research on this, that can verify or refute these numbers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18296" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="1b859fe2-a55f-4c8a-8a60-bd1c4c1e0b2e" CreationDate="2018-12-12T15:53:55.217" UserId="99" Text="How much energy does it take to store 1 Terabyte of data in the cloud?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18297" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="1b859fe2-a55f-4c8a-8a60-bd1c4c1e0b2e" CreationDate="2018-12-12T15:53:55.217" UserId="99" Text="|energy-use|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6996" RevisionGUID="ed330d10-4c10-4f2e-b428-5e7a02d9e0b0" CreationDate="2018-12-12T17:56:10.713" UserId="4834" Text="According to [a 2016 blog post by Backblaze][1], a (particular) 1.5TB HDD uses 3.4W when idle and 5.9W when operating.  This gives a lower bound of 20 kWh / TB / year and an upper bound of 35 kWh / TB / year.  These numbers are much closer to the low figure than the high one given in the question.  We can also see that larger drives use proportionally less power and large-scale cloud storage providers will tend to move towards larger drives (for this and other reasons).  Using a 6TB HDD instead results in power usage of 7.2W when idle and 8.8W when operating.  This gives a lower bound of 10 kWh / TB / year and an upper bound of 13 kWh / TB / year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The referenced paper arrives at its number by assuming the drive portion of the power cost is 4.9 kW / 604 TB (unclear what the reference for this is) or around 8 W / TB.  This is right in the ballpark of the numbers given by the Backblaze blog post.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper then goes on to multiply this power usage by various factors - eg by 1.5 for account for cooling, by 2 for assumed redundancy, and by 2 again for assumed waste due to under-utilization.  It then adds in other power factors, routing hardware, all intermediate servers between client and server, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These seem like real contributors to power requirements but the total seems overstated to me.  For example, the average 9 servers between client and server necessary to route traffic between them would probably *mostly* be up and running regardless of that TB of cloud storage.  Their cost should be spread across the wide range of services they are providing (mostly Netflix streams at this point, probably).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also necessary to compare apples to apples.  The paper talks about storage with some form of redundancy in it - assuming that storing 1TB of data requires 2TB worth of disk.  The other number in the question, 41 kWh / TB / year, may be for no redundancy or some other level of redundancy.  The figures I've computed above are for exactly 1TB - not 2TB.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Properly allocating the power used by all of these shared services is probably a research project all on its own.  The authors of this paper have selected values which make Cubbit (an alternative distributed storage system) look like an improvement but I don't see evidence in the paper to support all of the assumptions they've made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I have found no research that provides a complete answer to this question.  My _personal guess_ is that usage for a single non-redundant TB is between 2x and 10x the drive requirement - between 20 kWh and 100 kWh / TB / year.  It would be great to see a more thorough analysis (or measurement!) spanning the full range of infrastructure, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.backblaze.com/blog/storage-pod-5-0-hack/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6997" RevisionGUID="90454b8c-9b94-4bc4-8fad-ed174c96a7a1" CreationDate="2018-12-12T23:45:57.247" UserId="2942" Text="There's lots of benefits and threats to forest, and [given our current, pervasive, and severe ecological challenges, forests are more important than ever][1]. However, it's not obvious what the best strategies are for mass reforestation, either for people vaguely interested in it or for the people who want to be passionately dedicated to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if today I want to contribute to mass reforestation, what actions can I take? What about on the scale of a year, or a lifetime? This may make the question somewhat broad, but I envision an answer (maybe best as a community wiki) that lists specific things at different scales, overall answering the question: **What are the most effective ways one can support mass reforestation?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18300" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="6997" RevisionGUID="90454b8c-9b94-4bc4-8fad-ed174c96a7a1" CreationDate="2018-12-12T23:45:57.247" UserId="2942" Text="How can an individual support mass reforestation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18301" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="6997" RevisionGUID="90454b8c-9b94-4bc4-8fad-ed174c96a7a1" CreationDate="2018-12-12T23:45:57.247" UserId="2942" Text="|forestry|careers|deforestation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6998" RevisionGUID="b2cb48eb-04c5-4ab0-97ed-f123f757d1ee" CreationDate="2018-12-12T23:49:22.110" UserId="2942" Text="I'll start with my own answer including some examples I'm aware of to help set context, and I'll highlight in bold some uncertainties. I'm not sure how to convert an answer into a community wiki but if moderators feel that's a good way to go, let's do that to build  a thorough list together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actions Today&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;- Contribute to non-profits and charities focused on forest conservation, reforestation, and sustainable land use (forest) policy&#xD;&#xA;- Make consumer decisions which are forest-friendly, for example:&#xD;&#xA;   - choosing paper and wood instead of fossil fuel based resources&#xD;&#xA;   - preferring fiber products from certified sustainable forestry&#xD;&#xA; - Use Ecosia web browser and support other organizations that focus on &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actions This Year&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;- Change your diet toward foods that conserve and create new forested landscapes&#xD;&#xA;   - **Are there any certifications of agroforestry or conservation agriculture based products?**&#xD;&#xA;   - Local diets can be easier to tailor to polycultural farms, which tend to support more biodiversity and trees than monocultures&#xD;&#xA;   - Consuming tree-based foods and using Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP) (like maple syrup, forest-grown mushrooms or silvopasture grown animal products) when suitable can support forest enterprises&#xD;&#xA; - Make your charitable contributions a regular thing, 'set it and forget it'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actions For Long-Term&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA; - Work in a career that is based on forested land-use, and maintain or restore forested land in property you manage (e.g. forestry, forest farming, agroforestry)&#xD;&#xA; - Volunteer with community forestry organizations&#xD;&#xA; - Work in a career supporting forested land-use, conservation, restoration, and sustainable use, either in policy or planning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-best-technology-for-fighting-climate-change-isnt-a-technology/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18303" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="6998" RevisionGUID="3544b2b7-c42b-431d-b3f6-ae900bd138f6" CreationDate="2018-12-12T23:54:36.103" UserId="2942" />
  <row Id="18304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6998" RevisionGUID="3544b2b7-c42b-431d-b3f6-ae900bd138f6" CreationDate="2018-12-12T23:54:36.103" UserId="2942" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="I'll start with my own answer including some examples I'm aware of to help set context, and I'll highlight in bold some uncertainties. This will be a community wiki so we can build this list together and clarify uncertainties over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actions Today&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;- Contribute to non-profits and charities focused on forest conservation, reforestation, and sustainable land use (forest) policy&#xD;&#xA;- Make consumer decisions which are forest-friendly, for example:&#xD;&#xA;   - choosing paper and wood instead of fossil fuel based resources&#xD;&#xA;   - preferring fiber products from certified sustainable forestry&#xD;&#xA; - Use Ecosia web browser and support other organizations that focus on &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actions This Year&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;- Change your diet toward foods that conserve and create new forested landscapes&#xD;&#xA;   - **Are there any certifications of agroforestry or conservation agriculture based products?**&#xD;&#xA;   - Local diets can be easier to tailor to polycultural farms, which tend to support more biodiversity and trees than monocultures&#xD;&#xA;   - Consuming tree-based foods and using Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP) (like maple syrup, forest-grown mushrooms or silvopasture grown animal products) when suitable can support forest enterprises&#xD;&#xA; - Make your charitable contributions a regular thing, 'set it and forget it'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actions For Long-Term&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA; - Work in a career that is based on forested land-use, and maintain or restore forested land in property you manage (e.g. forestry, forest farming, agroforestry). This includes consulting, research, and extension work to help various industries and land-uses be more forest-friendly.&#xD;&#xA; - Volunteer with community forestry organizations&#xD;&#xA; - Work in a career supporting forested land-use, conservation, restoration, and sustainable use, either in policy or planning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-best-technology-for-fighting-climate-change-isnt-a-technology/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18305" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6994" RevisionGUID="522c80d3-d679-4007-8116-c9d8df004209" CreationDate="2018-12-13T00:00:37.823" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1073004730559946752" />
  <row Id="18306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6997" RevisionGUID="ca619172-00dc-4489-84ff-fff794d1ccea" CreationDate="2018-12-13T02:51:37.523" UserId="2942" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="There's lots of benefits and threats to forest, and [given our current, pervasive, and severe ecological challenges, forests are more important than ever][1]. However, it's not obvious what the best strategies are for mass reforestation, either for people vaguely interested in it or for the people who want to be passionately dedicated to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if today I want to contribute to mass reforestation, what actions can I take? What about on the scale of a year, or a lifetime? This may make the question somewhat broad, but I envision an answer (maybe best as a community wiki) that lists specific things at different scales, overall answering the question: **What are the most effective ways one can support mass reforestation?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-best-technology-for-fighting-climate-change-isnt-a-technology/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="b680e2f0-dbc8-4f92-967a-00e068482b4d" CreationDate="2018-12-13T09:38:22.753" UserId="99" Comment="fixed broken links, add transportation calculators" Text="A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor and ozone) that is produced directly and indirectly by a person, an organisation, an event or a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Direct emissions, also called primary footprint, come from sources directly controlled by the person(s) or activity in question, for example heating one's house. Indirect emissions or secondary footprint are emissions that are the consequence of a person(s) actions using sources owned or controlled by someone else, for example fuel that was for transport from the factory to the store for a product one has bought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The global average carbon footprint is approximately 4 tons of CO2-equivalent per person per year [[source]](http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_footprint) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the difference with [tag:ecological-footprint] that measures the total impact (so not only greenhouse gas emissions) of a person, organisation or activity on the Earth's ecosystems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online carbon footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Personal/Household*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbonfootprint.com](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator1.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [Conservation International](http://www.conservation.org/act/live_green/carboncalc/Pages/default.aspx)&#xD;&#xA; - [EPA USA - Household Carbon Footprint Calculator](https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Berkeley University - CoolClimate Carbon Footprint Calculator](http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/carboncalculator)&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbon Neutral Company](http://www.carbonneutralcalculator.com/householdcalculator.aspx)&#xD;&#xA; - [WWF UK Footprint Calculator](http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/) (for UK citizens)&#xD;&#xA; - [Nature Conservancy](https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/consider-your-impact/carbon-calculator/) (for US citizens)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Kids*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Meet the Greens - Zero footprint youth calculator](http://www.meetthegreens.org/features/carbon-calculator.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [ABC Television - Carbon Cops](http://www.abc.net.au/tv/carboncops/calculator.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Business*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Greenhouse Gas Protocols](http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools)&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbonfootprint.com](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/businesscalculator.aspx) (registration required)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Transportation*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Eco Passenger](http://ecopassenger.hafas.de) (compares train, car and flight for Europeana destinations)&#xD;&#xA;- [ICAO calculator for air travel](https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx) (includes aircraft type information and route specific data)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="6999" RevisionGUID="3324412d-b844-4ce1-b80b-3a312d395cdc" CreationDate="2018-12-13T09:47:47.620" UserId="4886" Text="Buy degraded/abused land in strategic locations (which should be cheap as a result).  (Re-)Plant trees.  Place a **conservation covenant** over the property so that future owners are legally required to preserve it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Victoria, Australia, organisations like the [Trust For Nature][1] can help with this process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure what a conservation covenant is, TFN has produced an easy-to-read [brochure][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.trustfornature.org.au/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.trustfornature.org.au/images/uploads/landServices/Landowner-support/TFN3736-ConservationCovenantBrochure_web.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6998" RevisionGUID="8d0fec7f-86b5-4411-a757-cda41bcd1400" CreationDate="2018-12-13T10:29:56.510" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="I'll start with my own answer including some examples I'm aware of to help set context, and I'll highlight in bold some uncertainties. This will be a community wiki so we can build this list together and clarify uncertainties over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actions Today&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;- Contribute to non-profits and charities focused on forest conservation, reforestation, and sustainable land use (forest) policy. Many (re)forestation organisations offer the option to compensate your CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; usage for e.g. flying.&#xD;&#xA;- Make consumer decisions which are forest-friendly, for example:&#xD;&#xA;   - choosing paper and wood instead of fossil fuel based resources&#xD;&#xA;   - preferring fiber products from certified sustainable forestry&#xD;&#xA; - Use Ecosia web browser and support other organizations that focus on &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actions This Year&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;- Change your diet toward foods that conserve and create new forested landscapes&#xD;&#xA;   - **Are there any certifications of agroforestry or conservation agriculture based products?**&#xD;&#xA;   - Local diets can be easier to tailor to polycultural farms, which tend to support more biodiversity and trees than monocultures&#xD;&#xA;   - Consuming tree-based foods and using Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP) (like maple syrup, forest-grown mushrooms or silvopasture grown animal products) when suitable can support forest enterprises&#xD;&#xA; - Make your charitable contributions a regular thing, 'set it and forget it'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actions For Long-Term&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA; - Work in a career that is based on forested land-use, and maintain or restore forested land in property you manage (e.g. forestry, forest farming, agroforestry). This includes consulting, research, and extension work to help various industries and land-uses be more forest-friendly.&#xD;&#xA; - Volunteer with community forestry organizations&#xD;&#xA; - Work in a career supporting forested land-use, conservation, restoration, and sustainable use, either in policy or planning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-best-technology-for-fighting-climate-change-isnt-a-technology/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7000" RevisionGUID="6079b830-2238-4a0d-a666-d8f347b35b3f" CreationDate="2018-12-13T15:56:42.197" UserId="3379" Text="A late-breaking development in this debate is recent data on **leakage in natural gas production and distribution systems.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A group of researchers from universities, laboratories, and government labs around the U.S. published an article in *Science* earlier this year indicating that the magnitude of methane leaks from natural gas infrastructure has been underestimated for years. The article, [&quot;Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain&quot;](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/06/20/science.aar7204.full), is behind a paywall, but Phys.org has a [good summary](https://phys.org/news/2018-06-oil-gas-methane-emissions-percent.html). Here's the most significant finding (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [R]esearchers found most of the emissions came from leaks, equipment malfunctions and other &quot;abnormal&quot; operating conditions. **The climate impact of these leaks in 2015 was roughly the same as the climate impact of carbon dioxide emissions from all U.S. coal-fired power plants** operating in 2015, they found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this massive impact, and why leakage is such a concern, is that [methane as a greenhouse gas is 34 times more potent than CO2 on a 100-year timescale](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/87/3379). Another reason for concern, and cause for some optimism, is that the leaks represent loss of up to $2 billion a year -- revenue which oil and gas companies will theoretically be interested in regaining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gasoline/petrol doesn't suffer from this issue because it is a liquid at room temperature, and doesn't need to be pressurized. Knowing this, it's hard to say that natural gas as a transportation fuel is any better than gasoline, even if it does burn &quot;cleaner.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7001" RevisionGUID="18ca0c75-3e37-4473-9f20-30f90bc6a04d" CreationDate="2018-12-13T16:17:08.457" UserId="3379" Text="I recently bought a home with many appliances approaching 20 years old. As I expect that many of them will fail over the next several years, I want to get a head start on replacing them (since last-minute replacements are typically quite costly and inconvenient). Here are the appliances I am considering replacing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Dishwasher (cold water line only -- uses electric coil to heat water)&#xD;&#xA; - Furnace (natural gas-fired)&#xD;&#xA; - Water heater (natural gas-fired, 40 gallons / 150 liters)&#xD;&#xA; - Refrigerator&#xD;&#xA; - Clothes dryer (vented, electric resistance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In order to have the greatest sustainability benefit, which of these should I replace first?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other important factors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The clothes dryer is paired with a recently purchased [ENERGY STAR rated front-loading clothes washer](https://www.energystar.gov/products/appliances/clothes_washers/) which is very effective at extracting water from the clothing&#xD;&#xA; - Our climate is humid continental (southern Wisconsin, USA)&#xD;&#xA; - Where possible/practical, we are using these appliances in the most water- and energy-efficient way -- air-drying dishes, turning down the thermostat at night/while at work, line-drying clothing, etc" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18312" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7001" RevisionGUID="18ca0c75-3e37-4473-9f20-30f90bc6a04d" CreationDate="2018-12-13T16:17:08.457" UserId="3379" Text="Which appliance should I replace first?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18313" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7001" RevisionGUID="18ca0c75-3e37-4473-9f20-30f90bc6a04d" CreationDate="2018-12-13T16:17:08.457" UserId="3379" Text="|home|appliance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7004" RevisionGUID="b1edfbfd-a141-4e9a-8bc2-b2a8c3dcab87" CreationDate="2018-12-15T07:42:12.613" UserId="2942" Text="To help grow lots of trees and ecologically friendly gardens, I've bought lots of bags of soil over time. There are better, more local sources of soil/mulch/compost, but nevertheless I go the route of bagged soil sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I build soil I wonder about the way the soil is built that I get in bags. Is it storing carbon, or does it have an overall increase in CO2 emissions from the industrial process(es) and sources for bagged soil? I also realize some source materials are better or worse than others ecologically speaking, so it depends on the ingredients - e.g. peat moss harvesting for soil mixes can be worse for ecological health than the benefit of a home garden. Overall I wonder how well the bagged soil is really &quot;building soil&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example bagged soil I get is something like this https://www.homedepot.com/p/Kellogg-Garden-Organics-3-cu-ft-Raised-Bed-and-Potting-Mix-Premium-Outdoor-Container-Mix-649/204643152 and similar bagged soil from hardware stores of various sizes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18323" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7004" RevisionGUID="b1edfbfd-a141-4e9a-8bc2-b2a8c3dcab87" CreationDate="2018-12-15T07:42:12.613" UserId="2942" Text="What's the environmental impact of industrial sources of store-bought bagged soil? Is it a 'net positive' in terms of building soil &amp; storing carbon?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18324" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7004" RevisionGUID="b1edfbfd-a141-4e9a-8bc2-b2a8c3dcab87" CreationDate="2018-12-15T07:42:12.613" UserId="2942" Text="|gardening|materials|industrial-production|soil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18326" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="09c61995-d1be-44ec-ada5-3038d75266ec" CreationDate="2018-12-15T23:03:20.670" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7005" RevisionGUID="2e973007-a808-420b-be2f-4562bda9b773" CreationDate="2018-12-16T01:36:43.003" UserId="5958" Text="My family has several table-top humidifiers (the cool-mist/nebulizer kind) in the house that we use a lot during the winter. Distilled water is recommended for using in humidifiers because the dissolved solids and other stuff in tap water can cause a residue to accumulate on walls and furniture, and also in the humidifier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately none of my options seem to be very efficient ongoing strategies for obtaining water for the humidifiers. Here are the downsides of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Purchasing distilled water from the store**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - $0.78 per gallon&#xD;&#xA; - need to recycle all the plastic jugs&#xD;&#xA; - need to haul them all home from the store&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Using water from my reverse osmosis system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - RO systems use 5+ gallons for every 1 gallon of filtered water they produce &#xD;&#xA; - RO filters need replacing more often&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Using a large water reservoir with an activated-carbon water filter** (haven’t tried it myself yet)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - this would have the benefit of using tap water without wasting a bunch of it (like the RO system does), but I read that there’s a lot of stuff in water that doesn’t get removed by activated carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better way than these methods? I use about 1 gallon of water per day in the humidifiers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18328" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7005" RevisionGUID="2e973007-a808-420b-be2f-4562bda9b773" CreationDate="2018-12-16T01:36:43.003" UserId="5958" Text="Ongoing source of distilled/filtered water for humidifiers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18329" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7005" RevisionGUID="2e973007-a808-420b-be2f-4562bda9b773" CreationDate="2018-12-16T01:36:43.003" UserId="5958" Text="|water|plastic|money|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7006" RevisionGUID="dcd53716-2710-405a-85eb-cc3badd60ff5" CreationDate="2018-12-16T01:39:30.933" UserId="5016" Text="I am thinking about buying a christmas tree but I want to know if that is or isn't good from a sustainability viewpoint. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18331" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7006" RevisionGUID="dcd53716-2710-405a-85eb-cc3badd60ff5" CreationDate="2018-12-16T01:39:30.933" UserId="5016" Text="Is it okay from a sustainability viewpoint to buy a christmas tree?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18332" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7006" RevisionGUID="dcd53716-2710-405a-85eb-cc3badd60ff5" CreationDate="2018-12-16T01:39:30.933" UserId="5016" Text="|economy|trees|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2567" RevisionGUID="85729a5c-aa19-4032-9fa0-1a3de0a74a5f" CreationDate="2018-12-16T18:48:38.303" UserId="5958" Comment="fixing some typos" Text="I think the cheapest option would be a calorimetric flow meter. [Description from engineering toolbox](http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flow-meters-d_493.html)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The calorimetric principle for fluid flow measurement is based on two temperature sensors in close contact with the fluid but thermally insulated from each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Calorimetric Flowmeter][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;One of the two sensors is constantly heated and the cooling effect of the flowing fluid is used to monitor the flow rate. In a stationary (no flow) fluid condition there is a constant temperature difference between the two temperature sensors. When the fluid flow increases, heat energy is drawn from the heated sensor and the temperature difference between the sensors is reduced. The reduction is proportional to the flow rate of the fluid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Response times will vary due the thermal conductivity of the fluid. In general lower thermal conductivity requires higher velocity for proper measurement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The calorimetric flowmeter can achieve relatively high accuracy at low flow rates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In you case, you would have two sensors clamped on the pipe (maybe a band). The thermal conduction of the pipe would distort your measurement.  &#xD;&#xA;You could build one yourself, and test it on a pipe exactly like the one you clamp it on with a mechanical inline flowmeter (that you would have to buy, but those are cheap). The nice thing is that the exact flow regime is irrelevant, as you measure the mass flow rather than a pressure drop or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm convinced that this is the most doable clamp-on flow-meter for a DIY project, it may still not be very doable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3wIcT.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18334" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2567" RevisionGUID="85729a5c-aa19-4032-9fa0-1a3de0a74a5f" CreationDate="2018-12-16T18:48:38.303" Comment="Proposed by 5958 approved by 99 edit id of 548" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18335" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5519" RevisionGUID="fea6a420-1304-42b2-8252-617728ba09c3" CreationDate="2018-12-16T18:49:15.347" UserId="2942" Comment="adding tag about building soil w biochar" Text="|forestry|biochar|soil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18336" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5519" RevisionGUID="fea6a420-1304-42b2-8252-617728ba09c3" CreationDate="2018-12-16T18:49:15.347" Comment="Proposed by 2942 approved by 3293, 99 edit id of 547" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7008" RevisionGUID="a2be9261-dc3e-4a77-bfa2-5fccb5ab680e" CreationDate="2018-12-17T16:03:46.817" UserId="4155" Text="I'd say that you need to analyse the use you get from each appliance, and how inefficient the current ones are - for example, if you only use the dryer occasionally when it's too damp to dry clothing on a line, that's probably a lower priority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd probably go for the following order:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refrigerator - This tends to be on all of the time, so it's always using energy, and the difference in consumption between a modern energy-efficient one and a 20-year-old one will be huge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furnace/Water heater - here in the UK they tend to be combined into one appliance. Like the fridge, efficiency of these has come on leaps and bounds over the last 20 years, so will make a big difference - but buying them at the start of the winter is going to be expensive - you'll get a much better deal in the spring or summer... As Erik says in his comment, investigate other sources of heat too - I'd also suggest looking at ground-source heat if it's feasible in your area, but solar-thermal could make a big difference to your energy use, especially in the summer, where you could probably eliminate gas usage completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An immediate improvement you can do straight away is to get a controllable thermostat - this will allow you to program the on-off times and so avoid having to remember to switch off the heating when you go to work etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dishwasher - a lower priority as you can always wash dishes by hand if it breaks. Many modern dishwashers actually use less water than hand washing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clothes Dryer - As mentioned above, not essential as you can always line-dry, though we use ours in the worst of the winter as we don't have a suitable indoor drying space, and the risk of getting damp/mildew in the house is worse than the increased energy consumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7009" RevisionGUID="a2bcf400-2bb2-47d3-a1e7-3c23f49727ac" CreationDate="2018-12-17T19:02:52.693" UserId="6213" Text="I always thought, that burning wood, would be bad for the total C02 in the atmosphere until I heard it being pitched as &quot;renewable energy&quot;. Now I am slightly unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logic goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood has X amount of C02 in it, which is released when burned. Since industrial forests are replaced or renewed, the same amount of wood is going to be trapped by the new tree. Let's assume that this is true in this particular case, and every burned tree is replaced by a new tree and the total amount of trees doesn't actually decrease (this is true in well-managed forests).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, burning anything releases toxins into the air, but let's ignore that for a moment and focus just on the C02.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the second argument, that letting a piece of wood biodegrade releases the same amount (or similar amount) of C02 as burning it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do these 2 arguments have merit?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7009" RevisionGUID="a2bcf400-2bb2-47d3-a1e7-3c23f49727ac" CreationDate="2018-12-17T19:02:52.693" UserId="6213" Text="Is burning a piece of wood basically the same as letting it biodegrade, from a CO2 perspective" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7009" RevisionGUID="a2bcf400-2bb2-47d3-a1e7-3c23f49727ac" CreationDate="2018-12-17T19:02:52.693" UserId="6213" Text="|firewood|co2|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7009" RevisionGUID="5af5773c-d276-4cc0-a8cb-65f50d4acff3" CreationDate="2018-12-17T19:52:53.093" UserId="6213" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="I always thought, that burning wood, would be bad for the total C02 in the atmosphere until I heard it being pitched as &quot;renewable energy&quot;. Now I am slightly unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logic goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood has X amount of C02 in it, which is released when burned. Since industrial forests are replaced or renewed, the same amount of C02 is going to be trapped by the new tree. Let's assume that this is true in this particular case, and every burned tree is replaced by a new tree and the total amount of trees doesn't actually decrease (this is true in well-managed forests).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, burning anything releases toxins into the air, but let's ignore that for a moment and focus just on the C02.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the second argument, that letting a piece of wood biodegrade releases the same amount (or similar amount) of C02 as burning it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do these 2 arguments have merit?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7010" RevisionGUID="c84fb1a9-a1a9-47a9-b5c5-113671be214a" CreationDate="2018-12-17T20:17:20.340" UserId="6239" Text="My idea of a device for harvesting energy from wind, waves and especially storms is introduced in the manuscript below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If used in reality, this device will harvest significant amounts of energy from wind, waves and storms. This not only solved the problem of energy scarcity but also mitigated the devastation of the storm to humans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because this is an engineering approach, I am very interested in your answers on two issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1, Is the operating principle of the model in this manuscript correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2, Can this model work in reality (under heavy storm conditions)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the URL of the manuscript:&#xD;&#xA;[An engineering approach for harvesting energy from wind, wave and storm][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.academia.edu/37987628/An_engineering_approach_for_harvesting_energy_from_wind_wave_and_storm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18350" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7010" RevisionGUID="c84fb1a9-a1a9-47a9-b5c5-113671be214a" CreationDate="2018-12-17T20:17:20.340" UserId="6239" Text="Is it possible to harvest energy from the storm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18351" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7010" RevisionGUID="c84fb1a9-a1a9-47a9-b5c5-113671be214a" CreationDate="2018-12-17T20:17:20.340" UserId="6239" Text="|energy|renewables|wind-power|storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7012" RevisionGUID="ff38f84d-0684-428f-8735-ca509c3b4a44" CreationDate="2018-12-18T05:17:52.277" UserId="3540" Text="Bagged soil contains decomposed organic matter which is the ONLY thing that improves any and all soils.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bagged soil is composed of very little actual soil.  Lots of inert ingredients.  The main boon to bagged potting soil is sterilization.  Bagged soil, potting soil is critical for any plants planted in pots.  Plants in pots that do not have the advantages of the larger body of garden soil, checks and balances.  No disease or insects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sterilized potting soil has never been meant to use in the out of doors garden soil.  NOT at all necessary and sorry, not at all a way to improve your garden soil.  Not at all.  Ugh.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will not HURT your soil but, I encourage you to stop expending all this money for something that can be done for far less money and work.  The best and ONLY way to improve any soil from sand to clay...is simply dumping DECOMPOSED organic matter on the top of the soil.  DECOMPOSED.  If organic matter is not decomposed it should stay in the compost pile or bin until it IS decomposed.  Adding extra nitrogen speeds up decomposition because decomposing organisms use NITROGEN for fuel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bagged potting soil has a bunch of neutral filler mediums such as: peat moss, vermiculite, pearlite, coir.  Sterilized.  All plants in pots need sterilized formulated well draining medium, never garden soil.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not at all meant to use to improve your garden soil.  You need to find a super source for DECOMPOSED organic matter, well aged horse or steer or chicken manure?  Well aged.  If you are able to see sticks, chunks of old matter that you are able to recognize then that matter is not decomposed.  It has to be uniform, a bit larger than grains of soil, lots smaller than non decomposed bark mulches, uniform color, SMELL wonderful to be used on top of soil you want to improve THIS YEAR. To be used as a cover to smother baby weeds and seeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is so important I am spending a bit more time explaining the importance of decomposed organic matter.  (DOM).  In any natural soil profile the very top layer is organic matter.  Stuff dies and falls to the ground.  This in no way has the chemistry plants need to do photosynthesis but it creates the TILTH in the soil plants need to thrive.  Plenty of pore space for air, organic matter to buffer any pH problems, organic matter to hold onto water longer while still allowing air to fill the pore spaces in the soil.  Organic matter to help hold onto and release more slowly balanced fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stuff dies it lands on top of the top most horizon of soil, the 'Top Soil' horizon.  It then decomposes as all things once alive will immediately begin to do after death.  Those decomposers use NITROGEN for energy nothing else.  Decomposers get that nitrogen before any plant roots are able to take that bit of nitrogen available up to be used for a plant.  This is just basic soil science.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Decomposed organic matter dumped on top of the surface is the best way to improve...any type of soil.  Versus rototilling or double digging.  Fresh decomposed organic matter summons soil life to come eat me!  Soil organisms both macro and micro use DECOMPOSED organic matter for fuel.  Not un decomposed organic matter but decomposed organic matter.  These organisms come up to the surface to eat this material that is decomposed then they go back into the soil (4 to 6&quot;) poop out their dinners and mix decomposed organic matter into the soil PERFECTLY.  They aerate at the same time. With this fuel they are able to reproduce and make any soil alive and healthy.  Any soil type. Within one season you can make caliche clay into beds with incredible tilth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fertilizer will always have to be added, judiciously of course!  Knowledgeably.  No compost will ever replace fertilizer.  Period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water will always have to be added judiciously and with knowledge.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always double dig and form my forever plant beds ONE TIME.  Trenches at the bottom so the water can collect and with physics that water helps to PULL excess water out of the soil, allowing the pore spaces to fill with air.  Those beds change from year to year just by cleaning out the trenches and dumped decomposed organic matter on top of those beds and/or growing a green crop on that bed for the winter.  Turn it all over in the spring and in a month after adding a bit of nitrogen, that bed is ready to plant and have some balanced fertilizer added. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![caliche clay first year garden[![volcanic pumice soil second or third year][1]][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/C8s3t.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/y6MvC.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18355" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7012" RevisionGUID="98b058b5-0c8f-427b-b9de-738252e2b4eb" CreationDate="2018-12-18T05:28:10.307" UserId="3540" Comment="added picture" Text="Bagged soil contains decomposed organic matter which is the ONLY thing that improves any and all soils.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bagged soil is composed of very little actual soil.  Lots of inert ingredients.  The main boon to bagged potting soil is sterilization.  Bagged soil, potting soil is critical for any plants planted in pots.  Plants in pots that do not have the advantages of the larger body of garden soil, checks and balances.  No disease or insects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sterilized potting soil has never been meant to use in the out of doors garden soil.  NOT at all necessary and sorry, not at all a way to improve your garden soil.  Not at all.  Ugh.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will not HURT your soil but, I encourage you to stop expending all this money for something that can be done for far less money and work.  The best and ONLY way to improve any soil from sand to clay...is simply dumping DECOMPOSED organic matter on the top of the soil.  DECOMPOSED.  If organic matter is not decomposed it should stay in the compost pile or bin until it IS decomposed.  Adding extra nitrogen speeds up decomposition because decomposing organisms use NITROGEN for fuel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bagged potting soil has a bunch of neutral filler mediums such as: peat moss, vermiculite, pearlite, coir.  Sterilized.  All plants in pots need sterilized formulated well draining medium, never garden soil.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not at all meant to use to improve your garden soil.  You need to find a super source for DECOMPOSED organic matter, well aged horse or steer or chicken manure?  Well aged.  If you are able to see sticks, chunks of old matter that you are able to recognize then that matter is not decomposed.  It has to be uniform, a bit larger than grains of soil, lots smaller than non decomposed bark mulches, uniform color, SMELL wonderful to be used on top of soil you want to improve THIS YEAR. To be used as a cover to smother baby weeds and seeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is so important I am spending a bit more time explaining the importance of decomposed organic matter.  (DOM).  In any natural soil profile the very top layer is organic matter.  Stuff dies and falls to the ground.  This in no way has the chemistry plants need to do photosynthesis but it creates the TILTH in the soil plants need to thrive.  Plenty of pore space for air, organic matter to buffer any pH problems, organic matter to hold onto water longer while still allowing air to fill the pore spaces in the soil.  Organic matter to help hold onto and release more slowly balanced fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stuff dies it lands on top of the top most horizon of soil, the 'Top Soil' horizon.  It then decomposes as all things once alive will immediately begin to do after death.  Those decomposers use NITROGEN for energy nothing else.  Decomposers get that nitrogen before any plant roots are able to take that bit of nitrogen available up to be used for a plant.  This is just basic soil science.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Decomposed organic matter dumped on top of the surface is the best way to improve...any type of soil.  Versus rototilling or double digging.  Fresh decomposed organic matter summons soil life to come eat me!  Soil organisms both macro and micro use DECOMPOSED organic matter for fuel.  Not un decomposed organic matter but decomposed organic matter.  These organisms come up to the surface to eat this material that is decomposed then they go back into the soil (4 to 6&quot;) poop out their dinners and mix decomposed organic matter into the soil PERFECTLY.  They aerate at the same time. With this fuel they are able to reproduce and make any soil alive and healthy.  Any soil type. Within one season you can make caliche clay into beds with incredible tilth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fertilizer will always have to be added, judiciously of course!  Knowledgeably.  No compost will ever replace fertilizer.  Period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water will always have to be added judiciously and with knowledge.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always double dig and form my forever plant beds ONE TIME.  Trenches at the bottom so the water can collect and with physics that water helps to PULL excess water out of the soil, allowing the pore spaces to fill with air.  Those beds change from year to year just by cleaning out the trenches and dumped decomposed organic matter on top of those beds and/or growing a green crop on that bed for the winter.  Turn it all over in the spring and in a month after adding a bit of nitrogen, that bed is ready to plant and have some balanced fertilizer added. &#xD;&#xA;Caliche Clay first year garden the kind of soil when wet becomes pure mucous.&#xD;&#xA;Volcanic pumice I think 2nd or 3rd year, look at the difference in soil from the original in the walkways.  &#xD;&#xA;[![Caliche clay garden[![\]\[1\]][1]][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![volcanic pumice][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2PLiR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lw6zX.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rNSeX.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7012" RevisionGUID="fe099986-c389-4645-8487-875801191ccf" CreationDate="2018-12-18T05:45:16.357" UserId="3540" Comment="added picture" Text="Bagged soil contains a little bit of decomposed organic matter which is the ONLY thing that improves any and all soils.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bagged soil is composed of very little actual soil.  Lots of inert ingredients.  The main boon to bagged potting soil is sterilization.  Bagged soil, potting soil is critical for any plants planted in pots.  Plants in pots that do not have the advantages of the larger body of garden soil, checks and balances.  No disease or insects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sterilized potting soil has never been meant to be used in the out of doors garden soil.  NOT at all necessary and sorry, not at all a way to improve your garden soil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will not HURT your soil but, I encourage you to stop expending all this money for something that can be done for far less money and work.  The best and ONLY way to improve any soil from sand to clay...is simply dumping DECOMPOSED organic matter on the top of the soil.  DECOMPOSED.  If organic matter is not decomposed it should stay in the compost pile or bin until it IS decomposed.  Adding extra nitrogen speeds up decomposition because decomposing organisms use NITROGEN for fuel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bagged potting soil has a bunch of neutral filler mediums such as: peat moss, vermiculite, pearlite, coir.  Sterilized.  All plants in pots need sterilized formulated well draining medium, never garden soil.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to find a super source for DECOMPOSED organic matter, well aged horse or steer or chicken manure?  Well aged.  If you are able to see sticks, chunks of old matter that you are able to recognize then that matter is not decomposed.  It has to be uniform, a bit larger than grains of soil, lots smaller than non decomposed bark mulches, uniform color, SMELLs wonderful too, be used on top of soil you want to improve THIS YEAR. Dual purpose, this stuff smothers weeds, weed seeds and gives the soil organisms something to eat for fuel and reproduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is so important I am spending a bit more time explaining the importance of decomposed organic matter.  (DOM).  In any natural soil profile the very top layer is organic matter.  Stuff dies and falls to the ground.  This in no way has the chemistry plants need to do photosynthesis but it causes the TILTH in the soil plants need to thrive.  Plenty of pore space for air, organic matter to buffer any pH problems, organic matter to hold onto water longer while still allowing air to fill the pore spaces in the soil.  Organic matter to help hold onto and release more slowly balanced fertilizer and water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stuff dies it lands on top of the top most horizon of soil, the 'Top Soil' horizon.  It then decomposes as all things once alive will immediately begin to do after death.  Those decomposers use NITROGEN for energy nothing else.  Decomposers get that nitrogen before any plant roots are able to take advantage. This is just basic soil science. Soil, no matter how dark and friable and yummy looking it is does NOT come with fertilizer.  Just doesn't.  The reason for this in nature is population control...of plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Decomposed organic matter dumped on top of the surface is the best way to improve...any type of soil.  Versus rototilling or double digging or adding gravels, gypsum, sand, compost!  Freshly added decomposed organic matter summons soil life to come eat me!  Soil organisms both macro and micro use DECOMPOSED organic matter for fuel.  Not un decomposed organic matter but decomposed organic matter.  These organisms come up to the surface to eat this material that is decomposed then they go back into the soil (4 to 6&quot;) poop out their dinners and mix decomposed organic matter into the soil PERFECTLY.  They aerate at the same time. With this fuel they are able to reproduce and make any soil alive and healthy.  Any soil type. Within one season you can make caliche clay into beds with incredible tilth.  I dumped decomposed organic matter on my lawn where I wanted to have a new plant bed the next year.  The soil was BLUE CLAY.  The stuff they use to make porcelain figurines.  In 8 months that blue clay was almost completely black. Black streaks of DOM from the soil organisms pooping it out into the soil.  The grass I dumped it onto turned into a 'cover crop'.  I double dug that bed, made trenches at the bottom and I had the perfect new bed for new plants.  Adding a bit of fertilizer and watering always when necessary, esp. for newbie plants.  All my plant beds are 'raised' with those trenches at the bottom.  I can't imagine doing this any other way no matter the location or the type of soil.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did manage to get a load of potting soil from some growers dumping their pots out.  Put it right on top the ground where I was soon to make my plant beds.  Got mixed in sort of kind of and it sort of kind of worked.  Didn't help that much but didn't hurt at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fertilizer will always have to be added, judiciously of course!  Knowledgeably.  No compost will ever replace fertilizer.  Period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water will always have to be added judiciously and with knowledge.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always double dig and form my forever plant beds ONE TIME.  Trenches at the bottom so the water can collect and with physics that water helps to PULL excess water out of the soil, allowing the pore spaces to fill with air.  Those beds change from year to year just by cleaning out the trenches and dumped decomposed organic matter on top of those beds and/or growing a green crop on that bed for the winter.  Turn it all over in the spring and in a month after adding a bit of nitrogen, that bed is ready to plant and have some balanced fertilizer added. &#xD;&#xA;Caliche Clay first year garden the kind of soil when wet becomes pure mucous.&#xD;&#xA;Volcanic pumice I think 2nd or 3rd year, look at the difference in soil from the original in the walkways.  &#xD;&#xA;[![Caliche clay garden[![\]\[1\]][1]][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![volcanic pumice][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2PLiR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lw6zX.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rNSeX.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18357" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7012" RevisionGUID="7442cf63-dd30-4c97-95a6-560f4a42a6e0" CreationDate="2018-12-18T05:54:03.347" UserId="3540" Comment="added picture" Text="Bagged soil contains a little bit of decomposed organic matter which is the ONLY thing that improves any and all soils.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bagged soil is composed of very little actual soil.  Lots of inert ingredients.  The main boon to bagged potting soil is sterilization.  Bagged soil, potting soil is critical for any plants planted in pots.  Plants in pots that do not have the advantages of the larger body of garden soil, checks and balances.  No disease or insects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sterilized potting soil has never been meant to be used in the out of doors garden soil.  NOT at all necessary and sorry, not at all a way to improve your garden soil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will not HURT your soil but, I encourage you to stop expending all this money for something that can be done for far less money and work.  The best and ONLY way to improve any soil from sand to clay...is simply dumping DECOMPOSED organic matter on the top of the soil.  DECOMPOSED.  If organic matter is not decomposed it should stay in the compost pile or bin until it IS decomposed.  Adding extra nitrogen speeds up decomposition because decomposing organisms use NITROGEN for fuel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bagged potting soil has a bunch of neutral filler mediums such as: peat moss, vermiculite, pearlite, coir.  Sterilized.  All plants in pots need sterilized formulated well draining medium, never garden soil.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to find a super source for DECOMPOSED organic matter, well aged horse or steer or chicken manure?  Well aged.  If you are able to see sticks, chunks of old matter that you are able to recognize then that matter is not decomposed.  It has to be uniform, a bit larger than grains of soil, lots smaller than non decomposed bark mulches, uniform color, SMELLs wonderful too, be used on top of soil you want to improve THIS YEAR. Dual purpose, this stuff smothers weeds, weed seeds and gives the soil organisms something to eat for fuel and reproduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is so important I am spending a bit more time explaining the importance of decomposed organic matter.  (DOM).  In any natural soil profile the very top layer is organic matter.  Stuff dies and falls to the ground.  This in no way has the chemistry plants need to do photosynthesis but it causes the TILTH in the soil plants need to thrive.  Plenty of pore space for air, organic matter to buffer any pH problems, organic matter to hold onto water longer while still allowing air to fill the pore spaces in the soil.  Organic matter to help hold onto and release more slowly balanced fertilizer and water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As stuff dies it lands on top of the top most horizon of soil, the 'Top Soil' horizon.  It then decomposes as all things once alive will immediately begin to do after death.  Those decomposers use NITROGEN for energy nothing else.  Decomposers get that nitrogen before any plant roots are able to take advantage. This is just basic soil science. Soil, no matter how dark and friable and yummy looking it is does NOT come with fertilizer.  Just doesn't.  The reason for this in nature is population control...of plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Decomposed organic matter dumped on top of the surface is the best way to improve...any type of soil.  Versus rototilling or double digging or adding gravels, gypsum, sand, compost!  Freshly added decomposed organic matter summons soil life to come eat me!  Soil organisms both macro and micro use DECOMPOSED organic matter for fuel.  Not un decomposed organic matter but decomposed organic matter.  These organisms come up to the surface to eat this material that is decomposed then they go back into the soil (4 to 6&quot;) poop out their dinners and mix decomposed organic matter into the soil PERFECTLY.  They aerate at the same time. With this fuel they are able to reproduce and make any soil alive and healthy.  Any soil type. Within one season you can make caliche clay into beds with incredible tilth.  I dumped decomposed organic matter on my lawn where I wanted to have a new plant bed the next year.  The soil was BLUE CLAY.  The stuff they use to make porcelain figurines.  In 8 months that blue clay was almost completely black. Black streaks of DOM from the soil organisms pooping it out into the soil.  The grass I dumped it onto turned into a 'cover crop'.  I double dug that bed, made trenches at the bottom and I had the perfect new bed for new plants.  Adding a bit of fertilizer and watering always when necessary, esp. for newbie plants.  All my plant beds are 'raised' with those trenches at the bottom.  I can't imagine doing this any other way no matter the location or the type of soil.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did manage to get a load of potting soil from some growers dumping their pots out.  Put it right on top the ground where I was soon to make my plant beds.  Got mixed in sort of kind of and it sort of kind of worked.  Didn't help that much but didn't hurt at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fertilizer will always have to be added, judiciously of course!  Knowledgeably.  No compost will ever replace fertilizer.  Period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water will always have to be added judiciously and with knowledge.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I always double dig and form my forever plant beds ONE TIME.  Trenches at the bottom so the water can collect and with physics that water helps to PULL excess water out of the soil, allowing the pore spaces to fill with air.  Those beds change from year to year just by cleaning out the trenches and dumped decomposed organic matter on top of those beds and/or growing a green crop on that bed for the winter.  Turn it all over in the spring and in a month after adding a bit of nitrogen, that bed is ready to plant and have some balanced fertilizer added. &#xD;&#xA;Caliche Clay first year garden the kind of soil when wet becomes pure mucous.&#xD;&#xA;Volcanic pumice I think 2nd or 3rd year, look at the difference in soil from the original in the walkways.  &#xD;&#xA;[![Caliche clay garden[![\]\[1\]][1]][1]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![volcanic pumice][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quit worrying about carbon.  Which is not CO2 anyway.  Neither of them cause any harm whatsoever no matter how dumb we humans are!  None.  CO2 is why we are here.  CO2 is why all life on this planet is here.  CO2 will never cause global warming until all life and oceans are gone.  CO2 is odorless, colorless, NON toxic and very heavy.  CO2 gets stored in the soil and in the oceans until the temperature rises a bit releasing the CO2 from storage, or sequestration just in time for plants that need it during the growing season. The ice is not melting, the sea levels are not rising and the polar bears are profoundly happy.  We mostly certainly are in a Grand Solar Minimum of global cooling.  Just wait until you learn the ramifications you couldn't imagine!  But warming?  I can tell you quite sincerely and securely there is no global warming happening, has happened nor will happen.  Truly an amazing scam...  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2PLiR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lw6zX.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rNSeX.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18358" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7004" RevisionGUID="c215ff00-1f21-493d-974f-4c509896da14" CreationDate="2018-12-18T06:00:43.203" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1074907289428131840" />
  <row Id="18360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7013" RevisionGUID="deaf6979-4ef4-456d-8e90-d59fa7909459" CreationDate="2018-12-18T13:57:31.933" UserId="3080" Text="I suggest that you take a fully sustainable path by doing away with machine humidifiers and switching to using natural humidifiers.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Houseplants such as areca palm, rubber plant, peace lily, English ivy and spider plant have been heavily researched by NASA and shown to significantly increase humidity in the air through a process called transpiration.  Also, these same plants can decrease airborne pollutants by up to 87% in 24 hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll have clean, oxygenated, humidified air requiring no use of electricity or manufacture of plastics, and you'll also increase the beauty of your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are links to a couple articles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[hunker - plants that add moisture to the air][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[sfgate - indoor plants can battle pollution / NASA research shows they absorb chemicals][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And no need for distilled water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hunker.com/12003913/plants-that-add-the-most-moisture-to-the-air&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/Indoor-Plants-Can-Battle-Pollution-NASA-3011009.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7009" RevisionGUID="f351bb2c-7751-413c-a4a7-6e163f670ab8" CreationDate="2018-12-18T16:32:44.643" UserId="3379" Comment="Minor typos and tag changes." Text="I always thought, that burning wood, would be bad for the total CO2 in the atmosphere until I heard it being pitched as &quot;renewable energy&quot;. Now I am slightly unsure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The logic goes like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood has X amount of CO2 in it, which is released when burned. Since commercial forests are replaced or renewed, the same amount of CO2 is going to be trapped by the new tree. Let's assume that this is true in this particular case, and every burned tree is replaced by a new tree and the total amount of trees doesn't actually decrease (this is true in well-managed forests).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, burning anything releases toxins into the air, but let's ignore that for a moment and focus just on the CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is the second argument, that letting a piece of wood biodegrade releases the same amount (or similar amount) of CO2 as burning it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do these two arguments have merit?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18362" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7009" RevisionGUID="f351bb2c-7751-413c-a4a7-6e163f670ab8" CreationDate="2018-12-18T16:32:44.643" UserId="3379" Comment="Minor typos and tag changes." Text="Is burning wood the same as letting it biodegrade from a CO2 emissions perspective?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18363" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7009" RevisionGUID="f351bb2c-7751-413c-a4a7-6e163f670ab8" CreationDate="2018-12-18T16:32:44.643" UserId="3379" Comment="Minor typos and tag changes." Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|firewood|forestry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6781" RevisionGUID="f2c33eac-8859-4d51-96a0-ee092d954063" CreationDate="2018-12-18T16:40:21.993" UserId="3379" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="**TL;DR - Because of how flywheel energy storage scales it is unlikely that significant efforts will be made to develop the technology for home use.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is similar to the case for windmills, where the power output increases as the square of the diameter, and the cube of the wind speed (which itself doubles roughly every 20m of elevation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the Engineering Toolbox, the equations governing [flywheel kinetic energy](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flywheel-energy-d_945.html) are:&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    E_f = 1/2 × I × ω²&#xD;&#xA;    I   = k × m × r²&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    E_f = flywheel kinetic energy&#xD;&#xA;    I   = moment of intertia&#xD;&#xA;    ω   = angular velocity (measured in radians/second, proportional to RPM)&#xD;&#xA;    k   = inertial constant (a value from 0 to 1 which depends on the flywheel shape)&#xD;&#xA;    m   = mass of the flywheel&#xD;&#xA;    r   = radius of the flywheel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we were to assume all flywheels have the same shape, roll all the constants together in to some value `K`, and combine the two equations, we'd get something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`(flywheel kinetic energy) = (K) × (RPM)² × (mass) × (radius)²`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus to maximize the energy storage of a flywheel we would focus on making it **larger** (increasing the radius) and **faster**, as the total energy will increase proportionally to the square of these factors. Note from @Ghanima's answer we know that efficiencies are already greater than 90%, so there isn't much potential there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - double the **radius**, quadruple the energy&#xD;&#xA; - double the **speed**, quadruple the energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a fun [calculator](http://www.botlanta.org/converters/dale-calc/flywheel.html) you can use to see this in practice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For domestic applications, making things larger is not an option -- it has to fit in a home. Thus to advance the tech for home use, designers would have to increase the speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Increases in speed are limited by technology costs and electricity supply -- faster motors cost more, and require a higher current input than may be available in a typical home. Given that energy potential increases for this application are already limited by size constraints, it simply doesn't make sense to put more money into the motor and the electricity supply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7014" RevisionGUID="478dd53e-4b79-4336-861e-389bc1f3cb37" CreationDate="2018-12-18T17:19:05.073" UserId="3080" Text="Perhaps the best answer to the question, as posed, is...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research the source of the tree. Was it farmed under the guidelines or certification of the [American Tree Farm System][1] or in Britain the [British Christmas Tree Growers Association (BCTGA)][2] or the [Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)][3]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There definitely are eco-friendly tree growers using low-grade land that is not suitable for food crops, however is perfectly suitable for growing trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to buy a living, root-balled tree as opposed to one that was cut down.  After the holidays, plant it in a slightly larger plot, move outside, and use it again next year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.treefarmsystem.org/certification-american-tree-farm-system&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bctga.co.uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.fsc-uk.org/en-uk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7014" RevisionGUID="6728439b-2a59-40a7-a456-dde3fa341a80" CreationDate="2018-12-18T18:48:50.307" UserId="3080" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Perhaps the best answer to the question, as posed, is...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research the source of the tree. Was it farmed under the guidelines or certification of the [American Tree Farm System][1] or in Britain the [British Christmas Tree Growers Association (BCTGA)][2] or the [Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)][3]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There definitely are eco-friendly tree growers using low-grade land that is not suitable for food crops, however is perfectly suitable for growing trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, try to buy a living, root-balled tree as opposed to one that was cut down.  After the holidays, plant it in a slightly larger pot, move outside, and use it again next year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.treefarmsystem.org/certification-american-tree-farm-system&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bctga.co.uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.fsc-uk.org/en-uk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7015" RevisionGUID="f0d5269d-cf2b-4447-be53-347f38eac09e" CreationDate="2018-12-18T19:31:14.270" UserId="3080" Text="If your local laws allow you to keep bees on your property, then you can keep bees, end of discussion. Your neighbor's horses don't come into consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want your beekeeping to affect your neighbors or their horses, keep this in mind. Bees routinely travel up to 3.2km (or even further) in search of food and water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your neighbor's field provides the closest source of water (for the horses), the bees are going to go there. Provide your bees a great source of water on your own plot so they don't have to visit your neighbors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, if your neighbor's field provides plants that the bees are more strongly attracted to than what you have on your own plot, the bees are going to go there. Plant your plot with a mixed array of native wildflowers. You can actually influence the honey your bees produce by what you plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, in the USA there are grants and technical assistance available to become beekeepers. Perhaps there are similar programs available in your area." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5576" RevisionGUID="7f51b782-cd5c-40c1-b525-b122577f25d2" CreationDate="2018-12-18T20:35:44.937" UserId="48" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&lt;b&gt;Sustainable Living Stack Exchange&lt;/b&gt; is a question and answer site for people trying to live a sustainable lifestyle, for professionals in renewable energy and other clean technology, and&amp;nbsp;&amp;ndash;&amp;nbsp;most importantly&amp;nbsp;&amp;ndash;&amp;nbsp;for you. It's built and run *by you* as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question on sustainability issues including climate change, renewable energy and sustainable resources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="9dbadcf8-7971-4712-a180-57f1d88e60d3" CreationDate="2018-12-18T21:02:38.373" UserId="6245" Text="There is a man in Cameroon who has been melting plastic bags and molding them into&#xD;&#xA;paving stones. He has been doing this for 15 years. He adds sand to the melted plastic.&#xD;&#xA;See the full story on YouTube. Why hasn't someone taken this to a industrial level?&#xD;&#xA;This inventor should receive an award for his idea. I'm no expert in the process, but it seems so logical. ...Paving stones, Sidewalks, Building blocks, Machine into plastic parts,&#xD;&#xA;Toys, Insulating a House. Maybe the plastic issue is right in front of our eyes.&#xD;&#xA;Please....Someone take this idea, run with it and make a billion dollars and save the world at the same time. Maybe someone can contact '60 Minutes' to publicize this amazing idea." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7017" RevisionGUID="3d096ea0-605f-4626-a618-33a1d771b578" CreationDate="2018-12-19T04:26:00.693" UserId="6246" Text="My simple answer is yes, especially if you have two planted in it's place. That's assuming you mean to buy a Christmas tree that's been cut down.&#xD;&#xA;(Unless you plan on removing the tree from the earth's ecosystem, or it is the 'last' tree, than it's all a part of the circle of life.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5393" RevisionGUID="dfe71d00-a539-4b03-b631-7813e2087ddb" CreationDate="2018-12-19T11:33:25.137" UserId="99" Comment="fixed broken link" Text="It's definitely possible to recycle plastic and create LEGO-like building blocks. In fact several houses have already been built this way! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2010 a Colombian architect called Oscar Mendez had the same idea as you. He started an initiative called [Conceptos Plasticos](http://conceptosplasticos.com) (website in Spanish) with the goal to reduce both waste and extreme poverty by providing cheaper and better housing solutions for people in need. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The plastic waste we recycle is melted and poured into a mould to produce plastic blocks that work like Lego pieces, allowing whole communities and families to play a part in the easy constructing of their own homes. The materials contain additives that makes them resistant to fire and because the structure is plastic-based, it is earthquake resistant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  A house for one family takes four people, with no construction experience, just five days to build. Our construction system is 30% cheaper than traditional systems in rural areas. We helped build a contemporary shelter for 42 families displaced by violence in Guapi, Cauca, in 2015, whilst recycling 200 tons of plastic in the process.  ([source: theventure.com](https://web.archive.org/web/20160708120908/https://www.theventure.com/global/en/finalists/conceptos-plasticos))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Building a house with bricks made from recycled plastic][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[![Finished house][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Images from [theventure.com](http://www.theventure.com/global/en/finalists/conceptos-plasticos) and [changemakers.com](https://www.changemakers.com/globalgoals2015/entries/re-cycled-house-closing-cycle-plastic)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Here is a YouTube video (in Spanish)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33CdLjIr_uw) that shows the process. If you [search on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=oscar+mendez+plastic+houses) you can also find a few videos in English&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9wiP1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rVwM4.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/U1wtl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One critical remark though; I haven't seen any information which types of plastic are used for creating the bricks, so I'm not 100% sure all types of plastic are recycled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18372" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6990" RevisionGUID="d5fe2fa4-cff1-4cdd-9952-9af1cf37a0e7" CreationDate="2018-12-19T15:00:29.327" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1075405514484400129" />
  <row Id="18373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="3e323e3c-6eda-484c-85d8-9731018aa7bd" CreationDate="2018-12-19T16:32:35.153" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Removed all opinions" Text="There is a man in Cameroon who has been melting plastic bags and molding them into&#xD;&#xA;paving stones. He has been doing this for 15 years. He adds sand to the melted plastic.&#xD;&#xA;See the full story on YouTube. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="a145bc12-66e9-40e6-9e4e-e99b77fd434d" CreationDate="2018-12-19T17:17:09.280" UserId="3653" Text="The food industry grows animals for meat, but some parts cannot be sold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the final use of bones from the different animals grown industrially? pigs, beef, poultry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="a145bc12-66e9-40e6-9e4e-e99b77fd434d" CreationDate="2018-12-19T17:17:09.280" UserId="3653" Text="What are the uses of bones from the different animals bred industrially?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18376" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="a145bc12-66e9-40e6-9e4e-e99b77fd434d" CreationDate="2018-12-19T17:17:09.280" UserId="3653" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7019" RevisionGUID="c02e3c87-231d-4e3c-a6f4-39f03f382120" CreationDate="2018-12-19T21:46:04.237" UserId="4922" Text="Lots of it is ground up and used as animal feed. for the same animals..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7020" RevisionGUID="da1a5ff5-dc0d-4a4c-943b-dc39d27dfa10" CreationDate="2018-12-20T05:42:20.723" UserId="4886" Text="Your idea is interesting but would fail in the real world for a number of reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The energy embodied in even a moderate storm is staggering.  No amount of &quot;Stormbuoys&quot; could make even a dent on a severe storm.  Their density would need to be so high that shipping and navigation would be impossible.  You will never &quot;mitigate the devastation of storms&quot; with floating buoys on open water.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Due to the high amount of 'contaminants' in sea water, small-scale electrolysis would involve such a high level of maintenance that it would be economically non-viable.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Tethered wave generators — explicitly designed to withstand storms — break their moorings and anchors all the time.  Yours would be no different.  The ocean is a harsh environment at the best of times, but rogue waves and storms send man-made structures to the ocean floor (or into shipping lanes) on a regular basis.  The cost of a cable strong enough to keep a buoy from breaking free due to a 30m rogue wave is likely to easily exceed the value of any energy it may generate during its entire lifespan.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Mechanical flexing of power transmission cables due to wave action ultimately induce micro-fractures and cause them to fail.&#xD;&#xA; 5. The transfer of compressed hydrogen is a safety nightmare even under ideal conditions.  The ocean surface is far, far from ideal.  The difficulty and expense in complying with safety regulations alone would likely make hydrogen harvesting non-profitable.&#xD;&#xA; 6. etc., etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Forget about trying to subdue storms — the physics just doesn't work.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Focus on one type of generation, not two.  Split the two into different products, if you wish.  Simplify and optimise.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Minimise physical movement.  A structure completely submerged all the time (for example) will last far, far longer than one bobbing around on the surface.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Reduce the number and complexity of moving parts.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Eliminate or heavily streamline elements that require maintenance.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Reduce the need for human involvement once the structure has been deployed.&#xD;&#xA; 7. Engineer the safety risks out of everything you possibly can.&#xD;&#xA; 8. Take a boat out in a storm (heck, even in 'slightly rough' weather) and experience, first-hand, what you are up against.  I think you seriously need to recalibrate your opinion of the natural forces involved." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18379" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7020" RevisionGUID="5debfb7f-7c34-4c8a-bedc-2078fbd6b2a9" CreationDate="2018-12-20T05:51:03.103" UserId="4886" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="Your idea is interesting but would fail in the real world for a number of reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The energy embodied in even a moderate storm is staggering.  No amount of &quot;Stormbuoys&quot; could make even a dent on a severe storm.  Their density would need to be so high that shipping and navigation would be impossible.  You will never &quot;mitigate the devastation of storms&quot; with floating buoys on open water.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Due to the high amount of 'contaminants' in sea water, small-scale electrolysis would involve such a high level of maintenance that it would be economically non-viable.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Tethered wave generators — explicitly designed to withstand storms — break their moorings and anchors on a regular basis.  Yours would be no different.  The ocean is a harsh environment at the best of times, but rogue waves and storms send man-made structures to the ocean floor (or into shipping lanes) on a regular basis.  The cost of a cable strong enough to keep a buoy from breaking free due to a 30m rogue wave is likely to easily exceed the value of any energy it may generate during its entire lifespan.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Mechanical flexing of power transmission cables — due to wave action — ultimately induce micro-fractures and cause them to fail.&#xD;&#xA; 5. The transfer of compressed hydrogen is a safety nightmare even under ideal conditions.  The ocean surface is far, far from ideal.  The difficulty and expense in complying with safety regulations alone would likely make hydrogen harvesting non-profitable.&#xD;&#xA; 6. etc., etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Forget about trying to subdue storms — the physics just doesn't work.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Focus on one type of generation, not two.  Split the two into different products, if you wish.  Simplify and optimise.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Minimise physical movement.  A structure completely submerged all the time (for example) will last far, far longer than one bobbing around on the surface.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Reduce the number and complexity of moving parts.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Eliminate or heavily streamline elements that require maintenance.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Reduce the need for human involvement once the structure has been deployed.&#xD;&#xA; 7. Engineer the safety risks out of everything you possibly can.&#xD;&#xA; 8. Take a boat out in a storm (heck, even in 'slightly rough' weather) and experience, first-hand, what you are up against.  I think you seriously need to recalibrate your opinion of the natural forces involved.&#xD;&#xA; 9. Keep economical viability at the front of your mind.  If there's no ROI then it won't happen — regardless of how good it is or how well it works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7021" RevisionGUID="fac52c90-96d3-4ecf-90c2-3900fa3a4f54" CreationDate="2018-12-20T10:32:58.293" UserId="99" Text="If you don't buy a Christmas tree your impact on the environment is 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do buy a tree, there will be some impact because most likely water, fertilizer and [pesticides](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2383/99) were used to grow the tree, the tree has to be dug out or cut down, and it has to be transported. Where I live some people like to gather and burn Christmas trees on new year's eve which causes air pollution. Of course you can opt to buy a root-balled tree with roots intact and replant it after Christmas to minimize your impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in short, **if you want to keep your environmental impact as low as possible then don't buy a tree, but the total impact of buying a tree is small**, especially if you buy an organic one and replant. You can do much more good (or less harm) to the environment if you focus on minimizing your impact caused by daily commutes, your diet and your home's energy usage (see also [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/4532/99) for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW this year we 'adopted' an organic Christmas tree via [this Dutch organisation](http://adopteereenkerstboom.nl) (website in Dutch, no affiliation, just a happy customer). In the first week of January the tree is taken back to the grower where it is replanted. If it survives we can reuse the same tree next year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2391" RevisionGUID="f4d80128-a340-42be-93bf-8911858229cf" CreationDate="2018-12-20T10:41:45.603" UserId="99" Comment="Added remark about pesticides usage being problem for environment, not so much health issue" Text="I found more information about these 'rumours'. [An expert on forests working for the German WWF has told the German 'Taz' newspaper](http://www.taz.de/Pestizide-an-vielen-Weihnachtsbaeumen/!107479/)  that many Christmas trees grown in Germany are full of pesticides. The German growers claim the use of pesticides is necessary due to the widespread use of monocultures (to keep the prices low). In monocultures diseases and bugs spread more quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Environmental protection organisations in Germany recommend 'Ökobäume' as well as the Naturland, Bioland, Demeter and FSC labels. Apparently their prices are about 5-10 euros higher compared to other trees. The  newspaper article also says that not all environment labels are ok and criticizes the Fairforest label for using potentially cancer-inducing chemicals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post](https://christmastrees.ces.ncsu.edu/faq-health-concerns/) suggests that there are no known health issues for pesticides usage on Christmas tree, but pesticides do have an impact on the environment of course." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7020" RevisionGUID="40812541-af97-4cf9-ad58-8e56c57b56f8" CreationDate="2018-12-20T11:10:45.890" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Your idea is interesting but would fail in the real world for a number of reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The energy embodied in even a moderate storm is staggering.  No amount of &quot;Stormbuoys&quot; could make even a dent on a severe storm.  Their density would need to be so high that shipping and navigation would be impossible.  You will never &quot;mitigate the devastation of storms&quot; with floating buoys on open water.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Due to the high amount of 'contaminants' in sea water, small-scale electrolysis would involve such a high level of maintenance that it would not be economically viable.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Tethered wave generators — explicitly designed to withstand storms — break their moorings and anchors on a regular basis.  Yours would be no different.  The ocean is a harsh environment at the best of times, but rogue waves and storms send man-made structures to the ocean floor (or into shipping lanes) on a regular basis.  The cost of a cable strong enough to keep a buoy from breaking free due to a 30m rogue wave is likely to easily exceed the value of any energy it may generate during its entire lifespan.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Mechanical flexing of power transmission cables — due to wave action — ultimately induce micro-fractures and cause them to fail.&#xD;&#xA; 5. The transfer of compressed hydrogen is a safety nightmare even under ideal conditions.  The ocean surface is far, far from ideal.  The difficulty and expense in complying with safety regulations alone would likely make hydrogen harvesting non-profitable.&#xD;&#xA; 6. etc., etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Forget about trying to subdue storms — the physics just doesn't work.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Focus on one type of generation, not two.  Split the two into different products, if you wish.  Simplify and optimise.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Minimise physical movement.  A structure completely submerged all the time (for example) will last far, far longer than one bobbing around on the surface.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Reduce the number and complexity of moving parts.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Eliminate or heavily streamline elements that require maintenance.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Reduce the need for human involvement once the structure has been deployed.&#xD;&#xA; 7. Engineer the safety risks out of everything you possibly can.&#xD;&#xA; 8. Take a boat out in a storm (heck, even in 'slightly rough' weather) and experience, first-hand, what you are up against.  I think you seriously need to recalibrate your opinion of the natural forces involved.&#xD;&#xA; 9. Keep economic viability at the front of your mind.  If there's no ROI then it won't happen — regardless of how clever it is or how well it works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18383" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7020" RevisionGUID="04c3359a-3c9b-48ba-972f-6b9f63253687" CreationDate="2018-12-20T11:18:14.493" UserId="4886" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Your idea is interesting but would fail in the real world for a number of reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The energy embodied in even a moderate storm is staggering.  No amount of &quot;Stormbuoys&quot; could make even a dent on a severe storm.  Their density would need to be so high that shipping and navigation would be impossible.  You will never &quot;mitigate the devastation of storms&quot; with floating buoys on open water.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Due to the high amount of 'contaminants' in sea water, small-scale electrolysis would involve such a high level of maintenance that it would not be economically viable.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Tethered wave generators — explicitly designed to withstand storms — break their moorings and anchors on a regular basis.  Yours would be no different.  The ocean is a harsh environment at the best of times, but rogue waves and storms send man-made structures to the ocean floor (or into shipping lanes) on a regular basis.  The cost of a cable strong enough to keep a buoy from breaking free due to a 30m rogue wave is likely to easily exceed the value of any energy it may generate during its entire lifespan.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Mechanical flexing of power transmission cables — due to wave action — ultimately induce micro-fractures and cause them to fail.&#xD;&#xA; 5. The transfer of compressed hydrogen is a safety nightmare even under ideal conditions.  The ocean surface is far, far from ideal.  The difficulty and expense in complying with safety regulations alone would likely make hydrogen harvesting non-profitable.&#xD;&#xA; 6. etc., etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Forget about trying to subdue storms — the physics just doesn't work.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Focus on one type of generation, not two.  Split the two into different products, if you wish.  Simplify and optimise.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Minimise physical movement.  A structure completely submerged all the time (for example) will last far, far longer than one bobbing around on the surface.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Reduce the number and complexity of moving parts.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Eliminate or heavily streamline elements that require maintenance.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Reduce the need for human involvement once the structure has been deployed.&#xD;&#xA; 7. Engineer the safety risks out of everything you possibly can.&#xD;&#xA; 8. Take a boat out in a storm (heck, even in 'slightly rough' weather) and experience, first-hand, what you are up against.  I think you seriously need to recalibrate your opinion of the natural forces involved.&#xD;&#xA; 9. Keep economic viability at the front of your mind.  If there's inadequate ROI then it won't happen — regardless of how clever it is or how well it works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7022" RevisionGUID="c6cfc0f9-c378-4117-ac3e-7cd46ceaa1a1" CreationDate="2018-12-20T17:53:46.033" UserId="4922" Text="I think a review of [photosynthesis][1] is in order. The CO2 plants take in are actually stored as sugars. Burning this will release it, but wood that decomposes naturally would have those sugars broken down by animals and fungi etc (who will release co2 via respiration) but will actually use much of that carbon to build their own bodies and keep the carbon within a naturall cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.howplantswork.com/2009/02/16/plants-dont-convert-co2-into-o2/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18385" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5536" RevisionGUID="0860629b-102d-4f25-b416-1b29b943e918" CreationDate="2018-12-20T18:01:31.850" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18386" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7009" RevisionGUID="d6b14d94-3ea5-4eb6-86a7-a2ad3872f4ad" CreationDate="2018-12-21T00:00:26.210" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1075903784709177344" />
  <row Id="18387" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="bcda81d1-ef63-438a-a6e6-74e0f44d818c" CreationDate="2018-12-21T01:48:18.037" UserId="4886" Text="It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is far beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solid).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from the carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other molecules.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is food in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled, semi-temperate environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will degrade under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology — the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' — that have made 'burning wood' less useful in sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and fireplaces tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard — ultimately becoming buried for thousands of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wrapping it up...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to millennia. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels in any time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  Yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="368ff114-db48-4cc2-b577-45f0d556f756" CreationDate="2018-12-21T01:54:15.487" UserId="4886" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is far beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solid).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from the carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other molecules.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is food in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will degrade under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology — the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' — that have made 'burning wood' less useful in sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and fireplaces tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard — ultimately becoming buried for thousands of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wrapping it up...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to millennia. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels in any time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  Yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="03f6f13b-17ba-4075-be50-727143930b8a" CreationDate="2018-12-21T02:00:45.430" UserId="4886" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is far beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solid).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from the carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other molecules.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is food in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will degrade under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology — the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' — that have made 'burning wood' less useful in sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard — ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon) for hundreds to thousands of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wrapping it up...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to millennia. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels in any time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  Yes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="10f26cd9-5934-4399-b9d7-fb5a2a4e681e" CreationDate="2018-12-21T02:14:40.640" UserId="4886" Comment="added 383 characters in body" Text="It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is far beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solid).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from the carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other molecules.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is food in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will degrade under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology — the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' — that have made 'burning wood' less useful in sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard — ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon) for hundreds to thousands of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wrapping it up...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to millennia. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels in any time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short-term) using fallen trees you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18391" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="21a3cb75-2d2f-4e35-ab5e-dec3e2deb396" CreationDate="2018-12-21T02:34:03.617" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is far beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solid).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from the carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other molecules.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is food in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology — the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' — that have made 'burning wood' less useful in sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard — ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon) for hundreds to thousands of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wrapping it up...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels in any time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="94eaa131-f439-4504-9487-60735b27cf1e" CreationDate="2018-12-21T02:42:03.933" UserId="4886" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is far beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solid).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from the carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other molecules.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is food in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology — the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' — that have made 'burning wood' less useful in sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard — ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon) for hundreds to thousands of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wrapping it up...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels in any time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen to any appreciable extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="55ef473f-9a96-4529-a588-d42d10cff066" CreationDate="2018-12-21T08:24:22.743" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is far beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solid).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from the carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology — the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' — that have made 'burning wood' less useful in sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard — ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon) for hundreds to thousands of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wrapping it up...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels in any time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen to any appreciable extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="ff4247a5-f3f2-49d8-9143-b20745b1846b" CreationDate="2018-12-21T08:42:29.187" UserId="4886" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is far beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solid).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from the carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology — the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' — that have made 'burning wood' less useful in sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard — ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon) for hundreds to thousands of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels in any time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr:**  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen to any appreciable extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="219dcf65-e077-4587-9334-26f3537dc7e8" CreationDate="2018-12-21T11:58:31.010" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is far beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solid).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology — the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' — that have made 'burning wood' less useful in sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard — ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon) for hundreds to thousands of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels in any time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr:**  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen to any appreciable extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="a39e668f-bf80-43c9-b8f9-af875d110ed6" CreationDate="2018-12-21T12:04:07.780" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is far beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solid).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology — the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' — that have made 'burning wood' less useful in sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard — ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon) for hundreds to thousands of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels over *any* time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr:**  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen to any appreciable extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7024" RevisionGUID="cae5fc46-8852-40b9-82a1-679616ec24e6" CreationDate="2018-12-21T14:21:02.117" UserId="6201" Text="Use a RO system which uses a brackish water membrane (TDS limit upto ~5000) so you can reuse the reject water again as feed water. This of course depends on the water quality in your area. It might be a little more expensive and larger initially but is a good investment in the long term considering you'll be using it regularly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18399" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="2cf31f81-7964-4103-8dfd-cfc6dc5ecd76" CreationDate="2018-12-21T16:02:30.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18400" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5519" RevisionGUID="c692f745-5c98-4c76-91f8-67cfc825e119" CreationDate="2018-12-21T18:00:51.037" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1076175679773949953" />
  <row Id="18401" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="cb1e6277-f1d5-4e3e-96c6-81b084bdf8e1" CreationDate="2018-12-21T18:01:50.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18403" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="05a58b7c-c383-4bc5-bd62-bc101f5626fb" CreationDate="2018-12-22T00:17:49.833" UserId="4886" Comment="added 242 characters in body" Text="It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is far beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solid).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology — the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' and 'less polluting' — that have made 'burning wood' *less useful* in sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard — ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon for hundreds to thousands of years).  Particulate matter (solid carbon) from 'smoky' chimneys would also settle on the ground outside of homes and sequester the carbon — in the process increasing the organic fraction of the soil and improving fertility and crop yields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels over *any* time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr:**  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen to any appreciable extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="3583dacd-151a-41fe-9a38-d5adf82e940d" CreationDate="2018-12-22T00:25:54.480" UserId="4886" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is far beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solid).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology — the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' and 'less polluting' — that have made 'burning wood' *less useful* in sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard — ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon for hundreds to thousands of years).  Particulate matter (solid carbon) from 'smoky' chimneys would also settle on the ground outside of homes and sequester the carbon — in the process increasing the organic fraction of the soil and improving fertility and crop yields for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels over *any* time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr:**  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen to any appreciable extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="37563558-9a0a-4f48-a884-070dea802f42" CreationDate="2018-12-22T00:38:13.243" UserId="4886" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="**The Basics**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is far beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Photosynthesis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solid).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burning Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When 'Carbon Neutral' Does Not Hold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firewood vs Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology — the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' and 'less polluting' — that have made 'burning wood' *less useful* in sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard — ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon for hundreds to thousands of years).  Particulate matter (solid carbon) from 'smoky' chimneys would also settle on the ground outside of homes and sequester the carbon — in the process increasing the organic fraction of the soil and improving fertility and crop yields for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels over *any* time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr:**  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen to any appreciable extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="ee50d585-d8eb-49ec-b8e4-2ff5beae392d" CreationDate="2018-12-22T00:43:35.743" UserId="4886" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="**The Basics**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is far beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Photosynthesis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solid).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burning Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When 'Carbon Neutral' Does Not Hold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firewood vs Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' and 'less&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polluting' — that have made 'burning wood' *less useful* in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon for hundreds to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thousands of years).  Particulate matter (solid carbon) from 'smoky'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chimneys would also settle on the ground outside of homes and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequester the carbon — in the process increasing the organic fraction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the soil and improving fertility and crop yields for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels over *any* time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr:**  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen to any appreciable extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18407" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="7745d3c2-c1df-4ad4-b583-3229830a3277" CreationDate="2018-12-22T00:53:36.510" UserId="4886" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="**Conservation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Photosynthesis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solids).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burning Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those serve to actually reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration in order to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released by various forms of life in gaseous form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and biodegrading) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When 'Carbon Neutral' Does Not Hold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firewood vs Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' and 'less&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polluting' — that have made 'burning wood' *less useful* in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon for hundreds to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thousands of years).  Particulate matter (solid carbon) from 'smoky'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chimneys would also settle on the ground outside of homes and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequester the carbon — in the process increasing the organic fraction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the soil and improving fertility and crop yields for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels over *any* time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr:**  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen to any appreciable extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18408" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="17127218-e613-4d9e-a00e-a641fc1c251a" CreationDate="2018-12-22T00:59:22.817" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="**Conservation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Photosynthesis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solids).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burning Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those actually serve to *reduce* atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration in order to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released in gaseous form by various species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and rotting) are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out, and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When 'Carbon Neutral' Does Not Hold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firewood vs Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (likely) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (less likely) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' and 'less&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polluting' — that have made 'burning wood' *less useful* in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon for hundreds to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thousands of years).  Particulate matter (solid carbon) from 'smoky'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chimneys would also settle on the ground outside of homes and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequester the carbon — in the process increasing the organic fraction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the soil and improving fertility and crop yields for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels over *any* time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr:**  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen to any appreciable extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18409" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="8c275b4f-0986-4291-b95b-3380b098695d" CreationDate="2018-12-22T01:05:02.430" UserId="4886" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="**Conservation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Photosynthesis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solids).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burning Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those actually serve to *reduce* atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration in order to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released in gaseous form by various species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and rotting)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When 'Carbon Neutral' Does Not Hold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firewood vs Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (probably) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (improbably) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' and 'less&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polluting' — that have made 'burning wood' *less useful* in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon for hundreds to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thousands of years).  Particulate matter (solid carbon) from 'smoky'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chimneys would also settle on the ground outside of homes and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequester the carbon — in the process increasing the organic fraction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the soil and improving fertility and crop yields for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels over *any* time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr:**  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen to any appreciable extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18410" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="3ec92138-1f34-4421-91ca-c70661e0815a" CreationDate="2018-12-22T01:11:00.883" UserId="4886" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="**Conservation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Photosynthesis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solids).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burning Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those actually serve to *reduce* atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration in order to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released in gaseous form by various species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and rotting)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and they are in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When 'Carbon Neutral' Does Not Hold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firewood vs Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (probably) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (improbably) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' and 'less&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polluting' — that have made 'burning wood' *less useful* in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then be thrown into the garden or spread out into a field/yard —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon for hundreds to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thousands of years).  Particulate matter (solid carbon) from 'smoky'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chimneys would also settle on the ground outside of homes and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequester the carbon — in the process increasing the organic fraction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the soil and improving fertility and crop yields for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor and unreliable strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels over *any* time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr:**  Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term.  If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the decay process — it won't happen to any appreciable extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18411" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="5ba5753c-c73a-4f0b-91af-2b04f6e6162c" CreationDate="2018-12-22T01:18:37.807" UserId="4886" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="**Conservation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Photosynthesis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solids).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burning Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those actually serve to *reduce* atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration in order to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released in gaseous form by various species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and rotting)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and they are in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When 'Carbon Neutral' Does Not Hold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firewood vs Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (probably) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (improbably) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' and 'less&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polluting' — that have made 'burning wood' *less useful* in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then be incorporated into the garden or spread out into a field/yard —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon for hundreds to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thousands of years).  Particulate matter (solid carbon) from 'smoky'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chimneys would also settle on the ground outside of homes and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequester the carbon — in the process increasing the organic fraction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the soil and improving fertility and crop yields for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor and unreliable strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels over *any* time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tl;dr:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decay process — it won't happen to any appreciable extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18412" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="35c5aa4a-6d2c-4ec1-bd5a-bab2232678d9" CreationDate="2018-12-22T01:23:53.533" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="**Conservation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Photosynthesis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solids).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burning Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those actually serve to *reduce* atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration in order to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released in gaseous form by various species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and rotting)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and they are in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When 'Carbon Neutral' Does Not Hold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firewood vs Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (probably) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (improbably) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' and 'less&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polluting' — that have made 'burning wood' *less useful* in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequestering carbon.  Old (inefficient) heaters and open fireplaces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then be incorporated into the garden or spread out into a field/yard —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon for hundreds to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thousands of years).  Particulate matter (solid carbon) from 'smoky'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chimneys would also settle on the ground outside of homes and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequester the carbon — in the process increasing the organic fraction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the soil and improving fertility and crop yields for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor and unreliable strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels over *any* time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tl;dr:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decay process — it won't happen to any useful extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="70db697d-f3ae-464c-90d9-402642652985" CreationDate="2018-12-22T01:29:48.263" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="**Conservation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Photosynthesis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solids).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form to produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burning Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules are now in the atmosphere.  All of the carbon atoms are now in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those actually serve to *reduce* atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration in order to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released in gaseous form by various species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and rotting)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and they are in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When 'Carbon Neutral' Does Not Hold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firewood vs Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (probably) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (improbably) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' and 'less&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polluting' — that have made 'burning wood' *less useful* in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequestering carbon.  Old heaters and open fireplaces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then be incorporated into the garden or spread out into a field/yard —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon for hundreds to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thousands of years).  Particulate matter (solid carbon) from 'smoky'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chimneys would also settle on the ground outside of homes and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequester the carbon — in the process increasing the organic fraction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the soil and improving fertility and crop yields for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those old heaters and fireplaces were actually *carbon-negative!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor and unreliable strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels over *any* time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tl;dr:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decay process — it won't happen to any useful extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="234b7f5b-5174-4d0d-aafc-62027eb0342c" CreationDate="2018-12-22T05:10:29.373" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="**Conservation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Photosynthesis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solids).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form and produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burning Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules go up the chimney and into the atmosphere.  That means all of the carbon atoms are also in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those actually serve to *reduce* atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration in order to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released in gaseous form by various species of plants and animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and rotting)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and they are in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When 'Carbon Neutral' Does Not Hold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues (that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firewood vs Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a non-gas in the soil for (probably) tens to hundreds, but perhaps (improbably) even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' and 'less&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polluting' — that have made 'burning wood' *less useful* in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequestering carbon.  Old heaters and open fireplaces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then be incorporated into the garden or spread out into a field/yard —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon for hundreds to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thousands of years).  Particulate matter (solid carbon) from 'smoky'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chimneys would also settle on the ground outside of homes and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequester the carbon — in the process increasing the organic fraction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the soil and improving fertility and crop yields for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those old heaters and fireplaces were actually *carbon-negative!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor and unreliable strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels over *any* time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tl;dr:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decay process — it won't happen to any useful extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7023" RevisionGUID="ed991e0c-f575-43d1-815c-df030b46c5fe" CreationDate="2018-12-22T05:16:16.577" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="**Conservation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is a fundamental law of physics that matter/mass/energy (all being, ultimately, the same thing) cannot be created or destroyed — they just change form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under 'normal' conditions on Earth, any carbon atom that exists will continue to exist in perpetuity.  It can and will form temporary bonds with other atoms to form distinct substances with distinct properties at various points in time, but the actual carbon atom itself will still exist, and the total number of carbon atoms in the world will not change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, extraterrestrial carbon sources do exist, but that is beyond the scope of this topic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Photosynthesis**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing trees obtain all of their carbon from photosynthesis.  Carbon in one form (carbon dioxide, a gas) is converted to another form (carbohydrates, which are solids).  Those carbohydrates then go on to change form and produce other solids (e.g. lignin and cellulose) that form the bulk of what we know as 'wood'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During this entire process the number of carbon atoms has not changed.  The only thing that has changed is what other atoms have attached to and detached from each carbon atom.  No carbon atoms have been created.  No carbon atoms have been destroyed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Burning Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If wood burns completely and fully in the presence of oxygen, the only thing left behind is ash.  Ash is inorganic.  Ash does not contain carbon.  All of the carbon atoms have — once again — been unbound from and rebound to other atoms.  All of those molecules go up the chimney and into the atmosphere.  That means all of the carbon atoms are also in the atmosphere.  The same carbon atoms.  The same atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes, a small amount of particulate matter (solid carbon) will become airborne, and some of the carbon will end up in the form of carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide, but since both of those actually serve to *reduce* atmospheric CO₂ levels, we can happily ignore them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tree that 'biodegrades' is nothing more than a tree that is left to rot.  Rotting is essentially the process whereby various types of fungi break down the molecules in wood (e.g. lignin and cellulose) into less complex forms.  Those forms (and the fungi themselves) are part of a complex biological food web.  Rotting wood is 'food' in the process of being 'eaten'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless the tree is completely submerged in water, nearly all of the biological life that is associated with rotting wood relies on aerobic cellular respiration in order to survive.  Aerobic respiration is essentially the reverse of photosynthesis (carbohydrates + oxygen » carbon dioxide + water + energy) so the cycle is, once again, complete.  The same carbon atoms that entered the tree in gaseous form have been eaten, processed and released in gaseous form by various species of plants and animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; So, under 'normal' conditions, both processes (burning and rotting)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; are carbon neutral.  The same amount of carbon atoms go in and out,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; and they are in the same form (CO₂).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**When 'Carbon Neutral' Does Not Hold**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is under 'abnormal' conditions that imbalances occur — in the short–medium term.  An incomplete/interrupted burn will leave behind charcoal that will probably take centuries or millennia to return to gaseous form.  A tree felled into a marsh/water will break down in anaerobic conditions and leave behind residues that may become fossil fuels and return to the atmosphere millions of years later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many variables that you can twist yourself into knots just thinking about them.  To actually arrive at an answer you need to reduce the variables — your question needs to be more specific.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Firewood vs Rotting Wood**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters are specifically built to extract as much heat from firewood as possible.  In recent years, with secondary and tertiary burn phases, they have gotten very good at that.  Rocket mass heaters (mass heaters in general) are even better.  In any case, 'complete combustion' is the goal.  Negligible amounts of charcoal should be left behind (or emitted as particulate matter or carbon monoxide).  Virtually all of the carbon ends up as CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a semi-temperate climate, a tree that is felled and left on the ground, piled up, or placed into a hugelkultur mound, is in a less-controlled environment.  It is almost certain that some parts of the tree will decay under anaerobic conditions and thus the embodied carbon will be converted to a more persistent form — one that will remain as a solid or liquid in the soil for (probably) tens to hundreds, but sometimes even thousands to millions of years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a time-scale of tens-of-millions of years, there is no difference between the two.  On a time-scale of decades, letting the wood decay naturally will sequester a tiny, tiny bit more atmospheric CO₂.  The large number of variables makes it hard to nail down &quot;tiny, tiny bit&quot; to anything more specific than &quot;far less than 1%&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ironically, it has been the 'improvements' in wood heater technology —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the same ones that have made them 'more efficient' and 'less&#xD;&#xA;&gt; polluting' — that have made 'burning wood' *less useful* in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequestering carbon.  Old heaters and open fireplaces&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tended to leave behind much larger amounts of charcoal which would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; then be incorporated into the garden or spread out into a field/yard —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ultimately becoming buried (sequestering the carbon for hundreds to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; thousands of years).  Particulate matter (solid carbon) from 'smoky'&#xD;&#xA;&gt; chimneys would also settle on the ground outside of homes and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sequester the carbon — in the process increasing the organic fraction&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the soil and improving fertility and crop yields for decades.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Those old heaters and fireplaces were actually *carbon-negative!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wrapping it up...**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficient wood heaters — thanks to near-perfect combustion — are very good at returning all of the carbon embodied in firewood back to the atmosphere very quickly.  They are carbon-neutral and — provided the firewood comes from managed woodlots — completely sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing wood to decay naturally in a semi-temperate climate will sequester a tiny amount of carbon for decades to centuries. The actual amount is so small and subject to such enormous variability that it makes for a poor and unreliable strategy for the reduction of atmospheric carbon levels over *any* time-frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many strategies exist that can slow down and/or modify the decay rate of wood and allow it to sequester carbon in the short–medium term, but just leaving it to rot on the ground is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **tl;dr:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;br&gt;Yes.  Burning wood is carbon-neutral.  Letting it rot on the ground is also carbon-neutral.  The (short–medium term) difference&#xD;&#xA;&gt; between the two is so small that it should not influence your thinking&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in any way.  There is no difference between the two in the long term. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you want to sequester carbon (in the short–medium term) using&#xD;&#xA;&gt; fallen trees then you need to actively/artificially manage/control the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; decay process — it won't happen to any useful extent otherwise." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18416" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="a73b25cd-2343-4ea9-89d5-62a5446ce355" CreationDate="2018-12-23T13:01:45.333" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7025" RevisionGUID="49bd576b-ede7-4234-b02f-6c3271916383" CreationDate="2018-12-23T18:29:17.667" UserId="4736" Text="There's a lot of fuss about reducing plastic usage, and one of the main reasons seems to be that otherwise it will end up in the environment, particularly the ocean. But if I dispose of the plastic correctly so that it ultimately ends up in a landfill, how much harm does that cause?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that some landfills are poorly managed and this can cause problems such as letting trash blow away. How hard is it to manage landfills properly? I haven't seen any campaigning for better landfills - wouldn't it be easier and more impactful to fix landfills than to convince every individual to reduce/eliminate plastic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the landfill does its job and buries plastic in the ground, how much harm does that do? The main problems mentioned on [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill#Social_and_environmental_impact) relate to biodegradable matter. From that perspective, for example, it seems I'm better off buying plastic bags to pick up dog faeces than biodegradable alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought the problem might be the costs of producing plastic, but for example [this article](https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/12/17337602/plastic-tote-bags-climate-change-litter-life-cycle-assessments-environment) claims that plastic bags generally use less resources and produce less carbon than other types of bag. I'm sure there are some kinds of products that shouldn't be produced using plastic, but anti-plastic campaigns don't tend to mention this kind of nuance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18418" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7025" RevisionGUID="49bd576b-ede7-4234-b02f-6c3271916383" CreationDate="2018-12-23T18:29:17.667" UserId="4736" Text="What's the impact of throwing plastic in the bin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18419" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7025" RevisionGUID="49bd576b-ede7-4234-b02f-6c3271916383" CreationDate="2018-12-23T18:29:17.667" UserId="4736" Text="|waste|plastic|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7026" RevisionGUID="bfdbbc07-5973-41d7-8aaf-56c13d9bed59" CreationDate="2018-12-24T11:27:14.377" UserId="6251" Text="Maybe a pump with tilt switch for bucket and cistern to fill and empty if either get too full, on a timer in case not used to keep water moving and not letting it ferment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18425" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7029" RevisionGUID="cda5d44a-16e2-4dca-8926-0c3c75bc4e79" CreationDate="2018-12-25T04:35:42.593" UserId="6201" Text="The problem with burying plastic in landfills is that plastic takes ~500 years to decompose, and burying large amounts of waste leads to groundwater pollution in the surrounding areas, which is difficult to solve. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing or eliminating plastic will help landfills in the long run because we cannot keep dumping our waste plastic in landfills, it will reach a saturation point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it might be true cotton totes mentioned in the article might produce more carbon while being transported and cotton is a water intensive crop, it can be reused and reduces the number of plastic bags going into landfills(assuming this is your concern), the conclusion in the article was to reuse any kind of bag for as long as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic pyrolysis is one solution being used by people to convert plastic into oil which can then be either further purified and converted to diesel or used as furnace oil. There is minimal pollution in this method as the gases(oil~60%, carbon black~10% and gas~30% are the 3 products) produced can be used to heat the reaction chamber." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18426" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="75" RevisionGUID="ee5b4a8d-3074-4a80-a72b-c1a7693e9827" CreationDate="2018-12-25T06:00:33.070" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1077443961969692674" />
  <row Id="18431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7030" RevisionGUID="cec70dac-5e6b-4a7c-9059-7c655c6129d5" CreationDate="2018-12-26T10:53:41.997" UserId="6251" Text="In Ireland, plastics are exported for processing. There is a carbon footprint in the transport of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its suspected that the purchasers of these are not always decent firms. Dumping of such shipments at sea may be responsible for some of the plastic islands in the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where it does make it to India or China, its often burned on the beach, causing pollution over there. So, with the best will in the world, not alone is the plastic you dumped burned, but theres a carbon footprint to bring it to where it was burned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18433" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="a908d58d-947b-41a6-b1f0-4b1afe5a5fc2" CreationDate="2018-12-28T08:10:41.273" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="added links as requested" Text="There is a man in Cameroon who has been melting plastic bags and molding them into&#xD;&#xA;paving stones. He has been doing this for 15 years. He adds sand to the melted plastic. &#xD;&#xA;See the full story at:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Recycling plastic waste into paving stones in Cameroon](https://observers.france24.com/en/20160407-cameroon-eco-business-recycle-africa)&#xD;&#xA;- [Plastic bags in Cameroon are turned into durable and sustainable floor tiles](https://www.thecivilengineer.org/news-center/latest-news/item/1511-plastic-bags-in-cameroon-are-turned-into-durable-and-sustainable-floor-tiles)&#xD;&#xA;- [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRxB6lyMNZ8) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18434" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7016" RevisionGUID="a908d58d-947b-41a6-b1f0-4b1afe5a5fc2" CreationDate="2018-12-28T08:10:41.273" Comment="Proposed by 2309 approved by 99 edit id of 549" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="735114e0-bc44-4ba8-8d4d-4c2487167b3f" CreationDate="2018-12-29T07:40:42.597" UserId="4099" Comment="image fixed (inlining HTTP images doesn't work anymore); for more info, see https://gist.github.com/Glorfindel83/9d954d34385d2ac2597bbe864466259f" Text="In Germany there is a system, just the way you describe it. It is something like, anything container that contains a drink, which is not a milk product has to charge extra money for the container (e.g. bottle), which is to be refunded on return of the container. (Aluminium cans are also exempt.) There is a special word for this amount of money, which at the moment is 0.25€ for plastic bottles and 0.08€ for glass bottles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems that the Coca-Cola company wasn't happy about their customers having to pay extra money for just the bottle, and having to bring the bottle back somewhere, so the German Coca-Cola contains fractional amount of whey, which allowed them to classify Coca-Cola as milk product...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, other than that the recycling system seems to work quite well. Glass bottles are being reused. Even plastic bottles for water are manufactured to be stronger and are being reused. There are a number of standard bottles for manufacturers to choose from. The picture shows the standard glass bottle for (weakly carbonated) mineral water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![water bottle](http://de-pic1.ciao.com/de/262618746.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the customer is done, he can bring the bottles to his nearest supermarket. Likely they will have a machine, where you put all your bottles in (full cases 1-by-1, bottles 2 at a time). The machine then gives you a voucher over the refunded money, which you can either turn into cash at the till, or use against your next shopping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Returning used bottles](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BJZHC.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past 20 years I haven't heard of any health issues associated with reused bottles. The caps are always new and I don't think it is very difficult to sterilize bottles large scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a last point, the Green dot system you mention does endure, at least in Germany, but is about _recycling_ and not _reusing_ a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It hasn't always been this way, but now my family's separated trash is (by weight)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. organic waste that is to be composted,&#xD;&#xA;2. bottles/jars that are to be reused,&#xD;&#xA;3. paper that is to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;3. jars that are to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;4. plastics that are to be recycled,&#xD;&#xA;5. waste that is not to be reused or recycled (usually land-fill).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18436" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="593" RevisionGUID="735114e0-bc44-4ba8-8d4d-4c2487167b3f" CreationDate="2018-12-29T07:40:42.597" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 3379, 85 edit id of 550" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="44dbf543-1970-4718-b222-143e36553a5d" CreationDate="2018-12-29T21:04:45.037" UserId="6259" Text="Cooking oil is very important. So get good taste&#xA;Cooking with palm oil is healthy ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="44dbf543-1970-4718-b222-143e36553a5d" CreationDate="2018-12-29T21:04:45.037" UserId="6259" Text="Cooking with palm oil is healthy for" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="44dbf543-1970-4718-b222-143e36553a5d" CreationDate="2018-12-29T21:04:45.037" UserId="6259" Text="|vegetable-oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18440" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="5ad356da-d12d-4865-8ca1-f2bbc000d341" CreationDate="2018-12-30T07:07:36.057" UserId="99" Comment="Improved grammar" Text="Cooking oil is very important to get a good taste.&#xD;&#xA;Is cooking with palm oil healthy? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18441" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="5ad356da-d12d-4865-8ca1-f2bbc000d341" CreationDate="2018-12-30T07:07:36.057" UserId="99" Comment="Improved grammar" Text="Is cooking with palm oil healthy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18442" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="5ad356da-d12d-4865-8ca1-f2bbc000d341" CreationDate="2018-12-30T07:07:36.057" UserId="99" Comment="Improved grammar" Text="|health|vegetable-oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7032" RevisionGUID="8dcdc596-9293-4220-be25-e287bfe9107d" CreationDate="2018-12-30T07:29:26.763" UserId="99" Text="Using palm oil for cooking is fine from a health perspective, but **not** from a sustainability perspective. Often rain forests are cleared to create new palm oil plantations, so palm oil is responsible for deforestation, forest fires and loss of habitat for animals. Even [certified organic palm oil and palm oil with RSPO certification are not without these problems](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5727/99).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other cooking oils like coconut oil or olive oil are a better choice, both from a health point of view (see [this blog](http://www.onegreenplanet.org/vegan-food/is-palm-oil-good-for-your-health/) and [this blog](https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/healthy-cooking-oils#section2)) as well as from a sustainability point of view (see [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/1248/99))." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="3bc02fcf-38e5-4b2b-b0d7-c20665ada9f6" CreationDate="2018-12-30T23:06:23.187" UserId="6264" Text="I'm looking for a ballpark number. Obviously fodder can include more than just one crop (e.g., barley/corn or hay/straw), and that's why I am having trouble finding a figure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aside, I found that an average lactating dairy cow eats about 50 lbs ([source][1]) of fodder per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://albertamilk.com/ask-dairy-farmer/how-much-and-how-many-times-does-a-lactating-cow-e/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="3bc02fcf-38e5-4b2b-b0d7-c20665ada9f6" CreationDate="2018-12-30T23:06:23.187" UserId="6264" Text="Roughly, how much water does it take to grow 50 lbs of fodder for most dairy cows?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18447" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="3bc02fcf-38e5-4b2b-b0d7-c20665ada9f6" CreationDate="2018-12-30T23:06:23.187" UserId="6264" Text="|water|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18448" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="613182b3-ac00-400b-97ac-3157d6cf0c0d" CreationDate="2018-12-31T09:12:02.857" UserId="4099" Comment="image fixed (inlining HTTP images doesn't work anymore); for more info, see https://gist.github.com/Glorfindel83/9d954d34385d2ac2597bbe864466259f" Text="I use Sanyo Eneloop recharchables (1.2 volts in size AA and AAA).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a very high lifetime, do not self-discharge as other NiMH and NiCad accumulators do, and have a high current untill they are empty (alkaline batteries have a much lower current and a linearly decreasing voltage—therefore alkalines are not suitable for digital cameras and the like).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The high lifetime is—non-exclusively—due to the low self-discharge. Common NiMH accumulators laying around break, because of deep discharge (below 1.0 volt). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **newest version** of the Eneloop has part number **HR-3UTGB** (AA size) or **HR-4UTGB** (AAA size). They have **1800** unload/load cycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some exhaustive long time trials on the web (mostly from private persons) which proof the long life time of these batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following graph is showing the low self discharge. It’s from a [long time test from Stefanv](http://www.stefanv.com/electronics/sanyo_eneloop.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Long time test by Stefanv](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hbzkQ.gif)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: Converters for AA or AAA to C and D exist for a low price (if you don’t use the ones offered by Sanyo), if you need bigger batteries for some old devices." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18449" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="620" RevisionGUID="613182b3-ac00-400b-97ac-3157d6cf0c0d" CreationDate="2018-12-31T09:12:02.857" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 3379, 2451 edit id of 551" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18450" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2854" RevisionGUID="47e40cf9-e601-4a95-bab7-d8b4f6db7b89" CreationDate="2019-01-01T11:13:26.697" UserId="4099" Comment="image fixed (inlining HTTP images doesn't work anymore; broken images retrieved via Wayback Machine); for more info, see https://gist.github.com/Glorfindel83/9d954d34385d2ac2597bbe864466259f" Text="I've seen tea tree oil been advertized as powerful anti-fungal &amp; anti-bacterial agent, which people seem to use for practically anything:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- laundry (in particular cloth diapers)&#xD;&#xA;- room freshener&#xD;&#xA;- bathroom cleaner&#xD;&#xA;- insect deterrent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can attest that tea tree oil really works wonders. Old T-shirts (5+ years) that have become smelly even after washing and sun-drying smell like new (2-3 drops in the washing); bathroom mold disappears; fleas (I live next to a cow pasture) leave never to return.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recently bought a bottle of tea tree oil in Germany. On the bottle it says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![umweltgefährlich](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1A9nG.gif)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Umweltgefährlich_ (pollutant) and **Xn** _Gesundheitsschädlich_ (health hazard).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Xn** basically means &quot;don't ingest&quot;, but concerning the &quot;pollutant&quot; label, I seriously wonder what exactly the effects are and why it is being advertised by manufacturers as a natural alternative to chemical solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I don't customarily use chemical cleaners, so I don't know, but it might just say the same thing for other &quot;conventional&quot; products...?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any information on how detrimental using tea tree oil is to the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus question, my waste water is &quot;bio-digested&quot; on-site. What would be the effects of 2-3 drops of tea tree oil per day (diluted in hundreds of litres of grey water) on the anaerobic tank and on the ground water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18451" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2854" RevisionGUID="47e40cf9-e601-4a95-bab7-d8b4f6db7b89" CreationDate="2019-01-01T11:13:26.697" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 85 edit id of 552" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18456" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7035" RevisionGUID="10eda753-6613-43fb-8713-0b171bdfa57a" CreationDate="2019-01-04T12:17:37.427" UserId="6272" Text="The combination of 4 things worked for me:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- stop over-feeding and let the compost dry if too wet&#xD;&#xA;- vacuum the flies daily&#xD;&#xA;- cover all the food scraps and put a layer of dry newspaper shred on top of the compost&#xD;&#xA;- have a trap near the compost to catch some of the flies (yellow container with water + dish soap + sugar works for me, as yellow color and sugar attract flies and dish soap makes them drown)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This method instantly improves your compost situation, but it may take weeks to get rid of all the flies, as your compost probably has some eggs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7036" RevisionGUID="9f13cc45-8735-4519-b1b4-014cde8e0f0e" CreationDate="2019-01-04T16:37:42.503" UserId="3379" Text="I recently moved into an older house with a natural gas-burning forced hot air furnace. There are no records of the ducts being cleaned, and based on the layer of black grime I can see, they are quite dirty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It seems that having the ducts cleaned would increase the efficiency of my system, but is this true? If so, what is the impact?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that hiring someone to clean the ducts would cost at a minimum $200. My monthly heating bill is about $70." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7036" RevisionGUID="9f13cc45-8735-4519-b1b4-014cde8e0f0e" CreationDate="2019-01-04T16:37:42.503" UserId="3379" Text="Does air duct cleaning increase heating efficiency?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7036" RevisionGUID="9f13cc45-8735-4519-b1b4-014cde8e0f0e" CreationDate="2019-01-04T16:37:42.503" UserId="3379" Text="|home|energy-efficiency|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7036" RevisionGUID="2cf27b29-0c00-447c-af48-58710cfc7970" CreationDate="2019-01-04T17:43:50.460" UserId="3379" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="I recently moved into an older house with a natural gas-burning forced hot air furnace. There are no records of the ducts being cleaned, and based on the layer of black grime I can see, they are quite dirty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**It seems that having the ducts cleaned would increase the efficiency of my system (by improving airflow), but is this true? If so, what is the impact?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that hiring someone to clean the ducts would cost at a minimum $200. My monthly heating bill is about $70." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18464" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7036" RevisionGUID="c381b52a-6ee4-4ccb-8ad8-c682651a3511" CreationDate="2019-01-06T03:00:52.273" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1081747398429495296" />
  <row Id="18465" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7025" RevisionGUID="f4124d0a-ca87-4950-8c64-b283a18f006d" CreationDate="2019-01-06T06:00:34.387" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1081792621813657600" />
  <row Id="18466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5771" RevisionGUID="ee71ae02-be31-4e40-820a-e70844ed3dfe" CreationDate="2019-01-07T02:25:23.730" UserId="400" Comment="added detail" Text="My better half found a set of silicone lids.  Three in the set, about 6, 8 and 10 inches across.  They are heavy enough to stay put, and make a reasonable seal, an sticky enough that they don't slide.  Rinse after use, and leave by the microwave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option:  I've seen a cake cover type thing with a single 3/8&quot; hole near the top.  Place it over an open plate. This retains the steam, essentially acting as a lid.  It also means you only wash the turn table.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are using a bowl to heat things, put a plate over the bowl.  This may mean you need to use a larger bowl.  Plate should normal side up.  This is more stable, and drips go back to food instead of outside the bowl.  This combination is awkward to pick up, especially if the plate is much larger than the bowl.  An advantage is taht the plate can be a lid keeping food warm while waiting for the rest of supper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all of these, because steam is kept confined, the amount of time needed will drop, sometimes by as much as a factor of 2.  Frozen veg with large chunks such as broccoli show a big time reduction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6885" RevisionGUID="d8a58cb2-c57f-473d-ba0a-60f18bd697c3" CreationDate="2019-01-07T02:44:32.560" UserId="400" Comment="More detail on greenhouse use." Text="Historically to completely feed yourself using hand labour takes about an acre per person.  This allows mixed ag so you have chickens and pigs to eat, a cow to milk etc.  Certain crops do better.  Oats are more productive than wheat, but are lower in protein.  Rice and beans each are incomplete proteins, but together rice and a legume work well.  Corn and a legume also are balanced. Several North American Native groups discovered corn+squash+beans culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that self sufficiency is a full time job.  I know hobby farm families that come close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are limited by a conventional suburban lot, then you have to prioritize:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can take two approaches:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * How to I maximize the amount of food (calories)?&#xD;&#xA; * How do I use my land to minimize my grocery bill?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one is simple.  Plant potatoes.  Do it intensively using bale or barrel culture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second requires more thought and more work.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly analyze your grocery bills, and list out what you have been buying in the veggie department.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Take out the items that don't grow where you live.  For me, in Alberta that means I won't try to grow oranges, avocados or peaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Look at the rest and for each one decide:  &quot;Can a grow a better one at home than I can buy&quot;  &quot;Can I grow a cheaper one at home than I can buy&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first one, IMHO includes tomatoes. If you can grow them it will include peaches, and indeed, most stone fruit.  It won't include the common veggies like carrots and corn and broccoli.  It may include veggies you don't see in the store.  It should include a lot of the stuff you eat raw -- salad greens, green onions, radishes etc.  These generally are high value items that are easy to grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second category includes apples, pears, some berries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take into account the time involved.  Shucking peas by hand is slow work. Machines do it fast, so peas are cheap. Instead plant crops that normally have a large hand labour component.  Fruit, Asparagus, eggplant -- anything that has to be planted, picked, or weeded by hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meat.  It's not practical to keep a cow, and even a goat is pushing it.  Lots of cities look down on chickens often with unstated thoughts of 'poor white trash'.  What's left?  Guinea pigs and rabbits.  Guinea pigs are VERY efficient at turning garden scraps and anything leftover in terms of food into meat. A guinea pig has about the same meat as 2 pieces of chicken.  Rabbits are larger, and are a lot easier to keep in colder climates. Note that this can be a hard sell to the kids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(When I was in Peru one summer, I found barbecued guinea pig there was the equivalent of hot dogs here.  Buy them on the street.  5 sols each.  I found out that every house, rich and poor alike had a guinea pig hutch.  This was their equivalent to a garburator.  All the kitchen scraps went to the guinea pigs.  Sometimes you'd get a guinea pig from a street vendor that had been finished on fish scraps.  Instead of chicken, it tasted like tuna.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another action you can take is to set up a community trading group.  Some fruit trees like plums, will produce more plums than you know what to do with -- one year in three.  A full grown standard sized apple tree will produce a thousand pounds of apples a year.  Given that most people will only handle a couple boxes (~120 lbs) before they go bad, this is too much of a good thing.  A community where I can trade my extra apples for your extra winter squash is a double win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Preserving food becomes a big thing too.  If you have community land, maybe figure out how to make a series of community root cellars. (Different veggies have different storage conditions) Drying, Canning, Pickling all have their place.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small greenhouse is terribly inefficient. A small greenhouse has about 3 feet of surface per square foot of interior.  Only about 2/3 of the interior is usable.  So for every square foot of plants you have 4 to 5 square feet of surface.  If you have a double layer plastic cover it's in effect R-2.  So with an average outside temperature of 0 F and an inside of 60 F it takes 3000-3500 BTU/day per square foot per day.  That's about a kWh.  This ignores the heat leaking under the edges.  A larger greenhouse does much better due to better heat storage from day into night, and less surface per volume. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Don't think of trying to grow veggies all year in it.  However a greenhouse allows you to start about 6 weeks sooner in spring, and to carry on a similar period of time in the fall, especially if you plant cold tolerant crops in the end seasons. Sufficient heat to keep it from freezing at night is fairly cheap.  Use of barrels of water, row cover, quilted covers can extend things further, but require twice daily attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some areas people are setting up community gardens, or planting orchards on the edges of parks and school grounds.  This gives you a way to expand  your effective growing area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at organizing community groups on the lines of the way condo associations work, but without the mandatory membership part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="9741afdb-4d35-4d11-a11c-0fc4ffe0e68c" CreationDate="2019-01-07T03:39:03.697" UserId="6278" Text="Well, here's an &quot;out of the box &quot; answer to broken glasses. If it's at the bridge and a pretty even brake use some electrical heat shrink tubing. It comes in lots of colors (including clear) it's cheap and its soft on the nose too. I recommend judicious use of a lighter to shrink it as its more focused than a heat gun and shrinks it tighter. You could possibly glue them w/ the tubing in place and shrink it later , but I haven't tried that yet.- Alan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18469" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="539d5203-49e2-4e91-969b-3d3f36cae33f" CreationDate="2019-01-07T04:03:40.633" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18470" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7038" RevisionGUID="6183eb3a-54f6-4a47-b4bf-63ee6f8ef1ff" CreationDate="2019-01-08T17:06:55.710" UserId="6283" Text="So many know that single use plastic water bottles break down with repeated use. Well the other day, I decided to buy a reusable water bottle. I am on a budget and picked up a Nike Hyperfuel 32oz. Its composition is 60% low density polyethylene/30% polypropylene/10% thermoplastic elastomer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I bought with a little hesitation to be honest cause I have this fear since it’s plastic that it will break down and I will ingest tiny plastic particles even if it’s not severe as the single use ones. Any chemistry gurus out there that can tell me whether or not this type of plastics are susceptible to water break down?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18471" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7038" RevisionGUID="6183eb3a-54f6-4a47-b4bf-63ee6f8ef1ff" CreationDate="2019-01-08T17:06:55.710" UserId="6283" Text="Nike water bottle breakdown?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18472" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7038" RevisionGUID="6183eb3a-54f6-4a47-b4bf-63ee6f8ef1ff" CreationDate="2019-01-08T17:06:55.710" UserId="6283" Text="|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18473" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="ec415c0b-b17b-49ab-a3a4-8dc51049692c" CreationDate="2019-01-08T18:23:47.640" UserId="6264" Comment="edited title" Text="Roughly, how much water does it take to grow 50 lbs of fodder for most dairy cows in the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18474" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7038" RevisionGUID="520d6bcb-4f1f-4b91-aec4-6f6b908a3358" CreationDate="2019-01-09T15:00:34.310" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1083015680675459072" />
  <row Id="18475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="d9d354a9-ea17-4f80-bd64-fcdec6200956" CreationDate="2019-01-09T15:30:32.113" UserId="6286" Text="So many of our products have stickers/tape on them, i.e. boxes, glass and plastic. &#xD;&#xA;I have been removing stickers/tape from boxes (except amazons recyclable tape) but do I need to be doing this for all products? Or am I wasting my time doing something unnecessary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18476" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="d9d354a9-ea17-4f80-bd64-fcdec6200956" CreationDate="2019-01-09T15:30:32.113" UserId="6286" Text="Recycling with stickers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18477" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="d9d354a9-ea17-4f80-bd64-fcdec6200956" CreationDate="2019-01-09T15:30:32.113" UserId="6286" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7040" RevisionGUID="ef81d772-6b37-4c44-9ad2-c055a2b259e9" CreationDate="2019-01-09T16:21:29.850" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="Generally speaking, the processing of recycled materials is done with (a certain amount of) contamination taken into account (for plastic, up to 30%). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- When plastic recycling was introduced here in The Netherlands, I phoned the agency promoting this with the question if I needed to remove the paper price stickers from plastic packaging. They said that was not necessary. We did not discuss the exact reason then.&#xD;&#xA;- Labels from plastic bottles are washed off ([video](https://youtu.be/vAr4BZM_Tzk?t=1m50s)).&#xD;&#xA;- Paper recycling installations come with steps to remove contamination like plastic and staples, both at the start of the process and when the paper is pulped ([video](https://youtu.be/2c8YxMb0tlk?t=2m)).&#xD;&#xA;- When recycling glass, the glass is heated&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; to 'dry off' any labels or food residue. This is then separated from the glass with air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what you do not remove, the processing plant will.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;OTOH you could argue that the cleaner the input stream is, the more efficient the recycling process will be - if only in reducing the measured percentage of unrecyclable materials *at the plant*.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For that reason I also split my waste into as many clean streams as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The linked videos are worth watching in their entirety, and there are many more videos available if you search Youtube for *plastic recycling*, *paper recycling*, *glass recycling*, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Contrary to what many people think, recycled glass is not washed with water.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7041" RevisionGUID="912fee9b-ae2b-4329-8c62-8d1f4edc6af0" CreationDate="2019-01-10T16:13:15.447" UserId="6287" Text="I doubt it. I recently bought a century home (renovated 30 years ago) where I cleaned the ducts too. There was no noticeable change in costs. Cleaning helps keep the air fresh, and your furnace filter might last longer, or at least be more effective for longer. Plus mould spores, etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Be very careful on whom you choose.** This is one of those &quot;industries&quot; with a bunch of fly-by-night companies, like roofers and driveway tarers. Check out reviews on the company first. Mine was ~$300. There were offers for &lt; $100, but the reviews showed the broke things and wouldn't come back and fix things, stopped answering the phone or returning messages, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most reputable companies around here will scope it with fibre optics before and after, to show off their work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="c67b7fcd-ded1-4d2a-8200-e18751eb15d1" CreationDate="2019-01-10T16:21:05.203" UserId="6287" Text="The simple answer is that burning it would be roughly carbon neutral (it releases what it absorbed during growth) versus letting it decompose where it would be a carbon sink. Fossil fuels in the ground came from this vegetative carbon (+ millions of years and pressure). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning renewable fuels is better than burning fossil fuels in the ground because the burning fossil fuels released carbon that was already captured and would have remained captured. Burning something renewable simply re-releases what was captured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously it's better not to burn a renewable source at all having captured the carbon, because then it's carbon negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning it has other pollution issues beyond carbon, especially if the burning is incomplete (i.e. insufficient oxygen during the process). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, this is grossly simplified, but works as a general rule of thumb." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7043" RevisionGUID="daa69a35-2364-4a3b-bfae-6186db336627" CreationDate="2019-01-10T16:38:55.220" UserId="6287" Text="It will depend on the age of the appliances. The refrigerator had a significant effect on my power bill. Next up is my water heater. They calcify at the bottom, limiting their efficiency over time (like your kettle). A measure of this is if you can actually get 40 gallons of hot water out of your tank - i.e. how many hot showers. Plus tanked water heaters rust and can leak (it's just a matter of time...). Plus, they are much better insulated now than they were (although you could buy a water heater blanket to help in the meantime). Tankless water heaters are even better, since the hot water does not stick around to lose heat. I've looked at them but I don't think they're worth the extra cost yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nick's answer regarding use is probably very applicable in relation to costs saved. The fridge is on all the time, the furnace half the year, and the water heater every day. For furnaces, get one with a DC (direct current) fan as they are significantly more efficient in terms of power (vs. AC). But it's actually the thermostat (controller) that specifies how often to run the fan: while heating, half the time, all of the time. Not all models have all of these options, much like the schedule features." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7044" RevisionGUID="07fa6188-4d16-47f3-acb1-6ba8b7b3c401" CreationDate="2019-01-10T16:46:30.053" UserId="6287" Text="I haven't had this problem either. I've never even heard of it. Of the lighting that I use regularly, almost all of it is CFL or (lately) LED. I have almost no incandescent bulbs left.I prefer the incandescent light in terms of colour, but I'll pass on the power consumption. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For warm light, find lights with lower Kelvin (K) numbers. 3000 K is pretty cold, white, blue light; 5000 K is very cold lighting, 2700 is warmer light (although I'd take these measurements with a bag of salt between manufactures, but they're better than nothing). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My bigger issue is flicker of the LED bulbs. I'd definitely avoid no-name brand bulbs. I also write the date of installation on the bulb with a sharpie marker (obviously not on the part that's lit, or the part that conducts electricity). Use the warranties, that's why they're there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7045" RevisionGUID="16dd0f0d-e7a8-4335-b86f-49321f7baa87" CreationDate="2019-01-10T18:59:26.157" UserId="6287" Text="EnergyNumbers has a good answer (+1), but why don't you measure it and let us know?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course &quot;efficiency&quot; is a little ambiguous. Green house gas production? Just your $$? The latter is easier, the former changes over time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get one of those power meters for the plug and see what it uses overnight. Most space heaters are ~1500 W, which is a lot. Your power bill has the rate and distribution costs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The natural gas for the furnace is a little tougher. But you should have a monthly history. You can see when you turned your furnace on for the winter. If you have other gas appliances, then subtract the previous month and call the rest your furnace. E.g. turn on furnace in October, so subtract what you used in September and call the rest your furnace use. Take your winter monthly bill, subtract this base-use, divide by 30 (days/month) and that gives your daily cost of your furnace. You probably turn your heat down at night for sleep but also while your out during the day. It might balance out so call it 1/3rd at night (8 of 24 hours). (Maybe it's 6 hours of sleeping (1/4th), but with the furnace down you use it less, but it's colder at night - it probably all washes out). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 1/3rd (or 1/4th) of 1/30th of your monthly winter gas bill (minus base use) vs. *average* (multiple measurements, please :) of 1 night of powering a space heater. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, if you're measuring $$, don't forget distribution charges, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Normally I'd just say turn the furnace down and use a heavier blanket with thicker pyjamas and call it a day. But old houses can be leaky, and they leak faster when they're warmer (rate of heat transfer is directly proportionate to the difference in temperature). I have an old house and until I finish renovations, it's leaking heat in the winter. But you can seal windows in the winter (plastic cover) for rooms you don't use, etc. Plus I notice my furnace goes on more if I turn my furnace fan off at night because all the heat migrates upstairs and thermostat is on the main floor; it's more efficient to leave the fan on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mostly I want you to measure it and let *us* know. :) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7046" RevisionGUID="940c0b55-2e1e-47de-ba38-09659392f1ab" CreationDate="2019-01-10T19:35:45.620" UserId="6287" Text="The unfortunate answer right now is that natural gas is the best option for heating. It's less expensive, and not enough of electricity on the grid is produced from renewables... yet. Spend money on other sustainability-related things instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To improve sustainability, invest in your own solar cells (and small wind turbine if you can) to reduce your electricity bill of everything else you have that's electric. When (if?) you get negative, then get an electric car. And only then go electric on the heating. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under-floor heating is more efficient than forced air, and it can be electric or through a water heater, which could also eventually be electric. Plus a heat exchanger. Plus better insulation, and a programmable thermostat, plus... This is what I mean by spending money on other sustainability-related things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, if you run the numbers on your roof size (especially when likely only some faces the sun - 1/2? 2/3?) and current solar cell efficiency (of the cells that will be installed, not some in-the-lab-only theoretical number), you probably can't heat your home with that, especially in the winter with reduced sun. That means you would need *utility* electric or gas, and until the electric grid is sourced by more renewables there aren't great options here. Furnaces don't last forever, so hopefully when you look into this next time...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the next time you do any renovations, like your kitchen or bathroom, you can add underfloor heating. If electric, it will likely need its own circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, depending on your area, you may be able to sign up for power only from renewables, in which case go 100% electric (but it will cost you more money). And places like California are moving fast, so best options may depend on your location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And while you're making these efforts, also write to all levels of your government for more renewables and less greenhouse gas. Annually. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7047" RevisionGUID="fb335d34-0864-4d90-bd1f-6bd7473744bb" CreationDate="2019-01-10T19:39:36.303" UserId="6287" Text="You pay indirectly for local landfills, regardless of where other waste is made. If people paid directly for their waste, the choice between recycling and landfill would be obvious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an aside, I was recently at a place where they labelled their bins: &quot;recycling&quot;, &quot;landfill&quot;, which brings the question of options into starker relief." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="9cd7416d-bf63-43ca-85ef-09a7057717ee" CreationDate="2019-01-10T20:27:12.290" UserId="6287" Comment="added 1227 characters in body" Text="The simple answer is that burning it would be roughly carbon neutral (it releases what it absorbed during growth) versus letting it decompose where it would be a carbon sink. Fossil fuels in the ground came from this vegetative carbon (+ millions of years and pressure). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning renewable fuels is considered better than burning fossil fuels in the ground because the burning fossil fuels released carbon that was already captured and would have remained captured. Burning something renewable simply (roughly) re-releases what was captured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that most of the carbon in plants (they're mostly cellulose, which is a long sugar, which is a carbon chain surrounded by hydrogen atoms) comes from the *ground*, not the air. But then burning doesn't release all of the carbon, either (hence ash, coals, etc.). Plants are still *major* carbon sinks (unburned), and decomposition doesn't release anywhere near what the plants absorbed from the air (this is why forests are carbon sinks), but don't think of a plant's carbon as air-sourced only, but do think of them as carbon-negative in regards to greenhouse gases (GHGs). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously it's better not to burn a renewable source at all having captured the carbon, because then it's carbon negative instead of carbon neutral. And burning anything has other pollution issues beyond greenhouse gases, especially if the combustion is incomplete (e.g. insufficient oxygen during the process). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, no, burning wood is nowhere near letting it biodegrade. Burning = neutral, biodegrade = negative, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.** Again, this is grossly simplified, but works as a general rule of thumb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nasa (2014) - Tropical forests absorb 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;When the trees are consumed by forest fires or cleared and burned to make way for pastureland, carbon that took decades to store is released back into the atmosphere near-instantaneously.&quot; [Tropical Deforestation Is the Third-Biggest Carbon Emitter in the World][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/nasa-finds-good-news-on-forests-and-carbon-dioxide&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://psmag.com/environment/tropical-deforestation-leads-to-more-carbon-emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and that's just tropical forests." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7048" RevisionGUID="b19048d8-e8fc-47e6-988c-9535c3f5787e" CreationDate="2019-01-10T20:49:34.360" UserId="6287" Text="What's the intent of the question? Is it a pollution/greenhouse gas (GHG) concern? Or a scientific question?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good composting needs lots of oxygen. It will decompose better uncovered (faster, more completely, better for the plants it will feed), as long as it's warm enough. In regions with cold winters, the process will stop if it gets too cold, and covering it for the season is usually necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of GHGs, the gases release are minor compared to what they absorbed in their lifetime, and using it as fertilizer is much better than alternative fertilizer (which must be produced and transported). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a scientific question I can see the interest, as a practical, sustainability question, e.g. re: GHGs, please compost as much as possible. Turning the compost helps the oxygen absorption, but also distributes the bacteria throughout to maximise their efficiency (so they always have fresh food). Most of the bacteria is below the surface layer where they are protected from the elements, and have sufficient moisture and correct temperatures (not too hot, not too cold).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting also releases heat - the bacterial breakdown of the cellulouse is &quot;exothermic&quot; - but it's not a concern for global warming. I don't mean this to be sarcastic, but rather that it terms of *sustainability* (and my confusion regarding the question) composting is very good either by the fertilizers it displaces, or the pollution from the systems to dispose of the material otherwise. Decomposition will happen if you do it or you let nature run its course). Best composting needs lots of oxygen (and nitrogen).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18489" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7049" RevisionGUID="910a906b-3989-4b88-b934-b0107ad64c7c" CreationDate="2019-01-10T21:07:46.653" UserId="6287" Text="As long as it doesn't get too cold, food waste can be turned into bio-gas. &quot;Home&quot; scale systems have been showing up in the last few years. E.g. [The HomeBiogas Blog][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.homebiogas.com/Blog" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7050" RevisionGUID="16f671c6-f672-499f-849b-093a747b192e" CreationDate="2019-01-10T21:24:09.387" UserId="6287" Text="This might be interesting in a theoretical sense of energy usage and locations to live, but isn't Texas having problems with negative energy prices? Texas has been quietly adding to their renewables portfolio, and they've only scratched the surface. [Bloomberg.com: Power worth less than zero as green energy floods the grid][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, this is a problem only if you're trying to sell electricity. If you're trying to buy electricity, or encourage a growing economy, it's a &quot;problem&quot; we all want to have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as a theoretical exercise, sure. In terms of air conditioning and GHGs, Texas is actually moving the other way.  The duck curve of solar energy production is actually a boon to a/c use since they tend to coincide in terms of time of day. (I know this sounds backwards and surreal - you've gotta love data collection. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-06/negative-prices-in-power-market-as-wind-solar-cut-electricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7051" RevisionGUID="bfc00c2e-c938-44f6-9395-8f487677087a" CreationDate="2019-01-10T22:00:44.457" UserId="6287" Text="They're mandated and/or sponsored by government. The companies are slightly motivated to use this money well to appear as friendly, neighbourhood, we-have-your-interests-at-heart companies, i.e. generate customer goodwill, since someone else is funding it. E.g. [Imporoving Energy Performance in Canada][1]. And this works because it reduces energy costs per economy/gdp. The last watt generated is the most expensive, so it's win-win for everyone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will admit it sounds a little wasteful, but a lot of change happens only because of this sort of thing. E.g. the greatest indicator of a household installing solar panels is actually other households nearby with solar. ([Vox.com: Solar power is contagious][2]) People bought more LEDs when they saw/heard other people with LEDs, so stores sold more LED lighting, etc. We're not the most rational of consumers...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics/parliament/2015-2016/pdf/parliament15-16.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/4/11590396/solar-power-contagious-maps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18492" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7052" RevisionGUID="b137c18f-300d-4ed2-b39a-a172e8b844a0" CreationDate="2019-01-10T22:59:06.723" UserId="3379" Text="I just came across a school project to build a hanging compost bin: [Lakeview Compost Bin](https://www.yourmunicipal.com/projects/epic-sustainable-neighborhood-youth-challenge-lake-view/ideas/lakeview-compost-bin). The benefits of composting have been a frequent topic here, but I'm wondering what purpose is served by **hanging** the bin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18493" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7052" RevisionGUID="b137c18f-300d-4ed2-b39a-a172e8b844a0" CreationDate="2019-01-10T22:59:06.723" UserId="3379" Text="What function does hanging a compost bin serve?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18494" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7052" RevisionGUID="b137c18f-300d-4ed2-b39a-a172e8b844a0" CreationDate="2019-01-10T22:59:06.723" UserId="3379" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7042" RevisionGUID="d0082687-fb18-46fe-93a0-d9989128b3f7" CreationDate="2019-01-11T00:35:41.700" UserId="6287" Comment="deleted 195 characters in body" Text="The simple answer is that burning it would be roughly carbon neutral (it releases what it absorbed during growth) versus letting it decompose where it would be a carbon sink. Fossil fuels in the ground came from this vegetative carbon (+ millions of years and pressure). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning renewable fuels is considered better than burning fossil fuels in the ground because the burning fossil fuels released carbon that was already captured and would have remained captured. Burning something renewable simply (roughly) re-releases what was captured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plants are significant carbon sinks (unburned), and decomposition doesn't release anywhere near what the plants absorbed from the air (this is why forests are carbon sinks). The carbon mostly goes into the soil, and the cellulose is broken down by bacteria, as well physical actions like weather and walking on it, e.g. herds are important for renewing and sustaining grasslands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously it's better not to burn a renewable source at all having captured the carbon, because unburned it's carbon negative instead of carbon neutral. And burning anything has other pollution issues beyond greenhouse gases, especially if the combustion is incomplete (e.g. insufficient oxygen during the process). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, no, **burning wood is nowhere near letting it biodegrade. Burning = neutral, biodegrade = negative, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.** Again, this is grossly simplified, but works as a general rule of thumb.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nasa (2014) - Tropical forests absorb 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;When the trees are consumed by forest fires or cleared and burned to make way for pastureland, carbon that took decades to store is released back into the atmosphere near-instantaneously.&quot; [Tropical Deforestation Is the Third-Biggest Carbon Emitter in the World][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/nasa-finds-good-news-on-forests-and-carbon-dioxide&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://psmag.com/environment/tropical-deforestation-leads-to-more-carbon-emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...and that's just tropical forests." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7053" RevisionGUID="0e0c9c17-87a3-4d4b-b387-d264b1bdb390" CreationDate="2019-01-11T01:02:12.013" UserId="6287" Text="I don't know about CCS, sequestration never seems to get close to scaling up for a reasonable cost. Carbon-capture, however, might have a new price ceiling set:  [CBC.ca: carbon from air to fuel][1]. This is also an interesting read on policies for GHG reduction: [Designing Climate Solutions: A policy guide for low-carbon energy, by Hal Harvey][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-company-says-it-is-sucking-carbon-from-air-making-fuel-1.4696817&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/11/16/18096352/climate-change-clean-energy-policies-guide" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7053" RevisionGUID="5af9e600-157c-4314-8c7a-31b89263094c" CreationDate="2019-01-11T01:29:42.860" UserId="6287" Comment="added 2335 characters in body" Text="I don't know about CCS, sequestration never seems to get close to scaling up for a reasonable cost. ([A flagship “clean coal” plant is a flailing mess.][1]) Carbon-capture, however, might have a new price ceiling set:  [CBC.ca: carbon from air to fuel][2], but also [Vox.com: Sucking carbon out of the air won’t solve climate change, but it might fill in a few key pieces of the clean energy puzzle.][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, forests are a great way of CC:&#xD;&#xA;[Nasa (2014) - Tropical forests absorb 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Global Forest Watch estimates that they could potentially provide 23 percent of the climate change mitigation needed to keep warming under two degrees by 2030&quot; [(link)][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an interesting read on policies for GHG reduction: [Designing Climate Solutions: A policy guide for low-carbon energy, by Hal Harvey][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for overshooting, there's a general consensus (but by no means proven) that even the predicted rise is going to be bad as well as that there may be natural systems that are currently absorbing GHGs and heat (e.g. deep ocean water) more than might be known, and once at capacity there *may* be a runaway result. When I read interviews with some of the IPCC contributors that seems to be the general but cautiously stated opinion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[W]e can’t say the 2C target is an absolute guarantee of human safety, while missing it will necessary cause catastrophe. But if global average temperatures increase by over 2C, some hard-to-control changes may be triggered. For example, changes in the global water cycle may affect the world’s resources and ecosystems; parts of ice sheets may melt and thus contribute to sea level rise, and risks of extreme events will increase. And those changes will get worse and be subject to a sustained influence the greater the warming will be.&quot; ([Thomas Stocker, co-chair of IPCC Working Group 1][7])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Coral reefs and climate change][8]: &quot;Limiting global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels...provides the only chance for the survival of coral reefs globally.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/5/12098504/kemper-ccs-problems-clean-coal&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-company-says-it-is-sucking-carbon-from-air-making-fuel-1.4696817&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/14/17445622/direct-air-capture-air-to-fuels-carbon-dioxide-engineering&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/nasa-finds-good-news-on-forests-and-carbon-dioxide&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://psmag.com/environment/tropical-deforestation-leads-to-more-carbon-emissions&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/11/16/18096352/climate-change-clean-energy-policies-guide&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/8118--INTERVIEW-Thomas-Stocker-candidate-to-head-the-IPCC&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/coral-reefs-and-climate-change" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="532b5d0f-48ad-4fd7-a07c-5e427a9c5c29" CreationDate="2019-01-11T03:18:55.883" UserId="6289" Text="Referring to hydro energy, A lot of what we produce is wasted as the buyer buys only the minimum generation.&#xD;&#xA;What would be the appropriate measure to use that excess energy?&#xD;&#xA;Is electrolysis of water a good option to produce hydrogen and stored which be again turned into electricity (increasing the generation of farm) or is lead acid battery still the more efficient option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I'm basically looking for using that fluctuating excess energy. Any other solutions are also welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18499" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="532b5d0f-48ad-4fd7-a07c-5e427a9c5c29" CreationDate="2019-01-11T03:18:55.883" UserId="6289" Text="Is hydrogen a good storage of energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18500" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="532b5d0f-48ad-4fd7-a07c-5e427a9c5c29" CreationDate="2019-01-11T03:18:55.883" UserId="6289" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|electricity-generation|energy-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18501" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7039" RevisionGUID="1709632e-ba6b-4dc7-92ae-bc75a449b6de" CreationDate="2019-01-11T18:00:48.780" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1083785815824781313" />
  <row Id="18502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7055" RevisionGUID="3719b110-6d57-419f-b2b0-228b6089669e" CreationDate="2019-01-11T18:03:41.700" UserId="5477" Text="No, it is too tricky to handle for the general public. When it leaks ( not -if it leaks) , it will rise in a storage area and may reach explosive conditions. I once saw a brick wall blown out of a dedicated hydrogen bottle store-room( many 5 ft tall steel bottles); fortunately no bottles were damaged. I also had a lab where we used bottled hydrogen for testing ; the corporate safety group doubled my estimate of the room cost with explosion proof light fixtures and other electric fixtures. Also in addition to normal hood exhaust they put special exhaust ducts on the ceiling and some kind of inert gas automatic discharge fire extinguishers in addition to usual water sprinklers. Don't get me wrong, I love hydrogen ; I made a good living consulting on how to protect metals from various types of hydrogen damage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18504" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6416" RevisionGUID="2bd6ffc1-2838-4690-9f10-ab056de13513" CreationDate="2019-01-12T06:00:21.773" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1083966896146468865" />
  <row Id="18505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7056" RevisionGUID="f1b2c74a-d901-495d-9332-b2cb1f30456a" CreationDate="2019-01-12T11:26:58.357" UserId="106" Text="For a building that is centrally heated by local fuel combustion (i.e. heating within the building rather than district heating), one may distribute the heat throughout the building using as a energy carrier either [water](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydronics) or [air](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced-air).  Which type is more efficient?  On what circumstances does it depend?  Water carries a lot more energy per unit mass, but with air heating we can dispense of radiators that transfer heat from water to air, and air heating might more easily allow for heat exchangers, on the other hand you'd still need a separate system for hot water.  Are there studies comparing the overall efficiency between the two, given typical household use in a single family home?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there are many technologies more sustainable than either, with passive houses as the gold standard, but my question here is assuming we are still in a phase of central heating by local fuel combustion (such as natural gas)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18506" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7056" RevisionGUID="f1b2c74a-d901-495d-9332-b2cb1f30456a" CreationDate="2019-01-12T11:26:58.357" UserId="106" Text="Efficiency considerations of forced air vs. hydronic central heating" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18507" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7056" RevisionGUID="f1b2c74a-d901-495d-9332-b2cb1f30456a" CreationDate="2019-01-12T11:26:58.357" UserId="106" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18508" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="226" RevisionGUID="f2c7ff74-9c8e-4320-b986-671fdef99e90" CreationDate="2019-01-12T12:00:23.257" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1084057499278458886" />
  <row Id="18509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7055" RevisionGUID="b65a0e8f-f255-4d83-93da-68cd98ae1d73" CreationDate="2019-01-12T22:29:39.087" UserId="5477" Comment="clarification" Text="No, it is too tricky to handle for the general public. When it leaks ( not -if it leaks) , it will rise in a storage area and may reach explosive conditions. I once saw a brick wall blown out of a dedicated hydrogen bottle store-room( many 5 ft tall steel bottles); fortunately no bottles were damaged. I also had a lab where we used bottled hydrogen for testing ; the corporate safety group doubled my estimate of the room cost with explosion proof light fixtures and other electric fixtures. Also in addition to normal hood exhaust they put special exhaust ducts on the ceiling and some kind of inert gas automatic discharge fire extinguishers in addition to usual water sprinklers. The point hydrogen is difficult and expensive to store. Don't get me wrong, I love hydrogen ; I made a good living consulting on how to protect metals from various types of hydrogen damage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7057" RevisionGUID="e8930010-d3b8-4d41-b7b9-dbb1de396b16" CreationDate="2019-01-12T23:07:44.637" UserId="6293" Text="Electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen does have good efficiency numbers. The most efficient electrolysers are PEM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But hydrogen can be more easily stored and transported if converted to ammonia. Then ammonia at the point of use can be easily converted to hydrogen without any local pollution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ammonia is more of a public risk than hydrogen but ammonia is currently used in agricultural farming activities for fertilizer purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now water pumping has good efficiencies. So excess solar or wind power can pump water from the low side of a dam to the high side of a dam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note, hydrogen electrolysers can be set-up for the power level of magnified solar panels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7057" RevisionGUID="90daf564-813a-499d-9a28-56be52196576" CreationDate="2019-01-12T23:17:19.270" UserId="6293" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen does have good efficiency numbers. The most efficient electrolysers are PEM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But hydrogen can be more easily stored and transported if converted to ammonia-gas. Then ammonia-gas at the point of use can be easily converted to hydrogen without any local pollution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ammonia-gas is more of a public risk than hydrogen but ammonia-gas is currently used in agricultural farming activities for fertilizer purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now water pumping has good efficiencies. So excess solar or wind power can pump water from the low side of a dam to the high side of a dam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note, hydrogen electrolysers can be set-up for the power level of magnified solar panels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18512" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7057" RevisionGUID="cf5de06c-ce24-48be-8abf-27528885a2ac" CreationDate="2019-01-12T23:24:20.443" UserId="6293" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen does have good efficiency numbers. The most efficient electrolysers are PEM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But hydrogen can be more easily stored and transported if converted to ammonia-gas. Then ammonia-gas at the point of use can be easily converted to hydrogen without any local pollution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ammonia-gas is more of a public risk than hydrogen but ammonia-gas is currently used in agricultural farming activities for fertilizer purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now water pumping has good efficiencies. So excess solar or wind power can pump water from the low side of a dam to the high side of a dam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note, hydrogen electrolysers can be set-up for the power level of magnified solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium-ion batteries are used for electrical power storage because they are quick charging. Lithium-ion batteries are prone to fire in vehicle crashes but then safer when used in a stationary facility. Nickel-metal hydride batteries are  about the best current alternative to lithium-ion batteries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7058" RevisionGUID="10e11d27-ef40-4582-9b96-5395ce582237" CreationDate="2019-01-13T00:19:31.080" UserId="1057" Text="**What purpose is served by hanging the bin?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A conventional compost bin is built up over considerable time and is a layered pile of moist solids and you are typicaly required to add layers of newspaper and worms and monitor moisture levels regularly and a host of other things to make it work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The suspended and more importantly *rotating* composter requires none of this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It works like an aerobic digestor household waste system (as distinct from an anaerobic digestor system which smells somewhat) - ie. it works on the same principle as a cow's stomach - it is a wet environment, with a lid that is removed each day as it's topped up, a little water is added as necessary such that it stays wet, the lid is replaced and the whole thing is turned - just a few times - like a butter churn, to mix the bacteria, oxygen and any fresh waste food that's added daily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It needs to be suspended in order to be turned, the advantages are, it doesn't give rodents and other scavengers the opportunity to feed and thus breed. It spreads water, oxygen and bacteria around the food every time it is used, and thus digests waste in a relativley short period of time, leading to the release of essential plant nutrients faster and more evenly than a compost heap is able." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18514" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7057" RevisionGUID="591d01d9-873b-4b6e-8d9f-50e7fab72878" CreationDate="2019-01-13T00:51:26.117" UserId="6293" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen does have good efficiency numbers. The most efficient electrolysers are PEM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But hydrogen can be more easily stored and transported if converted to ammonia-gas. Then ammonia-gas at the point of use can be easily converted to hydrogen without any local pollution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ammonia-gas is more of a public risk than hydrogen but ammonia-gas is currently used in agricultural farming activities for fertilizer purposes. Well, hydrogen dissipates instantly while ammonia-gas is a serious vapor threat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now water pumping has good efficiencies. So excess solar or wind power can pump water from the low side of a dam to the high side of a dam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note, hydrogen electrolysers can be set-up in series for the power level of magnified solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium-ion batteries are used for electrical power storage because they are quick charging. Lithium-ion batteries are prone to fire in vehicle crashes but then safer when used in a stationary facility. Nickel-metal hydride batteries are  about the best current alternative to lithium-ion batteries but the nickel-metal hydride batteries are lower performing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18515" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7057" RevisionGUID="a68b803b-5cd1-47df-9af0-5a59093ec029" CreationDate="2019-01-13T19:06:24.933" UserId="6293" Comment="edited body" Text="Electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen does have good efficiency numbers. The most efficient electrolysers are PEM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But hydrogen can be more easily stored and transported if converted to ammonia-gas. Then ammonia-gas at the point of use can be easily converted to hydrogen without any local pollution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ammonia-gas is more of a public risk than hydrogen but ammonia-gas is currently used in agricultural farming activities for fertilizer purposes. Well, hydrogen dissipates instantly while ammonia-gas is a serious vapor threat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now water-pumping has good efficiencies. So excess solar or wind power can pump water from the low side of a dam to the high side of a dam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another note, hydrogen electrolysers can be set-up in series for the power level of magnified solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium-ion batteries are used for electrical power storage because they are quick charging. Lithium-ion batteries are prone to fire in vehicle crashes but then safer when used in a stationary facility. Nickel-metal hydride batteries are  about the best current alternative to lithium-ion batteries but the nickel-metal hydride batteries are lower performing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18516" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="b9249a04-5126-499e-bf98-1920fa1f18f0" CreationDate="2019-01-14T01:19:28.617" UserId="6296" Text="I would say it depends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For most brands the answer will be a yes. But there are counterfeit products and rougue or not so great brands/manufacturers with malintents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would love to believe that all brands/manufacturers are &quot;environmental&quot;/&quot;green&quot; but as long as you can make money out of things there will always be crooked or corrupted companies not caring about anything but money which could mean tremendous stress on the environment due to their carelessness in different areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thankfully most brands seem to be wanting to do good (been doing some research on the subject [minmenskopp.se][1]) but a tip for whoever reads this - check where the menstrual cup you're planning on buying is actually made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.minmenskopp.se" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18521" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7033" RevisionGUID="f4e8e1dd-4ae0-4d3c-a612-ab81b5827479" CreationDate="2019-01-15T06:00:34.897" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1085054115082842113" />
  <row Id="18522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7061" RevisionGUID="d36633a3-10ab-40e4-a119-0210bcaa19de" CreationDate="2019-01-15T06:26:56.870" UserId="6299" Text="So I've recently gotten into foraging and found a site called eattheinvaders.org that encourages people to eat invasive species. One of the most invasive species here in California is the common Garden Snail (Cornu aspersum). I've practiced identifying them so I don't accidentally mess with any native species and I've found a few hotspots from where to pick them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After doing some research online I found out that you are supposed to **purge** the snails in case they've eaten anything like snail traps or pesticides. To do this, you basically keep them in a container for a couple days and feed them some clean food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to do this in the most sustainable way so I am trying to use foods or food waste like egg shells or old vegetables. My question actually has a couple parts to it, but basically I want to know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What specific plants do snails eat in the wild?&#xD;&#xA; - How much will what I feed them affect their nutritional value?&#xD;&#xA; - Is there any foods that might cause them to produce toxins or diseases? I have some old celery that's going bad. Can I feed them that?&#xD;&#xA; - What is the best food, sustainable food for me to feed them? Can I just go outside and pick up some leaves? Would a diet of old vegetables and egg shells be good enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm having trouble finding resources and studies on this aspect of heliculture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7061" RevisionGUID="d36633a3-10ab-40e4-a119-0210bcaa19de" CreationDate="2019-01-15T06:26:56.870" UserId="6299" Text="What do I feed my snails?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7061" RevisionGUID="d36633a3-10ab-40e4-a119-0210bcaa19de" CreationDate="2019-01-15T06:26:56.870" UserId="6299" Text="|composting|population|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18525" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7061" RevisionGUID="9612648d-a443-49a3-9770-38d914a34298" CreationDate="2019-01-15T07:29:07.450" UserId="3293" Comment="edited tags" Text="|composting|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18526" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7061" RevisionGUID="fa7c7fb3-d0bf-4d23-b2f6-d09098ba2c60" CreationDate="2019-01-15T08:03:23.223" UserId="99" Comment="removed composting tag, added food tag" Text="|food|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18527" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7031" RevisionGUID="b7ccb811-2928-4d9e-9846-ce705e11b3f1" CreationDate="2019-01-15T14:12:20.017" UserId="-1" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4834,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jean-Paul Calderone&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3293,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;J. Chomel&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18528" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7062" RevisionGUID="06b03ff9-61eb-4176-9561-c8eb90dd1c79" CreationDate="2019-01-15T16:24:35.387" UserId="1701" Text="We have kept a snail around for several years in a terrarium. I'll tell you that they will eat almost any plant material. They munched all the ferns down to dirt, so now I just toss a sprinkle of microgreen seeds in the terrarium every couple of weeks. They sprout, they grow and feed the snail, and then when it is looking sparse I sprinkle some more. The organic mix I got was under $15 for more seed than the snail could require in 5 years. I believe that the snail is doing alright because it lays eggs regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throw a few isopods into the terrarium and they'll process snail waste further to keep things clean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this would suit your needs for the following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. It is cheap, and you may already have microgreen seeds lying around.&#xD;&#xA; 2. It ensures that you're giving a variety of plant material for more comprehensive nutrition to the snail.&#xD;&#xA; 3. I think you'd have to go out of your way to feed them something that would cause them to develop concentrations of toxins - and it would likely kill the snail before you could eat it. BUT most plank alkaloids are present at highest concentrations in mature plants/leaves. By feeding the younger ones you reduce (eliminate?) the potential for the snails to accumulate such potential toxins.&#xD;&#xA; 4. I also throw in a bite of carrot, apple, broccoli stem, or anything else that would wind up in a compost pile - and the snail loves it all. BUT I limit the amount just because I don't want a compost pile on my kitchen counter and the sprouts do such a good job of feeding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="70217683-e802-49a0-ac7a-a042c1364586" CreationDate="2019-01-15T20:14:04.543" UserId="6303" Text="What level of light intensity (lumens) do you need across a solar panel in order to obtain its *minimum* optimal energy output?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="70217683-e802-49a0-ac7a-a042c1364586" CreationDate="2019-01-15T20:14:04.543" UserId="6303" Text="What level of light intensity (lumens) do you need across a solar panel in order to obtain its *minimum* optimal energy output?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="70217683-e802-49a0-ac7a-a042c1364586" CreationDate="2019-01-15T20:14:04.543" UserId="6303" Text="|energy-efficiency|electricity-generation|energy-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7064" RevisionGUID="9322f384-2e36-4d5d-9efc-fd77a0a5aa73" CreationDate="2019-01-16T06:37:45.130" UserId="6305" Text="I was reading about [wake models][1]. However it is unclear to me how they are used to model wind turbines. Could anybody explain me what are wake models and why it is important to predict wakes in wind turbines?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60208.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18533" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7064" RevisionGUID="9322f384-2e36-4d5d-9efc-fd77a0a5aa73" CreationDate="2019-01-16T06:37:45.130" UserId="6305" Text="What is the wind wake effect and why is important for wind turbines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18534" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7064" RevisionGUID="9322f384-2e36-4d5d-9efc-fd77a0a5aa73" CreationDate="2019-01-16T06:37:45.130" UserId="6305" Text="|electricity-generation|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7066" RevisionGUID="80418ef9-94cf-4f9d-986d-728498b46ba3" CreationDate="2019-01-16T08:11:05.113" UserId="6182" Text="The second slide of the presentation linked by you actually shows the issue with wake very clearly. You could also talk about turbulences instead of wake (my company actually does). Wake is simply the pertubation of the flow of the wind by wind turbines (or any other object, like hills, trees, buildings, airplane noses, the grill on the new SUV by Chrysler, etc). This pertubation can be modelled (please don't ask what the formulas are, I miserably failed that course in university).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why is the prediction important? The first turbines in the direction of the oncoming wind are able to produce (slightly) more energy since the wind is streaming rather undisturbed. The second row of turbines can take less energy from the wind, since it was already slowed down and pertubed a bit by the first row. The same goes for any other turbines standing further back. So you need to know, how the wake most likely is shaped, considering topography and placement of turbines, in order to maximise the yield of you wind park.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, wake, or turbulences, can put stress on materials. Anyone who ever flew on a plane knows how turbulences can feel. Now imagine you expose an airplane wing to rather heavy turbulences all day round (okay, sometimes there are lulls) for 20 years. The material is put under a lot of strain, and sometimes it may break. Also the vibrations of the turbulences may affect the generator. So wake models also reduce the possibility of (near) total loss on a wind turbine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7062" RevisionGUID="89b1a9ff-6a03-473a-bbc6-d3fdc2762e8f" CreationDate="2019-01-16T12:46:58.673" UserId="1701" Comment="corrected typo &quot;plank&quot; to &quot;plant&quot;" Text="We have kept a snail around for several years in a terrarium. I'll tell you that they will eat almost any plant material. They munched all the ferns down to dirt, so now I just toss a sprinkle of microgreen seeds in the terrarium every couple of weeks. They sprout, they grow and feed the snail, and then when it is looking sparse I sprinkle some more. The organic mix I got was under $15 for more seed than the snail could require in 5 years. I believe that the snail is doing alright because it lays eggs regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Throw a few isopods into the terrarium and they'll process snail waste further to keep things clean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this would suit your needs for the following reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. It is cheap, and you may already have microgreen seeds lying around.&#xD;&#xA; 2. It ensures that you're giving a variety of plant material for more comprehensive nutrition to the snail.&#xD;&#xA; 3. I think you'd have to go out of your way to feed them something that would cause them to develop concentrations of toxins - and it would likely kill the snail before you could eat it. BUT most plant alkaloids are present at highest concentrations in mature plants/leaves. By feeding the younger ones you reduce (eliminate?) the potential for the snails to accumulate such potential toxins.&#xD;&#xA; 4. I also throw in a bite of carrot, apple, broccoli stem, or anything else that would wind up in a compost pile - and the snail loves it all. BUT I limit the amount just because I don't want a compost pile on my kitchen counter and the sprouts do such a good job of feeding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="fb543951-9fc8-4eac-8a31-b3c84fae7a47" CreationDate="2019-01-16T23:22:51.423" UserId="6311" Text="I just came across the concept of STES and more specifically BTES. I wondered if anyone had built a small scale version to store summer heat and release in their homes during winter.&#xD;&#xA;The concept seems remarkably simple but I wondered whether it only works on larger scale projects. Specifically I can’t wrap my head around how the heat loss/disapation of the stored heat in the soil isn’t significant - everyone seems to claim it’s very low.&#xD;&#xA;I also wondered whether storing the heat in a phase change material like fat wouldn’t be more effective but I can’t seem to find any documented small scale implementations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18544" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="fb543951-9fc8-4eac-8a31-b3c84fae7a47" CreationDate="2019-01-16T23:22:51.423" UserId="6311" Text="Are there any good diy examples of home level STES or BTES" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18545" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="fb543951-9fc8-4eac-8a31-b3c84fae7a47" CreationDate="2019-01-16T23:22:51.423" UserId="6311" Text="|solar-thermal|storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7069" RevisionGUID="d1059b35-4e29-45c9-a96d-b5d821bef026" CreationDate="2019-01-16T23:25:56.513" UserId="6293" Text="Stainless-steel is good for reflecting heat. And stainless-steel can be used both as a roof covering and as an exterior wall siding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, 430 stainless-steel is good-enough for roofing and siding but costs about 40% less than 304 stainless-steel. In fact stainless-steel sheet-metal is bought on coils and by the pound or else it is fabricated and sold expensively by the foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, aluminum is not good at reflecting heat and copper is not good at reflecting heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7069" RevisionGUID="ed0b74db-8946-4a40-8c3e-f15ee5fe4118" CreationDate="2019-01-16T23:40:09.373" UserId="6293" Comment="added 451 characters in body" Text="Stainless-steel is good for reflecting heat. And stainless-steel can be used both as a roof covering and as an exterior wall siding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, 430 stainless-steel is good-enough for roofing and siding but costs about 40% less than 304 stainless-steel. In fact stainless-steel sheet-metal is bought on coils and by the pound or else it is fabricated and sold expensively by the foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the homeowner should make their own system for attaching stainless-steel sheet-metal lengths cut off a coil, there are several details that need to be known. The most important detail is that slotted attachment holes must be cut to allow for thermal expansion. Also, any nail, screw, or flashing that touches the stainless-steel must also be stainless-steel. In fact, 430 can rust where touched by a cut-off disk but will not rust where touched by a grinding wheel. Otherwise, stainless-steel sheet-metal can be used in standard standing-seam systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, aluminum is not good at reflecting heat and copper is not good at reflecting heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18551" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7071" RevisionGUID="fbcab461-5a45-49c0-a095-48fbee3a66fb" CreationDate="2019-01-17T16:55:32.183" UserId="6313" Text="No, leaving the fridge door open for about 10 seconds is not a &quot;big deal&quot;. I figure it &quot;wastes&quot; about 5,000 joules of heat energy, or about 1,500 joules of electrical energy, which is equivalent to leaving a light on (60 watts) for about half a minute. For full analysis, see my post here: [Should I Leave the Milk Out?][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://thoughtsonenergy.net/should-i-leave-the-milk-out/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18552" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7072" RevisionGUID="e6651925-c8fc-46e2-a729-aba87412b981" CreationDate="2019-01-18T14:05:06.040" UserId="6316" Text="How would you rank the following in terms of damage to the environment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Pencils][1] (regular)&#xD;&#xA; - [Mechanical Pencils][2]&#xD;&#xA; - Single-use ball point pens. &#xD;&#xA; - Refillable ball point pens. &#xD;&#xA; - Fountain pens&#xD;&#xA; - The [eco-friendly pencils that are made out of recycled paper][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I'm thinking is: I'm assuming the order would be something like this: Mechanical pencils, eco-friendly pencils, normal pencils, refillable ball point pens, fountain pens and finally the single-use ball point pens. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would that be correct? If not, why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's already a similar question here: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4989/what-is-more-sustainable-using-a-mechanical-pencil-or-a-pen&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my question is slightly different because it's not just about a mechanical pencil vs a pen. And the two answers deal with just fountain pens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Pencils_hb.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Staedtler_925-25_05_Mechanical_Pencil.JPG/800px-Staedtler_925-25_05_Mechanical_Pencil.JPG&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&amp;source=images&amp;cd=&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwickZ6Dv_ffAhWOknAKHS32AJwQjRx6BAgBEAU&amp;url=%2Furl%3Fsa%3Di%26source%3Dimages%26cd%3D%26ved%3D%26url%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.indiamart.com%252Fproddetail%252Feco-friendly-seed-pencils-16765289533.html%26psig%3DAOvVaw0HznI351fdHaSMsPMxK2iO%26ust%3D1547906448406804&amp;psig=AOvVaw0HznI351fdHaSMsPMxK2iO&amp;ust=1547906448406804" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18553" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7072" RevisionGUID="e6651925-c8fc-46e2-a729-aba87412b981" CreationDate="2019-01-18T14:05:06.040" UserId="6316" Text="What is the most commonly available eco-friendly writing instrument?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18554" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7072" RevisionGUID="e6651925-c8fc-46e2-a729-aba87412b981" CreationDate="2019-01-18T14:05:06.040" UserId="6316" Text="|ecological-footprint|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18555" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7061" RevisionGUID="6767266e-ad84-4965-a287-f7d43a96079c" CreationDate="2019-01-18T18:01:14.230" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1086322637335379973" />
  <row Id="18556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="f64024f4-ccc9-41d3-adae-e8c27195955a" CreationDate="2019-01-18T21:03:34.867" UserId="6311" Comment="Added details for explaination of non standard terms" Text="I just came across the concept of STES - Seasonal Thermal energy storage and more specifically BTES - Borehole Thermal Energy Storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Landing_Solar_Community&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I wondered if anyone had built a small scale version to store summer heat and release in their homes during winter.&#xD;&#xA;The concept seems remarkably simple but I wondered whether it only works on larger scale projects. Specifically I can’t wrap my head around how the heat loss/disapation of the stored heat in the soil isn’t significant - everyone seems to claim it’s very low.&#xD;&#xA;I also wondered whether storing the heat in a phase change material like fat wouldn’t be more effective but I can’t seem to find any documented small scale implementations.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7071" RevisionGUID="c30bf6dc-a771-4bca-a7b5-164e97b58764" CreationDate="2019-01-18T22:48:28.410" UserId="6313" Comment="Changed numbers based on feedback." Text="No, leaving the fridge door open for about 10 seconds is not a &quot;big deal&quot;. I figure it &quot;wastes&quot; about 3,000 joules of heat energy, or about 1,000 joules of electrical energy, which is equivalent to leaving a light on (60 watts) for about 20 seconds. For full analysis, see my post here: [Should I Leave the Milk Out?][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://thoughtsonenergy.net/should-i-leave-the-milk-out/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="c4ba0492-6862-4e81-9803-2a491bd992c2" CreationDate="2019-01-20T04:55:45.037" UserId="1057" Text="&gt; What level of light intensity (lumens) do you need across a solar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; panel in order to obtain its *minimum* optimal energy output?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This depends on the varying characteristics of different materials, so in this case I'll pick one Silicon based as they're pretty common, mass produced and cheap, and more to the point they're the only one I could find a nice graph which makes the point clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;_Accreditation  A. Ibrahim, &quot;Analysis of Electrical Characteristics of Photovoltaic Single Crystal Silicon Solar Cells at Outdoor Measurements,&quot; Smart Grid and Renewable Energy, Vol. 2 No. 2, 2011, pp. 169-175. doi: 10.4236/sgre.2011.22020._&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- So, for the point of 15 % efficiency you need only provide about 900 W/m^2 - that corresponds to just over a third of maximum illumination supplied by the sun (with the panel flat-on to it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lumens][2] you ask for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A source radiating a power of one watt of light in the color for which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the eye is most efficient (a wavelength of 555 nm, in the green region&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the optical spectrum) has luminous flux of 683 lumens. So a lumen&#xD;&#xA;&gt; represents at least 1/683 watts of visible light power, depending on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the spectral distribution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well this is specific and related to human vision rather than how solar cells are normaly measured, but we can make a conversion for a ball-park figure assuming that your light source is spectrally similar to the sun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 900 W/m^2 approximatley corresponds to 614700 Lumens per square metre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is not the whole story**, [temperature matters][3] when looking at quoted power outputs in a catalogue or from a salesman:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The averaged conversion efficiency of the solar cell recorded for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; period of six month is approximately 5.4%. It is 54% less than the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; efficiency of the same cell measured at STC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A graph plotting temperature against efficiency is &quot;illuminating&quot;:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;_Accreditation  A. Ibrahim, &quot;Analysis of Electrical Characteristics of Photovoltaic Single Crystal Silicon Solar Cells at Outdoor Measurements,&quot; Smart Grid and Renewable Energy, Vol. 2 No. 2, 2011, pp. 169-175. doi: 10.4236/sgre.2011.22020._&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Recognise the trend and measurement distribution points? This corresponds very closley to the Illuminance/efficiency graph.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *An infra-red reflecting shield, and a heatsink to stop the thing overheating may be as important as the level of illuminance, when it comes to the panel's efficiency.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mp1Sc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_(unit)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://file.scirp.org/Html/13-6401084_4965.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PzAAL.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="aa2e14fc-aa98-4575-9526-4fdc71a5d264" CreationDate="2019-01-20T05:11:18.577" UserId="1057" Comment="Edited my quote of the question after editing the question." Text="&gt; What level of light intensity (lumens) do you need across a solar panel in order to obtain an energy-output to incident-light efficiency of 15%?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This depends on the varying characteristics of different materials, so in this case I'll pick one Silicon based as they're pretty common, mass produced and cheap, and more to the point they're the only one I could find a nice graph which makes the point clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;_Accreditation  A. Ibrahim, &quot;Analysis of Electrical Characteristics of Photovoltaic Single Crystal Silicon Solar Cells at Outdoor Measurements,&quot; Smart Grid and Renewable Energy, Vol. 2 No. 2, 2011, pp. 169-175. doi: 10.4236/sgre.2011.22020._&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- So, for the point of 15 % efficiency you need only provide about 900 W/m^2 - that corresponds to just over a third of maximum illumination supplied by the sun (with the panel flat-on to it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lumens][2] you ask for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A source radiating a power of one watt of light in the color for which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the eye is most efficient (a wavelength of 555 nm, in the green region&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the optical spectrum) has luminous flux of 683 lumens. So a lumen&#xD;&#xA;&gt; represents at least 1/683 watts of visible light power, depending on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the spectral distribution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well this is specific and related to human vision rather than how solar cells are normaly measured, but we can make a conversion for a ball-park figure assuming that your light source is spectrally similar to the sun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 900 W/m^2 approximatley corresponds to 614700 Lumens per square metre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is not the whole story**, [temperature matters][3] when looking at quoted power outputs in a catalogue or from a salesman:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The averaged conversion efficiency of the solar cell recorded for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; period of six month is approximately 5.4%. It is 54% less than the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; efficiency of the same cell measured at STC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A graph plotting temperature against efficiency is &quot;illuminating&quot;:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;_Accreditation  A. Ibrahim, &quot;Analysis of Electrical Characteristics of Photovoltaic Single Crystal Silicon Solar Cells at Outdoor Measurements,&quot; Smart Grid and Renewable Energy, Vol. 2 No. 2, 2011, pp. 169-175. doi: 10.4236/sgre.2011.22020._&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Recognise the trend and measurement distribution points? This corresponds very closley to the Illuminance/efficiency graph.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *An infra-red reflecting shield, and a heatsink to stop the thing overheating may be as important as the level of illuminance, when it comes to the panel's efficiency.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mp1Sc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_(unit)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://file.scirp.org/Html/13-6401084_4965.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PzAAL.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18560" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="1f5e93bc-0f80-4b2a-9b73-434633423214" CreationDate="2019-01-20T05:24:39.960" UserId="1057" Comment="Explanation of STC and caveat emptor after a fassion." Text="&gt; What level of light intensity (lumens) do you need across a solar panel in order to obtain an energy-output to incident-light efficiency of 15%?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This depends on the varying characteristics of different materials, so in this case I'll pick one Silicon based as they're pretty common, mass produced and cheap, and more to the point they're the only one I could find a nice graph which makes the point clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;_Accreditation  A. Ibrahim, &quot;Analysis of Electrical Characteristics of Photovoltaic Single Crystal Silicon Solar Cells at Outdoor Measurements,&quot; Smart Grid and Renewable Energy, Vol. 2 No. 2, 2011, pp. 169-175. doi: 10.4236/sgre.2011.22020._&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- So, for the point of 15 % efficiency you need only provide about 900 W/m^2 - that corresponds to just over a third of maximum illumination supplied by the sun (with the panel flat-on to it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lumens][2] you ask for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A source radiating a power of one watt of light in the color for which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the eye is most efficient (a wavelength of 555 nm, in the green region&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the optical spectrum) has luminous flux of 683 lumens. So a lumen&#xD;&#xA;&gt; represents at least 1/683 watts of visible light power, depending on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the spectral distribution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well this is specific and related to human vision rather than how solar cells are normaly measured, but we can make a conversion for a ball-park figure assuming that your light source is spectrally similar to the sun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 900 W/m^2 approximatley corresponds to 614700 Lumens per square metre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is not the whole story**, [temperature matters][3] when looking at quoted power outputs in a catalogue or from a salesman:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The averaged conversion efficiency of the solar cell recorded for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; period of six month is approximately 5.4%. It is 54% less than the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; efficiency of the same cell measured at STC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A graph plotting temperature against efficiency is &quot;illuminating&quot;:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;_Accreditation  A. Ibrahim, &quot;Analysis of Electrical Characteristics of Photovoltaic Single Crystal Silicon Solar Cells at Outdoor Measurements,&quot; Smart Grid and Renewable Energy, Vol. 2 No. 2, 2011, pp. 169-175. doi: 10.4236/sgre.2011.22020._&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Recognise the trend and measurement distribution points? This corresponds very closley to the Illuminance/efficiency graph.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another thing you should bare in mind is that manufacturers quoted ratings are taken from flash tests provided at 25 Celsius (room temp) under what's called [STC][5],  standard test conditions, but frequent variation in lamp spectra and type used for measurement lead to variable comparison between different brands - it's just not tightly regulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *An infra-red reflecting shield, and a heatsink to stop the thing overheating may be as important as the level of illuminance, when it comes to the panel's efficiency.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mp1Sc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_(unit)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://file.scirp.org/Html/13-6401084_4965.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PzAAL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/quality/standard-test-conditions-stc-definition-and-problems/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="2a0af47c-25cc-4432-9459-c7ccc9f3d2fe" CreationDate="2019-01-21T08:44:54.840" UserId="1057" Comment="Made the question specific and answerable, following on from the discussion in comments. Also modified the title for consistency." Text="What level of light intensity (lumens) do you need across a solar panel in order to obtain an incident-light to energy-output efficiency of 15%?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18562" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="2a0af47c-25cc-4432-9459-c7ccc9f3d2fe" CreationDate="2019-01-21T08:44:54.840" UserId="1057" Comment="Made the question specific and answerable, following on from the discussion in comments. Also modified the title for consistency." Text="What level of light intensity (lumens) do you need across a solar panel in order to obtain 15% energy efficiency?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18563" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7063" RevisionGUID="2a0af47c-25cc-4432-9459-c7ccc9f3d2fe" CreationDate="2019-01-21T08:44:54.840" Comment="Proposed by 1057 approved by 3379, 2451 edit id of 553" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18564" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="fd79f15e-80eb-493c-acd2-53fe611b3a6b" CreationDate="2019-01-21T21:04:22.523" UserId="1057" Comment="Factual correction, as per comments." Text="&gt; What level of light intensity (lumens) do you need across a solar panel in order to obtain an energy-output to incident-light efficiency of 15%?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This depends on the varying characteristics of different materials, so in this case I'll pick one Silicon based as they're pretty common, mass produced and cheap, and more to the point they're the only one I could find a nice graph which makes the point clear:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;_Accreditation  A. Ibrahim, &quot;Analysis of Electrical Characteristics of Photovoltaic Single Crystal Silicon Solar Cells at Outdoor Measurements,&quot; Smart Grid and Renewable Energy, Vol. 2 No. 2, 2011, pp. 169-175. doi: 10.4236/sgre.2011.22020._&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- So, for the point of 15 % efficiency you need only provide about 900 W/m^2 - that corresponds to 90% of peak sun (with the panel flat-on to it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lumens][2] you ask for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A source radiating a power of one watt of light in the color for which&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the eye is most efficient (a wavelength of 555 nm, in the green region&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of the optical spectrum) has luminous flux of 683 lumens. So a lumen&#xD;&#xA;&gt; represents at least 1/683 watts of visible light power, depending on&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the spectral distribution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well this is specific and related to human vision rather than how solar cells are normaly measured, but we can make a conversion for a ball-park figure assuming that your light source is spectrally similar to the sun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 900 W/m^2 approximatley corresponds to 614700 Lumens per square metre.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is not the whole story**, [temperature matters][3] when looking at quoted power outputs in a catalogue or from a salesman:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The averaged conversion efficiency of the solar cell recorded for a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; period of six month is approximately 5.4%. It is 54% less than the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; efficiency of the same cell measured at STC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A graph plotting temperature against efficiency is &quot;illuminating&quot;:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;_Accreditation  A. Ibrahim, &quot;Analysis of Electrical Characteristics of Photovoltaic Single Crystal Silicon Solar Cells at Outdoor Measurements,&quot; Smart Grid and Renewable Energy, Vol. 2 No. 2, 2011, pp. 169-175. doi: 10.4236/sgre.2011.22020._&lt;sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Recognise the trend and measurement distribution points? This corresponds very closley to the Illuminance/efficiency graph.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another thing you should bare in mind is that manufacturers quoted ratings are taken from flash tests provided at 25 Celsius (room temp) under what's called [STC][5],  standard test conditions, but frequent variation in lamp spectra and type used for measurement lead to variable comparison between different brands - it's just not tightly regulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *An infra-red reflecting shield, and a heatsink to stop the thing overheating may be as important as the level of illuminance, when it comes to the panel's efficiency.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mp1Sc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_(unit)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://file.scirp.org/Html/13-6401084_4965.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PzAAL.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/quality/standard-test-conditions-stc-definition-and-problems/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="ba145557-31d8-4b47-b47f-84d516937061" CreationDate="2019-01-22T01:07:23.303" UserId="15" Comment="Reworded question to clarify to others." Text="Referring to hydro electricity generation, a lot of what we produce is wasted as the buyer buys only the minimum generation.&#xD;&#xA;What would be the appropriate measure to use that excess energy?&#xD;&#xA;Is electrolysis of water a good option to produce hydrogen and store it so that it can be turned back into electricity (increasing the generation of farm) or is storage with lead acid batteries still the more efficient option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. I'm basically looking at using that fluctuating excess energy. Any other solutions are also welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18567" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="ba145557-31d8-4b47-b47f-84d516937061" CreationDate="2019-01-22T01:07:23.303" UserId="15" Comment="Reworded question to clarify to others." Text="Is hydrogen a good way of storing energy from excess hydroelectric generation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18568" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="ba145557-31d8-4b47-b47f-84d516937061" CreationDate="2019-01-22T01:07:23.303" UserId="15" Comment="Reworded question to clarify to others." Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|electricity-generation|energy-management|hydroelectricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18570" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7054" RevisionGUID="f0460d37-2120-4af5-9449-50f617e02441" CreationDate="2019-01-23T06:22:28.023" UserId="99" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4834,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jean-Paul Calderone&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3293,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;J. Chomel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2347" RevisionGUID="8a6928f6-5ab9-4358-b4b9-c4b68dcabad1" CreationDate="2019-01-26T08:23:00.587" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="replaced shortened URL by direct link; included book title in case the link breaks" Text="If you were to put that box in the recycling bin in our town, it would be taken out and pout with the cardboard. Technically, I see your point about the foil being valuable metal. But from a US recycling standpoint, the effort it would take to take out the foil by hand is too great. If you could separate the two elements, then that would solve the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A great book just came out about Chinese recycling: [*Junkyard Planet* by Adam Minter](https://www.npr.org/2013/11/13/244984351/christmas-lights-make-slippers-in-global-junkyard-economy). They get all our waste that we can't afford to bother with. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18573" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2347" RevisionGUID="8a6928f6-5ab9-4358-b4b9-c4b68dcabad1" CreationDate="2019-01-26T08:23:00.587" Comment="Proposed by 2309 approved by 99 edit id of 556" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2418" RevisionGUID="2046d9a7-88aa-4b24-8304-8bfc5848e06e" CreationDate="2019-01-26T08:23:30.187" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="spelling, grammar, paragraphs" Text="I tried this method on my old 323 manual early last year for about 3 months with no issues but then that car went in for a normal service and I was forced to borrow my mother's smaller Jazz auto for a few days. It broke down the 2nd day of this use, the battery had gone dead. This car had a good history and the battery wasn't that old. In fact the battery was able to be recharged and is still in use today. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My uncle who's a mechanic said this method was bad for the car (no specifics). I also stopped using this method with my old 323 manual as I wanted to sell it soon in good working order (although it did gain an unknown motor issue about this time that fast forwarded my selling it, a mechanic bought it). I won't using this method with my new auto. I can't risk breaking down on my way to work again and I don't want to damage my nice new i30. I would like to be convinced otherwise if you have good evidence, I want to save fuel and reduce my carbon footprint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18575" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2418" RevisionGUID="2046d9a7-88aa-4b24-8304-8bfc5848e06e" CreationDate="2019-01-26T08:23:30.187" Comment="Proposed by 2309 approved by 99 edit id of 555" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18576" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6433" RevisionGUID="06b679a7-02dc-45cf-adb3-c601e7f79033" CreationDate="2019-01-26T08:23:43.673" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="spelling corrections" Text="I suppose it would depend on your location - in my state most of our power still comes from coal burning plants so gas burns &quot;cleaner&quot; in my case (I don't know where our gas is sourced from, if it's fracked that would be another factor to consider).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18577" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6433" RevisionGUID="06b679a7-02dc-45cf-adb3-c601e7f79033" CreationDate="2019-01-26T08:23:43.673" Comment="Proposed by 2309 approved by 99 edit id of 554" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18578" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5420" RevisionGUID="8eed00b3-ccd1-46b9-8bce-7ea15fed069e" CreationDate="2019-01-26T16:05:04.557" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="real tags instead of untagged" Text="|law|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="cb121093-85af-4d2a-9b75-c669be08a51f" CreationDate="2019-01-27T16:44:59.150" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="spelling corrections" Text="I'm a natural gas technician, and I have the answer. &#xD;&#xA;All you need is the orifice size and pressure.&#xD;&#xA;Do you know the orifice size for the pilot? You can look in your paperwork/on a plate on the unit, or you can size it by hand by sticking drill bits in the orifice to measure it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11&quot; wc is usually what propane is set to, but your appliance might cut it down even further, check again for a info plate. You can be sure by hooking a manometer to the pilot, opening the pilot valve, and reading what it reads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a book, NFPA 54, and I believe annex f-something has a chart. You just line up oriface size, and delivery pressure, and it tells you how much gas it will pass... simple math.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry it's copyrighted and I wouldn't know how to go about putting a chart on here anyway,  but if anyone's interested,  check it out!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18580" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5453" RevisionGUID="cb121093-85af-4d2a-9b75-c669be08a51f" CreationDate="2019-01-27T16:44:59.150" Comment="Proposed by 2309 approved by 2345, 3379 edit id of 558" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7074" RevisionGUID="44024f1b-03ca-4103-9e37-50bc358a45a8" CreationDate="2019-01-27T16:51:02.993" UserId="3379" Text="My local municipality has a &quot;Waste Watchers&quot; program that provides resources for reducing the quantity of waste sent to landfills. One of their tips is to use cloth napkins instead of paper napkins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I follow this advice, **how many times will I need to use my cloth napkins in order to have less environmental impact than if I simply used paper napkins?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it helps, assume the cloth napkins are standard cotton, and the paper napkins are standard white paper napkins with some recycled content. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18582" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7074" RevisionGUID="44024f1b-03ca-4103-9e37-50bc358a45a8" CreationDate="2019-01-27T16:51:02.993" UserId="3379" Text="How many times do you need to re-use cloth napkins to offset their impact?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18583" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7074" RevisionGUID="44024f1b-03ca-4103-9e37-50bc358a45a8" CreationDate="2019-01-27T16:51:02.993" UserId="3379" Text="|waste|reuse|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18584" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7030" RevisionGUID="109e1167-b9c6-4fde-a241-89a4c03e8181" CreationDate="2019-01-28T06:56:21.353" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="spelling corrections" Text="In Ireland, plastics are exported for processing. There is a carbon footprint in the transport of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's suspected that the purchasers of these are not always decent firms. Dumping of such shipments at sea may be responsible for some of the plastic islands in the sea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it does make it to India or China, it's often burned on the beach, causing pollution over there. So, with the best will in the world, not alone is the plastic you dumped burned, but there's a carbon footprint to bring it to where it was burned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18585" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7030" RevisionGUID="109e1167-b9c6-4fde-a241-89a4c03e8181" CreationDate="2019-01-28T06:56:21.353" Comment="Proposed by 2309 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 559" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5905" RevisionGUID="8a4e1818-12c0-4cda-808b-15f8c250ae67" CreationDate="2019-01-28T06:56:42.267" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="The foxes are probably here to feed on delicious little larvae lurking in your garden beds. Some cockroaches larvae are big delicious and juicy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you should do if this is the case, is to pick them before the beasts do. Use your hands or  a rake and gently remove the earth to undig the larvaes. Pick them and dispose of them on a plate (above ground, e.g. on a table) for the birds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18587" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5905" RevisionGUID="8a4e1818-12c0-4cda-808b-15f8c250ae67" CreationDate="2019-01-28T06:56:42.267" Comment="Proposed by 2309 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 557" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="3c7bac62-fcfa-4b16-9385-77ede244c5e8" CreationDate="2019-01-28T06:56:59.843" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="signatures should not be used here" Text="Well, here's an &quot;out of the box &quot; answer to broken glasses. If it's at the bridge and a pretty even brake use some electrical heat shrink tubing. It comes in lots of colors (including clear) it's cheap and it's soft on the nose too. I recommend judicious use of a lighter to shrink it as it's more focused than a heat gun and shrinks it tighter. You could possibly glue them with the tubing in place and shrink it later, but I haven't tried that yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18589" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7037" RevisionGUID="3c7bac62-fcfa-4b16-9385-77ede244c5e8" CreationDate="2019-01-28T06:56:59.843" Comment="Proposed by 2309 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 560" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5236" RevisionGUID="1e397ea9-3510-4e30-a1c4-46acfa15a2a3" CreationDate="2019-01-29T06:41:42.863" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="fixed spelling;  &quot;great post&quot; comment doesn't belong here" Text="So the 2 acre thing - well - it's a stake in the ground.  If you are using traditional methods...I don't think it's actually very far off.  I also agree with a previous comment/assumption - where's the food coming for the animals...I think they are assuming this is this a &quot;closed system&quot; - the holy grail of all gardeners - true food independence and begs the question - is there a self-sustaining model available to most people.  Ideas like this will absolutely make a difference - where our food is becoming more and more a blind item at markets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All things can be improved.  Vertical gardening techniques certainly cut down on space requirements in theory.  Aquaponics...Green houses...Climate...Design plans (Annualized solar), soldier fly larvae for chicken feed (again location dependent) - There's a lot of information out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's like asking a stranger how much they spend on heat a year...and then gasping at the answer...without asking how big of a house they are heating...where they live...the age of the house...if it's insulated properly...what type of heat to they use or what type of heating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This really isn't a simple problem. - especially if you are looking for sustainability and a closed loop system/factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It requires a lot of process and planning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think everyone wants to be independent with all things...electric...heat...rent/mortgage...and food...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The feasibility/effort scale - I'm not sure if most people have that much ambition and foresight available to them.  They may not realize that such a project - is a commitment to a certain lifestyle - in order to be remotely sustainable.  Permaculture...fascinating!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So processes and systems needs to be developed for many climates with goals in mind for both sustainability and abundance.  There is a cost to set up such lofty goals, but I think it's a worthwhile problem to solve and once designed - truly designed - hopefully it will be simple enough, attractive enough and modular enough for others to easily follow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18591" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5236" RevisionGUID="1e397ea9-3510-4e30-a1c4-46acfa15a2a3" CreationDate="2019-01-29T06:41:42.863" Comment="Proposed by 2309 approved by 99 edit id of 561" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="fa56cf91-4e83-4a3c-bf0d-24651848c83e" CreationDate="2019-01-30T08:14:21.750" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="typo in title; greeting is not needed" Text="Since it's summer break and I can no longer walk everywhere like I could at university, I've been having to drive my car a lot. For a 2001 model, it gets excellent gas mileage (or so I assume, I've never driven anything else; I can drive it for about a week and a quarter and then refill for $20), yet I feel awful driving it. It's like the same feeling if I knew I left the stove on, but I can't go back and turn it off. I just hate knowing that I am directly pumping literal gallons of greenhouse gases into the air. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've done as much as I can do reasonably to bump up my gas mileage. I don't use air conditioning and I use cruise control whenever possible, I don't trail other cars, etc...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyways, recently I've been looking into EVs in my price range, like the smart EV. So my question is this: do the costs of buying a used or new EV outweigh the benefit of not producing emissions? When would the carbon footprint of getting a new car be matched by how much I save in not polluting? If that makes any sense... is it worth it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18593" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="fa56cf91-4e83-4a3c-bf0d-24651848c83e" CreationDate="2019-01-30T08:14:21.750" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="typo in title; greeting is not needed" Text="New Vehicle: does the cost outweigh the benefits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18594" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="fa56cf91-4e83-4a3c-bf0d-24651848c83e" CreationDate="2019-01-30T08:14:21.750" Comment="Proposed by 2309 approved by 2451, 99 edit id of 563" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="0c8d03a6-3a75-4d0b-acba-7848b13f25ac" CreationDate="2019-01-30T08:14:30.280" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="fixed spelling, removed hello (greetings are discouraged)" Text="One thing I constantly battle with is money and affording to be more self-sufficient. Don't get me wrong – I earn good money, I have managed finances and a few debts but this post isn't really about money management.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My family and I are on the path of being more self-sufficient and have been on this path for a few years now. We're being proud tenants of 3 allotment plots, own a reasonably large polytunnel, we borrow a little land where we share the husbandry of a few pigs, sheep, chickens and turkeys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we would like to do more. Possibly looking to go more off-grid with wind, solar, rain harvesting, etc. But a constant barrier we come up against is the cost of doing all this. £600 for a Polytunnel to help us grow veg throughout the winter months for example will pay for itself in 5 years time but it's a chunk of change to get started and seems like to others a waste of time as for that we can get a lot of vegetables from the market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've started to realise that being more self-sufficient actually costs a significant sum to do and can feel like it's against the whole point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was wondering if anyone knew of cost-effective ways of moving in this direction? Are there any other small steps we can make frugally to push forward with the lifestyle choice we've been working towards for the last 10 years? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18596" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4659" RevisionGUID="0c8d03a6-3a75-4d0b-acba-7848b13f25ac" CreationDate="2019-01-30T08:14:30.280" Comment="Proposed by 2309 approved by 2451, 99 edit id of 562" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18597" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="8e3713e1-bc41-407d-ade9-0210c4aae0b4" CreationDate="2019-01-30T17:06:39.257" UserId="3379" Comment="edited title" Text="New electric vehicle: does the cost outweigh the benefits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18600" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6010" RevisionGUID="0b41a8a4-9249-4948-9197-1bfb2a019bc9" CreationDate="2019-01-31T00:00:37.097" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1090761733000425473" />
  <row Id="18601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7076" RevisionGUID="b60ea9e9-3360-4a9b-b559-41775255e17b" CreationDate="2019-01-31T01:12:09.107" UserId="6343" Text="I do not have time to do a good job composting so the &quot;Food Cycler Platinum Indoor Food Recycler&quot; seems like a good idea despite its price. Does it release CO2 or methane? Does it consume so much electricity that it is worst than just making a pile outside and leave it to decompose for a year (or two)? What happens when I add it to my garden soil? Can I add it to my composting pile? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18602" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7076" RevisionGUID="b60ea9e9-3360-4a9b-b559-41775255e17b" CreationDate="2019-01-31T01:12:09.107" UserId="6343" Text="Is the Food Cycler a good option for composting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18603" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7076" RevisionGUID="b60ea9e9-3360-4a9b-b559-41775255e17b" CreationDate="2019-01-31T01:12:09.107" UserId="6343" Text="|composting|food|cycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7076" RevisionGUID="ce151f98-0682-4b44-baa8-f48b9996d02c" CreationDate="2019-01-31T16:04:39.943" UserId="6343" Comment="added 207 characters in body" Text="I do not have time to do a good job composting so the &quot;Food Cycler Platinum Indoor Food Recycler&quot; seems like a good idea despite its price. Does it release CO2 or methane? Does it consume so much electricity that it is worst than just making a pile outside and leave it to decompose for a year (or two)? What happens when I add it to my garden soil? Can I add it to my composting pile? Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was asked to put a link and price ($299 as of Jan 31 2019): https://www.amazon.com/Food-Platinum-Recycler-Kitchen-Container/dp/B07KYCVGDG/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1548950622&amp;sr=8-4&amp;keywords=food+cycler&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41gGsb%2Bn42L._SY300_QL70_.jpg   &quot;Food Cycler&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7076" RevisionGUID="d641ebf1-1406-41b0-8244-4e18e55a5e36" CreationDate="2019-01-31T16:13:44.320" UserId="6343" Comment="added 203 characters in body" Text="I do not have time to do a good job composting so the &quot;Food Cycler Platinum Indoor Food Recycler&quot; seems like a good idea despite its price. Does it release CO2 or methane? Does it consume so much electricity that it is worst than just making a pile outside and leave it to decompose for a year (or two)? What happens when I add it to my garden soil? Can I add it to my composting pile? Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was asked to put a link, price, photo and an explanation of how it works: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LINK.  https://www.amazon.com/Food-Platinum-Recycler-Kitchen-Container/dp/B07KYCVGDG/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1548950622&amp;sr=8-4&amp;keywords=food+cycler&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PRICE: $299 at Amazon as of Jan 21 2019&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PHOTO: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41gGsb%2Bn42L._SY300_QL70_.jpg   &quot;Food Cycler&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;METHOD: As far as I see it dehydrates and sterilizes material with heat and vibration, and removes odor with a carbon filter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18606" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7076" RevisionGUID="31230023-96b4-483d-98fd-ba019bbb8eb8" CreationDate="2019-01-31T16:26:30.587" UserId="6343" Comment="deleted 112 characters in body" Text="I do not have time to do a good job composting so the &quot;Food Cycler Platinum Indoor Food Recycler&quot; seems like a good idea despite its price. Does it release CO2 or methane? Does it consume so much electricity that it is worst than just making a pile outside and leave it to decompose for a year (or two)? What happens when I add it to my garden soil? Can I add it to my composting pile? Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was asked to put a link, price, photo and an explanation of how it works: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LINK.  https://www.nofoodwaste.com&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PRICE: $299 at Amazon as of Jan 21 2019&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PHOTO: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41gGsb%2Bn42L._SY300_QL70_.jpg   &quot;Food Cycler&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;METHOD: As far as I see it dehydrates and sterilizes material with heat and vibration, and removes odor with a carbon filter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="1d8c0736-db96-43a2-99f7-cacff8e3b99d" CreationDate="2019-01-31T21:38:33.363" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="cleanup for brevity" Text="I'm trying to figure out the efficiency of energy usage between heating up 2 tons of water from 5°C to 70°C everyday (during winter) within a certain given time (let's say one hour) and stabilizing 2 tons of water at 70°C all the time, given that there is always an amount of new water being supplied into the tank. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I calculated the first part and it would cost me 151.7 kWh everyday to heat up 2 tons. But I couldn't find how to calculate the energy it would take to stabilize water at a certain temperature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18608" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5800" RevisionGUID="1d8c0736-db96-43a2-99f7-cacff8e3b99d" CreationDate="2019-01-31T21:38:33.363" Comment="Proposed by 2309 approved by 3379, 2451 edit id of 564" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5126" RevisionGUID="a5553166-9d4c-4455-868b-d1a0c8ea3b1f" CreationDate="2019-01-31T21:38:42.367" UserDisplayName="user2309" Comment="Removed unnecessary acronyms (FYI) and bold text, fixed a typo" Text="I bought a house in Hawaii in 2014 which had 2 4'x8' solar thermal panels, a 120 gallon solar tank with 1 upper grid tied 4500W element. The previous owners had had multiple problems: leaks, replaced one panel, etc. all of which was disclosed.  While it worked, it worked very well providing way more hot water than my wife and I need. But by now, both panels have failed completely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Hawaii's electric effective rate of about 30 cents/kWh I installed a 6.6kWh photovoltaic (PV) system soon after buying this house.  I've closed the rooftop thermal panel water feed and am now using the single 4500W grid tied element for hot water.  This does provide plenty of hot water for showering at about 110 degrees F (43 °C) but we would like hotter water for dish washing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that the existing solar type water tank is 15+ years old I know I'll be replacing it one way or another soon.  Although solar thermal panels are very good at heating water I'm just not going to spend another $1000.00 x2, plus labor, plus likely another large solar specific tank just to have the same problems in another 5 to 10 years. (The water is **very** hard here!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My alternatives as far as I can tell are as follows:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Replace the existing solar tank with a conventional water heater and&#xD;&#xA;    observe the effect on my electric bill, maybe add to my PV system&#xD;&#xA;    later as necessary   &#xD;&#xA; 2. Replace the existing solar tank with a hybrid heat pump tanked water&#xD;&#xA;    heater.  These are expensive and new technology without a good track&#xD;&#xA;    record.   &#xD;&#xA; 3. Maybe some type of dedicated DC output solar PV system to power a&#xD;&#xA;    resistive element with grid back up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advice or recommendations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple more notes: First, I have a grandfathered net metering PV system agreement with the local privately owned Hawaii electric company but they have now changed the agreement for new PV customers. They are now backpedaling on net metering as hard as they can! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, I'm retired and don't have the tax liability I once had, so the solar tax credits mean much less to me. It will take me years to use up the credits from my current PV installation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18610" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5126" RevisionGUID="a5553166-9d4c-4455-868b-d1a0c8ea3b1f" CreationDate="2019-01-31T21:38:42.367" Comment="Proposed by 2309 approved by 3379, 2451 edit id of 565" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5421" RevisionGUID="7e5b84fe-6ef8-418d-864b-301b678e8eb7" CreationDate="2019-02-01T09:06:20.240" UserId="99" Comment="Merged other answer" Text="* [**Science Daily**](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/) is a good one. It discusses new scientific articles in a way that is understandable for non-scientists and it provides a link to the original article so you can read it yourself. The site has quite a bit of interesting subtopics. Just to name a few:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [sustainability](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/sustainability/) &#xD;&#xA; - [recycling and waste](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/recycling_and_waste/)&#xD;&#xA; - [pollution](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/pollution/)&#xD;&#xA; - [global warming](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/global_warming/)&#xD;&#xA; - [alternative fuels](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/alternative_fuels/)&#xD;&#xA; - [solar energy](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/solar_energy/)&#xD;&#xA; - [wind energy](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/wind_energy/)&#xD;&#xA; - [GMOs](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/plants_animals/genetically_modified/)&#xD;&#xA; - [Environmental policy](https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/environmental_policy/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The only confusing part of the website is that a lot of subtopics aren't visible in the menu at the top, but a bit lower on the page on the menu on the left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For a general overview on several environmental issues there's also the **[Environmental Health Network](https://www.ehn.org/)**. You can subscribe to their mailing list, which is divided by topics (check their options) and you can set the frequency as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Alternatively there are a few newspapers that have a section dedicated to sustainable living, e.g. [The NY times](http://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/sustainable-living) or [The Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/sustainability/). However topics don't always relate to research and the newspapers may be politically biased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="999fa1e8-9b8a-40ae-9623-d27ccc714b22" CreationDate="2019-02-02T17:30:05.500" UserId="6354" Text="According to this Wikipedia article (Dutch) there is a rule of thumb that the energy output of a solar system is 850 to 1000 kWh per year per Wp. However, this takes the grey climate of the Netherlands into account. So I cannot just divide by 365 to get the maximum energy possible per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could I calculate the theoretical maximum solar output per day, when only the Wp number of the system is known?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="999fa1e8-9b8a-40ae-9623-d27ccc714b22" CreationDate="2019-02-02T17:30:05.500" UserId="6354" Text="How can I calculate from peak power (kWp) to energy per day (Wh/day)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="999fa1e8-9b8a-40ae-9623-d27ccc714b22" CreationDate="2019-02-02T17:30:05.500" UserId="6354" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="4cd0da7e-e889-4757-affc-cc38cb1149dc" CreationDate="2019-02-02T20:41:02.973" UserId="6354" Comment="added wikipedia link" Text="According to [this Wikipedia article][1] (Dutch) there is a rule of thumb that the energy output of a solar system is 850 to 1000 kWh per year per Wp. However, this takes the grey climate of the Netherlands into account. So I cannot just divide by 365 to get the maximum energy possible per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could I calculate the theoretical maximum solar output per day, when only the Wp number of the system is known?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there will be a difference between summer and winter because of the sun's angle, but I would be helped already with a rule of thumb, or some winter/summer factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wattpiek" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7078" RevisionGUID="66101e9b-7107-4a7b-a94e-f3fdc6df1b66" CreationDate="2019-02-03T08:19:33.867" UserId="48" Text="This ratio of average power to peak power is called the **capacity factor** or load factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will vary by location, by day, and by technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It varies by location: some places are just sunnier than others. In the UK, 10% is a decent capacity factor; so an installation of 10 kWp will, averaged out over several years, yield 1 kW of power on average. In the tropics, the same technology might have a capacity factor of 20%, yielding 2 kW of power on average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It varies by day: in winter, the capacity factor on a given day might be one tenth of what it is on a summer day, at a given location for a given technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It varies by technology: a PV installation that uses tracker motors so that the panels tilt during the day to follow the sun, will have a higher capacity factor than panels which are in one permanently fixed position, at any given location on any given day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On units: Note that Wh/day is just another unit of power (it is energy per unit time). Wh/day is not a common unit of power, but you do sometimes see kWh/day. You can convert from kW to kWh/day easily: note that h/day is a constant (24 hours per day), so to get from kW to kWh/day, just multiply by 24. i.e. an average power of 1 kW is equivalent to an average power output of 24 kWh/day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As LShaver wrote in a comment, tools like [PVGis](http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/) and [PVWatts](https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/) will help you calculate how the output of a given installation varies by location and over the year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7079" RevisionGUID="c731ca38-36e5-4039-b4e2-22deaa477322" CreationDate="2019-02-03T15:36:02.700" UserId="6320" Text="Personally, I have been using a wormbin for the past (almost) 4 years. You need to keep an eye on the worms once in a while, but usually it is a good option: you waste no energy, your organics decompose fine, and you can easily use it to enrich your soil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, you cannot compost *anything* in a wormbin (no meat or animal residues; very restricted amounts of citrus fruits, etc.), but the food cycler accepts all sorts of organics and the decomposition is way faster: about 1 or 2 days; depending on what you put in the wormbin, it can take a few days or a few months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a food cycler, but have been researching as well to get it, and I guess it can be a good option if you don't want to sort your organics into &quot;what goes into the wormbin&quot; and &quot;what does not&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people have their compost pile in the back yard without worms, where they put all sorts of organics too. Since I live in an apartment, I don't have enough space to test this method, but I hear it can be hardcore -- some people even use their urine to sort of catalyse the decomposition process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the anaerobic decomposition, in which you put your organics into a plastic bag, close it, and let it sit for months. This option is the one which produces the biggest amount of methane, because it stays airtight. Also, the final smell can be pretty bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, there are several composting options, but my top pics would be the wormbin and/or the food cycler - even if it uses more energy (which I do not have the necessary knowledge to tell you if it's a lot or not, to be honest).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18631" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7074" RevisionGUID="92700883-0eec-4b65-b2dd-91393a189eb2" CreationDate="2019-02-05T00:00:30.150" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1092573643064918016" />
  <row Id="18634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2693" RevisionGUID="91b4f242-8873-476a-891c-e049384e2004" CreationDate="2019-02-06T17:13:06.483" UserId="400" Comment="Updated anwer." Text="It doesn't depend on how much you drive, although it may depend on where and how you drive.  I would argue that the best use for almost any vehicle is to use it until it is worn out. If it is running when you sell it, the next person is going to drive it, not scrap it.  There is a very large 'embodied energy' in a car.  Energy used to make the steel, run the factory, ship it to you.  SOMEONE is going to finish using that car up.  If it is to your economic advantage to be that someone, do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are comfortable with this, then the next concept is that it's better to own or at least use the most appropriate vehicle for the task at hand.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:  Right now our household owns a subaru outback and a chevy silverado.  The subaru gets almost 8 times the yearly miles on it that the truck does.  But the truck can haul a lift of plywood or 100 trees in #2 pots.  (I'm a tree farmer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have room, then your best strategy may be to keep the accord as being a roomy enough car for holidays, buy a hybrid for the daily commute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Medium efficient car vs small inefficient car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at the total lifespan of the vehicle.  Depending on the numbers, the Medium car may be overall cheaper.  Or not.  As a rule of thumb buy the smallest car that will do the job. But don't blind yourself to a used car.  Also look at the lifespan of the car.  A cheap small car that has to be replaced at 100,000 km is not a win.  Consumer Reports is THE goto for this sort of information.  They have figures for TCO for the first 5 years of ownership of almost every make out there.  While there is a difference between 5 years and TCO the first is a good indicator of the second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hybrids vs Diesel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Europeans are getting good at making small diesel cars that get better gas milage than hybrids.  This is a multifold win:  Diesel is easier and less energy intensive to make than gasoline.  Diesel gets better mileage = less carbon burned.  Diesel engines tend to last forever.  Unfortunately these cars are not marketed in North America, mostly because they require lower sulfur diesel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hybrids vs All electric&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where does your power come from?  If you are using coal fired generators to charge your car, you are only exporting your carbon footprint.  And over all coal is worse than oil this way.  In addition at this point the technology used for all electric isn't sustainable.  There isn't enough lithium to make all the required batteries.  The hybrid uses batteries only as a load leveling device.  Overall the engine runs more efficiently at a more constant speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added: 2019-Feb-6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium seems to be ramping up just fine.  Current battery issue is cobalt, much which comes from Republic of Congo with badly treated workers. EVs and Hybrids are still at this point about a 3-7 year ROI in terms of ownership.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the long run EVs should do better.  An electric motor is simpler and lower maintenance than an ICE.  So the drive system should last a very long time.  Li-Ion batteries last a few thousand cycles, so will need to be replaced about once a decade.  (Guessing 50% charge used daily = 4 years per thousand discharge cycles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had to make a purchase by Tuesday, I'd do a diesel.  By 2024, I would hope to make that electric.  But at present I live in a harsh winter climate an hour's drive from true civilization." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7083" RevisionGUID="7f2de477-6c31-4b48-b86e-d135683a7ec9" CreationDate="2019-02-06T18:03:26.903" UserId="400" Text="Traditionally in household use, a cloth napkin was used a week.  Hence monogrammed napkin rings, so you would get your own at hte table next time. This however is an aesthetic decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another decision:  How many times can you wash them before they start looking tacky?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A third decision:  Starch:  Starched cloth not only stays looking good longer, but it's easier to clean:  Most of the stain soaks into the starch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A final decision:  Cotton or linen or polyester.  Linen lasts longer but is pricier. Polyester can be perma-pressed so that it requires no ironing.  Much higher stain resistance.  Not as absorbent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Labour:  What is your labour worth to wash etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at year's worth of 3 meals a day for a family of 4.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paper:  4 * 365 * 3 = 4300 napkins/year.&#xD;&#xA;Vanity Fair napkins -- Amazon best seller -- 2 cents each.  so $86.00  Nicer ones about double that.&#xD;&#xA;Cotton cloth napkins $14/dozen.  You can get them in colours, which helps to not show stains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Washing:  This is iffy.  If you can include them in a load you are doing anyway, the cost of washing is essentially nil.  Otherwise if you consider that a sheet (6x6 feet) is about 16 napkins (1.5 feet x 1.5 feet) but that napkins are several times as heavy a fabric.  Lets call 1 sheet = 6 napkins.  So a load of sheets is 8 sheets = 50 napkins.  If you have a cost figured per load of wash, then you use 7 washloads of napkins per year (on a weekly cycle)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Starch and iron.  Cost for this is vanishingly small except for your time.  A friend runs a B&amp;B and uses cloth napkins.  I think he said it takes about an hour to do 50 napkins.  Call it 1 minute each.  If your time is worth $15/hour then that's 25 cents per napkin.  I bet that is in line with the time it takes to wash dishes.  Note however how quickly the time cost outstrips the original cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 'slumming it' option is to not bother ironing them.  Just fold them.  If you get coloured ones, you can run them with the coloured tee-shirts.  You're not having to make an impression.  Likely in family use you would have an everyday set that you don't starch and iron, and a 'fancy guest' set that you make an extra effort for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An even more slumming it option:  Buy bulk rags.  These are often sold my machinist shops for wiping oil up.  Sold by the pound.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion:  Worth doing, especially if you have a family." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18636" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7084" RevisionGUID="3044e506-13bc-437a-89b4-887cfd499cf9" CreationDate="2019-02-06T18:32:01.063" UserId="400" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Hmm. Opinion only, based on their use.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the amount of time I can use them, not counting losing them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Fountain pens.  The rubber bladder ones that you could refill from an inkwell.  A decent fountain pen can last for decades.  Ink is cheap.  I have never worn out a fountain pen.  The cartridge ones are much worse, and I would probably rank them near the bottom, due to the short life of the cartridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Mechanical Pencils; the Staetdler drafting pencils with 2 mm leads last forever.  You sharpen the lead as needed on a piece of sandpaper. I have one that is still on it's first lead.  The ones with smaller leads are still very cheap.  Even using the ones that are difficult to reload, I figure the outlast a wooden pencil by at least 3:1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Paper pencils.  Not sure about this one.  Depends on the binding agent.  I don't like the feel of them, so I don't have much experience.  I like the idea.  Waste paper is more sustainable than wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Refillable ball point pens.  I assume you are referring to the replaceable tube with ball.  I've owned parker pens, and on a few occasions I've kept one long enough to replace the cartridge.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Single-use ball point pens. Mostly due to the plastic.  Note there are paper case stick pens too as well as pencils.  The paper ones rank above paper pencils due to longer life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Pencils (regular)  These just don't last in my book.  Most have no clips so they are easy to lose.  You have to carry several since you don't click or twist after breaking the lead. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Pencils and mechanical pencils are often similar prices (see www.staples.ca) But I'm convinced that the production cost is small compared to the rest of the supply chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing that can make all of these more sustainable is figuring out how to not lose them.  This adds a ranking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Anything with a clip ranks above anything without.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;You can buy clips that clip onto pencils.  For me this triples the cost of the pencil, and only increases the resident time somewhat.  A mechanical pencil with a clip wins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A retractable ballpoint with a clip built in wins over a stick pen with cap-clip.  (I lose the cap, or chew it into smithereens.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also get leashes.  This has a stretchy band at one end you can put around the writing implement, and a loop you can fasten to button hole, binder or clipboard.  You can make the equivalent with butcher twine and duct tape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I knew someone with a $100 fountain pen.  She had a pink ribbon for it around her neck.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7086" RevisionGUID="656f9e19-33bd-4bfb-8660-8d12e15bf8b6" CreationDate="2019-02-06T21:34:17.283" UserId="6315" Text="I am looking for specific studies on the life cycle of cloth diaper versus disposable diaper. The municipality I work for wants to establish a compensation program for parents who want to choose a sustainable, zero-waste alternative to diaper. A life cycle analysis would give support for or against this program, depending on the conclusion about their respective environmental impact. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7086" RevisionGUID="656f9e19-33bd-4bfb-8660-8d12e15bf8b6" CreationDate="2019-02-06T21:34:17.283" UserId="6315" Text="Is there a recent life cycle analysis for cloth diaper and for disposable diaper?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7086" RevisionGUID="656f9e19-33bd-4bfb-8660-8d12e15bf8b6" CreationDate="2019-02-06T21:34:17.283" UserId="6315" Text="|environmental-impact|life-cycle-analysis|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7087" RevisionGUID="97036864-60ee-4c01-b5ad-418ba39b9239" CreationDate="2019-02-07T09:04:27.003" UserId="99" Text="There are several life cycle analyses, but none of them very recent:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [This webpage](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/an-updated-lifecycle-assessment-for-disposable-and-reusable-nappies) links to a report on&#xD;&#xA;life cycle analysis done by the UK Environment Agency, originally in 2005 and updated in 2008. Their conclusion was that the global warming potential of reusable diapers worn for 2.5 years is slightly higher (570kg CO2e) than that&#xD;&#xA;of disposable diapers (550kg CO2e), but that this very much depends on how the reusable diapers are washed and dried. Line-drying reusable diapers&#xD;&#xA;for example reduces the global warming impact with 16% and washing with full loads and reusing diapers for a second child reduces &#xD;&#xA;the impact further up to 40%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [A 2009 Australian study](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228738743_Life_Cycle_Assessment_reusable_and_disposable_nappies_in_Australia)&#xD;&#xA;concluded something similar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; Home-washed reusable nappies washed in cold water in a front-loading washing machine and line-dried were found to use less energy and land resources, comparable water resources, and produce similar or lower quantities of solid waste, compared to the other nappy systems [disposable or commercially-washed reusable diapers]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Full PDF of the Australian study is [here](http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.crdc.com.au/ContentPages/44777470.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. [This old 1991 study](https://p2infohouse.org/ref/30/29640.pdf) says that single-use diapers have a greater overall environmental impact than reusable diapers but it's based on very old data and is written by the The National Association of Diaper Services, so it may be biased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7086" RevisionGUID="f6ec168e-0094-49b6-b849-e1afbdadd677" CreationDate="2019-02-07T13:53:38.410" UserId="6315" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="I am looking for specific studies on the life cycle of cloth diaper versus disposable diaper. The municipality I work for wants to establish a compensation program for parents who want to choose a sustainable, zero-waste alternative to diaper. A life cycle analysis would give support for or against this program, depending on the conclusion about their respective environmental impact. It is a bit different from the other question already posted as I am looking for recent, as much as possible, scientific data, more specifically a life cycle analysis. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7086" RevisionGUID="5a55a62a-9f1d-4466-afde-ac1d32b3e8ae" CreationDate="2019-02-07T14:16:52.567" UserId="99" Comment="added link to other question" Text="I am looking for specific studies on the life cycle of cloth diaper versus disposable diaper. The municipality I work for wants to establish a compensation program for parents who want to choose a sustainable, zero-waste alternative to diaper. A life cycle analysis would give support for or against this program, depending on the conclusion about their respective environmental impact. It is a bit different from [this other question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/907/reusable-vs-disposable-diapers-which-is-better) already posted as I am looking for recent, as much as possible, scientific data, more specifically a life cycle analysis. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7088" RevisionGUID="f06abde8-8d93-49fb-8ce1-e3679bb50ade" CreationDate="2019-02-07T22:30:34.793" UserId="400" Text="This is a bad answer, but it will put some boundaries on it.  This just looks at the economics of both.  This is an incomplete analysis since it doesn't take into account the cost of landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * A tidepod of detergent is 25 cents.&#xD;&#xA; * A front load washer uses ~10 gallons.  Water at $1.00 per thousand gallons means water is 1 c&#xD;&#xA; * Add another gallons of water for the diaper pail.  &#xD;&#xA; * A cup of bleach for the diaper bucket at $4.50/gallon = 28 c&#xD;&#xA; * 45 minutes drier use at 2 KW is 1.5 kWh of electricity.  At $15c/kWh = 23 c&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to wash a load of diapers is ~77 cents.  Let's round this up to a dollar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Various sources online give numbers between 15 and 20 diapers per load. &#xD;&#xA;So the differential cost of using a cloth diaper is about 5 cents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plain cloth diapers on Amazon are about a buck each.   You will likely buy different sizes as the kid grows up.  If you buy a full load's worth at newborn, baby and todler size you are looking at an expenditure of around $60.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also get drywick liners, leak prevention outers, wet bags for transport.  These are also one shot expenses.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall this is a no brainer:  Big win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;Time:  Fairly small compared to the action of changing a diaper. Pampers on Walmart.ca run 16 to 30 cents each depending on size.  So you save 10 to 25 cents, assuming that you always buy the jumbo economy pack.  There is also the time to go pick them up.  At this point it gets nebulous:  Local stores take less commute time but have higher prices, and may not carry the economy sizes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion:  Even without considering the disposal costs, the cloth diaper is a clear winner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use a laundry service, it's less clear.  Lot of driving around gets involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18647" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7077" RevisionGUID="9b8dd090-ed08-4cc9-8bb3-5e1e1c390aa7" CreationDate="2019-02-08T00:00:43.220" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1093660861477109760" />
  <row Id="18650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7090" RevisionGUID="cb0e92d0-ebc1-41e8-ba46-e1387c9a2ddd" CreationDate="2019-02-08T22:58:37.387" UserId="3379" Text="## Total, including rainwater&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [&quot;The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products&quot;](https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2011-WaterFootprintCrops.pdf) (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011), for the period from 1996 to 2005 the global average water usage for fodder crops was 253 cubic meters per ton (or 253 L per kg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your original source gives a range of 18 to 25 kg/day for a lactating cow. Using that range, **the water needed to produce that amount of forage per cow is between 4,554 and 6,325 liters of water per day.** That's an average of about 1,400 gallons per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the breakdown by water type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **27 liters/kg blue water:** &quot;the volume of surface and groundwater consumed (evaporated) as a result of the production of a good&quot; (this includes irrigation water)&#xD;&#xA; - **207 liters/kg green water:** &quot;the rain-water consumed&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - **20 liters/kg grey water:** &quot;the volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the load  of  pollutants  based  on  existing  ambient  water  quality standards.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Total without rainwater&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we want to take rainwater out of the equation, the [full 1200 page report](https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report47-WaterFootprintCrops-Vol2.pdf) from the Water Footprint Network includes an annual breakdown for the U.S.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Green: (rainfed):  154,374.1 Mm3/yr&#xD;&#xA;    Green: (irrigated): 15,933.7&#xD;&#xA;    Green: (total):    170,308.1&#xD;&#xA;    Blue: (irrigated):  30,923.2&#xD;&#xA;    Grey:               24,385.6&#xD;&#xA;    Total:             225,616.9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, rainwater makes up about 68% of the total. **This would reduce the total range to 1,457 to 2,024 liters per day, or around 460 gallons per day.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What the cows are drinking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [U.S. Geological Survey](https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5041/pdf/sir2009-5041.pdf), the median dairy cow is drinking about 35 gallons (132 liters) per day. A mere pittance compared to the water in their feed!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7090" RevisionGUID="7a0bdf45-3b60-4d8e-9a4b-dc14bc6fa1b2" CreationDate="2019-02-08T23:18:53.957" UserId="3379" Comment="edited body" Text="## Total, including rainwater&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [&quot;The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products&quot;](https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2011-WaterFootprintCrops.pdf) (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011), for the period from 1996 to 2005 the global average water usage for fodder crops was 253 cubic meters per ton (or 253 L per kg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your original source gives a range of 18 to 25 kg/day for a lactating cow. Using that range, **the water needed to produce that amount of fodder per cow is between 4,554 and 6,325 liters of water per day.** That's an average of about 1,400 gallons per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the breakdown by water type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **27 liters/kg blue water:** &quot;the volume of surface and groundwater consumed (evaporated) as a result of the production of a good&quot; (this includes irrigation water)&#xD;&#xA; - **207 liters/kg green water:** &quot;the rain-water consumed&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - **20 liters/kg grey water:** &quot;the volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the load  of  pollutants  based  on  existing  ambient  water  quality standards.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Total without rainwater&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we want to take rainwater out of the equation, the [full 1200 page report](https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report47-WaterFootprintCrops-Vol2.pdf) from the Water Footprint Network includes an annual breakdown for the U.S.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Green (rainfed):   154,374.1 Mm3/yr&#xD;&#xA;    Green (irrigated):  15,933.7&#xD;&#xA;    Green (total):     170,308.1&#xD;&#xA;    Blue (irrigated):   30,923.2&#xD;&#xA;    Grey:               24,385.6&#xD;&#xA;    Total:             225,616.9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, rainwater makes up about 68% of the total. **This would reduce the total range to 1,457 to 2,024 liters per day, or around 460 gallons per day.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What the cows are drinking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [U.S. Geological Survey](https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5041/pdf/sir2009-5041.pdf), the median dairy cow is drinking about 35 gallons (132 liters) per day. A mere pittance compared to the water in their feed!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4432" RevisionGUID="939e6790-6f5e-4f2e-930f-bdf472eca0e8" CreationDate="2019-02-10T01:51:09.117" UserId="2182" Comment="Added my experiment results (finally)" Text="I think it could work with a minor tweak. If you stick the curtain to the outside of the window and keep it wet (including the surface of the window), it will cool the glass from the outside, which in turn will cool the air on the inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will probably end up with condense on the inside (which would prove that it works) but compared to the original idea, that would be a minor problem. In fact it will lower the humidity inside making it more comfortable. In some countries it is quite common to have a small drainage under the window to dispose condense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a small example section drawing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use a white cloth, it could keep the window more or less transparent (especially while wet) providing light while also partially reflecting some heating sunlight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dark curtain would not be a good idea. It may accelerate the rate of evaporation, but only because it becomes hotter, so that defeats the cause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess some experimenting is worthwhile to find the ideal thickness and material for the cloth. If this proves to work out well, it may be interesting to develop an adaptive irrigation system specifically for this cause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: Experiment results&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I finally did some experiments last summer (2nd of August, 2018).&#xD;&#xA;The humidity of the air on that day was 65%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My setup was with a table, having two shallow drawers under two glass plates, I had a digital thermometer for each. (this was taken in the morning while the table was still standing in the shade of a neighbors tree).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Setup with thermometers][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The thermometers would differ between 0.1 and 0.2 degrees Celsius when having the sensors in the same place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Comparing themometers][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I moved the sensors to approximately the middle of each drawer under the glass. The top thermometer display is in the drawer on the right.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Censor placement][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I added the sheet to the left (I chose the left because it would be the first to get sunlight when the tree-shadow moved far enough. I also had given the left drawer the thermometer that gave the highest temperature. Not wanting to Bias the results in favor of what I would like to see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Sheet stuck with Duct-tape][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The start was a little unfair off course:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Sun starting to hit][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I kept the sheet wet by spraying it every now and again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Wet sheet][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the results were quite startling!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Hot temperatures!][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;63.8 degrees Celsius! I never would expect it to get that hot! Any way, compared to 48.4, the difference is about 24%. Now I guess my experiment is not like a window, it's almost flat, lightly slanted in the direction of the sun, so in real life with a vertical window I guess the difference would be a little less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later I did the same experiment with a dry sheet. The results were:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![With a plain dry white sheet][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference, 49.4 vs 61.1 is about 19%, so the water is only contributing about 5% compared to the dry cloth. Note that the air humidity was 65%, so this 5% may be more if you live in a dryer climate, but less if the humidity is higher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry for taking so long to do the experiment and then the delay to report the results... better late than never I guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WhWlO.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/N1VGl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/An3yf.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hC0xV.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPfXe.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9Pjt8.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/15X7D.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/b7EkU.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ntwks.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="95f0df52-e1b7-44b5-9006-b8ce93800a6d" CreationDate="2019-02-10T16:36:35.163" UserId="6293" Text="I suppose that a tiny-house is built to the size of an RV and has wheels like an RV, so that it can be legally positioned on most any lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I know of a set of permanent building constructions that are easy to build because the foundation is easy to build. Basically, just stick a piece of 304L in a wet-pour concrete footing and that's the foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now these foundations are crawl-space foundations. For instance, a 2&quot; to 2 1/2&quot; diameter 304L round or square tube with 0.120&quot; wall thickness, should be cut to length, have a 304L flat plate welded to the bottom, and have a 304L L-angle welded to the top. Then a floor-joist-end and a stud sit on the L-angle and bolt to it. The floor joist and stud likely sit side-by-side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another version uses a 316 wet-pour 4x4 post holder. That's a post holder with two bolt holes and tall sides. Then two rough-sawn 2-by lumber pieces will fit in the post holder. A floor joist and a stud can sit side by side or two studs can sit side-by-side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next point is that a ceiling joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of another stud. So go back to the foundation point and use two studs. Furthermore, a floor joist can easily be set at heights by setting the floor joist on one stud and bolting to the side of another stud. The stud bolted-to can be carried to full stud height while the stud between floor-joist and ceiling joist must be pieced-in and bolted in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now only use 18-8 nuts, bolts, and washers with 304L or with 316L." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="2e31e57b-4bcb-4c0d-ad71-f4f5cce95e45" CreationDate="2019-02-10T16:45:48.930" UserId="6293" Comment="added 14 characters in body" Text="I suppose that a tiny-house is built to the size of an RV and has wheels like an RV, so that it can be legally positioned on most any lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I know of a set of permanent building constructions that are easy to build because the foundation is easy to build. Basically, just stick a piece of 304L in a wet-pour concrete footing and that's the foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now these foundations are crawl-space foundations. For instance, a 2&quot; to 2 1/2&quot; diameter 304L round or square tube with 0.120&quot; wall thickness, should be cut to length, have a 304L flat plate welded to the bottom, and have a 304L L-angle welded to the top. Then a floor-joist-end and a stud sit on the L-angle and bolt to it. The floor joist and stud likely sit side-by-side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another version uses a 316 wet-pour 4x4 post holder. That's a post holder with two bolt holes and tall sides. Then two rough-sawn 2-by lumber pieces will fit in the post holder. A floor joist and a stud can sit side by side or two studs can sit side-by-side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next point is that a ceiling joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of another stud. So go back to the foundation point and use two studs. Furthermore, a floor joist can easily be set at heights by setting the floor joist on one cut-to-height stud and bolting to the side of another stud. The stud bolted-to can be carried to full stud height while the stud between floor-joist and ceiling joist must be pieced-in and bolted in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now only use 18-8 nuts, bolts, and washers with 304L or with 316L. Otherwise, galvanized, but not zinc-plated, is okay for bolting two lumber pieces together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="b2a03828-cf34-4829-80eb-05a937ff407e" CreationDate="2019-02-10T16:54:15.020" UserId="6293" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="I suppose that a tiny-house is built to the size of an RV and has wheels like an RV, so that it can be legally positioned on most any lot. Or I have seen some tiny-houses on remote lots built on permanent foundations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I know of a set of permanent building constructions that are easy to build because the foundation is easy to build. Basically, just stick a piece of 304L in a wet-pour concrete footing and that's the foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now these foundations are crawl-space foundations. For instance, a 2&quot; to 2 1/2&quot; diameter 304L round or square tube with 0.120&quot; wall thickness, should be cut to length, have a 304L flat plate welded to the bottom, and have a 304L L-angle welded to the top. Then a floor-joist-end and a stud sit on the L-angle and bolt to it. The floor joist and stud likely sit side-by-side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another version uses a 316 wet-pour 4x4 post holder. That's a post holder with two bolt holes on each side and tall sides. Then two rough-sawn 2-by lumber pieces will fit in the post holder. A floor joist and a stud can sit side by side or two studs can sit side-by-side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next point is that a ceiling joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of another stud. So go back to the foundation point and use two studs. Furthermore, a floor joist can easily be set at heights by setting the floor joist on one cut-to-height stud and bolting to the side of another stud. The stud bolted-to can be carried to full stud height while the stud between floor-joist and ceiling joist must be pieced-in and bolted in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now only use 18-8 nuts, bolts, and washers with 304L or with 316L. Otherwise, galvanized, but not zinc-plated, is okay for bolting two lumber pieces together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="99e55676-40f9-43bf-88b9-62a1b34e836e" CreationDate="2019-02-10T17:05:33.263" UserId="6293" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="I suppose that a tiny-house is built to the size of an RV and has wheels like an RV, so that it can be legally positioned on most any lot. Or I have seen some tiny-houses on remote lots built on permanent foundations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I know of a set of permanent building constructions that are easy to build because the foundation is easy to build. Basically, just stick a piece of 304L in a wet-pour concrete footing and that's the foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now these foundations are crawl-space foundations. For instance, a 2&quot; to 2 1/2&quot; diameter 304L round or square tube with 0.120&quot; wall thickness, should be cut to length, have a 304L flat plate welded to the bottom, and have a 304L L-angle welded to the top. Then a floor-joist-end and a stud sit on the L-angle and bolt to it. The floor joist and stud likely sit side-by-side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another version uses a 316 wet-pour 4x4 post holder. That's a post holder with two bolt holes on each side and tall sides. Then two rough-sawn 2-by lumber pieces will fit in the post holder. A floor joist and a stud can sit side by side or two studs can sit side-by-side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next point is that a ceiling joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of another stud. So go back to the foundation point and use two studs at each stud location. Furthermore, a floor joist can easily be set at heights by setting the floor joist on one cut-to-height stud and bolting to the side of another stud. The stud bolted-to can be carried to full stud height while the stud between floor-joist and ceiling joist must be pieced-in and bolted in place. Now these constructions require a bolted blocking using brackets, between stud locations, and up near the ceiling joist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now only use 18-8 nuts, bolts, and washers with 304L or with 316L. Otherwise, galvanized, but not zinc-plated, is okay for bolting two lumber pieces together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="8c9b15c4-0213-40be-b647-71c4721b62b3" CreationDate="2019-02-10T18:36:55.020" UserId="6293" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I suppose that a tiny-house is built to a similar size of an RV and has wheels like an RV, so that it can be legally positioned on most any lot. Or I have seen some tiny-houses on remote lots built on permanent foundations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I know of a set of permanent building constructions that are easy to build because the foundation is easy to build. Basically, just stick a piece of 304L in a wet-pour concrete footing and that's the foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These foundations are crawl-space foundations. For instance, a 2&quot; to 2 1/2&quot; diameter 304L round or square tube with 0.120&quot; wall thickness, should be cut to length, have a 304L flat plate welded to the bottom, and have a 304L L-angle welded to the top. Then a floor-joist-end and a stud sit on the L-angle and bolt to it. The floor joist and stud likely sit side-by-side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another version uses a 316 wet-pour 4x4 post holder. That's a post holder with two bolt holes on each side and tall sides. Then two rough-sawn 2-by lumber pieces will fit in the post holder. A floor joist and a stud can sit side by side or two studs can sit side-by-side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next point is that a ceiling joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of another stud. So go back to the foundation point and use two studs at each stud location. Furthermore, a floor joist can easily be set at heights by setting the floor joist on one cut-to-height stud and bolting to the side of another stud. The stud bolted-to can be carried to full stud height while the stud between floor-joist and ceiling joist must be pieced-in and bolted in place. Now these constructions require a bolted blocking using brackets, between stud locations, and up near the ceiling joist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, only use 18-8 nuts, bolts, and washers with 304L or with 316L. Otherwise, galvanized, but not zinc-plated, is okay for bolting two lumber pieces together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="f2626e48-f4b9-4258-962a-e379e3950999" CreationDate="2019-02-10T19:26:44.390" UserId="6293" Comment="added 241 characters in body" Text="I suppose that a tiny-house is built to a similar size of an RV and has wheels like an RV, so that it can be legally positioned on most any lot. Or I have seen some tiny-houses on remote lots built on permanent foundations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I know of a set of permanent building constructions that are easy to build because the foundation is easy to build. Basically, just stick a piece of 304L in a wet-pour concrete footing and that's the foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These foundations are crawl-space foundations. For instance, a 2&quot; to 2 1/2&quot; diameter 304L round or square tube with 0.120&quot; wall thickness, should be cut to length, have a 304L flat plate welded to the bottom, and have a 304L L-angle welded to the top. Then a floor-joist-end and a stud sit on the L-angle and bolt to it. The floor joist and stud likely sit side-by-side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another version uses a 316 wet-pour 4x4 post holder. That's a post holder with two bolt holes on each side and tall sides. Then two rough-sawn 2-by lumber pieces will fit in the post holder. A floor joist and a stud can sit side by side or two studs can sit side-by-side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next point is that a ceiling joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of another stud. So go back to the foundation point and use two studs at each stud location. Furthermore, a floor joist can easily be set at heights by setting the floor joist on one cut-to-height stud and bolting to the side of another stud. The stud bolted-to can be carried to full stud height while the stud between floor-joist and ceiling joist must be pieced-in and bolted in place. Now these constructions require a bolted blocking using brackets, between stud locations, and up near the ceiling joist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the roof rafters are not a part of the ceiling joist in a truss design, then the roof rafters bolt to the sides of the extra-tall studs and sit on a fitted piece between the ceiling joist and rafter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole house bolts together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, only use 18-8 nuts, bolts, and washers with 304L or with 316L. Otherwise, galvanized, but not zinc-plated, is okay for bolting two lumber pieces together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7093" RevisionGUID="1b01e7b0-361b-4b38-930d-f9b2f55e0ee9" CreationDate="2019-02-10T20:05:49.363" UserId="400" Text="I have done this sort of, in reverse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a tree farmer.  I get seedlings and to extend the time I can plant them I have made a cold room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a 12x12 foot room with 4&quot; fiberglass + 12&quot; strawbale insulation. Inside are 10 45 gallon drums of water on sections of pallet and 4&quot; of styrofoam chips on top. In the winter, the door is left open and the fan on.  The  barrels freeze.  The chips slowdown ice formation on the top so that when middle of the barrel freezes it breaks the ice at the top instead of bulging the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cold also sinks deep into the ground.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In late winter I augment this by putting a foot of packed snow on the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Boxes of trees start arriving in late April, early May.  I have ice until June.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This illustrates some of the problems at small scale:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * It takes a great deal of insulation.  &#xD;&#xA; * You don't have good economies of scale. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;If I wanted to keep ice for another month, I would have to triple the number of barrels of ice.  That would fill up the shed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I double the dimensions of the shed, it takes twice as much exterior insulaiton, but I get 4 times the inside area.  (Ignoring the roof for now.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were to do this again, I would build a 30x30 building, and inside create a 4 foot deep pit with posts.  The posts would be space so tht spandard pallets would span them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pit would be lined with bentonite clay and plastic.  I'd put a couple thousand feet of 1/2&quot; drip line manifolded into 100-200 foot chunks. these would be attached to the posts at varying heights.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another array of pipe would be on the north slope of the shed, held on spacers a few inches above the roof.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small pump on a timer would circulate antifreeze solution between the two manifolds.  This would be on a differential thermostat so that when the antifreeze in the roof section was colder than the pit section, the pump would run.  Ideally the speed of the pump would depend ont he differential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summer mode, the pit would be covered with pallets, with a couple of open spaces to mount fans.  Whenever the room temp was over the set point, fans would pull cold air out of the top of the pit and distribute through the room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7094" RevisionGUID="4623ea17-a8a1-493c-9167-0c7816d125c4" CreationDate="2019-02-10T20:15:16.203" UserId="400" Text="The big win for hydronic heating is that it's easy to zone.  So you can easily have the bathroom warmer than the bedroom, have no heat at all in the guest room and the pantry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second win for hydronic heating in the floor:  People will set the room temp lower if their feet are warm.  This drops the room temp by several degrees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A third potential win is that you can move your heating to the cheapest time of day.  It's not unreasonable to store a day's worth of heat in a large tank of water.  At present this is only useful if you are using electricity.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With clever design, you can eliminate one heating unit.  A well designed house can be heated with a simple hot water heater plus a mixing valve.  The hot water tank is set to the higher temp used, and a mixing valve is used to create water of the desired temp for the other use.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downsides:  Hydronic heat doesn't respond quickly to changes in demand.  In floor had a substantial mass of floor to heat.  Radiators general circulate by convection and so don't warm up a room quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may still need a duct system to get reasonable amounts of fresh air.  This use can be MUCH smaller ducts, and typically can be run with what amounts to a large bathroom fan." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7095" RevisionGUID="fbcce88b-7730-43f5-99f5-9317d04f9b22" CreationDate="2019-02-10T20:25:28.563" UserId="400" Text="If you shut off the heat to the rest of the house, the rest of the house gets cold.  And while this reduces the gas bill, it doesn't reduce it as much as you think.  You have cooled off the mass of the house, so it takes some extra gas burning time to make up for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To put numbers on this you would need to do the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Record the amount of gas used every day at the end of a day's cycle.  Say supper time.&#xD;&#xA; * Record the day's high and low.  You may be able to use the local met station's hourly recordings.&#xD;&#xA; * In a spread sheet calculate the degree hours of heat you used.  So for example when it's 40 outside and you have your thermostat set on 70, then from 8 to 9 you used 30 degree hours of heat.  If you only use 2 temperature measures, assume that the high was at 2 p.m. and the low was 1 hour past dawn.  Linear interpolation between these two times is sufficient.&#xD;&#xA; * Do this for several weeks, alternating weeks where you did a thermostat set back, and used the electric heater, or just left the thermstat set at normal temp.&#xD;&#xA; * On weeks you used the elecltric heater record the power it used overnight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for each week, calculate the gas used.  Use the degree heating hour figures to correct for warm weeks versus cold weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For each week you used the electric heater (plugged into a Kill-o-Watt meter) Do a similar correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Confounding factors.  Since the bedroom isn't insulated on all walls heat will leak into the adjacent house rooms." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="1eb016d3-78b1-4355-9e89-dd1930533072" CreationDate="2019-02-11T13:55:52.463" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="General cleanup (links)" Text="I just came across the concept of STES - [Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_thermal_energy_storage) and more specifically BTES - Borehole Thermal Energy Storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([Example project](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Landing_Solar_Community))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wondered if anyone had built a small scale version to store summer heat and release in their homes during winter.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The concept seems remarkably simple but I wondered whether it only works on larger scale projects. Specifically I can’t wrap my head around how the heat loss/disapation of the stored heat in the soil isn’t significant - everyone seems to claim it’s very low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also wondered whether storing the heat in a phase change material like fat wouldn’t be more effective but I can’t seem to find any documented small scale implementations.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7090" RevisionGUID="1b2c5fdb-a893-4622-a6a9-a9dea379b3ab" CreationDate="2019-02-11T18:01:05.917" UserId="3379" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="## 1,400 gallons per day (including rainwater)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [&quot;The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products&quot;](https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2011-WaterFootprintCrops.pdf) (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011), for the period from 1996 to 2005 the global average water usage for fodder crops was 253 cubic meters per ton (or 253 L per kg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your original source gives a range of 18 to 25 kg/day for fodder consumed by a lactating cow. Using that range, the water needed to produce that amount of fodder per cow is between 4,554 and 6,325 liters of water per day. That's an average of about 1,400 gallons per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the breakdown by water type:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **27 liters/kg blue water:** &quot;the volume of surface and groundwater consumed (evaporated) as a result of the production of a good&quot; (this includes irrigation water)&#xD;&#xA; - **207 liters/kg green water:** &quot;the rain-water consumed&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - **20 liters/kg grey water:** &quot;the volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the load  of  pollutants  based  on  existing  ambient  water  quality standards.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 460 gallons per day with rainwater ignored&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we want to take rainwater out of the equation, the [full 1200 page report](https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report47-WaterFootprintCrops-Vol2.pdf) from the Water Footprint Network includes an annual breakdown for the U.S. of water usage by type for fodder production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Green (rainfed):   154,374.1 Mm3/yr&#xD;&#xA;    Green (irrigated):  15,933.7&#xD;&#xA;    Green (total):     170,308.1&#xD;&#xA;    Blue (irrigated):   30,923.2&#xD;&#xA;    Grey:               24,385.6&#xD;&#xA;    Total:             225,616.9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, rainwater makes up about 68% of the total. Reducing the total above by this fraction gives a range of 1,457 to 2,024 liters per day, or around 460 gallons per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What the cows are drinking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [U.S. Geological Survey](https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5041/pdf/sir2009-5041.pdf), the median dairy cow drinks about 35 gallons (132 liters) per day. A mere pittance compared to the water in their feed!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7092" RevisionGUID="bdfd50e7-7a0d-4d41-9542-be4d8a34f949" CreationDate="2019-02-11T19:59:04.253" UserId="6293" Comment="added 385 characters in body" Text="I suppose that a tiny-house is built to a similar size of an RV and has wheels like an RV, so that it can be legally positioned on most any lot. And a tiny-house on a temporary foundation and with wheels, can be a heavier construction than an RV because the tiny-house doesn't really need to be an RV but just appear to be an RV so that it can be legally parked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or I have seen many tiny-houses on remote lots built on permanent foundations. It's just one genre of news-reporting that defines tiny-houses like parked RV's. There are programs on cable-TV that feature tiny-houses on permanent foundations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I know of a set of permanent building constructions that are easy to build because the foundation is easy to build. Basically, just stick a piece of 304L in a wet-pour concrete footing and that's the foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These foundations are crawl-space foundations. For instance, a 2&quot; to 2 1/2&quot; diameter 304L round or square tube with 0.120&quot; wall thickness, should be cut to length, have a 304L flat plate welded to the bottom, and have a 304L L-angle welded to the top. Then a floor-joist-end and a stud sit on the L-angle and bolt to it. The floor joist and stud likely sit side-by-side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another version uses a 316 wet-pour 4x4 post holder. That's a post holder with two bolt holes on each side and tall sides. Then two rough-sawn 2-by lumber pieces will fit in the post holder. A floor joist and a stud can sit side by side or two studs can sit side-by-side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next point is that a ceiling joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of another stud. So go back to the foundation point and use two studs at each stud location. Furthermore, a floor joist can easily be set at heights by setting the floor joist on one cut-to-height stud and bolting to the side of another stud. The stud bolted-to can be carried to full stud height while the stud between floor-joist and ceiling joist must be pieced-in and bolted in place. Now these constructions require a bolted blocking using brackets, between stud locations, and up near the ceiling joist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the roof rafters are not a part of the ceiling joist in a truss design, then the roof rafters bolt to the sides of the extra-tall studs and sit on a fitted piece between the ceiling joist and rafter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The whole house bolts together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, only use 18-8 nuts, bolts, and washers with 304L or with 316L. Otherwise, galvanized, but not zinc-plated, is okay for bolting two lumber pieces together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7096" RevisionGUID="a9c77151-8b6f-4630-8b93-a68cd78714d2" CreationDate="2019-02-12T20:21:00.117" UserId="6287" Text="Carbon capture (CC) to offset or create synthetic fuels seems poised to replace fossil fuels that are otherwise difficult to replace. It the plans I've read in the last few months, that seems to be the general idea for air travel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CC from the air is being developed. E.g. Climeworks (Zurich, Switzerland), Carbon Engineering (BC, Canada). Extracting it from the air can offset what is otherwise generated. This the idea behind cap and trade, where the cost of the CC is included in the air travel ticket price. That would be offsets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The captured CO2 can be turned into synthetic fuels. Essentially the same molecular composition of natural fossil fuels, but the carbon comes from the captured carbon. (The ammonia in fertilizer is essentially made the same way.) The jet fuel could then be refined from this synthetic base. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both would be carbon neutral (vs. carbon negative), and synthetic fuels would never be anything but neutral, but it's a reasonable alternative. Plus you could make it locally (no shipping costs or tankers running into shoals), and there would be no exploration or drilling costs. Costs for synthesising are still a significant concern, but probably because it's nascent technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the short term it's a good use for the carbon captured as sequestration requires certain local geological opportunities, which is one of the key limitors of CCS. It probably doesn't thrill many because it's only carbon-neutral not carbon-negative, but it's a practical alternative to some of the difficult areas for reducing C02, of which air travel is cited as a common example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This NY Times article][1] talks about some of the current technology being developed, as well as some of the economic difficulties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/magazine/climeworks-business-climate-change.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7097" RevisionGUID="62e9a8bc-14e3-46ca-8097-38ad52f092c9" CreationDate="2019-02-13T04:43:58.703" UserId="3396" Text="Drinking from this bottle probably will not cause any measurable health effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Realistically, any material will experience wear. This means you will be drinking some amount of plastic regardless of the chosen material. Both LDPE and PP degrade from UV exposure so keeping it out of the sun is a good idea. Both polymers have low melting temperatures so I would not put hot liquids inside. The elastomer is probably on the outside of the bottle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7096" RevisionGUID="299c23e4-2ab0-4aad-b95c-3912122b2660" CreationDate="2019-02-13T07:31:09.557" UserId="99" Comment="edited body" Text="Carbon capture (CC) to offset or create synthetic fuels seems poised to replace fossil fuels that are otherwise difficult to replace. In the plans I've read in the last few months, that seems to be the general idea for air travel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CC from the air is being developed. E.g. Climeworks (Zurich, Switzerland), Carbon Engineering (BC, Canada). Extracting it from the air can offset what is otherwise generated. This the idea behind cap and trade, where the cost of the CC is included in the air travel ticket price. That would be offsets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The captured CO2 can be turned into synthetic fuels. Essentially the same molecular composition of natural fossil fuels, but the carbon comes from the captured carbon. (The ammonia in fertilizer is essentially made the same way.) The jet fuel could then be refined from this synthetic base. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both would be carbon neutral (vs. carbon negative), and synthetic fuels would never be anything but neutral, but it's a reasonable alternative. Plus you could make it locally (no shipping costs or tankers running into shoals), and there would be no exploration or drilling costs. Costs for synthesising are still a significant concern, but probably because it's nascent technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the short term it's a good use for the carbon captured as sequestration requires certain local geological opportunities, which is one of the key limitors of CCS. It probably doesn't thrill many because it's only carbon-neutral not carbon-negative, but it's a practical alternative to some of the difficult areas for reducing C02, of which air travel is cited as a common example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This NY Times article][1] talks about some of the current technology being developed, as well as some of the economic difficulties. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/magazine/climeworks-business-climate-change.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7098" RevisionGUID="b0dba44a-1643-402c-87da-60f3fb22df8a" CreationDate="2019-02-13T08:35:37.557" UserId="6381" Text="Our groupmates have a research topic that includes making a plastic pellet. We have to think of an alternative way to produce plastic pellets out of melted HDPE plastic bags since we're still students who couldn't afford buying an expensive pellet maker machine. Does anyone know any cheap alternatives for making a plastic pellet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7098" RevisionGUID="b0dba44a-1643-402c-87da-60f3fb22df8a" CreationDate="2019-02-13T08:35:37.557" UserId="6381" Text="Is there any Pellet molder alternative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7098" RevisionGUID="b0dba44a-1643-402c-87da-60f3fb22df8a" CreationDate="2019-02-13T08:35:37.557" UserId="6381" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="c0294eb3-6761-4039-b08f-5125267274b6" CreationDate="2019-02-13T20:44:31.273" UserId="4729" Text="STES (Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage) is, in most cases, too expensive to really be practical because of the huge quantity of the storage medium to supply the seasonal demand.  Typically, you loose am good portion of the heat through conduction or have top invest heavily in insulated containment.  I find it difficult enough designing thermal stores for demand balancing over a 24 hour period!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTES (Borehole Thermal Energy Storage) is the most realistic approach.  GSHP (Ground Source Heat Pump) is arguably the most efficient method of providing domestic heating.  Boreholes are commonly used as a source of heat for GSHP.  A common problem with GSHP is that material surrounding the borehole can cool down over several years causing the heat pump to become less efficient and even unusable due to freezing.  Using the borehole for passive cooling in the summer will put heat back into the borehole.  Putting excess solar thermal heat into the borehole during the summer can also help.  Even where ground conditions aren't particularly good for retaining the heat, you can still use the borehole for passive cooling and be assured that it borehole will function well as a heat source.  Combining  GSHP with solar thermal also the problem of stagnation when the thermal store inside the house can't take any more heat.  It's quite a good idea to size the solar thermal array to put roughly the same amount of heat into the ground in the summer as is taken out in the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't dig the borehole yourself, that's definitely a job for the professional!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7100" RevisionGUID="f18ee31a-df75-4ea7-b0cd-dc5345ebe3e4" CreationDate="2019-02-13T20:53:42.530" UserId="4729" Comment="edited body" Text="STES (Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage) is, in most cases, too expensive to really be practical because of the huge quantity of the storage medium needed to supply the seasonal demand.  Typically, you loose a good portion of the heat through conduction or have to invest heavily in insulated containment.  I find it difficult enough designing thermal stores for demand balancing over a 24 hour period!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTES (Borehole Thermal Energy Storage) is an exception.  GSHP (Ground Source Heat Pump) is arguably the most efficient method of providing domestic heating.  Boreholes are commonly used as a source of heat for GSHP.  A common problem with GSHP is that material surrounding the borehole can cool down over several years causing the heat pump to become less efficient and even unusable due to freezing.  Using the borehole for passive cooling in the summer will put heat back into the borehole.  Putting excess solar thermal heat into the borehole during the summer will also help.  Even where ground conditions aren't particularly good for retaining the heat, you can still use the borehole for passive cooling and be assured that it will function well as a heat source.  Combining  GSHP with solar thermal also removes the problem of stagnation where the thermal store inside the house can't take any more heat.  It's quite a good idea to size the solar thermal array to put roughly the same amount of heat into the ground in the summer as is taken out in the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't dig the borehole yourself, that's definitely a job for the professional!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18680" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="aeb73b9b-775a-4e99-9cc8-c9ba058082bc" CreationDate="2019-02-13T21:00:17.747" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1095789783425658892" />
  <row Id="18681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7101" RevisionGUID="2d393edc-7986-4202-b843-89965b4cc9c8" CreationDate="2019-02-14T05:25:02.973" UserId="2122" Text="Are there any HFC-free air conditioners on the market? How about refrigerators? Given the massive warming potential of HFCs I would expect there to be more information on how to avoid HFCs and on what alternatives exist but I'm struggling to dig up clear answers..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7101" RevisionGUID="2d393edc-7986-4202-b843-89965b4cc9c8" CreationDate="2019-02-14T05:25:02.973" UserId="2122" Text="How can I stop using HFC refrigerants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7101" RevisionGUID="2d393edc-7986-4202-b843-89965b4cc9c8" CreationDate="2019-02-14T05:25:02.973" UserId="2122" Text="|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7102" RevisionGUID="fca517b6-d5bc-4b36-9da4-2853aeb30312" CreationDate="2019-02-14T11:44:49.513" UserId="4155" Text="Another option that could be explored (and indeed is, to a limited extent) is the increased use of airships. Being neutrally buoyant, they need much less energy per trip, and the propulsion could be provided by solar power (they also have a large area on top of the envelope to hold solar cells). The downside, of course, is the need for large amounts of lighter-than-air gases for lift, and the slower pace compared with a jet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7103" RevisionGUID="9f8696e2-0b32-457f-9bb4-46f645caad10" CreationDate="2019-02-14T17:27:30.403" UserId="3379" Text="## Battery capacity must increase to hold four times more energy per unit mass than the current best technology to enable all-electric passenger flights&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently available batteries have poor [specific energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density) compared to jet fuel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Jet fuel:                            11.9 kWh/kg&#xD;&#xA;    Diesel:                              13.3&#xD;&#xA;    Gasoline:                            12.9&#xD;&#xA;    Lithium metal batteries (e.g. LiPo):  0.5&#xD;&#xA;    Lithium-ion batteries:                0.24&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an issue because as an aircraft increases in weight, it needs more fuel to achieve lift, which adds to the weight, which requires more fuel, *ad infinitum*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, while all-electric aircraft have been flying since at least the 1970s (see the Wikipedia article for a [brief and interesting history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft)), these have all been unpiloted or ultralight aircraft with limited payload, range, and speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A study earlier this month from *Progress in Aerospace Sciences*](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376042118301179) developed an &quot;all-electric aircraft design and optimization program.&quot; Using this program, the authors modeled &quot;optimized 180-passenger aircraft based on the Airbus A320neo configuration.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They concluded that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **A factor of four increase in battery pack specific energy from current values** of 200 Wh/kg to 800 Wh/kg enables 500 nmi flights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(According to [this study in *Nature Energy*](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-018-0294-x) around 50% of passenger flights are 500 nautical miles (900 km) or less).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They further studied the energy and environmental implications if such aircraft were to be used for all 500 nmi flights globally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The entire energy conversion chain, including charging, transport, and discharging of electrical energy, is considered. Despite the higher total energy use, narrow-body all-electric aircraft have the potential for lower equivalent CO2 emissions than conventionally-power aircraft if the electrical grid transitions toward renewable energy. **This is largely enabled by the complete elimination of all high-altitude emissions, which would remove associated non-CO2 warming.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that last point -- even if the grid doesn't transition to more renewable sources, all-electric aircraft will still eliminate high-altitude emissions, which contribute more towards global warming than the CO2 content of the exhaust ([source](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/aviation-and-the-global-atmosphere-2/?idp=65)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E3uJB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18688" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6856" RevisionGUID="7053880c-3171-4520-b9cf-ce582524b28b" CreationDate="2019-02-14T21:00:34.857" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1096152242963525632" />
  <row Id="18689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1063" RevisionGUID="edb54a8c-cf12-4d58-a9b5-9480480c9df2" CreationDate="2019-02-14T23:11:01.343" UserId="60" Comment="Added frequency variations possible error state" Text="Photovoltaic system's performance parameters belong to two categories: energy generation (electricity units like Volts, Amperes, Watts and Watthours) and supplemental (some other units). Although you don't mention it, to make the answer complete, I add energy storage category (if you had a battery storage attached).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A PVE system can be in one of these states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Off** - no energy is produced. No insolation, or the system is stopped manually.&#xD;&#xA;2. **Idle** - panels are insolated but the DC power they produce is too low to output any AC power.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Active** - panels generate DC electricity and the inverter produces and supplies AC power.&#xD;&#xA;4. An **error state** - current break, under/overvoltage, frequency&#xD;&#xA;variations etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I. *Energy generation parameters*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Each string of panels has it's **DC voltage** and **DC amperage** in active state. Their product is current **DC power**. [MPPT][1] inverter always tries to gain the maximum power from panels. DC voltage is only monitored in idle state.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The most important performance parameter of the system is the inverter's **current AC power**. In case of a 3-phase inverter the total AC power can be split to more phases.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Because we generate electricity in time, the **total energy produced** in kWh is summing it up. We can aggregate through hours (hourly production), days (daily production), months, years etc. [Beautiful graphs][2] can be made from this (sorry for selfpromotion, but it's similar to the questioned system).&#xD;&#xA; 4. Current **AC power supplying to the grid** or total **energy supplied to the grid** throughout certain period of time are the final measurements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;II. *Supplemental parameters*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Temperature of panels**. The higher temperature the lower maximum produced energy and shorter panel life.&#xD;&#xA;2. **Temperature of inverter**. Inverters cool themselves down above certain temperature and consume (some) energy they produce.&#xD;&#xA;3. **Operating time** - sum of the time when inverter operated in active state. We try to maximize the energy produced during active time.&#xD;&#xA;4. Inverter should monitor **AC voltage** for under/overvoltage for safety purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;III. *Battery storage parameters*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Energy stored**. Can be in kWh or in % of total capacity.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Battery (bank) **voltage**.&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Time remaining to full charge**. Approximate value based on current rate of charging.&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Time remaining to discharge**. Approximate value based on current rate of discharging.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Number of **charge/discharge cycles**.&#xD;&#xA; 6. **Storage efficiency**, i.e. energy stored/energy released.&#xD;&#xA; 7. **Temperature** of battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPPT&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.piko-solar-portal.de/PlantViewCharts.aspx?plantId=458a3872-8de8-4e85-a1d0-b4787b18d172" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7103" RevisionGUID="4a54dee5-de2b-4acd-84cc-afe95f8027f2" CreationDate="2019-02-15T15:03:26.150" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body" Text="## For all-electric passenger jets, battery capacity must increase to hold four times more energy per unit mass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently available batteries have poor [specific energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density) compared to jet fuel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Jet fuel:                            11.9 kWh/kg&#xD;&#xA;    Diesel:                              13.3&#xD;&#xA;    Gasoline:                            12.9&#xD;&#xA;    Lithium metal batteries (e.g. LiPo):  0.5&#xD;&#xA;    Lithium-ion batteries:                0.24&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an issue because as an aircraft increases in weight, it needs more fuel to achieve lift, which adds to the weight, which requires more fuel, *ad infinitum*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, while all-electric aircraft have been flying since at least the 1970s (see the Wikipedia article for a [brief and interesting history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft)), these have all been unpiloted or ultralight aircraft with limited payload, range, and speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A study earlier this month from *Progress in Aerospace Sciences*](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376042118301179) developed an &quot;all-electric aircraft design and optimization program.&quot; Using this program, the authors modeled &quot;optimized 180-passenger aircraft based on the Airbus A320neo configuration.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They concluded that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **A factor of four increase in battery pack specific energy from current values** of 200 Wh/kg to 800 Wh/kg enables 500 nmi flights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(According to [this study in *Nature Energy*](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-018-0294-x) around 50% of passenger flights are 500 nautical miles (900 km) or less).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## All-electric jets reduce global warming impacts even if the grid isn't 100% renewable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same study analyzed the energy and environmental implications if such aircraft were to be used for all 500 nmi flights globally:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The entire energy conversion chain, including charging, transport, and discharging of electrical energy, is considered. Despite the higher total energy use, narrow-body all-electric aircraft have the potential for lower equivalent CO2 emissions than conventionally-power aircraft if the electrical grid transitions toward renewable energy. **This is largely enabled by the complete elimination of all high-altitude emissions, which would remove associated non-CO2 warming.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This study from the IPCC](https://www.ipcc.ch/report/aviation-and-the-global-atmosphere-2/?idp=65) shows that high-altitude NOx and contrails both have greater global warming impacts than the CO2 in jet exhaust:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/E3uJB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7104" RevisionGUID="ddec08ff-4d86-4f43-b522-fe21b8c16e27" CreationDate="2019-02-15T19:38:07.727" UserId="3379" Text="## Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Legislation mandating alternatives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To control emissions of HFCs and other fluorinated gases (F-gases), Europe has two pieces of legislation: the [F-gas regulation](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.150.01.0195.01.ENG) and the [Mobile Air-Conditioning (MAC) directive](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1550249426577&amp;uri=CELEX:32006L0040). In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency has the [Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)](https://www.epa.gov/snap). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Alternatives to HFCs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EU provides a helpful list of [&quot;Climate-friendly alternatives to HFCs and HCFCs&quot;](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/f-gas/alternatives_en) which details the pros and cons of each:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The page goes on to explain which of these alternatives are best used in various different use cases, including refrigerators and air conditioners (both in homes and cars).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under SNAP, the U.S. EPA provides some helpful fact sheets on HFC alternatives in each of the main domestic or personal uses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Refrigeration](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/transitioning_to_low-gwp_alternatives_in_domestic_refrigeration.pdf)&#xD;&#xA; - [Car AC](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/epa_hfc_passenger_vehicle_ac.pdf)&#xD;&#xA; - [Home AC](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/international_transitioning_to_low-gwp_alternatives_in_res_and_com_ac_chillers.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Where refrigerants are used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next it's helpful to see where refrigerants are used, to narrow the focus on where using alternatives will be the most helpful. The chart below is from the U.S. EPA 2013 report, [&quot;Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases: 2010-2030&quot;](https://www.epa.gov/global-mitigation-non-co2-greenhouse-gases/global-mitigation-non-co2-ghgs-report-download-report).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here you can see that household refrigerators make up a very small part of the problem at 1% of global emissions. Instead, we should focus on motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC) at 16% and small unitary AC (such as window air conditioners) at 31%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How to attack the problem with home air conditioning&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the biggest part of the pie, what can we do immediately to reduce emissions of HFCs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Recycling appliances with HFCs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, wherever practical and economical, equipment with HFCs should be taken out of use. When this is done it is essential that the HFCs they contain by captured so it is not released to the atmosphere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S., the EPA runs the [Responsible Appliance Disposal program](https://www.epa.gov/rad/consumers) which provides information about how to recycle appliances with HFCs. Critically, they also provide a [searchable map](https://www.epa.gov/rad/find-rad-partner-programs) with links to partner programs -- services where you can turn in your old refrigerator, AC, or dehumidifier and be assured that the HFCs will be properly captured and disposed of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe, the [Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive](http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/index_en.htm) seems to be the legislation that would require proper disposal of appliances with HFCs, but I'm having trouble finding details for consumers on how to properly dispose of their appliances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Selecting new appliances with alternative refrigerants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The chart below is the from the EPA's [air conditioning fact sheet]() (the same one linked above), and shows which type of home AC is available with the different HFC alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this chart, the best choice for home air conditioning is units with [R-290](http://www.linde-gas.com/en/products_and_supply/refrigerants/natural_refrigerants/r290_propane/index.html) (another name for propane) or [R-441A](http://www.acr-news.com/hydrocarbon-refrigerant-r441a-gets-first-roll-out-in-the-usa) (a blend of ethane, propane, butane, and isobutane).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HFC-32 is an option, though not ideal. While still an HFC, it does have roughly half the global warming potential of R-410a (currently the most common refrigerant in the U.S.). Due to the European F-gas and U.S. SNAP regulations, R-410a will be phased about by 2021 ([source](https://www.carel.com/blog/-/blogs/which-refrigerants-are-allowed-worldwide-on-stand-alone-units-)), and HFC-32 seems most likely to replace it on a wide scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Current challenges in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, at this point for consumers in the U.S., the trail seems to run cold. From what I can find, it is not possible to purchase a new air conditioner with either of these refrigerants in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While R-441a is intended to serve as a drop-in replacement for R-410, R-22, and R-134a ([source](https://www.comstarproducts.com/r441a-hydrocarbon-refrigerant)), doing this in practice doesn't reduce the amount of HFCs produced, and runs the risk of leaking more HFCs to the atmosphere in the process of replacing the original refrigerant (it also seems rather complicated based on this [50 page instruction manual](https://hychill.com.au/content/3-info/giz-split-ac-hc-conversion-guide.pdf)). The only place this might make sense is if you have a leaky air conditioner -- once the leaks are fixed, you could replace the old HFC with R-441a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# TL;DR recommendations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. Make sure to properly recycle non-functional refrigerators and air conditioners.&#xD;&#xA;  2. For a leaky air conditioner, fix the leak and replace the refrigerant with a hydrocarbon such as R-441a.&#xD;&#xA;  3. Otherwise, try to keep your air conditioner working for as long as possible -- eventually refrigerants with higher global warming potential will be phased out, and the replacements will have more environmentally friendly refrigerants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ac7c6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kexkH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PqEsx.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="4902f08a-b74f-4bb2-86b5-57a6b00c4c7e" CreationDate="2019-02-15T20:44:07.897" UserId="2134" Text="You could combine the following two machines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The [Precious Plastic Extrusion machine][1], an open source, do-it-yourself plastic extruder that is fed with shredded plastic. Use it to create plastic filament in the diameter you need (maybe 3 mm as usual for 3D printers), and collect the filament on a slow-turning spool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A machine to cut the filament into small pieces as needed for making pellets. Not sure what would be a good basis for this one, though, but it's a pretty simple machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems preferable to me to separate the process into the two steps above, as creating the pellets from molten plastic in one step could be more difficult to control in a simple machine. You'd likely deform the soft plastic while cutting the part coming out of the extruder, and the pellets  might also stick together while cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://preciousplastic.com/en/videos/build/extrusion.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7106" RevisionGUID="a8a66167-2fe5-401d-935f-d34ebaf5ed58" CreationDate="2019-02-15T21:54:51.900" UserId="2134" Text="There is certainly one way how to do carbon sequestration with biochar: fill empty coal open pit mines with that charcoal, and cover with soil. That's how the fossil fuel in that pit was stored for a very long time before humans thought it's a good idea to dig it up and burn it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When wanting to give biochar simultaneously tasks for soil amendment, it becomes more complicated of course. But I'd argue that is *optional*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give some data points about biochar stability in soils, here are multiple studies with both good (centuries, millenia) and bad (decades) results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Biqing Liang et al. (2008) [Stability of biomass-derived black carbon in soils][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cheng C-H et al. (2008b) [Stability of black carbon in soils across a&#xD;&#xA;climatic gradient][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Hamer U et al. (2004) [Interactive priming of black carbon and glucose mineralisation][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Hammes K et al. (2008) [Characterisation and evaluation of reference materials for black carbon analysis using elemental composition, colour, BET&#xD;&#xA;surface area and C-13 NMR spectroscopy.][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Kuzyakov Y et al. (2009) [Black carbon decomposition and incorporation into soil microbial biomass estimated by C-14 labeling][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Major J et al. (2010) [Fate of soil-applied black carbon: downward migration, leaching and soil respiration][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Skjemstad JO et al. (1996) [The chemistry and nature of protected carbon in soil][7].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Titiz B at al. (2007) [Soil charcoal in old-growth rain forests from sea level to the continental divide][8].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Zimmerman AR (2010) [Abiotic and microbial oxidation of laboratory-produced black carbon&#xD;&#xA;(biochar)][9].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Found most of these in [Biochar as a Geoengineering Climate Solution: Hazard Identification and Risk Management][10]. It also contains two sections dealing with biochar stability specifically:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 15.2.1 Biochar Stability&#xD;&#xA;* 15.3.4 Turnnover of [Soil-Organic Carbon] SOC&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/publ/GeochimCosmochimActa%2072,%206096-6078,%202008%20Liang.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JG000642&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223678917&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/50915499&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.708.8424&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://ciat-library.ciat.cgiar.org/Articulos_Ciat/Major%20et%20al%20GCB%20for%20CIAT.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45825228&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227699038&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20085259&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233306803" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18695" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7107" RevisionGUID="d15205c4-503c-43eb-a002-0468e78d1fb0" CreationDate="2019-02-15T23:30:38.123" UserId="2134" Text="To be ecologically truly sustainable, no live trees should be cut. That will most closely mimic a natural ecosystem instead of turning them into managed tree plantations (which ain't properly forests).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &quot;Only take dead wood&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now forests naturally create also a lot of biomass in the form of dead coarse wood, dead fine wood and dead leaves. That would slowly release its carbon as CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; through natural decay, so we might as well collect and burn that. We can extract (let's say) half of that, while leaving the other half as habitat for animals etc.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dead wood, whether standing (snags) or down, plays an important role in forest ecology, acting as habitat for animals such as cavity-nesting birds, plants and microbial lives. (source: [Carbon sequestration via wood burial (2008)][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also let's say we only would take the coarse wood (typically understood as having 10 cm stem diameter and up), as that is easiest to handle. In that case, a rough estimation can be based on this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a 1 km × 1 km area (100 hectares) would accumulate about 100 tonne of carbon per year for a typical coarse wood production rate of 0.1 kgC m&lt;sup&gt;-2&lt;/sup&gt; y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; […]. 500 tonnes of carbon [are equivalent to] […] about 1000 tonne dry wood mass […]. (source: [Carbon sequestration via wood burial (2008)][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 100 tC y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; from coarse wood yield in a mature forest, based on the naturally occurring tree deaths. Which is equivalent to about 200 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; of dry wood mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking half of that wood means a production of 100 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; of dry wood mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Comparing results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparability with the [answer by m.w.jacobsen][2]: my number of 100 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; is equivalent to 1 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt;, while m.w.jacobsen had 5.4 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt;, both of dry wood mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that **(1)** I only include half the coarse deadwood (otherwise it's 2 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt;), **(2)** I don't include any clearcutting or cutting of live trees – but it is [not too clear][3] what impact that has on forest productivity, if any and **(3)** most importantly, the numbers from the study I quote are quite rough. They are derived from global average forest productivity instead of that for only the temperate or tropic climate zone. Boreal forests have a lower productivity ([see][4]), lowering the average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2753&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6967&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1#Fig4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7107" RevisionGUID="e1d4a259-39d2-42d8-b70f-5d2d46835d2e" CreationDate="2019-02-15T23:37:31.513" UserId="2134" Comment="wording" Text="To be ecologically truly sustainable, no live trees should be cut. That will most closely mimic a natural ecosystem instead of turning them into managed tree plantations (which ain't properly forests).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &quot;Only take dead wood&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now forests naturally create also a lot of biomass in the form of dead coarse wood, dead fine wood and dead leaves. That would slowly release its carbon as CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; through natural decay, so we might as well collect and burn that. We can extract (let's say) half of that, while leaving the other half as habitat for animals etc.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dead wood, whether standing (snags) or down, plays an important role in forest ecology, acting as habitat for animals such as cavity-nesting birds, plants and microbial lives. (source: [Carbon sequestration via wood burial (2008)][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also let's say we only would take the coarse wood (typically understood as having 10 cm stem diameter and up), as that is easiest to handle. In that case, a rough estimation can be based on this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a 1 km × 1 km area (100 hectares) would accumulate about 100 tonne of carbon per year for a typical coarse wood production rate of 0.1 kgC m&lt;sup&gt;-2&lt;/sup&gt; y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; […]. 500 tonnes of carbon [are equivalent to] […] about 1000 tonne dry wood mass […]. (source: [Carbon sequestration via wood burial (2008)][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 100 tC y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; from coarse wood yield in a mature forest, based on the naturally occurring tree deaths. Which is equivalent to about 200 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; of dry wood mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, taking out only half of that wood results in a production of 100 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; of dry wood mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Comparing results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparability with the [answer by m.w.jacobsen][2]: my number of 100 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; is equivalent to 1 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt;, while m.w.jacobsen had 5.4 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt;, both of dry wood mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that **(1)** I only include half the coarse deadwood (otherwise it's 2 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt;), **(2)** I don't include any clearcutting or cutting of live trees – but it is [not too clear][3] what impact that has on forest productivity, if any and **(3)** most importantly, the numbers from the study I quote are quite rough. They are derived from global average forest productivity instead of that for only the temperate or tropic climate zone. Boreal forests have a lower productivity ([see][4]), lowering the average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2753&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6967&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1#Fig4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6205" RevisionGUID="6c5b71f8-dab5-4d7f-9b80-a0b1a979d2e4" CreationDate="2019-02-16T00:53:39.363" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="&gt;How much energy could we actually gain from biomass from a given forest size if it was actually green?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Primary productivity** is the term used to describe the rate at which energy is converted into organic material via photosynthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Deciduous temperate forests** have a net primary productivity of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ~6000 kCal/m²/year&#xD;&#xA; - ~16 kCal/m²/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~67 kJ/m²/day&#xD;&#xA; - ~0.0186 kWh/m²/day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The households in my country average about 24kWh/day of energy usage over the course of a year.  In the temperate regions of the country, about 30% of that (7.2kWh/day) is spent on heating.  **To provide that energy would require**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.2/0.0186 = **387m²** of deciduous temperate forest&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus **the yearly heating needs of a single household can be provided by 'logging' an area only about 20x20m in size** — roughly double the size of the house itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since deciduous trees around here mature and thus can be harvested on about a 30 year rotation, **for true sustainability, your woodlot needs to be at least**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;387 * 30 = **11,610m² == 1.16Ha == 2.87ac in size**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tweak the numbers above to suit your local (or hypothetical) conditions and calculate the minimum woodlot size that will work for you. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="61686227-b86e-43a4-ba95-df3351ed5eb9" CreationDate="2019-02-17T07:09:15.140" UserId="4099" Comment="broken image fixed (click 'rendered output' to see the difference; image retrieved via Wayback Machine); for more info, see https://gist.github.com/Glorfindel83/9d954d34385d2ac2597bbe864466259f" Text="I don't know about turtles, but let me give you an idea from the world's number one fish eaters again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Japan, there are several uses for fish bones (with some meat left on them). The bones plus meat are ground into a paste called [surimi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surimi), which is then processed into [satsuma age](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satsuma_age), [chikuwa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chikuwa), or similar products (pictures below), which all have a rubber-like consistency. They can be eaten cold in salads (sliced), warm in soups or just for snacks and go well with mustard and/or soy sauce. Fresh they last for about a week in the fridge, but are usually stored in the freezer for several months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![satsuma-age][1]][1]  &#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(source: [cybergarden.net](http://www.cybergarden.net/gourmet/images5/DSC45582.JPG))&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;![chikuwa](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lv1nMvNcrYM/UMdd2GrTpyI/AAAAAAAAAks/XpPQNaVczeE/s1600/uocha_101209.jpg)&#xA; [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TU7Me.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18700" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="61686227-b86e-43a4-ba95-df3351ed5eb9" CreationDate="2019-02-17T07:09:15.140" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 99 edit id of 566" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7108" RevisionGUID="9afa282a-7273-4fbc-a2eb-49ff32104a43" CreationDate="2019-02-18T00:45:04.907" UserId="6388" Text="I have a 2018 Ram Promaster city cargo van with OEM 12v 70AH 120RC Sealed Led acid battery and a 160a alternator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sitting on top of the battery I have a 1200 Watt pure sine 100v inverter connected with 2 gauge wires and then have a 12 gauge run to the back of the van. I also have a single 12 gauge line running from the batteries hot to the middle of the van that gives in an always on 5v USB source. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To date, my power needs in the van are minimal. when I need 110v, it's for every short periods of time 15 minutes or less to run 500-800w appliances and when I do I am usually parked with the engine running. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I've slept in the van overnight I run a 1a 5v fan from 10pm to 6am.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My battery has never been below 10v, but I do plan to install a 10v low voltage disconnect to the 12v hot line to be safe.  My inverter already has a 10v low voltage disconnect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However.. In the future, I would like to install a 200 Watt 18v 6a (max) solar flexible solar panel on my roof.  It might be overkill, but the 32w x 42l size fits perfectly and will block a lot of sun and help with mid day interior temps.  As I ponder how to benefit from this free power, NOTE: I am NOT looking to install or sleep with batteries in the passenger area.  I would like to install a ceiling vent rated at 12v 3a when on high (specially a Max Air 14x14 fan 12v 900CFM fan). While I think I can easily run the fan overnight on low (12v 1a) and have no issues starting the van, I would like to run the fan on high (12v 3a) when the sun is strong during the day. Again, I have no plan to drain my 12v battery like a deep cycle.  And finally, as I anticipate having more power than I need during the middle of the day even with a 12v 3a fan running, I would like to freeze the content of small 50w 12v freezer during the day (9am-9pm) and then keep it off and closed overnight. I would anticipate interior ambient temps to range from 90F midday to 80F night. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my two questions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) How can I connect the solar panels 20a charge controller to my battery so as not to impact/interfere my cars charging system and visa-versa? do need a switch or isolator?  I am presuming my charge controller will have some protections like a reverse diode for night fall leak back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) If later on I want to upgrade my battery to a new dual purpose 12v 100AH 200RC 830CCA battery will my 160a alternator be okay with having to work harder to recover for longer periods of time? Again, I do not anticipate ever draining my battery like a deep cycle battery. I will tell you I have experience with another automotive 160a alternator and a 90AH battery that would get close to 10v a lot and never had issues with either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7108" RevisionGUID="9afa282a-7273-4fbc-a2eb-49ff32104a43" CreationDate="2019-02-18T00:45:04.907" UserId="6388" Text="Adding solar to a small van.. just need steady 12v source not a battery bank.. question about switches and isolators?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7108" RevisionGUID="9afa282a-7273-4fbc-a2eb-49ff32104a43" CreationDate="2019-02-18T00:45:04.907" UserId="6388" Text="|solar-power|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7108" RevisionGUID="b221d11f-80f1-45aa-8812-e48cd6443c08" CreationDate="2019-02-18T00:51:23.080" UserId="6388" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="I have a 2018 Ram Promaster city cargo van with OEM 12v 70AH 120RC Sealed Led acid battery and a 160a alternator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sitting on top of the battery I have a 1200 Watt pure sine 100v inverter connected with 2 gauge wires and then have a 12 gauge run to the back of the van. I also have a single 12 gauge line running from the batteries hot to the middle of the van that gives in an always on 5v USB source. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To date, my power needs in the van are minimal. when I need 110v, it's for every short periods of time 15 minutes or less to run 500-800w appliances and when I do I am usually parked with the engine running. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I've slept in the van overnight I run a 1a 5v fan from 10pm to 6am.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My battery has never been below 10v, but I do plan to install a 10v low voltage disconnect to the 12v hot line to be safe.  My inverter already has a 10v low voltage disconnect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However.. In the future, I would like to install a 200 Watt 18v 6a (max) solar flexible solar panel on my roof.  It might be overkill, but the 32w x 42l size fits perfectly and will block a lot of sun and help with mid day interior temps.  As I ponder how to benefit from this free power, NOTE: I am NOT looking to install or sleep with batteries in the passenger area.  I would like to install a ceiling vent rated at 12v 3a when on high (specially a Max Air 14x14 fan 12v 900CFM fan). While I think I can easily run the fan overnight on low (12v 1a) and have no issues starting the van, I would like to run the fan on high (12v 3a) when the sun is strong during the day. Again, I have no plan to drain my 12v battery like a deep cycle.  And finally, as I anticipate having more power than I need during the middle of the day even with a 12v 3a fan running, I would like to freeze the content of small 50w 12v freezer during the day (9am-9pm) and then keep it off and closed overnight. I would anticipate interior ambient temps to range from 90F midday to 80F night. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my two questions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) How can I connect the solar panels 20a charge controller (200W 18v 6a panel)to my battery so as not to impact/interfere my cars charging system and visa-versa? do need a switch or isolator?  I am presuming my charge controller will have some protections like a reverse diode for night fall leak back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) If later on I want to upgrade my battery to a new dual purpose 12v 100AH 200RC 830CCA battery will my 160a alternator be okay with having to work harder to recover for longer periods of time? Again, I do not anticipate ever draining my battery like a deep cycle battery. I will tell you I have experience with another automotive 160a alternator and a 90AH battery that would get close to 10v a lot and never had issues with either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18705" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7108" RevisionGUID="13f085c5-e771-44f7-8adf-b0d5ae85c281" CreationDate="2019-02-18T03:44:13.583" UserId="6388" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="I have a 2018 Ram Promaster city cargo van with OEM 12v 70AH 120RC Sealed Led acid battery and a 160a alternator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sitting on top of the battery I have a 1200 Watt pure sine 100v inverter connected with 2 gauge wires and then have a 12 gauge run to the back of the van. I also have a single 12 gauge line running from the batteries hot to the middle of the van that gives in an always on 5v USB source. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To date, my power needs in the van are minimal. when I need 110v, it's for every short periods of time 15 minutes or less to run 500-800w appliances and when I do I am usually parked with the engine running. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I've slept in the van overnight I run a 1a 5v fan from 10pm to 6am.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My battery has never been below 10v, but I do plan to install a 10v low voltage disconnect to the 12v hot line to be safe.  My inverter already has a 10v low voltage disconnect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However.. In the future, I would like to install a 200 Watt 18v 6a (max) solar flexible solar panel on my roof.  It might be overkill, but the 32w x 42l size fits perfectly and will block a lot of sun and help with mid day interior temps.  As I ponder how to benefit from this free power, NOTE: I am NOT looking to install or sleep with batteries in the passenger area.  I would like to install a ceiling vent rated at 12v 3a when on high (specially a Max Air 14x14 fan 12v 900CFM fan). While I think I can easily run the fan overnight on low (12v 1a) and have no issues starting the van, I would like to run the fan on high (12v 3a) when the sun is strong during the day. Again, I have no plan to drain my 12v battery like a deep cycle.  And finally, as I anticipate having more power than I need during the middle of the day even with a 12v 3a fan running, I would like to freeze the content of small 50w 12v freezer during the day (9am-9pm) and then keep it off and closed overnight. I would anticipate interior ambient temps to range from 90F midday to 80F night. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my two questions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) How can I connect the solar panels 20a charge controller (200W 18v 6a panel)to my battery so as not to impact/interfere my cars charging system and visa-versa? do need a switch or isolator?  I am presuming my charge controller will have some protections like a reverse diode for night fall leak back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) If later on I want to upgrade my battery to a new dual purpose 12v 100AH 200RC 830CCA battery will my 160a alternator be okay with having to work harder to recover for longer periods of time? Again, I do not anticipate ever draining my battery like a deep cycle battery. I will tell you I have experience with another automotive 160a alternator and a 90AH battery that would get close to 10v a lot and never had issues with either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;updated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) also wondering about Charge controllers that have an output.  Is that 12v? how different then directly from battery? possible (and seems so) they have a low battery output disconnect and output time schedule limit in that output? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="0670ecb6-7a71-4ea5-a5dd-4da8f43f1a01" CreationDate="2019-02-18T09:58:45.380" UserId="4099" Comment="broken image fixed (click 'rendered output' to see the difference; image retrieved via Wayback Machine); for more info, see https://gist.github.com/Glorfindel83/9d954d34385d2ac2597bbe864466259f" Text="Well, what causes the room to be dark? The light gets absorbed into objects and stays there. To keep the light buzzing through your room to make it feel bright, you need to make sure that as much in your room as possible reflects light. Mirrors reflect almost 100% of the light, i.e. more mirrors means less light absorption means a brighter room. Light colours (white) reflect more light than dark colours (brown/black). If you change your interior design, you will have a brighter room and may not need to add more light. (If you add mirrors to your room, it would be most efficient to place them where the light enters the room.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, countries with long winters (e.g. Norway, see below) have bright interior designs, because in the winter period one has to keep as much light as possible from being absorbed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Countries with mild winters and strong sun during the day (e.g. Spain, picture below) tend to have darker designs, presumably to allow the eyes to rest at least inside the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Norwegian house](http://maxcdn.fooyoh.com/files/attach/images/627/587/592/vivendelstien-house-in-norway-2.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Spanish office][1]][1]  &#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(source: [theluxhome.com](http://theluxhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Elegant-and-luxurious-office-interior-design-ideas-1-533x354.jpg))&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xA; [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S1GXN.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18707" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="0670ecb6-7a71-4ea5-a5dd-4da8f43f1a01" CreationDate="2019-02-18T09:58:45.380" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 85 edit id of 567" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18708" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="854" RevisionGUID="9a386189-1d2e-448c-8ec0-180f0dc90987" CreationDate="2019-02-19T02:42:12.900" UserId="4886" Comment="Added image to illustrate adding a mirror." Text="Well, what causes the room to be dark? The light gets absorbed into objects and stays there. To keep the light buzzing through your room to make it feel bright, you need to make sure that as much in your room as possible reflects light. Mirrors reflect almost 100% of the light, i.e. more mirrors means less light absorption means a brighter room. Light colours (white) reflect more light than dark colours (brown/black). If you change your interior design, you will have a brighter room and may not need to add more light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you add mirrors to your room, it would be most efficient to place them where the light enters the room.  [Mounting a mirror outside the window][1] is one way to accomplish this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Espaciel][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, countries with long winters (e.g. Norway, see below) have bright interior designs, because in the winter period one has to keep as much light as possible from being absorbed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Countries with mild winters and strong sun during the day (e.g. Spain, picture below) tend to have darker designs, presumably to allow the eyes to rest at least inside the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Norwegian house](http://maxcdn.fooyoh.com/files/attach/images/627/587/592/vivendelstien-house-in-norway-2.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Spanish office][3]][3]  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(source: [theluxhome.com](http://theluxhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Elegant-and-luxurious-office-interior-design-ideas-1-533x354.jpg))&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://freshome.com/2015/01/23/instantly-improving-lighting-in-dark-rooms-espaciel-light-reflector/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8X3cQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S1GXN.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18709" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7108" RevisionGUID="0cbd68ce-c6cd-4585-94d8-69b02284fb6c" CreationDate="2019-02-19T12:10:32.017" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4834,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jean-Paul Calderone&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7109" RevisionGUID="9258de36-edc0-4355-836d-dd0afc265d1e" CreationDate="2019-02-19T23:31:50.103" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;b&gt;Zero.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And by that, I don't mean I'm against the economical sustainable use of forest -- forest should be used as much possible as is sustainable to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The problem is, there's not enough forest, unless you cut 100% of rainforests on Earth and replace them with oil palm plantations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us assume that there is a population that uses firewood. Wood that can be&#xD;&#xA;burned grows 0.1 zettajoules per year. The population uses less firewood than&#xD;&#xA;0.1 zettajoules per year. Sustainable? Yes, except read on...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the population grows and due to simultaneous economic growth per&#xD;&#xA;capita, energy consumption increases to 0.5 zettajoules per year. Seeing that&#xD;&#xA;the limits of growth and sustainability are near, it has become trendy to burn&#xD;&#xA;firewood instead of burning coal, and it has also become trendy to own forest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, no matter how much people want to burn firewood, it cannot be burned&#xD;&#xA;sustainably more than 0.1 zettajoules per year. Thus, by burning firewood&#xD;&#xA;(regardless of whether you own forest or not), you are increasing the price&#xD;&#xA;of firewood due to laws of supply and demand, which causes somebody who can't&#xD;&#xA;afford firewood anymore or just doesn't care enough to stop burning firewood&#xD;&#xA;and start burning coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, no matter how much people want to own forest, not everyone can own so&#xD;&#xA;much forest that it would cover their energy consumption. By buying and owning&#xD;&#xA;forest (regardless of whether you burn the wood or sell it to somebody else),&#xD;&#xA;you are increasing the price of forestland due to laws of supply and demand,&#xD;&#xA;which causes somebody to sell it and use the money for something else, thus&#xD;&#xA;ceasing to be forest-owner. Not everyone can own enough forest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The marginal energy is provided by coal. Forest owners won't all decide to cut&#xD;&#xA;their forest immediately, but coal mine owners are more than happy to sell some&#xD;&#xA;of their limited coal reserves to you. Forestry is sustainable, coal mining is&#xD;&#xA;not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important thing to understand is that &lt;b&gt;everyone is using marginal&#xD;&#xA;energy&lt;/b&gt;. Marginal energy is coal. Thus, every kWh of electricity used, every&#xD;&#xA;MJ of heat produced, etc. effectively comes from coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a hypothetical future world, marginal energy could be supplied &lt;a href=&quot;http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html&quot;&gt;sustainably&lt;/a&gt; by advanced&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor&quot;&gt;small modular nuclear reactors&lt;/a&gt; (by that, I mean &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor&quot;&gt;fission breeders&lt;/a&gt;, not fusion), or perhaps even wind power stored in hydrogen or batteries.&#xD;&#xA;However, today marginal energy comes from coal, and thus every energy user is&#xD;&#xA;effectively using coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you reduce your energy use by 1 MJ, you reduce coal use by 1 MJ. It's as&#xD;&#xA;simple as that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, needless to say, sawlogs shouldn't be burned; they should be used for&#xD;&#xA;constructing houses. Pulpwood could perhaps be burned, but a better option is&#xD;&#xA;to &lt;a href=&quot;https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1&quot;&gt;bury it&lt;/a&gt;. Unfortunately, there are no economic incentives for burying wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood is a very dirty fuel. If you bury 1 MJ worth of wood underground and burn&#xD;&#xA;1 MJ worth of coal, less carbon dioxide is produced than would be produced by&#xD;&#xA;burning the 1 MJ worth of wood directly -- for the same energy output. In fact, wood is probably the dirtiest&#xD;&#xA;fuel of them all, very likely dirtier than peat. Let's bury the wood and burn the best and cleanest of the fossil fuels,&#xD;&#xA;natural gas! And perhaps some oil in airplanes and heavy trucks that use jet fuel or diesel, respectively, and have no viable replacement like electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Disclaimer:&lt;/b&gt; I own 25.6 hectares of boreal taiga forest. It's an&#xD;&#xA;excellent investment even in these northern latitudes. If you can, consider&#xD;&#xA;investing in forest!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7110" RevisionGUID="d4dd1798-f290-4110-a07e-d3509a0bfa83" CreationDate="2019-02-19T23:48:14.107" UserId="6393" Text="Airplanes are producing perhaps 2% of the carbon dioxide emissions produced by the human race.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, managed forests have the power to &lt;a href=&quot;https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1&quot;&gt;sequester 10 GtC / year of carbon&lt;/a&gt;, by burying the wood underground. In comparison, carbon dioxide emissions are 8 GtC / year. Thus, 125% of annual carbon dioxide emissions can be buried underground in the form of wood every year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the other answers have noted, there is no substitute for jet fuel as used in aircraft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say for now, the best strategy is to bury some wood underground and pump some oil from underground, to be refined into jet fuel and burned in aircraft. If the same amount of carbon that is released by the oil refining and jet fuel is buried underground in the form of the wood, it's sustainable until we run out of oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Later, after all oil reserves will have been depleted and no new reserves can be found, &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process&quot;&gt;Fischer-Tropsch&lt;/a&gt; can be used to turn forests directly into jet fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making air travel sustainable thus is trivial. The answer to sustainability is jet fuel, as is used currently. 2% is less than 125%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big issue is electricity generation (answers: nuclear, wind, grid energy storage), passenger cars (answer: plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or fully electric vehicles, perhaps hydrogen) and heating in cold climates (answer: geothermal heat)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7111" RevisionGUID="637c0091-dd2f-4ff4-a040-17a0af875af7" CreationDate="2019-02-20T03:24:27.467" UserId="6394" Text="I'm currently researching and experimenting a system concept about hydropower-based fintness.&#xD;&#xA;I recorded my initial experiment footage and you can watch the [video on Youtube][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Befor talking about this idea, I must tell you that **I AM NOT going to make human force a major source of energy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All I want is to build a system which allows higher variety of exercises and can efficiently utilize the energy generated by users.&#xD;&#xA;If the users see the result of their workout can both benefit their own health and the environment, they might be more willing to do exercise regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Idea:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system collect and sore the work done by users in the form of water potential energy.&#xD;&#xA;Common methods of generating electricity by exercises are restricted because they have to keep the motor spinning.&#xD;&#xA;In my case, the users can do more kinds of exercises with different training style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Lifting up bottles filled with water &#xD;&#xA;  The simplest one, which I chose in my experiment.&#xD;&#xA;  If the user like dumb bell or kettle bell, this will be their choise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Pump integrated cable machine / rowing machine&#xD;&#xA;  The weights connected to cables are replaced with pistons.&#xD;&#xA;  When the user pull the cable, the pistons will pump the water up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Spinning bike&#xD;&#xA;  If the user really like this classic exercise, &#xD;&#xA;  they can use a pedal water powered pump like this on [Youtube][2] to store energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water lifted/ pumped will be converged to the upper water tank.&#xD;&#xA;There will be only one hydro-power generator which convert the potential energy into electricity.&#xD;&#xA;We can control the output of electricity by adjusting the rate of water flow.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we can generate power according to the need of the facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This system don't require every exercise equipment to be installed with generators and we don't have to setup complex electricity wires.  &#xD;&#xA;The batteries are also not need in this system.&#xD;&#xA;Without those expensive components, this system will be much cheaper to build and maintain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My initial experiment and result:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Height of hydralic head: 170cm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water tube diameter: 1/2 inch&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flow rate: 47.5 ml/Sec&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voltage:4.8V&#xD;&#xA;Current:46 mA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please check the Youtube video I mentioned earlier for detailed footage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The generator I used:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much like a &quot;cross flow&quot; generator, but have only one water input.&#xD;&#xA;                     &#xD;&#xA;You can easily find on Amazon by typing &quot;BQLZR Portable Micro-hydro Generator Water Charger High Efficiency 3.5W &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Working pressure: 0 to 1.75 Mpa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Test pressure: 1, 2 MPa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Temperature range:0 to 120 degrees Celsius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maximum Flow: 30l/min&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flow range: 1.5-20L/min (press 0.05-0.2MPa)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shell material: nylon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Size: approx. 8 x 4cm/3.15 x 1.57&quot;(L X D) &#xD;&#xA;                   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system successfully generated electricity and I could easily keep the water flowing.&#xD;&#xA;However, this is obvious that the electricity generated was **too weak** to be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My next setp:&#xD;&#xA;I'm planning to build a system which have 10~5W output per second.&#xD;&#xA;I had bought a 795 DC-motor like this on amazon.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.amazon.com/REFURBISHHOUSE-Torque-DC12V-24V-Universal-Bearing/dp/B07K239N6Z/ref=sr_1_7?keywords=dc+motor+795&amp;qid=1550577895&amp;s=gateway&amp;sr=8-7&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The energy generated will be converted by a DC-converter module.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.amazon.com/DZS-Elec-Converter-Regulator-Charging/dp/B07121W7Q4/ref=sxbs_sxwds-stvp?keywords=dc+converter+5v&amp;pd_rd_i=B07121W7Q4&amp;pd_rd_r=438100ae-1c7c-444d-9c83-ddf69ef756cb&amp;pd_rd_w=k4RtB&amp;pd_rd_wg=Dx7vf&amp;pf_rd_p=5c5ea0d7-2437-4d8a-88a7-ea6f32aeac11&amp;pf_rd_r=A5ZW5N74ZM22FFBGVSP5&amp;qid=1550578160&amp;s=gateway&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This system will be able to charge common electronics like tablets and smartphones.&#xD;&#xA;If I make any further result, I'll post them here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***And finally here are my questions:***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.Do you think there's any drawback/bugs in this system besides the problem of water storage and leaking?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.Is there any existing system which have similar concept?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.Do you know suitable parts for my next experiment?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e990Btlz6ak&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtObp4IlIaw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7111" RevisionGUID="637c0091-dd2f-4ff4-a040-17a0af875af7" CreationDate="2019-02-20T03:24:27.467" UserId="6394" Text="A hydropower based power-generating fitness system and some questions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7111" RevisionGUID="637c0091-dd2f-4ff4-a040-17a0af875af7" CreationDate="2019-02-20T03:24:27.467" UserId="6394" Text="|electricity-generation|health|hydroelectricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="ddf33924-f6fe-4ae3-9020-8b703bb4d0d5" CreationDate="2019-02-20T08:05:50.390" UserId="4099" Comment="broken image fixed (click 'rendered output' to see the difference; image retrieved via Wayback Machine); for more info, see https://gist.github.com/Glorfindel83/9d954d34385d2ac2597bbe864466259f" Text="I love lotus root and am a bit prejudiced against styrofoam, so I would probably try to grow lotus plants. They supposedly clean the water as well, so I am sure they'd be a good addition to your system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't much about it, but in Japan the lotus is harvested in winter (December–January), when the fields look like all harvest has long rotted away:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![lotus fields][1]][1]  &#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(source: [ocn.ne.jp](http://jodan.blog.ocn.ne.jp/blog/images/2013/03/20/k7_12638.jpg))&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Japan, the [Ibaraki prefecture](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibaraki_Prefecture) seems to be the best climate for growing lotus. Since I guess you won't be able to reproduce the climate of Ibaraki, I wonder how good the lotus grows and if it tastes any good.&#xA; [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ut7DB.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18716" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="ddf33924-f6fe-4ae3-9020-8b703bb4d0d5" CreationDate="2019-02-20T08:05:50.390" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 3379, 99 edit id of 568" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18717" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7107" RevisionGUID="4106333d-d0ce-4712-825d-a122bc49329b" CreationDate="2019-02-20T09:43:19.503" UserId="2134" Comment="unit fix; addition for better comparison of results" Text="To be ecologically truly sustainable, no live trees should be cut. That will most closely mimic a natural ecosystem instead of turning them into managed tree plantations (which ain't properly forests).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &quot;Only take dead wood&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now forests naturally create also a lot of biomass in the form of dead coarse wood, dead fine wood and dead leaves. That would slowly release its carbon as CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; through natural decay, so we might as well collect and burn that. We can extract (let's say) half of that, while leaving the other half as habitat for animals etc.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dead wood, whether standing (snags) or down, plays an important role in forest ecology, acting as habitat for animals such as cavity-nesting birds, plants and microbial lives. (source: [Carbon sequestration via wood burial (2008)][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also let's say we only would take the coarse wood (typically understood as having 10 cm stem diameter and up), as that is easiest to handle. In that case, a rough estimation can be based on this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a 1 km × 1 km area (100 hectares) would accumulate about 100 tonne of carbon per year for a typical coarse wood production rate of 0.1 kgC m&lt;sup&gt;-2&lt;/sup&gt; y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; […]. 500 tonnes of carbon [are equivalent to] […] about 1000 tonne dry wood mass […]. (source: [Carbon sequestration via wood burial (2008)][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 100 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; of carbon yield from coarse deadwood in a mature forest, based on the naturally occurring tree deaths. Which is equivalent to about 200 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; of dry wood mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, taking out only half of that wood results in a production of 100 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; of dry wood mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Comparing results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparability with the [answer by m.w.jacobsen][2]: my number of 100 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; is equivalent to 1 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt;, while m.w.jacobsen had 5.4 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt;, both of dry wood mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that **(1)** I only include half the coarse deadwood (otherwise it's 2 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; when including all coarse deadwood, or roughly 4 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; when also including fine deadwood), **(2)** I don't include any clearcutting or cutting of live trees – but it is [not too clear][3] what impact that has on forest productivity, if any and **(3)** most importantly, the numbers from the study I quote are quite rough. They are derived from global average forest productivity instead of that for only the temperate or tropic climate zone. Boreal forests have a lower productivity ([see][4]), lowering the average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2753&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6967&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1#Fig4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7112" RevisionGUID="de937245-4bd2-45c3-9d7f-e87ad89628a5" CreationDate="2019-02-20T17:56:13.560" UserId="6393" Text="I answered to a question and used the term &quot;marginal energy&quot;. The answer wasn't understood by all, so I'm going to expand on the term to illustrate how it works. So, what is marginal energy?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7112" RevisionGUID="de937245-4bd2-45c3-9d7f-e87ad89628a5" CreationDate="2019-02-20T17:56:13.560" UserId="6393" Text="What is marginal energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7112" RevisionGUID="de937245-4bd2-45c3-9d7f-e87ad89628a5" CreationDate="2019-02-20T17:56:13.560" UserId="6393" Text="|energy|energy-use|coal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7113" RevisionGUID="13bed7f1-523a-4fbf-9524-f016f09fb7e2" CreationDate="2019-02-20T17:56:44.313" UserId="6393" Text="Let's consider a very small population that uses 10 MWh of energy per year. 9 MWh comes from hydropower, 1 MWh comes from burning coal. Let's say the population consists of 10 individuals, each of who is using 1 MWh of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydropower is a resource that is currently nearly 100% utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, somebody from the population reduces his energy use to zero. Thus causes a reduction of 1 MWh in the power generation. It doesn't make sense to reduce hydropower, so the coal use will be reduced to zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Who of the 10 users of energy is the guilty one using the coal? Let's analyze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If energy user #1 reduces his energy use to zero, coal won't be needed anymore. Thus, we can argue that energy user #1 is the guilty one using coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if energy user #2 reduces energy use to zero, the same argument applies. Thus, energy user #2 is the guilty one. However, the same argument applies to energy user #3, #4, ..., and #10. Thus, everyone is guilty of using coal!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, it could be argued that all energy is marginal energy, and here, marginal energy is coal. &lt;i&gt;Marginal energy&lt;/i&gt; means the power plant that will be the first to be shut off when energy use reduces, and or will be the first to be turned on from reserve when energy use increases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some areas, plentiful natural gas has reduced coal use to practically zero (e.g. in US), so can it be argued that marginal energy in the US is natural gas and not coal? It doesn't make sense to burn coal if there's enough natural gas. Thus, if there's even a single coal plant in use in US, the marginal energy there is coal as well. When the last coal plant is turned off, marginal energy is natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Here I assumed for simplicity that energy can be transported with 0% losses over infinite distances, for simplicity. If this isn't true, which is the case especially for electricity, then the marginal energy analysis needs to be separately made for each price area.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you calculate emissions using the assumption that everyone is guilty of using coal, you get 10 MWh worth of emissions, which is clearly incorrect. This is corrected in the analysis by assigning negative -9 MWh worth of emissions to hydropower facility owners, meaning total emissions are 10 MWh - 9 MWh = 1 MWh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7114" RevisionGUID="da10e39d-610b-4bc4-b445-f4d03b944461" CreationDate="2019-02-20T18:17:34.247" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;b&gt;Yes&lt;/b&gt; and &lt;b&gt;no&lt;/b&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to the question you asked is &lt;b&gt;yes&lt;/b&gt;. Biodegradation produces carbon dioxide and heat. The heat of biodegradation will be wasted. It makes much more sense to usefully harvest the heat stored in wood, and thus, not letting it biodegrade but rather burn it in power plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you seem to think there are only two options: biodegradation and energy use. This is false. There is a third option: store the wood in a place where it won't biodegrade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you can use wood to construct houses. This is a very durable nearly permanent carbon sink (if the lumber is reused and/or buried after the house is dismantled, it could be argued the carbon sink will be permanent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, you can use wood to produce paper and cardboard, but unfortunately, the black liquor waste that is burned to energy in producing paper and cardboard releases some of the carbon dioxide in wood. Well, at least, you get the energy from burning it. So, making paper and cardboard usually doesn't make sense from a climate change perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also &lt;a href=&quot;https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1&quot;&gt;bury wood&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, when wood is burned to energy, it releases more carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy than coal, peat, natural gas or oil does. So, it actually makes sense to construct houses from the parts of wood that can be usefully used for construction purposes (sawlogs), and bury the rest. However, there are no economic incentives in place currently to encourage burying wood, so instead of wood burial, the rest is either burned to energy, or used to make paper and cardboard (and the resulting black liquor waste is burned to energy)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7115" RevisionGUID="f56c8216-069e-4dff-9f2b-de8c67eadf57" CreationDate="2019-02-20T18:26:28.330" UserId="6393" Text="What kind of electric heating are you planning to use? Resistance heating, air source heat pump or ground source heat pump?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Resistance heating is a poor choice. 1 kWh of produced heat results in 1 kWh of electricity use, that takes 3 kWh of primary energy due to &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_L%C3%A9onard_Sadi_Carnot&quot;&gt;findings of Carnot&lt;/a&gt;. The 3 kWh will be either coal or natural gas, because &lt;a href=&quot;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/7112/what-is-marginal-energy&quot;&gt;all energy is marginal energy&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you burn natural gas directly to heat, 1 kWh of heat requires only 1 kWh of natural gas. Thus, there is a 3x difference in the required energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, ground source heat pumps can have a coefficient of performance of as large as 5. Then, 1 kWh of produced heat requires 0.2 kWh of electricity that takes 0.6 kWh of natural gas or coal to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air source heat pumps have a coefficient of performance of approximately 3. Then, 1 kWh of produced heat requires 0.33333 kWh of electricity that takes 1 kWh of natural gas or coal to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, air source heat pump: equivalent to natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, ground source heat pump: very ecological.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, resistance heating: don't even think if you plan to live in a sustainable manner!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some could argue that you could purchase electricity from renewable sources. Well, hydropower is limited and not everyone thus can claim to use hydropower. If you purchase 1 kWh of wind power, and it isn't windy right now, you'll get 1 kWh of energy that isn't wind power. So, it's kind of cheating to claim to purchase renewable power without having means to store it and use the stored energy later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18724" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7116" RevisionGUID="7921bf22-64da-4068-b781-f2898533f7bc" CreationDate="2019-02-20T18:38:35.373" UserId="6393" Text="Electric car is a good idea from climate perspective if you can charge it with 100% carbon-free electricity. Then the benefits do outweigh the increased cost, but that applies to the whole society and not to you. If you consider only your own benefit, the benefits don't outweigh the increased cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note you need 100% carbon free electricity. If 90% of electricity is coming from carbon-free sources and 10% from carbon-producing sources, &lt;a href=&quot;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/7112/what-is-marginal-energy&quot;&gt;everyone is equally guilty of the rest 10%&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the carbon free electricity is coming from solar, can you charge your car during the winter? Probably not, so you need a battery that lasts for &gt;100 days of driving. No electric car has such a battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the carbon free electricity is coming from wind power, can you charge your car during an extended 10-day non-windy period (statistically speaking, non-windy periods don't usually last more than 10 days)? Probably not, so you'd better have a battery that lasts for 10 days of driving. Most electric cars don't have such a battery or the cost is absurd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the carbon free electricity is coming from nuclear, eventually the plant will be decommissioned and you can't charge your car anymore unless you can afford to fund your share of the construction of a new nuclear plant. Nuclear is ridiculously expensive today, so it probably doesn't make sense to fund the construction of a new nuclear plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about hydropower? There is not enough hydropower to cover all needed electricity use, and it can't be constructed anymore as resources are nearly 100% utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My choice? I have an electric car charging station in my house, but I don't have an electric car yet. I'll continue to drive with gasoline and the next car I'll purchase will probably be a plug-in-hybrid electric vehicle. Because of the absurd taxation in my area (electricity tax is ridiculously low, gasoline tax is ridiculously high), it makes sense to drive using electricity even when it's not windy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric car when charged with coal-fueled electricity doesn't make sense, so if coal generation is still used in your area, it's a good idea to drive using gasoline during the periods when the coal plant is actually turned on. So, I actually recommend a plug-in-hybrid electric vehicle instead of an electric car." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7117" RevisionGUID="518724bb-4d97-4376-a56b-34b7301b5e01" CreationDate="2019-02-20T18:45:23.663" UserId="6393" Text="This: &lt;b&gt;buy a fuel efficient hybrid car. I will use less gas and get a lot better gas mileage&lt;/b&gt;, but do ensure you can charge your hybrid car! Many hybrids have a tiny battery and can't be charged. So I'm proposing to purchase a plug-in-hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there's even one coal plant producing electricity in your area, &lt;a href=&quot;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/7112/what-is-marginal-energy&quot;&gt;every energy user is equally guilty of the coal plant being turned on&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By purchasing a hybrid car, you can charge it when electricity is cheap (windy days), and drive using gasoline when electricity is expensive (non-windy days, plenty of coal power being used).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, ~10% of a car's lifecycle emissions come from manufacturing the car. With coal-fueled electricity, an electric car is actually worse in producing emissions than a reasonably efficient gasoline-powered car (although your current car seems to be very inefficient user of energy). With wind-produced electricity, an electric car has zero emissions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7118" RevisionGUID="fd759cb5-d15d-48de-b7ad-4dac3b638aa5" CreationDate="2019-02-20T19:03:01.547" UserId="6393" Text="I think your entire premise is flawed. You are doing two things at the same time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Using human power to produce electricity (an exercising person can produce 100-200 watts), and then directly...&#xD;&#xA;2. ...storing the electricity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say you should do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Using human power to produce electricity (an exercising person can produce 100-200 watts), dumping the electricity to grid&#xD;&#xA;2. Taking electricity from the grid, and storing the electricity into potential energy of water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...so the two components (human power generator and electricity storage unit) don't need to be in the same room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, perhaps you should decide which area you are planning to be professional it. Are you planning to be a professional engineer that's specialized in turning human power to electricity (hint: you can only get 100-200 W from a single human)? Or are you planning to be a professional engineer that's specialized in grid energy storage (hint: it's difficult to do it in a way that's economically feasible)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I think you are needlessly tying the two parts of the process, human power and grid energy storage, together. Let the human power be generated by human power experts. Let the grid energy be stored by grid energy storage experts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For (2), there's plenty of prior art in the form of pumped hydropower, so perhaps you should specialize only in (1)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7119" RevisionGUID="65248aa4-a2f8-432f-a6ee-a33ec826e486" CreationDate="2019-02-20T20:19:34.020" UserId="3379" Text="# What is marginal energy, or fuel on the margin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fuel on the margin, when talking about the electric grid, refers to which fuel will be used to generate the next additional kilowatt of power that is required.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine that your house is in a steady state, using the same amount of power, with a steady mix of fuel being used to generate that power. When you turn on a light, which one of those fuels will increase in generation to meet that demand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the fuel on the margin, and is largely (but not exclusively) a function of how much it costs to turn that fuel into electricity. This price takes into account the time of day, cost of the fuel, amount of extra power needed, technical constraints, and rules and regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Which fuel is typically on the margin in the U.S.? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently, for most of the U.S., natural gas is the fuel most likely to be on the margin.** Soon, it will be the fuel on the margin for the entire U.S. This will likely remain the case until energy storage becomes widespread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. is divided into [Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators](https://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/overview.asp?csrt=2163115379198905111), which are non-profit organizations that manage the grid in different regions of the country. I've taken a look at data from some of the largest to see which fuel is on the margin for each. These regions cover most of the U.S. population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### MISO -- coal and natural gas, with natural gas pulling ahead&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MISO covers most of the midwest and a few southern states, and operates 175 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MISO provides real time fuel mix data ([here](https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time-displays/)), but unfortunately doesn't provide a time series for this data. So I pulled this data up from their most recent [State of the Market report](https://cdn.misoenergy.org/2017%20State%20of%20the%20Market%20Report242952.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LMP is locational marginal price, and SMP is system marginal price (the same as LMP without accounting for grid losses or congestion). The LMP tells you what the marginal watt will cost at a given location at a given time. The table above indicates that coal and natural gas were both marginal about 85% of the time (this is across the entire region, which is why they add up to more than 100% -- at a given LMP node, only one fuel would be marginal at any given time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As of 2017 coal and natural gas were tied in MISO, but several [coal plant retirements have been announced](https://governorswindenergycoalition.org/miso-survey-shows-ample-capacity-even-amid-coal-retirements/), which will give an edge to natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### PJM -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PJM covers 13 states on the east coast, serves 65 million customers, and has 166 GW of total capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PJM provides [marginal fuel data](https://www.monitoringanalytics.com/data/marginal_fuel.shtml) on a monthly basis, with a two month delay. I downloaded data from December and did some quick analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PJM operates a 5-minute market, meaning that the fuel on the margin can switch as often as every five minutes. From the table, we see that natural gas was marginal within 744 hours of the month, and was the marginal fuel 67% of the time, more than twice as often as coal, the next most marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### California -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CAISO covers most of California and manages 60 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CAISO has [real-time data on their website](http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/Supply.aspx):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal (near the bottom) is a flat line. When renewables (mostly solar) come on- or off-line with the sunshine, natural gas ramps up and down, meaning it is the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### New York -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NYISO covers New York state and manages 39 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NYISO also has [real time data on their website](https://www.nyiso.com/real-time-dashboard):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The story here is more interesting due to the large amounts of hydro electricity available, and the large number of [dual fuel](https://www.genrent-international.com/power-plants-rental/dual-fuel-power-plants) power plants which can burn either natural gas or diesel. So while it may look like a three-way tie, we can lump dual fuel plants with natural gas plants, since [diesel is more expensive than natural gas](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/15?agg=2,0,1&amp;fuel=vtvv&amp;geo=g&amp;sec=g&amp;linechart=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M~ELEC.COST_BTU.PEL-US-99.M~ELEC.COST_BTU.NG-US-99.M&amp;columnchart=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M&amp;map=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M&amp;freq=M&amp;start=200801&amp;end=201811&amp;ctype=linechart&amp;ltype=pin&amp;rtype=s&amp;maptype=0&amp;rse=0&amp;pin=). This means that natural gas is also the marginal fuel in New York.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### ISO New England -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ISO-NE covers six north-east states, and operates 32 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-time ISO-NE data is available from the [EIA](https://www.eia.gov/dashboard/newengland/electricity):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the chart it's clear that natural gas is the most variable fuel -- the most likely to increase or decrease output over time. This is another way to say that it is the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qiuia.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wSqL4.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oTq23.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMvbb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bi290.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7111" RevisionGUID="73703433-ae6a-4822-a85a-1d7075456a80" CreationDate="2019-02-21T02:18:36.023" UserId="6394" Comment="deleted 465 characters in body" Text="I'm currently researching and experimenting a system concept about hydropower-based fintness.&#xD;&#xA;I recorded my initial experiment footage and you can watch the [video on Youtube][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Befor talking about this idea, I must tell you that **I AM NOT going to make human force a major source of energy.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All I want is to build a system which allows higher variety of exercises and can efficiently utilize the energy generated by users.&#xD;&#xA;If the users see the result of their workout can both benefit their own health and the environment, they might be more willing to do exercise regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Idea:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system collect and sore the work done by users in the form of water potential energy.&#xD;&#xA;Common methods of generating electricity by exercises are restricted because they have to keep the motor spinning.&#xD;&#xA;In my case, the users can do more kinds of exercises with different training style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Lifting up bottles filled with water &#xD;&#xA;  The simplest one, which I chose in my experiment.&#xD;&#xA;  If the user like dumb bell or kettle bell, this will be their choise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Pump integrated cable machine / rowing machine&#xD;&#xA;  The weights connected to cables are replaced with pistons.&#xD;&#xA;  When the user pull the cable, the pistons will pump the water up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Spinning bike&#xD;&#xA;  If the user really like this classic exercise, &#xD;&#xA;  they can use a pedal water powered pump like this on [Youtube][2] to store energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water lifted/ pumped will be converged to the upper water tank.&#xD;&#xA;There will be only one hydro-power generator which convert the potential energy into electricity.&#xD;&#xA;We can control the output of electricity by adjusting the rate of water flow.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we can generate power according to the need of the facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This system don't require every exercise equipment to be installed with generators and we don't have to setup complex electricity wires.  &#xD;&#xA;The batteries are also not need in this system.&#xD;&#xA;Without those expensive components, this system will be much cheaper to build and maintain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My initial experiment and result:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Height of hydralic head: 170cm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water tube diameter: 1/2 inch&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flow rate: 47.5 ml/Sec&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Voltage:4.8V&#xD;&#xA;Current:46 mA&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please check the Youtube video I mentioned earlier for detailed footage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The generator I used:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is much like a &quot;cross flow&quot; generator, but have only one water input.&#xD;&#xA;                     &#xD;&#xA;You can easily find on Amazon by typing &quot;BQLZR Portable Micro-hydro Generator Water Charger High Efficiency 3.5W &quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Working pressure: 0 to 1.75 Mpa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Test pressure: 1, 2 MPa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Temperature range:0 to 120 degrees Celsius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maximum Flow: 30l/min&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flow range: 1.5-20L/min (press 0.05-0.2MPa)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shell material: nylon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Size: approx. 8 x 4cm/3.15 x 1.57&quot;(L X D) &#xD;&#xA;                   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system successfully generated electricity and I could easily keep the water flowing.&#xD;&#xA;However, this is obvious that the electricity generated was **too weak** to be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My next setp:&#xD;&#xA;I'm planning to build a system which have 10~5W output per second.&#xD;&#xA;I had bought a 795 DC-motor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The energy generated will be converted by a DC-converter module which have 5V output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This system will be able to charge common electronics like tablets and smartphones.&#xD;&#xA;If I make any further result, I'll post them here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***And finally here are my questions:***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1.Do you think there's any drawback/bugs in this system besides the problem of water storage and leaking?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2.Is there any existing system which have similar concept?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3.Do you know suitable parts for my next experiment?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e990Btlz6ak&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtObp4IlIaw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="648e0a52-2d18-4195-9d7b-6c00ba605477" CreationDate="2019-02-21T02:33:00.977" UserId="6293" Text="The water line to the house already has enough pressure to get water up to the roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think the fitness system would be better to directly charge DC batteries and then the house have a DC lighting system. The batteries could also be charged with one solar panel. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18730" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="77dcf511-2db1-47e3-be9e-d812b1e29d27" CreationDate="2019-02-21T02:42:13.423" UserId="6293" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="The water line to the house already has enough pressure to get water up to the roof. The reason that water flowing down from the roof is not used for energy is because of the cost of the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think the fitness system would be better to directly charge DC batteries and then the house have a DC lighting system. The batteries could also be charged with one solar panel. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="e905e7e0-5575-43b4-8a78-b139e1eec924" CreationDate="2019-02-21T03:23:19.567" UserId="6293" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="The water system is a closed system that just needs to be filled-up once and then the same water is used over and over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water pumps are simple mechanical devices on each exercise machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water pumped to the roof just has one generator to turn when it flows down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I would use the exercise system to charge DC batteries and have a DC lighting system. Then a single solar panel could also charge the batteries. Also, small wind turbines are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18732" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="7582741d-4389-4a6b-89a8-4b2fe86b800d" CreationDate="2019-02-21T03:32:30.207" UserId="6293" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The water system is a near closed system that just needs to be filled-up occasionally and then mostly the same water is used over and over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water pumps are simple mechanical devices on each exercise machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water pumped to the roof just has one generator to turn when it flows down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I would use the exercise system to charge DC batteries and have a DC lighting system. Then a single solar panel could also charge the batteries. Also, small wind turbines are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="36d7d297-698a-4116-b25d-8ceaef8faf30" CreationDate="2019-02-21T03:38:39.367" UserId="6293" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The water system is a near closed system that just needs to be filled-up occasionally and then mostly the same water is used over and over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water pumps are simple mechanical devices on each exercise machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water pumped to the roof just has one generator to turn when it flows down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I would use the exercise system to charge DC batteries and have a DC lighting system. Then a single solar panel could also charge the batteries. Also, small wind turbines are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the drawback to the system is that it needs to be supplemented with other electricity generating methods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="92fc544b-cce7-4622-9d38-3dc34c3dbc1c" CreationDate="2019-02-21T03:44:05.240" UserId="6293" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The water system is a near closed system that just needs to be filled-up occasionally and then mostly the same water is used over and over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water pumps are simple mechanical devices on each exercise machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water pumped to the roof just has one generator to turn when it flows down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I would use the exercise system to charge DC batteries and have a DC lighting system. Then a single solar panel could also charge the batteries. Also, small wind turbines are available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the drawback to the system as described is that it would be better if combined with other systems. The system is only going to be a successful lap-top-computer charger if there are hours of indoor exercise every day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="25922ad0-c93c-47b1-9162-0625e494e3c5" CreationDate="2019-02-21T03:49:43.273" UserId="6293" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="The water system is a near closed system that just needs to be filled-up occasionally and then mostly the same water is used over and over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water pumps are simple mechanical devices on each exercise machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water pumped to the roof just has one generator to turn when it flows down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I would use the exercise system to charge DC batteries and have a DC lighting system. Then a single solar panel could also charge the batteries. And small wind turbines are available if there is good wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the drawback to the system as described is that it would be better if combined with other systems. The system is only going to be a successful lap-top-computer charger if there are hours of indoor exercise every day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7120" RevisionGUID="826c0fba-73d9-4a33-8c37-f981aa0970f0" CreationDate="2019-02-21T04:10:05.200" UserId="6293" Comment="added 211 characters in body" Text="The water system is a near closed system that just needs to be filled-up occasionally and then mostly the same water is used over and over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water pumps are simple mechanical devices on each exercise machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The water pumped to the roof just has one generator to turn when it flows down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I would use the exercise system to charge DC batteries and have a DC lighting system. Then a single solar panel could also charge the batteries. And small wind turbines are available if there is good wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the drawback to the system as described is that it would be better if combined with other systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the system as described does not use batteries but uses a flow of stored water to generate electricity that directly charges a lap-top-computer. So the logic of the system does hold-up to scrutiny.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7122" RevisionGUID="009ccd61-283c-4cef-bb0c-06cde986bab8" CreationDate="2019-02-22T14:05:01.383" UserId="6406" Text="Turning the screens off and leaving the computers on is a bit like stopping a dripping tap while leaving another tap gushing!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming they are LCD, monitors won't draw much power (other than to power a single LED) if they are not getting a signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The computers will draw vastly greater amounts of power over a weekend if left on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the PCs are in sleep mode or hibernate over the weekend, they will only use trivial amounts of power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bottom line, don't worry about the monitors, just make sure the computers are off or asleep." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7123" RevisionGUID="5b2a0f8e-0b20-415e-825c-9906db8cae26" CreationDate="2019-02-22T15:27:08.973" UserId="3960" Text="I've gone through the same dilemma recently, and what made my mind up was the relatively cheap cost of offsetting my emissions from driving - around US$100 for a whole year's worth or 15,000 miles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course the drawbacks of carbon offsetting are well known - you're not undoing the damage that you've caused, and you're still burning a non-renewable resource with all the problems that entails. However, the projects that such schemes typically fund really are worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, rather than spending $15k+ on an electric car, my strategy would be to&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Fund carbon offsetting projects (for several/many times my actual emissions)&#xD;&#xA; - Get an eBike&#xD;&#xA; - Use public transport/lift share where possible" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18741" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7101" RevisionGUID="18e3dd63-2ccd-4ad4-8f2b-11ba00bfb2e6" CreationDate="2019-02-22T18:00:00.250" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1099005902584205312" />
  <row Id="18742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7124" RevisionGUID="a15234a7-93d0-4b5c-afaf-6f01e8e6db7f" CreationDate="2019-02-22T19:04:24.363" UserId="6293" Text="The best battery-powered electric-vehicle is the BMW i3. The i3 mitigates the weight of the batteries with a carbon-fiber bodywork. Also the i3 limits the size of the battery pack to a reasonable commute range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the fresh design of the i3 to a flood of very dull electric-vehicles that are just adapted from standard folded-sheet-metal cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reasonable choice in internal-combustion-engine cars is available. There are premium rear-wheel-drive coupes and sedans with 2.0 turbocharged engines. These cars are available from Alfa Romeo, BMW, Cadillac, Genesis, Infiniti, Jaguar, Lexus, and MB. Now these cars also are just folded-sheet-metal cars. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't consider hybrid cars because the hybrid system increases cost, weight, and complexity. Also, the all-electric range of a plug-in hybrid is only about 14 miles or so. But that is 14 miles of driving at reduced performance levels. Then the short all-electric driving range of the plug-in hybrid is producing desperate demand for plug-in stations set everywhere. Actually, the correct use of a hybrid is the mode where the hybrid system just reduces the demand on the primary engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now note the cars that are not folded-sheet-metal cars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alfa Romeo 4C, BMW i3, BMW i8, Chevrolet Corvette, and Lotus Elise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point being that cars can be easily built that advantageously reduce weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so the BMW i3 is an all-electric vehicle that is worth the cost for those car buyers that want to be early adopters.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7124" RevisionGUID="66cf385e-8776-4ab0-b699-e0a01f86b54b" CreationDate="2019-02-22T19:10:31.923" UserId="6293" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="The best battery-powered electric-vehicle is the BMW i3. The i3 mitigates the weight of the batteries with a carbon-fiber bodywork. Also the i3 limits the size of the battery pack to a reasonable commute range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the fresh design of the i3 to a flood of very dull electric-vehicles that are just adapted from standard folded-sheet-metal cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a reasonable choice in internal-combustion-engine cars is available. There are premium rear-wheel-drive coupes and sedans with 2.0 turbocharged engines. These cars are available from Alfa Romeo, BMW, Cadillac, Genesis, Infiniti, Jaguar, Lexus, and MB. Now these cars also are just folded-sheet-metal cars. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't consider hybrid cars because the hybrid system increases cost, weight, and complexity. Also, the all-electric range of a plug-in hybrid is only about 14 miles or so. But that is 14 miles of driving at reduced performance levels. Then the short all-electric driving range of the plug-in hybrid is producing desperate demand for plug-in stations set everywhere. Actually, the correct use of a hybrid is the mode where the hybrid system just reduces the demand on the primary engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now note the cars that are not folded-sheet-metal cars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alfa Romeo 4C, BMW i3, BMW i8, Chevrolet Corvette, and Lotus Elise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point being that cars can be easily built that advantageously reduce weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so the BMW i3 is an all-electric vehicle that is worth the cost for those car buyers that want to be early adopters.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7124" RevisionGUID="067f3bfb-3352-41ec-a4c8-2d4210375815" CreationDate="2019-02-22T19:35:26.510" UserId="6293" Comment="added 195 characters in body" Text="The best battery-powered electric-vehicle is the BMW i3. The i3 mitigates the weight of the batteries with a carbon-fiber bodywork. Also the i3 limits the size of the battery pack to a reasonable commute range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the fresh design of the i3 to a flood of very dull electric-vehicles that are just adapted from standard folded-sheet-metal cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a reasonable choice in internal-combustion-engine cars is available. There are premium rear-wheel-drive coupes and sedans with 2.0 turbocharged engines. These cars are available from Alfa Romeo, BMW, Cadillac, Genesis, Infiniti, Jaguar, Lexus, and MB. Now these cars also are just folded-sheet-metal cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lighter-weight coupe is available in the Toyota 86. And a very small sports car is available in the Mazda MX-5. These lighter weight cars have four-cylinder engines but are not turbocharged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't consider hybrid cars because the hybrid system increases cost, weight, and complexity. Also, the all-electric range of a plug-in hybrid is only about 14 miles or so. But that is 14 miles of driving at reduced performance levels. Then the short all-electric driving range of the plug-in hybrid is producing desperate demand for plug-in stations set everywhere. Actually, the correct use of a hybrid is the mode where the hybrid system just reduces the demand on the primary engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now note the cars that are not folded-sheet-metal cars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alfa Romeo 4C, BMW i3, BMW i8, Chevrolet Corvette, and Lotus Elise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point being that cars can be easily built that advantageously reduce weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so the BMW i3 is an all-electric vehicle that is worth the cost for those car buyers that want to be early adopters.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7124" RevisionGUID="83e0f683-1c1c-4d5a-a8ca-5c9d7ab9fc5c" CreationDate="2019-02-22T20:15:12.690" UserId="6293" Comment="edited body" Text="The best battery-powered electric-vehicle is the BMW i3. The i3 mitigates the weight of the batteries with a carbon-fiber bodywork. Also the i3 limits the size of the battery pack to a reasonable commute range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare the fresh design of the i3 to a flood of very dull electric-vehicles that are just adapted from standard folded-sheet-metal cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a reasonable choice in internal-combustion-engine cars is available. There are premium rear-wheel-drive coupes and sedans with 2.0 turbocharged engines. These cars are available from Alfa Romeo, BMW, Cadillac, Genesis, Infiniti, Jaguar, Lexus, and MB. Now these cars also are just folded-sheet-metal cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lighter-weight coupe is available in the Toyota 86. And a very small sports car is available in the Mazda MX-5. These lighter weight cars have four-cylinder engines but are not turbocharged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't consider hybrid cars because the hybrid system increases cost, weight, and complexity. Also, the all-electric range of a plug-in hybrid is only about 14 miles or so. But that is 14 miles of driving at reduced performance levels. Then the short all-electric driving range of the plug-in hybrid is producing desperate demand for plug-in stations set everywhere. Actually, the correct use of a hybrid is the mode where the hybrid system just reduces the demand on the primary engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now note the cars that are not folded-sheet-metal cars:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alfa Romeo 4C, BMW i3, BMW i8, Chevrolet Corvette, and Lotus Evora.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The point being that cars can be easily built that advantageously reduce weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so the BMW i3 is an all-electric vehicle that is worth the cost for those car buyers that want to be early adopters.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="1becaa5f-8268-496c-84d7-5eaea07aa4ab" CreationDate="2019-02-23T02:03:49.393" UserId="4886" Text="We had the same issue at our high school a decade ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best strategy is to **power down the computers and let the monitors go into standby mode**.  Computers consume far more power when idling than monitors do on standby.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Don't** rely on sleep/hibernate features for saving power&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overnight or over weekends.  The inevitable brownouts and blackouts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that occur will corrupt filesystems and damage hardware — the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; time/money/aggravation that causes is just not worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A student-centred approach can be problematic, though.  Sometimes kids will press the power-off buttons but the computers won't turn off (for a variety of reasons).  Sometimes a display will be asleep so it already looks like the computer is off and kids won't press the button.  Sometimes someone has forgotten to save work and log off, so the shutdown fails.  Sometimes the computer is already off, so pressing the button actually turns it on again.  Sometimes kids are sick, so classes aren't full, and so not all of the computers are being used, so not all of them get turned off.  The list goes on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We tried for years and failed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually our IT guys modified the disk images to include a scheduled service (this is under Windows) that called Shutdown.exe at the end of the day — forcibly shutting down all of the computers 15 minutes after the kids went home.  Problem solved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to maintain some level of manual control (for whatever reason), but don't want anything that is too technical, look at programs like **Advanced IP Scanner** http://www.advanced-ip-scanner.com/ — it can run from a USB flash drive, can scan your entire network to work out what computers are still on, then you can turn them off remotely (assuming you have the credentials).  You can still have the kids turn most of them off.  One teacher can then catch the strays." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="f11a7951-7531-44b2-850e-861741367652" CreationDate="2019-02-23T02:11:29.450" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="We had the same issue at our high school a decade ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best strategy is to **power down the computers and let the monitors go into standby mode**.  Computers consume far more power when idling than monitors do on standby.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Don't** rely on sleep/hibernate features for saving power&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overnight or over weekends.  The inevitable brownouts and blackouts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that occur will corrupt filesystems and damage hardware — the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aggravation that causes and the time/money needed to deal with it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is just not worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A student-reliant approach can be problematic, though.  Sometimes kids will press the power-off buttons but the computers won't turn off (for a variety of reasons).  Sometimes a display will be off/dark so it already looks like the computer is off and kids won't press the button.  Sometimes someone has forgotten to save work and log off, so the shutdown fails.  Sometimes the computer is already off, so pressing the button actually turns it on again.  Sometimes kids are sick, so classes aren't full, and so not all of the computers are being used, so not all of them get turned off.  The list goes on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We tried for years and failed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually our IT guys modified the disk images to include a scheduled service (this is under Windows) that called Shutdown.exe at the end of the day — forcibly shutting down all of the computers 15 minutes after the kids went home.  Problem solved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to maintain some level of manual control (for whatever reason), but don't want anything that is too technical, look at programs like **Advanced IP Scanner** http://www.advanced-ip-scanner.com/ — it can run from a USB flash drive, can scan your entire network to work out what computers are still on, then you can turn them off remotely (assuming you have the credentials).  You can still have the kids turn most of them off.  One teacher can then catch the strays from anywhere on the network." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18748" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="72dbf427-f7e7-4d95-957d-c8b1b3369692" CreationDate="2019-02-23T02:18:40.920" UserId="4886" Comment="added 200 characters in body" Text="We had the same issue at our high school a decade ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best strategy is to **power down the computers and let the monitors go into standby mode**.  Computers consume far more power when idling than monitors do on standby.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Don't** rely on sleep/hibernate features for saving power&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overnight or over weekends.  The inevitable brownouts and blackouts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that occur will corrupt filesystems and damage hardware — the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aggravation that causes and the time/money needed to deal with it&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is just not worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A student-reliant approach can be problematic, though.  Sometimes kids will press the power-off buttons but the computers won't turn off (for a variety of reasons).  Sometimes a display will be off/dark so it already looks like the computer is off and kids won't press the button.  Sometimes someone has forgotten to save work and log off, so the shutdown fails.  Sometimes the computer is already off, so pressing the button actually turns it on again.  Sometimes kids are sick, so classes aren't full, and so not all of the computers are being used, so not all of them get turned off.  The list goes on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We tried for years and failed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually our IT guys modified the disk images to include a scheduled service (this is under Windows) that called Shutdown.exe at the end of the day — forcibly shutting down all of the computers 15 minutes after the kids went home.  Problem solved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anyone who was still working at a computer got a &quot;This system will shutdown in 60 seconds&quot; warning that gave them the option to abort the shutdown... so it wasn't an &quot;instant-off&quot; type of thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to maintain some level of manual control (for whatever reason), but don't want anything that is too technical, look at programs like **Advanced IP Scanner** http://www.advanced-ip-scanner.com/ — it can run from a USB flash drive, can scan your entire network to work out what computers are still on, then you can turn them off remotely (assuming you have the credentials).  You can still have the kids turn most of them off, but one teacher can then catch the strays from anywhere on the network." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18749" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="f19bfe64-93fc-4876-bcbc-942ec6aec193" CreationDate="2019-02-23T02:24:37.237" UserId="4886" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="We had the same issue at our high school a decade ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best strategy is to **power down the computers and let the monitors go into standby mode**.  Computers consume far more power when idling than monitors do on standby.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Don't** rely on sleep/suspend/hibernate features for saving power&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overnight or over weekends.  The inevitable brownouts and blackouts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that occur will corrupt filesystems and damage hardware.  The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aggravation that causes — and the time/money needed to deal with it —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is just not worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A student-reliant approach can be problematic, though.  Sometimes kids will press the power-off buttons but the computers won't turn off (for a variety of reasons).  Sometimes a display will be off/dark so it already looks like the computer is off and kids won't press the button.  Sometimes someone has forgotten to save work and log off, so the shutdown fails.  Sometimes the computer is already off, so pressing the button actually turns it on again.  Sometimes kids are sick, so classes aren't full, and so not all of the computers are being used, so not all of them get turned off.  The list goes on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We tried for years and failed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually our IT guys modified the disk images to include a scheduled service (this is under Windows) that called Shutdown.exe at the end of the day — forcibly shutting down all of the computers 15 minutes after the kids went home.  Problem solved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anyone who was still working at a computer got a &quot;This system will shutdown in 60 seconds&quot; warning that gave them the option to abort the shutdown... so it wasn't an &quot;instant-off&quot; type of thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to maintain some level of manual control (for whatever reason), but don't want anything that is too technical, look at programs like **Advanced IP Scanner** http://www.advanced-ip-scanner.com/ — it can run from a USB flash drive, can scan your entire network to work out what computers are still on, and let you turn them off remotely (assuming you have the credentials).  You can still have the kids turn most of them off, but one teacher can then catch the strays from anywhere on the network before locking up and going home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18754" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7126" RevisionGUID="b26efe9f-92d2-4028-92fc-a431e0c1a967" CreationDate="2019-02-23T10:49:21.793" UserId="6393" Text="The power consumption of an old monitor is nearly the same when compared to the power consumption of an old tower PC. Similarly, the power consumption of a recent monitor is nearly the same when compared to the power consumption of a new tower PC. Ok, in some cases, the tower PC could consume bit more power within a factor of less than 2.  I wouldn't claim that a computer uses &quot;far more power&quot; than a monitor, as claimed in the upvoted answer. Actually, today, when many prefer laptops, the big power user is the monitor and not the computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say if your goal is energy saving, the computers should be turned off when not used for a certain amount of time. So, for example, during weekends, they should be turned off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I happen to have three monitors (23 W per monitor) and a very modern low-power laptop computer (probably only few watts of electricity used) to which they're attached. I always turn off the monitors but don't turn off the computer as it uses so little power as a laptop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next time when renewing the computers, you could consider replacing the tower PCs with laptop computers attached with a lock to a secure object (so they won't be stolen). Most laptops have an ability to attach an external monitor. When selecting a laptop, place an emphasis on good battery life (which may mean either big battery or low power use) and low weight (which will filter out the ones having big battery).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the choice of laptop allows them to be used as laptops as well, meaning if you require both fixed computers and laptops, the same computers can be used for both purposes. Less materials used, less damage for the environment. Less weight, less emissions during shipping the computers from China to wherever you happen to live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, during electricity breaks, laptops have far better characteristics. They can survive minor power breaks without filesystem damage, and in the case of major power breaks, they will typically shut down in a controlled manner (no filesystem damage) when there's only few percent of battery life left. About the only drawback of laptops is that when performing heavy computing, the fan will spin like crazy!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7127" RevisionGUID="3a23904d-3bba-4bef-bd38-beb59ec6c0bd" CreationDate="2019-02-23T11:03:48.523" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;b&gt;Because solar energy is available for only infinitesimally small amount of time.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The capacity factor of a solar power plant is 16%, if you place it in a really good area with plenty of sunlight. In boreal climates, the situation is far more worse, with practically no sunshine available during the winter months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you happen to have a steady load on the electricity grid, 100% - 16% = 84% will need to come from either grid energy storage (very expensive!) or from fossil fuel fired plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because we don't have valid uses for the huge amount of electricity available when the sun is shining, typically solar is installed only in such a manner that the electricity produced won't be unused. This means 84% will need to come from other sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some potential uses could be:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Air conditioning. Unfortunately, in hot climates, you need some air conditioning during the daytime even if it's cloudy.&#xD;&#xA;* Battery charging. Unfortunately, batteries are extremely expensive.&#xD;&#xA;* Aluminum production. Unfortunately, the capital costs of the plant are so high that it makes more sense to run it 100% of the time than 16% of the time.&#xD;&#xA;* Seawater desalination. Unfortunately, the capital costs of the plant are so high that it makes more sense to run it 100% of the time than 16% of the time. Also, the cost of desalinated seawater is so high that major users of fresh water won't be willing to pay the cost.&#xD;&#xA;* Hydrogen production. Unfortunately, the capital costs of the plant are so high that it makes more sense to run it 100% of the time than 16% of the time. Furthermore, electricity -&gt; hydrogen -&gt; electricity pathway is extremely inefficient.&#xD;&#xA;* Some other industrial process. Unfortunately, with a good probability, the capital costs of the plant are so high that it makes more sense to run it 100% of the time than 16% of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you're discussing the cost of solar, you're actually discussing 84% the cost of fossil fuels and 16% the cost of solar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind power is somewhat better with its 30% capacity factor. Also, even in boreal climates, it is windy during the winter whereas the sun shines only rarely. Battery or hydrogen backed electrical system based on wind looks far more promising than such a system based on solar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't also forget that solar requires inverters and professional installation. Actually, today, with the cheap solar panels, inverters and professional installation may cost more than the panels.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="8e2a69f9-0123-4d93-ad0a-00cf05f82b90" CreationDate="2019-02-24T07:16:36.670" UserId="4886" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="We had the same issue at our high school a decade ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best strategy is to **power down the computers and let the monitors go into standby mode**.  Computers consume far more power when idling (30–100W depending on faculty) than monitors do on standby (~3W).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Don't** rely on sleep/suspend/hibernate features for saving power&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overnight or over weekends.  The inevitable brownouts and blackouts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that occur will corrupt filesystems and damage hardware.  The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aggravation that causes — and the time/money needed to deal with it —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is just not worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A student-reliant approach can be problematic, though.  Sometimes kids will press the power-off buttons but the computers won't turn off (for a variety of reasons).  Sometimes a display will be off/dark so it already looks like the computer is off so kids don't bother pressing the button.  Sometimes someone has forgotten to save work and log off, so the shutdown fails.  Sometimes the computer is already off, so pressing the button actually turns it back on again.  Sometimes kids are sick, so classes aren't full, and so not all of the computers are being used, so not all of them get turned off.  The list goes on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We tried for years and failed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually our IT guys modified the disk images to include a scheduled service (this is under Windows) that called Shutdown.exe at the end of the day — forcibly shutting down all of the computers 15 minutes after the kids went home.  Problem solved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anyone who was still working at a computer got a &quot;This system will shutdown in 60 seconds&quot; warning that gave them the option to abort the shutdown... so it wasn't an &quot;instant-off&quot; type of thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to maintain some level of manual control (for whatever reason), but don't want anything that is too technical, look at programs like **Advanced IP Scanner** http://www.advanced-ip-scanner.com/ — it can run from a USB flash drive, can scan your entire network to work out what computers are still on, and let you turn them off remotely (assuming you have the credentials).  You can still have the kids turn most of them off, but one teacher can then catch the strays from anywhere on the network before locking up and going home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7125" RevisionGUID="d17257d9-4640-4e39-a77f-a7689d03b7d8" CreationDate="2019-02-24T08:02:06.877" UserId="4886" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="We had the same issue at our high school a decade ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best strategy is to **power down the computers and let the monitors go into standby mode**.  Computers consume far more power when idling (30–100W depending on faculty) than monitors do on standby (~3W).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Don't** rely on sleep/suspend/hibernate features for saving power&#xD;&#xA;&gt; overnight or over weekends.  The inevitable brownouts and blackouts&#xD;&#xA;&gt; that occur will corrupt filesystems and damage hardware.  The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; aggravation that causes — and the time/money needed to deal with it —&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is just not worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A student-reliant approach can be problematic, though.  Sometimes kids will press the power-off buttons but the computers won't turn off (for a variety of reasons).  Sometimes a display will be off/dark so it already looks like the computer is off so kids don't bother pressing the button.  Sometimes someone has forgotten to save work and log off, so the shutdown fails.  Sometimes the computer is already off, so pressing the button actually turns it back on again.  Sometimes kids are sick, so classes aren't full, and so not all of the computers are being used, so not all of them get turned off.  The list goes on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We tried for years and failed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually our IT technicians modified the Windows disk images to include a scheduled service that called Shutdown.exe at the end of the day — forcibly shutting down all of the computers 15 minutes after the kids went home.  Problem solved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Anyone who was still working at a computer got a &quot;This system will shutdown in 60 seconds&quot; warning that gave them the option to abort the shutdown... so it wasn't an &quot;instant-off&quot; type of thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to maintain some level of manual control (for whatever reason), but don't want anything that is too technical, look at programs like **Advanced IP Scanner** http://www.advanced-ip-scanner.com/ — it can run from a USB flash drive, can scan your entire network to work out what computers are still on, and let you turn them off remotely (assuming you have the credentials).  You can still have the kids turn most of them off, but one teacher can then catch the strays from anywhere on the network before locking up and going home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7129" RevisionGUID="1330ab5a-4094-4f42-aa47-f7fc608b5169" CreationDate="2019-02-25T10:39:37.720" UserId="4155" Text="One key point not mentioned in the other answers is to reduce the need for traffic - if half the population of the city could work from home just one day a week, you'd have 10% fewer people having to travel in the rush hour - make it two days and you've reduced the demands on your city's transport systems by a fifth..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7130" RevisionGUID="dca3714e-de2b-42a3-a2e7-9bcb3d1f2014" CreationDate="2019-02-25T10:56:53.737" UserId="4155" Text="One idea frequently cited as a way of reducing pollution is the use of scrappage schemes and low-emission zones to persuade people to replace their old cars with newer, 'more efficient' ones. IMHO this is a very bad idea, for several reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. As per [this question][1] and [this question][2], it is generally more sustainable to keep an old car for longer than to create a new one, with all the associated pollution of the manufacture process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. We've just had the 'Dieselgate' scandal following the last attempt, where the supposedly more efficient Diesels were found to be cheating the system. How do we know that EVs won't have a similar problem, e.g. when it comes to recycling the batteries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Such schemes only benefit those who can afford to buy a new car already - those who can't are penalised by either having to get into massive debt to pay for the bulk of the cost, or by losing the natural supply of older second-hand cars they rely on. This is even more of a problem if the scheme is accompanied by low-emission zones or other regulatory sticks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. EVs still produce just as much particulate matter from their tyres and bakes (in fact slightly more, as they are heavier). Getting rid of tailpipe emissions won't help with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that it is much better to solve the problem by reducing the amount that people need to use their cars - for example by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Promoting flexible &amp; remote working so that people don't need to commute as much&#xD;&#xA; - improving public transport &amp; walking/cycling infrastructure&#xD;&#xA; - enabling people to live closer to their work (e.g. by encouraging companies to open offices in suburbs/provincial towns instead of always in the city centre)&#xD;&#xA; - eliminating the 'school run' by making it easier/safer for people to walk their children to school. This also helps reduce childhood obesity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is - am I right with this belief, and how can I persuade people to look at these concepts instead of the 'knee-jerk' banning/restriction approach&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6010/new-electric-vehicle-does-the-cost-outweigh-the-benefits&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2623/what-has-a-lesser-carbon-footprint-continue-to-drive-my-current-car-until-it-is" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18764" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7130" RevisionGUID="dca3714e-de2b-42a3-a2e7-9bcb3d1f2014" CreationDate="2019-02-25T10:56:53.737" UserId="4155" Text="How to persuade people that scrappage schemes &amp; suchlike are a bad idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18765" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7130" RevisionGUID="dca3714e-de2b-42a3-a2e7-9bcb3d1f2014" CreationDate="2019-02-25T10:56:53.737" UserId="4155" Text="|transport|emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7131" RevisionGUID="b130cc9c-a005-4001-a5bf-779801160bf3" CreationDate="2019-02-25T20:10:48.740" UserId="400" Text="Several:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compost is an aerobic process.  This way the bottom gets air too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Easy to rotate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If made of a wire mesh, then it will shed small bits of completed compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downsides:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will have to water it more often.  It dries from all sides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nuisance to put large amounts of stuff into it.  Big weeds, large bags of leaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Limited capacity doesn't fit well with the way a reasonable yard produces material to be composted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you have cold weather, the whole process stops, where a pile will take a much longer time before action near the ground slows to a stop." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7119" RevisionGUID="d3f0ab6f-40ef-47c3-9cdd-a69667bf388d" CreationDate="2019-02-25T21:09:21.780" UserId="3379" Comment="Found better data for MISO. Added Texas." Text="# What is marginal energy, or fuel on the margin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fuel on the margin, when talking about the electric grid, refers to which fuel will be used to generate the next additional kilowatt of power that is required.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine that your house is in a steady state, using the same amount of power, with a steady mix of fuel being used to generate that power. When you turn on a light, which one of those fuels will increase in generation to meet that demand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the fuel on the margin, and is largely (but not exclusively) a function of how much it costs to turn that fuel into electricity. This price takes into account the time of day, cost of the fuel, amount of extra power needed, technical constraints, and rules and regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Which fuel is typically on the margin in the U.S.? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently, for most of the U.S., natural gas is the fuel most likely to be on the margin.** Soon, it will be the fuel on the margin for the entire U.S. This will likely remain the case until energy storage becomes widespread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. is divided into [Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators](https://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/overview.asp?csrt=2163115379198905111), which are non-profit organizations that manage the grid in different regions of the country. I've taken a look at data from some of the largest to see which fuel is on the margin for each. These regions cover most of the U.S. population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The Midwest -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MISO covers most of the midwest and a few southern states, and operates 175 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MISO provides real time fuel mix data ([here](https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time-displays/)), but unfortunately doesn't provide a time series for this data. So I pulled this data up from their most recent [Monthly Market Operations report](https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/#nt=/marketsandopstype:Market%20Analysis/marketanalysistype:Monthly%20Market%20Operations%20Reports):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;CC&quot; stands for [combined cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant) and refers to power plants which burn natural gas and use multiple heat engines to improve plant efficiency. These plants can ramp faster than coal, but not as fast as traditional natural gas &quot;peaker&quot; plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining the percentages for CC and gas, natural gas was the fuel on the margin 64.7% of the time, compared to 50.4% of time time for coal, the next-most-marginal fuel (The numbers can sum to more than 100% because multiple fuels can be on the margin at the same time -- like two gas stations selling gas for the same price).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Central East Coast -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PJM covers 13 states on the east coast, serves 65 million customers, and has 166 GW of total capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PJM provides [marginal fuel data](https://www.monitoringanalytics.com/data/marginal_fuel.shtml) on a monthly basis, with a two month delay. I downloaded data from December and did some quick analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PJM operates a 5-minute market, meaning that the fuel on the margin can switch as often as every five minutes. From the table, we see that natural gas was marginal within 744 hours of the month, and was the marginal fuel 67% of the time, more than twice as often as coal, the next most marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Texas -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ERCOT covers most of Texas and manages 76 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Texas, I wasn't able to find information directly on fuel on the margin, or hourly output by fuel. However unlike most other ISOs/RTOs which operate energy and capacity markets, Texas has an energy-only market. This means that plants compete almost exclusively on the price of power they deliver to the grid. This means that the monthly breakdown of total generation (available [here](http://www.ercot.com/news/presentations)) gives strong clues which is the *de facto* fuel on the margin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this it seems clear that natural gas (&quot;Gas-CC&quot; and &quot;Gas&quot;) is essentially the fuel on the margin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### California -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CAISO covers most of California and manages 60 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CAISO has [real-time data on their website](http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/Supply.aspx):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal (near the bottom) is a flat line. When renewables (mostly solar) come on- or off-line with the sunshine, natural gas ramps up and down, meaning it is the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### New York -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NYISO covers New York state and manages 39 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NYISO also has [real time data on their website](https://www.nyiso.com/real-time-dashboard):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The story here is more interesting due to the large amounts of hydro electricity available, and the large number of [dual fuel](https://www.genrent-international.com/power-plants-rental/dual-fuel-power-plants) power plants which can burn either natural gas or diesel. So while it may look like a three-way tie, we can lump dual fuel plants with natural gas plants, since [diesel is more expensive than natural gas](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/15?agg=2,0,1&amp;fuel=vtvv&amp;geo=g&amp;sec=g&amp;linechart=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M~ELEC.COST_BTU.PEL-US-99.M~ELEC.COST_BTU.NG-US-99.M&amp;columnchart=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M&amp;map=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M&amp;freq=M&amp;start=200801&amp;end=201811&amp;ctype=linechart&amp;ltype=pin&amp;rtype=s&amp;maptype=0&amp;rse=0&amp;pin=). This means that natural gas is also the marginal fuel in New York.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### New England -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ISO-NE covers six north-east states, and operates 32 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-time ISO-NE data is available from the [EIA](https://www.eia.gov/dashboard/newengland/electricity):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the chart it's clear that natural gas is the most variable fuel -- the most likely to increase or decrease output over time. This is another way to say that it is the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xvZan.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qiuia.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sHHn3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMvbb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bi290.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wSqL4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7132" RevisionGUID="37b18306-a930-40bb-bf2c-2c0f5e38704b" CreationDate="2019-02-25T21:19:33.030" UserId="6393" Text="I actually think such scrapping schemes are a very good idea, for these reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Car manufacture takes probably around 10%-20% of the emissions it would create during its lifetime. Where I live, useful car lifetime is considered to be 300 000 km. If you have the ability to charge an EV at a time when no carbon-emitting thermal power plant is generating electricity, the emissions created by &lt;a href=&quot;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/7112/what-is-marginal-energy&quot;&gt;marginal increase of energy use&lt;/a&gt; are very low indeed.&#xD;&#xA;2. You don't recycle EV batteries. You reuse them for grid energy storage. When EV batteries have only 50% of their capacity left, they are still very useful for grid energy storage. Also, you could consider EV batteries as a very high grade ore. Extracting materials from such a rich ore is much less harmful to the environment than extracting materials from some random ore low in richness in a random mine.&#xD;&#xA;3. The schemes I have seen are based on giving some economical benefit to the potential buyers of new cars, and funding it by collecting taxes from those with an ability to pay taxes, rather than mercilessly placing a very high cost on the owners of old vehicles. Also, if you support the purchase of new cars, the benefits trickle down to the buyers of used cars as well by reducing the resale value of them.&#xD;&#xA;4. The particulate matter from diesel tailpipe is much much smaller in diameter when compared to particulate matter from tires. Therefore, diesel particulate matter is more harmful for the health of people who have to inhale excessive amounts of it. Also, if you really want to (at the expense of traffic safety) reduce harmful particulates in the air we breathe, you could ban studded tires. Many cities have done so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I would say your premise is flawed. Currently, we are at an intermediate stage where EVs are still not cost-competitive when you consider only the cost to you, but they are cost-competitive when you consider negative externalities of gasoline or diesel powered cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, such scrapping schemes should have some means of preventing misuse. E.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You have to scrap a car that is at least N years old with emissions at least M g / km&#xD;&#xA;* You have to buy a new car with emissions at most L g / km" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7133" RevisionGUID="3461270b-3a4d-4c31-94e2-b30e5398dd6a" CreationDate="2019-02-25T22:51:39.967" UserId="6293" Text="Several major cities around the world have banned vehicles with internal-combustion engines but the ban is many years into the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more reasonable vehicle ban would be to limit internal-combustion engine size in business districts and during business hours. A limitation on engine size could begin immediately because there is commuter rail, commuter bus, city trains, and city buses for those with problem vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something else that can be done is to require, for instance, a minimum of three vehicle occupants instead of two for vehicles in HOV lanes. Or even have the HOV lanes for commuter buses only." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7133" RevisionGUID="276db4ac-b11a-49c4-84b8-1b109fed7897" CreationDate="2019-02-25T22:57:24.893" UserId="6293" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Several major cities around the world have banned vehicles with internal-combustion engines but the ban is many years into the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more reasonable vehicle ban would be to limit internal-combustion engine size in business districts and during business hours. A limitation on engine size could begin immediately because there is commuter rail, commuter bus, city trains, and city buses for those with problem vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something else that can be done would be to require, for instance, a minimum of three vehicle occupants instead of two for vehicles in HOV lanes. Or even have the HOV lanes for commuter buses only." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7119" RevisionGUID="a048db2f-835a-4177-be40-ac3004d968c3" CreationDate="2019-02-25T22:58:21.903" UserId="3379" Comment="Added SPP." Text="# What is marginal energy, or fuel on the margin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fuel on the margin, when talking about the electric grid, refers to which fuel will be used to generate the next additional kilowatt of power that is required.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine that your house is in a steady state, using the same amount of power, with a steady mix of fuel being used to generate that power. When you turn on a light, which one of those fuels will increase in generation to meet that demand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the fuel on the margin, and is largely (but not exclusively) a function of how much it costs to turn that fuel into electricity. This price takes into account the time of day, cost of the fuel, amount of extra power needed, technical constraints, and rules and regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Which fuel is typically on the margin in the U.S.? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently, for most of the U.S., natural gas is the fuel most likely to be on the margin.** Soon, it will be the fuel on the margin for the entire U.S. This will likely remain the case until energy storage becomes widespread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. is divided into [Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators](https://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/overview.asp?csrt=2163115379198905111), which are non-profit organizations that manage the grid in different regions of the country. I've taken a look at data from some of the largest to see which fuel is on the margin for each. These regions cover most of the U.S. population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The Midwest -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MISO covers most of the midwest and a few southern states, and operates 175 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MISO provides real time fuel mix data ([here](https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time-displays/)), but unfortunately doesn't provide a time series for this data. So I pulled this data up from their most recent [Monthly Market Operations report](https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/#nt=/marketsandopstype:Market%20Analysis/marketanalysistype:Monthly%20Market%20Operations%20Reports):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;CC&quot; stands for [combined cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant) and refers to power plants which burn natural gas and use multiple heat engines to improve plant efficiency. These plants can ramp faster than coal, but not as fast as traditional natural gas &quot;peaker&quot; plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining the percentages for CC and gas, natural gas was the fuel on the margin 64.7% of the time, compared to 50.4% of time time for coal, the next-most-marginal fuel (The numbers can sum to more than 100% because multiple fuels can be on the margin at the same time -- like two gas stations selling gas for the same price).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Central East Coast -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PJM covers 13 states on the east coast, serves 65 million customers, and has 166 GW of total capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PJM provides [marginal fuel data](https://www.monitoringanalytics.com/data/marginal_fuel.shtml) on a monthly basis, with a two month delay. I downloaded data from December and did some quick analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PJM operates a 5-minute market, meaning that the fuel on the margin can switch as often as every five minutes. From the table, we see that natural gas was marginal within 744 hours of the month, and was the marginal fuel 67% of the time, more than twice as often as coal, the next most marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Central corridor -- coal and natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) covers a column of states between Texas and and the Canadian border, and operates 85 GW of capacity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SPP provides [real-time generation mix data](https://marketplace.spp.org/pages/generation-mix-rolling-365), but the graphic seems to be broken currently. I downloaded the data and attempted to analyze it a bit. Here's seven days of fuel mix data from February 2019:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it's clear that while the trends for natural gas and coal roughly match, coal dominates the mix by volume. Overall though, natural gas is more variable, meaning that as [coal](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/more-coal-folds-firstenergy-and-aes-announce-pending-plant-closures) [plants](https://about.bnef.com/blog/u-s-coal-plant-retirements-near-all-time-high/) [close](https://www.powermag.com/oklahoma-coal-plant-sets-closing-date-losing-ppa/), natural gas will take pole position as the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Texas -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ERCOT covers most of Texas and manages 76 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Texas, I wasn't able to find information directly on fuel on the margin, or hourly output by fuel. However unlike most other ISOs/RTOs which operate energy and capacity markets, Texas has an energy-only market. This means that plants compete almost exclusively on the price of power they deliver to the grid. This means that the monthly breakdown of total generation (available [here](http://www.ercot.com/news/presentations)) gives strong clues which is the *de facto* fuel on the margin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this it seems clear that natural gas (&quot;Gas-CC&quot; and &quot;Gas&quot;) is essentially the fuel on the margin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### California -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CAISO covers most of California and manages 60 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CAISO has [real-time data on their website](http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/Supply.aspx):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal (near the bottom) is a flat line. When renewables (mostly solar) come on- or off-line with the sunshine, natural gas ramps up and down, meaning it is the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### New York -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NYISO covers New York state and manages 39 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NYISO also has [real time data on their website](https://www.nyiso.com/real-time-dashboard):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The story here is more interesting due to the large amounts of hydro electricity available, and the large number of [dual fuel](https://www.genrent-international.com/power-plants-rental/dual-fuel-power-plants) power plants which can burn either natural gas or diesel. So while it may look like a three-way tie, we can lump dual fuel plants with natural gas plants, since [diesel is more expensive than natural gas](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/15?agg=2,0,1&amp;fuel=vtvv&amp;geo=g&amp;sec=g&amp;linechart=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M~ELEC.COST_BTU.PEL-US-99.M~ELEC.COST_BTU.NG-US-99.M&amp;columnchart=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M&amp;map=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M&amp;freq=M&amp;start=200801&amp;end=201811&amp;ctype=linechart&amp;ltype=pin&amp;rtype=s&amp;maptype=0&amp;rse=0&amp;pin=). This means that natural gas is also the marginal fuel in New York.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### New England -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ISO-NE covers six north-east states, and operates 32 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-time ISO-NE data is available from the [EIA](https://www.eia.gov/dashboard/newengland/electricity):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the chart it's clear that natural gas is the most variable fuel -- the most likely to increase or decrease output over time. This is another way to say that it is the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xvZan.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qiuia.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V1Ekt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sHHn3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMvbb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bi290.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wSqL4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18772" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7133" RevisionGUID="cdb47f59-e1cb-4588-95b3-8b5b671578ce" CreationDate="2019-02-25T23:04:42.820" UserId="6293" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="Several major cities around the world have banned vehicles with internal-combustion engines but the ban is many years into the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more reasonable vehicle ban would be to limit internal-combustion engine size in business districts and during business hours. A limitation on engine size could begin immediately because there is commuter rail, commuter bus, city trains, and city buses for those with problem vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something else that can be done would be to require, for instance, a minimum of three vehicle occupants instead of two for vehicles in HOV lanes. Or even have the HOV lanes for commuter buses only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But banning vehicles based on age is a superficial logic. The aged vehicle might be correctly maintained or even have a rebuilt engine. And vehicle emission tests  require that vehicles be maintained." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7134" RevisionGUID="215e1772-eb4a-447c-93f4-7063e86f6b94" CreationDate="2019-02-26T00:03:59.993" UserId="6413" Text="Just want to know is it safe to use expired can goods for compost making, examples:&#xD;&#xA;Diced tomatoe,evaporated milk,turkey gravy,different &#xD;&#xA;Campbell soups,can pumpkin,coffee" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7134" RevisionGUID="215e1772-eb4a-447c-93f4-7063e86f6b94" CreationDate="2019-02-26T00:03:59.993" UserId="6413" Text="Can i use expired can goods in my cut grass to make mulch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7134" RevisionGUID="215e1772-eb4a-447c-93f4-7063e86f6b94" CreationDate="2019-02-26T00:03:59.993" UserId="6413" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18776" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7004" RevisionGUID="4b93f216-db10-4dda-bd08-2ee97a399e90" CreationDate="2019-02-26T06:01:50.353" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7135" RevisionGUID="a4239ce7-a174-4855-a095-de52ab1a9065" CreationDate="2019-02-26T06:03:39.067" UserId="4886" Text=" 1. Allow rotation.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Make it easy/ergonomic to rotate (especially when full/heavy).&#xD;&#xA; 3. Make room for a bucket/crate/wheelbarrow to slide under it when it's time to empty it.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Reduce smell (holes help leak/evaporate fluids thus preventing anaerobic conditions from developing; rotation keeps those holes from clogging up).&#xD;&#xA; 5. Discourage rodents from chewing their way into the container (climbing up a frame exposes them to predators like hawks)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18778" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7135" RevisionGUID="351eb182-0706-4d3e-846b-828b66a9e9cb" CreationDate="2019-02-26T07:21:55.697" UserId="4886" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text=" 1. Allow rotation.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Make it easy/ergonomic to rotate (especially when full/heavy).&#xD;&#xA; 3. Make room for a bucket/crate/wheelbarrow to slide under it when it's time to empty it.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Reduce smell (holes help leak/evaporate fluids thus preventing anaerobic conditions from developing; rotation keeps those holes from clogging up).&#xD;&#xA; 5. Discourage rodents from chewing their way into the container (climbing up a frame exposes them to predators like cats and raptors)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7135" RevisionGUID="8605d065-14ab-4bbc-a7f1-47eb4e0a7991" CreationDate="2019-02-26T09:10:59.003" UserId="4886" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text=" 1. Allow rotation of the compost bin.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Make it easy/ergonomic to rotate (especially when it's full/heavy) by raising the bin to an optimal height.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Make room for a bucket/crate/wheelbarrow to slide under the bin when it's ready to be emptied.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Reduce smell (holes in the bottom help leak/evaporate fluids thus preventing anaerobic conditions from developing; elevation and rotation keep those holes from clogging up).&#xD;&#xA; 5. Discourage rodents from chewing their way into the bin (climbing up a frame exposes them to predators like cats and raptors)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18780" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7135" RevisionGUID="9ac25356-3db2-4454-99ab-5787a815bcd3" CreationDate="2019-02-26T09:18:59.053" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text=" 1. Allow rotation of the compost bin.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Make it easier/ergonomic to rotate (especially when it's full/heavy) by raising the bin to an optimal height.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Make room for a bucket/crate/wheelbarrow to slide under the bin when it's ready to be emptied.&#xD;&#xA; 4. Reduce smell (holes in the bottom help leak/evaporate fluids thus preventing anaerobic conditions from developing; elevation and rotation keep those holes from clogging up).&#xD;&#xA; 5. Discourage rodents from chewing their way into the bin (climbing up a frame exposes them to predators like cats and raptors)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7105" RevisionGUID="d77302d0-724b-43da-be5a-5a3117827208" CreationDate="2019-02-26T12:17:41.373" UserId="2134" Comment="small wording improvement" Text="You could combine the following two machines:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The [Precious Plastic Extrusion machine][1], an open source, do-it-yourself plastic extruder that is fed with shredded plastic. Use it to create plastic filament in the diameter you need (maybe 3 mm as usual for 3D printers), and collect the filament on a slow-turning spool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A machine to cut the filament into small pieces as needed for making pellets. Not sure what would be a good basis for this one, though, but it's a pretty simple machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems preferable to me to separate the process into the two steps above, as creating the pellets from molten plastic in one step could be more difficult to control in a simple machine. You'd likely deform the soft plastic while cutting the part coming out of the extruder, and the heap of fresh pellets  might also stick together while it is cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://preciousplastic.com/en/videos/build/extrusion.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7119" RevisionGUID="437c764e-f341-47cd-9ca5-10584ecc7f8e" CreationDate="2019-02-26T14:46:37.510" UserId="3379" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="# What is marginal energy, or fuel on the margin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fuel on the margin, when talking about the electric grid, refers to which fuel will be used to generate the next additional kilowatt of power that is required.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine that your house is in a steady state, using the same amount of power, with a steady mix of fuel being used to generate that power. When you turn on a light, which one of those fuels will increase in generation to meet that demand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the fuel on the margin, and is largely (but not exclusively) a function of how much it costs to turn that fuel into electricity. This price takes into account the time of day, cost of the fuel, amount of extra power needed, technical constraints, and rules and regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Which fuel is typically on the margin in the U.S.? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently, for most of the U.S., natural gas is the fuel most likely to be on the margin.** Soon, it will be the fuel on the margin for the entire U.S. This will likely remain the case until energy storage becomes widespread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. is divided into [Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators](https://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/overview.asp?csrt=2163115379198905111), which are non-profit organizations that manage the grid in different regions of the country. I've taken a look at data from some of the largest to see which fuel is on the margin for each. These regions cover most of the U.S. population (the southeast and most of the west are excluded as these markets are still vertically integrated, meaning that each utility is self-regulated and there's no central source of data).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The Midwest -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MISO covers most of the midwest and a few southern states, and operates 175 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MISO provides real time fuel mix data ([here](https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time-displays/)), but unfortunately doesn't provide a time series for this data. So I pulled this data up from their most recent [Monthly Market Operations report](https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/#nt=/marketsandopstype:Market%20Analysis/marketanalysistype:Monthly%20Market%20Operations%20Reports):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;CC&quot; stands for [combined cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant) and refers to power plants which burn natural gas and use multiple heat engines to improve plant efficiency. These plants can ramp faster than coal, but not as fast as traditional natural gas &quot;peaker&quot; plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combining the percentages for CC and gas, natural gas was the fuel on the margin 64.7% of the time, compared to 50.4% of time time for coal, the next-most-marginal fuel (The numbers can sum to more than 100% because multiple fuels can be on the margin at the same time -- like two gas stations selling gas for the same price).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Central East Coast -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PJM covers 13 states on the east coast, serves 65 million customers, and has 166 GW of total capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PJM provides [marginal fuel data](https://www.monitoringanalytics.com/data/marginal_fuel.shtml) on a monthly basis, with a two month delay. I downloaded data from December and did some quick analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PJM operates a 5-minute market, meaning that the fuel on the margin can switch as often as every five minutes. From the table, we see that natural gas was marginal within 744 hours of the month, and was the marginal fuel 67% of the time, more than twice as often as coal, the next most marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Central corridor -- coal and natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) covers a column of states between Texas and the Canadian border, and operates 85 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SPP provides [real-time generation mix data](https://marketplace.spp.org/pages/generation-mix-rolling-365), but the graphic seems to be broken currently. I downloaded the data and attempted to analyze it a bit. Here's seven days of fuel mix data from February 2019:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it's clear that while the trends for natural gas and coal roughly match, coal dominates the mix by volume. Overall though, natural gas is more variable, meaning that as [coal](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/more-coal-folds-firstenergy-and-aes-announce-pending-plant-closures) [plants](https://about.bnef.com/blog/u-s-coal-plant-retirements-near-all-time-high/) [close](https://www.powermag.com/oklahoma-coal-plant-sets-closing-date-losing-ppa/), natural gas will take pole position as the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Texas -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ERCOT covers most of Texas and manages 76 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Texas, I wasn't able to find information directly on fuel on the margin, or hourly output by fuel. However unlike most other ISOs/RTOs which operate energy *and* capacity markets, Texas has an energy *only* market. As a result, plants compete almost exclusively on the price of power they deliver to the grid. This means that the monthly breakdown of total generation (available [here](http://www.ercot.com/news/presentations)) gives strong clues about which is the *de facto* fuel on the margin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this it seems clear that natural gas (&quot;Gas-CC&quot; and &quot;Gas&quot;) is essentially the fuel on the margin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### California -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CAISO covers most of California and manages 60 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CAISO has [real-time data on their website](http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/Supply.aspx):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal (near the bottom) is a flat line. When renewables (mostly solar) come on- or off-line with the sunshine, natural gas ramps up and down, meaning it is the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### New York -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NYISO covers New York state and manages 39 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NYISO also has [real time data on their website](https://www.nyiso.com/real-time-dashboard):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The story here is more interesting due to the large amounts of hydro electricity available, and the large number of [dual fuel](https://www.genrent-international.com/power-plants-rental/dual-fuel-power-plants) power plants which can burn either natural gas or diesel. So while it may look like a three-way tie, we can lump dual fuel plants with natural gas plants, since [diesel is more expensive than natural gas](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/15?agg=2,0,1&amp;fuel=vtvv&amp;geo=g&amp;sec=g&amp;linechart=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M~ELEC.COST_BTU.PEL-US-99.M~ELEC.COST_BTU.NG-US-99.M&amp;columnchart=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M&amp;map=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M&amp;freq=M&amp;start=200801&amp;end=201811&amp;ctype=linechart&amp;ltype=pin&amp;rtype=s&amp;maptype=0&amp;rse=0&amp;pin=). This means that natural gas is also the marginal fuel in New York.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### New England -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ISO-NE covers six north-east states, and operates 32 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-time ISO-NE data is available from the [EIA](https://www.eia.gov/dashboard/newengland/electricity):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the chart it's clear that natural gas is the most variable fuel -- the most likely to increase or decrease output over time. This is another way to say that it is the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xvZan.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qiuia.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V1Ekt.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sHHn3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMvbb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bi290.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wSqL4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18783" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6954" RevisionGUID="99d4c333-f684-4a75-abf0-eb37b1b1978b" CreationDate="2019-02-26T15:49:37.087" UserId="3379" Comment="Added a February 2018 paper." Text="### February 2018 comparison of two kinematic wake models and two actuator disc models&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simisiroglou, Polatidis, and Ivanell compared these four models to data from Lillgrund offshore wind farm in Sweden in their paper [&quot;Wind farm power production assessment: a comparative analysis of two actuator disc methods and two analytical wake models&quot;](https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1203283/FULLTEXT01.pdf). Here's one of various graphs showing the results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All four models are reasonable for the second turbine in the wake. Further down the row, the newer actuator disc (ACD) and Larsen models are the most accurate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference, in the the [actuator disc](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/actuator-disc) models:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the rotor is represented by a permeable disk that allows the flow to pass through the rotor, at the same time as it is subject to the influence of the surface forces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### March 2017 comparison of three kinematic wake models&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seim, Gravdahl, and Adaramola compared three kinematic wake models to data from a wind farm in Norway in their 2017 paper [&quot;Validation of kinematic wind turbine wake models in complex terrain using actual windfarm production data&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544217301470).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article is behind a paywall, but some of the results are indicated in the abstract, confirming the accuracy of the Larsen model:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]he accuracy of the Jensen-, Larsen- and Ishihara model are tested in eight single-wake cases with regard to several key aspects. [...] The Larsen model correlated well with the measured data regarding the normalized power deficit, while both the Jensen- and Ishihara model clearly overestimated the power deficit. At the wake centerline, **the Larsen model was by far the most accurate, with a mean absolute error of 7%. The Jensen- and Ishihara model had a mean absolute error of 21% and 34% respectively**. Both the Jensen- and Ishihara model agreed well with the observed wake width. The Larsen model widely overestimated the wake width in all cases, but with an almost constant offset. For the energy loss in the wake, the Larsen model performed best for the three investigated wake cases with a mean absolute error of 29%, although all the three wake models showed a varying performance with a tendency to underestimate the energy loss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gFyJj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7136" RevisionGUID="b118bc38-c7b8-4af2-8f23-6815d7da4bc2" CreationDate="2019-02-26T18:13:13.050" UserId="3379" Text="It seems like people have been hyping the benefits of **vehicle-to-grid (V2G)** for decades. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic premise of V2G is that electric vehicles, when plugged in to the grid to charge, can offer services to the grid operator such as energy storage, demand response, and frequency regulation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vehicle owner would then be compensated for this, either through free charging, discounted electric rates, or even payment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Research on the topic](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=vehicle+to+grid&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0%2C50&amp;as_ylo=1995&amp;as_yhi=2001) seems to start popping up around the late 1990's. However, in all this time, I haven't heard of any actual programs where a customer with an electric vehicle could enroll with their utility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there any active V2G programs around the world that are accepting customers?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not -- what's taking so long? Does V2G fall into the same category as flying cars and fusion power -- exciting things that are talked about for ages but always seem to be about 25 years off?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7136" RevisionGUID="b118bc38-c7b8-4af2-8f23-6815d7da4bc2" CreationDate="2019-02-26T18:13:13.050" UserId="3379" Text="Are there any active vehicle to grind programs around the world that are accepting customers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7136" RevisionGUID="b118bc38-c7b8-4af2-8f23-6815d7da4bc2" CreationDate="2019-02-26T18:13:13.050" UserId="3379" Text="|energy-management|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18787" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7136" RevisionGUID="e5c9f146-c0b6-477c-a3e0-ae763c8a7e70" CreationDate="2019-02-26T18:33:37.550" UserId="3379" Comment="edited title" Text="Are there any active vehicle to grid programs around the world that are accepting customers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18788" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7132" RevisionGUID="25625427-e25e-484d-af80-4df86db150a6" CreationDate="2019-02-26T20:45:01.990" UserId="6393" Comment="add sources" Text="I actually think such scrapping schemes are a very good idea, for these reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Car manufacture takes probably around 10%-20% of the emissions it would create during its lifetime. Where I live, useful car lifetime is considered to be 300 000 km. If you have the ability to charge an EV at a time when no carbon-emitting thermal power plant is generating electricity, the emissions created by &lt;a href=&quot;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/7112/what-is-marginal-energy&quot;&gt;marginal increase of energy use&lt;/a&gt; are very low indeed.&#xD;&#xA;  * Source: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/workingdocuments/MC-P-11-15a%20Lifecycle%20emissions%20report.pdf&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt; says 23% of emissions of standard gasoline vehicles are in production. Note it assumes car is scrapped at only 150 000 km. When scrapping at 300 000 km, it would be more like 13%.&#xD;&#xA;2. You don't recycle EV batteries. You reuse them for grid energy storage. When EV batteries have only 50% of their capacity left, they are still very useful for grid energy storage. Also, you could consider EV batteries as a very high grade ore. Extracting materials from such a rich ore is much less harmful to the environment than extracting materials from some random ore low in richness in a random mine.&#xD;&#xA;  * Source: &lt;a href=&quot;https://waste-management-world.com/a/video-3-mw-energy-storage-system-recycles-ev-batteries-in-amsterdam&quot;&gt;this link&lt;/a&gt; illustrates such an idea has already been implemented!&#xD;&#xA;3. The schemes I have seen are based on giving some economical benefit to the potential buyers of new cars, and funding it by collecting taxes from those with an ability to pay taxes, rather than mercilessly placing a very high cost on the owners of old vehicles. Also, if you support the purchase of new cars, the benefits trickle down to the buyers of used cars as well by reducing the resale value of them.&#xD;&#xA;4. The particulate matter from diesel tailpipe is much much smaller in diameter when compared to particulate matter from tires. Therefore, diesel particulate matter is more harmful for the health of people who have to inhale excessive amounts of it. Also, if you really want to (at the expense of traffic safety) reduce harmful particulates in the air we breathe, you could ban studded tires. Many cities have done so.&#xD;&#xA;  * Source: &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231005010058&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt; says tires generate about 0.1% - 1% of tailpipe emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I would say your premise is flawed. Currently, we are at an intermediate stage where EVs are still not cost-competitive when you consider only the cost to you, but they are cost-competitive when you consider negative externalities of gasoline or diesel powered cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, such scrapping schemes should have some means of preventing misuse. E.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You have to scrap a car that is at least N years old with emissions at least M g / km&#xD;&#xA;* You have to buy a new car with emissions at most L g / km" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7137" RevisionGUID="b2d0a428-3bfd-49c8-b61b-3d7a81b5fb8f" CreationDate="2019-02-26T20:54:47.503" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;b&gt;Don't&lt;/b&gt; consider such stupid ideas! Hype is hype.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla uses a different battery chemistry (NMC, nickel manganese cobalt) for PowerWall products that are intended for grid energy storage. For the vehicle use, Tesla uses NCA (nickel cobalt alunimum), which is cheaper but not durable enough for daily cycling. I guess they have a valid reason for the different chemistries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And before somebody claims driving is daily cycling, it isn't, because Tesla batteries are so large that driving the car uses an infinitesimal amount of its capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if a NCA battery is already at its end of useful lifetime (like holding only 50% of the capacity), you could use it for grid energy storage for a while until it is finally scrapped and the materials are reused. So, as reuse grid energy storage is a good application, but these NCA batteries degrade very quickly when used for grid energy storage. So anybody planning to reuse batteries needs to have a plan of how to safely scrap them, and needs to be aware of their limited lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the reason why such programs in general don't exist is that electric vehicle users are well aware of the properties of their expensive toys. Specifically, they are aware of the limited lifetime of batteries when rapidly cycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one form of cycling that is beneficial and helps stabilize the grid: charge when electricity is cheap, drive on charged electricity when electricity is expensive. Of course, this works only if the battery is large like on the most expensive Tesla cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In no circumstance, would I discharge the battery while supplying power to the grid. I could consider supplying power to my own house in an emergency, but not to the grid (unless I get paid really large amounts of $$$).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is almost always cheaper to use electricity from the grid than to discharge your EV battery, reducing the useful lifetime of the very expensive battery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7138" RevisionGUID="d6cf83a3-a430-4bf7-b882-240068d80e9d" CreationDate="2019-02-26T21:09:26.783" UserId="6393" Text="What could work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Ban diesels unless they have sophisticated emission treatment devices&#xD;&#xA;  * Yes, this includes even buses and heavy trucks: only allow the most sophisticated emission treatment devices.&#xD;&#xA;2. Ban studded tires&#xD;&#xA;3. Ban gasoline cars without three-way catalytic converter&#xD;&#xA;  * Ok, this is kind of irrelevant today as there are so little of these.&#xD;&#xA;4. Clean the streets often from dust.&#xD;&#xA;5. Construct more rail transport.&#xD;&#xA;6. Ban burning firewood. Ban also burning waste.&#xD;&#xA;7. If district heating is needed due to cold climate, prefer nuclear and geothermal sources instead of burning wood, coal, peat, oil or natural gas. Actually, geothermal heat pump could in this day and age be an option better than district heating.&#xD;&#xA;8. Require catalytic converters even on the smallest of motorcycles, unless they are electric&#xD;&#xA;9. Ban small engines like gasoline-powered lawnmowers.&#xD;&#xA;10. Ban all two-stroke engines without direct injection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What not to do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Blindly assume public transportation must be always good. In reality, a gasoline car with three-way catalytic converter will probably have lower emissions per passenger than a heavy bus. On the other hand, electric rail transport has excellent low emission levels.&#xD;&#xA;2. Place so heavy restrictions or fees on parking, car use, etc. that people and jobs disappear from the city and move to suburbs. A very good public transport system could prevent people from disappearing to suburbs, but such a system could need state subsidies.&#xD;&#xA;3. Construct so much renewable electricity without adjustable power that the grid becomes unstable, resulting in blackouts often, causing people to buy small gasoline powered generators." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18791" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7138" RevisionGUID="19493ebc-0529-4ee9-a5bd-24674280dc16" CreationDate="2019-02-26T21:17:33.290" UserId="6393" Comment="forest fires, idling, power plants" Text="What could work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Ban diesels unless they have sophisticated emission treatment devices&#xD;&#xA;  * Yes, this includes even buses and heavy trucks: only allow the most sophisticated emission treatment devices.&#xD;&#xA;2. Ban studded tires&#xD;&#xA;3. Ban gasoline cars without three-way catalytic converter&#xD;&#xA;  * Ok, this is kind of irrelevant today as there are so little of these.&#xD;&#xA;4. Clean the streets often from dust.&#xD;&#xA;5. Construct more rail transport.&#xD;&#xA;6. Ban burning firewood. Ban also burning waste.&#xD;&#xA;7. If district heating is needed due to cold climate, prefer nuclear and geothermal sources instead of burning wood, coal, peat, oil or natural gas. Actually, geothermal heat pump could in this day and age be an option better than district heating.&#xD;&#xA;8. Require catalytic converters even on the smallest of motorcycles, unless they are electric&#xD;&#xA;9. Ban small engines like gasoline-powered lawnmowers.&#xD;&#xA;10. Ban all two-stroke engines without direct injection.&#xD;&#xA;11. Control forest fires as well as feasible.&#xD;&#xA;12. If thermal power plants are needed, prefer nuclear, and build the non-nuclear ones far away from population if such non-nuclear plants are needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What not to do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Blindly assume public transportation must be always good. In reality, a gasoline car with three-way catalytic converter will probably have lower emissions per passenger than a heavy bus. On the other hand, electric rail transport has excellent low emission levels.&#xD;&#xA;2. Place so heavy restrictions or fees on parking, car use, etc. that people and jobs disappear from the city and move to suburbs. A very good public transport system could prevent people from disappearing to suburbs, but such a system could need state subsidies.&#xD;&#xA;3. Construct so much renewable electricity without adjustable power that the grid becomes unstable, resulting in blackouts often, causing people to buy small gasoline powered generators.&#xD;&#xA;4. Attempt to control idling of car engines. Yes, it wastes some fuel, and creates some extra emissions, but the amount of emissions that comes from idling is trivial. Seriously, if this is your only measure, you won't achieve nearly any emission reductions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7138" RevisionGUID="2f4c18c3-203f-42fa-8416-61a80f324bd4" CreationDate="2019-02-26T21:23:33.723" UserId="6393" Comment="bioenergy" Text="What could work:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Ban diesels unless they have sophisticated emission treatment devices&#xD;&#xA;  * Yes, this includes even buses and heavy trucks: only allow the most sophisticated emission treatment devices.&#xD;&#xA;2. Ban studded tires&#xD;&#xA;3. Ban gasoline cars without three-way catalytic converter&#xD;&#xA;  * Ok, this is kind of irrelevant today as there are so little of these.&#xD;&#xA;4. Clean the streets often from dust.&#xD;&#xA;5. Construct more rail transport.&#xD;&#xA;6. Ban burning firewood. Ban also burning waste.&#xD;&#xA;7. If district heating is needed due to cold climate, prefer nuclear and geothermal sources instead of burning wood, coal, peat, oil or natural gas. Actually, geothermal heat pump could in this day and age be an option better than district heating.&#xD;&#xA;8. Require catalytic converters even on the smallest of motorcycles, unless they are electric&#xD;&#xA;9. Ban small engines like gasoline-powered lawnmowers.&#xD;&#xA;10. Ban all two-stroke engines without direct injection.&#xD;&#xA;11. Control forest fires as well as feasible.&#xD;&#xA;12. If thermal power plants are needed, prefer nuclear, and build the non-nuclear ones far away from population if such non-nuclear plants are needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What not to do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Blindly assume public transportation must be always good. In reality, a gasoline car with three-way catalytic converter will probably have lower emissions per passenger than a heavy bus. On the other hand, electric rail transport has excellent low emission levels.&#xD;&#xA;2. Place so heavy restrictions or fees on parking, car use, etc. that people and jobs disappear from the city and move to suburbs. A very good public transport system could prevent people from disappearing to suburbs, but such a system could need state subsidies.&#xD;&#xA;3. Construct so much renewable electricity without adjustable power that the grid becomes unstable, resulting in blackouts often, causing people to buy small gasoline powered generators.&#xD;&#xA;4. Attempt to control idling of car engines. Yes, it wastes some fuel, and creates some extra emissions, but the amount of emissions that comes from idling is trivial. Seriously, if this is your only measure, you won't achieve nearly any emission reductions.&#xD;&#xA;5. Construct bio-energy-burning power plants. The massive amount of trucks hauling wood from forests around the city will create lots of emissions, and also, while bioenergy could be claimed to be CO2 neutral in a very long term, it still has large non-CO2 emissions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7137" RevisionGUID="b00bf3c4-4449-4c9d-a163-99b7a80ecd61" CreationDate="2019-02-27T22:40:24.777" UserId="6393" Comment="sources" Text="&lt;b&gt;Don't&lt;/b&gt; consider such stupid ideas! Hype is hype.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla uses a different battery chemistry (NMC, nickel manganese cobalt) for PowerWall products that are intended for grid energy storage. For the vehicle use, Tesla uses NCA (nickel cobalt alunimum), which is cheaper but not durable enough for daily cycling. I guess they have a valid reason for the different chemistries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And before somebody claims driving is daily cycling, it isn't, because Tesla batteries are so large that driving the car uses an infinitesimal amount of its capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if a NCA battery is already at its end of useful lifetime (like holding only 50% of the capacity), you could use it for grid energy storage for a while until it is finally scrapped and the materials are reused. So, as reuse grid energy storage is a good application, but these NCA batteries degrade very quickly when used for grid energy storage. So anybody planning to reuse batteries needs to have a plan of how to safely scrap them, and needs to be aware of their limited lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the reason why such programs in general don't exist is that electric vehicle users are well aware of the properties of their expensive toys. Specifically, they are aware of the limited lifetime of batteries when rapidly cycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one form of cycling that is beneficial and helps stabilize the grid: charge when electricity is cheap, drive on charged electricity when electricity is expensive. Of course, this works only if the battery is large like on the most expensive Tesla cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In no circumstance, would I discharge the battery while supplying power to the grid. I could consider supplying power to my own house in an emergency, but not to the grid (unless I get paid really large amounts of $$$).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is almost always cheaper to use electricity from the grid than to discharge your EV battery, reducing the useful lifetime of the very expensive battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cycle durability of Li-Ion is 400-1200: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery ...and this means full discharge, then full charge, then repeat&#xD;&#xA;* It is well known in the automotive circles that shallow cycling allows a battery to last for a very long amount of time. For example, Toyota hybrid batteries that use only ~20% of the battery capacity can do so for 100 000 cycles. Example source: http://www.bitsonchips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ref33.pdf quoted: &quot;in shallow state of charge (SOC) swing applications (such as hybrid electric vehicle and certain power&#xD;&#xA;quality applications) the cycle life can be many hundreds of thousands of cycles&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* Tesla batteries when used for driving last the lifetime of the car: https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/tesla-battery-degradation/ ...and note this means for driving, not for 100% cycling every day. It is well-known that Teslas have a range of 500 km or so, and typically people drive 50 km or so per day, then charge, using only 10% of the capacity.&#xD;&#xA;* Tesla PowerWall uses NMC, not NCA: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/something-fishy-about-the-batteries-in-powerwall.75391/ -- &quot;NMC has much better durability (5000+ full cycles vs 500-1000 full cycles), whereas NCA has much better energy density (280 Wh/kg vs something like 150 Wh/kg).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* Also: https://medium.com/the-unfortunate-tetrahedron/the-cathodes-of-the-powerwall-6aa52df8cd66 -- &quot;It is speculated that the NCA chemistry is the cell in the Model S. To the best of my knowledge Tesla has not used the NMC chemistry in any car to date.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* Cost analysis of NCA: $100 / kWh probably will be achieved on a pack level after few years, 500-1000 full cycles, $0.1 - $0.2 / kWh. I guess in some areas where the authorities are insane (preventing the construction of thermal power, necessitating massive building of intermittent renewables), the electricity price can be over $0.2 / kWh or even higher with taxes. I am fortunate to live in an area with 0.06 EUR / kWh electricity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7139" RevisionGUID="9a908b4b-2655-409b-9943-68b318d80a48" CreationDate="2019-02-27T23:01:09.547" UserId="6393" Text="There are three ways of handling plastic waste:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Reuse. Unfortunately, plastic is hard to reuse (many different chemistries), but this may be a feasible approach in some very limited cases. Also, if you reuse plastic, there is a chance that the next user will choose to burn it, releasing carbon dioxide into the air, thus worsening climate change.&#xD;&#xA;2. Burn it. Unfortunately, this releases carbon dioxide to the air, thus worsening climate change.&#xD;&#xA;3. Bury it underground. It will then become a fossil fuel reserve in a million years or so. The carbon contained in the plastic won't be released into circulation, thus mitigating climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best option is obviously (3). Do make sure the plastic you use ends up in landfills! Even better would be a hypothetical world where all fossil fuel resources are used to make plastic and none are used for energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, some plastics are made from renewable sources. This doesn't matter! A carbon atom is a carbon atom. The atmosphere doesn't care if the carbon came from biological sources. Actually, by using wood to create plastic at a very large scale, and then subsequently burying the plastic underground, it is possible to achieve negative net emissions of carbon dioxide, thus not only mitigating but reversing climate change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7140" RevisionGUID="ff270c95-6744-47f1-97ff-03a09975b976" CreationDate="2019-02-27T23:12:06.273" UserId="6393" Text="The damage is minimal for all writing instruments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order for somebody to bother doing something that could possibly damage the environment, you have to pay a substantial amount of money. As an example, if you pay $1 for a taxi ride, the taxi ride will be very short (nobody would offer you a taxi ride where $2 worth of gasoline will be burnt, and the taxi ride costs $1). Thus, the damage to environment will be minimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do a simple experiment: take a 10 blank pieces of paper. Weigh them using an accurate scale. Write something on the papers, and weight them again. Do you see an increase in weight? Probably not, unless you have a laboratory scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would focus on the paper, not on the writing instruments. Paper production creates black liquor, and unfortunately the best way to get rid of it is to burn it, releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. About half of the carbon in wood will be burned. So, even if you take all measures possible to ensure the paper will be buried in a landfill instead of being burned, some amount of carbon dioxide will be released in paper production. Also, wood is a limited resource and using it for paper prevents other uses such as mitigating climate change by directly burying wood underground, or burning it as biomass for energy. Thus, by using paper, you are causing more climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Focus on where the problem is! It's not the writing instrument, it's the paper on which you are writing!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are very fortunate that paper use is reducing due to computers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7141" RevisionGUID="368b863f-9b44-466f-8535-be946c550bb9" CreationDate="2019-02-27T23:17:27.723" UserId="6393" Text="Very high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cash needs to be transported. Transportation is the biggest evil. For example, it is almost always better to work remotely than to travel to your workplace (unless you live very near; most don't). Card payments are electronic. Nobody needs to haul around the cards in a minivan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only that, but cash use reduces; the need to do regular transportation to haul a diminishing amount of cash doesn't. In contrast, Moore's law is continuously reducing the environmental impact of computer systems. A server of today is more powerful than a server of yesterday, and uses less electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newspaper source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-16/pick-card-payments-over-cash-and-the-environment-will-thank-you and original source: https://www.dnb.nl/binaries/Working%20paper%20No.%20610_tcm46-379441.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7136" RevisionGUID="c2d59016-1689-423f-b1fe-0936febd3753" CreationDate="2019-02-28T14:30:06.767" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 95 characters in body" Text="It seems like people have been hyping the benefits of **vehicle-to-grid (V2G)** for decades. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The basic premise of V2G is that electric vehicles, when plugged in to the grid to charge, can offer services to the grid operator such as energy storage, demand response, and frequency regulation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vehicle owner would then be compensated for this, either through free charging, discounted electric rates, or even payment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Research on the topic](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=vehicle+to+grid&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0%2C50&amp;as_ylo=1995&amp;as_yhi=2001) seems to start popping up around the late 1990's. However, in all this time, I haven't heard of any actual programs where a customer with an electric vehicle could enroll with their utility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there any active V2G programs around the world that are accepting customers?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If not -- what's taking so long? Are there technical challenges? policy issues? or something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7142" RevisionGUID="42c3fe5e-7996-4dd6-b72f-d2646f153652" CreationDate="2019-02-28T16:27:18.843" UserId="2605" Text="(This is not meant to be a full answer but rather a complement to the other answers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When evaluating the carbon footprint of any form of money you don't only need to look at the economic and environmental cost of manufacturing units of currency (cash), specially in occidental societies who are converging towards chashless economies. Instad, you need to look at the cost of *securing* accounts and transactions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In decentralized, digital networks (eg. bitcoin) the security cost is mainly given by the cost of the consensus protocol (ie. mining—but there are other more environmental-friendly alternatives like [Proof-of-stake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With fiat money, the security cost relates to: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Defense (ie. maintaining an army that protects your economy from external threats as well as the militar and  political cost to keep a &quot;healthy&quot; international trade balance and avoid an international crisis that would plunge the currency).&#xD;&#xA; - The coercive power required to keep a stable institutional system (without which central banks wouldn't work)&#xD;&#xA; - Security costs required to protect bank vaults and the data centers that handle&#xD;&#xA;  electronic transactions and keep customer account records.&#xD;&#xA; - The cost of transporting cash, banknotes, etc., securely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd love to put some numbers to all of this, but that would probably take a lot of time. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7143" RevisionGUID="58b8e134-35d2-4814-8b4e-5b2039db5b55" CreationDate="2019-03-01T02:24:56.077" UserId="6419" Text="This is my first question on this site and I think it has to do with this. I've seen a lot of stuff saying like researchers predict we'll run low on fossil fuels in 2050 and that like pollution will be like a big problem. Does this mean that like life will suck then and stuff like that? I'm sorry if its a bit vague." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7143" RevisionGUID="58b8e134-35d2-4814-8b4e-5b2039db5b55" CreationDate="2019-03-01T02:24:56.077" UserId="6419" Text="Things happening in 2050" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7143" RevisionGUID="58b8e134-35d2-4814-8b4e-5b2039db5b55" CreationDate="2019-03-01T02:24:56.077" UserId="6419" Text="|lifestyle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="12d00876-226f-4439-926b-d10a53420ed4" CreationDate="2019-03-01T03:14:23.687" UserId="4886" Text="Fossil fuels are a finite, non-renewable resource.  Finite, non-renewable resources eventually run out.  That is inevitable.  What happens in practice, though, is that as a non-renewable resource runs out, it becomes harder and harder (more and more expensive) to exploit.  That drives up costs.  As the cost rises, consumers look for (and move to) cheaper alternatives.  Eventually, the consumption rate ends up so low that all major commercial operations cease and the exploitation of the resource ends up an expensive, fringe activity that only hobbyists with deep pockets have anything to do with.  The rest of society has moved on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is happening with oil.  It's been happening for years.  Whilst it looked like we reached peak oil production in 2005, since the Americans started fracking the crap out of the planet — with associated environmental disasters — oil production has risen again.  So it seems like corporations and corrupt governments are still willing to poison the planet as long as the bribes and profits keep flowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord in 2017 is a clear indicator that the biggest polluter on the planet has no interest in changing its ways.  It is thus logical that environmental pollution will keep occurring at approximately the current rate, CO₂ levels will continue to rise, water tables will continue to be poisoned, and the current extinction event will continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Climate change deniers will continue to live in denial until something happens that personally affects them.  Only wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, plagues and the like are capable of opening their eyes.  By then it will be too late to avoid/undo the damage.  My own calculations show that it is already too late.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large parts of the planet are becoming *less* habitable by humans.  Some parts will become *uninhabitable*.  It's not all one-way, though.  Some parts of the planet will become *more* habitable.  The Sahara Desert seems to be greening, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is globally true as a rule, however, is that the rate of climate change is increasing, the frequency of extreme weather events is increasing, and biological diversity is decreasing.  None of that bodes well for a stable &quot;business as normal&quot; western lifestyle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you haven't noticed any of that happening where you live yet, the only questions to ask are a) how long until it does, and b) what are you going to do about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="04e81aff-72f0-4961-9d88-bb09d77ec5d4" CreationDate="2019-03-01T03:44:25.333" UserId="4886" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Fossil fuels are a finite, non-renewable resource.  Finite, non-renewable resources eventually run out.  That is inevitable.  What happens in practice, though, is that as a non-renewable resource runs out, it becomes harder and harder (more and more expensive) to exploit.  That drives up the cost of the resource for consumers.  As the cost rises, consumers look for (and move to) cheaper alternatives.  Eventually, the cost ends up so high, and the consumption rate so low, that all major commercial operations cease and the exploitation of the resource ends up an expensive, fringe activity that only hobbyists with deep pockets have anything to do with.  The rest of society has moved on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is happening with oil.  It's been happening for years.  Whilst it looked like we reached peak oil production in 2005, since the Americans started fracking the crap out of the planet — with associated environmental disasters — oil production has risen again.  So it seems like corporations and corrupt governments are still willing to poison the planet as long as the bribes and profits keep flowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord in 2017 is a clear indicator that the biggest polluter on the planet has no interest in changing its ways.  It is thus logical that environmental pollution will keep occurring at approximately the current rate, CO₂ levels will continue to rise, water tables will continue to be poisoned, and the current extinction event will continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Climate change deniers will continue to live in denial until something happens that personally affects them.  Only wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, plagues and the like are capable of opening their eyes.  By then it will be too late to avoid/undo the damage.  My own calculations show that it is already too late.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large parts of the planet are becoming *less* habitable by humans.  Some parts will become *uninhabitable* by humans.  It's not all one-way, though.  Some parts of the planet will become *more* habitable.  The Sahara Desert seems to be greening, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is globally true as a rule, however, is that the rate of climate change is increasing, the frequency of extreme weather events is increasing, and biological diversity is decreasing.  None of that bodes well for a stable &quot;business as normal&quot; western lifestyle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you haven't noticed any of that happening where you live yet, the only questions to ask are a) how long until it does, and b) what are you going to do about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="1ef5bc8f-3d61-4c44-99e3-c15a6b305d8e" CreationDate="2019-03-01T03:49:56.073" UserId="4886" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Fossil fuels are a finite, non-renewable resource.  Finite, non-renewable resources eventually run out.  That is inevitable.  What happens in practice, though, is that as a non-renewable resource runs out, it becomes harder and harder (more and more expensive) to exploit.  That drives up the cost of the resource for consumers.  As the cost rises, consumers look for (and move to) cheaper alternatives.  Eventually, the cost ends up so high, and the consumption rate so low, that all major commercial operations cease and the exploitation of the resource ends up an expensive, fringe activity that only hobbyists with deep pockets have anything to do with.  The rest of society has moved on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is happening with oil.  It's been happening for years.  Whilst it looked like we reached peak oil production in 2005, since the Americans started fracking the crap out of the planet — with associated environmental disasters — oil production has risen again.  So it seems like corporations and corrupt governments are still willing to poison the planet as long as the bribes and profits keep flowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord in 2017 is a clear indicator that the biggest polluter on the planet has no interest in changing its ways.  It is thus logical that environmental pollution will keep occurring at approximately the current rate, CO₂ levels will continue to rise, water tables will continue to be poisoned, and the current extinction event will continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Climate change deniers will continue to live in denial until something happens that personally affects them.  Only wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, plagues and the like are capable of opening their eyes.  By then it will be too late to avoid/undo the damage.  My own calculations show that it is already too late.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large parts of the planet are becoming *less* habitable by humans.  Some parts will become *uninhabitable* by humans.  It's not all one-way, though.  Some parts of the planet will become *more* habitable.  The Sahara Desert seems to be greening, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is globally true as a rule, however, is that the rate of climate change is increasing, the frequency of extreme weather events is increasing, and biological diversity is decreasing.  None of that bodes well for western &quot;business as normal&quot; civilisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you haven't noticed any of that happening where you live yet, the only questions to ask are a) how long until you do, and b) what are you going to do to prepare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="90287ba3-5a5d-4e58-8f0b-88e294110809" CreationDate="2019-03-01T03:56:05.263" UserId="4886" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Fossil fuels are a finite, non-renewable resource.  Finite, non-renewable resources eventually run out.  That is inevitable.  What happens in practice, though, is that as a non-renewable resource runs out, it becomes harder and harder (more and more expensive) to exploit.  That drives up the cost of the resource for consumers.  As the cost rises, consumers look for (and move to) cheaper alternatives.  Eventually, the cost ends up so high, and the consumption rate so low, that all major commercial operations cease and the exploitation of the resource ends up an expensive, fringe activity that only hobbyists with deep pockets have anything to do with.  The rest of society has moved on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is happening with oil.  It's been happening for years.  Whilst it looked like we reached peak oil production in 2005, since the Americans started fracking the crap out of the planet — with associated environmental disasters — oil production has risen again.  So it seems like corporations and corrupt governments are still willing to poison the planet as long as the bribes and profits keep flowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord in 2017 is a clear indicator that the biggest polluter on the planet has no interest in changing its ways.  It is thus logical that environmental pollution will keep occurring at approximately the current rate, CO₂ levels will continue to rise, energy flows will continue to increase, water tables will continue to be poisoned, and the current mass extinction event will continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Climate change deniers will continue to live in denial until something happens that personally affects them.  Only wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, plagues and the like are capable of opening their eyes.  By then it will be too late to avoid/undo the damage.  My own calculations show that it is already too late.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large parts of the planet are becoming *less* habitable by humans.  Some parts will become *uninhabitable* by humans.  It's not all one-way, though.  Some parts of the planet will become *more* habitable — the Sahara Desert seems to be greening, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is globally true as a rule, however, is that the rate of climate change is increasing, the frequency of extreme weather events is increasing, and biological diversity is decreasing.  None of that bodes well for western &quot;business as normal&quot; civilisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you haven't noticed any of that happening where you live yet, the only questions to ask are a) how long until you do, and b) what are you going to do to prepare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="99c6b6d1-2467-482a-9cae-7ea6501fb450" CreationDate="2019-03-01T04:02:10.537" UserId="4886" Comment="added 40 characters in body" Text="Fossil fuels are a finite, non-renewable resource.  Finite, non-renewable resources eventually run out.  That is inevitable.  What happens in practice, though, is that as a non-renewable resource runs out, it becomes harder and harder (more and more expensive) to exploit.  That drives up the cost of the resource for consumers.  As the cost rises, consumers look for (and move to) cheaper alternatives.  Eventually, the cost ends up so high, and the consumption rate so low, that all major commercial operations cease and the exploitation of the resource ends up an expensive, fringe activity that only hobbyists with deep pockets have anything to do with.  The rest of society has moved on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is happening with oil.  It's been happening for years.  Whilst it looked like we reached peak oil production in 2005, since the Americans started fracking the crap out of the planet — with associated environmental disasters — oil production has risen again.  So it seems like corporations and corrupt regimes are still willing to poison the planet as long as the bribes and profits keep flowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord in 2017 is a clear indicator that the biggest polluter on the planet has no interest in changing its ways.  It is thus logical that environmental pollution will keep occurring at approximately the current rate, CO₂ levels will continue to rise, energy flows will continue to increase, water tables will continue to be poisoned, and the current mass extinction event will continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Climate change deniers will continue to live in denial until something happens that personally affects them.  Only wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, plagues and the like are capable of opening their eyes.  By then it will be too late to avoid/undo the damage.  My own calculations show that it is already too late.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large parts of the planet are becoming *less* habitable by humans.  Some parts will become *uninhabitable* by humans.  It's not all one-way, though.  Some parts of the planet will become *more* habitable — the Sahara Desert seems to be greening, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is globally true as a rule, however, is that the rate of climate change is increasing, the frequency of extreme weather events is increasing, and biological diversity is decreasing.  None of that bodes well for western &quot;business as normal&quot; civilisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you haven't noticed change where you live yet, the only questions to ask are a) how long until you do, and b) what are you going to do to prepare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="4bbc6d74-c4ff-430d-82d7-2cf69903ecb1" CreationDate="2019-03-01T04:17:02.123" UserId="4886" Comment="added 449 characters in body" Text="Fossil fuels are a finite, non-renewable resource.  Finite, non-renewable resources eventually run out.  That is inevitable.  What happens in practice, though, is that as a non-renewable resource runs out, it becomes harder and harder (more and more expensive) to exploit.  That drives up the cost of the resource for consumers.  As the cost rises, consumers look for (and move to) cheaper alternatives.  Eventually, the cost ends up so high, and the consumption rate so low, that all major commercial operations cease and the exploitation of the resource ends up an expensive, fringe activity that only hobbyists with deep pockets have anything to do with.  The rest of society has moved on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is happening with oil.  It's been happening for years.  Whilst it looked like we reached peak oil production in 2005, since the Americans started fracking the crap out of the planet — with associated environmental disasters — oil production has risen again.  So it seems like corporations and corrupt regimes are still willing to poison the planet as long as the bribes and profits keep flowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord in 2017 is a clear indicator that the biggest polluter on the planet has no interest in changing its ways.  It is thus logical that environmental pollution will keep occurring at approximately the current rate, CO₂ levels will continue to rise, energy flows will continue to increase, water tables will continue to be poisoned, and the current mass extinction event will continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These changes are happening slowly — or at least slowly as far as short-lived humans are concerned.  The slide is already well under way.  It started around the 1800s, rapidly accelerated in the 1900s, and now the damage is so bad we can measure it on a yearly basis.  If you think that &quot;everything will stay the same until 2050 and then it will get bad&quot; you've got a bit of self-education to do.  It's already 'bad'.  We're sliding towards 'worse'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Climate change deniers will continue to live in denial until something happens that personally affects them.  Only bushfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, plagues and the like are capable of opening their eyes.  By then it will be too late to avoid/undo the damage.  My own calculations show that it is already too late.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large parts of the planet are becoming *less* habitable by humans.  Some parts will become *uninhabitable* by humans.  The global human population will collapse.  It's not all bad/one-way, though.  Some parts of the planet will become *more* habitable — the Sahara Desert seems to be greening, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is globally true, however, is that the rate of climate change is increasing, the frequency of extreme weather events is increasing, and biological diversity is decreasing.  None of that bodes well for western &quot;business as normal&quot; civilisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you haven't noticed change where you live yet, the only questions to ask are a) how long until you do, and b) what are you going to do to prepare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="eb18ea7c-d869-4ec7-9d25-872cad0d0839" CreationDate="2019-03-01T04:25:21.187" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Fossil fuels are a finite, non-renewable resource.  Finite, non-renewable resources eventually run out.  That is inevitable.  What happens in practice, though, is that as a non-renewable resource runs out, it becomes harder and harder (more and more expensive) to exploit.  That drives up the cost of the resource for consumers.  As the cost rises, consumers look for (and move to) cheaper alternatives.  Eventually, the cost ends up so high, and the consumption rate so low, that all major commercial operations cease and the exploitation of the resource ends up an expensive, fringe activity that only hobbyists with deep pockets have anything to do with.  The rest of society has moved on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is happening with oil.  It's been happening for years.  Whilst it looked like we reached peak oil production in 2005, since the Americans started fracking the crap out of the planet — with associated environmental disasters — oil production has risen again.  So it seems like corporations and corrupt regimes are still willing to poison the planet as long as the bribes and profits keep flowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord in 2017 is a clear indicator that the biggest polluter on the planet has no interest in changing its ways.  It is thus logical that environmental pollution will keep occurring at approximately the current rate, CO₂ levels will continue to rise, energy flows will continue to increase, water tables will continue to be poisoned, and the current mass extinction event will continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These changes are happening slowly — or at least slowly as far as short-lived humans are concerned.  The slide is already well under way.  It started around the 1800s, rapidly accelerated in the 1900s, and now the damage is so bad we can measure it on a yearly basis.  If you think that &quot;everything will stay the same until 2050 and then it will get bad&quot; you've got a bit of self-education to do.  It's already 'bad'.  We're sliding towards 'worse'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Climate change deniers will continue to live in denial until something happens that *personally* affects them.  Only bushfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, floods, droughts, plagues and the like are capable of opening their eyes.  By then it will be too late to avoid/undo the damage.  My own calculations show that it is already too late.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large parts of the planet are becoming *less* habitable by humans.  Some parts will become *uninhabitable* by humans.  The global human population will collapse.  It's not all bad/one-way, though.  Some parts of the planet will become *more* habitable — the Sahara Desert seems to be greening, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is globally true, however, is that the rate of climate change is increasing, the frequency of extreme weather events is increasing, and biological diversity is decreasing.  None of that bodes well for western &quot;business as normal&quot; civilisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you haven't noticed change where you live yet, the only questions to ask are a) how long until you do, and b) what are you going to do to prepare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7145" RevisionGUID="49234e7e-5f0d-4038-a0f7-ffc5a75e91a1" CreationDate="2019-03-01T10:39:41.437" UserId="6393" Text="About pollution: there are two kinds of pollutants: local (carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter) and global (carbon dioxide, ozone-depleting substances).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ozone depletion is a problem that has been successfully solved, thanks to the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol&quot;&gt;Montreal protocol&lt;/a&gt;. Thus, ozone layer will be even better in 2050 than it is today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The maximum amount of increase in carbon dioxide is dictated by our ability to find new fossil fuel reserves, as old ones are quickly depleting. It could be anything, really, causing warming from 2 degrees Celsius to even 5 degrees Celsius. I can say the recent IPCC target of 1.5 degrees Celsius probably won't be achieved, as we're already at 1.0 degrees Celsius and there's only 0.5 degrees Celsius left. Fortunately, carbon dioxide is not directly harmful to human health in the levels it can achieve in 2050, so the main damages will be in the form of sea level rise, global warming and extreme weather events, which are admittedly caused by carbon dioxide, but indirectly, not directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leaves local pollutants. They will NOT be a problem. The problem of gasoline pollutants was 99% solved through the introduction of the catalytic converter. Diesel was a problem until diesel particulate filter (DPF) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) utilizing urea were taken into use, and until WLTP test cycle made emission cheating in the style of Volkswagen impossible. Big power plants have been fitted with local pollutant controlling devices, as well. Air in 2050 will be due to improved technology much cleaner than air in 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, does the pollution increase? It will, if you consider carbon dioxide as a pollutant. As a forest owner who lives in very cold climate, I consider carbon dioxide an airborne fertilizer, although I understand the other viewpoints as well: some areas, unfortunately, become uninhabitable due to global warming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fossil fuels may or may not &quot;run out&quot; (if you mean by &quot;running out&quot; depleting so much that prices will skyrocket). The big question is whether fossil fuel use will be limited. If it will be limited, there will be a large carbon tax, making the price of fossil fuels extremely high for the user, yet extremely low for the producer. Stock investors should take a note of this: it may not make sense to invest in fossil fuel mining companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If fossil fuel use will not be limited, the price of fossil fuels will probably increase due to limited reserves. It will not be a total catastrophe, as new reserves will be found (apart from a climate catastrophe, obviously).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people see benefits, some people suffer. As somebody who lives in very cold climate, owns boreal forest in an even colder climate, and works as a software developer in weather service business, I will probably be in the list of people who see benefits. The climate where I live will become less extreme, my forest will see increased growth rates, and my employer will see increased business due to extreme weather events caused by climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the other path (limiting emissions) will be taken, I am prepared for that as well: I own 28000 kWh / year of clean carbon-free electricity production, 25.6 hectares of carbon-sequestering and bioenergy-producing forest, have a relatively efficient hybrid electric vehicle and the possibility to switch to an electric car because I have an electric car charging station. I also have significant investments in wind turbine manufacturers, solar cell and inverter manufacturers and hydrogen electrolyser manufacturers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will you be in the list of people who suffer or see benefits? It's your choice: you can choose where you live, where you work, what kind of house you have, what stocks you own, whether you choose to invest in forest, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7144" RevisionGUID="81ff6fea-94d2-4a76-952d-f02fba8f0d21" CreationDate="2019-03-01T11:09:44.297" UserId="4886" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Fossil fuels are a finite, non-renewable resource.  Finite, non-renewable resources eventually run out.  That is inevitable.  What happens in practice, though, is that as a non-renewable resource runs out, it becomes harder and harder (more and more expensive) to exploit.  That drives up the cost of the resource for consumers.  As the cost rises, consumers look for (and move to) cheaper alternatives.  Eventually, the cost ends up so high, and the consumption rate so low, that all major commercial operations cease and the exploitation of the resource ends up an expensive, fringe activity that only hobbyists with deep pockets have anything to do with.  The rest of society has moved on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is happening with oil.  It's been happening for years.  Whilst it looked like we reached peak oil production in 2005, since the Americans started fracking the crap out of the planet — with associated environmental disasters — oil production has risen again.  So it seems like corporations and corrupt regimes are still willing to poison the planet as long as the bribes and profits keep flowing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord in 2017 is a clear indicator that the biggest polluter on the planet has no interest in changing its ways.  It is thus logical that environmental pollution will keep occurring at approximately the current rate, CO₂ levels will continue to rise, energy flows will continue to increase, water tables will continue to be poisoned, and the current mass extinction event will continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These changes are happening slowly — or at least slowly as far as short-lived humans are concerned.  The slide is already well under way.  It started around the 1800s, rapidly accelerated in the 1900s, and now the rate of damage is so bad we can measure it on a yearly basis.  If you think that &quot;everything will stay the same until 2050 and then it will get bad&quot; you've got a bit of self-education to do.  It's already 'bad'.  We're sliding towards 'worse'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Climate change deniers will continue to live in denial until something happens that *personally* affects them.  Only bushfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, floods, droughts, plagues and the like are capable of opening their eyes.  By then it will be too late to avoid/undo the damage.  My own calculations show that it is already too late.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large parts of the planet are becoming *less* habitable by humans.  Some parts will become *uninhabitable* by humans.  The global human population will collapse.  It's not all bad/one-way, though.  Some parts of the planet will become *more* habitable — the Sahara Desert seems to be greening, for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is globally true, however, is that the rate of climate change is increasing, the frequency of extreme weather events is increasing, and biological diversity is decreasing.  None of that bodes well for western &quot;business as normal&quot; civilisation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you haven't noticed change where you live yet, the only questions to ask are a) how long until you do, and b) what are you going to do to prepare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7143" RevisionGUID="1a159595-eec9-4ca5-bd68-05881a4e11a3" CreationDate="2019-03-01T18:07:12.830" UserId="1053" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body; edited title" Text="I've seen a lot of stuff saying researchers predict we'll run low on fossil fuels in 2050 and that pollution will be a big problem then. Does this mean that life will suck then? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would things be like if we had almost no fossil fuels, in terms of day to day life?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18812" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7143" RevisionGUID="1a159595-eec9-4ca5-bd68-05881a4e11a3" CreationDate="2019-03-01T18:07:12.830" UserId="1053" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body; edited title" Text="What will life be like in 2050?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7146" RevisionGUID="31e0396d-994e-4c26-b5a4-996c2377c714" CreationDate="2019-03-02T22:29:56.673" UserId="2183" Text="It's great that you want to reduce waste &amp; build soil health via composting! As long as the expired goods follow the normal home composting guidelines you should be more than fine. Here're some useful guideline links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From the [Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From the [Sustainable Baby Steps][2] blog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of caveats, based on your specific question...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) You mention expired cans. If it's just a that the Use By date is past it is likely still safe to eat. Check out this [Today Show report][3] from 2018 to learn more. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they're truly too far gone to eat &amp; otherwise suitable for composting (see 2) just be sure they aren't bulging or otherwise showing signs of infection. Even the hottest pile will have a hard time killing botulism (and home piles never get as hot as industrial ones), and it'd be dangerous to spread foodborne illness germs around your yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) You mention soups &amp; turkey gravy. Both may have meat in them which though technically compostable requires very specific conditions to do so safely &amp; sanitarily, especially hard to do at home. Best to toss those if they're truly not edible. If they're not infected I'd do the more sustainable thing, which would be to open &amp; bin the contents, then rinse &amp; recycle the cans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epa.gov/recycle/composting-home&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.sustainablebabysteps.com/home-composting.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.today.com/food/when-do-canned-foods-really-expire-t119977" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7146" RevisionGUID="25ff2614-5699-4519-80f0-5a2fda8dab0c" CreationDate="2019-03-02T23:17:03.413" UserId="2183" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="It's great that you want to reduce waste &amp; build soil health via composting! As long as the expired goods follow the normal home composting guidelines you should be more than fine. Here're some useful guideline links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From the resource site [Eartheasy][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From the [Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From the [Sustainable Baby Steps][3] blog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of caveats, based on your specific question...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) You mention expired cans. If it's just that the Use By date is past it is likely still safe to eat. Check out this [Today Show report][4] from 2018 to learn more about how those dates work &amp; what they mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) You mention soups &amp; turkey gravy. Both may have meat in them which though technically compostable requires very specific conditions to do so safely &amp; sanitarily, especially hard to do at home. Best to toss those if they're truly not edible. If they're not infected I'd do the more sustainable thing, which would be to open &amp; bin the contents, then rinse &amp; recycle the cans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) If they're truly too far gone to eat &amp; otherwise suitable for composting just be sure they aren't bulging or otherwise showing signs of infection. Even the hottest pile will have a hard time killing botulism (and home piles never get as hot as industrial ones), and it'd be dangerous to spread foodborne illness germs around your yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://learn.eartheasy.com/guides/composting/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epa.gov/recycle/composting-home&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sustainablebabysteps.com/home-composting.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.today.com/food/when-do-canned-foods-really-expire-t119977" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7147" RevisionGUID="754a32a7-3450-46ba-b538-4a97237cc311" CreationDate="2019-03-02T23:44:02.687" UserId="2183" Text="We've been using CFL bulbs for more than 15 years &amp; LEDs for about 5, and have so far had great results with most. The few we've had difficulty with early demise were either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- cheapies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in challenging conditions (ie enclosed fixtures, dimming without changing to appropriate for LED dimmer switches), or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- bought from retailers where items are more likely to get banged around (ie grocery or big box stores) &amp; thus damaged in hard-to-detect ways that may decrease lifespan. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I second the first Answer about reliable manufacturers/brands &amp; choosing better fixtures and hardware. But, I further suggest that where you buy the bulbs can be an important factor, too. And, that learning a bit more about light bulbs &amp; lighting can help you get a better fit &amp; longer life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've gotten much better reliability by finding a specialty retailer because they do a great job helping you pick the right bulb AND in packing &amp; shipping. We currently buy from [Bulbs.com][1] but there are others as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mention the lack of &quot;warmth&quot; in your bulbs, which is a factor of [light temp/color][2]. Initially, we weren't always satisfied with light quality/color but since switching to a purchase source with [lots of educational materials][3] we've been able to get exactly the effects we want for each light. This may take some research and some trial &amp; error but since you're not getting the result you want now a bit of investment is worth it, IMHO.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bulbs.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bulbs.com/learning/lightingfacts.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.bulbs.com/learning/default.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18820" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7134" RevisionGUID="33b48add-55cc-4582-ac06-92a41c023694" CreationDate="2019-03-03T00:00:51.320" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1101995816397488129" />
  <row Id="18821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7148" RevisionGUID="c6124e68-8071-4bd5-baab-14bf149b604b" CreationDate="2019-03-03T03:56:49.590" UserId="2183" Text="That's a great question! The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says the main reason to clean is [eliminating mold, critters &amp; other toxins][1], and since your gunk is dark colored it could well have mold spores so I'd vote yes. (They include [lots of advice on finding, hiring &amp; checking contractors' work][2], too, so it's useful as well as authoritative!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to efficiency, cleaning is just the first step. Unless there's enough gunk to partly block flow the increase after cleaning will be tough to discern. There may actually be a *reduction* if the gunk was helping seal gaps &amp; removing it lets the gaps reopen. However, dirty, gunky, possibly moldy residue increases dirt &amp; decreases air quality, so I'd clean for sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bigger issue regarding efficiency is leakage. According to the [Energy Star program's reasearch][3], in typical homes about 20% of conditioned air is lost through poorly constructed ducts, so fixing that can go a long way to improving efficiency. Their [Duct Sealing brochure][4] gives a few more details &amp; has some helpful diagrams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Re your estimate, figuring out which ducts have problems &amp; fixing them is time consuming &amp; often entails some repair/replacement work in very small spaces and/or opening up walls. So, it's not that cheap. Quotes in Sring 2018 in our deep-south, 2nd tier city for cleaning, reconnecting, resealing, replacing a section with sheet metal (much better airflow &amp; easier to clean mold out of- especially important here in the humid South- but more expensive than floppy tubes), and insulating the whole shebang in our single-story, 1600 sf home came to about $1300 for labor &amp; parts and was expected to take 2 guys 1.5 - 2 days to complete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/should-you-have-air-ducts-your-home-cleaned&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/should-you-have-air-ducts-your-home-cleaned#choosing&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.energystar.gov/products/energy_star_home_tips&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/DuctSealingBrochure04.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7146" RevisionGUID="38238a0e-5ff4-43ad-9c88-e3b62c3ce982" CreationDate="2019-03-03T11:51:39.693" UserId="2183" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="It's great that you want to reduce waste &amp; build soil health via composting! As long as the expired goods follow the normal home composting guidelines you should be more than fine. Here're some useful guideline links:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From the resource site [Eartheasy][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From the [Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- From the [Sustainable Baby Steps][3] blog&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of caveats, based on your specific question...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) You mention expired cans. If it's just that the Use By date is past it is likely still safe to eat. Check out this [Today Show report][4] from 2018 to learn more about how those dates work &amp; what they mean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) You mention soups &amp; turkey gravy. Both may have meat in them which though technically compostable requires very specific conditions to do so safely &amp; sanitarily, especially hard to do at home. Best to toss those if they're truly not edible. If they're not infected I'd do the more sustainable thing, which would be to open &amp; bin the contents, then rinse &amp; recycle the cans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) If your canned food is truly too far gone to eat &amp; otherwise suitable for composting just be sure they aren't bulging or otherwise showing signs of infection. Even the hottest pile will have a hard time killing botulism (and home piles never get as hot as industrial ones), and it'd be dangerous to spread foodborne illness germs around your yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://learn.eartheasy.com/guides/composting/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epa.gov/recycle/composting-home&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sustainablebabysteps.com/home-composting.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.today.com/food/when-do-canned-foods-really-expire-t119977" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4422" RevisionGUID="18bbdd0c-9f0a-4e5c-b8b2-a0869d60de5b" CreationDate="2019-03-03T11:55:31.380" UserId="2183" Comment="edited body" Text="You're smart to figure out a way that works for you to store &amp; access your used bags. Without that they're not nearly as re-usable!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We use these strategies to cut through the clutter &amp; make our bags more manageable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bring as few home as possible** We keep reusable shopping &amp; produce bags in a front closet so it's easy to grab on the way to the store. We keep 2-3 bags in each car for errands on the way home. Foldable or net bags can even fit in a tote bag, backpack or briefcase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Store where you use them** An example of this is a bunch of bags used as trash can liners stored under the in-use bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Group like with like** For example, fold &amp; stack paper grocery bags &amp; slide the stack inside one of the paper bags. When the &quot;holder&quot; looks like what's inside it's easier to know where to go to get what you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Group by function** We bring all our food bags to one drawer, rolled &amp; stored in emptied boxes of that type (marked for re-use) or in marked tubes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bundle the bulk** When any type of bag overflows its storage we put the overflow into a like bag &amp; store in a holding area (top of a closet near our refuse station). When the current store is used up we bring out the bundle &amp; put those bags in current use areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Share the wealth!** If we have a lot we'll likely take a long time to use we find someone who needs a whole bunch &amp; pass them on. Good candidates for that are farmers (need lots of produce bags &amp; other small bags like newspaper bags); Small businesses (need shopping bags); School &amp; volunteer groups (lots of different needs- check with your faves!). Local **[Freecycle][1]** and **[ReuseIt Groups][2]** are easy ways to find a taker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This **[*&quot;The Yummy Life&quot;* blog post][3]** shows several of these in action. I loved her cardboard tube grouping idea &amp; we use it for our food bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.freecycle.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.facebook.com/ReUseIt.Network&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.theyummylife.com/wash_dry_and_store_used_plastic_bags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7137" RevisionGUID="72daa82c-e49d-4cfa-8fb7-23f1dbd7e995" CreationDate="2019-03-04T17:30:17.907" UserId="6393" Comment="Edit: revised opinion" Text="&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; I recently revised my opinion of V2G implemented with Panasonic 18650 batteries, as used in Tesla cars. It may be possible to achieve good enough lifetime even in solar daily cycling applications. For details, see: http://blog.evandmore.com/lets-talk-about-the-panasonic-ncr18650b/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of particular importance is this figure: 28 000 cycles from 10% to 90%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use only 80% of the battery capacity by using a slightly larger than needed battery, you can theoretically achieve over 75 years of lifetime. Theoretically, as the calendar life may be more limiting than the cycle life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New cost calculation: 100 USD / kWh, of which you can use 80%, giving 125 USD / usable kWh. If 50% of the days are sunny, you achieve about 180 cycles per year, or 1800 cycles in 10 years (best to limit the considered period to 10 years, as we don't know the calendar life of these batteries, and money has a time value). It's 0.07 USD / kWh then. You need to add 1 USD / watt of solar, with 16% capacity factor, meaning 1 watt produces about 1.4 kWh per year, or 14 kWh per 10 years. So, about 0.07 USD / kWh for electricity production and the same for storage. 0.14 USD / kWh is more than 2x as expensive as the electricity where I live, but the cost is coming down all the time. Perhaps, some day, we will see V2G programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the old answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Don't&lt;/b&gt; consider such stupid ideas! Hype is hype.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla uses a different battery chemistry (NMC, nickel manganese cobalt) for PowerWall products that are intended for grid energy storage. For the vehicle use, Tesla uses NCA (nickel cobalt alunimum), which is cheaper but not durable enough for daily cycling. I guess they have a valid reason for the different chemistries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And before somebody claims driving is daily cycling, it isn't, because Tesla batteries are so large that driving the car uses an infinitesimal amount of its capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if a NCA battery is already at its end of useful lifetime (like holding only 50% of the capacity), you could use it for grid energy storage for a while until it is finally scrapped and the materials are reused. So, as reuse grid energy storage is a good application, but these NCA batteries degrade very quickly when used for grid energy storage. So anybody planning to reuse batteries needs to have a plan of how to safely scrap them, and needs to be aware of their limited lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess the reason why such programs in general don't exist is that electric vehicle users are well aware of the properties of their expensive toys. Specifically, they are aware of the limited lifetime of batteries when rapidly cycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one form of cycling that is beneficial and helps stabilize the grid: charge when electricity is cheap, drive on charged electricity when electricity is expensive. Of course, this works only if the battery is large like on the most expensive Tesla cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In no circumstance, would I discharge the battery while supplying power to the grid. I could consider supplying power to my own house in an emergency, but not to the grid (unless I get paid really large amounts of $$$).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is almost always cheaper to use electricity from the grid than to discharge your EV battery, reducing the useful lifetime of the very expensive battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cycle durability of Li-Ion is 400-1200: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery ...and this means full discharge, then full charge, then repeat&#xD;&#xA;* It is well known in the automotive circles that shallow cycling allows a battery to last for a very long amount of time. For example, Toyota hybrid batteries that use only ~20% of the battery capacity can do so for 100 000 cycles. Example source: http://www.bitsonchips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ref33.pdf quoted: &quot;in shallow state of charge (SOC) swing applications (such as hybrid electric vehicle and certain power&#xD;&#xA;quality applications) the cycle life can be many hundreds of thousands of cycles&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* Tesla batteries when used for driving last the lifetime of the car: https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/tesla-battery-degradation/ ...and note this means for driving, not for 100% cycling every day. It is well-known that Teslas have a range of 500 km or so, and typically people drive 50 km or so per day, then charge, using only 10% of the capacity.&#xD;&#xA;* Tesla PowerWall uses NMC, not NCA: https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/something-fishy-about-the-batteries-in-powerwall.75391/ -- &quot;NMC has much better durability (5000+ full cycles vs 500-1000 full cycles), whereas NCA has much better energy density (280 Wh/kg vs something like 150 Wh/kg).&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* Also: https://medium.com/the-unfortunate-tetrahedron/the-cathodes-of-the-powerwall-6aa52df8cd66 -- &quot;It is speculated that the NCA chemistry is the cell in the Model S. To the best of my knowledge Tesla has not used the NMC chemistry in any car to date.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;* Cost analysis of NCA: $100 / kWh probably will be achieved on a pack level after few years, 500-1000 full cycles, $0.1 - $0.2 / kWh. I guess in some areas where the authorities are insane (preventing the construction of thermal power, necessitating massive building of intermittent renewables), the electricity price can be over $0.2 / kWh or even higher with taxes. I am fortunate to live in an area with 0.06 EUR / kWh electricity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7149" RevisionGUID="df567088-00e2-4c09-86b3-03f965d03b48" CreationDate="2019-03-05T08:56:16.590" UserId="1445" Text="I'm planning an extension to my home and one of the many decisions is whether to go for a standard concrete slab over hardcore, or limecrete over blown glass with concrete strip foundations (e.g. [option 2 here](https://www.lime.org.uk/applications/sylfaen-insulated-foundation-system.html)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Money saved here can go on extra insulation/solar panels/whatever elsewhere, so I want a rough order of magnitude idea of the carbon savings vs the cost.  But I can't find any good data on the embodied carbon of limecrete vs. concrete.  There are lots of sites with *opinion* (usually people selling one or other product), but no numbers anywhere.  Ideally I would like two comparable numbers for carbon emissions (or embodied energy) per m3 for concrete and limecrete.  Has anyone done this comparison?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7149" RevisionGUID="df567088-00e2-4c09-86b3-03f965d03b48" CreationDate="2019-03-05T08:56:16.590" UserId="1445" Text="Embodied carbon in limecrete vs concrete" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7149" RevisionGUID="df567088-00e2-4c09-86b3-03f965d03b48" CreationDate="2019-03-05T08:56:16.590" UserId="1445" Text="|carbon-footprint|building-materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18830" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7076" RevisionGUID="a4c45277-d0fa-40c1-8aec-a418232315e9" CreationDate="2019-03-05T16:03:20.660" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7152" RevisionGUID="1a2e2d4e-42af-4c57-867a-75d8545454e4" CreationDate="2019-03-06T02:02:15.063" UserId="6293" Text="Well, suppose that everyone went to lighter weight building materials or lighter weight construction methods. That would reduce carbon dioxide in the world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact most high-rise buildings are now dead-weight concrete instead of the previous lightweight steel frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I build a house with 304L joist holders set directly in concrete footings. Then the joist-holder might as well also hold the stud such that both the stud and the floor-joist are bolted to the joist-holder. If the ceiling-joist or roof truss is to be bolted then, strangely enough, two studs are needed at each stud location so that the ceiling-joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of the other stud. Finish the frame section with a bolted blocking, using brackets, near the ceiling-joist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18834" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7152" RevisionGUID="c0b33da5-39a0-4b9c-8b44-f6b14e1c7c06" CreationDate="2019-03-06T02:13:28.273" UserId="6293" Comment="added 388 characters in body" Text="Well, suppose that everyone went to lighter weight building materials or lighter weight construction methods. That would reduce carbon dioxide in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So consider using lighter weight construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact most high-rise buildings are now dead-weight concrete instead of the previous lightweight steel frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I build a house with 304L joist holders set directly in concrete footings. Then the joist-holder might as well also hold the stud such that both the stud and the floor-joist are bolted to the joist-holder. If the ceiling-joist or roof truss is to be bolted then, strangely enough, two studs are needed at each stud location so that the ceiling-joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of the other stud. Finish the frame section with a bolted blocking, using brackets, near the ceiling-joist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, a &quot;joist holder&quot; is a 2&quot; square or round 304L tube with a 0.120&quot; wall thickness. But a 304L flat plate is welded to the bottom of the tube and a 304L L-angle is welded to the top of the tube. A floor-joist sits on the L-angle and bolts to the side of it. For taller tubes out of the concrete footings just increase tube diameter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7152" RevisionGUID="52aacff0-cc4c-48b9-9654-cfa9821040c8" CreationDate="2019-03-06T02:34:04.933" UserId="6293" Comment="added 550 characters in body" Text="Well, suppose that everyone went to lighter weight building materials or lighter weight construction methods. That would reduce carbon dioxide in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So consider using lighter weight construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact most high-rise buildings are now dead-weight concrete instead of the previous lightweight steel frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I build a house with 304L joist holders set directly in concrete footings. Then the joist-holder might as well also hold the stud such that both the stud and the floor-joist are bolted to the joist-holder. If the ceiling-joist or roof truss is to be bolted then, strangely enough, two studs are needed at each stud location so that the ceiling-joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of the other stud. Finish the frame section with a bolted blocking, using brackets, near the ceiling-joist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, a &quot;joist holder&quot; is a 2&quot; square or round 304L tube with a 0.120&quot; wall thickness. But a 304L flat plate is welded to the bottom of the tube and a 304L L-angle is welded to the top of the tube. A floor-joist sits on the L-angle and bolts to the side of it. For taller tubes out of the concrete footings just increase tube diameter. Make 304L joist-holders with a truck-load of wholesale 304L, a metal-cutting bandsaw, and an arc-welder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, use a 304L joist-holder as a 4 1/2&quot; diameter tube with a 0.120&quot; wall thickness and then set every 7' to 8' apart. Run double joist-size lumber between the 304L tubes to make a beam for floor-joists to set cross-ways on. Bolt the floor-joists to the beam ? That requires two 90-degree brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now any bolt, nut, or washer that touches a 304L joist-holder should be 18-8. Otherwise lumber can be bolted together with galvanized bolts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7152" RevisionGUID="57a4daea-c34e-42b7-b099-e4c0faae6200" CreationDate="2019-03-06T02:45:18.523" UserId="6293" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Well, suppose that everyone went to lighter weight building materials or lighter weight construction methods. That would reduce carbon dioxide in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So consider using lighter weight construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact most high-rise buildings are now dead-weight concrete instead of the previous lightweight steel frame.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I build a house with 304L joist holders set directly in concrete footings. Then the joist-holder might as well also hold the stud such that both the stud and the floor-joist-end are bolted to the joist-holder. If the ceiling-joist or roof truss is to be bolted then, strangely enough, two studs are needed at each stud location so that the ceiling-joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of the other stud. Finish the frame section with a bolted blocking, using brackets, near the ceiling-joist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, a &quot;joist holder&quot; is a 2&quot; square or round 304L tube with a 0.120&quot; wall thickness. But a 304L flat plate is welded to the bottom of the tube and a 304L L-angle is welded to the top of the tube. A floor-joist-end sits on the L-angle and bolts to the side of it. For taller tubes out of the concrete footings just increase tube diameter. Make 304L joist-holders with a truck-load of wholesale 304L, a metal-cutting bandsaw, and an arc-welder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, use a 304L joist-holder as a 4 1/2&quot; diameter tube with a 0.120&quot; wall thickness and then set every 7' to 8' apart. Run double joist-size lumber between the 304L tubes to make a beam for floor-joists to set cross-ways on. Bolt the floor-joists to the beam ? That requires two 90-degree brackets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now any bolt, nut, or washer that touches a 304L joist-holder should be 18-8. Otherwise lumber can be bolted together with galvanized bolts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7154" RevisionGUID="7d70b83d-c39a-47ff-ac05-2ff3c971e6e6" CreationDate="2019-03-06T13:46:46.710" UserId="6429" Text="Actually the salad spinner is not a bad idea at all. It will require washing up after - detergent/water/time costs. Whereas the cloth /tea towel is pretty simple. On the rare occasion I fry anything that needs draining I just let them drain on a warm or even hot plate. (heat will keep the oil flowing &amp; food warm, cold will congeal oil &amp; cool food ;-[)  I degrease pans etc.  with old teabags or newspaper before washing. It really helps cut down detergent &amp; washing time. We Brits always have teabags about. BTW I was surprised a few years back to discover that &quot;paper&quot; teabags weren't recyclable as they contain plastic. Now have to tear them open to compost the tea. Trying to use loose tea now.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18840" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7154" RevisionGUID="d8b16531-b880-4361-bd50-ff602ffeb2b9" CreationDate="2019-03-06T15:35:37.640" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Removed irrelevant text" Text="Actually the salad spinner is not a bad idea at all. It will require washing up after - detergent/water/time costs. Whereas the cloth /tea towel is pretty simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the rare occasion I fry anything that needs draining I just let it drain on a warm or even hot plate. The heat will keep the oil flowing and the food warm, cold will congeal oil and cool the food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I degrease pans etc. with old teabags or newspaper before washing. It really helps cut down detergent and washing time. We Brits always have teabags about. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18843" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="358" RevisionGUID="66811c37-5736-45e3-b279-413fe0071e9f" CreationDate="2019-03-06T17:48:42.047" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5719" RevisionGUID="093fbfdf-3584-4a57-b4fc-63a9f62a2471" CreationDate="2019-03-06T21:29:44.270" UserId="3989" Comment="deleted 101 characters in body" Text="It is true that some endophytic fungi have antimicrobial effects on their microscopic counterparts be it of fungal or bacterial origin. &#xA;&#xA;[This paper][1] whose study employed the use of fungal extracts from *[Indigofera suffruticosa][2]* points out that *Nigrospora sphaerica* and *Pestalotiopsis maculans* inocula performed well in a rice culture medium against gram positive and negative bacteria like of the species *Staphylococcus aureus*.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Antifungal activity by endophytic fungi  has also been observed in recent scientific studies. [One study][3] for instance, used fungal extracts (whose species were not specified in the abstract of the paywalled article) from *Pinus strobus* and exhibited antifungal biochemical characteristics against the **rust** and [Microbotryum violaceum][4] A.K.A anther smut fungus.&#xA;&#xA;Another study in a paper by Mousa et al (2015) used extracts from [finger millet][5] to perform bioassay experiments that showed antifungal activity against *Fusarium* fungal species (like *F. graminearum* and three others). The strain(s) of anti Fusarium fungi was predicted to be of the *Phoma genus*.&#xA;&#xA;Research on bioactive components from endophytic mycoflora from [*Sesbania grandiflora*][6] was conducted using bacterial and fungal indicator organisms. Of the isolated fungi in this study *acremonium* and *fusarium* species exhibited the most potency (Powthog et al, 2013).&#xA;&#xA;[This][7] study further suggests that *Schizophyllum commune* fungal species produces proteolytic enzymes in which inhibit growth of phytopathogens in *Piper hispidum.*&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;I have not come across information on the commercial availability of the endophytic fungi mentioned above. However, studies can be conducted on their viability with particular tree (like fruit trees since most fungi are host specific) species upon acquiring samples from the wild.&#xA;&#xA;**Edit:** I did not include antifungal endophytic fungi in the initial answer as I missed that [fundamental] part of the question. I hope this little edit answers the question and helps. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4423342/&#xA;  [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigofera_suffruticosa&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031942211002512&#xA;  [4]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbotryum_violaceum&#xA;  [5]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusine_coracana&#xA;  [6]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesbania_grandiflora&#xA;  [7]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4507527/#!po=51.2987" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18846" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7074" RevisionGUID="ebe84ebf-bb01-4077-a82c-dfdcc9f626e1" CreationDate="2019-03-08T19:02:30.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7156" RevisionGUID="b0bcf31f-a955-4151-ab28-c2a16dd65339" CreationDate="2019-03-08T21:11:13.177" UserId="2605" Text="Wildfire are getting more and more  common due to dryer and hotter summer seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in the impact of wildfires in terms of CO2 contribution in the atmosphere. I'd like to get a gross estimate, considering average-size trees and a relatively high density, like what you would observe in wild areas with relatively frequent rains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18848" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7156" RevisionGUID="b0bcf31f-a955-4151-ab28-c2a16dd65339" CreationDate="2019-03-08T21:11:13.177" UserId="2605" Text="How much CO2 is emitted after 1 hectare of woodland gets burnt in a wildfire?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18849" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7156" RevisionGUID="b0bcf31f-a955-4151-ab28-c2a16dd65339" CreationDate="2019-03-08T21:11:13.177" UserId="2605" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7157" RevisionGUID="368f93e5-4352-4ee2-82ea-b70ddcdd2f00" CreationDate="2019-03-09T08:06:19.663" UserId="4886" Text="Warm temperate moist forests store ~500 tC/ha (tons of carbon per hectare).  When that burns it gets converted to 1,835 tCO₂/ha.  So when a wildfire occurs 1,835 tons of CO₂ per hectare is returned to the atmosphere from whence it originally came." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7157" RevisionGUID="35da2ab7-893e-4283-8718-1f42843825d1" CreationDate="2019-03-09T08:12:25.890" UserId="4886" Comment="added 287 characters in body" Text="Warm temperate moist forests store ~500 tC/ha (tons of carbon per hectare).  When that burns it gets converted to 1,835 tCO₂/ha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **when a wildfire occurs 1,835 tons of CO₂ per hectare is returned to the atmosphere** from whence it originally came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone interested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate moist forests store/release 25% more.&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate dry forests store/release 44% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Tropical forests store/release 50% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Boreal forests store/release 80% less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting them to burn at all is another matter entirely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7157" RevisionGUID="e7218aef-2cb0-4aae-b813-7870a835e2e7" CreationDate="2019-03-09T08:27:01.077" UserId="4886" Comment="added 369 characters in body" Text="Warm temperate moist forests store ~500 tC/ha (tons of carbon per hectare).  When that burns it gets converted to 1,835 tCO₂/ha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **when a wildfire occurs 1,835 tons of CO₂ per hectare is returned to the atmosphere** from whence it originally came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone interested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate moist forests store/release 25% more.&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate dry forests store/release 44% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Tropical forests store/release 50% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Boreal forests store/release 80% less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting them to burn at all is another matter entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The above figures are just **averages** from the Australian National University and subject to large (huge) variation depending on the dominant species.  Eucalyptus regnans (&quot;mountain ash&quot;), for example, tops the studied list at 2,500 tC/ha (5x the example above).  Aussie bushfires and Californian wildfires — which are roughly equivalent — can be fierce beasts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7157" RevisionGUID="7c6aebfb-595c-4667-a564-2136c4f45c5e" CreationDate="2019-03-09T08:36:36.770" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="Warm temperate moist forests store ~500 tC/ha (tons of carbon per hectare).  When that burns it gets converted to 1,835 tCO₂/ha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **when a wildfire occurs 1,835 tons of CO₂ per hectare is returned to the atmosphere** from whence it originally came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone interested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate moist forests store/release 25% more.&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate dry forests store/release 44% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Tropical forests store/release 50% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Boreal forests store/release 80% less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...assuming you can get them to burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The above figures are **averages** from the Australian National University and subject to large (huge) variation depending on the dominant species.  Eucalyptus regnans (&quot;mountain ash&quot;), for example, tops the studied list at 2,500 tC/ha (5x the example above).  Aussie bushfires and Californian wildfires — which are roughly equivalent — can be fierce beasts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7157" RevisionGUID="3b52875e-e280-45e5-a97e-523b63c972b4" CreationDate="2019-03-09T08:41:50.840" UserId="4886" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Warm temperate moist forests store ~500 tC/ha (tons of carbon per hectare).  When that *fully* burns it gets converted to 1,835 tCO₂/ha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **when a wildfire occurs 1,835 tons of CO₂ per hectare is returned to the atmosphere** from whence it originally came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone interested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate moist forests store/release 25% more.&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate dry forests store/release 44% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Tropical forests store/release 50% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Boreal forests store/release 80% less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...assuming you can get them to burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The above figures are **averages** from the Australian National University and subject to large deviation depending on the dominant species.  Eucalyptus regnans (&quot;mountain ash&quot;), for example, tops the studied list at 2,500 tC/ha (5x the example above).  Aussie bushfires and Californian wildfires — which are roughly equivalent — can be fierce beasts as a result." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18855" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7157" RevisionGUID="2fd7c2d4-db3e-4232-b64f-b6c8759d9a81" CreationDate="2019-03-09T08:48:14.413" UserId="4886" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Warm temperate moist forests store ~500 tC/ha (tons of carbon per hectare).  When that *fully* burns it gets converted to 1,835 tCO₂/ha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **when a wildfire occurs 1,835 tons of CO₂ per hectare is returned to the atmosphere** from whence it originally came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone interested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate moist forests store/release 25% more.&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate dry forests store/release 44% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Tropical forests store/release 50% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Boreal forests store/release 80% less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...assuming you can get them to burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The above figures are **averages** from the Australian National University and subject to large deviation depending on the dominant species.  Pure *Eucalyptus regnans* (&quot;mountain ash&quot;), for example, tops the studied list at 2,500 tC/ha (5x the example above).  Aussie bushfires and Californian wildfires — which are roughly equivalent — can be fierce beasts as a result." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18856" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7156" RevisionGUID="136dd9da-a8f2-4cd7-aa71-9d247b0afceb" CreationDate="2019-03-09T09:00:34.227" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1104305967372603393" />
  <row Id="18859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7158" RevisionGUID="90a9061c-145f-4c54-9f25-c758b2af4a29" CreationDate="2019-03-09T20:34:50.363" UserId="1445" Text="A [paper](http://www.stastier.co.uk/nhl/testres/pdfs/Binders_Minerality_and_Free_Lime_Effect.pdf) on the St Astier website (not independent - they quarry and produce lime building products) gives the following figures in kg CO2/tonne for Natural Hydraulic Lime grade 5 vs. cement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;product  |  CO2 emitted during manufacture | CO2 reabsorbed in setting |  net&#xD;&#xA;---------+---------------------------------+---------------------------+-------&#xD;&#xA;NHL5     |  635                            | 220                       |  415&#xD;&#xA;cement   |  819                            | 0                         |  819&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, making some reasonable assumptions (similar embodied CO2 for the aggregates, [1:2 ratio for limecrete](https://www.mikewye.co.uk/product-category/lime-products/limecrete-floor-systems/) and [1:6 ratio for concrete](https://source4me.co.uk/calculate_concrete_mix.php), dry lime bulk density 0.7 kg/l, dry cement bulk density 1.2 kg/l) I get *roughly* &lt;b&gt;260 kg CO2/m3 for concrete and 230 kg CO2/m3 for limecrete&lt;/b&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am no building expert and I could easily be a factor of 2 out, but this does seem to bear out the verbal opinions I've read: yes, lime has lower CO2 emissions and re-absorbs some but it's weaker so you use more of it and in the end they are comparable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7159" RevisionGUID="37deaa44-269d-46e7-9eef-08860fc6fc30" CreationDate="2019-03-10T00:48:54.793" UserId="6439" Text="I think it's pure laziness. Before our city (Bloomington, MN) took over our trash collection we could recycle black plastic. I don't know what the previous (private) recycling company did with it but it was on their list of acceptable materials.&#xD;&#xA;When I called our city to ask why they didn't want black plastic, I was told it was because the machines couldn't read the symbol. That tells me the government is too lazy to hand sort and/or they are too overpaid to deal with such a mundane job. I  don't know why the trays need to be black anyway. They put the dyes in to make the food look more colorful-that is silly. Clear is just fine.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18861" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7157" RevisionGUID="d6555b0c-2a29-48c2-aceb-ac340bf76ec4" CreationDate="2019-03-10T06:29:27.697" UserId="4886" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="Warm temperate moist forests store ~500 tC/ha (tons of carbon per hectare).  When that *fully* burns it gets converted to ~1,835 tCO₂/ha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **when a wildfire occurs ~1,835 tons of CO₂ per hectare is returned to the atmosphere** from whence it originally came.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone interested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate moist forests store/release ~25% more.&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate dry forests store/release ~44% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Tropical forests store/release ~50% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Boreal forests store/release ~80% less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...assuming you can get them to burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The above figures are **averages** from an Australian National University paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ([Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world’s most carbon-dense forests][1]) and subject to large deviation depending on the dominant species.  Pure *Eucalyptus regnans* (&quot;mountain ash&quot;), for example, tops the studied list at ~2,500 tC/ha (5x the example above).  Aussie bushfires and Californian wildfires — which are roughly equivalent — can be fierce beasts as a result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/28/11635.full.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18862" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7157" RevisionGUID="f74cfbd2-fd32-4ec5-9db3-682321b419ac" CreationDate="2019-03-10T06:38:31.657" UserId="4886" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Warm temperate moist forests store ~500 tC/ha (tons of carbon per hectare).  When/if that *fully* burns it gets converted to ~1,835 tCO₂/ha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **a wildfire can return ~1,835 tons of CO₂ — back to the atmosphere from whence it originally came — for every hectare that is burnt**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone interested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate moist forests store/release ~25% more.&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate dry forests store/release ~44% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Tropical forests store/release ~50% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Boreal forests store/release ~80% less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...assuming you can get them to burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The above figures are **averages** from an Australian National University paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ([Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world’s most carbon-dense forests][1]) and subject to large deviation depending on the dominant species.  Pure *Eucalyptus regnans* (&quot;mountain ash&quot;), for example, tops the studied list at ~2,500 tC/ha (5x the example above).  Aussie bushfires and Californian wildfires — which are roughly equivalent — can often be fierce beasts as a result of the large amount of available fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/28/11635.full.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7157" RevisionGUID="90cf1153-7b2b-4939-99bb-dcc73dd547aa" CreationDate="2019-03-10T06:44:32.490" UserId="4886" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Warm temperate moist forests store ~500 tC/ha (tons of carbon per hectare).  When/if that *fully* burns it gets converted to ~1,835 tCO₂/ha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **a wildfire emits ~1,835 tons of CO₂** — returning it back to the atmosphere from whence it originally came — **for every hectare that is burnt**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone interested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate moist forests store/release ~25% more.&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate dry forests store/release ~44% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Tropical forests store/release ~50% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Boreal forests store/release ~80% less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...assuming you can get them to burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The above figures are **averages** from an Australian National University paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ([Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world’s most carbon-dense forests][1]) and subject to large deviation depending on the dominant species.  Pure *Eucalyptus regnans* (&quot;mountain ash&quot;), for example, tops the studied list at ~2,500 tC/ha (5x the example above).  Aussie bushfires and Californian wildfires — which are roughly equivalent — can often be fierce beasts as a result of the large amount of available fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/28/11635.full.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7157" RevisionGUID="a2f1aa6a-e191-4805-98c0-7a6e6e666bbe" CreationDate="2019-03-10T07:10:46.793" UserId="4886" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="Warm temperate moist forests store ~500 tC/ha (tons of carbon per hectare).  If that *fully* burns it gets converted to ~1,835 tCO₂/ha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **a wildfire can emit up to ~1,835 tons of CO₂** — returning it back to the atmosphere from whence it originally came — **for every hectare that is burnt**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone interested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate moist forests store/release ~25% more.&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate dry forests store/release ~44% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Tropical forests store/release ~50% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Boreal forests store/release ~80% less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...assuming you can get them to burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The above figures are **averages** from an Australian National University paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ([Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world’s most carbon-dense forests][1]) and subject to large deviation depending on the dominant species.  Pure *Eucalyptus regnans* (&quot;mountain ash&quot;), for example, tops the studied list at ~2,500 tC/ha (5x the example above).  Aussie bushfires and Californian wildfires — which are roughly equivalent — can often be fierce beasts as a result of the large amount of available fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/28/11635.full.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7157" RevisionGUID="6f715cb0-fa25-4211-a801-a0aac5938d5b" CreationDate="2019-03-10T07:23:25.353" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Warm temperate moist forests store ~500 tC/ha (tons of carbon per hectare).  If that *fully* burns it gets converted to ~1,835 tCO₂/ha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **a wildfire can emit up to ~1,835 tons of CO₂** — returning it back to the atmosphere from whence it originally came — **for every hectare that is burnt**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone interested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate moist forests store/release ~25% more.&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate dry forests store/release ~44% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Tropical forests store/release ~50% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Boreal forests store/release ~80% less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...assuming you can get them to burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The above figures are **averages** from an Australian National University paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ([Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world’s most carbon-dense forests][1]) and subject to large deviation depending on the dominant species.  *Eucalyptus regnans* (&quot;mountain ash&quot;) forests, for example, tops the studied list at ~1,900 tC/ha (3.8x the example above).  Aussie bushfires and Californian wildfires — which are roughly equivalent — can often be fierce beasts as a result of the large amount of available fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/28/11635.full.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7157" RevisionGUID="fadeddd5-8199-4e10-b399-8880641f0fa9" CreationDate="2019-03-10T07:36:46.620" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Warm temperate moist forests store ~500 tC/ha (tons of carbon per hectare).  If that *fully* burns it gets converted to ~1,835 tCO₂/ha.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **a wildfire can emit up to ~1,835 tons of CO₂** — returning it back to the atmosphere from whence it originally came — **for every hectare that is burnt**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anyone interested:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate moist forests store/release ~25% more.&#xD;&#xA; - Cool temperate dry forests store/release ~44% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Tropical forests store/release ~50% less.&#xD;&#xA; - Boreal forests store/release ~80% less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...assuming you can get them to burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The above figures are **averages** from an Australian National University paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ([Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world’s most carbon-dense forests][1]) and subject to large deviation depending on the dominant species.  *Eucalyptus regnans* (&quot;mountain ash&quot;) forests, for example, top the studied list at ~1,900 tC/ha (3.8x the example above).  Aussie bushfires and Californian wildfires — which are roughly equivalent — can often be fierce beasts as a result of the large amount of available fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/28/11635.full.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="a447e5a8-8a74-4c06-8486-efb4ab3a9068" CreationDate="2019-03-11T11:11:42.953" UserId="6393" Text="I disagree with the upvoted answer claiming that 80% less than 1835 tons of CO2 will be released by boreal forest fires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical rule of thumb in forestry is that one square meter of wood emits (roughly) one tonne of carbon dioxide. The unit of interest in forestry is the volume of wood in the forest. Thus, what you're essentially asking is: &lt;b&gt;how many square meters of wood does one hectare of forest have?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, of course, varies hugely. Forests in warm regions reach a higher density than boreal forests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you should take into account that lots of forests are managed for maximum productivity. This means the forest won't ever be let to reach its steady-state natural density, because then the growth slows down and the forest becomes uneconomical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll provide an answer for one country: Finland. According to a &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.luke.fi/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/finlands-forests-facts-2017-www.pdf&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;, Finland's forests have 2400 million square meters of wood per 22.8 million hectares. This means 105 square meters of wood per hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the forest fire hits an average forest in Finland, it will release 105 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare. Very young forests with practically no trees won't burn (0 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare), and old forests ready for renewal will release twice the average, i.e. 210 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18868" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="c6542079-7440-4140-b44a-3686439f15d0" CreationDate="2019-03-11T12:31:32.803" UserId="6393" Comment="change square into cubic" Text="I disagree with the upvoted answer claiming that 80% less than 1835 tons of CO2 will be released by boreal forest fires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical rule of thumb in forestry is that one cubic meter of wood emits (roughly) one tonne of carbon dioxide. The unit of interest in forestry is the volume of wood in the forest. Thus, what you're essentially asking is: &lt;b&gt;how many cubic meters of wood does one hectare of forest have?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, of course, varies hugely. Forests in warm regions reach a higher density than boreal forests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you should take into account that lots of forests are managed for maximum productivity. This means the forest won't ever be let to reach its steady-state natural density, because then the growth slows down and the forest becomes uneconomical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll provide an answer for one country: Finland. According to a &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.luke.fi/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/finlands-forests-facts-2017-www.pdf&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;, Finland's forests have 2400 million cubic meters of wood per 22.8 million hectares. This means 105 cubic meters of wood per hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the forest fire hits an average forest in Finland, it will release 105 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare. Very young forests with practically no trees won't burn (0 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare), and old forests ready for renewal will release twice the average, i.e. 210 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="61ca7d3f-6b96-4c33-8035-eaf38632043a" CreationDate="2019-03-11T15:39:27.150" UserId="6393" Comment="growing stock" Text="I disagree with the upvoted answer claiming that 80% less than 1835 tons of CO2 will be released by boreal forest fires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical rule of thumb in forestry is that one cubic meter of wood emits (roughly) one tonne of carbon dioxide. The unit of interest in forestry is the volume of wood in the forest. Thus, what you're essentially asking is: &lt;b&gt;how many cubic meters of wood does one hectare of forest have?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, of course, varies hugely. Forests in warm regions reach a higher density than boreal forests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you should take into account that lots of forests are managed for maximum productivity. This means the forest won't ever be let to reach its steady-state natural density, because then the growth slows down and the forest becomes uneconomical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll provide an answer for one country: Finland. According to a &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.luke.fi/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/finlands-forests-facts-2017-www.pdf&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;, Finland's forests have 2400 million cubic meters of wood per 22.8 million hectares. This means 105 cubic meters of wood per hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the forest fire hits an average forest in Finland, it will release 105 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare. Very young forests with practically no trees won't burn (0 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare), and old forests ready for renewal will release twice the average, i.e. 210 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; the source apparently considers only growing stock, i.e. wood that is above the ground and is usable for commercial purposes. There may be some other biomass as well that will burn. So, treat the 105 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare (average forest) or 210 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare (old forest) as a lower bound. I still believe the 367 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare from Tim's answer is a bit too high for boreal taiga forest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="1405cbc4-96b3-4123-8450-db8e98890806" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:12:25.740" UserId="6393" Text="There has been some confusion here related to measurement of amounts of wood. There are at least the following units of wood measurement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* loose cubic meter of wood&#xD;&#xA;* stack cubic meter of wood&#xD;&#xA;* solid cubic meter of wood&#xD;&#xA;* tonne of wood&#xD;&#xA;* tonne of carbon&#xD;&#xA;* tonne of carbon dioxide sequestered&#xD;&#xA;* megajoule of wood&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do these measurements mean and how they compare to each other?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18871" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="1405cbc4-96b3-4123-8450-db8e98890806" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:12:25.740" UserId="6393" Text="How is amount of wood measured?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18872" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7161" RevisionGUID="1405cbc4-96b3-4123-8450-db8e98890806" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:12:25.740" UserId="6393" Text="|firewood|forestry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7162" RevisionGUID="a8b93b42-fe64-48d6-a341-bb3d2cdc2006" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:12:25.740" UserId="6393" Text="Typically, where I live, forestry professionals use solid cubic meter of wood as the primary measurement. But, let's define all of the measurements. In this answer, I use the metric ton (1000 kg) as the definition of 1 tonne.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Loose cubic meter&lt;/b&gt; of wood is the amount of wood that will fill a container of 1 cubic meter, if the wood is thrown there in random orientations. Approximately 2.5 loose cubic meters is one solid cubic meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Stack cubic meter&lt;/b&gt; of wood is the amount of wood that will fill a container of 1 cubic meter, if the wood is stacked in the same orientation always. Approximately 1.49 stack cubic meters of wood is one solid cubic meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Solid cubic meter of wood&lt;/b&gt; is the true volume of wood. This volume is used as the basis in density calculations. So, if you know the density (based on the species of wood) and the volume, and want to know the mass, you must convert the volume into solid cubic meter first.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, that if you have 1 solid cubic meter of wood (growing stock), not all of it is sawlogs. Therefore, you can expect to ship perhaps half of it to a sawmill (assuming the forest has reached its renewal age; if you take wood from a very young forest, much less than half of growing stock is sawlogs), whereas the rest will be used for paper, pulp and energy industries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that the sawmill won't make 1 solid cubic meter of sawlog into 1 solid cubic meter of final product. 1 solid cubic meter of final products made by a sawmill may very well require as much as 2.3 solid cubic meters of sawlog. If you have a forest that has 50% sawlog and 50% pulpwood, 1 solid cubic meter of final products made by a sawmill requires about 4.6 solid cubic meters of growing stock (of which the wood that won't make it to the final sawmill products will be used by the pulp, paper and energy industries).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tonne of wood is the weight of wood. Note the weight contains the weight of water in the wood, so if you dry some wood, the volume of the wood stays relatively unchanged, whereas the mass of the wood reduces due to evaporation of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because weight of wood depends on the amount of water in the wood, forestry professionals prefer volume as the primary measurement. Mass is something that can vary, volume stays relatively unchanged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For dry wood (humidity 20%), the following very approximate densities apply (I'm not listing densities of all tree species, as there are so many of them):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Birch: 610 kg / solid m3&#xD;&#xA;* Pine: 490 kg / solid m3&#xD;&#xA;* Spruce: 480 kg / solid m3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you see the density of wood somewhere, you must use it with caution: different values may be measured at different humidity levels. So, saying &quot;1 tonne of wood&quot; is ill-defined.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the mass of wood is hydrogen atoms (either in water molecules or in some other form), some is oxygen atoms (either in water molecules or in some other form), some is carbon atoms, some is other types of atoms. So, if you have one tonne of wood, it doesn't contain one tonne of carbon sequestered from the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of carbon dioxide one solid cubic meter of wood sequesters may vary based on the species, but the figures I have seen are very roughly 1 solid cubic meter of wood = 1 tonne of carbon dioxide sequestered for the typical tree species encountered in boreal taiga forests (spruce, pine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because carbon dioxide is 27.289% carbon, it's possible to do the following very approximate conversion: 1 solid cubic meter of wood = 0.27 tonnes of carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further complicating the matter is that some of the carbon sequestered is in biomass that is not commercially exploitable (and thus not included in growing stock figures). So, if you have one hectare of land, and grow 100 solid cubic meters of forest (growing stock) on it, it may very well sequester more than 100 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, because part of the biomass is underground and not included in growing stock figures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're planning to burn the wood, you are interested in its energy content. The problem here is that wood contains water, so well-dried wood burns at a higher energy content than wood that hasn't been well-dried. The energy content of wood is about 14000 - 15000 MJ / tonne of dry wood (humidity 20%). Note if the wood is not dry, you cannot use the conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, that 1 tonne of wood typical in boreal taiga forests (spruce, pine) is about 2.06 solid square meters of wood, sequestering about 2.06 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Thus, 1 tonne of wood that releases 14000 - 15000 MJ, yields carbon dioxide intensity of about 0.14 kg of CO2 / MJ of &lt;b&gt;primary&lt;/b&gt; energy (heat, not electricity). Hard coal is about 0.095 kg of CO2 / MJ of primary energy, so wood is actually a dirtier fuel than hard coal, and therefore, it makes more sense to empty coal mines out of coal and store an equivalent amount of wood underground in conditions where it won't biodegrade, than it is to directly burn wood!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strictly speaking, there are two heating values (higher heating value, lower heating value), so for accurate results, you can use the following chart: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Higher-HHV-and-lower-heating-value-LHV-of-stump-wood-expressed-as-a-function-of_fig4_261922369 -- so the 14000 - 15000 MJ / tonne of dry wood (humidity 20%) figure is &quot;LHV wet basis&quot;, meaning you burn it as-is without further drying it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7163" RevisionGUID="e9910dbc-1e04-4605-aefd-2834bbb92623" CreationDate="2019-03-11T16:35:15.020" UserId="6393" Text="I'd say your premise is flawed, i.e. wood is pretty much the most ecological building material available because 1 solid cubic meter of wood sequesters approximately 1 tonne of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (compare that to concrete, the production of which releases carbon dioxide).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, do select the species of wood carefully; don't use a species of wood that can be only obtained from tropical rainforests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If highest density and hardness is not your criterion, my recommendation would be to obtain some pine or spruce from sustainably managed boreal taiga forests. The cost is not high (less than 100 USD per cubic meter of sawlog, although sawmill product costs easily 200-300 USD per cubic meter, as the sawmill labor and investment costs have to be paid and a sawmill is unable to utilize all of the sawlog).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want hard, long-lasting and durable wood for making tables or other similar furniture subjected to hard use, I suggest oak. My understanding is that most of it is produced in a sustainable manner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7156" RevisionGUID="8c79dacf-4853-426b-8239-1c233a221190" CreationDate="2019-03-12T11:01:41.577" UserId="2605" Comment="typo" Text="Wildfires are getting more and more common due to dryer and hotter summer seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in the impact of wildfires in terms of CO2 contribution in the atmosphere. I'd like to get a gross estimate, considering average-size trees and a relatively high density, like what you would observe in wild areas with relatively frequent rains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="3717ff3b-dc99-4929-a9b5-8aa9face6ac4" CreationDate="2019-03-12T11:14:18.727" UserId="99" Comment="added link to answer in case another (upvoted) answer is added later" Text="I disagree with [Tim's answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/7157) claiming that 80% less than 1835 tons of CO2 will be released by boreal forest fires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical rule of thumb in forestry is that one cubic meter of wood emits (roughly) one tonne of carbon dioxide. The unit of interest in forestry is the volume of wood in the forest. Thus, what you're essentially asking is: &lt;b&gt;how many cubic meters of wood does one hectare of forest have?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, of course, varies hugely. Forests in warm regions reach a higher density than boreal forests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you should take into account that lots of forests are managed for maximum productivity. This means the forest won't ever be let to reach its steady-state natural density, because then the growth slows down and the forest becomes uneconomical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll provide an answer for one country: Finland. According to a &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.luke.fi/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/finlands-forests-facts-2017-www.pdf&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;, Finland's forests have 2400 million cubic meters of wood per 22.8 million hectares. This means 105 cubic meters of wood per hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the forest fire hits an average forest in Finland, it will release 105 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare. Very young forests with practically no trees won't burn (0 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare), and old forests ready for renewal will release twice the average, i.e. 210 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; the source apparently considers only growing stock, i.e. wood that is above the ground and is usable for commercial purposes. There may be some other biomass as well that will burn. So, treat the 105 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare (average forest) or 210 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare (old forest) as a lower bound. I still believe the 367 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare from Tim's answer is a bit too high for boreal taiga forest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18877" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7163" RevisionGUID="51dc8dd3-de60-4126-9083-e0f34dc4e66a" CreationDate="2019-03-12T12:29:06.877" UserId="6393" Comment="analyze sourcing wood locally" Text="I'd say your premise is flawed, i.e. wood is pretty much the most ecological building material available because 1 solid cubic meter of wood sequesters approximately 1 tonne of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (compare that to concrete, the production of which releases carbon dioxide).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, do select the species of wood carefully; don't use a species of wood that can be only obtained from tropical rainforests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If highest density and hardness is not your criterion, my recommendation would be to obtain some pine or spruce from sustainably managed boreal taiga forests. The cost is not high (less than 100 USD per cubic meter of sawlog, although sawmill product costs easily 200-300 USD per cubic meter, as the sawmill labor and investment costs have to be paid and a sawmill is unable to utilize all of the sawlog).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want hard, long-lasting and durable wood for making tables or other similar furniture subjected to hard use, I suggest oak. My understanding is that most of it is produced in a sustainable manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; I was reminded of the importance of using wood sourced locally near the area where you live. So, let's analyze how important it is to source wood locally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;20-foot container shipping around the world costs perhaps 1000 USD (juts google for &quot;20 foot container shipping cost&quot;) and can store 39 m3 of wood, meaning shipping is 26 USD / m3 of wood. Sawmill products cost ten times that even in areas where forests are plentiful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to https://www.freightos.com/freight-resources/ocean-freight-explained/ shipping 2 tonnes (4 cubic meters of wood) for 5000 km will emit 150 kg of CO2. This is 37.5 kg / cubic meter of emitted carbon dioxide. A cubic meter sequesters 1000 kg of carbon dioxide, so only 3.75% of the sequestered carbon dioxide is emitted in shipping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these figures, we can conclude that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Shipping adds 10% to the cost of sawmill products&#xD;&#xA;2. Shipping emits 3.75% of the sequestered carbon dioxide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be ecological, you should therefore first select forests that are as sustainably managed as possible and only secondly select forests that are near the area where you live. It's more important to be sustainable than to ship locally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7164" RevisionGUID="9857d4a1-619f-4398-b3a7-86ef5c4532d1" CreationDate="2019-03-13T06:09:01.097" UserId="6447" Text="We have to first be honest with ourselves in that we do not really know how the future will unfold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we do know is that there are currently 1.5 billion people on the planet enjoying a high-energy consumption lifestyle and the rest are aspiring to become a part of the 1.5 billion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the cheap, easy to extract energy sources become depleted, temporary fracking notwithstanding, energy costs will begin to soar and sure we can print more money to pay for it, but we can't print more fish in the sea, we can't print more oil in the ground and wages have been stagnant for a couple of decades now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as we get to the point where we can't afford higher energy consumption, we slip into a recession, a permanent one, or the energy industry goes bankrupt, but something has to give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So three possible futures to the year 2050:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The system breaks as energy costs are beyond most consumer's reach.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Debt continues to skyrocket beyond any means of servicing and the system breaks.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Energy costs and debt soar sky high in tandem and the system breaks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a software developer I can tell you, unless Tesla becomes super affordable in the near future, no amount of technology will resolve the three possible outcomes outlined above. They brought the price down to $35k for the Model S now, but that price is going to have to continue to come down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why I can only see a future where we adopt the philosophy of Degrowth, because its going to happen anyway, that is, our economy stagnating. So if we are all going to be making less income, we should start looking for ways to consume less and/or grow our own food, make our own clothes, ride bicycles everywhere, etcetera, you know live sustainably." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18882" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7038" RevisionGUID="40e4dc4d-ca4d-4d33-be0c-be27d7da3970" CreationDate="2019-03-15T05:02:25.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="b453b2a5-2f8b-4530-9736-bc1214d092c8" CreationDate="2019-03-15T21:31:43.277" UserId="6293" Text="Well, steel that is recycled in arc-furnaces produces less air-pollution than iron-ore processed in blast-furnaces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to increase the recycling of steel would be to use stainless-steel which would be more valuable in recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now 304L and 316L are available in standard structural shapes and are designed for simple arc-welding. Then 304L and 316L are available in hot-rolled, cold-rolled, and brushed. Now 316L is expensive while 304L is moderately expensive. But a small shop might find 304L at wholesale cost to be competitive with common steel at retail cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is some good news here in that 409 and 430 are about 50% less cost than 304L. Then 409 is often alloyed for welding while 430 is more likely to be bolted. However, 409 and 430 are not available in structural shapes but are folded to shapes from sheet metal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course entire houses are build from light-gauge-steel which is folded-steel and so consider 409 for this application. And stand-alone joist-shapes are available in light-gauge galvanized-steel and so consider 409 for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now 304L can be used out in the weather while 316L might be attempted near salt-water but not in salt-water. Then 409 can be used near the weather while 430 can be used out in the weather. Basically, 409 will not rust in the house crawl-space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, 430 makes good roofing because it has about the same thermal expansion as common steel. But 430 shouldn't be cut with a cut-off disk but should be cut or drilled with machine tools. And 430 shouldn't be bent back-and-forth but bent one time to shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stainless-steel was suggested because it is more valuable in recycling and because it will never rust away. However, structural pieces of stainless-steel could also be re-used and that is much more valuable than recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminum is not suggested because aluminum corrodes when out in the weather. Also, aluminum is not good for taking a flexing load because of cracking. And aluminum has a large amount of thermal expansion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="0a079e2d-456b-4e0b-858d-ffc643572cae" CreationDate="2019-03-15T21:39:13.977" UserId="6293" Comment="added 297 characters in body" Text="Well, steel that is recycled in arc-furnaces produces less air-pollution than iron-ore processed in blast-furnaces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to increase the recycling of steel would be to use stainless-steel which would be more valuable in recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now 304L and 316L are available in standard structural shapes and are designed for simple arc-welding. Then 304L and 316L are available in hot-rolled, cold-rolled, and brushed. Now 316L is expensive while 304L is moderately expensive. But a small shop might find 304L at wholesale cost to be competitive with common steel at retail cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is some good news here in that 409 and 430 are about 50% less cost than 304L. Then 409 is often alloyed for welding while 430 is more likely to be bolted. However, 409 and 430 are not available in structural shapes but are folded to shapes from sheet metal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course entire houses are build from light-gauge-steel which is folded-steel and so consider 409 for this application. And stand-alone joist-shapes are available in light-gauge galvanized-steel and so consider 409 for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now 304L can be used out in the weather while 316L might be attempted near salt-water but not in salt-water. Then 409 can be used near the weather while 430 can be used out in the weather. Basically, 409 will not rust in the house crawl-space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, 430 makes good roofing because it has about the same thermal expansion as common steel. But 430 shouldn't be cut with a cut-off disk but should be cut or drilled with machine tools. And 430 shouldn't be bent back-and-forth but bent one time to shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stainless-steel was suggested because it is more valuable in recycling and because it will never rust away. However, structural pieces of stainless-steel could also be re-used and that is much more valuable than recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider the use of rebar in concrete. The rebar in concrete will be rusting if the concrete is out in the weather. Then after the rebar rusts away the concrete will begin cracking. Now 430 is the minimum choice for rebar because concrete soaks up water but 304L would be better for rebar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminum is not suggested because aluminum corrodes when out in the weather. Also, aluminum is not good for taking a flexing load because of cracking. And aluminum has a large amount of thermal expansion when used for roofing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18886" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="c133b521-357e-4760-9ac2-188966dabcf3" CreationDate="2019-03-15T22:09:51.033" UserId="6293" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Well, steel that is recycled in arc-furnaces produces less air-pollution than iron-ore processed in blast-furnaces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to increase the recycling of steel would be to use stainless-steel which would be more valuable in recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now 304L and 316L are available in standard structural shapes and are designed for simple arc-welding. Then 304L and 316L are available in hot-rolled, cold-rolled, and brushed. Now 316L is expensive while 304L is moderately expensive. But a small shop might find 304L at wholesale cost to be competitive with common steel at retail cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is some good news here in that 409 and 430 are about 50% less cost than 304L. Then 409 is often alloyed for welding while 430 is more likely to be bolted. However, 409 and 430 are not available in structural shapes but are folded to shapes from sheet metal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course entire houses are framed with light-gauge-steel which is folded-steel and so consider 409 for this application. And stand-alone joist-shapes are available in light-gauge galvanized-steel and so consider 409 for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now 304L can be used out in the weather while 316L might be attempted near salt-water but not in salt-water. Then 409 can be used near the weather while 430 can be used out in the weather. Basically, 409 will not rust in the house crawl-space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, 430 makes good roofing because it has about the same thermal expansion as common steel. But 430 shouldn't be cut with a cut-off disk but should be cut or drilled with machine tools. And 430 shouldn't be bent back-and-forth but bent one time to shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stainless-steel was suggested because it is more valuable in recycling and because it will never rust away. However, structural pieces of stainless-steel could also be re-used and that is much more valuable than recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider the use of rebar in concrete. The rebar in concrete will be rusting if the concrete is out in the weather. Then after the rebar rusts away the concrete will begin cracking. Now 430 is the minimum choice for rebar because concrete soaks up water but 304L would be better for rebar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminum, in general, is not suggested because aluminum corrodes when out in the weather. Also, aluminum is not good for taking a flexing load because of cracking. And aluminum has a large amount of thermal expansion when used for roofing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="224ebbd3-2509-49b3-88ca-f577edc47ecb" CreationDate="2019-03-15T22:31:04.317" UserId="6293" Comment="added 361 characters in body" Text="Well, steel that is recycled in arc-furnaces produces less air-pollution than iron-ore processed in blast-furnaces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to increase the recycling of steel would be to use stainless-steel which would be more valuable in recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now 304L and 316L are available in standard structural shapes and are designed for simple arc-welding. Then 304L and 316L are available in hot-rolled, cold-rolled, and brushed. Now 316L is expensive while 304L is moderately expensive. But a small shop might find 304L at wholesale cost to be competitive with common steel at retail cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is some good news here in that 409 and 430 are about 50% less cost than 304L. Then 409 is often alloyed for welding while 430 is more likely to be bolted. However, 409 and 430 are not available in structural shapes but are folded to shapes from sheet metal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course entire houses are framed with light-gauge-steel which is folded-steel and so consider 409 for this application. And stand-alone joist-shapes are available in light-gauge galvanized-steel and so consider 409 for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now 304L can be used out in the weather while 316L might be attempted near salt-water but not in salt-water. Then 409 can be used near the weather while 430 can be used out in the weather. Basically, 409 will not rust in the house crawl-space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, 430 makes good roofing because it has about the same thermal expansion as common steel. But 430 shouldn't be cut with a cut-off disk but should be cut or drilled with machine tools. And 430 shouldn't be bent back-and-forth but bent one time to shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stainless-steel was suggested because it is more valuable in recycling and because it will never rust away. However, structural pieces of stainless-steel could also be re-used and that is much more valuable than recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider the use of rebar in concrete. The rebar in concrete will be rusting if the concrete is out in the weather. Then after the rebar rusts away the concrete will begin cracking. Now 430 is the minimum choice for rebar because concrete soaks up water but 304L would be better for rebar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminum, in general, is not suggested because aluminum corrodes when out in the weather. Also, aluminum is not good for taking a flexing load because of cracking. And aluminum has a large amount of thermal expansion when used for roofing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, my most likely house build will be 304L joist-holders on 304L tubes and set in concrete footings. Then lumber joists and studs will sit on the joist-holders bolt to the side of them. In fact use two studs at each stud location and then a ceiling joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of the other stud. The 304L jost-holders are simply built with a metal-cutting bandsaw and an arc-welder. So I'm not forgetting about lumber." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7166" RevisionGUID="2a2e744a-691a-41b5-92f2-37e068914729" CreationDate="2019-03-15T22:50:53.210" UserId="6293" Comment="added 22 characters in body" Text="Well, steel that is recycled in arc-furnaces produces less air-pollution than iron-ore processed in blast-furnaces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to increase the recycling of steel would be to use stainless-steel which would be more valuable in recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now 304L and 316L are available in standard structural shapes and are designed for simple arc-welding. Then 304L and 316L are available in hot-rolled, cold-rolled, and brushed. Now 316L is expensive while 304L is moderately expensive. But a small shop might find 304L at wholesale cost to be competitive with common steel at retail cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there is some good news here in that 409 and 430 are about 50% less cost than 304L. Then 409 is often alloyed for welding while 430 is more likely to be bolted. However, 409 and 430 are not available in structural shapes but are folded to shapes from sheet metal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course entire houses are framed with light-gauge-steel which is folded-steel and so consider 409 for this application. And stand-alone joist-shapes are available in light-gauge galvanized-steel and so consider 409 for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now 304L can be used out in the weather while 316L might be attempted near salt-water but not in salt-water. Then 409 can be used near the weather while 430 can be used out in the weather. Basically, 409 will not rust in the house crawl-space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, 430 makes good roofing because it has about the same thermal expansion as common steel. But 430 shouldn't be cut with a cut-off disk but should be cut or drilled with machine tools. And 430 shouldn't be bent back-and-forth but bent one time to shape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stainless-steel was suggested because it is more valuable in recycling and because it will never rust away. However, structural pieces of stainless-steel could also be re-used and that is much more valuable than recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider the use of rebar in concrete. The rebar in concrete will be rusting if the concrete is out in the weather. Then after the rebar rusts away the concrete will begin cracking. Now 430 is the minimum choice for rebar because concrete soaks up water but 304L would be better for rebar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminum, in general, is not suggested because aluminum corrodes when out in the weather. Also, aluminum is not good for taking a flexing load because of cracking. And aluminum has a large amount of thermal expansion when used for roofing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, my most likely house build will be 304L joist-holders on 304L tubes and set in concrete footings. Then lumber joists and studs will sit on the joist-holders bolt to the side of them. In fact use two studs at each stud location and then a ceiling joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of the other stud. The 304L jost-holders are simply built with a metal-cutting bandsaw and an arc-welder. But in this application, I'm not forgetting about lumber." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7164" RevisionGUID="22c00317-e532-411e-bb2d-42776dad2b30" CreationDate="2019-03-16T12:55:31.720" UserId="6447" Comment="corrected grammar" Text="We have to first be honest with ourselves in that we do not really know how the future will unfold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we do know is that there are currently 1.5 billion people on the planet enjoying a high-energy consumption lifestyle and the rest are aspiring to become a part of the 1.5 billion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the cheap, easy to extract energy sources become depleted, temporary fracking notwithstanding, energy costs will begin to soar and sure we can print more money to pay for it, but we can't print more fish in the sea, we can't print more oil in the ground and wages have been stagnant for a couple of decades now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as we get to the point where we can't afford higher energy consumption, we slip into a recession, a permanent one, or the energy industry goes bankrupt, but something has to give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So three possible futures to the year 2050:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The system breaks as energy costs are beyond most consumer's reach.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Debt continues to skyrocket beyond any means of servicing and the system breaks.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Energy costs and debt soar sky high in tandem and the system breaks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a software developer I can tell you, unless Tesla becomes super affordable in the near future, no amount of technology will resolve the three possible outcomes outlined above. They brought the price down to $35k for the Model 3 now, but that price is going to have to continue to come down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is why I can only see a future where we adopt the philosophy of Degrowth, because its going to happen anyway, that is, our economy stagnating. So if we are all going to be making less income, we should start looking for ways to consume less and/or grow our own food, make our own clothes, ride bicycles everywhere, etcetera, you know live sustainably." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7167" RevisionGUID="f404fa86-5aef-4a8f-9023-6e95f327b3ef" CreationDate="2019-03-17T17:26:34.093" UserId="6454" Text="I live in the United States and I have a broken non-working Kiddie ionization smoke detector. I've read that these smoke detectors should be recycled because they contain some radioactive material. However, the Kiddie website states:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; IMPORTANT: Alarms and fire extinguishers should not be recycled. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Disposing of an alarm&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Typically, alarms may be disposed of in your regular residential trash. Verify with your local municipality regarding disposal ordinances before disposing of an alarm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://www.kidde.com/home-safety/en/us/support/help-center/browse-articles/articles/how_do_i_throw_away_my_alarms_and_fire_extinguishers_.aspx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I searched on this topic, I also found conflicting information on the US Postal Service's website. They claim that you should mail Kiddie smoke detectors to the following address:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1016 Corporate Park Dr.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mebane, NC 27302&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2012/pb22334/html/cover_025.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which source should I believe (USPS or Kiddie)? Is there any other third parties that accept Kiddie smoke detectors for recycling? Or should I just mail it to this address and hope it gets recycled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also noticed a similar question on this site, but they were asking about the environment impact of throwing radioactive Kiddie smoke detectors in the trash and not about where to properly recycle them:&#xD;&#xA;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/512/what-are-the-environmental-effects-of-discarding-radioactive-smoke-detectors&#xD;&#xA;In that question, they claim that local electronics recyclers will take the smoke detectors, but I don't think that mine will. The reason is that these are radioactive and not just plastic and wires to be recycled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7167" RevisionGUID="f404fa86-5aef-4a8f-9023-6e95f327b3ef" CreationDate="2019-03-17T17:26:34.093" UserId="6454" Text="Recycling Kiddie Brand Smoke Detectors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7167" RevisionGUID="f404fa86-5aef-4a8f-9023-6e95f327b3ef" CreationDate="2019-03-17T17:26:34.093" UserId="6454" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7167" RevisionGUID="b3e0a2b0-2f1b-406c-bc30-1e7491924d07" CreationDate="2019-03-17T18:44:04.233" UserId="3379" Comment="Changed Kiddie to Kidde, formatting, title." Text="I live in the United States and I have a non-working Kidde ionization smoke detector. I've read that these smoke detectors should be recycled because they contain some radioactive material. However, the [Kidde website states](https://www.kidde.com/home-safety/en/us/support/help-center/browse-articles/articles/how_do_i_throw_away_my_alarms_and_fire_extinguishers_.aspx):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; IMPORTANT: Alarms and fire extinguishers should not be recycled. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Disposing of an alarm&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Typically, alarms may be disposed of in your regular residential trash. Verify with your local municipality regarding disposal ordinances before disposing of an alarm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I searched on this topic, I also found conflicting information on the [US Postal Service's website](https://about.usps.com/postal-bulletin/2012/pb22334/html/cover_025.htm). They state that you should mail Kidde smoke detectors to the following address:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1016 Corporate Park Dr.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Mebane, NC 27302&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So which source should I believe (USPS or Kidde)? Is there any other third parties that accept Kidde smoke detectors for recycling? Or should I just mail it to this address and hope it gets recycled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also noticed a similar question on this site, but they were asking about the environmental impact of throwing radioactive Kidde smoke detectors in the trash and not about where to properly recycle them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/512/what-are-the-environmental-effects-of-discarding-radioactive-smoke-detectors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that question, they claim that local electronics recyclers will take the smoke detectors, but I don't think that mine will. The reason is that these are radioactive and not just plastic and wires to be recycled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18894" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7167" RevisionGUID="b3e0a2b0-2f1b-406c-bc30-1e7491924d07" CreationDate="2019-03-17T18:44:04.233" UserId="3379" Comment="Changed Kiddie to Kidde, formatting, title." Text="How do I recycle Kidde brand smoke detectors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7169" RevisionGUID="63448b8a-993d-470b-b30b-2f4e8db4aad8" CreationDate="2019-03-19T19:54:42.040" UserId="3379" Text="I recently purchased a home in Wisconsin, USA, and in the process of making repairs and upgrades I find I'm generating a fair amount of scrap lumber each month. I keep whatever I think I'll be able to re-use in the future, but there's still some left over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been putting some of it in my regular garbage bin (which is sent to a landfill) but I'm wondering if there's a better alternative?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some more details about the pieces:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A mixture of pine, plywood, and fiber board&#xD;&#xA; - Some pieces are painted with what could potentially be lead paint, given the age of the house&#xD;&#xA; - Some pieces have nails or screws -- I could remove these if necessary" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18897" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7169" RevisionGUID="63448b8a-993d-470b-b30b-2f4e8db4aad8" CreationDate="2019-03-19T19:54:42.040" UserId="3379" Text="What's the best way to dispose of scrap lumber?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18898" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7169" RevisionGUID="63448b8a-993d-470b-b30b-2f4e8db4aad8" CreationDate="2019-03-19T19:54:42.040" UserId="3379" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7170" RevisionGUID="d3731199-695a-4e1f-ba99-76ac7f2fddc7" CreationDate="2019-03-20T00:12:47.007" UserId="5477" Text="I was present as my house was built; we burned about 80 % of the scrape . Actually as the owner, I had to keep the framers from burning good new wood for heat. After it was built ,a grader moved soil around ,I don't know where the nails went. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18902" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7143" RevisionGUID="3b26e30c-1479-494d-8fd9-a44eb5b7f1b2" CreationDate="2019-03-20T08:16:10.717" UserId="99" Comment="105" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:399,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Martin Tournoij&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7171" RevisionGUID="26bd48af-ff11-4723-9eb1-e58148808c96" CreationDate="2019-03-20T16:04:43.337" UserId="400" Text="You need to sort it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dimension lumber can be burned. Can either remote ironware or leave it and separate from ash, or dispose of with ash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Treated lumber (green or brown) landfill.  Note that it may not be obvious if it has been weathered. If in use it was in contact with the ground, or if it was installed for wet service (as backer for bathroom tile, say.)(yes this happens...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OSB, plywood, particle board -- land fill.  The glues are toxic when burned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure what you mean by fiberboard.  Depends on what holds the fibers together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Painted wood:  There are easy tests for heavy metal in paint.  Lead isn't the only one of concern, as chromium, arsenic, copper were also used.  Modern paint is a lot safer.  I would just send anything of unknown paint origin to the landfill.  But even with modern paint I would suggest not inhaling the fumes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drywall:  Some places have a separate category at the landfill, and it is binned, then sent back to drywall makers for re-cycling.  (Vancouver does this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7170" RevisionGUID="db5e1700-db85-478d-8cb9-8b5eab4604ae" CreationDate="2019-03-20T16:25:16.857" UserId="5477" Comment="add" Text="I was present as my house was built; we burned about 80 % of the scrape . Actually as the owner, I had to keep the framers from burning good new wood for heat. After it was built ,a grader moved soil around ,I don't know where the nails went. I think burning is the best choice for a larger quantity of wood. Although I put a few pieces of wet, rotten wood ( landscape stuff) in the forest to continue rotting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7172" RevisionGUID="d0076414-36f5-40cc-9c39-3397f9095ea8" CreationDate="2019-03-20T17:09:27.807" UserId="3379" Text="I contacted Kidde [through Twitter](https://twitter.com/leeshaver/status/1107649038109822976), and they ultimately responded to me via e-mail. The document they sent (available [here](http://www.bernardsvilleboro.org/web_content/pdf/2018-Ion-Smoke-Disposal-Criteria-rev-3-28-17.pdf)) is dated March 2017, so more recent than the data available on their website. Here are the steps you'll need to take in order to return your Kidde ionization smoke detectors to Kidde for disposal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Confirm that your smoke detector is eligible for Kidde's disposal program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll need to gather the details below and send an e-mail to Kidde Product Support (gpccsproductsupport2 [at] kiddeus.com) for them to confirm eligibility:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **The brand** of smoke detector, which must be Kidde, Firex, Fyrnetics, or Edwards&#xD;&#xA; - **The radioactivity rating**, found on the label on the back of the alarm, which must be 1.0 microcuries or less&#xD;&#xA; - The **model number**, found on the back label&#xD;&#xA; - **Confirm the alarm is fully intact** (alarms in pieces cannot be accepted)&#xD;&#xA; - **Confirm the battery is removed** (note that this may not be possible for some types of 10-year-sealed products)&#xD;&#xA; - **Your full contact information** (phone, mailing address, and e-mail)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in doubt regarding any of the above details, they recommend that you provide photos of the front and back of the alarm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Ship the alarm to Kidde&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After verifying your information and confirming eligibility, Kidde will provide a Return Authorization Number and address for shipping. It may take up to four weeks to hear back. You will need to pay the shipping costs yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18908" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7167" RevisionGUID="4e0614b0-ab61-41d8-9ab4-2d078e889c7a" CreationDate="2019-03-20T18:00:48.403" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1108428188810649602" />
  <row Id="18909" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7173" RevisionGUID="70101f62-c323-4187-82c6-47b77909b05f" CreationDate="2019-03-21T16:44:48.170" UserId="6467" Text="I recently saw an article that said that LEDs can use electricity to produce light or they can turn light into electricity.  If this is true, could the excess light that we have coming into our homes and cars be captured by the millions of LEDs in technology today to collect electricity to be used later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about a big screen TV in my family room?  Could all those LEDs used to display a picture be able to collect electricity when I'm not at home or simply not watching TV?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7173" RevisionGUID="70101f62-c323-4187-82c6-47b77909b05f" CreationDate="2019-03-21T16:44:48.170" UserId="6467" Text="Using LEDs to collect electricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7173" RevisionGUID="70101f62-c323-4187-82c6-47b77909b05f" CreationDate="2019-03-21T16:44:48.170" UserId="6467" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2547" RevisionGUID="6c734a52-1995-4221-bf76-fd13e88fd1a4" CreationDate="2019-03-21T21:51:51.673" UserId="400" Comment="added 1838 characters in body" Text="1.  Tune your fridge.  We keep ours just barely above freezing.  Enough that if we get a package of hamburger out of the freezer it takes several days to thaw in the fridge.  We don't throw much away -- about a 2 gallon compost bucket a week, and that includes all the peels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Plan your meals to use leftovers.  We routinely make twice as much rice as that meal needs.  Then the rest is used two days later in another meal.  My mom made &quot;Everything Soup&quot; once a week.  All the leftovers went in it, sometimes as is, sometimes after a pass through the food processor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Use a freezer.  We have two outside on the porch where they barely run in winter.  If you use a chest freezer, use crates to keep stuff in the bottom accessible.  Do not believe the times claimed for how long stuff keeps. That's only true for the cling film packaged stuff.  And it doesn't go bad, it just gets freezer burned.  Soup stock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Feed small amounts of leftovers to pets.  Be aware of what's harmful.  Not all things good for people are good for fur faces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.  Buy in bulk and freeze.  This reduces the amount of package waste per portion, and with experience it aslo reduces leftovers -- or you can cook the right amount for 2 meals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Refining with comments from @Hortsu&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Compost everything you can't eat.  We don't compost sharp bones.  The dogs dig them out of the compost heap.  But otherwise, yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7. Purchase in bulk:  Costco and bulk barn are your friend. Bulk barn allows you to bring your own containers.  They weigh them and put a Tare label on them.  You can fill them up, they weigh them, zap the barcode on the tare label, and Bob's your uncle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8. Vegan diet:  Eating a balanced vegan diet that is also tasty and affordable is hard. This is especially true in northern climates where produce is expensive or unavailable for much of the year.  However we have notice that our meat consumption has dropped substantially over the last 3 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding some more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9.  Frozen veg is usually cheaper and fresher than fresh produce.  In combination with having one or more freezers at home this can reduce shopping trips.  We now go  grocery shopping once a month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10. Start further back in the food chain.  Buy chicken breasts, not &quot;Primavera swiss cheese rosemary marinated chicken breasts&quot;  Better:  Buy whole chickens.  Or buy the cuts are not in demand, such as thighs. Work from scratch.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11. Use a crock pot.  Make your beans, peas, lentils, chilli, stew from scratch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12.  Bake your own bread.  Good book, &quot;Artisanal bread in 5 minutes a day&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;13.  Containers:   The Gold Standard are restaurant 1 gallon jars.  These are easy to clean, usually free, and have lids that last for years.  The jars are airtight and vermin proof.   If you live in  humid climate there is merit in transfering crackers from the box into a jar.  Metal cookie tins are often available at thrift stores.  I don't use 2nd had plastic containers from thrift stores as older plastic may have BPA, formaldehyde, etc from before standards came in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="684" RevisionGUID="e452722e-8fc2-4e9c-94aa-24517057db12" CreationDate="2019-03-21T21:54:59.927" UserId="400" Comment="minor edits, spelling." Text="You are asking to choose between two bad systems, and the least bad choice will depend on the surplus capacity of the sewage system vs space in the landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vancouver B.C. has now passed a building code against garburators.  Reason:  It doubled the amount of solid waste in the sewer system.  The additional solids also made for more problems with blockages.  We have friends there, who, despite having a yard the size of a commerative postage stamp compost nearly everything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;City of Edmonton has a very advanced garbage sorting system, and kitchen waste is composted in bulk, along with yard waste, wood scrap, and non-recycleable paper.  (I buy a 60 cubic yard trailer of it per year for my tree farm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall I would argue that a landfill tolerates 'too much' better than a sewage system does.  City of Edmonton made the mistake years ago of having the storm drain system tied into the their sewage system.  So at peak rainfall or snow melt, there is too much water to treat properly, and semi-raw sewaage goes into the river.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are better choices than either:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Vermiculture.  A 70 liter tote makes an excellent worm farm, and will handle all of the non-meat kitchen waste a couple can generate.  And the compost is good for the garden.  If you live in a mild climate, the worm bucket can live on the balcony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Having a city that composts -- agitate for it, and point to CoE as the example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Keep guinea pigs. They will eat all the kitchen waste including the meat scraps. This is the traditional disposal method in Peru.  Every now and then you have roast guinea pig for supper.  Quite tasty.  It will pick up the flavour of the dominant scraps fed it.  I had some once that were fed on fish offal.  Very odd to have something with the texture of turkey breast, and the taste of tuna.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Do conventional composting in the back yard.  Takes more room that worms, but it's even easier.  7 pallets, available for the taking in any industrial area (ask first), and be set up as a 3 bin compost system in an afternoon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18915" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="4306" RevisionGUID="f0be4bfa-3940-4b71-87a2-0d3ade36da5e" CreationDate="2019-03-22T00:00:40.337" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1108881139723366400" />
  <row Id="18916" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7173" RevisionGUID="c67552a1-1ace-4b68-ab47-5d59ca5abfdf" CreationDate="2019-03-22T00:59:46.693" UserId="4886" Comment="correct title" Text="Using LEDs to generate electricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7175" RevisionGUID="bd417449-c708-43c8-87cd-e7e8a345b29d" CreationDate="2019-03-22T01:54:57.657" UserId="4886" Text="The efficiency issue makes it uneconomic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) are designed and **optimised** to convert electricity to light.  They are not optimised to convert light to electricity — those would be [photodiodes][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large amount of research and engineering has gone into making LEDs consume as little power as possible to produce the maximum amount of light possible — i.e. make it 'energy efficient'.  This inherently limits what can be accomplished in reverse.  A LED that consumes 'as little power as possible' also produces 'as little power as possible'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of a particular LED also filters out certain wavelengths.  Blue LEDs, for example, ignore red and green light so lose another two-thirds of their maximum efficiency.  Green LEDs filter out red light so lose another one-third.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there's the issue of location.  You generally don't want to place a screen of any sort into direct sunlight because a) it's hard to see anything when the sun is shining on it, and b) because the UV will degrade the appliance over time.  Thus things like televisions will always be placed in the shade — the worst possible place to put something if you want to convert solar energy to electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combine all this and you end up with a situation where the cost of the additional circuitry required to make LED screens generate electricity (when not in use) is so much more than the value of the electricity that they will generate over their lifetime, that it just doesn't make financial sense.  You'd need to keep a TV for *hundreds of years* for it to generate enough electricity to pay for the extra circuitry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider also this:  Solar panels — which are just superbly-optimised, large-area photodiodes — have payback times in the region of 5 years (depending on the cost of local power).  Since it's *inconceivable* that the laws of physics will let optimised LEDs generate within an order of magnitude of optimised photodiodes, that means the *best case scenario* is that you would need to keep your TV for *50 years* before the added investment even had the slightest chance of paying for itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is it possible?  Yes.  Does it make economic sense to do?  No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodiode" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7175" RevisionGUID="19eb1232-39cd-4b09-beee-0cb78c9d7312" CreationDate="2019-03-22T02:31:49.587" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The (in)efficiency issue makes it uneconomic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) are designed and **optimised** to convert electricity to light.  They are not optimised to convert light to electricity — those would be [photodiodes][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large amount of research and engineering has gone into making LEDs consume as little power as possible to produce the maximum amount of light possible — i.e. make it 'energy efficient'.  This inherently limits what can be accomplished in reverse.  A LED that consumes 'as little power as possible' also produces 'as little power as possible'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of a particular LED also filters out certain wavelengths.  Blue LEDs, for example, ignore red and green light so lose another two-thirds of their maximum efficiency.  Green LEDs filter out red light so lose another one-third.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there's the issue of location.  You generally don't want to place a screen of any sort into direct sunlight because a) it's hard to see anything when the sun is shining on it, and b) because the UV will degrade the appliance over time.  Thus things like televisions will always be placed in the shade — the worst possible place to put something if you want to convert solar energy to electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combine all this and you end up with a situation where the cost of the additional circuitry required to make LED screens generate electricity (when not in use) is so much more than the value of the electricity that they will generate over their lifetime, that it just doesn't make financial sense.  You'd need to keep a TV for *hundreds of years* for it to generate enough electricity to pay for the extra circuitry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider also this:  Solar panels — which are just superbly-optimised, large-area photodiodes — have payback times in the region of 5 years (depending on the cost of local power).  Since it's *inconceivable* that the laws of physics will let optimised LEDs generate within an order of magnitude of optimised photodiodes, that means the *best case scenario* is that you would need to keep your TV for *50 years* before the added investment even had the slightest chance of paying for itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is it possible?  Yes.  Does it make economic sense?  No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodiode" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7175" RevisionGUID="5d4d05ef-71de-46e2-aca5-852d1df3913f" CreationDate="2019-03-22T05:12:55.383" UserId="4886" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="The (in)efficiency issue makes it uneconomic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) are designed and **optimised** to convert electricity to light.  They are not optimised to convert light to electricity — those would be [photodiodes][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A staggering amount of research and engineering has gone into making LEDs consume as little power as possible to produce the maximum amount of light possible — i.e. make it 'energy efficient'.  This inherently limits what can be accomplished in reverse.  A LED that consumes 'as little power as possible' also produces 'as little power as possible' when forced into generation mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of a particular LED also filters out certain wavelengths.  Blue LEDs, for example, ignore red and green light so lose another two-thirds of their maximum efficiency.  Green LEDs ignore red light so lose another one-third.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there's the issue of location.  You generally don't want to place a screen of any sort into direct sunlight because a) it's hard to see anything when the sun is shining on it, and b) because the UV will degrade the appliance over time.  Thus things like televisions will always be placed in the shade — the worst possible place to put something if you want to convert solar energy to electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combine all this and you end up with a situation where the cost of the additional circuitry required to make LED screens generate electricity (when not in use) is so much more than the value of the electricity that they will generate over their lifetime, that it just doesn't make financial sense.  You'd need to keep a TV for *hundreds of years* for it to generate enough electricity to pay for the extra circuitry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider also this:  Solar panels — which are just superbly-optimised, large-area photodiodes — have payback times in the region of 5 years (depending on the cost of local power).  Since it's *inconceivable* that the laws of physics will allow optimised LED generation efficiency to get within an order of magnitude that of optimised photodiodes, that means the *best case scenario* is that you would need to keep your TV for *50 years* before the added investment had even the slightest chance of paying for itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is it possible?  Yes.  Does it make economic sense?  No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodiode" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7175" RevisionGUID="26d1b25a-4334-47e7-8139-fc4c984a4741" CreationDate="2019-03-22T14:18:00.433" UserId="4886" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The (in)efficiency issue makes it uneconomic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) are designed and **optimised** to convert electricity to light.  They are not optimised to convert light to electricity — those would be [photodiodes][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A staggering amount of research and engineering has gone into making LEDs consume as little power as possible to produce the maximum amount of light possible — i.e. make it 'energy efficient'.  This inherently limits what can be accomplished in reverse.  A LED that consumes 'as little power as possible' also produces 'as little power as possible' when forced into generation mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The colour of a particular LED also filters out certain wavelengths.  Blue LEDs, for example, ignore red and green light so lose another two-thirds of their maximum efficiency.  Green LEDs ignore red light so lose another one-third.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there's the issue of location.  You generally don't want to place a screen of any sort into direct sunlight because a) it's hard to see anything when the sun is shining on it, and b) because the UV will degrade the appliance over time.  Thus things like televisions will always be placed in the shade — the worst possible place to put something if you want to convert solar energy to electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combine all this and you end up with a situation where the cost of the additional circuitry required to make LED screens generate electricity (when not in use) is so much more than the value of the electricity that they will generate over their lifetime, that it just doesn't make financial sense.  You'd need to keep a TV for *hundreds of years* for it to generate enough electricity to pay for the extra circuitry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider also this:  Solar panels — which are just superbly-optimised, large-area photodiodes — have payback times in the region of 5 years (depending on the cost of local power).  Since it's *inconceivable* that the laws of physics will allow optimised LED generation efficiency to get within an order of magnitude to that of optimised photodiodes, that means the *best case scenario* is that you would need to keep your TV for *50 years* before the added investment had even the slightest chance of paying for itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, is it possible?  Yes.  Does it make economic sense?  No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodiode" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7177" RevisionGUID="5227967d-dddf-4d70-af9a-4d50db756b64" CreationDate="2019-03-23T09:16:07.763" UserId="2431" Text="When discussing with a colleague about ecology yesterday, we had agreed on the following premise :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Before industrial age, world population was low, and the environment was not significantly damaged&#xD;&#xA;* Today, world population is too high, and the environment is awfully damaged&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we didn't agree on is the reason why environment is so much damaged. In his opinion, it is simply that there is too many human people. If the world population quantity was like the middle-ages but living with today's modern lifestyle, the environment would not be damaged, despite people burning petrol, using cars and throwing plastic and chemicals in nature, because there would be a small quantity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to myself, the problem is today's lifestyle, of people burning petrol and using plastic when this could be avoided, moving themselves in heavy individual vehicles, among other similar absurdities. If people would live a pre-industrial lifestyle, in simplicity and poverty, and travelling mostly by foot (and horse for the riches), no matter how much people there would be around, the environment would not be damaged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of those views are just opinions. Has there been serious studies comparing the theoretical environmental impact of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Modern lifestyle society with 350 million people (estimated world population of year 1400 according to [Wolfram Alpha](www.wolframalpha.com) )&#xD;&#xA;2. Middle-ages lifestyle with a world population of 7.5 billion people (estimaged world population today)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7177" RevisionGUID="5227967d-dddf-4d70-af9a-4d50db756b64" CreationDate="2019-03-23T09:16:07.763" UserId="2431" Text="Is there a scientific consensus whether lifestyle or amount of human population the biggest problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7177" RevisionGUID="5227967d-dddf-4d70-af9a-4d50db756b64" CreationDate="2019-03-23T09:16:07.763" UserId="2431" Text="|environmental-impact|pollution|population|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="bba7fab8-3758-4057-aee8-3e2ff7ed354f" CreationDate="2019-03-23T11:39:15.973" UserId="4886" Text="You don't need a &quot;scientific consensus&quot;, you just need &quot;math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumerism (the exploitation of natural resources to support a lifestyle) is what produces pollution and environmental/ecological degradation.  The magnitude of damage (D) done is thus the product of the lifestyle (L) and the number of people living it (P).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L * P = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &quot;math&quot; it also holds true that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P * L = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither P nor L are solely responsible for D — they both contribute.  Thus no-one should be overly fixated on either P or L.  If you're going to fixate on anything, fixate on D.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world is far too complicated and interconnected to ever support the simplistic notion that X — and only X — is the cause of Y.  There are always multiple factors in every equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As any student of history knows, the inefficiencies of medieval agricultural practices (read: amount of land required to support a peasant family engaged in subsistence agriculture) means that it would simply be impossible to support 7.5 billion people on Earth using them, so scenario 2 is not viable at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A modern lifestyle with 350 million people is doable.  I crunched the numbers back near the turn of the millennium (initially following energy flows via trophic layers) and 869 million people with a lifestyle equivalent to those in the USA during 1999 were possible.  Allow for per-capita increases in energy consumption in the last 20 years and that number is probably now around the 600 million mark.  Scenario 1 is totally sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="276d501c-d41f-46ba-9932-b4a4e62bb484" CreationDate="2019-03-23T11:53:20.110" UserId="4886" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="You don't need a &quot;scientific consensus&quot;, you just need &quot;math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumerism (the exploitation of natural resources to support a lifestyle) is what produces pollution and environmental/ecological degradation.  The magnitude of damage (D) done is thus the product of the lifestyle (L) and the number of people living it (P).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L * P = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &quot;math&quot; it also holds true that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P * L = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither P nor L are solely responsible for D — they both contribute.  For the purposes of calculating D they are inseparable.  Thus no-one should be overly fixated on the issue of P **or** L.  A 10% reduction in either will reduce D by 10%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world is far too complicated and interconnected to ever support the simplistic notion that X — and only X — is the cause of Y.  There are always multiple factors in every equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As any student of history knows, the inefficiencies of medieval agricultural practices (read: amount of land required to support a peasant family engaged in subsistence agriculture) means that it would simply be impossible to support 7.5 billion people on Earth using them, so scenario 2 is not viable at all — the land area required would exceed the arable area available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A modern lifestyle with 350 million people is doable.  I crunched the numbers back near the turn of the millennium (initially following energy flows via trophic layers) and 869 million people with a lifestyle equivalent to those in the USA during 1999 were possible.  Allow for per-capita increases in energy consumption in the last 20 years and that number is probably now around the 600 million mark.  Scenario 1 is totally sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="72dbf35e-5503-445f-9cb3-4282b824505c" CreationDate="2019-03-23T11:58:33.447" UserId="4886" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="You don't need a &quot;scientific consensus&quot;, you just need &quot;math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumerism (the exploitation and consumption of natural resources to support modern/unsustainable lifestyles) is what produces pollution and environmental/ecological degradation.  The magnitude of the damage done (D) is thus the product of the lifestyle (L) and the number of people living it (P).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L * P = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &quot;math&quot; it also holds true that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P * L = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither P nor L are solely responsible for D — they both contribute.  For the purposes of calculating D they are inseparable.  Thus no-one should be overly fixated on the issue of P **or** L.  You can achieve a 10% reduction in D by reducing *either* by 10%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world is far too complicated and interconnected to ever support the simplistic notion that X — and only X — is the cause of Y.  There are always multiple factors in every equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As any student of history knows, the inefficiencies of medieval agricultural practices (read: amount of land required to support a peasant family engaged in subsistence agriculture) means that it would simply be impossible to support 7.5 billion people on Earth using them, so scenario 2 is not viable at all — the farmland required would exceed the arable area available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A modern lifestyle with 350 million people is doable.  I crunched the numbers back near the turn of the millennium (initially following energy flows via trophic layers) and 869 million people with a lifestyle equivalent to those in the USA during 1999 were possible.  Allow for per-capita increases in energy consumption in the last 20 years and that number is probably now around the 600 million mark.  Scenario 1 is totally sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="baa00e21-4c1c-4d4b-a1f1-e79b55138a5c" CreationDate="2019-03-23T12:05:02.950" UserId="4886" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="You don't need a &quot;scientific consensus&quot;, you just need &quot;math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumerism (the exploitation and consumption of natural resources to support modern/unsustainable lifestyles) is what produces pollution and environmental/ecological degradation.  The magnitude of the damage done (D) is thus the product of the lifestyle (L) and the number of people living it (P).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L * P = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &quot;math&quot; it also holds true that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P * L = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither P nor L are solely responsible for D — they both contribute.  For the purposes of calculating D they are inseparable.  Neither is &quot;the biggest&quot; because it is the *product* that is the problem.  Thus no-one should be overly fixated on the issue of P **or** L.  You can achieve a 10% reduction in D by reducing *either* by 10%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world is far too complicated and interconnected to ever support the simplistic notion that X — and only X — is the cause of Y.  There are always multiple factors in every equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As any student of history knows, the inefficiencies of medieval agricultural practices (read: amount of land required to support a peasant family engaged in subsistence agriculture) means that it would simply be impossible to support 7.5 billion people on Earth using them, so scenario 2 is not viable at all — the farmland required would exceed the arable area available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A modern lifestyle with 350 million people, on the other hand, is doable.  I crunched the numbers back near the turn of the millennium (initially following energy flows via trophic layers) and 869 million people with a lifestyle equivalent to those in the USA during 1999 were possible.  Allow for per-capita increases in energy consumption in the last 20 years and that number is probably now around the 600 million mark.  Scenario 1 is totally sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="ec889023-733a-4dee-b1c7-3facd7f91d8c" CreationDate="2019-03-23T12:12:21.747" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You don't need a &quot;scientific consensus&quot;, you just need &quot;math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumerism (the exploitation and consumption of natural resources to support modern/unsustainable lifestyles) is what produces pollution and environmental/ecological degradation.  The magnitude of the damage done (D) is thus the product of the lifestyle (L) and the number of people living it (P).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L * P = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &quot;math&quot; it also holds true that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P * L = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither P nor L are solely responsible for D — they both contribute.  For the purposes of calculating D they are inseparable.  Neither is &quot;the biggest&quot; because it is the *product* that is the problem.  Thus no-one should be overly fixated on the issue of P **or** L.  You can achieve a 10% reduction in D by reducing *either* by 10%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world is far too complicated and interconnected to ever support the simplistic notion that X — and only X — is the cause of Y.  There are always multiple factors in every equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As any student of history knows, the inefficiencies of medieval agricultural practices (read: amount of land required to support a peasant family engaged in subsistence agriculture) means that it would simply be impossible to support 7.5 billion people on Earth using them, so scenario 2 is not viable at all — the farmland required would exceed the arable area available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A modern lifestyle with 350 million people, on the other hand, is doable.  I crunched the numbers back near the turn of the millennium (initially following energy flows via trophic layers) and 869 million people with a lifestyle equivalent to those in the USA during 1999 were possible.  Allow for per-capita increases in energy consumption over the last 20 years and that number is now probably around the 600 million mark.  Scenario 1 is totally sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="e0ccbc0f-f939-4c89-82b1-82fe26afd94c" CreationDate="2019-03-23T12:21:16.717" UserId="4886" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="You don't need a &quot;scientific consensus&quot;, you just need &quot;math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumerism (the exploitation and consumption of natural resources to support modern/unsustainable lifestyles) is what produces pollution and environmental/ecological degradation.  The magnitude of the damage done (D) is thus the product of the lifestyle (L) and the number of people living it (P).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L * P = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &quot;math&quot; it also holds true that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P * L = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither P nor L are solely responsible for D — they both contribute.  For the purposes of calculating D they are inseparable.  Neither is &quot;the biggest&quot; because it is the *product* that is the problem.  Thus no-one should be overly fixated on the issue of P **or** L.  You can achieve a 10% reduction in D by reducing *either* by 10%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world is far too complicated and interconnected to ever support the simplistic notion that X — and only X — is the cause of Y.  There are always multiple factors in every equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As any student of history knows, the inefficiencies of medieval agricultural practices (read: amount of land required to support a peasant family engaged in subsistence agriculture) means that it would simply be impossible to support 7.5 billion people on Earth using them, so scenario 2 is not viable at all — the farmland required would far exceed the arable area available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A modern lifestyle with 350 million people, on the other hand, is doable.  I crunched the numbers back near the turn of the millennium (initially following energy flows via trophic layers) and 869 million people with a lifestyle equivalent to those in the USA during 1999 were possible.  Allow for per-capita increases in energy consumption over the last 20 years and that number is now probably around the 600 million mark.  Scenario 1 is totally sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="a98b3972-03fc-498d-aabc-11835ec33547" CreationDate="2019-03-23T12:28:03.683" UserId="4886" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="You don't need a &quot;scientific consensus&quot;, you just need &quot;math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumerism (the exploitation and consumption of natural resources to support modern/unsustainable lifestyles) is what produces pollution and environmental/ecological degradation.  The magnitude of the damage done (D) is thus the product of the lifestyle (L) and the number of people living it (P).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L * P = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &quot;math&quot; it also holds true that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P * L = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither P nor L are solely responsible for D — they both contribute.  For the purposes of calculating D they are inseparable.  Neither is &quot;the biggest&quot; because it is the *product* that is the problem.  Thus no-one should be overly fixated on the issue of P **or** L.  You can achieve a 10% reduction in D by reducing *either* by 10%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world is far too complicated and interconnected to ever support the simplistic notion that X — and only X — is the cause of Y.  There are always multiple factors in every equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As any student of history knows, the inefficiencies of medieval agricultural practices (read: amount of land required to support a peasant family engaged in subsistence agriculture) means that it would simply be impossible to support 7.5 billion people on Earth using them, so scenario 2 is not viable at all — the farmland required would far exceed the arable area available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crunch the numbers yourself.  Figure 30 acres of arable English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; farming land per family of 5–6.  Only 35% of the country was arable. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Snap productivity to a diminishing sine wave as you leave the ideal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temperate climate zone and head towards the sub-tropic or the sub-polar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; zones.  Integrate over the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A modern lifestyle with 350 million people, on the other hand, is doable.  I crunched the numbers back near the turn of the millennium (initially following energy flows via trophic layers) and 869 million people with a lifestyle equivalent to those in the USA during 1999 were possible.  Allow for per-capita increases in energy consumption over the last 20 years and that number is now probably around the 600 million mark.  Scenario 1 is totally sustainable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="bce3187b-b5a7-4d04-a8e7-3a60fb4ca2f0" CreationDate="2019-03-23T12:36:37.053" UserId="4886" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="You don't need a &quot;scientific consensus&quot;, you just need &quot;math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumerism (the exploitation and consumption of natural resources to support modern/unsustainable lifestyles) is what produces pollution and environmental/ecological degradation.  The magnitude of the damage done (D) is thus the product of the lifestyle (L) and the number of people living it (P).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L * P = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &quot;math&quot; it also holds true that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P * L = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither P nor L are solely responsible for D — they both contribute.  For the purposes of calculating D they are inseparable.  Neither is &quot;the biggest&quot; because it is the *product* that is the problem.  Thus no-one should be overly fixated on the issue of P **or** L.  You can achieve a 10% reduction in D by reducing *either* by 10%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world is far too complicated and interconnected to ever support the simplistic notion that X — and only X — is the cause of Y.  There are always multiple factors in every equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As any student of history knows, the inefficiencies of medieval agricultural practices (read: amount of land required to support a peasant family engaged in subsistence agriculture) means that it would simply be impossible to support 7.5 billion people on Earth using them, so scenario 2 is not viable at all — the farmland required would far exceed the arable area available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crunch the numbers yourself.  Figure 30 acres of arable English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; farming land per family of 5–6.  Only 35% of the country was arable. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Snap productivity to a diminishing sine wave as you leave the ideal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temperate climate zone and head towards the sub-tropic or the sub-polar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; zones.  Integrate over the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A modern lifestyle with 350 million people, on the other hand, is doable.  I crunched the numbers back near the turn of the millennium (initially following energy flows via trophic layers) and 869 million people with a lifestyle equivalent to those in the USA during 1999 were possible.  Allow for per-capita increases in energy consumption over the last 20 years and that number is now probably around the 600 million mark.  Scenario 1 is totally sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final note:  It seems that you may not be aware that, in order to live a medieval lifestyle, people needed to burn a lot of wood.  The primary constraint to population growth was the availability of trees.  Trees were the energy source that fuelled growth.  That why wherever a town or city existed, the land for miles and miles around would get stripped bare of trees that got burnt for wood.  Once the trees were gone, then the springs dried up, and soil erosion kicked in.  Crop failures were amplified because of exposure.  It was only the 'miracle of coal' that allowed the population to grow above a billion.  People burnt that instead of cutting down forests.  The forests returned, agriculture prospered once more, and populations boomed.  *Fossil fuels saved the environment, hooray!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="db7d2449-82db-43c6-a0cb-cb2fbd60b44a" CreationDate="2019-03-23T12:43:34.010" UserId="4886" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="You don't need a &quot;scientific consensus&quot;, you just need &quot;math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumerism (the exploitation and consumption of natural resources to support modern/unsustainable lifestyles) is what produces pollution and environmental/ecological degradation.  The magnitude of the damage done (D) is thus the product of the lifestyle (L) and the number of people living it (P).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L * P = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &quot;math&quot; it also holds true that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P * L = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither P nor L are solely responsible for D — they both contribute.  For the purposes of calculating D they are inseparable.  Neither is &quot;the biggest&quot; because it is the *product* that is the problem.  Thus no-one should be overly fixated on the issue of P **or** L.  You can achieve a 10% reduction in D by reducing *either* by 10%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world is far too complicated and interconnected to ever support the simplistic notion that X — and only X — is the cause of Y.  There are always multiple factors in every equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As any student of history knows, the inefficiencies of medieval agricultural practices (read: amount of land required to support a peasant family engaged in subsistence agriculture) means that it would simply be impossible to support 7.5 billion people on Earth using them, so scenario 2 is not viable at all — the farmland required would far exceed the arable area available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crunch the numbers yourself.  Figure 30 acres of arable English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; farming land per family of 5–6.  Only 35% of the country was arable. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Snap productivity to a diminishing sine wave as you leave the ideal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temperate climate zone and head towards the sub-tropic or the sub-polar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; zones.  Integrate over the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A modern lifestyle with 350 million people, on the other hand, is doable.  I crunched the numbers back near the turn of the millennium (initially following energy flows via trophic layers) and 869 million people with a lifestyle equivalent to those in the USA during 1999 were possible.  Allow for per-capita increases in energy consumption over the last 20 years and that number is now probably around the 600 million mark.  Scenario 1 is totally sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final note:  It seems that you may not be aware that, in order to live a medieval lifestyle, people needed to burn a lot of wood.  The primary constraint to population growth was the availability of trees.  Trees were the energy source that fuelled growth.  That why wherever a town or city existed, the land for miles and miles around would get increasingly stripped bare of trees that got burnt for wood.  Once the trees were gone, then the springs dried up, and soil erosion kicked in, and peasants in the urban areas would freeze to death in winter.  Crop failures were amplified because of exposure.  It was only the 'miracle of coal' that allowed the population to grow above 600 million circa 1700.  People dug up coal instead of cutting down forests.  The forests returned, agriculture prospered once more, and populations boomed.  *Fossil fuels saved the environment, hooray!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="ffc89d84-84bb-4b65-b46c-5e7c6a43f235" CreationDate="2019-03-23T12:50:41.830" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You don't need a &quot;scientific consensus&quot;, you just need &quot;math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumerism (the exploitation and consumption of natural resources to support modern/unsustainable lifestyles) is what produces pollution and environmental/ecological degradation.  The magnitude of the damage done (D) is thus the product of the lifestyle (L) and the number of people living it (P).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L * P = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &quot;math&quot; it also holds true that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P * L = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither P nor L are solely responsible for D — they both contribute.  For the purposes of calculating D they are inseparable.  Neither is &quot;the biggest&quot; because it is the *product* that is the problem.  Thus no-one should be overly fixated on the issue of P **or** L.  You can achieve a 10% reduction in D by reducing *either* by 10%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world is far too complicated and interconnected to ever support the simplistic notion that X — and only X — is the cause of Y.  There are always multiple factors in every equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As any student of history knows, the inefficiencies of medieval agricultural practices (read: amount of land required to support a peasant family engaged in subsistence agriculture) means that it would simply be impossible to support 7.5 billion people on Earth using them, so scenario 2 is not viable at all — the farmland required would far exceed the arable area available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crunch the numbers yourself.  Figure 30 acres of arable English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; farming land per family of 5–6.  Only 35% of the country was arable. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Snap productivity to a diminishing sine wave as you leave the ideal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temperate climate zone and head towards the sub-tropic or the sub-polar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; zones.  Integrate over the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A modern lifestyle with 350 million people, on the other hand, is doable.  I crunched the numbers back near the turn of the millennium (initially following energy flows via trophic layers) and 869 million people with a lifestyle equivalent to those in the USA during 1999 were possible.  Allow for per-capita increases in energy consumption over the last 20 years and that number is now probably around the 600 million mark.  Scenario 1 is totally sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final note:  It seems that you may not be aware that, in order to live a medieval lifestyle, people needed to burn a lot of wood.  The primary constraint to population growth was the availability of trees.  Trees were the energy source that fuelled growth.  That why, wherever a town or city existed, the land for miles and miles around would get increasingly stripped bare of trees that got burnt for wood.  Once the trees were gone, then the springs dried up, and soil erosion kicked in, and peasants in the urban areas would freeze to death in winter.  Crop failures were amplified because of exposure.  It was only the 'miracle of coal' that allowed the population to grow above 600 million circa 1700.  People dug up coal instead of cutting down forests.  The forests returned, agriculture prospered once more, and populations boomed.  *Fossil fuels saved the environment, hooray!*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="581fcc82-97e0-41f5-b80e-bcee121b395b" CreationDate="2019-03-23T13:05:19.623" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 47 characters in body" Text="You don't need a &quot;scientific consensus&quot;, you just need &quot;math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumerism (the exploitation and consumption of natural resources to support modern/unsustainable lifestyles) is what produces pollution and environmental/ecological degradation.  The magnitude of the damage done (D) is thus the product of the lifestyle (L) and the number of people living it (P).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L * P = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &quot;math&quot; it also holds true that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P * L = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither P nor L are solely responsible for D — they both contribute.  For the purposes of calculating D they are inseparable.  Neither is &quot;the biggest&quot; because it is the *product* that is the problem.  Thus no-one should be overly fixated on the issue of P **or** L.  You can achieve a 10% reduction in D by reducing *either* by 10%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world is far too complicated and interconnected to ever support the simplistic notion that X — and only X — is the cause of Y.  There are always multiple factors in every equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As any student of history knows, the inefficiencies of medieval agricultural practices (read: amount of land required to support a peasant family engaged in subsistence agriculture) means that it would simply be impossible to support 7.5 billion people on Earth using them, so scenario 2 is not viable at all — the farmland required would far exceed the arable area available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crunch the numbers yourself.  Figure 30 acres of arable English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; farming land per family of 5–6.  Only 35% of the country was arable. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Snap productivity to a diminishing sine wave as you leave the ideal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temperate climate zone and head towards the sub-tropic or the sub-polar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; zones.  Integrate over the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A modern lifestyle with 350 million people, on the other hand, is doable.  I crunched the numbers back near the turn of the millennium (initially following energy flows via trophic layers) and 869 million people with a lifestyle equivalent to those in the USA during 1999 were possible.  Allow for per-capita increases in energy consumption over the last 20 years and that number is now probably around the 600 million mark.  Scenario 1 is totally sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final note:  It seems that you may not be aware that, in order to live a medieval lifestyle, people needed to burn a lot of wood.  The primary constraint to population growth was the availability of trees.  Trees were the energy source that fuelled growth.  That why, wherever a town or city existed, the land for miles and miles around would get increasingly stripped bare of trees that got burnt for wood.  Once the trees were gone, then the springs dried up, and soil erosion kicked in, and peasants in the urban areas would freeze to death in winter.  Crop failures were amplified because of exposure.  It was only the 'miracle of coal' that allowed the population to grow above 600 million circa 1700.  People dug up coal instead of cutting down forests.  The forests returned, agriculture prospered once more, and populations boomed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="5b0e4573-48c8-415b-970f-416618f60549" CreationDate="2019-03-23T13:11:24.903" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="You don't need a &quot;scientific consensus&quot;, you just need &quot;math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumerism (the exploitation and consumption of natural resources to support modern/unsustainable lifestyles) is what produces pollution and environmental/ecological degradation.  The magnitude of the damage done (D) is thus the product of the lifestyle (L) and the number of people living it (P).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L * P = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &quot;math&quot; it also holds true that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P * L = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither P nor L are solely responsible for D — they both contribute.  For the purposes of calculating D they are inseparable.  Neither is &quot;the biggest&quot; because it is the *product* that is the problem.  Thus no-one should be overly fixated on the issue of P **or** L.  You can achieve a 10% reduction in D by reducing *either* by 10%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world is far too complicated and interconnected to ever support the simplistic notion that X — and only X — is the cause of Y.  There are always multiple factors in every equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As any student of history knows, the inefficiencies of medieval agricultural practices (read: amount of land required to support a peasant family engaged in subsistence agriculture) means that it would simply be impossible to support 7.5 billion people on Earth using them, so scenario 2 is not viable at all — the farmland required would far exceed the arable area available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crunch the numbers yourself.  Figure 30 acres of arable English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; farming land per family of 5–6.  Only 35% of the country was arable. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Snap productivity to a diminishing sine wave as you leave the ideal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temperate climate zone and head towards the sub-tropic or the sub-polar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; zones.  Integrate over the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A modern lifestyle with 350 million people, on the other hand, is doable.  I crunched the numbers back near the turn of the millennium (initially following energy flows via trophic layers) and 869 million people with a lifestyle equivalent to those in the USA during 1999 were possible.  Allow for per-capita increases in energy consumption over the last 20 years and that number is now probably around the 600 million mark.  Scenario 1 is totally sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final note:  It seems that you may not be aware that, in order to live a medieval lifestyle, people needed to burn *a lot* of wood.  The primary constraint to population growth (in temperate climates) was the availability of trees.  Trees were the energy source that fuelled growth.  That why, wherever a town or city existed, the land for miles and miles around would get increasingly stripped bare of trees that got burnt for wood.  Once the trees were gone, then the springs dried up, and soil erosion kicked in, crop failures would increase in frequency and severity, and peasants in the urban areas would freeze to death in winter.  It was only the 'miracle of coal' that allowed the population to grow above 600 million circa 1700.  People dug up coal instead of cutting down forests.  The forests returned, agriculture prospered once more, and populations boomed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="88c56ed1-fd38-434c-bd7a-1a6a33ce074d" CreationDate="2019-03-23T13:34:25.963" UserId="4886" Comment="added 448 characters in body" Text="You don't need a &quot;scientific consensus&quot;, you just need &quot;math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumerism (the exploitation and consumption of natural resources to support modern/unsustainable lifestyles) is what produces pollution and environmental/ecological degradation.  The magnitude of the damage done (D) is thus the product of the lifestyle (L) and the number of people living it (P).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L * P = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &quot;math&quot; it also holds true that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P * L = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither P nor L are solely responsible for D — they both contribute.  For the purposes of calculating D they are inseparable.  Neither is &quot;the biggest&quot; because it is the *product* that is the problem.  Thus no-one should be overly fixated on the issue of P **or** L.  You can achieve a 10% reduction in D by reducing *either* by 10%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world is far too complicated and interconnected to ever support the simplistic notion that X — and only X — is the cause of Y.  There are always multiple factors in every equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As any student of history knows, the inefficiencies of medieval agricultural practices (read: amount of land required to support a peasant family engaged in subsistence agriculture) means that it would simply be impossible to support 7.5 billion people on Earth using them, so scenario 2 is not viable at all — the farmland required would far exceed the arable area available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crunch the numbers yourself.  Figure 30 acres of arable English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; farming land per family of 5–6.  Only 35% of the country was arable. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Snap productivity to a diminishing sine wave as you leave the ideal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temperate climate zone and head towards the sub-tropic or the sub-polar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; zones.  Integrate over the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A modern lifestyle with 350 million people, on the other hand, is doable.  I crunched the numbers back near the turn of the millennium (initially following energy flows via trophic layers) and 869 million people with a lifestyle equivalent to those in the USA during 1999 were possible.  Allow for per-capita increases in energy consumption over the last 20 years and that number is now probably around the 600 million mark.  Scenario 1 is totally sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One final note:  It seems that you may not be aware that, in order to live a medieval lifestyle, people needed to burn *a lot* of wood.  The primary constraint to population growth (in temperate climates) was the availability of trees.  Trees were the energy source that fuelled growth.  That why, wherever a town or city existed, the land for miles and miles around would get increasingly stripped bare of trees that got burnt for wood.  Once the trees were gone, then the springs dried up, and soil erosion kicked in, crop failures would increase in frequency and severity, and peasants in the urban areas would freeze to death in winter.  It was only the 'miracle of coal' that allowed the population to grow above 600 million circa 1700.  People dug up coal instead of cutting down forests.  The forests returned, agriculture prospered once more, and populations boomed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that the overwhelming majority of the current global population is addicted to a convenient, portable and highly-dense form of energy.  It's addicted to oil.  It cannot be sustained without oil.  We currently burn 9 Joules of oil to produce every Joule of food.  As the oil runs out the planet will be forced to ratchet down to less convenient, less portable, and less-dense forms of energy.  That will impact the food supply.  The population will track downwards accordingly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7178" RevisionGUID="98aadef7-c78a-4449-b00b-6e43fe1b7178" CreationDate="2019-03-23T13:46:31.547" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="You don't need a &quot;scientific consensus&quot;, you just need &quot;math&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumerism (the exploitation and consumption of natural resources to support modern/unsustainable lifestyles) is what produces pollution and environmental/ecological degradation.  The magnitude of the damage done (D) is thus the product of the lifestyle (L) and the number of people living it (P).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;L * P = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks to &quot;math&quot; it also holds true that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P * L = D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither P nor L are solely responsible for D — they both contribute.  For the purposes of calculating D they are inseparable.  Neither is &quot;the biggest&quot; because it is the *product* that is the problem.  Thus no-one should be overly fixated on the issue of P **or** L.  You can achieve a 10% reduction in D by reducing *either* by 10%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world is far too complicated and interconnected to ever support the simplistic notion that X — and only X — is the cause of Y.  There are always multiple factors in every equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As any student of history knows, the inefficiencies of medieval agricultural practices (read: amount of land required to support a peasant family engaged in subsistence agriculture) means that it would simply be impossible to support 7.5 billion people on Earth using them, so scenario 2 is not viable at all — the farmland required would far exceed the arable area available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Crunch the numbers yourself.  Figure 30 acres of arable English&#xD;&#xA;&gt; farming land per family of 5–6.  Only 35% of the country was arable. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Snap productivity to a diminishing sine wave as you leave the ideal&#xD;&#xA;&gt; temperate climate zone and head towards the sub-tropic or the sub-polar&#xD;&#xA;&gt; zones.  Integrate over the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A modern lifestyle with 350 million people, on the other hand, is doable.  I crunched the numbers back near the turn of the millennium (initially following energy flows via trophic layers) and 869 million people with a lifestyle equivalent to those in the USA during 1999 were possible.  Allow for per-capita increases in energy consumption over the last 20 years and that number is now probably around the 600 million mark.  Scenario 1 is totally sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A note:  It seems that you may not be aware that, in order to live a medieval lifestyle, people needed to burn *a lot* of wood.  The primary constraint to population growth (in temperate climates) was the availability of trees.  Trees were the energy source that fuelled growth.  That why, wherever a town or city existed, the land for miles and miles around would get increasingly stripped bare of trees that got burnt for wood.  Once the trees were gone, then the springs dried up, and soil erosion kicked in, crop failures would increase in frequency and severity, and peasants in the urban areas would freeze to death in winter.  It was only the 'miracle of coal' that allowed the population to grow above 600 million circa 1700.  People dug up coal instead of cutting down forests.  The forests returned, agriculture prospered once more, and populations boomed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reality is that the overwhelming majority of the current global population is addicted to a convenient, portable and highly-dense form of energy.  It's addicted to oil.  It cannot be sustained without oil.  We currently burn 9 Joules of oil to produce every Joule of food.  As the oil runs out the planet will be forced to ratchet down to less convenient, less portable, and less-dense forms of energy.  That will impact the food supply.  The population will track down accordingly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7179" RevisionGUID="ded22a25-f361-49bb-a12a-31a8e8aa8bac" CreationDate="2019-03-24T11:56:18.830" UserId="48" Text="The core problem is the scale of pollution overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take excess anthropogenic greenhouse gas releases as being our single worst problem, which, broadly speaking, it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We know we need to get to zero net emissions, (and, for a period, net negative emissions), quickly - within 25 years or so - to avoid even worse catastrophic consequences than those we've already put in process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means that the size of the human population, multiplied by average emissions per human, has to be zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that means that the average emissions per human has to be zero. And at that point, it doesn't actually matter what the size of the population is, for this particular group of pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People did indeed damage their environment in pre-industrial societies. Open sewers in the streets were common. Mass deforestation happened. Destruction of the fertility of land happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have pretty much all the technology we need to get to zero net emissions. It's not clear which is the most cost-effective, but it is clear that we can do it, **and** support our projected population growth. And it is clear that the cost of delay is far higher than choosing the wrong basket of technologies to get to net zero, for almost all technologies (with the exception of global nuclear proliferation, which increases existential risk, rather than decreasing it)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7180" RevisionGUID="164dd4d8-a28e-47a0-830b-2c2013b68181" CreationDate="2019-03-24T12:58:35.860" UserId="6472" Text="Does anyone know the answer to the following questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - What percentage of LDPE Type 4 plastic that you hand in to be recycled is in fact recycled?  I ask this because I read that China stopped accepting plastic to be recycled from the West.&#xD;&#xA; - What is it recycled into?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18943" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7180" RevisionGUID="164dd4d8-a28e-47a0-830b-2c2013b68181" CreationDate="2019-03-24T12:58:35.860" UserId="6472" Text="What actually happens to LDPE Type 4 plastic when it is recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18944" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7180" RevisionGUID="164dd4d8-a28e-47a0-830b-2c2013b68181" CreationDate="2019-03-24T12:58:35.860" UserId="6472" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7180" RevisionGUID="e55b9ecd-685d-4860-918e-d6dfb6afff88" CreationDate="2019-03-24T17:25:06.980" UserId="6472" Comment="deleted 84 characters in body; edited title" Text="&gt; What percentage of LDPE Type 4 plastic that you hand in to be recycled&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is in fact recycled into something useful?  I ask this because I read that China stopped&#xD;&#xA;&gt; accepting plastic to be recycled from the West." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18949" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7180" RevisionGUID="e55b9ecd-685d-4860-918e-d6dfb6afff88" CreationDate="2019-03-24T17:25:06.980" UserId="6472" Comment="deleted 84 characters in body; edited title" Text="What percentage of LDPE Type 4 plastic that you hand in to be recycled is in fact recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7182" RevisionGUID="d2c63596-8b8c-4d0a-a896-a86c14e2db85" CreationDate="2019-03-24T17:25:17.733" UserId="6472" Text="&gt; When LDPE Type 4 plastic using in plastic wrapping is recycled, what&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is it used for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18951" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7182" RevisionGUID="d2c63596-8b8c-4d0a-a896-a86c14e2db85" CreationDate="2019-03-24T17:25:17.733" UserId="6472" Text="What actually happens to LDPE Type 4 plastic when it is recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18952" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7182" RevisionGUID="d2c63596-8b8c-4d0a-a896-a86c14e2db85" CreationDate="2019-03-24T17:25:17.733" UserId="6472" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7182" RevisionGUID="b8478328-25b2-404b-9cbe-4e2deac152a4" CreationDate="2019-03-24T20:10:05.507" UserId="6472" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="&gt; When LDPE Type 4 plastic used in plastic wrapping is recycled, what&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is it used for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5918" RevisionGUID="0c24f5bb-03ff-49a2-91dd-213af8860c31" CreationDate="2019-03-25T14:51:15.743" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed math mistake." Text="**Update**. In my original answer I inadvertently divided at one point when I should have multiplied -- I found the mistake thanks to comments from Frank and THelper. So here's a new tl;dr:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**By mile 4,000 at the latest, total emissions from a hybrid Prius beat emissions from a standard Corolla.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) specific components&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The HEV components which are not part of a standard internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Electric motors/generators&#xD;&#xA;  - Batteries and/or capacitors&#xD;&#xA;  - Electronics (inverter, controller, charger, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [&quot;Current hybrid-electric powertrain architectures: Applying empirical design data to life cycle assessment and whole-life cost analysis&quot;](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261914000282), the authors group the components and make a few assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Vehicle construction emissions, excluding the traction battery, are equal for all powertrains.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Maintenance and disposal (end of life) emissions of all powertrains are equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Is ignoring the powertrain a valid assumption?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assumption that the powertrain construction for all vehicle types has roughly the same CO2 emissions is based on a comparison of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and ICEVs from [&quot;Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles&quot;](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es903729a).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Through four different LCA methods (ADP, GWP, CED, and EI 99 H/A) you can see that powertrain (the third pattern from the left) has a similar weight for BEVs and ICEVs: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can assume that a HEV powertrain would also be roughly the same, as from a component standpoint it splits the difference between the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### CO2 emissions from battery production&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best data I could find on CO2eq emissions from EV battery production comes from: [&quot;Life Cycle Environmental Assessment of Lithium-Ion and Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries for Plug-In Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles&quot;](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es103607c).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are their findings, given as CO2 equivalent emissions per rated watt-hour (Wh) of battery energy capacity:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    NiMH:               0.35 kg CO2eq / Wh&#xD;&#xA;    Li-Ion (NCM-type):  0.20 kg CO2eq / Wh&#xD;&#xA;    Li-Ion (LFP-type):  0.25 kg CO2eq / Wh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These figures match the range found in the report [&quot;Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles -- Critical issues&quot;](http://www.uni-obuda.hu/users/grollerg/LCA/hazidolgozathoz/Battery.pdf) (when scaled from a 10 kWh PHEV battery).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A different report, which is cited (directly or indirectly) in much of the literature on this topic, gives a much lower value for carbon intensity of Li-Ion production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Li-Ion (alternate): 0.12 kg CO2eq / Wh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [&quot;Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles: Implications for Policy&quot;](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es702178s) (the values themselves are in the supplementary material).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Toyota Prius HEV comes with either a NiMH or Li-Ion battery bank (from the [official spec](http://www.toyota.com/prius/features/mechanical_performance/1223/1224/1225/1226)), with roughly 1.3 kWh capacity (based on a 6.5Ah battery at about 200V - [source](http://www.eaa-phev.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_Battery_Specs)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the resulting emissions for Prius battery production are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    NiMH:               460 kg CO2eq&#xD;&#xA;    Li-Ion (average):   300 kg CO2eq&#xD;&#xA;    Li-Ion (alternate): 160 kg CO2eq&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How far do you have to drive the Prius before it beats the Corolla?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you drive a Prius off the lot, it has already resulted in emissions of 160 to 460 kg CO2. Per mile, however, it will emit less than a Corolla. So how many miles do you have to drive the Prius before you've emitted less total CO2 than if you'd been driving the Corolla?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From FuelEconomy.gov](https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&amp;id=41161&amp;id=40242), a new Prius gets 52 mpg, while a new Corolla gets 31 mpg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle-0), 8.9 kg of CO2 are released for each gallon of gas consumed. So we can calculate the kg CO2eq per mile of each vehicle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (8.9 kg CO2eq) * 1 / (miles per gallon) = kg CO2eq / mile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's call this **CO2 per mile** or **cpm**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the difference in fuel economy, we can then calculate how far you'd have to drive a Prius compared to the Corolla to make up for the CO2 released in the battery production process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    (battery kg CO2eq) / ( Corolla cpm - Prius cpm ) = break-even mile&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    NiMH battery:       3,967 miles / 6,385 km&#xD;&#xA;    Li-Ion (average):   2,587 miles / 4,164 km&#xD;&#xA;    Li-Ion (alternate): 1,380 miles / 2,221 km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JkTSP.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BSxrK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18958" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7184" RevisionGUID="18b42088-5039-409b-81a9-45e4dd75e3e3" CreationDate="2019-03-25T20:14:45.250" UserId="3973" Text="So I have a small solar setup (100w/200ah) in my camper van. I left the controller/panel/batteries hooked up thinking I would occasionally clear the snow and there would let the sun topped the batteries off. However, we had an extreme amount of snowfall this year, while all my focus was on keeping the roof &amp; driveway clear, I pretty much neglected the van all winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just cleared the 4 feet of snow off the top (I know this weight is horrible for the panel) and sure enough, I can't seem to get the controller to charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The controller is reading ~21v from the panel but no amps.  I tested the amps with a multimeter and the panel is surprisingly still generating ~90w (about as good as ever).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The batteries however, are not in good of shape... They are currently reading ~9.8v.  I realize that these batteries are probably ruined, but I just want to make sure I properly diagnose the problem before I go and buy new equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thinking one of two things might be happening:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The charge controller ([EPEVER 20A MPPT][1]) is broken :(&#xD;&#xA;2. There is some low voltage protection on the charge controller that prevents it from charging if a battery doesn't meet a given voltage.   I'm actually a little surprised that the display comes up at all with only 9.8v&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just looking for advice on where to go from here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I get my batteries back up to operating voltage, is there a change the controller will kick on?  Or should I just go ahead and bit the bullet and order a new battery. Also, could I test the charge functionality on the van starter battery to confirm that the charge controller isn't the issue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.amazon.com/EPEVER-Controller-Display-Battery-Charging/dp/B01GMUPGX2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18959" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7184" RevisionGUID="18b42088-5039-409b-81a9-45e4dd75e3e3" CreationDate="2019-03-25T20:14:45.250" UserId="3973" Text="Charge controller reading voltage but no amps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18960" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7184" RevisionGUID="18b42088-5039-409b-81a9-45e4dd75e3e3" CreationDate="2019-03-25T20:14:45.250" UserId="3973" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7184" RevisionGUID="611d6d54-1aca-482c-8f77-da466707e264" CreationDate="2019-03-25T20:22:23.657" UserId="3973" Comment="edited body" Text="So I have a small solar setup (100w/200ah) in my camper van. I left the controller/panel/batteries hooked up thinking I would occasionally clear the snow and there would let the sun topped the batteries off. However, we had an extreme amount of snowfall this year, while all my focus was on keeping the roof &amp; driveway clear, I pretty much neglected the van all winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just cleared the 4 feet of snow off the top (I know this weight is horrible for the panel) and sure enough, I can't seem to get the controller to charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The controller is reading ~21v from the panel but no amps.  I tested the amps with a multimeter and the panel is surprisingly still generating ~90w (about as good as ever).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The batteries however, are not in good of shape... They are currently reading ~9.8v.  I realize that these batteries are probably ruined, but I just want to make sure I properly diagnose the problem before I go and buy new equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thinking one of two things might be happening:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The charge controller ([EPEVER 20A MPPT][1]) is broken :(&#xD;&#xA;2. There is some low voltage protection on the charge controller that prevents it from charging if a battery doesn't meet a given voltage.   I'm actually a little surprised that the display comes up at all with only 9.8v&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just looking for advice on where to go from here.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I get my batteries back up to operating voltage, is there a chance the controller will kick on?  Or should I just go ahead and bit the bullet and order a new battery. Also, could I test the charge functionality on the van starter battery to confirm that the charge controller isn't the issue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.amazon.com/EPEVER-Controller-Display-Battery-Charging/dp/B01GMUPGX2" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7185" RevisionGUID="ebfbc014-8365-48c6-b13d-a61ece1d610c" CreationDate="2019-03-25T21:24:33.870" UserId="3379" Text="#What happens to #4 plastic in the waste stream depends on local policy where you live&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Waste Dive, a project of the same folks who run [Utility Dive](https://www.utilitydive.com/), runs a [tracker](https://www.wastedive.com/news/what-chinese-import-policies-mean-for-all-50-states/510751/) dedicated to &quot;tracking the effects of China's scrap import policies across all 50 [US] states (and the District of Columbia)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tracker includes links to news stories about state, city, and county policies and changes in light of changes to China's import policies. Here are a few examples of how different jurisdictions are handling #4 plastic (emphasis added throughout):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### No longer accepting it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Sacramento, CA:** The City of Sacramento **drops plastics #4-7**, effective July 1, according to The Sacramento Bee. The Marin Independent Journal reports that Mill Valley Refuse is piloting dual-stream collection in select neighborhoods for four months to improve quality. Bakersfield begins composting some mixed paper, according to Bakersfield.com. (July 2018)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Hawaii:** Maui County is no longer accepting mixed paper at its drop-off center and has also **restricted its list of accepted plastics to #1 and #2**, as reported by Maui Now. (Jan. 2018)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Burning it for power&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Philadelphia, PA:** Action News reports that about **half of Philadelphia's recyclables are now going directly to a Covanta waste-to-energy facility**. A city contract with Republic Services wasn't renewed due to cost concerns. A temporary deal was struck with Waste Management for the other half of Philadelphia's material while the city solicits bids for a new 10-year contract. Metro reports that situation has continued into November. (Nov. 2018)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Connecticut:** The Materials Innovation and Recycling Authority, which owns a MRF operated by Republic Services, reported it was sitting on more than 1,000 bales of ONP and mixed paper, as well as hundreds more of OCC. Glass had already been a challenge, with much of it being shipped nearly 500 miles to Pennsylvania. With the exception of #5 plastics, MIRA was also **sending other low-grade plastics that have no market with residue to its waste-to-energy facility**. (April 2018)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Clearwater, FL:** Clearwater reportedly **sent nearly one-third of its recyclables to the Pinellas County waste-to-energy facility in August due to contamination**. WFTS reports that some loads from Tampa have also been highly contaminated recently. (Oct. 2018)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Sending it to landfills&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Westland, MI:** The city of Westland is temporarily disposing all of its recyclables after a tip fee increase from $18 to $80 at a local Republic Services MRF, according to Hometown Life. After facing public pressure, including from Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the Westland City Council decided against sending material to a Detroit incinerator and is instead **shipping it to a landfill**. (NEW - Feb.-March 2019)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Fargo, ND:** It's previously been reported that Fargo saw an uptick in contamination since switching to single stream collection. Inforum also reports that this is an issue at the city's two dozen drop-off sites. The average contamination rate for such locations is around 10%, enough to sometimes **send loads to a landfill**. (Aug. 2018)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Rejecting it for contamination&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Las Cruces, NM:** Las Cruces will begin inspecting carts for contamination starting in Sept. 2018 and use The Recycling Partnership's &quot;Oops&quot; **tag method of positive feedback**, rather than a fee, according to the Las Cruces Sun News. The Los Alamos Monitor reports that Los Alamos County is also focusing on education, in an effort to reduce its 17% contamination rate and stave off a potential rate increase from Friedman. (Aug. 2018)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **El Paso, TX:** Rather than renegotiate contract terms, or resort to a cheaper landfill option, El Paso Inc. reports that the city will step up its **education efforts**. El Paso's Environmental Services Department launches a a pilot program called &quot;Tug Tip Turn and Tag&quot; across 10,000 of the 180,000 households it services. The goal is **to cut current contamination rates** of 30-35% in half. (May 2018)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Charging more to process it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Onondaga County, NY:** The Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency's WTE tip **fee will increase** by about 7% in 2019 to offset its recycling losses, according to The Post-Standard. The agency also signed a new contract with Waste Management that raises its cost cap from $10 per ton to $49. (Oct. 2018)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Moore County, NC:** Moore County has approved a **tip fee increase** for recyclables at its local facility from $25 to $100, according to The Pilot. (Dec. 2018)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7186" RevisionGUID="84df8dae-a640-4b50-827d-8faabb9c1cbf" CreationDate="2019-03-27T00:10:40.960" UserId="3973" Text="Just wanted to post an answer to close this one out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turns out the panel and controller are fine.  I attached a trickle charger and got the batteries back up to ~11v and then reconnected the solar and it kicked on! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There must have just been a low voltage threshold where my charge controller stopped charging (even though it was still within the controllers operating &gt;9v)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18964" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5536" RevisionGUID="0d23469c-d96c-4f92-a484-1253739371d9" CreationDate="2019-03-28T16:02:31.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="18966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="9b7f8341-1500-445c-91ac-9b40907f4b91" CreationDate="2019-03-29T16:28:08.813" UserId="6488" Text="I've seen plenty of one-time calculations dedicated to one specific thing (usually plastic vs metal straws, or reusable vs disposable cups) but don't know of any organizations or even blogs that aggregate information for multiple comparisons AND regularly update it. What would be even better is something customizable that would let me plug in information like the fact that I generally use a paper towel 2-3x before throwing it out, but tend to wash rags/towels after only one use. Also things like whether something actually gets recycled or biodegrades, so the calculations are actually representative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18967" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="9b7f8341-1500-445c-91ac-9b40907f4b91" CreationDate="2019-03-29T16:28:08.813" UserId="6488" Text="Is there a &quot;break even point&quot; or life cycle analysis directory or calculator that's kept up to date?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18968" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="9b7f8341-1500-445c-91ac-9b40907f4b91" CreationDate="2019-03-29T16:28:08.813" UserId="6488" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|defining-sustainability|internet|embodied-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7188" RevisionGUID="fd7c0a0c-a66f-4230-9d2a-b0d115109f9a" CreationDate="2019-03-29T16:31:10.957" UserId="6488" Text="Pragmatically speaking, I'd say that the giant bag of pens and pencils for 50c at the thrift store is probably the winner. I imagine those take a while to sell and are one of the first things to be trashed when the store needs shelf space." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7189" RevisionGUID="69d83f9c-750a-4add-99f9-995a23a86237" CreationDate="2019-03-29T16:39:47.253" UserId="6488" Text="Something like this may work: https://genialne.pl/rolka-po-papierze-toaletowym/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rolls take up a relatively small amount of space so you could sort by as many categories as you want and can keep a box/set in every room of your house. This could also be done with jars or pretty much any other container if you need something wider. If you need it to be aesthetically pleasing, you can probably find a DIY for that online pretty easily. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7190" RevisionGUID="bb9b6fe5-e20d-42c9-aefb-d08150ac9ec0" CreationDate="2019-03-29T16:46:28.360" UserId="6488" Text="Things like this have also been going on even before the issues with China: https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--politics/metro-atlanta-recyclers-reject-glass-ship-landfills/Nd82esxPLUTvCb6963WyWJ/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If people aren't pre-sorting correctly, then even if the county theoretically does recycle a certain material, they could still be rejecting large batches. There have also been issues with recycling becoming unrecyclable due to plastic bags clogging and jamming the sorting machines: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-plastic-bag-ban-recycling-0731-biz-20150730-story.html " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7079" RevisionGUID="9263226f-cf64-41cd-b399-403a9895ea94" CreationDate="2019-04-01T21:33:00.047" UserId="6320" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="Personally, I have been using a wormbin for the past (almost) 4 years. You need to keep an eye on the worms once in a while, but usually it is a good option: you waste no energy, your organics decompose fine, and you can easily use it to enrich your soil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, you cannot compost *anything* in a wormbin (no meat or animal residues; very restricted amounts of citrus fruits, etc.), but the food cycler accepts all sorts of organics and the decomposition is way faster: about 1 or 2 days; depending on what you put in the wormbin, it can take a few days or a few months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not have a food cycler, but have been researching as well to get it, and I guess it can be a good option if you don't want to sort your organics into &quot;what goes into the wormbin&quot; and &quot;what does not&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people have their compost pile in the back yard without worms, where they put all sorts of organics too. Since I live in an apartment, I don't have enough space to test this method, but I hear it can be hardcore -- some people even use their urine to sort of catalyse the decomposition process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the anaerobic decomposition, in which you put your organics into a plastic bag, close it, and let it sit for months. This option is the one which produces the biggest amount of methane, because it stays airtight. Also, the final smell can be pretty bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All in all, there are several composting options, but my top pics would be the wormbin and/or the food cycler - even if it uses more energy (which I do not have the necessary knowledge to tell you if it's a lot or not, to be honest).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPDATE: Soon another option will be available, the [Zera Food Recycler][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://wlabsinnovations.com/pages/zera" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5263" RevisionGUID="d9773dbe-a909-486e-821a-7f4a554b4aa7" CreationDate="2019-04-02T14:04:39.137" UserId="3379" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="Take a look at this report: [&quot;Palm oil-based biofuels and sustainability in southeast Asia: A review of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand&quot;](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032114003177). It's behind the ScienceDirect paywall so you may not have full access.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They give two tables, one for palm oil production, and one for biodiesel production, for the three largest producers of palm oil in the world. Total world production was 52.1 million tons in 2012, and Indonesia and Malaysia accounted for 85% of this (originally sourced from palmoilresearch[dot]org, however that link now goes to a spam site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I combined the two tables to look at share of biodiesel produced as a percentage of palm oil production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                       2005    2006    2007    2008    2009    2010    2011&#xD;&#xA;    Indonesia&#xD;&#xA;    Total oil        15,560  16,600  18,000  20,500  21,000  23,600  25,400 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Biodiesel             0      21      31      98     311     405     578 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Share              0.0%    0.1%    0.2%    0.5%    1.5%    1.7%    2.3%&#xD;&#xA;    Malaysia&#xD;&#xA;    Total oil        15,485  15,290  17,567  17,259  17,763  18,211  18,300 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Biodiesel             0      55     130     230     227      95     200 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Share              0.0%    0.4%    0.7%    1.3%    1.3%    0.5%    1.1%&#xD;&#xA;    Thailand&#xD;&#xA;    Total oil           784   1,170   1,050   1,540   1,345   1,288   1,546 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Biodiesel             0       0      60     385     482     516     538 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Share              0.0%    0.0%    5.7%   25.0%   35.8%   40.1%   34.8%&#xD;&#xA;    COMBINED&#xD;&#xA;    Total oil        31,829  33,060  36,617  39,299  40,108  43,099  45,246 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Biodiesel             0      76     221     713   1,020   1,016   1,316 kilotons&#xD;&#xA;    Share              0.0%    0.2%    0.6%    1.8%    2.5%    2.4%    2.9%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see, from 84% of the world's palm oil, only 2.9% is used for biodiesel production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, it's possible (but not likely) that someone is buying raw palm oil and converting it to biodiesel on their own, but I don't think the economics of this would favor anyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A follow-up question - why did you suspect that fuel would be the biggest end-use? Or are you thinking of other types of fuel than biodiesel? Perhaps cooking fuel, or lighting (candles)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6621" RevisionGUID="2533a58d-3087-47c9-b1b4-83bed382bb28" CreationDate="2019-04-02T19:59:02.317" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed broken links." Text="From the [press release](https://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05-09_building_standards_adopted_nr.html) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Moving to cut energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent, the California Energy Commission [CEC] today adopted building standards that **require solar photovoltaic systems starting in 2020**. The building energy efficiency standards, which are the first in the nation to require solar, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to taking 115,000 fossil fuel cars off the road.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read a few different articles about the new standards, and spent some time reviewing [the standard itself](https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/rulemaking/documents/2018-05-09_hearing/2019_Revised_EnergyCode.php), but I have one big question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For a specific home, how will the builder determine the exact capacity of solar system that must be installed?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[An infographic](http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Residential_Standards.pdf) from the CEC gives a figure of $9,500 for the initial cost, but what is this based on? Will the amount of solar required vary depending on the size of the house, number of bedrooms, location or location type (urban, rural, etc), or some other factor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="a9f8032e-da13-41bc-8852-c4f49040fabc" CreationDate="2019-04-04T18:24:33.087" UserId="6506" Text="Examples: CO2e emitted, harm to the ecosystem, resources depleted, cost to the economy, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: I have a piece of clothing that is broken that I want to get rid of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18985" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="a9f8032e-da13-41bc-8852-c4f49040fabc" CreationDate="2019-04-04T18:24:33.087" UserId="6506" Text="What are the concrete impact of not recycling textile?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18986" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="a9f8032e-da13-41bc-8852-c4f49040fabc" CreationDate="2019-04-04T18:24:33.087" UserId="6506" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7195" RevisionGUID="705c88f4-0bec-4550-b021-53f3950bf301" CreationDate="2019-04-04T18:57:21.207" UserId="6507" Text="I use a vacuum. It takes about an hour a night( four 15 minute shifts) for three nights. No environmental side effects. In Guatemala they usually forage in early evening. Mix a glass or mug of your favorite beverage and enjoy a few minutes of ant vacuuming. I am starting my first battle of the spring tonight as I have a lot of lime tree leaf cuttings at the base of the tree.Good luck " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18993" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1053" RevisionGUID="a77efaa3-7ad7-44b9-ac0c-f95586795b53" CreationDate="2019-04-05T07:17:38.247" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="18994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7197" RevisionGUID="5ab59b49-014b-46b0-8c57-73efca892f23" CreationDate="2019-04-05T13:25:09.340" UserId="6512" Text="How do you decontaminate land that has been contaminated with various toxic materials?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it safe to just unearth everything? I live around a lot of contaminated fields and it looks like companies just dig the ground, leave everything in a pile for a while (few weeks?) and then bring over the dirt elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a special process when cleaning up contaminated land?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18995" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7197" RevisionGUID="5ab59b49-014b-46b0-8c57-73efca892f23" CreationDate="2019-04-05T13:25:09.340" UserId="6512" Text="How do you decontaminate land?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18996" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7197" RevisionGUID="5ab59b49-014b-46b0-8c57-73efca892f23" CreationDate="2019-04-05T13:25:09.340" UserId="6512" Text="|environmental-impact|toxic-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="795ef066-134d-42e8-8a2b-34eaf4eb2ffe" CreationDate="2019-04-05T14:44:44.830" UserId="3379" Text="Currently my house has a natural gas-burning hot water heater, with a 40 gallon (150 liter) tank. Given the vintage, the efficiency of this heater is likely around 80%. A new, drop-in replacement would be over 95% efficient, based on what's on the market now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I'm considering this upgrade, I also want to evaluate the possibility of a solar thermal system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What tools and resources are available for me to understand if a solar hot water system makes sense for my situation?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some notes on my house and needs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Two people live in the home&#xD;&#xA; - We've never run out of hot water (150 liters is more than sufficient)&#xD;&#xA; - Hot water is used for showers, hand-washing, and our small dishwasher&#xD;&#xA; - The south face of our roof is unshaded" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18998" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="795ef066-134d-42e8-8a2b-34eaf4eb2ffe" CreationDate="2019-04-05T14:44:44.830" UserId="3379" Text="Does a solar thermal hot water system make sense for my home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="18999" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="795ef066-134d-42e8-8a2b-34eaf4eb2ffe" CreationDate="2019-04-05T14:44:44.830" UserId="3379" Text="|water-heating|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="3d2b86a7-70c2-4e69-a2bb-f4a5890bff01" CreationDate="2019-04-05T14:50:30.913" UserId="3379" Comment="added 78 characters in body" Text="Currently my house has a natural gas-burning hot water heater, with a 40 gallon (150 liter) tank. Given the vintage, the efficiency of this heater is likely around 80%. A new, drop-in replacement would be over 95% efficient, based on what's on the market now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, as I'm considering this upgrade, I also want to evaluate the possibility of a solar thermal system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What tools and resources are available for me to understand if a solar hot water system makes sense for my situation?** Will the cost savings and/or environmental benefit justify the added expense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some notes on my house and needs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Two people live in the home&#xD;&#xA; - We've never run out of hot water (150 liters is more than sufficient)&#xD;&#xA; - Hot water is used for showers, hand-washing, and our small dishwasher&#xD;&#xA; - The south face of our roof is unshaded" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7197" RevisionGUID="20ba815f-7616-4de2-987b-3bc47fd73a73" CreationDate="2019-04-05T16:12:13.323" UserId="6512" Comment="added more information on my question." Text="How do you decontaminate land that has been contaminated with various toxic materials?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it safe to just unearth everything? I live around a lot of contaminated fields and it looks like companies just dig the ground, leave everything in a pile for a while (few weeks?) and then bring over the dirt elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a special process when cleaning up contaminated land?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[edit]: list of toxic materials: &#xD;&#xA;Benzene (pot), Benzo (a) anthracene, Benzo (b + j + k) fluoranthene, Tin (Sn), Petroleum hydrocarbons C10 to C50, Naphthalene (pot), Lead (Pb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in Canada, Québec.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Welcome to Sustainable Living. Can you please provide details on the type of contamination? What kind of toxic materials are we talking about? Also regulations will vary from country to country, so could you please include your location" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7197" RevisionGUID="b9d10edd-507a-4410-8e08-6077b985f6c6" CreationDate="2019-04-05T16:18:26.360" UserId="6512" Comment="removed unnecessary text" Text="How do you decontaminate land that has been contaminated with various toxic materials?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it safe to just unearth everything? I live around a lot of contaminated fields and it looks like companies just dig the ground, leave everything in a pile for a while (few weeks?) and then bring over the dirt elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a special process when cleaning up contaminated land?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[edit]: list of toxic materials: &#xD;&#xA;Benzene (pot), Benzo (a) anthracene, Benzo (b + j + k) fluoranthene, Tin (Sn), Petroleum hydrocarbons C10 to C50, Naphthalene (pot), Lead (Pb)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is in Canada, Québec." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="022d683b-e3f5-4615-b4ae-a48cf439002b" CreationDate="2019-04-06T02:56:18.537" UserId="6514" Text="Much to my dismay, my apartment building recently cancelled their recycling program. My household generates a fair amount of waste aluminum cans that we were previously sending to the local recycling plant. Instead of going out of my way to take large bags of leaky cans to the recycling plant, I was wondering this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the best uses for aluminum cans/foil? I was thinking about building a tool in my detached garage/workshop for melting the aluminum down, but don't know what I would do with it once it is cast." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19004" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="022d683b-e3f5-4615-b4ae-a48cf439002b" CreationDate="2019-04-06T02:56:18.537" UserId="6514" Text="Best Uses for Scrap Aluminum" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19005" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="022d683b-e3f5-4615-b4ae-a48cf439002b" CreationDate="2019-04-06T02:56:18.537" UserId="6514" Text="|recycling|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7200" RevisionGUID="f411d48c-61c1-43dc-872f-e234b2bb7628" CreationDate="2019-04-06T08:58:24.373" UserId="6293" Text="Stand on the top of the aluminum can with one foot and wave arms until the can gives-way and crushes. Begin bagging the cans and keep them in a chest freezer until there is a load big enough to carry to a recycling facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19007" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7197" RevisionGUID="4ec9b67b-d497-4346-86d8-d1d34819698f" CreationDate="2019-04-06T12:00:32.337" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1114498118165434369" />
  <row Id="19008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7201" RevisionGUID="4653cff4-4294-4ede-a1dc-1aec7f6934b4" CreationDate="2019-04-06T16:14:33.943" UserId="4155" Text="That will very much depend on the material from which it is made. Assuming that the clothing cannot be repaired, the next best thing to do is to re-use it - for example, cut the cloth into squares and use them for cleaning, instead of buying new cleaning cloths." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19009" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="a0dfad0e-485c-4977-a266-66556e47ae92" CreationDate="2019-04-07T00:00:36.110" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1114679327944257537" />
  <row Id="19011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="3207c72d-9ee4-453a-b246-3cc87f60e2f9" CreationDate="2019-04-07T04:28:09.430" UserId="3532" Text="I'm expecting tons of wood chips to be dropped off in part of my yard every day this year, and am wondering what I need to do so the arborist can easily drop them off as close to where I want them as possible while staying happy (not sinking into swampy soil, or tractor eating ground)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="3207c72d-9ee4-453a-b246-3cc87f60e2f9" CreationDate="2019-04-07T04:28:09.430" UserId="3532" Text="If I plan to drive on soft ground, what can I do to avoid sinking in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="3207c72d-9ee4-453a-b246-3cc87f60e2f9" CreationDate="2019-04-07T04:28:09.430" UserId="3532" Text="|off-road|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="83e4cb10-a25b-4af9-8772-704191e43f2b" CreationDate="2019-04-07T17:13:09.003" UserId="6506" Comment="added 247 characters in body" Text="Examples: CO2e emitted, harm to the ecosystem, resources depleted, cost to the economy, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Context: I have a piece of clothing that is broken that I want to get rid of, and I want to know if it's worth the trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: re-using them, for example as cleaning clothes might be the next best thing, but what if I already have enough of those or the clothing piece in question can't really be used for that purpose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19016" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="da5ffd85-9123-4c44-980a-d2eec5455b08" CreationDate="2019-04-07T23:40:34.017" UserId="3532" Comment="edited tags" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7204" RevisionGUID="36d724d8-2ee6-4110-8399-f025a45cb38c" CreationDate="2019-04-08T01:25:24.977" UserId="4886" Text="The *usual* solution to avoid sinking into soft ground is to release some air from your tyres so that they bulge more.  That increases the contact area with the earth, distributes the weight of the vehicle over a larger area, and reduces the likelihood and depth of sinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is highly unlikely, however, that a commercial service will do this for you.  They want a place where they can quickly pop in, drop off, and leave.  Ideally, the driver wouldn't even have to leave the cab of the vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's the case then you have no option but to control/modify the route that the trucks will take once they come through your gate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have an existing, all-weather driveway, then use that.  If you don't have an all-weather driveway, or the condition of your driveway is 'marginal', then you want to divert the trucks off it as quickly as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dad was a logger.  Brush piles, and huge volumes of sawdust and wood chips were a by-product of the logging/milling operations he was involved in.  The local soil is sandy, but low spots exist that turn swampy/boggy in the wet season.  Their solution for temporary roads through boggy areas was a 50cm deep elevated roadway made of woody debris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paths turn to muddy bogs due to the hydraulic pumping action that occurs as tyres drive over a particular spot.  If you create a deep enough pile of chips, it will be free-draining, and hydraulic pumping won't occur at soil level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion would be for you to divert incoming trucks from your driveway as quickly as possible and get them to dump their first load straight away.  You should sculpt the pile into a type of gentle off-ramp.  Subsequent loads should extend the ramp and increase its height. Repeat until the height of the ramp is &quot;decent&quot; (around here ~50cm supports logging trucks).  From that point on just extend the length of the elevated woodchip road as needed and route it wherever you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the only maintenance required is to occasionally rake-in the chips from the sides to the compacted ('rut') areas, and to occasionally top up (level) sections that compact more than others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've only just noticed your previous question about pigs and woodchips.  Assuming that this is related to that, once the woodchip road is no longer required you can fence it off with an electric fence and let the pigs in to eat/dismantle the road.  What little the pigs miss will quickly break down and the grass will return." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7204" RevisionGUID="7aa65254-81a5-4231-8e43-073c90311c13" CreationDate="2019-04-08T01:34:58.620" UserId="4886" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="The *usual* solution to avoid sinking into soft ground is to release some air from your tyres so that they bulge more.  That increases the contact area with the earth, distributes the weight of the vehicle over a larger area, and reduces the likelihood and depth of sinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is highly unlikely, however, that a commercial service will do this for you.  They want a place where they can quickly pop in, drop off, and leave.  Ideally, the driver wouldn't even have to exit the cab of the vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's the case then you have no option but to control/modify the route that the trucks will take once they come through your gate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have an existing, all-weather driveway, then use that.  If you don't have an all-weather driveway, or the condition of your driveway is 'marginal', then you want to divert the trucks off it as quickly as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dad was a logger.  Brush piles, and huge volumes of sawdust and wood chips were a by-product of the logging/milling operations he was involved in.  The local soil is sandy, but low spots exist that turn swampy/boggy in the wet season.  Their solution for temporary roads through boggy areas was a 50cm deep elevated roadway made of woody debris.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paths turn to muddy bogs due to the hydraulic pumping action that occurs as tyres drive over a particular spot.  If you create a deep enough pile of chips, it will be free-draining, and hydraulic pumping won't occur at soil level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion would be for you to divert incoming trucks from your driveway as quickly as possible and get them to dump their first load straight away.  You should sculpt the pile into a type of gentle off-ramp.  Subsequent loads should extend the ramp and increase its height. Repeat until the height of the ramp is &quot;decent&quot; (around here ~50cm supports logging trucks).  From that point on just extend the length of the elevated woodchip road as needed and route it wherever you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the only maintenance required is to occasionally rake-in the chips from the sides to the compacted ('rut') areas, and to occasionally top up (level) sections that compact more than others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've only just noticed your previous question about pigs and woodchips.  Assuming that this is related to that, if/when the woodchip road is no longer required you can fence it off with an electric fence and let the pigs in to eat/dismantle the road.  What little the pigs miss will quickly break down and the grass will return." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19019" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7205" RevisionGUID="83e6cecc-a9f4-487a-b951-3ba13f005645" CreationDate="2019-04-08T07:43:15.053" UserId="6393" Text="This is highly variable depending on the material. For example, if the textile is made from oil-based materials (i.e. plastics), disposing it improperly might accelerate the microplastics problem in oceans. You could:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Burn it, to offset other fossil fuel uses, preferably in a large commercial waste incinerator&#xD;&#xA;* Bury it underground in a landfill, to make it the fossil fuel reserves of the future and sequester the carbon&#xD;&#xA;* Recycle it, hoping it will find find some useful use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cotton also contains carbon, has an energy content and can be recycled, so the options and their impacts are the same. This time, however, cotton doesn't accelerate the microplastics problem. On the other hand, cotton has a large &lt;a href=&quot;https://waterfootprint.org/en/about-us/news/news/world-water-day-cost-cotton-water-challenged-india/&quot;&gt;water footprint&lt;/a&gt;, so if you believe water scarcity is a major problem, you could recycle it, hoping less new cotton will be produced and less water will be used to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested&quot;&gt;EROEI&lt;/a&gt; of cotton is; if it's low you should consider ideally other options than burning because it doesn't make sense to use materials having poor EROEI as an energy source. Low EROEI materals should be ideally recycled; high EROEI materials can usefully be burned to energy to offset other fossil fuel uses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19020" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7206" RevisionGUID="8fc46e41-84fe-4bf2-a33d-ed884d02bc3a" CreationDate="2019-04-08T07:51:17.610" UserId="6393" Text="You should do like all the commercial reverse vending machines do: crush the aluminum, don't melt it. The other answer already has one example way of crushing aluminum. If that doesn't work, well, try to find some other way instead of considering melting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way of crushing is to put the can on its side: it's less strong when placed that way, and the force required to crush it should be somewhat lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each and every time you melt aluminum you use some sizable amount of energy as heat. Thus, the amount of times you melt aluminum should be limited preferably to be done only once at the recycling facility. Not only that, but it's no trivial to melt aluminum because of the high temperature required. You also need a container of significantly higher melting point than aluminum (such as steel) and a way of ensuring heat conduction doesn't set your workshop and possible wooden materials on fire, and you also need to control the temperature to be between the melting points of the two materials. Also, the melted aluminum could stick to the steel (I haven't tried so I don't know if this will happen). To me, it sounds much easier to use the approach all commercial reverse vending machines do: crushing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7208" RevisionGUID="e0155f45-e8d5-41ad-a977-9a0b6b9cf62a" CreationDate="2019-04-10T07:29:58.797" UserId="99" Text="**1. Reuse**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several websites describing ways to reuse aluminium cans, for example [this page on WikiHow.com](https://www.wikihow.com/Reuse-Empty-Aluminum-Cans) or [this one on Earth911.com](https://earth911.com/home-garden/8-ways-to-reuse-your-cans/). Most common is to reuse them as a holder of some sorts (e.g. a pencil holder or candle holder), as earrings or as coasters. But I guess there a only so many pencil or candle holders and coasters you can use, so I think eventually it's inevitable that you are left with cans for which you have no purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the other answerers have suggested it's probably not a good idea to try and melt the cans yourself. This will take quite a bit of effort to setup and lots of energy every time you heat a new batch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Reduce**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can try and reduce the amount of aluminium cans you buy and instead switch to a material that is collected for recycling in your local community (maybe glass)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Bring to local recycler**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If reusing and reducing is not an option, the only thing left is to bring the cans to a near-by recycling drop-off point. Crushing them first will reduce the size and makes it easier to carry. If there are no near-by drop-off points, try and persuade your city council to setup a collection scheme. Surely more people in your area have the same problem and you can join efforts in convincing the authorities to arrange for something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19031" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="3f05f010-f144-493c-a1f1-a56ac9024053" CreationDate="2019-04-10T07:30:27.517" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|waste|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="3f05f010-f144-493c-a1f1-a56ac9024053" CreationDate="2019-04-10T07:30:27.517" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="Much to my dismay, my apartment building recently canceled their recycling program. My household generates a fair amount of waste aluminum cans that we were previously sending to the local recycling plant. Instead of going out of my way to take large bags of leaky cans to the recycling plant, I was wondering this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the best uses for aluminum cans/foil? I was thinking about building a tool in my detached garage/workshop for melting the aluminum down, but don't know what I would do with it once it is cast." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7210" RevisionGUID="68d97f8d-d88d-486e-81d0-ee6fd1f6f689" CreationDate="2019-04-12T13:46:50.850" UserId="4886" Text="Melting down and casting metals is incredibly satisfying, and bootstraps a whole pile of other possibilities — including ones that can generate an income.  It also puts you on (or further down) the path to self-sufficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very least, melting down aluminium cans will let you reduce the volume of cans stored drastically.  That will buy you some time whilst you are thinking about what to do with the metal that is accumulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you have something specific in mind, I would suggest casting them into cylinders — of various diameters — that can be efficiently stacked/stored, and which could then be placed onto a lathe.  You can fashion washers, pins, bolts, discs, knobs, axles, barrels, and a myriad of other small components that can be used to make or repair things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not interested in lathe work, then cast into blocks and thick plates.  These can be ground/sanded/machined down into a variety of larger, more &quot;structural&quot; elements — which can be welded/brazed with or bolted to other components you either make or buy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of whether your stock is cylinders or blocks, you can always get creative and re-cast them.  3D printers are super-cheap nowadays.  Use one to print off more artistic or complex things (gears and the connectors for geodesic domes come to mind).  Use the 3D-printed piece as a &quot;master&quot; to create the sand casts that you pour your aluminium into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once it dawns upon you that you can shape metal into almost anything, your problem turns into one of having a lack of time to do all the ideas that start flooding into you your head.  :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you never actually end up making anything, you can still exchange the metal at any point in time for cold, hard cash.  Might prove useful if the times ever get rough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, keep in mind that if your apartment complex has stopped its recycling program, then you have a lot of neighbours with exactly the same &quot;problem&quot; as you do.  Instead of thinking about what you could do with (say) 1kg of aluminium a month, maybe you should be thinking about what you could do with 10 or 20 times that amount?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7210" RevisionGUID="7c891059-ede6-48f5-ac77-59a67ea0da8b" CreationDate="2019-04-12T13:52:48.970" UserId="4886" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Melting down and casting metals is incredibly satisfying, and bootstraps a whole pile of other possibilities — including ones that can generate an income.  It also puts you on (or further down) the path to self-sufficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the very least, melting down aluminium cans will let you reduce the volume of cans stored drastically.  That will buy you some time whilst you are thinking about what to do with the metal that is accumulating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you have something specific in mind, I would suggest casting them into cylinders — of various diameters — that can be efficiently stacked/stored, and which could then be placed onto a lathe.  You can fashion washers, pins, bolts, discs, knobs, axles, barrels, and a myriad of other small components that can be used to make or repair things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not interested in lathe work, then cast into blocks and thick plates.  These can be ground/sanded/machined down into a variety of larger, more &quot;structural&quot; elements — which can be welded/brazed with or bolted to other components you either make or buy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of whether your stock is cylinders or blocks, you can always get creative and re-cast them.  3D printers are super-cheap nowadays.  Use one to print off more artistic or complex things (gears and the connectors for geodesic domes come to mind).  Use the 3D-printed piece as a &quot;master&quot; to create the sand casts that you pour your aluminium into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once it dawns upon you that you can shape metal into almost anything, your problem turns into one of having a lack of time to do all the ideas that start flooding into you your head.  :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you never actually end up making anything, you can still exchange the metal at any point in time for cold, hard cash.  Might prove useful if the times ahead ever get rough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, keep in mind that if your apartment complex has stopped its recycling program, then you have a lot of neighbours with exactly the same &quot;problem&quot; as you do.  Instead of thinking about what you could do with (say) 1kg of aluminium a month, maybe you should be thinking about what you could do with 10 or 20 times that amount?  Efficiency increases, and waste decreases, as you scale up the operations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7211" RevisionGUID="02006b56-9793-4a65-adf3-e1c1d03f1fe4" CreationDate="2019-04-12T14:54:36.533" UserId="6529" Text="Discussing charging my electric car with a colleague recently I argued that since (in Ireland) our renewable energy sources are mainly wind and hydro, since I charge my car at night the mixture of energy I use is likely more biased towards renewable sources than it would be if I charged during the day. My reason being that (at least for wind and hydro) their output is relatively consistent throughout the day and since less energy is used at night nationwide but a similar amount of renewables are produced that my energy mix must therefore be biased towards renewables. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to find any source to back up my claim but so i was wondering if someone might be able to confirm or poke a hole in it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19041" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7211" RevisionGUID="02006b56-9793-4a65-adf3-e1c1d03f1fe4" CreationDate="2019-04-12T14:54:36.533" UserId="6529" Text="Is electricity used at night more likely to be renewable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19042" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7211" RevisionGUID="02006b56-9793-4a65-adf3-e1c1d03f1fe4" CreationDate="2019-04-12T14:54:36.533" UserId="6529" Text="|electricity|renewables|wind-power|electric-vehicles|hydroelectricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7212" RevisionGUID="f5ac23fb-c836-4625-af64-6f9d5757e12c" CreationDate="2019-04-12T17:04:55.153" UserId="3379" Text="## In Ireland, electricity is equally likely to be from renewable sources during the day as during the night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ENTSO-E](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Network_of_Transmission_System_Operators_for_Electricity), the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity, provides a transparency platform where you can see the [hourly actual generation per production type for Ireland](https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/actualGenerationPerProductionType/show?name=&amp;defaultValue=false&amp;viewType=GRAPH&amp;areaType=CTY&amp;atch=false&amp;datepicker-day-offset-select-dv-date-from_input=D&amp;dateTime.dateTime=19.04.2018+00:00|CET|DAYTIMERANGE&amp;dateTime.endDateTime=19.04.2018+00:00|CET|DAYTIMERANGE&amp;area.values=CTY|10YIE-1001A00010!CTY|10YIE-1001A00010&amp;productionType.values=B01&amp;productionType.values=B02&amp;productionType.values=B03&amp;productionType.values=B04&amp;productionType.values=B05&amp;productionType.values=B06&amp;productionType.values=B07&amp;productionType.values=B08&amp;productionType.values=B09&amp;productionType.values=B10&amp;productionType.values=B11&amp;productionType.values=B12&amp;productionType.values=B13&amp;productionType.values=B14&amp;productionType.values=B20&amp;productionType.values=B15&amp;productionType.values=B16&amp;productionType.values=B17&amp;productionType.values=B18&amp;productionType.values=B19&amp;dateTime.timezone=CET_CEST&amp;dateTime.timezone_input=CET+(UTC+1)+/+CEST+(UTC+2)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to pick out a trend just by looking at a day or two at a time, so I downloaded all the data for 2018 and did a quick analysis, binning power from 6am to 6pm together as day, and 6pm to 6am as night. Here's the breakdown by source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind and fossil gas both increase during the day, which makes sense because more power is consumed during the day, and these are the two biggest sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see the chances that any given watt-hour comes from one source or the other, I combined all sources into categories of renewable or fossil. Here's the percentage that each makes up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                  Day        Night&#xD;&#xA;                  -----------------&#xD;&#xA;    Fossil        65.06%     65.47%&#xD;&#xA;    Renewable     34.94%     34.53%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is 0.41% -- essentially negligible over the course of the year, and likely to shift from year to year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EY8pD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hNtn2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7212" RevisionGUID="9e1883e4-9f89-4b4b-a4d0-7a119d8864d7" CreationDate="2019-04-12T17:44:05.423" UserId="3379" Comment="added 973 characters in body" Text="## In Ireland, electricity is equally likely to be from renewable sources during the day as during the night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ENTSO-E](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Network_of_Transmission_System_Operators_for_Electricity), the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity, provides a transparency platform where you can see the [hourly actual generation per production type for Ireland](https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/actualGenerationPerProductionType/show?name=&amp;defaultValue=false&amp;viewType=GRAPH&amp;areaType=CTY&amp;atch=false&amp;datepicker-day-offset-select-dv-date-from_input=D&amp;dateTime.dateTime=19.04.2018+00:00|CET|DAYTIMERANGE&amp;dateTime.endDateTime=19.04.2018+00:00|CET|DAYTIMERANGE&amp;area.values=CTY|10YIE-1001A00010!CTY|10YIE-1001A00010&amp;productionType.values=B01&amp;productionType.values=B02&amp;productionType.values=B03&amp;productionType.values=B04&amp;productionType.values=B05&amp;productionType.values=B06&amp;productionType.values=B07&amp;productionType.values=B08&amp;productionType.values=B09&amp;productionType.values=B10&amp;productionType.values=B11&amp;productionType.values=B12&amp;productionType.values=B13&amp;productionType.values=B14&amp;productionType.values=B20&amp;productionType.values=B15&amp;productionType.values=B16&amp;productionType.values=B17&amp;productionType.values=B18&amp;productionType.values=B19&amp;dateTime.timezone=CET_CEST&amp;dateTime.timezone_input=CET+(UTC+1)+/+CEST+(UTC+2)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to pick out a trend just by looking at a day or two at a time, so I downloaded all the data for 2018 and did a quick analysis, binning power from 6am to 6pm together as day, and 6pm to 6am as night. Here's the breakdown by source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind and fossil gas both increase during the day, which makes sense because more power is consumed during the day, and these are the two biggest sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see the chances that any given watt-hour comes from one source or the other, I combined all sources into categories of renewable or fossil. Here's the percentage that each makes up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                  Day        Night&#xD;&#xA;                  -----------------&#xD;&#xA;    Fossil        65.06%     65.47%&#xD;&#xA;    Renewable     34.94%     34.53%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is 0.41% -- essentially negligible over the course of the year, and likely to shift from year to year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## So, what time should you charge your electric car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I had the data, I decided to go a couple of steps further. First, I added up each half hour for the year for each power source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those morning and evening &quot;dips&quot; in fossil gas generation looked promising, so I categorized everything again into fossil and renewable (ignoring pumped storage and other) and zoomed in on the range where they shift back and forth:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For any given time on an average day, this shows the percent of power that will come from a renewable vs a fossil fuel source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the course of the year, 34.68% of all electricity comes from renewable sources. **On an average day, there are 10.5 hours during which renewables contribute more generation than average: 3:00am to 7:00am, and 12:30pm to 7:00pm** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EY8pD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EpDAJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S3kXi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/q7C9y.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7212" RevisionGUID="b53042f5-bd1c-43db-bd80-8a8bcde4e5bd" CreationDate="2019-04-12T17:55:32.140" UserId="3379" Comment="added 973 characters in body" Text="## In Ireland, electricity is equally likely to be from renewable sources during the day as during the night&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[ENTSO-E](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Network_of_Transmission_System_Operators_for_Electricity), the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity, provides a transparency platform where you can see the [hourly actual generation per production type for Ireland](https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/actualGenerationPerProductionType/show?name=&amp;defaultValue=false&amp;viewType=GRAPH&amp;areaType=CTY&amp;atch=false&amp;datepicker-day-offset-select-dv-date-from_input=D&amp;dateTime.dateTime=19.04.2018+00:00|CET|DAYTIMERANGE&amp;dateTime.endDateTime=19.04.2018+00:00|CET|DAYTIMERANGE&amp;area.values=CTY|10YIE-1001A00010!CTY|10YIE-1001A00010&amp;productionType.values=B01&amp;productionType.values=B02&amp;productionType.values=B03&amp;productionType.values=B04&amp;productionType.values=B05&amp;productionType.values=B06&amp;productionType.values=B07&amp;productionType.values=B08&amp;productionType.values=B09&amp;productionType.values=B10&amp;productionType.values=B11&amp;productionType.values=B12&amp;productionType.values=B13&amp;productionType.values=B14&amp;productionType.values=B20&amp;productionType.values=B15&amp;productionType.values=B16&amp;productionType.values=B17&amp;productionType.values=B18&amp;productionType.values=B19&amp;dateTime.timezone=CET_CEST&amp;dateTime.timezone_input=CET+(UTC+1)+/+CEST+(UTC+2)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to pick out a trend just by looking at a day or two at a time, so I downloaded all the data for 2018 and did a quick analysis, binning power from 6am to 6pm together as day, and 6pm to 6am as night. Here's the breakdown by source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind and fossil gas both increase during the day, which makes sense because more power is consumed during the day, and these are the two biggest sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To see the chances that any given watt-hour comes from one source or the other, I combined all sources into categories of renewable or fossil. Here's the percentage that each makes up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                  Day        Night&#xD;&#xA;                  -----------------&#xD;&#xA;    Fossil        65.06%     65.47%&#xD;&#xA;    Renewable     34.94%     34.53%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is 0.41% -- essentially negligible over the course of the year, and likely to shift from year to year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## So, what time should you charge your electric car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since I had the data, I decided to go a couple of steps further. First, I added up each half hour for the year for each power source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those morning and evening &quot;dips&quot; in fossil gas generation looked promising, so I categorized everything again into fossil and renewable (ignoring pumped storage and other) and zoomed in on the range where they shift back and forth, with the average plotted (approximately):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For any given time on an average day, this shows the percent of power that will come from a renewable vs a fossil fuel source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## On an average day, there are four hours in the morning and 7.5 in the afternoon during which renewables contribute more generation than average&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over the course of the year, 34.68% of all electricity comes from renewable sources. These are the times when renewables beat that average: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; -  3:00am to 7:00am (35.35% renewables)&#xD;&#xA; - 12:30pm to 7:00pm (36.36%)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EY8pD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EpDAJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/S3kXi.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/W64w1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7208" RevisionGUID="7a33aa7b-01a7-4d1f-990d-eccf0363bf09" CreationDate="2019-04-13T08:56:43.220" UserId="99" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="**1. Reuse**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several websites describing ways to reuse aluminium cans, for example [this page on WikiHow.com](https://www.wikihow.com/Reuse-Empty-Aluminum-Cans) or [this one on Earth911.com](https://earth911.com/home-garden/8-ways-to-reuse-your-cans/). Most common is to reuse them as a holder of some sorts (e.g. a pencil holder or candle holder), as earrings or as coasters. But I guess there a only so many pencil or candle holders and coasters you can use, so I think eventually it's inevitable that you are left with cans for which you have no purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As several other answerers have suggested it's probably not a good idea to try and melt the cans yourself. This will take quite a bit of effort to setup and requires lots of energy every time you heat a new batch. Melting yourself is less efficient than industrial melting, so your environmental impact will most likely increase if you do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Reduce**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps you can try and reduce the amount of aluminium cans you buy and instead switch to a material that is collected for recycling in your local community (maybe glass)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Bring to local recycler**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If reusing and reducing is not an option, the only thing left is to bring the cans to a near-by recycling drop-off point. Crushing them first will reduce the size and makes it easier to carry. If there are no near-by drop-off points, try and persuade your city council to setup a collection scheme. Surely more people in your area have the same problem and you can join efforts in convincing the authorities to arrange for something." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="a585b1f5-48f3-4dd2-a627-1115f0f5d05a" CreationDate="2019-04-14T15:13:22.107" UserId="6536" Text="I'm experimenting with optimal cotton growing techniques and plan on growing a cotton plant in simulated field conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I need a large enough pot that would allow the roots of the plant to grow unrestricted and was wondering: what is are the dimensions of a cotton plant at it's largest, including the roots?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19049" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="a585b1f5-48f3-4dd2-a627-1115f0f5d05a" CreationDate="2019-04-14T15:13:22.107" UserId="6536" Text="What are the dimensions of a cotton plant at it's largest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19050" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="a585b1f5-48f3-4dd2-a627-1115f0f5d05a" CreationDate="2019-04-14T15:13:22.107" UserId="6536" Text="|farming|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="5e26e526-1d19-480a-ac3e-b9fcab748723" CreationDate="2019-04-14T19:17:18.220" UserId="6536" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="I'm experimenting with optimal cotton growing techniques using the least amount of water required and plan on growing a cotton plant in simulated field conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I need a large enough pot that would allow the roots of the plant to grow unrestricted and was wondering: what is are the dimensions of a cotton plant at it's largest, including the roots?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19052" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6757" RevisionGUID="9450b042-634d-4e4b-98a3-b378780fa9b5" CreationDate="2019-04-15T00:01:30.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="19053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="7df87bf0-940b-42db-9814-8bd90aacbb4e" CreationDate="2019-04-15T05:43:50.650" UserId="6538" Text="Hello~ please consider donating incandescent bulbs to a support group for diseases that can sensitize some people to light.  One disease with fairly widespread support group chapters is Lupus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lupus has various manifestations, but some individuals with it develop headaches, weakness, rashes when exposed to direct sunlight or fluorescent lights, or even cool LEDs.  Incandescent lights are usually well-tolerated. So your stockpile of incandescent bulbs can be a boon to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Chicago area, I donated my mother’s incandescent bulbs to: &#xD;&#xA;LUPUS SOCIETY OF ILLINOIS&#xD;&#xA;Contact for Chicago:  Mary Dollear &#xD;&#xA;(312) 648-6053 (direct)&#xD;&#xA;(312) 513-2705" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19054" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="3a98e183-5f49-4f6b-ba2e-12ec48b5201e" CreationDate="2019-04-15T08:20:23.360" UserId="3293" Comment="51" />
  <row Id="19056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7214" RevisionGUID="f8abb4a2-8906-43c7-b116-7f0a49bc1e0a" CreationDate="2019-04-15T16:08:03.907" UserId="3379" Comment="Removed phone numbers and added web link" Text="Please consider donating incandescent bulbs to a support group for diseases that can sensitize some people to light.  One disease with fairly widespread support group chapters is Lupus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lupus has various manifestations, but some individuals with it develop headaches, weakness, and/or rashes when exposed to direct sunlight or fluorescent lights, or even cool LEDs.  Incandescent lights are usually well-tolerated. So your stockpile of incandescent bulbs can be a boon to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Chicago area, I donated my mother’s incandescent bulbs to the [Lupus Society of Illinois](https://www.lupusil.org/donate.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19057" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7044" RevisionGUID="5314e69b-21c5-4e81-a9ed-487deb4d3e79" CreationDate="2019-04-15T18:08:00.167" UserId="6287" Comment="added 792 characters in body" Text="I haven't had this problem either. I've never even heard of it. Of the lighting that I use regularly, almost all of it is CFL or (lately) LED. I have almost no incandescent bulbs left. I prefer the incandescent light in terms of colour, but not worth it to me for their greater power consumption. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For warm light, find lights with lower Kelvin (K) numbers. 3000 K is pretty cold, white, blue light; 5000 K is very cold lighting, 2700 is warmer light (although I'd take these measurements with a bag of salt between manufactures, but they're better than nothing). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My bigger issue is flicker of the LED bulbs. I'd definitely avoid no-name brand bulbs. I also write the date of installation on the bulb with a sharpie marker (obviously not on the part that's lit, or the part that conducts electricity). Use the warranties, that's why they're there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum: The style of your pictured light is typically referred to as an &quot;Edison light&quot;, in reference to its old-style characteristics (i.e. looks like an ancient incandescent light - apparently Edison originally used bamboo for filaments, according to the Edison museum down in Florida). Perhaps these style of lights don't last as long, or have more issues? I have similar Edison style &quot;chandelier&quot; lights in my bathroom (so higher than average moister) and outside (cold, winter weather). They've been there for around 18 months without issues. Both sets of bulbs are NOMA brand, but they're really just a re-packager. I like the Edison lights for their much warmer light and atmosphere, but they don't get bright enough (yet) for task or reading lighting for me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7215" RevisionGUID="ab6b5540-8997-4395-9df5-6259bbc9bad0" CreationDate="2019-04-15T19:45:01.960" UserId="6540" Text="Is an air to water heat pump appropriate to keep a hot tub at temperature throughout the year (hot tub to run 24/7). Presumably if the efficiency is greater than 1 even at the lowest temperatures (say -5C worst case in the South of England) and the heat pump can generate 3kW at that temperature (i.e. enough to maintain 1,500 litres of water at 39C). Anything I should be wary of when contacting suppliers?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19059" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7215" RevisionGUID="ab6b5540-8997-4395-9df5-6259bbc9bad0" CreationDate="2019-04-15T19:45:01.960" UserId="6540" Text="Is an air to water heat pump appropriate to keep a hot tub at temperature throughout the year (hot tub to run 24/7)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19060" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7215" RevisionGUID="ab6b5540-8997-4395-9df5-6259bbc9bad0" CreationDate="2019-04-15T19:45:01.960" UserId="6540" Text="|energy-efficiency|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19061" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7211" RevisionGUID="901c1256-137a-460f-a655-c45af9dfac6c" CreationDate="2019-04-16T03:00:47.953" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1117986166924562433" />
  <row Id="19064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7216" RevisionGUID="bbf09c8d-04b0-4051-a680-b5df6991e104" CreationDate="2019-04-16T21:22:36.780" UserId="3379" Text="I just read this fascinating article on kernza, an alternative to wheat that is a perennial, rather than annual, crop. From the article, [&quot;Can This Breakfast Cereal Help Save The Planet?&quot;](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/04/13/711144729/can-this-breakfast-cereal-help-save-the-planet), this is important because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; These plants don't require reseeding. Their roots go deep into the earth, live right through the winter, and send up fresh green stems every spring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, in turn, reduces the need for tilling, pesticide, and fertilizers (whether organic or not), and also helps reduce erosion, runoff, and habitat destruction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried to find other examples of perennial crops, but the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_crop) just lists a few generic examples. I know that most types of fruit and nuts are from trees and thus perennial, but what others are there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an effort to vote with my dollars at the grocery store, **what are examples of perennial crops that are commonly available in stores?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7216" RevisionGUID="bbf09c8d-04b0-4051-a680-b5df6991e104" CreationDate="2019-04-16T21:22:36.780" UserId="3379" Text="What are examples of perennial crops?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7216" RevisionGUID="bbf09c8d-04b0-4051-a680-b5df6991e104" CreationDate="2019-04-16T21:22:36.780" UserId="3379" Text="|food|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7217" RevisionGUID="a8aa3808-f410-47d4-a318-54b8ef7be19e" CreationDate="2019-04-17T13:19:42.227" UserId="6488" Text="If you’re not crafty yourself, you can sell them to crafters. The sites I can think of are Etsy (you can sell supplies there) and EBay, but if you google “repurpose incandescent bulbs” that may lead to a few sources directly. If not, it will at least lead to bloggers who you can message asking about where to sell. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also check your state and county government websites. Mine offer lightbulb take-back days and sometimes let you trade in X incandescent bulbs for an LED. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7219" RevisionGUID="2a5c966a-9ef2-4ba7-8fe4-10179095c6d6" CreationDate="2019-04-17T13:56:27.893" UserId="6488" Text="https://www.plasticsmakeitpossible.com/plastics-recycling/plastics-recycled-happens-recycled-plastics/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.recycleandrecoverplastics.org/consumers/kids-recycling/plastics-can-become/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have personally seen benches made out of used grocery bags. Those sites list more examples. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19072" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7220" RevisionGUID="9b9b7fee-a7bb-4a14-9c49-f84748aa290c" CreationDate="2019-04-17T23:48:37.483" UserId="6544" Text="I would personally go with the solvent technique rather than heat, in my experience you can &quot;melt&quot; abs plastic, accrylic, styro foam, etc. with acetone, just place the lenses aling with the acetone in an airtight container overnight and you should have a putty consistency type goo you can work into a mold or work it with a spatula, as the acetone evaporates away it will reharden hard as a &quot;rock&quot; or should I say plastic ;^)&#xD;&#xA;Just make sure you you do it in a well ventilated area preferably outdoor roofed area, and wear eye and breathing protection because acetone can irratate your lungs with prolonged exposure.  If acetone doesn't work, try stronger solvents or find out what solvents affect the types of plastic you are working with." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19073" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="ef4e6cb5-e425-4737-b430-898abaa29316" CreationDate="2019-04-18T07:59:24.920" UserId="2134" Comment="better wording, allowing for batteries as a solution" Text="In a location where feed-in to the grid is not rewarded, it makes sense to somehow consume all the &quot;oversupply&quot; electricity from photovoltaics by yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I implement this in an automated way (means, not having to switch or do something manually every day)? I am looking for solutions for the cases (1) where feed-in is not rewarded and (2) where feed-in is forbidden. (For an explanation of the different cases, see [this question][1].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19074" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6521" RevisionGUID="ef4e6cb5-e425-4737-b430-898abaa29316" CreationDate="2019-04-18T07:59:24.920" UserId="2134" Comment="better wording, allowing for batteries as a solution" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19075" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="dbdf1845-c4d4-4d1d-adf8-6224a283dca7" CreationDate="2019-04-18T09:00:46.743" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1118801534446460929" />
  <row Id="19077" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7221" RevisionGUID="b2e4a0a9-9feb-4ddc-8c14-4a12b5556da8" CreationDate="2019-04-18T18:26:43.553" UserId="4834" Text="All of the tree fruits, of course:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* apple&#xD;&#xA;* pear&#xD;&#xA;* all citrus&#xD;&#xA;* apricot&#xD;&#xA;* avocado&#xD;&#xA;* cherry&#xD;&#xA;* date&#xD;&#xA;* persimmon&#xD;&#xA;* olive&#xD;&#xA;* plum&#xD;&#xA;* fig&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the soft fruits or &quot;berries&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* raspberries&#xD;&#xA;* blackberries&#xD;&#xA;* blueberries&#xD;&#xA;* grapes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might put strawberries on this list but they don't last nearly as long as these other berries and tend to require fairly intensive management for the period they do last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And all of the tree nuts too (some of which aren't botanical nuts):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* acorns (chances are low that you'll find these in your local grocery but they are edible with the right processing, mature oak are prolific - though not yearly - producers, and related to the example in your question, kernza, acorns can be used to make a flour that serves some of the same culinary purposes as grain flours)&#xD;&#xA;* almonds&#xD;&#xA;* walnuts&#xD;&#xA;* pecans&#xD;&#xA;* brazil nuts&#xD;&#xA;* cashews&#xD;&#xA;* macadamia nuts&#xD;&#xA;* pine nuts&#xD;&#xA;* chestnuts&#xD;&#xA;* hazelnuts (filberts)&#xD;&#xA;* coconut&#xD;&#xA;* hickory nuts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many different herbs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* basil (some kinds)&#xD;&#xA;* chives&#xD;&#xA;* mint&#xD;&#xA;* oregano&#xD;&#xA;* parsley&#xD;&#xA;* sage&#xD;&#xA;* rosemary&#xD;&#xA;* thyme&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other fruits and &quot;vegetables&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* asparagus&#xD;&#xA;* tree collards&#xD;&#xA;* kale&#xD;&#xA;* tomato&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Root crops like garlic, horseradish, ginger, potatoes might belong on one of these lists but though they're perennial they're still dug for harvest and so they don't fall into exactly the same low-disturbance category as most of the rest of these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, though these crops are all capable of living and producing for many years, doing so may only be possible in the right climate and *economical* production at scale may dictate treatment as an annual instead (thus just because it's on this list and in your local grocery store, there is no guarantee production involved perennial management).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="59c2ee0e-0c9b-4630-bf72-ad101c92afce" CreationDate="2019-04-18T20:11:26.600" UserId="4099" Comment="broken link fixed" Text="I think you had pretty much of advice pro electrical. &#xD;&#xA;I do not preach combustion is better than electrical, but would like to make some side notes in favor of combustion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Energy efficiency:**&#xD;&#xA;The energy for your electrical engine must come from somewhere. These sources are probably combustion engines, so basically you are adding an extra conversion which will loose energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Batteries:**&#xD;&#xA;Your batteries will be heavy. Assuming that you use the engine for locomotion, you will loose more energy because you accelerate more mass.&#xD;&#xA;Batteries will also be environmentally unfriendly and produced under bad condition labour.&#xD;&#xA;These batteries will also need transportation and replacement and old batteries might become a source of heavy metal waste. &#xD;&#xA;An empty battery is as heavy as a full one. Your fuel tank on the other hand will become lighter as you go. Technology however promises better batteries and you might also google 'fuel cell'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pollution:** Combustion engine pollution depends on what you are burning and how. If you would use hydrogen your pollution might be zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Engine complexity and durability:** Your electrical engine will likely last longer than your internal combustion engine. It will also be easier to use, maintain, design, build etc. &#xD;&#xA;From durability perspective you might want to have a look at External combustion engines (for example steam engine). This guy claims they have some of them running for over a hundred years: &#xD;&#xA;[http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/steamart.html][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From engine simplicity perspective it might be possible to use a more simple engine like a rocket engine. Of course they are not energy efficient but the bottom line I try to make is that the force you need for your vehicle is directional and not rotary. Combustion (and also electrical) engines complicate the issue by first converting to a rotating force and than to a directional one. One might simply propel a rocket engine against a rail to create a directional force at once. This would of course apply more to trains and not so much to cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get to much in the electrical car hype yet. I believe they are still more expensive even though heavily sponsored by governments. That latter being a good indication for how environmentally friendly they are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But don't understand this wrong: Electrical cars will become more advanced if batteries and/or fuel cells improve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/steamart.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19079" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="59c2ee0e-0c9b-4630-bf72-ad101c92afce" CreationDate="2019-04-18T20:11:26.600" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 3379, 2451 edit id of 569" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19081" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7149" RevisionGUID="ee64bc4b-2beb-4b0c-b25c-9461afccd31f" CreationDate="2019-04-19T18:00:43.877" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1119299805824593927" />
  <row Id="19083" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="f16146b2-6f44-4fcb-982b-63c8197af6a6" CreationDate="2019-04-20T17:03:10.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="19084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7222" RevisionGUID="0ed48c7e-5aaa-430a-9c5b-deeed1ed876b" CreationDate="2019-04-20T18:34:01.610" UserId="6553" Text="My kids like seaweed snacks but there’s so much packaging.  Alternatively I can buy crackers or raisins in large packages, lowering birth the cost and packaging (plus I’d the package is cardboard it’s compost/recycle friendly). The downside is that those snacks aren’t as healthy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we enjoy this kind of snack without all the plastic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19085" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7222" RevisionGUID="0ed48c7e-5aaa-430a-9c5b-deeed1ed876b" CreationDate="2019-04-20T18:34:01.610" UserId="6553" Text="Seaweed snacks without lots of packaging" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19086" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7222" RevisionGUID="0ed48c7e-5aaa-430a-9c5b-deeed1ed876b" CreationDate="2019-04-20T18:34:01.610" UserId="6553" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19087" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="d4b3d25c-b455-4113-8bac-bad197b5dbe2" CreationDate="2019-04-20T19:01:25.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="19088" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="a34d636c-1ca0-436f-8362-6e5a79d512d4" CreationDate="2019-04-22T13:03:25.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="19089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6522" RevisionGUID="dc80dde8-cd25-4825-a0b1-3844b7f2a2b0" CreationDate="2019-04-22T23:47:54.463" UserId="2134" Comment="grammar" Text="For the case where feed-in is forbidden, you need a zero export mechanism (see [this answer][1] for options). In addition, since you want to consume all your electricity locally, it must include a demand management feature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of the following devices that fulfill both requirements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor [Dynamic Power Controller CDP-G][2].** Includes an electricity meter, three relays to switch non-critical electrical consumers (&quot;demand management&quot;) and, as ultima ratio to achieve zero export, a mechanism that can throttle inverters of various brands. Ca. 800 EUR. According to [the datasheet][3], the three load-management relays can switch up to 6 A * 230 V AC = 1380 W each. (To drive even higher loads, it should be possible to connect a secondary relay to a relay output.) For each relay output, a connected power consumption can be configured so that the device can choose what device to switch on when depending on the available surplus power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][4].** Same mode of function as the Circutor CDP-G.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting and zero feed-in is possible with this setup ([source][5]).&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;And fortunately, [Venus is open source software][6] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][7]. So in principle, it should be possible to build a sophisticated DIY solution that can adjust local demand to consume all locally produced energy. It's not an off-the-shelf solution though, but a flexible one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of loads that can be controlled by these devices, most according to the [list by Circutor][8]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* water pumps, esp. with elevated storage tanks (storing potential energy)&#xD;&#xA;* heat pumps&#xD;&#xA;* air compressors (storing energy in compressed air)&#xD;&#xA;* heating hot water in tanks for residential use and / or in swimming pools&#xD;&#xA;* cooling water in isolated tanks, for later use in air conditioning&#xD;&#xA;* fridges or freezers with cold accumulators (as used in campervans, but maybe there are larger versions?)&#xD;&#xA;* cryptocurrency mining&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6518&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://circutor.com/docs/FT_CDP-G_EN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail#applications" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="6de32574-ae69-4bb8-8751-b484572ff8a5" CreationDate="2019-04-23T00:26:04.317" UserId="2134" Text="For &quot;sustainable&quot; and &quot;not environmentally damaging&quot;, a good heuristic is (in my view) that the solution matches the following two conditions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. consumes no materials (so, nothing has to be refilled, and nothing has to be permanently produced and transported to keep the solution working)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. does not wear out or break (in this case the initial environmental costs of producing the solution are the only environmental costs, distributed over an infinite time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. can be repaired with little resources when broken (because eventually, everything breaks)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course that's just the theory. Such a device might still become lost, stolen, burn in a wildfire or similar, so the initial environmental costs still matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's a heuristic. For starting a fire, it leads to two types of devices:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[electric arc lighter][1]:** a usually battery-operated lighter that produces a small, hot electric arc; see for example this [review video][2] for some footage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[electric flameless lighter][3]:** a usually battery-operated lighter that produces a small, glowing dot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commercially sold devices use batteries, which wear out eventually. But technically, it is easily possible to create a lighter that is powered with a cable from an electrical socket, or (to have a mobile version) that stores electricity in a [supercapacitor][4]. Supercaps do not wear out, in contrast to batteries. I am not aware of commercial devices using such a solution, though. Also I can't serve with an assessment of the minimum lifetime of such a device to be less environmentally damaging than just using matches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighter#Electric_arc_lighter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://youtu.be/e-y9wK2LgLk?t=51&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighter#Flameless_lighter&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="ffb700b0-2423-421b-b919-24c918d9e2fe" CreationDate="2019-04-23T07:04:15.313" UserId="4886" Text="I think [Fire Pistons][1] offer probably the best balance of features.  Basically little more than a piston inside a cylinder which, when struck, compresses and heats the air inside the cylinder to such an extent that it ignites a small amount of tinder at the bottom of the cylinder — that becomes a coal that can then be removed and used to start the fire proper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fire Piston][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make one yourself out of scrap materials.  You can harvest or make the tinder from scrap material for free.  About the only thing that is difficult to make yourself is the o-ring (seal), but they are tiny, last ages, easy to source, and ridiculously cheap to replace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a video of a Fire Piston made from a clear tube and shot in slow motion so you can see how it works in detail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjy6m6MR-PQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's more of a How To:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh2vhR2Emc0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst most Fire Pistons are used in a camping-type scenario, it would be easy for a 'logical mind' to craft a 'stationary fire-lighting station' for use indoors that eliminates the whole 'blowing into the tinder pile' process and lets the coal evolve into a flame within a typical wood heater. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_piston&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jz83F.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7224" RevisionGUID="64eb7b22-244b-4273-b256-d7fb79020450" CreationDate="2019-04-23T07:21:31.077" UserId="4886" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I think [Fire Pistons][1] offer probably the best balance of features.  Basically little more than a piston inside a cylinder which, when struck, compresses and heats the air inside the cylinder to such an extent that it ignites a small amount of tinder at the bottom of the cylinder — that becomes an ember that can then be removed and used to start the fire proper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Fire Piston][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make one yourself out of scrap materials.  You can harvest or make the tinder from scrap material for free.  About the only thing that is difficult to make yourself is the o-ring (seal), but they are tiny, last ages, easy to source, and ridiculously cheap to replace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a video of a Fire Piston made from a clear tube and shot in slow motion so you can see how it works in detail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjy6m6MR-PQ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's more of a How To:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh2vhR2Emc0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst most Fire Pistons are used in a survival/camping-type scenario, it would be easy for a 'logical mind' to craft a 'stationary fire-lighting station' for use indoors that eliminates the whole 'blowing into the tinder pile' process and lets the ember evolve into a flame within a typical wood heater. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_piston&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jz83F.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7225" RevisionGUID="9db2a449-5a02-4732-a73f-6d5abc98b6a1" CreationDate="2019-04-23T08:19:58.170" UserId="6560" Text="The most sustainable method would be with a sparking striker type fire-starter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7223" RevisionGUID="7cc23999-a974-4847-bb2f-f1080582ab36" CreationDate="2019-04-23T08:33:23.330" UserId="2134" Comment="small wording fix" Text="For &quot;sustainable&quot; and &quot;not environmentally damaging&quot;, a good heuristic is (in my view) that the solution matches the following conditions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. consumes no materials (so, nothing has to be refilled, and nothing has to be permanently produced and transported to keep the solution working)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. does not wear out or break (in this case the initial environmental costs of producing the solution are the only environmental costs, distributed over an infinite time)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. can be repaired with little resources when broken (because eventually, everything breaks)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course that's just the theory. Such a device might still become lost, stolen, burn in a wildfire or similar, so the initial environmental costs still matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's a heuristic. For starting a fire, it leads to two types of devices:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[electric arc lighter][1]:** a usually battery-operated lighter that produces a small, hot electric arc; see for example this [review video][2] for some footage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[electric flameless lighter][3]:** a usually battery-operated lighter that produces a small, glowing dot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commercially sold devices use batteries, which wear out eventually. But technically, it is easily possible to create a lighter that is powered with a cable from an electrical socket, or (to have a mobile version) that stores electricity in a [supercapacitor][4]. Supercaps do not wear out, in contrast to batteries. I am not aware of commercial devices using such a solution, though. Also I can't serve with an assessment of the minimum lifetime of such a device to be less environmentally damaging than just using matches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighter#Electric_arc_lighter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://youtu.be/e-y9wK2LgLk?t=51&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighter#Flameless_lighter&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercapacitor" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19095" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="e846e4a2-0f4a-4af5-b650-82dbcc8fa040" CreationDate="2019-04-23T10:03:20.690" UserId="-1" Comment="51" />
  <row Id="19096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7226" RevisionGUID="e3c70673-3bec-4a6b-9b45-3d6bd81ef93b" CreationDate="2019-04-23T14:21:00.923" UserId="3379" Text="A study recently published in Resources, Conservation and Recycling journal provides evidence that **meal kits have a smaller carbon footprint than grocery shopping.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the study [&quot;Comparison of Life Cycle Environmental Impacts from Meal Kits and Grocery Store Meals&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344919301703): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; on average, grocery meal greenhouse gas emissions are 33% higher than meal kits (8.1 kg CO2e/meal compared with 6.1 kg CO2e/meal kit).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The study looked at &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Life cycle environmental impacts associated with climate change, acidification, eutrophication, land use, and water use [...] for five dinner recipes sourced as meal kits and through grocery store retailing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The five meals studied were salmon, cheeseburger, chicken, pasta, and salad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Individual impacts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I expected, meal kits involve an increase in packaging compared to meals using ingredients purchased at a grocery store -- the measured impact is 0.17 kg CO2e/meal for a meal kit compared to a grocery store meal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this increase for meal kits is quickly offset by reduced emissions in four key areas when compared to grocery store meals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - meal kits’ streamlined and direct-to-consumer supply chains (-1.05 kg CO2e/meal)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - reduced food waste (-0.86 kg CO2e/meal)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - lower last-mile transportation emissions (-0.45 kg CO2e/meal)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - meal kit refrigeration packs present an average emissions decrease compared with retail refrigeration (-0.37 kg CO2e/meal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How to flip the result&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For those of us interested in **Sustainable Living&lt;sup&gt;TM&lt;/sup&gt;**, [comments from the authors](https://news.umich.edu/those-home-delivered-meal-kits-are-greener-than-you-thought-new-study-concludes/) provide clues about how to reduce the impacts of our grocery store bought meals to beat the meal kits:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Don't let any food go to waste:** &#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Even though it may seem like that pile of cardboard generated from a Blue Apron or Hello Fresh subscription is incredibly bad for the environment, **that extra chicken breast bought from the grocery store that gets freezer-burned and finally gets thrown out is much worse**, because of all the energy and materials that had to go into producing that chicken breast in the first place.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several tips on this site about how to reduce food waste:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/822/3379&#xD;&#xA; - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/3243/3379&#xD;&#xA; - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2538/3379&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Don't drive long distances alone in a gas-burning car to buy only enough food for a single meal:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Meal kits rely on delivery trucks. Since each meal kit is just one of many packages delivered on a truck route, it is associated with a small fraction of the total vehicle emissions. **Grocery store meals, in contrast, typically require a personal vehicle trip to the store and back.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a plethora of questions and answers related to [reducing environmental impacts from transportation](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/transport), but the easiest strategies are likely carpooling, buying in bulk, walking, and/or biking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Alternatively, eat different foods&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While all of the above compares the same meal prepared two different ways, the research confirms that the choice of meal itself also makes a big impact. Simply stated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Meals with the largest environmental impact [...] contain red meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, to reduce total impacts, choose poultry, fish, or vegetarian meals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7227" RevisionGUID="86af5064-c446-4e73-90b3-a5c7384a0157" CreationDate="2019-04-23T15:35:39.733" UserId="5477" Text="I would say it adds to the waste. If someone is unable go to the store and buy groceries and cook them , they will not be any more able to cook groceries because they are delivered to the door . I doubt that delivering groceries to the door makes them easier to cook , so likely to be burned- etc. and discarded. AND, without going to the store , one can not see what looks good and is on sale , eg. I recently cooked 2 pork shoulders because they were so inexpensive. I made one into &quot;corned beef&quot; for variety." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7228" RevisionGUID="01d5d504-732b-41b1-b540-83578880af50" CreationDate="2019-04-23T17:53:55.153" UserId="6488" Text="You can make them yourself fairly easily by buying full sheets of seaweed in bulk at an Asian grocery store (some regular chain grocery stores carry them too). The big packs of seaweed do still contain plastic, but it’s less than in a single-serving container. “Roasted seaweed snack recipe” will get you lots of google hits. Here is one link: https://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/sesame-seaweed-snacks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They do need to be stored in a VERY airtight container. The single-use seaweed snacks I’ve purchased always had something similar to a silica gel packet and an absorbent napkin at the bottom as well, so if you won’t eat this right away those would be good to add to the storage container. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7229" RevisionGUID="a35413db-5a0a-48f8-a654-e856a0592811" CreationDate="2019-04-23T18:15:35.277" UserId="6488" Text="For canned goods, you can cover them and put them in the fridge rather than throwing out the unused portion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most sustainable way is to buy a hand-crank “smooth edge” can opener. They create a reusable lid via the method used to open the can. Electric ones exist as well. They cost the same as regular can openers and are advertised as a cut-proof option, I haven’t actually seen any that acknowledge the reusable lid aspect. Here is an example (don’t mind the price, I’ve only ever seen it for $5-10 at TJ MAXX or Bed Bath and Beyond): https://www.zyliss.com/shop/gadgets-tools/can-openers/safe-edge-can-opener/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other options are reusable silicone lids (often available for free as “pet food can covers” at the vet or at any event with vendor tables), Saran Wrap, or even putting a plate over the open can. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19100" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7230" RevisionGUID="2f0dd848-3d12-4726-8c30-7c8e9922a268" CreationDate="2019-04-23T18:59:50.830" UserId="6563" Text="I'm looking for something a little bit better than your average bike in terms of transportation potential, but cannot be a license-required vehicle as I cannot get a driver's license. I also don't have good terms with regular bicycles as every single one I've had has worn out well before even 2 years of daily use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought the obvious:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Electric bikes (too expensive though and customizing to fit my needs would be difficult too);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Public transportation (the price isn't the issue, but the waiting/inconvenience/limited means);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Walking (I already do this and while it is manageable, it takes forever to go anywhere far obviously).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a more ideal, not-so-expensive way to do better than a bike, but less than a license needed vehicle and/or slow and limited public transport? Any other in-betweens I may be missing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19101" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="7230" RevisionGUID="2f0dd848-3d12-4726-8c30-7c8e9922a268" CreationDate="2019-04-23T18:59:50.830" UserId="6563" Text="Method of transport with decent speed/low cost without a driving license?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19102" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="7230" RevisionGUID="2f0dd848-3d12-4726-8c30-7c8e9922a268" CreationDate="2019-04-23T18:59:50.830" UserId="6563" Text="|transport|vehicle|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7231" RevisionGUID="6da6f52a-526d-4f70-9af6-b2ec6ac85bf6" CreationDate="2019-04-23T21:31:38.270" UserId="4886" Text="Depending on what country/state you live in, a sub-50cc moped/scooter might be an option.  Some areas allow these to be ridden with only an age requirement — no license needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vPo0p.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7232" RevisionGUID="35b5e398-f710-40df-82a0-79aa5ad5f522" CreationDate="2019-04-23T22:21:51.857" UserId="771" Text="Have a look at the work of Martin Crawford, e.g. [Creating a Forest Garden: Working with Nature to Grow Edible Crops](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8062379-creating-a-forest-garden):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Offering inspiration for all gardeners, this book features beautiful color photographs and illustrations throughout, and is divided into two parts. Part One looks at why and how to grow particular crops and how to look after them for maximum health. Part Two features more than 100 perennial edibles in detail, both common and unusual, from rhubarb to skirret and Jerusalem artichoke to nodding onions. This book also provides plenty of cooking tips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="7233" RevisionGUID="55dd5dbe-d80d-4497-b9e6-28eb5aeacee1" CreationDate="2019-04-24T00:06:10.403" UserId="6293" Text="In general, any two or three wheeler with a one-speed transmission and no manual clutch, or with a two-speed automatic transmission, and a ~50cc engine, is a moped. Some states don't require tag and insurance but most states require a driver's license. Also, the top speed of the moped is likely required to be 30 MPH. Note that only &quot;most states&quot; require a driver's license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a traditional moped with larger diameter wheels is wanted then the Tomos was recently re-imported. Otherwise, Honda has a long-wheelbase 50cc rat scooter as well as traditional scooters. And Yamaha has some 50cc scooters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have previously suggested a new type of moped. The 50cc engine would go into a mountain-bike or beach-bike frame like a motorized bicycle. The moped would use mountain-bike wheels, tires, and brakes but DOT approved. So the moped would weigh about 60 to 75 pounds instead of double that amount. A computer would limit engine RPM to make the 30 MPH but since the moped would have extra power available it would not slow down just because of going up hills. The moped would have a four-stroke engine for torque if not otherwise expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Motorized bicycle ? That currently and most often refers to a two-stroke engine put in a beach-bike frame. When the police are spotted just turn the engine off and pedal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a bicycle I recommend a gravel-bike which is a lightweight bicycle with wide tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric bicycles are a problem because they are more often designed for top speed instead of hill climbing. In other words they are pedal assist but work best with faster pedaling. I think maybe we should go to throttle controlled electric bicycles with 20 MPH top speeds but most states would call that a moped and then make them illegal because of not having DOT tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now Europe has light and heavy quadricycles that are four-wheel vehicles not regulated as cars. Take a look at the Twizy. But there is no such thing as a quadricycle in the U.S. and therefor a lot of three-wheel vehicles are being designed for the U.S. which are then regulated as motorcycles. The three-wheel vehicle works best as having two front wheels and one rear wheel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somehow kit cars come to mind. The Stalker 7 is one of many Lotus 7 variants. Or there is a Factory Five &quot;AC Cobra&quot; variant. In fact an aftermarket C3 Corvette frame can be used to build a kit car by replacing the OEM &quot;birdcage&quot; subframe with a roll cage. The result is not likely to have swinging doors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Favorite small motorcycle is the KTM Duke 390 or RC 390. But Honda, Kawasaki, and Yamaha all have popular small motorcycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, a person's life depends on their vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="19106" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7233" RevisionGUID="3e2ba3d2-f56e-4003-a79d-86475bf36cbc" CreationDate="2019-04-24T00:13:52.193" UserId="6293" Comment="added 79 characters in body" Text="In general, any two or three wheeler with a one-speed transmission and no manual clutch, or with a two-speed automatic transmission, and a ~50cc engine, is a moped. Some states don't require tag and insurance but most states require a driver's license. Also, the top speed of the moped is likely required to be 30 MPH. Note that only &quot;most states&quot; require a driver's license.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a traditional moped with larger diameter wheels is wanted then the Tomos was recently re-imported. Otherwise, Honda has a long-wheelbase 50cc rat scooter as well as traditional scooters. And Yamaha has some 50cc scooters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have previously suggested a new type of moped. The 50cc engine would go into a mountain-bike or beach-bike frame like a motorized bicycle. The moped would use mountain-bike wheels, tires, and brakes but DOT approved. So the moped would weigh about 60 to 75 pounds instead of double that amount. A computer would limit engine RPM to make the 30 MPH top speed but since the moped would have extra power available it would not slow down just because of going up hills. The moped would have a four-stroke engine for torque if not otherwise expected. Also, the one-speed moped would automatically clutch by control of a computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Motorized bicycle ? That currently and most often refers to a two-stroke engine put in a beach-bike frame. When the police are spotted just turn the engine off and pedal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a bicycle I recommend a gravel-bike which is a lightweight bicycle with wide tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric bicycles are a problem because they are more often designed for top speed instead of hill climbing. In other words they are pedal assist but work best with faster pedaling. I think maybe we should go to throttle controlled electric bicycles with 20 MPH top speeds but most states would call that a moped and then make them illegal because of not having DOT tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now Europe has light and heavy quadricycles that are four-wheel vehicles not regulated as cars. Take a look at the Twizy. But there is no such thing as a quadricycle in the U.S. and therefor a lot of three-wheel vehicles are being designed for the U.S. which are then regulated as motorcycles. The three-wheel vehicle works best as having two front wheels and one rear wheel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somehow kit cars come to mind. The Stalker 7 is one of many Lotus 7 variants. Or there is a Factory Five &quot;AC Cobra&quot; variant. In fact an aftermarket C3 Corvette frame can be used to build a kit car by replacing the OEM &quot;birdcage&quot; subframe with a roll cage. The result is not likely to have swinging doors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A favorite small motorcycle is the KTM Duke 390 or RC 390. But Honda, Kawasaki, and Yamaha all have popular small motorcycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, a person's life depends on their vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8233" RevisionGUID="a90e96c0-188e-481f-966c-9f6615bb05a8" CreationDate="2019-04-24T08:57:11.613" UserId="6565" Text="Like most people, we eat some meat, and the resulting bones need to be dealt with after the hens have finished cleaning them or they have been used for stock. I have been burying some bones but am running out of suitable spots! Is it possible for me to make bonemeal myself at home to use in our garden?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20106" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8233" RevisionGUID="a90e96c0-188e-481f-966c-9f6615bb05a8" CreationDate="2019-04-24T08:57:11.613" UserId="6565" Text="Homemade bonemeal? Is it possible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20107" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8233" RevisionGUID="a90e96c0-188e-481f-966c-9f6615bb05a8" CreationDate="2019-04-24T08:57:11.613" UserId="6565" Text="|gardening|soil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20108" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7225" RevisionGUID="f9de209b-8029-45d4-9fdf-eaba91363b02" CreationDate="2019-04-24T12:08:25.137" UserId="99" Comment="52" />
  <row Id="20109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7119" RevisionGUID="9426989f-758c-48b8-b0f8-4404aed79600" CreationDate="2019-04-24T20:54:16.287" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed broken links. Found better data for MISO, PJM, and SPP" Text="# What is marginal energy, or fuel on the margin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fuel on the margin, when talking about the electric grid, refers to which fuel will be used to generate the next additional kilowatt of power that is required.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine that your house is in a steady state, using the same amount of power, with a steady mix of fuel being used to generate that power. When you turn on a light, which one of those fuels will increase in generation to meet that demand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the fuel on the margin, and is largely (but not exclusively) a function of how much it costs to turn that fuel into electricity. This price takes into account the time of day, cost of the fuel, amount of extra power needed, technical constraints, and rules and regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Which fuel is typically on the margin in the U.S.? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently, for most of the U.S., natural gas is the fuel most likely to be on the margin.** Soon, it will be the fuel on the margin for the entire U.S. This will likely remain the case until energy storage becomes widespread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. is divided into [Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators](https://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/overview.asp?csrt=2163115379198905111), which are non-profit organizations that manage the grid in different regions of the country. I've taken a look at data from some of the largest to see which fuel is on the margin for each. These regions cover most of the U.S. population (the southeast and most of the west are excluded as these markets are still vertically integrated, meaning that each utility is self-regulated and there's no central source of data).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The Midwest -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MISO covers most of the midwest and a few southern states, and operates 175 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MISO provides real time fuel mix data ([here](https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time--market-data/real-time-displays/)), as well as [historical real-time fuel on the margin data](https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time--market-data/market-reports/#nt=/MarketReportType:Real-Time/MarketReportName:Historical%20Real-Time%20Fuel%20on%20the%20Margin%20(zip)). I downloaded the data and did a quick analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On average, natural gas generators are marginal every day from 7am to 11pm. Looking at the totals, natural gas is marginal 51% of the time, while coal is marginal 39% of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Central East Coast -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PJM covers 13 states on the east coast, serves 65 million customers, and has 166 GW of total capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PJM provides [marginal fuel data](https://www.monitoringanalytics.com/data/marginal_fuel.shtml) on a monthly basis, with a two month delay. The most recent [State of the Market report](https://www.monitoringanalytics.com/reports/PJM_State_of_the_Market/2018.shtml) also includes a historical analysis of real-time marginal units in Figure 3-5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2018, natural gas was marginal about 60% of the time, while coal was marginal 30% of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Central corridor -- coal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) covers a column of states between Texas and the Canadian border, and operates 85 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SPP provides [real-time generation mix data](https://marketplace.spp.org/pages/generation-mix-rolling-365), but the graphic seems to be broken currently. I downloaded the data and did some analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here it's clear that while the trends for natural gas and coal roughly match, coal dominates the mix by volume. However, since natural gas is more variable,  as [coal](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/more-coal-folds-firstenergy-and-aes-announce-pending-plant-closures) [plants](https://about.bnef.com/blog/u-s-coal-plant-retirements-near-all-time-high/) [close](https://www.powermag.com/oklahoma-coal-plant-sets-closing-date-losing-ppa/), natural gas will take pole position as the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Texas -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ERCOT covers most of Texas and manages 76 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Texas, I wasn't able to find information directly on fuel on the margin, or hourly output by fuel. However unlike most other ISOs/RTOs which operate energy *and* capacity markets, Texas has an energy *only* market. As a result, plants compete almost exclusively on the price of power they deliver to the grid. This means that the monthly breakdown of total generation (available [here](http://www.ercot.com/news/presentations)) gives strong clues about which is the *de facto* fuel on the margin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this it seems clear that natural gas (&quot;Gas-CC&quot; and &quot;Gas&quot;) is essentially the fuel on the margin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### California -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CAISO covers most of California and manages 60 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CAISO has [real-time data on their website](http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/Supply.aspx):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal (near the bottom) is a flat line. When renewables (mostly solar) come on- or off-line with the sunshine, natural gas ramps up and down, meaning it is the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### New York -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NYISO covers New York state and manages 39 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NYISO also has [real time data on their website](https://www.nyiso.com/real-time-dashboard):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The story here is more interesting due to the large amounts of hydro electricity available, and the large number of [dual fuel](https://www.genrent-international.com/power-plants-rental/dual-fuel-power-plants) power plants which can burn either natural gas or diesel. So while it may look like a three-way tie, we can lump dual fuel plants with natural gas plants, since [diesel is more expensive than natural gas](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/15?agg=2,0,1&amp;fuel=vtvv&amp;geo=g&amp;sec=g&amp;linechart=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M~ELEC.COST_BTU.PEL-US-99.M~ELEC.COST_BTU.NG-US-99.M&amp;columnchart=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M&amp;map=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M&amp;freq=M&amp;start=200801&amp;end=201811&amp;ctype=linechart&amp;ltype=pin&amp;rtype=s&amp;maptype=0&amp;rse=0&amp;pin=). This means that natural gas is also the marginal fuel in New York.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### New England -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ISO-NE covers six north-east states, and operates 32 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-time ISO-NE data is available from the [EIA](https://www.eia.gov/dashboard/newengland/electricity):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the chart it's clear that natural gas is the most variable fuel -- the most likely to increase or decrease output over time. This is another way to say that it is the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7FGxN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D368C.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AVjdB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sHHn3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMvbb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bi290.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wSqL4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20110" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7216" RevisionGUID="12cfabda-5c9d-485e-843d-2dbf26633b41" CreationDate="2019-04-25T06:00:34.197" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1121292898761310208" />
  <row Id="20111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8234" RevisionGUID="43dff2c6-df53-4d29-9267-3948bf0e15c3" CreationDate="2019-04-25T07:47:47.950" UserId="6567" Text="While using bonemeal as a fertilizer has a long tradition, it's usage decreased a lot since the upcoming of [BSE][1] as contaminated bones can contamine your plants and also animals in your garden. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may depend on where you are, but if you use bonemeal, you should always keep this in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy#Spread_to_humans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20112" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8233" RevisionGUID="d1d6e014-33ac-472e-973c-908cba42c980" CreationDate="2019-04-25T12:00:34.953" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1121383498584084480" />
  <row Id="20113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8234" RevisionGUID="c1015773-df28-4b58-a45a-a876a2582c0c" CreationDate="2019-04-25T16:15:59.070" UserId="6567" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="While using bonemeal as a fertilizer has a long tradition, it's usage decreased a lot since the upcoming of [BSE][1] as contaminated bones can contamine your plants and also animals in your garden. BSE is short for Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease), a disease that spreads through feeding bonemeal containing fodder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may depend on where you are, but if you use bonemeal, you should always keep this in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy#Spread_to_humans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7119" RevisionGUID="93456e7a-25a4-4d32-9306-6caee6832212" CreationDate="2019-04-25T16:30:48.710" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved details on future of SPP fuel mix." Text="# What is marginal energy, or fuel on the margin?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fuel on the margin, when talking about the electric grid, refers to which fuel will be used to generate the next additional kilowatt of power that is required.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine that your house is in a steady state, using the same amount of power, with a steady mix of fuel being used to generate that power. When you turn on a light, which one of those fuels will increase in generation to meet that demand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the fuel on the margin, and is largely (but not exclusively) a function of how much it costs to turn that fuel into electricity. This price takes into account the time of day, cost of the fuel, amount of extra power needed, technical constraints, and rules and regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Which fuel is typically on the margin in the U.S.? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Currently, for most of the U.S., natural gas is the fuel most likely to be on the margin.** Soon, it will be the fuel on the margin for the entire U.S. This will likely remain the case until energy storage becomes widespread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. is divided into [Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators](https://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/overview.asp?csrt=2163115379198905111), which are non-profit organizations that manage the grid in different regions of the country. I've taken a look at data from some of the largest to see which fuel is on the margin for each. These regions cover most of the U.S. population (the southeast and most of the west are excluded as these markets are still vertically integrated, meaning that each utility is self-regulated and there's no central source of data).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The Midwest -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; MISO covers most of the midwest and a few southern states, and operates 175 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MISO provides real time fuel mix data ([here](https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time--market-data/real-time-displays/)), as well as [historical real-time fuel on the margin data](https://www.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time--market-data/market-reports/#nt=/MarketReportType:Real-Time/MarketReportName:Historical%20Real-Time%20Fuel%20on%20the%20Margin%20(zip)). I downloaded the data and did a quick analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On average, natural gas generators are marginal every day from 7am to 11pm. Looking at the totals, natural gas is marginal 51% of the time, while coal is marginal 39% of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Central East Coast -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PJM covers 13 states on the east coast, serves 65 million customers, and has 166 GW of total capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PJM provides [marginal fuel data](https://www.monitoringanalytics.com/data/marginal_fuel.shtml) on a monthly basis, with a two month delay. The most recent [State of the Market report](https://www.monitoringanalytics.com/reports/PJM_State_of_the_Market/2018.shtml) also includes a historical analysis of real-time marginal units in Figure 3-5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2018, natural gas was marginal about 60% of the time, while coal was marginal 30% of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Central corridor -- coal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) covers a column of states between Texas and the Canadian border, and operates 85 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SPP provides [real-time generation mix data](https://marketplace.spp.org/pages/generation-mix-rolling-365), but the graphic seems to be broken currently. I downloaded the data and did some analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it's clear from this chart that coal is the marginal fuel, the interesting thing is how it's cycled to accommodate the morning bump in wind generation. In their [most recent 10-year plan](https://www.spp.org/documents/51179/2017_itp10_report_board%20approved_april2017_final.pdf) (from 2017), SPP predicts retirement of at least 1 GW of coal capacity ([of 26 GW currently online](https://www.spp.org/about-us/fast-facts/)), and addition of as much as 10 GW of natural gas capacity (added to the existing 36 GW). Considering how coal is currently being cycled, along with the expected change in future generation mix, indicates that by 2025 natural gas will almost certainly be the marginal fuel in SPP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Texas -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ERCOT covers most of Texas and manages 76 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Texas, I wasn't able to find information directly on fuel on the margin, or hourly output by fuel. However unlike most other ISOs/RTOs which operate energy *and* capacity markets, Texas has an energy *only* market. As a result, plants compete almost exclusively on the price of power they deliver to the grid. This means that the monthly breakdown of total generation (available [here](http://www.ercot.com/news/presentations)) gives strong clues about which is the *de facto* fuel on the margin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this it seems clear that natural gas (&quot;Gas-CC&quot; and &quot;Gas&quot;) is essentially the fuel on the margin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### California -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CAISO covers most of California and manages 60 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CAISO has [real-time data on their website](http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/Supply.aspx):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal (near the bottom) is a flat line. When renewables (mostly solar) come on- or off-line with the sunshine, natural gas ramps up and down, meaning it is the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### New York -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; NYISO covers New York state and manages 39 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NYISO also has [real time data on their website](https://www.nyiso.com/real-time-dashboard):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The story here is more interesting due to the large amounts of hydro electricity available, and the large number of [dual fuel](https://www.genrent-international.com/power-plants-rental/dual-fuel-power-plants) power plants which can burn either natural gas or diesel. So while it may look like a three-way tie, we can lump dual fuel plants with natural gas plants, since [diesel is more expensive than natural gas](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/15?agg=2,0,1&amp;fuel=vtvv&amp;geo=g&amp;sec=g&amp;linechart=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M~ELEC.COST_BTU.PEL-US-99.M~ELEC.COST_BTU.NG-US-99.M&amp;columnchart=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M&amp;map=ELEC.COST_BTU.COW-US-99.M&amp;freq=M&amp;start=200801&amp;end=201811&amp;ctype=linechart&amp;ltype=pin&amp;rtype=s&amp;maptype=0&amp;rse=0&amp;pin=). This means that natural gas is also the marginal fuel in New York.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### New England -- natural gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ISO-NE covers six north-east states, and operates 32 GW of capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Real-time ISO-NE data is available from the [EIA](https://www.eia.gov/dashboard/newengland/electricity):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the chart it's clear that natural gas is the most variable fuel -- the most likely to increase or decrease output over time. This is another way to say that it is the marginal fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7FGxN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/D368C.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AVjdB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sHHn3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oMvbb.png&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bi290.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wSqL4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8235" RevisionGUID="dff96c2e-e13e-449e-8063-51df689b8d43" CreationDate="2019-04-25T17:31:06.067" UserId="6393" Text="An electric scooter would be ideal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bicycles suffer from a peculiar characteristic of humans, namely that they produce power at a ridiculously low RPM. Power is force times speed. If speed is low, to get any useful power, you need huge amounts of force. The rotational equivalent is that power is torque times RPM, very similar to the linear equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's consider how much torque a 100 kg rider that pulls up 30 kg from the handlebar exerts. 130 kg = 1275 N. That at 0.17 m crank length is 217 Nm. It's probably more torque than in my car engine!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what issues you have had with bicycles, but I'm suspecting it may be related to the drivetrain components, such as chains and sprockets wearing out quickly. They do that because of the huge forces involved, due to the low rotational and linear speeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some bicycle failures: http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/000.html -- those occur because bicycles are lightweight and need to withstand extremely high forces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, handlebars, stems, etc. can crack due to huge forces involved when pulling up from the handlebars to obtain more force on the pedals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, most bicycles are designed to be easy to pedal. If you have electric propulsion, for example low rolling resistance of tires is no longer a must. Thus, you can have thicker tires that get less punctures. Bicycle tires are designed to be usually low rolling resistance, at the cost of frequent punctures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideal electric scooters use typically smaller wheels for higher RPMs at the same linear velocity. They use a different drivetrain that works at high speed, allowing the engine to spin at 10 000 RPM or so. Electric motors like to spin at 5000 - 20000 RPM, generating very little torque but considerable power due to the high RPMs. Less torque equals smaller numbers of failures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One answer recommended a 50cc scooter. &lt;b&gt;Don't!&lt;/b&gt; They are often two-stroke engines generating very harmful exhaust emissions. Even the 4-stroke ones lack a catalytic converter. Actually, these tiny 50cc engines are more harmful than a car engine if you consider only the harmful emissions (they may generate a little less CO2 per mile, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure most places are modern and allow electric equivalents to 50cc scooters. Get such an electric equivalent! Chances are it will eventually save you the amount of money you have to spend on gasoline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8236" RevisionGUID="b84e059f-c9db-4699-b6d4-ae9091fa0920" CreationDate="2019-04-25T18:24:39.110" UserId="6393" Text="I'd say a refillable lighter using butane would be close to ideal. Use some old newspapers to help set the wood to fire, instead of trying to ignite wood directly with a lighter. If it runs out of butane, refill it. If it breaks, dispose of it properly. Some might suggest that butane is made from non-renewable resources. That's not an issue. The lighter is used only for starting a fire, with the fire itself using some other fuels like wood, that are ideally sustainable and renewable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you absolutely loathe plastic and butane because they are made from non-renewable resources, I have some good news for you:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Butane can be made from trees&#xD;&#xA;* Even plastics can be made from trees!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The little amount of plastics and butane needed is so trivial that if every lighter made in this planet was made from trees, the amount of forest used would be minuscule. (In comparison, if all gasoline and diesel used in cars and heavy trucks was made from trees, we would soon run out of forest.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, you cannot purchase butane or plastics made from trees today, because the demand for such a niche product would be low in bulk quantities, and even lower when specifically used to make lighters. So I don't think we'll soon see 100% eco-friendly lighters that use only butane and plastics made from sustainably managed forests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say the environmental impact of fire is mainly caused by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The fuel being used, is it sustainable, is it renewable?&#xD;&#xA;* The particulate matter produced by the fire that can actually be a real issue in densely populated areas even if the fuel is sustainable and renewable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just consider how much wood a fire needs, and how little butane is used by the lighter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to minimize the environmental impacts of you starting a fire, turn your attention to the main fuel of the fire and forget the environmental impact of the fire-starting method." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20117" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8237" RevisionGUID="afd884f7-166f-4030-9a9e-953bc5818aff" CreationDate="2019-04-25T18:34:43.547" UserId="6393" Text="Easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the software product is used by few, the environmental impact comes from your development and testing machines. Use low-power machines, as few as them as possible. Don't over-invest into high-end build servers, although if there are many developers, a single shared powerful server may be justified. The power consumption of these computers can be simply determined by a simple power usage meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the software product is used by many, the environmental impacts of their computers dominates. Make the software as efficient as possible. You should consider the amount of memory used, and the amount of disk space used, although the main environmental impact comes from the amount of power used by the processor. Don't spin-wait, use efficient sleeping techniques. Use CPU-efficient algorithms and data structures. A fully occupied CPU uses easily 10x the electricity of an idle CPU. Look at the thermal design power (TDP) ratings of processors and you'll get the idea: they range from 10 watts in low-end laptops to over 100 watts in powerful desktops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some software runs in clouds. In this case, you should be as CPU- and memory-efficient as possible, too, to minimize the resource use of the software. Thermal design power is again a useful tool for determining the power use of cloud software. Don't forget to multiply the power used by the datacenter power coefficient, which takes into account the amount of auxiliary electricity used for e.g. cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of any formal studies, but this is not rocket science." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20118" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8238" RevisionGUID="a16cc754-9d97-4962-a5ad-8af4d117fdbc" CreationDate="2019-04-25T18:39:13.903" UserId="6393" Text="Lots of good answers here, but they miss one important characteristic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Charging time&lt;/b&gt; of electric motor powered battery car versus &lt;b&gt;refuel time&lt;/b&gt; of an internal combustion engine car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get any useful amount of charge, even the best charging solutions require at least half an hour, and these fast charging solutions don't charge to full level, they stop at around 70%-80%. Not only that, but this speed requires a fast charger. Many charging stations are slow ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, it's only few minutes to refill a gasoline or diesel car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen may be a solution to the charging time problems. It can be generated using electricity on site on the refueling station, and hydrogen refueling doesn't take that much longer compared to gasoline / diesel refueling. Hydrogen cars ideally use fuel cells and electric motors. The obvious drawback is lower energy efficiency compared to direct electricity use in batteries. Also, hydrogen fuel cells are today quite expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8239" RevisionGUID="a2daa3f5-3ddb-427b-8df1-49d183148f82" CreationDate="2019-04-25T18:43:19.233" UserId="6393" Text="It's usually not the diode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's poor components around the diode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LEDs require a peculiar power supply, that provides constant current at slightly varying voltages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These power supplies may use capacitors, such as electrolytic capacitors. They are short-lived if the LED produces lots of heat which the light fixture may not be efficient in distributing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in incandescent light bulbs, the waste heat is radiated away as infrared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In LEDs, it is conducted away -- to the power supply capacitors!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even buying LEDs from reputable brands may not work. I have used many Osrams which have had an extremely short lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I find it annoying that manufacturers put such weak components around the diode." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20120" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8233" RevisionGUID="b6ff13bf-090b-4293-b239-fb9186360e43" CreationDate="2019-04-26T00:52:32.223" UserId="3532" Comment="a properly worded question" Text="Is it possible to make homemade bone meal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20121" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8233" RevisionGUID="b6ff13bf-090b-4293-b239-fb9186360e43" CreationDate="2019-04-26T00:52:32.223" Comment="Proposed by 3532 approved by -1 edit id of 570" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20122" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8233" RevisionGUID="1d1f133d-c79b-47ab-9b10-9474b49a3053" CreationDate="2019-04-26T00:52:32.223" UserId="3379" Comment="a properly worded question" Text="Like many people, we eat some meat, and the resulting bones need to be dealt with after the hens have finished cleaning them or they have been used for stock. I have been burying some bones but am running out of suitable spots! Is it possible for me to make bone meal myself at home to use in our garden? How do I make it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8235" RevisionGUID="1e03ed11-d2ab-45b2-bece-5834db28e33d" CreationDate="2019-04-26T16:49:43.020" UserId="6393" Comment="some 50cc scooters have a cat" Text="An electric scooter would be ideal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bicycles suffer from a peculiar characteristic of humans, namely that they produce power at a ridiculously low RPM. Power is force times speed. If speed is low, to get any useful power, you need huge amounts of force. The rotational equivalent is that power is torque times RPM, very similar to the linear equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's consider how much torque a 100 kg rider that pulls up 30 kg from the handlebar exerts. 130 kg = 1275 N. That at 0.17 m crank length is 217 Nm. It's probably more torque than in my car engine!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what issues you have had with bicycles, but I'm suspecting it may be related to the drivetrain components, such as chains and sprockets wearing out quickly. They do that because of the huge forces involved, due to the low rotational and linear speeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some bicycle failures: http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/000.html -- those occur because bicycles are lightweight and need to withstand extremely high forces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, handlebars, stems, etc. can crack due to huge forces involved when pulling up from the handlebars to obtain more force on the pedals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, most bicycles are designed to be easy to pedal. If you have electric propulsion, for example low rolling resistance of tires is no longer a must. Thus, you can have thicker tires that get less punctures. Bicycle tires are designed to be usually low rolling resistance, at the cost of frequent punctures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideal electric scooters use typically smaller wheels for higher RPMs at the same linear velocity. They use a different drivetrain that works at high speed, allowing the engine to spin at 10 000 RPM or so. Electric motors like to spin at 5000 - 20000 RPM, generating very little torque but considerable power due to the high RPMs. Less torque equals smaller numbers of failures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One answer recommended a 50cc scooter. The cheapest are often two-stroke engines generating very harmful exhaust emissions. Even the 4-stroke ones may lack a catalytic converter (although I was reminded that the best models may have a cat). Actually, the non-catalytic-converter tiny 50cc engines are more harmful than a car engine if you consider only the harmful emissions (they may generate a little less CO2 per mile, though). So, whether a 50cc scooter is environmentally friendly will depend on the exact model: do get a 4-stroke one with a catalytic converter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure most places are modern and allow electric equivalents to 50cc scooters. Get such an electric equivalent! Chances are it will eventually save you the amount of money you have to spend on gasoline." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20124" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7112" RevisionGUID="cb6df428-42ea-4f2a-8667-67aa102a6c13" CreationDate="2019-04-27T00:02:08.323" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1121927472268873728" />
  <row Id="20125" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8240" RevisionGUID="72275b08-68fd-4df9-a22a-b42d0d69a070" CreationDate="2019-04-27T05:51:39.940" UserId="4886" Text="Efficiency numbers are, unfortunately, misused/abused by companies that manufacture and sell wood heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Combustion Efficiency**&quot; is not actually a direct measure of how much heat is produced by burning wood.  It's a direct measure of &quot;how **completely** (or *cleanly*) the wood has burned&quot;.  A stove that has an 89.1% combustion efficiency burns 89.1% of all the available fuel (under test conditions).  10.9% of the fuel either remains behind in the firebox (usually in the form to charcoal) or escapes up the chimney (usually in the form of carbon monoxide).  In any case, it's not a measure of heat but, because the number tends to be higher than the other types of efficiency ratings, marketing departments love to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know how much *heat* is produced, then you need to look at either &quot;Net Efficiency&quot; or &quot;Gross Efficiency&quot; ratings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Net Efficiency**&quot; ratings describe how much heat you can theoretically extract from firewood using the appliance in question.  Contrary to what most people understand by 'net' it **does not** factor in how much of the heat is wasted vapourising the moisture in the wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Gross Efficiency**&quot; ratings describe how much heat you actually extract from firewood using the appliance.  The energy taken to vapourise moisture **has** been taken into consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters in Europe are tested according to EN standards, and those tests use firewood that has an 18.5% moisture content.  If your heater is described as having a Net Efficiency, and burns regular (dry) firewood, you can convert that to a Gross Efficiency by multiplying by 0.91 (e.g. Net 81% * 0.91 = Gross 73.7%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gross Efficiency is what you are after to do the math.  Gross Efficiency is useful.  Once you have a Gross Efficiency figure, the rest is easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each kilogram of (EN Standard) dry wood contains 5.14 kWh of &quot;potential heat&quot; so 1 kWh of energy is contained in (1/5.14=) 0.195 kg of wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your wood heater's Gross Efficiency was (say) 70% then the actual amount of wood that you would need to produce 1 kWh of heat is (0.195/0.70=) 0.279 kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  **1 kWh of heat can be extracted from 0.195/GrossEfficiency(as decimal) kg of dry (18.5% moisture content) firewood.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In many Western counties, wood heaters have to undergo independent testing before they can be sold to ensure that they comply with local regulations.  The test results *may* be commercial-in-confidence, but reputable wood heater manufacturers/vendors — with nothing to hide — should be willing to provide a copy of either the entire report or an extract.  This document is almost always more useful than the glossy brochure the Sales department provides as it contains all of the efficiency ratings that were measured/calculated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20126" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8240" RevisionGUID="7d9b45f1-585b-4c51-bb20-f1e319a129c6" CreationDate="2019-04-27T06:06:59.167" UserId="4886" Comment="added 447 characters in body" Text="Efficiency numbers are, unfortunately, misused/abused by companies that manufacture and sell wood heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Combustion Efficiency**&quot; is not actually a direct measure of how much heat is produced by burning wood.  It's a direct measure of &quot;how **completely** (or *cleanly*) the wood has burned&quot;.  A stove that has an 89.1% combustion efficiency burns 89.1% of all the available fuel (under test conditions).  10.9% of the fuel either remains behind in the firebox (usually in the form to charcoal) or escapes up the chimney (usually in the form of carbon monoxide).  In any case, it's not a measure of heat but, because the number tends to be higher than the other types of efficiency ratings, marketing departments love to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know how much *heat* is produced, then you need to look at either &quot;Net Efficiency&quot; or &quot;Gross Efficiency&quot; ratings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Net Efficiency**&quot; ratings describe how much heat you can theoretically extract from firewood using the appliance in question.  Contrary to what most people understand by 'net' it **does not** factor in how much of the heat is wasted vapourising the moisture in the wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Gross Efficiency**&quot; ratings describe how much heat you actually extract from firewood using the appliance.  The energy taken to vapourise moisture **has** been taken into consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters in Europe are tested according to EN standards, and those tests use firewood that has an 18.5% moisture content.  If your heater is described as having a Net Efficiency, and burns regular (dry) firewood, you can convert that to a Gross Efficiency by multiplying by 0.91 (e.g. Net 81% * 0.91 = Gross 73.7%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gross Efficiency is what you are after to do the math.  Gross Efficiency is useful.  Once you have a Gross Efficiency figure, the rest is easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each kilogram of (EN Standard) dry wood contains 5.14 kWh of &quot;potential heat&quot; so 1 kWh of energy is contained in (1/5.14=) 0.195 kg of wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your wood heater's Gross Efficiency was (say) 70% then the actual amount of wood that you would need to produce 1 kWh of heat is (0.195/0.70=) 0.279 kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  **1 kWh of heat can be extracted from 0.195/GrossEfficiency(as decimal) kg of dry (18.5% moisture content) firewood.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In many Western counties, wood heaters have to undergo independent testing before they can be sold to ensure that they comply with local regulations.  The test results *may* be commercial-in-confidence, but reputable wood heater manufacturers/vendors — with nothing to hide — should be willing to provide a copy of either the entire report or an extract.  This document is almost always more useful than the glossy brochure the Sales department provides as it contains all of the efficiency ratings that were measured/calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I am *not* trying to suggest that Combustion Efficiency figures are useless.  They are useful if what you are primarily concerned about are emissions.  And whilst a &quot;complete burn&quot; *will* release more heat than an &quot;incomplete burn&quot;, if your heater needs to draw in twice as much air to do so then you are going to lose a larger fraction of heat through the flue — and your house may actually end up *colder*.  It's called the &quot;Efficiency Paradox&quot;.  Some modern heaters — with multi-stage burns, convoluted gas paths, and low flue temperatures — defy the paradox and feature very good combustion *and* gross efficiencies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20127" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8240" RevisionGUID="ef3d47e0-0762-417d-854c-56fe4a73dd71" CreationDate="2019-04-27T20:42:41.220" UserId="4886" Comment="added 465 characters in body" Text="Efficiency numbers are, unfortunately, misused/abused by companies that manufacture and sell wood heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Combustion Efficiency**&quot; is not actually a direct measure of how much heat is produced by burning wood.  It's a direct measure of &quot;how **completely** (or *cleanly*) the wood has burned&quot;.  A stove that has an 89.1% combustion efficiency burns 89.1% of all the available fuel (under test conditions).  10.9% of the fuel either remains behind in the firebox (usually in the form to charcoal) or escapes up the chimney (usually in the form of carbon monoxide).  In any case, it's not a measure of heat but, because the number tends to be higher than the other types of efficiency ratings, marketing departments love to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know how much *heat* is produced, then you need to look at either &quot;Net Efficiency&quot; or &quot;Gross Efficiency&quot; ratings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Net Efficiency**&quot; ratings describe how much heat you can theoretically extract from firewood using the appliance in question.  Contrary to what most people understand by 'net' it **does not** factor in how much of the heat is wasted vapourising the moisture in the wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Gross Efficiency**&quot; ratings describe how much heat you actually extract from firewood using the appliance.  The energy taken to vapourise moisture **has** been taken into consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters in Europe are tested according to EN standards, and those tests use firewood that has an 18.5% moisture content.  If your heater is described as having a Net Efficiency, and burns regular (dry) firewood, you can convert that to a Gross Efficiency by multiplying by 0.91 (e.g. Net 81% * 0.91 = Gross 73.7%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 0.91 conversion number comes from 'Table E4: Efficiency conversion factors' in the 'The [UK] Government’s [Standard Assessment Procedure][1] for Energy Rating of Dwellings'.  The latest version is [SAP2012][2].  [Direct link to PDF][3].  Table E4 is on page 64.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gross Efficiency is what you are after to do the math.  Gross Efficiency is useful.  Once you have a Gross Efficiency figure, the rest is easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each kilogram of (EN Standard) dry wood contains 5.14 kWh of &quot;potential heat&quot; so 1 kWh of energy is contained in (1/5.14=) 0.195 kg of wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your wood heater's Gross Efficiency was (say) 70% then the actual amount of wood that you would need to produce 1 kWh of heat is (0.195/0.70=) 0.279 kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  **1 kWh of heat can be extracted from 0.195/GrossEfficiency(as decimal) kg of dry (18.5% moisture content) firewood.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In many Western counties, wood heaters have to undergo independent testing before they can be sold to ensure that they comply with local regulations.  The test results *may* be commercial-in-confidence, but reputable wood heater manufacturers/vendors — with nothing to hide — should be willing to provide a copy of either the entire report or an extract.  This document is almost always more useful than the glossy brochure the Sales department provides as it contains all of the efficiency ratings that were measured/calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I am *not* trying to suggest that Combustion Efficiency figures are useless.  They are useful if what you are primarily concerned about are emissions.  And whilst a &quot;complete burn&quot; *will* release more heat than an &quot;incomplete burn&quot;, if your heater needs to draw in twice as much air to do so then you are going to lose a larger fraction of heat through the flue — and your house may actually end up *colder*.  It's called the &quot;Efficiency Paradox&quot;.  Some modern heaters — with multi-stage burns, convoluted gas paths, and low flue temperatures — defy the paradox and feature very good combustion *and* gross efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/standard-assessment-procedure&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bre.co.uk/sap2012/page.jsp?id=2759&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/SAP/2012/SAP-2012_9-92.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20128" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8240" RevisionGUID="7624073c-c942-40fc-bfa0-ee4fa633009d" CreationDate="2019-04-27T22:29:42.630" UserId="4886" Comment="added 790 characters in body" Text="Efficiency numbers are, unfortunately, misused/abused by companies that manufacture and sell wood heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Combustion Efficiency**&quot; is not actually a direct measure of how much heat is produced by burning wood.  It's a direct measure of &quot;how **completely** (or *cleanly*) the wood has burned&quot;.  A stove that has an 89.1% combustion efficiency burns 89.1% of all the available fuel (under test conditions).  10.9% of the fuel either remains behind in the firebox (usually in the form to charcoal) or escapes up the chimney (usually in the form of carbon monoxide).  In any case, it's not a measure of heat but, because the number tends to be higher than the other types of efficiency ratings, marketing departments love to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know how much *heat* is produced, then you need to look at either &quot;Net Efficiency&quot; or &quot;Gross Efficiency&quot; ratings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Net Efficiency**&quot; ratings describe how much heat you can theoretically extract from firewood using the appliance in question.  Contrary to what most people understand by 'net' it **does not** factor in how much of the heat is wasted vapourising the moisture in the wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Gross Efficiency**&quot; ratings describe how much heat you actually extract from firewood using the appliance.  The energy taken to vapourise moisture **has** been taken into consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters in Europe are tested according to EN standards, and those tests use firewood that has an 18.5% moisture content.  If your heater is described as having a Net Efficiency, and burns regular (dry) firewood, you can convert that to a Gross Efficiency by multiplying by 0.91 (e.g. Net 81% * 0.91 = Gross 73.7%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 0.91 conversion number comes from 'Table E4: Efficiency conversion factors' in the 'The [UK] Government’s [Standard Assessment Procedure][1] for Energy Rating of Dwellings'.  The latest version is [SAP2012][2].  [Direct link to PDF][3].  Table E4 is on page 64.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gross Efficiency is what you are after to do the math.  Gross Efficiency is useful.  Once you have a Gross Efficiency figure, the rest is easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each kilogram of (EN Standard) dry wood contains 5.14 kWh of &quot;potential heat&quot; so 1 kWh of energy is contained in (1/5.14=) 0.195 kg of wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your wood heater's Gross Efficiency was (say) 70% then the actual amount of wood that you would need to produce 1 kWh of heat is (0.195/0.70=) 0.279 kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  **1 kWh of heat can be extracted from 0.195/GrossEfficiency(as decimal) kg of dry (18.5% moisture content) firewood.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In many Western counties, wood heaters have to undergo independent testing before they can be sold to ensure that they comply with local regulations.  The test results *may* be commercial-in-confidence, but reputable wood heater manufacturers/vendors — with nothing to hide — should be willing to provide a copy of either the entire report or an extract.  This document is almost always more useful than the glossy brochure the Sales department provides as it contains all of the efficiency ratings that were measured/calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I am *not* trying to suggest that Combustion Efficiency figures are useless.  They are useful if what you are primarily concerned about are emissions.  And whilst a &quot;complete burn&quot; *will* release more heat than an &quot;incomplete burn&quot;, if your heater needs to draw in twice as much air to do so then you are going to lose a larger fraction of heat through the flue — and your house may actually end up *colder*.  It's called the &quot;Efficiency Paradox&quot;.  Some modern heaters — with multi-stage burns, convoluted gas paths, and low flue temperatures — defy the paradox and feature very good combustion *and* gross efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPPS:  If, for whatever reason, you don't want to use the EN's 5.14kWh value, you can go to the [Phyllis2 database][4], check the box next to &quot;untreated wood&quot; (or expand the category and select one or more entries as a subset), then click the button labelled &quot;Average of Selected&quot;.  Results will be shown on the right.  Scroll down to the Calorific Values section.  Look at the row marked &quot;Net calorific value (LHV)&quot; and the column marked &quot;Mean&quot; (it's the only bold one).  That gives you MJ/kg.  Divide by 3.6 to get kWh/kg.  At the time of writing, the average for all untreated wood was 18.88MJ/kg, so (18.88/3.6=) 5.24kWh/kg.  As more and more samples are added to the database, expect the values to change slightly over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/standard-assessment-procedure&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bre.co.uk/sap2012/page.jsp?id=2759&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/SAP/2012/SAP-2012_9-92.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://phyllis.nl/Browse/Standard/ECN-Phyllis#untreated%20wood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8240" RevisionGUID="98bdb8de-9c4d-4aa7-8bc2-6039afc46a92" CreationDate="2019-04-27T22:41:46.557" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="Efficiency numbers are, unfortunately, misused/abused by companies that manufacture and sell wood heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Combustion Efficiency**&quot; is not actually a direct measure of how much heat is produced by burning wood.  It's a direct measure of &quot;how **completely** (or *cleanly*) the wood has burned&quot;.  A stove that has an 89.1% combustion efficiency burns 89.1% of all the available fuel (under test conditions).  10.9% of the fuel either remains behind in the firebox (usually in the form to charcoal) or escapes up the chimney (usually in the form of carbon monoxide).  In any case, it's not a measure of heat but, because the number tends to be higher than the other types of efficiency ratings, marketing departments love to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know how much *heat* is produced, then you need to look at either &quot;Net Efficiency&quot; or &quot;Gross Efficiency&quot; ratings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Net Efficiency**&quot; ratings describe how much heat you can theoretically extract from firewood using the appliance in question.  Contrary to what most people understand by 'net' it **does not** factor in how much of the heat is wasted vapourising the moisture in the wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Gross Efficiency**&quot; ratings describe how much heat you actually extract from firewood using the appliance.  The energy taken to vapourise moisture **has** been taken into consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters in Europe are tested according to EN standards, and those tests use firewood that has an 18.5% moisture content.  If your heater is described as having a Net Efficiency, and burns regular (dry) firewood, you can convert that to a Gross Efficiency by multiplying by 0.91 (e.g. Net 81% * 0.91 = Gross 73.7%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 0.91 conversion number comes from 'Table E4: Efficiency conversion factors' in the 'The [UK] Government’s [Standard Assessment Procedure][1] for Energy Rating of Dwellings'.  The latest version is [SAP2012][2].  [Direct link to PDF][3].  Table E4 is on page 64.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gross Efficiency is what you are after to do the math.  Gross Efficiency is useful.  Once you have a Gross Efficiency figure, the rest is easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each kilogram of (EN Standard) dry wood contains 5.14 kWh of &quot;potential heat&quot; so 1 kWh of energy is contained in (1/5.14=) 0.195 kg of wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your wood heater's Gross Efficiency was (say) 70% then the actual amount of wood that you would need to produce 1 kWh of heat is (0.195/0.70=) 0.279 kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  **1 kWh of heat can be extracted from 0.195/GrossEfficiency(as decimal) kg of dry (18.5% moisture content) firewood.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In many Western counties, wood heaters have to undergo independent testing before they can be sold to ensure that they comply with local regulations.  The test results *may* be commercial-in-confidence, but reputable wood heater manufacturers/vendors — with nothing to hide — should be willing to provide a copy of either the entire report or an extract.  This document is almost always more useful than the glossy brochure the Sales department provides as it contains all of the efficiency ratings that were measured/calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I am *not* trying to suggest that Combustion Efficiency figures are useless.  They are useful if what you are primarily concerned about are emissions.  And whilst a &quot;complete burn&quot; *will* release more heat than an &quot;incomplete burn&quot;, if your heater needs to draw in twice as much air to do so then you are going to lose a larger fraction of heat through the flue — and your house may actually end up *colder*.  It's called the &quot;Efficiency Paradox&quot;.  Some modern heaters — with multi-stage burns, convoluted gas paths, and low flue temperatures — defy the paradox and feature very good combustion *and* gross efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPPS:  If, for whatever reason, you don't want to use the EN's 5.14kWh value, you can go to the [Phyllis2 database][4], check the box next to &quot;untreated wood&quot; (or expand the category and select one or more entries as a subset), then click the button labelled &quot;Average of Selected&quot;.  Results will be shown on the right.  Scroll down to the Calorific Values section.  Look at the row marked &quot;Net calorific value (LHV)&quot; and the column marked &quot;Mean&quot; (it's the only bold one).  That gives you MJ/kg.  Divide by 3.6 to get kWh/kg.  At the time of writing, the average for all untreated wood was 18.88MJ/kg, so (18.88/3.6=) 5.24kWh/kg.  As more and more samples are added to the database, expect the values to refine over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/standard-assessment-procedure&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bre.co.uk/sap2012/page.jsp?id=2759&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/SAP/2012/SAP-2012_9-92.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://phyllis.nl/Browse/Standard/ECN-Phyllis#untreated%20wood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8240" RevisionGUID="16dfebfe-d4f8-4962-8673-d21e5f600840" CreationDate="2019-04-27T22:48:06.937" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 37 characters in body" Text="Efficiency numbers are, unfortunately, misused/abused by companies that manufacture and sell wood heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Combustion Efficiency**&quot; is not actually a direct measure of how much heat is produced by burning wood.  It's a direct measure of &quot;how **completely** (or *cleanly*) the wood has burned&quot;.  A stove that has an 89.1% combustion efficiency burns 89.1% of all the available fuel (under test conditions).  10.9% of the fuel either remains behind in the firebox (usually in the form to charcoal) or escapes up the chimney (usually in the form of carbon monoxide).  In any case, it's not a measure of heat but, because the number tends to be higher than the other types of efficiency ratings, marketing departments love to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know how much *heat* is produced, then you need to look at either &quot;Net Efficiency&quot; or &quot;Gross Efficiency&quot; ratings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Net Efficiency**&quot; ratings describe how much heat you can theoretically extract from firewood using the appliance in question.  Contrary to what most people understand by 'net' it **does not** factor in how much of the heat is wasted vapourising the moisture in the wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;**Gross Efficiency**&quot; ratings describe how much heat you actually extract from firewood using the appliance.  The energy taken to vapourise moisture **has** been taken into consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood heaters in Europe are tested according to EN standards, and those tests use firewood that has an 18.5% moisture content.  If your heater is described as having a Net Efficiency, and burns regular (dry) firewood, you can convert that to a Gross Efficiency by multiplying by 0.91 (e.g. Net 81% * 0.91 = Gross 73.7%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 0.91 conversion number comes from 'Table E4: Efficiency conversion factors' in the 'The [UK] Government’s [Standard Assessment Procedure][1] for Energy Rating of Dwellings'.  The latest version is [SAP2012][2].  [Direct link to PDF][3].  Table E4 is on page 64.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gross Efficiency is what you are after to do the math.  Gross Efficiency is useful.  Once you have a Gross Efficiency figure, the rest is easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each kilogram of (EN Standard) dry wood contains 5.14 kWh of &quot;potential heat&quot; so 1 kWh of energy is contained in (1/5.14=) 0.195 kg of wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your wood heater's Gross Efficiency was (say) 70% then the actual amount of wood that you would need to produce 1 kWh of heat is (0.195/0.70=) 0.279 kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  **1 kWh of heat can be extracted from 0.195/GrossEfficiency kg of dry firewood.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  In many Western counties, wood heaters have to undergo independent testing before they can be sold to ensure that they comply with local regulations.  The test results *may* be commercial-in-confidence, but reputable wood heater manufacturers/vendors — with nothing to hide — should be willing to provide a copy of either the entire report or an extract.  This document is almost always more useful than the glossy brochure the Sales department provides as it contains all of the efficiency ratings that were measured/calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPS:  I am *not* trying to suggest that Combustion Efficiency figures are useless.  They are useful if what you are primarily concerned about are emissions.  And whilst a &quot;complete burn&quot; *will* release more heat than an &quot;incomplete burn&quot;, if your heater needs to draw in twice as much air to do so then you are going to lose a larger fraction of heat through the flue — and your house may actually end up *colder*.  It's called the &quot;Efficiency Paradox&quot;.  Some modern heaters — with multi-stage burns, convoluted gas paths, and low flue temperatures — resolve the paradox and feature very good combustion *and* gross efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PPPS:  If, for whatever reason, you don't want to use the EN's 5.14kWh value, you can go to the [Phyllis2 database][4], check the box next to &quot;untreated wood&quot; (or expand the category and select one or more entries as a subset), then click the button labelled &quot;Average of Selected&quot;.  Results will be shown on the right.  Scroll down to the Calorific Values section.  Look at the row marked &quot;Net calorific value (LHV)&quot; and the column marked &quot;Mean&quot; (it's the only bold one).  That gives you MJ/kg.  Divide by 3.6 to get kWh/kg.  At the time of writing, the average for all untreated wood was 18.88MJ/kg, so (18.88/3.6=) 5.24kWh/kg.  As more and more samples are added to the database, expect the values to refine over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/standard-assessment-procedure&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bre.co.uk/sap2012/page.jsp?id=2759&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/SAP/2012/SAP-2012_9-92.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://phyllis.nl/Browse/Standard/ECN-Phyllis#untreated%20wood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8241" RevisionGUID="e7f4ace0-c8df-4935-9aa3-0a15a5406e10" CreationDate="2019-04-28T09:30:33.453" UserId="6438" Text="I live in the UK and do most of my groceries shopping online. At the same time I collect my order I can also hand back to the driver all carrier bags from my previous order (which is great).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some items like cereals, clearly indicate that the plastic packaging can be recycled along with carrier bags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most of them either don't or have this sign:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of such items:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I seem to remember that all types of plastic can be recycled but your local recycling facilities may not be able to process all of them. (I may be wrong.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** am I right to recycle these plastic along with carrier bags or am I doing more harm than good?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/p0OXH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bYJE8.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NO0qT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/p03cV.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/10Z2R.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20133" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8241" RevisionGUID="e7f4ace0-c8df-4935-9aa3-0a15a5406e10" CreationDate="2019-04-28T09:30:33.453" UserId="6438" Text="In the UK, is ok to put plastic food packaging along with carrier bags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20134" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8241" RevisionGUID="e7f4ace0-c8df-4935-9aa3-0a15a5406e10" CreationDate="2019-04-28T09:30:33.453" UserId="6438" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20135" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4594" RevisionGUID="8573656c-3ce8-4204-94c5-506d7e979fa1" CreationDate="2019-04-28T10:51:40.547" UserId="15" Comment="Fixed broken link" Text="Let's assume 1kWh of electricity is used to run a fan heater. Heat pumps are more efficient, but have a range of different efficiencies, so perhaps aren't a good base comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming a good quality log burning fireplace, how much firewood (by weight) does it take to produce the equivalent of that 1kWh of heating? [This stove][1] claims combustion efficiency of 89.1%, but 70% is perhaps a reasonable standard to work with. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously water content of the wood would make a big difference too, so let's assume either 10% or 20%, whichever is easier. I understand 20% is considered to be dry, when dealing with firewood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.thestoveroom.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/burley-brochure.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8241" RevisionGUID="05f8839d-22b5-4a36-b883-99ea593ca0d5" CreationDate="2019-04-28T13:34:22.023" UserId="6438" Comment="Fixed typos and removed irrelevant paragraph" Text="I live in the UK and do most of my groceries shopping online. At the same time I collect my order I can also hand back to the driver all carrier bags from my previous order (which is great).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some items like cereals, clearly indicate that the plastic packaging can be recycled along with carrier bags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most of them either don't or have this sign:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of such items:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** am I right to recycle these plastics along with carrier bags or am I doing more harm than good?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/p0OXH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bYJE8.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NO0qT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/p03cV.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/10Z2R.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20137" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8241" RevisionGUID="05f8839d-22b5-4a36-b883-99ea593ca0d5" CreationDate="2019-04-28T13:34:22.023" UserId="6438" Comment="Fixed typos and removed irrelevant paragraph" Text="In the UK, is it ok to recycle plastic food packaging along with carrier bags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8242" RevisionGUID="6e0293ff-1654-4bda-bf64-30bffd35d2d3" CreationDate="2019-04-29T09:21:53.337" UserId="6576" Text="I assume that it makes sense to ask for the energy costs of transportation of different goods per weight and volumetric mass [density][1], depending on the means of transportation (truck, train, ship, etc.) and on the distance of transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that there are either data or plots for this, but I don't know where to find them. A typical plot I'm looking for would answer the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How much energy (including losses) does it take to transport one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; metric ton of good X (having volumetric mass density $d$) by train for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 100 resp. 1000 miles, today and 100 years ago?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you don't find this question (or approach) sensible, please tell me why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Density" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20140" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8242" RevisionGUID="6e0293ff-1654-4bda-bf64-30bffd35d2d3" CreationDate="2019-04-29T09:21:53.337" UserId="6576" Text="Costs of transportation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20141" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8242" RevisionGUID="6e0293ff-1654-4bda-bf64-30bffd35d2d3" CreationDate="2019-04-29T09:21:53.337" UserId="6576" Text="|energy|energy-efficiency|transport|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8242" RevisionGUID="9d885d3b-df52-467f-bd1c-13646a998add" CreationDate="2019-04-29T09:27:01.030" UserId="6576" Comment="added 432 characters in body" Text="I assume that it makes sense to ask for the energy costs of transportation of different goods per weight and volumetric mass [density][1], depending on the means of transportation (truck, train, ship, etc.) and on the distance of transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that there are either data or plots for this, but I don't know where to find them. A typical plot I'm looking for would answer the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How much energy (including losses) does it take to transport one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; metric ton of good X (having volumetric mass density $d$) by train for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 100 resp. 1000 miles, today and 100 years ago?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you don't find this question (or approach) sensible, please tell me why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Background:** I'm planning a data visualization project of transportation of all kinds of goods. One part of the project will be the **routes** of transportation: along which paths and for what distances are which volumes of goods transported? (On a global and a local level.) Another part shall be the **costs** of transportation (to which finally will also count the costs of **lifting** goods, e.g. in a harbour, but maybe these are negligible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Density" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8242" RevisionGUID="b1234e18-3f61-42c4-bf35-76b5b27b555d" CreationDate="2019-04-29T14:32:17.470" UserId="6576" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I assume that it makes sense to ask for the energy costs of transportation of different goods per weight and volumetric mass [density][1], depending on the means of transportation (truck, train, ship, etc.) and on the distance of transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that there are either data or plots for this, but I don't know where to find them. A typical plot I'm looking for would answer the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How much energy (including losses) does it take to transport one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; metric ton of good X (having volumetric mass density *d*) by train for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 100 or 1000 miles, today and 100 years ago?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you don't find this question (or approach) sensible, please tell me why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Background:** I'm planning a data visualization project of transportation of all kinds of goods. One part of the project will be the **routes** of transportation: along which paths and for what distances are which volumes of goods transported? (On a global and a local level.) Another part shall be the **costs** of transportation (to which finally will also count the costs of **lifting** goods, e.g. in a harbour, but maybe these are negligible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Density" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20144" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8242" RevisionGUID="6ebdb552-11cf-4c0a-ba7e-de4e05e7e08b" CreationDate="2019-04-29T14:37:36.130" UserId="6576" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="I assume that it makes sense to ask for the energy costs of transportation of different goods per weight and volumetric mass [density][1], depending on the means of transportation (truck, train, ship, etc.) and on the distance of transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that there are either data or plots for this, but I don't know where to find them. A typical plot I'm looking for would answer the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How much energy (including losses) does it take to transport one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; metric ton of good X (having volumetric mass density *d*) by train for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 100 or 1000 miles, today and 100 years ago?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, that 10 x 100 miles = 1,000 miles makes a difference because of the (energy) costs of (re-)loading and (trans-)shipping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you don't find this question (or approach) sensible, please tell me why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Background:** I'm planning a data visualization project of transportation of all kinds of goods. One part of the project will be the **routes** of transportation: along which paths and for what distances are which volumes of goods transported? (On a global and a local level.) Another part shall be the **costs** of transportation (to which finally will also count the costs of **lifting** goods, e.g. in a harbour, but maybe these are negligible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Density" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20146" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7136" RevisionGUID="b00a6984-ecf8-4645-a0ce-4a8e4862969f" CreationDate="2019-04-29T21:00:49.167" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1122969005130682368" />
  <row Id="20151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7010" RevisionGUID="6846ccec-83d7-473f-90a7-519ff3e24d0f" CreationDate="2019-04-30T13:41:15.257" UserId="6239" Comment="deleted 299 characters in body" Text="My idea of a device for harvesting energy from wind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If used in reality, this device will harvest significant amounts of energy from wind, waves and storms. This not only solved the problem of energy scarcity but also mitigated the devastation of the storm to humans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because this is an engineering approach, I am very interested in your answers on two issues:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1, Is the operating principle of the model in this manuscript correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2, Can this model work in reality (under heavy storm conditions)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8244" RevisionGUID="de1f4747-7dbf-4c7f-9ccd-39ae6933bc59" CreationDate="2019-04-30T17:02:34.980" UserId="6581" Text="Specific to electric vehicles in the USA, the Union of Concerned Scientists created a good comparison in 2009. Here's the latest update, from 2018-03-08:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-data-show-electric-vehicles-continue-to-get-cleaner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Based on data on power plant emissions released in February 2018,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; driving on electricity is cleaner than gasoline for most drivers in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the US. Seventy-five percent of people now live in places where&#xD;&#xA;&gt; driving on electricity is cleaner than a 50 MPG gasoline car. And&#xD;&#xA;&gt; based on where people have already bought EVs, electric vehicles now&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have greenhouse gas emissions equal to an 80 MPG car, much lower than&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any gasoline-only car available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comparisons are comprehensive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For a gasoline car, that means looking at emissions from extracting&#xD;&#xA;&gt; crude oil from the ground, getting the oil to a refinery and making&#xD;&#xA;&gt; gasoline, and transporting gasoline to filling stations, in addition&#xD;&#xA;&gt; to combustion emissions from the tailpipe.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; For electric vehicles, the calculation includes both power plant&#xD;&#xA;&gt; emissions and emissions from the production of coal, natural gas and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; other fuels power plants use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also an calculator to estimate emissions for a specific vehicle and location:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/ev-emissions-tool" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8245" RevisionGUID="97001c37-40eb-4e27-81d6-2c322c908a1d" CreationDate="2019-04-30T17:17:12.310" UserId="6581" Text="You might be able to use some of the data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport — which includes figures for typical per-passenger efficiency, but not for freight. There are also over a hundred footnotes, which might get you to better numbers or approaches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I'd check to see if the IEA has done anything in this area: they probably have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.iea.org/topics/transport/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8241" RevisionGUID="e25f9028-203c-435f-b1ae-031caf68b9d0" CreationDate="2019-04-30T21:04:24.933" UserId="6438" Comment="Added additional information following comments made to this question" Text="I live in the UK and do most of my groceries shopping online. At the same time I collect my order I can also hand back to the driver all carrier bags from my previous order (which is great).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some items like cereals, clearly indicate that the plastic packaging can be recycled along with carrier bags:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most of them either don't or have this sign:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example of such items:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** am I right to recycle these plastics along with carrier bags or am I doing more harm than good?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**ADDITIONAL INFORMATION**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been able to find a resin code on the carrier bags but I have reason to believe it is ♶:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7516859.stm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some relevant recycling symbols:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://www.recyclenow.com/recycling-knowledge/packaging-symbols-explained&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/p0OXH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bYJE8.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NO0qT.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/p03cV.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/10Z2R.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FXUD9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yc7IZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8242" RevisionGUID="c697cda1-ac9e-4be4-b6c2-81c75f8a3676" CreationDate="2019-05-01T07:23:58.157" UserId="6576" Comment="deleted 117 characters in body" Text="I assume that it makes sense to ask for the energy costs of transportation of different goods per weight and volumetric mass [density][1], depending on the means of transportation (truck, train, ship, etc.) and on the distance of transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that there are either data or plots for this, but I don't know where to find them. A typical plot I'm looking for would answer the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How much energy (including losses) does it take to transport one&#xD;&#xA;&gt; metric ton of good X (having volumetric mass density *d*) by train for&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 100 or 1000 miles, today and 100 years ago?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note, that 10 x 100 miles = 1,000 miles makes a difference because of the (energy) costs of (re-)loading and (trans-)shipping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case you don't find this question (or approach) sensible, please tell me why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Background:** I'm planning a data visualization project of transportation of all kinds of goods. One part of the project will be the **routes** of transportation: along which paths and for what distances are which volumes of goods transported? (On a global and a local level.) Another part shall be the **costs** of transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Density" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20158" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8241" RevisionGUID="44222086-5c41-4d30-b65a-b2b611b1cdac" CreationDate="2019-05-01T21:00:44.333" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1123693760586616834" />
  <row Id="20159" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7076" RevisionGUID="8d1aeb0a-dc34-4e7d-965a-6906e9fe7ded" CreationDate="2019-05-01T22:02:40.527" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="20160" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="8241" RevisionGUID="dd0178ca-20ae-4c88-b9eb-b13378bd7336" CreationDate="2019-05-02T07:51:34.507" UserId="6438" Comment="53" />
  <row Id="20161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8246" RevisionGUID="6264bd76-611e-49c3-8595-295a4fd0eb41" CreationDate="2019-05-03T12:33:04.443" UserId="4834" Text="Based on the information on the product site, I would say no, the Food Cycler is not a good option for composting.  Its method of operation prevents actual composting.  Instead, it is primarily a mechanical homogenization process (&quot;Agitators quietly break down the food waste into small particles&quot;) combined with sterilization (&quot;sterilizing the by-product entirely&quot;).  Thus, no actual composting occurs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting is defined as a biological process so any process that involves sterilization of the material is, by definition, something else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20162" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8235" RevisionGUID="6001cbca-e88e-4b6b-becc-64039ab059e5" CreationDate="2019-05-03T16:17:12.223" UserId="6393" Comment="electric unicycle" Text="An electric scooter would be ideal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bicycles suffer from a peculiar characteristic of humans, namely that they produce power at a ridiculously low RPM. Power is force times speed. If speed is low, to get any useful power, you need huge amounts of force. The rotational equivalent is that power is torque times RPM, very similar to the linear equation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's consider how much torque a 100 kg rider that pulls up 30 kg from the handlebar exerts. 130 kg = 1275 N. That at 0.17 m crank length is 217 Nm. It's probably more torque than in my car engine!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what issues you have had with bicycles, but I'm suspecting it may be related to the drivetrain components, such as chains and sprockets wearing out quickly. They do that because of the huge forces involved, due to the low rotational and linear speeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some bicycle failures: http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/000.html -- those occur because bicycles are lightweight and need to withstand extremely high forces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, handlebars, stems, etc. can crack due to huge forces involved when pulling up from the handlebars to obtain more force on the pedals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, most bicycles are designed to be easy to pedal. If you have electric propulsion, for example low rolling resistance of tires is no longer a must. Thus, you can have thicker tires that get less punctures. Bicycle tires are designed to be usually low rolling resistance, at the cost of frequent punctures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideal electric scooters use typically smaller wheels for higher RPMs at the same linear velocity. They use a different drivetrain that works at high speed, allowing the engine to spin at 10 000 RPM or so. Electric motors like to spin at 5000 - 20000 RPM, generating very little torque but considerable power due to the high RPMs. Less torque equals smaller numbers of failures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One answer recommended a 50cc scooter. The cheapest are often two-stroke engines generating very harmful exhaust emissions. Even the 4-stroke ones may lack a catalytic converter (although I was reminded that the best models may have a cat). Actually, the non-catalytic-converter tiny 50cc engines are more harmful than a car engine if you consider only the harmful emissions (they may generate a little less CO2 per mile, though). So, whether a 50cc scooter is environmentally friendly will depend on the exact model: do get a 4-stroke one with a catalytic converter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure most places are modern and allow electric equivalents to 50cc scooters. Get such an electric equivalent! Chances are it will eventually save you the amount of money you have to spend on gasoline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; after this answer was written, I found that one of my workmates has bought an &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_unicycle&quot;&gt;electric unicycle&lt;/a&gt;. It requires considerable skill to use, but it's much lighterweight and smaller than a bicycle, and you can carry it wherever you go including carrying it in public transportation. Cost is significantly below 1000 USD / 1000 EUR. Whether you dare to invest in unicycling skills is another question, but it may be a very useful investment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8247" RevisionGUID="7e26a5c3-cd70-4f89-b4bd-05bd09a0158c" CreationDate="2019-05-04T13:11:50.407" UserId="6589" Text="I have now seen a few DIY tutorial videos (not in english) which suggest that one should use DC cable for connecting Solar Panels to the Inverter. They claim that AC cable causes a greater voltage drop, and that the identifying mark of DC cable is that it has more strands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this claim true? Because I thought that an equal gauge wire would work the same for DC as for AC, regardless of the division into strands, if anything the cable with more strands will just be more flexible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20166" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8247" RevisionGUID="7e26a5c3-cd70-4f89-b4bd-05bd09a0158c" CreationDate="2019-05-04T13:11:50.407" UserId="6589" Text="Is there a difference between DC \ PV cable and AC cable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20167" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8247" RevisionGUID="7e26a5c3-cd70-4f89-b4bd-05bd09a0158c" CreationDate="2019-05-04T13:11:50.407" UserId="6589" Text="|solar-power|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8248" RevisionGUID="f5318a0a-db3f-49a1-bbe1-c57dcc291381" CreationDate="2019-05-04T20:04:42.480" UserId="6592" Text="The UK has a target to be Carbon-neutral by 2050 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![UK Household Emissions][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we can see in the image large cuts across all type of CO2 production are required [this][2] article by the BBC suggests a number of ways in which this could be achieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One particular claim is that the UK &quot;won't need to overhaul [its] motoring habits&quot; but will need to use electric cars. While in itself this seems reasonable the electricity capacity in the UK is already described by some as stretched with the possibility of blackouts in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that electric cars will require a significant amount of electricity possibly exceeding on their own the current capacity of the grid how is the UK planning to accommodate this level of demand whilst also reducing supply from CO2 producing sources? Also are their any estimates of how large the increase in demand will be to power wide spread use of electric cars?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3MEiE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48122911" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8248" RevisionGUID="f5318a0a-db3f-49a1-bbe1-c57dcc291381" CreationDate="2019-05-04T20:04:42.480" UserId="6592" Text="Electric cars and Power capacity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8248" RevisionGUID="f5318a0a-db3f-49a1-bbe1-c57dcc291381" CreationDate="2019-05-04T20:04:42.480" UserId="6592" Text="|electricity|electricity-generation|cars|decarbonisation|uk|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8249" RevisionGUID="c6f16acc-7eb5-4791-b6c7-c960f9766aba" CreationDate="2019-05-04T21:14:52.173" UserId="6293" Text="It has been previously suggested that large numbers of electric-vehicles can charge overnight without overloading the power-grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then within the context of charging overnight, the current trend of charging-stations-everywhere seems goofy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, hydrogen fuel-cell electric-vehicles can be expected to become popular. Fuel-cell vehicles with nickel-metal hydride batteries are less risk of fire than lithium-battery electric-vehicles. And fuel-cell vehicles are quick fueling and have long driving ranges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then production of hydrogen can be by electrolysis of water which requires electricity or production of hydrogen can be by steam-reforming of natural-gas which requires heat. However, steam-reforming of natural-gas does release some amount of carbon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8249" RevisionGUID="dcde04fc-a4ce-4083-bbfc-3aefde5abbaa" CreationDate="2019-05-04T21:23:38.133" UserId="6293" Comment="added 521 characters in body" Text="It has been previously suggested that large numbers of electric-vehicles can charge overnight without overloading the power-grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then within the context of charging overnight, the current trend of charging-stations-everywhere seems goofy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, hydrogen fuel-cell electric-vehicles can be expected to become popular. Fuel-cell vehicles with nickel-metal hydride batteries are less risk of fire than lithium-battery electric-vehicles. And fuel-cell vehicles are quick fueling and have long driving ranges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then production of hydrogen can be by electrolysis of water which requires electricity or production of hydrogen can be by steam-reforming of natural-gas which requires heat. However, steam-reforming of natural-gas does release some amount of carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider ethanol derived from sorghum and reformed into hydrogen and that could be carbon neutral. Of course the growing of sorghum requires land-use but sorghum only requires 25 inches of annual rainfall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question arises that since we keep finding oil then what is gasoline going to be used for ? Maybe gasoline will be run in gas-turbines at 60% efficiency to produce electricity ? Of course hydrogen could be run in fuel-cells to produce electricity at 85% efficiency. These efficiencies are based on using waste heat in an additional process and that is what a vehicle does not do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8249" RevisionGUID="fc8a3ceb-785b-4577-9f30-e314ac3bbfde" CreationDate="2019-05-04T21:30:26.213" UserId="6293" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="It has been previously suggested that large numbers of electric-vehicles can charge overnight without overloading the power-grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then within the context of charging overnight, the current trend of charging-stations-everywhere seems goofy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, hydrogen fuel-cell electric-vehicles can be expected to become popular. Fuel-cell vehicles with nickel-metal hydride batteries are less risk of fire than lithium-battery electric-vehicles. And fuel-cell vehicles are quick fueling and have long driving ranges. Fuel-cell vehicles can weigh less since they have fewer batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then production of hydrogen can be by electrolysis of water which requires electricity or production of hydrogen can be by steam-reforming of natural-gas which requires heat. However, steam-reforming of natural-gas does release some amount of carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider ethanol derived from sorghum and reformed into hydrogen and that could be carbon neutral. Of course the growing of sorghum requires land-use but sorghum only requires 25 inches of annual rainfall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question arises that since we keep finding oil then what is gasoline going to be used for ? Maybe gasoline will be run in gas-turbines at 60% efficiency to produce electricity ? Of course hydrogen could be run in fuel-cells to produce electricity at 85% efficiency. These efficiencies are based on using waste heat in an additional process and that is what a vehicle does not do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20174" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8250" RevisionGUID="8428830f-93ed-4212-8088-9cc354bacb98" CreationDate="2019-05-04T22:16:36.460" UserId="3379" Text="[National Grid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_plc) supplies the energy for the UK, and also manages the high voltage power transmission system. Each year, they prepare a [Future Energy Scenarios](http://fes.nationalgrid.com/fes-document/) report looking at energy needs across the UK and the different alternatives for how those needs can be met. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How will the grid meet greater demand with lower carbon emissions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [most recent FES](http://fes.nationalgrid.com/media/1363/fes-interactive-version-final.pdf), published in July 2018, includes this figure showing how the generation mix is expected to change in the &quot;Community Renewables&quot; scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the greatest growth comes in the form of wind (on- and off-shore) and solar capacity, with coal generation eliminated by 2025, and natural gas diminishing to a fraction of its current capacity by 2035. The description in the text reads (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Figure 5.2 shows the annual electricity output of different generation technologies and their carbon intensity in the Community Renewables scenario. Here, the **electrification of transport and heat increases demand**, leading to higher generation output being produced to meet demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By 2030, renewable generation, particularly wind and to a lesser extent solar, makes up more than 75 per cent of generation output. By 2030, the carbon intensity of electricity has fallen to 75 grams of CO2/kWh, and then continues to fall to reach 32 grams of CO2/kWh by 2050.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How will electric vehicles affect demand?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changes in demand by sector are described in chapter four. This table shows 2017 demand and expected growth by scenario: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the four scenarios, only &quot;Community Renewables&quot; and &quot;Two Degrees&quot; meet the UK's goal of ending sales of gas and diesel powered vehicles by 2040, though the other scenarios show increased EV adoption due simply to market forces.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wFYaT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JN2Fs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8251" RevisionGUID="c5b6ec32-1244-4e6e-9e37-445c4efd1de3" CreationDate="2019-05-05T01:40:03.503" UserId="4886" Text="The phenomenon that leads to all of this is the &quot;[skin effect][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, DC current flows through a wire evenly, whereas AC current tends to want to flow along the outer edge (the &quot;skin&quot;) of a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you concentrate current through a smaller cross-sectional area of the wire, you end up with more effective resistance and greater losses.  Thus, all other things being equal, you will lose more AC energy in a given wire than you will DC energy — the AC voltage drop will be larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the number of strands in a cable makes no difference for DC (only the total cross-sectional area, or gauge, matters), it does make a difference for AC.  Cables with more strands have a higher ratio of &quot;skin&quot; to &quot;core&quot; and thus offer less resistance to AC currents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the skin effect is only really noticeable at high frequencies.  At 50–60Hz in copper, the &quot;thickness of the skin&quot; is about 8–9mm.  That's not cross-sectional area, that's *depth*. So for skin effect to have any appreciable impact at typical household frequencies, the cable diameter would need to be 16–18mm thick.  That's a *massive* cable that could carry *several hundred* Amps — not at all what you are probably using to hook up your PV array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short:  DC/AC doesn't matter for low (50–60Hz) frequencies running through wires thinner than your finger.  Multi-strand wire is, however, a lot easier to bend — so if you want a bit of flexibility, increase the number of strands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20176" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8251" RevisionGUID="e137aae0-c04a-4451-a933-17520b553291" CreationDate="2019-05-05T01:50:39.867" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The phenomenon that leads to all of this is the &quot;[skin effect][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, DC current flows through a wire evenly, whereas AC current tends to want to flow along the outer edge (the &quot;skin&quot;) of a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you concentrate current through a smaller cross-sectional area of the wire, you end up with more effective resistance and greater losses.  Thus, all other things being equal, you will lose more AC energy in a given wire than you will DC energy — the AC voltage drop will be larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the number of strands in a cable makes no difference for DC (only the total cross-sectional area, or gauge, matters), it does make a difference for AC.  Cables with more strands have a higher ratio of &quot;skin&quot; to &quot;core&quot; and thus offer less resistance to AC currents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the skin effect is only really noticeable at high frequencies.  At 50–60Hz in copper, the &quot;thickness of the skin&quot; is about 8–9mm.  That's not cross-sectional area, that's *depth*. So for skin effect to have any appreciable impact at typical household frequencies, the cable diameter would need to be 16–18mm thick.  That's a *massive* cable that could carry *several hundred* Amps — not at all what you are probably using to hook up your PV array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short:  'DC/AC Cable' doesn't matter for low (50–60Hz) frequencies running through cables thinner than your finger.  Multi-strand cable is, however, a lot easier to bend — so if you want a bit of flexibility, increase the number of strands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8251" RevisionGUID="49e0ece1-f53f-47b9-9e20-bb2d79546057" CreationDate="2019-05-05T01:55:50.990" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The phenomenon that leads to all of this is the &quot;[skin effect][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, DC current flows through a wire evenly, whereas AC current tends to want to flow along the outer edge (the &quot;skin&quot;) of a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you concentrate current through a smaller cross-sectional area of the wire, you end up with more effective resistance and greater losses.  Thus, all other things being equal, you will lose more AC energy in a given wire than you will DC energy — the AC voltage drop will be larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the number of strands in a cable makes no difference for DC (only the total cross-sectional area, or gauge, matters), it does make a difference for AC.  Cables with more strands have a higher ratio of &quot;skin&quot; to &quot;core&quot; and thus offer less resistance to AC currents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the skin effect is only really noticeable at high frequencies.  At 50–60Hz in copper, the &quot;thickness of the skin&quot; is about 8–9mm.  That's not cross-sectional area, that's *depth*. So for skin effect to have any appreciable impact at typical household frequencies, the cable diameter would need to be 16–18mm thick.  That's a *massive* cable that could carry *several hundred* Amps — not at all what you are probably using to hook up your PV array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short:  'DC/AC Cable' (solid/stranded) doesn't matter for low (50–60Hz) frequencies running through cables thinner than your finger.  Multi-strand cable is, however, a lot easier to bend — so if you want a bit of flexibility and better handling characteristics, increase the number of strands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8251" RevisionGUID="5ae4309b-9d5b-4816-8723-0f8acadbff52" CreationDate="2019-05-05T02:14:01.010" UserId="4886" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="The phenomenon that leads to all of this is the &quot;[skin effect][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, DC current flows through a wire evenly, whereas AC current tends to want to flow along the outer edge (the &quot;skin&quot;) of a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you concentrate current through a smaller cross-sectional area of a wire, you end up with more effective resistance and greater losses.  Thus, all other things being equal, you will lose more AC energy in a given wire than you will DC energy — the AC voltage drop will be larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the number of strands in a cable makes no difference for DC (only the total cross-sectional area, or gauge, matters), it does make a difference for AC.  Cables with more strands have a higher ratio of &quot;skin&quot; to &quot;core&quot; and thus offer less resistance to AC currents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the skin effect is only really noticeable at high frequencies.  At 50–60Hz in copper, the &quot;thickness of the skin&quot; is about 8–9mm.  That's not cross-sectional area, that's *depth*. So for skin effect to have any appreciable impact at typical household frequencies, the cable diameter would need to be 16–18mm thick.  That's a *massive* cable that could carry *several hundred* Amps — not at all what you are probably using to hook up your PV array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short:  **'DC/AC Cable' (solid/stranded) doesn't matter at all for DC links, and doesn't really matter for low frequency (50–60Hz) AC links running through cables thinner than your finger.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multi-strand cable is, however, a lot easier to bend — so if you want/need a bit of flexibility then increase the number of strands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've got microinverters on your panels, and AC coming from your array, and want the &quot;done right&quot; badge, by all means — go nuts on the number of strands.  You're not going to be able to measure the difference within three significant digits, but it will make you feel better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8251" RevisionGUID="d4b3e350-658e-404f-9ea1-57a12feed713" CreationDate="2019-05-05T02:21:26.800" UserId="4886" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="The phenomenon that leads to all of this is the &quot;[skin effect][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, DC current flows through a wire evenly, whereas AC current tends to want to flow along the outer edge (the &quot;skin&quot;) of a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you concentrate current through a smaller cross-sectional area of a wire, you end up with more effective resistance and greater losses.  Thus, all other things being equal, you will lose more AC energy in a given wire than you will DC energy — the AC voltage drop will be larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the number of strands in a cable makes no difference for DC (only the total cross-sectional area, or gauge, matters), it does make a difference for AC.  Cables with more strands have a higher ratio of &quot;skin&quot; to &quot;core&quot; and thus offer less resistance to AC currents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the skin effect is only really noticeable at high frequencies.  At 50–60Hz in copper, the &quot;thickness of the skin&quot; is about 8–9mm.  That's not cross-sectional area, that's *depth*. So for skin effect to have any appreciable impact at typical household frequencies, the cable diameter would need to be 16–18mm thick.  That's a *massive* cable that could carry *several hundred* Amps — not at all what you are probably using to hook up your PV array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short:  **'DC/AC Cable' (solid/stranded) doesn't matter at all for DC links, and doesn't really matter for low frequency (50–60Hz) AC links running through cables thinner than your finger.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multi-strand cable is, however, a lot easier to bend — so if you want/need a bit of flexibility then increase the number of strands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've got microinverters on your panels, and AC coming from your array, and want the &quot;done right&quot; badge, by all means — go nuts on the number of strands.  You're probably not going to be able to measure the difference within three significant digits, but it will make you feel better.  At such frequencies, the advantage of 'AC Cables' is more 'theoretical' than 'practical'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8251" RevisionGUID="3942b452-2f7a-4b69-b4a0-d2b3277c8ff1" CreationDate="2019-05-05T02:27:04.100" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="The phenomenon that leads to all of this is the &quot;[skin effect][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, DC current flows through a wire evenly, whereas AC current tends to want to flow along the outer edge (the &quot;skin&quot;) of a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you concentrate current through a smaller cross-sectional area of a wire, you end up with more effective resistance and greater losses.  Thus, all other things being equal, you will lose more AC energy in a given wire than you will DC energy — the AC voltage drop will be larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the number of strands in a cable makes no difference for DC (only the total cross-sectional area, or gauge, matters), it does make a difference for AC.  Cables with more strands have a higher ratio of &quot;skin&quot; to &quot;core&quot; and thus offer less resistance to AC currents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the skin effect is only really noticeable at high frequencies.  At 50–60Hz in copper, the &quot;thickness of the skin&quot; is about 8–9mm.  That's not cross-sectional area, that's *depth*. So for skin effect to have any appreciable impact at typical household frequencies, the cable diameter would need to be 16–18mm thick.  That's a *massive* cable that could carry *several hundred* Amps — not at all what you are probably using to hook up your PV array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short:  **'DC/AC Cable' (solid/stranded) doesn't matter at all for DC links, and doesn't really matter for low frequency (50–60Hz) AC links running through cables thinner than your finger.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multi-strand cable is, however, a lot easier to bend — so if you want/need a bit of flexibility then increase the number of strands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've got microinverters on your panels, and AC coming from your array, and want the &quot;done right&quot; badge, by all means — go nuts on the number of strands.  You're probably not going to be able to measure the difference within ±0.1%, but it will make you feel better.  At such frequencies, the advantage of 'AC Cables' is more 'theoretical' than 'practical'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8251" RevisionGUID="56994946-92fb-49ef-8625-37f7bc97a124" CreationDate="2019-05-05T02:33:01.953" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="The phenomenon that leads to all of this is the &quot;[skin effect][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, DC current flows through a wire evenly, whereas AC current tends to want to flow along the outer edge (the &quot;skin&quot;) of a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you concentrate current through a smaller cross-sectional area of a wire, you end up with more effective resistance and greater losses.  Thus, all other things being equal, you will lose more AC energy in a given wire than you will DC energy — the AC voltage drop will be larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the number of strands in a cable makes no difference for DC (only the total cross-sectional area, or gauge, matters), it does make a difference for AC.  Cables with more strands have a higher ratio of &quot;skin&quot; to &quot;core&quot; and thus offer less resistance to AC currents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the skin effect is only really noticeable at high frequencies.  At 50–60Hz in copper, the &quot;thickness of the skin&quot; is about 8–9mm.  That's not cross-sectional area, that's *depth*. So for skin effect to have any appreciable impact at typical household frequencies, the cable diameter would need to be 16–18mm thick.  That's a *massive* cable that could carry *several hundred* Amps — not at all what you are probably using to hook up your PV array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short:  **'DC/AC Cable' (solid/stranded) doesn't matter at all for DC links, and doesn't really matter for low frequency (50–60Hz) AC links running through cables thinner than your finger.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multi-strand cable is, however, a lot easier to bend — so if you want/need a bit of flexibility then increase the number of strands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've got microinverters on your panels (e.g. Enphase), and AC coming from your array, and want the &quot;done right&quot; badge, by all means — go nuts on the number of strands.  You're probably going to see less than a 0.1% improvement, but it will make you feel better.  At such frequencies, the advantage of 'AC Cables' is more 'theoretical/nominal' than 'practical/actual'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8251" RevisionGUID="5c13954d-b1c6-4ff0-ad2b-4feed09b5ce3" CreationDate="2019-05-05T02:39:57.463" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="The phenomenon that leads to all of this is the &quot;[skin effect][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, DC current flows through a wire evenly, whereas AC current tends to want to flow along the outer edge (the &quot;skin&quot;) of a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you concentrate current through a smaller cross-sectional area of wire, you end up with more effective resistance and greater losses.  Thus, all other things being equal, you will lose more AC energy in a given wire than you will DC energy — the AC voltage drop will be larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the number of strands in a cable makes no difference for DC (only the total cross-sectional area, or gauge, matters), it *does* make a difference for AC.  Cables with more strands have a higher ratio of &quot;skin&quot; to &quot;core&quot; and thus offer less resistance to AC currents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the skin effect is only really noticeable at high frequencies.  At 50–60Hz in copper, the &quot;thickness of the skin&quot; is about 8–9mm.  That's not cross-sectional area, that's *depth*. So for skin effect to have any appreciable impact at typical household frequencies, the cable diameter would need to be 16–18mm thick.  That's a *massive* cable that could carry *several hundred* Amps — not at all what you are probably using to hook up the average PV array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short:  **'DC/AC Cable' (solid/stranded) doesn't matter at all for DC links, and doesn't really matter for low frequency (50–60Hz) AC links running through cables thinner than your finger.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multi-strand cable is, however, a lot easier to bend — so if you want/need a bit of flexibility then increase the number of strands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've got microinverters on your panels (e.g. Enphase), and AC coming from your array, and want the &quot;done right&quot; badge, by all means — go nuts on the number of strands.  You're probably going to see less than a 0.1% improvement, but it will make you feel better.  At such frequencies, the advantage of 'AC Cables' is more 'theoretical/nominal' than 'practical/actual'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8251" RevisionGUID="c41e5a6a-8137-4991-b4c4-3aa87989afb5" CreationDate="2019-05-05T02:57:42.787" UserId="4886" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="The phenomenon that leads to all of this is the &quot;[skin effect][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, DC current flows through a wire evenly, whereas AC current tends to want to flow along the outer edge (the &quot;skin&quot;) of a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you concentrate current through a smaller cross-sectional area of wire (e.g. the skin) you end up with more effective resistance and greater losses.  Thus, all other things being equal, you will lose more AC energy in a given wire than you will DC energy — the AC voltage drop will be larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the number of strands in a cable makes no difference for DC (only the total cross-sectional area, or gauge, matters), it *does* make a difference for AC.  Cables with more strands have a higher ratio of &quot;skin&quot; to &quot;core&quot; and thus offer less resistance to AC currents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the skin effect is only really noticeable at high frequencies.  At 50–60Hz in copper, the &quot;thickness of the skin&quot; is about 8–9mm.  That's not cross-sectional area, that's *depth*. So for skin effect to have any appreciable impact at typical household frequencies, the cable diameter would need to be 16–18mm thick.  That's a *massive* cable that could carry *several hundred* Amps — not at all what you are probably using to hook up the average PV array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short:  **'DC/AC Cable' (solid/stranded) doesn't matter at all for DC links, and doesn't really matter for low frequency (50–60Hz) AC links running through cables thinner than your fingers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multi-strand cable is, however, a lot easier to bend — so if you want/need a bit of flexibility then increase the number of strands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've got microinverters on your panels (e.g. Enphase), and AC coming from your array, and want the &quot;done right&quot; badge, by all means — go nuts on the number of strands.  You're probably going to see less than a 0.1% improvement, but it will make you feel better.  At such frequencies, the advantage of 'AC Cables' is more 'theoretical/nominal' than 'practical/actual'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20184" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8251" RevisionGUID="9aed26e3-ba77-4d75-9767-d54e86b54664" CreationDate="2019-05-05T03:07:00.973" UserId="4886" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The phenomenon that leads to all of this is called the &quot;[skin effect][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, DC current flows through a wire evenly, whereas AC current tends to want to flow along the outer edge (the &quot;skin&quot;) of a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you concentrate current through a smaller cross-sectional area of wire (e.g. the skin) you end up with more effective resistance and greater losses.  Thus, all other things being equal, you will lose more AC energy in a given wire than you will DC energy — the AC voltage drop will be larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the number of strands in a cable makes no difference for DC (only the total cross-sectional area, or gauge, matters), it *does* make a difference for AC.  Cables with more strands have a higher ratio of &quot;skin&quot; to &quot;core&quot; and thus offer less resistance to AC currents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the skin effect is only really noticeable at high frequencies.  At 50–60Hz in copper, the &quot;thickness of the skin&quot; is about 8–9mm.  That's not cross-sectional area, that's *depth*. So for skin effect to have any appreciable impact at typical household frequencies, the cable diameter would need to be 16–18mm thick.  That's a *massive* cable that could carry *several hundred* Amps — not at all what you are probably using to hook up the average PV array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short:  **'DC/AC Cable' (solid/stranded) doesn't matter at all for DC links, and doesn't really matter for low frequency (50–60Hz) AC links running through cables thinner than your fingers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multi-strand cable is, however, a lot easier to bend — so if you want/need a bit of flexibility then increase the number of strands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've got microinverters on your panels (e.g. Enphase), and AC coming from your array, and want the &quot;done right&quot; badge, by all means — go nuts on the number of strands.  You're probably going to see less than a 0.1% improvement, but it will make you feel better.  At such frequencies, the advantage of 'AC Cables' is more 'theoretical/nominal' than 'practical/actual'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8250" RevisionGUID="4256fd85-349b-4786-8d3b-ec4897a2625a" CreationDate="2019-05-05T03:45:19.923" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved layout and figures. Explained confusing table." Text="[National Grid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_plc) supplies the energy for the UK, and also manages the high voltage power transmission system. Each year, they prepare a [Future Energy Scenarios](http://fes.nationalgrid.com/fes-document/) report looking at energy needs across the UK and the different alternatives for how those needs can be met. The [most recent FES](http://fes.nationalgrid.com/media/1363/fes-interactive-version-final.pdf) was published in July 2018, and is the source for the figures and quotes below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Widespread adoption of electric vehicles will increase energy consumption by 30%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FES includes two possible future scenarios with heavy EV adoption -- &quot;Community Renewables&quot; (envisioning widespread energy decentralization) and &quot;Two Degrees&quot; (focused on a centralized model for limiting global warming to 2C). In these two scenarios, the UK meets the goal of ending sales of gas and diesel powered vehicles by 2040.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This table shows 2017 demand (for all sectors) and expected growth in the transport sector by scenario: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting aspect of the model is that early, aggressive adoption of EVs reduces the total peak demand, because of smart charging and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In all our scenarios, peak demand from EVs is managed through **smart charging**. This behaviour is more evident in our two 2050 compliant scenarios, reducing peak demand by 8 GW in 2030. By 2040 this saving would stabilise at 32 GW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The increase in electricity demand from EVs will be met mostly with wind power&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This figure shows how the generation mix is expected to change in the &quot;Community Renewables&quot; scenario:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the greatest growth comes in the form of wind (on- and off-shore) and solar capacity, with coal generation eliminated by 2025, and natural gas diminishing to a fraction of its current capacity by 2035. The description in the text reads (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Figure 5.2 shows the annual electricity output of different generation technologies and their carbon intensity in the Community Renewables scenario. Here, the **electrification of transport and heat increases demand**, leading to higher generation output being produced to meet demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By 2030, renewable generation, particularly wind and to a lesser extent solar, makes up more than 75 per cent of generation output. By 2030, the carbon intensity of electricity has fallen to 75 grams of CO2/kWh, and then continues to fall to reach 32 grams of CO2/kWh by 2050.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the &quot;Two Degrees&quot; scenario, off-shore wind and nuclear make up a larger share, with on-shore wind supplying less, and solar about the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wFYaT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6obax.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20186" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8248" RevisionGUID="b4ecc61e-678c-4ddd-9238-1f57b0ff39de" CreationDate="2019-05-05T04:30:06.797" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags. Formatting." Text="|electricity-generation|decarbonisation|uk|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8248" RevisionGUID="b4ecc61e-678c-4ddd-9238-1f57b0ff39de" CreationDate="2019-05-05T04:30:06.797" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags. Formatting." Text="The UK has a target to be carbon-neutral by 2050:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![UK Household Emissions][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we can see in the image large cuts across all type of CO2 emissions are required. [This article by the BBC suggests][2] a number of ways in which this could be achieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One particular claim is that the UK &quot;won't need to overhaul [its] motoring habits&quot; but will need to use electric cars. While in itself this seems reasonable, the electricity capacity in the UK is already described by some as stretched with the possibility of blackouts in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that electric cars will require a significant amount of electricity (possibly exceeding on their own the current capacity of the grid):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. How is the UK planning to accommodate this level of demand whilst also reducing supply from CO2 producing sources? &#xD;&#xA;  2. Are there any estimates of how large the increase in demand will be to power wide spread use of electric cars?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3MEiE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48122911" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20188" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8248" RevisionGUID="b4ecc61e-678c-4ddd-9238-1f57b0ff39de" CreationDate="2019-05-05T04:30:06.797" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags. Formatting." Text="Electric cars and grid power capacity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8251" RevisionGUID="d2cc62a3-1812-4ff6-968a-02a41e3d08ae" CreationDate="2019-05-05T05:54:12.190" UserId="4886" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="The phenomenon that leads to all of this is called the &quot;[skin effect][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, DC current flows through a wire evenly, whereas AC current tends to want to flow along the outer edge (the &quot;skin&quot;) of a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Skin Effect][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you concentrate current through a smaller cross-sectional area of wire (e.g. the skin) you end up with more effective resistance and greater losses.  Thus, all other things being equal, you will lose more AC energy in a given wire than you will DC energy — the AC voltage drop will be larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the number of strands in a cable makes no difference for DC (only the total cross-sectional area, or gauge, matters), it *does* make a difference for AC.  Cables with more strands have a higher ratio of &quot;skin&quot; to &quot;core&quot; and thus offer less resistance to AC currents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the skin effect is only really noticeable at high frequencies.  At 50–60Hz in copper, the &quot;thickness of the skin&quot; is about 8–9mm.  That's not cross-sectional area, that's *depth* (δ). So for skin effect to have any appreciable impact at typical household frequencies, the cable diameter would need to be 16–18mm thick.  That's a *massive* cable that could carry *several hundred* Amps — not at all what you are probably using to hook up the average PV array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short:  **'DC/AC Cable' (solid/stranded) doesn't matter at all for DC links, and doesn't really matter for low frequency (50–60Hz) AC links running through cables thinner than your fingers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multi-strand cable is, however, a lot easier to bend — so if you want/need a bit of flexibility then increase the number of strands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've got microinverters on your panels (e.g. Enphase), and AC coming from your array, and want the &quot;done right&quot; badge, by all means — go nuts on the number of strands.  You're probably going to see less than a 0.1% improvement, but it will make you feel better.  At such frequencies, the advantage of 'AC Cables' is more 'theoretical/nominal' than 'practical/actual'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ya8tX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8251" RevisionGUID="f4a30c0f-41db-4f23-8389-f5ffe17ed7fb" CreationDate="2019-05-05T06:04:31.087" UserId="4886" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="The phenomenon that leads to all of this is called the &quot;[skin effect][1]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, DC current flows through a wire evenly, whereas AC current tends to want to flow along the outer edge (the &quot;skin&quot;) of a wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Skin Effect][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you concentrate current through a smaller cross-sectional area of wire (e.g. the skin) you end up with more effective resistance and greater losses.  Thus, all other things being equal, you will lose more AC energy in a given wire than you will DC energy — the AC voltage drop will be larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst the number of strands in a cable makes no difference for DC (only the total cross-sectional area, or gauge, matters), it *does* make a difference for AC.  Cables with more strands have a higher ratio of &quot;skin&quot; to &quot;core&quot; and thus offer less resistance to AC currents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, the skin effect is only really noticeable at high frequencies.  At 50–60Hz in copper, the &quot;thickness of the skin&quot; is about 8–9mm.  That's not cross-sectional area, that's *depth* (δ). So for skin effect to have any appreciable impact at typical household frequencies, the cable diameter would need to be 16–18mm thick.  That's a *massive* cable that could carry *several hundred* Amps — not at all what you are probably using to hook up the average PV array.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long story short:  **'DC/AC Cable' (solid/stranded) doesn't matter at all for DC links, and doesn't really matter for low frequency (50–60Hz) AC links running through cables thinner than your fingers.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multi-strand cable is, however, a lot easier to bend — so if you want/need a bit of flexibility then increase the number of strands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you've got microinverters on your panels (e.g. Enphase), and AC coming from your array, and want the &quot;Done Right&quot; achievement badge, by all means — go nuts on the number of strands.  You're probably going to see less than a 0.1% improvement, but it will make you feel better.  At such frequencies, the advantage of 'AC Cables' is more 'theoretical/nominal' than 'practical/actual'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ya8tX.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20191" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8252" RevisionGUID="3bd38b46-5896-460c-87b6-c47055958561" CreationDate="2019-05-05T15:16:06.537" UserId="5532" Text="I'm looking for some kind of paint to make markings on the pavement and on a grassy area, so that the markings are well visible for a day or so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spray paint would do the trick but is not very environmentally friendly. Maybe grinding bright coloured chalk and dispensing it from a salt shaker would work? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8252" RevisionGUID="3bd38b46-5896-460c-87b6-c47055958561" CreationDate="2019-05-05T15:16:06.537" UserId="5532" Text="How to mark pavement and grass without harming environment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8252" RevisionGUID="3bd38b46-5896-460c-87b6-c47055958561" CreationDate="2019-05-05T15:16:06.537" UserId="5532" Text="|pollution|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20194" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8253" RevisionGUID="37c8df07-058b-434e-8453-a9368739e6c9" CreationDate="2019-05-05T17:39:20.593" UserId="6581" Text="For pavement, how about chalk?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For grass, here are a couple of products based on crushed limestone: no affiliation, just the result of a google search. These only seem to come in white though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.acehardware.com/departments/paint-and-supplies/specialty-paints/marking-and-striping/8337933&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.acehardware.com/departments/paint-and-supplies/specialty-paints/marking-and-striping/8192973" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7160" RevisionGUID="b9617e8d-9231-4c75-a75f-78685624bd81" CreationDate="2019-05-06T07:30:54.147" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 169 characters in body" Text="The typical rule of thumb in forestry is that one cubic meter of wood emits (roughly) one tonne of carbon dioxide. The unit of interest in forestry is the volume of wood in the forest. Thus, what you're essentially asking is: &lt;b&gt;how many cubic meters of wood does one hectare of forest have?&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, of course, varies hugely. Forests in warm regions reach a higher density than boreal forests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you should take into account that lots of forests are managed for maximum productivity. This means the forest won't ever be let to reach its steady-state natural density, because then the growth slows down and the forest becomes uneconomical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll provide an answer for one country: Finland. According to a &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.luke.fi/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/finlands-forests-facts-2017-www.pdf&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;, Finland's forests have 2400 million cubic meters of wood per 22.8 million hectares. This means 105 cubic meters of wood per hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if the forest fire hits an average forest in Finland, it will release 105 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare. Very young forests with practically no trees won't burn (0 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare), and old forests ready for renewal will release twice the average, i.e. 210 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; the source apparently considers only growing stock, i.e. wood that is above the ground and is usable for commercial purposes. There may be some other biomass as well that will burn. So, treat the 105 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare (average forest) or 210 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare (old forest) as a lower bound. I still believe the 367 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hectare from Tim's answer is a bit too high for boreal taiga forest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8255" RevisionGUID="099197aa-96a0-426f-99df-c419a02c77ba" CreationDate="2019-05-06T19:16:18.753" UserId="6595" Text="Bones don't need to be ground to meal to provide calcium, magnesium etc to your plants. Simply scatter them wherever you wish to moderately boost such nutrients in the soil. As bones their effect is much longer lasting than as meal; as long as the bone pieces endure, they continue to leach nutrients into the soil; and as their leach rate is so slow, you will never get any 'overdose' effects affecting the plants, no matter how many bones are in their immediate environment. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20200" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8256" RevisionGUID="c03559c7-b7b9-495d-b336-13339c6fb5c0" CreationDate="2019-05-06T20:01:24.010" UserId="6595" Text="Whether serious studies have occurred I do not know, but you surely can answer your question yourself without much effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the effect of over-population of an area go visit a beef-stockyard, where the beeves are fattened before slaughter. Cattle practice a completely pre-technological lifestyle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the effects of technology, consider the currently fashionable suggestion that we can substitute wind-power for coal and oil and thereby escape the adverse effects of carbon dioxide pollution. The question is, what monster will we raise up in place of global warming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider why the wind blows where it does reliably blow. This is not a facetious question. There are regions on earth where the wind rarely or never blows, in the great age of sail collectively known as the 'doldrums'. In contrast places like Cape Horn exist in a perpetual gale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, one would site windmills where the wind reliably blows, and their cumulative effect when providing power for 8 billion people would seriously impede the air drainage of the entire planet. Would you not expect that to have profound effects on planetary weather patterns?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any technological system to achieve any effect whatever can be effective **only over a certain range of application.** Outside that range it will be ineffective or harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there were 8,000 of us it would not matter what technology we used, because it would be operating within its effective range of application. But as there are almost 8,000 million of us it makes no difference what technology we apply, because all of them would exceed their effective ranges of application, and be harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Global warming is not the problem, it is a symptom of a disease. The disease is us, the overwhelming number of us." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20201" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6859" RevisionGUID="54683294-4c14-4f8f-bc5b-9650116be424" CreationDate="2019-05-07T04:06:11.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="20202" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="fa66e17c-c1eb-4b6c-b447-97be0b4907b5" CreationDate="2019-05-07T08:12:26.230" UserId="6581" Comment="improved English" Text="I think you had pretty much of advice pro electrical. &#xD;&#xA;I do not preach combustion is better than electrical, but would like to make some side notes in favor of combustion. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Energy efficiency:**&#xD;&#xA;The energy for your electrical engine must come from somewhere. These sources are probably combustion engines, so basically you are adding an extra conversion which will lose energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Batteries:**&#xD;&#xA;Your batteries will be heavy. Assuming that you use the engine for locomotion, you will lose more energy because you accelerate more mass.&#xD;&#xA;Batteries will also be environmentally unfriendly and produced under bad condition labour.&#xD;&#xA;These batteries will also need transportation and replacement and old batteries might become a source of heavy metal waste. &#xD;&#xA;An empty battery is as heavy as a full one. Your fuel tank on the other hand will become lighter as you go. Technology however promises better batteries and you might also google 'fuel cell'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pollution:** Combustion engine pollution depends on what you are burning and how. If you would use hydrogen your pollution might be zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Engine complexity and durability:** Your electrical engine will likely last longer than your internal combustion engine. It will also be easier to use, maintain, design, build etc. &#xD;&#xA;From durability perspective you might want to have a look at external combustion engines (for example steam engines). This guy claims they have some of them running for over a hundred years: &#xD;&#xA;[http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/steamart.html][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From engine simplicity perspective it might be possible to use a more simple engine like a rocket engine. Of course they are not energy efficient but the bottom line I try to make is that the force you need for your vehicle is directional and not rotary. Combustion (and also electrical) engines complicate the issue by first converting to a rotating force and than to a directional one. One might simply propel a rocket engine against a rail to create a directional force at once. This would of course apply more to trains and not so much to cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't get too much into the electrical car hype yet. I believe they are still more expensive even though heavily sponsored by governments. That latter being a good indication for how environmentally friendly they are. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But don't understand this wrong: Electrical cars will become more advanced if batteries and/or fuel cells improve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/steamart.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20203" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4745" RevisionGUID="fa66e17c-c1eb-4b6c-b447-97be0b4907b5" CreationDate="2019-05-07T08:12:26.230" Comment="Proposed by 6581 approved by 3379, 99 edit id of 571" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20206" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="5354" RevisionGUID="dcee3bf4-22da-4c26-9014-5b7085ac6e87" CreationDate="2019-05-07T12:33:02.333" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8258" RevisionGUID="67b11018-2c82-4a96-8d1a-f95307193175" CreationDate="2019-05-07T17:05:52.700" UserId="6598" Text="Charge controller can handle the combined voltage when wired in series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panels connect to a charge controller which charges a 12v lead acid battery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which wiring method would be more advantageous?  Higher voltage lower amps or same voltage higher amps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20208" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8258" RevisionGUID="67b11018-2c82-4a96-8d1a-f95307193175" CreationDate="2019-05-07T17:05:52.700" UserId="6598" Text="With two 50w panels best to wire in series or parallel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20209" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8258" RevisionGUID="67b11018-2c82-4a96-8d1a-f95307193175" CreationDate="2019-05-07T17:05:52.700" UserId="6598" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8259" RevisionGUID="7883c25f-a065-4675-b4d8-fa54de63b5fe" CreationDate="2019-05-08T01:10:36.583" UserId="4886" Text="Energy losses in a cable — due to resistance — are proportional to the current *squared* (I²).  Thus if you double the current (by putting your panels in parallel) then you'll quadruple your losses ( (2I)² = 4I² ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When panels are connected in series, the voltages add up but the current remains constant.  Thus to minimise line losses, connect panels in series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another advantage of keeping current low is that you can minimise the thickness of the cable between your array and your charger.  If the length of that run is long, the savings can really add up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your Renogy charger's open circuit voltage limit is 50V, so it should handle the voltage produced by your panels in series without a problem (2x22.7= 45.4;  45.4 &lt; 50).  If you do end up with the occasional over-voltage condition, it will probably be due to transient cloud-edge effects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20211" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8259" RevisionGUID="0dcbdc89-1878-4773-8e16-78a6c4ba290e" CreationDate="2019-05-08T01:14:38.900" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Energy losses in a cable — due to resistance — are proportional to the current *squared* (I²).  Thus if you double the current (by putting your panels in parallel) then you'll quadruple your losses ( (2I)² = 4I² ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When panels are connected in series, the voltages add up but the current remains constant.  Thus to minimise line losses, connect panels in series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another advantage of keeping current low is that you can minimise the thickness of the cable between your array and your charger.  If the length of that run is long, the savings can really add up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your Renogy charger's open circuit voltage limit is 50V, so it should handle the voltage produced by your panels in series without a problem (2x22.7=45.4;  45.4 &lt; 50).  If you do end up with the occasional over-voltage condition, it will probably be due to transient cloud-edge effects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8259" RevisionGUID="3b11a36b-1e7d-48d7-8f96-1c97bf12591f" CreationDate="2019-05-08T01:23:24.073" UserId="4886" Comment="added 408 characters in body" Text="Energy losses in a cable — due to resistance — are proportional to the current *squared* (I²).  Thus if you double the current (by putting your panels in parallel) then you'll quadruple your losses ( (2I)² = 4I² ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When panels are connected in series, the voltages add up but the current remains constant.  Thus to minimise line losses, connect panels in series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another advantage of keeping current low is that you can minimise the thickness of the cable between your array and your charger.  If the length of that run is long, the savings can really add up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your Renogy charger's open circuit voltage limit is 50V, so it should handle the voltage produced by your panels in series without a problem (2x22.7=45.4;  45.4 &lt; 50).  If you do end up with the occasional over-voltage condition, it will probably be due to transient cloud-edge effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to play it really safe, size your cable for a parallel setup (2x2.84=5.68A) but then deploy it in series anyway.  Since resistance is proportional to cross-sectional area, a thicker cable will offer less resistance and reduce losses even further.  If you do start experiencing over-voltage conditions due to cloud-edge effects, you can just switch to series without having to buy a new cable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8259" RevisionGUID="1536aac8-63a6-4c16-85cd-2ae9212a3818" CreationDate="2019-05-08T01:28:44.607" UserId="4886" Comment="added 408 characters in body" Text="Energy losses in a cable — due to resistance — are proportional to the current *squared* (I²).  Thus if you double the current (by putting your panels in parallel) then you'll quadruple your losses ( (2I)² = 4I² ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When panels are connected in series, the voltages add up but the current remains constant.  Thus to minimise line losses, connect panels in series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another advantage of keeping current low is that you can minimise the thickness of the cable between your array and your charger.  If the length of that run is long, the savings can really add up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your Renogy charger's open circuit voltage limit is 50V, so it should handle the voltage produced by your panels in series without a problem (2x22.7=45.4;  45.4 &lt; 50).  If you do end up with the occasional over-voltage condition, it will probably be due to transient cloud-edge effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to play it really safe, size your cable for a parallel setup (2x2.84=5.68A) but then deploy it in series to start with.  Since line losses are proportional to resistance, and resistance is proportional to cross-sectional area, a thicker cable will offer less resistance and reduce losses even further.  If you do start experiencing over-voltage conditions due to cloud-edge effects, you'll be able to simply switch over to series without having to buy a new cable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8259" RevisionGUID="bf0e1f1f-6abb-4dd7-834b-947e9cb022da" CreationDate="2019-05-08T01:33:52.740" UserId="4886" Comment="added 408 characters in body" Text="Energy losses in a cable — due to resistance — are proportional to the current *squared* (I²).  Thus if you double the current (by putting your panels in parallel) then you'll quadruple your losses ( (2I)² = 4I² ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When panels are connected in series, the voltages add up but the current remains constant.  Thus to minimise line losses, connect panels in series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another advantage of keeping current low is that you can minimise the thickness of the cable between your array and your charger.  If the length of that run is long, the savings can really add up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your Renogy charger's open circuit voltage limit is 50V, so it should handle the voltage produced by your panels in series without a problem (2x22.7=45.4;  45.4 &lt; 50).  If you do end up with the occasional over-voltage condition, it will probably be due to transient cloud-edge effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to play it really safe, size your cable for a parallel setup (2x2.84=5.68A) but then deploy it in series to start with.  Since line losses are proportional to resistance, and resistance is inversely-proportional to cross-sectional area, a thicker cable will offer less resistance and reduce losses even further.  If you do start experiencing over-voltage conditions due to cloud-edge effects, you'll be able to simply switch over to parallel without having to buy a new cable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20215" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8259" RevisionGUID="54527515-40a0-4ccb-8ecd-21092e3bb135" CreationDate="2019-05-08T05:17:11.537" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1245 characters in body" Text="Energy losses in a cable — due to resistance — are proportional to the current *squared* (I²).  Thus if you double the current (by putting your panels in parallel) then you'll quadruple your losses ( (2I)² = 4I² ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When panels are connected in series, the voltages add up but the current remains constant.  Thus to minimise line losses, connect panels in series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another advantage of keeping current low is that you can minimise the thickness of the cable between your array and your charger.  If the length of that run is long, the savings can really add up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your Renogy charger's open circuit voltage limit is 50V, so it should handle the voltage produced by your panels in series without a problem (2x22.7=45.4;  45.4 &lt; 50).  If you do end up with the occasional over-voltage condition, it will probably be due to transient cloud-edge effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to play it really safe, size your cable for a parallel setup (2x2.84=5.68A) but then deploy it in series to start with.  Since line losses are proportional to resistance, and resistance is inversely-proportional to cross-sectional area, a thicker cable will offer less resistance and reduce losses even further.  If you do start experiencing over-voltage conditions due to cloud-edge effects, you'll be able to simply switch over to parallel without having to buy a new cable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LShaver spotted that the Renogy Wanderer 10A is not in fact a MPPT charge controller, but actually a simpler/cheaper **PWM** charge controller and, checking the manual confirms that it doesn't feature voltage conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What that means is that — regardless of voltage — the maximum current that can exit the the controller (to the battery) is equal to the current coming into the controller (from the array).  Since the battery is 12V, that means that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a series setup, generating 2.84A, is limited to a bulk charge rate of about (12.6*2.84=) 36W&#xD;&#xA; - a parallel setup, generating 5.68A, is limited to a bulk charge rate of about (12.6*5.68=) 72W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PWM controller is clearly creating a bottleneck here.  With (20*50=) 100W of panels, around 64% of the energy from a series configuration would be wasted.  Even in a parallel configuration, around 28% of the energy would be wasted.  Both of these figures *far exceed* the line losses discussed earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If there is no option but to stick with the PWM controller, then connecting the panels in parallel is clearly the way to go.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If 28% losses are considered unacceptable, then there's little option but to replace the PWM controller with a MPPT controller." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8259" RevisionGUID="b72584af-8068-40a5-9fcb-582332c94d7c" CreationDate="2019-05-08T05:22:45.360" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Energy losses in a cable — due to resistance — are proportional to the current *squared* (I²).  Thus if you double the current (by putting your panels in parallel) then you'll quadruple your losses ( (2I)² = 4I² ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When panels are connected in series, the voltages add up but the current remains constant.  Thus to minimise line losses, connect panels in series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another advantage of keeping current low is that you can minimise the thickness of the cable between your array and your charger.  If the length of that run is long, the savings can really add up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your Renogy charger's open circuit voltage limit is 50V, so it should handle the voltage produced by your panels in series without a problem (2x22.7=45.4;  45.4 &lt; 50).  If you do end up with the occasional over-voltage condition, it will probably be due to transient cloud-edge effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to play it really safe, size your cable for a parallel setup (2x2.84=5.68A) but then deploy it in series to start with.  Since line losses are proportional to resistance, and resistance is inversely-proportional to cross-sectional area, a thicker cable will offer less resistance and reduce losses even further.  If you do start experiencing over-voltage conditions due to cloud-edge effects, you'll be able to simply switch over to parallel without having to buy a new cable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LShaver spotted that the Renogy Wanderer 10A is not in fact a MPPT charge controller, but actually a simpler/cheaper **PWM** charge controller, and checking the manual confirms that it does not feature voltage conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What that means is that — regardless of voltage — the maximum current that can exit the controller (to the battery) is equal to the current coming into the controller (from the array).  Since the battery is 12V, that means that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a series setup, generating 2.84A, is limited to a bulk charge rate of about (12.6*2.84=) 36W&#xD;&#xA; - a parallel setup, generating 5.68A, is limited to a bulk charge rate of about (12.6*5.68=) 72W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PWM controller is clearly creating a bottleneck here.  With (20*50=) 100W of panels, around 64% of the energy from a series configuration would be wasted.  Even in a parallel configuration, around 28% of the energy would be wasted.  Both of these figures *far exceed* the line losses discussed earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If there is no option but to stick with the PWM controller, then connecting the panels in parallel is clearly the way to go.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If 28% losses are considered unacceptable, then there's little option but to replace the PWM controller with a MPPT controller.  If you do that then connecting the panels in series (as discussed earlier) is the way to go." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8259" RevisionGUID="33c82dcc-44e6-4788-89ea-aa1deaf0ac2e" CreationDate="2019-05-08T05:30:10.370" UserId="4886" Comment="added 76 characters in body" Text="Energy losses in a cable — due to resistance — are proportional to the current *squared* (I²).  Thus if you double the current (by putting your panels in parallel) then you'll quadruple your losses ( (2I)² = 4I² ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When panels are connected in series, the voltages add up but the current remains constant.  Thus to minimise line losses, connect panels in series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another advantage of keeping current low is that you can minimise the thickness of the cable between your array and your charger.  If the length of that run is long, the savings can really add up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your Renogy charger's open circuit voltage limit is 50V, so it should handle the voltage produced by your panels in series without a problem (2x22.7=45.4;  45.4 &lt; 50).  If you do end up with the occasional over-voltage condition, it will probably be due to transient cloud-edge effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to play it really safe, size your cable for a parallel setup (2x2.84=5.68A) but then deploy it in series to start with.  Since line losses are proportional to resistance, and resistance is inversely-proportional to cross-sectional area, a thicker cable will offer less resistance and reduce losses even further.  If you do start experiencing over-voltage conditions due to cloud-edge effects, you'll be able to simply switch over to parallel without having to buy a new cable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LShaver spotted that the [Renogy Wanderer 10A][1] is not in fact a MPPT charge controller, but actually a simpler/cheaper **PWM** charge controller, and checking the manual confirms that it does not feature voltage conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What that means is that — regardless of voltage — the maximum current that can exit the controller (to the battery) is equal to the current coming into the controller (from the array).  Since the battery is 12V, that means that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a series setup, generating 2.84A, is limited to a bulk charge rate of about (12.6*2.84=) 36W&#xD;&#xA; - a parallel setup, generating 5.68A, is limited to a bulk charge rate of about (12.6*5.68=) 72W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PWM controller is clearly creating a bottleneck here.  With (20*50=) 100W of panels, around 64% of the energy from a series configuration would be wasted.  Even in a parallel configuration, around 28% of the energy would be wasted.  Both of these figures *far exceed* the line losses discussed earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If there is no option but to stick with the PWM controller, then connecting the panels in parallel is clearly the way to go.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If 28% losses are considered unacceptable, then there's little option but to replace the PWM controller with a MPPT controller.  If you do that then connecting the panels in series (as discussed earlier) is the way to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.renogy.com/wanderer-10a-pwm-charge-controller/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8259" RevisionGUID="1e9e05e3-4cab-41fd-aaba-1ff9ad750dda" CreationDate="2019-05-08T07:30:23.330" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Energy losses in a cable — due to resistance — are proportional to the current *squared* (I²).  Thus if you double the current (by putting your panels in parallel) then you'll quadruple your losses ( (2I)² = 4I² ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When panels are connected in series, the voltages add up but the current remains constant.  Thus to minimise line losses, connect panels in series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another advantage of keeping current low is that you can minimise the thickness of the cable between your array and your charger.  If the length of that run is long, the savings can really add up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your Renogy charger's open circuit voltage limit is 50V, so it should handle the voltage produced by your panels in series without a problem (2x22.7=45.4;  45.4 &lt; 50).  If you do end up with the occasional over-voltage condition, it will probably be due to transient cloud-edge effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to play it really safe, size your cable for a parallel setup (2x2.84=5.68A) but then deploy it in series to start with.  Since line losses are proportional to resistance, and resistance is inversely-proportional to cross-sectional area, a thicker cable will offer less resistance and reduce losses even further.  If you do start experiencing over-voltage conditions due to cloud-edge effects, you'll be able to simply switch over to parallel without having to buy a new cable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LShaver spotted that the [Renogy Wanderer 10A][1] is not in fact a MPPT charge controller, but actually a simpler/cheaper **PWM** charge controller, and checking the manual confirms that it does not feature voltage conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What that means is that — regardless of voltage — the maximum current that can exit the controller (to the battery) is equal to the current coming into the controller (from the array).  Since the battery is 12V, that means that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a series setup, generating 2.84A, is limited to a bulk charge rate of about (12.6*2.84=) 36W&#xD;&#xA; - a parallel setup, generating 5.68A, is limited to a bulk charge rate of about (12.6*5.68=) 72W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PWM controller is clearly creating a bottleneck here.  With (2*50=) 100W of panels, around 64% of the energy from a series configuration would be wasted.  Even in a parallel configuration, around 28% of the energy would be wasted.  Both of these figures *far exceed* the line losses discussed earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you have to stick with the PWM controller, then connecting the panels in parallel is clearly the way to go.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If 28% losses are considered unacceptable, then there's little option but to replace the PWM controller with a MPPT controller.  If you do that then connecting the panels in series (as discussed earlier) is the way to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.renogy.com/wanderer-10a-pwm-charge-controller/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8259" RevisionGUID="204a0a1a-01be-47a2-a10b-65fdb471cad3" CreationDate="2019-05-08T07:35:34.293" UserId="4886" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Energy losses in a cable — due to resistance — are proportional to the current *squared* (I²).  Thus if you double the current (by putting your panels in parallel) then you'll quadruple your losses ( (2I)² = 4I² ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When panels are connected in series, the voltages add up but the current remains constant.  Thus to minimise line losses, connect panels in series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another advantage of keeping current low is that you can minimise the thickness of the cable between your array and your charger.  If the length of that run is long, the savings can really add up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your Renogy charger's open circuit voltage limit is 50V, so it should handle the voltage produced by your panels in series without a problem (2x22.7=45.4;  45.4 &lt; 50).  If you do end up with the occasional over-voltage condition, it will probably be due to transient cloud-edge effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to play it really safe, size your cable for a parallel setup (2x2.84=5.68A) but then deploy it in series to start with.  Since line losses are proportional to resistance, and resistance is inversely-proportional to cross-sectional area, a thicker cable will offer less resistance and reduce losses even further.  If you do start experiencing over-voltage conditions due to cloud-edge effects, you'll be able to simply switch over to parallel without having to buy a new cable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**UPDATE**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LShaver spotted that the [Renogy Wanderer 10A][1] is not in fact a MPPT charge controller, but actually a simpler/cheaper **PWM** charge controller, and checking the manual confirms that it does not feature voltage conversion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What that means is that — regardless of array voltage — the maximum current that can exit the controller (to the battery) is equal to the current coming into the controller (from the array).  Since the battery is 12V, that means that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a series setup, generating 2.84A, is limited to a bulk charge rate of about (12.6*2.84=) 36W&#xD;&#xA; - a parallel setup, generating 5.68A, is limited to a bulk charge rate of about (12.6*5.68=) 72W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The PWM controller is clearly creating a bottleneck here.  With (2*50=) 100W of panels, around 64% of the energy from a series configuration would be wasted.  Even in a parallel configuration, around 28% of the energy would be wasted.  Both of these figures *far exceed* the line losses discussed earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If you have to stick with the PWM controller, then connecting the panels in parallel is clearly the way to go.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If controller losses of 28% are considered unacceptable, then there's little option but to replace the PWM controller with a MPPT controller.  If you do that then connecting the panels in series (as discussed earlier) is the way to go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.renogy.com/wanderer-10a-pwm-charge-controller/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20223" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="d31ee3bd-7542-41b5-a591-90690bdfbe51" CreationDate="2019-05-08T08:01:06.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="20224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8261" RevisionGUID="c85feb86-1fae-4784-989e-ea6bd0bc30ef" CreationDate="2019-05-08T10:16:28.547" UserId="6602" Text="There are a couple of errors in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly regarding environmental damage in pre-industrial times, in the Middle East they ran out of trees over two thousand years ago and had to import timber. Easter Island had similar problems. Over-use of resources has existed since time immemorial, not just due to industrial revolution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, regarding the world population today being too high. Its doubled since the 1970s, and quadrupled since the 1910s. In fact the world population is eight times larger now than when Thomas Malthus wrote about the population trap. Its very difficult to point at a graph of the human population over time and select the year when the there was an ideal human population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lifestyle or the use of sustainable resources is more significant than the size of the population. The world could support a larger population of humans if we made a more sustainable use of resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Halving the population would be futile as the population would bounce back in less than forty years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8258" RevisionGUID="ae15afa2-68f6-4e48-91c6-189aafde6564" CreationDate="2019-05-08T14:25:20.293" UserId="3379" Comment="Added details from comments." Text="Charge controller ([Renogy Wanderer 10A PWM](https://www.renogy.com/wanderer-10a-pwm-charge-controller/)) can handle the combined voltage when wired in series. From the spec sheet, it has a max PV input voltage of 50VDC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panels connect to a charge controller which charges a 12V lead acid battery. Panels are 22.7V open circuit voltage each at 2.84A short circuit current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which wiring method would be more advantageous? Higher voltage/lower amperage or same voltage higher amperage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20226" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8258" RevisionGUID="ae15afa2-68f6-4e48-91c6-189aafde6564" CreationDate="2019-05-08T14:25:20.293" UserId="3379" Comment="Added details from comments." Text="With two 50W panels best to wire in series or parallel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20227" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8258" RevisionGUID="ae15afa2-68f6-4e48-91c6-189aafde6564" CreationDate="2019-05-08T14:25:20.293" UserId="3379" Comment="Added details from comments." Text="|solar-power|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8262" RevisionGUID="79625f20-9d07-49c0-ad12-615362ef5e16" CreationDate="2019-05-08T17:20:08.677" UserId="4343" Text="I just got a load of LED grow light tubes - they have mains connectors that use clover shaped plugs -- very much like a lot of laptop chargers use, but just a bit smaller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no label on the plugs, does anyone know what their name/id is so I can get some longer leads?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8262" RevisionGUID="79625f20-9d07-49c0-ad12-615362ef5e16" CreationDate="2019-05-08T17:20:08.677" UserId="4343" Text="I have got some lights for hydroponic growing, they run from the UK mains but have small clover shaped connectors - what are these called?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8262" RevisionGUID="79625f20-9d07-49c0-ad12-615362ef5e16" CreationDate="2019-05-08T17:20:08.677" UserId="4343" Text="|electricity|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8263" RevisionGUID="5219aa0b-632a-45e6-b8af-c8f540c9c2d1" CreationDate="2019-05-08T18:14:26.563" UserId="3379" Text="In light of news that [Britain just went a week without burning coal](https://earther.gizmodo.com/britain-just-went-a-week-without-coal-for-the-first-tim-1834609354), I was doing some reading and found this interesting discussion over on skeptics.se from a similar occurrence a few years ago: [During Great Britain's coal-free day, were coal plants shut off, or active and generating power GB didn't use?](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/38227/38403)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There were some good answers but ultimately no-one was able to come to a conclusion to my question here: **How much coal do plants burn when they're not supplying electricity to the grid?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume when starting a plant it takes time for the fire to get hot enough to start generation, and similarly when shutting down the turbines, the coal in the burner will burn itself out (unless it's smothered). But how much coal is this? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar to the question on [shutting off a car's engine at a stoplight](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/666/3379), I'm wondering if keeping a coal plant running might, in some circumstances, result in less emissions than stopping and restarting it for the same amount of generation. But to know this, I'd need some data on how much coal is burnt when not generating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8263" RevisionGUID="5219aa0b-632a-45e6-b8af-c8f540c9c2d1" CreationDate="2019-05-08T18:14:26.563" UserId="3379" Text="How much coal do power plants burn when they're not supplying electricity to the grid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8263" RevisionGUID="5219aa0b-632a-45e6-b8af-c8f540c9c2d1" CreationDate="2019-05-08T18:14:26.563" UserId="3379" Text="|electricity-generation|fuel-efficiency|coal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8264" RevisionGUID="aeb4fe70-63d3-4644-88fb-389d9c4e77e2" CreationDate="2019-05-08T19:44:56.173" UserId="5477" Text="I disagree with your assumption that power demand ever goes to zero. The demand fluctuates and the the amount of coal burned fluctuates. It will be minimal at night and the utility does all it can to match the coal used to the demand. A large coal unit can take a day or more to start and stop ; It is not like a car. But , gas turbines are very fast to start and stop, so many utilities will use them for &quot;peak shaving&quot; , running them only during high demand. Then they do not need to adjust a coal fired unit as much. A large gas fired electric plant is similar, it takes hours to balance the burners to the steam and power  generation. There are problems like cracked refractories caused by cyclic heating and cooling. Not to mention the corrosion problems of a cold coal fired heater ; Various deposits on the tubes are no problem when hot/dry but are corrosive when cold and damp. And not considering those units that sell steam on a continuous basis.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8264" RevisionGUID="b2e1ad2e-0d29-4bf2-8eff-edd180b85e98" CreationDate="2019-05-08T19:50:27.730" UserId="5477" Comment="addition" Text=" or oilI disagree with your assumption that power demand ever goes to zero. The demand fluctuates and the the amount of coal burned fluctuates. It will be minimal at night and the utility does all it can to match the coal used to the demand. A large coal unit can take a day or more to start and stop ; It is not like a car. But , gas turbines are very fast to start and stop, so many utilities will use them for &quot;peak shaving&quot; , running them only during high demand. Then they do not need to adjust a coal fired unit as much. A large gas or oil fired electric plant is similar, ( As the reference in the question notes , UK is able to fire the coal plants with gas/oil) it takes hours to balance the burners to the steam and power generation. There are problems like cracked refractories caused by cyclic heating and cooling. Not to mention the corrosion problems of a cold coal fired heater ; Various deposits on the tubes are no problem when hot/dry but are corrosive when cold and damp. And not considering those units that sell steam on a continuous basis.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20236" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8258" RevisionGUID="bc786a5e-c2b7-4572-a98b-802eb0056dcc" CreationDate="2019-05-09T03:00:39.503" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1126321052244742146" />
  <row Id="20237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8265" RevisionGUID="d9b19d17-0956-48c3-b84a-88b404cf832b" CreationDate="2019-05-09T16:11:43.957" UserId="6602" Text="Do the CO2 emissions from petrol / gas vehicles vary depending on driving style? Are emissions a function of the engine type or the fuel efficiency?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a motor car is rated at 105 g/km, but it is driven particularly aggressively would it actually generate 150 g/km or just 106 g/km?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the same car is rated as getting 45 mpg, but a particular driving style, like long gentle motorway journeys, result in an efficiency of 60 mpg would the CO2 emissions be around 75 g/km or better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the CO2 is from the fuel, does a car idling generate more CO2 than a car moving but using the same amount of fuel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8265" RevisionGUID="d9b19d17-0956-48c3-b84a-88b404cf832b" CreationDate="2019-05-09T16:11:43.957" UserId="6602" Text="To what extent do CO2 emissions from motor vehicles vary?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8265" RevisionGUID="d9b19d17-0956-48c3-b84a-88b404cf832b" CreationDate="2019-05-09T16:11:43.957" UserId="6602" Text="|carbon-footprint|transport|cars|fuel-efficiency|emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20242" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="8241" RevisionGUID="d4e58613-9ad3-4a61-9e0d-6d45000232ca" CreationDate="2019-05-10T09:03:15.600" UserId="-1" Comment="53" />
  <row Id="20243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8266" RevisionGUID="b14f96f5-f0dd-46f3-85b0-9ebd3a813c99" CreationDate="2019-05-10T14:33:09.123" UserId="1445" Text="We have put a fair amount of effort into reducing the impact of our staff canteen in our office.  One part of this is introducing separate food waste and recyclables bins.  However many canteen users use the wrong bins, with significant amounts of all types of waste going into all three bins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bins are well signposted but people seem either to not read or otherwise disregard the signs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there any research on how to encourage waste sorting, or failing that does anyone have anecdotal evidence on effective ways to improve this situation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8266" RevisionGUID="b14f96f5-f0dd-46f3-85b0-9ebd3a813c99" CreationDate="2019-05-10T14:33:09.123" UserId="1445" Text="How to encourage people to sort waste properly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8266" RevisionGUID="b14f96f5-f0dd-46f3-85b0-9ebd3a813c99" CreationDate="2019-05-10T14:33:09.123" UserId="1445" Text="|waste|human-factors|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8267" RevisionGUID="9c77ca3c-4dab-4f32-a48f-20baadaba421" CreationDate="2019-05-10T14:39:13.670" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8267" RevisionGUID="9c77ca3c-4dab-4f32-a48f-20baadaba421" CreationDate="2019-05-10T14:39:13.670" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8268" RevisionGUID="a0b3a0e9-2cc7-45ca-b536-ac946d8771dd" CreationDate="2019-05-10T14:39:13.670" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20249" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8268" RevisionGUID="a0b3a0e9-2cc7-45ca-b536-ac946d8771dd" CreationDate="2019-05-10T14:39:13.670" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="14a54c91-283c-4bab-bff0-be68313509b2" CreationDate="2019-05-10T18:43:21.337" UserId="5963" Comment="clarity and typos" Text="I'm experimenting with optimal cotton growing techniques using the least amount of water required and plan on growing a cotton plant in simulated field conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I need a large enough pot that would allow the roots of the plant to grow unrestricted and was wondering: what is are the dimensions of a cotton plant at its largest, including the roots?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20251" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="14a54c91-283c-4bab-bff0-be68313509b2" CreationDate="2019-05-10T18:43:21.337" UserId="5963" Comment="clarity and typos" Text="What are the root and aboveground dimensions of a cotton plant at its largest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20252" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="14a54c91-283c-4bab-bff0-be68313509b2" CreationDate="2019-05-10T18:43:21.337" Comment="Proposed by 5963 approved by 3379, 2451 edit id of 572" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8269" RevisionGUID="4f190153-44eb-426d-a77e-1a431090fb2d" CreationDate="2019-05-10T21:41:19.297" UserId="4343" Text="Apparently they are specialist lighting plugs (sheesh, yet another 'standard'!) and generally referred to as T5 or T8 connectors. T5 and T8 actually being a reference to the size/diameter of old school florescent tubes(!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chopped the end off a different old lead, and soldered the wires into the end of connector like the one in the pic, and finished it with electrical tape!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hadn't found them because I was looking at the 'C' series of connectors (C5 being the 'mickey mouse' connector that is very similar, very, very common - but bigger...)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AWcXF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YxQxO.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20254" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8247" RevisionGUID="88411bed-3979-4f61-843a-9f82bea68daf" CreationDate="2019-05-11T03:01:48.683" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1127046118167203845" />
  <row Id="20255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8270" RevisionGUID="33731c31-e954-4cd7-83a3-ed5a56f5c669" CreationDate="2019-05-12T18:17:54.393" UserId="6611" Text="I recently picked up a few cheap, mini [photovoltaics](https://www.aliexpress.com/item/2-V-300mA-with-30cm-extend-wire-Solar-Panel-Polycrystalline-Silicon-DIY-Battery-Charger-Small-Mini/32969733508.html).  I'm planning to wire three up in series for a 2V, 900mA max output.  I'm not well versed in battery mechanisms, and I was wondering if I would significantly harm battery life if I were to just run the output through a diode and into some Li-ions or NiCads.  Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20256" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8270" RevisionGUID="33731c31-e954-4cd7-83a3-ed5a56f5c669" CreationDate="2019-05-12T18:17:54.393" UserId="6611" Text="Will I damage batteries by charging them directly with solar outputs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20257" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8270" RevisionGUID="33731c31-e954-4cd7-83a3-ed5a56f5c669" CreationDate="2019-05-12T18:17:54.393" UserId="6611" Text="|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20258" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8252" RevisionGUID="c09b5f53-5306-447d-9ba9-d0f6f4d03844" CreationDate="2019-05-13T00:00:42.050" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1127725315940335617" />
  <row Id="20259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8271" RevisionGUID="eb8f8426-83c3-4ba2-8c6b-60c3fc5e3a5f" CreationDate="2019-05-13T00:37:11.757" UserId="6578" Text="I've often wondered whether it's more environmentally friendly to use a desktop or a laptop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To compare purely the electricity usage, I can of course calculate how long I leave my computer turned on, measure the electricity usage with a meter, convert the kilowatt hours to metric tons of CO2 pollution depending on my power company or source of power (my power company's website's calculator indicates about 3000KWh makes a metric ton of CO2 emissions).  Desktops are clearly worse for the environment in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are other factors to consider, and I'm not sure how to compare them to the electricity cost.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There are a lot of harmful and unjust mining practices involved in building a computer to get rare metals - is this impact greater for a desktop or a laptop?&#xD;&#xA; - Laptops have batteries, which are bad for the environment.&#xD;&#xA; - But desktops have more mass, and electronic waste is bad for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem becomes more complicated because I find that it's feasible to get a free desktop by building it from parts, or upgrade one using partly free parts, or to use one that someone has lying around that they aren't using, whereas laptops are in higher demand.  Would this change the answer, or could it be better to buy a used laptop solely to reduce the electricity usage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, to what extent is the impact of electronics waste mitigated if we assume I bring my computer to an electronics recycling facility at the end of its life?  (Which I probably won't - I'll probably sell it or give it away when it becomes obsolete.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand this is a tough question but any insight could be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20260" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8271" RevisionGUID="eb8f8426-83c3-4ba2-8c6b-60c3fc5e3a5f" CreationDate="2019-05-13T00:37:11.757" UserId="6578" Text="Laptops vs desktops" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20261" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8271" RevisionGUID="eb8f8426-83c3-4ba2-8c6b-60c3fc5e3a5f" CreationDate="2019-05-13T00:37:11.757" UserId="6578" Text="|waste|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8263" RevisionGUID="7aa79f9b-11e7-423d-8a8e-e9bbdcd602dc" CreationDate="2019-05-13T02:26:32.840" UserId="3379" Comment="Significant edit to change the focus of the question, better linking to sustainability." Text="According to [this article from Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/article/coal-power-generation/column-to-...wer-plants-must-become-more-flexible-kemp-idUSL5N0J42YG20131119), it takes **up to eight hours** for a coal plant to reach maximum generation. This means that four up to eight hours after it starts up, the plant is burning coal at a lower efficiency (Btu/calorie per kWh) than what it's capable of during longer-term operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. cycling of coal plants is something that happens on a daily basis in some areas. The chart below (from [the Energy Information Agency](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37132)) shows power sources over an average day in the western U.S.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a huge area of the U.S., coal plants are reducing output for several hours each day. Presumably this involves turning off boilers or even whole plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems similar to the question on [shutting off a car's engine at a stoplight](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/666/3379). **Could keeping a coal plant running, in some circumstances, result in less CO2 emissions than stopping and restarting it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To figure that out, I'd need some data on how much coal a plant burns during shutdown and start up, and how much power is produced during this period, compared to how much coal is used to produce the same amount of power after it's been online for some time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was prompted by the recent news that [Britain went a week without burning coal](https://earther.gizmodo.com/britain-just-went-a-week-without-coal-for-the-first-tim-1834609354). There's also a good discussion over on skeptics.se about a similar occurrence a few years ago: [During Great Britain's coal-free day, were coal plants shut off, or active and generating power GB didn't use?](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/38227/38403)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AbrpN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20263" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8263" RevisionGUID="7aa79f9b-11e7-423d-8a8e-e9bbdcd602dc" CreationDate="2019-05-13T02:26:32.840" UserId="3379" Comment="Significant edit to change the focus of the question, better linking to sustainability." Text="Does a short-term shut down of a coal plant cause more CO2 emissions than keeping it running?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8270" RevisionGUID="7b1366fd-2dd4-47e7-afbc-725c24f853d5" CreationDate="2019-05-13T15:45:29.887" UserId="-1" Comment="Whoops, I meant to say parallel, not series!" Text="I recently picked up a few cheap, mini [photovoltaics](https://www.aliexpress.com/item/2-V-300mA-with-30cm-extend-wire-Solar-Panel-Polycrystalline-Silicon-DIY-Battery-Charger-Small-Mini/32969733508.html).  I'm planning to wire three in parallel for a 2V, 900mA max output.  I'm not well versed in battery mechanisms, and I was wondering if I would significantly harm battery life if I were to just run the output through a diode and into some Li-ions or NiCads.  Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20265" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8270" RevisionGUID="7b1366fd-2dd4-47e7-afbc-725c24f853d5" CreationDate="2019-05-13T15:45:29.887" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 6611 edit id of 575" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8272" RevisionGUID="e5ab3259-02e5-45a0-9f8f-2360825b9bc2" CreationDate="2019-05-13T16:50:58.800" UserId="6612" Text="**Food waste case study**:&#xD;&#xA;Globally, food waste is a huge problem, with [around 30-40% of food wasted][1], this figure is relatively constant across the globe, with losses in 'developing' countries generally due to lack of infrastructure, but losses in 'developed' countries generally due to poor food management in retail and homes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![sources of food waste][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;South Korea has particularly high rates of consumer food waste due to the practice of having many side dishes, known as banchan, [which often go uneaten][3]. Alongside this, food recycling rates were low, with [about 2% of food waste being recycled in 1994][4]. More recently, this has been increased to [over 90%][5]. This has been done through a [ban on sending food waste to landfill][6], implemented in 2005 and a [large-scale food recycling scheme][6], paid for by charging residents by the weight of food they dispose of, [achieved through 'smart' bins using RFID][4]. Processed food waste is used as compost on communal gardens and pig food, potentially amongst other uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recognise this is just one case study, but it's impressive that well-enacted legislation has managed to produce such a large change in behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[More general behavioural effects on recycling][7]**: fairly old study (1995) by Porter *et al.* found that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - prompts by group leaders reliably increased recycling, with verbal prompts more effective than written&#xD;&#xA; - setting a goal for the amount of recycling the group wanted to do increased recycling, this was more effective than being giving feedback on recycling behaviour&#xD;&#xA; - written commitments to recycling were as effective at increasing rates as rewards for recycling, verbal commitments were less effective&#xD;&#xA; - rewards for recycling were effective, especially when a lottery for a large reward as opposed to small immediate rewards&#xD;&#xA; - a real economic loss for not recycling increased recycling rates&#xD;&#xA; - increasing the number of recycling bins available increased recycling rates&#xD;&#xA; - **BUT** none of these interventions showed maintenance of improved recycling behaviour after the intervention was stopped&#xD;&#xA;  -another interesting point they reference is that parents of children who had a curriculum emphasising active participation in environmental activities showed more environmentally conscious behaviour, implying that the education doesn't just affect the child&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other papers I haven't had a chance to read** (not sure whether you'll be able to access these as I have institutional access with my degree):&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Oskamp *et al.* (1991) - Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior&#xD;&#xA;(I've run out of reputation to post more links)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Haldeman and Turner (2009) - Implementing a Community-Based Social Marketing Program to Increase Recycling&#xD;&#xA; -  Takata *et al.* (2012) - The effects of recycling loops in food waste management in Japan: Based on the environmental and economic evaluation of food recycling&#xD;&#xA; -  Refsgaard and Magnussen (2009) - Household behaviour and attitudes with respect to recycling food waste – experiences from focus groups&#xD;&#xA; -  Dai *et al.* (2015) - Why doorstepping can increase household waste recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/812&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/327/5967/812/F3.medium.gif&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.koreaexpose.com/banchan-south-korea-food-waste/&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://abcnews.go.com/International/south-koreas-food-waste-reduction-plans-feature-urban/story?id=62480905&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291553709_Solid_recovery_rate_of_food_waste_recycling_in_South_Korea&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/south-korea-recycling-food-waste/&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916595272002" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20267" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8272" RevisionGUID="118fe198-cac0-45ac-83a7-28f76527b918" CreationDate="2019-05-13T17:52:42.530" UserId="3379" Comment="Added links to additional references." Text="**Food waste case study**:&#xD;&#xA;Globally, food waste is a huge problem, with [around 30-40% of food wasted][1], this figure is relatively constant across the globe, with losses in 'developing' countries generally due to lack of infrastructure, but losses in 'developed' countries generally due to poor food management in retail and homes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![sources of food waste][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;South Korea has particularly high rates of consumer food waste due to the practice of having many side dishes, known as banchan, [which often go uneaten][3]. Alongside this, food recycling rates were low, with [about 2% of food waste being recycled in 1994][4]. More recently, this has been increased to [over 90%][5]. This has been done through a [ban on sending food waste to landfill][6], implemented in 2005 and a [large-scale food recycling scheme][6], paid for by charging residents by the weight of food they dispose of, [achieved through 'smart' bins using RFID][4]. Processed food waste is used as compost on communal gardens and pig food, potentially amongst other uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recognise this is just one case study, but it's impressive that well-enacted legislation has managed to produce such a large change in behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**[More general behavioural effects on recycling][7]**: fairly old study (1995) by Porter *et al.* found that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - prompts by group leaders reliably increased recycling, with verbal prompts more effective than written&#xD;&#xA; - setting a goal for the amount of recycling the group wanted to do increased recycling, this was more effective than being giving feedback on recycling behaviour&#xD;&#xA; - written commitments to recycling were as effective at increasing rates as rewards for recycling, verbal commitments were less effective&#xD;&#xA; - rewards for recycling were effective, especially when a lottery for a large reward as opposed to small immediate rewards&#xD;&#xA; - a real economic loss for not recycling increased recycling rates&#xD;&#xA; - increasing the number of recycling bins available increased recycling rates&#xD;&#xA; - **BUT** none of these interventions showed maintenance of improved recycling behaviour after the intervention was stopped&#xD;&#xA;  -another interesting point they reference is that parents of children who had a curriculum emphasising active participation in environmental activities showed more environmentally conscious behaviour, implying that the education doesn't just affect the child&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other papers I haven't had a chance to read** (not sure whether you'll be able to access these as I have institutional access with my degree):&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Oskamp *et al.* (1991) - [Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916591234005)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Haldeman and Turner (2009) - [Implementing a Community-Based Social Marketing Program to Increase Recycling](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15245000903154618)&#xD;&#xA; -  Takata *et al.* (2012) - [The effects of recycling loops in food waste management in Japan: Based on the environmental and economic evaluation of food recycling](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969712007310)&#xD;&#xA; -  Refsgaard and Magnussen (2009) - [Household behaviour and attitudes with respect to recycling food waste – experiences from focus groups](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479708000479)&#xD;&#xA; -  Dai *et al.* (2015) - [Why doorstepping can increase household waste recycling](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344915300215)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5967/812&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/327/5967/812/F3.medium.gif&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://www.koreaexpose.com/banchan-south-korea-food-waste/&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://abcnews.go.com/International/south-koreas-food-waste-reduction-plans-feature-urban/story?id=62480905&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291553709_Solid_recovery_rate_of_food_waste_recycling_in_South_Korea&#xD;&#xA;[6]: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/south-korea-recycling-food-waste/&#xD;&#xA;[7]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916595272002" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8273" RevisionGUID="d79eb24f-7028-4844-a9f0-f24eab91c2ca" CreationDate="2019-05-13T18:56:43.503" UserId="6612" Text="Although quite old and aimed at more general recycling, a study by [Porter *et al.* (1995)][1] found that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - prompts by group leaders reliably increased recycling, with verbal prompts more effective than written&#xD;&#xA; - setting a goal for the amount of recycling the group wanted to do increased recycling, this was more effective than being giving feedback on recycling behaviour&#xD;&#xA; - written commitments to recycling were as effective at increasing rates as rewards for recycling, verbal commitments were less effective&#xD;&#xA; - rewards for recycling were effective, especially when a lottery for a large reward as opposed to small immediate rewards&#xD;&#xA; - a real economic loss for not recycling increased recycling rates&#xD;&#xA; - increasing the number of recycling bins available increased recycling rates&#xD;&#xA; - **BUT** none of these interventions showed maintenance of improved recycling behaviour after the intervention was stopped&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other papers I haven't had a chance to read but might help** (not sure whether you'll be able to access these as I have institutional access with my degree, happy to give them a skim if you can't and I have time):&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Oskamp *et al.* (1991) - [Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Haldeman and Turner (2009) - [Implementing a Community-Based Social Marketing Program to Increase Recycling][3]&#xD;&#xA; - Refsgaard and Magnussen (2009) - [Household behaviour and attitudes with respect to recycling food waste – experiences from focus groups][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916595272002&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916591234005&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15245000903154618&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479708000479&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20269" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8273" RevisionGUID="c4c8fb7a-bfb2-47b8-b8bb-6120c9deba22" CreationDate="2019-05-13T19:43:35.943" UserId="6612" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="Although quite old and aimed at more general recycling, a study by [Porter *et al.* (1995)][1] found that: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - prompts by group leaders reliably increased recycling, with verbal prompts more effective than written&#xD;&#xA; - setting a goal for the amount of recycling the group wanted to do increased recycling, this was more effective than being giving feedback on recycling behaviour&#xD;&#xA; - written commitments to recycling were as effective at increasing rates as rewards for recycling, verbal commitments were less effective&#xD;&#xA; - rewards for recycling were effective, especially when a lottery for a large reward as opposed to small immediate rewards&#xD;&#xA; - a real economic loss for not recycling increased recycling rates&#xD;&#xA; - increasing the number of recycling bins available increased recycling rates&#xD;&#xA; - **BUT** none of these interventions showed maintenance of improved recycling behaviour after the intervention was stopped&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other papers I haven't had a chance to read but might help** (not sure whether you'll be able to access these as I have institutional access with my degree, happy to give them a skim if you can't and I have time):&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Oskamp *et al.* (1991) - [Factors Influencing Household Recycling Behavior][2]&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Haldeman and Turner (2009) - [Implementing a Community-Based Social Marketing Program to Increase Recycling][3]&#xD;&#xA; - Refsgaard and Magnussen (2009) - [Household behaviour and attitudes with respect to recycling food waste – experiences from focus groups][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edited to add this gem**: one other way to increase cooperation in office tasks is to [include a poster with some eyes on][5] - people don't like being watched!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916595272002&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916591234005&#xD;&#xA;[3]: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15245000903154618&#xD;&#xA;[4]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479708000479&#xD;&#xA;[5]: https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/daniel.nettle/ernestjonesnettlebateson.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8274" RevisionGUID="976dc68d-cd30-403e-9d30-7b5535426732" CreationDate="2019-05-13T22:25:42.343" UserId="6614" Text="Desktops hands down:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Materials used&#xD;&#xA;Aside from form factor, almost all of the components of a laptop could be plugged into a desktop and function as is. With that in mind however, laptop components are designed to be more power efficient and to be space saving whereas desktop components provide more 'power' for using the same amount of raw material; when considering that the energy usage is not worth mentioning when talking about RAM etc there isn't much of a difference aside from desktop components being significantly cheaper.&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned mass, desktops usually use steel frames which are almost 100% recyclable whereas the average laptop is made from plastics (PET, ABS etc) which are rarely recyled. Only concern with weight is transport but this is offset by the reduced need for raw materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Re-Use and Recycling&#xD;&#xA;Laptop parts tend to live short lives owing to their high case temperatures (especially when most owners don't remove dust from their fans!) they are also significantly harder to re-use as most are proprietary (sizes, interfacings etc) and are often non even compatible with the same brand (Hard drives etc are an exception) whereas desktop parts can be chopped and changed as much as you have the effort for; you are right in saying that you can build 'graveyard' systems from old parts with many people building gaming PC's from parts that are on sale.&#xD;&#xA;Components from both types are recycled the same way however which is difficult to do (low profit and dirty work, often out-sourced to less developed countries as a cottage industry).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Batteries&#xD;&#xA;I'll be brief, new and in-development battery technologies use virtually no rare, toxic or otherwise noteworthy materials. Lithium is in good supply, the only worry is being able to produce it at a fast-enough rate with electric cars using it all up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Energy Usage&#xD;&#xA;The reason I saw this is inconsequential is that the difference between power used is prettymuch pocket change unless you're running some beefy gaming computer or crypto miner, remember that batteries are never 100% efficient leading to a large amount of waste heat. With more and more sustainable sources of energy being made available the usage of a low-end computer (laptop or desktop) is simply not worth considering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for disposing of computers, re-use is always better than recycle:&#xD;&#xA;Sell it&gt;Free on Gumtree etc or Donate it to schools etc&gt;Scrap it yourself and sell the parts (PSUs sell well)&gt;Depending on the facility they often just remove large components (PSU, case) and mulch all the rest (mainly PCBs) and extract all the metals used, the only value in a silicon chip is the design and assembly" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20272" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8275" RevisionGUID="ce4a1c1f-1718-4fa9-a0d2-b8a2488a4360" CreationDate="2019-05-14T06:35:49.383" UserId="4886" Text="*&quot;To compare purely the electricity usage ... Desktops are clearly worse for the environment in this respect.&quot;* — That certainly used to be the case, and still often is, but only because people are pressured to buy/build systems that are overpowered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2019 it is possible to build a 'serious' desktop system that consumes very little power — provided you don't play the sort of games that have ridiculously high hardware/power requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passively-cooled cases, sensible CPU selection, solid state drives and integrated graphics (or efficient dGPUs) allow desktops to be constructed that consume very little power when in 'light duty' mode, but can still deliver the goods when you need them to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of example:  The system I am using is currently consuming only ~30W — and that includes a 27&quot; display.  If I put all 6 cores/12 threads under 100% load (e.g. a fluid simulation), it only goes up to ~70W.  If I artificially-stress it and flat-line the dGPU *as well* — something that never, ever happens in the real world, total power draw still only reaches 140W.  That's it.  It's simply impossible to draw any more power in this system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that — with a bit of thought — it is possible to build a desktop system that has power consumption figures very similar to those of laptops, whilst having power on demand when you need it, and enjoying all of the other — life-extending — advantages (e.g. repairs, upgrades) that come with being a desktop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you get desktop power consumption down, the components (and thus environmental cost) are comparable between the two.  At that point the most important factor becomes the *lifespan of the device* — how long until you need to replace it.  That's a battle laptops lose by a country mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a *sustainability* point-of-view, building an **energy-efficient desktop system** — that can be repaired and upgraded to greatly extend its service life — is by far and away the best approach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20273" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8275" RevisionGUID="8e4f4c92-f947-486a-9727-3b6338a8a901" CreationDate="2019-05-14T06:40:54.570" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="*&quot;To compare purely the electricity usage ... Desktops are clearly worse for the environment in this respect.&quot;* — That certainly used to be the case, and still often is, but only because people buy/build systems that are overpowered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2019 it is possible to build a 'serious' desktop system that consumes very little power — provided you don't play the sort of games that have ridiculously high hardware/power requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passively-cooled cases, sensible CPU selection, solid state drives and integrated graphics (or efficient dGPUs) allow desktops to be constructed that consume very little power when in 'light duty' mode (i.e. most of the time), but can still deliver the goods when you need them to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of example:  The system I am using is currently consuming only ~30W — and that includes a 27&quot; display.  If I put all 6 cores/12 threads under 100% load (e.g. a fluid simulation), it only goes up to ~70W.  If I artificially-stress it and flat-line the dGPU *as well* — something that never, ever happens in the real world, total power draw still only reaches 140W.  That's it.  It's simply impossible to draw any more power in this system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that — with a bit of thought — it is possible to build a desktop system that has power consumption figures very similar to those of laptops, whilst having power on demand when you need it, and enjoying all of the other — life-extending — advantages (e.g. repairs, upgrades) that come with being a desktop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you get desktop power consumption down, the components (and thus environmental cost) are comparable between the two.  At that point the most important factor becomes the *lifespan of the device* — how long until you need to replace it.  That's a battle laptops lose by a country mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a *sustainability* point-of-view, building an **energy-efficient desktop system** — that is correctly specced, and can be repaired and upgraded to greatly extend its service life — is by far and away the best approach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8275" RevisionGUID="34e65778-381c-4f67-ab1b-6a74c5d4468d" CreationDate="2019-05-14T06:46:39.823" UserId="4886" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="*&quot;To compare purely the electricity usage ... Desktops are clearly worse for the environment in this respect.&quot;* — That certainly used to be the case, and still often is, but only because people buy/build systems that are overpowered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2019 it is possible to build a 'serious' desktop system that consumes very little power — provided you don't play the sort of games that have ridiculously high hardware/power requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passively-cooled cases, sensible CPU selection, solid state drives and integrated graphics (or efficient dGPUs) allow desktops to be constructed that consume very little power when in 'light duty' mode (i.e. most of the time), but can still deliver the goods when you need them to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of example:  The system I am using is currently consuming only ~30W — and that includes a 27&quot; display.  If I put all 6 cores/12 threads under 100% load (e.g. a fluid simulation), it only goes up to ~70W.  If I artificially-stress it and flat-line the dGPU *as well* — something that never, ever happens in the real world, total power draw still only reaches 140W.  That's it.  It's simply impossible to draw any more power in this system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that — with a bit of thought — it is possible to build a desktop system that has 'typical' power consumption figures very similar to those of laptops, whilst having power-on-demand for those times you really need it, and enjoying all of the other — life-extending — advantages (e.g. repairs, upgrades) that come with being a desktop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you get desktop power consumption down, the components (and thus environmental cost) are roughly comparable between the two.  At that point the most important factor becomes the *lifespan of the device* — how long until you need to replace it.  That's a battle laptops lose by a country mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a *sustainability* point-of-view, building an **energy-efficient desktop system** — that is correctly specced ('right-sized'), and can be repaired and upgraded to greatly extend its service life — is by far and away the best approach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8276" RevisionGUID="4edfdb4f-4e72-4d61-95fa-2b73cb3af9ba" CreationDate="2019-05-14T10:03:02.050" UserId="4886" Text="Recharging (rechargeable) Lithium-ion batteries is — unfortunately — **not** a straight-forward process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![lithium-ion battery charge profile][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you cap current you will damage severely-discharged batteries during the initial charging phase.  They react very poorly to being overcharged.  Even small amounts of undervolting will translate to large amounts of capacity loss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added to that, there are a number of different rechargeable lithium-ion chemistries — each with distinct charge voltages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is *possible* to use a very simple solar-powered circuit to charge a Li-ion battery, and you are unlikely to rupture a battery and set fire to anything (in the short run, at least), the highly uncontrolled nature of solar is such that there's **no way** you're going to charge the battery *the way it wants to be charged* and, as a result, you will *without doubt* have highly variable charge states and shorten the battery's lifespan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries are still expensive.  It's worth spending the (relatively small amount of) money on a purpose-built charger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of battery chemistries that are very tolerant of 'poorly controlled' charging regimes (Ni-Fe comes to mind).  If you want a simple charging system, then I would suggest looking at those.  Li-ion, however, is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to test for yourself that the above is true, and since you have already purchased the PV panels, you could set up a recharging area that is fire-proof and dedicate a (clearly marked) set of batteries just for simple solar charging.  Just be prepared to have them die quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little bit of light reading goes a long way: https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2016/sep/a-designer-guide-fast-lithium-ion-battery-charging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zo2qR.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8276" RevisionGUID="ea2cae4d-a664-4306-8911-ab7459b1582d" CreationDate="2019-05-14T10:14:16.650" UserId="4886" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="Recharging (rechargeable) Lithium-ion batteries is — unfortunately — **not** a straight-forward process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![lithium-ion battery charge profile][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you cap current you will damage severely-discharged batteries during the initial charging phase.  They react very poorly to being overcharged.  Even small amounts of undervolting will translate to large amounts of capacity loss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added to that, there are a number of different rechargeable lithium-ion chemistries — each with distinct charge voltages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is *possible* to use a very simple solar-powered circuit to charge a Li-ion battery, and you are unlikely to rupture a battery and set fire to anything (in the short run, at least), the highly uncontrolled nature of solar is such that there's **no way** you're going to charge the battery *the way it wants to be charged* and, as a result, you will *without doubt* have highly variable charge states and shorten the battery's lifespan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries are still expensive.  It's worth spending the (relatively small amount of) money on a purpose-built charger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of battery chemistries that are very tolerant of 'poorly controlled' charging regimes (Ni-Fe comes to mind).  If you want a simple charging system, then I would suggest looking at those.  Li-ion, however, is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to test for yourself that the above is true, and since you have already purchased the PV panels, you could set up a recharging area that is fire-proof and dedicate a (clearly marked) set of batteries just for simple solar charging.  Just be prepared to have them die quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A little bit of light reading goes a long way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://batteryuniversity.com/index.php/learn/article/charging_lithium_ion_batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2016/sep/a-designer-guide-fast-lithium-ion-battery-charging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zo2qR.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20277" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8276" RevisionGUID="953a134a-3622-46cf-9831-35d0b82d9e70" CreationDate="2019-05-14T10:22:41.357" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="Recharging (rechargeable) Lithium-ion batteries is — unfortunately — **not** a straight-forward process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![lithium-ion battery charge profile][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you cap current you will damage severely-discharged batteries during the initial charging phase.  They react very poorly to being overcharged.  Even small amounts of undervolting will translate to large amounts of capacity loss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added to that, there are a number of different rechargeable lithium-ion chemistries — each with distinct charge voltages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is *possible* to use a very simple solar-powered circuit to charge a Li-ion battery, and you are unlikely to rupture a battery and set fire to anything (in the short run, at least), the highly uncontrolled nature of solar is such that there's **no way** you're going to charge the battery *the way it wants to be charged* and, as a result, you will *without doubt* have highly variable charge states and shorten the battery's lifespan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries are still expensive.  It's worth spending the (relatively small amount of) money on a purpose-built charger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of battery chemistries that are very tolerant of 'poorly controlled' charging regimes (Ni-Fe comes to mind).  If you want a simple charging system, then I would suggest looking at those.  Li-ion, however, is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to test for yourself that the above is true, and since you have already purchased the PV panels, you could set up a recharging area that is fire-proof and dedicate a (clearly marked) set of batteries just for simple solar charging.  Just be prepared to have them die quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details can be found here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://batteryuniversity.com/index.php/learn/article/charging_lithium_ion_batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2016/sep/a-designer-guide-fast-lithium-ion-battery-charging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zo2qR.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8276" RevisionGUID="0d8b47e4-c485-4025-a6fe-709a2cb0da05" CreationDate="2019-05-14T11:49:07.110" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="Recharging (rechargeable) lithium-ion batteries is — unfortunately — **not** a straight-forward process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![lithium-ion battery charge profile][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you cap current you will damage severely-discharged batteries during the initial charging phase.  They react very poorly to being overcharged.  Even small amounts of undervolting will translate to large amounts of capacity loss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Added to that, there are a number of different rechargeable lithium-ion chemistries — each with distinct charge voltages.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is *possible* to use a very simple solar-powered circuit to charge a Li-ion battery, and you are unlikely to rupture a battery and set fire to anything (in the short run, at least), the highly uncontrolled nature of solar is such that there's **no way** you're going to charge the battery *the way it wants to be charged* and, as a result, you will *without doubt* have highly variable charge states and shorten the battery's lifespan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries are still expensive.  It's worth spending the (relatively small amount of) money on a purpose-built charger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of battery chemistries that are very tolerant of 'poorly controlled' charging regimes (Ni-Fe comes to mind).  If you want a simple charging system, then I would suggest looking at those.  Li-ion, however, is not one of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to test for yourself that the above is true, and since you have already purchased the PV panels, you could set up a recharging area that is fire-proof and dedicate a (clearly marked) set of batteries just for simple solar charging.  Just be prepared to have them die quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details can be found here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://batteryuniversity.com/index.php/learn/article/charging_lithium_ion_batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2016/sep/a-designer-guide-fast-lithium-ion-battery-charging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zo2qR.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8275" RevisionGUID="cea9fa63-681c-479a-affe-7e3038d1f42f" CreationDate="2019-05-14T11:57:07.807" UserId="4886" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="*&quot;To compare purely the electricity usage ... Desktops are clearly worse for the environment in this respect.&quot;* — That certainly used to be the case, and still often is, but only because people buy/build systems that are overpowered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2019 it is possible to build a 'serious' desktop system that consumes very little power — provided you don't play the sort of games that have ridiculously high hardware/power requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passively-cooled cases, sensible CPU selection, solid state drives and integrated graphics (or efficient dGPUs) allow desktops to be constructed that consume very little power when in 'light duty' mode (i.e. most of the time), but can still deliver the goods when you need them to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of example:  The system I am using is currently consuming only ~30W — and that includes a 27&quot; display.  If I put all 6 cores/12 threads under 100% load (e.g. a fluid simulation), it only goes up to ~70W.  If I artificially-stress it and flat-line the dGPU *as well* — something that never, ever happens in the real world, total power draw still only reaches 140W.  That's it.  It's simply impossible to draw any more power in this system.  The system that it replaced (built ~2010) idled at ~110W and flat-lined close to 450W.  The new, energy-efficient system out-performs the old one in every single way imaginable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that — with a bit of thought — it is possible to build a desktop system that has 'typical' power consumption figures very similar to those of laptops, whilst having power-on-demand for those times you really need it, and enjoying all of the other — life-extending — advantages (e.g. repairs, upgrades) that come with being a desktop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you get desktop power consumption down, the components (and thus environmental cost) are roughly comparable between the two.  At that point the most important factor becomes the *lifespan of the device* — how long until you need to replace it.  That's a battle laptops lose by a country mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a *sustainability* point-of-view, building an **energy-efficient desktop system** — that is correctly specced ('right-sized'), and can be repaired and upgraded to greatly extend its service life — is by far and away the best approach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20281" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8275" RevisionGUID="3d8114bb-6c67-45da-8cf7-c1892d4aeacc" CreationDate="2019-05-14T12:03:28.077" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="*&quot;To compare purely the electricity usage ... Desktops are clearly worse for the environment in this respect.&quot;* — That certainly used to be the case, and still often is, but only because people buy/build systems that are overpowered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2019 it is possible to build a 'serious' desktop system that consumes very little power — provided you don't play the sort of games that have ridiculously high hardware/power requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passively-cooled cases, sensible CPU selection, solid state drives and integrated graphics (or efficient dGPUs) allow desktops to be constructed that consume very little power when in 'light duty' mode (i.e. most of the time), but can still deliver the goods when you need them to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of example:  The system I am using is currently consuming only ~30W — and that includes a 27&quot; display.  If I put all 6 cores/12 threads under 100% load (e.g. a fluid simulation), it only goes up to ~70W.  If I artificially-stress it and flat-line the dGPU *as well* — something that never, ever happens in the real world, total power draw still only reaches ~140W.  That's it.  It's simply impossible to draw any more power in this system.  The system that it replaced (built ~2010) idled at ~110W and flat-lined at ~450W.  The new, energy-efficient system out-performs the old one in every single way imaginable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that — with a bit of thought — it is possible to build a desktop system that has 'typical' power consumption figures very similar to those of laptops, whilst having power-on-demand for those times you really need it, and enjoying all of the other — life-extending — advantages (e.g. repairs, upgrades) that come with being a desktop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you get desktop power consumption down, the components (and thus environmental cost) are roughly comparable between the two.  At that point the most important factor becomes the *lifespan of the device* — how long until you need to replace it.  That's a battle laptops lose by a country mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a *sustainability* point-of-view, building an **energy-efficient desktop system** — that is correctly specced ('right-sized'), and can be repaired and upgraded to greatly extend its service life — is by far and away the best approach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20282" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8277" RevisionGUID="f3c937cc-41b0-4c6c-b752-b177ba7d07f8" CreationDate="2019-05-14T17:52:05.040" UserId="6616" Text="Scientists frequently speak out about the dangers of climate change.  Are there any initiatives within the scientific community to make science itself more sustainable?  In particular, are there any such initiatives with respect to scientific conferences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20283" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8277" RevisionGUID="f3c937cc-41b0-4c6c-b752-b177ba7d07f8" CreationDate="2019-05-14T17:52:05.040" UserId="6616" Text="How sustainable are scientific conferences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20284" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8277" RevisionGUID="f3c937cc-41b0-4c6c-b752-b177ba7d07f8" CreationDate="2019-05-14T17:52:05.040" UserId="6616" Text="|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8271" RevisionGUID="746fddce-8539-43a9-88d5-7effb1bac82c" CreationDate="2019-05-14T18:26:28.253" UserId="6578" Comment="Attempting to narrow down my question" Text="I've often wondered whether it's more environmentally friendly to use a desktop or a laptop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To compare purely the electricity usage, I can of course calculate how long I leave my computer turned on, measure the electricity usage with a meter, convert the kilowatt hours to metric tons of CO2 pollution depending on my power company or source of power (my power company's website's calculator indicates about 3000KWh makes a metric ton of CO2 emissions).  Desktops are clearly worse for the environment in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are other factors to consider, and I'm not sure how to compare them to the electricity cost.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There are a lot of harmful and unjust mining practices involved in building a computer to get rare metals - is this impact greater for a desktop or a laptop?&#xD;&#xA; - Laptops have batteries, which are bad for the environment.&#xD;&#xA; - But desktops have more mass, and electronic waste is bad for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be specific situations where computers can be built from parts, often that people give away, which mitigates some of these concerns.  But I don't know how to compare the cost of production of any extra desktop parts / laptops that I have to buy against the difference in electricity usage.  Does anyone have any insights into how to do this analysis, or can anyone point to any studies that have been done?  Let's assume that the computer will get recycled at the end of its life (I don't know enough about electronics recycling to know whether there will still be any harmful materials left though).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8275" RevisionGUID="03ce4dd2-1755-4e8f-9322-277bf7b7f5a8" CreationDate="2019-05-15T00:54:46.183" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="*&quot;To compare purely the electricity usage ... Desktops are clearly worse for the environment in this respect.&quot;* — That certainly used to be the case, and still often is, but only because people buy/build systems that are overpowered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2019 it is possible to build a 'serious' desktop system that consumes very little power — provided you don't play the sort of games that have ridiculously high hardware/power requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passively-cooled cases, sensible CPU selection, solid state drives and integrated graphics (or efficient dGPUs) allow desktops to be constructed that consume very little power when in 'light duty' mode (i.e. most of the time), but can still deliver the goods when you need them to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of example:  The system I am using is currently consuming only ~30W — and that includes a 27&quot; display.  If I put all 6 cores/12 threads under 100% load (e.g. a fluid simulation), it only goes up to ~70W.  If I artificially-stress it and flat-line the dGPU *as well* — something that never, ever happens in the real world, total power draw still only reaches ~140W.  That's it.  It's simply impossible to draw any more power in this system.  The system that it replaced (built in 2011) idled at ~110W and flat-lined at ~450W.  The new, energy-efficient system out-performs the old one in every single way imaginable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that — with a bit of thought — it is possible to build a desktop system that has 'typical' power consumption figures very similar to those of laptops, whilst having power-on-demand for those times you really need it, and enjoying all of the other — life-extending — advantages (e.g. repairs, upgrades) that come with being a desktop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you get desktop power consumption down, the components (and thus environmental cost) are roughly comparable between the two.  At that point the most important factor becomes the *lifespan of the device* — how long until you need to replace it.  That's a battle laptops lose by a country mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a *sustainability* point-of-view, building an **energy-efficient desktop system** — that is correctly specced ('right-sized'), and can be repaired and upgraded to greatly extend its service life — is by far and away the best approach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8271" RevisionGUID="e33356c0-af0d-4733-916b-7a2dbec41de8" CreationDate="2019-05-15T12:49:36.897" UserId="6578" Comment="Clarify environmental cost rather than monetary cost" Text="I've often wondered whether it's more environmentally friendly to use a desktop or a laptop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To compare purely the electricity usage, I can of course calculate how long I leave my computer turned on, measure the electricity usage with a meter, convert the kilowatt hours to metric tons of CO2 pollution depending on my power company or source of power (my power company's website's calculator indicates about 3000KWh makes a metric ton of CO2 emissions).  Desktops are clearly worse for the environment in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are other factors to consider, and I'm not sure how to compare them to the electricity cost.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There are a lot of harmful and unjust mining practices involved in building a computer to get rare metals - is this impact greater for a desktop or a laptop?&#xD;&#xA; - Laptops have batteries, which are bad for the environment.&#xD;&#xA; - But desktops have more mass, and electronic waste is bad for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be specific situations where computers can be built from parts, often that people give away, which mitigates some of these concerns.  But I don't know how to compare the environmental cost of production of any extra desktop parts / laptops that I have to buy against the difference in electricity usage.  Does anyone have any insights into how to do this analysis, or can anyone point to any studies that have been done?  Let's assume that the computer will get recycled at the end of its life (I don't know enough about electronics recycling to know whether there will still be any harmful materials left though).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8277" RevisionGUID="24fa60ef-24a3-470b-a5ba-c27d51b5a8b2" CreationDate="2019-05-15T20:54:10.070" UserId="6616" Comment="added 156 characters in body; edited title" Text="Scientists frequently speak out about the dangers of climate change, and I'm sure there are many scientists who make concious choices for their own lives with a view towards sustainability.  But are there any examples of concerted efforts to make the day-to-day running of the scientific community itself more sustainable?  In particular, are there any such initiatives with respect to scientific conferences?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20290" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8277" RevisionGUID="24fa60ef-24a3-470b-a5ba-c27d51b5a8b2" CreationDate="2019-05-15T20:54:10.070" UserId="6616" Comment="added 156 characters in body; edited title" Text="Are there examples of (more) sustainable scientific conferences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8275" RevisionGUID="ec2dd586-d5a6-46c7-923e-b58e9eed8462" CreationDate="2019-05-16T03:11:24.400" UserId="4886" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="*&quot;To compare purely the electricity usage ... Desktops are clearly worse for the environment in this respect.&quot;* — That certainly used to be the case, and still often is, but only because people buy/build systems that are overpowered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2019 it is possible to build a 'serious' desktop system that consumes very little power — provided you don't play the sort of games that have ridiculously high hardware/power requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passively-cooled cases, sensible CPU selection, solid state drives and integrated graphics (or efficient dGPUs) allow desktops to be constructed that consume very little power when in 'light duty' mode (i.e. most of the time), but can still deliver the goods when you need them to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By way of example:  The system I am using is currently consuming only ~30W — and that includes a 27&quot; display.  If I put all 6 cores/12 threads under 100% load (e.g. a fluid simulation), it only goes up to ~70W.  If I artificially-stress it and flat-line the dGPU *as well* — something that never, ever happens in the real world, total power draw still only reaches ~140W.  That's it.  It's simply impossible to draw any more power in this system.  The system that it replaced (built in 2011) idled at ~110W and flat-lined at ~450W.  The new system out-performs the old one in every single way imaginable — and consumes only *one-third* the power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that — with a bit of thought — it is possible to build a desktop system that has 'typical' power consumption figures *similar* to those of laptops, whilst having power-on-demand for those times you really need it, and enjoying all of the other — life-extending — advantages (e.g. repairs, upgrades) that come with being a desktop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you get desktop power consumption down, the components (and thus environmental cost) are roughly comparable between the two.  At that point the most important factor becomes the *lifespan of the device* — how long until you need to replace it.  That's a battle laptops lose by a country mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From a *sustainability* point-of-view, building an **energy-efficient desktop system** — that is correctly specced ('right-sized'), and can be repaired and upgraded to greatly extend its service life — is by far and away the best approach." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8278" RevisionGUID="9e53dd79-af21-45d2-a10c-c84beac57a2e" CreationDate="2019-05-16T13:09:37.780" UserId="6119" Text="I live near a number of parks which have very large Sycamore trees. In winter these trees naturally shed their bark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/H3rkY.jpg&quot; width=&quot;300&quot; height=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bark tends to pile up at the bottom of the tree until, I assume, the park maintanance crew clears it up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems like such a shame to let it go to waste. **Does this bark have any particular uses?** I guess using it as a light form of firewood might work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or perhaps it's better for the environment to just leave it where it is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20293" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8278" RevisionGUID="9e53dd79-af21-45d2-a10c-c84beac57a2e" CreationDate="2019-05-16T13:09:37.780" UserId="6119" Text="Uses for Sycamore tree bark?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20294" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8278" RevisionGUID="9e53dd79-af21-45d2-a10c-c84beac57a2e" CreationDate="2019-05-16T13:09:37.780" UserId="6119" Text="|recycling|trees|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8279" RevisionGUID="0c59ca75-b3d3-4b28-ada5-be94cf2ae788" CreationDate="2019-05-16T13:50:59.523" UserId="6619" Text="I would like to purchase a shredding machine in order to shred plastic myself, I was wondering if there were any standards I'd need to watch out for and where I could find businesses willing to purchase this plastic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20296" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8279" RevisionGUID="0c59ca75-b3d3-4b28-ada5-be94cf2ae788" CreationDate="2019-05-16T13:50:59.523" UserId="6619" Text="How to sell shredded plastic in the UK?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20297" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8279" RevisionGUID="0c59ca75-b3d3-4b28-ada5-be94cf2ae788" CreationDate="2019-05-16T13:50:59.523" UserId="6619" Text="|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20298" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8280" RevisionGUID="bed6b236-83ce-4a79-afea-92db8da71d87" CreationDate="2019-05-16T14:43:18.810" UserId="3379" Text="While not specifically a scientific conference, earlier this year I attended [Greenbuild](https://www.greenbuildexpo.com/en/home.html) in Chicago, USA. Greenbuild is organized each year by the [U.S. Green Building Council](https://new.usgbc.org/) (which also runs the LEED program) and is intended for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; professionals in architecture, construction, engineering, planning, and interior design who depend on thoughtful and ethical solutions which promote wellness and resiliency in construction and urban development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since 2002, Greenbuild has run a sustainability initiative to track and reduce the environmental impact of the expo across several categories. Reports from previous years are available [here](https://www.greenbuildexpo.com/en/show-info/sustainability-at-greenbuild/reports.html), and the most recent report (for the 2018 expo) is [here](https://www.greenbuildexpo.com/content/dam/Informa/greenbuildexpo/en/2019/PDFs/CRE19GRB-MM-Sustainability-Report-2018.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the current &quot;sustainability objectives&quot; from 2018 onwards:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Move Toward a Zero Waste Event&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Advance Stakeholder Education and Engagement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Improve Sustainable Sourcing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Improve Performance and Tracking Methods&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Positively Impact Communities&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Lead the Event Industry Through the Advancement of Sustainable Event Management Initiatives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously some of these are difficult to objectively track or measure, but I pulled out some of the numbers that are being tracked from the available reports:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Year     GHG (lbs/    Waste diversion    Landfilled waste &#xD;&#xA;           participant)        rate          (lbs/participant)&#xD;&#xA;    ----------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    2002       1115                               &#xD;&#xA;    2003       1069                               &#xD;&#xA;    2004       1036             48                  2.8&#xD;&#xA;    2005        983             26                  &#xD;&#xA;    2006       1005             27                  3.0&#xD;&#xA;    2007        781             91                  0.8&#xD;&#xA;    2008        933             76                  1.5&#xD;&#xA;    2009       1247             51                  6.4&#xD;&#xA;    2010        883             87                  0.8&#xD;&#xA;    2011        841             73                  1.9&#xD;&#xA;    2012       1218             86                  1.0&#xD;&#xA;    2013        828             67                  2.1&#xD;&#xA;    2014       1426             72                  4.8&#xD;&#xA;    2015        831             71                  2.2&#xD;&#xA;    2016        866             90                  1.1&#xD;&#xA;    2017        509             91                  0.5&#xD;&#xA;    2018        635             86                  0.7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8280" RevisionGUID="fa9bc18e-0d49-4b81-a01b-3246d1d6579f" CreationDate="2019-05-16T17:46:45.683" UserId="3379" Comment="added 706 characters in body" Text="### Greenbuild&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While not specifically a scientific conference, earlier this year I attended [Greenbuild](https://www.greenbuildexpo.com/en/home.html) in Chicago, USA. Greenbuild is organized each year by the [U.S. Green Building Council](https://new.usgbc.org/) (which also runs the [LEED](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environmental_Design) program) and is intended for&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; professionals in architecture, construction, engineering, planning, and interior design who depend on thoughtful and ethical solutions which promote wellness and resiliency in construction and urban development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Sustainability objectives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since 2002, Greenbuild has run a sustainability initiative to track and reduce the environmental impact of the expo across several categories. Reports from previous years are available [here](https://www.greenbuildexpo.com/en/show-info/sustainability-at-greenbuild/reports.html), and the most recent report (for the 2018 expo) is [here](https://www.greenbuildexpo.com/content/dam/Informa/greenbuildexpo/en/2019/PDFs/CRE19GRB-MM-Sustainability-Report-2018.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the current &quot;sustainability objectives&quot; from 2018 onwards:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Move Toward a Zero Waste Event&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Advance Stakeholder Education and Engagement&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Improve Sustainable Sourcing&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Improve Performance and Tracking Methods&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. Positively Impact Communities&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. Lead the Event Industry Through the Advancement of Sustainable Event Management Initiatives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Actions taken&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the actions taken for the 2018 expo to meet this objectives include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Reducing physical size of printed materials and only distributing to those who specifically request them in advance of the expo&#xD;&#xA; 2. Required training for expo volunteers on how to sort waste&#xD;&#xA; 3. Eliminating single use plastics from food and beverage services&#xD;&#xA; 4. Providing more vegan and vegetarian meal services&#xD;&#xA; 5. Partnering with ride-share services to provide incentives to attendees, reducing miles driven in personal vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously some of the stated objectives are difficult to objectively track or measure, but I pulled out some of the numbers that are being tracked from the available reports:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Year     GHG (lbs/    Waste diversion    Landfilled waste &#xD;&#xA;           participant)        rate          (lbs/participant)&#xD;&#xA;    ----------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    2002       1115                               &#xD;&#xA;    2003       1069                               &#xD;&#xA;    2004       1036             48                  2.8&#xD;&#xA;    2005        983             26                  &#xD;&#xA;    2006       1005             27                  3.0&#xD;&#xA;    2007        781             91                  0.8&#xD;&#xA;    2008        933             76                  1.5&#xD;&#xA;    2009       1247             51                  6.4&#xD;&#xA;    2010        883             87                  0.8&#xD;&#xA;    2011        841             73                  1.9&#xD;&#xA;    2012       1218             86                  1.0&#xD;&#xA;    2013        828             67                  2.1&#xD;&#xA;    2014       1426             72                  4.8&#xD;&#xA;    2015        831             71                  2.2&#xD;&#xA;    2016        866             90                  1.1&#xD;&#xA;    2017        509             91                  0.5&#xD;&#xA;    2018        635             86                  0.7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8281" RevisionGUID="f9e636b1-4c1d-44cd-9651-d8145e75381d" CreationDate="2019-05-16T17:54:07.257" UserId="5532" Text="I find that we are having more and more things delivered as opposed to buying in stores. This winter a few cardboard boxes with 10kg of oranges, several books, and just this week a fridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering is there exists any successful example, anywhere in the world, of reusing packaging material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the Netherlands, where i live, there are a [few][1] [examples][2] of using food that would otherwise get thrown away. Packaging material should be much easier as it does not 'go off'.&#xD;&#xA;It should just take some space, and a little time and commitment, to make those boxes and bubble-wrap available to the next person who needs to transport something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.nofoodwasted.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.instock.nl/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20301" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8281" RevisionGUID="f9e636b1-4c1d-44cd-9651-d8145e75381d" CreationDate="2019-05-16T17:54:07.257" UserId="5532" Text="Any succesful initiatives for packaging material reuse?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20302" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8281" RevisionGUID="f9e636b1-4c1d-44cd-9651-d8145e75381d" CreationDate="2019-05-16T17:54:07.257" UserId="5532" Text="|plastic|reuse|packaging|cardboard|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20304" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8279" RevisionGUID="76fb661f-93e3-47ec-8ccb-2384460c0edd" CreationDate="2019-05-16T21:19:34.390" UserId="15" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8282" RevisionGUID="92e59c41-5f8f-41a8-9a76-b8eb816e0c86" CreationDate="2019-05-17T05:30:21.967" UserId="5490" Text="The German Post did offer the Post Box, basically a yellow plastic box with a lid. It‘s mostly used in large organisations like big companies but at least one ecologically aware online shop offered it as a delivery option.&#xA;I dont‘t know if this still is offered, but perhaps it might be a good idea to ask if I next shop online ( which I rarely do)&#xA;&#xA;If you want to check: memo.de (Not affiliated) did offer PostBox delivery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8283" RevisionGUID="6dc0d5e6-7e3c-4310-bdd5-20c0a1069b91" CreationDate="2019-05-19T16:08:04.197" UserId="6629" Text="CO2 is produced by burning the carbon in the fuel, so if your driving style causes you to use twice as much fuel, you will produce twice as much CO2.  Driving aggressively can have a big impact on fuel consumption.  It's hard to quantify, but a 50% increase in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions is certainly possible.  Conversely, the CO2 emissions will be lower when driving on a &quot;long gentle motorway journey&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A car that's idling while burning the same amount of fuel as a moving car produces the same CO2 emissions, if measured as *grams* of CO2.  If measured as *grams per kilometer* though, the idling car produces much more CO2, because the emissions didn't help get you anywhere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8284" RevisionGUID="d713ba18-87a4-4ced-be7f-257590417118" CreationDate="2019-05-19T18:01:33.197" UserId="3379" Text="**TL;DR:** No -- due to the length of time it takes a coal plant to return to full output after shutting down, it will not produce more emissions during startup than a fully-loaded plant over the same time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Typical coal plant in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the [monthly generator inventory]( https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860M/) I determiend that in the U.S. the median utility and independent power producer (IPP) coal plant burns subbituminous coal, and has a capacity of 339 MW. Additionally, slide 11 of [this EIA presentation]( https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/workinggroup/coal/pdf/coal%20baseload%20asset%20aging%20kern%206-16-15.pdf) indicates that 71% of coal plants in the U.S. are subcritical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Shutdown to full output time for a typical coal plant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article [&quot;Review of the operational flexibility and emissions of gas- and coal-fired power plants in a future with growing renewables&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117309206) provides typical shutdown and startup times for different power plant types. For a typical 300 MW subcritical coal plant, the minimum downtime (after shutdown and before startup can commence) is 120 minutes. For a &quot;hot start&quot; (occurring within eight hours of a shutdown), the minimum time required to return to full output is 130 minutes. **This gives a minimum total time of 250 minutes between shutdown and full output.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Startup emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article [&quot;Cost-Benefit Analysis of Flexibility Retrofits for Coal and Gas-Fueled Power Plants&quot;](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60862.pdf) provides data on emissions from a coal plant during start-up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, burning coal subbituminous results in emissions of 214.3 lbs of CO2 per MMBtu ([source](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&amp;t=11)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that **for a hot start, a typical plant produces 287 metric tons of CO2.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Emissions for a non-shutdown plant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using [data from EIA](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&amp;t=11), I calculated an average emissions factor in the U.S. of 2,240 lbs (1,016 kg) of CO2 per MWh of electricity generated by coal plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Over the same period of 250 minutes, a typical plant would produce 1,664 metric tons of CO2.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CKIme.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8284" RevisionGUID="7cf22bb1-30b8-44e4-875c-6cc943ded2f3" CreationDate="2019-05-19T22:24:10.557" UserId="3379" Comment="added 650 characters in body" Text="**TL;DR:** No -- due to the length of time it takes a coal plant to return to full output after shutting down, it will not produce more emissions during startup than a fully-loaded plant over the same time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Typical coal plant in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the [monthly generator inventory]( https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860M/) I determined that in the U.S. the median utility and independent power producer (IPP) coal plant burns subbituminous coal, and has a capacity of 339 MW. Additionally, slide 11 of [this EIA presentation]( https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/workinggroup/coal/pdf/coal%20baseload%20asset%20aging%20kern%206-16-15.pdf) indicates that 71% of coal plants in the U.S. are subcritical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Length of time from shutdown to full output&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article [&quot;Review of the operational flexibility and emissions of gas- and coal-fired power plants in a future with growing renewables&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117309206) provides typical shutdown and startup times for different power plant types. For a typical 300 MW subcritical coal plant, the minimum downtime (after shutdown and before startup can commence) is 120 minutes. For a &quot;hot start&quot; (occurring within eight hours of a shutdown), the minimum time required to return to full output is 130 minutes. **This gives a minimum total time of 250 minutes between shutdown and full output.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Startup emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article [&quot;Cost-Benefit Analysis of Flexibility Retrofits for Coal and Gas-Fueled Power Plants&quot;](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60862.pdf) provides data on emissions from a coal plant during start-up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, burning coal subbituminous results in emissions of 214.3 lbs of CO2 per MMBtu ([source](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&amp;t=11)). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that **for a hot start, a typical plant produces 287 metric tons of CO2.** Assuming a roughly linear output, power generation during the startup time would be 229 MWh, for an emissions rate of 1,250 kg CO2 per MWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Emissions for a non-shutdown plant&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using [data from EIA](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&amp;t=11), I calculated an average emissions factor in the U.S. of 2,240 lbs (1,016 kg) of CO2 per MWh of electricity generated by coal plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Over the same period of 250 minutes, a typical plant would produce 1,664 metric tons of CO2,** and 1,638 MWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the emissions rate during startup is somewhat higher (1,250 vs 1,016 kg CO2 per MWh), the length of time required for a complete shutdown and startup cycle (over four hours) means that the plant releases far less CO2 than if it were fully operation over the same period. Thus if the coal plant is being shut down to accommodate increased wind generation (or any other emissions-free source), there will always be net reduction in CO2 emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CKIme.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8285" RevisionGUID="f3425757-8f8e-4dcb-8c24-5ce4e74e25af" CreationDate="2019-05-20T03:49:37.397" UserId="6631" Text="&gt; The most often used definition of sustainable development is that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; proposed by the Brundtland Commission (Cerin, 2006; Dernbach J. C.,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1998; Dernbach J. C., 2003; Stoddart, 2011). In the application of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; this definition of sustainable development, one issue concerns the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; substitutability of capital. There are several types of capital:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; social, natural, and man-made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The Concept of Sustainable Development: Definition and Defining&#xD;&#xA;Principles][1] by Rachel Emas, Florida International University&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://docsbay.net/brief-for-gsdr-2015-the-concept-of-sustainable-development-definition-and-defining-principles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8286" RevisionGUID="05fa1f4c-c8a7-4472-9b93-a776a427fd77" CreationDate="2019-05-21T15:16:26.687" UserId="6602" Text="If my employer pays me £80 per day, and I can estimate the CO2 footprint of doing my job, compared not working, is around 15Kg CO2e. So my earnings have a footprint equivalent to 180g CO2e per £. (This might be from my daily commute, chunky work computer, office AC and whatever it is that my company actually does)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish to buy a new phone and can easily choose the one with the lowest CO2 footprint in its class without looking at the price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But should I look at the price of the phone and consider my CO2 emissions in earning the money to pay for it. A new iPhone X is worth ten days of my labour or 150Kg of CO2e, which is double the manufacturing footprint. Whilst an iPhone 6 is only two day's labour 30Kg CO2e, a third the phone's manufacturing footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, I could go without a new phone and work two or ten days less than necessary. But if I must consume consumer goods, should my labour count?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20311" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8286" RevisionGUID="05fa1f4c-c8a7-4472-9b93-a776a427fd77" CreationDate="2019-05-21T15:16:26.687" UserId="6602" Text="Should the CO2 footprint of employment factor into purchasing decisions of consumer goods?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20312" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8286" RevisionGUID="05fa1f4c-c8a7-4472-9b93-a776a427fd77" CreationDate="2019-05-21T15:16:26.687" UserId="6602" Text="|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8234" RevisionGUID="3391a9c3-1f09-421b-9098-fcf0a5820700" CreationDate="2019-05-22T03:42:13.520" UserId="15" Comment="Fixed typo" Text="While using bonemeal as a fertilizer has a long tradition, it's usage decreased a lot since the upcoming of [BSE][1] as contaminated bones can contaminate your plants and also animals in your garden. BSE is short for Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease), a disease that spreads through feeding bonemeal containing fodder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may depend on where you are, but if you use bonemeal, you should always keep this in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy#Spread_to_humans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20314" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7222" RevisionGUID="c14c5104-30cb-4637-a681-f667b7823058" CreationDate="2019-05-22T03:46:05.373" UserId="15" Comment="Fix typos" Text="My kids like seaweed snacks but there’s so much packaging.  Alternatively I can buy crackers or raisins in large packages, reducing both the cost and packaging (plus if the package is cardboard it’s compost/recycle friendly). The downside is that those snacks aren’t as healthy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we enjoy this kind of snack without all the plastic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20315" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7222" RevisionGUID="c14c5104-30cb-4637-a681-f667b7823058" CreationDate="2019-05-22T03:46:05.373" UserId="15" Comment="Fix typos" Text="|food|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8287" RevisionGUID="ff7e110f-0eef-48ce-9cf1-25d3a4b05780" CreationDate="2019-05-22T07:03:20.680" UserId="99" Text="If I understood you correctly you are saying that if you buy cheaper stuff, then you can start working less and thus reduce your carbon footprint? But will you really work less if you buy a cheaper phone? And if that's the case for you, do you think this also holds for the average Joe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe that if we can convince people to buy cheaper goods, they will start working less. I think most people decide how much they work based on things like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - can they pay for their necessities (rent, electricity, food, clothing),&#xD;&#xA; - time required to take care for their children, &#xD;&#xA; - how important they think money is (and buy status symbols),&#xD;&#xA; - how much they value free time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMHO people do not reduce their working hours just because they do not spend all their money every month. Instead they will probably put the extra money in a savings account, or start buying more stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are really set in reducing your carbon footprint, then the best choice is always to not buy anything. If you really have to buy something, then consider the product that has the lowest carbon footprint. This could be a cheaper item (with less parts or options), but not necessarily. For example a low-energy fridge is usually a bit more expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If working increases your carbon footprint compared to not working, then consider actions you can take to reduce that footprint; take public transport to work or talk to your boss about measures he can take to reduce energy consumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20317" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8287" RevisionGUID="0117aebf-81a5-4d52-9c14-1f845701c5bc" CreationDate="2019-05-22T07:09:03.797" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 110 characters in body" Text="If I understood you correctly you are saying that if you buy cheaper stuff, then you can start working less and thus reduce your carbon footprint? But will you really work less if you buy a cheaper phone? And if that's the case for you, do you think this also holds for the average Joe?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't believe that if we can convince people to buy cheaper goods, they will start working less. I think most people decide how much they work based on things like&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - can they pay for their necessities (rent, electricity, food, clothing),&#xD;&#xA; - time required to take care for their children, &#xD;&#xA; - how important they think money is (to buy status symbols),&#xD;&#xA; - how much they value free time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IMHO people do not reduce their working hours just because they do not spend all their money every month. Instead they will probably put the extra money in a savings account, or start buying more stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really have to buy something, then consider the product that has the lowest carbon footprint. This could be a cheaper item (with less parts or options), but not necessarily. For example a low-energy fridge is usually a bit more expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If working increases your carbon footprint compared to not working, then consider actions you can take to reduce that footprint; take public transport to work or talk to your boss about measures he can take to reduce energy consumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20319" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8288" RevisionGUID="b4c520f1-02eb-4ce1-aae7-0fb3f911b3aa" CreationDate="2019-05-22T09:20:06.610" UserId="4155" Text="Yes, it should. THelper's answer suggest that it wouldn't for the average Joe, but in this case we're not really discussing them, but you, someone who is taking a conscious effort to reduce their impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with your analogy of the new electric car, but I would also consider not just how much time you work, but also what you do and where - for example, it may be that by choosing to buy the cheaper option, and therefore reducing your outgoings, you can afford to take a lower-paying job that is walking distance from your home - which of course reduces your outgoings even further as you have no commuting costs, as well as the main goal of reducing your environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's all about balancing your priorities - certainly from my own point of view, I find that working locally ticks a lot of boxes compared with commuting to London - I effectively work fewer hours (as I'm not spending three+ hours a day commuting), I don't spend on commuting costs (both financial and environmental), and it's a lot less stressful (and healthier) than being crammed on an overcrowded train or traffic jam. The trade-off is that I earn less." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8289" RevisionGUID="60cdf179-d42d-4e76-8a2f-7d3141ce2ffb" CreationDate="2019-05-22T09:24:18.883" UserId="4155" Text="It's not a formal initiative, but I find a lot of smaller suppliers here in the UK are doing this more now - I've ordered a few things recently from small, family businesses (often through a certain auction site) and several have come in re-used packaging - usually boxes that clearly contained some of their stock from their suppliers, cut down to size for the new contents." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8290" RevisionGUID="67bc49b0-1e1b-42b4-8eb0-4fc5198d50ce" CreationDate="2019-05-23T10:03:45.313" UserId="6637" Text="Firstly, let me say, I am not pro-either. I just hear about people trying to save the environment (and putting an end to bad municipal 'dump site' behaviour) by rather burning their trash. This is especially true for plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I try to avoid plastic in general, what are the environmental impact when considering both? To me, it sounds like a lose-lose both ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This knowledge could help me swing people who engage in this, in my area.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8290" RevisionGUID="67bc49b0-1e1b-42b4-8eb0-4fc5198d50ce" CreationDate="2019-05-23T10:03:45.313" UserId="6637" Text="Plastic incineration vs discarding considerations" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8290" RevisionGUID="67bc49b0-1e1b-42b4-8eb0-4fc5198d50ce" CreationDate="2019-05-23T10:03:45.313" UserId="6637" Text="|waste|environmental-impact|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8291" RevisionGUID="da07d28b-078e-471a-9ab8-68e7d9613789" CreationDate="2019-05-23T16:05:21.157" UserId="6629" Text="Burning trash in an uncontrolled fire is very polluting, with high levels of carbon monoxide, particulates, and dioxin/furan.  These are released at ground level where they are easily breathed in by the person burning it, as well as neighbors.  It's illegal virtually everywhere in the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's far better to put plastics in a landfill or in an industrial-sized waste combustion facility which is equipped with pollution control equipment to minimize the emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[General information][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Dioxin information][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/concerns-about-backyard-burning-trash&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/01/000104064534.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8292" RevisionGUID="6d3c3dfb-a196-489b-bfb5-f9ee3c9a7b4e" CreationDate="2019-05-23T19:14:25.263" UserId="6213" Text="I often hear arguments from people around me, about the environmental impact of certain consumer behaviours like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - eating meat&#xD;&#xA; - using plastic bags&#xD;&#xA; - travelling via car instead of plane&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and many others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, most of the time things are not as simple and objective data is hard to come by and involves a ton of research on every single item it seems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some example of things, which seem to be sustainable or environmentally friendly but actually aren't:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Salad has a very high energy usage per calorie&#xD;&#xA; - cotton bags need thousands of uses, before you can environmentally break even on them&#xD;&#xA; - cattle's water usage is debated and some numbers seem to be greatly inflated&#xD;&#xA; - organic food seems like a good idea, but actually requires more space, energy and is most likely not sustainable for the whole world to feed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a somewhat easy and objective source on consumer behaviour regarding environmental impact? What are objectively the most important metrics to watch out for? Energy usage per unit of product? CO2 impact? Water usage? Impact on flora and fauna (not sure, how this can be quantified)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20326" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8292" RevisionGUID="6d3c3dfb-a196-489b-bfb5-f9ee3c9a7b4e" CreationDate="2019-05-23T19:14:25.263" UserId="6213" Text="Objective Index of environmental impact of consumer goods and food" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20327" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8292" RevisionGUID="6d3c3dfb-a196-489b-bfb5-f9ee3c9a7b4e" CreationDate="2019-05-23T19:14:25.263" UserId="6213" Text="|energy|water|defining-sustainability|co2|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8293" RevisionGUID="72afd949-600f-4d13-8e1c-cb91f0abb441" CreationDate="2019-05-24T09:17:22.187" UserId="1370" Text="I'm struggling to explain the most important aspects of air pollution in a concise way.  I understand CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is the biggest issue and long-term driver of global warming, but beyond that I'm lost.  News articles about air pollution sometimes mention particle pollution, methane, sulfur dioxide, aerosols, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, and others, but I have no idea about their relative importance in regard to the impact on human life and earth ecosystems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand from Wikipedia that [carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent) is used as a way to simplify all of the above into a single number expressing the global warming impact of a collection of air pollutants, usually computed based on the global warming impact over 100 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simplifying everything down to 1 number is appealing, but seems like it also loses a lot of information. On the other hand, enumerating every single pollutant seems to just make everything confusing unless you're already an expert.  What I'm imagining is a compromise where we could express air pollution in CO2e *plus* a couple other numbers that capture some of the most important details that CO2e doesn't address.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: What are the most important pieces of information that get lost by converting all air pollution into CO2e?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8293" RevisionGUID="72afd949-600f-4d13-8e1c-cb91f0abb441" CreationDate="2019-05-24T09:17:22.187" UserId="1370" Text="What information is lost when converting other air pollution into CO2e?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8293" RevisionGUID="72afd949-600f-4d13-8e1c-cb91f0abb441" CreationDate="2019-05-24T09:17:22.187" UserId="1370" Text="|carbon-footprint|greenhouse-gas-emissions|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8295" RevisionGUID="f403f865-9b7e-4b8f-b734-e084baf55c40" CreationDate="2019-05-25T04:02:39.827" UserId="3722" Text="To add some numbers to the discussion, I found &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a [white paper from Fujitsu about a desktop (2018)](https://sp.ts.fujitsu.com/dmsp/Publications/public/LCA-FUJITSU-Desktop-ESPRIMO-P957.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - production energy usage: 6.8 GJ or 450 kg CO2 equivalent&#xD;&#xA;  - use phase energy usage:  9.2 GJ or 30 - 500 kg CO2 equivalent (Norwegian vs. German electricity mix)&#xD;&#xA;  - usage scenario: 5 years  &#xD;&#xA;    TODO: find out h per day or similar.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;- [LCA of an Ecolabeled Notebook (2011)](https://www.greendelta.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/LCA_laptop_final.pdf) &#xD;&#xA;  - use phase energy usage: 0.15 GJ over lifetime (corresponds to 10 W avg. power when on)&#xD;&#xA;  - use model: 4 years office (but not as replacement for desktop: only 2.3 h on/working day), 2 years private use (5 h on/day). &#xD;&#xA;  - Side note: personally, I buy office laptops that are 3 or 4 years old, possibly update/upgrade some parts (SSD, RAM). The last one lasted another ≈ 5 years until hardware failure (current one is still &quot;new&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Dell Latitude E6400 (2010)](https://i.dell.com/sites/content/corporate/corp-comm/en/Documents/dell-laptop-carbon-footprint-whitepaper.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;  - 4 years&#xD;&#xA;  - total 320 kg CO2 equivalent, 160 production + 30 transport to customer, 160 use (EU mix). - 30 for recycling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- salvage parts (laptop + desktop)&#xD;&#xA;- some upgrades may do a lot for lasting usability *and* reducing power consumption.  &#xD;&#xA;  Example: upgrading HDD -&gt; HDD + SSD (both for laptop and desktop) for me had 2 results:&#xD;&#xA;     - increased speed (primary reason) =&gt; longer usable life time&#xD;&#xA;     - HDD maybe needed only 1-2 times per day, most work takes place on SSD =&gt; lower power consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Some guesstimates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   There are a lot of harmful and unjust mining practices involved in building a computer to get rare metals - is this impact greater for a desktop or a laptop?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If comparing a &quot;plain&quot; office desktop (no particular fancy extra graphics card) with some case, power supply, mainboard, RAM, HDD, SSD, monitor, keyboard and mouse with a laptop:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the desktop system may contain a bit more electronics (due to less integration with the periphery devices), but it's probably not *that* much. &#xD;&#xA;- but this modular building principle means that most of these parts can be used until they (each single part) fail: failed parts can either be replaced or leftover parts used with another system *easily* (because they are normed across manufacturers).  &#xD;&#xA;This is also the case for *some* of the laptop parts (SSD, HDD), but not for others (monitor, mainboard, keyboard, touchpad).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Laptops have batteries, which are bad for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Batteries don't last *that* long. As I use the laptop to work on trains etc. I may buy replacement batteries. If you use the laptop as desktop replacement, at least the replacement batteries are not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    But desktops have more mass, and electronic waste is bad for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I don't think they contain *that* much more electronics. Most of the increased mass is steel case and frames. They are not that much of a concern environmentally: they last approximately forever (and have normed form factors since decades), so can easily be directly reused. If not, steel recycling is established and much easier than properly dealing with electronic waste.  &#xD;&#xA;Also heavier power supply - but that may be overall more environmentally friendly if more efficient (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**have to leave now, hope to finish this over the weekend.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20336" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8295" RevisionGUID="34c06610-9c10-4525-a38c-5dbda3d1d151" CreationDate="2019-05-25T04:12:07.193" UserId="3722" Comment="added 590 characters in body" Text="To add some numbers to the discussion, I found &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a [white paper from Fujitsu about a desktop (2018)](https://sp.ts.fujitsu.com/dmsp/Publications/public/LCA-FUJITSU-Desktop-ESPRIMO-P957.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - production energy usage: 6.8 GJ or 450 kg CO2 equivalent&#xD;&#xA;  - use phase energy usage:  9.2 GJ or 30 - 500 kg CO2 equivalent (Norwegian vs. German electricity mix)&#xD;&#xA;  - usage scenario: 5 years  &#xD;&#xA;    TODO: find out h per day or similar.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;- [LCA of an Ecolabeled Notebook (2011)](https://www.greendelta.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/LCA_laptop_final.pdf) &#xD;&#xA;  - use phase energy usage: 0.15 GJ over lifetime (corresponds to 10 W avg. power when on)&#xD;&#xA;  - use model: 4 years office (but not as replacement for desktop: only 2.3 h on/working day), 2 years private use (5 h on/day). &#xD;&#xA;  - Side note: personally, I buy office laptops that are 3 or 4 years old, possibly update/upgrade some parts (SSD, RAM). The last one lasted another ≈ 5 years until hardware failure (current one is still &quot;new&quot;). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Dell Latitude E6400 (2010)](https://i.dell.com/sites/content/corporate/corp-comm/en/Documents/dell-laptop-carbon-footprint-whitepaper.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;  - 4 years&#xD;&#xA;  - total 320 kg CO2 equivalent, 160 production + 30 transport to customer, 160 use (EU mix). - 30 for recycling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case, production energy usage is a substantial part of lifetime energy usage (both laptop and desktop). Thus enhancing life time, i.e. use as long as possible, is typically a good idea.  &#xD;&#xA;Note: with 50 : 50 energy usage in production and over assumed life time, if that computer is used twice as long, then a hypothetical replacement computer requiring the same amount of resources for production would need to use *zero* energy during usage in order to not need more energy in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- salvage parts (laptop + desktop):  &#xD;&#xA;  e.g. old laptop HDD + external case =&gt; my cloud server storage (for RasPi)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- some upgrades may do a lot for lasting usability *and* reducing power consumption.  &#xD;&#xA;  Example: upgrading HDD -&gt; HDD + SSD (both for laptop and desktop) for me had 2 results:&#xD;&#xA;     - increased speed (primary reason) =&gt; adding *years* to usable life time&#xD;&#xA;     - HDD maybe needed only 1-2 times per day, most work takes place on SSD =&gt; lower power consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Some guesstimates:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;   There are a lot of harmful and unjust mining practices involved in building a computer to get rare metals - is this impact greater for a desktop or a laptop?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If comparing a &quot;plain&quot; office desktop (no particular fancy extra graphics card) with some case, power supply, mainboard, RAM, HDD, SSD, monitor, keyboard and mouse with a laptop:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- the desktop system may contain a bit more electronics (due to less integration with the periphery devices), but it's probably not *that* much. &#xD;&#xA;- but this modular building principle means that most of these parts can be used until they (each single part) fail: failed parts can either be replaced or leftover parts used with another system *easily* (because they are normed across manufacturers).  &#xD;&#xA;This is also the case for *some* of the laptop parts (SSD, HDD), but not for others (monitor, mainboard, keyboard, touchpad).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    Laptops have batteries, which are bad for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Batteries don't last *that* long. As I use the laptop to work on trains etc. I may buy replacement batteries. If you use the laptop as desktop replacement, at least the replacement batteries are not necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    But desktops have more mass, and electronic waste is bad for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I don't think they contain *that* much more electronics. Most of the increased mass is steel case and frames. They are not that much of a concern environmentally: they last approximately forever (and have normed form factors since decades), so can easily be directly reused. If not, steel recycling is established and much easier than properly dealing with electronic waste.  &#xD;&#xA;Also heavier power supply - but that may be overall more environmentally friendly if more efficient (?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**have to leave now, hope to finish this over the weekend.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8296" RevisionGUID="13f9a4ed-c4a5-4837-801d-7fa420f48898" CreationDate="2019-05-25T13:14:30.743" UserId="400" Text="### Time span.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the others are short term.  CO2 ultimately depends on the rate biomass increases, and the speed it mixes into the deep ocean.  Processes that take very long periods (thousands of years)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Methane and NOx both have half lives in the decades range.  So you see CO2e of 20 on a short period (couple of decades) down to 7 over a longer period (century)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dust falls out of the atmosphere faster.  Events that put large quantities of particles into the upper atmosphere (Pinatubo being the most recent big one) have an effect that lasts about 2 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Scale&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider Fictide (A fictitious compound)  Say it is 1000 CO2e, but it's present only a one part per billion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we have 1 part/billion * 1000 = equivalent to 1/million CO2 Since CO2 is currently 415 ppm, the effect of fictide is a drop in the bucket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall the other gasses are a distraction.  Most of them are either natural sourced (CH4) or are side effects of combustion (NOx)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Yes cows produce methane.  So do termites.  Remove cows, you replace them with something that eats cellulose. You can't)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are various proposals to get rid of human caused methane.  Far better to spend that effort and resources to get rid of human caused CO2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20338" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6845" RevisionGUID="25f0b9eb-8e25-4f1c-a669-9cadd5ae4df3" CreationDate="2019-05-25T19:01:30.140" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="20339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8297" RevisionGUID="bee7400e-ac0f-4c14-9ec0-d27fb5261d1c" CreationDate="2019-05-26T18:38:02.617" UserId="400" Text="Not an answer, but some background:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you work with amazon, you have run into the case where you have a tiny thing in a much larger box.  I think Amazon has a small set of box sizes that stack well on pallets.  It's easier (cheaper) to send a large box if it makes the pallet more stable.  Also a certain minimum box is easier for automated equipment to handle.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Standardization of containers helps.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider U-Line.  They sell *thousands* of sizes of boxes. This makes the pallet packing problem difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider glass jars and bottles.  This one I have a proposal for:  A bottle tax that is inversely proportional the that bottle's share of the bottle market.  The tax is applied at the manufacturer.  Puts a big incentive on makers to standardize on a more limited number of shapes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If Hellman is using the same jar for mayonaise as Smuckers is for jam, then the chance of a used mayo jar getting to the Smucker's plant is increased.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Transport:  Overall goods flow out from centres.  A container of TV's arrives from Taiwan.  It gets shipped to Best Buy's distribution centre.  Pallets of TV's go to individual stores.  TV's go home with consumers. What does the consumer do with a TV box?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now China makes &quot;one trip&quot; seacans.  Containers designed to go to the U.S. and to Europe, and not come home.  It takes  about $4000 worth of steel to make  a seacan, but it's cheaper to not ship them back.  The ones that go to port cities are easy to return.  The ship is going back anyway.  But seacans cost more to get from the seaport to the interior city than to cross the Pacific.  So they accumulate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the ideal reusable packaging can be collapsed to a smaller form for shipping back.  You see these for local shipping:  Bread trays are one example.  U-Line has a series of collapsible bin/pallets that are about 3 feet tall opened, and aobut 8 inches tall collapsed.  This makes them cheaper to ship back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern truck transport doesn't have very many empty trucks.  There is a whole sub-industry of logistics trucking that match up empty trucks with loads going in the right direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8298" RevisionGUID="0f4d9521-a478-4655-b33a-5b2aa8fe78f8" CreationDate="2019-05-26T23:29:18.227" UserId="6640" Text="I'm looking to try using more natural products/solutions in our day to day life and some things that I am considering are fragrances, soaps and essences (food). I have read that Sage plants are edible (the leaves at least).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was thinking this may be a first candidate to try with because I could make food essences/extracts/flavorings and I could also look to make clothes fresheners or perhaps fragrant perfumes that don't have harmful chemicals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. How do I make these?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is making these sustainable&#xD;&#xA;   A. For a family&#xD;&#xA;   B. For a neighborhood&#xD;&#xA; 3. Do I need to look into permits for space and equipment operation (if it is going to be in the patio or garage?&#xD;&#xA; 4. I suspect these may not be long lasting like commercially made deodorants but could these last a few hours maybe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20341" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8298" RevisionGUID="0f4d9521-a478-4655-b33a-5b2aa8fe78f8" CreationDate="2019-05-26T23:29:18.227" UserId="6640" Text="How to make extracts and fragrances from fragrant plants like Sage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20342" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8298" RevisionGUID="0f4d9521-a478-4655-b33a-5b2aa8fe78f8" CreationDate="2019-05-26T23:29:18.227" UserId="6640" Text="|food|home|gardening|diy|personal-hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8298" RevisionGUID="fd50b6ec-a09d-4e36-b093-65ad2da34595" CreationDate="2019-05-27T02:42:17.347" UserId="6640" Comment="Removed some questions to limit the scope of the question" Text="I'm looking to try using more natural products/solutions in our day to day life and some things that I am considering are fragrances, soaps and essences (food). I have read that Sage plants are edible (the leaves at least).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I was thinking this may be a first candidate to try with because I could make food essences/extracts/flavorings and I could also look to make clothes fresheners or perhaps fragrant perfumes that don't have harmful chemicals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What are some sustainable techniques/methods I should follow?&#xD;&#xA; 2. Is making these sustainable&#xD;&#xA;   A. For a family? (2 individuals)&#xD;&#xA;   B. For a neighborhood? (10s to 100s of small families of 2 to 4)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8299" RevisionGUID="93fa1a17-111e-4bd0-a8dd-09755c351918" CreationDate="2019-05-27T09:29:10.973" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="The Dutch news site [De Correspondent](https://decorrespondent.nl/) is publishing a book on climate issues and makes it available both on paper and as an e-book. The publisher had exactly the same question: *The paper industry emits more CO2 than aviation. Is it still justified to publish paper books?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is [this article](https://decorrespondent.nl/9463/de-papierindustrie-stoot-meer-co2-uit-dan-de-luchtvaart-is-het-nog-wel-verantwoord-om-papieren-boeken-uit-te-geven/). It's in Dutch so you'll have to dump it into Google Translate, but here are the conclusions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The answer depends on what you zoom in on. If you only look at greenhouse gas emissions as a result of material selection, production, distribution, use and possible recycling, then an e-book is much more climate-friendly than a paper book. One e-book read on an e-reader scores, according to two recent studies from Japan&#xD;&#xA;and Sweden, about four to five times as good as reading the same book from paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you take more environmental factors in your consideration, such as the toxicity of used materials for the environment and the depletion of raw materials, then the paper book scores much better. The tipping point then lies with thirty paper books: that is just as stressful for the environment as reading one e-book from one e-reader.&#xD;&#xA;If you read more than 30 books on one reader, an e-reader is a more sustainable choice. The answer therefore also depends on the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it depends very much on the human reader, especially if you also look at how you purchase, renew, recycle the items (the author goes into that as well).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the conclusions the production of the e-reader itself weighs heavily in a full [LCA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment). One of the headers of the article is not for nothing *The devil is in the e-reader*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the article points to the actual studies it quotes from, it's worth following those." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8268" RevisionGUID="8627ad28-cb57-4d40-abde-01712bf7a52e" CreationDate="2019-05-27T09:41:22.057" UserId="1445" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="Topics relating to the psychology and sociology of sustainable living, including lifestyle change, communication and behaviour." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20346" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8268" RevisionGUID="8627ad28-cb57-4d40-abde-01712bf7a52e" CreationDate="2019-05-27T09:41:22.057" Comment="Proposed by 1445 approved by 3379, 85 edit id of 573" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8300" RevisionGUID="f3970cae-aa32-4974-96d6-5a91d8f35fdc" CreationDate="2019-05-27T11:25:58.970" UserId="6647" Text="Can someone point me to a resource that would detail what is palm oil being used for, preferably with some % indicators?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A staunch meat eater has been boldly proclaiming that being vegetarian or vegan is bad for the environment because of palm oil (which is used in some vegan substitutes and, she claims, is consumed more by people who substitute animal fats with plant-derived fats) destruction of the rain forest. I am under the impression that you eat the same or even more palm oil if you are a regular meat eater (i.e. buying processed foods etc) but I lack a scientific basis for that assumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20348" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8300" RevisionGUID="f3970cae-aa32-4974-96d6-5a91d8f35fdc" CreationDate="2019-05-27T11:25:58.970" UserId="6647" Text="Palm oil usage statistics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20349" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8300" RevisionGUID="f3970cae-aa32-4974-96d6-5a91d8f35fdc" CreationDate="2019-05-27T11:25:58.970" UserId="6647" Text="|oil|vegetable-oil|vegetarianism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8301" RevisionGUID="6e81a5cd-54bf-4d94-b9dc-be0b3565b387" CreationDate="2019-05-27T13:13:45.223" UserId="6648" Text="Suppose I can focus only on one item to recycling out of paper(card board etc), Aluminum ( can etc) or plastic (water bottle etc), hen which will do better for environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/paper-plastic1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20351" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8301" RevisionGUID="6e81a5cd-54bf-4d94-b9dc-be0b3565b387" CreationDate="2019-05-27T13:13:45.223" UserId="6648" Text="recycling : paper, plastic or aluminum,which one if only one" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20352" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8301" RevisionGUID="6e81a5cd-54bf-4d94-b9dc-be0b3565b387" CreationDate="2019-05-27T13:13:45.223" UserId="6648" Text="|recycling|environmental-impact|plastic|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8301" RevisionGUID="121613f5-88e7-449a-9355-252606a885d9" CreationDate="2019-05-27T14:52:30.697" UserId="6648" Comment="Typo" Text="Suppose, I can focus only on one item to recycling out of paper(card board etc), Aluminum ( can etc) or plastic (water bottle etc), than which will do better for environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/paper-plastic1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5292" RevisionGUID="910d7006-1a8c-42ba-b152-41e3fcc465d1" CreationDate="2019-05-28T06:29:20.020" UserId="3293" Comment="added 819 characters in body" Text="I am about to  start the project. Here are the charges I plan:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 4h   - build an extra composter, in order to have 3 composters like advised [here](http://humanurehandbook.com/manual.html), where *A minimum three bin system is recommended*.&#xD;&#xA; - 12h  - build a small cabin for privacy&#xD;&#xA; - 4h   - build two big containers. So when one is full, the other can be used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA; In my view it should take about 1 hour / month to handle the manure.&#xD;&#xA; I also account to about 5-10 hours per year for total cleaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 20h / year - handle the thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit0*:&#xD;&#xA;Now I know what it takes&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I moved on on the project, and changed my mind a little:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I postponed the idea to build a small cabin.&#xD;&#xA;* I'm now using big **square flower pots** in place of &quot;the big containers&quot; I wanted to build. &#xD;&#xA;* It took me 2 hours to install a toilet seat on top of a big square flower pot:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/rXd6b.jpg&quot; &gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/rXd6b.jpg&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;dry, self-composting toilet do-it-yourself&quot; &gt; &lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vTcpE.jpg&quot; &gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/vTcpE.jpg&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;dry, self-composting toilet do-it-yourself&quot; &gt; &lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8ABf.jpg&quot; &gt; &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8ABf.jpg&quot; height=&quot;180&quot; alt=&quot;dry, self-composting toilet do-it-yourself&quot; &gt; &lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit1*&#xD;&#xA;So here is my conclusion for now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cost of 1 flower pot + toilet seat is about **70$**&#xD;&#xA;* Time spent for a very minimal thing : **2h**&#xD;&#xA;* Expected time to be spent : more than expected - but it will include the new composting pile I planned to do : **4h / month** =&gt; **50h / year** (of hazardous material handling :s )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit2*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a while using the thing, I may add comments from experience:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Mixing urine with the rest in the bin is a real bad idea, because you have to use extreme precautions when emptying the thing to avoid (deadly) leaks on your shoes or anything. It might have seemed obvious not to put the urine in there to other, but I had to come to this conclusion myself... So I found some other place far back in the yard to empty my bladder beforehand. The mix is also less smelly with this process. Plus, there is no need to complete cleaning is you avoid putting the pee in there: Time saved!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Having access to a nearby forest, I rake some decaying leaves in a container. This makes for the material I can use to cover the excrements. It also is better than pure sawdust for the compost I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rXd6b.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vTcpE.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/d8ABf.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8307" RevisionGUID="c3326fcc-9df9-44cf-873c-2733fd1e1429" CreationDate="2019-05-29T14:50:09.087" UserId="3379" Text="In order to make a solar panel or a wind turbine, a few basic inputs are required: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - labor&#xD;&#xA; - energy&#xD;&#xA; - water&#xD;&#xA; - raw materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the current abundance of renewable resources, I assume that the first three components can feasibly be provided with no carbon emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about raw materials?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there components of solar panels or wind turbines that directly result in carbon emissions?** If so, how much carbon per watt of capacity is emitted in production of these components?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that the process currently used to produce concrete results in carbon emissions ([see Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete)), and that alternative processes have not yet proven to be reliable or affordable at large scale. Are there additional components that also result in some inherent carbon emissions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this question, please ignore the impact of [land use change](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969718328134) as any energy source will require some land, and the emissions level will depend on where the plant is built.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;If this question is too broad as written, I'm happy to split up solar and wind into separate questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20372" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8307" RevisionGUID="c3326fcc-9df9-44cf-873c-2733fd1e1429" CreationDate="2019-05-29T14:50:09.087" UserId="3379" Text="With current technology, how much CO2 is emitted when making renewable power plants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20373" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8307" RevisionGUID="c3326fcc-9df9-44cf-873c-2733fd1e1429" CreationDate="2019-05-29T14:50:09.087" UserId="3379" Text="|solar-power|wind-power|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8308" RevisionGUID="326e1bc0-b98d-44e8-a825-5d5f9c0050f8" CreationDate="2019-05-29T20:24:26.917" UserId="4886" Text="Since raw materials scale according to size, every different panel/turbine will have a different answer.  Different generators also have different maintenance costs, and lifespans.  It's probably more meaningful to look at the total — lifecycle — cost of generation, not just a generator's initial construction cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon Brief have [a 2017 article][1] that delves into **lifecycle emissions** somewhat (it references a Nature Energy paper that is, unfortunately, behind a paywall):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lifecycle direct and indirect greenhouse emissions associated with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generating a unit of electricity from different fuels, in a 2C world&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in 2050 (coloured bars). The colours break down these emissions by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; source. For comparison, the light blue ranges show the range of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; results published in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Change assessment, AR5. Source: Pehl et al.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![lifecycle emissions][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the long view...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wind emits 4g CO₂ per kWh&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear also emits 4g&#xD;&#xA; - Solar emits 5g&#xD;&#xA; - Gas emits 78g&#xD;&#xA; - Hydro emits 97g&#xD;&#xA; - Bioenergy emits 98g&#xD;&#xA; - Coal emits 109g&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not *exactly* what you were after, but hopefully useful anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XRim0.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8308" RevisionGUID="f1d4d6c8-9cc5-46c1-8168-e1d7dfb16446" CreationDate="2019-05-29T20:30:37.640" UserId="4886" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="Since raw materials scale according to size, every different panel/turbine will have a different answer.  Different generators also have different maintenance costs, and lifespans.  It's probably more meaningful to look at the total — lifecycle — cost of generation, not just a generator's initial construction cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon Brief have [a 2017 article][1] that delves into **lifecycle emissions** somewhat (it references a Nature Energy paper that is, unfortunately, behind a paywall):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lifecycle direct and indirect greenhouse emissions associated with&#xD;&#xA;&gt; generating a unit of electricity from different fuels, in a 2C world&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in 2050 (coloured bars). The colours break down these emissions by&#xD;&#xA;&gt; source. For comparison, the light blue ranges show the range of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; results published in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Change assessment, AR5. Source: Pehl et al.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![lifecycle emissions][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking the long view...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Wind emits 4g CO₂ (equivalent) per kWh&#xD;&#xA; - Nuclear also emits 4g&#xD;&#xA; - Solar emits 5g&#xD;&#xA; - Gas emits 78g&#xD;&#xA; - Hydro emits 97g&#xD;&#xA; - Bioenergy emits 98g&#xD;&#xA; - Coal emits 109g&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not *exactly* what you were after, but hopefully useful anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XRim0.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20378" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8301" RevisionGUID="662c54ca-7455-4be4-80f1-9f51a08d51b5" CreationDate="2019-05-30T04:17:31.127" UserId="15" Comment="Tidied up question" Text="Supposing I can focus only on one type of material to recycle, choosing from paper (card board etc), aluminum (can etc) or plastic (water bottle etc), then which choice of material will help the environment most?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/paper-plastic1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20379" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8301" RevisionGUID="662c54ca-7455-4be4-80f1-9f51a08d51b5" CreationDate="2019-05-30T04:17:31.127" UserId="15" Comment="Tidied up question" Text="Recycling : paper, plastic or aluminum, which one to choose, if only one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20381" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5786" RevisionGUID="a7c4a7f9-b412-4efc-b680-e064f153da34" CreationDate="2019-05-30T14:57:43.797" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed broken image links, switched to embedded imgur." Text="The grocery co-op where I shop offers local, organic cream from three different farms, which use three different types of recyclable containers (all roughly the same volume):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Mini version of clear plastic milk jug: [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA; - Wax-coated cardboard carton (no screw-type spout): &lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/5fHRT.jpg&quot; width=&quot;100&quot;&gt;&#xD;&#xA; - White plastic bottle with plastic shrink-wrap sleeve/label: [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assuming the contents are roughly the same, which type of container has the lowest environmental impact?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two considerations: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It often takes me up to two weeks to go through a liter of cream, meaning that if there's no obvious best choice, whichever one keeps the cream from spoiling longest would be the winner.&#xD;&#xA; - All three types of containers are recyclable where I live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mby5Pt.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TnKfrt.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8309" RevisionGUID="d49a7e1f-fa6d-4df5-80fa-4f789d083f9a" CreationDate="2019-05-31T01:00:15.487" UserId="6581" Text="If the goal is sustainability and I can only choose one, I'd choose aluminum. Aluminum is relatively cost-effective to recycle and doesn't decompose on its own. Paper is middling efficient to recycle, and decomposes on its own — eventually. Plastic is relatively inefficient to recycle, and also doesn't decompose much on its own — which means we should avoid using it wherever possible, especially if we can't recycle it for whatever reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://livegreen.recyclebank.com/column/because-you-asked/should-i-choose-plastic-aluminum-or-glass-bottles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://earth911.com/living-well-being/recycled-beverage-containers/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://sciencing.com/plastic-bottle-vs-aluminum-can-13636298.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8310" RevisionGUID="7b8f5510-821d-48c9-8d6c-b928e752eeda" CreationDate="2019-06-02T18:27:11.290" UserId="6662" Text="Recycle a liter plastic bottle originally used fro carbonated beverage. They are much more durable than a recycle bottled mineral water bottle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8311" RevisionGUID="a40870e6-80b5-42ea-801d-e1840f155edc" CreationDate="2019-06-03T04:46:27.913" UserId="6664" Text="There's a special [&quot;sustainability&quot; category on AngelList][1] if you consider jobs in startups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for B Corp mentioned earlier, they even provide job listings on a [separate website][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://angel.co/sustainability/jobs&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bwork.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20387" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="1c30fe9c-a569-45e4-a568-492311e3a4cb" CreationDate="2019-06-04T18:01:17.687" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1135969789476839424" />
  <row Id="20388" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8307" RevisionGUID="457a5b4c-feeb-4ff2-bfed-71e482d1f49e" CreationDate="2019-06-05T00:00:02.847" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1136060072667353090" />
  <row Id="20389" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="8311" RevisionGUID="7fcd7829-c007-49a4-bc26-7522e5de5ed1" CreationDate="2019-06-05T13:22:32.023" UserId="99" Comment="55" />
  <row Id="20393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8313" RevisionGUID="1597d50d-7c25-4578-8b8e-fcaa38c952cc" CreationDate="2019-06-05T16:26:18.050" UserId="6581" Text="Google's Project Sunroof is fairly basic, but very easy to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/get/sunroof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20394" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="8313" RevisionGUID="ac904398-b21f-4f37-bda4-f95f5a06c830" CreationDate="2019-06-06T09:58:14.317" UserId="99" Comment="56" />
  <row Id="20395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8314" RevisionGUID="15979a98-68d5-41bb-b222-2423f002102a" CreationDate="2019-06-06T10:28:13.027" UserId="6672" Text="Domestic flywheels are unlikely to happen for 3 reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. They must be heavy to store significant energy. If you need a crane to install one at your house it’s never going to be super cheap, even with high volume manufacture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The risk of the spinning mass fracturing requires special safety precautions - commercial operators put them in the ground but that would be super expensive on a domestic scale.&#xD;&#xA;Note that this isn’t the same as failed bearings where it might grind to a noisy halt. We’re talking heavy projectile at great speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. They don’t store energy for long 20-50% loss in two hours according to Wikipedia. In a typical solar powered home set up, to boil the kettle just before dawn you’d need to have stored ~13times that energy at sunset. You’d be better off having paid the extra to get it from the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now if you’re off the grid, that’s a different story. Storage Batteries have trouble with high power - short duration loads such as when your fridge compressor starts up. A very small flywheel could help here in conjunction with normal batteries. It being very small eliminates the problems of weight, safety and energy loss over time. But the right battery already does the job cheaper - a low capacity, high power battery like the one in your car (wired correctly; don’t try it!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for it to be cheaper it’d take a revolution in low cost, high speed bearings in tandem with a stalling in high drain battery development; and it’d still only be a very niche market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8315" RevisionGUID="e373e453-b7aa-4e5e-8675-b7c33298ea6f" CreationDate="2019-06-07T08:06:09.783" UserId="1370" Text="CO2 concentration is linked to health risks and even [our ability to think well](https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/07/indoor-co2-dumb-and-dumber/).  Meanwhile, [houseplants decrease CO2 concentration](http://www.pjoes.com/Measuring-the-Impact-of-Selected-Plants-on-Indoor-CO2-Concentrations,61744,0,2.html)  when they [receive enough sunlight](https://www.matec-conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2017/17/matecconf_iscee2017_05004.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, both houseplant studies linked above used air with CO2 concentrations much higher than the current atmospheric concentration, and achieved reductions of CO2 that were still higher than the current atmospheric concentration.  For example, the first study saw plants decreasing CO2 from 3,310ppm to 732ppm, whereas the current atmospheric concentration is just above 400ppm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: How low of an indoor CO2 concentration can be achieved using houseplants? Is it possible to get anywhere close to the ice age concentration of 200ppm?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20398" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8315" RevisionGUID="e373e453-b7aa-4e5e-8675-b7c33298ea6f" CreationDate="2019-06-07T08:06:09.783" UserId="1370" Text="What is the minimum indoor CO2 concentration that is achievable using houseplants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20399" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8315" RevisionGUID="e373e453-b7aa-4e5e-8675-b7c33298ea6f" CreationDate="2019-06-07T08:06:09.783" UserId="1370" Text="|home|plants|carbon-sequestration|co2|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8316" RevisionGUID="64b9664a-fe36-4aa1-bc8a-8f63dca0b13a" CreationDate="2019-06-07T12:08:29.307" UserId="4834" Text="The short answer is no, not anywhere close to 200ppm and not appreciably lower than ambient conditions.  The modern standard for buildings is a full air change every three hours.  This means your houseplants would need to achieve your target level on a full house volume of air every three hours.  There is no practical arrangement which will achieve this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long answer is ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The photosynthesis equation is][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    6CO2 + 6H2O ------&gt; C6H12O6 + 6O2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corn one of the most efficient photosynthetic producers of calories.  It can produce [15 million kilocalories per acre][1] under good conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say you have a 5x5x3m house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have floorspace for 25m2 of field corn (you will just have to fit yourself in somehow).  An acre is 4,046 m2 so 25m2 is 25 / 4046 of an acre, or 0.6%.  So you can produce 0.6% of 15 million kilocalories (1.5 * 10^10 calories) in this setting - 9 * 10^7 calories.  Let's say you take really good care of the corn and manage 1 * 10^8 calories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gram of glucose provides 4 kilocalories (4 * 10^3 calories) of energy when used.  So the amount of glucose that contains 10^8 calories is (10^8 calories / 4 * 10^3 calories), or 25,000 grams (2.5 * 10^4 grams).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The molar mass of glucose is 180 g mol-1.][2]  Therefore there are 1 g / 180 g mol-1 gives the number of glucose molecules in a gram - around 0.05 mols or 3.3 x 10^22 molecules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.5 * 10^4 grams of glucose is therefore 3.3 * 10^22 molecules/gram * 2.5 * 10^4 grams = 8.2 * 10^26 molecules of glucose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each molecule of glucose requires 6 molecules of CO2 to create, or around 5 * 10 ^ 27 molecules.  This is how many molecules of CO2 will be removed from the air by the corn in your house over the course of a growing season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes a growing season to use this much CO2.  There are around 100 days in a growing season.  So each day your corn will take 5 * 10 ^ 25 molecules of CO2 out of the air for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A human breaths out about 40000ppm CO2 which comes to about 1.27 kg of CO2 per day.][3]  Given the molar weight of CO2, this is around 1.27 * 10^-3 g / 117 g mol-1 or 0.1 * 10^-5 moles of CO2, or 6 * 10^18 molecules of CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have an air volume of 75m3.  [At a concentration of 440ppm, under somewhat normal conditions, there are about 2.5 * 10^25 * (440/1000000) molecules of CO2 in a m3 of air, or around 10^22 molecules.][4]  So in your house you have 7.5 * 10^23 molecules of CO2.  If you use about half of these you'll reduce the concentration to 200ppm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to bring the concentration of CO2 in the house from 440ppm to 200ppm with 75m2 of corn growing and 1 human breathing will take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (amount CO2 to remove) / ((rate of removal) - (rate of addition))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (1.25 * 10^25 molecules CO2) / ((5 * 10^25 molecules CO2 / day) - (6 * 10^18 molecules of CO2))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The human contribution ends up being pretty negligible so we can drop it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (1.25 * 10^25 molecules CO2) / (5 * 10^25 molecules CO2 / day)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or 0.25 days, or 6 hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about half the rate you need to achieve a steady state of 200ppm in the house.  I've also assumed rate of use of CO2 due to photosynthesis does not fall as CO2 concentration falls (which it probably does).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that it's not very likely anyone wants to live in what amounts to an indoor corn field, any practical use of houseplants to alter CO2 is likely to have negligible effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the rates figured here, you can decide how much of your household you are willing to devote to corn, determine the reduced rate, and figure out what the equilibrium CO2 level will come to (very roughly, of course).  You may also want to adjust for other CO2 sources such as higher or lower inside/outside air exchange rate (for a leaky house or a poorly built office, respectively), combustion products (cooking, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2015/08/average-calories-per-acre.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.adichemistry.com/qb/general/stoichiometry/1-moles-glucose.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.quora.com/How-much-carbon-dioxide-does-the-average-person-exhale-in-a-day&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/55fkre/request_if_atmospheric_co2_just_hit_440ppm_how/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20401" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8311" RevisionGUID="a98e5738-91de-4f0d-86ae-51c13b2eacb0" CreationDate="2019-06-07T16:14:37.690" UserId="6664" Comment="added details and explanations, new sources" Text="1) There's a special [&quot;sustainability&quot; category on AngelList][1] if you consider jobs in startups. IT jobs can be found there as well as non-IT. What's really nice is that you can figure out a company's mission simply by looking at its short description, eg:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The climate impact of everything made accessible to everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The digital sourcing platform - faster, leaner and more responsible supply chains&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) As for B Corp mentioned earlier, they even provide job listings on a [separate website][5]. IT jobs are listed there as well as non-IT, but filters make it easier to find what you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) You might also consider browsing indexes of ethical and sustainable alternatives and manually checking &quot;career&quot; webpages of those companies which attract your attention. Such indexes are the following: [ethical][2], [ethical consumer][3] (especially their &quot;technology&quot; category), [rank a brand][4] (&quot;telecom&quot;, &quot;online&quot;, &quot;electronics&quot; categories, although many companies are not ranked yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://angel.co/sustainability/jobs&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ethical.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.rankabrand.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.bwork.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20402" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8290" RevisionGUID="59d6cd79-67bd-4b86-aae5-eed56ae8d77e" CreationDate="2019-06-08T00:00:44.877" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1137147412559081472" />
  <row Id="20405" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8271" RevisionGUID="e5b0276c-5ce6-41a3-968c-8046c9ed6498" CreationDate="2019-06-08T09:00:56.740" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1137283357480558598" />
  <row Id="20406" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="8311" RevisionGUID="d96c94bf-da6a-4e43-8b15-e7a8afc2644f" CreationDate="2019-06-08T10:33:28.723" UserId="99" Comment="55" />
  <row Id="20407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8317" RevisionGUID="0b0a53ed-57ab-4ce4-9c62-7eaf9a6b7663" CreationDate="2019-06-08T19:27:41.907" UserId="1056" Text="What is the typical embodied energy of a solar photovoltaic panel, in terms of nominal power output or panel area? The ideal answer would be in kWh/W&lt;sub&gt;P&lt;/sub&gt;, but kWh/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; would also be acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand there is probably a range of answers to this question, so here are some simplifying assumptions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If the manufacturing process is more efficient for larger panels, then the answer for large panels (best case scenario) is preferred.&#xD;&#xA;- If the manufacturing process has become more efficient over time, then an answer for the most modern and efficient process (best case scenario) is prefered.&#xD;&#xA;- If different manufacture technologies (monocrystal, polycrystal, thin film) have different amounts of embodied energy, then the lowest answer (best case scenario) is preferred." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8317" RevisionGUID="0b0a53ed-57ab-4ce4-9c62-7eaf9a6b7663" CreationDate="2019-06-08T19:27:41.907" UserId="1056" Text="What is the typical embodied energy of a solar photovoltaic panel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8317" RevisionGUID="0b0a53ed-57ab-4ce4-9c62-7eaf9a6b7663" CreationDate="2019-06-08T19:27:41.907" UserId="1056" Text="|energy|solar-power|photovoltaics|embodied-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8318" RevisionGUID="22668756-0698-486e-8716-4a79f8307f72" CreationDate="2019-06-08T19:45:55.033" UserId="1056" Text="According to the Wikipedia article on [EROI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested), **585 kWh/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;** is a median value for the embodied energy of a photovoltaic panel, rated based on surface area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The &quot;energy invested&quot; critically depends on technology, methodology, and system boundary assumptions, resulting in a range from a maximum of 2000 kWh/m² of module area down to a minimum of 300 kWh/m² with a median value of 585 kWh/m² according to a meta-study. [&lt;sup&gt;[9]&lt;/sup&gt;](https://doi.org/10.1021/es3038824)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming a panel efficiency of 20% (typical of commercially available panels) and  solar irradiance of 1000 W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, 1.0 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of panel would have a peak power output (W&lt;sub&gt;P&lt;/sub&gt;) of about 200 W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Or stated differently, it would take about 50 cm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of panel to deliver 1 Watt, and manufacturing that panel would use about 2.9 kWh of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as a rough back-of-the-napkin calculation, the embodied energy of a solar panel, normalized for peak power output, is about **2.9 kWh/W&lt;sub&gt;P&lt;/sub&gt;**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8319" RevisionGUID="a5b286ed-48bb-4c73-9978-14acf48fc622" CreationDate="2019-06-08T19:52:05.983" UserId="6677" Text="Since the original poster is in Vancouver, British Columbia, here is a response to this same question from the Recycling Council of British Columbia (Hotline@rcbc.ca)&#xD;&#xA;	&#xD;&#xA;Summary:  Rinse and remove grease soaked portions (garbage) before placing in the Blue Bin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That container you have is a tricky item to deal with.  Since it is product packaging, it is accepted in the blue bin under the Recycle BC program in the category of cartons and paper cups (please refer to the information here:  https://recyclebc.ca/what-can-i-recycle/#1489681710401-fac7cf1f-7218).  Sounds like the grease hasn’t contaminated most of the paper in this container, so we think that it would still be worth recycling in order for the paper content to not be wasted.  It can’t be put in the organics stream due to the plastic (for explanation, see video here:  https://www.rcbc.ca/resources/faqs/composting3).  Just be sure to clean this item as you would for other recyclables before putting it with your curbside recycling.  If you think that the item is too soiled due to the grease, then it should be placed in the garbage, unfortunately.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8320" RevisionGUID="c79d7b54-e032-4c36-a4d1-eb239947a71d" CreationDate="2019-06-08T20:56:39.740" UserId="1056" Text="I'm interested in knowing the typical energy pay-back time of a solar photovoltaic panel, in terms of hours operating under an ideal scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy pay-back time (EPBT) is usually quoted in terms of years, and often discussed in the context of permanent installations like power stations or rooftop solar. These discussions often include factors like average annual insolation. However, I'm interested in evaluating solar PV devices at the personal scale and might be used while backpacking, canoeing, or other wilderness adventure, where average annual insolation isn't really relevant because the device isn't used every day, and isn't used evenly throughout the year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20413" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8320" RevisionGUID="c79d7b54-e032-4c36-a4d1-eb239947a71d" CreationDate="2019-06-08T20:56:39.740" UserId="1056" Text="What is the energy payback time of solar panels, in hours?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20414" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8320" RevisionGUID="c79d7b54-e032-4c36-a4d1-eb239947a71d" CreationDate="2019-06-08T20:56:39.740" UserId="1056" Text="|energy|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8321" RevisionGUID="1f7276cb-efd2-4b96-bbc7-d4d0dff8a13a" CreationDate="2019-06-08T23:59:10.387" UserId="4886" Text="Given that static photovoltaic arrays, exposed to the sun all day every day, might pay themselves off in 3 years (according to NREL [in 2004][1]), there is an *extremely high probability* that a portable solar panel — used relatively infrequently and under sub-optimal conditions — would **never** pay for itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it takes (3*365=) ~1100 days at full exposure, or ~4400 days at sub-optimal/quarter exposure, you'd need to spend every single weekend 'adventuring' for (4400/2/52=) ~42 years before you reach payback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Portable solar power generation has always been about convenience, not payback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:  Fraunhofer ([in 2018][2]) revised EPBT in northern Europe to 2.5 years, and southern Europe to 1.5 years.  If we split the difference, and call it 2 years, you're still looking at having to adventure every weekend for 28 years before the panels break even.  About (365*2=) 730 full-exposure days is what you currently need in mid-Europe/USA.  No doubt that figure will continue to reduce slowly over time, but it is still substantial and will remain so for a very long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Photovoltaics-Report.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8321" RevisionGUID="f4f4c60f-4249-4222-96dc-2a6e76a95233" CreationDate="2019-06-09T00:05:48.353" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Given that static photovoltaic arrays, exposed to the sun all day every day, might pay themselves off in 3 years (according to NREL [in 2004][1]), there is an *extremely high probability* that a portable solar panel — used relatively infrequently and under sub-optimal conditions — would **never** pay for itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it takes (3*365=) ~1100 days at full exposure, or ~4400 days at sub-optimal/quarter exposure, you'd need to spend every single weekend 'adventuring' for (4400/2/52=) ~42 years before you reach payback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Portable solar power generation has always been about convenience, not payback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:  Fraunhofer ([in 2018][2]) revised EPBT in northern Europe to 2.5 years, and southern Europe to 1.5 years.  If we split the difference, and call it 2 years, you're still looking at having to adventure every weekend for 28 years before the panels break even.  About (365*2=) 730 full-exposure days are what you currently need in mid-latitude-Europe/USA.  No doubt that figure will continue to reduce slowly over time, but it is still substantial and will remain so for a very long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Photovoltaics-Report.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8321" RevisionGUID="b099d929-28b5-43a8-9961-5cbed714bcbd" CreationDate="2019-06-09T00:13:33.267" UserId="4886" Comment="added 15 characters in body" Text="Given that static photovoltaic arrays, exposed to the sun all day every day, might pay themselves off in 3 years (according to NREL [in 2004][1]), there is an *extremely high probability* that a portable solar panel — used relatively infrequently and under sub-optimal conditions — would **never** pay for itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it takes (3*365=) ~1100 days at full exposure, or ~4400 days at sub-optimal/quarter exposure, you'd need to spend every single weekend 'adventuring' for (4400/2/52=) ~42 years before you reach payback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Portable solar power generation has always been about convenience, not payback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:  Fraunhofer ([in 2018][2]) revised EPBT in northern Europe to 2.5 years, and southern Europe to 1.5 years.  If we split the difference, and call it 2 years, you're still looking at having to adventure every weekend for 28 years before the panels break even.  **About (365*2=) 730 full-exposure days (~8,800 hours) are what you currently need in mid-latitude-Europe/USA.**  No doubt that figure will continue to reduce slowly over time, but it is still substantial and will remain so for a very long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Photovoltaics-Report.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20419" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="8320" RevisionGUID="10d33215-05e8-4aa3-b913-f2b3ebf36ae3" CreationDate="2019-06-09T05:04:00.150" />
  <row Id="20420" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8320" RevisionGUID="f54bbe8a-42ed-4f7d-8aca-f8f59ed402dc" CreationDate="2019-06-09T09:30:18.207" UserId="99" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the energy payback time of portable solar panels, in hours?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20421" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8321" RevisionGUID="c369b128-6fbe-45be-ab18-ba04fe38d454" CreationDate="2019-06-09T21:26:46.087" UserId="4886" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="Given that static, thin-film photovoltaic panels, exposed to the sun all day every day, might pay themselves off in 3 years (according to NREL [in 2004][1]), there is an *extremely high probability* that a portable solar panel — used relatively infrequently and under sub-optimal conditions — would **never** pay for itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it takes (3*365=) ~1100 days at full exposure, or ~4400 days at sub-optimal/quarter exposure, you'd need to spend every single weekend 'adventuring' for (4400/2/52=) ~42 years before you reach payback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Portable solar power generation has always been about convenience, not payback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update:  Fraunhofer ([in 2018][2]) revised EPBT in northern Europe to 2.5 years, and southern Europe to 1.5 years.  If we split the difference, and call it 2 years, you're still looking at having to adventure every weekend for 28 years before the panels break even.  **About (365*2=) 730 full-exposure days (~8,800 hours) are what you currently need in mid-latitude-Europe/USA.**  No doubt that figure will continue to reduce slowly over time, but it is still substantial and will remain so for a very long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Photovoltaics-Report.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8322" RevisionGUID="e75db0e3-aaac-46de-b257-33205012c523" CreationDate="2019-06-10T09:43:44.993" UserId="6683" Text="Always try to buy hardware, that is **easy to repair** and upgrade. IFixit has a [ranking of &quot;repairability&quot;][1], that is really useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ifixit.com/laptop-repairability?sort=score" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8316" RevisionGUID="9799cade-c12a-4d0d-b971-0b2e5ee34902" CreationDate="2019-06-11T01:21:42.943" UserId="4834" Comment="improve markup, start correcting math error" Text="The short answer is no, not anywhere close to 200ppm and not appreciably lower than ambient conditions.  The modern standard for buildings is a full air change every three hours.  This means your houseplants would need to achieve your target level on a full house volume of air every three hours.  There is no practical arrangement which will achieve this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long answer is ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The photosynthesis equation is][1] 6CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; + 6H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O ------&gt; C&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt;H&lt;sub&gt;12&lt;/sub&gt;O&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt; + 6O&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corn one of the most efficient photosynthetic producers of calories.  It can produce [15 million kilocalories per acre][1] under good conditions.  That's 1.5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; calories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say you have a 5x5x3m house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have floorspace for 25m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of field corn (you will just have to fit yourself in somehow).  An acre is 4,046 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; so 25m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; is 25 / 4046 of an acre, or 0.6%.  So you can produce 6 * 10&lt;sup&gt;-3&lt;/sup&gt; * 1.5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; calories in this setting.  That's 9 * 10&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; calories.  Let's say you take really good care of the corn and manage 1 * 10&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; calories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gram of glucose provides 4 * 10&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; calories of energy when used.  So the amount of glucose that contains 10&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; calories is (10&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; calories / 4 * 10&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; calories), or 2.5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; grams).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The molar mass of glucose is 180 g mol&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt;.][2]  Therefore there are 1 g / 180 g mol&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; gives the number of glucose molecules in a gram - around 0.05 mols or 3.3 x 10&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; molecules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; grams of glucose is therefore 3.3 * 10&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; molecules/gram * 2.5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; grams = 8.2 * 10&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; molecules of glucose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each molecule of glucose requires 6 molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to create, or around 5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; molecules.  This is how many molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; will be removed from the air by the corn in your house over the course of a growing season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes a growing season to use this much CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.  There are around 10&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; days in a growing season.  So each day your corn will take 5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; out of the air for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A human breaths out about 40000ppm CO2 which comes to about 1.27 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per day.][3]  Given the molar weight of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, this is around 1.27 * 10&lt;sup&gt;-3&lt;/sup&gt; g / 117 g mol&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; or 0.1 * 10&lt;sup&gt;-5&lt;/sup&gt; moles of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, or 6 * 10&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have an air volume of 75m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.  [At a concentration of 440ppm, under somewhat normal conditions, there are about 2.5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; * (440/1000000) molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; in a m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; of air, or around 10&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; molecules.][4]  So in your house you have 7.5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.  If you use about half of these you'll reduce the concentration to 200ppm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to bring the concentration of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; in the house from 440ppm to 200ppm with 75m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of corn growing and 1 human breathing will take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (amount CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to remove) / ((rate of removal) - (rate of addition))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (1.25 * 10&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; molecules CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) / ((5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; molecules CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; / day) - (6 * 10&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt; molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The human contribution ends up being pretty negligible so we can drop it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (1.25 * 10&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; molecules CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) / (5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; molecules CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; / day)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or 0.25 days, or 6 hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about half the rate you need to achieve a steady state of 200ppm in the house.  I've also assumed rate of use of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; due to photosynthesis does not fall as CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration falls (which it probably does).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that it's not very likely anyone wants to live in what amounts to an indoor corn field, any practical use of houseplants to alter CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is likely to have negligible effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the rates figured here, you can decide how much of your household you are willing to devote to corn, determine the reduced rate, and figure out what the equilibrium CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; level will come to (very roughly, of course).  You may also want to adjust for other CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; sources such as higher or lower inside/outside air exchange rate (for a leaky house or a poorly built office, respectively), combustion products (cooking, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2015/08/average-calories-per-acre.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.adichemistry.com/qb/general/stoichiometry/1-moles-glucose.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.quora.com/How-much-carbon-dioxide-does-the-average-person-exhale-in-a-day&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/55fkre/request_if_atmospheric_co2_just_hit_440ppm_how/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20424" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8316" RevisionGUID="ef9c649d-6428-4fb6-8989-abcdc0ddbed6" CreationDate="2019-06-11T01:38:06.253" UserId="4834" Comment="improve markup, start correcting math error" Text="The short answer is no, not anywhere close to 200ppm and not appreciably lower than ambient conditions.  The modern standard for buildings is a full air change every three hours.  This means your houseplants would need to achieve your target level on a full house volume of air every three hours.  There is no practical arrangement which will achieve this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long answer is ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The photosynthesis equation is][1] 6CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; + 6H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O ------&gt; C&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt;H&lt;sub&gt;12&lt;/sub&gt;O&lt;sub&gt;6&lt;/sub&gt; + 6O&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corn one of the most efficient photosynthetic producers of calories.  It can produce [15 million kilocalories per acre][1] under good conditions.  That's 1.5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; calories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say you have a 5x5x3m house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have floorspace for 25m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of field corn (you will just have to fit yourself in somehow).  An acre is 4,046 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; so 25m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; is 25 / 4046 of an acre, or 0.6%.  So you can produce 6 * 10&lt;sup&gt;-3&lt;/sup&gt; * 1.5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; calories in this setting.  That's 9 * 10&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt; calories.  Let's say you take really good care of the corn and manage 1 * 10&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; calories.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gram of glucose provides 4 * 10&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; calories of energy when used.  So the amount of glucose that contains 10&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; calories is (10&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt; calories / 4 * 10&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; calories), or 2.5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; grams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The molar mass of glucose is 1.80 * 10&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; g mol&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt;.][2]  Therefore there are 1 g / 1.80 * 10&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; g mol&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; gives the number of glucose molecules in a gram - around 5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;-3&lt;/sup&gt; mols or 3.3 * 10&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; molecules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; grams of glucose is therefore 3.3 * 10&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt; molecules/gram * 2.5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; grams = 8.2 * 10&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; molecules of glucose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each molecule of glucose requires 6 molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to create.   8.2 * 10&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt; molecules of glucose times 6 is around 5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt; molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.  This is how many molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; will be removed from the air by the corn in your house over the course of a growing season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes a growing season to use this much CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.  There are around 10&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; days in a growing season.  So each day your corn will take 5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; out of the air for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A human breaths out about 40000ppm CO2 which comes to about 1.27 * 10&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per day.][3]  Given the molar weight of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, this is around 1.27 * 10&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; g / 1.17 * 10&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; g mol&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; or 1 * 10&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; moles of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, or 6 * 10&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have an air volume of 75m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.  [At a concentration of 440ppm, under somewhat normal conditions, there are about 2.5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; * (440/1000000) molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; in a m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; of air, or around 10&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt; molecules.][4]  So in your house you have 7.5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.  If you use about half of these you'll reduce the concentration to 200ppm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to bring the concentration of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; in the house from 440ppm to 200ppm with 75m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of corn growing and 1 human breathing will take:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (amount CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to remove) / ((rate of removal) - (rate of addition))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (1.25 * 10&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; molecules CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) / ((5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; molecules CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; / day) - (6 * 10&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt; molecules of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The human contribution ends up being pretty negligible (around 1% of the corn contribution) so we can drop it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (1.25 * 10&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; molecules CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) / (5 * 10&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt; molecules CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; / day)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or 0.25 days, or 6 hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is about half the rate you need to achieve a steady state of 200ppm in the house.  I've also assumed rate of use of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; due to photosynthesis does not fall as CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration falls (which it probably does).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that it's not very likely anyone wants to live in what amounts to an indoor corn field, any practical use of houseplants to alter CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is likely to have negligible effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the rates figured here, you can decide how much of your household you are willing to devote to corn, determine the reduced rate, and figure out what the equilibrium CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; level will come to (very roughly, of course).  You may also want to adjust for other CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; sources such as higher or lower inside/outside air exchange rate (for a leaky house or a poorly built office, respectively), combustion products (cooking, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2015/08/average-calories-per-acre.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.adichemistry.com/qb/general/stoichiometry/1-moles-glucose.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.quora.com/How-much-carbon-dioxide-does-the-average-person-exhale-in-a-day&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/55fkre/request_if_atmospheric_co2_just_hit_440ppm_how/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20425" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8320" RevisionGUID="eed07f3c-8162-485f-ac7f-5f4a5bab4077" CreationDate="2019-06-11T09:00:54.017" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1138370509689765894" />
  <row Id="20426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8323" RevisionGUID="9344cd30-f45a-4526-83d8-17d19669668c" CreationDate="2019-06-12T05:18:22.447" UserId="6693" Text="I want to know that I have solar panel of 8 plates. There is a slight gap between each panel. At 2 location string connectors are somehow placed between the gap in solar panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Question is **If the water drop on Solar Panel Connector(on String connectors not wires) during cleaning or rain water does it affect solar panel?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8323" RevisionGUID="9344cd30-f45a-4526-83d8-17d19669668c" CreationDate="2019-06-12T05:18:22.447" UserId="6693" Text="If the water drop on Solar Panel Connector during cleaning or rain water does it affect solar panel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20428" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8323" RevisionGUID="9344cd30-f45a-4526-83d8-17d19669668c" CreationDate="2019-06-12T05:18:22.447" UserId="6693" Text="|solar-power|water|renewables|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8323" RevisionGUID="577a7b95-568a-4ae6-9741-746a8796278d" CreationDate="2019-06-12T05:57:49.217" UserId="6693" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I want to know that I have solar panel of 8 plates. There is a slight gap between each panel. At 2 location string connectors are somehow placed between the gap in solar panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Question is **If the water drop on Solar Panel Connector(on String MC4 connectors not wires) during cleaning or rain water does it affect solar panel?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8323" RevisionGUID="a7a59e85-1b3d-44d4-b9ef-e7476f4ab7fe" CreationDate="2019-06-12T06:06:08.933" UserId="6693" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="I want to know that I have solar panel of 8 plates. There is a slight gap between each panel. At 2 location string connectors are somehow placed between the gap in solar panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Question is **If the water drop on Solar Panel Connector(on String MC4 connectors not wires) during cleaning or rain water does it affect solar panel?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/POfjH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8324" RevisionGUID="b72ff7dd-c9ef-4866-80ed-e47a64e88592" CreationDate="2019-06-12T10:02:23.890" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="They are intended to be watertight, but you need to take some precautions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this [Instructable page on MC4 Solar Connectors](https://www.instructables.com/id/MC4-solar-connectors/) you see red rubber sealing rings in the picture from step 5:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Wikipedia page on MC4 connectors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MC4_connector) mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For a proper seal, MC4s require the usage of a cable with the correct diameter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Connection is made by use of a special crimping tool, alternatively by soldering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [REC Guide to Best Practice](https://www.recgroup.com/sites/default/files/documents/guide_to_best_practice_-_connections_and_connectors_eng_0.pdf) suggests what (not) to do:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ensure sufficient air circulation around connectors.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Keeping humidity away from electronic connections is also important.  Solar panel connectors must not be left to stand in permanent or regularly occurring pools of water.  Likewise, after rainfall, connectors should be given the opportunity to dry completely.  Although the connectors used by REC are rated to IP67, moisture can build up between the mounting structure and connector.Fig. 9 shows a connector secured tight to the mounting structure.  While the panel above protects the connection from rain; humid air, mist or condensation can cause moisture to accumulate between the connector and the mounting rail.  This layer of moisture is caught between the connector and rail and can slowly work into the connector through capillary action.  Here it can erode the metallic connection.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From that guide:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Fig. 9: Fastening of the connector tight to the mounting structure can cause moisture build up between connector and rail, damaging the connection&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1TZZu.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aJlDS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20432" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8323" RevisionGUID="09bc8016-90cf-433c-88f9-d707a28e3f9a" CreationDate="2019-06-12T13:43:27.620" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I have a solar array with 8 panels. There is a slight gap between each panel. At 2 locations string MC4 connectors are placed between the gaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is **if water gets on this connector (and not on the wires) during cleaning or from rain does it affect the solar panel?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/POfjH.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20433" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8323" RevisionGUID="09bc8016-90cf-433c-88f9-d707a28e3f9a" CreationDate="2019-06-12T13:43:27.620" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="If water gets on solar panel connector from cleaning or rain will it cause problems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20434" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8323" RevisionGUID="09bc8016-90cf-433c-88f9-d707a28e3f9a" CreationDate="2019-06-12T13:43:27.620" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20435" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8286" RevisionGUID="07c8ff17-0691-4c3c-86e7-dd7ddf5e8bd2" CreationDate="2019-06-12T15:00:57.637" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1138823509784911872" />
  <row Id="20436" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8322" RevisionGUID="c981974a-dec5-415f-9c93-d7f8ff492684" CreationDate="2019-06-12T18:23:57.647" UserId="6683" Comment="reasons, why it's important." Text="Always try to buy hardware, that is **easy to repair** and upgrade. This will save you from throwing it away to buy another one, when it breaks, starts to overheat due to dust in the fan or needs more memory, new hard drive etc. IFixit has a [ranking of &quot;repairability&quot;][1], that is really useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ifixit.com/laptop-repairability?sort=score" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20437" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="8325" RevisionGUID="fedf6422-77b4-48c8-8c6a-7266a3b4b559" CreationDate="2019-06-13T06:50:22.360" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/29764/why-do-some-people-say-that-biofuels-are-renewable-energy-source-if-producing-bi" />
  <row Id="20438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8325" RevisionGUID="6b041aef-39ef-420b-afa7-bc56cd2e96d6" CreationDate="2019-06-12T15:15:24.417" UserDisplayName="Anixx" Text="Why do some people say that biofuels are renewable energy source if producing biofuels requires nitrogen fertilizers that are produced from natural gas (and energy output of biofuels is less than that of burning natural gas directly)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also require phosphates which are scarce." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20439" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8325" RevisionGUID="6b041aef-39ef-420b-afa7-bc56cd2e96d6" CreationDate="2019-06-12T15:15:24.417" UserDisplayName="Anixx" Text="Why do some people say that biofuels are renewable energy source if producing biofuels requires nitrogen fertilizers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20440" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8325" RevisionGUID="6b041aef-39ef-420b-afa7-bc56cd2e96d6" CreationDate="2019-06-12T15:15:24.417" UserDisplayName="Anixx" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20441" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="8326" RevisionGUID="638462a7-33e3-4efb-a75d-78225887ef79" CreationDate="2019-06-13T06:50:22.360" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/29764/why-do-some-people-say-that-biofuels-are-renewable-energy-source-if-producing-bi/29766#29766" />
  <row Id="20442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8326" RevisionGUID="8b2bc730-dd13-4ba5-b491-94201ebcd6a3" CreationDate="2019-06-12T18:30:05.250" UserId="48" Text="They're called renewable because it's possible to do them in a renewable manner. Specifically, the energy in them comes from the sun, in a fairly short time span (i.e. years, rather than millennia or longer). So the original energy source is renewable, and the route from original source to usable power is short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible to do them in a non-renewable manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nitrogen fertilizers don't have to be produced from fossil fuels. They are currently, but they don't have to be. There are renewable alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using biofuels doesn't remove any of the essential elements (phosphorus, potassium) etc from their respective cycles. They're still around in the bioshpere. This is most easily visible if the route is from biomass to biogas to energy; in that case, the solid matter left over after the extraction of the biogas (carbon and hydrogen) has all the nutrients, and can feed the next generation of biomass." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20443" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8325" RevisionGUID="d97d4d72-2319-4570-a88d-dc001897bbeb" CreationDate="2019-06-13T07:25:50.703" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|renewables|biofuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8326" RevisionGUID="3858a449-c9bd-4cb0-a954-a605d48eee3c" CreationDate="2019-06-13T10:08:01.340" UserId="48" Comment="edited body" Text="They're called renewable because it's possible to do them in a renewable manner. Specifically, the energy in them comes from the sun, in a fairly short time span (i.e. years, rather than millennia or longer). So the original energy source is renewable, and the route from original source to usable power is short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible to do them in a non-renewable manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nitrogen fertilizers don't have to be produced from fossil fuels. They are currently, but they don't have to be. There are renewable alternatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using biofuels doesn't remove any of the essential elements (phosphorus, potassium) etc from their respective cycles. They're still around in the biosphere. This is most easily visible if the route is from biomass to biogas to energy; in that case, the solid matter left over after the extraction of the biogas (carbon and hydrogen) has all the nutrients, and can feed the next generation of biomass." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8327" RevisionGUID="55e8a878-d3d5-43bc-9a79-be7a411ead50" CreationDate="2019-06-13T23:09:08.850" UserId="6293" Text="There are dozens of sources that say that ethanol from corn is not carbon neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then ethanol from sorghum is carbon neutral. And hydrogen from ethanol from sorghum might be carbon neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now sorghum can be grown in areas of 25&quot; of annual rainfall and doesn't need to be grown in corn-belt areas. And sorghum requires less fertilizer than corn. Of course sorghum produces a thick growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorghum can be processed to ethanol in one process using enzymes and the entire plant is used. Or sweet sorghum syrup can be fermented to ethanol in another process and the part of the plant not used is livestock feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ethanol doesn't have to go into cars. Ethanol can be run in gas-turbines at 60% efficiency to produce electricity. Or ethanol can be reformed to hydrogen and run in hydrogen fuel cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To have a good profit margin, sorghum can only be transported short distances. So the distance to an ethanol plant should be 10 miles or less." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20446" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8327" RevisionGUID="e615b781-1d14-409f-b5d5-412e7a48a22c" CreationDate="2019-06-13T23:15:34.420" UserId="6293" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="There are dozens of sources that say that ethanol from corn is not carbon neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then ethanol from sorghum is carbon neutral. And hydrogen from ethanol from sorghum might be carbon neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now sorghum can be grown in areas of 25&quot; of annual rainfall and doesn't need to be grown in corn-belt areas. And sorghum requires less fertilizer than corn. Of course sorghum produces a thick growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorghum can be processed to ethanol in one process using enzymes and the entire plant is used. Or sweet sorghum syrup can be fermented to ethanol in another process and the part of the plant not used is livestock feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ethanol doesn't have to go into cars. Ethanol can be run in gas-turbines at 60% efficiency to produce electricity. Or ethanol can be reformed to hydrogen and run in hydrogen fuel cells at 85% efficiency. (These efficiencies are based on using waste heat in an additional process.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To have a good profit margin, sorghum can only be transported short distances. So the distance to an ethanol plant from the farmland should be 10 miles or less." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8327" RevisionGUID="c3effd3a-190d-4333-88dc-a218f4c6afb4" CreationDate="2019-06-13T23:26:16.063" UserId="6293" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="There are dozens of sources that say that ethanol from corn is not carbon neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then ethanol from sorghum is carbon neutral. And hydrogen from ethanol from sorghum might be carbon neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now sorghum can be grown in areas of 25&quot; of annual rainfall and doesn't need to be grown in corn-belt areas. And sorghum requires less fertilizer than corn. Of course sorghum produces a thick growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grain-sorghum can be processed to ethanol using enzymes and the entire plant is used. Or sweet-sorghum syrup can be fermented to ethanol and the part of the plant not used is livestock feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ethanol doesn't have to go into cars. Ethanol can be run in gas-turbines at 60% efficiency to produce electricity. Or ethanol can be reformed to hydrogen and run in stationary hydrogen fuel cells at 85% efficiency. (These efficiencies are based on using waste heat in an additional process.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To have a good profit margin, sorghum can only be transported short distances. So the distance to an ethanol plant from the farmland should be 10 miles or less." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20451" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="8b5c8428-337c-4bd6-9663-39453388198b" CreationDate="2019-06-16T06:47:34.817" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20452" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8327" RevisionGUID="52b6c2a1-f3de-4458-9e44-57867b0c3ae7" CreationDate="2019-06-16T11:45:03.837" UserId="6293" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="There are dozens of sources that say that ethanol from corn is not carbon neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then ethanol from sorghum is carbon neutral. And hydrogen from ethanol from sorghum might be carbon neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now sorghum can be grown in areas of 25&quot; of annual rainfall without irrigation and doesn't need to be grown in corn-belt areas. And sorghum requires less fertilizer than corn. Of course sorghum produces a thick growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grain-sorghum can be processed to ethanol using enzymes and the entire plant is used. Or sweet-sorghum syrup can be fermented to ethanol and the part of the plant not used is livestock feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ethanol doesn't have to go into cars. Ethanol can be run in gas-turbines at 60% efficiency to produce electricity. Or ethanol can be reformed to hydrogen and run in stationary hydrogen fuel cells at 85% efficiency. (These efficiencies are based on using waste heat in an additional process.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To have a good profit margin, sorghum can only be transported short distances. So the distance to an ethanol plant from the farmland should be 10 miles or less." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8329" RevisionGUID="b81c4125-99da-41bb-aae9-cfd5a7f2a5f2" CreationDate="2019-06-16T17:02:42.383" UserId="3379" Text="The best article I could find which addresses this question is [&quot;Life‐Cycle Assessment of Solar Charger with Integrated Organic Photovoltaics&quot;](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/adem.201700124).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Their conclusion: **Because of the complicated construction process and short-life span of cell phone chargers, solar chargers are less sustainable than traditional grid-charged battery banks, unless the grid where you live uses a high percentage of fossil fuel generation.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The study compared three different types of phone chargers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A cutting-edge charger, [HeLi-On](https://infinitypv.com/products/consumer/heli-on), using organic photovoltaics (OPV) with 2600 mAh battery&#xD;&#xA; - A more tradititional amorphous silicon charger (a-Si), the [SolarWrap mini](https://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Bear-Grylls-SolarWrap-Charger/dp/B00AMPJNT2) with 2200 mAh battery&#xD;&#xA; - A conventional 2600 mAh battery power bank charged from the grid&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The authors looked at production, use, and disposal of all three in Denmark (DK) and China (CN). Here are a few of the graphs from the results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, and in all the other charts, you can see that in Denmark the conventional battery bank is usually better. In China, the conventional bank is sometimes worse and sometimes about the same as the a-Si charger, depending on which impact category you're looking at.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the conclusions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Looking at the impact scores for the production individually, the regular power bank had the lowest impact across all impact categories. The reason lies in the fact that it is a simpler device that only includes a battery and not a solar panel. [...] For the two power bank products that include solar panel, the difference between the production only and the production plus the use phase is minimal and it corresponds to the transport in the distribution of the product. Production and use phase for the regular power bank showed increased scores when compared to production only due to the electricity needed for the 300 charges specified in the [functional unit].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Tb8gV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20454" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8266" RevisionGUID="7c86921b-21ac-4257-89ad-85f4385b27fe" CreationDate="2019-06-17T06:00:42.683" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1140499490878742528" />
  <row Id="20455" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8292" RevisionGUID="ec38d5da-5b27-40aa-8d10-08f7ad022bd0" CreationDate="2019-06-19T13:54:41.353" UserId="99" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1056,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8333" RevisionGUID="a95f3691-ec20-4b15-abb4-a7d03f85d9c2" CreationDate="2019-06-23T00:50:33.280" UserId="6727" Text="Us annual installations have been declining since 2012. Essentially everywhere else, besides Chinas low quality wind, there's only a handful of new farms being built. Is wind pretty much dead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8333" RevisionGUID="a95f3691-ec20-4b15-abb4-a7d03f85d9c2" CreationDate="2019-06-23T00:50:33.280" UserId="6727" Text="Is wind power practically dead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8333" RevisionGUID="a95f3691-ec20-4b15-abb4-a7d03f85d9c2" CreationDate="2019-06-23T00:50:33.280" UserId="6727" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8334" RevisionGUID="cc2c5219-3493-4000-ad95-74cb496b620f" CreationDate="2019-06-23T04:22:03.997" UserId="3379" Text="**TL;DR:** Wind is not dead, but a diverse set of economic, technical, and political factors have resulted in a leveling off of the rate of new construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The cost to build new wind declined for years but has leveled off&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the [U.S. Energy Information Agency](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36615):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Early wind project developers snagged the best sites&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As costs declined, developers harvested the &quot;low hanging fruit&quot; of wind sites: locations with abundant, steady wind, cheap land, good roads, and proximity to transmission infrastructure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two factors (abundant suitable locations and declining costs) caused the boom in wind construction seen until about 2012 (despite the recession). From the [interactive dashboard](https://public.tableau.com/views/IRENARETimeSeries/Charts?:embed=y&amp;:showVizHome=no&amp;publish=yes&amp;:toolbar=yes) by [IRENA](https://www.irena.org/), the International Renewable Energy Agency:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### With costs level and the best sites taken, new additions are limited by other factors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The International Energy Agency (part of the OECD) provides wind capacity forecasts in their [&quot;Renewables 2018&quot; market report and forecast](https://www.iea.org/renewables2018/power/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text explains the diverse factors which now influence annual capacity additions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]he phase-out schedule of federal tax incentives in the United States, the expiration of [feed-in tariffs] and grid integration challenges in China, and the timetable of auctions in Europe, India and other regions result in volatile annual additions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(See [this post from the U.S. Energy Information Agency](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39472) for a good explanation of how tax incentives affect wind build-outs in the U.S.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The report explains what would have to change to increase the rate of capacity additions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In China, faster commissioning of transmission lines to reduce curtailment in northern provinces and larger auction volumes in 2021-23 are the main assumptions of the accelerated case. In order to accelerate deployment in the United States, more projects must qualify for federal tax incentives before they are phased out. In the European Union, greater auction activity and faster auction implementation in Germany, France, Spain and Italy drives the accelerated case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/V0ald.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I8xIr.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mBooc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KcgKF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8333" RevisionGUID="c14e6f19-e34d-4641-b1af-faae2d3d03c6" CreationDate="2019-06-23T04:22:47.717" UserId="3379" Comment="Typos and tags." Text="U.S. annual installations have been declining since 2012. Essentially everywhere else, besides China's low quality wind, there's only a handful of new farms being built. Is wind pretty much dead?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20467" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8333" RevisionGUID="c14e6f19-e34d-4641-b1af-faae2d3d03c6" CreationDate="2019-06-23T04:22:47.717" UserId="3379" Comment="Typos and tags." Text="|electricity-generation|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20468" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8270" RevisionGUID="881941bc-9165-411c-ac86-0bfe36341c0b" CreationDate="2019-06-24T00:00:21.277" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1142945519259529217" />
  <row Id="20470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="5b157250-1244-4965-8073-e90f59da7d94" CreationDate="2019-06-24T08:31:10.443" UserDisplayName="user4844" Comment="Fix deprecated link as noted by a commentator (AllInOne Jun 25 '18 at 19:11). The second link is now using HTTPS." Text="If you are in the U.S. in particular, I would recommend the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's [PVWatts calculator][1], which will provide both likely solar gain (the defaults are reasonable, but you can tweak them to your situation) and potential savings on electricity. For installation costs, again for a US case, LBNL has a [great report][2] on installed costs (panels, balance of system, labor, etc.) - the 2011 US-wide average was $6.1/W for small systems (&lt;10kW) Adjust that with local policies and you can get a pretty good ballpark. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/tracking-sun-v-historical-summary-installed-price-photovoltaics-united-states-1998-2011" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20471" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="298" RevisionGUID="5b157250-1244-4965-8073-e90f59da7d94" CreationDate="2019-06-24T08:31:10.443" Comment="Proposed by 4844 approved by 812, 2451 edit id of 577" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20473" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="8335" RevisionGUID="671545c3-3ecc-419c-90a8-2f4f494df7f4" CreationDate="2019-06-25T09:51:16.207" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/17266/is-there-standard-methodology-for-assessing-how-environmentally-friendly-a-parti" />
  <row Id="20474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8335" RevisionGUID="53df942e-02e9-41d3-9d00-c72ac4c164ec" CreationDate="2019-06-24T09:09:22.540" UserDisplayName="ConanTheGerbil" Text="The headline says it all, I'm looking for a standard way of assessing a lifestyle against environmental criteria. I'm thinking of some sort of lifestyle questionnaire that will produce a score from 0 to 100%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a friend at work with what I regard as a high 'environmental conscience' who's always very keen on the latest environmental battlefront, however when she discusses her lifestyle I'm not very convinced that she's as environmentally friendly as she thinks she is. I find this particularly annoying when she tries to get me to change my lifestyle to match hers!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples.... She drives an electric car, and thinks I ought to trade in my 12 y/o diesel for something similar. However, she buys a new electric car every 2 years, only lives 3 miles from work and keeps a 2nd (petrol) car for use at the weekends. I cycle to work 20 miles a day and only use my dirty old diesel for maybe 100 miles a week. Whilst I know that on the face of it electric cars are cleaner than diesel, dig down a little deeper and I think that out of the two options described above, I'm probably having less negative impact than her&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She's invested in a wood pellet boiler to heat her house. I have a 40 year old non-condensing gas boiler to heat mine. On the face of it the wood pellet burner ought to be more environmentally friendly, but... the pellets are shipped in from Canada, the thermostat is permanently set to 23 degrees C, it costs over £3000 a year to run. My thermostat is set to 19 degrees C, I only heat the room I'm in and my gas bill is less than £800 a year, if it gets cold I put on an extra jumper or light an open fire using windfall logs from the forest next to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Final example - she religiously sorts and re-cycles two bin-fulls of waste every week. I'm not very hot on recycling, but I only throw out half a bin of rubbish a fortnight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think my friend has a very simple view, electric cars good, diesel cars bad. Wood burner good, gas burner bad. Recycling good, throwing away bad. I think there's a much deeper picture that also needs to be looked at however neither of us have been able to convince the other of our position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So - is there an independent, impartial, unbiased, peer-reviewed and scientific methodology for assessing an individuals lifestyle to evaluate that persons environmental impact?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20475" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8335" RevisionGUID="53df942e-02e9-41d3-9d00-c72ac4c164ec" CreationDate="2019-06-24T09:09:22.540" UserDisplayName="ConanTheGerbil" Text="Is there standard methodology for assessing how environmentally friendly a particular lifestyle is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20476" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8335" RevisionGUID="53df942e-02e9-41d3-9d00-c72ac4c164ec" CreationDate="2019-06-24T09:09:22.540" UserDisplayName="ConanTheGerbil" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20477" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8335" RevisionGUID="a7449da7-8205-4586-816e-d982d28d5a7d" CreationDate="2019-06-25T10:24:01.913" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|lifestyle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20478" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8336" RevisionGUID="85fbf683-71d9-4e65-a2d2-b1cca5df5c2b" CreationDate="2019-06-25T11:20:41.573" UserId="99" Text="The best measure for comparing lifestyles is probably the [tag:ecological-footprint]. An ecological footprint is a measure for the amount of productive land and sea area that is needed to support a particular activity, lifestyle, person, or group of people. Or more simple; it's how much space and natural resources you need to produce something or support someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of on-line ecological footprint calculators with varying quality. A short and incomplete list of calculators can be found [here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/ecological-footprint/info). &#xD;&#xA;Since most calculators are based on national data, it's best to use a calculator that was created for your country of residence if you can find it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecological footprint is a rather crude measure. The methodology uses lots of simplifications and heuristics because it's impossible to go into depth for individual products, services and personal circumstances. In any case it's the best for such a wide-scope analysis such as lifestyle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8336" RevisionGUID="a54af1ee-f0a8-465a-be69-fa2ef25e3127" CreationDate="2019-06-25T11:26:25.970" UserId="99" Comment="added 147 characters in body" Text="The best measure for comparing lifestyles is probably the [tag:ecological-footprint]. An ecological footprint is a measure for the amount of productive land and sea area that is needed to support a particular activity, lifestyle, person, or group of people. Or more simple; it's how much space and natural resources you need to produce something or support someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of on-line ecological footprint calculators with varying quality. A short and incomplete list of calculators can be found [here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/ecological-footprint/info). &#xD;&#xA;Since most calculators are based on national data, it's best to use a calculator that was created for your country of residence if you can find it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecological footprint is a rather crude measure. The methodology uses lots of simplifications and heuristics because it's impossible to go into depth for individual products, services and personal circumstances. In any case it's the best for such a wide-scope analysis such as lifestyle. If you'd like to know more about it, I recommend visiting the [Global Footprint Network website](https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8336" RevisionGUID="5a1213a0-45bf-47e8-ab85-37ab92a340a1" CreationDate="2019-06-25T11:38:12.367" UserId="99" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="The best measure for comparing lifestyles from an ecological point of view is probably the [ecological footprint](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint). An ecological footprint is a measure for the amount of productive land and sea area that is needed to support a particular activity, lifestyle, person, or group of people. Or more simple; it's how much land you need to produce something or support someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of online ecological footprint calculators with varying quality. A short and incomplete list of calculators can be found [here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/ecological-footprint/info). &#xD;&#xA;Since most calculators are based on national data, it's best to use a calculator that was created for your country of residence if you can find it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecological footprint is a rather crude measure. The methodology uses lots of simplifications and heuristics because it's impossible to go into depth for individual products, services and personal circumstances. In any case it's the best for such a wide-scope analysis such as lifestyle. If you'd like to know more about it, I recommend visiting the [Global Footprint Network website](https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/) or check out this site's [tag:ecological-footprint] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8337" RevisionGUID="683ae91c-6fe6-48be-a117-667360400341" CreationDate="2019-06-25T13:31:17.940" UserId="6733" Text="None of my farmer friends who grow corn for a living seem to have an answer for this. After an event that wipes out all/most human life, how long would fields planted with food corn be expected to still yield crops? Would there be corn the next season if never harvested? 5 years? A decade?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I am asking as far as of this happened today, and include GMO, etc. hard numbers or percentages or estimates are acceptable)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8337" RevisionGUID="683ae91c-6fe6-48be-a117-667360400341" CreationDate="2019-06-25T13:31:17.940" UserId="6733" Text="Corn after humans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8337" RevisionGUID="683ae91c-6fe6-48be-a117-667360400341" CreationDate="2019-06-25T13:31:17.940" UserId="6733" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8338" RevisionGUID="3071aa73-65e5-462a-9839-595de5d128f5" CreationDate="2019-06-25T14:35:50.607" UserId="4834" Text="A number of factors likely influence this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corn is an annual.  A new plant grows from seed every year, produces new seed, and dies.  The seeds of the corn plant are the kernels on the ear it produces.  Potentially, each kernel can produce a new corn plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many modern corn varieties are selected for productivity under certain conditions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Herbicide applications reduce competing plants.&#xD;&#xA;  * Insecticide applications reduce the impact of damaging insects.&#xD;&#xA;  * Fungicide applications reduce the damage done by fungus.&#xD;&#xA;  * Irrigation provides the ample water required for corn to produce mature ears.&#xD;&#xA;  * Fertilization provides the nitrogen required for the significant growth that takes place each season.&#xD;&#xA;  * Tillage provides a uniform, receptive seed bed (or seed is &quot;drilled&quot; into the ground in no-till systems) and contributes to suppression of competing plants.&#xD;&#xA;  * Other human activities exclude larger pests (mammals, birds, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So modern corn varieties growing without human intervention face a number of challenges.  In its favor, a single plant can produce a significant number of seeds (assuming it can bring them to maturity) - around 800.  Somewhat counterbalancing this, modern corn varieties are not particularly successful at self re-seeding.  Further, seed from modern corn varieties is kept in dark, dry storage away from the fields where it cannot germinate and grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, first, if humans disappear outside of the growing season then what is left behind is not a corn field but an empty field (or perhaps a field sown with some cover crop).  Depending on where in the world the field is, this means there is perhaps a 50% chance that there will simply be no corn fields that can perpetuate and the answer to the question is that there will be no corn crop in any subsequent year.  However, since the growing seasons are out of phase in the northern and southern hemisphere and corn is grown in both, another way of looking at this is that you will lose all of at least one hemisphere's corn fields.  I'll naively consider this to be 50% and I'll call this &quot;seasonal failure&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you have loses due to competition, predation, fungal infection, lack of fertility, drought, and reseeding failure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how much corn can you expect in untended fields?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;    seasonal failure&#xD;&#xA;  × reseeding failure&#xD;&#xA;  × drought loss&#xD;&#xA;  × fertility loss&#xD;&#xA;  × fungal loss&#xD;&#xA;  × predation loss&#xD;&#xA;  × competition loss&#xD;&#xA;  ------------------&#xD;&#xA;  = annual seed loss proportion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    seeds per plant&#xD;&#xA;  × annual seed loss proportion&#xD;&#xA;  --------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;  = annual population growth rate&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly each of these parameters has a different value depending on site, local conditions, and yearly variations.  This gives you a framework to start making estimates, though, and perhaps answer the question for a particular site (eg what is the average annual rainfall in the particular area you're interested in?  how does this compare with the water a field receives under irrigation.  etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can play with estimates for these values to get some sense of scale, perhaps.  For example, I would guess competition, predation, fungal loss, drought loss, and seasonal failure at 50% and reseeding failure and fertility loss at 90%.  This produces a result of 800 * (1 - 0.5&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; × 0.1&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) ≈ 0.25.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggests that, on average, for every 4 corn plants in a field, you'll get 1 corn plant in the next generation.  At this rate, in the 3rd season you have around 1% as many corn plants as you started with.  At some point, a non-linear factor of pollination failure creeps in (corn plants really like to be bumping right up against their neighbor for successful pollination) and you probably get a much more dramatic falloff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind I've just made up some numbers for these different kinds of losses.  This may or may not bear any resemblance to any particular real world scenario.  I suspect better estimates are possible for fertility loss but the other factors probably vary quite wildly from case to case.  For example, you may see areas with no drought loss at all for many years at the same time other sites have complete loss due to drought.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8336" RevisionGUID="261a48c2-ab55-4ef9-88bc-5caf5fe7eaab" CreationDate="2019-06-25T14:46:45.873" UserId="99" Comment="added 121 characters in body" Text="The best measure for comparing lifestyles from an ecological point of view is probably the [ecological footprint](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint). An ecological footprint is a measure for the amount of productive land and sea area that is needed to support a particular activity, lifestyle, person, or group of people. Or more simple; it's how much land you need to produce something or support someone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a number of online ecological footprint calculators with varying quality. Most calculators target individuals or households and can be used as a rough estimate for the impact of one's lifestyle. A short and incomplete list of calculators can be found [here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/ecological-footprint/info). &#xD;&#xA;Since most calculators are based on national data, it's best to use a calculator that was created for your country of residence if you can find it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ecological footprint is a rather crude measure. The methodology uses lots of simplifications and heuristics because it's impossible to go into depth for individual products, services and personal circumstances. In any case it's the best for such a wide-scope analysis such as lifestyle. If you'd like to know more about it, I recommend visiting the [Global Footprint Network website](https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/) or check out this site's [tag:ecological-footprint] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8339" RevisionGUID="818c88e0-92d7-4a2b-8387-5f7bdd72bf2c" CreationDate="2019-06-26T00:13:42.763" UserId="6734" Text="A large nuclear power plant has a capacity of 4GW and a capacity factor of about 90%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much installed capacity of wind turbines with a capacity factor of 40% would be required to match that output? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8339" RevisionGUID="818c88e0-92d7-4a2b-8387-5f7bdd72bf2c" CreationDate="2019-06-26T00:13:42.763" UserId="6734" Text="How many square kilometres of offshore wind farms would be required to replace the closing of a 4GW nuclear power station" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8339" RevisionGUID="818c88e0-92d7-4a2b-8387-5f7bdd72bf2c" CreationDate="2019-06-26T00:13:42.763" UserId="6734" Text="|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8339" RevisionGUID="7af77587-548e-4814-b3d7-bcff8c382515" CreationDate="2019-06-26T00:41:39.063" UserId="6734" Comment="added 963 characters in body" Text="A large nuclear power plant has a capacity of 4GW and a capacity factor of about 90%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much installed capacity of wind turbines with a capacity factor of 40% would be required to match that output? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is my attempt - &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the document [&quot;Capacity Densities of European Offshore Wind Farms&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;Capacity density of a wind farm is defined as the ratio of the wind farm’s rated capacity to its ground area. Capacity density is expressed in megawatts per square kilometer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Average Europe capacity densities are in the range 5.0 - 5.4 MW/sq km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;40% capacity factors from offshore wind would be considered a good result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking these two values, the long term average power output from each square kilometer of offshore wind would be 2 - 2.16 MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To match that large nuclear power plant output of 3,600 MW would require 1800 - 1667 sq km. (694 - 640 sq miles)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Approx 1,700 sq km (656 sq miles) area to match one power station seems a lot. That's more than the area of greater London (about 1,600 sq km)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I correct, or what have I done wrong?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.msp-platform.eu/practices/capacity-densities-european-offshore-wind-farms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8338" RevisionGUID="817f1f4d-8110-48f1-bc78-b7ddd03d3097" CreationDate="2019-06-26T01:13:20.440" UserId="4834" Comment="correct math error" Text="A number of factors likely influence this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corn is an annual.  A new plant grows from seed every year, produces new seed, and dies.  The seeds of the corn plant are the kernels on the ear it produces.  Potentially, each kernel can produce a new corn plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many modern corn varieties are selected for productivity under certain conditions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  * Herbicide applications reduce competing plants.&#xD;&#xA;  * Insecticide applications reduce the impact of damaging insects.&#xD;&#xA;  * Fungicide applications reduce the damage done by fungus.&#xD;&#xA;  * Irrigation provides the ample water required for corn to produce mature ears.&#xD;&#xA;  * Fertilization provides the nitrogen required for the significant growth that takes place each season.&#xD;&#xA;  * Tillage provides a uniform, receptive seed bed (or seed is &quot;drilled&quot; into the ground in no-till systems) and contributes to suppression of competing plants.&#xD;&#xA;  * Other human activities exclude larger pests (mammals, birds, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So modern corn varieties growing without human intervention face a number of challenges.  In its favor, a single plant can produce a significant number of seeds (assuming it can bring them to maturity) - around 800.  Somewhat counterbalancing this, modern corn varieties are not particularly successful at self re-seeding.  Further, seed from modern corn varieties is kept in dark, dry storage away from the fields where it cannot germinate and grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, first, if humans disappear outside of the growing season then what is left behind is not a corn field but an empty field (or perhaps a field sown with some cover crop).  Depending on where in the world the field is, this means there is perhaps a 50% chance that there will simply be no corn fields that can perpetuate and the answer to the question is that there will be no corn crop in any subsequent year.  However, since the growing seasons are out of phase in the northern and southern hemisphere and corn is grown in both, another way of looking at this is that you will lose all of at least one hemisphere's corn fields.  I'll naively consider this to be 50% and I'll call this &quot;seasonal failure&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you have loses due to competition, predation, fungal infection, lack of fertility, drought, and reseeding failure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So how much corn can you expect in untended fields?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;    seasonal failure&#xD;&#xA;  × reseeding failure&#xD;&#xA;  × drought loss&#xD;&#xA;  × fertility loss&#xD;&#xA;  × fungal loss&#xD;&#xA;  × predation loss&#xD;&#xA;  × competition loss&#xD;&#xA;  ------------------&#xD;&#xA;  = annual seed loss proportion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    seeds per plant&#xD;&#xA;  × annual seed loss proportion&#xD;&#xA;  --------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;  = annual population growth rate&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly each of these parameters has a different value depending on site, local conditions, and yearly variations.  This gives you a framework to start making estimates, though, and perhaps answer the question for a particular site (eg what is the average annual rainfall in the particular area you're interested in?  how does this compare with the water a field receives under irrigation.  etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can play with estimates for these values to get some sense of scale, perhaps.  For example, I would guess competition, predation, fungal loss, drought loss, and seasonal failure at 50% and reseeding failure and fertility loss at 90%.  This produces a result of 800 * (0.5&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt; × 0.1&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) ≈ 0.25.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggests that, on average, for every 4 corn plants in a field, you'll get 1 corn plant in the next generation.  At this rate, in the 3rd season you have around 1% as many corn plants as you started with.  At some point, a non-linear factor of pollination failure creeps in (corn plants really like to be bumping right up against their neighbor for successful pollination) and you probably get a much more dramatic falloff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind I've just made up some numbers for these different kinds of losses.  This may or may not bear any resemblance to any particular real world scenario.  I suspect better estimates are possible for fertility loss but the other factors probably vary quite wildly from case to case.  For example, you may see areas with no drought loss at all for many years at the same time other sites have complete loss due to drought.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20494" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8341" RevisionGUID="a30df190-e5b5-4378-98a6-1f872a670ea4" CreationDate="2019-06-26T08:13:38.603" UserId="6182" Text="Current high-end windturbines (WT) produce about 4.5 MW while being about 240 m high (top of rotor tip) and with a rotor diameter of 150 m.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to the distance between the WT, rule of thumb says 5 times rotor diameter in main wind direction, 3 times orthogonally, leaving us with 750 * 450 m per WT, which is about 0.33 km². So you can (if you place the WT rather conservative, usually rule of thumb is violated by 25 %) put 3 WT on a square kilometre, giving you 13.5 MW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4000 MW / 13.5 MW/km² = 296.3 km² - which is not that much. Even if you consider your capacity factor (which to me seems a bit conservative) you end up with about 750 km² of windfarm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Also, please consider that ideally, before replacing current power plants, the demand for energy should be reduced significantly and the usage should be more efficient. Only then renewables are supposed to meet all demands - something many people tend to &quot;forget&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20495" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7222" RevisionGUID="0c2b88f2-8eb8-4166-81d1-cbab95fd3fb0" CreationDate="2019-06-26T12:00:26.413" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1143851510553616385" />
  <row Id="20499" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8339" RevisionGUID="910a100d-4a18-4050-980f-68e52ac4fcf0" CreationDate="2019-06-28T06:00:27.613" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1144485695324479488" />
  <row Id="20501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8342" RevisionGUID="6a131121-0515-4c0e-9a34-2912d57268ee" CreationDate="2019-06-28T13:54:13.107" UserId="6602" Text="May I suggest measuring the financial cost of such lifestyles and the cost of offsetting any CO2 emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example whilst electric cars have about 10% larger CO2 footprint from manufacturing that internal combustion cars, the electric car energy has a CO2 footprint per mile about a third of that of an internal combustion vehicle per mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars are however about three times more expensive than secondhand internal combustion vehicles. If you had enough money to buy an electric car, but instead bought a secondhand diesel and spent all your left over money on carbon off-sets, it would be enough to offset driving a few million miles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If both the electric car driver and the diesel car driver paid to offset any CO2 emissions and be carbon neutral all the way through, then you'd have to drive the electric car for over 150,000 miles before it becomes more cost effective than a petrol car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same logic can be applied to your central heating. The cost to run and CO2 offset a combi gas boiler is less than the cost to run and offset a woodpellet boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its the subtle difference between being having a low carbon lifestyle and a carbon neutral lifestyle. Its expensive to take the low carbon options, and its cheap to choose the higher carbon option and pay to offset." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8342" RevisionGUID="cb40fcce-5d25-4c1f-b644-f1040a6454d0" CreationDate="2019-07-01T08:28:37.353" UserId="6602" Comment="provides costing" Text="May I suggest measuring the financial cost of such lifestyles and the cost of offsetting any CO2 emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example whilst electric cars have about 10% larger CO2 footprint from manufacturing that internal combustion cars, the electric car energy has a CO2 footprint per mile about a third of that of an internal combustion vehicle per mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars are however about three times more expensive than secondhand internal combustion vehicles. If you had enough money to buy an electric car, but instead bought a secondhand diesel and spent all your left over money on carbon off-sets, it would be enough to offset driving a few million miles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If both the electric car driver and the diesel car driver paid to offset any CO2 emissions and be carbon neutral all the way through, then you'd have to drive the electric car for over 150,000 miles before it becomes more cost effective than a petrol car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same logic can be applied to your central heating. The cost to run and CO2 offset a combi gas boiler is less than the cost to run and offset a woodpellet boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its the subtle difference between being having a low carbon lifestyle and a carbon neutral lifestyle. Its expensive to take the low carbon options, and its cheap to choose the higher carbon option and pay to offset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit&#xD;&#xA;I'll cost it out, you may find different values in your own region and for different car preferences, I'm in the UK, these costs are accurate for me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Costs for an electric car&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Purchase cost £25,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing CO2 emissions 15,000Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost of offset manufacturing £150&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy for 400 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars seem to average around 22kWh for 100 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;400 miles would be around 96kWh which is about £12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UK electricity generation Carbon intensity today is 0.132 Kg per kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 12.7 Kg in CO2 emission to travel 400 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To offset 12.7 Kg costs around £0.13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy for 160,000 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Four times the above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;38,400 kWh energy costs £4,915&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO2 emissions 5,069 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost to offset £44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total cost to buy and drive 160,000 in an electric car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£30,109&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost for a petrol secondhand car&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Purchase £2,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing 12,000 Kg CO2 (although if you are re-using someone else's car you might consider the manufacturing costs to be amortised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing CO2 offset cost £120&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;400 miles energy costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;40 litre full tank £45 (I filled up this morning so this is accurate)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO2 emissions for 40 litres 92.4 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost to offset CO2 for 400 miles £0.92&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;160,000 miles energy costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£18,000 petrol cost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;36,960 Kg CO2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£368 to offset CO2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total cost to buy and drive 160,000 in an petrol car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£20,488&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electric car is 50% more expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't considered maintenance costs, it might be that the petrol car is £10,000 more expensive. But considering it only cost £2,000 to buy, this is unlikely. Furthermore electric car batteries ought to be replaced after 50,000 miles which is a cost that hasn't been included.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8342" RevisionGUID="f0e45e37-b978-46c3-b443-769a8a9a472d" CreationDate="2019-07-01T09:09:51.343" UserId="6602" Comment="added 617 characters in body" Text="May I suggest measuring the financial cost of such lifestyles and the cost of offsetting any CO2 emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example whilst electric cars have about 10% larger CO2 footprint from manufacturing that internal combustion cars, the electric car energy has a CO2 footprint per mile about a third of that of an internal combustion vehicle per mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars are however about three times more expensive than secondhand internal combustion vehicles. If you had enough money to buy an electric car, but instead bought a secondhand diesel and spent all your left over money on carbon off-sets, it would be enough to offset driving a few million miles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If both the electric car driver and the diesel car driver paid to offset any CO2 emissions and be carbon neutral all the way through, then you'd have to drive the electric car for over 150,000 miles before it becomes more cost effective than a petrol car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same logic can be applied to your central heating. The cost to run and CO2 offset a combi gas boiler is less than the cost to run and offset a woodpellet boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its the subtle difference between being having a low carbon lifestyle and a carbon neutral lifestyle. Its expensive to take the low carbon options, and its cheap to choose the higher carbon option and pay to offset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit&#xD;&#xA;I'll cost it out, you may find different values in your own region and for different car preferences, I'm in the UK, these costs are accurate for me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Costs for an electric car&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Purchase cost £25,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing CO2 emissions 15,000Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost of offset manufacturing £150&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy for 400 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars seem to average around 22kWh for 100 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;400 miles would be around 96kWh which is about £12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UK electricity generation Carbon intensity today is 0.132 Kg per kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 12.7 Kg in CO2 emission to travel 400 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To offset 12.7 Kg costs around £0.13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy for 160,000 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Four times the above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;38,400 kWh energy costs £4,915&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO2 emissions 5,069 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost to offset £44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total cost to buy and drive 160,000 in an electric car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£30,109&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost for a petrol secondhand car&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Purchase £2,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing 12,000 Kg CO2 (although if you are re-using someone else's car you might consider the manufacturing costs to be amortised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing CO2 offset cost £120&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;400 miles energy costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;40 litre full tank £45 (I filled up this morning so this is accurate)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO2 emissions for 40 litres 92.4 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost to offset CO2 for 400 miles £0.92&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;160,000 miles energy costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£18,000 petrol cost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;36,960 Kg CO2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£368 to offset CO2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total cost to buy and drive 160,000 in an petrol car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£20,488&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electric car is 50% more expensive even after 160,000 miles, it would take years to drive that sort of distance. Furthermore, the £10,000 cost difference takes a significant amount of employment to pay for. Median wage in the UK is around £29,000, you could get the cheaper car and work four months less to reduce your CO2 footprint, no commuting for a third of a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't considered maintenance costs, it might be that the petrol car is £10,000 more expensive. But considering it only cost £2,000 to buy, this is unlikely. Furthermore electric car batteries ought to be replaced after 50,000 miles which is a cost that hasn't been included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also not considered is the re-sale value of the vehicles, if the colleague in the question sells their car every two years, then you can add back in the re-sale value, but I doubt it makes much of a difference compared to a secondhand car that costs less than tenth of the new car." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8342" RevisionGUID="13037b79-e9c4-4743-a3e5-9b63953349b2" CreationDate="2019-07-01T09:15:32.000" UserId="6602" Comment="Added re-sale considerations" Text="May I suggest measuring the financial cost of such lifestyles and the cost of offsetting any CO2 emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example whilst electric cars have about 10% larger CO2 footprint from manufacturing that internal combustion cars, the electric car energy has a CO2 footprint per mile about a third of that of an internal combustion vehicle per mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars are however about three times more expensive than secondhand internal combustion vehicles. If you had enough money to buy an electric car, but instead bought a secondhand diesel and spent all your left over money on carbon off-sets, it would be enough to offset driving a few million miles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If both the electric car driver and the diesel car driver paid to offset any CO2 emissions and be carbon neutral all the way through, then you'd have to drive the electric car for over 150,000 miles before it becomes more cost effective than a petrol car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same logic can be applied to your central heating. The cost to run and CO2 offset a combi gas boiler is less than the cost to run and offset a woodpellet boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its the subtle difference between being having a low carbon lifestyle and a carbon neutral lifestyle. Its expensive to take the low carbon options, and its cheap to choose the higher carbon option and pay to offset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit&#xD;&#xA;I'll cost it out, you may find different values in your own region and for different car preferences, I'm in the UK, these costs are accurate for me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Costs for an electric car&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Purchase cost £25,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing CO2 emissions 15,000Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost of offset manufacturing £150&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy for 400 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars seem to average around 22kWh for 100 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;400 miles would be around 96kWh which is about £12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UK electricity generation Carbon intensity today is 0.132 Kg per kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 12.7 Kg in CO2 emission to travel 400 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To offset 12.7 Kg costs around £0.13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy for 160,000 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Four times the above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;38,400 kWh energy costs £4,915&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO2 emissions 5,069 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost to offset £44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total cost to buy and drive 160,000 in an electric car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£30,109&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost for a petrol secondhand car&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Purchase £2,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing 12,000 Kg CO2 (although if you are re-using someone else's car you might consider the manufacturing costs to be amortised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing CO2 offset cost £120&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;400 miles energy costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;40 litre full tank £45 (I filled up this morning so this is accurate)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO2 emissions for 40 litres 92.4 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost to offset CO2 for 400 miles £0.92&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;160,000 miles energy costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£18,000 petrol cost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;36,960 Kg CO2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£368 to offset CO2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total cost to buy and drive 160,000 in an petrol car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£20,488&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electric car is 50% more expensive even after 160,000 miles, it would take years to drive that sort of distance. Furthermore, the £10,000 cost difference takes a significant amount of employment to pay for. Median wage in the UK is around £29,000, you could get the cheaper car and work four months less to reduce your CO2 footprint, no commuting for a third of a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't considered maintenance costs, it might be that the petrol car is £10,000 more expensive. But considering it only cost £2,000 to buy, this is unlikely. Furthermore electric car batteries ought to be replaced after 50,000 miles which is a cost that hasn't been included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also not considered is the re-sale value of the vehicles, if the colleague in the question sells their car every two years. I understand the resale value of electric cars varies between 30% and 60%, suppose we use 50% and for the second hand petrol car, its a scrapper with no resale value. Considering fuel costs and resale value for changing the car after two years the total costs would be:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric £13,650&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Petrol £5,800&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You still have to work £8,000 more to pay for the low carbon option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8342" RevisionGUID="e4fe2f00-7a28-43c5-8868-503bfb980009" CreationDate="2019-07-01T09:55:52.043" UserId="6602" Comment="Added re-sale considerations" Text="May I suggest measuring the financial cost of such lifestyles and the cost of offsetting any CO2 emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example whilst electric cars have about 10% larger CO2 footprint from manufacturing that internal combustion cars, the electric car energy has a CO2 footprint per mile about a third of that of an internal combustion vehicle per mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars are however about three times more expensive than secondhand internal combustion vehicles. If you had enough money to buy an electric car, but instead bought a secondhand diesel and spent all your left over money on carbon off-sets, it would be enough to offset driving a few million miles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If both the electric car driver and the diesel car driver paid to offset any CO2 emissions and be carbon neutral all the way through, then you'd have to drive the electric car for over 150,000 miles before it becomes more cost effective than a petrol car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same logic can be applied to your central heating. The cost to run and CO2 offset a combi gas boiler is less than the cost to run and offset a woodpellet boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its the subtle difference between being having a low carbon lifestyle and a carbon neutral lifestyle. Its expensive to take the low carbon options, and its cheap to choose the higher carbon option and pay to offset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit&#xD;&#xA;I'll cost it out, you may find different values in your own region and for different car preferences, I'm in the UK, these costs are accurate for me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Costs for an electric car&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Purchase cost £25,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing CO2 emissions 15,000Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost of offset manufacturing £150&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy for 400 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars seem to average around 22kWh for 100 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;400 miles would be around 96kWh which is about £12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UK electricity generation Carbon intensity today is 0.132 Kg per kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 12.7 Kg in CO2 emission to travel 400 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To offset 12.7 Kg costs around £0.13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy for 160,000 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Four times the above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;38,400 kWh energy costs £4,915&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO2 emissions 5,069 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost to offset £44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total cost to buy and drive 160,000 in an electric car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£30,109&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost for a petrol secondhand car&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Purchase £2,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing 12,000 Kg CO2 (although if you are re-using someone else's car you might consider the manufacturing costs to be amortised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing CO2 offset cost £120&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;400 miles energy costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;40 litre full tank £45 (I filled up this morning so this is accurate)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO2 emissions for 40 litres 92.4 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost to offset CO2 for 400 miles £0.92&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;160,000 miles energy costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£18,000 petrol cost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;36,960 Kg CO2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£368 to offset CO2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total cost to buy and drive 160,000 in an petrol car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£20,488&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electric car is 50% more expensive even after 160,000 miles, it would take years to drive that sort of distance. Furthermore, the £10,000 cost difference takes a significant amount of employment to pay for. Median wage in the UK is around £29,000, you could get the cheaper car and work four months less to reduce your CO2 footprint, no commuting for a third of a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't considered maintenance costs, it might be that the petrol car is £10,000 more expensive. But considering it only cost £2,000 to buy, this is unlikely. Furthermore electric car batteries ought to be replaced after 50,000 miles which is a cost that hasn't been included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also not considered is the re-sale value of the vehicles, if the colleague in the question sells their car every two years. I understand the resale value of electric cars varies between 30% and 60%, suppose we use 50% and for the second hand petrol car, its a scrapper with no resale value. Considering fuel costs and resale value for changing the car after two years the total costs would be:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric £13,650&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Petrol £5,800&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You still have to work £8,000 more to pay for the low carbon option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Boilers&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;This [page at the Energy Saving Trust][1] suggests that wood pellet biofuel heating is £9 to £89 more expensive to run per year compared to an old gas boiler. If you had a new A rated gas boiler the wood pellet is up to £798 more expensive to run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article suggests that installation such a biofuel heating system is between £8,000 and £15,000. A 40-year old gas boiler has zero installation costs, maybe maintenance costs of a hundred or so a year, maybe not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article suggests at best, depending on the CO2 footprint calculation, a wood pellet bio fuel system uses 7.5 tonnes of CO2 less per year than the most gas heating. In order to offset that you'd have to pay £75 per year, which is easily payable out of the savings from having a more efficient gas boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/renewable-energy/heat/biomass" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8342" RevisionGUID="1e226b91-d760-4527-850c-0b8cc74db87d" CreationDate="2019-07-01T13:56:50.467" UserId="6602" Comment="added 163 characters in body" Text="May I suggest measuring the financial cost of such lifestyles and the cost of offsetting any CO2 emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example whilst electric cars have about 10% larger CO2 footprint from manufacturing that internal combustion cars, the electric car energy has a CO2 footprint per mile about a third of that of an internal combustion vehicle per mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars are however about three times more expensive than secondhand internal combustion vehicles. If you had enough money to buy an electric car, but instead bought a secondhand diesel and spent all your left over money on carbon off-sets, it would be enough to offset driving a few million miles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If both the electric car driver and the diesel car driver paid to offset any CO2 emissions and be carbon neutral all the way through, then you'd have to drive the electric car for over 150,000 miles before it becomes more cost effective than a petrol car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same logic can be applied to your central heating. The cost to run and CO2 offset a combi gas boiler is less than the cost to run and offset a woodpellet boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Its the subtle difference between being having a low carbon lifestyle and a carbon neutral lifestyle. Its expensive to take the low carbon options, and its cheap to choose the higher carbon option and pay to offset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit&#xD;&#xA;I'll cost it out, you may find different values in your own region and for different car preferences, I'm in the UK, these costs are accurate for me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Costs for an electric car&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Purchase cost £25,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing CO2 emissions 15,000Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost of offset manufacturing £150&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy for 400 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars seem to average around 22kWh for 100 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;400 miles would be around 96kWh which is about £12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UK electricity generation Carbon intensity today is 0.132 Kg per kWh (this is low for the UK, usually its around 0.280 Kg per kWh, by contrast Norway gets 0.034 Kg per kWh and the USA is around 0.500 Kg per kWh)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 12.7 Kg in CO2 emission to travel 400 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To offset 12.7 Kg costs around £0.13&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy for 160,000 miles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Four hundred times the above values&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;38,400 kWh electricty costing £4,915&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO2 emissions 5,069 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost to offset £44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total cost to buy and drive 160,000 in an electric car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£30,109&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost for a petrol secondhand car&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;Purchase £2,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing 12,000 Kg CO2 (although if you are re-using someone else's car you might consider the manufacturing costs to be amortised)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing CO2 offset cost £120&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;400 miles energy costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;40 litre full tank £45 (I filled up this morning so this is accurate)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CO2 emissions for 40 litres 92.4 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cost to offset CO2 for 400 miles £0.92&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;160,000 miles energy costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£18,000 petrol cost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;36,960 Kg CO2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£368 to offset CO2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total cost to buy and drive 160,000 in a petrol car&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;£20,488&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electric car is 50% more expensive even after 160,000 miles, it would take years to drive that sort of distance. Furthermore, the £10,000 cost difference takes a significant amount of employment to pay for. Median wage in the UK is around £29,000, you could get the cheaper car and work four months less to reduce your CO2 footprint, no commuting for a third of a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't considered maintenance costs, it might be that the petrol car is £10,000 more expensive. But considering it only cost £2,000 to buy, this is unlikely. Furthermore electric car batteries ought to be replaced after 50,000 miles which is a cost that hasn't been included.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also not considered is the re-sale value of the vehicles, if the colleague in the question sells their car every two years. I understand the resale value of electric cars varies between 30% and 60%, suppose we use 50% and for the second hand petrol car, its a scrapper with no resale value. Considering fuel costs and resale value for changing the car after two years the total costs would be:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric £13,650&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Petrol £5,800&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You still have to work £8,000 more to pay for the low carbon option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Boilers&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;This [page at the Energy Saving Trust][1] suggests that wood pellet biofuel heating is £9 to £89 more expensive to run per year compared to an old gas boiler. If you had a new A rated gas boiler the wood pellet is up to £798 more expensive to run.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article suggests that installation such a biofuel heating system is between £8,000 and £15,000. A 40-year old gas boiler has zero installation costs, maybe maintenance costs of a hundred or so a year, maybe not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article suggests at best, depending on the CO2 footprint calculation, a wood pellet bio fuel system uses 7.5 tonnes of CO2 less per year than the most gas heating. In order to offset that you'd have to pay £75 per year, which is easily payable out of the savings from having a more efficient gas boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/renewable-energy/heat/biomass" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20508" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8343" RevisionGUID="46a38102-167a-4605-9a42-5d8db8e1a255" CreationDate="2019-07-01T14:00:47.617" UserId="4155" Text="As others have said, there isn't a single place to look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the cars, however, &quot;[NextGreenCar][1]&quot; has a comparison tool you can use. Using your figures of 100 miles a week (so 62,400 miles over your 12 year old car's lifespan), and my own 14 year old Diesel car and a new Kia e-Niro replaced every 2 years for comparison:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diesel: Car 2.65T, Fuel 3.7T, Tailpipe 16.98T, total 23.33T/co2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric replaced every 2 years: Car 4.61T x 6, Fuel 5.75T, total 33.41T/co2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric kept for 12 years: Car 4.61m Fuel 5.75, total 10.37T/co2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course that's not really a fair comparison, as the second-hand EVs would be sold on and not scrapped after those two years - but it does show that the manufacture is a huge part of the total environmental cost of the car, and so while new EV vs new IC is obvious, it's less so for new EV vs old IC. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nextgreencar.com/tools/emissions-calculator/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20512" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8335" RevisionGUID="8783bea5-0edd-464a-b7cc-2fca121d3eba" CreationDate="2019-07-02T00:00:32.663" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1145844669915566080" />
  <row Id="20513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8345" RevisionGUID="50dd5ee3-b9a8-4dfc-9ccd-e820f3470c0c" CreationDate="2019-07-02T04:28:09.190" UserId="6750" Text="How about silicone bags which are reusable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20514" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7177" RevisionGUID="405cd76c-7fad-4d04-b5df-695fead8a370" CreationDate="2019-07-02T06:00:31.430" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1145935261727113216" />
  <row Id="20515" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="8345" RevisionGUID="755a359b-cc4a-4663-8fde-c1acd72a2404" CreationDate="2019-07-02T07:31:58.000" UserId="99" Comment="57" />
  <row Id="20517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8346" RevisionGUID="42ecc14a-bad0-4865-b6c4-cd212f428008" CreationDate="2019-07-03T18:39:40.333" UserId="6640" Text="Both my wife and I avoid eating yolk (as much as possible). I know I can find some uses for raw yolk but I am not sure if the yolk from boiled eggs can be put to good use, other than forms that involve eating them (directly or indirectly).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While at it I'd like advice on putting to good use the raw yolks too. We eat about 30 eggs in a week. One of the challenges would also be storage before processing them in any way. Thoughts and ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have container based plants (avocadoes, tomatoes, peppers, flowers) and so gardening uses are welcome too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20518" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8346" RevisionGUID="42ecc14a-bad0-4865-b6c4-cd212f428008" CreationDate="2019-07-03T18:39:40.333" UserId="6640" Text="How could I use egg yolk from boiled eggs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20519" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8346" RevisionGUID="42ecc14a-bad0-4865-b6c4-cd212f428008" CreationDate="2019-07-03T18:39:40.333" UserId="6640" Text="|composting|waste-minimisation|biodegradable-waste|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8347" RevisionGUID="dcfd581a-4361-44f3-a755-9af04f28804d" CreationDate="2019-07-04T04:50:44.100" UserId="6755" Text="**No, the metal layer would contaminate the paper; paper is recycled to become paper again. Too much time and effort to separate the two materials!**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20521" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8347" RevisionGUID="2df2ed1b-2ad2-4b03-bfcd-581f77de8e80" CreationDate="2019-07-04T07:23:51.853" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Unneccessary boldface" Text="No, the metal layer would contaminate the paper; paper is recycled to become paper again. It would take too much time and effort to separate the two materials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8348" RevisionGUID="715831bf-dcb4-476d-91d8-e0f569e7d019" CreationDate="2019-07-04T23:04:11.410" UserId="6757" Text="So, here's a breakdown of the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Situation:** In the next month or two I will be moving house to a new-build detached house in the UK, which is on an estate of around 100 similar such properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Problem:** I know I don't have to lecture this forum, but for the sake of making the question as clear-cut as possible; The construction of large housing estates on green-belt land has profound effects on your local and regional environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Decreased drainage (of precipitation), due to an increase of impermeable surfaces (roads, roofs, pathways, etc)&#xD;&#xA; - Change in land usage and soil composition and structure (unsettled soil, imported turf)&#xD;&#xA; - Increased atmospheric pollutant from resident's vehicles, boilers, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Mission:** To reduce, offset, or eliminate the impacts of new-build housing on the local environment in the most cost-effective and conventional ways possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Consider:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Answers should involve ways in which ordinary people can get involved in living a more sustainable lifestyle.&#xD;&#xA; - This particular set of properties are already rather energy efficient. Supplied appliances are rated A, insulation is well-packed, and heat-loss values are low.&#xD;&#xA; - To simply say &quot;don't live in new-builds on greenbelt&quot;, while it is certainly a way to live more sustainably, doesn't help people who are in this situation.&#xD;&#xA; - Most new-build homes in the UK are all-electric (with the exception of gas boilers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My Suggestions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Provide a large area of permeable, well-maintained, and high-nutrient value soil. That is to say, less paving, more turf and bare earth, in the garden areas. Try to keep the soil in good-health by providing it with decaying leaves, and our own supply of compost.&#xD;&#xA; - The usage of a Smart Electricity Meter can be useful (where your provider supplies them). You can measure your current energy usage and its cost. This would allow you to formulate the peak/trough of energy usage, and if your lowest-level can be reduced any further (devices on standby, unnecessary powered electronics overnight, etc)&#xD;&#xA; - Ensure that when the central heating is on, that all windows and doors are secured, in order to get the greatest heat gain from the slightest fuel burn.&#xD;&#xA; - Consider using renewable (full or part) energy suppliers. Suppliers vary from region to region. For anyone living in the UK, OVO Energy is a good bet. Although you'll find its more expensive for larger households." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20523" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8348" RevisionGUID="715831bf-dcb4-476d-91d8-e0f569e7d019" CreationDate="2019-07-04T23:04:11.410" UserId="6757" Text="Reducing/Offsetting Impact of New-Build Home" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20524" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8348" RevisionGUID="715831bf-dcb4-476d-91d8-e0f569e7d019" CreationDate="2019-07-04T23:04:11.410" UserId="6757" Text="|home|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8349" RevisionGUID="63e67a84-108d-42d7-ab88-19e104f2311d" CreationDate="2019-07-05T03:08:46.017" UserId="4886" Text="If one's desire is to &quot;To reduce, offset, or eliminate the impacts of new-build housing on the local environment in the most cost-effective and conventional ways possible&quot; then this should be done in the planning/design/construction phases of a new development/build.  Once the development/build is complete, it is too late — far too late — to do anything that will have a meaningful impact.  The environmental damage/debt is too large.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that &quot;In the next month or two I will be moving house to a new-build&quot; it sounds like all the decisions have already been made, and all the environmental damage has either been caused or locked-in.  There is no way to rectify design failures in a &quot;cost-effective&quot; manner at this point.  It would seem that you are attempting to close the gate after the horse has bolted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are, essentially, now in a position where you are moving into a development that probably paid no attention to environmental cost whatsoever (precious few of them do), and are becoming the owner/occupier of a new building with minimal environmental credentials (well insulated, a-rated appliances).  Because you can't go back in time and redesign the development, or redesign the house, the only way to try and 'make up' for the damage that has already been caused/locked-in is to look forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the fact that it's a greenfield development is irrelevant.  You can't undo or change that.  You are 'just' an aware individual who now recognises that their existence on this planet, and the choices that they have made have, do, and will continue to cause damage that impacts on other forms of life.  Your value system drives you to minimise this damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question, therefore, probably can be simplified to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;My house is all-electric, well-insulated, and all my appliances are A-rated for energy efficiency.  What can I do to live a more sustainable life?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is a very broad question, and one that you should narrow down to make it easier to answer.  Instead of one broad question, perhaps it would be better to ask multiple, more specific questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is it worth getting a &quot;Smart Meter&quot; for an all-electric house?  Given that they were invented to allow utilities to charge customers more money in conjunction with Time-Of-Use plans, is it actually in my best interest to install one?  Can I monitor my consumption in some other way?&#xD;&#xA; - I have [this type of] central heating.  How can I modify my behaviour to make most efficient use of the heat it provides?&#xD;&#xA; - I'm considering OVO Energy to supply my electricity here in [region].  Their [plan name] with [plan features] seems like it would let me get a decent fraction of the energy I need from renewable sources without breaking the bank.  Anyone found a cheaper source of green electrons for an all-electric house?&#xD;&#xA; - I recognise that lawns are basically a desolate wasteland when it comes to biodiversity.  What can I do with my [X]m² back yard that will support local ecosystems?  My climate is [climateType].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many such/similar questions have already been asked in this forum.  Skimming question titles or using the search might reveal them.  If not, create a new question.  Narrow-focus questions with meaningful keywords in the title make life easier for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I will offer at least one suggestion:  You haven't described what sort of features make your house &quot;energy efficient&quot;, so you may already have chosen your windows.  If not, may I strongly suggest thermally-broken double-glazing with a low-e coat on the third surface and an argon filled cavity?  They are absolutely wonderful and will help plug the otherwise massive thermal holes that exist in the walls of your home.  The real-world thermal performance of a building is only as good as the weakest point in the thermal envelope." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20526" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8349" RevisionGUID="a60dbcc0-fd5a-4327-b5b1-6bd825760498" CreationDate="2019-07-05T03:14:53.230" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="If one's desire is to &quot;To reduce, offset, or eliminate the impacts of new-build housing on the local environment in the most cost-effective and conventional ways possible&quot; then this should be done in the planning/design/construction phases of a new development/build.  Once the development/build is complete, it is too late — far too late — to do anything that will have a meaningful impact.  The environmental damage/debt is too large.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that &quot;In the next month or two I will be moving house to a new-build&quot; it sounds like all the decisions have already been made, and all the environmental damage has either been caused or locked-in.  There is no way to rectify design failures in a &quot;cost-effective&quot; manner at this point.  It would seem that you are attempting to close the gate after the horse has bolted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are, essentially, now in a position where you are moving into a development that probably paid no attention to environmental cost whatsoever (precious few of them do), and are becoming the owner/occupier of a new building with minimal environmental credentials (well insulated, a-rated appliances).  Because you can't go back in time and redesign the development, or redesign the house, the only way to try and 'make up' for the damage that has already been caused/locked-in is to look forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the fact that it's a greenfield development is irrelevant.  You can't undo or change that.  You are 'just' an aware individual who now recognises that their existence on this planet, and the choices that they have made have, do, and will continue to cause damage that impacts on other forms of life.  Your value system drives you to minimise this damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question, therefore, probably can be simplified to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;My (all-electric) house is well-insulated, and all my appliances are A-rated for energy efficiency.  What can I do to live a more sustainable life?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is a very broad question, and one that you should narrow down to make it easier to answer.  Instead of one broad question, perhaps it would be better to ask multiple, more specific questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is it worth getting a &quot;Smart Meter&quot; for an all-electric house?  Given that they were invented to allow utilities to charge customers more money in conjunction with Time-Of-Use plans, is it actually in my best interest to install one?  Can I monitor my consumption in some other way?&#xD;&#xA; - I have [this type of] central heating.  How can I modify my behaviour to make most efficient use of the heat it provides?&#xD;&#xA; - I'm considering OVO Energy to supply my electricity here in [region].  Their [plan name] with [plan features] seems like it would let me get a decent fraction of the energy I need from renewable sources without breaking the bank.  Anyone found a cheaper source of green electrons for an all-electric house?&#xD;&#xA; - I recognise that lawns are basically a desolate wasteland when it comes to biodiversity.  What can I do with my [X]m² back yard that will support local ecosystems?  My climate is [climateType].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many such/similar questions have already been asked in this forum.  Skimming question titles or using the search might reveal them.  If not, create a new question.  Narrow-focus questions with meaningful keywords in the title make life easier for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I will offer at least one suggestion:  You haven't described what sort of features make your house &quot;energy efficient&quot;, so you may already have chosen your windows.  If not, may I strongly suggest thermally-broken double-glazing with a low-e coat on the third surface and an argon-filled cavity?  They are absolutely wonderful and will help plug the otherwise massive thermal holes that exist in the walls of your home.  The real-world thermal performance of a building is only as good as the weakest point in the thermal envelope." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8350" RevisionGUID="270ea2ef-4d34-4cb3-a042-5228a3f2999c" CreationDate="2019-07-05T13:12:30.320" UserId="48" Text="Your figures are a bit out, but broadly in the right area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;90% capacity factor is probably optimistic, but some jurisdictions have achieved it. [The global average in 2018 was 81%][1], but that's an overestimate, due to the way that reactors on long-term shutdown are handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your offshore windfarm power yields per unit surface areas are a bit pessimistic. From calculations I did elsewhere, [Denmark][2]'s offshore windfarms yield 2.2-3.3 W/m², averaging 2.6. [Germany][3]'s yield 2.1-4.1, averaging 2.9. And the [UK][4] yields 1.4-5.7, averaging 2.6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a 4GW nuke, 81% capacity factor, and 2.6 W/m², we get 1,246 km². Or roughly, a square that's 35.3km along the side. That's really not much - the sea is a very big place - and remember, almost all that sea is just area between turbines - very little of the seabed would be occupied. If we take a 45% capacity factor for offshore wind, it's an installed capacity of 7.22 GW, or 722 turbines each at 10 MW capacity. This is an eminently achievable engineering task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Offshore wind does also have the virtue of being much [cheaper][5] now, per unit of electricity delivered, than [nuclear][6]; it also gets delivered [on time and on or under budget][7]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/b392d1cd-f7d2-4d54-9355-9a65f71a3419/performance-report.pdf.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://energynumbers.info/capacity-factors-at-danish-offshore-wind-farms&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://energynumbers.info/germanys-offshore-wind-capacity-factors&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds?title=&amp;technology_type=77&amp;applicant_name=&amp;comm_date_from=&amp;target_comm_date_to=&amp;unique_id=&amp;agreement_type=All&amp;field_cfd_strikeprice=2&amp;allocation_round=All&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds?title=&amp;technology_type=83&amp;applicant_name=&amp;comm_date_from=&amp;target_comm_date_to=&amp;unique_id=&amp;agreement_type=All&amp;field_cfd_strikeprice=All&amp;allocation_round=All&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/energy/renewable-energy/press-release/sse/103930/offshore-construction-completed-scotlands" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8350" RevisionGUID="9c4d5ba2-74a7-4871-a362-23a7b85cdfcc" CreationDate="2019-07-05T13:31:13.797" UserId="48" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Your figures are a bit out, but broadly in the right area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;90% capacity factor is probably optimistic, but some jurisdictions have achieved it. [The global average in 2018 was 81%][1], but that's an overestimate, due to the way that reactors on long-term shutdown are handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your offshore windfarm power yields per unit surface areas are a bit pessimistic. From calculations I did elsewhere, [Denmark][2]'s offshore windfarms yield 2.2-3.3 W/m², averaging 2.6. [Germany][3]'s yield 2.1-4.1, averaging 2.9. And the [UK][4] yields 1.4-5.7, averaging 2.6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a 4GW nuke, 81% capacity factor, and 2.6 W/m², we get **1,246 km²**. Or roughly, a square that's 35.3km along the side. That's really not much - the sea is a very big place - and remember, almost all that sea is just area between turbines - very little of the seabed would be occupied. If we take a 45% capacity factor for offshore wind, it's an installed capacity of 7.22 GW, or 722 turbines each at 10 MW capacity. This is an eminently achievable engineering task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Offshore wind does also have the virtue of being much [cheaper][5] now, per unit of electricity delivered, than [nuclear][6]; it also gets delivered [on time and on or under budget][7]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/b392d1cd-f7d2-4d54-9355-9a65f71a3419/performance-report.pdf.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://energynumbers.info/capacity-factors-at-danish-offshore-wind-farms&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://energynumbers.info/germanys-offshore-wind-capacity-factors&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds?title=&amp;technology_type=77&amp;applicant_name=&amp;comm_date_from=&amp;target_comm_date_to=&amp;unique_id=&amp;agreement_type=All&amp;field_cfd_strikeprice=2&amp;allocation_round=All&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds?title=&amp;technology_type=83&amp;applicant_name=&amp;comm_date_from=&amp;target_comm_date_to=&amp;unique_id=&amp;agreement_type=All&amp;field_cfd_strikeprice=All&amp;allocation_round=All&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/energy/renewable-energy/press-release/sse/103930/offshore-construction-completed-scotlands" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8351" RevisionGUID="6faffb3b-fd1a-401c-84a0-745886bf4786" CreationDate="2019-07-05T16:42:58.787" UserId="6760" Text="I’m looking for a source for a methanol generator.  Google is not helping.  If nobody makes them, maybe a good solid methanol motor could be attached to a generator.  Please help me if you have knowledge of this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20530" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8351" RevisionGUID="6faffb3b-fd1a-401c-84a0-745886bf4786" CreationDate="2019-07-05T16:42:58.787" UserId="6760" Text="Where can I get an methanol generator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20531" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8351" RevisionGUID="6faffb3b-fd1a-401c-84a0-745886bf4786" CreationDate="2019-07-05T16:42:58.787" UserId="6760" Text="|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8352" RevisionGUID="21de7320-3182-469b-aa5c-a96e004d5ee4" CreationDate="2019-07-06T11:28:44.033" UserId="99" Text="First of all &quot;shopping questions&quot; are off-topic on this website because answers are highly subjective with everyone wanting to contribute their favorite product. Also these answers tend to becoming spam magnets. That's why I won't provide any links to actual products here but instead explain what you are probably looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect you are using the incorrect search terms; strictly speaking a methanol generator would be a device that generates methanol from some other substance. You probably want to search for &quot;[methanol fuel cell](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=methanol+fuel+cell)&quot;, optionally  with the output level you require, or where you intend to use it (a mobile home, a boat?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most fuel cells you'll find on the internet are [Direct Methanol Fuel Cells (a.k.a. DFMCs)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_methanol_fuel_cell), ranging from from a few micro-Watt output up to 100 Watts or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't say anything about why you want to use methanol for electricity generation, or where the methanol is coming from. Although methanol can be synthesized from renewable resources, it is often derived from fossil fuels so the solution you have in mind may not be the most sustainable one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20534" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8351" RevisionGUID="5eed40b8-4b4c-4bdf-84c8-74d197e870fb" CreationDate="2019-07-06T11:29:40.127" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20535" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8351" RevisionGUID="5eed40b8-4b4c-4bdf-84c8-74d197e870fb" CreationDate="2019-07-06T11:29:40.127" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="Where can I get a methanol generator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8352" RevisionGUID="2ef19842-7e7e-49bd-a143-b90cf0317203" CreationDate="2019-07-06T17:27:24.417" UserId="99" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="First of all &quot;shopping questions&quot; are off-topic on this website because answers are highly subjective with everyone wanting to contribute their favorite product. Also these answers tend to becoming spam magnets. That's why I won't provide any links to actual products here but instead provide some pointers that will help you search.&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect you are using the incorrect search terms; strictly speaking a methanol generator would be a device that generates methanol from some other substance. You probably want to search for &quot;[buy methanol fuel cell](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buy+methanol+fuel+cell)&quot;, optionally  with the output level you require, or where you intend to use it (a mobile home, a boat?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most fuel cells you'll find on the internet are [Direct Methanol Fuel Cells (a.k.a. DFMCs)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_methanol_fuel_cell), ranging from from a few micro-Watt output up to 100 Watts or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't say anything about why you want to use methanol for electricity generation, or where the methanol is coming from. Although methanol can be synthesized from renewable resources, it is often derived from fossil fuels so the solution you have in mind may not be the most sustainable one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20537" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8353" RevisionGUID="51618191-d436-463a-b88f-28650a6d1f89" CreationDate="2019-07-06T23:54:07.950" UserId="384" Text="This idea is motivated by the readings of this weather station:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Air is below freezing is a doline][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sits within a ponor/doline which is basically a hole in the ground that allows the collection of the dense cold air. It can be seen that as soon as the sun stops directly shining into it, the temperature starts to decrease quickly, then during night the temperature is below freezing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other parts of the country there is a heat wave with 35°C during day and 22°C at night. But that hole freezes and also doesn't heat up much during the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During a heat wave the sky is clear and there is not much wind, so a hole can lose a lot of heat by radiating it out. The air within cools down, becomes denser but can't escape anywhere, so it stays there such that a temperature inversion occurs and this happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To replicate this artificially, excavate large a hole in the ground and put the excavated earth around it to form a large basin, then the coolest air sinks to the bottom so we can add a drain at the bottom where we can drain the cool air to cool the house, and this hole can also double as rainwater collector.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: would it work? Or did anyone attempted to use something like this for cooling?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched the web and found nothing. Absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;There is a term &quot;fagyzug&quot; for these kinds of holes Hungarian. There is also a term &quot;hideg légtó&quot; to describe the cold air collecting there, but Google Translate fails to provide useful translation for either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are topics about radiative cooling systems which use expensive materials that are highly emissive in long-wave infrared. But my idea is just a hole in the ground nothing else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aTMWA.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20538" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8353" RevisionGUID="51618191-d436-463a-b88f-28650a6d1f89" CreationDate="2019-07-06T23:54:07.950" UserId="384" Text="Excavating holes for cooling during summer nights" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20539" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8353" RevisionGUID="51618191-d436-463a-b88f-28650a6d1f89" CreationDate="2019-07-06T23:54:07.950" UserId="384" Text="|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20540" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8353" RevisionGUID="6c37b162-e390-4c85-a445-b2fe50a1c624" CreationDate="2019-07-07T00:00:38.327" UserId="384" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="This idea is motivated by the readings of this Hungarian weather station:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Air is below freezing is a doline][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sits within a ponor/doline which is basically a hole in the ground that allows the collection of the dense cold air. It can be seen that as soon as the sun stops directly shining into it, the temperature starts to decrease quickly, then during night the temperature is below freezing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other parts of the country there is a heat wave with 35°C during day and 22°C at night. But that hole freezes and also doesn't heat up much during the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During a heat wave the sky is clear and there is not much wind, so a hole can lose a lot of heat by radiating it out. The air within cools down, becomes denser but can't escape anywhere, so it stays there such that a temperature inversion occurs and this happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To replicate this artificially, excavate large a hole in the ground and put the excavated earth around it to form a large basin to contain cool air, then the coolest air sinks to the bottom so we can add a drain at the bottom where we can drain the cool air to cool the house, and this hole can also double as rainwater collector.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Question: would it work? Or did anyone attempted to use something like this for cooling?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched the web and found nothing. Absolutely nothing.&#xD;&#xA;There is a term &quot;fagyzug&quot; for these kinds of holes Hungarian. There is also a term &quot;hideg légtó&quot; to describe the cold air collecting there, but Google Translate fails to provide useful translation for either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are topics about radiative cooling systems which use expensive materials that are highly emissive in long-wave infrared. But my idea is just a hole in the ground nothing else.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aTMWA.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8349" RevisionGUID="79e3dc2c-7081-4c5a-b55a-0ae5b5af239c" CreationDate="2019-07-07T11:47:43.673" UserId="4886" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="If one's desire is to &quot;To reduce, offset, or eliminate the impacts of new-build housing on the local environment in the most cost-effective and conventional ways possible&quot; then this should be done in the planning/design/construction phases of a new development/build.  Once the development/build is complete, it is too late — far too late — to do anything that will have a meaningful impact.  The environmental damage/debt is too large.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that &quot;In the next month or two I will be moving house to a new-build&quot; it sounds like all the decisions have already been made, and all the environmental damage has either been caused or locked-in.  There is no way to rectify design failures in a &quot;cost-effective&quot; manner at this point.  It would seem that you are attempting to close the gate after the horse has bolted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are, essentially, now in a position where you are moving into a development that probably paid no attention to environmental cost whatsoever (precious few of them do), and are becoming the owner/occupier of a new building with minimal environmental credentials (well insulated, a-rated appliances).  Because you can't go back in time and redesign the development, or redesign the house, the only way to try and 'make up' for the damage that has already been caused/locked-in is to look forward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, the fact that it's a greenfield development is irrelevant.  You can't undo or change that.  You are 'just' an aware individual who now recognises that their existence on this planet, and the choices that they have made have, do, and will continue to cause damage that impacts on other forms of life.  Your value system drives you to minimise this damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question, therefore, probably can be simplified to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;My (all-electric) house is well-insulated, and all my appliances are A-rated for energy efficiency.  What can I do to live a more sustainable life?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is a very broad question, and one that you should narrow down to make it easier to answer.  Instead of one broad question, perhaps it would be better to ask multiple, more specific questions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Is it worth getting a &quot;Smart Meter&quot; for an all-electric house?  Given that they were invented to allow utilities to charge customers more money in conjunction with Time-Of-Use plans, is it actually in my best interest to install one?  Can I monitor my consumption in some other way?&#xD;&#xA; - I have [this type of] central heating.  How can I modify my behaviour to make most efficient use of the heat it provides?&#xD;&#xA; - I'm considering OVO Energy to supply my electricity here in [region].  Their [plan name] with [plan features] seems like it would let me get a decent fraction of the energy I need from renewable sources without breaking the bank.  Anyone found a cheaper source of green electrons for an all-electric house?&#xD;&#xA; - I recognise that lawns are basically a desolate wasteland when it comes to biodiversity.  What can I do with my [X]m² back yard that will support local ecosystems?  My climate is [climateType].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many such/similar questions have already been asked in this forum.  Skimming question titles or using the search might reveal them.  If not, create a new question.  Narrow-focus questions with meaningful keywords in the title make life easier for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, I will offer at least one suggestion:  You haven't *fully* described what sort of features make your house &quot;energy efficient&quot;, so you may already have chosen your windows.  If not, may I strongly suggest thermally-broken double-glazing with a low-e coat on the third surface and an argon-filled cavity?  They are absolutely wonderful and will help plug the otherwise massive thermal holes that exist in the walls of your home.  The real-world thermal performance of a building is only as good as the weakest point in the thermal envelope." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20542" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8350" RevisionGUID="437316b3-621b-468a-b9fb-8efebaf0b6ac" CreationDate="2019-07-07T11:48:18.390" UserId="48" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Your figures are a bit out, but broadly in the right area. Using observed figures for the numbers you've estimated, I get 1,246 km²&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;90% capacity factor for nuclear is probably optimistic, but some jurisdictions have achieved it. [The global average in 2018 was 81%][1], but that's an overestimate, due to the way that reactors on long-term shutdown are handled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your offshore windfarm power yields per unit surface areas are a bit pessimistic. From calculations I did elsewhere, [Denmark][2]'s offshore windfarms yield 2.2-3.3 W/m², averaging 2.6. [Germany][3]'s yield 2.1-4.1, averaging 2.9. And the [UK][4] yields 1.4-5.7, averaging 2.6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a 4GW nuke, 81% capacity factor, and 2.6 W/m², we get **1,246 km²**. Or roughly, a square that's 35.3km along the side. That's really not much - the sea is a very big place - and remember, almost all that sea is just area between turbines - very little of the seabed would be occupied. If we take a 45% capacity factor for offshore wind, it's an installed capacity of 7.22 GW, or 722 turbines each at 10 MW capacity. This is an eminently achievable engineering task.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Offshore wind does also have the virtue of being much [cheaper][5] now, per unit of electricity delivered, than [nuclear][6]; it also gets delivered [on time and on or under budget][7]!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/b392d1cd-f7d2-4d54-9355-9a65f71a3419/performance-report.pdf.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://energynumbers.info/capacity-factors-at-danish-offshore-wind-farms&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://energynumbers.info/germanys-offshore-wind-capacity-factors&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds?title=&amp;technology_type=77&amp;applicant_name=&amp;comm_date_from=&amp;target_comm_date_to=&amp;unique_id=&amp;agreement_type=All&amp;field_cfd_strikeprice=2&amp;allocation_round=All&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds?title=&amp;technology_type=83&amp;applicant_name=&amp;comm_date_from=&amp;target_comm_date_to=&amp;unique_id=&amp;agreement_type=All&amp;field_cfd_strikeprice=All&amp;allocation_round=All&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/energy/renewable-energy/press-release/sse/103930/offshore-construction-completed-scotlands" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8354" RevisionGUID="c8f42cb9-1c1e-4a15-b12e-ea7e69f03d28" CreationDate="2019-07-09T15:42:36.730" UserId="6393" Text="The impact of constructing your home is past. What you should consider is the future impact of your consumption to the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd suggest the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Calculate how much electricity you need for heating, cooling and appliances&#xD;&#xA;* Purchase stocks of companies producing the electricity you need in a clean manner (hydropower, wind power, solar power, nuclear power -- yes, nuclear is CO2-free)&#xD;&#xA;* Invest in young forest; the growth of your forest will absorb CO2 from the atmosphere during its lifetime. The cycle of forest in the nothern areas where I live exceeds 100 years. So, if you purchase a newly planted forest, it will be 100 years until it is useful for harvesting, and during those 100 years every year it absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. During those 100 years, I assume the CO2 crisis has been solved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My approach for investing in clean electricity companies is to calculate how much energy I need directly and indirectly, now and in the future (for example, the shopping mall where I visit also uses some electricity). Then I multiply the figure by 2, and calculate how many stocks are needed to produce this amount of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use 4000 kWh / a directly. I also am planning to purchase an electric car that would consume 5000 kWh / a. So, according to my general rule, I would need to own twice of 9000 kWh / a or 18000 kWh / a of clean electricity production capacity. That's approximately how much capacity I own. (I also have significant investments in wind turbine manufacturers, solar cell / panel manufacturers, solar inverter manufacturers, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My house is heated by district heating that produces CO2. It requires 10 000 kWh / a to heat, which produces 3220 kg of CO2 because where I live district heating uses coal mainly. My car emits around 3500 kg of CO2 per annum (directly from its tailpipe, and indirectly during oil refining). I have used a calculator which estimates that the indirect emissions of me (those not related to electricity use, heating, or my car) are 8500 kg of CO2 per year based on my consumption level. So, I produce around 15 000 kg of CO2 per year which I need to offset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, the forest I happen to own absorbs 40 000 kg of CO2 per year during its growth, more than twice of 15 000 kg. So, I could even afford to increase my consumption level. My forest is relatively young, so the stock of absorbed CO2 will increase over time, and those areas that are harvested, will be used to create sustainable bio-based materials, renewable forest energy, wood-based building materials, etc, that directly offset fossil fuel and concrete use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't afford to purchase enough forest and clean electricity capacity to offset your consumption, then your consumption level is too high for the environment! Your only option is to either accept the fact that you are over-consuming our non-renewable resources, or alternatively reduce your consumption level, or alternatively find ways to improve your income that would allow you to purchase more forest and clean electricity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8355" RevisionGUID="4b247fb3-750b-466b-a6d0-b4fa8ec9bb06" CreationDate="2019-07-09T15:59:03.133" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;b&gt;Yes.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are plenty of calculators available. The calculator I used (sorry, in Finnish language only), estimated that I produce 8500 kg of CO2-equivalent per year when I entered everything except my car, my electricity use and heating of the house where I live (I prefer to calculate car, electricity and heating myself because I known the kWh and litre figures for those).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calculators are heavily dependent on local conditions. For example, I live in a sparsely populated country where diesel fuel is heavily used to haul things around. Agriculture in the cold country where I live is inefficient, and thus food-related CO2 emissions are higher than in many other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My car produces 3400 kg of CO2 per year directly and indirectly (oil refining, tailpipe emissions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heating of my house by coal-fueled district heating produces 3220 kg of CO2 per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electricity I use is 4000 kWh / a plus I'm planning to purchase an electric vehicle that requires 5000 kWh / a.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my figure is &lt;b&gt;15000 kg CO2 / a + 4000 kWh / a today + extra 5000 kWh / a in the future&lt;/b&gt;. What is your figure? Find some calculator and estimate your ecological footprint using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To offset this, I own forest that absorbs 40000 kg CO2 / a from the atmosphere, and enough green electricity production capacity for bit less than 20 000 kWh / a of electricity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8356" RevisionGUID="dff9927c-fd33-42e1-97d7-8bb723c46222" CreationDate="2019-07-09T16:03:46.537" UserId="6393" Text="No, wind power is not dead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at the &lt;a href=&quot;https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VWS.CO&quot;&gt;stock price history of Vestas Wind Systems&lt;/a&gt;, one of the major manufacturers of wind turbines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2012, it was as low as 25 DKK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today, it's 587 DKK, over 20 times more than the value in 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you call a field where companies produce &gt;20x return in 7 years dead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20546" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6566" RevisionGUID="23f2d043-9286-4c70-b109-fbc346bac8b6" CreationDate="2019-07-10T00:00:40.937" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1148743807577595904" />
  <row Id="20547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8357" RevisionGUID="dd8fa206-8a0c-4c07-a8bc-5795bf39c6b6" CreationDate="2019-07-11T12:43:40.047" UserId="6779" Text="Couldnt add the thanks to the actual thread its self .. said i had to have 50 posts or something &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Im making a guitar out of partly anyway recycled stuff " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8357" RevisionGUID="dd8fa206-8a0c-4c07-a8bc-5795bf39c6b6" CreationDate="2019-07-11T12:43:40.047" UserId="6779" Text="Thanks for the post on what plastics are reusable sort of" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8357" RevisionGUID="dd8fa206-8a0c-4c07-a8bc-5795bf39c6b6" CreationDate="2019-07-11T12:43:40.047" UserId="6779" Text="|plastic-bottles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8357" RevisionGUID="50c0b50a-e199-49b2-a4ba-d7e04b49c7b1" CreationDate="2019-07-11T13:15:11.757" UserId="99" Comment="replaced &quot;comment-like&quot; content with the OPs actual question which was in a comment." Text="Can metal drink cans be melted at home and reused, remoulded into something?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20551" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8357" RevisionGUID="50c0b50a-e199-49b2-a4ba-d7e04b49c7b1" CreationDate="2019-07-11T13:15:11.757" UserId="99" Comment="replaced &quot;comment-like&quot; content with the OPs actual question which was in a comment." Text="Can metal drink cans be melted at home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20552" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8357" RevisionGUID="50c0b50a-e199-49b2-a4ba-d7e04b49c7b1" CreationDate="2019-07-11T13:15:11.757" UserId="99" Comment="replaced &quot;comment-like&quot; content with the OPs actual question which was in a comment." Text="|recycling|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20553" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8357" RevisionGUID="d5f8034c-1af7-4116-9efa-747cbabd5d4b" CreationDate="2019-07-12T07:48:40.137" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[7199],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:15,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Highly Irregular&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:4886,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Tim&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20554" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8348" RevisionGUID="37961821-292f-42a5-ac23-096b33d7c941" CreationDate="2019-07-12T08:00:51.660" UserId="99" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="20555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8358" RevisionGUID="9982a74d-f8c5-4b43-b714-b63bce08e204" CreationDate="2019-07-12T15:03:06.500" UserId="1513" Text="What you are looking for is called [Ground-coupled heat exchanger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-coupled_heat_exchanger) it can be used for both heating and cooling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Earth-air heat exchangers have been used in agricultural facilities (animal buildings) and horticultural facilities (greenhouses) in the United States of America over the past several decades and have been used in conjunction with solar chimneys in hot arid areas for thousands of years, probably beginning in the Persian Empire. Implementation of these systems in Austria, Denmark, Germany, and India has become fairly common since the mid-1990s, and is slowly being adopted in North America.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8358" RevisionGUID="dd2304ea-63a8-42a0-8abc-3949d7ec4112" CreationDate="2019-07-12T15:09:22.523" UserId="1513" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="What you are looking for is called [Ground-coupled heat exchanger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-coupled_heat_exchanger) it can be used for both heating and cooling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Earth-air heat exchangers have been used in agricultural facilities (animal buildings) and horticultural facilities (greenhouses) in the United States of America over the past several decades and have been used in conjunction with solar chimneys in hot arid areas for thousands of years, probably beginning in the Persian Empire. Implementation of these systems in Austria, Denmark, Germany, and India has become fairly common since the mid-1990s, and is slowly being adopted in North America.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cooling the &quot;holes&quot; are fairly shallow, 1.5 to 3 m (4.9 to 9.8 ft)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In colder climates, where heat is the primary goal, the term [Geothermal heat pump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump) is usually applied to deeper  &quot;holes&quot; 15–122 m (50 to 400 ft)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8359" RevisionGUID="a20653db-a7a4-48d2-8545-ca20d4002776" CreationDate="2019-07-12T15:51:33.230" UserId="1513" Text="I assume you are already putting some or all of the egg shell in with your plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked around and using egg yolk as a fertilizer has several issues. If you have an outdoor compost pile you could add them to that, but mixing large amounts of animal protein in a compost pile can be problematic, so I would use caution depending on how much plant organics you are adding to the compost pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A comment mentions using egg yolks to feed carnivores and/or omnivores.  You don't mention any pets in your question, if you have pets you should probably talk to your vet about it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found several posts online about feeding eggs to birds.  If you are in the habit of feeding the wild birds, adding egg yolk to the wild bird feed seems like a viable option. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20559" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8359" RevisionGUID="830a5678-8195-4531-a882-568bd1c6a5ca" CreationDate="2019-07-12T16:15:07.610" UserId="1513" Comment="added 1695 characters in body" Text="I assume you are already putting some or all of the egg shell in with your plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I looked around and using egg yolk as a fertilizer has several issues. If you have an outdoor compost pile you could add them to that, but mixing large amounts of animal protein in a compost pile can be problematic, so I would use caution depending on how much plant organics you are adding to the compost pile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eco-Cycle recommends that whole eggs not be composted, although eggshells can be composted (eggshells are high in calcium and good for the soil). There are three reasons for this recommendation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whole eggs tend to attract unwanted attention from animals such as mice, skunks, buzzards, and bears. Biting insects may also lay eggs in compost that contains whole eggs, leading to more flies and more bites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The bacteria that do most of the work in a compost pile are aerobic bacteria, which require oxygen to digest waste. These bacteria oxidize carbon compounds and generate heat as a by-product of their growth and reproduction. This heat accelerates the activity of other bacteria, speeding the breakdown of materials in a compost pile. In contrast, the bacteria that thrive on meat scraps and other high protein sources, such as eggs, are anaerobic. Anaerobic bacteria grow quickly without fresh air. They break down proteins to generate energy, but do not produce much heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The by-products from the breakdown of eggs can make a compost pile stink.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [Source](https://articles.extension.org/pages/65612/can-i-compost-hard-boiled-eggs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A comment mentions using egg yolks to feed carnivores and/or omnivores.  You don't mention any pets in your question, if you have pets you should probably talk to your vet about it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found several posts online about feeding eggs to birds.  If you are in the habit of feeding the wild birds, adding egg yolk to the wild bird feed seems like a viable option. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Eggs are a powerful food that feeds the brains of these sharp creatures. It takes a certain amount of intelligence to survive in the wild, so a meal from an egg is a good choice. Egg yolks contain choline which is a serious brain food because it makes rapid thinking far easier by speeding up the relay signals in the brain. The choline found in eggs also aid liver function and transferring and distributing nutrients throughout the body where it is needed. [Source](https://www.thesprucepets.com/are-eggs-good-for-my-bird-390604)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8360" RevisionGUID="84961ccd-d762-46c8-bdf4-a73422d71f48" CreationDate="2019-07-12T23:20:47.013" UserId="6781" Text="I teach in a kindergarten classroom. I would like to know what is the most sustainable out of: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - paper (starting new, and then as the year goes on, reclaimed/reused as possible&#xD;&#xA; - paper inside of either lamination or page protectors so they can be reused throughout the year, though obviously this involves plastic waste&#xD;&#xA; - dry erase boards (reusable themselves but produces waste from dry erase markers, which tend to &quot;die&quot; quickly in a kindergarten classroom). I already have boards. &#xD;&#xA; - magnetic boards (can be used for multiple years with no direct trashcan waste but are usually not recyclable). I would have to purchase these. &#xD;&#xA; - something else I am not considering? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20561" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8360" RevisionGUID="84961ccd-d762-46c8-bdf4-a73422d71f48" CreationDate="2019-07-12T23:20:47.013" UserId="6781" Text="What is the most sustainable option for writing in the classroom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20562" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8360" RevisionGUID="84961ccd-d762-46c8-bdf4-a73422d71f48" CreationDate="2019-07-12T23:20:47.013" UserId="6781" Text="|education|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8361" RevisionGUID="3ad3a60f-b645-4ddb-9552-5f2ec0baa475" CreationDate="2019-07-13T03:57:07.020" UserId="4886" Text="You may wish to research &quot;[dew ponds][1]&quot; and &quot;[air wells][2]&quot; — they all rely on the same fundamental physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phenomenon works primarily because the large diameter, relatively shallow depth, and lack of vegetation, reduce radiation influxes at 'night' and result in a net energy outflow from the middle of the depression — [radiative cooling][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the amount of 'coolth' that is generated in this manner is measurable, it's actually quite small because air has a very low [specific heat capacity][4].  Devoting 1000m² or more to generate a few thousand cubic metres of sub-zero air is a horrendously inefficient use of land.  For the amount of diesel it would take to excavate such a hole, you could buy a few hundred large solar panels, a few thousand thermoelectric coolers, and chill your house down to -50°C in a heartbeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you flow/pump the cool air into your house at the rate of 100m³ per hour, you will exhaust the supply in a single day.  The ground temperature will rise as warm ambient air flows in, and the performance will suffer more and more every consecutive day that it is used.  In other words, frost pockets stay frosty only as long as they don't get used/pumped out.  The moment you start removing air they quickly cease to be frost pockets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can a very large, naturally-occurring depression be exploited to cool a tiny home or a single room?  Yes, I'm sure it can.  Can an artificial depression be created that can cool the average house?  No, not in any 'economic' way at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Soil has a much higher specific heat capacity, so is capable of 'banking up' much more coolth than air is.  As James writes in his answer, a cheaper and more efficient way to go is with a [ground-coupled heat exchanger][5] (aka 'earth tubes').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you happen to be in the position of having lots of land and a tractor (or other earth-moving equipment) that is all bought and paid for, and like digging large holes, then you might want to experiment with such an excavation.  It would probably be a good idea to brush up on your grasp of [Bernoulli's Principle][6] before breaking ground, however — prevailing winds can make or break such an experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_pond&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_well_(condenser)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_heat_capacity&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-coupled_heat_exchanger&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8361" RevisionGUID="a52208ca-2a68-4c0a-b281-d1b71022fa32" CreationDate="2019-07-13T04:04:07.763" UserId="4886" Comment="added 248 characters in body" Text="You may wish to research &quot;[dew ponds][1]&quot; and &quot;[air wells][2]&quot; — they all rely on the same fundamental physics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The phenomenon works primarily because the large diameter, relatively shallow depth, and lack of vegetation, reduce radiation influxes at 'night' and result in a net energy outflow from the middle of the depression — [radiative cooling][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the amount of 'coolth' that is generated in this manner is measurable, it's actually quite small because air has a very low [specific heat capacity][4].  Devoting 1000m² or more to generate a few thousand cubic metres of sub-zero air is a horrendously inefficient use of land.  For the amount of diesel it would take to excavate such a hole, you could buy a few hundred large solar panels, a few thousand thermoelectric coolers, and chill your house down to -50°C in a heartbeat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you flow/pump the cool air into your house at the rate of 100m³ per hour, you will exhaust the supply in a single day.  The ground temperature will rise as warm ambient air flows in, and the performance will suffer more and more every consecutive day that it is used.  In other words, frost pockets stay frosty only as long as they don't get used/pumped out.  The moment you start removing air they quickly cease to be frost pockets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can a very large, naturally-occurring depression be exploited to cool a tiny home or a single room?  Yes, I'm sure it can.  Can an artificial depression be created that can cool the average house?  No, not in any 'economic' way at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Soil has a much higher specific heat capacity, so is capable of 'banking up' much more coolth than air is.  As James writes in his answer, a cheaper and more efficient way to go is with a [ground-coupled heat exchanger][5] (aka 'earth tubes').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you happen to be in the position of having lots of land and a tractor (or other earth-moving equipment) that is all bought and paid for, and like digging large holes, then you might want to experiment with such an excavation.  It would probably be a good idea to brush up on your grasp of [Bernoulli's Principle][6] before breaking ground, however — prevailing winds can make or break such an experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  Last week I started the process of deliberately creating a frost pocket on my property in order to help keep the water level in my pond more stable.  Over 300m³ of earth moved so far.  Many thousands more to go.  Not for the faint of heart. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_pond&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_well_(condenser)&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_heat_capacity&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-coupled_heat_exchanger&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8362" RevisionGUID="3e903c01-234f-410c-979e-5b1055e144ef" CreationDate="2019-07-13T04:43:43.180" UserId="48" Text="In 2018, global wind capacity increased from 515 GW to 564 GW - a 9.5% increase.&#xD;&#xA;20 GW of that 49 GW increase was in China, 11 GW in Europe, 3 GW South America, 8 GW North America.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 9.5% year-on-year increase is pretty good. It's not dead. It's not merely stable. It's growing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not growing fast enough for the good of the world. There's a huge resource remaining, waiting to be tapped - vast amounts in Europe, and every other continent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Jul/IRENA_Renewable_energy_statistics_2019.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20567" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8363" RevisionGUID="33048c1e-2bf7-4a29-a1fa-4bff1d27265d" CreationDate="2019-07-13T04:47:19.990" UserId="4886" Text="Chalkboards.  Old school, but bullet-proof — they last forever.  Come in various sizes for stand-up/sit-down use.  Larger ones can be used for collaborative/group efforts.  Chalkboards inherently reinforce the value of 'cleaning'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chalk is available in virtually unlimited colours that appeal to young eyes.  You probably already have all of the raw ingredients in your art supply room that are required to make your own chalk, so you can have the kids make their own chalk in whatever colours they want.  Management laps up cross-disciplinary activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chalk can also then be used for outdoor activities on bitumen/concrete.  Trivial to clean — just wait for the first rain or grab a hose and spray." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20568" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8363" RevisionGUID="dcf6ef47-6187-4096-acfe-a3c6a218e391" CreationDate="2019-07-13T04:53:10.030" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="Chalkboards.  Old school, but bullet-proof — they last forever.  Come in various sizes for stand-up/sit-down use.  Larger ones can be used for collaborative/group efforts.  Chalkboards inherently reinforce the value of 'cleaning'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chalk is available in virtually unlimited colours that appeal to young eyes.  You probably already have all of the raw ingredients in your art supply room that are required to make your own chalk, so you can have the kids make their own chalk in whatever colours they want.  Management laps up cross-disciplinary activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chalk can also then be used for outdoor activities on bitumen/concrete.  Trivial to clean — just wait for it to rain or grab a hose and spray.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mdKza.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8363" RevisionGUID="75fe7330-28fb-4433-a9c4-07f0a2420e5e" CreationDate="2019-07-13T04:59:12.717" UserId="4886" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Chalkboards.  Old school, but bullet-proof — they last forever.  Come in various sizes for stand-up/sit-down use.  Larger ones can be used for collaborative/group efforts.  Chalkboards inherently reinforce the value of 'cleaning'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chalk is available in virtually unlimited colours that appeal to young eyes.  You probably already have all of the raw ingredients in your art supply room that are required to make your own chalk, so you can have the kids make their own chalk in whatever colours they want.  Management laps up cross-disciplinary activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chalk can also then be used for outdoor activities on bitumen/concrete.  Trivial to clean — just wait for it to rain or grab a hose and spray.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qVV68.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mdKza.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20570" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8363" RevisionGUID="843aae94-8577-469d-bc47-cf08dc88891b" CreationDate="2019-07-13T05:07:07.563" UserId="4886" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Chalkboards.  Old school, but bullet-proof — they last forever.  Come in various sizes for stand-up/sit-down use.  Larger ones can be used for collaborative/group efforts.  Chalkboards inherently reinforce the value of 'cleaning'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chalk is available in virtually unlimited colours that appeal to young eyes.  You probably already have all of the raw ingredients in your art supply room that are required to make your own chalk, so you can have the kids make their own chalk in whatever colours they want.  Management laps up cross-disciplinary activities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chalk can also then be used for outdoor activities on bitumen/concrete.  Trivial to clean — just wait for it to rain or grab a hose and spray.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4RqLW.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qVV68.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mdKza.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20571" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7038" RevisionGUID="e874d7ff-cb54-4dc0-9e82-ee5c050e9acc" CreationDate="2019-07-13T06:01:35.283" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="20572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8360" RevisionGUID="4a924e51-1e1c-4b6c-beb5-6464d544e6aa" CreationDate="2019-07-13T22:33:49.107" UserId="6781" Comment="added 704 characters in body" Text="I teach in a kindergarten classroom. I would like to know what is the most sustainable out of: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - paper (starting new, and then as the year goes on, reclaimed/reused as possible&#xD;&#xA; - paper inside of either lamination or page protectors so they can be reused throughout the year, though obviously this involves plastic waste&#xD;&#xA; - dry erase boards (reusable themselves but produces waste from dry erase markers, which tend to &quot;die&quot; quickly in a kindergarten classroom). I already have boards. &#xD;&#xA; - magnetic boards (can be used for multiple years with no direct trashcan waste but are usually not recyclable). I would have to purchase these. &#xD;&#xA; - something else I am not considering? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edited to add responses to questions.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;You're doing the writing, or the students are? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Students will be doing the writing, they need to practice letter and number formation, show me quick responses to things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the front of the class, or on a desk/table? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The students would be using personal supplies in their own space. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once something is written, how long does it need to last?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The writing I'm concerned about is quick, temporary pieces of writing or math practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, unfortunately due to the nature of my school, chalk is not allowed due to the supposed impact of the dust on our relatively large number of students with asthma and other respiratory illnesses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you for your time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8364" RevisionGUID="6766e681-2659-41c3-b459-b3a9bd8475c3" CreationDate="2019-07-14T19:42:53.613" UserId="3379" Text="## What you're seeing: biopiles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  it looks like companies just dig the ground, leave everything in a pile for a while (few weeks?) and then bring over the dirt elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like what you're seeing are **biopiles** (also known as heap pile bioremediation, bioheaps, biomounds, or static-pile composting).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the [Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html), a project of Federal Roundtable on Remediation Technology (FRTR), a group comprised of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dept of Defense, and the Dept of Energy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Excavated soils are mixed with soil amendments and placed on a treatment area** that includes leachate collection systems and some form of aeration. It is used to reduce concentrations of petroleum constituents in excavated soils through the use of biodegradation. Moisture, heat, nutrients, oxygen, and pH can be controlled to enhance biodegradation. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soil piles and cells commonly have an air distribution system buried under the soil to pass air through the soil either by vacuum or by positive pressure. **The soil piles in this case can be up to 20 feet high** (generally not recommended, 2-3 meters maximum). Soil piles may be covered with plastic to control runoff, evaporation, and volatilization and to promote solar heating. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Biopile is a short-term technology. **Duration of operation and maintenance may last a few weeks to several months.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Biodegradation** is the actual process at work to neutralize the harmful compounds. Here's a definition from the page on [treatment tech for fuels in soil](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_7_2.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Biodegradation uses indigenous or inoculated microorganisms (e.g., fungi, bacteria, and other microbes) to degrade (i.e., metabolize) organic contaminants found in soil and/or ground water. In the presence of sufficient oxygen (aerobic conditions), microorganisms will ultimately convert many organic contaminants to carbon dioxide, water, and microbial cell mass. In the absence of oxygen (anaerobic conditions), the contaminants will be ultimately metabolized to methane. Sometimes contaminants may not be completely degraded, but only transformed to intermediate products that may be less, equally, or more hazardous than the original contaminant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Applicability of biopiles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the page on biopiles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Biopile treatment has been applied to treatment of nonhalogenated VOCs and fuel hydrocarbons. Halogenated VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides also can be treated, but the process effectiveness will vary and may be applicable only to some compounds within these contaminant groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(b,j,k)fluoranthene, and Naphthalene** are all listed on the [fuels section](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_7.html) of the FRTR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference for [Petroleum Hydrocarbon Ranges](http://www.caslab.com/Petroleum-Hydrocarbon-Ranges/) from a commercial testing laboratory indicates that **petroleum hydrocarbons** are all derived from crude oil. While some of these may be classified differently, it seems that remediation tech for typical fuels would also apply here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going back to the FRTR guide, other possible [soil treatment technologies for fuels](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_7_2.html) include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Incineration** uses high temperatures, 870 to 1,200 C (1,400 to 2,200 F), to volatilize and combust (in the presence of oxygen) organic constituents in hazardous wastes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Soil vapor extraction** is an in situ unsaturated (vadose) zone soil remediation technology in which a vacuum is applied to the soil to induce the controlled flow of air and remove volatile and some semivolatile contaminants from the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Low temperature thermal desorption** systems are physical separation processes and are not designed to destroy organics. Wastes are heated to between 90 and 315 C (200 to 600o F) to volatilize water and organic contaminants. A carrier gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water and organics to the gas treatment system. Ground water treatment concentrates the collected contaminants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about tin and lead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tin and lead are [inorganics](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_8.html), for which [soil treatment technologies](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_8_2.html) include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Solidification** processes produce monolithic blocks of waste with high structural integrity. The contaminants do not necessarily interact chemically with the solidification reagents (typically cement/ash) but are mechanically locked within the solidified matrix. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Excavation and off-site disposal** of contaminated soil (with or without solidification/stabilization pretreatment).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Acid extraction** uses an acid, such as hydrochloric acid, to extract heavy metal contaminants from soils. Hydrochloric acid is then introduced into the soil in the extraction unit. [...] The soil-extractant mixture is continuously pumped out of the mixing tank, and the soil and extractant are separated using hydrocyclones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on how you describe the site, it sounds like the workers may be moving the tin and lead off-site for one of these treatment methods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8365" RevisionGUID="6b4fcde6-7fb4-40f2-9d4b-10e45822482d" CreationDate="2019-07-15T18:43:57.410" UserId="6154" Text="I want to find non-plastic straws. Are there are any in Germany, that you can physically buy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in Bavaria. I have a big Edeka, Rewe, Lidl and Rossmann nearby, but I am ready to travel &quot;great&quot; distances in the search of non-plastic straws. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found Superhalm ([Eatapple][1]), which seems to be available only online (I am not comfortable with e-purchases for a series of unrelated to this post reasons).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.kaufda.de/insights/wo-gibt-es-superhalm-eatapple-aus-die-hoehle-der-loewen-zu-kaufen/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20575" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8365" RevisionGUID="6b4fcde6-7fb4-40f2-9d4b-10e45822482d" CreationDate="2019-07-15T18:43:57.410" UserId="6154" Text="Non-plastic straws in Germany?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20576" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8365" RevisionGUID="6b4fcde6-7fb4-40f2-9d4b-10e45822482d" CreationDate="2019-07-15T18:43:57.410" UserId="6154" Text="|plastic|plastic-alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8366" RevisionGUID="a00212dc-43c1-41d5-86e9-c3307d46ceb0" CreationDate="2019-07-16T10:08:42.153" UserId="99" Text="Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This page](https://stackexchange.com/performance) describes the architecture used by Stack Exchange corporation. It says they use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 9 web servers&#xD;&#xA;- 4 sql servers&#xD;&#xA;- 2 redis servers&#xD;&#xA;- 3 tag servers&#xD;&#xA;- 3 elasticsearch servers&#xD;&#xA;- 2 haproxy servers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's 23 servers in total. Not all servers are equal, but since we do not have exact energy consumption figures we will use an estimate for 1 web server and multiply by 23.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent measurements done by an organization I cooperate with showed that their server energy consumption is between 1160 and 1770 kWh a year. Let's take 1600 kWh as a rough estimate of server energy consumption per year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [EPA](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references) reports 7.07 × 10-4 metric tons CO2/kWh as the average carbon footprint for 1 kWh in the US, so that gives us (1600 * 0.707 =) 1131.2 kg of CO2e per server per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far we only looked at the carbon footprint of the 'use phase' and ignored the production and disposal phase. This [2010 paper from Dell](https://i.dell.com/sites/content/corporate/corp-comm/en/Documents/dell-server-carbon-footprint-whitepaper.pdf ) says that the GHG emissions in the use phase of a Dell rack server account for over 90% of the total life-cycle impact, so we add another 10% to get the impact over the entire lifecycle of the server: 1131.2 / 90 * 100 = 1256.9 kg CO2e per server per year&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 23 servers that results in **28,908.4 kg CO2e per year** for the entire StackExchange production environment (so not including servers for developing or testing the platform).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 1.3 billion page views per month that is **approximately 1.9 mg CO2 per view**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8367" RevisionGUID="e6421432-5e81-4ea3-aea8-cf91c67ba19b" CreationDate="2019-07-17T07:35:52.210" UserId="6182" Text="You could try Karstadt/Kaufhof, or any store specialised in kitchen stuff, maybe WMF, maybe Leonardo, even Depot could provide at least bamboo straws. I got some glass straws (via the Internet, boooh) by Halm, very happy with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, I wouldn't go looking for good knifes or pots at a supermarket, so I also wouldn't bother looking there for sustainable straws - at least not today. Maybe in ten years ;-)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20579" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4996" RevisionGUID="988e28a0-e921-4f80-afbc-3b5fa4be67e8" CreationDate="2019-07-18T06:53:51.240" UserId="2871" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="**Bamboo Pros**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is a perennial grass.&#xD;&#xA;  - You don't need to put annual effort and energy into it's cultivation.&#xD;&#xA;  - You don't need to disturb the soil, so the soil ecosystem stays intact.&#xD;&#xA;  - **NO Soil Erosion!**&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo suppresses the growth of other plants (weeds) around it so it requires **NO Herbicides**.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is **VERY** [hardy against pests and diseases][1] so it requires **NO Pesticides**, especially if grown in a polyculture. This is in part a result of the fact that bamboo contains a natural antimicrobial compound called bamboo-kun which defends the plants against fungal attacks.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires **NO Fertilizer** when growing for fiber. (Note: some bamboo crops grown for the young edible shoots do use some fertilizer and herbicide.)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo grows extremely fast.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo takes less water to grow, and is drought tolerant.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo textiles hold much more water than cotton textiles.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo textiles wick water away from the skin much more quickly than cotton textiles.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is a better insulator than cotton.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fiber, when processed naturally, contains a natural antimicrobial compound called bamboo-kun. (Note: Most bamboo fiber is processed using the viscose method, which [strips it of the bamboo-kun][2]. Also see comments below for externalities coming from viscose method, which chemically alters the fiber.)&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fiber [requires less dye than cotton][4] for colored textiles, and results in more vibrant textiles.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fibers are softer than cotton fibers.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fibers do not [pill][6] as much as cotton fibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bamboo Cons**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Since Bamboo holds much more water than cotton textiles, it takes much more energy to dry it after washing. If you are using a cloths line instead of a clothes dryer then this isn't an issue.&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo is [sensitive to the timing of harvest][2].&#xD;&#xA; - Bamboo fibers are less durable than cotton fibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;___&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cotton Pros**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Processing cotton requires less energy and water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cotton Cons**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cotton is a perennial plant, grown as an annual crop.&#xD;&#xA;  - Annual energy and effort devoted to cultivation.&#xD;&#xA;  - Plowing which disturbs the soil ecosystem.&#xD;&#xA;  - Contributes to soil erosion.&#xD;&#xA; - Requires lots of management effort during cultivation as [vegetative growth needs to be minimized][5] in order to get a high yield.&#xD;&#xA; - Even [Organic Cotton requires pesticides][3] (copper salts).&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Estimates indicate that cotton is the largest user of water among all agricultural commodities.&quot;][3]&#xD;&#xA; - Requires lots of fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bamboobotanicals.ca/html/bamboo-care/bamboo-pests-diseases.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.barnhardtcotton.net/blog/know-fibers-cotton-vs-bamboo/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_textile&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://thegreenlivingcenter.com/node/137&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.soilcropandmore.info/crops/CottonInformation/B1252/b1252.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pill_(textile)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8368" RevisionGUID="af498695-277e-484e-87aa-e73e42e4be7c" CreationDate="2019-07-18T15:38:03.177" UserId="3379" Text="In the summer, we use a window air conditioner in our bedroom to be able to sleep comfortably at night. It takes a while to cool, and I know it uses quite a bit of energy. Here are a few steps we take to reduce total energy usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Set the mode to &quot;energy saver,&quot; which turns the fan off periodically once the temperature reaches the set point&#xD;&#xA; - Set the thermostat to 78F / 26C&#xD;&#xA; - Keep the bedroom door closed when the AC is running&#xD;&#xA; - Keep the bedroom blinds closed during the day so that the room doesn't heat up too much&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are some other steps I could take?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a gap of about 2cm under the bedroom door... should I seal this? Will it make much difference? I also didn't invest much time sealing around the AC where it goes through the window. There are no large gaps, but are there ways I could improve the air sealing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8368" RevisionGUID="af498695-277e-484e-87aa-e73e42e4be7c" CreationDate="2019-07-18T15:38:03.177" UserId="3379" Text="How to reduce energy usage of a window air conditioner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8368" RevisionGUID="af498695-277e-484e-87aa-e73e42e4be7c" CreationDate="2019-07-18T15:38:03.177" UserId="3379" Text="|home|energy-efficiency|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8369" RevisionGUID="e1f7a716-403c-4cf1-89a0-52eabe41dc04" CreationDate="2019-07-18T16:59:22.640" UserId="3379" Text="I live in southern Wisconsin, USA, where we have a [humid continental climate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humid_continental_climate) (emphasis on humid!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We moved into a new home recently, and there is no central air conditioning. This summer we are experimenting with cooling strategies as we'd prefer not to add air conditioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By keeping blinds and windows closed during the day, and open at night, we've been successful at keeping the house about 10 degrees F (5 degrees C) cooler inside than outside during the hottest part of the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The issue is the humidity.** The night air is damper and stays inside. This makes the floors sticky, and the furniture feel clammy. Especially if there has been rain overnight, this can make the house feel very uncomfortable!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Without adding air conditioning, what are some steps we could take to reduce indoor humidity?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;*There is a related question, [How to reduce humidity in the home?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5624/3379), but it focuses on winter-time. I'm interested in summer-time strategies.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20584" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8369" RevisionGUID="e1f7a716-403c-4cf1-89a0-52eabe41dc04" CreationDate="2019-07-18T16:59:22.640" UserId="3379" Text="How to reduce indoor humidity in the summer time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20585" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8369" RevisionGUID="e1f7a716-403c-4cf1-89a0-52eabe41dc04" CreationDate="2019-07-18T16:59:22.640" UserId="3379" Text="|energy|home|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20589" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8371" RevisionGUID="9f6c2d46-038d-48bd-ad24-d4f7e40343e0" CreationDate="2019-07-19T02:51:51.960" UserId="4886" Text="Most folks don't know that their 'frost free fridge' can be easily hacked to act as a dehumidifier.  As it runs continuously, it can be used to suck moisture out of a humid home all.. year.. long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frost free fridges actually have a heating element.  This heating element comes on every-so-often to thaw out the cooling plate.  Any frost/ice that has formed on the cooling plate melts, drips into a plastic trough, drains to the bottom-rear of your fridge via a small tube, and then ends up in a plastic bowl located on top of your compressor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![back of fridge][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The compressor, as it works to pump heat out of your fridge and into the surrounding air, heats up.  Heat from the compressor warms the bowl and evaporates the water, returning the moisture back to the room where it originally came from.  So, under normal circumstances, this operation is humidity-neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming your fridge is against an external wall, or above an accessible basement, or near a drain, you can get a short piece of scrap tubing, attach it onto the end of the drain tube (just above the bowl), and instead of the water ending up in the bowl, it can be redirected outside, to a container or drain.  In any case, since it is no longer being heated and evaporated back into the air, it is effectively removed from the humidity equation and your internal air becomes drier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how easy it is to access the back of your fridge, this hack takes mere minutes.  It doesn't take any extra electricity, and doesn't harm your fridge in any way.  It's just the free 24/7/365 dehumidifier that y'all have in your kitchen but weren't aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more warm/humid air you have in the house, and the more often you access the fridge, the more moisture will be removed in this manner and the drier the house will become.  It would seem to be a nice fit for a humid continental climate with year-round precipitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dn5Xv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20590" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8371" RevisionGUID="ce39789a-2af0-489d-bec5-ecf27437f9a2" CreationDate="2019-07-19T03:03:03.027" UserId="4886" Comment="added 319 characters in body" Text="Most folks don't know that their 'frost free fridge' can be easily hacked to act as a dehumidifier.  As it runs continuously, it can be used to suck moisture out of a humid home all.. year.. long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frost free fridges actually have a heating element.  This heating element comes on every-so-often to thaw out the cooling plate.  Any frost/ice that has formed on the cooling plate melts, drips into a plastic trough, drains to the bottom-rear of your fridge via a small tube, and then ends up in a plastic bowl located on top of your compressor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![back of fridge][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The compressor, as it works to pump heat out of your fridge and into the surrounding air, heats up.  Heat from the compressor warms the bowl and evaporates the water, returning the moisture back to the room where it originally came from.  So, under normal circumstances, this operation is humidity-neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming your fridge is against an external wall, or above an accessible basement, or near a drain, you can get a short piece of scrap tubing, attach it onto the end of the drain tube (just above the bowl), and instead of the water ending up in the bowl, it can be redirected outside, to a container or drain.  In any case, since it is no longer being heated and evaporated back into the air, it is effectively removed from the humidity equation and your internal air becomes drier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how easy it is to access the back of your fridge, this hack takes mere minutes.  It doesn't take any extra electricity, and doesn't harm your fridge in any way.  It's just the free 24/7/365 dehumidifier that y'all have in your kitchen but weren't aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more warm/humid air you have in the house, and the more often you access the fridge, the more moisture will be removed in this manner and the drier the house will become.  It would seem to be a nice fit for a humid continental climate with year-round precipitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expressly don't want moisture removed during part of the year, you can always spend a few bucks on a diverter valve and install it so that by simply turning the valve you can direct the condensate to either the bowl (and retain the moisture 'inside') or to a drain/container/through a wall (and send the moisture 'outside').&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dn5Xv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8371" RevisionGUID="d8f2d0f8-6847-4235-85f0-a4c684a5805f" CreationDate="2019-07-19T03:09:18.157" UserId="4886" Comment="added 319 characters in body" Text="Most folks don't know that their 'frost free fridge' can be easily hacked to act as a dehumidifier.  As it runs continuously, it can be used to suck moisture out of a humid home all.. year.. long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frost free fridges actually have a heating element.  This heating element comes on every-so-often to thaw out the cooling plate.  Any frost/ice that has formed on the cooling plate melts, drips into a plastic trough, drains to the bottom-rear of your fridge via a small tube, and then ends up in a plastic bowl located on top of your compressor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![back of fridge][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The compressor, as it works to pump heat out of your fridge and into the surrounding air, heats up.  Heat from the compressor warms the bowl and evaporates the water, returning the moisture back to the room where it originally came from.  So, under normal circumstances, this operation is humidity-neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming your fridge is against an external wall, or above an accessible basement, or near a drain, you can get a short piece of scrap tubing, attach it onto the end of the drain tube (just above the bowl), and instead of the water ending up in the bowl, it can be redirected outside, to a container or drain.  In any case, since it is no longer being heated and evaporated back into the air, it is effectively removed from the humidity equation and your internal air becomes drier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how easy it is to access the back of your fridge, this hack takes mere minutes.  It doesn't take any extra electricity, and doesn't harm your fridge in any way.  It's just the free 24/7/365 dehumidifier that y'all have in your kitchen but weren't aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more warm/humid air you have in the house, and the more often you access the fridge, the more moisture will be removed in this manner and the drier the house will become.  It would seem to be a nice fit for a humid continental climate with year-round precipitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expressly *don't* want moisture removed during part of the year, you can always spend a few bucks on a diverter valve and install it so that by simply turning the valve you can direct the condensate to either the bowl (and retain the moisture 'inside') or to a drain/container/through a wall (and send the moisture 'outside').  Direct the condensate to the bowl when the internal air is dry and you don't want to make it any drier.  Direct the condensate outside for the rest of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dn5Xv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8371" RevisionGUID="ff018cdb-fb7f-4c8a-8d4d-bcc2c1142bd7" CreationDate="2019-07-19T03:14:22.367" UserId="4886" Comment="added 319 characters in body" Text="Most folks don't know that their 'frost free fridge' can be easily hacked to act as a dehumidifier.  As it runs continuously, it can be used to suck unwanted moisture out of a humid home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frost free fridges actually have a heating element.  This heating element comes on every-so-often to thaw out the cooling plate.  Any frost/ice that has formed on the cooling plate melts, drips into a plastic trough, drains to the bottom-rear of your fridge via a small tube, and then ends up in a plastic bowl located on top of your compressor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![back of fridge][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The compressor, as it works to pump heat out of your fridge and into the surrounding air, heats up.  Heat from the compressor warms the bowl and evaporates the water, returning the moisture back to the room where it originally came from.  So, under normal circumstances, this operation is humidity-neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming your fridge is against an external wall, or above an accessible basement, or near a drain, you can get a short piece of scrap tubing, attach it onto the end of the drain tube (just above the bowl), and instead of the water ending up in the bowl, it can be redirected outside, to a closed container or drain.  In any case, since it is no longer being heated and evaporated back into the air, it is effectively removed from the humidity equation and your internal air becomes drier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how easy it is to access the back of your fridge, this hack takes mere minutes.  It doesn't take any extra electricity, and doesn't harm your fridge in any way.  It's just the free 24/7/365 dehumidifier that y'all have in your kitchen but weren't aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more warm/humid air you have in the house, and the more often you access the fridge, the more moisture will be removed in this manner and the drier the house will become.  It would seem to be a nice fit for a humid continental climate with year-round precipitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expressly *don't* want moisture removed during part of the year, you can always spend a few bucks on a diverter valve and install it so that by simply turning the valve you can direct the condensate to either the bowl (and retain the moisture 'inside') or to a drain/container/through a wall (and send the moisture 'outside').  Direct the condensate to the bowl when the internal air is dry and you don't want to make it any drier.  Direct the condensate outside for the rest of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dn5Xv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8372" RevisionGUID="a6ac220c-3509-4465-8728-a0cc6b98d7a5" CreationDate="2019-07-19T12:12:31.807" UserId="6602" Text="I understand that much of the low CO2 emissions for ethanol as vehicle fuel are related to its entire lifecycle (CO2 is sequestrated when the crop is grown and released when it combusts so it is carbon neutral, except the emissions due to production and transport.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But from looking at its combustion it releases approximately the same amount of CO2 as gasoline or petrol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since ethanol has about 50% less energy density than petrol (22.27 kWh/gal vs 33.41 kWh/gal), you have to use more ethanol to travel a given distance by car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that exhaust emissions in CO2e g per km are higher for ethanol and ethanol vehicles, compared to gasoline vehicles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20594" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8372" RevisionGUID="a6ac220c-3509-4465-8728-a0cc6b98d7a5" CreationDate="2019-07-19T12:12:31.807" UserId="6602" Text="Carbon emissions from Ethanol car fuel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20595" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8372" RevisionGUID="a6ac220c-3509-4465-8728-a0cc6b98d7a5" CreationDate="2019-07-19T12:12:31.807" UserId="6602" Text="|fuel-efficiency|biofuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8371" RevisionGUID="2fdd9502-9a89-4acf-be2f-bf3379d5402e" CreationDate="2019-07-19T12:43:52.210" UserId="4886" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Most folks don't know that their 'frost free fridge' can be easily hacked to act as a dehumidifier.  As it runs continuously, it can be used to suck unwanted moisture out of a humid home 24 hours a day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Frost free fridges actually have a heating element.  This heating element comes on every-so-often to thaw out the cooling plate.  Any frost/ice that has formed on the cooling plate melts, drips into a plastic trough, drains to the bottom-rear of your fridge via a small tube, and then ends up in a plastic bowl located on top of your compressor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![back of fridge][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The compressor, as it helps pump heat out of your fridge and into the surrounding air, also heats up.  Heat from the compressor warms the bowl and evaporates the water, returning the moisture back to the room where it originally came from.  So, under normal circumstances, this operation is humidity-neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming your fridge is against an external wall, or above an accessible basement, or near a drain, you can get a short piece of scrap tubing, attach it onto the end of the drain tube (just above the bowl), and instead of the water ending up in the bowl, it can be redirected outside, to a closed container or a drain.  In any case, since it is no longer being heated and evaporated back into the air, it is effectively removed from the humidity equation and your internal air becomes drier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how easy it is to access the back of your fridge, this hack takes mere minutes.  It doesn't require any extra electricity, and it doesn't harm your fridge in any way.  It's just the free 24/7/365 dehumidifier that everyone has in their kitchen but isn't aware of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more warm/humid air you have in the house, and the more often you access the fridge, the more moisture will be removed in this manner and the drier the house will become.  It would seem to be a nice fit for a humid continental climate with year-round precipitation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you expressly *don't* want moisture removed during part of the year, you can always spend a few bucks on a diverter valve and install it so that by simply turning the valve you can direct the condensate to either the bowl (and retain the moisture 'inside') or to a drain/container/through a wall (and send the moisture 'outside').  Direct the condensate to the bowl when the internal air is dry and you don't want to make it any drier.  Direct the condensate outside for the rest of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dn5Xv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20597" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8369" RevisionGUID="804b2c6f-8a86-46cd-8955-efb6e4bbe1bf" CreationDate="2019-07-19T15:56:51.077" UserId="3379" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="I own a home in southern Wisconsin, USA, where we have a [humid continental climate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humid_continental_climate) (emphasis on humid!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no central air conditioning. This summer we are experimenting with cooling strategies as we'd prefer not to add air conditioning (to avoid the up-front cost, higher electric bills, and increased carbon emissions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By keeping blinds and windows closed during the day, and open at night, we've been successful at keeping the house about 10 degrees F (5 degrees C) cooler inside than outside during the hottest part of the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The issue is the humidity.** The night air is damp and stays inside. This makes the floors sticky, and the furniture feel clammy. Especially if there has been rain overnight, this can make the house feel very uncomfortable!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Without adding air conditioning (or other significant expenses or energy users), what are some steps we could take to reduce indoor humidity?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;*There is a related question, [How to reduce humidity in the home?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5624/3379), but it focuses on winter-time. I'm interested in summer-time strategies.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8373" RevisionGUID="84909aa6-c12a-4f1a-8fdc-e77f9ec93294" CreationDate="2019-07-19T22:28:49.307" UserId="4834" Text="One option is to place materials that absorb or adsorb water from the air into the house.  Such materials include silica gel, clay and other mineral soils, and calcium chloride.  The amount of water this materials can deal with likely makes them part of a solution, not a solution on their own.  These materials may also need to be &quot;recharged&quot; or replaced regularly as they become saturated and ineffective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is houseplants.  In particular, epiphytes, which are adapted to gather their water needs from the air and other non-soil sources, may be helpful.  Some of this water will be used in photosynthesis to produce sugars.  As long as the sugars aren't metabolized the water is removed from the environment (thus removing parts of the plant may be necessary).  As with the above, this is probably not a solution by itself but can contribute somewhat to a solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both of these may also provide some buffer for humidity.  If there is a brief increase in outdoor humidity they may help slow the increase in humidity indoors.  If outdoor humidity falls before indoor humidity catches up, that's a win as well.  The reverse is also true, of course, which may or may not be desirable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, make sure there aren't unnecessary sources of humidity inside the house.  Driers, kitchens, and bathrooms should be vented to exhaust excessively humid air outdoors.  If you have houseplants you water regularly, these may also contribute.  Anything else that's sitting around and wet - towels, muddy boots or boot pans, compost buckets, etc, may all be contributing additional humidity.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20599" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8360" RevisionGUID="0ef84e3a-648f-409d-85d7-546b338542dc" CreationDate="2019-07-20T18:00:25.677" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1152639413115076608" />
  <row Id="20600" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8366" RevisionGUID="3992458c-f02b-4d59-9309-b04d08041913" CreationDate="2019-07-21T17:32:08.783" UserId="99" Comment="take renewable energy into account used by hosting company" Text="Here's a back-of-the-envelope calculation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This page](https://stackexchange.com/performance) describes the architecture of the Stack Exchange network. It consists of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 9 web servers&#xD;&#xA;- 4 sql servers&#xD;&#xA;- 2 redis servers&#xD;&#xA;- 3 tag servers&#xD;&#xA;- 3 elasticsearch servers&#xD;&#xA;- 2 haproxy servers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's 23 servers in total. Not all servers are equal, but since we do not have exact energy consumption figures we will use an estimate for 1 web server and multiply by 23.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recent measurements done by an organization I cooperate with showed that their server energy consumption is between 1160 and 1770 kWh a year. Let's take 1600 kWh as a rough estimate of server energy consumption per year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [EPA](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references) reports 7.07 × 10-4 metric tons CO2/kWh as the average carbon footprint for 1 kWh in the US, but that average kWh is generated with [only 17.64% renewable energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States). [This meta post](https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/306321) says that the Stack Exchange servers are hosted in New Jersey by a company called QTS. In the [QTS Sustainability Report 2018](https://www.qtsdatacenters.com/resources/brochures/esg-initiatives) it says that 32% of their power is from renewable energy sources. It's not entirely correct, but we estimate that the carbon footprint of 1 kWh used by a QTS server is 0.707 / (100 - 17.64) * (100 - 32) = 0.584 kg CO2e per kWh. So for 1 server this results in 1600 * 0.584 = 934 kg CO2e per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far we only looked at the carbon footprint of the 'use phase' and ignored the production and disposal phase. This [2010 paper from Dell](https://i.dell.com/sites/content/corporate/corp-comm/en/Documents/dell-server-carbon-footprint-whitepaper.pdf ) says that the GHG emissions in the use phase of a Dell rack server accounts for over 90% of the total life-cycle impact, so we add another 10% to get the impact over the entire lifecycle of the server: 934 / 90 * 100 = 1038 kg CO2e per server per year&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 23 servers that results in **23,900 kg CO2e per year** for the entire Stack Exchange production environment (so not including servers for developing or testing the platform).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 1.3 billion page views per month that is **approximately 1.5 mg CO2 per view**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20601" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8364" RevisionGUID="6730141b-c4e7-4cb5-843b-f46f2ec64476" CreationDate="2019-07-22T14:16:35.177" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed typos" Text="## What you're seeing: biopiles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  it looks like companies just dig the ground, leave everything in a pile for a while (few weeks?) and then bring over the dirt elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like what you're seeing are **biopiles** (also known as heap pile bioremediation, bioheaps, biomounds, or static-pile composting).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the [Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html), a project of the Federal Roundtable on Remediation Technology (FRTR), a group comprised of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Dept of Defense, and the Dept of Energy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Excavated soils are mixed with soil amendments and placed on a treatment area** that includes leachate collection systems and some form of aeration. It is used to reduce concentrations of petroleum constituents in excavated soils through the use of biodegradation. Moisture, heat, nutrients, oxygen, and pH can be controlled to enhance biodegradation. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Soil piles and cells commonly have an air distribution system buried under the soil to pass air through the soil either by vacuum or by positive pressure. **The soil piles in this case can be up to 20 feet high** (generally not recommended, 2-3 meters maximum). Soil piles may be covered with plastic to control runoff, evaporation, and volatilization and to promote solar heating. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Biopile is a short-term technology. **Duration of operation and maintenance may last a few weeks to several months.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Biodegradation** is the actual process at work to neutralize the harmful compounds. Here's a definition from the page on [treatment tech for fuels in soil](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_7_2.html):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Biodegradation uses indigenous or inoculated microorganisms (e.g., fungi, bacteria, and other microbes) to degrade (i.e., metabolize) organic contaminants found in soil and/or ground water. **In the presence of sufficient oxygen (aerobic conditions), microorganisms will ultimately convert many organic contaminants to carbon dioxide, water, and microbial cell mass. In the absence of oxygen (anaerobic conditions), the contaminants will be ultimately metabolized to methane.** Sometimes contaminants may not be completely degraded, but only transformed to intermediate products that may be less, equally, or more hazardous than the original contaminant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Applicability of biopiles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the page on biopiles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Biopile treatment has been applied to treatment of nonhalogenated VOCs and fuel hydrocarbons. Halogenated VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides also can be treated, but the process effectiveness will vary and may be applicable only to some compounds within these contaminant groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(b,j,k)fluoranthene, and Naphthalene** are all listed on the [fuels section](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_7.html) of the FRTR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reference for [Petroleum Hydrocarbon Ranges](http://www.caslab.com/Petroleum-Hydrocarbon-Ranges/) from a commercial testing laboratory indicates that **petroleum hydrocarbons** are all derived from crude oil. While some of these may be classified differently, it seems that remediation tech for typical fuels would also apply here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going back to the FRTR guide, other possible [soil treatment technologies for fuels](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_7_2.html) include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Incineration** uses high temperatures, 870 to 1,200 C (1,400 to 2,200 F), to volatilize and combust (in the presence of oxygen) organic constituents in hazardous wastes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Soil vapor extraction** is an in situ unsaturated (vadose) zone soil remediation technology in which a vacuum is applied to the soil to induce the controlled flow of air and remove volatile and some semivolatile contaminants from the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Low temperature thermal desorption** systems are physical separation processes and are not designed to destroy organics. Wastes are heated to between 90 and 315 C (200 to 600o F) to volatilize water and organic contaminants. A carrier gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water and organics to the gas treatment system. Ground water treatment concentrates the collected contaminants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about tin and lead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tin and lead are [inorganics](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_8.html), for which [soil treatment technologies](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_8_2.html) include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Solidification** processes produce monolithic blocks of waste with high structural integrity. The contaminants do not necessarily interact chemically with the solidification reagents (typically cement/ash) but are mechanically locked within the solidified matrix. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Excavation and off-site disposal** of contaminated soil (with or without solidification/stabilization pretreatment).&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Acid extraction** uses an acid, such as hydrochloric acid, to extract heavy metal contaminants from soils. Hydrochloric acid is then introduced into the soil in the extraction unit. [...] The soil-extractant mixture is continuously pumped out of the mixing tank, and the soil and extractant are separated using hydrocyclones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on how you describe the site, it sounds like the workers may be moving the tin and lead off-site for one of these treatment methods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8374" RevisionGUID="e89a5ae5-9f5f-4169-a8b2-97020e9efe08" CreationDate="2019-07-23T14:37:06.910" UserId="6811" Text="Nowadays, everyone talks about it: climate change, and more importantly, how to stop it from happening. Although there's a lot of debate around the topic, the conscensus is that by inventing a way of generating clean energy, we can slow down (and maybe even reverse) the effects global warming has on the planet. Using energy that was created without burning millions of years worth of stored carbon, we can not only power our everyday lives, but also capture the carbon we've been blowing into our atmosphere using the energy-intensive process of carbon capture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are still some problems. Currently, photovoltaic cells are pretty much useless during winter when it comes to fueling the homes of millions (at least where I live). We want to warm our homes, but there's not enough clean energy during those months, so we fall back on nuclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't it therefore be better to have a small rise in global temperature? I mean, a higher temperature means you don't have to warm your home during winter (as much). During summer, you can use the extra energy generated by the photovoltaic cells to power airconditioners in order to cool buildings and (maybe) use some excess energy to stop the &quot;snowball effect&quot; (higher temperatures will cause even higher tempertures) that those higher temperatures would have on the climate and keep it at a constant level. Even though cooling requires more energy than heating, might it break even?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have the knowledge nor the means to calculate if this is the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that climate change is a thing and that it's really, really bad. I'm not a guy that doesn't believe the effects it has on our surroundings. I just don't have the means to investigate this idea, that's why I ask you: will the rise in temperature have a positive effect on our energy production and the ability to satisfy energy demand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20603" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8374" RevisionGUID="e89a5ae5-9f5f-4169-a8b2-97020e9efe08" CreationDate="2019-07-23T14:37:06.910" UserId="6811" Text="Isn't a warmer climate better for energy generation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20604" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8374" RevisionGUID="e89a5ae5-9f5f-4169-a8b2-97020e9efe08" CreationDate="2019-07-23T14:37:06.910" UserId="6811" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20605" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8374" RevisionGUID="d3630424-d1a6-475a-a1b5-aeb3d8786b99" CreationDate="2019-07-23T14:45:18.827" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|heating|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8375" RevisionGUID="895c2716-b516-405b-aef4-3a51af154eb6" CreationDate="2019-07-24T21:50:40.007" UserId="3379" Text="**tl;dr -- For the west coast of the U.S., a 20% decrease in heating demand and 18% increase in cooling demand results in a 5% reduction in carbon emissions from electricity and natural gas usage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the approach I came up with to try and answer this question with some hard data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 1. Find a region of the U.S. which had a cold winter and mild summer, followed by a mild winter and a hot summer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the sort of change we'd expect to see with global warming. If we look at the data for consecutive years, we minimize the effects of changes to the grid and/or population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. Energy Information Agency publishes [monthly regional data for heating and cooling degree days](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/?v=28&amp;f=A&amp;s=0&amp;start=1997&amp;end=2018&amp;id=&amp;linechart=ZWHD_PAC~ZWCD_PAC&amp;maptype=0&amp;ctype=linechart&amp;map=) as part of the short term energy outlook. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at data for all regions, I determined that 2013 to 2014 for the Pacific region best meets the criteria. The area includes Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii. This area stretches pretty far from north to south, so makes a decent sample that we could use to extrapolate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 20% **increase** in cooling degree days (= more energy needed for cooling)&#xD;&#xA; - 17% **decrease** in heating degree days (= less energy needed for heating)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [population](https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk) in this region grew by slightly more than 1% over that time period, so likely not a huge factor in any changes in energy usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    	           2013	        2014	% change&#xD;&#xA;    Alaska	       735,132	   736,732	&#xD;&#xA;    California	38,332,521	38,802,500	&#xD;&#xA;    Hawaii	     1,404,054	 1,419,561	&#xD;&#xA;    Oregon	     3,930,065	 3,970,239	&#xD;&#xA;    Washington	 6,971,406	 7,061,530	&#xD;&#xA;    	        51,373,178	51,990,562	  1.2%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 2. Determine total usage of electricity and natural gas for heating over that time period&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EIA provides [monthly natural gas consumption by state](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm). This is broken down by end use, so I looked at residential and commercial uses, which would predominantly cover heating. I left out use by vehicles and industry. Some industry uses would include heating, but for all five states this usage was fairly consistent month-to-month, and less than either residential or commercial usage for most months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EIA also provides [monthly generation by fuel source by state](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.php#generation) (scroll to &quot;Generation&quot; then &quot;State-level generation and fuel consumption data&quot; then &quot;Monthly (back to 2001)&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a chart showing degree days (left axis) and energy for heating and electricity (right axis) using the above data sets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 3. Compare changes in heating, electric generation, and associated CO2 emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a chart comparing 2013 and 2014 usage for the largest sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's the data summarized in a table with emissions data and percent change calculated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                    				    2013	    2014       % change&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Heating degree days		              3,365	       2,776	-18%&#xD;&#xA;    Cooling degree days		                890	       1,069	 20%&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Heating natural gas (MWh)	    291,012,539	 256,759,857	-12%&#xD;&#xA;    CO2 emissions (metric tons)	     54,613,680	  48,185,555	&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Coal generation (MWh)		     26,701,933	  25,562,047	 -4%&#xD;&#xA;    CO2 emissions (metric tons)	     27,235,971	  26,073,288	&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Natural gas generation (MWh)	297,462,431	 289,771,833	 -3%&#xD;&#xA;    CO2 emissions (metric tons)	    133,858,094	 130,397,325	&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectric generation (MWh)	273,042,255	 263,321,494	 -4%&#xD;&#xA;    Nuclear generation (MWh)	     52,745,666	  52,966,598	  0%&#xD;&#xA;    Solar generation (MWh)		      7,708,892	  19,940,312	159%&#xD;&#xA;    Wind generation (MWh)		     55,861,453	  58,717,774	  5%&#xD;&#xA;    Other generation (MWh)		     68,296,211	  67,585,528	 -1%&#xD;&#xA;    Total electric (MWh)		    781,818,840	 777,865,587	 -1%&#xD;&#xA;    			&#xD;&#xA;    Total CO2 (metric tons)		    215,707,745	 204,656,168	 -5%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a pretty limited (and possibly spurious) analysis, but it supports your hypothesis: **a warmer climate reduces energy needs in the winter by a greater factor than the summertime increase.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The really interesting thing, especially in a U.S. context, is that a huge proportion of natural gas is used for heating in the winter. But in the summer, electricity from cooling comes from a more diverse set of sources. **So any reduction in heating demand necessarily reduces CO2 emissions, but as the grid adds more wind and solar, increases in cooling demand don't necessarily increase CO2 emissions.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some caveats to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Much of the population of California is on the southern coast, where heating and cooling demand is already limited due to the mild climate&#xD;&#xA; - None of this accounts changes in population, economic activity, policy, or precipitation&#xD;&#xA; - Electric usage is for all uses (not just heating/cooling) so doesn't account for any economic factors&#xD;&#xA; - California added A LOT of solar, and some wind, during  this time period, which contributed to the overall reduction in CO2 emissions from the electric sector&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UBhZu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/COQvJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Vyhnd.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8376" RevisionGUID="67c60adb-30cb-4631-9054-aed3d1dca48e" CreationDate="2019-07-25T00:50:06.593" UserId="6816" Text="Perhaps a Q&amp;A website like sustainable Living?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8376" RevisionGUID="67c60adb-30cb-4631-9054-aed3d1dca48e" CreationDate="2019-07-25T00:50:06.593" UserId="6816" Text="Is there a website that lists the environmental impact and/or carbon footprint of many products and practices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8376" RevisionGUID="67c60adb-30cb-4631-9054-aed3d1dca48e" CreationDate="2019-07-25T00:50:06.593" UserId="6816" Text="|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8374" RevisionGUID="f789ddce-4af5-4ef4-b468-9eccc97691e3" CreationDate="2019-07-25T02:20:43.157" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 338 characters in body" Text="Nowadays, everyone talks about it: climate change, and more importantly, how to stop it from happening. Although there's a lot of debate around the topic, the consensus is that by inventing a way of generating clean energy, we can slow down (and maybe even reverse) the effects global warming has on the planet. Using energy that was created without burning millions of years worth of stored carbon, we can not only power our everyday lives, but also capture the carbon we've been blowing into our atmosphere using the energy-intensive process of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are still some problems. Currently, photovoltaic cells are pretty much useless during winter when it comes to fueling the homes of millions (at least where I live). We want to warm our homes, but there's not enough clean energy during those months, so we fall back on nuclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Wouldn't it therefore be better to have a small rise in global temperature?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A higher temperature means you don't have to warm your home during winter (as much). &#xD;&#xA; - During summer, you can use the extra energy generated by the photovoltaic cells to power air conditioners in order to cool buildings and &#xD;&#xA; - Use some excess energy to stop the [runaway greenhouse effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect) using CCS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though cooling requires more energy than heating, might it break even? **Will the rise in temperature have a positive effect on our energy production and the ability to satisfy energy demand?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20611" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8374" RevisionGUID="9a34447a-ff78-4b0c-a123-927926f8126f" CreationDate="2019-07-25T02:27:06.507" UserId="3379" Comment="edited title" Text="Will a warmer climate reduce energy demand and increase solar PV production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20612" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8375" RevisionGUID="945fa3cf-2525-4fef-b4d7-a40adb0afa64" CreationDate="2019-07-25T12:30:54.370" UserId="3379" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="**tl;dr -- For the west coast of the U.S., a 20% decrease in heating demand and 18% increase in cooling demand results in a 5% reduction in carbon emissions from electricity and natural gas usage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the approach I came up with to try and answer this question with some hard data. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 1. Find a region of the U.S. which had a cold winter and mild summer, followed by a mild winter and a hot summer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the sort of change we'd expect to see with global warming. If we look at the data for consecutive years, we minimize the effects of changes to the grid and/or population.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. Energy Information Agency publishes [monthly regional data for heating and cooling degree days](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/?v=28&amp;f=A&amp;s=0&amp;start=1997&amp;end=2018&amp;id=&amp;linechart=ZWHD_PAC~ZWCD_PAC&amp;maptype=0&amp;ctype=linechart&amp;map=) as part of the short term energy outlook. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at data for all regions, I determined that 2013 to 2014 for the Pacific region best meets the criteria. The area includes Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii. This area stretches pretty far from north to south, so makes a decent sample that we could use to extrapolate. From 2013 to 2014 this region experienced:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 20% **increase** in cooling degree days (= more energy needed for cooling)&#xD;&#xA; - 17% **decrease** in heating degree days (= less energy needed for heating)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [population](https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk) in this region grew by slightly more than 1% over that time period, so likely not a huge factor in any changes in energy usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    	           2013	        2014	% change&#xD;&#xA;    Alaska	       735,132	   736,732	&#xD;&#xA;    California	38,332,521	38,802,500	&#xD;&#xA;    Hawaii	     1,404,054	 1,419,561	&#xD;&#xA;    Oregon	     3,930,065	 3,970,239	&#xD;&#xA;    Washington	 6,971,406	 7,061,530	&#xD;&#xA;    	        51,373,178	51,990,562	  1.2%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 2. Determine total usage of electricity and natural gas for heating over that time period&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EIA provides [monthly natural gas consumption by state](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm). This is broken down by end use, so I looked at residential and commercial uses, which would predominantly cover heating. I left out use by vehicles and industry. Some industry uses would include heating, but for all five states this usage was fairly consistent month-to-month, and less than either residential or commercial usage for most months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EIA also provides [monthly generation by fuel source by state](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.php#generation) (scroll to &quot;Generation&quot; then &quot;State-level generation and fuel consumption data&quot; then &quot;Monthly (back to 2001)&quot;) .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a chart showing degree days (left axis) and energy for heating and electricity (right axis) using the above data sets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 3. Compare changes in heating, electric generation, and associated CO2 emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a chart comparing 2013 and 2014 usage for the largest sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's the data summarized in a table with emissions data and percent change calculated:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                    				    2013	    2014       % change&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Heating degree days		              3,365	       2,776	-18%&#xD;&#xA;    Cooling degree days		                890	       1,069	 20%&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Heating natural gas (MWh)	    291,012,539	 256,759,857	-12%&#xD;&#xA;    CO2 emissions (metric tons)	     54,613,680	  48,185,555	&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Coal generation (MWh)		     26,701,933	  25,562,047	 -4%&#xD;&#xA;    CO2 emissions (metric tons)	     27,235,971	  26,073,288	&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Natural gas generation (MWh)	297,462,431	 289,771,833	 -3%&#xD;&#xA;    CO2 emissions (metric tons)	    133,858,094	 130,397,325	&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Hydroelectric generation (MWh)	273,042,255	 263,321,494	 -4%&#xD;&#xA;    Nuclear generation (MWh)	     52,745,666	  52,966,598	  0%&#xD;&#xA;    Solar generation (MWh)		      7,708,892	  19,940,312	159%&#xD;&#xA;    Wind generation (MWh)		     55,861,453	  58,717,774	  5%&#xD;&#xA;    Other generation (MWh)		     68,296,211	  67,585,528	 -1%&#xD;&#xA;    Total electric (MWh)		    781,818,840	 777,865,587	 -1%&#xD;&#xA;    			&#xD;&#xA;    Total CO2 (metric tons)		    215,707,745	 204,656,168	 -5%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a pretty limited (and possibly spurious) analysis, but it supports your hypothesis: **a warmer climate reduces energy needs in the winter by a greater factor than the summertime increase.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The really interesting thing, especially in a U.S. context, is that a huge proportion of natural gas is used for heating in the winter. But in the summer, electricity from cooling comes from a more diverse set of sources. **So any reduction in heating demand necessarily reduces CO2 emissions, but as the grid adds more wind and solar, increases in cooling demand don't necessarily increase CO2 emissions.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some caveats to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Much of the population of California is on the southern coast, where heating and cooling demand is already limited due to the mild climate&#xD;&#xA; - None of this accounts for changes in population, economic activity, policy, or precipitation&#xD;&#xA; - Electric usage is for all uses (not just heating/cooling) so doesn't account for any economic factors&#xD;&#xA; - California added A LOT of solar, and some wind, during  this time period, which contributed to the overall reduction in CO2 emissions from the electric sector&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UBhZu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/COQvJ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Vyhnd.png&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20613" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7173" RevisionGUID="189a1859-b06b-4df5-8a41-ed38f6db9c77" CreationDate="2019-07-25T19:31:21.657" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="ref to article from comment under answer" Text="I recently saw the Wired article [You Can Power a Calculator With Some LEDs](https://www.wired.com/story/you-can-power-a-calculator-with-some-leds/) that said that LEDs can use electricity to produce light or they can turn light into electricity.  If this is true, could the excess light that we have coming into our homes and cars be captured by the millions of LEDs in technology today to collect electricity to be used later?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How about a big screen TV in my family room?  Could all those LEDs used to display a picture be able to collect electricity when I'm not at home or simply not watching TV?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8377" RevisionGUID="1a3085bd-e032-4998-827c-371e8b2a6123" CreationDate="2019-07-26T16:42:00.087" UserId="4922" Text="https://www.cfp-japan.jp/english/list/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't call it comprehensive but it is what you're looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A cursory web search lead to this and many more sites. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.bettermeetsreality.com/carbon-footprint-of-common-everyday-things-products-foods/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8378" RevisionGUID="e704ff58-d09f-45c3-ae0b-425f0095e96b" CreationDate="2019-07-26T16:47:21.170" UserId="4922" Text="I don't know about per km, but this article has some info:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible_fuel_emissions.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This calculator has some info showing the different CO2 Emmissions of petrol vs ethanol:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.sunearthtools.com/tools/CO2-emissions-calculator.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20617" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5536" RevisionGUID="30f43bbf-654d-45f8-9d36-7ce11bdb6263" CreationDate="2019-07-26T17:02:45.287" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="20618" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8379" RevisionGUID="24310a51-f987-4d6b-8405-bdb94374150a" CreationDate="2019-07-26T18:19:24.727" UserId="3885" Text="There are a ton of different factors to take into consideration here.  Lets make sure we keep **net GHGe** and **tailpipe GHGe** separate here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Net GHGe**: Since 2015, satellite observation as well as international agriculture reporting data have started to show that the original assumptions surrounding Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) for generation I and advanced biofuels have been grossly over calculating the effects of ILUC, as well as under and over accounting in other areas. Utilizing new data, there are several studies all pointing to a considerably lower GHGe footprint of Gen I and advanced biofuels. The most comprehensive study I've found to date has been [A Life-Cycle Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Based Ethanol][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tl;dr here is, the current EPA model that claims ethanol lifecycle emissions are a 20% reduction from baseline gasoline still has the incorrect ILUC numbers. The real number as calculated in the above as well as several other studies [ [GHGe recent evidence][2] | [ILUC data review][3] ] is likely between a 35% and 50% reduction (with many studies finding in the 40%-45% range) from baseline gasoline. This is the net carbon accounting of **EVERYTHING** - Tailpipe, ILUC, vapor emissions, fuel production and transport, fertilizer - everything. It should be noted that the GHGe intensity of gen 1 and advanced biofuels are continuing to decline and will likely do so as shown below, and that none of these numbers even take into account other sources of ethanol with lower GHGe, including sugarcane and cellulosic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![figure 4-4][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From left to right: 2005 gasoline baseline (self explanatory), EPARIA: 2022 (current EPA model), ICF 2014 (correction for ILUC and other accounting from EPA model), ICF: 2022 BAU (business-as-usual projection to 2022 showing addition reductions), ICF: 2022 Building Blocks (described in paper, this is a theoretical potential based on new technologies such as combined heat &amp; power, fiber digestion, etc). **Note the dramatic difference in production &amp; ILUC numbers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok, on to **Tailpipe GHGe**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing you'll notice in the above graph is that the tailpipe emissions of EtOH are a sliver of gasoline. This is confusing until you read the lifecycle analysis report. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The carbon dioxide emissions from corn ethanol are assumed to not increase the atmospheric CO 2&#xD;&#xA;emissions as the biogenic carbon emitted is offset by the carbon uptake of new growth biomass. Life-&#xD;&#xA;cycle CO 2 emissions from biofuel tailpipe combustion are not included in the analysis. The biofuel&#xD;&#xA;tailpipe combustion CH 4 and N 2 O emissions are included however. These emission factors are based on&#xD;&#xA;EPA’s MOVES model results (EPA, 2015b; EPA, 2010g).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may seem &quot;shady&quot; if you aren't used to the carbon accounting, but every atom of carbon (no matter the form) involved in the actual transport biofuel comes from sequestration of an identical carbon atom in the air. This is an even, 1-1 exchange. They note that other compounds that are not CO2 are included, as they may be a 1-1 carbon exchange but they may have an uneven impact (GHGe). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you were asking about the actual tailpipe emissions, not the tailpipe emissions that were matched with carbon sequestration via agriculture. For this we have to do a bit of math, and use the correct numbers. Reference this same study:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; About **19.64 pounds (8.91 kg)** of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) are produced from burning a gallon of gasoline that does not contain ethanol.......About **12.73 pounds (5.77 kg)** of CO 2 are produced when a gallon of pure ethanol is combusted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as always when utilizing ethanol - gasoline comparisons, the per-gallon numbers don't mean anything. Using an energy density of 121.12 &amp; 79.86 MJ/Gal for Gasoline &amp; EtOH respectively, we end up with 73.56 &amp; 72.25 gCO2e/MJ for Gasoline and EtOH, respectively. that difference is effectively nothing, as if you jumped between the LHV and HHV of gasoline you can flip which fuel is technically on top. We should expect this too, because we're talking about general hydrocarbon bonds being taken from a fixed state of reduction to completely oxidized, and regardless of the species we should see similar if not the same amount of energy released from breaking those bonds in the same way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, there are two caveats here: The above **Net GHGe** analysis takes into account conversion of N2 into N2O, and CH4, CO emissions etc. **The tailpipe GHGe does not**. Generally speaking, Ethanol fuel results in lower non-CO2 emissions than gasoline, though under certain circumstances N2O emissions can be slightly higher than gasoline. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second caveat is that EtOH can be considerably more efficient in producing usable work on a per-MJ basis than gasoline, due to its highly desirable qualities as an internal combustion engine fuel (specifically octane rating, octane sensitivity &amp; heat of vaporization). [EERC found][5] that in both flex fuel &amp; non-flex fuel cars, ethanol has a dramatic impact on fuel economy when looked at on a per-BTU or MJ basis. This is effectively an increase in efficiency in internal combustion engines, especially undersized engines under heavy load. I personally tested this on my own vehicle (2014 GMC Sierra, 5.3 flex fuel) and found almost identical results to what EERC found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EERC's results:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal results:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had previously calculated my per-mile carbon intensity using the life cycle analysis here:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe we're just getting the point where vehicles are capable of utilizing higher blends of ethanol combined with gasoline, and I think there is going to be a dramatic reduction of carbon footprint of the U.S. fuel supply as higher amounts of ethanol are blended in, and as auto-manufactures begin demanding higher performing liquid transport fuels. Ford is already testing out all horsepower numbers for their Ecoboost engines on 94-95 octane fuel, and many manufactures are finding the value in producing downsized-turbocharged engines. &#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/01/12/usda-releases-new-report-lifecycle-greenhouse-gas-balance-ethanol&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17597269.2018.1546488&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SIUE-Review-of-Land-Use-Change-Literature-07-2019.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BW5X3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.speedperf6rmanc3.com/content/ACE_Optimal_Ethanol_Blend_Level_Study.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gRXb0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lPSac.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0VLDp.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8380" RevisionGUID="bf7e11f6-29c6-4a67-b332-bb77b403ca8a" CreationDate="2019-07-27T09:29:49.970" UserId="99" Text="There are lots of websites but all I know are aimed at researchers (so not intended for the general public) and usually apply to a specific country only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take for example [this US Life Cycle Inventory Database](https://www.nrel.gov/lci/). It contains inventories for various materials and services (lists of input and output for producing something) which can be used to calculate the environmental impact. Each inventory has a date and geographical location that shows when and where the numbers where gathered. Any good life-cycle analysis has to mention this location and date. This is important because a life-cycle analysis using data from only a few years ago may already be obsolete if the manufacturing process changed in the mean time. Likewise the data may not hold for other countries, for example because the used resources are mined or generated differently, or need to be transported over much longer distances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually the problem with any ecological footprint, carbon footprint, life-cycle analysis, etc. The numbers apply only to a specific location and often also a specific time. This also means that **a website that lists various products or services has limited value because it's very likely that your particular situation is different**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for the most accurate result for you, you will have to search online if NGOs or environmental organizations in your country provide any useful, recent statistics. Alternatively you can ask for information resources here in a new question, but please try to limit the scope of your question as much as possible (e.g. ask only about food, or about energy use at home, or about transportation) and do add in which country you live. Questions that result in a very long list of resources may be closed as too broad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20621" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8376" RevisionGUID="9483eeef-3b13-4fb4-8b09-8a8f9f561dde" CreationDate="2019-07-27T12:07:18.220" UserId="99" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="Perhaps a Q&amp;A website like Sustainable Living?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20622" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8376" RevisionGUID="9483eeef-3b13-4fb4-8b09-8a8f9f561dde" CreationDate="2019-07-27T12:07:18.220" UserId="99" Comment="edited body; edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|carbon-footprint|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8380" RevisionGUID="f947e16d-ae8d-4226-b131-f8fb4e06b572" CreationDate="2019-07-27T12:32:19.590" UserId="99" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="There are lots of websites but all sites I know are aimed at researchers (so not intended for the general public) and usually apply to a specific country only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take for example [this US Life Cycle Inventory Database](https://www.nrel.gov/lci/). It contains inventories for various materials and services (lists of input and output for producing something) which can be used to calculate the environmental impact. Each inventory has a date and geographical location that shows when and where the numbers where gathered. Any good life-cycle analysis has to mention this location and date. This is important because a life-cycle analysis using data from only a few years ago may already be obsolete if the manufacturing process changed in the mean time. Likewise the data may not hold for other countries, for example because the used resources are mined or generated differently, or need to be transported over much longer distances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is actually the problem with any ecological footprint, carbon footprint, life-cycle analysis, etc. The numbers apply only to a specific location and often also a specific time. This also means that **a website that lists various products or services has limited value because it's very likely that your particular situation is different**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for the most accurate result for you, you will have to search online if NGOs or environmental organizations in your country provide any useful, recent statistics. Alternatively you can ask for information resources here in a new question, but please try to limit the scope of your question as much as possible (e.g. ask only about food, or about energy use at home, or about transportation) and do add in which country you live. Questions that result in a very long list of resources may be closed as too broad." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8381" RevisionGUID="e45eaa0d-c107-42e4-be98-f678879910c6" CreationDate="2019-07-29T14:56:23.617" UserId="6825" Text="One question that wasn't raised was albedo. Cotton albedo is higher than bamboo and for the thousands of square miles used on these crops this is an important plus. But soil erosion is also a very important factor. Surely if cotton is perennial it shouldn't be necessary to plough and re-sow? At least not every year. The crop could easily be cultivated as an insect and fungus free perennial with a little genetic engineering, which I know is unpopular but which is the worst evil; this, or killing all the wildlife and destroying the soil? If, as you say, cotton fibre is more durable, My vote is definitely COTTON.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8382" RevisionGUID="63c28f54-41b6-4ea4-96c5-41ae8e157380" CreationDate="2019-07-29T15:16:36.887" UserId="6825" Text="The US isn't the only land mass in the world you know. In much of Africa people and animals are dying in the heat. And on a global scale the man made energy requirements are rising exponentially because of global warming. In Britain for instance people are busy installing air conditioning which they never needed before. If you even looked at the extra air conditioning installed in the US you would probably find it outweighs all this estimated saving. Scientists are also working on superconductors which save quite a bit of energy, but necessitate very cold temperatures which will become increasingly difficult to maintain. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8384" RevisionGUID="26735b7d-d9a8-447b-9e62-e5d5a9667608" CreationDate="2019-07-30T00:50:20.227" UserId="6822" Text="I want to have a recycling bin at home in addition to a trash bin. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I line my recycling bin with a trash bag and bag it up when it's full to toss in the dumpster's recycling bin? Or should I not line it with a bag and just dump my entire bin in the dumpster? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, the bag used to bag up the recycled materials itself isn't recycled. On the other hand, I heard that the trucks that transport the dumpster's material to recycling facilities often risk having debris fly out of their trucks when not bagged up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20630" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8384" RevisionGUID="26735b7d-d9a8-447b-9e62-e5d5a9667608" CreationDate="2019-07-30T00:50:20.227" UserId="6822" Text="Should I use a plastic trash bag for my recycling bin at home or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20631" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8384" RevisionGUID="26735b7d-d9a8-447b-9e62-e5d5a9667608" CreationDate="2019-07-30T00:50:20.227" UserId="6822" Text="|recycling|plastic|transport|bags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20635" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8379" RevisionGUID="cc893b86-6d36-4a8a-b05f-67e37bbea867" CreationDate="2019-07-30T16:39:47.600" UserId="3885" Comment="Added headings, added the final graph (tailpipe-only carbon intensity) and extrapolated on the caveats to tailpipe-emissions differences" Text="There are a ton of different factors to take into consideration here.  Lets make sure we keep **net GHGe** and **tailpipe GHGe** separate here.&#xD;&#xA;#Net GHGe&#xD;&#xA;**Net GHGe**: Since 2015, satellite observation as well as international agriculture reporting data have started to show that the original assumptions surrounding Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) for generation I and advanced biofuels have been grossly over calculating the effects of ILUC, as well as under and over accounting in other areas. Utilizing new data, there are several studies all pointing to a considerably lower GHGe footprint of Gen I and advanced biofuels. The most comprehensive study I've found to date has been [A Life-Cycle Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Based Ethanol][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tl;dr here is, the current EPA model that claims ethanol lifecycle emissions are a 20% reduction from baseline gasoline still has the incorrect ILUC numbers. The real number as calculated in the above as well as several other studies [ [GHGe recent evidence][2] | [ILUC data review][3] ] is likely between a 35% and 50% reduction (with many studies finding in the 40%-45% range) from baseline gasoline. This is the net carbon accounting of **EVERYTHING** - Tailpipe, ILUC, vapor emissions, fuel production and transport, fertilizer - everything. It should be noted that the GHGe intensity of gen 1 and advanced biofuels are continuing to decline and will likely do so as shown below, and that none of these numbers even take into account other sources of ethanol with lower GHGe, including sugarcane and cellulosic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![figure 4-4][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From left to right: 2005 gasoline baseline (self explanatory), EPARIA: 2022 (current EPA model), ICF 2014 (correction for ILUC and other accounting from EPA model), ICF: 2022 BAU (business-as-usual projection to 2022 showing addition reductions), ICF: 2022 Building Blocks (described in paper, this is a theoretical potential based on new technologies such as combined heat &amp; power, fiber digestion, etc). **Note the dramatic difference in production &amp; ILUC numbers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Tailpipe GHGe&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first thing you'll notice in the above graph is that the tailpipe emissions of EtOH are a sliver of gasoline. This is confusing until you read the lifecycle analysis report. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The carbon dioxide emissions from corn ethanol are assumed to not increase the atmospheric CO 2&#xD;&#xA;emissions as the biogenic carbon emitted is offset by the carbon uptake of new growth biomass. Life-&#xD;&#xA;cycle CO 2 emissions from biofuel tailpipe combustion are not included in the analysis. The biofuel&#xD;&#xA;tailpipe combustion CH 4 and N 2 O emissions are included however. These emission factors are based on&#xD;&#xA;EPA’s MOVES model results (EPA, 2015b; EPA, 2010g).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This may seem &quot;shady&quot; if you aren't used to the carbon accounting, but every atom of carbon (no matter the form) involved in the actual transport biofuel comes from sequestration of an identical carbon atom in the air. This is an even, 1-1 exchange. They note that other compounds that are not CO2 are included, as they may be a 1-1 carbon exchange but they may have an uneven impact (GHGe). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you were asking about the actual tailpipe emissions, not the tailpipe emissions that were matched with carbon sequestration via agriculture. For this we have to do a bit of math, and use the correct numbers. Reference this same study:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; About **19.64 pounds (8.91 kg)** of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) are produced from burning a gallon of gasoline that does not contain ethanol.......About **12.73 pounds (5.77 kg)** of CO 2 are produced when a gallon of pure ethanol is combusted&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But as always when utilizing ethanol - gasoline comparisons, the per-gallon numbers don't mean anything. Using an energy density of 121.12 &amp; 79.86 MJ/Gal for Gasoline &amp; EtOH respectively, we end up with 73.56 &amp; 72.25 gCO2e/MJ for Gasoline and EtOH, respectively. that difference is effectively nothing, as if you jumped between the LHV and HHV of gasoline you can flip which fuel is technically on top. We should expect this too, because we're talking about general hydrocarbon bonds being taken from a fixed state of reduction to completely oxidized, and regardless of the species we should see similar if not the same amount of energy released from breaking those bonds in the same way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Caveats &#xD;&#xA;There are two caveats here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first: The above **Net GHGe** analysis takes into account conversion of N2 into N2O, and CH4, CO etc emissions at the tailpipe. **The tailpipe GHGe analysis does not**. [Generally speaking][5], Ethanol fuel results in lower or identical non-CO2 emissions than gasoline, though under certain circumstances N2O &amp; acetaldehyde emissions can be slightly higher than gasoline, and certain toxic, organic and other ozone forming compounds can be slightly lower than gasoline. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second caveat is that EtOH can be considerably more efficient in producing usable work on a per-MJ basis than gasoline, due to its highly desirable qualities as an internal combustion engine fuel (specifically octane rating, octane sensitivity &amp; heat of vaporization). [EERC found][6] that in both flex fuel &amp; non-flex fuel cars, ethanol has a dramatic impact on fuel economy when looked at on a per-BTU or MJ basis. This is effectively an increase in efficiency in internal combustion engines, especially undersized engines under heavy load. I personally tested this on my own vehicle (2014 GMC Sierra, 5.3 flex fuel) and found almost identical results to what EERC found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EERC's results:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal results:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had previously calculated my per-mile carbon intensity using the life cycle analysis here:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Here I have adjusted the per-mile carbon intensity utilizing the above calculated tailpipe emissions numbers instead of the lifecycle analysis numbers:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe we're just getting the point where vehicles are capable of utilizing higher blends of ethanol combined with gasoline, and I think there is going to be a dramatic reduction of carbon footprint of the U.S. fuel supply as higher amounts of ethanol are blended in, and as auto-manufactures begin demanding higher performing liquid transport fuels. Ford is already testing out all horsepower numbers for their Ecoboost engines on 94-95 octane fuel, and many manufactures are finding the value in producing downsized-turbocharged engines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/01/12/usda-releases-new-report-lifecycle-greenhouse-gas-balance-ethanol&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17597269.2018.1546488&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SIUE-Review-of-Land-Use-Change-Literature-07-2019.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BW5X3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://res.mdpi.com/energies/energies-11-00221/article_deploy/energies-11-00221.pdf?filename=&amp;attachment=1&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.speedperf6rmanc3.com/content/ACE_Optimal_Ethanol_Blend_Level_Study.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gRXb0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lPSac.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0VLDp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RFJnp.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20636" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6518" RevisionGUID="ab16067d-d84e-4ca6-8871-7aa74b77c73b" CreationDate="2019-07-30T20:41:36.493" UserId="2134" Comment="better formatting of units that need subscript (kW(p) for &quot;kW peak&quot;)" Text="Where feed-in is forbidden, a normal grid-tie inverter is not acceptable to the utility. (For the various cases of feed-in regulation, see [this question][1].) However, an inverter plus a zero export solution can be acceptable. I propose to use this (options listed below), as it gets around the need for batteries (which are an additional expense and incur replacement costs due to normal degradation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, simply ask the utility operator. They often have lists of equipment that may be installed legally, or if not, may accept your proposed equipment on a case-by-case basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In some countries, utilities may not yet have heard about zero export solutions, but a local electrician might agree to install an inverter with zero-export since it does not affect the grid. This is technically true if the inverter also has the anti-islanding feature (switching off when the grid goes down, to protect line workers; most grid-tie inverters have it, some reportedly don't, so check before). However, even if the local electrician offers this, as it happened to me, it is probably not &quot;according to the letter of the law&quot;. Proceed at your own responsibility, as always.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All options I list below also allow export limiting to a non-zero value, for cases where that is acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 1. String inverter(s) with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the most usual / standard alternative. Many current inverter models support export limiting, and if they do, usually also a &quot;zero export&quot; mode and sometimes a &quot;minimum consumption&quot; mode (a less-than-zero export limit). But check the manual of course. Example products include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SolarEdge inverters.** Their [export-limiting solution][2] seems an esp. nice alterative, as they all work with a simple S0 electricity meter (no expensive smart meter required) ([see][3]), and configuration can happen with buttons on the device (see [the manual][4]). A web-based interface is also offered, though. Inverter size starts with 1-phase 2.2 kW inverters (see [products with prices][5]). Note that SolarEdge inverters differ from others in that the MPPT (DC-DC conversion) part is in separate devices close to the panels, called [Power Optimizers][6], which you will need in addition. But it offers the advantage that you can mix all kinds of panels of different types, ages and brands without losses, as each panel's output voltage is kept constant and each panel is driven at its maximum power point due to the separate MPPT devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter.** With integrated feature &quot;Fronius&#xD;&#xA;Datamanager 2.0&quot;, plus a Fronius Smart Meter. See their [presentation][7]. Also supports minimum consumption mode, called &quot;Grid setpoint&quot; (see chp. 4.3.12). See also the [list of compatible inverters][8]. Configuration of export limiting happens via a web interface, which may not be desired in some circumstances …&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Fronius SnapINverter and Victron Venus.** This combines a Fronius SnapINverter, as above, with a Victron Venus controller and a Victron smart meter. Export limiting is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; It is possible to make a Zero feed-in system with Victron &amp; Fronius. The Venus device will the control the Fronius output power. ([source][9])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    [Venus is open source software][10] and even [runs on a Raspberry Pi][11], so this might be a good solution where own modifications of the control software are desired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Zeus Appollo Solar [Anti Reverse Current Box][12].** Only compatible with their own Zeus Apollo Z20 Series inverters, so listed here under inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **SMA inverters** with either the SMA Sunny Home Manager or the SMA Cluster controller allow to create a zero-export solution ([see][13]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 2. Micro-inverters with export limiting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a usual option, but possible. Micro inverters provide the same advantage as SolarEdge inverters: panels of different age, type and manufacturer can be mixed as the output is normalized (here, to grid AC electricity). Options found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Enphase.** According to a [lengthy forum discussion](https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825-zero-feed-into-grid-with-enphase), the Enphase micro-inverters supporting this so far are the Enphase S230 and S280, together with the &quot;Envoy-S metered&quot; controller. Of these, only the S230 comes in a 50 Hz version, and would have to be imported from Australia (see posts [#19][14], [#28][15], [#46][16]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;SolarFighter&lt;/strike&gt;.** A Spanish company providing a [small zero-export solution][17] built around a 250 W microinverter, a smart meter and a controller box ([see][18]). Up to 25 microinverters (6.25 kW&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt;) can be combined with the same controller box and meter ([see][19]). All devices are sold both separately and as kits, and the minimum investment is ca. 530 EUR for all three devices excl. PV panels ([see][20]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The **problem** with this solution is that the zero export feature does not seem to work as advertised, according to my own tests. The controller box will set the production limit values in the inverter correctly, but for every value &gt;20 W the inverter will produce unthrottled, while for every value ≤20 W it will not produce anything. SolarFighter support confirmed that the behavior is not normal and exchanged the inverter on warranty, but so far the problem persists. There are also other problems with software quality and maintenance: the controller box shows more than twice the actual solar yield by calculating the &quot;accumulated energy&quot; value wrong, the &quot;total exported energy&quot; value is also wrong (always the same as &quot;total imported energy&quot;), the statistics functions are not available as their online portal does not allow registration (it seems unmaintained), and the forms in the controller box user interface have a bad user experience (no conditionally shown parts etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    That the SolarFighter system is not recommendable is esp. sad as otherwise this would be the *only* accessible zero-export solution for small installations. And *all* residential installations in countries where export to the grid is forbidden are small (&lt;1 kW&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt;) – simply because more generation capacity than needed by the household cannot be utilized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 3. Zero export devices&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are dedicated devices that can control the power output of a limited set of inverter models, externally adding a &quot;zero export&quot; feature to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **Circutor Dynamic Power Controller [CDP-0][21] / [CDP-G][22].** A combination of electricity meter and controller that can adjust throttle inverters of many different brands to limit or eliminate exporting power to the grid. The CDP-G version also includes three relays to power non-critical electrical consumers before having to throttle the inverter (see the [datashee][23]). Nice and compact device. Readily available in Europe for ca. 800 EUR ([see][24]); that price makes it only economically meaningful for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **elgris [ZERO EXPORT][25].** The principle of function, if I understood it correctly, is in case of &quot;overproduction&quot; to first increase local consumption (like of a water heater) and, if not enough, to reduce the inverter's production. It is said to be inverter model independent and able to throttle inverters and not just switch them on and off. No price or convenient purchase option found, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[Solar Zero Export Controller][26].** Able to throttle inverters of multiple brands in order to achieve zero export. Namely, works with various models from Schneider, ABB, Fronius, Delta and SMA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[PicoGrid ZX][27].** Made for photovoltaics installations of 5-100 kW&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt;, and seemingly requiring a special inverter to interface with (not sure yet, though).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[ComAP InteliPro PV][28].** Seemingly made for larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **[carbonTRACK][29].** An energy control solution with export limit functions. Not sure what inverters can be connected to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* **&lt;strike&gt;GNT Engineering [Zero Export Device ZED 1][30]&lt;/strike&gt;.** No longer a suitable option because &quot;GNT Engineering have ceased operations and the ZED 1 is no longer commercially available.&quot; ([source][30]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    This was a device that could control up to 6 inverters, thereby controlling the amount of power produced and ensuring zero export. Control happens via &quot;selective switching or 4-bit binary control&quot; ([source][30]). In addition to 4-bit digital control it can also use 6-bit control and RS485 ([source][31]), making it compatible with many brands of inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &quot;Selective switching&quot; simply means to open a switch in the inverter's output connection, thereby turning off generation immediately. This shuld not hurt any inverter, since they are prepare for grid failure to happen (&quot;anti-islanding function&quot; etc.). This control mode works with all inverter models, but does not allow it to throttle inverters. So if your self-consumption is usually smaller than the smallest inverter you have, your photovoltaics installation would not be used at all. It is better to use inverters that can be throttled by this device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 4. Increasing self-consumption&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is, to my knowledge, no certified industrial device that uses increased self-consumption as the *only* way to guarantee zero or limited export to the grid, so this is ***NOT*** an acceptable solution with respect to regulation where feed-in is forbidden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, some of the solutions mentioned above have the option to control the consumption of non-critical electrical consumers (like a water heater), and there are DIY ways for that as well. So it is a useful addition to throttling inverters, as it utilizes the &quot;oversupply&quot; electricity meaningfully. This is best discussed in [another question][32].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## 5. Supercap buffering with automated transfer switching&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an own idea and so far my favourite proposal because it is cheaper (esp. for small installations &lt;1 kW&lt;sub&gt;p&lt;/sub&gt;), more do-it-yourself, and more maintainable. A small-ish supercapacitor bank is recharged by photovoltaics panels and the house runs either on the grid or from that supercap bank via a cheap, non-grid-tie inverter. An automatic transfer switch switches over seamlessly every few minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I explore the idea in detail here: &quot;[A much better solution for solar self-consumption][33]&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6519&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.solaredge.com/solutions/feed-in-limitation-and-metering-solution&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/feed-in_limitation_application_note.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.solaredge.com/sites/default/files/se-inverter-installation-guide.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://pvshop.eu/solaredge&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolarEdge#Power_Optimizer&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: http://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xbcr/SID-EB482241-446A02AF/fronius_espana/Presentation_Feed_in_management_Zero_export_973758_snapshot.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www3.fronius.com/cps/rde/xchg/SID-6950D265-B1141ABB/fronius_australia/hs.xsl/25_9858.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.victronenergy.com/live/ac_coupling:fronius&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://github.com/victronenergy/venus/wiki/raspberrypi-install-venus-image&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://zeusappollo.com/Index.asp?pagename=displayprod&amp;id=15866&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://files.sma.de/dl/7680/ZeroRiskwithZeroExport_TI-en-11.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354118#post354118&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354255#post354255&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://www.solarpaneltalk.com/forum/solar-panels-for-home/solar-panel-system-equipment/352825?p=354601#post354601&#xD;&#xA;  [17]: http://solarfighter.com/autoconsumo-solar/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [18]: http://solarfighter.com/productos/?lang=en&#xD;&#xA;  [19]: https://www.efimarket.com/power-monitor-solarfighter-gateway&#xD;&#xA;  [20]: https://www.efimarket.com/solarfighter&#xD;&#xA;  [21]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-0-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [22]: http://circutor.com/en/products/renewable-energies/instantaneous-self-consumption/cdp-g-detail&#xD;&#xA;  [23]: http://circutor.com/docs/FT_CDP-G_EN.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [24]: https://www.efimarket.com/circutor-cdp-0-inyeccion-cero&#xD;&#xA;  [25]: http://www.elgrispower.com/zero-export-solar-controller/&#xD;&#xA;  [26]: http://www.solarprotectionrelay.com.au/solar-zero-export-controller&#xD;&#xA;  [27]: http://www.picogrid.com/products/zero-export-picogrid-zx/&#xD;&#xA;  [28]: http://bcjcontrols.com.au/product/comap-intellipro-pv/&#xD;&#xA;  [29]: https://carbontrack.com.au/blog/solar-export-control-quick-guide/&#xD;&#xA;  [30]: https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/zero-export-device-zed-1-approved-grid-connect-solar-pv-020414&#xD;&#xA;  [31]: https://bcjcontrols.com.au/zero-export-devices-zed-1-2-3-4/&#xD;&#xA;  [32]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6521&#xD;&#xA;  [33]: https://edgeryders.eu/t/9030" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8385" RevisionGUID="998c6a15-bf93-4d14-9d14-85aef37d064d" CreationDate="2019-07-31T06:26:32.030" UserId="6829" Text="so I am starting a small business that sells packaged food and coffee beans. Sustainability is an important issue for me, so I'm trying for my packaging to negatively impact the environment as small as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After google here and there, the choice are down to 2 types of packaging:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Paper metal bag (with no valve and zipper)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I'm trying to use a kraft paper with laminated foil on the inside. But that packaging is hard to print on. At least I didn't find anyone do that in my country. So, this packaging has great availability (easy to get with reasonable price)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, during my *reagle* (= research on google, jk), I found that this kind of packaging is hard to recycle since it's a composite of different materials. So, recycle-rs need to split the composites into standalone materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **2 layers of packaging, inner plain plastic, outer plain cardboard.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have knowledge on this topic, but, based on my previous *reagle* (again, jk), I conclude that two standalone materials are easier to recycle since the recycle-r don't have to split any composites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this kind of packaging, I can also can offer some kind of small discount if my customers return the box in their next order (good customer relation as well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I thought using plain plastic is bad, but after reading that foil paper article, I think plain plastic is better since it's easier to process / recycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The outer plain cardboard is there to protect the inside from light, and for displaying my brand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, which one you think will have lower impact to the environment? And if you have any other alternatives, feel free to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I want to open a zero-waste small shop which customers need to bring their own jars / containers. Unfortunately, in my current condition, it's not viable yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Photos credit to their respective owners, just use them for illustration purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pdJgR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O5u9y.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20638" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8385" RevisionGUID="998c6a15-bf93-4d14-9d14-85aef37d064d" CreationDate="2019-07-31T06:26:32.030" UserId="6829" Text="Which packaging has less negative impact to the environment, foil paper or plastic + cardboard?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20639" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8385" RevisionGUID="998c6a15-bf93-4d14-9d14-85aef37d064d" CreationDate="2019-07-31T06:26:32.030" UserId="6829" Text="|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8385" RevisionGUID="0407348d-e259-4f6c-a02d-145ac34d0f94" CreationDate="2019-07-31T09:27:40.400" UserId="6829" Comment="deleted 41 characters in body" Text="so I am starting a small business that sells packaged food and coffee beans. Sustainability is an important issue for me, so I'm trying for my packaging to negatively impact the environment as small as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After google here and there, the choice are down to 2 types of packaging:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Paper metal bag (with no valve and zipper)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I'm trying to use a kraft paper with laminated foil on the inside. But that packaging is hard to print on. At least I didn't find anyone do that in my country. So, this packaging has great availability (easy to get with reasonable price)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, during my *reagle* (= research on google, jk), I found that this kind of packaging is hard to recycle since it's a composite of different materials. So, recycle-rs need to split the composites into standalone materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **2 layers of packaging, inner plain plastic, outer plain cardboard.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have knowledge on this topic, but, based on my previous *reagle* (again, jk), I conclude that two standalone materials are easier to recycle since the recycle-r don't have to split any composites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this kind of packaging, I can also can offer some kind of small discount if my customers return the box in their next order (good customer relation as well).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Initially, I thought using plain plastic is bad, but after reading that foil paper article, I think plain plastic is better since it's easier to process / recycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The outer plain cardboard is there to protect the inside from light, and for displaying my brand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, which one you think will have lower impact to the environment? And if you have any other alternatives, feel free to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I want to open a zero-waste small shop which customers need to bring their own jars / containers. Unfortunately, in my current condition, it's not viable yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Photos credit to their respective owners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pdJgR.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O5u9y.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8386" RevisionGUID="c778de5e-b264-4f62-975b-4504d0377169" CreationDate="2019-07-31T16:20:42.557" UserId="6825" Text="The short answer is no. Almost nothing made of any plastic is, at the moment, sustainable. I don't know what it is like in the States, but in Britain all the different kinds of plastic are so mixed up in every product, that it is impossible to separate them and something like  ninety percent is either dumped in landfill, which is usually conveniently near the sea, or is shipped to foreign landfills, also on the coast. Good and equally green alternatives to cotton are wool or linen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8387" RevisionGUID="e2495fcc-ea82-4910-a3a0-51c590ac3539" CreationDate="2019-07-31T16:37:59.027" UserId="6825" Text="The best of all packaging materials is glass, for liquids and soft powders. Then you simply stick a printed paper label on with cow gum. Anything dry and larger than powder is best in cardboard waxed with beeswax on the inside. You could use a wrap around paper label or print onto the cardboard. Plastics of all kinds should always be avoided. We had none at all seventy or so yeas ago and we lived very well in those days. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8388" RevisionGUID="8e5de8ad-fe39-4338-8405-7561dd35d548" CreationDate="2019-07-31T16:49:58.600" UserId="6825" Text="I put 'recyclable 'stuff in a plastic bin bag once and got a telling off from the dustman. I believe they make paper bags for so called 'recyclable 'rubbish but they're very expensive. I normally put mine in a cardboard box now. Shops sometimes leave cardboard boxes out for free. So far the dustman hasn't objected to this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8390" RevisionGUID="6b6df599-a83c-4b27-ab50-891fc5fffe28" CreationDate="2019-07-31T21:31:02.173" UserId="2431" Text="So, let's be honest the global climate is warmer and is going to be even much warmer no matter what. This causes glaciers to melt and more water to move to the oceans, and rising sea levels. This also cause the water in the ocean to be warmer, and as such when above 4°C it takes up more space due to dilatation. (Even though in the 0°C-4°C range it's the other way around).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many people live at low altitude, and relocating all those people somewhere else would be an incredibly huge human population movement that is not really foreseeable. Also the sea level is used for measuring altitude, and if it rises more than 1m it will be very annoying to measure altitude, because we would have to know against which time period's sea level the altitude is measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead it seems like a better idea to somehow prevent the sea level from moving, even though the climate is warm. So far, warming has already been very observable, but sea levels doesn't seems to have risen much yet, so I have good hopes it's going to be possible. There is several ways this could be accomplished&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Use Netherlands-style dams to protect populations in low-altitude sea coasts&#xD;&#xA;* Use evaporation so that water is in vapor form as opposed to liquid form (but this causes even more greenhouse effect!)&#xD;&#xA;* Create artificial lakes everywhere possible to stock more water outside the sea. Also refill Aral Sea and Dead Sea who had been drying up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20646" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8390" RevisionGUID="6b6df599-a83c-4b27-ab50-891fc5fffe28" CreationDate="2019-07-31T21:31:02.173" UserId="2431" Text="Do we have a way to limit rising sea levels in a warmer global climate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20647" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8390" RevisionGUID="6b6df599-a83c-4b27-ab50-891fc5fffe28" CreationDate="2019-07-31T21:31:02.173" UserId="2431" Text="|water-management|global-warming|seawater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8391" RevisionGUID="9a7d727f-4006-4738-9952-d9ba6a4b210d" CreationDate="2019-08-01T17:10:09.970" UserId="1513" Text="I live in the middle of the US, our tap water comes from the local river, and our sewer goes back to the local river.  Communities up and down the river get their water and return their waste to the same river. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A considerable amount of energy goes into treating the water and the sewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the related post https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/3025/1513 there are several varied answers about how clean recycling needs to be and many variations of how clean people get recylables, and for what reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that steel cans, plastic container, aluminum cans, etc all have different energy requirements where recycling is the most sustainable choice. It would also seem realistic that excessive cleaning of some objects prior to recycling is less sustainable then recycling them. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I know when cleaning a recyclable is less sustainable than throwing it away? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8391" RevisionGUID="9a7d727f-4006-4738-9952-d9ba6a4b210d" CreationDate="2019-08-01T17:10:09.970" UserId="1513" Text="When is cleaning recyclables less sustainable than throwing them away?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8391" RevisionGUID="9a7d727f-4006-4738-9952-d9ba6a4b210d" CreationDate="2019-08-01T17:10:09.970" UserId="1513" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8392" RevisionGUID="183e704f-9a7c-41de-b0a6-1ca4661f3570" CreationDate="2019-08-01T18:07:51.970" UserId="6393" Text="Ethanol is C2H5OH. Burning it produces 2 CO2 + 3 H2O. Ratio of H2O to CO2 is 3/2 = 150%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Octane is C8H18. Burning it produces 8 CO2 + 9 H2O. Ratio of H2O to CO2 is 9/8 = 112.5%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of ethanol, more of the gases in the exhaust are carbon and less of them are hydrogen, when compared to octane, which is fairly representative of gasoline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, yes, ethanol most likely produces more CO2 tailpipe emissions when compared to gasoline, for a given energy output, because more of the energy is in the form of C and less of it is in the form of H.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, keep in mind that while ethanol can be made from renewable sources, it would probably make more sense to bury those renewable sources underground in an anaerobic environment and continue burning oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No way can the entire human oil usage be substituted with renewable ethanol, because of the sheer magnitude of oil usage. Only electricity can be the solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8393" RevisionGUID="ed067014-d8e0-4634-ac24-97b88caaa4fd" CreationDate="2019-08-01T18:13:13.723" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't it therefore be better to have a small rise in global temperature?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;No.&lt;/b&gt; The radiative forcing by carbon dioxide does not increase solar radiation that can be captured by solar cells. The warmer temperatures actually &lt;b&gt;decrease&lt;/b&gt; solar cell output, because solar cells really like cold temperatures and lots of radiation. You can't have both optimal temperature and optimal radiation at the same time, because solar radiation causes the temperature to increase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we could somehow manage radiative forcing, to reduce worldwide temperatures, we could make more power with solar cells." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8394" RevisionGUID="84d6110d-459e-4951-bdaf-20a1f923a704" CreationDate="2019-08-02T14:06:58.250" UserId="6825" Text="Fleece if you mean synthetic fleece and not the fleece of a sheep,is not a good or sustainable alternative to cotton. Synthetic clothing is essentially a plastic, made from oil, and it does not break down in the environment for thousands, and as micro-particles'- perhaps millions of years. Moreover not much research has been done on the effects of breathing in synthetic particles from clothing, and the softer the clothing the more likely it is to be releasing particles. It is always better for the planet to use clothes made from traditional natural fibres like cotton linen and wool." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20654" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8393" RevisionGUID="6dfaf50a-2861-4a57-9006-4b09f1e4dafc" CreationDate="2019-08-02T14:07:06.263" UserId="6393" Comment="add sources" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't it therefore be better to have a small rise in global temperature?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;No.&lt;/b&gt; The radiative forcing by carbon dioxide does not increase solar radiation that can be captured by solar cells. The warmer temperatures actually &lt;b&gt;decrease&lt;/b&gt; solar cell output, because solar cells really like cold temperatures and lots of radiation. You can't have both optimal temperature and optimal radiation at the same time, because solar radiation causes the temperature to increase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we could somehow manage radiative forcing, to reduce worldwide temperatures, we could make more power with solar cells.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; Nice to have unexplained downvotes after an upvote. So, let me add some sources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* https://www.civicsolar.com/article/how-does-heat-affect-solar-panel-efficiencies&#xD;&#xA;* https://greentumble.com/effect-of-temperature-on-solar-panel-efficiency/&#xD;&#xA;* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610213000829&#xD;&#xA;* and many, many other (I'm not going to link to all sources I could link to because the list of sources would be very long)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8396" RevisionGUID="d2e66ab8-f054-4e8a-85ff-d9524c918ac0" CreationDate="2019-08-02T15:28:52.023" UserId="6825" Text="I think a questionnaire could quite easily be put together and it would be very helpful. It could go through the things people use everyday rather like the statistics questionaires you sometimes get, and give a rating for the amount of each. How much food:- protein, carbs fat  per person per day, how much plastic. how much power use, fuel use, how much water use etc. with the lowest score being the most environmentally friendly lifestyle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8397" RevisionGUID="b825f6c3-1641-41e0-a33b-0490e31336de" CreationDate="2019-08-04T04:24:06.103" UserId="6837" Text="If you restore the ecology of barren earth so that it continues to sustain and increase total biomass, then you've made a big step in that direction. As soil improves, the total carbon contained or sequestered in it will rise. When a tree dies, or when it is thinned, trimmed, or pruned, the wood can be converted to biochar and most of the carbon removed from the atmosphere will be locked up for hundreds, or even thousands, of years. If you return the biochar to the soil, it will continue to assist your local biology as it naturally increase the total biomass of your ecosystem.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20658" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8398" RevisionGUID="b197032b-06bd-4b64-b99a-1d71e2262971" CreationDate="2019-08-04T10:59:43.943" UserId="6393" Text="My approach is the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I bought shares of a young joint forest. Young, because the forest has relatively small existing trees. These trees will continue to grow for the next 50 years or so. For the next 50 years, they will be a major carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that occasionally the forest is partially or fully harvested. When partially harvested, the pulpwood is used to make pulp and paper, which are relatively short-lived products, returning the carbon to the atmosphere. However, a partial harvesting only releases some of the carbon sequestered back. On the other hand, it makes the biggest trees more room to grow to the full length.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the full harvest at the end of the lifecycle of the forest, a large portion of the wood is sawlogs, which are used to make sawmill products: lumber that can be used to construct wooden houses. In contrast to a house constructed from concrete (CO2 is released to the atmosphere), a house constructed from lumber is actually a carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you want to permanently sequester the carbon dioxide, to calculate how much of the wood actually ends in lumber, you need to take into account that one cubic meter of lumber (that sequesters about one tonne of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) requires about 2.3 cubic meters of sawlogs. Only about half of the wood in an old forest are sawlogs (the rest is pulpwood), so one cubic meter of lumber requires 4.6 cubic meters of raw wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to sequester 250 tons of CO2, you need 250 cubic meters of lumber, which requires 1150 cubic meters of raw wood. 100 cubic meters of growth per year will remove the emissions in 11.5 years. Then, after that, you own a carbon sink worth of 21.7 tonnes per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much hectares is needed for 100 m3 / year growth, then? In the southern Finland, one hectare grows at about 7 m3 / year. This means 14.3 hectares is needed. One hectare costs  about 6000 euros (depends on the age of the forest; for carbon sequestration purposes you might want to prefer young forests that are fortunately cheaper), so about 86 000 euros will buy you the sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the fun part. Where I live, car drivers pay 500 EUR / tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in the form of quite many various taxes (at the same time carbon emission rights at the European emission trading scheme trade at 20 - 30 EUR / tonne). That has not caused car drivers to switch to electric cars in a major manner. If you believe one tonne of carbon dioxide emitted is worth 500 EUR, then your sink of 21.7 tonnes per year is worth 10 850 euros per year. That's a whopping return rate of 12.6%! Ok, that return rate is very speculative, because currently forest owners are not compensated for the carbon sink they create, and if they will be in the future, it's far from certain the rate is 500 EUR / tonne.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, do note that forest growth rate varies depending on the location of the forest. So, I don't intend the figures in this answer to be absolute universally valid truth. You need to analyze the local forest growth rates if you buy the forest in your local country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Somebody might protest that if you buy forest, some other person is selling it at the same time, creating no new forest. This is false. By buying forest, you are affecting the price of forest: the increased demand causes a very minor increase of price. Because forest increases in price as you buy it (although in a very minor manner), it becomes more profitable for someone to buy land that doesn't have forest in it, and plant a new forest. Much of the forests of this planet have been destroyed because people aren't interested in owning forest. If everyone was interested in owning forest, the destruction of forest would cease, and much new forest would be planted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8397" RevisionGUID="19ef1a29-b9ac-4565-ae7b-bd7d48104d98" CreationDate="2019-08-04T18:27:45.000" UserId="6837" Comment="I added the last three paragraphs to provide a clear example based on personal experience. " Text="If you restore the ecology of barren earth so that it continues to sustain and increase total biomass, then you've made a big step in that direction. As soil improves, the total carbon contained or sequestered in it will rise. When a tree dies, or when it is thinned, trimmed, or pruned, the wood can be converted to biochar and most of the carbon removed from the atmosphere will be locked up for hundreds, or even thousands, of years. If you return the biochar to the soil, it will continue to assist your local biology as it naturally increase the total biomass of your ecosystem. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I live in Arizona highly degraded land can be purchased for a few hundred USD per acre. Due to overgrazing and erosion, the total carbon content can be negligible (less than 1%) which establishes a reasonable baseline. For the cost of a few Kg of carbon I can spread 250 tons of a manure and wood chip waste product on an acre of barren dirt to increase the temporary carbon content of the topsoil to a target of 10% which will itself return to the atmosphere in a few years, but the lasting effect is much more significant. The aim is to create a carbon cycle where none previously existed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A perpetual organic carbon cycle requires water, a scarce resource in the desert. This temporary organic layer acts as a mulch that increases rainfall penetration, prevents erosion, and reduces evaporation. The available moisture in the soil often increases by a factor of 10, and sometimes considerably more. This gives native grasses a chance to gain a foothold, which in turn enables the establishment of shrubs and hardwood trees such as mesquite and other leguminous species. This continually increases the carbon maintained in the soil and in the biomass of living organisms sustained by the system. Broadcasting appropriate seeds greatly increases the speed of establishment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the most part, you wouldn't say that the carbon is locked up or sequestered. Rather, it would be more accurate to say it is engaged in an ecosystem of living and otherwise stored solids instead of primarily floating around in the atmosphere. The added benefit, of course, is that it now becomes a valuable source of food, fuel, and fodder. This is the only workable solution I have found to compensate for my personal carbon footprint.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20660" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8399" RevisionGUID="96c28a36-a197-4f2a-8580-4015b2190cbd" CreationDate="2019-08-05T01:41:49.050" UserId="6840" Text="Embodied vs working energy. &#xD;&#xA;You would have to calculate the embodied energy that went into the production of both products. &#xD;&#xA;At some point the dishwasher will seem like the winner here as it should last a good portion of the time and be repaired for a fraction of the embodied energy of replacing it. &#xD;&#xA;The opposite is true when we look at the working energy of each. The dishwasher has a relatively resource intensive operation using water, electricity and chemistry to clean the plates. &#xD;&#xA;Paper plates can be used and then composted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of variables that could change the net environmental impact of each one. That however is a rabbit hole for a more enthusiastic commenter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8400" RevisionGUID="6bf53807-86f7-4316-80b0-1c8448a7e9e7" CreationDate="2019-08-05T06:07:58.697" UserId="3293" Text="Two things you need to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Storing more CO2 in the soil means you want to have more life in there. This points to the avoidance of fertilizer and pesticides in your lawn. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Peat has a huge capacity to store CO2, so you may consider turning your lawn into wetland if possible ;)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8401" RevisionGUID="b952dda3-3ed0-4178-8210-ae431caf9eeb" CreationDate="2019-08-05T09:25:08.767" UserId="4155" Text="Here in the UK we are specifically told not to bag recyclable products, as it makes it more difficult for them to be sorted on arrival at the recycling facility - plus the bag itself can't be recycled, and so contaminates the recycling load - which in the worst case can mean the entire truck-load being landfilled...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our refuse trucks are enclosed though, so there's no chance of stuff flying out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8402" RevisionGUID="d5240604-30f1-4817-b7f1-4b710450f54b" CreationDate="2019-08-05T09:37:47.317" UserId="6602" Text="I believe its all about mass, biomass is effectively sequestered CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In year one a lawn probably has a greater mass than a one year old tree, and so more CO2 sequestered. But in year twenty the tree has a greater mass about 1 tonne which is 3 tonnes of CO2, and the lawn, if its been regularly mowed still only has the same biomass as it did in year one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course by year twenty there is a twenty years worth of lawn clippings somewhere which has either returned to the air or broken down into soil somewhere, its in some other lifecycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said the tree might lose its leaves every year which would join the same lifecycle as the lawn clippings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion, the lawn is more efficient for carbon sequestration in the first year or so, but over the long term the tree is more efficient in locking up the Carbon in a more permanent manner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20665" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8385" RevisionGUID="d5bafb23-9f45-40e1-8dfe-ad8578489c43" CreationDate="2019-08-05T18:00:28.257" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1158437629773434880" />
  <row Id="20666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8403" RevisionGUID="bb2ddb7b-4baa-47bf-b914-188665b5dbab" CreationDate="2019-08-05T19:27:51.280" UserId="6837" Text="This question seems to have several components. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, in terms of PV energy production, a rise in temperature would most likely have a slightly negative effect due to decreased efficiency of solar cells at higher temperatures and perhaps an even greater decrease caused by an increase of cloud cover created by oceanic evaporation. On the other hand, an increase in temperature might cause an increase in rainfall, thereby improving the efficiency of hydroelectric power generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, global climate change in general has a wide variety of effects on regional, local, and micro climates, many of which are indirectly influenced by changes in temperature. The various consequences that might be considered &quot;better&quot; are infrequently examined, and I think it is because climate change enthusiasts would be tarred and feathered more adamantly than climate change deniers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, a rise in temperature might be warmly welcomed by those living in colder climates, but there are many other methods to approach our heating/cooling power requirements which are better addressed through other means. For instance, building subterranean or partially underground homes has a huge impact on indoor climate for both Winter and Summer, in both hot and cold climates. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I've managed comfortably now for a year without any heating or cooling power use at all, but it took ten years to create a comfortable and sustainable micro-climate for myself, my plants, and my livestock. Your question inspires me to explore how I can now use my excess PV power for CCS because it's a shame to see that going to waste.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8404" RevisionGUID="821bd9f7-01ed-4b21-9f76-38eca43413e0" CreationDate="2019-08-05T20:15:21.913" UserId="6837" Text="The drain itself will probably provide more cooling than the hole. Make the drain as long and wide as possible, and put it deep enough to avoid picking up heat from warmer areas near the surface. The weight of the cooler air in your hole will help feed the air to your house, but you might also want to suck the warmer air out from high on the opposite (downwind) end of your home using a solar chimney or an adjustable vent. I have found that providing dense shade from vegetation in and around the hole area reduces the starting temperature at the intake and also reduces the effects of warm breezes that might blow away your precious cooled air. If your cool zone is upwind, even the warm breezes will push it towards your house to cool it externally.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="e888f643-9989-4a97-a3d2-5da30548cd7d" CreationDate="2019-08-06T17:25:24.343" UserId="400" Comment="Added economic info." Text="The answer is:  Unknown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So try it.  We need more data points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general if energy can be extracted from a reaction, some bacteria does it for a living.  Given the nature of certain ecozones, notably various pines that have a strong firesuccession (Lodgepole, Jackpine) then a series of low temmperature burns should leave substantial carbon in the soil.  High temp fires burn the soil back to mineral soils.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequesterization may be in part controlled by pH.  Sphagnum moss seems to last for thousands of years if in soggy anaerobic circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the mechanisms that would have a net benefit even if biochar doesn't work at all:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Process ag waste for energy.  Suppose you have a unit the size of a standard 53 foot seacan (modular shipping container) that you can load bales of straw/cornstocks, wood chips into, and then this is turned into a mix of energy, distillates and biochar.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Units like this can be dropped off at a farm.  Farmers can bale farm waste, and use it during the winter for heating barns.  Methanol (one of the main distilates) can be used either to run a generator, or it can be sold as a crop.  Char can be sold or returned to the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the unit, it can be easy to push the output mix one way or another.  Worst case, it's all turned into energy, well that's energy he didn't get from fossil fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attempts to use biofuels have foundered on transport costs.  It just costs too much  to move them.  A dump truck full of coal has a lot more energy than that same truck full of corn husks.  And coal can be close to &quot;just in time&quot; where ag waste is very seasonal.  You have to be able to store 18 months or so stock at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Producing biochar/methanol/heat from ag waste on site means that the sellable product is cheaper to ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar thing happened with the frontier in America.  Shipping grain back east wasn't very practical until railroads and steam boats came in.  But a backwoods farmer could turn corn or barley into whiskey.  THAT was worth transporting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8405" RevisionGUID="f852f6eb-aecd-4589-8502-4f80c77a0205" CreationDate="2019-08-06T17:39:57.757" UserId="400" Text="Here we have a more expensive disposal system for anything with food residue.  Dry goods and wet goods go to different land fills. They encourage us to rinse food containers and discard into the dry waste/construction waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the recycle streams they don't take dirty paper/cardboard or dirty sheet plastic.  But they take any kind of plastic pail, even ones that had motor oil in them.  Oil is drained out, the plastic chipped, rinsed with solvent, and the chips recycled into things like nursery pots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two rubrics occur from these examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Rigid materials are easier to clean.  So chipping and cleaning isn't unreasonable.  &#xD;&#xA;* Stuff with high surface to mass ratios (foams, thin sheet goods) are more likely to be unaffordable to clean.&#xD;&#xA;* Stuff that is going to be processed with high heat and a  runny liquid state can be sorted/filtered in that state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paper is dissolved, and sand/dirt difficult to separate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steel, aluminum will be smelted, and organics burned off, and dirt trapped in the slag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic is heated to the gooey stage, then is molded/ turned into garbage bags, etc. Hard to separate dirt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some applications that would make a new market for some types of waste:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.  Styrofoam right now is difficult to deal with.  Even crushed, the low density makes transport expensive.  A possible use could be to wash it, drain it, then mix with an acetone/water/alcohol solution that partially dissolved the surface, then press it into large lego blocks.  Sand would actually be a useful addition givening them enough mass to not blow around.  A system using these would make for inexpensive emergency shelter.  Mould grooves into the exterior surface, and you can plaster them for longer term use.  (Styrofoam degrades in sunlight.  Mould grooves into the top surface and you have easy to run wiring channels (As long as you wire when erecting walls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. A while ago you could buy fence posts made from wood chips and plastic bags.  Dirt didn't matter, nor the type of plastic.  Melt together and extrude under pressure.  The material was dense, not very strong, heavy, and incredibly ugly.  Never caught on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20670" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8406" RevisionGUID="d1282c23-6924-4a3f-b61d-13819854441a" CreationDate="2019-08-06T21:11:40.463" UserId="4189" Text="There are a number of 100% biodegradable plant-based packaging options for food products such as coffee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tekpak][2] is one that I have heard recommended. A few others are listed on [the Creative Culture biodegradable packaging directory][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.creativecultureguide.org/biodegradable-packaging&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.tekpaksolutions.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20671" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8406" RevisionGUID="37960370-d9c3-414e-b584-6db7185e9fb1" CreationDate="2019-08-06T21:20:38.647" UserId="4189" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="Of the two options that you mentioned I believe that the second would be better. However, there are a number of 100% biodegradable plant-based packaging options for food products such as coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[TekPak][2] is one company that sells biodegradable coffee bags. (They also offer a craft paper finish that you mentioned.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few other companies that are listed on [the Creative Culture biodegradable packaging directory][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.creativecultureguide.org/biodegradable-packaging&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.tekpaksolutions.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20672" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8406" RevisionGUID="5b57a389-b7e6-4d51-be24-777fe7c8d6ae" CreationDate="2019-08-06T21:27:04.697" UserId="4189" Comment="added 181 characters in body" Text="Of the two options that you mentioned I believe that the second would be better. However, there are a number of 100% biodegradable plant-based packaging options for food products such as coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[TekPak][1] is one company that sells biodegradable coffee bags. (They also offer a craft paper finish that you mentioned you were interested in.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![TekPak Omnidegradable bags][2]][2]   &#xD;&#xA;(image from TekPak website)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few other companies offering similar products are listed on [the Creative Culture biodegradable packaging directory][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tekpaksolutions.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gOl9s.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.creativecultureguide.org/biodegradable-packaging" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8407" RevisionGUID="14268d80-d795-4bc1-9464-563f9716e69f" CreationDate="2019-08-07T00:18:13.727" UserId="6837" Text="There are many problems with the article you cited, but I agree with the main point it makes about the need for extensive research before any global scale solution should be attempted. Nevertheless, extensive field trials are not required to definitively prove the effectiveness of biochar to sequester carbon. Simply dig a hole in poor soil one foot wide and three feet deep. Fill it with charcoal and sample it at any given time over the next few millennia and you will be guaranteed to find 100's of times more carbon than that which was in the dirt you removed. Fortunately for the debate, that's not the end of the story. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people who successfully use biochar are making it themselves on a very small scale.  They crush it, infuse it with healthy microbes and organic nutrients, and then blend it with soils as an amendment. They know that too much carbon in the soil will rob it of nitrogen so they add plenty of compost, apply some manure tea, and mulch heavily to prevent erosion from wind and water. This is profoundly different from modern large scale agriculture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to grow things, the ideal way to store carbon in the soil is in the form of humus which is created over time by the activity of microorganisms breaking down organic material to form organic compounds. A steady supply of nitrogen is required to keep the biological activity thriving, so leguminous trees and cover crops are planted to drive the process. Unfortunately, most farmers will shoot you if you try to plant trees in the fields they intend to plow. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, most farmers till their soil deeply destroying most of the biology in the topsoil while releasing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Notice how the highest emissions of CO2 occur when most farmers are plowing their fields   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04  Biochar won't help them much if they continue to grow crops abiotically using chemicals to supply the nutrients they need, but if they ever decide to start restoring the soil instead of depleting it, then biochar can play an important role in that effort. Soil can hold much more carbon than the atmosphere can, or it can continue to release it as it has been doing for quite some time now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A global effort to produce massive quantities of biochar is a frightening prospect on several fronts, and the article did a good job of pointing those out, but I still douse my cooking fires before they turn to ash and harvest the charcoal to blend with my soils. A good layer of mulch alleviates my concerns regarding albedo, erosion, and air quality, and my nitrogen concerns are adequately addressed with manure, compost and nitrogen fixing plants. I can't ask farmers to do things the way I do, but they would let me play in some of their fields if I didn't have enough of my own to tend to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8408" RevisionGUID="8a438ade-f213-4c1f-941b-e2110b09c140" CreationDate="2019-08-07T12:45:03.783" UserId="6825" Text="I seem to remember a 'magic marker' board where a child could write, and their writing was erased by simply pulling a band across the screen. I think it worked by any tool, a blunt pencil for instance, depressing the substance underneath the screen to show up as writing, so that when the bar was pulled over it, it simply levelled it out again and erased it. There were probably two layers beneath the screen which the band separated again each time it was pulled. Such a tool would go on working for years I would think." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20676" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8391" RevisionGUID="b6cb4011-7d8a-4e7b-b84d-de781c4161d5" CreationDate="2019-08-07T13:51:29.547" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="removed excessive" Text="I live in the middle of the US, our tap water comes from the local river, and our sewer goes back to the local river.  Communities up and down the river get their water and return their waste to the same river. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A considerable amount of energy goes into treating the water and the sewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found the related post https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/3025/1513 there are several varied answers about how clean recycling needs to be and many variations of how clean people get recylables, and for what reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that steel cans, plastic container, aluminum cans, etc all have different energy requirements where recycling is the most sustainable choice. It would also seem realistic that cleaning of some objects prior to recycling is less sustainable then recycling them without cleaning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I know when cleaning (and recycling) a recyclable is less sustainable than throwing it away? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8410" RevisionGUID="25f2d48f-96af-496f-b7d7-7ca675a3aef9" CreationDate="2019-08-07T14:07:32.240" UserId="3293" Text="In this [old TED conf.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI), Allan Savory, and in this rather [newer other here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z75A_JMBx4), Joel Salatin are quite saying the same thing as a tentative to mitigate the effect of burning fossil fuels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We should use cattle at very large scale to help re-store CO2 into the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does this process seems realistic? &#xD;&#xA;* Are there any documented studies or simulations out there?&#xD;&#xA;* Are there large scale projects of cattle driven CO2 storage going on on earth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8410" RevisionGUID="25f2d48f-96af-496f-b7d7-7ca675a3aef9" CreationDate="2019-08-07T14:07:32.240" UserId="3293" Text="Why don't we use cattle to re-store CO2 in the soil?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8410" RevisionGUID="25f2d48f-96af-496f-b7d7-7ca675a3aef9" CreationDate="2019-08-07T14:07:32.240" UserId="3293" Text="|carbon-sequestration|food-storage|balanced-ecosystems|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20680" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8407" RevisionGUID="1d1fc190-c847-4855-8f2b-d2d1aa2c2a70" CreationDate="2019-08-07T16:25:33.117" UserId="6837" Comment="I added a few lines to make the answer more pertinent to the question." Text="There are many problems with the article you cited, but I agree with the main point it makes about the need for extensive research before any global scale solution should be attempted. Nevertheless, extensive field trials are not required to definitively prove the effectiveness of biochar to sequester carbon. Simply dig a hole in poor soil one foot wide and three feet deep. Fill it with charcoal and sample it at any given time over the next few millennia and you will be guaranteed to find 100's of times more carbon than that which was in the dirt you removed. Fortunately for the debate, that's not the end of the story. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most people who successfully use biochar are making it themselves on a very small scale.  They crush it, infuse it with healthy microbes and organic nutrients, and then blend it with soils as an amendment. They know that too much carbon in the soil will rob it of nitrogen so they add plenty of compost, apply some manure tea, and mulch heavily to prevent erosion from wind and water. This is profoundly different from modern large scale agriculture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to grow things, the ideal way to store carbon in the soil is in the form of humus which is created over time by the activity of microorganisms breaking down organic material to form organic compounds. Biochar helps this along by providing a consistent habitat for the bacteria that take up residence in the many tiny pores that are retained from the original structure of the wood you burned. Carbon is provided to the system by roots of plants in the form of carbohydrates that are photosynthesized in the leaves and exuded through the roots in a symbiotic relationship with specialized bacteria which are attracted by other exudates according to the nutrient requirements of the plant.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A steady supply of nitrogen is required to keep the biological activity thriving, so leguminous trees and cover crops are planted to drive the process. Unfortunately, most farmers will shoot you if you try to plant trees in the fields they intend to plow. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to provide the components nature needs to help you create active anthrosols that continually sequester carbon in whatever land you are steward of. Biochar, although inactive, can be one of many important components of your living system in much the same way that sand, silt, and clay are considered components of good healthy soil.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, most farmers till their soil deeply destroying most of the biology in the topsoil while releasing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Notice how the highest emissions of CO2 occur when most farmers are plowing their fields   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04  Biochar won't help them much if they continue to grow crops abiotically using chemicals to supply the nutrients they need, but if they ever decide to start restoring the soil instead of depleting it, then biochar can play an important role in that effort. Soil can hold much more carbon than the atmosphere can, or it can continue to release it as it has been doing for quite some time now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A global effort to produce massive quantities of biochar is a frightening prospect on several fronts, and the article did a good job of pointing some of those out, but I still douse my cooking fires before they turn to ash and harvest the charcoal to blend with my soils. A good layer of mulch alleviates my concerns regarding albedo, erosion, and air quality, and my nitrogen concerns are adequately addressed with manure, compost and nitrogen fixing plants. I can't ask farmers to do things the way I do, but they would let me play in some of their fields if I didn't have enough of my own to tend to. I know this because I've asked them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8411" RevisionGUID="4468e5f0-998e-404e-b4e5-e3ffdb9a6ff1" CreationDate="2019-08-07T21:25:30.500" UserId="6837" Text="Both of the links you shared are important videos to watch for anyone interested in learning about the process and should be considered required viewing material in classrooms where agriculture is taught. The process works well and can be applied to other kinds of livestock as well. The &quot;chicken tractor&quot; is a popular method that employs similar techniques and is frequently used to provide free range eggs and meat at a premium price making the efforts much more economically viable. Pigs, sheep, goats, and alpacas are also used, sometimes in rotating combinations, with good results in most cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process is primarily used to increase the productivity of soils, thereby maximizing the profit that can be obtained when pasture is in short supply. The increased sequestration of carbon is a pleasant side effect, but is very seldom the primary goal. Where I live in Arizona it can sometimes take a hundred acres to raise a single cow/calf pair, so herds are left to roam on large expanses of overgrazed range land. Additional food and water is supplied when the poor beasts get too thin to manage on their own. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a large ranch is sold, the ownership of a certain amount of land is usually combined with the renewable lease contracts for a much larger area of land that actually belongs to the public (or the government if you lack sufficient political involvement to consider yourself a part of the decision making process). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you own land around here, and most parts of the Southwest USA, any errant cow or herd can legally visit and do pretty much whatever he (or she) wants to do regardless of what land management technique you have planned or employed. Permanent regulation quality fences must be constructed and maintained before you can have any hope of getting that mob of voracious roaming hamburgers arrested and into court. You can move your little electric fences around faithfully every day, but if your property is not entirely enclosed, well, it's pretty much game over. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The livestock sustainability of land is measured in animal units, so in arid regions where the animal unit acreage is very large, there is a proportionate increase in the cost of fencing or the cost of moving fencing around. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My strategy to deal with this might not scale well globally, but it seems workable enough to me based on the conditions I face. I purchased an entire canyon, 100 acres from ridge to valley, nearly surrounded by a mile and a half (2.4 km) of perfect regulation perimeter fence. The value of the fence was greater than the purchase price of the land which cost me around 80 USD per acre (total of less than 6k Euros and 600 EU per year taxes).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's relatively easy for me to keep the cursed cows off my land during the restorative phases (probably over 99% of the time), but when I am there and I can see that it is time to cycle the mob, all I have to do is open the gate and let them gorge themselves, then run them off before I leave. The neighboring ranchers won't complain if I'm fattening their cattle on my dime, and I won't have to purchase and maintain a herd while I reap the benefits I really want from them. Pressures from the deer that can hop the fence will maintain the system when I can't be there to manage the local gluttons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want my waterholes to fuel photosynthesis in my grasses, shrubs and trees, thereby sequestering carbon in the vegetation and in the soil. I'm not interested in watering cows for McDonalds. Nevertheless, I can adopt them for a few days out of the year so that they can live a more meaningful life and make this planet a better place to live. This perspective helps me to understand why the Hindu folks consider cows to be sacred beings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8406" RevisionGUID="5fadb049-0c75-4efd-93ee-c12efd63347b" CreationDate="2019-08-08T02:21:35.540" UserId="4189" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="Of the two options that you mentioned I believe that the second would be better. However, there are a number of 100% biodegradable plant-based packaging options for food products such as coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[TekPak][1] is one company that sells biodegradable coffee bags. (They also offer a craft paper finish that you mentioned you were interested in.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![TekPak Omnidegradable bags][2]][2]   &#xD;&#xA;(image from TekPak website)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few other companies offering similar products are listed on [the Creative Culture biodegradable packaging directory][3] &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;(Full disclosure: the Creative Culture Guide is a project that I helped create.)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tekpaksolutions.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gOl9s.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.creativecultureguide.org/biodegradable-packaging" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8412" RevisionGUID="24d74486-789e-4595-8558-00ad07926b8d" CreationDate="2019-08-10T00:35:03.333" UserId="6837" Text="My favorite home is net zero energy and I try to run it net negative for all inputs including food, trash, fuel, power, water, wastewater, and money. I have a dishwasher, but I've never used it and probably never will. As long as it remains unused, it registers zero for all inputs except trash for which it scores negative. Although it's in nearly new condition, it represents negative trash because it was salvaged from a high end remodel.  My main reason for not using it at all is that it takes too much power, but if I did use it the power would be generated by the home and the waste water would go directly to the plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise I never use paper plates for eating on. I do use them for compost and that helps me to maintain negative trash and food targets, but I never buy them or use them for eating. The main reason for this is that I am not able to calculate the impact. Even if I could work out the numbers it would be positive for water, energy and money. Paper takes a lot of water to produce, energy to transport, and money to purchase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realize that this answer doesn't fairly answer the question, but it explains the reasons for the strategy I've chosen and it certainly makes the calculations possible. If I absolutely had to choose between the two options you offered, I would run the dishwasher at a time when I had a lot of surplus power for the reasons stated above, but the equations would be much different for people who purchase dishwashers and haven't closed the loop for power, waste, money, water, and wastewater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might be interesting to note that I sometimes use banana leaves as a substitute for paper plates, and as compostable cookware that doesn't require washing at all, but I'm not sure if that pertains to the question well enough to be included here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8413" RevisionGUID="b0ea72fa-8635-476d-b65b-0ad223d7c033" CreationDate="2019-08-10T09:57:32.830" UserId="6837" Text="Many kinds of animals can be used, but chickens are most often selected to patrol the floor of a food forest.  I used to allow my hens to have full run of the yard all the time, but they were way too destructive. Now I just let them out for an hour or two when I'm there to supervise. I encourage many kinds of sprawling plants like day flowers, gogi berries, grape vines, blackberries, beans, and various cucurbit crops to penetrate into their permanent area, and they manage to keep that well trimmed, but they get plenty to eat and they don't need to be chomping down everything I want to put into my salad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At another location I have a much larger food forest area with a wide variety of plants and trees densely packed together. I just allow the deer and rabbits to have free reign of that and they do some fabulous trimming for me. I thought about bringing in a few hens, but they prevent the natural reseeding  of the lettuce, onions, broccoli, mustard and other brasicas by scratching around too much before the seedlings can get established. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that a healthy food forest will have a lot of different things growing on the lower levels and on the ground where you want to walk. You can clear pathways if it gets too dense, but it sounds like you just want to have trees and keep the lower levels cleared. This is not the generally accepted definition of a &quot;food forest&quot; but if that's what you want then rabbits, chickens and ducks might all work well for you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a large space and your trees are tall enough, you might consider getting a few goats. They are famous for keeping stuff cleared, but you can't have just one. Goats and most other foragers are not happy if they are alone. I've found alpacas to be better than goats because they are more gentle with the way they browse and they are much easier to keep contained. Goats are expert escape artists, but they produce fine milk, so the extra effort and expense on the fence might be worth it if you are willing to milk them every day. Alpacas produce a valuable fleece and hens will keep you in eggs, so balance the possible fringe benefits when you weigh your decisions. If you like to eat meat and you don't have a lot of space, then rabbits might be the right answer for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot will depend on what kind of plants you want to have growing in your food forest. Keep this in mind when ordering. Rare plants growing around animals that like to eat plants can be a recipe for disaster. They might eat what you don't want them to eat, or they might eat what is not good for them. Either way you will be crying unless you research the toxicity of the plants and the tolerance of the animals. This kind of information is a lot harder to find with rare plants that may have never been tested against various types of animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be much easier to find the information you need when it's time to select the particular breeds. You'll want to select those that hold up well in cold weather. Zone 4a is pretty chilly. For chickens, the Australorp, Cochin, and Silkies are good choices. Rhode Island Reds, Plymouth Rocks, and Barred Rocks are also okay in the cold, but you will still want to build a coop for them. In the winter you'll have to make sure their water isn't frozen over. Ask yourself if you are willing to get up every morning in the dead of Winter to feed and water your babies. If not, then you might just be better off with a weed whacker or a scythe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of what you decide, I strongly suggest that you reconsider the whole idea of keeping the forest floor cleared out. A healthy and productive food forest has a wide diversity of plant types that fill every niche. Clearing out the lower levels would be like chopping off your feet. It hurts. If you don't want a wide variety of herbs, vegetables, berries, seeds, vines, shrubs and grasses growing along with your trees, then you might want to research Silvopastoral systems, orchards, or agroforestry, because it might be possible that the term &quot;food forest&quot; does not exactly describe what you had in mind. Better yet, watch this video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCJfSYZqZ0Y and see if that helps, inspires or informs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20687" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8413" RevisionGUID="eb082357-44c5-4e77-8257-71502c50f8ec" CreationDate="2019-08-10T18:04:31.017" UserId="6837" Comment="corrected spelling of brassicas" Text="Many kinds of animals can be used, but chickens are most often selected to patrol the floor of a food forest.  I used to allow my hens to have full run of the yard all the time, but they were way too destructive. Now I just let them out for an hour or two when I'm there to supervise. I encourage many kinds of sprawling plants like day flowers, gogi berries, grape vines, blackberries, beans, and various cucurbit crops to penetrate into their permanent area, and they manage to keep that well trimmed, but they get plenty to eat and they don't need to be chomping down everything I want to put into my salad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At another location I have a much larger food forest area with a wide variety of plants and trees densely packed together. I just allow the deer and rabbits to have free reign of that and they do some fabulous trimming for me. I thought about bringing in a few hens, but they prevent the natural reseeding  of the lettuce, onions, broccoli, mustard and other brassicas by scratching around too much before the seedlings can get established. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that a healthy food forest will have a lot of different things growing on the lower levels and on the ground where you want to walk. You can clear pathways if it gets too dense, but it sounds like you just want to have trees and keep the lower levels cleared. This is not the generally accepted definition of a &quot;food forest&quot; but if that's what you want then rabbits, chickens and ducks might all work well for you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a large space and your trees are tall enough, you might consider getting a few goats. They are famous for keeping stuff cleared, but you can't have just one. Goats and most other foragers are not happy if they are alone. I've found alpacas to be better than goats because they are more gentle with the way they browse and they are much easier to keep contained. Goats are expert escape artists, but they produce fine milk, so the extra effort and expense on the fence might be worth it if you are willing to milk them every day. Alpacas produce a valuable fleece and hens will keep you in eggs, so balance the possible fringe benefits when you weigh your decisions. If you like to eat meat and you don't have a lot of space, then rabbits might be the right answer for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot will depend on what kind of plants you want to have growing in your food forest. Keep this in mind when ordering. Rare plants growing around animals that like to eat plants can be a recipe for disaster. They might eat what you don't want them to eat, or they might eat what is not good for them. Either way you will be crying unless you research the toxicity of the plants and the tolerance of the animals. This kind of information is a lot harder to find with rare plants that may have never been tested against various types of animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be much easier to find the information you need when it's time to select the particular breeds. You'll want to select those that hold up well in cold weather. Zone 4a is pretty chilly. For chickens, the Australorp, Cochin, and Silkies are good choices. Rhode Island Reds, Plymouth Rocks, and Barred Rocks are also okay in the cold, but you will still want to build a coop for them. In the winter you'll have to make sure their water isn't frozen over. Ask yourself if you are willing to get up every morning in the dead of Winter to feed and water your babies. If not, then you might just be better off with a weed whacker or a scythe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of what you decide, I strongly suggest that you reconsider the whole idea of keeping the forest floor cleared out. A healthy and productive food forest has a wide diversity of plant types that fill every niche. Clearing out the lower levels would be like chopping off your feet. It hurts. If you don't want a wide variety of herbs, vegetables, berries, seeds, vines, shrubs and grasses growing along with your trees, then you might want to research Silvopastoral systems, orchards, or agroforestry, because it might be possible that the term &quot;food forest&quot; does not exactly describe what you had in mind. Better yet, watch this video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCJfSYZqZ0Y and see if that helps, inspires or informs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8414" RevisionGUID="09132ce6-a98b-441f-ae8f-99a1c3868c92" CreationDate="2019-08-10T20:40:34.643" UserId="6850" Text="My main goal is to get rid of mass husbandry and the environmental impact of industrial meat production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is:&#xD;&#xA;Is it better to abandon meat from my diet completely or to endorse eco-riendly meat production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a vegetarian you do not support any meat production and so reduce the overall amount of meat produced. But you also do not insensitive the companies behind meat production to change their behavior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As &quot;Eco-meat-eater&quot; you do [vote with your wallet][1] and maybe convince your grocery store to add more environmentally friendly meat to its assortment. This would change the ration between industrial and &quot;organic&quot; meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of those solution is better to reduce the global impact of meat production in the long term. Or is there an entirely different solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_voting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20689" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8414" RevisionGUID="09132ce6-a98b-441f-ae8f-99a1c3868c92" CreationDate="2019-08-10T20:40:34.643" UserId="6850" Text="Impact of vegetarianism on the meat industries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20690" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8414" RevisionGUID="09132ce6-a98b-441f-ae8f-99a1c3868c92" CreationDate="2019-08-10T20:40:34.643" UserId="6850" Text="|environmental-impact|meat|economics|vegetarianism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8415" RevisionGUID="c3601e44-e247-44bc-9896-0e32909169fb" CreationDate="2019-08-10T22:30:59.800" UserId="4886" Text="Someone has to suggest the obvious answer... for the record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q:  &quot;is there an entirely different solution?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A:  Don't have children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth's problem isn't solely and exclusively with *what* its Human inhabitants are doing... its *how many* are doing it that's the main problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter how carnivorous and voracious a single Human is (or could be), their consumption would not have even the slightest environmental impact on the planet.  Nor would the consumption of 2 voracious carnivores.  Nor 5.  Nor 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 20000, 50000 ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have to feed 7,700,000,000 people, however, then you are going to have a severe environmental impact *no matter what* those people eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eating meat isn't the problem.  Overpopulation is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone *truly* cares about the health of the planet, then probably the very best thing they can possibly do is not have any children.  The negative environmental impact of a single (Western) child is far larger than can be compensated for by *any* change in behaviour of a parent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As childless carnivores are far, far more environmentally friendly than vegetarians who breed, &quot;an entirely different solution&quot; is to help yourself to as much (ethically-produced) meat as you like, not have any children, and sleep well at night — knowing that you are no longer part of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said...  Be aware that if an *individual* actively chooses to abstain from consuming meat, it *doesn't* actually hurt the meat industry, nor will it save the lives of any animals, nor does it 'save the planet'.  All that happens is that demand reduces, which pushes the retail price down slightly, which makes meat more affordable for everyone else, which results in a rise in meat consumption.  In other words:  If you don't eat it, someone else will.  The *price* of meat is what limits its consumption.  There is a queue — about 5 billion people long — who would happily eat more meat, if only they could afford to so do.  Unethical meat production will continue until that queue gets to zero.  Only at that point will your purchasing decision have a direct impact on the supply side (i.e. producers)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8415" RevisionGUID="8d964c49-d7e0-4665-8268-defd5bd50069" CreationDate="2019-08-10T22:37:37.057" UserId="4886" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="Someone has to suggest the obvious answer... for the record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q:  &quot;is there an entirely different solution?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A:  Don't have children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth's problem isn't solely and exclusively with *what* its Human inhabitants are doing... its *how many* are doing it that's the main problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter how carnivorous and voracious a single Human is (or could be), their consumption would not have even the slightest environmental impact on the planet.  Nor would the consumption of 2 voracious carnivores.  Nor 5.  Nor 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 20000, 50000 ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have to feed 7,700,000,000 people, however, then you are going to have a severe environmental impact *no matter what* those people eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eating meat isn't the problem.  Overpopulation is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone *truly* cares about the health of the planet, then probably the very best thing they can possibly do is not have any children.  The negative environmental impact of a single (Western) child is far larger than can be compensated for by *any* change in behaviour of a parent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As childless carnivores are far, far more environmentally friendly than vegetarians who breed, &quot;an entirely different solution&quot; is to help yourself to as much meat as you like, not have any children, and sleep well at night — knowing that you are no longer part of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said...  Be aware that if an *individual* actively chooses to abstain from consuming meat, it *doesn't* actually hurt the meat industry, nor will it save the lives of any animals, nor does it 'save the planet'.  All that happens is that demand reduces, which pushes the retail price down slightly, which makes meat more affordable for everyone else, which results in a rise in meat consumption.  In other words:  If you don't eat it, someone else will — referred to as 'elastic demand' in economics.  The *price* of meat is what limits its consumption.  There is a queue — about 5 billion people long — who would happily eat more meat, if only they could afford to so do.  Unethical meat production will continue until that queue gets to zero.  Only at that point will your purchasing decision have a direct impact on the supply side (i.e. producers).  As long as that queue exists, you cannot influence how much meat is produced, but you *can* influence the conditions under which the meat is produced buy buying ethically-produced meat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8415" RevisionGUID="675c760d-61f6-4db9-9d42-faf16f07f0cf" CreationDate="2019-08-10T22:42:40.627" UserId="4886" Comment="added 187 characters in body" Text="Someone has to suggest the obvious answer... for the record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q:  &quot;is there an entirely different solution?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A:  Don't have children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth's problem isn't solely and exclusively with *what* its Human inhabitants are doing... its *how many* are doing it that's the main problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter how carnivorous and voracious a single Human is (or could be), their consumption would not have even the slightest environmental impact on the planet.  Nor would the consumption of 2 voracious carnivores.  Nor 5.  Nor 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 20000, 50000 ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have to feed 7,700,000,000 people, however, then you are going to have a severe environmental impact *no matter what* those people eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eating meat isn't the problem.  Overpopulation is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone *truly* cares about the health of the planet, then probably the very best thing they can possibly do is not have any children.  The negative environmental impact of a single (Western) child is far larger than can be compensated for by *any* change in behaviour of a parent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As childless carnivores are far, far more environmentally friendly than vegetarians who breed, &quot;an entirely different solution&quot; is to help yourself to as much meat as you like, not have any children, and sleep well at night — knowing that you are no longer part of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said...  Be aware that if an *individual* actively chooses to abstain from consuming meat, it *doesn't* actually hurt the meat industry, nor will it save the lives of any animals, nor does it 'save the planet'.  All that happens is that demand reduces, which pushes the retail price down slightly, which makes meat more affordable for everyone else, which results in a rise in meat consumption.  In other words:  If you don't eat it, someone else will.  The *price* of meat is what limits its consumption — referred to as 'elastic demand' in economics.  There is a queue — about 5 billion people long — who would happily eat more meat, if only they could afford to so do.  Unethical meat production will continue until that queue gets to zero.  Only at that point will your purchasing decision have a direct impact on the supply side (i.e. producers).  As long as that queue exists, you cannot influence how much meat is produced, but you *can* influence the conditions under which the meat is produced by buying ethically-produced meat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8414" RevisionGUID="84b7e0be-f663-4e9f-a180-206567e78179" CreationDate="2019-08-10T22:49:42.860" UserId="4886" Comment="fixed grammar mistake" Text="My main goal is to get rid of mass husbandry and the environmental impact of industrial meat production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is:&#xD;&#xA;Is it better to abandon meat from my diet completely or to endorse eco-riendly meat production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a vegetarian you do not support any meat production and so reduce the overall amount of meat produced. But you also do not incentivise the companies behind meat production to change their behavior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As &quot;Eco-meat-eater&quot; you do [vote with your wallet][1] and maybe convince your grocery store to add more environmentally friendly meat to its assortment. This would change the ration between industrial and &quot;organic&quot; meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of those solution is better to reduce the global impact of meat production in the long term. Or is there an entirely different solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_voting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8415" RevisionGUID="7a6225ed-e0f3-40b4-b6d7-9541f44bc977" CreationDate="2019-08-10T22:55:32.203" UserId="4886" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="Someone has to suggest the obvious answer... for the record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q:  &quot;is there an entirely different solution?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A:  Don't have children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth's problem isn't solely and exclusively with *what* its Human inhabitants are doing... its *how many* are doing it that's the main problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter how carnivorous and voracious a single Human is (or could be), their consumption would not have even the slightest environmental impact on the planet.  Nor would the consumption of 2 voracious carnivores.  Nor 5.  Nor 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 20000, 50000 ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have to feed 7,700,000,000 people, however, then you are going to have a severe environmental impact *no matter what* those people eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eating meat isn't the problem.  Overpopulation is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone *truly* cares about the health of the planet, then probably the very best thing they can possibly do is not have any children.  The negative environmental impact of a single (Western) child is far larger than can be compensated for by *any* change in behaviour of a parent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As childless carnivores are far, far more environmentally friendly than vegetarians who breed, &quot;an entirely different solution&quot; is to help yourself to as much meat as you like, not have any children, and sleep well at night — knowing that you are no longer part of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said...  Be aware that if an *individual* actively chooses to abstain from consuming meat, it *doesn't* actually hurt the meat industry, nor will it save the lives of any animals, nor does it 'save the planet'.  All that happens is that demand reduces, which pushes the retail price down slightly, which makes meat more affordable for everyone else, which results in a rise in meat consumption.  In other words:  If you don't eat it, someone else will.  The *price* of meat is what limits its consumption — referred to as 'elastic demand' in economics.  There is a queue — about 5 billion people long — who would happily eat more meat, if only they could afford to so do.  Unethical meat production will continue until that queue gets to zero.  Only at that point will your purchasing decision have a direct impact on the supply side.  As long as that queue exists, you cannot influence *how much* meat is produced, but you *can* influence the conditions under which the meat is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion would be to:  Settle down with an omnivore partner that cares about animals, but does not want children.  Then buy and enjoy as much ethically-produced meat as you like." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8415" RevisionGUID="8c3ba3be-52da-4677-a1ce-cf0a25ebc5cf" CreationDate="2019-08-10T23:03:12.233" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Someone has to suggest the obvious answer... for the record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q:  &quot;is there an entirely different solution?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A:  Don't have children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth's problem isn't solely and exclusively with *what* its Human inhabitants are doing... its *how many* are doing it that's the main problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter how carnivorous and voracious a single Human is (or could be), their consumption would not have even the slightest environmental impact on the planet.  Nor would the consumption of 2 voracious carnivores.  Nor 5.  Nor 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 20000, 50000 ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have to feed 7,700,000,000 people, however, then you are going to have a severe environmental impact *no matter what* those people eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eating meat isn't the problem.  Overpopulation is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone *truly* cares about the health of the planet, then probably the very best thing they can possibly do is **not** have any children.  The negative environmental impact of a single (Western) child is far larger than can be compensated for by *any* change in behaviour of a parent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As childless carnivores are far, far more environmentally friendly than vegetarians who breed, &quot;an entirely different solution&quot; is to help yourself to as much meat as you like, not have any children, and sleep well at night — knowing that you are no longer part of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said...  Be aware that when an *individual* actively chooses to abstain from consuming meat, it *doesn't* actually hurt the meat industry, nor does it save the lives of any animals, nor does it 'save the planet'.  All that happens is that demand reduces, which pushes the retail price down slightly, which makes meat more affordable for everyone else, which results in a rise in meat consumption.  In other words:  If you don't eat it, someone else will.  The *price* of meat is what limits its consumption — referred to as 'elastic demand' in economics.  There is a queue — about 5 billion people long — who would happily eat more meat, if only they could afford to so do.  Unethical meat production will continue until that queue gets to zero.  Only at that point will your purchasing decision have a direct impact on the supply side.  As long as that queue exists, you cannot influence *how much* meat is produced, but you *can* influence the conditions under which the meat is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion would be to:  Settle down with an omnivore partner that cares about animals, but does not want children.  Then buy and enjoy as much ethically-produced meat as you like." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8415" RevisionGUID="b2c9d70c-821f-4a77-a9e9-0df64fa2aa82" CreationDate="2019-08-10T23:08:34.727" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Someone has to suggest the obvious answer... for the record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q:  &quot;is there an entirely different solution?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A:  Don't have children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth's problem isn't solely and exclusively with *what* its Human inhabitants are doing... its *how many* are doing it that's the main problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter how carnivorous and voracious a single Human is (or could be), their consumption would not have even the slightest environmental impact on the planet.  Nor would the consumption of 2 voracious carnivores.  Nor 5.  Nor 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 20000, 50000 ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have to feed 7,700,000,000 people, however, then you are going to have a severe environmental impact *no matter what* those people eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eating meat isn't the problem.  Overpopulation is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone *truly* cares about the health of the planet, then probably the very best thing they can possibly do is **not** have any children.  The negative environmental impact of a single (Western) child is far larger than can be compensated for by *any* change in behaviour of a parent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As childless carnivores/omnivores are far, far more environmentally friendly than vegetarians who breed, &quot;an entirely different solution&quot; is to help yourself to as much meat as you like, not have any children, and sleep well at night — knowing that you are no longer part of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said...  Be aware that when an *individual* actively chooses to abstain from consuming meat, it *doesn't* actually hurt the meat industry, nor does it save the lives of any animals, nor does it 'save the planet'.  All that happens is that demand reduces, which pushes the retail price down slightly, which makes meat more affordable for everyone else, which results in a rise in meat consumption.  In other words:  If you don't eat it, someone else will.  The *price* of meat is what limits its consumption — referred to as 'elastic demand' in economics.  There is a queue — about 5 billion people long — who would happily eat more meat, if only they could afford to so do.  Unethical meat production will continue until that queue gets to zero.  Only at that point will your purchasing decision have a direct impact on the supply side.  As long as that queue exists, you cannot influence *how much* meat is produced, but you *can* influence the conditions under which the meat is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion would be to:  Settle down with an omnivore partner that cares about animals, but does not want children.  Then buy and enjoy as much ethically-produced meat as you like." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8416" RevisionGUID="48698852-57d6-4e09-9d60-9df5ec8865e7" CreationDate="2019-08-10T23:08:42.720" UserId="6851" Text="Both of [Tim's](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/8415/6851) points (re: negative population growth and elastic demand) are important points, but I don't think they're doing a good job of answering your question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unlike people living in the 1980s, a lot of people today expect marginal changes in their carbon footprint to have marginal global effects _within their own lifetimes_. Therefore, a plan of not having children may be _too long-term_.  &#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, many people, for whatever reasons, may already have kids, or be planning not to have kids, and still be worrying about veganism/vegetarianism/omnivorism&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Probably_ it's true that the demand for meat is elastic, but it's also probably true that the _supply_ is elastic. If we drive down the price of meat, then we're driving down the _profit_ of meat production, so less money will be spent producing meat, which means less meat produced.  &#xD;&#xA;Of course it would be ideal to simultaneously drive profits down and prices up; I'm open to ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###To actually answer your question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Project Drawdown](https://www.drawdown.org) is a source I tend to trust for technical questions about margins like this. [Here's their discussion of vegetarianism/veganism](https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/plant-rich-diet). They also have various pages that discuss the ways animal husbandry could be improved, some of which are [well](https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/silvopasture) [ranked](https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/managed-grazing), and they have pages discussing possible improvements to the way crops are grown, but **eating less or no animal products is simple and high-impact**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My overall impression is that it's fine to raise some animals as food, if you have time for that, but sustainable animal husbandry is so complicated and nuanced that it will probably never make sense to buy meat from a store." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8415" RevisionGUID="65e7f4cf-ee7a-4031-9b5a-3043de61b0c1" CreationDate="2019-08-10T23:19:13.037" UserId="4886" Comment="added 155 characters in body" Text="Someone has to suggest the obvious answer... for the record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q:  &quot;is there an entirely different solution?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A:  Don't have children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth's problem isn't solely and exclusively with *what* its Human inhabitants are doing... its *how many* are doing it that's the main problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter how carnivorous and voracious a single Human is (or could be), their consumption would not have even the slightest environmental impact on the planet.  Nor would the consumption of 2 voracious carnivores.  Nor 5.  Nor 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 20000, 50000 ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have to feed 7,700,000,000 people, however, then you are going to have a severe environmental impact *no matter what* those people eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eating meat isn't the problem.  Overpopulation is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone *truly* cares about the health of the planet, then probably the very best thing they can possibly do is **not** have any children.  The negative environmental impact of a single (Western) child is far larger than can be compensated for by *any* change in behaviour of a parent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As childless carnivores/omnivores are far, far more environmentally friendly than vegetarians who breed, &quot;an entirely different solution&quot; is to help yourself to as much meat as you like, not have any children, and sleep well at night — knowing that you are no longer part of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said...  Be aware that when an *individual* actively chooses to abstain from consuming meat, it *doesn't* actually hurt the meat industry, nor does it save the lives of any animals, nor does it 'save the planet'.  All that happens is that demand reduces, which pushes the retail price down slightly, which makes meat more affordable for everyone else, which results in a rise in meat consumption.  In other words:  If you don't eat it, someone else will.  The *price* of meat is what limits its consumption — referred to as 'elastic demand' in economics.  There is a queue — about 5 billion people long — who would happily eat more meat, if only they could afford to so do.  Unethical meat production will continue until that queue gets to zero.  Only at that point will your purchasing decision have a direct impact on the supply side.  As long as that queue exists, you cannot influence *how much* meat is produced, but you *can* influence the conditions under which the meat is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion would be to:  Settle down with an omnivore partner that cares about animals, but does not want children.  Then buy and enjoy as much ethically-produced meat as you like.  Better yet, move somewhere that lets you grow your own!  That way you can ensure the animals enjoy a good life.  That's what we now do (with chickens)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20700" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8415" RevisionGUID="e83cd1cc-d0d6-443a-a381-0c5de8b1cd49" CreationDate="2019-08-10T23:28:50.360" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="Someone has to suggest the obvious answer... for the record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q:  &quot;is there an entirely different solution?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A:  Don't have children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth's problem isn't solely and exclusively with *what* its Human inhabitants are doing... *how many* are doing it is the main problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter how carnivorous and voracious a single Human is (or could be), their consumption would not have even the slightest environmental impact on the planet.  Nor would the consumption of 2 voracious carnivores.  Nor 5.  Nor 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 20000, 50000 ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have to feed 7,700,000,000 people, however, then you are going to have a severe environmental impact *no matter what* those people eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eating meat isn't the problem.  Overpopulation is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone *truly* cares about the health of the planet, then probably the very best thing they can possibly do is **not** have any children.  The negative environmental impact of a single (Western) child is far larger than can be compensated for by *any* change in behaviour of a parent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As childless carnivores/omnivores are far, far more environmentally friendly than vegetarians who breed, &quot;an entirely different solution&quot; is to help yourself to as much meat as you like, not have any children, and sleep well at night — knowing that you are no longer part of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said...  Be aware that when an *individual* actively chooses to abstain from consuming meat, it *doesn't* actually hurt the meat industry, nor does it save the lives of any animals, nor does it 'save the planet'.  All that happens is that demand reduces, which pushes the retail price down slightly, which makes meat more affordable for everyone else, which results in a rise in meat consumption.  In other words:  If you don't eat it, someone else will.  The *price* of meat is what limits its consumption — referred to as 'elastic demand' in economics.  There is a queue — about 5 billion people long — who would happily eat more meat, if only they could afford to so do.  Unethical meat production will continue until that queue gets to zero.  Only at that point will your purchasing decision have a direct impact on the supply side.  As long as that queue exists, you cannot influence *how much* meat is produced, but you *can* influence the conditions under which the meat is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion would be to:  Settle down with an omnivore partner that cares about animals, but does not want children.  Then buy and enjoy as much ethically-produced meat as you like.  Better yet, move somewhere that lets you grow your own!  That way you can ensure the animals enjoy a good life.  That's what we now do (with chickens)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8415" RevisionGUID="e229ad4c-14f5-41da-94e9-b44fd7f85ede" CreationDate="2019-08-10T23:56:20.240" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Someone has to suggest the obvious answer... for the record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q:  &quot;is there an entirely different solution?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A:  Don't have children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth's problem isn't solely and exclusively with *what* its Human inhabitants are doing... *how many* are doing it is the main problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter how carnivorous and voracious a single Human is (or could be), their consumption would not have even the slightest environmental impact on the planet.  Nor would the consumption of 2 voracious carnivores.  Nor 5.  Nor 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 20000, 50000 ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have to feed 7,700,000,000 people, however, then you are going to have a severe environmental impact *no matter what* those people eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eating meat isn't the problem.  Overpopulation is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone *truly* cares about the health of the planet, then probably the very best thing they can possibly do is **not** have any children.  The negative environmental impact of a single (Western) child is far larger than can be compensated for by *any* change in behaviour of a parent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As childless carnivores/omnivores are far, far more environmentally friendly than vegetarians who breed, &quot;an entirely different solution&quot; is to help yourself to as much meat as you like, not have any children, and sleep well at night — knowing that you are no longer part of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said...  Be aware that when an *individual* actively chooses to abstain from consuming meat, it *doesn't* actually hurt the meat industry, nor does it save the lives of any animals, nor does it 'save the planet'.  All that happens is that demand reduces, which pushes the retail price down slightly, which makes meat more affordable for everyone else, which results in a rise in meat consumption.  In other words:  If you don't eat it, someone else will.  The *price* of meat is what limits its consumption — referred to as 'elastic demand' in economics.  There is a queue — about 5 billion people long — who would happily eat more meat, if only they could afford to so do.  Unethical meat production will continue until that queue gets to zero.  Only at that point will your purchasing decision have a direct impact on the supply side.  As long as that queue exists, you cannot influence *how much* meat is produced, but you *can* influence the conditions under which the meat is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion would be to:  Settle down with an omnivore partner that cares about animals, but does not want children.  Then buy and enjoy as much ethically-produced meat as you like.  Better yet, move somewhere that lets you grow your own!  That way you can *ensure* the animals enjoy a good life.  That's what we now do (with chickens)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8415" RevisionGUID="f439bc19-8c9f-49a9-98c2-3f5344544aa8" CreationDate="2019-08-11T07:32:16.240" UserId="4886" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Someone has to suggest the obvious answer... for the record.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Q:  &quot;is there an entirely different solution?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A:  Don't have children.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Earth's problem isn't solely and exclusively with *what* its Human inhabitants are doing... *how many* are doing it is the main problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter how carnivorous and voracious a single Human is (or could be), their consumption would not have even the slightest environmental impact on the planet.  Nor would the consumption of 2 voracious carnivores.  Nor 5.  Nor 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 20000, 50000 ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you have to feed 7,700,000,000 people, however, then you are going to have a severe environmental impact *no matter what* those people eat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eating meat isn't the problem.  Overpopulation is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone *truly* cares about the health of the planet, then probably the very best thing they can possibly do is **not** have any children.  The negative environmental impact of a single (Western) child is far larger than can be compensated for by *any* change in behaviour of a parent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As childless carnivores/omnivores are far, far more environmentally friendly than vegetarians who breed, &quot;an entirely different solution&quot; is to help yourself to as much meat as you like, not have any children, and sleep well at night — knowing that you are no longer part of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said...  Be aware that when an *individual* actively chooses to abstain from consuming meat, it *doesn't* actually hurt the meat industry, nor does it save the lives of any animals, nor does it 'save the planet'.  All that happens is that demand reduces, which pushes the retail price down slightly, which makes meat more affordable for everyone else, which results in a rise in meat consumption.  In other words:  If you don't eat it, someone else will.  The *price* of meat is what limits its consumption — referred to as 'elastic demand' in economics.  There is a queue — about 5 billion people long — who would happily eat more meat, if only they could afford to so do.  Unethical meat production will continue until that queue gets to zero.  Only at that point will your purchasing decision have a direct impact on the supply side.  As long as that queue exists, you cannot influence *how much* meat is produced, but you *can* influence the conditions under which the meat is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, my suggestion would be to:  Settle down with an omnivorous partner that cares about animals, but does not want children.  Then buy and enjoy as much ethically-produced meat as you like.  Better yet, move somewhere that lets you grow your own!  That way you can *ensure* the animals enjoy a good life.  That's what we now do (with chickens)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20703" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="0802a8cc-5726-4dd7-ac6c-aad996c4414c" CreationDate="2019-08-11T16:47:38.263" UserId="6853" Comment="58" />
  <row Id="20704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8417" RevisionGUID="fb955182-d2be-4c0c-bd94-f58fba250bda" CreationDate="2019-08-12T02:47:36.630" UserId="6837" Text="Mass producers of the grain consumed in feedlots proudly assert that they are feeding the world, as if they want a medal for their efforts. This is an obvious consequence of cognitive dissonance. They have doubts about their own activities, but if you ask them what they fear about the future based on what they know, you will see &quot;environmental impacts&quot; in a different light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we assume that their primary motivation is to simply acquire wealth, then their greatest fears are directly related to their own knowledge that the methods they employ are not sustainable. It's clear to them that their children and grandchildren will not be able to carry on the family tradition as they have done for generations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They drill the wells and monitor them. They know how long it takes to replenish the aquifers, how quickly they are being depleted, and how close to empty they have become. It's pretty grim. Sadder still is the response to increase production in order to more fully exploit the resource before it's gone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I applaud those who recognize that personal choices can provide alternatives, but the converse is also true. Alternatives provide choices. If conditions that require alternatives are clearly end of game scenarios, then new choices arise if there is to be the start of another game. In the meantime, we are presented with false choices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes a lot to get to the bottom of this, but I can present several examples of &quot;Eco-meat-eater&quot; individuals I've met who seem to have wildly different impacts on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person 'A' buys grass fed beef directly from a local producer we personally met at a local farmers market. She was more than a bit disturbed to see the condition of open range land that had previously been used for natural production of beef. What had once been gorgeous and productive grasslands, with &quot;grass as high as your saddle&quot; according to reports, has now become vast undulating swells of barren dirt, gravel, and stone exposed to constant erosion. She asked if they were mine tailings, but they were not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person 'B' also eats meat. He raises poultry sustainably on his farm in North Carolina without a well and trades some of it for beef raised by his neighbor. It could be argued that he is more sustainable than his neighbor because poultry require less food than cattle, but they both eat more sustainably sourced poultry than they otherwise would, so he is driving better choices by providing alternatives. Even if they didn't eat meat, their products would replace very close to the same portion of products provided by mass husbandry. Buying their meat is definitely an incentive for them to continue producing it as they do, but they are both dedicated to holistic farming and also produce vegetables that are far superior to what you would find in a supermarket. Their vegetarian friends provide incentives for them by purchasing crops and by exchanging labor for a share of the goods. This kind of personal involvement is the best way to be certain of source sustainability. Buy his meat and his veggies. You don't have to eat the meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person 'C' is a vegetarian and buys products that are labeled organic, sustainable, free range, grass fed, GMO free, etc. but she has no idea how those products are actually produced. She asked me if carrots grow on a tree, and it took a while for me to understand that she was not joking. Her husband eats meat and does not care how it's sourced. Her personal choice of remaining an herbivore has altered her husband's diet because he loves many of the dishes she prepares for herself. Her friends, relatives, neighbors and members of the church on potluck day praise her culinary talents and often prefer what she produces over other meat dishes available to them. Her personal diet has a much smaller footprint than her spouse's, but the secondary influence of her enthusiasm has a much greater effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person &quot;D&quot; grows microgreens in his small apartment for himself and for anyone who visits him. His sister says, &quot;Hey this is good&quot; and sells some to a prep cook who wants to impress his boss who just happens to be a great chef. All four of these people eat meat, but all of them are also happily involved in a supply chain that is eminently superior in terms of sustainability. As a result of their activities, many people get introduced to the production and consumption of an alternative to poorly sourced food. A few of them start growing their own, but one actually starts producing microgreens on a larger scale. The portion of his product that is unsaleable or unsold goes to his neighbor who raises chickens in her back yard so she can sell eggs to get by. Person 'D' accidentally started something that resembles a food network, and he did it simply by exploring alternatives to what most of us recognize as unsustainable. The point is that his sister is an eco-meat-eater, but her influence didn't require purchasing anything. It was her mindset that triggered a small action which ended up being a key factor in the change that took place, perhaps with a greater overall effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person 'E' is a horror story. She lives in constant fear of animal products, GMO's, pesticides, germs, contrails, and radio waves. This effectively reduces her choices to almost nothing. Her ten year old daughter is the most malnourished person I have ever met. When she mentioned that she was hungry she was offered a ramen soup and I cringed. Sustainability of the planet suddenly seemed secondary to sustainability of her life. Farms don't produce people like that. Cities do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Years ago in my country it was estimated that 90% of the population lived on farms. The influx of whole populations into cities not only increased the demand for those products, but it also fostered the ignorance required to perpetuate that system. Most of that farmland still exists, but it's now in the hands of mega corporations and much of it is devoted to mass husbandry. It will soon fail, and after it's abandoned we may get a chance to try something different, but who among us wants to or knows how? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Limiting population growth in general can be very helpful, but it doesn't follow that there will be a corresponding decrease in demand for poorly sourced meat. China made great efforts to control their pop growth in ways that westerners would find unthinkable, but they simultaneously encouraged urban migration. The increased affluence of city dwellers has led to a much greater demand for our terribly unsustainable products. Worse yet, it has led to a huge loss of the very skills required to return to the farm. It's much harder when you don't know how. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you are prepared to move to a farm or personally produce something sustainably in the city, supporting and/or endorsing those who do so is the only reasonable way I can see for an individual in the city to counter this problem. If the net effect is too negligible, then natural limitations will soon force our hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've gone as far as offering free land to anyone willing to manage it properly, but I've found no takers. I came up with the idea while attending a birthday party for a dog in a notable and somewhat affluent green community during a fascinating discussion about possible alternatives. Someone scoffed, &quot;Who would do such a thing?&quot; and although I was just their lowly landscaper I answered, &quot;I will!&quot; but I was surprised to discover a few years later, when I was actually able to put the plan into action, just how addicted to the city we have all become.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I picked up a homeless hitchhiker whose destination was a thousand miles away simply so he could collect $900 in food stamps. I asked him if the government were to offer him $900 worth of land instead of the food stamps, would he agree to use it to produce his own food? Nope. It sounded like too much work and he claimed he wouldn't know how to anyway. The point here is that despite his ignorance, lack of concern, lack of ambition, poor diet, and low purchasing power, he maintained a tiny carbon footprint. After doubling my passenger miles per gallon, he demonstrated his alternative mode of transportation. He loaded everything he owned onto a long board and hitched up his dog like a sled dog to take him somewhere else to panhandle a few coins. He and his dog both eat from dumpsters. Few of us are willing to be quite that eco-friendly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poverty is our friend. May we all become too poor to afford meat. May we be forced to plant something. May we find some tiny patch of soil to improve, anywhere, out of our desperate need to sustain our own lives. I fear there is nothing short of dire need that can alter our trajectory because there is a fear of change that keeps us stuck in our old ways, and nothing short of the threat of starvation is adequate to overcome it. I stop thinking about this as soon as the ramifications of that begin to sink in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine a person selling lemonade next to a Coke machine. He grew the lemons and wants to plant orange trees. His product is vastly superior and costs exactly as much as a soda. I'm tempted to make a video that documents how people respond to that choice in real life. It's the only plan I have to determine whether or not we are all doomed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I avoid sugar, but I would buy lemonade from him for anyone standing around who was tempted to slip a few coins into the machine. It's a no-brainer. Become a vegetarian AND buy environmentally friendly meat. Serve it to carnivores with generous helpings of deliciously prepared organic veggies, and make sure the meat is tough, dry, and unpalatable. This worked well for Person &quot;C&quot; despite her profound ignorance. Re-examine what it means to produce food, and you don't have to know the first thing about raising your own, then re-evaluate what it means to be a consumer and pray you don't eventually become consumed by hungry cannibals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is: &quot;Is it better to abandon meat from my diet completely or to endorse eco-friendly meat production? The short answer is &quot;Yes&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be advised that it's not a choice between one or the other. That's a false choice. Don't accept it. The best answer, based on all of the above, is &quot;Both!&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8418" RevisionGUID="04760b1a-f73e-4ccb-8000-ba23a58d8852" CreationDate="2019-08-12T03:42:52.860" UserId="6854" Text="My opinion is that the electrical motor is not last long as piston engine.Because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***1.The brush connection will be rust and ruined out.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***2.The brushless motors require complex electronic circuit which is hard to maintain.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***3.Futuristic battery and capacitor are high technologies which isn't suitable for fixing,regenerating and it also costs a lot of money.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***4.Motors are actually more complex of design and material compare to piston engine,it can't handle high temperature that lead into electrical component damages.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***5.In cold weather,gas engines create much heat that maintains the good operating temperature for mechanical parts,the e-motors will not do this and the rotor can be frozen as well.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:**e-bike is a result of civilization high technology while it has a lot of advantage,however it does have a lot of disadvantage of maintenance and recreation if apply for a specific civilization low technology reality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20706" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8410" RevisionGUID="3dfb18ce-0549-4404-b5db-1a60ad0ad988" CreationDate="2019-08-12T09:00:34.597" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1160838475916226560" />
  <row Id="20708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8419" RevisionGUID="a251aa06-32f9-4293-8970-05528967d30a" CreationDate="2019-08-13T13:51:34.953" UserId="6665" Text=" 1. Toner is madeup of plastic powder(dry carbon powder+polymer) compare to ink, so inkjet is environmentally safe.&#xD;&#xA; 2. also ink printed has more lifetime then toner so need not to be reprint. but compare to printing capacity ink has been only 500 pages when toner gives 2000pages.&#xD;&#xA; 3. toner is polluted air when it was put in open" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8418" RevisionGUID="1c9ef249-e9e2-49c9-ab96-10734d84c777" CreationDate="2019-08-13T15:49:38.423" UserId="6854" Comment="content" Text="My opinion is that the electrical motor is not last long as piston engine.Because:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***1.The brush connection will be rust and ruined out.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***2.The brushless motors require complex electronic circuit which is hard to maintain.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***3.Futuristic battery and capacitor are high technologies which isn't suitable for fixing,regenerating and it also costs a lot of money.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***4.Motors are actually more complex of design and material compare to piston engine,it can't handle high temperature that lead into electrical component damages.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***5.In cold weather,gas engines create much heat that maintains the good operating temperature for mechanical parts,the e-motors will not do this and the rotor can be frozen as well.***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***6.Reverse the current when braking can cause an over heat,inductive energy that can damage the teflon coat or destroy the soldering(that's why trains still use regular brake combine with electric brake)***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:**&#xD;&#xA;e-bike is a result of civilization high technology while it has a lot of advantage,however it does have a lot of disadvantage of maintenance and recreation if apply for a specific civilization low technology reality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8420" RevisionGUID="268cfce5-7d5a-48d6-a429-8594f2023ff6" CreationDate="2019-08-14T02:55:55.010" UserId="6837" Text="The question seems to be asking only about the environmental impact of the cartridges, so I probably shouldn't talk about how a laser printers use 100 times more power while they are printing, but allow me just to say that for the whole life cycle the most significant stage for both types is paper usage, followed by the manufacturing of the product and electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to energycentral.com  the production of a new laser cartridge consumes more than three quarts of oil emitting close to 5kg of greenhouse gases per cartridge, while inkjet cartridges consume about three ounces of oil with a corresponding reduction in GHG during manufacture. This factoid is found all over the web without naming the source, and it bothers me further because it doesn't take into consideration the differences in size and capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both types of cartridges also require a lot of steel to produce (the plastic is just a coating) but it's important to note that 97% of the materials used in both types of printer cartridges can be recycled, which means you can effectively reduce the waste to only 3% if you return them to the manufacturer or drop them off at Best Buy or Staples to get your coupon towards your next purchase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  You can reduce that further if you refill your own, but many printer manufacturers try to foil your attempts to use refilled or re-manufactured cartridges. In 2017, the Supreme Court told Lexmark it can’t make it impossible for printer cartridge buyers to refill them, but it didn't say they couldn't make it awkward or difficult. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you plan to buy a new printer, look for a brand that doesn’t goof around like that. When comparing, keep in mind that each time a cartridge is refilled, the impacts of refilling get added to the total footprint, but the increase of the cartridge’s life reduces the overall impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many sources quote each other that GHG emissions by weight for the toner are about 16 to one, which works out to 3.2 kg GHG per 200 grams of toner, but I have not been able to find the original source of these numbers either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toner is basically plastic polymer dust, which is considered a hazardous waste in Europe, but only if it is being disposed of or being sent to recycling, not if it's being refilled. Toner in some ways is considered less dangerous to the environment than aqueous inks because many of the chemicals needed in inkjet ink are not required in a laser printer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Inkjet cartridges are considered a &quot;designated&quot; item by the U.S. EPA. which mandates that any government agency, office or contractor that spends more than $10,000 a year on inkjet cartridges must purchase a model with the highest levels of recycled content. Naturally, this would not apply to you if you are just buying one for your own personal use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good study of Life Cycle Assessment of toner cartridges can be found here https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6023/3272d8efc645494fb1a4a15f24f80a8a386a.pdf?_ga=2.260727236.830309716.1565737019-1061069556.1565737019 but it compares toner according to different recycling alternatives, not to inkjets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good LSA for inkjet printers which includes the ink can be found here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276385268_Life_cycle_assessment_of_an_inkjet_printer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) I have found that breaks down all the factors by comparison can be found at https://scholarworks.rit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&amp;httpsredir=1&amp;article=1093&amp;context=books which should be examined if you want all the hairy details. Although standards for carbon footprinting exist (including WBSCD’s GHG Protocol, ISO14064 and the draft PAS&#xD;&#xA;2050) there is no absolute guidance for deriving boundaries for a study of this type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typical Material Safety Data Sheets for inkjet cartridges can be found here http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/community/environment/productinfo/pdf/ij_c6635a_eng_v1.pdf  The table entries marked &quot;confidential&quot; would be the ones I would be most concerned about. This may be the reason why a fair comparison of between the two technologies has not yet been presented to the public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The part of the discussion that never seems to come up is something I've noticed from personal experience. Most people throw out the inkjets when they run out of ink because a new printer with ink costs a lot less. This seldom happens with laser printers. From the point of view of the cartridge, the problem is compounded when the printer runs out of only one color ink, leaving the other three to be wasted. This is a huge black mark against the sustainability of inkjets in practice, but the end result is that you can get all kinds of inkjets for free if you intercept them as post consumer waste, effectively reducing the manufacture impact to zero while simultaneously reducing the load on landfills. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, the differences between the impact of the cartridges themselves is minuscule compared to many other factors that would be significant when choosing between the two technologies.  From the perspective of sustainability, I would opt for the laser, especially if my source of power is guaranteed to be clean, but when I can't generate enough power, I am often forced to use the inkjet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8420" RevisionGUID="03b1939c-eb60-4c1d-8de7-21083111cbf0" CreationDate="2019-08-14T07:28:36.920" UserId="6837" Comment="Added explanation regarding the recycling of office waste paper. " Text="The question seems to be asking only about the environmental impact of the cartridges, so I probably shouldn't talk about how a laser printers use 100 times more power while they are printing, but allow me just to say that for the whole life cycle the most significant stage for both types is paper usage, followed by the manufacturing of the product and electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to energycentral.com  the production of a new laser cartridge consumes more than three quarts of oil emitting close to 5kg of greenhouse gases per cartridge, while inkjet cartridges consume about three ounces of oil with a corresponding reduction in GHG during manufacture. This factoid is found all over the web without naming the source, and it bothers me further because it doesn't take into consideration the differences in size and capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both types of cartridges also require a lot of steel to produce (the plastic is just a coating) but it's important to note that 97% of the materials used in both types of printer cartridges can be recycled, which means you can effectively reduce the waste to only 3% if you return them to the manufacturer or drop them off at Best Buy or Staples to get your coupon towards your next purchase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  You can reduce that further if you refill your own, but many printer manufacturers try to foil your attempts to use refilled or re-manufactured cartridges. In 2017, the Supreme Court told Lexmark it can’t make it impossible for printer cartridge buyers to refill them, but it didn't say they couldn't make it awkward or difficult. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you plan to buy a new printer, look for a brand that doesn’t goof around like that. When comparing, keep in mind that each time a cartridge is refilled, the impacts of refilling get added to the total footprint, but the increase of the cartridge’s life reduces the overall impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many sources quote each other that GHG emissions by weight for the toner are about 16 to one, which works out to 3.2 kg GHG per 200 grams of toner, but I have not been able to find the original source of these numbers either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toner is basically plastic polymer dust, which is considered a hazardous waste in Europe, but only if it is being disposed of or being sent to recycling, not if it's being refilled. Toner in some ways is considered less dangerous to the environment than aqueous inks because many of the chemicals needed in inkjet ink are not required in a laser printer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Inkjet cartridges are considered a &quot;designated&quot; item by the U.S. EPA. which mandates that any government agency, office or contractor that spends more than $10,000 a year on inkjet cartridges must purchase a model with the highest levels of recycled content. Naturally, this would not apply to you if you are just buying one for your own personal use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good study of Life Cycle Assessment of toner cartridges can be found here https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6023/3272d8efc645494fb1a4a15f24f80a8a386a.pdf?_ga=2.260727236.830309716.1565737019-1061069556.1565737019 but it compares toner according to different recycling alternatives, not to inkjets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good LSA for inkjet printers which includes the ink can be found here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276385268_Life_cycle_assessment_of_an_inkjet_printer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) I have found that breaks down all the factors by comparison can be found at https://scholarworks.rit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&amp;httpsredir=1&amp;article=1093&amp;context=books which should be examined if you want all the hairy details. Although standards for carbon footprinting exist (including WBSCD’s GHG Protocol, ISO14064 and the draft PAS&#xD;&#xA;2050) there is no absolute guidance for deriving boundaries for a study of this type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typical Material Safety Data Sheets for inkjet cartridges can be found here http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/community/environment/productinfo/pdf/ij_c6635a_eng_v1.pdf  The table entries marked &quot;confidential&quot; would be the ones I would be most concerned about. This may be the reason why a fair comparison of between the two technologies has not yet been presented to the public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The part of the discussion that never seems to come up is something I've noticed from personal experience. Most people throw out the inkjets when they run out of ink because a new printer with ink costs a lot less. This seldom happens with laser printers. From the point of view of the cartridge, the problem is compounded when the printer runs out of only one color ink, leaving the other three to be wasted. This is a huge black mark against the sustainability of inkjets in practice, but the end result is that you can get all kinds of inkjets for free if you intercept them as post consumer waste, effectively reducing the manufacture impact to zero while simultaneously reducing the load on landfills. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the differences between the impact of the cartridges themselves is minuscule compared to many other factors that would be significant when choosing between the two technologies.  From the perspective of sustainability, I would opt for the laser, especially if my source of power is guaranteed to be clean, but when I can't generate enough power, I am often forced to use the inkjet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The printed paper, from both inkjet and laser printing, after it's been printed and goes to recycling, gets stripped of inks and resin which is removed from the pulp in a form of sludge that doesn't always get used for anything else. It could be used in making composite deck planking and other construction materials, but it doesn't have much commercial value and is often thrown into the landfill. Nevertheless, it sometimes ends up as fertilizer, or is burned to create energy. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;After repulping the paper, the pulp gets treated with deinking enzymes (usually a mixture of cellulase and hemicellulase) and mixed with a non-ionic surfactant (basically soap) during flotation which helps the enzymes to soak in and prevents the ink from re-attaching itself to the fibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cellulase itself is a natural enzyme that breaks down cellulose. It's produced by bacteria, fungi and protozoans in the natural environment as well as inside our digestive tract to break down fruits and vegetables. The PH sometimes needs to be adjusted, so if the paper contains a lot of sizing (like clay or ash particles) then a mild acid is used to lower the alkalinity. If it needs to be raised (due to acidic paper) then sodium silicate or sodium hydroxide is used. If the paper needs to be very white, then hydrogen peroxide is use to bleach the inks, which is considered very safe in the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, different types of cellulase may be matched with different types of surfactant to get best results or simply to avoid having to alter the PH level. The water itself is easily recycled and gets fed right back into the system. Some operations use DAF (dissolved air flotation) with a small amount lost through evaporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy also has to be added to the system in the form of heat (45 to 55 C), but you don't want it to get too hot (65C) or the toner particles will fuse again to the pulp fibers. The sludge from deinking is sometimes burned to provide this heat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most all office paper recycling operations, the printed ink jet paper and printer toner sheets both go through the same process because those two waste streams are not sorted. They get sorted out as &quot;Office Waste&quot; (OW) but they don't get sorted out from each other. It is possible to sort them and treat them differently, resulting in a simpler process for the paper without toner, but this is only done in very specialized waste streams where the volume is high and the quality of the feedstock is certain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless paper recycling methods change, the environmental impact of both types of recycled paper is very nearly identical. It's important to note that this process is primarily used only when the brightness of the paper is an important outcome. Very often in unsorted waste streams the final product is cardboard and neither the ink nor the toner needs to be removed. It just gets blended into the final product with (hopefully) no difference at all on the impact to the environment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is completely unknown is what actually happens to the thousands of chemicals in paper during and after the recycling process. Until the secret ingredients of printer inks and toners are revealed, there is no way to know. Those ingredients are considered &quot;confidential&quot; in the industry. Until then, no comparison can be made.            &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8414" RevisionGUID="544a252b-003a-45a7-9e9b-8592df0e825b" CreationDate="2019-08-14T11:50:10.323" UserId="6837" Comment="Fixed three minor typographical errors and made one improvement in grammar." Text="My main goal is to get rid of mass husbandry and the environmental impact of industrial meat production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is:&#xD;&#xA;Is it better to abandon meat from my diet completely or to endorse eco-friendly meat production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a vegetarian you do not support any meat production and so reduce the overall amount of meat produced. But you also do not provide incentives for the companies behind meat production to change their behavior. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As &quot;Eco-meat-eater&quot; you do [vote with your wallet][1] and maybe convince your grocery store to add more environmentally friendly meat to its assortment. This would change the ratio between industrial and &quot;organic&quot; meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of those solutions is better to reduce the global impact of meat production in the long term. Or is there an entirely different solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_voting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20713" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8414" RevisionGUID="544a252b-003a-45a7-9e9b-8592df0e825b" CreationDate="2019-08-14T11:50:10.323" Comment="Proposed by 6837 approved by 2451, 99 edit id of 578" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8421" RevisionGUID="90b22c70-e856-4252-9bed-1bc3836b8879" CreationDate="2019-08-14T16:29:11.223" UserId="5403" Text="Short answer: no, you can't assume anything. Food packaging can be pretty much any type of plastic, some of which are totally unrecyclable by their chemical nature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that there may be some other use end use for nonrecyclable plastic - being shredded and incorporated into other materials for instance. Supermarkets and other businesses are continually looking into ways to make income from waste materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing to note is that, the labels indicating recyclability themselves are not reliable. Which? did a survey on this (reported [here][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to whether you're doing more harm than good, that depends to some extent on what the supermarket does with their returned plastic bag waste stream, but in general anything that doesn't belong in a waste stream is contamination. It will either have to be separated out or it will reduce the value of the waste stream. My guess would be that's what's happening here: someone (?the driver?) will be taking everything that isn't actually plastic bags out of the plastic bag waste stream and the rest will be going to landfill/incineration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TL;DR: only recycle what you know can be recycled where you know it can be recycled. Everything else is contamination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/recycling/article/what-are-supermarkets-doing-about-plastic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="6e157cbe-605b-4223-af63-bc2da8cd24e0" CreationDate="2019-08-14T22:22:43.063" UserId="6857" Text="How much CO2 do we produce by sleeping on average in a hut (including breakfast and dinner)in high-altitude &gt; 3000 m)? Let's assume that the hut offers 50 beds and that a helicopter has to supply the hut every 2/3 weeks. How much is it compared to a short-haul flight / car drive of 300 km? Can you consider sleeping in a hut being environmental-friendly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20716" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="6e157cbe-605b-4223-af63-bc2da8cd24e0" CreationDate="2019-08-14T22:22:43.063" UserId="6857" Text="CO2 track of staying in huts which are supplied by helicopter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20717" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="6e157cbe-605b-4223-af63-bc2da8cd24e0" CreationDate="2019-08-14T22:22:43.063" UserId="6857" Text="|environmental-impact|ecological-footprint|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20718" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="b00034f3-3f3b-419a-b0de-c43c5ca4d595" CreationDate="2019-08-15T06:34:37.803" UserId="99" Comment="removed irrelevant tag, added carbon-footprint tag" Text="|environmental-impact|carbon-footprint|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8424" RevisionGUID="2b148f69-05c7-4a66-bd90-6c5371c06550" CreationDate="2019-08-15T14:49:59.900" UserId="6861" Text="In this case [Life Cycle Assessment][1] is indeed the way to go. A Life Cycle Assessment is the systematic analysis of the environmental impact of a product during its entire life cycle. So to determine whether hybrid cars are more sustainable than traditional cars, one would have to collect and assess all inputs and outputs during the entire life cycle of a hybrid car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.thinkstep.com/life-cycle-assessment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8425" RevisionGUID="431f5e06-51ef-457d-b6d0-de56d2008d7c" CreationDate="2019-08-15T21:14:14.730" UserId="3851" Text="I find the site [CarbonCounter.com][1], developed by MIT, useful in approaching this question. You can play around with some of the assumptions on e.g electricity supply, battery manufacture emissions and vehicle lifetime. Under most reasonable assumptions, for vehicles of comparable size, hybrids are better than pure ICE, and EVs better than hybrids (unless the electricity is mainly coal). So while yes 'it depends', after playing with the options for a bit, a rough rule of thumb for US average electricity is that hybrids are around 2/3 the lifecycle co2 of an ICE, and full electric are around 50% lifecycle co2 of an ICE. (Very roughly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://carboncounter.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8420" RevisionGUID="ebfa3769-04e2-453f-a3c2-6d95fe34b8cf" CreationDate="2019-08-17T16:48:06.327" UserId="6837" Comment="added last paragraph to include upcycling" Text="The question seems to be asking only about the environmental impact of the cartridges, so I probably shouldn't talk about how a laser printers use 100 times more power while they are printing, but allow me just to say that for the whole life cycle the most significant stage for both types is paper usage, followed by the manufacturing of the product and electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to energycentral.com  the production of a new laser cartridge consumes more than three quarts of oil emitting close to 5kg of greenhouse gases per cartridge, while inkjet cartridges consume about three ounces of oil with a corresponding reduction in GHG during manufacture. This factoid is found all over the web without naming the source, and it bothers me further because it doesn't take into consideration the differences in size and capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both types of cartridges also require a lot of steel to produce (the plastic is just a coating) but it's important to note that 97% of the materials used in both types of printer cartridges can be recycled, which means you can effectively reduce the waste to only 3% if you return them to the manufacturer or drop them off at Best Buy or Staples to get your coupon towards your next purchase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  You can reduce that further if you refill your own, but many printer manufacturers try to foil your attempts to use refilled or re-manufactured cartridges. In 2017, the Supreme Court told Lexmark it can’t make it impossible for printer cartridge buyers to refill them, but it didn't say they couldn't make it awkward or difficult. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you plan to buy a new printer, look for a brand that doesn’t goof around like that. When comparing, keep in mind that each time a cartridge is refilled, the impacts of refilling get added to the total footprint, but the increase of the cartridge’s life reduces the overall impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many sources quote each other that GHG emissions by weight for the toner are about 16 to one, which works out to 3.2 kg GHG per 200 grams of toner, but I have not been able to find the original source of these numbers either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toner is basically plastic polymer dust, which is considered a hazardous waste in Europe, but only if it is being disposed of or being sent to recycling, not if it's being refilled. Toner in some ways is considered less dangerous to the environment than aqueous inks because many of the chemicals needed in inkjet ink are not required in a laser printer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Inkjet cartridges are considered a &quot;designated&quot; item by the U.S. EPA. which mandates that any government agency, office or contractor that spends more than $10,000 a year on inkjet cartridges must purchase a model with the highest levels of recycled content. Naturally, this would not apply to you if you are just buying one for your own personal use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good study of Life Cycle Assessment of toner cartridges can be found here https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6023/3272d8efc645494fb1a4a15f24f80a8a386a.pdf?_ga=2.260727236.830309716.1565737019-1061069556.1565737019 but it compares toner according to different recycling alternatives, not to inkjets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good LSA for inkjet printers which includes the ink can be found here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276385268_Life_cycle_assessment_of_an_inkjet_printer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) I have found that breaks down all the factors by comparison can be found at https://scholarworks.rit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&amp;httpsredir=1&amp;article=1093&amp;context=books which should be examined if you want all the hairy details. Although standards for carbon footprinting exist (including WBSCD’s GHG Protocol, ISO14064 and the draft PAS&#xD;&#xA;2050) there is no absolute guidance for deriving boundaries for a study of this type. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typical Material Safety Data Sheets for inkjet cartridges can be found here http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/community/environment/productinfo/pdf/ij_c6635a_eng_v1.pdf  The table entries marked &quot;confidential&quot; would be the ones I would be most concerned about. This may be the reason why a fair comparison of between the two technologies has not yet been presented to the public.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The part of the discussion that never seems to come up is something I've noticed from personal experience. Most people throw out the inkjets when they run out of ink because a new printer with ink costs a lot less. This seldom happens with laser printers. From the point of view of the cartridge, the problem is compounded when the printer runs out of only one color ink, leaving the other three to be wasted. This is a huge black mark against the sustainability of inkjets in practice, but the end result is that you can get all kinds of inkjets for free if you intercept them as post consumer waste, effectively reducing the manufacture impact to zero while simultaneously reducing the load on landfills. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the differences between the impact of the cartridges themselves is minuscule compared to many other factors that would be significant when choosing between the two technologies.  From the perspective of sustainability, I would opt for the laser, especially if my source of power is guaranteed to be clean, but when I can't generate enough power, I am often forced to use the inkjet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The printed paper, from both inkjet and laser printing, after it's been printed and goes to recycling, gets stripped of inks and resin which is removed from the pulp in a form of sludge that doesn't always get used for anything else. It could be used in making composite deck planking and other construction materials, but it doesn't have much commercial value and is often thrown into the landfill. Nevertheless, it sometimes ends up as fertilizer, or is burned to create energy. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;After repulping the paper, the pulp gets treated with deinking enzymes (usually a mixture of cellulase and hemicellulase) and mixed with a non-ionic surfactant (basically soap) during flotation which helps the enzymes to soak in and prevents the ink from re-attaching itself to the fibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cellulase itself is a natural enzyme that breaks down cellulose. It's produced by bacteria, fungi and protozoans in the natural environment as well as inside our digestive tract to break down fruits and vegetables. The PH sometimes needs to be adjusted, so if the paper contains a lot of sizing (like clay or ash particles) then a mild acid is used to lower the alkalinity. If it needs to be raised (due to acidic paper) then sodium silicate or sodium hydroxide is used. If the paper needs to be very white, then hydrogen peroxide is use to bleach the inks, which is considered very safe in the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often, different types of cellulase may be matched with different types of surfactant to get best results or simply to avoid having to alter the PH level. The water itself is easily recycled and gets fed right back into the system. Some operations use DAF (dissolved air flotation) with a small amount lost through evaporation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy also has to be added to the system in the form of heat (45 to 55 C), but you don't want it to get too hot (65C) or the toner particles will fuse again to the pulp fibers. The sludge from deinking is sometimes burned to provide this heat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most all office paper recycling operations, the printed ink jet paper and printer toner sheets both go through the same process because those two waste streams are not sorted. They get sorted out as &quot;Office Waste&quot; (OW) but they don't get sorted out from each other. It is possible to sort them and treat them differently, resulting in a simpler process for the paper without toner, but this is only done in very specialized waste streams where the volume is high and the quality of the feedstock is certain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, unless paper recycling methods change, the environmental impact of both types of recycled paper is very nearly identical. It's important to note that this process is primarily used only when the brightness of the paper is an important outcome. Very often in unsorted waste streams the final product is cardboard and neither the ink nor the toner needs to be removed. It just gets blended into the final product with (hopefully) no difference at all on the impact to the environment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is completely unknown is what actually happens to the thousands of chemicals in paper during and after the recycling process. Until the secret ingredients of printer inks and toners are revealed, there is no way to know. Those ingredients are considered &quot;confidential&quot; in the industry. Until then, no comparison can be made. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the recycling industry, upcycling is never considered. Paper is believed to be useful only to create same or lower quality products. Since collection and retention of water is the primary concern in the arid desert where I live, all waste paper products get converted to compost. My personal sustainability depends on a huge population of worms who would get very hungry and thirsty if they didn't have ample food and a moist habitat. They can sometimes consume half their weight every day.  Paper is one of their favorite foods, and it holds moisture well. When planting trees I dig enormous holes and fill the bottom with layers of paper, branches, rotted manure, native soil, and finished compost. Initially, this does little more than provide a bank for water, but it also assures the future survival of the tree by providing a nourishing roots zone and a place for worms to survive if the surface gets too hot, too dry, or too cold. I view this as &quot;upcycling&quot; because the end result (fresh, fermented, dried, and canned fruit) is much more valuable to me than any kind of paper. I'm not sure why, but my nut trees seem to get a special boost from paper, especially when it's shredded and mixed into the top 18 inches of mulch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8427" RevisionGUID="486f631c-fcd4-4238-8c68-d53e50474d51" CreationDate="2019-08-18T16:01:17.680" UserId="6865" Text="Belonging to a country where incense sticks are used extensively, I wonder how bad are they, althought it is said they are good for air. But at moment, it seems highly misleading to me.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20730" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8427" RevisionGUID="486f631c-fcd4-4238-8c68-d53e50474d51" CreationDate="2019-08-18T16:01:17.680" UserId="6865" Text="How bad are incense sticks for environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20731" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8427" RevisionGUID="486f631c-fcd4-4238-8c68-d53e50474d51" CreationDate="2019-08-18T16:01:17.680" UserId="6865" Text="|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20732" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="611eb1e7-9f05-4f46-b70c-bb07185e252d" CreationDate="2019-08-18T18:18:59.527" UserId="6853" Comment="58" />
  <row Id="20733" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="bb8e84ea-a2ae-4f7b-8058-2a278323cdb5" CreationDate="2019-08-18T20:02:25.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="20734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8428" RevisionGUID="a65bc4ee-b068-4520-9be5-7ed3cd06e1c8" CreationDate="2019-08-18T21:23:51.220" UserId="1015" Text="I hear that Brazil slowly but surely burns the Amazonian forests (apparently already payed for by western countries) to make room for cows and supported cultures like soybean. This is obviously bad for the climate. Instead of paying Brazil for not cutting woods (like Iran for not making bombs), why not instead heavily tax these harmful imports? Meat is too cheap already, so pay for it like they pay for tobacco! Instead, in France, they make ecotaxes on transportation, but are the cars comparable bad to losing forest? Why not target the greater evil (also)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is wrong with this taxation solution? If nothing, why there are no ONG propositions/movements around ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20735" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8428" RevisionGUID="a65bc4ee-b068-4520-9be5-7ed3cd06e1c8" CreationDate="2019-08-18T21:23:51.220" UserId="1015" Text="Why western countries do not heavily tax beef imports?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20736" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8428" RevisionGUID="a65bc4ee-b068-4520-9be5-7ed3cd06e1c8" CreationDate="2019-08-18T21:23:51.220" UserId="1015" Text="|economy|agriculture|deforestation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8429" RevisionGUID="9df29059-adcc-4c62-a56d-38b49866e522" CreationDate="2019-08-19T07:04:30.210" UserId="6868" Text="Where we live the council collects recycling, however the quantity you can recycle each fortnight is sadly limited. When I get big cardboard boxes I keep them in the garage until I have. a pretty sizeable pile which I can take to recycle. However, the household recycling centre is a 30 minute round trip in a car (sadly not electric!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My concern is that the net impact of this trip might be negative! Is there any rule-of-thumb I could apply to determine the benefit of recycling versus the impact of driving?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I do of course try not to make a dedicated trip for this purpose, combining with other nearby activities)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20738" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8429" RevisionGUID="9df29059-adcc-4c62-a56d-38b49866e522" CreationDate="2019-08-19T07:04:30.210" UserId="6868" Text="How far is too far to drive to a recycling centre?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20739" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8429" RevisionGUID="9df29059-adcc-4c62-a56d-38b49866e522" CreationDate="2019-08-19T07:04:30.210" UserId="6868" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8430" RevisionGUID="c0bb5f9e-cc95-46f7-9235-0704756ddfe1" CreationDate="2019-08-19T10:24:30.203" UserId="6602" Text="As others have suggested, it is illegal under World Trade Organisation rules to apply such tariffs on just one country without a specific trade treaty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if the western countries did impose tariff's across the board on all beef imports, this would penalize the countries that aren't destroying their rain forests to supply beef.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The onus is on Brazil to impose taxes on exports of beef, so that their own companies make better use of their natural resources. The companies would have to raise their beef prices, the western customers might may more for it, but Brazil would get the additional tax money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the UK there are heavy duties and taxes on tobacco because it harms the UK population, the tax receipts pay for the UK healthcare, repairing the damage done by tobacco.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there was an import tax on beef, then the tax money wouldn't got to Brazil to repair environmental damage there, the tax money would stay in the UK and be spent on just regular government spending." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8431" RevisionGUID="02b5dad5-ed87-4c56-a57f-2b9b59790265" CreationDate="2019-08-19T10:37:36.793" UserId="6602" Text="A 30 minute drive would be approximately 15 miles, an average small car produces 200 grams of CO2 per mile, so you are emitting about 3 Kg of CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CO2 footprint of new plastic manufacture is about 6 Kg CO2 per 1 Kg of plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For recycled plastic manufacture its about 3.5 Kg CO2 per Kg of &#xD;&#xA;plastic. So the nett difference is 2.5 Kg CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Supposing that world needs plastic its going to churn it out whether or not you go to the recycling centre, but your decision to go will save 2.5Kg of CO2 for each Kg of plastic you take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, to cancel out your petrol car's CO2 emissions from driving as long as you are recycling more than 1.2 Kg of plastic per trip to the recycling centre then there is a net reduction in the amount of CO2 potentially emitted in the future manufacture of plastic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20742" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8427" RevisionGUID="74280bba-db42-48cc-b2c6-a0c51cdd5229" CreationDate="2019-08-19T15:00:34.243" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1163465786775744514" />
  <row Id="20743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8432" RevisionGUID="14eb8c76-e858-4234-823b-c7110359a4e8" CreationDate="2019-08-19T20:34:23.423" UserId="6870" Text="I have seen a few sites such as [imperfectproduce.com][1], [fullharvest.com][2], and [hungryharvest.com][3]. They sell food that they claim would otherwise go to waste because it would be hard to sell through traditional channels like supermarkets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help me understand what ecological impact I would be making if I bought from them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that the impact would be positive, and that there would be some percentage of waste food with no cost-effective alternative use if these website did not exist. However, I would be interested to see evidence that takes into account possible alternative uses for the wasted food. For example, suppose that a local farm has a bunch of odd-shaped apples. If I did not buy these apples, they might go to waste, but they might get donated to food pantries, processed into some kind of other product, fed to animals, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://imperfectproduce.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://fullharvest.com&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://hungryharvest.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20744" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8432" RevisionGUID="14eb8c76-e858-4234-823b-c7110359a4e8" CreationDate="2019-08-19T20:34:23.423" UserId="6870" Text="What are the ecological effects of buying &quot;imperfect produce&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20745" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8432" RevisionGUID="14eb8c76-e858-4234-823b-c7110359a4e8" CreationDate="2019-08-19T20:34:23.423" UserId="6870" Text="|food|waste|economics|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8433" RevisionGUID="0d55e759-ceee-4d07-9ff3-4a19ee266f50" CreationDate="2019-08-20T06:53:02.823" UserId="6858" Text="While the initial production of aluminum is a waste-intensive, energy-intensive process that has negative environmental and social impact through deforestation and contamination of waterways, aluminum has an incredibly high recycling rate (e.g. 98.2% in Brazil). Furthermore, it can be recycled with only a fraction of the energy input of the initial production (5%).&#xA;&#xA;For this reason, I am wondering how I can support the recycling and reuse of aluminum, while not supporting its continued new production. Are there certain products or packaging materials I should avoid buying because they cannot be recycled or because they cannot be made from recycled aluminum? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8433" RevisionGUID="0d55e759-ceee-4d07-9ff3-4a19ee266f50" CreationDate="2019-08-20T06:53:02.823" UserId="6858" Text="How can I support the recycling, but not the new production of aluminum?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8433" RevisionGUID="0d55e759-ceee-4d07-9ff3-4a19ee266f50" CreationDate="2019-08-20T06:53:02.823" UserId="6858" Text="|recycling|environmental-impact|packaging|lifestyle|materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8434" RevisionGUID="30a97a29-1e20-49ea-8b7c-7ae84fc68252" CreationDate="2019-08-20T08:06:35.367" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="I'm not going to answer the *support the recycling* part of your question, but the *avoid new production* part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One stream of aluminium goes in to the coating of plastic for packaging food (coffee, crisps, etc). Although this layer is extremely thin ([0.0055-0.1 mm](http://www.aluminum-foil.org/product/Aluminium-Food-Packing-Foil.html)) the total amounts are large. Recycling this *metalized plastic* (*metalized film*) is [doable](https://res.mdpi.com/recycling/recycling-03-00001/article_deploy/recycling-03-00001.pdf) but [complicated](https://isustainrecycling.com/metalized-film-recycling/), and therefore not often done.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;That leaves landfills or burning to get rid of the material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When burning this stuff, the aluminium ends up in the incinerator bottom ash. Non ferrous metals in the ashes can make up 0.5-3.0%, of which 55-70% is aluminium&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;Here again, the metals [can be extracted](https://www.european-aluminium.eu/media/1337/fact_-sheet-alu_recovery_bottom_ashes_feb14final-1.pdf), but this paper mentions that in 2006 in Europe an estimated 2.3% of metallic Al was left unrecycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same process goes for Tetrapaks (Laminated aluminium with cardboard).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There exist separate Tetrapak recycling processes, but I've never heard of metalized film recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So trying to avoid both forms of packaging is a good choice, because you reduce the amount of primary Al that will only sparsely be recycled.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. ground coffee is also available packaged in clear plastic plus a paper wrapper. You can immediately separate those yourself and 'feed' them into separate recycling streams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Note that these numbers is not just from metalized film, but also from aerosol and drinking cans.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I was unable to find separate numbers for films and cans in the time I spent on this.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8435" RevisionGUID="64a55725-98c2-4847-a366-508cbf4d30fa" CreationDate="2019-08-20T10:50:09.897" UserId="6837" Text="The quantity of imperfect produce that never makes it to market is staggering. This is a huge opportunity for enterprising individuals who are able to recognize how much money can be made by simply identifying useful sources of waste. Nevertheless, the nuances of your question imply much more than the the basic economic aspects of the equation, even though you approach it with your purchasing power in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, take into consideration that most commercial farmers will not spend any money to harvest, wash, pack, and transport something they can't sell. It simply rots. Of course there are a few farmers who will spend their time and money to make sure it goes to food pantries, and a very different set of farmers who will try to utilize that waste for livestock feed, but your requirements regarding the true nature of the food you intend to buy is much more significant than the intentions of the farmer, even though he is often ultimately the source. It seems you want to purchase food that is environmentally friendly. Kudos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your question indicates your concern for what would happen to this food if you didn't buy it. Think first about what happens when you do buy it. By providing a market for that which is unmarketable you are essentially rescuing that product from the worm. It gets collected only because you exist and are willing to pay the cost of collecting it. That rescue operation has cascading benefits you approve of, but you are not in any way in competition with them. In fact, your purchase is making the surplus from your food buying activities available to the food pantries and hog farms.  When you buy this food you are paying to have what you don't buy sent to the other destinations that would have otherwise received nothing. In this way, the positive ecological effect of your purchase is probably much greater than you realize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; The environmental impact of producing anything will generally increase in proportion to the waste, but this is not always the case with agriculture. Some methods of producing food will not yield anything marketable whatsoever, but will yield a product which is vastly superior to anything commercial farming can offer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple weeks ago I cropped the most spectacular nectarines you could possibly imagine. I kid you not, I brushed off  Chinese beetles from half devoured fruit that were being inundated by insects, insects who knew which ones were the most delicious, just so I could partake in the orgy of sweet flesh that nature provides. Beautiful looking supermarket nectarines at $1.99 a pound were utterly disgusting in comparison.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't spray. I won't spray. Total chemical fertilizers I use equals zero. Today, while I let the water run on those particular fruit trees, I carved out a water catchment in fertile soil that will harvest 20 times as much rainfall every time it rains heavily using nothing more than a shovel and a pick. This is not how most commercial farmers produce their fruit. This closely resembles subsistence agriculture and it's very sustainable, but it is probably not even remotely similar to the actual source of the food you are considering buying. It would be much better if you examined something closer at hand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short answer = Yes. Buy that food. You might find it to be better. You might even discover that the environmental impact is very close to zero, or better than zero, even after you factor in the transportation costs. More importantly, you should consider how and where that food was made. If the reason it is substandard is because it is the product of a superior method, then I'm rooting for you even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, it is well known that organic vegetables may have spots or insect bites taken out of them. It is also understood that many types of food are not available in the supermarket because they would not be adequately &quot;presentable&quot;&#xD;&#xA;after shipping, handling, ripening, or packing operations. If these are the reasons why the produce you want to buy has not made it to the supermarket, then consider yourself fortunate to have access to it. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Now would be the perfect time to mention that the greatest chefs (IMHO) on Earth, will only purchase and use apricots that have been pecked by birds. This holds true for many types of fruit. I eat my own fruit and realize why this is so. How are these chefs able to find such a product? They must be intimately familiar with the source. Such a thing is not likely to be found at Walmart. The primary key for anyone who honestly wishes to be environmentally friendly is that you need to be intimate with the source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The three sites you listed do not mention the possibility that their product might actually be better. Perhaps it is not. If your goal is to reduce large scale waste, then that is admirable and you should proceed with these companies because that will surely be the outcome. The company called &quot;Full Harvest&quot; doesn't brag about donating to hungry folks, so I assume that this is not one of their concerns. You should consider that if you are inclined to promote proper nutrition for the disadvantaged. Personally, I would choose none of the above. Get with those near you who need your support.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just an old fool, stuck in my (economically stupid) ways, looking for better ways. I'm answering this question because I think you have the right intentions. I'm hoping others will be as conscious of their decisions as you are and I want to help inform them. I'm proposing that there are many better ways that are often not readily apparent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I asked everyone I know if they would be willing to help me harvest apricots, plums, peaches and nectarines that they would be free to take home or sell as they wish. No takers. No one even asked to taste them. I'm left to assume they prefer the crap in the store. Perhaps it's just a bit easier? It's sad when we fail to recognize our alternatives when they are available. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned a &quot;local farm&quot; that has apples. The simple fact that you are close enough to a local farm that has apples is evidence to me that local produce is an option. This is what you must explore. Perhaps helping that farmer sort out the apples he cannot sell is a service you can provide for him. He will most likely let you take any that are not fit for market. You can feed them to the pigs. You can drop them off at the food bank. You can make applesauce or cider. It's a wasted resource, and if you want to sell them online, as some have done, then that is certainly a respectable livelihood. Supporting those who have a respectable livelihood is the next best thing to having one of your own.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5676" RevisionGUID="7954b257-abb0-44c2-a72a-799a53646a46" CreationDate="2019-08-20T12:45:45.633" UserId="99" Comment="added links to blogs, rephrased a few sentences" Text="**Summary:** choose natural materials such as hemp, jute, organic cotton, or bamboo, preferably from a manufacturer that uses vegetable-based dyes, is  fair-trade certified, and is working on reducing its environmental impact. Try to find shoes that last long and only buy new when you really have to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest environmental impact of shoes comes from the used materials and the manufacturing process. If you also value 'social sustainability' you should also factor in the working conditions of the people who create the shoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Materials**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    According to [Nike materials make up around 60% of the environmental impact of its shoes](http://news.nike.com/news/sustainable-innovation). Especially leather, synthetic plastics, and certain hybrid materials have a big impact, but also cotton, dyes and glues. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The big impact of leather comes from raising cattle and the chemicals typically used in the tanning process (chromium). Plastics and hybrid materials are usually made from oil, and cotton is grown using lots of water, fertilizer and pesticides. Dyes and glues contain chemicals that negatively affect the environment as well as the health of the workers that manufacture shoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Vegan leather isn't necessarily a more sustainable choice because it can be made from PVC which is one of the worst types of plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Carbon footprint**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    &gt; A typical pair of synthetic trainers generates 30lbs (13.6 kg) of emissions, equivalent to leaving a 100-watt bulb burning for a week ([source](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/23/running-shoes-carbon-footprint))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Most shoes are made in Asia, but surprisingly transportation is only a small part of a shoe's carbon footprint. [Researchers from MIT did a life-cycle analysis](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652612006300) of an ASICS synthetic sport shoe and found that transport on average only accounts for 3% of the shoe's carbon footprint, and at most adds up to 7% when shipping to Canada (about the farthest country from China where the shoe was made). Raw material extraction and processing accounted for about 29% of the total carbon footprint and the manufacturing process was responsible for 68%. The reason why manufacturing has such a large footprint is because a single shoe consists of many parts that require multiple processing steps for assembly. The machines in Asian factories that perform these steps typically run on electricity generated by coal. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Labor conditions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Developing countries like India and Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent also China, do not have strong worker safety or environmental protection standards. Sweatshops are common in these countries and there have been many reports about child labor. Workers are often exposed to toxic chemicals and left-over chemicals are often spilled or dumped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Recommendations**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few blogs that list fair-trade and sustainable shoe manufacturers (e.g. [this one](https://www.thegoodtrade.com/features/15-ethical-shoe-brands-for-every-occasion) and [this one](https://thegreenhubonline.com/2018/02/22/13-ethical-sustainable-shoe-brands-were-loving/)) but the downside is that it's difficult to compare between listed companies. Alternatively you could do some investigations yourself. You already mentioned [Rankabrand](https://rankabrand.org) in your question which can be very helpful. A similar website is EthicalConsumer.org which has a [section on shoes](http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/clothing/shoes.aspx) with interesting background information, but the newest company reviews there are behind a paywall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a shoe manufacturer is not listed anywhere you can use the Internet to find out more. Especially look for information if the manufacturer is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - using or switching to environmentally friendly materials, &#xD;&#xA; - using or switching to renewable energy in their factories,&#xD;&#xA; - trying to reduce the number of processing steps in manufacturing.&#xD;&#xA; - was involved in child labor or dumping scandals in the recent past.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good materials to look for are natural materials such as hemp, jute, organic cotton, bamboo, vegetable-based dyes and to a lesser extent recycled plastics. If you are really set on leather, go for vegetable-tanned leather or better yet [Piñatex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piñatex).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately it's hard to tell in advance what the quality is of a pair of shoes and how long they will last, otherwise you could take that into the equation as well. The least impact comes from not buying new shoes often and wearing your old ones as long as possible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20752" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="19daea68-a00e-435e-b49f-3503ad9ee749" CreationDate="2019-08-20T14:01:30.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="20753" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="8433" RevisionGUID="806b7334-418b-46fd-93dc-e9f104f22a2f" CreationDate="2019-08-20T14:59:00.907" />
  <row Id="20755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8436" RevisionGUID="865ef343-5530-44ac-8a8b-bdadc59cd073" CreationDate="2019-08-20T15:40:55.507" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;b&gt;You (probably) cannot do it on demand side.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason this is impossible is that 99% of aluminum users don't care if their aluminum comes from recycled sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say there's need for 100 units of aluminum, out of which 50 units are new, and 50 units are recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you introduce one unit of aluminum consumption, with the requirement that it comes from recycled sources. Guess what? Now there are 101 units of aluminum, out of which 51 units are new and 50 units are recycled. Your purchase of recycled aluminum increased its price, making somebody else switch to new aluminum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;You can (perhaps) do it on supply side.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply said: purchase shares of an aluminum recycling business. Then you know you own a part of the aluminum recycling operation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This, however, very probably makes someone sell the shares in aluminum recycling business to you, but you at least now know you own (part of) the recycling business. So it's your recycled aluminum, not somebody else's recycled aluminum. And, you are more immune to price changes of recycled aluminum, although your business is still affected by the price of aluminum waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar argument is true of many other things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, you should own a carbon sink (a forest).&#xD;&#xA;* To use clean electrical energy, you should own hydropower and wind power." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20756" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8433" RevisionGUID="cff77240-3258-4e61-985b-475dd2172dc0" CreationDate="2019-08-20T21:00:36.950" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1163918782710128641" />
  <row Id="20757" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8429" RevisionGUID="e8de876a-fc5e-48d7-829e-4409c5350853" CreationDate="2019-08-21T00:00:03.347" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1163963940449259521" />
  <row Id="20758" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8437" RevisionGUID="24a89c59-e279-461f-b8d6-43422c97d9d1" CreationDate="2019-08-21T15:07:57.287" UserId="6886" Text="As someone who uses a ton of aluminium foil (almost daily) for use in my oven as a protective/convenient layer, ([and who didn't know that foil was bad for recycling...](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/8433)) what can I use as an alternative that is better for the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8437" RevisionGUID="24a89c59-e279-461f-b8d6-43422c97d9d1" CreationDate="2019-08-21T15:07:57.287" UserId="6886" Text="Sustainable Alternative to Aluminium Foil?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20760" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8437" RevisionGUID="24a89c59-e279-461f-b8d6-43422c97d9d1" CreationDate="2019-08-21T15:07:57.287" UserId="6886" Text="|cooking|lifestyle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8437" RevisionGUID="b5bdd0b7-780e-4ecc-b5f5-5e55f133738a" CreationDate="2019-08-21T15:29:40.557" UserId="6886" Comment="Adds some more details" Text="As someone who uses a ton of aluminium foil (almost daily) for use in my oven as a protective/convenient layer, ([and who didn't know that foil was bad for recycling...](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/8433)) what can I use as an alternative that is better for the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If applicable it would be fine to mention multiple goods that would replace certain specific functions of aluminium foil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, for example, I use aluminium foil for sustained temperatures up to 550 degrees Fahrenheit, as well as for broiling/toasting sometimes, in addition to the usual more common cooking functions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8438" RevisionGUID="c525a101-836c-4a01-8bc0-d03793b5f551" CreationDate="2019-08-22T13:37:22.737" UserId="6896" Text="The contribution of beef production to global warming is frequently noted as one of the worst foods, particularly because they produce methane as part of their digestion.  Cheese is less frequently discussed in this manner, despite also being produced from cows, presumably with the production of methane at similar amounts.  From [wikipedia][1] it would appear that the food conversion ratio of dairy cattle is slightly worse than that of beef cattle*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see 2 interpretations of this; either cheese is slightly worse than beef, or that the 2 industries are so tightly bound ** that it is distinguishing their impacts is impossible, therefore it is principally a question of how much money you spend on each of these products as to the environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone critique my reasoning?  Is is possible to determine the relative or absolute impacts of these 2 foodstuffs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* &#xD;&#xA;Beef: an FCR calculated on live weight gain of 4.5–7.5 was in the normal range with an FCR above 6 being typical. Take 6.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dairy: Using an FCR calculated just on the weight of protein and fat, as of 2011 an FCR of 13 was poor, and an FCR of 8 was very good.  Take 9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Lactose accounts for ~30% for the caloric value of whole milk][2].  Therefore the calculation is: FCR of dairy = 9 / 1.3 = 6.9&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&#xD;&#xA;You cannot produce milk without producing calves, and these calves make up a large part of the global beef herd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio#Beef_cattle&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/48/4/1099/4791817?redirectedFrom=PDF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8438" RevisionGUID="c525a101-836c-4a01-8bc0-d03793b5f551" CreationDate="2019-08-22T13:37:22.737" UserId="6896" Text="Is cheese worse than beef for the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8438" RevisionGUID="c525a101-836c-4a01-8bc0-d03793b5f551" CreationDate="2019-08-22T13:37:22.737" UserId="6896" Text="|food|environmental-impact|farming|meat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8438" RevisionGUID="f363c638-4596-429a-93fa-4de3a37093f5" CreationDate="2019-08-22T14:03:28.213" UserId="6896" Comment="added 151 characters in body; edited title" Text="The contribution of beef production to global warming is frequently noted as one of the worst foods, particularly because they produce methane as part of their digestion.  Cheese is less frequently discussed in this manner, despite also being produced from cows, presumably with the production of methane at similar amounts.  From [wikipedia][1] it would appear that the food conversion ratio of dairy cattle is about the same as that of beef cattle*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see 2 interpretations of this; either cheese is slightly worse than beef, or that the 2 industries are so tightly bound ** that it is distinguishing their impacts is impossible, therefore it is principally a question of how much money you spend on each of these products as to the environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone critique my reasoning?  Is is possible to determine the relative or absolute impacts of these 2 foodstuffs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* &#xD;&#xA;Beef: an FCR calculated on live weight gain of 4.5–7.5 was in the normal range with an FCR above 6 being typical.  [Most cattle will have an average dressing percentage of 63 percent][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dairy: Using an FCR calculated just on the weight of protein and fat, as of 2011 an FCR of 13 was poor, and an FCR of 8 was very good.  [Lactose accounts for ~30% for the caloric value of whole milk][3].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the calculation is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FCR of dairy = 13/1.3 to 8/1.3 = 10 to 6.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FCR of beef = 4.5/0.63 to 7.5/0.63 = 10.3 to 7.1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Close enough to be roughly the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&#xD;&#xA;You cannot produce milk without producing calves, and these calves make up a large part of the global beef herd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio#Beef_cattle&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://extension.psu.edu/understanding-beef-carcass-yields-and-losses-during-processing&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/48/4/1099/4791817?redirectedFrom=PDF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20766" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8438" RevisionGUID="f363c638-4596-429a-93fa-4de3a37093f5" CreationDate="2019-08-22T14:03:28.213" UserId="6896" Comment="added 151 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is cheese as bad as beef for the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8438" RevisionGUID="b3d6b768-7503-400c-9a13-b2af48d90e63" CreationDate="2019-08-22T14:44:46.363" UserId="6896" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="The contribution of beef production to global warming is frequently noted as one of the worst foods, particularly because they produce methane as part of their digestion.  Cheese is less frequently discussed in this manner, despite also being produced from cows, presumably with the production of methane at similar amounts.  From [wikipedia][1] it would appear that the food conversion ratio of dairy cattle is about the same as that of beef cattle*, therefore the principal inputs are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see 2 interpretations of this; either cheese is about the same impact as beef, or that the 2 industries are so tightly bound ** that it is distinguishing their impacts is impossible, therefore it is principally a question of how much money you spend on each of these products as to the environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone critique my reasoning?  Is is possible to determine the relative or absolute impacts of these 2 foodstuffs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* &#xD;&#xA;Beef: an FCR calculated on live weight gain of 4.5–7.5 was in the normal range with an FCR above 6 being typical.  [Most cattle will have an average dressing percentage of 63 percent][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dairy: Using an FCR calculated just on the weight of protein and fat, as of 2011 an FCR of 13 was poor, and an FCR of 8 was very good.  [Lactose accounts for ~30% for the caloric value of whole milk][3].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the calculation is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FCR of dairy = 13/1.3 to 8/1.3 = 10 to 6.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FCR of beef = 4.5/0.63 to 7.5/0.63 = 10.3 to 7.1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Close enough to be roughly the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&#xD;&#xA;You cannot produce milk without producing calves, and these calves make up a large part of the global beef herd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio#Beef_cattle&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://extension.psu.edu/understanding-beef-carcass-yields-and-losses-during-processing&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/48/4/1099/4791817?redirectedFrom=PDF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20768" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8437" RevisionGUID="0cf11ac5-bc3e-4316-b5fb-a6c0b5e08fe7" CreationDate="2019-08-22T15:00:24.303" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1164552908526051328" />
  <row Id="20769" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8439" RevisionGUID="c107272b-64da-4bf1-b6e7-4242df4bdf6a" CreationDate="2019-08-23T01:22:30.323" UserId="6488" Text="The “it would go to waste” is often a marketing gimmick. Much of that produce would be sold anyway or it would be used for juice, purée, etc. where the end user doesn’t see the “ugliness” anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To check for local alternatives:  grocery stores (even mainstream) have a section for discounted ugly produce that’s tucked away in a hidden corner, farmers markets may have this type of produce up-front or upon request, same for CSA boxes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are debates about whether the imperfect provide industry as a whole is harmful to farmers: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/01/ugly-produce-startups-food-waste/581182/ but as far as I can tell there’s no clear “winner” in the debate. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20770" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8438" RevisionGUID="6e95818b-2d18-40fe-8573-2962cf3b590a" CreationDate="2019-08-23T08:22:50.723" UserId="6896" Comment="added 173 characters in body" Text="The contribution of beef production to global warming is frequently noted as one of the worst foods, particularly because they produce methane as part of their digestion.  Cheese is less frequently discussed in this manner, despite also being produced from cows, presumably with the production of methane at similar amounts.  From [wikipedia][1] it would appear that the food conversion ratio of dairy cattle is about the same as that of beef cattle*, therefore the principal inputs are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see 2 interpretations of this; either cheese is about the same impact as beef, or that the 2 industries are so tightly bound ** that it is distinguishing their impacts is impossible, therefore it is principally a question of how much money you spend on each of these products as to the environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone critique my reasoning?  Is is possible to determine the relative or absolute impacts of these 2 foodstuffs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* &#xD;&#xA;Food conversion ratio (FCR) is the ratio of food eaten to food produced.  I would expect this to capture the primary environmental cost of a foodstuff produced by a cow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beef: an FCR calculated on live weight gain of 4.5–7.5 was in the normal range with an FCR above 6 being typical.  [Most cattle will have an average dressing percentage of 63 percent][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dairy: Using an FCR calculated just on the weight of protein and fat, as of 2011 an FCR of 13 was poor, and an FCR of 8 was very good.  [Lactose accounts for ~30% for the caloric value of whole milk][3].  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore the calculation is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FCR of dairy = 13/1.3 to 8/1.3 = 10 to 6.2&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;FCR of beef = 4.5/0.63 to 7.5/0.63 = 10.3 to 7.1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Close enough to be roughly the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**&#xD;&#xA;You cannot produce milk without producing calves, and these calves make up a large part of the global beef herd.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio#Beef_cattle&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://extension.psu.edu/understanding-beef-carcass-yields-and-losses-during-processing&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/48/4/1099/4791817?redirectedFrom=PDF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20771" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8438" RevisionGUID="7c5ebe9e-15df-444f-9a66-f49ec1ef406d" CreationDate="2019-08-23T09:00:28.360" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1164824716655284225" />
  <row Id="20772" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8432" RevisionGUID="49a7b84e-d91b-427e-aad3-5198710daff0" CreationDate="2019-08-23T15:00:32.683" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1164915331472809984" />
  <row Id="20773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8440" RevisionGUID="feee8481-b2f3-45ee-851e-85b5717dc554" CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:04:55.653" UserId="5010" Text="It has been [two years][1] since China has cracked down on importing recyclables, and it appears the U.S. has had to stockpile, incinerate, [landfill][2], or divert most of its recyclables stream to other, less-apt countries (where it tends to just be [dumped or burned][3]).  Combine that with the issue of [contamination][4] (which my city just reported went from 5 % to 10 % in recent years) and it seems grim for most plastics recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I make substantial effort to reduce any plastic consumption and repurpose anything I end up with I am not 100 % successful, especially with having a young kiddo.  A large concern of mine is that my properly-cleaned, high-value, uncontaminated plastics will end up being incinerated or dumped into someone's pond half a world away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since most plastics are derived from crude oil (let's leave the [bioplastics][5] out of this) the idea is that burying plastics is a [form of cheap carbon capture and storage][6].  Granted, it's not capturing carbon from the air but at least it isn't adding any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.npr.org/2017/12/09/568797388/recycling-chaos-in-u-s-as-china-bans-foreign-waste&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/21/us-plastic-recycling-landfills&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://theintercept.com/2019/07/20/plastics-industry-plastic-recycling/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.rubiconglobal.com/blog-recycling-contamination/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43120041" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8440" RevisionGUID="feee8481-b2f3-45ee-851e-85b5717dc554" CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:04:55.653" UserId="5010" Text="Is landfilling plastics in the U.S. becoming more environmentally-friendly than recyling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8440" RevisionGUID="feee8481-b2f3-45ee-851e-85b5717dc554" CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:04:55.653" UserId="5010" Text="|recycling|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8441" RevisionGUID="0d3fd9fa-b4f7-4547-ba2c-3e8f467a1853" CreationDate="2019-08-23T19:21:26.327" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="Addressing the last paragraph of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, this is not carbon capture according to the definition (this one from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Carbon capture and storage (CCS) (or carbon capture and sequestration or carbon control and sequestration) is the process of capturing waste carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's creative bookkeeping ;-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you first extract oil from the ground, then spend energy making plastic, then bury part of that plastic, you still have contributed to CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; in the atmosphere.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe less then when you burn it, but calling this carbon storage and capture is greenwashing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20777" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8440" RevisionGUID="e583e121-a87f-4645-aab7-cc58eab99d50" CreationDate="2019-08-23T20:15:13.827" UserId="5010" Comment="Rephrased title and trimmed the fat." Text="It has been [two years][1] since China has cracked down on importing recyclables, and it appears the U.S. has had to stockpile, incinerate, [landfill][2], or divert most of its recyclables stream to other, less-apt countries (where it tends to just be [dumped or burned][3]).  Combine that with the issue of [contamination][4] (which my city just reported went from 5 % to 10 % in recent years) and it seems grim for most plastics recycling.  Would it be better to just toss them in the garbage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since most plastics are derived from crude oil (let's leave the [bioplastics][5] out of this) the idea is that burying plastics is a [form of cheap carbon capture and storage][6].  Granted, it's not capturing carbon from the air but at least it isn't adding any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.npr.org/2017/12/09/568797388/recycling-chaos-in-u-s-as-china-bans-foreign-waste&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/21/us-plastic-recycling-landfills&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://theintercept.com/2019/07/20/plastics-industry-plastic-recycling/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.rubiconglobal.com/blog-recycling-contamination/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43120041" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20778" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8440" RevisionGUID="e583e121-a87f-4645-aab7-cc58eab99d50" CreationDate="2019-08-23T20:15:13.827" UserId="5010" Comment="Rephrased title and trimmed the fat." Text="Is putting plastic in the garbage better than putting it in the recycling bin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8442" RevisionGUID="849f46a2-763e-4937-b879-2fa15ebc441c" CreationDate="2019-08-23T21:02:37.310" UserId="6837" Text="Aluminum foil largely replaced tin foil after WWII.  It's a new thing, first manufactured by Dr. Lauber, Neher &amp; company in Switzerland in about 1910 and was initially used to wrap chocolate, Life Savers, gum, and soup bullion, but those who were previously using tin foil for cooking (since the late 1800's) switched over to aluminum because tin imparts an undesirable flavor to most foods. The primary purpose for using either one is to contain the moisture with something that is impermeable to water which won't burn up at high heat. This effectively helps prevent your food from drying out, especially at temperatures up to 450 F.  I'm not sure why you would be cooking at 550 F. That's just too hot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rest assured that the foil you are using is very easy to recycle. Since you use a lot of it, you can dedicate a trash can with a lid to pack your used foil into. This will make it easier assess the value of your resource. Stop thinking about it as a waste, and start thinking about it as an investment. Some people hold gold or silver because it has inherent value, but some hold aluminum for the very same reasons. If your garage starts filling up with it and you are running out of space, then melt it down into bullion and put it in your vault. It far more valuable after you've removed the dross. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the advent of modern ovens and stoves with temperature controls on every dial, it was extremely difficult to regulate the temperature of your cooking. This is why foil is so often used these days on a cooking fire or a barbecue.  Expertise and constant attention (or foil) is required for anything more advanced than soup under those conditions. The water inside a soup kettle prevents it from getting too hot while simultaneously protecting the food from dehydration, but unless you're shooting for higher temperatures for a broil, crust, or char, then a simple lid on your cooking vessel will perform the same function as foil. No need for recycling here because it's immanently reusable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the sake of convenience when lining baking sheets, wrapping leftovers, making an impromptu cover, and for making cleanup easier, there is no reason for you to switch from foil as long as you're not tossing it out when you're done with it, but there are alternatives you might consider. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately for us, there were great chefs before 1910 who prepared succulent food without tin or aluminum at all. We can learn from their ways. Banana leaves, Taro leaves, and corn husks can be used for the same purpose as foil with far better results regarding flavor. I use these things because I don't want to buy foil, but the end result is much better, tastier, and it's environmentally more sound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20780" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8414" RevisionGUID="3ede5e9c-ea51-40af-b84a-f061edc8b991" CreationDate="2019-08-24T09:00:27.200" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1165187099307499520" />
  <row Id="20781" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8391" RevisionGUID="72fb2cb5-0406-4f52-bbed-07cf8153a934" CreationDate="2019-08-24T12:00:20.060" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1165232367860113410" />
  <row Id="20782" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8376" RevisionGUID="9e9230a6-4efe-4962-92bc-e0dab50addec" CreationDate="2019-08-26T13:02:20.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="20783" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8440" RevisionGUID="64edd6df-784a-42ff-bb31-620777029a22" CreationDate="2019-08-27T15:00:39.433" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1166364911162839041" />
  <row Id="20784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8443" RevisionGUID="ea03888a-9083-4eeb-8732-dd21aeee7f63" CreationDate="2019-08-27T18:54:13.670" UserId="6907" Text="Not possible to recycle foil everywhere,  here in Ireland for instance.  Because it is not clean before going to the centres&#xD;&#xA;for recycling.  The same applies to cling film, which you have another name for.  While storing food we use a plate or saucer to cover cooked food.  In the oven or grill we use a lid or if the worst comes to the worst, me or the dish-washer copes.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8444" RevisionGUID="04ee7906-bcd1-471d-92e2-4fb7b4acf69a" CreationDate="2019-08-28T14:29:17.003" UserId="4155" Text="I'd suggest getting a high-quality enamel baking dish - enamel/ceramic, in my experience, is much better at being &quot;non-stick&quot; than Teflon, lasts a lot longer, as well as avoiding the potential risks of the latter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That way you won't need to line it, thus avoiding the foil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20786" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5956" RevisionGUID="98d0ccf2-1cbd-4882-bd5e-dc6918e99ba9" CreationDate="2019-08-28T18:34:49.900" UserId="3379" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="A solution is to grow vegetation along your wall. Here in Europe we see some mansions with huge vines or ivy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be beautiful. Not sure what kind of vines you can grow in your place, but it's worth saying, ain't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/N0UM5.png&quot; height=&quot;400&quot; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q2gkO.png&quot; height=&quot;400&quot; &gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/N0UM5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q2gkO.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8445" RevisionGUID="ed4dc215-e295-44a7-8958-87f1e81adce4" CreationDate="2019-08-28T18:47:31.613" UserId="3379" Text="In a few weeks I'll be hosting an event and will need to purchase wine for about 30 or 40 people. For myself and my partner, I typically purchase boxed wine as it stays fresh longer (assuming the wine has a greater footprint than the packaging).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in this case I don't expect to have a lot left over, so I care more about the impact of the packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few trade-offs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - One box of wine holds the equivalent of four bottles, meaning less total waste.&#xD;&#xA; - Additionally, the box materials (cardboard and plastic) weigh less than glass, meaning less energy is needed for transportation.&#xD;&#xA; - But, glass is generally easier to separate, process, and re-sell in the recycling stream.&#xD;&#xA; - Materials in boxed wine packaging are sometimes co-mingled, making recycling harder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To reduce environmental impact, should I purchase wine in boxes or bottles?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume that the wine itself is the same (organic and domestic) regardless of packaging." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20788" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8445" RevisionGUID="ed4dc215-e295-44a7-8958-87f1e81adce4" CreationDate="2019-08-28T18:47:31.613" UserId="3379" Text="Is boxed wine more ecofriendly than bottled wine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20789" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8445" RevisionGUID="ed4dc215-e295-44a7-8958-87f1e81adce4" CreationDate="2019-08-28T18:47:31.613" UserId="3379" Text="|recycling|food|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20790" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8446" RevisionGUID="c2d4f8b6-6f4b-4ae8-b88c-a001aae58fa7" CreationDate="2019-08-29T07:12:26.363" UserId="6909" Text="### General question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding on from the title, what are the restrictions to ensure that the various components of the PV system are compatible with each other? Specifically, I mean are there rules around how many batteries, total power of panels, and power of the inverter? This more general question comes from a very specific real-world problem that I have right now. See below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(First time posting on any StackExchange site, so my apologies if this question is too general, too specific, or just not quite right!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Specific Context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've got a basic off-grid set-up, but it looks like we need to upgrade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're currently going with 2 × 295 W panels, 4 × 12 V, 105 Ah batteries, and a 3kW 24 V pure-sine inverter. Things are generally fine But with just one or two overcast days we often start to struggle with our freezer (90 W when the compressor is on, time avg. about 25 W) and we'd really like to be able to run an automatic washing machine (cold wash only, booster pump also needed as we don't quite get enough water pressure from our header-tank - only about 0.5 bar). With the current setup we could run a washing machine on sunny days, but we'd like to be able to run it fairly consistently (every 2-3 days as we have a baby and are doing cloth nappies) and since the system is already taking strain, it feels like we need an upgrade (even without adding in a washing machine). We're generally happy to be careful with our usage - our main priorities are as above, but also do increase the lifespan of our batteries. We work for an NGO in the rural Eastern Cape of South Africa, so cost is a concern, but we want to prioritise long-term savings over any short-term concerns - so we aiming to get the minimum amount of quality components that meet our needs, keeping the long-term in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of the following would be best? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. more panels  &#xD;&#xA;B. more batteries  &#xD;&#xA;C. a stronger inverter  &#xD;&#xA;D. some of the above  &#xD;&#xA;E. all of the above  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our current panels are north-facing. I'm thinking that some more panels would capture some more afternoon sun (the next space on our roof is north-west facing) as well as just more photons when it's overcast. But do we need a stronger inverter for this? Although our inverter is 3kW, the manual says it's ated power is 600 W of solar energy. Does this mean that if we have panels that added up to more than this threshold and it was super sunny that we'd just &quot;lose out on the extra energy&quot; or would it actually be a problem for the inverter and we definitely shouldn't add in panels whose total wattage exceeds the power rating?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8446" RevisionGUID="c2d4f8b6-6f4b-4ae8-b88c-a001aae58fa7" CreationDate="2019-08-29T07:12:26.363" UserId="6909" Text="PV system: Which to upgrade first: panels, inverter, batteries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8446" RevisionGUID="c2d4f8b6-6f4b-4ae8-b88c-a001aae58fa7" CreationDate="2019-08-29T07:12:26.363" UserId="6909" Text="|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8447" RevisionGUID="a881ec08-1801-41bd-8090-d36826894641" CreationDate="2019-08-29T18:07:38.243" UserId="6393" Text="I know I will be downvoted for this, but I'll add one more suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;A generator&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a generator, you can provide yourself backup power during the times the sun doesn't shine enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It generally doesn't make sense to size your batteries for the highest demand you expect from them. Occasionally, it will be cheaper (and perhaps even more environmentally friendly, as battery mineral mining has bad consequences) to supply the missing 5% by using fossil fuels (or renewable fuels, if you want) and the 95% by solar power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't operate an off-grid PV system without a generator. It gives you peace of mind, even though most of the time you won't be using it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from that, I would say upgrading your batteries may be a good idea. Lithium ion would be better than lead-acid, but you probably aren't looking forward to completely replacing every single battery (and perhaps the charge controller).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the downvoters-to-be: it would save this planet if everything was electric and even only 95% of electricity was generated by renewables and the rest 5% by fossil fuels (or even biofuels!). No need to size the renewable capacity to 100%. And, there are plenty of companies (e.g. Neste) that make renewable fuels that are fully compatible with fossil fuels in engines. If only 5% of generation was based on fuels, then all of the fuels could probably be made in a renewable manner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8448" RevisionGUID="c17c3a82-e237-48f4-aff7-1b7166bb3dc8" CreationDate="2019-08-29T18:29:10.087" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;b&gt;TL;DR: boxed&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should consider the possibility of using the packaging materials to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cardboard is made from trees that have taken carbon dioxide away from the atmosphere. True, the cardboard manufacturing process releases some of this carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere, but much of it stays in the cardboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic is made from oil. Oil comes underground from fossil fuel reserves. If it wasn't used to make plastic, it would be burnt in internal combustion engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By using oil and cardboard and burying them in a responsible landfill that doesn't contribute to the microplastics problem, you will:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. ensure the carbon in the plastic / oil will be returned underground from whence it came&#xD;&#xA;2. ensure some of the carbon dioxide trees sequestered will be buried underground instead of being released back to the carbon cycle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I don't know if it's feasible everywhere to ensure your waste will be buried in a responsible landfill. Some landfills contribute to the microplastics problem; other locations burn the waste back to energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you live in an area where waste is incinerated, you get at least dual use out of it: first, it is the wine packaging, then it will be burned to energy that most likely will create electricity. Much better than burning the oil directly to energy in engines, because that gives only single use of the source materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the option to decide where your waste will end up being (for small amounts of waste you don't have the option), and are unwilling to consider landfills, consider a location where district heating is widely used. The efficiency of cogenerating electricity and heat is over 90%; the efficiency of generating just electricity is around 40%. Locations that need heating energy in winter can thus use more of the energy in the waste for useful purposes. So, you get triple use: first wine packaging, then heat and electricity. (I happen to live in an area with district heating, and much of it is cogenerated along with electricity from waste.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from that, if the wine bottles are reused, they will need to be cleaned in an industrial process before returning them to the second use to function as wine bottles again. This cleaning process may be environmentally harmful due to requiring chemicals. I certainly cannot prove it's more harmful than the plastic inside the cardboard packaging, but just something to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, you won't solve climate change by drinking wine, of course! The packaging stores so little carbon (it's very lightweight) that is will have negligible impact. I would assume this light weight of the packaging suggests that it might be more wise to focus about the environmental impact of the contents and not of the packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you correctly noticed boxed wine stays fresh longer. Even if only some of it is left over, it probably matters more than the packaging." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20795" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7069" RevisionGUID="b335196f-437a-4810-9e34-5a892163d62a" CreationDate="2019-08-29T22:44:09.933" UserId="6293" Comment="added 271 characters in body" Text="Stainless-steel is good for reflecting heat. And stainless-steel can be used both as a roof covering and as an exterior wall siding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, 430 stainless-steel is good-enough for roofing and siding but costs about 40% less than 304 stainless-steel. In fact stainless-steel sheet-metal is bought on coils and by the pound or else it is fabricated and sold expensively by the foot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the homeowner should make their own system for attaching stainless-steel sheet-metal lengths cut off a coil, there are several details that need to be known. The most important detail is that slotted attachment holes must be cut to allow for thermal expansion. Also, any nail, screw, or flashing that touches the stainless-steel must also be stainless-steel. In fact, 430 can rust where touched by a cut-off disk but will not rust where touched by a grinding wheel. Otherwise, stainless-steel sheet-metal can be used in standard standing-seam systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, aluminum is not good at reflecting heat and copper is not good at reflecting heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, metal transfers heat but metal also reflects heat and the overall effect is that the house is cooler under the metal. There are special painted-steel roofings that reflect more heat than stainless-steel but paint is temporary while stainless-steel is permanent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20796" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8446" RevisionGUID="09f5a79c-4a9a-40ec-8e43-7746e52f1a1e" CreationDate="2019-08-30T04:01:01.587" UserId="6909" Comment="added additional information based on comments received" Text="### General question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding on from the title, what are the restrictions to ensure that the various components of the PV system are compatible with each other? Specifically, I mean are there rules around how many batteries, total power of panels, and power of the inverter? This more general question comes from a very specific real-world problem that I have right now. See below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(First time posting on any StackExchange site, so my apologies if this question is too general, too specific, or just not quite right!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Specific Context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've got a basic off-grid set-up, but it looks like we need to upgrade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're currently going with 2 × 295 W panels, 4 × 12 V, 105 Ah batteries, and a 3kW 24 V pure-sine inverter. Things are generally fine But with just one or two overcast days we often start to struggle with our freezer (90 W when the compressor is on, time avg. about 25 W) and we'd really like to be able to run an automatic washing machine (cold wash only, booster pump also needed as we don't quite get enough water pressure from our header-tank - only about 0.5 bar). With the current setup we could run a washing machine on sunny days, but we'd like to be able to run it fairly consistently (every 2-3 days as we have a baby and are doing cloth nappies) and since the system is already taking strain, it feels like we need an upgrade (even without adding in a washing machine). We're generally happy to be careful with our usage - our main priorities are as above, but also do increase the lifespan of our batteries. We work for an NGO in the rural Eastern Cape of South Africa, so cost is a concern, but we want to prioritise long-term savings over any short-term concerns - so we aiming to get the minimum amount of quality components that meet our needs, keeping the long-term in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of the following would be best? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A. more panels  &#xD;&#xA;B. more batteries  &#xD;&#xA;C. a stronger inverter  &#xD;&#xA;D. some of the above  &#xD;&#xA;E. all of the above  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our current panels are north-facing. I'm thinking that some more panels would capture some more afternoon sun (the next space on our roof is north-west facing) as well as just more photons when it's overcast. But do we need a stronger inverter for this? Although our inverter is 3kW, the manual says its rated power is 600 W of solar energy. Does this mean that if we have panels that added up to more than this threshold and it was super sunny that we'd just &quot;lose out on the extra energy&quot; or would it actually be a problem for the inverter and we definitely shouldn't add in panels whose total wattage exceeds the power rating?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Updates and further information on the specific context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Based on comments received and questions in comments._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The inverter is a Mecer, as far as I can tell, it's [this one](https://www.enway.co.za/Inverter/axpert-3kw).&#xD;&#xA;- The inverter has a built-in charge controller.&#xD;&#xA;- The batteries are all deep cycle batteries (SMF100) made by First National Battery in South Africa. The battery specs (see image below) from right at the bottom of [this page](https://www.battery.co.za/products/solar-batteries/?batID=66) [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;- The whole setup is about 17 months old. We started with two batteries and then got another two after about 2-3 months. So two of the batteries are 17 months old and the other two are 14-15 months old. &#xD;&#xA;- We try really really hard not to let the batteries go lower than 75% which is part of the struggle we're having.&#xD;&#xA;- The inverter has a warning alarm that goes off at a voltage of about 24 V. (I think, it's actually been really hard to figure out when it goes off and the manual isn't particularly clear.)&#xD;&#xA;- The freezer is the [Bosch 220L Inox Full Freezer GSN33VI30Z](https://www.sustainable.co.za/bosch-220-litre-gsn33vi30z-single-door-upright-freezer.html). It's rated A++, 90 W when the compressor is running, and an average of 225 kWh per year (I haven't been able to measure what the consumption is in our specific case), and food stays frozen for about 24 hours or so if we've had to put it off. When I say we're &quot;struggling with our freezer&quot; we're struggling in the sense that some days we can only put it on for a couple of hours and it just needs very careful management to try and keep our battery levels up. We haven't lost any food, it's not thawing out or anything like that (so mainly just added stress on very cloudy days.)&#xD;&#xA;- We're at a latitude of 32° South in a summer-rainfall region. Winter is mostly fine despite the shorter days and summer is generally fine except for several overcast days in a row. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cwMiQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8446" RevisionGUID="051bc641-c2c8-443c-833f-d16188c1dfe6" CreationDate="2019-08-30T04:14:28.917" UserId="6909" Comment="further edits and correction of typos" Text="### General question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding on from the title, what are the restrictions to ensure that the various components of the PV system are compatible with each other? Specifically, I mean are there rules around how many batteries, total power of panels, and power of the inverter? This more general question comes from a very specific real-world problem that I have right now. See below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(First time posting on any StackExchange site, so my apologies if this question is too general, too specific, or just not quite right!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Specific Context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've got a basic off-grid set-up, but it looks like we need to upgrade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're currently going with 2 × 295 W panels, 4 × 12 V, 102 Ah batteries, and a 3kW 24 V pure-sine inverter (with built-in controller). Things are generally fine But with just one or two overcast days we often start to struggle with our freezer (90 W when the compressor is on, time avg. about 25 W) and we'd really like to be able to run an automatic washing machine (cold wash only, booster pump also needed as we don't quite get enough water pressure from our header-tank - only about 0.5 bar). With the current setup we could run a washing machine on sunny days, but we'd like to be able to run it fairly consistently (every 2-3 days as we have a baby and are doing cloth nappies) and since the system is already taking strain, it feels like we need an upgrade (even without adding in a washing machine). We're generally happy to be careful with our usage - our main priorities are as above, but also do increase the lifespan of our batteries. We work for an NGO in the rural Eastern Cape of South Africa, so cost is a concern, but we want to prioritise long-term savings over any short-term concerns - so we aiming to get the minimum amount of quality components that meet our needs, keeping the long-term in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of the following would be best, and in what order? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A**. more panels  &#xD;&#xA;**B**. more batteries  &#xD;&#xA;**C**. a stronger inverter  &#xD;&#xA;**D**. all of the above    &#xD;&#xA;**E**. some of the above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our two panels are north-facing. I'm thinking that some more panels would capture some more afternoon sun (the next space on our roof is north-west facing) as well as just more photons when it's overcast. But do we need a stronger inverter for this? Although our inverter is 3kW, the manual says its rated power is 600 W of solar energy (is this for the built-in controller?). Does this mean that if we have panels that added up to more than this threshold and it was super sunny that we'd just &quot;lose out on the extra energy&quot; or would it actually be a problem for the inverter and we definitely shouldn't add in panels whose total wattage exceeds the power rating?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Updates and further information on the specific context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Based on comments received and questions in comments._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The inverter is a Mecer - as far as I can tell, it's [this one](https://www.enway.co.za/Inverter/axpert-3kw).&#xD;&#xA;- The inverter has a built-in charge controller.&#xD;&#xA;- The batteries are all deep cycle batteries (SMF100) made by First National Battery in South Africa. The battery specs (see image below) from right at the bottom of [this page](https://www.battery.co.za/products/solar-batteries/?batID=66) [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;- The whole setup is about 17 months old. We started with two batteries and then got another two after about 2-3 months. So two of the batteries are 17 months old and the other two are 14-15 months old. &#xD;&#xA;- We try really really hard not to let the batteries go lower than 75% which is part of the struggle we're having.&#xD;&#xA;- The inverter has a warning alarm that goes off at a voltage of about 23 V. (I think, it's actually been really hard to figure out when it goes off and the manual isn't particularly clear.)&#xD;&#xA;- The freezer is the [Bosch 220L Inox Full Freezer GSN33VI30Z](https://www.sustainable.co.za/bosch-220-litre-gsn33vi30z-single-door-upright-freezer.html). It's rated A++, 90 W when the compressor is running, and an average of 225 kWh per year (I haven't been able to measure what the consumption is in our specific case), and food stays frozen for about 24 hours or so if we've had to put it off. When I say we're &quot;struggling with our freezer&quot; we're struggling in the sense that some days we can only put it on for a couple of hours and it just needs very careful management to try and keep our battery levels up. We haven't lost any food, it's not thawing out or anything like that (so mainly just added stress on very cloudy days.)&#xD;&#xA;- We don't have a fridge. We're using a cooler box as our &quot;fridge&quot; and we just swap ice bricks between the cooler box and freezer daily. Since we put the freezer off at night, we do this ice-brick swapping at about lunch time so that the freezer has had some time (sunlight) to recover without giving it an extra load to freeze _and_ so that there is some daylight left and time to freeze the new ice bricks.&#xD;&#xA;- We're at a latitude of 32° South in a summer-rainfall region. Winter is mostly fine despite the shorter days and summer is generally fine except for several overcast days in a row. We get about 10 hours of sunlight in mid-winter and about 14 hours of sunlight in mid-summer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cwMiQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20798" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8446" RevisionGUID="96f769cb-3bbf-4fde-9468-b8c1b43e386c" CreationDate="2019-08-30T04:25:26.980" UserId="6909" Comment="added additional information based on comments received" Text="### General question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding on from the title, what are the restrictions to ensure that the various components of the PV system are compatible with each other? Specifically, I mean are there rules around how many batteries, total power of panels, and power of the inverter? This more general question comes from a very specific real-world problem that I have right now. See below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(First time posting on any StackExchange site, so my apologies if this question is too general, too specific, or just not quite right!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Specific Context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've got a basic off-grid set-up, but it looks like we need to upgrade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're currently going with 2 × 295 W panels, 4 × 12 V, 102 Ah batteries, and a 3kW 24 V pure-sine inverter (with built-in controller). Things are generally fine But with just one or two overcast days we often start to struggle with our freezer (90 W when the compressor is on, time avg. about 25 W) and we'd really like to be able to run an automatic washing machine (cold wash only, booster pump also needed as we don't quite get enough water pressure from our header-tank - only about 0.5 bar). With the current setup we could run a washing machine on sunny days, but we'd like to be able to run it fairly consistently (every 2-3 days as we have a baby and are doing cloth nappies) and since the system is already taking strain, it feels like we need an upgrade (even without adding in a washing machine). We're generally happy to be careful with our usage - our main priorities are as above, but also do increase the lifespan of our batteries. We work for an NGO in the rural Eastern Cape of South Africa, so cost is a concern, but we want to prioritise long-term savings over any short-term concerns - so we aiming to get the minimum amount of quality components that meet our needs, keeping the long-term in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of the following would be best, and in what order? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A**. more panels  &#xD;&#xA;**B**. more batteries  &#xD;&#xA;**C**. a stronger inverter  &#xD;&#xA;**D**. all of the above    &#xD;&#xA;**E**. some of the above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our two panels are north-facing. I'm thinking that some more panels would capture some more afternoon sun (the next space on our roof is north-west facing) as well as just more photons when it's overcast. But do we need a stronger inverter for this? Although our inverter is 3kW, the manual says its rated power is 600 W of solar energy (is this for the built-in controller?). Does this mean that if we have panels that added up to more than this threshold and it was super sunny that we'd just &quot;lose out on the extra energy&quot; or would it actually be a problem for the inverter and we definitely shouldn't add in panels whose total wattage exceeds the power rating?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you so much!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Updates and further information on the specific context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Based on comments received and questions in comments._&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The inverter is a Mecer - as far as I can tell, it's [this one](https://www.enway.co.za/Inverter/axpert-3kw).&#xD;&#xA;- The inverter has a built-in charge controller.&#xD;&#xA;- We get an estimate of the state of charge on the batteries on a 4-bar scale and we can also read the voltage across the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;- The batteries are all deep-cycle batteries (SMF100) made by First National Battery in South Africa. The battery specs (see image below) from right at the bottom of [this page](https://www.battery.co.za/products/solar-batteries/?batID=66) [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;- The whole setup is about 17 months old. We started with two batteries and then got another two after about 2-3 months. So two of the batteries are 17 months old and the other two are 14-15 months old. &#xD;&#xA;- We try really really hard not to let the batteries go lower than 75% which is part of the struggle we're having.&#xD;&#xA;- The inverter has a warning alarm that goes off at a voltage of about 23 V. (I think, it's actually been really hard to figure out when it goes off and the manual isn't particularly clear.)&#xD;&#xA;- The freezer is the [Bosch 220L Inox Full Freezer GSN33VI30Z](https://www.sustainable.co.za/bosch-220-litre-gsn33vi30z-single-door-upright-freezer.html). It's rated A++, 90 W when the compressor is running, and an average of 225 kWh per year (I haven't been able to measure what the consumption is in our specific case), and food stays frozen for about 24 hours or so if we've had to put it off. When I say we're &quot;struggling with our freezer&quot; we're struggling in the sense that some days we can only put it on for a couple of hours and it just needs very careful management to try and keep our battery levels up. We haven't lost any food, it's not thawing out or anything like that (so mainly just added stress on very cloudy days.)&#xD;&#xA;- We don't have a fridge. We're using a cooler box as our &quot;fridge&quot; and we just swap ice bricks between the cooler box and freezer daily. Since we put the freezer off at night, we do this ice-brick swapping at about lunch time so that the freezer has had some time (sunlight) to recover without giving it an extra load to freeze _and_ so that there is some daylight left and time to freeze the new ice bricks.&#xD;&#xA;- We're at a latitude of 32° South in a summer-rainfall region. Winter is mostly fine despite the shorter days and summer is generally fine except for several overcast days in a row. We get about 10 hours of sunlight in mid-winter and about 14 hours of sunlight in mid-summer.&#xD;&#xA;- The panels provide DC voltage which is then managed by our controller. The brand is Canadian Solar, but other than knowing that they're 295 W each (connected in series) I can't say more - I don't have a manual or anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cwMiQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8449" RevisionGUID="79796e16-3e1d-42ce-933d-f120ffeb2eae" CreationDate="2019-08-30T13:08:13.623" UserId="135" Text="Self answer, a bit off-topic maybe (depending on whether compost is considered recycling): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If like I do, one consider composting a cleaner/higher/more efficient way of recycling, then for months (almost two years I think) I have been putting the pizza cardboards in my vermicompost/lombricompost device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oil is not an issue for the worms, they eat it all the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That requires no chemical treatment to recycle the cardboard totally. I grow plants with the earth obtained after such recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worms are obviously fond of cardboard, and I have been told it helps for the pH equilibrium of the compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I do not only put cardboard in my compost, I also put paper unused. One has to make sure there is not too much plastic on the paper though)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8446" RevisionGUID="41839a5e-c2ea-4595-9b0a-412914a38bee" CreationDate="2019-08-30T13:57:54.523" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting, tags." Text="### General question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding on from the title, what are the restrictions to ensure that the various components of the PV system are compatible with each other? Are there rules around how many batteries, total power of panels, and power of the inverter? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--- &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Specific Context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This more general question comes from a very specific real-world problem that I have right now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've got a basic off-grid set-up, but it looks like we need to upgrade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're currently going with:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 2 × 295 W panels&#xD;&#xA; - 4 × 12 V, 102 Ah batteries&#xD;&#xA; - 3kW 24 V pure-sine inverter (with built-in controller)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things are generally fine But with just one or two overcast days we often start to struggle with our freezer (90 W when the compressor is on, time avg. about 25 W) and we'd really like to be able to run an automatic washing machine (cold wash only, booster pump also needed as we don't quite get enough water pressure from our header-tank - only about 0.5 bar). With the current setup we could run a washing machine on sunny days, but we'd like to be able to run it fairly consistently (every 2-3 days as we have a baby and are doing cloth nappies) and since the system is already taking strain, it feels like we need an upgrade (even without adding in a washing machine). We're generally happy to be careful with our usage - our main priorities are as above, but also do increase the lifespan of our batteries. We work for an NGO in the rural Eastern Cape of South Africa, so cost is a concern, but we want to prioritise long-term savings over any short-term concerns - so we aiming to get the minimum amount of quality components that meet our needs, keeping the long-term in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which of the following would be best, and in what order? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - More panels  &#xD;&#xA; - More batteries  &#xD;&#xA; - A stronger inverter  &#xD;&#xA; - All of the above    &#xD;&#xA; - Some of the above&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our two panels are north-facing. I'm thinking that some more panels would capture some more afternoon sun (the next space on our roof is north-west facing) as well as just more photons when it's overcast. But do we need a stronger inverter for this? Although our inverter is 3kW, the manual says its rated power is 600 W of solar energy (is this for the built-in controller?). Does this mean that if we have panels that added up to more than this threshold and it was super sunny that we'd just &quot;lose out on the extra energy&quot; or would it actually be a problem for the inverter and we definitely shouldn't add in panels whose total wattage exceeds the power rating?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Updates and further information on the specific context&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Inverter*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The inverteris a Mecer - as far as I can tell, it's [this one](https://www.enway.co.za/Inverter/axpert-3kw).&#xD;&#xA;- The inverter has a built-in charge controller.&#xD;&#xA;- The inverter has a warning alarm that goes off at a voltage of about 23 V. (I think, it's actually been really hard to figure out when it goes off and the manual isn't particularly clear.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Batteries*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- We get an estimate of the state of charge on the batteries on a 4-bar scale and we can also read the voltage across the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;- The batteries are all deep-cycle batteries (SMF100) made by First National Battery in South Africa. The battery specs (see image below) from right at the bottom of [this page](https://www.battery.co.za/products/solar-batteries/?batID=66) [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;- The whole setup is about 17 months old. We started with two batteries and then got another two after about 2-3 months. So two of the batteries are 17 months old and the other two are 14-15 months old. &#xD;&#xA;- We try really really hard not to let the batteries go lower than 75% which is part of the struggle we're having.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Freezer*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The freezer is the [Bosch 220L Inox Full Freezer GSN33VI30Z](https://www.sustainable.co.za/bosch-220-litre-gsn33vi30z-single-door-upright-freezer.html). It's rated A++, 90 W when the compressor is running, and an average of 225 kWh per year (I haven't been able to measure what the consumption is in our specific case), and food stays frozen for about 24 hours or so if we've had to put it off. When I say we're &quot;struggling with our freezer&quot; we're struggling in the sense that some days we can only put it on for a couple of hours and it just needs very careful management to try and keep our battery levels up. We haven't lost any food, it's not thawing out or anything like that (so mainly just added stress on very cloudy days.)&#xD;&#xA;- We don't have a fridge. We're using a cooler box as our &quot;fridge&quot; and we just swap ice bricks between the cooler box and freezer daily. Since we put the freezer off at night, we do this ice-brick swapping at about lunch time so that the freezer has had some time (sunlight) to recover without giving it an extra load to freeze _and_ so that there is some daylight left and time to freeze the new ice bricks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Panel setup*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- We're at a latitude of 32° South in a summer-rainfall region. Winter is mostly fine despite the shorter days and summer is generally fine except for several overcast days in a row. We get about 10 hours of sunlight in mid-winter and about 14 hours of sunlight in mid-summer.&#xD;&#xA;- The panels provide DC voltage which is then managed by our controller. The brand is Canadian Solar, but other than knowing that they're 295 W each (connected in series) I can't say more - I don't have a manual or anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cwMiQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20801" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8446" RevisionGUID="41839a5e-c2ea-4595-9b0a-412914a38bee" CreationDate="2019-08-30T13:57:54.523" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting, tags." Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|off-grid|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8449" RevisionGUID="0b52c366-ccdf-460f-8a51-bebab85071e9" CreationDate="2019-08-30T14:28:36.453" UserId="135" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Self answer, a bit off-topic maybe (depending on whether compost is considered recycling): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If like I do, one considers composting a cleaner/higher/more efficient way of recycling, then for months (almost two years I think) I have been putting the pizza cardboards in my vermicompost/lombricompost device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oil is not an issue for the worms, they eat it all the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That requires no chemical treatment to recycle the cardboard totally. I grow plants with the earth obtained after such recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worms are obviously fond of cardboard, and I have been told it helps for the pH equilibrium of the compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I do not only put cardboard in my compost, I also put paper unused. One has to make sure there is not too much plastic on the paper though)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8449" RevisionGUID="d3235ece-4886-4533-bf80-eaa7c859f8f4" CreationDate="2019-08-30T14:34:33.733" UserId="135" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Self answer, a bit off-topic maybe (depending on whether compost is considered recycling): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If like I do, one considers composting a cleaner/higher/more efficient way of recycling, then for months (almost two years I think) I have been putting the pizza cardboards in my vermicompost/lombricompost device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oil is not an issue for the worms, they eat it all the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That requires no chemical treatment to recycle the cardboard totally. I grow plants with the earth obtained after such recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worms are obviously fond of cardboard, and I have been told it helps for the pH equilibrium of the compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I do not only put cardboard in my compost, I also put paper not reusable. One has to make sure there is not too much plastic on the paper though)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20804" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8450" RevisionGUID="0cf4a628-fd85-4ff1-9a79-381143e0a6d6" CreationDate="2019-08-30T16:11:58.177" UserId="3379" Text="To give you specific recommendations to address your issue, you'll likely need to have a qualified electrician out to look at your system, or talk to the system vendor. However, here are a few general rules of thumb that may help you understand the issues, and some general suggestions for your system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. The inverter output should be sized to supply the peak power demand.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, you have a 90 W freezer, and want to add a washing machine. According to [this Australian power company](https://www.rpc.com.au/information/faq/power-consumption/washing-machines.html) which looked at several washer models, you will need a minimum of 400 W capacity for the washer. Thus at a minimum you will need about 500 W of inverter power capacity. Generally speaking you will want to have some overage allowance -- with 20% safety factor you'd need about 600 W. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Given that you have a 3 kW inverter, this is not your issue.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **2. The battery bank should be sized to meet the total energy requirement.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your batteries are the &quot;fuel tank&quot; for the system, so you'll need enough of them to last you throughout the day. The freezer spec estimates 225 kWh per year -- to give a bit of cushion, let's say you need 1 kWh (1,000 Wh) per day. The washing machines in the previous link require at least 50 Wh per wash load, which is essentially a rounding error compared to the freezer requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your battery bank is roughly 400 Ah, at 12 V, giving a total capacity of 4,800 Wh (4.8 kWh). As you've recognized, it's important not to let the batteries discharge too low. You've stated that you're trying to keep them at 75% or above (which seems like a good goal, but I'd recommend confirming with the battery vendor). This gives you a functional capacity of 1,200 Wh -- which is just slightly more than you need on an average day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*With just enough battery capacity to cover the freezer and batteries, you will need to add to your battery bank.* Two more of the same batteries (a 50% increase) would give you 1,800 Wh of capacity per day -- but this may not be sufficient for other reasons discussed below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. The solar array should be sized to supply enough energy every day to fully charge the batteries.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could do all the math, looking at solar insolation, angle of the sun, hours of daylight, etc... but an easier way is to do some guess-and-check with [PVWatts Calculator](https://pvwatts.nrel.gov). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I set the location to Johannesburg, South Africa, left all other defaults in place, and adjusted the array size until the system generated 1,800 Wh per day in the worst month (June). I came up with 1.2 kWdc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*To supply sufficient power in the worst month (June), you'll need to increase your array from 600 W to 1,200 W.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. Go back to your inverter and make sure it can handle the power output from your array.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inverter you have is specified to a max input of 600 W, which is insufficient. To increase in size, you will likely also need to increase the voltage of your system from 24 V to 48 V -- this refers both to the input from the panels, and the voltage across your battery system. By adding two more panels in series, your output voltage will double and should work with a 48V system (since it works for 24 V now). This will also meet your daily energy input requirement of 1,800 Wh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your batteries, right now you have two &quot;strings&quot; of two batteries. Each string measures 24 V. You could arrange these as one string of four batteries to give 48 V. Then, to increase your energy storage capacity and properly balance the system, you'd need to add four additional batteries in parallel (keeping the system voltage at 48 V, but increasing storage to  800 Ah). This would supply 2,400 Wh per day (800 Ah * 12 V per battery * 25% depth of discharge), which is more than your required energy (from step 2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it might seem unfortunate to spend extra money on batteries you don't &quot;need,&quot; it will actually save you money since it will give you the capacity to store most of the &quot;excess&quot; energy produced in months that aren't as bad as June.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion:** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your current system does not store enough energy to meet your needs. To remedy this, you'll need more batteries to store energy, and more panels to supply enough energy to charge those batteries each day. But, your inverter is at the limit of the input power  it can handle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since off-the-shelf PV systems go together a bit like Legos, you need to make a few changes to get the whole thing working in harmony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - You will need to replace your inverter with one rated for 1200 W of input power, which probably means going to a 48 V system.   &#xD;&#xA; - To continue using your four 12 V batteries, you'd need to put them in series (making 48 V) and add four more in parallel to keep the system balanced.&#xD;&#xA; - To keep using the two panels you have, you'd need to add two more in series (doubling the voltage and keeping the current the same)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8451" RevisionGUID="e9e35e11-55ad-402d-b6c4-7dbc82a46873" CreationDate="2019-09-01T14:29:27.437" UserId="6858" Text="When buying milk, there are three forms of available packaging: plastic containers, TetraPak, and glass bottles. &#xD;&#xA;None of these forms of packaging are optimal - plastic containers are single-use, TetraPaks are difficult to recycle, and glass bottles are heavy and require the use of strong chemicals to clean. Furthermore, glass bottles seem to have mostly disappeared from use, requiring the travel of further distances to obtain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know how these drawbacks compare with regards to overall sustainability, and which measure is appropriate in this context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20807" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8451" RevisionGUID="e9e35e11-55ad-402d-b6c4-7dbc82a46873" CreationDate="2019-09-01T14:29:27.437" UserId="6858" Text="What is the most sustainable packaging for milk?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20808" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8451" RevisionGUID="e9e35e11-55ad-402d-b6c4-7dbc82a46873" CreationDate="2019-09-01T14:29:27.437" UserId="6858" Text="|plastic|packaging|glass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8452" RevisionGUID="829388fd-01b6-4b02-89fc-11b07c714d62" CreationDate="2019-09-02T06:00:55.500" UserId="6916" Text="It's simple led flashlight can run a small panel because their light is high on the spectrum light scale.It produces more power than the yellowish light LEDs that mostly every one else thinks of when it comes to lighting the panel coupled with a mirrored shroud like in warehouses you can effectively use the panels all day an night.And you can stack them in a building taking less ground and controlled environment for maintenance purposes.As an added advantage just about eliminating the need for batteries " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20810" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8453" RevisionGUID="cb91bf0a-9bb4-466c-a3d7-8adeefbf8226" CreationDate="2019-09-02T08:02:59.010" UserId="6182" Text="You forgot about a fourth option: The tube. Originally it looked like this:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was a bit flimsy and is easier punctured than the TetraPaks, so it isn't produced anymore (at least not in Germany, at least not widely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, over the past years it got a redesign. Now it can stand up on its own, is a bit more resilient to puncturing and it also comes in a version made of 40 % chalk:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, out of 16 g material about 6.5 g are not made from plastics - and the plastics used are supposed to be recyclable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The website of the dairy quotes a study on packaging-sustainability by the producer of the tubes: [https://www.brodowin.de/der-betrieb/unsere-produkte/mehr-zur-einwegverpackung/][3] (in German, but Google Translate should help you there).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion there is a draw between the bottles and the tubes when it comes to overall sustainability - and it depends on distance between dairy and consumer: Somewhere between 150 and 300 km tubes become more sustainable, since the bottles are heavier and need to be returned to the dairy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XsNY9.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dd6sZ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.brodowin.de/der-betrieb/unsere-produkte/mehr-zur-einwegverpackung/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5751" RevisionGUID="860cf08d-164a-46e5-b4f1-2e17c135d2d9" CreationDate="2019-09-02T12:54:53.740" UserId="400" Comment="replaced solstice with equinox." Text="Additional information to @LShaver's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google for a solar power potential atlas or map.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These produce tables or maps that estimate the amount of power that can be generated over the course of a year for a 1 kW panel given a specific location.  Some will give month by month breakdowns too, or give the relative values for different orientations of the panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are based in part on  latitude which gives you seasonal day length and solar elevation, but also in part on the climate record for that location, which comes from your local weather station's observations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typical Numbers:  &#xD;&#xA;Where I live in Alberta a 1 kW panel oriented to be at right angles to the sun on equinoxes, will generate about 1250 to 1350 kWh/year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same array in Germany generates about 800 kWh, while one in the SW deserts in the U.S. will generate 1500-1600 kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The capacity factor of solar power bites.  Consider:  There are not quite 9000 hours in a year.  If you get 1300 kWh/year for a 1 KW array, you have a capacity factor of about 15%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flip side:  No moving parts.  Better predictability.  Little maintainence.  (Wash the bird crap off...)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8454" RevisionGUID="975ca0c3-8e60-48be-96b4-40587055471a" CreationDate="2019-09-03T12:41:25.033" UserId="6602" Text="Its been many years since this question was asked, technology has developed, newer LEDs are far more efficient than LEDs from a decade ago. The control technology powering LEDs has also become far more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This introduces complications in estimating the sustainability of LED lighting. If you take a snapshot of LED technology in 2010, and asked how long can we go on like this, manufacturing the same LEDs in the same quantities, you might get an answer like fifty years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you took a snapshot of 2019 LED technology and asked how long can we go on make the same quantities as 2010, you might get an answer like two hundred years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But additionally as LEDs have become more efficient, they're also cheaper and so demand for them has increased, so you might only have the resources to build 2019 technology LEDs for a hundred years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the efficiency, price and size of LEDs keeps improving and becoming broadly more sustainable, then the question is perhaps about limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 1997 the UK reached 'Peak light bulb', since then the amount of energy required for lighting has reduced as consumers changed from incandescent lighting to more efficient technologies. In this respect lighting is now generally sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The old-fashioned incandescent light bulb was in production for over 150 years, the great leaps in efficiency were mostly in the first few decades of production, and by 1997, it couldn't be manufactured any more efficiently, it had reached its technological optimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LED lighting is still making leaps in efficiency and sustainability and will continue to for a few more decades. At each leap it is more sustainable than it ever has been, using smaller quantities of the limited mineral materials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8455" RevisionGUID="bdf348b2-13cc-4557-b4d6-6a922fd12386" CreationDate="2019-09-03T13:53:52.173" UserId="1009" Text="I had to quit my PV water heating experiment since the wife had to take one too many cold showers and I was in fear of waking up dead one morning with a back-brush through my skull...  and the solution to critters growing in your &quot;warm&quot; water is a small 45 watt UV sterilizer on the output of the tank. Now that did offset cost savings a wee bit, but not very much (3% or 4% maybe).  Amazon had one for $250 with 2 spare UV tubes. This works in Florida (according to me, but did not work according to my wife), but I would already be dead had I tried it in VA where we got married." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8456" RevisionGUID="c9238cba-c9aa-4b13-bbd0-2142b75f9306" CreationDate="2019-09-03T22:05:21.150" UserId="15" Text="Apparently Arial isn't a very efficient font, when it comes to ink consumption. [This article][1] claims Times New Roman is 27% more efficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Another article claims Garamond][2] was the most efficient font of 10 that were tested, and appears to show Times New Roman in 4th place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of these articles seem to be particularly high quality science though. Is anyone aware of any work that compares ink consumption of fonts while still taking into account the readability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2016/03/three-fonts-you-should-use-instead-of-arial-to-save-printer-ink/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-26835560" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8456" RevisionGUID="c9238cba-c9aa-4b13-bbd0-2142b75f9306" CreationDate="2019-09-03T22:05:21.150" UserId="15" Text="Which printer font can I use to reduce ink consumption without impacting readability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8456" RevisionGUID="c9238cba-c9aa-4b13-bbd0-2142b75f9306" CreationDate="2019-09-03T22:05:21.150" UserId="15" Text="|computing|printing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8457" RevisionGUID="954ce7dd-8932-4385-898b-f2f387e0fa3e" CreationDate="2019-09-04T01:11:04.063" UserId="400" Text="Depends:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of one case that a helicopter was used to haul gravel for a trail.  The chopper could move a thousand pounds of gravel every 3 minutes.  Two hoppers unclip one, clip the other, scat to the other end.  If you used something like the kubota side by sides it would have taken 4 trips for that same thousand pounds, and well over an hour per trip.  Chopper used less fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you need to pin some more things down:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How long is the flight from trail head to cabin?&#xD;&#xA;* how long is the flight from the operations base to the trail head.&#xD;&#xA;* How many cabins can be supplied from that trail head?&#xD;&#xA;* Can multiple cabins be supplied in one run from the trail head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These figres along with the specs of the aircraft, can give you a fuel/resources used per cabin visit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now more info:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are choppers used to bring people in?  If so, then supply can be 'free' as part of the people transport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the flight frequency per cabin?  If one flight brings in all the supplies for the winter (or summer) season then on a per night-use basis it's small.  If it's bringing in fresh milk and brussell sprouts in every week, it will be a lot higher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you going to bring in drinking water, or are you going to bring in equipment/materials to purify water on site?  Is crap going to be flown out, or disposed of on site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8458" RevisionGUID="9950abd0-7d5a-4806-9c8a-3ef59f09f088" CreationDate="2019-09-04T11:02:56.030" UserId="6602" Text="I wish to look at this in terms of CO2 footprint, rather than ink consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some random source on the internet suggests that the CO2 footprint of a toner cartridge is around 5Kg for a new cartridge or 2Kg for a refilled one. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The laser printer in my office gets around 31,000 pages at 6% coverage, or around 2,000 pages 100% coverage. Arguably with 30% coverage of full page text you can get 6,000 pages per cartridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these figures we can estimate that the CO2 footprint for the ink consumption is between 0.16g to 0.83g per page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CO2 footprint to manufacture one piece of A4 printer paper is 4.17g. So the ink represents between 3% to 17% of the CO2 footprint from printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might be able to optimise ink consumption, and find the most readable font that uses the least ink but its only going to have a negligible effect on the environmental impact of printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really need to read something, then keep it on a screen, reduce ink consumption by not printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really do need to print something, like if your life depends on it, than choose a font that looks nice and will have the most impact to the person who is holding the sheet of paper, rather than agonising over a small fraction of resource consumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8459" RevisionGUID="bb3762fb-c871-4aa6-9eca-c8b1ec86adfd" CreationDate="2019-09-04T12:07:49.863" UserId="6919" Text="The BEST lighting control is an old school switch operated by a very ethical person. You can often turn lights off or down depending on what your task is, and what the sun's doing. And you will turn lights off the moment you leave, not after a built-in delay of five or ten minutes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8460" RevisionGUID="7bbb94bb-900f-47cc-bec3-17ee07402ac0" CreationDate="2019-09-04T12:21:55.600" UserId="6919" Text="You can advocate for a carbon tax. When fossil fuel energy costs more, recycling is more economically valuable. Cheap power means easier to mine new aluminum. We really need a carbon tax for many reasons. They used to make a zillion tons of aluminum in the United States Pacific Northwest with dirt-cheap hydro power. But when electricity got expensive in California, they sold them the electricity and recycled aluminum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5891" RevisionGUID="5a001a03-40b0-481c-943a-abe2abc1b25a" CreationDate="2019-09-04T13:27:05.447" UserId="400" Comment="added 487 characters in body" Text="The answer is:  Unknown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So try it.  We need more data points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general if energy can be extracted from a reaction, some bacteria does it for a living.  Given the nature of certain ecozones, notably various pines that have a strong firesuccession (Lodgepole, Jackpine) then a series of low temmperature burns should leave substantial carbon in the soil.  High temp fires burn the soil back to mineral soils.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in my travels over the jack pine regions of the Canadian Shield, I don't see black soils.  An area right after a fire has lots of charcoal, but 5-10 years later (christmas tree sized pines) it's not readily apparent.  Mind you, I didn't look that carefully for it.  This is a mark against it working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the Terra Preta in the amazon has a large charcoal component.  This is a mark in favour of it working.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon sequesterization may be in part controlled by pH.  Sphagnum moss seems to last for thousands of years if in soggy anaerobic circumstances.  The moss generally creates a pH of around 4-5.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the mechanisms that would have a net benefit even if biochar doesn't work at all:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Process ag waste for energy.  Suppose you have a unit the size of a standard 53 foot seacan (modular shipping container) that you can load bales of straw/cornstocks, wood chips into, and then this is turned into a mix of energy, distillates and biochar.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Units like this can be dropped off at a farm.  Farmers can bale farm waste, and use it during the winter for heating barns.  Methanol (one of the main distillates) can be used either to run a generator, or it can be sold as a crop.  Char can be sold or returned to the field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the unit, it can be easy to push the output mix one way or another.  Worst case, it's all turned into energy, well that's energy he didn't get from fossil fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Attempts to use biofuels have foundered on transport costs.  It just costs too much  to move them.  A dump truck full of coal has a lot more energy than that same truck full of corn husks.  And coal can be close to &quot;just in time&quot; where ag waste is very seasonal.  You have to be able to store 18 months or so stock at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Producing biochar/methanol/heat from ag waste on site means that the sellable product is cheaper to ship.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar thing happened with the frontier in America.  Shipping grain back east wasn't very practical until railroads and steam boats came in.  But a backwoods farmer could turn corn or barley into whiskey.  THAT was worth transporting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20823" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8461" RevisionGUID="8c12eb40-214e-45d8-bc23-bdb27192de50" CreationDate="2019-09-04T18:44:42.523" UserId="3505" Text="I want to install 23 305w panels on my roof.  It's a flat roof constructed with 2x8 beams spaced at 24&quot;.  There is no snow load to consider and we get occasional wind and rain storms a few times per year.&#xA;&#xA;Is this structure sufficient to support a solar array?  I can space each panel a few feet apart.  Each panel weighs 41lb with a psf of under 2.5." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20824" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8461" RevisionGUID="8c12eb40-214e-45d8-bc23-bdb27192de50" CreationDate="2019-09-04T18:44:42.523" UserId="3505" Text="Solar Install Flat Roof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20825" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8461" RevisionGUID="8c12eb40-214e-45d8-bc23-bdb27192de50" CreationDate="2019-09-04T18:44:42.523" UserId="3505" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20826" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="d544a701-7abf-4acf-9c88-acf1e38bfa38" CreationDate="2019-09-05T08:03:00.400" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="20827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8462" RevisionGUID="ab21e09f-c1e9-404b-aa6c-681baecea018" CreationDate="2019-09-05T08:10:25.440" UserId="6923" Text="I've experimented with soaking foil-backed blister packs in caustic soda solution, commonly sold as a material to unclog drains.  Caustic soda (sodium hydroxide, NaOH) dissolves the aluminium foil.  The caustic soda solution can burn skin, so it needs care in using it, but it can be neutralised afterwards with acid, vinegar, say, or pool acid, producing water and salt and giving off carbon dioxide, after which the solution is harmless and can be flushed away.  The blister pack plastic is usually PET which can be recycled, and the foil is usually bonded to the blister tray with LDPE film, which also remains after the aluminium is dissolved, and which can be combined with other LDPE for recycling.                                                                                                                                                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8462" RevisionGUID="ff7c0b88-5d62-485d-ba4e-e2078211c30e" CreationDate="2019-09-05T08:21:18.287" UserId="6923" Comment="added 388 characters in body" Text="I've experimented with soaking foil-backed blister packs in caustic soda solution, commonly sold as a material to unclog drains.  Caustic soda (sodium hydroxide, NaOH) dissolves the aluminium foil.  The caustic soda solution can burn skin, so it needs care in using it, but it can be neutralised afterwards with acid, vinegar, say, or pool acid, producing water and salt and giving off carbon dioxide, after which the solution is harmless and can be flushed away.  The blister pack plastic is usually PET which can be recycled, and the foil is usually bonded to the blister tray with LDPE film, which also remains after the aluminium is dissolved, and which can be combined with other LDPE for recycling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was 11 or 12 years old, I used to work at a dispensing pharmacy after school.  My tasks consisted of delivering prescriptions to the recipients by bicycle(!) and literally washing the returned glass bottles that the customers brought back, soaking the labels off them, washing, rinsing and air-drying the bottles.  Simpler times fifty years ago in a smallish New Zealand city.                                                                                                                                                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8462" RevisionGUID="feda0666-34c2-49c7-9a97-35580b3bbe08" CreationDate="2019-09-05T08:57:11.283" UserId="6923" Comment="deleted 88 characters in body" Text="I've experimented with soaking foil-backed blister packs in caustic soda solution, commonly sold as a material to unclog drains.  Caustic soda (sodium hydroxide, NaOH) dissolves the aluminium foil.  The caustic soda solution can burn skin, so it needs care in using it.  The dissolved aluminium produces sodium aluminate solution which can be flushed away with lots of water.  The blister pack plastic is usually PET which can be recycled, and the foil is usually bonded to the blister tray with LDPE film, which also remains after the aluminium is dissolved, and which can be combined with other LDPE for recycling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was 11 or 12 years old, I used to work at a dispensing pharmacy after school.  My tasks consisted of delivering prescriptions to the recipients by bicycle(!) and literally washing the returned glass bottles that the customers brought back, soaking the labels off them, washing, rinsing and air-drying the bottles.  Simpler times fifty years ago in a smallish New Zealand city.                                                                                                                                                     " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8463" RevisionGUID="17fe829a-acf7-47f9-82ad-b960e009ea26" CreationDate="2019-09-05T09:14:47.913" UserId="99" Text="I found (parts of) 2 studies but as far as I can tell neither included readability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;1. Consumer Reports&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the bottom of the first article you link to, they credit the original source and link to [this Consumer Reports webpage](https://www.consumerreports.org/printers/ways-to-save-money-on-printer-ink/). However that page was updated earlier this year and it seems the original report is not available anymore. Other sources (like [this Dutch webpage from April 2016](https://www.consumentenbond.nl/printer/tips-zuinigprinten)) quote what was probably in the original Consumer Reports report:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;  Times New Roman:       27% less ink usage compared to Arial&#xD;&#xA;  Calibri:               23% less ink usage compared to Arial&#xD;&#xA;  Century Gothic:        21% less ink usage compared to Arial&#xD;&#xA;  Trebuchet MS:          10% less ink usage compared to Arial&#xD;&#xA;  Tahoma:                 5% more ink usage compared to Arial&#xD;&#xA;  Franklin Gothic Medium: 7% more ink usage compared to Arial&#xD;&#xA;  Verdana:               10% more ink usage compared to Arial&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2. Ecofont&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A commercial company called [Ecofont](https://www.ecofont.com) (no affiliation) claims that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Independent tests from [Buyerslab](https://www.ecofont.com/sites/default/files/2018-04/InkToner%20Yield%20Analysis%20with%20Standard%20print%20and%20Ecofont.pdf) demonstrate savings up to 50% in toner ink with Ecofont compared to normal printing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so it seems this would outperform even Garamond. Ecofont adds tiny, invisible holes to an existing font such as Arial, Calibri, Tahoma, Times New Roman and&#xD;&#xA;Verdana thus reducing ink consumption. However the Buyerslab report doesn't mention anything about readability, plus the report was commissioned by Ecofont so it is questionable whether the research was really independent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Other tips&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The latest version of the Consumers Report on [Ways to save money on printer ink](https://www.consumerreports.org/printers/ways-to-save-money-on-printer-ink/) mentions a few other ink (and potentially environment saving) tips:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; By leaving an inkjet printer on, you avoid triggering a maintenance cycle each time you use it. According to our test results, that can yield big savings from your ink costs because many of the printers we evaluated used as much ink to clean the print heads as they did for actual printing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Of course you are trading electricity for ink here, so it's doubtful if this helps from an environment point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; ... use the draft mode in your printer settings... This mode not only uses less ink but also allows you to print faster. Depending on the printer type, model, and manufacturer, it could be called Toner Save, EconoMode, or Draft Quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &gt; Be sure to strip needless ads and logos from a document before printing it, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be obvious, but alternatively to reduce your environmental impact you could:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - reduce font size&#xD;&#xA; - make sure your printer is set to 'double-sided' and/or '2 pages per side'&#xD;&#xA; - print black &amp; white only&#xD;&#xA; - not print at all (still the best option)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20831" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="2a333302-8d2d-4203-8551-4a3aac60e8fc" CreationDate="2019-09-05T10:09:50.143" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/145226/how-does-the-climate-impact-of-an-lng-powered-cruise-ship-compare-to-flying" />
  <row Id="20832" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="a5ab1ab4-6c73-4d5b-8944-f27308922863" CreationDate="2019-09-05T08:31:02.630" UserDisplayName="jl6" Text="Taking the [Iona][1] as an example, it is claimed that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;The cruise ship will have a reduced carbon footprint with zero sulphur and nitrogen emissions.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sulphur and nitrogen, while pollutants, are not greenhouse gases, and I'm asking specifically about the impact on the broader climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article argues that flying is &quot;three times greener than cruising&quot;][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Carnival claim LNG offers a 25% reduction in CO2][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [this article discusses the benefits of LNG in shipping][3] and seems to suggest the greenhouse gas emissions of LNG are only 6% lower than heavy fuel oil on average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My interpretation is that the benefits of LNG are only slight (from a climate perspective) and therefore flying is still lower impact than cruising. But I don't know if these claims are on a like-for-like basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any studies that do a direct comparison of modern aircraft to modern LNG-powered ships?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;N.B. I'm aware it is hard to compare the end-to-end climate impact of a holiday, considering the cruise ship has features and services built-in, which would be provided separately by a destination that you fly to (and therefore not included in the emission cost of flying).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ship-technology.com/projects/iona-cruise-ship/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/739287/Flying-three-times-greener-than-cruising.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/study-lng-may-offer-10-percent-cut-in-ghg-emissions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.carnivalcorp.com/static-files/60cee14d-aac3-4585-be62-b63dfea9615e" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20833" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="a5ab1ab4-6c73-4d5b-8944-f27308922863" CreationDate="2019-09-05T08:31:02.630" UserDisplayName="jl6" Text="How does the climate impact of an LNG-powered cruise ship compare to flying?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20834" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="a5ab1ab4-6c73-4d5b-8944-f27308922863" CreationDate="2019-09-05T08:31:02.630" UserDisplayName="jl6" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20835" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="28e3900f-8123-488c-a343-62410ae7c0bc" CreationDate="2019-09-05T10:59:11.870" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|transport|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20836" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8464" RevisionGUID="470102c3-429b-4fc0-a432-5525b64c222b" CreationDate="2019-09-05T15:00:33.887" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1169626378939117569" />
  <row Id="20837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8465" RevisionGUID="226976ff-e0a0-4470-9d32-845c279df34c" CreationDate="2019-09-05T17:27:29.047" UserId="4386" Text="I am choosing between natural gas and propane for a boiler.  I see a discussion [here][1] where the accepted response primarily deals with the CO2 released during actual burning of the gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious to know if there is any good information about the entire life cycle impact - getting the gas from the ground through to combustion - and if one or the other has a significant environmental advantage from that perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2872/is-it-better-to-use-propane-or-natural-gas-as-a-heating-fuel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20838" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8465" RevisionGUID="226976ff-e0a0-4470-9d32-845c279df34c" CreationDate="2019-09-05T17:27:29.047" UserId="4386" Text="Is there a Life Cycle Analysis comparing natural gas and propane as heating fuels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20839" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8465" RevisionGUID="226976ff-e0a0-4470-9d32-845c279df34c" CreationDate="2019-09-05T17:27:29.047" UserId="4386" Text="|heating|life-cycle-analysis|greenhouse-gas-emissions|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8466" RevisionGUID="cb48e0ee-f134-4e58-a38d-a30a091ca4fa" CreationDate="2019-09-05T19:57:46.430" UserId="6925" Text="I agree with LShaver's number-crunch, although I reach a slightly different conclusion.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree you have plenty of inverter.  Your are covered not only for routine loads, but also for startup surges. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inverter has a **charge controller** built into it.  It's perfectly fine, but it is merely there for convenience, so on a small system you don't *have* to buy a separate $150+ (R2500+) MPPT charge controller for a small system.  Surely they allow you to use an external charge controller, either &quot;also&quot; or &quot;instead&quot;.  **My point is, don't be distracted by this.  Don't go thinking you need a new *inverter* if you need a bigger *charge controller***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dump factor&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;When the battery is full, and there aren't enough household loads to use the power being generated, better charge controllers will route the energy into **dump**.  For instance, &quot;dump&quot; could run heaters to warm a thermal storage tank... Top up irrigation storage tanks... Or in a micro-hydro system, pumped storage (backpumping). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, simpler solar systems don't dump, or have any way to measure their dumpage. They just increase impedance and prevent current from flowing, which makes the solar panels slightly warmer.  I for one would rather actually &quot;dump&quot;, **because then, you can measure it**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Dump&quot; tells you a lot about the sizing of your system.  It makes hard problems obvious.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numbers on your system&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;I agree with LShaver's de-rating of your freezer from 220 to 365 KwH/year (1 KWH/day). That's because you're opening the door *far more often* than expected, making ice, and it's a vertical unit.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Converting water to ice (both at 0C) involves a *phase transition*. Those, themselves, store heat energy.  That's why it takes a long time on the stove for water to go from 99C (liquid) to 101C (vapor).  The ice-water transition stores 92.7 watt-hours (334kJ) of heat energy.  The liquid water to vapor transition stores a whopping 627 watt-hours  (2260kJ) of heat energy. Vapor to ice takes (add 'em up) 720 watt-hours (2594kJ).   It's a bit more efficient than that, because freezers *pump* heat, not make it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you make 5kg of ice a day, you are *moving* 464 watt-hours. Let's wild armwave that your heat pump efficiency is 2:1, so the cost is 232 watt-hours of energy use.  I don't like vertical units because every time you open the door, all the dense, cold air &quot;falls straight down&quot; and is replaced by **humid** warm air.  Nevermind re-chilling the air; *the air is full of water vapor*. Ouch.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that to say, LShaver's dramatic de-rating of your freezer to 1000Wh/day feels right to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's another load we haven't discussed, which worries me a lot.  **Inverters have standby &quot;vampire&quot; load**.  Just like a mechanical &quot;rotary converter&quot; has the energy cost of being physically &quot;spun up&quot;, so does an electronic inverter.  Like any vampire load, it is insidious because it's 24x7.  I don't know your unit, but my armwave-rule-of-thumb is 1% of capacity.  That‘s 30 watts X 24 hours that means **720 watt-hours per day**. Holy smoke, that's nearly as much as the freezer!  It would be good to put some actual test equipment on the inverter, rather than wild-guessing such an important number.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But regardless, an important facet of system design is *spin up inverters as rarely as possible*.   This is one reason I do not like &quot;all-in-one&quot; devices like that inverter+CC.  (This, and they tend to be jacks of all trades rather than masters of one).  Charge controllers don't have vampire loads and should be left on 24x7.  However, inverters should be turned off whenever they are not urgently needed.  So I would want to shut that thing off except a few times a day when needed for the freezer.  *For all I know, you are already doing this, so I will totally exclude inverter numbers from the below calcs.  If your inverter is on 24x7, things will be much worse*.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting it together&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So your freezer takes 1000Wh/day, and for now let's ignore the difficult-to-quantify inverter losses. Together, you two have concluded that you have *prudent* battery capacity of 1200Wh/day, and I agree. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Um.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, *if the freezer were your only load*, you have 1.2 days of prudent reserve.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you have a sunny June day (think December, northern hemisphere folks) with wel-aimed panels and the *equivalent* of 6 hours of full solarization at 600W, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **you only use 2 hours of it and then you dump, dump, dump**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- And then, 20% of the way into your second cloudy day, you cross the &quot;prudent&quot; line of discharge.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means exactly one thing.  **Your panels are fine; your battery is far too small**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I would call that good news, becuase batteries are the cheap part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule of thumb I learned in eastern USA weather systems is have battery range for 3-5 days of no useful solarization.   You have enough for 1.2 *ignoring inverter losses*.   If you triple the size of your battery pack, you now have 3.6 days in the *prudent* range.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know you were reticent to even double it, but the numbers are plainly showing your pack is the choke point.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, with lead-acid batteries, it is fine to dip into the &quot;imprudent&quot; range, as long as you don't do it very often.  So you need to run the numbers, based on your weather patterns, how your weather patterns might change in the batteries' life, and availability of alternate power. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Generator&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Here I must agree with juhist's advice.  But I am partial to taking a very hard left turn into carbon-neutral fuels, and the top of that list is Waste Vegetable Oil and classical engines like a Lister (being a Commonwealth nation). This does several things for you: It reduces the theft risk, because it's incomprehensible. It reduces cost, while increasing the &quot;eco&quot; appeal of your community.  And the Coolness Factor increases the acceptance of the engine and its noise and smells.   Nobody wants to be around the GRRRRR and diesel stench of a Kubota.  But the Tubba Tubba Tubba and french-fry smell of the Lister makes it a point of pride when people know what it means.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Waste vegetable oil (as opposed to #2 diesel) brings two big benefits: vastly improved lubricity of the fuel, reducing wear on diesels' critical fuel injection pumps, and far-less-toxic exhaust.  But it  creates four challenges: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Particulate (french fry bits) - the cure is filtering.  Not so bad. &#xD;&#xA;- Acidity - this is not in the hydrocarbon/carbohydrate fuel itself, but is in contaminants.  The cure is &quot;washing&quot; the fuel with water, which is ionic and the also-ionic acids will attach to the water and leave with it.  Ignoring it means more corrosion in fuel injection systems, depending on if the fuel is left to stand in the injection system while the engine is off.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Water content - the cure is settling the fuel. Water settles to the bottom of the tank given enough time.  This too can be ignored, at the expense of more fuel injection system maintenance.  &#xD;&#xA;- Viscosity at cool temperatures - the cure is either *transesterification* (making biodiesel, which includes all of the above) or simply warming the pipes and fuel injection system to 40-50C.  Engine heat will do this, the issue is preheating on startup.  This is where a simple, open engine like the classics makes the job a lot easier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An engine optimized for SVO/WVO will work directly on biodiesel or plain diesel; the preheating will simply be unnecessary. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20841" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8466" RevisionGUID="5c48732f-5836-4bb2-bf66-b5bbb2652ad6" CreationDate="2019-09-05T21:34:55.623" UserId="6925" Comment="added 188 characters in body" Text="I agree with LShaver's number-crunch, although I reach a slightly different conclusion.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree you have plenty of inverter.  Your are covered not only for routine loads, but also for startup surges. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inverter has a **charge controller** built into it.  It's perfectly fine, but it is merely there for convenience, so on a small system you don't *have* to buy a separate $150+ (R2500+) MPPT charge controller for a small system.  Surely they allow you to use an external charge controller, either &quot;also&quot; or &quot;instead&quot;.  **My point is, don't be distracted by this.  Don't go thinking you need a new *inverter* if you need a bigger *charge controller***.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Dump factor&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;When the battery is full, and there aren't enough household loads to use the power being generated, better charge controllers will route the energy into **dump**.  For instance, &quot;dump&quot; could run heaters to warm a thermal storage tank... Top up irrigation storage tanks... Or in a micro-hydro system, pumped storage (backpumping). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, simpler solar systems don't dump, or have any way to measure their dumpage. They just increase impedance and prevent current from flowing, which makes the solar panels slightly warmer.  I for one would rather actually &quot;dump&quot;, **because then, you can measure it**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Dump&quot; tells you a lot about the sizing of your system.  It makes hard problems obvious.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numbers on your system&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;I agree with LShaver's de-rating of your freezer from 220 to 365 KwH/year (1 KWH/day). That's because you're opening the door *far more often* than expected, making ice, and it's a vertical unit.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Converting water to ice (both at 0C) involves a *phase transition*. Those, themselves, store heat energy.  That's why it takes a long time on the stove for water to go from 99C (liquid) to 101C (vapor).  The ice-water transition stores 92.7 watt-hours (334kJ) of heat energy per 1kg of water.  The liquid water to vapor transition stores a whopping 627 watt-hours  (2260kJ) of heat energy per 1kg. Vapor to ice takes (add 'em up) 720 watt-hours (2594kJ).   It's more efficient than that, because freezers *pump* heat, not make it.  But it's still costly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you make 5kg of ice a day, you are *moving* 464 watt-hours. Let's wild armwave that your heat pump efficiency is 2:1, so the cost is 232 watt-hours of energy use.  I don't like vertical units because every time you open the door, all the dense, cold air &quot;falls straight down&quot; and is replaced by **humid** warm air.  Nevermind re-chilling the air; *the air is full of water vapor*, and chilling the air obliges pumping away that vapor-ice transition energy. Ouch.  I prefer chest freezers because you don't change air. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that to say, LShaver's dramatic de-rating of your freezer to 1000Wh/day feels right to me. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's another load we haven't discussed, which worries me a lot.  **Inverters have standby &quot;vampire&quot; load**.  Just like a mechanical &quot;rotary converter&quot; has the energy cost of being physically &quot;spun up&quot;, so does an electronic inverter.  Like any vampire load, it is insidious because it's 24x7.  I don't know your unit, but my armwave-rule-of-thumb is 1% of capacity.  That‘s 30 watts X 24 hours that means **720 watt-hours per day**. Holy smoke, that's nearly as much as the freezer!  It would be good to actually measure the inverter, rather than wild-guessing such an important number.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But regardless, an important facet of system design is *spin up inverters as rarely as possible*.   This is one reason I do not like &quot;all-in-one&quot; devices like that inverter+CC.  (This, and they tend to be jacks of all trades rather than masters of one).  Charge controllers don't have vampire loads and should be left on 24x7.  However, inverters should be turned off whenever they are not urgently needed.  So I would want to shut that thing off except a few times a day when needed for the freezer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; *For all I know, you are already doing this, so I will totally exclude inverter numbers from the below calcs.  If your inverter is on 24x7, things will be much worse*.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting it together&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;So your freezer takes 1000Wh/day, and for now let's ignore the difficult-to-quantify inverter losses. Together, you two have concluded that you have *prudent* battery capacity of 1200Wh/day, and I agree. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Um.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, *if the freezer were your only load*, you have 1.2 days of prudent reserve.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hello!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if you have a sunny June day (think December, northern hemisphere folks) with wel-aimed panels and the *equivalent* of 6 hours of full solarization at 600W, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **you only use 2 hours of it and then you dump, dump, dump**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- And then, 20% of the way into your second cloudy day, you cross the &quot;prudent&quot; line of discharge.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means exactly one thing.  **Your panels are fine; your battery is far too small**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I would call that good news, becuase batteries are the cheap part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rule of thumb I learned in eastern USA weather systems is have battery range for 3-5 days of no useful solarization.   You have enough for 1.2 *ignoring inverter losses, and just for the freezer*.   If you triple the size of your battery pack, you now have 3.6 days in the *prudent* range.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know you were reticent to even double it, but the numbers are plainly showing your pack is the choke point.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, with lead-acid batteries, it is fine to dip into the &quot;imprudent&quot; range, as long as you don't do it very often.  So you need to run the numbers, based on your weather patterns, how your weather patterns might change in the batteries' life, and availability of alternate power. Segue: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Generator&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Here I must agree with juhist's advice.  But I am partial to taking a very hard left turn into carbon-neutral fuels, and the top of that list is Waste Vegetable Oil and classical engines like a Lister (being a Commonwealth nation). This does several things for you: It reduces the theft risk, because it's incomprehensible. It reduces cost, while increasing the &quot;eco&quot; appeal of your community.  And the Coolness Factor increases the acceptance of the engine and its noise and smells.   Nobody wants to be around the GRRRRR and diesel stench of a Kubota.  But the Tubba Tubba Tubba and french-fry smell of the Lister makes it a point of pride when people know what it means.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Waste vegetable oil (as opposed to #2 diesel) brings two big benefits: vastly improved lubricity of the fuel, reducing wear on diesels' critical fuel injection pumps, and far-less-toxic exhaust.  But it  creates four challenges: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Particulate (french fry bits) - the cure is filtering.  Not so bad. &#xD;&#xA;- Acidity - this is not in the hydrocarbon/carbohydrate fuel itself, but is in contaminants.  The cure is &quot;washing&quot; the fuel with water, which is ionic and the also-ionic acids will attach to the water and leave with it.  Ignoring it means more corrosion in fuel injection systems, depending on if the fuel is left to stand in the injection system while the engine is off.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Water content - the cure is settling the fuel. Water settles to the bottom of the tank given enough time.  This too can be ignored, at the expense of more fuel injection system maintenance.  &#xD;&#xA;- Viscosity at cool temperatures - the cure is either *transesterification* (making biodiesel, which includes all of the above) or simply warming the pipes and fuel injection system to 40-50C.  Engine heat will do this, the issue is preheating on startup.  This is where a simple, open engine like the classics makes the job a lot easier. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An engine optimized for SVO/WVO will work directly on biodiesel or plain diesel; the preheating will simply be unnecessary. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8468" RevisionGUID="baeaae41-9d73-4d4a-8f2a-8347a2952738" CreationDate="2019-09-06T04:38:42.140" UserId="6925" Text="I want to frame-challenge your assumption that aluminum is a poor choice due to difficulties in recycling.   The linked question refers to &quot;aluminum food packaging&quot; such as soda cans, which is a composite of aluminum and epoxy.  The epoxy is there to protect the aluminum from the food, and the food from the aluminum.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminum foil is a different deal.  And the frame-challenger there is to try to take a tour of your local {recycler | garbage stream} and ask to see their **eddy current separator**.  *You want to know if they have one.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yo, magnets, oh! &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;So *certainly* the recycling stream, and *maybe* the waste stream, go through two interesting process.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, they use magnets in the normal way you would expect, to yank out any *ferrous* metals - basically iron/steel.  That's to keep them out of the next process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, have you ever seen the inside of an AC induction motor?  It has one moving part: a &quot;squirrel cage&quot; made entirely of aluminum.  The fixed windings in the motor create a magnetic field that &quot;spins&quot; at 50/60 Hz.  *what can that do to aluminum?* It can make electrons move *in* the aluminum, creating its own magnetic field which reacts against the first one.  This works so well almost every AC powered motor is this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to our eddy current separator, the garbage is dragged through a strong, spinning magnetic field.  Non-ferrous metals &quot;Jump!&quot; ...while normal trash does not.   At $3/pound for copper, this is worth doing just for the mineral value.  Aluminum comes along as well, and now that they've separated it, it's no trouble to recycle it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2KKmh-CYTg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can freely dump aluminum into any waste stream where this is done.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make it eddy-current friendly&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;The problem is a very thin sheet of aluminum foil may not have the density to pick up the magnetic field, especially if it's been mashed up in your waste stream and attached to other things. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So fold or crush it down into the densest, most compact form that you possibly can.  Make it into an &quot;aluminum nugget&quot;.  Feel free to make a big aluminum ball out of multiple items, but past tennis ball sized, you surely have diminishing returns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metals recycle more efficiently than almost any other substance.  They are, after all, atomic; literally atomic.  Al is an element.  The energy savings in reusing aluminum vs mining bauxite and smelting it is staggering.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8469" RevisionGUID="e9c16214-d2b2-4a88-bf87-8f5156884484" CreationDate="2019-09-06T05:01:29.587" UserId="6925" Text="I'll grant this is just an opinion... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... But you are better off creating a waste stream *that lends itself to recycling*.  Maybe they bury all the 1+2 recyclables (which are chemically the same, just different treatment). *But they bury them together*.  So when the economics change, and it becomes worth digging up 1/2, it is economical to do so, because they are pre-separated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OK, so China doesn't want it.  That may create new opportunities for someone else to say &quot;Hey, I can do something with all that 1+2!&quot; **That opportunity will only arise if there is already a stream of pre-separated 1+2**.  If we all throw in the towel and stop recycling, *and then* somebody finds a process, *and then* they try to get all the apparatus of recycling spun up again (get those blue bins out there, get the double trucks, get the extra warehouses, *and convince everyone to recycle again*) ... well, as you can see, **that'll never happen**.  So the opportunity won't either. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's like when the community says &quot;Oh hey, let's rip up the old railroad track and build houses on it&quot; then 5 years later the community goes &quot;Traffic sucks.  Let's build light rail.&quot;  *Yeah, ummmm...* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20846" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8471" RevisionGUID="14f606fc-b788-4482-9273-c5153052414b" CreationDate="2019-09-06T07:14:01.220" UserId="6925" Text="First, it's pretty easy to remove sugary contaminants from the can *right after you drain it*.  Everything is still wet, and you can just use *dilution* homeopathy style.  If water is an issue in your area,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- get all the liquid out as best you can e.g. By shaking in sink&#xD;&#xA;- add just an ounce or so of water&#xD;&#xA;- cover the hole with your thumb and shake&#xD;&#xA;- repeat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not a big fan of the idea of trying to smelt aluminum *in an apartment setting*.  The biggest problem with melting it is, it is rather aggressive toward oxygen, like &quot;space shuttle solid rocket booster&quot; aggressive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you should be doing any aluminum melting inside a glove box, in which you have removed all the oxygen, e.g. By converting it to CO2 by burning something, or replacing with argon, etc.  Argon will be less reactive than CO2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also contact the garbage company and ask if they do automatic separation of aluminum in the waste stream.  Many garbage companies do - they use an *eddy current separator* to fling the aluminum out of the stream.  Ask them if it helps to crush cans. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20847" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4952" RevisionGUID="fb161d96-927d-4d8f-9e9c-4eed0b18e003" CreationDate="2019-09-06T07:19:31.570" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|life-cycle-analysis|green-it|printing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8472" RevisionGUID="abf16444-7eb4-47fa-892e-3062b850242a" CreationDate="2019-09-06T07:25:45.377" UserId="6925" Text="Inkjets are the Hummer of printers&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you care about the environment, give that inkjet printer to the next person you can find for whom *your gift/sale will prevent them from buying a new inkjet*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inkjet printers are *planet-hateful* products. They are built to be cheap, frequently replaced, throwaway items.  Further, a huge amount of engineering goes into *making it use supplies **as inefficiently** as possible* to maximize the amount of shopping, buying, packaging, shipping, and throwing away that can be done. This is the dark side of capitalism --  **manufacturers get paid only when a physical package is sold at retail**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not exaggerate when I say they are engineered to die young.  Because when you must throw your inkjet in the trash, you must also toss a set of cartridges that are on average 50% full, along with any spares you bought.  They make a fair effort to assure your next inkjet won't use your last one's cartridges. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And you probably know the &quot;starter&quot; ink cartridges that come with inkjet printers are only partially filled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bulky inkjet+scanner+copier combos&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another wretchedly wasteful product is the inkjet+scanner+copier.   It has all the problems of a cheap inkjet, with a cheap, inferior scanner also bolted on.  When either one breaks, the entire *very bulky* carcass goes in the trash.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas I find individual standalone scanners (such as the petite CanoScans) to be very reliable, having gotten 15 years of service out of my first (I wore out the mechanism with over 5000 scans).  The Canoscan *doesn't even have a power brick*; it makes do with the energy budget of a standard USB port. It does have a &quot;copy&quot; button on the front panel, which will signal its software to auto-scan and print the result on your default printer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Laser printers are excellent, *but beware consumer models*...&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Laser printers last a lot longer.  And their toner cartridges genuinely are reused/remanufactured/refilled; that's not a gimmick.  They also don't &quot;dry out&quot;; I've stepped away from a laser for **2 years** and it starts right back up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are *consumer-tier* laser printers on the market, typically in the $100-200 range, with pricey toner cartridges.  While they are head and shoulders above inkjets, **they still suffer from the same crass manipulation to assure maximum sales of packaged items**.  My consumer-tier HP Laserjet is a neat little machine that's lasted 7 years with no sign of trouble; however when it does break, a parts stream is almost nonexistent. *But, this model differs from the previous model in one key way: it uses a different model of toner cartridge whose toner compartment was made half the size.  I don't mean the &quot;starter&quot; toner cart, I mean all of them.  I was appalled when I found that out.  The toner cartridge *isn't* half the price, of course; the whole point was to get full-boat for the cartridge twice as often.  And it works.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For best performance, enterprise printers. &#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Different deal** when you step up into **enterprise printers** - the kind found in universities, midsize businesses, hospitals, etc.  These corporations, or their consulting companies, research the *total life-cycle cost of ownership* of their stuff.  The printer manufacturers know the &quot;cheap razor, expensive blades&quot; game won't work on these enterprises. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So they really make the printers as good as they can be, they *don't* subsidize the printers, and they price the cartridges sensibly - they're still expensive, but they hold a serious amount of toner.  Also, the large printers are built to be maintained -- normal wearing parts like rollers, separation pads, coronas, fusers, etc. are readily available and easy to swap, even on 10-year-old printers.  Often it can be done without any tools at all!  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Enterprises also have zero tolerance for onboard security electronics that printer makers put on their cartridges to prevent third party refills.  Those are not seen on enterprise printers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These beasts are now my mainstay. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may not be keen on spending $450 on an *new* enterprise laser.  However, I make a point to peruse my local university surplus stores.  I typically score perfectly serviceable used lasers for $25 or $50.  *And the very fact that the university owns hundreds of them speaks for their satisfaction with the model*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This also means a new printer is not manufactured. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I buy 1 toner cartridge every couple of years, mainly because the toner clumps and doesn't transfer well anymore.  And it's a refilled toner off Amazon, and I take my oldie in to Office Depot to be recycled. (Who resells it to the refilling industry). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might think &quot;oh, that surplus printer is obsolete&quot; - maybe, I did buy some of them 6 years ago, *but then I keep running into that very same model in use in hospitals, government offices and businesses today*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8474" RevisionGUID="5c499229-def2-49ed-83fd-84d4f5226735" CreationDate="2019-09-09T04:02:15.327" UserId="6933" Text="Natural gas is a waste product. It's &quot;cost&quot; is almost entirely profit. All renewables can do is compete down this margin, they can never beat gas. If renewables are cheaper that just means some competition/profit issue and not the actual production cost of the energy source. Has this been accounted in any way by LCOE or is it ignored?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20854" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8474" RevisionGUID="5c499229-def2-49ed-83fd-84d4f5226735" CreationDate="2019-09-09T04:02:15.327" UserId="6933" Text="Is the cost of non fossil fuel LCOE misleading?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20855" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8474" RevisionGUID="5c499229-def2-49ed-83fd-84d4f5226735" CreationDate="2019-09-09T04:02:15.327" UserId="6933" Text="|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8475" RevisionGUID="799ef270-e3ad-4679-b049-8b429fa6d947" CreationDate="2019-09-09T04:24:39.427" UserId="6934" Text="Does anyone know how they used to sell orange squash before plastic bottles were invented? (Or perhaps no-one did?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if there was a ban on disposable plastic, how would orange squash be sold? In c an perhaps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20857" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8475" RevisionGUID="799ef270-e3ad-4679-b049-8b429fa6d947" CreationDate="2019-09-09T04:24:39.427" UserId="6934" Text="How to sell orange sqash without plastic bottles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20858" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8475" RevisionGUID="799ef270-e3ad-4679-b049-8b429fa6d947" CreationDate="2019-09-09T04:24:39.427" UserId="6934" Text="|plastic-alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8476" RevisionGUID="3407f493-1bf9-48cb-bf59-c1b0e8e474e2" CreationDate="2019-09-09T07:52:25.037" UserId="99" Text="There are multiple ways in which natural gas is extracted. One is as a by-product of oil extraction so in that sense you could regard it as a 'free' extra. However you still need to [process](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-gas_processing) and transport the gas, perhaps also store it, and those costs are certainly not negligible. This is even more so for extraction from natural gas fields and shale gas where gas production is the core activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are different estimates for the LCOE of energy sources. One of the more optimistic ones is that of [Lazard consulting company](https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/) who have been saying that wind energy is competitive with or even outperforming natural gas since 2014. While not everyone agrees with this right now, it is clear that costs of renewables are still declining. Costs of natural gas on the other hand are expected to increase slowly as reserves decline and more challenging gas fields are put into production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recent forecasts suggest that it may be cheaper to build new renewables+storage than to continue operating existing natural gas plants by 2035.&#xD;&#xA;([source](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/13/17551878/natural-gas-markets-renewable-energy))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By 2023, we think solar’s going to be cheaper than gas almost everywhere around the world ([source](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-plants-cheaper-than-natural-gas-just-about-everywhere-by-2023-woodmac))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also keep in mind that costs are just one aspect. We are not including the environmental impact of natural gas. Even though natural gas is the cleanest of all non-renewables, but it still contributes to rising CO2-levels and many countries are committed to the Paris agreement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8474" RevisionGUID="f6ae8386-2c4a-4adf-a63d-b8bcdfbcce5f" CreationDate="2019-09-09T07:55:29.617" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added more relevant tags" Text="Natural gas is a waste product. Its &quot;cost&quot; is almost entirely profit. All renewables can do is compete down this margin, they can never beat gas. If renewables are cheaper that just means some competition/profit issue and not the actual production cost of the energy source. Has this been accounted in any way by LCOE or is it ignored?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20864" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8474" RevisionGUID="f6ae8386-2c4a-4adf-a63d-b8bcdfbcce5f" CreationDate="2019-09-09T07:55:29.617" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added more relevant tags" Text="Is the cost of non-fossil fuel LCOE misleading?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20865" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8474" RevisionGUID="f6ae8386-2c4a-4adf-a63d-b8bcdfbcce5f" CreationDate="2019-09-09T07:55:29.617" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, added more relevant tags" Text="|energy|renewables|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20866" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8476" RevisionGUID="9ca8d6cb-5483-49ee-99c8-da60ba8d8849" CreationDate="2019-09-09T12:22:21.290" UserId="99" Comment="elaborated on LCOE + added link to wikipedia" Text="There are multiple ways in which natural gas is extracted. One is as a by-product of oil extraction so in that sense you could regard it as a 'free' extra. However you still need to [process](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-gas_processing) and transport the gas, perhaps also store it, and those costs are certainly not negligible. This is even more so for natural gas fields and shale gas where gas production is the core activity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are different estimates for the [levelized cost of energy (LCOE)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source) for various energy sources. LCOE calculations not only include fuel costs, but also  generator operation costs and maintenance which applies to all energy sources; renewable and non-renewable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the more optimistic LCOE for renewables is that of [Lazard consulting company](https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/) who have been saying that wind energy is competitive with or even outperforming natural gas since 2014. While not everyone agrees with this already, it is clear that costs of renewables are still declining. Costs of natural gas on the other hand are expected to increase slowly as reserves decline and more challenging gas fields are put into production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recent forecasts suggest that it may be cheaper to build new renewables+storage than to continue operating existing natural gas plants by 2035.&#xD;&#xA;([source](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/13/17551878/natural-gas-markets-renewable-energy))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By 2023, we think solar’s going to be cheaper than gas almost everywhere around the world ([source](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-plants-cheaper-than-natural-gas-just-about-everywhere-by-2023-woodmac))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also keep in mind that production costs are just one aspect. It does not include the environmental impact of natural gas. Even though natural gas is the cleanest of all non-renewables, it still contributes to rising CO2-levels. Since many countries are committed to the Paris agreement, they are likely to reduce or phase out natural gas in the long run." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20868" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8445" RevisionGUID="b68bbf4b-e73e-4cb1-ae64-4c912a4ab2bc" CreationDate="2019-09-09T21:00:00.653" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1171166387961810944" />
  <row Id="20869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="8bf7aeb0-9801-49f6-91b6-685a427ba109" CreationDate="2019-09-09T21:22:23.747" UserId="2763" Text="I want to recycle as much food packaging plastic films as possible (I'm willing to clean and dry them). As far as I know, food packaging films are only made from 3 types of plastic: polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Only PE is recyclable and collected by grocery stores. I can identify PVC film because it sinks in water, but I'm having trouble with the other two types. I only know of one theoretical difference: PE makes a soft rustling noise when crumpled, while PP makes loud crackling noises. This is not helpful in practice because I've seen thick PE film make noises that are just as loud of PP film. Are there any other ways to tell them apart, using only common household objects?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think thin PE film is also stretchier than thin PP film, but I think thick PE film is non-stretchy, so that doesn't help either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The films I'm specifically interested in are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Vacuum meat and poultry packaging, like the thick bags whole turkeys and pork ribs come in&#xD;&#xA;* Vacuum bags for individual frozen seafood portions, like salmon fillets&#xD;&#xA;* Vacuum packaging for dairy products, e.g. fresh mozzarella and Parmesan wedges&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I'm on the subject, suppose a film _is_ PE; is there any other reason it may not be recyclable? I know frozen vegetable bags can't be recycled because they have a low-temperature additive. I also know stickers and anything that isn't PE need to be removed. Anything else I should watch out for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20870" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="8bf7aeb0-9801-49f6-91b6-685a427ba109" CreationDate="2019-09-09T21:22:23.747" UserId="2763" Text="Distinguishing between polyethylene and polypropylene plastic films" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20871" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="8bf7aeb0-9801-49f6-91b6-685a427ba109" CreationDate="2019-09-09T21:22:23.747" UserId="2763" Text="|recycling|food|plastic|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20872" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="b9f67db4-a7e0-4f88-ada3-44296ba19877" CreationDate="2019-09-09T21:27:51.483" UserId="2763" Comment="edited title" Text="Distinguishing between polyethylene and polypropylene plastic food packaging for recycling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8478" RevisionGUID="29d9edee-b420-40b9-b965-1b480ecff9c6" CreationDate="2019-09-10T15:55:31.547" UserId="5477" Text="PP and PE are the same chemical family . olefins.  So they can be recycled similarly. There is probably more difference between high density PE and low density PE than between PE and PP. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="20874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="8479" RevisionGUID="f5ae8539-811d-4227-be7b-8e215edbb88a" CreationDate="2019-09-10T20:39:12.823" UserId="6858" Text="Contrary to the common mantra of &quot;reduce, reuse, recycle&quot;, aluminium is best recycled instead of reused in a household setting. The reason for this is that demand for aluminium currently far outstrips the available quantity in the market, even at theoretically a 100% recycling rate. Thus, repurposing aluminium cans for things such as pen holders actually reduces the aluminium available in the market and leads a greater primary production.&#xA;&#xA;Aluminium has legitimate uses in construction and transportation vehicles due to low weight and high durability, whereas it is substituted more easily for other materials in consumer goods. The best course of action is therefore indeed to reduce first - see whether you can buy drinks in refundable bottles, for instance - and to make sure all aluminium you still have or do still buy goes back into the market cycle, where it can be used for more important applications than pen holders in the future. &#xA;&#xA;When it comes to this second step, by the way, there's not much you can do wrong. Because of its high value, it's extremely likely that aluminium is filtered out of your trash already; recycling rates for aluminium are over 90% in many countries. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21876" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8456" RevisionGUID="0d544546-6a03-4a5e-80c7-beb1312d9871" CreationDate="2019-09-11T12:00:00.923" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1171755269602328599" />
  <row Id="21877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9480" RevisionGUID="a31d56a8-4eb5-4fb1-aeb5-a0eb5ff48aac" CreationDate="2019-09-12T13:43:23.737" UserId="1529" Text="As a step to reduce my waste I planned to make a [tawashi][1] to replace artificial dishwashing sponges. I had a t-shirt not suitable to be donated, waiting to be upcycled, so I made t-shirt yarn out of it and started creating the tawashi. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the yarn creation and the weaving process my hands and clothes got full of tiny bits of t-shirt &quot;dust&quot;. Although I am ready with the final product, I am not really convinced it is a good idea using it. If the small bits and pieces keep coming off while I wash the dishes, all of them will get into the water stream. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can I do to reduce the (micro)fibers detached from the tawashi? My first guess is that nothing, but I hope someone has a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is better? To use it and throw it out at the end of its life cycle, or rather not use it at all, to avoid the small bits getting into the water system? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk8hrYxOLtU" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21878" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9480" RevisionGUID="a31d56a8-4eb5-4fb1-aeb5-a0eb5ff48aac" CreationDate="2019-09-12T13:43:23.737" UserId="1529" Text="Is Tawashi really suitable for dishwashing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21879" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9480" RevisionGUID="a31d56a8-4eb5-4fb1-aeb5-a0eb5ff48aac" CreationDate="2019-09-12T13:43:23.737" UserId="1529" Text="|waste|reuse|diy|pollution|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9481" RevisionGUID="6d2a84fa-5804-4585-951b-1759f1e6f55f" CreationDate="2019-09-12T13:50:44.477" UserId="1529" Text="Depends a lot on where you live, but if you have the possibility to refill your own glass bottle, then I would call that the most sustainable option. In this part of Europe (Hungary/Romania) there are machines like this one, locals call them &quot;iron cows&quot;. The milk comes from local farmers, but it is collected and tested by a company. The price of a liter is around 2/3 of a liter in the stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8E3zu.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9482" RevisionGUID="ace32755-55f0-47b1-8296-e47daee5b2af" CreationDate="2019-09-12T15:07:36.750" UserId="7943" Text="I am replying to a necrothread here, but as this is one of the first hits that came up in Google, I'm going to post for future readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number appears to be about 1/2 that mentioned in the answer by EnergyNumbers. According to [this calculator][1], the number appears to be about half that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They calculate a typical 6&quot; (153mm) cell of 200um thickness (I think they are even less these days) to be 11g. A typical panel is 60 cells, so that would give us about 650g of pSi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern A-class panels run around 350W, so three of those would be needed to hit (just over) 1kW, so in total you'd be looking about 2kg of polysi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www2.pvlighthouse.com.au/calculators/wafer%20calculator/wafer%20calculator.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9482" RevisionGUID="5e53e245-969f-47ed-ad82-b595e6e7904c" CreationDate="2019-09-12T15:13:34.423" UserId="7943" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="I am replying to a necrothread here, but as this is one of the first hits that came up in Google, I'm going to post for future readers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The number for the cell itself appears to be about 1/2 that mentioned in the answer by EnergyNumbers. According to [this calculator][1] at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They calculate a typical 6&quot; (153mm) cell of 200um thickness to be 11g. A typical panel is 60 cells, so that would give us about 650g of pSi. Modern panels are around 350W, so around 2kg of pSi.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, [a 2018 report][2] suggests the average thickness of a modern cell is closer to 175um. But they also report directly, 4g per Wp. So then we can directly calculate 4kg per 1000W of panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think it's safe to say it's somewhere between 2 and 4 kg per kW of panel, and likely closer to the later figure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www2.pvlighthouse.com.au/calculators/wafer%20calculator/wafer%20calculator.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Photovoltaics-Report.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21883" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9483" RevisionGUID="84e3b4c2-9f1e-429d-9270-c176184f352b" CreationDate="2019-09-13T08:31:29.530" UserId="7945" Text="I purchased an Osram Ledvance DoorLED Solar product which charges its own batteries and turns on automatically at nighttime to provide light.  It requires a 7 hour minimum charge time.  When there is no motion, it dispenses light at 20% of its maximum luminance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I installed the product to receive daylight (not direct sunlight) and had it charge for 12 hours.  However, at night, I realized the product had stopped providing light after about 5 hours of use at 20% intensity.  It is placed at a location where I am positive there is no motion to trigger full luminance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Web research I have done indicates that direct sunlight is not required for solar panels and nowhere on the product packaging does it say that direct placement in sunlight is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is direct sunlight a requirement for such solar-powered products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mHu7M.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DHlsn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21884" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9483" RevisionGUID="84e3b4c2-9f1e-429d-9270-c176184f352b" CreationDate="2019-09-13T08:31:29.530" UserId="7945" Text="Do light fixtures with small solar panels require direct sunlight?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21885" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9483" RevisionGUID="84e3b4c2-9f1e-429d-9270-c176184f352b" CreationDate="2019-09-13T08:31:29.530" UserId="7945" Text="|solar-power|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21886" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9480" RevisionGUID="733e0cd8-6cbf-4235-8314-eb256a4a7a7e" CreationDate="2019-09-13T09:00:18.200" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1172434819482976256" />
  <row Id="21887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9484" RevisionGUID="567c5755-ae24-4d76-9e8e-66db57dc8580" CreationDate="2019-09-13T11:12:10.053" UserId="6602" Text="Solar panels receiving indirect sunlight Indirect sunlight produce around 10% to 25% of their optimal output. A solar panel of the size illustrated could optimally churn out around 4W with direct sunlight or 0.4W with indirect sunlight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The website for that light suggests it has a nominal wattage of 3W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So. If you had 12 hours of direct sunlight, you would easily get 12 hours of full luminance LED light. It might even get 16 hours of full luminance if the battery is up to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you are only getting 10% power because of the indirect sunlight, then you'll only get a tenth of that, so 1.6 hours of full luminance. If it runs at 20% luminance then you'll only get 1.6 / 20% hours, which is still a good eight hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I've ignored the battery, the various other power draws and efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seven hours minimum charge time with indirect sunlight isn't going to give you 12 hours of 20% lighting. Its going to give you about five hours, maybe four hours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9484" RevisionGUID="31066ad7-35db-4aa0-a5c9-a0048e746ed6" CreationDate="2019-09-13T11:17:34.620" UserId="6602" Comment="Answering the question" Text="Solar panels receiving indirect sunlight Indirect sunlight produce around 10% to 25% of their optimal output. A solar panel of the size illustrated could optimally churn out around 4W with direct sunlight or 0.4W with indirect sunlight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The website for that light suggests it has a nominal wattage of 3W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So. If you had 12 hours of direct sunlight, you would easily get 12 hours of full luminance LED light. It might even get 16 hours of full luminance if the battery is up to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you are only getting 10% power because of the indirect sunlight, then you'll only get a tenth of that, so 1.6 hours of full luminance. If it runs at 20% luminance then you'll only get 1.6 / 20% hours, which is still a good eight hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I've ignored the battery, the various other power draws and efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That seven hours minimum charge time with indirect sunlight isn't going to give you 12 hours of 20% lighting. Its going to give you about five hours, maybe four hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In answer to the headline question:- Yes, light fixtures with small solar panels require direct sunlight. They'll still work a bit with indirect sunlight, but they won't do everything you expect of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9483" RevisionGUID="0ceb79b4-b821-4099-a4f7-d2782271d3e0" CreationDate="2019-09-13T14:11:25.797" UserId="3379" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="I purchased an [Osram Ledvance DoorLED](https://www.lumitronix.com/en_gb/ledvance-doorled-solar-wall-light-silver-35209.html) Solar product which charges its own batteries and turns on automatically at nighttime to provide light.  It requires a 7 hour minimum charge time.  When there is no motion, it dispenses light at 20% of its maximum luminance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I installed the product to receive daylight (not direct sunlight) and had it charge for 12 hours.  However, at night, I realized the product had stopped providing light after about 5 hours of use at 20% intensity.  It is placed at a location where I am positive there is no motion to trigger full luminance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Web research I have done indicates that direct sunlight is not required for solar panels and nowhere on the product packaging does it say that direct placement in sunlight is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is direct sunlight a requirement for such solar-powered products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mHu7M.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DHlsn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3063" RevisionGUID="f75b9872-e5bf-4cf6-989f-6b9842c1494e" CreationDate="2019-09-15T17:50:19.687" UserId="99" Comment="added green-it tag, fixed typo" Text="It's a little niggling annoyance that always gets me in my office that when I work overtime and leave the office after everyone else I see row upon row of little orange lights where people have turned off their computers but left the monitor switched on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm wondering; are there any estimates for how much power a monitor left in this condition uses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing it is not so much power. But surely more than if you actually turn it off? Or else why is there an off button...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I can get some solid proof of it using energy then I can bravely and anonymously make a poster to remind people to save the planet by turning their screen off! ... or if I get proof that it makes no difference then I can have a load off my mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21895" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3063" RevisionGUID="f75b9872-e5bf-4cf6-989f-6b9842c1494e" CreationDate="2019-09-15T17:50:19.687" UserId="99" Comment="added green-it tag, fixed typo" Text="|electricity|green-it|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9486" RevisionGUID="4820cb31-bb96-4893-a12e-61d643ca8f26" CreationDate="2019-09-15T17:58:23.193" UserId="99" Text="Nowadays monitor manufacturers all give roughly the same numbers when it comes to power consumption in stand-by / active off / power saving mode; **below 0.5 Watt or sometimes below 0.3 Watt.** So assuming people do turn off their computer and their monitor will automatically switch to such a mode, then in theory that is what you will save when you turn the monitor off. But.... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Power off isn't always off&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For quite a bit of monitors it doesn't really matter if you turn it off or not. Let me show you a few random specs I found online (no affiliation to any manufacturer):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[32&quot; Asus LCD UHD monitor](https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ProArt-PA32UC/specifications/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Power Saving Mode: &lt; 0.5W &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Power Off Mode: 0W (Hard Switch)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[27&quot; Dell LCD monitor](https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-24-ultrathin-monitor-s2419hm/apd/210-anyu/monitors-monitor-accessories):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Power Consumption (Active Off) - Less than 0.5W &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Power Consumption (Switched off) - Less than 0.3W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[28&quot; Samsung QLED UHD monitor](https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/uhd-and-wqhd/28--uh750-uhd-monitor-with-quantum-dot-lu28h750uqnxza/#specs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Power Consumption (Stand-by): 0.45W &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Max Stand By Power (DPMS)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;: 0.45W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 &quot;Energy consumed by a monitor while off or in sleep mode, as per Display Power Management Signaling&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Samsung monitor it doesn't matter if you turn it off or not, and this monitor isn't an exception. I found various monitors from different manufacturers that do exactly the same. Bottom-line is that you'll have to check your monitor's power consumption specs and/or you may need to get a kill-switch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How much will you save?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume that the actual power consumption of your monitor is 0.45W in stand-by mode and that you have a hard power-off switch. Now the number of hours people work varies per country. [This Worldatlas article](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/average-working-time-by-country.html) lists 1371 working hours for Germany and 2246 for Mexico as low-end and high-end numbers, so let's take (2246 + 1371) / 2 = 1809 hours per year as an average. A year has 364.25 * 24 = 8742 hours in total, so the calculation is (8742 -1809) * 0.45 / 1000 = **3.1 kiloWatt of energy saved per year** for turning 1 monitor off after every work day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="c6cd27d8-dfa8-421b-bdc1-325167032419" CreationDate="2019-09-15T22:13:07.617" UserId="3379" Text="[This answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/3079/3379) to a question on computer power use suggests that computers last longer when they are not frequently shut down. The answer is from 2014, and I do remember hearing this advice in the past. I'm wondering if this is true today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it &quot;better&quot; (in any way) to leave a computer in low power mode all the time?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine a typical office scenario, with a desktop computer, used for up to eight hours every day, five days a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The exact definition of &quot;better&quot; could vary, including such factors as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Total energy usage&#xD;&#xA; - Maintenance costs&#xD;&#xA; - Lifetime of the equipment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if leaving the computer on all the time uses more energy, but doubles the life-span, this would likely be better from a sustainability standpoint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21898" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="c6cd27d8-dfa8-421b-bdc1-325167032419" CreationDate="2019-09-15T22:13:07.617" UserId="3379" Text="Is it better to leave your computer on?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21899" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9487" RevisionGUID="c6cd27d8-dfa8-421b-bdc1-325167032419" CreationDate="2019-09-15T22:13:07.617" UserId="3379" Text="|energy-use|computing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="587ffe41-4cc6-4f49-a76f-75d85d866836" CreationDate="2019-09-16T00:01:58.670" UserId="7952" Text="What are the net benefits to clearing a plot of trees, or grass to install solar panels?&#xD;&#xA;Isn’t it better to install the panels over parking lots? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21901" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="587ffe41-4cc6-4f49-a76f-75d85d866836" CreationDate="2019-09-16T00:01:58.670" UserId="7952" Text="Solar Panel Placement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21902" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="587ffe41-4cc6-4f49-a76f-75d85d866836" CreationDate="2019-09-16T00:01:58.670" UserId="7952" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9489" RevisionGUID="099d2621-2de1-4a21-99b3-0cc50108a81d" CreationDate="2019-09-16T00:47:03.487" UserId="7952" Text="This is obviously a difficult question.  In fact it’s probably more difficult than you state because you do not indicate either a time frame or a target population number, both of which are necessary to frame a response.  So a more complete question should be to ask.... How can we ethically get to X population by Y date.  But then you have basked additional questions, “How few?” And “By when?”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to be controversial and throw out some of my own thoughts (unsubstantiated due to time and space concerns) and to limit it to just the USA.  For now I have to leave all “Whys?” aside.  If you are curious google “Al Bartlett.”  Here goes my modified but more complete question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“How do we ethically get the USA population down to 150 million, as soon as possible? “&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USA population is already declining except the decline is being off-set by immigration resulting in a net population increase.  The reason for immigration is to support the idea we require an ever growing economy.  That nothing can grow forever should be prima ca is obvious, yet we take it as gospel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 2 is to realize we need to shrink, degrow, the economy.  That will sting no doubt but is necessary.  It can be partially off set by Artificial Intelligence IF we shift our taxation from employee base to production base.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 3 is to drastically limit immigration until we get below the target number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Step 4 is to remove tax incentives for families, child deductions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;STEP 1 Is a massive public education program that describes the problem and the dangers should we not deal with it.  Not unlike the anti-smoking and anti-alcohol campaigns.  We need to start treating the public like mature adults and telling the truth.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously I am leaving out great swaths of explanation, of necessity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9490" RevisionGUID="bda88251-9da2-448f-a921-b8458c2cf400" CreationDate="2019-09-16T14:27:08.017" UserId="2846" Text="It undoubtedly uses more energy to leave a computer on than to turn it off.  A PC will draw a few hundred Watts when on, compared to a few Watts powered down but plugged in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest hardware failure issue (and the one in the accepted answer to the linked question) tends to be hard drives, potentially leading to data loss as well as the need for hardware replacement. This is much more of an issue with spinning-disc hard drives than solid state drives.  Even then an HDD would be unlikely to fail during the typical lifetime of a PC, so it's more of an issue for big server systems with many (heavily-used) drives.  Desktops and all but the smallest laptops have replaceable hard drives, so you wouldn't need to replace the whole PC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other components *shouldn't* have likely failure modes from power-cycling, though it's not completely unknown for desktop power supplies to die after a few years and they tend to demonstrate this by failing to start (but that still doesn't mean frequent restarting causes the failure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So theory would suggest you're always better turning it off.  Turning off can also remove some chances for accidental damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice: I've had desktop PCs of my own for a little over 20 years, and work-issue desktops for almost as long.  Unless banned by the employer or using the machine for a long task I shut down overnight - so that's over 10000 overnight shutdowns. I've only had a few hardware failures over that time, and none that could be blamed on power-cycling as such.  Most were accidental damage\*, but I had one motherboard that killed power supplies coming out of standby (but not from cold boot, so powering off arguably *saved* hardware) and that was over 15 years ago.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Dropping a powered-on machine can be bad for an active disc drive even if nothing else is broken so powering down (or using standby) is likely to save hardware.  Spilling beer/coffee on stuff isn't good for it whether on or off; you may damage more components if you spill drinks on something  that's powered up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9491" RevisionGUID="6adcb074-197f-460a-82e7-0770b8ffa14c" CreationDate="2019-09-16T14:51:19.877" UserId="99" Text="Yes, from a sustainability point of view it's better to place solar panels over parking lots because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. You save trees that can continue to absorb CO2 and provide a home for insects and possibly other animals.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The panels will provide shade to cars parked underneath thus reducing the need for aircon in those cars when they drive off.&#xD;&#xA; 3. The panels absorb solar radiation and reduce the '[heat island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island)' effect of the parking lot during the day (although during the night the panels will hold heat a bit more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main disadvantages are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. It is much more expensive to set this up because you need a solid construction that will hold the solar panels.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The construction most likely uses steel which has a large environmental impact for its production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW [this Washington Post article](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/28/the-best-idea-in-a-long-time-covering-parking-lots-with-solar-panels) also sums up the main pros and cons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21906" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="0407e24e-8ab8-4c16-9f35-6da1ad9113d1" CreationDate="2019-09-16T14:54:23.997" UserId="99" Comment="improved question title" Text="Pros and cons of solar panels over a parking lot?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21907" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="82ff1aec-5ed9-4430-8479-3f0f936a3e61" CreationDate="2019-09-17T09:00:03.537" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1173884309008257024" />
  <row Id="21908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9492" RevisionGUID="c8e50719-2c2d-4584-81e0-394845ad9a14" CreationDate="2019-09-17T13:04:56.550" UserId="7958" Text="I followed the above instructions (which I got from Kidde directly BEFORE finding this article), waited the &quot;2 to 4 weeks&quot; for a response and... nothing.  No response either way.  I then called another 800 number from their web site and was assured they would accept them back if they came in the mail marked disposal.  My guess is that Kidde wants you to throw them in the trash and hopes they can frustrate the end user to the point where they give up and do just that.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Local (or federal) governments need to crack down and stiffen regulations.  (I'm normally very anti-regulation.)  Americium 241 has a half life of 432+ years.  Is it not irresponsible to introduce this into the environment where in 16+ generations they will still be dealing with its affects?  Kidde wants to sell the effective detectors but does not want to accept the long term cost.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9492" RevisionGUID="07bf976b-c774-42a8-b35d-b4dabd0f7d6c" CreationDate="2019-09-17T14:39:37.670" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Removed all opinions" Text="I followed the above instructions (which I got from Kidde directly BEFORE finding this article), waited the &quot;2 to 4 weeks&quot; for a response and... nothing.  No response either way.  I then called another 800 number from their web site and was assured they would accept them back if they came in the mail marked disposal. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21911" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9493" RevisionGUID="3f39cfd2-6aa0-4d71-a68d-fe3dfa691cfd" CreationDate="2019-09-19T18:52:00.490" UserId="3379" Text="### Cruise emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Carnival's 2018 sustainability performance summary](http://carnivalsustainability.com/download-files/2018-carnival-sustainability-performance-summary.pdf), their ships released **251 grams CO2e per ALB-km**. ALB-km is a measure like passenger kilometer, but in this case refers to &quot;available lower berth&quot; ([source](https://www.sasb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/SV0205_Cruise_ProvisionalStandard.pdf)), which typically has capacity for two passengers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we generously assume a 20% improvement from the switch to LNG, emissions would drop to 200 g CO2e/ALB-km, or **100 g CO2e per passenger km.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Flight emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emissions for air travel is slightly more complicated, because it depends on the distance and type of aircraft. However, the United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization provides a [carbon emissions calculator](https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Carbonoffset/Pages/default.aspx) where you can set the flight parameters that most directly affect emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The myClimate foundation, a Swiss non-profit, provides an alternate [flight emissions calculator](https://co2.myclimate.org/en/flight_calculators/new), which includes an estimate of the [non-CO2 impacts of flying](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/av-en-1.pdf). The specific impact of these effects is still being worked out, but this calculator includes a conservative estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cozumel, Mexico, is a popular Caribbean cruise destination. There are also regularly scheduled direct flights from Miami, USA, so it makes for a good comparison. It's a round trip flight of 1,792 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ICAO calculator: 266 kg CO2, or **148 g CO2 per passenger km**&#xD;&#xA; - [myClimate calculator](https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=2532227): 0.400 mt CO2e, or **222 g CO2e per passenger km**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 126 g CO2e per passenger-km, a conventional cruise ship is already better than the lower estimate of 148 g for flying, and has about half the impact of the higher estimate of 222 g. Thus, any improvement in cruise ship efficiency from a switch to LNG, while welcome, is superfluous -- it was already better than flying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Leaks in natural gas infrastructure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big &quot;however&quot; here, when comparing any fuel to natural gas, is that [recent studies indicate leaks in natural gas infrastructure have been underestimated for years](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/7000/3379), and [methane (the chief component of natural gas) as a greenhouse gas is 34 times more potent than CO2 on a 100-year timescale](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/87/3379).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So switching from diesel to natural gas might actually be worse from a life-cycle emissions perspective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="4230e94c-8cbd-4052-adcd-9bcba2c51722" CreationDate="2019-09-20T07:23:43.647" UserId="7965" Text="I searched [Google][1] only to come up with various results with different views. Is there any official or reliable source that states the impacts of keeping the WiFi Router turned on over Environment, Carbon Footprint and personal Health?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=can%20i%20keep%20my%20router%20on%20all%20the%20time&amp;rlz=1C1CHZL_enIN867IN867&amp;oq=can%20i%20keep%20router%20on&amp;aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.5055j0j7&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21915" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="4230e94c-8cbd-4052-adcd-9bcba2c51722" CreationDate="2019-09-20T07:23:43.647" UserId="7965" Text="Are there any adverse impacts if I keep WiFi router on all time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21916" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="4230e94c-8cbd-4052-adcd-9bcba2c51722" CreationDate="2019-09-20T07:23:43.647" UserId="7965" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9496" RevisionGUID="92633a77-d4a7-4ba2-aa8e-2604b8363cc5" CreationDate="2019-09-20T12:47:11.067" UserId="7966" Text="I buy a lot of cottage cheese. There are two kinds of packagings available: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **paper** wrappings, which I buy one piece a day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **plastic** bag, of which one pack is enough for two days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that I can't really recycle either of them effectively as they are greasy with the food, which kind of packaging results in lower environmental impact?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21920" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9496" RevisionGUID="92633a77-d4a7-4ba2-aa8e-2604b8363cc5" CreationDate="2019-09-20T12:47:11.067" UserId="7966" Text="Paper packaging once a day or plastic every second day?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21921" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9496" RevisionGUID="92633a77-d4a7-4ba2-aa8e-2604b8363cc5" CreationDate="2019-09-20T12:47:11.067" UserId="7966" Text="|environmental-impact|plastic|paper|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9493" RevisionGUID="3c315fdf-ec93-4fec-9767-cb8d30e13038" CreationDate="2019-09-20T13:47:55.240" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 45 characters in body" Text="### Cruise emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Carnival's 2018 sustainability performance summary](http://carnivalsustainability.com/download-files/2018-carnival-sustainability-performance-summary.pdf), their ships released **251 grams CO2e per ALB-km**. ALB-km is a measure like passenger kilometer, but in this case refers to &quot;available lower berth&quot; ([source](https://www.sasb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/SV0205_Cruise_ProvisionalStandard.pdf)), which typically has capacity for two passengers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we generously assume a 20% improvement from the switch to LNG, emissions would drop to 200 g CO2e/ALB-km, or **100 g CO2e per passenger km.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Flight emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emissions for air travel is more complicated, because it depends on the distance and type of aircraft, among other factors. I found two different calculators that take these factors into account. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The [ICAO carbon emissions calculator](https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Carbonoffset/Pages/default.aspx) from the **United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization**.&#xD;&#xA; - The [flight emissions calculator](https://co2.myclimate.org/en/flight_calculators/new) from the **myClimate Foundation**, a Swiss non-profit. In contrast to the ICAO, this calculator includes an estimate of the [non-CO2 impacts of flying](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/av-en-1.pdf). The specific impact of these effects is still being worked out, but this calculator includes a conservative estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cozumel, Mexico, is a popular Caribbean cruise destination. There are also regularly scheduled direct flights from Miami, USA, so it makes for a good comparison. It's a round trip flight of 1,792 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ICAO calculator: 266 kg CO2, or **148 g CO2 per passenger km**&#xD;&#xA; - myClimate calculator: 0.400 mt CO2e, or **222 g CO2e per passenger km**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 126 g CO2e per passenger-km, a conventional cruise ship is already better than the lower estimate of 148 g for flying, and has about half the impact of the higher estimate of 222 g. Thus, any improvement in cruise ship efficiency from a switch to LNG, while welcome, is superfluous -- it was already better than flying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Leaks in natural gas infrastructure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big &quot;however&quot; here, when comparing any fuel to natural gas, is that [recent studies indicate leaks in natural gas infrastructure have been underestimated for years](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/7000/3379), and [methane (the chief component of natural gas) as a greenhouse gas is 34 times more potent than CO2 on a 100-year timescale](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/87/3379).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So switching from diesel to natural gas might actually be worse from a life-cycle emissions perspective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9497" RevisionGUID="d798bd43-0e6f-4d94-a211-40f14e50459a" CreationDate="2019-09-20T13:50:37.043" UserId="4155" Text="According to [this link][1], an average router will use 6w. Leaving it on all the time will therefore use approximately 0.14kWh per day - about the same as using a 60W laptop for 2.4 hours, or boiling a kettle once.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it will make a tiny difference if you turn it off, there are many other things you can do that will save a lot more energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://energyusecalculator.com/electricity_wifirouter.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21924" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="5a5f37fa-c6b0-49c2-9911-4adfcc551211" CreationDate="2019-09-20T15:53:01.527" />
  <row Id="21925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="1bdac7b0-2900-4437-a516-c8a9f1d8be76" CreationDate="2019-09-20T16:07:30.487" UserId="3379" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I searched [Google][1] only to come up with various results with different views. Is there any official or reliable source that states the impacts of keeping the WiFi router on regarding environmental impact, carbon footprint and personal health impacts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=can%20i%20keep%20my%20router%20on%20all%20the%20time&amp;rlz=1C1CHZL_enIN867IN867&amp;oq=can%20i%20keep%20router%20on&amp;aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.5055j0j7&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21926" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="1bdac7b0-2900-4437-a516-c8a9f1d8be76" CreationDate="2019-09-20T16:07:30.487" UserId="3379" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|computing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9499" RevisionGUID="ddc4c29d-c757-4f4d-be6a-b3e2602f2e43" CreationDate="2019-09-21T16:40:03.290" UserId="2941" Text="I live in Europe (Belgium), where tap water is generally safe for drinking, but may vary in hardness and taste. It's pretty hard and not so good in my area, so I've been using (Brita) water jugs for a while now. I find this unpractical as somehow the jug is always empty when you need it, and it does not seem very ecological as it requires changing the (plastic-cased) filter every month or so, and the jug itself is not really durable, so I'm now looking into alternatives that are at least equally effective but more sustainable, preferably in the form of a small filter with an extra tap for drinking water, or a filter that can be mounted to the tap directly (Brita sells that as well, with slightly longer lasting filters, but you still end up buying and throwing away a lot of plastics). Physical space is a constraint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did some research but I find it hard to find independent and scientifically reliable information on this topic: basically every producer seems to propose the &quot;ideal&quot; solution and claims that everything else is bad for you and/or the environment. Here's the little I learnt, divided by filtering purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; **For softening** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   - the most reliable approach seems to be based on ion-exchange, using salt whose Na+ replaces the Ca+ in the water. However this takes a lot of space which we don't have, the salt has to be replaced periodically, and I'm not sure of the impact of using that much salt on the environment; moreover, [comments to this answer][1] raise doubts on its impact on human health.&#xD;&#xA;   - an approach based on Zinc: supposedly you just cascade a small zinc-releasing pipe into your main pipe, and it softens your water during several years (I somehow find this one hard to believe) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For filtering** potentially harmful residuals, aside from Brita(-like) solutions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I found one product combining ceramic, silver, active carbon, and a cellulose filter which claims to remove a lot of contaminants, which is reasonably small and requires changing the filter every 8k liters&#xD;&#xA;- This product optionally includes a [zeolite][2] filter for removing &quot;heavy metals&quot;, but these are reasonably scarce in our tap water, and the filter is based on Na+ ion exchange: in this case there's no salt to replace but the health concern remains. Moreover, zeolites contain aluminum (however this may simply not be an issue if it stays bound in the filter) &#xD;&#xA;- Other alternatives on the market are based on &quot;energisation&quot; and &quot;water memory&quot;, all of which sounds like new age mumbo jumbo to me (but thanks for proving me wrong) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For sterilization** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I trust my provider to kill bacteria and co., so I'm not interested in sterilizing the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4542/2941&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeolite" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21932" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9499" RevisionGUID="ddc4c29d-c757-4f4d-be6a-b3e2602f2e43" CreationDate="2019-09-21T16:40:03.290" UserId="2941" Text="What are the most sustainable options for filtering tap water for drinking?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21933" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9499" RevisionGUID="ddc4c29d-c757-4f4d-be6a-b3e2602f2e43" CreationDate="2019-09-21T16:40:03.290" UserId="2941" Text="|water|water-management|health|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9501" RevisionGUID="7af393f4-7abc-49c9-a616-be6a3fbd0466" CreationDate="2019-09-22T16:55:11.837" UserId="7975" Text="I've been putting in the recycling bin all our &quot;sparkling water,&quot; &quot;mineral water,&quot; and unflavored Canada Dry cans.  But then I wondered if I could return them to the grocery store for deposits.  Apparently not -- New York State says if there's a deposit, that information needs to be clearly displayed on the can; the can makes no mention of a deposit.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is there no deposit on these cans?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of such a can:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![sparkling water can][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in New York state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0w9pF.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21938" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9501" RevisionGUID="7af393f4-7abc-49c9-a616-be6a3fbd0466" CreationDate="2019-09-22T16:55:11.837" UserId="7975" Text="Why don't mineral water cans carry a deposit label?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21939" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9501" RevisionGUID="7af393f4-7abc-49c9-a616-be6a3fbd0466" CreationDate="2019-09-22T16:55:11.837" UserId="7975" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9502" RevisionGUID="d89a2787-a2bd-4ef3-bad7-48c45056664b" CreationDate="2019-09-22T19:07:28.823" UserId="3379" Text="Are you sure it doesn't? In sparkling water cans, sometimes the deposit label is stamped on the top (from a sparkling water I'm about to enjoy):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has a list of [&quot;Frequently Asked Questions About the Bottle Bill&quot;](https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/57687.html) which confirms that there is a deposit for these types of beverage cans (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What beverages are covered by NY’s Bottle Bill?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Carbonated Soft Drinks&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Including **Sparkling Water**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Carbonated Energy Drinks&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Carbonated Juice (anything less than 100% juice, containing added sugar or water)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Carbonated Tea&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Soda Water**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Beer and Other Malt Beverages&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Mineral Water – Both carbonated and non-carbonated mineral water**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Wine Products&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Water which does not contain sugar, including flavored or nutritionally enhanced water**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tTk9h.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9503" RevisionGUID="df1d2d0a-bce6-4a37-8a04-24b5e463ccf4" CreationDate="2019-09-22T23:27:50.380" UserId="5300" Text="One option that would allow you to forgo filter disposal altogether, as well as provide you with purified water, would be to use a water distillation unit. &#xD;&#xA;These are available in benchtop models such as [this example][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.h2olabs.co.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21942" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9495" RevisionGUID="e5c25adc-e0f3-4f2d-aab5-d4c0bb3f5291" CreationDate="2019-09-23T03:01:23.377" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1175968373949239296" />
  <row Id="21943" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9499" RevisionGUID="2fe96714-67c8-43a0-91bf-5ccccc0d0eb2" CreationDate="2019-09-23T06:00:02.207" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1176013332274241537" />
  <row Id="21944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9504" RevisionGUID="a705b06e-11ae-4fe7-8ad4-fafdcac18d7e" CreationDate="2019-09-23T19:31:26.073" UserId="3379" Text="*I was looking into this question for a project at work and found some research studies addressing water savings from automated faucets.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Automated faucets result in increased water and energy usage, based on several real-world studies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Increased water usage &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Hills, Birks, and McKenzie, 2002. [&quot;The Millennium Dome 'Watercycle' experiment: to evaluate water efficiency and customer perception at a recycling scheme for 6 million visitors&quot;](https://www.map-testing.com/assets/reports/Millenium_Dome_Watercycle(1).pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though a bit old, this is perhaps the most comprehensive and detailed study. It was conducted at the Millennium Dome, an exhibit in London open for the year 2000 to celebrate the beginning of the new millennium. Over six million people visited the dome over the year it was open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the exhibit included six identical restroom facilities (&quot;cores&quot;), with various evaluation technologies installed to reduce water usage. Data collection was detailed and precise, accounting for both volume and manner of use of the restrooms:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Water use by the different appliances in the various cores was monitored via 150 discrete meters, which recorded the use of hot, cold and reclaimed water by visitors to the washrooms. Each washroom was also equipped with an infra-red detector at the entrance, which recorded the specific number of visitors to each particular washroom. [...] Using this data, combined with a correction coefficient, it was possible to calculate the water consumption of each visitor to the washroom  for  each  particular  appliance.  The  correction  coefficient  was  applied  to  take account of the fact that not all visitors to the washrooms used all of the appliances [...] The  correction  coefficient  was  calculated  via  a  series  of  visual  surveys,  where  [...] researchers undertook detailed observations in the male and female washrooms over several  hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The researchers concluded that automated faucets resulted in increased water usage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Three  types  of  tap  were  evaluated  during  the  research,  infra-red  activated  (48  in total), push-top (96 in total) and conventional swivel top (96 in total). **Surprisingly over the year the conventional swivel top taps used significantly less water than the purported more efficient types**, with each user of the swivel top taps using, on average, just less than 1 litre of water. Assuming  that  users  could  deliver  the  optimal  amount  for  their  hand-washing  needs from the manually operated swivel top taps the optimal value for a single hand wash would appear to be approximately 0.9 litre per use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Increased water and energy usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Fanney, Dougherty, and Richardson, 2002. [&quot;Field Test of a Photovoltaic Water Heater&quot;](https://www.map-testing.com/assets/files/ashrae.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This study documents implementation of a solar photovoltaic water heating system at the visitor center at Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee, USA. After installing the system, the authors tested several scenarios (called &quot;Configurations&quot; in the paper) to determine how best to reduce water and energy usage for the total system. The study ran from November 1996 to February 2000, with each individual configuration scheduled to run for one year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Questioning whether users tend to run the water more than is needed, the project leaders decided to try automatic faucets. The aerators on the new faucets had the same nominal flow rating,  8.3  [Liters per min (2.2 gallons per minute)],  as  the  aerators used for Configuration II. Automatic faucets  offer  the  trade-off  of potentially shorter draw  times  versus  always  operating  at maximum flow. No throttling is provided as with a manual faucet. The water volume and energy usage results for Configuration III were poorer than for the two previous hot water configurations. Using the common interval of November to February as the basis for comparison, **the average daily hot water volume increased 58%** (372 Liter/day to 586 L/day). **The average daily AC energy requirement increased to 12.85 kWh/day,** as compared to 8.49 and 8.85 kWh/day for Configuration I and II, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a mitigating factor, the authors do note that attendance during this time period represented an increase of 22% compared to the baseline. However, this is not sufficient to explain the increased water and energy usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These results were so bad that ultimately the team decided to uninstall the automated faucets after less than five months of the proposed one year test.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Increase in water usage despite lower maximum flow rate of automated faucets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Gauley and Koeller, 2010. [&quot;Sensor-Operated Plumbing Fixtures: Do They Save Water?&quot;](https://www.map-testing.com/assets/files/hillsborough~study.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This paper describes field testing of automated faucets (as well as automated flush valves) on one floor of an office building in Tampa, Florida USA. Measurements were recorded using a water meter recording all water usage in all bathrooms on the floor. No adjustments were made for seasonality, occupancy, or building schedule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [P]re-monitoring  of  the  existing  fixtures [...] was  conducted  from  February  2007  until  January  2008. The  average  daily  water  demands during this period was 654 gallons per day. [...] The existing faucets in the mens’ and ladies’ washrooms were [...] replaced with new sensor-operated faucets on January 29, 2008.  [...] The average flow rate of the manual faucets was measured as 1.32 gallons per minute (with the valve fully open) and the average flow rate of the sensor faucets was slightly less at 1.21 gallons per minute (valve fully open).  Water demands were monitored for the 127-day period from the date of installation until June 4, 2008.  **The average daily water demand of the washrooms during this period was 856 gallons per day – an increase of 202 gallons or 30% per day.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4YZgH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9493" RevisionGUID="dfa32491-2bbe-4160-9815-48d1ee9f5e42" CreationDate="2019-09-24T03:17:45.387" UserId="3379" Comment="added 259 characters in body" Text="**tl;dr: Cruise emissions are lower than flight emissions even before switching to LNG, which might have unintended consequences due to leaks in the supply infrastructure.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Cruise emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carnival Cruise Line published an independently verified [sustainability performance summary](http://carnivalsustainability.com/download-files/2018-carnival-sustainability-performance-summary.pdf) in 2018. According to this report, their ships release **251 grams CO2e per ALB-km**. ALB-km is a measure like passenger-kilometer (pax-km), but in this case refers to &quot;available lower berth&quot; ([source](https://www.sasb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/SV0205_Cruise_ProvisionalStandard.pdf)), which typically has capacity for two passengers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we generously assume a 20% improvement from the switch to LNG, emissions would drop to 200 g CO2e/ALB-km, or **100 g CO2e/pax-km.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Flight emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Emissions for air travel is more complicated, because it depends on the distance and type of aircraft, among other factors. There are at least two different calculators that take these factors into account. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The [ICAO carbon emissions calculator](https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Carbonoffset/Pages/default.aspx) from the **United Nations International Civil Aviation Organization**.&#xD;&#xA; - The [flight emissions calculator](https://co2.myclimate.org/en/flight_calculators/new) from the **myClimate Foundation**, a Swiss non-profit. In contrast to the ICAO, this calculator includes an estimate of the [non-CO2 impacts of flying](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/av-en-1.pdf), such as high-altitude NOx and contrails. The specific impact of these effects is still being worked out, but this calculator includes a conservative estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cozumel, Mexico, is a popular Caribbean cruise destination. There are also regularly scheduled direct flights from Miami, USA, so it makes for a good comparison. It's a round trip flight of 1,792 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - ICAO calculator: 266 kg CO2, or **148 g CO2/pax-km**&#xD;&#xA; - myClimate calculator: 0.400 mt CO2e, or **222 g CO2e/pax-km**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 126 g CO2e/pax-km, a conventional cruise ship is already better than the lower estimate of 148 g for flying, and has about half the impact of the higher estimate of 222 g. Thus, any improvement in cruise ship efficiency from a switch to LNG, while welcome, is superfluous -- it was already better than flying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Leaks in natural gas infrastructure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there's a catch -- [recent studies indicate leaks in natural gas infrastructure have been underestimated for years](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/7000/3379), and [methane (the chief component of natural gas) as a greenhouse gas is 34 times more potent than CO2 on a 100-year timescale](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/87/3379).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So switching from diesel to LNG (which is made from natural gas) might actually be worse from a life-cycle emissions perspective." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9505" RevisionGUID="e296e1b2-61cb-4ae7-a737-2df53acc4cfc" CreationDate="2019-09-24T04:47:49.503" UserId="6393" Text="I was reading the news today, and noticed that in the UN Climate Summit, it was decided that over 11 billion trees will be planted to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking that this probably doesn't have much effect. So, what is the climate impact of planting one tree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21947" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9505" RevisionGUID="e296e1b2-61cb-4ae7-a737-2df53acc4cfc" CreationDate="2019-09-24T04:47:49.503" UserId="6393" Text="What is the climate impact of planting one tree?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21948" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9505" RevisionGUID="e296e1b2-61cb-4ae7-a737-2df53acc4cfc" CreationDate="2019-09-24T04:47:49.503" UserId="6393" Text="|forestry|global-warming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21949" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9506" RevisionGUID="c9d6b82d-e8a5-4824-b077-a0965ef8cf9a" CreationDate="2019-09-24T04:47:49.503" UserId="6393" Text="This depends obviously on the size of the tree, but I read somewhere that a large tree can be about 0.6 &lt;a href=&quot;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/7161/how-is-amount-of-wood-measured/7162#7162&quot;&gt;solid cubic meters&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One solid cubic meter sequesters approximately one tonne of carbon dioxide. So, 11 billion trees will sequester 6.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/according-new-ipcc-report-world-track-exceed-its-carbon-budget-12-years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;To have a medium chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, the world can emit 770 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, planting 11 billion trees will take only less than percent of the carbon dioxide budget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;What is the climate impact of planting one tree?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is not that we don't plant trees; the problem is the massive scale at which fossil fuels are used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9507" RevisionGUID="045d8a0f-7092-44e9-960f-704bf719ffb2" CreationDate="2019-09-24T07:57:43.340" UserId="1445" Text="&lt;b&gt;TLDR: the packaging makes next to no difference; even a small reduction in your cheese consumption will greatly outweigh the impact of the packaging&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from cheese production and packaging.  The data below relate to processing in different countries so are not directly comparable, but they should serve to give a first approximation.  I'm focusing on greenhouse gases as arguably climate change is the most urgent environmental issue globally.  Land use, water use, nitrification, other pollutants, biodiversity loss, etc are all also important (and are also all areas where dairy farming has high impacts)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1kg of cottage cheese requires approx 6.5kg of milk to produce it ([Journal of Food Protection Vol. 43. No. 6. Pages 441-446 (June. 1980) ](https://jfoodprotection.org/doi/pdf/10.4315/0362-028X-43.6.441)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1kg of milk production results in an average of 1.3kg CO2e emission ([Greenhouse gas emissions on British dairy farms; DairyCo carbon footprinting study: Year one February 2012](https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/media/623464/greenhouse_gas_emissions_on_british_dairy_farms.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The production process produces a further approx 0.8kg CO2e/kg cheese ([Tan, Aik Jong, &quot;Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Commercial and Manufacturing Sectors Specific Studies on HVAC Equipment and Dairy Processing&quot; (2012). Theses and Dissertations. 416](http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/416))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for the cheese, 1kg of cheese production results in 6.5 * 1.3 + 0.8 = 9.25kg CO2e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for the packaging.  Wrapping paper generates approx 1kgCO2e/kg of paper, and PP or PE bags generate approx. 2.7kgCO2e/kg of film ([Methodology for assessing the climate change impacts of packaging optimisation under the Courtauld Commitment Phase 2, WRAP, December 2010](http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Carbon_Methodology_-_Nov_2010_V101.f1571b4f.10324.pdf)).  Let's assume 1kg of cheese takes about an A3-size piece of paper or film (0.125m^2) to wrap, the paper is 100gsm and the film is 100μm = also roughly 100gsm.  Then we have 12.5g of packaging per kg of cheese, giving us (all data rounded to 2 significant figures as we're estimating):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                        CO2e from packaging      CO2e from cheese       total      &#xD;&#xA;    paper-wrapped       0.013                    9.3                    9.3                &#xD;&#xA;    plastic-wrapped     0.034                    9.3                    9.3             &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of whether paper or plastic is better all-round is very difficult to answer (and depends on things like where the wood pulp came from, what chemicals were used in the processing, how good your local recycling facilities are, whether it's going to landfill or incineration, etc, etc).  But the vast majority of us shouldn't worry too much about that when we are still eating meat and dairy, still flying every year, and still driving cars around.  Reducing your environmental impact dramatically is very simple (but difficult!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - stop flying&#xD;&#xA; - insulate your home as much as possible&#xD;&#xA; - cut out meat and dairy&#xD;&#xA; - stop driving&#xD;&#xA; - stop buying stuff (mend, share, re-use)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21951" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9508" RevisionGUID="25106897-7d53-4409-a250-da65840d9af0" CreationDate="2019-09-24T09:25:45.490" UserId="6602" Text="[This paper][1] suggests that one 20 year old tree will sequester 1 tonne of Carbon which is 3.67 tonnes of CO2 which is roughly a year's CO2 footprint of one UK person or a third of a US person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, your question is about planting one tree, which is subtly different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to get a decent twenty year old tree, you need to plant about twelve trees relatively close together, so that they all grow straight. Young trees require less space than older larger trees, so they can be closer together, and then progressively cut them down over a ten to twenty year period so that one remains and can grow for over a hundred years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid I don't know the details of the UN's 11 billion tree plan, but it could end up being 11 billion trees planted, but after twenty years only 1 billion remain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also another element which needs to be understood, whilst a twenty year old tree might sequester one tonne of Carbon in its woody mass, it has over its lifespan photosynthesized a load more oxygen, and sequestered Carbon in leaves which are dropped each year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the other trees that are culled will be sequestering CO2 and expiring Oxygen during their shorter lifespans. But this is harder to measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ecometrica.com/assets/one_tonne_carbon_tree_discussion_paper_3.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9507" RevisionGUID="99ffb658-aab1-4ecf-a9c7-adfc5eddc40f" CreationDate="2019-09-24T10:35:45.267" UserId="1445" Comment="Softened final para to make it more positive" Text="&lt;b&gt;TLDR: the packaging makes next to no difference; even a small reduction in your cheese consumption will greatly outweigh the impact of the packaging (see the table further down)&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from cheese production and packaging.  The data below relate to processing in different countries so are not directly comparable, but they should serve to give a first approximation.  I'm focusing on greenhouse gases as arguably climate change is the most urgent environmental issue globally.  Land use, water use, nitrification, other pollutants, biodiversity loss, etc are all also important (and are also all areas where dairy farming has high impacts)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1kg of cottage cheese requires approx 6.5kg of milk to produce it ([Journal of Food Protection Vol. 43. No. 6. Pages 441-446 (June. 1980) ](https://jfoodprotection.org/doi/pdf/10.4315/0362-028X-43.6.441)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1kg of milk production results in an average of 1.3kg CO2e emission ([Greenhouse gas emissions on British dairy farms; DairyCo carbon footprinting study: Year one February 2012](https://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/media/623464/greenhouse_gas_emissions_on_british_dairy_farms.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The production process produces a further approx 0.8kg CO2e/kg cheese ([Tan, Aik Jong, &quot;Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Commercial and Manufacturing Sectors Specific Studies on HVAC Equipment and Dairy Processing&quot; (2012). Theses and Dissertations. 416](http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/416))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for the cheese, 1kg of cheese production results in 6.5 * 1.3 + 0.8 = 9.25kg CO2e.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for the packaging.  Wrapping paper generates approx 1kgCO2e/kg of paper, and PP or PE bags generate approx. 2.7kgCO2e/kg of film ([Methodology for assessing the climate change impacts of packaging optimisation under the Courtauld Commitment Phase 2, WRAP, December 2010](http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Carbon_Methodology_-_Nov_2010_V101.f1571b4f.10324.pdf)).  Let's assume 1kg of cheese takes about an A3-size piece of paper or film (0.125m^2) to wrap, the paper is 100gsm and the film is 100μm = also roughly 100gsm.  Then we have 12.5g of packaging per kg of cheese, giving us (all data rounded to 2 significant figures as we're estimating):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                        CO2e from packaging      CO2e from cheese       total      &#xD;&#xA;    paper-wrapped       0.013                    9.3                    9.3                &#xD;&#xA;    plastic-wrapped     0.034                    9.3                    9.3             &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question of whether paper or plastic is better all-round is very difficult to answer (and depends on things like where the wood pulp came from, what chemicals were used in the processing, how good your local recycling facilities are, whether it's going to landfill or incineration, etc, etc).  But the vast majority of us shouldn't worry too much about that when we are still eating meat and dairy, still flying every year, and still driving cars around.  Reducing your personal environmental impact dramatically is very simple, and can actually improve your quality of life (that's not to say it's not hard - I'm still working on this!):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - stop flying (or save up your money and holidays and go for one really long, really exciting trip every 5 or 10 years)&#xD;&#xA; - insulate your home as much as possible (and look at heat pumps)&#xD;&#xA; - cut out meat and dairy (or only eat really good quality very infrequently: you'll enjoy them more)&#xD;&#xA; - stop driving (walk, cycle, use public transport; make changes to your lifestyle to make this possible - you'll be happier and healthier)&#xD;&#xA; - stop buying stuff (mend, share, re-use, simplify - more life, less clutter)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21954" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9505" RevisionGUID="535c6218-6b41-414e-b854-9e577771a84d" CreationDate="2019-09-24T12:59:34.533" />
  <row Id="21955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9506" RevisionGUID="3bae11e8-4618-4618-9df1-cb63947f1052" CreationDate="2019-09-24T13:09:09.003" UserId="6393" Comment="explain more about the 0.6 m3 tree" Text="This depends obviously on the size of the tree, but I read somewhere that a tree ready for harvesting into sawlogs can be about 0.6 &lt;a href=&quot;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/7161/how-is-amount-of-wood-measured/7162#7162&quot;&gt;solid cubic meters&lt;/a&gt; in a boreal taiga forest (spruce or pine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One solid cubic meter sequesters approximately one tonne of carbon dioxide. So, 11 billion trees will sequester 6.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/according-new-ipcc-report-world-track-exceed-its-carbon-budget-12-years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;To have a medium chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, the world can emit 770 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, planting 11 billion trees will take only less than percent of the carbon dioxide budget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;What is the climate impact of planting one tree?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is not that we don't plant trees; the problem is the massive scale at which fossil fuels are used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9506" RevisionGUID="b852de39-7d8b-4071-b065-1c4be2dc3cd1" CreationDate="2019-09-24T13:15:49.193" UserId="6393" Comment="addendum" Text="This depends obviously on the size of the tree, but I read somewhere that a tree ready for harvesting into sawlogs can be about 0.6 &lt;a href=&quot;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/7161/how-is-amount-of-wood-measured/7162#7162&quot;&gt;solid cubic meters&lt;/a&gt; in a boreal taiga forest (spruce or pine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One solid cubic meter sequesters approximately one tonne of carbon dioxide. So, 11 billion trees will sequester 6.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/10/according-new-ipcc-report-world-track-exceed-its-carbon-budget-12-years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;To have a medium chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C, the world can emit 770 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO2).&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, planting 11 billion trees will take only less than percent of the carbon dioxide budget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;What is the climate impact of planting one tree?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is not that we don't plant trees; the problem is the massive scale at which fossil fuels are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Addendum:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only around half of a full-grown tree are useful as sawlog, and only around half of sawlog makes it to sawmill products. Thus, only 25% of harvested tree will retain its CO2. The rest is used for creating paper/pulp/cardboard (that is recycled few times, then burnt to energy) or burnt to energy directly. Leaving the tree as-is will retain its CO2, but at some time the tree stops growing and it makes more sense to harvest it to make it possible for future trees to grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, any wood burned to energy will offset fossil fuels, thus it will help to reduce CO2 emissions anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9510" RevisionGUID="ff4b9e61-2eda-41d6-b0c8-5c9f20aa4238" CreationDate="2019-09-24T19:46:33.590" UserId="7990" Text="First of all, I know it is impossible to answer this question accurately. But that is not the point. An approximation will suffice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a project I need to display the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; &quot;cost&quot; for shipping a parcel. It primarily involves shipping parcels between Western European countries, but occasionally there will be some parcels going to Canada and the US as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how can I approach this with a fairly simple calculation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21960" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9510" RevisionGUID="ff4b9e61-2eda-41d6-b0c8-5c9f20aa4238" CreationDate="2019-09-24T19:46:33.590" UserId="7990" Text="Approximate CO2 emissions for shipping a parcel from one location to another" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21961" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9510" RevisionGUID="ff4b9e61-2eda-41d6-b0c8-5c9f20aa4238" CreationDate="2019-09-24T19:46:33.590" UserId="7990" Text="|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9511" RevisionGUID="f3256cf3-ff2a-43d9-a969-91bfabfed0a7" CreationDate="2019-09-24T20:59:46.603" UserId="3379" Text="## Carbon intensity by shipping method&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The World Shipping Council provides this chart showing [approximate carbon emissions by shipping method](http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/environment/air-emissions/carbon-emissions):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Shipping emissions calculators&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that's too approximate, there are a number of different calculators you can try out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Carbon Fund [Business Calculator](https://www.carbonfund.org/business-calculator/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The last tab calculates annual emissions based on quantity, weight, and distance of packages shipped. It's annualized, which is annoying, but it's the only one of the three that includes air freight (and zeppelin!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - OOCL [supply chain carbon calculator](https://www.oocl.com/eng/aboutoocl/Environmentalcare/ooclcarboncalculator/Pages/default.aspx)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OOCL is a Hong Kong-based logistics and shipping company. This calculator breaks down results by shipping method, but only seems to work for major ports.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - CN [Carbon Calculator](https://www.cn.ca/en/delivering-responsibly/environment/emissions/carbon-calculator/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CN is a Canadian railway operator. This calculator seems like the most useful of all. You enter the major ports for shipping distances, then add additional distances that the cargo will travel by train or truck. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/X7oRd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5PZa0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mv1oPm.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21963" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9510" RevisionGUID="79f4f693-c41a-46d1-9cee-e857be2872e8" CreationDate="2019-09-25T04:01:06.080" />
  <row Id="21964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9508" RevisionGUID="a29b3235-e975-4431-a245-10ac5b901b44" CreationDate="2019-09-25T09:15:01.373" UserId="6602" Comment="Responding to comments" Text="[This paper][1] suggests that one 20 year old tree will sequester 1 tonne of Carbon which is 3.67 tonnes of CO2 which is roughly a year's CO2 footprint of one UK person or a third of a US person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, your question is about planting one tree, which is subtly different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to get a decent healthy twenty year old tree, you need to plant about twelve trees of various species, relatively close together, so that they all grow straight upwards. Young trees require less space than older larger trees, so they can be closer together, and then progressively cut them down over a ten to twenty year period so that one remains and can grow for over a hundred years. Mixed-species forests are less susceptible to pests and disease than mono-culture forests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess its a philiosophical point. If you are operating a carbon sequestration business to maximise the CO2 in the trees, then you could have a mono-culture plantation, of the most CO2 dense wood, and use pesticides and surgical culling to prevent the any infection wiping out the whole site, and have that as a business expense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand if you are merely trying to reforest a bit a wasteland and rebuild a country's ancient woodland, then you'll have a mixed species plantation with a broader community of wildlife that keep pests in check with a huge complex ecology of prey and predator curves, and many diverse native tree and shrub species, and try not to introduce invasive and non-native species. It wouldn't optimise CO2 sequestration, but it would be more sustainable and ecologically 'better'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid I don't know the details of the UN's 11 billion tree plan, but it could end up being 11 billion trees planted, but after twenty years only 1 billion remain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also another element which needs to be understood, whilst a twenty year old tree might sequester one tonne of Carbon in its woody mass, it has over its lifespan photosynthesized a load more oxygen, and sequestered Carbon in leaves which are dropped each year. Whilst the carbon in the leaves does return to the atmosphere when they break down and decay, that amount of carbon is tied into a cycle of being in the air, then in leaves, then breaking down, and returning to the air. The more leaves there are, the more carbon is in that cycle rather than just building up in the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our one tonne tree, in any one year might have a tonne of CO2 sequestered in its leaves, and two tonnes sequestered in the dead leaves at its base and three tonnes of CO2 in the air released from dead leaves waiting to be the next years new leaves. If the tree didn't exist, that CO2 would just be in the air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even the other trees that are culled will be sequestering CO2 and expiring Oxygen during their shorter lifespans. But this is harder to measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ecometrica.com/assets/one_tonne_carbon_tree_discussion_paper_3.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21966" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9505" RevisionGUID="583ce515-c7e7-4cdb-8ba3-c189c9a652c4" CreationDate="2019-09-26T00:00:39.827" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1177010056359026688" />
  <row Id="21967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="fb0daec0-f1fc-4483-8506-38c4313415a0" CreationDate="2019-09-26T06:15:49.167" UserId="7994" Text="I couldn't find the list anywhere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21968" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="fb0daec0-f1fc-4483-8506-38c4313415a0" CreationDate="2019-09-26T06:15:49.167" UserId="7994" Text="Which are those 66 countries that vow carbon neutrality by 2050 in UN Climate summit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21969" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="fb0daec0-f1fc-4483-8506-38c4313415a0" CreationDate="2019-09-26T06:15:49.167" UserId="7994" Text="|decarbonisation|global-warming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21970" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="6db9914a-d59c-4385-a290-d5d0e2d96e3b" CreationDate="2019-09-26T07:06:02.360" UserId="7994" Comment="edited title" Text="Which are those 66 countries that vowed carbon neutrality by 2050 in UN Climate summit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9513" RevisionGUID="da19a498-aed1-4f86-9b90-a52ca5d763e0" CreationDate="2019-09-26T10:18:25.423" UserId="3325" Text="I live in Bulgaria where water is also generally safe to drink. However, the quality varies and sometimes a lot of chlorine is added to it. Also, there are areas here that go without tap-water some parts of the year. Luckily, there are many springs here so it's usually possible to find reasonably good water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, because water is such an essential part to life, we wanted to ensure a more reliable and sustainable source of good water. So we also looked into filters a lot. We found quite a few options and have chosen to settle on a filter that purifies the water. Sustainable for us meant: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - as little plastics as possible&#xD;&#xA; - natural materials where possible&#xD;&#xA; - a minimal amount of disposables&#xD;&#xA; - simple, so easy to install, maintain and repair&#xD;&#xA; - recyclable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We settled on a [ceramic water filter][1], which according to Wikipedia are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an inexpensive and effective type of water filter, that rely on the small pore size of ceramic material to filter dirt, debris, and bacteria out of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the cost of a system, measured over several years, can also be a good indication of sustainability. So for us this [cost-comparison][2] was valuable. Please note it is a post from a dealer of a main ceramic water filter manufacturer and supplier, so it may not be completely unbiased. At the same time, the post is positive about competitive systems as well, pointing out they all have their merits, so personally I think it's a useful comparison. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We ended up buying a system that holds water in a metal container, which then gravity feeds through a set of ceramic purifying elements, into a second metal storage container. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The manufacturer produces various sizes, so there might be a size that works in your setup as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We pour the filtered water into glass jugs, which we then use troughout the day. We don't cool the water, but you could if you'd prefer that. I know other people leave the filtered water in the metal container, which also works. But for us this works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of your concerns seems to be water hardness/softness. We've also thought about this, but decided against a separate water softener, because in our minds the minerals that water takes up from flowing through soils and rocks are valuable to our bodies. In the past we've lived in an area with very hard water and at that time we looked into it quite deeply. Our conclusion from the research we found was that hard water is not a health hazard, and this is also our personal experience; it's never given us any trouble. This [article about water hardness][3] may be a useful overview. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For use in appliances like our washing machine we also don't soften our water, but use an inexpensive, white vinegar. Our personal experience is this works exceptionally well in keeping the machine free from mineral deposits. And if you search for vinegar as a water softener, you'll find plenty of examples of people with positive experiences with it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps you in your search for the most sustainable solution for filtering tap water for drinking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic_water_filter&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bigberkeywaterfilters.com/berkey-water-filter-vs-aquasana-vs-pur-vs-brita/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://water-research.net/index.php/water-treatment/tools/hard-water-hardness" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9514" RevisionGUID="2468d759-812d-4784-9d33-f1797ad2208d" CreationDate="2019-09-26T10:37:02.797" UserId="7995" Text="The pure maths in your question.&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trees both absorb and emit CO2. The difference is stocked in wood. You should not see those 2 figures (CO2 cycle and stocked carbon) as 2 different inputs, they're the same.&#xD;&#xA;But one is yearly, and the other one over the tree's lifespan, which varies a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll go with the yearly approach.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [that link][1] trees  - I know maybe not just trees - account for +439 and -450Gt of CO2. That's a -11Gt yearly. And men add +29Gt yearly.&#xD;&#xA;So to compensate for our emissions, we'd need 2.6x as many trees on Earth, that's +160%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [L.A. Times][2], there are 3 trillions trees.&#xD;&#xA;So planting 5 trillions trees would cover our emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case 11bn will &quot;only&quot; cover 0.2% of our emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Global impact&#xD;&#xA;-------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll make the assumption that you mean &quot;one tree among a forest&quot;. Because you cited the 11bn trees figure, I guess you want to know the average outcome.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's hope that *real* forest - with variety and a whole ecosystem - will account for most of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Short-term** :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - those will stock carbon, not enough to solve our problem, but helping&#xD;&#xA; - they will fix and nurture the soil, preventing potential desertification, flooding and other climate-related hazard&#xD;&#xA; - they will offer shelter to wildlife&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long-term** :&#xD;&#xA;11bn tree will seed their own children! Let's be clear, a sprout doesn't become a tree unless an older tree dies, think space, sun and resources. But when one dies, another one grows.&#xD;&#xA;Also seed can travel, so more trees... if that seed find a compatible soil, which is the issue nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-tree-density-study-20150902-story.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="9dc6bf9c-8c24-4670-815f-22718d82f94c" CreationDate="2019-09-26T10:53:49.763" UserId="7994" Comment="added 261 characters in body; edited title" Text="I couldn't find the list anywhere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I mean the summit on 23th of September 2019. May be only 65.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;see:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/sixty-six-countries-vow-carbon-neutrality-by-2050-un&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/climate/climate-summit-global-warming.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21974" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="9dc6bf9c-8c24-4670-815f-22718d82f94c" CreationDate="2019-09-26T10:53:49.763" UserId="7994" Comment="added 261 characters in body; edited title" Text="Which are those 66 (65?) countries that vowed carbon neutrality by 2050 in UN Climate summit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9515" RevisionGUID="6f18cbe9-56f5-4e7c-9541-2961309117f2" CreationDate="2019-09-26T11:09:24.003" UserId="99" Text="I have trouble finding that list as well. I know that in the past 19 countries already pledged to be carbon neutral by 2050 (see https://www.carbon-neutrality.global/members/). I did also find [this UN Climate Action Summit summary page](https://unclimatesummit.org/summary/) where it says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Five new countries (Austria, Chile, Italy, Japan, Timor-Leste) joined the Carbon Neutrality Coalition which helps countries develop plans to move towards net zero emissions by 2050.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that would make 19+5=24 countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also [this &quot;Tracker&quot; page](https://unclimatesummit.org/trackerhome/trackercountries/) only lists 16 countries with &quot;*Yes*&quot; in the &quot;*Net-Zero commitment*&quot; column minus 1 country (Japan) because it has a target year of &quot;*soon after 2050*&quot;, makes 15 countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EU has the 2050 target under discussion, so if you include that you could add (28 member states - 9 already in list = ) 19 more countries making a total of 34 countries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have no clue how they got to 65 or 66 countries mentioned in the news articles. In [the article](https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/sixty-six-countries-vow-carbon-neutrality-by-2050-un) you link to it does say &quot;*66 governments*&quot;, so perhaps they also counted state governments (e.g. California) or other forms of government not associated to a country?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9516" RevisionGUID="f1a33f07-8153-4266-8281-899dc305b48d" CreationDate="2019-09-26T11:21:25.857" UserId="7995" Text="Leaving your computer on at night doesn't provide any benefit. It's just a waste of energy, *unless* your sysadmin makes software maintenance at night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer you're citing was :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a one-man experiment, not statistics&#xD;&#xA; - written in 2014 but in a past stance, no year reference&#xD;&#xA; - clearly regarding only magnetic hard-drives, not modern SSDs, and not the whole computer anyway&#xD;&#xA; - related to cost, not climate for instance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9517" RevisionGUID="f95adca4-5f07-4f7c-9a64-5b21bd94f916" CreationDate="2019-09-26T14:34:35.700" UserId="3379" Text="THelper did the heavy lifting, but I did some additional digging and found some more info. The official UN [closing press release](https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/assets/pdf/CAS_closing_release.pdf) from the climate action summit includes this paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 65  countries  and  major  sub-national  economies  such  as  California  committed  to  cut  greenhouse  gas emissions to net zero by 2050, while 70 countries announced they will either boost their national action plans by 2020 or have started the process of doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems there are two different lists. There's a link later in the document to a [list of the initiatives](https://climateaction.unfccc.int/views/events.html) with those who have made commitments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 70 countries commit to boost national action plans&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;70 countries&quot; who will &quot;boost their national action plans&quot; seems to refer to this initiative: [&quot;Climate Ambition Alliance: Enhanced National Climate Plans&quot;](https://climateaction.unfccc.int/views/cooperative-initiative-details.html?id=95), which has this description:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [...] this group brings together the countries that are responding to the urgent need to reduce emissions in the next decade by signaling their intention to work towards enhancing the ambition of their [Nationally Determined Contributions] by 2020.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link above includes the list of 70 countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 65 major economies commit to cut GHG emissions to net zero&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This refers to the [&quot;Climate Ambition Alliance: Net Zero 2050&quot;](https://climateaction.unfccc.int/views/cooperative-initiative-details.html?id=94):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As part of the Climate Ambition Alliance, this group brings together countries, businesses, investors, cities and regions who are working towards achieving net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. Members of this alliance are demonstrating genuine leadership either by having developed plans to achieve net zero CO2 emissions by 2050; by having identified this target as a long-term goal; or by advancing consultations on a long-term strategy for climate-neutrality in line with the Paris Agreement. Initiatives included are: ‘Carbon Neutrality Coalition’, ‘Under2 Coalition’, ‘Deadline 2020’, ‘Business Ambition for 1.5˚C - Our Only Future’ and the ‘UN-Convened Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance’. In addition to the countries listed as participants below, the European Union is also part of this initiative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link includes the list of participants, broken down thusly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 102 cities&#xD;&#xA; - 10 regions (such as U.S. and Australian states, and regions of other countries)&#xD;&#xA; - 87 companies&#xD;&#xA; - 15 investors&#xD;&#xA; - 65 countries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The confusion comes from the fact that the press release (which was distributed to the New York Times and the Straits Times in your question) *should* have read this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 65 countries and **10** major sub-national economies such as California committed to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="9dd18464-53a7-496c-b01e-9c989f2bc445" CreationDate="2019-09-26T14:58:06.770" UserId="3379" Comment="Added relevant bits from the links." Text="I couldn't find the list anywhere. See:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Straits Times -- [66 countries vow carbon neutrality by 2050: UN](https://www.straitstimes.com/world/united-states/sixty-six-countries-vow-carbon-neutrality-by-2050-un)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sixty-six countries have signalled their intent to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, seen as a vital goal in preventing catastrophic longer term climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;New York Times -- [At U.N. Climate Summit, Few Commitments and U.S. Silence](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/climate/climate-summit-global-warming.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By the end of the day, 65 countries had announced efforts to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, several asset fund managers said they would aim to get to a net-zero portfolio of investments by the same year, and dozens of businesses said they would aim to abide by the Paris Agreement targets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21979" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="9dd18464-53a7-496c-b01e-9c989f2bc445" CreationDate="2019-09-26T14:58:06.770" UserId="3379" Comment="Added relevant bits from the links." Text="Which are the 66 (65?) countries that vowed carbon neutrality by 2050 at the September 2019 UN Climate summit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9517" RevisionGUID="f8829e7e-bf26-44ce-bd4d-84b5ac9ded0e" CreationDate="2019-09-26T15:14:29.597" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 116 characters in body" Text="THelper did the heavy lifting, but I did some additional digging and found some more info. The official UN [closing press release](https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/assets/pdf/CAS_closing_release.pdf) from the climate action summit includes this paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 65  countries  and  major  sub-national  economies  such  as  California  committed  to  cut  greenhouse  gas emissions to net zero by 2050, while 70 countries announced they will either boost their national action plans by 2020 or have started the process of doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems there are two different lists. There's a link later in the document to a [list of the initiatives](https://climateaction.unfccc.int/views/events.html) with those who have made commitments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### &quot;70 countries announced they will [...] boost their national action plans by 2020&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This refers to the initiative: [&quot;Climate Ambition Alliance: Enhanced National Climate Plans&quot;](https://climateaction.unfccc.int/views/cooperative-initiative-details.html?id=95):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [...] this group brings together the countries that are responding to the urgent need to reduce emissions in the next decade by signaling their intention to work towards enhancing the ambition of their [Nationally Determined Contributions] by 2020.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link above includes the list of 70 countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### &quot;65 countries and major sub-national economies [...] committed to cut GHG emissions to net zero by 2050&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This refers to the [&quot;Climate Ambition Alliance: Net Zero 2050&quot;](https://climateaction.unfccc.int/views/cooperative-initiative-details.html?id=94):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]his group brings together countries, businesses, investors, cities and regions who are working towards achieving net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. Members of this alliance are demonstrating genuine leadership either by having developed plans to achieve net zero CO2 emissions by 2050; by having identified this target as a long-term goal; or by advancing consultations on a long-term strategy for climate-neutrality in line with the Paris Agreement. Initiatives included are: ‘Carbon Neutrality Coalition’, ‘Under2 Coalition’, ‘Deadline 2020’, ‘Business Ambition for 1.5˚C - Our Only Future’ and the ‘UN-Convened Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance’. In addition to the countries listed as participants below, the European Union is also part of this initiative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link includes the list of participants, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 102 cities&#xD;&#xA; - 10 regions (such as U.S. and Australian states)&#xD;&#xA; - 87 companies&#xD;&#xA; - 15 investors&#xD;&#xA; - 65 countries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The confusion comes from the fact that the press release (which was distributed to the New York Times and the Straits Times) *should* have read this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 65 countries and **10** major sub-national economies such as California committed to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9517" RevisionGUID="c7470503-57da-440f-b180-f1ac0a1092c0" CreationDate="2019-09-26T16:41:02.920" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 6 characters in body" Text="THelper did the heavy lifting, but I did some additional digging and found some more info. The official UN [closing press release](https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/assets/pdf/CAS_closing_release.pdf) from the climate action summit includes this paragraph:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 65  countries  and  major  sub-national  economies  such  as  California  committed  to  cut  greenhouse  gas emissions to net zero by 2050, while 70 countries announced they will either boost their national action plans by 2020 or have started the process of doing so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems there are two different lists. There's a link later in the document to a [list of the initiatives](https://climateaction.unfccc.int/views/events.html) with those who have made commitments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### &quot;70 countries announced they will [...] boost their national action plans by 2020&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This refers to the initiative: [&quot;Climate Ambition Alliance: Enhanced National Climate Plans&quot;](https://climateaction.unfccc.int/views/cooperative-initiative-details.html?id=95):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  [...] this group brings together the countries that are responding to the urgent need to reduce emissions in the next decade by signaling their intention to work towards enhancing the ambition of their [Nationally Determined Contributions] by 2020.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link includes the list of 70 countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### &quot;65 countries and major sub-national economies [...] committed to cut GHG emissions to net zero by 2050&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This refers to the [&quot;Climate Ambition Alliance: Net Zero 2050&quot;](https://climateaction.unfccc.int/views/cooperative-initiative-details.html?id=94):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]his group brings together countries, businesses, investors, cities and regions who are working towards achieving net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. Members of this alliance are demonstrating genuine leadership either by having developed plans to achieve net zero CO2 emissions by 2050; by having identified this target as a long-term goal; or by advancing consultations on a long-term strategy for climate-neutrality in line with the Paris Agreement. Initiatives included are: ‘Carbon Neutrality Coalition’, ‘Under2 Coalition’, ‘Deadline 2020’, ‘Business Ambition for 1.5˚C - Our Only Future’ and the ‘UN-Convened Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance’. In addition to the countries listed as participants below, the European Union is also part of this initiative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The link includes the list of participants, including:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 102 cities&#xD;&#xA; - 10 regions (such as U.S. and Australian states)&#xD;&#xA; - 87 companies&#xD;&#xA; - 15 investors&#xD;&#xA; - 65 countries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The confusion comes from the fact that the press release (which was distributed to the New York Times and the Straits Times) *should* have read this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 65 countries and **10** major sub-national economies such as California committed to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 ..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9518" RevisionGUID="bcdc2d85-516d-4057-87f1-548dc4d38fbc" CreationDate="2019-09-26T18:37:56.113" UserId="3379" Text="Many climate deniers suggest that [humanity is too insignificant to impact the global climate](https://skepticalscience.com/Are-humans-too-insignificant-to-affect-global-climate.htm). As a visualization to counter this claim, I thought of the following exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How much coal, oil, and gas humanity has burned in our history?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part should be straightforward -- I found this chart of [global fossil fuel consumption](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-fossil-fuel-consumption) as a starting point: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How much plant life does that represent?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, how many trees/bushes/grasses does it take to form a ton of coal or a barrel of oil? At some point in history, the coal, oil, and gas we're digging up were plants in a forest, prairie, or swamp. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This Quora answer](https://www.quora.com/How-many-dinosaurs-does-it-take-to-make-a-barrel-of-oil-or-how-many-gallons-from-each-dinosaur) suggests that 10 tons of plant matter is required to form 1 kg of fossil fuel, but the link to the source is broken, and I'm not able to find any others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How much land would all those plants cover?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once we know how many tons of plant matter went in to all the fossil fuels we've burned, we could figure out how many acres of forest, prairie, or swamp that would equate to. This part probably requires a lot of assumptions (density of various ecosystems, etc.), but that's OK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The result&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm imagining that this is going to be a vast quantity of land. At least the size of Africa. Perhaps several continents. Once we've got that number, we can visualize it -- **imagine burning down a forest the size of [Africa/Asia/some other recognizable land mass] -- now we can understand how humanity's consumption of fossil fuels might impact the climate**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wxiId.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21983" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9518" RevisionGUID="bcdc2d85-516d-4057-87f1-548dc4d38fbc" CreationDate="2019-09-26T18:37:56.113" UserId="3379" Text="How much land would be covered by the plants that turned into the fossil fuels humanity has burned?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21984" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9518" RevisionGUID="bcdc2d85-516d-4057-87f1-548dc4d38fbc" CreationDate="2019-09-26T18:37:56.113" UserId="3379" Text="|global-warming|fossil-fuels|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21992" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9518" RevisionGUID="f4f47cba-d3fa-469e-9496-420d83765564" CreationDate="2019-09-27T09:00:37.700" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1177508331205750784" />
  <row Id="21993" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9522" RevisionGUID="efffb615-599a-454a-b224-04e398bdee17" CreationDate="2019-09-27T09:24:17.760" UserId="6602" Text="I'm unable to give a complete answer for oil and gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But regarding coal, from trees, its not simply a question of the area whether it was a continent size landmass, but more of the temporal side of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal was laid down from plant matter during the carboniferous period, which lasted 60 million years, 60,000,000 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So supposing it takes twenty years for 'a tree' to reach maturity, the carboniferous period is three million generations of trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the carboniferous period most of the land on planet was covered with trees, Africa, Asia, the Americas. But to somehow recreate all the coal, you need at least twenty years for a tree to grow, but also you need three million times the amount of land available on earth's land masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose we drained the oceans to create more land for more trees, then you'd only need one million earth's worth of land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently there are around three trillion tress on earth, its not unreasonable to think that during the carboniferous period when there was nothing else happening, there would be maybe double that, six trillion trees at any moment. Over a 60,000,000 year period, that would be a total of nine quintillion trees, nine with eighteen zeros after it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is, to recreate the coal that we've consumed alone, ignoring the oil and gas, its not a matter of planting a few trees, its more a case of planting quintillions of trees on hundreds of thousands of planets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if my sums are a few zeros out, its a mind-boggle number and amount of land." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21995" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9512" RevisionGUID="2a2c6a5b-bfe9-4dd5-8df4-828bf940d255" CreationDate="2019-09-27T15:00:40.200" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1177598938213507077" />
  <row Id="21996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9522" RevisionGUID="fc0f60ee-1518-438b-ba96-264a84276428" CreationDate="2019-09-27T15:39:56.227" UserId="6602" Comment="response to comments" Text="I'm unable to give a complete answer for oil and gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But regarding coal, from trees, its not simply a question of the area whether it was a continent size landmass, but more of the temporal side of things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal was laid down from plant matter during the carboniferous period, which lasted 60 million years, 60,000,000 years. For most of that time the micro-organisms that existed were unable to break down the lignin which made up 70% of the plant matter. Effectively the trees didn't rot, they fell down, and more trees grew on top, then died and fell down and more trees grew on top, for millions of years. The carboniferous period ended when the microorganisms evolved the ability to consume the lignin and the coal laying stopped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So supposing it takes twenty years for 'a tree' to reach maturity, the carboniferous period is three million generations of trees. 'Tree' is a little inaccurate compared to what we currently think of as a tree. The plants were effectively a really tall moss, and it was 80% 'bark' compared to modern trees that are about 10% bark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the carboniferous period most of the land on planet was covered with trees, Africa, Asia, the Americas. But to somehow recreate all the coal, you need at least twenty years for a tree to grow, but also you need three million times the amount of land available on earth's land masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose we drained the oceans to create more land for more trees, then you'd only need one million earth's worth of land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently there are around three trillion tress on earth, its not unreasonable to think that during the carboniferous period when there was nothing else happening, there would be maybe double that, six trillion trees at any moment. Over a 60,000,000 year period, that would be a total of nine quintillion trees, nine with eighteen zeros after it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is, to recreate the coal that we've consumed alone, ignoring the oil and gas, its not a matter of planting a few trees, its more a case of planting quintillions of trees on hundreds of thousands of planets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if my sums are a few zeros out, its a mind-boggle number and amount of land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of coal that we have already burnt, [the World Coal Association figures][1] estimate that the proven coal reserves left in the ground are enough to last another 150 years at current rates, this is the coal that is easy to dig up with current mining technology. There might be vast quantities of coal that's located in inaccessible locations, like at the bottom of the sea, or spread out too thinly to be cost effective to mine, this isn't included in the proven reserves figure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the Global Fossil Fuel consumption graph in the question, we could estimate that historic coal usage is about 75 year's worth at current consumption rate. At current usage rates, the sixty million years of laying down coal gave us around 225 years of coal that is economically accessible. We're roughly a third of the way through that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the earlier calculations, that's only three quintillion trees spread out over two or three hundred thousand earth-sized landmasses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-coal-found" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9523" RevisionGUID="bf1a30c2-cc10-439e-903d-8152da6bebc8" CreationDate="2019-09-27T16:44:36.897" UserId="8002" Text="Paper comes from trees and rots down into usable mulch. Plastic comes from fossil fuels and does not deteriorate fully,  possibly ever. Surely everyone must know by now that paper, or other natural materials are always better for the planet than plastic. For a start paper is sustainable whereas things made from fossilized materials are not. If paper was no longer used there would be far less forests, because there would be less commercial reason to plant them&#xD;&#xA;  In a post here it was stated that a tree takes 20 years to mature. This is only the type of quick growing tree used for paper. Timber especially valuable timber can take from seventy to a hundred and fifty years to mature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="21999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="d8ab3b96-eac4-45cc-aaa6-8d5f0f5997a5" CreationDate="2019-09-27T16:59:50.057" UserId="8002" Text="A lovely question! I can remember when there were no plastic bottles, and glass, made from one of our commonest minerals, quartz, is not likely to run out, and it is fully recyclable. I still get my milk in glass bottles which are collected by the milkman washed out and used again, with almost zero energy use; not even in transport as they are collected during the delivery. When I was a child all glass bottles could be taken beck to the shop for which we received the princely sum of one old penny. Those were the days when humanity thought of a future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9525" RevisionGUID="f57b8f68-59f0-4bc7-9f6f-a199f937b794" CreationDate="2019-09-27T17:21:33.037" UserId="8002" Text="I think the answers have been supplied here although perhaps not made specific enough. Cans are usually fully recycled. But aluminium used in conjunction with other things is much more difficult to recycle and a large quantity is being thrown away. By not buying plastic you can avoid these mixed materials. Glass is almost always best although, as pointed out aluminium does not require so much heat when recycled. However glass can be reused a few times as it is, without re-melting it, and aluminium can not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9529" RevisionGUID="2a4022cf-3da7-483c-9aa7-c06818407f19" CreationDate="2019-09-28T18:25:43.027" UserId="8002" Text="This is going to be unpopular, because I can remember things that mankind has forgotten. A long time ago people were saying that the shading from contrails might cause another ice age. Now the word contrails has been almost forgotten and a recent weather program was calling them something else entirely and intimating that they are natural. Contrails cause global dimming, i.e. they prevent the sunlight from penetrating to Earth, i.e. this makes the Earth cooler. Not much obviously, but people do not realise what a precarious balance Earth's climate is in. Therefore by this reasoning,if the choice is between a cruise and a flight, the flight is greener." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22011" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9530" RevisionGUID="b3954f9b-1e1a-4cb0-a421-bfa216f11497" CreationDate="2019-09-29T12:02:48.477" UserId="2846" Text="Some common brands in the UK used glass within the last couple of decades; a few still do, but call themselves &quot;cordial&quot;. I recall plastic caps on some, and metal caps on other brands. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In France the equivalent (more of a syrup) is often sold in metal bottles - like 1 litre cans with plastic lids. I'm not sure whether they're steel or aluminium, and don't have one to test. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9531" RevisionGUID="5364ad6b-6902-4a9b-86d8-9da4830ef918" CreationDate="2019-09-29T15:42:45.917" UserId="8010" Text="The problem with packaging starts in the grocery store where styrofoam trays are used for all meat.How about using containers like milk cartons which are wax coated. Can cardboard be coated with wax and used or is this also not biodegradable? I'm just posing some possible alternatives and looking for answers from anyone out there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9532" RevisionGUID="f254cec0-8e8d-482f-899d-569267088959" CreationDate="2019-09-30T11:03:48.500" UserId="8013" Text="Also worth noting that these figures are based on a &quot;high productivity&quot; Wisconsin farm. I've got nothing against Wisconsin, the problem is the huge reliance on results from a single farm. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large part of the dairy related emissions are in the form of methane .. and dairy farmers in NZ appear to have achieved significantly lower emissions by changing the diet of their stock. E.g. see this article about goats' cheese: https://www.odt.co.nz/business/dairys-footprint-measured " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22014" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9533" RevisionGUID="4019d534-aa7b-4cbf-bb84-e11e49135b3b" CreationDate="2019-09-30T12:25:47.247" UserId="8002" Text="It shouldn't be necessary to use anything around meat in the freezer as long as you ensure the area you put in in is kept clean. Alternatively you could place it on a re-usable plastic tray." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8475" RevisionGUID="8fb2a80b-3a8c-41cb-b3ac-ccd06fdbd0f4" CreationDate="2019-09-30T13:00:08.300" UserId="3379" Comment="added 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Does anyone know how they used to sell orange [squash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(drink)) before plastic bottles were invented? (Or perhaps no-one did?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if there was a ban on disposable plastic, how would orange squash be sold? In cans perhaps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22017" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8475" RevisionGUID="8fb2a80b-3a8c-41cb-b3ac-ccd06fdbd0f4" CreationDate="2019-09-30T13:00:08.300" UserId="3379" Comment="added 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How to sell orange squash without plastic bottles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22018" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8475" RevisionGUID="8fb2a80b-3a8c-41cb-b3ac-ccd06fdbd0f4" CreationDate="2019-09-30T13:00:08.300" UserId="3379" Comment="added 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|plastic-alternatives|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="05c67b42-ec0a-49cc-b664-793ce3dbab48" CreationDate="2019-10-01T09:47:19.807" UserId="-1" Comment="minmenskopp.se has changed its brand name and it is now called menstrualcup.eco" Text="I would say it depends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For most brands the answer will be a yes. But there are counterfeit products and rougue or not so great brands/manufacturers with malintents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would love to believe that all brands/manufacturers are &quot;environmental&quot;/&quot;green&quot; but as long as you can make money out of things there will always be crooked or corrupted companies not caring about anything but money which could mean tremendous stress on the environment due to their carelessness in different areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thankfully most brands seem to be wanting to do good (been doing some research on the subject [menstrualcup.eco][1]) but a tip for whoever reads this - check where the menstrual cup you're planning on buying is actually made, and by whom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.menstrualcup.eco" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22023" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7059" RevisionGUID="05c67b42-ec0a-49cc-b664-793ce3dbab48" CreationDate="2019-10-01T09:47:19.807" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 6296 edit id of 580" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22026" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8475" RevisionGUID="790346a4-a852-4549-8d03-7fabff7ec8cd" CreationDate="2019-10-01T18:00:39.530" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1179093785290186752" />
  <row Id="22033" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="94" RevisionGUID="24b4f34b-ffa3-4dc4-b537-a2fc39f19cb9" CreationDate="2019-10-03T09:00:02.257" UserId="99" Comment="Added affiliation to recommended site + picture with layers" Text="I'm assuming you already have insulation and a support panel in place on your roof's structural beams. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the function of the first layer you add is to make the roof water- and rootproof. Personally, I think the best sealing is simply one layer of [EPDM](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPDM) which you can order in the larger DIY stores (at least you can here in the Netherlands). You simply glue the EPDM to your roof. [This site](http://www.rubber4roofs.co.uk/Training-Centre/) (no affiliation, just like the videos they host) has all the info on how to apply it. Alternatively you can use [bitumen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bituminous_waterproofing) but this is more difficult to DIY and won't last as long as EPDM. Never use zinc, which is not very sustainable anyways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people like to add a protective and/or root-repellant layer on top of the first layer, but in my experience that is not really necessary when you have a good and solid first layer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Layers of a green roof ([source](http://www.safeguardeurope.com/diagrams/flat-green-roof-build-up.jpg))*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next comes the drainage layer (3rd layer from the bottom in picture above). It's purpose is to both hold water and drain superfluous water. On our green roof the drainage mats were included in the package with the growing medium and plants. I'm not sure if you can buy it separately, but it looks something like [this](http://ecobrooklyn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/drainage-mat.jpg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can place a filter fleece on top of the drainage layer to prevent it from clogging. We did this on our roof, but I know several people who didn't and their roof seems to work just fine without it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now you can add the growing medium and vegetation. Don't forget to place pebbles or stones along the edges of the roof to allow drainage and to make sure that the vegetation won't start growing to places it is not supposed to grow (see for example picture below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![green roof on our shed][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mJb4L.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tW8B8.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22034" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="3c8521b7-57e7-4c4a-a242-9c4bed6d311e" CreationDate="2019-10-04T02:02:20.330" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22035" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9538" RevisionGUID="8188e674-b637-433d-b034-6eec6d148027" CreationDate="2019-10-04T16:03:46.960" UserId="5532" Text="My raincoat was fully waterproof when bought some 8 years ago. Now it's like a cotton blouse in that it soaks up water immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have washed it with technical wash and sprayed it with waterproofing spray. It did not help much so i have sprayed on some more. Surely there must be some more sustainable way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The spray can itself is a lot of garbage for a little spray.&#xD;&#xA; - When i spray the jacket a lot of spray does not land on the jacket but goes into the air&#xD;&#xA; - The spray itself is harmful to the environment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There must be room for improvement on the first two points.&#xD;&#xA;I know there exists a special waterproofing wax, but that means making a bucket of the stuff, soaking the jacket and then throwing out a (bucket - a little) down the drain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some drycleaners also waterproof jackets but i dont know if what they do is less harmful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22036" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9538" RevisionGUID="8188e674-b637-433d-b034-6eec6d148027" CreationDate="2019-10-04T16:03:46.960" UserId="5532" Text="Sustainably waterproofing a rain jacket" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22037" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9538" RevisionGUID="8188e674-b637-433d-b034-6eec6d148027" CreationDate="2019-10-04T16:03:46.960" UserId="5532" Text="|environmental-impact|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22038" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9539" RevisionGUID="c26bfda7-953d-476f-aa61-09df31e65334" CreationDate="2019-10-04T18:25:57.320" UserId="4834" Text="Lanolin, produced by sheep, has water repellent properties.  It is relatively inexpensive and compact.  Application is by rubbing or brushing so it doesn't have the waste associated with aerosols.  Lanolin has other uses (eg as a skin moisturizer) so having some extra on hand is useful in other ways.  It is environmentally innocuous (it will fully biodegrade giving reasonable time and conditions).  Related to this, it is also generally regarded as safe (GRAS).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9541" RevisionGUID="1e6573fd-28c3-4a5a-be7a-bd2a44770ade" CreationDate="2019-10-05T11:24:59.293" UserId="8002" Text="There is a difference between planting a tree and growing a tree. Any tree can have fifty or sixty babies growing beneath it at any time, but only one will become another tree, if its lucky. In equable climates deciduous forest trees take 50 years to mature, Trees are not for carbon offsetting. They are for giving the planet oxygen. A tree breaths out more carbon dioxide than a man, but it also produces oxygen which a man cannot do with any efficiency. By the way a leaf which has fallen gives out practically no carbon dioxide because it is almost immediately absorbed by soil fauna, and fungi. However if a tree dies or the branches are cut off, and the branches piled piled up above ground or burnt, quite a lot of poisonous emissions are produced, besides a bulk of carbon dioxide. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9542" RevisionGUID="c70366af-704b-4d69-b4b2-bc2a24b77d2b" CreationDate="2019-10-06T02:34:53.280" UserId="8031" Text="Historically in the colonial era, cloth was waterproofed using a 1:1 mixture of boiled linseed oil and beeswax, heated so it would leech into the fibers.  For more temporary use, beeswax can sometimes be rubbed directly on the cloth. Linseed oil will provide a much better and more permanent effect, but it is also very flammable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jean-Paul Calderone brings up lanolin as an inexpensive method, but I've never seen lanolin sold in a hardware store or supermarket across the United States.  One option is to buy a product such as [Otterwax][1], which has lanolin as one of its ingredients and is a waxy substance rubbed directly onto the fabric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, washing with lanolin is a great way to decrease the water absorbance of wool fiber and improve its insulation properties.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.otterwax.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5266" RevisionGUID="be713ac0-689d-4b4a-a04d-8aa368997f47" CreationDate="2019-10-06T11:57:26.490" UserId="99" Comment="Revised post with new information, added summary" Text="**Summary:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Nylon, acrylic and especially polyester clothing release lots of microplastics during laundry. For polyester a study found between 6 and 17,7 million microfibers per 5kg wash&#xD;&#xA;- Microplastics are now ubiquitous; they are found in various foods and in 83% of drinking water samples around the world, including both tap and bottled water&#xD;&#xA;- We don't know the exact effects of microplastics on human or animal health, but the results of preliminary research are rather negative; human immune cells die after trying to absorb microplastics and micro-lungs stop growing when exposed to nylon fibers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found more information about this, and since there hasn't been a single answer so far I'm going to self-answer my question based on what I found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Microplastics are spreading##&#xD;&#xA;There are several aspects that make this a rather worrying problem. First of all recent research found that clothing gives off much more particles in a washing machine than previously thought. [The 2011 paper written by Mark Browne](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es201811s) mentioned over 1900 fibers per garment, but [new research](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749117309387) has found that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a typical 5 kg wash load of polyester fabrics could release an impressive number of microfibres, in the range of 6,000,000 - 17,700,000 ... depending on the type of detergent used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I've read there still is no direct evidence linking microfibers found in oceans to clothing but we do know that microfibers make up 85% of all man-made materials found in various ocean water samples (see Mark Brown's 2011 paper mentioned earlier). Also the types and amount of fibers found on shores matches those used in the clothing industry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, we know from [past research](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873017/) that plastic particles in (sea)water absorb other toxins present in the water. We also know microplastics are eaten by marine animals, thus introducing toxic pollutants into the food chain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third, waste water treatment plants lets microfibers through and [microplastics are now found in 83% of drinking water samples around the world, including both tap and bottled water](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/06/plastic-fibres-found-tap-water-around-world-study-reveals). Besides water, microplastics have also been found in [fish, honey, beer and salt](https://t.silk.bio/wp-content/uploads/Microplastics-from-Synthetic-Fibres-and-Padding-PDF.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic particles have spread around the entire globe and are now also found in [remote places such as the North Pole](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/24/record-levels-of-plastic-discovered-in-arctic-sea-ice)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Health effects##&#xD;&#xA;Research on the health effects of microplastics in animal or human bodies has only just begun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The WHO recently released a report saying that](https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/microplastics-in-drinking-water/en/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Based on the limited evidence available, chemicals and microbial pathogens associated with microplastics in drinking-water pose a low concern for human health. Although there is insufficient information to draw firm conclusions on the toxicity of nanoparticles, no reliable information suggests it is a concern. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the preliminary results of a large Dutch study are very negative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [immune cells that recognise and attack microplastics will die quickly as a result of the contact](https://resource.co/article/research-reveals-damaging-impact-microplastics-human-health)&#xD;&#xA; - when mini-lungs, bred from lung cells, are exposed to polyester they continue to develop normally, but when exposed to nylon microfibers growth stops &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source: original news article in Dutch](https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2303877-microplastics-lijken-gevaarlijker-dan-tot-nu-toe-gedacht.html)&#xD;&#xA;and [translated to English by Google](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&amp;tl=en&amp;u=https%3A%2F%2Fnos.nl%2Fnieuwsuur%2Fartikel%2F2303877-microplastics-lijken-gevaarlijker-dan-tot-nu-toe-gedacht.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Potential solutions##&#xD;&#xA;Although research is still in progress, an EU-sponsored research project called [MERMAIDS](http://life-mermaids.eu/en/) mentions several solutions to at least reduce the problem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Reduce friction between garments by &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   1. filling up your washing machine to the max, &#xD;&#xA;   2. use washing liquid instead of powder,&#xD;&#xA;   3. use a fabric softener.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Reduce the amount of 'damage' to your clothing so less fibers are released by&#xD;&#xA;   1. washing at low temperatures,&#xD;&#xA;   2. avoiding long washings,&#xD;&#xA;   2. dry spin at lower revolutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore the [Ocean Clean Wash Charter](http://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PSF.Charter.Ocean_.Clean_.Wash_.pdf?941464) mentions a few potential future solutions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Develop washing machine filters that catch the microfibers&#xD;&#xA; - Develop synthetic fabrics or that don't give off microfibers&#xD;&#xA; - Develop impregnation that prevents the release of microfibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course you could also try to avoid buying polyester, acrylic and nylon clothing until a good permanent solution has been found and implemented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9545" RevisionGUID="01b24d53-8fd7-444e-97a9-fb66b8690ce5" CreationDate="2019-10-07T06:50:04.270" UserId="8035" Text="I can think of carob, which already grows in the area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what other kinds would be a good source of nutrition and thrive in a Mediterranean climate with little annual rainfall ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;other tree suggestions welcome, leguminous or not! :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;many thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22050" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9545" RevisionGUID="01b24d53-8fd7-444e-97a9-fb66b8690ce5" CreationDate="2019-10-07T06:50:04.270" UserId="8035" Text="What are some leguminous food trees suited for a Mediterranean climate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22051" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9545" RevisionGUID="01b24d53-8fd7-444e-97a9-fb66b8690ce5" CreationDate="2019-10-07T06:50:04.270" UserId="8035" Text="|trees|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8356" RevisionGUID="76aeb043-9f15-4a75-9f05-57a79e5b6d6d" CreationDate="2019-10-07T08:29:12.550" UserId="6393" Comment="might it be a bubble?" Text="No, wind power is not dead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at the &lt;a href=&quot;https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VWS.CO&quot;&gt;stock price history of Vestas Wind Systems&lt;/a&gt;, one of the major manufacturers of wind turbines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2012, it was as low as 25 DKK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today, it's 587 DKK, over 20 times more than the value in 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you call a field where companies produce &gt;20x return in 7 years dead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(And to those who claim it might be a bubble: the P/E ratio is 26.49 so overvaluation compared to neutral P/E 15 is 76.6% -- most of the &gt;20x return is explained by its ability to create profits, and only very little by overvaluation.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22056" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8356" RevisionGUID="b8abee38-2f42-4cd7-a827-f647875a0e6f" CreationDate="2019-10-07T08:42:32.820" UserId="6393" Comment="add link to P/E, explain what it means" Text="No, wind power is not dead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at the &lt;a href=&quot;https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VWS.CO&quot;&gt;stock price history of Vestas Wind Systems&lt;/a&gt;, one of the major manufacturers of wind turbines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2012, it was as low as 25 DKK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today, it's 587 DKK, over 20 times more than the value in 2012.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you call a field where companies produce &gt;20x return in 7 years dead?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(And to those who claim it might be a bubble: the &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93earnings_ratio&quot;&gt;price/earnings (P/E) ratio&lt;/a&gt; is 26.49 so overvaluation compared to neutral P/E 15 is 76.6% -- most of the &gt;20x return is explained by its ability to create profits, and only very little by overvaluation.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22058" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9545" RevisionGUID="e9c229da-65c9-48c9-b3e4-a8ef5e88fc1f" CreationDate="2019-10-07T14:36:22.097" UserId="3379" Comment="added 56 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I can think of [carob](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carob), which already grows in the area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other kinds would be a good source of nutrition and thrive in a Mediterranean climate with little annual rainfall?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other tree suggestions welcome, [leguminous](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legume) or not!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22059" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9545" RevisionGUID="e9c229da-65c9-48c9-b3e4-a8ef5e88fc1f" CreationDate="2019-10-07T14:36:22.097" UserId="3379" Comment="added 56 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|food|trees|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9549" RevisionGUID="fab06137-5e41-4201-93e4-96e423d8e164" CreationDate="2019-10-08T08:08:25.633" UserId="1445" Text="Google search for &quot;wash-in waterproofing&quot;.  Several are available; Nikwax TX being a popular brand which is at least water-based and PFC free.  You use 50ml per garment (hand wash process) so you get more proofing for one bottle than the sprays.  Nikwaxare also better than many companies for environmental reporting - see https://www.nikwax.com/en-us/environment/nikwax_and_the_environment.php.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat after re-proofing can improve performance cool iron or tumble drying if the jacket allows it).  Re-proofing also works much better if done before all the original DWR coating has worn off (might be a bit late for your jacket)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9550" RevisionGUID="603b66ea-20fc-4a44-84f8-8c28c820ae9c" CreationDate="2019-10-08T13:21:47.093" UserId="8041" Text="I have repeatedly heard from various car enthusiasts that start stop technology has no benefit in improving air quality (or the tiniest smallest negligble benefit). Does it have an effect and how much?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in a busy town with many traffic lights in the centre with many traffic lights in the centre, there is a taxi rank where taxis idle for minutes at a time, there are high streets where cars wait outside shops and there are bus stations where buses leave their engines running while loading up passengers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: I'm talking about the effects here on air quality, not on fuel efficiency (although of course they are closely related).  Also, I asked the question in the Earth Science stack exchange site but it was deemed more relevent here on Sustainable Living.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22072" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9550" RevisionGUID="603b66ea-20fc-4a44-84f8-8c28c820ae9c" CreationDate="2019-10-08T13:21:47.093" UserId="8041" Text="Does Start / Stop technology in cars have an impact on air quality and by how much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22073" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9550" RevisionGUID="603b66ea-20fc-4a44-84f8-8c28c820ae9c" CreationDate="2019-10-08T13:21:47.093" UserId="8041" Text="|transport|cars|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9551" RevisionGUID="6317e2c6-51d7-494c-a162-ef25f577fc7a" CreationDate="2019-10-08T13:22:18.317" UserId="8041" Text="Generally idling will cause pollution in specific isolated areas and start stop technology could irradicate that pollution.  Here I will concentrate not on the global impact of the pollutants but at the location where the pollution is released.  The differing scenarios are important to how much of an effect start-stop / idling will have on air quality.  The location affected by idling will of course determine what air quality affects.  Taxi ranks, junctions, high streets, spaces outside schools, hospitals and other areas where cars often stop for longer than a few seconds.  The longer you idle and the more cars there are, the more pollution you would create in that specific location.  The number and type of person in the location where the idling is taking place would make a difference to how the air quality would affect people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I present a few scenarios (a link at the bottom for my calculations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A long journey with minimal stopping__&#xD;&#xA;Here the savings on pollution would be negligible because the car would not be stopped idling for much time at all!  Although of course the locations where the car does stop would be subject to fewer pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Major junction at 11:30am on a weekday (figures taken from Preston Circus Brighton)__&#xD;&#xA;During a full cycle of all traffic lights going from red to green and back for all junctions, 69 cars passed during 112 seconds.  The cars used an estimated 0.451L of petrol.  During this time 32 cars waited for 30 seconds using 0.2L of petrol.  Idling in this scenario is responsible for 44% of the fuel used and therefore I assume idling is responsible for 44% of the pollution.  It is a place where pedestrians will wait at crossings, drivers will sit in their cars, cyclists will stop catching their breath and where pedestrians sometimes have alternative routes.&#xD;&#xA;44% here is a huge and very significant number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Single car waiting in a single spot__&#xD;&#xA;In a car you would use around 0.75L of petrol per hour idling and you would change that single location from being pollution free to a place equal to a single lane road with regular traffic (1 car every 12 seconds)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A 1.5km stretch of road with 4 major junctions with traffic lights__&#xD;&#xA;A single 1.5km stretch of road could have four major junctions in a busy city.  A car stops twice for a combined total of 2 minutes.  The car will use around 0.025L of petrol idling.  Driving along this stretch of road would use around 0.15L of petrol, assuming the amount of fuel is equal to the pollution then start stop could reduce pollution by 6%.  This is a fairly small amount compared to the total but it is still significant difference in the air quality along a large stretch of road.  Streets like these in city centres will have many more people than in other areas waiting at the lights, walking along pavements, people working in shops, people living in flats above the roads, cyclists and drivers will be in their cars taking in the pollution.  These areas are some of the most dangerous generally for people because of the number of people so 6% could make a significant difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A taxi rank__&#xD;&#xA;A taxi rank with 10 cars idling in a space of around 35m. That 35m spot could have the air quality equal to a reasonably busy dual carriage way (a car every 1.68 seconds).  Some taxi ranks are covered (such as those near train stations) which could make those spaces much much worse as the pollution would not be dispersed easily. There will be people waiting for taxis next to the taxi rank, people waiting nearby as taxi ranks are usually in busy locations and the taxi drivers themselves will be sitting directly in these toxic fumes so there will be many people exposed to this pollution.  With start-stop, this pollution would be completely eradicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A school__&#xD;&#xA;The cars could be spread out more so you could say it would be a half of the above, so a busy single lane A road maybe.  The affects of pollution are greater on children because their lungs are smaller, more sensitive and growing.  Children and babies in prams are also more affected because they are shorter and closer to the pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rASB96LRIP1II4vkxGKncshfZpR3iNAy9ONmSHAkTGs/edit?usp=sharing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9552" RevisionGUID="b733256c-8202-4fe3-886f-cd767c2a1c06" CreationDate="2019-10-08T15:27:33.580" UserId="2431" Text="In the news or various other places, we see often that train travel produces significantly less greenhouse gas than air travel, without much information about how this is calculated. For example here : https://reporterre.net/L-avion-emet-1-500-fois-plus-de-CO2-que-le-train&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, they hardly ever mention if the infrastructure is taken in account. For train travel, stations, rolling material, rails, ballast, viaducts, tunnels, have to be built and maintened, sometimes replaced regularly. When passengers increase, new tracks and new stations have to be built, sometimes infrastructure extention can become very heavy. This is mostly done with construction vehicle running on diesel, and tons of concrete are used. The higher speed the train line, the more hevy is the infrastructure, in particular larger viaducts, longer tunnels, and rails used more quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air travel, as much polluting as it is, only needs airports and the planes themselves to be built and maintened. There's no need for infrastructure on the way between airports.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this is already taken in account in the calculation made &quot;ready for the public&quot; on the news, and that despite this the train is favourable. But I prefer to be always skeptical of the info and try to understand how this is calculated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9552" RevisionGUID="b733256c-8202-4fe3-886f-cd767c2a1c06" CreationDate="2019-10-08T15:27:33.580" UserId="2431" Text="Plane and train greenhouse emissiosn - comparaison taking infrastructure in account or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9552" RevisionGUID="b733256c-8202-4fe3-886f-cd767c2a1c06" CreationDate="2019-10-08T15:27:33.580" UserId="2431" Text="|transport|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22078" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9552" RevisionGUID="95b698e9-8c4d-4bf8-ba39-57c222a5bcfb" CreationDate="2019-10-08T15:50:18.320" UserId="2431" Comment="edited title" Text="Plane and train greenhouse emissions - comparaison taking infrastructure in account or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9551" RevisionGUID="e74d66e4-b518-4acf-aa98-b0ffe3c18ec5" CreationDate="2019-10-08T15:52:17.463" UserId="8041" Comment="Added some figures and links" Text="Generally idling will cause pollution in specific isolated areas and start stop technology could irradicate that pollution.  Here I will concentrate not on the global impact of the pollutants but at the location where the pollution is released.  The differing scenarios are important to how much of an effect start-stop / idling will have on air quality.  The location affected by idling will of course determine what air quality affects.  Taxi ranks, junctions, high streets, spaces outside schools, hospitals and other areas where cars often stop for longer than a few seconds.  The longer you idle and the more cars there are, the more pollution you would create in that specific location.  The number and type of person in the location where the idling is taking place would make a difference to how the air quality would affect people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I present a few scenarios (a link at the bottom for my calculations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A long journey with minimal stopping__&#xD;&#xA;Here the savings on pollution would be negligible because the car would not be stopped idling for much time at all!  Although of course the locations where the car does stop would be subject to fewer pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Major junction at 11:30am on a weekday (figures taken from Preston Circus Brighton)__&#xD;&#xA;During a full cycle of all traffic lights going from red to green and back for all junctions, 69 cars passed during 112 seconds.  The cars used an estimated 0.451L of petrol.  During this time 32 cars waited for 30 seconds using 0.2L of petrol.  Idling in this scenario is responsible for 44% of the fuel used and therefore I assume idling is responsible for 44% of the pollution.  It is a place where pedestrians will wait at crossings, drivers will sit in their cars, cyclists will stop catching their breath and where pedestrians sometimes have alternative routes.&#xD;&#xA;44% here is a huge and very significant number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Single car waiting in a single spot__&#xD;&#xA;In a car you would use around 0.75L of petrol per hour idling and you would change that single location from being pollution free to a place equal to a single lane road with regular traffic (1 car every 12 seconds)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A 1.5km stretch of road with 4 major junctions with traffic lights__&#xD;&#xA;A single 1.5km stretch of road could have four major junctions in a busy city.  A car stops twice for a combined total of 2 minutes.  The car will use around 0.025L of petrol idling.  Driving along this stretch of road would use around 0.15L of petrol, assuming the amount of fuel is equal to the pollution then start stop could reduce pollution by 6%.  This is a fairly small amount compared to the total but it is still significant difference in the air quality along a large stretch of road.  Streets like these in city centres will have many more people than in other areas waiting at the lights, walking along pavements, people working in shops, people living in flats above the roads, cyclists and drivers will be in their cars taking in the pollution.  These areas are some of the most dangerous generally for people because of the number of people so 6% could make a significant difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A taxi rank__&#xD;&#xA;A taxi rank with 10 cars idling in a space of around 35m. That 35m spot could have the air quality equal to a reasonably busy dual carriage way (a car every 1.68 seconds).  Some taxi ranks are covered (such as those near train stations) which could make those spaces much much worse as the pollution would not be dispersed easily. There will be people waiting for taxis next to the taxi rank, people waiting nearby as taxi ranks are usually in busy locations and the taxi drivers themselves will be sitting directly in these toxic fumes so there will be many people exposed to this pollution.  With start-stop, this pollution would be completely eradicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A school__&#xD;&#xA;The cars could be spread out more so you could say it would be a half of the above, so a busy single lane A road maybe.  The affects of pollution are greater on children because their lungs are smaller, more sensitive and growing.  Children and babies in prams are also more affected because they are shorter and closer to the pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Idling uses][1] about 0.165 gallons/h = 0.75L/h = 0.00021L/s &#xD;&#xA; - I assume 23.5mg = 10km/L = 10,000m/L &#xD;&#xA; - I assume each car will wast 10 seconds restarting the engine - [new cars could be as low as 3s though][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rASB96LRIP1II4vkxGKncshfZpR3iNAy9ONmSHAkTGs/edit?usp=sharing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://carfromjapan.com/article/car-maintenance/how-much-gas-does-idling-use/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1253/when-does-using-a-cars-start-stop-system-become-more-economical" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9551" RevisionGUID="c4934f61-c7ef-4007-95b7-cb9f6c7fe354" CreationDate="2019-10-08T16:12:15.067" UserId="8041" Comment="Added some figures and links" Text="Generally idling will cause pollution in specific isolated areas and start stop technology could irradicate that pollution.  Here I will concentrate not on the global impact of the pollutants but at the location where the pollution is released.  The differing scenarios are important to how much of an effect start-stop / idling will have on air quality.  The location affected by idling will of course determine what air quality affects.  Taxi ranks, junctions, high streets, spaces outside schools, hospitals and other areas where cars often stop for longer than a few seconds.  The longer you idle and the more cars there are, the more pollution you would create in that specific location.  The number and type of person in the location where the idling is taking place would make a difference to how the air quality would affect people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I present a few scenarios (a link at the bottom for my calculations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A long journey with minimal stopping__&#xD;&#xA;Here the savings on pollution would be negligible because the car would not be stopped idling for much time at all!  Although of course the locations where the car does stop would be subject to fewer pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Major junction at 11:30am on a weekday (figures taken from Preston Circus Brighton)__&#xD;&#xA;During a full cycle of all traffic lights going from red to green and back for all junctions, 69 cars passed during 112 seconds.  The cars used an estimated 0.451L of petrol.  During this time 32 cars waited for 30 seconds using 0.2L of petrol.  Idling in this scenario is responsible for 44% of the fuel used and therefore I assume idling is responsible for 44% of the pollution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Method*: Cars waiting count - I counted all the cars stopped just before the lights turned red and timed the total for the red light for each traffic light.  I then divided that number by two assuming the cars waited on average half the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    32 cars waiting an average of 30s (adjusted 10s for startup)&#xD;&#xA;    69 cars passed this junction over 112s&#xD;&#xA;    Length of junction (with a bit either side) = 65m&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Total fuel used whilst idling&#xD;&#xA;    0.00021L/s x 32cars x 30s = 0.2L&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Total fuel used driving along junction&#xD;&#xA;    1/(10000m/L x (1m/65m)) x 69 cars = 0.451L&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A major city centre junction like this is a place where pedestrians will wait at crossings, drivers will sit in their cars, cyclists will stop to catch their breath and where pedestrians sometimes have no alternative route.&#xD;&#xA;**44%** here is a huge and I think a very significant number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Single car waiting in a single spot__&#xD;&#xA;In a car you would use around 0.75L of petrol per hour idling and you would change that single location from being pollution free to a place equal to a single lane road with regular traffic (1 car every 12 seconds)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A 1.5km stretch of road with 4 major junctions with traffic lights__&#xD;&#xA;A single 1.5km stretch of road could have four major junctions in a busy city.  A car stops twice for a combined total of 2 minutes.  The car will use around 0.025L of petrol idling.  Driving along this stretch of road would use around 0.15L of petrol, assuming the amount of fuel is equal to the pollution then start stop could reduce pollution by 6%.  This is a fairly small amount compared to the total but it is still significant difference in the air quality along a large stretch of road.  Streets like these in city centres will have many more people than in other areas waiting at the lights, walking along pavements, people working in shops, people living in flats above the roads, cyclists and drivers will be in their cars taking in the pollution.  These areas are some of the most dangerous generally for people because of the number of people so 6% could make a significant difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A taxi rank__&#xD;&#xA;A taxi rank with 10 cars idling in a space of around 35m. That 35m spot could have the air quality equal to a reasonably busy dual carriage way (a car every 1.68 seconds).  Some taxi ranks are covered (such as those near train stations) which could make those spaces much much worse as the pollution would not be dispersed easily. There will be people waiting for taxis next to the taxi rank, people waiting nearby as taxi ranks are usually in busy locations and the taxi drivers themselves will be sitting directly in these toxic fumes so there will be many people exposed to this pollution.  With start-stop, this pollution would be completely eradicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A school__&#xD;&#xA;The cars could be spread out more so you could say it would be a half of the above, so a busy single lane A road maybe.  The affects of pollution are greater on children because their lungs are smaller, more sensitive and growing.  Children and babies in prams are also more affected because they are shorter and closer to the pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Idling uses][1] about 0.165 gallons/h = 0.75L/h = 0.00021L/s &#xD;&#xA; - I assume 23.5mg = 10km/L = 10,000m/L &#xD;&#xA; - I assume each car will wast 10 seconds restarting the engine - [new cars could be as low as 3s though][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rASB96LRIP1II4vkxGKncshfZpR3iNAy9ONmSHAkTGs/edit?usp=sharing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://carfromjapan.com/article/car-maintenance/how-much-gas-does-idling-use/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1253/when-does-using-a-cars-start-stop-system-become-more-economical" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22081" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9551" RevisionGUID="b0df250f-6b56-48ec-abfe-619687688f29" CreationDate="2019-10-08T16:35:10.437" UserId="8041" Comment="deleted 144 characters in body" Text="A car stationary but left running (idling) will cause pollution in that specific location; start stop technology could avoid the pollution responsible for idling.  Here I will concentrate not on the global impact of the pollution but at the localised affected area.  The differing scenarios are important to understand how much of an effect start-stop will have on air quality.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taxi ranks, junctions, city centres, high streets, spaces outside schools, hospitals and other areas where cars often stop for longer than a few seconds; the important part is that these are usually places with a large number of people.  The longer you idle and the more cars doing it, the more pollution is created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I present a few scenarios (a link at the bottom for my calculations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A long journey with minimal stopping__&#xD;&#xA;Here the savings on pollution would be negligible because the car would not be stopped idling for much time at all!  Although of course the locations where the car does stop would be subject to fewer pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Major junction at 11:30am on a weekday (figures taken from Preston Circus Brighton)__&#xD;&#xA;During a full cycle of all traffic lights going from red to green and back for all junctions, 69 cars passed during 112 seconds.  The cars used an estimated 0.451L of petrol.  During this time 32 cars waited for 30 seconds using 0.2L of petrol.  Idling in this scenario is responsible for 44% of the fuel used and therefore I assume idling is responsible for 44% of the pollution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Method*: Cars waiting count - I counted all the cars stopped just before the lights turned red and timed the total for the red light for each traffic light.  I then divided that number by two assuming the cars waited on average half the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    32 cars waiting an average of 30s (adjusted 10s for startup)&#xD;&#xA;    69 cars passed this junction over 112s&#xD;&#xA;    Length of junction (with a bit either side) = 65m&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Total fuel used whilst idling&#xD;&#xA;    0.00021L/s x 32cars x 30s = 0.2L&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Total fuel used driving along junction&#xD;&#xA;    1/(10000m/L x (1m/65m)) x 69 cars = 0.451L&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A major city centre junction like this is a place where pedestrians will wait at crossings, drivers will sit in their cars, cyclists will stop to catch their breath and where pedestrians sometimes have no alternative route.&#xD;&#xA;**44%** here is a huge and I think a very significant number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Single car waiting in a single spot__&#xD;&#xA;In a car you would use around 0.75L of petrol per hour idling and you would change that single location from being pollution free to a place equal to a single lane road with regular traffic (1 car every 12 seconds)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A 1.5km stretch of road with 4 major junctions with traffic lights__&#xD;&#xA;A single 1.5km stretch of road could have four major junctions in a busy city.  A car stops twice for a combined total of 2 minutes.  The car will use around 0.025L of petrol idling.  Driving along this stretch of road would use around 0.15L of petrol, assuming the amount of fuel is equal to the pollution then start stop could reduce pollution by 6%.  This is a fairly small amount compared to the total but it is still significant difference in the air quality along a large stretch of road.  Streets like these in city centres will have many more people than in other areas waiting at the lights, walking along pavements, people working in shops, people living in flats above the roads, cyclists and drivers will be in their cars taking in the pollution.  These areas are some of the most dangerous generally for people because of the number of people so 6% could make a significant difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A taxi rank__&#xD;&#xA;A taxi rank with 10 cars idling in a space of around 35m. That 35m spot could have the air quality equal to a reasonably busy dual carriage way (a car every 1.68 seconds).  Some taxi ranks are covered (such as those near train stations) which could make those spaces much much worse as the pollution would not be dispersed easily. There will be people waiting for taxis next to the taxi rank, people waiting nearby as taxi ranks are usually in busy locations and the taxi drivers themselves will be sitting directly in these toxic fumes so there will be many people exposed to this pollution.  With start-stop, this pollution would be completely eradicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A school__&#xD;&#xA;The cars could be spread out more so you could say it would be a half of the above, so a busy single lane A road maybe.  The affects of pollution are greater on children because their lungs are smaller, more sensitive and growing.  Children and babies in prams are also more affected because they are shorter and closer to the pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Idling uses][1] about 0.165 gallons/h = 0.75L/h = 0.00021L/s &#xD;&#xA; - I assume 23.5mg = 10km/L = 10,000m/L &#xD;&#xA; - I assume each car will wast 10 seconds restarting the engine - [new cars could be as low as 3s though][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rASB96LRIP1II4vkxGKncshfZpR3iNAy9ONmSHAkTGs/edit?usp=sharing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://carfromjapan.com/article/car-maintenance/how-much-gas-does-idling-use/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1253/when-does-using-a-cars-start-stop-system-become-more-economical" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22082" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9551" RevisionGUID="b316e77e-53d6-4566-8b99-81f774cd9578" CreationDate="2019-10-08T16:41:19.260" UserId="8041" Comment="deleted 144 characters in body" Text="A car stationary but left running (idling) will cause pollution in that specific location; start stop technology could avoid the pollution responsible for idling.  Here I will concentrate not on the global impact of the pollution but at the localised affected area.  The differing scenarios are important to understand how much of an effect start-stop will have on air quality.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taxi ranks, junctions, city centres, high streets, spaces outside schools, hospitals and other areas where cars often stop for longer than a few seconds; the important part is that these are usually places with a large number of people.  The longer you idle and the more cars doing it, the more pollution is created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I present a few scenarios (a link at the bottom for my calculations)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A long journey with minimal stopping__&#xD;&#xA;Here the savings on pollution would be negligible because the car would not be stopped idling for much time at all!  Although of course the locations where the car does stop would be subject to fewer pollutants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Major junction at 11:30am on a weekday (figures taken from Preston Circus Brighton)__&#xD;&#xA;During a full cycle of all traffic lights going from red to green and back for all junctions, 69 cars passed during 112 seconds.  The cars used an estimated 0.451L of petrol.  During this time 32 cars waited for 30 seconds using 0.2L of petrol.  Idling in this scenario is responsible for 44% of the fuel used and therefore I assume idling is responsible for 44% of the pollution.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Method*: Cars waiting count - I counted all the cars stopped just before the lights turned red and timed the total for the red light for each traffic light.  I then divided that number by two assuming the cars waited on average half the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    32 cars waiting an average of 30s (adjusted 10s for startup)&#xD;&#xA;    69 cars passed this junction over 112s&#xD;&#xA;    Length of junction (with a bit either side) = 65m&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Total fuel used whilst idling&#xD;&#xA;    0.00021L/s x 32cars x 30s = 0.2L&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Total fuel used driving along junction&#xD;&#xA;    1/(10000m/L x (1m/65m)) x 69 cars = 0.451L&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A major city centre junction like this is a place where pedestrians will wait at crossings, drivers will sit in their cars, cyclists will stop to catch their breath and where pedestrians sometimes have no alternative route.&#xD;&#xA;**44%** here is a huge and I think a very significant number.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__Single car waiting in a single spot__&#xD;&#xA;In a car you would use around 0.75L of petrol per hour idling and you would change that single location from being pollution free to a place equal to a single lane road with regular traffic (1 car every 12 seconds)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A 1.5km stretch of road with 4 major junctions with traffic lights__&#xD;&#xA;A single 1.5km stretch of road could have four major junctions in a busy city.  A car stops twice for a combined total of 2 minutes.  The car will use around 0.025L of petrol idling.  Driving along this stretch of road would use around 0.15L of petrol, assuming the amount of fuel is equal to the pollution then start stop could reduce pollution by 6%.  This is a fairly small amount compared to the total but it is still significant difference in the air quality along a large stretch of road.  Streets like these in city centres will have many more people than in other areas waiting at the lights, walking along pavements, people working in shops, people living in flats above the roads, cyclists and drivers will be in their cars taking in the pollution.  These areas are some of the most dangerous generally for people because of the number of people so 6% could make a significant difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A taxi rank__&#xD;&#xA;A taxi rank with 10 cars idling in a space of around 35m. That 35m spot could have the air quality equal to a reasonably busy dual carriage way (a car every 1.68 seconds).  Some taxi ranks are covered (such as those near train stations) which could make those spaces much much worse as the pollution would not be dispersed easily. There will be people waiting for taxis next to the taxi rank, people waiting nearby as taxi ranks are usually in busy locations and the taxi drivers themselves will be sitting directly in these toxic fumes so there will be many people exposed to this pollution.  With start-stop, this pollution would be completely eradicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;__A school__&#xD;&#xA;The cars could be spread out more so you could say it would be a half of the above, so a busy single lane A road maybe.  The affects of pollution are greater on children because their lungs are smaller, more sensitive and growing.  Children and babies in prams are also more affected because they are shorter and closer to the pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Amount of fuel used per hour idling][1] [Cost of engine restart][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Fuel used idling = 0.165 gallons/h = 0.75L/h = 0.00021L/s &#xD;&#xA;    I assume 23.5mg = 10km/L = 10,000m/L &#xD;&#xA;    I assume each restart is equal to 10 seconds running (more accurately 3s)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rASB96LRIP1II4vkxGKncshfZpR3iNAy9ONmSHAkTGs/edit?usp=sharing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://carfromjapan.com/article/car-maintenance/how-much-gas-does-idling-use/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1253/when-does-using-a-cars-start-stop-system-become-more-economical" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22083" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="c4f10ffb-6b37-4cec-8028-9b79e8478e60" CreationDate="2019-10-08T16:43:25.217" UserId="8040" Comment="Fix a single typo + some formatting changes due to the 6 character edit limit." Text="A lovely question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can remember when there were no plastic bottles. Glass - made from one of our most common minerals - quartz, is not likely to run out, and is fully recyclable. I still get my milk in glass bottles which are collected by the milkman washed out and used again, with almost zero energy use; not even in transport as they are collected during the delivery. When I was a child all glass bottles could be taken back to the shop for which we received the princely sum of one old penny. Those were the days when humanity thought of a future.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22084" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="c4f10ffb-6b37-4cec-8028-9b79e8478e60" CreationDate="2019-10-08T16:43:25.217" Comment="Proposed by 8040 approved by 99 edit id of 581" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9552" RevisionGUID="346ad1a6-fe8e-4aa7-a9ce-7f5ba17e8939" CreationDate="2019-10-08T16:46:36.073" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="In the news or various other places, we see often that train travel produces significantly less greenhouse gas than air travel, without much information about how this is calculated. For example here : https://reporterre.net/L-avion-emet-1-500-fois-plus-de-CO2-que-le-train&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, they hardly ever mention if the infrastructure is taken in account. For train travel, stations, rolling material, rails, ballast, viaducts, tunnels, have to be built and maintained, sometimes replaced regularly. When passengers increase, new tracks and new stations have to be built, sometimes infrastructure extension can become very heavy. This is mostly done with construction vehicle running on diesel, and tons of concrete are used. The higher speed the train line, the more heavy is the infrastructure, in particular larger viaducts, longer tunnels, and rails used more quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air travel, as much polluting as it is, only needs airports and the planes themselves to be built and maintained. There's no need for infrastructure on the way between airports.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe this is already taken in account in the calculation made &quot;ready for the public&quot; on the news, and that despite this the train is favourable. But I prefer to be always skeptical of the info and try to understand how this is calculated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22086" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9552" RevisionGUID="346ad1a6-fe8e-4aa7-a9ce-7f5ba17e8939" CreationDate="2019-10-08T16:46:36.073" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="Plane and train greenhouse emissions - comparison taking infrastructure in account or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9554" RevisionGUID="8eb3007e-e102-4071-9d8d-59afa62f1a22" CreationDate="2019-10-08T20:54:45.180" UserId="8002" Text="I can't think of any leguminous trees which produce edible fruit. Olives are the obvious trees for a dry Mediterranean climate. Then the citrines and Almonds Wallnuts and sweet chestnuts. But if you are emphasizing dryness what about coming down to ground level with pineapples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9555" RevisionGUID="247ceef1-f4bc-4137-90d9-f0f0f987183b" CreationDate="2019-10-08T21:37:44.487" UserId="8013" Text="I'm going to be traveling from London to Toulouse next year. I could take a flight for around £100, or a train journey for £170. The emissions for the flight would be about 500kg, which would cost about £10 at today's prices. To be sure, I could offset it 3 times for £30, and still get there faster and save £40. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the best option, to travel by train, of take the flight and use the money saved to offset 3 times the emissions of the flight?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22091" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9555" RevisionGUID="247ceef1-f4bc-4137-90d9-f0f0f987183b" CreationDate="2019-10-08T21:37:44.487" UserId="8013" Text="Emissions offsets versus avoidance: can they be compared?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22092" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9555" RevisionGUID="247ceef1-f4bc-4137-90d9-f0f0f987183b" CreationDate="2019-10-08T21:37:44.487" UserId="8013" Text="|carbon-footprint|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9556" RevisionGUID="20172968-e88c-4fdf-a657-6bd3cc0ff050" CreationDate="2019-10-08T21:50:36.173" UserId="8041" Text="Cars idling use about 1 litre per hour of petrol ([link][1]).  Imagine 30 cars sitting together waiting in a traffic jam with their engines running for just one minute; they would burn 0.5L of petrol and create the associated pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Here is a [video][2] of a 0.5L bottle of petrol being burnt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between using stop-start and no stop-start would be like taking a whole litre of petrol and burning it all within a minute or...not burning it at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there are various filters to catch some of the particulates but the gases have to go somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://carfromjapan.com/article/car-maintenance/how-much-gas-does-idling-use/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://youtu.be/NAxIY3eAO-g?t=157" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9556" RevisionGUID="0a512be4-a240-488d-9e23-45e94ff45769" CreationDate="2019-10-08T22:07:40.093" UserId="8041" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Cars idling use about 1 litre per hour of petrol ([link][1]).  Imagine 30 cars sitting together waiting in a traffic jam with their engines running for just one minute; they would burn 0.5L of petrol and create the associated pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Here is a [video][2] of a 0.5L bottle of petrol being burnt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference here between using stop-start and no stop-start would be like taking that bottle of petrol and burning it all within a minute or...not burning it at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there are various filters to catch some of the particulates but the gases have to go somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://carfromjapan.com/article/car-maintenance/how-much-gas-does-idling-use/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://youtu.be/NAxIY3eAO-g?t=157" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22095" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9550" RevisionGUID="393cd9cb-9c33-4173-b65b-72527b5c28e7" CreationDate="2019-10-08T22:45:08.570" UserId="8041" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="I have repeatedly heard from various car enthusiasts that start stop technology has no benefit in improving air quality (or the tiniest smallest negligble benefit). Does it have an effect and how much?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in a busy town with many traffic lights and junctions, there is a taxi rank where taxis idle for minutes at a time, there are high streets where cars wait outside shops with their engines running and there are bus stations where buses leave their engines running while loading up passengers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: I'm talking about the effects here on air quality, not on fuel efficiency (although of course they are closely related).  Also, I asked the question in the Earth Science stack exchange site but it was deemed more relevent here on Sustainable Living.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22098" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9556" RevisionGUID="9de20c5a-59a2-4481-a3d8-98719432765c" CreationDate="2019-10-09T08:07:28.353" UserId="8041" Comment="added 328 characters in body" Text="Cars idling use about 1 litre per hour of petrol ([link][1]).  Imagine 30 cars sitting together waiting in a traffic jam with their engines running for just one minute; they would burn 0.5L of petrol and create the associated pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Here is a [video][2] of a 0.5L bottle of petrol being burnt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference here between using stop-start and no stop-start would be like taking that bottle of petrol and burning it all within a minute or...not burning it at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there are various filters to catch some of the particulates but the gases have to go somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other Info: *You save fuel if the wait is longer than 0.2 seconds ([link][3]).&#xD;&#xA;Idling can damage your vehicle more than restarting ([link][4]).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://carfromjapan.com/article/car-maintenance/how-much-gas-does-idling-use/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://youtu.be/NAxIY3eAO-g?t=157&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57794/calculating-engine-starter-s-energy-use/75572#75572&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.southampton.gov.uk/images/myths_tcm63-398015.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9556" RevisionGUID="4dd5bc6c-c923-40a0-9bf5-937e3222ac95" CreationDate="2019-10-09T08:15:41.747" UserId="8041" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Cars idling use about 1 litre per hour of petrol ([link][1]).  Imagine 30 cars sitting together waiting in a traffic jam with their engines running for just one minute; they would burn 0.5L of petrol and create the associated pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Here is a [video][2] of a 0.5L bottle of petrol being burnt.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference here between using stop-start and no stop-start would be like taking that bottle of petrol and burning it all within a minute or...not burning it at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, there are various filters to catch some of the particulates but the gases have to go somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other Info: *You save fuel if the wait is longer than 0.2 seconds ([link][3]).&#xD;&#xA;Idling can damage your vehicle more than restarting ([link][4]).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://carfromjapan.com/article/car-maintenance/how-much-gas-does-idling-use/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://youtu.be/CYQtyakQAtQ?t=81&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57794/calculating-engine-starter-s-energy-use/75572#75572&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.southampton.gov.uk/images/myths_tcm63-398015.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22101" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9538" RevisionGUID="a5674d41-e2d9-4efc-a072-9cfdcba5859e" CreationDate="2019-10-10T03:01:42.720" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1182129048853585920" />
  <row Id="22102" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9557" RevisionGUID="87c7eaeb-811e-4fee-948f-78f66a6d69ae" CreationDate="2019-10-10T08:21:23.393" UserId="2846" Text="Idling is particularly bad for NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions, which are a major concern for air quality.  [Here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698183902925)'s an old paper showing that an idling engine emits more NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; than one driving at 40 km/h, despite emitting less NO; NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is much worse for human health. More recent studies that I've found don't change the conclusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a [junction near me](https://www.southglos.gov.uk/transport-and-streets/streets/roads-road-works/major-roadworks/hambrook-air-quality-action/) there's currently an experiment taking place to reduce idling.  This isn't by encouraging people to switch off, but by improving traffic flow on the major routes, removing some turning options that cause a lot of waiting.  This is projected to have a noticeable improvement on NO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels. There's quite a bit of background at that link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22103" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="49c9d5cc-cf3a-4606-a8ae-0fac6092b83b" CreationDate="2019-10-10T16:01:10.123" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9558" RevisionGUID="c48c2391-6c0c-4be2-a563-253e747ad6b5" CreationDate="2019-10-10T16:10:36.587" UserId="6602" Text="Yes. Account for as many externalities as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First you need to calculate the offset costs for both options, so that they would both be equally Carbon Neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The flight, as you've calculated is £100 + £10 = £110&#xD;&#xA;* The train is about 40Kg CO2 so £170 + £1 = £171&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps we can assume that CO2 footprint of getting to the airport is the same as the CO2 footprint of getting to the railway station so they cancel each other out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flight time is 01:45, the train duration is about 07:49. You have to put a price on your leisure time, personally my price is £15 per hour, its about the same as my labour rate. Other people may value their leisure time more or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for the flight I'm using up £26.25 of my leisure time. For the train, it would be £117.25.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding these onto the CO2 and ticket costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Flight £136.25&#xD;&#xA;* Train £288.25&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now both options are Carbon Neutral and we've accounted for the time taken. Now think about your job, where the money comes from, when you commute to work, you might generate CO2 if you travel by car, or by train, or electric car. Your job might generate CO2 just from running computers or heavy machinery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which ever travel option you chose for the trip to Toulouse has to be paid for by your labours, which generate some degree of CO2. Even if you offset the CO2 for your labour, it still means more labour to pay for it. To minimise the amount of labour you can chose the cheapest travel option, that is flying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand. If you can somehow persuade your employer that you can do work on the train journey and get paid for it, then that throws the equations the other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the basic principle remains to account for as many externalities as possible, convert them into some financial sum, and apply it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people might argue that the CO2 cost (£20 per tonne) is a bit low. That's fine we can adjust our sums accordingly. The train is twice as expensive as the plane, so even if the cost of CO2 doubled, the plane might still be the better option. If the CO2 price increased sixfold (to £120 per tonne) then it might tip the balance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people might argue that the plane pollutes the atmosphere and so has a greater cost. That's fine too, we can look up what that cost is and apply it. But also establish the precise CO2 footprint of the energy source for the train.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can go on for ages, adding more and more marginal costs to either side, but it probably won't affect the outcome that the fast cheap flight is better than the slow expensive train." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9558" RevisionGUID="d15d8bde-9f39-4c8e-ae5f-0ec3e2a9ffd2" CreationDate="2019-10-11T12:47:17.163" UserId="6602" Comment="Responding to comments" Text="Yes. Account for as many externalities as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ticket price**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Flight £100&#xD;&#xA;* Train £170&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Environmental Impact Cost**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Calculate the offset costs for both options, so that they would both be equally Carbon Neutral.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The flight, as you've calculated is £100 + £10 = £110&#xD;&#xA;* The train is about 40Kg CO2 so £170 + £1 = £171&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps we can assume that CO2 footprint of getting to the airport is the same as the CO2 footprint of getting to the railway station so they cancel each other out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Opportunity cost of travel time**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The flight time is 01:45, the train duration is about 07:49. You have to put a price on your leisure time, personally my price is £15 per hour, its about the same as my labour rate. Other people may value their leisure time more or less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for the flight I'm using up £26.25 of my leisure time. For the train, it would be £117.25.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Adding these onto the CO2 and ticket costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Flight £136.25&#xD;&#xA;* Train £288.25&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now both options are Carbon Neutral and we've accounted for the time taken. Now think about your job, where the money comes from, when you commute to work, you might generate CO2 if you travel by car, or by train, or electric car. Your job might generate CO2 just from running computers or heavy machinery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which ever travel option you chose for the trip to Toulouse has to be paid for by your labours, which generate some degree of CO2. Even if you offset the CO2 for your labour, it still means more labour to pay for it. To minimise the amount of labour you can chose the cheapest travel option, that is flying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would have to do twice as much work to pay for the train journey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand. If you can somehow persuade your employer that you can do work on the train journey and get paid for it, then that throws the equations the other way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the basic principle remains, to account for as many externalities as possible, convert them into some financial sum, and apply it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Other externalities**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people might argue that the CO2 cost (£20 per tonne) is a bit low. That's fine we can adjust our sums accordingly. The train is twice as expensive as the plane, so even if the Carbon Tax / Offset Cost of CO2 doubled, the plane might still be the better option. If the CO2 price increased sixfold (to £120 per tonne) then it might tip the balance, but society would be very different already in such a scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people might argue that the plane pollutes the atmosphere and so has a greater cost. That's fine too, we can look up what that cost is and apply it. But also establish the precise CO2 footprint of the energy source for the train, is it diesel or electric, nuclear electricity or coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can go on for ages, adding more and more marginal costs to either side, but it probably won't affect the outcome that the fast cheap flight is better than the slow expensive train, and the environmental impact is cheap to pay for." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9559" RevisionGUID="a7f34298-2b27-4c9a-9d3d-a70ac26cca1c" CreationDate="2019-10-11T13:34:03.287" UserId="99" Text="&#xD;&#xA;There is a saying in the sustainability world; &quot;***Reduce what you can, offset what you can't***&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you burn fossil fuels, you are adding CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to the atmosphere. &#xD;&#xA;While it is possible to reduce atmospheric CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels with an off-setting scheme, for example by planting new trees that take up CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;,  burning fossil fuels still raises the amount of carbon that is part of the Earth's [carbon cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle).&#xD;&#xA;At a certain point there will be too much carbon and off-setting no longer works.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, some people claim it is already impossible to compensate all of our emissions (see for example the answers on [this Earth Science SE question](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/a/2642/1109)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming this trip to Toulouse is too important for you to not go, so then the train is the better option here simply because the emissions are lower. And if you are really dedicated to be environmentally friendly you should offset the emissions for the train.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that not all off-setting schemes are equally effective, so you may want to do some research before you select one.&#xD;&#xA;Check if it is [Gold Standard](https://www.goldstandard.org) certified. Also select projects that focus on renewable energy or energy efficiency as these are&#xD;&#xA;usually most effective. You can find more information on this in [this Short Guide to Carbon Offsets from Ethical Consumers.org](https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/energy/short-guide-carbon-offsets)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9559" RevisionGUID="e4d95722-116a-4e08-9fa3-17b378cb4891" CreationDate="2019-10-11T13:39:04.507" UserId="99" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="There is a saying in the sustainability world; &quot;***Reduce what you can, offset what you can't***&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you burn fossil fuels, you are adding CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to the atmosphere. &#xD;&#xA;While it is possible to reduce atmospheric CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels with an off-setting scheme, for example by planting new trees that take up CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;,  burning fossil fuels still raises the amount of carbon that is part of the Earth's [carbon cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle).&#xD;&#xA;At a certain point there will be too much carbon and off-setting no longer works.&#xD;&#xA;In fact, some people claim it is already impossible to compensate all of our emissions (see for example the answers on [this Earth Science SE question](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/a/2642/1109)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm assuming this trip to Toulouse is too important for you to not go, so then the train is the better option here simply because the emissions are lower. And if you are really dedicated to be environmentally friendly you should offset the emissions for the train.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that not all off-setting schemes are equally effective, so you may want to do some research before you select one.&#xD;&#xA;Check if it is [Gold Standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Standard_(carbon_offset_standard)) or [Verified Carbon Standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verified_Carbon_Standard) certified. Also select projects that focus on renewable energy or energy efficiency as these are&#xD;&#xA;usually most effective. You can find more information on this in [this Short Guide to Carbon Offsets from Ethical Consumers.org](https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/energy/short-guide-carbon-offsets)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22108" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9555" RevisionGUID="765a2f15-abc0-4432-9a41-03dfe73fa29b" CreationDate="2019-10-11T16:15:51.097" UserId="3379" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I'm going to be traveling from London to Toulouse next year. I could take a flight for around £100, or a train journey for £170. The emissions for the flight would be about 500kg, which would cost about £10 to offset at today's prices. To be sure, I could offset it 3 times for £30, and still get there faster and save £40. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the best option, to travel by train, or take the flight and use the money saved to offset 3 times the emissions of the flight?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9560" RevisionGUID="8eedea5e-cd81-43f4-9475-512898c8c129" CreationDate="2019-10-11T16:41:01.080" UserId="8041" Text="Everything I have read online seems to indicate that start / stop technology reduces air pollution ([link1][1], [link2][2], [link3][3]).  [My calculations][4], if correct, show that the difference between idling and not idling could save 30% of pollution at major junctions.  Why is it not law for start/stop technology to be fitted as standard on all new cars (UK / EU)?  (the 2020 Hyundai i10 has no option for start/stop at all)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9550/does-start-stop-technology-in-cars-have-an-impact-on-air-quality-and-by-how-mu&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57794/calculating-engine-starter-s-energy-use/75572#75572&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1253/when-does-using-a-cars-start-stop-system-become-more-economical&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/9551/8041" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22110" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9560" RevisionGUID="8eedea5e-cd81-43f4-9475-512898c8c129" CreationDate="2019-10-11T16:41:01.080" UserId="8041" Text="Why are new cars being built in the UK / europe without Start-Stop technology when it seems it can lower pollution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22111" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9560" RevisionGUID="8eedea5e-cd81-43f4-9475-512898c8c129" CreationDate="2019-10-11T16:41:01.080" UserId="8041" Text="|transport|fuel-efficiency|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9560" RevisionGUID="b4a2f8cc-4329-4fff-9aaf-acc1f658d939" CreationDate="2019-10-11T16:56:05.160" UserId="8041" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="Everything I have read online seems to indicate that start / stop technology reduces air pollution ([link1][1], [link2][2], [link3][3]).  [My calculations][4], if correct, show that the difference between idling and not idling could save 30% of pollution at major junctions.  Why is it not law for start/stop technology to be fitted as standard on all new cars (UK / EU)?  (the [2019 Hyundai i10][5] has no option for start/stop at all)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9550/does-start-stop-technology-in-cars-have-an-impact-on-air-quality-and-by-how-mu&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57794/calculating-engine-starter-s-energy-use/75572#75572&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1253/when-does-using-a-cars-start-stop-system-become-more-economical&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/9551/8041&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/hyundai/i10" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9560" RevisionGUID="0f46564d-60f8-4582-88a7-92cb997402c3" CreationDate="2019-10-11T17:31:11.793" UserId="8041" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="Everything I have read online seems to indicate that start / stop technology reduces air pollution ([link1][1], [link2][2], [link3][3]).  [My calculations][4], if correct, show that the difference between idling and not idling could save 30% of pollution at major junctions.  Why is it not law for start/stop technology to be fitted as standard on all new cars (UK / EU)?  (the [2019 Hyundai i10][5] has no option for start/stop at all, neither does the [Citroen C3 2020 French model][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9550/does-start-stop-technology-in-cars-have-an-impact-on-air-quality-and-by-how-mu&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57794/calculating-engine-starter-s-energy-use/75572#75572&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1253/when-does-using-a-cars-start-stop-system-become-more-economical&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/9551/8041&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/hyundai/i10&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.caradvice.com.au/747898/2019-citroen-c3-aircross-pricing-spec/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9560" RevisionGUID="dbb690df-467b-4abc-8947-3c744bc4ebb8" CreationDate="2019-10-11T18:23:55.060" UserId="8041" Comment="added 144 characters in body" Text="Everything I have read online seems to indicate that start / stop technology reduces air pollution, is (marginally) better for the engine, reduces emissions and is more economical ([link1][1], [link2][2], [link3][3]).  [My calculations][4], if correct, show that the difference between idling and not idling could save 30% of pollution at major junctions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, why is it not law for start/stop technology to be fitted as standard on all new cars (UK / EU)?  (the [2019 Hyundai i10][5] has no option for start/stop at all, neither does the [Citroen C3 2020 French model][6])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9550/does-start-stop-technology-in-cars-have-an-impact-on-air-quality-and-by-how-mu&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/57794/calculating-engine-starter-s-energy-use/75572#75572&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/1253/when-does-using-a-cars-start-stop-system-become-more-economical&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/9551/8041&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/hyundai/i10&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.caradvice.com.au/747898/2019-citroen-c3-aircross-pricing-spec/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9562" RevisionGUID="85900e7a-d565-42bc-82da-9de6d11669a0" CreationDate="2019-10-11T22:22:58.767" UserId="8002" Text="Cattle have become unpopular because they have been accused of farting methane. This is the main answer to your question. However in ecologically sound pastures cattle do restore CO2 to the soil, and they probably fart much less. If their &quot;emissions&quot; have been measured on cattle fed on a single species of newly sown grass, or on silage, they would not be the same as &quot;emissions&quot; from cattle living in more natural conditions. A second important point is that in order to restore CO2 to the soil the cow dung has to lie on the land and be buried naturally, and relatively rapidly, with the help of dung flies and/or dung beetles. Where there have not been ungulates on the land, or where the land has been poisoned by chemicals these insects are sometimes not present, which presents a big problem nowadays. However if these natural conditions can be met the saving on not interfering with the land by tractors and chemical sprays far outways any possible deleterious effects of cow &quot;emissions&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22119" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9563" RevisionGUID="d1155099-fb48-4317-a203-8b4f16ae9bbc" CreationDate="2019-10-12T07:19:58.237" UserId="2846" Text="The simple answer is because any feature costs money, so car makers won't include it unless they're forced to. On some models it's available as an option for extra cost - which relies on the purchaser wanting it. On others, where there's no option, it hasn't been designed for that model, so there's design cost as well as per-unit cost to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As this is a fairly simple technology, and has been around for over 10 years (I first came across it in a hired BMW 1-series diesel, in a job I left in 2009), the question becomes *why hasn't it been mandatory in new cars for the last few years?* That's more of a political question, but small partial solutions are often overlooked in favour of a perceived panacea later (electric cars in this case). Hybrid cars of course include auto-stop, and for a while it was thought that we'd all be driving those. The actual benefit is limited by the number of years cars typically last anyway - it takes a long time for a mandatory feature to become a significant fraction of cars on the road" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9564" RevisionGUID="0caa0448-c878-45a6-91d4-cab9559536d1" CreationDate="2019-10-12T13:32:46.827" UserId="3285" Text="I have just seen an Ecodan PUHZ-W85VAA in action at the house of the salesman. It running very quietly, but I wanted to know will it get louder as the weather gets colder? In other words does the pump have two running speeds (either on or off) or is it continuously variable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9564" RevisionGUID="0caa0448-c878-45a6-91d4-cab9559536d1" CreationDate="2019-10-12T13:32:46.827" UserId="3285" Text="heat pump ecodan noise: constant or variable" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9564" RevisionGUID="0caa0448-c878-45a6-91d4-cab9559536d1" CreationDate="2019-10-12T13:32:46.827" UserId="3285" Text="|heat-pump|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9568" RevisionGUID="a8c03add-b770-4ac7-97df-d339b9d26438" CreationDate="2019-10-13T05:08:32.493" UserId="6293" Text="The best start-stop automotive system is a small hybrid system that does nothing more than roll the car the first five to ten feet from a stop. Of course the internal-combustion-engine starts up during that roll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But current hybrid systems are larger, heavier, and more expensive than just a system for beginning a roll from a stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the best hybrid is the BMW i8 because it uses the hybrid system to make a four-wheel-drive. However, even that car can be used for a short range in an all-electric mode such that after the sort range then the hybrid system is no longer available for assisting the internal-combustion-engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These larger hybrid systems work best as assisting the internal-combustion-engine such that there is then less load on the internal-combustion-engine. However, these hybrid systems are very large so as to have a short all-electric range which of course quickly depletes the hybrid system. Also, the weight and cost is too much with the larger hybrid systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The car I recommend for the average driver is a rear-wheel-drive sedan or coupe with a 2.0 turbocharged engine and no hybrid system. The turbocharged engine makes good torque which is a feeling that most drivers like. Also, the peak torque is at low RPM which helps city driving and improves city MPG. Just watch out for vehicle weight even here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9568" RevisionGUID="bc0553db-a9af-4992-aa1f-f9ad9db5e7a5" CreationDate="2019-10-13T05:17:37.297" UserId="6293" Comment="added 265 characters in body" Text="The best start-stop automotive system is a small hybrid system that does nothing more than roll the vehicle the first five to ten feet from a stop. Of course the internal-combustion-engine starts up during that roll.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But current hybrid systems are larger, heavier, and more expensive than just a system for beginning a roll from a stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the best hybrid is the BMW i8 because it uses the hybrid system to make an overall four-wheel-drive. However, even that car can be used for a short range in an all-electric mode such that after the sort range then the hybrid system is no longer available for assisting the internal-combustion-engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These larger hybrid systems work best as assisting the internal-combustion-engine such that there is then less load on the internal-combustion-engine. However, these hybrid systems are very large so as to have a short all-electric range which of course quickly depletes the hybrid system. Also, the weight and cost is too much with the larger hybrid systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The car I recommend for the average driver is a rear-wheel-drive sedan or coupe with a 2.0 turbocharged engine and no hybrid system. The turbocharged engine makes good torque which is a feeling that most drivers like. Also, the peak torque is at low RPM which helps city driving and improves city MPG. Just watch out for vehicle weight even here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the cities could limit non-commercial vehicles to 2.0 engine size during business hours and could limit commercial vehicles to 3.0 engine size during business hours. The quickest and easiest way to reduce vehicle pollution would be for the cities to pass laws. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8410" RevisionGUID="e17e1293-fc0d-434a-aa8d-563b62633a34" CreationDate="2019-10-13T07:15:08.130" UserId="8050" Comment="Subscript of CO ₂" Text="In this [old TED conf.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI), Allan Savory, and in this rather [newer other here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z75A_JMBx4), Joel Salatin are quite saying the same thing as a tentative to mitigate the effect of burning fossil fuels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We should use cattle at very large scale to help re-store CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; into the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does this process seem realistic? &#xD;&#xA;* Are there any documented studies or simulations out there?&#xD;&#xA;* Are there large scale projects of cattle driven CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; storage going on on Earth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22132" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8410" RevisionGUID="e17e1293-fc0d-434a-aa8d-563b62633a34" CreationDate="2019-10-13T07:15:08.130" UserId="8050" Comment="Subscript of CO ₂" Text="Why don't we use cattle to re-store CO₂ in the soil?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22133" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8410" RevisionGUID="e17e1293-fc0d-434a-aa8d-563b62633a34" CreationDate="2019-10-13T07:15:08.130" Comment="Proposed by 8050 approved by 99 edit id of 582" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22136" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9552" RevisionGUID="3e1079b5-8aaa-4314-86a7-441f49529fd7" CreationDate="2019-10-13T12:00:35.953" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1183351827804372992" />
  <row Id="22137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9569" RevisionGUID="7e843700-8c98-4fd5-adfd-4302386a3f04" CreationDate="2019-10-14T11:53:37.967" UserId="3285" Text="I have since spoken with somebody who owns an Ecodan and they confirm it's either on or off, with no intermediate levels in normal operation, though I didn't discover whether defrost cycles differ to this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22139" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="a903a6e1-05a0-42e9-9f11-9a19f3b1be49" CreationDate="2019-10-14T17:00:48.887" UserId="2122" Comment="there are 2 questions here, both should be mentioned in the title" Text="If everyone is vegetarian, what is the carrying capacity of the Earth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22140" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="a903a6e1-05a0-42e9-9f11-9a19f3b1be49" CreationDate="2019-10-14T17:00:48.887" Comment="Proposed by 2122 approved by 2451, 3379 edit id of 583" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9571" RevisionGUID="a12c9d9e-4a1c-4fe2-80f0-d12c5c4f5314" CreationDate="2019-10-14T23:38:20.200" UserId="8002" Text="I don't think this question can have a very definite answer because of the enormous time involved. It takes time for mountains to break up into chemical rich dust, and it is really only on land that has risen out of the sea that things could start to grow at first. There may have been enormous tracts of desert for many eons, with plants gradually spreading and making more soil. Another thing to consider is the animal remains that go to make up the peat, especially where the soil was alluvial. It is really a question of how much life went into the making of coal and oil. Did the weight of life on Earth ever exceed that of today with our teeming human billions? I think it is impossible that it could have, because we are using fossilized life in order to swell our own, and this never happened in the past. So when fossilized fuel runs out there will be a huge drop in the weight of life on Earth. Unless of course we use alternative forms of energy. But this will not really work either because of the imbalance of ecology caused by this huge increase in the weight of human life, with its significant increase of heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9572" RevisionGUID="5b3013b1-b6f3-4386-9772-e50f58901ec0" CreationDate="2019-10-15T22:34:09.923" UserId="1056" Text="While discussing global warming and climate change, I have often seen people say that [overpopulation](https://populationmatters.org/the-facts/climate-change) is the real problem and that the biggest thing anyone can do is [have one fewer child](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/want-to-stop-climate-change-have-one-less-child-ubc-study-says). Some people extend that a bit further and aim to [never have children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How effective would this be at reducing human impact on climate if *everyone* decided to live this way? Would it be enough to put the brakes on climate change and limit warming to 1.5º C? Or maybe 2.0º C? Assume everyone alive maintains the same behaviour and standard of living." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22144" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9572" RevisionGUID="5b3013b1-b6f3-4386-9772-e50f58901ec0" CreationDate="2019-10-15T22:34:09.923" UserId="1056" Text="What would happen to greenhouse gas emissions if no more humans were born?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22145" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9572" RevisionGUID="5b3013b1-b6f3-4386-9772-e50f58901ec0" CreationDate="2019-10-15T22:34:09.923" UserId="1056" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|global-warming|population|degrowth|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22146" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9573" RevisionGUID="c52f8eca-d93b-4353-8771-e977c4efd477" CreationDate="2019-10-15T23:24:04.350" UserId="1056" Text="I'm not a demographer, but I attempted a first order approximation based on what I could find. World-O-Meter has a page with [world age structure](https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/world-demographics/#broad-age) grouped into buckets of 5 years (eg. 20-24). I roughly calculated the total population over the next 100 years by assuming everyone survives until about age 100, so I just zero out one bucket every 5 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Annual emissions are 35.9 Gt CO2, so divided evenly among 7.7 billion people that would be 4.7 tonnes CO2e per person, per year. Assigning those and adding them up gives a total emissions curve like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [estimated carbon budget](https://www.carbontracker.org/carbon-budgets-explained/) to stay below 2º C is somewhere between 565 Gt CO2 and 1550 Gt CO2. In a no-birth scenario with everything else held steady, we would cross that threshold around 2035 or 2063, respectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if everyone in the world stopped having children entirely, we would still cruise past the targets to limit global warming to 1.5º or 2.0º. A control on population growth would not, on its own, be a sufficient emissions control measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Of course, there is plenty of ways to refine this estimate. More granular age buckets could be used. Populations and emissions factors for different countries could be incorporated. Mortality rates for all age groups could be accounted for. But I'm not a demographer, so I haven't done that.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zxQjE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bqd53.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9576" RevisionGUID="21a50569-b050-4d59-8351-981318bd0e5d" CreationDate="2019-10-16T09:49:01.510" UserId="3285" Text="There is much conflicting information on this, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bear in mind that your heat pump will need to work harder if it is situated in a cooler, north-facing, shady position, than if it is located in a southern-facing, sunny spot [1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any benefit in positioning the unit against a south facing wall rather than a north facing wall? Not normally ... whilst it is possible that the shade air temperature may be a degree or so warmer on the south side of the property than the north, this is only likely to be in daylight summer hours when the unit is unlikely to be operating. [2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Avoid locations where the unit is exposed to direct sunlight or other sources of&#xD;&#xA;heat. [3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this been systematically looked at? What do they do in countries that have a long history of heat pump use (unlike the UK where most installers seem unsure themselves)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] https://www.nu-heat.co.uk/blog/heat-pumps-guide/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] http://www.yougen.co.uk/blog-entry/1679/How+%2728%2726+where%2729+to+position+your+air+source+heat+pump/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] https://www.mitsubishi-les.info/database/servicemanual/files/201803_ATW_DATABOOK.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22152" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9576" RevisionGUID="21a50569-b050-4d59-8351-981318bd0e5d" CreationDate="2019-10-16T09:49:01.510" UserId="3285" Text="optimal aspect to position air source heat pump (south/east/west)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22153" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9576" RevisionGUID="21a50569-b050-4d59-8351-981318bd0e5d" CreationDate="2019-10-16T09:49:01.510" UserId="3285" Text="|heat-pump|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22154" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9572" RevisionGUID="87c6a315-4c10-49b3-a5ba-ce238cfa1d1c" CreationDate="2019-10-16T12:00:02.017" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1184438849382080512" />
  <row Id="22155" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9577" RevisionGUID="5f7cae1a-88be-426e-b700-f2e360a2b0c2" CreationDate="2019-10-17T02:12:32.887" UserId="3396" Text="Realistically,the problem could be solved taxes to encourage recycling of the boats. Otherwise, the waste product is too invaluable and the recycling process too expensive to be used commercially. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that virgin fiberglass and epoxy are relatively cheap, while being challenging to recycle due to the strength and size of the fibers and the epoxy being a thermoset. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of the fibers as a reinforcement in concrete provides real benefit if taxes support the additional cost, and is the most likely application.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might be interested in the pilot study in Rhode Island on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.boatus.com/pressroom/release.asp?id=1497" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9577" RevisionGUID="b4d7ee1b-b945-4f75-8297-1632d1de1d73" CreationDate="2019-10-17T02:27:30.483" UserId="3396" Comment="Added additional sources" Text="Realistically,the problem could be solved taxes to encourage recycling of the boats. Otherwise, the waste product is too invaluable and the recycling process too expensive to be used commercially. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that virgin fiberglass and epoxy are relatively cheap, while being challenging to recycle due to the strength and size of the fibers and the epoxy being a thermoset. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of the fibers as a reinforcement in concrete provides real benefit if taxes support the additional cost, and is a likely application. The fiberglass has also been crushed to be a base component of concrete.&#xD;&#xA;http://fiberline.com/news/miljoe/breakthrough-recycling-fibreglass-now-reality&#xD;&#xA;https://web.archive.org/web/20190606201005/http://fiberline.com/news/miljoe/breakthrough-recycling-fibreglass-now-reality&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fibers have also been used as reinforcement for new thermoplastic materials, but the process is proprietary and doesn't seem to have much traction in the industry at the time of writing.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.compositesworld.com/blog/post/perhaps-were-getting-closer-to-fiberglass-recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might be interested in the pilot study in Rhode Island on the subject.&#xD;&#xA;https://www.boatus.com/pressroom/release.asp?id=1497" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22157" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9577" RevisionGUID="29ab35a9-c2c2-411f-8f02-27fb711732e7" CreationDate="2019-10-17T08:09:01.077" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Better links" Text="Realistically,the problem could be solved taxes to encourage recycling of the boats. Otherwise, the waste product is too invaluable and the recycling process too expensive to be used commercially. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that virgin fiberglass and epoxy are relatively cheap, while being challenging to recycle due to the strength and size of the fibers and the epoxy being a thermoset. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use of the fibers as a reinforcement in concrete provides real benefit if taxes support the additional cost, and is a likely application. The fiberglass has also been crushed to be a base component of concrete.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[Breakthrough: Recycling of fibreglass is now a reality](http://fiberline.com/news/miljoe/breakthrough-recycling-fibreglass-now-reality)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fibers have also been used as reinforcement for new thermoplastic materials, but the process is proprietary and doesn't seem to have much traction in the industry at the time of writing.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[Perhaps we’re getting closer to fiberglass recycling](https://www.compositesworld.com/blog/post/perhaps-were-getting-closer-to-fiberglass-recycling)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might be interested in the pilot study in Rhode Island on the subject:&#xD;&#xA;[Can Boats Be Recycled?](https://www.boatus.com/pressroom/release.asp?id=1497)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9578" RevisionGUID="1d93c7f6-8084-4524-88e6-13b4fb5aa778" CreationDate="2019-10-18T02:02:58.947" UserId="3379" Text="### [Nu-heat's advice](https://www.nu-heat.co.uk/blog/heat-pumps-guide/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bear in mind that your heat pump will need to work harder if it is situated in a cooler, north-facing, shady position, than if it is located in a southern-facing, sunny spot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**True**, in heating season. As the delta-T (difference between outdoor temperature and desire indoor temperature) increases, the heat pump will be less efficient, meaning it will have to work harder to heat your home:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![COP vs temperature curve][1]][1] ([source](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-pump-efficiency-ratings-d_1117.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### [You-gen's advice](http://www.yougen.co.uk/blog-entry/1679/How+%2728%2726+where%2729+to+position+your+air+source+heat+pump/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any benefit in positioning the unit against a south facing wall rather than a north facing wall? Not normally ... whilst it is possible that the shade air temperature may be a degree or so warmer on the south side of the property than the north, this is only likely to be in daylight summer hours when the unit is unlikely to be operating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Maybe true**, depending on your location and schedule. If you're on the crest of a hill, the north side might be windy and snowy compared to the south side, and thus a lot colder. If you're in a row of houses or a valley, it probably doesn't make much difference. Also, you know if you're likely to be heating during sunlight hours, so keep this in mind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author seems to be saying not to put too much weight on aspect when deciding where to place the outdoor unit. First think about cost (to run piping and electric), aesthetics, and noise concerns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### [Mitsubishi's advice](https://www.mitsubishi-les.info/database/servicemanual/files/201803_ATW_DATABOOK.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Avoid locations where the unit is exposed to direct sunlight or other sources of heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**True, to prevent damage to the unit over time.** This directive is from the manufacturer, so it has more to do with preventing damage to the unit, as direct sunlight will break down metals and plastics over time. The rubber coating on tubing will be particularly vulnerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### TL;DR:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't think about aspect when deciding where to put your heat pump outdoor unit. If there are a few possible locations, some on the north side and some on the south, you could consider some of what these sources have said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aIRIB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9576" RevisionGUID="623d131d-2ec9-491a-a307-f0584fac3712" CreationDate="2019-10-18T02:05:38.743" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting, added data from comments" Text="There is much conflicting information on this, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nu-heat](https://www.nu-heat.co.uk/blog/heat-pumps-guide/):&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bear in mind that your heat pump will need to work harder if it is situated in a cooler, north-facing, shady position, than if it is located in a southern-facing, sunny spot. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Yougen](http://www.yougen.co.uk/blog-entry/1679/How+%2728%2726+where%2729+to+position+your+air+source+heat+pump/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any benefit in positioning the unit against a south facing wall rather than a north facing wall? Not normally ... whilst it is possible that the shade air temperature may be a degree or so warmer on the south side of the property than the north, this is only likely to be in daylight summer hours when the unit is unlikely to be operating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Mitsubishi](https://www.mitsubishi-les.info/database/servicemanual/files/201803_ATW_DATABOOK.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Avoid locations where the unit is exposed to direct sunlight or other sources of&#xD;&#xA;heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this been systematically looked at? What do they do in countries that have a long history of heat pump use (unlike the UK where most installers seem unsure themselves)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am in the northern hemisphere, UK climate, semi detached family home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22160" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9576" RevisionGUID="623d131d-2ec9-491a-a307-f0584fac3712" CreationDate="2019-10-18T02:05:38.743" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting, added data from comments" Text="Optimal aspect to position air source heat pump (south/east/west)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9579" RevisionGUID="da1613cc-0469-4074-82cb-5e90f4036364" CreationDate="2019-10-18T10:53:52.270" UserId="8074" Text="Several times I've heard of people supporting leather against non-animal alternatives, saying that since animals are killed for meat we have a lot of skin to use and that it would be bad not to use it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this point of view we are led to draw the conclusion that using the skin is a better - in the sense of enviromental impact - option than disposing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is this the reality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Production&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Skin is not ready to use just after the slaughter, but it has to undergo a manufacturing process which has a high environmental impact, mainly due to the use of polluting chemicals (chromium, cadmium, lead, arsenic, cobalt, etc.) in the tanning sub-process and to the air pollution (hydrogen sulfide and ammonia) in the dehairing and deliming sub-processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, these processes require large quantities of water and, especially in developing countries, the waste are discharged into rivers polluting not only water but also soil (read about the environmental disaster in Kanpur, India).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disposal&#xD;&#xA;--------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to clarify that the question is about the disposing of **raw** skin, since the main objective of the discussion is to find out which choice about the skin, just after the killing of the animal, involves a greater enviromental impact: disposal or production?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'm **not** interested in the disposal of leather products, which I guess is even more polluting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, beside the fact that leather biodegrades slowly - taking up to 40 years to decompose - I know nothing about the disposing of raw skin. This is due to the fact that when searching for information about it, all results are about the disposing of leather products instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe it could be used to create compost?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.s. I hope this is the correct place to talk about this, if not feel free to suggest me a more suitable place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22167" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9579" RevisionGUID="da1613cc-0469-4074-82cb-5e90f4036364" CreationDate="2019-10-18T10:53:52.270" UserId="8074" Text="Which of disposal or production of leather has a greater environmental impact?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22168" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9579" RevisionGUID="da1613cc-0469-4074-82cb-5e90f4036364" CreationDate="2019-10-18T10:53:52.270" UserId="8074" Text="|environmental-impact|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9578" RevisionGUID="e82ceb7c-ec2b-4614-8984-3ba732583a0e" CreationDate="2019-10-18T14:13:56.187" UserId="3379" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="### [Nu-heat's advice](https://www.nu-heat.co.uk/blog/heat-pumps-guide/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Bear in mind that your heat pump will need to work harder if it is situated in a cooler, north-facing, shady position, than if it is located in a southern-facing, sunny spot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**True**, in heating season. As the delta-T (difference between outdoor temperature and desired indoor temperature) increases, the heat pump will be less efficient (lower COP), meaning it will have to work harder to heat your home:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![COP vs temperature curve][1]][1] ([source](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-pump-efficiency-ratings-d_1117.html))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### [You-gen's advice](http://www.yougen.co.uk/blog-entry/1679/How+%2728%2726+where%2729+to+position+your+air+source+heat+pump/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; any benefit in positioning the unit against a south facing wall rather than a north facing wall? Not normally ... whilst it is possible that the shade air temperature may be a degree or so warmer on the south side of the property than the north, this is only likely to be in daylight summer hours when the unit is unlikely to be operating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Maybe true**, depending on your location and schedule. If you're on the crest of a hill, the north side might be windy and snowy compared to the south side, and thus a lot colder. If you're in a row of houses or a valley, it probably doesn't make much difference. Also, you know if you're likely to be heating during sunlight hours, so keep this in mind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The author seems to be saying not to put too much weight on aspect when deciding where to place the outdoor unit. First think about cost (to run piping and electric), aesthetics, and noise concerns. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### [Mitsubishi's advice](https://www.mitsubishi-les.info/database/servicemanual/files/201803_ATW_DATABOOK.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Avoid locations where the unit is exposed to direct sunlight or other sources of heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**True, to prevent damage to the unit over time.** This directive is from the manufacturer, so it has more to do with preventing damage to the unit, as direct sunlight will break down metals and plastics over time. The rubber coating on tubing will be particularly vulnerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### TL;DR:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't think about aspect when deciding where to put your heat pump outdoor unit. If there are a few possible locations, some on the north side and some on the south, you could consider some of what these sources have said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aIRIB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9580" RevisionGUID="1f76bf2c-eab2-44c2-8455-c2bf0e1392c6" CreationDate="2019-10-19T18:13:20.337" UserId="6293" Text="Fiberglass boats have a weight advantage such that there are not going to lose popularity. Most likely old boats will go to a landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, steel boats have gained popularity with home boat-builders because local shops with $15000 in equipment can cut steel plate on shop floors using computer files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider replacing all steel usage with stainless-steel. The stainless-steel will not rust or corrode and therefor will be most valuable in recycling. The low-cost 409 SS is currently alloyed for welding but not found in very many structural shapes. More likely simple shapes are bent from 409. The more expensive 304L is designed for welding and is available in all structural shapes. Of course 304L has a noticeable nickel content and that's the expensive aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A freshwater boat can just be built from stainless-steel. A salt-water boat built from stainless-steel still needs painting but the stainless-steel needs a heavy-brushed finish to hold paint. A standard #4 brushed finish might not be enough. There are pebble finish stainless-steels for roofing and those might hold paint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22172" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9580" RevisionGUID="33e40e2b-0e03-4f86-9dac-5ebda28e1656" CreationDate="2019-10-19T18:22:23.630" UserId="6293" Comment="added 543 characters in body" Text="Fiberglass boats have a weight advantage such that there are not going to lose popularity. Most likely old boats will go to a landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, steel boats have gained popularity with home boat-builders because local shops with $15000 in equipment can cut steel plate on shop floors using computer files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider replacing all steel usage with stainless-steel. The stainless-steel will not rust or corrode and therefor will be most valuable in recycling. The low-cost 409 SS is currently alloyed for welding but not found in very many structural shapes. More likely simple shapes are bent from 409 sheet-metal. The more expensive 304L is designed for welding and is available in all structural shapes. Of course 304L has a noticeable nickel content and that's the expensive aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buy the stainless-steel wholesale, in twenty foot lengths, and by the truckload and it's not too expensive. Or buy stainless-steel sheet-metal on coils and by weight. Then stainless-steel off the coil can be directly attached to supporting spars but must be flattened if it is being bent to shapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A freshwater boat can just be built from stainless-steel. A salt-water boat built from stainless-steel still needs painting but the stainless-steel needs a heavy-brushed finish to hold paint. A standard #4 brushed finish might not be enough of a brushed finish. There are pebble finish stainless-steels for roofing and those might hold paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roofing ? 430 is good for roofing because of lower thermal expansion but 444 is similar while almost as good as 304 for corrosion resistance. Don't touch 409 or 430 with a cut-off disk but cut them with machine tools." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9580" RevisionGUID="718ec9e3-fca4-41ed-a989-9b7651dd572a" CreationDate="2019-10-19T18:37:31.780" UserId="6293" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Fiberglass boats have a weight advantage such that there are not going to lose popularity. Most likely old boats will go to a landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, steel boats have gained popularity with home boat-builders because local shops with $15000 in equipment can cut steel plate on shop floors using computer files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider replacing all steel usage with stainless-steel. The stainless-steel will not rust or corrode and therefor will be most valuable in recycling. The low-cost 409 SS is currently alloyed for welding but not found in very many structural shapes. More likely simple shapes are bent from 409 sheet-metal. The more expensive 304L is designed for welding and is available in all structural shapes. Of course 304L has a noticeable nickel content and that's the expensive aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buy the stainless-steel wholesale, in twenty foot lengths, and by the truckload, and it's not too expensive. Or buy stainless-steel sheet-metal on coils and by weight. Then stainless-steel off the coil can be directly attached to supporting spars but must be flattened if it is being bent to shapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A freshwater boat can just be built from stainless-steel. A salt-water boat built from stainless-steel still needs painting but the stainless-steel needs a heavy-brushed finish to hold paint. A standard #4 brushed finish might not be enough of a brushed finish. There are pebble finish stainless-steels for roofing and those might hold paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roofing ? 430 is good for roofing because of lower thermal expansion but 444 is similar while almost as good as 304 for corrosion resistance. Don't touch 409 or 430 with a cut-off disk but cut them with machine tools." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9580" RevisionGUID="1b66c18b-d144-4c3d-a50c-9d58a90e46e7" CreationDate="2019-10-19T23:11:11.820" UserId="6293" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Fiberglass boats have a weight advantage such that they are not going to lose popularity. Most likely old boats will go to a landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, steel boats have gained popularity with home boat-builders because local shops with $15000 in equipment can cut steel plate on shop floors using computer files.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider replacing all steel usage with stainless-steel. The stainless-steel will not rust or corrode and therefor will be most valuable in recycling. The low-cost 409 SS is currently alloyed for welding but not found in very many structural shapes. More likely simple shapes are bent from 409 sheet-metal. The more expensive 304L is designed for welding and is available in all structural shapes. Of course 304L has a significant nickel content and that's the expensive aspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buy the stainless-steel wholesale, in twenty foot lengths, and by the truckload, and it's not too expensive. Or buy stainless-steel sheet-metal on coils and by weight. Then stainless-steel cut off the coil can be directly attached to supporting spars but must be flattened if it is being bent to shapes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A freshwater boat can just be built from stainless-steel. A salt-water boat built from stainless-steel still needs painting but the stainless-steel needs a heavy-brushed finish to hold paint. A standard #4 brushed finish might not be enough of a brushed finish. There are pebble finish stainless-steels for roofing and those might hold paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Roofing ? 430 is good for roofing because of lower thermal expansion but 444 is similar while almost as good as 304 for corrosion resistance. Don't touch 409 or 430 with a cut-off disk but cut them with machine tools." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9581" RevisionGUID="ce139007-2974-408c-968d-4716253bf832" CreationDate="2019-10-20T13:09:06.267" UserId="8002" Text="I was answering the reason given for the question which was, is man's impact significant?&#xD;&#xA;Lets look at it another way. plant and animal remains turn into peat, peat turns into coal and oil. They are called fossil fuels because they represent all the life on Earth almost from the beginning of life until more or less the present day. Some, perhaps as much as half, has been lost by volcanism, the movement of the Earth; so it's current volume is less than 100%. Palaeontologists have become very good at measuring the amount of time each layer of earth, including the layers of coal in mines took to compact. Their measurements tend to be in millions of years. How long has man been using fossil fuels? A little over one hundred years. So we are talking about man releasing all the carbon from all the forests in the world at about the rate of a million years of life on Earth, in one year. The area of forests needed to be sustainable at this rate would be at least ten times larger than the sun. I'm sorry if my figures are slightly inaccurate but it is difficult to be accurate when dealing with such astronomical measurements.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9582" RevisionGUID="3995ab9d-068d-4b39-a19a-40cb61a9877c" CreationDate="2019-10-20T13:56:13.867" UserId="8002" Text="Skin rots more slowly than other body parts but less slowly than bone. If buried, a raw hide would turn into beneficial compost in a fairly short time, in fertile productive soil around two years or less. So there is no problem of disposing of parts of an animal that we don't eat. Blood and bonemeal is a valued preparation for garden fertilizer, and is especially loved for use on roses.&#xD;&#xA;There are several different processes used to tan leather to make shoes. The simplest is to dry the hide on the side of a shed after scraping off all the softer tissue. Moccasins used to be made this way often without the need to remove the hair. The old tanning factories used slightly more sophisticated methods, and you could smell them for half a mile. I doubt whether they were using harmful chemicals then. It is only the modern production of leather which uses harmful chemicals and this is only to speed up the process, and make it easier to dye and waterproof the leather, (and possibly also to stop the smell) and these unnatural processes could be dropped. So whether you use the skin as fertilizer or natural shoe leather it is potentially better for the environment than plastic. So use your rawhide to make moccasins or bury it to fertilise your garden, and it will be very beneficial to the environment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9583" RevisionGUID="8a87408b-cd94-4cd2-8e74-d34ca3a1308a" CreationDate="2019-10-20T14:22:23.333" UserId="8002" Text="I don't know much about heat pumps but I think they work by utilizing the temperature differential between the top soil and the subsoil. For this purpose I would think they need to be buried at least an inch deep, possibly more. They do not utilize sunlight to any great degree, it is more about ambient temperature at two levels. In the summer the top soil in most places will be warmer than the subsoil. However in a cold winter this reverses, and a well buried heat mat should pump at its most efficient. Hmm. well I think logically this is what should happen, but its early days. I hope they do prove efficient because they are arguably the greenest form of heating. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9584" RevisionGUID="cc11125f-dc4a-4d18-9c7f-cd889e623e47" CreationDate="2019-10-20T14:59:40.597" UserId="8002" Text="Well if everyone stopped having children the Earth would return to &quot;normal&quot; within twenty years. But we don't want quite this much of a reaction, we just want to stop the population increasing any further, for our own sakes, as much as for the purpose of avoiding Armageddon. I live in the crowded South East of England, and the quality of life is falling so very fast. It is gridlock on the roads, there is no more room to build houses except in productive fields which means there will be less food. And the hospitals have ambulances queuing outside with dying patients in them for hours. The problem is that even if we spent more money on roads houses and hospitals it still couldn't work because there is simply no more space to build them in.&#xD;&#xA; I realise that this overcrowding of the human population is not at all obvious in some places, so I will speak of the global impact. There is two much free carbon dioxide in the air and increasingly less free oxygen. Now apart from all industry even the population itself is largely responsible for this because we now number more animal weight than the planet has ever had on it before. And we all breathe out carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it should be obvious that a little reduction in the human population is necessary, and it is achievable simply by taking the simple step of not having more than two children. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22180" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9586" RevisionGUID="91c3c32e-7f57-46a8-8991-3d030604c168" CreationDate="2019-10-20T21:09:58.267" UserId="8041" Text="The problem with recycling is that currently it is not very efficient because usually we make very different items from what is provided - a plastic bottle is turned into a fleece jacket for example. The plastic bottle should not have existed in the first place because it was designed for one time use. The bottle should be washed by us and then reused by us over many years. Our furniture should last centuries, our clothes a lifetime. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Th problem with landfill is that it creates contaminated land. If we separated our waste that we cannot recycle and landfilled in separation we have a plastic site, food waste site, battery site, we could better manage those different lands in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The polluter should pay, this is the main problem and this would properly incentivise reuse and products that last and are recyclable. That I think could be achieved by litigation based on probable impact in the future (caveat; I am not a lawyer!)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9586" RevisionGUID="0c2cdc13-0346-40b6-8ed0-a7cf29fdfe62" CreationDate="2019-10-20T21:22:55.567" UserId="8041" Comment="added 384 characters in body" Text="The problem with recycling is that currently it is not very efficient because usually we make very different items from what is provided - a plastic bottle is turned into a fleece jacket for example. The plastic bottle should not have existed in the first place because it was designed for one time use. The bottle should be washed by us and then reused by us over many years. Our furniture should last centuries, our clothes a lifetime. This would save carbon in the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Th problem with landfill is that it creates contaminated land. If we separated our waste that we cannot recycle and landfilled in separation we have a plastic site, food waste site, battery site, we could better manage those different lands in the future and we would have less toxic land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The polluter should pay, this is the main problem and this would properly incentivise reuse and products that last and are recyclable. That I think could be achieved by litigation based on probable impact in the future (caveat; I am not a lawyer!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to answer your qestion we would need to know what happens to your recycling and what happens to your garbage?  Here in my town we burn most of the garbage (creating more carbon in the atmosphere).  Also we would need an answer as to what is worse, more carbon in the atmosphere or toxic land and seas!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9586" RevisionGUID="7950af57-6dba-4608-b510-898a653c9f21" CreationDate="2019-10-20T22:06:26.863" UserId="8041" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="The problem with recycling is that currently (in the UK at least) it is not very efficient because usually we make very different items from what is provided using a lot of energy in the process - a plastic bottle is turned into a fleece jacket for example. The plastic bottle should not have existed in the first place because it was designed for one time use. The bottle should be washed by us and then reused by us over many years. Our furniture should last centuries, our clothes a lifetime. This would save carbon in the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Th problem with landfill is that it creates contaminated land. If we separated our waste that we cannot recycle and landfilled in separation we have a plastic site, food waste site, battery site, we could better manage those different lands in the future and we would have less toxic land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The polluter should pay, this is the main problem and this would properly incentivise reuse and products that last and are recyclable. That I think could be achieved by litigation based on probable impact in the future (caveat; I am not a lawyer!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to answer your qestion we would need to know what happens to your recycling and what happens to your garbage?  Here in my town we burn most of the garbage (creating more carbon in the atmosphere).  Also we would need an answer as to what is worse, more carbon in the atmosphere or toxic land and seas!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9587" RevisionGUID="5a5cd027-1349-40ea-9d7c-5ffd708db2f1" CreationDate="2019-10-21T18:46:52.887" UserId="4604" Text="I recently switched to a safety razor because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.) It's cheaper in the long run, even if I change blades more often&#xD;&#xA;2.) disposables are a recycling nightmare -- (metal bonded to plastic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course eventually blades will dull and not be usable anymore, so I'd like to consider how to recycle them. Unfortunately all i'm finding is &quot;put them in a commercially available sharps container and throw them away&quot; which doesn't seem very green at all. I wouldn't mind mailing them in a sharps container if there is a mail in program -- I can't imagine I'd need to send a package more than once a year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9587" RevisionGUID="5a5cd027-1349-40ea-9d7c-5ffd708db2f1" CreationDate="2019-10-21T18:46:52.887" UserId="4604" Text="How can I recycle safety razor blades?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9587" RevisionGUID="5a5cd027-1349-40ea-9d7c-5ffd708db2f1" CreationDate="2019-10-21T18:46:52.887" UserId="4604" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22187" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4903" RevisionGUID="acf84c13-a511-4626-9206-6a71b33370b7" CreationDate="2019-10-22T06:53:04.560" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|home|plastic|alternatives|personal-hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9587" RevisionGUID="e779ae5d-9d6a-4933-8644-3a925532ca79" CreationDate="2019-10-22T06:53:54.330" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I recently switched to a safety razor because &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It's cheaper in the long run, even if I change blades more often&#xD;&#xA;2. disposables are a recycling nightmare - (metal bonded to plastic)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course eventually blades will dull and not be usable anymore, so I'd like to consider how to recycle them. Unfortunately all i'm finding is &quot;put them in a commercially available sharps container and throw them away&quot; which doesn't seem very green at all. I wouldn't mind mailing them in a sharps container if there is a mail in program -- I can't imagine I'd need to send a package more than once a year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22189" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9587" RevisionGUID="e779ae5d-9d6a-4933-8644-3a925532ca79" CreationDate="2019-10-22T06:53:54.330" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|recycling|personal-hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22190" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5377" RevisionGUID="4dcc1108-d947-4cc7-9030-3b1e327d56a4" CreationDate="2019-10-22T09:00:33.717" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1186568010905063426" />
  <row Id="22191" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9584" RevisionGUID="82e8a960-7703-4597-ae4d-53a64e5345c5" CreationDate="2019-10-22T09:13:19.540" UserId="8002" Comment="deleted 472 characters in body" Text="Well if everyone stopped having children the Earth would return to &quot;normal&quot; pretty quickly. But we don't want quite this much of a reaction, we just want to stop the population increasing any further, for our own sakes, as much as for the purpose of avoiding Armageddon. I realise that this overcrowding of the human population is not very obvious in some places, so I will speak of the global impact. There is two much free carbon dioxide in the air and increasingly less free oxygen. Now apart from all industry even the population itself is largely responsible for this because we now number more animal weight on land, than the planet has ever had on it before. And we all breathe out carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;Therefore it should be obvious that a little reduction in the human population is necessary, and it is achievable simply by taking the simple step of not having more than two children. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22192" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9582" RevisionGUID="0796d9ee-e438-46c0-bc8c-dc5fdcc2f662" CreationDate="2019-10-22T09:23:12.233" UserId="8002" Comment="added 366 characters in body" Text="Skin rots more slowly than other body parts but less slowly than bone. If buried, a raw hide would turn into beneficial compost in a fairly short time, in fertile productive soil around two years or less. So there is no problem of disposing of parts of an animal that we don't eat. Blood and bonemeal is a valued preparation for garden fertilizer, and is especially loved for use on roses.&#xD;&#xA;There are several different processes used to tan leather to make shoes. The simplest is to dry the hide on the side of a shed after scraping off all the softer tissue. Moccasins used to be made this way often without the need to remove the hair. The old tanning factories used slightly more sophisticated methods, and you could smell them for half a mile. I doubt whether they were using harmful chemicals then. It is only the modern production of leather which uses harmful chemicals and this is only to speed up the process, and make it easier to dye and waterproof the leather, (and possibly also to stop the smell) and these unnatural processes could be dropped. So whether you use the skin as fertilizer or natural shoe leather it is potentially better for the environment than plastic. So use your rawhide to make moccasins or bury it to fertilise your garden, and it will be very beneficial to the environment. I didn't fully explain the tanning process which need not and should not involve poisonous chemicals. In order for leather to be pest free and remain supple it is steeped in a solution of tannin which comes mainly from tree bark, and then is stretched and worked on to keep it supple. The only process left then is dyeing and this should be done with natural dyes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9588" RevisionGUID="38c52788-0d82-4384-b128-5d71f414e635" CreationDate="2019-10-22T09:56:14.727" UserId="8002" Text="The question was &quot;would the levels of recycling PET plastic decrease.&quot; This is a question with several answers, Firstly, if the plastic was broken down it wouldn't be recycled, except that the resultant chemicals could be utilized which would be a form of recycling. The other point is that plastic film in Britain is not recycled at all, which should make the use of the bacteria obligatory. I would hope that the levels of PET would rise and replace other plastics. This could be a result. We would be buying things in PET sachets rather than plastic bottles, and these could be collected along with film used for other purposes and considerably reduce waste plastic. &#xD;&#xA;  I have one caveat here though. If these bacteria are not really naturally occurring species, the environmental impact could be catastrophic. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9524" RevisionGUID="93db2441-8c9c-4721-bf03-21e279d40ff2" CreationDate="2019-10-22T12:15:48.507" UserId="99" Comment="Merged second answer into this answer as both are basically the same" Text="A lovely question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can remember when there were no plastic bottles. Glass - made from one of our most common minerals - quartz, is not likely to run out, and is fully recyclable. I still get my milk in glass bottles which are collected by the milkman washed out and used again, with almost zero energy use; not even in transport as they are collected during the delivery. When I was a child all glass bottles could be taken back to the shop for which we received the princely sum of one old penny. Those were the days when humanity thought of a future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I remember rightly orange squash was always concentrated. You added water, and a glass bottle lasted for weeks. There was also lemon barley water. Fizzy drinks in glass bottles had rounded stoppers that were hinged into place with wires. When you flicked them up the gas came out.(this was obviously for safety, because if the stopper was not attached kids could aim the bottle at each other and shake it). There was fizzy lemon, ginger beer, and dandelion and burdock. I don't remember fizzy orange. It might have been there but I preferred the others. I have taken recently to buying fizzy apple and ginger beer in ring pull cans, which of course include fizzy or sparkling orange. They are only small though. I don't know why they don't make a larger size.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9589" RevisionGUID="6088d28a-75fd-4f93-953c-761b65389026" CreationDate="2019-10-24T15:49:21.797" UserId="8089" Text="I have a PV system with a WEG SIW300H M050 inverter, which is simply a rebadged Huawei SUN2000L-5KTL. Its rated output power is 5000 W while its nominal apparent power is 5500 VA. It has a WiFi dongle which I use for monitoring, using the Fusion Home app from Huawei. I have 6120 Wp worth of solar panels on my roof. The inverter is installed in the shade, in one of the cooler areas there are outside the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On cloudy days, I’ve seen the system reach 5500 W of injected energy with the sun shining fully, in between periods of cloud cover. However, today the sky is clear of clouds, yet I haven’t seen it go significantly past 5000 W. In fact it appears to be producing a bit below 5000 W, even around noon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggests some kind of throttling going on. It may be thermally related, time based (given it has been producing energy non-stop, without any cloud cover during the day), or possibly due to some kind of configuration in the inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m wondering if there’s anything I can do to make it work at 5500 W all the time, since it can operate at that power at least occasionally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if the throttling is thermally based, I could add a fan aimed to the inverter to reduce the temperature. While this fan might use a few watts while on, if it allowed me to generate an extra 500 W during a couple hours of the day, the net injected energy would still come up positive. Plus I could make a temperature controller to make sure the fan is only on when necessary (I’m an electrical engineer and work with embedded systems so this would be a piece of cake for me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it’s a configuration issue, I have access to the installer screen in the app since the default password wasn’t changed, and I can make any necessary changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand working at a higher power might shorten the lifespan of the inverter, but in my experience the lifespan is basically related to thermals (I’d hazard a guess the first components to fail would be electrolytic capacitors), which I could remedy by using the previously mentioned method of running a fan aimed at the inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone confirm how this supposed throttling behavior of the Huawei SUN2000L-5KTL inverter works, and what can I do to work around it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22197" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9589" RevisionGUID="6088d28a-75fd-4f93-953c-761b65389026" CreationDate="2019-10-24T15:49:21.797" UserId="8089" Text="How to work around a supposed Huawei SUN2000L-5KTL inverter throttling issue" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22198" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9589" RevisionGUID="6088d28a-75fd-4f93-953c-761b65389026" CreationDate="2019-10-24T15:49:21.797" UserId="8089" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5894" RevisionGUID="83c8d073-ff52-49ee-8264-6b03c25260ba" CreationDate="2019-10-24T16:35:52.113" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed broken link." Text="I was able to find several different news articles discussing this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Paper towels least green way of drying hands, study finds&quot;](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/11/paper-towels-drying-hands-energy) - *The Guardian*&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Electric Hand Dryers vs. Paper Towels&quot;](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/06/electric_hand_dryers_vs_paper_towels.html) - *Slate*&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;The Use and Abuse of Paper Towels&quot;](https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/the-use-and-abuse-of-paper-towels/) - *The New York Times*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most thorough treatment I found comes from an MIT study*, referenced by *The Guardian*: [&quot;Life Cycle Assessment of Hand Drying Systems&quot;](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=12263517640302590626&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0,50).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The study includes this graphic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the full report, the key drivers of environmental impact from paper towels are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Manufacturing.** The manufacture of paper towels makes up half the GHG emissions, and half the water consumption, for the total life-cycle. &#xD;&#xA; - **Materials production and transportation.** The sourcing, processing, and transport of wood and wood products which are used in the manufacture of paper towels also result in significant water use and GHG emissions.&#xD;&#xA; - **Waste disposal.** Because used paper towels are sent to landfills and not recycled, they result in additional GHG emissions, as the paper bio-degrades in landfills releasing CO2 to the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All three of these areas are obviously on-going issues for paper towels, whereas an electric hand-dryer only needs to manufactured and transported once, and doesn't produce on-going waste material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;*The study was commissioned by Dyson, so I would be a bit skeptical (without spending more time reviewing the paper in depth) about the conclusions when comparing Dyson hand dryers to their competitors. However the authors do note that Dyson and Xlerator dryers have similar impact when the time constraints are relaxed, unlike Dyson's (expected) assertion that their product is *always* better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6e72O.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22200" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9589" RevisionGUID="e906fc1f-8d1c-4485-8bc4-11bfcfb719b8" CreationDate="2019-10-24T19:11:54.630" UserId="8089" Comment="added 98 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have a PV system with a WEG SIW300H M050 inverter, which is simply a rebadged Huawei SUN2000L-5KTL ([link to the manual][1]). Its rated output power is 5000 W while its nominal apparent power is 5500 VA. It has a WiFi dongle which I use for monitoring, using the Fusion Home app from Huawei. I have 6120 Wp worth of solar panels on my roof. The inverter is installed in the shade, in one of the cooler areas there are outside the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On cloudy days, I’ve seen the system reach 5500 W of injected energy with the sun shining fully, in between periods of cloud cover. However, today the sky is clear of clouds, yet I haven’t seen it go significantly past 5000 W. In fact it appears to be producing a bit below 5000 W, even around noon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggests some kind of throttling going on. It may be thermally related, time based (given it has been producing energy non-stop, without any cloud cover during the day), or possibly due to some kind of configuration in the inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m wondering if there’s anything I can do to make it work at 5500 W all the time, since it can operate at that power at least occasionally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if the throttling is thermally based, I could add a fan aimed to the inverter to reduce the temperature. While this fan might use a few watts while on, if it allowed me to generate an extra 500 W during a couple hours of the day, the net injected energy would still come up positive. Plus I could make a temperature controller to make sure the fan is only on when necessary (I’m an electrical engineer and work with embedded systems so this would be a piece of cake for me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it’s a configuration issue, I have access to the installer screen in the app since the default password wasn’t changed, and I can make any necessary changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand working at a higher power might shorten the lifespan of the inverter, but in my experience the lifespan is basically related to thermals (I’d hazard a guess the first components to fail would be electrolytic capacitors), which I could remedy by using the previously mentioned method of running a fan aimed at the inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone confirm how this supposed throttling behavior of the Huawei SUN2000L-5KTL inverter works, and what can I do to work around it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://support.huawei.com/enterprise/en/doc/EDOC1100011912" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22201" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9589" RevisionGUID="e906fc1f-8d1c-4485-8bc4-11bfcfb719b8" CreationDate="2019-10-24T19:11:54.630" UserId="8089" Comment="added 98 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9590" RevisionGUID="3d3dfb0c-199d-4afa-8880-1ebcc0a8239f" CreationDate="2019-10-24T19:51:26.803" UserId="3379" Text="The effect you're seeing is most likely due to the solar cell temperature. On a cloudy day the array is cool overall, so when the sun bursts through the clouds the cells operate at maximum efficiency. On a sunny day the panels are warmed all day long and the efficiency is reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On [this chart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_solar_cells#/media/File:I-V_Curve_T.png) from Wikipedia you can see that as the cell temperature increases, area under the v-i curve reduces, meaning the output power will be reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Effect of temperature on the current-voltage characteristics of a solar cell][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ONE2K.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22203" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9589" RevisionGUID="f59de481-b904-4f76-ac91-96ed686023e0" CreationDate="2019-10-24T20:00:35.487" UserId="8089" Comment="added 467 characters in body" Text="I have a PV system with a WEG SIW300H M050 inverter, which is simply a rebadged Huawei SUN2000L-5KTL ([link to the manual][1]). Its rated output power is 5000 W while its nominal apparent power is 5500 VA. It has a WiFi dongle which I use for monitoring, using the Fusion Home app from Huawei. I have 6120 Wp worth of solar panels on my roof. The inverter is installed in the shade, in one of the cooler areas there are outside the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On cloudy days, I’ve seen the system reach 5500 W of injected energy with the sun shining fully, in between periods of cloud cover. However, today the sky is clear of clouds, yet I haven’t seen it go significantly past 5000 W. In fact it appears to be producing a bit below 5000 W, even around noon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This suggests some kind of throttling going on. It may be thermally related, time based (given it has been producing energy non-stop, without any cloud cover during the day), or possibly due to some kind of configuration in the inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m wondering if there’s anything I can do to make it work at 5500 W all the time, since it can operate at that power at least occasionally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, if the throttling is thermally based, I could add a fan aimed to the inverter to reduce the temperature. While this fan might use a few watts while on, if it allowed me to generate an extra 500 W during a couple hours of the day, the net injected energy would still come up positive. Plus I could make a temperature controller to make sure the fan is only on when necessary (I’m an electrical engineer and work with embedded systems so this would be a piece of cake for me.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it’s a configuration issue, I have access to the installer screen in the app since the default password wasn’t changed, and I can make any necessary changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand working at a higher power might shorten the lifespan of the inverter, but in my experience the lifespan is basically related to thermals (I’d hazard a guess the first components to fail would be electrolytic capacitors), which I could remedy by using the previously mentioned method of running a fan aimed at the inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone confirm how this supposed throttling behavior of the Huawei SUN2000L-5KTL inverter works, and what can I do to work around it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: a few more details from my system if it matters: I have two strings, one with 10, 340 W PV cells facing east, and 8, 340 W PV cells facing south. Note that I'm in the southern hemisphere (not the best configuration, but I don't have a north-facing rooftop).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's today's (October 24th) power curve until about ~5pm local time, and recall it's spring here in the southern hemisphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Power curve][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://support.huawei.com/enterprise/en/doc/EDOC1100011912&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MBMGT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9591" RevisionGUID="f3db5c7e-bd59-4d38-8d53-f34b30a80faf" CreationDate="2019-10-26T17:11:04.080" UserId="8002" Text="The CO2 we breathe out comes from our food. Exactly, and we eat richer food than any other animals, with a higher calorific value. Moreover our brains use more calories than those of other animals. I am going to avoid figures but I seem to remember that the sugar our brains use is a surprisingly high proportion of our total sugar intake. Also bear in mind that this is mostly refined sugar, and no other animals eat refined sugar or indeed anything like as much as we do. So, it isn't exactly a closed loop. There is a lot of unnatural chemistry in the mix, and some of it is inorganic. In other words it is likely that humans are freeing CO2 into the air at a higher rate than would happen in nature. I totally agree about deforestation, and would also point out that rotting things release CO2 and mankind is responsible for a much higher rate of rotting vegetation than would ever happen naturally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22209" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="6afa6bab-7e98-4506-87e6-8f144ed7e06f" CreationDate="2019-10-27T20:54:34.150" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="|transport|soil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22210" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7202" RevisionGUID="6afa6bab-7e98-4506-87e6-8f144ed7e06f" CreationDate="2019-10-27T20:54:34.150" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 3532 edit id of 584" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22211" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9576" RevisionGUID="f06df737-c72e-4d0c-bb8a-1ed039616f36" CreationDate="2019-10-28T03:00:03.087" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1188651612681752576" />
  <row Id="22212" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9488" RevisionGUID="66ac7491-4172-45aa-a0b1-25323983e9d2" CreationDate="2019-10-28T12:00:35.360" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1188787643326308352" />
  <row Id="22213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9594" RevisionGUID="14de5c4a-64e8-413c-9073-c81d3bb11c8c" CreationDate="2019-10-28T18:07:15.230" UserId="8102" Text="They are completely weatherproof and waterproof by design. They don't need to be covered and they don't need to be put in special spots. They don't need to be covered and they don't need to be put in special spots. These are pretty hardcore designed connectors and have been improved throughout the years which is why we're on the fourth model. Put them anywhere you want. They will sustain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9594" RevisionGUID="debff90a-ab3a-4826-af8b-7589d9aecda7" CreationDate="2019-10-28T18:45:15.627" UserId="3379" Comment="Removed repeated sentence." Text="They are completely weatherproof and waterproof by design. They don't need to be covered and they don't need to be put in special spots. These are pretty hardcore designed connectors and have been improved throughout the years which is why we're on the fourth model. Put them anywhere you want. They will sustain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9595" RevisionGUID="f9be356d-13b6-46f7-a4ec-1b2132888f8f" CreationDate="2019-10-28T19:03:31.133" UserId="3379" Text="I was recently reading that lithium mining for electric vehicle batteries is [wreaking havoc on deserts in Chile](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-06-11/saving-the-planet-with-electric-cars-means-strangling-this-desert).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One proposed alternative to EVs in the search for a replacement for petroleum-fueled vehicles is [hydrogen vehicles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_fuel_vehicle#Hydrogen). &#xD;&#xA;The most promising type of hydrogen vehicle uses a [fuel cell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell) to convert the chemical energy of hydrogen into electricity, with the only byproduct being water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm wondering if hydrogen vehicles may also have supply-chain issues like EVs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there significant environmental concerns or issues with supplying the necessary materials to mass-produce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22216" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9595" RevisionGUID="f9be356d-13b6-46f7-a4ec-1b2132888f8f" CreationDate="2019-10-28T19:03:31.133" UserId="3379" Text="Are there any unsustainable supply-chain issues with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22217" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9595" RevisionGUID="f9be356d-13b6-46f7-a4ec-1b2132888f8f" CreationDate="2019-10-28T19:03:31.133" UserId="3379" Text="|cars|decarbonisation|vehicle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22218" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9595" RevisionGUID="baf5ffb0-508c-4c99-8f99-83df2da73d72" CreationDate="2019-10-29T11:44:59.737" UserId="3379" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="I was recently reading that lithium mining for electric vehicle batteries is [wreaking havoc on deserts in Chile](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-06-11/saving-the-planet-with-electric-cars-means-strangling-this-desert).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One proposed alternative to EVs in the search for a replacement for petroleum-fueled vehicles is [hydrogen vehicles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_fuel_vehicle#Hydrogen). &#xD;&#xA;The most promising type of hydrogen vehicle uses a [fuel cell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell) to convert the chemical energy of hydrogen into electricity, with the only byproduct being water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm wondering if hydrogen vehicles may also have unique supply-chain issues like EVs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there significant environmental concerns or issues with supplying the necessary materials to mass-produce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22219" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9595" RevisionGUID="baf5ffb0-508c-4c99-8f99-83df2da73d72" CreationDate="2019-10-29T11:44:59.737" UserId="3379" Comment="added 7 characters in body; edited title" Text="Are there any unsustainable supply-chain issues unique to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22220" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9596" RevisionGUID="16a8dfc2-4733-4ca7-8e15-3628d99245df" CreationDate="2019-10-29T16:47:06.413" UserId="4834" Text="The favored anode catalyst in a hydrogen fuel cell is platinum([1][1]) or another platinum-group element (e.g. palladium).  The catalyst is required in small quantities for an individual fuel cell but of course this demand scales up linearly with the number of fuel cells you want to produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is ongoing research into development of alternative anode catalysts but the current generation technology still relies on relatively rare elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, hydrogen fuel cell-based vehicles also imply a significant mining enterprise with the corresponding environment impacts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/parts-fuel-cell#catalyst" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9597" RevisionGUID="f789beed-8e51-4c97-a582-cef14bfe33b1" CreationDate="2019-10-29T19:20:00.920" UserId="5477" Text="Hydrogen is made in quantity by stream /methane reforming. Refineries currently make many tons per day with this process  : it is used for hydrocracking , reforming ( making high octane fuels and plastics raw materials ) and other hydrotreating processes. Most of these processes consume H , but some actually produce H , but I no longer remember which is which. Many more tons ( maybe hundreds) per day of H are also used to make ammonia. So, there is essentially unlimited amounts of H available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9598" RevisionGUID="a7ea8833-d5df-40e9-a542-b854d0ef1d83" CreationDate="2019-10-29T21:41:48.000" UserId="3379" Text="The city where I live is running a campaign to [keep leaves out of the streets](https://www.cityofmadison.com/streets/yardWaste/leaf/documents/ProtectOurLakes.pdf), where they contribute to phosphorous in storm water run-off causing lake pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to avoid the need to send/take my leaves anywhere, which invariably would require some or all of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - bags (possibly plastic)&#xD;&#xA; - fossil-fuel burning vehicles&#xD;&#xA; - dead patches of grass where leaves are piled while waiting for transport&#xD;&#xA; - extra work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already have a compost bin in my yard where I dispose of food scraps and the occasional scoop of grass clippings. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Will adding a large volume of fallen leaves to my food waste compost bin cause any problems? Should I have a second bin only for leaves?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9598" RevisionGUID="a7ea8833-d5df-40e9-a542-b854d0ef1d83" CreationDate="2019-10-29T21:41:48.000" UserId="3379" Text="Should leaf composting be separate from food waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9598" RevisionGUID="a7ea8833-d5df-40e9-a542-b854d0ef1d83" CreationDate="2019-10-29T21:41:48.000" UserId="3379" Text="|composting|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9599" RevisionGUID="288f2e20-a486-40f6-87e4-ebd3b9acd333" CreationDate="2019-10-29T23:34:16.857" UserId="4834" Text="Leaves are nearly the perfect compostable material.  Trees drop them to mulch the ground for one season and then decompose to return useful nutrients to the soil where those same trees can use them again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reasonable generalization for the carbon to nitrogen ratio of recently fallen tree leaves is 30 to 1.  The ideal carbon to nitrogen ratio for a home compost pile is 30 to 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nitrogen level in tree leaves *does* begin to drop soon after they fall so the more quickly you can get the leaves into the compost pile (where the nitrogen can be captured by your composting bacteria) the better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue to watch out for, though, is that mulch goal.  A thick, matted layer of leaves will create a layer in your compost pile that is difficult for water and air to penetrate.  Starving your pile of air will turn it anaerobic and nasty.  The stink of an anaerobic compost pile is the smell of volatile organic compounds escaping - likely including methane.  To avoid this, mix leaves thoroughly into the pile or shred them before adding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your compost pile ever goes anaerobic (because of tree leaves or any other reason), promptly turn and aerate the whole thing and correct whatever management practice caused the problem.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9599" RevisionGUID="8104fec4-6f54-4b6c-892c-25c35b8207e0" CreationDate="2019-10-29T23:42:53.897" UserId="4834" Comment="qualify the answer by contextualizing it to a certain climate" Text="In a temperate climate where deciduous trees drop their leaves for the winter such leaves are nearly the perfect compostable material.  Trees drop them to mulch the ground for one season and then decompose to return useful nutrients to the soil where those same trees can use them again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A reasonable generalization for the carbon to nitrogen ratio of recently fallen tree leaves is 30 to 1.  The ideal carbon to nitrogen ratio for a home compost pile is 30 to 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The nitrogen level in tree leaves *does* begin to drop soon after they fall so the more quickly you can get the leaves into the compost pile (where the nitrogen can be captured by your composting bacteria) the better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, recently fallen tree leaves are probably a better composting material than the average household food waste.  Adding tree leaves to your household food waste compost pile will buffer the carbon to nitrogen ratio and let you successfully compost material that is further from the ideal ratio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One issue to watch out for, though, is that mulch goal.  A thick, matted layer of leaves will create a layer in your compost pile that is difficult for water and air to penetrate.  Starving your pile of air will turn it anaerobic and nasty.  The stink of an anaerobic compost pile is the smell of volatile organic compounds escaping - likely including methane.  To avoid this, mix leaves thoroughly into the pile or shred them before adding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your compost pile ever goes anaerobic (because of tree leaves or any other reason), promptly turn and aerate the whole thing and correct whatever management practice caused the problem.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9600" RevisionGUID="e7cf93de-f549-40f0-ba91-eb5c63099ae8" CreationDate="2019-10-30T15:58:07.407" UserId="8104" Text="There are some topics discussing the carbon footprint of an email:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3202/what-s-the-carbon-footprint-of-an-email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://twosidesna.org/US/The-Carbon-Footprint-of-Email-is-quite-large/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I found none about the carbon footprint of watching TV in streaming through a (DSL or optical fiber) box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you send an email, data goes to many data centers to be replicated and transmitted. Considering how many emails we daily send, this has a huge carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you watch a youtube video, the data is also replicated in many data centers. Considering how many videos are hosted and watched daily, this has a huge carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When your Internet provider's box (like Free, Orange...) has a TV service, does it also have a huge carbon footprint? The data is transmitted in streaming, so I'm wondering if watching/not watching makes a real difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main question I'm asking is: If you ignoring the carbon footprint of the boxe itself (power supply), does watching TV through the box have a significantly bigger footprint than watching TV through standard hertzian network (using TV tuner)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22232" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9600" RevisionGUID="e7cf93de-f549-40f0-ba91-eb5c63099ae8" CreationDate="2019-10-30T15:58:07.407" UserId="8104" Text="What's the the carbon footprint of watching television in streaming?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22233" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9600" RevisionGUID="e7cf93de-f549-40f0-ba91-eb5c63099ae8" CreationDate="2019-10-30T15:58:07.407" UserId="8104" Text="|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22234" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9600" RevisionGUID="5c401ce2-3738-4c2a-804a-eea1c9dc7182" CreationDate="2019-10-30T17:18:09.270" UserId="8104" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited title" Text="There are some topics discussing the carbon footprint of an email:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3202/what-s-the-carbon-footprint-of-an-email&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://twosidesna.org/US/The-Carbon-Footprint-of-Email-is-quite-large/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I found none about the carbon footprint of watching &quot;IPTV&quot;: TV in streaming through a (DSL or optical fiber) box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you send an email, data goes to many data centers to be replicated and transmitted. Considering how many emails we daily send, this has a huge carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you watch a youtube video, the data is also replicated in many data centers. Considering how many videos are hosted and watched daily, this has a huge carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When your Internet provider's box (like Free, Orange...) has a IPTV service, does it also have a huge carbon footprint? The data is transmitted in streaming, so I'm wondering if watching/not watching makes a real difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main question I'm asking is: If you ignoring the carbon footprint of the boxe itself (power supply), does watching TV through the box have a significantly bigger footprint than watching TV through standard hertzian network (using TV tuner)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22235" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9600" RevisionGUID="5c401ce2-3738-4c2a-804a-eea1c9dc7182" CreationDate="2019-10-30T17:18:09.270" UserId="8104" Comment="added 10 characters in body; edited title" Text="What's the the carbon footprint of watching IPTV?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22237" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9601" RevisionGUID="9b5f88b2-4abc-4db6-acc8-c49397b13c8a" CreationDate="2019-10-31T00:42:48.510" UserId="1056" Text="I just moved into a new home that has a backyard composter (about 80 gallons). The composter has been sitting unused for an unknown amount of time (at least 3 months).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I assess the health and status of the compost pile, and then what should I do to revive it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22238" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9601" RevisionGUID="9b5f88b2-4abc-4db6-acc8-c49397b13c8a" CreationDate="2019-10-31T00:42:48.510" UserId="1056" Text="How do I revive an old compost pile?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22239" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9601" RevisionGUID="9b5f88b2-4abc-4db6-acc8-c49397b13c8a" CreationDate="2019-10-31T00:42:48.510" UserId="1056" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9602" RevisionGUID="5479a2fa-cff0-4817-b3c3-7f708b5154fe" CreationDate="2019-10-31T09:22:36.133" UserId="99" Text="Dig around in the compost to check the conditions and if the contents are ready to be used. Good compost looks like regular dirt and has a light earthy smell. It should not smell badly or be very wet. Unfinished compost has lots of recognizable pieces still in it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely the majority of materials left in the composter are transformed into compost by now and can be applied directly to your garden. &#xD;&#xA;Since you don't know what the original materials were I personally would not use it in a vegetable garden, only in other parts of your garden, but I'm rather picky&#xD;&#xA;about what I add to plants my family and I eat (I tend to compost only organic material).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You did not say what kind of composter you have; a sealed bin or something placed directly on the ground with open bottom. If it's a sealed bin you can consider&#xD;&#xA;if you want to do vermicomposting (with worms) or not. If it's directly on the ground, worms will find their way into your heap by themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no need to revive anything. If the bin is not smelling you can add new materials straight away, but personally I would empty it first and then start from scratch so I know exactly what the resulting compost is made of. If you want to do vermicomposting in a closed bin make sure you have some dirt and worms of course as starter material. For regular (hot) composting some dirt as starter is not necessary, but is still recommended because decomposition will take off quicker." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9603" RevisionGUID="e158b1a0-b7bc-4e46-a2d4-7b8b264cca9b" CreationDate="2019-10-31T14:28:28.450" UserId="8041" Text="Drivers often floor it at the lights, a large number switch off their start/stop systems, they might idle for an hour to listen to the radio, exceed the speed limit and exhibit other inefficient driving behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do the RWE tests factor in real world driver behaviour or do they only demonstrate the emissions of real world best practice driving?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9603" RevisionGUID="e158b1a0-b7bc-4e46-a2d4-7b8b264cca9b" CreationDate="2019-10-31T14:28:28.450" UserId="8041" Text="Real World Emissions testing (RWE) - does it factor in real driver behaviour and the inefficient driving habits they often exhibit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9603" RevisionGUID="e158b1a0-b7bc-4e46-a2d4-7b8b264cca9b" CreationDate="2019-10-31T14:28:28.450" UserId="8041" Text="|transport|pollution|fuel-efficiency|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22244" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9598" RevisionGUID="0be26dbe-266c-4534-9567-8ad95b92cca5" CreationDate="2019-10-31T15:00:38.693" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1189920119394316290" />
  <row Id="22245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9604" RevisionGUID="60937ff2-ec4b-49cc-afe3-5ab62940bf9d" CreationDate="2019-10-31T16:55:47.570" UserId="8002" Text="I agree it is a good idea not to use the compost left in the bin on anything edible or valuable. Just scrape it out and start again. They might have been composting meat, in which case it will be full of maggots and harmful bacteria. The idea is, if it smells spread it out in an out of the way place and let the air and the worms get to it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9603" RevisionGUID="9f29b895-df90-4959-a425-0e92292fc1ac" CreationDate="2019-10-31T17:01:50.110" UserId="8041" Comment="added 17 characters in body; edited title" Text="Drivers often floor it at the lights, a large number switch off their start/stop systems, they might idle for an hour to listen to the radio, exceed the speed limit and exhibit other inefficient driving behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do the European Union's RWE tests factor in real world driver behaviour or do they only demonstrate the emissions of real world best practice driving?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22247" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9603" RevisionGUID="9f29b895-df90-4959-a425-0e92292fc1ac" CreationDate="2019-10-31T17:01:50.110" UserId="8041" Comment="added 17 characters in body; edited title" Text="EU Real World Emissions testing (RWE) - does it factor in real driver behaviour and the inefficient driving habits they often exhibit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9605" RevisionGUID="98a563a4-3340-4a74-b612-499c77173672" CreationDate="2019-10-31T17:16:54.250" UserId="8002" Text="Leaf mould is one of the best composts but leaves should never be removed from under the trees, because the fungi that support the trees feed on them. However leaves in the street are a nuisance and they should be swept up and composted, adding nutrients to the kitchen waste. However waxy broad evergreen leaves can stifle a compost and I think some produce toxins. Not sure how you'd dispose of them. Compost separately with a little slaked lime perhaps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9606" RevisionGUID="e0c1f292-aad4-45df-ac1b-5290e7250fc9" CreationDate="2019-10-31T17:28:16.763" UserId="8002" Text="Wherever unlike materials are bonded it becomes a recyclable nightmare and everyone should avoid bonded materials of any kind wherever possible. It doesn't matter if your tiny sliver of steel is thrown away. Iron is a very common metal, and that tiny amount of steel discarded is negligible compared to the nightmare of reclaiming anything that's half plastic.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9582" RevisionGUID="24f2e219-4fc0-4db8-afac-6098201545e1" CreationDate="2019-10-31T17:38:52.230" UserId="8002" Comment="added 263 characters in body" Text="Skin rots more slowly than other body parts but less slowly than bone. If buried, a raw hide would turn into beneficial compost in a fairly short time, in fertile productive soil around two years or less. So there is no problem of disposing of parts of an animal that we don't eat. Blood and bonemeal is a valued preparation for garden fertilizer, and is especially loved for use on roses.&#xD;&#xA;There are several different processes used to tan leather to make shoes. The simplest is to dry the hide on the side of a shed after scraping off all the softer tissue. Moccasins used to be made this way often without the need to remove the hair. The old tanning factories used slightly more sophisticated methods, and you could smell them for half a mile. I doubt whether they were using harmful chemicals then. It is only the modern production of leather which uses harmful chemicals and this is only to speed up the process, and make it easier to dye and waterproof the leather, (and possibly also to stop the smell) and these unnatural processes could be dropped. So whether you use the skin as fertilizer or natural shoe leather it is potentially better for the environment than plastic. So use your rawhide to make moccasins or bury it to fertilise your garden, and it will be very beneficial to the environment. I didn't fully explain the tanning process which need not and should not involve poisonous chemicals. In order for leather to be pest free and remain supple it is steeped in a solution of tannin which comes mainly from tree bark, and then is stretched and worked on to keep it supple. The only process left then is dyeing and this should be done with natural dyes. Also, to waterproof it people used to use beeswax. A frequent application of wax was always used for shoes and furniture to keep them from cracking and to keep them looking good. It was called polishing, or using elbow grease. Those were the days when pollution was almost unheard of. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9607" RevisionGUID="c2b5d650-c4b8-4b5f-b17c-849f656d15b4" CreationDate="2019-10-31T21:01:48.130" UserId="8041" Text="There is another possible reason, just a theory mind. Small cars may pass emissions testing without the need for the technology whereas large cars must have it to pass. In other words, it is not necessary for small cars to have the technology to meet emission requirements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9607" RevisionGUID="f426f7aa-d648-40af-b323-ca411e5957f4" CreationDate="2019-10-31T21:29:07.260" UserId="8041" Comment="added 101 characters in body" Text="There is another possible reason, just a theory mind. Small cars may pass emissions testing without the need for the technology whereas large cars must have it to pass. In other words, it is not necessary for small cars to have the technology to meet emission requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course that does not mean it isn't a benefit to fuel economy or emissions to possess the tech." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9608" RevisionGUID="a34d6662-64df-417c-afeb-1f761fab4d90" CreationDate="2019-11-01T04:45:57.260" UserId="8107" Text="Perhaps use them when packing things for storage: small fragile items inside (plates, saucers, etc.) and/or packing between items.  Cutting them up or in half furthers the use. Holiday ornaments, similar items would be better protected.  Just some thoughts.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5367" RevisionGUID="301169be-7c5e-4d12-bd26-98e81fa363de" CreationDate="2019-11-01T08:39:16.080" UserId="99" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="**1. Try to reuse**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reuse is always better than recycling or disposal because 1) it saves energy that is used in the recycling process and 2) it saves energy and materials for manufacturing and transporting new or recycled envelopes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most simply way of reuse would be to relabel and resend, but you can also reuse the envelopes for other purposes, for example as knee pads for gardening work. If you have lots of envelopes you can give them away to friends and family or on websites like freecycle.org.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Check with your local recycling facility**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I heard that there are a few recycling companies that accept paper/plastic-composite materials. Although they seem to be rare, it doesn't hurt to check this first. While you are at it also check which types of plastic your local recycling facility accepts (for the next step).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Try to separate the paper and plastic**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You mentioned that in your case it's impossible to separate the paper and plastic and for some types of envelopes this is very true, but sometimes cutting the envelope open first with a scissor gives you better access to the bubble wrap allowing you to separate it after all. However separating only makes sense if you can recycle the paper and/or plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can separate but the plastic isn't of a type that is recycled by your local recycling company, you can try upcycling plastics by melting them into something else (see also [Fusing plastic bags](http://etsylabs.blogspot.nl/2007/05/long-overdue-fusing-plastic-bag.html)). Be careful when you do this, because [melting plastics may release toxic fumes](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/225/99)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**4. Check with the envelope manufacturer/sender**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't separate the paper and plastic or if you can't find out what kind of plastic was used (most likely it's [LDPE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_polyethylene)), you could try to contact the envelope manufacturer. They should be able to tell you what kind of plastic it is and perhaps provide alternative recycling options. If the manufacturer has no good recycling options urge them to become more environmentally aware. You can also contact the envelope sender and ask them to start using recyclable bubble mailers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9609" RevisionGUID="a2f6080b-b6fe-4ed9-a5d1-2557d24bb8b0" CreationDate="2019-11-01T09:16:34.827" UserId="99" Text="&gt; Under RDE [Real Driving Emissions test], a car is driven on public roads and over a wide range of different conditions..... Conditions include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Low and high altitudes&#xD;&#xA;* Year-round temperatures&#xD;&#xA;* Additional vehicle payload&#xD;&#xA;* Up- and down-hill driving&#xD;&#xA;* Urban roads (low speed)&#xD;&#xA;* Rural roads (medium speed)&#xD;&#xA;* Motorways (high speed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Source: https://caremissionstestingfacts.eu/rde-real-driving-emissions-test/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details are mentioned [in this article](https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/features/autocar-guide-wltp-emissions-testing):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 1.5- to two-hour test (over around 50 miles) has an equal split of urban, rural and motorway routes, takes into account stops/starts in towns and must exceed 56mph on appropriate roads.&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;The goalposts for RDE will keep moving, too. For example, at the moment, manufacturers must sign a legal document stating that the RDE results can be achieved in certain conditions, such as an altitude of up to 700 metres. From 2021, that will extend to 1300m.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer to your question is: no, tests do not include any of the things you mentioned. Since manufacturers have to perform the test themselves they won't do anything (outside of the test requirements) that will have a negative effect on the outcome of the test." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22258" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9603" RevisionGUID="35f2a2de-e5c9-4f67-ad8f-8d6a1d8cb9d2" CreationDate="2019-11-01T09:17:35.457" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|transport|cars|fuel-efficiency|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9602" RevisionGUID="96b50b2b-d0b1-4552-aab6-9114c4810921" CreationDate="2019-11-01T09:28:02.197" UserId="99" Comment="renamed 'dirt' to more appropriate 'soil', added link to other question, added link to vermicomposting tag" Text="Dig around in the compost to check the conditions and if the contents are ready to be used. Good compost looks like regular soil and has a light earthy smell. It should not smell badly or be very wet. Unfinished compost has lots of recognizable pieces still in it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely the majority of materials left in the composter are transformed into compost by now and can be applied directly to your garden. Since you don't know what the original materials were I personally would not use it in a vegetable garden, only in other parts of your garden, but I am rather picky about what I add to plants my family and I eat. I tend to compost only organic material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You did not say what kind of composter you have; a sealed bin or something placed directly on the ground with open bottom. If it's a sealed bin you can choose between regular composting and [vermicomposting](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/vermicomposting/info). If it's directly on the ground, worms will find their way into your heap by themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no need to revive anything. If the bin is not smelling you can add new materials straight away, but personally I would empty it first and then start from scratch so I know exactly what the resulting compost is made of. If you want to do vermicomposting in a closed bin make sure you have some soil and worms as starter material. For regular (hot) composting soil as starter is not a necessity, but is [recommended because decomposition will start quicker](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/15/99)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9609" RevisionGUID="67c85290-3609-4488-a822-2f919502f6c1" CreationDate="2019-11-01T10:37:06.840" UserId="99" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="&gt; Under RDE [Real Driving Emissions test], a car is driven on public roads and over a wide range of different conditions..... Conditions include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Low and high altitudes&#xD;&#xA;* Year-round temperatures&#xD;&#xA;* Additional vehicle payload&#xD;&#xA;* Up- and down-hill driving&#xD;&#xA;* Urban roads (low speed)&#xD;&#xA;* Rural roads (medium speed)&#xD;&#xA;* Motorways (high speed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Source: https://caremissionstestingfacts.eu/rde-real-driving-emissions-test/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More details are mentioned [in this article](https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/features/autocar-guide-wltp-emissions-testing):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 1.5- to two-hour test (over around 50 miles) has an equal split of urban, rural and motorway routes, takes into account stops/starts in towns and must exceed 56mph on appropriate roads.&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;The goalposts for RDE will keep moving, too. For example, at the moment, manufacturers must sign a legal document stating that the RDE results can be achieved in certain conditions, such as an altitude of up to 700 metres. From 2021, that will extend to 1300m.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the answer to your question is: tests include real driver behavior, but not any of the inefficient habits you mentioned. Since manufacturers have to perform the test themselves they won't do anything (outside of the test requirements) that will have a negative effect on the outcome of the test." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22261" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9600" RevisionGUID="2a2a776d-575e-415e-bf7d-786cbc84c6cc" CreationDate="2019-11-01T12:00:25.197" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1190237152099090433" />
  <row Id="22262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9603" RevisionGUID="57eff2c6-83a7-428f-9a16-d6864a62fb7f" CreationDate="2019-11-01T15:15:42.090" UserId="8041" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Drivers often floor it at the lights, a large number switch off their start/stop systems, they might idle for an hour to listen to the radio, exceed the speed limit and exhibit other inefficient driving behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do the European Union's RDE tests factor in real world driver behaviour or do they only demonstrate the emissions of real world best practice driving?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22263" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9603" RevisionGUID="57eff2c6-83a7-428f-9a16-d6864a62fb7f" CreationDate="2019-11-01T15:15:42.090" UserId="8041" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="EU Real Driving Emissions testing (RDE) - does it factor in real driver behaviour and the inefficient driving habits they often exhibit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22264" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9600" RevisionGUID="e206759e-efb5-4464-af9e-69e2ee754599" CreationDate="2019-11-01T18:19:06.893" UserId="8104" Comment="edited title" Text="What's the carbon footprint of watching IPTV?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22265" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9560" RevisionGUID="65c93eab-4834-4132-a5d8-aac985c5af70" CreationDate="2019-11-02T09:00:05.293" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1190554158090391552" />
  <row Id="22266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9610" RevisionGUID="e188b67c-7632-44d7-8b64-c724f93ee3ab" CreationDate="2019-11-02T13:11:20.000" UserId="3653" Text="My fridge is from Haier and is rated A+++ (2017), with about 200 litres volume, half of which for the freezer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reference energy consumption is 178 kWh/year, but in a week of October I measured the energy consumption and I obtained an estimate of 230 kWh/year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The device is most of the time almost full, but that has likely a low impact. More important, we are two people so the amount of food getting in and out per week is likely less than what the manufacturer expects, given the size of the fridge, suitable surely for three or four people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the measured discrepancy reasonable? Or should I complain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22267" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9610" RevisionGUID="e188b67c-7632-44d7-8b64-c724f93ee3ab" CreationDate="2019-11-02T13:11:20.000" UserId="3653" Text="Is this discrepancy between energy label and measured values reasonable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22268" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9610" RevisionGUID="e188b67c-7632-44d7-8b64-c724f93ee3ab" CreationDate="2019-11-02T13:11:20.000" UserId="3653" Text="|energy-efficiency|consumption|appliance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9611" RevisionGUID="d3aea035-f65d-45ea-8783-1774228c7ac7" CreationDate="2019-11-02T16:45:30.833" UserId="8013" Text="I see this question was asked 6 years ago ... I hope things have gone well since then. As the issue is still relevant, here is my solution:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Investing in projects in developing countries has the advantage that your money is going to generate something new, and there will be a development bonus as well. The disadvantage is that it is hard to get full details about what is happening with your money. Going through a reliable intermediary (e.g. Gold Standard [https://www.goldstandard.org/]) can help. This approach is also also cheap, at $10-15 per tonne CO2. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Investing in something local will help to move your community towards greater sustainability, so it is a good option if possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since sustainability is a long term issue, it would be best to put the money in a project which you can follow over time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22270" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9612" RevisionGUID="dde4dffb-de39-4040-9831-8957c845d186" CreationDate="2019-11-02T16:56:18.877" UserId="8013" Text="As far as Europe is concerned, more than half the new generating capacity installed in 2018 was wind turbine, the the amount installed in the first 6 months of 2019 is increased relative to 2018. In the US, AWEA is reporting that the 3rd quarter rate of installation of new wind turbines was, at just under 2GW, &quot;highest third quarter on record&quot;. Doesn't look like there is any significant break in the growth of wind power." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9614" RevisionGUID="2b6c02f0-0266-4822-b124-96ddcbfdf018" CreationDate="2019-11-03T01:23:41.057" UserId="8112" Text="I was about to post a quick question, trying to figure out the comparison for a Hyundai i30 2018 model vs Prius C, then went down a rabbit hole for a couple of hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm waaaay out of my depth here, so trying to piece together our situation for two cars we're considering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The end result (TL;DR) is the Prius C or Prius produce way lower CO2 including battery production than the Hyundai i30, (14.09 Tonnes less).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the Prius C is too small for us and Prius is $10k over our budget. So I looked into the cost of offsetting that much CO2 and it came in at $190, if we pay 10X that to make $1900 + a Hyundai i30 is within our budget and reduces our CO2 impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This is my thought process and calculations to make a decision about buying an environmentally efficient car.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our main considerations are buying relatively new (2-3 yrs old), the largest boot size we can get in a tiny car (in case we have kids), spending under 20k (we'll be selling our Subaru for about that much) and environmental efficiency, hence moving from the Subaru.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I love the long post by @LShaver but I feel like you should use CO2 emitted by each vehicle per mile/KM, not per gallon/litre. Because their CO2 efficiency is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that a fair comment to make? Maybe it ends up being the same, I'm very confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other question I have is I imagine the CO2 emitted when producing batteries will improve over time, so in the 2 years since this post, these calculations might be out of date? But I couldn't find any newer data, after reading 5X technical battery specification PDFS, I gave up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If I compare them on these data points.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prius C**&#xD;&#xA;- [0.9 kWh Nickel-metal hydride][1]&#xD;&#xA;- 0.35 kg CO2eq / Wh (Above, I couldn't find a more up to date stat)&#xD;&#xA;- 86 g/km (Green Vehicle Guide)&#xD;&#xA;- 3.9 l/100 km (Test)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hyundai i30 Diesel**&#xD;&#xA;- 157 g/km (Green Vehicle Guide)&#xD;&#xA;- 3.8 l/100 km (Test)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Fuel &amp; CO2 stats from this source][2]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Scenario 100,000 km**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prius C**&#xD;&#xA;- Driving CO2: 100,000 km x 86 g = 8,600,000g = 8.6 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;- Battery: 900 Wh x 0.35 kg CO2eq = 315 kg = 0.315 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;- Total: 8.915 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hyundai i30 Diesel**&#xD;&#xA;- Driving CO2: 100,000 km x 157 g = 15,700,000g = 15.7 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;- Total: 15.7 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly way more in that scenario, and the distance of break even would be very low KMs. &#xD;&#xA;The difference in fuel consumption is nominal, 0.1 l/100 km, only adding up to 100L over 100,000 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Our scenario: 11,500 km/year for 5 years**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prius C**&#xD;&#xA;- Driving CO2: 11,500 km x 86 g = 989,000g = 0.99 Tonnes / year x 5 years = 4.95 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;- Battery: 900 Wh x 0.35 kg CO2eq = 315 kg = 0.315 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;- Total: 5.265 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hyundai i30 Diesel**&#xD;&#xA;- Driving CO2: 11,500 km x 157 g = 1,805,500g = 1.8 Tonnes / year X 5 years = 9.01 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;- Total: 9.01 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I feel true life cycle should consider the life after we use it, as someone else will benefit from it's CO2 reduction. Average use is 10.2 years in Australia. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Let's say, it goes for 200,000 km, just double the stats above, obviously it's just going to get better for the Prius C.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prius C**&#xD;&#xA;- Driving CO2: 17.2 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;- Battery: 0.315 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;- Total: 17.315 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Hyundai i30 Diesel**&#xD;&#xA;- Driving CO2: 31.4 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;- Total: 31.4 Tonnes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I realised the boot size of the Prius C is TINY, so have to consider the latest Gen Prius which is $10-20k more expensive, previous Gen $5-20k, so this is now becoming theoretical.... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But looking at the 2nd Generation the battery is 1.310 kWh and CO2 90 g/km , only marginally different, so wont impact the results. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So the question becomes should we spend an additional $5-10k for an older Prius to save 14.085 Tonnes of CO2...** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**That made me think, what's the cost of offsetting that CO2?** (Goes down another Google rabbit hole...) It's really confusing a) if CO2 offsetting is meaningful, and which providers are legitimate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This government website linked me to a bunch of retailers and half their websites were broken or confusing. http://marketplace.carbonmarketinstitute.org/market-directory/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Whilst these projects may not entirely counteract your own actions or really meet the definition of an “offset”, they are still driving conservation efforts and green research. Carbon offsets are not ideal, but they are an imperfect solution to a complicated problem. At the very least, it remains a mechanism to channel much-needed investment into green energy and conservation. [Forbes][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This website][4] calculated that many Tonnes costs $130-$190 to offset, which seems very low. Let's say we spend 10X that to really make sure it's offsetting our Hyundai i30 purchase, that's $1300-$1900, well within our budget and hopefully meaningful...?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_C&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://practicalmotoring.com.au/comparison-tests/toyota-prius-c-vs-hyundai-i30-diesel-vs-hybrid-which-is-more-fuel-efficient/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/03/05/does-carbon-offsetting-really-allow-you-to-fly-guilt-free/#79be9e9d5603&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://carbonfootprint.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9610" RevisionGUID="3afac1b9-8e86-4ceb-b6ba-46d2af18cd9c" CreationDate="2019-11-03T11:01:31.963" UserId="3653" Comment="added 156 characters in body" Text="My fridge is from Haier and is rated A+++ (2017), with about 200 litres volume, half of which for the freezer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reference energy consumption is 178 kWh/year, but in a week of October I measured the energy consumption and I obtained an estimate of 230 kWh/year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The device is most of the time almost full, but that has likely a low impact. More important, we are two people so the amount of food getting in and out per week is likely less than what the manufacturer expects, given the size of the fridge, suitable surely for three or four people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I keep 6°C and -18°C in the cooking and freezing compartments. There is a multipurpose intermediate compartment that I set to the warmest setting, +1°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the measured discrepancy reasonable? Or should I complain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22279" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9615" RevisionGUID="e0d331d1-5f6e-4be2-8fde-44c48f4fa87d" CreationDate="2019-11-03T20:23:59.693" UserId="3722" Text="The discrepancy you find is about 30 %, and is *probably* in the range that you have to expect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Report on a fair energy label for consumers &quot;CLOSING THE ‘REALITY&#xD;&#xA;GAP’ – ENSURING A&#xD;&#xA;FAIR ENERGY LABEL&#xD;&#xA;FOR CONSUMERS&quot; by CLASP, ECOS, EEB and Topten, 2017](https://eeb.org/closing-the-reality-gap/) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Fridge energy consumption is tested and reported according to a norm (EN&#xD;&#xA;62552:2013) that basically prescribes that the empty fridge is running in steady state (i.e. already cooled down) with an environment temp of 25 °C and defined humidity. I do not have access to the norm, so I don't know the interior temp that is prescribed. The report suggests that it may be 5 °C (but I don't know where in the fridge).  &#xD;&#xA;The unrealistic temperature settings are used as surrogate for door opening and cooling of warm food when put into the fridge.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The report gives comparisons for several fridges of these norm values and what they think a more life-like cycle of door opening. 2 out of 10 tested fridges that had negligible (&lt; 1 %) discrepancy between these two test regimes, but 2 others had 26 and 32 % higher energy consumption in the door opening test. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- They also briefly describe that they found loading/unloading to have major impact, but that is published as observed temperature and unfortunately not as energy consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In any case they conclude that **the current test norm doesn't give good real life energy consumption estimates**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors related to your lifestyle that may have significant impact your fridges' power consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  Recommended temperatures are 7 °C in the fridge and -18 °C in the freezer compartment (see e.g. [German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt)](https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/umwelttipps-fuer-den-alltag/elektrogeraete/kuehlschrank#textpart-2)). (This will result in about 8 °C at the top of the fridge and ≈ 2 °C at the bottom of the open compartment just above the veggie drawers).  &#xD;&#xA;1 °C temp difference inside (yours being set to 6 °C) depending on the actual temperature at the back side of the fridge may mean something in the order of magnitude of 10 % difference in the temperature difference the fridge has to produce and thus also in energy consumption.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, the air temperature at the cooler can vary a lot: where I am, a well ventilated cool pantry may have quite a bit &lt; 20 °C thrughout the year, while a a space in the actual kitchen or living room-kitchen under the countertop with just a few ventilation slots may very well result in &gt; 24 °C during the fridge's work cycle.  &#xD;&#xA;I'd measure both fridge temp at the top of the fridge compartment (should be 8 °C for 7 °C setting at the thermostat) and the temperature behind the fridge when it is working hard (freshly filled with not-yet-cool food).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Most of the time almost full: should lower the impact of door opening, but would increase the impact of loading/unloading.  &#xD;&#xA;So total impact is difficult to estimate, and will depend on how cool the food is when you put it into the fridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Two persons in a shared flat with independent eating habits may produce quite more door opening events than a family of 4 who eat together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22280" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9612" RevisionGUID="49a1c700-e0c5-4189-87d9-f9b7149da678" CreationDate="2019-11-03T21:10:45.303" UserId="8013" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="As far as Europe is concerned, more than half the new generating capacity installed in 2018 was wind turbine, the the amount installed in the first 6 months of 2019 is increased relative to 2018. In the US, AWEA is reporting that the 3rd quarter rate of installation of new wind turbines was, at just under 2GW, &quot;highest third quarter on record&quot;. Doesn't look like there is any significant break in the growth of wind power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: sorry, that should say &quot;nearly half the new generating capacity (48%) ....&quot;. not &quot;more than half ....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9616" RevisionGUID="84d899ff-5adc-4bf0-a7c9-67f0de8bb3b4" CreationDate="2019-11-03T21:52:57.583" UserId="8013" Text="As a guide, mature sitka spruce forest in the UK has 500m3 of wood per hectare [report](https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/2117/FCBK048.pdf);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wood has a density of 450 kg/m3 [density tables](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-density-d_40.html), to that makes 225 tonnes of wood per hectare. The wood is about 50% carbon, so that would convert to 110 tonnes of coal per hectare.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;40,000 TWh of energy requires 20,000 Tg of coal (http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/ctele.htm), i.e. 20x10^15 g = 20x10^9 tonnes, which would be equivalent to 0.2 X 10^9 hectare = 2 x 10^6 km2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be about one third of the area of the Amazon jungle (these numbers come with no guarantee, and the Amazon obviously has a different density to Sitka spruce plantations ... but it is interesting to see how you can arrive at an answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22282" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9615" RevisionGUID="c6c26063-52c9-414c-b314-6d30ce5221e9" CreationDate="2019-11-04T14:52:27.720" UserId="3722" Comment="added 80 characters in body" Text="The discrepancy you find is about 30 %, and is *probably* in the range that you have to expect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Report on a fair energy label for consumers &quot;CLOSING THE ‘REALITY&#xD;&#xA;GAP’ – ENSURING A&#xD;&#xA;FAIR ENERGY LABEL&#xD;&#xA;FOR CONSUMERS&quot; by CLASP, ECOS, EEB and Topten, 2017](https://eeb.org/closing-the-reality-gap/) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Fridge energy consumption is tested and reported according to a norm (EN&#xD;&#xA;62552:2013) that basically prescribes that the empty fridge is running in steady state (i.e. already cooled down) with an environment temp of 25 °C and defined humidity. I do not have access to the norm, so I don't know the interior temp that is prescribed. The report suggests that it may be 5 °C (but I don't know where in the fridge).  &#xD;&#xA;The unrealistic temperature settings are used as surrogate for door opening and cooling of warm food when put into the fridge.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The report gives comparisons for several fridges of these norm values and what they think a more life-like cycle of door opening. 2 out of 10 tested fridges that had negligible (&lt; 1 %) discrepancy between these two test regimes, but 2 others had 26 and 32 % higher energy consumption in the door opening test. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- They also briefly describe that they found loading/unloading to have major impact, but that is published as observed temperature and unfortunately not as energy consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In any case they conclude that **the current test norm doesn't give good real life energy consumption estimates** - it is rather a way to measure and compare insulation properties of the fridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors related to your lifestyle that may have significant impact your fridges' power consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  Recommended temperatures are 7 °C in the fridge and -18 °C in the freezer compartment (see e.g. [German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt)](https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/umwelttipps-fuer-den-alltag/elektrogeraete/kuehlschrank#textpart-2)). (This will result in about 8 °C at the top of the fridge and ≈ 2 °C at the bottom of the open compartment just above the veggie drawers).  &#xD;&#xA;1 °C temp difference inside (yours being set to 6 °C) depending on the actual temperature at the back side of the fridge may mean something in the order of magnitude of 10 % difference in the temperature difference the fridge has to produce and thus also in energy consumption.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, the air temperature at the cooler can vary a lot: where I am, a well ventilated cool pantry may have quite a bit &lt; 20 °C thrughout the year, while a a space in the actual kitchen or living room-kitchen under the countertop with just a few ventilation slots may very well result in &gt; 24 °C during the fridge's work cycle.  &#xD;&#xA;I'd measure both fridge temp at the top of the fridge compartment (should be 8 °C for 7 °C setting at the thermostat) and the temperature behind the fridge when it is working hard (freshly filled with not-yet-cool food).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Most of the time almost full: should lower the impact of door opening, but would increase the impact of loading/unloading.  &#xD;&#xA;So total impact is difficult to estimate, and will depend on how cool the food is when you put it into the fridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Two persons in a shared flat with independent eating habits may produce quite more door opening events than a family of 4 who eat together." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9617" RevisionGUID="b1489746-069d-48bc-9d39-39e49f51a63c" CreationDate="2019-11-05T20:18:13.900" UserId="3722" Text="As a very rough guesstimate, watching HD video on a smartphone is said to use about 1 kW all in all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gathered this from [this German-language news post](https://www.heise.de/tr/artikel/Wie-Digitalisierung-das-Klima-belastet-4339249.html) which in turn references the [Lean ICT Report](https://theshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Lean-ICT-Report_The-Shift-Project_2019.pdf) by [The Shift Project](https://theshiftproject.org) and a [Swedish Study](https://doi.org/10.3390/challe6010117) that is in turn used by the Shift Project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  If you ignoring the carbon footprint of the boxe itself (power supply), does watching TV through the box have a significantly bigger footprint than watching TV through standard hertzian network (using TV tuner)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This post](https://www.dw.com/en/is-netflix-bad-for-the-environment-how-streaming-video-contributes-to-climate-change/a-49556716) cites someone again from the Shift Project who does say that *local* broadcasting does save energy because data is not transmitted across the whole globe for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another expert from a Fraunhofer institute is cited saying that the technology used for the last mile is crucial: wireless costs most energy, fiber-optic cables are much better and copper is somewhere in between. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also point out that reducing resolution does help a whole lot (and so does not having autoplay in the background while you are not watching). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9607" RevisionGUID="b67ac6bb-3967-40d8-a7b1-1b2d8ca2694f" CreationDate="2019-11-05T20:45:59.597" UserId="8041" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="There is another possible reason, just a theory mind. Small cars may pass emissions testing without the need for the technology whereas large cars must have it to pass. In other words, it is not necessary for small cars to have the technology to meet emission requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(although of course, the vehicles could, with start-stop, still benefit from a 12% reduction in emissions)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9610" RevisionGUID="3184f58c-5783-45ca-9e36-7a6c2e757cdf" CreationDate="2019-11-06T08:44:06.673" UserId="3653" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="My fridge is from Haier and is rated A+++ (Europe, 2017), with about 200 litres volume, half of which for the freezer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reference energy consumption is 178 kWh/year, but in a week of October I measured the energy consumption and I obtained an estimate of 230 kWh/year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The device is most of the time almost full, but that has likely a low impact. More important, we are two people so the amount of food getting in and out per week is likely less than what the manufacturer expects, given the size of the fridge, suitable surely for three or four people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I keep 6°C and -18°C in the cooking and freezing compartments. There is a multipurpose intermediate compartment that I set to the warmest setting, +1°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the measured discrepancy reasonable? Or should I complain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22288" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9610" RevisionGUID="cbd70803-83d3-403e-a5a6-e50d3e9a1001" CreationDate="2019-11-06T08:55:17.877" UserId="3653" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="My fridge is a [Haier a3fe835cgje][1] and is rated A+++ (Europe, 2017), with about 200 litres volume, half of which for the freezer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reference energy consumption is 178 kWh/year, but in a week of October I measured the energy consumption and I obtained an estimate of 230 kWh/year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The device is most of the time almost full, but that has likely a low impact. More important, we are two people so the amount of food getting in and out per week is likely less than what the manufacturer expects, given the size of the fridge, suitable surely for three or four people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I keep 6°C and -18°C in the cooking and freezing compartments. There is a multipurpose intermediate compartment that I set to the warmest setting, +1°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the measured discrepancy reasonable? Or should I complain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.coolblue.nl/product/811301/haier-a3fe835cgje-easy-access.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9610" RevisionGUID="c7d85ab5-d64f-476d-83d3-7c0a5f206ed7" CreationDate="2019-11-06T09:14:53.770" UserId="3653" Comment="added 107 characters in body" Text="My fridge is a [Haier a3fe835cgje][1] and is rated A+++ (Europe, 2017), with about 200 litres volume, half of which for the freezer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reference energy consumption is 178 kWh/year, but in a week of October I measured the energy consumption and I obtained an estimate of 230 kWh/year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The device is most of the time almost full, but that has likely a low impact. More important, we are two people so the amount of food getting in and out per week is likely less than what the manufacturer expects, given the size of the fridge, suitable surely for three or four people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I keep 6°C and -18°C in the cooking and freezing compartments. There is a multipurpose intermediate compartment that I set to the warmest setting, +1°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fridge is well spaced from the rear wall and the room temperature during the test was abou 20-21°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the measured discrepancy reasonable? Or should I complain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.coolblue.nl/product/811301/haier-a3fe835cgje-easy-access.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="509ea212-c587-4f2e-96d2-893fd4a9aeb4" CreationDate="2019-11-06T10:34:03.133" UserId="2570" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="## Theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calculation in [the other answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4318/2570) is rather naive. I haven't done the calculation myself, but there are a few things to consider. First of all, lighter wheels mean more than *just* lower overall vehicle weight. Advantages are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- lower overall vehicle weight: lower inertia of the car&#xD;&#xA;- lower weight of the wheel (rotating part): lower rotational inertia&#xD;&#xA;- (probably) different aerodynamic behavior&#xD;&#xA;- lower unsprung weight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weight *distribution* in the wheel also makes a huge difference. If the weight is more to the center, there's even less rotational inertia. Therefore, smaller diameter wheels are better than large diameter wheels! Clearly then, saving 10 kg in weight on wheels has a much higher impact on fuel economy than saving 10 kg by removing the backseat or something. A (itself quite naive) [calculation](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/alloy-wheels-and-fuel-economy.488123/#post-3234770) suggests a factor of 1.5 difference, based purely on the rotational inertia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're especially going to notice the difference when accelerating and decelerating a lot (because that's when weight matters), so in city driving your savings will be higher than in constant high-speed highway driving (where drag matters).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Practice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A test was conducted on a racetrack with 3 different wheel configurations, documented [here](http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/tech/techpage.jsp?techid=108). They also did a road test to measure fuel economy, but the main goal was better lap times. Obviously, the lighter wheels yielded better lap times.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately though, the road test actually registered worse fuel economy for the lightweight wheels. There's a few things that explain this result, having to do with the fact that this test aimed to optimize the car for lap times, not fuel economy. Those are the wheel size (the lightweight wheel had a larger diameter) and different tires (the stock tires were optimized for low rolling resistance). The stock wheels were already light as well, 20.5 pounds, while the lightweight wheels weighed 17 pounds, so the difference wasn't that major. There may also have been a difference in driving style. I wonder what the results would be with identical wheel size, the same tires and controlled driving conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's still interesting to note that the differences in fuel economy were quite measurable, about 2%. It's hard to determine what that would mean for real-life driving situations, but I could imagine a set of carefully chosen wheels saving a few tens of bucks on a yearly basis. That'd still mean you'd have to drive the car for at least a couple of years to pay for the wheels (assuming you receive the same amount when selling the car), but the lifespan of most cars probably makes the investment worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I'm not thinking about an expensive set of wheels here, I bought a set of less than €300 for my wife's compact car, with the same diameter as the original set. They obviously aren't magnesium wheels though, those are way more expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4708" RevisionGUID="a8baf250-b1f0-4c1f-9d44-e639e3772230" CreationDate="2019-11-06T10:48:09.597" UserId="2570" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="## Theory&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calculation in [the other answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4318/2570) is rather naive. I haven't done the calculation myself, but there are a few things to consider. First of all, lighter wheels mean more than *just* lower overall vehicle weight. Advantages are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- lower overall vehicle weight: lower inertia of the car&#xD;&#xA;- lower weight of the wheel (rotating part): lower rotational inertia&#xD;&#xA;- (probably) different aerodynamic behavior&#xD;&#xA;- lower unsprung weight&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weight *distribution* in the wheel also makes a huge difference. If the weight is more to the center, there's even less rotational inertia. Therefore, smaller diameter wheels are better than large diameter wheels! Clearly then, saving 10 kg in weight on wheels has a much higher impact on fuel economy than saving 10 kg by removing the backseat or something. A (itself quite naive) [calculation](https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/alloy-wheels-and-fuel-economy.488123/#post-3234770) suggests a factor of 1.5 difference, based purely on the rotational inertia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're especially going to notice the difference when accelerating and decelerating a lot (because that's when weight matters), so in city driving your savings will be higher than in constant high-speed highway driving (where drag matters). It's also worth to note that there will be less wear on break pads, discs and tires. Which is, again, most pronounced in city driving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Practice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A test was conducted on a racetrack with 3 different wheel configurations, documented [here](http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/tech/techpage.jsp?techid=108). They also did a road test to measure fuel economy, but the main goal was better lap times. Obviously, the lighter wheels yielded better lap times.&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately though, the road test actually registered worse fuel economy for the lightweight wheels. There's a few things that explain this result, having to do with the fact that this test aimed to optimize the car for lap times, not fuel economy. Those are the wheel size (the lightweight wheel had a larger diameter) and different tires (the stock tires were optimized for low rolling resistance). The stock wheels were already light as well, 20.5 pounds, while the lightweight wheels weighed 17 pounds, so the difference wasn't that major. There may also have been a difference in driving style. I wonder what the results would be with identical wheel size, the same tires and controlled driving conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's still interesting to note that the differences in fuel economy were quite measurable, about 2%. It's hard to determine what that would mean for real-life driving situations, but I could imagine a set of carefully chosen wheels saving a few tens of bucks on a yearly basis. That'd still mean you'd have to drive the car for at least a couple of years to pay for the wheels (assuming you receive the same amount when selling the car), but the lifespan of most cars probably makes the investment worthwhile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB: I'm not thinking about an expensive set of wheels here, I bought a set of less than €300 for my wife's compact car, with the same diameter as the original set. They obviously aren't magnesium wheels though, those are way more expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22292" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9619" RevisionGUID="50011526-2c5e-4aae-aa2a-bd36618f01b2" CreationDate="2019-11-06T13:23:04.053" UserId="1529" Text="Letting the leaves be taken away from the garden is like throwing out valuable nutrients. As a general practice I put the leaves in the compost bin, and I try to mix them from time to time, or to break them with a shovel once in a while. Two types of leaves I do not put in the compost: evergreens (as mentioned by Janet) and walnut leaves. In our area the general perception is that the walnut leaves contain substances which are causing them to decompose much more slower, but my other reason is that the walnut trees are infected by [leaf miner][1]. I let these leaves to be taken away with the trash. It is a bit of an extra work, but if consistently cleaned, the larvae will not hatch from the fallen leaves any more, thus allowing the walnut trees to recover.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse-chestnut_leaf_miner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22295" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="6108" RevisionGUID="cfa39e66-0bac-4c0d-b7e3-97710fbb7fce" CreationDate="2019-11-06T15:23:09.777" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9621" RevisionGUID="6e9eb343-b69d-43c8-b4d0-7c73944b1232" CreationDate="2019-11-06T16:07:50.033" UserId="3285" Text="Part of an air source heat pump is a fan to circulate air over the refrigerant circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it more efficient, or less efficient (and by how much), to point this fan into the prevailing wind? Or does it not matter (i.e. do pumps detect when adequate air is circulating from wind alone, and cease providing power to the fan?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22298" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9621" RevisionGUID="6e9eb343-b69d-43c8-b4d0-7c73944b1232" CreationDate="2019-11-06T16:07:50.033" UserId="3285" Text="Air source heat pumps: does prevailing wind matter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22299" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9621" RevisionGUID="6e9eb343-b69d-43c8-b4d0-7c73944b1232" CreationDate="2019-11-06T16:07:50.033" UserId="3285" Text="|heat-pump|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22300" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4318" RevisionGUID="32379662-1942-4f7c-a1c9-eda0d237c8b0" CreationDate="2019-11-06T16:41:18.953" UserId="400" Comment="added 1082 characters in body" Text="A quick look doesn't show a clearcut weight difference.  The claim is more for a 'rounder' wheel and a 'stiffer wheel'  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First order approximation fuel economy depends on the weight of the vehicle, given the same engine.  Suppose that your vehicle weighs 1 metric ton -- 1000 kg -- 2200 lbs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that an alloy wheel was 5 kg lighter.  That would be 20 kg (25 if you have a full size alloy spare) lighter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;20 kg is 1/50 of 1000, so 2% lighter vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you get 2% better fuel economy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So each $100 worth of wheel set cost  requires the use of $5000 (2% of 5000 = $100) fuel to offset it's cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a typical midsize car gets 30 mpg, and gas cost $3 per gallon, then your fuel cost is 10 cents per mile.  $5000 worth of gas is 50,000 miles.  If your car lasts 6 times as long -- 300,000 miles, then a 2% fuel savings would pay for an expenditure of $600 for a set of alloy wheels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the costs I saw at Tiretown, this is a non starter.  Prices were over that per wheel, let alone per set.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  A higher mileage car would take even longer to pay off.  But even a 10 mpg muscle car would require 100,000 miles to get to this same point -- which still isn't enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So financially it's not a win.  How about environmentally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Steel is common.  It's cheap.  The processes that make it turn fossil fuel coal to make coke (essentially pure carbon) which in turn removes the oxygen from the ore to leave iron.  Mix stuff back in to get steel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminum is expensive.  Huge amount of embodied energy, but most of that energy is hydro-electric.  This in turn means that bauxite ore is shipped by ocean bulk cargo ships to where the electricity is cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most magnesium now is extracted from sea water, also a high energy cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big difference in price come from several factors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A steel wheel is made by stamping out two halfs of the wheel, then welding them together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* An alloy wheel is cast as a single piece, I think, then in machined to spec.  This makes for a rounder wheel.  Complex support ribs can be moulded in that make it a stiffer wheel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Snob appeal.  They're shiny, and bright, and pretty, and fashionable, and they are a way to say, &quot;look at me, I'm cool&quot;  This always commands a premium price.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9622" RevisionGUID="65102609-83d0-4259-aa90-540620c88447" CreationDate="2019-11-06T22:39:21.277" UserId="6293" Text="Lightweight wheels improve both traction and ride. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fundamental of lightweight wheels is that they have less force when bouncing up from the road. Then the shock controls the wheel easier and faster and the tire stays in contact with the road for longer periods of time. Also the lightweight wheel puts less force into the chassis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aftermarket alloy wheels are usually aluminum, as are current OEM wheels, but aftermarket wheels are often slimmer and trimmer than OEM wheels. Since OEM wheels are thicker and more broad-faced then they can use less expensive alloys and less expensive manufacturing processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best alloy wheels are forged but this forging is often a high-pressure hot-forging. The second best alloy wheels are flow-formed cast wheels.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9622" RevisionGUID="b29000d5-505f-4ec9-af8d-c5e4cb741412" CreationDate="2019-11-06T22:46:18.807" UserId="6293" Comment="added 298 characters in body" Text="Lightweight wheels improve both traction and ride. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fundamental of lightweight wheels is that they have less force when bouncing up from the road. Then the shock controls the wheel easier and faster and the tire stays in contact with the road for longer periods of time. Also the lightweight wheel puts less force into the chassis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aftermarket alloy wheels are usually aluminum, as are most current OEM wheels, but aftermarket wheels are often slimmer and trimmer than OEM wheels. Since OEM wheels are thicker and more broad-faced then they can use less expensive alloys and less expensive manufacturing processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best alloy wheels are forged but this forging is often a high-pressure hot-forging. The second best alloy wheels are flow-formed cast wheels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many premium aftermarket wheels are 6061 aluminum which machines very well and is okay for welding. There is one brand of forged aftermarket wheel which is suspected of being an aluminum-silicon alloy because they are very lightweight but thicker and more broad-faced than other forged wheels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now aluminum-silicon alloys are becoming competitive with carbon-fiber for reducing aircraft weight.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9622" RevisionGUID="1f51ec76-4031-4391-b983-31a3dcf9e047" CreationDate="2019-11-06T22:53:50.427" UserId="6293" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Lightweight wheels improve both traction and ride. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fundamental of lightweight wheels is that they have less force when bouncing up from the road. Then the shock controls the wheel easier and faster and the tire stays in contact with the road for longer periods of time. Also the lightweight wheel puts less force into the chassis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aftermarket alloy wheels are usually aluminum, as are most current OEM wheels, but aftermarket wheels are often slimmer and trimmer than OEM wheels. Since OEM wheels are thicker and more broad-faced then they can use less expensive alloys and less expensive manufacturing processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best alloy wheels are forged but this forging is often a high-pressure hot-forging. The second best alloy wheels are flow-formed cast wheels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many premium aftermarket wheels are 6061 aluminum which machines very well and is okay for welding. There is one brand of forged aftermarket wheel which is suspected of being an aluminum-silicon alloy because they are very lightweight but thicker and more broad-faced than other forged wheels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now aluminum-silicon alloys are becoming competitive with carbon-fiber for reducing aircraft weight and this could be some kind of subject.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9622" RevisionGUID="d2cfb790-04db-4644-9165-cb85b4140fb1" CreationDate="2019-11-06T23:00:30.570" UserId="6293" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="Lightweight wheels improve both traction and ride. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fundamental of lightweight wheels is that they have less force when bouncing up from the road. Then the shock controls the wheel easier and faster and the tire stays in contact with the road for longer periods of time. Also the lightweight wheel puts less force into the chassis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aftermarket alloy wheels are usually aluminum, as are most current OEM wheels, but aftermarket wheels are often slimmer and trimmer than OEM wheels. Since OEM wheels are thicker and more broad-faced then they can use less expensive alloys and less expensive manufacturing processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best alloy wheels are forged but this forging is often a high-pressure hot-forging. The second best alloy wheels are flow-formed cast wheels. There is a classic three-piece wheel that is made in a machine shop and not forged or cast either one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many premium aftermarket wheels are 6061 aluminum which machines very well and is okay for welding. There is one brand of forged aftermarket wheel which is suspected of being an aluminum-silicon alloy because they are very lightweight but thicker and more broad-faced than other forged wheels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now aluminum-silicon alloys are becoming competitive with carbon-fiber for reducing aircraft weight and so aluminum-silicon alloys are a rising fundamental for crafts and vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="9533a88c-ec7a-4051-ae7a-8b1b9ae7b63b" CreationDate="2019-11-07T04:01:43.117" UserId="15" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="Magnesium alloy wheels (aka mag wheels) are desirable to car enthusiasts due to an increase in performance, but with reduced weight there would also be a fuel saving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously prices and fuel efficiency varies for different cars and parts, but has anyone calculated whether the purchase cost could be justified through fuel savings in some cases?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And separately to the purchase cost, can the environmental impact of manufacturing be justified in order to reduce fuel usage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9615" RevisionGUID="e6b75e41-f07b-4aab-b1f3-b998ca3c4c19" CreationDate="2019-11-07T13:08:34.640" UserId="3722" Comment="added 1519 characters in body" Text="The discrepancy you find is about 30 %, and is *probably* in the range that you have to expect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Report on a fair energy label for consumers &quot;CLOSING THE ‘REALITY&#xD;&#xA;GAP’ – ENSURING A&#xD;&#xA;FAIR ENERGY LABEL&#xD;&#xA;FOR CONSUMERS&quot; by CLASP, ECOS, EEB and Topten, 2017](https://eeb.org/closing-the-reality-gap/) says:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Fridge energy consumption is tested and reported according to a norm (EN&#xD;&#xA;62552:2013) that basically prescribes that the empty fridge is running in steady state (i.e. already cooled down) with an environment temp of 25 °C and defined humidity. I do not have access to the norm, so I don't know the interior temp that is prescribed. The report suggests that it may be 5 °C (but I don't know where in the fridge).  &#xD;&#xA;The unrealistic temperature settings are used as surrogate for door opening and cooling of warm food when put into the fridge.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The report gives comparisons for several fridges of these norm values and what they think a more life-like cycle of door opening. 2 out of 10 tested fridges that had negligible (&lt; 1 %) discrepancy between these two test regimes, but 2 others had 26 and 32 % higher energy consumption in the door opening test. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- They also briefly describe that they found loading/unloading to have major impact, but that is published as observed temperature and unfortunately not as energy consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In any case they conclude that **the current test norm doesn't give good real life energy consumption estimates** - it is rather a way to measure and compare insulation properties of the fridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factors related to your lifestyle that may have significant impact your fridges' power consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-  Recommended temperatures are 7 °C in the fridge and -18 °C in the freezer compartment (see e.g. [German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt)](https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/umwelttipps-fuer-den-alltag/elektrogeraete/kuehlschrank#textpart-2)). (This will result in about 8 °C at the top of the fridge and ≈ 2 °C at the bottom of the open compartment just above the veggie drawers).  &#xD;&#xA;1 °C temp difference inside (yours being set to 6 °C) depending on the actual temperature at the back side of the fridge may mean something in the order of magnitude of 10 % difference in the temperature difference the fridge has to produce and thus also in energy consumption.&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, the air temperature at the cooler can vary a lot: where I am, a well ventilated cool pantry may have quite a bit &lt; 20 °C thrughout the year, while a a space in the actual kitchen or living room-kitchen under the countertop with just a few ventilation slots may very well result in &gt; 24 °C during the fridge's work cycle.  &#xD;&#xA;I'd measure both fridge temp at the top of the fridge compartment (should be 8 °C for 7 °C setting at the thermostat) and the temperature behind the fridge when it is working hard (freshly filled with not-yet-cool food).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Most of the time almost full: should lower the impact of door opening, but would increase the impact of loading/unloading.  &#xD;&#xA;So total impact is difficult to estimate, and will depend on how cool the food is when you put it into the fridge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Two persons in a shared flat with independent eating habits may produce quite more door opening events than a family of 4 who eat together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Should I complain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Thanks, FarO for digging out the underlying [EU directive &quot;energy labelling of household refrigerating appliances&quot;](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010R1060).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This directive says that you can complain if your fridge consumes more than 10 % more energy than specified on the label for the prescribed testing procedure. Finding higher energy consumption during normal household working conditions is not sufficient to say the label is wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The test indeed uses +5 °C interior temp and +25 °C ambient temperature  &#xD;&#xA;  *which is a higher temperture difference than under your working conditions.* &#xD;&#xA;- The test does not require door openings, nor&#xD;&#xA;- cooling down of food you place into the fridge.  &#xD;&#xA;  *The latter 2 points are reasons for higher energy consumption under your working conditions.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the testing procedure is too far away from normal household use to reliably say that the fridge should not use more energy under household conditions than under the testing procedure/it says on the label.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order find out whether you have reason to complain about the fridge/product (as opposed to complaining at the EU about unrealistic lab conditions in the prescribed test), you'd need to check energy consumption of your fridge with the prescribed temperature settings under steady-state, empty, door-closed conditions and find that *this* energy consumption is &gt; 195 kWh/a (1,1 x 177 kWh/a as per label in the linked product page). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22308" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9610" RevisionGUID="e8aa6a77-99ac-4988-881b-aa100c728570" CreationDate="2019-11-07T15:32:50.987" UserId="3379" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="My fridge is a [Haier A3FE835CGJE][1] and is rated A+++ (Europe, 2017), with about 200 litres volume, half of which for the freezer. It is a &quot;no frost&quot; model which does not require defrosting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reference energy consumption is 178 kWh/year, but in a week of October I measured the energy consumption and I obtained an estimate of 230 kWh/year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The device is most of the time almost full, but that has likely a low impact. More important, we are two people so the amount of food getting in and out per week is likely less than what the manufacturer expects, given the size of the fridge, suitable surely for three or four people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I keep 6°C and -18°C in the cooking and freezing compartments. There is a multipurpose intermediate compartment that I set to the warmest setting, +1°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fridge is well spaced from the rear wall and the room temperature during the test was abou 20-21°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the measured discrepancy reasonable? Or should I complain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.coolblue.nl/en/product/811301/haier-a3fe835cgje-easy-access.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9624" RevisionGUID="8cf9d5db-feb6-4baa-a007-4fb6e06d0192" CreationDate="2019-11-07T16:56:11.880" UserId="6837" Text="I've actually thought about this while washing bags. Something about it just felt dumb to me, so I looked into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First surprize: Plastic takes a lot of more water to produce than I expected. It takes roughly 22 gallons of water to make one pound of plastic. (180 liters to produce 1 kg) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second surprize: My tap water gets pump lifted 3000 feet and travels 336 miles, which uses about 2 megawatt hours of energy per acre foot...  and that power comes from a coal powered plant!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your math will depend on your source of water and your source of plastic, but I was able to zero out my environmental impact by growing veggies with the water I use for washing plastic. Most of my plastic comes to me in the form of big bags that contain (literally) tons of coffee grounds. I rinse them off in a tub of rainwater that eventually goes to the plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I use the plastic to prevent soil evaporation, my primary use for plastic, the water I save is greater than the water originally required to produce the plastic... by a factor of FIFTY! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This goes to show that the destination can often be more significant than the source.&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22310" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9621" RevisionGUID="3bab8ecf-b652-4661-830b-542eedf96d32" CreationDate="2019-11-08T03:00:54.507" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1192638095012892678" />
  <row Id="22311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9625" RevisionGUID="be8c7c2d-7d32-4094-b568-bbc12171ed0a" CreationDate="2019-11-08T12:28:58.913" UserId="8002" Text="It is Always better to reuse things in the home, whatever they are. For a start you cut out the transport, and the manufacture. Your household water can, if you can afford it , be saved in barrels for use on the garden so that is not wasted. I.e. with a little extra care and 'elbow grease' you end up with zero waste which I would think compares favourably with all the other figures. You make me feel guilty because I recently threw away a plastic bag!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9626" RevisionGUID="39aa8c19-bb76-415e-9784-5866b8e55aed" CreationDate="2019-11-08T13:08:24.117" UserId="8002" Text="In Britain aluminium foil is traditionally recyclable. Children used to save milk bottle tops and wash them out, and they were collected I think, by the schools. The point here is twofold. Only clean things are suppose to go in the recycle bin, so you would need to wash foil with any waste on it. The other problem is more serious. Plastic foil, which looks exactly like aluminium foil is being used more and more frequently and this is not currently recyclable. The test is, if you crinkle it up and it stays crinkled it is OK , if it springs apart again, it is not OK." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9621" RevisionGUID="c649517b-d54d-4b6e-914e-6d87a619966f" CreationDate="2019-11-08T14:12:37.110" UserId="3285" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="Part of an air source heat pump is a fan to circulate air over the refrigerant circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it less efficient (and by how much) to point this fan into the prevailing wind? Or does it not matter (i.e. do pumps detect when adequate air is circulating from wind alone, and cease providing power to the fan? can they run effectively if airflow is reversed?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22315" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9610" RevisionGUID="abe6bf73-cde6-4fd9-aea8-e200717e0a51" CreationDate="2019-11-09T03:01:17.530" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1193000579133575169" />
  <row Id="22317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9627" RevisionGUID="5f56e12c-d6b9-455c-b036-ca51def29d6b" CreationDate="2019-11-09T14:15:17.133" UserId="2187" Text="What are the main factors and drivers that repairing and maintaining is often significantly more expensive than buying the good new?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9627" RevisionGUID="5f56e12c-d6b9-455c-b036-ca51def29d6b" CreationDate="2019-11-09T14:15:17.133" UserId="2187" Text="Why is it often more expensive to repair and maintain than to buy new?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9627" RevisionGUID="5f56e12c-d6b9-455c-b036-ca51def29d6b" CreationDate="2019-11-09T14:15:17.133" UserId="2187" Text="|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9628" RevisionGUID="6ceed305-34f0-4386-b49e-8f7247f6ce22" CreationDate="2019-11-09T19:45:21.123" UserId="8127" Text="okay so i have been reading about carbon offsetting and people companies do by buying carbon credits.&#xD;&#xA;people give money to people to take care of natural asset(like earth token's natural asset exchange) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22321" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9628" RevisionGUID="6ceed305-34f0-4386-b49e-8f7247f6ce22" CreationDate="2019-11-09T19:45:21.123" UserId="8127" Text="why people buys carbon credits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22322" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9628" RevisionGUID="6ceed305-34f0-4386-b49e-8f7247f6ce22" CreationDate="2019-11-09T19:45:21.123" UserId="8127" Text="|trees|nature|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9629" RevisionGUID="6fc57094-a3e3-493d-8e12-722165cb3e90" CreationDate="2019-11-09T20:13:00.503" UserId="5517" Text="I've recently come across low surface temperature radiators (E2 technology) as a form of heating. Unlike a traditional water radiator they operate at 30 - 50 C instead of 75 C.  Small fans pull air across thin radiator fins to convect the heat around the room rather than use pure radiation.  The heat source can be from a heat pump, whereas traditional radiators use boilers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This brand [brochure](http://www.gasapplianceguide.co.uk/Myson/Myson%20U%20Low/Myson%20U%20Low%20Radiator%20Brochure%20(1).pdf) says it delivers 3.5kW in fan boost mode at 50C, and 1.98kW at 30C.  This model uses 14 1W fans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a typical model from a different company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![E2 technology radiator][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are claims that they are over 12% more efficient than traditional radiators.  Is this reasonable?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qg5UJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9629" RevisionGUID="6fc57094-a3e3-493d-8e12-722165cb3e90" CreationDate="2019-11-09T20:13:00.503" UserId="5517" Text="How more efficient are low surface temperature radiators than traditional boiler systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9629" RevisionGUID="6fc57094-a3e3-493d-8e12-722165cb3e90" CreationDate="2019-11-09T20:13:00.503" UserId="5517" Text="|heating|heat-pump|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9630" RevisionGUID="6c69e57e-f60d-4373-beba-6a487f1985f8" CreationDate="2019-11-09T20:33:46.623" UserId="8128" Text="I'm not an expert,  but I was reading today about 1 project/company that funds it's carbon reduction projects by taking a fee, per tonne of carbon dioxide produced, from people who want to offset that production. Seemed like a good idea to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9631" RevisionGUID="4b720393-93f8-49f3-86fe-b471257b1e0b" CreationDate="2019-11-09T20:48:35.757" UserId="8128" Text="don't forget about micro-climate, Shelter in winter, shade in Summer,protection from the wind... mitigating factors that make the house a little warmer, the garden a little more productive, the self-seeding of other trees more likely. Positive accumulative, inter-related effects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9632" RevisionGUID="b12e923c-acdc-460c-8800-3e7c6bc2916e" CreationDate="2019-11-09T20:54:53.103" UserId="8128" Text="I use wash my foil and use it many times over before throwing it away.It's easy to cut consumption by 50%." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22329" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9633" RevisionGUID="e8361fae-7d04-4be7-8ade-32b646f3b08b" CreationDate="2019-11-09T20:58:34.830" UserId="8128" Text="If you are able to plant a tree you can use the cardboard to mulch around the base and suppress weed,grass competition. Soil microbes turn it into soil that feeds the tree. zero driving " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9634" RevisionGUID="70e7aa6a-608f-48a4-8ff7-5c5a0278437f" CreationDate="2019-11-09T21:17:19.073" UserId="5477" Text="I don't think &quot;people &quot; buy them . Corporations or companies buy them as required by law ( in USA). One instance is auto manufacturers : When the new automobile fleet average does not meet the EPA requirements . GM may purchase credits from Tesla (  Tesla has a bunch of credits because carbon used to generate electricity is not counted ) . This is done through exchanges. In this case GM must buy the amount of carbon credits to bring the weighted fleet average to within EPA rules. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9635" RevisionGUID="99264074-79d4-4e84-9bc4-b311f1e3ef72" CreationDate="2019-11-09T21:32:35.233" UserId="5477" Text="Costs and consumers shopping for low prices. Most &quot;stuff&quot; in made in massive quantities in factories where process and other types of engineers have refined the steps to produce an item . Each person on the floor needs to know only one small bit of the operation. Alternatively , to repair something , a capable service man needs to know all aspects of the item. Such knowledgeable service people are expensive to train , equip and require relatively high pay. So repairs cost more than manufacture of a new item, generally. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9636" RevisionGUID="19daa149-1c32-4cbc-8ce1-0aefa3b0b2a0" CreationDate="2019-11-09T22:00:10.960" UserId="6293" Text="Well, 409 stainless-steel could be pulled out of garbage by magnets. Aluminum is less expensive and will transfer heat faster than 409 but 409 would be heavy-duty strength even in the half-thickness size of aluminum foil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact all steel could be replaced with 409 and then steel would be more valuable in recycling. Also, with 409 there would be very little corrosion in the world. Now 409 has very little nickel content and is mostly just steel and chromium. So 409 is about half the cost of 304L. But 304L is available in standard structural shapes while 409 is mostly found in coils of sheet metal. Of course 409 can be bent to simple shapes from sheet metal. Now tubes can be found in 409.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, replace outdoor aluminum with 409 because white-dots, pitting, and white-streaks-in-paint on aluminum is corrosion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22333" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9636" RevisionGUID="74700192-f4a4-4150-8188-90a3bfca0567" CreationDate="2019-11-09T22:11:38.023" UserId="6293" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Well, 409 stainless-steel could be pulled out of garbage by magnets. Aluminum is less expensive and will transfer heat faster than 409 but 409 would be heavy-duty strength even in the single-thickness size of aluminum foil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact all steel could be replaced with 409 and then steel would be more valuable in recycling. Also, with 409 there would be very little corrosion in the world. Now 409 has very little nickel content and is mostly just steel and chromium. So 409 is about half the cost of 304L. But 304L is available in standard structural shapes while 409 is mostly found in coils of sheet metal. Of course 409 can be bent to simple shapes from sheet metal. Now tubes can be found in 409.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, replace outdoor aluminum with 409 because white-dots, pitting, and white-streaks-in-paint on aluminum is corrosion. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22334" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7038" RevisionGUID="25ea4d16-69e3-4eb4-abe6-8140dd7729e3" CreationDate="2019-11-10T06:02:40.413" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22335" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9628" RevisionGUID="59798160-73fa-4810-a129-de2f939d3c3f" CreationDate="2019-11-10T07:19:06.253" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, added link for background, added relevant tags" Text="I have been reading about carbon offsetting and people or companies doing this by buying carbon credits. People give money to people to take care of natural asset (like [Earth token](https://earth-token.com) and the [Natural asset exchange](https://www.naturalasset.exchange) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22336" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9628" RevisionGUID="59798160-73fa-4810-a129-de2f939d3c3f" CreationDate="2019-11-10T07:19:06.253" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, added link for background, added relevant tags" Text="Why do people buy carbon credits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22337" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9628" RevisionGUID="59798160-73fa-4810-a129-de2f939d3c3f" CreationDate="2019-11-10T07:19:06.253" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, added link for background, added relevant tags" Text="|carbon-footprint|carbon-offsetting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22338" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9631" RevisionGUID="8a33c3cf-3eee-4499-a9dc-17a9f1b9210f" CreationDate="2019-11-10T07:27:12.853" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="Every tree creates a micro-climate. It provides shelter in winter, shade in summer, protection from the wind... These are mitigating factors that make a house a little warmer, the garden a little more productive, the self-seeding of other trees more likely. It results in positive, accumulative and inter-related effects." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9632" RevisionGUID="a15c0dbe-6f95-4008-8bf9-26fe0277847f" CreationDate="2019-11-10T07:28:08.953" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo" Text="I wash my foil and use it many times over before throwing it away. It's easy to cut consumption by 50%." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9637" RevisionGUID="3fdf1e50-59bd-4eb4-a874-95c52e4973a5" CreationDate="2019-11-10T17:07:16.453" UserId="3379" Text="The key is this part, from page two of the [brochure](http://www.gasapplianceguide.co.uk/Myson/Myson%20U%20Low/Myson%20U%20Low%20Radiator%20Brochure%20(1).pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ULOW-E2 provides enhanced convection via in-built fans. This enables heat sources to operate at their most energy efficient settings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;heat source&quot; is a boiler which provides hot water. Here's an efficiency curve for a boiler relative to the return water temperature ([source](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301239135_A_Novel_Modelling_Approach_for_Condensing_Boilers_Based_on_Hybrid_Dynamical_Systems)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that higher efficiencies occur when the water in the boiler starts at a lower temperature, in &quot;condensing mode.&quot; [Condensing boilers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensing_boiler) are designed and programmed to operate in this region:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Condensing boilers [...] achieve high efficiency (typically greater than 90% on the higher heating value) by condensing water vapour in the exhaust gases and so recovering its latent heat of vaporisation, which would otherwise have been wasted. This condensed vapour leaves the system in liquid form, via a drain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once in the condensing region, you can continue improving efficiency by further lowering inlet water temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, two factors result in making the total system more efficient with a low temperature radiator:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. The boiler temperature can be set lower, since the radiator works at a lower temperature. This will inherently lower the temperature of the water returning to the boiler.&#xD;&#xA;  2. The radiator is able to extract more heat from the water than a traditional radiator, further lowering the temperature of the return water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, the boiler temperature must be sufficient to provide heating for the house. But with a system like this you could also implement a [hot water reset](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_water_reset) strategy to vary the boiler setpoint based on the expected need for heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dcZJD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22341" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6271" RevisionGUID="335f6504-9f9d-410b-b0ec-adcb03ed82a8" CreationDate="2019-11-11T21:02:35.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9638" RevisionGUID="dea8c06c-67de-4d6f-916b-7b03e5682524" CreationDate="2019-11-12T13:20:41.090" UserId="986" Text="I am looking for references which document and explain how to do things without using electricity and all industrial technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have read [&quot;The way home&quot; by Mark Boyle][1], this would be the sort of stuff that he needs to know how to do. &#xD;&#xA;If you haven't, imagine you had to know how to butcher a roadkill deer, dig a hole for a post, do the laundry using ash, etc.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Essentially, pre-industrial homesteading and farming references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/42515426-the-way-home" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9638" RevisionGUID="dea8c06c-67de-4d6f-916b-7b03e5682524" CreationDate="2019-11-12T13:20:41.090" UserId="986" Text="Book recommendation on traditional, pre-industrial homesteading" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9638" RevisionGUID="dea8c06c-67de-4d6f-916b-7b03e5682524" CreationDate="2019-11-12T13:20:41.090" UserId="986" Text="|home|diy|farming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9591" RevisionGUID="aab82469-a01d-4282-80ca-6d7096eb6c93" CreationDate="2019-11-12T14:38:27.990" UserId="8002" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="The CO2 we breathe out comes from our food. Exactly, and we eat richer food than any other animals, with a higher calorific value. Moreover our brains use more calories than those of other animals. I am going to avoid figures but I seem to remember that the sugar our brains use is a surprisingly high proportion of our total sugar intake. Also bear in mind that this is mostly refined sugar, and no other animals eat refined sugar or indeed anything like as much as we do. So, it isn't exactly a closed loop. There is a lot of unnatural chemistry in the mix, and some of it is inorganic. In other words it is likely that humans are freeing CO2 into the air at a higher rate than would happen in nature. I totally agree about deforestation, and would also point out that rotting things release CO2 and mankind is responsible for a much higher rate of rotting vegetation than would ever happen naturally. It is our large brain which sets us apart from nature, and from the natural cycles of the planet, because it has enabled us to alter the natural cycles of all materials in a way which the Earth can no longer sustain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9639" RevisionGUID="19820e96-23f8-4ed2-922c-00837df14a63" CreationDate="2019-11-12T15:00:30.113" UserId="8002" Text="You are right , it is a very wide subject and it is better to concentrate on one thing at a time and look up references for that, rather than look for a book which purports to teach you &quot;natural living&quot;. For instance look up &quot;How to prepare a rabbit for the pot.&quot; This will be slightly different to &quot;How to prepare a pheasant for cooking.&quot; Game birds need to be &quot;Hung&quot; for a while, before they are &quot;Pulled&quot;. Traditional farming methods are different according to where you live, the animals and plants you will use will be different, so try to find reference books written close to home. Once you know what plants and animals will thrive where you live, you can decide which you would like to have and look for a book on growing different beans, or raising goats. Many books have been written about &quot;smallholdings,&quot; and these are usually very explicit and entertaining. You will hopefully also find websites and blogs from people in your own area, and they will give you advice. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9640" RevisionGUID="4bd447cd-dfc0-4bdd-9eb5-41b75267c93f" CreationDate="2019-11-12T15:31:25.523" UserId="8002" Text="It is a question of man hours used with technology against man ours (your time used in making repairs) without technology. If you worked in a factory you could make a hundred items in the time it would take you to repair one item. Even with a household sewing machine, you couldn't keep up with the speed of factory output. Everyone who works for a wage is in some way contributing to factory output. So any time that you spend repairing anything is going to be less productive than the time you spend at work. To make repairing &quot;Pay&quot; you need to corner a niche, and repair things that other people value and want to keep so much that they are willing to pay a bit more for them. Only that way can you make your time spent repairing, equal in value to time spent earning a wage.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9641" RevisionGUID="ca4667c8-36c0-4d5d-9f5a-8ab211711d9c" CreationDate="2019-11-12T20:36:32.253" UserId="8136" Text="I drive a 2010 BMW 535i maybe 100 km/week, mostly urban driving. My wife also has a gasoline car which we can use for longer trips. I want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by buying an electric car (Nissan Leaf? Tesla Model 3? I don't know yet) and I would sell my BMW, which is in good working order.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aren't I just adding to the problem (greenhouse gas emission) because the BMW would still be on the road somewhere else, as well as contributing to the environmental impact of the production of the electric car (not to mention future battery disposal etc)? I would not want to simply park the BMW somewhere forever, or recycle it for parts, as there is still too much value in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I just maintain my current gas car? Or does it still make sense to buy a battery electric vehicle (BEV)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9641" RevisionGUID="ca4667c8-36c0-4d5d-9f5a-8ab211711d9c" CreationDate="2019-11-12T20:36:32.253" UserId="8136" Text="How sustainable is replacing a gas car with an electric car, since gas car still exists?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9641" RevisionGUID="ca4667c8-36c0-4d5d-9f5a-8ab211711d9c" CreationDate="2019-11-12T20:36:32.253" UserId="8136" Text="|recycling|greenhouse-gas-emissions|electric-vehicles|reduce|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22351" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9641" RevisionGUID="d4b8b0aa-458d-439a-a0ea-98e040b48c5f" CreationDate="2019-11-12T20:44:29.970" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9642" RevisionGUID="0c805953-ce08-4f6f-9bf0-c668a8763c7c" CreationDate="2019-11-12T21:33:51.727" UserId="3722" Text="In addition to the existing answers I think there are also often inherent trade-offs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **repair friendly vs. ruggedness:**   consider a mobile phone, gluing the case and soldering the battery vs. screwing on a lid over replaceable battery. The latter is clearly more repair friendly, but without additional effort, the former may be more rugged against falling, water and contact issues of the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **repair friendly vs. ease of assembling:**    consider some household machine with the case being plastic and screwed vs. clicked on. The former is repair friendly, but the latter is more easily assembled in the factory.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **spare parts:** repair friendly design makes sense only if spare parts are produced and sold for the envisioned (enhanced) lifetime of the product.  &#xD;&#xA;This can be quite costly. Not only in terms of money, but there are likely to be also ecological trade-offs (which may improve with small series manufacturing/production on demand improving).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **repair-friendly design:** (incl. using mostly standard parts). A product that has a given functionality and is as repair friendly as possible may not only be more expensive to produce, but already the development is probably more expensive as not-repair-friendly ideas have to be improved upon.  &#xD;&#xA;Of course, if repair-friendly design becomes more common, standard solutions will emerge and the state of the art in this respect will improve.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  However, I'm told that universities around here do not even offer courses in safe design (as in product safety) for engineering students - despite safe design being a legal requirement for decades now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Safety vs. ease of disassmbling:** Where I am, certain types of safety measures must be attached in a manner that they cannot easily be disassembled or otherwise put out of action.  &#xD;&#xA;Also, the click-on case in the 2nd example may better from a product safety point of view if it cannot easily be taken off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Legal risk**: (I'm in the EU)&#xD;&#xA;An additional thought may be (depending on legislation) that e.g. such cases that are not easily disassembled may give the manufacturer a bit more legal safety wrt. accidents during repair attempts: even if the manual says &quot;do not attempt to repair&quot;, a case that is trivially taken off would be a foreseeable misuse and thus have the producer liable for safety/accidents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Also, I just learned in a seminar about product safety legislation and in contrast to data services where GPPR over here make decided statements against vendor lockin, allowing repairs or merely handing out detailed plans of the product that make the users think they may repair it may place the manufacturer at higher risk in case of accidents.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This doesn't mean repair friendly cannot be done with acceptable legal risk, but it does mean that releasing (existing) information that would come handy for repair comes at surprisingly high cost for the producer: there is basically no possibility to say take this info at own risk - if released, it basically has to be in the form of a repair handbook that is safe for the average customer (or repair person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (I've been interested in DIY labware projects for some time - and after that product safety regulation seminar I understand quite a bit better where the high prices for some not-too-complicated labware machinery comes from: the existing regulations are extremely unfavorable to anything that isn't a mass product)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9642" RevisionGUID="4f82a99c-7417-4a27-82c9-0b02fe1720bf" CreationDate="2019-11-12T21:42:47.950" UserId="3722" Comment="added 861 characters in body" Text="Whether repairing or replacing is cheaper varies a lot between situations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You wouldn't buy a new bike or car because of a flat tire.  &#xD;&#xA;  Depending on the hole and your DIY abilities, replacing the tube or tire or patching are the usual ways to deal with this.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- But putting in a replacement zipper into a well-worn jeans is a different situation as the repair starts by almost completely disassembling the jeans. So even a professional jeans sewing expert may need considerably more time to replace the zipper than sewing a completely new jeans. If then the expected increase in remaining lifetime isn't that much because of general wear, replacing the whole jeans may be the way to go.   &#xD;&#xA;In addition, if the zipper is *never* failing before the jeans is thrown away due to wear and tear, it was an overengineered waste of ressources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, two products with the same functionality may be more or less repair friendly, thus potentially shifting the rational, economic and ecological decision boundaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also often inherent trade-offs for the producer that affect repair friendliness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **repair friendly vs. ruggedness:**   consider a mobile phone, gluing the case and soldering the battery vs. screwing on a lid over replaceable battery. The latter is clearly more repair friendly, but without additional effort, the former may be more rugged against falling, water and contact issues of the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **repair friendly vs. ease of assembling:**    consider some household machine with the case being plastic and screwed vs. clicked on. The former is repair friendly, but the latter is more easily assembled in the factory.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **spare parts:** repair friendly design makes sense only if spare parts are produced and sold for the envisioned (enhanced) lifetime of the product.  &#xD;&#xA;This can be quite costly. Not only in terms of money, but there are likely to be also ecological trade-offs (which may improve with small series manufacturing/production on demand improving).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **repair-friendly design:** (incl. using mostly standard parts). A product that has a given functionality and is as repair friendly as possible may not only be more expensive to produce, but already the development is probably more expensive as not-repair-friendly ideas have to be improved upon.  &#xD;&#xA;Of course, if repair-friendly design becomes more common, standard solutions will emerge and the state of the art in this respect will improve.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  However, I'm told that universities around here do not even offer courses in safe design (as in product safety) for engineering students - despite safe design being a legal requirement for decades now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Safety vs. ease of disassmbling:** Where I am, certain types of safety measures must be attached in a manner that they cannot easily be disassembled or otherwise put out of action.  &#xD;&#xA;Also, the click-on case in the 2nd example may better from a product safety point of view if it cannot easily be taken off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Legal risk**: (I'm in the EU)&#xD;&#xA;An additional thought may be (depending on legislation) that e.g. such cases that are not easily disassembled may give the manufacturer a bit more legal safety wrt. accidents during repair attempts: even if the manual says &quot;do not attempt to repair&quot;, a case that is trivially taken off would be a foreseeable misuse and thus have the producer liable for safety/accidents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Also, I just learned in a seminar about product safety legislation and in contrast to data services where GPPR over here make decided statements against vendor lockin, allowing repairs or merely handing out detailed plans of the product that make the users think they may repair it may place the manufacturer at higher risk in case of accidents.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This doesn't mean repair friendly cannot be done with acceptable legal risk, but it does mean that releasing (existing) information that would come handy for repair comes at surprisingly high cost for the producer: there is basically no possibility to say take this info at own risk - if released, it basically has to be in the form of a repair handbook that is safe for the average customer (or repair person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (I've been interested in DIY labware projects for some time - and after that product safety regulation seminar I understand quite a bit better where the high prices for some not-too-complicated labware machinery comes from: the existing regulations are extremely unfavorable to anything that isn't a mass product)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22354" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9643" RevisionGUID="2ac7b1c0-fd48-4a36-9c25-2c51ea164035" CreationDate="2019-11-13T00:41:39.907" UserId="1056" Text="I'm purchasing &quot;compostable&quot; K-cup coffee pods from Ethical Bean (see attached photo) that work in Keurig single-serve coffee machines. [According to their FAQ](https://www.ethicalbean.com/faq/), these compostable pods are OK for the green bin. But according to [this 2018 article by the CBC](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/compostable-items-confusion-more-infrastructure-needed-1.4665757), I shouldn't be putting compostable plastics in the green bin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote to the Recycling Council of British Columbia and got this response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Compostable plastics like the compostable K-cups are not currently accepted through green bin programs in BC. These types of plastics are unfortunately not compatible with the organics processing facilities that exist in the province, as they require processing at a very high heat for an extended period of time. Acceptability of these types of items in green bin programs varies substantially based on local facilities, so while they might be compostable in some systems they are not accepted here. Currently, these pods should be disposed of as garbage, as they are not recyclable as plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this answer seems strange to me. The pod doesn't seem to be made of plastic at all? The box (shown below) says it is made of coffee chaff.  So I'm wondering if these pods are actually made with the problematic PLA, and whether the response I got from RCBC is relevant to this specific product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ihrx2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_(My original motivating question, not previously asked on this site, is: can compostable coffee pods be placed in the organics/green bin in [Surrey, BC](https://www.surrey.ca/)? Feel free to answer this with good sources for bonus points.)_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22355" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9643" RevisionGUID="2ac7b1c0-fd48-4a36-9c25-2c51ea164035" CreationDate="2019-11-13T00:41:39.907" UserId="1056" Text="Are single-use PurPod coffee pods from Ethical Bean made with PLA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22356" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9643" RevisionGUID="2ac7b1c0-fd48-4a36-9c25-2c51ea164035" CreationDate="2019-11-13T00:41:39.907" UserId="1056" Text="|recycling|composting|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22357" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9641" RevisionGUID="74fb7e51-26b7-4ae4-9ecf-8b1525fb2cae" CreationDate="2019-11-13T03:43:19.343" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[2623],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="22358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9644" RevisionGUID="efd4af75-6a88-4e78-860a-0f9b86314f15" CreationDate="2019-11-13T10:28:58.253" UserId="99" Text="The picture says '*made from coffee chaff **&amp; plant-based material***', so there is something else in the pod besides just coffee chaff. After some digging I finally found [this blog](https://purpod100.com/blog/2016/05/02/using-pla-fibers-to-create-the-worlds-first-compostable-coffee-pod/) where it says that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The filter was maybe the most challenging part of this development.....&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The PLA fibers (PLA is made using corn sugars) have to stretch to hold the coffee during manufacturing and then to accommodate the sudden pressure of very hot water without bursting during brewing.... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... every PῧrPod100™ has a mesh filter made of advanced compostable fibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that they don't say that the resulting filter is actually made of PLA. It could be, but it could also be a (patent-pending?) material that is related to PLA, or a different type of compostable plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case there seems to be some kind of slowly decomposing material in the pod because of the explicit warning in the manufacturer's FAQ that not all composting facilities may accept it ([which by the way is also the case for PLA](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2607/how-is-compostable-plastic-recycled-composted-industrially)) and because they say that &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Can I compost your pods in my backyard composting system? We can’t guarantee success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It the pod was made of something that is '[home compostable](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2594/99)' they would have said so and probably would have gone for such a certification instead of the one they have now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22359" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9643" RevisionGUID="2130d288-6721-4917-aea6-0d5b9ba04ed1" CreationDate="2019-11-13T10:35:44.100" UserId="99" Comment="added compostable-plastic tag + changed faq link to http (as https doesn't work for me)" Text="|recycling|composting|plastic|compostable-plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9643" RevisionGUID="2130d288-6721-4917-aea6-0d5b9ba04ed1" CreationDate="2019-11-13T10:35:44.100" UserId="99" Comment="added compostable-plastic tag + changed faq link to http (as https doesn't work for me)" Text="I'm purchasing &quot;compostable&quot; K-cup coffee pods from Ethical Bean (see attached photo) that work in Keurig single-serve coffee machines. [According to their FAQ](http://www.ethicalbean.com/faq/), these compostable pods are OK for the green bin. But according to [this 2018 article by the CBC](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/compostable-items-confusion-more-infrastructure-needed-1.4665757), I shouldn't be putting compostable plastics in the green bin.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote to the Recycling Council of British Columbia and got this response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Compostable plastics like the compostable K-cups are not currently accepted through green bin programs in BC. These types of plastics are unfortunately not compatible with the organics processing facilities that exist in the province, as they require processing at a very high heat for an extended period of time. Acceptability of these types of items in green bin programs varies substantially based on local facilities, so while they might be compostable in some systems they are not accepted here. Currently, these pods should be disposed of as garbage, as they are not recyclable as plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this answer seems strange to me. The pod doesn't seem to be made of plastic at all? The box (shown below) says it is made of coffee chaff.  So I'm wondering if these pods are actually made with the problematic PLA, and whether the response I got from RCBC is relevant to this specific product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ihrx2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_(My original motivating question, not previously asked on this site, is: can compostable coffee pods be placed in the organics/green bin in [Surrey, BC](https://www.surrey.ca/)? Feel free to answer this with good sources for bonus points.)_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9645" RevisionGUID="88d5a929-202d-4fea-8d9a-3bd45b51e3aa" CreationDate="2019-11-13T10:49:55.257" UserId="6602" Text="Another element that other answers haven't touched on is Economic Production Quantity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For many components in products, for example the metal casing of a washing machine, or any plastic injection moulded part, the machinery required to produce them takes a significant amount of set up time. This set up involves getting the mould out of storeage, installing it in the press or injection moulding machine, checking it all works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The material that parts are made from could be only available by the tonne, sufficient to make a few thousand of components. It might be impossible to buy the material to make just one unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So production runs for some parts will be several thousand. Because the set up costs and material costs are spread out over several thousand, then one part might only cost $1. But if you were to 3D print, or otherwise just make one of that part it would cost $20.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were an artist making one discrete product, you might be willing to pay $20 for each component and £2,000 for the finished piece. But to mass produce a product in quantities of thousands then a lot of cost can be taken out due to manufacturing in bulk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is in logistics. In a factory a storeman will be given a list of parts to build a batch of products, they will wander round the warehouse locations grabbing each part. It takes approximately the same amount of time to visit each location whether the batch size is one unit or a hundred units. He still has to get paid, but if he's doing a batch of a hundred then the cost is spread out more thinly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22362" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9644" RevisionGUID="65ecf536-d086-4830-9ae1-f81270d284ca" CreationDate="2019-11-13T14:08:20.277" UserId="99" Comment="more explanation about terminology used by manufacturer" Text="The picture says '*made from coffee chaff **&amp; plant-based material***', so there is something else in the pod besides just coffee chaff. After some digging I finally found [this blog](https://purpod100.com/blog/2016/05/02/using-pla-fibers-to-create-the-worlds-first-compostable-coffee-pod/) where it says that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The filter was maybe the most challenging part of this development.....&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The PLA fibers (PLA is made using corn sugars) have to stretch to hold the coffee during manufacturing and then to accommodate the sudden pressure of very hot water without bursting during brewing.... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ... every PῧrPod100™ has a mesh filter made of advanced compostable fibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that they don't say that the resulting filter is actually made of PLA. I noticed that on the entire site the manufacturer just talks about plant-based or compostable material. Perhaps the filter is made of a (patent-pending?) material that is related to PLA or maybe it's a different type of compostable plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case there seems to be some kind of slowly decomposing material in the pod because in the FAQ you link to the manufacturer warns that not all composting facilities may accept it (which by the way is [also the case for PLA](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2607/how-is-compostable-plastic-recycled-composted-industrially)) and they say that:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;Can I compost your pods in my backyard composting system? We can’t guarantee success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the pod was made of something that is '[home compostable](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2594/99)' they would have said so and probably would have gone for such a certification instead of the one they have now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22363" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9642" RevisionGUID="9fb68add-8ca8-4863-9ab4-4c33f0ee855f" CreationDate="2019-11-13T14:25:52.127" UserId="3722" Comment="added 565 characters in body" Text="Whether repairing or replacing is cheaper varies a lot between situations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- You wouldn't buy a new bike or car because of a flat tire.  &#xD;&#xA;  Depending on the hole and your DIY abilities, replacing the tube or tire or patching are the usual ways to deal with this.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- But putting in a replacement zipper into a well-worn jeans is a different situation as the repair starts by almost completely disassembling the jeans. So even a professional jeans sewing expert may need considerably more time to replace the zipper than sewing a completely new jeans. If then the expected increase in remaining lifetime isn't that much because of general wear, replacing the whole jeans may be the way to go.   &#xD;&#xA;In addition, if the zipper is *never* failing before the jeans is thrown away due to wear and tear, it was an overengineered waste of ressources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, two products with the same functionality may be more or less repair friendly, thus potentially shifting the rational, economic and ecological decision boundaries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also often inherent trade-offs for the producer that affect repair friendliness:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **repair friendly vs. ruggedness:**   consider a mobile phone, gluing the case and soldering the battery vs. screwing on a lid over replaceable battery. The latter is clearly more repair friendly, but without additional effort, the former may be more rugged against falling, water and contact issues of the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **repair friendly vs. ease of assembling:**    consider some household machine with the case being plastic and screwed vs. clicked on. The former is repair friendly, but the latter is more easily assembled in the factory.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **spare parts:** repair friendly design makes sense only if spare parts are produced and sold for the envisioned (enhanced) lifetime of the product.  &#xD;&#xA;This can be quite costly. Not only in terms of money, but there are likely to be also ecological trade-offs (which may improve with small series manufacturing/production on demand improving).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **spare parts vs. product improvement:** Supplying spare parts is easier/cheaper if your product stays the same over longer time/many units. While many changes in products are largely motivated by marketing without providing better functionality, there is also an imoprtant tradeoff here in case of improved functionality.  &#xD;&#xA;E.g. is it better to stick to the current fridge model in order to supply spare parts for longer, allowing for repair and increased lifetime - or is it better to discontinue the model and move on to a more energy saving next model?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **repair-friendly design:** (incl. using mostly standard parts). A product that has a given functionality and is as repair friendly as possible may not only be more expensive to produce, but already the development is probably more expensive as not-repair-friendly ideas have to be improved upon.  &#xD;&#xA;Of course, if repair-friendly design becomes more common, standard solutions will emerge and the state of the art in this respect will improve.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  However, I'm told that universities around here do not even offer courses in safe design (as in product safety) for engineering students - despite safe design being a legal requirement for decades now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Safety vs. ease of disassmbling:** Where I am, certain types of safety measures must be attached in a manner that they cannot easily be disassembled or otherwise put out of action.  &#xD;&#xA;Also, the click-on case in the 2nd example may better from a product safety point of view if it cannot easily be taken off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Legal risk**: (I'm in the EU)&#xD;&#xA;An additional thought may be (depending on legislation) that e.g. such cases that are not easily disassembled may give the manufacturer a bit more legal safety wrt. accidents during repair attempts: even if the manual says &quot;do not attempt to repair&quot;, a case that is trivially taken off would be a foreseeable misuse and thus have the producer liable for safety/accidents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Also, I just learned in a seminar about product safety legislation and in contrast to data services where GPPR over here make decided statements against vendor lockin, allowing repairs or merely handing out detailed plans of the product that make the users think they may repair it may place the manufacturer at higher risk in case of accidents.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This doesn't mean repair friendly cannot be done with acceptable legal risk, but it does mean that releasing (existing) information that would come handy for repair comes at surprisingly high cost for the producer: there is basically no possibility to say take this info at own risk - if released, it basically has to be in the form of a repair handbook that is safe for the average customer (or repair person).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (I've been interested in DIY labware projects for some time - and after that product safety regulation seminar I understand quite a bit better where the high prices for some not-too-complicated labware machinery comes from: the existing regulations are extremely unfavorable to anything that isn't a mass product)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9646" RevisionGUID="f90de22e-ce04-4a0a-8d44-73fed20951a1" CreationDate="2019-11-13T16:07:42.063" UserId="1529" Text="I know you asked for a book, but until then, have you ever come across this youtube channel? [Townsends][1] has videos not only about recipes but also about different techniques of building stuff around the house, in the good old 18th century way. I found them when I was watching videos about baking bread, they have a nice one about how they make an oven out of clay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxr2d4As312LulcajAkKJYw" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22365" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9624" RevisionGUID="04db1608-7642-4d8c-b3f6-d7e084f58ccc" CreationDate="2019-11-13T17:29:36.243" UserId="6837" Comment="I added the last five paragraphs with clear examples from personal experience to address the concerns stated in comments. " Text="I've actually thought about this while washing bags. Something about it just felt dumb to me, so I looked into it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First surprize: Plastic takes a lot of more water to produce than I expected. It takes roughly 22 gallons of water to make one pound of plastic. (180 liters to produce 1 kg) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second surprize: My tap water gets pump lifted 3000 feet and travels 336 miles, which uses about 2 megawatt hours of energy per acre foot...  and that power comes from a coal powered plant!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your math will depend on your source of water and your source of plastic, but I was able to zero out my environmental impact by growing veggies with the water I use for washing plastic. Most of my plastic comes to me in the form of big bags that contain (literally) tons of coffee grounds. I rinse them off in a tub of rainwater that eventually goes to the plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I use the plastic to prevent soil evaporation, my primary use for plastic, the water I save is greater than the water originally required to produce the plastic... by a factor of FIFTY! This goes to show that the destination can often be more significant than the source. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These next five paragraphs have been added for the benefit of those who disagree with the use of plastic in conjunction with plants. Firstly, I store custom mixed soils and soil ingredients in plastic bags until they are ready to be used. There's a reason why potting soil always comes in plastic. With the proper moisture level, such soils can remain alive and active, and can even increase in fertility. It sure beats having to hose it down periodically, or every day as would be the case where I live.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At some remote desert locations, plastic can be the most precious commodity for miles in every direction because it can produce and purify water through distillation, but when it's integrated into water collection and retention you can achieve stunning results. Even sandy soils in arid climates where nothing will grow can be restored with a little plastic if you form a bowl shaped bottom to your planting hole to make a deep pocket of moisture similar to a wicking planter or a mini cistern. This can create a toehold or springboard for diverse life and microbial generation in otherwise sterile environments allowing the establishment of drought  resistant native plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naturally, if you live in a wet climate with poor soil drainage this would be counterproductive, but I've seen scrap plastic being layered in a mound formation to shed water away from plants that are in danger of rotting from over-saturation. In the sweet zone between these two extremes you will be sure to find plenty of nearby organic material to stabilize your soil moisture which would be vastly superior to plastic, but you may also consider using old plastic bags to stave off a light freeze. They make a handy little tent or mini greenhouse over small individual plants and can be used year after year to extend your growing season. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even after reusing my plastic in all these ways, I still end up with a surplus of small bags from the kitchen that I don't want to clean. I plant trees in them when I'm running short of small containers, and then pack them side to side in crates to make them easier to move. The bags prevent the roots from getting tangled until they are ready to be installed. If you do this, make sure to provide plenty of drainage holes or your trees may rot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I realize that I'm getting a bit far afield from the original question about washing plastic bags, but the main point should be summarized in the statement that the ultimate destination of plastic can often redeem it from what many consider to be its inherent evil. A carefully washed plastic bag these days may end up in a landfill or a smokestack due to unscrupulous recycling programs, but when it's used creatively by you, the individual who considers and weighs its value against the value of water, it can be transformed from a waste product to a valuable resource that can help restore the planet, especially in regions where water is the greatest concern.   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9647" RevisionGUID="989b8d87-5f3a-488d-88f3-34a04e361718" CreationDate="2019-11-14T02:11:48.823" UserId="6837" Text="   In the United States, food products labeled as “organic” are generally believed to be in compliance with the standards of the National Organic Program (NOP), a program of the USDA, which strictly prohibits the use of GMO's under that certification, but even in countries that require GMO labeling, the standard legal threshold of 0.9% is the potential percentage of GMO content that could be present. For this reason, the FDA discourages the use of the term “GMO Free” since all food items may contain trace amounts of GMO's. Farms and processors with $5,000 or less in gross income from organic sales are exempt and may label products as organic without any certification, even if they contain GMO's. Some producers will even bust up their operation into smaller outfits to slip through this loophole, but more often they will simply violate the restrictions undetected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I only mentioned the above to illustrate how utterly useless certification is to me. Personally, I eat food that I certify, and that is all that matters to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It's important to note that USDA organic rules do not say a single word about sustainability, which remains a loosely defined term in most contexts these days. Sustainable, in the context of the growers I work with, means that the nutrients removed from the soil by growing plants are replenished without any artificial inputs. Even natural inputs must be sourced locally to adhere to this standard. We don't use peat or pearlite, but we would if it were available within 100 miles.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   In light of all this, many local groups opt to form their own consortium to develop standards that are important to them, such as agricultural sustainability as reflected in your question. Some of them do permit GMO's, but they show a strong preference for locally adapted heirloom varieties which outperform modified plants designed for mega-agriculture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  The definition of sustainability for most readers here will include a wide variety of concerns, not limited to environmental and social impacts, climate change, human health, and biodiversity. Among their greatest concerns are how GMO's are utilized. Ownership of genes gets seized from those who most need them. Soils are destroyed with GMO's on a global scale by promoting mass cultivation using outrageously unsustainable farming methods. Even if they could be proven perfectly safe for human consumption, they would still be avoided for other important and legitimate reasons. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Keep in mind that good sustainability usually involves very local small scale agriculture, and most GMO's are not designed for tiny geographical areas. Your great grandmother's purple stripe polecat runner beans might be far more valuable to you, your neighbors, your grandchildren, your planet, or even to companies such as Monsanto who want to slice and dice them for the masses and then sue you for growing them, but only you can determine that by keeping them alive.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Nothing stops you from growing GMO's sustainably using otherwise organic methods. You could form your own certification and certify others accordingly, but the main reason that this is not normally done is that the USDA certified &quot;organic&quot; standards are usually used as a baseline for other types of certification, which precludes the use of GMO's across the board. To those who know, that actually means very little. To me, that invites the next two, somewhat rude, paragraphs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   If you had a class A setup with impressive sustainabile practices developing rich organic soil using no pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, or chemical fetilizers, something that I would certify as being &quot;better than USDA organic,&quot; then you would find no need whatsoever for GMO crops, especially after you consider how hard I would try to run you out of the neighborhood for risking contamination to my heirlooms. Any neighbors not in danger of contamination would probably run you off for being such a fool. Why sacrifice the exquisite beauty of a true solution for the empty promises of propaganda and get-rich-quick hype? The importance of your question will fade quickly in your mind once you put seeds in the ground and wonder how you could know so little about your food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   I fear I go on too long, but suffice it to say that you just don't seem to get it. GMO crops are a way to avoid addressing the real problems. If you were trying to survive on Mars and your AI found a way to devolop something you can eat or make rocket fuel from to get home with, then I would give you my blessing, but if you want to be sustainable on Earth before you leave, then you have a helluva lot to learn about sustainability and how we currently fall short of that. Look closely at what you would do if you were constrained to using only that which is at your disposal in perpetuity. That is the source of sustainability, and you will see that it is something worthy of passing on to your kids. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Nevertheless, if you insist on feeding the world long before you've figured out how to feed yourself, or if you just want to slap a label onto a product to gain some certification status that means something to the person buying it, you have some options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   On a larger scale, there are organizations such as The Green Business Bureau. With their certification process you receive points for each activity you complete. They help identify the sustainability efforts a business performs, while helping to outline future efforts. They are different from many other organizations because they make it easier for small businesses to develop and define their own sustainability practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   For B-Corp certification, you get evaluated on how your company treats workers, customers, community, and environment. Sustainability is a major focus here. You have to get 80 points and maintain that level, but I don't think that freedom from GMO's is absolutely required before you get certified.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In addition, there are many awards available within specific growing regions that have identified concise goals required in order to be considered. With the award you get the right to display it. They are often much more careful about verifying adherence to organic practices and sustainability standards. Others seem to have no concern whatsoever about sustainability, or GMO's, or impact to the planet, and just award you for promoting the industry or growing the biggest pumpkin, but in some areas a certified safe GMO, if there were such a thing, would be banned anyway.  In California, the counties of Marin and Mendocino have enacted ordinances forbidding the cultivation of GMOs, and in Hawaii's Kauai County and Hawaii County the cultivation of most GMO crops is banned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   In the end, a certification for GMO's would not make much sense because anyone who sees a &quot;safe GMO&quot; label is going to avoid it like the plague. How many producers are going to want to certify that their product actually contains GMO's when current US law allows them to hide it from the consumer? As is stands, you can brag about your sustainability on the label and include a note on how sustainable your GMO's are, but I imagine you would be shooting yourself in the foot there.             &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9647" RevisionGUID="447eabe3-f831-4b90-a58c-e6d5ce0aee2a" CreationDate="2019-11-14T18:19:54.703" UserId="6837" Comment="I cut parts that didn't pertain to the question or had an inappropriate tone, and added last two sentences to clarify." Text="   In the United States, food products labeled as “organic” are generally believed to be in compliance with the standards of the National Organic Program (NOP), a program of the USDA, which strictly prohibits the use of GMO's under that certification, but even in countries that require GMO labeling, the standard legal threshold of 0.9% is the potential percentage of GMO content that could be present. For this reason, the FDA discourages the use of the term “GMO Free” since all food items may contain trace amounts of GMO's. Farms and processors with $5,000 or less in gross income from organic sales are exempt and may label products as organic without any certification, even if they contain GMO's. Some producers will even bust up their operation into smaller outfits to slip through this loophole, but more often they will simply violate the restrictions undetected. I only mentioned the above to illustrate some of the problems with certification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   It's important to note that USDA organic rules do not say a single word about sustainability, which remains a loosely defined term in most contexts these days. Sustainable, in the context of the growers I work with, means that the nutrients removed from the soil by growing plants are replenished without any artificial inputs. Even natural inputs must be sourced locally to adhere to this standard. We haven't discussed GMO crops, and I think it's because we never considered planting them.     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   In light of all this, many local groups opt to form their own consortium to develop standards that are important to them, such as agricultural sustainability as reflected in your question. Some of them do permit GMO's, but they show a strong preference for locally adapted heirloom varieties which outperform modified plants designed for mega-agriculture.  Even if they could be proven perfectly safe for human consumption, I think the customers and the growers would still avoid them for other important and legitimate reasons. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;   Nothing stops you from growing GMO's sustainably using otherwise organic methods. You could form your own certification and certify others accordingly, but the main reason that this is not normally done is that the USDA certified &quot;organic&quot; standards are usually used as a baseline for other types of certification, which precludes the use of GMO's across the board. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   If you had a class A setup with impressive sustainabile practices developing rich organic soil using no pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, or chemical fetilizers, something that I would certify as being &quot;better than USDA organic,&quot; then I don't think you would even want to grow GMO crops. GMO crops seem to be a way to avoid addressing the more serious problems with agriculture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   On a larger scale, there are organizations such as The Green Business Bureau. With their certification process you receive points for each activity you complete. They help identify the sustainability efforts a business performs, while helping to outline future efforts. They are different from many other organizations because they make it easier for small businesses to develop and define their own sustainability practices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   For B-Corp certification, you get evaluated on how your company treats workers, customers, community, and environment. Sustainability is a major focus here. You have to get 80 points and maintain that level, but I don't think that freedom from GMO's is absolutely required before you get certified.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In addition, there are many awards available within specific growing regions that have identified concise goals required in order to be considered. With the award you get the right to display it. They are often much more careful about verifying adherence to organic practices and sustainability standards. Others seem to have no concern whatsoever about sustainability, or GMO's, or impact to the planet, and just award you for promoting the industry or growing the biggest pumpkin, but in some areas a certified safe GMO, if there were such a thing, would be banned anyway.  In California, the counties of Marin and Mendocino have enacted ordinances forbidding the cultivation of GMOs, and in Hawaii's Kauai County and Hawaii County the cultivation of most GMO crops is banned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   In the end, a certification for GMO's would not make much sense because anyone who sees a &quot;safe GMO&quot; label is going to avoid it like the plague. How many producers are going to want to certify that their product actually contains GMO's when current US law allows them to hide it from the consumer? As is stands, you can brag about your sustainability on the label and include a note on how sustainable your GMO's are, but I imagine you would be shooting yourself in the foot there.  Perhaps a certifying body would be formed if GMO labels were required either in the states or federally. Only then would producers want to certify their GMOs as safe and be willing to pay for that certification.            &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22368" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9648" RevisionGUID="17279ae5-20de-4bb9-874c-b9e6074b0f3f" CreationDate="2019-11-15T00:14:48.170" UserId="8076" Text="As population rises, fossil fuels will start depleting so are solar powered cars a good idea? How much power can they produce when it is cloudy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22369" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9648" RevisionGUID="17279ae5-20de-4bb9-874c-b9e6074b0f3f" CreationDate="2019-11-15T00:14:48.170" UserId="8076" Text="Are solar powered cars sustainable and are they a good idea for future transportation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22370" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9648" RevisionGUID="17279ae5-20de-4bb9-874c-b9e6074b0f3f" CreationDate="2019-11-15T00:14:48.170" UserId="8076" Text="|solar-power|vehicle|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9649" RevisionGUID="31831f43-569d-44f7-aeca-b4479cd5f9c2" CreationDate="2019-11-15T02:07:50.147" UserId="8076" Text="Since 75% of the universe is hydrogen would it be sustainable to use fuel cell electricity generators? Fossil fuel generators wont last forever because there is not an endless supply of fossil fuels and solar power is only best when the sun is out. Fuel cell generators can be used anytime of the day. So, are fuel cell generators sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22372" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9649" RevisionGUID="31831f43-569d-44f7-aeca-b4479cd5f9c2" CreationDate="2019-11-15T02:07:50.147" UserId="8076" Text="Are fuel cell electricity generators a sustainable way of making electricity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22373" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9649" RevisionGUID="31831f43-569d-44f7-aeca-b4479cd5f9c2" CreationDate="2019-11-15T02:07:50.147" UserId="8076" Text="|electricity|electricity-generation|fuel-efficiency|hydroelectricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9650" RevisionGUID="26b54637-6318-468a-a70f-ea023da355a2" CreationDate="2019-11-15T02:16:22.387" UserId="4834" Text="No.  There is no readily available supply of net-positive-energy hydrogen on Earth, where most human power usage takes place.  Hydrogen fuel cells may be a useful component of a total energy system but they are not a source of _generation_ capacity.  Hydrogen is more like a battery than a supply of energy.  Hydrogen can be liberated from water by using energy.  Some of this energy can be recovered by using the resulting hydrogen in a fuel cell.  This may be useful but the original energy to liberate the hydrogen must come from another source.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9651" RevisionGUID="41a0c3f3-a35c-42ea-bc6c-071e032958be" CreationDate="2019-11-15T04:00:24.260" UserId="6293" Text="A residential hydrogen-fuel-cell is a solid-oxide-fuel-cell which makes a lot of heat when it produces electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The waste heat has obvious uses for the house or building but also the most likely source of hydrogen is to steam propane or natural-gas. So there is plenty of heat for that process once the fuel-cell is running. The only thing needed is the natural-gas feedstock but of course that's the fossil fuel use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two links to hydrogen-fuel-cells designed for RV's but that can also be used in multiple units for a house:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.wattfuelcell.com/portable-power/watt-imperium/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/peoples-gas-completes-installation-of-the-first-watt-residential-fuel-cell-in-western-pennsylvania-300723773.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now a hydrogen fueling station for vehicles and produce hydrogen by electrolysis of water using electricity. And then the only issue is the source of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.itm-power.com/news-item/new-shell-fuelling-station-opened-at-beaconsfield&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22376" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9651" RevisionGUID="8dc4fd6f-3a76-4d49-89a4-5cce145892a7" CreationDate="2019-11-15T04:06:08.647" UserId="6293" Comment="edited body" Text="A residential hydrogen-fuel-cell is a solid-oxide-fuel-cell which makes a lot of heat when it produces electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The waste heat has obvious uses for the house or building but also the most likely source of hydrogen is to steam propane or natural-gas. So there is plenty of heat for that process once the fuel-cell is running. The only thing needed is the natural-gas feedstock but of course that's the fossil fuel use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two links to hydrogen-fuel-cells designed for RV's but that can also be used in multiple units for a house:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.wattfuelcell.com/portable-power/watt-imperium/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/peoples-gas-completes-installation-of-the-first-watt-residential-fuel-cell-in-western-pennsylvania-300723773.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now a hydrogen fueling station for vehicles can produce hydrogen by electrolysis of water using electricity. And then the only issue is the source of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.itm-power.com/news-item/new-shell-fuelling-station-opened-at-beaconsfield&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that the source of electricity could be wind power, solar power, or hydro power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or hydrogen in general could be produced from ethanol with the ethanol produced from sorghum and that is near carbon neutral. Note that sorghum can be grown without irrigation only requires about 15&quot; of annual rainfall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22380" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9651" RevisionGUID="403428d1-9995-474f-9aef-a9f08425c615" CreationDate="2019-11-15T04:23:16.873" UserId="6293" Comment="added 64 characters in body" Text="A residential hydrogen-fuel-cell is a solid-oxide-fuel-cell which makes a lot of heat when it produces electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The waste heat has obvious uses for the house or building but also the most likely source of hydrogen is to steam propane or natural-gas. So there is plenty of heat for that process once the fuel-cell is running. The only thing needed is the natural-gas feedstock but of course that's the fossil fuel use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are two links to hydrogen-fuel-cells designed for RV's but that can also be used in multiple units for a house:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.wattfuelcell.com/portable-power/watt-imperium/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/peoples-gas-completes-installation-of-the-first-watt-residential-fuel-cell-in-western-pennsylvania-300723773.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now a hydrogen fueling station for vehicles can produce hydrogen by electrolysis of water using electricity. And then the only issue is the source of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.itm-power.com/news-item/new-shell-fuelling-station-opened-at-beaconsfield&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's possible that the source of electricity could be wind power, solar power, or hydro power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/point-lookout-hydrogen-1.16496819&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or hydrogen in general could be produced from ethanol with the ethanol produced from sorghum and that is near carbon neutral. Note that sorghum can be grown without irrigation only requires about 12&quot; of rainfall during a growing season. Also, sorghum needs less fertilizer than corn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9653" RevisionGUID="6668fd7b-da16-423f-8dab-b4fbfea11855" CreationDate="2019-11-15T06:28:48.623" UserId="8142" Text="Would really appreciate any help!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to create a formula that would show:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If every citizen in the world had an average carbon footprint of xxxx.xx kg per month, global temperatures could rise by xx.xx degrees celsius**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there will be quite a lot of variance in the answer, and it certainly won't be perfect, but assuming all other factors are equal, I think it hypothetically should be possible to create a formula...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you one and all :) Josie " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22382" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9653" RevisionGUID="6668fd7b-da16-423f-8dab-b4fbfea11855" CreationDate="2019-11-15T06:28:48.623" UserId="8142" Text="If everyone had an 'American carbon footprint', how much could the world's temperatures increase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22383" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9653" RevisionGUID="6668fd7b-da16-423f-8dab-b4fbfea11855" CreationDate="2019-11-15T06:28:48.623" UserId="8142" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9654" RevisionGUID="67da20e4-4f12-4b27-9e3c-e2435a920082" CreationDate="2019-11-15T08:43:39.277" UserId="8145" Text="Today I heard a news story on local radio about a farmers protest campaign in Hamburg (Germany). Currently in Germany the discussion about sustainability,&#xD;&#xA;climate change and environmental protection is very active. The background of the protest is that many (conventional) farmers feel that they are blamed for all the environmental problems we have and don't get enough credit and support from society. One of their main points of critique is that there are too many new laws that restrain them from doing their work. In general I can't comment on that since I am not a framer. During the show there was an interview with a farmer that claimed that the restriction of pesticide use on wheat would reduce the protein content of the wheat and thus make it unsuitable for baking bread. I don't understand the logic behind this statement. I would rahter think that the restriction of pesticide use would reduce the yield per hectar but not alter the properties of the grain itself. So my question is: What is the link between the protein content of wheat (or any other grain) and the use of pesticides? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22385" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9654" RevisionGUID="67da20e4-4f12-4b27-9e3c-e2435a920082" CreationDate="2019-11-15T08:43:39.277" UserId="8145" Text="Relationship between Protein Content of Wheat and the use of Pesticides" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22386" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9654" RevisionGUID="67da20e4-4f12-4b27-9e3c-e2435a920082" CreationDate="2019-11-15T08:43:39.277" UserId="8145" Text="|farming|pesticides|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22387" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9649" RevisionGUID="c4e45f43-668b-4d1e-9ff3-6d4fdfcc7656" CreationDate="2019-11-15T10:12:03.510" />
  <row Id="22388" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9655" RevisionGUID="e444ccff-c87c-48f4-9c12-3a086e434c10" CreationDate="2019-11-15T11:45:17.587" UserId="8041" Text="I have asked a few people whose cars are idling if they mind switching them off to reduce pollution.  One response I get from quite a lot of people is that they need to keep the car running to enable the heating to work, otherwise they will get cold.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering taxi drivers, those sitting in their car during lunch hours, those waiting and all other people; what ways can you keep warm inside a car without idling and without using the internal heater?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22389" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9655" RevisionGUID="e444ccff-c87c-48f4-9c12-3a086e434c10" CreationDate="2019-11-15T11:45:17.587" UserId="8041" Text="Preventing idling - ideas to keep warm in a car when the engine is off and it is cold outside" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22390" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9655" RevisionGUID="e444ccff-c87c-48f4-9c12-3a086e434c10" CreationDate="2019-11-15T11:45:17.587" UserId="8041" Text="|transport|cars|pollution|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9656" RevisionGUID="16ef77b9-510b-4ab2-bb27-fd8e82cd83e1" CreationDate="2019-11-15T11:48:07.647" UserId="8041" Text=" 1. Wear a woolen underlayer (woolen socks + woolen long sleeve t-shirt + woolen long pants) &#xD;&#xA; 2. Wear warm clothes (hat, snood, scarf, warm jumpers, warm trousers)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Wear winter driving gloves (or any warm gloves)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Drink hot drinks&#xD;&#xA; 5. Keep a flask of hot water in the car &#xD;&#xA; 6. Buy an in-car kettle (charged&#xD;&#xA;    from cigarette lighter) &#xD;&#xA; 7. Heated car seat cover &#xD;&#xA; 8. Warm blankets (wool is&#xD;&#xA;    usually best) &#xD;&#xA; 9. Heated car blanket (charged from cigarette lighter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22392" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9653" RevisionGUID="4399f840-c945-459a-a7b9-58878f7a39f1" CreationDate="2019-11-15T12:00:30.377" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1195310604015341571" />
  <row Id="22394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9657" RevisionGUID="fb4854ba-c521-4904-8e57-f3572a9c3f10" CreationDate="2019-11-15T15:20:17.720" UserId="8151" Text="The **focus on electricity is probably secondary:** *Any* energy source can be converted into electric energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The **focus on fuel cells is probably secondary**, too: Hydrogen can simply drive combustion engines as well; if the hydrogen and oxygen sources are sustainable, then the combustion engine will be as sustainable as the fuel cell (minus potential efficiency considerations).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having these out of the way, the question is simply whether hydrogen can be produced in a sustainable way. Since there is almost no free hydrogen on earth, it must be produced from water in an endothermic reaction &amp;mdash; that is, a reaction which needs an injection of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that **the focus on hydrogen is probably secondary.** Your question boils down to whether there is a sustainable energy source. And the answer is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The only virtually (for the next couple billion years) sustainable energy source on earth is solar radiation.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen may be useful *to store and transport solar energy,* and a fuel cell may be an efficient method to *convert it into electric energy* at convenient locations in space and time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two remarks: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Another potentially virtually sustainable energy source would be fusion, if it can be made to work on an industrial scale, including [a self-sustaining Tritium production.](https://www.iter.org/mag/8/56)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Solar radiation provides not only just energy &amp;mdash; energy as such is plentiful; it provides [low-entropy energy](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/399463/the-sun-is-giving-us-a-low-entropy-not-energy) which can be put to use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22395" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9653" RevisionGUID="dc07ef6f-a329-4297-9ec0-b134512a64db" CreationDate="2019-11-15T16:16:35.777" UserId="3379" Comment="Added details from comments. Formatting." Text="I'm trying to create a formula that would show:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If every citizen in the world had an average carbon footprint of `X.X kg` per month, global temperatures could rise by `X.X degC` by 2050.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there will be quite a lot of variance in the answer, and it certainly won't be perfect, but assuming all other factors are equal, I think it hypothetically should be possible to create a formula..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22396" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9653" RevisionGUID="dc07ef6f-a329-4297-9ec0-b134512a64db" CreationDate="2019-11-15T16:16:35.777" UserId="3379" Comment="Added details from comments. Formatting." Text="If everyone had an 'American carbon footprint', how much would the world's temperatures increase?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22397" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9653" RevisionGUID="dc07ef6f-a329-4297-9ec0-b134512a64db" CreationDate="2019-11-15T16:16:35.777" UserId="3379" Comment="Added details from comments. Formatting." Text="|carbon-footprint|global-warming|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22398" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9658" RevisionGUID="31f3308a-3f11-495e-8be0-97ada648dc46" CreationDate="2019-11-15T16:55:31.740" UserId="2846" Text="It's possible to fit a [dedicated heater](https://www.eberspacher.com/products/fuel-operated-heaters.html) run off the fuel system.  This is a much more efficient way of turning fuel into cabin heat.  They're common in motorhomes in a form that directly heats the cabin air by burning diesel, but in smaller vehicles they work with the existing fans and heater block.  Either way they have their own exhaust system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, they burn fossil fuels, but they do this in an optimised way, which uses a lot less fuel compared to running an engine to produce heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I've linked to a leading brand, as their website is more informative than anything else I could find)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22399" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9659" RevisionGUID="255454df-188f-4944-874c-da314e0e419a" CreationDate="2019-11-15T17:15:18.897" UserId="6837" Text="Farmers wanting (or being forced) to avoid the use of pesticides have a wide variety of choices at their disposal. Most of them will in fact alter the quality of the crop, but most of the alternatives are often not known or considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Switching to a different variety is obviously one of the easiest, but it also has a big effect on the final product. Altering planting time is also very often considered, and that also has an effect. Types of pesticides, types of insects, &#xD;&#xA; types of flour, types of wheat, and many other factors are involved, but I'll try to hit the main ones here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For making bread, hard winter wheat or hard red spring wheat tend to contain higher protein content. The protein in bread wheat might be between 10% in some soft wheats to over 15% in hard wheat. Hard red winter wheat normally has around 13% protein, and hard red spring wheat often has well over 15% protein. If your pest avoidance strategy involves switching your planting time from Fall to Spring, you will be using a different species and will obtain a different quality flour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current impetus in Europe is leaning towards reduction of all agrochemicals, some more than others, but a change in nitrogen available in the soils will also have an effect on the protein content of wheat. A farmer can increase nitrogen in various ways, but many only consider the chemical options. In some cases, increasing nitrogen can have the opposite effect by simultaneously increasing competitive weeds. Those weeds could then, in turn, actually reduce the nitrogen, but if legumes are planted to outcompete the weeds, then an important balance can be restored. All of this in turn has an effect on the types and population sizes of local insects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It's hard to say what particular issues the farmer in that particular interview was facing in is fields, and what strategies he considered or failed to consider. A lot depends on the overall condition of soil, climate, season, local ecosystem, and intended use of the crop. All we know is that he was trying to grow bread flour in Germany and was complaining about forced reduction of pesticide use and the effect that has on protein content. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current restrictions on neonicotinoids restrict their use on wheat sown between January and June, so it's possible that we're talking about autumn sown Spring wheat.  Winter wheat, compared to spring wheat, will generally be more productive with higher yields and more consistent results, but it requires significantly higher levels of inputs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) tends to have a rather scientific perspective when considering the impact of agrochemicals on farmland. They find that encouraging&#xD;&#xA;natural predators is an important alternative to insecticides which could kill the very species of insects needed to control the target pests. Many farmers don't take that into consideration because their primary concern is the condition of the crop they currently have in the ground, and if a pest threat arises, they will spray. Some may wait until they feel it's needed, while others may spray as a precautionary measure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Orange Wheat Blossom Midge, quantities and frequency of spraying can mean the difference between one midge per three wheat ears for feed wheat, but as low as one&#xD;&#xA;midge per six ears for milling wheat. Crops grown for milling wheat may fail to meet certain specifications which means they get sold as feed wheat for less profit. Some parasitoid wasps can be introduced to prey on these midges, and some may even arrive naturally after reduction in spraying. The trick is to perfectly time the spray because wheat heads are susceptible to wheat midge only between heading and flowering. Spraying at other times kills the wasp but not the midge. Information such as this needs to be in the hands of farmers, and entomologists can be provided to help them assess their options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Nevertheless, bug damage tends to affect the protein quality of wheat more than its protein quantity, and this is a big concern when growing wheat for bread. Flour that has high-protease activity caused by damage by some Heteropteran insects are not suitable for breadmaking at all. Eurygaster Aelia and Nysius huttoni attack developing wheat kernels and inject salivary secretions into the developing kernel which dissolves some nutrients with proteases and breaks down the protein and gluten structure, especially evident during mixing and fermentation of the bread. In general, varieties of wheat with low baking quality show the effects of bug proteinase more than cultivars considered to be higher baking flour quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a very complex issue with countless possible approaches, but it's certain that the farmer in question could be assisted with good research based information to help overcome his concerns and possibly produce a superior crop with a better profit margin using fewer chemicals. Incentives towards long term solutions are most needed, and they can also show good results in a single season, but restricting his options in some areas can only be countered by increasing them in others. The same holds true for agriculture worldwide, but understanding bread flour in Germany is a good start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9659" RevisionGUID="6fe0d821-70c5-46d5-858d-b0aff5af4847" CreationDate="2019-11-15T17:34:08.613" UserId="6837" Comment="Corrected typo and improved description regarding the scientific names of pests." Text="Farmers wanting (or being forced) to avoid the use of pesticides have a wide variety of choices at their disposal. Most of them will in fact alter the quality of the crop, but most of the alternatives are often not known or considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Switching to a different variety is obviously one of the easiest, but it also has a big effect on the final product. Altering planting time is also very often considered, and that also has an effect. Types of pesticides, types of insects, &#xD;&#xA; types of flour, types of wheat, and many other factors are involved, but I'll try to hit the main ones here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For making bread, hard winter wheat or hard red spring wheat tend to contain higher protein content. The protein in bread wheat might be between 10% in some soft wheats to over 15% in hard wheat. Hard red winter wheat normally has around 13% protein, and hard red spring wheat often has well over 15% protein. If your pest avoidance strategy involves switching your planting time from Fall to Spring, you will be using a different species and will obtain a different quality flour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current impetus in Europe is leaning towards reduction of all agrochemicals, some more than others, but a change in nitrogen available in the soils will also have an effect on the protein content of wheat. A farmer can increase nitrogen in various ways, but many only consider the chemical options. In some cases, increasing nitrogen can have the opposite effect by simultaneously increasing competitive weeds. Those weeds could then, in turn, actually reduce the nitrogen, but if legumes are planted to outcompete the weeds, then an important balance can be restored. All of this in turn has an effect on the types and population sizes of local insects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; It's hard to say what particular issues the farmer in that particular interview was facing in is fields, and what strategies he considered or failed to consider. A lot depends on the overall condition of soil, climate, season, local ecosystem, and intended use of the crop. All we know is that he was trying to grow bread flour in Germany and was complaining about forced reduction of pesticide use and the effect that has on protein content. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current restrictions on neonicotinoids restrict their use on wheat sown between January and June, so it's possible that we're talking about autumn sown Spring wheat.  Winter wheat, compared to spring wheat, will generally be more productive with higher yields and more consistent results, but it requires significantly higher levels of inputs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) tends to have a rather scientific perspective when considering the impact of agrochemicals on farmland. They find that encouraging&#xD;&#xA;natural predators is an important alternative to insecticides which could kill the very species of insects needed to control the target pests. Many farmers don't take that into consideration because their primary concern is the condition of the crop they currently have in the ground, and if a pest threat arises, they will spray. Some may wait until they feel it's needed, while others may spray as a precautionary measure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Orange Wheat Blossom Midge, quantities and frequency of spraying can mean the difference between one midge per three wheat ears for feed wheat, but as low as one&#xD;&#xA;midge per six ears for milling wheat. Crops grown for milling wheat may fail to meet certain specifications which means they get sold as feed wheat for less profit. Some parasitoid wasps can be introduced to prey on these midges, and some may even arrive naturally after reduction in spraying. The trick is to perfectly time the spray because wheat heads are susceptible to wheat midge only between heading and flowering. Spraying at other times kills the wasp but not the midge. Information such as this needs to be in the hands of farmers, and entomologists can be provided to help them assess their options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Nevertheless, bug damage tends to affect the protein quality of wheat more than its protein quantity, and this is a big concern when growing wheat for bread. Flour that has high-protease activity caused by damage by some Heteropteran insects are not suitable for breadmaking at all. Some species of Eurygaster and Aelia, and the &quot;wheat bug&quot; (Nysius huttoni) attack developing wheat kernels and inject salivary secretions into the developing kernel which dissolves some nutrients with proteases and breaks down the protein and gluten structure, especially evident during mixing and fermentation of the bread. In general, varieties of wheat with low baking quality show the effects of bug proteinase more than cultivars considered to be higher baking flour quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a very complex issue with countless possible approaches, but it's certain that the farmer in question could be assisted with good research based information to help overcome his concerns and possibly produce a superior crop with a better profit margin using fewer chemicals. Incentives towards long term solutions are most needed, and they can also show good results in a single season, but restricting his options in some areas can only be countered by increasing them in others. The same holds true for agriculture worldwide, but understanding bread flour in Germany is a good start.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22401" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9649" RevisionGUID="537ceff5-940d-469e-b3f2-558dfce7f1ad" CreationDate="2019-11-15T18:00:35.593" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1195401222779547648" />
  <row Id="22402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9660" RevisionGUID="92454182-8d02-4cdb-bef7-f3cb26013286" CreationDate="2019-11-15T18:12:49.423" UserId="8041" Text="I am looking at ways in which a heavily polluting taxi rank near a train station could reduce its pollution footprint.  My first thought was that the pollution was mostly down to idling and I am thinking of various ways to tackle idling by taxi drivers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason for the pollution, the reason for this question (and possibly a larger source of the pollution than idling) is the constant 'edging forward' caused when: as each taxi at the front of the queue leaves after collecting a passenger, all the taxis in the queue move forward by one space and then stop.  Sometimes there is a queue of 30 taxis and each taxi may move forward and then stop 30 times for every single customer they collect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This 'edging forward' behaviour encourages the taxis to keep their engines running at idle because there is less time spent stationary.  It is also less efficient edging forward in this way than if all the taxis moved forward by a larger degree every time they did move.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering whether there are any specific solutions to prevent this 'edging forward' behaviour in a queue of cars that would apply to a taxi rank?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(of course any other areas, ferry terminals for example or manual toll booths may also benefit or provide a solution).*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22403" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9660" RevisionGUID="92454182-8d02-4cdb-bef7-f3cb26013286" CreationDate="2019-11-15T18:12:49.423" UserId="8041" Text="How to prevent pollution caused by a taxi rank? Is there a solution to the 'edging forward' cost of cars in a queue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22404" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9660" RevisionGUID="92454182-8d02-4cdb-bef7-f3cb26013286" CreationDate="2019-11-15T18:12:49.423" UserId="8041" Text="|transport|cars|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9656" RevisionGUID="9f48996a-fb78-4b6b-93df-8d60283c671b" CreationDate="2019-11-15T18:19:33.203" UserId="8041" Comment="added 159 characters in body" Text=" 1. Wear a woolen underlayer (woolen socks + woolen long sleeve t-shirt + woolen long pants) &#xD;&#xA; 2. Wear warm clothes (hat, snood, scarf, warm jumpers, warm trousers)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Wear winter driving gloves (or any warm gloves)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Drink hot drinks&#xD;&#xA; 5. Keep a flask of hot water in the car &#xD;&#xA; 6. Buy an in-car kettle (charged&#xD;&#xA;    from cigarette lighter) &#xD;&#xA; 7. Heated car seat cover &#xD;&#xA; 8. Warm blankets (wool is&#xD;&#xA;    usually best) &#xD;&#xA; 9. Heated car blanket (charged from cigarette lighter)&#xD;&#xA; 10. Keep the heater on for 15 - 30 mins, the heat comes from the engine, not a heating element so the battery should hold sufficient charge for this duration.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22406" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9656" RevisionGUID="4fd8bc27-adba-4252-8eda-ed8c51dabb35" CreationDate="2019-11-15T18:42:49.167" UserId="8041" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text=" 1. Wear a woolen underlayer (woolen socks + woolen long sleeve t-shirt + woolen long pants) &#xD;&#xA; 2. Wear warm clothes (hat, snood, scarf, warm jumpers, warm trousers)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Wear winter driving gloves (or any warm gloves)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Drink hot drinks&#xD;&#xA; 5. Keep a flask of hot water in the car &#xD;&#xA; 6. Buy an in-car kettle (charged&#xD;&#xA;    from cigarette lighter) &#xD;&#xA; 7. Heated car seat cover &#xD;&#xA; 8. Warm blankets (wool is&#xD;&#xA;    usually best) &#xD;&#xA; 9. Heated car blanket (charged from cigarette lighter)&#xD;&#xA; 10. Keep the heater on for 15 - 30 mins, the heat comes from the engine, not a heating element so the battery should hold sufficient charge for this duration.&#xD;&#xA; 11. Fit a dedicated heater to run off the fuel system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22407" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9655" RevisionGUID="d26282e8-9b8b-481e-990d-51b2cb3c815d" CreationDate="2019-11-15T19:57:47.397" />
  <row Id="22409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9661" RevisionGUID="3aa6eda2-412b-4b1e-b5e8-81cfbb575511" CreationDate="2019-11-16T00:42:54.423" UserId="7993" Text="A self-contained solar-powered car is not viable.  There simply isn't enough area for the solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a [Honda Civic][1] as an example: it's got about eight square meters of top surface that solar panels could be installed on, for a peak theoretical generation of 8 kW.  That same Honda Civic has a 92-kW engine, meaning that for each second of maximum power output, the car requires eleven and a half seconds of charging under ideal conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things look even worse once real-world constraints are factored in.  The best solar cells ever built are only [47% efficient][2].  Streamlining the car requires tilting the front and rear windscreens rather than leaving them vertical, which reduces the available panel area.  The panels are rarely oriented square-on to the Sun.  Solar panel output drops by [about 20%][3] over the useful life of the panel.  All this adds up to an actual average power output of around 2.2 kW, or 42 seconds of charging per second of peak output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at it another way, one liter of gasoline has about 9.7 kWh of energy; an automobile engine can convert that into about 2.9 kWh of useful output.  A solar Civic would need to spend 62 hours in direct sunlight to get the equivalent of a full tank of gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Civic_(tenth_generation&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_panel#Performance_and_degradation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9662" RevisionGUID="104be688-86de-4e23-8d39-5328b2d238c3" CreationDate="2019-11-16T02:59:27.493" UserId="3379" Text="Have the taxis (`*`) fill two or more lanes (`| |`) leading to the station, with one ready to pick up the next passenger (`:)`) coming out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        |*|*|&#xD;&#xA;        |*|*|&#xD;&#xA;        |*|*|&#xD;&#xA;        |*|*|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    :)   *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once that cab leaves, an attendant at the head of the lanes signals for the next taxi to move forward, ready for the next passenger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        |*|*|&#xD;&#xA;        |*|*|&#xD;&#xA;        |*|*|&#xD;&#xA;        | |*|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;         *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All other taxis are parked with engines off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once that lane is empty, it can fill up with new taxis, and those in the next lane over are called for new pickups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a busy airport/station, more lanes, longer lanes, and multiple spots for pickup could be arranged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;        |*|*|*|*|*|&#xD;&#xA;        |*|*|*|*|*|&#xD;&#xA;        |*|*|*|*|*|&#xD;&#xA;        |*|*|*|*|*|&#xD;&#xA;        | |*|*|*|*|&#xD;&#xA;        | |*|*|*|*|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;         *&#xD;&#xA;         *&#xD;&#xA;         *&#xD;&#xA;         " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9663" RevisionGUID="2c704fc7-1f21-4a4f-a4d3-153bac5ee03b" CreationDate="2019-11-16T10:24:21.133" UserId="99" Text="**Summary:** either there is no link, or no one did any research on this. The latter doesn't seem likely given the amount of research there has been on grain protein content. Most likely the farmer meant 'use of herbicides' as this does have an effect on protein content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have access to the full article, but in [this abstract](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1051%2Fagro%2F2009015) they say that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the grain protein content variation was mostly explained by the baking quality grade of the cultivar, crop nitrogen status and weed density at flowering. &#xD;&#xA;...to a lesser extent, climatic factors also explained grain protein content variability.... grain protein content of organic winter wheat could be increased by improving fertilization management, using an improved baking quality grade cultivar, choosing a legume fodder crop as preceding crop, or by avoiding late sowing dates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no mention that the use of pesticides has an influence, but in all fairness this research was on organic winter wheat so it could be that they didn't consider pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However [this article](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573730/) about different types of wheat also claims that wheat genetics and growing conditions are major factors that determine protein content. The paper also says that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Various studies have compared the protein contents of wheat varieties from the early part of the 20th century with those of recent varieties.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When grown under comparable conditions, there was no difference in the protein contents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly the term 'comparable conditions' is not explained further, but I'm assuming it refers to climatic conditions. Since wide-spread usage of [synthetic pesticides started after the second world war](https://agrochemicals.iupac.org/index.php?option=com_sobi2&amp;sobi2Task=sobi2Details&amp;catid=3&amp;sobi2Id=31), this suggests that protein content did not change due to the use of pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of the other research I found mentions a link between pesticide usage and protein content. That doesn't necessarily mean there is no effect, but it does make it improbable given the large number of other factors that have been investigated. I did find [this paper](http://pubs.sciepub.com/wjar/4/3/3/index.html) where researchers found a relationship between the use of herbicides (so not pesticides!) and raw protein in grain. This led me think that the farmer made an error and actually meant pesticide usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9538" RevisionGUID="fb8d4773-1f64-4315-bd03-93222125b070" CreationDate="2019-11-16T10:25:40.530" UserId="4099" Comment="typos corrected" Text="My raincoat was fully waterproof when bought some 8 years ago. Now it's like a cotton blouse in that it soaks up water immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have washed it with technical wash and sprayed it with waterproofing spray. It did not help much so I have sprayed on some more. Surely there must be some more sustainable way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The spray can itself is a lot of garbage for a little spray.&#xD;&#xA; - When I spray the jacket a lot of spray does not land on the jacket but goes into the air.&#xD;&#xA; - The spray itself is harmful to the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There must be room for improvement on the first two points.&#xD;&#xA;I know there exists a special waterproofing wax, but that means making a bucket of the stuff, soaking the jacket and then throwing out a (bucket - a little) down the drain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some dry cleaners also waterproof jackets but I don't know if what they do is less harmful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22414" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9538" RevisionGUID="fb8d4773-1f64-4315-bd03-93222125b070" CreationDate="2019-11-16T10:25:40.530" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 3379, 99 edit id of 585" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22415" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9663" RevisionGUID="9d36d6e9-780d-4985-badb-7fdefdf890af" CreationDate="2019-11-16T17:25:51.280" UserId="99" Comment="edited body" Text="**Summary:** either there is no link, or no one did any research on this. The latter doesn't seem likely given the amount of research there has been on grain protein content. Most likely the farmer meant 'use of herbicides' as this does have an effect on protein content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have access to the full article, but in [this abstract](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1051%2Fagro%2F2009015) they say that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the grain protein content variation was mostly explained by the baking quality grade of the cultivar, crop nitrogen status and weed density at flowering. &#xD;&#xA;...to a lesser extent, climatic factors also explained grain protein content variability.... grain protein content of organic winter wheat could be increased by improving fertilization management, using an improved baking quality grade cultivar, choosing a legume fodder crop as preceding crop, or by avoiding late sowing dates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no mention that the use of pesticides has an influence, but in all fairness this research was on organic winter wheat so it could be that they didn't consider pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However [this article](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3573730/) about different types of wheat also claims that wheat genetics and growing conditions are major factors that determine protein content. The paper also says that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Various studies have compared the protein contents of wheat varieties from the early part of the 20th century with those of recent varieties.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When grown under comparable conditions, there was no difference in the protein contents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly the term 'comparable conditions' is not explained further, but I'm assuming it refers to climatic conditions. Since wide-spread usage of [synthetic pesticides started after the second world war](https://agrochemicals.iupac.org/index.php?option=com_sobi2&amp;sobi2Task=sobi2Details&amp;catid=3&amp;sobi2Id=31), this suggests that protein content did not change due to the use of pesticides.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of the other research I found mentions a link between pesticide usage and protein content. That doesn't necessarily mean there is no effect, but it does make it improbable given the large number of other factors that have been investigated. I did find [this paper](http://pubs.sciepub.com/wjar/4/3/3/index.html) where researchers found a relationship between the use of herbicides (so not pesticides!) and raw protein in grain. This led me think that the farmer made an error and actually meant herbicide usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9656" RevisionGUID="400158e1-2d37-4a38-b3d7-df80037bb864" CreationDate="2019-11-16T20:40:05.977" UserId="8041" Comment="deleted 129 characters in body" Text=" 1. Wear a woolen underlayer (woolen socks + woolen long sleeve t-shirt + woolen long pants) &#xD;&#xA; 2. Wear warm clothes (hat, snood, scarf, warm jumpers, warm trousers)&#xD;&#xA; 3. Wear winter driving gloves (or any warm gloves)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Drink hot drinks&#xD;&#xA; 5. Keep a flask of hot water in the car &#xD;&#xA; 6. Buy an in-car kettle (charged&#xD;&#xA;    from cigarette lighter) &#xD;&#xA; 7. Heated car seat cover &#xD;&#xA; 8. Warm blankets (wool is&#xD;&#xA;    usually best) &#xD;&#xA; 9. Heated car blanket (charged from cigarette lighter)&#xD;&#xA; 10. &lt;s&gt;Keep the heater on&lt;/s&gt;&#xD;&#xA; 11. Fit a dedicated heater to run off the fuel system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22417" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9664" RevisionGUID="3c46f027-9131-4376-b3e0-2d66f4631ffa" CreationDate="2019-11-16T20:58:50.290" UserId="8165" Text="Loop Industries is promoting their reusable packaging, and has deals with some large brands, though mostly in the cleaning and personal care (as opposed to foods) - like Tide, Clorox and Cascade.&#xD;&#xA;[Brands working with Loop Industries][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Loop provides reusable totes and packaging, along with delivery, pickup and cleaning/sterilization. See [how it works][2] for more details&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/d4Mhf.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://loopstore.com/how-it-works" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9665" RevisionGUID="aa7e9732-4921-409a-abe6-81b14c117a8a" CreationDate="2019-11-17T13:12:43.797" UserId="2846" Text="This is mainly a legal problem, with technical aspects. The difficulty in any system will be modifying driver behaviour. You really need enforceable laws against unnecessary idling, where the law, not the driver, defined what's necessary. One way to do this is to only permit taxis  that can't idle (electric or hybrid cars). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Otherwise however good your system, people will just sit stationary for longer at a time, idling just as much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a long thin taxi rank a simple system can work: the front car always moves to the head of the queue, but subsequent cars don't move forwards until they can move at least (2 or) 3 spots forwards. This means they sit 3 times as long in one spot, and start their engines 3 times less often if they do switch off. I've sometimes seen this behaviour emerge naturally, in ferry check-in queues, and so long as no one cuts in to the gap in the queue, it has the advantage that not every driver needs to understand for there to be some benefit\*. Bollards between parallel queues would help, along with lots of signs, but in the case of taxi ranks you'd need an attendant with authority. Certainly in my experience taxi drivers are among the most like drivers to complain about the price of fuel while doing nothing to reduce the amount they use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\*I'm always one of the first to adopt this approach so I look out for it: I drive very little but my only motor vehicle (a campervan; more than half its mileage is on trips where I'm sleeping in it) is rather thirsty at idle. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9666" RevisionGUID="773914e8-748d-4eee-9c18-7c9324da30ff" CreationDate="2019-11-17T16:14:56.240" UserId="8041" Text="What you could do is have a specially marked box that has the space for say 7 cars and instructions as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. if box is completely clear drive forwards onto it.&#xD;&#xA; 2. if a space becomes available do not move forwads (unless space is completely clear or the box is filling up from empty)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 - all 7 spaces are empty&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; _  _  _  _  _  _  _     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 - so the cars move forward until the box is full&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695;     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 - a car at the front leaves because a pickup place by the station becomes available.  The cars behind the box stay where they are&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; _  &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695;     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 - more cars leave the box to pick up passengers.  The cars behind the box continue to stay where they are&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; _  _  _  &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695;     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5 - all spaces become empty again so we go back to step 1.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; _  _  _  _  _  _  _     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this would reduce the edging forward behaviour which is poor in terms of fuel economy and pollution.  With reducing the eding forward behaviour it will also give the taxi drivers more of an opportunity to switch off their engines and idle less." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9667" RevisionGUID="f3db0c23-2faa-4679-97c2-689f1ee28241" CreationDate="2019-11-17T19:35:25.230" UserId="8041" Text="This [post][1] deals with the design of a taxi rank and how to reduce the pollution created by idling and edging foroward.  A few answers suggested that making the taxis switch to hybrids, or even better electric vehicles, would help the whole situation! (a smart bunch :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If taxi drivers were able to charge their electric vehicles whilst they waited in line for a fare this would be a great incentive for them to go electric.  If you can regularly charge your EV then you don't need such a large battery because you will need less range.  Having a small battery is more efficient because it will reduce weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can you design a taxi rank that would enable taxi drivers to charge their vehicles at the same time as waiting for a fare?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9660/how-to-prevent-pollution-caused-by-a-taxi-rank-is-there-a-solution-to-the-edgi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22421" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9667" RevisionGUID="f3db0c23-2faa-4679-97c2-689f1ee28241" CreationDate="2019-11-17T19:35:25.230" UserId="8041" Text="How to design a taxi rank rank that enables taxi drivers to charge their hybrid vehicles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22422" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9667" RevisionGUID="f3db0c23-2faa-4679-97c2-689f1ee28241" CreationDate="2019-11-17T19:35:25.230" UserId="8041" Text="|transport|cars|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9666" RevisionGUID="f37a46f6-26b4-4047-acef-bba3766a2ef8" CreationDate="2019-11-17T19:43:44.150" UserId="8041" Comment="added 565 characters in body" Text="What you could do is have a specially marked box that has the space for say 7 cars and instructions as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. if box is completely clear drive forwards onto it.&#xD;&#xA; 2. if a space becomes available do not move forwads (unless space is completely clear or the box is filling up from empty)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 - all 7 spaces are empty&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; _  _  _  _  _  _  _     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 - so the cars move forward until the box is full&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695;     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 - a car at the front leaves because a pickup place by the station becomes available.  The cars behind the box stay where they are&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; _  &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695;     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 - more cars leave the box to pick up passengers.  The cars behind the box continue to stay where they are&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; _  _  _  &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695;     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5 - all spaces become empty again so we go back to step 1.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; _  _  _  _  _  _  _     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this would reduce the edging forward behaviour which is poor in terms of fuel economy and pollution.  With reducing the eding forward behaviour it will also give the taxi drivers more of an opportunity to switch off their engines and idle less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;n.b. I did consider having a traffic light that could change every 2-3 minutes.  The problem with this is that it will not respond to the amount of clients.  For example if you had one passenger every 4 minutes, with a traffic light system, you would still get the edging forward behaviour and associated pollution costs.  Also if a very busy train came in then it may not move forward quickly enough.  Possibly this could work if you had a sensor linked to the traffic light that would identify how much space was available ahead and change colour in response." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9668" RevisionGUID="9c5109a1-7987-4ec1-9349-2cda9641ecaf" CreationDate="2019-11-18T08:25:24.567" UserId="8145" Text="I would suggest baking soda. It is very effective against ants, cheap and available in the supermarket. Just put some on the areas that frequented by the ants and if you can locate the points they enter your house and put some there. A chemical reaction I can't describe right now will kill the ants when they eat the powder. I had the same problem with my pot plants which ants used as a nesting location and got rid of them with baking soda. Keep in mind that ants are protected species in some areas so I would be careful before you use it on the nest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22425" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9666" RevisionGUID="fa1d3cbd-b6c1-4cf6-9b5e-2095b3f7436c" CreationDate="2019-11-18T08:54:52.057" UserId="8041" Comment="added 249 characters in body" Text="What you could do is have a specially marked box that has the space for say 7 cars and instructions as follows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. if box is completely clear drive forwards onto it.&#xD;&#xA; 2. if a space becomes available do not move forwads (unless space is completely clear or the box is filling up from empty)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 - all 7 spaces are empty&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; _  _  _  _  _  _  _     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2 - so the cars move forward until the box is full&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695;     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 - a car at the front leaves because a pickup place by the station becomes available.  The cars behind the box stay where they are&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; _  &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695;     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4 - more cars leave the box to pick up passengers.  The cars behind the box continue to stay where they are&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; _  _  _  &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695;     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5 - all spaces become empty again so we go back to step 1.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F695; &amp;#x1F6D1; _  _  _  _  _  _  _     &amp;#x1F687;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this would reduce the edging forward behaviour which is poor in terms of fuel economy and pollution.  With reducing the eding forward behaviour it will also give the taxi drivers more of an opportunity to switch off their engines and idle less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;n.b. I did consider having a traffic light that could change every 2-3 minutes.  The problem with this is that it will not respond to the amount of clients.  For example if you had one passenger every 4 minutes, with a traffic light system, you would still get the edging forward behaviour and associated pollution costs.  Also if a very busy train came in then it may not move forward quickly enough.  Possibly this could work if you had a sensor linked to the traffic light that would identify how much space was available ahead and change colour in response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;n.b. 2 - you could automate this further by having a barrier for the stop sign, and a sensor at the beginning of the box for 7 cars.  Once 7 cars are sensed to have passed through the box, we open the barrier and let another 7 fill up the space." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9635" RevisionGUID="1f9dd8c7-57e1-423a-82e2-759fac5f47f2" CreationDate="2019-11-18T09:24:07.083" UserId="60" Comment="Corrected punctuation &amp; spelling" Text="Costs and consumers shopping for low prices. Most &quot;stuff&quot; is made in massive quantities in factories where process and other types of engineers have refined the steps to produce an item. Each person on the floor needs to know only one small bit of the operation. Alternatively, to repair something, a capable service man needs to know all aspects of the item. Such knowledgeable service people are expensive to train, equip and require relatively high pay. So repairs cost more than manufacture of a new item generally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9669" RevisionGUID="07239ff8-7eaa-4691-b842-83b299782dd2" CreationDate="2019-11-18T09:40:45.597" UserId="8041" Text="You could have a number of electric charging booths dedicated to taxis which consist of a parking space and an electrical charging point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We allow a maximum of 3 taxis to wait directly outside the station in the 'pick up area', this is the only area where customers are allowed to enter a taxi.  The remainder of the taxis must wait in the parking spot where they are free to charge their vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two barriers, one at the entrance of the primary rank and one at the exit record how many taxis are inside the pickup area.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a taxi driver parks in a charging booth they press a button to tell the system they are waiting for the next available space in the pickup area.  When a space in the pickup area becomes available a sign on the electrical charging point instructs the taxi driver who has been waiting longest (first in queue) to proceed to the pickup area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1    2    3    4    5&#xD;&#xA;               &#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   -   -   -   -   -     ⛩️              ⛩️&#xD;&#xA;_____________________         pick up area&#xD;&#xA;              &#xD;&#xA;6    7    8    9    10&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this provides a mechanism for taxis to charge their vehicles for the maximum duration they will be waiting, it will also regulate the order in which the taxis pick up passengers.  It will also provide a mechanism for taxi drivers that do not have electric vehicles to queue without idling and without the 'edging forward' that results in additional pollution and fuel costs as described in the other post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22428" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9667" RevisionGUID="02358a63-d84d-436a-bb60-1da617c1acfa" CreationDate="2019-11-18T10:03:38.567" UserId="8041" Comment="added 97 characters in body; edited title" Text="This [post][1] deals with the design of a taxi rank and how to reduce the pollution created by idling and edging foroward.  A few answers suggested that making the taxis switch to hybrids, or even better electric vehicles, would help the whole situation! (a smart bunch :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If taxi drivers were able to charge their electric vehicles whilst they waited in line for a fare this would be a great incentive for them to go electric.  If you can regularly charge your EV then you don't need such a large battery because you will need less range.  Having a small battery is more efficient because it will reduce weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can you design a taxi rank that would enable taxi drivers to charge their vehicles at the same time as waiting for a fare?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(I would be interested to know if this has been implemented somewhere in the world already)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9660/how-to-prevent-pollution-caused-by-a-taxi-rank-is-there-a-solution-to-the-edgi" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22429" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9667" RevisionGUID="02358a63-d84d-436a-bb60-1da617c1acfa" CreationDate="2019-11-18T10:03:38.567" UserId="8041" Comment="added 97 characters in body; edited title" Text="How do you design a taxi rank rank that enables taxi drivers to charge their hybrid vehicles whilst waiting for fares?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9669" RevisionGUID="07f3d82a-fd14-4124-b832-47d3d7e16d0d" CreationDate="2019-11-18T10:44:38.390" UserId="8041" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="You could have a number of electric charging booths dedicated to taxis which consist of a parking space and an electrical charging point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We allow a maximum of 3 taxis to wait directly outside the station in the 'pick up area', this is the only area where customers are allowed to enter a taxi.  The remainder of the taxis must wait in the parking spot where they are free to charge their vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two barriers, one at the entrance of the primary rank and one at the exit record how many taxis are inside the pickup area.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a taxi driver parks in a charging booth they press a button to tell the system they are waiting for the next available space in the pickup area.  When a space in the pickup area becomes available a sign on the electrical charging point instructs the taxi driver who has been waiting longest (first in queue) to proceed to the pickup area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4    *    1    5    2&#xD;&#xA;               &#xD;&#xA;_____________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-   -   -   -   -   -     ⛩️              ⛩️&#xD;&#xA;_____________________         pick up area&#xD;&#xA;              &#xD;&#xA;*    *    6    3    *&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;as a space becomes available a taxi leaves its charging spot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3    *    *    4    1&#xD;&#xA;        ↓        &#xD;&#xA;__________↓_________&#xD;&#xA;          ↘&#xD;&#xA;-   -   -   → → → → → → ⛩️     *          ⛩️&#xD;&#xA;_____________________         pick up area&#xD;&#xA;               &#xD;&#xA;*    *    5    2    *&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this provides a mechanism for taxis to charge their vehicles for the maximum duration they will be waiting, it will also regulate the order in which the taxis pick up passengers.  It will also provide a mechanism for taxi drivers that do not have electric vehicles to queue without idling and without the 'edging forward' that results in additional pollution and fuel costs as described in the other post." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22431" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9667" RevisionGUID="dc6f42eb-e9a8-4896-9db8-e02eda60f750" CreationDate="2019-11-18T10:45:23.567" UserId="8041" Comment="edited title" Text="How do you design a taxi rank rank that enables taxi drivers to charge their electric vehicles whilst waiting for fares?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9670" RevisionGUID="9ab02e82-cc6d-4a2a-ab6c-e52d78c29af2" CreationDate="2019-11-18T10:47:59.607" UserId="6837" Text="The answer to your question is too frightening to consider. If everyone on Earth had the same carbon footprint as the average American, then it would be all over by now. We would be extinct and humanity would no longer be producing any greenhouse gasses at all, unless you count those emitted by our smoldering corpses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest thing to the formula you are looking for is nowhere near as simple as you want it to be. It's a series of very complex models that try to take into account the feedback that each subsystem has on the enitire biosphere. It's a loop that spins out of control called &quot;The Runaway Greenhouse Effect&quot; and it's what puts us at risk of turning Earth into something like what Venus looks  like now.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a great website that allows you to adjust every conceivable factor that has been considered in that formula. Go to tool.globalcalculator.org and create your own pathway to our destruction (or salvation) by adjusting levers for lifestyle, technology, food, land use, costs as a percentage of GDP, etc. and you can set each thing to whatever you want, from minimal abatement to extremely ambitious.  When you are done you can compare your pathway to many others, from The Vegan Society to the World Nuclear Association.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you get too carried away, the temperatures will run right off the chart to a level that can't be calculated by current models. You will also run into other constraints, such as there not being enough land in the whole world to do what you propose. It's great fun, and it's a lot more interesting than a simple formula.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9671" RevisionGUID="ad66d067-b7e0-466e-93ed-4823be758d56" CreationDate="2019-11-18T14:08:03.833" UserId="8149" Text="I developed a simple strategy suitable for living in a flat that is not on the top floor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. When you wake up, close all windows and put the blindfolds down. This allows to prevent sun rays and hot air for getting in. If you can install some cover on outside of the windows, that would be way better. Aluminium foil would be best but it's ugly.&#xD;&#xA; 2. When you come back from work, open all windows once (if) it gets cold outside. I used inside/outside thermometer. Once I saw the outside temperature is lower than inside, I'd open all windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effect is not awesome, but I could assure up to 5 degrees Celsius difference between outside (in shadow) temperature and inside. And it's really not much work and has zero money investment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as cooling oneself, when it was at it's worst, I'd take a cold shower. I really hate cold water, so I'd do it only when it was really bad, but if you're more tolerant to it than I am, this is something I'd recommend. The effect is profound and can last up to an hour, which can be just enough to survive the works wave of heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9671" RevisionGUID="62d2209a-ff62-412e-8141-8974bbf01009" CreationDate="2019-11-18T14:13:51.657" UserId="8149" Comment="edited body" Text="I developed a simple strategy suitable for living in a flat that is not on the top floor:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. When you wake up, close all windows and put the blindfolds down. This allows to prevent sun rays and hot air for getting in. If you can install some cover on outside of the windows, that would be way better. Aluminium foil would be best but it's ugly.&#xD;&#xA; 2. When you come back from work, open all windows once (if) it gets cold outside. I used inside/outside thermometer. Once I saw the outside temperature is lower than inside, I'd open all windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The effect is not awesome, but I could assure up to 5 degrees Celsius difference between outside (in shadow) temperature and inside. And it's really not much work and has zero money investment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as cooling oneself, when it was at it's worst, I'd take a cold shower. I really hate cold water, so I'd do it only when it was really bad, but if you're more tolerant to it than I am, this is something I'd recommend. The effect is profound and can last up to an hour, which can be just enough to survive the worst wave of heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9672" RevisionGUID="a3f55386-dcca-4cbf-8ce8-23382d979065" CreationDate="2019-11-18T14:39:43.663" UserId="8149" Text="Lobbying for legislation is the best way. Barring a few conscious ones, producers are generally interested in money, and with such a huge population and market, they will always find customers who do not care about environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, once a legislation is in place that protects the environment, they have no option than to follow it or get fined (=lose a lot of money). Even the customers who are not concerned about environment benefit in the end. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example EU's push for right-to-repair will benefit many older crafty tech-savvy folk who are notoriously not concerned about climate change, but will be happy to get their hands on products that can be repaired, just as they remember from the old days." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9673" RevisionGUID="333eaee5-8dbd-4a67-8b24-a3f6a2a9c9d6" CreationDate="2019-11-18T20:09:56.597" UserId="6837" Text="Your numbers seem sound and well thought out, and they help demonstrate how simple personal choices in diet can make a huge difference in our individual impact on the environment.  I would argue that the term &quot;bad for the environment&quot; describes a very different question that seldom seems to be as well thought out as the numbers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine what would happen to our personal choices if we could only choose from options that were good for the environment, either in the limited scope of your calculations, or in a more comprehensive evaluation of the true global impacts. Could meat and cheese still be something we consume? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer this, we have to look at how animals (including humans) can be beneficial in a way that reverses the impact. In other words, we could turn the problem into a solution. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Dairy cows would still produce calves, most of which would be eaten at a tender age (pun not intended) and a lot of methane would be collected as fuel. Feedlots and grain production would be profoundly altered if they would continue to exist at all. You would pet the cow and the calf far more frequently than you currently stroke your meat (pun not intended) and these creatures would be local enough to be consdered your close neighbors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These animals would graze more than they do now. They would trim your hedge and cut your grass. They would be workers in the sense that they do something you want instead of doing something that destroys you. Our consumption of meat and cheese products would be significantly reduced, but whoever refuses to eat them at all would benefit financially from those less inclined to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hate to think about how heavy handed we would have to be in order to impose such restrictions on our lifestyle en mass. The world might resemble some strange dystopia with genetically engineered humans being grazed and milked for cheese products, and &quot;Soylent Green&quot; remakes would be a hit at the box office. Nevertheless, limiting our choices may very well be something that is optional now, but it is likely to be less optional in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is going to take over soon and we won't have to worry about this at all anymore. It won't be our responsibility. The magnitude of the restrictions that will be forced upon us is inversely proportionate to the integrity of the choices we are currently free to make. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9674" RevisionGUID="e00e47c2-ad85-4042-8480-083367c0f945" CreationDate="2019-11-18T20:19:13.810" UserId="8170" Text="I am looking for some examples of cities or regions that initially suffered from poor economy, unemployment, pollution or any environmental problems, but they turned to green technology and envoremtnal friendly businesses that lead to job creations and turn around in that region. I need these examples to make them into projects for some middle schoolers. The examples need to be from real life and concrete so the student can do their own research and in the process learn how to think differently and apply it to other cases. I appreciate any help." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9674" RevisionGUID="e00e47c2-ad85-4042-8480-083367c0f945" CreationDate="2019-11-18T20:19:13.810" UserId="8170" Text="The case study of a city or region with poor economy and environmental pollution that turned to green economy and prospered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9674" RevisionGUID="e00e47c2-ad85-4042-8480-083367c0f945" CreationDate="2019-11-18T20:19:13.810" UserId="8170" Text="|environmental-impact|food|waste|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9675" RevisionGUID="aab48a9e-c76b-4dd6-9e65-d611a8a2418c" CreationDate="2019-11-18T20:33:23.133" UserId="8170" Text="I am looking for an example or a case with arguments that would justify converting cattle ranches into plant farms (e.g., wheat, apple, or anything non-meat). The advantages should be in a more sustainable eco-friendly economy including more jobs and less pollution. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22441" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9675" RevisionGUID="aab48a9e-c76b-4dd6-9e65-d611a8a2418c" CreationDate="2019-11-18T20:33:23.133" UserId="8170" Text="Is there any case where plant farming is more eco friendly than raising livestock?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22442" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9675" RevisionGUID="aab48a9e-c76b-4dd6-9e65-d611a8a2418c" CreationDate="2019-11-18T20:33:23.133" UserId="8170" Text="|environmental-impact|food|energy-efficiency|carbon-footprint|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9673" RevisionGUID="06afa0fa-224d-4af5-9fb8-80dd50c74713" CreationDate="2019-11-18T22:07:10.943" UserId="6837" Comment="Added the last two paragraphs to provide a clear example." Text="Your numbers seem sound and well thought out, and they help demonstrate how simple personal choices in diet can make a huge difference in our individual impact on the environment.  I would argue that the term &quot;bad for the environment&quot; describes a very different question that seldom seems to be as well thought out as the numbers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine what would happen to our personal choices if we could only choose from options that were good for the environment, either in the limited scope of your calculations, or in a more comprehensive evaluation of the true global impacts. Could meat and cheese still be something we consume? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer this, we have to look at how animals (including humans) can be beneficial in a way that reverses the impact. In other words, we could turn the problem into a solution. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;Dairy cows would still produce calves, most of which would be eaten at a tender age (pun not intended) and a lot of methane would be collected as fuel. Feedlots and grain production would be profoundly altered if they would continue to exist at all. You would pet the cow and the calf far more frequently than you currently stroke your meat (pun not intended) and these creatures would be local enough to be consdered your close neighbors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These animals would graze more than they do now. They would trim your hedge and cut your grass. They would be workers in the sense that they do something you want instead of doing something that destroys you. Our consumption of meat and cheese products would be significantly reduced, but whoever refuses to eat them at all would benefit financially from those less inclined to do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hate to think about how heavy handed we would have to be in order to impose such restrictions on our lifestyle en mass. The world might resemble some strange dystopia with genetically engineered humans being grazed and milked for cheese products, and &quot;Soylent Green&quot; remakes would be a hit at the box office. Nevertheless, limiting our choices may very well be something that is optional now, but it is likely to be less optional in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is going to take over soon and we won't have to worry about this at all anymore. It won't be our responsibility. The magnitude of the restrictions that will be forced upon us is inversely proportionate to the integrity of the choices we are currently free to make. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now consider a practical approach with a real life example.   There are several dozen conventional fast food and grocery outlets near my city garden.  The majority of people living within a mile are nearer to me than they are to any of those outlets.  If they get hungry, as many people do, they can harvest a fresh meal from my yard. However, to get free, local, sustainable, positive impact nutrition from me, they must pick only that which needs to be picked in a manner that improves my yard. They must treat my plants as I treat them, with individual attention and concern about how every square inch of sunlight and soil is utilized for maximum contribution to the whole.  If they were to do so, I would have enough free time to install a similar system in their own back yard, and I would gladly do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I graze as I'm watering.  I pick leaves for myself and the hens that are damaged by insects. This makes it easy for me to use the insects as well because I feed them to the hens, but I couldn't be sustainable without animals being carefully integrated. Even if the only animal is me,  that animal has to be integrated.  Larger animals for larger plots is entirely workable, and it's important to realize that they can be “good” for they environment and not necessarily “bad” as is assumed by your question.  In such an environment, meat and dairy would be an evil waste product if it were not consumed, but a cow would still be contributing much more than a human could, as long as the environment is appropriate to the beast and not the other way around. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9674" RevisionGUID="5c6e409d-7bae-4022-9008-990b34ea4507" CreationDate="2019-11-18T22:19:44.040" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I am looking for some examples of cities or regions that initially suffered from poor economy, unemployment, pollution or any environmental problems, but they turned to green technology and environmental friendly businesses that lead to job creations and turn around in that region. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I need these examples to make them into projects for some middle schoolers. The examples need to be from real life and concrete so the student can do their own research and in the process learn how to think differently and apply it to other cases." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22445" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9674" RevisionGUID="5c6e409d-7bae-4022-9008-990b34ea4507" CreationDate="2019-11-18T22:19:44.040" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Examples of a city or region with poor economy and environmental pollution that turned to green economy and prospered" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22446" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9674" RevisionGUID="5c6e409d-7bae-4022-9008-990b34ea4507" CreationDate="2019-11-18T22:19:44.040" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|pollution|economy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22447" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="c276ea79-0194-4861-97cd-0e7eb96feac7" CreationDate="2019-11-19T00:01:20.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9676" RevisionGUID="83193930-fa5b-46c7-b4d3-256d96e651f7" CreationDate="2019-11-19T00:58:21.760" UserId="1056" Text="If every citizen in the world had an average carbon footprint of **16.1 Mg** (1 Mg = 1 metric ton) per year, the global average temperature would likely rise more than **6.0º C** by 2050.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are some important caveats to this answer which I will detail below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### *Per capita* vs. Globalization&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question you stated might be slightly different from the question you intended to ask.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quantified emissions per capita of American citizens may under-represent the emissions associated with American lifestyle if America is buying things made in other countries. For example, if a car is manufactured in Taiwan but used in America, then the emissions associated with production will be counted in Taiwan, and not counted as part of the _per capita_ emissions of the American citizen. Globalization and cross-border trade makes it quite difficult to assess the &quot;true&quot; environmental impact of products. For further reading, look up *scope 3 emissions* or *product lifecycle analysis*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To simplify this question, I'll just go with Wikipedia's number of 16.1 metric tones per person, per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Which atmospheric gases&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For simplicity, I'm only going to consider carbon dioxide (CO2) and not other greenhouse gases like methane (CH4). I would also note that in asking this question, it's important to be careful about the difference in mass of elemental carbon vs carbon dioxide. [One ton of carbon equals 3.67 tons of carbon dioxide.](https://thinkprogress.org/the-biggest-source-of-mistakes-c-vs-co2-c0b077313b/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The time dimension&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Global average temperature does not change instantly in response to changes of atmospheric composition. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causes more radiative forcing (heat), which over time causes the slow accumulation of thermal energy. So the temperature at some point in the future could be very different depending on when emissions levels changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some scenarios of inquiry might ask what the temperature would be like if that shift had happened in the past, or if it happened gradually over a period of decades. For simplicity, I'm going to assume that global emissions suddenly jump up to a much higher level starting next year and stay at that level until 2050.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Climate sensitivity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the largest, most difficult part of the whole question. How much *will* global surface temperature change as a result of changing composition of the atmosphere? This is a fertile area for ongoing science and there is plenty of nuance. For example...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, at concentrations up to around eight times the current value, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's just talking about concentration of trace gases in air, without even getting to other challenging questions like oceans and soils as carbon sinks. Those other factors mean there isn't an even linear relationship between emissions and atmospheric concentration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to keep this answer short here's a very rough benchmark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bring it all together&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Average *per capita* emissions of CO2 [on a global basis](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pc) are 4.981 metric tons; for the United States it would be 16.1 metric tons. Current global emissions of CO2 are around 37 Gt per year, which would change to about **120 Gt per year** if everyone in the world had an average carbon footprint like an American.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a first order estimate and sanity check, I turned some knobs in [The Global Calculator](http://tool.globalcalculator.org/globcalc.html?levers=111111111111111111111111111111111113p33112111113n2211111111/dashboard/en) and was able to produce a scenario that forecast global GHG emissions of more than 120 Gt per year. This produced a warning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The top of the possible temperature range exceeds 6º C and you are at risk of triggering feedbacks and impacts not represented well in climate models. The IPCC does not assess a high/low temperature range at this extreme level of emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looks like we'll have to fall back on our very rough ballpark estimates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Atmospheric CO2 levels are expressed in parts per million by volume (ppm). To convert from ppm to gigatonne of carbon, the conversion tables of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center advise that 1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if we emit 120 Gt CO2 each year and all of it ended up in the atmosphere, that would raise atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 56 ppm each year. Over 30 years, that's a delta of 1680 ppm. The current concentration of CO2 is about 400 ppm, and the 2050 concentration would be 2080. That's a bit more than two doublings, so we would probably be looking at 6-7º C of surface warming in 2050 relative to current day, or 7-8º C of surface warming in 2050 relative to the usual baselines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9677" RevisionGUID="6ae07a1d-419f-4e18-bb4a-ad46d5074a07" CreationDate="2019-11-19T06:48:56.610" UserId="8041" Text="A fairly inexpensive and simple automated system could be this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;when sensor2 counts 7 cars pass into the pickup area the gate opens and 7 more cars pass through before the gate closes (counted by sensor1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                                      |  |    &#xD;&#xA;             gate                     |  |   station&#xD;&#xA;____________closed____________sensor2_|  ↗ |  and&#xD;&#xA;     ⛩️  - - - - - - - - ⁞  |pickup&#xD;&#xA;‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾sensor1 ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾|    |  area&#xD;&#xA;                                      |  |  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;7 cars are counted to have passed through sensor2, so the gate opens&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;            gate                      |    |    &#xD;&#xA;            open                      |  |   station&#xD;&#xA;_____________⛩️_______________sensor2_|    |  and&#xD;&#xA;    → → → → → - - - - - -  ⁞     |pickup&#xD;&#xA;‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾sensor1 ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾|    |  area&#xD;&#xA;                                      |  |  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;as 7 more cars pass through the gate the gate closes&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;                                      |  |    &#xD;&#xA;             gate                     |  |   station&#xD;&#xA;____________closed____________sensor2_|    |  and&#xD;&#xA;     ⛩️  - -    ⁞  → → | pickup&#xD;&#xA;‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾sensor1 ‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾‾|    |  area&#xD;&#xA;                                      |    |  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22450" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9660" RevisionGUID="562f2a48-733d-4470-984e-e0ce8073153d" CreationDate="2019-11-19T09:00:04.907" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1196714750454960128" />
  <row Id="22451" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9678" RevisionGUID="92fce31a-1e1f-4868-b8e2-1dd13283fc68" CreationDate="2019-11-19T10:37:00.467" UserId="6293" Text="Sorghum can be grown without irrigation in areas of 25&quot; of annual rainfall. Also, sorghum requires less fertilizer than corn. Then sorghum can be processed into carbon-neutral ethanol but the sorghum must be within 10 miles or so of a processing plant for that result to be true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course an independent farm, not near processing plants, could make syrup or be a distillery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22452" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="115" RevisionGUID="98094f9a-f5fa-4889-a2cc-84b2967bd06e" CreationDate="2019-11-19T12:00:36.897" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1196760182761672704" />
  <row Id="22454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9679" RevisionGUID="5ef6e5e9-2d1d-445a-981e-e09e2ead8b1e" CreationDate="2019-11-19T14:28:20.343" UserId="4155" Text="A variant of the system suggested by @LShaver, would be to use the numbered ticket system sometimes found in supermarket deli counters. Each arriving taxi takes a sequentially numbered ticket (which could easily be electronic using an app of some kind), and parks up in a parking area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When a passenger arrives, they press a button, and the next number is called, and the taxi with that number then pulls up to the pick up area to collect the passenger. The button-pushing could alternatively be done automatically by a sensor noting the previous taxi leaving, so that the passengers don't have to do anything, or wait.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g. A taxi arrives and gets ticket 31. They see that number 25 is displayed, so they know that there are 5 taxis ahead of them, and that taxi 25 is waiting at the pick up area. A passenger arrives, and 25 takes them and goes - 26 is displayed, and the taxi with that number goes up to the pick-up area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a busy area, you could have the same system for passengers - they too take a ticket, with the same number on it, so the passenger with ticket 23 gets the taxi with ticket 23...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another variant could use a camera to read the licence number of each taxi as it enters the holding area, and use that instead of issuing a ticket." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22455" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9680" RevisionGUID="2d022e4b-c1d5-46e6-975c-250a5e57462c" CreationDate="2019-11-19T15:46:39.907" UserId="8172" Text="I have an array consisting of ten solar panels wired in series as shown in the figure below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My problem is that during some winter months (Oct - Dec maybe), in the afternoon, the sun is so low that the shadow of a building to the south will reach my roof. This means that there is a time interval during the day when the lower lane of panels will be shaded while the top will face the sun, as shown in the figure below. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: **Do I need to install additional bypass diodes to keep the lower panels from degrading? If so do I add one to each panel or just a single diode parallel the five lower panels?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that the panels already have bypass diodes in their junction box, but I am not sure whether they are rated high enough for this arrangement. The panels are LG Mono X 300 Watt panels. The open circuit voltage of the entire string is around 330 Volts when the entire array is unshaded and the operating voltage of the whole string is above 120 Volts when it is partially shaded as in the figure above. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4j4vq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xh4l7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9680" RevisionGUID="2d022e4b-c1d5-46e6-975c-250a5e57462c" CreationDate="2019-11-19T15:46:39.907" UserId="8172" Text="Must I install bypass diodes across my solar panels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9680" RevisionGUID="2d022e4b-c1d5-46e6-975c-250a5e57462c" CreationDate="2019-11-19T15:46:39.907" UserId="8172" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9681" RevisionGUID="40e82678-d382-48da-a6df-e9571b63d946" CreationDate="2019-11-19T22:11:00.883" UserId="8173" Text="While installing panels over parking lots may be more in line with sustainability goals, it is simply not the most practical solution. Those opposed to solar panels, because unfortunately plenty of people are, have less issue with them if they’re away from their homes in some field. Having them in the obvious public with parking lot solar panels could get these people more upset, as they’ll be turned off by the everyday sight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main issue, though, is the cost. The future may have more room for these types of systems, but currently, it is just too expensive to become a reality because of how it requires the use of more steel. The prohibitive cost of parking lot solar panels makes large expanses, meaning acres, of land more appealing to companies, as the solar energy business is still about profits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an unfortunate situation that this land may sometimes be forest and the [trees must be cut down to clear space for solar panels][1]. There is certainly more than one example of this happening, and it makes sense to want to fight back against it. What’s the point of installing solar panels if they you have to destroy the forest to make it happen? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, because it’s honestly still worth it.Solar energy production does a lot more to offset climate change than the trees that some of these utility-scale solar projects may replace. While we should care about our forests, utility-scale solar is one of the best ways we have to increase the use of renewable energy. And we don’t have to worry about it taking away all our trees. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greenfield development doesn’t even have to involve cutting down trees. Companies will often use land that is already flat and cleared, like vacant farmland and unused fields.These are the only requirements that [one solar energy company, 7X Energy, specifies in their FAQ][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also mentioned here is how they actually plant native grasses in the sight after development is complete. I’m not sure where the idea that grass is removed for the sake of solar energy came from. Solar energy production is pretty much always harmless to grass. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gazettenet.com/which-to-choose-forests-or-solar-20732082&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://7x.energy/landowners/frequently-asked-questions/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22459" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9682" RevisionGUID="4091a819-fe8a-4dbe-976a-a4f15d4a4b1d" CreationDate="2019-11-19T22:32:48.097" UserId="6293" Text="Parking lots can have trees because the tree canopy grows above the cars. Asphalt parking lots can get dangerously hot in hot climates. Trees will keep the parking lot cool in hot weather because of shade and because of water evaporating from the leaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar panels could shade the parking lot with artificial shade but the structure for the solar panels would be expensive. Also, the parking lot could be an electromagnetic field with solar panels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9683" RevisionGUID="cd250b93-e732-48ff-8938-d1bc52d4596d" CreationDate="2019-11-20T02:00:40.633" UserId="8174" Text="Once we will realize that we, as consumers, already pay all the costs of production,  and even more when we pay profit, we will organize to buy and own the means of production for the bizarre  reason that we simply need the results of that production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At that point, there will be no more begging and no more groveling and no more reason to ask anyone for we will finally regain control of production and can then ignore the rentiers who have subjugated us for far too long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22461" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6140" RevisionGUID="b892a114-5da7-4487-ae19-e36e6dbaf61c" CreationDate="2019-11-20T12:56:54.367" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo, removed ebay reference" Text="Not all developed countries are phasing out 2G. Here in The Netherlands for example several major providers still support 2G and say that they will continue to support it for the coming years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could try and sell your phones online, but shipping to the nearest country that still has 2G may cost quite a bit and also has a footprint of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not aware of any program that sends 2G phones collectively to other countries, but you could reuse (one of) the phones yourself as a watch/alarm clock. Your 2G phone may even be more energy efficient than a regular alarm clock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If these reuse options don't work for you, consider donating the phones to a good cause that recycles them. Some good causes collect old and broken mobile phones because they get money for it from recyclers. I did a quick Google search and found one Australian organization called [PhoneCycle](https://www.phonecycle.com.au/donatephones). They will assess the value of your phone and send this money to a charity of your choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9684" RevisionGUID="f897fc73-d055-4fac-8942-fa12d6ee5d9c" CreationDate="2019-11-20T14:36:50.720" UserId="5493" Text="Currently, hairdressers around the world throw away tonnes of human hairs after they have given someone a new hairstyle. I know people sometimes donate their hair, which can be used to create wigs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder whether there are other new or unexpected ways hairs could be recycled or upcycled to create new products. Perhaps it can be dissolved and useful substances or molecules can be gathered. If so, could you point me towards some (research) articles or books that show how the hairs are used, and how they are processed? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9684" RevisionGUID="f897fc73-d055-4fac-8942-fa12d6ee5d9c" CreationDate="2019-11-20T14:36:50.720" UserId="5493" Text="In what unexpected ways could human hairs be recycled or upcycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9684" RevisionGUID="f897fc73-d055-4fac-8942-fa12d6ee5d9c" CreationDate="2019-11-20T14:36:50.720" UserId="5493" Text="|recycling|materials|biomass|durability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22465" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9684" RevisionGUID="97ba1cca-b7d4-4b4a-b4c0-c49cf6116316" CreationDate="2019-11-20T14:45:03.670" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|materials|personal-hygiene|biomass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9685" RevisionGUID="32da2e79-dea4-4f23-8d24-f394d82f29fa" CreationDate="2019-11-20T15:57:52.420" UserId="5477" Text="I have found it good to deter rabbits from eating shrubbery/gardens, sprinkled on the ground. You don't need much as it lasts a long time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9686" RevisionGUID="b0a1532f-da47-4c9a-8062-453597504bd6" CreationDate="2019-11-20T21:17:05.810" UserId="6293" Text="If the consumer would stop buying water and soft-drinks in plastic bottles then other containers would be developed. For instance beer is available in aluminum bottles with twist on-and-off caps. And beer is available in glass bottles with twist on-and-off caps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then other foods would follow away from plastic food containers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9686" RevisionGUID="70e48950-63f8-4ed5-b8aa-3096e067c3aa" CreationDate="2019-11-20T21:44:13.350" UserId="6293" Comment="added 564 characters in body" Text="If the consumer would stop buying water and soft-drinks in plastic bottles then other containers would be developed. For instance beer is available in aluminum bottles with twist on-and-off caps. And beer is available in glass bottles with twist on-and-off caps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then other foods would follow away from plastic food containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The future for refrigerated food is probably paper food containers with a biodegradable plastic film inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of plastic is not recycled because a truckload of plastic bottles is not very valuable. The plastic's light weight is an indicator of the low recycling value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A truckload of crushed glass is a lot of material to recycle but the glass was heavy to ship in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And compacted aluminum cans makes a good recycling truckload because metal is expensive. The more expensive the food container is then the more valuable it is in recycling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9686" RevisionGUID="a5ecf01d-8acf-46dd-90bd-000893f9f8b7" CreationDate="2019-11-20T21:54:00.970" UserId="6293" Comment="added 564 characters in body" Text="If the consumer would stop buying water and soft-drinks in plastic bottles then other containers would be developed. For instance beer is available in aluminum bottles with twist on-and-off caps. And beer is available in glass bottles with twist on-and-off caps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then other foods would follow away from plastic food containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of plastic is not recycled because a truckload of plastic bottles is not very valuable. The plastic's light weight is an indicator of the low recycling value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A truckload of crushed glass is a lot of material to recycle but the glass was heavy to ship in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And compacted aluminum cans makes a good recycling truckload because metal is expensive. The more expensive the food container is then the more valuable it is in recycling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22470" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9686" RevisionGUID="0d510dcc-6e50-4b5f-9ea4-c871289921bc" CreationDate="2019-11-20T22:03:35.417" UserId="6293" Comment="added 237 characters in body" Text="If the consumer would stop buying water and soft-drinks in plastic bottles then other containers would be developed. For instance beer is available in aluminum bottles with twist on-and-off caps. And beer is available in glass bottles with twist on-and-off caps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then other foods would follow away from plastic food containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current juice-boxes are multi-layered cardboard but including polyethylene. The future could be paper containers with biodegradable plastic liners. Those biodegradable plastic liners are expected to be developed about the year 2023 !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of plastic is not recycled because a truckload of plastic bottles is not very valuable. The plastic's light weight is an indicator of the low recycling value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A truckload of crushed glass is a lot of material to recycle but the glass was heavy to ship in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And compacted aluminum cans makes a good recycling truckload because metal is expensive. The more expensive the food container is then the more valuable it is in recycling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22471" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9686" RevisionGUID="3a3f3bc1-327c-4cdf-928c-1b04bb0ae65c" CreationDate="2019-11-20T23:15:38.793" UserId="6293" Comment="deleted 30 characters in body" Text="If the consumer would stop buying water and soft-drinks in plastic bottles then other containers would be developed. For instance beer is available in aluminum bottles with twist on-and-off caps. And beer is available in glass bottles with twist on-and-off caps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then other foods would follow away from plastic food containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current juice-boxes are multi-layered cardboard but including polyethylene. The future could be paper containers lined with biodegradable plastic films. Those biodegradable plastic films are expected to be developed about the year 2023 !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of plastic is not recycled because a truckload of plastic bottles is not very valuable because of the air space in the load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A truckload of crushed glass is a lot of material to recycle but the glass was heavy to ship in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And compacted aluminum cans makes a good recycling truckload because metal is expensive. The more expensive the food container is then the more valuable it is in recycling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9686" RevisionGUID="dc42444f-c0de-41c2-bb7b-1dc64b912065" CreationDate="2019-11-20T23:26:48.103" UserId="6293" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="If the consumer would stop buying water and soft-drinks in plastic bottles then other containers would be developed. For instance beer is available in aluminum bottles with twist on-and-off caps. And beer is available in glass bottles with twist on-and-off caps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then other foods would follow away from plastic food containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current juice-boxes are multi-layered cardboard but including polyethylene. The future could be paper containers lined with biodegradable plastic films. Those biodegradable plastic films are expected to be developed about the year 2023 !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of plastic is not recycled because a truckload of plastic bottles is not very valuable due to the air space in the load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A truckload of crushed glass is a lot of material to recycle but the glass was heavy to ship in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And compacted aluminum cans makes a good recycling truckload because metal is expensive. The more expensive the food container is then the more valuable it is in recycling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9686" RevisionGUID="2c758923-b062-40df-8fa5-99ac189b9cfd" CreationDate="2019-11-21T00:38:49.100" UserId="6293" Comment="added 272 characters in body" Text="If the consumer would stop buying water and soft-drinks in plastic bottles then other containers would be developed. For instance beer is available in aluminum bottles with twist on-and-off caps. And beer is available in glass bottles with twist on-and-off caps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then other foods would follow away from plastic food containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current juice-boxes are multi-layered cardboard but including polyethylene. The future could be paper containers lined with biodegradable plastic films. Those biodegradable plastic films are expected to be developed about the year 2023 !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of plastic is not recycled because a truckload of plastic bottles is not very valuable due to the air space in the load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A truckload of crushed glass is a lot of material to recycle but the glass was heavy to ship in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And compacted aluminum cans makes a good recycling truckload because metal is expensive. The more expensive the food container is then the more valuable it is in recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic from sugar instead of from oil is in the news but considered to be expensive. Here is one newer source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170613111639.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the soft-drink makers are featuring recycled plastic and not biodegradable plastic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22474" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9686" RevisionGUID="81291c33-192f-42e5-ae16-889fe9e9802a" CreationDate="2019-11-21T05:28:00.600" UserId="6293" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="Concentrate on a specific issue. For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the consumer would stop buying water and soft-drinks in plastic bottles then other containers would be developed. Well, beer is available in aluminum bottles with twist on-and-off caps. And beer is available in glass bottles with twist on-and-off caps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then other foods would follow away from plastic food containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current juice-boxes are multi-layered cardboard but including polyethylene. The future could be paper containers lined with biodegradable plastic films. Those biodegradable plastic films are expected to be developed about the year 2023 !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of plastic is not recycled because a truckload of plastic bottles is not very valuable due to the air space in the load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A truckload of crushed glass is a lot of material to recycle but the glass was heavy to ship in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And compacted aluminum cans makes a good recycling truckload because metal is expensive. The more expensive the food container is then the more valuable it is in recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic from sugar instead of from oil is in the news but considered to be expensive. Here is one newer source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170613111639.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the soft-drink makers are featuring recycled plastic and not biodegradable plastic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9687" RevisionGUID="9bd4a1c2-5e19-4dc9-9f6e-a61d0b47813b" CreationDate="2019-11-21T08:17:20.330" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="In e.g. China, L-cysteine is produced from human hair (among other things) and used as a dough conditioner (bread 'improver')&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKoi3P84OQU&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or Google for [l-cystine bread improver human hair](https://www.google.com/search?q=l-cystine+bread+improver+human+hair)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9688" RevisionGUID="e575744e-77fd-4349-9ab7-495c358feaf9" CreationDate="2019-11-21T16:11:47.547" UserId="8149" Text="After adding plant matter to vermicompost, it kinda just sits there for a while, attracting fruit flies and growing mould.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be better to try to turn the compost so that the new matter is at the bottom, covered from mould and fruit flies? How to do it without hurting the worms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22478" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9688" RevisionGUID="e575744e-77fd-4349-9ab7-495c358feaf9" CreationDate="2019-11-21T16:11:47.547" UserId="8149" Text="Should I turn vermicompost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22479" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9688" RevisionGUID="e575744e-77fd-4349-9ab7-495c358feaf9" CreationDate="2019-11-21T16:11:47.547" UserId="8149" Text="|vermicomposting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22480" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9587" RevisionGUID="54308304-2172-465f-978c-da47ace27a81" CreationDate="2019-11-22T00:00:45.657" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1197666189234884608" />
  <row Id="22481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9689" RevisionGUID="4343d2e0-f5b5-4c62-a56a-adb7eeb1a233" CreationDate="2019-11-22T00:28:47.713" UserId="1056" Text="Recent [research](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1720-3) has shown that landfills (garbage dumps) can be major emitters of methane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The largest methane emitters in California are a subset of landfills, which exhibit persistent anomalous activity. Methane point-source emissions in California are dominated by landfills (41 per cent), followed by dairies (26 per cent) and the oil and gas sector (26 per cent).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which materials being placed into landfills are likely to be the source of all this methane? I am particularly curious about whether plastic plays much of a role here." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22482" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9689" RevisionGUID="4343d2e0-f5b5-4c62-a56a-adb7eeb1a233" CreationDate="2019-11-22T00:28:47.713" UserId="1056" Text="Which materials dumped into landfills are the largest sources of methane?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22483" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9689" RevisionGUID="4343d2e0-f5b5-4c62-a56a-adb7eeb1a233" CreationDate="2019-11-22T00:28:47.713" UserId="1056" Text="|waste|greenhouse-gas-emissions|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22485" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9691" RevisionGUID="8ed886e1-0b0a-43b9-8340-815b78911d7d" CreationDate="2019-11-22T03:01:16.730" UserId="3379" Text="## The source of methane -- degradable organic carbon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 2006 report by the IPCC, [Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5 -- Waste](https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol5.html), includes six different categories of landfilled waste which contain **degradable organic carbon (DOC)**. Under anaerobic conditions, the DOC in these materials ultimately decomposes into carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). The eight categories are listed below, with the fraction (by weight) of DOC generally in each. Finally, I included the percent of landfill material that each category constitutes in North America (chosen since you reference California in the question -- data for other regions is available [in the spreadsheet tool](https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/IPCC_Waste_Model.xls)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    CATEGORY              % DOC     % LANDFILL COMPOSITION&#xD;&#xA;    -----------           -----     ----------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Food waste            0.15      0.34&#xD;&#xA;    Garden                0.20      0.00&#xD;&#xA;    Paper                 0.40      0.23&#xD;&#xA;    Wood and straw        0.43      0.06&#xD;&#xA;    Natural textiles      0.24      0.04&#xD;&#xA;    Disposable nappies    0.24      0.00&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Some garden waste is included with food waste. Nappies (diapers) have a value of 0 for all regions -- I'm not really sure why they aren't included, or what assumptions are made that allow them to be excluded here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these assumptions, **food waste and paper/cardboard are the largest sources of degradable organic carbon in landfills**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How much of it becomes methane?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of emissions from the decomposition that becomes methane depends on the type of landfill and how it is managed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Waste disposal practices vary in the control, placement of waste and management of the site. The CH4 correction factor (MCF) accounts for the fact that unmanaged SWDS [solid waste disposal sites] produce less CH4 from a given amount of waste than anaerobic managed SWDS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MCF by SWDS types are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![MCF by SWDS assumptions][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a managed, anaerobic landfill, all of the DOC decomposes into methane. This is the &quot;gold standard&quot; in landfills, and in the U.S., the EPA [requires most large landfills to collect this methane](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&amp;SID=9dd547da709a41416ae82bf206af61c9&amp;mc=true&amp;r=SECTION&amp;n=se40.27.258_123), where it is typically burned to produce electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bonus Q: How much food is wasted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assumption is that 34% of what is sent to landfills is food waste. How does this compare to the amount of food produced?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [a 2010 article in Scientific American](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talk-waste-land/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Loss Project, we throw away more than 25 percent—some 25.9 million tons—of all the food we produce for domestic sale and consumption. A 2004 University of Arizona study pegs the figure at closer to 50 percent [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAPok.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9692" RevisionGUID="3d99fb56-65cd-4af0-8c3d-a61342289200" CreationDate="2019-11-22T03:14:11.603" UserId="3379" Text="As of 2018, there were over [341,000 wind turbines](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/08/there-are-over-341000-wind-turbines-on-the-planet-why-they-matter.html) around the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. alone, [a projected one million homes](https://blog.ucsusa.org/laura-wisland/how-many-homes-have-rooftop-solar-644) will have roof-top solar PV by 2020. This does not include commercial or utility buildings, or solar farms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, the World Meteorological Organization currently monitors a paltry [10,000 surface weather stations](https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/what-we-do/observations). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these wind and solar installations are monitoring surface weather conditions in real time. **Could the data that these wind and solar installations collect be used to improve weather forecasting and/or climate modeling?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if it's not the most useful sort of data, it's already being collected, and even if only a few percent of these installations shared their data, the sheer volume makes me think it could be used in some capacity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9692" RevisionGUID="3d99fb56-65cd-4af0-8c3d-a61342289200" CreationDate="2019-11-22T03:14:11.603" UserId="3379" Text="Can data from wind and solar farms be used to improve climate modeling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9692" RevisionGUID="3d99fb56-65cd-4af0-8c3d-a61342289200" CreationDate="2019-11-22T03:14:11.603" UserId="3379" Text="|solar-power|wind-power|global-warming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9649" RevisionGUID="592b6d2e-b27a-467b-84a2-29ff196827c2" CreationDate="2019-11-22T04:54:38.940" UserId="4099" Comment="typos corrected, punctuation" Text="Since 75% of the universe is hydrogen, would it be sustainable to use fuel cell electricity generators? Fossil fuel generators won't last forever, because there is not an endless supply of fossil fuels,​ and solar power is only best when the sun is out. Fuel cell generators can be used any time of the day. So, are fuel cell generators sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22490" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9649" RevisionGUID="592b6d2e-b27a-467b-84a2-29ff196827c2" CreationDate="2019-11-22T04:54:38.940" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 3379, 8076 edit id of 586" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22496" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9684" RevisionGUID="759bc475-00f9-4819-8fc7-ad58d5831a3e" CreationDate="2019-11-22T08:13:51.543" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4683],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:215,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Noel&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1056,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22497" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9688" RevisionGUID="2b5a78b0-09c4-46c7-a038-c0a4b82bc9b3" CreationDate="2019-11-22T12:43:45.857" UserId="8149" Comment="added 238 characters in body" Text="After adding plant matter to vermicompost, it kinda just sits there for a while, attracting fruit flies and growing mould.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be better to try to turn the compost so that the new matter is at the bottom, covered from mould and fruit flies? How to do it without hurting the worms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using [Urbalive vermicomposter][1] which looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.plastia.eu/en/low-worm-farm-urbalive-light-anthracite-29505p&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BS2xW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22498" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9694" RevisionGUID="0f129c3e-c796-418d-8949-964b1b99a95e" CreationDate="2019-11-22T13:10:47.750" UserId="2846" Text="Summarising from the instructions that came with mine (a similar shape) you should add material in layers, first filling the bottom layer and only then moving on to the top.  It's quite easy to add too much, especially at first, and it may be getting too wet.  If used mainly for kitchen scraps it may also end up with too much nitrogen-rich material.  Adding a bit of newspaper can help - maybe a layer on top while things settle down, as it sounds like it's quite new.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first they can be a little slow, and need a bit of compost or similar organic material to help them get started - with mine this was described as being something for the worms to live in until they process the vegetable matter you add.  Mine lives outside; I'm sceptical of the advice saying you can use them properly indoors except in a well-ventilated place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9688" RevisionGUID="1f281a7a-02f6-4d14-8c78-d5390759e005" CreationDate="2019-11-22T14:44:02.723" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="inserted comment answer" Text="After adding plant matter to vermicompost, it kinda just sits there for a while, attracting fruit flies and growing mould.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be better to try to turn the compost so that the new matter is at the bottom, covered from mould and fruit flies? How to do it without hurting the worms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using [Urbalive vermicomposter][1] which looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has two layers, but the second one is empty so far. Maybe I should start using both?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.plastia.eu/en/low-worm-farm-urbalive-light-anthracite-29505p&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BS2xW.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22500" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9695" RevisionGUID="bdabd103-2ff7-4747-ba2d-f527361b236b" CreationDate="2019-11-22T15:19:13.533" UserId="106" Text="This time of year, on my commute home through the forest, I need a bright headlight for me and other humans (and some wildlife) to stay safe.  However, research suggests that night lights kill many insects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Avalon C.S. Owens, Précillia Cochard, Joanna Durrant, Bridgette Farnworth, Elizabeth K. Perkin, Brett Seymour. Light pollution is a driver of insect declines.  In: *Biological Conservation*, [doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108259](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108259)&#xD;&#xA;* [Damian Carrington, Light pollution is key 'bringer of insect apocalypse', in: *The Guardian*, 22 November 2019](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/22/light-pollution-insect-apocalypse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the article in The Guardian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LED lights also offer hope as they can be easily tuned to avoid harmful colours and flicker rates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My headlight is a [Busch + Müller Lumotec IQ Fly Premium Senso Plus LED](http://en.bumm.de/produkte/dynamo-scheinwerfer/lumotec-iq-fly.html).  How can I tell if this LED is (relatively) insect-friendly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably more of an issue for car drivers than for bicyclists, but the question would be relevant for both." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22501" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9695" RevisionGUID="bdabd103-2ff7-4747-ba2d-f527361b236b" CreationDate="2019-11-22T15:19:13.533" UserId="106" Text="How can I tell if my light is insect friendly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22502" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9695" RevisionGUID="bdabd103-2ff7-4747-ba2d-f527361b236b" CreationDate="2019-11-22T15:19:13.533" UserId="106" Text="|light|insects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22503" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9695" RevisionGUID="a29a64c6-010c-4367-8747-0362e3656f84" CreationDate="2019-11-22T15:25:21.097" UserId="106" Comment="added 114 characters in body" Text="This time of year, on my commute home through the forest, I need a bright headlight for me and other humans (and some wildlife) to stay safe.  However, research suggests that night lights kill many insects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Avalon C.S. Owens, Précillia Cochard, Joanna Durrant, Bridgette Farnworth, Elizabeth K. Perkin, Brett Seymour. Light pollution is a driver of insect declines.  In: *Biological Conservation*, [doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108259](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108259)&#xD;&#xA;* [Damian Carrington, Light pollution is key 'bringer of insect apocalypse', in: *The Guardian*, 22 November 2019](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/22/light-pollution-insect-apocalypse)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the article in The Guardian:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LED lights also offer hope as they can be easily tuned to avoid harmful colours and flicker rates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My headlight is a [Busch + Müller Lumotec IQ Fly Premium Senso Plus LED](http://en.bumm.de/produkte/dynamo-scheinwerfer/lumotec-iq-fly.html).  How can I tell if this LED is (relatively) insect-friendly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably more of an issue for car drivers than for bicyclists (I don't think I'm killing that many insects at 20 km/h), but the question would be relevant for both, and also for anyone else who needs to use light outdoor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22504" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9696" RevisionGUID="c011ea24-e911-48cc-ba9f-d7b6422db8fd" CreationDate="2019-11-22T17:02:28.380" UserId="6393" Text="Wind turbines and solar panels are not precision measurement instruments. They are instruments to create electricity. So, the answer in general is no, but there may be some validity in the idea for at least offshore wind (but however, the measurement instruments need to be separately installed to the platforms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a look at how weather is measured and predicted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All the time, a number of geostationary satellites are imaging planet Earth. They are far away at the geostationary orbit at ~36 000 km altitude, so they see the ~6370 km radius Earth at a very small angle of view. Despite this, they have very precise measurement instruments that take 3700 x 3700 pixel visible/infrared photographs from their viewpoint. The 3700 pixels corresponds to twice the Earth radius or 12740 km, so one pixel is about 3.44 km x 3.44 km. Of the 3700 x 3700 pixel image, a fraction of pi/4 is planet Earth, so they have around ~10 million useful pixels. The geostationary satellite images, when analyzed, can reveal information about cloudiness, cloud height, cloud top temperature, cloud type, etc. Far more than just the effective cloudiness level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you correctly observed, there is a ground based measurement network of surface measurement stations. True, there are not that many of them, but they measure lots of parameters: wind, temperature, cloudiness, air pressure, humidity, rain, snow, etc. However, they are limited to ground, rain and cloud cover observations. You cannot observe temperature at kilometer height from these ground based measurement stations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often times, weather balloons are released. The advantage is that weather balloons rise to the upper atmosphere and during their path, and transmit continuously the current conditions at the current location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some airplanes have weather measurement instruments. There are over 40 000 airports in the world. Each airport may have numerous runways, and the paths individual airplanes take can wildly differ, so an airport is a very useful source of weather measurement information, if the airplanes have weather measurement instruments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also weather radars in the ground. They measure precipitation at a very high resolution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The information obtained from these measurements are entered to a numerical weather prediction model. The NWP model then runs the equations forwards to determine the predicted weather all around planet Earth as a function of time. The usefulness of the NWP models is limited to 7-14 days. Note that the NWP requires an initial information to run the equations forwards, and the initial information needs to contain full atmosphere of the planet Earth. So, if you know the conditions at the surface, but not conditions at the upper atmosphere, you're out of luck. So, airplanes, weather balloons and weather satellites all of which give some information about the upper atmosphere are useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, what information could you obtain from solar panels? Effective cloudiness mainly, from the power production. Unfortunately, the efficiency of solar panels declines as a function of time, so they are not precision measurement instruments even when calibrated. Also, their power production varies as a function of temperature so without a separate thermometer, you cannot tell the effective cloudiness level because you do not know the temperature. They function only during the day, whereas weather satellites see the infrared channels also during the night. The solar panels would have to compete with cloudiness measurements from numerous weather satellites each of which has ~10 million useful pixels. Will they be tens of millions of solar installations? Most certainly someday, yes. But, unlike the weather satellites, they are not precision instruments and they give data only from populated areas, unlike weather satellites that image the whole planet. I don't think they will win the competition with satellites. (There are also polar orbiting satellites that see the Earth from a closer point of view, giving even more information than what geostationary satellites give.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About wind turbines, then. They would measure direction and speed of wind. However, they are not precision instruments either. The problem with the 341 000 wind turbines is that they are scattered in wind farms. If one wind farm has 50 turbines, we have 341 000 / 50 = 6820 wind farms. In contrast to these 6820 wind farms, there are over 40 000 airports. A wind turbine can measure only the wind (versus an airplane which gives temperature, pressure, humidity, wind, etc.) and can measure it only at the height of the turbine, ~200 meters probably for state of the art turbines. So, in comparison to an airplane that takes off, flies in the upper atmosphere and lands, from/to &gt;40 000 airports, giving lots of measured information, a wind turbines gives only information at ~200 meters height, only for 6820 wind farms, and only wind and nothing else. I don't think a wind turbine will win the weather measurement competition with airplanes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the only validity in the idea of using renewables to improve weather prediction is to install a precision weather measurement instrument to offshore wind farms. The problem with surface measurement stations is that they are not usually located in the sea. (Sometimes, and old ship may be anchored as a sea-based surface measurement station.) An offshore wind farm would offer plenty of possibilities to locate automatic weather measurement stations on the sea. The platform to mount the instrument on is already installed, so the costs would be cheap. But, it would not be the renewable energy production itself measuring the weather, it would be just shared platform with proper weather measurement instruments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the weather measurement instruments mounted on offshore wind farms would not replace weather satellites as the most important source of numerical weather prediction initial data. The difference, if any, in the length of useful forecast days would probably be in the third decimal. A far more useful source of improvement is simply Moore's law which continuously improves the computing power of supercomputers. Due to the chaotic nature of the equations, even a number of years of Moore's law will not allow us to forecast weather a month from now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;i&gt;Disclaimer: I am employed in the weather service business.&lt;/i&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22505" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9697" RevisionGUID="5e4e7044-c945-4451-8922-ceebf8d54241" CreationDate="2019-11-22T17:16:06.160" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;My headlight is a Busch + Müller Lumotec IQ Fly Premium Senso Plus LED. How can I tell if this LED is (relatively) insect-friendly?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is. The Busch + Müller headlights have a proper light pattern. In contrast to the numerous mainly Chinese bicycle headlights that blind all oncoming drivers / cyclists, due to their high power and the rotationally symmetric light pattern, the German Busch + Müller headlights have a properly designed light pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the stray light is very minimal. The headlight mainly illuminates the road.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only that, but also the headlight is in motion, so it annoys 1 insect for a very small amount of time. Then, it starts to annoy a second insect, a third insect, etc. Compare this to streetlights that stay in the same location and annoy the same insects all the time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9698" RevisionGUID="eb1585f1-1951-4da3-a8b2-de04559c8d5a" CreationDate="2019-11-22T17:17:52.497" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So, are fuel cell generators sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. The hydrogen will be generated using spare electricity when wind and/or sunshine are plentiful. It will be stored, and used later to create electricity when there is no wind and sunshine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key here is that the hydrogen is generated in a sustainable manner: using renewables, not from steam reforming of natural gas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22507" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9697" RevisionGUID="b1d89be2-ee0c-47ff-ac90-3df370e5bea3" CreationDate="2019-11-22T17:23:53.843" UserId="6393" Comment="edit" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;My headlight is a Busch + Müller Lumotec IQ Fly Premium Senso Plus LED. How can I tell if this LED is (relatively) insect-friendly?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is. The Busch + Müller headlights have a proper light pattern. In contrast to the numerous mainly Chinese bicycle headlights that blind all oncoming drivers / cyclists, due to their high power and the rotationally symmetric light pattern, the German Busch + Müller headlights have a properly designed light pattern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the stray light is very minimal. The headlight mainly illuminates the road.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only that, but also the headlight is in motion, so it annoys 1 insect for a very small amount of time. Then, it starts to annoy a second insect, a third insect, etc. Compare this to streetlights that stay in the same location and annoy the same insects all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; let's analyze the insect friendliness of lights:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* High powered light is less friendly than low-powered light&#xD;&#xA;* Fixed light is less friendly than a moving light&#xD;&#xA;* Light that distributes its light everywhere is less friendly than light that illuminates only what is needed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9691" RevisionGUID="237409f3-505e-4f03-944b-9c05b0a095c6" CreationDate="2019-11-23T04:58:14.187" UserId="3379" Comment="added 726 characters in body" Text="## The source of methane -- degradable organic carbon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 2006 report by the IPCC, [Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5 -- Waste](https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol5.html), includes six different categories of landfilled waste which contain **degradable organic carbon (DOC)**. Under anaerobic conditions, the DOC in these materials ultimately decomposes into carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). The eight categories are listed below, with the fraction (by weight) of DOC generally in each. Finally, I included the percent of landfill material that each category constitutes in North America (chosen since you reference California in the question -- data for other regions is available [in the spreadsheet tool](https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/IPCC_Waste_Model.xls)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    CATEGORY              % DOC     % LANDFILL COMPOSITION&#xD;&#xA;    -----------           -----     ----------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Food waste            0.15      0.34&#xD;&#xA;    Garden                0.20      0.00&#xD;&#xA;    Paper                 0.40      0.23&#xD;&#xA;    Wood and straw        0.43      0.06&#xD;&#xA;    Natural textiles      0.24      0.04&#xD;&#xA;    Disposable nappies    0.24      0.00&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Some garden waste is included with food waste. Nappies (diapers) have a value of 0 for all regions -- I'm not really sure why they aren't included, or what assumptions are made that allow them to be excluded here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these assumptions, **food waste and paper/cardboard are the largest sources of degradable organic carbon in landfills**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How much of it becomes methane?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of emissions from the decomposition that becomes methane depends on the type of landfill and how it is managed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Waste disposal practices vary in the control, placement of waste and management of the site. The CH4 correction factor (MCF) accounts for the fact that unmanaged SWDS [solid waste disposal sites] produce less CH4 from a given amount of waste than anaerobic managed SWDS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MCF by SWDS types are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![MCF by SWDS assumptions][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a managed, anaerobic landfill, all of the DOC decomposes into methane. This is the &quot;gold standard&quot; in landfills, and in the U.S., the EPA [requires most large landfills to collect this methane](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&amp;SID=9dd547da709a41416ae82bf206af61c9&amp;mc=true&amp;r=SECTION&amp;n=se40.27.258_123), where it is typically burned to produce electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How much of the methane is released to the atmosphere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of methane captured at landfills varies widely, but in practice rates of up to 90% are feasible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There  have  been  some  measurements  of  efficiencies  at  gas  recovery  projects,  and  reported  efficiencies  have  been  between  10  and  85  percent.  Oonk  and  Boom  (1995)  measured  efficiencies  at  closed,  unlined SWDS to be in between 10 and 80 percent, the average over 11 SWDS being 37 percent. More recently Scharff et al. (2003) measured efficiencies at four SWDS to be 9 percent, 50 percent, 55 percent and 33 percent. Spokas et  al.  (2006)  and  Diot  et  al.  (2001)  recently  measured  efficiencies  above  90  percent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bonus Q: How much food is wasted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assumption is that 34% of what is sent to landfills is food waste. How does this compare to the amount of food produced?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [a 2010 article in Scientific American](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talk-waste-land/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Loss Project, we throw away more than 25 percent—some 25.9 million tons—of all the food we produce for domestic sale and consumption. A 2004 University of Arizona study pegs the figure at closer to 50 percent [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAPok.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22512" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9655" RevisionGUID="79a220ba-0f7a-4e47-af3c-9149deeb0135" CreationDate="2019-11-23T06:00:05.697" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1198119006433136640" />
  <row Id="22514" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5536" RevisionGUID="74afa95b-060b-4410-a5a6-c5b92d785ad5" CreationDate="2019-11-23T18:02:50.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9700" RevisionGUID="2f94a09d-2c7d-4636-befb-3ecc2acc187f" CreationDate="2019-11-23T23:06:39.430" UserId="8185" Text="I've recently read they are classified as &quot;clean energy&quot;, and some nations do not count the CO2 emissions it produces towards a national CO2 quota/limit. At this point I am a little confused. Won't increased CO2 emissions from biomass plants overwhelm the atmosphere with more CO2 than it can already handle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone please clarify why we use biomass plants, when it leaves such a carbon footprint? I don't understand why they are considered such a viable alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9700" RevisionGUID="2f94a09d-2c7d-4636-befb-3ecc2acc187f" CreationDate="2019-11-23T23:06:39.430" UserId="8185" Text="Biomass plants. Why do we use them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9700" RevisionGUID="2f94a09d-2c7d-4636-befb-3ecc2acc187f" CreationDate="2019-11-23T23:06:39.430" UserId="8185" Text="|energy|carbon-footprint|biomass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9701" RevisionGUID="22a72d42-bdd7-4439-b0a2-80520af83657" CreationDate="2019-11-24T01:02:09.207" UserId="60" Text="I'm considering to put up a small moss wall in my workplace. What benefits or shortcomings should be considered regarding inhabitants' health and environment impact of a moss wall?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9701" RevisionGUID="22a72d42-bdd7-4439-b0a2-80520af83657" CreationDate="2019-11-24T01:02:09.207" UserId="60" Text="What are the benefits or shortcomings of a moss wall?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9701" RevisionGUID="22a72d42-bdd7-4439-b0a2-80520af83657" CreationDate="2019-11-24T01:02:09.207" UserId="60" Text="|environmental-impact|plants|city-living|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9702" RevisionGUID="74e5d002-df23-4d10-913e-b02861dddb06" CreationDate="2019-11-24T21:13:30.990" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="The carbon that gets released by burning them was first stored in the plants, so the CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere temporarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is that if you do this continously, you create a [carbon sink](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink) whose size corresponds to the total amount of plant material that is currently growing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22522" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9701" RevisionGUID="10b40c3c-3975-45f6-8dea-249528a56149" CreationDate="2019-11-24T23:05:04.003" UserId="60" Comment="Updated the question according to feedback." Text="I'm considering to put up a small moss wall in my workplace. What benefits or shortcomings should be considered regarding inhabitants' health and environment impact of a moss wall?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update:** It's an office place with mild lighting and I'm planning to spray the wall with water to keep alive. Dormant moss seems ineffective to me - but that's the question I'm tying to get some answers to.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9703" RevisionGUID="bf65b9c7-cad4-4ad6-abb2-61e2cafabae7" CreationDate="2019-11-25T10:50:01.010" UserId="99" Text="I recently did some carbon footprint calculations for the organization I work for. I used conversion factors I found at [the Dutch CO2 emission factors website](https://www.co2emissiefactoren.nl/lijst-emissiefactoren/). This website lists standard emission factors for various energy sources to make it easier to calculate one's carbon footprint and so people can more easily compare carbon footprint reports.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the site they say that for electricity generated by Dutch wind, solar or hydro-power plants you should use 0 kg/CO2. The site also remarks that this is the Well-To-Wheel (WTW) approach (a.k.a. in-use approach) and that for a Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) approach you can use 12 grams CO2/kWH for wind, 4 grams/kWh for hydro and 70 grams/kWh for solar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The LCA looks much more accurate to me, but all Dutch carbon footprint reports I read use the WTW approach. How come this is the standard approach here in the Netherlands? And how is this in other countries?&#xD;&#xA;Why would people want to use a less accurate WTW approach (other than making their impact look less bad)? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22524" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9703" RevisionGUID="bf65b9c7-cad4-4ad6-abb2-61e2cafabae7" CreationDate="2019-11-25T10:50:01.010" UserId="99" Text="WTW versus LCA approach in carbon footprint calculations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22525" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9703" RevisionGUID="bf65b9c7-cad4-4ad6-abb2-61e2cafabae7" CreationDate="2019-11-25T10:50:01.010" UserId="99" Text="|carbon-footprint|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22526" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9689" RevisionGUID="69fe9d0f-33f0-4483-9aa0-930e62b81992" CreationDate="2019-11-25T18:00:40.207" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1199025120825815042" />
  <row Id="22527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9704" RevisionGUID="a21f7b88-ae6d-4a5a-ae6e-454669e7798d" CreationDate="2019-11-26T08:26:53.293" UserId="2846" Text="The article you mention in the comments under the other answer describes several ways in which (at least some forms of) biomass for energy are problematic from a carbon point of view. In summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Clear cutting of existing forest releases carbon now, which then takes decades or centuries to be recaptured by replacement trees.&#xD;&#xA;- Using every scrap of wood/energy crops grown reduces soil fertility and soil carbon storage. &#xD;&#xA;- Logging and farming machinery damages the soil structure, in particular compacting it which reduces its ability to store water. Clear cutting makes this worse. &#xD;&#xA;- (I didn't see this in the article, but they hint at it) Agriculture, forestry, processing and transport all use fossil fuels. Wood pellets are being shipped between  continents. Fertiliser and pesticide use (on some crops) adds to the carbon emissions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But biomass seems like a good idea to politicians. Why? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Trees absorb CO2, so they must be good, mustn't they? &#xD;&#xA;- Early biomass methods relied on byproducts (sawmill waste etc.), which avoids many of the downsides of energy crops. &#xD;&#xA;- Political arguments like job creation, energy security, balance of payments. Don't forget that to many politicians etc., environmental arguments are a minor consideration compared to imminent financial arguments. Where there's money there's influence. &#xD;&#xA;- The hidden promise of even partially renewable energy sources: spend a bit of money and we can carry on as we are. This is a seductive argument, even though it's wrong. &#xD;&#xA;- Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been just around the corner for a couple of decades. There's a consistent and probably wrong assumption that this could be retrofitted easily, and combined with biomass energy this could be a net carbon sink if it worked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the politicians and administrators who make biomass financially favourable see things from one end of the scale; they assume the best. You're close to assuming the worst if you essentially consider only the emission and not the absorption of carbon. My opinion: your scepticism is the right place to start. Some schemes, done well, can be helpful, but biomass energy is of very limited benefit overall. An example of good schemes is those that convert unproductive land, require neither fertiliser nor clearcutting (effectively permaculture), are used locally to avoid transport emissions, and can use low-grade heat (as well as electricity generation if present) to maximise efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bioenergy from waste (food waste, sewage, etc.) is usually treated separately. It often avoids methane emissions, which are far worse than CO2. I don't think this is the focus of your question so I won't go into detail, but many of the same arguments apply. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="9137c7bb-61ea-49fc-9dd7-a5bc6145ea95" CreationDate="2019-11-26T08:59:41.960" UserId="99" Comment="added 1 character in body; added 15 characters in body" Text="the sustainable use of energy, through efficiency and [renewables]. Use this tag for questions on energy in general. For questions on a specific energy type see [electricity], [heating], [light] or [solar-power]. For questions specifically about efficiency, use [energy-efficiency]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9681" RevisionGUID="1daabcaf-18f6-4194-891c-9e9bef3436fc" CreationDate="2019-11-26T09:04:42.343" UserId="99" Comment="removed link to commercial company" Text="While installing panels over parking lots may be more in line with sustainability goals, it is simply not the most practical solution. Those opposed to solar panels, because unfortunately plenty of people are, have less issue with them if they’re away from their homes in some field. Having them in the obvious public with parking lot solar panels could get these people more upset, as they’ll be turned off by the everyday sight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main issue, though, is the cost. The future may have more room for these types of systems, but currently, it is just too expensive to become a reality because of how it requires the use of more steel. The prohibitive cost of parking lot solar panels makes large expanses, meaning acres, of land more appealing to companies, as the solar energy business is still about profits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is an unfortunate situation that this land may sometimes be forest and the [trees must be cut down to clear space for solar panels][1]. There is certainly more than one example of this happening, and it makes sense to want to fight back against it. What’s the point of installing solar panels if they you have to destroy the forest to make it happen? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, because it’s honestly still worth it.Solar energy production does a lot more to offset climate change than the trees that some of these utility-scale solar projects may replace. While we should care about our forests, utility-scale solar is one of the best ways we have to increase the use of renewable energy. And we don’t have to worry about it taking away all our trees. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greenfield development doesn’t even have to involve cutting down trees. Companies will often use land that is already flat and cleared, like vacant farmland and unused fields. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some energy providers actually plant native grasses in the sight after development is complete. I’m not sure where the idea that grass is removed for the sake of solar energy came from. Solar energy production is pretty much always harmless to grass. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gazettenet.com/which-to-choose-forests-or-solar-20732082&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22530" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9703" RevisionGUID="93993bdb-636c-4550-9359-99f4708445b3" CreationDate="2019-11-27T12:00:44.727" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1199659318733348865" />
  <row Id="22531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9704" RevisionGUID="dcae1b68-e1a5-4326-9a36-1085348ec79c" CreationDate="2019-11-27T13:32:55.130" UserId="2846" Comment="Links, formatting" Text="The [article](https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/08/18/is-biomass-really-renewable/) you mention in the comments under the other answer describes several ways in which (at least some forms of) biomass for energy are problematic from a carbon point of view. In summary:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Clear cutting of existing forest releases carbon now, which then takes decades or centuries to be recaptured by replacement trees.&#xD;&#xA;- Using every scrap of wood/energy crops grown reduces soil fertility and soil carbon storage. &#xD;&#xA;- Logging and farming machinery damages the soil structure, in particular compacting it which reduces its ability to store water. Clear cutting makes this worse. &#xD;&#xA;- (I didn't see this in the article, but they hint at it) agriculture, forestry, processing and transport all use fossil fuels. Wood pellets are being shipped between  continents. Fertiliser and pesticide use (on some crops) adds to the carbon emissions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But biomass seems like a good idea to politicians. Why? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Trees absorb CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, so they must be good, mustn't they? &#xD;&#xA;- Early biomass methods relied on byproducts (sawmill waste etc.), which avoids many of the downsides of energy crops. &#xD;&#xA;- Political arguments like job creation, energy security, balance of payments. Don't forget that to many politicians etc., environmental arguments are a minor consideration compared to imminent financial arguments. Where there's money there's influence. &#xD;&#xA;- The hidden promise of even partially renewable energy sources: spend a bit of money and we can carry on as we are. This is a seductive argument, even though it's wrong. &#xD;&#xA;- Carbon capture and storage ([CCS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage)) at scale has been just around the corner for a couple of decades. There's a consistent and probably wrong assumption that this could be retrofitted easily, and [combined with biomass energy into BECCS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage) this could be a net carbon sink if it worked. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the politicians and administrators who make biomass financially favourable see things from one end of the scale; they assume the best. You're close to assuming the worst if you essentially consider only the emission and not the absorption of carbon. My opinion: your scepticism is the right place to start. Some schemes, done well, can be helpful, but biomass energy is of very limited benefit overall. An example of good schemes is those that convert unproductive land, require neither fertiliser nor clearcutting (effectively permaculture), are used locally to avoid transport emissions, and can use low-grade heat (as well as electricity generation if present) to maximise efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bioenergy from waste (food waste, sewage, etc.) is usually treated separately. It often avoids methane emissions, which are far worse than CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. I don't think this is the focus of your question so I won't go into detail, but many of the same arguments apply. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22532" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9688" RevisionGUID="4b487d77-5e4b-43cd-9fd6-4c42e5615310" CreationDate="2019-11-27T21:00:05.097" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1199795048105365504" />
  <row Id="22533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9705" RevisionGUID="42df36b8-4040-4c12-b2d6-9d51c7ce62be" CreationDate="2019-11-27T22:08:06.080" UserId="6837" Text="On behalf of the global MSDS (Mustard Seed Day Society) initiative, I present our answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before we can understand how biomass can be a viable alternative, we must first become intimate with the original meaning of the word, which describes all that is (or was) alive. The answer to your question can be found in a clump of turf. To help on that journey of the mind, your touchstone will be a simple point: Production of biomass holds the real solutions; Consumption does not. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biomass is a pure, easy, simple form of solar energy production and storage, so it's a wonder how Bill Gates could recently say we need a miracle in storage before solar can be viable. It's right before our eyes, everywhere. In theory, every single human on Earth could build a solar collector with solar storage in less than a minute. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No one we know will ever build a 50 megawatt biomass consumption plant, but everyone we know can build a production plant with nothing more than a mustard seed, and we do not mean that figuratively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On every scale, production is the imperative. Consider how you could produce enough biomass to supply a single breath of air, and build up from there according to your needs. We doubt you will ever get into the megawatt range because you will stop somewhere along the way when you've found your solutions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At whatever level you stop (individual, family, neighborhood, village, etc.) your solution will depend on the previous levels. It feels lonely to shift our thinking from a top-down perspective because we are so dependent on civilization as our mother, but it is inevitable that we will grow up or die young. We must first reverse the general direction of flow in our infrastructure. It's only hard because it frightens those at the top who need us to remain dependent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's much easier if you consume your energy farther down in the food chain where you can produce it, and store it where you will need it. It's important to recognize that there are many different kinds of biomass energy generation strategies besides burning trees. Biomass energy can be supplied by methane, biodiesel, syngas, algae, animal waste, biogas, sewage, and other human waste streams, with minimal to positive impacts on the environment. The choice of which biomass solution to implement will depend a lot on your location.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is different for each of us, but that's the only way it can be found, by understanding the old definition of the word &quot;biomass&quot; so we can consume greenhouse gasses to produce our energy. Our answer to your question is that it is not a viable alternative. It's an imperative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22534" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9706" RevisionGUID="befb14bc-d7ce-4a2c-b5c4-c8f5de52670c" CreationDate="2019-11-28T07:51:47.353" UserId="2846" Text="First, the amount of light you use is (close to) the minimum for the task - you're already doing far better than most. It may still be a concern as you seem to be in an area that's otherwise dark, but a good bike light is mounted fairly low and pointing down (equivalent to shading the light appropriately as mentioned in the Guardian article).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article mentions that LEDs allow better wavelengths to be selected, but also say that blue-white lights are worse than others. A white LED is a blue LED with a yellowish broadband phosphor coating, so it's fairly strong in the blue region of the spectrum, which is less good. However to see where you're going and avoid hazards you need a broad spectrum. To test, and don't do this while riding, set up a view of something like a branch covered in green leaves, lying on a dark road, and illuminate that with your red rear light. You'll find it's much less visible with this narrowband source than with a white light. Switching to yellow or green just means other hazards disappear. You can get round this by using multiple wavelengths, but may well need more total light than with your well-designed white LED lamp; you'll certainly illuminate a bigger area. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22535" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9654" RevisionGUID="906ac407-74c4-4071-8aae-a8b41628b7b9" CreationDate="2019-11-28T09:00:30.353" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1199976347667435520" />
  <row Id="22536" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9706" RevisionGUID="8f6e3683-1db2-4669-8a53-ac4bcbe1368d" CreationDate="2019-11-28T10:47:15.117" UserId="2846" Comment="flickering, citations, summary" Text="First, the amount of light you use is (close to) the minimum for the task - you're already doing far better than most. It may still be a concern as you seem to be in an area that's otherwise dark, but a good bike light is mounted fairly low and pointing down (equivalent to shading the light appropriately as mentioned in the Guardian article).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article mentions that LEDs allow better wavelengths to be selected, but also say that blue-white lights are worse than others. A white LED is a blue LED with a yellowish broadband phosphor coating, so it's fairly strong in the blue region of the spectrum, which is less good. However to see where you're going and avoid hazards you need a broad spectrum. To test, and don't do this while riding, set up a view of something like a branch covered in green leaves, lying on a dark road, and illuminate that with your red rear light. You'll find it's much less visible with this narrowband source than with a white light. Switching to yellow or green just means other hazards disappear. You can get round this by using multiple wavelengths, but may well need more total light than with your well-designed white LED lamp; you'll certainly illuminate a bigger area. The journal paper and the [citation](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191576)s in it state that several diverse species of insects are more sensitive blue and green light than to longer wavelengths.  As you need these wavelengths to see well enough to ride, a wavelength-optimised source isn't a solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LED bike lights flicker (too fast for human perception) when run at reduced power (and sometimes at full power).  This is because the power output is regulated by [pulse-width modulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse-width_modulation).  [Potential Biological and Ecological Effects of Flickering Artificial Light, Inger et al., 2014](https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098631), cited in the paper linked in the question goes into some detail on flicker frequencies.  Unfortunately it's a little old when considering the prevalence of LED sources, and concentrates on lower frequencies, however it's reassuring as figure 1B shows a few hundred Hz as the upper limit for insect sensitivity to flickering. A rough estimate of the flicker rate of my bike light is a few kHz, which is too fast to be an issue.  This estimate is based on the streak length of water drops thrown off my front wheel, my speed, a lot of assumptions and mental arithmetic; I really ought to check with a photodiode, but this is a reasonable (or even low) value for LED PWM.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The methodology for assessing whether a given light is problematic is inherently a little complex, but as a rule of thumb, dimmer, redder, more specific to the need, and either steady (DC incandescent) or flickering at &gt;1kHz are all good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper also states that *some modern LED fixtures emit ultrasonic frequencies that could have compounding effects on insect fitness*.  This would be due to switch-mode power supplies, used in most high-brightness LED lamps as they're more efficient than linear regulation.  One small source passing by fairly quickly isn't going to be much compared to LED streetlights.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22537" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="e2ea9386-c389-42db-af45-c3e957a8717e" CreationDate="2019-11-28T12:36:21.750" UserId="4099" Comment="grammar corrections, broken link removed" Text="I was shopping and as a trial, I bought a talcum powder in a tin container instead of the usual ones that comes packaged in a plastic box. The material looks like a tin, although one cannot tell from the image:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Yardley Gold Talcum Power Tin][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Are the tins more sustainable than the plastic boxes ? I did read this [question on tin containers .vs. tetrapak][3], though not a direct comparison with plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the famous video clip called [Story of Stuff][4] recently and it compounded my question.  If we were to include the total upstream cost of the packaging, it looks like a tin container may be more costly (from a environmental view). That's why I have this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it helps for the context, I live in small Indian town, where there are very few choices for responsible waste disposal, except the local scrap shop, who I hope segregates well. Or, if I submit well-segregated waste, at least he won't mix it with unsegregated ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aZMeg.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3000/are-tetrapack-tomatos-more-sustainable-than-tinned&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22538" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="e2ea9386-c389-42db-af45-c3e957a8717e" CreationDate="2019-11-28T12:36:21.750" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by -1 edit id of 587" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6071" RevisionGUID="75ab3751-2804-4301-a639-78681218c18c" CreationDate="2019-11-28T12:36:21.750" UserId="2734" Comment="grammar corrections, broken link removed" Text="I was shopping and as a trial, I bought a talcum powder in a tin container instead of the usual ones that comes packaged in a plastic box. The material looks like a tin, although one cannot tell from the image:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Yardley Gold Talcum Power Tin][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Are the tins more sustainable than the plastic boxes ? I did read this [question on tin containers .vs. tetrapak][3], though not a direct comparison with plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I watched the famous video clip called [Story of Stuff][4] recently and it compounded my question.  If we were to include the total upstream cost of the packaging, it looks like a tin container may be more costly (from an environmental view). That's why I have this question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it helps for the context, I live in small Indian town, where there are very few choices for responsible waste disposal, except the local scrap shop, who I hope segregates well. Or, if I submit well-segregated waste, at least he won't mix it with unsegregated ones. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aZMeg.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3000/are-tetrapack-tomatos-more-sustainable-than-tinned&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9707" RevisionGUID="62c738d0-1565-4bf7-9809-c8c2d0552abc" CreationDate="2019-11-29T01:50:36.030" UserId="8194" Text="The electricity where I live is pretty expensive at about almost 30 cents a KWh, so I'm considering setting up a solar system. I got 3 100 Watt Polycrystalline solar panels a while ago, pretty cheap. I live in the Caribbean, so I have access to a lot of sun. I am planning to connect my 1 HP well pump to the system. It runs about 350 Watts and starts at about 800 Watts. I plan to maybe connect my refrigerator later on which runs at about the same wattage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking of getting an MPPT Solar Controller. Not sure if 60 amps is too much. I plan to get more solar panels later on with higher wattage. Also thinking of getting either a 2,000 or 3,000 Power Inverter. Still not sure which battery to get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you guys give me some recommendations on a good setup for what I plan to power and some room to grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9707" RevisionGUID="62c738d0-1565-4bf7-9809-c8c2d0552abc" CreationDate="2019-11-29T01:50:36.030" UserId="8194" Text="Solar setup for well pump" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9707" RevisionGUID="62c738d0-1565-4bf7-9809-c8c2d0552abc" CreationDate="2019-11-29T01:50:36.030" UserId="8194" Text="|solar-power|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8438" RevisionGUID="ceb0c37b-c52c-48b8-8c29-33793b5fbb9c" CreationDate="2019-11-29T02:27:52.030" UserId="1056" Comment="Trim out the partial answer to make this purely a question" Text="Among foods, beef is [frequently](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production#References) noted as one of the biggest causes of global warming, particularly because cattle produce methane as part of their digestion.  Cheese is less frequently discussed in this manner, despite also being produced from cows, presumably with the production of methane at similar amounts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the Wikipedia article on [feed conversion ratio][1] (FCR) it would appear that dairy cattle and beef cattle have about the same requirements for principal inputs. Is is possible to determine the relative or absolute impacts of these 2 foodstuffs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio#Beef_cattle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9708" RevisionGUID="a107ce35-97b6-4f94-9e45-288211f5e22b" CreationDate="2019-11-29T03:08:43.213" UserId="1056" Text="The simplest answer I could find comes from this [2019 New York Times interactive about food and climate change](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/30/dining/climate-change-food-eating-habits.html). Based on a serving with 50 grams of protein, the average greenhouse gas impact of beef is 17.7 kg CO2 and the average impact of cheese is 5.4 kg CO2. So to conclude: **beef is worse than cheese for global warming.** But be careful to note their caveats:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Now, these are only averages. Beef raised in the United States generally produces fewer emissions than beef raised in Brazil or Argentina. Certain cheeses can have a larger greenhouse gas impact than a lamb chop. And some experts think these numbers may actually underestimate the impact of deforestation associated with farming and ranching.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because this is a complex subject, I'll elaborate below on some of the nuances that can go into a question like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Comparing foodstuffs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setting up comparisons of food is quite a bit more complicated than say, comparing different means of producing electricity. An economist would say that different foods are not [fungible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility) -- the units are not interchangeable, and there are many ways in which one may be distinguished from another.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When foods are being compared in the context of environmental impact, the simplest comparison is based on unit of food energy (kcal or joule), but this comparison may produce unwanted results because of cheap &quot;empty calories&quot; are usually not promoting human health. Comparing foods based on protein mass is also popular, partly because protein tends to be the rare/limiting factor in food production. Both of these comparisons ignore vitamin and mineral composition in favour of a simpler comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Which environmental impact?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When trying to assess environmental impact more carefully, we need to specify what kind of impact we're trying to measure.  For example we might be interested in ocean acidification, greenhouse gas emissions, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, non-GHG air pollution, or other measures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because your question seems to focus on methane, this answer will focus on global warming potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Land damage and opportunity cost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, focusing on global warming adds another aspect of complexity! It's true that cattle produce methane in their gut and much of that escapes into the atmosphere and directly contributes to global warming. But the direct effect of methane production might actually be dwarfed by land use and land use change ([LULUCF](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use,_land-use_change,_and_forestry))!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If forests are cleared to make new grazing land for cattle or grow feed for intensively-raised cattle, that land will release carbon as the trees biodegrade. The soil may also release carbon, depending on how the land is treated.&#xD;&#xA;- If afforestation is desired but the project cannot proceed because the land is occupied by grazing cattle, the presence of cattle on the land come with an [opportunity cost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### System thinking&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beef and dairy for human consumption are the principal outputs of cattle operations, but they are not the only outputs. Their hides may also be used to craft leather, and their labour may be used to work the land *(though this is less common in the North American system of intensive cattle farming)*. If these other outputs have non-zero value, that should affect how we apportion the environmental impact of raising cattle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A cattle dairy is always necessarily involved in the production of beef (young male calves and old female cows) but beef production does not necessarily involve dairy as a coproduct. These systems are separable, although it may be challenging." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9709" RevisionGUID="32fa1350-e738-4dfc-9143-349ff5b1fa02" CreationDate="2019-11-29T08:21:22.427" UserId="8195" Text="I am looking for a simple &quot;methodology&quot; to roughly estimate the carbon footprint associated to buying a new e.g. toaster. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, I would like to have clues to deal with such a situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that my old toaster with two compartiments has a problem that allow me to toast only one piece of bread, while the two compartiments are actually heating. So basically I waste half of the energy I consume. Is it better to buy a new one or to lose half of my toasting energy ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I guess that buying an old one or reparing mine would be the great solution : this is an hypothetical situation to illustrate what I would like)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22546" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9709" RevisionGUID="32fa1350-e738-4dfc-9143-349ff5b1fa02" CreationDate="2019-11-29T08:21:22.427" UserId="8195" Text="Rule of thumb for estimating the carbon footprint of a manufactured good" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22547" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9709" RevisionGUID="32fa1350-e738-4dfc-9143-349ff5b1fa02" CreationDate="2019-11-29T08:21:22.427" UserId="8195" Text="|carbon-footprint|manufacturing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22548" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9710" RevisionGUID="2a5b60e7-2bc3-4724-8573-aa856d7bbd36" CreationDate="2019-11-29T08:34:03.810" UserId="8196" Text="Rubbing alcohol will prevent all insects.  Of course, it doesn't last very long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clove powder will kill ants, even causing burning to them if it is just sprinkled on top of them.  But, I do not know the way to get cinnon into the hive.  If put along the edges, it will be extremely effective at first but after the worst part of the oils wear off they may find a way through if you are not careful with every pixel covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Borax kills ants if they eat it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some ants are attracted to sugar water.  So using this to attract them into a drowning bowl etc.  However, some ants are not attracted to it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Orange peels and water in the blender, to make a paste, will kill the outdoor ant colony if you can find the entrances to their hills in your yard, if applicable.  All entraces and exists need to be covered for this to work permanantly.  Cover the hole with the paste.  It is the equivalent of closing your windows and pumping in a poisonous gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;O3 will kill every organism in the building, as well as remove all smells.  To use O3, the house will need to be evacuated, and aired with windows opem for 2 days afterwards before the family moves back in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9711" RevisionGUID="532a7da1-28c1-4179-a99f-7fb5a4d016b4" CreationDate="2019-11-29T13:22:15.143" UserId="6602" Text="Great question, difficult to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a great deal of variation in the CO2 footprint of manufactured goods. So we can compare many different goods, I suggest we use Kg CO2 per £1000. To get an idea of the range of footprints here are two datapoints:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vehicles &#xD;&#xA;[720Kg CO2 per £1000][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iPhone&#xD;&#xA;[79Kg CO2 per £1000][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this you can scale it down so that a cheap £5 toaster has a CO2 footprint of between 0.4Kg and 3.6Kg of CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This energy use calculator][3] suggests that an average toaster would use 0.24 kWh per Day, the [CO2 intensity of UK electricity generation][4] is 0.316 KgCo2/kWh, which means that a broken toaster like yours might use around 0.076 Kg of carbon per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would take between 5 and 48 days to recoup the CO2 from manufacturing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might want to spend more money on a fancy toaster rather than a £5 one, that's up to you, in terms of CO2 it will take between a few days and two months of daily use to pay off the CO2 debt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether its worth repairing the toaster depends on how much you value your time, how much you value your toaster and the price you put on CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually use a CO2 price of £10 per tonne, which is £0.01 per Kg, almost insignificant in terms of the CO2 footprint of manufacturing and use of one toaster. My point here is that the CO2 price of a manufactured good is a tiny fraction of its retail price tag. The CO2 footprint of an expensive toaster is effectively the same as the CO2 footprint of a cheap toaster. Even if we used a £100 per tonne CO2 price its still next to nothing compared to the retail price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose your labour time is worth £15 per hour, if it takes you more than 20 minutes to repair your £5 toaster then its more efficient to throw it away and buy a new one on Amazon, and spend a few second's worth of labour time to pay for the CO2. Although Amazon does list toasters for up to £2,000, that might be a better case for repairing rather than discarding (is toaster insurance a thing?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-iphone-x-environmental-report/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://energyusecalculator.com/electricity_toaster.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&amp;solar=false&amp;remote=true&amp;wind=false&amp;countryCode=GB" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9711" RevisionGUID="c41f9d5e-1eca-4a0e-bf0a-8bc3f2e9c92e" CreationDate="2019-11-29T16:15:37.837" UserId="6602" Comment="Clarified terminology" Text="Great question, difficult to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a great deal of variation in the CO2 footprint of manufactured goods. So we can compare many different goods, I suggest we use Kg CO2 per £1000 cost of product. To get an idea of the range of footprints here are two datapoints:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vehicles &#xD;&#xA;[720Kg CO2 per £1000][1] So a £4000 car has a manufacturing CO2 footprint of roughly 2.88 tonnes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iPhone&#xD;&#xA;[79Kg CO2 per £1000][2] This include transport costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this you can scale it down so that a cheap £5 toaster has a CO2 footprint of between 0.4Kg and 3.6Kg of CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This energy use calculator][3] suggests that an average toaster would use 0.24 kWh per Day, the [CO2 intensity of UK electricity generation][4] is 0.316 KgCo2/kWh, which means that a broken toaster like yours might use around 0.076 Kg of carbon per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would take between 5 and 48 days to recoup the CO2 from manufacturing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might want to spend more money on a fancy toaster rather than a £5 one, that's up to you, in terms of CO2 it will take between a few days and two months of daily use to pay off the CO2 debt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether its worth repairing the toaster depends on how much you value your time, how much you value your toaster and the price you put on CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually use a CO2 price of £10 per tonne, which is £0.01 per Kg, almost insignificant in terms of the CO2 footprint of manufacturing and use of one toaster. My point here is that the CO2 price of a manufactured good is a tiny fraction of its retail price tag. The CO2 footprint of an expensive toaster is effectively the same as the CO2 footprint of a cheap toaster. Even if we used a £100 per tonne CO2 price its still next to nothing compared to the retail price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose your labour time is worth £15 per hour, if it takes you more than 20 minutes to repair your £5 toaster then its more efficient to throw it away and buy a new one on Amazon, and spend a few second's worth of labour time to pay for the CO2. Although Amazon does list toasters for up to £2,000, that might be a better case for repairing rather than discarding (is toaster insurance a thing?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-iphone-x-environmental-report/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://energyusecalculator.com/electricity_toaster.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&amp;solar=false&amp;remote=true&amp;wind=false&amp;countryCode=GB" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9711" RevisionGUID="e9cbe678-924a-4974-8a96-dbc528c6619f" CreationDate="2019-11-29T16:23:38.137" UserId="6602" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="Great question, difficult to answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a great deal of variation in the CO2 footprint of manufactured goods. So we can compare many different goods, I suggest we use Kg CO2 per £1000 cost of product. To get an idea of the range of footprints here are a few datapoints:-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vehicles &#xD;&#xA;[720 Kg CO2 per £1000][1] So a £4000 car has a manufacturing CO2 footprint of roughly 2.88 tonnes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;iPhone&#xD;&#xA;[79 Kg CO2 per £1000][2] This include transport costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A4 paper 564 Kg CO2 per £1000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this you can scale it down so that a cheap £5 toaster has a CO2 footprint of between 0.4Kg and 3.6Kg of CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This energy use calculator][3] suggests that an average toaster would use 0.24 kWh per Day, the [CO2 intensity of UK electricity generation][4] is 0.316 KgCo2/kWh, which means that a broken toaster like yours might use around 0.076 Kg of carbon per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would take between 5 and 48 days to recoup the CO2 from manufacturing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might want to spend more money on a fancy toaster rather than a £5 one, that's up to you, in terms of CO2 it will take between a few days and two months of daily use to pay off the CO2 debt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether its worth repairing the toaster depends on how much you value your time, how much you value your toaster and the price you put on CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I usually use a CO2 price of £10 per tonne, which is £0.01 per Kg, almost insignificant in terms of the CO2 footprint of manufacturing and use of one toaster. My point here is that the CO2 price of a manufactured good is a tiny fraction of its retail price tag. The CO2 footprint of an expensive toaster is effectively the same as the CO2 footprint of a cheap toaster. Even if we used a £100 per tonne CO2 price its still next to nothing compared to the retail price.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose your labour time is worth £15 per hour, if it takes you more than 20 minutes to repair your £5 toaster then its more efficient to throw it away and buy a new one on Amazon, and spend a few second's worth of labour time to pay for the CO2. Although Amazon does list toasters for up to £2,000, that might be a better case for repairing rather than discarding (is toaster insurance a thing?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-iphone-x-environmental-report/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://energyusecalculator.com/electricity_toaster.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&amp;solar=false&amp;remote=true&amp;wind=false&amp;countryCode=GB" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9713" RevisionGUID="145030bf-770f-45cb-8362-4fea856bafc0" CreationDate="2019-11-30T07:41:00.090" UserId="6837" Text="The dirt that you are seeing is probably just marks made by rubber conveyer belts that are very common in the shipping industry. That's not a problem at all for the recycler. That all comes out in the wash. By the time it gets made into new packaging material it's usually pretty clean. If the final product isn't clean, it won't be used for food. If it's enough dirt to change the weight of the cardboard, then it's a lot bigger concern, and you should consider composting it instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it looks like it might be grease or oil, then it's less useful for high quality paper products. You can tell it's oil if it has absorbed into the carboard and spread out in somewhat round patterns, much like how grease from your pizza soaks into the pizza box. You can identify heavy automotive grease if it spreads to another surface wiped against it. Grease and oil can also be identified by how a drop of water is prevented from absorbing into the contaminated area.  It's usually recommended not to put that into the recycle bin, even though it might be recycled for other uses. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;What's more of a problem is when there is a lot of tape and plastic labels, so you can help by removing most of that. Either way, the cardboard is probably not going to be rejected. To be certain, you should contact the organization that runs your recycle program and ask them. They usually make a good effort to be clear on what they can and cannot use, and the answer is usually just a phone call away. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9714" RevisionGUID="ee5c3313-222d-4288-84c8-1a8ee8540498" CreationDate="2019-11-30T10:38:30.477" UserId="4736" Text="I walk my dogs twice a day, pick up their poop with small disposable bags, and throw the bags in the first municipal trash bin I come across. They will presumably end up in a landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I previously assumed it was better to buy biodegradable or compostable bags, but now I'm learning that landfills are not good for composting, so this probably doesn't really work. One article even said that they will degrade anaerobically and release methane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more eco-friendly bags are generally significantly more expensive, so I don't want to buy them if there's no point. Is there one?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22557" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9714" RevisionGUID="ee5c3313-222d-4288-84c8-1a8ee8540498" CreationDate="2019-11-30T10:38:30.477" UserId="4736" Text="Is it worth buying compostable dog poop bags instead of plastic if I'm going to throw them in regular trash bins?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22558" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9714" RevisionGUID="ee5c3313-222d-4288-84c8-1a8ee8540498" CreationDate="2019-11-30T10:38:30.477" UserId="4736" Text="|plastic|plastic-alternatives|compostable-plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22559" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9587" RevisionGUID="fd15da20-91cf-4c3e-ba9b-45187bbc6335" CreationDate="2019-11-30T18:02:30.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22560" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9714" RevisionGUID="359ba2bf-b54d-4076-93ee-20484c425686" CreationDate="2019-12-01T06:33:48.523" UserId="-1" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[5975],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;,&quot;BindingReason&quot;:{&quot;DuplicateApprovedByAsker&quot;:&quot;&quot;}}]}" />
  <row Id="22561" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9715" RevisionGUID="be721442-34e7-4f07-ac64-5f1977493453" CreationDate="2019-12-02T01:47:45.607" UserId="6293" Text="A stainless-steel scrap-metal recycler can handle razor blades but they would need a very large load to be interested." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22562" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9716" RevisionGUID="7bbb2172-71ac-459f-9cce-ef277de4c1b5" CreationDate="2019-12-02T14:31:15.800" UserId="1529" Text="If I were you I would collect them in a tin (or some container which doesn't take up big space), and the first time I go to some waste collector to get rid of something special (even if that might be in 3 years from now), I would just take them too. Might be less of an effort than making individual trips to get rid of a few blades." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9717" RevisionGUID="99370cce-9539-4f0c-989d-46db0a46cafb" CreationDate="2019-12-02T18:24:34.697" UserId="3379" Text="In the U.S., the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) provides some great resources for examining the potential of solar PV systems, such as [PVWatts](https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/) and [the National Solar Radiation Database viewer](https://nsrdb.nrel.gov/). Data on real-world pricing ($/watt installed) is available in Berkeley Lab's annual [Tracking the Sun report](https://emp.lbl.gov/tracking-the-sun/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One piece of the puzzle that is missing is actual production or capacity factor data. This would account for factors which are either not modeled or not modeled precisely, such as severe weather events, soiling, improper installation, component failure, shading from trees/structures, curtailment, and physical damage, among others. By comparing this data to the solar potential data available from the sources I linked above, you could get a more realistic expectation for production from a proposed PV system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there a database of historical power production from solar PV installations?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that some utilities and business publish production data from individual installations (for green-washing purposes), but I'm more interested in a searchable database of this information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22564" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9717" RevisionGUID="99370cce-9539-4f0c-989d-46db0a46cafb" CreationDate="2019-12-02T18:24:34.697" UserId="3379" Text="Data source for real world solar PV production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22565" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9717" RevisionGUID="99370cce-9539-4f0c-989d-46db0a46cafb" CreationDate="2019-12-02T18:24:34.697" UserId="3379" Text="|solar-power|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22566" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9595" RevisionGUID="bf7cc2e6-b495-42d7-93dd-60d608e2da9e" CreationDate="2019-12-02T18:44:12.033" UserId="3379" Comment="added 103 characters in body" Text="I was recently reading that lithium mining for electric vehicle batteries is [wreaking havoc on deserts in Chile](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-06-11/saving-the-planet-with-electric-cars-means-strangling-this-desert).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One proposed alternative to EVs in the search for a replacement for petroleum-fueled vehicles is [hydrogen vehicles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_fuel_vehicle#Hydrogen). &#xD;&#xA;The most promising type of hydrogen vehicle uses a [fuel cell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell) to convert the chemical energy of hydrogen into electricity, with the only byproduct being water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm wondering if hydrogen vehicles may also have unique supply-chain issues like EVs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there significant environmental concerns or issues with supplying the necessary materials to mass-produce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in issues related to production of the *vehicles themselves* -- not the fuel source." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22567" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="6259" RevisionGUID="381e2faa-a662-4563-be7b-bcb55f7d2906" CreationDate="2019-12-02T18:47:10.203" UserId="3379" Comment="59" />
  <row Id="22572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="c9677ac8-72df-4be2-98ef-922138ece152" CreationDate="2019-12-03T20:51:13.117" UserId="3379" Text="I live in Madison, Wisconsin, US where our [winters are cold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison,_Wisconsin#Climate) -- for January and February, the average low is around -10C, with extremes regularly dipping below -20C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I currently have a 20-year old car. Soon enough, I expect that needed repairs will cost more than the value of the car. When I replace it, I would like to buy an electric vehicle. The problem is, for most of the year I do a majority of my commuting by bicycle, so that I only really use the car during the very cold parts of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**However, I've heard that cold weather can reduce electric vehicle range. Is this true? Has the effect been quantified? Does it vary based on model?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22573" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="c9677ac8-72df-4be2-98ef-922138ece152" CreationDate="2019-12-03T20:51:13.117" UserId="3379" Text="How does cold weather affect electric vehicles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22574" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="c9677ac8-72df-4be2-98ef-922138ece152" CreationDate="2019-12-03T20:51:13.117" UserId="3379" Text="|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9720" RevisionGUID="048c6f4b-ff25-45b5-9668-53991e506d91" CreationDate="2019-12-03T21:10:57.987" UserId="3379" Text="### Beneficial electrification&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the [National Resources Defense Council](https://www.nrdc.org/experts/vignesh-gowrishankar/beneficial-electrification-plug-greener-grid)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “Beneficial electrification,” a new catchphrase in the energy world, refers to the growing recognition that using clean electricity to keep our homes and businesses running is cheaper, greener, and a smarter way to meet our energy needs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, using electricity to power end-uses that used to require fossil fuels is a straight-forward way to reduce pollution and GHG emissions, if the electricity is generated by wind, solar, or hydro plants. With the [2C deadline approaching in less than 20 years](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180830084818.htm), it seems obvious that beneficial electrification will be one important strategy to reduce emissions and avoid climate catastrophe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Combined heat and power (CHP)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, another emissions-reducing strategy is [CHP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration), which uses a single system to generate both heat and electricity. Generally this involves a natural gas- or diesel-burning electric generator which uses the otherwise &quot;waste heat&quot; for things like water heating, space heating, or process heat -- things which would normally have their own separate heat source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By combining the systems, total efficiency can be boosted from 45% to as high as 80% ([source](https://aceee.org/topics/combined-heat-and-power-chp)), representing a huge opportunity to reduce emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These two seperate strategies for reducing emisisons would seem to be at odds -- one aims to stop burning any fuel, the other improves efficiency by changing where the fuel is burned. **But is there a role for CHP in an all-electric (or even more-electric) future?** Or should research and incentive funding for CHP systems instead be channeled to electrification?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22576" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9720" RevisionGUID="048c6f4b-ff25-45b5-9668-53991e506d91" CreationDate="2019-12-03T21:10:57.987" UserId="3379" Text="Will there be a role for combined heat and power in an all-electric future?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22577" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9720" RevisionGUID="048c6f4b-ff25-45b5-9668-53991e506d91" CreationDate="2019-12-03T21:10:57.987" UserId="3379" Text="|electricity-generation|fossil-fuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9721" RevisionGUID="f2dbb0ee-e22a-4a1f-924e-26eb2093ff69" CreationDate="2019-12-03T23:26:32.433" UserId="6293" Text="A combined-heat-and-power system can use the waste heat of a solid-oxide-fuel-cell to steam hydrogen out of natural-gas or out of propane. Then the hydrogen easily produces electricity using the SOFC. However, the waste heat can also easily go into a boiler that is connected to steam radiators for primary building heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a supporting link for a residential SOFC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/peoples-gas-completes-installation-of-the-first-watt-residential-fuel-cell-in-western-pennsylvania-300723773.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a commercial powerplant could produce hydrogen from reforming of most any liquid or gas fossil fuel using the waste heat of a SOFC, run the hydrogen through the SOFC to produce electricity, possibly produce more hydrogen than is needed and therefor gain marketable hydrogen, but finally capture the carbon-dioxide from the process to produce plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, the power companies have expertise in building smokestacks while the chemical companies have expertise in building elaborate systems for chemical processes. If the powerplants were built like chemical plants then it might be possible to have zero carbon release powerplants. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9722" RevisionGUID="42c31e52-96c6-426e-aa20-5ac9b1aa9665" CreationDate="2019-12-03T23:36:47.450" UserId="6293" Text="If the battery-powered-electric-vehicle charges overnight in a heated garage then I wouldn't expect big problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem I hear is that air-conditioning use in the summertime can reduce the range of a battery-powered-electric-vehicle by 50%. Well, the batteries make heat not cool air." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22580" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9721" RevisionGUID="da8b676d-45a0-4459-8d3f-ac66982b9e37" CreationDate="2019-12-03T23:48:41.937" UserId="6293" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="A combined-heat-and-power system can use the waste heat of a solid-oxide-fuel-cell to steam hydrogen out of natural-gas or out of propane. Then the hydrogen easily produces electricity using the SOFC. However, the waste heat can also easily go into a boiler that is connected to steam radiators for primary building heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a supporting link for a residential SOFC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/peoples-gas-completes-installation-of-the-first-watt-residential-fuel-cell-in-western-pennsylvania-300723773.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a commercial powerplant could produce hydrogen from reforming of most any liquid or gas fossil fuel using the waste heat of a SOFC, run the hydrogen through the SOFC to produce electricity, possibly produce more hydrogen than is needed and therefor gain marketable hydrogen, but finally capture the carbon-dioxide from the process to produce plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, the power companies have expertise in building smokestacks while the chemical companies have expertise in building elaborate systems for chemical processes. If the powerplants were built like chemical plants then it might be possible to have zero-carbon-release powerplants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a hydrogen-fuel-cell that uses its waste heat can have efficiencies of about 85%. A gas-turbine that uses its waste heat can have efficiencies of about 65%." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9721" RevisionGUID="5fb4de30-0983-4213-8fc3-afbb0a687a2b" CreationDate="2019-12-03T23:53:44.043" UserId="6293" Comment="added 167 characters in body" Text="A combined-heat-and-power system can use the waste heat of a solid-oxide-fuel-cell to steam hydrogen out of natural-gas or out of propane. Then the hydrogen easily produces electricity using the SOFC. However, the waste heat can also easily go into a boiler that is connected to steam radiators for primary building heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a supporting link for a residential SOFC:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/peoples-gas-completes-installation-of-the-first-watt-residential-fuel-cell-in-western-pennsylvania-300723773.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a commercial powerplant could produce hydrogen from reforming of most any liquid or gas fossil-fuel using the waste heat of a SOFC, run the hydrogen through the SOFC to produce electricity, possibly produce more hydrogen than is needed and therefor gain marketable hydrogen, but finally capture the carbon-dioxide from the process to produce plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See, the power companies have expertise in building smokestacks while the chemical companies have expertise in building elaborate systems for chemical processes. If the powerplants were built like chemical plants then it might be possible to have zero-carbon-release powerplants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a hydrogen-fuel-cell that uses its waste heat can have efficiencies of about 85%. A gas-turbine that uses its waste heat can have efficiencies of about 65%." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9709" RevisionGUID="d5157f27-a81a-4210-bfc4-efaf7e5d9f70" CreationDate="2019-12-04T08:33:04.200" UserId="2828" Comment="Improve English." Text="I am looking for a simple &quot;methodology&quot; to roughly estimate the carbon footprint associated with buying a new e.g. toaster. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More precisely, I would like to have clues to deal with such a situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that my old toaster with two compartments has a problem that allow me to toast only one piece of bread, while the two compartments are actually heating. So basically I waste half of the energy I consume. Is it better to buy a new one or to lose half of my toasting energy ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I guess that buying an old one or repairing mine would be the great solution; this is an hypothetical situation to illustrate what I would like.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22583" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9709" RevisionGUID="d5157f27-a81a-4210-bfc4-efaf7e5d9f70" CreationDate="2019-12-04T08:33:04.200" Comment="Proposed by 2828 approved by 3379, 99 edit id of 588" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9723" RevisionGUID="4a1ac3d4-651e-4459-8b2d-8b4feb84d1c1" CreationDate="2019-12-04T11:05:44.633" UserId="99" Text="The optimal temperature for a lithium-ion car battery is 20-25°C. When it's cold the battery can store less energy, so the range will go down. Additionally in winter people turn on the car's heater. In a fossil-fuel powered car this means that heat generated by the engine is diverted to the inside of the car. The engine of an electric car however does not generate heat, so when you turn on its heater it will use additional energy from the battery to power a resistance heater thus reducing the range even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here in the Netherlands many car review sites list the 'realistic' range of an electric car. This is because the range provided by car manufacturers are way too optimistic as they base their numbers on experiments done in a laboratory. Some review sites provide a pessimistic range (often called winter) and an optimistic range (often called summer). To give an example, [this website says the range for a Tesla Model 3 Standard is](https://ev-database.nl/auto/1060/Tesla-Model-3-Standard-Range#range):&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Practical range : 225 - 465 km&#xD;&#xA;      City - Winter    : 300 km     City - Summer    : 465 km&#xD;&#xA;      Highway - Winter : 225 km     Highway - Summer : 295 km&#xD;&#xA;      Average - Winter : 260 km     Average - Summer : 370 km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [site explains](https://ev-database.nl/blog/praktische-actieradius-elektrische-auto/) (in Dutch, translated [here](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&amp;sl=nl&amp;tl=en&amp;u=https%3A%2F%2Fev-database.nl%2Fblog%2Fpraktische-actieradius-elektrische-auto%2F)) that they use a model to calculate these numbers and that the model is fine-tuned regularly based on actual numbers found in practice.&#xD;&#xA;For the winter case they assume -10°C and the use of heating. For summer they assume an ideal temperature of 23°C without using climate control. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I compared the 'Average - Winter' and 'Average - Summer' numbers for several cars and noticed that winter is 25-30% less compared to summer. It looks like the reduction is smaller for smaller cars. For the Tesla Model 3 it's 29.7%, for the [Peugeot Ion](https://ev-database.nl/auto/1095/Peugeot-iOn#range) it's 25.0%" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9725" RevisionGUID="8fd63865-8d29-432f-b9b2-33306a5a530c" CreationDate="2019-12-04T23:12:03.557" UserId="2345" Text="Allied to the question: [How does cold weather affect electric vehicles?][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does hot weather affect electric vehicles, particularly when the temperature is above 30 C?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9719/how-does-cold-weather-affect-electric-vehicles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9725" RevisionGUID="8fd63865-8d29-432f-b9b2-33306a5a530c" CreationDate="2019-12-04T23:12:03.557" UserId="2345" Text="The effect of hot weather on the performance of electric vehicles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9725" RevisionGUID="8fd63865-8d29-432f-b9b2-33306a5a530c" CreationDate="2019-12-04T23:12:03.557" UserId="2345" Text="|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9725" RevisionGUID="2e349c4a-5a6a-4dc2-a91a-9690134ae0b1" CreationDate="2019-12-04T23:43:57.833" UserId="2345" Comment="Added a higher temperature" Text="Allied to the question: [How does cold weather affect electric vehicles?][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does hot weather affect electric vehicles, particularly when the atmospheric temperature is above 30 C and closer to 40 C?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9719/how-does-cold-weather-affect-electric-vehicles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9726" RevisionGUID="37a48ae1-5ace-4df4-8452-2feb55a29c24" CreationDate="2019-12-05T01:08:20.797" UserId="6293" Text="It takes less energy to cool a passenger compartment from 90 degrees F to 70 degrees F than it does to heat a passenger compartment from 25 degrees F to 70 degrees F:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1102028_electric-car-battery-energy-why-waste-it-on-cabin-heating-video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And hydrogen-fuel-cell buses are claiming the biggest advantage in cold weather:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.ballard.com/battery-electric-bus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9722" RevisionGUID="19029d77-4354-40e6-aa8c-450c0c7b4b3e" CreationDate="2019-12-05T01:16:22.057" UserId="6293" Comment="added 280 characters in body" Text="If the battery-powered-electric-vehicle charges overnight in a heated garage then I wouldn't expect big problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem I hear is that air-conditioning use in the summertime can reduce the range of a battery-powered-electric-vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it takes less energy to cool a passenger compartment from 90 degrees F to 70 degrees F than it does to heat a passenger compartment from 25 degrees F to 70 degrees F. Combine that situation with the fact that the batteries work better in warm weather than in cold weather and then cold weather is the bigger problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9726" RevisionGUID="52bafa2e-7c02-4ef4-a1d3-c09dcb838922" CreationDate="2019-12-05T01:19:30.433" UserId="6293" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="It takes less energy to cool a passenger compartment from 90 degrees F to 70 degrees F than it does to heat a passenger compartment from 25 degrees F to 70 degrees F:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1102028_electric-car-battery-energy-why-waste-it-on-cabin-heating-video&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And hydrogen-fuel-cell buses are claiming the biggest advantage over battery-powered buses in cold weather:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.ballard.com/battery-electric-bus" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22595" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9725" RevisionGUID="22b5c9cf-d039-4274-84c4-7896fcd73350" CreationDate="2019-12-05T02:10:22.323" UserId="2345" Comment="added 69 characters in body" Text="Allied to the question: [How does cold weather affect electric vehicles?][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does hot weather affect electric vehicles, particularly when the atmospheric temperature is above 30 C and closer to 40 C, as can be experienced in tropical or dessert climates during summer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9719/how-does-cold-weather-affect-electric-vehicles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9723" RevisionGUID="b6d2d9b0-e44f-4aa3-9016-9071d731d194" CreationDate="2019-12-05T08:19:56.957" UserId="99" Comment="added part about tire pressure, fixed typo" Text="The optimal temperature for a lithium-ion car battery is 20-25°C. When it's cold the battery can store less energy, so the range will go down. Additionally in winter people turn on the car's heater. In a fossil-fuel powered car this means that heat generated by the engine is diverted to the inside of the car. The engine of an electric car however does not generate heat, so when you turn on its heater it will use additional energy from the battery to power a resistance heater thus reducing the range even more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tire pressure can also have some influence. Colder temperatures reduces tire pressure which causes more resistance with the road thus also reducing range. Many people check their car's tire pressure once a year at best and when that's in summer they will be driving with too low pressure during winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here in the Netherlands many car review sites list the 'realistic' range of an electric car. This is because the range provided by car manufacturers is way too optimistic as they base their numbers on experiments done in a laboratory. Some review sites provide a pessimistic range (often called winter) and an optimistic range (often called summer). To give an example, [this website says the range for a Tesla Model 3 Standard is](https://ev-database.nl/auto/1060/Tesla-Model-3-Standard-Range#range):&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA;    Practical range : 225 - 465 km&#xD;&#xA;      City - Winter    : 300 km     City - Summer    : 465 km&#xD;&#xA;      Highway - Winter : 225 km     Highway - Summer : 295 km&#xD;&#xA;      Average - Winter : 260 km     Average - Summer : 370 km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [site explains](https://ev-database.nl/blog/praktische-actieradius-elektrische-auto/) (in Dutch, translated [here](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&amp;sl=nl&amp;tl=en&amp;u=https%3A%2F%2Fev-database.nl%2Fblog%2Fpraktische-actieradius-elektrische-auto%2F)) that they use a model to calculate these numbers and that the model is fine-tuned regularly based on numbers found in practice. For the range in winter they assume -10°C and the use of heating. For summer they assume an ideal temperature of 23°C without using climate control. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I compared the 'Average - Winter' and 'Average - Summer' numbers for several cars and noticed that range in winter is 25-30% less compared to summer. It looks like the reduction is smaller for smaller cars. For the Tesla Model 3 it's 29.7%, for the [Peugeot Ion](https://ev-database.nl/auto/1095/Peugeot-iOn#range) it's 25.0%" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22597" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9725" RevisionGUID="3759dea4-062f-49ca-b577-5c5261d4fc3c" CreationDate="2019-12-05T09:00:36.460" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1202513088316092421" />
  <row Id="22599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9727" RevisionGUID="4a537ca5-eac8-450c-a6f9-fcc5a2fb035f" CreationDate="2019-12-05T15:41:03.000" UserId="8206" Text="Why are there no energy star certifications for portable fans?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I understand no portable electric heaters have the certification because using a portable heater is not efficient at all.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ceiling fans and ventilation fans are certified; however, portable fans are not.  Is there a reasoning behind this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22600" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9727" RevisionGUID="4a537ca5-eac8-450c-a6f9-fcc5a2fb035f" CreationDate="2019-12-05T15:41:03.000" UserId="8206" Text="Why is there no energy star certification for portable or box fans?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22601" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9727" RevisionGUID="4a537ca5-eac8-450c-a6f9-fcc5a2fb035f" CreationDate="2019-12-05T15:41:03.000" UserId="8206" Text="|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9728" RevisionGUID="2a66d8e1-9f84-44da-ba96-a19c5aeaeca8" CreationDate="2019-12-05T16:38:19.220" UserId="3379" Text="**tl;dr: fans are cheap already pretty efficient, so an ENERGY STAR certification wouldn't do much to reduce energy usage.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ENERGY STAR provides a list of [scoping reports](https://www.energystar.gov/products/scoping_reports) with details of products that are not certified, but have been studied for certification. Portable fans are not on the list. However, we can look at the six &quot;guiding principles&quot; for establishing certifications for a new class of products to understand why. These are explained in the [&quot;ENERGY STAR® Products Program Strategic Vision and Guiding Principles&quot;](https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY_STAR_Strategic_Vision_and_Guiding_Principles.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1. Significant energy savings can be realized on a national basis**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;An ENERGY STAR specification can achieve sizable energy savings from a product category where there are significant savings on a unit basis and limited annual unit sales (e.g. commercial kitchen equipment) or, where there are relatively small energy savings on a unit basis, but very large annual unit sales (e.g. laptops).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PASS.** Portable fans fall in the second category (large annual sales), so they should qualify based on this test.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2. Product performance can be maintained or enhanced with increased energy efficiency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**FAIL.** The ENERGY STAR product should be at least as good as the non-certified product, if not better. For a fan, there's not much you can do to improve functionality, since most use dead-simple mechanical switches. Adding features would require more electronics (for things like timers, thermostats, occupancy sensors, etc.) which would inherently require more power, *reducing* total efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **3.  Purchasers will recover their investment in increased energy efficiency within a reasonable period of time**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**FAIL.** Portable fans are really cheap and easy to replace, in contrast to ceiling and ventilation fans, which tend to be more expensive up-front, and are permanently installed, making them more expensive to replace. Cost recovery would need to be nearly instantaneous for a higher-cost unit to make sense, and since the efficiency of a portable fan is already pushing 97%, this is an essentially impossible standard to attain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **4.  Energy-efficiency can be achieved through one or more technologies such that qualifying products are broadly available and offered by more than one manufacturer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PASS.** Portable fan technology is so simple that if there were ways to improve efficiency, lots of manufacturers would be able to implement them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **5.  Product energy consumption and performance can be measured and verified with testing**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PASS.** Portable fans probably meet this requirement, since ceiling and ventilation fans already do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **6.  Labeling would effectively differentiate products and be visible for purchasers**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If all product models used approximately equal amounts of energy, then an ENERGY STAR specification would not be pragmatic and would not be established&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**FAIL**. This is probably the most significant issue here. Most portable fans which plug in to the wall use induction motors, for which [efficiencies of 85% to 97%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_motor#Efficiency) are readily achievable. This leaves a very small window in which a certified unit could improve." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9729" RevisionGUID="fb0c4fff-21cb-4a91-8718-5b8c04acd171" CreationDate="2019-12-05T20:18:16.477" UserId="6393" Text="This totally depends on several things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, whether you pre-heat the vehicle. When plugged in, the vehicle may offer the possibility to pre-heat the interior and also the batteries. The interior heating reduces need to convert electricity to heat, and heating the batteries ensures they're at an optimal temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, whether the vehicle has a heat pump or uses a traditional resistance heater. For some strange reason, one of the most popular EVs, Tesla, uses traditional resistance heaters. Most others use heat pumps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cold air is more dense, so air resistance is going to increase. Batteries aren't optimal when cold, but then again all good EVs offer the possibility to heat up the batteries using their energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, do note that if you store your electric vehicle in very cold uncharged, it destroys the batteries. If you store it charged, it uses some of the charge to maintain a temperature on the batteries to prevent the cold from destroying them. So, don't leave an EV with low charge to very cold temperatures, and don't be surprised that mere storage in cold environments can eat up some of the battery charge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9730" RevisionGUID="8d6a491e-c55d-4113-999b-62ed75c248e9" CreationDate="2019-12-05T20:23:10.880" UserId="6393" Text="Hotter air is less dense. If you turn off the AC, you should be getting increased range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, most people value comfort over range, and thus, the increased range won't materialize but rather the range decreases due to more AC need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if you don't do anything to the tires, hotter air increases tire pressures, reducing rolling resistance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9731" RevisionGUID="9d6668bd-6fae-4301-9cd5-42a986bfea2b" CreationDate="2019-12-05T20:31:54.750" UserId="6393" Text="Where I live, there is a mine that was planned to be used for uranium extraction. The uranium concentration is 20 ppm, or in other words 0.002%. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.e-mj.com/news/europe/talvivaara-planning-uranium-recovery/&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An EV battery contains 11.6 kWh per kg of lithium. So, 11.6 kWh = 1 kg of lithium. 11.6 kWh battery however weighs ~50 kg. So, about 2% of the battery is lithium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if uranium can be mined at 0.002% concentration, and a battery contains 2% of lithium, I am 100% certain that a used battery can be treated as an extraordinarily high-grade ore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Summary&lt;/b&gt;: the battery is a very high-grade ore and thus the precious metals in disposed batteries WILL be reused." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9732" RevisionGUID="02339843-bd3f-4cfc-8974-9f401635982d" CreationDate="2019-12-05T21:22:50.193" UserId="6293" Text="In the recycling of lithium-ion batteries, cobalt is first in importance while lithium is second:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190401115823.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/sustainability-second-life-cobalt-lithium-recycling.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/Commodities/Milestone-reached-in-the-recycle-of-cobalt-from-spent-EV-batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But presumably, nickel is third in importance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X05000164&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, consider that BYD battery-powered electric-vehicles use lithium-iron-phosphate batteries. The lithium-iron-phosphate batteries have less fire risk than lithium-ion batteries.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9733" RevisionGUID="bf893638-b09c-42a3-9407-f0131a1eeb6f" CreationDate="2019-12-06T03:06:14.820" UserId="8209" Text="Reuse beats recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thinking of the huge electric vehicle batteries as resources to recycle, once they no longer serve their first-life purpose of pushing cars around streets, is wasteful, when they have a second life as grid or home scale power backups like Tesla's PowerWall." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22609" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9725" RevisionGUID="e894bc1a-ed36-4b22-b0d1-86205e3f2cfc" CreationDate="2019-12-06T04:13:20.263" UserId="2345" Comment="Clarified the quesiton further" Text="Allied to the question: [How does cold weather affect electric vehicles?][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does hot weather affect electric vehicles, particularly when the atmospheric temperature is above 30 C and closer to 40 C, as can be experienced in tropical or dessert climates during summer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit 2019.12.06&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Within the category of performance I'm also interested the performance and efficiency of critical components such as the battery/batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9719/how-does-cold-weather-affect-electric-vehicles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22610" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9728" RevisionGUID="fef350af-b43e-493b-9b44-47acd2bf68c7" CreationDate="2019-12-06T04:58:04.153" UserId="3379" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="**tl;dr: fans are cheap and already pretty efficient, so an ENERGY STAR certification wouldn't do much to reduce energy usage.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ENERGY STAR provides a list of [scoping reports](https://www.energystar.gov/products/scoping_reports) with details of products that are not certified, but have been studied for certification. Portable fans are not on the list. However, we can look at the six &quot;guiding principles&quot; for establishing certifications for a new class of products to understand why. These are explained in the [&quot;ENERGY STAR® Products Program Strategic Vision and Guiding Principles&quot;](https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY_STAR_Strategic_Vision_and_Guiding_Principles.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **1. Significant energy savings can be realized on a national basis**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;An ENERGY STAR specification can achieve sizable energy savings from a product category where there are significant savings on a unit basis and limited annual unit sales (e.g. commercial kitchen equipment) or, where there are relatively small energy savings on a unit basis, but very large annual unit sales (e.g. laptops).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PASS.** Portable fans fall in the second category (large annual sales), so they should qualify based on this test.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **2. Product performance can be maintained or enhanced with increased energy efficiency**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**FAIL.** The ENERGY STAR product should be at least as good as the non-certified product, if not better. For a fan, there's not much you can do to improve functionality, since most use dead-simple mechanical switches. Adding features would require more electronics (for things like timers, thermostats, occupancy sensors, etc.) which would inherently require more power, *reducing* total efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **3.  Purchasers will recover their investment in increased energy efficiency within a reasonable period of time**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**FAIL.** Portable fans are really cheap and easy to replace, in contrast to ceiling and ventilation fans, which tend to be more expensive up-front, and are permanently installed, making them more expensive to replace. Cost recovery would need to be nearly instantaneous for a higher-cost unit to make sense, and since the efficiency of a portable fan is already pushing 97% (see point 6), this is an essentially impossible standard to attain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **4.  Energy-efficiency can be achieved through one or more technologies such that qualifying products are broadly available and offered by more than one manufacturer**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PASS.** Portable fan technology is so simple that if there were ways to improve efficiency, lots of manufacturers would be able to implement them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **5.  Product energy consumption and performance can be measured and verified with testing**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**PASS.** Portable fans probably meet this requirement, since ceiling and ventilation fans already do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **6.  Labeling would effectively differentiate products and be visible for purchasers**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If all product models used approximately equal amounts of energy, then an ENERGY STAR specification would not be pragmatic and would not be established&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**FAIL**. This is probably the most significant issue here. Most portable fans which plug in to the wall use induction motors, for which [efficiencies of 85% to 97%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_motor#Efficiency) are readily achievable. This leaves a very small window in which a certified unit could improve." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9733" RevisionGUID="8b2d0ad3-3bca-4bdf-970b-32d69b716e7e" CreationDate="2019-12-06T04:59:36.183" UserId="8209" Comment="Clarified that this response specifically isn't about mining the battery for lithium, which is senseless destruction of sunk costs in typical cases." Text="Reuse beats recycling. The active duty life span of an EV battery (cells and control electronics both) is hugely longer outside of an EV, so reclaiming lithium from them should be a last resort only at the point where no more economical uses for them exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thinking of the huge electric vehicle batteries as resources to recycle, once they no longer serve their first-life purpose of pushing cars around streets, is wasteful, when they have a second life as grid or home scale power backups like Tesla's PowerWall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;End of functionality as a car battery is reached very long before end of functionality in scenarios where properties like weight to capacity ratios don't matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9734" RevisionGUID="6cf6b2e5-4abf-43b5-b96e-2e82f81ba6a8" CreationDate="2019-12-06T06:35:29.970" UserId="8210" Text="I have a rudimentary understanding of volts and amps. (Volts is like pressure and Amps are like the bandwidth of that pressure.) So just reasoning about it, I imagine charging to be an event where the car battery pack is being connected to the power source as an open system. Meaning that the source is pushing electrons into the car battery against the strain of the car battery which is pushing back on the power source. And, thus, achieving a charge implies having more pressure going into the battery than out. Is this correct so far?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that leads me to wonder: Would I be expending more “effort” (energy) to charge with a weaker 110v push from the power source over a longer period of time than with a stronger 220v push over a shorter period of time?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, I understand that there is only about 90% efficiency when charging — some electricity is lost in the process as heat (?) and... (something else?). But I don’t know if that 90% number is relative to the voltage of the power source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: Is it more cost effective to charge my Model 3 at home (in the 20% -- 80%) range on a higher voltage circuit, or is it basically even? And if it’s not even, how can we determine the difference other than by empirical measurement?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9734" RevisionGUID="6cf6b2e5-4abf-43b5-b96e-2e82f81ba6a8" CreationDate="2019-12-06T06:35:29.970" UserId="8210" Text="Is charging Tesla Model 3 at 110v/15amp less energy efficient than at 220v/30amp?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9734" RevisionGUID="6cf6b2e5-4abf-43b5-b96e-2e82f81ba6a8" CreationDate="2019-12-06T06:35:29.970" UserId="8210" Text="|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9735" RevisionGUID="80e5a8fc-04a5-4ef2-abff-b79947947494" CreationDate="2019-12-06T11:51:46.273" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;b&gt;Let's take a look at resistance!&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 220 volts, the resistance energy waste is R*(30 A)&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Charging power is 220 V * 30 A. So, resistance waste divided by charging power is R * (30 A) / (220 V).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 110 volts, the fraction is R * (15 A) / (110 V).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because 15 divided by 110 is the same as 30 divided by 220, if you are using the same cable, the power wasted to resistance is the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you could charge at 220 V and 15 A, you should be getting better efficiency with the high voltage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is just the cable resistance. The charger could be optimized for a particular voltage, as Chris H noted. It also could be optimized for a particular current." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22617" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9734" RevisionGUID="26383d0c-4df4-4044-a93a-9374e8bc3ea7" CreationDate="2019-12-06T15:00:17.913" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1202965995700281345" />
  <row Id="22619" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9616" RevisionGUID="ef40ccff-b38a-49d6-b0e1-af7bde52a631" CreationDate="2019-12-08T18:04:38.470" UserId="8013" Comment="Adding missing details following question from LShaver" Text="As a guide, mature sitka spruce forest in the UK has 500m3 of wood per hectare [report](https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/2117/FCBK048.pdf);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wood has a density of 450 kg/m3 [density tables](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-density-d_40.html), to that makes 225 tonnes of wood per hectare. The wood is about 50% carbon, so that would convert to 110 tonnes of coal per hectare (the carbon content for wood is discussed by [Lamlon in Biomass and Energy][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't necessarily convert to coal -- this answer addresses the question of how much forest would be needed to match the carbon content. The rate of conversion to coal depends on many factors .. and most (perhaps all?) of the coal we are burning was produced in conditions very different from today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;40,000 TWh of energy requires 20,000 Tg of coal (http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/ctele.htm), i.e. 20x10^15 g = 20x10^9 tonnes, which would be equivalent to 0.2 X 10^9 hectare = 2 x 10^6 km2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be about one third of the area of the Amazon jungle (these numbers come with no guarantee, and the Amazon obviously has a different density to Sitka spruce plantations ... but it is interesting to see how you can arrive at an answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953403000333" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9736" RevisionGUID="24565474-3bd7-4cf8-b393-e983bf2120c9" CreationDate="2019-12-08T22:07:38.697" UserId="8013" Text="The &quot;[Environmental Impact Study of Juice][1]&quot; by Questionmark provides some useful information, though it does not deal with organic farming explicitly. Its is worth noting that different production methods in different countries have a huge impact. They use the [ReCiPe][2] framework, which is a Dutch national standard for environmental impact assessment. By this measure, juice from Germany has half the impact of similar juice from Poland, because they use less diesel, land and pesticide in Germany. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Packaging is not mentioned in this study, while pesticides are a major factor -- I'm surprised that they don't include packaging. On the other hand, I can't see any information in the WWF link provided about the calculation behind their results. They must be making some rather broad assumptions. For example, they ask whether you you recycle plastic or send it to land fill, but don't ask how much you send to landfill. The choice to ignore packaging in the Dutch report may be due to the fact that, in my limited experience, they use rather low impact packaging compared to the UK. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://questionmark-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/03/Questionmark-Environmental-impact-study-Juice.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.pre-sustainability.com/recipe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9737" RevisionGUID="6615b04d-1e0f-465f-b351-174a09c28fba" CreationDate="2019-12-09T11:23:59.613" UserId="5493" Text="I wonder how much carbon dioxide is captures per annum in the EU at the moment. In this &lt;a href=&quot;https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/iogp_-_report_-_ccs_ccu.pdf&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; (p. 5), one can read that the two largest CCS facilities in Europe currently capture around 1,55 Mt/y. However, there are many other smaller CCS facilities deployed throughout Europe. I'd like to know much carbon dioxide they capture each year in total. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9737" RevisionGUID="6615b04d-1e0f-465f-b351-174a09c28fba" CreationDate="2019-12-09T11:23:59.613" UserId="5493" Text="How much CO2 is currently captured in the EU per year with CCS technologies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9737" RevisionGUID="6615b04d-1e0f-465f-b351-174a09c28fba" CreationDate="2019-12-09T11:23:59.613" UserId="5493" Text="|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22625" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9734" RevisionGUID="5c0ad67e-5987-4ac2-be17-f6a35aed993d" CreationDate="2019-12-09T17:00:34.023" UserId="8210" Comment="edited tags" Text="|batteries|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9738" RevisionGUID="541319a0-3f24-4aa1-91f0-307d5e81a20a" CreationDate="2019-12-09T17:09:51.123" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22627" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9738" RevisionGUID="541319a0-3f24-4aa1-91f0-307d5e81a20a" CreationDate="2019-12-09T17:09:51.123" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9739" RevisionGUID="df1d1cdd-0429-4efa-ba2d-000291f43335" CreationDate="2019-12-09T17:09:51.123" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22629" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9739" RevisionGUID="df1d1cdd-0429-4efa-ba2d-000291f43335" CreationDate="2019-12-09T17:09:51.123" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9737" RevisionGUID="01a1aace-86da-473b-8c8f-e2004d82d0a1" CreationDate="2019-12-09T17:14:53.620" UserId="8210" Comment="Fix wording" Text="I wonder how much carbon dioxide is captured per annum in the EU at the moment. In this &lt;a href=&quot;https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/iogp_-_report_-_ccs_ccu.pdf&quot;&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; (p. 5), one can read that the two largest CCS facilities in Europe currently capture around 1,55 Mt/y. However, there are many other smaller CCS facilities deployed throughout Europe. I'd like to how know much carbon dioxide they capture each year in total. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22631" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9737" RevisionGUID="01a1aace-86da-473b-8c8f-e2004d82d0a1" CreationDate="2019-12-09T17:14:53.620" Comment="Proposed by 8210 approved by 5493 edit id of 591" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22632" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9725" RevisionGUID="5ab7e2ea-9999-424a-85de-9192e60f4bb7" CreationDate="2019-12-09T22:09:09.770" UserId="8210" Comment="Change title structure into a question." Text="What is the effect of hot weather on the performance of electric vehicles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22633" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9725" RevisionGUID="5ab7e2ea-9999-424a-85de-9192e60f4bb7" CreationDate="2019-12-09T22:09:09.770" Comment="Proposed by 8210 approved by -1 edit id of 592" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22634" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9725" RevisionGUID="4da7601f-ce06-4192-bcc2-39a6786ffff7" CreationDate="2019-12-09T22:09:09.770" UserId="3379" Comment="Change title structure into a question." Text="Allied to the question: [How does cold weather affect electric vehicles?][1]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How does hot weather affect electric vehicles, particularly when the atmospheric temperature is above 30 C and closer to 40 C, as can be experienced in tropical or desert climates during summer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Within the category of performance I'm also interested the performance and efficiency of critical components such as the battery/batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9719/how-does-cold-weather-affect-electric-vehicles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22635" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9719" RevisionGUID="8618a55d-54d6-40a9-974b-0a0fb832c36c" CreationDate="2019-12-10T06:00:36.967" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1204279731589386240" />
  <row Id="22636" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9628" RevisionGUID="31eca116-14a5-4ac4-b65a-17fa5f498000" CreationDate="2019-12-10T08:01:50.290" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22637" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9727" RevisionGUID="9127bdb8-a2be-497f-a916-7963d6cd3b37" CreationDate="2019-12-10T18:00:43.620" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1204460953099735041" />
  <row Id="22638" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="6259" RevisionGUID="1f671714-8be9-40bd-90ff-4b518a7035e6" CreationDate="2019-12-10T20:02:10.403" UserId="-1" Comment="59" />
  <row Id="22641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9739" RevisionGUID="87f94464-68ff-4760-9ae5-ab9e8080194e" CreationDate="2019-12-11T07:47:46.047" UserId="8210" Comment="added 50 characters in body" Text="Tesla, Inc. energy products and electric vehicles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22642" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9739" RevisionGUID="87f94464-68ff-4760-9ae5-ab9e8080194e" CreationDate="2019-12-11T07:47:46.047" Comment="Proposed by 8210 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 590" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22643" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9738" RevisionGUID="a7a815a9-54e3-4ba9-a717-df95025fd1f0" CreationDate="2019-12-11T07:47:53.670" UserId="8210" Comment="added 529 characters in body" Text="[Tesla, Inc.][1] is an energy/automobile company whose products cover sustainable energy: production (solar panels / solar roof), storage (vehicle, home, and grid-scale battery packs), and consumption (self driving cars, trucks, and semis); supercharging; insurance; and more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Products][2]&#xD;&#xA;- [Carbon Impact][3]&#xD;&#xA;- [2018 Impact report][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tesla.com&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.tesla.com/presskit&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.tesla.com/carbonimpact&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/tesla-impact-report-2019.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22644" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9738" RevisionGUID="a7a815a9-54e3-4ba9-a717-df95025fd1f0" CreationDate="2019-12-11T07:47:53.670" Comment="Proposed by 8210 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 589" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9740" RevisionGUID="51c864ac-3ebc-4a09-8ac4-42b8d9d4d67d" CreationDate="2019-12-11T12:21:27.720" UserId="2187" Text="I am wondering what are the positive as well as negative impacts on CO2 emissions from using cloud spreadsheets like Google Sheets, in comparison to traditional software like Excel that is being applied locally or on a local network as opposed to the cloud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any studies you are aware of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9740" RevisionGUID="51c864ac-3ebc-4a09-8ac4-42b8d9d4d67d" CreationDate="2019-12-11T12:21:27.720" UserId="2187" Text="What are the impacts on CO2 emissions from using cloud spreadsheets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9740" RevisionGUID="51c864ac-3ebc-4a09-8ac4-42b8d9d4d67d" CreationDate="2019-12-11T12:21:27.720" UserId="2187" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9740" RevisionGUID="52bb6b5a-e56c-4228-9792-279259e67507" CreationDate="2019-12-12T07:53:24.187" UserId="2187" Comment="broadened" Text="I am wondering what are the positive as well as negative impacts on CO2 emissions from using cloud software like Google Sheets, in comparison to traditional software that run locally or on a local network (like Excel)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any studies you are aware of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22650" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9740" RevisionGUID="52bb6b5a-e56c-4228-9792-279259e67507" CreationDate="2019-12-12T07:53:24.187" UserId="2187" Comment="broadened" Text="What are the impacts on CO2 emissions from using cloud software?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22651" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9737" RevisionGUID="6cd5c2c5-31b3-4dbb-abd1-240389ef92f9" CreationDate="2019-12-12T09:00:41.433" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1205049824103542791" />
  <row Id="22652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9741" RevisionGUID="91b65b90-5dc5-48e0-ac70-3ea843d0d096" CreationDate="2019-12-12T19:01:19.247" UserId="6393" Text="If using Google Sheets, you are giving Google a lot of information about you. Google can and will read all of the contents of every file you upload and use the information for advertisement targeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a software developer, I'd say the majority of the processing power needed at the server side is the advertisement targeting information collection. The software itself, if you could use it without ad targeting, would require relatively little resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The server side of a web application can vary tremendously depending on which language they use: compiled or interpreted. So, there can be at least 10x differences in the needed server resources. I don't know what language Google Sheets is programmed in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The storage part also needs some resources, but that depends on how much storage space you need. You can calculate it by figuring out the energy usage of various storage technologies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9742" RevisionGUID="884422e1-5635-4564-beda-497dc92f08b0" CreationDate="2019-12-12T19:06:09.180" UserId="6393" Text="Where I live, forests reach a density of 100-200 cubic meters of growing stock per hectare. One cubic meter equals one tonne of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 1870 to 2014, cumulative carbon emissions totaled about 545 GtC. This is about 2000 GtCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, you need 10-20 gigahectares of land. It is 100-200 million square kilometers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_forest_area&quot;&gt;world forest area is only 39 million square kilometers&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps in more temperate regions the forests can reach a higher density. But even then, I'd say we have already used so much fossil fuels that the trees in the forests of the entire world can't contain an equivalent amount of carbon." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9743" RevisionGUID="4e40cbcd-b26c-439b-92ca-19b46d235c3a" CreationDate="2019-12-15T11:04:17.330" UserId="6664" Text="Hair can also be used to clean oil spills. Stuffed into upcycled pantyhose, it serves as an eco-friendly way of adsorbing oil spills which then allegedly can be composted with the help of worms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources: [BBC article][1], [Vox video][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8674539.stm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2Pll0V4HdM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9744" RevisionGUID="e88abf7d-be5a-4c93-a1df-672db3d19237" CreationDate="2019-12-15T16:17:56.773" UserId="6664" Text="Here's what I've come across so far (not affiliated, just sharing):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[collective.energy][1] is a fairly new but highly active community, I was lucky to notice its launch on Product Hunt recently;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[green apes][2] is a platform for sharing all things sustainable and be rewarded for your impact - it originates from Italy and currently is most active in Europe, but spreading worldwide as well;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[treeday][3] has an active community along with the guides and maps of sustainable businesses and places, also with a reward system - it originates from Germany and is most active there and across Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Joulebug which [THelper][4] mentioned earlier also has alternatives, e.g. [1 million women app][5] originating from Australia, there's always some discussion going on in the comments section of sustainable actions, and there's an opportunity to create and join groups although currently no one uses this feature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://collective.energy/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.greenapes.com/en/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.treeday.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/99/thelper&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.1millionwomen.com.au/campaigns/1-million-women-app/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8311" RevisionGUID="9217e60a-83d7-456e-bc18-6b1be931213c" CreationDate="2019-12-15T19:24:03.393" UserId="6664" Comment="update with a newly discovered patform: climate.careers" Text="1) There's a special [&quot;sustainability&quot; category on AngelList][1] if you consider jobs in startups. IT jobs can be found there as well as non-IT. What's really nice is that you can figure out a company's mission simply by looking at its short description, eg:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The climate impact of everything made accessible to everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;or&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The digital sourcing platform - faster, leaner and more responsible supply chains&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) As for B Corp mentioned earlier, they even provide job listings on a [separate website][2]. IT jobs are listed there as well as non-IT, but filters make it easier to find what you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) You might also consider browsing indexes of ethical and sustainable alternatives and manually checking &quot;career&quot; webpages of those companies which attract your attention. Such indexes are the following: [ethical][3], [ethical consumer][4] (especially their &quot;technology&quot; category), [rank a brand][5] (&quot;telecom&quot;, &quot;online&quot;, &quot;electronics&quot; categories, although many companies are not ranked yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) UPD: I recently discovered [Climate.Careers][6] - a specialized job discovery platform connecting climate-impactful companies with mission-driven talent. You can filter jobs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - by impact areas (e.g. ecosystems &amp; biodiversity, food &amp; agriculture), &#xD;&#xA; - more specific by climate solutions (e.g. afforestation, vertical farming), &#xD;&#xA; - by role (ICT-related Engineering: Software, Data Analyst, Data Scientist, Design, Quality Assurance, Project Manager and so on);&#xD;&#xA; - and more parameters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's quite a lot of job opportunities listed there, including well-known companies such as Ecosia, Too Good To Go, Leap, but not limited to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://angel.co/sustainability/jobs&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bwork.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ethical.net/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.rankabrand.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.climate.careers/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9745" RevisionGUID="876f05ca-01df-4560-8907-305dfccfaaab" CreationDate="2019-12-15T20:02:54.657" UserId="8228" Text="From a wearing standpoint:&#xD;&#xA;1.  Bamboo is extremely stretchy - if the garment you are looking at is made of bamboo, you need to consider if you are expecting any support; because from my experience there is no support.  For example: leggings - comfort is great, softness is great but they are not &quot;snappy&quot;.  I am in fact amazed at how form fitting this fabric can be without causing any compression whatsoever;  I am accustom to snap in my leggings.&#xD;&#xA;2.  Due to extreme amount of stretch - there is a certain &quot;show through&quot; factor in the sense of form (not skin)- think nipple form through a cami.&#xD;&#xA;3.  It is wonderfully soft&#xD;&#xA;4.  Due to extreme stretch it makes great non-restrictive work out clothing - however, there is the element of form &quot;show through&quot; even when bamboo clothing is layered, form show through does not seem to diminish.&#xD;&#xA;5.  As a base layer in cold situations it is wonderfully warm and it is easy to layer a couple of pieces and feel comfortable and unrestrained&#xD;&#xA;6.  I noticed it does not hold up well to washing. My colors fade faster than cotton, and the fabric tends to look older faster, but the clothing item is still very wearable and I'm not certain at this point in time if it will last as long, or even outlast cotton.  It does however look older sooner.  The comparison here is freshness/vibrancy verses longevity. The bamboo I have purchased does not have good &quot;newness after washing&quot;, and I am unsure about total lifetime of the clothing item at this point.  It also could be a factor of my washing solution not being compatible with bamboo.  The bamboo does get a nice &quot;old&quot; look - think old jeans.&#xD;&#xA;7.  One pair of one size fits most bamboo leggings do in fact look like they can fit from a size 6 to 18 (or more) without issue - again this due to the extreme stretch that is available with bamboo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future, I will certainly purchase bamboo as a base layer.&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that an item with lots of seams may not be as good with stretch.&#xD;&#xA;I noticed that my leggings (ankle length) are great, but my boy shorts (underwear) have some issues at the leg (cuff), but appear to be able to fit a large range of butt sizes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the fabric is great for some clothing items, but perhaps not the most suitable for others.  I'm looking forward to purchasing long sleeve undershirts for winter wear in the future, but don't expect to be buying a bamboo bra for support.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9745" RevisionGUID="678feaf6-a907-4545-bad4-7106a656ad7e" CreationDate="2019-12-15T20:20:34.260" UserId="2345" Comment="Fixed the format of the numbered items" Text="From a wearing standpoint:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Bamboo is extremely stretchy - if the garment you are looking at is&#xD;&#xA;    made of bamboo, you need to consider if you are expecting any&#xD;&#xA;    support; because from my experience there is no support.  For&#xD;&#xA;    example: leggings - comfort is great, softness is great but they are&#xD;&#xA;    not &quot;snappy&quot;.  I am in fact amazed at how form fitting this fabric&#xD;&#xA;    can be without causing any compression whatsoever;  I am accustom to&#xD;&#xA;    snap in my leggings.&#xD;&#xA; 2.  Due to extreme amount of stretch - there is a certain &quot;show through&quot; factor in the sense of form (not skin)- think nipple form through a cami.&#xD;&#xA; 3.  It is wonderfully soft&#xD;&#xA; 4.  Due to extreme stretch it makes great non-restrictive work out clothing - however, there is the element of form &quot;show through&quot; even when bamboo clothing is layered, form show through does not seem to diminish.&#xD;&#xA; 5.  As a base layer in cold situations it is wonderfully warm and it is easy to layer a couple of pieces and feel comfortable and unrestrained&#xD;&#xA; 6.  I noticed it does not hold up well to washing. My colors fade faster than cotton, and the fabric tends to look older faster, but the clothing item is still very wearable and I'm not certain at this point in time if it will last as long, or even outlast cotton.  It does however look older sooner.  The comparison here is freshness/vibrancy verses longevity. The bamboo I have purchased does not have good &quot;newness after washing&quot;, and I am unsure about total lifetime of the clothing item at this point.  It also could be a factor of my washing solution not being compatible with bamboo.  The bamboo does get a nice &quot;old&quot; look - think old jeans.&#xD;&#xA; 7.  One pair of one size fits most bamboo leggings do in fact look like they can fit from a size 6 to 18 (or more) without issue - again this due to the extreme stretch that is available with bamboo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future, I will certainly purchase bamboo as a base layer.&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that an item with lots of seams may not be as good with stretch.&#xD;&#xA;I noticed that my leggings (ankle length) are great, but my boy shorts (underwear) have some issues at the leg (cuff), but appear to be able to fit a large range of butt sizes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the fabric is great for some clothing items, but perhaps not the most suitable for others.  I'm looking forward to purchasing long sleeve undershirts for winter wear in the future, but don't expect to be buying a bamboo bra for support.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9746" RevisionGUID="89faf51d-47f7-42a5-b45f-06a46de501a2" CreationDate="2019-12-16T09:08:04.243" UserId="3293" Text="I found various advice on the subject. Set aside the fact that there is no real proven benefits for GHG emissions compared to a move towards more veganism, the main concern about this is its impact on the biodiversity it destroys (and sadly, biodiversity appears to be a even more concerning issue than climate change).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reference I read of is in _International Journal of Biodiversity_ article [Holistic Management[HM]: Misinformation on the Science of Grazed Ecosystems](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276215805_Holistic_Management_Misinformation_on_the_Science_of_Grazed_Ecosystems) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ecologically, the application of HM principles of trampling and intensive foraging are as detrimental to plants, soils, water storage, and plant productivity as are conventional grazing systems. Contrary to claims made that HM will reverse climate change, the scientific evidence is that global greenhouse gas emissions are vastly larger than the capacity of worldwide grasslands and deserts to store the carbon emitted each year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The study is said to raise problems that seems logical:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Additionally, this review found that holistic management approaches actually result in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Reduced water infiltration into the soil&#xD;&#xA;* Increased erosion&#xD;&#xA;* Reduced forage production&#xD;&#xA;* Reduced soil organic matter and nitrogen&#xD;&#xA;* Reduced mineral cycling&#xD;&#xA;* Increased soil bulk density&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may read more development in this [vegan-oriented article](https://www.truthordrought.com/holistic-grazing-myths).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what remains to my mind is the idea of being in the middle of a conflict between pro-meat and vegans... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8410" RevisionGUID="75db1c65-e444-46b7-a3e1-fa9eafbf240d" CreationDate="2019-12-16T09:22:17.957" UserId="3293" Comment="added 553 characters in body" Text="In this [old TED conf.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI), Allan Savory, and in this rather [newer other here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z75A_JMBx4), Joel Salatin are quite saying the same thing as a tentative to mitigate the effect of burning fossil fuels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We should use cattle at very large scale to help re-store CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; into the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Does this process seem realistic? &#xD;&#xA;* Are there any documented studies or simulations out there?&#xD;&#xA;* Are there large scale projects of cattle driven CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; storage going on on Earth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### _Edit_ on how this is supposed to work according to the &quot;Savory Institute&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Holistic Management [HM]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The idea is to limit the places where the cattle can go, in a kind of &quot;rotation&quot; plan. This leave space for the grass to re-grow&#xD;&#xA;* Trampling and  cattle dung help fertilize the soil, and when cattle goes to the next lot, flourishing nature is allowed to grow, store water and CO2.&#xD;&#xA;* &#xD;&#xA;&gt; HM restores grasslands. Healthy grasslands lead to carbon sequestration, drought resilience, food security, and financially viable communities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22661" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9628" RevisionGUID="74abc476-489b-499a-aaad-4896bdc6fabd" CreationDate="2019-12-16T10:45:27.637" UserId="99" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9747" RevisionGUID="e639ec23-8996-4bb3-a718-906e4c0f6453" CreationDate="2019-12-16T17:45:35.840" UserId="3379" Text="## Cars, buses, trains, and planes: comparison including infrastructure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;Life-cycle Environmental Inventory of Passenger Transportation in the United States&quot;](https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7n29n303), a 2008 PhD dissertation, provides a comparison of various passenger vehicles, buses, commuter rail, and air travel. The results were summarized in an article in *Environmental Research Letters*, [&quot;Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains&quot;](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key comparison of all vehicle types is given in this figure (*PKT* stands for *passenger kilometer traveled*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Energy consumption and GHG emissions per PKT by transport type][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Factors included in the analysis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For each transportation mode, the following factors were considered:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Vehicle&#xD;&#xA;  - Manufacturing&#xD;&#xA;  - Operation&#xD;&#xA;  - Maintenance&#xD;&#xA;  - Insurance&#xD;&#xA; - Infrastructure&#xD;&#xA;  - Construction&#xD;&#xA;  - Lighting&#xD;&#xA;  - Parking&#xD;&#xA; - Fuel production&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## The impact of infrastructure&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the figure above you can see that, as expected, infrastructure is a bigger factor for road and rail vehicles. To understand how much of an impact, the author includes a comparison to some other studies of passenger cars in the supplementary data, showing that considering infrastructure may increase the total lifetime energy usage by around 60%:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Study comparison of energy use in passenger car][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GntWu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RE5P5l.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9748" RevisionGUID="55aaabff-5792-4fda-9427-9a33452774d8" CreationDate="2019-12-16T18:57:27.927" UserId="6293" Text="There are several current reports out that fossil-fuel emissions is continuing to increase even though natural-gas is replacing coal. Obviously, solar and wind is not making much difference either. So the trains are not going to be that good when the source of electricity is considered. But anything with zero-local emissions is often heralded. Well, the trains have overall efficiency rather than highest speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the airline industry is likely to target a carbon-neutral fuel usage. For instance, they can use ethanol developed from sorghum that is grown on non-irrigated land. Or they can use solar and wind power to make hydrogen from water and then combine the hydrogen with smoke-stack carbon-dioxide to make methanol." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22664" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9748" RevisionGUID="7c201253-e2d1-4e36-9063-1dfffee0ef10" CreationDate="2019-12-16T19:04:33.580" UserId="6293" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There are several current reports out that fossil-fuel emissions are continuing to increase even though natural-gas is replacing coal. Obviously, solar and wind is not making much difference either. So the trains are not going to be that great when the source of electricity is considered. But anything with zero-local emissions is often heralded. Well, the trains have overall efficiency rather than highest speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the airline industry is likely to target a carbon-neutral fuel usage. For instance, they can use ethanol developed from sorghum that is grown on non-irrigated land. Or they can use solar and wind power to make hydrogen from water and then combine the hydrogen with smoke-stack carbon-dioxide to make methanol." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9748" RevisionGUID="97dda633-74bd-4022-9dd3-d3f8e4428f2b" CreationDate="2019-12-16T19:09:54.547" UserId="6293" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="There are several current reports out that fossil-fuel emissions are continuing to increase even though natural-gas is replacing coal. Obviously, solar and wind is not making much difference either. So the trains are not going to be that great when the source of electricity is considered. But anything with zero-local emissions is often heralded. Well, the trains have overall efficiency rather than highest speed and that can be true even if they are not purely electric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the airline industry is likely to target a carbon-neutral fuel usage. For instance, they can use ethanol developed from sorghum that is grown on non-irrigated land. Or they can use solar and wind power to make hydrogen from water and then combine the hydrogen with smoke-stack carbon-dioxide to make methanol." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22666" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="aa92425c-96c6-4cc5-b422-a6dfbe48849d" CreationDate="2019-12-16T21:00:45.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9749" RevisionGUID="8cda6be2-37a6-41c7-b9f6-abc115d370c5" CreationDate="2019-12-17T09:54:46.853" UserId="8231" Text="I just joined a Waste minimasation board in my office and one of the area we discussed was the use of plastic cutlery in our canteen. While the best option in my opinion would be to remove all single use cutlery there might be cases where there would be need for a single use ones and I was wondering, is wooden cutlery generally better than plastic one?&#xD;&#xA;I understand the problem of plastic not being degradable and the problems of recycling it and poluting oceans but what is the carbon footprint of these two alternatives? Could the wooden cutlery create methane in landfill? Or what about the amount of water being used in production? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22668" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9749" RevisionGUID="8cda6be2-37a6-41c7-b9f6-abc115d370c5" CreationDate="2019-12-17T09:54:46.853" UserId="8231" Text="Wooden vs plastic cutlery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22669" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9749" RevisionGUID="8cda6be2-37a6-41c7-b9f6-abc115d370c5" CreationDate="2019-12-17T09:54:46.853" UserId="8231" Text="|plastic-alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9749" RevisionGUID="03a3ae69-c0d8-4510-ba12-afbfe8b0da22" CreationDate="2019-12-17T13:50:10.980" UserId="99" Comment="Clarified question title, added environment-impact tag, fixed typos" Text="I just joined a waste minimization board in my office and one of the area we discussed was the use of plastic cutlery in our canteen. While the best option in my opinion would be to remove all single use cutlery there might be cases where there would be need for a single use ones and I was wondering, is disposable wooden cutlery generally better than plastic one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the problem of plastic not being degradable and the problems of recycling it and polluting oceans but what is the carbon footprint of these two alternatives? Could the wooden cutlery create methane in landfill? Or what about the amount of water being used in production? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22671" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9749" RevisionGUID="03a3ae69-c0d8-4510-ba12-afbfe8b0da22" CreationDate="2019-12-17T13:50:10.980" UserId="99" Comment="Clarified question title, added environment-impact tag, fixed typos" Text="Single-use wooden vs plastic cutlery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22672" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9749" RevisionGUID="03a3ae69-c0d8-4510-ba12-afbfe8b0da22" CreationDate="2019-12-17T13:50:10.980" UserId="99" Comment="Clarified question title, added environment-impact tag, fixed typos" Text="|environmental-impact|plastic-alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22673" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9749" RevisionGUID="73070d7f-1aef-49a3-803f-9440c493fbe8" CreationDate="2019-12-17T18:00:42.427" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1206997663478145025" />
  <row Id="22674" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9750" RevisionGUID="907fe98f-aa09-4c38-9e4e-92a60114eb58" CreationDate="2019-12-17T22:58:46.347" UserId="8232" Text="My city council has pledged to try and be carbon neutral by 2030 as part of the [Global Covenant of Mayors][1] and are investigating ways to achieve that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to bring forth an idea to replace our aging diesel-fueled buses with more sustainable alternatives, especially for the free city-loops that run 11 hour services (7am-6pm).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much emissions could be avoided by replacing a single diesel-fueled bus with an electric alternative? (Assume an 11 hour route of stop-start traffic over relatively flat land). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much does this number change when comparing 100% fossil-fuel recharging vs 100% renewable energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9750" RevisionGUID="907fe98f-aa09-4c38-9e4e-92a60114eb58" CreationDate="2019-12-17T22:58:46.347" UserId="8232" Text="How much of a reduction of carbon emissions can be achieved if a diesel bus is switched out for electric?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9750" RevisionGUID="907fe98f-aa09-4c38-9e4e-92a60114eb58" CreationDate="2019-12-17T22:58:46.347" UserId="8232" Text="|transport|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9751" RevisionGUID="61aae00c-4c68-43d4-8e2b-dcecaace6fa1" CreationDate="2019-12-17T23:41:12.573" UserId="8227" Text="I found a paper by [Wassman (2008)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X0800295X) which compares polystyrene to biodegradable and compostable (B&amp;C) plastic, showing that the main benefit of using the B&amp;C cutlery appears if they are composted afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;Note that if composted properly, methane emissions associated to biodegradation should be very limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, non-plastic based material can probably be better than plastic, but you should compost it to make it worth the trouble. I did not find anything for wood, but bamboo might be fine if certified (see [this report, though it's probably not very objective](https://worldbamboo.net/wbcix/presentation/Van%20der%20Lugt,%20Pablo.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;Potential reason to prefer bamboo to normal wood are associated to resource management and potential health impact of wood resin if I understood correctly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also [(Cerruti 2017)](https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs11367-017-1306-y.pdf) for most significant impacts regarding catering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22679" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6268" RevisionGUID="f794b918-cb57-4a36-b876-e3b443588217" CreationDate="2019-12-18T03:27:47.577" UserId="400" Comment="Corrected bad info in response to comment." Text="Li-Ion batteries are worth recycling just for the lithium in them.  This material can be re-refined, and made into new batteries.  In this use they should show similar cost savings to recycled vs new aluminum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also the prospect of repurposing a worn battery for stationary use.  E.g. It stores 30 kWh in your car for 3 years, then stores 10 kWh in your house for the next 3-10 years.  One source I read proposed that the used battery market would help older EV's hold value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: I'm wrong.  See https://waste-management-world.com/a/1-the-lithium-battery-recycling-challenge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary:  At present recycling lithium from batteries costs about 5 times the cost of mined lithium.  However the cost of the lithium is only about 3% of the cost of the battery.  So the price of lithium rising by a factor of 5 would make recycled Li economical, and would raise the price of making batteries by about 12%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9752" RevisionGUID="0e9e4f21-2c8c-4c9b-85e4-c95d4dede3dd" CreationDate="2019-12-18T03:41:12.827" UserId="400" Text="The waste heat from a fossil fuel steam plant is fairly low grade -- typically at the temperature of wet steam (~100 C) The problem has typically been how to get this heat from where it's made to where it's needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A gas turbine can do better than this, using it's waste heat to power a secondary medium temperature steam cycle.  This is not what's usually meant by co-gen.  The waste heat is still fairly low grade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Story:  I live 3 miles from Capital Power's Genesee Power Plant.  It's one of hte better coal plants averaging close to 40% efficiency over all for the 3 units built over the last 35 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At one point they were looking at making a pipeline to take hot waste water to downtown Edmonton for use in heating buildings there.  A 100 km long 4 foot diameter pipeline wasn't in the cards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did the figures, and the waste heat would do a nice job on about 2 square miles of heated greenhouse. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One company was going to use it to raise tilapia, a sub tropical food fish that grows well in tank culture.  Capital Power was interested and cooperative.  The fish company figured there wasn't a good supply of local people willing to work at low wages in the immediate vicinity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9753" RevisionGUID="ea4f7b3d-4a47-4e44-9906-7cbc39b67d77" CreationDate="2019-12-18T03:53:15.273" UserId="8232" Text="My city has a catchment area for water but due to drought conditions it's getting lower and lower in current capacity, and water restrictions have been placed into effect for residents and businesses to conserve the water we have left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know of tarps or pool covers are used to combat evaporation of small water sources like pools and ponds. Is there a scaled up version of this for large dams? Or are there different/better technologies available to do this at a large scale?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22682" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9753" RevisionGUID="ea4f7b3d-4a47-4e44-9906-7cbc39b67d77" CreationDate="2019-12-18T03:53:15.273" UserId="8232" Text="How to reduce evaporation of a dam/catchment water source?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22683" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9753" RevisionGUID="ea4f7b3d-4a47-4e44-9906-7cbc39b67d77" CreationDate="2019-12-18T03:53:15.273" UserId="8232" Text="|water-management|water-conservation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9754" RevisionGUID="a31c9663-13d5-4d7f-af5e-0cb8e3dfcc6f" CreationDate="2019-12-18T07:44:43.193" UserId="2846" Text="Two technologies I know of are plastic balls and solar panels. Both are very visible, and may not be aesthetically acceptable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Shade balls](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shade_balls) are used to reduce the exposed surface area and reflect sunlight. They're used [in LA](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/08/150812-shade-balls-los-angeles-California-drought-water-environment/) for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Floating solar panels](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_solar) are expensive but of course produce power, and [more efficiently than on neighbouring land because the water cools them](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/30/floating-solar-is-a-win-win-energy-solution-for-drought-stricken-us-lakes) . They're a fairly new technology, again [used in California](https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/05/28/construction-starts-on-californias-largest-floating-solar-array/) and Australia among other places. Like shade balls, they stop much of the evaporation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22686" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9667" RevisionGUID="d3dd2844-24bb-48c4-bcc4-9b8afc9c9b22" CreationDate="2019-12-18T11:02:05.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22687" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9755" RevisionGUID="29341d11-c429-4e34-8fe3-f2d42a8a0505" CreationDate="2019-12-18T11:06:53.430" UserId="6602" Text="It depends entirely on where your city is and where it gets its energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This website][1] has live energy data for the Carbon Intensity of the electricity supply. In the UK right now the CO2 intensity of the electricity supply is 319 gCO2eq/kWh, in Norway its about 28 gCO2eq/kWh, USA has around 509 gCO2eq/kWh. I understand the UK is mostly using gas powered electricity generation, Norway uses mostly hydro-electric, and the USA relies on Coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're going to compare the CO2 emissions per km for the different vehicle types in different places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The energy efficiency of electric buses is around 1.335 kWh/km which in the UK would be around 426 gCO2eq/km, in Norway it would be 37 gCO2eq/km and in the USA it would be 680 gCO2eq/km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CO2 emissions for a regular diesel bus are around 1077 g/km [According to this paper][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Switching to electric buses could avoid between 400 g/km to 1000 g/km of CO2 emissions compared to diesel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point I notice that you mention &quot;aging diesel-fueled buses&quot;. There have been great developments in diesel fuel efficiency in the last few decades. Your city's buses might have emissions a lot worse that the quoted 1077 gCO2eq/km. So even replacing the aging diesel buses with modern diesel buses might reduce emissions by 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, its seasonal too, in the summer the UK's CO2 intensity was as low as 120 gCO2eq/kWh becuase of solar and less demand for heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&amp;solar=false&amp;remote=true&amp;wind=false&amp;countryCode=GB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/8/2160/pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22688" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9753" RevisionGUID="20d46906-3e81-42d6-8aa1-09c770a63e9f" CreationDate="2019-12-18T12:42:01.520" />
  <row Id="22689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9612" RevisionGUID="dd4e863c-11d1-4053-94c8-78434a362005" CreationDate="2019-12-18T13:12:54.247" UserId="8013" Comment="added 546 characters in body" Text="As far as Europe is concerned, more than half the new generating capacity installed in 2018 was wind turbine, the the amount installed in the first 6 months of 2019 is increased relative to 2018. In the US, AWEA is reporting that the 3rd quarter rate of installation of new wind turbines was, at just under 2GW, &quot;highest third quarter on record&quot;. Doesn't look like there is any significant break in the growth of wind power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: sorry, that should say &quot;nearly half the new generating capacity (48%) ....&quot;. not &quot;more than half ....&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Sources added:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quotes from AWEA report: [taken from CNBC article][1]; [European wind energy, first half of 2019][2]; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[New generating capacity installed in Europe in 2018][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/31/us-wind-energy-capacity-now-over-100-gigawatts-says-new-report.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/europe-installs-4-9-gw-of-new-wind-energy-capacity-in-first-half-of-2019/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/about-wind/statistics/WindEurope-Annual-Statistics-2018.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9616" RevisionGUID="3cc4f903-0d70-47f2-9701-0ebcd37ad849" CreationDate="2019-12-18T13:30:13.767" UserId="8013" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="As a guide, mature sitka spruce forest in the UK has 500m3 of wood per hectare [report](https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/2117/FCBK048.pdf);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This wood has a density of 450 kg/m3 [density tables](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wood-density-d_40.html), to that makes 225 tonnes of wood per hectare. The wood is about 50% carbon, so that would convert to 110 tonnes of coal per hectare (the carbon content for wood is discussed by [Lamlon in Biomass and Energy][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't necessarily convert to coal -- this answer addresses the question of how much forest would be needed to match the carbon content. The rate of conversion to coal depends on many factors .. and most (perhaps all?) of the coal we are burning was produced in conditions very different from today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;40,000 TWh of energy (the annual production from coal -- see [global fossil fuel consumption][2]) requires 20,000 Tg of coal (http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/ctele.htm), i.e. 20x10^15 g = 20x10^9 tonnes, which would be equivalent to 0.2 X 10^9 hectare = 2 x 10^6 km2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That would be about one third of the area of the Amazon jungle (these numbers come with no guarantee, and the Amazon obviously has a different density to Sitka spruce plantations ... but it is interesting to see how you can arrive at an answer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953403000333&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-fossil-fuel-consumption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22691" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="7b7833d2-729d-422d-ae58-21b87377a15e" CreationDate="2019-12-18T14:02:00.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9756" RevisionGUID="b803285e-9a9a-44df-a5ca-f8337e9c475c" CreationDate="2019-12-18T14:22:55.433" UserId="8232" Text="Here's a few things to try:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Increase the temperature setting on the Air con&#xD;&#xA;Air conditioning units typically do two things: lower the ambient temperature, and remove humidity from the air. Depending on where you live the humidity can be a bigger factor in getting a good night's sleep than the temperature itself, as it exacerbates sweating and makes the air feel thicker. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your aircon window unit is set to a higher temperature, it won't need to work as hard to maintain it, but it can still remove a lot of the humidity from the air and help you get a better night's sleep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Clean the air filter&#xD;&#xA;Look at your air conditioner's filter on a regular basis, especially throughout heavy use times. If the filter seems dirty after a month, clean it (or replace it if it's not a reusable one). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dirty air filter is likely to slow air flow and make the unit work harder in order to keep you warm or cool — burning up energy and increasing the chances of maintenance issues down the line. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Have your air-con serviced&#xD;&#xA;Air-cons need occasional maintenance especially if the unit is getting on in age. It's best to have this done professionally. The service person will generally check the refrigerant gas levels, test the thermostat and make sure all the internals are in good condition. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Compare the efficiency of your air-con with newer makes&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the age of your unit, there may be more energy efficient options available on the market. Definitely double check the energy efficiency before making a purchase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Home-level changes:&#xD;&#xA;Depending on whether or not you own or rent these options may or may not apply, but consider the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Check for air leakage** - Not just under doors, but gaps in window frames, cornices, around vents or downlights, gaps in floorboards (they shrink over the years). [This site][1] gives a good overview of the sorts of places to check and gives good guides for detecting and mitigating air leaks.&#xD;&#xA;- **Insulate** - Add Roof batting, Underfloor (or undercarpet) insulation and if possible, wall insulation. Insulation works double duty - helping to maintain warmth in winter and cold in summer.&#xD;&#xA;- **Install Double-glazed windows** - basically the same thing as insulation but for your windows, one of the primary ways heat (or cold) escapes a room&#xD;&#xA;- **Door Seals** - look at installing proper door seals for doors with gaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.yourhome.gov.au/passive-design/sealing-your-home" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9757" RevisionGUID="015bb886-1fae-4ede-8b65-cb5f13af8502" CreationDate="2019-12-18T14:51:28.690" UserId="3379" Text="As a sustainability advocate I've always assumed that [composting toilets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composting_toilet) were &quot;better&quot; than [septic systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septic_tank) in any application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I've been reading up a bit on both system types (see Wikipedia links above) and now I'm wondering -- **For a well-built and managed system, is a composting toilet always or usually better than a septic system?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both systems require both **primary** and **secondary** treatment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Composting toilet:&#xD;&#xA;  1. Waste goes into a tank, *where a carbon additive (such as sawdust or peat moss) must be added after each use.*&#xD;&#xA;  2. When the tank is nearly full, it's emptied into a secondary location for further decomposition, and to ensure all pathogens are neutralized&#xD;&#xA;  3. The end result can be used as a soil additive and/or provided to a biogas digester to produce methane for energy production&#xD;&#xA; - Septic system&#xD;&#xA;  1. Waste goes into a tank, *where a microbial processes occurs, which generally requires a one-time process when the system is first put in use.*&#xD;&#xA;  2. When the tank is nearly full, it's emptied into a secondary location for further decomposition, and to ensure all pathogens are neutralized&#xD;&#xA;  3. The end result can be used as a soil additive and/or provided to a biogas digester to produce methane for energy production&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I've understood correctly, the only (slight) difference is in the first step, in that the septic system requires less continual maintenance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously a composting toilet is a better choice in remote locations or ability to construct a septic system doesn't make sense, but is there something else I'm missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9757" RevisionGUID="015bb886-1fae-4ede-8b65-cb5f13af8502" CreationDate="2019-12-18T14:51:28.690" UserId="3379" Text="Are composting toilets better than septic systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9757" RevisionGUID="015bb886-1fae-4ede-8b65-cb5f13af8502" CreationDate="2019-12-18T14:51:28.690" UserId="3379" Text="|composting|waste|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22696" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="4f9d0760-83db-4795-8b68-92a464c3280a" CreationDate="2019-12-18T15:02:20.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9741" RevisionGUID="bfbc73cb-7099-4ac3-b4a7-a0b6ac7593ea" CreationDate="2019-12-18T19:06:23.387" UserId="6393" Comment="client side language known" Text="If using Google Sheets, you are giving Google a lot of information about you. Google can and will read all of the contents of every file you upload and use the information for advertisement targeting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a software developer, I'd say the majority of the processing power needed at the server side is the advertisement targeting information collection. The software itself, if you could use it without ad targeting, would require relatively little resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The server side of a web application can vary tremendously depending on which language they use: compiled or interpreted. So, there can be at least 10x differences in the needed server resources. I don't know what language Google Sheets is programmed in (the client side is obviously JavaScript and strictly speaking you should take into account the client-side energy consumption as well, but the server side language is unknown).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The storage part also needs some resources, but that depends on how much storage space you need. You can calculate it by figuring out the energy usage of various storage technologies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9758" RevisionGUID="d6840b6f-d810-4af5-95e8-cbc6ef318559" CreationDate="2019-12-19T01:14:36.120" UserId="400" Text="1.  The composting toilet will use essentially no water.&#xD;&#xA;2.  You do not have a large mass of concrete with it's embodied energy cost tied up in the septic tank.&#xD;&#xA;3.  You do not have the chemical external costs of making the PCV pipe for drainage field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the the design of the composting toilet, secondary processing may amount to storing a barrel in a warm place for a year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular design:  The sunny john, had the orginal link http://www.sunnyjohn.com/indexpages/sunny_johns.htm  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But at this time you need to use the Wayback machine to see the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell it uses a 45 gallon barrel as a repository, and was set up so that the barrel space was in a solar chamber.  This kept the decomposition temperatures high enough to be continuously active, and dried excess water.  When the drum was full, it was swapped out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to do the secondary process was to keep both barrels in the same chamber, and just swap positions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downside of the Sunny John is that it doesn't retrofit easily.  You basically are building a room  with a four foot deep outside accessible 'basement'  Recommended for outside privy use.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9757" RevisionGUID="7a8ba990-a04c-4483-bb07-919b770d916a" CreationDate="2019-12-19T01:21:45.053" UserId="3379" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="As a sustainability advocate I've always assumed that [composting toilets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composting_toilet) were &quot;better&quot; than [septic systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septic_tank) in almost any application. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I've been reading up a bit on both system types (see Wikipedia links above) and now I'm wondering -- **For a well-built and managed system, is a composting toilet always or usually more sustainable than a septic system?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both systems require both **primary** and **secondary** treatment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Composting toilet:&#xD;&#xA;  1. Waste goes into a tank, *where a carbon additive (such as sawdust or peat moss) must be added after each use.*&#xD;&#xA;  2. When the tank is nearly full, it's emptied into a secondary location for further decomposition, and to ensure all pathogens are neutralized. This could be a biogas digester to produce methane for energy production.&#xD;&#xA;  3. The end result can be used as a soil additive.&#xD;&#xA; - Septic system&#xD;&#xA;  1. Waste goes into a tank, *where a microbial processes occurs, which generally requires a one-time process when the system is first put in use.*&#xD;&#xA;  2. When the tank is nearly full, it's emptied into a secondary location for further decomposition, and to ensure all pathogens are neutralized. This could be a biogas digester to produce methane for energy production.&#xD;&#xA;  3. The end result can be used as a soil additive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I've understood correctly, the only (slight) difference is in the first step, in that the septic system requires less continual maintenance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously a composting toilet is a better choice in remote locations or where constructing a septic system doesn't make sense, but is there something else I'm missing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9759" RevisionGUID="283cba71-e9dd-4f8f-aff3-7db5d69b58a7" CreationDate="2019-12-19T04:16:25.967" UserId="6293" Text="The taxi's could be electric-vehicles powered by hydrogen-fuel-cells because the taxi cabs can plan on using a centralized fueling station. Here is one vehicle: https://www.hyundaiusa.com/nexo/index.aspx .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If battery-powered electric-vehicles must be charged in a taxi line then they could have an overhead sliding device to plug into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9759" RevisionGUID="0dd9b5b6-e0af-4ef8-8a60-e1dc4246e4ca" CreationDate="2019-12-19T04:29:10.343" UserId="6293" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The taxi's could be electric-vehicles powered by hydrogen-fuel-cells because the taxicabs can plan on using a centralized fueling station. Here is one vehicle: https://www.hyundaiusa.com/nexo/index.aspx .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If battery-powered electric-vehicles must be charged in a taxi line then they could have an overhead sliding device to plug into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22703" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9753" RevisionGUID="58173633-0f57-4d4a-9676-0c29d65a27a3" CreationDate="2019-12-19T06:00:36.660" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1207541220995674112" />
  <row Id="22704" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9760" RevisionGUID="bd852195-4185-4feb-9985-554a3c40baca" CreationDate="2019-12-19T09:36:32.387" UserId="4155" Text="I'll re-suggest my answer to your previous question (https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/9679/4155):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Use the numbered ticket system sometimes found in supermarket deli counters. Each arriving taxi takes a sequentially numbered ticket (which could easily be electronic using an app of some kind), and parks up in a parking area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When a passenger arrives, they press a button, and the next number is called, and the taxi with that number then pulls up to the pick up area to collect the passenger. The button-pushing could alternatively be done automatically by a sensor noting the previous taxi leaving, so that the passengers don't have to do anything, or wait.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; E.g. A taxi arrives and gets ticket 31. They see that number 25 is displayed, so they know that there are 5 taxis ahead of them, and that taxi 25 is waiting at the pick up area. A passenger arrives, and 25 takes them and goes - 26 is displayed, and the taxi with that number goes up to the pick-up area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In a busy area, you could have the same system for passengers - they too take a ticket, with the same number on it, so the passenger with ticket 23 gets the taxi with ticket 23...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Another variant could use a camera to read the licence number of each taxi as it enters the holding area, and use that instead of issuing a ticket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that, once each taxi arrives on the rank it doesn't need to move again until it's turn comes, and so could remain plugged into the charger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22707" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9732" RevisionGUID="4760b0d3-636d-4ecf-a9dc-9bea12039d91" CreationDate="2019-12-19T09:50:19.160" UserId="8232" Comment="Added quotes and bibliographical information from linked sources to prevent link-rot" Text="In the recycling of lithium-ion batteries, Cobalt is first in importance while Lithium is second:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Rechargeable battery waste, particularly from lithium-ion batteries, will become an increasingly menacing environmental challenge in the future as the demand for these through their usage in electric vehicles and other gadgets increases dramatically,&quot; Ajayan said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It's important to recover strategic metals like cobalt that are limited in supply and are critical for the performance of these energy-storage devices&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;**New 'blue-green' solution for recycling world's batteries** | Science Daily (sciencedaily.com, April 1st, 2019) : https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190401115823.htm&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- HTML comment to separate quote boxes --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cobalt and lithium are central to the development and deployments of [sustainable] technologies—largely due to their use in lithium-ion batteries—and as such, the demand for both minerals has and is predicted to increase substantially. The supplies of both minerals, however, is not projected to meet the demand, with shortfalls expected in the coming decade. Concerns along the supply chains of both minerals—including the potential use of child labour in cobalt extraction and the intensive use of water and energy in lithium production—place additional strain on the responsible sourcing of both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;**Sustainability and Second Life: The case for cobalt and lithium recycling** | International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD.org, March 2019) : https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/sustainability-second-life-cobalt-lithium-recycling.pdf&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- HTML comment to separate quote boxes --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Japan's Sumitomo Metal Mining has developed a method to recycle cobalt from spent electric car batteries, allowing conservation of a relatively scarce metal, Nikkei has learned... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...Mined in only a few regions of the world, including parts of Africa, the supply of cobalt is expected to fall short of demand in the next few years as electric vehicles become more widespread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt; **Milestone reached in the recycle of cobalt from spent EV batteries** | Nikkei Asian Review (asia.nikkei.com, March 28, 2019) : https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/Commodities/Milestone-reached-in-the-recycle-of-cobalt-from-spent-EV-batteries&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But presumably, Nickel is third in importance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The presence of LiCoO2 and LiCoxNi(1 − x)O2 in the cathodic material of Li-ion and Li-polymer batteries has stimulated the recovery of Co and Ni by hydrometallurgical processes. In particular, the two metals were separated by SX method and then recovered by electrochemical (galvanostatic and potentiostatic) processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt; **Nickel and cobalt recycling from lithium-ion batteries by electrochemical processes** | Science Direct (sciencedirect.com, 2005) : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X05000164&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, consider that BYD battery-powered electric-vehicles use lithium-iron-phosphate batteries. The lithium-iron-phosphate batteries have less fire risk than lithium-ion batteries.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22708" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9732" RevisionGUID="4760b0d3-636d-4ecf-a9dc-9bea12039d91" CreationDate="2019-12-19T09:50:19.160" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 3379, -1 edit id of 593" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9732" RevisionGUID="96283bf0-8d56-4631-b0d0-b38b5767a831" CreationDate="2019-12-19T09:50:19.160" UserId="99" Comment="Added quotes and bibliographical information from linked sources to prevent link-rot" Text="In the recycling of lithium-ion batteries, cobalt is first in importance while lithium is second:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Rechargeable battery waste, particularly from lithium-ion batteries, will become an increasingly menacing environmental challenge in the future as the demand for these through their usage in electric vehicles and other gadgets increases dramatically,&quot; Ajayan said.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It's important to recover strategic metals like cobalt that are limited in supply and are critical for the performance of these energy-storage devices&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;**New 'blue-green' solution for recycling world's batteries** | Science Daily (sciencedaily.com, April 1st, 2019) : https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190401115823.htm&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- HTML comment to separate quote boxes --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Cobalt and lithium are central to the development and deployments of [sustainable] technologies—largely due to their use in lithium-ion batteries—and as such, the demand for both minerals has and is predicted to increase substantially. The supplies of both minerals, however, is not projected to meet the demand, with shortfalls expected in the coming decade. Concerns along the supply chains of both minerals—including the potential use of child labour in cobalt extraction and the intensive use of water and energy in lithium production—place additional strain on the responsible sourcing of both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;**Sustainability and Second Life: The case for cobalt and lithium recycling** | International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD.org, March 2019) : https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/sustainability-second-life-cobalt-lithium-recycling.pdf&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;!-- HTML comment to separate quote boxes --&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Japan's Sumitomo Metal Mining has developed a method to recycle cobalt from spent electric car batteries, allowing conservation of a relatively scarce metal, Nikkei has learned... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;...Mined in only a few regions of the world, including parts of Africa, the supply of cobalt is expected to fall short of demand in the next few years as electric vehicles become more widespread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt; **Milestone reached in the recycle of cobalt from spent EV batteries** | Nikkei Asian Review (asia.nikkei.com, March 28, 2019) : https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/Commodities/Milestone-reached-in-the-recycle-of-cobalt-from-spent-EV-batteries&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But presumably, nickel is third in importance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The presence of LiCoO2 and LiCoxNi(1 − x)O2 in the cathodic material of Li-ion and Li-polymer batteries has stimulated the recovery of Co and Ni by hydrometallurgical processes. In particular, the two metals were separated by SX method and then recovered by electrochemical (galvanostatic and potentiostatic) processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt; **Nickel and cobalt recycling from lithium-ion batteries by electrochemical processes** | Science Direct (sciencedirect.com, 2005) : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X05000164&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, consider that BYD battery-powered electric-vehicles use lithium-iron-phosphate batteries. The lithium-iron-phosphate batteries have less fire risk than lithium-ion batteries.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9755" RevisionGUID="1ce309bf-dbd3-4342-b382-d25964471538" CreationDate="2019-12-19T10:39:04.827" UserId="6602" Comment="Spelling" Text="It depends entirely on where your city is and where it gets its energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This website][1] has live energy data for the Carbon Intensity of the electricity supply. In the UK right now the CO2 intensity of the electricity supply is 319 gCO2eq/kWh, in Norway its about 28 gCO2eq/kWh, USA has around 509 gCO2eq/kWh. I understand the UK is mostly using gas powered electricity generation, Norway uses mostly hydro-electric, and the USA relies on Coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're going to compare the CO2 emissions per km for the different vehicle types in different places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The energy efficiency of electric buses is around 1.335 kWh/km which in the UK would be around 426 gCO2eq/km, in Norway it would be 37 gCO2eq/km and in the USA it would be 680 gCO2eq/km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CO2 emissions for a regular diesel bus are around 1077 g/km [According to this paper][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Switching to electric buses could avoid between 400 g/km to 1000 g/km of CO2 emissions compared to diesel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point I notice that you mention &quot;aging diesel-fueled buses&quot;. There have been great developments in diesel fuel efficiency in the last few decades. Your city's buses might have emissions a lot worse that the quoted 1077 gCO2eq/km. So even replacing the aging diesel buses with modern diesel buses might reduce emissions by 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, its seasonal too, in the summer the UK's CO2 intensity was as low as 120 gCO2eq/kWh because of solar and less demand for heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&amp;solar=false&amp;remote=true&amp;wind=false&amp;countryCode=GB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/8/2160/pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22711" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9761" RevisionGUID="a8586be4-29f0-4582-8d0f-2bb447d020c6" CreationDate="2019-12-19T14:00:05.353" UserId="99" Text="To make a calculation you would need to know the fuel consumption of the current diesel buses and the efficiency of the electric buses that would replace them. That information is probably not available to you, so for my answer I will do a best guess based on data from other studies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [This Finnish study done in 2015](https://www.ecv.fi/@Bin/211333/ECV-seminaariesitys_10-3-2015_Evaluation-of-EBuses_Antti-Lajunen.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;claims that &quot;*electric buses have potential to decrease CO2 emissions more than 85% in comparison to diesel buses*&quot;. One caveat here is that it is not &#xD;&#xA;clear what was included in this calculation. The presented graph shows no emissions during operation, so charging has to be with 100% green energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [This blog of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)](https://blog.ucsusa.org/jimmy-odea/electric-vs-diesel-vs-natural-gas-which-bus-is-best-for-the-climate) written in 2018 says that in California &quot;*electric buses had 70 percent lower global warming emissions than a diesel or natural gas bus*&quot;. Now the carbon intensity of  electricity in California is fairly low. [This carbonfootprint.com document](https://www.carbonfootprint.com/docs/2018_8_ele7ctricity_factors_august_2018_-_online_sources.pdf) says it's 0.2502 kg CO2e/kWh (but I have seen other, higher numbers for California as well). The presented map on the UCS site also shows that in part of Wisconsin, which is one of the US states with the highest carbon intensity, an electric bus still is 7.4/4.8 = 1.5 times better in terms of emissions than the average diesel bus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is how to translate this to your situation. The carbonfootprint.com document says that the energy intensity in Australia is rather high. Since you're close to Syndey I'm guessing you're in New South Wales which has 0.92 kg CO2e/kWh for electricity. This is higher than that of poor performing US states such as Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin (0.7959 kg CO2e/kWh). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know have the exact numbers to back it up, but based on the numbers above I would guess that for your region electric buses would cause similar or just slightly less CO2 emissions compared to the average diesel buses, when charged with the standard local energy mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course if the diesel buses are old and consume a lot of fuel then the difference with electric buses will be bigger. Also you mentioned that your city pledged to be carbon neutral by 2030, so that would mean that the carbon intensity of your energy mix has to go down a lot and that emissions caused by electric buses will go down too. Even if electric buses cause similar emissions now, it should become much better over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22712" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9667" RevisionGUID="e9073728-8df9-402f-a6c6-c428ed38cbf4" CreationDate="2019-12-19T15:18:06.360" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed typo in title, and shortened." Text="How to design a taxi rank to charge electric vehicles whilst waiting for fares?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9761" RevisionGUID="f45361ba-d7ff-4d9b-80bb-e1dad3089f3a" CreationDate="2019-12-19T15:19:41.567" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed broken link." Text="To make a calculation you would need to know the fuel consumption of the current diesel buses and the efficiency of the electric buses that would replace them. That information is probably not available to you, so for my answer I will do a best guess based on data from other studies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [This Finnish study done in 2015](https://www.ecv.fi/@Bin/211333/ECV-seminaariesitys_10-3-2015_Evaluation-of-EBuses_Antti-Lajunen.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;claims that &quot;*electric buses have potential to decrease CO2 emissions more than 85% in comparison to diesel buses*&quot;. One caveat here is that it is not &#xD;&#xA;clear what was included in this calculation. The presented graph shows no emissions during operation, so charging has to be with 100% green energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [This blog of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)](https://blog.ucsusa.org/jimmy-odea/electric-vs-diesel-vs-natural-gas-which-bus-is-best-for-the-climate) written in 2018 says that in California &quot;*electric buses had 70 percent lower global warming emissions than a diesel or natural gas bus*&quot;. Now the carbon intensity of  electricity in California is fairly low. [This carbonfootprint.com document](https://www.carbonfootprint.com/docs/2018_8_electricity_factors_august_2018_-_online_sources.pdf) says it's 0.2502 kg CO2e/kWh (but I have seen other, higher numbers for California as well). The presented map on the UCS site also shows that in part of Wisconsin, which is one of the US states with the highest carbon intensity, an electric bus still is 7.4/4.8 = 1.5 times better in terms of emissions than the average diesel bus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is how to translate this to your situation. The carbonfootprint.com document says that the energy intensity in Australia is rather high. Since you're close to Syndey I'm guessing you're in New South Wales which has 0.92 kg CO2e/kWh for electricity. This is higher than that of poor performing US states such as Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin (0.7959 kg CO2e/kWh). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know have the exact numbers to back it up, but based on the numbers above I would guess that for your region electric buses would cause similar or just slightly less CO2 emissions compared to the average diesel buses, when charged with the standard local energy mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course if the diesel buses are old and consume a lot of fuel then the difference with electric buses will be bigger. Also you mentioned that your city pledged to be carbon neutral by 2030, so that would mean that the carbon intensity of your energy mix has to go down a lot and that emissions caused by electric buses will go down too. Even if electric buses cause similar emissions now, it should become much better over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9755" RevisionGUID="0ca73d9b-4855-46ef-9afc-dbb36c6b5c80" CreationDate="2019-12-19T16:26:28.907" UserId="6602" Comment="added data for Australia" Text="It depends entirely on where your city is and where it gets its energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This website][1] has live energy data for the Carbon Intensity of the electricity supply. In the UK right now the CO2 intensity of the electricity supply is 319 gCO2eq/kWh, in Norway its about 28 gCO2eq/kWh, USA has around 509 gCO2eq/kWh, Australia has around 800 gCO2eq/kWh. I understand the UK is mostly using gas powered electricity generation, Norway uses mostly hydro-electric, and the USA relies on Coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're going to compare the CO2 emissions per km for the different vehicle types in different places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The energy efficiency of electric buses is around 1.335 kWh/km which in the UK would be around 426 gCO2eq/km, in Norway it would be 37 gCO2eq/km, in the USA it would be 680 gCO2eq/km and in Australia it would be around 1060 gCO2eq/km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CO2 emissions for a regular diesel bus are around 1077 g/km [According to this paper][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Switching to electric buses in most countries could avoid between 400 g/km to 1000 g/km of CO2 emissions compared to diesel. In Australia the difference in emissions between diesel and electric is about 20 g/km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point I notice that you mention &quot;aging diesel-fueled buses&quot;. There have been great developments in diesel fuel efficiency in the last few decades. Your city's buses might have emissions a lot worse that the quoted 1077 gCO2eq/km. So even replacing the aging diesel buses with modern diesel buses might reduce emissions by 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, its seasonal too, in the summer the UK's CO2 intensity was as low as 120 gCO2eq/kWh because of solar and less demand for heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&amp;solar=false&amp;remote=true&amp;wind=false&amp;countryCode=GB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/8/2160/pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9759" RevisionGUID="4939f8e9-c745-4044-ace9-cb2d05e37036" CreationDate="2019-12-19T21:16:32.533" UserId="6293" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The taxicabs could be electric-vehicles powered by hydrogen-fuel-cells because the taxicabs can plan on using a centralized fueling station. Here is one vehicle: https://www.hyundaiusa.com/nexo/index.aspx .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If battery-powered electric-vehicles must be charged in a taxi line then they could have an overhead sliding device to plug into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22717" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9750" RevisionGUID="c820612f-73a9-4025-a4a8-c35a154c37e6" CreationDate="2019-12-20T09:00:33.933" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1207948895797567488" />
  <row Id="22718" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9755" RevisionGUID="8bfd7c6d-ad7d-4f14-aadc-a524dada63b9" CreationDate="2019-12-20T12:00:27.433" UserId="8232" Comment="I find it much easier to compare the stats when in list format. I also added an explanation of what gCO2eq is" Text="It depends entirely on where your city is and where it gets its energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Electricity Map][1] has live energy data for the Carbon Intensity of the electricity supply. Right now, the CO2 intensity of the electricity supply in grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh (gCO2eq/kWh) across the world is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 319 gCO2eq/kWh in the UK &#xD;&#xA;- 28 gCO2eq/kWh in Norway&#xD;&#xA;- 509 gCO2eq/kWh in the USA &#xD;&#xA;- 800 gCO2eq/kWh in Australia &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the UK is mostly using gas powered electricity generation, Norway uses mostly hydro-electric, and the USA relies on Coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're going to compare the CO2 emissions per km for the different vehicle types in different places. The energy efficiency of electric buses is around 1.335 kWh/km, which amounts to the following emissions in the above mentioned countries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 426 gCO2eq/km in the UK&#xD;&#xA;- 37 gCO2eq/km in Norway &#xD;&#xA;- 680 gCO2eq/km in the USA &#xD;&#xA;- 1060 gCO2eq/km in Australia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CO2 emissions for a regular diesel bus are around 1077 g/km, [according to this paper][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Switching to electric buses in most countries could avoid between 400 g/km to 1000 g/km of CO2 emissions compared to diesel. In Australia the difference in emissions between diesel and electric is only about 20 g/km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point I notice that you mention &quot;aging diesel-fueled buses&quot;. There have been great developments in diesel fuel efficiency in the last few decades. Your city's buses might have emissions a lot worse that the quoted 1077 gCO2eq/km. So even replacing the aging diesel buses with modern diesel buses might reduce emissions by 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, its seasonal too, in the summer the UK's CO2 intensity was as low as 120 gCO2eq/kWh because of solar and less demand for heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&amp;solar=false&amp;remote=true&amp;wind=false&amp;countryCode=GB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/8/2160/pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22719" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9755" RevisionGUID="8bfd7c6d-ad7d-4f14-aadc-a524dada63b9" CreationDate="2019-12-20T12:00:27.433" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 6602 edit id of 594" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="301ebfe2-eb40-46af-8b5d-61892b2e5690" CreationDate="2019-12-20T18:39:23.517" UserId="4099" Comment="typos corrected, formatting" Text="I hypothesize that keeping curtains wet continuously will help in cooling a room through [rapid evaporation][1] with an indoor ceiling fan set at full speed. So how to accomplish this, and will it really keep the room cool for the following parameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The room is closed to prevent hot air from outside&#xD;&#xA;   coming inside the room during day time. The door of the room is open facing another bigger room which  has only one small window open for the same reasons. The bigger room is generally cooler (we don't know why) and has one small window open which supplies fresh outside air passing through green plants. And the bigger room also has a full speed ceiling fan.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - The area is a humid tropical region - coastal India  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The ceiling fan is at full speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The size of the room is 15ft * 15ft, the height is 16ft&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The dark curtain to make wet is on one wall having a 10ft * 5ft size&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the above I need to know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Will a wet curtain really help in reducing the temperature of the room or keep us cool during daytime?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If yes (I assume yes after some research on this) then how to maintain wet curtains without manually keeping the curtain wet? I envision keeping it wet using an irrigation drip system, but are there any simpler mechanisms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gothicarchgreenhouses.com/greenhouse_cooling.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22721" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="301ebfe2-eb40-46af-8b5d-61892b2e5690" CreationDate="2019-12-20T18:39:23.517" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by -1 edit id of 596" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4380" RevisionGUID="6d7f2dce-572c-4b0f-8f8c-9ef6b48a9ebf" CreationDate="2019-12-20T18:39:23.517" UserId="3379" Comment="typos corrected, formatting, SI units" Text="I hypothesize that keeping curtains wet continuously will help in cooling a room through [rapid evaporation][1] with an indoor ceiling fan set at full speed. So how to accomplish this, and will it really keep the room cool for the following parameters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The room is closed to prevent hot air from outside coming inside the room during day time. The door of the room is open facing another bigger room which  has only one small window open for the same reasons. The bigger room is generally cooler (we don't know why) and has one small window open which supplies fresh outside air passing through green plants. And the bigger room also has a full speed ceiling fan.&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - The area is a humid tropical region - coastal India  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The ceiling fan is at full speed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The size of the room is 15ft * 15ft (4.6m * 4.6m), the height is 16ft (4.9m)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The dark curtain to make wet is on one wall having a 10ft * 5ft (3m * 1.5m) size&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on the above I need to know:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Will a wet curtain really help in reducing the temperature of the room or keep us cool during daytime?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If yes (I assume yes after some research on this) then how to maintain wet curtains without manually keeping the curtain wet? I envision keeping it wet using an irrigation drip system, but are there any simpler mechanisms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.gothicarchgreenhouses.com/greenhouse_cooling.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9762" RevisionGUID="0eea81b1-9166-407a-b798-12fb381c3774" CreationDate="2019-12-20T20:20:02.820" UserId="2345" Text="Use a [ground level power supply][1], some light rail systems already use the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it would require incorporating an electrified rail in the taxi rank. The taxis would have to be modified to have a [pantograph][2] type device to be lowered onto the electrified rail. As taxis advance in the rank they are in continuous contact with the electrified rail. When they exit the rank they raise the pantograph and just use their battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantograph_(transport)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="4a307739-4ee5-4ef3-b9be-f564505de734" CreationDate="2019-12-20T20:23:51.450" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammar changes" Text="I'm not asking what will happen if everyone in the world suddenly turned to vegetarianism. In an ideal world with the current population, can everyone follow a vegetarian diet (except for people who may need to eat meat if they have allergies to some other vegetarian alternative)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to search for answers but all I found was things like what would happen if everyone suddenly turned vegetarian or things like that. But I want to know can everyone turn into vegetarianism in some time? If yes/no, how much population can Earth sustain if everyone is always a vegetarian. Also, animals would only be breed in zoological parks or for medical or some other science related needs (or for exceptional cases)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22725" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="4a307739-4ee5-4ef3-b9be-f564505de734" CreationDate="2019-12-20T20:23:51.450" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammar changes" Text="If everyone were to be vegetarian, what would be the carrying capacity of the Earth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9763" RevisionGUID="06b94262-c4e2-46f5-80de-cfbdb6652a8c" CreationDate="2019-12-20T20:37:58.987" UserId="2345" Text="To reduce the effect of the 2 cm gap under the door you could attach a [door sweep][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any gaps around the air conditioning unit in the window can be sealed with silicone sealant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reduce electricity consumption, ensure the air conditioner is the correct size/capacity for the room it is supposed to cool. An undersized unit will continuously operate and under humid conditions outside, the compressor will freeze over. This will cause the air conditioner to cease cooling, which would require the air conditioner to be switched off so the ice melts and the compressor dries out. An oversized unit simply costs more than is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If possible, providing shade to the outside walls and window would reduce the amount of solar heating the walls and windows receive. Trees, shrubs, an awing or shutters can assist with this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Retrofitting insulation, at least to the ceiling would be helpful, but if the walls can be done, even better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.homedepot.com/b/Hardware-Door-Hardware-Door-Repair-Door-Sweeps/N-5yc1vZc7kg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9755" RevisionGUID="642e8918-70bc-48bc-bc9c-b0ed079b095a" CreationDate="2019-12-20T20:38:30.230" UserId="4099" Comment="typos corrected, formatting" Text="It depends entirely on where your city is and where it gets its energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Electricity Map][1] has live energy data for the Carbon Intensity of the electricity supply. Right now, the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; intensity of the electricity supply in grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalent per kWh (gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq/kWh) across the world is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 319 gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq/kWh in the UK &#xD;&#xA;- 28 gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq/kWh in Norway&#xD;&#xA;- 509 gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq/kWh in the USA &#xD;&#xA;- 800 gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq/kWh in Australia &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the UK is mostly using gas powered electricity generation, Norway uses mostly hydro-electric, and the USA relies on coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're going to compare the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per km for the different vehicle types in different places. The energy efficiency of electric buses is around 1.335 kWh/km, which amounts to the following emissions in the above mentioned countries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 426 gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq/km in the UK&#xD;&#xA;- 37 gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq/km in Norway &#xD;&#xA;- 680 gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq/km in the USA &#xD;&#xA;- 1060 gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq/km in Australia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions for a regular diesel bus are around 1077 g/km, [according to this paper][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Switching to electric buses in most countries could avoid between 400 g/km to 1000 g/km of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions compared to diesel. In Australia the difference in emissions between diesel and electric is only about 20 g/km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At this point I notice that you mention &quot;aging diesel-fueled buses&quot;. There have been great developments in diesel fuel efficiency in the last few decades. Your city's buses might have emissions a lot worse than the quoted 1077 gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq/km. So even replacing the aging diesel buses with modern diesel buses might reduce emissions by 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, it's seasonal too, in the summer the UK's CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; intensity was as low as 120 gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq/kWh because of solar power and less demand for heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&amp;solar=false&amp;remote=true&amp;wind=false&amp;countryCode=GB&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/11/8/2160/pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22728" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9755" RevisionGUID="642e8918-70bc-48bc-bc9c-b0ed079b095a" CreationDate="2019-12-20T20:38:30.230" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 3379, 99 edit id of 595" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22729" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9757" RevisionGUID="d1017584-961f-4a48-8d04-a8dc214e4770" CreationDate="2019-12-21T00:01:16.297" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1208175565875896320" />
  <row Id="22730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9764" RevisionGUID="c22f5617-691e-4852-8786-034eeb08df68" CreationDate="2019-12-21T00:21:53.353" UserId="8240" Text="We (I'm in EU, Netherlands) are trying to reduce CO2 emissions, and many other regulations (nitrogen, pfas) have been devised to make sure we don't make our planet uninhabitable for humans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I don't hear many people talking about the pretty hard to miss elephant in the room: population growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can shut down coal fired power plants, put solar panels on our roofs, but do we don't have any chance at beating (worldwide) population growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If current predictions about this growth come true, it seems to me we don't stand any chance at keeping up with power demand, even with all (fossil fuel and other) plants firing at maximum capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't consider myself a pessimist, but I just don't see how this is going to work out, seems like something's got to give.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: do we stand any chance at getting through the next 50 years without most of our earth's human population dying? Obviously power demand is not the only issue here, it just seems to be the most urgent to me at this time and in the near future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22731" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9764" RevisionGUID="c22f5617-691e-4852-8786-034eeb08df68" CreationDate="2019-12-21T00:21:53.353" UserId="8240" Text="Is global population growth ignored in sustainable energy discussions because it makes any effort seem futile?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22732" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9764" RevisionGUID="c22f5617-691e-4852-8786-034eeb08df68" CreationDate="2019-12-21T00:21:53.353" UserId="8240" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9765" RevisionGUID="cab8f5a3-9464-4ed9-a112-1ac9d3fae20f" CreationDate="2019-12-21T04:38:22.857" UserId="6293" Text="Well, simple aluminum-frame storm-windows, that are made to any size, can be easily installed over existing windows. Insulation can possibly be added over the ceiling in the attic and under the floor in the basement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course the house heats up during the daytime but a steel standing-seam roof-covering, with a special granulated paint, will reflect solar heat and make a cooler house in the summer. In fact a 430, 444, or 304 stainless-steel roof-covering will work just as well but never need any painting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But consider that any house could benefit from having a floor-level cold-air return in the winter but also having a ceiling-level hot-air return in the summer. Or a ceiling-level hot-air drain could be made by knocking a 304 pipe through the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a hardwood tree can shade the house in summer but let sunlight through in the winter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22736" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9765" RevisionGUID="c46e4062-c55c-4885-8d80-99b9de52e243" CreationDate="2019-12-21T04:44:24.420" UserId="6293" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Well, simple aluminum-frame storm-windows, that are made to any size, can be easily installed over existing windows. Insulation can possibly be added over the ceiling in the attic and under the floor in the basement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course the house heats up during the daytime but a steel standing-seam roof-covering, with a special granulated paint, will reflect solar heat and make a cooler house in the summer. In fact a 430, 444, or 304 stainless-steel roof-covering will work just as well but never need any painting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But consider that most any house could benefit from having a floor-level cold-air-return in the winter but also having a ceiling-level hot-air-return in the summer. Or a ceiling-level hot-air-drain could be made by knocking a 304 pipe through the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a hardwood tree can shade the house in summer but let sunlight through in the winter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22737" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9765" RevisionGUID="90dc6351-c00d-4eef-ba08-09ea8cbdd4c6" CreationDate="2019-12-21T04:57:23.060" UserId="6293" Comment="added 176 characters in body" Text="Well, simple aluminum-frame storm-windows, that are made to any size, can be easily installed over existing windows. Insulation can possibly be added over the ceiling in the attic and under the floor in the basement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course the house heats up during the daytime but a steel standing-seam roof-covering, with a special granulated paint, will reflect solar heat and make a cooler house in the summer. In fact a 430, 444, or 304 stainless-steel roof-covering will work just as well but never need any painting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But consider that most any house could benefit from having a floor-level cold-air-return in the winter but also having a ceiling-level hot-air-return in the summer. Or a ceiling-level hot-air-drain could be made by knocking a 304 pipe through the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a hardwood tree can shade the house in summer but let sunlight through in the winter. And window awnings can help keep the house from heating-up during the day. But a tree has water evaporating out of its leaves and that's natural shade versus artificial shade." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9766" RevisionGUID="88ffc3cc-28c3-40c5-8518-77e8626538a5" CreationDate="2019-12-21T05:12:44.287" UserId="2345" Text="[Population control][1] programs have always been controversial. Many [compulsory sterilization][2] programs have been implemented by various countries over time. China's now abandoned [one child policy][3] was decried around the world because of its social impacts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One result of population control measures was [female infanticide][4], which was also decried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other inadvertent population control is war. The [estimated death total during World War 2][5] was 70 to 85 million, which was 3 percent of the world population of 1940.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another issue about population control measures is they are mostly implemented/forced onto people of developing countries. Developing a policy that is equitable to everyone is going to be very difficult, because affected people will ask &quot;why me, why not someone else&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_planning&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infanticide&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22739" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9765" RevisionGUID="30546d9a-1f8e-40fc-972d-d4b8ae8bc472" CreationDate="2019-12-21T09:24:49.400" UserId="6293" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Well, simple aluminum-frame storm-windows, that are made to any size, can be easily installed over existing windows. Insulation can possibly be added over the ceiling in the attic and under the floor in the basement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course the house heats up during the daytime but a steel standing-seam roof-covering, with a special granulated paint, will reflect solar heat and make a cooler house in the summer. In fact a 430, 444, or 304 stainless-steel roof-covering will work just as well but never need any painting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But consider that most any house could benefit from having a floor-level cold-air-return in the winter but also having a ceiling-level hot-air-return in the summer. Or a ceiling-level hot-air-vent could be made by knocking a 304 pipe through the wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, a hardwood tree can shade the house in summer but let sunlight through in the winter. And window awnings can help keep the house from heating-up during the day. But a tree has water evaporating out of its leaves and that's natural shade versus artificial shade." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9767" RevisionGUID="e8d00017-7634-48e5-9a36-3cd20b281129" CreationDate="2019-12-21T14:48:52.993" UserId="3379" Text="A few trends which help explain why population growth may not receive significant attention as part of climate change discussions (all charts from [Our World in Data](https://ourworldindata.org/)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Per capita emissions rise with GDP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![CO2 emissions vs GDP per capita][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita-vs-gdp-per-capita-international-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Fertility rates decrease with GDP&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![Fertility rate vs GDP][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-by-gdp-per-capita)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### GDP per capita is rising around the world&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/average-real-gdp-per-capita-across-countries-and-regions)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The conclusion from this data (whether correct or not) is that as the global economy grows, carbon intensity becomes a bigger problem, while population growth becomes less of a problem&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XpOPX.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NI6j3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zv8dn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9768" RevisionGUID="3c7d0d48-2001-49c9-84f8-2d9ee49206a0" CreationDate="2019-12-21T16:57:09.910" UserId="8013" Text="There is a [2018 study by microsoft][1] which finds that &quot;the Microsoft cloud is as much as 93 percent more energy efficient and as much as 98 percent more carbon efficient than on-premises solutions&quot;. The savings they are talking about come from replacing in-house servers with cloud resources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of any studies which look at the impact of just moving your usage to cloud, but I doubt that you would have much impact on energy consumption if you do  not decommission some local machines.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beware, however, of the [Jevon's Paradox][2] which states the increased efficiency can lead to careless resource use and increase wastage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=56950&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/19695/The-Cloud-Paradox-Less-Energy-Used-More-Energy-Wasted.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22742" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9769" RevisionGUID="ae0d356c-515f-444d-8991-e0a027e1b758" CreationDate="2019-12-22T00:32:10.677" UserId="8242" Text="From least damage to most:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Wooden pencils. Provided the manufacturer is eco-friendly and uses wood from properly managed forests and non-toxic paints. Faber-Castell (just chosen because I happen to know) is actually carbon-NEGATIVE: They own forests and plantations (with the intention of using the trees that grow there to produce pencils) that absorb about 4 or 5 times more CO2 than the company emits in production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) Mechanical pencils. Just rated lower than wooden since there's the containers the refills come in, and I don't know from which plastic they're made. Just get a good one that lasts and takes refills. They're not expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Fountain pens, if you refill the ink yourself. There are converters that replace the cartridges to make them refillable. And chose a fountain pens that last. I have a Pelikan one that is in my possession for nearly 30 years and still works nicely (except that I don't use it much, hate the haptics.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4) Ballpoint pens. I don't see much difference between replaceable cartridges and disposable pens: The cartridge is an awful waste object, typically made from multiple plastics and metal. The surrounding case doesn't matter much. Pains me to see &quot;eco pens&quot; that just make the case eco-friendly, but still a cartridge to write." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9769" RevisionGUID="7abbea19-fb8b-4ae2-ba06-9f94fd58528e" CreationDate="2019-12-22T12:11:21.203" UserId="99" Comment="improved question layout" Text="From least damage to most:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Wooden pencils**. Provided the manufacturer is eco-friendly and uses wood from properly managed forests and non-toxic paints. Faber-Castell (just chosen because I happen to know) is actually carbon-NEGATIVE: They own forests and plantations (with the intention of using the trees that grow there to produce pencils) that absorb about 4 or 5 times more CO2 than the company emits in production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Mechanical pencils**. Just rated lower than wooden since there's the containers the refills come in, and I don't know from which plastic they're made. Just get a good one that lasts and takes refills. They're not expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Fountain pens**, if you refill the ink yourself. There are converters that replace the cartridges to make them refillable. And chose a fountain pens that last. I have a Pelikan one that is in my possession for nearly 30 years and still works nicely (except that I don't use it much, hate the haptics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Ballpoint pens**. I don't see much difference between replaceable cartridges and disposable pens: The cartridge is an awful waste object, typically made from multiple plastics and metal. The surrounding case doesn't matter much. Pains me to see &quot;eco pens&quot; that just make the case eco-friendly, but still a cartridge to write." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22744" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7072" RevisionGUID="ba57603b-55ee-4beb-a048-7a7e78f3720a" CreationDate="2019-12-22T12:12:51.207" UserId="99" Comment="replaced 'ecological footprint' tag with 'environmental impact' " Text="|environmental-impact|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9771" RevisionGUID="a5975843-ef8e-455e-8873-244f0f5147fa" CreationDate="2019-12-22T18:02:36.203" UserId="8013" Text="CHP combines a thermal power station with a system for distributing spare heat to customers near the power plant. Thermal power stations driven by fossil fuels have no future, but there is likely to be continuing demand for thermal power stations driven by bio-fuels or hydrogen, as these technologies provide an affordable means of storing energy until it is needed. &#xD;&#xA;As long as there are thermal power stations in use, there will be some demand for CHP. Less than now, because the number of thermal power stations is going to be massively decreased as they are replaced by wind and solar power. &#xD;&#xA;The spread of heat pump technology makes the use of CHP for domestic heating less attractive. With heat pumps it becomes economical to heat a house with electricity, and this avoids the overhead of plumbing in to a local hot water network. &#xD;&#xA;Industrial uses of CHP waste heat are likely to continue (e.g. heating greenhouses). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22747" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9700" RevisionGUID="10b37eb3-c99f-4d45-b78c-b804050ee6d0" CreationDate="2019-12-23T03:00:34.390" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1208945464328048640" />
  <row Id="22749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9772" RevisionGUID="2e7d6265-7e7b-45bd-a374-94cfdd243669" CreationDate="2019-12-23T12:50:12.553" UserId="8013" Text="There is a 2016 report on the [Carbon Footprint of Railway Infrastructure][1] from the International Union of Railways [Union Internationale des Chemins de fer: UIC]. They express it in terms of a pay-back time: how long it takes to cancel out the emissions caused by construction through savings thought to come form reduced air and road transport. This begs the question, of course, as to whether you are actually diverting traffic from other modes or just promoting more traffic by providing more opportunities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UIC assume the railways will induce 20% to 30% extra traffic, and the rest is diverted from road and air. On this basis, they arrive at payback times of 9 to 15 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=4&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjz1ua95MvmAhVOQUEAHa-kD0AQFjADegQIARAC&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fuic.org%2FIMG%2Fpdf%2Fcarbon_footprint_of_railway_infrastructure.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22751" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4926" RevisionGUID="0a6515d0-bdae-45d0-baba-7577b52c28dd" CreationDate="2019-12-23T14:59:48.707" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|carbon-footprint|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="634cf3e8-5bbb-45bb-ad46-62dabd18db79" CreationDate="2019-12-23T15:17:27.560" UserId="8245" Text="When using biomass for energy, two popular options are reactors and gasifiers. The first uses anaerobic micro organisms to convert the biomass to fertilizer and a methane rich gas mixture. The second uses heat to pyrolyze the biomass into ash and a carbon monoxide and hyrdogen rich gas mixture. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In terms of the overall potential energy produced by their resulting gas mixtures, is there an efficiency difference between the two?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you left one unit of wood in a digestor/reactor and let it sit until it was completely consumed by the system would the resulting amount of methane rich gas have more potential energy than if we ran that same unit of wood through a gasifier and captured the resulting amount of carbon monoxide and hyrdogen rich gas. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="634cf3e8-5bbb-45bb-ad46-62dabd18db79" CreationDate="2019-12-23T15:17:27.560" UserId="8245" Text="Biomass: Digestor/Reactor vs Gasifier Efficiency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="634cf3e8-5bbb-45bb-ad46-62dabd18db79" CreationDate="2019-12-23T15:17:27.560" UserId="8245" Text="|energy-efficiency|biogas|gases|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9758" RevisionGUID="633d3c19-2a94-4611-836a-df3834fb5ab2" CreationDate="2019-12-23T16:08:41.243" UserId="400" Comment="Edit in response to stijn's comment." Text="A.  The composting toilet will use essentially no water.  While the water in a septic system is recycled into ground water, this doesn't help.  Water is plentiful, and not in short supply.  Clean water suitable for drinking is not.  A comment mentioned using rain water.  A conventional residential toilet is used about 5 times a day.  If low flow, call it 4 pee flushes (1 liter) and 1 turd flush (4 liters)  So 8 liters a day.  Per resident. A household of 4 uses 30 liters a day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_water_use_in_the_U.S._and_Canada says current usage is 125 l/day usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;30 l/day = 11,000 liters per year.  In my climate (central Alberta) we get about 40 cm of precipitation per year.  This would require perfect collection efficiency on a 27 m^2 roof.  This ignores evaporation, leaky gutters, snow that slides off instead of melting (about 30% of my precip.)  It also means you have to have non-freezing storage for essentially all of it.  Roughly 1/3 of our precip is in June, 1/3 in winter as snow, and the remainder scattered.  In a low precip year it can be substantially less than this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, if I put gutters on all my roof, and collected it all, I could probably do this.  So it's not impractical.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B.  You do not have a large mass of concrete with it's embodied energy cost tied up in the septic tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are alternative materials for tanks.  Steel, and fiberglass are also used.  You can ask a separate question as to which material has a smaller foot print over the life span of the tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C.  You do not have the chemical external costs of making the PCV pipe for drainage field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PVC as far as I've found is the only type of pipe available to construct septic drainage fields.   In the bad old days clay tile was used.  In theory you should be able to use weeping tile (corrugated polyethylene) but I've not seen it used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the the design of the composting toilet, secondary processing may amount to storing a barrel in a warm place for a year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The composting toilet will require a bale of coarse sawdust or fine wood chips.  In our area, they give chips away.  If you catch the power line pruners in your neighbourhood they will drop them off at your driveway.  Buying them (here they are sold for horse bedding) costs $1200 for a 160 cubic yard walking trailer load delivered.  Smaller bundles are sold as rodent bedding by pet stores.  Based on the Sunnyjohn design, this needs doing roughly on a yearly basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The largest expense for the Sunny John, is the room.  If built as an outdoor unit, it amounts to a 5x5 foot insultated shed, with room underneath for 2 barrels. (Plastic, $20 each commonly, 2nd hand, $50 each wholesale new)  Using salvaged glazing and thermal mass techniques it's self heating even in winter in Alberta, as long as it has a southerly exposure to sun.   You would also need a dolly for barrel moving ($250) or hire it done periodically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular design:  The sunny john, had the original link http://www.sunnyjohn.com/indexpages/sunny_johns.htm  But at this time you need to use the Wayback machine to see the page.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not require addition of sawdust or peat moss after each use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell it uses a 45 gallon barrel as a repository, and was set up so that the barrel space was in a solar chamber.  This kept the decomposition temperatures high enough to be continuously active, and dried excess water.  When the drum was full, it was swapped out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to do the secondary process was to keep both barrels in the same chamber, and just swap positions.  In the fall either mix it into your compost pile for an additional year of aging, or put it in your garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downside of the Sunny John is that it doesn't retrofit easily.  You basically are building a room  with a 4-5 foot deep outside accessible 'basement'  Recommended for outside privy use or new construction.  Would be very suitable for use in barns, shops, and other outbuildings.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22757" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="3703f8c3-056b-458e-bd2f-a342f3bba6ae" CreationDate="2019-12-24T06:00:00.393" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1209353008347308033" />
  <row Id="22762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9776" RevisionGUID="419ce423-0bdf-4e16-907b-ae5b353336e4" CreationDate="2019-12-24T17:03:19.627" UserId="8250" Text="I'm kicking around the idea of creating a local offset program. My question is: what is the time basis for offsets? Best seen with an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say I build a solar PV system that costs $10,000 and produces enough electricity to offset a tonne of CO2/year for 25 years. If I'm an institution trying to offset emissions, do I buy all 25 tonnes in one year for $10,000, or do I need to buy 1 tonne for $400 and find the rest elsewhere. Or can I do either, as a tonne is a tonne?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22763" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9776" RevisionGUID="419ce423-0bdf-4e16-907b-ae5b353336e4" CreationDate="2019-12-24T17:03:19.627" UserId="8250" Text="What is the time basis for offsets? Is ther" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22764" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9776" RevisionGUID="419ce423-0bdf-4e16-907b-ae5b353336e4" CreationDate="2019-12-24T17:03:19.627" UserId="8250" Text="|carbon-offsetting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22765" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9758" RevisionGUID="4be61b4a-1e75-402d-b8dc-0d6a02c2bbb2" CreationDate="2019-12-24T18:15:15.853" UserId="4099" Comment="typos corrected, formatting, link to archived page added" Text="A.  The composting toilet will use essentially no water.  While the water in a septic system is recycled into ground water, this doesn't help.  Water is plentiful, and not in short supply.  Clean water suitable for drinking is not.  A comment mentioned using rain water.  A conventional residential toilet is used about 5 times a day.  If low flow, call it 4 pee flushes (1 liter) and 1 turd flush (4 liters)  So 8 liters a day.  Per resident. A household of 4 uses 30 liters a day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_water_use_in_the_U.S._and_Canada) says current usage is 125 l/day usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;30 l/day = 11,000 liters per year.  In my climate (central Alberta) we get about 40 cm of precipitation per year.  This would require perfect collection efficiency on a 27 m^2 roof.  This ignores evaporation, leaky gutters, snow that slides off instead of melting (about 30% of my precip.)  It also means you have to have non-freezing storage for essentially all of it.  Roughly 1/3 of our precip is in June, 1/3 in winter as snow, and the remainder scattered.  In a low precip year it can be substantially less than this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, if I put gutters on all my roof, and collected it all, I could probably do this.  So it's not impractical.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;B.  You do not have a large mass of concrete with it's embodied energy cost tied up in the septic tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are alternative materials for tanks.  Steel, and fiberglass are also used.  You can ask a separate question as to which material has a smaller foot print over the life span of the tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;C.  You do not have the chemical external costs of making the PCV pipe for drainage field.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PVC as far as I've found is the only type of pipe available to construct septic drainage fields.   In the bad old days clay tile was used.  In theory you should be able to use weeping tile (corrugated polyethylene) but I've not seen it used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the the design of the composting toilet, secondary processing may amount to storing a barrel in a warm place for a year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The composting toilet will require a bale of coarse sawdust or fine wood chips.  In our area, they give chips away.  If you catch the power line pruners in your neighbourhood they will drop them off at your driveway.  Buying them (here they are sold for horse bedding) costs $1200 for a 160 cubic yard walking trailer load delivered.  Smaller bundles are sold as rodent bedding by pet stores.  Based on the Sunny John design, this needs doing roughly on a yearly basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The largest expense for the Sunny John, is the room.  If built as an outdoor unit, it amounts to a 5x5 foot insulated shed, with room underneath for 2 barrels. (Plastic, $20 each commonly, 2nd hand, $50 each wholesale new)  Using salvaged glazing and thermal mass techniques it's self heating even in winter in Alberta, as long as it has a southerly exposure to sun.   You would also need a dolly for barrel moving ($250) or hire it done periodically. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This particular design, the Sunny John, had [this original link](http://www.sunnyjohn.com/indexpages/sunny_johns.htm), but at this time you need to use the [Wayback Machine](http://web.archive.org/web/20150504053144/http://www.sunnyjohn.com/indexpages/sunny_johns.htm) to see the page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does not require addition of sawdust or peat moss after each use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a nutshell it uses a 45 gallon barrel as a repository, and was set up so that the barrel space was in a solar chamber.  This kept the decomposition temperatures high enough to be continuously active, and dried excess water.  When the drum was full, it was swapped out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to do the secondary process was to keep both barrels in the same chamber, and just swap positions.  In the fall either mix it into your compost pile for an additional year of aging, or put it in your garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downside of the Sunny John is that it doesn't retrofit easily.  You basically are building a room  with a 4-5 foot deep outside accessible 'basement'.  Recommended for outside privy use or new construction.  Would be very suitable for use in barns, shops, and other outbuildings.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22766" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9758" RevisionGUID="4be61b4a-1e75-402d-b8dc-0d6a02c2bbb2" CreationDate="2019-12-24T18:15:15.853" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 99 edit id of 598" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9776" RevisionGUID="b4ec43a3-2d24-4371-9f1c-6070440a3ffa" CreationDate="2019-12-24T18:15:42.930" UserId="4099" Comment="title fixed" Text="I'm kicking around the idea of creating a local offset program. My question is: what is the time basis for offsets? Best seen with an example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say I build a solar PV system that costs $10,000 and produces enough electricity to offset a tonne of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;/year for 25 years. If I'm an institution trying to offset emissions, do I buy all 25 tonnes in one year for $10,000, or do I need to buy 1 tonne for $400 and find the rest elsewhere? Or can I do either, as a tonne is a tonne?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22768" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9776" RevisionGUID="b4ec43a3-2d24-4371-9f1c-6070440a3ffa" CreationDate="2019-12-24T18:15:42.930" UserId="4099" Comment="title fixed" Text="What is the time basis for offset programs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22769" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9776" RevisionGUID="b4ec43a3-2d24-4371-9f1c-6070440a3ffa" CreationDate="2019-12-24T18:15:42.930" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 99 edit id of 597" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9777" RevisionGUID="5f343fcf-16ba-475d-bc45-44480a9fafb6" CreationDate="2019-12-24T22:57:07.127" UserId="8013" Text="There is quite a literature on alternative economic models, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Green Economics: An Introduction to Theory, Policy and Practice, Moly&#xD;&#xA;   Scott Cato,  ISBN-13: 978-1844075713 &#xD;&#xA; - Supply Shock: Economic Growth at the Crossroads and the Steady State&#xD;&#xA;   Solution. Czech, B. 2013. and other works on [steady state&#xD;&#xA;   economics][1]&#xD;&#xA; - This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate, Naomi Klein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://steadystate.org/discover/reading-list/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9777" RevisionGUID="b7272c43-46e0-4683-91db-c9badc5654f0" CreationDate="2019-12-25T00:02:27.210" UserId="8013" Comment="Added George Marshall's book" Text="There is quite a literature on alternative economic models, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Green Economics: An Introduction to Theory, Policy and Practice. Moly&#xD;&#xA;   Scott Cato,  ISBN-13: 978-1844075713 &#xD;&#xA; - Supply Shock: Economic Growth at the Crossroads and the Steady State&#xD;&#xA;   Solution. Czech, B. 2013. and other works on [steady state&#xD;&#xA;   economics][1]&#xD;&#xA; - This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. Naomi Klein.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also books on society's response (or lack of it), for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change. George Marshall (Bloomsbury US, 2014).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://steadystate.org/discover/reading-list/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9778" RevisionGUID="646e4516-0d2a-470b-a3f5-53ebc4f5110b" CreationDate="2019-12-26T10:11:11.637" UserId="8194" Text="I plan on installing 12V 100 Ah LiFePO4 batteries, but since they are so expensive, I might buy from different vendors. Is it ok to do this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9778" RevisionGUID="646e4516-0d2a-470b-a3f5-53ebc4f5110b" CreationDate="2019-12-26T10:11:11.637" UserId="8194" Text="Different battery brands in battery bank for solar setup" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9778" RevisionGUID="646e4516-0d2a-470b-a3f5-53ebc4f5110b" CreationDate="2019-12-26T10:11:11.637" UserId="8194" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22776" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9764" RevisionGUID="ffa0d0c3-3122-4263-9221-ca961729f1bf" CreationDate="2019-12-26T15:00:36.837" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1210213832066514945" />
  <row Id="22779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9779" RevisionGUID="0b6076d7-a507-46a6-aff6-8ad37ef7c784" CreationDate="2019-12-27T17:52:01.217" UserId="400" Text="You can get some mitigation by using oleic acid.  This is a simple hydrocarbon with a hydrophilic end.  Under still conditions it creates a one molecule thick layer on the surface of the water.  Commonly used on swimming pools to reduce heating costs. it's non-poisonous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The downside is it doesn't shade the water, so the water heats up.  Eventually it gets warm enough to evaporate anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9780" RevisionGUID="2c6083d6-8670-4160-b3ac-8e4bc4e019e0" CreationDate="2019-12-28T13:52:02.080" UserId="6837" Text="Each location on the globe has a wide variety of factors that will influence your answer (temperature, humidity, hours of sunlight, etc.) but there are several age-old solutions that come to mind. Please allow me to share my insights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most places where you capture a huge volume of runoff there is a very common problem: You get sediment. In my personal water catchment experience I get many tons of sand deposited with every rainfall in the uphill areas, and all areas that retain surface water for more than a few days will gather layers of clay and silt. This is only a problem if your system is unable to regulate it properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Provide massive sand capture uphill, and massive sediment capture downhill. Your water needs will take care of themselves if you do so. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, I require massive quantities of sand and silt for my endeavors. The challenge is to force Mother Nature to work for me instead of against me, but Mother Nature provides more than I can use, so I need to give Her room to play with what She has in mind. I can easily dam up areas, and she can easily fill them in. Consider what happens when we dance this way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;She insists on providing more than I can ever need. She has Her ways that we would do well to recognize. When She fills my dams with sand and sediment, what do I observe? All downhill creek beds are restored to running water. This is water that seeps out of the layers of sediment that She has provided and continues to provide perpetually. There is no evaporation from underground stores of water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I do is that I catch the sand in uphill areas where it naturally accumulates. Sand holds a very high percentage of its volume in water, especially if the lower layers are clay or bedrock that seeps slowly if at all. The aim is to provide a huge underground cistern that holds water like an aquifer. All it takes is a shovel and a wheelbarrow, or a bulldozer if you are motivated by matters of scale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My uphill areas hold the water in sandy beds that seep water slowly. Downhill areas promote fine particle sediment that drains slowly. This is where my crops flourish. All that which requires nutrients thrives there. This is where I put all organic waste products. My downhill neighbors love me because they see what has become of my insanity. I have inadvertently improved their property value and increased their standard of living because their livestock and gardens now enjoy the benefits of my attempts to be sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, so I had to spend a few days with a shovel to make sure this all works out to my satisfaction. The workout did me well. I'm old enough to enjoy the exercise and frugal enough to avoid paying for an LA fitness monthly sign up. Observations and outcomes are incontrovertible. It works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can do this yourself and no longer be dependent on municipal water supplies. I would advise everyone to do so, but not many are so inclined. The motivation for me has been to avoid a water bill I'm not willing to pay. This kind of simple ancient knowledge is not normally available, so we can be forgiven for our ignorance. In the context of sustainability we are remiss in not understanding it and implementing it properly.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried everything. The only thing that works for me is to store it underground where moth and mold do not corrupt. It's Nature's way. It's working for Her and with Her. It's what they do in the desert when they want to restore Her to her former glory. Please believe me, it's legit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are concerned about visibility, then please consider how that is not a problem in this approach. It scales up well. It might not work well if your area is completely flat, but small degrees of inclination actually make it more feasible. Consult with an expert in hydrology and you will see that I'm not a fool. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our modern systems do not normally welcome solutions that render you sustainable. Overcome this if you can. If you cannot provide for your own water and power, then you have much to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All this newfangled gadgetry is fine. I'm not knocking it, but people with very little intelligence for thousands of years were able to see what we fail to see now. You don't have to be all that bright to see how we can live in harmony with Mother Earth. Remove yourself from any equation that doesn't seem right. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;      &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9781" RevisionGUID="edc8de6e-e0c7-4b41-ae69-8d008a730233" CreationDate="2019-12-28T14:22:44.507" UserId="6393" Text="As an investor, I have a similar problem. For example, I want to fund the production of wind turbines. If my lifestyle requires 5 kW (peak) of wind turbines, should my wind turbine production assets be capable of producing wind turbines for the 5 kW peak production in 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also want to fund the production of electrolysis cells as an environmentally friendly way of storing energy for longer terms than few hours. Let's say my lifestyle requires 2 kilowatts (peak) of electrolysis cells. Should my electrolysis cell production assets be capable of manufacturing the electrolysis cells in 5 years, 10 years or 20 years?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, I want to fund the production of solar cells, too. Let's say I need 2.3 kW (peak) of solar cells for my lifestyle. Should my solar cell manufacturing assets be capable of manufacturing the solar cells in 5 years, 10 years or 20 years?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's one timeframe you cannot exceed and it's the lifetime of a particular component.&#xD;&#xA;For example, the lifespan of solar cells is around 25 years and approximately the same is true for wind turbines too. The lifespan of electrolysis cells is measured as a function of hours of operation, so the lifetime will depend on how often these components are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I generally use a timeframe that is somewhat lower than lifetime of the components. So, for example I currently own enough of Vestas Wind Systems to create 540 watts (peak) of wind turbines per year. Thus, the required 5 kW will be created in bit more than 9 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think this value (less than 10 years) is good, because it is faster than the need to take action on climate change. If the whole energy sector would shift entirely to renewables and clean energy storage within less than 10 years, climate change would not be a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend using 10 years as the timeframe. It's less than the lifetime of the components such as solar cells, wind turbines or electrolysis cells. It's also fast enough to make a meaningful impact on climate change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9782" RevisionGUID="6471e971-c55d-4efb-98d3-79e89f894e79" CreationDate="2019-12-28T14:45:59.300" UserId="6837" Text="People tell me they think I should get rid of all my old vehicles. I'm not willing to do so because each of them has a fully functional, rechargeable 12 volt system with around 48 amp hours each, which means that, fully charged, they will each deliver 1 amp for 48 hours, 2 amps for 24 hours, 8 amps for 6 hours and so on. Each can provide light, heat, shelter, and storage. I install inexpensive solar on the rooftops which provides light, charging of electronics, and available power for my tools.  I further use them for safe storage of equipment and utilize them as greenhouse space when frost threatens. An old van with a lot of windows is best for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it. Each unit collects power, stores power, and can generate power if more is needed. People will even pay you to store their vehicles and start them up once in a while to keep them alive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at what you have (or could have) available to you before you consider buying anything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9783" RevisionGUID="5a508ba9-4a37-48ba-a029-85cc75d8fb59" CreationDate="2019-12-28T16:24:06.803" UserId="6837" Text="In remote and undeveloped locations, composting toilets are considered the first step toward civilization. On the other end of the spectrum, namely cities and large towns, a sewage system is the only option. The middle range is where septic systems become required by code. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When developing human habitats outside of sewer system range, I've had to consider the options. A flushing toilet is a creature comfort and it comes with an expense. I like it better than hooking up to a sewer for many reasons. The cost is lower because you pay a lot over the long term for sewer services, but the cost is higher compared to a composting toilet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you (and your guests) don't mind the inconvenience of a composting toilet, then that is the way to go. You get the best compost known to man at your disposal. You'll need to compost it thoroughly, at least a year in a microbial environment, but you cannot buy anything close to what you get in return. Because of our diet, well composted human excrement is superior in every way to anything available on the market.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that these same nutrients can be returned to you in a properly designed septic system, but there are some obvious concerns. Roots will invade your infrastructure as soon as it is convenient to them. They're looking for the water. There's another thing, perhaps even more important than the water, that they are all looking for. They pretty much all need good drainage. A well designed septic system provides this, and it's an ideal place for your fruit trees and other perennials to grow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how I've dealt with that conundrum. I designed the septic system to be vastly above and beyond the needed capacity for the home. This provided a huge area of great drainage for trees and vines. The first few feet of the leach lines, where all the septic drainage goes, are not planted. Between the leach lines are huge compost pits that encourage the plant roots to go there instead. To further prevent too much water in the drain field, I plumbed and provided a greywater system tank that takes the bulk of the moisture for more precise watering on annuals. The key to my approach is to not use the septic system at all unless it's absolutely necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I prefer to pee and poop in ways that are personally more sustainable to me, directly or through several composting toilets, but I do use the modern flushable toilet at times and I offer the option to my guests. It makes the home feel right to many, and it allows poopers to feel as if we are not forced into some primitive lifestyle with which we are not entirely comfortable.         &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's clear to me that the right answer to your question is: &quot;Both!&quot; because it's not one over the other that matters. It's how you utilize that which is at your disposal (or for your disposal) that counts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But to be honest, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have installed a septic system if it hadn't been required by code. In view of sustainability, poop is a valuable thing and it's a shame to see our waste being wasted. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9784" RevisionGUID="909bb169-2a2b-4a23-ba63-01dbd1c8c8a3" CreationDate="2019-12-28T17:54:38.620" UserId="6393" Text="The answer by Jean-Paul Calderone correctly specified how much population the food can support. I'm not focusing on that at all in my answer; I'm only focusing on energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer, however, did not take into account energy aspects, only mentioning than an unlimited supply of natural gas is needed. That is most certainly false: methane can be created with only energy, carbon dioxide and water as the source materials. As we all know, there is no shortage of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon dioxide can be recycled in industrial processes, and natural gas can be synthetically created using water electrolysis and Sabatier reaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the only problem is how much input energy we can harness. Solar radiation is 1000 W / square meter on non-cloudy days, and Earth receives 1.27*10^14 square meters of radiation minus clouds. If we could harness only 1% of the radiation before clouds (seems doable), we have 1275 terawatts of radiation. This is 11166905 terawatt hours per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;US primary energy use is 88000 kWh / year / capita (&lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Trends&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;). Thus, it is possible to support &lt;b&gt;127 billion people having US lifestyle&lt;/b&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More likely, the answer would be larger, as 30% of Earth is land, cloudy days are perhaps 50% of the days and we could perfectly well use 15% of landmass for solar power and the rest 85% for other purposes. Thus, 0.30 * 0.50 * 0.15 = 0.0225, or 2.25%, larger than 1%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, even with solar radiation as the only energy source, a US lifestyle is possible for hundreds of billions of people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we want to support a larger number of people, e.g. thousands of billions of people all having a western lifestyle, we cannot do it with solar power only, but there is always the nuclear option. Once-through fission cycle will quickly lead to exhaustion of cheap uranium. However, it is possible to build breeder reactors that use uranium 50-100 times more efficiently than current reactors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With such breeder reactors, at the current consumption level, uranium will last for billions of years (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html&quot;&gt;source&lt;/a&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multiply the population having a western lifestyle by 1000, and uranium is still enough for millions of years. Some could consider it unsustainable if the human population runs out of energy in millions years. Some other could consider it sustainable enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not saying these breeder reactors are the optimal solution. Growth to population of 127 billion seems unlikely, so it is likely that exponentially reducing solar power production costs mean solar power will be enough and needs not be supplemented by nuclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, with a population of 1000 billion, all using nuclear power to have a western lifestyle, the waste heat would be enormous and could somewhat heat up the planet directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some might protest that solar can be generated only when sun shines and there are not enough battery minerals for storing that electricity for cloudy days. The most likely solution to this problem is power-to-gas, where solar power is stored as synthetic hydrogen or synthetic methane (along with carbon dioxide recycling, of course, if methane is selected instead of hydrogen). Enormous amounts of energy can be stored as gas, with no need for battery minerals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22785" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8438" RevisionGUID="3005a08f-00ad-4193-a548-ae26dbd71bdf" CreationDate="2019-12-29T04:04:20.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9785" RevisionGUID="4837617c-3936-4cfb-b707-fba4693d0a2a" CreationDate="2019-12-29T12:18:37.873" UserId="8256" Text="Question is already in the title. Does using paper napkins have a high impact?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9785" RevisionGUID="4837617c-3936-4cfb-b707-fba4693d0a2a" CreationDate="2019-12-29T12:18:37.873" UserId="8256" Text="How many grams of Co2 are needed to produce 1 paper napkin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9785" RevisionGUID="4837617c-3936-4cfb-b707-fba4693d0a2a" CreationDate="2019-12-29T12:18:37.873" UserId="8256" Text="|energy-use|co2|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9786" RevisionGUID="1e950372-4205-496d-96e4-d2a90920ecfd" CreationDate="2019-12-30T12:05:04.263" UserId="8041" Text="I have a personal pollution monitor that has been recording higher levels of VOCs the last 18 hours or so and I'm trying to understand and consider the reasons for this.  I live in a fairly busy city (250k population, 3k people per km2 so densely populated).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the more common reasons that could cause higher outdoor VOC readings in a city?  The levels have been somewhere between 1 &amp; 2ppm the last 18 hours, the four days prior it has been around 0.3ppm or less.  Now it has subsided but seems to fluctuate between 0.3 and 1ppm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Traffic, wood burners, open fires, factories, incinerators?  Mould round the open window?  Anything else?  What are the most common sources of VOC pollution in a city?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22790" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9786" RevisionGUID="1e950372-4205-496d-96e4-d2a90920ecfd" CreationDate="2019-12-30T12:05:04.263" UserId="8041" Text="What are the most common sources of VOC pollution in outdoor air?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9786" RevisionGUID="1e950372-4205-496d-96e4-d2a90920ecfd" CreationDate="2019-12-30T12:05:04.263" UserId="8041" Text="|pollution|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22792" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9667" RevisionGUID="b958862b-2269-4e2e-97f6-2fb1c3686aef" CreationDate="2019-12-30T15:00:37.130" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1211663384791392262" />
  <row Id="22793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9785" RevisionGUID="6062a674-8477-49a8-9ec2-65ee1b8f3b29" CreationDate="2019-12-30T19:57:39.020" UserId="3379" Comment="Grammar, tags." Text="Does using paper napkins have a high carbon impact?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22794" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9785" RevisionGUID="6062a674-8477-49a8-9ec2-65ee1b8f3b29" CreationDate="2019-12-30T19:57:39.020" UserId="3379" Comment="Grammar, tags." Text="How many grams of CO2 are emitted to produce one paper napkin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22795" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9785" RevisionGUID="6062a674-8477-49a8-9ec2-65ee1b8f3b29" CreationDate="2019-12-30T19:57:39.020" UserId="3379" Comment="Grammar, tags." Text="|paper|greenhouse-gas-emissions|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9787" RevisionGUID="74e5ba0a-77b0-45cc-8e0d-e8cfa3c91fb1" CreationDate="2019-12-30T20:18:38.703" UserId="3379" Text="I found a few different references for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 10 g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e per paper towel (from [the Guardian, 2010](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/aug/05/carbon-footprint-drying-hands))&#xD;&#xA; - 10 g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per paper napkin (from [Treehugger, 2009](https://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/are-paper-napkins-more-environmentally-friendly.html))&#xD;&#xA; - 7.3 g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e per virgin paper towel (from [MIT/Dyson study, 2011](http://environmental-management.ca/lca/LCA_MIT_Hand-Dryers_2011.pdf))&#xD;&#xA; - 7.4 g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e per recycled paper towel (same study)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While several of these studies are looking at hand drying (for which I [wrote an earlier answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5894/3379)), the Treehugger article looked specifically at napkins used during a meal, considering the manufacture as well as washing and drying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at **linen**, **cotton**, and **paper** napkins, the study found that **paper napkins are best in a restaurant setting** where cotton or linen napkins would likely be washed in hot water with chemicals after each meal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For home use, linen napkins are preferable to cotton napkins** (112 g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e vs 1 kg, respectively, for production), and both are better than paper if washed only when needed. Additionally, washing in cold water with a natural detergent and line drying will further reduce impact." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9788" RevisionGUID="fbc4b31f-12f1-40fd-abd6-e781b0d3dfb6" CreationDate="2019-12-30T22:22:02.577" UserId="8206" Text="Generally speaking, there is an efficiency difference related to the latent heat of the moisture of the feedstock.  Moisture in the feedstock needs to be evaporated before thermal degradation occurs; however, biological degradation does not require the moisture to be evaporated. Because of the need to evaporate moisture gasifiers, in general, tend to be less efficient than anaerobic digesters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is research into hydrothermal gasification which overcomes this issue by gasifying materials underwater at supercritical temperatures. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9782" RevisionGUID="2b608d9f-a85d-4624-8b7f-bc49ebbe33c0" CreationDate="2019-12-31T13:11:09.543" UserId="6837" Comment="Added last five paragraphs to address the question better." Text="People tell me they think I should get rid of all my old vehicles. I'm not willing to do so because each of them has a fully functional, rechargeable 12 volt system with around 48 amp hours each, which means that, fully charged, they will each deliver 1 amp for 48 hours, 2 amps for 24 hours, 8 amps for 6 hours and so on. Each can provide light, heat, shelter, and storage. I install inexpensive solar on the rooftops which provides light, charging of electronics, and available power for my tools.  I further use them for safe storage of equipment and utilize them as greenhouse space when frost threatens. An old van with a lot of windows is best for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about it. Each unit collects power, stores power, and can generate power if more is needed. People will even pay you to store their vehicles and start them up once in a while to keep them alive. Look at what you have (or could have) available to you before you consider buying anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In such a system, each vehicle is actually a separate circuit. It doesn't matter at all if the batteries are the same or not because they are isolated from each other. Even in a normal house with conventional wiring, different zones or areas are usually governed by separate circuits. This allows for smaller (and safer) fuses and breakers. In my solar home, each outlet with low power demands gets its own isolated solar array, battery, and charge controller, which completely avoids the problem of matching batteries, but there are some loads that that require more current or relatively lower current for longer durations, and this is where multiple batteries on one circuit comes into play. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you buy batteries from the same vendor, manufactured in the same batch, at the same time, and all of them have been exposed to the same environment with the same charging conditions, there will be differences between them. It's best to match them with partners which are as nearly identical as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To do this, you measure the OCV (open current voltage) after they have been resting for at least 24 hours. You can sometimes do this in the store before purchasing if the vendor has a large inventory, but make sure you only try to match those with the same dates. The vendor will prefer you do this rather than to buy ten times more than you need with the intention of returning 90% of them after matching. Another approach is to purchase larger batches with others who also need batteries, match them, and then divy them up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once your batteries are grouped, they should stay together as a team. Charge them together, discharge them together, and store them together. They should then be treated are a single unit. If you later decide to increase the size of a bank of batteries, don't even think about adding batteries by buying from a different vendor, or even from the same vendor for that matter. For instance, if you have three matched batteries and you want to increase to a five battery bank, then remove the three for use on a lesser circuit and start with five freshly matched batteries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason this is important is that unmatched batteries in parallel will fight with each other. You're forcing them to always have the exact same voltage and they might not want to do that. Think about it like workers who don't work well with each other because they are of a different mind with different intentions. In series, it's much less of a concern. For instance, you can use two six volt batteries in series to produce 12 volts, and they won't fight with each other the way two twelve volt batteries in parallel will. It's because each of the two six volters will be allowed to have a different voltage level than the other. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6999" RevisionGUID="4f8ef7b9-81a4-40f5-804e-d8ed32065b4a" CreationDate="2020-01-01T12:49:24.503" UserId="8232" Comment="Added quote from brocure to prevent link rot" Text="Buy degraded/abused land in strategic locations (which should be cheap as a result).  (Re-)Plant trees.  Place a **conservation covenant** over the property so that future owners are legally required to preserve it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Victoria, Australia, organisations like the [Trust For Nature][1] can help with this process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure what a conservation covenant is, TFN has produced an easy-to-read [brochure][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A conservation covenant (deed of covenant) is a voluntary, legal agreement made between a private landowner and Trust for Nature (“the Trust”). Its purpose is to permanently conserve and protect the natural, cultural or scientific values of the land. The Trust's conservation covenants are entered into under the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972,registered on Title and are legally binding forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.trustfornature.org.au/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.trustfornature.org.au/images/uploads/landServices/Landowner-support/TFN3736-ConservationCovenantBrochure_web.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22807" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6999" RevisionGUID="4f8ef7b9-81a4-40f5-804e-d8ed32065b4a" CreationDate="2020-01-01T12:49:24.503" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 4886 edit id of 601" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6999" RevisionGUID="8e4a9e8e-bd8e-4b76-891e-abb345f23d42" CreationDate="2020-01-01T12:50:41.463" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Buy degraded/abused land in strategic locations (which should be cheap as a result).  (Re-)Plant trees.  Place a **conservation covenant** over the property so that future owners are legally required to preserve it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Victoria, Australia, organisations like the [Trust For Nature][1] can help with this process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're not sure what a conservation covenant is, TFN has produced an easy-to-read [brochure][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A conservation covenant (deed of covenant) is a voluntary, legal agreement made between a private landowner and Trust for Nature (“the Trust”). Its purpose is to permanently conserve and protect the natural, cultural or scientific values of the land. The Trust's conservation covenants are entered into under the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972, registered on Title and are legally binding forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.trustfornature.org.au/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.trustfornature.org.au/images/uploads/landServices/Landowner-support/TFN3736-ConservationCovenantBrochure_web.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9791" RevisionGUID="7a2830ec-e5af-47ba-bec1-1d3b5bd72bae" CreationDate="2020-01-01T13:08:25.613" UserId="8013" Text="Are there any detailed studies of the carbon footprint of pet food production?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are plenty of articles asserting that meat in cat and dog food is a major source of carbon emissions (e.g. [from Forbes][1]), but they appear to refer to meat produced for human consumption. Pet food can be from a variety of sources, such as offal and/or animals that have reached the end of their life producing milk, wool or eggs (e.g. [from the 2ndChance web site][2]), so using the emissions figures calculated from meat for human consumption could be very misleading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/08/02/whats-your-dogs-carbon-pawprint/#1e94d71713a6&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.2ndchance.info/Canner-Cutter.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9791" RevisionGUID="7a2830ec-e5af-47ba-bec1-1d3b5bd72bae" CreationDate="2020-01-01T13:08:25.613" UserId="8013" Text="What is the carbon footprint of pet food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9791" RevisionGUID="7a2830ec-e5af-47ba-bec1-1d3b5bd72bae" CreationDate="2020-01-01T13:08:25.613" UserId="8013" Text="|carbon-footprint|pets|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22812" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9792" RevisionGUID="c8505d32-caee-415d-93c9-cf4127a5b191" CreationDate="2020-01-01T20:13:36.280" UserId="8265" Text="I've heard a lot of people push for natural gas as a fuel for generating electrical power. However, oil is said to be a very dirty fuel. Aren't oil and natural gas harvested from the same sources? The cost of each can of course vary, but to what extent will total oil production and total gas production be linked in the future? If countries take measures to make oil more expensive and natural gas cheaper, won't they cancel out? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bonus question (if applicable): Is there any company that only produces natural gas, not oil? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9792" RevisionGUID="c8505d32-caee-415d-93c9-cf4127a5b191" CreationDate="2020-01-01T20:13:36.280" UserId="8265" Text="Are oil and natural gas inherently linked?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9792" RevisionGUID="c8505d32-caee-415d-93c9-cf4127a5b191" CreationDate="2020-01-01T20:13:36.280" UserId="8265" Text="|oil|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9793" RevisionGUID="bb47148a-6765-4d17-8a3f-b49f6cd68ff8" CreationDate="2020-01-02T00:16:56.903" UserId="3379" Text="**tl;dr: Oil and natural gas production are increasing globally at roughly the same rate, but their production is not inherently linked.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer looks mainly at oil and gas production in the US (since that's what I'm more familiar with, and the [U.S. leads global petroleum and natural gas production as of 2018](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40973)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Most &quot;new&quot; natural gas is coming from shale gas wells&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Data on production of natural gas in the US from various sources is [available here from the Energy Information Agency](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_dc_NUS_mmcf_a.htm). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I downloaded the data and put together this chart showing total historical withdrawals of natural gas, along with what is **vented and flared***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Historical natural gas withdrawals by source in the US, 1968 to 2018][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that historically, most natural gas came from dedicated gas wells, and the rest came from oil wells (which produce both fuels). However, as natural gas has become cheaper and more important, the vast majority of it has been sourced from shale gas wells, and both the quantity and proportion coming from oil wells has diminished. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## However, the recent growth in natural gas is replacing coal production, while oil production continues to increase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From EIA's [International Energy Statistics](https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?pa=000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000f&amp;c=4100000002000060000000000000g000200000000000000001&amp;vs=~~INTL.4411-1-WORL-QBTU.A~~INTL.4413-1-WORL-QBTU.A~~INTL.4419-1-WORL-QBTU.A~~INTL.4415-1-WORL-QBTU.A&amp;vo=0&amp;v=T&amp;start=1980&amp;end=2017):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Global primary energy production by source][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What is venting and flaring, and why is it done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From the EIA](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-and-the-environment.php):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In areas where natural gas is produced at oil wells but is not economical to transport for sale or contains high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide (a toxic gas), it is burned (flared) at well sites.** Natural gas flaring produces CO2, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and many other compounds, depending on the chemical composition of the natural gas and on how well the natural gas burns in the flare. However, flaring is safer than releasing natural gas into the air and results in lower overall greenhouse gas emissions because CO2 is not as strong a greenhouse gas as methane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time, as natural gas has become a more important fuel, the quantities which are vented and flared have diminished, even as total production increases ([source](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9040us2a.htm)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![US natural gas vented and flared][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qXOhC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O36Kzl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vuIYTl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9794" RevisionGUID="ea57773f-075a-4215-ae51-2729caf53739" CreationDate="2020-01-02T01:29:33.907" UserId="5477" Text="They are inherently linked. Every oil well produces some gas. A few gas wells produce only methane and ethane but a majority also produce some propane, butane, and heavier hydrocarbons. It depends on whose definition you are using as to when LPG ( liquid petroleum gas) becomes an oil component. And oil wells normally produce more gas and less oil as they age and are eventually plugged. Another way to look at it as both are hydrocarbons and the temperature determines if the hydrocarbon is in a gas phase or liquid phase.... Bonus answer : There is no production/drilling company that produces only gas or oil.  The closest may be coal bed methane but any company that I know that produces this gas also has other types of wells. Bonus answer to question not asked : Nearly every well is drilled in hope of finding mostly oil as it is more valuable. To the extent that a well that produces nearly all gas may be plugged and not produced and considered a failure ( depending on several factors such as location.). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6385" RevisionGUID="cca99145-16cb-494d-ab9c-b2adc5ac56a9" CreationDate="2020-01-02T09:17:50.267" UserId="8232" Comment="removed disclaimer as it's not relevant to the post" Text="Why not just use the power that is powering the LED lights?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You cannot produce more power than you consume. That would be a perpetual motion machine and is generally accepted as not possible.  [Perpetual motion][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not getting how a dome offsets efficiency.  You do know the light is absorbed by the panel?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22819" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6385" RevisionGUID="cca99145-16cb-494d-ab9c-b2adc5ac56a9" CreationDate="2020-01-02T09:17:50.267" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 603" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22820" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="1c60ebf8-919a-4db8-be4d-762840f80ccf" CreationDate="2020-01-02T09:23:55.960" UserId="4099" Comment="excerpts don't support formatting; the standard way of referring to tags in excerpts on Stack Exchange is just a pair of square brackets: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/269503/295232; correct spelling of Stack Exchange in wiki while we're at it" Text="For questions about growing fish or other aquatic animals and plants together in one integrated system. The fish wastes provide nutrients for the plants and the plants filter the water. Additionally bacteria break down by-products such as ammonia. Related to the [hydroponics] tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22821" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="244" RevisionGUID="1c60ebf8-919a-4db8-be4d-762840f80ccf" CreationDate="2020-01-02T09:23:55.960" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 3379, 99 edit id of 600" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="0d20f434-d353-4639-beb6-b448a4aea023" CreationDate="2020-01-02T09:24:30.537" UserId="4099" Comment="excerpts don't support formatting; the standard way of referring to tags in excerpts on Stack Exchange is just a pair of square brackets: https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/269503/295232; correct spelling of Stack Exchange in wiki while we're at it" Text="Aquaponics is the combination of aquaculture (keeping fish or other aquatic animals) and [tag:hydroponics] (growing plants in water). Together these two systems complement each other. The fish wastes provide nutrients for the plants and the plants filter the water. Additionally bacteria break down by-products such as ammonia excreted by fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions about fish as sustainable food source see [tag:fish].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions mainly about keeping fish for fun see [Pets Stack Exchange](http://pets.stackexchange.com).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions mainly about the plants used in aquaponics (not specifically about sustainability) see [Gardening &amp; Landscaping Stack Exchange](http://gardening.stackexchange.com). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22823" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="243" RevisionGUID="0d20f434-d353-4639-beb6-b448a4aea023" CreationDate="2020-01-02T09:24:30.537" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 3379, 99 edit id of 599" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22824" PostHistoryTypeId="38" PostId="2658" RevisionGUID="833acb5b-cf4e-4f50-b279-12f3548183d1" CreationDate="2020-01-02T09:28:01.877" UserId="99" Comment="from https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6384/led-powered-solar-panels" />
  <row Id="22825" PostHistoryTypeId="37" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="833acb5b-cf4e-4f50-b279-12f3548183d1" CreationDate="2020-01-02T09:28:01.877" UserId="99" Comment="to https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2658/solar-energy-without-the-sun-super-led-light-on-top-of-solar-panels" />
  <row Id="22826" PostHistoryTypeId="38" PostId="6385" RevisionGUID="833acb5b-cf4e-4f50-b279-12f3548183d1" CreationDate="2020-01-02T09:28:01.877" UserId="99" Comment="from https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6384/led-powered-solar-panels" />
  <row Id="22827" PostHistoryTypeId="14" PostId="6384" RevisionGUID="ef7d33e0-1c0d-4741-8bfa-c0387a6612ac" CreationDate="2020-01-02T09:28:01.877" UserId="99" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="22828" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9785" RevisionGUID="3734b2d4-652c-4efe-a8b0-43b9aa65d05d" CreationDate="2020-01-02T12:00:35.643" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1212705244095881216" />
  <row Id="22829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6900" RevisionGUID="a791012d-da88-4882-84b0-9346e7cbad29" CreationDate="2020-01-02T14:22:00.770" UserId="8232" Comment="Slight cleanup of grammar, paragraphing and title" Text="I bought this handy mobile solar charger for my cell phone. I wonder if it's a sustainable buy and looking for a report or similar that compares the production cost (carbon dioxide and resources) vs continuing charging by power connector. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keywords to such a report is lifetime of solar cell, efficiency, usage and more.  Not to forget if electricity is powered by wind as well. Are the some well documented articles on this or similar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22830" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6900" RevisionGUID="a791012d-da88-4882-84b0-9346e7cbad29" CreationDate="2020-01-02T14:22:00.770" UserId="8232" Comment="Slight cleanup of grammar, paragraphing and title" Text="Is a solar cell phone charger a sustainable choice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22831" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6900" RevisionGUID="a791012d-da88-4882-84b0-9346e7cbad29" CreationDate="2020-01-02T14:22:00.770" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by -1 edit id of 602" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22832" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6900" RevisionGUID="26ee8da0-9d1e-4c0d-92dd-763dab7c8886" CreationDate="2020-01-02T14:22:00.770" UserId="3379" Comment="Slight cleanup of grammar, paragraphing and title" Text="I bought this handy mobile solar charger for my cell phone. I wonder if it's a sustainable buy and looking for a report or similar that compares the production costs (including carbon dioxide emissions and resource consumption) vs continuing charging by standard power connector.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keywords to such a report are lifetime of solar cell, efficiency, usage, and more.  Not to forget if electricity is powered by wind or other renewable as well. Are there some well documented articles on this or similar?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22833" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9776" RevisionGUID="f32bbe46-5db0-4b0b-9e73-93eda24c9acd" CreationDate="2020-01-02T15:00:36.003" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1212750543657066496" />
  <row Id="22834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9795" RevisionGUID="978844c3-835e-4d78-9dc6-8f5114ff890e" CreationDate="2020-01-02T16:22:02.917" UserId="5477" Text="Simpler answer: In the context of the question, gas and oil are two names for the same thing, hydrocarbons. Whether a hydrocarbon is a gas or liquid depends on the temperature. Methane  &quot;natural gas&quot; ( one carbon atom) is a liquid below -259 F. Ethane ( 2 carbons) liquid below -127 F. Propane (3 carbons) liquid below - 44 F. Butane ( 4 carbons) liquid below 32 F. Pentane ( 5 carbons ) liquid below 87 F. etc. As hydrocarbons come out of a well they are always a mixture and also include water and sand. Many other things may also be produced by a well like hydrogen sulfide , in many wells . And things like elemental mercury , in a few wells around the world. These additions do not affect whether a hydrocarbon is a gas or a liquid. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22836" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7000" RevisionGUID="ac53c143-c138-4788-9afb-f62a69961b52" CreationDate="2020-01-02T19:10:45.740" UserId="3379" Comment="Added link to full text of article, which is now available." Text="A late-breaking development in this debate is recent data on **leakage in natural gas production and distribution systems.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A group of researchers from universities, laboratories, and government labs around the U.S. published an article in *Science* earlier this year indicating that the magnitude of methane leaks from natural gas infrastructure has been underestimated for years. The article, [&quot;Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain&quot;](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/06/20/science.aar7204.full), can be viewed in manuscript form [here](https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/6223263#free-full-text). Phys.org has a [good summary](https://phys.org/news/2018-06-oil-gas-methane-emissions-percent.html). Here's the most significant finding (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [R]esearchers found most of the emissions came from leaks, equipment malfunctions and other &quot;abnormal&quot; operating conditions. **The climate impact of these leaks in 2015 was roughly the same as the climate impact of carbon dioxide emissions from all U.S. coal-fired power plants** operating in 2015, they found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for this massive impact, and why leakage is such a concern, is that [methane as a greenhouse gas is 34 times more potent than CO2 on a 100-year timescale](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/87/3379). Another reason for concern, and cause for some optimism, is that the leaks represent loss of up to $2 billion a year -- revenue which oil and gas companies will theoretically be interested in regaining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gasoline/petrol doesn't suffer from this issue because it is a liquid at room temperature, and doesn't need to be pressurized. Knowing this, it's hard to say that natural gas as a transportation fuel is any better than gasoline, even if it does burn &quot;cleaner.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6934" RevisionGUID="49ce260a-e647-43f1-bd15-8214772a3ef7" CreationDate="2020-01-02T19:14:23.590" UserId="3379" Comment="Added link to full text of article, which is now available." Text="**TL;DR:** At the tailpipe, a diesel vehicle and a CNG vehicle have **roughly equal greenhouse gas emissions**. But taking into account leaks in the natural gas production systems, **the diesel vehicle is probably the better choice from a climate change perspective.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google Scholar returns a surprising number of results when you search [&quot;vehicle carbon emissions CNG vs diesel&quot; (since 2017)](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2017&amp;q=vehicle+carbon+emissions+CNG+vs+diesel&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0,50). Many of the results are locked behind paywalls, but one of the most interesting is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First is the [Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation (AFLEET) Tool](https://greet.es.anl.gov/index.php?content=afleet) from the U.S. Argonne National Lab. From the description: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The tool uses data from Argonne's Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) fuel-cycle model to generate necessary well-to-wheels petroleum use and GHG emission co-efficients for key fuel production pathways and vehicle types. In addition, Environmental Protection Agency's MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) and certification data are used to estimate tailpipe air pollutant emissions. Various sources are used to provide default cost data, including the Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act awards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I downloaded the tool and compared light-duty gasoline, diesel, battery electric, and CNG vehicles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***UPDATE:** Argonne National Lab just released a [web-based version of AFLEET](https://afleet-web.es.anl.gov/afleet/) where you can do the same comparison yourself.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the result in terms of [externality costs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality) for the four types of vehicles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To remove the ambiguity inherent in how externalities are counted, here's the raw emissions data (&quot;LD&quot; is for &quot;light duty,&quot; the vehicle type I selected):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question directly at this point... per year, when driving 16,500 miles (26,500 km):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - A diesel vehicle will produce 4445 kg CO2 equivalent&#xD;&#xA; - A similar vehicle fueled by CNG will produce 4536 kg CO2 equivalent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Leaks in natural gas production systems&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it looks like a wash at this point, as @THelper pointed out, one other factor to consider is methane leakage from natural gas production systems, as methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 in the short-term.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An article in *Science* on this topic made headlines earlier this year. The article, [&quot;Assessment of methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain&quot;](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/06/20/science.aar7204.full), can be viewed in manuscript form [here](https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/6223263#free-full-text). Phys.org has a [good summary](https://phys.org/news/2018-06-oil-gas-methane-emissions-percent.html). Here's the most significant finding (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [R]esearchers found most of the emissions came from leaks, equipment malfunctions and other &quot;abnormal&quot; operating conditions. **The climate impact of these leaks in 2015 was roughly the same as the climate impact of carbon dioxide emissions from all all U.S. coal-fired power plants** operating in 2015, they found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9wwR0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/butHs.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22838" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9793" RevisionGUID="65d868ad-bb08-4769-b0f8-fa17dc6fac7a" CreationDate="2020-01-02T22:10:45.657" UserId="3379" Comment="Added a better data source." Text="**tl;dr: Oil wells produce some natural gas, and natural gas wells produce some oil, but natural gas wells tend to be more &quot;specialized,&quot; meaning that as their quantity and productivity increases, the linkage between these two fuels diminishes.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This answer looks mainly at oil and gas production in the US (since that's what I'm more familiar with, and the [U.S. leads global petroleum and natural gas production as of 2018](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40973)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Productivity by well type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EIA provides data on [production rate of oil and natural gas wells](https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/wells/). The report explains how wells are classified as either a &quot;gas well&quot; or an &quot;oil well&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; EIA designates wells as either oil or natural gas wells based on a gas-oil ratio (GOR) of 6,000 cubic feet (cf) of natural gas to 1 barrel (b) of oil (cf/b) for each year’s production. If the GOR is equal to or less than 6,000 cf/b, then we classify the well as an oil well. If the GOR is greater than 6,000 cf/b, we classify the well as a natural gas well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6000 cf of natural gas and 1 b of oil have roughly the same energy content -- about 1800 kWh. The FAQ in the report explains a bit more about how these wells are classified:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Does a natural gas well remain a natural gas well during its entire production history?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In this report, we sometimes classify a well as a natural gas well in one year and as an oil well in another year,  and vice versa, depending on a well’s gas-oil ratio. We used this approach because the respective volumes of liquid and natural gas produced by a well can change significantly during its production history.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I downloaded the data and converted the numbers to terawatt-hours (TWh) to make it easier to compare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Productivity by well type][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three important things stand out from this chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There are more gas wells&#xD;&#xA; - More fossil fuels are produced by gas wells&#xD;&#xA; - The ratio of gas:oil in oil wells is greater than oil:gas in gas wells&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last point essentially means that gas wells are &quot;better&quot; at doing their main job, than oil wells are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Most &quot;new&quot; natural gas is coming from shale gas wells&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Data on production of natural gas in the US from various sources is [available here from the Energy Information Agency](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_dc_NUS_mmcf_a.htm). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I downloaded the data and put together this chart showing total historical withdrawals of natural gas, along with what is **vented and flared***:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Historical natural gas withdrawals by source in the US, 1968 to 2018][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern shale gas wells (using hydraulic fracturing, or &quot;fracking&quot; methods) produce a higher proportion of gas compared to traditional methods. Growth in this area is massive over the last two decades, meaning the ratio of oil:gas production is falling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## However, this growth in natural gas tends to replace coal production, while total oil production continues to increase&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From EIA's [International Energy Statistics](https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?pa=000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000f&amp;c=4100000002000060000000000000g000200000000000000001&amp;vs=~~INTL.4411-1-WORL-QBTU.A~~INTL.4413-1-WORL-QBTU.A~~INTL.4419-1-WORL-QBTU.A~~INTL.4415-1-WORL-QBTU.A&amp;vo=0&amp;v=T&amp;start=1980&amp;end=2017):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Global primary energy production by source][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What is venting and flaring, and why is it done?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[From the EIA](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-and-the-environment.php):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **In areas where natural gas is produced at oil wells but is not economical to transport for sale or contains high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide (a toxic gas), it is burned (flared) at well sites.** Natural gas flaring produces CO2, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and many other compounds, depending on the chemical composition of the natural gas and on how well the natural gas burns in the flare. However, flaring is safer than releasing natural gas into the air and results in lower overall greenhouse gas emissions because CO2 is not as strong a greenhouse gas as methane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over time, as natural gas has become a more important fuel, the quantities which are vented and flared have diminished, even as total production increases ([source](https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9040us2a.htm)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![US natural gas vented and flared][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qXOhC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eTcXV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/O36Kzl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vuIYTl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9796" RevisionGUID="78db455c-ca7c-40e4-83b9-d73680a6c396" CreationDate="2020-01-02T23:40:20.810" UserId="8232" Text="I am looking to install rooftop solar on my house some time this year. I have a decent amount of roof space and very little shading so I should achieve fairly ideal conditions for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of the companies I've researched appear to offer full &quot;systems&quot; ranging anywhere from 4 to 30 panel installations (with various associated prices) but what I'm unsure about is how extensible a typical solar array is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say I choose to install 5 panels today. Could I 'extend' my system relatively cheaply with another 5 panels next year, only paying for the panels and some labour to attach them to the roof? Or would this require almost as much work (and cost as much) as a completely new install?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22840" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9796" RevisionGUID="78db455c-ca7c-40e4-83b9-d73680a6c396" CreationDate="2020-01-02T23:40:20.810" UserId="8232" Text="Can residential rooftop solar arrays be cheaply extended over time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22841" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9796" RevisionGUID="78db455c-ca7c-40e4-83b9-d73680a6c396" CreationDate="2020-01-02T23:40:20.810" UserId="8232" Text="|solar-power|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22843" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="f3ca6e5c-6079-4c7a-b0a2-8429560b5662" CreationDate="2020-01-03T09:01:55.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="22845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9797" RevisionGUID="b96694d8-9c61-4fe6-845f-a332076705db" CreationDate="2020-01-03T11:47:21.937" UserId="8013" Text="I doubt that it will make sense to extend next year: the cost of getting somebody on site and setting up scaffolding is a significant factor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inverter, which converts the direct current generated by the solar panels into alternating current for your appliances and the grid needs to be suitable for the final size of your system. Having lots of small inverters, one added each year, would be costly and inefficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you would be better advised to either safe up for a few years or by shares in field-scale solar installations in the your area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get an idea of prices for the hardware in the UK from the [Solar Shop][1] (e.g. you can buy 5.5kWp of panels for just over £3000). Having them installed and adding inverter and other additional items will more than double the cost (e.g. £6000-£8000 for 4kWp according to [The Eco Experts][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.solarshop.co.uk&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/solar-panels/cost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22847" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9778" RevisionGUID="55035d95-d0ba-4eac-8bb7-f286dacbea37" CreationDate="2020-01-03T14:01:42.263" UserId="8232" Comment="imported information from comments + more descriptive title" Text="I plan on installing 12V 100 Ah LiFePO4 batteries, but since they are so expensive, I might buy from different vendors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The batteries have the same chemistry, voltage, and amperage, but are from different brands. I'm looking into ExpertPower now and maybe later on expanding my system with Battery born.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it ok to mix battery brands in this manner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22848" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9778" RevisionGUID="55035d95-d0ba-4eac-8bb7-f286dacbea37" CreationDate="2020-01-03T14:01:42.263" UserId="8232" Comment="imported information from comments + more descriptive title" Text="Is it ok to mix battery brands in a solar battery bank?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22849" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9778" RevisionGUID="55035d95-d0ba-4eac-8bb7-f286dacbea37" CreationDate="2020-01-03T14:01:42.263" UserId="8232" Comment="imported information from comments + more descriptive title" Text="|solar-power|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22850" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9778" RevisionGUID="55035d95-d0ba-4eac-8bb7-f286dacbea37" CreationDate="2020-01-03T14:01:42.263" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 604" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6077" RevisionGUID="51648e49-c415-4bda-b924-c2a0a08a5d16" CreationDate="2020-01-03T14:36:11.840" UserId="400" Comment="added 216 characters in body" Text="Sort of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the pay back time.  high efficiency lights are expensive. Expense is, at least in part, a measure of the resources used to make it.\*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replacing the fixtures in the kitchen where the lights are on 8-10 hours a day is probably a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replacing the lights in the hall closet that runs 20 minutes a week is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replace the lights in the high use area, saving the bulbs for reuse in low use areas.  We have replaced all lights in our rooms in our house with screw in fluorescents except for the furnace room, one stairwell, and a few closets, and the front porch.  No one makes a high efficiency light that works at -40.  I think we have 5 tungsten bulbs still in stock.  Once they are used up we will replace them with fluorescents or LED bulbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Using expense as a measure of sustainability is a first approximation only.  A better approximation is wholesale cost of commodity equivalent.  This helps you filter out most of the marketing, advertising costs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22852" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9798" RevisionGUID="50957ce0-b165-4c4b-bc20-a262f2973672" CreationDate="2020-01-03T15:07:39.143" UserId="400" Text="What are the gotchas in comparing the prices of similar objects to determine sustainability&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9798" RevisionGUID="50957ce0-b165-4c4b-bc20-a262f2973672" CreationDate="2020-01-03T15:07:39.143" UserId="400" Text="Can cost be used as a useful measure of a products sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9798" RevisionGUID="50957ce0-b165-4c4b-bc20-a262f2973672" CreationDate="2020-01-03T15:07:39.143" UserId="400" Text="|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9799" RevisionGUID="c1eb9e74-8c4b-41c6-bc91-0ced43c36fae" CreationDate="2020-01-03T15:07:39.143" UserId="400" Text="Yes and no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Item price  doesn't include 'externalized costs'  E.g. An item produced in China or under Trump's toothless EPA will likely have greater associated pollution compared to a similar product produced in a nation that has strict pollution laws.  This one is hard to find information about.  All the 'externalized costs' estimates I've seen are just that:  Estimates.  Ranging in quality from some careful methodology to wild as guesses (WAGs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Item price will include stuff that has no relation to sustainability:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Snob appeal.  While a Rolex is a fine watch (if you like mechanical watches) it  isn't 100 times less sustainable than a cheap third world country knock off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Marketing.  Companies spend enormous amounts of money to try to convince you that their product is somehow better.  In some cases this is true, but the marketing only contributes a small amount to the environmental cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Retail markup.  Women's clothing is often marked up several hundred percent.  Men's clothing less so.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Relative worker wages.  The exact same product produced in Thailand will be cheaper than the same item produced in Germany.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's modify out measure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at the wholesale cost of a similar commodity item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This avoids most of the marketing costs, the snob appeal, and a good chunk of the  wages issue, since most commodity items are produced off shore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is still only an approximation, but it's a useful one to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Digging deeper requires knowing a lot of specific information about the manufacturing methods, the place of manufacture, and will require decision making about the relative environmental impact of using steel vs plastic vs fiberglass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The method can be generalized a bit by dividing it by the weight of the item.  So, for example, figure out the price per pound for cars.  Once you get away from the brand appeal factors, the cost per pound is surprisingly uniform.  Compare the price of baseline equipped pickups to semi tractors, and you get similar numbers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22856" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9798" RevisionGUID="46530134-5803-4afb-8ad9-97a6e6ca5f2e" CreationDate="2020-01-03T17:16:30.323" UserId="99" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="What are the gotchas in comparing the prices of similar objects to determine sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22857" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9798" RevisionGUID="46530134-5803-4afb-8ad9-97a6e6ca5f2e" CreationDate="2020-01-03T17:16:30.323" UserId="99" Comment="edited body; edited title" Text="Can cost be used as a useful measure of a product's sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22859" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="caf9c901-e380-44ad-a4b3-abf3c836dcaa" CreationDate="2020-01-06T05:30:43.877" UserId="8232" Text="I've just received two quotes for installing a solar system on my residential address. This caught my eye:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Company 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Panel: 22 x ET panels 300w&#xD;&#xA;- Inverter: Growatt **5kw**&#xD;&#xA;- Size: **3 - 6.6 kw**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Company 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Panel: 20 x Canadian 300w&#xD;&#xA;- Inverter: Sungrow **5kw**&#xD;&#xA;- Size: **3 - 6.6 kw**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both offers are for 6.6kw/h systems, but both come with an inverter that is only 5kw. Math tells me there's a 1.6kw overage here that is unaccounted for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this ok? Is there something I'm missing here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22860" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="caf9c901-e380-44ad-a4b3-abf3c836dcaa" CreationDate="2020-01-06T05:30:43.877" UserId="8232" Text="Why am I offered a 5kw inverter with a 6.6kwh solar system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22861" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="caf9c901-e380-44ad-a4b3-abf3c836dcaa" CreationDate="2020-01-06T05:30:43.877" UserId="8232" Text="|solar-power|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9801" RevisionGUID="398eefae-5a32-495c-8e2f-1e7ae66302bd" CreationDate="2020-01-06T08:07:08.113" UserId="48" Text="It could be that the system will spend such little time providing above 5&amp;nbsp;kW, once shading and losses are taken into account, that it's not worth the cost of getting the next-largest inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be a restriction of your electricity network operator: often, they have bandings based on the maximum power that a PV system will deliver to the network, with different types of permitting applying to different bands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, there will be a cheap, easy permit for systems below a set small power rating, typically around 5 kW. And then a more expensive permit with a more time-consuming application process, for systems 5&amp;nbsp;kW - 100&amp;nbsp;kW (for example) . And one for 100&amp;nbsp;kW - 5&amp;nbsp;MW, and so on ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The combination of these two things means that it's probably not worth your while having a system at 6 kW. A 5 kW inverter will be the most cost effective. And the extra 1 kW of panels means that you'll get best use out of your inverter - it will spend more time running at its peak output." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22863" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9797" RevisionGUID="d28998e0-e251-40a7-9fde-8b0f79c352a5" CreationDate="2020-01-06T10:30:57.087" UserId="8013" Comment="Spelling correction: &quot;safe up&quot; --&gt; &quot;save up&quot;, &quot;by shares&quot; --&gt; &quot;buy shares&quot;" Text="I doubt that it will make sense to extend next year: the cost of getting somebody on site and setting up scaffolding is a significant factor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inverter, which converts the direct current generated by the solar panels into alternating current for your appliances and the grid needs to be suitable for the final size of your system. Having lots of small inverters, one added each year, would be costly and inefficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you would be better advised to either save up for a few years or buy shares in field-scale solar installations in the your area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get an idea of prices for the hardware in the UK from the [Solar Shop][1] (e.g. you can buy 5.5kWp of panels for just over £3000). Having them installed and adding inverter and other additional items will more than double the cost (e.g. £6000-£8000 for 4kWp according to [The Eco Experts][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.solarshop.co.uk&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/solar-panels/cost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9772" RevisionGUID="f28489b9-873f-4a91-bb7e-b9ccc535ef41" CreationDate="2020-01-06T11:57:17.303" UserId="99" Comment="removed link redirecting via Google" Text="There is a 2016 report on the [Carbon Footprint of Railway Infrastructure][1] from the International Union of Railways [Union Internationale des Chemins de fer: UIC]. They express it in terms of a pay-back time: how long it takes to cancel out the emissions caused by construction through savings thought to come form reduced air and road transport. This begs the question, of course, as to whether you are actually diverting traffic from other modes or just promoting more traffic by providing more opportunities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UIC assume the railways will induce 20% to 30% extra traffic, and the rest is diverted from road and air. On this basis, they arrive at payback times of 9 to 15 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://uic.org/IMG/pdf/carbon_footprint_of_railway_infrastructure.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22865" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="d14ba062-1bdf-4e28-9ba8-cdd60ebb53c0" CreationDate="2020-01-06T12:17:44.630" UserId="8232" Comment="updated units to correct notation" Text="I've just received two quotes for installing a solar system on my residential address. This caught my eye:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Company 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Panel: 22 x ET panels 300w&#xD;&#xA;- Inverter: Growatt **5 kW**&#xD;&#xA;- Size: **3 - 6.6 kW**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Company 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Panel: 20 x Canadian 300w&#xD;&#xA;- Inverter: Sungrow **5 kW**&#xD;&#xA;- Size: **3 - 6.6 kW**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both offers are for 6.6 kW systems, but both come with an inverter that is only 5 kW. Math tells me there's a 1.6 kW overage here that is unaccounted for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this ok? Is there something I'm missing here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22866" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="d14ba062-1bdf-4e28-9ba8-cdd60ebb53c0" CreationDate="2020-01-06T12:17:44.630" UserId="8232" Comment="updated units to correct notation" Text="Why am I offered a 5 kW inverter with a 6.6 kW solar system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22867" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="3792d2af-96b0-42be-adf3-f9f8ddb9106f" CreationDate="2020-01-06T13:44:13.420" />
  <row Id="22868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9802" RevisionGUID="3894b233-ed48-4c13-9609-6bbe7dabf58a" CreationDate="2020-01-06T14:45:09.793" UserId="8276" Text="In some jurisdictions (like [Flanders, Belgium][1]), you have to pay a fee based on the maximum power your inverter can deliver to the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As [EnergyNumbers][2] notes, slight undersizing won't necessarily reduce the output of your system that much, and smaller inverters are cheaper. When you add this fee, an undersized inverter may become more profitable than a 'properly' sized one, if that size is even available. Oversized inverters can take large chunks out of your profits in these cases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.vlaanderen.be/prosumententarief-voor-eigenaars-van-zonnepanelen-windmolens-en-wkk-installaties-kleine-installaties-met-terugdraaiende-teller/berekening-van-het-prosumententarief&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/9801/8276" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9803" RevisionGUID="6fab6764-38a2-40dd-8d23-d3054be14234" CreationDate="2020-01-06T14:47:51.237" UserId="6312" Text="# Standard Test Conditions vs Real life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Photovoltaic panels are rated at &quot;Standard Test Conditions&quot; (*STC*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Irradiance = 1000 W/m²&#xD;&#xA;* Cell temperature = 25°C&#xD;&#xA;* [Air Mass][1] = 1.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those conditions are achieved in testing laboratories, and basically never happen in real life. Modules need to be cooled down in order for them to stay at 25°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1000W/m² is a lot of [irradiance][2], and if it ever happens, it will be at a high ambient temperature. Photovoltaic modules get hotter under high irradiance, so a module under 1000W/m² at 25°C *ambient temperature* might have a *cell temperature* of around 60°C. Cell performance decrease with increasing temperature, so your 300Wp modules will almost certainly never achieve 300W once installed on your roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_(solar_energy)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9803" RevisionGUID="bc753eb4-8a9e-498d-981c-8f9934fc6615" CreationDate="2020-01-06T15:03:33.283" UserId="6312" Comment="added 906 characters in body" Text="# Standard Test Conditions vs Real life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Photovoltaic panels are rated at &quot;Standard Test Conditions&quot; (*STC*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Irradiance = 1000 W/m²&#xD;&#xA;* Cell temperature = 25°C&#xD;&#xA;* [Air Mass][1] = 1.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those conditions are achieved in testing laboratories, and basically never happen in real life. Modules need to be cooled down in order for them to stay at 25°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1000W/m² is a lot of [irradiance][2], and if it ever happens, it will be at a high ambient temperature. Photovoltaic modules get hotter under high irradiance, so a module under 1000W/m² at 25°C *ambient temperature* might have a *cell temperature* of around 60°C. Cell performance decrease with increasing temperature, so your 300Wp modules will almost certainly never achieve 300W once installed on your roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Ask for a simulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are are handful of reliable photovoltaic system simulation softwares (e.g. [PV*SOL][3], [PVSyst][4], [NREL SAM][5], [INSEL][6], ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any serious PV company should have at least one license and be able to quickly simulate your planned installation, in order to check if there's any mismatch: not just for peak power, but also for maximum current, maximum voltage or [MPP][7] voltage range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, you'd get a:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * potential energy yield [kWh/a]&#xD;&#xA; * a performance ratio [%]&#xD;&#xA; * a specific energy yield [kWh/(kWp.a)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the performance ratio is lower than 85%, it probably means there's a problem with the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_(solar_energy)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.valentin-software.com/en/products/photovoltaics/55/pvsol&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.pvsyst.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://sam.nrel.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://insel.eu/home_en.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_point_tracking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="b0ef20b1-b04a-424f-8d3e-d6154dc6d37c" CreationDate="2020-01-06T15:19:26.920" UserId="8232" Comment="Small title fix and a few sentence structure updates so that it reads easier" Text="By 'concrete impacts' I mean hard data for example: CO2e emitted, harm to the ecosystem, resources depleted, cost to the economy, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a piece of clothing that is broken that I want to get rid of, and I want to know if it's worth the trouble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ETA: re-using them, for example as cleaning clothes might be the next best thing, but what if I already have enough of those or the clothing piece in question can't really be used for that purpose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22872" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="b0ef20b1-b04a-424f-8d3e-d6154dc6d37c" CreationDate="2020-01-06T15:19:26.920" UserId="8232" Comment="Small title fix and a few sentence structure updates so that it reads easier" Text="What are the concrete impacts of not recycling textile?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22873" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="b0ef20b1-b04a-424f-8d3e-d6154dc6d37c" CreationDate="2020-01-06T15:19:26.920" UserId="8232" Comment="Small title fix and a few sentence structure updates so that it reads easier" Text="|recycling|fabric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22874" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="b0ef20b1-b04a-424f-8d3e-d6154dc6d37c" CreationDate="2020-01-06T15:19:26.920" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 3379, -1 edit id of 605" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22875" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7194" RevisionGUID="be2de4ac-e252-4cee-985d-80c19d402d8a" CreationDate="2020-01-06T15:19:26.920" UserId="99" Comment="Small title fix and a few sentence structure updates so that it reads easier" Text="|recycling|clothing|fabric|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9803" RevisionGUID="10529b2f-e591-4cb8-b0e5-3187fd16e7eb" CreationDate="2020-01-06T15:20:36.003" UserId="6312" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="# Standard Test Conditions vs Real life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Photovoltaic panels are rated at &quot;Standard Test Conditions&quot; (*STC*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Irradiance = 1000 W/m²&#xD;&#xA;* Cell temperature = 25°C&#xD;&#xA;* [Air Mass][1] = 1.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those conditions are achieved in testing laboratories, and basically never happen in real life. Modules need to be cooled down in order for them to stay at 25°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1000W/m² is a lot of [irradiance][2], and if it ever happens, it will be at a high ambient temperature. Photovoltaic modules get hotter under high irradiance, so a module under 1000W/m² at 25°C *ambient temperature* might have a *cell temperature* of around 60°C. Cell performance decrease with increasing temperature, so your 300Wp modules will almost certainly never achieve 300W once installed on your roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Ask for a simulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are are handful of reliable photovoltaic system simulation softwares (e.g. [PV*SOL][3], [PVSyst][4], [NREL SAM][5], [INSEL][6], ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any serious PV company should have at least one license and be able to quickly simulate your planned installation, in order to check if there's any mismatch: not just for peak power, but also for maximum current, maximum voltage or [MPP][7] voltage range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, you'd get a:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * potential energy yield [kWh/a]&#xD;&#xA; * a performance ratio [%]&#xD;&#xA; * a specific energy yield [kWh/(kWp.a)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The energy yields depend on your location so it's not possible to give any estimate. If the performance ratio is lower than 85%, it probably means there's a problem with the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_(solar_energy)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.valentin-software.com/en/products/photovoltaics/55/pvsol&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.pvsyst.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://sam.nrel.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://insel.eu/home_en.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_point_tracking" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9804" RevisionGUID="78a9caa1-cc47-4fdd-94bc-546fe9df801c" CreationDate="2020-01-06T16:25:22.370" UserId="8277" Text="There already are some answer addressing the fact that you probably will not/rarely reach the rated power of your panels. That explains why you don't *need* a higher rated inverter. Now you could want a higer rated inverter just in case, assuming it doesn't hurt either. But that assumption is often wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverters are not perfect, they have a certain efficiency which varies with the load they get. Generally they are less efficient at low loads, where 'low' is relative to the maximum load. This means that using an oversized inverter which runs at say 10% of it's capacity most of the time will waste a lot of energy because of the reduced efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;So you want to size the inverter in such a way that it runs at high efficiency most of the time. Even when this means you loose at on the moments where your panels peak above the maximum you will likely still gain overall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously there is an optimum somewhere which very much depends on the specific inverter and local circumstances. But generally solar panels spend far more time producing a relatively low output, making the most of that is gains you way more than getting the most out of the occasional peak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get some insight into the specifics offers you'd have you should look up the efficiency curve for those specific inverters. (Similarly, you might want to look up how the specific panels perform under less then optimal conditions.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9803" RevisionGUID="f9db2b44-95a1-4499-af54-2b8f90d4927c" CreationDate="2020-01-06T16:28:35.657" UserId="6312" Comment="added 324 characters in body" Text="# Standard Test Conditions vs Real life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Photovoltaic panels are rated at &quot;Standard Test Conditions&quot; (*STC*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Irradiance = 1000 W/m²&#xD;&#xA;* Cell temperature = 25°C&#xD;&#xA;* [Air Mass][1] = 1.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those conditions are achieved in testing laboratories, and basically never happen in real life. Modules need to be cooled down in order for them to stay at 25°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1000W/m² is a lot of [irradiance][2], and if it ever happens, it will be at a high ambient temperature. Photovoltaic modules get hotter under high irradiance, so a module under 1000W/m² at 25°C *ambient temperature* might have a *cell temperature* of around 60°C. Cell performance decrease with increasing temperature, so your 300Wp modules will almost certainly never achieve 300W once installed on your roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Ask for a simulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are are handful of reliable photovoltaic system simulation softwares (e.g. [PV*SOL][3], [PVSyst][4], [NREL SAM][5], [INSEL][6], ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any serious PV company should have at least one license and be able to quickly simulate your planned installation, in order to check if there's any mismatch: not just for peak power, but also for maximum current, maximum voltage or [MPP][7] voltage range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, you'd get a:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * potential energy yield [kWh/a]&#xD;&#xA; * a performance ratio [%]&#xD;&#xA; * a specific energy yield [kWh/(kWp.a)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The energy yields depend on your location so it's not possible to give any estimate without more information. There are some easy to use online tools if you want to check yourself (e.g. [PVGIS][8], [PV*SOL online][9], [NREL PVWatts Calculator][10]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the performance ratio is lower than 85%, it probably means there's a problem with the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_(solar_energy)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.valentin-software.com/en/products/photovoltaics/55/pvsol&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.pvsyst.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://sam.nrel.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://insel.eu/home_en.html&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_point_tracking&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/tools.html#PVP&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: http://pvsol-online.valentin-software.com/#/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9805" RevisionGUID="d1a86317-80a0-4596-8628-a6d89cd814d9" CreationDate="2020-01-06T23:50:25.677" UserId="8284" Text="Solar systems are rated at peak power. It's normal for inverters to be rated less since you will very rarely have ideal conditions to reach peak power. For example, my inverter is rated at 80% of peak power and I live in a sunny area. Only during the best days in the summer does my inverter get maxed out for a few hours at a time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="c109e9fb-83a1-4a62-b83c-b8416a66b536" CreationDate="2020-01-07T02:44:57.107" UserId="8232" Comment="added 92 characters in body" Text="I've just received two quotes for installing a solar system on my residential address. This caught my eye:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Company 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Panel: 22 x ET panels 300w&#xD;&#xA;- Inverter: Growatt **5 kW**&#xD;&#xA;- Size: **3 - 6.6 kW**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Company 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Panel: 20 x Canadian 300w&#xD;&#xA;- Inverter: Sungrow **5 kW**&#xD;&#xA;- Size: **3 - 6 kW**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both offers are for 6.6 kW systems, but both come with an inverter that is only 5 kW. Math tells me there's a 1.6 kW overage here that is unaccounted for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this ok? On the off-chance I manage to produce over 5kW of power, do I run a risk of burning it out? Is there something I'm missing here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22883" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9805" RevisionGUID="b8b01d20-4422-4017-9328-1865ed3adf9f" CreationDate="2020-01-07T07:09:03.110" UserId="8284" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="Solar systems are rated at peak power. It's normal for inverters to be rated less since you will very rarely have ideal conditions to reach peak power. For example, my inverter is rated at 80% of peak power and I live in a sunny area. Only during the best days in the summer does my inverter get maxed out for a few hours at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your edit, there should not be a risk of burning out the inverter. It will just sustain at its maximum power during the very rare times your panels could provide more. Search the internet for &quot;inverter clipping&quot; to get more details about this, the loss is typically nominal or none." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9803" RevisionGUID="e2ac60f8-6ffb-46cb-a003-4f8bde196662" CreationDate="2020-01-07T08:31:57.180" UserId="6312" Comment="added 728 characters in body" Text="# Standard Test Conditions vs Real life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Photovoltaic panels are rated at &quot;Standard Test Conditions&quot; (*STC*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Irradiance = 1000 W/m²&#xD;&#xA;* Cell temperature = 25°C&#xD;&#xA;* [Air Mass][1] = 1.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those conditions are achieved in testing laboratories, and basically never happen in real life. Modules need to be cooled down in order for them to stay at 25°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1000W/m² is a lot of [irradiance][2], and if it ever happens, it will be at a high ambient temperature. Photovoltaic modules get hotter under high irradiance, so a module under 1000W/m² at 25°C *ambient temperature* might have a *cell temperature* of around 60°C. Cell performance decrease with increasing temperature, so your 300Wp modules will almost certainly never achieve 300W once installed on your roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Which inverter, exactly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also depends on what they call &quot;Growatt 5kW&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are [datasheets][3] for some Growatt inverters:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Growatt 5000MTL-S has a maximum recommended DC Power of 6150W and a max AC output of 4600W&#xD;&#xA;* Growatt 5500MTL-S has a maximum recommended DC Power of 6650W and a max AC output of 5000W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on your location, the first inverter might indeed be too weak for the solar panels. At the very least, you should know exactly which inverter is planned, and the company in charge of the design should check if there's a mismatch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Ask for a simulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are are handful of reliable photovoltaic system simulation softwares (e.g. [PV*SOL][5], [PVSyst][6], [NREL SAM][7], [INSEL][8], ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any serious PV company should have at least one license and be able to quickly simulate your planned installation, in order to check if there's any mismatch: not just for peak power, but also for maximum current, maximum voltage or [MPP][9] voltage range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, you'd get a:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * potential energy yield [kWh/a]&#xD;&#xA; * a performance ratio [%]&#xD;&#xA; * a specific energy yield [kWh/(kWp.a)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The energy yields depend on your location so it's not possible to give any estimate without more information. There are some easy to use online tools if you want to check yourself (e.g. [PVGIS][10], [PV*SOL online][11], [NREL PVWatts Calculator][12]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the performance ratio is lower than 85%, it probably means there's a problem with the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_(solar_energy)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.ginverter.com/Residential-inverters/40-620.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pXWBZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.valentin-software.com/en/products/photovoltaics/55/pvsol&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.pvsyst.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://sam.nrel.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://insel.eu/home_en.html&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_point_tracking&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/tools.html#PVP&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://pvsol-online.valentin-software.com/#/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9807" RevisionGUID="e6095ca9-19cf-4389-adf1-e1846f4ff8ef" CreationDate="2020-01-07T10:07:54.533" UserId="8290" Text="I assume the energy for electric buses and trains comes from the same sources. But a train doesn't need to carry it's power supply along, contrary to a bus. However, there is more infrastructure that is needed for trains, since buses can just use the same roads that cars use. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22889" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9807" RevisionGUID="e6095ca9-19cf-4389-adf1-e1846f4ff8ef" CreationDate="2020-01-07T10:07:54.533" UserId="8290" Text="Are trains more sustainable than electric buses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22890" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9807" RevisionGUID="e6095ca9-19cf-4389-adf1-e1846f4ff8ef" CreationDate="2020-01-07T10:07:54.533" UserId="8290" Text="|environmental-impact|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9801" RevisionGUID="dccd5511-d686-47ab-9d8c-e1c985e5fb37" CreationDate="2020-01-07T11:33:34.340" UserId="48" Comment="added 212 characters in body" Text="It could be that the system will spend such little time providing above 5&amp;nbsp;kW, once shading and losses are taken into account, that it's not worth the cost of getting the next-largest inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be a restriction of your electricity network operator: often, they have bandings based on the maximum power that a PV system will deliver to the network, with different types of permitting applying to different bands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, there will be a cheap, easy permit for systems below a set small power rating, typically around 5 kW. And then a more expensive permit with a more time-consuming application process, for systems 5&amp;nbsp;kW - 100&amp;nbsp;kW (for example) . And one for 100&amp;nbsp;kW - 5&amp;nbsp;MW, and so on ...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The combination of these two things means that it's probably not worth your while having a system at 6 kW. A 5 kW inverter will be the most cost effective. And the extra 1 kW of panels means that you'll get best use out of your inverter - it will spend more time running at its peak output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And no, you won't burn it out: the inverter won't draw more power from the panels than it can handle. It's completely standard to have a set of panels with higher nominal power than the rated inverter output." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22894" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9809" RevisionGUID="d2866b47-b450-42b2-a6a5-37e2d04d41f3" CreationDate="2020-01-07T16:11:14.710" UserId="3379" Text="Over on Politics.SE there's an interesting discussion about &quot;grid parity&quot;: [&quot;If grid parity has already been reached, why is it so expensive to switch to renewable energy?&quot;](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/49295).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The discussion has centered on Germany and the costs of PV there compared to use of fossil fuels for generating electricity. Much has been made of government subsidies for PV -- up to 1.33 cents/kWh according to [this answer](https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/49298/20374) which cites a paywalled research article.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a few sources indicate that Germany also subsidizes fossil fuels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;Germany provided at least €29 billion a year in subsidies to fossil fuel consumption&quot; -- [ODI](https://www.odi.org/publications/10931-monitoring-europes-fossil-fuel-subsidies-germany)&#xD;&#xA; - &quot;22 fossil-fuel  measures benefiting  the  upstream  activities  (extraction  of coal) and downstream activities (agriculture, manufacturing, and transport of fossil fuels) were identified by Germany in its self-assessment&quot; -- [OECD](https://www.oecd.org/fossil-fuels/Germany-Peer-Review.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These sources ultimately link to German government documents which I am unable to read.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, if PV subsidies are included in the discussion on grid parity, then fossil fuel subsides should also be discussed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**To what extent is PV subsidized in Germany (in €/kW, €/kWh, or something similarly straight-forward), and how does this compare to fossil fuel subsidies?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9809" RevisionGUID="d2866b47-b450-42b2-a6a5-37e2d04d41f3" CreationDate="2020-01-07T16:11:14.710" UserId="3379" Text="How do German fossil fuel subsidies compare to PV subsidies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9809" RevisionGUID="d2866b47-b450-42b2-a6a5-37e2d04d41f3" CreationDate="2020-01-07T16:11:14.710" UserId="3379" Text="|solar-power|electricity-generation|fossil-fuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22898" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="1182474e-1203-4ef5-a93c-b7fac50d5502" CreationDate="2020-01-07T21:00:29.143" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1214653051216248832" />
  <row Id="22899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9810" RevisionGUID="4d8865b8-d0a9-4fea-977c-03e0f90e1440" CreationDate="2020-01-07T23:03:17.777" UserId="8304" Text="While this has already been correctly answered I'll expand upon the fact that the panels don't produce their rated power:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in a very solar-friendly climate, there are solar installations all over the place.  I have yet to see rooftop solar in any orientation other than flat against the roof.  Since snow is not a factor roofs here generally have a low pitch--by eyeball ours is less than our latitude, thus guaranteeing a panel flat on the roof can never produce full power.  A panel's output goes at the cosine of the angle between the panel and the sun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="e4ae739d-2042-4a3c-8eeb-1e038e2e99ac" CreationDate="2020-01-07T23:07:52.373" UserId="8232" Comment="added models" Text="I've just received two quotes for installing a solar system on my residential address. This caught my eye:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Company 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Panel: 22 x ET panels 300w&#xD;&#xA;- Inverter: Growatt **5 kW** (5000 MTL-S)&#xD;&#xA;- Size: **3 - 6.6 kW**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Company 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Panel: 20 x Canadian 300w&#xD;&#xA;- Inverter: Sungrow **5 kW** (SG5KTL-D)&#xD;&#xA;- Size: **3 - 6 kW**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both offers are for 6.6 kW systems, but both come with an inverter that is only 5 kW. Math tells me there's a 1.6 kW overage here that is unaccounted for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this ok? On the off-chance I manage to produce over 5kW of power, do I run a risk of burning it out? Is there something I'm missing here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9799" RevisionGUID="1e76a272-1b9d-464d-979d-f8b26b6499fc" CreationDate="2020-01-07T23:46:10.287" UserId="400" Comment="Added ratios." Text="Yes and no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Item price  doesn't include 'externalized costs'  E.g. An item produced in China or under Trump's toothless EPA will likely have greater associated pollution compared to a similar product produced in a nation that has strict pollution laws.  This one is hard to find information about.  All the 'externalized costs' estimates I've seen are just that:  Estimates.  Ranging in quality from some careful methodology to wild as guesses (WAGs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Item price will include stuff that has no relation to sustainability:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Snob appeal.  While a Rolex is a fine watch (if you like mechanical watches) it  isn't 100 times less sustainable than a cheap third world country knock off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Marketing.  Companies spend enormous amounts of money to try to convince you that their product is somehow better.  In some cases this is true, but the marketing only contributes a small amount to the environmental cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Retail markup.  Women's clothing is often marked up several hundred percent.  Men's clothing less so.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Relative worker wages.  The exact same product produced in Thailand will be cheaper than the same item produced in Germany.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's modify out measure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at the wholesale cost of a similar commodity item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This avoids most of the marketing costs, the snob appeal, and a good chunk of the  wages issue, since most commodity items are produced off shore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is still only an approximation, but it's a useful one to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some items a commodity product doesn't really exist:  Professional grade digital cameras come to mind.  In other cases, there is a huge variation of quality in the commodity item.  I've encountered this in Brussel sprouts and desktop PC's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Digging deeper requires knowing a lot of specific information about the manufacturing methods, the place of manufacture, and will require decision making about the relative environmental impact of using steel vs plastic vs fiberglass; using electricity from wind, hydroelectric, coal or nuclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The method can be generalized a bit by dividing it by the weight of the item.  So, for example, figure out the price per pound for cars.  Once you get away from the brand appeal factors, the cost per pound is surprisingly uniform.  Compare the price of baseline equipped pickups to semi tractors, and you get similar numbers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another valid ratio is the cost/year cost/mile.  A Widget that creates  twice the pollution, but lasts 5 times as long may be worth it.  E.g.  Nylon climbing rope versus manila rope.  Kevlar canoe vs wood and canvas canoe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9769" RevisionGUID="9951a5f2-19ca-451a-b653-cce877a6e8b6" CreationDate="2020-01-08T00:04:02.680" UserId="8242" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="From least damage to most:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Wooden pencils**. Provided the manufacturer is eco-friendly and uses wood from properly managed forests and non-toxic paints. Faber-Castell (just chosen because I happen to know) is actually carbon-NEGATIVE: They own forests and plantations (with the intention of using the trees that grow there to produce pencils) that absorb about 4 or 5 times more CO2 than the company emits in production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Mechanical pencils**. Just rated lower than wooden since there's the containers the refills come in, and I don't know from which plastic they're made. Just get a good one that lasts and takes refills. They're not expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Fountain pens**, if you refill the ink yourself. There are converters that replace the cartridges to make them refillable. And chose a fountain pens that last. I have a Pelikan one that is in my possession for nearly 30 years and still works nicely (except that I don't use it much, hate the haptics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Ballpoint pens**. I don't see much difference between replaceable cartridges and disposable pens: The cartridge is an awful waste object, typically made from multiple plastics and metal. The surrounding case doesn't matter much. Pains me to see &quot;eco pens&quot; that just make the case eco-friendly, but still take a cartridge to write." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22903" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9809" RevisionGUID="fd35672b-bbb5-437f-9ab4-07e641a8c7cd" CreationDate="2020-01-08T03:00:43.037" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1214743706412167170" />
  <row Id="22904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9811" RevisionGUID="6da65d84-8c8c-433a-9d3b-fd8c03db2698" CreationDate="2020-01-08T04:09:12.320" UserId="3511" Text="Geologically and by origin, yes, they are linked. Politically they've started to split. Its use is much less detrimental environmentally than oil or coal - it burns clean and is nontoxic. And it was termed an important “transition fuel” by President Obama as part of his administration’s clean energy goals. Gas companies glommed onto to that by marketing it as a “green” fuel, and in public campaigns seemed to distance themselves from oil, despite often having stakes in both markets. The discovery of shale gas has been the most important catalyst in bringing natural gas back strongly the US energy mix from its height in the 1990’s. The development of transportable Liquid Nitrogen Gas (LNG) has enabled it to be an export product. Likewise, many cities are reinvesting heavily in gas distribution infrastructure, swapping out entire systems of iron pipes to new plastic materials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22911" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9807" RevisionGUID="8a6a3fc1-d0bc-4d40-a5a2-e778f927d6c0" CreationDate="2020-01-08T09:00:29.047" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1214834244737994753" />
  <row Id="22913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9813" RevisionGUID="5a8d921d-ce0f-460b-9263-92e4919506ac" CreationDate="2020-01-08T09:19:54.990" UserId="8310" Text="Everyday, we dispose of our trash using plastic bags. This prevents the trash (especially liquids) from leaking out and contaminating our garbage disposal systems. Obviously, things such as paper bags can't be used for liquids, and cloth bags may smell. So is there still a way to dispose trash without using plastic bags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22914" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9813" RevisionGUID="5a8d921d-ce0f-460b-9263-92e4919506ac" CreationDate="2020-01-08T09:19:54.990" UserId="8310" Text="How do I dispose trash without plastic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22915" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9813" RevisionGUID="5a8d921d-ce0f-460b-9263-92e4919506ac" CreationDate="2020-01-08T09:19:54.990" UserId="8310" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9807" RevisionGUID="b06060c9-4004-4649-b4b1-6e5b04d8839c" CreationDate="2020-01-08T09:23:59.563" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Added remark about ignoring road infrastructure" Text="I assume the energy for electric buses and trains comes from the same sources. But a train doesn't need to carry it's power supply along, contrary to a bus. However, there is more infrastructure that is needed for trains, since buses can just use the same roads that cars use&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* Strictly speaking we would have to include a percentage of the road infrastructure into the sustainability calculations for buses; but we can ignore that given the large ratio of cars to buses.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9813" RevisionGUID="fdfa8e40-8e69-4a19-a674-a9bb552eb962" CreationDate="2020-01-08T09:31:05.283" UserId="8310" Comment="added 251 characters in body" Text="Everyday, we dispose of our trash using plastic bags. This prevents the trash (especially liquids) from leaking out and contaminating our garbage disposal systems. Obviously, things such as paper bags can't be used for liquids, and cloth bags may smell. So is there still a way to dispose trash without using plastic bags?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in Singapore and most of the people here live in high rise apartments. Usually, we throw our trash (using plastic bags) into a central refuse chute in the building. The trash is then loaded on to a truck to be sent to an incineration plant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9814" RevisionGUID="9902b244-9dc3-4db2-8b93-c5feb289a35f" CreationDate="2020-01-08T09:41:31.177" UserId="6182" Text="The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in March 2019, that there is - legally speaking - no subsidy of renewable energies in Germany: [see here](http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&amp;docid=212326&amp;pageIndex=0&amp;doclang=EN&amp;mode=lst&amp;dir=&amp;occ=first&amp;part=1&amp;cid=6603036).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;What actually happens is the following: Power producers get a fixed and guaranteed price per kWh they feed - or could feed - into the grid. This money comes from the consumers, who pay currently almost 7 €-cent/kWh to finance the renewable energies. Naturally, there are exceptions and tariff ceilings and a lot of administrative paperwork, all legally defined under the [Renewable Energy Sources Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Sources_Act).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently the fixed remuneration (for newly built renewable power sources) is 8.3 €-cent/kWh for PV, and 6.2 €-cent/kWh for wind-turbines (see the [Bundesnetzagentur](https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/EN/Areas/Energy/Companies/RenewableEnergy/Facts_Figures_EEG/Register_data_tariffs/EEG_registerdata_payments_node.html) for more details, remunerations on the site are not updated yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;Whether or not the Renewable Energy Sources Act is treated like a subsidy in public discourse is something mostly up to the intent of who is speaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9804" RevisionGUID="33789844-a587-4599-8354-80f626d23fc4" CreationDate="2020-01-08T11:15:53.213" UserId="8277" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="There already are some answer addressing the fact that you probably will not/rarely reach the rated power of your panels. That explains why you don't *need* a higher rated inverter. Now you could want a higer rated inverter just in case, assuming it doesn't hurt either. But that assumption is often wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverters are not perfect, they have a certain efficiency which varies with the load they get. Generally they are less efficient at low loads, where 'low' is relative to the maximum load. This means that using an oversized inverter which runs at say 10% of it's capacity most of the time will waste a lot of energy because of the reduced efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;So you want to size the inverter in such a way that it runs at high efficiency most of the time. Even when this means you loose on the moments where your panels peak above the maximum you will likely still gain overall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously there is an optimum somewhere which very much depends on the specific inverter and local circumstances. But generally solar panels spend far more time producing a relatively low output, making the most of that is gains you way more than getting the most out of the occasional peak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get some insight into the specifics offers you'd have you should look up the efficiency curve for those specific inverters. (Similarly, you might want to look up how the specific panels perform under less then optimal conditions.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22921" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9813" RevisionGUID="4cc8e2cc-a8e8-422d-a9bd-7eb36eaf5159" CreationDate="2020-01-08T13:32:15.090" UserId="8310" Comment="edited title" Text="How do I dispose trash without using plastic bags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22922" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="e877112b-9060-44e8-a803-ca14119a1a0a" CreationDate="2020-01-08T14:03:27.833" UserId="8232" Comment="edited title" Text="Why am I offered a 5 kW inverter with a 6.6 kW solar installation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9815" RevisionGUID="6d267dcd-85b7-4239-92ee-8d5e19ddcdc5" CreationDate="2020-01-08T17:36:28.933" UserId="8319" Text="It might be ok.  Check a map to see whether sunlight in your region ever gets stronger than 760 Watts/m^2.  If it does not, then 6.6 kW(peak) ideal rating of your solar panels won't deliver more than 5 kW ever.  If you still have concerns, ask a rival solar panel installer.  He'll be more thorough than some internet forum.  As a bonus, you might get better inverter efficiency from running a slightly undersized inverter.  Mine is slightly oversized - 3.0 kW rated inverter with 2.45 kW(peak) rated solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;Beware, as some installers tend to try too hard to sell the inverter which they had a training course on.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the uk, I found it well worth paying someone to fit panels properly on the roof.  They get much more hours of light than the DIY ones near ground level on my shed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22925" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9813" RevisionGUID="4b876478-17ec-4853-bca5-15d42c6a7939" CreationDate="2020-01-08T18:00:58.270" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1214970262715863041" />
  <row Id="22926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6077" RevisionGUID="932c5f01-c49d-42ee-8483-a2213223461a" CreationDate="2020-01-08T20:23:59.080" UserId="400" Comment="Gave example." Text="Sort of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the pay back time.  high efficiency lights are expensive. Expense is, at least in part, a measure of the resources used to make it.\*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replacing the fixtures in the kitchen where the lights are on 8-10 hours a day is probably a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replacing the lights in the hall closet that runs 20 minutes a week is not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example:&#xD;&#xA;Our kitchen has two T8 fluorescent fixtures, two Edison base potlights and 1 two bulb entrance light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main lights in the kitchen are on about 8 hours a day.  The entry way, maybe 1 hour a day, the potlights maybe 1 hour a month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that LED lights would be 40% efficient instead of 30%.  4 x 35 watts becomes 3 * 35 = 105 watts instead of 140.  35 W * 8 hr = 280 or about 100 kWh/year.  If my power is 15 c/kWh that would be about $15 per year.  Kits to replace bulb and transformer are slightly more expensive than bulbs that use the existing transformer, but are not as efficient.  Call it $15 per bulb.  So my payout is 4 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The entry way light is on 1 hour a day, and was equiped with 40W tungsten bulbs.  The replacement LED bulbs are now about $2.50 each and use 7 watts each.  I save 33 w * 365 hours = about 12 kWh/year.  That's about $1.80/year.  Pays for itself in something like 3 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The potlights had 60w bulbs in them.  They are on 12 hours a year.  That's 720 watt hours or not quite a kWh.  So they are costing me about a dime a year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I replaced them anyway, and am trying to get into the habit of using them instead of the main lights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replace the lights in the high use area, saving the bulbs for reuse in low use areas.  We have replaced all lights in our rooms in our house with screw in fluorescents except for the furnace room, one stairwell, and a few closets, and the front porch.  No one makes a high efficiency light that works at -40.  I think we have 5 tungsten bulbs still in stock.  Once they are used up we will replace them with fluorescents or LED bulbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Using expense as a measure of sustainability is a first approximation only.  A better approximation is wholesale cost of commodity equivalent.  This helps you filter out most of the marketing, advertising costs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9803" RevisionGUID="87b2eb72-61d0-4a07-bb56-249477c09142" CreationDate="2020-01-08T20:25:46.777" UserId="6312" Comment="added 513 characters in body" Text="# Standard Test Conditions vs Real life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Photovoltaic panels are rated at &quot;Standard Test Conditions&quot; (*STC*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Irradiance = 1000 W/m²&#xD;&#xA;* Cell temperature = 25°C&#xD;&#xA;* [Air Mass][1] = 1.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those conditions are achieved in testing laboratories, and basically never happen in real life. Modules need to be cooled down in order for them to stay at 25°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1000W/m² is a lot of [irradiance][2], and if it ever happens, it will be at a high ambient temperature. Photovoltaic modules get hotter under high irradiance, so a module under 1000W/m² at 25°C *ambient temperature* might have a *cell temperature* of around 60°C. Cell performance decrease with increasing temperature, so your 300Wp modules will almost certainly never achieve 300W once installed on your roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Growatt 5000MTL-S&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the [datasheet][3] for this Growatt inverter:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growatt 5000MTL-S has a maximum recommended DC Power of 6150W and a max AC output of 4600W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on your location, this inverter might indeed be too weak for the solar panels. At the very least, the company in charge of the design should check if there's a mismatch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Is it dangerous?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An undersized inverter shouldn't be dangerous for your inverter or your house, though. According to this SolarPowerWorld article ([&quot;Solar inverters and clipping: What DC/AC inverter load ratio is ideal?&quot;][5]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; During times when the DC input power is too high, the inverter will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; raise the operating voltage of the modules to pull the array off of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its max power point and reduce the DC power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a [Euro-efficiency][6] (a.k.a. average efficiency) of 97.4%, the Growatt 5000MTL-S will radiate at most ~150W as heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Ask for a simulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are are handful of reliable photovoltaic system simulation softwares (e.g. [PV*SOL][7], [PVSyst][8], [NREL SAM][9], [INSEL][10], ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any serious PV company should have at least one license and be able to quickly simulate your planned installation, in order to check if there's any mismatch: not just for peak power, but also for maximum current, maximum voltage or [MPP][11] voltage range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, you'd get a:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * potential energy yield [kWh/a]&#xD;&#xA; * a performance ratio [%]&#xD;&#xA; * a specific energy yield [kWh/(kWp.a)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The energy yields depend on your location so it's not possible to give any estimate without more information. There are some easy to use online tools if you want to check yourself (e.g. [PVGIS][12], [PV*SOL online][13], [NREL PVWatts Calculator][14]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the performance ratio is lower than 85%, it probably means there's a problem with the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_(solar_energy)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.ginverter.com/Residential-inverters/40-620.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pXWBZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2016/07/solar-inverters-clipping-dcac-inverter-load-ratio-ideal/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.pvsyst.com/help/inverter_euroeff.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.valentin-software.com/en/products/photovoltaics/55/pvsol&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.pvsyst.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://sam.nrel.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://insel.eu/home_en.html&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_point_tracking&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/tools.html#PVP&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://pvsol-online.valentin-software.com/#/&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9800" RevisionGUID="30a934df-b72f-4990-9dcc-e143e0345f9b" CreationDate="2020-01-09T00:13:58.593" UserId="8232" Comment="added location details following request" Text="I've just received two quotes for installing a rooftop solar system at my residential address (near Sydney, Australia). This caught my eye:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Company 1:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Panel: 22 x ET panels 300w&#xD;&#xA;- Inverter: Growatt **5 kW** (5000 MTL-S)&#xD;&#xA;- Size: **3 - 6.6 kW**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Company 2:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Panel: 20 x Canadian 300w&#xD;&#xA;- Inverter: Sungrow **5 kW** (SG5KTL-D)&#xD;&#xA;- Size: **3 - 6 kW**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both offers are for 6.6 kW systems, but both come with an inverter that is only 5 kW. Math tells me there's a 1.6 kW overage here that is unaccounted for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this ok? On the off-chance I manage to produce over 5kW of power, do I run a risk of burning it out? Is there something I'm missing here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9803" RevisionGUID="d948cc87-2800-4020-8939-4b10507ab4e9" CreationDate="2020-01-09T08:12:24.543" UserId="6312" Comment="added 1051 characters in body" Text="# Standard Test Conditions vs Real life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Photovoltaic panels are rated at &quot;Standard Test Conditions&quot; (*STC*):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Irradiance = 1000 W/m²&#xD;&#xA;* Cell temperature = 25°C&#xD;&#xA;* [Air Mass][1] = 1.5&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those conditions are achieved in testing laboratories, and basically never happen in real life. Modules need to be cooled down in order for them to stay at 25°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1000W/m² is a lot of [irradiance][2], and if it ever happens, it will be at a high ambient temperature. Photovoltaic modules get hotter under high irradiance, so a module under 1000W/m² at 25°C *ambient temperature* might have a *cell temperature* of around 60°C. Cell performance decrease with increasing temperature, so your 300Wp modules will almost certainly never achieve 300W once installed on your roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Growatt 5000MTL-S&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is the [datasheet][3] for this Growatt inverter:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growatt 5000MTL-S has a maximum recommended DC Power of 6150W and a max AC output of 4600W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on your location, this inverter might indeed be too weak for the solar panels. At the very least, the company in charge of the design should check if there's a mismatch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Is it dangerous?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An undersized inverter shouldn't be dangerous for your inverter or your house, though. According to this SolarPowerWorld article ([&quot;Solar inverters and clipping: What DC/AC inverter load ratio is ideal?&quot;][5]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; During times when the DC input power is too high, the inverter will&#xD;&#xA;&gt; raise the operating voltage of the modules to pull the array off of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; its max power point and reduce the DC power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a [Euro-efficiency][6] (a.k.a. average efficiency) of 97.4%, the Growatt 5000MTL-S will radiate at most ~150W as heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Orientation, strings and MPP-tracker&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You wrote in a comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The house is slightly L-shaped. I assume the majority of the panels&#xD;&#xA;&gt; will face north or south, with some on the east portions of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; building. Slope I'd say is ~30° but that's a guesstimate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It means that not every panel will produce the same power at the same time and it might lead to further losses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* panels in series (a [string][7]) have to deliver the same current. They will only produce as much current as the worst panel. The proposed panels have [bypass diodes][8] in order to mitigate this effect, but it would be better to only connect together modules which are unshaded and which have the same orientation.&#xD;&#xA;* The proposed inverter has 2 [MPP-Trackers][9], which can optimize the power output of two strings separately. It shouldn't be used with 3 different orientations. South orientation wouldn't make much sense in Australia anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Ask for a simulation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are are handful of reliable photovoltaic system simulation softwares (e.g. [PV*SOL][10], [PVSyst][11], [NREL SAM][12], [INSEL][13], ...).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any serious PV company should have at least one license and be able to quickly simulate your planned installation, in order to check if there's any mismatch: not just for peak power, but also for maximum current, maximum voltage or [MPP][9] voltage range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, you'd get a:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * potential energy yield [kWh/a]&#xD;&#xA; * a performance ratio [%]&#xD;&#xA; * a specific energy yield [kWh/(kWp.a)]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The energy yields depend on your location so it's not possible to give any estimate without more information. There are some easy to use online tools if you want to check yourself (e.g. [PVGIS][14], [PV*SOL online][15], [NREL PVWatts Calculator][16]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the performance ratio is lower than 85%, it probably means there's a problem with the design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_mass_(solar_energy)&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.ginverter.com/Residential-inverters/40-620.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pXWBZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2016/07/solar-inverters-clipping-dcac-inverter-load-ratio-ideal/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.pvsyst.com/help/inverter_euroeff.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/modules-and-arrays/mismatch-effects-in-arrays&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.civicsolar.com/question/do-canadian-solar-and-et-solar-panels-have-bypass-diodes-solar-world-panels&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_point_tracking&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://www.valentin-software.com/en/products/photovoltaics/55/pvsol&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.pvsyst.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://sam.nrel.gov/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://insel.eu/home_en.html&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/tools.html#PVP&#xD;&#xA;  [15]: http://pvsol-online.valentin-software.com/#/&#xD;&#xA;  [16]: https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9817" RevisionGUID="397f86e3-5557-439c-b9be-e8fdacad6ab7" CreationDate="2020-01-09T11:18:48.273" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="(*I started to write a comment, but it is getting too long*).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry to say, but this question is not very relevant. Your trash seems to be an unsorted collection of different materials. That's why it is sent to an incinerator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What type of bag you use has only a little environmental impact *on the production side*, and hardly any on the disposal side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reduce, reuse, recycle** is the order of efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best contribution you can make is keeping that mantra in mind:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Limit the amount of waste you dispose of.&#xD;&#xA;- That translates to: limit what you buy (don't forget second hand).&#xD;&#xA;- If you can separate out some waste streams for recycling&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt; that would be nice as well.&#xD;&#xA;- If you want to take this broader, start campaigning with your city for separating waste streams. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once you no longer know how to reduce your footprint in those areas, you can spend time on thinking about bag types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* In a broad sense, i.e. think about repairing and selling second hand.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9818" RevisionGUID="f62c2d4e-1519-464b-8c14-af7a381b6748" CreationDate="2020-01-09T11:43:30.157" UserId="8331" Text="Every year during June-october, it rains and a few months later after the rainy season there is a lot of grass growing in the empty sites in my residential colony.So All the grass is cut,piled up and burnt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can I do to stop this burning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lot of people are worried about snakes lurking around in the grass and therefore want all the grass to be cleared. and noone is willing to listen to me when I tell them to let the gras stay there and decompose in a few months;&quot;THEY WANT THE GROUND TO LOOK CLEAR&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just Bantering about climate change wont make any difference as many of the people are uneducated,and even the educated ones dont seem to realise the gravity of climate change(Even if I try stating examples like the historic Monsoon season which arrives every year in june since millenia to get delayed by two months for the past 3 or so years;winter days have a minimum temperature of 20 degrees etc it is of no use )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any solutions to this problem that require less effort and money;So that that much C02 and ash isn't released into the atmosphere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This happens every year and will continue to happen for 20 more years till there is a high density of houses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9818" RevisionGUID="f62c2d4e-1519-464b-8c14-af7a381b6748" CreationDate="2020-01-09T11:43:30.157" UserId="8331" Text="My residential Colony burns dry grass every year;How Can I stop them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9818" RevisionGUID="f62c2d4e-1519-464b-8c14-af7a381b6748" CreationDate="2020-01-09T11:43:30.157" UserId="8331" Text="|environmental-impact|carbon-footprint|pollution|air-pollution|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9804" RevisionGUID="2e33a597-180a-4163-a909-d9a5d6281465" CreationDate="2020-01-09T13:55:00.820" UserId="-1" Comment="spelling and grammar; fixed comma splice" Text="There already are some answers addressing the fact that you probably will not reach or will rarely reach the rated power of your panels. That explains why you don't *need* a higher rated inverter. Now, you could want a higher rated inverter just in case, assuming it doesn't hurt either. But that assumption is often wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverters are not perfect; they have a certain efficiency which varies with the load they get. Generally, they are less efficient at low loads, where 'low' is relative to the maximum load. This means that using an oversized inverter which runs at say 10% of its capacity most of the time will waste a lot of energy because of the reduced efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;So you want to size the inverter in such a way that it runs at high efficiency most of the time. Even when this means you lose on the moments where your panels peak above the maximum you will likely still gain overall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously there is an optimum somewhere, which very much depends on the specific inverter and local circumstances. But generally, solar panels spend far more time producing a relatively low output, making the most of that gains you way more than getting the most out of the occasional peak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get some insight into the specific offers, you should look up the efficiency curve for those specific inverters. (Similarly, you might want to look up how the specific panels perform under less than optimal conditions.) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22939" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9804" RevisionGUID="2e33a597-180a-4163-a909-d9a5d6281465" CreationDate="2020-01-09T13:55:00.820" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 8277 edit id of 607" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9818" RevisionGUID="fb3c65be-d6da-44f5-bf5d-48882037ff37" CreationDate="2020-01-09T14:01:40.477" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar; edited tags" Text="Every year during June-October, it rains and a few months later after the rainy season there is a lot of grass growing in the empty sites in my residential colony. So all the grass is cut, piled up and burnt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What can I do to stop this burning?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of people are worried about snakes lurking around in the grass and therefore want all the grass to be cleared. No one is willing to listen to me when I tell them to let the grass stay there and decompose in a few months; &quot;THEY WANT THE GROUND TO LOOK CLEAR&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just bantering about climate change won't make any difference as many of the people are uneducated, and even the educated ones don't seem to realise the gravity of climate change. Even if I try stating examples (like the historic monsoon season which arrived every year in June since millenia, is now delayed by two months for the past 3 or so years, or winter days that have a minimum temperature of 20 degrees, etc.) it is of no use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any solutions to this problem that require less effort and money, so that less CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and ash is released into the atmosphere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This happens every year and will continue to happen for 20 more years till there is a high density of houses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22941" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9818" RevisionGUID="fb3c65be-d6da-44f5-bf5d-48882037ff37" CreationDate="2020-01-09T14:01:40.477" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar; edited tags" Text="My residential colony burns dry grass every year; how can I stop them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22942" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9818" RevisionGUID="fb3c65be-d6da-44f5-bf5d-48882037ff37" CreationDate="2020-01-09T14:01:40.477" UserId="99" Comment="fixed grammar; edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|pollution|greenhouse-gas-emissions|air-pollution|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9819" RevisionGUID="988018be-5b4e-44cb-af64-a799a7169127" CreationDate="2020-01-09T17:31:57.523" UserId="6870" Text="In the United States, I know that paper and plastic are often not recyclable if they are greasy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I recycle metal that has vegetable grease on it surface? I'm thinking of canisters that once contained nuts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9819" RevisionGUID="988018be-5b4e-44cb-af64-a799a7169127" CreationDate="2020-01-09T17:31:57.523" UserId="6870" Text="Can I recycle greasy metal in the US?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9819" RevisionGUID="988018be-5b4e-44cb-af64-a799a7169127" CreationDate="2020-01-09T17:31:57.523" UserId="6870" Text="|recycling|waste|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22946" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9796" RevisionGUID="798e12ca-8082-4c52-9b88-dd629b9a4822" CreationDate="2020-01-09T18:00:50.217" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1215332616796360705" />
  <row Id="22947" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8368" RevisionGUID="77a1b7d5-fec8-4b7c-8c38-14a552bbadb2" CreationDate="2020-01-09T21:00:36.317" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1215377857263931408" />
  <row Id="22948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9820" RevisionGUID="e4e3f2aa-a569-4706-ac9a-f9aed8566a6e" CreationDate="2020-01-09T21:57:49.400" UserId="7993" Text="Burning grass is effectively carbon-neutral: the carbon dioxide released will get pulled right back out of the air next year as the grass re-grows.  Cutting it and letting it decompose would also be carbon-neutral, just taking longer for the carbon dioxide to be released.  If you want to stop the grass from being burned, you'll need another argument.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend an incorrect mulching technique, cutting the grass frequently, as short as the mower can manage, and leaving the cut grass to lie where it's cut.  This will discourage further grass growth, give snakes no place to hide, and the decomposing grass will reduce blowing dust during the dry season (a benefit that even the most uneducated person will understand).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Normal lawn mulching involves cutting the grass high, to encourage further growth, but that's not what you want.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="2341a1a3-7a57-4798-bc25-9227d2d0ce7b" CreationDate="2020-01-10T04:14:28.230" UserId="8232" Comment="Some small spelling and grammar fixes, and tidied up the list" Text="Some areas might have a **local soft plastic recycler**, like [RedCycle](http://www.redcycle.net.au/what-to-redcycle/) in Australia (which lists them as &quot;Netting produce bags (any metal clips removed)&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can see them as being reused as a **carry bag**, if several are somehow attached together, but again, it depends on how durable the material is, and I suspect it vastly differs depending on the type of plastic used. A big sturdy one, however, might only need a handle and could live for a while.&#xD;&#xA;Smaller ones can be used to put one type of produce in at the (super)markets before getting weighed, instead of requesting new paper/plastic bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someone I know has used it to put woodchips in and place in a slopey garden to prevent erosion, but I would not recommend it (*or any use of it in the environment*, like for bird feeders) as it can break down in small pieces after being exposed to the sun, or kill wildlife that gets entangled in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some of my favourite ideas, gathered from the links @salt provided and other websites:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Hanging bath toys** so they drip dry;&#xD;&#xA; - **Storing little bits of leftover soap** to still be able to use them;&#xD;&#xA; - **Gathering small items** to be placed in the dishwasher;&#xD;&#xA; - **Create a non-scratch dish scrubber** - sew/rubber band a couple of tough ones together (or around an old cloth);&#xD;&#xA; - **Storing anything that needs to breathe**, really;&#xD;&#xA; - **Placing at the bottom of a flower pot** to keep the dirt in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22950" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6643" RevisionGUID="2341a1a3-7a57-4798-bc25-9227d2d0ce7b" CreationDate="2020-01-10T04:14:28.230" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 3379, 80 edit id of 608" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9805" RevisionGUID="c7716eeb-47b5-4513-a612-57aa7cd647c0" CreationDate="2020-01-10T06:22:12.307" UserId="-1" Comment="grammar fix" Text="Solar systems are rated at peak power. It's normal for inverters to be rated less since you will very rarely have ideal conditions to reach peak power. For example, my inverter is rated at 80% of peak power and I live in a sunny area. Only during the best days in the summer does my inverter get maxed out for a few hours at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding your edit, there should not be a risk of burning out the inverter. It will just sustain at its maximum power during the very rare times your panels could provide more. Search the Internet for &quot;inverter clipping&quot; to get more details about this, the loss is typically minimal or none." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22952" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9805" RevisionGUID="c7716eeb-47b5-4513-a612-57aa7cd647c0" CreationDate="2020-01-10T06:22:12.307" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 3379, 2345 edit id of 606" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9582" RevisionGUID="f6761eca-79ef-4e73-be63-52b3c13b6b18" CreationDate="2020-01-10T06:22:38.460" UserId="8232" Comment="better paragraphing" Text="Skin rots more slowly than other body parts but less slowly than bone. If buried, a raw hide would turn into beneficial compost in a fairly short time, in fertile productive soil around two years or less. So there is no problem of disposing of parts of an animal that we don't eat. Blood and bonemeal is a valued preparation for garden fertilizer, and is especially loved for use on roses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several different processes used to tan leather to make shoes. The simplest is to dry the hide on the side of a shed after scraping off all the softer tissue. Moccasins used to be made this way often without the need to remove the hair. The old tanning factories used slightly more sophisticated methods, and you could smell them for half a mile. I doubt whether they were using harmful chemicals then. It is only the modern production of leather which uses harmful chemicals and this is only to speed up the process, and make it easier to dye and waterproof the leather, (and possibly also to stop the smell) and these unnatural processes could be dropped. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So whether you use the skin as fertilizer or natural shoe leather, it is potentially better for the environment than plastic. Use your rawhide to make moccasins or bury it to fertilise your garden, and it will be very beneficial to the environment. I didn't fully explain the tanning process which need not and should not involve poisonous chemicals. In order for leather to be pest free and remain supple it is steeped in a solution of tannin which comes mainly from tree bark, and then is stretched and worked on to keep it supple. The only process left then is dyeing and this should be done with natural dyes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, to waterproof it people used to use beeswax. A frequent application of wax was always used for shoes and furniture to keep them from cracking and to keep them looking good. It was called polishing, or using elbow grease. Those were the days when pollution was almost unheard of. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22954" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9582" RevisionGUID="f6761eca-79ef-4e73-be63-52b3c13b6b18" CreationDate="2020-01-10T06:22:38.460" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 80, 2345 edit id of 609" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2594" RevisionGUID="02dd7c6b-6ee8-4407-932c-c7adafc3571f" CreationDate="2020-01-10T09:21:29.613" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 231 characters in body" Text="There often is confusion about compostable plastics (see for example [this question on greenware items](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/55/99) or [this gardening question on plastic bags](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/q/8985/1916)).&#xD;&#xA;'Compostable' suggests that you can compost the plastic yourself, but most compostable plastics are made of [PLA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid) and that can only be composted in industrial composting facilities. This is because PLA requires high temperatures for several days to decompose. If you throw the plastic on your home compost pile it most likely won't degrade (or else very slowly) because the temperatures are often too low. However, plastics that can be composted at home do exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What plastic types can you compost safely at home? Or which labels/certification schemes guarantee that you can compost it yourself? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please only answer if the label explicitly mentions that the plastic will break down in **home** compost piles, or if you've verified yourself that the plastic does break down. Please also include the method of composting (hot/cold composting)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="24ef5333-04e5-4059-960b-2bbe59bfc42e" CreationDate="2020-01-10T09:29:03.650" UserId="99" Comment="update vincotte logo as it is now called TUV AUSTRIA" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Home compostable standards&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The [Australian AS 5810](http://bioplastics.org.au/news/home-composting-standard-as-5810-2010-verify-your-product-conforms-now) is a standard that guarantees composting at low temperatures. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heavy metals and plant toxicity requirements are similar to those for industrial compostability (AS 4736). Biodegradation and disintegration however need to be performed at ambient temperature instead of at elevated temperature ([source](http://www.ows.be/tests/home-compostability/)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The AS 5810 standard has it's own logo &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ![ABA AS 5810 logo][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [UNI 11183:2006](http://store.uni.com/magento-1.4.0.1/index.php/uni-11183-2006.html?___store=en) is an Italian standard that defines: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the requirements of the plastic materials used to make products that can be disposed by aerobic biodegradation at room temperature . The term &quot;room temperature identify the range of temperature of temperate regions excluding the high temperatures these ones typical for composting. The requirements of ecotoxicity of the plastic materials are also considered in the standard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The UNI 11183:2006 doesn't seem to be used much (outside of Italy?) and doesn't seem to have a logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Logos&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides official government standards, there are 3 logo's that guarantee that you can compost a plastic in your home compost pile and these are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [TÜV AUSTRIA OK compost HOME label](http://www.tuv-at.be/green-marks/certifications/ok-compost-seedling/) (in Europe, this company was formerly called Vinçotte, so old logos with that name may be around)&#xD;&#xA;- [AfOR Home Compostable Logo](http://www.organics-recycling.org.uk/page.php?article=1921) (UK only) &#xD;&#xA;- [DIN-Geprüft Home Compostable logo](http://www.tuv.com/dincertco/en/products_made_of_compostable_materials_for_home_and_garden_composting.html) (also Europe) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![TÜV AUSTRIA OK compost HOME label][3]&#xD;&#xA;![AfOR Home Compostable Logo][4]&#xD;&#xA;![DIN CERTCO Geprüft logo][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the Vincotte logo must have the word 'HOME' on the left. Without it, the logo only guarantees that it is compostable in an industrial facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Plastic types&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vincotte lists plastic types that are certified home compostable in [this PDF](http://www.okcompost.be/data/pdf-document/okh-matf.pdf) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Compostable standards&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several standards that are often mentioned on compostable plastics that guarantee that the plastic can be composted safely (with low levels of heavy metals and toxic substances in the resulting compost). These can theoretically be used in home composting but only when doing hot-composting for a longer period of time, so this won't work on the average home compost heap. Less strict standard first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The [US ASTM D6400](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/ASTM_D6400)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; degradation by biological processes during composting to yield CO2, water, inorganic compounds and biomass at a rate consistent with other compostable materials and leaves no visible, distinguishable or toxic residue.... 60% biodegradation within 180 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [European EN 13432](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/EN_13432) / Seedling logo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A biodegradation level of at least 90% must be reached in less than 6 months... fragmentation and loss of visibility in the final compost (absence of visible pollution)... absence of negative effects on the composting process... Low levels of heavy metals (below given max values) and absence of negative effects on the final compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The [Australian AS 4736](http://bioplastics.org.au/faq/what-is-the-as4736-standard-for-biodegradable-plastics) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Minimum of 90% of plastic materials should disintegrate into less than 2mm pieces in compost within 12 weeks. No toxic effect of the resulting compost on plants and earthworms. Hazardous substances such as heavy metals should not be present above the maximum allowed levels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, these 3 standards **do not guarantee** under which circumstances (temperature) the plastic will compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BReGk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/whT8j.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EcbOG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ToLv.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dwzCc.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="fd33994f-d97c-458a-add7-7be403fb7fdf" CreationDate="2020-01-10T09:51:37.707" UserId="99" Comment="update vincotte logo and name as it is now called TUV AUSTRIA" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Home compostable standards&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Published in 2010, the [Australian AS 5810](https://www.bioplastics.org.au/certification/home-compostable-verification-programme/) is the first standard that guarantees composting at low temperatures. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heavy metals and plant toxicity requirements are similar to those for industrial compostability (AS 4736). Biodegradation and disintegration however need to be performed at ambient temperature instead of at elevated temperature ([source](http://www.ows.be/tests/home-compostability/)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The AS 5810 standard has it's own logo &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ![ABA AS 5810 logo][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [UNI 11183:2006](http://store.uni.com/magento-1.4.0.1/index.php/uni-11183-2006.html?___store=en) is an Italian standard that defines: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the requirements of the plastic materials used to make products that can be disposed by aerobic biodegradation at room temperature . The term &quot;room temperature identify the range of temperature of temperate regions excluding the high temperatures these ones typical for composting. The requirements of ecotoxicity of the plastic materials are also considered in the standard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The UNI 11183:2006 doesn't seem to be used much (outside of Italy?) and doesn't seem to have a logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Logos&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides official government standards, there are 3 logo's that guarantee that you can compost a plastic in your home compost pile and these are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in Europe [TÜV AUSTRIA OK compost HOME label](http://www.tuv-at.be/green-marks/certifications/ok-compost-seedling/) (this company was formerly called Vinçotte - Belgium, so old logos with that name may be around)&#xD;&#xA;- also in Europe [DIN-Geprüft Home Compostable logo](http://www.tuv.com/dincertco/en/products_made_of_compostable_materials_for_home_and_garden_composting.html)&#xD;&#xA;- UK only [AfOR Home Compostable Logo](http://www.organics-recycling.org.uk/page.php?article=1921)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![TÜV AUSTRIA OK compost HOME label][2]&#xD;&#xA;![DIN CERTCO Geprüft logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;![AfOR Home Compostable Logo][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the TÜV AUSTRIA logo must have the word 'HOME' on the left. Without it, the logo only guarantees that it is compostable in an industrial facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Plastic types&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vincotte lists plastic types that are certified home compostable in [this PDF](http://www.okcompost.be/data/pdf-document/okh-matf.pdf) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Compostable standards&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several standards that are often mentioned on compostable plastics that guarantee that the plastic can be composted safely (with low levels of heavy metals and toxic substances in the resulting compost). These can theoretically be used in home composting but only when doing hot-composting for a longer period of time, so this won't work on the average home compost heap. Less strict standard first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The [US ASTM D6400](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/ASTM_D6400)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; degradation by biological processes during composting to yield CO2, water, inorganic compounds and biomass at a rate consistent with other compostable materials and leaves no visible, distinguishable or toxic residue.... 60% biodegradation within 180 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [European EN 13432](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/EN_13432) / Seedling logo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A biodegradation level of at least 90% must be reached in less than 6 months... fragmentation and loss of visibility in the final compost (absence of visible pollution)... absence of negative effects on the composting process... Low levels of heavy metals (below given max values) and absence of negative effects on the final compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The [Australian AS 4736](http://bioplastics.org.au/faq/what-is-the-as4736-standard-for-biodegradable-plastics) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Minimum of 90% of plastic materials should disintegrate into less than 2mm pieces in compost within 12 weeks. No toxic effect of the resulting compost on plants and earthworms. Hazardous substances such as heavy metals should not be present above the maximum allowed levels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, these 3 standards **do not guarantee** under which circumstances (temperature) the plastic will compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BReGk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EcbOG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dwzCc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ToLv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="178a21be-90e8-4bd8-9ca6-13a980e452e2" CreationDate="2020-01-10T10:32:12.743" UserId="99" Comment="fixed link to document with plastic types" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Home compostable standards&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Published in 2010, the [Australian AS 5810](https://www.bioplastics.org.au/certification/home-compostable-verification-programme/) is the first standard that guarantees composting at low temperatures. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heavy metals and plant toxicity requirements are similar to those for industrial compostability (AS 4736). Biodegradation and disintegration however need to be performed at ambient temperature instead of at elevated temperature ([source](http://www.ows.be/tests/home-compostability/)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The AS 5810 standard has it's own logo &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ![ABA AS 5810 logo][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [UNI 11183:2006](http://store.uni.com/magento-1.4.0.1/index.php/uni-11183-2006.html?___store=en) is an Italian standard that defines: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the requirements of the plastic materials used to make products that can be disposed by aerobic biodegradation at room temperature . The term &quot;room temperature identify the range of temperature of temperate regions excluding the high temperatures these ones typical for composting. The requirements of ecotoxicity of the plastic materials are also considered in the standard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The UNI 11183:2006 doesn't seem to be used much (outside of Italy?) and doesn't seem to have a logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Logos&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides official government standards, there are 3 logo's that guarantee that you can compost a plastic in your home compost pile and these are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in Europe [TÜV AUSTRIA OK compost HOME label](http://www.tuv-at.be/green-marks/certifications/ok-compost-seedling/) (this company was formerly called Vinçotte, so old logos with that name may be around)&#xD;&#xA;- also in Europe [DIN-Geprüft Home Compostable logo](http://www.tuv.com/dincertco/en/products_made_of_compostable_materials_for_home_and_garden_composting.html)&#xD;&#xA;- UK only [AfOR Home Compostable Logo](http://www.organics-recycling.org.uk/page.php?article=1921)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![TÜV AUSTRIA OK compost HOME label][2]&#xD;&#xA;![DIN CERTCO Geprüft logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;![AfOR Home Compostable Logo][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the TÜV AUSTRIA logo must have the word 'HOME' on the left. Without it, the logo only guarantees that it is compostable in an industrial facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Plastic types&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past TÜV AUSTRIA / Vinçotte published a long list of plastic types that are certified home compostable [in this PDF](https://web.archive.org/web/20170322112908/http://www.okcompost.be/data/pdf-document/okh-matf.pdf), but it seems this list is no longer updated because of new European GPDR rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Compostable standards&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several standards that are often mentioned on compostable plastics that guarantee that the plastic can be composted safely (with low levels of heavy metals and toxic substances in the resulting compost). These can theoretically be used in home composting but only when doing hot-composting for a longer period of time, so this won't work on the average home compost heap. Less strict standard first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The [US ASTM D6400](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/ASTM_D6400)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; degradation by biological processes during composting to yield CO2, water, inorganic compounds and biomass at a rate consistent with other compostable materials and leaves no visible, distinguishable or toxic residue.... 60% biodegradation within 180 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [European EN 13432](http://greenplastics.com/wiki/EN_13432) / Seedling logo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A biodegradation level of at least 90% must be reached in less than 6 months... fragmentation and loss of visibility in the final compost (absence of visible pollution)... absence of negative effects on the composting process... Low levels of heavy metals (below given max values) and absence of negative effects on the final compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The [Australian AS 4736](http://bioplastics.org.au/faq/what-is-the-as4736-standard-for-biodegradable-plastics) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Minimum of 90% of plastic materials should disintegrate into less than 2mm pieces in compost within 12 weeks. No toxic effect of the resulting compost on plants and earthworms. Hazardous substances such as heavy metals should not be present above the maximum allowed levels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, these 3 standards **do not guarantee** under which circumstances (temperature) the plastic will compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BReGk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EcbOG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dwzCc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ToLv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2595" RevisionGUID="9310802b-29f9-412c-8850-a3a871c9ebb2" CreationDate="2020-01-10T10:51:10.140" UserId="99" Comment="fixed several broken links" Text="&lt;h1&gt;Home compostable standards&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Published in 2010, the [Australian AS 5810](https://www.bioplastics.org.au/certification/home-compostable-verification-programme/) is the first standard that guarantees composting at low temperatures. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Heavy metals and plant toxicity requirements are similar to those for industrial compostability (AS 4736). Biodegradation and disintegration however need to be performed at ambient temperature instead of at elevated temperature ([source](http://www.ows.be/tests/home-compostability/)) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    The AS 5810 standard has it's own logo &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    ![ABA AS 5810 logo][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. [UNI 11183:2006](http://store.uni.com/magento-1.4.0.1/index.php/uni-11183-2006.html?___store=en) is an Italian standard that defines: &#xD;&#xA;&gt; the requirements of the plastic materials used to make products that can be disposed by aerobic biodegradation at room temperature . The term &quot;room temperature identify the range of temperature of temperate regions excluding the high temperatures these ones typical for composting. The requirements of ecotoxicity of the plastic materials are also considered in the standard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   The UNI 11183:2006 doesn't seem to be used much (outside of Italy?) and doesn't seem to have a logo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Logos&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides official government standards, there are 3 logo's that guarantee that you can compost a plastic in your home compost pile and these are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- in Europe [TÜV AUSTRIA OK compost HOME label](http://www.tuv-at.be/green-marks/certifications/ok-compost-seedling/) (this company was formerly called Vinçotte, so old logos with that name may be around)&#xD;&#xA;- also in Europe [DIN CERTCO Geprüft Home Compostable logo](https://www.dincertco.de/en/dincertco/produkte_leistungen/zertifizierung_produkte/umwelt_1/produkte_aus_biologisch_abbaubaren_werkstoffen/produkte_biologisch_abbaubaren_werkstoffen_heimkompostierung_gartenkompostierung.html)&#xD;&#xA;- UK only [AfOR Home Compostable Logo](https://www.packagingnews.co.uk/news/home-compostable-label-launches-for-on-pack-recycling-scheme-24-02-2011). I was not able to find any recent information on this label, so I'm not sure it still exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![TÜV AUSTRIA OK compost HOME label][2]&#xD;&#xA;![DIN CERTCO Geprüft logo][3]&#xD;&#xA;![AfOR Home Compostable Logo][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the TÜV AUSTRIA logo must have the word 'HOME' on the left. Without it, the logo only guarantees that it is compostable in an industrial facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Plastic types&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past TÜV AUSTRIA / Vinçotte published a long list of plastic types that are certified home compostable [in this PDF](https://web.archive.org/web/20170322112908/http://www.okcompost.be/data/pdf-document/okh-matf.pdf), but it seems this list is no longer updated because of new European GPDR rules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h1&gt;Compostable standards&lt;/h1&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several standards that are often mentioned on compostable plastics that guarantee that the plastic can be composted safely (with low levels of heavy metals and toxic substances in the resulting compost). These can theoretically be used in home composting but only when doing hot-composting for a longer period of time, so this won't work on the average home compost heap. Less strict standard first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The [US ASTM D6400](https://web.archive.org/web/20160902191254/http://greenplastics.com:80/wiki/ASTM_D6400)&#xD;&#xA;&gt; degradation by biological processes during composting to yield CO2, water, inorganic compounds and biomass at a rate consistent with other compostable materials and leaves no visible, distinguishable or toxic residue.... 60% biodegradation within 180 days&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The [European EN 13432](https://web.archive.org/web/20160606051017/http://greenplastics.com:80/wiki/EN_13432) / Seedling logo&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A biodegradation level of at least 90% must be reached in less than 6 months... fragmentation and loss of visibility in the final compost (absence of visible pollution)... absence of negative effects on the composting process... Low levels of heavy metals (below given max values) and absence of negative effects on the final compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The [Australian AS 4736](https://www.bioplastics.org.au/resources/faq/#toggle-id-9) &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - minimum of 90% of plastic materials should disintegrate into less than 2mm pieces in compost within 12 weeks&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - no toxic effect of the resulting compost on plants and earthworms.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - hazardous substances such as heavy metals should not be present above the maximum allowed levels&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - plastic materials should contain more than 50% organic materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, these 3 standards **do not guarantee** under which circumstances (temperature) the plastic will compost. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BReGk.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EcbOG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dwzCc.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ToLv.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22960" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6997" RevisionGUID="d416c949-7f5c-4cd4-bba3-375daec90da1" CreationDate="2020-01-10T12:00:47.310" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1215604395540467712" />
  <row Id="22961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9821" RevisionGUID="7b2fd472-a030-4024-a4c5-a292ff719179" CreationDate="2020-01-10T14:29:26.807" UserId="8336" Text="[Positive Outlook][1] are based in Coventry and produce bamboo fibre clothing, and they also advertise that they use &quot;ethical manufacturers&quot;. Can't find any mention of what method they use though or who the manufacturers/suppliers are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.positiveoutlookclothing.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9822" RevisionGUID="29e89b64-04a1-44a1-8f9c-bf85bf18a9f9" CreationDate="2020-01-13T00:39:59.810" UserId="6925" Text="Oh, that's really not a problem.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling metal involves pre-processing.  They are concerned with contaminants like **paint** and **plating** getting into the batch.  What they use to remove paint and galvanization will certainly remove grease.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9823" RevisionGUID="ba336af6-f779-4655-9538-3d90e5442883" CreationDate="2020-01-13T00:57:17.260" UserId="6925" Text="Don't throw out water!&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Firstoff, you really need to **not throw out liquids**. Liquids should go down the sink, (unless they are non-water non-biological).  Water based liquids are very heavy and add a lot of mass to the waste stream.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water based liquids are particularly bad news when incinerating.  Most trash will burn *exothermically*, meaning the incinerator only has to use fossil fuels to start the trash stream burning; once lit, the incinerator is sustained by the burning of the trash itself.   Water is a different deal.  **Water does not burn**, and every pound of water at 62F needs 150 BTUs added to get it to boiling and 970 more to boil it away, so that means they have to use a stupid amount of fossil fuel *simply to boil away the water*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worse.  Water is a *thermal moderator*, i.e. it tends to absorb huge amounts of thermal energy while cooling things to 212F or below.  So this is also **cooling down** the incinerator, and a cold-running incinerator runs dirty with incomplete combustion and throws a lot of HCs and particulates into the air.  So to stay within EPA limits, the incinerator must crank up the burners, expending *even more fossil fuel*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you have proper hygiene about your trash (throwing away basically dry stuff, using the sink drain for the wet), that removes the issue with paper bags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or have plastic bags just for the wet trash, and paper for all the dry.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or consider non-fossil-fuel bags &#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;Plastic is made from oil. Most plastics are made from petroleum (The Shah of Iran, very impressed with plastics manufacture, was astonished that we *burned* such a useful feedstock).  Some bags are made out of organic oils, which works too.  This &quot;closes the carbon cycle&quot;, because you aren't digging up ancient carbon and adding it to the atmosphere, you are taking crop carbon that only came out of the atmosphere this year. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9823" RevisionGUID="35d09b84-af20-49f6-b58b-9e6610c69b9c" CreationDate="2020-01-13T01:04:32.297" UserId="6925" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="Don't throw out water!&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Firstoff, you really need to **not throw out liquids**. Liquids should go down the sink, (unless they are non-water non-biological).  Water based liquids are very heavy and add a lot of mass to the waste stream.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water based liquids are particularly bad news when incinerating.  Most trash will burn *exothermically*, meaning the incinerator only has to use fossil fuels to start the trash stream burning; once lit, the incinerator is sustained by the burning of the trash itself.   Water is a different deal.  **Water does not burn**, and every kilogram (pound) of water requires 349,000 joules (150 BTU) to warm it to boiling, and 2,260,000 joules (970 BTU) to boil it away, so that means they have to use a stupid amount of fossil fuel *simply to boil away the water*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(the units in parentheses are the imperial *version* of that data; I am not saying 1kg=1lb nor 349kj=150 BTU). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's worse.  Water is a *thermal moderator*, i.e. it tends to absorb huge amounts of thermal energy while cooling things to 100C (212F) or below.  So this is also **cooling down** the incinerator, and a cold-running incinerator runs dirty with incomplete combustion and throws a lot of HCs and particulates into the air.  So to stay within EPA limits, the incinerator must crank up the burners, expending *even more fossil fuel*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you have proper hygiene about your trash (throwing away basically dry stuff, using the sink drain for the wet), that removes the issue with paper bags. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or have plastic bags just for the wet trash, and paper for all the dry.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or consider non-fossil-fuel bags &#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;Plastic is made from oil. Most plastics are made from petroleum (The Shah of Iran, very impressed with plastics manufacture, was astonished that we *burned* such a useful feedstock).  Some bags are made out of organic oils, which works too.  This &quot;closes the carbon cycle&quot;, because you aren't digging up ancient carbon and adding it to the atmosphere, you are taking crop carbon that only came out of the atmosphere this year. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9824" RevisionGUID="4e73e897-e560-4589-b43a-91f9b12e015e" CreationDate="2020-01-13T02:51:42.433" UserId="6925" Text="Electric is as sustainable as its sources *today*. &#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;Smartville has 80% coal 20% large hydro (which lends itself to pumped storage). They are replacing 5% of their coal with renewables every year, increasing hydro backpumping capacity to allow pumped storage.  They buy a bunch of electric buses/trains. Over the 32 year life of the trains and buses, their renewable percentage is what -- anyone? anyone? Bueller? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! 80%. The 16 years of phasing out coal started at 20% rising to 100%, averaging 60%.  The next 16 years were 100%. Averaging 80%.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dumbville has the exact same power and conversion-to-renewables plan.  Since their electricity is 80% coal, they determine that it's not worth making the trains and buses electric since it'd only save 20%.   Over the 20 year life of the trains and buses, their renewable percentage is what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! 0%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Dumbville needs new trains and buses at 20 years instead of 32. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric trolley buses are a thing. &#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXAaNXuV2Yc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Watch that video and pay close attention to the *grades*.  Trolley buses eat hills for breakfast.  While a diesel bus is lugging up the hill at 10 mph in low gear, the trolley just pulls big motor amps and climbs like a rocket.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the location of hills is not a surprise, the transit agency makes sure substations and feeder ties are plentiful in that zone, so the bus is pulling at the ~600 amp limits of a graphite contact shoe.  Generally my experience is trolley buses are significantly faster than diesel buses, and more agile in the urban environment.  They have no trouble spooling up to 50 mph, so you have a very wide operating range without any transmission.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5 US cities have them (the video was American) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The longest and most &quot;intercity&quot; trolley bus line is in Crimea, from the middle of the province (Sinferopol) to the shore (Yalta). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Europe is covered with these systems, and both Western Europe and the Russian sphere have ample demand to support enough builders to keep things competitive.   Not so in North America; there simply aren't enough systems to keep one trolleybus builder alive let alone two, so every replacement job ends up being *bespoke* with very complicated design-build-accept process with a high learning curve and lots of expensive blunders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Batteries are changing everything for trolley buses&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Since about 1993, batteries started providing a useful function: allowing the trolley buses to roam off-wire, to get around obstructions and the like.  The idea is they could roam a few blocks around a construction site, and replenish the battery during the rest of the route.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now we have Teslas running around with 100KWH battery packs that can punch 1150A.  It could definitely power a trolley bus for a little while if you could keep it cool (or use a larger pack).  But could it make it through a 20-hour workday of one of the buses in the video? I doubt it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you look at the map of many trolley bus systems (and for that matter, diesel or rail systems), you see a lot of places where 2-4 lines double the same route for much of their length.  For instance, Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco is a choke point which causes most of the service in the northern Sunset (6, 66, 71) to funnel into Haight Street and run under the trolley wires all the way downtown. But the 66 and 71 soot up those wires with combustion smoke; their routes have no wires.    Well, with a large-battery trolley bus, they can simply pull the poles down at the end of the shared route, and motor into the  'burbs on battery.  They only need to do that, and the inbound run to make it back to wire to recharge.  They could even have isolated wires at the outer terminus, so the buses put their poles up there to recharge while they wait for the next departure time.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cars could also have solar panels on the roof for a little more help (and self-recovery if a bus goes completely flat; lock it up, come back tomorrow and limp it home).   For that matter, they could install a small diesel APU to help replenish the battery day and night.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for that matter, they could have a large diesel APU that replenishes the battery *always, in all modes of operation*.  Now you don't need the trolley wire at all.   On the other hand, you just went from 100% electric to 0% electric - all that tech and we're [right back to square one][1].  And that is starting to look like where trolley bus is going.  This is the root of the &quot;electric bus&quot; problem - you're a diesel APU away from completely undoing all the advances. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://hiddencityphila.org/2012/08/septa-not-as-green-as-theyd-like-you-to-think/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="8735554d-7e69-453c-ba02-1de8ccecf273" CreationDate="2020-01-13T06:13:07.157" UserId="4378" Text="I am curious, what people could do with a **small piece of land** like their home backyard (say originally it is a regular lawn smaller than 20m^2, in **temperate continental climate** (so pretty harsh)) to **help fight climate change**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Intuitively, we might think **fast-growing trees** are the best carbon accumulator (e.g. **hybrid poplar** is a famous one). Wood is nonetheless very stable carbon but it may be an incomplete picture if we focus on the aboveground growth metrics only. As a matter of fact, **most stable soil carbon as recent research has shown is root-derived (dead root as well as root exudates)**[1][2][3]. Other things like mycorrhizae and dispersing litter also come into play which results in a larger radius of impact on soil carbon. Also, the backyard is preferably minimally managed with no synthetic products needed (which also come with its own carbon footprint).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be glad if someone can shed some light on this complicated matter. Answers with scientific evidence and an estimated amount of carbon sequestered (say per year) will be very appreciated :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]Sokol, Noah W., et al. &quot;Evidence for the primacy of living root inputs, not root or shoot litter, in forming soil organic carbon.&quot; New Phytologist 221.1 (2019): 233-246.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2]Lange, Markus, et al. &quot;Plant diversity increases soil microbial activity and soil carbon storage.&quot; Nature communications 6 (2015): 6707.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3]Treseder, Kathleen K., and Sandra R. Holden. &quot;Fungal carbon sequestration.&quot; Science 339.6127 (2013): 1528-1529.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22967" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="8735554d-7e69-453c-ba02-1de8ccecf273" CreationDate="2020-01-13T06:13:07.157" UserId="4378" Text="Hyper carbon accumulator(s) for backyards" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22968" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="8735554d-7e69-453c-ba02-1de8ccecf273" CreationDate="2020-01-13T06:13:07.157" UserId="4378" Text="|plants|carbon-sequestration|trees|soil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5878" RevisionGUID="24f1031f-5785-4dfc-b42f-40b4e34debd6" CreationDate="2020-01-13T08:11:54.120" UserId="4099" Comment="excerpts don't support formatting" Text="growing plants in a nutrient solution instead of in soil. When fish kept in the water provide the required nutrients it's called aquaponics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22970" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5878" RevisionGUID="24f1031f-5785-4dfc-b42f-40b4e34debd6" CreationDate="2020-01-13T08:11:54.120" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by -1 edit id of 610" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5878" RevisionGUID="3c1b1533-3517-4545-be5e-75629f9463d0" CreationDate="2020-01-13T08:11:54.120" UserId="99" Comment="excerpts don't support formatting" Text="growing plants in a nutrient solution instead of in soil. &#xD;&#xA;For questions about hydroponics in combination with keeping fish, use the [aquaponics] tag instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2825" RevisionGUID="b03ce1d6-b67e-4258-9de4-05b8878cc565" CreationDate="2020-01-13T08:22:06.560" UserId="99" Comment="clarified tag usage" Text="a dwelling-place used as a permanent or semi-permanent residence for an individual, family, household or several families in a tribe. Use this tag for questions about sustainability issues at home." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1110" RevisionGUID="899f2631-def3-4bc9-b35b-8938ddcf1e6c" CreationDate="2020-01-13T08:38:54.177" UserId="99" Comment="clarified tag usage" Text="materials which the initial user wants to dispose. For questions about [reuse] or [recycling] waste use those tags." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22974" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7072" RevisionGUID="3ff5c655-a906-4a31-9062-5cd7cea3366e" CreationDate="2020-01-13T12:00:41.353" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1216691534210441216" />
  <row Id="22975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9826" RevisionGUID="a9abc5c7-9e02-4d38-bb2a-3cdc3466ccab" CreationDate="2020-01-13T16:28:51.267" UserId="5477" Text="Scrap metals are not cleaned , they are melted. For steel; Zn, Sn, Pb , and others vaporize or oxidize ; The most problematic is Zn as the oxide in the slag can deteriorate the refractory. Aluminum is similar except scrape with Cu and Si will be segregated as much as possible , used for certain alloys. Copper scrap , being more valuable is separated according to the alloy to be produced . Oil , grease , paint  are non-factors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22976" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="9827" RevisionGUID="8da6dbdd-98b7-40ff-b266-909c05c6c60c" CreationDate="2020-01-13T18:48:38.870" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/65862/band-brake-cable-rotating-problem" />
  <row Id="22977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9827" RevisionGUID="a4357ed9-c238-484e-a8fc-ee6d4e05bd28" CreationDate="2020-01-13T11:18:35.423" UserDisplayName="mnm 180" Text="I recently bought a band brake for a home built wind turbine and was thinking of mounting it on the shaft and getting a cable from the brake to the ground so I can stop the blades in case of maintenance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that the turbine rotate 360° around depends on the wind direction wich will break the cable.&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have an idea around this.&#xD;&#xA;![band_brake](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yl787.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;![wind turbine](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lG6Xg.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22978" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9827" RevisionGUID="a4357ed9-c238-484e-a8fc-ee6d4e05bd28" CreationDate="2020-01-13T11:18:35.423" UserDisplayName="mnm 180" Text="Band_brake cable rotating problem" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22979" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9827" RevisionGUID="a4357ed9-c238-484e-a8fc-ee6d4e05bd28" CreationDate="2020-01-13T11:18:35.423" UserDisplayName="mnm 180" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22980" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="9828" RevisionGUID="c6d01dbb-c12e-4253-a214-1840fc60ceca" CreationDate="2020-01-13T18:48:38.870" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/65862/band-brake-cable-rotating-problem/65866#65866" />
  <row Id="22981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9828" RevisionGUID="d7011d68-477c-4746-b5e4-ac5062d6b908" CreationDate="2020-01-13T15:26:25.187" UserDisplayName="Daniel R Hicks" Text="A scheme used on many BMX bikes is a &quot;detangler&quot; disk on the fork.  It's actually two disks, surrounding the fork shaft, arranged with flanges such that pulling up on the upper disk lifts the lower one.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both disks are attached to cables, with the upper generally attached to two cables which lead, via a Y adapter, to the brake lever.  Two cables from the lower disk lead to the two brake cantilevers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are fairly common on BMX bikes just above the cheapest ones, so you could likely view a version on bikes at a department store, and certainly any bike shop carrying BMX bikes would have some.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are available online from several vendors as replacement parts, or you could salvage a unit from a scrapped bike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(And I'll note that another option is to use a scheme similar to that used for the front brakes of &quot;detangled&quot; BMX bikes -- run the cable through the (hollow) center of the fork shaft.  For your case you'd still need a small rotating cable connector at the top of the mast, but these are fairly readily available as machine components.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0tYMi.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9824" RevisionGUID="8e0f6ad3-31ca-4af6-bfeb-c2b55a3a527a" CreationDate="2020-01-13T20:12:23.647" UserId="6925" Comment="added 2561 characters in body" Text="Electric is as sustainable as its sources *today*. &#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;Smartville has 80% coal 20% large hydro (which lends itself to pumped storage). They are replacing 5% of their coal with renewables every year, increasing hydro backpumping capacity to allow pumped storage.  They buy a bunch of electric buses/trains. Over the 32 year life of the trains and buses, their renewable percentage is what -- anyone? anyone? Bueller? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! 80%. The 16 years of phasing out coal started at 20% renewable rising to 100%, averaging 60%.  The next 16 years were 100%. Averaging 80%.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dumbville has the exact same power and conversion-to-renewables plan.  Since their electricity is 80% coal, they determine that it's not worth making the trains and buses electric since it'd only save 20%.   Over the 20 year life of the trains and buses, their trains and buses' renewable percentage is what?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;! 0%.  Because they remain diesel, even as the power grid cleans up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also Dumbville needs new trains and buses at 20 years instead of 32. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric trolley buses are a thing. &#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXAaNXuV2Yc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Watch that video and pay close attention to the *grades*.  Trolley buses eat hills for breakfast.  While a diesel bus is lugging up the hill at 10 mph in low gear, the trolley just pulls big motor amps and climbs like a rocket.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the location of hills is not a surprise, the transit agency makes sure substations and feeder ties are plentiful in that zone, so the bus is pulling at the ~600 amp limits of a graphite contact shoe.  Generally my experience is trolley buses are significantly faster than diesel buses, and more agile in the urban environment.  They have no trouble spooling up to 50 mph, so you have a very wide operating range without any transmission.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5 US cities have them (the video was American) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The longest and most &quot;intercity&quot; trolley bus line is in Crimea, from the middle of the province (Sinferopol) to the shore (Yalta). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Europe is covered with these systems, and both Western Europe and the Russian sphere have ample demand to support enough builders to keep things competitive.   Not so in North America; there simply aren't enough systems to keep one trolleybus builder alive let alone two, so every replacement job ends up being *bespoke* with very complicated design-build-accept process with a high learning curve and lots of expensive blunders.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no way to set up a company that supplies 10 buses a  year to each of the five cities, and constantly improves its product and optimizes production and drives down costs; because that's not how Federal matching grants work. The Feds pay a one-time, 9-digit *bolles* of money, and they demand you get all your buses in one big batch.  That causes a feast-famine cycle that makes it impossible for any manufacturer to stay in the business.  Simply changing the Federal law to be anti-bolles and require continuous production streams, would reboot the industry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Batteries are changing everything for trolley buses&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Since about 1993, batteries started providing a useful function: allowing the trolley buses to roam off-wire, to get around obstructions and the like.  The idea is they could roam a few blocks around a construction site, and replenish the battery during the rest of the route.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But now we have Teslas running around with 100KWH battery packs that can punch 1150A.  It could definitely power a trolley bus for a little while if you could keep it cool (or use a larger pack).  But could it make it through a 20-hour workday of one of the buses in the video? I doubt it.   So for serious, highly kinetic urban transit like you saw in the above Youtube video, **a pure battery-electric bus is thermodynamically impossible**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you look at the map of many trolley bus systems (and for that matter, diesel or rail systems), you see a lot of places where 2-4 lines double the same route for much of their length.  For instance, Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco is a choke point which causes most of the service in the northern Sunset (6, 66, 71) to funnel into Haight Street and run under the trolley wires all the way downtown. But the 66 and 71 soot up those wires with combustion smoke; their routes have no wires.    Well, with a large-battery trolley bus, they can simply pull the poles down at the end of the shared route, and motor into the  'burbs on battery.  They only need to do that, and the inbound run to make it back to wire to recharge.  They could even have isolated wires at the outer terminus, so the buses put their poles up there to recharge while they wait for the next departure time.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cars could also have solar panels on the roof for a little more help (and self-recovery if a bus goes completely flat; lock it up, come back tomorrow and limp it home).   For that matter, they could install a small diesel APU to help replenish the battery day and night.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And for that matter, they could have a large diesel APU that replenishes the battery *always, in all modes of operation*.  Now you don't need the trolley wire at all.   On the other hand, you just went from 100% electric to 0% electric - all that tech and we're [right back to square one][1].  And that is starting to look like where trolley bus is going.  This is the root of the &quot;electric bus&quot; problem - you're a diesel APU away from completely undoing all the advances. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric trains *vs* electric buses&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;So now we get to the core of the question.  But we can't avoid addressing *land use*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Building a train line is high infrastructure, but it also spurs development along the train line.  Every high-density condo near the train station is a house *not* built out in car-land (the untransitable fringes), so that's great for sustainability **in the long term**. &#xD;&#xA;- However, the electric bus, if we use some trolley wire to solve the &quot;thermodynamically impossible&quot; problem, has the ability to easily expand out into areas now poorly served **in the short term**.  The downside of this, is that &quot;car-land&quot; is usually very low density, which means the bus has a lot of swept area to collect a few passengers, so you don't get much bang for your transit buck. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is, aside from pure battery-electric buses not being possible, that the &quot;augmented trolley&quot; I discuss is also not a thing *in the scale I propose*; certainly trolleys have 3-mile battery packs, I'm proposing 20-mile.  It could be a thing, but it's stymied by that production-stream problem that prevents stable businesses in the field. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing is that trains are simply not possible in a wide variety of locations.  It's very hard to punch a rail right-of-way through virgin territory.  Most rail builds are laid in streets (Detroit M-1 Q-line), on abandoned rail lines (conspicuously, Los Angeles' Pacific Electric &quot;Red Car&quot;), alongside existing freight railroads (WMATA), or in the median of freeways expanded for that purpose (BART). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trains also require a density that is not feasible in most of &quot;car-land&quot;. Whereas electric buses are perfectly viable in lower density places like Dayton, Ohio, that are far, far, far below the density required for any kind of rail. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, electric rail is a turn-key solution, but only in a few places. Electric buses have wide application, but need to be developed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://hiddencityphila.org/2012/08/septa-not-as-green-as-theyd-like-you-to-think/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9829" RevisionGUID="03d24d95-4fda-40e3-9cf1-81f49854b6c6" CreationDate="2020-01-14T01:22:42.243" UserId="8279" Text="Another option might be to leave the actuation cable dangling downward from a small hole in the housing.  You'll probably have a regular old bike brake lever on a short length of wooden dowel as a substitute handlebar. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as its not dragging on the ground it should not catch.  The prevailing wind should push it backward away from the pole, minimising Clanging and Banging.  You might even add a small support chain from the tailfins to hold the brake lever out of the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LZiuI.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22985" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9827" RevisionGUID="691000bc-6d86-48d2-91e1-87dffb8e66f7" CreationDate="2020-01-14T01:31:22.460" />
  <row Id="22986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9827" RevisionGUID="39eb826b-d77d-4552-b29e-027ab6d4ee99" CreationDate="2020-01-14T06:33:07.410" UserId="8344" Comment="added 22 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I recently bought a band brake for a home built wind turbine and was thinking of mounting it on the shaft and getting a cable from the brake to the ground so I can stop the blades in case of maintenance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that the turbine rotate 360° around depends on the wind direction wich will break the cable.&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have an idea around this.&#xD;&#xA;![band_brake](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yl787.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;![wind turbine](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lG6Xg.jpg)&#xA;&#xA;Edit: wind power tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22987" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9827" RevisionGUID="39eb826b-d77d-4552-b29e-027ab6d4ee99" CreationDate="2020-01-14T06:33:07.410" UserId="8344" Comment="added 22 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9827" RevisionGUID="02b37dda-6dd6-4218-beef-74fd6cb068f2" CreationDate="2020-01-14T08:56:57.733" UserId="99" Comment="resized pictures, fixed typo, improved question title" Text="I recently bought a band brake for a home built wind turbine and was thinking of mounting it on the shaft and getting a cable from the brake to the ground so I can stop the blades in case of maintenance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that the turbine can rotate 360° around depending on the wind direction which will break the cable.&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have an idea around this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![band_brake](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yl787l.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;![wind turbine](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lG6Xgl.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22989" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9827" RevisionGUID="02b37dda-6dd6-4218-beef-74fd6cb068f2" CreationDate="2020-01-14T08:56:57.733" UserId="99" Comment="resized pictures, fixed typo, improved question title" Text="How to use a band brake cable with my home built wind turbine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22990" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9827" RevisionGUID="02b37dda-6dd6-4218-beef-74fd6cb068f2" CreationDate="2020-01-14T08:56:57.733" UserId="99" Comment="resized pictures, fixed typo, improved question title" Text="|diy|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9830" RevisionGUID="c6666e15-9d1c-406e-83b3-e22845e24bc0" CreationDate="2020-01-15T05:34:43.100" UserId="8232" Text="If you're worried about the carbon effects of flying and can't reduce your daily carbon footprint enough to justify a once-a-year round trip, you should really look into Carbon Offsetting (as initially covered by [@HighlyIrregular's answer][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A relevant example which may help put things into perspective is [Tom Scott][2], a media personality and YouTuber (covering tech, science, history, culture, and nature). Tom flies all over the world to film on-location for his various series. Here's what he had to say in regards to [carbon offsetting][3] his travel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The best solution would be to reduce my carbon footprint. Which I intend to try: but it’s difficult when my job requires me to travel to lots of places, and I don’t want to give up my job. Outside of travel, I don’t have much of a carbon footprint to reduce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So: second best choice. I can offset. Or, more accurately, my company can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Based on recommendations from folks I trust, I picked a [carbon offsetting service][4], one that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- supports sustainable projects around the world, so there’s an actual, short-term impact that directly helps people now&#xD;&#xA;- **and** ensures there is genuinely a long-term reduction in emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*That way, even if one of those approaches doesn’t work, hopefully the other one will.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then goes on to make the point that - if you can afford the cost of flying, you can afford the cost of offsetting. 1.3 tonnes of CO2 should run you about $15-$30, judging by the projects on the [site Tom linked][4], which is not a lot of money when compared to the cost of international flights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So whether you fly regularly, or only once a year, you should consider factoring in the cost of an offsetting service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note: I have no affiliation with Tom Scott or his company I just found him a relevant example of someone that can't avoid flying frequently&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6206/8232&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.tomscott.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.tomscott.com/carbon/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.goldstandard.org/take-action/offset-your-emissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9830" RevisionGUID="43e82e37-8588-4fda-8059-0488c6f6ee18" CreationDate="2020-01-15T05:44:45.837" UserId="8232" Comment="added note about airlines" Text="#Carbon Offsetting&#xD;&#xA;If you're worried about the carbon effects of flying and can't reduce your daily carbon footprint enough to justify a once-a-year round trip, you should really look into Carbon Offsetting (as initially covered by [@HighlyIrregular's answer][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A relevant example which may help put things into perspective is [Tom Scott][2], a media personality and YouTuber (covering tech, science, history, culture, and nature). Tom flies all over the world to film on-location for his various series. Here's what he had to say in regards to [carbon offsetting][3] his travel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The best solution would be to reduce my carbon footprint. Which I intend to try: but it’s difficult when my job requires me to travel to lots of places, and I don’t want to give up my job. Outside of travel, I don’t have much of a carbon footprint to reduce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So: second best choice. I can offset. Or, more accurately, my company can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Based on recommendations from folks I trust, I picked a [carbon offsetting service][4], one that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- supports sustainable projects around the world, so there’s an actual, short-term impact that directly helps people now&#xD;&#xA;- **and** ensures there is genuinely a long-term reduction in emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*That way, even if one of those approaches doesn’t work, hopefully the other one will.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then goes on to make the point that - if you can afford the cost of flying, you can afford the cost of offsetting. 1.3 tonnes of CO2 should run you about $15-$30, judging by the projects on the [site Tom linked][4], which is not a lot of money when compared to the cost of international flights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So whether you fly regularly, or only once a year, you should consider factoring in the cost of an offsetting service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Choose an appropriate airline&#xD;&#xA;There are also some airlines that [offer some form of carbon offsetting][5] at the time of booking. Consider booking with these airlines over those that do not offer any carbon offsetting - as this may act as positive feedback, allowing them to continue to offset, and/or put pressure on other companies that do not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note: I have no affiliation with Tom Scott or his company I just found him a relevant example of someone that can't avoid flying frequently&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6206/8232&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.tomscott.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.tomscott.com/carbon/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.goldstandard.org/take-action/offset-your-emissions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/airlines-that-offer-carbon-offset-programs.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9830" RevisionGUID="36462e8c-2826-497e-9fa0-819d68348ad5" CreationDate="2020-01-15T10:50:05.493" UserId="8232" Comment="Added section to frame challenge the question" Text="&gt;How can I make my family understand my CO2-emissions-related hesitation to fly in order to spend time with them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want to keep your carbon footprint as low as possible, I get that. But, I feel I need to frame-challenge this question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, the message you are sending your family, is that your high morals (righteous and laudable as they may be!), are more important than your familial connection. They think it's a poor excuse, and **no amount of carbon emission doomsaying is going to change that.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice? Rather than seeing flying as an *obstacle*, you should look for *solutions* that will allow you to meet up with your family with a clean conscience. If they know you are making the effort, this might even lead to a conversation about how *they* can get involved and lead more sustainable lives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, it might be 'more sustainable' to avoid flying. But sustainable living should be less about sacrificing and more about... well, **living**. So, how can you 'justify' a large carbon output such as flying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Carbon Offsetting&#xD;&#xA;If you're worried about the carbon effects of flying and can't reduce your daily carbon footprint enough to justify a once-a-year round trip, you should really look into Carbon Offsetting (as initially covered by [@HighlyIrregular's answer][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A relevant example which may help put things into perspective is [Tom Scott][2], a media personality and YouTuber (covering tech, science, history, culture, and nature). Tom flies all over the world to film on-location for his various series. Here's what he had to say in regards to [carbon offsetting][3] his travel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The best solution would be to reduce my carbon footprint. Which I intend to try: but it’s difficult when my job requires me to travel to lots of places, and I don’t want to give up my job. Outside of travel, I don’t have much of a carbon footprint to reduce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;So: second best choice. I can offset. Or, more accurately, my company can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Based on recommendations from folks I trust, I picked a [carbon offsetting service][4], one that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- supports sustainable projects around the world, so there’s an actual, short-term impact that directly helps people now&#xD;&#xA;- **and** ensures there is genuinely a long-term reduction in emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;*That way, even if one of those approaches doesn’t work, hopefully the other one will.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then goes on to make the point that - if you can afford the cost of flying, you can afford the cost of offsetting. 1.3 tonnes of CO2 should run you about $15-$30, judging by the projects on the [site Tom linked][4], which is not a lot of money when compared to the cost of international flights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So whether you fly regularly, or only once a year, you should consider factoring in the cost of an offsetting service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Choose an appropriate airline&#xD;&#xA;There are also some airlines that [offer some form of carbon offsetting][5] at the time of booking. Consider booking with these airlines over those that do not offer any carbon offsetting - as this may act as positive feedback, allowing them to continue to offset, and/or put pressure on other companies that do not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note: I have no affiliation with Tom Scott or his company I just found him a relevant example of someone that can't avoid flying frequently&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6206/8232&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.tomscott.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.tomscott.com/carbon/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.goldstandard.org/take-action/offset-your-emissions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/airlines-that-offer-carbon-offset-programs.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8299" RevisionGUID="1d9a6f9f-3142-4af5-9e9e-3a7c16ff7129" CreationDate="2020-01-16T13:24:33.507" UserDisplayName="user2451" Comment="Added refs" Text="The Dutch news site [De Correspondent](https://decorrespondent.nl/) is publishing a book on climate issues and makes it available both on paper and as an e-book. The publisher had exactly the same question: *The paper industry emits more CO2 than aviation. Is it still justified to publish paper books?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is [this article](https://decorrespondent.nl/9463/de-papierindustrie-stoot-meer-co2-uit-dan-de-luchtvaart-is-het-nog-wel-verantwoord-om-papieren-boeken-uit-te-geven/)&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;. It's in Dutch so you'll have to dump it into Google Translate, but here are the conclusions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The answer depends on what you zoom in on. If you only look at greenhouse gas emissions as a result of material selection, production, distribution, use and possible recycling, then an e-book is much more climate-friendly than a paper book. One e-book read on an e-reader scores, according to two recent studies from Japan&#xD;&#xA;and Sweden, about four to five times as good as reading the same book from paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you take more environmental factors in your consideration, such as the toxicity of used materials for the environment and the depletion of raw materials, then the paper book scores much better. The tipping point then lies with thirty paper books: that is just as stressful for the environment as reading one e-book from one e-reader.&#xD;&#xA;If you read more than 30 books on one reader, an e-reader is a more sustainable choice. The answer therefore also depends on the reader.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it depends very much on the human reader, especially if you also look at how you purchase, renew, recycle the items (the author goes into that as well).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;As you can see from the conclusions the production of the e-reader itself weighs heavily in a full [LCA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_assessment). One of the headers of the article is not for nothing *The devil is in the e-reader*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the article points to the actual studies it quotes from, it's worth following those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;* This link is behind a paywall.&#xD;&#xA;Two recent studies from Japan and Sweden that are referenced there:&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[Kiyotaka Tahara et al: 'Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of e-books vs. paper books: A Japanese case study', Journal of Cleaner Production Volume 189, 10 July 2018, page 59-66, table 7.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618310084)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;[Eri Amasawa: 'Role of e-reader adoption in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of book reading activities'. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, september 2018, p. 1.874-1.887](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-017-1417-5)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;Sadly, these are paywalled too.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22995" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9827" RevisionGUID="62dca651-75e0-40c3-ac92-f22ff28fe79b" CreationDate="2020-01-16T15:00:34.357" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1217823967001694210" />
  <row Id="22996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9831" RevisionGUID="417d5d25-b861-4a92-8a3c-170f48936f2f" CreationDate="2020-01-17T16:42:56.867" UserId="3379" Text="The conference rooms in my office have projectors mounted on the ceilings, typical of many offices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Ceiling-mount projector][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the day, several meetings will be scheduled in the rooms, with perhaps five to ten minutes between meetings. When the projector is turned on (or off) there is a warm up (or cool down) period that lasts a minute or two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this process consumes energy, **is it better to leave the projector on for the five to ten minutes between meetings, or turn it off and then back on?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the impacts in terms of total energy usage, and wear and tear on the equipment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ihWf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9831" RevisionGUID="417d5d25-b861-4a92-8a3c-170f48936f2f" CreationDate="2020-01-17T16:42:56.867" UserId="3379" Text="Should a projector be turned off if it won't be used for five to ten minutes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="22998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9831" RevisionGUID="417d5d25-b861-4a92-8a3c-170f48936f2f" CreationDate="2020-01-17T16:42:56.867" UserId="3379" Text="|electricity|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9833" RevisionGUID="4fed9908-9b0f-47f8-9a22-95f2014ac398" CreationDate="2020-01-18T09:24:19.317" UserId="8013" Text="Setting your objective as &quot;making them understand&quot; is going to make progress very difficult. Tim has made a similar observation in an earlier answer, but I disagree with Tim's conclusion that you should negotiate a common position on air travel and visits home: that would be desirable, but may well be impossible to achieve.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deep disagreements between generations are not a new thing, though the topic of disagreement may change over time. The difficulty here is that you are challenging something very fundamental about the way they live. I'm sorry if this is a bit personal, but do you want to stop your sister from flying home regularly? What would the impact on your parents be if she did? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that inter-generational disagreements are very difficult to deal with, a setting a more modest objective might be a good idea (this might be what you meant -- there is some ambiguity in the phrasing of the question): Can you achieve mutual acceptance of each others' positions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't mean conceding that their views on air travel are correct -- it just means agreeing to disagree (for the time being) on that topic and working out how to maintain family relations while respecting each others views.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the moment, it appears that your parents don't really believe that flying is the thing stopping you from vising more often, despite the fact that you have told them and gone to the length of travelling overland. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something about your life-style that might confuse them? If you fly regularly for leisure, for instance, then the obvious solution would be to do less of that and fly home some -- but I'll assume it is not that simple. If you fly regularly for work, they might think that your living away is somehow related to work and the distinction between flying for work and flying to visit them is a bit arbitrary. Is your distance from home a deliberate move away,a temporary exploration, or something imposed by career? Work-related emissions bring up a lot more awkward questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simplicity is really important here: it is not going to work if you discuss each flight, each tonne of carbon. It is not just about understanding the bare statements, it is about understanding the whole decision process around them. Try to go back to basics. For example, you could set yourself an emissions target, e.g. 4 tonnes CO2 equivalent per year (too much, but much better than the European average -- if you set it much lower you will have to cycle home), and ask your parents to respect this objective at the same time as respecting the fact that they don't have personal emissions targets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9831" RevisionGUID="0f15f48d-e46e-4523-a9d2-98eea66de8ad" CreationDate="2020-01-18T16:30:52.937" UserId="3379" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="The conference rooms in my office have projectors mounted on the ceilings, typical of many offices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Ceiling-mount projector][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the day, several meetings will be scheduled in the rooms, with perhaps five to ten minutes between meetings. When the projector is turned on (or off) there is a warm up (or cool down) period that lasts a minute or two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this process consumes energy, **is it better to leave the projector on for the five to ten minutes between meetings, or turn it off and then back on?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the impacts in terms of total energy usage, and wear and tear on the equipment? Is there any data available on this, or has anyone tested it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ihWf.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23002" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9791" RevisionGUID="12eccba4-5bba-4535-b75e-7e629cdcdea9" CreationDate="2020-01-20T21:00:33.353" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1219364111072579584" />
  <row Id="23003" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="9834" RevisionGUID="6de52a16-eb44-4b69-8f00-445b81645b64" CreationDate="2020-01-22T09:04:12.133" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/152569/how-much-co2-does-a-plane-produce-per-additional-kg-of-weight" />
  <row Id="23004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9834" RevisionGUID="0668bb69-7d4e-4644-ad58-5059b7381ef7" CreationDate="2020-01-21T19:45:43.767" UserDisplayName="J0ANMM" Text="There are many figures regarding how much CO2 it is emitted per passenger and per km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have not been able to find anywhere **how much CO2 would an airplane emit if it has to carry an additional kg of weight**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be a very interesting figure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody have an idea about how to find this out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23005" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9834" RevisionGUID="0668bb69-7d4e-4644-ad58-5059b7381ef7" CreationDate="2020-01-21T19:45:43.767" UserDisplayName="J0ANMM" Text="How much CO2 does a plane produce per additional kg of weight?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23006" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9834" RevisionGUID="0668bb69-7d4e-4644-ad58-5059b7381ef7" CreationDate="2020-01-21T19:45:43.767" UserDisplayName="J0ANMM" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23007" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9834" RevisionGUID="59f903ac-c66d-4335-8cbc-f8b5e324a2e3" CreationDate="2020-01-22T10:17:43.923" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags, fixed typo" Text="|carbon-footprint|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9834" RevisionGUID="59f903ac-c66d-4335-8cbc-f8b5e324a2e3" CreationDate="2020-01-22T10:17:43.923" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags, fixed typo" Text="There are many figures regarding how much CO2 is emitted per passenger and per km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have not been able to find anywhere **how much CO2 would an airplane emit if it has to carry an additional kg of weight**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it would be a very interesting figure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anybody have an idea about how to find this out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9835" RevisionGUID="6b162088-37c0-4ab2-bd75-0429f83b8744" CreationDate="2020-01-22T11:17:46.437" UserId="4886" Text="A few years ago, a question popped up that spurred me to do some research and crunch some numbers (https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6204/4886):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;I just calculated some more specific numbers for the opportunity cost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip. Assuming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel. That's it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consumed by the plane over the entire trip. That's about 69kg worth of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CO2 emissions — a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numbers vary, of course, according to the type of plane, the distance flown, the direction and speed of the wind, temperature, humidity, and a whole host of other factors.  If you wave away the ones beyond your control, play the averages game, and reduce it down to a simple CO2/passenger figure, the answer I got was 69kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't remember what the airline's average gross passenger weight (passenger, carry-on and luggage) was, but wouldn't be surprised if it was around the 95kg mark.  So each kilogram of mass being transported on a 2,000km  international flight by one of those Airbuses works out to about (69/95=) 726 grams of CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over a 2,000km trip, therefore, the emissions would be about (726/2000=) 0.36 grams per kilometer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9835" RevisionGUID="a9487a0a-45a3-4ff3-ba0b-1c4045f85aa3" CreationDate="2020-01-22T11:23:17.680" UserId="4886" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="A few years ago, a question popped up that spurred me to do some research and crunch some numbers (https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6204/4886):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I just calculated some more specific numbers for the opportunity cost&#xD;&#xA;&gt; of a single passenger on an A 300-600 over a 2,000km trip. Assuming&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the plane is half-full of just about everything (fuel, cargo,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; passengers, etc.) it works out to be ~26L of aviation fuel. That's it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; You getting on the flight will only add 26L to the amount of fuel&#xD;&#xA;&gt; consumed by the plane over the entire trip. That's about 69kg worth of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; CO₂ emissions — a far cry from the 1.3 tonnes you are worried about.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How far can you drive with 26L of petrol in your car?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numbers vary, of course, according to the type of plane, the distance flown, the direction and speed of the wind, temperature, humidity, and a whole host of other factors.  If you wave away the ones beyond your control, play the averages game, and reduce it down to a simple CO₂/passenger figure, the answer I got was 69kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't remember what the airline's average gross passenger weight (passenger, carry-on and luggage) was, but wouldn't be surprised if it was around the 95kg mark.  So each kilogram of mass being transported on a 2,000km  international flight by one of those Airbuses works out to about (69/95=) 726 grams of CO₂.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over a 2,000km trip, therefore, the emissions would be about (726/2000=) 0.36 grams of CO₂ per kilometer flown per kilogram of mass transported." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23011" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9834" RevisionGUID="4141ab7f-be3d-4dbb-9f41-5ce2cefc22b2" CreationDate="2020-01-22T15:00:36.030" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1219998301094928385" />
  <row Id="23012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6612" RevisionGUID="5d51b718-214b-4e1d-9ac0-7813137b06e3" CreationDate="2020-01-23T15:48:26.757" UserId="8360" Comment="Minor edits" Text="PTFE-based coating seems to be potentially harmful to humans and mortal for birds. PFOA, which is used for making teflon, persists in the environment and our bodies for long periods of time (see [cancer.org][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to go for something better for the environment. I need a non-stick pot, so something like stainless steel would not do. I've found that enamelled cast iron could be a good alternative, though it's quite expensive (I'll go for it anyway if there's no choice). Are there any other alternatives to consider?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/teflon-and-perfluorooctanoic-acid-pfoa.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23013" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6612" RevisionGUID="5d51b718-214b-4e1d-9ac0-7813137b06e3" CreationDate="2020-01-23T15:48:26.757" UserId="8360" Comment="Minor edits" Text="Eco-friendly alternatives to PTFE-based (teflon) pots?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23014" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6612" RevisionGUID="5d51b718-214b-4e1d-9ac0-7813137b06e3" CreationDate="2020-01-23T15:48:26.757" Comment="Proposed by 8360 approved by 2605 edit id of 612" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9836" RevisionGUID="8a6fd4de-bb7a-4c73-bfd8-7c920a1c26ce" CreationDate="2020-01-25T01:41:06.903" UserId="8369" Text="My entire family and I are all planning to move to Alaska in early April, and I'm looking for areas where it is closer to be able to do subsistence hunting and fishing, with land we can buy to build on. But with jobs reasonably close. &#xD;&#xA;      I'm not sure if this is the right q&amp;a area to ask but it seemed like the closest I was going to find.  Looking for help finding a place to aim for any help would be appreciated. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23018" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9836" RevisionGUID="8a6fd4de-bb7a-4c73-bfd8-7c920a1c26ce" CreationDate="2020-01-25T01:41:06.903" UserId="8369" Text="Not sure if this is the right place" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23019" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9836" RevisionGUID="8a6fd4de-bb7a-4c73-bfd8-7c920a1c26ce" CreationDate="2020-01-25T01:41:06.903" UserId="8369" Text="|home|housing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23020" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9836" RevisionGUID="91170bfa-80dd-40d9-8a2a-4a2d236081b0" CreationDate="2020-01-25T07:46:44.987" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags, improved title" Text="|food|housing|off-grid|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9836" RevisionGUID="91170bfa-80dd-40d9-8a2a-4a2d236081b0" CreationDate="2020-01-25T07:46:44.987" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags, improved title" Text="My entire family and I are all planning to move to Alaska in early April, and I'm looking for areas where it is closer to be able to do subsistence hunting and fishing, with land we can buy to build on. But with jobs reasonably close. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if this is the right q&amp;a area to ask but it seemed like the closest I was going to find.  Looking for help finding a place to aim for any help would be appreciated. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23022" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9836" RevisionGUID="91170bfa-80dd-40d9-8a2a-4a2d236081b0" CreationDate="2020-01-25T07:46:44.987" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags, improved title" Text="Subsistence hunting and fishing in Alaska?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9837" RevisionGUID="4e54af15-1cfd-45fc-86bc-c63f08d23e6e" CreationDate="2020-01-25T21:56:45.670" UserId="8013" Text="This article (and the &quot;Part two&quot; it links to) gives a lot of technical detail and some practical advice: [Why Not Start Today: Backyard Carbon Sequestration Is Something Nearly Everyone Can Do](https://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-09-02/why-not-start-today-backyard-carbon-sequestration-is-something-nearly-everyone-can-do/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In brief: you want plants which put nutrients into the soil so that you end up with a dark rich soil which contains a lot of nutrients, including carbon. And, of course, you do this by making a good choice of plants ... judging from the pictures you want native perennial flowers rather than trees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9798" RevisionGUID="3e7e1ee5-3748-4e93-9c5f-d62a54cfbd63" CreationDate="2020-01-27T02:48:30.473" UserId="400" Comment="Response to @Birch's comment." Text="What are the gotchas in comparing the prices of similar objects to determine sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Costs to some degree are measures of effort, of resources used, of labour spent. Of the lost opportunities of not having those resources used for other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What counts toward sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A finite resource.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Resources to get that resource. In some cases the resource is plentiful, but it takes large quantities of other resources to get it into a usable form. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Side effects of production.  Pollution.  Transportation.  Movement of jobs, people." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9838" RevisionGUID="94a02fa2-2b38-4013-be1b-bf7c97514713" CreationDate="2020-01-27T03:05:06.087" UserId="400" Text="You will not be able to sustainably hunt and fish on land you actually own.  You can't buy enough land unless you are wealthy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, a plot of land and &quot;Reasonable use of surrounding Crown Land&quot; is the way some land leases here in Canada phrase it.  In some cases that reasonable use included everything but mining and mass forestry operations for miles in every direction.  This, in once case specifically allowed hunting, fishing, wild rice harvesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet this is in many cases not very sustainable.  I knew one guy who owned a fly in fish camp.  He had a big truck garden at his base.  Grew most of the produce they used.  When I met him they had just finished putting up a 120 foot tower for a 3 kW wind turbine to reduce the generator operating time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cabins were a mix of logs for the walls and roof beams, and plywood and 2x4's for things that had to be flat.  The latter was flown in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a time when gas cost $2/gallon at Fort MacMurray, he figured it cost $7/gallon by the time he flew it in.  And he owned and flew his own planes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He lived there only from spring breakup to the end of bear hunting season.  The rest the year, they had a house in Ft. Mac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainable?  You tell me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need a place that has good enough contact with the world that your sustainability is tarnished with outrageous transport costs.  This probably means in the neighbourhood of a settlement, on a road, or on one of the major transport rivers that has freight traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need a place  that has reasonable soil, and that isn't on top of permafrost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read John McPhee's book, &quot;Coming into the Country&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info:  &#xD;&#xA;On reddit there is a good group /r/homestead.  &#xD;&#xA;Also see the  forums on http://permies.com&#xD;&#xA;Motherearthnews has a CD with all of their back articles on it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get good at spreadsheets.  You need to think in terms of having *everything* you need for at least a year at a time.  How many jars will it take to do all the canning?  How much sugar?  How many feet of corn do you need to plant?  None of the questions are difficult, but there are MANY of them.  You likely won't have a hardware store nearby.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23026" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6737" RevisionGUID="5f4d0844-0e09-4bbd-b7fa-f43bc79085de" CreationDate="2020-01-27T18:02:10.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23027" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9839" RevisionGUID="a71e4470-7e47-402d-8a57-564b875becdd" CreationDate="2020-01-27T22:30:06.847" UserId="3379" Text="**TL;DR: There is conflicting information on this, and a lot of variables at play -- most likely you will need to speak to the manufacturers or installers of the units you are considering to determine the best positioning.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The outdoor unit (ODU) of an air source heat pump (ASHP) performs two main functions, depending on the season:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **In heating season, extracting heat from the air**. Wind would cool the ODU, making this process less efficient.&#xD;&#xA; - **In cooling season, rejecting heat to the air**. Wind would do the same thing here, cooling the ODU, but now it would be increasing efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another important aspect of the ODU is the **defrost cycle.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The abstract from [this research paper](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1023697X.2017.1313134?src=recsys&amp;journalCode=thie20) (&quot;Improving the frosting and defrosting performance of air source heat pump units: review and outlook&quot;) explains this part well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When air source heat pump (ASHP) units operate in heating mode at low temperatures in high humidity environments, frost forms and accumulates on the surface of its outdoor coils. This frost layer adversely degrades the operating efficiency of ASHP units rapidly, and can even result in sudden shutdown. [...] Since the frost that is present on the ASHP unit after shutdown has to be removed, defrosting becomes necessary. Among several reported defrosting methods, such as compressor shutdown defrosting, electric heating defrosting, hot water spray defrosting and hot gas bypass defrosting, the most popular method is reverse cycle defrosting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the one hand, wind will cool the ODU, potentially causing it freeze up faster. This is the conclusion of the U.S. Department of Energy, on their [informational page on ASHPs](https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-systems/air-source-heat-pumps):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The location of the outdoor unit may affect its efficiency. Outdoor units should be protected from high winds, which can cause defrosting problems. You can strategically place a bush or a fence upwind of the coils to block the unit from high winds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, during the defrost cycle, wind may improve performance by moving meltwater away more quickly. This is the conclusion of [a research paper on ASHP for water heating](https://pure.ulster.ac.uk/ws/files/11362677/Hewitt.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; With  the  solar  radiation  effect  being  negligible  during  the  test  winter  morning sessions;  the  humidity  and  the  wind  speed  are  the  main  factors  contributing  to  the  ASHP’s performance  difference.  On  the  Case  I  (1st  March)  the  high  wind  chill  (3.47m/s)  with  high relative  humidity  (97%)  can  improve  the  defrosting  performance  for  the  30  minutes  defrost interval with similar ambient conditions on Case II and III (2nd and 3rd March). [...]  The  high relative humidity of air in the maritime climate contains more latent heat which can moderate the  frosting  when  ambient  temperature  is  around  -1°C.  **The  comparison  of  the  system performance under similar ambient temperature shows the wind speed has more effect on the ASHP performance than the relative humidity.** The ASHP operated under higher wind speed can  provide  higher  hot water  temperature,  although  it  is  still  under  the  required temperature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this has little to do with the *direction* of the wind. Adjacent to any sort of structure, wind will gust and shift direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, practical considerations may prevail -- wind carries dust, debris, rain/snow, etc. Protecting the ODU from wind may reduce maintenance costs and prolong its life." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9840" RevisionGUID="7154d608-b04c-42d2-b4ac-ae0d1be0bc6f" CreationDate="2020-01-27T23:08:42.100" UserId="6293" Text="I have a house design for the self-builder. A 304L channel points North and is set in a wet-pour concrete footing. Then a second 304L channel that points East is also set in the footing and is bolted to the first channel. The first channel is taller than the second channel so that a floor-joist can sit on the second channel and bolt to the first channel. Or double studs can sit on the second channel such that one stud can be cut to the elevation of a floor joist. The stud not cut reaches up to the ceiling joist but with a fitted stud-piece bolted between floor joist and ceiling joist then the ceiling joist can sit on the fitted stud and bolt to the other stud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, the foundation is easy to build and the whole house bolts together. Well, a bolted blocking using brackets is needed up near the tops of the studs because there is no header. And the whole house is bolted together if the roof truss is bolted together. The 304L foundation channels can be cut with a bandsaw off long sections. The 304L channels need 304L plates where they sit in the footings and need 304L plates where lumber sits on them. But the 304L will never rust or corrode. In fact if a powered metal-brake is available then the channels could be bent from 430 sheet metal but 0.10&quot; to 0.12&quot; thickness is required. Now 430 is less expensive than 304L but difficult to weld. Only the foundation must have 304L or 430 along with 18-8 bolts, nuts, and washers. Galvanized bolts and brackets would be good enough above the foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the remote location needs a small sawmill or a lumber delivery. A log cabin is not suggested because a log cabin is a lot of weight on the foundation. Also, some log cabins would have the first log just sitting on the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Alaska, a 1 1/2 to 2 story is needed. Waste heat from wood burning stoves on the first floor just reach the second story. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23029" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9840" RevisionGUID="91885b98-8ffa-44db-908d-1083b8e5a1c6" CreationDate="2020-01-27T23:16:43.550" UserId="6293" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="I have a house design for the self-builder. A 304L channel points North and is set in a wet-pour concrete footing. Then a second 304L channel that points East is also set in the footing and is bolted to the first channel. The first channel is taller than the second channel so that a floor-joist can sit on the second channel and bolt to the first channel. Or double studs can sit on the second channel such that one stud can be cut to the elevation of a floor joist. The stud not cut reaches up to the ceiling joist but with a fitted stud-piece bolted between floor joist and ceiling joist then the ceiling joist can sit on the fitted stud and bolt to the other stud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, the foundation is easy to build and the whole house bolts together. Well, a bolted blocking using brackets is needed up near the tops of the studs because there is no header. And the whole house is bolted together if the roof truss is bolted together. The 304L foundation channels can be cut with a bandsaw off long sections. The 304L channels need 304L plates where they sit in the footings and need 304L plates where lumber sits on them. But the 304L will never rust or corrode. In fact if a powered metal-brake is available then the channels could be bent from 430 sheet metal but 0.12&quot; thickness is required. Now 430 is less expensive than 304L but difficult to weld. Only the foundation must have 304L or 430 along with 18-8 bolts, nuts, and washers. Galvanized bolts and brackets would be good enough above the foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the remote location needs a small sawmill or a lumber delivery. A log cabin is not suggested because a log cabin would be a lot of weight on the foundation. Also, some log cabins would have the first log just sitting on the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Alaska, a 1 1/2 to 2 story is needed. Waste heat from wood burning stoves on the first floor just reach the second story. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9840" RevisionGUID="3cd9f0d6-0bb6-4c0e-8b07-6ff721c753a8" CreationDate="2020-01-27T23:22:49.370" UserId="6293" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I have a house design for the self-builder. A 304L channel points North and is set in a wet-pour concrete footing. Then a second 304L channel that points East is also set in the footing and is bolted to the first channel. The first channel is taller than the second channel so that a floor-joist can sit on the second channel and bolt to the first channel. Or double studs can sit on the second channel such that one stud can be cut to the elevation of a floor joist. The stud not cut reaches up to the ceiling joist but with a fitted stud-piece bolted between floor joist and ceiling joist then the ceiling joist can sit on the fitted stud and bolt to the other stud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, the foundation is easy to build and the whole house bolts together. Well, a bolted blocking using brackets is needed up near the tops of the studs because there is no header. And the whole house is bolted together if the roof truss is bolted together. The 304L foundation channels can be cut with a bandsaw off long sections. The 304L channels need 304L plates where they sit in the footings and need 304L plates where lumber sits on them. But the 304L will never rust or corrode. In fact if a powered metal-brake is available then the channels could be bent from 430 sheet metal but 0.12&quot; thickness is required. Now 430 is less expensive than 304L but difficult to weld. Only the foundation must have 304L or 430 along with 18-8 bolts, nuts, and washers. Galvanized bolts and brackets would be good enough above the foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the remote location needs a small sawmill or a lumber delivery. A log cabin is not suggested because a log cabin would be a lot of weight on the foundation. Also, some log cabins have the first log just sitting on the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Alaska, a 1 1/2 to 2 story is worth considering. Waste heat from wood burning stoves on the first floor just reach the second story. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9840" RevisionGUID="3d9e9d01-8c74-4341-a1dc-64deb1143460" CreationDate="2020-01-28T01:58:17.217" UserId="6293" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="I have a house design for the self-builder. A 304L channel with legs pointing North is set in a wet-pour concrete footing. Then a second 304L channel that has legs pointing East is also set in the footing and is bolted to the first channel. The first channel is taller than the second channel so that a floor-joist can sit on the second channel and bolt to the first channel. Or double studs can sit on the second channel such that one stud can be cut to the elevation of a floor joist. Then the floor joist sits on one stud and bolts to the other stud. The stud not cut reaches up to the ceiling joist but with a fitted stud-piece bolted between floor joist and ceiling joist then the ceiling joist can sit on the fitted stud and bolt to the other stud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, the foundation is easy to build and the whole house bolts together. Well, a bolted blocking using brackets is needed up near the tops of the studs because there is no header. And the whole house is bolted together if the roof truss is bolted together. The 304L foundation channels can be cut with a bandsaw off long sections. The 304L channels need 304L plates where they sit in the footings and need 304L plates where lumber sits on them. But the 304L will never rust or corrode. In fact if a powered metal-brake is available then the channels could be bent from 430 sheet metal but 0.12&quot; thickness is required. Now 430 is less expensive than 304L but difficult to weld. Only the foundation must have 304L or 430 along with 18-8 bolts, nuts, and washers. Galvanized bolts and brackets would be good enough above the foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the remote location needs a small sawmill or a lumber delivery. A log cabin is not suggested because a log cabin would be a lot of weight on the foundation. Also, some log cabins have the first log just sitting on the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Alaska, a 1 1/2 to 2 story is worth considering. Waste heat from wood burning stoves on the first floor just reach the second story. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9840" RevisionGUID="3a402970-c0b6-4fdc-ac47-5a56fd5bc0ea" CreationDate="2020-01-28T02:03:37.970" UserId="6293" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I have a house design for the self-builder. A 304L channel with legs pointing North is set in a wet-pour concrete footing. Then a second 304L channel with legs pointing East is also set in the footing and is bolted to the first channel. The first channel is taller than the second channel so that a floor-joist can sit on the second channel and bolt to the first channel. Or double studs can sit on the second channel such that one stud can be cut to the elevation of a floor joist. Then the floor joist sits on one stud and bolts to the other stud. The stud not cut reaches up to the ceiling joist but with a fitted stud-piece bolted between floor joist and ceiling joist then the ceiling joist can sit on the fitted stud and bolt to the other stud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, the foundation is easy to build and the whole house bolts together. Well, a bolted blocking using brackets is needed up near the tops of the studs because there is no header. And the whole house is bolted together if the roof truss is bolted together. The 304L foundation channels can be cut with a bandsaw off long sections. The 304L channels need 304L plates where they sit in the footings and need 304L plates where lumber sits on them. But the 304L will never rust or corrode. In fact if a powered metal-brake is available then the channels could be bent from 430 sheet metal but 0.12&quot; thickness is required. Now 430 is less expensive than 304L but difficult to weld. Only the foundation must have 304L or 430 along with 18-8 bolts, nuts, and washers. Galvanized bolts and brackets would be good enough above the foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, the remote location needs a small sawmill or a lumber delivery. A log cabin is not suggested because a log cabin would be a lot of weight on the foundation. Also, some log cabins have the first log just sitting on the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For Alaska, a 1 1/2 to 2 story is worth considering. Waste heat from wood burning stoves on the first floor just reach the second story. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9842" RevisionGUID="dcb0f06e-3b54-4e33-9d53-275b66b0308b" CreationDate="2020-01-28T14:40:22.923" UserId="3379" Text="According to Wikipedia, [natural gas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture **consisting primarily of methane**, but commonly including varying amounts of other higher alkanes, and sometimes a small percentage of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, or helium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm curious about a few things that aren't explained in the entry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - How much methane is typically in natural gas?&#xD;&#xA; - How much does this vary?&#xD;&#xA; - What influences the methane level?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most importantly, I'm wondering: **are there any sustainability factors influenced by the methane content of natural gas?** For instance, I know that [methane is a potent greenhouse gas](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/87/3379), so perhaps natural gas with a lower methane content would be better for the environment. On the other hand, perhaps combustion efficiency improves with higher methane content, or air pollution is reduced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23037" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9842" RevisionGUID="dcb0f06e-3b54-4e33-9d53-275b66b0308b" CreationDate="2020-01-28T14:40:22.923" UserId="3379" Text="How much does the methane content of natural gas vary, and what is the impact?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23038" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9842" RevisionGUID="dcb0f06e-3b54-4e33-9d53-275b66b0308b" CreationDate="2020-01-28T14:40:22.923" UserId="3379" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23039" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9843" RevisionGUID="3c19dcff-c37a-4507-ae4e-9dd70e1eacf5" CreationDate="2020-01-28T15:54:23.077" UserId="400" Text="Content is typically very high percentage methane.  First stage processing  removes propane, butane etc because they tend to liquify at the pressures used in the pipelines. Then they collect in the low spots when the line isn't running at capacity.  When the flow increases, you get a slug of liquid propane being pushed by the gas.  A pipeline pump designed for a gas gets really unhappy when it gets a slug of liquid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Detail analysis: https://www.uniongas.com/about-us/about-natural-gas/Chemical-Composition-of-Natural-Gas  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that these are in moles, and hence will be volumetrically correct.  Percentage by mass will skew away from methane.  (Remember that a mole of any gas is essentially the same volume at reasonable temperature and pressure)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The higher alkaynes are green house gasses, but have short lifetimes.  See this good answer on quora: https://www.quora.com/If-methane-is-a-significant-greenhouse-gas-then-do-all-alkanes-also-have-potential-to-be-a-significant-greenhouse-gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turns out that right now the liquids are more valuable than the methane.  Natural gas for heating would be a lot more expensive, but right now the drilling and fracking is being driven by the price of butane and propane. (Don't ask me for a source for that. Somewhere in the last year.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other significant variable component is hydrogen sulphide (H2S) Smells of rotten eggs at &lt;  2 ppm. Anesthetizes the nose at slightly higher levels. Recommended safety levels no more than 10 ppm for 10 minutes.   High levels are deadly. 1000 ppm is &quot;1 breath unconscious, a few minutes dead&quot; Since you can't smell it, and it's  heavier than air this is a major threat in confined spaces.  There are wells in Alberta that produce up to 30% H2S (300,000 ppm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23040" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9838" RevisionGUID="13f71cf3-ad01-4e1d-9787-042bb4ce681e" CreationDate="2020-01-28T16:01:24.440" UserId="400" Comment="added 530 characters in body" Text="You will not be able to sustainably hunt and fish on land you actually own.  You can't buy enough land unless you are wealthy. Hunter gatherer bands typically have hundreds of square miles per band, and often had a seasonal migration route.  E.g.  Move to a particular prairie region to harvest camas bulbs; to a stream for the salmon catch; to a marsh for the duck and muskrat harvest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, a plot of land and &quot;Reasonable use of surrounding Crown Land&quot; is the way some land leases here in Canada phrase it.  In some cases that reasonable use included everything but mining and mass forestry operations for miles in every direction.  This, in once case specifically allowed hunting, fishing, wild rice harvesting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet this is in many cases not very sustainable.  I knew one guy who owned a fly in fish camp.  He had a big truck garden at his base.  Grew most of the produce they used.  When I met him they had just finished putting up a 120 foot tower for a 3 kW wind turbine to reduce the generator operating time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cabins were a mix of logs for the walls and roof beams, and plywood and 2x4's for things that had to be flat.  The latter was flown in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a time when gas cost $2/gallon at Fort MacMurray, he figured it cost $7/gallon by the time he flew it in.  And he owned and flew his own planes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He lived there only from spring breakup to the end of bear hunting season.  The rest the year, they had a house in Ft. Mac.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainable?  You tell me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need a place that has good enough contact with the world that your sustainability isn't tarnished with outrageous transport costs.  This probably means in the neighbourhood of a settlement, on a road, or on one of the major transport rivers that has freight traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need a place  that has reasonable soil, and that isn't on top of permafrost. Check the Yukon River between Dawson and Circle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a guy in Fairbanks who grows apples.  You can use apples as a major source of carbohydrates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gardening can be very good if you have decent soil. The growing season is short but the days are very long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Read John McPhee's book, &quot;Coming into the Country&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info:  &#xD;&#xA;On reddit there is a good group /r/homestead.  &#xD;&#xA;Also see the  forums on http://permies.com&#xD;&#xA;Motherearthnews has a CD with all of their back articles on it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Get good at spreadsheets.  You need to think in terms of having *everything* you need for at least a year at a time.  How many jars will it take to do all the canning?  How much sugar?  How many feet of corn do you need to plant?  None of the questions are difficult, but there are MANY of them.  You likely won't have a hardware store nearby.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9844" RevisionGUID="87c72129-d077-42c2-a136-f5a4496533a3" CreationDate="2020-01-28T20:12:50.780" UserId="8383" Text="As I’ve wandered in many places, I have often encountered abandoned railways, or railways still in use surrounded by hundreds of discarded spikes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense in most places for scrapyards to be prohibited from buying rails and spikes due to the risk of scavengers causing huge losses of property or life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why don’t the railroads recycle or reuse this stuff?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23042" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9844" RevisionGUID="87c72129-d077-42c2-a136-f5a4496533a3" CreationDate="2020-01-28T20:12:50.780" UserId="8383" Text="Why isn’t railroad steel recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23043" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9844" RevisionGUID="87c72129-d077-42c2-a136-f5a4496533a3" CreationDate="2020-01-28T20:12:50.780" UserId="8383" Text="|recycling|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9845" RevisionGUID="7e8a7a47-a647-48e2-8318-ea7c6966d965" CreationDate="2020-01-28T22:19:01.147" UserId="5477" Text="You are too late.  A great tonnage of rail has already been used , in the US.There is not &quot;much&quot; left , in terms of serious usage. RR rails are hard ,that is relatively high carbon so can't be made into just anything. But concrete rebar was a perfect match for old rails , so essentially all old rail became rebar. Rebar is relatively high strength . Rail does wear-out so there was a steady supply for many years but as rail lines were taken out of service and changed from 2 or 3 tracks to one ( because computers can manage scheduling trains going two direction on the same track ), the amount of rail available has shrunk. ASTM first wrote specification for new steel rebar in the 70's because old rail had met most of the demand up to that time and there was little demand for &quot;new&quot; rebar. The upside , new rebar is more or less weldable , the rail-rebar would normally crack if welded. To convert rebar to rail you heat to about 2100 F and roll it, this requires a large amount of rail to economically operate serious equipment . I expect ( in US) there is not often enough rail in most areas, so the old rail just goes into steel scrap to be remelted.  I can't imagine what you are talking about when you say &quot;scrap yards are prohibited from buying old rail &quot; other than the length may be a problem to handle without proper equipment. And railroads don't use old rail because it is worn out; sort of like putting a bald tire on a car because it can still hold air." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9846" RevisionGUID="e3bb6404-e783-43d7-8d6c-c179b84958df" CreationDate="2020-01-28T22:54:35.780" UserId="5477" Text="Apparently Wiki is sort of wrong. True for gas at a well head . But most gas in transmission lines delivered to customers is methane and a trace of air. The ethane ( 2 carbons) and higher carbons are worth more money than methane.  Separating these other components is what the many gas plants around the world do : They take in &quot;wet&quot; gas ( aka  well head raw gas) into a cryogenic separation to take out everything that is not methane. &#xD;&#xA;As noted in the other answer there are liquid slugs in the wet gas , so the gas plants have &quot;slug catchers&quot; , usually a bunch of pipe ),Like everything &quot;cold&quot; costs money , so some plants do not cool enough to get all the ethane. depending on location , season, market ,etc , there will be some ethane.  Ethane gives more BTU per volume  and this might be a problem for some end users so a little air is bled in to adjust the heating value to 1000 BTU /cubic meter ( In US ),( I probably have the units wrong ). This is for sweet gas with no mercury ( very bad for the aluminum cryogenic units) . Sulfur ( sour gas) and mercury must be removed before separations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23046" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9844" RevisionGUID="1edb5156-c5da-496d-9fa5-f007e69c9bda" CreationDate="2020-01-29T00:55:55.193" UserId="8383" Comment="added 581 characters in body" Text="As I’ve wandered in many places, I have often encountered abandoned railways, or railways still in use surrounded by hundreds of discarded spikes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It makes sense in most places for scrapyards to be prohibited from buying rails and spikes due to the risk of scavengers causing huge losses of property or life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But why don’t the railroads recycle or reuse this stuff?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Walking along the busy tracks in Sallisaw, Oklahoma, for example, the discarded spikes are almost as many as those still in the ties.  Similar in other places I've wandered.  My father used to sell scrap, but it's illegal to sell the spikes—for good reason.  But I have little doubt the railroads could sell them if they wanted to.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Likewise, I've walked miles along rusted abandoned track in Indiana, Oregon, and elsewhere.  The tracks in Indiana I know were abandoned sometime prior to 1968.  The ones here in Oregon have trees thicker than my thigh grown *between* them.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23047" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9845" RevisionGUID="d5c3c9d2-3c69-4758-8656-a228f890a4d8" CreationDate="2020-01-29T07:52:02.070" UserId="8232" Comment="some grammar fixes, paragraphing so it's less 'wall of text', and some slight sentence restructuring as some of the wording was a bit awkward" Text="You are too late.  A great tonnage of rail has already been used in the US. There is not &quot;much&quot; left in terms of serious usage. RR rails are hard, that is to say, they have a relatively high carbon content, so they can't be made into just anything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concrete rebar WAS a perfect match for old rails, so essentially all old rail became rebar. Rebar is relatively high strength . Rail does wear-out so there was a steady supply for many years but as rail lines were taken out of service and changed from 2 or 3 tracks to one (because computers can manage scheduling trains going two directions on the same track), the amount of rail available has shrunk. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ASTM first wrote specification for new steel rebar in the 70's because old rail had met most of the demand up to that time and there was little demand for &quot;new&quot; rebar. The upside, new rebar is more or less weldable, the rail-rebar would normally crack if welded. To convert rebar to rail you heat to about 2100 F and roll it, this requires a large amount of rail to economically operate serious equipment. I expect in the US, there is not often enough rail in most areas, so the old rail just goes into steel scrap to be remelted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't imagine what you are talking about when you say &quot;scrap yards are prohibited from buying old rail&quot; other than the length may be a problem to handle without proper equipment. And railroads don't use old rail because it is worn out; sort of like putting a bald tire on a car because it can still hold air." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23048" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9845" RevisionGUID="d5c3c9d2-3c69-4758-8656-a228f890a4d8" CreationDate="2020-01-29T07:52:02.070" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 3379, 99 edit id of 614" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23049" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1237" RevisionGUID="b331f82a-08f4-41ca-a705-e08a8c31c2ff" CreationDate="2020-01-29T07:52:34.887" UserId="2828" Comment="Correct spelling." Text="[The Banki Turnine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banki_turbine) is often mentioned in connection with small scale hydro and DIY projects, because it’s far easier to build than a Pelton turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ossberger](http://www.ossberger.de/cms/en/hydro/the-ossberger-turbine-for-asynchronous-and-synchronous-water-plants/), one major supplier, claim 80% efficiency for a small scale turbine over a wide range of flows – this will, of course, be lower for a home built one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This document](http://www.cd3wd.com/cd3wd_40/vita/bankitur/EN/BANKITUR.HTM) seems to contain detailed instructions for building on, including the welding of the turbine itself. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: I'm not in hydro and have never built such a system, so I can’t really vouch for it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An additional possibility would be to use a hydrodynamic screw – working principle:  &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[The German Wikipedia article](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserkraftschnecke) states efficiencies of typically 70%, 90% is possible. Apparently, screws handle load changes and part load operation very well, but are surprisingly noisy. Typically they turn quite slowly, 20-60 rpm. Also they are described as being fish-friendly, though I can't say how much so in regards to which fish.&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/q7j2Z.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23050" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1237" RevisionGUID="b331f82a-08f4-41ca-a705-e08a8c31c2ff" CreationDate="2020-01-29T07:52:34.887" Comment="Proposed by 2828 approved by 3379, 99 edit id of 613" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23051" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1223" RevisionGUID="d2133f9c-3460-4e5c-9289-285ef29a27a6" CreationDate="2020-01-29T07:55:07.250" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|water|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9845" RevisionGUID="88436598-3882-4f2d-9908-fccba51bfeee" CreationDate="2020-01-29T09:37:00.607" UserId="106" Comment="SI units" Text="You are too late.  A great tonnage of rail has already been used in the US. There is not &quot;much&quot; left in terms of serious usage. RR rails are hard, that is to say, they have a relatively high carbon content, so they can't be made into just anything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concrete rebar WAS a perfect match for old rails, so essentially all old rail became rebar. Rebar is relatively high strength . Rail does wear-out so there was a steady supply for many years but as rail lines were taken out of service and changed from 2 or 3 tracks to one (because computers can manage scheduling trains going two directions on the same track), the amount of rail available has shrunk. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ASTM first wrote specification for new steel rebar in the 70's because old rail had met most of the demand up to that time and there was little demand for &quot;new&quot; rebar. The upside, new rebar is more or less weldable, the rail-rebar would normally crack if welded. To convert rebar to rail you heat to about 2100°F (1149°C, 1422 K) and roll it, this requires a large amount of rail to economically operate serious equipment. I expect in the US, there is not often enough rail in most areas, so the old rail just goes into steel scrap to be remelted.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't imagine what you are talking about when you say &quot;scrap yards are prohibited from buying old rail&quot; other than the length may be a problem to handle without proper equipment. And railroads don't use old rail because it is worn out; sort of like putting a bald tire on a car because it can still hold air." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9847" RevisionGUID="3eaebe7e-fb5c-4525-b2a5-41281be83a2b" CreationDate="2020-01-29T11:06:23.340" UserId="4155" Text="The old rails are certainly reused frequently here in the UK - they start off being used on high-speed lines. When they're too worn for that they get reused on low-speed lines, and then again on rarely-used sidings (spurs in US parlance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once they're too worn to be used as rails at all, they get reused for other things - e.g. fence posts and supports for railway equipment such as signals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ones you mention as being still in place may well be because the line in question hasn't been officially closed - that's certainly the case in many places in Europe where lines were just mothballed when services finished, allowing them to be easily reopened if a new service needed them (whereas here they were ripped up very quickly and the land sold off)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23054" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9844" RevisionGUID="7f9dc103-70f6-4c73-9772-b1508168c604" CreationDate="2020-01-29T15:45:02.770" UserId="8383" Comment="edited title" Text="Why is so much railroad steel not recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9799" RevisionGUID="69889be5-bb82-4120-8687-d3638c9b721f" CreationDate="2020-01-29T18:15:44.443" UserId="400" Comment="added 1683 characters in body" Text="Yes and no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Item price  doesn't include 'externalized costs'  E.g. An item produced in China or under Trump's toothless EPA will likely have greater associated pollution compared to a similar product produced in a nation that has strict pollution laws.  This one is hard to find information about.  All the 'externalized costs' estimates I've seen are just that:  Estimates.  Ranging in quality from some careful methodology to wild as guesses (WAGs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Item price will include stuff that has no relation to sustainability:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Snob appeal.  While a Rolex is a fine watch (if you like mechanical watches) it  isn't 100 times less sustainable than a cheap third world country knock off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Marketing.  Companies spend enormous amounts of money to try to convince you that their product is somehow better.  In some cases this is true, but the marketing only contributes a small amount to the environmental cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Retail markup.  Women's clothing is often marked up several hundred percent.  Men's clothing less so.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Relative worker wages.  The exact same product produced in Thailand will be cheaper than the same item produced in Germany.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's modify out measure:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at the wholesale cost of a similar commodity item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This avoids most of the marketing costs, the snob appeal, and a good chunk of the  wages issue, since most commodity items are produced off shore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is still only an approximation, but it's a useful one to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some items a commodity product doesn't really exist:  Professional grade digital cameras come to mind.  In other cases, there is a huge variation of quality in the commodity item.  I've encountered this in Brussel sprouts and desktop PC's&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Digging deeper requires knowing a lot of specific information about the manufacturing methods, the place of manufacture, and will require decision making about the relative environmental impact of using steel vs plastic vs fiberglass; using electricity from wind, hydroelectric, coal or nuclear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The method can be generalized a bit by dividing it by the weight of the item.  So, for example, figure out the price per pound for cars.  Once you get away from the brand appeal factors, the cost per pound is surprisingly uniform.  Compare the price of baseline equipped pickups to semi tractors, and you get similar numbers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another valid ratio is the cost/year cost/mile.  A Widget that creates  twice the pollution, but lasts 5 times as long may be worth it.  E.g.  Nylon climbing rope versus manila rope.  Kevlar canoe vs wood and canvas canoe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I received the following comment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; No. Quite often the more sustainable option is more expensive (organic veg vs. conventially farmed; beef from cows raised on deep-ley pasture vs. soya-fed; electric car vs. petrol car; gas boiler vs air-source heat pump; taking public transport vs. driving). – *aucuparia*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Accuparia has a valid point, and gives another factor to my 'yes and no' answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, dig into the examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Organic veg are more expensive mostly because they are a fad.  The increased cost is either due to marketing, or is a temporary aberration in the market as supply catches up with demand, and is in part due to the difficulties getting certified as organic.  Additionally, organic growers aren't working at the same scale, and don't have the economies of scale.  We're starting to see large organic operations.  Their prices are very little different.   Reports I've read about farmers who have gone organic indicate that production cost is initially higher, but once the soil has been rebuilt, the net result is a lower yield per acre that is more than compensated for by lower input costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Pasture raised beef is cheaper than feedlot beef once you take into account the externalized costs of the feedlot's manure problems.  Again this is market perception.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Until recently the higher cost of EV's presented a quandary.  In my reading there was serious doubt whether the TCO of an EV was actually less than an ICE, due to the upstream costs of the battery.  Now it's quite clear that the EV is lower cost than an ICE.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Public transit is usually cheaper than driving, especially when you factor in fixed costs and depreciation.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23056" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="153188a7-3c0d-455d-bfb7-5b6d1a6a2902" CreationDate="2020-01-29T23:02:10.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9486" RevisionGUID="fc3d0ff5-e058-419a-b71a-065319453eee" CreationDate="2020-01-30T07:52:09.827" UserId="99" Comment="Added how much money this will save" Text="Nowadays manufacturers all provide roughly the same numbers when it comes to power consumption of their monitors in &quot;stand-by&quot;, &quot;active off&quot;, &quot;power saving mode&quot; or whatever they call it. It's **below 0.5 Watt or sometimes below 0.3 Watt.** So assuming people turn off their computer and the monitor automatically switches to such a mode, then in theory you could save somewhere between 0 and 0.5 Watt by turning the monitor off as well. But that's in theory....&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Power off isn't always off&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For quite a bit of monitors it doesn't really matter if you turn it off or not. Let me show you a few random specs I found online (no affiliation to any manufacturer):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[32&quot; Asus LCD UHD monitor](https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/ProArt-PA32UC/specifications/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Power Saving Mode: &lt; 0.5W &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Power Off Mode: 0W (Hard Switch)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[27&quot; Dell LCD monitor](https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-24-ultrathin-monitor-s2419hm/apd/210-anyu/monitors-monitor-accessories):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Power Consumption (Active Off) - Less than 0.5W &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Power Consumption (Switched off) - Less than 0.3W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[28&quot; Samsung QLED UHD monitor](https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/uhd-and-wqhd/28--uh750-uhd-monitor-with-quantum-dot-lu28h750uqnxza/#specs)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Power Consumption (Stand-by): 0.45W &lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Max Stand By Power (DPMS)&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;: 0.45W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1 &quot;Energy consumed by a monitor while off or in sleep mode, as per Display Power Management Signaling&quot;&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the Samsung monitor it doesn't matter if you turn it off or not, and this monitor isn't an exception. I found various monitors from different manufacturers that do exactly the same. Bottom-line is that you'll have to check your monitor's power consumption specs and/or you may need to get a power-kill-switch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;How much will you save?&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume that the actual power consumption of your monitor is 0.45W in stand-by mode and that you have a hard power-off switch. Now the number of hours people work varies per country. [This Worldatlas article](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/average-working-time-by-country.html) lists 1371 working hours for Germany and 2246 for Mexico as low-end and high-end numbers, so let's take (2246 + 1371) / 2 = 1809 hours per year as an average. A year has 364.25 * 24 = 8742 hours in total, so the calculation is (8742 -1809) * 0.45 / 1000 = **3.1 kWh of energy saved per year** for turning 1 monitor off directly at the end of every work day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The average kWh in [the US for residential users costs 13 cents](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a), so after one year of doing this you will have saved about 40 dollar cents per monitor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23060" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9844" RevisionGUID="32a7462e-ebf1-464d-912f-32c0f6661729" CreationDate="2020-01-30T09:00:20.163" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1222806740460285952" />
  <row Id="23061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9849" RevisionGUID="de544a6b-bab9-4071-bc27-dff156a0dcbf" CreationDate="2020-02-01T02:06:52.457" UserId="8400" Text="I have an off grid powered house powered by 6 x 12v batteries all hooked up in parallel. I also have 4 x 150w 12v solar panels all hooked up in parallel too. Things were good however I decided to move up to 24v. I rewired the batteries so that they were now in three pairs so they were 24v. I did the same with the solar panels, putting them into two pairs so they were also 24v.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;My mppt can switch between 12 and 24v with auto detection.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Hooked it all up and everything worked.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Happy days.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;HOWEVER&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I recently bought a new 290w 24v solar panel and added it to my array. The others being functionally 24v and this one being 24v I thought there would be no issues. So I hooked it up and was surprised to see no increase in power. Checked all of the connections and they were fine. I even removed the other panels to just have this one running and still no amps would flow (confirmed this with fluke clamp metre). Checked the volts and it was as expected approximately 30v. I connected just the original panels up and everything was fine, around 15 amps. However as soon as I attached the new panel it dropped down to about 9 amps as if the panel was drawing amps instead of adding them.&#xD;&#xA;I contacted the supplier and they sent out a replacement panel. However after hook it up today I am having the same issues. The amount of amps going to my mppt DROPS when ever I add the new panel to the array. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Any help would be much appreciated as I am very confused at this stage.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9849" RevisionGUID="de544a6b-bab9-4071-bc27-dff156a0dcbf" CreationDate="2020-02-01T02:06:52.457" UserId="8400" Text="Solar Panel Drawing Amps instead of adding them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9849" RevisionGUID="de544a6b-bab9-4071-bc27-dff156a0dcbf" CreationDate="2020-02-01T02:06:52.457" UserId="8400" Text="|solar-power|electricity-generation|off-grid|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23064" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="274ab0e9-0859-41a2-8d40-db2ae7c0946c" CreationDate="2020-02-01T03:01:45.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23065" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9850" RevisionGUID="007cfada-e2ca-4998-8cc5-5ae636fd63ac" CreationDate="2020-02-02T04:09:28.523" UserId="8403" Text="my question is if heavy metals present in water would precipitate to the bottom of a container if the water is left decanting long enough.&#xD;&#xA;This would be in order to reduce water contamination when no filters are available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23066" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9850" RevisionGUID="007cfada-e2ca-4998-8cc5-5ae636fd63ac" CreationDate="2020-02-02T04:09:28.523" UserId="8403" Text="Does decanting lliminate heavy metals in water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23067" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9850" RevisionGUID="007cfada-e2ca-4998-8cc5-5ae636fd63ac" CreationDate="2020-02-02T04:09:28.523" UserId="8403" Text="|water|toxic-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9851" RevisionGUID="1e569788-7bef-47e0-8f29-43063d931d9c" CreationDate="2020-02-02T13:48:44.680" UserId="8227" Text="Precipitation and decantation are two different things.&#xD;&#xA;If left alone, dissolved heavy metals would never go down to the bottom of a container (countering the gravity pull for an ion over 10 cm costs around 1e-27 J whereas room temperature provide around 1e-21 J to the ion : this means that it gets kicked all around the container and never settles down).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you add some chemicals which combine with the metal and form large chunks as they precipitate, then using decantation could become possible, though that is definitely not a procedure I would advise you to test on your own." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23069" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9850" RevisionGUID="bc5922b5-926c-4e09-ac2e-44e305b32230" CreationDate="2020-02-02T15:40:07.793" UserId="3379" Comment="Minor grammar/formatting" Text="If heavy metals are present in water would they precipitate to the bottom of a container if the water is left decanting long enough?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be in order to reduce water contamination when no filters are available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23070" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9850" RevisionGUID="bc5922b5-926c-4e09-ac2e-44e305b32230" CreationDate="2020-02-02T15:40:07.793" UserId="3379" Comment="Minor grammar/formatting" Text="Does decanting eliminate heavy metals in water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23071" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9850" RevisionGUID="bc5922b5-926c-4e09-ac2e-44e305b32230" CreationDate="2020-02-02T15:40:07.793" UserId="3379" Comment="Minor grammar/formatting" Text="|water|toxic-chemicals|health|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23072" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="336" RevisionGUID="295aa115-b7c3-4e2a-9706-f120e1ecdefb" CreationDate="2020-02-03T14:53:34.973" UserId="3379" Comment="Added new links, fixed broken ones, removed out-dated information." Text="Here are some options you can do yourself:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The Direct Marketing Association&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to cut out a lot of the junk mail coming to your house in one blow, the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) is the way to go. It's not a federal program like the Do Not Call Registry but most reputable direct marketers belong to the DMA, and they offer an opt-out service to you, the consumer. You fill out a form with the DMA, then they compile a list of those who do not wish to receive unsolicited mail and send it to client companies who order these lists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two ways to register with the DMA's opt-out service: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. [Complete this form](https://dmachoice.thedma.org/prefill_mailin_registration.php), and mail to the address below along with a check or money order for $3. Your name will be added to the list. However this can take about a month to process with the DMA, as well as time for it to feed out to their client organizations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    DMAchoice&#xD;&#xA;    DMA&#xD;&#xA;    P.O. Box 900&#xD;&#xA;    Cos Cob, CT 06807&lt;/pre&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. You can fill out [the online form](https://dmachoice.thedma.org/register.php) and submit it online. This processes your application immediately and should result in the flow of junk mail slowing within a period of about 1 month. There is a fee of $2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Opt-out of Junk Mail With Individual Companies&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not every company works in conjunction with the DMA's Mail Preference Service that allows for mass opt-out. However, many companies do provide forms to fill out so that you don't appear in the lists for their junk mail or to have your address distributed by them. Even if they don't have forms or a proper method in place you can still contact them either through their web site, snail mail or calling customer service and get something sorted out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the idea that we, the consumer, should have to go the extra mile in order to ensure that our names and addresses are not sold from here to Timbuktu and that we not receive unsolicited mail is ridiculous, but unfortunately it is also a fact of life. At least until tougher laws are passed and tighter regulations enforced on the direct marketing industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The place to start individual opting out are businesses that you are in regular contact with. Your bank is a prime target. Also anytime a store asks you for your name and address, ask them what they do with the information and what you need to do to make sure it is not used to send junk mail to your house. Opt-out before they even have a chance to opt you in involuntarily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is an example of what I am talking about: in the summer of 2005 I went to a major furniture chain to purchase a freezer. When I made the purchase, they wanted information such as my name and address. I asked them what they would be using the information for and reluctantly they told me it would be used to send solicitations from them to my house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I told them I did not want any junk mail coming to my house. They said ok, and before I left I fill out a three page form saying that I wanted no unsolicited mail from them coming to my house. All well and good, or so I thought. Then, a couple of months later they sent me a flyer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I called them, quite upset. After all the trouble I had gone through to fill out the forms so I would get no mail, I still got it in my mailbox. After some arguing with the manager I got him to take my name off the list, and since then I have not received any junk mail from them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Opt-out From Credit Offers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the worst types of junk mail are the constant credit card applications coming every day. These junk mailings are for the most part the work of three companies: Experian, Trans Union and Equifax, the big three credit reporting companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These three companies are the ones responsible for compiling all of the data that goes into creating your credit score. They are also to blame for the majority of credit card applications sent to your house. If you want these to stop, there is one simple telephone number you can call:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    1-888-5 OPTOUT (1-888-567-8688)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will stop you from receiving junk mail from any of the big three credit reporting companies and should also stop the majority of the credit card applications coming your way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also opt-out with an online form at [www.optoutprescreen.com](https://www.optoutprescreen.com/confirmation). **Note that the form asks for your social security number and date of birth, but you do not need to include these to complete the form.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Opt-out Addresses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here now we will look at contact information for a few businesses that engage in direct marketing. Below are the addresses of many of the worst culprits in sending junk mail. Write them and tell them that you wish to opt-out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Publishing Clearinghouse Sweepstakes&#xD;&#xA;    101 Channel Dr&#xD;&#xA;    Port Washington, NY 11050&#xD;&#xA;    1-800-645-9242&#xD;&#xA;    1-800-453-0272 (fax)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    American Business information inc.&#xD;&#xA;    Attn: Product Quality&#xD;&#xA;    PO Box 27347&#xD;&#xA;    Omaha, NE 68127&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Donnelly Marketing, inc&#xD;&#xA;    Attn: Data Base Operations&#xD;&#xA;    PO Box 3502&#xD;&#xA;    Ames, IA 50010-3502&#xD;&#xA;    888-633-4402&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Haines and Company, inc.&#xD;&#xA;    Criss-Cross Directory&#xD;&#xA;    Attn: Director of Data Processing&#xD;&#xA;    8050 Freedom Ave&#xD;&#xA;    NW Canton, OH 44720&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is just a few of the worst offenders. There are many others out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##The USPS and Form 1500&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although for the most part the USPS is not at all interested in assisting you to stop or opt-out of junk mail, they do have one resource available to you, the consumer: Form 1500. This form is designed to stop explicit and pornographic material from being sent to your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You pick up the form from the post office (you can also [find it online](https://about.usps.com/forms/ps1500.pdf)) fill it out and can stop all mail from being delivered to you coming from a certain company. While this is generally supposed to refer only to explicit and pornographic materials, the onus is on you for determining what is explicit and pornographic. If there is a single company that is really bothering you this might be the way to go in getting it stopped in short order." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9852" RevisionGUID="c5435c9f-3ecf-4e60-9655-3be50fd3c0bd" CreationDate="2020-02-03T23:17:18.757" UserId="8407" Text="I've surrounded the base of my rose bush with sulphur powder and the chewed-up material i found around other ant-hills. It keeps them at bay for a while, but the rose bush goes off in a dozen directions, and the leaf cutters just walk up and climb on to a branch from somewhere else. I cant figure out whete the nest is, they serm to pop out of everywhere. I have nightmares that my house is built on top of a huge ant metropolis &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sulphur only repels until i water the plant again and then its gone. This is super discouraging. Tonight im going to try boric acid in the holes around which i find bits of leaf every morning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Boiling water down the hole does diddly squat, they're back the following evening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cinnamon powder annoys them but doesnt keep them away, but works fine with other types of ant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23074" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9852" RevisionGUID="d6c856b8-2fca-4cdb-8994-02428e427bde" CreationDate="2020-02-04T08:35:29.430" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="I've surrounded the base of my rose bush with sulphur powder and the chewed-up material I found around other ant-hills. It keeps them at bay for a while, but the rose bush goes off in a dozen directions and the leaf cutters just walk up and climb on to a branch from somewhere else. I can't figure out where the nest is. They seem to pop out of everywhere. I have nightmares that my house is built on top of a huge ant metropolis &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sulphur only repels until I water the plant again and then it's gone. This is super discouraging. Tonight I'm going to try boric acid in the holes around which I find bits of leaf every morning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Boiling water down the hole does diddly squat, they're back the following evening. Cinnamon powder annoys them but doesn't keep them away. It works fine with other types of ant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9853" RevisionGUID="6f4382a9-9d25-4788-ade7-d8cd663e3e2f" CreationDate="2020-02-04T10:54:24.697" UserId="1445" Text="There seem to be two broad approaches to the climate crisis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One centres around technological progress, where efficiencies, a gradual switch to renewables, and CCS enable a broadly similar model of economic growth and consumption to continue while keeping below some threshold (it's not going to be 1.5&amp;deg;C!) of warming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other counsels radical cultural and lifestyle changes towards greatly decreased consumption, implying a similarly radical shift away from perpetual-growth economics, and probably radical changes to politics and much else besides. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality of course we may need large parts of both; and we seem unlikely to get much of either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My worry about the first approach is that all these things require energy from somewhere.  Yes, we might be able to move to electric cars, but can we do this *and* cover the increased electricity demand by renewables?  My question is, how feasible is this model in terms of total energy demand?  Assume:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - aviation, land transport, manufacturing and other industries, space and water heating are electrified or moved to hydrogen or synthetic fuels using best available renewable technology&#xD;&#xA; - electricity generation is moved entirely to renewables&#xD;&#xA; - CCS is used to offset &quot;unavoidable&quot; CO2 emissions (e.g. from livestock and cement production).  I do not consider tree planting (highly desirable though it is) to be a sufficiently rapid or reliable method of sequestering carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm particularly interested in the UK, but any country or region (or indeed a global answer) would be great.  An answer might look like (rough order of magnitude) &quot;total renewable energy potential in the UK is X PWh/yr; current total energy consumption is Y; CCS might use Z kWh per kg CO2 so storage of enough carbon to offset cement production and agriculture would be A TWh/yr; so there is/isn't enough energy production capacity to do this&quot;.  Or a frame challenge!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9853" RevisionGUID="6f4382a9-9d25-4788-ade7-d8cd663e3e2f" CreationDate="2020-02-04T10:54:24.697" UserId="1445" Text="Is an incrementalist approach to decarbonisation feasible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9853" RevisionGUID="6f4382a9-9d25-4788-ade7-d8cd663e3e2f" CreationDate="2020-02-04T10:54:24.697" UserId="1445" Text="|energy|renewables|energy-use|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9854" RevisionGUID="ac346291-0ba4-4b40-b99b-cc698200ab09" CreationDate="2020-02-04T22:16:10.147" UserId="8013" Text="This [Zero Carbon Britain][1] report gives a detailed answer to your question. Their plan sees emissions being reduced to 8% of the current levels, and the rest being balanced by carbon capture. This requires, they suggest, setting aside around one third of Britain's land area for carbon capture and one sixth for fuel (bio-fuels ... land area for solar isn't in their summary). They plan for a significant reduction in meat consumption to make this change in land use possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They are also planning for a reduction in energy use through switching to public transport and improving the quality of housing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: zero carbon Britain is possible, but requires some significant life-style changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cat.org.uk/info-resources/zero-carbon-britain/research-reports/zero-carbon-britain-rising-to-the-climate-emergency/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23079" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9853" RevisionGUID="4d6a5e79-4a43-4d29-a843-9d60905c1c06" CreationDate="2020-02-05T03:01:28.030" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1224890755346587648" />
  <row Id="23080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9855" RevisionGUID="064eb9cc-1181-4f70-a48a-8b97966ba8e5" CreationDate="2020-02-05T06:56:29.917" UserId="8411" Text="According to my research on 'Exploring the environmental benefits of home automation'. (ref: Smart home automation _ Proud Green Home.pdf). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The many technological conveniences of the modern home put a variety of options at our fingertips. However, they can also use a great deal of energy. Forgetting to turn off the mechanical systems, lights and small appliances in your home contributes to wasted energy, and the small lights and displays on electronics - known as phantom energy - contribute to waste as well. Technology manufacturers are addressing these issues by providing new home automation products that reduce the consumption of excess energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Home Automation Technology&#xD;&#xA;Automated technology can learn your preferences or be programmed to manage the functions of your home. With smart devices that allow you to issue voice requests or adjust settings from a remote location, you can save time and money while maintaining an eco-friendly home. A central management system or hub such as Amazon’s Echo can be an invaluable addition to control a variety of elements in the smart home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lighting Controls&#xD;&#xA;Lighting controls that dim or turn off lighting can save a great deal of energy in the home. Occupancy or motion sensors can turn lights on when a room is in use, and they will turn lights off when the room is empty. Occupancy and motion sensor technology are also ideal for turning off small appliances when they are not being used. Even in the absence of smart technology, energy usage for lighting can easily be improved by using energy-efficient LED light bulbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smart Power Strips&#xD;&#xA;Smart power strips can be programmed based on your usage patterns, and they can also be automated through the use of occupancy sensors. Using power at times when it is convenient for you or avoiding peak usage periods becomes simple. Many items that are plugged into power strips use phantom energy, and reducing this power use can result in energy savings. Even in the absence of a smart power strip, you can plug entertainment devices into one power strip that is only turned on when needed or placed on an electrical outlet timer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Home automation and the use of smart technology also offers the benefit of tracking your energy savings, so you can realize the money savings that an energy-efficient home provides. With a variety of innovative tools to help you automate your home, you’ll enjoy convenience and cost savings while also reducing your footprint on the earth.  ----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have recently found inexpensive 'plug in devices', that are now available at WallMart, that you simply plug into a wall socket and supposedly they will reduce your total energy bill.  I plan to purchase a few as a research test soon.   There are also many phone apps available to test power usage.   However, I plan to get the device to test energy usage and electro-magnetic radiation level of each device within your home, This meter is also available at Wallmart. &#xD;&#xA;However, turning on and off devices (for 15 min. wait periods) can waist more energy, thus using the standby mode may be best, if your projector  is an energy star device.    I noticed that a quick energy assessment asks this question: &quot;8. Do you currently use power strips for your home electronics, such as computers, televisions, and battery chargers&#xD;&#xA; use about 15% of a household’s electricity and this figure increases as you continue to add more and more electronics and gadgets to your repertoire.&#xD;&#xA;o Power strips make it easier to turn several items off at one time to get rid of those pesky&#xD;&#xA;phantom loads. These are ideal for home entertainment systems and/or home computers.&quot;  (ref: Energy Assessment (RECP) pg. 2 )   This assessment references a site for you to research. Perhaps you many choose to upgrade your projector and find a new one listed here on this site with new energy efficient appliances, if needed. Reference link: (www.energystar.gov) to get information on energy efficient appliances.  Thanks for sharing your question, and I hope this helps.                Personally, I am happy to discover that there are so many other like minded folk, who are also caring and sharing and asking questions about sustainable living!   Happy Learnings...&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9856" RevisionGUID="6c88cb9b-042d-44ba-bb36-4d2574638aff" CreationDate="2020-02-05T17:58:41.837" UserId="8013" Text="There is an extensive study by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization: [Tackling climate change through livestock][1]. Their [key facts and findings summary][2] has a comparison between cow and small ruminant (i.e. sheep and goats) milk. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comparison is done in terms of kg of CO2 equivalent emissions per kg of milk protein produced. The conversion from milk to cheese does not add significantly to the emissions measured against the protein content, so these figures can be taken as indicative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FAO study finds that, on average, small ruminant milk has higher equivalent emissions, at 112 kg CO2e/kg milk protein, than cow milk (below 100 kg CO2e/kg milk protein). They also note that there is large variability depending on farming techniques used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9857" RevisionGUID="b27e89a4-ccd7-4c3f-a49e-7c913d375f9b" CreationDate="2020-02-05T20:45:21.110" UserId="6293" Text="For cheese, begin with milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the largest dairy farms are going to have the economy-of-scale to make methane-capture both possible and profitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Methane can be captured at indoor milking stations. And cow manure in the fields can be put into digester tanks that have inflatable rubber bladders on top and capture methane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course there is no 100% capture of methane unless the cows are kept indoors all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the captured methane as an energy source is just two uses of the methane. Otherwise the methane could be used to make plastic for use in long-term building materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23083" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9858" RevisionGUID="202a6320-1474-43d9-803d-4326c89b83e5" CreationDate="2020-02-05T22:15:48.540" UserId="8041" Text="I have seen some reports saying that electric cars, because they are heavier and put more strain on the tyres, will create more particulate pollution than a petrol car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true?  and if so what are the differences?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23084" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9858" RevisionGUID="202a6320-1474-43d9-803d-4326c89b83e5" CreationDate="2020-02-05T22:15:48.540" UserId="8041" Text="Do electric cars create more particulate pollution than petrol cars?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23085" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9858" RevisionGUID="202a6320-1474-43d9-803d-4326c89b83e5" CreationDate="2020-02-05T22:15:48.540" UserId="8041" Text="|pollution|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9859" RevisionGUID="b1396e5a-10fe-4ca3-b3c5-16a66147979d" CreationDate="2020-02-06T02:46:00.523" UserId="6293" Text="Wheels and tires can be easily sized to vehicle weight. Also, short-sidewall tires are tires that wiggle less and are now a standard technology. Now the short-sidewall tires tend to be wider tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But battery-powered electric-vehicles might have low-rolling-resistance rubber-compound tires. And the low-rolling-resistance tires might be narrower tires. However, there are roll-center-height suspension designs for narrow tires such that traction capability is maintained at some level. Now if these narrower tires control tire wiggle, it's probably because of stiffer and harder rubber compounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the weight of battery-powered electric-vehicles, the BMW i3 and the original Tesla roadster both weigh less than 3000 pounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is wrong with electric-vehicles at 4000 to 5500 pounds weight ? I would look at the MPGe system for an answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9859" RevisionGUID="29e4bf14-6d38-48dd-bff5-99b7817a21fa" CreationDate="2020-02-06T02:52:43.103" UserId="6293" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="Wheels and tires can be easily sized to vehicle weight. Also, short-sidewall tires are tires that wiggle less and are now a standard technology. Now the short-sidewall tires tend to be wider tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But battery-powered electric-vehicles might have low-rolling-resistance rubber-compound tires. And the low-rolling-resistance tires might be narrower tires. However, there are roll-center-height suspension designs for narrow tires such that traction capability is maintained at some level. Now if these narrower tires control tire wiggle, it's probably because of stiffer and harder rubber compounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the weight of battery-powered electric-vehicles, the BMW i3 and the original Tesla roadster both weigh less than 3000 pounds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is wrong with electric-vehicles at 4000 to 5500 pounds weight ? I would look at the MPGe system for an answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9859" RevisionGUID="90322500-29e4-45da-9d7f-0125fb3af83c" CreationDate="2020-02-06T03:28:40.123" UserId="6293" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="Wheels and tires can be easily sized to vehicle weight. Also, short-sidewall tires are tires that wiggle less and are now a standard technology. And the short-sidewall tires tend to be wider tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But battery-powered electric-vehicles might have low-rolling-resistance rubber-compound tires. And the low-rolling-resistance tires might be narrower tires. However, there are roll-center-height suspension designs for narrow tires such that traction capability is maintained at some level. Now if these narrower tires control tire wiggle, it's probably because of stiffer and harder rubber compounds or because of thicker sidewall construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the weight of battery-powered electric-vehicles, the BMW i3 and the original Tesla roadster both weigh less than 3000 pounds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is wrong with electric-vehicles at 4000 to 5500 pounds or more weight ? I would look for flaws in the MPGe system for an answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that the heavier longer-range battery-powered electric-vehicles make-up for heavy weight with larger amounts of motor torque. Just don't have one crash into your vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9859" RevisionGUID="50b86bdd-35da-4f7d-97dd-a9dbf0de37c6" CreationDate="2020-02-06T03:34:57.730" UserId="6293" Comment="added 26 characters in body" Text="Wheels and tires can be easily sized to vehicle weight. Also, short-sidewall tires are tires that wiggle less and are now a standard technology. And the short-sidewall tires tend to be wider tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But battery-powered electric-vehicles might have low-rolling-resistance rubber-compound tires. And the low-rolling-resistance tires might be narrower tires. However, there are roll-center-height suspension designs for narrow tires such that traction capability is maintained at some level. Now if these narrower tires control tire wiggle, it's probably because of stiffer and harder rubber compounds or because of thicker sidewall construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the weight of battery-powered electric-vehicles, the BMW i3 and the original Tesla roadster both weigh less than 3000 pounds and that makes a benchmark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is wrong with electric-vehicles at 4000 to 5500 pounds or more weight ? I would look for flaws in the MPGe system for an answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that the heavier longer-range battery-powered electric-vehicles make-up for heavy weight with larger amounts of motor torque. Just don't have one crash into your vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23090" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9859" RevisionGUID="0ad3f594-0985-4cab-bc05-b0efcc73a6cc" CreationDate="2020-02-06T04:29:48.350" UserId="6293" Comment="added 296 characters in body" Text="Wheels and tires can be easily sized to vehicle weight. Also, short-sidewall tires are tires that wiggle less and are now a standard technology. And the short-sidewall tires tend to be wider tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But battery-powered electric-vehicles might have low-rolling-resistance-rubber-compound tires. And the low-rolling-resistance tires might be narrower tires. However, there are roll-center-height suspension designs for narrow tires such that traction capability is maintained at some level. Now if these narrower tires control tire wiggle, it's probably because of stiffer and harder rubber compounds or because of thicker sidewall construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, I wouldn't expect battery-powered electric-vehicles to have drastically over-stressed tires. But look for an extended-range model with the same tire size as a standard-range model and the tires on the extended-range model are likely more stressed than the tires on the standard-range model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the weight of battery-powered electric-vehicles, the BMW i3 and the original Tesla roadster both weigh less than 3000 pounds and that makes a benchmark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is wrong with electric-vehicles at 4000 to 5500 pounds or more weight ? I would look for flaws in the MPGe system for an answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon_gasoline_equivalent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suppose that the heavier longer-range battery-powered electric-vehicles make-up for heavy weight with larger amounts of motor torque. Just don't have one crash into your vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9860" RevisionGUID="bdcc1bf6-f488-4143-93f0-119a07478e2d" CreationDate="2020-02-06T18:26:18.863" UserId="8041" Text="##Battery Weight##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Batteries are heavy&#xD;&#xA; - a Tesla 85kWh battery weighs 540kg.&#xD;&#xA; - VW Golf 55.7kWh battery weight 330kg&#xD;&#xA;you are looking at around 6kg per kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How much heavier are electric cars?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I compared vehicles that had an electric version and a non electric version of the same model. This is so that we can compare the differences in weight in cars that are the same in terms of size and componentry, except for the difference of being electric and being non electric.  We don't want to compare a Tesla ModelX to a Smart ForTwo petrol car!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Medium cars###&#xD;&#xA;The 235 mile Kia e-Niro 64 kWh is a good fit for comparison - it weighs 1,812kg and the petrol versions are somewhere between 1,490kg &amp; 1,594kg depending on model.  So here the electric version would be 12% - 18% heavier.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The additional weight is just the extra weight of the battery; electric components weigh less and they are simpler (no clutch, combustion engines are heavy and related to engine size).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###For small cars###&#xD;&#xA;The Smart EQ 79 mile range ForTwo coupe with 17.2kWh battery weighs 1,095kg.  The older ForTwo petrol version weighed 880kg.  So the electric version would be about 20% heavier.  If it was possible to have a battery with a range of 235m you would need another battery of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`((17.2kWh / 79m) x 235m) - 17.2kWh = 54kWh` battery&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would weigh another 203kg.  That would mean the small car would be 33% heavier at the same range as the Kia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weight in electric vehicles also compares strongly with range, the longer the range the bigger the battery the extra size.  These are difficult comparisons but it seems like you could say electric vehicles are somewhere between 10 and 30% heavier for electric cars.  It is also obvious that some vehicles are unnecessarily heavy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other benefits of Electric Cars regarding particulate emissions&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars will have much less brake pad wear because they will have regenertive brakes.  Brake pad wear can normally account for 30% (ish) of the particulate emissions from cars (although drum brakes would also reduce the amount of brake pad particulates and wouldn't need to be electric).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric vehicles have smoother acceleration so may not wear the tyres so much but...due to the extra torquen in an electric motor, maybe there is no difference (please correct me here!).  Also electric vehicles won't have a clutch which could add a little to wear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;If you factor in the regenerative breaking and if the amount of tyre and road particulate matter is generated is proportional to the extra weight then I think generally there isn't going to be much difference but it will depend greatly on the range of the vehicle (hence the weight of the battery).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other improvements&#xD;&#xA;There are few regulations on materials and particulate emissions for brake pads, tyres, clutches and how roads are made and maintained.  Also there are few reliable studies and many variables (a wet country wouldn't have so much redistribution of particulates as a dry country).  Also, how do you compare?  Do you compare a car with or without drum brakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the real problem is unnecessarily heavy cars, poor traffic management with many stop starts in a journey, poor regulations on compositions of tyres and other componentry and better driving behaviour that reduces unnecessary acceleration and braking.  Electric vehicles have obvious other benefits like zero particulates from the exhaust, zero NO2 from the exhaust, much less CO2 emissions (50% including manufacture??? if using mostly renewables), they have longer lives too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Longer ranges from EVs could also be gained from battery swap stations similar to those in China so that large heavy batteries are used less often or are only swapped in on longer journeys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC89231/jrc89231-online%20final%20version%202.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1907101151_20190709_Non_Exhaust_Emissions_typeset_Final.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23093" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9860" RevisionGUID="a8ebaf1b-b74a-430e-8042-b6850777e705" CreationDate="2020-02-06T18:34:33.683" UserId="8041" Comment="added 105 characters in body" Text="##Battery Weight##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Batteries are heavy&#xD;&#xA; - a Tesla 85kWh battery weighs 540kg.&#xD;&#xA; - VW Golf 55.7kWh battery weight 330kg&#xD;&#xA;you are looking at around 6kg per kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How much heavier are electric cars?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I compared vehicles that had an electric version and a non electric version of the same model. This is so that we can compare the differences in weight in cars that are the same in terms of size and componentry, except for the difference of being electric and being non electric.  We don't want to compare a Tesla ModelX to a Smart ForTwo petrol car!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Medium cars###&#xD;&#xA;The 235 mile Kia e-Niro 64 kWh is a good fit for comparison - it weighs 1,812kg and the petrol versions are somewhere between 1,490kg &amp; 1,594kg depending on model.  So here the electric version would be 12% - 18% heavier.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The additional weight is just the extra weight of the battery; electric components weigh less and they are simpler (no clutch, combustion engines are heavy and related to engine size).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###For small cars###&#xD;&#xA;The Smart EQ 79 mile range ForTwo coupe with 17.2kWh battery weighs 1,095kg.  The older ForTwo petrol version weighed 880kg.  So the electric version would be about 20% heavier.  If it was possible to have a battery with a range of 235m you would need another battery of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`((17.2kWh / 79m) x 235m) - 17.2kWh = 54kWh` battery&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would weigh another 203kg.  That would mean the small car would be 33% heavier at the same range as the Kia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weight in electric vehicles also compares strongly with range, the longer the range the bigger the battery the extra size.  These are difficult comparisons but it seems like you could say electric vehicles are somewhere between 10 and 30% heavier for electric cars.  It is also obvious that some vehicles are unnecessarily heavy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other benefits of Electric Cars regarding particulate emissions&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars will have much less brake pad wear because they will have regenertive brakes.  Brake pad wear can normally account for 30% (ish) of the particulate emissions from cars (although drum brakes would also reduce the amount of brake pad particulates and wouldn't need to be electric).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric vehicles have smoother acceleration so may not wear the tyres so much but...due to the extra torquen in an electric motor, maybe there is no difference (please correct me here!).  Also electric vehicles won't have a clutch which could add a little to wear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;If the amount of tyre and road particulate matter generated is proportional to the extra weight then I think generally there isn't going to be much difference in particulate emissions, especially if you factor in the regenerative breaking savings.  However, battery weight needs to be factored in and the larger the battery the more particulates generated from tyre and road wear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other improvements&#xD;&#xA;There are few regulations on materials and particulate emissions for brake pads, tyres, clutches and how roads are made and maintained.  Also there are few reliable studies and many variables (a wet country wouldn't have so much redistribution of particulates as a dry country).  Also, how do you compare?  Do you compare a car with or without drum brakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the real problem is unnecessarily heavy cars, poor traffic management with many stop starts in a journey, poor regulations on compositions of tyres and other componentry and better driving behaviour that reduces unnecessary acceleration and braking.  Electric vehicles have obvious other benefits like zero particulates from the exhaust, zero NO2 from the exhaust, much less CO2 emissions (50% including manufacture??? if using mostly renewables), they have longer lives too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Longer ranges from EVs could also be gained from battery swap stations similar to those in China so that large heavy batteries are used less often or are only swapped in on longer journeys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC89231/jrc89231-online%20final%20version%202.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1907101151_20190709_Non_Exhaust_Emissions_typeset_Final.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9860" RevisionGUID="6ca5f690-a68d-417a-b336-c955f4d9ed29" CreationDate="2020-02-06T18:42:56.070" UserId="8041" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="##Battery Weight##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Batteries are heavy&#xD;&#xA; - a Tesla 85kWh battery weighs 540kg.&#xD;&#xA; - VW Golf 55.7kWh battery weight 330kg&#xD;&#xA;you are looking at around 6kg per kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main part of this argument is based on how much heavier an EV is and how much more shedding of the components and road will occur due to that additional weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##How much heavier are electric cars?##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I compared vehicles that had an electric version and a non electric version of the same model. This is so that we can compare the differences in weight in cars that are the same in terms of size and componentry, except for the difference of being electric and being non electric.  We don't want to compare a Tesla ModelX to a Smart ForTwo petrol car!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Medium cars###&#xD;&#xA;The 235 mile Kia e-Niro 64 kWh is a good fit for comparison - it weighs 1,812kg and the petrol versions are somewhere between 1,490kg &amp; 1,594kg depending on model.  So here the electric version would be 12% - 18% heavier.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The additional weight is just the extra weight of the battery; electric components weigh less and they are simpler (no clutch, combustion engines are heavy and related to engine size).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###For small cars###&#xD;&#xA;The Smart EQ 79 mile range ForTwo coupe with 17.2kWh battery weighs 1,095kg.  The older ForTwo petrol version weighed 880kg.  So the electric version would be about 20% heavier.  If it was possible to have a battery with a range of 235m you would need another battery of &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;`((17.2kWh / 79m) x 235m) - 17.2kWh = 54kWh` battery&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;which would weigh another 203kg.  That would mean the small car would be 33% heavier at the same range as the Kia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weight in electric vehicles also compares strongly with range, the longer the range the bigger the battery the extra size.  These are difficult comparisons but it seems like you could say electric vehicles are somewhere between 10 and 30% heavier for electric cars.  It is also obvious that some vehicles are unnecessarily heavy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Other benefits of Electric Cars regarding particulate emissions&#xD;&#xA;Electric cars will have much less brake pad wear because they will have regenertive brakes.  Brake pad wear can normally account for 30% (ish) of the particulate emissions from cars (although drum brakes would also reduce the amount of brake pad particulates and wouldn't need to be electric).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric vehicles have smoother acceleration so may not wear the tyres so much but...due to the extra torquen in an electric motor, maybe there is no difference (please correct me here!).  Also electric vehicles won't have a clutch which could add a little to wear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;If the amount of tyre and road particulate matter generated is proportional to the extra weight then I think generally there isn't going to be much difference in particulate emissions, especially if you factor in the regenerative breaking savings.  However, battery weight needs to be factored in and the larger the battery the more particulates generated from tyre and road wear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Other improvements&#xD;&#xA;There are few regulations on materials and particulate emissions for brake pads, tyres, clutches and how roads are made and maintained.  Also there are few reliable studies and many variables (a wet country wouldn't have so much redistribution of particulates as a dry country).  Also, how do you compare?  Do you compare a car with or without drum brakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the real problem is unnecessarily heavy cars, poor traffic management with many stop starts in a journey, poor regulations on compositions of tyres and other componentry and better driving behaviour that reduces unnecessary acceleration and braking.  Electric vehicles have obvious other benefits like zero particulates from the exhaust, zero NO2 from the exhaust, much less CO2 emissions (50% including manufacture??? if using mostly renewables), they have longer lives too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Longer ranges from EVs could also be gained from battery swap stations similar to those in China so that large heavy batteries are used less often or are only swapped in on longer journeys.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC89231/jrc89231-online%20final%20version%202.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1907101151_20190709_Non_Exhaust_Emissions_typeset_Final.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9861" RevisionGUID="6cdfd617-7304-4cf3-8396-02e05d9077a5" CreationDate="2020-02-07T11:37:13.697" UserId="8425" Text="Scrap yards do not accept PCBs, TVs, anything made by a railroad company, sewer covers, or equipment containing Freon. Basically other than that: weigh in, dump it, weigh out, and get paid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oil or grease? If you dug up some soil at a scrap yard you could make brownies.... They have water trucks to keep the dust down, but *everything* there is just so yucky that it doesn't really mater." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23096" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9792" RevisionGUID="2d2ae54b-8359-4212-b90c-276a455e8a8f" CreationDate="2020-02-07T15:00:42.613" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1225796534572396544" />
  <row Id="23097" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="60ba75ba-71a2-4db8-b69c-60ff345c75ac" CreationDate="2020-02-07T16:01:55.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23098" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9862" RevisionGUID="c9013fde-e944-4c9b-847b-30593485faa4" CreationDate="2020-02-07T20:21:20.580" UserId="3379" Text="This week, the UK announced that sale of gasoline and diesel cars will be banned by 2035. This new policy moves the date up by five years, and also includes hybrid vehicles. From 2035 on, only electric or hydrogen-powered cars will be sold. ([From the BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Rocky Mountain Institute, in a [blog post](https://rmi.org/britains-ban-on-gasoline-and-diesel-cars-is-a-game-changer-for-evs/) about the new policy, included this statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The UK is joined by dozens of other countries and cities around the world that have set similar goals to ban the internal combustion engine (ICE) cars between 2025 and 2050. These regions all recognize there is virtually no way to achieve meaningful carbon reductions in transportation without a major contribution from the light duty vehicle sector.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They did not provide any details. **Which countries and cities have set a target date to ban the sale of ICE cars?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23099" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9862" RevisionGUID="c9013fde-e944-4c9b-847b-30593485faa4" CreationDate="2020-02-07T20:21:20.580" UserId="3379" Text="Which countries, regions, or cities have set a date to ban the sale of gasoline and diesel cars?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23100" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9862" RevisionGUID="c9013fde-e944-4c9b-847b-30593485faa4" CreationDate="2020-02-07T20:21:20.580" UserId="3379" Text="|transport|cars|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9863" RevisionGUID="cbbf9b42-4239-4acf-8a78-ed3181e2b6f4" CreationDate="2020-02-08T12:52:10.277" UserId="8013" Text="The best list is probably wikipedia: [Phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a good review from the World Economic Forum [here][1], dated 2017, which discusses some of the different approaches taken, which I've summarized here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - UK: ban production of petrol and diesel cars by 2040 [since changed to 2035]; &#xD;&#xA; - France: ban sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040; &#xD;&#xA; - Norway: policy to phase out petrol and diesel by 2025; &#xD;&#xA; - Netherlands: target for all cars to be emission free by 2030;&#xD;&#xA; - Germany: resolved to ban petrol and diesel by 2030 (but hasn't passed the ban);&#xD;&#xA; - India: Government wants all new cars electric by 2030;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more recent information from the International Energy Agency in their [Global EV Outlook 2019][2], which includes information on some strong measures being taken at the state level in the US and Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/09/countries-are-announcing-plans-to-phase-out-petrol-and-diesel-cars-is-yours-on-the-list/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GlobalEVOutlook2017.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23102" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9798" RevisionGUID="c0cdc730-9165-4247-873e-9c505612a475" CreationDate="2020-02-08T15:00:24.043" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1226158844990099456" />
  <row Id="23103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3139" RevisionGUID="23bb82e5-aaa3-4a9e-9e5f-180e5d1e7fd8" CreationDate="2020-02-10T08:21:46.227" UserId="99" Comment="added 2019 data" Text="Currently we have [over 7.7 billion people in the world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population) (data from April 2019). In 2010 the UN made several projections for world population growth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Picture from \[wikipedia\]](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1cCXQ.png)&#xD;&#xA;*World population estimates from 1800 to 2100, based on &quot;high&quot;, &quot;medium&quot; and &quot;low&quot; United Nations projections in 2010 [(source wikipedia)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/World-Population-1800-2100.svg/640px-World-Population-1800-2100.svg.png).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The worst case scenario (red line) is that the world population will continue to grow and we’ll have about 10.5 billion people in 2050. The best case scenario (green line) is that the population will stop growing soon and we’ll have a peak of 8 billion people somewhere around 2045.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The UN scenario that is generally thought to be the most plausible is that the world population will continue to grow to around 9.3 in 2050 and 10.1 billion people at the end of the 21st century and then remain stable (the yellow line). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the [2012 revision of these figures](https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2012_HIGHLIGHTS.pdf) changed these 'most likely' numbers to 9.6 billion in 2050 and 10.9 billion in 2100, and in the [2015 revision](https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/Key_Findings_WPP_2015.pdf) the numbers were raised to 9.7 and 11.2 respectively. In the [2017](https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf) and [2019 revisions](https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_10KeyFindings.pdf) the numbers changed slightly (see table below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;                       2050    2100&#xD;&#xA;    --------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    1994 revision  |   9.8           &#xD;&#xA;    2000 revision  |   9.3           &#xD;&#xA;    2002 revision  |   8.9          &#xD;&#xA;    2010 revision  |   9.306  10.125    &#xD;&#xA;    2012 revision  |   9.551  10.854 &#xD;&#xA;    2015 revision  |   9.725  11.213   &#xD;&#xA;    2017 revision  |   9.772  11.184 &#xD;&#xA;    2019 revision  |   9.7    10.9 &#xD;&#xA;*Table 1: UN (medium) projections of the expected world population in billions of people*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A statistical study published in 2014](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/09/17/science.1257469) says that the UN projections are inaccurate and claims that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion people, will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion in 2100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, [critics on this new study](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26231-global-population-may-boom-well-beyond-the-year-2050.html#.VGpo_PmG-So) say that it doesn't take improvements to female education in Africa into account, which is a key driver in (slowing) population growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1994 https://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&amp;id=85zBAAAAIAAJ&#xD;&#xA;- 2000 http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2000/highlights.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- 2002 http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2002/WPP2002-HIGHLIGHTSrev1.PDF&#xD;&#xA;- 2010 https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/WPP2010/WPP2010_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- 2012 https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2012_HIGHLIGHTS.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- 2015 https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/Key_Findings_WPP_2015.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- 2017 https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf&#xD;&#xA;- 2019 https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_10KeyFindings.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23104" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="f96a669c-a5c5-440f-a8c1-4c12a9f31492" CreationDate="2020-02-10T10:31:22.547" UserId="8428" Text="I am actively looking to plant trees and, as far as I know, there are several websites that allow you to do that. Some offers the possibility to follow the tree's life throgh pictures, to gift trees, to know the location where the tree is growing, while some others don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am not getting is the difference in price. I get that the more &quot;services&quot; you have, the higher the cost but...is this possible to explain a difference in terms of tens of euros? In a website I found I can plant a tree with few cents or few euros, while in others I can plant a tree for many more money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So...in order to make it right, which path should I follow? Less tree, more money with &quot;services&quot;, or lots of trees with the same amount of money and no services?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23105" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="f96a669c-a5c5-440f-a8c1-4c12a9f31492" CreationDate="2020-02-10T10:31:22.547" UserId="8428" Text="How is it possible that the cost of planting trees has a very high variation across different websites?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23106" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="f96a669c-a5c5-440f-a8c1-4c12a9f31492" CreationDate="2020-02-10T10:31:22.547" UserId="8428" Text="|environmental-impact|trees|co2|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9865" RevisionGUID="be3f7997-e265-4b81-8307-24da22bdaf26" CreationDate="2020-02-10T11:24:01.583" UserId="6602" Text="There are different levels of service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In itself planting a tree is very easy and cheap, of the 3 billion trees in the UK, most drop thousands of seeds each year and some germinate all by themselves for free. On the other hand, planting seedlings can be done mechanically using a Damcon PL10 with four row attachment, you can plant 20,000 in a day, costing cents per tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But these things are kind of irrelevant, to have a healthy mature tree in twenty years time, you need to plant about a dozen smaller trees of a handful of species relatively close together, then let them grow and compete and then cut down the weaker ones, over a twenty year period, this costs a lot of money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some some tree planting websites might just be selling you nature taking its course, some might be planting 20,000 seedlings in a day, and some might be selling you the service of planting and growing a tree over a twenty year period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the land side of things. Some services plant trees on behalf of schools, hospitals and landowners, they don't worry about the land. In ten years time the site might be a car park or a building site and your tree was long gone. Some services run plantations or whole reforested areas, and have long term plans to keep the tree cover for hundreds of years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9866" RevisionGUID="4906ef7f-25be-4f5c-9acd-dfc0079f328a" CreationDate="2020-02-10T11:51:53.557" UserId="8232" Text="A friend of mine is adamant that the extraction of lithium for batteries (and the creation of battery cells themselves) is a very environmentally-damaging procedure, potentially even more-so than oil (open-cut mines vs oil wells), and that this is only going to get worse as more and more EV cars hit the roads, age, and need their batteries replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What mechanisms are involved in the creation of Li-ion batteries? How does it compare to the extraction and processing of fossil fuels in terms of environmental impact/emissions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23109" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9866" RevisionGUID="4906ef7f-25be-4f5c-9acd-dfc0079f328a" CreationDate="2020-02-10T11:51:53.557" UserId="8232" Text="Is Lithium mining any better for the environment than fossil fuel extraction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23110" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9866" RevisionGUID="4906ef7f-25be-4f5c-9acd-dfc0079f328a" CreationDate="2020-02-10T11:51:53.557" UserId="8232" Text="|batteries|fossil-fuels|mining|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23111" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9867" RevisionGUID="35b61f48-d629-4656-8f0c-e95665e555f7" CreationDate="2020-02-10T15:23:28.860" UserId="5477" Text="It depends what you want the answer to be. I have planted about one thousand trees at a cost of no dollars , but a lot of time and muscle ( seeds, cuttings, trees dug from woods, etc). On the otherhand , one could easily spend thousands of dollars on a large balled and burlap tree requiring heavy equipment and labor to plant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9867" RevisionGUID="0d80c7da-f5bd-48a2-a109-59dd81a31cdd" CreationDate="2020-02-10T16:23:30.697" UserId="5477" Comment="additions" Text="It depends what you want the answer to be. I have planted about one thousand trees at a cost of no dollars , but a lot of time and muscle ( seeds, cuttings, trees dug from woods, etc). On the otherhand , one could easily spend thousands of dollars on a large balled and burlap tree requiring heavy equipment and labor to plant. An example of &quot;from the woods&quot; is ; I pulled four spruce seedlings ( 2&quot; tall) fromthe sand at the shoulder of a highway in northern Alberta. Wrapped the bare roots in damp tissue and brought them to IL . All four had grown to 4 feet when last I saw them ; my cost - zero , time - a few minutes each. I expect a lumber company can stick seedlings in the ground for $ 1 . And any government bureaucrat can get the cost per tree to over $ 1,000 each. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23113" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="845818c5-f9c2-4504-8be1-3e8e6f075a5a" CreationDate="2020-02-10T18:45:42.060" />
  <row Id="23114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9868" RevisionGUID="43a05fe9-f4bb-4e5b-ab25-021c7aad3315" CreationDate="2020-02-10T20:12:09.960" UserId="48" Text="tldr: yes, with sufficient political will, an incremental approach is sufficient - we could decarbonise our energy consumption in 20 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are still a lot of unknowns (like just what we do about long-haul aviation, intercontinental shipping, cement production). However, some things we can be sure about, and one of them is that there's way more than enough space to provide more energy than we could possibly need for the forseeable future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've posted on my own blog about [the space requirements for 100% renewables][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's do a quick back-of-envelope calculation for the UK, right here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can find in DUKES 2019 - the UK Digest of Energy Statistics - UK final energy demand (all energy, not just electricity) is around 180 GW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UK land is about 240,000 km², and UK seas are about 760,000 km².&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind tends to yield around 2.5 MW/km² average energy - figures are my own calculation, presented as part of my calculation of [UK offshore wind capacity factors][2]. And that's in line with what others have calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, even without any energy efficiency at all, 10% of UK seas (and no land use!) would provide equivalent average energy to UK current final energy demand (10% x 760,000 km² x 2.5 MW/km² = 190,000 GW = 190 GW). Now, that's not a scenario I'm proposing - it would be silly to do without hydro, solar or biomass; and lots of additional measures would be needed to ensure demand meets supply in real time; - it's just to establish that there's no space constraint on renewable energy supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when we electrify car transport, we improve efficiency radically, because battery EVs are about 4 times as efficient as the infernal combustion engine. So car energy demand goes from about 35 GW to about 9 GW. And if we electrify heating with heat pumps, with an average COP of 2.5, then domestic heating demand goes from about 40 GW to about 16 GW, very roughly speaking. So there's lots of quite big energy savings to be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, how long might it take to build all this? Well, if we were talking about 200 GW of offshore wind capacity, that would need a build rate of about 10 GW of new capacity per year. Currently build rate is about 1-2 GW per year, and so although it's too little at the moment, it's really not a huge stretch to get to where we need to - it's less than an order of magnitude increase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://energynumbers.info/100percent-renewables-would-occupy-little-land&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23115" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9866" RevisionGUID="4634a66d-6da4-42bb-bfa7-877d97feb5f2" CreationDate="2020-02-11T03:00:52.353" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1227064933080281089" />
  <row Id="23116" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9869" RevisionGUID="af9dff3e-e84d-4671-b616-145856c5608c" CreationDate="2020-02-11T05:54:43.997" UserId="8437" Text="Any time you want to give money to a charity, you should do some basic research on how the charity spends donated money.  Some charities spend over 90% of donated funds on charitable works, with minimal overhead, others spend a lot of money on salaries and perks for executives, and some spend a lot of money on lobbying politicians or educating the public to promote their cause. How to rate charities is outside the scope of this answer, but a few places to start learning are at [Student Loan Hero][1] and [Consumer Reports][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For tree planting in general, you want to look into what kinds of trees are being planted and where. Will your money go towards urban trees, which provide immediate benefits to many people? Sterile farms of fast-growing pine which will be harvested for lumber in a decade? Restoration of sensitive habitat after a natural disaster? Roadside erosion and pollution control? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After all, plonking a seedling in the ground is fast and cheap. Tending the growing tree, acquiring the land, designing a species mix to support wildlife in a rapidly changing climate, getting labor and supplies to remote areas, negotiating water rights, buying out ranching and mining leases, and many other aspects are the hard part. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(And don't hate too hard on those tracts of monocultured pine - they aren't a top-notch ecological wonder, but they are vastly better than a feedlot, unrestored strip mine, or eroding bare land.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://studentloanhero.com/featured/charity-watchdog-sites-top-3/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.consumerreports.org/charities/best-charities-for-your-donations/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23117" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7187" RevisionGUID="faa1bd9c-ce14-48f2-a1f5-61bfc3ef7411" CreationDate="2020-02-11T06:00:42.170" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1227110188735438848" />
  <row Id="23118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9868" RevisionGUID="11864daf-5e53-4180-bbd3-d2976743b9bc" CreationDate="2020-02-11T07:44:24.130" UserId="48" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="tldr: yes, with sufficient political will, an incremental approach is sufficient - we could decarbonise our energy consumption in 20 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are still a lot of unknowns (like just what we do about long-haul aviation, intercontinental shipping, cement production). However, some things we can be sure about, and one of them is that there's way more than enough space to provide more energy than we could possibly need for the forseeable future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've posted on my own blog about [the space requirements for 100% renewables][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But let's do a quick back-of-envelope calculation for the UK, right here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As you can find in DUKES 2019 - the UK Digest of Energy Statistics - UK final energy demand (all energy, not just electricity) is around 180 GW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UK land is about 240,000 km², and UK seas are about 760,000 km².&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind tends to yield around 2.5 MW/km² average energy - figures are my own calculation, presented as part of my calculation of [UK offshore wind capacity factors][2]. And that's in line with what others have calculated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, even without any energy efficiency at all, 10% of UK seas (and no land use for the turbines!) would provide equivalent average energy to UK current final energy demand (10% x 760,000 km² x 2.5 MW/km² = 190,000 GW = 190 GW). Now, that's not a scenario I'm proposing - it would be silly to do without hydro, solar or biomass; and lots of additional measures would be needed to ensure demand meets supply in real time; - it's just to establish that there's no space constraint on renewable energy supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when we electrify car transport, we improve efficiency radically, because battery EVs are about 4 times as efficient as the infernal combustion engine. So car energy demand goes from about 35 GW to about 9 GW. And if we electrify heating with heat pumps, with an average COP of 2.5, then domestic heating demand goes from about 40 GW to about 16 GW, very roughly speaking. So there's lots of quite big energy savings to be made.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, how long might it take to build all this? Well, if we were talking about 200 GW of offshore wind capacity, that would need a build rate of about 10 GW of new capacity per year. Currently build rate is about 1-2 GW per year, and so although it's too little at the moment, it's really not a huge stretch to get to where we need to - it's less than an order of magnitude increase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://energynumbers.info/100percent-renewables-would-occupy-little-land&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="d032c55f-dba8-4e44-8565-f6f39efdb993" CreationDate="2020-02-11T08:13:12.037" UserId="8428" Comment="added 225 characters in body" Text="I am actively looking to plant trees and, as far as I know, there are several websites that allow you to do that. Some offers the possibility to follow the tree's life throgh pictures, to gift trees, to know the location where the tree is growing, while some others don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am not getting is the difference in price. I get that the more &quot;services&quot; you have, the higher the cost but...is this possible to explain a difference in terms of tens of euros? In a website I found I can plant a tree with few cents or few euros, while in others I can plant a tree for many more money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So...in order to make it right, which path should I follow? Less tree, more money with &quot;services&quot;, or lots of trees with the same amount of money and no services?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;edit - some websites, as examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://www.treevotion.com/&#xD;&#xA; - https://www.grow-trees.com/&#xD;&#xA; - https://onetreeplanted.org/&#xD;&#xA; - https://www.treedom.net/en/&#xD;&#xA; - https://tree-nation.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23120" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="80b693c7-0bc0-4fef-ab24-b684ca25fffa" CreationDate="2020-02-11T08:36:58.300" UserId="99" Comment="made title more seo friendly, fixed typos, added relevant tags" Text="I am actively looking to plant trees and, as far as I know, there are several websites that allow you to do that. Some offer the possibility to follow the tree's life through pictures, to gift trees, to know the location where the tree is growing, while some others don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am not getting is the difference in price. I get that the more &quot;services&quot; you have, the higher the cost but... does this explain a difference in terms of tens of euros? In a website I found I can plant a tree for a few cents or few euros, while in others I can plant a tree for much more money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So...in order to make it right, which path should I follow? Less tree, more money with &quot;services&quot;, or lots of trees with the same amount of money and no services?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some websites, as examples (no affiliation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://www.treevotion.com/&#xD;&#xA; - https://www.grow-trees.com/&#xD;&#xA; - https://onetreeplanted.org/&#xD;&#xA; - https://www.treedom.net/en/&#xD;&#xA; - https://tree-nation.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23121" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="80b693c7-0bc0-4fef-ab24-b684ca25fffa" CreationDate="2020-02-11T08:36:58.300" UserId="99" Comment="made title more seo friendly, fixed typos, added relevant tags" Text="Why does the cost of planting trees vary so much across different websites?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23122" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="80b693c7-0bc0-4fef-ab24-b684ca25fffa" CreationDate="2020-02-11T08:36:58.300" UserId="99" Comment="made title more seo friendly, fixed typos, added relevant tags" Text="|environmental-impact|carbon-sequestration|trees|co2|carbon-offsetting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23126" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="1701b246-0436-440a-b340-87dc0a1c16fe" CreationDate="2020-02-11T15:00:38.160" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1227246067735040001" />
  <row Id="23129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9871" RevisionGUID="8051351d-3ee8-430a-980a-53fd6ff46551" CreationDate="2020-02-12T11:22:45.253" UserId="8456" Text="Good answers already, but consider this alternative that solves the direct problem:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spend time with your family by videochatting with them. Maybe that would be good enough for them and you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9872" RevisionGUID="47c1e55d-9458-4315-8639-a38086260202" CreationDate="2020-02-12T11:50:54.487" UserId="1445" Text="No.  Electric cars emit less particulates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Main sources of particulate emissions from transport are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. brake wear&#xD;&#xA;2. tyre wear&#xD;&#xA;3. road wear and resuspension of road dust/soil&#xD;&#xA;4. exhaust&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Exhaust particulate emissions are zero for electric cars.  Brake wear is significantly (66% estimated) less for electric cars due to regenerative braking.  Tyre wear is related approximately linearly to vehicle weight, so will be around 10-30% more for electric cars.  Road wear and resuspension are roughly equivalent between electric and petrol or diesel cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The net effect is that electric cars emit less particulates. Estimates vary between: 1-3% less [(Timmers/Achten Atmospheric Environment 134 (2016) 10-17)][1] and 50% less ([Hooftman et al, Energies 2016, 9, 84][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that for the newest internal combustion engines particulate emissions are already dominated by non-exhaust sources.  As ICEs become more efficient and cleaner (a long-term trend, driven partly by regulation) there may come a crossing point where ICEs produce less total particulates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should also note that for many other pollutants (VOCs, NOx, CO2, photochemical oxidants, etc) electric cars provide significant benefits over ICEs - Timmers &amp; Achten[1] estimate overall 2x better than petrol and 8x better than diesel for human health (based on disability-adjusted life years, and including the effects of electricity generation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.soliftec.com/NonExhaust%20PMs.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/energies/energies-09-00084/article_deploy/energies-09-00084.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9865" RevisionGUID="fc0e08c0-0e46-4871-a5b9-7100c45d7589" CreationDate="2020-02-12T13:50:08.023" UserId="8317" Comment="Minor typos and style edits" Text="There are different levels of service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In itself planting a tree is very easy and cheap, of the 3 billion trees in the UK, most drop thousands of seeds each year and some germinate all by themselves for free. On the other hand, planting seedlings can be done mechanically using a Damcon PL10 with four row attachment, you can plant 20,000 in a day, costing cents per tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But these things are kind of irrelevant, to have a healthy mature tree in twenty years time, you need to plant about a dozen smaller trees of a handful of species relatively close together, then let them grow and compete and then cut down the weaker ones, over a twenty year period, this costs a lot of money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some tree planting websites might just be selling you nature taking its course, some might be planting 20,000 seedlings in a day, and some might be selling you the service of planting and growing a tree over a twenty year period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also the land side of things. Some services plant trees on behalf of schools, hospitals and landowners, they don't worry about the land. In ten years time the site might be a car park or a building site and your tree will be gone. Some services run plantations or whole reforested areas, and have long term plans to keep the tree cover for hundreds of years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23132" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9865" RevisionGUID="fc0e08c0-0e46-4871-a5b9-7100c45d7589" CreationDate="2020-02-12T13:50:08.023" Comment="Proposed by 8317 approved by 3379, 6602 edit id of 615" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="e8360d6d-5a51-4d05-8a3a-7f74470d3b0e" CreationDate="2020-02-12T14:09:16.150" UserId="8459" Text="I am looking for a source that shows the development of the shares of renewable energies in the electricity production in Europe. I only found statistics about the share for the end energy consumption (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/t2020_31/default/table). Can someone help me with that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="e8360d6d-5a51-4d05-8a3a-7f74470d3b0e" CreationDate="2020-02-12T14:09:16.150" UserId="8459" Text="Source for share of renewable energies in the electricity production of Europe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="e8360d6d-5a51-4d05-8a3a-7f74470d3b0e" CreationDate="2020-02-12T14:09:16.150" UserId="8459" Text="|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9826" RevisionGUID="73ccfde2-5b58-454e-8e8e-ce99e36edbe0" CreationDate="2020-02-12T17:39:29.133" UserId="60" Comment="Corrected punctuation" Text="Scrap metals are not cleaned, they are melted. For steel; Zn, Sn, Pb, and others vaporize or oxidize. The most problematic is Zn as the oxide in the slag can deteriorate the refractory. Aluminum is similar except scrape with Cu and Si will be segregated as much as possible, used for certain alloys. Copper scrap, being more valuable is separated according to the alloy to be produced. Oil, grease and paint are non-factors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9874" RevisionGUID="51b74db9-e5a6-4ce6-a235-de55616cf083" CreationDate="2020-02-12T18:39:11.430" UserId="3379" Text="## Eurostat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't aware of this data source ([Eurostat](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database)), but looking around at other tables I found one for [&quot;Electricity production capacities by main fuel groups and operator (nrg_inf_epc)&quot;](https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nrg_inf_epc&amp;lang=en). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get the results you're looking for (since the table is dynamic and I can't share a direct link), follow these steps, as shown in the screenshot below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Click the &quot;+&quot; next to &quot;GEO&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - In the popup window, select &quot;SIEC&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - Click &quot;Select all&quot; (or only those power sources you care to see)&#xD;&#xA; - Click &quot;Update&quot; in the top right corner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![How to show Eurostat energy data by source][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can then drag the categories onto the table to list the statistics by any combination of country, year, or energy source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Changing composition of Eurostat table][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## ENTSOE Transparency Platform&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another data source is the [ENTSOE Transparency Platform](https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/installedGenerationCapacityAggregation/show?name=&amp;defaultValue=true&amp;viewType=GRAPH&amp;areaType=BZN&amp;atch=false&amp;dateTime.dateTime=01.01.2020+00:00|UTC|YEAR&amp;dateTime.endDateTime=01.01.2020+00:00|UTC|YEAR&amp;area.values=CTY|10YES-REE------0!BZN|10YES-REE------0&amp;productionType.values=B01&amp;productionType.values=B02&amp;productionType.values=B03&amp;productionType.values=B04&amp;productionType.values=B05&amp;productionType.values=B06&amp;productionType.values=B07&amp;productionType.values=B08&amp;productionType.values=B09&amp;productionType.values=B10&amp;productionType.values=B11&amp;productionType.values=B12&amp;productionType.values=B13&amp;productionType.values=B14&amp;productionType.values=B20&amp;productionType.values=B15&amp;productionType.values=B16&amp;productionType.values=B17&amp;productionType.values=B18&amp;productionType.values=B19). This doesn't have a table for all of Europe, but does provide current and historical data by country:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![ENTSOE fuel source data for Austria, 2019 to 2020][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nBln.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9iFnw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QIcad.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23138" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="c9a69eaf-5ab1-4d53-9aed-8620ede74633" CreationDate="2020-02-12T18:40:34.030" UserId="3379" Comment="Edited link, tags." Text="I am looking for a source that shows the development of the shares of renewable energies in the electricity production in Europe. I only found statistics about the share for the end energy consumption [from Eurostat](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/t2020_31/default/table)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23139" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9873" RevisionGUID="c9a69eaf-5ab1-4d53-9aed-8620ede74633" CreationDate="2020-02-12T18:40:34.030" UserId="3379" Comment="Edited link, tags." Text="|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23140" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9874" RevisionGUID="68145e0f-a0ed-42bd-afeb-8768faed92b3" CreationDate="2020-02-12T19:24:04.280" UserId="3379" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="## Eurostat&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wasn't aware of this data source ([Eurostat](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database)), but looking around at other tables I found one for [&quot;Electricity production capacities by main fuel groups and operator (nrg_inf_epc)&quot;](https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nrg_inf_epc&amp;lang=en). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get the results you're looking for (since the table is dynamic and I can't share a direct link), follow these steps, as shown in the screenshot below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Click the &quot;+&quot; next to &quot;GEO&quot;&#xD;&#xA; - In the popup window, select &quot;SIEC&quot; &#xD;&#xA; - Click &quot;Select all&quot; (or only those power sources you care to see)&#xD;&#xA; - Click &quot;Update&quot; in the top right corner&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![How to show Eurostat energy data by source][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can then drag the categories onto the table to list the statistics by any combination of country, year, or energy source:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Changing composition of Eurostat table][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## ENTSOE Transparency Platform&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another data source is the [ENTSOE Transparency Platform](https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/installedGenerationCapacityAggregation/show?name=&amp;defaultValue=true&amp;viewType=GRAPH&amp;areaType=BZN&amp;atch=false&amp;dateTime.dateTime=01.01.2020+00:00|UTC|YEAR&amp;dateTime.endDateTime=01.01.2020+00:00|UTC|YEAR&amp;area.values=CTY|10YES-REE------0!BZN|10YES-REE------0&amp;productionType.values=B01&amp;productionType.values=B02&amp;productionType.values=B03&amp;productionType.values=B04&amp;productionType.values=B05&amp;productionType.values=B06&amp;productionType.values=B07&amp;productionType.values=B08&amp;productionType.values=B09&amp;productionType.values=B10&amp;productionType.values=B11&amp;productionType.values=B12&amp;productionType.values=B13&amp;productionType.values=B14&amp;productionType.values=B20&amp;productionType.values=B15&amp;productionType.values=B16&amp;productionType.values=B17&amp;productionType.values=B18&amp;productionType.values=B19). This doesn't have a table for all of Europe, but does provide current and historical data by country:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![ENTSOE fuel source data for Austria, 2019 to 2020][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you change the date range to cover a single year, the graphic changes to a pie chart, making it easier to visualize the relative size of each different source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nBln.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9iFnw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QIcad.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1106" RevisionGUID="61842fc3-ccef-4fb7-86e5-3ebac45e260f" CreationDate="2020-02-13T08:14:18.560" UserId="99" Comment="updated answer (completely rewritten) and fixed broken links" Text="I know of two American companies that offer a life-cycle based certification scheme, but they seem to be small and not widely spread. For the record I'm not affiliated to either of these organizations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;1. Environmentally Preferable Product (EPP)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There's a company called [SCS Global Services](https://www.scsglobalservices.com/services/environmentally-preferable-product) which is a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; third-party certifier of environmental claims in the green building, food, energy, and consumer product sectors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They offer an Environmentally Preferable Product (EPP) certification to producers, which means that they will use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the most advanced life-cycle assessment (LCA) metrics to confirm that your products meet this standard of excellence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's very widely known (I haven't heard about it before), but it does seem to be what you are looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2. Green Seal&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The [Green Seal](https://www.greenseal.org/about) organization &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;develops life-cycle-based, multi-attribute standards and certify products and services that can prove they meet our strict criteria for human health, reduced environmental impact and excellent performance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a [list of categories](https://greenseal.org/green-seal-standards/standards-list) for which they offer this including a [standard for Restaurants and Food Services](https://greenseal.org/green-seal-standards/gs-55) (as well as one for paper products used for food preparation and one for food service packaging). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The company says that they are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a founding member of the Global Ecolabelling Network, the internationally recognized network of ecolabelling organizations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but again I've never heard of them (but that could be because I'm not American)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23142" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1106" RevisionGUID="0ad62482-dba3-49d2-bda3-0a5adada229e" CreationDate="2020-02-13T08:19:47.040" UserId="99" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="I know of two American organizations that offer a life-cycle based certification scheme for food or food services, but they seem to be small and not widely spread. For the record I'm not affiliated to either of these organizations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;1. Environmentally Preferable Product (EPP)&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There's a company called [SCS Global Services](https://www.scsglobalservices.com/services/environmentally-preferable-product) which is a&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; third-party certifier of environmental claims in the green building, food, energy, and consumer product sectors&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They offer an Environmentally Preferable Product (EPP) certification to producers, which means that they will use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the most advanced life-cycle assessment (LCA) metrics to confirm that your products meet this standard of excellence&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think it's very widely known (I haven't heard about it before), but it does seem to be what you are looking for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2. Green Seal&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The [Green Seal](https://www.greenseal.org/about) is a non-profit organization that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;develops life-cycle-based, multi-attribute standards and certify products and services that can prove they meet our strict criteria for human health, reduced environmental impact and excellent performance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a [list of categories](https://greenseal.org/green-seal-standards/standards-list) for which they offer this including a [standard for Restaurants and Food Services](https://greenseal.org/green-seal-standards/gs-55) (as well as one for paper products used for food preparation and one for food service packaging). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The company says that they are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a founding member of the Global Ecolabelling Network, the internationally recognized network of ecolabelling organizations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but again I've never heard of them (but that could be because I'm not American)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23143" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="969" RevisionGUID="6c49a50b-3d46-41ea-8cae-9682a48f640c" CreationDate="2020-02-13T08:23:09.610" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|life-cycle-analysis|ecolabel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9875" RevisionGUID="3781f04e-c250-4a04-a100-244a9be88b71" CreationDate="2020-02-14T04:47:31.387" UserId="6925" Text="100% of all railroad steel is recycled... Eventually&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;On the active railroads (which you should not be walking on, by the way), you're seeing evidence of recent maintenance-of-way.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is SOP in the rail business to pre-position supplies weeks or months in advance, and then take up to a year to pick up the old scrap. That is because of MoW priorities - they need to do work on northern climes while the weather is favorable, so work in Texas may get put on hold for months... Or traffic conditions, railroad is too busy to hand it to MoW forces for an afternoon... Or simple availability of the machines - it would be insane to pay crews to pick it up by hand when they have a Giant Magnet Machine that can pick it all up while traversing at 10 miles per hour (which matters due to track downtime). But they may have only two Machines in 20,000 miles of track, so they have to wait, wait, wait for the beast's availability.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Railroads matter&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;It's typical for your basic suburban NIMBY type to figure that trains are yesterday's news, and all those tracks oughta just dry up and die.  However that is not true at all.  Rail moves 40% of America's ton-miles, and is the only way your local Target or Ikea store keeps its shelves stocked.  Rail can move 1 ton of freight 460 miles on 1 gallon of fuel, so this is actually fairly &quot;eco&quot; conpared to trucks - nevermind that two train crew can move 20,000 tons of freight as opposed to only 80 tons if they were truck drivers.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, rail is the only transport mode that lends itself to electrification, so it could clean up as the grid does.  It's also our best hope for mass intercity transport that is 100% renewable, and remember, French TGV rails are essentially identical to better freight rails.  Heck, the *John Bull* could celebrate its 150th anniversary by steaming down any random freight line, the Acela line, or indeed, the TGV lines. They are *that* compatible.   And nobody ever complained about railroad electrification using minerals that are toxic to manufacture - it's just steel, copper and aluminum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removal of a rail line is an environmental nightmare&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;That dormant (**not** abandoned) rails-in-place rail line *can always be reactivated*.  Which means industry can go right  back to taking rail service, or passenger lines can be extended on the cheap.  It costs between $5,000 and $250,000 a mile to reactivate a dormant line.  Even if the line needs 100% replacement of ties, rails and ballast (pushing $1 million a mile), the old rails make delivery *easy*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas if the steel rail is lifted, it's $2 to $3 million to blaze a new railroad on an old grade. That's so expensive that I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times it has happened. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much worse, many abandoned railroads are vulnerable to **reversion** - rather than buy the land outright, the rail company bought an *easement* conditional that when the railroad goes away, the land goes back to the underlying landowner. That means the **right-of-way itself** gets busted up; now you've got an apartment building on the right-of-way, and you'd have to buy it and destroy it to put the railroad back in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bottom line: Once the rails are lifted, they *never* go back down**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you see weedy rails, think &quot;Thank God those are still there&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the government is doing several things to help.  First, they are buying up defunct rail lines, and keeping them &quot;rail-banked&quot; for future use. Many a heritage railway sets up shop on such a preserved line.  Second, they're agreeing to tax disused rail lines same as abandoned ones - so there's no financial incentive to lift the rails. And third, Rails to Trails is allowing the rights-of-way to be captured whole *despite* reversion clauses, for use by biking trails, pipelines, roads or indeed railroads.  So no more apartment buildings on the right-of-way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of Rails-to-Trails allows rights-of-way to be reactivated into railroads again.  Again, not likely, but it holds the door open. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9864" RevisionGUID="d672fd7a-6437-4187-b9a9-fa94b5b7dab6" CreationDate="2020-02-14T07:40:41.647" UserId="8428" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="I am actively looking to donate to organisations that plant trees and, as far as I know, there are several websites that allow you to do that. Some offer the possibility to follow the tree's life through pictures, to gift trees, to know the location where the tree is growing, while some others don't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I am not getting is the difference in price. I get that the more &quot;services&quot; you have, the higher the cost but... does this explain a difference in terms of tens of euros? In a website I found I can plant a tree for a few cents or few euros, while in others I can plant a tree for much more money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So...in order to make it right, which path should I follow? Less tree, more money with &quot;services&quot;, or lots of trees with the same amount of money and no services?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some websites, as examples (no affiliation):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://www.treevotion.com/&#xD;&#xA; - https://www.grow-trees.com/&#xD;&#xA; - https://onetreeplanted.org/&#xD;&#xA; - https://www.treedom.net/en/&#xD;&#xA; - https://tree-nation.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9867" RevisionGUID="9d30cf67-d953-43f6-900e-25049db8226b" CreationDate="2020-02-14T14:22:16.413" UserId="8317" Comment="Style edits" Text="It depends what you want the answer to be. I have planted about one thousand trees at a cost of no dollars, but a lot of time and muscle (seeds, cuttings, trees dug from woods, etc). On the other hand, one could easily spend thousands of dollars on a large balled and burlap tree requiring heavy equipment and labor to plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of &quot;from the woods&quot; is: I pulled four spruce seedlings (2&quot; tall) from the sand at the shoulder of a highway in northern Alberta. Wrapped the bare roots in damp tissue and brought them to IL. All four had grown to 4 feet when I last saw them. My cost: zero, time: a few minutes each. I expect a lumber company can stick seedlings in the ground for $1. And any government bureaucrat can get the cost per tree to over $ 1,000 each." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23147" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9867" RevisionGUID="9d30cf67-d953-43f6-900e-25049db8226b" CreationDate="2020-02-14T14:22:16.413" Comment="Proposed by 8317 approved by 3379, 99 edit id of 616" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23148" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9876" RevisionGUID="dcbdb701-6a3c-491c-ad46-d26ee606d775" CreationDate="2020-02-15T04:32:50.843" UserId="3297" Text="Many argue that we should not drink almond milk as it uses scarce water. (e.g. https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/food-drink/shopping-guide/soya-non-dairy-milk). However given that consuming almond milk helps finance removing carbon from the atmosphere, would it not be defensible to consume it? For example in California, the water shortage does not drive species into extinction not does it deprive people of necessary access to clean water. But it could mean less industrial animal husbandry and less area of green lawns. I think less water to such purposes is no problem and means we probably should step up consumption of almond milk, especially in areas where water shortage is more of a nuisance and not an ecological or social issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9876" RevisionGUID="dcbdb701-6a3c-491c-ad46-d26ee606d775" CreationDate="2020-02-15T04:32:50.843" UserId="3297" Text="Why not use scarce California water for almond milk?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9876" RevisionGUID="dcbdb701-6a3c-491c-ad46-d26ee606d775" CreationDate="2020-02-15T04:32:50.843" UserId="3297" Text="|water|decarbonisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="46068a72-65cf-48aa-aded-776366489df4" CreationDate="2020-02-15T08:19:17.297" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="After reading about the environmental impact of server farms I wonder what are the alternatives for someone who needs to host a website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a sustainable choice when it comes to hosting a domain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is hosting a website at home on a computer powered by green energy the best green option? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there another green alternative to the server farms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23152" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="252" RevisionGUID="46068a72-65cf-48aa-aded-776366489df4" CreationDate="2020-02-15T08:19:17.297" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited title" Text="What's the most sustainable way of hosting a domain?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23153" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9877" RevisionGUID="9631df40-aa65-4c33-a178-510bf6323754" CreationDate="2020-02-15T08:25:35.067" UserId="8013" Text="The issue is really with sustainability rather than scarcity, and it is also linked to ecological issues. An article in the [Berkley University web site][1] gives some background information. In order to maintain their farms through long droughts the farmers want more rivers dammed. Damming a river means flooding an ecologically rich valley. There might be potential for a beneficial impact on the carbon budget, but the creation of a new artificial reservoir also has the potential for a very damaging impact on global methane emissions (a side effect of drowning the valuable biosphere in the river valley).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A report from the [Pacific Institute][2] describes the ecological damage associated with reduced flows of fresh water into the Sacramento Bay caused by unsustainable extraction of water for agriculture (as an example .. this is not an exhaustive study of damage caused). The water shortage is threatening a rich ecosystem in the delta, which also has potential economic impact because it is a an important home for wild salmon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Pacific Institute report also suggests that current agricultural output could be produced with less water (or more efficient use of existing water through better management), so it may be possible to get the almond milk in a sustainable way, but there does appear to be a need (or at least a valid case) to exert some consumer pressure to reduce the level ecological damage caused by existing levels of water use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2018-04-02/deep-water-deep-trouble-can-we-save-californias-drying&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ca-water-capstone-1.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9878" RevisionGUID="df73179b-559c-49ad-9d1f-a3db62528bc0" CreationDate="2020-02-15T08:37:46.400" UserId="99" Text="The most sustainable hosting choice would use&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. 100% renewable energy&#xD;&#xA;  2. energy-efficient servers&#xD;&#xA;  3. properly recycle servers at the end of their life&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could host yourself at home and use electricity generated by your own solar panels for example. The advantage is that you have control over&#xD;&#xA;where the electricity is coming from, what servers you buy and how they are disposed. However at home you can't be as energy-efficient as a professional hosting company. They use shared servers or virtualization to host many sites on a single server. Some [data centers](https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/data-centers-that-recycle-waste-heat/) even transfer their waste heat to near-by houses, greenhouses or swimming pools for even better efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a large number of hosting companies that claim they are using 100% renewable energy. Unfortunately data on how they recycle is very rarely provided.&#xD;&#xA;Also it is hard to check if a hosting company is telling the truth about their sources of electricity or are only green-washing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily there is a not-for-profit organization called [The Green Web Foundation (GWF)](https://www.thegreenwebfoundation.org) that checks hosting companies and publishes a list&#xD;&#xA;of companies that use 100% renewable energy. At the time of writing their [directory](https://www.thegreenwebfoundation.org/directory/) contains 533 green hosting companies in 63 countries.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9856" RevisionGUID="da14b55f-f1c2-4aea-a196-ecbb88f1b7f5" CreationDate="2020-02-15T08:38:28.060" UserId="8013" Comment="added 926 characters in body" Text="There is an extensive study by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization: [Tackling climate change through livestock][1]. Their [key facts and findings summary][2] has a comparison between cow and small ruminant (i.e. sheep and goats) milk. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The comparison is done in terms of kg of CO2 equivalent emissions per kg of milk protein produced. The conversion from milk to cheese does not add significantly to the emissions measured against the protein content, so these figures can be taken as indicative. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The FAO study finds that, on average, small ruminant milk has higher equivalent emissions, at 112 kg CO2e/kg milk protein, than cow milk (below 100 kg CO2e/kg milk protein). They also note that there is large variability depending on farming techniques used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Options for reducing emissions of methane (added Feb 15th).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [report from the BBC][3] suggests that changing the diet of dairy animals can reduce their oral methane emissions. These emissions arise from a group of archaea (single cell organisms) living in the cows gut, and can be reduced by either changing diet or reducing the archaea population medicinally -- but either method can also reduce milk production -- so it appears that more research is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the other end of the animal, it is possible to reduce emissions by collecting and treating the feces, as described in this paper on &quot;[Green Cheese][4]&quot;. This gives a significant reduction, but the carbon footprint is still going to be significantly higher the vegetable sources of protein.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190806-how-vaccines-could-fix-our-problem-with-cow-emissions&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://dx.doi.org/%2010.3168/jds.2014-8850" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9879" RevisionGUID="31b55861-298d-4c01-85d1-588e0c7509d1" CreationDate="2020-02-15T15:03:09.510" UserId="8475" Text="You are right; having a child is by many orders of magnitude the largest CO2 source.&#xA;&#xA;The reason this is not addressed currently is because, politicians still have all the power and will only do popular things. Population control is unpopular.&#xA;&#xA;Therefore it doesn't and won't happen.&#xA;&#xA;Sad isn't it......the planet can easily be saved, but because we leave the running of it to useless idiots...it won't be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9880" RevisionGUID="5bcd2d9c-341f-48c3-9210-c47365cab8d2" CreationDate="2020-02-16T04:42:56.353" UserId="8477" Text="A few days ago I got a hand mill since at times I have enough free time to grow grain. Problem is that to test sourdough I got whole wheat grain for animal consumption, it was the only wheat grain available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not know if animal consumption wheat is safe to eat, because of the pesticides, note that I know it is not lethal but I would rather wait and grow wheat myself than be intoxicated " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23158" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9880" RevisionGUID="5bcd2d9c-341f-48c3-9210-c47365cab8d2" CreationDate="2020-02-16T04:42:56.353" UserId="8477" Text="Wheat for animal consumption safe for human consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23159" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9880" RevisionGUID="5bcd2d9c-341f-48c3-9210-c47365cab8d2" CreationDate="2020-02-16T04:42:56.353" UserId="8477" Text="|pesticides|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9881" RevisionGUID="bc3aa2d2-28ba-47a0-9d84-a9ac2a0da120" CreationDate="2020-02-16T09:30:56.347" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;We can shut down coal fired power plants, put solar panels on our roofs, but do we don't have any chance at beating (worldwide) population growth.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you already answered your question over there. What bad energy-related effects does population growth have if the energy is produced by solar panels? The answer is: none.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some could say well you can't produce solar power at night, and supergrid is way too expensive to transport electricity from the other side of the Earth. That's true, but then again solar power can be stored as synthetic hydrogen, synthetic methane, synthetic methanol, even synthetic gasoline/diesel. No batteries required. No lithium / cobalt required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feeding the population with animal meat would of course be another question, but who says we must use animal meat? I have tasted a number of plant-based meat substitutes and they are pretty good nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If current predictions about this growth come true, it seems to me we don't stand any chance at keeping up with power demand, even with all (fossil fuel and other) plants firing at maximum capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You fail to understand exponential growth. Solar power is an exponential technology. If the population becomes bigger, there are more workers to construct power plants (hopefully clean) so exponential growth is possible. The growth rate of solar is exponential and doubles much faster than fossil fuels. Eventually, we reach the point where worldwide there will be more solar installations than fossil fuel installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cost of solar is falling exponentially, too. Eventually, we reach the point where the solar panel is cheaper than the structure it is standing on! (Not considering the inverter; but then again solar PV can directly feed hydrogen-producing electrolysis cells with no inverter.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar PV will revolutionize electricity production. We must find good uses for electricity that will be most of the time extremely cheap, sometimes even free. The only question here is how much time it takes until solar PV displaces coal. At that point, worldwide carbon dioxide emissions will essentially stop. So the cumulative emissions will be dependent on: (1) how quickly they grow in the meantime, (2) when will be the time they abruptly stop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: do we stand any chance at getting through the next 50 years without most of our earth's human population dying? Obviously power demand is not the only issue here, it just seems to be the most urgent to me at this time and in the near future.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, we have a very good chance. Climate change if gone wrong won't kill most of earth's human population in 50 years (it may have bad effects on a timescale of 100 years, though). Fortunately, the falling costs of solar power are going to give fossil fuels a hard time to compete.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now the largest threat may be the decline in insect counts worldwide. It could have bad effects on global food production. It is probably caused by too much land being used for agriculture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9882" RevisionGUID="b1aabc8a-2836-4e35-a82c-e49463f3dc20" CreationDate="2020-02-16T09:42:34.797" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Is hosting a website at home on a computer powered by green energy the best green option?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;No.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A home computer uses perhaps 100 watts of electricity. You can't reasonably host any other domain on your home computer because nobody else is willing to put their domain under your control / your unreliable electricity supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A high-end server computer uses perhaps 1000 watts of electricity and can host 3000 domains (assuming it has 3000 gigabytes of memory and one domain requires 1 gigabyte of memory). Ok, there are auxiliary power uses such as cooling and uninterruptible power supply. But even with them taken into account, power use won't exceed 1500 watts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you're looking at 100 watts of electricity for your domain or 0.5 watts of electricity used for your domain. This is 200x difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say even if you have 100% solar electricity in your home, it makes sense to host your domain in a data center powered by dirty coal. Reasoning being, one domain hosted in a data center requires so little of its resources. 0.5 watts of coal is arguably better than 100 watts of solar, taking fully into account the electricity costs of manufacturing the said solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key here is, use the least amount of resources you need from a cloud provider. Host your name servers e.g. on Amazon AWS Route 53. Host your servers e.g. on Amazon AWS EC2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, Amazon AWS EC2 nano instance has 0.5 gigabytes of memory. If that's enough for you, you can halve the estimate I had about needing 1 gigabyte of memory, so your domain would use only 0.25 watts of electricity then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, some heavier instance such as m5.metal instance would probably run on dedicated hardware, meaning all of its power consumption is attributable to you and you only." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9883" RevisionGUID="82da20b0-b13c-4f15-acb4-e6c149ceae77" CreationDate="2020-02-16T09:49:47.447" UserId="6393" Text="Your friend is wrong and here's why.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium is mined once and can be reused in any number of vehicles. When the vehicle breaks, its lithium will replace newly mined lithium. If we need let's say 2 billion cars on the road with batteries, they need a certain fixed amount of lithium. If we need 2 billion oil-burning cars on the road, they will continuously use more and more extracted oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oil is mined once, then burned, and then you don't have the oil anymore; you instead have carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, lithium is nowadays best produced by evaporating lithium salt rich water in a desert. &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salar_de_Atacama&quot;&gt;Read about it here.&lt;/a&gt; The power to evaporate the water is produced by the sun. Of course, it is not fully free of damaging side effects, such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Extraction of lithium-rich brines is causing conflict with water use by local communities and is damaging the ecosystem, including the Andean flamingo.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...but you could probably find damaging effects from any other mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key here is truly that lithium can be reused, oil cannot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23163" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5625" RevisionGUID="80cbd1f9-5566-478c-91c5-8cadfed93303" CreationDate="2020-02-16T11:05:57.520" UserId="2846" Comment="typo, expand a sentence" Text="The outside *relative* humidity may be almost as high but the absolute amount of water held in the air is lower. So removing the most humid air is effective. That's the principle behind shower extractor fans and cooker hoods. Replacing a lot of lower humidity air with outside air lets a lot of heat out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A dehumidifier uses a couple of hundred Watts when it's actually doing something (i.e. when it's making a noise), but this all contributes to heating the house,  *as does the latent heat recovered from the condensed water*. This is a small domestic model that can remove a few litres a day; bigger ones are of course available but they're noisy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we use a dehumidifier for slightly more of the year than the heating is on; in summer opening the windows is preferable. In winter ours doesn't run flat out (almost all have humidistats) unless we've got washing drying. Cooking steam and shower steam are at least partly removed by fans as well, running them briefly when most needed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="416b04fb-e0c9-4fe4-badb-50f42fd28a35" CreationDate="2020-02-16T15:03:22.710" UserId="8349" Text="Looking at the https://www.electricitymap.org/ I can see that many countries operating nuclear power plants are not running them at their full installed power, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;Sweden 5.54GW/9.10GW&#xD;&#xA;France 38.00GW/63.1GW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, countries like Denmark are running coal and biomass powerplants and exporting power with a relatively high carbon footprint to Sweden:&#xD;&#xA;East Denmark:&#xD;&#xA;Coal production 220MW/1.94GW&#xD;&#xA;Export to Sweden 1095MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And France itself is still running gas power plants:&#xD;&#xA;Gas: 2.69GW/12.2GW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reason for this? Would not it make sense to ramp up the nuclear power to lower the emissions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you very much!&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="416b04fb-e0c9-4fe4-badb-50f42fd28a35" CreationDate="2020-02-16T15:03:22.710" UserId="8349" Text="Why aren't all nuclear plants running at their full installed power to decrease the need for coal?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="416b04fb-e0c9-4fe4-badb-50f42fd28a35" CreationDate="2020-02-16T15:03:22.710" UserId="8349" Text="|natural-gas|coal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="0940ca38-51b3-4750-afd7-ad527368d9f5" CreationDate="2020-02-16T19:22:57.530" UserId="3379" Text="This is because nuclear plants are not [load-following power plants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Load following is the potential for a power plant to adjust its power output as demand and price for electricity fluctuates throughout the day. In nuclear power plants, this is done by inserting control rods into the reactor pressure vessel. This operation is very inefficient as nuclear power generation is composed almost entirely of fixed and sunk costs; therefore, lowering the power output doesn't significantly reduce generating costs. Moreover, the plant is thermo-mechanically stressed. Older nuclear (and coal) power plants may take many hours, if not days, to achieve a steady state power output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it costs money to reduce output from a nuclear plant (you're still paying salaries, maintenance, etc, while no revenue is being generated), and it takes a long time change the output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of fuel-burning plants (coal and natural gas), your costs are reduced when generation is reduced, so it makes sense to operate these in load-following mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see this in the [hourly generation data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency](https://www.eia.gov/beta/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/US48/US48/GenerationByEnergySource-4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![U.S. electricity generation by energy source, 2/2/2020 to 2/9/2020][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nuclear is a flat line, natural gas swings wildly with two peaks a day, and coal strikes a balance between the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VMFhS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23168" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="8e41c981-f672-4b21-91a0-31a904129029" CreationDate="2020-02-16T23:15:17.907" />
  <row Id="23169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9886" RevisionGUID="408b33df-16af-4e22-a436-073f5aea804a" CreationDate="2020-02-16T23:21:29.040" UserId="8477" Text="So today I inspected the wheat more closely, I found some animal droppings of what assume were birds from the seller and a dead insect along with some trash. It actually calms me down a little to see those insects and animal droppings, if it is dirty I would just wash it and let it dry. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of notes: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bran I am going to eat too in different things other than bread, it is two thirds of the entire amount of wheat I bought. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From 2kg of wheat I got 680g of flour, and it does not even look that white. So makes me think how much wheat we waste just because it does not look &quot;white&quot;. Even if I have little time to harvest grains in my grandma's home I am going to continue getting the grains myself for milling it at home, or at least try to do it more often because for each kilo of flour I get at the store it means more than two thirds of wheat that was used to make that flour were wasted and given to animals as food, that in turn you guys know contributes to methane because really wheat was farmed for millenia by humans to be consumed by humans. Grazing animals have a different diet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I may have gone a little too astray from it... But here is my answer; it is safe, just check your wheat and make sure it does not look too clean or too dirty, wash it if you do not know where it came from, and lastly do not waste any of it, the whole grain has nutritional value you would just be wasting food!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9888" RevisionGUID="be8d871a-7735-43c5-be7f-787248136175" CreationDate="2020-02-17T17:40:33.233" UserId="5477" Text="It is because government regulations limit the power output of the reactors. There are various regulations such as verifying reliability of a new unit.  I remember following the gradual permitted increase in power from the Zion unit north of Chicago when it was new. Nukes are generally used for base line power , that is they are run constantly at whatever power the government will allow. Gas turbines are the first choice for peak load power as the start fast and there are usually several so they can be brought on-line one at a time as needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23174" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9888" RevisionGUID="e573f6eb-87a9-457e-9c15-7809676cf030" CreationDate="2020-02-17T17:46:31.423" UserId="5477" Comment="typo, addition" Text="It is because government regulations limit the power output of the reactors. There are various regulations such as verifying reliability of a new unit.  I remember following the gradual permitted increase in power from the Zion unit north of Chicago when it was new. Nukes are generally used for base line power , that is they are run constantly at whatever power the government will allow. Gas turbines are the first choice for peak load power as they start fast and there are usually several so they can be brought on-line one at a time as needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9889" RevisionGUID="b2ec405b-c7ae-443e-b563-304299eabe9e" CreationDate="2020-02-17T21:10:19.823" UserId="8227" Text="Though it does not make the situation easier, *population is not the elephant in the room* when it comes to CO2 emissions: we might afford 10 billion with low lifestyles, but the habits of the less than 1 billion Western inhabitants on the planet already make the situation unmanageable. *This* is the elephant in the room.  &#xD;&#xA;10% of the population drives 50% of the impact (and things get worst as you concentrate on the richest percentiles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/extreme-carbon-inequality for detailed analysis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9889" RevisionGUID="dbcff7a0-23de-4151-b3e5-cf491434e0fa" CreationDate="2020-02-19T09:03:53.300" UserId="8227" Comment="make link to OP more explicit" Text="Though it does not make the situation easier, *population is not the elephant in the room* when it comes to CO2 emissions: we might afford 10 billion with low lifestyles, but the habits of the less than 1 billion Western inhabitants on the planet already make the situation unmanageable. *This* is the elephant in the room.  &#xD;&#xA;10% of the population drives 50% of the impact (and things get worst as you concentrate on the richest percentiles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/extreme-carbon-inequality for detailed analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to answer your question directly: there is always a chance, but the people that most urgently need to change their habits are not necessarily the ones making more children..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="c561b8ae-d9a5-4112-9ab4-3fb55b207b45" CreationDate="2020-02-19T13:56:42.940" UserId="3379" Comment="Added details on France." Text="## Nuclear as baseload power&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is because nuclear plants are not [load-following power plants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Load following is the potential for a power plant to adjust its power output as demand and price for electricity fluctuates throughout the day. In nuclear power plants, this is done by inserting control rods into the reactor pressure vessel. This operation is very inefficient as nuclear power generation is composed almost entirely of fixed and sunk costs; therefore, lowering the power output doesn't significantly reduce generating costs. Moreover, the plant is thermo-mechanically stressed. Older nuclear (and coal) power plants may take many hours, if not days, to achieve a steady state power output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it costs money to reduce output from a nuclear plant (you're still paying salaries, maintenance, etc, while no revenue is being generated), and it takes a long time change the output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of fuel-burning plants (coal and natural gas), your costs are reduced when generation is reduced, so it makes sense to operate these in load-following mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see this in the [hourly generation data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency](https://www.eia.gov/beta/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/US48/US48/GenerationByEnergySource-4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![U.S. electricity generation by energy source, 2/2/2020 to 2/9/2020][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nuclear is a flat line, natural gas swings wildly with two peaks a day, and coal strikes a balance between the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about France?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A commenter pointed out that in France, some nuclear power plants are operated in load following mode (source: [OECD Nuclear Energy Agency](https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf)). From the [ENTSOE transparency platform](https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/actualGenerationPerProductionType/show?name=&amp;defaultValue=false&amp;viewType=GRAPH&amp;areaType=CTY&amp;atch=false&amp;datepicker-day-offset-select-dv-date-from_input=D&amp;dateTime.dateTime=19.02.2020+00:00|UTC|DAYTIMERANGE&amp;dateTime.endDateTime=19.02.2020+00:00|UTC|DAYTIMERANGE&amp;area.values=CTY|10YFR-RTE------C!CTY|10YFR-RTE------C&amp;productionType.values=B01&amp;productionType.values=B02&amp;productionType.values=B03&amp;productionType.values=B04&amp;productionType.values=B05&amp;productionType.values=B06&amp;productionType.values=B07&amp;productionType.values=B08&amp;productionType.values=B09&amp;productionType.values=B10&amp;productionType.values=B11&amp;productionType.values=B12&amp;productionType.values=B13&amp;productionType.values=B14&amp;productionType.values=B20&amp;productionType.values=B15&amp;productionType.values=B16&amp;productionType.values=B17&amp;productionType.values=B18&amp;productionType.values=B19&amp;dateTime.timezone=UTC&amp;dateTime.timezone_input=UTC), here's generation data for the same week in France (the charting tool is limited, so I downloaded the data and made my own plot):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![France electricity generation by energy source, 2020-02-02 to 2020-02-09, UTC][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that at the start and end of the week, nuclear fluctuates throughout the day and is operated in load following mode. But in the middle of the week, nuclear generation is held at its maximum output, and hydro (including pumped storage) is used for load following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also appears that gas generation is being used to back wind, which would make sense given the variability of wind and the ability of modern gas-burning plants to ramp quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VMFhS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pV1ov.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23183" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="01a9940f-e67d-4ffe-b2bb-b390a3fcd7e2" CreationDate="2020-02-19T18:21:10.977" UserId="3379" Comment="Added maintenance stats" Text="**TL;dr -- it's most economical to operate nuclear plants at a fixed output level, so other fuels are used to adjust for variations in demand. Nuclear output at any given time is limited by outages, which are driven by the need for refueling and routine maintenance.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Nuclear plants aren't load following&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Wikipedia's article on [load-following power plants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Load following is the potential for a power plant to adjust its power output as demand and price for electricity fluctuates throughout the day. In nuclear power plants, this is done by inserting control rods into the reactor pressure vessel. This operation is very inefficient as nuclear power generation is composed almost entirely of fixed and sunk costs; therefore, lowering the power output doesn't significantly reduce generating costs. Moreover, the plant is thermo-mechanically stressed. Older nuclear (and coal) power plants may take many hours, if not days, to achieve a steady state power output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it costs money to reduce output from a nuclear plant (you're still paying salaries, maintenance, etc, while no revenue is being generated), and it takes a long time change the output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of fuel-burning plants (coal and natural gas), your costs are reduced when generation is reduced, so it makes sense to operate these in load-following mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see this in the [hourly generation data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency](https://www.eia.gov/beta/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/US48/US48/GenerationByEnergySource-4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![U.S. electricity generation by energy source, 2/2/2020 to 2/9/2020][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nuclear is a flat line, natural gas swings wildly with two peaks a day, and coal strikes a balance between the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about France?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A commenter pointed out that in France, some nuclear power plants are operated in load following mode (source: [OECD Nuclear Energy Agency](https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf)). From the [ENTSOE transparency platform](https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/actualGenerationPerProductionType/show?name=&amp;defaultValue=false&amp;viewType=GRAPH&amp;areaType=CTY&amp;atch=false&amp;datepicker-day-offset-select-dv-date-from_input=D&amp;dateTime.dateTime=19.02.2020+00:00|UTC|DAYTIMERANGE&amp;dateTime.endDateTime=19.02.2020+00:00|UTC|DAYTIMERANGE&amp;area.values=CTY|10YFR-RTE------C!CTY|10YFR-RTE------C&amp;productionType.values=B01&amp;productionType.values=B02&amp;productionType.values=B03&amp;productionType.values=B04&amp;productionType.values=B05&amp;productionType.values=B06&amp;productionType.values=B07&amp;productionType.values=B08&amp;productionType.values=B09&amp;productionType.values=B10&amp;productionType.values=B11&amp;productionType.values=B12&amp;productionType.values=B13&amp;productionType.values=B14&amp;productionType.values=B20&amp;productionType.values=B15&amp;productionType.values=B16&amp;productionType.values=B17&amp;productionType.values=B18&amp;productionType.values=B19&amp;dateTime.timezone=UTC&amp;dateTime.timezone_input=UTC), here's generation data for the same week in France (the charting tool is limited, so I downloaded the data and made my own plot):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![France electricity generation by energy source, 2020-02-02 to 2020-02-09, UTC][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that at the start and end of the week, nuclear fluctuates throughout the day and is operated in load following mode. But in the middle of the week, nuclear generation is held at its maximum output, and hydro (including pumped storage) is used for load following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also appears that gas generation is being used to back wind, which would make sense given the variability of wind and the ability of modern gas-burning plants to ramp quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some stats from the data on how nuclear and gas plants have operated so far this year:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    STAT                       NUCLEAR           GAS&#xD;&#xA;    -------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Installed capacity (GW)       63.1          12.2&#xD;&#xA;    Capacity factor YTD           78.3%         50.6%&#xD;&#xA;    Max output YTD (GW)           54.5           9.2&#xD;&#xA;    Min output YTD (GW)           35.7           2.6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The World Nuclear Organization [profile page on France](https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx) gives some context to these numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; France's nuclear reactors comprise 90% of EdF's [Électricité de France, the government-owned utility] capacity and hence are used in load-following mode (see section below) and are even sometimes closed over weekends, so their capacity factor is low by world standards, at 77.3%. However, availability is almost 84% and increasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What affects availability and outages?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Availability defines how much of the time the reactor is capable of providing power, and is a function of scheduled maintenance, refueling, and repair needs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the International Atomic Energy Agency's report on [*Nuclear power plant outage optimisation strategy*](https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1315_web.pdf), outages fall into one of four categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most  of  the  utilities  regard  a  12  month  fuel  cycle  as  economically  optimum.  Some  utilities  have lengthened the fuel cycle up to 18 or 24 months. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the medium and long term planning, it has become a good practice to categorize the outages in three or four types with the objective to minimize the total outage time. The outages may be categorized into four different kinds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Refuelling only, which could be worked out in 7 to 10 days,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Refuelling and standard maintenance, which could be worked out in 2 to 3 weeks, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Refuelling and extended maintenance, which can last for one month, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Specific  outage  for  major  backfittings  or  plant  modernization  which  could  take  more  than one month. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [IAEA statistics on lifetime availability](https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/LifeTimeEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx), for a country with 10 or more reactors, China has the highest average availability at 88%, and India is the lowest at 64% (excluding Japan, where numbers are skewed due to the Fukushima Daiichi incident). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VMFhS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pV1ov.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23184" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9891" RevisionGUID="1d0ac06a-62cf-4066-8861-88a94ee284c9" CreationDate="2020-02-20T00:55:20.123" UserId="8485" Text="If I have a compute intensive piece of software that I optimize and I cut the compute time in half, how would I go about calculating the carbon emissions I have saved?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess I can take the compute time saved over a certain period, multiply with the energy use, and take the carbon emissions of the energy used into account?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9891" RevisionGUID="1d0ac06a-62cf-4066-8861-88a94ee284c9" CreationDate="2020-02-20T00:55:20.123" UserId="8485" Text="How would you calculate carbon emissions of software?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9891" RevisionGUID="1d0ac06a-62cf-4066-8861-88a94ee284c9" CreationDate="2020-02-20T00:55:20.123" UserId="8485" Text="|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23187" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9891" RevisionGUID="bfbd6c35-fdd8-4209-92b2-27417b2cf3a5" CreationDate="2020-02-20T09:07:19.360" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|carbon-footprint|computing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9892" RevisionGUID="f1f7cca4-cd10-4ba3-92b2-4a4cd3dd5c7e" CreationDate="2020-02-20T09:20:32.560" UserId="99" Text="Yes, you are correct. You indeed need to measure or estimate how much less electricity is used after your optimization, and multiple that by the emissions caused by generating that electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;1. Calculating electricity usage reduction&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your calculation is done always on the same server, then you may be able to find out how much energy you saved by using an [electricity meter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_meter). If you cannot measure (because the server is in a remote data center) then you could make an estimate based on the average server energy consumption and on how much faster your calculation completes. Alternatively you could try and contact the data center and ask what energy consumption data they can share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your software is run by many people (clients) from all over the world then this will be much more difficult. You would at least need to know or guess how many people are running your code and how often, and then multiply that by an estimate of the average amount of electricity you reduced. If you have client information you can make a more informed guess by taking different devices into account (desktop computers consume much more electricity than smart phones)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2. Estimating the carbon intensity of electricity&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You need to convert the amount of electricity you saved to [CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent) emissions. For this you need the [carbon intensity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_intensity) of the used electricity. Again this could be relatively easy if you have a single server. If that is powered by 100% renewable energy, then you can set your carbon footprint to 0 (this assumes the 'in-use' approach to calculation a footprint, see also [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/9703/99)). If you don't know the source of the electricity you can use the average carbon intensity of the country where the server is located. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have many users from all over the world running it on their devices you would need to either use a world average carbon intensity, or if you have data on where the users are coming from, you could refine this by calculating a weighted world average carbon intensity. The latter could be difficult as not all carbon footprints have the same scope, so you would need carbon intensities from many countries calculated in a uniform way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;3. Optionally add production emissions&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the level of detail you are interested in, you could also estimate and subtract the emissions caused by writing your optimized code. However if your code is run very often, then writing will be a relatively small part and in that case you could leave that out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9892" RevisionGUID="79e99a2f-8edc-4a25-8c6d-f4ce995f89cb" CreationDate="2020-02-20T12:51:18.677" UserId="99" Comment="added 357 characters in body" Text="Yes, you are correct. You indeed need to measure or estimate how much less electricity is used after your optimization, and multiple that by the average emissions caused by generating electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;1. Calculating electricity usage reduction&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your calculation is done always on the same server, then you may be able to find out how much energy you saved by using an [electricity meter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_meter). If you cannot measure (because the server is in a remote data center) then you could make an estimate based on the average server energy consumption and on how much faster your calculation completes. Alternatively you could try and contact the data center and ask what energy consumption data they can share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your software is run by many people (clients) from all over the world then this will be much more difficult. You would at least need to know or guess how many people are running your code and how often, and then multiply that by an estimate of the average amount of electricity you reduced. If you have access to client device information you can make a more informed guess by taking different devices into account (desktop computers consume much more electricity than smart phones)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2. Estimating the carbon intensity of electricity&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You need to convert the amount of electricity you saved to [CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent) emissions. For this you need the [carbon intensity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_intensity) of the used electricity. Again this could be relatively easy if you have a single server. If that is powered by 100% renewable energy, then you can set your carbon footprint to 0 (this assumes the 'in-use' approach to calculation a footprint, see also [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/9703/99)). If you don't know the source of the electricity you can use the carbon intensity of the average energy mix of the country where the server is located. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have many users from all over the world running code on their devices, you would need to use a world average carbon intensity. If data on where the users are coming from is available, you could refine this by calculating a weighted world average carbon intensity. The latter could be difficult as not all carbon footprints have the same scope, so you would need a list of carbon intensities from many countries calculated in a uniform way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;3. Optionally add emissions from other, low-impact activities&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the level of detail you are interested in, you could also estimate and subtract the emissions caused by writing your optimized code and putting it into production. However if your code is run very often, then the footprint of producing it will be a relatively small and in that case you could leave it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a small carbon footprint involved with [storing data in the cloud](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6995/99), so if there are big changes there because of your improvement, that could also be included in the calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="43ae810f-6ba8-4d0a-bd26-e82cc82fa44e" CreationDate="2020-02-20T14:30:41.483" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting and links." Text="Looking at [the electricity map](https://www.electricitymap.org/) I can see that many countries operating nuclear power plants are not running them at their full installed power, e.g.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Sweden: 5.54 GW of 9.10 GW capacity&#xD;&#xA; - France: 38.00 GW of 63.1GW capacity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, countries like Denmark are running coal and biomass power plants and exporting power with a relatively high carbon footprint to Sweden:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Coal production 220 MW of 1.94 GW capacity&#xD;&#xA; - Export to Sweden 1095 MW&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And France itself is still running gas power plants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Gas: 2.69 GW of 12.2 GW capacity&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reason for this? Would not it make sense to ramp up the nuclear power to lower the emissions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23191" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="43ae810f-6ba8-4d0a-bd26-e82cc82fa44e" CreationDate="2020-02-20T14:30:41.483" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting and links." Text="Why aren't all nuclear plants running at their full installed power to decrease emissions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23192" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="43ae810f-6ba8-4d0a-bd26-e82cc82fa44e" CreationDate="2020-02-20T14:30:41.483" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting and links." Text="|electricity-generation|natural-gas|coal|nuclear|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23193" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5693" RevisionGUID="777976e1-8aac-44c4-a5db-d7da4f11a979" CreationDate="2020-02-20T14:31:37.497" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|electricity-generation|greenhouse-gas-emissions|nuclear|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23194" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8339" RevisionGUID="28e42cd8-6f10-4ab3-b46d-c59dbc8cae02" CreationDate="2020-02-20T14:32:04.937" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|wind-power|nuclear|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23195" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="7c6b780d-1850-485a-aedd-f954e2f395b4" CreationDate="2020-02-20T14:53:49.650" UserId="3379" Comment="Re-organized, clarified." Text="**TL;dr -- it's most economical to operate nuclear plants at a fixed output level, so other fuels are used to adjust for variations in demand. Nuclear output at any given time is limited by outages, which are driven by the need for refueling and routine maintenance.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Nuclear plants aren't load following, so other sources are needed&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Wikipedia's article on [load-following power plants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Load following is the potential for a power plant to adjust its power output as demand and price for electricity fluctuates throughout the day. In nuclear power plants, this is done by inserting control rods into the reactor pressure vessel. This operation is very inefficient as nuclear power generation is composed almost entirely of fixed and sunk costs; therefore, lowering the power output doesn't significantly reduce generating costs. Moreover, the plant is thermo-mechanically stressed. Older nuclear (and coal) power plants may take many hours, if not days, to achieve a steady state power output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, it costs money to reduce output from a nuclear plant (you're still paying salaries, maintenance, etc, while no revenue is being generated), and it takes a long time change the output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the case of fuel-burning plants (coal and natural gas), your costs are reduced when generation is reduced, so it makes sense to operate these in load-following mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see this in the [hourly generation data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency](https://www.eia.gov/beta/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/US48/US48/GenerationByEnergySource-4):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![U.S. electricity generation by energy source, 2/2/2020 to 2/9/2020][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nuclear is a flat line, natural gas swings wildly with two peaks a day, and coal strikes a balance between the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As a result, electrical systems need other power sources besides nuclear to meet fluctuating power demand -- even when nuclear is operating at 100%, the system is designed such that other sources will be required to meet all demand.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Nuclear plant availability -- why aren't they running at 100%?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Availability defines how much of the time the reactor is capable of providing power, and is a function of scheduled maintenance, refueling, and repair needs. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) report on [*Nuclear power plant outage optimisation strategy*](https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1315_web.pdf), outages are scheduled with refuelling, and fall into one of four categories:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Most  of  the  utilities  regard  a  12  month  fuel  cycle  as  economically  optimum.  Some  utilities  have lengthened the fuel cycle up to 18 or 24 months. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In the medium and long term planning, it has become a good practice to categorize the outages in three or four types with the objective to minimize the total outage time. The outages may be categorized into four different kinds:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Refuelling only, which could be worked out in 7 to 10 days,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Refuelling and standard maintenance, which could be worked out in 2 to 3 weeks, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Refuelling and extended maintenance, which can last for one month, &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Specific  outage  for  major  backfittings  or  plant  modernization  which  could  take  more  than one month. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The IAEA provides [statistics on lifetime availability](https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/LifeTimeEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx) by country. Here are statistics as of 2018 for the countries in the question, plus a few others for context: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Country      Reactors   Lifetime fleet availability&#xD;&#xA;    ---------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    China          43                  87.6%&#xD;&#xA;    France         68                  76.1%&#xD;&#xA;    India          22                  63.8%&#xD;&#xA;    Japan          58                  57.4%&#xD;&#xA;    Sweden         12                  78.0%&#xD;&#xA;    U.S.          118                  81.9%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## What about France?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A commenter pointed out that in France, some nuclear power plants are operated in load following mode (source: [OECD Nuclear Energy Agency](https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf)). From the [ENTSOE transparency platform](https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/actualGenerationPerProductionType/show?name=&amp;defaultValue=false&amp;viewType=GRAPH&amp;areaType=CTY&amp;atch=false&amp;datepicker-day-offset-select-dv-date-from_input=D&amp;dateTime.dateTime=19.02.2020+00:00|UTC|DAYTIMERANGE&amp;dateTime.endDateTime=19.02.2020+00:00|UTC|DAYTIMERANGE&amp;area.values=CTY|10YFR-RTE------C!CTY|10YFR-RTE------C&amp;productionType.values=B01&amp;productionType.values=B02&amp;productionType.values=B03&amp;productionType.values=B04&amp;productionType.values=B05&amp;productionType.values=B06&amp;productionType.values=B07&amp;productionType.values=B08&amp;productionType.values=B09&amp;productionType.values=B10&amp;productionType.values=B11&amp;productionType.values=B12&amp;productionType.values=B13&amp;productionType.values=B14&amp;productionType.values=B20&amp;productionType.values=B15&amp;productionType.values=B16&amp;productionType.values=B17&amp;productionType.values=B18&amp;productionType.values=B19&amp;dateTime.timezone=UTC&amp;dateTime.timezone_input=UTC), here's generation data for the same week in France (the charting tool is limited, so I downloaded the data and made my own plot):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![France electricity generation by energy source, 2020-02-02 to 2020-02-09, UTC][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that at the start and end of the week, nuclear fluctuates throughout the day and is operated in load following mode. But in the middle of the week, nuclear generation is held at its maximum output, and hydro (including pumped storage) is used for load following.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also appears that gas generation is being used to back wind, which would make sense given the variability of wind and the ability of modern gas-burning plants to ramp quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are some stats from the data on how nuclear and gas plants have operated so far this year:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    STAT                       NUCLEAR           GAS&#xD;&#xA;    -------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Installed capacity (GW)       63.1          12.2&#xD;&#xA;    Capacity factor YTD           78.3%         50.6%&#xD;&#xA;    Max output YTD (GW)           54.5           9.2&#xD;&#xA;    Min output YTD (GW)           35.7           2.6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The World Nuclear Organization [profile page on France](https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx) gives some context to these numbers (as of October 2019):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; France's nuclear reactors comprise 90% of EdF's [Électricité de France, the government-owned utility] capacity and hence are used in load-following mode [...] and are even sometimes closed over weekends, so their capacity factor is low by world standards, at 77.3%. However, availability is almost 84% and increasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VMFhS.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pV1ov.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9893" RevisionGUID="1887b962-981b-4a23-9962-aa26e66f2948" CreationDate="2020-02-21T06:52:33.637" UserId="8477" Text="I am not an expert on mining, but I do know my way on fossil fuel extraction. Getting oil from the earth and making it into fuel is not as easy as it sounds, and really the process is way more contaminant than extracting metals from the ground. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it more clear I can try to explain it in parallel, in both you extract the resource from the ground, depending on the type of mine the mineral (Lithium) can be quite contaminant but given humanity has done this for thousands of years (mining not for lithium but for more things) there are many ways to extract minerals in which there is minimum contamination of water and of other materials, also extraction of Lithium is quite simple compared to other minerals given that Lithium is highly reactive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oil in the other hand does not come as a liquid, it is more like goo that is stuck to the ground and you extract a flow of mud (some are liquid but most of oils extracted are mud) that is highly pressurized in a cave underground, you drill it and up comes the fossil mineral. Oil then is bottled up and sent to the first of many steps, first you have to get rid of water on the oil (even if extracted on land oil has water). Then you need to extract the sour gases, H2S, CO2, CS2 among others, most of which are highly toxic. When we are down to this process compared to Lithium you already have the metal extracted ready to be melted, but here this is just the start. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oil now has many beautiful long molecules that can be used for medicines, plastics, ceramics, even food (seriously) but who needs that? We need fuel! So it goes into an equipment called cracker, which breaks these wonders of science down to not-so-long not-so-short molecules that are better suited to be burned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After being cracked it is then distilled in not one but usually two or more distillation towers to be made into several types of fuel, diesel, kerosene, gasoline, jet fuel, paraphine and even asphalt (waste product). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those fuels are still not good for the market, they need to be further cleaned from sour gases (they are a pain to get rid of believe me). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these processes require literal tons of fuel to power the process itself, tons of carbon emissions at each second because a chemical refining plant works on steady-state meaning it never stops for a single second, maybe for an emergency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas is something to consider, it naturally builds up at the top of the oil deposit, and of course you get some of it when extracting oil, since natural gas is cheap and there is little profit to be made there it is burned, thus the big fire plume on top of oil rigs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nowadays the process is less wasteful but Chemical Engineers are moving away from the burning of fuels for two simple reasons; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. It literally kills the planet, the process to get them and the burning too. &#xD;&#xA;2. You destroy things that are much more valuable, molecules that can make life so much easier and even sustainable, biodegradable plastics we have yet to discover, medicines to cure illnesses, all of that destroyed just because we want to power our car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source? I am a chemical engineer, I work doing simulations for oil companies, even those companies are moving away from oil burning and towards use of electricity as fuel. Yes not all of them but I got into this field for this particular reason, the best way to understand a problem is from the inside, electric cars are not a final solution but they are indeed the next step. If you can avoid cars altogether and use public transportation. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23197" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9884" RevisionGUID="5d038e99-61f4-4322-9dee-8c0cae306680" CreationDate="2020-02-21T12:00:47.060" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1230824684800954368" />
  <row Id="23198" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9892" RevisionGUID="cb3f13d0-4b4d-4db3-93e4-db31f4e9418f" CreationDate="2020-02-21T17:26:34.447" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="Yes, you are on the right track. You need to measure or estimate how much less electricity is used after your optimization, and multiply that by the (average) emissions caused by generating electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;1. Calculating electricity usage reduction&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your calculation is done always on the same server, then you may be able to find out how much energy you saved by using an [electricity meter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_meter). If you cannot measure (because the server is in a remote data center) then you could make an estimate based on the average server energy consumption and on how much faster your calculation completes. Alternatively you could try and contact the data center and ask what energy consumption data they can share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your software is run by many people (clients) from all over the world then this will be much more difficult. You would at least need to know or guess how many people are running your code and how often, and then multiply that by an estimate of the average amount of electricity you reduced. If you have access to client device information you can make a more informed guess by taking different devices into account (desktop computers consume much more electricity than smart phones, but phones are probably slower in completing the calculation)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;2. Estimating the carbon intensity of electricity&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;You need to convert the amount of electricity you saved to [CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent) emissions. For this you need the [carbon intensity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_intensity) of the used electricity. Again this could be relatively easy if you have a single server. If that is powered by 100% renewable energy, then you can set your carbon footprint to 0 (this assumes the 'in-use' approach to calculation a footprint, see also [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/9703/99)). If you don't know the source of the electricity you can use the carbon intensity of the average energy mix of the country where the server is located. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have many users from all over the world running your code on their devices, you would need to use a world average carbon intensity. If data on where the users are coming from is available, you could refine this by calculating a weighted world average carbon intensity. The latter could be difficult as not all carbon footprints have the same scope, so you would need a list of carbon intensities from many countries calculated in a uniform way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;3. Optionally add emissions from other, low-impact activities&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the level of detail you are interested in, you could also estimate and subtract the emissions caused by writing your optimized code and putting it into production. However if your code is run very often, then the footprint of producing it will be relatively small and in that case you can probably leave it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is also a small carbon footprint involved with [storing data in the cloud](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6995/99), so if there are big changes there because of your improvement, that could also be included in the calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23202" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9858" RevisionGUID="3b17bba4-b593-4838-9324-50401afb316b" CreationDate="2020-02-22T00:00:34.077" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1231005824308457473" />
  <row Id="23203" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9819" RevisionGUID="b4da8e06-a1e4-4c41-9bd9-eebab47e5f8d" CreationDate="2020-02-22T09:00:33.483" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1231141717358915584" />
  <row Id="23210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9897" RevisionGUID="0904de18-12db-4187-a9e5-9c28e794f65f" CreationDate="2020-02-23T18:57:47.303" UserId="8013" Text="The World Wildlife Fund has an [Environmental Footprint Calculator][1], but it is does not go into much detail -- and it only does carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other carbon footprint calculators, such as [Carbon Footprint][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting specific answers about individual products is really hard. See for example a question which I raised on this site a month ago about [pet food][3] .. still no clear answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For businesses, there are a number of consultancies offering advice on how to estimate and reduce carbon footprint (I won't list them .. as I can't really judges between them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9791/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-pet-food" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23211" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9898" RevisionGUID="03a43a24-201b-4da9-aa12-34649c996e9a" CreationDate="2020-02-23T21:32:05.497" UserId="8410" Text="I refilled an empty cartridge of a ballpoint pen with regular ink, but now the pen won't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Why is that?&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - How to refill the cartridge of ballpoint pen properly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to avoid having to throw away so much plastic as even if I buy a new cartridge that still produces far too much waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ballpoint pen I tried to refill is a 0.7mm Frixion, and I am open for suggestions of other pens that are easy to handle (so my hands won't hurt after some minuted of writing), wasn't able to find any at the local stores I visited lately..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9898" RevisionGUID="03a43a24-201b-4da9-aa12-34649c996e9a" CreationDate="2020-02-23T21:32:05.497" UserId="8410" Text="Refill ink patron of ballpoint pen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9898" RevisionGUID="03a43a24-201b-4da9-aa12-34649c996e9a" CreationDate="2020-02-23T21:32:05.497" UserId="8410" Text="|recycling|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9898" RevisionGUID="b0647e1f-4ccc-4fe5-b251-9a967d1079eb" CreationDate="2020-02-24T02:36:34.630" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I refilled an empty cartridge of a ballpoint pen with regular ink, but now the pen doesn't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Why is that?&#xD;&#xA; - How to refill the cartridge of ballpoint pen properly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to avoid having to throw away so much plastic as even if I buy a new cartridge that still produces far too much waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ballpoint pen I tried to refill is a 0.7 mm Frixion, and I am open for suggestions of other pens that are easy to handle (so my hands won't hurt after some minutes of writing), wasn't able to find any at the local stores I visited lately..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23215" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9898" RevisionGUID="b0647e1f-4ccc-4fe5-b251-9a967d1079eb" CreationDate="2020-02-24T02:36:34.630" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Refill ink cartridge of ballpoint pen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23216" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9898" RevisionGUID="b0647e1f-4ccc-4fe5-b251-9a967d1079eb" CreationDate="2020-02-24T02:36:34.630" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|reuse|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23218" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9818" RevisionGUID="e0a01881-adc1-4e6c-9adf-50a75eed9564" CreationDate="2020-02-24T09:00:50.437" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1231866564116385792" />
  <row Id="23219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="5486ce3d-658e-4b98-94c2-b6651f69456d" CreationDate="2020-02-24T09:05:38.417" UserId="8041" Text="Smoke Control Areas are in place in 195 out of 434 local authorities.  53 of those cover the entire local authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Smoke Control Areas make it illegal to burn coal and other smokey fuels and regulate which appliances you are allowed to use to burn wood (only DEFRA approved stoves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I spoke to a member of the environmental health department and asked why we do not have one in my local authority.  He said that there has been very few convictions so it is not worth it (I think that is a poor reason as it will still act as a deterent).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what has been the real world effectiveness of these SCAs in reducing particulate pollution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23220" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="5486ce3d-658e-4b98-94c2-b6651f69456d" CreationDate="2020-02-24T09:05:38.417" UserId="8041" Text="How effective is a Smoke Control Area at reducing particulates? (UK)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23221" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="5486ce3d-658e-4b98-94c2-b6651f69456d" CreationDate="2020-02-24T09:05:38.417" UserId="8041" Text="|pollution|air-pollution|air-quality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23222" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="156f6938-a734-4d5a-b1d7-66f221ecc4cd" CreationDate="2020-02-24T14:41:37.563" UserId="8041" Comment="edited tags" Text="|pollution|air-pollution|uk|air-quality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9900" RevisionGUID="8bc78bc1-af71-4ea8-ab54-084cf938460d" CreationDate="2020-02-24T16:16:09.993" UserId="3379" Text="Our World in Data recently put together an interesting chart on this topic. From the article [&quot;You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local&quot;](https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Food: greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article provides a specific (extreme) example for someone in the UK getting beef from their neighbor, vs a ranch in Central America:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Transporting food by boat emits 23 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq per tonne of product per kilometer. To transport the 9000 kilometers from Central America to the UK therefore emits 0.207 kilograms CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq [9000km * 23g per tonne-kilometer / 1000 / 1000 = 0.207 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq per kg]. This is equivalent to 0.35% of the total footprint of the 60 kilograms of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq per kilogram of beef. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you buy from your local farmer – let’s assume you walk there, and have zero transport emissions – your beef footprint is 59.8 kilograms CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq per kilogram [we calculate this as 60kg – 0.2kg]. It makes almost no difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beef is the extreme example. For other animal products, here's the total emissions per kg, and the share that transport makes up:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Product           kg CO2eq emissions per kg      Transport share&#xD;&#xA;    ------------------------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Beef (beef herd)            59.6                       0.5%&#xD;&#xA;    Lamb &amp; Mutton               24.5                       2.0%&#xD;&#xA;    Cheese                      21.2                       0.5%&#xD;&#xA;    Beef (dairy herd)           21.1                       1.9%&#xD;&#xA;    Shrimps (farmed)            11.8                       1.7%&#xD;&#xA;    Pig Meat                     7.2                       4.2%&#xD;&#xA;    Poultry Meat                 6.1                       4.9%&#xD;&#xA;    Fish (farmed)                5.1                       2.0%&#xD;&#xA;    Eggs                         4.5                       2.2%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tUoIQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23224" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="ac2e1031-801f-4e47-ab00-4ae2da547e96" CreationDate="2020-02-24T18:00:29.383" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1232002371494010880" />
  <row Id="23225" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9901" RevisionGUID="0e7b4f91-a4d2-4ceb-81fb-aa3ecbb578fe" CreationDate="2020-02-24T20:20:02.720" UserId="6925" Text="Particulate is a very local issue, so it really, really depends on your local conditions. Particularly your ratio of greenery to urbanity.  Downtown London, oh, you betcha - they've had smoke controls for 120 years. The underground used to be pulled by steam engines, if you can imagine! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you're in a rural spot where the trees outnumber the people 100,000 to 1, the particulates get gulped up by nature pretty fast, and little real gain will occur from burdensome government regulations.   At that point, it's &quot;regulation by spite&quot; (since Londoners can't, neither can you in the Orkneys) or &quot;regulation to harmonize rules&quot; (you can't since Prague and Berlin can't), or &quot;environmental theater&quot; (look at how clean we are on things that don't matter). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another factor is the burden of enforcement to the users.  For instance if it will disproportionately impact the very poor, or historic operations (canal boats or heritage railways, then the social impact needs to be considered in balance. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon emissions, of course, are a different kettle of fish; and not a local matter at all.  I don't know how your jurisdiction views &quot;new carbon&quot; (wood) vs &quot;old carbon&quot; (coal).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23226" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="1b1e3120-a32e-4a6d-9976-8863b034f0fa" CreationDate="2020-02-24T22:01:40.483" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9902" RevisionGUID="ecb52caf-3599-44a7-99e8-11f81631d02a" CreationDate="2020-02-24T22:15:35.907" UserId="3379" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="#How I got here&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During grad school I got stuck while programming a microgrid controller, and [asked a question on Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.com/q/33702261). Within 3 minutes I had a solution -- and I was hooked. Soon I found Sustainability.SE, [wrote my first answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5259), and fell in love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sustainability matters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Climate change is the issue of our time, and sustainability is about making choices big and small that address it. This site provides a place for people to share knowledge, learn new skills, and work together to build a sustainable society.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Why I'd make a good moderator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been on the site for over three years, [ask lots of questions](https://data.stackexchange.com/sustainability/query/1187874/top-100-question-askers), and [watch for issues](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/help/badges/70/deputy). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't moderated anywhere else before, but I'm a regular on this site's meta and the main meta, so I feel I understand the guiding principles well. Whether elected or not, I look forward to helping the community grow through active participation and community-building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23228" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9903" RevisionGUID="2ac9f9c3-79ab-42a9-abcc-a51ad0134fa8" CreationDate="2020-02-24T22:19:58.363" UserId="8041" Text="I've been looking at some air quality monitoring results for ozone and trying to understand why there is such difference between locations.  Near busy roads, the sea, near factories?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am quite confused though!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Salford monitoring - the monitor is situated 20meters next to a motorway (M60) and near some other large roads and junctions. It has a yearly average of 31 (fairly low).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;London generally has very low ozone (21, 25, 30, 32, 38, 45, 48) so does Manchester Picadilly (29)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sibton in Norfolk has high Ozone, it is far away from busy roads, 11km away from the sea and in a very rural area (58).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Birmingham Acocks Green also has high Ozone (51), it is far away from the sea, 134m altitude (fairly high for UK towns!) and in the suburbs, 500m away from a medium A road.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be a bit of a correlation between the sea but not from traffic even though everyone says it is NO2 from traffic that causes ozone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though London seems fairly low the results are strange too, Kensington has 48 but Marylebone 22 (only 4km away from each other).  Tower Hamlets Millwall Park near a park and the thames is 45 but Tower Hamlets Blackwall next to a busy road is 25 (and they are just 2.9km apart).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do wonder how accurate these values actually are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23229" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9903" RevisionGUID="2ac9f9c3-79ab-42a9-abcc-a51ad0134fa8" CreationDate="2020-02-24T22:19:58.363" UserId="8041" Text="Ozone - in what type of location is it likely to find larger or smaller amounts of ozone" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23230" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9903" RevisionGUID="2ac9f9c3-79ab-42a9-abcc-a51ad0134fa8" CreationDate="2020-02-24T22:19:58.363" UserId="8041" Text="|pollution|air-quality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9903" RevisionGUID="53dd663c-fdd1-4919-898d-8f3eb8c0d5fe" CreationDate="2020-02-24T22:35:10.977" UserId="8041" Comment="deleted 55 characters in body" Text="I've been looking at some air quality monitoring results for ozone and trying to understand why there is such difference between locations.  Near busy roads, the sea, near factories?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am quite confused though!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Salford monitoring - the monitor is situated 20meters next to a motorway (M60) and near some other large roads and junctions. It has a yearly average of 31 (fairly low).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;London generally has very low ozone (21, 25, 30, 32, 38, 45, 48) so does Manchester Picadilly (29)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sibton in Norfolk has high Ozone, it is far away from busy roads, 11km away from the sea and in a very rural area (58).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Birmingham Acocks Green also has high Ozone (51), it is far away from the sea, 134m altitude (fairly high for UK towns!) and in the suburbs, 500m away from a medium A road.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be a bit of a correlation between the sea but not from traffic even though everyone says it is NO2 from traffic that causes ozone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even though London seems fairly low the results are strange too, Kensington has 48 but Marylebone 22 (only 4km away from each other).  Tower Hamlets Millwall Park near a park and the thames is 45 but Tower Hamlets Blackwall next to a busy road is 25 (and they are just 2.9km apart)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23232" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9904" RevisionGUID="74d9891f-3a2a-4686-92c7-fb4c92db23e6" CreationDate="2020-02-24T23:34:08.490" UserId="8232" Text="Hi! I'm Robotnik (or Ryan if you prefer). I'm an Australian developer/programmer, and have been a Stack Exchange member for over 6 years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm relatively new to Sustainability SE but have been passionate about sustainable practices my entire life. I'm currently in a position of being able to implement some of my personal sustainability goals, as well as potentially submitting to my local council on sustainability practices on a larger scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm well seasoned in community moderation both on and off Stack Exchange: I'm currently an active mod on Arqade (Videogaming SE), I also admin multiple Discord groups and have previously administrated Facebook groups of 30k+ members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm active in meta discussions, reviews, and am a prolific editor, including many edits to tag wikis/excerpts. I regularly browse older questions/answers to see if they need updating/improving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to site policies, I engage positively in discussions and share my thoughts, and I respect and will uphold decisions that I may not personally agree with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I feel that I have the necessary experience and mindset to help moderate Sustainability. Thanks for your consideration. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23233" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9904" RevisionGUID="dee774ff-b0c1-4c5d-b7d3-61ac1f97fe5d" CreationDate="2020-02-25T01:02:26.560" UserId="8232" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Hi! I'm Robotnik (or Ryan if you prefer). I'm an Australian developer/programmer, and a Stack Exchange user for over 6 years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sustainability&#xD;&#xA;I'm relatively new to Sustainability SE but have been passionate about sustainable practices my entire life. I'm currently in a position of being able to implement some of my personal sustainability goals, as well as submitting to my local council on sustainability practices on a larger scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Moderation&#xD;&#xA;I'm well seasoned in moderation both on and off Stack Exchange: I'm currently an active mod on Arqade (Videogaming SE), I also admin multiple Discord groups and have previously administrated Facebook groups of 30k+ members.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm active in meta discussions, reviews, and am a prolific editor, including many edits to tag wikis/excerpts. I regularly browse older questions/answers to see if they need updating/improving. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding site policies, I engage positively in discussions and share my thoughts, and I respect and will uphold decisions that I may not personally agree with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I feel that I have the necessary experience, personality and mindset to help moderate Sustainability. Thanks for your consideration. :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23234" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9891" RevisionGUID="0f9829fa-afe6-4177-b89c-c03bd257d7d6" CreationDate="2020-02-25T03:01:04.307" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1232138413261967360" />
  <row Id="23235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9902" RevisionGUID="82a85fad-2210-407f-89e9-6d94095c516a" CreationDate="2020-02-25T03:29:22.070" UserId="3379" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="Hi, I'm LShaver! I'm an electrical and energy engineer in Wisconsin, USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#How I got here&#xD;&#xA;During grad school I got stuck while programming a microgrid controller, and [asked a question on Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.com/q/33702261). Within 3 minutes I had a solution, and I was hooked. Soon I found Sustainability.SE, [wrote my first answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5259), and fell in love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Sustainability matters&#xD;&#xA;Climate change is *the* issue of our time, and sustainability is about making choices big and small that address it. This site connects people to share knowledge, learn new skills, and work together to build a sustainable society.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#Why I'd make a good moderator&#xD;&#xA;I've been on the site for over 3 years, [ask lots of questions](https://data.stackexchange.com/sustainability/query/1187874), and [keep an eye out](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/help/badges/70). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't been a mod before (here or elsewhere), but I'm active on the site and a regular on meta, so I understand the guiding principles well. Whether elected or not, I look forward to helping the community grow through active participation and community-building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23236" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9903" RevisionGUID="fee7b6c7-2861-4aa4-ad57-6daae9c64865" CreationDate="2020-02-25T08:27:53.430" UserId="8232" Comment="Don't need to prepend stuff to questions - that's what tags are for" Text="In what type of location is it likely to find larger or smaller amounts of ozone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23237" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9903" RevisionGUID="fee7b6c7-2861-4aa4-ad57-6daae9c64865" CreationDate="2020-02-25T08:27:53.430" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 617" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9905" RevisionGUID="45caed9a-1c38-4830-848f-36818d1fd0aa" CreationDate="2020-02-25T09:54:54.220" UserId="4155" Text="Hi, I'm Nick C,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a software engineer based in the UK, with a growing interest in sustainability. I've been a Stack Exchange user for nearly 10 years now, and I'm an active moderator on the Motor Vehicles Maintenance and Repair site - another of the smaller sites that, like here, has managed to avoid many of the problems that have recently tainted the bigger SE sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've not yet been hugely active here, as I consider myself to be very much in the learning phase when it comes to sustainability, but it seems to me that this is probably the biggest issue we face as a society at this time, and it's important to share information, and so sift the wheat from the chaff to find out what will really make a difference, and what's just media hype.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a mod on another small SE site, I've found that the light approach works well - a gentle warning tends to be far more effective than leaping in with a suspension or ban. I also thinks it's very important to respect the community - for example if the mod team aren't sure whether something should be deemed off-topic, raising a meta question allows it to be discussed with the community at large rather than imposing a decision." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23239" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9849" RevisionGUID="f0d827c2-535c-4828-b2a1-d5b54495fafc" CreationDate="2020-02-25T12:00:44.337" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1232274224846376961" />
  <row Id="23240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9906" RevisionGUID="4e443a43-9241-4339-96ee-889a3ab95244" CreationDate="2020-02-25T13:32:12.830" UserId="3500" Text="Many population growth estimates actually suggest that the growth will slow down in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![World population estimate (Pew Research Center][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main argument is that the global fertility rate is decreasing and that the median age of the world population is going up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Global fertility rate and median age (Pew Research Center][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: [World population growth is expected to nearly stop by 2100][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0dRfm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7ulnT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23241" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9764" RevisionGUID="25553d77-8d2d-4f4d-91f0-affe04c263c2" CreationDate="2020-02-25T13:38:53.167" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|population|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9898" RevisionGUID="9919e902-5c4c-4d7e-9e20-bb26d7ec10ec" CreationDate="2020-02-25T15:32:42.940" UserId="8410" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="I refilled an empty cartridge of a ballpoint pen with regular ink, but now the pen doesn't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Why is that?&#xD;&#xA; - How to refill the cartridge of ballpoint pen properly?&#xD;&#xA; - What substance could I mix the ink with in which concentration to make the pen work again?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to avoid having to throw away so much plastic as even if I buy a new cartridge that still produces far too much waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ballpoint pen I tried to refill is a 0.7 mm Frixion, and I am open for suggestions of other pens that are easy to handle (so my hands won't hurt after some minutes of writing), wasn't able to find any at the local stores I visited lately..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9907" RevisionGUID="6405500b-40b4-4be6-957f-8bb274edf2e3" CreationDate="2020-02-25T15:57:18.513" UserId="3379" Text="Using data from the 2017 [Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report](https://www.elementascience.org/article/10.1525/elementa.244/) we can answer the first part of the question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In what type of location is it likely to find larger or smaller amounts of ozone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a [massive database](https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.876109?format=html#download) of images and plots available, from which I pulled just a few: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a full image to include the legend and full caption:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![50th percentile ozone value, annual average 2010 to 2014][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'll focus just on the UK since that's what you've asked about. From left to right:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Rural, high elevation sites&#xD;&#xA; - Rural, low elevation sites&#xD;&#xA; - Urban sites&#xD;&#xA; - Non-urban sites&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![50th percentile ozone value, annual average 2010 to 2014, UK][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Based on these maps, the higher concentrations appear to be in rural, coastal sites.** There is only one high-elevation site in the UK, but it also has a higher relative concentration, consistent with high-elevation sites in other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yqPI0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yuktU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9907" RevisionGUID="0a643197-8a23-4a22-a867-f01c9c4261a0" CreationDate="2020-02-25T16:18:57.423" UserId="3379" Comment="added 850 characters in body" Text="##In what type of location is it likely to find larger or smaller amounts of ozone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using data from the 2017 [Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report](https://www.elementascience.org/article/10.1525/elementa.244/) we can answer the first part of the question. There's a [massive database](https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.876109?format=html#download) of images and plots available, from which I pulled just a few.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a full image to include the legend and caption:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![50th percentile ozone value, annual average 2010 to 2014][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'll focus just on the UK since that's what you've asked about. From left to right:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Rural, high elevation sites&#xD;&#xA; - Rural, low elevation sites&#xD;&#xA; - Urban sites&#xD;&#xA; - Non-urban sites&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![50th percentile ozone value, annual average 2010 to 2014, UK][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Based on these maps, the higher concentrations appear to be in rural, coastal sites.** There is only one high-elevation site in the UK, but it also has a higher relative concentration, consistent with high-elevation sites in other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Why is the concentration different between locations?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_ozone):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, and chemical solvents are the major anthropogenic sources of these ozone precursors. Although the ozone precursors often originate in urban areas, winds can carry NOx hundreds of kilometers, causing ozone formation to occur in less populated regions as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the UK, the prevailing winds are from the south and west ([source](https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.301)), and population is densest roughly in the south and east:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Night-time map of the UK][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means we'd expect to see ozone concentrations roughly north and east of population centers, which is consistent with the maps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yqPI0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yuktU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dS1GE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9908" RevisionGUID="d09eaf6e-07f9-4b97-8b50-36c3cdd0fbeb" CreationDate="2020-02-25T18:30:00.943" UserId="1056" Text="Hi, I'm Nic. I'm a Canadian software developer/SRE and a Stack Exchange user for 11 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Sustainability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been exploring various aspects of sustainability for over a decade, with a particular focus on understanding the relationship between behavioural change and organized, collective action. I've contributed my effort toward eco-oriented software startups, local political candidates, and activist movements. I believe that Stack Exchange is a small but important element in helping motivated people to do the right thing. I also believe that sites like Stack Exchange and Wikipedia are even more valuable in the current political atmosphere of disinformation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Moderation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have helped to moderate online communities in the past on mediums like IRC, phpBB, Slack, and Facebook Groups. On Stack Exchange I've contributed to both large and small sites, though I have not yet played a role as a ♦moderator on any site in the network, so I would consider myself a junior mod.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My general philosophy is to be welcoming and gracious to people who are unfamiliar and don't know the rules or the culture, but maintain firm rule against malevolent misbehaviour and misinformation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23247" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9909" RevisionGUID="d0429cbd-1626-44d3-89d8-6c3ebb785b8b" CreationDate="2020-02-25T22:51:06.997" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23248" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9909" RevisionGUID="d0429cbd-1626-44d3-89d8-6c3ebb785b8b" CreationDate="2020-02-25T22:51:06.997" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9910" RevisionGUID="ef32a8a5-b51e-4448-951f-b9aa64315b57" CreationDate="2020-02-25T22:51:06.997" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9910" RevisionGUID="ef32a8a5-b51e-4448-951f-b9aa64315b57" CreationDate="2020-02-25T22:51:06.997" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9911" RevisionGUID="990826f6-6308-4d02-b6d7-2f15b486e6b9" CreationDate="2020-02-26T10:20:41.353" UserId="4155" Text="Ballpoint pens use a paste rather than a liquid ink, so I doubt you'd be able to refill one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would suggest using a fountain pen instead, they are easily refillable, and there are loads of different styles around so you should be able to find one that fits the size and shape of your hand, and so will probably be more comfortable to write with than a ballpoint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9912" RevisionGUID="edf87036-d056-4139-a5f6-fbb9854e69b3" CreationDate="2020-02-26T16:21:40.263" UserId="1056" Text="Your assumption seems to be correct -- consuming paper towels demands about eight times more energy than machine-washing and hang-drying reusable rags made from discarded textiles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to provide an answer that fits within the character limit, I'm going to focus on **energy** as the measure with which to compare paper towels against machine-washed rags. Otherwise, analysis could be skewed by counting renewable energy for one product against fossil fuel energy for the other. I will also try to account for **land use**, which should always be a consideration with forest products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also going to assume that one rag has cleaning power equivalent to two sheets of 2-ply paper towel (about 8 grams worth).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Paper Towel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have access to a detailed [life cycle inventory (LCI) of paper towel](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616304383) courtesy of the US EPA and P&amp;G. This LCI uses a paper towel roll (191 grams) as the functional unit. I will calculate a single use as 4% of the roll, based on my guess stated above for equivalent cleaning power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Producing a roll of paper towel uses several kinds of fuel and energy at various stages. We can make these comparable by multiplying the energy content, or [calorific value](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html) of each fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1.94 MJ from crude oil (0.0465 kg * 41.8 MJ/kg)&#xD;&#xA;- 5.22 MJ from natural gas (0.100 kg * 52.2 MJ/kg)&#xD;&#xA;- 0.38 MJ renewable energy&#xD;&#xA;- 5.22 MJ from coal (0.173 kg * 30.2 MJ/kg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very roughly speaking, it takes 12.76 MJ of energy to produce a roll of paper towel, or 0.51 MJ for two sheets to clean up a single mess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Machine Wash&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was also able to locate a [life cycle analysis of clothes washing machines](https://waterportal.com.au/swf/projects/item/124-life-cycle-analysis-of-clothes-washing-options) (link to [PDF](https://waterportal.com.au/swf/images/swf-files/cww-epa-project-life-cycle-analysis-of-clothes-washing-options-_final_technical_report.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to assume that a rag weighs about 25 grams, based on how many rags I've been able to produce out of my worn t-shirts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the energy use for machine washing is in the drying phase, so I'll provide both numbers here. These numbers are for 1 kg of dry clothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2.476 MJ (wash-only)&#xD;&#xA;- 12.196 MJ (wash &amp; dry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So roughly speaking, it takes 0.06 MJ to wash a single rag, or 0.30 MJ to wash &amp; dry a single rag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Discussion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It does appear that producing paper towels demands more energy than just washing reusable rags, just like you guessed in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it was clear to my when I read the paper towel LCI that the impact of plastic wrapping is almost negligible in every category of sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The contribution of packaging to the results is low (&lt;1%) it is not included in the tables and graphs of the analysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A more thorough comparison might want to consider other aspects of sustainability, such as water use, water contamination, fossil fuel depletion, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste accumulation. However, it would be difficult to compare these aspects without making many more assumptions to set up specific scenarios." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23254" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="9791" RevisionGUID="12576b83-b5bf-4096-8de5-9c31ebf4f5ff" CreationDate="2020-02-26T16:40:05.430" UserId="1056" Comment="61" />
  <row Id="23255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9913" RevisionGUID="b7b9b726-2d23-477f-9806-b779236baa3c" CreationDate="2020-02-26T17:53:34.507" UserId="6287" Text="Quick answer, from best to worst, in terms of water only:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Good:  Oat milk, soy milk &#xD;&#xA; - Okay:  Almond milk &#xD;&#xA; - Worst: Dairy milk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of &quot;news&quot; articles about the water and carbon impacts of milk. I cannot find the one I just read, but I've included a few below as a reference. Some of it depends on where things are grown, and how a rise in one type displaces another. Water and carbon evaluations need to be measured from the food sources and land displacement, so it is a little tricky. That being said, there are some rough generalisations that seem to simplify this decision for most of us in our daily lives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This finding surprised me a little but **dairy milk is the worst for water**. It's also the worst for GHGs, which is less surprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almond milk was reported as being better than dairy milk for both, but it is still worse for water than all of the other milk sources. Plus almonds are displacing other crops in California, which is bad. Apparently there's a good return on almond crops, but only because they're not paying for the water, the cost of which is kept relatively low so that it doesn't stunt all farming in general. It's like fuel costs, it needs to go up in price to change use, but has huge impacts everywhere if it does.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Soy and oat milk are both good for water and GHGs (*relative* to the other options) and, depending on where you live, have a good chance of being grown locally (vs. say coconut milk). That helps on GHGs, but obviously cannot be applied equally to everyone. If you are in the US or Canada, there's a good chance it's being sourced locally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that if you're switching from dairy milk you will need to up your protein from other sources. Soy has about 2/3rds the protein of dairy, and oat about 1/2 the protein of dairy. You also have to watch for sweetened alternative milks, as if we're not getting enough sugar as it is. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My favourite for cereals is soy milk as it has a wheatier taste, which goes great with grains. I've generally found all of the other alternatives (other than soy) a little thin and watery. They're not unbearably so and you get used to it, but it's an adjustment. They're more like (dairy) skim milk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A bonus for these milk alternatives is that they don't curdle. I often cut up fruit in my cereal, and if left too long it would curdle the dairy milk, especially if it was acidic. I've heard all of these milk alternatives can be used for DIY yoghurt, which surprised me too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly soy milk is a high-FODMAP food in the US/Canada. Apparently the New Zealand/Australian production uses the whole bean and works out to be low-FODMAP. (Not than anyone asked. :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that diary milk is rated worst when it's from big, industrial farms. Since they're the major source of milk (and beef, etc.), it is these sources that are usually evaluated and reported. When it is from small farm holdings the GHGs are apparently negligible. I presume it is because the waste is in proportion to what can re-used locally (e.g. tilled back into the soil) and there aren't giant piles of manure degrading anaerobically, producing lots of methane. I guess on small holdings, methane burps are relatively negligible. :) They still have sizable use requirements, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if these cattle are used for meat (which, I know, has the same water and GHG issues), the water and GHG side effects of this dairy milk are similarly negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC.com: Feb 2020: Which milk alternative should we be drinking?][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [BBC.com: Feb 2019: Climate change: Which vegan milk is best?][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [MedicalNewsToday.com: (Nutrition) Almond, hemp, oat, soy, and cow's milk: Which is best][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200207-which-milk-alternative-should-we-be-drinking&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325425#nutritional-values" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9914" RevisionGUID="0ba8979c-db12-418b-90d4-57c1e4945995" CreationDate="2020-02-26T19:46:01.930" UserId="6287" Text="I'm going to throw an answer out here, but surely there people with more knowledge out there. Please contribute as you can, and suggest corrections to any errors I make here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am going to assume that all materials are going to make it into the recycling stream, since that seems to be the OP's intent. I'm also going to assume that the recycling stream is not being corrupted by &quot;aspirational recycling&quot; where the stream is corrupted by unrecyclable or poorly sorted materials. It affects all of the materials anyway, and again seems to be inline with the OP's intent. I'm also going to ignore the pollution from energy since it is variable depending on the source, but instead just talk about energy as is: more is worse, less is better. It's a good reason why it is necessary to electrify everything, and produce that electricity from renewable resources. (I realise this is a bit of a fudge, especially since paper mills are often located well away from energy sources and are instead located where the wood is, and therefore often burn fuels for energy since it's tough to locate solar panels in forests. It's a good reason to continue to research biofuels.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with the OP's evaluation of packaging per volume and weights as they relate to transportation costs. Square packages are more efficient in packaging by volume, which also is a plus for boxed wine's transportation costs due to volumes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The boxed wine consists of a cardboard box and an inside &quot;tetra pack&quot; plastic. In Ontario, Canada these tetra-packs are recyclable (and there are deposit refunds at The Beer Store). The bottle consists of glass; we'll ignore the metal cap with plastic insert (more fudging :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paper/cardboard comes from a renewable resource. These trees do not need to be old forest trees, but are usually replanted forests harvested specifically for paper/cardboard production. (I'll take renewable forest harvesting over drilling or mining every time.) Paper requires a lot of water and energy to produce, and produces toxic pollution (chlorine other chemicals - the paper pulp sludge is toxic). There's a reason pulp/paper mills exist next to lakes and rivers. Cardboard boxes can include a relatively high amount of recycled materials, especially when used as frame cardboard (i.e a wine box or a shipping box, vs. a box that holds food directly), and have good recyclablility (that's a word, right?). Recycling paper takes less energy than recycling glass, which requires a lot of heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Glass is made from sand, but only special sand that is typically harvested from lake and river beds. We're currently using more than is being regenerated, so we should count this as a non-renewable resource. Glass is indefinitely recyclable, unlike plastics which can only be recycled a few times. Glass can include (near?) 100% recycled materials; glass is made food safe (there's separation of contaminants in the production process). However, glass can only be recycled with like colours: clear for clear products, green for green products, etc. Glass cannot be recycled when broken (due to worker safety), but I'll assume they make it whole. Wine bottles are shipped in boxes with dividers. I think we can hand-wave ourselves to evaluating the cardboard use in bottle shipping is roughly equal to that of wine boxes and their shipping. I might even suggest that wine bottles use slightly more. Glass production produces less toxic pollution than paper or plastic (not counting energy sources). The sand harvesting, however, does significantly disrupt the environments from which it's sourced, which is a kind of pollution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic uses fossil fuels to make, which is obviously non-renewable, is damaging to the environment to extract, and takes energy to refine. Plastic takes significantly less energy to make than cardboard or glass. Plastics can only be recycled a few times (e.g. 3-4 cycles) before they break down too much to be viable for new materials. Unfortunately at that point they become waste. Worse they leak chemicals and break down into smaller micro-particles that can get into water sources and the food chain. Food safe plastics contain 0% recycled materials (probably because of concerns about the potential toxicity of the sources).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some hope of bio-plastics coming soon, but that's not what's generally being used today. These bio-plastics can be food-safe and are bio-degradable, so that would be a boon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cardboard and plastic produce toxic pollution in their construction. All take energy to be produced, although plastics take the least. All can be produced from recycled materials, but in reality food-safe plastics are made only from new plastics. Plastics have limited recyclability, due to poor separation between types of plastic and limited number of times it can be recycled (about 3-4 cycles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastics tend to win in terms of production and shipping, but because they ultimately become unrecyclable waste, and worse, a waste that pollutes the food chain, they lose in my evaluation, and hence so does the wine box. If in the future the tetra pack were made from bio-plastics that can decompose without toxic pollution, I think then the wine box would win over the glass bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option not mentioned here: wine can come in kegs now. :) You can get it served as draught in some places (wineries, bars). These kegs are reusable, which is always better than recycling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [NewsWire.ca: Beer Store Recycling Program Saves Ontario Taxpayers, Environment $40 Million][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [ProCarton.com: Comparison of Carton and Plastic Packaging Sustainability][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [Technik Packaging: Packaging Materials such as Plastics vs. Cardboard][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [GoingZeroWaste.com: Which is Better For The Environment? Glass or Plastic?][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Some of these references might have conflicts of interest, so add salt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/beer-store-recycling-program-saves-ontario-taxpayers-environment-40-million-515428111.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.procarton.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/PC-Carton-Plastic-Sustainability.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.technikpackaging.com/environmental-impact-packaging-materials/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.goingzerowaste.com/blog/which-is-better-for-the-environment-glass-or-plastic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9914" RevisionGUID="c79ec1fc-4755-40eb-99a1-915e0867db36" CreationDate="2020-02-26T20:01:43.850" UserId="6287" Comment="Added TreeHugger Tetra-Pak links" Text="I'm going to throw an answer out here, but surely there people with more knowledge out there. Please contribute as you can, and suggest corrections to any errors I make here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am going to assume that all materials are going to make it into the recycling stream, since that seems to be the OP's intent. I'm also going to assume that the recycling stream is not being corrupted by &quot;aspirational recycling&quot; where the stream is corrupted by unrecyclable or poorly sorted materials. It affects all of the materials anyway, and again seems to be inline with the OP's intent. I'm also going to ignore the pollution from energy since it is variable depending on the source, but instead just talk about energy as is: more is worse, less is better. It's a good reason why it is necessary to electrify everything, and produce that electricity from renewable resources. (I realise this is a bit of a fudge, especially since paper mills are often located well away from energy sources and are instead located where the wood is, and therefore often burn fuels for energy since it's tough to locate solar panels in forests. It's a good reason to continue to research biofuels.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with the OP's evaluation of packaging per volume and weights as they relate to transportation costs. Square packages are more efficient in packaging by volume, which also is a plus for boxed wine's transportation costs due to volumes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The boxed wine consists of a cardboard box and an inside &quot;tetra-pak&quot; plastic. In Ontario, Canada these tetra-paks are recyclable (and there are deposit refunds at The Beer Store). The bottle consists of glass; we'll ignore the metal cap with plastic insert (more fudging :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paper/cardboard comes from a renewable resource. These trees do not need to be old forest trees, but are usually replanted forests harvested specifically for paper/cardboard production. (I'll take renewable forest harvesting over drilling or mining every time.) Paper requires a lot of water and energy to produce, and produces toxic pollution (chlorine other chemicals - the paper pulp sludge is toxic). There's a reason pulp/paper mills exist next to lakes and rivers. Cardboard boxes can include a relatively high amount of recycled materials, especially when used as frame cardboard (i.e a wine box or a shipping box, vs. a box that holds food directly), and have good recyclablility (that's a word, right?). Recycling paper takes less energy than recycling glass, which requires a lot of heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Glass is made from sand, but only special sand that is typically harvested from lake and river beds. We're currently using more than is being regenerated, so we should count this as a non-renewable resource. Glass is indefinitely recyclable, unlike plastics which can only be recycled a few times. Glass can include (near?) 100% recycled materials; glass is made food safe (there's separation of contaminants in the production process). However, glass can only be recycled with like colours: clear for clear products, green for green products, etc. Glass cannot be recycled when broken (due to worker safety), but I'll assume they make it whole. Wine bottles are shipped in boxes with dividers. I think we can hand-wave ourselves to evaluating the cardboard use in bottle shipping is roughly equal to that of wine boxes and their shipping. I might even suggest that wine bottles use slightly more. Glass production produces less toxic pollution than paper or plastic (not counting energy sources). The sand harvesting, however, does significantly disrupt the environments from which it's sourced, which is a kind of pollution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic uses fossil fuels to make, which is obviously non-renewable, is damaging to the environment to extract, and takes energy to refine. Plastic takes significantly less energy to make than cardboard or glass. Plastics can only be recycled a few times (e.g. 3-4 cycles) before they break down too much to be viable for new materials. Unfortunately at that point they become waste. Worse they leak chemicals and break down into smaller micro-particles that can get into water sources and the food chain. Food safe plastics contain 0% recycled materials (probably because of concerns about the potential toxicity of the sources). There are numerous articles questioning the recyclability of tetra-paks as they consist of different thin layers of paper and plastic and ??. It's difficult to separate these components, so the recyclability of these materials should be a big question mark. I think they should be considered as &quot;less recyclable&quot; than paper or glass, and even other plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some hope of bio-plastics coming soon, but that's not what's generally being used today. These bio-plastics can be food-safe and are bio-degradable, so that would be a boon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cardboard and plastic produce toxic pollution in their construction. All take energy to be produced, although plastics take the least. All can be produced from recycled materials, but in reality food-safe plastics are made only from new plastics. Plastics have limited recyclability, due to poor separation between types of plastic and limited number of times it can be recycled (about 3-4 cycles).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastics tend to win in terms of production and shipping, but plastic is less reyclable than the other materials, and tetra-paks in particular are difficult to recycle. Plastics in general become unrecyclable waste because of their limited recyclability. Worse, their waste pollutes the food chain. Plastics, and in particular tetra-paks, lose in my evaluation for these reasons, and hence so does the wine box. If in the future the tetra-pak were made from bio-plastics that can decompose without toxic pollution, I think then the wine box would win over the glass bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option not mentioned here: wine can come in kegs now. :) You can get it served as draught in some places (wineries, bars). These kegs are reusable, which is always better than recycling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [NewsWire.ca: Beer Store Recycling Program Saves Ontario Taxpayers, Environment $40 Million][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [ProCarton.com: Comparison of Carton and Plastic Packaging Sustainability][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [Technik Packaging: Packaging Materials such as Plastics vs. Cardboard][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [GoingZeroWaste.com: Which is Better For The Environment? Glass or Plastic?][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [TreeHugger.com: In What World Can You Call Tetra Pak Green?][5]&#xD;&#xA; - [TreeHugger.com: In Defense Of TetraPak][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Some of these references might have conflicts of interest, so add salt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/beer-store-recycling-program-saves-ontario-taxpayers-environment-40-million-515428111.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.procarton.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/PC-Carton-Plastic-Sustainability.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.technikpackaging.com/environmental-impact-packaging-materials/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.goingzerowaste.com/blog/which-is-better-for-the-environment-glass-or-plastic&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/in-what-world-can-you-call-tetra-pak-green.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/in-defense-of-tetrapak.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9914" RevisionGUID="ece65a32-0948-4554-8d5c-8c70b4285692" CreationDate="2020-02-26T20:11:09.977" UserId="6287" Comment="Added TreeHugger Tetra-Pak links" Text="I'm going to throw an answer out here, but surely there people with more knowledge out there. Please contribute as you can, and suggest corrections to any errors I make here. I have tried to detail my reasoning, but this answer is more hand-waving. For example, I can find no reliable sources to evaluate different types of pollution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am going to assume that all materials are going to make it into the recycling stream, since that seems to be the OP's intent. I'm also going to assume that the recycling stream is not being corrupted by &quot;aspirational recycling&quot; where the stream is corrupted by unrecyclable or poorly sorted materials. It affects all of the materials anyway, and again seems to be inline with the OP's intent. I'm also going to ignore the pollution from energy since it is variable depending on the source, but instead just talk about energy as is: more is worse, less is better. It's a good reason why it is necessary to electrify everything, and produce that electricity from renewable resources. (I realise this is a bit of a fudge, especially since paper mills are often located well away from energy sources and are instead located where the wood is, and therefore often burn fuels for energy since it's tough to locate solar panels in forests. It's a good reason to continue to research biofuels.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with the OP's evaluation of packaging per volume and weights as they relate to transportation costs. Square packages are more efficient in packaging by volume, which also is a plus for boxed wine's transportation costs due to volumes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The boxed wine consists of a cardboard box and an inside &quot;tetra-pak&quot; plastic. In Ontario, Canada these tetra-paks are recyclable (and there are deposit refunds at The Beer Store). The bottle consists of glass; we'll ignore the metal cap with plastic insert (more fudging :)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paper/cardboard comes from a renewable resource. These trees do not need to be old forest trees, but are usually replanted forests harvested specifically for paper/cardboard production. (I'll take renewable forest harvesting over drilling or mining every time.) Paper requires a lot of water and energy to produce, and produces toxic pollution (chlorine other chemicals - the paper pulp sludge is toxic). There's a reason pulp/paper mills exist next to lakes and rivers. Cardboard boxes can include a relatively high amount of recycled materials, especially when used as frame cardboard (i.e a wine box or a shipping box, vs. a box that holds food directly), and have good recyclablility (that's a word, right?). Recycling paper takes less energy than recycling glass, which requires a lot of heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Glass is made from sand, but only special sand that is typically harvested from lake and river beds. We're currently using more than is being regenerated, so we should count this as a non-renewable resource. Glass is indefinitely recyclable, unlike plastics which can only be recycled a few times. Glass can include (near?) 100% recycled materials; glass is made food safe (there's separation of contaminants in the production process). However, glass can only be recycled with like colours: clear for clear products, green for green products, etc. Glass cannot be recycled when broken (due to worker safety), but I'll assume they make it whole. Wine bottles are shipped in boxes with dividers. I think we can hand-wave ourselves to evaluating the cardboard use in bottle shipping is roughly equal to that of wine boxes and their shipping. I might even suggest that wine bottles use slightly more. Glass production produces less toxic pollution than paper or plastic (not counting energy sources). The sand harvesting, however, does significantly disrupt the environments from which it's sourced, which is a kind of pollution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic uses fossil fuels to make, which is obviously non-renewable, is damaging to the environment to extract, and takes energy to refine. Plastic takes significantly less energy to make than cardboard or glass. Plastics can only be recycled a few times (e.g. 3-4 cycles) before they break down too much to be viable for new materials. Unfortunately at that point they become waste. Worse they leak chemicals and break down into smaller micro-particles that can get into water sources and the food chain. Food safe plastics contain 0% recycled materials (probably because of concerns about the potential toxicity of the sources). There are numerous articles questioning the recyclability of tetra-paks as they consist of different thin layers of paper and plastic and metal. It's difficult for recyclers to separate these components, so the recyclability of these materials should be a big question mark. I think they should be considered as &quot;less recyclable&quot; than paper or glass, and even other plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is some hope of bio-plastics coming soon, but that's not what's generally being used today. These bio-plastics can be food-safe and are bio-degradable, so that would be a boon. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cardboard and plastic produce toxic pollution in their construction. All take energy to be produced, although plastics take the least. All can be produced from recycled materials, but in reality food-safe plastics are made only from new plastics. Plastics have limited recyclability, due to poor separation between types of plastic and limited number of times it can be recycled (about 3-4 cycles). Tetra-paks are considered worse for recyclability than plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastics tend to win in terms of production and shipping, but plastic is less reyclable than the other materials, and tetra-paks even worse. Plastics become unrecyclable waste even when they are recycled since they break down in the process. Worse, their waste pollutes the food chain. Plastics/tetra-paks lose in my evaluation if eco-friendliness for these reasons, and hence so does the wine box. If in the future the tetra-pak were made from bio-plastics that can decompose without toxic pollution, I think then the wine box would win over the glass bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option not mentioned here: wine can come in kegs now. :) You can get it served as draught in some places (wineries, bars). These kegs are reusable, which is always better than recycling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;References:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [NewsWire.ca: Beer Store Recycling Program Saves Ontario Taxpayers, Environment $40 Million][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [ProCarton.com: Comparison of Carton and Plastic Packaging Sustainability][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [Technik Packaging: Packaging Materials such as Plastics vs. Cardboard][3]&#xD;&#xA; - [GoingZeroWaste.com: Which is Better For The Environment? Glass or Plastic?][4]&#xD;&#xA; - [TreeHugger.com: In What World Can You Call Tetra Pak Green?][5]&#xD;&#xA; - [TreeHugger.com: In Defense Of TetraPak][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Some of these references might have conflicts of interest, so add salt.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/beer-store-recycling-program-saves-ontario-taxpayers-environment-40-million-515428111.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.procarton.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/PC-Carton-Plastic-Sustainability.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.technikpackaging.com/environmental-impact-packaging-materials/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.goingzerowaste.com/blog/which-is-better-for-the-environment-glass-or-plastic&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/in-what-world-can-you-call-tetra-pak-green.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/in-defense-of-tetrapak.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9915" RevisionGUID="368c0cf3-e7a4-44fd-b71e-b3c07e44a095" CreationDate="2020-02-26T23:50:13.547" UserId="6929" Text="The most common sustainable solution for soup takeaway (to-go) containers are those compostable cup and lid sets - made from plant-based plastic (PLA) lid and a paper/PLA cup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are basically non-plastic versions of traditional soup cups, and can be composted in a **municipal composting facility**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since not every city has composting facilities, and consumers are not great at separating these lids from plastic lids, _what is a better solution to this?_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way to serve to-go soup/coffee without the plastic lid, or without the plastic lining on the paper cups?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23260" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9915" RevisionGUID="368c0cf3-e7a4-44fd-b71e-b3c07e44a095" CreationDate="2020-02-26T23:50:13.547" UserId="6929" Text="Solution to zero-waste take-away cup containers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23261" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9915" RevisionGUID="368c0cf3-e7a4-44fd-b71e-b3c07e44a095" CreationDate="2020-02-26T23:50:13.547" UserId="6929" Text="|plastic|packaging|plastic-alternatives|compostable-plastic|coffee|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23262" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8376" RevisionGUID="69dd3be3-a253-4e07-b09f-ec0cfbc4b322" CreationDate="2020-02-27T00:00:41.557" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1232817795051769856" />
  <row Id="23263" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9916" RevisionGUID="d22f2ca4-2e37-4114-b509-686f63e3859d" CreationDate="2020-02-27T01:45:55.737" UserId="6293" Text="Plastic films can line paper containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.avantium.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/20191011-Press-release-Avantium-joins-Paper-Bottle-Project-final.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But also plastic is being developed that will bio-degrade in any compost situation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.avantium.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Gruter-G-J-M-Confusion-about-biopolymer-and-biodegradation.-Chem-Today-2019-37-4-54-55.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is more plastic news and that is that plastic can be made from carbon-dioxide. So powerplants using fossil-fuels could capture carbon-dioxide and use it to make plastic. Then that plastic could be used in long-term building materials. And those building materials could be required by building code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://news.rutgers.edu/how-convert-climate-changing-carbon-dioxide-plastics-and-other-products/20181120#.XlcexyFKhp8&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9917" RevisionGUID="47cb383b-77b2-4972-babb-aa94f43a43d2" CreationDate="2020-02-27T01:53:36.027" UserId="8506" Text="I am interested in energy conservation and would like some simple tips on ways I can reduce my water and energy use in the bathroom in particular, as I feel that this is the place that I use the most water (and spend the most time). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23265" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9917" RevisionGUID="47cb383b-77b2-4972-babb-aa94f43a43d2" CreationDate="2020-02-27T01:53:36.027" UserId="8506" Text="How can I conserve energy and water in my bathroom?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23266" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9917" RevisionGUID="47cb383b-77b2-4972-babb-aa94f43a43d2" CreationDate="2020-02-27T01:53:36.027" UserId="8506" Text="|energy-efficiency|water|water-heating|water-conservation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9918" RevisionGUID="86a858d7-1d6f-4dff-b4c8-871477e06585" CreationDate="2020-02-27T03:14:30.510" UserId="8232" Text="Rather than focus on alternatives to plastic lids on disposable containers, I thought it would be beneficial to have another solution entirely:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Use reusable lunch gear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a consumer, you can bring a bowl or soup cup with you (or even just a tupperware container with a lid), and ask that your takeaway soup be placed in that instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[KeepCup][1] offers a similar idea for coffee/tea cups. I have one, and use it daily for tea/coffee from my regular cafe. That cafe also supplies keep cups to their customers, for a small fee - the customer can either return the cup when they're done and get their fee back, or keep it for their own use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The founder of KeepCup has actually started another business focused on [the issue of takeaway containers][2]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Aptly called Returnr, the business lets customers pick up their food in a reusable stainless steel bowl after paying a $6 dollar deposit. After eating, users can then return the bowl, re-use the bowl, or keep it forever (and forgo their $6).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;But founder Jamie Forsyth tells StartupSmart he’s finding most users are opting for the second choice, re-using the bowl numerous times in an effort to avoid relying on single-use containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in a few years, it might be possible to simply request a reusable container from your local eatery over a disposable one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note - I have no affiliation with KeepCup and they're far from the only supplier - I'm just using them as a relevant example.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://keepcup.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.smartcompany.com.au/startupsmart/news/keepcup-founder-reusable-bowl-startup-returnr/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23271" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9919" RevisionGUID="d0e32162-0e37-4afb-a47a-8c1baed8e96c" CreationDate="2020-02-27T09:53:19.470" UserId="6602" Text="Stick a water meter on your shower and bath taps. [This one looks adequate][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know what the optimal time to spend in the shower is, or whether a long hot deep bath is more satisfying than a long hot shower, its personal taste. But with a meter you can track how much water each uses and then weigh that against how much satisfaction or washing you get from each.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was an Instructibles page where someone had hooked up their water meter to a bell that rang for every litre so you could have pace your showers that way. Sadly I can't find the webpage right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bradas-Water-Smart-Flow-Meter/dp/B07GVRLB7D" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9909" RevisionGUID="335e0d69-ff98-432b-9def-ad084cac263a" CreationDate="2020-02-27T11:31:10.880" UserId="8232" Comment="added 565 characters in body" Text="Greenhouse gasses cause the Greenhouse effect, a warming of the surface of the planet by trapping solar radiation in the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question is asking for ways to reduce emissions, data or measurements on various emission sources, or ways of offsetting or capturing emissions, you should use this tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Further Reading&#xD;&#xA;- [Wikipedia: Greenhouse Gas][wikipedia-ghg]&#xD;&#xA;- [Wikipedia: Greenhouse Effect][wikipedia-ghe]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [wikipedia-ghg]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas&#xD;&#xA;  [wikipedia-ghe]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23273" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9909" RevisionGUID="335e0d69-ff98-432b-9def-ad084cac263a" CreationDate="2020-02-27T11:31:10.880" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 3379, 2345 edit id of 618" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23274" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9910" RevisionGUID="9723080d-03ae-4413-a4be-d1edc32b110d" CreationDate="2020-02-27T11:31:21.963" UserId="8232" Comment="added 319 characters in body" Text="Gasses that contribute to global warming by trapping radiant heat from the sun in the atmosphere. Questions looking for measurements, data, sources of emissions, or ways of reducing, offsetting or capturing emissions should use this tag. For questions about the effects of global warming, use the [global-warming] tag. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23275" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9910" RevisionGUID="9723080d-03ae-4413-a4be-d1edc32b110d" CreationDate="2020-02-27T11:31:21.963" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 3379, 2345 edit id of 619" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9920" RevisionGUID="6c4a4bca-05c2-4508-858b-59593e1c475e" CreationDate="2020-02-27T11:46:35.013" UserId="2345" Text="To save water get a low flow shower head and when using the sink use the lowest flow rate of water. If possible, spend less time in the shower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use less water in the laundry, consider using the bath towels for a few days instead of using clean one daily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For energy savings, if possible do not use a ventilation fan, instead, open the window whilst having a shower, so the steam and water vapor are removed by natural ventilation. Also, if possible keep the window open for a period after you have finished in the bathroom, giving more time for the water vapor to be ventilated out of the room. The window doesn't have to be wide open, but sufficient to allow natural ventilation of the room to occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't need to, don't use a heater while in the bathroom, and use low energy lights. Using low energy lights does not mean having reduced lighting. Some light bulbs produce a lot of light for small amounts of electricity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23277" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9917" RevisionGUID="1254c681-eb26-4b8e-81bd-b5cec269a5d2" CreationDate="2020-02-27T12:00:50.187" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1232999025084944385" />
  <row Id="23278" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9921" RevisionGUID="9eb35993-936c-4965-8938-e64c8036e552" CreationDate="2020-02-27T14:56:31.153" UserId="3379" Text="Others have already suggested [low flow fixtures](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/9920/3379) and [reducing water usage](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/9919/3379), but here are a few other ideas, from least to most expensive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Turn down your water heater.** The U.S. Department of Energy [recommends a setting of ~120 F / 50 C](https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/services/do-it-yourself-energy-savings-projects/savings-project-lower-water-heating). Many water heaters are set at the factory to 140 F / 60 C, which can increase the standby losses (energy spent keeping the water in the tank hot) up to 20% annually. You may find you need to mix in less hot water at the shower or sink, which reduces your usage as well. Note that anything lower than the recommended setting may increase your risk of [Legionnaire's disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionnaires%27_disease#Reservoirs).&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Insulate your hot water pipes.** Using [pipe insulation](https://www.homedepot.com/b/Plumbing-Pipe-Insulation/N-5yc1vZbuy9) on your hot water lines can result in savings of up to 4% annually, [according to the DOE](https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/services/do-it-yourself-energy-savings-projects/savings-project-insulate-hot-water-pipes).&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Insulate your hot water heater.** If the heater is warm to the touch, you may benefit from adding a [water heater blanket](https://www.homedepot.com/s/water%2520heater%2520blanket?NCNI-5). Note that most modern hot water heaters have well-insulated tanks, and older water heaters only last 10 to 15 years, so this is unlikely to be a necessary upgrade (i.e., if your water heater is old enough to benefit from this, you might be better off saving your money for the imminent replacement water heater).&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Install a &quot;Shower Start&quot; shower-head.** [Shower Start TSV](https://www.thinkevolve.com/pages/showerstart-tsv) (no affiliation) is a special showerhead that reduces flow to a trickle when hot water arrives at the fixture. This way, you turn on the showerhead and collect the cold water with a bucket (for watering plants, flushing toilets, etc). When the flow reduces, you move the bucket and pull the lanyard to start your shower with warm water.&#xD;&#xA; 5. **Install a recirculating pump.** A retrofit recirculating pump is typically installed under the sink in the bathroom farthest (by pipe run length) from the water heater. The system works by pumping water from the hot water pipes into the cold water pipes, shutting off with a thermostat, so that water at the tap is hot when you open it. Older systems, intended to improve comfort, ran continually, or on a timer (keeping them on in the morning and evening), which wasted a lot of energy. There are now [on demand systems](https://www.plumbingsupply.com/on-demand-recirculating-pumps.html) with a push-button -- you simply press the button a few minutes before you want to shower. The pump does use energy, but it saves water, and reduces the chance of hot water going down the drain (since you can get right in the shower after turning it on, rather than waiting too long for the water to be hot). Note that they are relatively expensive, so probably not a good choice unless you have a large house or a lot of people taking showers with long gaps in between." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23279" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="919" RevisionGUID="6807455d-4e5e-464e-b236-ef59215884ec" CreationDate="2020-02-27T15:01:34.583" UserId="1056" Comment="add tags: fruits-and-vegetables safety" Text="|food|safety|fruits-and-vegetables|safe-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23280" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5532" RevisionGUID="38d57629-feb7-447c-a5f8-c04110aa99e0" CreationDate="2020-02-27T16:54:06.687" UserId="1056" Comment="creating new tag: energy-storage" Text="|electricity|renewables|electricity-generation|hydroelectricity|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23281" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="03356705-f1cc-4c33-80e8-ef64fd977df8" CreationDate="2020-02-27T16:55:17.643" UserId="1056" Comment="tag cleanup: [storage] is imprecise and has unrelated content" Text="|electricity-generation|energy-management|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23282" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7068" RevisionGUID="35101a1f-0739-4b42-946f-01bc04156ea6" CreationDate="2020-02-27T16:55:44.660" UserId="1056" Comment="tag cleanup: [storage] is imprecise and has unrelated content" Text="|solar-thermal|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23283" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9875" RevisionGUID="89be1ae0-c9ec-4c46-b136-db0277ce0372" CreationDate="2020-02-27T16:56:05.873" UserId="6925" Comment="added 161 characters in body" Text="100% of all railroad steel is recycled... Eventually&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;On the active railroads (which you should not be walking on, by the way), you're seeing evidence of recent maintenance-of-way.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is SOP in the rail business to pre-position supplies weeks or months in advance, and then take up to a year to pick up the old scrap. That is because of MoW priorities - they need to do work on northern climes while the weather is favorable, so work in Texas may get put on hold for months... Or traffic conditions, railroad is too busy to hand it to MoW forces for an afternoon... Or simple availability of the machines - it would be insane to pay crews to pick it up by hand when they have a Giant Magnet Machine that can pick it all up while traversing at 10 miles per hour (which matters due to track downtime). But they may have only two Machines in 20,000 miles of track, so they have to wait, wait, wait for the beast's availability.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Railroads matter&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;It's typical for your basic suburban NIMBY type to figure that trains are yesterday's news, and all those tracks oughta just dry up and die.  However that is not true at all.  Rail moves 40% of America's ton-miles, and is the only way your local Target or Ikea store keeps its shelves stocked.  Rail can move 1 ton of freight 460 miles on 1 gallon of fuel, so this is actually fairly &quot;eco&quot; conpared to trucks - nevermind that two train crew can move 20,000 tons of freight as opposed to only 80 tons if they were truck drivers.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, rail is the only transport mode that lends itself to electrification, so it could clean up as the grid does.  It's also our best hope for mass intercity transport that is 100% renewable, and remember, French TGV rails are essentially identical to better freight rails.  Heck, the *John Bull* could celebrate its 150th anniversary by steaming down any random freight line, the Acela line, or indeed, the TGV lines. They are *that* compatible.   And nobody ever complained about railroad electrification using minerals that are toxic to manufacture - it's just steel, copper and aluminum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removal of a rail line is an environmental nightmare&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;That dormant (**not** abandoned) rails-in-place rail line *can always be reactivated*.  Which means industry can go right  back to taking rail service, or passenger lines can be extended on the cheap.  It costs between $5,000 and $250,000 a mile to reactivate a dormant line.  Even if the line needs 100% replacement of ties, rails and ballast (pushing $1 million a mile), the old rails allow use of on-rail mechanized repair equipment and direct delivery of materiél, which can be 2000 tonnes *per mile*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas if the steel rail is lifted, it's $2 to $3 million *per mile* to blaze a new railroad on an old grade.  Including double transload of most of that materiél. That's so expensive that I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times it has happened. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much worse, many abandoned railroads are vulnerable to **reversion** - rather than buy the land outright, the rail company bought an *easement* conditional that when the railroad goes away, the land goes back to the underlying landowner. That means the **right-of-way itself** gets busted up; now you've got an apartment building on the right-of-way, and you'd have to buy it and destroy it to put the railroad back in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bottom line: Once the rails are lifted, they *never* go back down**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you see weedy rails, think &quot;Thank God those are still there&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the government is doing several things to help.  First, they are buying up defunct rail lines, and keeping them &quot;rail-banked&quot; for future use. Many a heritage railway sets up shop on such a preserved line.  Second, they're agreeing to tax disused rail lines same as abandoned ones - so there's no financial incentive to lift the rails. And third, Rails to Trails is allowing the rights-of-way to be captured whole *despite* reversion clauses, for use by biking trails, pipelines, roads or indeed railroads.  So no more apartment buildings on the right-of-way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of Rails-to-Trails allows rights-of-way to be reactivated into railroads again.  Again, not likely, but it holds the door open. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23284" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7010" RevisionGUID="bc6d7333-4e4d-45e3-a531-d812d9173e85" CreationDate="2020-02-27T16:56:14.753" UserId="1056" Comment="tag cleanup: [storage] is imprecise and has unrelated content" Text="|energy|renewables|wind-power|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23285" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6035" RevisionGUID="4a03991c-8272-45d8-8479-d3e76d051697" CreationDate="2020-02-27T16:56:54.273" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: energy-storage" Text="|home|energy-management|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="22d4067c-223e-4ed4-9378-8b8c39f7c512" CreationDate="2020-02-27T17:11:28.517" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="22d4067c-223e-4ed4-9378-8b8c39f7c512" CreationDate="2020-02-27T17:11:28.517" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9923" RevisionGUID="00d71c54-2361-400c-94ed-542ed666deef" CreationDate="2020-02-27T17:11:28.517" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9923" RevisionGUID="00d71c54-2361-400c-94ed-542ed666deef" CreationDate="2020-02-27T17:11:28.517" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9875" RevisionGUID="14c82d48-4392-4f93-82d3-5981aaa5c4aa" CreationDate="2020-02-27T17:28:52.927" UserId="6925" Comment="added 609 characters in body" Text="100% of all railroad steel is recycled... Eventually&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;On the active railroads (which you should not be walking on, by the way), you're seeing evidence of recent maintenance-of-way.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is SOP in the rail business to pre-position supplies weeks or months in advance, and then take up to a year to pick up the old scrap. That is because of MoW priorities - they need to do work on northern climes while the weather is favorable, so work in Texas may get put on hold for months... Or traffic conditions, railroad is too busy to hand it to MoW forces for an afternoon... Or simple availability of the machines - it would be insane to pay crews to pick it up by hand when they have a Giant Magnet Machine that can pick it all up while traversing at 10 miles per hour (which matters due to track downtime). But they may have only two Machines in 20,000 miles of track, so they have to wait, wait, wait for the beast's availability.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Railroads matter&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;It's typical for your basic suburban NIMBY type to figure that trains are yesterday's news, and all those tracks oughta just dry up and die.  However that is not true at all.  Rail moves 40% of America's ton-miles, and is the only way your local Target or Ikea store keeps its shelves stocked.  Rail can move 1 ton of freight 460 miles on 1 gallon of fuel, so this is actually fairly &quot;eco&quot; conpared to trucks - nevermind that two train crew can move 20,000 tons of freight as opposed to only 80 tons if they were truck drivers.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, rail is the only transport mode that lends itself to electrification, so it could clean up as the grid does.  It's also our best hope for mass intercity transport that is 100% renewable, and remember, French TGV rails are essentially identical to better freight rails.  Heck, the *John Bull* could celebrate its 150th anniversary by steaming down any random freight line, the Acela line, or indeed, the TGV lines. They are *that* compatible.   And nobody ever complained about railroad electrification using minerals that are toxic to manufacture - it's just steel, copper and aluminum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removal of a rail line is an environmental nightmare&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;That dormant (**not** abandoned) rails-in-place rail line *can always be reactivated*.  Which means industry can go right  back to taking rail service, or passenger lines can be extended on the cheap.  It costs between $5,000 and $250,000 a mile to reactivate a dormant line.  Even if the line needs 100% replacement of ties, rails and ballast (pushing $1 million a mile), the old rails allow use of on-rail mechanized repair equipment and direct delivery of materiél, which can be 2000 tonnes *per mile*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas if the steel rail is lifted, it's $2 to $3 million *per mile* to blaze a new railroad on an old grade.  Including double transload of most of that materiél. That's so expensive that I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times it has happened. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much worse, many abandoned railroads are vulnerable to **reversion** - rather than buy the land outright, the rail company bought an *easement* conditional that when the railroad goes away, the land goes back to the underlying landowner. That means the **right-of-way itself** gets busted up; now you've got an apartment building on the right-of-way, and you'd have to buy it and destroy it to put the railroad back in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a success story: the Susquehanna Railroad. Their operations shrunk over the years, and part of their line was disused.  Some motorcar collectors got permission to cut the trees growing up in the track, using the motorcars to get access. Their real goal was to have a place to ride their motorcars! As business at the Port of Newark grew, there was an opportunity to run massive container trains (instead of trucks). So Susquehanna evaluated whether that was feasible. They rode the line - in a motorcar - and were able to rehab the line cost-effectively *because it was passable*.  Very nice save. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bottom line: Once the rails are lifted, they *never* go back down**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you see weedy rails, think &quot;Thank God those are still there&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the government is doing several things to help.  First, they are buying up defunct rail lines, and keeping them &quot;rail-banked&quot; for future use. Many a heritage railway sets up shop on such a preserved line.  Second, they're agreeing to tax disused rail lines same as abandoned ones - so there's no financial incentive to lift the rails. And third, Rails to Trails is allowing the rights-of-way to be captured whole *despite* reversion clauses, for use by biking trails, pipelines, roads or indeed railroads.  So no more apartment buildings on the right-of-way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of Rails-to-Trails allows rights-of-way to be reactivated into railroads again.  Again, not likely, but it holds the door open. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23294" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="24ea0b0c-e646-431a-8acb-0c7aa874b832" CreationDate="2020-02-27T20:08:42.210" UserId="1056" Comment="expand wiki to include small scale energy storage" Text="Examples of different kinds of energy storage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Chemical (eg. batteries, fuel, food)&#xD;&#xA;- Kinetic (eg. flywheel)&#xD;&#xA;- Thermal (eg. hot water, ice, molten salt)&#xD;&#xA;- Gravitational (eg. hydroelectric dams, pumped hydro)&#xD;&#xA;- Nuclear (eg. uranium, plutonium)&#xD;&#xA;- Compressed air energy storage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Small-scale energy storage&#xD;&#xA;Two examples of small-scale energy storage that are commonplace in an urban household are hot water tanks and rechargeable batteries. Batteries are used in many kinds of personal devices, from mobile phones to computers and music players.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Small scale energy storage is more useful when living with an unreliable power supply. For example, homes in some urban areas are subject to rotating power outages due to insufficient power generation capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off-grid living is even more likely to make use of small scale energy storage. Gasoline-fuelled generators, rechargeable batteries, and private water towers are all examples of approaches to energy storage with different sustainability characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some areas, people with battery-electric vehicles may be able to share their car's energy storage with the power grid to assist with overall adaptability and possibly find an economic gain if Time Of Use pricing is offered by the local electricity provider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hikers and travellers might also be interested in energy storage so they can extend their activity or do more during their activity. Portable battery kits are one way to accomplish this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Grid-scale energy storage&#xD;&#xA;Energy storage is especially relevant when trying to incorporate [tag:renewables] into an energy system. The best-known forms of renewable energy, wind and solar, are both available intermittently and not not necessarily align well with the usage and demand patterns of people in cities. Therefore, energy storage is very helpful when trying to incorporate these source of power generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fossil-fuel based power generation, as it exists today, has implicit energy storage in the fuel that's being used to produce power; this allows power generation to be [dispatched](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation) to meet demand exactly. A movement away from unsustainable fossil fuels therefore implies growing dependence on energy storage that is intentionally designed into the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The need for energy storage can sometimes be offset by use of energy transmission, to move energy around the world instead of saving it for a different time. In some cases it is also possible to reduce need for energy storage through demand response techniques that change power demand in response to changing power supply." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23295" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="24ea0b0c-e646-431a-8acb-0c7aa874b832" CreationDate="2020-02-27T20:08:42.210" Comment="Proposed by 1056 approved by -1 edit id of 622" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9922" RevisionGUID="5b622461-c8b4-4c14-9848-f3b357b36cb2" CreationDate="2020-02-27T20:08:42.210" UserId="3379" Comment="expand wiki to include small scale energy storage" Text="Examples of different kinds of energy storage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Chemical (eg. fossil fuels, biofuels, hydrogen, food)&#xD;&#xA;- Electrochemical (e.g. batteries)&#xD;&#xA;- Kinetic (eg. flywheel)&#xD;&#xA;- Thermal (eg. hot water, ice, molten salt, phase change materials)&#xD;&#xA;- Gravitational (eg. hydroelectric dams, pumped hydro)&#xD;&#xA;- Nuclear (eg. uranium, plutonium)&#xD;&#xA;- Compressed air energy storage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Small-scale energy storage&#xD;&#xA;Two examples of small-scale energy storage that are commonplace in an urban household are hot water tanks and rechargeable batteries. Batteries are used in many kinds of personal devices, from mobile phones to computers and music players.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Small scale energy storage is more useful when living with an unreliable power supply. For example, homes in some urban areas are subject to rotating power outages due to insufficient power generation capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Off-grid living is even more likely to make use of small scale energy storage. Gasoline-fuelled generators, rechargeable batteries, and private water towers are all examples of approaches to energy storage with different sustainability characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some areas, people with battery-electric vehicles may be able to share their car's energy storage with the power grid to assist with overall adaptability and possibly find an economic gain if Time Of Use pricing is offered by the local electricity provider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hikers and travellers might also be interested in energy storage so they can extend their activity or do more during their activity. Portable battery kits are one way to accomplish this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Grid-scale energy storage&#xD;&#xA;Energy storage is especially relevant when trying to incorporate [tag:renewables] into an energy system. The best-known forms of renewable energy, wind and solar, are both available intermittently and do not necessarily align well with the usage and demand patterns of people in cities. Therefore, energy storage is very helpful when trying to incorporate these source of power generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fuel-based power generation has implicit energy storage in the fuel that's being used to produce power; this allows power generation to be [dispatched](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation) to meet demand exactly. A movement away from unsustainable fossil fuels therefore implies growing dependence on alternate forms of energy storage that is intentionally designed into the system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23297" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6039" RevisionGUID="3567ffe1-a58f-4f30-b015-327aea3f8a5d" CreationDate="2020-02-27T20:58:20.337" UserId="2345" Comment="Mathjax format for powers of 10" Text="Lets check the pros and cons on flywheel energy storage and whether those apply to domestic use ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Compared with other ways to store electricity, FES systems have long lifetimes (lasting decades with little or no maintenance;[2] full-cycle lifetimes quoted for flywheels range from in excess of 10&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;, up to 10&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;, cycles of use),[5] high specific energy (100–130 W·h/kg, or 360–500 kJ/kg),[5][6] and large maximum power output. The energy efficiency (ratio of energy out per energy in) of flywheels, also known as round-trip efficiency, can be as high as 90%. Typical capacities range from 3 kWh to 133 kWh.[2] Rapid charging of a system occurs in less than 15 minutes.[7] The high specific energies often cited with flywheels can be a little misleading as commercial systems built have much lower specific energy, for example 11 W·h/kg, or 40 kJ/kg.[8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - long lifetime -&gt; that would be a nice thing but not of the utmost priority. With 100,000 cycles (minimum taken from Wikipedia) it significantly outperforms rechargable battiers such as [Tesla's Powerwall 1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Powerwall) with 5,000 cycles within warranty. Other [sources](http://amberkinetics.com/products-2/) report a design life time of 30 years (though for utility scale storage systems not for residential use)&#xD;&#xA; - capacity starting from 3 kWh -&gt; A few to a few tens of kWh would put it well in a useful range for domestic use. &#xD;&#xA; - Specific energy of 11 Wh/kg (typical commercial system, value taken from Wikipedia) -&gt; With an usable capacity of 13,5 kWh at 120 kg system weight [Powerwall 2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Powerwall) outperforms commercial flywheels tenfold.&#xD;&#xA; - price -&gt; While I did not find any good numbers for small home-use flywheels but I somewhat doubt they beat the 5.5k US-$ for a Powerwall 2.&#xD;&#xA; - round-trip efficiency (charge/discharge) of up to 90% -&gt; in the range of what Powerwall claims (92.5%, [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Powerwall#Technology))&#xD;&#xA; - large maximum power output -&gt; Again, no numbers for smale-scale systems but a high power throughput is not a primary concern for domestic use (7 kW peak; 5 kW continuous of the Powerwall seem quite reasonable for that use case). &#xD;&#xA; - safety -&gt; It's hard to compare the risk from batteries (fire) to catastrophic failures of flywheels (kill'em all projectiles from a disc turning at 50,000 rpm). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion: with all the effort put into development of rechargeable batteries and upscaling of a whole industry to massproduce and market them I would doubt that flywheels are ever going to fly (pun intended) any time soon in a residential setting. I would rather expect to see them as grid energy storage in utility-scale levels that would benefit from the advantage of a high power output and where a higher capacity warrants the complexity of such systems (moving parts, vacuum, mag-lev).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6051" RevisionGUID="3a58ad87-79bf-4534-a130-39817b80c04a" CreationDate="2020-02-27T21:04:55.790" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected capitalization of units" Text="Note: Updated the calculation, found an error. With that, the concept isn't economically viable any more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to share a concept for a possible cheap large scale energy storage concept that has been at the back of my head for quite some time. I couldn't find a reason that would make this concept both technically or financially unviable, so I'm eager to hear any criticism.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Physical principle**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ocean water has a mean salt content of 3.5% per mass (3.5 g/L).&#xD;&#xA;If you put water with less salinity in a bag, it will float, with more it will sink in the ocean.&lt;br /&gt; &#xD;&#xA;The maximum possible salt content is 359 g/L. &#xD;&#xA;Thus one can calculate the potential energy of a bag of water with 360 g salt dissolved that is at sea level, and sea ground is 300 m below sea level as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E= (0.36 kg – 0.035 kg )* 300 m * 10 m/s&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; =  975 J.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pure water doesn‘t have any potential energy, and we also need to subtract the salt content of the sea water. Only the difference of the salinity (effective weight) leads to potential energy.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Summary: With water having a higher salinity than ocean water it is possible to store energy at sea level with respect to the ocean floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Actual Implementation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The desalination plant in Carlsbad, California produces 50 million gallons of fresh water a day (Source: [Can Desalination Plants Quench California's Thirst For Water In A Clean Way?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2017/02/13/can-desalination-plants-quench-californias-thirst-for-water-in-a-clean-way/#43a5ccde77c8)).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For desalination, they produce high salinity water (20% raised salinity, see article) that is piped back into the ocean. &#xD;&#xA;But in this concept, this is an effective weight of 6624 metric tons, or at 300 m height difference, this is 5415.52 kWh of stored energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An energy storage system using this high salinity water would need 3 main components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A tank at sea level. Here one could think of building an artificial lake at the coast using a dam, or putting a large plastic bag into the ocean near the coast, and securing it against the waves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A tank at ocean floor level. Again, this would be mainly a large plastic bag, but one needs to make sure that it is possible to empty this bag fully for maximal energy storage. A height difference of a magnitude &gt; 100 m can be often found within 10 km of the coast (this is actually the case at Carlsbad)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A pump/turbine + pipelines. In order to use pressurized pipelines, one would need to operate the pump/turbine at the ocean floor tank. Using suction enabled pipelines (for example steel) one could also operate the pump turbine onshore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Limitations of the system**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* need for big amounts of high salinity water. Operation thus only close to desalination plants, or close to potash mines (they often have large salt heaps, at least in Germany)&#xD;&#xA;* Environmental impact (1): Placing the sea level tank on the coast line will have drastic impact on maritime life. It should be  also possible to install the tank offshore, but with the additional need for large floating structures keeping the tank adrift.&#xD;&#xA;* Environmental impact (2): The tank on the ocean floor will also impact maritime life. However, in depths of &gt; 100 m, maritime life on the floor is less abundant because of the lack of light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Economic viability**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I‘m not an engineer, and costs clearly depend on the solution, especially where and how to construct the upper tank. 	&#xD;&#xA;However, I think that the costs should within 1-3 times of that of a usual hydroelectric storage system, with &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* costs for power electronics + O&amp;M: 1002.5$/kW (not per kWh! Additionally capacity doesn't affect the price here)&#xD;&#xA;* cost for storage unit + load balancing: 12.5$/kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See here for details: [Analysis of the Cost per Kilowatt Hour to Store Electricity](http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/T48/Analysis%20of%20the%20Cost%20per%20Kilowatt%20Hour%20to%20Store%20Electricity%20final%20published.pdf)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;sup&gt;(IEEE Transactions on energy conversion, vol. 23, no. 2, June 2008, page 529, PDF)&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means the system is easily competitive with current battery technology, with the further upside of having an infinite number of charge/recharge cycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusion**&#xD;&#xA;I think this concept might be viable both commercially and technically. The environmental impact needs to be verified, but might be similar to hydroelectric pump storage, and could be reduced by installing all tanks offshore with the additional need for floating devices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, desalination plants at the coast might use this concept to generate electrical energy without using any tanks, by just installing a pipeline to a deep spot at the ocean floor, and letting the high salinity water sink down. But in that case, it needs to be checked if the diffusion of the salt might be too fast, so that no actual water is moved. This could be solved by small temporary tanks on the ocean floor that can be  used as a one way sluice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5541" RevisionGUID="6e841e23-f608-4d3d-8200-5cd4fd787a4b" CreationDate="2020-02-27T21:14:18.393" UserId="1056" Comment="first draft of tag wiki for vegetarianism" Text="Vegetarianism is the practice of abstaining from various groups of animal-based foods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23300" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5541" RevisionGUID="6e841e23-f608-4d3d-8200-5cd4fd787a4b" CreationDate="2020-02-27T21:14:18.393" Comment="Proposed by 1056 approved by 3379, 2345 edit id of 621" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5540" RevisionGUID="cae4dd8b-6d76-496e-a38f-ccc55d719112" CreationDate="2020-02-27T21:14:32.710" UserId="1056" Comment="first draft of tag wiki for vegetarianism" Text="Vegetarianism is the practice of abstaining from various groups of animal-based foods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about vegetarianism are on-topic here, but only if the question is asking in the context of sustainability. Some vegetarians are motivated by concerns that current agricultural practices are unsustainable, especially with relation to industrial agriculture and animal agriculture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Common examples of vegetarian lifestyles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Lacto-ovo vegetarians consume milk and egg, but abstain from animal flesh. This is the most common variant of vegetarianism in Western countries.&#xD;&#xA;- Vegans abstain from all animal products, as much as is practicable.&#xD;&#xA;- Pescetarians consume fish and seafood, but abstain from the meat of land-going animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions of ethics and health are better addressed on the [Stack Exchange site for vegetarianism](https://vegetarianism.stackexchange.com)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23302" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5540" RevisionGUID="cae4dd8b-6d76-496e-a38f-ccc55d719112" CreationDate="2020-02-27T21:14:32.710" Comment="Proposed by 1056 approved by 3379, 2345 edit id of 620" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23303" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9842" RevisionGUID="732e587d-8fb4-432d-8ec3-b477691027df" CreationDate="2020-02-27T23:02:35.303" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23304" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9917" RevisionGUID="330e46ca-8d57-4d4c-9c9c-f27fe972e5d1" CreationDate="2020-02-28T00:41:37.580" UserId="8506" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="I am interested in energy conservation and would like some simple tips on ways I can reduce my water and energy use in the bathroom in particular, as I feel that this is the place that I use the most water (and spend the most time). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this article that has a lot of great answers:&#xD;&#xA;https://3pointsplumbing.ca/articles/save-water.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I chose L Shaver's answer as the best though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23305" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="334d9a29-67e8-46ab-8eec-a09f93e929c4" CreationDate="2020-02-28T03:25:07.587" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: energy storage" Text="|solar-power|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9843" RevisionGUID="abb0fbfe-d38b-440d-8895-fbbca2018741" CreationDate="2020-02-28T12:25:12.627" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected spelling errors" Text="Content is typically very high percentage methane.  First stage processing  removes propane, butane etc because they tend to liquefy at the pressures used in the pipelines. Then they collect in the low spots when the line isn't running at capacity.  When the flow increases, you get a slug of liquid propane being pushed by the gas.  A pipeline pump designed for a gas gets really unhappy when it gets a slug of liquid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Detail analysis: https://www.uniongas.com/about-us/about-natural-gas/Chemical-Composition-of-Natural-Gas  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that these are in moles, and hence will be volumetrically correct.  Percentage by mass will skew away from methane.  (Remember that a mole of any gas is essentially the same volume at reasonable temperature and pressure)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The higher alkanes are green house gasses, but have short lifetimes.  See this good answer on quora: https://www.quora.com/If-methane-is-a-significant-greenhouse-gas-then-do-all-alkanes-also-have-potential-to-be-a-significant-greenhouse-gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turns out that right now the liquids are more valuable than the methane.  Natural gas for heating would be a lot more expensive, but right now the drilling and fracking is being driven by the price of butane and propane. (Don't ask me for a source for that. Somewhere in the last year.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other significant variable component is hydrogen sulphide (H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;S ) Smells of rotten eggs at &lt;  2 ppm. Anesthetizes the nose at slightly higher levels. Recommended safety levels no more than 10 ppm for 10 minutes.   High levels are deadly. 1000 ppm is &quot;1 breath unconscious, a few minutes dead&quot; Since you can't smell it, and it's  heavier than air this is a major threat in confined spaces.  There are wells in Alberta that produce up to 30% H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;S (300,000 ppm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23310" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9917" RevisionGUID="dce6322e-9989-4f6a-b20d-cfa7e538613a" CreationDate="2020-02-28T17:25:19.487" UserId="99" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2451,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jan Doggen&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8232,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robotnik&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23312" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7213" RevisionGUID="6a9e94f3-5e02-4bc0-bd0d-eda2be5f0fce" CreationDate="2020-02-28T17:27:08.397" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1056,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8232,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robotnik&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23313" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9923" RevisionGUID="d2601dd4-77e8-45f7-8b09-c6ddadde5707" CreationDate="2020-02-28T17:33:35.903" UserId="1056" Comment="expand wiki to include small scale energy storage" Text="Energy storage is the concept of creating a buffer that allows power to be collected and used at different times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23314" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9923" RevisionGUID="d2601dd4-77e8-45f7-8b09-c6ddadde5707" CreationDate="2020-02-28T17:33:35.903" Comment="Proposed by 1056 approved by 2345, -1 edit id of 623" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9923" RevisionGUID="70e3a03e-d71b-4e97-93b5-d2c173f853f5" CreationDate="2020-02-28T17:33:35.903" UserId="99" Comment="expand wiki to include small scale energy storage" Text="creating a buffer that allows energy to be collected and used at different times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9925" RevisionGUID="4d77f922-1f79-41dd-a66a-efcbcee284da" CreationDate="2020-02-29T00:31:37.433" UserId="5216" Text="Also if there is how is it recoloured and does it have any properties that are not as desirable as virgin ABS ? This would be better for the environment and more sustainable because it reuses plastic rather than creating more plastic. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9925" RevisionGUID="4d77f922-1f79-41dd-a66a-efcbcee284da" CreationDate="2020-02-29T00:31:37.433" UserId="5216" Text="Is there a recycled ABS that can be used for injection moulded parts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9925" RevisionGUID="4d77f922-1f79-41dd-a66a-efcbcee284da" CreationDate="2020-02-29T00:31:37.433" UserId="5216" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23323" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9831" RevisionGUID="c87c5159-7b6e-4386-99ae-becc5ad9bf35" CreationDate="2020-03-01T00:00:45.633" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1233904975840862208" />
  <row Id="23324" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9778" RevisionGUID="8bd4ed59-e92d-4e6e-ac51-344236aa172b" CreationDate="2020-03-01T03:01:24.787" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1233950438397022208" />
  <row Id="23325" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2445" RevisionGUID="3a34734b-7250-46af-8fad-0e527b935190" CreationDate="2020-03-01T15:57:22.057" UserId="1056" Comment="Add tag: energy-storage" Text="|solar-power|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6982" RevisionGUID="aaba70dc-4015-4e70-ba93-04da63b6b944" CreationDate="2020-03-01T16:20:08.900" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed broken link" Text="I started to write a comment under the question https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6978/is-there-an-efficient-way-to-dispose-of-credit-cards about the dangers of burning PVC, because this can lead to dangerous chlorine compounds in the smoke (notable: dioxine).&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Upon searching for evidence for that I came across several links confirming this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [The dangers of PVC](http://www.pulpworksinc.com/dangers-of-pvc.html), at pulpworksinc.com, a maker of compostable plastic blister-pack replacement.&#xD;&#xA;- [Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)](http://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/polyvinyl-chloride-pvc-environment-health/) from www.greenspec.co.uk, a firm involved in green building products and materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... as well as links suggesting that this no longer is the case:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [PVC incineration/dioxins](https://pvc.org/sustainability/pvc-recycling-in-europe/pvc-incineration-and-dioxins/) at pvc.org, i.e. The European Council of Vinyl Manufacturers&#xD;&#xA;- [PVC: To Burn or Not to Burn? ](https://waste-management-world.com/a/pvc-to-burn-or-not-to-burn), at waste-management-world.com, the  International Solid Waste Management Association (ISWA).&#xD;&#xA;- [7 Myths About PVC – Debunked](https://www.carlislesyntec.com/download.aspx?id=5534&amp;fileID=6830), a (PDF) white paper from Carlisle SynTec Systems, a manufacturer of roofing materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these sources may not be objective.&lt;br /&gt;&#xD;&#xA;**What is the current, state-of-the-art, objective knowledge that we have about burning municipal waste with PVC in waste incineration facilities?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- I'm not asking about [home burning](http://www.wecf.eu/cms/download/2004-2005/homeburning_plastics.pdf) or open fires; I'm asking about controlled burning in waste incineration facilities.&#xD;&#xA;- The question is not about phthalates being used as plastic softeners during the lifetime of the product; only when incinerating.&#xD;&#xA;- This is not just about credit cards, e.g. there's far more PVC landing in our waste because of blister packaging, and from pipes, vinyl flooring, hoses, cable coatings, medical devices, plumbing and automotive parts, upholstery, housewares, shower curtains, raincoats, toys, school supplies, food packaging, and shoes. &#xD;&#xA;- The question could be extended to all halogenated plastics, i.e. made from chlorine or fluorine; not just PVC. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23327" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="1242" RevisionGUID="19ea6fba-ebc8-42d9-b493-0817fcfa75ce" CreationDate="2020-03-01T18:07:56.710" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: carbon-offsetting" Text="|solar-power|carbon-footprint|carbon-offsetting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23329" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9555" RevisionGUID="bbd4a98e-c6f0-4bf2-883c-ea38f430e2af" CreationDate="2020-03-01T19:28:53.620" UserId="1056" Comment="Add tag: carbon-offsetting" Text="|carbon-footprint|greenhouse-gas-emissions|carbon-offsetting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23330" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="493" RevisionGUID="529e9b37-195c-4d01-b749-68dae6507bc3" CreationDate="2020-03-01T19:32:06.517" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: carbon-offsetting" Text="|pollution|greenhouse-gas-emissions|decarbonisation|carbon-offsetting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23331" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9555" RevisionGUID="5a346d60-2884-4a94-91b7-9448f6875ed9" CreationDate="2020-03-01T21:00:41.510" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1234222047829659649" />
  <row Id="23332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9926" RevisionGUID="c7b4f3fd-48ce-4ce3-9bdd-6c58815f8f30" CreationDate="2020-03-02T04:24:45.587" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23333" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9926" RevisionGUID="c7b4f3fd-48ce-4ce3-9bdd-6c58815f8f30" CreationDate="2020-03-02T04:24:45.587" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9927" RevisionGUID="0870637b-0b85-4a47-a0c5-876266bb20a7" CreationDate="2020-03-02T04:24:45.587" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9927" RevisionGUID="0870637b-0b85-4a47-a0c5-876266bb20a7" CreationDate="2020-03-02T04:24:45.587" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9928" RevisionGUID="eca740b4-b53e-4787-86de-00f9e6429a73" CreationDate="2020-03-02T04:32:39.300" UserId="1056" Text="I've seen many organizations trying to sell carbon offsets based on planting trees, and recently some parties ([1](https://election.ctvnews.ca/green-party-would-plant-10-billion-trees-to-fight-climate-change-1.4625173), [2](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/six-things-to-know-about-the-liberal-plan-for-a-tree-planting-bonanza)) that were vying for control of the Canadian government promised that they would plant billions of trees as part of a national climate action plan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the most common concerns about using tree planting projects to create carbon offsets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9928" RevisionGUID="eca740b4-b53e-4787-86de-00f9e6429a73" CreationDate="2020-03-02T04:32:39.300" UserId="1056" Text="What are the major concerns about planting trees to create carbon offsets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9928" RevisionGUID="eca740b4-b53e-4787-86de-00f9e6429a73" CreationDate="2020-03-02T04:32:39.300" UserId="1056" Text="|forestry|carbon-offsetting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9926" RevisionGUID="0308ea85-e6d4-4dc5-94eb-585df8c550c3" CreationDate="2020-03-02T08:19:35.960" UserId="1056" Comment="added 2404 characters in body" Text="Carbon offsetting is an economic model for supporting projects that counteract the primary cause of human-caused climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Target Markets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two main groups of buyers that are interested in purchasing carbon offsets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Compliance customers**, especially branches of government, may be legally compelled to demonstrate net-zero carbon emissions in a given reporting period. If the cost of reducing emissions is high or the path to net-zero extends beyond the reporting period, the organization may purchase carbon offsets as an interim measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Voluntary customers**, most often private citizens, may be interested in purchasing offsets as a means of private action on climate change or as a way of reducing guilt associated with personal carbon footprint. Organizations selling carbon offsets to this group of buyers often price them with relevance to specific resource-intensive purchases or activities, such as purchasing flights for long-distance vacations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Evaluating Offsets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon offset projects must guarantee four principles in order to be considered high quality offsets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Additionality**. The project must provide a reduction in emissions compared to a business-as-usual baseline.&#xD;&#xA;- **Permanence**. The avoided emissions or collected carbon must not make its way back into the atmosphere over a reasonably long timeline.&#xD;&#xA;- **Not double-counted**. No other organization or nation can take credit for the avoided emissions.&#xD;&#xA;- **Leakage**. The project must not support or encourage emissions in another area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verifying that a particular project guarantees all of these principles is a challenging task, and that has led to the formation of certifying bodies like [Gold Standard](https://www.goldstandard.org/) that provide evaluation of offset projects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Controversy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The practice of using carbon offsets has garnered controversy because it is easy to find offsetting projects that miss at least one of the four important principles for a high quality offset. And furthermore, there is concern that the use of carbon offsets may create a moral hazard where high-emitters feel entitled or encouraged to continue or even increase activities that generate carbon emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Alternative Models&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some other economic models that have similar goals to carbon offsetting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Carbon Tax&#xD;&#xA;- Cap and Trade&#xD;&#xA;- Low-carbon investing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23340" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9926" RevisionGUID="0308ea85-e6d4-4dc5-94eb-585df8c550c3" CreationDate="2020-03-02T08:19:35.960" Comment="Proposed by 1056 approved by 99 edit id of 624" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23341" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9927" RevisionGUID="38a9ad39-0e60-4b57-820b-f188070a4ebf" CreationDate="2020-03-02T08:21:15.297" UserId="1056" Comment="added 158 characters in body" Text="Carbon offsetting is the practice of giving money to support projects that reduce emission of greenhouse gases or draw greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23342" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9927" RevisionGUID="38a9ad39-0e60-4b57-820b-f188070a4ebf" CreationDate="2020-03-02T08:21:15.297" Comment="Proposed by 1056 approved by -1 edit id of 625" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23343" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9927" RevisionGUID="b3dc00d3-8dee-4450-bb1c-ee0507554b47" CreationDate="2020-03-02T08:21:15.297" UserId="99" Comment="removed name as this is duplicate information, added reference to ghg-emissions tag" Text="the practice of giving money to support projects that reduce [greenhouse-gas-emissions] or draw greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5541" RevisionGUID="ef81b8e1-765b-492e-bd44-075e169c0663" CreationDate="2020-03-02T08:22:58.257" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="the practice of abstaining from various groups of animal-based foods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23345" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9909" RevisionGUID="aea0bd4e-9f32-413a-b4d4-28e18121f578" CreationDate="2020-03-02T08:32:53.797" UserId="99" Comment="added usage of related tags" Text="Greenhouse gases cause the Greenhouse effect, a warming of the surface of the planet by trapping solar radiation in the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question is asking for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or data on various emission sources you should use this tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question is about measurements use [tag:carbon-footprint]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question is about carbon capture and storage (a.k.a. ccs) use [tag:carbon-sequestration] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question is about offsetting emissions use [tag:carbon-offsetting]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question is specifically about carbon dioxide use [tag:co2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;###Further Reading&#xD;&#xA;- [Wikipedia: Greenhouse Gas][wikipedia-ghg]&#xD;&#xA;- [Wikipedia: Greenhouse Effect][wikipedia-ghe]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [wikipedia-ghg]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas&#xD;&#xA;  [wikipedia-ghe]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23346" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9910" RevisionGUID="f22551d2-8345-4842-ba18-8ceea5d0df1a" CreationDate="2020-03-02T08:32:53.797" UserId="99" Comment="added usage of related tags" Text="Gases that contribute to global warming by trapping radiant heat from the sun in the atmosphere. Use this tag for questions about sources of emissions, or ways of reducing emissions. For question about measurements use the [carbon-footprint] tag. For questions about offsetting use [carbon-offsetting].  For questions about the effects of [global- warming] use that tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23347" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9929" RevisionGUID="f66e1db7-1042-486d-86a2-e96275c94b9b" CreationDate="2020-03-02T10:05:02.470" UserId="99" Text="&#xD;&#xA;1. **That the scheme actually has a net positive effect, both in the short and long-term**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    How effective a tree planting scheme is in capturing and storing carbon dioxide, is for a large part determined by what happens to the trees after they are planted. When trees mature and are harvested for wood that's used in construction, then the captured carbon dioxide is stored for a long time (until the wood decomposes or is burned). However, if no trees are replanted after harvesting this will have had a one-time effect only. Also when wood is burned (for energy or in a wild fire), or if trees die quickly and decompose, then their captured carbon is released again. Of course all trees die eventually even when they are not harvested, this is part of the natural cycle, but a mature forest can store a lot more carbon than a young, newly-planted forest so it's important to keep a forest intact as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **That the wrong type(s) of trees are planted in the wrong location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   In the past there were bad offsetting schemes that planted non-native trees, or [planted trees in a location where they would change water flows](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/dec/23/frontpagenews.climatechange)  and thus change local ecosystems in a negative way. Some offsetting schemes planted  thousands of trees of the same species, resulting in a large monoculture. Such a monoculture hinders biodiversity and is susceptible to diseases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **That buying offsets reduces the incentive for people to reduce their emissions** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Reducing emissions is much more effective than offsetting. Buying carbon offsets can lead to people thinking they are doing the right thing, whereas they had better spent their time and effort in reducing their emissions. Of course this point goes for all offsetting-schemes and is not specifically for planting trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **That there are more effective ways of reducing carbon emissions than planting trees**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Nowadays many offsetting schemes invest in development of renewable energy sources (in developing countries) instead of planting trees, simply because&#xD;&#xA;it is a more effective and cheaper way to reduce emissions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23348" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1009" RevisionGUID="f5076a85-1e1d-4110-8cad-782383dbab5c" CreationDate="2020-03-02T10:06:59.957" UserId="99" Comment="added 132 characters in body" Text="the process of reducing or removing carbon dioxide (from energy sources). For questions specifically about [carbon-offsetting] please use that tag. For questions about [carbon-sequestration] use that tag." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9930" RevisionGUID="1c150749-f44c-452e-8f28-0ca74be00339" CreationDate="2020-03-02T10:14:23.380" UserId="6602" Text="Questions about tree planting have come up on StackExchange quite often, and in the news various countries have great drives to plant vast numbers of trees in a single day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A common issue seems to be a misunderstanding of the relationship between planting 'a tree' and 'offsetting carbon'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst its true that a single mature twenty year old tree will both sequester around 3 tonnes of CO2 in its woody mass and also lock about 3 tonnes of CO2 into a cycle of growing leaves, dropping them and decomposition, so a total of 6 tonnes offset; in order to get a twenty year old tree its not as simple as planting one seedling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This news article][1] covers Turkey's attempt to plant 11 million trees in 2019, of which about 90% died. [This article questions][2] whether the fragile state of Ethiopia was able to plant a billion trees in one year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my own experience, in order to grow a healthy twenty year old tree, you need to plant about a dozen seedlings of various species, relatively close together, and over a twenty year period, you cultivate and care for them and occasionally cull them until one remains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can you simply say that to offset the 6 tonnes of CO2 with a mature tree you need to plant 12 seedlings, so each seedling is equivalent to offsetting half a tonne? Maybe, but that nuance is too much for most government policy headlines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another point to consider is that most trees drop a thousand or so seeds each year, many of them can germinate all by themselves without human interference. In the UK there are 3 billion trees, so that could be 3 trillion seeds dropped, even if only one seed per tree successfully germinated into a new seedling, that's still the tree population doubling every year. Planting seeds is easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Damcon PL10 (with four row attachment) is a popular tree planting trailer for use on farms and plantations, and can plant around 20,000 seedlings in a single day. Planting seedlings is easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's difficult, both practically and politically, is cultivating the new trees for twenty years. Its a lot of commitment. It takes land and funding and people, and at any moment a new government or local authority with different priorities could decide to rip up the new forest and build a freeway, or use the land for farming and all the effort of planting trees is gone in a puff of smoke (CO2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/30/most-of-11m-trees-planted-in-turkish-project-may-be-dead&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-50813726" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9929" RevisionGUID="cdfaef8b-88fa-4f09-8d5b-ed34b77d6788" CreationDate="2020-03-02T10:44:09.763" UserId="99" Comment="add link to offsetting scheme gone bad, added link to report about planting above certain latitude" Text="1. **That the scheme actually has a net positive effect, both in the short and long-term**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;    How effective a tree planting scheme is in capturing and storing carbon dioxide, is for a large part determined by what happens to the trees after they are planted. When trees mature and are harvested for wood that's used in construction, then the captured carbon dioxide is stored for a long time (until the wood decomposes or is burned). However, if no trees are replanted after harvesting this will have had a one-time effect only. Also when wood is burned (for energy or in a wild fire), or if trees die quickly and decompose, then their captured carbon is released again. Of course all trees die eventually even when they are not harvested, this is part of the natural cycle, but a mature forest can store a lot more carbon than a young, newly-planted forest so it's important to keep a forest intact as much as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **That the wrong type(s) of trees are planted in the wrong location**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   In the past there were bad offsetting schemes that planted non-native trees, or [planted trees in a location where they would change water flows](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/dec/23/frontpagenews.climatechange)  and thus change local ecosystems in a negative way. Some offsetting schemes [planted  thousands of trees of the same species, resulting in a large monoculture](https://web.archive.org/web/20120209141916/http://www.wrm.org.uy/countries/Ecuador/face.html). Such a monoculture hinders biodiversity, is susceptible to diseases and can even damage local communities.&#xD;&#xA;There have also been [reports](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005GeoRL..3223705G/abstract) that planting trees above a certain latitude can have a net warming effect by changing the albedo and trapping heat. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **That buying offsets reduces the incentive for people to reduce their emissions** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Reducing emissions is much more effective than offsetting. Buying carbon offsets can lead to people thinking they are doing the right thing, whereas they had better spent their time and effort in reducing their emissions. Of course this point goes for all offsetting-schemes and is not specifically for planting trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **That there are more effective ways of reducing carbon emissions than planting trees**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Nowadays many offsetting schemes invest in development of renewable energy sources (in developing countries) instead of planting trees, simply because&#xD;&#xA;it is a more effective and cheaper way to reduce emissions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9931" RevisionGUID="3774ab16-bd9f-4def-a465-788eb37e3267" CreationDate="2020-03-02T10:51:30.330" UserId="2846" Text="If your transmission system is losing a lot of methane to the atmosphere, you've got more immediate concerns, and it should all be burnt at point of use, giving CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and water vapour.  Small leaks do occur, but the big leaks are the point of production, where methane is what's present, rather than in the distribution grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The higher alkanes also have significant global warming potential if they get into the air.  The only reason you don't see them listed as often as methane  is that methane is common, and produced by lots of processes (like ruminant digestive systems).  They're no better for producing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; than methane when burnt (from the composition they should be worse - I'll try to run the numbers later).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The one thing that can be done is to mix in some hydrogen, which [is being trialled in the UK](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/24/hydrogen-uk-gas-grid-keele-university).  This produces only water when burnt, and isn't a significant greenhouse gas if it leaks.  This can only replace a fraction of the methane without everyone replacing all their gas-burning appliances." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23352" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="9928" RevisionGUID="37a7a65a-67da-4eea-adf5-03ee91f1ca88" CreationDate="2020-03-02T12:44:56.783" />
  <row Id="23356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9932" RevisionGUID="99d17070-7dff-4f5d-ad87-06a53161c205" CreationDate="2020-03-02T16:22:56.970" UserId="1056" Text="Which uses less electrical energy per passenger-km ([pkm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_transportation_measurement#Passenger-distance)) travelled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Electric bicycle _(with a single rider)_&#xD;&#xA;- Electric unicycle (aka. self-balancing personal transporter)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have heard that a standard bicycle and an electric bicycle are both very efficient modes of transportation for an individual. But I haven't heard much about the energy efficiency of self-balancing personal transportation devices. Are they competitive with an electric bicycle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_(I'm also interested in comparing lifecycle energy use, but that might be too much for one question.)_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9932" RevisionGUID="99d17070-7dff-4f5d-ad87-06a53161c205" CreationDate="2020-03-02T16:22:56.970" UserId="1056" Text="Lowest energy use per passenger-km, electric bicycle or electric unicycle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9932" RevisionGUID="99d17070-7dff-4f5d-ad87-06a53161c205" CreationDate="2020-03-02T16:22:56.970" UserId="1056" Text="|energy-efficiency|transport|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23359" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="9f8dea9e-e34f-46c3-9826-2b2255a299a6" CreationDate="2020-03-02T17:10:17.497" UserId="1056" Comment="Remove tag: food (no apparent connection to food in the question)" Text="|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23360" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5602" RevisionGUID="53cdd173-802b-462a-8ac7-17622fa388f0" CreationDate="2020-03-02T18:18:50.643" UserId="1056" Comment="fix broken link" Text="This question is addressed in a paper by [Shibahara et al, 2013][1] (doi:10.2208/jscejipm.68.I_285). They don't discuss walking, but they do discuss bicycling, which I suppose is a more realistic method for commuting (for example, I bike the 8 miles to work but I've never walked it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The authors analyzed taxi, gas cars (GV), electric cars (EV), bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail (LRT), city-center shuttle buses, and bicycle (and battery-assisted bicycle, which I am going to ignore, because I think it is silly). They accounted for total system life-cycle carbon (SyLC-CO2) usage, including the cost of making bike paths and rails and roads and the farmland CO2 costs emissions needed to power the human on a bike. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The result is that taxis are unspeakably bad, gas cars go from 145-155 as traffic increases, electric cars are a little better in the 125 range. BRT and LRT have rapid exponential decreases from ~100 with low traffic to 25 for BRT and 15 for LRT at high traffic. City center have a slight decay from 30 to 25 as traffic increases, and bicycles a near constant 20.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the conclusion is, **bicycling is much better than cars or even electric cars, better than buses even in high traffic areas, but not as good as a light rail in the most densely populated areas**. I would suspect that walking is similar to biking, maybe even better. The calorie demands would be similar, more paved sidewalk would be needed due to slower speed, but not manufacturing bikes would save you some carbon. But the time it takes to walk more than a couple miles is pretty prohibitive, so it isn't a reasonable transportation alternative in many cases. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272211854_COMPARATIVE_ANALYSIS_OF_LIFE_CYCLE_CARBON_DIOXIDE_EMISSIONS_FROM_URBAN_PASSENGER_TRANSPORT_MODES&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x1mGU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23361" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1242" RevisionGUID="cd17d49a-8250-47eb-be35-940283bc4c62" CreationDate="2020-03-02T20:19:08.637" UserId="2345" Comment="Formatting of units &amp; chemicals" Text="I'm looking to offset the carbon footprint of my wedding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to do it by helping out some local community solar projects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've calculated that the wedding's footprint will be about 23,000 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and that this would be offset by about 37,000 kWh of solar generation (if 1kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; = 1.64 kWh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But over what period do I measure those kWh to calculate how much of a contribution to community solar is meaningful?&#xD;&#xA;Over 1 year? Over 5 years? And how do I estimate what would be generated over that time period - I know peak will be far from actual, and how many sunny days do you estimate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's an appropriate way to calculate the appropriate contribution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9933" RevisionGUID="43137bcd-a445-492a-9366-a8defb86d53f" CreationDate="2020-03-02T20:29:06.777" UserId="3379" Text="This chart from the U.S. Energy Information Agency was published last week in the article [&quot;EIA expands data on capacity and usage of power plants, electricity storage systems&quot;](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42995):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Monthly usage factor for utility-scale storage generators (Jan 2017-Dec 2019)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The text of the article describes what is meant by &quot;usage factor&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Usage factors for storage generators differ from capacity factors because usage factors are based on gross generation rather than net generation. Energy storage technologies consume more energy than they store and, therefore, always have negative net generation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The decline over time for both storage types is noticeable. While [capacity of pumped storage is essentially fixed](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41833), [battery capacity is growing rapidly](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40072):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Operating utility-scale battery storage power capacity has more than quadrupled from the end of 2014 (214 MW) through March 2019 (899 MW).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article does not comment on why the usage factors (for both storage types) are noticeably declining over time. Is it a simple case of supply and demand (more storage on the grid means less demand for each MW of capacity)? This seems unlikely given the rapid increase in capacity that is both seen and projected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What's causing the usage factor of utility-scale storage to noticeably decline over time?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rawgy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23363" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9933" RevisionGUID="43137bcd-a445-492a-9366-a8defb86d53f" CreationDate="2020-03-02T20:29:06.777" UserId="3379" Text="Why is the usage factor for utility-scale storage declining in the U.S.?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23364" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9933" RevisionGUID="43137bcd-a445-492a-9366-a8defb86d53f" CreationDate="2020-03-02T20:29:06.777" UserId="3379" Text="|batteries|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9934" RevisionGUID="1ac85942-a5d5-4869-ae19-9d101b6807a5" CreationDate="2020-03-02T20:34:43.830" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;b&gt;Low-speed electric scooter.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the answer found bicycles to be pretty sustainable. However, bicycles are powered by food. Food is an extremely polluting way of producing energy. One kilocalorie of food produces more carbon dioxide emissions than one kilocalorie of electricity. And due to 25% efficiency of humans, you need 4 kcal to have the same impact as 1 kcal of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you want is something similar to a bicycle: a lightweight two-wheeled vehicle traveling at low speed. However, you want the polluting food engine to be replaced by a non-polluting electric motor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By taking one of the most environmentally friendly transport modes (bicycle) and replacing the propulsion method by one that is 10x more sustainable, you will definitely have a winner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're feeling very adventurous, you can also travel on an &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_unicycle&quot;&gt;electric unicycle&lt;/a&gt; that has only one wheel instead of two." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9935" RevisionGUID="2adfd743-f052-4be7-bbcc-d5d61a8da449" CreationDate="2020-03-02T20:41:21.240" UserId="6393" Text="A two-wheeled electric scooter / bicycle uses less energy. You can take a look at the specifications of two-wheeled electric scooters and electric unicycles. Look at the battery size and the claimed range. An electric bicycle uses less watt-hours per kilometer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for electric unicycle using more energy is that it needs to continuously stay balanced. The currents in the electric motors can be fairly large and some of that current turns into heat. Of course, it can regenerate electricity while keeping the rider in balance at some times, and then use the energy at other times to keep the rider balanced. However, the mechanical energy -&gt; electricity -&gt; mechanical energy pathway is never 100% efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These considerations of course are very minor. If you need a convenient transport mode that you can carry around at all times and are willing to invest in unicycling skills, it is more sustainable to have an unicycle because you will use it more. An electric bicycle is large, and thus, you will use it less." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23367" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="ec6784c0-a5c2-4538-92bb-ac2ef7477878" CreationDate="2020-03-03T08:33:38.977" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, improved title, added consumption and metal tag" Text="Has the metal 'consumption' of consumers risen over the last, say 30 years (arbitrarily chosen number - anything on a similar scale would be interesting). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in both the amount that is 'held' (this laptop, my knives and forks), and the amount that is thrown away/recycled. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23368" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="ec6784c0-a5c2-4538-92bb-ac2ef7477878" CreationDate="2020-03-03T08:33:38.977" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, improved title, added consumption and metal tag" Text="Is the metal use per person rising?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23369" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="964" RevisionGUID="ec6784c0-a5c2-4538-92bb-ac2ef7477878" CreationDate="2020-03-03T08:33:38.977" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, improved title, added consumption and metal tag" Text="|consumption|statistics|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23370" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9933" RevisionGUID="1a6ba315-ea4b-4843-ae04-b4f3b7ec10f2" CreationDate="2020-03-03T12:00:25.783" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1234810862206177281" />
  <row Id="23371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9936" RevisionGUID="1c521034-d6b2-4706-84af-1a00fe5ad871" CreationDate="2020-03-03T15:40:16.663" UserId="3379" Text="Our World in Data provides statistics on [global annual production of metals](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/metal-production-long-term):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Metal production over the long term, World][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also provide [population data](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/projected-population-by-country?time=1900..2013&amp;country=OWID_WRL) over the same time period. If we combine the two data sets, we can see the global per capita metal production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Global per capita metal production][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question about the last 30 years or so; **the data shows that metal production per person declined slightly during the 1970s, but from the mid-1980s onward it has been growing.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was curious about specific metals, so I put together this chart showing the per capita change since 1985 for each specific metal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Change in per capital metal production since 1985][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this data, we can see that the growth is lead by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Aluminum, used in almost every industry&#xD;&#xA; - Bauxite, a source of aluminum&#xD;&#xA; - Nickel, used for stainless steel but likely growing due to use in batteries&#xD;&#xA; - Lead, used in batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x6FiR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JEuku.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2kMKY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9937" RevisionGUID="98d9d901-b97f-474d-a567-8bbab00c2546" CreationDate="2020-03-03T16:56:19.673" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9937" RevisionGUID="98d9d901-b97f-474d-a567-8bbab00c2546" CreationDate="2020-03-03T16:56:19.673" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9938" RevisionGUID="6f3382f8-742a-41f3-936d-a68c8c77f5b9" CreationDate="2020-03-03T16:56:19.673" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23375" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9938" RevisionGUID="6f3382f8-742a-41f3-936d-a68c8c77f5b9" CreationDate="2020-03-03T16:56:19.673" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23376" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="527" RevisionGUID="97e73daa-a9dd-4bd3-a9b4-9c3341eb2099" CreationDate="2020-03-03T16:58:19.293" UserId="1056" Comment="Add tags: storage and food-storage" Text="|energy|storage|food-storage|zero-energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23377" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4699" RevisionGUID="1cc0b73c-1f9b-48ef-b7cf-d9309dba4d97" CreationDate="2020-03-03T17:42:00.570" UserId="1056" Comment="remove tag: bats (only used on this question) and adjust the remaining tags for better coverage" Text="|animals|balanced-ecosystems|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23378" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9844" RevisionGUID="c4052518-f62f-4d72-b257-85823b5cb4b9" CreationDate="2020-03-03T17:45:10.827" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: metal (it pairs nicely with recycling)" Text="|recycling|reuse|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23379" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4375" RevisionGUID="5bf44e6d-d43c-415a-8639-3654785577ea" CreationDate="2020-03-03T17:45:35.317" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: metal (it pairs nicely with building-materials)" Text="|pollution|water-management|building-materials|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23380" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="59b20477-1ed6-48d7-9a56-12ce380b464a" CreationDate="2020-03-03T17:45:53.460" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: metal (it pairs nicely with industrial-production)" Text="|decarbonisation|industrial-production|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23381" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="938" RevisionGUID="d8aa3e5a-d7d1-44d6-8f29-6754cb3b008d" CreationDate="2020-03-03T17:47:00.603" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: metal (pairs nicely with plastic-alternatives)" Text="|reuse|plastic-alternatives|plastic-bottles|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23382" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9819" RevisionGUID="017052fe-618c-4156-a1d6-ed0294930cff" CreationDate="2020-03-03T17:47:38.737" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: metal (pairs nicely with recycling)" Text="|recycling|waste|usa|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23383" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7199" RevisionGUID="5880ef2a-2b65-4a14-a2af-4303f9fb51c7" CreationDate="2020-03-03T17:47:59.847" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: metal" Text="|recycling|waste|reuse|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23384" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9866" RevisionGUID="4e37d60a-c0ce-4082-a722-01957e42300e" CreationDate="2020-03-03T17:48:45.427" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: metal" Text="|batteries|metal|fossil-fuels|mining|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23385" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6440" RevisionGUID="b5d0dae2-9171-430c-95d6-3e129b1cf5dc" CreationDate="2020-03-03T17:53:36.900" UserId="1056" Comment="add tags: metal, diy" Text="|recycling|diy|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9936" RevisionGUID="fb253524-322d-4af2-b427-b81b06e3ea5c" CreationDate="2020-03-03T17:58:57.717" UserId="3379" Comment="added 1180 characters in body" Text="##Metal production compared to population&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our World in Data provides statistics on [global annual primary production of metals](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/metal-production-long-term):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Metal production over the long term, World][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also provide [population data](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/projected-population-by-country?time=1900..2013&amp;country=OWID_WRL) over the same time period. If we combine the two data sets, we can see the global per capita metal production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Global per capita metal production][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Recycling rates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The United Nations Environment Programme published a report on [Recycling Rates of Metals](https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/recycling-rates-metals) in 2011, which gives estimated global recycling rates. It's a comprehensive review of disparate data sources, so rates are given in ranges. Here's where each of the metals in the chart from Our World in Data fall:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Greater than 50%: &#xD;&#xA; - Gold           &#xD;&#xA; - Tin&#xD;&#xA; - Nickel&#xD;&#xA; - Iron Ore&#xD;&#xA; - Lead&#xD;&#xA; - Zinc&#xD;&#xA; - Manganese&#xD;&#xA; - Silver&#xD;&#xA; - Copper&#xD;&#xA; - Aluminum&#xD;&#xA;- 10 to 25%&#xD;&#xA; - Tungsten&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that Tungsten, with the lowest recycling rate, is also produced in the lowest quantity aside from gold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the UN does not provide historical data on recycling rates. However, given that [recycling rates in general are increasing globally](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/municipal-waste-recycling-rate?tab=chart&amp;time=1995..2015&amp;country=OECD%20-%20Total), it's safe to assume that metal recycling rates have also increased over time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that while some primary production accounts for replacing metals that are not recycled, this &quot;replacement factor&quot; has decreased over time, meaning the increase in primary production is mostly related to increase in demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Change in demand for specific metals&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was curious about specific metals, so I put together this chart showing the per capita change since 1985 for each specific metal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Change in per capital metal production since 1985][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this data, we can see that the growth is lead by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Aluminum, used in almost every industry&#xD;&#xA; - Bauxite, a source of aluminum&#xD;&#xA; - Nickel, used for stainless steel but likely growing due to use in batteries&#xD;&#xA; - Lead, used in batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x6FiR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JEuku.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gwpwH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2kMKY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23387" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7198" RevisionGUID="a656eb9a-6de5-4d7b-bf49-481537e1461e" CreationDate="2020-03-03T18:00:00.190" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1234901352117084160" />
  <row Id="23388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9937" RevisionGUID="d541215f-04e0-49fe-9936-4dd5e75cd28b" CreationDate="2020-03-03T18:27:03.830" UserId="1056" Comment="added 1300 characters in body" Text="**Zero Energy** buildings are more precisely described as **Zero Net Energy** buildings, but zero energy (ZE) remains a common descriptor in the areas of construction and architecture. Low-energy and ultra-low-energy buildings have similar design goals, but are held to less stringent criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key defining trait of a zero energy building is that it is designed to maximize advantage from sunlight. This principle leads to choices such as improved insulation, better window placement and overhang design, use of photovoltaics and LED lighting, and use of landscape or greenery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zero energy building design does not imply that occupants must avoid use of electricity and other kinds of energy. Rather, a zero energy building ensures that all demands are met by using resources within the boundary of the building and by minimizing all kinds of waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept of zero energy buildings has been popularized by organizations like the [Zero Net Energy Project](https://zeroenergyproject.org/buy/zero-energy-homes/) and the German [Passivhaus Institut](https://passivehouse.com/). However, Google Trends suggests that zero energy buildings have been declining in popularity since the early 2000's.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The zero energy is not typically used when describing cars or other modes of transport." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23389" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9937" RevisionGUID="d541215f-04e0-49fe-9936-4dd5e75cd28b" CreationDate="2020-03-03T18:27:03.830" Comment="Proposed by 1056 approved by -1 edit id of 626" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9937" RevisionGUID="109f32c0-ec65-43ce-b645-c2175351bb07" CreationDate="2020-03-03T18:27:03.830" UserId="3379" Comment="added 382 characters in body" Text="**Zero Energy** buildings are more precisely described as **Zero Net Energy** buildings, but zero energy (ZE) remains a common descriptor in the areas of construction and architecture. Low-energy and ultra-low-energy buildings have similar design goals, but are held to less stringent criteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key defining trait of a zero energy building is that total annual energy usage is less than the amount of energy produced locally by renewable resources. For off-grid buildings, this means that energy from fossil-fuel burning generators must be offset by local production. For grid-connected buildings, this means that annual export of energy to the grid must exceed imports. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A defining strategy for achieving zero net energy is to maximize advantage from sunlight. This principle leads to choices such as improved insulation, better window placement and overhang design (to provide heat, reduce cooling demand, and provide lighting), use of photovoltaic arrays, and strategic placement of landscape or greenery to provide shading or evaporative cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Zero energy building design does not imply that occupants must avoid use of electricity and other kinds of energy. Rather, a zero energy building ensures that all demands are met by using resources within the boundary of the building and by focusing on energy efficiency and conservation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept of zero energy buildings has been popularized by organizations like the [Zero Net Energy Project](https://zeroenergyproject.org/buy/zero-energy-homes/) and the German [Passivhaus Institut](https://passivehouse.com/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The term &quot;zero energy&quot; is not typically used when describing cars or other modes of transport." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23391" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9928" RevisionGUID="8487a6c3-b6c3-4422-93b5-bff3409ff536" CreationDate="2020-03-03T18:36:08.833" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: trees (better option than forestry)" Text="|trees|carbon-offsetting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9936" RevisionGUID="e31f16cf-2d0c-4a68-8772-9844fea9954f" CreationDate="2020-03-03T20:33:12.690" UserId="3379" Comment="added 197 characters in body" Text="##Metal production compared to population&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our World in Data provides statistics on [global annual primary production of metals](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/metal-production-long-term):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Metal production over the long term, World][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also provide [population data](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/projected-population-by-country?time=1900..2013&amp;country=OWID_WRL) over the same time period. If we combine the two data sets, we can see the global per capita metal production:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Global per capita metal production][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question about the last 30 years or so; **the data shows that metal production per person declined slightly during the 1970s, but from the mid-1980s onward it has been growing.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##Recycling rates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The United Nations Environment Programme published a report on [Recycling Rates of Metals](https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/recycling-rates-metals) in 2011, which gives estimated global recycling rates. It's a comprehensive review of disparate data sources, so rates are given in ranges. Here's where each of the metals in the chart from Our World in Data fall:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Greater than 50%: &#xD;&#xA; - Gold           &#xD;&#xA; - Tin&#xD;&#xA; - Nickel&#xD;&#xA; - Iron Ore&#xD;&#xA; - Lead&#xD;&#xA; - Zinc&#xD;&#xA; - Manganese&#xD;&#xA; - Silver&#xD;&#xA; - Copper&#xD;&#xA; - Aluminum&#xD;&#xA;- 10 to 25%&#xD;&#xA; - Tungsten&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that Tungsten, with the lowest recycling rate, is also produced in the lowest quantity aside from gold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the UN does not provide historical data on recycling rates. However, given that [recycling rates in general are increasing globally](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/municipal-waste-recycling-rate?tab=chart&amp;time=1995..2015&amp;country=OECD%20-%20Total), it's safe to assume that metal recycling rates have also increased over time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that while some primary production accounts for replacing metals that are not recycled, this &quot;replacement factor&quot; has decreased over time, meaning the increase in primary production is mostly related to increase in demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Change in demand for specific metals&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was curious about specific metals, so I put together this chart showing the per capita change since 1985 for each specific metal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Change in per capital metal production since 1985][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From this data, we can see that the growth is lead by:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Aluminum, used in almost every industry&#xD;&#xA; - Bauxite, a source of aluminum&#xD;&#xA; - Nickel, used for stainless steel but likely growing due to use in batteries&#xD;&#xA; - Lead, used in batteries&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/x6FiR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JEuku.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gwpwH.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2kMKY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23393" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9928" RevisionGUID="27913e70-4168-4ae6-b998-1798ec47d262" CreationDate="2020-03-03T21:00:47.223" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1234946847585841154" />
  <row Id="23394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9939" RevisionGUID="49bc7bb7-5b72-45b4-934e-08db4bb5720d" CreationDate="2020-03-03T21:49:10.190" UserId="8151" Text="One concern is that it takes too long. Because a sustainable forest needs decades to grow it is a midterm solution only.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another concern that comes to mind which I have not yet heard is that the forests compete with farming over land use: Both need reasonably fertile land. This conflict resembles the one created by plants grown for fuel: Rich countries create a large-scale demand for land for non-food purposes, driving the value of land up until it is uneconomical to grow food on it. But fertile land is a limited resource which will be needed to feed a still-growing world population." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="ea654af1-7f76-46c2-b21b-9f15689adb31" CreationDate="2020-03-03T22:10:57.813" UserId="6293" Text="A better roof covering material is stainless-steel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then 430 has less thermal expansion than 304 but 430 is more risk of crevice corrosion. Or 444 has about the same thermal expansion as 430 but has a smaller risk of crevice corrosion. Basically, 430 can be bent to shape one-time but not worked to shape. And 430 shouldn't be cut with a cut-off disk but should be cut with machine tools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stainless-steel is not painted but AK Steel has a pebble-finish in 304 and 316 for roofing. The pebble-finish has a dull finish. Otherwise, a #8 mirror finish is not possible for roofing, a BA finish is still too bright, while a #4 brushed finish might be possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stainless-steel sheet-metal comes on coils and is sold wholesale by the pound. Stainless-steel by the foot would be fabrication and would be very expensive. The stainless-steel sheet-metal can be formed into standing-seam panels with a portable standing-seam forming machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The roof covering can also be done as side-lapping lateral-strips taken straight off the coil. A roof covering like this uses thicker material, at 0.028&quot; to 0.030&quot;, but lays flat on both course side-laps and section end-laps. However, lateral slots must be cut in the stainless-steel to allow for thermal expansion and the stainless-steel must be attached with stainless-steel nails or wood screws. In fact any metal touching the stainless-steel must also be stainless-steel. Gable-ends either need a stainless-steel square-tube over-the-roof hold-down or the roof course-ends need to be cabled down to brackets on the gable-end. Ridge pieces are bent in a brake from pieces that have been cut-to-size and flattened. The ridge pieces reach to overlap the sidelap so that upside-down machine-screws can attach the ridge piece to the top layer of the sidelap. Now section end-laps can't attach to other section end-laps and ridge-piece end-laps can't attach to other ridge-piece end-laps because the thermal expansion would be working against the end-laps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23396" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="eb44416b-049f-4e2c-a71c-44c182bba1b4" CreationDate="2020-03-03T22:21:31.107" UserId="6293" Comment="added 416 characters in body" Text="A better roof covering material is stainless-steel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then 430 has less thermal expansion than 304 but 430 is more risk of crevice corrosion. Or 444 has about the same thermal expansion as 430 but has a smaller risk of crevice corrosion. Basically, 430 can be bent to shape one-time but not worked to shape. And 430 shouldn't be cut with a cut-off disk but should be cut with machine tools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stainless-steel is not painted but AK Steel has a pebble-finish in 304 and 316 for roofing. The pebble-finish has a dull finish. Otherwise, a #8 mirror finish is not possible for roofing, a BA finish is still too bright, while a #4 brushed finish might be possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stainless-steel sheet-metal comes on coils and is sold wholesale by the pound. Stainless-steel by the foot would be fabrication and would be very expensive. The stainless-steel sheet-metal can be formed into standing-seam panels with a portable standing-seam forming machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The roof covering can also be done as side-lapping lateral-strips taken straight off the coil. A roof covering like this uses thicker material, at 0.028&quot; to 0.030&quot;, but lays flat on both course side-laps and section end-laps. However, lateral slots must be cut in the stainless-steel to allow for thermal expansion and the stainless-steel must be attached with stainless-steel nails or wood screws. In fact any metal touching the stainless-steel must also be stainless-steel. Gable-ends either need a stainless-steel square-tube over-the-roof hold-down or the roof course-ends need to be cabled down to brackets on the gable-end. Ridge pieces are bent in a brake from pieces that have been cut-to-size and flattened. The ridge pieces reach to overlap the sidelap so that upside-down machine-screws can attach the ridge piece to the top layer of the sidelap. Now section end-laps can't attach to other section end-laps and ridge-piece end-laps can't attach to other ridge-piece end-laps because the thermal expansion would be working against the end-laps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lateral-strip side-lapping stainless-steel roof-covering will hold rainwater for a couple of hours in the first 1/2&quot; of the side-lap. Also, the side-laps make a slightly ventilated roof-covering while the stainless-steel itself tends to reflect solar heat. A high-end house is more likely to use standing-seam panels while a do-it-yourself build is more likely to use this side-lapping lateral-strip method. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9940" RevisionGUID="e4b60ce4-a1ff-4247-840a-b814777be076" CreationDate="2020-03-03T23:33:16.637" UserId="6293" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="A better roof covering material is stainless-steel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then 430 has less thermal expansion than 304 but 430 is more risk of crevice corrosion. Or 444 has about the same thermal expansion as 430 but has a smaller risk of crevice corrosion. Basically, 430 can be bent to shape one-time but not worked to shape. And 430 shouldn't be cut with a cut-off disk but should be cut with machine tools.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stainless-steel is not painted but AK Steel has a pebble-finish in 304 and 316 for roofing. The pebble-finish has a dull finish. Otherwise, a #8 mirror finish is not possible for roofing, a BA finish is still too bright, while a #4 brushed finish might be possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The stainless-steel sheet-metal comes on coils and is sold wholesale by the pound. Stainless-steel by the foot would be fabrication and would be very expensive. The stainless-steel sheet-metal can be formed into standing-seam panels with a portable standing-seam forming machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The roof covering can also be done as side-lapping lateral-strips taken straight off the coil. A roof covering like this uses thicker material, at 0.028&quot; to 0.030&quot;, but lays flat on both course side-laps and section end-laps. However, lateral slots must be cut in the stainless-steel to allow for thermal expansion at the attachment and the stainless-steel must be attached with stainless-steel nails or wood screws. In fact any metal touching the stainless-steel must also be stainless-steel. Gable-ends either need a stainless-steel square-tube over-the-roof hold-down or the roof course-ends need to be cabled down to brackets on the gable-end. Ridge pieces are bent in a brake from pieces that have been cut-to-size and flattened. The ridge pieces reach to overlap the sidelap so that upside-down machine-screws can attach the ridge piece to the top layer of the sidelap. Now section end-laps can't attach to other section end-laps and ridge-piece end-laps can't attach to other ridge-piece end-laps because the thermal expansion would be working against the end-laps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lateral-strip side-lapping stainless-steel roof-covering will hold rainwater for a couple of hours in the first 1/2&quot; of the side-lap. Also, the side-laps make a slightly ventilated roof-covering while the stainless-steel itself tends to reflect solar heat. A high-end house is more likely to use standing-seam panels while a do-it-yourself build is more likely to use this side-lapping lateral-strip method. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23398" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9938" RevisionGUID="7ebc87f6-9308-4a7a-b590-91b2a7bf5517" CreationDate="2020-03-04T07:50:58.073" UserId="1056" Comment="added 186 characters in body" Text="Zero Energy buildings are designed to be self-sufficient for energy and not require import or connection of external energy sources (such as electricity and fuel) to support ongoing use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23399" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9938" RevisionGUID="7ebc87f6-9308-4a7a-b590-91b2a7bf5517" CreationDate="2020-03-04T07:50:58.073" Comment="Proposed by 1056 approved by -1 edit id of 627" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9938" RevisionGUID="2a486034-04b7-48b6-b9f3-369b14bff060" CreationDate="2020-03-04T07:50:58.073" UserId="99" Comment="shortened description" Text="building designed to be self-sufficient for energy and not require import or connection of external energy sources to support ongoing use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23401" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="2658" RevisionGUID="ee2dd368-8bfb-4c5f-a6e3-bb991a84e459" CreationDate="2020-03-04T08:14:54.307" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1056,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:92,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;milesmeow&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23404" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3080" RevisionGUID="ecbc6548-43d5-4ea1-8259-125925e34154" CreationDate="2020-03-04T17:06:36.260" UserId="400" Comment="response to comment, and correction on accuracy of kitchen scale." Text="Simon W is overall correct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While when the size gets large enough the walls have to be thicker because of the weight involved, for small products, the problem is that they have to be strong enough for the handling machinery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there is an easy way to test this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weigh them.  Empty of course.  For each container wash it and weigh it.  Don't forget the plastic sealer under the lid.  There are good kitchen scales now that are accurate to about a gram or so.   Weigh a stack of each and do the arithmetic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take into account too the variability in materials.  Some materials, like tetrapaks are very hard to recycle.  (Tetrapaks have a layer of aluminum foil, two layer of paper, and I think a layer of plastic.)  The easiest container to recycle is a plastic polyethylene milk jug.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(In response to comment about the re-usability of glass:  Until glass containers standardize on a small enough number of sizes, then re-using glass is going to be difficult.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The beer companies in Canada had it made:  For years law mandated that the standard stubby beer bottle was the only one that could be used for in-Canada bottling, and the other were taxed extra. Stubbies did an average of about 6-8 trips.  Once some company bought a legislature to change the law, it all fell apart.  While we still have a 10 c bottle deposit and refund, the bottles are crushed and recast.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But this was a unique situation.  There were breweries in every province, and almost all beer was only distributed in-province.  So the return path for bottles was short.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The dairy industry could do this, and in a few places it does.  (You can buy milk, cream and yogurt in glass containers in Vancouver)  It also has the fairly short local supply and demand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most industries don't.  If I buy applesauce, it comes from BC, or Washington State, or New Zeeland. If I buy barbecue sauce, not only does it come from a single plant somewhere, but they have their own custom bottle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At present we buy three things in glass bottles: booze, garlic stuffed olives, and sauerkraut.  Oh, and a specialty marmalade that my wive loves and goes through about 2 jars a year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've not seen vegetables in glass instead of cans for decades.  Indeed, most of the time I buy frozen veg, as often being better than fresh in terms of nutrients.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9941" RevisionGUID="a54e8add-0263-45d9-8b81-c0a2c261f098" CreationDate="2020-03-04T17:11:12.803" UserId="1056" Text="I've heard that the production and import of chocolate has some consequences including deforestation, excessive use of pesticides and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions. There are also concerns about exploitation of workers. And that's all before even considering milk chocolate, where animal agriculture (especially dairy cows) is known to have its own environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am going to be purchasing chocolate, how can I choose the most sustainable? Ideally I'm looking for advice on picking the best ingredient composition and understanding the relative value of different labels. My priorities (in order) are forest-effects (land use change), fair labour practices, and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23406" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9941" RevisionGUID="a54e8add-0263-45d9-8b81-c0a2c261f098" CreationDate="2020-03-04T17:11:12.803" UserId="1056" Text="How do I choose the most sustainable chocolate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23407" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9941" RevisionGUID="a54e8add-0263-45d9-8b81-c0a2c261f098" CreationDate="2020-03-04T17:11:12.803" UserId="1056" Text="|environmental-impact|food|ecological-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23408" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="7009" RevisionGUID="a30db322-29cd-4020-8c8e-5a18ec005c02" CreationDate="2020-03-04T17:24:42.610" UserId="1056" Comment="62" />
  <row Id="23409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="6633d01f-2d5a-4b2a-8f3f-2026dd62b460" CreationDate="2020-03-04T17:32:22.327" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9942" RevisionGUID="6633d01f-2d5a-4b2a-8f3f-2026dd62b460" CreationDate="2020-03-04T17:32:22.327" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9943" RevisionGUID="1c01a538-8021-4d0d-96f2-c0a17cb6aeff" CreationDate="2020-03-04T17:32:22.327" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9943" RevisionGUID="1c01a538-8021-4d0d-96f2-c0a17cb6aeff" CreationDate="2020-03-04T17:32:22.327" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23413" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8433" RevisionGUID="be077535-a886-49c7-8bf9-578027ed8f0d" CreationDate="2020-03-04T17:36:12.617" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: metal" Text="While the initial production of aluminum is a waste-intensive, energy-intensive process that has negative environmental and social impact through deforestation and contamination of waterways, aluminum has an incredibly high recycling rate (e.g. 98.2% in Brazil). Furthermore, it can be recycled with only a fraction of the energy input of the initial production (5%).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For this reason, I am wondering how I can support the recycling and reuse of aluminum, while not supporting its continued new production. Are there certain products or packaging materials I should avoid buying because they cannot be recycled or because they cannot be made from recycled aluminum? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23414" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8433" RevisionGUID="be077535-a886-49c7-8bf9-578027ed8f0d" CreationDate="2020-03-04T17:36:12.617" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: metal" Text="|recycling|environmental-impact|packaging|lifestyle|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23415" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6536" RevisionGUID="58a2ef9e-33e6-4798-9073-91adfa17ccd1" CreationDate="2020-03-04T17:38:28.347" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: metal" Text="|water|water-management|toxic-chemicals|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23416" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4316" RevisionGUID="a1567722-8d74-4f4a-bf8c-46e369160438" CreationDate="2020-03-04T17:40:34.040" UserId="1056" Comment="add tag: metal" Text="|cars|fuel-efficiency|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1199" RevisionGUID="0c0c3e05-9355-4cac-88f5-e7671e39b0a9" CreationDate="2020-03-04T22:12:27.110" UserId="15" Comment="Add background" Text="I think this calculation uses the specific heat capacity for water, which is from memory a bit over 4. Can someone please do the math?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if we assume electricity costs $0.30 per kilowatt hour, what is the cost of heating a full 180 litre hot water cylinder?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to gain an understanding of the energy usage and costs in our home so that I can compare with other options for a sensible balance of cost and sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23418" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9941" RevisionGUID="373e9ce6-c019-4bf5-bc4f-14d4711ac132" CreationDate="2020-03-05T00:00:34.903" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1235354482306842624" />
  <row Id="23419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9938" RevisionGUID="4350d9c7-4594-4cb8-954f-fe7981bfc603" CreationDate="2020-03-05T07:43:14.903" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="building designed to generate at least as much renewable energy as is consumed. For questions about being [off-grid] use that tag. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23420" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9943" RevisionGUID="92192a64-29c7-4606-b2c2-5da53246ef8c" CreationDate="2020-03-05T07:52:28.323" UserId="1056" Comment="added 193 characters in body" Text="Metals are a type of matter or [material] that conduct heat and electricity very well. Metals are often malleable and ductile, meaning they can be shaped into different forms relatively easily." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23421" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9943" RevisionGUID="92192a64-29c7-4606-b2c2-5da53246ef8c" CreationDate="2020-03-05T07:52:28.323" Comment="Proposed by 1056 approved by 3379, -1 edit id of 628" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23422" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9943" RevisionGUID="8f3fd09d-f9e7-4505-ada9-e2d2c2b4eb34" CreationDate="2020-03-05T07:52:28.323" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 13 characters in body" Text="type of matter or [material] that conduct heat and electricity very well. Metals are often malleable and ductile, meaning they can be shaped into different forms relatively easily." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23423" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="278" RevisionGUID="0eeac95b-e39c-404f-9f68-547dd4e1ca23" CreationDate="2020-03-05T07:59:09.120" UserId="99" Comment="added reference to compostable-plastic" Text="Compost is organic matter that has been decomposed and recycled as a fertilizer and soil amendment. It is a key ingredient in organic farming. When done locally (e.g. at home) composting may also reduce one's carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Composting process**: At the simplest level, the process of composting simply requires making a heap of wetted organic matter (leaves, &quot;green&quot; food waste) and waiting for the materials to break down into humus after a period of weeks or months. Modern, methodical composting is a multi-step, closely monitored process with measured inputs of water, air and carbon- and nitrogen-rich materials. The decomposition process is aided by shredding the plant matter, adding water and ensuring proper aeration by regularly turning the mixture. Worms and fungi further break up the material. Aerobic bacteria manage the chemical process by converting the inputs into heat, carbon dioxide and ammonium. The ammonium is further converted by bacteria into plant-nourishing nitrites and nitrates through the process of nitrification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For composting with worms see [tag:vermicomposting]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For anaerobic composting with microorganisms see [tag:bokashi]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For composting plastics see [tag:compostable-plastic]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23424" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6102" RevisionGUID="e0006239-02ca-4627-9249-e795b604afaf" CreationDate="2020-03-05T11:39:02.507" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1056,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:92,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;milesmeow&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2734,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Whirl Mind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23425" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4539" RevisionGUID="4a13381b-aa35-45f2-a48f-58fc0a8f7e9a" CreationDate="2020-03-05T11:40:11.873" UserId="99" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1056,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nic&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:92,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;milesmeow&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8232,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robotnik&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2734,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Whirl Mind&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9944" RevisionGUID="1286941a-c4a4-4b64-acda-6edb75c90c68" CreationDate="2020-03-05T14:36:32.993" UserId="3379" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23427" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9944" RevisionGUID="1286941a-c4a4-4b64-acda-6edb75c90c68" CreationDate="2020-03-05T14:36:32.993" UserId="3379" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9945" RevisionGUID="184b507c-923b-4704-8bee-47d2a5aee53f" CreationDate="2020-03-05T14:36:32.993" UserId="3379" Text="Reducing the amount of fuel used to accomplish a given amount of work, such as in a vehicle or generator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23429" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9945" RevisionGUID="184b507c-923b-4704-8bee-47d2a5aee53f" CreationDate="2020-03-05T14:36:32.993" UserId="3379" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23430" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="9791" RevisionGUID="b9768d0a-c0e7-4115-b868-f4bc74732fa5" CreationDate="2020-03-05T18:01:25.360" UserId="-1" Comment="61" />
  <row Id="23431" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9946" RevisionGUID="1cd8b443-9eae-4281-ad85-1bd839359764" CreationDate="2020-03-05T19:33:33.617" UserId="6293" Text="Nestle has a new 70% dark chocolate made entirely from the cocoa fruit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.nestle.com/media/news/nestle-first-chocolate-cocoa-fruit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not just a brand-naming but a new chocolate process." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23432" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6536" RevisionGUID="6fa3c58e-798f-481c-9e61-0ab74d1700bb" CreationDate="2020-03-05T21:00:34.210" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1235671569176948755" />
  <row Id="23433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9947" RevisionGUID="21d0d851-d62d-4e2e-81ca-29d175cb9dd2" CreationDate="2020-03-06T02:44:50.047" UserId="3379" Text="Animals are living species which are members of the biological kingdom [Animalia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal). Defining characteristics which distinguish animals from other life forms are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Consume organic material (such as plants or other animals)&#xD;&#xA; - Breath oxygen&#xD;&#xA; - Reproduce sexually&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions about animals can relate to sustainable interactions with wildlife, pets, or livestock. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions about specific types and categories of animals, see also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:pets]: animals kept by humans as companions&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:chickens]: domesticated fowl raised for meat and eggs&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:insects]: a class of six-legged animals with three body parts and an exoskeleton&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other related topics include [tag:farming], [tag:agriculture], [tag:meat], and [tag:husbandry]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9947" RevisionGUID="21d0d851-d62d-4e2e-81ca-29d175cb9dd2" CreationDate="2020-03-06T02:44:50.047" UserId="3379" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9948" RevisionGUID="fde44518-0ded-4878-88e6-c545d97eb449" CreationDate="2020-03-06T02:44:50.047" UserId="3379" Text="Specifically, non-human animals. Covers questions on livestock, wildlife, and pets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23436" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9948" RevisionGUID="fde44518-0ded-4878-88e6-c545d97eb449" CreationDate="2020-03-06T02:44:50.047" UserId="3379" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23437" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1107" RevisionGUID="67663017-e95c-42fc-8e9b-73d72913b427" CreationDate="2020-03-06T03:06:29.960" UserId="3379" Comment="added 762 characters in body" Text="Energy is the ability to do work and/or produce heat. While there are many [forms of energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Forms), the most commonly utilized in human society are electric, chemical, nuclear, radiant, and thermal energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy is needed to produce food, purify water, produce goods, transport goods and humans, and heat and cool human habitats. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There many ways to produce energy to accomplish these tasks, some of which are more or less sustainable than others: see [tag:solar-power], [tag:wind-power], [tag:nuclear], and [tag:fossil-fuels].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some cases, use of energy can be entirely avoided: see [tag:energy-conservation].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other cases, less energy can be used to accomplish the same task: see [tag:energy-efficiency]." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23438" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1108" RevisionGUID="89dcef1a-953b-450a-ae63-a4c1e440dd91" CreationDate="2020-03-06T03:06:29.960" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 119 characters in body" Text="the sustainable use, production, and storage of energy, through efficiency, conservation and renewable resources. Use this tag for questions on energy in general." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9949" RevisionGUID="0db48597-9e3c-4101-9c43-8883fc8f778b" CreationDate="2020-03-06T04:18:30.720" UserId="8548" Text="Are you going to be shutting the computer off after the calculation is complete? &#xD;&#xA;If not, then you aren't really saving much, if anything.   If the computer is going to be on 24/7 regardless of what it's doing, then difference might just be the load on peripherals, etc. some computers have variable clock speeds which can save some energy when not working 'hard'. Perhaps some additional savings if the computer goes into sleep mode." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23440" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9941" RevisionGUID="700fa32e-9739-4fc2-8861-5f1e8c96108e" CreationDate="2020-03-06T09:02:01.453" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9946" RevisionGUID="80b7e6a8-c91a-4bca-a615-a18c80e6a885" CreationDate="2020-03-06T10:15:30.673" UserId="6293" Comment="added 179 characters in body" Text="Nestle has a new 70% dark chocolate made entirely from the cocoa fruit:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.nestle.com/media/news/nestle-first-chocolate-cocoa-fruit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not just a brand-naming but a new chocolate process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a trend of using most of the coca fruit has begun:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-05/wholefruit-chocolate-review-using-cacao-pulp-pod-not-just-beans&#xD;&#xA;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23442" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3202" RevisionGUID="522606ba-3fc9-4b4e-997e-1d0e6d481cd7" CreationDate="2020-03-07T08:40:18.223" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|carbon-footprint|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3211" RevisionGUID="f5eaac76-81b3-4f41-b694-a24c004963d4" CreationDate="2020-03-07T08:40:27.173" UserId="99" Comment="added comparison to driving/burning fuel" Text="Here is an answer based on [this 2010 Guardian article I found](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/21/carbon-footprint-email). Not sure how accurate it (still?) is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 4g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; for a 'normal' email.&#xD;&#xA; - 50g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; for an email with a long attachment&#xD;&#xA; - 0.3g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; for a spam email (that is filtered out by a spam-filter, or deleted quickly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison; this means that 10 emails a day, 8 without and 2 with long attachment, is on a yearly basis equivalent to burning 5.4 gallons (24.5 liter) of gasoline, or driving 119 miles (191.5 kilometer) with an average passenger car (source: 48kg filled in [EPA calculator](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;These footprint numbers are based on&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; a typical year of incoming mail for a business user – including sending, filtering and reading – creates a carbon footprint of around 135kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and on research by McAfee that found that &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; 62 trillion spam messages are sent every year, requiring the use of 33bn kilowatt hours (KWh) of electricity and causing around 20 million tonnes of CO2e per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article also provides a rough estimate that the average email has 1/60th the footprint of an old-fashioned paper letter.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3211" RevisionGUID="3b61fed8-26c9-4a7c-85ee-126121eeeeb2" CreationDate="2020-03-07T08:46:03.993" UserId="99" Comment="added comparison to driving/burning fuel, added attribute to Mike Berners Lee" Text="Here is an answer based on [this 2010 Guardian article I found](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/21/carbon-footprint-email). Not sure how accurate it (still?) is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 4g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; for a 'normal' email.&#xD;&#xA; - 50g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; for an email with a long attachment&#xD;&#xA; - 0.3g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; for a spam email (that is filtered out by a spam-filter, or deleted quickly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison; this means that 10 emails a day, 8 without and 2 with long attachment, is on a yearly basis equivalent to burning 5.4 gallons (24.5 liter) of gasoline, or driving 119 miles (191.5 kilometer) with an average passenger car (source: 48kg filled in [EPA calculator](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;The article says that the footprint numbers are based on a book written by Mike Berners-Lee (the brother of Tim) called &quot;*How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything&quot;* and assumes&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; a typical year of incoming mail for a business user – including sending, filtering and reading – creates a carbon footprint of around 135kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; and on research by McAfee that found that &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; &gt; 62 trillion spam messages are sent every year, requiring the use of 33bn kilowatt hours (KWh) of electricity and causing around 20 million tonnes of CO2e per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article also provides a rough estimate that the average email has 1/60th the footprint of an old-fashioned paper letter.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4460" RevisionGUID="b47b7a75-a115-4d30-bc09-0a2a2fb79eda" CreationDate="2020-03-07T09:06:31.367" UserId="99" Comment="added tag wiki with related tags" Text="Environmental impact describes all effects (positive or negative) of the production, consumption and/or disposal of a product, service, policy, or project on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several common ways to quantify such effects, for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:life-cycle-analysis] that lists all relevant inputs and outputs of a product or service of it's entire life span&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:ecological-footprint] that estimates how much land is needed for production and disposal&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:carbon-footprint] that focuses on the emitted greenhouse gases&#xD;&#xA; - [tag:water-footprint] which estimates how much water is used&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For questions related to quantifying the impact please use the appropriate tag" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23446" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9950" RevisionGUID="f27afadb-13ef-43ca-8d4d-c9721e2a1f89" CreationDate="2020-03-07T15:47:07.320" UserId="3379" Text="[Laundry detergent pods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laundry_detergent_pod) became popular around 2012. Rather than measuring out detergent, you throw a pod in your washer and it does the rest. The &quot;capsule&quot; is made from a type of plastic that is water soluble. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Laundry detergent pods][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same idea was also applied for dishwashers. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently, I got a free sample of dishwasher detergent pods, which I found to be convenient, and also more effective in washing my dishes -- with powdered detergent, I often had residue remaining on some dishes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before I consider switching permanently, however, I want to understand the environmental implications. **Are detergent pods better or worse for the environment?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly interested in a comparison of powdered dishwasher detergent to pods, but info on liquid detergents and laundry detergents would also be of interest. Assume I'm already making environmentally conscious choices otherwise, using proper amounts of detergent, cold water for clothes, air drying for dishes, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hIOj8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9950" RevisionGUID="f27afadb-13ef-43ca-8d4d-c9721e2a1f89" CreationDate="2020-03-07T15:47:07.320" UserId="3379" Text="What is the environmental impact of detergent pods?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9950" RevisionGUID="f27afadb-13ef-43ca-8d4d-c9721e2a1f89" CreationDate="2020-03-07T15:47:07.320" UserId="3379" Text="|environmental-impact|water|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9951" RevisionGUID="c61fd9b2-c28a-4130-9f8b-a8056f426787" CreationDate="2020-03-07T17:30:05.877" UserId="1056" Text="I sometimes end up boiling water in a pot without putting a lid on top because I can't find the lid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much energy is wasted when bringing water to a boil without in a pot without a lid? Or differently stated, how much more efficient is heating water in a lidded container?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mainly interested in the context of home cooking, but this definitely has application to my hiking trips as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I expect the answer will scale based on volume of water, but other variables won't matter as much." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23450" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9951" RevisionGUID="c61fd9b2-c28a-4130-9f8b-a8056f426787" CreationDate="2020-03-07T17:30:05.877" UserId="1056" Text="How much more efficient is boiling water with a lid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23451" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9951" RevisionGUID="c61fd9b2-c28a-4130-9f8b-a8056f426787" CreationDate="2020-03-07T17:30:05.877" UserId="1056" Text="|energy-efficiency|heating|water-heating|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23452" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9952" RevisionGUID="73aafd87-af4b-4ab1-96ac-721d8acd0041" CreationDate="2020-03-07T18:43:01.130" UserDisplayName="user2451" Text="We can try to make back-of-the-envelope calculations here, or try to find research but I suggest you do your own because it is quite straightforward. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just maintain a simple table with&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - volume brought to the boil&#xD;&#xA; - lid on/off&#xD;&#xA; - time required to bring to the boil&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess it that after approximately 10+10 measurements you can calculate the answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is not just about bringing water to the boil, but to cook food until done, you may want to add a fourth column listing the ingredients - because e.g. beans take much more time than potatoes (the saving with lid would be greater). The actual mass of ingredients does not matter much, because it's all about cooking *time*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your pots and pans have very similar diameters you can just write down the water level instead of volume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9953" RevisionGUID="80e320a9-d866-4a56-8c1b-9b2f8e2c3120" CreationDate="2020-03-08T16:00:01.083" UserId="8548" Text="With today's prices, it's cheaper to install PV panels and generate electricity, then just use a standard electric water heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This has the advantage that it actually works better in the winter when it's cold out. Plus any surplus energy generated can be used for other purposes.&#xD;&#xA;Surplus heat from solar thermal systems can be a problem in some cases requiring additional equipment to get rid of the surplus energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to being cheaper initially, it is easier to maintain, no antifreeze to replace and no pumps/controls to wear out.&#xD;&#xA;Plus (eventually) the water tank will need to be replaced.  Replacing a standard electric tank will typically be significantly cheaper than replacing a special purpose solar thermal tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: if you live in a tropical area where the temperature never get's below 40 deg F, then you might be able to use a solar &quot;batch&quot; water heater which would eliminate all the issues I listed above." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9954" RevisionGUID="a8acb1d1-e6ec-4c25-ad05-d383f2e17edc" CreationDate="2020-03-08T16:34:18.987" UserId="8548" Text="One possible solution would be to construct mulch pits around trees, etc. and then discharge the greywater directly into the bottom of the mulch pits.&#xD;&#xA;The mulch pits will help decompose any grease/particles and the phosphates, etc. should help feed the trees.&#xD;&#xA;Select soaps that are low in sodium.  Sodium can be toxic to plants in high enough concentrations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mulch will eventually break down into compost that can be used elsewhere and replaced with new mulch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23455" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="7009" RevisionGUID="561d8ac8-c895-4325-a63b-9b13aa61ca24" CreationDate="2020-03-08T19:32:02.510" UserId="1056" Comment="62" />
  <row Id="23457" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="7038" RevisionGUID="3382f4a4-d42e-4685-8598-3f99616b6389" CreationDate="2020-03-09T07:02:40.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23458" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="fbaa59d3-b162-4467-aff4-72c402567887" CreationDate="2020-03-09T07:36:06.790" UserId="8232" Comment="demphasized the subjective tone (i.e. which is the 'best') to focus solutions rather than having to compare with other methods; inlined image to prevent link rot; cleanup of grammar and formatting" Text="I currently use plastic food containers like those in the below picture of different sizes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is it better (in terms of energy consumption) for the fridge? &#xD;&#xA;2. Should the containers be sealed or not? &#xD;&#xA;3. Would plastic bags or freezer bags be better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I store fruits and vegetables in the fridge? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's an example of the containers I am using (from [here][1]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Plastic tupperware food containers][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://adriennesmillie.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/plastic_food_container.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TnJPe.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23459" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="fbaa59d3-b162-4467-aff4-72c402567887" CreationDate="2020-03-09T07:36:06.790" UserId="8232" Comment="demphasized the subjective tone (i.e. which is the 'best') to focus solutions rather than having to compare with other methods; inlined image to prevent link rot; cleanup of grammar and formatting" Text="How should I store fruits and vegetables in the fridge?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23460" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4615" RevisionGUID="fbaa59d3-b162-4467-aff4-72c402567887" CreationDate="2020-03-09T07:36:06.790" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 1056, 99 edit id of 629" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9955" RevisionGUID="59988823-b801-4718-a628-b1eb56e3881c" CreationDate="2020-03-09T08:17:27.443" UserId="264" Text="I would also like to add another point sustainability-wise, to save energy, a filled fridge is better than an empty one (even with dummy elements) because it's harder to cool air and it escapes a lot easier." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9956" RevisionGUID="d64f2478-4007-4384-94fa-87871c525f65" CreationDate="2020-03-09T09:59:36.467" UserId="8232" Text="Depending on where you live, you may have a local 'builders tip': a waste/refuse centre that specialises in construction and demolition waste recycling and recovery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While they usually deal with tradespeople and industry-level waste recovery, most do allow home/DIY/consumer drop-off - although you should check their website and/or call them to confirm if this is the case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would be the best place to bring stuff like old fiber-board and wood painted with lead paint. They will have processes in place to handle, treat or dispose of this correctly - and it's a far sight better for the environment than letting it leech into the soil and water at your house or at the general waste tip!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're unsure if there is a centre in your area, you can usually find them with a quick search in Google. Otherwise, check your local council or state-level institutions for waste. In Australia, Planet Ark maintains a 'Recycling Near You' site with a page [specifically for demolition waste][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://recyclingnearyou.com.au/demolition/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3118" RevisionGUID="b291d52b-7f11-4c22-a71c-36a99fe61c43" CreationDate="2020-03-09T12:55:38.997" UserId="8232" Comment="Made question title reflect the actual question being asked" Text="In our office toilets, we have paper towels and a hand dryer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it better for the environment to use the towels or the dryer to dry hands? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23465" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="3118" RevisionGUID="b291d52b-7f11-4c22-a71c-36a99fe61c43" CreationDate="2020-03-09T12:55:38.997" UserId="8232" Comment="Made question title reflect the actual question being asked" Text="Should I dry my hands with paper towels or a dryer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23466" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3118" RevisionGUID="b291d52b-7f11-4c22-a71c-36a99fe61c43" CreationDate="2020-03-09T12:55:38.997" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by -1 edit id of 630" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23467" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="3118" RevisionGUID="41b205b6-f345-43b7-ac17-40964ed7c884" CreationDate="2020-03-09T12:55:38.997" UserId="99" Comment="Made question title reflect the actual question being asked, added relevant tags" Text="|environmental-impact|personal-hygiene|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23468" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5577" RevisionGUID="18f46db3-c72c-495e-8a9e-f0b23cf4f5b0" CreationDate="2020-03-09T12:59:19.110" UserId="8232" Comment="better title" Text="I want to vent smoke, such as roasting coffee smoke and cooking grease out of my kitchen. I do not have a hood, nor is there room to install one due to cabinet and window placements just above the stove.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a window just above the stove, so placing a fan in the window is doable and seemingly effective. But in the winter having a fan suck all of the hot air out of the house is not ideal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is the loss of heat, over a 20 minute period of window fanning a few times a week a big deal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a way for the fan to suck out the smoke without losing too much hot air?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I invest in a through the wall vent, and would this be any better than the window fan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23469" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5577" RevisionGUID="18f46db3-c72c-495e-8a9e-f0b23cf4f5b0" CreationDate="2020-03-09T12:59:19.110" UserId="8232" Comment="better title" Text="How can I vent smoke from a non-rangehood stove without losing too much hot air?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23470" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5577" RevisionGUID="18f46db3-c72c-495e-8a9e-f0b23cf4f5b0" CreationDate="2020-03-09T12:59:19.110" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 632" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23471" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7169" RevisionGUID="f92fd077-52aa-4b6b-a74f-dc405ff90244" CreationDate="2020-03-09T14:35:46.643" UserId="8232" Comment="Better tagging and title" Text="How should I dispose of scrap lumber from renovating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23472" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7169" RevisionGUID="f92fd077-52aa-4b6b-a74f-dc405ff90244" CreationDate="2020-03-09T14:35:46.643" UserId="8232" Comment="Better tagging and title" Text="|waste|building-materials|waste-minimisation|wood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23473" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7169" RevisionGUID="f92fd077-52aa-4b6b-a74f-dc405ff90244" CreationDate="2020-03-09T14:35:46.643" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 3379 edit id of 631" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23475" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7171" RevisionGUID="a066334f-f6b3-4245-a530-94865f9c6338" CreationDate="2020-03-09T21:57:47.257" UserId="400" Comment="edited body" Text="You need to sort it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dimension lumber can be burned. Can either remove ironware or leave it and separate from ash, or dispose of with ash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Treated lumber (green or brown) landfill.  Note that it may not be obvious if it has been weathered. If in use it was in contact with the ground, or if it was installed for wet service (as backer for bathroom tile, say.)(yes this happens...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;OSB, plywood, particle board -- land fill.  The glues are toxic when burned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not sure what you mean by fiberboard.  Depends on what holds the fibers together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Painted wood:  There are easy tests for heavy metal in paint.  Lead isn't the only one of concern, as chromium, arsenic, copper were also used.  Modern paint is a lot safer.  I would just send anything of unknown paint origin to the landfill.  But even with modern paint I would suggest not inhaling the fumes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drywall:  Some places have a separate category at the landfill, and it is binned, then sent back to drywall makers for re-cycling.  (Vancouver does this.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9957" RevisionGUID="caea6433-86d9-407a-987f-a5610ac0c107" CreationDate="2020-03-10T20:42:36.053" UserId="8560" Text="The Toyota Prius is available as a plug-in model, but I have a Prius that is only gas-powered, that is gas is the only fuel. I am wondering if the mpgE of the Tesla, 141, is so much better than the mpg of my Prius (average of 45 mpg), that the Tesla is more sustainable-- or is the embodied energy cost of the Tesla so much more that it is less sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;I know that the sustainability of electric power production varies across the U.S. Let's use the average nationally, 20% of all power comes from renewable sources today.&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9957" RevisionGUID="caea6433-86d9-407a-987f-a5610ac0c107" CreationDate="2020-03-10T20:42:36.053" UserId="8560" Text="Which car is more sustainable, an all-electric Tesla Model 3 or a gas-powered Prius?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9957" RevisionGUID="caea6433-86d9-407a-987f-a5610ac0c107" CreationDate="2020-03-10T20:42:36.053" UserId="8560" Text="|embodied-energy|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23480" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7169" RevisionGUID="a382e7b7-95d4-4d3d-b7df-df1211a0e2c6" CreationDate="2020-03-11T03:00:48.853" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1237574166431199232" />
  <row Id="23481" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9957" RevisionGUID="993057c4-e078-42dd-9311-b34236cef042" CreationDate="2020-03-11T09:00:31.183" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1237664689145995266" />
  <row Id="23482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9958" RevisionGUID="c5a0b1a8-adb3-4983-b6b2-72ff13bf1e4e" CreationDate="2020-03-11T12:13:29.390" UserId="1053" Text="Not all &quot;range fans&quot; blow the air out of the house. We discovered after decades that ours does not. It has filters and the air just comes out of the sides and right back into the kitchen. You might think that can't handle your situation, but we roast coffee under it and it works fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9959" RevisionGUID="5301d2f4-312a-4e0d-b836-c24f3d0297d5" CreationDate="2020-03-11T14:51:17.407" UserId="3379" Text="## Operation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use [AFLEET](https://afleet-web.es.anl.gov/afleet/), the Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation tool, from Argonne National Laboratory, to quickly do this analysis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the US average electricity mix, annual mileage of 12,400 (20,000 km) and plugging in 141 mpgE for the BEV (Tesla) and 45 mpg for the HEV (Prius), here's the GHG emissions results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Annual GHG Emissions][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's 2,994 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq for the Prius, and 1,452 (about half) for the Tesla.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Battery manufacturing impacts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference in emissions from production of different vehicle types is the battery. From the open-access paper [&quot;Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles&quot;](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es903729a):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Environmental burden of ICEV vs BEV across four measures][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solid black bar represents the battery -- this is the point at which impact of a battery electric vehicle (BEV) and an internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) diverge. A hybrid, of course, would fall somewhere in between the two. So the question now becomes, what's the difference in impact between a Prius hybrid battery and a Tesla battery? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Tesla Model 3 has a Lithium-ion battery with a capacity [ranging from 50 to 75 kWh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_3#Specifications)&#xD;&#xA; - The current Toyota Prius [also has a Lithium-ion battery](https://www.toyota.com/prius/features/mpg/1221/1223/1225), with a capacity of [0.745 kWh for the standard hybrid](https://insideevs.com/news/336063/disassembly-and-breakdown-of-the-2017-toyota-prius-li-ion-battery-video/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estimates of emissions impacts from Li-ion battery production vary wildly, [from 0.061 to 0.250 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq per watt-hour](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/45533/38403). The range of production impacts for the two is then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Tesla: 3,050 to 18,750 kg CO2eq&#xD;&#xA;    Prius:    45 to    186 kg CO2eq&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, the Tesla battery is 10 times bigger than the Prius, so the impact is 10 times greater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the factory, the Tesla has caused much more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But it uses less per mile/km -- so at what point does it beat the Prius?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a chart showing annual emissions per vehicle. The low and high estimates for the Prius are close, so I've just used the average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Annual GHG emissions, Tesla Model 3 vs Prius][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**At some point between 37,000 and 241,000 km (23,000 and 150,000 mi), the Tesla will beat the Prius from an emissions stand-point.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XiTzj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GhqM6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rWvX1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/STHLN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23484" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="80be7800-66ed-4fec-b9aa-2a7f290ca689" CreationDate="2020-03-12T08:50:17.130" UserId="8232" Comment="Better tagging and slight sentence adjustments" Text="The food industry grows animals for meat, but some parts cannot be sold for human consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the final use of bones from the different animals grown industrially? pigs, beef, poultry etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23485" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="80be7800-66ed-4fec-b9aa-2a7f290ca689" CreationDate="2020-03-12T08:50:17.130" UserId="8232" Comment="Better tagging and slight sentence adjustments" Text="|waste|animals|waste-minimisation|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23486" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="80be7800-66ed-4fec-b9aa-2a7f290ca689" CreationDate="2020-03-12T08:50:17.130" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 633" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23487" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6974" RevisionGUID="82490d16-2d96-405b-b90d-7adebda83a43" CreationDate="2020-03-12T15:47:47.183" UserId="1056" Comment="edited tags" Text="|solar-power|energy|electricity|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9959" RevisionGUID="7a76aa01-e9ac-4630-b853-60511f11fbba" CreationDate="2020-03-12T17:08:37.307" UserId="3379" Comment="Significant typo." Text="## Operation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use [AFLEET](https://afleet-web.es.anl.gov/afleet/), the Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation tool, from Argonne National Laboratory, to quickly do this analysis. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the US average electricity mix, annual mileage of 12,400 (20,000 km) and plugging in 141 mpgE for the BEV (Tesla) and 45 mpg for the HEV (Prius), here's the GHG emissions results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Annual GHG Emissions][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's 2,994 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq for the Prius, and 1,452 (about half) for the Tesla.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Battery manufacturing impacts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main difference in emissions from production of different vehicle types is the battery. From the open-access paper [&quot;Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles&quot;](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es903729a):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Environmental burden of ICEV vs BEV across four measures][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solid black bar represents the battery -- this is the point at which impact of a battery electric vehicle (BEV) and an internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) diverge. A hybrid, of course, would fall somewhere in between the two. So the question now becomes, what's the difference in impact between a Prius hybrid battery and a Tesla battery? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The Tesla Model 3 has a Lithium-ion battery with a capacity [ranging from 50 to 75 kWh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_3#Specifications)&#xD;&#xA; - The current Toyota Prius [also has a Lithium-ion battery](https://www.toyota.com/prius/features/mpg/1221/1223/1225), with a capacity of [0.745 kWh for the standard hybrid](https://insideevs.com/news/336063/disassembly-and-breakdown-of-the-2017-toyota-prius-li-ion-battery-video/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estimates of emissions impacts from Li-ion battery production vary wildly, [from 0.061 to 0.250 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq per watt-hour](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/45533/38403). The range of production impacts for the two is then:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Tesla: 3,050 to 18,750 kg CO2eq&#xD;&#xA;    Prius:    45 to    186 kg CO2eq&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, the Tesla battery is ~100 times bigger than the Prius, so the impact is ~100 times greater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the factory, the Tesla has caused much more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But it uses less per mile/km -- so at what point does it beat the Prius?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a chart showing annual emissions per vehicle. The low and high estimates for the Prius are close, so I've just used the average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Annual GHG emissions, Tesla Model 3 vs Prius][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**At some point between 37,000 and 241,000 km (23,000 and 150,000 mi), the Tesla will beat the Prius from an emissions stand-point.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XiTzj.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GhqM6.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rWvX1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/STHLN.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23490" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7018" RevisionGUID="3b451f44-301a-4534-b813-341631825583" CreationDate="2020-03-12T18:00:40.190" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1238163010289577985" />
  <row Id="23491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9960" RevisionGUID="48071993-b6ef-4bf7-ba3b-c0d80c3de25c" CreationDate="2020-03-12T19:07:39.243" UserId="1056" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23492" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9960" RevisionGUID="48071993-b6ef-4bf7-ba3b-c0d80c3de25c" CreationDate="2020-03-12T19:07:39.243" UserId="1056" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9961" RevisionGUID="9e5e090f-2466-400d-b788-e3238b373b15" CreationDate="2020-03-12T19:07:39.243" UserId="1056" Text="generation of electric power using nuclear fuels and reactors of all kinds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9961" RevisionGUID="9e5e090f-2466-400d-b788-e3238b373b15" CreationDate="2020-03-12T19:07:39.243" UserId="1056" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="cf73552e-2bd4-43a1-a51e-1f82992fb7e2" CreationDate="2020-03-12T19:32:33.333" UserId="1056" Text="I recently moved into a new home with 2 other housemates (joining 1 who already lived there) and our combined bill for electricity is far higher than I expected. Now we're using just over 40 kWh per day, on average. When I used to live alone, my consumption was only around 3 kWh per day all year round! We have natural gas for space-heating here, just like my last place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/PWky6.png&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/PWky6.png&quot; width=&quot;175&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/uIBKQ.png&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/uIBKQ.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to figure out how I can conserve some energy and reduce my electric bill. Here's what I've _already_ tried:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Walked around with a Kill-a-Watt and tested most of our devices plugged into the wall. All of them were using pretty small amounts of power, and besides most of them are turned off during the day when we're away.&#xD;&#xA;- Already switched all lighting fixtures (that I can find) to LED.&#xD;&#xA;- Installed smart lighting to automatically turn off lights when we leave the home.&#xD;&#xA;- Tried to install a [Sense](https://sense.com/) home energy monitor, but the electrician told me it was impossible with the way our electric panel is installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One challenge is that my access to parts of the home is restricted because the basement is rented out separately from the rest of the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other tools or techniques can I use at home to identify what is responsible for all this energy consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23496" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="cf73552e-2bd4-43a1-a51e-1f82992fb7e2" CreationDate="2020-03-12T19:32:33.333" UserId="1056" Text="How can I figure out what's using so much electricity in my home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23497" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="cf73552e-2bd4-43a1-a51e-1f82992fb7e2" CreationDate="2020-03-12T19:32:33.333" UserId="1056" Text="|home|electricity|energy-use|energy-management|renting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9964" RevisionGUID="21f1b6c6-70b5-4f39-b0aa-1c330b50d012" CreationDate="2020-03-12T20:06:36.830" UserId="1056" Text="I saw a news article saying that [Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills). This is definitely unfavourable, but I really want to get a better sense of the scale of the problem. After all, Earth is really big! With the amount of already installed wind power, what area of land is going to be disrupted (per year) to make space for landfills to dispose of all those turbine blades? Would it be larger or smaller than a city?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And hypothetically speaking, how much land area would be needed for blade disposal if wind power was able to provide *all* of our primary energy requirements? Based on estimates of annual [primary energy use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption) at 157,500 TWh and [annual energy from wind power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country#Electricity_generation_by_wind_2017) at 930 TWh/year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23502" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9964" RevisionGUID="21f1b6c6-70b5-4f39-b0aa-1c330b50d012" CreationDate="2020-03-12T20:06:36.830" UserId="1056" Text="How much land needed to dispose of blades from wind turbines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23503" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9964" RevisionGUID="21f1b6c6-70b5-4f39-b0aa-1c330b50d012" CreationDate="2020-03-12T20:06:36.830" UserId="1056" Text="|waste|renewables|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9965" RevisionGUID="d4727785-0800-49e0-afd7-f56b88c05011" CreationDate="2020-03-12T23:04:18.547" UserId="8564" Text="I just called them (after being hung up on) and they said if the detector is at its end of life, just throw it away. So much for our environment! Thanks for nothing, Kidde!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9966" RevisionGUID="f5ed13a1-7c40-44c0-b9ff-ea46d07fd2d5" CreationDate="2020-03-13T00:58:00.877" UserId="1056" Text="The [Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission](https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/household-smoke-detector.cfm) advises consumers to &quot;participate in municipal recycling programs for these devices&quot; or &quot;contact and return their smoke detector to its manufacturer for disposal&quot;. And the Product Care Association of Canada [explains the importance of recycling detectors](https://www.productcare.org/products/alarms/) along with recycling instructions for just one of the provinces in Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks like many jurisdictions *do not* have recycling programs for smoke detectors, whether Kidde brand or otherwise. If your local recycler doesn't accept smoke alarms, there doesn't seem to be any other option than disposal into a landfill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23508" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7172" RevisionGUID="71aaa326-862c-4ed7-8ad4-6de4b8045aff" CreationDate="2020-03-13T02:12:38.663" UserId="3379" Comment="Updated now that it seems they've ended this program." Text="**UPDATE:** Kidde's website now [recommends disposing of alarms locally](https://www.kidde.com/home-safety/en/us/support/help-center/browse-articles/articles/how_do_i_throw_away_my_alarms_and_fire_extinguishers_.html). The date on the website, September 2019, is later than when I wrote the answer below after contacting them. While it may still be possible to send them an alarm for disposal, based on the experience of [two](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/9492/3379) [others](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/9965/3379), it seems they may have ended this program. But I'll leave the answer intact just in case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;I contacted Kidde [through Twitter](https://twitter.com/leeshaver/status/1107649038109822976), and they ultimately responded to me via e-mail. The document they sent is dated March 2017, so more recent than the data available on their website. Here are the steps you'll need to take in order to return your Kidde ionization smoke detectors to Kidde for disposal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Confirm that your smoke detector is eligible for Kidde's disposal program&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll need to gather the details below and contact Kidde Product Support (gpccsproductsupport2 [at] kiddeus.com or 800-880-6788) for them to confirm eligibility:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **The brand** of smoke detector, which must be Kidde, Firex, Fyrnetics, or Edwards&#xD;&#xA; - **The radioactivity rating**, found on the label on the back of the alarm, which must be 1.0 microcuries or less&#xD;&#xA; - The **model number**, found on the back label&#xD;&#xA; - **Confirm the alarm is fully intact** (alarms in pieces cannot be accepted)&#xD;&#xA; - **Confirm the battery is removed** (note that this may not be possible for some types of 10-year-sealed products)&#xD;&#xA; - **Your full contact information** (phone, mailing address, and e-mail)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in doubt regarding any of the above details, they recommend that you provide photos of the front and back of the alarm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Ship the alarm to Kidde&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After verifying your information and confirming eligibility, Kidde will provide a Return Authorization Number and address for shipping. It may take up to four weeks to hear back. You will need to pay the shipping costs yourself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23509" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9967" RevisionGUID="9fe00310-6b58-4cbd-bdc8-5e32f981ea6e" CreationDate="2020-03-13T09:12:03.033" UserId="6182" Text="This wont answer your question, but will attempt to show, why the question is based on wrong assumptions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That headline you're concerned about is missing a &quot;yet&quot;. True, currently recycling possibilities are few and have low capacity, but research is conducted and start-ups are being founded. I think those blades wont be lingering forever in landfills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Bundesverband WindEnergie (German Wind Energy Association) is an association of companies which produce, erect and operate wind turbines. It released a [paper on recycling options for wind turbines][1] (the paper is in German, sorry). Points 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 deal with your question/assumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Older rotor blades (those reinforced with fibre-glass) are shredded and for example used during concrete production. Thus 1,000 tons of shredded rotor blades substitute 450 tons coal, 200 tons chalk and 200 tons sand in a mixture of replacement fuel and silicate substitute (pp. 8-9).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Newer blades (those with carbon fibres) are more problematic to use for &quot;thermic recycling&quot; due to the electric properties of said fibres. They need to be shredded and then heated under exclusion of oxygen but after separation can be used for car parts or in engineering, even for 3D-printing (p. 10).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Companies are aware of the recycling issue and are working on it - so, while currently there are some issues to tackle, they are managable. Also, please remember that the waste produced by wind turbines is several magnitudes smaller than our everyday waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wind-energie.de/fileadmin/redaktion/dokumente/publikationen-oeffentlich/themen/02-technik-und-netze/09-rueckbau/BWE-Hintergrundpapier_Recycling_von_Windenergieanlagen_-_20191115.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23510" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="a1456590-0463-42ca-8934-a0e5802ce46f" CreationDate="2020-03-13T15:30:42.850" UserId="8566" Text="Can I use 2.5kW solar panels (10x 250 watts) to power 2kW rated grid tie solar inverter? Will anything blow up?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panels: 10x 250W, 36V panels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverter: 2kW with max input voltage: 500V&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;any help is appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;thank you" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23511" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="a1456590-0463-42ca-8934-a0e5802ce46f" CreationDate="2020-03-13T15:30:42.850" UserId="8566" Text="Can I use 2.5kW solar panels to power 2kW rated grid tie solar inverter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23512" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="a1456590-0463-42ca-8934-a0e5802ce46f" CreationDate="2020-03-13T15:30:42.850" UserId="8566" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9969" RevisionGUID="2e146de6-c498-4598-9f0a-c1d0f8df6f66" CreationDate="2020-03-14T01:51:41.143" UserId="1390" Text="The [Hydraloop water recycling system][1] comes closest to what I was thinking of. It won awards at CES 2020 too. I wish it could be a little smaller. I'm sure other similar products will follow soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hydraloop.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23516" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2759" RevisionGUID="6493c111-e698-4836-8bd2-fbeba57b1b93" CreationDate="2020-03-16T08:24:29.130" UserId="8232" Comment="some grammar fixes, paragraphing so it's less 'wall of text', and some slight sentence restructuring as some of the wording was a bit awkward" Text="You can make your own filter, I think. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was kid my father and I constructed our own filter, everything you need is some sand, 'dust coal' and a couple of stones and wool. You can use a bottle of soda, or something like that. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Put the wool on the 'mouth' of the bottle, then put in the coal, stones and sand. Put another bottle under the will to extract the clean water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a native English speaker, and I don't know some words. If you want, I can make a drawing to make it more clear to understand. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23517" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2759" RevisionGUID="6493c111-e698-4836-8bd2-fbeba57b1b93" CreationDate="2020-03-16T08:24:29.130" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 634" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23518" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="de273200-0a47-4bd0-9af2-c8d764b41f2b" CreationDate="2020-03-16T09:00:39.183" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1239476662137487360" />
  <row Id="23519" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9964" RevisionGUID="468042a4-0cba-4ef4-b175-75afbad33019" CreationDate="2020-03-16T12:00:40.117" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1239521964533977088" />
  <row Id="23520" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9970" RevisionGUID="c3155b94-9a89-42df-98d1-423bfab3ac26" CreationDate="2020-03-16T17:38:07.423" UserId="8575" Text="Yesterday, I received my census questionnaire. So have many millions of other Americans, recently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These bags are not labeled for recycling, but are they recyclable? Can I put them in the deposits at my local grocery store with other bags marked &quot;4?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Allow me to officially protest manufacturers of plastic that don't label them for recycling)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23521" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9970" RevisionGUID="c3155b94-9a89-42df-98d1-423bfab3ac26" CreationDate="2020-03-16T17:38:07.423" UserId="8575" Text="Recycling census bags" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23522" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9970" RevisionGUID="c3155b94-9a89-42df-98d1-423bfab3ac26" CreationDate="2020-03-16T17:38:07.423" UserId="8575" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23523" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9970" RevisionGUID="4eb33926-b716-4081-9c76-be9599517fe3" CreationDate="2020-03-16T20:50:23.097" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|plastic|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23524" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9970" RevisionGUID="4eb33926-b716-4081-9c76-be9599517fe3" CreationDate="2020-03-16T20:50:23.097" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="Are American census bags recyclable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9971" RevisionGUID="4eedd899-0060-418d-a9e2-e23e1122b971" CreationDate="2020-03-17T16:32:08.207" UserId="3379" Text="The municipal water where I live is [considered very hard](https://www.cityofmadison.com/water/faq/water-quality), measuring about 325 parts per million dissolved mineral content. I currently have a water softener in my home, but it has been [giving me some issues](https://diy.stackexchange.com/q/186678/86548).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how old the system is (it was installed before I moved in) but some have suggested that it may be due for replacement. However, the system has some known environmental impacts. Every time it cycles (once every week or two) it uses roughly:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 2 kWh of electricity for pumping&#xD;&#xA; - 5 kg of salt for conditioning&#xD;&#xA; - 400 L of water for flushing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I don't know is: **Are there any environmental benefits to a water softener?** I'm thinking I could simply set it in bypass mode, disconnect the power, and be done with it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know there are some improvements in how soap works (for showers, dishes, and laundry), but are there other benefits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23526" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9971" RevisionGUID="4eedd899-0060-418d-a9e2-e23e1122b971" CreationDate="2020-03-17T16:32:08.207" UserId="3379" Text="Are there environmental benefits to a water softener?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23527" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9971" RevisionGUID="4eedd899-0060-418d-a9e2-e23e1122b971" CreationDate="2020-03-17T16:32:08.207" UserId="3379" Text="|environmental-impact|home|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23528" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="fe818266-77f3-4d84-a5ba-9d4544319949" CreationDate="2020-03-18T00:02:30.397" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9522" RevisionGUID="1e602f0b-ce62-4d0f-a02f-48ee5e7d45f7" CreationDate="2020-03-18T14:14:49.870" UserId="3379" Comment="Added headings, made the calc more precise." Text="### How coal was formed&#xD;&#xA;Regarding coal, from trees, it's not simply a question of the area whether it was a continent-size landmass, but more of the temporal side of things -- how long a time period the land was covered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal was laid down from plant matter during the [Carboniferous period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous), which lasted 60 million (60,000,000) years. For most of that time the micro-organisms that existed were unable to break down the lignin which made up 70% of the plant matter. Effectively the trees didn't rot, they fell down, and more trees grew on top, then died and fell down and more trees grew on top, for millions of years. The carboniferous period ended when the microorganisms evolved the ability to consume the lignin and the coal laying stopped.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Three million generations of trees&#xD;&#xA;So supposing it takes twenty years for 'a tree' to reach maturity, the carboniferous period is three million generations of trees. 'Tree' is a little inaccurate compared to what we currently think of as a tree. The plants were effectively a really tall moss, and it was 80% 'bark' compared to modern trees that are about 10% bark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### All land on earth&#xD;&#xA;During the carboniferous period most of the land on planet was covered with trees, Africa, Asia, the Americas. But to somehow recreate all the coal, you need at least twenty years for a tree to grow, and because there were three million generations, you need three million times the amount of land available on earth's land masses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose we drained the oceans to create more land for more trees, then you'd *only* need one million earth's worth of land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How many trees, how many earths?&#xD;&#xA;Currently there are around three trillion tress on earth -- it's not unreasonable to think that during the carboniferous period when there was nothing else happening, there would be maybe double that, six trillion trees at any moment. Over a 60,000,000 year period, that would be a total of eighteen quintillion trees (eighteen with eighteen zeros after it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is, to recreate the coal that we've consumed alone, ignoring the oil and gas, it's not a matter of planting a few trees, its more a case of planting quintillions of trees on hundreds of thousands of planets. 18 quintillion trees at a rate of 3 trillion per planet requires 6 million planets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if my sums are a few zeros out, its a mind-boggling number of trees and amount of land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What about the coal we've already used?&#xD;&#xA;In terms of coal that we have already burnt, [the World Coal Association figures][1] estimate that the proven coal reserves left in the ground are enough to last another 150 years at current rates -- this is the coal that is easy to dig up with current mining technology. There might be vast quantities of coal located in inaccessible locations, like the bottom of the sea, or spread out too thinly to be cost-effective to mine. This isn't included in the proven reserves figure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the Global Fossil Fuel consumption graph in the question, we could estimate that historic coal usage is about 75 year's worth at current consumption rate. At current usage rates, the sixty million years of laying down coal gave us around 225 years of coal that is economically accessible. We're roughly a third of the way through that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**From the earlier calculations, that's three quintillion trees spread out over *only* two million earth-sized landmasses.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-coal-found" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23530" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="9518" RevisionGUID="10634963-afde-44e8-9a5b-605ddba68b2f" CreationDate="2020-03-18T14:15:21.910" UserId="3379" Comment="63" />
  <row Id="23531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9972" RevisionGUID="bdc7bd40-9be4-49cb-a81d-3e1d2a2eb638" CreationDate="2020-03-18T17:01:14.830" UserId="3379" Text="Whenever two regions of different temperature are in contact, heat will flow from the warmer region to the colder region, at a rate proportional to the difference in temperature (referred to as ΔT, &quot;delta T&quot;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This flow of heat is undesirable in certain circumstances, when a person/s, place, or object needs to be maintained at a specific temperature or range that is different from its surroundings in order to function properly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Thermal insulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation) is any material which can be used at the boundary between two regions of different temperature in order to slow the rate of heat transfer. All materials have a measurable [thermal conductivity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conductivity). Materials with a low thermal conductivity work well as thermal insulation. In addition, some types of insulation function by trapping pockets of air, which has a relatively low thermal conductivity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Clothing&#xD;&#xA;Most fabrics have a relatively low thermal conductivity, but some function better as insulation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - wool&#xD;&#xA; - down (natural or synthetic)&#xD;&#xA; - polyester fleece&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Buildings&#xD;&#xA;Typical building insulating materials include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Fiberglass&#xD;&#xA; - Rock wool&#xD;&#xA; - Cellulose&#xD;&#xA; - Vermiculite&#xD;&#xA; - Foam&#xD;&#xA; - Perlite&#xD;&#xA; - Cork&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Other&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other applications of thermal insulation include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Refrigerators, freezers, and coolers/ice chests&#xD;&#xA; - Ovens, toasters, and microwaves&#xD;&#xA; - Hot water heaters and storage tanks&#xD;&#xA; - Piping and ductwork used for heating and cooling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23532" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9972" RevisionGUID="bdc7bd40-9be4-49cb-a81d-3e1d2a2eb638" CreationDate="2020-03-18T17:01:14.830" UserId="3379" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23533" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9973" RevisionGUID="a362b1dd-81bc-4178-9f43-3b405d5745b7" CreationDate="2020-03-18T17:01:14.830" UserId="3379" Text="For questions about thermal insulation used to reduce the rate of heat transfer. Can be used for buildings, people (e.g. clothing) or other applications where it is desirable to maintain a higher or lower temperature than the surroundings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9973" RevisionGUID="a362b1dd-81bc-4178-9f43-3b405d5745b7" CreationDate="2020-03-18T17:01:14.830" UserId="3379" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23536" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="9518" RevisionGUID="7ccb5031-2228-47fb-857b-1ee55d3d73bf" CreationDate="2020-03-20T20:49:07.767" UserId="3379" Comment="63" />
  <row Id="23538" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9974" RevisionGUID="10cbabfd-b97b-4a10-9dfb-8ed3dcd295d6" CreationDate="2020-03-21T08:14:46.057" UserId="8013" Text="The benefits are related to protecting the various household appliances that are fed by your water supply.  Hard water leads to heavy [limescale deposits][1] which can damage your heating system. The most sensitive item would be the boiler for hot water and central heating. This leads to many people believing that there is an environmental benefit to softening the water (e.g. [Kind Water][2] in the UK), but it is hard to find hard figures behind the claims. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the US there are concerns about the environmental impact of softened water, which, when the softening is done by a typical household appliance, contains significant levels of sodium ([A Hard Look at Water Softeners][3]). The discharge of this sodium in waste water causes damage outside the house -- this is a greater problem that the water additional water usage which you mention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The salt consumption you mention appears to match the expected usage for a 4-person household ([How Much Salt Should my Water Softener Use?][4]). On the energy use, it is often argued that the energy saved through extending boiler life-time is much greater than the energy used (e.g. [Home Water 101][5]), but such advocacy tends to ignore the environmental issues caused by salty waste water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The environmental impact of salty waste water will depend on your location: if your water discharges into the ocean, the impact is zero, but if you are in an arid inland area the impact may be significant. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a good alternative for people living in hard water areas where salt discharge is a problem. In a typical household system, all the water apart from drinking water is softened. If you can set it up so that you only soften the water going through the boiler, this could reduce the negative side of the balance (e.g. softening water that then flushes a toilet is pure waste) -- but this is likely to be complicated. For more information you could probably consult your local water authority or conservation groups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use [potassium salts instead of sodium salts][6] to reduce the negative environmental impact, but this is significantly more expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limescale&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.kindwater.co.uk/2019/10/reduce-your-carbon-footprint-with-a-water-softener/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.greenchildmagazine.com/a-hard-look-at-water-softeners-could-your-water-softener-be-harming-the-planet/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.simplewatersofteners.com/blog/how-much-salt-should-my-water-softener-use/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://homewater101.com/myth-water-softeners-waste-energy-money&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.popularmechanics.com/home/tools/a28280250/water-softener/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23542" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9971" RevisionGUID="d21aa9f4-628d-464b-8167-654b576b40ee" CreationDate="2020-03-21T15:00:39.390" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1241379199287537665" />
  <row Id="23543" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="5536" RevisionGUID="96318189-cfab-465b-8169-6e6538cb8d09" CreationDate="2020-03-22T19:00:55.090" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8427" RevisionGUID="13deaa0f-3f55-4587-ab6f-6c08ef9cafaf" CreationDate="2020-03-23T05:39:54.057" UserId="6865" Comment="added 77 characters in body" Text="Belonging to a country where incense sticks are used extensively, I wonder how bad are they, althought it is said they are good for air. But at moment, it seems highly misleading to me.&#xD;&#xA;What are the health issues related to regular inhaling of the produced smoke?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23545" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9950" RevisionGUID="75349f86-6e78-4e3e-8acd-77844c75475a" CreationDate="2020-03-23T09:00:34.247" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1242013356342607872" />
  <row Id="23546" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9976" RevisionGUID="b7debfc6-3934-4733-b6e8-d601a8fa57a1" CreationDate="2020-03-23T16:32:03.947" UserId="1445" Text="Wales (in the UK) has a planning policy called &quot;One planet development&quot; which substantially relaxes planning restrictions for new dwellings which will &quot;have an initial ecological footprint of 2.4 global hectares per person or less with a clear potential to move to 1.88 global hectares per person over time&quot;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://lammas.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/one-planet-development-guidance.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given that planning permission for building new dwellings in the UK is very difficult to obtain, and greatly increases the value of land, this is quite a significant policy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9977" RevisionGUID="7c5a324d-310e-47b0-8991-c55779b58b1d" CreationDate="2020-03-24T08:59:06.867" UserId="8579" Text="My balcony has a very ugly concrete floor that I don't like. I really like grass carpets (e.g. https://www.amazon.com/artificial-grass-rug/s?k=artificial+grass+rug) though. I like their texture and I think they make a balcony more homely. To clarify: I'm not talking about putting in fake grass where I could otherwise grow real grass. I'm talking about my balcony on the 5th floor, where it's not possible to plant real grass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm skeptical about having on put in. It is my understanding that they are mostly made of plastic and not very good for the environment. At the same time I'm thinking maybe they are made of recycled plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Should I feel bad regarding the environment about putting one in?&#xD;&#xA;- Are there maybe any similar alternatives that are not as bad for the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23548" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9977" RevisionGUID="7c5a324d-310e-47b0-8991-c55779b58b1d" CreationDate="2020-03-24T08:59:06.867" UserId="8579" Text="Grass rug/carpet sustainable alternatives?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23549" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9977" RevisionGUID="7c5a324d-310e-47b0-8991-c55779b58b1d" CreationDate="2020-03-24T08:59:06.867" UserId="8579" Text="|alternatives|plastic-alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9978" RevisionGUID="449056c2-b4db-4374-8ad9-029ccd2ceac3" CreationDate="2020-03-24T09:57:13.830" UserId="1445" Text="Over the last 18 months I've stopped using shampoo at all (just water, and occasionally cider vinegar to prevent smells!) - Google for &quot;no poo hair&quot; for all the lowdown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As well as eliminating shampoo (and the associated plastic bottles) I no longer use hair wax.  I used to use this daily for styling my hair but now I don't need it: the natural oils and waxes in my hair do a better job.  I think my hair looks better, it takes less time to wash and style, I save money, and I produce less waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will depend on your hairstyle though: you may not manage a mohican like this..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9977" RevisionGUID="bb536e58-f170-4f23-b440-22862d70262d" CreationDate="2020-03-24T12:37:20.490" UserId="3379" Comment="Minor edits, typose" Text="My balcony has a very ugly concrete floor that I don't like. I really like grass carpets (see a few [examples on Amazon](https://www.amazon.com/artificial-grass-rug/s?k=artificial+grass+rug)) though. I like their texture and I think they make a balcony more homely. To clarify: I'm not talking about putting in fake grass where I could otherwise grow real grass. I'm talking about my balcony on the 5th floor, where it's not possible to plant real grass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm skeptical about having one put in. It is my understanding that they are mostly made of plastic and not very good for the environment. At the same time I'm thinking maybe they are made of recycled plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My questions are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Should I feel bad regarding the environment about putting one in?&#xD;&#xA;- Are there maybe any similar alternatives that are not as bad for the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23552" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9977" RevisionGUID="bb536e58-f170-4f23-b440-22862d70262d" CreationDate="2020-03-24T12:37:20.490" UserId="3379" Comment="Minor edits, typose" Text="|home|plastic-alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9979" RevisionGUID="62f5c001-b9d2-4d15-924a-1da1bc5e62a0" CreationDate="2020-03-24T21:51:37.037" UserId="2868" Text="I am a graduate student in physics and I was considering getting a paper tablet like the remarkable or the Sony DPT to replace the notebooks where I do calculations and take notes. But I was wondering if there are any studies comparing the ecological impact of these kind of tablets with the one of just buying paper notebooks and pens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering if it evens out after enough time and usage or the tablets are still way off for any normal user.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9979" RevisionGUID="62f5c001-b9d2-4d15-924a-1da1bc5e62a0" CreationDate="2020-03-24T21:51:37.037" UserId="2868" Text="Are there any studies comparing the ecological footprint of a paper tablet with traditional pen and paper?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9979" RevisionGUID="62f5c001-b9d2-4d15-924a-1da1bc5e62a0" CreationDate="2020-03-24T21:51:37.037" UserId="2868" Text="|environmental-impact|ecological-footprint|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23556" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9979" RevisionGUID="ab575e52-bc31-4586-b88a-4e4d691f746c" CreationDate="2020-03-25T01:32:43.973" UserId="3379" Comment="Added links, made title more specific." Text="I am a graduate student in physics and I was considering getting a paper tablet like the [reMarkable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReMarkable) or the [Sony DPT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Digital_Paper_DPTS1) to replace the notebooks where I do calculations and take notes. But I was wondering if there are any studies comparing the ecological impact of these kind of tablets with the one of just buying paper notebooks and pens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering if it evens out after enough time and usage or the tablets are still way off for any normal user.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23557" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9979" RevisionGUID="ab575e52-bc31-4586-b88a-4e4d691f746c" CreationDate="2020-03-25T01:32:43.973" UserId="3379" Comment="Added links, made title more specific." Text="Are there any studies comparing the ecological footprint of an e-ink tablet with traditional pen and paper?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23558" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="5c975788-517d-4c16-a07b-76e7ddcc8d85" CreationDate="2020-03-25T21:02:50.420" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23559" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9979" RevisionGUID="a150e322-996a-4ab1-b92f-2485eedcde56" CreationDate="2020-03-26T03:00:53.330" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1243010003180687362" />
  <row Id="23560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9980" RevisionGUID="48ff7e19-c3a0-4e72-a807-ff1ba15d6317" CreationDate="2020-03-26T08:45:32.073" UserId="8013" Text="There are standards for the declared Coefficient of Performance (COP) in Europe and Canada. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe this is in [DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 626/2011][1] (there is a more accessible discussion in [wikipedia][2]): this defines standard rating conditions as 20°C indoors and 7°C outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US &amp; Canadian regulations are defined by the [Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)][3]. In the US it appears that there is no standard set of temperatures: instead there is a requirement that the temperatures used to determine COP should be clearly stated. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Canada does have specified temperatures for what they call a &quot;high-temperature heat pump&quot; of 70°F (21.1°C) indoors and 47°C (8.3°C) outside (Clause 10 of the AHRI document).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a good blog post on the variation of COP with outside temperature [here][4]. As a general rule, it appears that COP will fall to unity (i.e. zero gain) at outside air temperatures of -10°C. You can then estimate the efficiency at any temperature by drawing a straight line between COP=1 at -10°C and the rated value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32011R0626&amp;from=EN&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/STANDARDS/AHRI/AHRI_Standard_310-380_2017_CSA_C744_17.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://browningday.com/news/gauging-the-seasonal-efficiency-of-air-source-heat-pumps/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23562" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9898" RevisionGUID="f976f7d2-ddbe-446f-9838-272745b3444d" CreationDate="2020-03-27T11:01:40.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23563" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8445" RevisionGUID="a1a4e07f-6ad1-415d-b7b1-d30c592dbac5" CreationDate="2020-03-27T21:01:50.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23569" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="8333" RevisionGUID="a43d630d-4ead-4a32-a943-751eac31c34f" CreationDate="2020-03-28T07:58:43.180" UserId="99" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9982" RevisionGUID="687be991-399f-42fa-9906-4a0d95224578" CreationDate="2020-03-28T09:45:03.627" UserId="8227" Text="**TL;DR:** power saving with a lid comes from the fact that you can use a lower power-mode on&#xD;&#xA;your cookstove. Energy used to bring the water to the boiling point is roughly the same with or without the lid, energy saving occur after that point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full answer&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm afraid that the question and the current discussions are quite ambiguous on one capital point.&#xD;&#xA;In case it is not obvious to everyone, I will therefore make it explicit here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**First:** using a lid is more efficient, no questions, but it's *much* better if you make&#xD;&#xA;full use of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What's the catch?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unless you really optimize your cooking and do things faster when using the lid (which, from&#xD;&#xA;experience is not that significant, at least for me), then using the lid will save&#xD;&#xA;almost no energy [1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is simply because the cookstove is sending the same amount of power to your pan or pot whether&#xD;&#xA;or not the lid is on.&#xD;&#xA;Using the lid enables to reduce water evaporation and the associated energy loss, as well as some&#xD;&#xA;radiative loss (probably negligible).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, if you're cooking pasta, using the lid will usually make you save energy because you'll have&#xD;&#xA;to reduce the power to avoid overflow, but if you're frying stuff, then you might keep the same&#xD;&#xA;power as without the lid, in which case you're basically not saving much...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some numbers**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have induction at home, and my small stove varies between 160 and 1400 W when I vary the power setting&#xD;&#xA;from 1 to 9.&#xD;&#xA;I'll assume here that the power varies linearly (might be wrong but I did not find an answer to&#xD;&#xA;that question).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's make some pasta (200 g) using 1L of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the lid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Power 9 for 4.5 minutes -&gt; water boils, add pasta&#xD;&#xA;* Power to 4 for 10 minutes -&gt; pasta cooked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the lid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Power 9 for 4.5 minutes -&gt; water boils [2], add pasta&#xD;&#xA;* Power to 6 or 7 for 10 minutes -&gt; pasta cooked&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Power consumption is ``P(N) = 160 + 1240*(N-1)/8`` Watt  &#xD;&#xA;Energy consumption is ``E = (boiling_time * 1400 + cooking_time*P(N)) `` J&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here, this gives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* with the lid, 10 minutes at 625 W (power on 4) gives a total consumption of 753 kJ or 0.52 kWh&#xD;&#xA;* without the lid, at 935 W (power on 6, for me), one gets 939 kJ or 0.65 kWh&#xD;&#xA;* without the lid, at 1090 W (power on 7, for my girlfriend, who thinks it does not boil strongly enough at 6), one gets 1032 kJ or 0.72 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So with the lid, lowering the power to 4 enables me to save between 186 and 279 kJ on pasta,&#xD;&#xA;without changing anything about the time that it takes to cook it nor the exceptional quality&#xD;&#xA;of the final dish!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give an order of magnitude, the average energy consumption per day is around 10 kWh in Europe so&#xD;&#xA;this energy saving is roughly 2 percent of that value, but can get much larger if you simmer a dish&#xD;&#xA;for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] Note that this would be quite different if a pressure cooker was used, but I'm assuming a regular&#xD;&#xA;lid here.  &#xD;&#xA;[2] Note that the time necessary to make the water boil is the same with and without the lid, which is&#xD;&#xA;perfectly normal since, before it boils, we are not wasting energy into liquid-to-vapor transition&#xD;&#xA;and the other energy transfers are very small." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9984" RevisionGUID="6f5ef1c7-c23e-48dd-89d7-17fb2188929d" CreationDate="2020-03-29T12:41:50.533" UserId="8587" Text="I have an oil-filled radiator with three heat intensities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Low (900W)&#xD;&#xA; - Medium (1100W)&#xD;&#xA; - High (2000W)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the radiator has a thermostat, what is the most efficient heat setting to use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My goal is to warm a conservatory on cooler morning, so it would probably run for a couple of hours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23578" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9984" RevisionGUID="6f5ef1c7-c23e-48dd-89d7-17fb2188929d" CreationDate="2020-03-29T12:41:50.533" UserId="8587" Text="What is the most efficient setting on my oil-filled radiator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23579" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9984" RevisionGUID="6f5ef1c7-c23e-48dd-89d7-17fb2188929d" CreationDate="2020-03-29T12:41:50.533" UserId="8587" Text="|energy-efficiency|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23580" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9985" RevisionGUID="c3c653a4-c904-4071-a383-abf73360466f" CreationDate="2020-03-29T15:05:38.097" UserId="6837" Text="Consider reuse. I used to prefer the bottles because I use them to make kombucha, but I've found an interesting way to reuse the bags that come in the boxes. I fill them with water and pack them into wall cavities to make a water wall. This is an extremely efficient way to maintain a steady temperature in living and growing areas which reduces the need for heating and cooling. I'm not sure what the building inspector would say about it, but I expect he would understand how this will nearly fire proof a wall, and perhaps he would be okay with it. They fit nicely between the studs and they also represent an emergency source of water if it were ever needed. They also make great travel pillows if you blow them full of air. I bring extras and pass them out to others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the boxes are the PERFECT size for 8 1/2 x 11 files. I use them all to organize important documents and archives. If I ever had too many of them I would compost them and they would thereafter become a source of food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upcycling, (according to wikipedia) also known as creative reuse, is the process of transforming by-products, waste materials, useless, or unwanted products into new materials or products of better quality and environmental value. I find that trying to recycle things can be horribly wasteful when compared to upcycling.  &#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9986" RevisionGUID="c8842d5a-1b52-4b35-930e-a26a75406f2d" CreationDate="2020-03-29T16:31:22.500" UserId="3379" Text="### Efficiency of the heater &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like most space heaters, an [oil-filled radiator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_heater) uses resistive heating, which is [greater than 99% efficient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_heating#Environmental_and_efficiency_aspects) at converting electric energy to heat. But there are a few other considerations to determine the best setting for your space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How long will the space need heat?&#xD;&#xA;The principal benefit of an oil-filled radiator compared to other space heater types is in the capacity of the oil to retain and continue radiating heat for an hour or two after it has stopped consuming power. This means that it may not be the best application for a space that only requires heat for an hour or two -- it takes time to heat up the oil, but once the oil is hot the heating element only needs to switch on periodically to keep it at temperature so that it can heat the space. You may find that the heater doesn't warm the space during the time you're there, and keeps warming it long after you leave -- an inefficient use of energy!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How much heat does the space need?&#xD;&#xA;Another aspect to consider is the **heating load**. This is the amount of heat energy that needs to be added to a space in order to maintain a specific temperature. Heat load is a function of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Air infiltration (cold outside air leaking in through gaps around windows and doors)&#xD;&#xA; - Insulation value&#xD;&#xA; - Difference between desired temperature and outdoor air temperature&#xD;&#xA; - Size of the room (how much air needs to be heated)&#xD;&#xA; - Solar gains (sunlight heating the room through windows)&#xD;&#xA; - Internal gains (things like people and appliances that passively heat the room)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine the room like a leaky tank of water with a faucet keeping it full. The heat load is the net loss of water through the holes, and the flow from the faucet must match this load to keep it full.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your room, the heat load can be measured in watts, and your space heater setting must exceed this value in order to be able to bring the room up to temperature, and then maintain it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to determine the heat load is to test it with the heater. Start at the lowest setting (900 W) -- if this warms the room and keeps it warm, then the heat load is around 900 W. There's no need to use a higher setting, unless you want to more rapidly heat the room. This will also depend on how cold it is outside, of course.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion&#xD;&#xA; - If the heat load of the space is higher than the heater setting, it's like pouring water into a tank with an outlet that's bigger than the inlet.&#xD;&#xA; - If you only need the space warm for an hour or two, a simpler space heater would be faster and more effective.&#xD;&#xA; - Otherwise, choose the lowest setting that brings the room up to the desired temperature." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9985" RevisionGUID="e66442b7-8337-490c-9629-b7cc8bf93d83" CreationDate="2020-03-29T23:18:58.480" UserId="6837" Comment="added content elaborating important considerations in the face of coronavirus pandemic " Text="Consider reuse. I used to prefer the bottles because I use them to make kombucha, but I've found an interesting way to reuse the bags that come in the boxes. I fill them with water and pack them into wall cavities to make a water wall. This is an extremely efficient way to maintain a steady temperature in living and growing areas which reduces the need for heating and cooling. I'm not sure what the building inspector would say about it, but I expect he would understand how this will nearly fire proof a wall, and perhaps he would be okay with it. They fit nicely between the studs and they also represent an emergency source of water if it were ever needed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also make great travel pillows if you blow them full of air. I bring extras and pass them out to others. If you pass them out on a plane, the recipient can also be handed the diagram and schematic that indicates how a simple ventilator can be constructed using the bag as an air bladder in the event they have no health insurance and prefer not to die as a result of covid-19 during certain shortages due to unspecified shortsightedness. People you meet on a plane might find this to be more than a bit advantageous considering their probable exposures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the boxes are the PERFECT size for 8 1/2 x 11 files. I use them all to organize important documents and archives. It's good for others if you are well organized at the point of your demise. Consider using them to organize your last will and testament.  If I were to ever have too many of them I would compost them and they would thereafter become a source of food - not an unreasonable consideration considering the wide variety of possible futures we all could face. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regardless of what you decide to do with them, please save them until the current crisis has passed. I'm willing to purchase them now and for the foreseeable future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upcycling, (according to wikipedia) also known as creative reuse, is the process of transforming by-products, waste materials, useless, or unwanted products into new materials or products of better quality and environmental value. I find that trying to recycle things can be horribly wasteful when compared to upcycling.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23584" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="6008" RevisionGUID="2948653b-4c5e-474c-bee3-4ddda688ca87" CreationDate="2020-03-30T14:17:25.883" UserId="3379" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="995" RevisionGUID="2cf8c00e-8ec1-4279-94ab-af4e85bd3bec" CreationDate="2020-03-30T18:54:48.397" UserId="1056" Comment="Moderator edits article" Text="Sustainable Living Stack Exchange is for people passionate about living lives in a sustainable manner - a lifestyle that can be maintained indefinitely without depleting available resources. Whether you are an individual or business looking to make everyday changes, or an industry professional in waste recovery, renewable energy or clean technologies, chances are you're in the right place to ask your question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question on sustainability issues, including but not limited to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Carbon footprints and environmental impacts&#xD;&#xA;- Electricity generation and storage &#xD;&#xA;- Product and appliance life-cycles, waste streams and waste minimisation&#xD;&#xA;- Reducing, Reusing, Recycling and alternatives&#xD;&#xA;- Global Warming &amp; Climate Change&#xD;&#xA;- Ecosystems, Hydroponics and Permaculture&#xD;&#xA;- Construction materials and energy-efficient design&#xD;&#xA;- ...and any other questions regarding sustainable practices and designs! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please look around to see if your question has been asked before. It’s&#xD;&#xA;also OK to share knowledge by [asking and answering your own question][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question is not specifically related to Sustainability, it may be on topic for another Stack Exchange site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Gardening][3] - for general gardening, weeding, planting and landscaping&#xD;&#xA;- [Home Improvement][4] - for D.I.Y. jobs on households including utilities or major appliances. &#xD;&#xA;- [The Great Outdoors][5] - for exploration of nature and wilderness areas, including required skills and equipment.&#xD;&#xA;- [Skeptics][6] - for challenging pseudoscience, biased data or disinformation. Note that a claim [must be notable][7] to be accepted on Skeptics.&#xD;&#xA;- [Earth Science][8] - for scientific-based questions on climatology, geology, oceanography and [other earth science disciplines][9]&#xD;&#xA;- [Biology][10] - for biological concepts and mechanisms behind biological processes&#xD;&#xA;- [Electrical Engineering][11] - questions about electronics, physical computing, microcontrollers, and embedded systems&#xD;&#xA;- [Motor Vehicle Maintennance &amp; Repair][12] - for questions on vehicles, combustion engines and EVs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more help, see [What types of questions should I avoid asking?][13], and if you're still not sure, please [ask us on Meta][14].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.meta.stackexchange.com/q/352/8232&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/self-answer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://gardening.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://diy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://biology.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://sustainability.meta.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9988" RevisionGUID="42df827a-358a-4899-9e0b-3338e9290eef" CreationDate="2020-03-31T18:02:10.850" UserId="3379" Text="From the Guardian, March 31, 2020: [Trump to roll back Obama-era clean car rules in huge blow to climate fight](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/31/trump-epa-obama-clean-car-rules-climate-change) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Trump administration is rolling back the US government’s strongest attempt to combat the climate crisis, weakening rules which compel auto companies to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. [...] The changes to Obama-era regulations **will allow vehicles to emit about a billion more tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide** – equivalent to roughly a fifth of annual US emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Some are claiming](https://twitter.com/algore/status/1245000513151696896?s=20) that this change will directly result in the full billion tons of added emissions. But just because the requirement has changed, does not mean that automakers will automatically change the mileage or emissions controls on the vehicles they are producing. This is confirmed later in the article (emphasis added): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Obama administration required auto companies to make vehicles 4.7% more efficient each year. The Trump administration initially wanted to freeze any progress on fuel efficiency past 2020. But its final rule, written by the EPA and the Department of Transportation, sets an improvement rate of 1.5% per year – or an industry average of 40.4 miles per gallon by 2026. **That’s far less than the 2.4% per year by which the industry has said it will increase standards without any regulation.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there data or estimates on what the actual increase in emissions will be as a result of the new rule?** Apparently the auto industry is capable of exceeding the current standard with no regulatory pressure, but will it now move the opposite way?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23588" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9988" RevisionGUID="42df827a-358a-4899-9e0b-3338e9290eef" CreationDate="2020-03-31T18:02:10.850" UserId="3379" Text="How much additional CO2 emissions will result from recent changes to US vehicle regulations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23589" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9988" RevisionGUID="42df827a-358a-4899-9e0b-3338e9290eef" CreationDate="2020-03-31T18:02:10.850" UserId="3379" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|vehicle|usa|law|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9989" RevisionGUID="6ad84bad-ecbd-4809-8c93-4c7d99f295bf" CreationDate="2020-04-01T05:49:50.277" UserId="8232" Text="Due to the recent COVID-19 outbreak and subsequent lockdowns in multiple countries, there have been reports of marked decreases in day-to-day pollution hanging over cities, such as [this report on Beijing][1]. This is being attributed in part to the lack of commuters going to work, with lots of workers across industries staying home under quarantine lockdown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some people, there is still the option to work from home. My question is, does working from home offer much from a sustainability perspective beyond a reduction of transport emissions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take for example, a small office of 10 people, where: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The building is lit by fluorescent bulbs that supply light for the whole office. &#xD;&#xA;- Heated/cooled by a single HVAC system. &#xD;&#xA;- Communal shared appliances (printers, fridges, dishwashers etc). &#xD;&#xA;- Office supplies ordered in bulk (paper, pens etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs those same 10 people working from home, having individual lighting, heating/cooling, appliances and supplies. There may be more points of comparison but these are the ones I can think of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which option is more sustainable, taking into account commuter transport, utilities, and so on? Have there been any studies done to this effect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21161324/coronavirus-quarantine-china-maps-air-pollution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23591" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9989" RevisionGUID="6ad84bad-ecbd-4809-8c93-4c7d99f295bf" CreationDate="2020-04-01T05:49:50.277" UserId="8232" Text="Is working from home a more sustainable choice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23592" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9989" RevisionGUID="6ad84bad-ecbd-4809-8c93-4c7d99f295bf" CreationDate="2020-04-01T05:49:50.277" UserId="8232" Text="|home|lifestyle|office|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9989" RevisionGUID="538d7de8-4366-4194-985f-06ccbd243e38" CreationDate="2020-04-01T08:18:16.797" UserId="8232" Comment="deleted 42 characters in body" Text="Due to the recent COVID-19 outbreak and subsequent lockdowns in multiple countries, there have been reports of marked decreases in day-to-day pollution hanging over cities, such as [this report on Beijing][1]. This is being attributed in part to the lack of commuters going to work, with lots of workers across industries staying home under quarantine lockdown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some people, there is still the option to work from home. My question is, does working from home offer much from a sustainability perspective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take for example, a small office of 10 people, where: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The building is lit by fluorescent bulbs that supply light for the whole office. &#xD;&#xA;- Heated/cooled by a single HVAC system. &#xD;&#xA;- Communal shared appliances (printers, fridges, dishwashers etc). &#xD;&#xA;- Office supplies ordered in bulk (paper, pens etc)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;vs those same 10 people working from home, having individual lighting, heating/cooling, appliances and supplies. There may be more points of comparison but these are the ones I can think of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which option is more sustainable, taking into account commuter transport, utilities, and so on? Have there been any studies done to this effect?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21161324/coronavirus-quarantine-china-maps-air-pollution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9990" RevisionGUID="6f6757ff-ecf6-4043-add7-fb90a7e89a00" CreationDate="2020-04-01T19:07:20.543" UserId="3379" Text="Here's a piece of the answer for the U.S. Hopefully others can provide additional details covering other countries or regions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Office building emissions&#xD;&#xA;According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (from [Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 2012](https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/c&amp;e/cfm/c1.php)), there are 1.5 billion m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of non-vacant office space in the U.S. (Looking at office work only since it is the most likely candidate for the switch to telework). In my work, we typically assume roughly 26 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; per person in a typical office, which includes both work space and corridors, lobbies, break-rooms, etc. Thus 1.5 billion m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; equates to about 57 million office workers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CBECS also provides data on energy usage for office buildings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 774 TWh of electricity (including transmission and distribution losses)&#xD;&#xA; - 83 TWh of natural gas (for heating and cooking)&#xD;&#xA; - 5 TWh of fuel oil (diesel, also for heating)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On average in the U.S., emissions factors for each of these fuels are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 0.45 kg CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; per kWh -- total 348 million tons of CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; ([source](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&amp;t=11))&#xD;&#xA; - 53.07 kg CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; per million Btu of natural gas -- total 15 million tons of CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; ([source](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php))&#xD;&#xA; - 78.79 kg CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; per million Btu of fuel oil -- total 1.4 million tons of CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (ibid.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus total annual emissions from office buildings is 364 million tons, or **6.4 tons per office worker per year**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Office commute emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [a 2005 poll](https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=485098&amp;page=1), the average American commutes 32 miles (51 km) a day. According to the same poll, 4% use public transit, and 8% carpool. If we assume the average carpool is two people, this means that 92% of office workers are driving 51 km a day -- about 52 million workers driving a total of 2.7 billion km per day. There are about [250 working days per year](https://www.workingdays.us/workingdays_holidays_2020.htm), so that equates to 675 billion km per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S., [the average efficiency of vehicles on the road was 22.3 miles per gallon in 2017](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles). This equates to 11.5 L per 100 km. Combined with km driven, this means Americans are using 78 billion L of gasoline per year to commute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combustion of gasoline results in emissions of 8.89 kg CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; per gallon, or 2.35 kg CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; per L.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus total annual emissions from workers commuting to offices is 183 billion tons, or **3,500 tons per office worker per year**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are series of assumptions and approximations here (please check my math!), but for the average office worker who commutes in a private vehicle in the U.S., emissions from the drive are three orders of magnitude greater than emissions from the office.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that even if working from home is vastly less efficient than working from an office, the elimination of the commute will still be a huge improvement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="1f27d9dc-5b99-4c88-baaa-ac9bafd0e684" CreationDate="2020-04-03T09:24:39.740" UserId="8601" Text="Apologies in advanced for disgusting question. I share a bathroom with someone. He has started to get really mad that after I flush the toilet...not all the waste gets removed (95% of it does but some floats to the top). It seems very wasteful to me to flush a second time just to get the remaining 5%. Any suggestions? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I asked a question on [Interpersonal Stackexchange][1] but I can no longer get to it for some reason. Who would I report this to? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/questions/25424/person-i-share-bathroom-is-complaining-i-leave-towel-in-bathroom-but-i-think-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23596" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="1f27d9dc-5b99-4c88-baaa-ac9bafd0e684" CreationDate="2020-04-03T09:24:39.740" UserId="8601" Text="What to do if small amount is left in the toilet after flush?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23597" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="1f27d9dc-5b99-4c88-baaa-ac9bafd0e684" CreationDate="2020-04-03T09:24:39.740" UserId="8601" Text="|water|toilet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9992" RevisionGUID="1eede3cc-0e37-43dc-b414-3beb1e6dd41a" CreationDate="2020-04-04T09:20:53.050" UserId="8603" Text="As brilliantly pointed out by @LShaver, since all the radiator heat levels have the same efficiency and the same energy source, the question has little sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The parameters of this problem are others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e.g. ask the people that has to stay in the conservatory if they are fine with lower temperatures among the one resulting by keeping your radiator on, for the same amount of time, on level 2 or level 1, rather than on level 3." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9993" RevisionGUID="c38a4a50-0602-4785-832c-710ab50cedce" CreationDate="2020-04-04T09:23:25.920" UserId="8603" Text="Fill a bucket with just the amount of water that you think it will be necessary to flush the amount left. You can use the mop floor bucket for it, so that you don't have to buy another one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9994" RevisionGUID="0b93e8fe-9a2e-4652-9d89-5696d815d2a1" CreationDate="2020-04-04T09:47:32.577" UserId="8603" Text="This question has a different answer depending if you are indicating consequences on air quality or on global carbon cycle (i.e. climate change), and I would say it is similar to asking the consequences of lighting a cigarette.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **About air quality**: the effect is similar to the one made by every&#xD;&#xA;   kind of wood combustion: air with some smoke that sure is at least a&#xD;&#xA;   little less healty than air without smoke (release of CO2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **About carbon cycle changes**: there is no consequence if the wood did&#xD;&#xA;   not come from a plantation up exclusively to generate wood to be cut. &#xD;&#xA;   This is because the wood that is cut and burned relases the same&#xD;&#xA;   compounds (mostly CO2) that it would release if the tree it is coming from dies&#xD;&#xA;   naturally and its parts naturally biodegrades.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;   *Please note* that in this second case the problem does not come with the fact of burning &#xD;&#xA;   wood, but with the fact that the wood to be burned comes form a plantation and it is &#xD;&#xA;   not collected by the naturally dead trees or fallen branches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9995" RevisionGUID="bfaa1f46-cd74-453a-ba55-2211a5b88325" CreationDate="2020-04-04T09:56:37.530" UserId="8603" Text="About the graph showing the changes along the week, I suggest you to take a list of the domestic appliances that consumes more eletricity (like [this][1] ), to sort them by energy consumption rate, and to try to understand if the periods in which you used the most energy-consuming domestic appliances correspond to the peaks of your graph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.daftlogic.com/information-appliance-power-consumption.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23602" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9995" RevisionGUID="9bf34941-1364-46cb-88c3-022c169859a2" CreationDate="2020-04-04T10:04:13.853" UserId="8603" Comment="added 440 characters in body" Text="About the graph showing the changes along the week, I suggest you to take a list of the domestic appliances that consumes more eletricity (like [this][1] ), to sort them by energy consumption rate, and to try to understand if the periods in which you used the most energy-consuming domestic appliances correspond to the peaks of your graph.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the graph showing the changes along the year, since the peaks are condensed in winter season, it is likely the big consumption comes from heating.&#xD;&#xA;As suggested by someone else, some parts of the house could host some electring heating devices like water heaters or additinal heating systems.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I think you don't have much more chance than asking your host what other electric device is the parts of the house you can't access.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.daftlogic.com/information-appliance-power-consumption.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23603" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9988" RevisionGUID="67339fda-0be0-4ca2-980d-624e15448143" CreationDate="2020-04-04T12:00:20.797" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1246407252732522496" />
  <row Id="23604" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="3cbcac9c-d68c-4096-8d4a-36b4f76a1c2d" CreationDate="2020-04-04T15:00:24.727" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1246452567699263490" />
  <row Id="23605" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9996" RevisionGUID="fc6240b1-9c4e-4c61-ae91-8b0c65d087e9" CreationDate="2020-04-04T17:53:51.683" UserId="8603" Text="Coffee is a wide produced and consumed drinking all around the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the use, exhausted coffee filters (wet coffee powder) are a very nutrient fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;This brought some people to collect the exhausted coffee powder and to use it as fertilizer for domestic plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know about any country, city, or village that implemented a coffee separate collection with the aim of collecting the exhausted coffee and bringing it to the nearest crop fields in order to use it as fertilizer? &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Is implementing such a separate collection worth it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23606" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9996" RevisionGUID="fc6240b1-9c4e-4c61-ae91-8b0c65d087e9" CreationDate="2020-04-04T17:53:51.683" UserId="8603" Text="Did any country, city, or village implement a coffee separate collection with success?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23607" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9996" RevisionGUID="fc6240b1-9c4e-4c61-ae91-8b0c65d087e9" CreationDate="2020-04-04T17:53:51.683" UserId="8603" Text="|waste|biodegradable-waste|coffee|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23608" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9997" RevisionGUID="92f16eda-4ee8-4fe7-a8b7-db0304a0c964" CreationDate="2020-04-04T18:26:44.837" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;b&gt;This is a very good plan.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nothing will blow up. The inverter will just cap production to 2 kW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you'll find that most locations except the equator have smaller production in the winter. Production early in the morning or late in the evening is low, too. Clouds also lower production during midday. Thus, the time when the panels are producing over 2 kW is very limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, it is not economical to pair 2.5 kW panels with 2.5 kW inverter these times when solar cells are so cheap they cost almost nothing, and the cost of a solar installation is mainly based on the cost of the roof to install the panels on, and the cost of the installation labor. The times the panels are producing over 2 kW are so rare that the last dollars (the extra money that gave you the last 0.5 kW) you could invest in the 2.5 kW inverter would be used with a terribly low capacity factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a very northern location where power is produced predominantly in the summer, you will find that it might make sense to pair 2.5 kW panels with even 1.5 kW inverter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9998" RevisionGUID="f1a633ba-ae5e-4ec6-9f8c-82f350d2537b" CreationDate="2020-04-06T09:54:00.053" UserId="99" Text="I am not aware of any collection schemes on country or city level, but here in the Netherlands we have several companies that collect and reuse coffee grounds, mostly from cafés and restaurants. Some examples (no affiliation to any):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Rotterzam](https://www.rotterzwam.nl) sells mushrooms grown on spent coffee grounds to restaurants and people in the city of Rotterdam (only there to reduce transportation). People elsewhere can buy one of their grow-your-self kits so you can convert your own used coffee grounds into mushrooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Soop](http://www.aworldofsoop.com) uses organic waste streams such as coffee ground and orange peels to create soap bars&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Ruik](https://ruik.org) uses coffee grounds, orange peels and christmas trees as ingredients to make their parfumes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A Dutch start-up called [You lucky bird](https://youluckybird.nl) turns spent coffee grounds into coffee cups. The cups can go into a dishwasher&#xD;&#xA;and after a few years of usage they are recycled into new cups." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9998" RevisionGUID="803bc814-0e43-4bb4-9f35-79312837c419" CreationDate="2020-04-06T17:22:03.110" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo" Text="I am not aware of any collection schemes on country or city level, but here in the Netherlands we have several companies that collect and reuse coffee grounds, mostly from cafés and restaurants. Some examples (no affiliation to any):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Rotterzwam](https://www.rotterzwam.nl) sells mushrooms grown on spent coffee grounds to restaurants and people in the city of Rotterdam (only there to reduce transportation). People elsewhere can buy one of their grow-your-self kits so you can convert your own used coffee grounds into mushrooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Soop](http://www.aworldofsoop.com) uses organic waste streams such as coffee ground and orange peels to manufacture soap bars&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Ruik](https://ruik.org) uses coffee grounds, orange peels and christmas trees as ingredients to make their parfumes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A Dutch start-up called [You lucky bird](https://youluckybird.nl) turns spent coffee grounds into coffee cups. The cups can go into a dishwasher&#xD;&#xA;and after a few years of usage they are recycled into new cups." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="9999" RevisionGUID="b84848dd-6143-4010-9775-a6a1ae27b9fa" CreationDate="2020-04-06T19:20:08.437" UserId="3379" Text="**tl;dr: There's lots of solar power in California, resulting in negative pricing and power curtailment. Does this work against investment in more renewables?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Risks to the grid from high renewable penetration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2013, CAISO, the organization that operates the electric grid in the US state of California, predicted that rapid growth in renewable energy on the grid could result in seasonal risk of **overgeneration** and **excessive ramping** that existing infrastructure could not handle. This concern is illustrated in the infamous [duck curve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve) (note that the title says &quot;March 31&quot;, but the projected values are based on a &quot;typical spring day&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CAISO projected net load on a typical spring day][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the predictions were correct and the risks remain. From the [CAISO Demand Outlook](http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx), here's the net load curve from April 1, 2020 (last week):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CAISO net demand trend, April 1, 2020][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Negative prices mitigate these risks&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To mitigate these risks, the market has been designed so that during periods of overgeneration, wholesale prices go *negative*, meaning the generators are paid to *not produce* electricity that they had previously forecast. Here's pricing for the four load aggregation points for California on April 1, 2020 ([source](http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Real-TimeDailyMarketWatchApr01-2020.html)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CAISO real time prices on April 1, 2020][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the day (when solar is producing power) the prices are at or below $0 for three of the four hubs. When prices go negative, solar and wind producers curtail output so that they don't lose money. The amount of power that renewables regularly curtail is increasing over time ([source](http://www.caiso.com/informed/Pages/ManagingOversupply.aspx#dailyCurtailment)): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CAISO monthly wind and solar curtailment totals, 2014 to 2020][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Does negative pricing and increasing curtailment risk the growth of renewables on the grid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, despite the falling costs of solar PV, the market set-up in California today discourages investment in renewables. Is this a preview of what may happen around the world? **Do renewables on the grid limit their own growth?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WKjjVl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fueJAl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XQ4dZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HaJ84l.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23613" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="9999" RevisionGUID="b84848dd-6143-4010-9775-a6a1ae27b9fa" CreationDate="2020-04-06T19:20:08.437" UserId="3379" Text="Will negative power pricing counteract the growth in solar PV capacity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23614" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="9999" RevisionGUID="b84848dd-6143-4010-9775-a6a1ae27b9fa" CreationDate="2020-04-06T19:20:08.437" UserId="3379" Text="|solar-power|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10000" RevisionGUID="831fe7d4-016d-40ab-821d-2fad67f7bf79" CreationDate="2020-04-06T20:32:47.903" UserId="4886" Text="No.  Negative pricing does not pose any obstacle to renewables on the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low prices during daylight hours open the door for storage-focused companies — using technologies like pumped-hydro and chemical batteries — to purchase large amounts of cheap solar power from the grid to charge their systems, then sell that power back to the grid at night for a profit.  The lower the price during the day, the more profit there is to be made, and the more companies will research, develop and deploy such grid-scale storage solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lack of storage is the real problem, and low daytime prices are helping to solve it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;problem of ramping&quot; is something that is only actually a problem to slow-response power generation systems like coal and nuclear.  While it takes hours to bring more coal online, and about 30 minutes to fire up a typical gas turbine, it takes mere minutes to increase the output of hydro, and milliseconds to unleash power from chemical batteries.  Thus &quot;ramping&quot; is actually pressuring the industry to abandon slow-response production methods in favour of fast-response ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only people with vested interests in slow-response technologies phrase/frame &quot;ramping&quot; as a problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23616" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10000" RevisionGUID="196636dc-5b17-431b-a20c-8b607946ccbd" CreationDate="2020-04-06T20:40:24.733" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="No.  Negative pricing does not pose any obstacle to renewables on the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low prices during daylight hours open the door for storage-focused companies — using technologies like pumped-hydro and chemical batteries — to purchase large amounts of cheap solar power from the grid to charge their systems, then sell that power back to the grid at night for a profit.  The lower the price during the day, the more profit there is to be made, and the more companies will research, develop and deploy such storage solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lack of grid-scale storage is the real problem, and low daytime prices are helping solve it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;problem of ramping&quot; is something that is only actually a problem to slow-response power generation systems like coal and nuclear.  While it takes hours to bring more coal online, and about 30 minutes to fire up a typical gas turbine, it takes mere minutes to increase the output of hydro, and milliseconds to unleash power from chemical batteries.  Thus &quot;ramping&quot; is actually pressuring the industry to abandon slow-response production methods in favour of fast-response ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only people with vested interests in slow-response technologies phrase/frame &quot;ramping&quot; as a problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23617" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10000" RevisionGUID="f159dbfd-2c46-45db-9d6f-b09942a6bcd5" CreationDate="2020-04-06T20:46:48.313" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="No.  Negative pricing does not pose any obstacle to renewables on the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low prices open the door for storage-focused companies — using technologies like pumped-hydro and chemical batteries — to purchase large amounts of cheap solar power from the grid to charge their systems during daylight hours, then sell that power back to the grid at night for a profit.  The lower the price during the day, the more profit there is to be made, and the more companies will research, develop and deploy such storage solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lack of grid-scale storage is the real problem, and low daytime prices are helping solve it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;problem of ramping&quot; is something that is only actually a problem to slow-response power generation systems like coal and nuclear.  While it takes hours to bring more coal online, and about 30 minutes to fire up a typical gas turbine, it takes mere minutes to increase the output of hydro, and milliseconds to unleash power from chemical batteries.  Thus &quot;ramping&quot; is actually pressuring the industry to abandon slow-response energy sources in favour of fast-response ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only people with vested interests in slow-response technologies phrase/frame &quot;ramping&quot; as a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So renewables aren't the problem, nor are negative prices, nor is ramping or curtailment — insufficient amounts of fast-response grid-scale storage is what is holding us back.  Luckily, many tried-and-true solutions already exist, capacities are increasing all the time, and new technologies are being actively researched.  The curve _will_ flatten." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23618" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10000" RevisionGUID="9ecb248d-2e8b-47c5-820c-cf0d4fcd647d" CreationDate="2020-04-06T20:51:58.797" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="No.  Negative pricing does not pose any obstacle to renewables on the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low prices open the door for storage-focused companies — using technologies like pumped-hydro and chemical batteries — to purchase large amounts of cheap solar power from the grid to charge their systems during daylight hours, then sell that power back to the grid at night for a profit.  The lower the price during the day, the more profit there is to be made, and the more companies will research, develop and deploy such storage solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lack of grid-scale storage is the real problem, and low daytime prices are helping solve it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;problem of ramping&quot; is something that is only actually a problem to slow-response power generation systems like coal and nuclear.  While it takes hours to bring more coal online, and about 30 minutes to fire up a typical gas turbine, it takes mere minutes to increase the output of hydro, and milliseconds to unleash power from chemical batteries.  Thus &quot;ramping&quot; is actually pressuring the industry to abandon slow-response energy sources in favour of fast-response ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only people with vested interests in slow-response technologies phrase/frame &quot;ramping&quot; as a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So renewables aren't the problem, nor are negative prices, nor is ramping or curtailment — **insufficient amounts of fast-response grid-scale storage** is what is holding us back.  Luckily, many tried-and-true solutions already exist, capacities are increasing all the time, and new technologies are being actively researched.  The curve _will_ flatten." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10000" RevisionGUID="f440ea77-128c-42a0-b734-e1f35e8bd87a" CreationDate="2020-04-07T07:17:17.580" UserId="4886" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="No.  Negative pricing does not pose any obstacle to renewables on the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low prices open the door for storage-focused companies — using technologies like pumped-hydro and chemical batteries — to purchase large amounts of cheap solar power from the grid to charge their systems during daylight hours, then sell that power back to the grid at night for a profit.  The lower the price during the day, the more profit there is to be made, and the more companies will research, develop and deploy such storage solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lack of grid-scale storage is the real problem, and low daytime prices are helping solve it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;problem of ramping&quot; is something that is only actually a problem for slow-response power generation systems like coal and nuclear.  While it takes hours to bring more coal online, and about 30 minutes to fire up a typical gas turbine, it takes mere minutes to increase the output of hydro, and milliseconds to unleash power from chemical batteries.  Thus &quot;ramping&quot; is actually pressuring the industry to abandon slow-response energy sources in favour of fast-response ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only people with vested interests in slow-response technologies phrase/frame &quot;ramping&quot; as a problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So renewables aren't the problem, nor are negative prices, nor is ramping or curtailment — **insufficient amounts of fast-response grid-scale storage** is what is holding us back.  Luckily, many tried-and-true solutions already exist, capacities are increasing all the time, and new technologies are being actively researched.  The curve _will_ flatten." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23624" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10002" RevisionGUID="c00c5ad3-f290-4242-a6c9-dc44c12eeaba" CreationDate="2020-04-07T22:28:20.073" UserId="3379" Text="CAISO, the California electric grid operator, provides [daily and historical reports](http://www.caiso.com/informed/Pages/ManagingOversupply.aspx) on wind and solar curtailment: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![California wind and solar curtailment by month, 2014 to 2020][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started looking for similar data from [MISO](https://www.misoenergy.org/), the grid operator where I live, but I wasn't able to find anything.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What data is available on how much wind and solar generation is curtailed around the world?** I'm looking for historical data by region, but a nation-level or global estimate would also be helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bPovRl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23625" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10002" RevisionGUID="c00c5ad3-f290-4242-a6c9-dc44c12eeaba" CreationDate="2020-04-07T22:28:20.073" UserId="3379" Text="How much renewable energy is curtailed around the world?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23626" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10002" RevisionGUID="c00c5ad3-f290-4242-a6c9-dc44c12eeaba" CreationDate="2020-04-07T22:28:20.073" UserId="3379" Text="|solar-power|renewables|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23631" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9989" RevisionGUID="262c9672-bcbf-43e3-a8d0-99948ba3a302" CreationDate="2020-04-10T18:00:41.847" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1248672265199329284" />
  <row Id="23632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10004" RevisionGUID="70b34c62-b8dc-4ea8-8556-d95551cf7ac2" CreationDate="2020-04-12T01:17:37.423" UserId="8612" Text="I can confirm this goes in mixed waste in many parts of the world, because plastic and aluminum in it are difficult to separate in a recycling process. I made some research on this for my app using AI to classify objects with your camera for waste sorting, you find it here if you wanna try it https://apps.apple.com/us/app/waste-classifier/id1501226693!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10005" RevisionGUID="0ff2b98e-cdda-4594-be0a-7132ce0d79cf" CreationDate="2020-04-12T10:54:36.250" UserId="6311" Text="There is a lot of information on the Internet about how an individual can lower or negate their carbon usage through various techniques and strategies but much less information on what a person can do actively practice techniques of carbon capture to offset their emissions. The obvious example here is planting tree’s but are there any other carbon negative practices that are reasonable for an individual to engage in given a fairly standard income?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10005" RevisionGUID="0ff2b98e-cdda-4594-be0a-7132ce0d79cf" CreationDate="2020-04-12T10:54:36.250" UserId="6311" Text="What can an individual do to meaningfully practice carbon capture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10005" RevisionGUID="0ff2b98e-cdda-4594-be0a-7132ce0d79cf" CreationDate="2020-04-12T10:54:36.250" UserId="6311" Text="|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10007" RevisionGUID="3a046756-e2b3-46a4-bbcf-3c3c7dd16645" CreationDate="2020-04-13T21:27:50.553" UserId="6293" Text="Well, planting one canopy shade tree in the front yard requires a careful mapping of the utilities. But an individual could offer a service of planting front yard trees. One note, in many climates a hardwood tree shades the house in summer but lets sunlight through in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The individual could become an advocate of industrial processes that make plastic from carbon-dioxide captured at fossil-fuel powerplants. Then that plastic could be used in long-term building materials that are then required by legislated building code." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10008" RevisionGUID="b390632d-f4d8-4cf2-8aea-f62c7c68645d" CreationDate="2020-04-14T15:17:22.053" UserId="5477" Text="I had to look this up. The thickness of decorative aluminum films is less than 1000 angstroms ( that is the thickness of a mirror coating , and decorative coating is thinner). In inches, that is LESS THAN 0.000004 inches. So any consideration of aluminum in recycle is nonsense. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23640" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="d313cf47-3e5a-4661-966c-85dd2e323aac" CreationDate="2020-04-14T21:01:30.370" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10009" RevisionGUID="389f14cf-9ab9-4b20-9600-73f691dc73a5" CreationDate="2020-04-16T09:43:23.910" UserId="8628" Text="**Background**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a 3kw inverter-charger that runs on 12VDC and I'd like to be able to discharge around 250 to 300 AH between recharges (from 120VAC input) without the batteries experiencing much more than 30% depth of discharge. Originally I had planned to purchase four 200AH/12VDC AGM batteries and put them in parallel, but upon further reading I've come to understand that batteries in parallel have a tendency to eat each other from charge oscillating back and forth between them due to slight differences in battery voltage. Now I'm looking at instead putting six 2V batteries in series, but these batteries all seem to come from overseas (I'm in the US) and I assume there will be little/no support or warranty coverage available. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Is this inverter/battery topology sound? Is there a better way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The particular batteries I am looking at are [these][1]. I need sealed/VRLA batteries for this application and my sense of things is that AGM batteries will serve me better than gel, but my understanding of battery technology is limited. Assuming my topology is good to go, are these batteries likely to be a good choice, or is there another type of battery or even a specific manufacturer I should  consider (or avoid)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Easy-Installation-and-Handing-2V-1200Ah_62075772417.html?spm=a2700.7724857.normalList.39.418b7c21RtHynk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23642" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10009" RevisionGUID="389f14cf-9ab9-4b20-9600-73f691dc73a5" CreationDate="2020-04-16T09:43:23.910" UserId="8628" Text="Creating a string of six 2V batteries in series to power an inverter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23643" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10009" RevisionGUID="389f14cf-9ab9-4b20-9600-73f691dc73a5" CreationDate="2020-04-16T09:43:23.910" UserId="8628" Text="|electricity|electricity-generation|diy|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10009" RevisionGUID="884319ec-85c0-4f36-814b-90eba2fed816" CreationDate="2020-04-16T09:51:18.383" UserId="8628" Comment="added 109 characters in body" Text="**Background**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a 3kw inverter-charger that runs on 12VDC and I'd like to be able to discharge around 250 to 300 AH between recharges (from 120VAC input) without the batteries experiencing much more than 30% depth of discharge. Rates of discharge will be around 20-30A continuous with periodic short (~5 minute) bursts of up to 250-300A. Originally I had planned to purchase four 200AH/12VDC AGM batteries and put them in parallel, but upon further reading I've come to understand that batteries in parallel have a tendency to eat each other from charge oscillating back and forth between them due to slight differences in battery voltage. Now I'm looking at instead putting six 2V batteries in series, but these batteries all seem to come from overseas (I'm in the US) and I assume there will be little/no support or warranty coverage available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Is this inverter/battery topology sound? Is there a better way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The particular batteries I am looking at are [these][1]. I need sealed/VRLA batteries for this application and my sense of things is that AGM batteries will serve me better than gel, but my understanding of battery technology is limited. Assuming my topology is good to go, are these batteries likely to be a good choice, or is there another type of battery or even a specific manufacturer I should  consider (or avoid)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Easy-Installation-and-Handing-2V-1200Ah_62075772417.html?spm=a2700.7724857.normalList.39.418b7c21RtHynk" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23645" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="3ac40f7e-d233-4e19-9fa7-800f5c90ed43" CreationDate="2020-04-16T15:02:30.313" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10010" RevisionGUID="47102cec-a65e-4f82-bcc3-912e7b06e724" CreationDate="2020-04-16T17:35:28.693" UserId="8631" Text="The idea is that since a watertower stores potential energy just like a reservoir does for a hydroelectric dam, I could use that to power a pico (&lt;5kW) hydroelectric system for my homestead. &#xD;&#xA;Now, I have read that the problem is not that this model will not create hydroelectric power, it is that the energy required to refill the tank after consumption is greater than the energy generated. Consequently, most of the pico hydroelectric systems on homesteads use the actual water source as the energy for the hydroelectric generator. In other words, the topography of their land is what they use to create the pico hydroelectric system, and the manipulation of their water source is part of the design. Either they build a reservoir or they already have land that gives them an adequate head to generate power. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, I have seen the use of ram pumps for all kinds of energy transfer inventions on numerous homesteads. Specifically, the use of ram pumps to replenish a homestead water tower irrigation system was the inspiration. But, there was only one ram pumps in this case (which was plenty) If the water source is good enough, why could numerous ram pumps not be used in different spots in the source for replenishment? I would guess most people have water sources for dozens of feet if not hundreds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Assuming that someone has a good running water source on their property with enough flow and volume to run one or more ram pumps to the watertower for either demand determined replenishment or constant flow generation. That source would essentially be limitless and ram pumps could run all the time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2. Even with a constant flow system, a ram pump could be installed at the outflow to recycle additional water. The outflow will simply just be sent downstream, so why not use to again? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If this setup is not adequate to replenish an additional small power pump could be added for replenishment. Collect it in another tub and pump it back up as close to the tower as possible, preferably. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that ram pumps vary to a great degree in efficiency. However, this states that some ram pumps could be upwards of 60% efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_041913.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other point, because of the rise in storage technology, this type of system would be able to power up batteries at day during full generation from the watertower. This could power a small pump at night along with the ram pumps (which require no electricity) during low demand to replenish the water tower. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just seems like there would be enough with all this to create an energy surplus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be something that might worK?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10010" RevisionGUID="47102cec-a65e-4f82-bcc3-912e7b06e724" CreationDate="2020-04-16T17:35:28.693" UserId="8631" Text="Could I incorporate (multiple?) ram pumps for a watertower-based pico hydroelectric system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10010" RevisionGUID="47102cec-a65e-4f82-bcc3-912e7b06e724" CreationDate="2020-04-16T17:35:28.693" UserId="8631" Text="|recycling|energy-efficiency|water|renewables|hydroelectricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10011" RevisionGUID="9ee2d027-846a-4c50-879e-367037e0b5e7" CreationDate="2020-04-17T12:34:07.697" UserId="4886" Text="Every time water flows through a ram pump it loses energy (slows down).  That means there is less energy available (in the water) for the next ram pump, which will make its yield (the amount of water it can lift to a higher elevation) smaller.  Eventually you reach the point where the water is moving so slowly that it doesn't contain enough energy to operate the pump at all, and the ram pump will stall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The total amount of energy available to you is simply related to the mass of water entering your property and the vertical distance it falls before exiting your property.  That number doesn't change **regardless of how many ram pumps you install**.  Whether you build one big ram pump to extract all of the energy, or five small ram pumps, doesn't matter.  In fact, because of the diminishing returns mentioned earlier, it's better (more efficient) to go with as *few pumps as possible* — ideally one — and make them as big as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, it's **running** water that makes ram pumps work.  Anything you do that slows the water down undermines their yield.  Ram pumps don't work in pools, ponds or lakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I don't think you appreciate what a *pitifully small* amount of energy can be stored in a 'water tower'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a hypothetical — yet *massive* — tower that contains 100,000L of water.  Let's say that you are able to magically elevate this tower 100m above your property.  The total amount of potential energy stored in the water = *mgh* = 100000*9.8*100 = 98,000,000J.  That would power a 5kW hydroelectric system for 19600 seconds (5.4 hours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, that may *sound* great, but given that it would probably take you — under *ideal* conditions — more than *a week* to fill that tank up with a ram pump... it's hardly practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;98MJ is equivalent to 27.2kWh of electricity — worth about $10 in this part of the world.  A 100kL tank would cost a minimum of $10k to build, which means the tank would need to be filled 1,000 times before it paid for itself.  If you fill it each and every week, you would be waiting 20 years for it to pay for itself, and before you saw even a single cent of 'profit'.  Depending on the material and climate, the tank would likely have started leaking by then, and be due for replacement anyway... so in the real world you'd *never* see a profit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pumping water into a manufactured container of any type makes no financial sense — *at any scale* — even if the energy used to perform that pumping is completely free.  The only way the math works out is if you can use natural terrain as a container to eliminate 99.999% of the construction costs.  That's why hydro systems primarily get built in hilly/mountainous regions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  Ram pumps exploit the energy embodied in running water to redirect a fraction of the flow to a higher elevation.  Every pump you add removes energy from the water and suffers from diminishing returns.  Eventually there is not enough energy in the water and the pump fails.  The potential energy in elevated water is tiny, so you need massive amounts and really high elevations to have anything worthwhile.  Unless you are able to exploit hilly/mountainous terrain to create truly vast amounts of elevated storage for virtually free, the savings from any power produced will never cover your construction costs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23650" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10011" RevisionGUID="304e8739-ae13-4a3d-95e5-a8fc62b2d267" CreationDate="2020-04-17T12:41:02.760" UserId="4886" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="Every time water flows through a ram pump it loses energy (slows down).  That means there is less energy available (in the water) for the next ram pump, which will make its yield (the amount of water it can lift to a higher elevation) smaller.  Eventually you reach the point where the water is moving so slowly that it doesn't contain enough energy to operate the pump at all, and the ram pump will stall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The total amount of energy available to you is simply related to the mass of water entering your property and the vertical distance it falls before exiting your property.  That number doesn't change **regardless of how many ram pumps you install**.  Whether you build one big ram pump to extract all of the energy, or five small ram pumps, doesn't matter.  In fact, because of the diminishing returns mentioned earlier, it's better (more efficient) to go with as *few pumps as possible* — ideally one — and make them as big as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, it's **running** water that makes ram pumps work.  Anything you do that slows the water down undermines their yield.  Ram pumps don't work in pools, ponds or lakes.  You're not harnessing water energy in the horizontal plane — the energy is stored in the vertical plane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I don't think you appreciate what a *pitifully small* amount of energy can be stored in a 'water tower'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a hypothetical — yet *massive* — tower that contains 100,000L of water.  Let's say that you are able to magically elevate this tower 100m above your property.  The total amount of potential energy stored in the water = *mgh* = 100000*9.8*100 = 98,000,000J.  That would power a 5kW hydroelectric system for 19600 seconds (5.4 hours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, that may *sound* useful, but given that it would probably take you — under *ideal* conditions — more than *a week* to fill that tank up with a ram pump... it's hardly practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;98MJ is equivalent to 27.2kWh of electricity — worth about $10 in this part of the world.  A 100kL tank would cost a minimum of $10k to build, which means the tank would need to be filled 1,000 times before it paid for itself.  If you fill it each and every week, you would be waiting 20 years for it to pay for itself, and before you saw even a single cent of 'profit'.  Depending on the material and climate, the tank would likely have started leaking by then, and be due for replacement anyway... so in the real world you'd *never* see a profit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pumping water into a manufactured container of any type makes no financial sense — *at any scale* — even if the energy used to perform that pumping is completely free.  The only way the math works out is if you can use natural terrain as a container to eliminate 99.999% of the construction costs.  That's why hydro systems primarily get built in hilly/mountainous regions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  Ram pumps exploit the energy embodied in running water to redirect a fraction of the flow to a higher elevation.  Every pump you add removes energy from the water and suffers from diminishing returns.  Eventually there is not enough energy in the water and pumping fails.  The potential energy in elevated water is tiny, so you need massive amounts and really high elevations to have anything worthwhile.  Unless you are able to exploit hilly/mountainous terrain to create truly vast amounts of elevated storage for virtually free, the savings from any power produced will never cover your construction costs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23651" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10011" RevisionGUID="136be5ad-00ca-4166-b058-0975ab5c4729" CreationDate="2020-04-17T13:08:26.347" UserId="4886" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="Every time water flows through a ram pump it loses energy (slows down).  That means there is less energy available (in the water) for the next ram pump, which will make its yield (the amount of water it can lift to a higher elevation) smaller.  Eventually you reach the point where the water is moving so slowly that it doesn't contain enough energy to operate the pump at all, and the ram pump will stall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The total amount of energy available to you is simply related to the mass of water entering your property and the vertical distance it falls before exiting your property.  That number doesn't change **regardless of how many ram pumps you install**.  Whether you build one big ram pump to extract all of the energy, or five small ram pumps, doesn't matter.  In fact, because of the diminishing returns mentioned earlier, it's better (more efficient) to go with as *few pumps as possible* — ideally one — and make them as big as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Remember, it's **running** water that makes ram pumps work.  Anything you do that slows the water down undermines their yield.  Ram pumps don't work in pools, ponds or lakes.  You're not harnessing water energy in the horizontal plane — the energy is stored in the vertical plane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS:  I don't think you appreciate what a *pitifully small* amount of energy can be stored in a 'water tower'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's take a hypothetical — yet *massive* — tower that contains 100,000L of water.  Let's say that you are able to magically elevate this tower 100m above your property.  The total amount of potential energy stored in the water = *mgh* = 100000*9.8*100 = 98,000,000J.  That would power a 5kW hydroelectric system for 19600 seconds (5.4 hours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, that may *sound* useful, but given that it would probably take you — under *ideal* conditions — more than *a week* to fill that tank up with a ram pump... it's hardly practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;98MJ is equivalent to 27.2kWh of electricity — worth about $10 in this part of the world.  A 100kL tank would cost a minimum of $10k to build, which means the tank would need to be filled 1,000 times before it paid for itself.  If you fill it each and every week, you would be waiting 20 years for it to pay for itself, and before you saw even a single cent of 'profit'.  Depending on the material and climate, the tank would likely have started leaking by then, and be due for replacement anyway... so in the real world you'd *never* see a profit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pumping water into a manufactured container of any type makes no financial sense — *at any scale* — even if the energy used to perform that pumping is completely free.  The only way the math works out is if you can use (something like) natural terrain as a container to eliminate 99.999% of the construction costs.  That's why hydro systems primarily get built in hilly/mountainous regions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;tl;dr:  Ram pumps exploit the energy embodied in running water to redirect a fraction of the flow to a higher elevation.  Every pump you add removes energy from the water and suffers from diminishing returns.  Eventually there is not enough energy in the water and pumping fails.  The potential energy in elevated water is tiny, so you need enormous volumes and really high elevations to do anything worthwhile.  Unless you are able to exploit hilly/mountainous terrain to create truly vast amounts of elevated storage for virtually free, the savings from any power produced will never cover your construction costs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23652" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10010" RevisionGUID="cab7b0fe-32c6-4d26-a71e-f82398484842" CreationDate="2020-04-17T15:18:22.737" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting, shortening. Added link for reference." Text="**Since a watertower stores potential energy just like a reservoir does for a hydroelectric dam, could I use that to power a pico (&lt;5kW) hydroelectric system for my homestead?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I have read that the problem is not that this model will not create hydroelectric power, it is that the energy required to refill the tank after consumption is greater than the energy generated. Consequently, most of the pico hydroelectric systems on homesteads use the actual water source as the energy for the hydroelectric generator. In other words, the topography of their land is what they use to create the pico hydroelectric system, and the manipulation of their water source is part of the design. Either they build a reservoir or they already have land that gives them an adequate head to generate power. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, I have seen the use of [ram pumps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram) for all kinds of energy transfer inventions on numerous homesteads. Specifically, the use of ram pumps to replenish a homestead water tower irrigation system was the inspiration. But, there was only one ram pump in this case (which was plenty). **If the water source is good enough, why could numerous ram pumps not be used in different spots in the source for replenishment?** I would guess most people have water sources for dozens of feet if not hundreds. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Assuming that someone has a good running water source on their property with enough flow and volume to run one or more ram pumps to the watertower for either demand determined replenishment or constant flow generation, that source would essentially be limitless and ram pumps could run all the time.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;2. Even with a constant flow system, a ram pump could be installed at the outflow to recycle additional water. The outflow will simply just be sent downstream, so why not use it again? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. If this setup is not adequate to replenish, an additional small power pump could be added for replenishment. Collect it in another tub and pump it back up as close to the tower as possible, preferably. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that ram pumps vary to a great degree in efficiency. However, [this USDA report](https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_041913.pdf) states that some ram pumps could be upwards of 60% efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just seems like there would be enough with all this to create an energy surplus. Would this be something that might work?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23653" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10010" RevisionGUID="cab7b0fe-32c6-4d26-a71e-f82398484842" CreationDate="2020-04-17T15:18:22.737" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting, shortening. Added link for reference." Text="Could multiple ram pumps be used to fill a watertower for a pico hydroelectric system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23654" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10010" RevisionGUID="cab7b0fe-32c6-4d26-a71e-f82398484842" CreationDate="2020-04-17T15:18:22.737" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting, shortening. Added link for reference." Text="|water|renewables|electricity-generation|hydroelectricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="485ca28a-b859-45de-b6c6-f38f836501ad" CreationDate="2020-04-18T01:49:57.017" UserId="8232" Text="A few brands of chocolate milk mix come in re-sealable tins like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Milo by Nestle][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also possible (and slightly cheaper) to buy 'refill packs', in order to reuse the tin. However, these refill packs are made of a soft plastic packaging:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Milo refill pack][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read that it is easier/more efficient to recycle tins vs soft plastics, and that the recycling rates are also higher for the former. Does this mean - purely from a sustainability standpoint - I should buy new tins over refill packs? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do the lifecycles of both tins and refill packs compare?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zrXE0.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cZej7m.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23656" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="485ca28a-b859-45de-b6c6-f38f836501ad" CreationDate="2020-04-18T01:49:57.017" UserId="8232" Text="Are refill packs of chocolate milk powder any better than buying new tins?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23657" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="485ca28a-b859-45de-b6c6-f38f836501ad" CreationDate="2020-04-18T01:49:57.017" UserId="8232" Text="|plastic|reuse|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23658" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10013" RevisionGUID="d4848920-9e1c-4bb5-9f0f-487e4ec00c72" CreationDate="2020-04-18T03:43:36.907" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/190379/how-do-i-get-my-ibc-clean-it-used-to-have-avocado-oil-in-it-i-want-to-store-w" />
  <row Id="23659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10013" RevisionGUID="209900a0-fcb5-4c08-99e6-72d144565a5b" CreationDate="2020-04-18T02:20:04.657" UserDisplayName="Gabriel DeMaria" Text="I have (2) 275 gallon IBC totes that used to hold avacado oil in one, and canola oil in the other.  I want to use it for emergency drinking water.  What is the best way to clean it and store potable water in it.  Thank you  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10013" RevisionGUID="209900a0-fcb5-4c08-99e6-72d144565a5b" CreationDate="2020-04-18T02:20:04.657" UserDisplayName="Gabriel DeMaria" Text="How do I get my IBC clean? it used to have avocado oil in it.. I want to store water in it. Thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10013" RevisionGUID="209900a0-fcb5-4c08-99e6-72d144565a5b" CreationDate="2020-04-18T02:20:04.657" UserDisplayName="Gabriel DeMaria" Text="|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10013" RevisionGUID="6488e4ee-2d06-4d3d-8a83-fd1a14a595c7" CreationDate="2020-04-18T06:57:16.730" UserId="99" Comment="improved title, added measure in liters, added reuse tag" Text="I have two 275 gallon (1040 liter) [IBC totes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_bulk_container) that used to hold avacado oil in one, and canola oil in the other.  I want to use it for emergency drinking water.  What is the best way to clean it and store potable water in it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23663" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10013" RevisionGUID="6488e4ee-2d06-4d3d-8a83-fd1a14a595c7" CreationDate="2020-04-18T06:57:16.730" UserId="99" Comment="improved title, added measure in liters, added reuse tag" Text="How do I clean my avocado oil intermediate bulk container so I can store water in it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23664" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10013" RevisionGUID="6488e4ee-2d06-4d3d-8a83-fd1a14a595c7" CreationDate="2020-04-18T06:57:16.730" UserId="99" Comment="improved title, added measure in liters, added reuse tag" Text="|water|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10014" RevisionGUID="5f4f63b4-0a74-459a-98cf-767e1b4d0df5" CreationDate="2020-04-18T20:18:20.557" UserId="8637" Text="Commercial IBC washers use high pressure water jets, so  attack thje inner surface with a pressure washer, once with detergent, and then once with water to rinse it out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this task may be easier with the container laying on its side &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10015" RevisionGUID="9a8b4260-57e1-41a2-aca6-4fcd61cf1c6e" CreationDate="2020-04-19T00:58:17.657" UserId="4886" Text="250–300A for 5 minutes?  Sounds like a welder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Power draw during that burst = 300*12 = 3600W = 3.6kW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/glancesDubiouslyAt &quot;3kW inverter&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you'll be tripping the safety shut-down on the inverter on a regular basis if you try this.  The startup/inrush/surge current that occurs before the arc stabilises is much higher than the sustained draw.  Always better to have a generous amount of headroom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's an option, may I suggest bypassing the inverter and running the welder off the battery bank directly using DC (assuming that is an option with the welder you plan on getting)?  Alternatively — if you already have the welder — get a (min) 5kW inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are concerned — at all — about warranties, then pay the premium and buy your batteries locally instead, and write the extra cost off as 'peace of mind' insurance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long-term impacts of imbalanced voltages (for parallel setups) is a mere *rounding error* compared to the amount of damage your bank will incur from being routinely undercharged (by your solar panels, presumably).  Yes, it is real, but it is not large enough to justify moving to an 'unusual' solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were you I'd just buy the batteries in-person, locally, and visually inspect each battery's markings to make sure they all came from the same batch, then call it done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you are charging these off solar, then the average temperature of the batteries will determine whether AGM or gel is a better choice.  For most folks in temperate (or warmer) climates, AGM ends up the better choice.  In cold-temperate, high-altitude, or sub-arctic climates, gel is likely to be the better choice.  If you plan on spending a lot of time welding in the snow, go gel — otherwise go AGM." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10015" RevisionGUID="4c5091cb-5348-419d-8da2-906137bbb3d5" CreationDate="2020-04-19T01:04:12.873" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="250–300A for 5 minutes?  Sounds like a welder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Power draw during that burst = 300*12 = 3600W = 3.6kW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;/glancesDubiouslyAt &quot;3kW inverter&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you'll be tripping the safety shut-down on the inverter on a regular basis if you try this.  The startup/inrush/surge current that occurs before the arc stabilises is much higher than the sustained draw.  Always better to have a generous amount of headroom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's an option, may I suggest bypassing the inverter and running the welder off the battery bank directly using DC (assuming that is an option with the welder you plan on getting)?  Alternatively — if you already have the welder — get a (min) 5kW inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are concerned — at all — about warranties, then pay the premium, buy your batteries locally instead, and write the extra cost off as 'peace of mind' insurance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long-term impacts of imbalanced voltages (for parallel setups) is a mere *rounding error* compared to the amount of damage your bank will incur from being routinely undercharged (by your solar panels, presumably).  Yes, it is real, but it is not large enough to justify moving to an 'unusual' solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I were you I'd just buy the batteries in-person, locally, and visually inspect each battery's markings to make sure they all came from the same batch, then call it done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming you are charging these off solar, then the average temperature of the batteries will determine whether AGM or gel is a better choice.  For most folks in temperate (or warmer) climates, AGM ends up the better choice.  In cold-temperate, high-altitude, or sub-arctic climates, gel is likely to be the better choice.  If you plan on spending a lot of time welding in the snow, go gel — otherwise go AGM." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10016" RevisionGUID="a2761f21-5225-4197-b8ee-21970ad9f261" CreationDate="2020-04-19T19:38:01.683" UserId="1581" Text="It does not really matter whether you capture CO2 or avoid emissions, the point is having less of it in the atmosphere. That said, one can roughly prioritize as following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Leave it to professionals.&#xD;&#xA;There are expert organizations that focus on CO2 reduction. This is where you have the highest impact per dollar. They mostly work in developing countries, where the reduction per dollar is biggest. Here is a ranking for US-based organizations: [https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/best-popular-us-carbon-offset-providers.php]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Avoid personal emissions. &#xD;&#xA;Air travelling and meat are the most relevant activities, you probably already know about that, but here is a link with tips for a lower carbon life anyway  [https://www.pureleapfrog.org/carbon-offsetting/tips-for-a-lower-carbon-lifestyle/]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Reforestation, plant trees. &#xD;&#xA;This is where the answer to your question starts, since this actually captures carbon. There are studies which show that reforestation has a huge potential [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions]. Scotland, for example, does a large scale reforestation [https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17703851.scotland-smashes-tree-planting-targets-as-nations-landscape-goes-back-to-woods/], almost any country has its own tree-planting-events. You can certainly find one nearby and contribute personally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Create/protect wetland. &#xD;&#xA;Bogs capture and store huge amounts of CO2 [https://wilderness-society.org/importance-of-peat-bogs-as-co2-storage/], but are often drained for land use. In the process, they emit CO2, roughly 0.5 t per hectare and cm water column.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Prefer wood as a construction material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Large amounts of CO2 can be captured by shellfish, who build there shells with calcium carbonate, where the carbon comes from CO2 from the atmosphere (Scientific: [https://thefishsite.com/articles/carbon-sequestration-potential-of-shellfish], entertaining: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhA5LgXMBkw&amp;t=3m]) As an individual you could make farmed shellfish a part of your diet, but frankly I doubt that this has a significant effect, also accounting for transportation and such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list is by far not complete, please feel free to edit, extend and elaborate. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23669" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10009" RevisionGUID="16dee6cf-6ec9-413d-9952-0a12325949da" CreationDate="2020-04-20T11:02:23.923" UserId="8628" Comment="I'm no longer considering the batteries I originally specified; updated question and hyperlink" Text="**Background**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a Magnum Energy MSH3012RV 3kw inverter-charger that runs on 12VDC and I'd like to be able to discharge around 250 to 300 AH between recharges (from 120VAC input) without the batteries experiencing much more than 30% depth of discharge. Rates of discharge will be around 20-30A continuous with periodic short (~5 minute) bursts of up to 250-300A. Originally I had planned to purchase four 200AH/12VDC AGM batteries and put them in parallel, but upon further reading I've come to understand that batteries in parallel have a tendency to eat each other from charge oscillating back and forth between them due to slight differences in battery voltage. Now I'm looking at instead putting six 2V batteries in series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Questions**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Is this inverter/battery topology sound? Is there a better way?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) The particular batteries I am looking at are [these][1]. I need sealed/VRLA batteries for this application and my sense of things is that AGM batteries will serve me better than gel, but my understanding of battery technology is limited. Assuming my topology is good to go, are these batteries likely to be a good choice, or is there another type of battery or even a specific manufacturer I should  consider (or avoid)? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://documents.wholesalesolar.com/media/crown-2crv1200-agm-2-volt-battery-specs-2243747105.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23670" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10017" RevisionGUID="377fbff6-ff54-4b49-805e-d28f82f1a02b" CreationDate="2020-04-20T14:15:15.527" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://vegetarianism.stackexchange.com/questions/2128/how-to-replace-bananas-in-europe" />
  <row Id="23671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10017" RevisionGUID="d68082d1-2258-445a-9b40-bfe5275c02c9" CreationDate="2020-04-11T14:47:13.307" UserId="6857" Text="If you buy bananas in Europe, they usually come with a high CO2 level, since they are mostly produced in oversea countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a fruit produced in Europe which comes quiet close to bananas in terms of energy supply, digestibility and shelf life?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, bananas are to me the only fruit which delivers enough energy before or during sport activities - I have problems to digest dry figs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23672" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10017" RevisionGUID="d68082d1-2258-445a-9b40-bfe5275c02c9" CreationDate="2020-04-11T14:47:13.307" UserId="6857" Text="How to replace bananas in Europe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23673" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10017" RevisionGUID="d68082d1-2258-445a-9b40-bfe5275c02c9" CreationDate="2020-04-11T14:47:13.307" UserId="6857" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23674" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10017" RevisionGUID="1bf8b82b-db32-4510-a09c-60a2b28c8554" CreationDate="2020-04-20T15:41:31.470" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, title" Text="If you buy bananas in Europe, they usually come with a high CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; level, since they are mostly produced overseas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there a fruit produced in Europe which comes quite close to bananas in terms of energy supply, digestibility, and shelf life?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, bananas are to me the only fruit which delivers enough energy before or during sports activities. I have tried dry figs but have problems to digest them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23675" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10017" RevisionGUID="1bf8b82b-db32-4510-a09c-60a2b28c8554" CreationDate="2020-04-20T15:41:31.470" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, title" Text="Alternative to bananas in Europe" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23676" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10017" RevisionGUID="1bf8b82b-db32-4510-a09c-60a2b28c8554" CreationDate="2020-04-20T15:41:31.470" UserId="3379" Comment="Tags, title" Text="|food|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10018" RevisionGUID="29d63b76-ddc1-41e4-bc64-a15e3862f9ef" CreationDate="2020-04-21T09:34:14.880" UserId="8645" Text="For a college project, I'm looking to learn about direct electrical and biomass heating as a means of decarbonization of our college campus? Where can I learn about these? Searching for direct electrical heating seems to focus on subsea pipelines. Where can I learn more about them?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23678" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10018" RevisionGUID="29d63b76-ddc1-41e4-bc64-a15e3862f9ef" CreationDate="2020-04-21T09:34:14.880" UserId="8645" Text="Direct Electrical Heating" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23679" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10018" RevisionGUID="29d63b76-ddc1-41e4-bc64-a15e3862f9ef" CreationDate="2020-04-21T09:34:14.880" UserId="8645" Text="|heating|carbon-footprint|decarbonisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23680" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10019" RevisionGUID="f754d78a-c9a8-44b7-b2c4-9ddaf24f736e" CreationDate="2020-04-21T12:06:56.687" UserId="4886" Text="I don't think you should be having any problem at all researching &quot;biomass heating&quot; using any of the common search engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;direct electrical heating&quot;, that's an arbitrarily fine distinction, if you ask me.  If the goal is de-carbonisation, then whether the electrical heating is direct or indirect is irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As someone who has spent far too much time on both sides of the educational system, let me give you a tip:  To get good grades all you need to do is reinforce the worldview of the people asking the questions — your teachers.  If they think X is good and Y is bad, write a report that says X is good and Y is bad and you'll get an A.  It's sad, but true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;direct electrical heating&quot; is the exact phrase that a teacher has written down as a possible research topic, then — given you are having problems researching the term — you need to find out exactly what **they** believe that term means.  &quot;I'm having difficulty defining direct electrical heating.  Could you please give me a few examples to help me get started?&quot; is a question you could ask them that will help you understand what **they** think &quot;direct electrical heating&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While talking to your teacher, try to work out — without asking directly — whether they think direct electrical heating is part of the solution, or isn't.  The answer to this question is not as simple as you may think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your teacher lives or grew up in a part of Canada (for example) where 100% of the grid electricity is &quot;cheap renewable hydro&quot; then converting that renewable energy directly to heat could reasonably be seen as logical, sensible, and 'right'.  Ditto if they grew up or lived in Australia where abundant solar is able to power micro grids.  In these situations, the answer to the question — what will get you an A — is saying that **yes, direct electrical heating can help de-carbonise the campus and help &quot;save the world&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, on the other hand, your teacher's electricity is sourced primarily from coal or gas power stations, which cause enormous amounts of obvious and undeniable environmental harm, then the answer to the question — what will get you an A — is saying that **no, direct electrical heating cannot help de-carbonise the campus and help &quot;save the world&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't understand your teacher's background and biases, then you have a 50/50 chance of picking the &quot;wrong&quot; answer and getting a poor (or even failing) grade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB:  **Both answers are correct!**  [Direct] Electrical heating *can* help de-carbonise the planet.  It can also *not* help de-carbonise the planet.  It's all about context.  The 'right' answer — which gets you the best grades — depends on the source of the electricity that powers your teacher's home — likely (but not guaranteed) to be the same as the source that powers your campus as well.  You need to know what those sources are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are *very few* colleges and teachers out there that genuinely encourage independent thinking and are open to having their worldviews challenged.  Very few.  It is highly likely that yours do not fall into that category.  Clarify the question.  Work out what their worldview is.  Confirm and reinforce it (regardless of your personal beliefs).  Get your A.  Move on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23681" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10019" RevisionGUID="ac8637f4-2a60-4cd2-b889-2c592ba83878" CreationDate="2020-04-21T12:11:26.440" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="I don't think you should be having any problem at all researching &quot;biomass heating&quot; using any of the common search engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for &quot;direct electrical heating&quot;, that's an arbitrarily fine distinction, if you ask me.  If the goal is de-carbonisation, then whether the electrical heating is direct or indirect is irrelevant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As someone who has spent far too much time on both sides of the educational system, let me give you a tip:  To get good grades all you need to do is reinforce the worldview of the people asking the questions — your teachers.  If they think X is good and Y is bad, write a report that says X is good and Y is bad and you'll get an A.  It's sad, but true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If &quot;direct electrical heating&quot; is the exact phrase that a teacher has written down as a possible research topic, then — given you are having problems researching the term — you need to find out exactly what **they** believe that term means.  &quot;I'm having difficulty defining direct electrical heating.  Could you please give me a few examples to help me get started?&quot; is a question you could ask them that will help you understand what **they** think &quot;direct electrical heating&quot; means.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While talking to your teacher, try to work out — without asking directly — whether they think direct electrical heating is part of the solution, or isn't.  The answer to this question is not as simple as you may think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your teacher lives or grew up in a part of Canada (for example) where 100% of the grid electricity is &quot;cheap renewable hydro&quot; then converting that renewable energy directly to heat could reasonably be seen as logical, sensible, and 'right'.  Ditto if they grew up or lived in Australia where abundant solar is able to power micro grids.  In these situations, the answer to the question — what will get you an A — is saying that **yes, direct electrical heating can help de-carbonise the campus and help &quot;save the world&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If, on the other hand, your teacher's electricity is sourced primarily from coal or gas power stations, which cause enormous amounts of obvious and undeniable environmental harm, then the answer to the question — what will get you an A — is saying that **no, direct electrical heating cannot help de-carbonise the campus and help &quot;save the world&quot;**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't understand your teacher's background and biases, then you have a 50/50 chance of picking the &quot;wrong&quot; answer and getting a poor (or even failing) grade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NB:  **Both answers are correct!**  [Direct] Electrical heating *can* help de-carbonise the planet.  It can also *not* help de-carbonise the planet.  It's all about context.  The 'right' answer — which gets you the best grades — depends on the source of the electricity that powers your teacher's home — likely (but not guaranteed) to be the same as the source that powers your campus as well.  You need to know what those sources are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are *very few* colleges and teachers out there that genuinely encourage independent thinking and are open to having their worldviews challenged.  Very few.  It is *highly* likely that yours don't.  Clarify the question.  Work out what their worldview is.  Confirm and reinforce it (regardless of your personal beliefs).  Get your A.  Move on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10020" RevisionGUID="49966f34-b3c3-4d3b-b17c-7345b25a92da" CreationDate="2020-04-21T12:17:59.287" UserId="106" Text="There are three forms of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation.  Physically, there is no such thing as &quot;direct electrical heating&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most &quot;direct&quot; way to convert electricity into heat is by running a current through a resistance.  The resistance will heat up.  This heat can be used to heat water or another carrier for a domestic convection (free or forced)-based heating system or for radiative heaters.  Electricity can also power a [heat pump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump), which might be less direct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look up on [electric heating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_heating) on Wikipedia, which gives a reasonably good overview of all the forms of electric heating and provides sources for further reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consider how sustainable each of those alternatives is, you need to consider how the electricity is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an entirely different approach for heating a campus, consider [district heating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating).  If district heating is sourced by waste heat (for example from electrical power plants or server farms) it can be quite sustainable.  Combined with improved insulation, in most climates, this waste heat can be enough to cover all heating needs.  Read up on [passive house](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house) for an extreme case.  Biomass burning is an alternative source for reasonably sustainable district heating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10018" RevisionGUID="c2d36faa-6048-4234-ae24-3c4dba59e303" CreationDate="2020-04-21T12:27:38.857" UserId="8645" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="For a college project, I'm looking to learn about direct electrical and biomass heating as a means of decarbonization of our college campus? Where can I learn about these? Searching for direct electrical heating seems to focus on subsea pipelines. Where can I learn more about them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My college is in Rochester, NY, in the states" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9999" RevisionGUID="ac03e2e9-a446-490a-b58c-030b72f93cd4" CreationDate="2020-04-21T13:41:13.150" UserId="3379" Comment="Tried to get to the point quicker." Text="In California, the real-time electricity prices routinely go negative. Here's pricing for the four load aggregation points for California on April 1, 2020 ([source](http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Real-TimeDailyMarketWatchApr01-2020.html)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CAISO real time prices on April 1, 2020][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is due to the large amount of solar energy on the grid, which causes a significant reduction in net load in the middle of the day. From the [CAISO Demand Outlook](http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx), here's the net load curve from April 1, 2020 (last week):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CAISO net demand trend, April 1, 2020][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially, the grid is over-supplied, so generators are paid to not add additional power to the grid. The end result is that a significant amount of wind and solar power that could be on the grid is curtailed. This amount is increasing over time ([source](http://www.caiso.com/informed/Pages/ManagingOversupply.aspx#dailyCurtailment)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![CAISO monthly wind and solar curtailment totals, 2014 to 2020][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This issue was identified back in 2013 in CAISO's infamous [duck curve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_curve). CAISO (the grid operator in California) projected that increasing renewable penetration would result in risk of **overgeneration** and **excessive ramping** that existing infrastructure could not handle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, **Does this work against investment in more renewables?** It appears as though California's grid is over-saturated with PV. Any new PV won't make money during the sunniest part of the day, and won't even be able to put power on the grid. Is this a preview of what may happen around the world? **Do renewables on the grid limit their own growth?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WKjjVl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fueJAl.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XQ4dZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HaJ84l.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10021" RevisionGUID="dfde84e8-50a1-4e27-a37a-147bce880328" CreationDate="2020-04-23T19:52:40.540" UserId="3379" Text="I'm currently working on a project with an organization that has four major goals for all of their facilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Reduced energy usage&#xD;&#xA; 2. Increased solar energy use&#xD;&#xA; 3. Reduced water consumption&#xD;&#xA; 4. Reduced landfill usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(They have specific measurable numbers for each, which aren't relevant to this question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These goals are used both when considering operations, as well as renovation and construction of buildings. When thinking about the design of new buildings, the strategies to accomplish the first three goals are straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the fourth goal? **Are there building design strategies which help occupants reduce waste?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The buildings in question are schools, but I'm interested in strategies for any building type." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10021" RevisionGUID="dfde84e8-50a1-4e27-a37a-147bce880328" CreationDate="2020-04-23T19:52:40.540" UserId="3379" Text="Are there building design strategies which lead to reduced waste by occupants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10021" RevisionGUID="dfde84e8-50a1-4e27-a37a-147bce880328" CreationDate="2020-04-23T19:52:40.540" UserId="3379" Text="|waste-minimisation|building|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10022" RevisionGUID="44e6ee15-c98f-4c63-addc-63fe2d7eeebe" CreationDate="2020-04-23T20:27:03.923" UserId="2345" Text="This question needs to consider waste management for two phases: construction/renovation and occupation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the construction phase the design should consider the materials used and how they are provided. For example, if rafters are needed, it might be cheaper to only use one length of lumber and then cut it up as required during construction of the rafters. Optimizing the length of lumber sourced, or having two or three sizes might enable less lumber wastage during construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just in time acquisition of materials could also help in reducing construction waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As afar as the occupiers of the buildings are concerned:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incorporating a waste management system comes to mind. I don't know if automated waste management systems exist, but something that would effectively separate waste into categories such as landfill, recycle, hydrocarbons and organic wastes. These waste streams could then be further separated into:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Recycling: metals, glass, paper, plastic type 1, ... plastic type *n*, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - Hydrocarbons: crayons, kitchen/cafeteria oils, oil paints&#xD;&#xA; - Organic waste: food or garden waste (plant cuttings)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the first thing you will need to do is obtain information on the types of waste that would be produced. If the client cannot provide it, ask nearby schools what types of what they generate, how much they generate and how they dispose of it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10021" RevisionGUID="5b257a78-3588-465d-8b06-1e58f8b02b80" CreationDate="2020-04-24T13:22:21.720" UserId="3379" Comment="More specific." Text="I'm currently working on a project with an organization that has four major goals for all of their facilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Reduced energy usage&#xD;&#xA; 2. Increased solar energy use&#xD;&#xA; 3. Reduced water consumption&#xD;&#xA; 4. Reduced landfill usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(They have specific measurable numbers for each, which aren't relevant to this question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These goals are used both when considering operations, as well as renovation and construction of buildings. When thinking about the *design* of new buildings, the strategies to accomplish the first three goals are straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the fourth goal? **What can be done during the design phase of a building that will help occupants reduce waste during the occupancy phase?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The buildings in question are schools, but I'm interested in strategies for any building type. I'm also assuming the design/construction teams have already implemented measures to reduce construction waste, and the building management team will implement good waste management practices. So how could the building design make their job easier/more successful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10024" RevisionGUID="35967926-0fba-4e8f-9284-e657cbd5f7b1" CreationDate="2020-04-24T16:17:47.377" UserId="6293" Text="Well, if there aren't solar panels on the roof then a metal roof-covering will reflect solar heat and make the building cooler on hot days. Then trees can keep the parking lot cool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metal roofing to reflect solar heat is available as a steel standing-seam roofing that has a granulated paint. Or a pebble-finish 304 metal-roofing will work just as well and not require paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, heating and air-conditioning can be reduced with ground-source heat-pump systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or hydrogen-fuel-cell systems can run off a natural-gas line and then the production of electricity also produces heat for winter use or for hot-water use or for kitchen use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reduced water usage then rainwater can be collected from the roof in elevated 304L tanks and used for toilet flushing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reduced land fill use requires drink dispensers in the cafeteria. Also consider replacing plastic bottles with twist-cap aluminum bottles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10021" RevisionGUID="c9978834-2203-4826-a351-baeeec24bf04" CreationDate="2020-04-24T16:19:18.677" UserId="3379" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="I'm currently working on a project with an organization that has four major goals for all of their facilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Reduced energy usage&#xD;&#xA; 2. Increased solar energy use&#xD;&#xA; 3. Reduced water consumption&#xD;&#xA; 4. Reduced landfill usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(They have specific measurable numbers for each, which aren't relevant to this question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These goals are used both when considering operations, as well as renovation and construction of buildings. When thinking about the *design* of new buildings, the strategies to accomplish the first three goals are straightforward.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the fourth goal? **What can be done during the design phase of a building that will help occupants reduce waste sent to landfills during the occupancy phase?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The buildings in question are schools, but I'm interested in strategies for any building type. I'm also assuming the design/construction teams have already implemented measures to reduce construction waste, and the building management team will implement good waste management practices. So how could the building design make their job easier/more successful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23694" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10021" RevisionGUID="c9978834-2203-4826-a351-baeeec24bf04" CreationDate="2020-04-24T16:19:18.677" UserId="3379" Comment="added 18 characters in body" Text="How can you design a building to reduce landfill usage by occupants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10025" RevisionGUID="77fe774b-be1e-4bd2-9c6d-b8925f1dcee3" CreationDate="2020-04-24T17:58:02.240" UserId="8013" Text="Since posting this I’ve discovered some relevant sources, so I’ll offer my own answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Allocation**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept of “allocation” is important in deciding how the footprint of a process, such as food production, should be distributed across many products. (e.g. see the report “[Product Carbon Footprinting][1]”). If a farm, for instance, is producing a combination of beef for human consumption, dairy products and meat for pet food, how do you decide how much of the carbon and methane emissions to allocate to each product?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no “right” answer to this. Here in the UK we apparently follow [PAS 2050][2], which recommends 3 steps: (1) differentiate between different processes as much as possible, (2) account for co-products using appropriate standard values if possible or (3) divide the footprint on the basis of economic value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources of Pet Food**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US Pet Food Institute has a detailed report on the [sources of pet food][3] in the US. The inputs from slaughtering and rendering listed in Table 7 show, for instance, that beef makes up around 11% of the animal products in pet food by weight and 37% by cost. There is also meat from other animals and a large fraction, by weight, is made up of  fat and “by-products”. The beef content is priced at $5/kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pet owners may want to skip some of the detail here. Some websites suggest that the rendered remains of dead pets is included, but this appears to be a myth (e.g. [snopes][4]) . The [UK regulations][5] indicate what is allowed, and the list includes, for instance, meat which is fit for human consumption but of no commercial value (by which I assume they mean “no commercial value in the production of food for human consumption”, because the stuff is clearly being sold to pet food producers).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Prices for the Consumer.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite the unappetising ingredients, pet food is not substantially cheaper than much of the meat provided for human consumption. I have not done a detailed check on prices, but a spot check on the product range of a major UK supermarket showed that tinned cat food and beef burgers both cost about £2.50 per kg. The top range meat for humans is, however, much more expensive at around £20 per kg for steak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What is in a carcass**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An [article from Drovers.com][6] gives an idea of what can be made from the carcass of a beef cow. In 2011, a carcass in the US sold for about $190 per hundredweight, which works out as $4.20 per kg then, of which about 70% is meat. Since meat makes up virtually all the commercial value, this works out at an average of $6/kg for meat. Adjusting for inflation, that gives about $7/kg at 2020 prices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About half the meat in a beef carcass is high value meat, and half low value, and the high value cuts retail at around 3 times the price of low value cuts (based on an unscientific survey of supermarket prices). In this breakdown, the value of the non-meat parts of the carcass is not considered worth mentioning.This means that 75% of the value comes from 50% of the meat, or, if we go for cost based allocation of the footprint, the footprint per kg of the low value meat is 50% of the average (half the weight producing a quarter of the value) and the high value meat is 150% of the average. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The US produces about 12.7 millions tonnes of beef carcass per year. Around 400 thousand tonnes (3.1%) of this goes into pet food, of which close to 50% is fat and by-products[ \[Statista\]][7]. This is consistent with the Pet Food Institute report cited above, which give 240 thousand tonnes as the weight of beef meat going into pet food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Review**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Statista results in the previous section show clearly that the amount of meat going into pet foods is a tiny fraction of the amount of meat going into the human food chain. This is at odds with the claim, in “[Environmental impacts of food consumption by dogs and cats][8]” by Gregory S. Okin, that pet food in the US is taking up something like 30% of the output from meat production. Okin admits that there is significant uncertainty in his calculation due to the approach based on taking the ratio of human and pet protein intakes which are based on a complex range of assumptions. The much lower figure given by [Statista][9] appears to be based on more direct information, though getting full details requires payment of a hefty fee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is clear that animal by-products make up a substantial fraction of pet food. This is material which does not contribute significantly to the commercial value of the carcass, and hence, if we take the commercial value approach to allocation, should not be assigned a significant portion of the footprint associated with the production of the carcass. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The actual meat in pet food also contains meat of “no commercial value”, which may have been damaged. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three sets of prices discussed above: prices to the consumer, prices paid by the pet food industry to rendering plants and slaughterhouses, and prices received by farmers. These are not directly comparable, and I have not been able to get a set of consistent and complete figures in any one area. &#xD;&#xA;We can get a rough estimate by observing that about 15% of the animal input to pet food is meat from ruminants (11% from cows, 4% from sheep). [FAO][10] give 300kg of CO2e per kg of beef protein, or 100kg of CO2e per kg of beef and about half that for sheep. The low value component of this meat that goes for human consumption has an impact which is, based on allocation by price, about half this: 50kg of CO2e per kg for beef and 25 kg CO2e per kg of sheep meat. Since pet food is made up of products which don’t reach the requirements of the low value market, there should be a further reduction based on price based allocation. Unfortunately, this is where my search for reliable numbers failed. Since the answer is surely a number between zero and one, I will guess at 50%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chicken and turkey meat has only one third of the carbon footprint of beef, but makes up a larger portion of pet food, at around 44%. Taking into account the percentages above, we get 6.9 kg CO2e per kg of meat based pet food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two pets in our household get through about 44kg of meat ingredients in pet food (their diet contains a small amount of vegetable products), which implies an annual 300kg CO2e footprint. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/smgp/pdf/Product_Carbon_Footprint_study.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://shop.bsigroup.com/en/forms/PASs/PAS-2050&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.petfoodinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/20200310-Pet-Food-Report-FINAL.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pets-in-pet-food/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/using-animal-by-products-to-make-pet-food&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.drovers.com/article/breaking-down-carcass-value&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/263990/leading-beef-producers-around-the-world-since-2007/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181301&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statista&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10026" RevisionGUID="e34c6d75-8098-494d-906e-a15bd71aef8c" CreationDate="2020-04-25T14:52:07.273" UserId="99" Text="AFAIK not yet, at least not any that are open to a large audience, but with so many pilot projects on-going it's only a matter of time. Basically there are 3 things that make V2G hard / expensive to do right now:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The limited amount of electric vehicles on the market (that support bi-directional charging)&#xD;&#xA; 2. Keeping track of returned energy &#xD;&#xA; 3. Providing enough financial compensation to make it interesting for battery owners&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past people were worried that the extra stress on the batteries from bi-directional loading would reduce the battery lifespan too much, but even with even with bi-directional loading battery lifespan has increased to 30 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most promising large-scale project I've seen so far is mentioned in [this recent Dutch news article (link to Google Translate)](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&amp;sl=nl&amp;tl=en&amp;u=https%3A%2F%2Fnos.nl%2Fartikel%2F2331431-je-kunt-straks-geld-verdienen-met-je-elektrische-auto.html) where 3 national transmission system operators (Tennet in The Netherlands and part of Germany, SwissGrid in Switzerland and Terna in Italy) announced the introduction of a new platform called [Equiqy](https://equigy.com/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The goal of Equigy is to make the entire European electricity grid more flexible.&#xD;&#xA;It allows everyone with an electric car or home battery to supply energy when little (renewable) energy is available on the grid. Participants can indicate in an app how much of their battery capacity may be used. The platform itself is open-source and uses private blockchain technology to keep track of how much energy people provide and to make sure people are compensated accordingly. Besides a car or home battery, the only other requirement is that people have a smart electricity meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell the platform is not used by any private battery owners just yet, only by a few large power plants. A problem here is that not all electric cars can already deliver energy back to the grid yet. The [CHAdeMO charging system](https://www.chademo.com/technology/technology-overview/) used by Nissan and Mitsubishi can already do bi-directional charging, but the CCS charging system that's popular in Europe [will not provide it until 2025](https://www.electrive.com/2019/01/24/charin-bidirectional-charging-with-ccs-standard-by-2025/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the mean time the Dutch TSO Tennet is busy with different pilot projects; one is with [BMW to start supporting bi-directional charging](https://www.electrive.com/2019/11/08/bmw-dlr-project-for-bidirectional-charging-gets-green-light/), the second is with [Nissan and Envision](https://envision-digital.com/europe/nissan-tennet-and-envision-contribute-to-more-sustainable-energy-and-mobility-with-crowd-balancing-platform/) where the Nissan facility in Amsterdam  uses 3MW of solar panels to charge electric vehicles and stationary batteries and deliver energy back when demand is peaking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23699" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10027" RevisionGUID="6f9f096f-a0e5-413c-8bcc-37938982be87" CreationDate="2020-04-26T08:51:46.257" UserId="1581" Text="These are just simple means:&#xA;&#xA;- Place water dispensers that replace the usage of canned and bottled beverages&#xA;- place recycling bins near the front entrance, nudging occupants into using them&#xA;- provide space for composting organic waste&#xA;&#xA;This list is probably not complete, feel free to add" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23702" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10021" RevisionGUID="16efc247-3fad-497c-82e6-62fa173ec9f1" CreationDate="2020-04-26T15:15:38.000" UserId="3379" Comment="added 178 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm currently working on a project with an organization that has four major goals for all of their facilities:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Reduced energy usage&#xD;&#xA; 2. Increased solar energy use&#xD;&#xA; 3. Reduced water consumption&#xD;&#xA; 4. Reduced landfill usage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(They have specific measurable numbers for each, which aren't relevant to this question.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When thinking about the *design* of new buildings, the strategies to accomplish the first three goals are straightforward -- efficient heating/cooling systems, solar panels on the roof, low flow faucets, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the fourth goal? **What can be done during the *design* phase of a building that will help occupants reduce waste sent to landfills during the occupancy phase?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm *only* looking for strategies that an architect or engineer would place on design drawings or specifications that affect how a building is built.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some design strategies (such as material choices) that can reduce waste during construction -- that's not what I'm interested in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The buildings in question are schools, but I'm interested in strategies for any building type. I'm also assuming the building management team will implement good waste management practices. So how could the building design make their job easier/more successful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23703" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10021" RevisionGUID="16efc247-3fad-497c-82e6-62fa173ec9f1" CreationDate="2020-04-26T15:15:38.000" UserId="3379" Comment="added 178 characters in body; edited title" Text="How can an architect design a building to reduce landfill usage by occupants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10029" RevisionGUID="48212d19-8f3a-4e4d-81eb-5c3138ef6fc4" CreationDate="2020-04-26T20:04:43.900" UserId="5227" Text="Europe produces bananas. The come from Spain, in particular The Canary Islands and the fruit is called [Platanos][1] (which is Banana in Spanish). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can identify them because they use this [stiker][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pl%C3%A1tanos_de_Canarias.JPG&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://colnect.com/en/fruit_stickers/fruit_sticker/7486-Platano_de_Canarias-Spain" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10030" RevisionGUID="8e0a8d67-a659-4fd9-9112-9f416026268a" CreationDate="2020-04-26T20:20:20.020" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; Does this work against investment in more renewables?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it does. (I disagree with the other upvoted answer.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do renewables on the grid limit their own growth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, they limit their own growth, as they should. We don't need excessive amount of anything. This includes renewables. If the average person consumes directly and indirectly 30000 kWh of electricity per year, why would we need 90000 kWh of electricity per year per person created by solar panels? We don't. Thus, there &lt;i&gt;needs&lt;/i&gt; to be a limiting mechanism, something that will limit the rate at which solar panels are installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each and every power generation method has its own place. Nuclear, solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, power-to-gas-to-power-again, batteries. All of them should be installed in the most efficient amounts. The pricing mechanism ensures this will happen in a free marketplace. (Well, today, carbon dioxide emissions have a ridiculously low price. I think carbon dioxide tonne should cost 500 EUR, but it costs only 25 EUR. This has resulted in excessive fossil fuel fired capacity.)&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;This limiting mechanism works a follows: each power plant sees a different price of electricity because they create energy at different times (except nuclear which creates energy always sans maintenance breaks). If this seen price of electricity is larger than the cost of installing said power plant types, more of such power plants will be built.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example: if there is too little existing onshore wind power, an onshore wind power plant could see a price of electricity of 50 USD / MWh. However, to construct and operate an onshore wind power plant, 40 USD / MWh is enough. This results in larger new installation share of said onshore wind power plant types. The installation continues, gradually pushing down the price a wind power plant sees. At some point of time, a newly installed wind power plant sees a price of electricity of 40 USD / MWh only. It takes 40 USD / MWh to operate such a plant. Thus, no more plants will be built. (This is a simplification, in reality there are more suitable sites for wind turbines and less suitable sites for wind turbines; wind resources are not equally distributed.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a high renewables penetration scenario, most of the profit of wind and solar is created at times when there is not enough wind and solar available. At times when there is plentiful wind and solar available and we do not have use for all of it, energy price is zero (as it should be), or very slightly negative to incentivize turning off excess plants. When there is enough wind and solar for all direct uses, but not enough for all indirect uses, the indirect technologies (water electrolysis, battery charging) force the price of energy to a low nonzero value. Because the value is low, not much profit is created.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When there is absolutely zero wind and solar, obviously wind and solar plants won't generate any revenue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves the hours where there is little wind and solar available, not enough for even all direct uses. In those times, batteries are discharged and fuel cell / internal combustion engine / turbine plants burn hydrogen or synthetic methane to energy. The price of energy is extremely high, because the fuel cell / internal combustion engine / turbine owners need to be paid for installing the little-used capacity that will have a low capacity factor. At those times, when wind and solar is scarce, wind and solar create most of their profits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10031" RevisionGUID="8137c61c-d030-46c7-9dd9-0c4a6f71d041" CreationDate="2020-04-26T20:33:08.727" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;For a college project, I'm looking to learn about direct electrical and biomass heating as a means of decarbonization of our college campus? Where can I learn about these? Searching for direct electrical heating seems to focus on subsea pipelines. Where can I learn more about them?&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Direct electrical heating probably refers to electric resistance heating. It's not the most efficient type of electrical heating available. Heat pumps win, they have a coefficient of performance of over one (COP &gt; 1, values from 3 to 4 are typical depending on the grade of the heat source), whereas direct electrical heating has exactly COP = 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefits of direct electrical heating is that it's cheap to install and it does not require a heat source other than electricity. Heat pumps always require electricity AND a heat source such as a geothermal well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a fuel-fired power plant has an efficiency of typically 30..50% depending on the type of technology (coal, biomass, liquid fuel, gas). Let us assume biomass here which should have an efficiency of around 30% typically. In direct electrical heating, 10 units of biomass create 3 units of electricity, that create 3 units of heat in electric resistance heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What if you could burn the biomass directly in the building? Then you can from 10 units of biomass create perhaps 9 units of heat, the 1 remaining unit escaping with flue gases. Much more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what if you could use geothermal heat pumps? A geothermal heat pump has a coefficient of performance of perhaps 4, so 10 units of biomass create 3 units of electricity that create 12 units of heat from a geothermal well. The geothermal well supplies 9 units of heat and the electricity supplies the remaining 3 units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much more efficient that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the geothermal well needs to be drilled which is expensive. In contrast, a biomass boiler is cheaper, and resistance heaters are even cheaper than that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, as a hint: biomass is not sustainable. All of it is already maximally utilized today. To divert biomass to one use, it must come from some other use being reduced. Biomass is a zero-sum game. Not only that, but if we start to burn biomass en masse, faster than it grows, it will still result in a net flow of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd focus on heat pumps therefore. They can use wind power. They can use solar power. They can use electricity produced from gas. They are very efficient, multiple times more efficient than direct electric heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could also focus on the little-understood demand side too. Energy saving equals energy production. Or actually, energy saved is better than energy produced, because all energy production methods have drawbacks. If the heating energy need could be reduced by more efficient ventilation systems, better windows, perhaps more thermal insulators, reduced hot water use, reduced hot water temperature (better COP for heat pumps), etc. then harmful effects of energy creation could be reduced at the same time too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23708" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10032" RevisionGUID="3f355743-b0ca-4aec-91a1-2e1323e3223c" CreationDate="2020-04-26T20:44:19.753" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; The obvious example here is planting trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, planting a tree is not a good example of carbon capture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are not one but two flaws in it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Firstly, if you don't plant a tree in some place, and the place could support the growth of a tree, then a tree will actually naturally appear in this very location! Trees, like all other species, are efficient in reproducing. Forest grows without being planted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Secondly, what will you do when the tree reaches an old age? Many ecofascists think it should be left there so you don't chop it down. Unfortunately, when the tree is large, it will not anymore act as an efficient carbon sink. The carbon sink stage is during the fastest growth stage. When it is fully grown, the carbon flows are in balance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to capture carbon, you should not plant trees but &lt;b&gt;chop down and bury&lt;/b&gt; trees into anaerobic conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you chop down trees, you create room for more forest to grow. In the fast growth stage, the forest will act as a very efficient carbon sink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That leaves the problem of the fact that the chopped down trees will naturally decompose, releasing the carbon back to the atmosphere. To prevent this, you need to make something that is long-lasting from it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One obvious choice would be constructing a wooden house. However, someone will move to the house, start to consume heating energy, etc. so it is not really sustainable business to construct houses for people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The pulp and paper industries will happily accept each and every tree you chop down. However, their products like toilet paper will store the carbon only for very short periods, releasing it back to the atmosphere very quickly. Not acceptable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the chopped tree should be ideally stored in anaerobic conditions so that it will not decompose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solution: dig a large hole to the ground and store the chopped trees there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not my invention. &lt;a href=&quot;https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1&quot;&gt;Apparently someone else has discovered it too.&lt;/a&gt; Even tried to patent it, &lt;a href=&quot;https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100145716A1/en&quot;&gt;unsuccessfully&lt;/a&gt;!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="f0c43aab-90b8-48f2-87de-327642b99b17" CreationDate="2020-04-27T13:32:51.403" UserId="2826" Comment="Fixing a typo and a few very minor things to get my character count up" Text="The point of compostable plastics is that they can be processed in the same way as the rest of the garbage stream they are mixed in with.       &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a fast food outlet uses 100% compostable packing and cups, etc, then they can compost everything in their bins without having to separate.   The process start off with a fine shredding and mixing of everything, so if the plastic is still only 50% composted at the end of the process, it will keep breaking down when the compost is used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example is by giving out compostable plastic bags so as to make it more likely that people will put their food garbage in the compostable collection bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some areas they are now composting all garbage that cannot be separated to reduce its size before the compost gets dumped – the &quot;compost&quot; that is produced is only good for landfill, but at least it takes up a lot less landfill than the uncomposted garbage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Also when compostable plastic gets into the environment, at least it does not remain there for tens of thousands of years.**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23710" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2610" RevisionGUID="f0c43aab-90b8-48f2-87de-327642b99b17" CreationDate="2020-04-27T13:32:51.403" Comment="Proposed by 2826 approved by 99 edit id of 635" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10020" RevisionGUID="664933ae-22d0-49d0-8808-c7f559e0f3fc" CreationDate="2020-04-28T07:11:33.720" UserId="106" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="There are three forms of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation.  Physically, there is no such thing as &quot;direct electrical heating&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most &quot;direct&quot; way to convert electricity into heat is by running a current through a resistance.  The resistance will heat up.  This heat can be used to heat water or another carrier for a domestic convection (free or forced)-based heating system or for radiative heaters such as heat lamps.  Electricity can also power a [heat pump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump), which might be less direct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look up on [electric heating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_heating) on Wikipedia, which gives a reasonably good overview of all the forms of electric heating and provides sources for further reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consider how sustainable each of those alternatives is, you need to consider how the electricity is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an entirely different approach for heating a campus, consider [district heating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating).  If district heating is sourced by waste heat (for example from electrical power plants or server farms) it can be quite sustainable.  Combined with improved insulation, in most climates, this waste heat can be enough to cover all heating needs.  Read up on [passive house](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house) for an extreme case.  Biomass burning is an alternative source for reasonably sustainable district heating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10033" RevisionGUID="33748600-b2b3-4ba0-87e3-ba57b402ba19" CreationDate="2020-04-28T07:40:23.983" UserId="8603" Text="I would like to help the owners of a pub (based in Milan, Italy) to decrease the environmental impact of the waste they produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intent is to make them buy the same food content (especially drinks) by choosing the products with the most sustainable packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they gave me the list of products they buy, with some alternatives for each food content type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    packaging	content		    recycling simbol	volume (l)&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		tonic water		triangle PETE 1		0.10&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		lemon soda		triangle PETE 2		0.10&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		coca cola		triangle PETE 3		0.20&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		coca cola		triangle PETE 4		0.15&#xD;&#xA;    lattina		fanta		    Exagon ALU		    0.033&#xD;&#xA;    lattina		coca cola		Trangle ALU 41		0.034&#xD;&#xA;    lattina		lemon soda		Exagon ALU		    0.035&#xD;&#xA;    lattina		chinotto		circle ALU		    0.036&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this data, how could I set up the analysis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the best way to estimate what is the impact of a packaging on the recycling system of my town, and on  the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10033" RevisionGUID="33748600-b2b3-4ba0-87e3-ba57b402ba19" CreationDate="2020-04-28T07:40:23.983" UserId="8603" Text="How to reduce wnvironmental impact of food package waste based on waste packaging, content, recycling simbol and volume" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10033" RevisionGUID="33748600-b2b3-4ba0-87e3-ba57b402ba19" CreationDate="2020-04-28T07:40:23.983" UserId="8603" Text="|waste|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10033" RevisionGUID="c631faa2-b319-409c-b237-d060e05f936f" CreationDate="2020-04-28T07:48:12.823" UserId="8603" Comment="edited body" Text="I would like to help the owners of a pub (based in Milan, Italy) to decrease the environmental impact of the waste they produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intent is to make them buy the same food content (especially drinks) by choosing the products with the most sustainable packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;they gave me the list of products they buy, with some alternatives for each food content type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    packaging	content		    recycling simbol	volume (l)&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		tonic water		triangle PETE 1		0.10&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		lemon soda		triangle PETE 2		0.10&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		coca cola		triangle PETE 3		0.20&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		coca cola		triangle PETE 4		0.15&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    fanta		    Exagon ALU		    0.033&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    coca cola		Trangle ALU 41		0.034&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    lemon soda		Exagon ALU		    0.035&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    chinotto		circle ALU		    0.036&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this data, how could I set up the analysis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the best way to estimate what is the impact of a packaging on the recycling system of my town, and on  the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23716" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10033" RevisionGUID="abf75127-be2a-4ed3-a23c-21a0987164fb" CreationDate="2020-04-28T14:10:36.450" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, improved question title" Text="I would like to help the owners of a pub (based in Milan, Italy) to decrease the environmental impact of the waste they produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intent is to make them buy the same food content (especially drinks) by choosing the products with the most sustainable packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They gave me the list of products they buy, with some alternatives for each food content type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    packaging	content		    recycling symbol	volume (l)&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		tonic water		triangle PETE 1		0.10&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		lemon soda		triangle PETE 2		0.10&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		coca cola		triangle PETE 3		0.20&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		coca cola		triangle PETE 4		0.15&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    fanta		    Exagon ALU		    0.033&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    coca cola		Trangle ALU 41		0.034&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    lemon soda		Exagon ALU		    0.035&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    chinotto		circle ALU		    0.036&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this data, how could I set up the analysis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the best way to estimate what is the impact of a packaging on the recycling system of my town, and on the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23717" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10033" RevisionGUID="abf75127-be2a-4ed3-a23c-21a0987164fb" CreationDate="2020-04-28T14:10:36.450" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, improved question title" Text="How to reduce the environmental impact of drinks containers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23718" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10033" RevisionGUID="abf75127-be2a-4ed3-a23c-21a0987164fb" CreationDate="2020-04-28T14:10:36.450" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos, improved question title" Text="|environmental-impact|waste|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23719" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8445" RevisionGUID="ef76ec8d-47fb-4d95-9af5-4d0d8a62bf40" CreationDate="2020-04-29T00:05:10.597" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10020" RevisionGUID="37bdf0b8-baf1-49a0-8dbe-886ba81697f4" CreationDate="2020-04-29T09:20:07.963" UserId="106" Comment="added 21 characters in body" Text="There are three forms of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation.  Physically, there is no such thing as &quot;direct electrical heating&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most &quot;direct&quot; way to convert electricity into heat is by running a current through a resistance.  The resistance will heat up.  This heat can be used to heat water or another carrier for a domestic convection (free or forced)-based heating system or for radiative heaters such as heat lamps.  Electricity can also power a [heat pump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump), which might be less &quot;direct&quot; but more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look up on [electric heating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_heating) on Wikipedia, which gives a reasonably good overview of all the forms of electric heating and provides sources for further reading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to consider how sustainable each of those alternatives is, you need to consider how the electricity is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an entirely different approach for heating a campus, consider [district heating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating).  If district heating is sourced by waste heat (for example from electrical power plants or server farms) it can be quite sustainable.  Combined with improved insulation, in most climates, this waste heat can be enough to cover all heating needs.  Read up on [passive house](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house) for an extreme case.  Biomass burning is an alternative source for reasonably sustainable district heating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10033" RevisionGUID="60bc7bd8-ae66-4dc8-927f-179d58b434ba" CreationDate="2020-04-29T15:29:39.263" UserId="8603" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="I would like to help the owners of a pub (based in Milan, Italy) to decrease the environmental impact of the waste they produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intent is to make them buy the same food content (especially drinks) by choosing the products with the most sustainable packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They gave me the list of products they buy, with some alternatives for each food content type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    packaging	content		    recycling symbol	volume (l)&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		tonic water		triangle PETE 1		1.0&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		lemon soda		triangle PETE 1		1.0&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		coca cola		triangle PETE 1		2.0&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		coca cola		triangle PETE 1		1.5&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    fanta		    exagon ALU		    0.33&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    coca cola		triangle ALU 41		0.33&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    lemon soda		exagon ALU		    0.33&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    chinotto		circle ALU		    0.33&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this data, how could I set up the analysis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the best way to estimate what is the impact of a packaging on the recycling system of my town, and on the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10033" RevisionGUID="791e0170-d56c-42f5-9ff4-fdd04bc77ac3" CreationDate="2020-04-29T15:35:25.250" UserId="8603" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="I would like to help the owners of a pub (based in Milan, Italy) to decrease the environmental impact of the waste they produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intent is to make them buy the same food content (especially drinks) by choosing the products with the most sustainable packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They gave me the list of products they buy, with some alternatives for each food content type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    packaging	content		    recycling symbol	volume (l)&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		tonic water		triangle PETE 1		1.0&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		lemon soda		triangle PETE 1		1.0&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		coca cola		triangle PETE 1		2.0&#xD;&#xA;    bottle		coca cola		triangle PETE 1		1.5&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    fanta		    exagon ALU		    0.33&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    coca cola		triangle ALU 41		0.33&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    lemon soda		exagon ALU		    0.33&#xD;&#xA;    tin		    chinotto		circle ALU		    0.33&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this data, how could I set up the analysis?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the best way to estimate what is the impact of a packaging on the recycling system of my town, and on the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I use openLCA or is there a quicker and yet not too much proximate way to do the analysis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10034" RevisionGUID="65e1eb7e-5fd7-41e4-a4a3-e5d55b3c2c30" CreationDate="2020-04-29T18:13:49.373" UserId="8675" Text="I have a house with a solar array on top currently tied to the grid.  I would love to be able to use an EV as a battery for my house, and after it charges up in the day be nice to use it for the little driving I do (less than 50 miles a day).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is there a car that can be used as a battery legally?  If so, what parts do I need to buy and basic steps to do this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10034" RevisionGUID="65e1eb7e-5fd7-41e4-a4a3-e5d55b3c2c30" CreationDate="2020-04-29T18:13:49.373" UserId="8675" Text="Any EV Car that can be used as a home energy storage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10034" RevisionGUID="65e1eb7e-5fd7-41e4-a4a3-e5d55b3c2c30" CreationDate="2020-04-29T18:13:49.373" UserId="8675" Text="|solar-power|home|batteries|battery-charging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23726" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10034" RevisionGUID="88640940-f644-443f-b89b-df7251f87db5" CreationDate="2020-04-29T21:49:40.683" UserId="3379" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I have a house with a solar array on top currently tied to the grid.  I would love to be able to use an EV as a battery for my house, and after it charges up in the day be nice to use it for the little driving I do (less than 50 miles / 80 km a day).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question: Is there a car that can be used as a battery legally in this way?  If so, what parts do I need to buy and basic steps to do this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23727" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10034" RevisionGUID="88640940-f644-443f-b89b-df7251f87db5" CreationDate="2020-04-29T21:49:40.683" UserId="3379" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Any electric vehicle that can be used as a home energy storage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23728" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10034" RevisionGUID="88640940-f644-443f-b89b-df7251f87db5" CreationDate="2020-04-29T21:49:40.683" UserId="3379" Comment="added 21 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|solar-power|home|batteries|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10035" RevisionGUID="4cf3f1c1-1f7e-44bd-95f8-20e28029f542" CreationDate="2020-05-01T08:50:53.050" UserId="2846" Text="Have they considered [post-mix soda/coke](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premix_and_postmix) served in a glass? There's a significant up-front investment but in the long term it should pay for itself, but only if they sell a fair bit. I don't know how common this is in Italy, but it's the norm for pubs here in the UK. Pubs here do stock cans/bottles of less common soft drinks, as well as juices, but this would save a lot of packaging and disposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dispensed premix is another option for smaller volumes, but I'm not familiar with it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23730" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10036" RevisionGUID="8728f5b0-2c62-495b-b110-6490c1e8fc61" CreationDate="2020-05-01T09:52:56.890" UserId="99" Text="You would need an EV that supports bi-directional loading, so that means one that uses the [CHAdeMO charging system](https://www.chademo.com/technology/technology-overview/) of Nissan and Mitsubishi. The CCS charging system that's popular in Europe and the US [will not support bi-directional charging until 2025](https://www.electrive.com/2019/01/24/charin-bidirectional-charging-with-ccs-standard-by-2025/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this Wired article](https://www.wired.com/story/no-you-cant-power-your-house-with-your-electric-car/) you also need:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - a switch to temporarily switch your house off the grid&#xD;&#xA; - an inverter to convert DC current from the battery to AC&#xD;&#xA; - a control system/software to instruct the car when to discharge and when to load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether it is legal, that depends on local regulations, but probably not without   permission from the local authorities and/or power company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In any case this is not something to DIY. If you really want this, either wait 5-10 years or see if you can join a pilot project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23732" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10034" RevisionGUID="26f381a1-61e0-4ef5-81d5-db5b1c030a33" CreationDate="2020-05-02T09:00:02.753" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1256508739013824512" />
  <row Id="23733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="8b2976a5-a32d-45f6-8508-83122e603856" CreationDate="2020-05-02T19:46:19.987" UserId="6870" Text="1. Can a [parabolic reflector-type solar cooker][1] reliably boil water? If so, what major factors determine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - how much/how intense sunlight is required to do this&#xD;&#xA; - how much water can be boiled&#xD;&#xA; - how long the process takes&#xD;&#xA; - what should be kept in mind to obtain good results?&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;Do any other &quot;passive&quot; solar devices exist that can boil water effectively?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there any good way to safely boil water using a (small) [solar hot water system][2]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To anyone reading this, I should emphasize that that boiling water does not necessarily make it safe to drink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cooker#Parabolic_reflectors&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_water_heating" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23734" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="8b2976a5-a32d-45f6-8508-83122e603856" CreationDate="2020-05-02T19:46:19.987" UserId="6870" Text="When/where is it feasible to use a solar cooker to boil water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23735" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="8b2976a5-a32d-45f6-8508-83122e603856" CreationDate="2020-05-02T19:46:19.987" UserId="6870" Text="|water-heating|cooking|solar-thermal|safety|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23736" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10018" RevisionGUID="05937323-2e3f-451d-82f1-3119f8840203" CreationDate="2020-05-02T21:00:11.063" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1256689967612530688" />
  <row Id="23737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10038" RevisionGUID="d482aa09-4e68-4715-8bc4-3c669d78bdba" CreationDate="2020-05-02T21:14:03.053" UserId="5477" Text="Just a matter of money; you can boil all the water you want with enough focusing solar collectors . There is an installation ( maybe more) in AZ (?) that melts metal with this method. Reliable,good ,safe, small ,etc are all a matter of judgement." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23738" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="f868c168-969f-4f40-b256-fdbc5797ad02" CreationDate="2020-05-02T21:31:27.880" UserId="6870" Comment="Make it more specific what size of system and conditions I'm looking for" Text="1. Can a [parabolic reflector-type solar cooker][1] of reliably boil water? If so, what major factors determine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - how much/how intense sunlight is required to do this&#xD;&#xA; - how much water can be boiled&#xD;&#xA; - how long the process takes&#xD;&#xA; - what should be kept in mind to obtain good results?&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;Do any other &quot;passive&quot; solar devices exist that can boil water effectively?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there any good way to safely boil water using a (small) [solar hot water system][2]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly interested in systems of a size that is normally marketed to individual consumers (in the case of solar hot water systems, to systems on the very small end of those available). I'm interested in a range of conditions, but the &quot;base case&quot; I have in mind is a moderately sunny winter day in the United States, around 40 degrees north latitude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To anyone reading this, I should emphasize that that boiling water does not necessarily make it safe to drink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cooker#Parabolic_reflectors&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_water_heating" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23743" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="0228554a-fa43-4b35-ac74-13e36797f0b4" CreationDate="2020-05-04T10:01:00.057" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23744" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="cba45214-e13f-4715-a654-b83f979eee71" CreationDate="2020-05-04T11:05:55.657" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10040" RevisionGUID="72de04a9-fd69-4d1d-9b91-a2e56f2517d8" CreationDate="2020-05-04T22:08:04.037" UserId="8448" Text="Humans currently consume the ecological resources of 1.75 Earths (https://www.footprintnetwork.org/).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that global average consumption remains stable (less in the global North and more in the global South) this would imply that the human population would have to be 43% lower and that a fertility rate of 2.1 is unsustainable. But at the same time fertility rates under 1.0 seem to lead to socio-economic dislocations including potentially unsustainable dependency ratios as larger older generations have to be supported by smaller younger generations. Which fertility rate would allow the human population to adjust to Earth's carrying capacity as soon as possible while minimising socio-economic dislocations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23746" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10040" RevisionGUID="72de04a9-fd69-4d1d-9b91-a2e56f2517d8" CreationDate="2020-05-04T22:08:04.037" UserId="8448" Text="Which global fertility rate would allow the human population to adjust to Earth's carrying capacity while maintaining an acceptable dependency ratio?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23747" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10040" RevisionGUID="72de04a9-fd69-4d1d-9b91-a2e56f2517d8" CreationDate="2020-05-04T22:08:04.037" UserId="8448" Text="|ecological-footprint|population|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10041" RevisionGUID="69a6e804-4b09-4f75-beed-a0d358e3e6cd" CreationDate="2020-05-05T20:26:29.837" UserId="8683" Text="Tins ultimately are more sustainable than any soft plastic packaging not only from a recycling point of view but even otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;They can be reused safely and for longer periods of time.&#xD;&#xA;In fact the only time you will need to throw away a tin is when it is accidentally crushed beyond a certain point where it cannot be restored to the previous shape and that too is just a point of aesthetics unless of course there are holes in your tin which is the only case which can be justified as a practical reason to throw them away and &#xD;&#xA;if you will, that too can be solved by applying a small amount of tin metal on the hole to cover it up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10042" RevisionGUID="65831880-3d1e-4c1c-b9ba-a0641ad26b00" CreationDate="2020-05-05T20:40:57.043" UserId="8683" Text="Sustainability is all about going local. Instead of trying to find a fruit similar to a banana you might as well look around you and observe what fruits are available around you that are not imported, and I am sure that you will find plenty of them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23750" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10043" RevisionGUID="7e41e35a-07cd-4c41-a220-48ce6488e07d" CreationDate="2020-05-05T20:54:20.247" UserId="8683" Text="Coming from a sustainability point of view, Reuse is always better than Recycling except for plastics as they are better recycled than reused.&#xD;&#xA;Here the glass bottles can be used several times before recycling, in fact they can be used and reused indefinitely if they are not broken and are completely natural.&#xD;&#xA;This makes it better than both cardboard and plastic for storing any liquids." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10044" RevisionGUID="4d45148d-2830-480b-9f9b-6f03690065fa" CreationDate="2020-05-05T21:03:20.020" UserId="8683" Text="A TetraPak is unlike the simple tin can, a complex combination of materials which need to be separated before recycling making it very hard or impossible to recycle.&#xD;&#xA;A TetraPak cannot even be reused as many times as a tin can.&#xD;&#xA;Now if it is near impossible to safely Reuse or Recycle anything, the remaining option is obviously to reduce the usage of it.&#xD;&#xA;We can also stretch the word &quot;reduce&quot; to mean &quot;eliminate&quot; in this context." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10045" RevisionGUID="b1e772dc-6989-4bb8-ad8a-781001d9f1bf" CreationDate="2020-05-06T13:03:20.267" UserId="8686" Text="Here is a situation I often find myself in. I’m in a park (trees, grass, etc), I’m feeding a fruit to my kid. &#xD;&#xA;At the end when I’m left with the peel (or seed or whatever is the waste), I look at the trash can, but decide instead to leave it on the ground. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’m doing it discreetly because I feel like I’m doing something wrong (littering a public place), but somehow it feels more right to let it rot on the ground instead of the trash can. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it make sense? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23753" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10045" RevisionGUID="b1e772dc-6989-4bb8-ad8a-781001d9f1bf" CreationDate="2020-05-06T13:03:20.267" UserId="8686" Text="Throwing organic waste on the ground" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23754" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10045" RevisionGUID="b1e772dc-6989-4bb8-ad8a-781001d9f1bf" CreationDate="2020-05-06T13:03:20.267" UserId="8686" Text="|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9691" RevisionGUID="57a34d3b-60ce-46b9-81d7-262b25f1e403" CreationDate="2020-05-06T13:31:12.390" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed table -- heading said % but values were fractions." Text="## The source of methane -- degradable organic carbon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 2006 report by the IPCC, [Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5 -- Waste](https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol5.html), includes six different categories of landfilled waste which contain **degradable organic carbon (DOC)**. Under anaerobic conditions, the DOC in these materials ultimately decomposes into carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). The eight categories are listed below, with the fraction (by weight) of DOC generally in each. Finally, I included the percent of landfill material that each category constitutes in North America (chosen since you reference California in the question -- data for other regions is available [in the spreadsheet tool](https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/IPCC_Waste_Model.xls)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    CATEGORY             % DOC    % LANDFILL COMPOSITION&#xD;&#xA;    -----------         ------    ----------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Food waste            15               34&#xD;&#xA;    Garden                20                0&#xD;&#xA;    Paper                 40               23&#xD;&#xA;    Wood and straw        43                6&#xD;&#xA;    Natural textiles      24                4&#xD;&#xA;    Disposable nappies    24                0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Some garden waste is included with food waste. Nappies (diapers) have a value of 0 for all regions -- I'm not really sure why they aren't included, or what assumptions are made that allow them to be excluded here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these assumptions, **food waste and paper/cardboard are the largest sources of degradable organic carbon in landfills**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How much of it becomes methane?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of emissions from the decomposition that becomes methane depends on the type of landfill and how it is managed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Waste disposal practices vary in the control, placement of waste and management of the site. The CH4 correction factor (MCF) accounts for the fact that unmanaged SWDS [solid waste disposal sites] produce less CH4 from a given amount of waste than anaerobic managed SWDS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MCF by SWDS types are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![MCF by SWDS assumptions][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a managed, anaerobic landfill, all of the DOC decomposes into methane. This is the &quot;gold standard&quot; in landfills, and in the U.S., the EPA [requires most large landfills to collect this methane](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&amp;SID=9dd547da709a41416ae82bf206af61c9&amp;mc=true&amp;r=SECTION&amp;n=se40.27.258_123), where it is typically burned to produce electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How much of the methane is released to the atmosphere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of methane captured at landfills varies widely, but in practice rates of up to 90% are feasible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There  have  been  some  measurements  of  efficiencies  at  gas  recovery  projects,  and  reported  efficiencies  have  been  between  10  and  85  percent.  Oonk  and  Boom  (1995)  measured  efficiencies  at  closed,  unlined SWDS to be in between 10 and 80 percent, the average over 11 SWDS being 37 percent. More recently Scharff et al. (2003) measured efficiencies at four SWDS to be 9 percent, 50 percent, 55 percent and 33 percent. Spokas et  al.  (2006)  and  Diot  et  al.  (2001)  recently  measured  efficiencies  above  90  percent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bonus Q: How much food is wasted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assumption is that 34% of what is sent to landfills is food waste. How does this compare to the amount of food produced?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [a 2010 article in Scientific American](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talk-waste-land/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Loss Project, we throw away more than 25 percent—some 25.9 million tons—of all the food we produce for domestic sale and consumption. A 2004 University of Arizona study pegs the figure at closer to 50 percent [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAPok.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23756" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3214" RevisionGUID="61384339-692d-4d97-8367-5ccb47ec64c5" CreationDate="2020-05-06T15:19:38.560" UserId="96" Comment="added 592 characters in body" Text="Actually, it's quite a good idea to utilize the gas potential of sewage. As mentioned in Sherwood's answer, this will happen at the treatment plant, not in the sewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit to add**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wrote the part below without real wastewater experience. Now that I have some: A common way is the following: seperate primary sludge and fats in a settler, these go directly into anaerobic digestion. The aerobictreatment of the remaining wastewater with the activated sludge process produces waste sludge, this also goes into the digester. Expect about 18 l/day [PE][1] sewage gas at ~60% methane.  This can provide a significant part of a sewage plants power consumption, but not more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**End Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ways to do this are not trivial, but doable. Look at the [wikipedia page for anaerobic digestion for an overview](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion). The biggest challenge in AD of sewage is that sewage is highly diluted, with lots of water. So you need different concepts than with a anaerobic digester handling manure, or foodwastes or energy crops. But, as I said, it's doable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the energy generated maybe small potatoes compared to the energy demand of the population supplying the sewage, it can be significant for the treatment plant. There's also another benefit, less obvious: In traditional wastewater treatment, a large step is the aerobic degradation of the organic contents, by bacteria. Aerobic bacteria can gain far more energy from the matter than anaerobic species, so they grow far faster. The sludge from aerobic digesters is mostly made up of the 'excess' bacteria. Sludge treatment and disposal is a major cost in treatment plants. Anaerobic digesters produce far less sludge. As an example, [upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upflow_anaerobic_sludge_blanket_digestion) are said to ...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;With UASB, the whole process of settlement and digestion occurs in one or more large tank(s). Only the post UASB liquids, which have a much reduced BOD concentration, needs to be aerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leads to a halving of the aeration energy and doubling of the power generated from digestion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are interested in the technical challenges, I advise you to look at the most excellent and free book [Anaerobic Digestion](http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Articles/DevelopingCountriesTitlesfromIWAPublishingFreetoDownload/Anaerobic.pdf) ([and maybe skim the other free IWA titles](http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Articles/DevelopingCountriesTitlesfromIWAPublishingFreetoDownload))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't answer why AD is not the standard treatment for wastewater. My guess is that many treatment plants in the developed world where built before the AD technolgoy was mature, and it's a huge headache to change a plant to a completly different process. Apparently, UASB seem to be far more common in Brazil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_equivalent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10047" RevisionGUID="88a8a9f0-f99e-4f82-8f92-c7f357a74556" CreationDate="2020-05-07T07:36:35.303" UserId="6182" Text="Depending on what fruits you're talking about, leaving it to rot out in the open could take weeks up to months (e.g. bananas or orange peels take very long, apple peels on the other hand rot faster). This is not desirable for public spaces. Please always put your waste into the next bin when you're in park or similar area. If you're out hiking, you might leave the quickly rotting waste (tbh I do so with apple cores or similar). Have a read [here](https://www.deschuteslandtrust.org/news/blog/2019-blog-posts/decomposition-organic-litter), they explain quite good, how leaving organic waste out in nature is not a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're concerned about non-correct waste disposal, put the fruit back into the packaging you had it in and throw it into the correct kind of bin at home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a really nasty side effect of leaving organic waste out in the open is that it attracts pests, be it roaches or rats or similar animals. To you the waste is not edible, but to them it's quite fine. The more waste is left out in the open, the more pests are attracted, spoiling the recreation for everyone using the park." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10048" RevisionGUID="4e0e1a72-56a1-4318-a76e-29dd67778f52" CreationDate="2020-05-07T09:54:54.600" UserId="5403" Text="I suggest a variation on juhist's forest landfill proposal:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming budget isn't an issue, and you're very patient, I'd suggest: buy land adjacent to a viable (native or at least non-monocultural) forest. Encourage the forest to expand onto it. Remove trees at a sustainable rate (you'll need to study forestry a little, did I mention that?) and use them for some long lasting purpose (i.e. not firewood or paper). Then when you don't need more any wood cut down trees and convert them into [biochar][1]. Bury the biochar into soil (good for soil fertility). You may even be able to sell it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't want to do this in an area where you're going to cause significant carbon release from the soil if the trees dry it out - so don't reforest waterlogged peatland! Grazing pasture adjacent to woodland is probably a good bet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of what one person can do, this is a lot of work to provide a not hugely significant offset for a high carbon lifestyle, so addressing that should of course be the first port of call.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking beyond strictly individualistic action, getting involved in restoration of peatland, as Rainer Glüge suggested, or of native forests (e.g. [Trees for Life][2]) is a good option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://regenerationinternational.org/2018/05/16/what-is-biochar/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://treesforlife.org.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23763" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3183" RevisionGUID="f3518008-ca99-4b2f-9920-b467de549e6c" CreationDate="2020-05-07T14:52:52.177" UserId="2345" Comment="Subscripts" Text="While some sewer gas is present most of the time in the pipes, the time it takes crap to get from the house to the sewage processing plant is short relative to the amount of gas given off.  It would make more sense to limit your operations to the sewage treatment plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly.  Two major components of sewer gas are methane, and hydrogen sulfide.  H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;S is present, has some energy, and is very poisonous.  This is the 'rotten egg' smell.  Human noses detect it at 1 ppm.  They go numb to it a a few ppm later.  At 15 ppm, it's toxic, although it takes a while.  At 1000 ppm, you take 1 breath and fall unconscious.  That's 0.1%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's not a lot of energy in H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;S.  If you burn it you get a mix of sulfur acids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's look at the methane.  Overall you are looking at the partial decomposition of food scraps and crap.  The roman Legion figured on about 2 lbs of grain per man per day in the field.  Probably 1.5 pounds after the rats got their share.  You start with 1.5 pounds at 450 g/lb = 675 grams.  x 4 calories per gram (average for cereals) = 2500 calories per day.  80% of that is extracted in the gut.  500 calories get exported with your crap. Suppose that 1/2 the energy is converted into methane. That's 250 calories per person per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;City of 1 million people.  250 million calories  = about 300,000 kWh = 300 MWh or about $9000 a day.  On the other hand that's 1/3 of a kWh per person per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By comparison that same 1 million people are already using 5 to 80 kWh/day.  So the methane is small potatoes.  And that's not counting industry and office space.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect that the money can be better spent on mass transist." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23764" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="657bd056-ba79-4f47-9632-61fe9d2d5442" CreationDate="2020-05-07T22:07:15.340" UserId="8693" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="If you come across this answer and have measured your idle system's power consumption please extend the list by editing this answer or adding a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Power Consumption Measured by Users &#xD;&#xA;Power consumption of running systems doing nothing. Does not include external devices like monitors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 18 W business laptop from 2011. CPU: i5. GPU: integrated.&#xD;&#xA;- 60 W desktop PC from ???. CPU: Pentium 4&#xD;&#xA;- 80 W desktop PC from 2014. CPU: i5. GPU: GTX 660&#xD;&#xA;- 100 W Desktop PC. CPU: Ryzen 7 1700 (Overcloaked to 3.8GHz). GPU: GTX 1080 ti.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23765" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="96860978-3332-4641-b746-14f50f7c0043" CreationDate="2020-05-08T05:05:50.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23766" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10049" RevisionGUID="ceaa2c8e-d926-4dd0-b8a9-18b64383fd7b" CreationDate="2020-05-08T20:43:06.297" UserId="8697" Text="install a GFI outlet on the same circuit as your USB integrated outlet.  When not in use, just trip the GFI outlet and kill the whole circuit.  Might not work in all cases as a lot might be tied to the same circuit, but this works in my house." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10049" RevisionGUID="aa2b2690-d140-4a92-893f-3e175d826455" CreationDate="2020-05-09T12:17:36.613" UserId="99" Comment="added link to wiki to explain GFCI" Text="Install a [GFCI outlet](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual-current_device) on the same circuit as your USB integrated outlet.  When not in use, just trip the GFI outlet and kill the whole circuit.  Might not work in all cases as a lot might be tied to the same circuit, but this works in my house." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23768" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10007" RevisionGUID="485afc60-6b35-44d9-8b6b-0d1fcecbacbb" CreationDate="2020-05-10T22:12:53.513" UserId="6293" Comment="added 243 characters in body" Text="Well, planting one canopy shade tree in the front yard requires a careful mapping of the utilities. But an individual could offer a service of planting front yard trees. One note, in many climates a hardwood tree shades the house in summer but lets sunlight through in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The individual could become an advocate of industrial processes that make plastic from carbon-dioxide captured at fossil-fuel powerplants. Then that plastic could be used in long-term building materials that are then required by legislated building code.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the individual could become a farmer of Empress Splendor tress for lumber since the lumber can have long term use as a building material. (I like sorghum for carbon-neutral energy but that's carbon-neutral not carbon-capture.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10050" RevisionGUID="34267c06-c854-4650-ad68-01c22041e34a" CreationDate="2020-05-13T08:12:08.900" UserId="3293" Text="#Salt Dough&#xD;&#xA;Another solution I used was to cover and fill the cracks with salt dough. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 2 cups all-purpose flour&#xD;&#xA;* 1 cup salt&#xD;&#xA;* apply and let it dry on a sunny day&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Easier to implement than spruce resin with ashes, but could not live through the second winter (since it received too much rain this time)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6508" RevisionGUID="ec800862-042d-49fe-9d23-a5b3331d9f4d" CreationDate="2020-05-13T12:18:28.380" UserId="400" Comment="added 765 characters in body" Text="Indians, and later voyageurs used a mix of wood ash, spruce resin and lard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Spruce resin is just collected off of trees. Melt. Once it flows well, filter the sticks and bugs out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add wood ash to the point where it is less sticky -- about the same volume as the spruce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Add a bit of lard to keep it from cracking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think that spruce per se was requried.  Pine, fir or larch probably would work just as well.  Note that the the voyageurs carried a pot with them, along with spruce roots and rolls of bark for larger repairs. Birch bark canoes required frequent maintenance.   This suggest to me that getting the right consistency to not be brittle in cold water, and not be to soft in hot weather was tricky.  Mind you, a canoe has a lot more flexing than a house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have a recipe off hand.  The drier (harder) the pitch is, the more lard you will need.  Too little, and it cracks.  Too much then on a warm day it flows out of the seam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a stationary application like this, I wouldn't worry about the lard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would try other fillers too.  drywall powder should work.  If the cracks are large, try adding a measure of unground wheat bran, or oat husks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another alternative is builder's lime. There is a long tradition of lime plasters.  While lime is a high energy product, it's not as energy intensive as concrete (by about a factor of 4)  Lime/sand plasters take a LOT longer to dry (weeks) but they are slightly flexible -- much more so than concrete." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23776" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6506" RevisionGUID="a2e5b022-1923-4405-bce5-728ca98ef028" CreationDate="2020-05-15T09:00:02.983" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1261219782306803712" />
  <row Id="23777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10051" RevisionGUID="9599242d-34ed-4f67-8cb5-43a42ddccece" CreationDate="2020-05-16T17:34:49.830" UserId="8712" Text="Let's say, i use my personal computer for office tasks only and am happy with its performance as long as the operating system and the browser receive regular security updates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be a promising choice of&#xD;&#xA; - hardware&#xD;&#xA; - operating system&#xD;&#xA; - broswer&#xD;&#xA;to achieve a long lifetime for the system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What resources (like ifixit.com) can help with this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23778" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10051" RevisionGUID="9599242d-34ed-4f67-8cb5-43a42ddccece" CreationDate="2020-05-16T17:34:49.830" UserId="8712" Text="How to get the most out of computer hardware before it becomes obsolete?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23779" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10051" RevisionGUID="9599242d-34ed-4f67-8cb5-43a42ddccece" CreationDate="2020-05-16T17:34:49.830" UserId="8712" Text="|reuse|green-it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10052" RevisionGUID="bf1c96ba-e380-456b-a237-7bb6a159a27d" CreationDate="2020-05-16T18:28:51.867" UserId="6293" Text="Basically, begin with a computer that has the number of processing cores of current premium computer offerings. Then choose an operating system that is a current offering on premium computers. Basically, begin with a premium-level computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then reduce the number of re-boots for long computer life. And current computers seem to have very good sleep modes and very good stability for fewer necessary re-boots.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, buy the computer from a computer maker and not from a retail store. A retail store can install their own configured version of the operating system on the computer. In that case a complete re-install of the OS from the recovery partition could possibly be a smaller OS install and a better performing OS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The computer can have more than one operating system which is something to consider but the current method allows changing from one OS to another without a re-boot. That method is to complicated and risky to my thinking. Separate hard-drive partitions for different operating systems might be more stable but requires a re-boot to change between operating systems. But that's two operating systems on one hard-drive. I have previously had two hard-drives with a different operating system on each of the hard-drives. To re-boot to a different hard-drive required switching the the wiring inside the computer. Of course removable hard-drives are available. But a computer that is ordered with two internal hard-drives is basically just a system of file back-up and not two different operating systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a browser my current tip is that the computer might be more stable when the browser is configured to not allow motion detection by websites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23781" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10052" RevisionGUID="015a7484-67d4-4490-9956-beb5175bbf33" CreationDate="2020-05-16T18:34:02.900" UserId="6293" Comment="added 185 characters in body" Text="Basically, begin with a computer that has the number of processing cores of current premium computer offerings. Then choose an operating system that is a current offering on premium computers. Basically, begin with a premium-level computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then reduce the number of re-boots for long computer life. And current computers seem to have very good sleep modes and very good stability for fewer necessary re-boots. However, a computer automatically jumping in and out of sleep mode can reduce the life of the computer monitor. So turn the monitor off when allowing the computer to sit in sleep mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider buying the computer from a computer maker and not from a retail store. A retail store can install their own configured version of the operating system on the computer. In that case a complete re-install of the OS from the recovery partition could possibly be a smaller OS install and a better performing OS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The computer can have more than one operating system which is something to consider but the current method allows changing from one OS to another without a re-boot. That method is to complicated and risky to my thinking. Separate hard-drive partitions for different operating systems might be more stable but requires a re-boot to change between operating systems. But that's two operating systems on one hard-drive. I have previously had two hard-drives with a different operating system on each of the hard-drives. To re-boot to a different hard-drive required switching the the wiring inside the computer. Of course removable hard-drives are available. But a computer that is ordered with two internal hard-drives is basically just a system of file back-up and not two different operating systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a browser my current tip is that the computer might be more stable when the browser is configured to not allow motion detection by websites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10052" RevisionGUID="681e2d46-12bd-4ada-b18d-b6d589df5bcd" CreationDate="2020-05-17T02:40:19.037" UserId="6293" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Basically, begin with a computer that has the number of processing cores of current premium computer offerings. Then choose an operating system that is a current offering on premium computers. Basically, begin with a premium-level computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then reduce the number of re-boots for long computer life. And current computers seem to have very good sleep modes and very good stability for fewer necessary re-boots. However, a computer automatically jumping in and out of sleep mode can reduce the life of the computer monitor. So turn the monitor off when allowing the computer to sit in sleep mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider buying the computer from a computer maker and not from a retail store. A retail store can install their own configured version of the operating system on the computer. In that case a complete re-install of the OS from the recovery partition could possibly be a smaller OS install and a better performing OS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The computer can have more than one operating system which is something to consider but the current method allows changing from one OS to another without a re-boot. That method is to complicated and risky to my thinking. Separate hard-drive partitions for different operating systems might be more stable but requires a re-boot to change between operating systems. But that's two operating systems on one hard-drive. I have previously had two hard-drives with a different operating system on each of the hard-drives. To re-boot to a different hard-drive required switching the wiring plugs inside the computer. Of course removable hard-drives are available. But a computer that is ordered with two internal hard-drives is basically just a system of file back-up and not two different operating systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for a browser my current tip is that the computer might be more stable when the browser is configured to not allow motion detection by websites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10053" RevisionGUID="8b7eaabb-1b96-409c-87d1-6e4fa859a59d" CreationDate="2020-05-17T09:23:26.850" UserId="2846" Text="There are some differences began the situation for laptops and desktops, as well as some common solutions. Desktop machines obviously use more resources in manufacturing, and may use more electricity, but are more repairable and upgradable. My case and power supply are 17 years old, though most other components are newer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upgrades to keep a machine working longer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A solid state hard drive (also an option when buying new, but they keep getting faster).&#xD;&#xA;- Maximum RAM. Cost considerations may limit what you can buy to start with, but you can often add some.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are both possible on desktops, and some (larger) laptops. Ultra portable laptops can't be upgraded  as components are soldered to the motherboard, so they aren't really very repairable either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Operating system: I've just set up a 12-year-old laptop for school work, web browsing etc. It's running the latest version of a lightweight Linux distribution (Xubuntu 20.04 long term support) and runs faster than a much newer Windows 10 machine. I put an old solid state hard drive in it. OS (and browser) updates will keep going for quite a few years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Software: The latest Firefox is very quick on that old machine, libre office acceptably so. Firefox is probably the most likely major browser to keep supporting 32-bit systems if you've already got old hardware. Most other office/school tasks like photo editing (GIMP) and vector graphics (Inkscape) work well on low spec hardware. The are many games suitable for casual play.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Open source software support for old hardware is generally better than software from companies that rely on selling you stuff. The only thing that old laptop lacks is DVI output (and my TV doesn't have VGA). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23784" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10051" RevisionGUID="10a06ab5-6af7-41f6-80fe-47a5fba6aadf" CreationDate="2020-05-18T00:00:01.103" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1262171042367377408" />
  <row Id="23785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10054" RevisionGUID="5d809176-976b-4a5f-9c64-f32d63358d92" CreationDate="2020-05-18T10:13:24.853" UserId="3173" Text="A friend of mine who is working for a big gardening center helped me lately to cut my green waste for the compost and realized the branches were Privet.&#xD;&#xA;He claimed a Privet-Hedge would be a &quot;living desert&quot;. No other species can grow there and most animals avoid it as it's a bad breeding round. It's flowers and berries are practically useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that true? Can someone confirm or recommend an improvement? (I don't want to cut down the whole hedge either)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23786" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10054" RevisionGUID="5d809176-976b-4a5f-9c64-f32d63358d92" CreationDate="2020-05-18T10:13:24.853" UserId="3173" Text="Is Privet Hedge a &quot;Living Desert&quot;?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23787" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10054" RevisionGUID="5d809176-976b-4a5f-9c64-f32d63358d92" CreationDate="2020-05-18T10:13:24.853" UserId="3173" Text="|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23788" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10013" RevisionGUID="81a32c6b-b29b-47c0-b6a6-a169d52ce6f3" CreationDate="2020-05-18T21:05:35.517" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="8886a8d8-328d-49cd-b856-326538733b4d" CreationDate="2020-05-19T07:35:37.777" UserId="6008" Text="You can start growing an exploiting a Moso bamboo forest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bamboo is know for growing fast and storing a lot of CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is said that one hectare of Moso Bamboo can store up to 250 tons of carbon.&#xD;&#xA;Each year, a hectare of Moso bamboo absorbs 5.1 tons of carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: [https://matteroftrust.org/what-can-bamboo-do-about-co2/][1]&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23790" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10055" RevisionGUID="cf6e80c8-8246-414f-946a-76f3f6d93ffb" CreationDate="2020-05-19T07:43:50.393" UserId="3293" Comment="added 56 characters in body" Text="You can start growing an exploiting a Moso bamboo forest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bamboo is known for growing fast and storing a lot of CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is said that one hectare of Moso Bamboo can store up to 250 tons of carbon.&#xD;&#xA;Each year, a hectare of Moso bamboo absorbs 5.1 tons of carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source: matteroftrust.org/what-can-bamboo-do-about-co2][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://matteroftrust.org/what-can-bamboo-do-about-co2/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10056" RevisionGUID="d951a0a9-d63c-4055-9a63-b5c58c5822e0" CreationDate="2020-05-19T08:15:54.763" UserId="3293" Text="### Let them live&#xD;&#xA;A livable solution to re-store carbon (who also avoid releasing some more in the process) would be to let wildlife to develop itself without too much disturbance. In my view, this is far more ethical than converting existing land to something agricultural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Terrible de-growth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep this in mind: the fewer you earn, the fewer you destroy life space for wildlife. But if your goal is (food, body, health, sex) security, then you must capt more energy than the others (life forms, peoples, computers, robots, you name it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of this is agriculture on living soil: instead of using huge machinery and chemicals to grow food with very low Energy Return On Invest [EROI], you let the soil live and use manual work to produce reaching EROI&gt;&gt;1, like it necessarily was in the old time where there was no fossil fuel use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure this is not the happy life most of Internet people like us live, but if you include all earth people, then it is what lot of them already do with &quot;standard income&quot; (think of people with less than a 1$ a day). But the idea is the same with this [answer][1]: store carbon in your backyard if you have one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/9837/3293" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23792" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10056" RevisionGUID="ed86f202-6717-408d-9545-8633e05b588d" CreationDate="2020-05-19T08:26:20.380" UserId="3293" Comment="added 166 characters in body" Text="### Let them live&#xD;&#xA;A livable solution to re-store carbon (who also avoid releasing some more in the process) would be to let wildlife to develop itself without too much disturbance. In my view, this is far more ethical than converting existing land to something agricultural.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Terrible de-growth&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep this in mind: the fewer you earn, the fewer you destroy life space for wildlife. But if your goal is (food, body, health, sex) security, then you must capt more energy than the others (life forms, peoples, computers, robots, you name it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example of this is agriculture on living soil: instead of using huge machinery and chemicals to grow food with very low Energy Return On Invest [EROI], you let the soil live and use manual work to produce reaching EROI&gt;&gt;1, like it necessarily was in the old time where there was no fossil fuel use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure this is not the happy life most of Internet people like us live, but if you include all earth people, then it is what lot of them already do with &quot;standard income&quot; (think of people with less than a 1$ a day). But the idea is the same with this [answer][1] (with this [reference][2]): store carbon in your backyard if you have one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/9837/3293&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-09-02/why-not-start-today-backyard-carbon-sequestration-is-something-nearly-everyone-can-do/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23793" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10016" RevisionGUID="a5ba9879-51d8-45e4-9e63-e6fd621eb9b9" CreationDate="2020-05-19T12:57:22.993" UserId="1581" Comment="correction" Text="It is much easier to avoid emissions than to capture CO2. Anyway, one can roughly prioritize as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Leave it to professionals.&#xD;&#xA;There are expert organizations that focus on CO2 reduction. This is where you have the highest impact per dollar. They mostly work in developing countries, where the reduction per dollar is biggest. Here is a ranking for US-based organizations: [https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/best-popular-us-carbon-offset-providers.php]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Avoid personal emissions. &#xD;&#xA;Air travelling and meat are the most relevant activities, you probably already know about that, but here is a link with tips for a lower carbon life anyway  [https://www.pureleapfrog.org/carbon-offsetting/tips-for-a-lower-carbon-lifestyle/]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Reforestation, plant trees. &#xD;&#xA;**This is where the answer to your question starts**, since this actually captures carbon. There are studies which show that reforestation has a huge potential [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions]. Scotland, for example, does a large scale reforestation [https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17703851.scotland-smashes-tree-planting-targets-as-nations-landscape-goes-back-to-woods/], almost any country has its own tree-planting-events. You can certainly find one nearby and contribute personally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Create/protect wetland. &#xD;&#xA;Bogs capture and store huge amounts of CO2 [https://wilderness-society.org/importance-of-peat-bogs-as-co2-storage/], but are often drained for land use. In the process, they emit CO2, roughly 0.5 t per hectare and cm water column.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Prefer wood as a construction material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Large amounts of CO2 can be captured by shellfish, who build there shells with calcium carbonate, where the carbon comes from CO2 from the atmosphere (Scientific: [https://thefishsite.com/articles/carbon-sequestration-potential-of-shellfish], entertaining: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhA5LgXMBkw&amp;t=3m]) As an individual you could make farmed shellfish a part of your diet, but frankly I doubt that this has a significant effect, also accounting for transportation and such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list is by far not complete, please feel free to edit, extend and elaborate. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23794" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10016" RevisionGUID="c6838a56-35a0-41c5-915a-4ceb2f557942" CreationDate="2020-05-19T14:13:55.690" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixd links. All links were redirecting with &quot;]&quot; at the end." Text="It is much easier to avoid emissions than to capture CO2. Anyway, one can roughly prioritize as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Leave it to professionals.&#xD;&#xA;There are expert organizations that focus on CO2 reduction. This is where you have the highest impact per dollar. They mostly work in developing countries, where the reduction per dollar is biggest. [Here is a ranking for US-based organizations](https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/best-popular-us-carbon-offset-providers.php).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Avoid personal emissions. &#xD;&#xA;Air travelling and meat are the most relevant activities, you probably already know about that, but [here is a link with tips for a lower carbon life anyway](https://www.pureleapfrog.org/carbon-offsetting/tips-for-a-lower-carbon-lifestyle/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Reforestation, plant trees. &#xD;&#xA;**This is where the answer to your question starts**, since this actually captures carbon. [There are studies which show that reforestation has a huge potential](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions). Scotland, for example, [does a large scale reforestation](https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17703851.scotland-smashes-tree-planting-targets-as-nations-landscape-goes-back-to-woods/), almost any country has its own tree-planting-events. You can certainly find one nearby and contribute personally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Create/protect wetland. &#xD;&#xA;[Bogs capture and store huge amounts of CO2](https://wilderness-society.org/importance-of-peat-bogs-as-co2-storage/), but are often drained for land use. In the process, they emit CO2, roughly 0.5 t per hectare and cm water column.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Prefer wood as a construction material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. Large amounts of CO2 can be captured by shellfish, who build there shells with calcium carbonate, where the carbon comes from CO2 from the atmosphere ([scientific](https://thefishsite.com/articles/carbon-sequestration-potential-of-shellfish), [entertaining](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhA5LgXMBkw&amp;t=3m)) As an individual you could make farmed shellfish a part of your diet, but frankly I doubt that this has a significant effect, also accounting for transportation and such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list is by far not complete, please feel free to edit, extend and elaborate. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23795" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10005" RevisionGUID="55e8dc06-28b3-4367-a6be-bf12512afc8b" CreationDate="2020-05-20T00:00:08.530" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1262895849102852103" />
  <row Id="23796" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10057" RevisionGUID="7736843d-018e-47c9-ae7e-52f75d0169bc" CreationDate="2020-05-20T08:02:16.310" UserId="99" Text="I think this is question is difficult to answer for several reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There is no agreed upon carrying capacity of the Earth. The Global Footprint Network orgnaization does a nice job estimating the Earth's capacity in terms of land usage (biocapacity), but their ecological footprint is a very rough estimate and is not suitable for decision-making. For example, in their calculations the biocapacity of farmland is higher than that of forests, so according to this method you can increase the Earth's biocapacity by chopping down all forests and turning it into farmland!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question assumes that there is an optimum where we can decrease human population and minimise socio-economic dislocations. I think it's far more likely that the quicker you want to achieve this, the bigger the socio-economic effects will be, so to me it seems more of a question how much problems are you willing to accept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The question assumes that the impact of consumption is constant, but this is very unrealistic. Many countries signed the Paris climate agreement and started implementing measures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Also many countries are also looking to change their environmental impact when it comes to plastic pollution and use of finite resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the best is to strive for a global fertility rate of just under 2.1. This will reduce the global population slowly (and thus also the footprint of mankind) and at the same time have little other side-effects. This is assuming all countries take their equal share in this reduction compared to current fertility rate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10057" RevisionGUID="5b92de42-73e0-498a-b901-56a08e7a9fc2" CreationDate="2020-05-21T06:00:22.890" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="I think this is question is difficult to answer for several reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There is no agreed upon carrying capacity of the Earth. The Global Footprint Network organization does a nice job estimating the Earth's capacity in terms of land usage (biocapacity), but their ecological footprint is a very rough estimate and is not suitable for decision-making. For example, in their calculations the biocapacity of farmland is higher than that of forests, so according to this method you can increase the Earth's biocapacity by chopping down all forests and turning them into farmland!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. The question assumes that there is an optimum where we can decrease human population and minimize socio-economic dislocations. I think it's far more likely that the quicker you want to achieve this, the bigger the socio-economic effects will be, so to me it seems more of a question how much problems are you willing to accept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. The question assumes that the impact of consumption is constant, but this is very unrealistic. Many countries signed the Paris climate agreement and started implementing measures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Also many countries are looking to change their environmental impact when it comes to plastic pollution and use of finite resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the best is to strive for a global fertility rate of just under 2.1. This will reduce the global population slowly (and thus also the footprint of mankind) and at the same time have little other side-effects. This is assuming all countries take their equal share in this reduction compared to current fertility rates." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10016" RevisionGUID="c80ba6a3-2065-4243-a455-66779f14f6c1" CreationDate="2020-05-22T08:18:36.793" UserId="8232" Comment="Made titles stand out more; fleshed out the wood section" Text="It is much easier to avoid emissions than to capture CO2. Anyway, one can roughly prioritize as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. **Leave it to professionals.**  &#xD;&#xA;There are expert organizations that focus on CO2 reduction. This is where you have the highest impact per dollar. They mostly work in developing countries, where the reduction per dollar is biggest. [Here is a ranking for US-based organizations](https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/best-popular-us-carbon-offset-providers.php).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. **Avoid personal emissions.**  &#xD;&#xA;Air travel and meat are the most relevant activities, you probably already know about that, but [here is a link with tips for a lower carbon life anyway](https://www.pureleapfrog.org/carbon-offsetting/tips-for-a-lower-carbon-lifestyle/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;**This is where the answer to your question starts**, since these points actually capture carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. **Reforestation, plant trees.**  &#xD;&#xA;[There are studies which show that reforestation has a huge potential](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions). Scotland, for example, [does a large scale reforestation](https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17703851.scotland-smashes-tree-planting-targets-as-nations-landscape-goes-back-to-woods/), almost any country has its own tree-planting-events. You can certainly find one nearby and contribute personally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. **Create/protect wetland.**  &#xD;&#xA;[Bogs capture and store huge amounts of CO2](https://wilderness-society.org/importance-of-peat-bogs-as-co2-storage/), but are often drained for land use. In the process, they emit CO2, roughly 0.5 t per hectare and cm water column.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. **Prefer (local) wood as a construction material.** - The carbon captured by the trees gets sequestered away for 50-odd years as building materials. It also helps to source materials locally as this will minimise the emissions from transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6. **Farm Shellfish**  &#xD;&#xA;Large amounts of CO2 can be captured by shellfish, who build their shells with calcium carbonate, where the carbon comes from CO2 from the atmosphere ([scientific](https://thefishsite.com/articles/carbon-sequestration-potential-of-shellfish), [entertaining](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhA5LgXMBkw&amp;t=3m)) As an individual you could make farmed shellfish a part of your diet, although frankly I doubt that this has a significant effect, also accounting for transportation and such.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This list is by far not complete, please feel free to edit, extend and elaborate. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23806" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10016" RevisionGUID="c80ba6a3-2065-4243-a455-66779f14f6c1" CreationDate="2020-05-22T08:18:36.793" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 1581 edit id of 637" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23808" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10040" RevisionGUID="a2433855-9bbe-4404-bba1-ff2a54e44ea5" CreationDate="2020-05-22T21:00:07.543" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1263937710143700993" />
  <row Id="23809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="c4f9afe9-1bfd-4074-8682-d3a7afb27087" CreationDate="2020-05-23T09:14:27.323" UserId="4099" Comment="typo corrected" Text="First, given that the heat has to go somewhere, I don't think you will get *more* heat transferred usefully to your house from opening the oven door.  You may get less for the reason that the hot air may rise as a mass (rather than trickling out) and thus have less impact on the rest of the air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As some of the others have said the issue efficiency-wise will have to do with hot air pooling in the ceiling.  The best way to prevent this is with a fan of some sort, to keep the air moving and mixing.    You may find that use of a fan by itself captures a fair bit of your cooking heat and that this helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a warning however, I have noticed a few major problems with re-capturing electrical cooking heat.  In particular if the heat is used to boil water, I have found that the opposite of what I expected to happen in fact did &amp;ndash; the house was made *colder* by the added hot steam, compared to not cooking at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My working theory is that what happens is that the steam condenses on the windows and other surfaces that are not as well insulated.  They deposit heat there, and then evaporate slowly pulling heat from the room to do so.  They then condense again, depositing this heat wherever the house is least well insulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So pay attention, experiment, and be careful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as health hazards, once you have turned off the oven, the gas has to go somewhere.  It's going to go into your house whether you leave the oven door open or not.  Again, my gut feeling says that you will lose more than you gain by opening the oven door, but I can't be sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23810" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="661" RevisionGUID="c4f9afe9-1bfd-4074-8682-d3a7afb27087" CreationDate="2020-05-23T09:14:27.323" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 99 edit id of 636" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23812" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9791" RevisionGUID="3df40133-12df-4571-a2ca-1e9af3d215c3" CreationDate="2020-05-24T18:04:00.433" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23813" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="9791" RevisionGUID="57c9e7d4-f219-44e1-80fb-259885d17cb5" CreationDate="2020-05-25T00:52:41.810" UserId="1056" Comment="64" />
  <row Id="23819" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="9791" RevisionGUID="4eb3b7ae-2ec3-4553-a12c-da3796bf2a1e" CreationDate="2020-05-27T05:14:27.327" UserId="1056" Comment="64" />
  <row Id="23820" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="05752606-352c-4bd0-8799-0b2037182ae8" CreationDate="2020-05-27T06:42:34.163" UserId="8232" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Should I purchase soft-plastic refill packs or new tins for chocolate powder?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23821" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="05752606-352c-4bd0-8799-0b2037182ae8" CreationDate="2020-05-27T06:42:34.163" UserId="8232" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|plastic|reuse|life-cycle-analysis|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9990" RevisionGUID="f78b08fd-702c-46db-91ac-6686b18dfabf" CreationDate="2020-05-27T17:49:22.967" UserId="3379" Comment="Multiplied where I should have divided. Double-checked other assumptions." Text="Here's a piece of the answer for the U.S. Hopefully others can provide additional details covering other countries or regions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MAJOR EDIT:** Comments pointed out that something seemed fishy. I double-checked my numbers, and at one point I multiplied by 1,000 when I should have divided. Turns out that makes a HUGE difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Office building emissions&#xD;&#xA;According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (from [Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 2012](https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/c&amp;e/cfm/c1.php)), there are 1.5 billion m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of non-vacant office space in the U.S. (Looking at office work only since it is the most likely candidate for the switch to telework). In my work, we typically assume roughly 26 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; per person in a typical office, which includes both work space and corridors, lobbies, break-rooms, etc. Thus 1.5 billion m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; equates to about 57 million office workers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CBECS also provides data on energy usage for office buildings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 773 TWh of electricity (including transmission and distribution losses)&#xD;&#xA; - 83 TWh of natural gas (for heating and cooking)&#xD;&#xA; - 5 TWh of fuel oil (diesel, also for heating)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On average in the U.S., emissions factors for each of these fuels are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 0.45 kg CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; per kWh -- total 347 million tons of CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; ([source](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&amp;t=11))&#xD;&#xA; - 53.07 kg CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; per million Btu of natural gas -- total 15 million tons of CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; ([source](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php))&#xD;&#xA; - 78.79 kg CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; per million Btu of fuel oil -- total 1.4 million tons of CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; (ibid.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus total annual emissions from office buildings is 364 million tons, or **6.38 tons per office worker per year**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Office commute emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [a 2005 poll](https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=485098&amp;page=1), the average American commutes 32 miles (51 km) a day. According to the same poll, 4% use public transit, and 8% carpool. If we assume the average carpool is two people, this means that 92% of office workers are driving 51 km a day -- about 52 million workers driving a total of 2.7 billion km per day. There are about [250 working days per year](https://www.workingdays.us/workingdays_holidays_2020.htm), so that equates to 675 billion km per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S., [the average efficiency of vehicles on the road was 22.3 miles per gallon in 2017](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles). [This equates to](https://www.calculateme.com/gas-mileage/us-mpg-to-liters-per-100-km) 10.6 L per 100 km. Combined with km driven, this means Americans are using 71 billion L of gasoline per year to commute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combustion of gasoline results in emissions of 8.89 kg CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; per gallon, or 2.35 kg CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; per L.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus total annual emissions from workers commuting to offices is 167 billion tons, or **2.93 tons per office worker per year**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are series of assumptions and approximations here (please check my math, again!), but for the average office worker who commutes in a private vehicle in the U.S., **emissions from the office are more than double the emissions from the drive.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we say (for arguments' sake) that emissions from a home office per capita are the same as an office building per capita, then eliminating the commute results in a 30% reduction in emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fully understand the question, we'd need data on increased residential energy usage from teleworking. There are some estimates ([here](https://qz.com/work/1825934/how-working-from-home-impacts-your-energy-use/) and [here](https://blog.arcadia.com/remote-work-energy-efficiency/)), but nothing thorough the I could find." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23827" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="7167" RevisionGUID="13fc486d-6ffd-4247-8f55-3a765397c984" CreationDate="2020-05-28T15:35:36.733" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="23829" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="0a371d0a-f2dd-4254-b9fa-c16af4694be3" CreationDate="2020-05-29T00:03:20.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23831" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10045" RevisionGUID="585eba3e-3498-406c-8c65-215904ce8dc5" CreationDate="2020-05-30T15:00:07.177" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1266746214789320706" />
  <row Id="23833" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9990" RevisionGUID="b1eebcf4-0e3d-4d64-a164-5eea7d517641" CreationDate="2020-05-31T01:16:16.750" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected CO2 format" Text="Here's a piece of the answer for the U.S. Hopefully others can provide additional details covering other countries or regions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MAJOR EDIT:** Comments pointed out that something seemed fishy. I double-checked my numbers, and at one point I multiplied by 1,000 when I should have divided. Turns out that makes a HUGE difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Office building emissions&#xD;&#xA;According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (from [Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 2012](https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/c&amp;e/cfm/c1.php)), there are 1.5 billion m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of non-vacant office space in the U.S. (Looking at office work only since it is the most likely candidate for the switch to telework). In my work, we typically assume roughly 26 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; per person in a typical office, which includes both work space and corridors, lobbies, break-rooms, etc. Thus 1.5 billion m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; equates to about 57 million office workers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CBECS also provides data on energy usage for office buildings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 773 TWh of electricity (including transmission and distribution losses)&#xD;&#xA; - 83 TWh of natural gas (for heating and cooking)&#xD;&#xA; - 5 TWh of fuel oil (diesel, also for heating)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On average in the U.S., emissions factors for each of these fuels are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 0.45 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per kWh -- total 347 million tons of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; ([source](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&amp;t=11))&#xD;&#xA; - 53.07 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per million Btu of natural gas -- total 15 million tons of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; ([source](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php))&#xD;&#xA; - 78.79 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per million Btu of fuel oil -- total 1.4 million tons of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (ibid.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus total annual emissions from office buildings is 364 million tons, or **6.38 tons per office worker per year**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Office commute emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [a 2005 poll](https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=485098&amp;page=1), the average American commutes 32 miles (51 km) a day. According to the same poll, 4% use public transit, and 8% carpool. If we assume the average carpool is two people, this means that 92% of office workers are driving 51 km a day -- about 52 million workers driving a total of 2.7 billion km per day. There are about [250 working days per year](https://www.workingdays.us/workingdays_holidays_2020.htm), so that equates to 675 billion km per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S., [the average efficiency of vehicles on the road was 22.3 miles per gallon in 2017](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles). [This equates to](https://www.calculateme.com/gas-mileage/us-mpg-to-liters-per-100-km) 10.6 L per 100 km. Combined with km driven, this means Americans are using 71 billion L of gasoline per year to commute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combustion of gasoline results in emissions of 8.89 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per gallon, or 2.35 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per L.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus total annual emissions from workers commuting to offices is 167 billion tons, or **2.93 tons per office worker per year**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are series of assumptions and approximations here (please check my math, again!), but for the average office worker who commutes in a private vehicle in the U.S., **emissions from the office are more than double the emissions from the drive.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we say (for arguments' sake) that emissions from a home office per capita are the same as an office building per capita, then eliminating the commute results in a 30% reduction in emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fully understand the question, we'd need data on increased residential energy usage from teleworking. There are some estimates ([here](https://qz.com/work/1825934/how-working-from-home-impacts-your-energy-use/) and [here](https://blog.arcadia.com/remote-work-energy-efficiency/)), but nothing thorough the I could find." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23835" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9691" RevisionGUID="f582acf4-ab69-4196-8acb-19506332d001" CreationDate="2020-05-31T01:24:39.000" UserId="2345" Comment="Correct format for CO2 &amp; CH4" Text="## The source of methane -- degradable organic carbon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 2006 report by the IPCC, [Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 5 -- Waste](https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol5.html), includes six different categories of landfilled waste which contain **degradable organic carbon (DOC)**. Under anaerobic conditions, the DOC in these materials ultimately decomposes into carbon dioxide (CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) and methane (CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;). The eight categories are listed below, with the fraction (by weight) of DOC generally in each. Finally, I included the percent of landfill material that each category constitutes in North America (chosen since you reference California in the question -- data for other regions is available [in the spreadsheet tool](https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/IPCC_Waste_Model.xls)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    CATEGORY             % DOC    % LANDFILL COMPOSITION&#xD;&#xA;    -----------         ------    ----------------------&#xD;&#xA;    Food waste            15               34&#xD;&#xA;    Garden                20                0&#xD;&#xA;    Paper                 40               23&#xD;&#xA;    Wood and straw        43                6&#xD;&#xA;    Natural textiles      24                4&#xD;&#xA;    Disposable nappies    24                0&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Some garden waste is included with food waste. Nappies (diapers) have a value of 0 for all regions -- I'm not really sure why they aren't included, or what assumptions are made that allow them to be excluded here.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on these assumptions, **food waste and paper/cardboard are the largest sources of degradable organic carbon in landfills**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## How much of it becomes methane?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of emissions from the decomposition that becomes methane depends on the type of landfill and how it is managed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Waste disposal practices vary in the control, placement of waste and management of the site. The CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; correction factor (MCF) accounts for the fact that unmanaged SWDS [solid waste disposal sites] produce less CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; from a given amount of waste than anaerobic managed SWDS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MCF by SWDS types are: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![MCF by SWDS assumptions][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a managed, anaerobic landfill, all of the DOC decomposes into methane. This is the &quot;gold standard&quot; in landfills, and in the U.S., the EPA [requires most large landfills to collect this methane](https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&amp;SID=9dd547da709a41416ae82bf206af61c9&amp;mc=true&amp;r=SECTION&amp;n=se40.27.258_123), where it is typically burned to produce electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How much of the methane is released to the atmosphere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of methane captured at landfills varies widely, but in practice rates of up to 90% are feasible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; There  have  been  some  measurements  of  efficiencies  at  gas  recovery  projects,  and  reported  efficiencies  have  been  between  10  and  85  percent.  Oonk  and  Boom  (1995)  measured  efficiencies  at  closed,  unlined SWDS to be in between 10 and 80 percent, the average over 11 SWDS being 37 percent. More recently Scharff et al. (2003) measured efficiencies at four SWDS to be 9 percent, 50 percent, 55 percent and 33 percent. Spokas et  al.  (2006)  and  Diot  et  al.  (2001)  recently  measured  efficiencies  above  90  percent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Bonus Q: How much food is wasted?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The assumption is that 34% of what is sent to landfills is food waste. How does this compare to the amount of food produced?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [a 2010 article in Scientific American](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-talk-waste-land/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Loss Project, we throw away more than 25 percent—some 25.9 million tons—of all the food we produce for domestic sale and consumption. A 2004 University of Arizona study pegs the figure at closer to 50 percent [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OAPok.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23836" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="708a321f-aa47-4545-b7d7-e1f9746d654a" CreationDate="2020-05-31T03:07:25.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10064" RevisionGUID="01cfb3dc-81b2-4dc2-a6f9-ab4cafb8e150" CreationDate="2020-05-31T06:32:22.423" UserId="3511" Text="The rain barrel should at least be up on some cinder blocks for some lift. If that’s not sufficient pressure you could try building a higher apparatus, but be careful - a full rain barrel will become very heavy and have been known to topple from not so sturdy wood structures. The soaker hose is a good suggestion. I’ve seen some pretty innovative/complex rain barrel irrigation systems devised by residents that included rain barrels with soaker hoses at every downspout. You can also just fill up watering cans from the barrel and water your lawn our garden. Technically, you’re not supposed to use the unfiltered runoff on garden eatables, just shrubs and flora, due to the bacteria from bird droppings carried from the roof. And I have seen folks use rainwater in pressure washers. You could also use it to was wash your car or whatever else needs some basic rinsing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23838" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10065" RevisionGUID="bce8f0a0-c825-44a8-8d94-a8055106d209" CreationDate="2020-05-31T12:29:38.750" UserId="8013" Text="If you want to use rain water in the house it is worth investing in a purpose built system in order to avoid problems associated with stagnant water which is likely to occur in anything you build yourself. Having stagnant untreated water in pipes around the house would be a serious health hazard. For example, [a system from freeflush][1] is designed so that mains water flushes the system when there is no supply of rain water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two kinds of systems to consider for domestic use: wall mounted systems (as above) which will typically hold water for a day or two of modest consumption, or buried tanks which could, in principle, hold water for a season. Installation of these larger tanks typically involves some filtration system and will require maintenance (e.g. from [Graf][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To use the water in the garden, simply raise the tank on some blocks and use a watering can. For keen gardeners it is a valuable resource, to be used sparingly and kept for plants which are intolerant to the chemicals in the mains supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A final option is to dispense with the barrel and let the water run into the ground: but NOT simply at the base of the pipe by the wall of your house. Create a [soakaway][3] in your garden and install a pipe from the down pipe to take water into it. If you put the soakaway close to the house you need to be careful to ensure that it can cope with the amount of water coming in and follow building regulations in detail, but if you can place it well away from the house and don't mind an area of the garden being swampy in wet weather it could be a bit simpler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.freeflush.co.uk/pages/gravity-fed-rainwater-harvesting-system-for-flushing-toilets&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.graf-water.co.uk/rainwater-harvesting.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.eden.gov.uk/planning-and-building/building-control/building-control-guidance-notes/rainwater-soakaway-design-guidance/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10066" RevisionGUID="48a40c41-026d-4cec-96fd-36fea46a9bf1" CreationDate="2020-05-31T17:26:03.420" UserId="5477" Text="Submersible pumps can be very cheap , like $10 (US) . The smallest would be for a hose to lay in a bed or on the lawn. I use a $ 25 pump to pump my rain barrel to my pond. I don't think it would be worth the expense of a pump capable of feeding a sprinkler for your application." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23840" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="706f8cc3-3b5e-47ff-98f6-78e0584ec8f7" CreationDate="2020-06-01T22:03:55.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23843" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8445" RevisionGUID="91f1c8ca-c206-4035-aaf9-207bd719a40d" CreationDate="2020-06-04T21:09:05.910" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23844" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10017" RevisionGUID="5df0942c-5894-4b14-9317-065d55cd03b6" CreationDate="2020-06-04T23:06:25.567" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10068" RevisionGUID="02082832-e496-4a2b-b50a-14305fe40ecf" CreationDate="2020-06-05T11:31:57.927" UserId="8752" Text="I've been having issues with my indoors storage solution for plastics. Loose wrappers and containers from food products tend to take an unnecessarily large amount of space and without a way to compress them, even a large box has to be emptied more often that I would like.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has anyone found a solution for this problem? My research on the topic has only revealed industrial solutions for making usable materials but no solutions for home use. To be clear, I am just looking for an efficient storing method, not a way to reuse the material myself." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10068" RevisionGUID="02082832-e496-4a2b-b50a-14305fe40ecf" CreationDate="2020-06-05T11:31:57.927" UserId="8752" Text="Solution for reducing volume of plastic recyclables" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10068" RevisionGUID="02082832-e496-4a2b-b50a-14305fe40ecf" CreationDate="2020-06-05T11:31:57.927" UserId="8752" Text="|recycling|plastic|storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10069" RevisionGUID="03746d3e-a696-45b2-8854-2e31401cad82" CreationDate="2020-06-05T11:51:56.073" UserId="8752" Text="According to the Finish state owned alcohol distributing organisation &#xD;&#xA;figures, the packaging for a 1,5L (~4 gallons) wine pouch creates 96g (~3,3 ounces) of CO2 e/L whereas a 0,75L (~2 gallons) traditional glass bottle hits almost seven times that figure at 675g (~23,8 ounces) of CO2 e/L. [Source][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the answer depends on your location. The differences of recycling options &#xD;&#xA;between countries are a significant factor and in some places you can even [recycle the bags inside boxed wine (link in Finnish)][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This information is based on a study that you can access [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.alko.fi/en/responsibly/sustainability-of-products/beverage-packing-material-has-a-significant-climate-impact&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.alko.fi/vastuullisesti/tuotteiden-vastuullisuus/materiaalit-hyotykayttoon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.alko.fi/INTERSHOP/static/WFS/Alko-OnlineShop-Site/-/Alko-OnlineShop/fi_FI/Tavarantoimittajille/Muut/EN/Alko%20wine%20packaging%20LCA%20update_final%20report.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23849" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10017" RevisionGUID="3741c2d6-3a75-47c9-96f5-9829d4c7a7da" CreationDate="2020-06-05T15:00:02.773" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1268920523246968834" />
  <row Id="23850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="006d3cd3-e319-4fc3-a954-ec55396dca5c" CreationDate="2020-06-05T16:40:04.797" UserId="6213" Text="In the great vegan vs. non-vegan environmental debate a big point of contention is the topic of animal feed. Vegans argue, that a large percentage of agriculture, namely 98% of soy production should be attributed to kettle farming. On the other hand, it is argued, that 88% of soy oil is produced for people not animals, while the rest is used for biofuel. Animal feed it is argued is a waste product. Without animals it would be simply discarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question basically is: Would reducing meat consumption put a dent in soy production, or is animal feed mostly a waste material and not the main motivation when it comes to soy cultivation? Would producing soy, solely for biofuel and cooking oil be profitable, without the added benefit of selling the waste products? If there were less animals, are there other applications for the soy by products? I can think of one, namely as addition to mushroom substrate, where soybean husks are used with great success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_all_these_soybeans_go#:~:text=Ninety%20eight%20percent%20of%20soybean,an%20alternative%20to%20petroleum%20oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23851" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="006d3cd3-e319-4fc3-a954-ec55396dca5c" CreationDate="2020-06-05T16:40:04.797" UserId="6213" Text="Are soybeans mainly grown for animal feed or oil production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23852" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="006d3cd3-e319-4fc3-a954-ec55396dca5c" CreationDate="2020-06-05T16:40:04.797" UserId="6213" Text="|agriculture|vegetable-oil|biodiesel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10069" RevisionGUID="151eb3ad-9ef2-4b57-b2d6-86187a60fc17" CreationDate="2020-06-05T17:50:39.227" UserId="1056" Comment="minor corrections to formatting" Text="According to figures from Alko (the Finnish state-owned alcohol distributing organisation), producing packaging for a 1,5 L (~4 gallons) wine pouch creates 96 g (~3,3 ounces) of CO2&lt;sub&gt;e&lt;/sub&gt;/L whereas a 0,75 L (~2 gallons) traditional glass bottle hits almost seven times that figure at 675 g (~23,8 ounces) of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e/L. [Source][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the answer depends on your location. The differences of recycling options &#xD;&#xA;between countries are a significant factor and in some places you can even [recycle the bags inside boxed wine (link in Finnish)][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This information is based on a study that you can access [here][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.alko.fi/en/responsibly/sustainability-of-products/beverage-packing-material-has-a-significant-climate-impact&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.alko.fi/vastuullisesti/tuotteiden-vastuullisuus/materiaalit-hyotykayttoon&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.alko.fi/INTERSHOP/static/WFS/Alko-OnlineShop-Site/-/Alko-OnlineShop/fi_FI/Tavarantoimittajille/Muut/EN/Alko%20wine%20packaging%20LCA%20update_final%20report.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10071" RevisionGUID="5b119b66-efbf-426a-9208-b98c5fc19af2" CreationDate="2020-06-06T13:26:16.653" UserId="8753" Text="I'm learning about how black soldier flies and insects in general are used to turn organic waste into more insects, which are then harvested for protein-heavy feed for poultry and fish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of places do waste separation at source but in the absence of that (from my knowledge, it isn't very common in the developing world), we need to develop techniques for sorting the waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without sorting, all waste goes into landfill where biodegradable waste will eventually disintegrate but non-degradable won't, ultimately &quot;sorting&quot; the waste (if you were to excavate it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since flies consume organic material, I'm wondering if for mixed waste, a large swarm can also &quot;lick the plastic (or other nondegradables) clean&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has this been tried as a &quot;sorting&quot; strategy anywhere? Do you see any immediate impracticalities or other reasons why this wouldn't be useful?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10071" RevisionGUID="5b119b66-efbf-426a-9208-b98c5fc19af2" CreationDate="2020-06-06T13:26:16.653" UserId="8753" Text="Are there any insect-based waste-separation techniques?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10071" RevisionGUID="5b119b66-efbf-426a-9208-b98c5fc19af2" CreationDate="2020-06-06T13:26:16.653" UserId="8753" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10072" RevisionGUID="9f4ef0e4-cae2-4a58-b10e-f092802bf272" CreationDate="2020-06-06T13:54:45.487" UserId="2846" Text="I don't have hard evidence that it doesn't exist at all, but it's certainly not common, and for good economic reasons. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One difficulty is that organic matter in unsorted waste is much more likely to be contaminated than in food waste sorted at source. Some of this contamination could be toxic, either to the insects themselves or to whatever they're fed to. Anaerobic digestion would be more likely to be successful, but the huge amount of inorganic waste combined with the feedstock would take up too much space. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This space issue would be an issue with using insects to strip the organic matter as well. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23858" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="005060b7-3957-48f7-a0ec-28839d83286b" CreationDate="2020-06-06T16:03:00.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="23862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10074" RevisionGUID="88175a43-a7b3-4969-b806-5c0a172a0e99" CreationDate="2020-06-09T06:53:58.940" UserId="6293" Text="Well, the food and drink industry has steered plastic companies away from plant-based biodegradable plastic because of the concern for shelf life. So notable companies are developing plant-based recyclable or renewable plastics instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most plastic is not going to get recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now I would suggest aluminum bottles with twist-caps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for insects eating the garbage so that only the plastic remains, well it's a process that's been mentioned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23864" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10075" RevisionGUID="686733af-4cd6-4382-b7ca-6d75daf68cce" CreationDate="2020-06-09T21:46:41.157" UserId="5517" Text="I have a Solar Venti solar air heater that's supposed to be installed on the roof, or on a wall.  For various reasons it has not been installed .. lack of a suitable location.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it just takes in cold air from the surroundings, and then heats it using greenhouse effect before pumping it out again ( usually through a wall or roof opening to reach the interior), is there any reason why I just can't sit it inside a window during the day?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10075" RevisionGUID="686733af-4cd6-4382-b7ca-6d75daf68cce" CreationDate="2020-06-09T21:46:41.157" UserId="5517" Text="Solar air heater inside the window?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10075" RevisionGUID="686733af-4cd6-4382-b7ca-6d75daf68cce" CreationDate="2020-06-09T21:46:41.157" UserId="5517" Text="|heating|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23867" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10075" RevisionGUID="fad7b908-53fd-4e27-a0ed-e2caf767c854" CreationDate="2020-06-10T00:33:20.440" UserId="5517" Comment="added 180 characters in body; added 38 characters in body" Text="I have a Solar Venti solar air heater that's supposed to be installed on the roof, or on a wall.  For various reasons it has not been installed .. lack of a suitable location.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it just takes in cold air from the surroundings, and then heats it using greenhouse effect before pumping it out again ( usually through a wall or roof opening to reach the interior), is there any reason why I just can't sit it inside a window during the day?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly I will lose the heat that would otherwise enter the room through the window if I hadn't blocked it with the Solar Venti as opposed to my mounting it on an outside wall.&#xA;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/A1Ccn.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23868" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10071" RevisionGUID="02dda02b-be77-4dcc-b29c-57adf048a33e" CreationDate="2020-06-10T12:00:00.153" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1270687153517887488" />
  <row Id="23869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10076" RevisionGUID="3077102d-8d1e-43e1-bf00-0c954f54953d" CreationDate="2020-06-11T01:16:50.973" UserId="4834" Text="&gt; Clearly I will lose the heat that would otherwise enter the room through the window if I hadn't blocked it with the Solar Venti as opposed to my mounting it on an outside wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heat you're talking about losing here is the majority of the heat available in the light that enters the room.  Note that a lot of heat potential has already been lost once you are working with light that enters the room because of the reflective properties of the windows you're working with.  There are many different kinds of windows with many different reflective properties but all windows are going to reflect *some* of the incident light and some of them might reflect quite a bit of it.  When the device is outside, this doesn't matter.  When it is inside, it is working with a much reduced potential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume the light-facing part of the device is a matte black to maximize heat gain from exposure to sunlight.  The only additional heat you will gain from this setup is the difference between the heat gain of the device and the heat gain of the objects in the room the light would otherwise have struck and partially reflected off of and back out a window.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's difficult to estimate what that difference is going to be because it will depend on the objects in the room, their positions, the location of various windows, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's likely to be a small difference because many of the objects are probably not highly reflective and if they are they will probably reflect a lot of light onto other objects inside the room, not outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The device itself will contribute some heat to the room since it appears to have an electric fan.  If this is the case, the power to drive the fan will dissipate as heat and warm the room.  Of course, you're paying for the electricity for this resistance heat so it's not really a win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the device will do some work moving that heat into the *air* in the room.  This is the easiest place for it to stratify and end up at the ceiling where you will mostly not be able to appreciate it.  If there is a living space above this room, people walking on the floor in that space may appreciate the extra heat though.  However, in the air, it will probably also quickly leave the building due to unintentional or intentional air changes required for healthy air quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Contrary to this, if you let the sunlight heat the objects in the room, the heat will be available to anyone in contact with those objects - for example, someone who sits in a chair or walks on a floor which has been warmed.  Also, the heat will remain in the living space somewhat longer because it will have to radiate away from these objects and warm the air before it can be carried outside - or radiate and warm a wall which can then radiate it outside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, use of the device in the proposed manner seems like a wash or a slight loss.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23871" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10075" RevisionGUID="23e50b06-7c15-4ca2-aead-e8c74ba91737" CreationDate="2020-06-11T21:33:22.847" UserId="5517" Comment="added links" Text="I have an older [Solar Venti solar air heater](https://www.solarventi.com/product/sv7-air-up-to-50m%C2%B2/) that's supposed to be installed on the roof, or on a wall.  For various reasons it has not been installed .. lack of a suitable location.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As it just takes in cold air from the surroundings, and then heats it using greenhouse effect before pumping it out again ( usually through a wall or roof opening to reach the interior), is there any reason why I just can't sit it inside a window during the day?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly I will lose the heat that would otherwise enter the room through the window if I hadn't blocked it with the Solar Venti as opposed to my mounting it on an outside wall.  But half of that is just hitting the back of a sofa anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/A1Ccn.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6836" RevisionGUID="cbac5be4-9c78-4cd6-8eb1-4ec34c92c67d" CreationDate="2020-06-12T21:03:18.157" UserId="4477" Comment="Added a comment that Brazil nuts are poisonous in larger amounts. Back then when researching this, I didn't know that. Someone told me 200g would kill a person, so better add that..." Text="**TLDR:** Regarding water consumption and plain land use, Brazil nuts are the winners, and by far -- at least from the numbers in [this old report][1]. However, eating too many Brazil nuts can lead to selenium poisoning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the current answers ignore an important factor: Water consumption. (The question also already is a bit old.) I also included land use data further down, both from [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to around page 14 of [the report][1], green + blue water consumption (from rain and from lakes, rivers, tab water and the like) was on global average, between 1996 and 2005: &#xD;&#xA;(in m³ / ton)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Shelled:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds: 13'080 &#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts: 9'810 &#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts*: 3'740 &#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts: 7'740&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Unshelled:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds:  6'540&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts:  250 (!)&#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts*: 2'620&#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts: 4'900&#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts: 4'100&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Ground-nuts = peanuts?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Don't know/same:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cashew nuts: 13'770&#xD;&#xA; - Pistachios: 10'700&#xD;&#xA; - Shea nut: 3'360&#xD;&#xA; - Sunflower Seeds: 3'170&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I couldn't find information on Pecans, Macadamia, Mongongo, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Of course, there could have been big changes in production since 2005.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is water consumption per weight, but I would guess that most nuts have similar calorie-per-weight ratios, so a comparison of these values should make sense. The couple I checked had between 560 to 620 kcal/100g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, water is only one aspect. Transport and pesticide use would be others. [This article][2] covers other aspects, with lots of sources. For example, growing Brazil nuts apparently doesn't destroy but protect the Amazon rainforest[\[3\]][3] (but see [this paper][4], as pointed out by THelper).  And Peanuts require few to no pesticides, they say.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Production per area,* also from [\[1\]][2], in ton/(yr*hr) - higher is better:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cashew nuts:	1.99 / 3.24 = 0.6&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds:	1.57 / 1.63 = 0.96&#xD;&#xA; - Pistachios:	0.47 / 0.45 = 1.0&#xD;&#xA; - Sunflower seed: 25.8 / 21.0 = 1.2&#xD;&#xA; - Ground-nuts:	35.5 / 23.1 = 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Hazelnuts:	0.74 / 0.51 = 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Walnuts:	1.35 / 0.61 = 2.2&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts:	(No land use, so = infinity. - they apparently [grow inside of intact rainforest only][3] )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make this post even longer, here's a comparison of ***water consumption, nuts vs. meat***.&#xD;&#xA;Numbers are based on the report, 5. below, and other calorie-listing websites which I'd post if this were not beyond my link-posting limit:&#xD;&#xA;(in gallons / kcal)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Chicken: 0.3&#xD;&#xA; - Pork: 0.7&#xD;&#xA; - Beef: 1.5&#xD;&#xA; - Almonds: 0.6&#xD;&#xA; - Brazil nuts: 0.01&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  5: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-g-how-water-hungry-are-californias-nuts-20150408-htmlstory.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_____________________________________________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **Edit:** Title of the [report][1]:  &#xD;&#xA;Mekonnen, Hoekstra, 2010: *&quot;The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Volume 2: Appendices. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 47 &quot;*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report47-WaterFootprintCrops-Vol2.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://grist.org/food/what-are-the-most-eco-friendly-nuts/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/species/brazil-nut-tree&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534704000771" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23877" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10078" RevisionGUID="8eaca1b4-3564-4093-8c44-0be92f99b8f8" CreationDate="2020-06-14T01:26:12.987" UserId="2826" Text="In areas with commingled recycling, one of the arguments made for washing plastic and metal containers is contamination of paper and cardboard in the bin. One leaking unwashed can could taint the entirety of the paper and cardboard in the bin, making it unsuitable for recycling, plus the resulting mess may lead to things sticking together, making the automated sorting not work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9990" RevisionGUID="81bbe80d-afac-4d5f-ba7d-9a30486879ce" CreationDate="2020-06-15T16:28:09.270" UserId="3379" Comment="Used the (lower) CBECS value for qty of office workers." Text="Here's a piece of the answer for the U.S. Hopefully others can provide additional details covering other countries or regions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**MAJOR EDIT:** Comments pointed out that something seemed fishy. I double-checked my numbers, and at one point I multiplied by 1,000 when I should have divided. Turns out that makes a HUGE difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Office building emissions&#xD;&#xA;According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (from [Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 2012](https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/c&amp;e/cfm/c1.php)), there are 33.8 million office workers using 1.5 billion m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of non-vacant office space in the U.S. (looking at office work only since it is the most likely candidate for the switch to telework).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CBECS also provides data on energy usage for office buildings:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 773 TWh of electricity (including transmission and distribution losses)&#xD;&#xA; - 83 TWh of natural gas (for heating and cooking)&#xD;&#xA; - 5 TWh of fuel oil (diesel, also for heating)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On average in the U.S., emissions factors for each of these fuels are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 0.45 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per kWh -- total 347 million tons of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; ([source](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&amp;t=11))&#xD;&#xA; - 53.07 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per million Btu of natural gas -- total 15 million tons of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; ([source](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php))&#xD;&#xA; - 78.79 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per million Btu of fuel oil -- total 1.4 million tons of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (ibid.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus total annual emissions from office buildings is 364 million tons, or **10.77 tons per office worker per year**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Office commute emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [a 2005 poll](https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=485098&amp;page=1), the average American commutes 32 miles (51 km) a day. According to the same poll, 4% use public transit, and 8% carpool. If we assume the average carpool is two people, this means that 92% of office workers are driving 51 km a day -- about 31 million workers driving a total of 1.6 billion km per day. There are about [250 working days per year](https://www.workingdays.us/workingdays_holidays_2020.htm), so that equates to 400 billion km per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S., [the average efficiency of vehicles on the road was 22.3 miles per gallon in 2017](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles). [This equates to](https://www.calculateme.com/gas-mileage/us-mpg-to-liters-per-100-km) 10.6 L per 100 km. Combined with km driven, this means Americans are using 42 billion L of gasoline per year to commute.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Combustion of gasoline results in emissions of 8.89 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per gallon, or 2.35 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per L.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus total annual emissions from workers commuting to offices is 99 billion tons, or **2.93 tons per office worker per year**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Comparison&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are series of assumptions and approximations here (please check my math, again!), but for the average office worker who commutes in a private vehicle in the U.S., **emissions from the office are nearly triple the emissions from the drive.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we say (for arguments' sake) that emissions from a home office per capita are the same as an office building per capita, then eliminating the commute results in a 20% reduction in emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To fully understand the question, we'd need data on increased residential energy usage from teleworking. There are some estimates ([here](https://qz.com/work/1825934/how-working-from-home-impacts-your-energy-use/) and [here](https://blog.arcadia.com/remote-work-energy-efficiency/)), but nothing thorough that I could find." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23882" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10080" RevisionGUID="ceb7fbcf-92a6-4d0c-9bf9-1475bb5f9cb5" CreationDate="2020-06-17T11:49:54.420" UserId="8777" Text="This may sound strange but what I have tried this year was to collect a load of dry grass from the outside of my house after the council cut is was places about 3-4 inches of it around my apple tree and when the hundreds of windfall apples fall and eventually full grown apples fall it’s going to create a natural compost. As of now the dry grass is slowly decomposing underneath and some windfall apples are decomposing quickly with it. It’s my first year doing compost and have a separate pile but I wanted to try this method and it seems to be doing well.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10081" RevisionGUID="4831cfc3-8808-4d66-8061-a701a1bfc6cf" CreationDate="2020-06-17T18:15:38.897" UserId="8772" Text="I have 150watts 7 solar panels of specs : max DC volts 20; max SC amps 8.02Amps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Individually checked all 7 solar panels short circuit amps and they are in 6.54 - 7.84amps range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar Inverter Specs:[![Specification][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PV Watts in inverter:[![Watts][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PV Amps in inverter:[![Amps][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PV Volts in Inverter:[![Volts][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/w5Gc1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lQFaz.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DAcKi.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wTeXP.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10081" RevisionGUID="4831cfc3-8808-4d66-8061-a701a1bfc6cf" CreationDate="2020-06-17T18:15:38.897" UserId="8772" Text="My solar inverter display volts but no amps and a few watts. What's wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10081" RevisionGUID="4831cfc3-8808-4d66-8061-a701a1bfc6cf" CreationDate="2020-06-17T18:15:38.897" UserId="8772" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23887" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4902" RevisionGUID="fce506a3-30d9-4875-8cf4-da6cc4ddc2af" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Although this may not be a direct answer to the question &quot;Why is Delhi the most air-polluted city of the world?&quot; I want to go against the statement that Delhi is the most polluted city since there are a lot of ways to measure this.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;The [USA today article][1] gives a list of &quot;the world cities with highest pollution levels&quot; ranked on &quot;pollution level&quot;. &#xA;Actually the [original data (over 2014)][2] of the [WHO air pollution site][3] shows that the values are in fact the **Annual mean PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; &amp;mu;g/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;**. Where PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; are fine [particles][6] of 2.5 &amp;mu;m ([micrometre][13]) or less.&#xA;&#xA;## PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; particles&#xA;High PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; levels are obviously [unhealthy][7]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Exposure to fine particles can cause short-term health effects such as&#xA;eye, nose, throat and lung irritation, coughing, sneezing, runny nose&#xA;and shortness of breath. Exposure to fine particles can also affect&#xA;lung function and worsen medical conditions such as asthma and heart&#xA;disease. Scientific studies have linked increases in daily PM2.5&#xA;exposure with increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospital&#xA;admissions, emergency department visits and deaths.&#xA;&#xA;## Other particles&#xA;&#xA;The PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt; particles are not the only causes of low air quality, as indicated by [this WHO article][5]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The 2005 &quot;WHO Air quality guidelines&quot; offer global guidance on thresholds and limits for key air pollutants that pose health risks. The Guidelines indicate that by reducing particulate matter (PM10) pollution from 70 to 20 micrograms per cubic metre (μg/m), we can cut air pollution-related deaths by around 15%.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The Guidelines apply worldwide and are based on expert evaluation of current scientific evidence for:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; particulate matter (PM) ozone (O3) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), in all WHO regions.&#xA;&#xA;Also the slightly bigger PM&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt; particles (until 10 &amp;mu;m) are [dangerous for health][8]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Major concerns for human health from exposure to PM-10 include: effects on breathing and respiratory systems, damage to lung tissue, cancer, and premature death. &#xA;&#xA;And in fact, taking the [original data][2], we find that Peshwar, Pakistan had the highest mean PM&lt;sub&gt;10&lt;/sub&gt; concentration with 540 &amp;mu;g /m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; average, while Delhi is on the 8th place with 286 &amp;mu;g/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xA;&#xA;## Other Indices&#xA;An intend to combine the different pollutant concentration in one number is the [Air Quality Index (AQI)][9]:&#xA;&gt;[EPA][10] calculates the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground-level ozone, particle pollution (also known as particulate matter), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide&#xA;&#xA;An actual and continuously updated map of the AQI of the world can be seen on the [aqicn.org world map][11]. I have to make two notes on this data: 1) I don't know the update frequency, and 2) although some value may look better (lower), this may be because the lack of a sensor for a certain pollutant (for example PM&lt;sub&gt;2.5&lt;/sub&gt;).&#xA;&#xA;Another site, [numbeo][12], gives ranking of pollution based on surveys of visitors in which they score different thinks: air quality, water quality, garbage, etc.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;[1]: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/12/07/beijing-air-quality-china-pollution/76924786/&#xA;[2]: http://www.who.int/entity/quantifying_ehimpacts/national/countryprofile/AAP_PM_database_May2014.xls&#xA;[3]: http://www.who.int/topics/air_pollution/en/&#xA;[4]: http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/phe/oap_exposure/atlas.html&#xA;[5]: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/&#xA;[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates&#xA;[7]: http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/indoors/air/pmq_a.htm&#xA;[8]: http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd95/pm10.html&#xA;[9]: http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqibasics.aqi&#xA;[10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency&#xA;[11]: http://aqicn.org/map/world/&#xA;[12]: http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings_current.jsp&#xA;[13]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometre" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23888" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="742" RevisionGUID="b20e106d-5422-45ca-a9d1-51d97c04bd77" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="As [Highly Irregular suggests][1] this very much depends on the specifics of your vehicle, conditions outside of your car and your desired conditions inside your vehicle.&#xA;&#xA;When this question was brought up on [skeptics][2] the best evidence we could find was from Mythbusters which visited this topic in both [episode 22][3] and [episode 38][4]:&#xA;&#xA;### Episide 22&#xA;&#xA;&gt; PARTLY CONFIRMED *&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Tests were performed under varying conditions (55 mph versus 45 mph). The 55 mph test used a computer to estimate fuel efficiency based on air intake, not actual fuel consumption, and showed A/C was more efficient. The 45 mph test consisted of running the tank until it was empty, and showed open windows were more efficient.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; * Because the original tests were inconclusive, this &quot;urban puzzle&quot; was revisited in episode 38: It is more fuel efficient to use air conditioning when the car is travelling approximately 50mph or more. Otherwise, windows are more fuel efficient.&#xA;&#xA;### Episode 38&#xA;&#xA;&gt; PARTLY CONFIRMED&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The fundamental flaw in the MythBusters’ test was that the point where the drag becomes powerful enough to inhibit a car’s performance with windows down was inside their 45 – 55mph margin at 50mph. Going less than 50mph it is more efficient to leave your windows down, but going greater than 50mph it is more efficient to use your A/C.&#xA;&#xA;Sadly unless you have the same vehicle, are driving in the same conditions and have the same comfort requirements, this tells you little about your own situation.&#xA;&#xA;I would suggest that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.&#xA;&#xA;Next time you fill up, decide on a strategy and stick to it until your next fill up, then calculate your overall fuel efficiency. Then try a different strategy and see if the efficiency changes. From a series of such tests you can build up a body of empirical evidence about how your own vehicle, preferences and environment interact, and thus find out what is most sustainable for you.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/736/164&#xA;  [2]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/5661/2772&#xA;  [3]: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode22&#xA;  [4]: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode38" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="759" RevisionGUID="44261412-80bf-40a5-b970-4025e58db781" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This might help answer the question, as some reasoning has been given with the advice:&#xA;&#xA;### In New Zealand&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Disposing of old smoke alarms&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; When your smoke alarm fails, you can put it out in your normal rubbish&#xA;&gt; disposal.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; On average, a cubic metre of New Zealand soil is about as radioactive&#xA;&gt; as 13 smoke alarms. Disposing of smoke alarms in a landfill doesn’t&#xA;&gt; really change the landfill’s overall radioactivity.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; In fact, the natural radioactivity of domestic rubbish is less than&#xA;&gt; that of soil. Even if every household threw out several smoke alarms a&#xA;&gt; year, the average radioactivity in landfills would still be lower than&#xA;&gt; in most New Zealand soils.&#xA;&#xA;Source: [The NZ Govt Ministry of Health][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/healthy-living/environmental-health/household-items-and-electronics/smoke-alarms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23890" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="803" RevisionGUID="dd15231b-4851-4b89-b795-77bb1e688eca" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This is a really big question, and [@EnergyNumbers' answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/613/486) addresses some of it.  I'll try to address some more.&#xA;&#xA;## Battery End-of-Life&#xA;&#xA;Your question is obviously referring to **standard** car batteries, which are used to power the car's starter motor.  These are generally lead-acid batteries.  &#xA;&#xA;A true Electric Vehicle (EV) may have a small battery just like this (e.g. to drive accesories), but this kind of battery is **not** what drives the car, and is not the big impact on the recycling/landfill issue.  An EV's traction motor uses a Li-ion battery pack.  It's very large, and very expensive.  It also happens to be about 85% recyclable.  &#xA;&#xA;My 2011 Nissan LEAF has a 24 KWh capacity Li-ion battery pack in it.  At this point, it's hard to tell exactly what the longevity will be, because it's a new product.  However, automakers do test these things before fielding new models (the results are obviously important when they decide what kind of warranties to offer).&#xA;&#xA;Nissan projects the life of this battery pack to be 10 years.  What does that mean?  By their definition, at the end of 10 years of life, it will have a useful capacity that's 70-80% of its original capacity, depending on how you use it.  So, by no means is the battery *dead*.  But, they're estimating what a user would be willing to tolerate in terms of driving range reduction.  If your trips tend to be 20 miles or less, or you have recharge facilities at your typical destination (e.g. workplace charging), then you may continue to use your 10 year-old batteries.  But, 10 years seems like a reasonable longevity estimate.&#xA;&#xA;Currently, the bigger a battery is (all else equal), the more likely you can recycle it, and even get paid to do so.  As I said, a Li-ion battery is largely recyclable, and with 70-80% capacity, even still usable for non-automotive energy storage applications.  It's **very** hard to believe that a battery pack that originally cost [several thousand dollars](http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/15/nissan-leaf-profitable-by-year-three-battery-cost-closer-to-18/), that still has 70% capacity, and is 85% recyclable, wouldn't fetch a significant trade-in value.  This value will likely ensure that EV batteries are not simply thrown away.&#xA;&#xA;## Energy Efficiency / Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)&#xA;&#xA;As EnergyNumbers said, the overall energy efficiency of an EV depends highly on *where* the electricity came from.  **However, whether it's more environmentally friendly than standard gas internal combustion engines (ICE) does not.**  Even if all the car's electricity comes from coal, which is our dirtiest source of electricity, an EV is about 25% more energy efficient than a gas ICE.&#xA;&#xA;[From this Union of Concerned Scientists report](http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf), the average midsize gas ICE fuel economy is 26 mpg.  Based largely on the (midsize) Nissan LEAF, the EV well-to-wheels equivalent energy economy is 30 mpg&lt;sub&gt;ghg&lt;/sub&gt;.  So, that's already a 15% improvement for the 100% coal-powered EV.  However, a gas ICE's fuel economy is not rated *well-to-wheels*.  &#xA;&#xA;Like electricity, gas requires energy to make.  Currently, [gas and petro-diesel average an *energy ratio* of about 0.8 to 0.9](http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EnergyLifeCycleSoybeanBiodieseI6-11.pdf), which means that to produce a gallon of gas, you have to spend about .1 to .2 gallons to make it.  For Saudi oil, it takes relatively little energy to produce.  However, as that runs out, and we continue to get more gas/diesel from deepwater rigs, and tar sands oil, gas and diesel will become even more costly (and environmentally damaging) to produce.&#xA;&#xA;So, when you perform well-to-wheels accounting, an EV *starts* at about 25% better than a gasoline ICE.&#xA;&#xA;**Note:** a well-publicized [report has recently been released](http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html), that found Toyota Prius to be more GHG friendly than Nissan LEAF in most US states (accounting for where each state gets power from).  However, it's important to note that the Prius has a lower drag coefficient than LEAF (0.25 vs 0.28), which will increase energy economy, but is unrelated to the cars' powertrains.&#xA;&#xA;## Conclusion&#xA;&#xA;I don't know how environmentally-friendly *you* think EVs are, but yes, they are more environmentally friendly than standard gas engine cars, in almost every way.&#xA;&#xA;I'll try to post more here as I get time ...&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23891" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="805" RevisionGUID="7cf88d7b-3199-4ab6-a973-036b78a88419" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Although I think the other answers do provide good information, I would argue that, as posed on `sustainability.stackexchange.com`, all of them are still wrong (albeit maybe Chris Travers' answer is only partially so).&#xA;&#xA;**You should not put meat in your compost pile.**&#xA;&#xA;## Sustainability of Eating Meat in the First Place&#xA;&#xA;If you're even remotely concerned with sustainability (underlying assumption I'm making, based on where this question is), then you shouldn't be eating meat at all.  [**Meat is hands-down the most inefficient, unsustainable way to feed a human being, as it stands today**](http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/energy-required-to-produce-a-pound-of-food.html).&#xA;&#xA;To really go back to first principles, consider the laws of thermodynamics.  You can't create energy from nothing, and no process is perfectly energy efficient.  In order to *build* an animal from food, first you have to grow, process, and transport the food.  The animal has to eat it and process the food into energy, which it does not do with perfect efficiency.  Then, the animal has to live for a while (weeks, months, or years, depending on the meat), during which time it has to move around, eat, poop, heat itself and make noise.  All these things take energy.  &#xA;&#xA;Instead of performing this cycle, skip the animal altogether and just grow (non-animal) food that can be directly consumed by humans.  &#xA;&#xA;How inefficient it is to eat meat depends on the animal, what you feed it, and the processes used.  There is no one answer here.  But, a reasonable range, for example, might be that in order to produce a given unit of beef energy (e.g. a *calorie*), you have to put in 6 to [**50 times that much energy**](http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat) in the process.  That puts the effective energy efficiency of the process at between 2% and 16%.  That's terrible.&#xA;&#xA;Unfortunately, it gets worse.  The previous figures only discussed *energy* efficiency.  If you believe that climate change is a problem, you need understand that not all greenhouse gases are equally *potent*.  [**Methane is 22x more *effective* at trapping heat in the atmosphere**](http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html) than is CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, and the animals we get our meat from produce a lot of methane, meaning that their contribution to global warming is even worse than suggested by looking at their energy efficiency alone.&#xA;&#xA;So, don't eat meat (cow, pig, sheep, deer, etc.) in the first place.  Poultry (chicken, turkey) is a bit better.  Seafood is better still.  A vegetarian or vegan diet is most sustainable.&#xA;&#xA;## If You Do Eat Meat, Don't Compost It&#xA;&#xA;As has been said many times on this site, including in [**Chris's answer**](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/174/486), sustainability choices need to be prioritized to reduce use first, then reuse second, then recycle last.&#xA;&#xA;Why do you have **extra** meat at all?  If you have leftover meat, then buy a smaller cut.  Virtually everywhere I see meat sold allows you to buy pieces in an almost continuous array of sizes.  &#xA;&#xA;In the developing world, [**currently about 1/3 of food is lost**](http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/the-conundrum-of-food-waste/), mostly to disease or spoilage (lack of preservatives, but also refrigeration).  However, in the developed world, the loss is almost exactly the same (1/3), for different reasons.  One reason is people buying and preparing more food than they need and just throwing the rest out (or composting it).  If you need to eat 2000 calories per day, then prepare 2000 calories.  Don't prepare 2500, and then compost the unused portion.&#xA;&#xA;If you find yourself in a scenario where you can't find a way to stop eating meat, try to buy the correct portion, but you still have leftovers, then save the edible meat for tomorrow.  Chop it up to make a lunch sandwich.  If you still have fat and gristle left, those things probably won't break down quickly in your compost bin, and can create health/rodent concerns outlined in other answers.  Just bury the fat in a hole you dig.&#xA;&#xA;*Aside:* in response to the plethora of responses everywhere online about people saying &quot;I compost meat and rarely see rats&quot;, I respond: &quot;Rats tend to come out when you're not there.  Trust me, they find the meat, unless your bin is under tight lock-down.&quot;&#xA;&#xA;## Conclusion&#xA;&#xA;Asking a sustainability question about putting meat in a compost pile really is like asking one about the proper tire inflation pressure for a Humvee.  True, you can save some gas by keeping tires inflated properly, but if you have a Humvee at all, you've already gone awry.  I don't pose this comparison simply as a rhetorical tactic.  The direct contribution of agriculture to global warming is roughly equivalent to that of transportation ([**about 10-15%**](http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3213/Climate_change_and_agriculture.html)).  If you add in secondary effects from land-use change, it's even worse.&#xA;&#xA;Making the decision to not to eat farmed meat at all is one of those currently uncomfortable sustainability solutions, along with having fewer babies, and not keeping pets.  People don't want to consider it, but the impact of the choice is large, and completely within your control, right now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="806" RevisionGUID="db320568-7cd7-47a9-bdfd-45acad055e66" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I love lotus root and am a bit prejudiced against styrofoam, so I would probably try to grow lotus plants. They supposedly clean the water as well, so I am sure they'd be a good addition to your system.&#xA;&#xA;I don't much about it, but in Japan the lotus is harvested in winter (December–January), when the fields look like all harvest has long rotted away:&#xA;&#xA;[![lotus fields][1]][1]  &#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(source: [ocn.ne.jp](http://jodan.blog.ocn.ne.jp/blog/images/2013/03/20/k7_12638.jpg))&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xA;&#xA;In Japan, the [Ibaraki prefecture](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibaraki_Prefecture) seems to be the best climate for growing lotus. Since I guess you won't be able to reproduce the climate of Ibaraki, I wonder how good the lotus grows and if it tastes any good.&#xA;&#xA; [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ut7DB.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="809" RevisionGUID="6e5e01f3-fb08-4eb5-ab02-639b81761e23" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I don't know about turtles, but let me give you an idea from the world's number one fish eaters again.&#xA;&#xA;In Japan, there are several uses for fish bones (with some meat left on them). The bones plus meat are ground into a paste called [surimi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surimi), which is then processed into [satsuma age](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satsuma_age), [chikuwa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chikuwa), or similar products (pictures below), which all have a rubber-like consistency. They can be eaten cold in salads (sliced), warm in soups or just for snacks and go well with mustard and/or soy sauce. Fresh they last for about a week in the fridge, but are usually stored in the freezer for several months.&#xA;&#xA;[![satsuma-age][1]][1]  &#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(source: [cybergarden.net](http://www.cybergarden.net/gourmet/images5/DSC45582.JPG))&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xA;![chikuwa](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lv1nMvNcrYM/UMdd2GrTpyI/AAAAAAAAAks/XpPQNaVczeE/s1600/uocha_101209.jpg)&#xA;&#xA; [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/TU7Me.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23894" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="826" RevisionGUID="b9373d9a-0939-45c9-8b63-7815aba4b1d2" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Apparently a lot can be done. [Fridge triage boxes][1] look like a good idea:&#xA;&#xA;![Triage boxes][2]&#xA;&#xA;Tracking what's inside the fridge [with dry-erase decals][3] also seem good, but probably takes a lot of time to manage properly. [Keeping your fridge uncluttered][4] is definitely good.&#xA;&#xA;Grouping similar food types together in a refrigerator to increase the awareness of available foods has [scientifically been shown to be useful][5].&#xA;&#xA;[An article][6] provides great tips:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Practice FIFO. It stands for First In, First Out. When unpacking groceries, move older products to the front of the fridge/freezer/pantry and put new products in the back. This way, you’re more likely to use up the older stuff before it expires. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Understand expiration dates. Turns out those expiration dates don’t always have to do with food safety; rather, they’re usually manufacturers’ suggestions for peak quality. If stored properly, most foods (even meat) stay fresh several days past the “use-by” date. If a food looks, smells, and tastes okay, it should be fine. If any of these elements are off, then it’s time to toss it.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Smart-Fridge-Triage-Boxes-to-Reduce-Food-Waste-244376.shtml&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ow95D.jpg&#xA;  [3]: http://unclutterer.com/2013/02/11/simple-steps-you-can-take-to-reduce-food-waste/&#xA;  [4]: http://www.wholeliving.com/136597/12-ways-prevent-food-waste-home/@center/136755/green-home-guide&#xA;  [5]: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/54184/&#xA;  [6]: http://greatist.com/health/how-to-ways-reduce-food-waste" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="840" RevisionGUID="dbe7e078-58e0-4f9a-9874-10410b174ec4" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**Benefits of Buying Used Clothes**&#xA;&#xA;  This [article in ecotextiles](http://oecotextiles.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/what-is-the-energy-profile-of-the-textile-industry/) claims 100-340 MJ energy input per kg of weaved cloth (flax and cotton on the lowest on the list, nylon the highest).  Additionally the textile industry is the number one industrial polluter of fresh water and releases up to 2000 different chemicals into the environment (if someone knows more about these, please elaborate).&#xA;&#xA;Buying used clothes obviates these manufacturing outputs.  Buying clothes with recycled fabric will obviate much of this as well, though there will be associated energy with actually recycling the fabric.&#xA;&#xA;**online vs traditional retail**&#xA;&#xA;There may be beneftis to purchasing your clothing online as well.  [A life cycle inventory analysis](http://www.ce.cmu.edu/GreenDesign/docs/life-cycle-comparison.pdf) conducted at Carnegie Mellon found that e-commerce options were less energy intensive 80% of the time (30% less energy on average).  However, in their analysis, 65% of traditional retail primary energy was composed of personal transportation to the store, so if that isn't an issue in your shopping, then this analysis might not be that meaningful.  Last mile delivery and packaging composed 32% and 22% of e-commerce energy usage, respectively.&#xA;&#xA;**where can i buy used fashion?**&#xA;&#xA;Of course there are your local thrift stores, but below is intended to be wiki list of places and websites with high availability of recycled materials or used clothing:&#xA;&#xA; - [etsy.com](http://www.etsy.com/) has both retail and personal vendors selling used items, clothing as well as craft items.&#xA; - [ebay](http://www.ebay.com/) is rather obvious, but it allows you to filter your searches based on their condition, with an option for pre-owned.&#xA; - [Threadflip](http://threadflip.com/) is dedicated to re-purposed clothing for women.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23896" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="849" RevisionGUID="ffa13d23-1c7c-4cfb-a8e9-b9ca20b87f49" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**Quick answer**: &#xA;&#xA;It depends on the circumstances in your bin and your abilities to keep those circumstances ideal for a particular type of worm. Assuming this is no problem, my best bet would be that a mix of Eisenia Fetida and Eisenia Hortensis has the highest throughput rate.&#xA;&#xA;**Long answer**:&#xA;&#xA;Most research on vermicomposting focuses on reproduction and grow rates of different worms species. It is assumed that higher reproduction rates means more juvenile worms which in turn means a higher processing rate. I'm not entirely sure if this assumption is true but since we have nothing else to go on I'll stick with reproduction and grow rates for my answer.&#xA;&#xA;Mixing worm species can be done just fine as long as you can keep the conditions in your bin suited for all species involved. Chances are however that the conditions will be more favorable for one particular type of worm and that this worm will flourish and the population of the other worms will decline, so not all combinations of worm species will result in an effective mix.&#xA;&#xA;Most research on vermicomposting worms favor Eisenia Fetida (a.k.a red worm) for a number of reasons. &#xA;&#xA;  1. Fetida worms have fast reproduction and grow rates, &#xA;  2. they tolerate and can survive under a wide range of circumstances, &#xA;  3. they don't mind disturbances of their enviroment (at least not so much as other worm species like the Eudrilus Eugeniae). &#xA;&#xA;It is for these reasons that the Fetida worm has become [the most popular one](http://www.wormcomposting.ca/worms/red-worms-eisenia-fetida/) for vermicomposting. A bin with only Fetida worms certainly is a good choice to get a good throughput rate under different circumstances. The only problem with Fetida worms is that they tend to stay close to the surface. They don't eat food that is buried deep into a bin. That's why I think you might be able to get a slightly higher throughput rate if you add Eisenia Hortensis (a.k.a. Dendobaena Veneta or European nightcrawler) worms. Hortensis worms like it a bit more wet and colder than Fetida worms, but both species will do ok in circumstances that are a bit less than ideal. Additionally, Hortensis worms like to spread out all over the bin so if you add food both at the top as well as deeper into the bin you'll get a larger surface of active worms.&#xA;&#xA;Note that there has been some discussion about Hortensis worms. Research done in the late 80s and early 90s showed that the Hortensis had a rather low reproduction and grow rate, but in the late 90s this has been questioned by a number of worm farmers. Several people have reported that they found that the Hortensis worm can grow and reproduce just as fast as the Fetida  and claim the different results can be explained by the difference in bin conditions or in the food supplied to the worms (see [here](http://vermicomposters.ning.com/group/eiseniahortensisfarmers), [here](http://www.redwormcomposting.com/worm-composting/european-nightcrawler-cocoons/#comment-3489) and [here](http://vermicomposters.ning.com/profiles/blogs/eisenia-hortensis-european)). AFAIK the high reproduction rate of the Hortensis has not been proven scientifically yet but the fact is that the Hortensis worm has gained quite a bit of popularity in the last 10 years. If the Hortensis worm indeed has a similar reproduction and grow rate then it may outperform the Fetida worm when it comes to throughput rates.&#xA;&#xA;Like I said in my quick answer, ultimately it will depend on the circumstances in your bin(s) and your abilities to keep those circumstances ideal for one or more types of worms. If you have a rather wet bin, it might be best just to use only Hortensis worms. If you have a lot of temperature changes the Fetida worm may be better. If your bin is kept at a constant temperature of around 25 Celsius (77 F) a bin with only Eudrilus Eugeniae might be the better choice. The best way to find out what works for you is simply to experiment.&#xA;&#xA;**EDIT:** &#xA;&#xA;I just found this very interesting answer of Robert Moore at the bottom of [this post](http://www.researchgate.net/post/Producing_a_hybrid_species_of_composting_worms) &#xA;&#xA;&gt; What I have found is that combined breeding does increase the breadth of microbial species versus that found in single-species breeding.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; It is mainly the saprophytic microbial activity that composts, not the earthworm per se.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; ...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The rate of decomposition is therefore a matter of the diversity and density of the microbial community along with how many earthworm mouths are present for a given volume of bedding which should be at C:N of 30:1 for maximum microbial reproduction within newly-prepared bedding, and harvested at 25:1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="875" RevisionGUID="8f4a0f31-e1ea-4868-b870-ef55db314999" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="A specific answer to your very narrow question wouldn't be much use to anyone else; and you haven't given us enough information to give you a specific answer anyway.&#xA;&#xA;But what we can do, is give you the types of information you'd need to make a decision.&#xA;&#xA;And I'll restrict it just to PV and wind, as that's what you've asked about; others reading this might want to ask another question, if they were interested in other types of renewables: solar thermal, hydro, geothermal, and so on.&#xA;&#xA;## 1. Understand your demand profile.&#xA;First you need to know the profile of your electricity use.  Ideally hour-by-hour for a whole year; but at least an understanding of what's likely to be the two underlying cycles:&#xA; &#xA;1. annual variations - how the load varies by month in a typical year.&#xA;2. daily variations - how the load varies by hour in a typical day.&#xA;&#xA;One of the most effective things you can do, is to max out the efficiency of the equipment you want to power: so LED lighting that's over 100 lumens per watt, that sort of thing. That minimises both the generation capacity, and any storage capacity, you might need.&#xA;&#xA;## 2. Understand the potential supply profile&#xA;&#xA;### 2a. Solar&#xA;The nature of the solar resource, for photovoltaics, will be influenced by local shading patterns: the exact geometric configuration of buildings; and by the climate of the region you are in. If you can find a big-enough surface area that you can mount PV panels that would slope towards the equator, and almost never be shaded, that removes the local shading from the calculation, and that makes thing a lot simpler.  To get typical PV yield for your region, and to find out the best slope, then use a tool such as [PVGIS][1] or [PVWatts][2]&#xA;&#xA;### 2b. wind&#xA;The wind profile is much much more susceptible to local geometry than solar is.  But you should be able to get a decent broadbrush indication from your national meteorological service, or one of the various global wind-resource maps, to get a first estimate.  You can pretty much ignore most roof-mounted turbines: they've such a low yield that many won't generate equivalent energy to that used to make them. Pole-mounted turbines are a better bet, but if you're in an urban area, then it's fairly unlikely that wind will be a contributor.&#xA;&#xA;## 3. Understand correlations between supply and demand&#xA;Some demands are positively correlated with wind or solar; some are negatively correlated. It's important to understand those correlations, otherwise you risk generating power at all the wrong times, and not at the right times.&#xA;&#xA;For example, lighting may be predominantly a night-time demand, so it would be strongly negatively correlated with solar, and that's a bad thing.&#xA;&#xA;To take some counter examples: solar for air-conditioning would be a good match, because air-conditioning demand is higher when it's very sunny. Wind in the UK is higher in winter than summer, so a demand that is higher in winter than summer would be a positive correlation and a good match: for example, heating.&#xA;&#xA;## 4. Storage&#xA;Generally, when many people think about renewables, they usually assume local storage is essential. And in most circumstances, they're wrong. The exception is when the site in question is not grid-connected.&#xA;&#xA;In such a case, then you'll have two choices: storage, or load disconnection. Storage is usually expensive, so make sure that you know the value of load disconnection, to price the storage correctly.&#xA;&#xA;There will then be a trade-off between the amount of storage you need, and the over-supply of generation capacity that you get.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvgis/&#xA;  [2]: http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23898" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="879" RevisionGUID="d2ac1611-0f68-46bc-a08b-017676282189" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="No, it is not true if you have a themostat, then there is no such thing as 'waste heat'. If you have a thermostat, there can still be such a thing as waste heat.&#xA;&#xA;### Space&#xA;&#xA;The positioning and timing of heaters around the house typically isn't random: heating devices are typically sited in particular places, facing particular directions, for a good reason: we want heat to be some place in particular.&#xA;&#xA;A fridge and freezer will typically make one corner of your kitchen quite warm. Now, depending on air circulation and the surfaces behind it, much of that heat might be going out through an external wall. The same goes for the rest of waste heat: an incandescent lamp in the centre of a ceiling might only result in a warm centre of your ceiling that's no use at all.&#xA;&#xA;### Time&#xA;Heating systems usually have time controllers on them, because it's rare to want heating on 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Waste heat from other appliances may be there when you don't want it, and may have leaked away by the time you did.&#xA;&#xA;### Increased cooling&#xA;And anything that dumps heat year-round, in climates and buildings where part of the year is very hot, may be adding to the overheating.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="930" RevisionGUID="8831cc0d-0e69-4f73-aa34-7152099be493" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I'll split this answer into two parts: the political and the personal&#xA;&#xA;# Political impact&#xA;Whatever political system you live in, you have some route to make a political impact. The amount of impact will depend on your exact circumstance, but you will have some impact somewhere: through your elected representative, through a national political party, through a religious body, or through economic influence.&#xA;&#xA;Once you've identified a person of influence in one of those spheres, next find out what motivates them, what sort of language they use to describe problems and solutions, and what their priorities are.  Then, explain to them how catastrophic anthropogenic global warming will worsen some of those problems; and give them three good tactical approaches to preventing that from happening.&#xA;&#xA;### An example&#xA;In a representative democracy, there are routes to power through party-political structures, and through elected members. One can join a political party that is free of policies you find completely unacceptable, and work within it to develop policies to mitigate global warming. If the party's main message is one of protecting the weak and creating an equitable society, then your approach would be to talk about how catastrophic global warming would make the poorest suffer, and how it would divert resources away from tackling wealth inequity.&#xA;&#xA;**The three tactical approaches might be:**&#xA;&#xA;1. working with international partners to put in place rapid decarbonisation targets;&#xA;2. transferring part of the source of taxation from something that is held to be a good thing, such as employment, onto greenhouse-gas emissions; and combining this with an equivalent import duty on goods and services that contain [embedded carbon][1].&#xA;3. introduce capital grants to low-income households, to enable them to buy photovoltaic panels extremely cheaply, and then to sell their surplus power back to the grid.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;# Personal impact&#xA;For almost all of us, our own personal emissions are very small in the scheme of things. And yet, if each of us can take personal actions to halve our total greenhouse gas impact, then global emissions will halve. So together, our impact can be huge. Furthermore, wherever there are some market forces in place, then changing your demand from high-carbon goods and services to low-carbon ones, will incentivise commerce and industry to decarbonise at the margins. The main thing is to work out where your biggest personal impact is, and to start there.&#xA;&#xA;### An example&#xA;For anyone who flies or drives a lot, their travel is probably a very large part of their personal carbon footprint. If the long trips can be shifted to train, and the shorter drives can be shifted to bus, tram, metro, walking or cycling, then that can have a big impact.&#xA;&#xA;For anyone living a climate where a large part of the year requires space-heating, and that's done through gas, oil, coal or high-carbon electricity, then investing in insulation and reducing draughts should save you money in the long run, and will reduce your personal emissions.&#xA;&#xA;[If you have a choice of electricity provider, then in some cases, changing provider can make a difference.][2]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/richard-conlin/but-what-about-embedded-carbon&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/682/48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="968" RevisionGUID="77587b98-72e6-4947-8255-999184fa4fda" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Many years ago I was taking some classes about traditional pottery where a lot of attention was given to contact with the earth and sustainability. I remember a few times they told us about traditional painting of those pots with oxides, as a natural method of painting. I never got to the point of really using it in class, but always kept on thinking about what it would be like.&#xA;&#xA;Does anybody have some experience? How does it work?&#xA; &#xA;I imagine they must use minerals for it, but then I wonder how sustainable it is? Also it must depend on which mineral you would use and how much is needed for a little bit of paint?&#xA;&#xA;**Edited:**&#xA;&#xA;I was thinking about the technique to make this (picture), other techniques might be interesting too, as long as they are natural materials and do not need a lot of material.&#xA;&#xA;I find that iron oxides are used for red and yellow colours. Charcoal might be used for black and kaolinite for white. I imagine blue can be generated by copper oxides.&#xA;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1full]&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Jaguar_vase.jpg&#xA;  [1full]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jaguar_vase.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1027" RevisionGUID="78fcd449-5ca4-450d-a7a0-3df1153a5f0e" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="## Short Answer&#xA;&#xA;Does it **need** an equator-facing roof?  No.&#xA;&#xA;Does it *help* to face the equator?  Yes, but probably not as much as most people might think.&#xA;&#xA;## Elaboration&#xA;&#xA;Solar panels are surprisingly productive, even if they're not oriented optimally.  If your primary goal in installing home solar is a desire to produce renewable energy (for environmental reasons), almost any roof will do, **as long as it's not shaded by other buildings or trees**.  If your goal in installing home solar is purely to save money, then you may care more about the modest losses from suboptimally-oriented panels.&#xA;&#xA;Let's look at a typical plot of solar panel output, as a function of roof orientation (e.g. relative to the equator), and panel tilt (relative to horizontal):&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xA;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Source: http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-panel-tilt-and-orientation-in-australia/&lt;/sub&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Let's say your panels are tilted 32&amp;deg; from horizontal.  The graph shows that you get 100% of the maximum energy production if you point the panels North (this is an Australian chart).  But, if you point the panels Northeast or Northwest, at the same tilt angle, you're still easily within the white area indicating 90+% of the maximum energy production of your panels!  And even pointing due East or West, the worst possible orientation &lt;sup&gt;(&amp;#8225;)&lt;/sup&gt;, you're still producing about 85% of the maximum.  That's only a 15% loss, with a *&quot;bad&quot;* roof orientation!&#xA;&#xA;## Optimal Tilt Angle&#xA;&#xA;If you look closely at the graph, you can also see that if you are pointed away from the equator, the optimal tilt angle also changes.  For example, on the above chart, if your roof points ENE (about 75&amp;deg;), then you'll get the highest output (90% of the max) with a tilt angle of less than 20&amp;deg;.  Pointing at the equator, the optimal tilt angle was about 32&amp;deg;. So, as your roof points away from the equator, a more shallow tilt angle (flat panel) works better.&#xA;&#xA;## More Locations&#xA;&#xA;[Here's a table showing similar relative calculations at a variety of Latitudes](http://www.ftexploring.com/solar-energy/tilt-angle3.htm).&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;If you really want to get the precise number for your location on Earth, check out the [US NREL's PVWatt tool](http://gisatnrel.nrel.gov/PVWatts_Viewer/index.html). &#xA;&#xA; - Pick your location on the world map&#xA; - Scroll down in the little popup window and select **Send to PVWatts**&#xA; - Pick the **Array Tilt** (pitch) and **Array Azimuth** (direction roof points)&#xA; - Press **Calculate** button&#xA; - Record the total yearly AC energy (kWh) for this combination&#xA; - Go back and change the **Array Azimuth** for a different roof orientation, and see what the total yearly AC energy is now&#xA;&#xA;Doing this, you can compare the results for the direction (azimuth) your roof points, with the optimum (180&amp;deg; for Northern hemisphere, and 0&amp;deg; for Southern).  That will show more precisely *how much roof orientation matters*.  &#xA;&#xA;As I said, it's not that much.&#xA;&#xA;You can perform the same comparison with **Array Tilt**.&#xA;&#xA;(&amp;#8225;) &lt;sub&gt;Technically, East - West is not the worst roof face to pick.  You could, for example, pick a North-facing roof in the Northern hemisphere.  My friends in California claim that this is somewhat common, as some people will choose to place their solar panels on the side of the roof that faces the street, so they can show off their *green-ness*, rather than the side of the roof that's most efficient&lt;/sub&gt;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7QT4P.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1041" RevisionGUID="04088402-d96d-46bb-85b0-0ce90a6a56ca" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I've found the answer by chance:&#xA;&#xA;There was a specific repowering programme from 2001-2003, which caused the 2002 spike.&#xA;&#xA;James Lawson has the full answer, in his article [Repowering Gives New Life to Old Wind Sites][1] published on Renewable Energy World today - Monday, June 17, 2013.&#xA;&#xA;James writes:&#xA;&#xA; &gt; Denmark's first wind repowering programme ran from 2001 to 2003. Owners of turbines smaller than 100 kW were able to install three times the capacity removed and receive a bonus on top of the normal FiT for the first five years. For units of 100 kW-150 kW, owners could install twice the capacity removed and receive the same treatment. Under this programme 1480 turbines totalling 122 MW were replaced with 272 new turbines of 332 MW in sum. The second Danish repowering scheme ran from 2008-2011 and offered a premium on top of the normal tariff for replacing up to 175 MW of old turbines with new machines that had at least double the capacity.&#xA; &gt;&#xA;&gt; However, one of the reasons for supporting repowering - better use of good wind sites - often did not apply. Owners of old wind farms could decommission their turbines and sell the resulting repowering certificates to other wind developers, who then applied the extra FiT to new projects elsewhere.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; “You just had to show you had decommissioned old turbines somewhere in Denmark,” says Sune Strøm, chief economist at the [Danish Wind Industry Association][2]. “There was no geographical link.”&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; According to Strøm, the system distorted the market value of old turbines and made the cost of compensating old investors artificially high. Today there are no specific incentives for repowering in Denmark.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/06/repowering-gives-new-life-to-old-wind-sites?cmpid=rss&#xA;  [2]: http://www.windpower.org/en/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23903" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1064" RevisionGUID="acf3be06-91a0-4475-b210-d169aae626be" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This is a bit specific to each solar PV installation, but I'll give it a shot.&#xA;&#xA;## Short Answer&#xA;&#xA;For a 4kW array, the [actual power output you see is likely to be around 3kW][7] if your system is operating properly, assuming the array isn't too old.  For more, read on ...&#xA;&#xA;## Proprietary Monitoring Software &#xA;&#xA;First of all, many home solar installations now are done by companies that specialize in putting together packages of the solar panels, the inverter, and a control panel to monitor the system.  If you're in that situation, then you basically get what the company who wrote the control panel's software decides to give you.  It's unlikely that building your own monitoring circuitry or software would be a good use of time, although if you're a DIY type, [I might suggest looking at LabView][5] or [OpenEnergyMonitor][9] to create your own monitoring system.&#xA;&#xA;It's also unlikely that the software features that come with your system are going to be (or should be) a *primary* factor in picking the system.  I personally would rank the kind of panels, the inverter hardware, the experience of the installers, the price, and specific tax incentives as more important than the amount and kind of data you can see on the control panel, or web interface that the system supports.&#xA;&#xA;Here are a few examples from some systems available where I live:&#xA;&#xA; - https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/public/systems/ZHN8479&#xA; - http://www.greenraysolar.com/sites/default/files/GreenRay-SunTrakMonitoringSystem.pdf&#xA; - http://documents.locusenergy.com/SolarOS-Site_Owner_App_Product_Sheet.pdf&#xA; - http://www.civicsolar.com/resource/solar-energy-pv-monitoring-options&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## Metrics&#xA;&#xA;In terms of what you should watch, I think solar panels are a bit like a car.  If you only want to watch **one thing** to assess a car engine's health, watch your fuel consumption (e.g. miles per gallon, km/l, etc.).  With solar panels, `kWh` produced per month is probably the equivalent metric.  That number can be affected by a few different factors, but if the number is close to the output when your panels were first installed (adjusted for *expected degradation* &lt;sup&gt;&amp;#8225;&lt;/sup&gt;), that's a good indication that the whole system is functioning reasonably well.&#xA;&#xA;[Some systems allow you to see the production *per module*][4], which can help identify one bad module in your array.  Having electronics on each module helps both with fine-grained monitoring, but also allows micro-inverters or DC-DC converters to [tune each's module's performance][8] independently.&#xA;&#xA;Another metric that may be available to you is panel **temperature**.  Excessive temperature can be a sign of problems, and high temperatures can damage photovoltaics, like many electronics.  &#xA;&#xA;You may also be able to see the panel **output voltage**, or the **frequency** (Hz) of the power your inverter is producing.  Familiarize yourself with the normal values for your system, and note any deviations from that baseline.&#xA;&#xA;Finally, your system may have a separate **status** output that indicates that a particular module's health is Ok, Failed, Degraded, or Unknown.&#xA;&#xA;## Sunshine&#xA;&#xA;Keep in mind that the solar panels can only convert energy from what the sun gives them.  Variations in weather do make a difference, so if your panel output this month is 5% lower than the output from the same month last year, that doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem.&#xA;&#xA;Take a look at the climate data [aggregated at the US National Climatic Data Center](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/mcdw/mcdw.html) (*Note: this isn't just US data ... it's global*).  If you open up the PDF file for a given month (there's a couple month delay in the published data), find a city near you, and look at the far right column to see total hours of sunshine:&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xA;&#xA;In the row I highlighted, the monthly sunshine was 26% higher than average for that month.  So, in that case, you'd expect your monthly output to be higher than most years.  This is a rough way to assess performance, but it's better than simply comparing to the same month last year, without adjusting for sunshine.&#xA;&#xA;Some off-the-shelf software monitoring systems do interface with weather and climate data services, and show some measure of sunshine.  The ones I've seen show instantaneous *solar irradiance*, which I don't think is as useful as longer term sunshine data.&#xA;&#xA;## (&amp;#8225;) Expected Performance Loss&#xA;&#xA;It's important to know what to expect from a solar PV system.  Panel performance will degrade slowly, and smoothly, over time, so that's to be anticipated.  [From the US National Renewable Energy Lab, 2010][2]:&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xA;&#xA;So, depending on the kind of photovoltaics you use, and when they were built, you might *expect* a 1/2% loss in output per year, or it might be 2% per year.&#xA;&#xA;Inverter problems may show up more abruptly, and [before the photovoltaics reach their end of life][6].  Of course, physical damage to your panels can **instantly** affect their performance, too.&#xA;&#xA;## Finally&#xA;&#xA;If you haven't already had your system installed, or have a maintenance visit coming up, **ask this question of your installer**, who will likely have important experience with the specific failure modes of your hardware.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vSUnm.png&#xA;  [2]: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/47704.pdf&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/adFrz.png&#xA;  [4]: http://evaluatesolar.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Enphase-Enlighten.jpg&#xA;  [5]: http://sine.ni.com/cs/app/doc/p/id/cs-14872&#xA;  [6]: http://www.solarenergyexperts.co.uk/buyersguides/solar-panel-problems-troubleshooting/&#xA;  [7]: http://www.homepower.com/articles/solar-electricity/design-installation/potential-pv-problems&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_point_tracking&#xA;  [9]: http://openenergymonitor.org/emon/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1075" RevisionGUID="ff077698-7410-496e-87f9-1d6ca6e12916" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="There is a possibility you are looking for the wrong thing.&#xA;&#xA;In Australia we have a [reasonable][1] [selection][2] of &quot;not rebleached&quot; 100% recycled toilet papers which are almost identical in whiteness to regular bleached papers. So maybe you are looking for brown when there are white options which fit what you are after (pulp sourced from sustainable options or 100% recycled, not bleached etc.)&#xA;&#xA;I use Naturale at home and it is one of the low cost options at the supermarket, is available Australia wide and I would say it matches any other brand in terms of quality.&#xA;&#xA;I also stumbled across this, which may prove helpful:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;How will I know if I am buying unbleached, environmentally safe toilet paper?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The paper industry has recognized the consumers interest in getting&#xA;&gt; chlorinated chemicals out of the bleaching process. You will be able&#xA;&gt; to choose the right paper, made without ANY chlorine, if you remember&#xA;&gt; just a few simple terms: &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - “UNBLEACHED”- Recycled Papers that have NOT&#xA;&gt; been re-bleached &#xA;&gt; - “PROCESSED CHLORINE-FREE”- Recycled papers bleached&#xA;&gt; with oxygen, ozone or hydrogen peroxide instead of chlorine chemicals&#xA;&gt; - “TOTALLY CHLORINE-FREE”- Non-recycled papers bleached with oxygen,&#xA;&gt; ozone or hydrogen peroxide instead of chlorine chemicals &#xA;&gt; - “ELEMENTAL&#xA;&gt; CHLORINE-FREE”- Papers bleached with chlorine dioxide instead of&#xA;&gt; chlorine gas. These chemicals still contain chlorine, so this process&#xA;&gt; still produces dioxins!&#xA;&#xA;Source: [The Toilet Paper Encyclopedia][3]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://products.planetark.org/paproducts/safe.cfm&#xA;  [2]: http://www.naturale.com.au/product.php&#xA;  [3]: http://encyclopedia.toiletpaperworld.com/toilet-paper-history/toilet-paper-and-the-environment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="721" RevisionGUID="48d07343-eb6c-4e8b-9387-db5e28efdb0b" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="While such a project is technically possible, I have to wonder: why bother? There already exists a huge energy infrastructure, warehouses full of photovoltaic (PV) waiting to be bought, electricity transmission networks, mineral extraction and processing plants, and so on. Doing it all from scratch while ignoring available infrastructure looks like putting a purist philosophy above the practicalities. Which is romantic, but it's not engineering.&#xA;&#xA;### Technical feasibility&#xA;For it to be technically feasible, just requires that the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) is greater than 1, when assessed on a full lifecycle basis. And we have renewable technologies that meet that criterion - here are some examples. (NB specific values will depend on the specific installation - the following numbers are ballpark)&#xA;&#xA; - Onshore wind has an EROEI in the range 18-80&#xA; - Offshore wind has an EROEI of around 20-35&#xA; - PV has an EROEI of around 6-38&#xA;&#xA;Some sources: [1][1], [2][2], [3 (pdf)][3]&#xA;### Real-world example&#xA;[Highly Irregular's answer][4] identifies the [Sahara Solar Breeder][5] (SSB) project. &#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][6]&#xA;&#xA;Here  are its technical objectives:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. Harnessing the 3rd value of the desert for energy: Large scale/low cost production of  solar-grade silicon from desert sand.&#xA;&gt; 2. Solar breeder: Construction of solar cell plant doubling its scale every energy payback time (1-2 years at present).&#xA;&gt; 3. DC power transmission by HTSC cable: From test line to global network&#xA;&#xA;There are a few odd things on there. Why go for High Temperature Superconductor (HTSC) for transmission? It doesn't make sense at the moment - it's an excessively complex way of doing things. High-voltage direct-current (HVDC) losses are low over long-distances, and it's a much simpler, more reliable technology. Their target isn't that ambitious - 100GW of capacity in 30 years: the world did that in (about) the last ten years, and is likely to do the same in fewer than the next 5 years - the plan is to get to [300GW of new capacity per year by 2025][7].&#xA;&#xA;It's a useful experiment to prove the concept. It's a useful trial run for a similar project on, say, Mars. But the starting-from-scratch concept doesn't have a lot going for it in terms of providing clean global electricity: why slow down decarbonisation by ignoring all the really useful infrastructure already in place?&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-1-environmental-benefits/energy-balance-analysis.html&#xA;  [2]: http://www.vestas.com/Files/Filer/EN/Sustainability/LCA/LCAV90_juni_2006.pdf&#xA;  [3]: http://www.clca.columbia.edu/241_Raugei_EROI_EP_revised_II_2012-03_VMF.pdf&#xA;  [4]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/708/48&#xA;  [5]: http://www.ssb-foundation.com/&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JmKnB.jpg&#xA;  [7]: http://www.pv-magazine.com/features/300-gwa-initiative/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23906" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1083" RevisionGUID="479fd19c-9e9e-436c-b3cd-39af615bd5ad" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I agree with everything in [EnergyNumbers' answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1081/486), but would like to add some more:&#xA;&#xA;## (Other) Advantages of Electric Motors&#xA;&#xA;Along the lines of *&quot;easier to maintain&quot;*, **an electric motor is likely to last much longer**, for example, in an automotive application, than an internal combustion engine (ICE).  An EV traction motor may very well last 1,000,000 miles, versus perhaps one quarter of that for most ICEs.  While it's true that current EVs tend to use batteries to power the motors, and batteries may need to be replaced at a comparable interval to an ICE timing belt, an EV with a new battery is going to run much more like a new vehicle than an ICE with a new timing belt.  The regenerative braking associated with the electric motor will also prolong brake life.&#xA;&#xA;**Electric motors are more quiet than ICEs.**  This is a controversial topic.  I believe noise pollution to be a problem, and thus, a quieter car to be better (especially with respect to *sustainability*).  Some are concerned about pedestrian safety with quieter electric motors.  While this can be, and is being, addressed by adding noise makers to electric cars, I believe this solution is actually misguided.  The basis for this aversion to quiet cars partly draws from a [multi-year study][1] in the US concerning pedestrian accidents with hybrid vehicles.  The hybrid vehicles had a 40% higher rate of pedestrian accidents than non-hybrids.  However, the study did not correct for the fact that in the US, hybrids tend to be owned by city-dwellers, and the rate of pedestrian accidents is twice as high in cities vs. rural areas, for all cars.  I believe this factor alone can explain the 40% result.  Also, during this study, which involved thousands of hybrid cars, not a single blind person was killed by a quiet hybrid.&#xA;&#xA;**Size matters**.  In an application-agnostic answer, it's important to note that for some applications, electric motors are more versatile because of the variety of sizes they come in.  Hopefully, it's obvious that an ICE to make your phone vibrate is not an option, but a motor works quite well.&#xA;&#xA;## Disadvantages of Electric Motors&#xA;&#xA;Without specifying your application, I'll try to discuss multiple transportation applications.  For cars or trains, the excess **weight** of a battery pack that drives an electric motor is not a huge penalty.  The road provides extra normal force to balance the vehicle weight.  However, in aerospace applications, power-to-weight ratio is more critical.  So, for airplanes, using electric motors for propulsion is still not practical.  Liquid fuels have a [higher energy density][4] compared to batteries, which makes petro-fuels or biofuels more attractive for airborne propulsion.&#xA;&#xA;This is less of a problem for cars, which [do not yet have to levitate][5].  Also, it should be noted that comparisons of energy density for liquid fuels vs. batteries distort the true picture, because **total weight** is what's important, and an ICE system requires a heavy ICE, and a heavy transmission.  When the whole system is considered, battery EVs suffer a noticeable, but acceptable, weight penalty for their lower energy-density fuel.&#xA;&#xA;**Battery range** (capacity) is also a problem for EVs.  However, I believe this issue to be exaggerated, as the average US driver (who drives a lot!) still only drives 40 miles on an average day.  In the future, more charging stations will also minimize the range problem for electric cars.  However, for now, range versatility has to be considered an advantage of ICE vehicles.  An interesting compromise is made by Chevy's [Volt EV][3], which is fundamentally an electric car, but which carries an on-board generator for recharging the battery by burning liquid petro-fuel.&#xA; &#xA;**Temperature** constraints can be a disadvantage for electric motors, *due to the batteries themselves*.  High temperatures can shorten battery life, and very low temperatures can (temporarily) reduce the useful capacity of the battery.  Note that *normal* temperatures here on earth are well-suited to battery EVs, so this issue is more a problem if your area has temperature extremes.&#xA;&#xA;## Economic&#xA;&#xA;This is difficult to answer without a more specific question.  Electric motors will draw their fuel from different sources than internal combustion engines.  Each country will have different economics regarding their electric grid, and oil consumption.  If your country has more abundant resources to produce electricity (coal, natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear), you may consider electric motors an economic benefit.  If you're in an oil country, maybe not.  &#xA;&#xA;When you add biofuels to the mix, you add agriculture as a factor.  Most internal combustion engines can use varying levels of biofuels.  An [Otto cycle engine needs modest engine modifications to run rich ethanol blends][2].  Many modern diesel engines need no modifications to run biodiesel (although winter cold can limit the blend).  &#xA;&#xA;So, ICEs can provide a domestic economic boost if your country can grow its own biofuel feedstock.&#xA;&#xA;## Conclusion&#xA;&#xA;I believe that pollution (which includes greenhouse gas) and energy efficiency are the most important factors here, and those favor electric motors for many applications.  EnergyNumbers' answer covers those well.  I simply wanted to add a few more pros *and cons* to round out the topic.&#xA;&#xA;## More&#xA;&#xA;*Disclaimer: biased owner of an electric vehicle, but I've certainly owned ICEs, too :)*&#xA;&#xA;[A related question about Electric Cars on Sustainable Living](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/612/486)&#xA;&#xA;**Note:** more sources coming later ...&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811204.PDF&#xA;  [2]: http://www.slideshare.net/sughoshdeshmukh/ethanol-engine-modifications&#xA;  [3]: http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg&#xA;  [5]: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm237341696/tt0181689" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="720" RevisionGUID="6fb0b0ce-9c6d-41bf-8ba9-5f77bbda3348" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="&gt; So are there such projects?&#xA;&#xA;No. Or, only just. So far. For good reason.   &#xA;They MAY come. but not soon, and not easily.   &#xA; BUT energy production as a whole is potentially moving towards the model suggested in the question. Whether it gets there depends on many factors ...&#xA;&#xA;As much as we all may like to see a numerous and increasing number of &quot;breeder&quot; projects the reality so far is that the only ones that appear to exist turn out to so far be only theoretical and &quot;on paper&quot;. Their day is yet to come.&#xA;&#xA;Overall such systems do exist on a larger scale but they are interleaved through industry as a whole. That is, rather than having identifiable stand alone systems that self-grow we instead have an industrial society whose energy production capability is increasing and which uses its own energy production to drive this increase. So far this increase is driven by energy from mixed sources - both renewable and non renewable. &#xA;&#xA;The prospect of renewable energy sources providing an increasing proportion of total energy production - and so approaching the ideal suggested by the questioner, increases with time due to eg &#xA;&#xA; - As our capabilities grow the ability to get more energy per land area from windfarms, &#xA;&#xA; - Increasing efficiencies from solar photovoltaic while using thinner lower material content PV cells. (eg until recently state of the art industrial PV crystalline silicon panels were about 18% efficient but recent back contact cells with improved antireflective methods have resulted in 23%+ efficient commercially available PV cells. Efficiency improvement allows higher energy per area, less maintenance costs from eg cleaning, better land utilisation. Silicon material availability is not usually a primary issue but thinner cells improve yields and allow new variants such as flexible crystalline silicon - double side irradiation etc.  &#xA;&#xA; - Longer life higher efficiency solar thermal plants with eg molten salt heat storage to extend operating hours per day.&#xA;&#xA; - Commercialisation of dish-Stirling systems with best in class efficiencies in excess of that so far achievable by solar PV. (Commercially viable Solar dish Stirling has been  a decades long journey which even now is at the marginal stage. )&#xA;&#xA;All these and others will slowly push up the the potential proportion of renewable energy in the global energy mix. However, the massive increasaes in petroleum availability on the last decade or so due to &quot;Fracking&quot; developments and the incipient potential for eg coal recovery by fluid flow methods and the massive potential for deep sea Methane Hydrate recovery also means that the renewable proportion of total energy produced may fall.&#xA;&#xA;Breeder reactor methods, and the long long long proposed Thorium [Pebble Bed reactor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor)  technology while not fully renewable, greatly increases nuclearfuel utilisation. Thorium PBRs notionally have energy production costs &quot;far less than coal&quot;. That claim somehow sounds strangely familiar :-).   &#xA;See refs at end.&#xA;&#xA;___________&#xA;&#xA;**What about the &quot;Sahara Solar Breeder project&quot;**?&#xA;&#xA; - Sadly, while [The Sahara Solar Breeder Project](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Solar_Breeder_Project) is a grand idea that may yet produce some concrete results, so far, it's very largely a pipe dream and research project between some Japanese and Algerian universities. &#xA;&#xA;   A look at the rather empty Wikipedia page (link above) is not too encouraging.  &#xA; The [**Sahara Solar Breeder Foundation**](http://www.ssb-foundation.com/) **official website** has more pictures and desriptions, but nothing obviously new (2010 copyright date) and has a now passed 1st prototype date with no indication that anything has actually been builyt.&#xA;&#xA;A system could be devised that adds to its energy wealth without use of hydrocarbon energy or radioactives except for the getting-going phase but all avaible studies, and all experience to date with alternative energy, suggest that it would be a close fought thing. There are many who argue that there is no net energy gain available in current alternative energy systems such as biomass where long term energy out is said not to match total system wide energy expenditure. eg for biomass energy is expended on planting, harvesting, transportation, processing, storage, waste disposal etc. To make biomass products such as transport alcohol viable subsidies are usually required. &#xA;&#xA;It's worth noting carefully that all energy sources that we can access are in some manner area based on &quot;star stuff&quot; at root. Our own Star &quot;Sol&quot; drives wind, hydro, PV, solar thermal, coal and more. Other stars have sourced radioactives. Everything above iron appears to have come from Supernovae. &#xA;&#xA;It's also worth noting that that out whole existent infrastructure worldwide is already based on a solar driven breeder system. You may need to refine your assumptions or conditions to eliminate some aspects which are not desired.  &#xA;&#xA; - One  obvious questionable point is the use of hydrocarbons obtained by &quot;mining&quot; in some way or another (drill, dig, Frac ...). These energy sources are repositories of stored solar energy - but &quot;we&quot; did not do the storing.&#xA;&#xA; - Another questionable source is radioactives. These also are &quot;star stuff&quot; - but not from our current nearby Star. &#xA;&#xA;The whole of life energy cost of a product can be VERY roughly approximated by expressing its best available initial cost in energy cost terms. eg you can buy PV solar material in vast volume in China for approaching $US0.10/Watt_mp and whole made up panels at around $US0.50 ex factory. This must be more than the cost energy of fabrication IF government or other subsidies are not present. In fact, Chinese solar manufacturing is crucially dependant on state subsidy at present so overall it is likely that PV panels bought in vast volume cost around or even slightly less than the energy cost of production - and that the lifetime energy available from these systems will be somewhat higher than this but not vastly so.   &#xA;&#xA;_____________________&#xA;&#xA;A look at real world solar PV realities is not encouraging. eg  1000 Wmp of PV panels costs about $US400 FOB factory at present in large volume.   &#xA;The installed cost of such a sytem in a &quot;western location&quot; is around $1/Watt mp.  &#xA; In a good location mean daily output is about 4 kWh and for a say 20 year design life total energy produced = 4 kWh x 365 days x 20 years =~ 30 MWh.  AT $US0.10 wholesale / kWh that's $2920 of electricity for $1000 of installed panel cost over 20 years. At first glance that's a win. However, if you include &quot;cost of money&quot; = which you must, then a simple DCF calculation suggests about $1960 at 5%, $1400 at 10% and $1100 at 15%.&#xA;At $1/Wmp installed break even is barely reached at 15% - a rate that international financiers of large risky project are liable to expect. Even at 5% the profit of about $900/kW of panels is required to also fund maintenance, cleaning. a significant factor, any early failures and decommissioning. $900 is $45 / year per kW of panels including any profit. That's about 6 square metres of panel. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA; &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;If any one energy source was vastly more cost effective it would dominate world markets and displace alternatives. At present coal, hydro, geothermal are king, nuclear is a special case and the &quot;wannabees&quot; are wind &amp; waves (both a form of solar) and PV &amp; thermal solar. I say nuclear is a special case as all insurance risk has always been underwritten by governments in all installations anywhere, no private insurer will tough the market with a triple length barge pole and in an open market the product could not be sold, no matter how &quot;truly safe&quot; it was. &#xA;&#xA;While wind and various solar sources are being used in competition with traditional sources they are invariably assisted by various special tariffs or market distortions or enforced special rates or conditions. Its still hard to compete head on with energetic gooey stuff found for free (initially) in the ground. &#xA;&#xA;So, so far, if you can build an escalating self-replicating infrastructure with traditional energy sources, then you can probably do so with &quot;alternate&quot; sources, but it will be harder, or much harder. &#xA;&#xA;__________________&#xA;    &#xA;While it is a work of fiction, Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy + &quot;Red Mars&quot;, &quot;Green Mars&quot;, Blue Mars&quot; contains many ideas in the ability to build a world starting with small seed input. He use nuclear, solar, thermal and more on a grand scale. A very worthwhile read from many perspectives.&#xA;________________________&#xA;&#xA;**Added Q&amp;A:**&#xA;&#xA;**Q: Energy numbers asked:**&#xA;&#xA; - If I've read this correctly, you're claiming that the economics implies that PV has an EROEI of only just above 1, or below it. And in comparing wind with fossil fuel subsidies, you've ignored the subsidies and externalities of fossil fuels. Have I understood correctly? &#xA;&#xA;**A:** @EnergyNumbers Close enough, alas. &#xA;&#xA;You can add in fossil fuel etc subsidies as may esist if you wish, but on a level playing field the raw concentrated &amp; stored energy of petroleum makes it hard to compete with. The cost of petroleum is essentially extraction + transport + refining + profit + taxes. You do not largely need to &quot;interact&quot; with the energy source per se and the energy per volume is high these both  make the job cheaper and easier. &#xA;&#xA;I've added to my answer above with some rough figures for solar. The &quot;trouble&quot; with existing energy sources is that we have tapped the obvious easy ones. Liquid hydrocarbons (petrol, diesel, kerosine) give around 10 kWh/kg or say about 2.5 kWh/kg delivered energy in an internal combustion engine system. Coal delivers lower energy/kg but is still extremely energy dense compared to non chemical-stored-energy alternatives.  &#xA;&#xA;Falling mass (water or whatever) delivers 10 Watt.seconds per kg.metre     &#xA;But to equal the delivered energy from 1 kg of hydrocarbon takes  &#xA;2500 Watt hours x 3600 seconds/hour = 9,000,000 Watt seconds !!! of energy.  &#xA;This takes 900 ton.metres of falling mass at 100%. ... &#xA;&#xA;Put another way   &#xA;1 ton = 1000 kg falling 10 metres   &#xA;delivers 100,000 Watt.seconds = 27.777.. Watt hours of energy.   &#xA;&#xA;Or 1 kg/second falling 10 metres in one second   &#xA;delivers 100 Watts at 100% efficient,   &#xA;but do that for one hour = 36,000 litres or 36 tons of water to get about 1% of the energy in 1 kg of petroleum (or 4% of delivered energy in auto use). &#xA;&#xA;AND hydro is &quot;easy and cheap&quot;.  &#xA;We know that PV needs subsidies / FITs etc to compete.   &#xA;And that eg the Chinese government are essentially subsidising ALL the still surviving Chinese PV makers makers. &#xA;&#xA;The &quot;problem&quot; is that we value energy at the hydrocarbon equivalent value to our society and until we are willing to bite the &quot;pay what it really costs&quot; bullet alternatives will remain marginal or of negative value. Alas. &#xA;[[FWIW: I design/make small solar products, manufactured in China (at present) for developing country use. So I watch what solar and similar costs and where it is going. So, sometime. But not yet. Despite what the downvoter may think :-). ]].&#xA;&#xA;Note that people in the US who cover their roof with PV usually are happy with the payback. The feed in tariffs, purchase subsidies and lack of costed labor for eg panel cleaning, mean that they may get $ for $ break even in the 5 to 10 years range.But add some discounted cash flow cost-of money calculations and take away the various subsidies (including those by the Chinese government) and you find that PV are at best fighting neck and neck with traditional systems when areas of good sunshine are available, or losing out in real terms. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;_________________&#xA;&#xA;**Thorium Pebble Bed - &quot;not quite renewable /  cheaper than coal** &#xA;&#xA;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor  &#xA;http://pebblebedreactor.blogspot.co.nz/           http://www.thoriumenergycheaperthancoal.com/  &#xA;[Norway 4 year Thorium power trial](http://singularityhub.com/2012/12/11/norway-begins-four-year-test-of-thorium-nuclear-reactor/)    &#xA;[China Thorium power ](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/9784044/China-blazes-trail-for-clean-nuclear-power-from-thorium.html)    &#xA;&#xA;[Thorium Pebble Bed](https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=thorium+reactor&amp;hl=en&amp;tbm=isch&amp;tbo=u&amp;source=univ&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=-rpeUdHXFdGyiQf0moHAAg&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CFwQsAQ&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=720#hl=en&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=1&amp;q=thorium+reactor+pebble+bed&amp;oq=thorium+reactor+pebble+bed&amp;gs_l=img.3...226776.229953.0.230188.11.11.0.0.0.0.248.1691.5j0j6.11.0...0.0...1c.1.8.img.JXE6k3-ayZQ&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;bvm=bv.44770516,d.aGc&amp;fp=80a3200bb8b7bcb6&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=720)&#xA;&#xA;[More ...](http://www.docstoc.com/docs/75393281/Pebble-Bed-Reactors-for-Once-Trough-Nuclear-Transmutation)  &#xA;[Coal power station + thorium PBR + CO2 capture](http://coal2nuclear.com/ss_skyscrubber_pilot.htm)  &#xA;[More ...](http://www.docstoc.com/docs/68006457/The-Pebble-Bed-Modular-Reactor)  &#xA;[ANTI-Thrium argument5s](http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/environment/dont-believe-thorium-nuclear-reactor-hype/)  &#xA;[A nuclear reactor in every home](http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2006/10/a-nuclear-reactor-in-every-home/) Hookey Walker   &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;___________________&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="701" RevisionGUID="cc2fafd7-0c86-4a47-b43b-8eb5263fa66e" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="They've included the best mixture in their [earth brick press wiki][1]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Bricks are made of **20%-30% clay, the rest being sand and silt**. A combination of mechanical and electrostatic forces is responsible for the high strength of compressed earth blocks.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; For stabilized bricks, chemical binding forces of the binder - such as cement - are responsible for the strength.&#xA;&#xA;You'll have to learn or estimate the composition of your soil, as [Chris][2] writes and add the missing component to get the right balance.  &#xA;As with most enthusiastic activities, you'll have to use &quot;trial and error&quot; to get the best results. And both OSE and SE communities will be happy to hear back from you about your progress.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/CEB_Press_Design_Rationale,_Product_Ecology&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/363/what-is-the-most-effective-mixture-of-soil-and-amendments-to-use-with-open-sourc#comment675_363" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="71" RevisionGUID="bb6cab46-a8a5-4651-bcde-aec06c4c118a" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="As part of my ongoing downsizing, my new house's bathroom will be smaller, so I'm looking at installing a toilet/sink combo to&#xA;&#xA;  - save space,&#xA;  - reduce construction costs by making the bathroom as small as possible&lt;sup&gt;&amp;dagger;&lt;/sup&gt;, and&#xA;  - reduce my water usage&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;![Toilet-sink combo][1]&#xA;&#xA;What did you find you had to change in your behavior when switching to this setup?&#xA;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&amp;dagger;&lt;/sup&gt; The bathroom's finished size will be approximately 3' (0.91m) x 6' (1.83m), thus necessitating the combo device or some other equally-compact setup.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/soUFY.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="89" RevisionGUID="ead6b406-9789-471d-aa31-88b24e519da5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Many sites on the internet mention that the liquid from vermicompost is the ideal fluid for (fertilizing) your garden. However, I haven't seen any scientific evidence on this anywhere so I suspect it doesn't exists.&#xA;&#xA;I did a quick google and found [this document](http://www.scribd.com/doc/35270170/40/Vermiliquid) where on page 19 it says&#xA;&#xA;&gt;The evidence for the nutritional value of vermiliquid products is largely anecdotal.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;There is a paucity of literature available that has investigated the use and quality of vermiliquids.&#xA;&#xA;The author of [this book](http://books.google.com/books/about/Composting_with_Worms.html?id=szGwPAAACAAJ) goes one step further and claims vermiliquid is just waste water and can go bad quickly so it should not be used on your plants. &#xA;&#xA;---- &#xA;**Edit:**&#xA;I just found an [interesting article](http://www.wormfarmingrevealed.com/leachate-vs-worm-tea.html) describing the differences between worm tea (aka vermicast tea or [compost tea](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Compost_tea)) and leachate. In short the article says that leachate from a wormbin may contain harmful pathogens. Worm tea is something you make yourself by puting wormcastings and a food source like malasses in clean water and leaving it for a few days. If the water is air-rich (you'll have to place an aquarium pump or something in the water) then the good micro-organisms in the water will multiply. &#xA;According to [wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost#Compost_tea) compost tea is very weak in nutrients but can be used for&#xA;&#xA;&gt; reducing incidence of harmful phytopathogenic fungi in the&#xA;&gt; phyllosphere" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="316" RevisionGUID="000cb06c-2fe8-4b8c-8d09-9a54433bb779" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**Short answer**: it's unlikely to be cost-effective, if you consider only the energy savings.&#xA;&#xA;# Longer answer:&#xA;&#xA;Yes, it's possible. Let's look at the issues one by one.&#xA;&#xA;## Condensation&#xA;&#xA;If you only open the secondary glazing when the inside air is cool and dry that will reduce the chances of condensation. Put some dessicant in the gap, and dry it out occasionally, if you like. The specific risk of condensation will depend on the temperature and humidity when you open the secondary window, and the temperature to which the air gap subsequently drops.&#xA;&#xA;## Positioning&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The building of the secondary frame, and clearance for opening, will determine the air gap.&#xA;&#xA;Don't fit it to the existing frame: have it in its own frame. The hinges on your double glazing aren't designed to handle the extra weight of another sheet of glass, and you won't get a good seal around the new pane.&#xA;&#xA;Place the secondary glazing inside: your existing double glazing is already weather-proof. Your secondary glazing needn't be.&#xA;&#xA;## Energy savings&#xA;&#xA;You've already got most of the energy savings that you're going to get, from the double-glazing. And they probably came as much from the improved air-tightness, as from the decreased U-value. With secondary glazing, you'll only have savings from additional U-value decreases. Here's the calculation:&#xA;&#xA;Combined U-value = 1 /  [ (1 / secondary-glazing U-value) + (1 / double-glazing U-Value) ]&#xA;&#xA;So if your secondary glazing would have a U-value of 2.0, and your double-glazing has a U-Value of 1.0, then the combined U-value = 1 / (1/2.0 + 1/1.0) = 1 / 1.5 = 0.67. So you'd reduce the window losses (not total losses, just losses through the window) by a third.&#xA;&#xA;That's unlikely to be economic, on energy savings alone, unless your unit cost of heat energy is immense, and/or it gets to -20&amp;deg;C outside for a few weeks a year.&#xA;&#xA;## But then there's comfort&#xA;&#xA;if you currently find that sitting right under the window is uncomfortable because of cool down-draughts, then the effective increase in usable room space you get from the secondary triple-glazing might make it worth it.&#xA;&#xA;## And taking it to the extreme&#xA;&#xA;If the place is already super-insulated all over **except** the window, and you get lots of sun in in winter, and you've already installed an [MVHR][1], then adding secondary triple-glazing might be the thing that effectively turns your home into a [Passivhaus][2]. And at that point, you probably wouldn't need a central heating system. The money saved in not having to renew your central heating system, will go a long way to paying back the cost of the secondary glazing.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/241/48&#xA;  [2]: http://passiv.de/en/02_informations/01_whatisapassivehouse/01_whatisapassivehouse.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="319" RevisionGUID="4f27c4e5-687a-456e-b1e6-b8cf90e6b401" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**tl;dr :** For the millions of dwellings that have significant physical constraints imposed by the physical fabric of the building, its configuration and location, that rule out heat pumps, biomass and solar thermal, how can we decarbonise our space and water heating effectively?&#xA;&#xA;### The specifics of my home, for context&#xA;&#xA;At the moment there's natural-gas-fuelled central heating, with water-filled pump-driven loop going into wall-mounted radiators that have been sized for an operating temperature of 60-70&amp;deg;C. That's pretty typical for most British homes.&#xA;&#xA;The property is solid-wall construction, and there isn't much external wall - it's mostly glazed. Most rooms are generally tall - about 3m. (a fairly standard late-Victorian British terrace, with some subsequent improvements, including secondary glazing).&#xA;&#xA;It's still quite leaky for air, but we're working on that, and planning to [build tight, ventilate right][1], over time.&#xA;&#xA;We don't have much unshaded south-facing surface. And we're nowhere near any district heating schemes.&#xA;&#xA;There is a garden of about 180m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, with access only through the house. We live cheek-by-jowl with our neighbours, so a heating system of 40dB or more would be too loud. So no heat pumps - the defrost cycle alone is unacceptably noisy, let alone the constant throbbing during normal operation.&#xA;&#xA;Our first emphasis is on reducing space-heating needs through good insulation and air-tightness. But there will remain a big chunk of space-heating requirement, as well as water-heating.&#xA;&#xA;Heating season is roughly October to March, and outside temperatures in deepest winter can get as low as -15&amp;deg;Celsius at times. There may be 30 days a year when the temperature goes below 0&amp;deg;Celsius.&#xA;&#xA;### The question&#xA;&#xA;And although our home is unique, it is in many ways representative of millions of homes. &#xA;So I'm not looking for a unique solution for my own home, but a generic solution or set of solutions for the millions of homes that share the significant features with mine: there are severe fabric constraints that rule out air-source heat pumps, ground-source heat-pumps and solar thermal. Biomass seems an unlikely route, given the local pollution impact of millions of homes with individual biomass burners.&#xA;&#xA;**So how can I decarbonise my domestic water and space heating, given the severe fabric constraints?**&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/241/48" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="336" RevisionGUID="e8751c16-dc58-4227-b70e-6f9e3f9578f0" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Here are some options you can do yourself:&#xA;&#xA;## The Direct Marketing Association&#xA;&#xA;If you want to cut out a lot of the junk mail coming to your house in one blow, the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) is the way to go. It's not a federal program like the Do Not Call Registry but most reputable direct marketers belong to the DMA, and they offer an opt-out service to you, the consumer. You fill out a form with the DMA, then they compile a list of those who do not wish to receive unsolicited mail and send it to client companies who order these lists.&#xA;&#xA;There are two ways to register with the DMA's opt-out service: &#xA;&#xA; 1. [Complete this form](https://dmachoice.thedma.org/prefill_mailin_registration.php), and mail to the address below along with a check or money order for $3. Your name will be added to the list. However this can take about a month to process with the DMA, as well as time for it to feed out to their client organizations.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;    DMAchoice&#xA;    DMA&#xA;    P.O. Box 900&#xA;    Cos Cob, CT 06807&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA; 2. You can fill out [the online form](https://dmachoice.thedma.org/register.php) and submit it online. This processes your application immediately and should result in the flow of junk mail slowing within a period of about 1 month. There is a fee of $2.&#xA;&#xA;## Opt-out of Junk Mail With Individual Companies&#xA;&#xA;Not every company works in conjunction with the DMA's Mail Preference Service that allows for mass opt-out. However, many companies do provide forms to fill out so that you don't appear in the lists for their junk mail or to have your address distributed by them. Even if they don't have forms or a proper method in place you can still contact them either through their web site, snail mail or calling customer service and get something sorted out.&#xA;&#xA;While the idea that we, the consumer, should have to go the extra mile in order to ensure that our names and addresses are not sold from here to Timbuktu and that we not receive unsolicited mail is ridiculous, but unfortunately it is also a fact of life. At least until tougher laws are passed and tighter regulations enforced on the direct marketing industry.&#xA;&#xA;The place to start individual opting out are businesses that you are in regular contact with. Your bank is a prime target. Also anytime a store asks you for your name and address, ask them what they do with the information and what you need to do to make sure it is not used to send junk mail to your house. Opt-out before they even have a chance to opt you in involuntarily.&#xA;&#xA;Here is an example of what I am talking about: in the summer of 2005 I went to a major furniture chain to purchase a freezer. When I made the purchase, they wanted information such as my name and address. I asked them what they would be using the information for and reluctantly they told me it would be used to send solicitations from them to my house.&#xA;&#xA;I told them I did not want any junk mail coming to my house. They said ok, and before I left I fill out a three page form saying that I wanted no unsolicited mail from them coming to my house. All well and good, or so I thought. Then, a couple of months later they sent me a flyer.&#xA;&#xA;I called them, quite upset. After all the trouble I had gone through to fill out the forms so I would get no mail, I still got it in my mailbox. After some arguing with the manager I got him to take my name off the list, and since then I have not received any junk mail from them.&#xA;&#xA;## Opt-out From Credit Offers&#xA;&#xA;One of the worst types of junk mail are the constant credit card applications coming every day. These junk mailings are for the most part the work of three companies: Experian, Trans Union and Equifax, the big three credit reporting companies.&#xA;&#xA;These three companies are the ones responsible for compiling all of the data that goes into creating your credit score. They are also to blame for the majority of credit card applications sent to your house. If you want these to stop, there is one simple telephone number you can call:&#xA;&#xA;    1-888-5 OPTOUT (1-888-567-8688)&#xA;&#xA;This will stop you from receiving junk mail from any of the big three credit reporting companies and should also stop the majority of the credit card applications coming your way.&#xA;&#xA;You can also opt-out with an online form at [www.optoutprescreen.com](https://www.optoutprescreen.com/confirmation). **Note that the form asks for your social security number and date of birth, but you do not need to include these to complete the form.**&#xA;&#xA;## Opt-out Addresses&#xA;&#xA;Here now we will look at contact information for a few businesses that engage in direct marketing. Below are the addresses of many of the worst culprits in sending junk mail. Write them and tell them that you wish to opt-out.&#xA;&#xA;    Publishing Clearinghouse Sweepstakes&#xA;    101 Channel Dr&#xA;    Port Washington, NY 11050&#xA;    1-800-645-9242&#xA;    1-800-453-0272 (fax)&#xA;&#xA;    American Business information inc.&#xA;    Attn: Product Quality&#xA;    PO Box 27347&#xA;    Omaha, NE 68127&#xA;&#xA;    Donnelly Marketing, inc&#xA;    Attn: Data Base Operations&#xA;    PO Box 3502&#xA;    Ames, IA 50010-3502&#xA;    888-633-4402&#xA;&#xA;    Haines and Company, inc.&#xA;    Criss-Cross Directory&#xA;    Attn: Director of Data Processing&#xA;    8050 Freedom Ave&#xA;    NW Canton, OH 44720&#xA;&#xA;This is just a few of the worst offenders. There are many others out there.&#xA;&#xA;## The USPS and Form 1500&#xA;&#xA;Although for the most part the USPS is not at all interested in assisting you to stop or opt-out of junk mail, they do have one resource available to you, the consumer: Form 1500. This form is designed to stop explicit and pornographic material from being sent to your home.&#xA;&#xA;You pick up the form from the post office (you can also [find it online](https://about.usps.com/forms/ps1500.pdf)) fill it out and can stop all mail from being delivered to you coming from a certain company. While this is generally supposed to refer only to explicit and pornographic materials, the onus is on you for determining what is explicit and pornographic. If there is a single company that is really bothering you this might be the way to go in getting it stopped in short order." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23914" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="345" RevisionGUID="42efa2f6-3dd3-48e6-a50f-c18ae7b049a4" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Both incandescent and fluorescent are quite old technologies, and have been bettered in terms of efficiency and lifecycle impact.&#xA;&#xA;Furthermore, compact fluorescents aren't the only type of fluorescents. So although the compact fluorescents are superior to incandescents anywhere with a high-carbon marginal electricity supply (so almost all the world, in 2013, bar Norway, Iceland and Bhutan), they're not in and of themselves the best in class. And remember that one of the highest resource inputs is of the glass, so an incandescent that lasts only 1000 hours is worse in many ways than a long-life bulb.&#xA;&#xA;Fluorescents with a separable electronic ballast are superior to those compact fluorescents with built-in ballasts.&#xA;&#xA;And there are plenty of LED lamps on the market now that give similar lumens per watt than fluorescents, and with much longer life (5-8 times as long).&#xA;&#xA;For brighter lights, there are SONs with electronic ballasts, that offer very high lumens per watt too. And there are an increasing number of OLED lamps coming out too.&#xA;&#xA;## Summary&#xA;&#xA;Incandescents are, in almost every case, a terrible option. For anywhere with a high-carbon marginal electricity supply, **lamp lifetime**, and **lumens per watt**, are your best guide as to first-order environmental impact: higher is better, for the environment.&#xA;&#xA;Example lumens per watt: (note the overlaps between the ranges)&#xA;&#xA;Incandescent: 15  &#xA;Fluorescent (compact or otherwise): 40-100  &#xA;LED: 20-100  &#xA;SON (high-pressure sodium): 80-150&#xA;&#xA;Theoretical maximum (pure green light): 683" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="368" RevisionGUID="aa638087-dcf3-4698-aeb2-4fab94a64133" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="1. Make up [a batch](https://paulwheaton12.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/deer-control/) of [bone sauce](http://hines.blogspot.com/2012/05/sepp-holzers-bone-saucesalve-how-to-for.html) and apply it to your tree trunks:&#xA;&#xA;   &gt; The first pot is buried in moist soil leaving an inch or two above ground. The second, upper, pot if filled with bones and a screen goes between the two pots. Clay seals the pots. A small fire is burned on top of the pots for about two hours. Then the wood is pulled away and the pots are covered with dirt. Let the pots cool overnight. Carefully clean all of the dirt off so that no dirt ends up in the bone sauce / salve.&#xA;&#xA;1. Grow plants that deer don't like. They didn't touch my garlic last spring, but they ate everything else... it's rumored that planting garlic around trees might keep them away, I don't know how well this works if there's a lot of feeding pressure.&#xA;1. Grow lots of plants that deer *do* like as a distraction to keep them from the stuff you want for yourself.&#xA;1. Grow &quot;deer resistant&quot; plants. Elderberries are supposed to tolerate being munched just about to the ground -- the roots will send up new canes.&#xA;1. Get a dog; you'll still need a fence to keep the dog contained, but the requirements for a dog-proof fence are easier to meet than the requirements for a deer-proof fence.&#xA;&#xA;See also questions where this has come up on gardening.SE:&#xA;&#xA;* [What is the best way to keep deer away?](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/3945/51)&#xA;* [What is the best way to prevent animals from eating my garden without a fence?](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/615/51)&#xA;* [What is the best way to keep deer away?](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/3945/51)&#xA;&#xA;I think the [bottom line answer](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/a/3945/51) from that last question is this:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; You will also find suggestions to use bars of soap, human hair, dogs or getting a hunting licence. These will work for some deer, some of the time but if you want a solution for all of the deer, all of the time you need a fence.&#xA;&#xA;I'm not suburban, but I have a *lot* of deer pressure, and the only thing that works for me is a fence (and it has to be a *good* fence). (I haven't tried the bone sauce yet.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23916" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="433" RevisionGUID="c78666c1-3029-4437-aab3-8047de666184" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="tl;dr **There really isn't a sustainability argument for switching either way between them: there is only an argument for switching away from both.** It's akin to asking whether we should switch from coal to gas: the answer is that that's not a meaningful question: we absolutely have to stop using both.&#xA;&#xA;So although the question is in the same sort of rhetorical terrain as asking whether it's better to suffer a premature death by gun or knife, when the answer is obviously that it's better to not suffer a premature death, let's look at lifecycle analysis of their relative unsustainability.&#xA;&#xA;On specific pollutants, on a well-to-wheel basis, per unit distance driven, diesel tends to be worse for particulates and NOx; petrol (gasoline) is worse for CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and hydrocarbons.&#xA;&#xA;### The system boundary for sustainability analysis&#xA;When looking at sustainability, one has to draw a system boundary somewhere, to set out what will be included in the study, and what will be excluded.&#xA;&#xA;Where one draws a system boundary is a judgement call: if it goes beyond our galaxy or beyond a billion years, you're system boundary is too large. If, however, it does not include consumption of the product and its direct consequences, then your system boundary is too small.&#xA;&#xA;For transport, we typically use a well-to-wheel basis. That's a generic description that applies even when the fuel doesn't come from a well (and even if the transport doesn't have wheels), and relates to the supply chain from initial extraction to the transport itself and the direct consequences, but not the indirect consequences such as changes in land use.&#xA;&#xA;### Is the question meaningful?&#xA;&#xA;Neither petrol (gasoline) nor diesel are at all sustainable. Both score zero for sustainability. And there is little to choose between their unsustainability: the trade-offs being some increase in NOx and particulates, for some decrease in CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and hydrocarbons.&#xA;&#xA;Both release carbon dioxide (and other pollutants) during combustion; and that is leading us to catastrophic climate change.&#xA;&#xA;Both come from crude oil, which is a finite, depletable resource.&#xA;&#xA;The extraction of crude oil itself is environmentally destructive.&#xA;&#xA;All this means that the refining of each is environmentally unsustainable too: the production of each is unsustainable, along the entire supply chain.&#xA;&#xA;So the question, as posed, is not meaningful: it does not make any sense to ask about the sustainability of just the refining part of petrol (gasoline) or diesel. &#xA;&#xA;And given that the entire supply chain for each is unsustainable, it does not make any sense to talk about the relative sustainability of one part of that supply chain: sustainability by its very nature is an issue that concerns the whole system, not just one component.&#xA;&#xA;### But which is worse?&#xA;&#xA;According to the [Life Cycle Assessment of&#xA;Vehicle Fuels and Technologies (2006, London Borough of Camden)][1], diesel CO2 emissions are 16% lower than petrol on a life cycle basis (p36). However, particulate and NOx emissions from diesel are significantly worse (p37), with petrol NOx being only 60% of diesel NOx. Petrol has worse hydrocarbon emissions (p38). Those are on a unit-distance basis. Conversely, the unit-energy basis is used in the [UK DTI report from 2003, Life Cycle Assessment of Vehicle Fuels and Technologies][2], which gives total GHG emissions of 87gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e/MJ for ultra low sulphur diesel, and 81gCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e/MJ for unleaded petrol (gasoline) (Table II).&#xA;&#xA;In summary: there's really not much too choose between them. They're both completely unsustainable, in only slightly different ways.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications_store/Camden%20LCA%20Report%20FINAL%2010%2003%202006.pdf&#xA;  [2]: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file14925.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23917" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="509" RevisionGUID="493f5fbb-955f-4fee-823c-503db454d5d5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Linseed oil can be used for varnish. It is obtained by pressing seeds of the flax plant, which sounds more sustainable that anything petroleum-derived.&#xA;&#xA;Note:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; It's worth mentioning the safety aspect of using linseed oil. A pile of rags with linseed oil on can **spontaneously combust**, thanks to the linseed oil reacting with oxygen and producing heat that (when the pile of rags is big enough to work as effective insulation) can build up to the point of combustion.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; *[Thanks for [comment by Highly Irregular](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/508/whats-a-sustainable-way-to-stain-and-protect-wood/509#comment792_509)]*&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;If you want to stain before you varnish, [there are a variety](http://www.moneypit.com/article/natural-non-toxic-wood-stain-coffee-berries-and-more) of [natural ways to produce stains](http://www.safenaturaltips.com/decorating/naturalstains.html):&#xA;&#xA;* soak rusty nails in vinegar for two weeks, then strain&#xA;* same with pennies (for blue), or tea+metal (for black)&#xA;* soak walnut husks for several days, then strain&#xA;* chewing tobacco soaked overnight in 50/50 water/ammonia, then strain&#xA;* strong tea&#xA;* strong coffee&#xA;* berries&#xA;* not mentioned in the linked articles, but many plants can be used for dye and some of these dyes may be suitable for staining wood; [search pfaf.org](http://pfaf.org/user/plantsearch.aspx), tick the &quot;Dye&quot; box under &quot;Other uses&quot;&#xA;&#xA;Be sure to test your stain and/or varnish on a piece of scrap wood that is of the same type you're finishing so that you can see how it will turn out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23918" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="513" RevisionGUID="95da0e78-ce51-4071-953b-649d67f6fac6" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Don't break it into pieces and breathe the dust. And don't eat it. Avoid doing those two daft things, and you'll be perfectly safe during disposal. The smoke detector itself is electronic waste, and should be handled accordingly: so **find an electronics recycler, and give it to them**.&#xA;&#xA;It sounds like your local Kidde aren't being very responsible manufacturers when it comes to handling their product at end of life. It might be worth bearing that in mind, the next time you shop for fire safety equipment.&#xA;&#xA;Handling varies by legislature. Here are some examples:&#xA;&#xA;### Within the EU&#xA;&#xA;It's covered by the [Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment directive][1]&#xA;&#xA;Your local municipal waste handler or specialist recycler is obliged to have specialist procedures for dealing with electronic equipment - hand it over to them. If you buy a new one, the retailer may take in your old one at time of purchase.&#xA;&#xA;### Within the United States&#xA;The [EPA in the US advise][2] that:&#xA;&#xA; &gt; The Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates the radioactive materials in smoke detectors. Because the amount of americium in these devices is so small, NRC's regulations exempt individuals purchasing smoke detectors from licensing requirements including those related to disposal of radioactive materials. You can dispose of single, household smoke detectors as ordinary trash.&#xA;&#xA;That's a pretty sloppy way to handle waste electrical and electronic equipment.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;### In Australia&#xA;&#xA;[The following][3] applies:&#xA;&#xA; &gt; Individual (up to 10) smoke alarms can be safely disposed of in domestic rubbish. When more than ten smoke alarms are collected together for bulk disposal, they must be treated as radioactive waste and the requirements of the National Health and Medical Research Council's Code of Practice for the Near-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Australia (1992) must be met.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/index_en.htm&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/americium.html#protectmyself&#xA;  [3]: http://www.fire.nsw.gov.au/page.php?id=704" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="515" RevisionGUID="b48c8edf-b599-41bb-a477-753d3dafd239" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### Exergy&#xA;PV is generally superior to solar thermal because it produces a higher-quality energy: electricity rather than low-grade heat: 1kWh of electricity has more [exergy][1] than 1kWh of low-grade heat.  As you say, PV's efficiency tends to be significantly lower than solar thermal, in straight watt-for-watt terms, which means less power per unit roof area.&#xA;&#xA;And you're right that just using the electricity generated to create low-grade heat could be wasteful.&#xA;&#xA;## Economics&#xA;But exergy and economics are different: PV is becoming cheaper and cheaper. So maybe there are circumstances where PV + resistance heating is cheaper than solar thermal.  Misaligned incentives between PV and solar-thermal could make that happen, as could extremely cheap PV systems.&#xA;&#xA;### Deemed exports within Feed-in Tariffs&#xA;&#xA;And there are cases, for example in the UK, where the payment to the PV system owner is based on the amount of electricity generated, and where there is a payment for electricity exported to the grid, but this is not measured - it's just deemed to be 50% of the total generated. Yes, that is a silly way to do things, given how cheap and easy it is to meter the exports, but that's the system some utilities are operating.&#xA;&#xA;Under such a regime, the PV is then built with a resistance heater in a hot-water storage-tank, and all the electricity gets dumped as low-grade heat into that tank.  Dumping it as heat doesn't change the revenue generated for by the PV system, and does reduce the heating costs of the homeowner, as well as given them very-low-carbon hot water.&#xA;&#xA;## Hybrid photovoltaics +  solar thermal&#xA;Finally, as [Highly Irregular][2] notes in the comments, there are various [PV-thermal hybrid systems][3], which provide both electricity and low-grade heat: in those cases, some of the PV electricity is used to pump water, but the water is heated by the sun directly, rather than by resistance heater - and this cools the PV panel, raising its electricity output:&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][4] [source][5]&#xA;&#xA;There are people trying to combine a [PV-thermal hybrid with a heat pump][6], but the economics really don't favour it at the moment, and current heat pumps can be pretty noisy, particularly in their defrost cycle. A ground-source heat pump + PV-thermal hybrid might be superior to just a heat pump on its own.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://exergy.se/goran/thesis/paper1/paper1.html&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/15/highly-irregular&#xA;  [3]: http://www.newformenergy.com/photovoltaic-thermal&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nhNrq.jpg&#xA;  [5]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2010.10.032&#xA;  [6]: http://www.newformenergy.com/hybrid-solar-solution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="525" RevisionGUID="69ec14cb-6ad2-4ed3-b29d-b144871b28fc" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="It's going to depend on several factors. There is no one universal answer. It will depend on:&#xA;&#xA; - the source of your electricity&#xA; - the rate of leakage of methane in your gas supply&#xA; - the relative efficiencies of the gas and electricity cookers under consideration&#xA; - the impact on your domestic heating / cooling energy consumption of the additional ventilation required when cooking with gas.&#xA;&#xA;So it's not possible to give a specific answer, with regard to your three criteria. For the specifics of your own case, you'd need to look at lifecycle assessments (LCA) for each of the energy vectors. But let's look at some generalities:&#xA;&#xA;### When would electricity be better?&#xA;If your electricity supply is not preominantly coal, and you've got efficient electrical cooking (e.g. induction hob, microwave oven, well-insulated convection oven), then cooking with electricity is likely to be better.&#xA;&#xA;It's also likely that your electricity supply will get cleaner over the next 10 years, i.e. within the lifetime of any cooking device that you buy now, so the balance may tip towards electric within the lifetime of a cooker bought today.&#xA;&#xA;### When would gas be better?&#xA;If:&#xA;&#xA; - you can source your gas as biogas or as renewably-synthetisised methane, or if your electricity supply is almost entirely coal- or oil- powered;&#xA; - and if the whole supply chain of your gas has very low leakage rates (so, no shale gas, no leaky pipes, no leaky cooker)&#xA;&#xA;then cooking with gas is likely to be better.&#xA;&#xA;### When is it all bad?&#xA;&#xA;If your electricity is mostly coal, and your gas supply is as leaky as many seem to be, then cooking is going to be quite carbon-intensive either way; that is, there will be high greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy that actually gets delivered into cooking. In that case, the best option to take you closer to sustainability is find an energy provider who can supply you with cleaner electricity or gas.&#xA;&#xA;### On the positive side&#xA;Cooking tends to be a pretty small part of overall energy consumption (a tiny few percent), so the overall environmental impact from cooking is likely to be a very small part of your total impact.&#xA;&#xA;### Efficiencies&#xA;Here#s a quick outline on some relevant efficiencies. The reciprocal of the overall efficiency is the multiplier for environmental damage: for example, an overall efficiency of 33% means that 1 unit of energy used directly for cooking does 3x the damage: An overall efficiency of 50% means 2x the damage. 25% means 4x the damage. etc.&#xA;&#xA; - gas-powered electricity tends to be ~50% efficient&#xA; - coal-powered electricity tends to be ~35% - 40% efficient&#xA; - electricity distribution losses might be of the order of 5-10%&#xA; - gas-distribution leakage rates can be [around 10%][1]&#xA; - gas cookers can be ~[40% efficient][2]&#xA; - electric cookers can be ~[70-90% efficient][3]&#xA;&#xA;Remember that methane has a global warming forcing of about 21-25, relative to CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, at the 100-year time horizon, so methane leakages are significant contributors to climate damage.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717351.100-leaking-gas-mains-help-to-warm-the-globe-.html&#xA;  [2]: http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/energy-solutions/efficient-cooking&#xA;  [3]: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/cookgtsd.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="530" RevisionGUID="339e96d7-1a10-43e3-b144-4bc9dc335e34" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Let's break down some of the elements of whole-life costing, to glean some clues about when old might be better, and when new might be better.&#xA;&#xA;## Manufacturing costs&#xA;If the manufacturing impact of a new device is a high proportion of total lifecycle impact, and if there is a chance that the impact of the latest model will lessen within the extended lifetime of the old device, then repairing the old device is likely to be the better option, giving industry time to clean up its act before you buy a new model.&#xA;&#xA;## Running costs&#xA;If the environmental impact of running the old device represents a large proportion of the whole-lifecycle impact, as it does for cars, then that would typically favour buying a new model.&#xA;&#xA;## Disposal costs&#xA;This is where the cradle-to-cradle philosophy becomes essential: the whole-lifecycle cost includes the cost of turning an old dead device, into components for new devices. &#xA;&#xA;If you have a good way of disposing of the old device, such that most of its material will have a very low-impact route to reuse, then buying a new device may be the better option. So, for example, if you're going to trade in an old vehicle for a new one, and the garage you trade in at is going to strip down the old vehicle and use all the mechanical bits for spares, and all of the other materials will be recycled, then that would favour buying a new vehicles.&#xA;&#xA;On the other hand, if disposing of an old dishwasher is going to lead to it being dumped in landfill, then the cost of extracting it back out of landfill and reusing the bits, and decontaminating the land afterwards, could be quite high, and that would favour repairing the old model.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;# A closing note on the economics&#xA;You have quite reasonably said in your question that you are interested in the environmental impact, and not in the economics. I thought it might be useful to just note note for other readers why there is a difference between those two, and why they matter differently.&#xA; &#xA;### Economic theory&#xA;In a perfect world, the economics would tell you everything you needed to know about the sustainability. If all externalities were priced in, and if the market were efficient, then the price would reflect everything you needed to know to answer this question - it would include whole-lifecycle costs, on a cradle-to-cradle basis, for each, using a sane discount rate.&#xA;&#xA;### Economic reality&#xA;Sadly, there remain many unpriced externalities; markets are often very inefficient; whole-lifecycle cradle-to-cradle costs can be difficult to discover; and people disagree on what a sane discount rate; so the economics can be a very poor guide, unfortunately.&#xA;&#xA;There's also a problem that there isn't a single universal standard for &quot;environmental impact&quot;: there are sometimes trade-offs to be made between greenhouse-gas emissions, freshwater usage, local pollution, and so on - it's very difficult to even agree the damage-cost function for a unit of freshwater pollution, because that will vary by time and place.&#xA;&#xA;All of these gaps between the perfect market and markets as they are, create inefficiencies, and cultivate unsustainability and embed it into our economy. So, sometimes it can be more economically efficient to let what we know about environmental impact override what we observe as the market price: because there are areas where we know more about costs than what the market has priced in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="570" RevisionGUID="227a8af3-7e49-4658-91e8-33ccece60484" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="There isn't a single reliable way that fits all circumstances.  What we can do, is look at some of the factors that influence the pros and cons.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### Uncertainties within the green electricity tariff&#xA;If it was absolutely clear that some of the money you spend on electricity goes to increasing the amount of renewable energy going into the grid, then that would be a big plus. However, it's rarely clear that that is the case.&#xA;&#xA;Washington State US is in the [WREGIS trading area][1], and that means that a green-energy tariff there is typically based on trading [Renewable Energy Certificates][2] on WREGIS. You'd have to do some digging to find out how much of your tariff premium actually goes to the renewable-energy generators, and how much additional capacity (if any) gets built as a result of that money. The answer there, will make a huge difference to answering your question.&#xA;&#xA;And it is about how much new renewable capacity gets built, because generally, renewables have extremely low short-run marginal costs - lower than the wholesale price of electricity - which means that they generate as much as they can anyway, so increasing short-run demand for renewable electricity, does not increase its short-run supply.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### Propane - useful but filthy and unsustainable&#xA;**Propane summary: if your green electricity tariff doesn't get new renewables built, and the marginal electricity generator in your area is coal, then it may be better to stick with propane for now**&#xA;&#xA;Propane is a fossil fuel, and so we know it's a contributor to catastrophic climate change, as well as being a resource that's being depleted unsustainably. So far, so bad. But a switch away is only worth it if it will reduce overall greenhouse-gas emissions. The problem is that if your green electricity tariff results in virtually no extra money going to renewable generators, and thus no additional renewable electricity, then your additional electricity demand from resistance heating or heat pump, will actually get met by fossil generation; and the sustainability impact could be even worse than using propane.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### Electrical resistance heating - very low capital impact, potentially high-impact operating impact&#xA;**Resistance heating summary: If there's a net sustainability benefit from your green tariff, then electrical resistance heating offers the best contribution toward sustainability (but it will cost you money). Otherwise, it's the worst option**&#xA;&#xA;An electrical resistance heater and storage tank are very cheap to buy, but in operation are very intensive in terms of exergy in to energy out: electricity is a high-quality carrier of energy, whereas the low-grade heat in a hot-water tank is of lower quality - that is to say, there's less exergy per unit energy. To put it another way, getting low grade heat at an efficiency of 90-99% from electricity isn't really very efficient, despite seeming so from those numbers. On the plus side, the materials to make a resistance heater are very simple, so the whole-life sustainability impacts of the equipment, putting aside for one moment the cost of the electricity consumed, are very low.&#xA;&#xA;The net sustainability impact will all depend on what the net result of your green electricity tariff really is.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### Heat pump - efficient and complicated&#xA;**Heat pump summary: This might be the cheapest direct financial cost to you, if the heat pump is good enough; but is unlikely to be the best option from the sustainability angle.**&#xA;&#xA;Relative to resistance heating, a heat pump has worse sustainability impact for the equipment up front, and probably on disposal too. Actual real-world performance could give a Seasonal Performance Factor of anywhere between 1 and 5. That's equivalent to an average annual efficiency of 100-500%. The efficiency is influenced by the temperature of your heat source (higher is better), the temperature of your incoming water (higher is better), the temperature you're heating the water to (lower is better), the quality of the installation and equipment, and how well-specified the heat pump is.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### Looking forward to the Smart Grid&#xA;Domestic electricity consumption that has the ability to turn up or down in response to the grid balancer, so-called **Demand-Side Response**, is going to have an economic and sustainability value to the forthcoming Smart Grid. If you've got lots of *storage* hydro on the grid already, then that value will be low. If you haven't, and if grid-balancing at the scale of seconds to minutes is done by fossil fuel, then the value could be high. In this case, electrical heating, and in particular resistance heating, is likely to be one of the better opportunities for Demand-Side Response.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;## Extra options&#xA;### Solar thermal&#xA;If you've got enough unshaded south-facing surface, then solar thermal could provide a big chunk of your water-heating needs, depending on local climate and your seasonal usage pattern of hot water, in a more sustainable way than any of the other options. (solar thermal works economically in Denmark, and that's at a more northerly latitude than Washington State US - but the Danes do take advantage of the economies of scale).&#xA;&#xA;### Community heating&#xA;If you live in a high-density built environment, then getting together with your neighbours to set up a community heating scheme is probably the most sustainable option. That would allow you to get heating from a combination of different sources; and you could tune the combination to give the most sustainable outcome.  The combination might feature ground-source or water-source heat pumps, solar thermal, electrical resistance heating, biomass (possibly with CHP), and maybe geothermal too. &#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### Some assumptions I've made, in order to get to some kind of answer&#xA; - Your propane (LPG) comes from oil and/or natural gas, with the unsustainability that goes with that&#xA; - When you say you're in WA state, that means Washington State in the US, rather than Western Australia or anywhere else. I think your reference to hydro means that Washington is more likely than Western Australia.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://wregis.org&#xA;  [2]: http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/gpmarket/tracking.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23923" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="613" RevisionGUID="57b4b113-1a13-4ff6-be52-2126bcab7716" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="EVs offer some definite advantages, and lots of advantages that depend on the specifics.&#xA;&#xA;**short answer: yes, it's better than driving a fossil-fuel car.**&#xA;&#xA;Long answer: it may seem to make less sense if you only consider a very small range of impacts, where all of the costs are visible, but only some of the benefits. Only when you zoom out to the long-term system level do you capture all of the benefits. And there are even better alternatives.&#xA;&#xA;In terms of their quantified advantages over petrol (gasoline) &amp; diesel, it will depend on just how your electricity is generated, and what the full lifecycle costs are of each vehicle.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;### carbon in motion&#xA;Even if the extra electricity is provided by coal, an electric vehicle is so much more efficient than a fossil car, that there will be carbon savings: electric cars are typically 80-90% efficient, compared to about 20% for a fossil car. So even with a coal plant at 33% efficiency, there's still a carbon saving from the electric.&#xA;&#xA;They definitely reduce local pollution - unlike fossil cars, they don't emit NOx, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, CO or particulates.  And they are much easier to decarbonise than fossil cars - they just need renewable electricity to recharge.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;As I wrote [over on skeptics.SE][9]:&#xA;&#xA;Electric cars are about 4× as efficient as fossil-fuelled combustion engines, tank-to-wheel: [ICE engine efficiency][1] is around 20%. Electric engines tend to be [around 80-90%][2].  For the whole-cycle energy-efficiency, then well-to-wheel would be the efficiency you were after, and then it would be very sensitive to how your electricity would be generated.&#xA;&#xA;Note that pretty much all electric cars benefit from regenerative braking, and very few fossil-cars do.&#xA;&#xA;Efficiencies do depend on the drive cycle: and whereas ICEs tend to be optimised for speeds around 85km/h, the efficiency of electric cars decreases with increasing speed, just as the core physics would lead you to expect:&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][4]&#xA;&#xA;[(source)][5]&#xA;&#xA;For more information on &quot;power-station to wheel&quot; efficiencies of electric vehicles, see the [US Gov Fuel Economy][6] site.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### embodied energy&#xA;&#xA;The chassis of an electric vehicle is usually lighter, too (except the Rolls Royce Electric Phantom), so there can be lower impact on materials for the chassis.  The batteries are materials-intensive; they are currently so valuable that a lot of attention is paid to end-of-life reuse and recycling of the materials.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### big picture&#xA;&#xA;Electric vehicles can help with the market penetration of exogenously-variable renewables such as wind and PV. They release some of the stranglehold that oil companies have on the economy and politics. They make for quieter streets, and quieter car journeys. They eliminate the local pollution from car exhausts (tail pipes).&#xA;&#xA;So in general, yes, electric cars are a significant improvement over their fossil-fuel guzzling competitors. I've seen no evidence that the batteries end up in landfill after just 3 years of life - that seems to be a bizarre and unsupported claim. Such a practice would not be remotely sustainable. I have seen evidence that some manufactures are seeking to recover the batteries: presently, at least here in the UK, a lot of electric-car suppliers are leasing, rather than selling, the batteries, which means that they'll go back to the manufacturer at the end of their life for complete recycling. After all, a dead battery contains all the ingredients needed to make a brand-new battery - the thing that needs doing, is reversing all the decay chemistry, which is just a question of energy inputs.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### bigger picture&#xA;&#xA;Patterns both of car ownership and use have changed hugely in the last 4 decades. And the change in the 4 decades before that was huge too. 4 decades is enough for really big changes in transport patterns. For several reasons. It's 1.5-2 generations, giving plenty of time for cultural attitudes to shift. It's long enough for disruptive technological innovations to gain big market share. And it's long enough for a sufficient amount of land-use to be reshaped around new transport patterns.&#xA;&#xA;Current car ownership doesn't make a lot of sense, from lots of perspectives. Most cars spend almost all their time stationary. Quite a lot of dwellings have different cars for different purposes. Most cars are able to drive hundreds of miles on a single refuelling, but very rarely if ever do so.&#xA;&#xA;It's possible we will see completely different patterns of ownership in the future, with various different forms of shared ownership.&#xA;&#xA;It's also possible that the growing obesity epidemic in parts of the developed world, the internalising of negative externalities into energy prices, and a better public understanding of the prerequisites for and importance of a vibrant public realm, lead to a resurgence in walking and cycling, negating the need for a big proportion of current car ownership and use.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://courses.washington.edu/me341/oct22v2.htm&#xA;  [2]: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency&#xA;  [3]: http://www.claverton-energy.com/?dl_name=nazisharks1.pdf&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9tHTr.png&#xA;  [5]: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency&#xA;  [6]: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml&#xA;  [9]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/15013/6236" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="682" RevisionGUID="ef41dc52-d48e-4223-8542-ed9021885b6f" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Do “100% renewable” electricity plans increase renewable electricity production? Well, it will depend on how the specific scheme is implemented, what the renewable suppliers are, and what timescale you are considering. So, the answer could be yes, no or maybe.&#xA;&#xA;I don't know about your supplier's particular plan, and in order to keep this answer useful to as many readers as possible, I'll talk about the generalities that make a difference.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;## Generation-specific&#xA;Most renewable sources have such low short-run marginal costs that they'll run pretty much any time, regardless of the current price in the market. So an increase in demand from consumers on renewable tariffs is very unlikely to result in immediate increase in renewable supply. There might be corner cases on small grids where the marginal producer is a renewable supplier with non-trivial short-run marginal costs, such as biomass or biogas: in such cases, increased demand from people on 100% renewable tariffs could cause an immediate and equivalent increase in renewable supply.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;## Scheme-specific&#xA;Most 100%-renewable tariffs tend to be based on the trading of certificates-of-origin of renewable electricity. Whether your tariff really makes a difference, will depend on whether or not there is a surplus of such certificates in the market.&#xA;&#xA;**Surplus**: If there *is* a surplus, and it is expected that there will continue to be a surplus, (as is the case Britain with the REGOs - Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin) then no, the tariff makes no difference at all. The situation in this case is exactly as you describe: &quot;your&quot; electricity becomes 100% renewable, and the electricity of those on the &quot;conventional&quot; plan has a higher proportion of non-renewable energy than before.&#xA;&#xA;**No surplus**: If there is *not* a surplus of such certificates now, or there is expected not to be one over the next few years, then the price of those certificates will rise, incentivising investment in new renewable generation infrastructure. The increase in renewable generation might be more or less than the amount you have consumed.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;## Company-specific&#xA;Some companies (such as [Ecotricity][1] in the UK) choose to invest a large proportion of their revenue into new renewable capacity. So buying from a company such as them, **does** increase renewable electricity production, over the scale of years, regardless of what's going on with the generation-specific and scheme-specific issues set out above. In such cases, the increase in renewable generation tends to be much more than the amount you have consumed.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/for-your-home/greenest-outcome" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="686" RevisionGUID="d87efb7f-e436-4264-be3a-6233362a43c7" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Much depends on what you consider sustainable. The two major sustainability questions concern the energy to produce it,  and the resource used to produce it.  Additional concerns are the difficulty to recycle/dispose of at end of life, and the costs of both moving the resource to manufacturing point, and moving the product to the use point.  &#xA;&#xA;AFAIK there is no general purpose definition.  Here's some comparisons and tradeoffs:&#xA;&#xA;### Group 1.  Plastic/Petrochemical&#xA;&#xA;**Vinyl** -- probably one of the worst picks.  All sorts of poisonous byproducts in it's manufacture, and in disposal.  Relatively innocuous in use.  Lifetime 15-25 years.&#xA;&#xA;**Shingle** -- Similar to the standard asphalt and fiber and rock shingles used on roofs, but designed to be used vertically.  Tend to last longer as siding than they do as roof, because there is no snow load, no hail, less sun.  Not terribly hard on the environment -- basically the same material as roads with glass fiber added.  As long as we are going to use fossil fuel, we will have a surplus of asphalt.  Of this group, I consdier this one most sustainable.&#xA;&#xA;### Group 2:  Wood based.  &#xA;&#xA;Wood is the only fully renewable material on this list, so in that sense is the most sustainable.  &#xA;&#xA;**Wood slab.**  Formed from the first cut off the side of a log, bark scraped off, and a half lap rabbeted on each side.  Requires new coat of log oil every 5 years or so. Very sustainable -- better use than for fuel, which is otherwise what happens to slabs. Very time consuming to put on.&#xA;&#xA;**Clapboard.**  Requires large trees as feed stock, and so competes with the other uses for large trees.  If Cedar clapboard is used, puts higher demand on an already high demand wood.  Requires regular painting.  &#xA;&#xA;**Tongue &amp; Groove Milled siding.**  Similar to clapboard but both thicker and narrower.  Can be made with smaller trees.  Uses more wood overall.&#xA;&#xA;**Chip based siding** -- Made from slash and scrap wood. Requires regular painting. Requires significant petrochemical resins to bond the chips together.&#xA;&#xA;**Split wood shake** -- usually cedar, but redwood, and large spruce can also be used.  Shakes can be made from short log ends, and stumps.&#xA;&#xA;### Group 3 Metal based. &#xA;&#xA;Metal siding requires careful attention to the details around doors and windows.  It also has zero water permiability, so some form of ventilation or rain screen needs to be behind the siding. Metal siding usually won't require care once up.&#xA;&#xA;**Aluminum siding.**  High initial embodied energy cost, but will last a very very long time.  Subject to dents.  Aluminum recycles quite well.&#xA;&#xA;**Steel siding.**  Lower energy than aluminum, but also lower lifetime.  Better dent resistance.    Also endlessly recyclable.  &#xA;&#xA;### Group 4.  Cementaceous based siding.  &#xA;&#xA;Relatively high emboddied energy, and low recycleability.  Used material is only good for fill.&#xA;&#xA;**Portland cement and fiber:** Portland cement is one of the highest energy materials out there -- a significant amount of our cultures total energy budget is spent making portland cement.  In that sense it's unsustainnable.  The raw material is limestone, and we have whole mountains made of it.  &#xA;&#xA;The fiber can be one of several minerals, indlcuding asbestos, serpentine, rock wool from slag, spun glass from recycled glass.  Coloring can be either embedded mineral pigments, or painted.  If embedded will last a very long time.  Essentially impossible to recycle -- use as fill.  Note that it requires a lab test to determine if the fiber component is asbestos.&#xA;&#xA;**Lime/Earth Plaster:**  See any resource on strawbale building.  The energy cost of lime is much smaller than for portland cement, and earth based is just clay and fine sand.  However the usual use is with buildings with wide eaves to reduce the amount of rain hitting them.  They are very labour intensive to apply, and require attention to maintenance.&#xA;&#xA;**Stucco:**  Relatively cheap, long lasting, but very limited in available colours.  While it can be painted, it seldom is.  Stucco housing developments tend to be grey and dreary looking. Stucco is also based on portland cement.&#xA;&#xA;*** &#xA;&#xA;Overall, My opinion is that the wood slab siding is the most sustainable.  The resource is renewable, the energy costs moderate.&#xA;&#xA;Second on my list are the lime/earth based plasters if you have a house/climate that allow it. Stucco comes close.&#xA;&#xA;Third on my list is steel siding.&#xA;&#xA;A better answer than this would require  deciding which factors are most important, as well as energy and resource use of the particular product and manufacturer.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The ultimate sustainable action is to do nothing.  It requires no energy, no resources.  If the present siding works and is not harming you while present, the the most sustainable siding is the present siding.&#xA;&#xA;***&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;Original Answer:&#xA;&#xA;No, it's not a health concern.  Right now it's locked up as siding.  If you remove it, you will break it up, make dust, which IS a health problem, but sitting there bonded to concrete on the side of your house it is harmless.&#xA;&#xA;Keep it painted to keep dust from spalling off of it. although that is a pretty minor concern.&#xA;&#xA;Even asbestos insulation is largely harmless once in place.  The hazard is in working around it, with it, but asbestos bonded into tile or cement siding is reasonably safe unless some process is turning it into powder." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="715" RevisionGUID="b542fa22-2402-4822-8f3c-4925ed9f5a1b" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Peak oil - a red herring&#xA;&#xA;Peak oil is a red herring. And it always has been.&#xA;&#xA;The claimed problem of Peak Oil is that we have too few hydrocarbons, and in particular too little oil.&#xA;&#xA;And we know from [climate science][1] that we have [too much hydrocarbons in reserve][2], including oil: the known reserves are sufficient to change climate so much that human civilisation as we know it would not continue.&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][3]&#xA;&#xA;**It is not possible to simultaneously have too much hydrocarbons, and too little.**&#xA;&#xA;So, we know we have too much, and most of the known hydrocarbon reserves, will have to stay in the ground.&#xA;&#xA;# Replacing oil and fossil fuels throughout the economy&#xA;&#xA;### The technology and the economics stack up&#xA;We already have all the technologies we need to displace fossil fuels from our supply chains. And they are, by and large, economical: that is to say, there's enough of a potential market now to give sufficient critical mass to give non-oil fuels enough momentum to take the market; - if there were a level playing field, the momentum would be sufficient to ensure that economies of scale and commercially-viable research would complete the task. The problem is that oil, coal and gas all get double-subsidies, globally. Firstly, they get explicit financial subsidies from many governments. And secondly, they get implicit subsidies because governments have not embedded the external costs of climate-change damage into the price of fossil fuels.&#xA;&#xA;## Specific fossil-fuel-free substitutes&#xA;[High-density fuels][4] can be [produced][5] from [biomass][6], and can also be synthesised - including up to [Jet A quality and uses][7].&#xA;&#xA;Plastics can be [produced from biomass][8].&#xA;&#xA;And, by capturing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; directly from the air, and generating hydrogen from water, oil fuels, and oil-derived products, can be [completely synthesised from scratch][9] in a zero-carbon manner.&#xA;&#xA;Finally, if we stop burning waste, then plastics from oil become sustainable. And as oil for fuel will have been removed from the global economy, we will have a lot of very cheap plastics.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://trillionthtonne.org/questions.html&#xA;  [2]: http://www.carbontracker.org/unburnable-carbon&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SxMVl.jpg&#xA;  [4]: http://www.greenflightinternational.com/index.htm&#xA;  [5]: http://www.biofuelstp.eu/air.html&#xA;  [6]: http://www.intertek.com/biofuels/biofuel-atlantic-flight/&#xA;  [7]: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-18/fat-replaces-oil-for-f-16s-as-biofuels-head-to-war-commodities.html&#xA;  [8]: http://www.nnfcc.co.uk/tools/biochemical-opportunities-in-the-uk-nnfcc-08-008&#xA;  [9]: http://www.imeche.org/news/archives/12-10-15/UK_engineers_create_petrol_from_air.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1094" RevisionGUID="e84a8056-e1a7-4f78-b045-50780f6d6084" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="## CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Don't have time to fully address this now, but here's an interesting [plot of results from Boston, USA][1]:&#xA;&#xA;![BU CO2 Plot][1]&#xA;&#xA;As you can see from this graph, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels can vary quite a bit over *time* simply within **one city**.  &#xA;&#xA;You can see a seasonal amplitude of +/- ~12 ppm that's due to plant photosynthesis speeding up (reducing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) in summer, and slowing down (allowing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to increase) in winter.&#xA;&#xA;Based on this, you can imagine that areas with different levels of sun or vegetation would then also experience different *average* CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels as well.  From the previous web page:&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The CO2 concentration level in Boston is almost always several ppm&#xA;&gt; higher than the global average, because cities, with their buildings&#xA;&gt; and vehicles burning natural gas, gasoline, and oil, are relatively&#xA;&gt; large sources of CO2.  For example, in May 2011 the monthly average&#xA;&gt; CO2 level at Mauna Loa was 394 ppm; at BU (Boston University), it was&#xA;&gt; 405.&#xA;&#xA; - [Here is a source with a collection of CO2 data from several different weather stations][2], including a couple in Hawaii.&#xA;&#xA; - If you want a visual plot, the US Nat'l Oceanic &amp; Atmospheric Association publishes an online tool that displays CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration in the **free troposphere** [here][4]:&#xA;&#xA;![NOAA CarbonTracker][3]&#xA;&#xA;Because it's displaying CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; 1 to 5 km above the ground, it's going to smooth out the variations due to local forests, or power plants.   But, you certainly can see areas of high CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration over eastern Europe / Black Sea (downwind from central Europe) and also China / Korea / Japan (downwind from China's industrial hubs).&#xA;&#xA;## NOx&#xA;&#xA;The US Environmental Protection Agency has a [report on NOx here][5] (see page 6 for a US &quot;heat map&quot; of local NOx concentrations).&#xA;&#xA;This [University of Washington report][6] also contains a **global** NOx map, for both surface and 5km altitudes (page 10).&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZIeNO.jpg&#xA;  [2]: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2.html&#xA;  [3]: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/CT2011_oi/co2wx/glb/co2wx_hammer-glb_20100104.png&#xA;  [4]: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/co2weather.php&#xA;  [5]: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/dir1/fnoxdoc.pdf&#xA;  [6]: http://faculty.washington.edu/jaegle/558/ozone_NOx.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23928" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1123" RevisionGUID="829f063a-215c-4efb-8254-9c7f73c77fa8" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I have seen broken glass (± 1&quot; (~25 mm) square pieces) used effectively as the drainage backfill around a residential foundation. The owner reported that it worked very well.&#xA;&#xA;An internet search shows other situations where the crushed glass is used as aggregate in construction, including some cases where the aesthetics are used to an advantage. See [HowToPedia article][1], for example, which suggests the following uses:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Crush to sand size which removes sharp edges:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;* use as bedding in place of sand&#xA;&gt;* use as aggregate instead of sand&#xA;&gt;*  add to plaster for decorative shine &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Crush to pebble size which removes sharp edges, use as decoration in concrete plaster. &#xA;&#xA;For more, see [Studies of Glass in Construction Applications][2], (CWC, Ref BP-GL4-01-01, Nov 96) which refers to the following (relatively old, now) studies:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Clean Washington Center ... glass as a construction aggregate.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Florida Institute of Technology ... Waste Glass and Waste-to-Energy Bottom Ash as Highway Fill Materials&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Schmucker, Bruce O., and Buffalini, Rick J: Pulverized Glass and Landfill Liner Systems&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; University of Missouri - Rolla; Glasphalt Paving Handbook&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://en.howtopedia.org/wiki/How_to_Use_Crushed_Recycled_Glass_as_Aggregate_for_Construction&#xA;  [2]: http://www.cwc.org/gl_bp/4-01-01.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1127" RevisionGUID="34d174fc-0d81-419f-a78d-5616a47cf6df" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Like many substances, carbon fiber **can** be recycled, but it may (currently) be better described as *downcycling*, vs. *recycling*.&#xA;&#xA;## Aerospace &#xA;&#xA;Carbon fiber composite materials, for example, are being used increasingly in aircraft manufacture.  Although this has been the case in more expensive *military* aircraft for decades, only recently have large commercial aircraft started using more composite materials than aluminum (the new [Boeing 787 is about 50% composites vs. 20% aluminum][1]).&#xA;&#xA;From [this article about Boeing][2]&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ... use a process called pyrolysis, whereby heat removes the resin&#xA;&gt; from shredded raw composite material, rendering what Carberry&#xA;&gt; described as a kind of fluffy fiber.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Carberry explained that physical properties of recycled composites&#xA;&gt; limit their use to nonstructural parts. Only new material–made of&#xA;&gt; virgin carbon fiber–is strong enough for fabrication of&#xA;&gt; flight-critical components.&#xA;&#xA;The carbon composites are [heated to around 400 &amp;deg;C - 600 &amp;deg;C][5], so the epoxy resin can be burned off (and lost), and the fibers reclaimed.  Although the end result is not a fiber of the same length as the original, the [process only uses about 5% of the energy that the original manufacturing process did.][4]&#xA;&#xA;Like when paper is recycled, the resulting fibers get shorter and shorter, and this reduces the strength of the recycled composite material.  They are still usable, but not for all the same applications (e.g. aircraft structure) as the original material.&#xA;&#xA;An early, lower-tech recycling process for carbon fiber simply involved grinding it up, and using it as filler material for applications like road building.  Less demanding applications like laptop cases are also current recipients of recycled carbon fiber.&#xA;&#xA;## Consumer Products&#xA;&#xA;Generally, the material performance demands are highest for aerospace applications, then automotive applications, then sporting goods, and finally consumer electronics.  So, this is likely to be the *downcycling* flow for carbon fiber (although I don't have evidence that recycled aerospace fibers are being used in car frames yet).  It's also the case that aerospace consumption of carbon fiber composites is vastly greater than smaller consumer products, so that's the most important place to start innovating in fiber recycling.&#xA;&#xA;[Check out this article, though, on Trek Bicycles recycling carbon fiber from bike frames][6]&#xA;&#xA;## More&#xA;&#xA;[Here is a link for a company developing a different carbon fiber recycling process][3]&#xA;&#xA;[Another link discussing the general state of the art, and future directions][4]&#xA;&#xA;*Disclaimer: in a former life, was a Boeing structures engineer, and did my Master's in Aero/Astro structures*.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/787family/programfacts.page&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-air-transport-perspective/2012-11-05/composites-go-green-through-recycling&#xA;  [3]: http://www.adherent-tech.com/recycling_technologies/carbon_fiber_reclamation_faqs&#xA;  [4]: http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/carbon-fiber-reclamation-going-commercial&#xA;  [5]: http://www.swrtec.de/swrtec/team/recyclingposter.pdf&#xA;  [6]: http://bicycling.com/blogs/thestraightdirt/2011/04/26/props-trek-institutes-novel-carbon-fiber-recycling-program/&#xA;&#xA;Edit: Please also be aware that carbon fiber sustains strain and damage during use and cannot be 100% recycled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23930" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2713" RevisionGUID="51a8f836-4d72-4f6a-ba46-9733b9af0f03" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I read [this beauty-oriented article][1] claiming that canned fish is more sustainable than fresh fish. Is this true? Listed below is a brief energy/sustainability brain dump on the subject.&#xA;&#xA;Canned fish:&#xA;&#xA;- does not have to be refrigerated&#xA;- fuel to build, fit and run the factory that makes the cans and transports them&#xA;- fuel to build, fit and run the canning factory&#xA;- sourcing and transport of oil to factory (for fish in oil) OR use of clean water (for fish in water, and the energy to make water used potable)&#xA;- energy to recycle the can, or zero if it just rusts somewhere&#xA;&#xA;Fresh fish:&#xA;&#xA;- could be smoked (energy of fire, CO2 released from fire)&#xA;- could to be refrigerated (energy of refrigerator, its manufacture)&#xA;- could be put on ice (energy to create the ice and energy to make water potable, or energy to make bag to put fish on non-potable ice, or no energy if it's winter)&#xA;- could be salted (energy to mine the salt, transport it)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;There are probably factors I haven't taken into account.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.xovain.com/skin/greasy-canned-fish-for-better-skin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23931" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2788" RevisionGUID="d22a0169-e212-4047-80f1-a870b7e7871d" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This is built on, and directly quotes from, [my answer][1] and user26165's [answer][2] to [a similar question over on Physics.SE][3].&#xA;&#xA;No, fresnel lenses are not widely used for solar power. Occasionally, but rarely.&#xA;&#xA;The issues are engineering and economics.&#xA;&#xA;### Other solar competitors&#xA;&#xA;The big economic story is the amazing speed at which ordinary photovoltaics have reduced their unit costs. This means that the economics of all the competing solar technologies - trackers, concentrating PV, concentrating solar thermal electric, all have got much more to prove now.&#xA;&#xA;### The economic problem that comes from depending on direct rays&#xA;&#xA;Concentrated solar power (CSP) that work by concentrating the sun on a heat-transfer fluid, to drive a turbine, depend on **direct** rays. Ordinary photovoltaics do not; they generate electricity from light however it comes in; reflected off snow, or scattered by the atmosphere and by clouds. And there's light like that all around the world (I've designed and sold PV systems for locations in Northern Europe, sub-tropics, Mount Everest, the tropics, and the South Pole). &#xA;&#xA;Whereas if you need high-intensity direct rays for a lot of the year, you're pretty much confined to the tropics and near the tropics. And those are places where clean water is precious - and these sort of plants can be large consumers of clean water. These plants can be sited further away (and there are indeed concentrating solar power stations further from the equator), but then you've got an economic problem - it will be the same capital costs, but much lower generation to spread those costs over, so unit energy costs will be higher.&#xA;&#xA;### Maintenance challenges&#xA;&#xA;As user26165's [answer][2] says:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Fresnel lenses are inherently single surface lenses; all of the optical power is on the serrated surface.  The grooved structure of this surface is easily contaminated , needing frequent cleaning.  They are expensive to make in glass, and most moldable optical plastics are UV degradable.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The surface contamination problem can be overcome by putting the grooved side on the inside, towards the focus.    This is the worst possible way to use a single surface refracting lens; the lens aberration are extremely large, whereas they are not too bad, with the grooved side out.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The axial edges of the grooves scatter a lot of light, greatly reducing the transmission efficiency.  You already have an 8-10% Fresnel reflection loss from the surfaces anyway, so Fresnel lenses are inefficient compared to reflector mirrors, and even with plastic molded lenses the costs are high.  Numbers like 500 x concentration are not possible with linear (one directional trough) Fresnels, and even with rotationally symmetrical lenses, achieving 500 x is difficult because of the scattering from the non active edges of the grooves.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/78848/4066&#xA;  [2]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/78918/4066&#xA;  [3]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/78846/4066&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23932" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2846" RevisionGUID="b1262a99-19ce-4ef1-ac79-da57c3eed866" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In general most collected garbage will be either incinerated or end up in land fills.&#xA;&#xA;The garbage that is &quot;recycled&quot; (like PET bottles, say) is usually [downcycled](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling) (into carpets, say).&#xA;&#xA;A well-known motto is&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. Reduce &#xA;&gt; 2. Reuse &#xA;&gt; 3. Recycle&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; (in that order)&#xA;&#xA;As for point one, there are more and more products, which are sold with a lifetime warranty. This might be primarily for marketing purposes, but the warranty at least keeps the manufacturer partially accountable for their product. Disposable or low-quality products are never sold with a lifetime warranty, because they're expected to be &quot;chucked&quot; rather sooner than later.&#xA;&#xA;For point two, there are initiatives which try to help consumers reuse certain packaging. Second-hand books/clothes/furniture is one obvious aspect. Another would be [large-scale reuse of glass bottles](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/592/large-scale-reuse-of-glass-bottles).&#xA;&#xA;For point three, the &quot;last resort&quot; is to buy and throw away products which are recyclable. Organic materials (food, in particular) can be composted.&#xA;&#xA;Ultimately, the consumer has the power of choosing more sustainable products and **less waste is always more sustainable than more waste**..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23933" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2865" RevisionGUID="bd2d672e-fbfb-4641-a43f-9483ebefcf5c" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="As we're looking at carbon footprints, it's important that the scope of the consequences we look at (aka our system boundary), goes out to the global level, and to the long term. We would get different answers with a smaller scope: if we only looked at short-term impacts, for example.&#xA;&#xA;In Britain, given the current generation mix, any required additional electricity production will come from either coal or gas, depending on total level of grid generation, the forecastability of the additional demand, and the relative prices of coal and gas. It will also depend on the efficiency of heaters.&#xA;&#xA;And for gas, the carbon impact will depend on the amount of additional gas leakage from the network, and the source of the gas.&#xA;&#xA;Relative global warming potential for different supplies:&#xA;&#xA;- electricity, coal as the marginal producer: 1&#xA;- electricity, gas as the marginal producer: 0.5&#xA;- gas: 0.2-0.3, depending on leakage rates&#xA;&#xA;To calculate short-term relative impact, ignoring the wider implications for the grid and generating infrastructure, simply divide those by the approximate efficiency (Seasonal performance factors, SPF, for heat pumps):&#xA;&#xA;- Resistance heaters with storage: 90%&#xA;- Air-source heat pumps: 200%&#xA;- Water-source heat pumps: 250%&#xA;- Ground-source heat pumps: 400%&#xA;- Gas boiler: 60-90%&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;**Example calculation**:&#xA;&#xA;Coal as the marginal producer, with air-source heat pump. Relative carbon footprint = 1 / 200% = 0.5. &#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### With infrastructure changes&#xA;&#xA;If you have a supplier that increases its investment in clean energy when its revenue increases (i.e., in the UK, that's [Ecotricity][1] - no connection except as a very happy customer), then the hierarchy of lowest carbon footprint will depend on those patterns. In this case, resistance heating with storage heaters starts to look very attractive, because the bill income enables higher investment in renewables; because coming onto the market now are smart controllers that will switch the heaters on and off to match exogenously varying renewables such as PV and wind, which enables higher integration of those supplies into the grid. In those cases, then the likely hierarchy, from lowest to highest carbon footprint, considering the long-term infrastructure impacts as well as the short-term marginal emissions, will be something like:&#xA;&#xA;1. resistance heating with storage heaters&#xA;1. ground-source heat-pump&#xA;2. water-source heat pump&#xA;2. air-source heat pump&#xA;4. gas heating&#xA;&#xA;Gas heating comes at the bottom, even if the supplier will inject biogas or synethetic gas into the network, because the network leakages of gas have a significant global warming impact.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### Without infrastructure changes&#xA;&#xA;If you have a supplier that just takes electricity and gas as they come, from the network, and their revenue doesn't change the pattern of their infrastructure investment, and if gas is the marginal electricity fuel, then the likely hierarchy, from lowest to highest carbon footprint, will be something like:&#xA;&#xA;1. ground-source heat-pump&#xA;2. water-source heat pump&#xA;2. air-source heat pump&#xA;3. gas heating&#xA;3. resistance heating with storage heaters&#xA;&#xA;but the position of gas heating will depend on the coal/gas blend in the electricity mix: The more coal, the higher that gas heating will come in that list.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### Future uncertainties&#xA;&#xA;There are big questions about how smart controls will play with heat pumps. I've yet to see anything convincing, but it is imaginable that combining storage with heat pumps will allow such systems to provide valuable balancing services to the grid, in just the same way as resistance heating with storage does.&#xA;&#xA;There are also, to my knowledge, no estimates of the impact of a marginal increase in gas consumption, on gas leakage rates. But that gas leakage can have a huge impact on the carbon footprint, because the gas is methane, and that has a very high global warming potential, molecule-for-molecule, relative to carbon dioxide.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### Optimal configuration&#xA;&#xA;As the Danes have discovered, the optimal system configuation is one that considers technology choices at the level of the system, rather than dwelling by dwelling. From that perspective, district heating offers the optimal solution, for several reasons:&#xA;&#xA;- it can economically operate with multiple different renewable heaters: solar thermal, heat pumps, biomass CHP, and resistance heating. This enables it to provide balancing services to the grid as well as providing clean heat.&#xA;- Equipment can be specified, designed, installed, commissioned, operated and maintained to professional standards, ensuring it performs at top efficiency: thus avoiding the under performance experienced for example by UK domestic heat pumps.&#xA;- District heating can incorporate heat storage that spans days or weeks: in-dwelling heat storage is limited to 1-2 days, because of space constraints.&#xA;&#xA;### In conclusion&#xA;&#xA;Ultimately, clean district heating speeds up the complete decarbonisation of heating and of electricity supply, so has the lowest long-term carbon footprint. At the moment, the next-best long-term option is probably smart-controlled resistance heaters going into storage heaters.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://ecotricity.co.uk/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2921" RevisionGUID="8b027041-ea81-4cbe-8241-46f39d001e41" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I know about two different studies that investigated which funeral method has the smallest environmental impact. I will base my answer on the most recent study and then shortly discuss the differences with the other one.&#xA;&#xA;## Two studies ##&#xA;&#xA;In [this report drawn up by the Dutch research institution TNO in 2011](http://www.petmemorialcenter.ca/aquamation/TNO_report_Environmental_impact_of_different_funeral_technologies.pdf) two alternatives are mentioned that are have a lower environmental impact compared to traditional burials or cremation.&#xA;&#xA;1. [**Resomation** a.k.a Alkaline Hydrolysis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resomation)&#xA;&#xA;    Resomation is a patented process in which a body is broken down into its chemical components by placing it into a mixture of water and lye and then heating it at high pressure. This will dissolve the soft tissue and make the bones porous, so they can be crushed afterwards. The resulting &quot;ash&quot; can then be returned to the next of kin.&#xA; &#xA;    The advantage is that metals or toxic chemicals in the body (e.g. mercury used in tooth fillings)  can be separated and this process reduces [emissions of greenhouse gases by approximately 35%](http://www.resomation.com/index_files/Page369.htm) compared to cremation. AFAIK it is legal only in some states in the US and Canada.&#xA;&#xA;2. [**Cryomation** a.k.a promession](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promession)&#xA;&#xA;    During cryomation a body is frozen solid by immersing it into liquid nitrogen. Then vibration or pressure is used to shatter the now brittle body. The remains are then placed in a vacuum and turned to powder. This powder can then be buried for further decomposition. &#xA;&#xA;    As with resomation, the benefits are lower CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and toxic emissions and the possibility to separate metals.&#xA;AFAIK cryomation is legal only in Sweden, Scotland and South Korea.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;The results of the TNO study however are different compared to an earlier Dutch study done by researchers of Delft University of Technology in 2005. Sadly I have only been able to find references to the 2005 study and not the study report itself, but [this article (in Dutch)](http://www.groene-uitvaart.nl/page_1754.html) discusses the differences between the two studies.&#xA;&#xA;In the Delft University study burial, cremation and resomation were considered to have a more or less equivalent environmental impact, but cryomation was found to have a big impact. The difference between the two studies is said to be caused by different weighing factors. Also the TNO study includes recycling of metals and toxic chemicals (not included in the Delft University study), but it also uses a relatively big impact factor (perhaps bigger than necessary?) for ground use in burials. Note that the results may not apply to other countries, since they are based on funeral regulations and customs in the Netherlands (e.g. coffin required for burials)&#xA;&#xA;## Other options ##&#xA;There are 3 other options that are sometimes mentioned as being more sustainable (than burial and cremation), but that AFAIK have never been researched as how sustainable they really are:&#xA;&#xA;3. [Sky burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_burial): a traditional Tibetan and Mongolian custom where a body is taken to a mountain top, cut into pieces and then fed to vultures or other birds of prey. &#xA;&#xA;4. [Sea burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_at_sea): disposing a body into the sea.&#xA;&#xA;5. [Natural burial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_burial) a.k.a. green burial: like a traditional burial, but then with a biodegradable coffin or shroud, allowing the body to decompose quickly.  &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;One final note; the Delft University study I mentioned earlier also found that the biggest environmental impact of funerals comes from the people who are driving (or flying?) there to attend ([source: this article in Dutch](http://www.groeneuitvaart.nl/page_1754.html)):&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23935" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2948" RevisionGUID="3881ecab-873b-47c3-847c-6204b71b7074" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**short answer: yes, it's better than driving a fossil-fuel car.**&#xA;&#xA;Long answer: it may seem to make less sense if you only consider a very small range of impacts, where all of the costs are visible, but only some of the benefits. Only when you zoom out to the long-term system level do you capture all of the benefits. And there are even better alternatives.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;### carbon in motion&#xA;Even if the extra electricity is provided by coal, an electric vehicle is so much more efficient than a fossil car, that there will carbon savings: electric cars are typically 80-90% efficient, compared to about 20% for a fossil car. So even with a coal plant at 33% efficiency, there' still a carbon saving from the electric.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### embodied energy&#xA;&#xA;Electric vehicles tend to be lighter, too (except the Rolls Royce Electric Phantom), so there can be lower impact on materials for the chassis.  The batteries are materials-intensive; they are currently so valuable that a lot of attention is paid to end-of-life reuse and recycling of the materials.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### big picture&#xA;&#xA;Electric vehicles can help with the market penetration of exogenously-variable renewables such as wind and PV. They release some of the stranglehold that oil companies have on the economy and politics. They make for quieter streets, and quieter car journeys. They eliminate the local pollution from car exhausts (tail pipes).&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### bigger picture&#xA;&#xA;Patterns both of car ownership and use have changed hugely in the last 4 decades. And the change in the 4 decades before that was huge too. 4 decades is enough for really big changes in transport patterns. For several reasons. It's 1.5-2 generations, giving plenty of time for cultural attitudes to shift.  It's long enough for disruptive technological innovations to gain big market share. And it's long enough for a sufficient amount of land-use to be reshaped around new transport patterns.&#xA;&#xA;Current car ownership doesn't make a lot of sense, from lots of perspectives. Most cars spend almost all their time stationary. Quite a lot of dwellings have different cars for different purposes. Most cars are able to drive hundreds of miles on a single refuelling, but very rarely if ever do so.&#xA;&#xA;It's possible we will see completely different patterns of ownership in the future, with various different forms of shared ownership.&#xA;&#xA;It's also possible that the growing obesity epidemic in parts of the developed world, the internalising of negative externalities into energy prices, and a better public understanding of the prerequisites for and importance of a vibrant public realm, lead to a resurgence in walking and cycling, negating the need for a big proportion of current car ownership and use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23936" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3039" RevisionGUID="ed087e09-6ba1-409b-86e7-000914f665b4" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="My local recycling bins look somewhat like these:&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xA;&#xA;As you can see, the opening can facilitate a single item at a time.&#xA;&#xA;How is one supposed to dump a large sack of plastic packages in the plastics bin? How is one supposed to throw a medium-sized plastic object, like a baby's 3-wheel plastic bike?  &#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tAvZL.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3154" RevisionGUID="9bf69cfe-3511-4119-861c-17e6f5fd9342" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="There is some ambiguity in the table. If it's only about electricity generation, that helps a lot.&#xA;&#xA;### solar&#xA;The two types of solar could get split in different ways. &quot;Solar panels&quot; usually refers to photovoltaic generation of electricity from semiconductors. Solar thermal could mean the directly supply of hot water from solar thermal panels or other thermal harvesting mechanisms. OR it could refer to what's also called concentrating solar power, CSP, whereby sunlight is concentrated - either by a huge array of tracking mirros onto a central tower, or by parabolic troughs onto pipes - and that heat is then used to drive a turbine to generate electricity. PV panels are nearing maturity now; CSP is still at the grid-scale commercial prototypes. There's **low uncertainty on costs of PV**, and on the rate of decline of PV costs - it's called Swanson's Law, and works similarly to Moore's Law for computers.  The IEA have famously been rather inept on predicting how quickly deployment would occur, and how quickly costs would come down. There's **high uncertainty on the costs of CSP**.&#xA;&#xA;### hydro&#xA;Hydro refers either to storage hydro, where the water is held in an upper reservoir, and released through turbines embedded in a dam or in the flow channels downstream from it, to generate electricity; or to run-of-river hydro, where electricity is generated as the water flows down a river and is channeled through a turbine. Both are well-established technologies. There's **very low uncertainty over costs of both run-of-river and storage hydro**. &lt;sub&gt;(NB storage hydro is different to pumped-storage hydro; storage hydro is a source of primary generation; pumped-storage hydro is a means of storing surplus electricity as gravitational potential, and converting it back to electricity later, when needed.)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xA;&#xA;### wave&#xA;Wave power is a nascent technology, and harvests the kinetic energy of the waves through pneumatics or other mechanisms. There are a few prototypes in the water. There's **very high uncertainty over costs of wave power**.&#xA;&#xA;### tidal&#xA;Tidal stream is also a nascent technology, and uses the kinetic energy of the daily or twice-daily (depending on where you are in the world) to drive a turbine. There are some prototypes in the water, and there's **very high uncertainty over costs of tidal stream**.&#xA;&#xA;Tidal barrages and lagoons use the height differences between high and low tides to drive water through turbines to generate electricity. **Tidal barrages are established, and have medium uncertainty of costs. Tidal lagoons are a bit of a fad at the moment in some places, unproven, with high uncertainty on costs**. This also applies to tidal reefs and other variants.&#xA;&#xA;Tidal is distinct in one curious way from all the others above. All the others are solar power, either directly or indirectly. Tidal comes from gravitational energy, not solar energy. (wind is also indirect solar energy. Geothermal is different again, being partly a product of nuclear reactions in the crust, and partly the reservoir of heat from the creation of the Earth)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3155" RevisionGUID="3054e900-94a4-45e2-8ffd-b770e24814cf" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### Summary&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;No, the USA is nowhere near the top of the rankings for renewables as a *proportion* of supply, either on an all-energy supply (where it was 91st out of 141 countries in 2012) or an electricity-only basis (where it was 84th out of 141 countries in 2012). It's well below the global average in each case. Note that because of the sheer scale of its energy supply, the USA is very close to (but not at) the top of the table for *absolute* renewables supply: on an all-energy basis, it was third behind China and India; for electricity it was second behind China.&#xA;&#xA;### data&#xA;Globally, the International Energy Agency tend to produce the most cited figures, but usually have a lag of a couple of years in publishing the numbers.&#xA;&#xA;From the IEA's World Energy Balances 2014, the figures for 2012 (expressed as mean power for the year, 2 significant figures, and converted to mean TW):&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### global all-energy produced&#xA;&#xA;- all sources: 17.8 TW&#xA;- renewables: 2.3 TW&#xA;- renewables share: 13%&#xA;&#xA;### USA all energy produced&#xA;- all sources: 2.4 TW&#xA;- renewables: 0.17 TW&#xA;- renewables share: 7%&#xA;&#xA;**On renewables as a share of all-energy supply, the USA was 99th out of 141 countries in 2012. As a share of production, it was 107th out of 141 countries.**&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### global electricity&#xA;&#xA;- all sources: 2.6 TW&#xA;- renewables: 0.54 TW&#xA;- renewables share: 21%&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;### USA electricity&#xA;&#xA;- all sources: 0.49 TW&#xA;- renewables:  0.058 TW&#xA;- renewables share: 12%&#xA;&#xA;**The USA was 84th out 141 in the table of countries sorted by descending share of renewables in electricity generation.**&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### footnotes&#xA;&#xA;Let's distinguish energy and electricity, as they are different things. Electricity is only a small part of all energy. There are countries such as Norway where ~99% of electricity is from renewables, but renewables form a much smaller proportion of total Norwegian energy consumption. And there are places where biomass forms a big proportion of overall energy supply, but renewables form a small proportion of electricity supply.&#xA;&#xA;Electricity generated and electricity consumed tend to be very similar numbers - the latter is 5-15% lower, due to losses in transmission, and electricity consumption at the generators themselves. Whereas energy generated and consumed tend to be very different - conversion losses and energy-supply-chain consumption tend to be of the order of 30-40% of total energy generated. For technologies where a lot of the energy is wasted, you get huge differences between the quantity of energy produced and quantity of electricity generated; for example, only a third of nuclear &quot;energy produced&quot; is useful electricity - the rest is heat dissipated in cooling, and some consumption by the plants themselves.&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3156" RevisionGUID="6fe782a6-15cc-4dc4-b665-04b5254bf4ea" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="According to the [REN21 Renewables Global Status Report 2014][1], China had 91.4 GW of installed wind capacity by the end of 2013, more than any other country in the world, of which 75.5 GW was in commercial operation.  The USA had 61.6 GW of installed wind capacity.&#xA;&#xA;In terms of actual generation from wind, the USA was world leader in 2013, with 19.4 GW mean power (170 TWh, IEA Energy Balances 2014); China was second, with 16.0 GW (140 TWh, REN21 Global Status Report 2014).&#xA;&#xA;And for generation in 2014, the figures were:&#xA;&#xA;- [USA 20.75 GW (181.791 TWh)][2]&#xA;- [China 18 GW (estimated, see my blog for more)][3]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][4] REN21 GSR 2014&#xA;&#xA;### Caveats&#xA;&#xA;Note that this is installed capacity, not electricity generated. Capacity factors (the ratio of mean power generated to installed capacity) vary over time, due to inter-annual variations in weather; they also vary by country. So just because one country had a higher installed capacity, does not always mean that it generated more electricity from wind. The IEA data (Renewables Information 2014) for 2013 says that the USA generated about more electricity from wind, in absolute terms, than China did (USA 19.4 GW mean power, China 16 GW mean power - the latter figure is from the REN21 GSR2014). **So in absolute numbers, of amount of electricity generation from wind, the USA was the world leader in 2013** (the most recent year for which comparable data is available). Higher capacity factors, less curtailment from transmission bottlenecks and grid controllers, and more readily available transmission infrastructure, are all parts of the explanation for this.&#xA;&#xA;Getting trustworthy statistics out of China is very difficult: in many reports, you'll often find that the statistics from China come from personal correspondence with specific Chinese bureaucrats.&#xA;&#xA;In addition, China does things differently to a lot of other countries, including the USA. In China, wind plants often get built before there's a suitable grid connection available for them: they build the transmission network once the windfarms are built. It usually works the other way around in the USA and many other countries. So GW of wind capacity installed can be measured on a different basis in different countries.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ren21.net/gsr&#xA;  [2]: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_17_b&#xA;  [3]: http://energynumbers.info/another-booming-year-chinese-renewables&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kyPP4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23940" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3195" RevisionGUID="91657d10-5c19-4740-a795-153526db370d" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### Humidity is a funny thing.&#xA;&#xA;The warmer that air gets, the more water it can hold as vapour. When that air cools down, it can no longer hold as much water vapour; if its humidity was high, then some of that water will condense out onto the coldest surface first. So air that has a healthy, comfortable relative humidity of 50%, when cooled, will have a relative humidity that increases as it cools, without any additional water vapour going into that air.&#xA;&#xA;### A room's temperature is also a funny thing&#xA;&#xA;It's common in a lot of energy modelling of dwellings to assume that a room has **a** temperature. Studies looking at thermal comfort have to be a lot more sophisticated, because things like different radiant temperatures of different surfaces, and a big temperature difference between ankle-height and head height, can be uncomfortable. Most rooms don't have a single temperature - they have lots of different temperatures, clustered around the room's mean temperature. So if a room has a mean temperature of 16&amp;deg;C, there will be spots in that room where the temperature is warmer, and places where it's cooler.&#xA;&#xA;### Ch...ch...ch...ch...changes&#xA;&#xA;Let's say you've got the bathroom at a nice comfy temperature when you're in it. And the kitchen's a nice comfy temperature when you're there. Maybe the bedroom, when you're not in it, gets down to 16&amp;deg;C. Now here's the thing - air moves around the dwelling. So of that lovely warm air in the bathroom or the kitchen, some of it will find its way through to the bedroom. Now, we put a fair bit of water vapour into the air just by breathing. Add in more water vapour from cooking and bathing, and the relative humidity in the kitchen or bathroom might get pretty high. And after all, relative humidity below 40% or so starts getting uncomfortably dry. Now, as that air gets to the bedroom, it's going to hit some surfaces that are colder than 16&amp;deg;C - 16 was just the average. Windows and window frames, external walls - particularly corners. It will often be the same spots, day after day after day - where there are thermal bridges: spots where heat has an easier route to the cold outdoors; spots that are a degree or three Celsius colder than other places.&#xA;&#xA;### Mould and Mites&#xA;&#xA;Now, because those spots I mentioned above will be repeated sites of condensation, then mould will take hold, and flourish. It will keep coming back, again and again. And mould spores are not nice - exacerbating asthma and other respiratory diseases. Additionally, persistent high humidity allows dust mites to flourish, and their waste products also create and exacerbate breathing difficulties: they are *&quot;one of the best-documented environmental causes of asthma&quot;* (Peat et al 1998). Furthermore, people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) benefit from additional warming, and suffer in cold rooms (Osman et al 2008)&#xA;&#xA;### References and further reading&#xA;&#xA;Oreszczyn T, Ridley I, Hong SH, &amp; Wilkinson P (2006). *Mould and winter indoor relative humidity in low income households in England.* Indoor Built Environment, 15(2), 125–135. doi:[10.1177/1420326X06063051][1]&#xA;&#xA;Preval N, Chapman R, Pierse N, &amp; Howden-Chapman P (2010).  *Evaluating energy, health and carbon co-benefits from improved domestic space heating: a randomised community trial.* Energy Policy, 38(8), 3965–3972. doi:[10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.020][2]&#xA;&#xA;Osman LM, Ayres JG, Garden C, Reglitz K, Lyon J, Douglas JG (2008). *Home warmth and health status of COPD patients.* The European Journal of Public Health Volume 18, Issue 4, 01 August 2008 p399-405. doi:[10.1093/eurpub/ckn015][3] &#xA;&#xA;Peat JK, Dickerson J, Li J (1998). *Effects of damp and mould in the home on respiratory health: a review of the literature*. Allergy. 1998 Feb;53(2):120-8. doi:[10.1111/j.1398-9995.1998.tb03859.x][4]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1420326X06063051&#xA;  [2]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.020&#xA;  [3]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn015&#xA;  [4]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.1998.tb03859.x" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4256" RevisionGUID="a4ade6fb-659f-420b-a143-c0a8bf4134ed" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In general these are non-trivial questions.  I don't know of a single source of answers, other that possibly the SL branch of StackExchange &lt;grin&gt;.&#xA;&#xA;Your best option, I think, is to learn how to reason about such things.  For this you will need to do a bit of digging:  Most of the carbon cost is really the energy cost.  So you learn how to convert kWh to pounds of CO2.  This one is fairly easy to find.  You will also need BTU (as in house and water heating) to pounds natural gas used.&#xA;&#xA;Once you have the energy units nailed down, the rest is fairly easy, athough it's good to seek several points of view.  All of these tend to be rough calculations, and different people will make differing assumptions.&#xA;&#xA;Some are not obvious.  &#xA;&#xA;# Example:  Recycling household plastic.&#xA;&#xA;This one is full of pitfalls:  Can you drop the plastic off when you shop?  If you have to make a separate trip, it might be better to throw it away.&#xA;&#xA;Is your community set up to recycle plastic.  If most of it ends up in the garbage, you aren't ahead.&#xA;&#xA;Recycling plastic may not be a benefit in terms of greenhouse gasses.  It may reduce oil use,but tehre may not be any net gain in energy efficiency.  Sure, you don't have to make the feed stock, but there is a lot of transportation tied up in  recycling.&#xA;&#xA;First approximation:  It's a wash, unless you have a local market for the plastic.&#xA;&#xA;# Passing up meat&#xA;&#xA;North Americans eat too much meat. But there is some evidence that we should not be complete vegetarians.  However you did say *more often*.  &#xA;&#xA;If you are talking about cow fed on grain, then yes, you could make the argument that a pound of cow takes about 6-10 lbs of grain, and that it would be cheaper in terms of energy to eat the grain.  &#xA;&#xA;Outside of the first world, grain fed beef is uncommon. Most of the meat is raised on grass.  Much of that grassland is unsuitable for agriculture.  Even where I live, west of Edmonton, locally about half the cleared land is pasture, either with grazing cattle, or managed for hay production for winter feed.  A few miles to the west grain farming vanishes, and it's all cattle or sheep country.  There isn't a reliable enough growing season to grow annual crops.&#xA;&#xA;With climate warming and increasing variability more land may become unsuitable for annual cropping.  The optimum choice may go the other way.&#xA;&#xA;# Replacing a car or appliance with a more efficient one.&#xA;&#xA;Depends greatly on the use pattern.  Unless the vehicle is a junker, when you trade your car in, someone else will buy it and use it.  The costs to make it are a sunk cost, and the amount of embodied energy in a car is considerable.  If you are a high mileage user, then replacing the car may be a net win.  Let someone else putter around a few thousand km per year for 10 years to finish wearing it out.&#xA;&#xA;But another option is to keep it and buy a highly efficient but different optimization vehicle.  E.g.  Suppose at present you have that classic family vehicle, a Dodge Caravan.  Intead of trading it in on whatever new hybrid would replace it, perhaps it would be better to get a Mercedes Smartcar, or a Focus, and use that when you could, and use the Caravan only when you must.  &#xA;&#xA;With cars, the waste comes from under utilization. A Caravan carrying a soccer team gets more passenger miles per gallon than a Prius taking a single commuter to work.&#xA;&#xA;For appliances a good rule of thumb is to compare the lifespan energy use.  Something like a refrigerator uses 1500 - 2000 kWh/year.  For me that 200-300 dollars worth of energy per year.  Suppose I could replace it with one that used half the power.  The new unit however cost $1000.  Suppose in addition that ALL of that thousand bucks represents energy.  So the new reefer costs 6000 kWh.  So a new reefer pays for itself in 6-10 years under this simplified energy model.  (While not terribly accurate, I think you will find that the errors when comparing similar items will cancel out.)&#xA;&#xA;The same argument for a toaster oven would probably result in you keeping the old one.  You don't use it that often, so the time to pay back the power use is much longer.&#xA;&#xA;As you can see, I took oddball stances on these.  You will need to develop your own criteria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4298" RevisionGUID="d79d2681-33c8-44a1-bf93-46331305137c" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**tl;dr replacing fossil fuels with clean, sustainable alternatives would save ~17-20% of current total global energy consumption.**&#xA;&#xA;I'll start by noting that energy efficiency is just a side perk of getting rid of fossil fuels: the primary goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.&#xA;&#xA;Still, let's look at how much less energy would we waste: that is to say, how much total annual energy produced would reduce, if total demand stayed the same, but sources other than fossil fuels were used to meet that demand. Fossil fuels are very wasteful of energy - most of the energy from fossil fuels burnt in power stations gets wasted through cooling towers; in cars, most of the oil energy also goes into waste heat. Depending on what we used to replace them, we could save a lot of waste energy, as well as reducing pollution.&#xA;&#xA;For cars, the most energy-efficient route is to electrify them.&#xA;&#xA;For electricity, the most energy-efficient routes are wind, PV, hydro, tidal, wave: that's because none of those have fuels, so there is no wasted fuel energy in the process of generation.&#xA;&#xA;For heating, the most energy-efficient route would be wide-scale deployment of heat-pumps. However, as that may not be feasible, I'll give an alternative scenario too, where it's met by electrical resistance heating. This would give about the same figure i a proportion of that was met by solar thermal instead.&#xA;&#xA;I've got 2011 figures to hand easily (IEA &amp; UK DECC Global Calculator), so let's use those.&#xA;&#xA;### Summary of savings:&#xA;      420 GW from cars  &#xA;    2 340 GW from coal- &amp; oil- fired electricity  &#xA;      540 GW from gas-fired electricity  &#xA;    ========.&#xA;    3 300 GW saved for starters&#xA;    &#xA;    +110 to 570 GW from heating (large uncertainty range - see below for details)&#xA;&#xA;That's relative to a global energy consumption of about 19 000 GW per year, so ~17% without heating, and an additional 0.6-3% from heating. Actual savings could be higher, depending on what we did with cooking, heavy transport (trucks, planes, boats), and industrial processes.&#xA;&#xA;### transport&#xA;&#xA;Internal combustion engines for cars tend to be about 20% efficient. Electric cars are more like 80%. So, 60% of all energy use for cars would be saved through electrification. Call it 22 EJ per year total car use, equivalent to 700 GW - so **420 GW savings from cars**.&#xA;&#xA;It's much harder to calculate for other transport - trucks, water, air - because we don't know what the best non-fossil substitute is. If it's just burning stuff (biomass, biogas, synthetic hydrocarbons) then the energy efficiency will be about the same as now, so no energy savings.&#xA;&#xA;### electricity&#xA;&#xA;Coal and oil plants are really inefficient - about 35% or so. The best ones go higher, but for a world-average, 35% is good enough. So if we replaced all that with non-thermal power (wind, water, pv), we'd save twice as much energy as coal &amp; oil electricity actually delivers. It delivers around 37 EJ per year, let's call that 1170 GW: so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **2300 GW from coal &amp; oil-fired electricity**.&#xA;&#xA;Gas is about 50% efficient, so replacing gas-generated electricity with wind-water-sun would save as much energy as gas electricity actually delivers. It delivers about 17 EJ per year, that's 540 GW; so converting to wind-water-sun would save about **540 GW from gas-fired electricity**.&#xA;&#xA;(Just to be explicit about this: 100% efficiency is in effect what you get with wind, PV, hydro, as there is no fuel to waste. Primary energy and generated electricity are one and the same thing for these generation sources. That's standard practice as well as best practice. I'm putting aside transmission and distribution losses in the case of both fossil and renewable generation - that is, they're assumed to be the same in each case)&#xA;&#xA;### space and water heating&#xA;&#xA;Very tricky to get a handle on the typical efficiency of fossil heating systems: here in Britan, it's probably 80% or so. Elsewhere it could be very different. In theory, heat pumps could do almost all of the work. In practice, there are serious questions about what actually gets delivered - particularly here in the UK for domestic installations. Global heating demand is around 34 EJ per year, so around 1080 GW. Converting that to electrical resistance heating might save 10% (going from 80% efficient to 90%), i.e 110 GW. On the other hand, using heatpumps, it might save 50% (putting half of it on heatpumps with an SPF of 3 - see calculation breakdown below), i.e. 570 GW. So, **savings from heating could be somewhere in the range 110 - 570 GW**.&#xA;&#xA;**Calculation breakdown:**  &#xA;Current demand 1080 GW. Assume this is met at 80% efficiency, so it requires 1350 GW supply (1080 / 0.8).&#xA;&#xA;Scenario: half resistance heating, half heat-pumps. Take half of demand (540 GW), and meet it at 90% efficiency - requires 600 GW (540 / 0.9). Take the other half (540 GW), and meet it at 300% efficiency (a very ambitious global average SPF 3 for heat pumps), requires 180 GW supply (540 / 3). Total supply is now 780 GW (600 + 180), saving 570 GW (1350 - 570).&#xA;&#xA;### industrial energy use&#xA;&#xA;For high-grade heat, many industrial processes are already electrifying, and there are many different processes with different waste profiles and different substitution issues, so I'm going to leave those for now, to stop this answer becoming any longer than it already is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4383" RevisionGUID="761b2aba-ec20-471f-94f7-ced6ed6c1363" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Summary: yes, the UK can be powered practically by 100% renewables&#xA;&#xA;Technically it's fairly straightforward. Subject to some fairly reasonable assumptions, and the commercialisation of technology that's already proven in the labs, it's also economically efficient too.&#xA;&#xA;Total UK energy demand is about 200 GW, of which 40 GW is presently served by electricity. (source: DUKES 2014)&#xA;&#xA;We don't know how efficient wind, PV and biomass can get, in terms of yield per unit surface area, as it's never been an issue: surface availability is not a constraint: cost and permissions are the constraints. So if we take existing yields per unit surface area, we are erring on the safe side.&#xA;&#xA;### offshore wind&#xA;&#xA;Offshore wind yields are of the order of 2 or 3 Watts per square metre, averaged out over time: that's equivalent to 2-3 GW per thousand  km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. That's not installed nameplate capacity, that average delivered power.&#xA;&#xA;Getting offshore wind equivalent to that 40 GW of current electricity demand would require 13 to 20 thousand  km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of surface area. And for 200 GW, that would require 67 to 100 thousand  km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of surface area.&#xA;&#xA;The surface area of the UK's seas, the Exclusive Economic Zone or EEZ, is about 770 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, so at the very most we're talking about less than 15% of the EEZ, even if we had no land-based renewables at all, no energy efficiency improvements, and no increase in energy yields per unit area. So that's not 14-15% of the EEZ *along with* land-use for onshore wind and PV - that's *instead of* those. Now, no one's suggesting using offshore wind only: the calculation is just to give an indication on the outer limit, and to show that the available resource is not at all a constraint on going 100% renewables.&#xA;&#xA;### onshore wind&#xA;&#xA;Now onshore wind and PV are both cheaper than offshore wind, so there are good reasons to use those as well as offshore wind; the onshore resoure is smaller - various estimates put it at between 20GW and 50GW average output, at about 2GW per thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. Hence 20GW would be 10 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, and 50GW would be 25 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. The UK's surface area is just over 240 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, so we're talking about 4-10% of UK land area. Easy enough to avoid Areas of Outstanding National Beauty, and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.&#xA;&#xA;### solar photovoltaics&#xA;The photovoltaics resource is huge, even in cloudy old Britain. The limiting factor on PV isn't available area: it's that its generation is concentrated in spring to autumn, with very low supply in winter, when energy demand is highest. Integrating PV is pretty easy up to the point where capacity is equal to average demand; actual average output would be about one-tenth of that. So, integrating 4-20 GW of PV output is fairly straightforward (taking demand to be in the range of 40 GW of present electricity demand to 200 GW of present all-energy demand). PV generates at about 5W per m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, equivalent to 5GW per thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;. And so we're talking about 1-4 thousand km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, i.e less than 2% of UK land area, and absolutely no need to put PV on land currently used for growing food crops.&#xA;&#xA;### balancing demand and supply, and electricity versus other vectors&#xA;&#xA;So, there's really no shortage of energy there for the UK to harness: there's way way more potential there than we could possibly use. And protected areas can stay protected.&#xA;&#xA;A sufficient quantity of resource on average is only part of the story. There are two other parts. One is balancing demand and supply; the other is the form of energy. Presently, only a fifth of energy demand is met by electricity. Gas, coal and oil products meet the rest. In some cases, electrification is pretty straightforward - for example, for heating, and urban car use. And electrifying car use would have the additional bonus of reducing total energy demand by about 25 GW, as electric cars are about four times as efficient as fossil cars. Electric heating is also typically more efficient than gas heating, though not usually by such a large margin.&#xA;&#xA;There are some uses where getting off fossil fuels looks a lot more challenging: in particular, air- and water- transport. There are a couple of options: biomass, and synthetic fuels. Both work in the lab and in prototypes, but given the world is awash with cheap oil and no sane carbon price, getting either of them commercialised is economically challenging at the moment.&#xA;&#xA;How we electrify these things matters a lot, because it influences how we match demand and supply. Electrifying heat is great, because heat storage is very cheap, and hugely scalable, offering balancing services at the scale of milliseconds to months. As would synthesising fuels using electricity. Electrifying cars offers balancing services at the scale of milliseconds to a day or two. &#xA;&#xA;That leaves some industrial processes such as steel-making that currently rely on coke. Now, coke isn't the only way to make steel - what you need is lots of heat, and some carbon. Coke is one way to do that, but it's not the only way - there are lots of sources of carbon other than fossil fuels, and lots of other sources of heat too. So, technical solutions are there, but again the economics are not currently favourable to commercialising these solutions.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;### efficiency of space use&#xA;&#xA;A few years ago, some people started worrying about whether this space use was efficient or not. That turned out to be irrelevant, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, when we do the maths, we find we'll only talking about a few percent of land and seas at most. And secondly, and more interestingly, adding PV or wind to land or seas makes those areas more efficient, not less. For example, take a sheep farm. It's currently used for farming sheep. You can add both PV and turbines to it, and now the land is being used much more efficiently: you get electricity when it's sunny; you get electricity when it's windy; and you still get sheep all year round.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;### public acceptance&#xA;Renewables repeatedly come out top in polls of public acceptability: they receive far higher levels of approval than any other generation source. Electric vehicles offer a large number of advantages over fossil-fuelled vehicles, and as costs come down, uptake increases.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;### an example solution&#xA;We could get about 6 GW from tidal barrages, 10 GW from PV, 20 GW from onshore wind, 114 GW from offshore wind, and 50 GW reduction in demand from energy efficiency measures that improve the quality of people's lives, such as higher-quality lighting, and well-insulated buildings. That would mean the renewables would enhance the efficiency of use of about 5% of our land area (though the physical footprint would be less than one-tenth of that: wind turbines occupy very little land), and about 7% of our seas. Now, there's also wave, tidal stream and solar thermal too, so I've only looked at part of the picture; but enough of the picture to be able to answer the question in the affirmative:&#xA;## yes, the UK can be powered practically by 100% renewables." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4453" RevisionGUID="6bde5a40-57be-4cf6-a935-475866fbcbe3" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Measuring impact&#xA;&#xA;I've yet to see a meaningful metric that relates directly to materials, other than the EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested); and there's discussion about whether or not EROEI is at all a useful measure: its probably not that useful, since once it's over 1.0, it's completely subsumed into the economics. The same would be true of a more explicitly materials-based index: it's completely subsumed into the economics.&#xA;&#xA;As THelper hints at in the comments, calculations of energy inputs, and other lifecycle cost analyses (LCAs), do usually work from a quantified list of materials that are used in construction, operations and decommissioning. So most detailed LCAs will contain such a list.&#xA;&#xA;It will vary depending on whether the turbine has a permanent (neodymium) magnet or not; whether it's onshore or offshore; and if offshore, what sort of foundation / tethering is used.&#xA;&#xA;Energy out per unit kilogram (kg) mass input seems like a strange measure, as it equates a kg of water, a kg of oxygen, a kg of steel, a kg of platinum: I can't really see how that's at all a useful measure.&#xA;&#xA;# Materials for one wind farm&#xA;&#xA;Here are the two tables identified by THelper, from [&quot;Energy performances and life cycle assessment of an Italian wind farm&quot; by Ardente et al (2006):](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2006.05.013)&#xA;&#xA;*Materials per 660kW-capacity turbine:*&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xA;&#xA;*Additional Materials for the whole 11-turbine farm:*&#xA;![enter image description here][2]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;To get total energy generated, you could assume a 20-year life and something like a 25% capacity factor, to get:&#xA;&#xA;20y x 25% x 11 x 660kW x 8766 h/y&#xA;&#xA;= about 300 GWh of electricity generated over the lifetime, and about 40 kilotonnes of material.&#xA;&#xA;# Caveats&#xA;&#xA;660kW turbines are quite small, these days: 2-3MW is more common. So the above windfarm isn't really that representative. Also, the amount of material used for roads and lay-bays could vary a lot, depending on the specific site configuration.&#xA;&#xA;Almost all of that material would be re-usable at the end of life of the farm: the aggregates, soil and stone could be directly reused; the steel would be recycled; and the concrete reused as aggregates. So picking a divisor is tricky - without detailed information on recycling and reuse rates, the number of generations of windfarm served by those 40 kilotonnes of materials is hard to determine, so one might end up picking an abritrary number of generations, changing the end result considerably.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gR5mA.png&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AXZkK.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4523" RevisionGUID="984c73a9-14ec-43c0-a577-cc4a8ace0722" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="To do demand/supply matching, I don't use cumulative load-duration curves, because they lack the time dimension.&#xA;&#xA;### Data frequency&#xA;Given the sensitivity to Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) of time-of-day, what I'd look for is hourly or more frequent (eg half-hourly) data both for Direct Normal Insolation (DNI), and for electricity consumption.&#xA;&#xA;Some utilities do publish such (half-) hourly electricity consumption; as do some transmission operators.&#xA;&#xA;As for the insolation data, often reanalysis data is 3-hourly or 6-hourly, which might be too infrequent for your purpose. Reanalysis data does have better geographic coverage though. If need be, you might have to use more frequent met-station DNI data, and use that to interpolate the reanalysis data for your putative CSP sites, to get the right combination of precision for both time and place.&#xA;&#xA;### Combining data across timezones&#xA;&#xA;When combining data across different timezones, the first thing (after basic cleaning) to do is to convert the timestamps in all the data (DNI data, demand data, everything with a timestamp) so that it's all for the same timezone (typically UTC, aka UTC+00). This requires adjustments for daylight saving time too. Once all the data are in UTC with no daylight saving time, then start doing your accumulation. (If everything's in the same timezone, then it's simplest to keep it in that ... except dealing with daylight saving time can create problems. As soon as I'm doing things across timezones, I switch to UTC as that keeps it all simple, and is most straightforward for any present or future collaborators, wherever they are in the world. )&#xA;&#xA;### further issues with synoptic- (continental-) scale analysis&#xA;&#xA;One usual method with such synoptic-scale analyses is to first model without any transmission capacity constraints; and then to introduce such constraints later if it looks like they might become relative. Long-distance transmission is pretty cheap and easy compared to building generation or storage, so ignoring capacity constraints is a pretty reasonable assumption for a first-order estimate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23946" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4711" RevisionGUID="3fb049ac-a21d-49f1-ab75-5043adb2686c" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### Professional&#xA;&#xA;The low-carbon sector employees a lot of software developers. For example, wind farm operators use SCADA systems to provide data on performance and to inform proactive maintenance regimes; and wind-farm developers use modelling software to design the optimum layout of the windfarms.&#xA;&#xA;If you want to dedicate your career to it, and you don't have success at first when applying to such posts, then I'd recommend a 1-year Masters' course in one of the environmental subjects that most interests you, as a way to make your CV more attractive to employers in the sector. For example, University College London has several Masters that might interest you (disclosure: I have a little involvement with these), such as [the MSC in Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment][1] and [the MRes in Energy Demand][2]; Imperial College (also in London) has an [MSc in Sustainable Energy Futures][3], and the well-established and well-respected [MSc in Environmental Technology][4]. And the Danish Technical University offers MScs (in English) in [Wind Energy][5] and [Sustainable Energy][6], among other sustainable topics.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;### Voluntary, with possible routes into professional.&#xA;&#xA;There are various open-source environmental projects. One I'm a little involved with is [the OpenMod Initiative][7], which is building an international network of open-source clean-energy modellers - [here's a list of some live open-source energy models][8], including one of my own (NB they do cover quite a broad definition of &quot;open&quot;).&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/sustainable/programmes/msc_epee&#xA;  [2]: http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/energy/programmes/postgraduate/mres-energy-demand-studies&#xA;  [3]: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/energy-futures-lab/our-msc/&#xA;  [4]: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/environmental-policy/msc/msc-environmental-technology/&#xA;  [5]: http://www.dtu.dk/english/Education/msc/Programmes/wind_energy&#xA;  [6]: http://www.dtu.dk/english/Education/msc/Programmes/sustainable_energy&#xA;  [7]: http://openmod-initiative.org/&#xA;  [8]: http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/Open_Models" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2684" RevisionGUID="94531d36-4b03-4b82-82e4-9ef3868ef3ba" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The &quot;thermal shift&quot; setting is a control that allows you to change the temperature of the water that's output from the air-source heat pump (ASHP) into the house's heating circuit up or down by 5&amp;deg;C.&#xA;&#xA;Shifting the output temperature **up** will enable your radiators to pump out more heat, which may be necessary in very cold weather, or if your home isn't well insulated, or if your radiators are of the standard design that are sized to be run at higher (~50-60&amp;deg;C) temperatures.&#xA;&#xA;Shifting the output temperature **down** will mean that there is less on-off cycling of the heat pump, which should improve its efficiency, reduce noise, and extend its life. In addition, the lower temperature should improve its efficiency in and of itself, too. This would be appropriate in a very well-insulated dwelling, with radiators sized to be run at lower temperatures (~35-40&amp;deg;C).&#xA;&#xA;Ideally, you want the output temperature to be as low as it can be, while keeping you warm enough: so that the radiators are releasing low-level heat all the time, rather than being high temperature part of the time, and then getting switched off by their thermostatic valves for some of the time. That way, the ASHP will run at the best efficiency it can.&#xA;&#xA;As the heat pump can be used in a wide variety of systems and under a big range of conditions, there isn't a single &quot;ideal&quot; temperature for the water it heats: the thermal-shift setting allows you to customise the output water temperature to best fit your own heating system.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;### So why is it called a thermal shift, rather than just &quot;output water temperature&quot;?&#xA;Modern ASHPs have adaptive controls that automatically adjust the output water temperature, based on external air temperature. When the outside air is warmer, then the house needs less heating, and so the ASHP control reduces the output water temperature. When it's colder, the house needs more heating, so the ASHP control increases the water temperature.&#xA;&#xA;That results in an output curve like this:&#xA;&#xA;    |&#xA;    |    ____             Where the y-axis is output water temperature,&#xA;    |        \&#xA;    |         \           and the x-axis is external air temperature.&#xA;    |          \____&#xA;    |_________________&#xA;&#xA;If you change the &quot;thermal shift&quot; setting, it shifts the whole curve down or up:&#xA;&#xA;    |    ____ &#xA;    |   ^____\&#xA;    |        \\&#xA;    |         \\____&#xA;    |          \____^&#xA;    |_________________&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2675" RevisionGUID="63662f46-ff0f-4601-abb8-92a4d03ff0da" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### Routes into sustainable industries&#xA;Analytic skills are very valuable in many sustainability industries, as are knowledge of engineering and physics principles.&#xA;&#xA;There have traditionally been two routes into what we now call the low-carbon industries: one route has been via NGOs and lots of volunteering. The other has been engineers and scientists who care about the impact of their work.&#xA;&#xA;People who come through the former route have been very good at the lobbying, building social networks and grass-roots movements.&#xA;&#xA;People who come through the latter route have been very good at the innovation and implementation side of things.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;### University research projects as a route to industry&#xA;When looking at the migration from academic study to sustainable industries, I strongly advise looking to your research projects: many undergraduate courses, and all the Masters courses I'm aware of, involve some research project.  Many industry bodies are interested in co-operating with universities on these research projects.&#xA;&#xA;For the companies, they sometimes get useful work out of it, they build useful links with academic research departments, and the research project itself can form an extended internship / dress-rehearsal for a job.&#xA;&#xA;For the student, they get chance to see whether the company would be a good fit for them, as well as doing real-world research.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### Skills above knowledge&#xA;It's far more important that you develop the right skills, than look to particular areas of knowledge. A bright student with the right skills will quickly pick up the appropriate knowledge when they start in an industry. Whereas someone who ends their formal studies with knowledge but no significant skills in research, self-motivation or independent thought, isn't much use to any employer, beyond doing repetitive grunt work. That's valuable work, and someone's got to do it, but I don't think that's what you're looking for.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;### Choice of subject&#xA;&#xA;So, as to Physics vs Computer Science, focus on wherever your skills are best placed: pick the one you'll excel at. And take into account any links that each department has with particular companies - ask around in the department, to find out where people get employed after leaving, and which companies people have done research with in the past.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;### Choice of Masters&#xA;You can also apply those criteria if you choose to do a Masters. A Masters degree can be a great way to build links with a particular company or industry, and to specialise in your skills and knowledge. Choose a university course that already has links to your target company: so, for example, if you want to work with Tesla, find out which universities they co-operate with currently, and which universities their staff went to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2647" RevisionGUID="74460a78-038c-4c1b-99e9-e52b91803c8d" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### Available products&#xA;&#xA;Aerogels in composites are typically two to four times more thermally insulating than the next-best alternative.&#xA;&#xA;And since the recent expiry of some aerogel patents, the number of suppliers of these products has started to increase. The **Space Loft** and **Thermal Wrap** products at the site linked in the question are indeed aimed at the residential market, as well as the industrial.&#xA;&#xA;The RockWool company now offer **Aerowolle**, a hybrid of aerogels and rockwool, as well as aerorock id-vpk - **internal wall insulation (IWI)** which combines aerogel with a plasterboard.&#xA;&#xA;In Britain, the [ThermaBlok][1] range includes **self-adhesive aerogel strips for fitting on studs and joists**, to prevent thermal bridging; **wall boards**, **ceiling boards**, **floor boards**, and an **insulating blanket**..&#xA;&#xA;You can also get **aerogel-composite tiles**, for retrofitting insulation on the reveals around windows: one of many cases where very narrow spaces require a material with particularly high thermal-insulation characteristics.&#xA;&#xA;And there are **aerogel particles**, which can be blended into paints and plasters, for a wide range of applications: suppliers include Sto (StoTherm In Aevero), Fixit (222), Tnemec (Aerolon), Birdair (Tensotherm), Wasco (Lumira aerogel **Skylights**) and TGP (Profilit **channel glass system**)&#xA;&#xA;### Costs&#xA;&#xA;Given planning-permission constraints (e.g. in Britain), and given the high unit cost of land in many cities, aerogels and other super-insulators have a key role to play: internal space is at a premium, so the space-saving offered by super-insulators can be very valuable. That high pressure on the demand-side, together with an industry that was until recently constrained by patents, means that aerogel composites are (as of early 2014) more expensive, per unit of heating energy saved, than materials such as [PIR][2]. When you take into account the economic value of lost space, aerogel products are often cheaper.&#xA;&#xA;### Suitability&#xA;&#xA;Wherever space is a constraint, and you've got the budget, aerogel products offer some interesting opportunities. The supply chain is best-developed in and around Germany at present, but is growing elsewhere. Like fibreglass, it can in some forms be dusty and unpleasant to work with: see the material data sheets and take appropriate safety precautions when installing.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thermablok.co.uk/products&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyisocyanurate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2597" RevisionGUID="e9e6e1ca-83c6-4a36-b17c-d300b85abde6" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="## Solar shower could be a fun project.&#xA;&#xA; - Plastic bag, on a black sheet, on a white sheet, on metal sheet, tin foil, black plastic ?&#xA;&#xA; - Plenty of fun making and creating.&#xA;&#xA; - Put them out in the morning.&#xA;&#xA; - Come back after lunch and test them, compared to a control. Take a show (probably a bad idea) wash your hands, feel how &quot;We've made hot water, with no power, fire electricity, gas, ... ).&#xA;&#xA;Write up the project.&#xA;&#xA;edit 1&#xA;&#xA;Thanks for the feedback DTDev, your comments have inspired me to add some further notes.&#xA;&#xA;There could be 2 controls. &#xA;&#xA; - 1st filled same time as the others (but kept in the dark), so it picks up only ambient air temp.&#xA;&#xA; - 2nd filled at measurement time from cold source. &#xA;&#xA;1st should be warmer than 2nd, only slightly, but hopefully big jump in temp to sun soaked bags.&#xA;&#xA;## Part two&#xA;Also like your idea about *battery affect* and *latency*, so a 2nd half/part could demonstrate drain down, which could be added/combined as a part two.&#xA;&#xA;Two jars one with water one without each with thermometer, kept in shade both pick up ambient temperature. Put the lids back on and remove both to the cold (fridge), air filled should drop faster than water jar.&#xA;&#xA;I thought the first would appeal to younger students, the 2nd experiment can be added for older students." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1131" RevisionGUID="a15b73dc-3120-4070-a58d-7c543c7e564f" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="## Short Answer&#xA;&#xA;First of all, let me say that I *love* rain barrels, and have them installed at both homes I've owned (both older homes that are already fully landscaped).  I think rain barrels are great water saving devices, and can provide *some* buffer against run-off.  They're also cheap and easy to install, and can often repurpose existing containers.&#xA;&#xA;However, I would still answer **&quot;No, they should not be considered substitutes for rain gardens in building codes&quot;**.&#xA;&#xA;## Why&#xA;&#xA;First of all, we need to understand what the purpose of a building code is.  It's not a way to create the **best** possible residential units.  It's a means to provide sort of a *lowest-common-denominator* solution.  A *minimum* acceptable standard for something - in this case, stormwater management.&#xA;&#xA;Someone such as yourself, who's in tune with these issues, an active gardener, and motivated to consider sustainability, might very well be able to improve upon the building code's solutions.  But, the code isn't so much for **you**, as it is for those who don't care about this stuff.&#xA;&#xA;For rain barrels to perform a stormwater management function, requires some active management on your part.  As [Highly Irregular said][1], you have to watch the fill level of your barrels constantly.  Most residents won't do this reliably.   A 55 gallon rain barrel can fill up fast, so it's easy to envision that in a short time, it might have *zero* benefit for stormwater management.  If the barrel is full, and has to drain via the overflow tube, you get absolutely no drainage benefit.  The rain garden is much more work to setup, but in my opinion, once it's working, it should continue to function with less intervention, compared to the rain barrel.  If the right native species are planted, once established, you should only have to make sure somebody doesn't completely mow over the garden.  Any other maintenance should be few and far between.&#xA;&#xA;Also, building codes primarily serve to govern plans for **new** buildings.  When you have an empty lot that's yet to be landscaped, it's less work to install a good rain garden.  After the home/building and yard are complete, and you want to add *additional* water management, I think rain barrels offer a reasonable retrofit solution.&#xA;&#xA;## Parallels&#xA;&#xA;To me, this also reminds me of *geoengineering* solutions, which I generally tend to be opposed to.  For example, a proposal to combat global warming by injecting sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere.  True, this would block sunlight, which would have a cooling effect.  But, sun is a good thing.  Blocking it would have other detrimental effects, and this &quot;*solution*&quot; does nothing to fight the non-warming problems associated with increasing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels (e.g. ocean acidification).&#xA;&#xA;Actively managed rain barrels might serve the purpose of stormwater management, but a plastic barrel isn't a plant.  Rain gardens are also good because they involve planting native species, keeping greenspace green instead of turning it into concrete, patio or deck area, and they also promote good biodiversity.  Rain barrels by themselves don't do these things.  The only thing they're assured of doing is saving some water.&#xA;&#xA;## Conclusion&#xA;&#xA;Saving water is good.  I use rain barrels, and especially recommend them for retrofits, where the yard is already planted (with or without rain garden).  I just don't think they're a *substitute* for rain gardens in building codes.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1130/486" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23952" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1135" RevisionGUID="f34eef92-c354-4efb-831e-79caa598b7ce" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Lots of ideas..&#xA;&#xA;## Dark Side&#xA;&#xA; - [Diatomaceous Earth][1] (Fossilized organisms so small it scratches them up, inside and out)&#xA;&#xA; - Build a hot compost pile on top of it ([If it can get rid of Comfrey, ants don't stand a chance][2])&#xA;&#xA; - [Entomopathogenic Fungi][3] (but it requires you to morph the fungal Escovopsis culture into a non-sporulating form yourself)&#xA;&#xA;Be careful what you wish for, though they do have the benefit of keeping fire ants away.&#xA;&#xA;## Light Side&#xA;&#xA;Sacrificial plants - (If [Lepiota][4] is what your ants are cultivating, then Nettles may be a good plant to cultivate along their route to your fruit trees) Once your sacrificial plants are established, hose down the pheromone trail leading to your trees until they find another source of food. It is believed they tend to stick to one type of foliage at a time in an attempt feed the fungi they are harvesting a consistent diet.&#xA;&#xA; [Cultivate them for fun &amp; profit!][5]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.richsoil.com/diatomaceous-earth.jsp&#xA;  [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEHc_UzeT9w&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomopathogenic_fungus&#xA;  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepiota&#xA;  [5]: http://www.antweb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=1&amp;tag=leaf-cutter%20ants&amp;limit=20" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23953" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1138" RevisionGUID="de5102c7-7566-4de5-82eb-91e0aea55664" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I know this isn't the answer you're hoping for, but since you do mention it toward the bottom of your question, I think it's still *on-topic*;  **yes, you would (probably) be more sustainable to just buy organic tomatoes at the market**.&#xA;&#xA;## Inefficiency of Do-It-Yourself (DIY)&#xA;&#xA;This is a recurring theme I see a lot: people mistaking *sustainability* for DIY.  The two are not the same.&#xA;&#xA;One reason is kind of a corollary to an argument that's common [in economics][1].  The argument is that an economy works better when each of us specialize in what we're good at, and leave the other work for people with different talents.  If you're really great at growing tomatoes, I suggest you take up tomato farming.  If you're better at something else, do that for a living.  In economics, you do have different priorities (vs. sustainability).  However, they're not completely unrelated.  Economic efficiency focuses on costs.  Sustainability focuses on energy, pollution and finite resources.  But energy and resources cost money, too.&#xA;&#xA;The organic tomato farmer is *also* trying to run a successful business.  They don't want to use more energy, water, organic fertilizer, or land than they need to.  They'll try to minimize those things, and given their experience, will likely do a better job than you do.  Economies of scale matter.  It's hard to have economies of scale in a backyard garden.  Do it if you love to garden, or want the freshest possible food.  But, don't assume it's most sustainable.  You should plant the kind of plants in your yard that are native to your area, or provide habitat for birds, insects or animals we **do** need more of.&#xA;&#xA;[Here's also a link about the relative importance of &quot;food miles&quot;][2] in the energy equation, which I think tends to be overrated.  For example, if transportation to market represents only 4% of greenhouse gas emissions for a certain food, are you sure your home farming won't be more than 4% less efficient than the professional farmer?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;# Misconceptions&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;There also appear to be a few assumptions in the question that I'd challenge.&#xA;&#xA; - **Using a cat or dog *would* be sustainable** (if not for allergies, or lazy cat syndrome).  If a dog or cat is active enough to be any good at chasing squirrels (and probably only when they're young), then they'll need a high-energy diet.  Such a pet, pound-for-pound, is going to consume much more food energy than a human.  Food takes energy, land, water, and soil to grow.  Pets can have a [large negative environmental impact][3], even though they're &quot;natural&quot;.  Keeping one just to protect your tomatoes would be like buying a schoolbus to drive to the grocery store, but claiming it's sustainable because it's a hybrid. &#xA;&#xA; - **Shooting squirrels would *not* be sustainable**.  I vehemently defend species under threat from human activity, but not all animals fall into this category.  Mankind has generally chased away the squirrel's natural predators, so in many areas people live, squirrel populations have increased.  Thus, killing squirrels isn't necessarily unsustainable (especially if you, or local birds, eat them).  Yes, squirrels do help propagate trees, but where you live, there's a good chance that humans decide which trees get planted, and which are removed.  If humans perform this function, we can probably tolerate a reduction in the number of squirrels doing so as well.  [For balance, I'll link to PETA's defense of squirrels][4].&#xA;&#xA; - **Growing your own peppers would be better**.  This is really just about the *specialization* argument again, and how doing everything yourself isn't the point of sustainability, and usually isn't efficient.  The relative sustainability gains you might achieve in growing your own peppers are likely small compared to the losses of growing crops that are eaten by overpopulated rodents.  Worry about the tomato problem first.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## If you really need a narrow answer to this question ...&#xA;You might need to provide more information.  **Why** are tomato cages not practical for you?  We may need to understand this is in order to give you another recommendation.  Cages would have been my suggestion, and in general, I think the MNN article covers most good alternatives.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/College/divisionoflaborspecialization.html&#xA;  [2]: http://psufoodscience.typepad.com/psu_food_science/files/es702969f.pdf&#xA;  [3]: http://phys.org/news176582720.html&#xA;  [4]: http://www.peta.org/issues/wildlife/squirrels.aspx" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23954" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1173" RevisionGUID="b3c932ba-fe96-4e7d-aa1d-63583c985921" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Someone *has* done it.  A majority of the electricity [I buy comes from geothermal energy][1] &amp;dagger;.&#xA;&#xA;Of course, I live in the Pacific Northwest of North America, which puts me close to a tectonic plate boundary.  This presents good conditions for extracting geothermal heat ([since the earth's crust is thinner at such boundaries][2] ... making shallower wells productive).&#xA;&#xA;## Limitations&#xA;&#xA;In terms of *why* it isn't more widely used, I don't know for sure, but I would guess that at least some of the following factors apply:&#xA;&#xA; - It's new.  Give it time.  This recent estimate predicts a [13% annual growth rate in geothermal production][4] in coming years.&#xA; - Political reasons contribute to the status quo (fossil fuels) maintaining market share as long as possible (this includes both *lobbying* by existing fossil fuel business interests, and [general ideological leanings by the political Right][6]).&#xA; - Building the plants can involve hydraulic fracturing, somewhat like shale gas extraction does.  There are environmental issues associated with that, or any type of drilling, especially in earthquake zones (although for the geothermal application, I believe they're far outweighed by the low carbon footprint per kWh of geothermal energy)&#xA; - As I alluded to before, not all sites are equally desirable, geologically.&#xA; - I don't want to get into regulations here, because they vary with every location, but in some places, utilities have been required to buy the very cheapest electricity, with no regard to pollution/carbon-neutrality.  This could rule out geothermal, even if it's cost-competitive, so long as there's one available source with lower cost.&#xA; - You didn't limit your question to one particular region, but [here's a link discussing some regional issues in my corner of the world][9].&#xA;&#xA;## Another Opinion&#xA;&#xA;[From this source][3]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The major impediments which this industry faces include initial&#xA;&gt; financing of large scale projects, resource development risks like&#xA;&gt; failure of drilling wells and insufficient productivity, lack of&#xA;&gt; skilled labor to work on the projects, issues related to drilling rigs&#xA;&gt; and market and network issues like proximity to the market and network&#xA;&gt; capital costs. Also, there are some environmental problems in&#xA;&gt; producing geothermal energy like release of hydrogen sulfide and&#xA;&gt; disposal of toxic geothermal fluids while extraction.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Challenges to this industry are carrying out efficient programs for&#xA;&gt; land leasing where reserves of geothermal energy are located, better&#xA;&gt; drilling assistance in terms of accurate positioning of the site and&#xA;&gt; its viability, and significant financial support needed to establish&#xA;&gt; the plants at the desired locations.&#xA;&#xA;## The &quot;Cost&quot; Thing&#xA;&#xA;One issue that should **no longer** be considered a primary factor limiting deployment of geothermal power is *cost*.  From [the US Energy Information Association][5], the pro-rated cost of new power plants (excluding externalities like pollution):&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;    Plant type                        Total system levelized cost (2011 $/MWh)&#xA;    ----------                        ----------------------------------------&#xA;    Conventional Coal                                   100.1&#xA;    Advanced Coal                                       123.0&#xA;    Advanced Coal with CCS                              135.5&#xA;    Natural Gas&#xA;      Conventional Combined Cycle                        67.1&#xA;      Advanced Combined Cycle                            65.6&#xA;      Advanced CC with CCS                               93.4&#xA;      Conventional Combustion Turbine                   130.3&#xA;      Advanced Combustion Turbine                       104.6&#xA;    Advanced Nuclear                                    108.4&#xA;    Geothermal                                           89.6&#xA;    Biomass                                             111.0&#xA;    Wind                                                 86.6&#xA;    Wind (Offshore)                                     221.5&#xA;    Solar PV                                            144.3&#xA;    Solar Thermal                                       261.5&#xA;    Hydroelectric                                        90.3&#xA;&#xA;Note that this data is an estimate for cost, including well / plant development, averaged over the electricity produced (kWh).  While I can't speak to the metrics used in board rooms, I believe this to be fundamentally better than the $/kW *capacity* data [featured in this answer][8].  That data cannot provide a basis for comparison between sources like wind and geothermal, because geothermal plants can run at 90%+ capacity continually, while wind farms do not (wind is inherently variable).&#xA;&#xA;So, geothermal is *already* a cost-competitive technology.&#xA;&#xA;I'm certainly a proponent of geothermal energy, and I think its future looks bright.&#xA;&#xA;P.S.  I read your question to be about **large-scale** energy production, but [geothermal is also a legitimate small-scale solution, too][7].&#xA;&#xA;&amp;dagger; &lt;sub&gt;- of course, as with most green energy utility programs, my electricity is the same as that of my neighboor, who doesn't participate in the program.  My utility payments simply subsidize renewable projects (such as Raft River geothermal).&lt;/sub&gt;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.seattle.gov/light/Green/greenPower/Statrpt1.asp&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy&#xA;  [3]: http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/geothermal-energy-market-global-industry-analysis-size-share-growth-trends-and-forecast-2012-2018-262290.htm&#xA;  [4]: https://www.asdreports.com/news.asp?pr_id=156&#xA;  [5]: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm&#xA;  [6]: http://www.livescience.com/29195-conservatives-energy-efficient-bulbs.html&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump&#xA;  [8]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/1175/486&#xA;  [9]: http://www.usgeothermal.com/faq.aspx#8" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1193" RevisionGUID="5f25a4b6-7be9-45f9-9819-157a5aee270d" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### Constraints&#xA;There are several aspects to energy storage, that can make one form better than another for a given set of circumstances.&#xA;&#xA;Cost is usually the biggest driver. Energy can be stored at pretty much any scale you like, and cost is typically the constrainer.&#xA;&#xA;There are additional constraints for within-household energy storage: in particular, safety, space and noise. Safety and space will rule out most forms of energy storage: high-energy-density solutions tend to be prone to bad accidents, precisely because they have high energy density.  And low energy density solutions need a lot of space, which is typically limited in households.&#xA;&#xA;### Electricity is hard&#xA;&#xA;Storing electricity, to use as electricity, is a pain at the household level. The constraints above, rule out most of the energy storage solutions proposed in the question. It either takes too much space, or is too highly concentrated, creating a major safety risk.  There are some forms of highly concentrated energy that we have proven means of safe storage: but the capital costs for the round trip from electricity to storage to electricity are high, and the efficiencies are low, making the whole exercise very expensive.&#xA;&#xA;**These constraints rule out pretty much all the suggested methods in the question.**&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### Towards a solution: start with the biggest energy uses&#xA;&#xA;First look at your biggest energy uses. They are likely to be either heating, or cooling, or both. The good news is that they are easy to store, as low-grade heat or coolth, for 24-48 hours. Possibly more, if you can build some large underground storage.  Rich ancient Romans managed year-round thermal storage with large underground ice houses and heat stores.&#xA;&#xA;Your biggest energy uses are also the place to start looking for energy efficiencies too. If you're planning energy storage, then the business case for efficiencies starts looking much better, because you get two sets of savings: the reduced energy costs, and reduced cost of your energy storage capacity.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;### Virtual storage&#xA;&#xA;If the timing of energy use can be shifted, then that acts as virtual storage, with 100% efficiency. It may also require little capital investment - maybe a timer or two.&#xA;&#xA;### Storage efficiency&#xA;&#xA;Efficiency in and of itself isn't necessarily a meaningful number: it has a direct impact on costs, which do matter. But in its own right, higher is not always better. If all other things are equal (and they rarely are), then higher is generally better.&#xA;&#xA;### Forms of energy&#xA;&#xA;Not all forms of energy are equal. Some, such as low-grade heat or coolth, are easy to store, but can't do much work. Others, such as electricity, are capable of doing a lot of work (electricity is a high-exergy vector), but are very expensive to store directly (supercapacitors). Converting between forms of energy is always less than 100% efficient, and can be expensive.  Similarly, DC electricity and AC electricity are different: conversion each way is less than 100% efficient, and requires dedicated equipment that can be bulky, expensive, noisy, etc. Batteries convert DC electricity to chemical energy for storage, and back again for use; but most household appliances run on AC.&#xA;&#xA;### One sketch of a solution&#xA;&#xA;1. Do as much energy-efficiency measures as are practicable: LED lights yielding over 100 lumens per watt, lots of thermal insulation, high-efficiency white goods, making the most of natural ventilation, solar gain, and night-time cooling.&#xA;&#xA;1. run all your heating through a large thermal store, which you charge up whenever energy is readily available. Do the same, as far as possible, with a large ice store, for your cooling needs.&#xA;&#xA;1. Find someone who's converted their household electricity distribution system to DC as much as possible, and has worked out which devices can be run direct off DC. Then copy their successes, and learn from their failures. Find the cheapest chemical batteries (probably lead-acid car batteries as of 2013), and use for round-trip electricity storage. If you have to, get a rectifier and an inverted to do the DC/AC two wa conversion too. I don't know if this is at all practicable, but it looks possible on paper, so someone mut have tried it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1198" RevisionGUID="0ee1c899-0949-45a4-be93-48e57c55f487" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### exploring the problem&#xA;&#xA;I've asked around on the [Claverton Energy Group][1] for some help on this. Thanks to John Baldwin, I learnt that biogas tends to be about 65% methane, with a lot of carbon dioxide, and some oxygen and hydrogen sulphide. Whereas gas as supplied for industrial, commercial and residential use is 90%+ methane, plus gases such as propane and butane to boost the energy density, and very very low levels of oxygen and hydrogen sulphide,&#xA;&#xA;To replace CNG, biomethane needs to go through **purification**, to bring it up to similar levels of quality. That means raising the methane quantity to 90%+, removing almost all of the oxygen and hydrogen sulphide.&#xA;&#xA;It may also be necessary to add a tracer scent, as methane is odorless and colourless.&#xA;&#xA;Landfill gas has to undergo similar treatment.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### towards finding the technical solution&#xA;&#xA;The keywords for searches in the technical literature seem to be: **H2S CO2 methane purification**&#xA;&#xA;From that, the most accessible documents I've found so far are these:&#xA;&#xA;[This draft document from British Columbia's Environmental Protection Division (in the Ministry of the Environment) (pdf)][2] deals with the cleaning (purification) of biogas produces from [on-farm anaerobic digestion][3]; the next chapter in the same document deals with [biogas upgrading (pdf)][4], to boost the energy density and raise its quality to the specification required for CNG and for injection into the gas grid.&#xA;&#xA;If you've questions on the specifics of the chemistry, please do ask over on the [Chemistry Stack Exchange][5]&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### important caveat&#xA;&#xA;**Do bear in mind that methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, and that leakages, even at a small percentage rate, can make biogas a damaging global pollutant.**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.claverton-energy.com/&#xA;  [2]: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/industrial/agriculture/pdf/adg/adg-chapter6.pdf&#xA;  [3]: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/industrial/agriculture/digestion.htm&#xA;  [4]: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/industrial/agriculture/pdf/adg/adg-chapter7.pdf&#xA;  [5]: http://Chemistry.StackExchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23957" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1207" RevisionGUID="e0a034c4-2670-41b1-a569-1a6e8e6b9807" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Yes, in developing business cases for renovation strategies, it is normal to include a cost of money, to calculate the Net Present Value. It gets slightly difficult when trying to create a standard business case, because different households have different time values of money.&#xA;&#xA;One can also calculate a Net Present Value by discount future benefits and non-cash costs, and that may differ from the current cost of money. Be aware that this can be controversial: see, for example, the discussion around the Stern Review's choice of discount rate for future harm from climate change.&#xA;&#xA;So the calculation you've presented, in the paper you are reviewing, looks naive. It's missing out on the cost of money. It's also missing out on likely changes in the value of future energy savings, as the cost of energy is likely to change in the future. It might be that the author/s assumed that the two effects would cancel out (i.e. real increases in future energy prices would match the cost of money), but that's quite a hefty simplifying assumption, and I'd expect to see a statement of the assumption in the paper.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### Warmth-taking&#xA;How much energy is actually saved by renovation varies hugely, and almost never matches the energy savings predicted in advance. There's a phenomenon that's been called variously: comfort-takeback, rebound, warmth-taking, the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate, the Jevons paradox. Essentially, after renovation designed to prevent heat loss, energy used for heating doesn't drop as much as was expected. There are a bunch of putative explanations for this, and there isn't a single right explanation, nor is there a reliable estimate of how large the effect will be.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;### Non-cash benefits&#xA;And that lack of clarity over warmth-taking brings me to another element usually missed from calculations of the value of renovation: the changes to quality of life that ensue from the renovation. Those can go either way, and might include:&#xA;&#xA; - higher security (against crime);&#xA; - lower exposure to noise pollution and air pollution from outside;&#xA; - higher exposure to pollutants sourced in or under the home (e.g. smoke, radon)&#xA; - changes to internal CO2 levels&#xA; - changes to risk and prevalence of mould and dust mites." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1211" RevisionGUID="44766771-ad93-427f-984f-8b1dc4ed0596" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="This only addresses *part* of your question, but this question *could* be answered with a whole book.&#xA;&#xA;## Homebrewing Biodiesel&#xA;&#xA;I do want to clarify that biodiesel is not **only** a potential *&quot;industrial&quot;* reuse for used cooking oils.  Used cooking oil can be processed into biodiesel by a modestly savvy do-it-yourselfer at home, with a simple processor that you can build yourself out of parts you'll find at most hardware stores (plus maybe a pump from an industrial supply store like [Harbor Freight in the US](http://www.harborfreight.com/)).&#xA;&#xA;The complete plans are beyond the scope of this question, but [you can find good information online here][1].  Basically, someone who drives a diesel vehicle can turn an electric hot water heater and a 55-gallon (rinse) barrel into a biodiesel processor for cooking oil.  The recipe would usually involve adding some methanol, and a catalyst like KOH.  You would make batches of *about* 50 gallons of fuel at a time.  Certainly, your own cooking oil would not be enough to provide feedstock for this, but if you added your oil to that collected from local, independently-operated (&amp;dagger;) restaurants, you can have a more sustainable way to reuse the oil, compared with consuming gasoline or petro-diesel.&#xA;&#xA;This type of process can supply biodiesel that can be run in [*most* (&amp;Dagger;) diesel engine vehicles][6], with little or no modifications (older diesel vehicles will probably need new synthetic rubber fuel lines if they had natural rubber lines before).&#xA;&#xA;## Waste Vegetable Oil (not biodiesel) as Fuel&#xA;&#xA;If you don't want to have to add to your supply with used restaurant oil, another option for people with diesel vehicles is to [buy/install a conversion kit][4] that allows you to use (filtered) waste vegetable oil **directly** in the vehicle.  Basically, the car starts on normal diesel or biodiesel.  Once the engine comes up to temperature, you flip a switch, and the fuel is then drawn from an auxiliary waste veggie oil (WVO) tank.  You normally would switch back to diesel/biodiesel before shutting down just to purge the lines.&#xA;&#xA;The number of diesel vehicles eligible for WVO conversions is a bit smaller, though, and as opposed to using biodiesel, which has superior *cleansing* properties to petro-diesel, using WVO needs to be done more carefully, because you can gunk up your engine.  Older Mercedes diesels (1970s - 1990s) seem to do the best on WVO, compared to other cars.&#xA;&#xA;## Oil Criteria&#xA;&#xA;When you use cooking oil to power a diesel engine, you do want to pick good oils.  Generally, [that turns out to be the same kinds of oils that are more healthy for people][2].  Veggie oils are better than animal oils.  No solid fats.  Cooking oil can be reused, and restaurants do reuse it.  The more it's reused for cooking, the more rancid and more contaminated with food stuffs, the less desirable it is for fuel feedstock.  &#xA;&#xA;## Oil Handling&#xA;&#xA;You'll want to collect it in clean metal or HDPE containers (5 gallon &quot;carboys&quot; work well).  At home, you need [to test your oil before using][3] (for example, to see if one restaurant's product is typically usable).  The oil then [needs to be filtered][5] with a 5 micron filter.  After you process the oil into biodiesel, make sure you have it stored safely.  Unlike gasoline, diesel doesn't ignite without high pressures.  However, your area may have storage regulations to be considered (for example, I seem to remember that California limited storage to 55 gallons or less of fuel, without a special license).&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;*&amp;dagger; Large, chain restaurants will have rigid oil disposal contracts with rendering companies, so don't waste your time with them.  Deal directly with smaller restaurants, preferably ones you already go to, to save driving!*&#xA;&#xA;*&amp;Dagger; Note that newer, &quot;Common Rail&quot; diesel engines with diesel particulate filters may no longer be able to run rich biodiesel blends; ironically, partly because of new emissions requirements (that are driven primarily by petro-diesel exhaust!).  So, do some research (or ask another question) about biodiesel blends appropriate for your engine.*&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://make-biodiesel.org/The-Appleseed-Biodiesel-Processor/&#xA;  [2]: http://make-biodiesel.org/Ingredients/biodiesel-feedstock-oils.html&#xA;  [3]: http://make-biodiesel.org/Quality-Testing/titrating-wvo.html&#xA;  [4]: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-convert-your-diesel-to-run-on-vegetable-oil&#xA;  [5]: https://www.greasecar.com/article/one-mans-trash-another-mans-fuel&#xA;  [6]: http://www.utahbiodieselsupply.com/blog/best-diesel-vehicles-for-biodiesel/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4790" RevisionGUID="1a0000c9-32fe-4450-8113-e1eb80914fad" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="There are several reasons why a policy of encouraging electric cars, but discouraging electric heating, might make sense. I can't answer for the specific case of Belgium, which currently has some unique problems in meeting electricity demand, but some combination of the below motivations may apply.&#xA;&#xA;### Industrial policy&#xA;Electric heating is quite a mature technology now. On the other hand, electric cars are not. So an active industrial policy would encourage the uptake of the immature technology, but not the mature one.&#xA;&#xA;### Transport, urban, local environment policy&#xA;Local air pollution from gas boilers tends to be very low. However, local air pollution from cars is very bad. In addition, they're noisy. Electric cars solve these problems, so encouraging them can be a positive intervention for transport, urban or local environmental policy.&#xA;&#xA;### Electricity capacity&#xA;If the building stock is not super-insulated, and local climate requires a lot of heating, then electrical heating would place a very high burden on local electricity distribution network capacity, on transmission capacity and on generation. That's because any building can get electric heating at very low investment, very quickly: it's as simple as going to the shop and buying a resistance heater. Cheap to buy, easy to install. And a very very high rate of electricity consumption in winter.&#xA;&#xA;Whereas buying an electric car is different. It's a high capital investment. You need somewhere to park it, and a licence to use it. And, except for extreme cases, the rate of electricity consumption is pretty low, and not particularly seasonal. So even with rapid take-up, there'd be much less stress on the electricity system.&#xA;&#xA;### Competing heating supplies&#xA;If a country has a domestic non-electric heating supply chain, but not a domestic non-electric vehicle supply chain, then encouraging electric vehicles but discouraging electric heating would protect domestic industries.&#xA;&#xA;### Net energy demand&#xA;Some countries (France for example, as well as EU energy-efficiency targets) have particular targets on reducing the rate of total energy consumption. Internal combustion engines are terribly inefficient: well-to-wheel it's 20% or so. Whereas for electric vehicles, even if the electricity is powered by coal, they're more efficient than that. So switching from fossil cars to electric would cut primary energy consumption; whereas switching from gas heating to electric would be likely to increase primary energy consumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1237" RevisionGUID="292e1a73-d211-4fde-b7c4-14b06b1e04e5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[The Banki Turnine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banki_turbine) is often mentioned in connection with small scale hydro and DIY projects, because it’s far easier to build than a Pelton turbine.&#xA;&#xA;[Ossberger](http://www.ossberger.de/cms/en/hydro/the-ossberger-turbine-for-asynchronous-and-synchronous-water-plants/), one major supplier, claim 80% efficiency for a small scale turbine over a wide range of flows – this will, of course, be lower for a home built one.&#xA;&#xA;[This document](http://www.cd3wd.com/cd3wd_40/vita/bankitur/EN/BANKITUR.HTM) seems to contain detailed instructions for building on, including the welding of the turbine itself. &#xA;&#xA;Disclaimer: I'm not in hydro and have never built such a system, so I can’t really vouch for it.&#xA;&#xA;An additional possibility would be to use a hydrodynamic screw – working principle:  &#xA;![enter image description here][1]&#xA;&#xA;[The German Wikipedia article](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasserkraftschnecke) states efficiencies of typically 70%, 90% is possible. Apparently, screws handle load changes and part load operation very well, but are surprisingly noisy. Typically they turn quite slowly, 20-60 rpm. Also they are described as being fish-friendly, though I can't say how much so in regards to which fish.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/q7j2Z.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1270" RevisionGUID="97fd53ad-b227-4b7a-84b1-3335f6c1ed88" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I've had good success with the following system.  All you need are two stronger plastic bags with handles:&#xA;&#xA;# Bag one: non-handled bags&#xA;&#xA; - 'roll and rip' style produce bags from the market&#xA; - bread bags&#xA; - ziploc bags&#xA; - anything else without a handle&#xA;&#xA;# Bag two: handled bags&#xA;&#xA; - plastic grocery bags&#xA; - mall shopping bags (think h&amp;m or something&amp;nbsp;— attached handles rather than one piece of plastic)&#xA;&#xA;# In a drawer: paper bags&#xA; &#xA; - old flour bags&#xA; - paper lunch bags&#xA; - anything else that will fold flat&#xA;&#xA;I've been saving nearly every bag I use for over a year and have never struggled to find the right size/kind.  Also the handled/non-handled breakdown works well without being over-organized.  As long as you are using them and not just saving them, this should work for you.  Also, a bag of bags stuffed into a pillowcase is surprisingly comfortable.      " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23962" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1283" RevisionGUID="e2cec488-3e97-44ae-842c-9bb415b9669b" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="There are two parts to the answer.&#xA;&#xA;One is enlarging the geographic area of capture of wind and solar across diverse climates, to smooth out the exogenous variations. The other is is storage.&#xA;&#xA;# Span more climates&#xA;&#xA;Back in the early noughties, Gregor Czisch built a massive optimisation model to look at how to balance a 100% renewables grid at lowest cost, across various geographic areas, as part of his Dipl.Ing degree. His thesis is [freely available in German][1], and the [English translation can be bought from the IET][2]. His other papers (some in English, some in German) are [freely downloadable][3].&#xA;&#xA;The model found that increasing the area across which solar and wind were captured, and transmitting that power anywhere across the enlarged area, was one of the cheapest ways to incorporate very high levels of wind and solar into the grid.&#xA;&#xA;Since then, the concept that he and Gregor Giebel developed, of an international supergrid, has really caught on, and the number and size of international electricity connectors (aka interconnectors) has been growing.&#xA;&#xA;Most of Czisch's scenarios, and most subsequent 100% renewables scenarios developed by others, combine this supergrid with storage.&#xA;&#xA;# Energy Storage&#xA;&#xA;A lot of people immediately think of grid storage as being something where you put electricity in, and that later get almost all that electricity out again. But that round-trip electricity storage is only one type of useful storage for the grid.&#xA;&#xA;Storage balances the grid by time-shifting *something* to match supply and demand moment-by-moment. Having storage *somewhere* in the chain between the capture of the primary energy, and delivery of the energy service demand, achieves that.&#xA;&#xA;## Storing energy somewhere in the electricity supply chain&#xA;&#xA;Let's look at the electricity supply chain. I'll tag each of the links in the chain with a number, for reference.&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Capture of primary energy  &#xA; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;darr;  **1**  &#xA;Primary electricity generation  &#xA; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;darr;  **2**  &#xA;Electricity delivery  &#xA; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;darr;  **3**  &#xA;Consumption of the energy service.&#xA;&#xA;We can introduce storage at any of those links, to balance the grid.&#xA;&#xA;1. Biomass in a silo sits at link **1**. The primary energy has been captured from the sun, locked up in carbohydrates in the plant matter, and that plant matter is then stored until electricity is needed, at which point it is burnt, and the heat is used to drive a turbine. Similarly, water in the upper reservoir of a storage hydro plant is also energy storage at link **1**.&#xA;&#xA;1. Round-trip electricity storage, such as pumped hydro storage, chemical batteries, flywheels, and ultra-capacitors, sits at link **2**.&#xA;&#xA;3. Once the electricity has been delivered, it has to be consumed. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the end-use of the energy has to happen at that time. It does in some cases - for example if you want light, it's no easier to store pure light than it is to store pure electricity, so electricity consumption and use of light happen pretty much simultaneously. However, most of our domestic energy consumption is for space heating, space cooling, water heating, and water cooling. And it's very easy to store warmth or coolth, for use later. So it's pretty easy to build lots of storage at link **3**. Particulary when heating (and maybe cooling) services are provided by shared infrastructure, such as a district heating scheme, where mutli-fuel sources including electricity can be harnessed, and storage of hot water and cold water can be centralised, reaping huge economies of scale.&#xA;&#xA;### Some different types of energy storage for the grid, illustrated:&#xA;&#xA;![enter image description here][4] ![enter image description here][5] ![enter image description here][6]&#xA;&#xA;sources: [\[1\]][7],[\[2\]][8],[\[3\]][9]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://kobra.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/handle/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34-200604119596&#xA;  [2]: http://www.theiet.org/resources/books/renewable/scenarios.cfm&#xA;  [3]: http://transnational-renewables.org/Gregor_Czisch/veroeffentlichungen.html&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gqb2v.jpg&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CzoDm.jpg&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZeoV4.jpg&#xA;  [7]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gordon_Dam.jpg&#xA;  [8]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pimlico_accumulator_tower_1.jpg&#xA;  [9]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pellets_hand.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23963" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1296" RevisionGUID="f2183379-a408-4ca5-a867-0c02f35c4351" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="You should not burn plastic.  Besides the environmental impact, you're wasting resources.  &#xA;&#xA;You should recycle plastic - [here](http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/plastics-rubber/plastic-recycling-equipment) is how that's done:&#xA;&#xA;# 1. The plastic is sorted &#xA;&#xA;&gt;Sorting and grouping plastic materials according to resin type is an important first step in the recycling process because contamination can render a batch of material un-reusable. The most frequently recycled resins, including polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), must be carefully separated from one another in order to enable further processing. Contaminants within each type of plastic must also be removed from the base resin to ensure stock purity.&#xA;&#xA;# 2. The plastic is cut into flakes and foreign objects are removed&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Plastic materials usually need to be cut into smaller sizes in order to allow further processing and to provide easier packaging, transportation, and distribution of recycled stock.  &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;After the plastic has been cut into smaller pieces, or “flakes,” the stock usually needs to be washed in order to remove lingering dirt or attachments. Paper, glue, sand, and grit are some of the common elements targeted in the washing process, which can be accomplished using water baths, friction washers, or a washing line.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;To reduce the potential for stock contamination most recycled plastic undergoes separation treatments, which work to remove any attachments or non-reusable materials that may be present in a batch of flakes.&#xA;&#xA;# 3. The plastic is formed into pellets to be sold&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Pelletizing reclaimed plastic is the final step in most recycling processes. Converting post-consumer plastic into pellets allows for easier distribution and remanufacturing, and ultimately benefits the speed and effectiveness of reintroducing recycled plastic into industrial manufacturing. After sorting, drawing, separating, and drying the reclaimed material, the flake stock is ready to be extruded into pellets.  Once the reclaimed plastic has been pelletized, it is ready for distribution and remanufacturing.&#xA;&#xA;You could (possibly) do this yourself, although it seems like a better idea to buy the plastic pellets - if you have something to do with them, that is.  Otherwise you can participate in the collection part of the process.  Plastic can be sold to collection agencies just like any other material (like aluminum cans, copper wire or junked cars).  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2375" RevisionGUID="48d836a6-d07e-42ec-b9e1-61ccd4e07e96" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Challenges&#xA;&#xA;### Political vision&#xA;&#xA;This is the biggest problem for most countries right now, and Ireland is no exception. We already have all the technology we need for 100% renewable electricity grids combined with the electrification of urban transport and heating. And for most countries, that's more economic than any alternative, once the externalities (pollution, liability cover) are priced in. What's missing is political will and vision. And that is, in part, driven by ...&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;### Industrial incumbents&#xA;&#xA;Like most countries, Ireland has industrial incumbents with a lot of fixed assets (with sunk costs) that are dedicatd to highly-polluting ways to do things. So they carry a lot of economic weight, and consequentially political weight too.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;### One much larger neighbour&#xA;&#xA;For most countries, large-capacity interconnectors to several neighbours provide the best option for balancing a grid with a high (&gt;50%) proportion of exogenously-variable renewables such as wind, wave, tidal and solar: and Ireland's potential renewables are mostly of that kind, with relatively little scope for geothermal or storage hydro.  However, Ireland, being on the continental periphery, has just one close neighbour, that is much larger than it. And that means the bigger the interconnectors, the more that prices on the all-Ireland grid would get driven largely by what's happening on the British grid, which makes it politically and economically challenging.&#xA;&#xA;### Balancing the grid at the scale of quarter-cycle to seconds&#xA;&#xA;Exogenously-variable renewables such as wind don't necessarily bring much inertia to the grid, unlike thermal plant (and in particular coal). So the sort of balancing of supply and demand (aka balancing) that happens very easily on a grid with lots of fossil plant, at the scale of quarter-cycle (5ms on a 50Hz grid) to a few seconds, needs more planning and realigned incentives on a wind-rich grid. Technically, it's a solved problem - Quebec's grid, and others, have incentivised the innovation of within-turbine grid-balancing services at these time scales. What's missing, is a successful model for economic incentivisation to ensure the best balance of the maximisation of generated electricity, with sufficient balancing.&#xA;&#xA;### Rural, water and air transport&#xA;&#xA;Rural, water and air transport remain challenges for most countries. Hydrocarbons provide a very high ratio of energy per unit mass, and per unit volume, and those are incredibly valuable for motorised transport. There are a bunch of options: biogenic hydrocarbons, synthetic hydrocarbons, hydrogen, some putative new chemical battery - but as yet there are no clear winners.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;# Things which had looked like challenges, but now have known solutions&#xA;&#xA;### Size of the available renewable resource&#xA;&#xA;It used to be thought that that might be an issue, and some people got worried because energy per unit land area seemed to be low. That turned out to be a non-issue, once people did the maths. The island of Ireland's total energy consumption (electricity, heat, transport, etc) is about 21.5GW ([15GW][1] for Eire, 6.5GW for Northern Ireland). Its land area is 84&amp;nbsp;421&amp;nbsp;km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, and its sea area is well over 400&amp;nbsp;000&amp;nbsp;km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, meaning that even at the 2W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; that non-optimised onshore wind gives, sufficiency of the available resource is not a challenge: only a tiny fraction of Ireland's land and waters would need renewables, to meet all current energy consumption, and that's without any energy efficiency measures.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(I've no intention of causing conflict by considering the island as a whole: the grids of Eire and Northern Ireland are combined, and the same wind, sun, tides and waves reach both parts of the island. So it's just technically easier to analyse the island of Ireland as one whole entity)&lt;/sub&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;### Balancing the grid at the scale of minutes to days&#xA;&#xA;Again, this used to be a problem, but now we're spoilt for solutions. Electricity interconnectors to neighbours do raise challenges of political economics, but in terms of capital investment they're very affordable, and provide a technical solution for most of the problem. The rest can be taken care of through sustainable biomass and power-to-gas. There has been a project to lobby for extensive pumped hydro storage in Eire, but the economics don't currently look favourable.&#xA;&#xA;### Forecastability of the weather&#xA;&#xA;There are no countries immediately to the west or south-west of Ireland; and that's the direction that most of the weather comes in from. That means that Ireland has fewer opportunities than most of the rest of Europe to gather free weather information for 4-hour and 24-hour ahead forecasts. However, with the growing use of weather buoys, weather masts and floating LiDAR, complemented by satellite data, this is a solved problem.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.wellandwarm.ie/Publications/Statistics_Publications/EPSSU_Publications/Energy_in_Ireland_Key_Statistics/Energy_in_Ireland_Key_Statistics_2012.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23965" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2441" RevisionGUID="b6e50795-8a01-4e5f-9c99-a3d4fe1811fe" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Please consider using an economic input-output model.  Alternative (other-than-process-based) methods of calculating net product impact can provide [quick, cost effective, and yet comprehensive life-cycle assessments](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1162/108819899569449/abstract). **A free economic input-output LCA is available via the [Green Design Institute at Carnegie Mellon.](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/LCA_Primer.html.)**&#xA;&#xA;Some background: &#xA;&#xA;LCA can currently be performed 2 ways: 1) Process-based or 2) economic input-output based.  &#xA;&#xA;&gt; [**Process-based&#xA;&gt; LCA**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/LCAapproaches.html) [O]ne needs to&#xA;&gt; identify the inputs, such as pulp, water, and dyes to make the paper,&#xA;&gt; the trees and machinery to make the pulp, and the forestry practices&#xA;&gt; to grow and harvest the trees.  Similarly, one needs to include inputs&#xA;&gt; and outputs for packaging the cup for shipment to the store, the trip&#xA;&gt; to the store to purchase the cups, and that result from throwing the&#xA;&gt; cup in the trash and eventually being landfilled or incinerated.  Even&#xA;&gt; for a very simple product, this process-based LCA method can quickly&#xA;&gt; spiral into an overwhelming number of inputs and outputs to include. &#xA;&gt; Now, imagine doing this same process-based LCA for a product such as&#xA;&gt; an automobile that has over 20,000 individual parts, or a process such&#xA;&gt; as electricity generation.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; [**Advantages:**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/Limitations.html) detailed, process specific; allows for product specific comparison&#xA;&gt; [**Disadvantages:**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/Limitations.html) time-intensive; system boundary is subjective; *proprietary*&#xA;&#xA;An internet search brings several reputable vendors, but as mentioned, these processes are usually very thorough and rather expensive.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [**Economic Input-Output:** ](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/LCAapproaches.html)Inputs to the automobile manufacturing industry sector include the&#xA;&gt; outputs from the industry sectors that produce sheet metal, plate&#xA;&gt; glass windshields, tires, carpeting, as well as computers (for&#xA;&gt; designing the cars), electricity (to operate the facilities), etc.  In&#xA;&gt; turn, the sheet metal, plate glass windshield tire, etc. industry&#xA;&gt; sectors require inputs for their operations that are outputs of other&#xA;&gt; sectors, and so on.  Each of these requirements for goods or services&#xA;&gt; between industry sectors is identified in an EIO model.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; [**Advantages:**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/Limitations.html) results are economy-wide, comprehensive assessments; allows for systems-level comparisons; uses public data; reproducible; *generally quicker* &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; [**Disadvantages:**](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/Limitations.html) product assessments contain aggregate data; process assessments are difficult; must link monetary values with physical units&#xA;&#xA;It's important to note that many of the data sets here are US, but the site also provides links to [Canadian, German, and French data](http://www.eiolca.net/Models/index.html).  &#xA;&#xA;FYI: Economic Input-Output LCA models are founded on [Wassily Leontief's](http://www.eiolca.net/Method/references.html) Nobel [Prize winning theory.](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1973/)&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23966" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2556" RevisionGUID="65a74a52-fd4a-4c7f-8a9c-9f19474eb67b" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### the problem&#xA;Smog is a combination of smoke and fog. So some might think that a solution might be to address the fog, rather than the smoke. But the fog is just making visible the pollution that's around all the time. There will be many incidents of toxic levels of pollution, even when there's no smog. So addressing the smoke is fundamental.&#xA;&#xA;Smoke comes about from burning complex hydrocarbons. In the case of Harbin, and in many similar cases around the world, that's coming from burning coal, and from burning stubble.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### technicals&#xA;There are two ways to drastically reduce particulate emissions: stop burning the things that release particulates, or trap the particulates straight after combustion. The latter is more expensive, and only addresses part of the problem: particulates are just one of the pollutants: SOx, NOx, CO and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; are associated pollutants also released by combustion that will not be caught by a particulate trap.&#xA;&#xA;**Stubble-burning** used to be common in lots of the world, but has been stopped in many places because of the pollution impact. Ploughing stubble back in prevents the loss of trace nutrients, and can reduce soil erosion. [See this pdf report from the US DoE for more about this.][1]. Changing this behaviour will need education for the farmers - there is a common belief that burning kills all pathogens (it doesn't). [The Saskatchewan government proposes several alternatives to burning][2], including chaff spreading, chaff collection, post-harvesting harrowing, and turning surplus straw into an economically useful commodity, selling it as forage.&#xA;&#xA;**Coal-burning** is also in decline in most of the world, as a nineteenth-century relic that has long past its useful life. It's a major source of greenhouse gases, as well as of particulate pollution. The good news for Harbin, is that because a lot of its heating is provided through the municipal heating system, it's relatively easy to clean up the heating supply for the city. Much easier than it would be for a city such as London, in Europe, where almost of the heating systems are in the individual buildings of the users of the heat, so cleaning up London's heating would mean gaining access to millions of buildings to replace millions of boilers. There are several options for Harbin, and the right answer will be a combination of these:&#xA;&#xA; - a very large thermal store (a gigantic hot-water tank)&#xA; - electric ground-source heat-pumps with a large area of exposed ground to collect from: note that this is effectively harvesting solar power stored as ground heat, so the rate of extraction of heat mustn't exceed the average annual rate of insolation onto the ground.&#xA; - electric resistance heating for meeting peak demands, and for helping to provide balancing services to the electricity grid.&#xA; - solar thermal collectors&#xA; - possibly biomass boilers with particulate traps&#xA; - [geothermal power may be an option, depending on the local geology][3].&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### economics&#xA;Coal is a cheap fuel, because the buyer of the coal doesn't have to pay for the pollution caused. Burning stubble is a cheap way to clear fields after harvest. One way to tackle this is to change relative prices, so that a cleaner alternative is cheaper: this has had very mixed results around the world. It can be done through a combination of subsidising cleaner options (less public objections, but then energy-efficiency measures no long look as attractive) and through the polluter-pays principle, whereby a tax is added to the polluting process, to internalise the damage costs.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### politics&#xA;Prices are not the only way to change behaviour. Regulation is another route: enforced regulations to drastically reduce or prevent the destructive choice. This has historically had much higher success in tackling pollution than price mechanisms, but in cultures where belief in the efficiency of markets dominates, it may be more difficult to establish. A change in relative prices can help establish an environment of support for subsequent regulation.&#xA;&#xA;First, you have to identify who the agents of change are: who is it who can change what's happening now. These will often be people with economic and/or political power. Then you have to work out how to motivate them to bring the change about. What do they want, and can you find a way to link the change you are seeking, with the thing they want. Alternatively, what do they want to avoid, and can you find a way to link the status-quo, with the thing they want to avoid?&#xA;&#xA;Harbin does have advantages, and making the most of those advantages could be crucial to success. The municipal power plant makes technology-switch faster and easier. There is money available, including [a 10 billion yuan fund to reward efforts to curb air pollution][4].&#xA;&#xA;And [there are national policy initiatives happening right now to curb particulates emission][5], as part of the **Airborne Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan**.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### next steps for Harbin&#xA;Engage the people. Engage the Party. Engage Academia: this sort of problem will need the input of engineers and social scientists - just the sort of thing that multi-disciplinary university energy departments do. (disclosure - that's what I do)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/aginfo/research_pdf_files/DOE_Final_Report_CropRotation.pdf&#xA;  [2]: http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=ed3929f8-46fe-46c1-87b2-fe47f22b87cb&#xA;  [3]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1598&#xA;  [4]: http://www.energy-enviro.com/index.php?PAGE=5&amp;NODE_ID=7&amp;LANG=1&amp;ID=4947&#xA;  [5]: http://www.energy-enviro.com/index.php?PAGE=5&amp;NODE_ID=7&amp;LANG=1&amp;ID=4946&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23967" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2567" RevisionGUID="6c22f2c7-8729-4cb3-bf77-75e388ba667c" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I think the cheapest option would be a calorimetric flow meter. [Description from engineering toolbox](http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flow-meters-d_493.html)&#xA;&gt;The calorimetric principle for fluid flow measurement is based on two temperature sensors in close contact with the fluid but thermally insulated from each other.&#xA;&#xA;![Calorimetric Flowmeter][1]&#xA;&#xA;&gt;One of the two sensors is constantly heated and the cooling effect of the flowing fluid is used to monitor the flow rate. In a stationary (no flow) fluid condition there is a constant temperature difference between the two temperature sensors. When the fluid flow increases, heat energy is drawn from the heated sensor and the temperature difference between the sensors is reduced. The reduction is proportional to the flow rate of the fluid.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Response times will vary due the thermal conductivity of the fluid. In general lower thermal conductivity requires higher velocity for proper measurement.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;The calorimetric flowmeter can achieve relatively high accuracy at low flow rates.&#xA;&#xA;In you case, you would have two sensors clamped on the pipe (maybe a band). The thermal conduction of the pipe would distort your measurement.  &#xA;You could build one yourself, and test it on a pipe exactly like the one you clamp it on with a mechanical inline flowmeter (that you would have to buy, but those are cheap). The nice thing is that the exact flow regime is irrelevant, as you measure the mass flow rather than a pressure drop or similar.&#xA;&#xA;While I'm convinced that this is the most doable clamp-on flow-meter for a DIY project, it may still not be very doable.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3wIcT.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2593" RevisionGUID="004ec5e5-a07d-4058-bf56-4717a8787223" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="## First, draught-proofing&#xA;&#xA;Close the gaps around windows, doors, between floorboards, gaps where pipes go into walls and floors. It's a cheap and relatively easy way to stop a lot of heat escaping, and to cut down on the convection currents that will take a lot of heat from the bottom to the top of the house.&#xA;&#xA;## Curtains around the stairwell?&#xA;Can you put a curtain around the bottom of the stairwell, and one just past the top of it? They should be floor-to-ceiling, and wall-to-wall. That will help reduce vertical convection. Do take into account safety; and, as with any work, check with Building Regulations.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## Glazing&#xA;As you've currently got single glazing, then double- or triple-glazing offer lots of energy savings, as well as making it much quieter, and more secure. Not all double-glazing is equal: look for very low U-values, and try to avoid the national branded installers advertised on TV, which tend to be complete sharks. If the building is listed or in a conservation area, you may need to consider secondary glazing, which can offer the same improvements to air-tightness, quietness and physical security, but typically with higher U-values (i.e. higher heat loss).&#xA;&#xA;## Thermal imaging camera&#xA;I agree with Darren Cook that going round with a thermal imaging camera would be a great way to diagnose the biggest problems, and that in the absence of that, the roof is prime suspect (once you've got rid of the worst draughts). Do it in winter. You may be able to borrow a thermal imaging camera from your local library (some do this), or see if your council offers the service through other routes. If you've got a local college that teaches architecture or building-energy, see if they want to use your house as a research project: ideally, they'd come round in winter and do a blower-door test (to measure air-tightness) and go round with the thermal camera during decompression: that will suck in air from the outside through all cracks, and you'll see blue plumes on the camera where the leaks are. Run around putting post-it notes on the leaky bits, to go back and fix later.&#xA;&#xA;## Look for mould or condensation&#xA;If you see mould, or an area that repeatedly gets condensation on it (most noticeable after cooking or bathing) that will become mouldy, start there. The condensation is indicating that those places are colder than anywhere else in the house (i.e. fastest rate of heat loss per unit surface area), and mould can be a threat to health too.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;## All other things being equal, start at the top&#xA;&#xA;If you start at the bottom, you'll still have cold draughts coming down the stairwell anyway, and heat will just go straight up and out the downstairs living area. Insulating lofts is fairly easy (compared to insulating walls or double/triple glazing windows), cheap, and has big big savings. You might be able to turn off heating at the very top of the house, and just let rising heat do the job.&#xA;&#xA;### Attic room&#xA;&#xA;In this case, there's no loft to insulate, so insulating the roof becomes an altogether messier job. Assuming it's plasterboard on rafters, you could make a couple of small holes in the plasterboard and shine a light through, to look at the state of the insulation between the rafters. If it's not good, you might have to take the ceiling down, pack new insulation in (eg [Kingspan K7 [pdf]][1]), then stick some insulated plasterboard over the top (e.g. [Kingspan K18 [pdf]][2]).&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;## Do floors when you replace the carpets.&#xA;If you're going to put down new carpets, get the floor under them insulated first. Once you've got new carpets in, you probably won't want to pull them up for years, so insulate before they get laid.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;## But be warned!&#xA;A lot of old British houses contain [decades of botch jobs, which creates lots and lots of work when you start renovation, as Jack Kelly found out][3] (warning - contains images that anyone contemplating retrofitting a UK Victorian dwelling may find harrowing)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.kingspaninsulation.co.uk/getattachment/78f5cba0-5188-4b8a-a9ec-a0708ccc61be/Kooltherm-K7-Pitched-Roof-Board.aspx&#xA;  [2]: http://www.kingspaninsulation.co.uk/getattachment/39da3ae9-8f6c-4b8e-9220-7ae813d51603/Kooltherm-K18-Insulated-Plasterboard.aspx&#xA;  [3]: http://jack-kelly.com/insulating_our_victorian_living_room" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23969" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1238" RevisionGUID="eb95a50f-e8b1-4534-9dec-7438c7ae2134" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I found [this page](http://www.instructables.com/community/Pulser-pump-research-from-Loughborough-University/) that contains a link to a [MSc dissertation on the Pulser pump](http://www.instructables.com/files/orig/F7X/LHV7/HHS9LEIB/F7XLHV7HHS9LEIB.pdf). The dissertation describes 2 experiments with Pulser pumps and shows that the efficiency is around 1% at best (page 56) and that the author found&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ...inflow, pumping height and the number of riser pipes to be critical variables. It was also discovered that there is potential for the Pulser Pump but that it suffered in practicality.&#xA;&#xA;The dissertation does mention aerating and slurries but it doesn't say anything more than the following:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ...it has been used to: &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - Aerate water (Removes Sulphur, Nitrogen and Phosphorous compounds) which provides &#xA;a better environment for marine life. &#xA;&gt; - Decompose  animal  slurry  faster,  also  removing  the  threat  of  hydrogen  sulphide  gas build-up by pumping air into the waste. &#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23970" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9918" RevisionGUID="a2e07c95-ca9d-4d9e-a5dc-ac3947ee01b7" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Rather than focus on alternatives to plastic lids on disposable containers, I thought it would be beneficial to have another solution entirely:&#xA;&#xA;## Use reusable lunch gear&#xA;&#xA;As a consumer, you can bring a bowl or soup cup with you (or even just a tupperware container with a lid), and ask that your takeaway soup be placed in that instead.&#xA;&#xA;[KeepCup][1] offers a similar idea for coffee/tea cups. I have one, and use it daily for tea/coffee from my regular cafe. That cafe also supplies keep cups to their customers, for a small fee - the customer can either return the cup when they're done and get their fee back, or keep it for their own use.&#xA;&#xA;The founder of KeepCup has actually started another business focused on [the issue of takeaway containers][2]:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Aptly called Returnr, the business lets customers pick up their food in a reusable stainless steel bowl after paying a $6 dollar deposit. After eating, users can then return the bowl, re-use the bowl, or keep it forever (and forgo their $6).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;But founder Jamie Forsyth tells StartupSmart he’s finding most users are opting for the second choice, re-using the bowl numerous times in an effort to avoid relying on single-use containers.&#xA;&#xA;So in a few years, it might be possible to simply request a reusable container from your local eatery over a disposable one.&#xA;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note - I have no affiliation with KeepCup and they're far from the only supplier - I'm just using them as a relevant example.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://keepcup.com/&#xA;  [2]: https://www.smartcompany.com.au/startupsmart/news/keepcup-founder-reusable-bowl-startup-returnr/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23971" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6429" RevisionGUID="e718e73d-72ed-49d2-a308-df50239f506c" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In France there is an interesting investment solution in sustainable development called [La Nef](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Nef_(entreprise)), *Nouvelle Économie Fraternelle*. [Here is the official site](https://www.lanef.com/la-nef/)&#xA;&#xA;They are here for quite a long time and offer investments in projects that are ***positive*** to people and nature:&#xA;&#xA;* socially responsible (32%)&#xA;* environmental(63%) &#xA;* artistic(5%)&#xA;&#xA;You are even invited to release part of the interest to the profit of various associative projects.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;# Declared values are:&#xA;* Transparency: the list of [funded projects year by year](https://www.lanef.com/la-nef/publications/?target=liste%20des%20pr%C3%AAts) is publicly available&#xA;* Ecology: around 60% of the money goes to &quot;ecological&quot; projects!&#xA;* Cooperate: each investor is a member of the cooperation (not sure of the exact meaning in English)&#xA;&#xA;I myself have placement here for years. The yield is not the greatest you can find, but at least you know where your money goes, and capital is secure. You can even invest your time in the projects reviews and in the governance. This part I know less." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23972" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6202" RevisionGUID="2afbc372-8ee7-4b35-81f7-761c4428a9f5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**Summary:** According to [this independent study](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-cycle-assessment-of-supermarket-carrierbags-a-review-of-the-bags-available-in-2006) if you look at global warming potential, for a sturdy LDPE bag you need to use it at least 4 times, for an even sturdier non-woven PP bag with inserts it's at least 11 times, and for a cotton bag at least 131 times. These numbers are higher if you reuse your single-use HDPE bags for other purposes&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;In 2006 the governmental Environment Agency of the UK issued an independent study to find out which type of shopping bags are most environmentally friendly. They compared a  conventional light-weight bag made from HDPE with:&#xA;&#xA; - A paper bag&#xA; - A thick-gauged or heavy-duty LDPE bag&#xA; - An even more durable bag made from non-woven PP, including stiffening inserts&#xA; - A cotton bag&#xA;&#xA;The study concluded that:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; - The paper, LDPE, non-woven PP and cotton bags should be reused at least 3, 4, 11 and 131 times respectively to ensure that they have lower global warming potential than conventional HDPE carrier bags that are not reused. The number of times each would have to be reused when different proportions of conventional (HDPE) carrier bags are reused are shown in the table below. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; [![The amount of primary use required to take reusable bags below the global warming potential of HDPE bags with and without secondary use][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;The full report is available here: [Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrierbags: a review of the bags available in 2006](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-cycle-assessment-of-supermarket-carrierbags-a-review-of-the-bags-available-in-2006)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;However there are some caveats:&#xA;&#xA; - Although the study did investigate other impacts, the table shown only takes global warming potential into account.&#xA; - This particular study is about 6 years old and uses data on bags that were used 10 years ago. New production techniques used today may lead to different results.&#xA; - The result of a life-cycle assessment study done in the UK may not translate to other countries. To investigate this you need to carefully check all the geographical dependent data that was used.&#xA; - Other life-cycle assessment studies have different conclusions, but some of the industry-sponsored studies are known to make assumptions that tend to favor certain types of bags.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qP4fE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23973" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6169" RevisionGUID="8ec7519c-7951-47f6-92f0-5731c0ea6fa2" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Recently reported research carried out by Rocky De Nys of James Cook University, Australia, has found that a 2% seaweed feed supplement for cattle substantially reduces the methane production in cattle rumen, thereby reducing the greenhouse gas emission of cattle.&#xA;&#xA;I suggest that you use seaweed fed cows' milk to make your cheese.&#xA;&#xA;Popular article: [Feeding cows seaweed could slash global greenhouse gas emissions, researchers say](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-19/environmental-concerns-cows-eating-seaweed/7946630)&#xA;&#xA;Research paper: [Seaweed as a protein source for mono-gastric livestock ](https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/45653/)&#xA;&#xA;Abstract:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Here, we critically appraise the literature and quantitatively assess seaweeds as a protein source in livestock feeds by assembling a database of amino acid data for 121 seaweed species and comparing the quality and concentration of protein to 'traditional' protein sources (soybean meal and fishmeal) and then benchmarking the seaweeds against the amino acid requirements of mono gastric livestock (chicken, swine and fish).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Key findings and conclusions: The quality of protein (% of essential amino acids in total amino acids) of many seaweeds is similar to, if not better than, traditional protein sources. However, seaweeds without exception have substantially lower concentrations of total essential amino acids, methionine and lysine (on a whole biomass basis, % dw) than traditional protein sources. Correspondingly, seaweeds contain an insufficient concentration of protein, and specifically insufficient essential amino acids, to meet the requirements of most mono-gastric livestock in the whole seaweed form. Consequently, the concentration or extraction of protein from seaweeds will be the most important goal in their development as an alternative source of protein for mono-gastric livestock. &#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23974" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6109" RevisionGUID="4f7c7b11-bda9-4e68-be2e-c50b19c65556" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In terms of whether this makes sense, it depends on the current glazing. 2G varies quite a lot.&#xA;&#xA;### Condensation&#xA;This is an issue; it depends whether the tertiary glazing is fixed or openable.&#xA;&#xA;Getting a proper seal is difficult, you have to consider air infiltration from the outside. To that end I would suggest openable units so you can manage the condensation.&#xA;&#xA;### Positioning&#xA;A bit more on positioning. Generally the optimum gap is about 18mm for energy saving. Below that you get more conductivity through the air, above it circulation can occur leading to convection aided energy transfer.&#xA;&#xA;If you are optimising for sound reduction, you would want a larger gap." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23975" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6002" RevisionGUID="b20e466c-5aaa-45d3-b4cc-5d2a0c32c274" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Baking Soda&#xA;[baking soda is said to be a great alternative to deodorant](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/261/3293). &#xA;&#xA;# Aloe Vera&#xA;I myself sometimes use aloe vera. It stays moist a little longer, but the you'll also protect your skin as well.&#xA;&#xA;# Mother Dirt&#xA;Someone also spoke about a thing called [mother dirt](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5233/3293) which would prevent corporal odors to develop by replacing ill-smelling bacteria" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23976" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5996" RevisionGUID="c8090b1c-486e-483e-888b-c6ad5641c765" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# I would say it could.&#xA;&#xA;This question has been here for quite long, so I'll try to answer it with my basic understanding of organic vs. &quot;conventional&quot; farming.&#xA;&#xA;* Say Organic farming produces 25% less&#xA;&#xA;From [this CNN article](http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/26/world/organic-food-yield/index.html), Organic yields are 25% lower. Let's by it as it is, even if we should not trust anything we read on the Internet.&#xA;&#xA;* But the worl produces far enough&#xA;&#xA;I hear (French mainstream radio) and read in many places ([e.g. here](http://quiet-environmentalist.com/world-produces-enough-food-for-12-billion-people/)) world produces enough to feed 12 billion people (projected population by yeqr 2100). &#xA;&#xA;Since your good at math, its easy to get that the world can feed the 7.5 billion people we are today with organic farming. Now we know that today, we cannot feed everybody because there are huge inequities. Some of it produced by &quot;conventional&quot; farming. So what I'm thinking is there wouldn't be more starvation if you turn conventional into organic farming. Thing is industrial won't probably let you do it. They can pay people to speak against it (sorry, getting political). &#xA;&#xA;* Additional discussion&#xA;&#xA;On one hand, I would still include GMO in organic-raised crops as long as they are not coupled with chemicals.  e.g. I saw on TV GMO could lead to drought resistant crops...&#xA;&#xA;Large-scale organic could also have side effects. I'm thinking of nitrates that would leak from intrants. But it's only replacing a polluant by another.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5972" RevisionGUID="c4498838-c89a-4e4c-97ae-49472a614adf" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# It is not, necessarily&#xA;&#xA;The initial capital cost of a plant is not the same thing as its lifecycle costs. The best way to analyze the cost impact of an energy source is to look at the total expected costs over the lifetime of the plant, and compare to expected energy generation. This gives you a simple measure that you can use to compare systems. &#xA;&#xA;There are three main variables in the lifetime cost of a power source: capital costs (upfront money to build the plant), operations and maintenance (paying to keep the plant operational) and fuel. Obviously, not all plants have fuel costs.&#xA;&#xA;The other thing to keep in mind is that the numbers calculated by various groups use various methodologies, and these methodologies are surely tweaked to represent the user's ideological interests. Therefore, it is smart to get the opinion of both ends of the spectrum in our polarized world; the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.&#xA;&#xA;# Data Sources&#xA;&#xA;Here is a graphic from the Institute for Energy Research, which is generally aligned with free market energy solutions. However, the underlying data comes from the [EIA's][1] 2013 report. &#xA;&#xA;[![The color key has an error where Fixed O&amp;M and Capital cost are swapped][2]][2]&#xA;&#xA;The color key has an error where Fixed O&amp;M and Capital cost are swapped.&#xA;&#xA;The next set of information comes from Energy Innovation Policy and Technology, LLC; with the underlying data from [Lazard's][3] 2014 cost of energy analysis. There was no graphic I could embed, so you'll have to settle for [a link][4]. &#xA;&#xA;# Summary&#xA;&#xA;We can compare the two sources to see the range of estimates for the total lifetime energy expense of various power sources in dollars per MWh:&#xA;&#xA;                       EIA  Lazard's&#xA;    Conventional Coal 100.1   110&#xA;    Gas Combined Cycle 67.1    73&#xA;    Nuclear           108.4   113&#xA;    Onshore Wind       86.6    60&#xA;    Geothermal         89.6   116&#xA;    Solar Thermal     261.5   124&#xA;    Solar PV          144.3    80&#xA;&#xA;Here is the same comparison for initial capital investment:&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;                       EIA  Lazard's&#xA;    Conventional Coal  65.7    77&#xA;    Gas Combined Cycle 15.8    39&#xA;    Nuclear            83.4    92&#xA;    Onshore Wind       70.3    48&#xA;    Geothermal         76.2    81&#xA;    Solar Thermal     214.2   107&#xA;    Solar PV          130.4    72&#xA;&#xA;# Discussion&#xA;&#xA;There are three relevant things to point out. &#xA;&#xA;Firstly, both data sets are obviously biased for/against renewable energy. While fossil fuel and nuclear costs are similar, there are widely different interpretations of the costs of wind and solar. I'm not particularly interested in attempting to interpret differing methodologies, so lets just say the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.&#xA;&#xA;Second, the linked example is Solar Thermal. This type of plant is the most expensive for both lifetime return on the dollar and initial capital investment, for both datasets. &#xA;&#xA;Third, given that solar thermal is more expensive, it appears that the quoted statement could be true about solar thermal compared to fossil fuel for initial capital investment according to the Lazard's source, or it could be true about total lifetime levelized cost according to the EIA. So either interpretation could be supported with the data.&#xA;&#xA;Hope that helps.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/index.cfm&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yndyL.png&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-100/&#xA;  [4]: http://energyinnovation.org/2015/02/07/levelized-cost-of-energy/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5677" RevisionGUID="feebdd7b-8350-4a07-972f-ba44f8e62fa1" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Implementing [Directive 2002/91/EC](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32002L0091), the UK have the [Energy Performance Certificate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Performance_Certificate) (EPC), Belgium has the [Energieprestatiecertificaat](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energieprestatiecertificaat) (EPC), Germany has Energieausweis, France has *Diagnostic de performance énergétique* (DPE), etc.  All are graded A-G.  Can they be directly compared?&#xA;&#xA;For example, I rent a studio in England with an EPC which states a typical consumption of 354 kWh/m²/yr and classifies it as C.  But on a Belgian real estate site I find homes with 205 kWh/m²/yr and D, 140 kwH/m²/yr and C, or 280 kWh/m²/yr and F, and the [French Wikipedia](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_de_performance_%C3%A9nerg%C3%A9tique#Positionnement_en_consommation_et_gaz_.C3.A0_effet_de_serre_.28pour_les_logements.29) would place 354 kWh/m²/yr in grade F.  [This Swedish certificate](http://docplayer.se/6077174-Energideklaration-kaglinge-bygata-10-238-43-oxie-malmo-stad-sammanfattning-av-nybyggnadsar-1984-energideklarations-id-660616.html) describes that new housing in Sweden must use at most 50 kWh/m²/yr, which there is apparently class C, even though Sweden is much colder than Belgium, France, or the UK.&#xA;&#xA;I imagine it's not entirely fair to compare absolute heating costs between different climates.&#xA;Is there a common system that defines the A-G scale?&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Article 7&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **Energy performance certificate**&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 1. Member States shall ensure that, when buildings are constructed, sold or rented out, an energy performance certificate is made available to the owner or by the owner to the prospective buyer or tenant, as the case might be. The validity of the certificate shall not exceed 10 years.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Certification for apartments or units designed for separate use in blocks may be based:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - on a common certification of the whole building for blocks with a common heating system, or&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - on the assessment of another representative apartment in the same block.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Member States may exclude the categories referred to in Article 4(3) from the application of this paragraph.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. The energy performance certificate for buildings shall include reference values such as current legal standards and benchmarks in order to make it possible for consumers to compare and assess the energy performance of the building. The certificate shall be accompanied by recommendations for the cost-effective improvement of the energy performance.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The objective of the certificates shall be limited to the provision of information and any effects of these certificates in terms of legal proceedings or otherwise shall be decided in accordance with national rules.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 3. Member States shall take measures to ensure that for buildings with a total useful floor area over 1000 m2 occupied by public authorities and by institutions providing public services to a large number of persons and therefore frequently visited by these persons an energy certificate, not older than 10 years, is placed in a prominent place clearly visible to the public.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The range of recommended and current indoor temperatures and, when appropriate, other relevant climatic factors may also be clearly displayed.&#xA;&#xA;(Source: [Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Official Journal L 001 , 04/01/2003 P. 0065 - 0071](http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32002L0091))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23979" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5660" RevisionGUID="7ce5bf18-3a48-40ee-bd2c-f1fef9cbcdcd" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="From [Guide for Organic Livestock Producers.pdf @ &#xA;www.ams.usda.gov/nop](https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Guide%20for%20Organic%20Livestock%20Producers_0.pdf) I will make a case for **yes, microchipped animals are organic** but then again I am not affiliated with USDA so you might want to check with them.&#xA;&#xA;**CHAPTER 18 PHYSICAL ALTERATIONS**&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The term “physical alterations” refers to irreversible procedures that alter the natural appearance or function of animals. They are typically used for five reasons in live-stock management:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - For identification (e.g., branding, tattooing, ear tags, and ear notching)&#xA;&gt; - To  prevent  injury  from  fighting  or  cannibalism  among  animals  (e.g.,  beak trimming, dehorning, tail clipping, and castration)&#xA;&gt; - To prevent damage to pastures (e.g., noserings in hogs)&#xA;&gt; - To improve product quality and marketability (e.g., castration and caponization)&#xA;&gt; - For livestock health (e.g., tail docking in sheep) &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; According to the USDA organic regulations, physical alterations are permitted “as needed to promote the animal’s welfare” as well as to maintain individual identification of mammals. Convenience for the producer should not be construed as “animal welfare.” &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; [..]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; A further requirement of the USDA organic regulations is that physical alterations be done “in a manner that minimizes pain and stress.” For example, it is desirable to castrate male calves at a very young age, as opposed to later in life when the pain and stress is much  greater. Another example is freeze branding, which uses dry ice and is considered more humane than fire branding using electrically or fire-heated metal. &#xA;&#xA;So obviously *&quot;physical alterations&quot;* *to maintain individual identification of mammals* - which is what I suppose microchipping is for - is permitted. Even more so if done *“in a manner that minimizes pain and stress.”* While I would have guessed that microchipping is less painful than branding some [sources](http://www.thehorse.com/articles/28130/microchipping-vs-branding-horses-which-is-less-stressful) claim them to be on a par. So providing the same level of discomfort would suggest it to be fine. &#xA;&#xA;Again, it seems to be prudent to check with the respective authorities not only whether microchipping is permitted in organic operations but if it is recognised as an approved system of identification at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23980" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5626" RevisionGUID="bdb928cc-3d39-4c81-bbbc-431635bf2187" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### Pesticide use&#xA;&#xA;Conventional farming uses both pesticides and fertilizers. Organic farming may only use a small list of pesticides or fertilizers, which usually excludes most if not all conventional pesticides and fertilizers. However, this list is prescribed by the certifying body and may or may not admit synthetic pesticides.&#xA;&#xA;### Large-scale vs. small-scale farming&#xA;&#xA;Conventional farming is usually geared towards scalable farming. Controlling pests without conventional pesticides is more difficult on a large scale. (A large organic crop would be the perfect breeding ground for pests.) So organically farmed produce is usually more likely to come from a smaller-scale farm.&#xA;&#xA;### Social/ethical aspects of paying workers&#xA;&#xA;Many organic producers also support fair wages and are Fairtrade certified. However, there is no necessary connection between these two.&#xA;&#xA;### Quality&#xA;&#xA;Quality is not clearly defined (taste, absence of imperfections, mineral/vitamin content, ...). In some cases, however, organically produced nuts have been shown to be higher in minerals and lower in metals, thus having a possibly lower harmful effect on the human body. See [this study][1] for more information.&#xA;&#xA;### Specific organic certification organisations&#xA;&#xA;Standards for organic labelling are sometimes more, sometimes less strict. The same applies to nuts. There are also other labels that require a higher standard, such as *demeter* (&quot;biodynamic&quot; farming).&#xA;&#xA;### What else?&#xA;&#xA;The final produce is the most interesting to the consumer, but only a small part of the growing process. Conventional pesticides often wear out the soil and present a danger to both wildlife (apart from the &quot;pests&quot;) and the farmers, even if these dangers are tried to be avoided as much as possible.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.organicag.org/mineral-content-organic-and-conventional-hazelnuts" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23981" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5562" RevisionGUID="ab812cbd-dceb-48eb-adb9-42e1792cc5f4" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### Summary&#xA;No, that's way too little. I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;### Running the numbers&#xA;Following on from one of Elon Musk's presentations, which showed an area of about 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; as the area of PV panels needed to power the USA, the question came up on the [Skeptics Stack Exchange](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/27628/6236).&#xA;&#xA;Taking the numbers from this [fact-checking of Elon Musk's blue square - how much solar to power the US](http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/energy/2015/05/21/fact-checking-elon-musks-blue-square-how-much-solar-to-power-the-us/): US electricity consumption is about 425 GW. And 10,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of the best currently-commercially-available PV panels would give about 500 GW of mean electricity. Now, that's putting aside time-matching supply and demand, transmission losses, and so on: it's just looking at multi-year average supply and multi-year average demand.&#xA;&#xA;Now, allowing for a ratio of about 2.5:1 for the actual amount of land spanned by such an installation would mean about 25,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of land spanned. (because one doesn't blanket-cover a desert area without gaps, as that wouldn't be the most economical physical arrangement)&#xA;&#xA;The difference between this 25,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and the claim is pretty huge: 140 square miles is 362 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xA;&#xA;### How did this error happen?&#xA;&#xA;I've seen errors of this scale before. In all the other cases &amp;mdash;  and so, I'm guessing, in this case &amp;mdash; an editor or non-technical author has taken a technical source, and swapped the order of two words: the distance unit and the &quot;square&quot;, and in doing so has completely mangled the meaning. So &quot;metres square&quot; becomes &quot;square metres&quot;; or &quot;km square&quot; becomes &quot;square km&quot;; or &quot;miles square&quot; becomes &quot;square miles&quot;. It's an easy editing mistake to make: &quot;square miles&quot; is much more common than &quot;miles square&quot;, and to a non-technical editor or author, they might sound like different ways of saying the same thing (even though they are completely different in reality). And so the editor/author does their job and replaces an unusual variant with its much more common supposed synonym, unwittingly transforming the meaning.&#xA;&#xA;If the claim had been that an area of 140 *miles square* of PV could power the USA, then that would be entirely reasonable: that would be about 50,000 km&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;, which is a conservative over-estimate of the area needed. So I think &quot;140 miles square&quot; has got mangled into &quot;140 square miles&quot;. (the former is 140 times the area of the latter)&#xA;&#xA;### What does it mean to say &quot;it would power the US&quot;?&#xA;&#xA;These claims of &quot;X resource needed to power Y&quot; are usually about mean (average) supply and mean demand, and that's typically a one-year or multi-year average. This is equivalent to saying that total production over the period would be at least as much as total consumption over the same period. The estimates aren't done to present a completely specified working system; but to give an idea of the scale of resource needed.&#xA;&#xA;Occasionally, the context makes it clear if it is about a much more sophisticated bit of modelling, typically a dispatch model, that is matching supply and demand in each timeslice (e.g. every half-hour for a year). Even then, it's not about peak capacity equalling peak demand, but about half-hourly supply meeting or exceeding half-hourly demand. (Peak capacity is rarely an interesting or relevant number for modern generation systems; whereas for dirty old systems, it was indeed a standard metric.)&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23982" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6486" RevisionGUID="b59a8f81-d670-4fc3-a2d1-c561d2871755" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="HDPE plastic is usually shredded, melted and then pelletized where the pellets are then used to create new HDPE products.  It can theoretically be recycled indefinitely except that usually contamination appears from other plastic fibres and the contents of HDPE containers so that this is practically limited to 7-8 recycles. One company, Carbios, has developed an enzymatic approach to recycle PET to potentially allow [infinite recycling](https://waste-management-world.com/a/enzymatic-recycling-process-to-allow-infinite-recycling-of-pet-developed-in-france), and they are attempting to expand their process to include [other plastics](https://labiotech.eu/carbios-technipfmc-pet-recycling/).&#xA;&#xA;For many non-food HDPE products it is cheaper to purchase recycled pellets to use in manufacturing than to use virgin plastics. If one considers plant containers etc to be of a lower utility than food containers then one could say that this is downcycling of the plastic.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Recycling HDPE has many benefits. For example, it is more cost efficient to produce a product from recycled HDPE than it is to manufacture ‘virgin’ plastic.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; HDPE, like many plastic polymers, is produced using considerable amounts of fossil fuels and it takes a total of 1.75kg of oil to manufacture just 1kg of HDPE.&#xA;&#xA;Because it is not autoclavable it is not possible to do non-destructive sterilization of food containers made from HDPE.&#xA;&#xA;https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=255" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23983" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5547" RevisionGUID="503a450d-18cc-4973-b6ac-161d8f28f905" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="From the [Wind Measurement International site][1]: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; P90 is all about quantifying the uncertainty of annual energy yield predictions. P90 is the energy WMI predicts that a wind turbine is 90% likely to produce over an average year, given the uncertainties in the measurement, analysis and wind turbine operation. P50, on the other hand, is the average annual energy yield predicted for your site - the annual energy output you are most likely to achieve.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Investor decisions are commonly based on P90 (P95 or even P80 are sometimes used). Better instrumentation, long term data, analysis and wind turbine operation are all able to close the gap between P90 and P50, so increasing your project value.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.windmeasurementinternational.com/wind-analysis/p90-wind_anyalsis.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5501" RevisionGUID="3bf1f980-937e-4c68-a971-d87c0fff3915" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="From e.g. the [Severnwaste recycling company](http://www.severnwaste.com/envirosort/faqs/) (UK):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Plastic items are sorted by optical scanners which use the reflection of light to identify the types of plastics. Black plastic doesn’t reflect light, so can not be seen and sorted by the scanners and could end up contaminating other materials such as glass bottles. Microwave food trays which are normally black are also made of a special type of plastic which can not be easily recycled. &#xA;&#xA;But in [a forum post on TheRubbishdiet.com](http://www.therubbishdiet.org.uk/recycle-black-plastic/) Joseph Kennedy from the [PlasticExpert blog](http://www.plasticexpert.co.uk/news/) writes:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ...  in July (2014), Sainsbury’s and M&amp;S began working together to alter the properties of the polymer to make it known to infra-red sorting technologies. So within a year we can hopefully expect to see this kind of plastic recyclable. This isn’t to say your council can’t recycle it.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; They can, they just choose not to. The councils earn rebates on the materials they sell, which in turn helps pay for the council workers etc. Black plastic is the least valuable (that’s why your bin bags are black), and the reason is simple.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; You can dye clear plastic black, but you can’t dye black plastic clear.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Black plastic is very low value, so your black food trays, bin bags, pvc guttering pipes etc, most often wont get recycled because they have little value on the other end of the market. It’s a money driven industry, like everything else.&#xA;&#xA;The way in which the plastic is colored black makes a difference. From [Recyclability of black plastic packaging](http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/recyclability-black-plastic-packaging-0) at Wrap.org:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The majority of black plastic packaging is coloured using carbon black pigments which do not enable the pack to be sorted by the optical sorting systems being used widely in plastics recycling. As a result, black plastic packaging commonly ends up as residue and is disposed of in landfill or recycled into lower value materials where polymer sorting is not required.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; WRAP has worked in partnership with key players in the retail supply chain to improve the recyclability of black plastics and prevent these materials from going to landfill. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; This work was carried out in three phases and based on the results of this work, it is recommended that detectable black colourants be used as a viable option to carbon black pigments in the manufacture of black packaging such as amorphous  polyethylene terephthalate (APET), crystallised polyethylene terephthalate (CPET),  polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) packaging. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; By selecting a detectable black colourant that enables the polymer to be detected by optical sorting systems the packaging supply chain can enable black plastic packaging to be recycled into a high quality, high value material which can substitute for virgin plastic in the manufacture of new items, and benefit the environment as well as the financial viability of mixed plastics recycling.&#xA;&#xA;That last page has more detailed (technical) information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5393" RevisionGUID="a721f4cc-255f-4d91-ad9d-266632661351" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="It's definitely possible to recycle plastic and create LEGO-like building blocks. In fact several houses have already been built this way! &#xA;&#xA;In 2010 a Colombian architect called Oscar Mendez had the same idea as you. He started an initiative called [Conceptos Plasticos](http://conceptosplasticos.com) (website in Spanish) with the goal to reduce both waste and extreme poverty by providing cheaper and better housing solutions for people in need. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; The plastic waste we recycle is melted and poured into a mould to produce plastic blocks that work like Lego pieces, allowing whole communities and families to play a part in the easy constructing of their own homes. The materials contain additives that makes them resistant to fire and because the structure is plastic-based, it is earthquake resistant. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;  A house for one family takes four people, with no construction experience, just five days to build. Our construction system is 30% cheaper than traditional systems in rural areas. We helped build a contemporary shelter for 42 families displaced by violence in Guapi, Cauca, in 2015, whilst recycling 200 tons of plastic in the process.  ([source: theventure.com](https://web.archive.org/web/20160708120908/https://www.theventure.com/global/en/finalists/conceptos-plasticos))&#xA;&#xA;[![Building a house with bricks made from recycled plastic][2]][2]&#xA;[![Finished house][3]][3]&#xA;&#xA;*Images from [theventure.com](http://www.theventure.com/global/en/finalists/conceptos-plasticos) and [changemakers.com](https://www.changemakers.com/globalgoals2015/entries/re-cycled-house-closing-cycle-plastic)*&#xA;&#xA;[Here is a YouTube video (in Spanish)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33CdLjIr_uw) that shows the process. If you [search on YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=oscar+mendez+plastic+houses) you can also find a few videos in English&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9wiP1.jpg&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rVwM4.jpg&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/U1wtl.jpg&#xA;&#xA;One critical remark though; I haven't seen any information which types of plastic are used for creating the bricks, so I'm not 100% sure all types of plastic are recycled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23986" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5384" RevisionGUID="69c4be0c-8c61-4a5a-b185-15bb5f09500f" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[This meta study on the crop yield gap][1] suggests that organic farming has about 80% the yield of conventional farming at the field level, yields may vary widely and organic yields can surpass conventional yields. The authors state:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Our analysis of yield gaps was at crop and field level. The results cannot readily be upscaled to higher system levels. Organic agriculture relies for its crop nutrients on natural soil fertility, legume crops, compost and manure. When legumes are grown as a green manure crop instead of a food or fodder crop to add nitrogen to the system, the average yield of food and fodder crops over the entire rotation is reduced. [...] We did not perform an in-depth analysis of this issue for our data, but it may be assumed that at crop rotation or farm level at least some organic yields in our database would have to be reduced to account for non-productive green manure crops.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Another important source of nutrients in organic farming is manure. Some of the successful organic production systems are dependent on relatively large manure applications imported from outside the farming system (e.g. Clark et al., 1999; Jaim and Al Kader, 1998). If these systems were to be adopted more widely in a given region, manure may become a limiting resource, thus reducing overall organic food crop yields (e.g. Jaim and Al Kader, 1998). [...]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;  In conclusion, a thorough analysis of the productivity of organic and conventional agriculture at crop rotation, farm and regional level is needed that accounts for the availability of crop nutrients. Since maintaining soil fertility is generally a greater challenge for organic systems (e.g. Nguyen and Haynes, 1995), we hypothesize that at higher system levels yield gaps of organic agriculture may be larger than 20%.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;So I'm looking for research that compares organic with conventional agriculture at the farm level, as at this level the diminished yields due to green fertilization would be taken into account. Crucially for me to understand are the nutrient/fertilizer flows, so ideally the study would also compare organic yields at different (external) fertilizer inputs. But I'll take what I can get.&#xA;&#xA;This info would be helpful to someday finish [my answer][2] to [this question on food without fossil fertilizer][3]. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/4273/96&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/4271/96" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5359" RevisionGUID="90b981ef-0c62-42a8-bc55-00d2604f01bc" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Catalina Island does use salt water for toilets.  It's a small community, however, and they seem to be shifting towards freshwater due to corrosion issues inherent to salt water utilization.&#xA;&#xA;From [Catalina Island &amp; Drinking Water](http://catalinaislandblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/catalina-island-drinking-water.html?m=1):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Saltwater used for toilet-flushing and fire suppression purposes is simply filtered as it is not intended to be potable. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Unique issues for wastewater treatment include the high salt content of the wastewater resulting from the City’s use of salt water for toilet flushing throughout the system; and very large differences between average and peak flow loadings resulting from the varying tourist population&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; It was discovered that the use of saltwater for wastewater purposes leads to corrosion of the laterals. A majority of the laterals were broken or cracked, causing wastewater from the homes in Avalon to enter the groundwater system&#xA;&#xA;The blog post has references for further reading." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5355" RevisionGUID="1dbc2ef5-1c29-49e3-b94b-07ef43d3db8c" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Human work as a permaculture intrant&#xA;--&#xA;&#xA;  A solution that wasn't mentioned there is to collect them by hand day after day. I dispose the slugs collected into my composting pile where they feed, breed and attract predators. But you need a composting pile in a good place where predators will find shelter.&#xA;&#xA; The secret for collecting slugs is to have a bucket with a little water in it where to put the beasts. I collect them with a big old pinch to avoid touching them :s . The water in the bucket allow me to avoid slugs to climb out the bucket by gently moving the water in the bucket -- they cannot cling well to the sides, so little water movement make them fall back to the bottom. They can easily be found beneath tiles or planks that I laid specially to attract them in specific places.&#xA;&#xA; Before doing that, I used to kill them on the spot, but the bodies attracted more and more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5266" RevisionGUID="77d88b13-c97f-42f5-a03e-43d0da61fdeb" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**Summary:**&#xA;&#xA;- Nylon, acrylic and especially polyester clothing release lots of microplastics during laundry. For polyester a study found between 6 and 17,7 million microfibers per 5kg wash&#xA;- Microplastics are now ubiquitous; they are found in various foods and in 83% of drinking water samples around the world, including both tap and bottled water&#xA;- We don't know the exact effects of microplastics on human or animal health, but the results of preliminary research are rather negative; human immune cells die after trying to absorb microplastics and micro-lungs stop growing when exposed to nylon fibers&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;I found more information about this, and since there hasn't been a single answer so far I'm going to self-answer my question based on what I found.&#xA;&#xA;## Microplastics are spreading ##&#xA;There are several aspects that make this a rather worrying problem. First of all recent research found that clothing gives off much more particles in a washing machine than previously thought. [The 2011 paper written by Mark Browne](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es201811s) mentioned over 1900 fibers per garment, but [new research](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749117309387) has found that&#xA;&gt; a typical 5 kg wash load of polyester fabrics could release an impressive number of microfibres, in the range of 6,000,000 - 17,700,000 ... depending on the type of detergent used.&#xA;&#xA;As far as I've read there still is no direct evidence linking microfibers found in oceans to clothing but we do know that microfibers make up 85% of all man-made materials found in various ocean water samples (see Mark Brown's 2011 paper mentioned earlier). Also the types and amount of fibers found on shores matches those used in the clothing industry. &#xA;&#xA;Second, we know from [past research](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873017/) that plastic particles in (sea)water absorb other toxins present in the water. We also know microplastics are eaten by marine animals, thus introducing toxic pollutants into the food chain. &#xA;&#xA;Third, waste water treatment plants lets microfibers through and [microplastics are now found in 83% of drinking water samples around the world, including both tap and bottled water](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/06/plastic-fibres-found-tap-water-around-world-study-reveals). Besides water, microplastics have also been found in [fish, honey, beer and salt](https://t.silk.bio/wp-content/uploads/Microplastics-from-Synthetic-Fibres-and-Padding-PDF.pdf)&#xA;&#xA;Plastic particles have spread around the entire globe and are now also found in [remote places such as the North Pole](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/24/record-levels-of-plastic-discovered-in-arctic-sea-ice)&#xA;&#xA;## Health effects ##&#xA;Research on the health effects of microplastics in animal or human bodies has only just begun:&#xA;&#xA;[The WHO recently released a report saying that](https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/microplastics-in-drinking-water/en/)&#xA;&#xA;&gt;  Based on the limited evidence available, chemicals and microbial pathogens associated with microplastics in drinking-water pose a low concern for human health. Although there is insufficient information to draw firm conclusions on the toxicity of nanoparticles, no reliable information suggests it is a concern. &#xA;&#xA;However, the preliminary results of a large Dutch study are very negative:&#xA;&#xA; - [immune cells that recognise and attack microplastics will die quickly as a result of the contact](https://resource.co/article/research-reveals-damaging-impact-microplastics-human-health)&#xA; - when mini-lungs, bred from lung cells, are exposed to polyester they continue to develop normally, but when exposed to nylon microfibers growth stops &#xA;&#xA;[Source: original news article in Dutch](https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2303877-microplastics-lijken-gevaarlijker-dan-tot-nu-toe-gedacht.html)&#xA;and [translated to English by Google](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&amp;tl=en&amp;u=https%3A%2F%2Fnos.nl%2Fnieuwsuur%2Fartikel%2F2303877-microplastics-lijken-gevaarlijker-dan-tot-nu-toe-gedacht.html)&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;## Potential solutions ##&#xA;Although research is still in progress, an EU-sponsored research project called [MERMAIDS](http://life-mermaids.eu/en/) mentions several solutions to at least reduce the problem:&#xA;&#xA; - Reduce friction between garments by &#xA;&#xA;   1. filling up your washing machine to the max, &#xA;   2. use washing liquid instead of powder,&#xA;   3. use a fabric softener.&#xA;&#xA; - Reduce the amount of 'damage' to your clothing so less fibers are released by&#xA;   1. washing at low temperatures,&#xA;   2. avoiding long washings,&#xA;   2. dry spin at lower revolutions.&#xA;&#xA;Furthermore the [Ocean Clean Wash Charter](http://www.plasticsoupfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PSF.Charter.Ocean_.Clean_.Wash_.pdf?941464) mentions a few potential future solutions:&#xA;&#xA; - Develop washing machine filters that catch the microfibers&#xA; - Develop synthetic fabrics or that don't give off microfibers&#xA; - Develop impregnation that prevents the release of microfibers.&#xA;&#xA;Of course you could also try to avoid buying polyester, acrylic and nylon clothing until a good permanent solution has been found and implemented." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23990" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5195" RevisionGUID="497d9e28-c78f-498e-937c-76dcf4fa4fa9" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The ecological footprint method does not directly convert consumed resources into global hectares, at least not via a single conversion factor. &#xA;Instead first the amount of required land/sea area in physical hectares is calculated by dividing the amount of resources by the yield of the specific land/sea area where those resources were harvested. The physical hectares for each land type are then converted into global hectares by multiplying with both 'yield factors' (YF) and 'equivalence factors' (EQF).&#xA;&#xA;As a formula:&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA; EcoFootprint = (amount resource used / national average resource yield) * YF * EQF&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;### Yield and equivalence factors ###&#xA;&#xA;The **yield factor** for a land type is the ratio between the national average yield and the world average yield on that type of land. In other words it accounts for land type productivity differences between countries. Obviously yield factors vary per country and per year.&#xA;&#xA;The **equivalence factor** for a land type indicates how much higher/lower the productivity of that land type is compared to the world average productivity. In other words, it allows aggregating different land types into one common global hectare measure. Equivalence factors vary per year but by definition not per location.&#xA;&#xA;The Global Footprint Network (GFN) regularly publishes yield and equivalence factors in reports and data packages, but you have to pay a fee to obtain those unless you qualify for non-commercial educational usage ([this page on the GFN website](http://www.footprintnetwork.org/public) mentions the exact requirements).&#xA;Alternatively you can find other  reports on the Internet that mention factors for particular years. For example page 15 of [this report](http://www.sern.eu/sern/docs/publications/buratti.pdf) shows the equivalence factors for 2005, and page 22 of [this report](https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/3779578583278/Valada%20(2010)%20Ecological%20Footprint.pdf) mentions those for 2006&#xA;&#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA;                    2005    2006&#xA;------------------------------------&#xA; Primary cropland   2.644   2.39&#xA; Forest             1.333   1.24&#xA; Grazing land       0.497   0.51&#xA; Fishing grounds    0.397   0.41&#xA; Built-up land      2.644   2.39&#xA; Carbon             1.333&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;The second report also mentions the yield factors for a few countries in 2006&#xA; &#xA;&lt;pre&gt;&#xA;               Cropland Forest Grazing Fishing&#xA; Algeria         0.6     0.4     0.7     0.9&#xA; Germany         2.1     4.1     2.2     3.0&#xA; Hungary         1.4     2.6     1.9     0.0&#xA; Japan           1.5     1.4     2.2     0.8  &#xA; Jordan          1.0     1.5     0.4     0.7&#xA; New Zealand     1.9     2.0     2.5     1.0&#xA; Zambia          0.5     0.2     1.5     0.0&#xA;&lt;/pre&gt;&#xA;&#xA;Chances are this data is not very useful to you, but many online reports do demonstrate how ecological footprint calculations are done. If it's only for one country you may be able to follow the reports as an example and gather the required data yourself using public information?&#xA;&#xA;### Usage data ###&#xA;If you want to calculate the EF for a product or organisation you also need to determine the amount of consumed primary inputs. This can be rather challenging as there is no single accepted procedure here. For example, the person doing the calculation defines the exact boundaries of what is and isn't included.&#xA;&#xA;I've read somewhere that there is (some?) product information available in the GFN National Footprint Accounts reports, but I can't verify this myself at the moment.&#xA;Alternatively there are both open-source and proprietary life-cycle analysis (LCA) databases that provide information about the resources used to produce certain products or services (see also the [info wiki](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/tags/life-cycle-analysis/info) of the [tag:life-cycle-analysis] tag).  Whether or not data is publicly available depends on the product or service you are looking for. Note that older LCA data or data from other countries can be used, but may be less accurate for the product or process you are interested in." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5163" RevisionGUID="f6deb2db-4666-40aa-9b34-3a519db43ca1" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The amount of power you consume/power costs are surprisingly unrelated to the cost effective-ness of solar power. To be more accurate, they are &quot;slightly&quot; related.&#xA;&#xA;When you install a solar panel you will start generating power. Then there will be four things that can happen. &#xA;&#xA; 1. excess power will go directly towards your power supplier.&#xA; 2. excess power will be stored in some sort of battery and once this is&#xA;    full, direct the rest to the power supplier.&#xA; 3. excess power will be lost&#xA; 4. Excess power will be stored in some sort of batter until it's full&#xA;    and the overflow will be lost.&#xA;&#xA;## Selling to the supplier ##&#xA;&#xA;What does it mean when power goes to your supplier? It means they will pay you for your excess power. This means that your solar panels may generate you profit. The thing you should note is that you will receive less money for the power you send to the supplier than the costs to receive power from the supplier. This is why it's always in your best interest to have a battery to power your house at night and rainy days.&#xA;&#xA;This is why your electricity bill doesn't really have an impact on the effectiveness on the solar panel. &#xA;&#xA;In the optimal situation, you will have a battery that will nearly always have power stored in it. This means you will never receive an &quot;electricity bill&quot;. Instead you will receive money from this bill. &#xA;&#xA;So I would advise to calculate how much sun/power you can produce with a solar panel at your location. Then inform yourself on how much power you use, get a [battery][1] that can hold x amount of power for Y hours/days. If you have good connections with your power supplier you will be able to strike a good deal on selling them power. &#xA;&#xA;Note: you will be selling power, this will be a form of income, so I don't know to what degree income taxes are involved.&#xA;&#xA;## calculating effectiveness without selling ##&#xA;If you cannot sell to your supplier (see @Thelper's comment). Then you'll want to calculate this to be more efficient.&#xA;&#xA;Many solar panels can only supply you with a certain amount of power per hour/day/month. What you'd want to calculate is how much you use during your &quot;light&quot; hour and how much you use during your &quot;dark&quot; hours. The larger your battery is, the less accurate you need to be with your calculations. Assuming you have a gigantic battery you will want to calculate how much power you use within an average day/month. And then look for a solar panel that can provide these amounts at your location. &#xA;&#xA;Expect to need more power during the winter and less power during the summer. &#xA;Look at the time period you wish to start benefitting from your solar setup. Chances are that you may not be able to get back the amount you invested until year X. Especially if you can't sell to your provider.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5098/which-battery-is-best-for-solar-power" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23992" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5057" RevisionGUID="6f4fb849-8249-4852-8646-20c198ccb2c4" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### Executive summary&#xA;&#xA;It's too early to tell what the resale value is, as contemporary turbine designs are not as old as the lifetime of a wind-turbine, so we have very little experience of the economic value that results from decommissioning 1.5MW turbines; however, a rough first-order calculation puts the scrap value of the metals, based on Feb 2016 UK prices, at gb£14k/MW, or us$30k for a 1.5MW turbine.&#xA;&#xA;### Too early to tell; and reuse vs scrapping&#xA;&#xA;We don't know, because it is too early to tell: there isn't yet a large post-first-life industry for wind turbines. And the reason for that is that large-scale deployment of the now-industry standard horizontal-axis three-blade megawattt-plus wind turbine as we know it, dates back less than the lifetime of a wind turbine.&#xA;&#xA;We do have some experience from the large Danish repowering exercise (2002-3), when a change in incentives caused a burst of decommissioning of older, smaller turbines; they were replaced with newer, high-power turbines. But the decommissioned turbines generally got sold on to be refurbished and reused elsewhere: so resale value for reuse must have been significantly higher than scrap value, given the additional transport costs implied by selling for reuse.&#xA;&#xA;So, with a first life of 20-25 years, and with a second life for maybe another 10-20 years, it's still too early to say what the optimal end-of-first-life outcome is for wind turbines.&#xA;&#xA;### NPV of scrap is low enough that no one's really counting&#xA;&#xA;And because the first life is so long, then that 20-25 years of economic discounting of any end-of-life value, means that it's not really yet a consideration when reviewing the economics: anything that's achieved at end-of-life is considered a bonus as far as the business case is concerned.&#xA;&#xA;### A first attempt at scrap value&#xA;&#xA;There is value in pretty much all of the materials: the last I saw, it was expected that 95% of materials (by weight) could be reused or recycled (see LCA below). Even the poured concrete base can be recycled as subcore. All the copper, steel, aluminium, neodymium (if present) and so on already have existing recycling industries, but the value of each is constantly in flux as global commodity prices move around.&#xA;&#xA;For offshore wind, the picture is even less clear, as large-scale offshore deployment is much younger than onshore; and the world's first commercial offshore windfarm (Vindeby in Denmark, which became operational in 1991) is still generating after 24.4 years (as of Feb 2016).&#xA;&#xA;You could look at a bill of materials from one of the [life-cycle analyses][1] - from that Vestas 2MW one, we see:&#xA;&#xA;* large metal components are assumed to be 98% recycled  &#xA;* cables 95% recycled  &#xA;* other steel, aluminium, copper: 90% recycled&#xA;&#xA;That LCA shows per MW capacity (based on a 50MW plant consisting of 25 x 2MW gridstreamer turbines):&#xA;&#xA;* about 120 tonnes of iron &amp; steel&#xA;* 13 tonnes of aluminium (&amp; alloys thereof); &#xA;* 3 tonnes of copper&#xA;* 0.18 tonnes of permanent magnet (neodymium, dysprosium alloy)&#xA;&#xA;This could enable you to get a rough estimate for value, depending on where you are in the world, and what the price of the various scrap metals are near you today.&#xA;&#xA;In the UK, ferrous metals are ~£50/t, aluminium ~£600/t, copper ~£300/t.&#xA;Multiplying those figures together, just using 95% as an average recycling rate, gives 0.95 * (120 * 50 + 13 * 600 + 3 * 300).&#xA;&#xA;**Which is £14k per megawatt, or about us$30,000 for a 1.5 MW turbine, excluding scrap value of the blades** &#xA;&#xA;### Blade composition and value&#xA;It's only recently that we've seen increasing use of carbon fibres as structural spars in blades, so in general this won't apply to older turbines.&#xA;&#xA;If your estimate of us$450k for the blades of a 1.5MW turbine are correct, the value of the blades swamps everything else. I'd have though that there's a good chance they'd have more value as sale for reuse rather than sale for recycling.&#xA;&#xA;However, regarding your calculation of blade composition: I understand from elsewhere that only [6% of the blade composite by weight is carbon fibre][2], and even a monster 100m blade (no one's making them that big yet) would weigh between 35-50 tonnes;  so that would be 2-3 tonnes of carbon fibre for one 100m blade, or 6-9 tonnes for a whole 10MW turbine; let's call it 0.6-1 tonnes per Megawatt, which is between one sixteenth and one-tenth of the figure you have. On that basis, the blades are still worth more than everything else (us$30,000-45,000 per 1.5MW turbine), using your number for carbon fibre scrap value (I couldn't find a price when I looked), assuming the carbon fibre can be separate out from the rest of the blade cheaply.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.vestas.com/~/media/vestas/about/sustainability/pdfs/lca_v902mw_version1.ashx&#xA;  [2]: http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/wind-turbine-blades-glass-vs-carbon-fiber" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23993" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4943" RevisionGUID="1f59d45c-d0af-4421-ad3b-31be070e24e9" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In view of the possibility of cultivating rye to become self-sufficient in bread and flour, I am looking for a good estimate of the following quantities:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; 1. the surface of area planted with rye needed to produce 1 kg of rye grain;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 2. the amount of rye grain needed to produce 1 kg of rye flour.&#xA;&#xA;Can anyone help?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9907" RevisionGUID="80a4a79a-d602-447d-9c50-7530567838db" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="## In what type of location is it likely to find larger or smaller amounts of ozone?&#xA;&#xA;Using data from the 2017 [Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report](https://www.elementascience.org/article/10.1525/elementa.244/) we can answer the first part of the question. There's a [massive database](https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.876109?format=html#download) of images and plots available, from which I pulled just a few.&#xA;&#xA;Here's a full image to include the legend and caption:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [![50th percentile ozone value, annual average 2010 to 2014][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;Now I'll focus just on the UK since that's what you've asked about. From left to right:&#xA;&#xA; - Rural, high elevation sites&#xA; - Rural, low elevation sites&#xA; - Urban sites&#xA; - Non-urban sites&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [![50th percentile ozone value, annual average 2010 to 2014, UK][2]][2]&#xA;&#xA;**Based on these maps, the higher concentrations appear to be in rural, coastal sites.** There is only one high-elevation site in the UK, but it also has a higher relative concentration, consistent with high-elevation sites in other countries.&#xA;&#xA;## Why is the concentration different between locations?&#xA;&#xA;[According to Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_ozone):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Motor vehicle exhaust, industrial emissions, and chemical solvents are the major anthropogenic sources of these ozone precursors. Although the ozone precursors often originate in urban areas, winds can carry NOx hundreds of kilometers, causing ozone formation to occur in less populated regions as well. &#xA;&#xA;In the UK, the prevailing winds are from the south and west ([source](https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.301)), and population is densest roughly in the south and east:&#xA;&#xA;[![Night-time map of the UK][3]][3]&#xA;&#xA;This means we'd expect to see ozone concentrations roughly north and east of population centers, which is consistent with the maps.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yqPI0.png&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yuktU.png&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dS1GE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5539" RevisionGUID="a4e9eb59-b043-4393-9856-16bbc131d770" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="One approach is to look for studies in this area and decide whether the idea is even plausible. Is it &quot;a bit more expensive but I like the technology&quot; or is it &quot;much more expensive and doesn't work very well&quot;? If it's the former you can start looking at your exact site, if the latter... do you have a lot of money to spend on something that just looks green? The latter reason is why small turbines on roofs are [popular with corporations trying to greenwash][1].&#xA;&#xA;The Australian [&quot;Alternative Technology Association&quot; has done a study on whether small turbines][2] can be viable. &#xA;&#xA;The short summary is that **small turbines need consistent strong winds**, and because the wind is significantly disturbed by the house, it helps a lot of the wind is almost always from the same direction so you can mount the turbine on the upwind side of the house. The exception would be if you're in a site with exceptionally steady, strong wind, and you need to go off-grid/can't get a grid connection.&#xA;&#xA;[I wrote this][3] on another forum in response to the same question:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; I have a friend with an offgrid property in the Otways on the south coast in Victoria. It's windy pretty much year round. But even there the two 200W turbines have to be ~8m up on a grassy hilltop to get clear of ground noise and over a year they run about 60% of capacity. Sure, that's better than PV (~15%-25%) but they're noisy, the installation was difficult and they have to be taken down and serviced every year. Of the parts of the system (wind, pv, battery, inverter, genset), the wind takes more maintenance than the rest of the setup combined and only the generator comes close. 400W of wind also cost as much as the 3kW PV system, but the PV gives more power, more reliably.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Note that is is on a 10Ha+ block where no-one cares about what it looks like, how much noise it makes, or how much space you need to drop the tower and service the turbine. In the city you're likely to have 8m roof heights (or you will have in a couple of years when the neighbours rebuild), [so you need an 18m tower][4]. Then you need to be 3.5m from the boundary, and need ~20m to drop the tower. So you need 23 metres of clear space in your backyard - assuming you have an unguyed tower. Tower costs get scary. A standard lattice-and-guy tower 18m tall is $5k-$10k just for hardware, but if you want self-supporting it gets pricey fast ([Randwick Council in Sydney paid ~$45k for 2.4kW up a 13.5m freestanding tower][5] - pdf, case study page 51).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; It's obviously silly to spend $10k on a tower then put a little 200W or even 2kW turbine on top of it, so finding information about those systems is basically impossible. In the pdf above case study 5 says an 18m mast with a 6kW turbine cost $50k, so doubling the turbine size added 10% to the system cost compared to Randwick (roughly speaking, not all things are equal between the two).&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; But then if you look for $50k solar RAPS systems (because for that money why not go off grid) [I picked a random one out of a search engine you get 15kW of PV, 80kWh of battery and 30kWh of consumption a day][6] (base cost $37k, I just assumed that the extra $13k would take you to the top end of their quoted range).&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1841305&#xA;  [2]: http://www.ata.org.au/ata-research/the-viability-of-domestic-wind-turbines&#xA;  [3]: https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2506090&#xA;  [4]: http://www.windpowerengineering.com/construction/high-small-wind-turbine/&#xA;  [5]: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/households/NSWSmallWindTurbineConsumerGuide.pdf&#xA;  [6]: http://www.offgridenergy.com.au/index.php/off-grid-complete-system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6526" RevisionGUID="41b1828f-70a0-4e7b-90b9-69b6bed9da4c" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Based on [this Dutch site][1] and the [answer by Jean-Paul Calderone][2] i have compiled a ranking. &#xA;The fence and the pole for the door-lock can be seen as two separate problems, so solutions for the first (a hedge, woven branches, planks) can be combined with one of the solutions for the second (wood, composite, concrete).&#xA;&#xA;### Ranking for the fence: ###&#xA;&#xA; 1. **Hedge**: it's renewable and provides shelter for small animals. Some plants like Thuja and Holly will stay green over winter. &#xA; 2. **Untreated branches** or **untreated bamboo**.&#xA; 3. Planking made of **un-impregnated FSC wood** (for example hardwood or thermally modified softwood) / a **stone wall** from stones mined locally or in neighbouring countries / a **metal fence**&#xA; 4. **Un-impregnated non-FSC wood** / **stones** mined far away / **composite** material.&#xA; 5. Non-FSC hardwood from the tropics / brick&#xA; 6. Impregnated softwood.&#xA;&#xA;### Ranking for the pole: ###&#xA; 1. **FSC Hardwood** like Red Cedar, char the underside to get extra durability (thanks [Jan Steinman][3])/ **Thermally modified FSC softwood** &#xA; 2. **Concrete** pole (not as renewable but apparently durable)&#xA; 3. **Un-impregnated non-FSC wood** / **Composite**&#xA; 4. Non-FSC hardwood from the tropics&#xA; 5. Impregnated softwood&#xA;&#xA;I was surprised by the iron fence being ranked as high as wood, but apparetly it's a tradeof between durability and renewability and in theory a metal fence may last decades. &#xA;&#xA;Unrated tricks to prolong the fence-life of wooden poles are placing them in metal holders or just wrapping the under-side in a sturdy plastic bag like the bags compost is sold in.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.milieucentraal.nl/in-en-om-het-huis/tuinieren/tuinontwerp/schuttingen-en-hagen/&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6491/5532&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/5497/jan-steinman" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23997" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6515" RevisionGUID="1032a94f-6bd4-474f-b1af-63b88bba4d0d" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="## Prevalence of garbage in the oceans&#xA;A recent study in *Nature Scientific Reports* finds that the &quot;Great Pacific Garbage Patch&quot; is massive, and keeps growing. From the article, [&quot;Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is rapidly accumulating plastic&quot;](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22939-w) (emphasis added):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Our model, calibrated with data from multi-vessel and aircraft surveys, predicted at least 79 (45–129) thousand tonnes of ocean plastic are floating inside an area of 1.6 million km2; a figure **four to sixteen times higher** than previously reported. We explain this difference through the use of more robust methods to quantify larger debris... Finally, our results suggest that **ocean plastic pollution within the [Great Pacific Garbage Patch] is increasing exponentially** and at a faster rate than in surrounding waters.&#xA;&#xA;[The study doesn't address them, but there's also an [Indian Ocean Garbage Patch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_garbage_patch) and a [North Atlantic Garbage Patch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_garbage_patch). Depending on how you define &quot;garbage patch,&quot; there are also corresponding patches in the South Pacific and South Atlantic.]&#xA;&#xA;## The Ocean Cleanup&#xA;The study has been generating a fair bit of press, in part due to the fact that the work was supported by, and much of the data was provided by, [The Ocean Cleanup](https://www.theoceancleanup.com/). From their website:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The Ocean Cleanup is a non-profit organization, developing advanced technologies to rid the world’s oceans of plastic. By utilizing the ocean currents to our advantage, our passive drifting systems are estimated to clean up half the Great Pacific Garbage Patch in 5 years’ time.&#xA;&#xA;The &quot;passive drifting systems&quot; are comprised of U-shaped floating booms up to two kilometers in length with weighted screens below them. In theory, as ocean currents carry the heavy booms, lighter pieces of garbage are trapped against the screen and drift toward the center of the U, where they accumulate and can easily be collected by ships.&#xA;&#xA;I say &quot;in theory&quot; because tests have so far been [under-whelming](https://www.theoceancleanup.com/updates/an-update-from-the-north-sea/). A 100-meter prototype less than 20km offshore in the North Sea lasted less than two months. Other critics ([KCET.org](https://www.kcet.org/redefine/6-reasons-that-floating-ocean-plastic-cleanup-gizmo-is-a-horrible-idea), [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/26/ocean-cleanup-project-environment-pollution-boyan-slat), [Sciencemag](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/critics-say-plan-drifting-ocean-trash-collectors-unmoored)) have voiced concerns that the boom system will not effectively capture garbage, harm sea life, and ultimately break apart, causing an *increase* in marine litter.&#xA;&#xA;## The 5 Gyres Institute&#xA;One of the critics of the Ocean Cleanup is the [5 Gyres Institute](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/critics-say-plan-drifting-ocean-trash-collectors-unmoored). 5 Gyres focuses on original research, education, and citizen involvement. Their research on microbeads lead to environmental regulations in the U.S. From the [FAQ](https://www.5gyres.org/faq/):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; During a 2012 5 Gyres expedition, we found plastic microbeads—tiny round microplastics used in personal care products—in the Great Lakes in an open-water setting. That research started a movement, which culminated in President Obama signing the Microbead Free Waters Act in 2015. The law will go into effect in 2018.&#xA;&#xA;5Gyres research and advocacy has driven coalitions of communities and organizations that focus on reducing the amount of pollution flowing into the oceans, understanding the impact of pollution, and educating citizens and decision-makers on those impacts and how behaviors and regulations can be changed to reduce it.&#xA;&#xA;## How to contribute&#xA;While the large-scale technological approach of the Ocean Cleanup is really attractive, ultimately it seems that financially supporting 5 Gyres would be more beneficial, as their methods have a broader foundation of research, and a history of effectively driving regulatory changes.&#xA;&#xA;And if you're not able to contribute financially, 5 Gyres provides a list of 10 different ways you can take action immediately to reduce the pollution that goes into the oceans:&#xA;&#xA;[![5 Gyres &quot;take action&quot; list][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;*Note: I have no ties to either organization.*&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/inxXU.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8359" RevisionGUID="3107c0f4-7487-404c-85f5-f93b827017bb" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I assume you are already putting some or all of the egg shell in with your plants. &#xA;&#xA;I looked around and using egg yolk as a fertilizer has several issues. If you have an outdoor compost pile you could add them to that, but mixing large amounts of animal protein in a compost pile can be problematic, so I would use caution depending on how much plant organics you are adding to the compost pile.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Eco-Cycle recommends that whole eggs not be composted, although eggshells can be composted (eggshells are high in calcium and good for the soil). There are three reasons for this recommendation.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Whole eggs tend to attract unwanted attention from animals such as mice, skunks, buzzards, and bears. Biting insects may also lay eggs in compost that contains whole eggs, leading to more flies and more bites.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;The bacteria that do most of the work in a compost pile are aerobic bacteria, which require oxygen to digest waste. These bacteria oxidize carbon compounds and generate heat as a by-product of their growth and reproduction. This heat accelerates the activity of other bacteria, speeding the breakdown of materials in a compost pile. In contrast, the bacteria that thrive on meat scraps and other high protein sources, such as eggs, are anaerobic. Anaerobic bacteria grow quickly without fresh air. They break down proteins to generate energy, but do not produce much heat.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The by-products from the breakdown of eggs can make a compost pile stink.&#xA;&gt; [Source](https://articles.extension.org/pages/65612/can-i-compost-hard-boiled-eggs)&#xA;&#xA;A comment mentions using egg yolks to feed carnivores and/or omnivores.  You don't mention any pets in your question, if you have pets you should probably talk to your vet about it.  &#xA;&#xA;I found several posts online about feeding eggs to birds.  If you are in the habit of feeding the wild birds, adding egg yolk to the wild bird feed seems like a viable option. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; Eggs are a powerful food that feeds the brains of these sharp creatures. It takes a certain amount of intelligence to survive in the wild, so a meal from an egg is a good choice. Egg yolks contain choline which is a serious brain food because it makes rapid thinking far easier by speeding up the relay signals in the brain. The choline found in eggs also aid liver function and transferring and distributing nutrients throughout the body where it is needed. [Source](https://www.thesprucepets.com/are-eggs-good-for-my-bird-390604)&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="23999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9885" RevisionGUID="844b1a11-30df-4161-916a-76bfd5b3b472" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="**TL;dr -- it's most economical to operate nuclear plants at a fixed output level, so other fuels are used to adjust for variations in demand. Nuclear output at any given time is limited by outages, which are driven by the need for refueling and routine maintenance.**&#xA;&#xA;## Nuclear plants aren't load following, so other sources are needed&#xA;&#xA;From Wikipedia's article on [load-following power plants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Load following is the potential for a power plant to adjust its power output as demand and price for electricity fluctuates throughout the day. In nuclear power plants, this is done by inserting control rods into the reactor pressure vessel. This operation is very inefficient as nuclear power generation is composed almost entirely of fixed and sunk costs; therefore, lowering the power output doesn't significantly reduce generating costs. Moreover, the plant is thermo-mechanically stressed. Older nuclear (and coal) power plants may take many hours, if not days, to achieve a steady state power output.&#xA;&#xA;Basically, it costs money to reduce output from a nuclear plant (you're still paying salaries, maintenance, etc, while no revenue is being generated), and it takes a long time change the output.&#xA;&#xA;In the case of fuel-burning plants (coal and natural gas), your costs are reduced when generation is reduced, so it makes sense to operate these in load-following mode.&#xA;&#xA;You can see this in the [hourly generation data from the U.S. Energy Information Agency](https://www.eia.gov/beta/electricity/gridmonitor/expanded-view/electric_overview/US48/US48/GenerationByEnergySource-4):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [![U.S. electricity generation by energy source, 2/2/2020 to 2/9/2020][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;Nuclear is a flat line, natural gas swings wildly with two peaks a day, and coal strikes a balance between the two.&#xA;&#xA;**As a result, electrical systems need other power sources besides nuclear to meet fluctuating power demand -- even when nuclear is operating at 100%, the system is designed such that other sources will be required to meet all demand.**&#xA;&#xA;## Nuclear plant availability -- why aren't they running at 100%?&#xA;&#xA;Availability defines how much of the time the reactor is capable of providing power, and is a function of scheduled maintenance, refueling, and repair needs. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) report on [*Nuclear power plant outage optimisation strategy*](https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/te_1315_web.pdf), outages are scheduled with refuelling, and fall into one of four categories:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Most  of  the  utilities  regard  a  12  month  fuel  cycle  as  economically  optimum.  Some  utilities  have lengthened the fuel cycle up to 18 or 24 months. [...]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; In the medium and long term planning, it has become a good practice to categorize the outages in three or four types with the objective to minimize the total outage time. The outages may be categorized into four different kinds:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - Refuelling only, which could be worked out in 7 to 10 days,&#xA;&gt; - Refuelling and standard maintenance, which could be worked out in 2 to 3 weeks, &#xA;&gt; - Refuelling and extended maintenance, which can last for one month, &#xA;&gt; - Specific  outage  for  major  backfittings  or  plant  modernization  which  could  take  more  than one month. &#xA;&#xA;The IAEA provides [statistics on lifetime availability](https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/LifeTimeEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx) by country. Here are statistics as of 2018 for the countries in the question, plus a few others for context: &#xA;&#xA;    Country      Reactors   Lifetime fleet availability&#xA;    ---------------------------------------------------&#xA;    China          43                  87.6%&#xA;    France         68                  76.1%&#xA;    India          22                  63.8%&#xA;    Japan          58                  57.4%&#xA;    Sweden         12                  78.0%&#xA;    U.S.          118                  81.9%&#xA;&#xA;## What about France?&#xA;&#xA;A commenter pointed out that in France, some nuclear power plants are operated in load following mode (source: [OECD Nuclear Energy Agency](https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf)). From the [ENTSOE transparency platform](https://transparency.entsoe.eu/generation/r2/actualGenerationPerProductionType/show?name=&amp;defaultValue=false&amp;viewType=GRAPH&amp;areaType=CTY&amp;atch=false&amp;datepicker-day-offset-select-dv-date-from_input=D&amp;dateTime.dateTime=19.02.2020+00:00|UTC|DAYTIMERANGE&amp;dateTime.endDateTime=19.02.2020+00:00|UTC|DAYTIMERANGE&amp;area.values=CTY|10YFR-RTE------C!CTY|10YFR-RTE------C&amp;productionType.values=B01&amp;productionType.values=B02&amp;productionType.values=B03&amp;productionType.values=B04&amp;productionType.values=B05&amp;productionType.values=B06&amp;productionType.values=B07&amp;productionType.values=B08&amp;productionType.values=B09&amp;productionType.values=B10&amp;productionType.values=B11&amp;productionType.values=B12&amp;productionType.values=B13&amp;productionType.values=B14&amp;productionType.values=B20&amp;productionType.values=B15&amp;productionType.values=B16&amp;productionType.values=B17&amp;productionType.values=B18&amp;productionType.values=B19&amp;dateTime.timezone=UTC&amp;dateTime.timezone_input=UTC), here's generation data for the same week in France (the charting tool is limited, so I downloaded the data and made my own plot):&#xA;&#xA;[![France electricity generation by energy source, 2020-02-02 to 2020-02-09, UTC][2]][2]&#xA;&#xA;You can see that at the start and end of the week, nuclear fluctuates throughout the day and is operated in load following mode. But in the middle of the week, nuclear generation is held at its maximum output, and hydro (including pumped storage) is used for load following.&#xA;&#xA;It also appears that gas generation is being used to back wind, which would make sense given the variability of wind and the ability of modern gas-burning plants to ramp quickly.&#xA;&#xA;Here are some stats from the data on how nuclear and gas plants have operated so far this year:&#xA;&#xA;    STAT                       NUCLEAR           GAS&#xA;    -------------------------------------------------&#xA;    Installed capacity (GW)       63.1          12.2&#xA;    Capacity factor YTD           78.3%         50.6%&#xA;    Max output YTD (GW)           54.5           9.2&#xA;    Min output YTD (GW)           35.7           2.6&#xA;&#xA;The World Nuclear Organization [profile page on France](https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx) gives some context to these numbers (as of October 2019):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; France's nuclear reactors comprise 90% of EdF's [Électricité de France, the government-owned utility] capacity and hence are used in load-following mode [...] and are even sometimes closed over weekends, so their capacity factor is low by world standards, at 77.3%. However, availability is almost 84% and increasing.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VMFhS.png&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pV1ov.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9760" RevisionGUID="0b619c12-c7a2-4d1c-8a9a-89f1d8b6ea60" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="I'll re-suggest my answer to your previous question (https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/9679/4155):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Use the numbered ticket system sometimes found in supermarket deli counters. Each arriving taxi takes a sequentially numbered ticket (which could easily be electronic using an app of some kind), and parks up in a parking area.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; When a passenger arrives, they press a button, and the next number is called, and the taxi with that number then pulls up to the pick up area to collect the passenger. The button-pushing could alternatively be done automatically by a sensor noting the previous taxi leaving, so that the passengers don't have to do anything, or wait.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; E.g. A taxi arrives and gets ticket 31. They see that number 25 is displayed, so they know that there are 5 taxis ahead of them, and that taxi 25 is waiting at the pick up area. A passenger arrives, and 25 takes them and goes - 26 is displayed, and the taxi with that number goes up to the pick-up area.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; In a busy area, you could have the same system for passengers - they too take a ticket, with the same number on it, so the passenger with ticket 23 gets the taxi with ticket 23...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Another variant could use a camera to read the licence number of each taxi as it enters the holding area, and use that instead of issuing a ticket.&#xA;&#xA;With that, once each taxi arrives on the rank it doesn't need to move again until it's turn comes, and so could remain plugged into the charger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24001" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9756" RevisionGUID="7a49f44b-261b-4212-9b1f-56a620f56ad0" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Here's a few things to try:&#xA;&#xA;### Increase the temperature setting on the Air con&#xA;Air conditioning units typically do two things: lower the ambient temperature, and remove humidity from the air. Depending on where you live the humidity can be a bigger factor in getting a good night's sleep than the temperature itself, as it exacerbates sweating and makes the air feel thicker. &#xA;&#xA;If your aircon window unit is set to a higher temperature, it won't need to work as hard to maintain it, but it can still remove a lot of the humidity from the air and help you get a better night's sleep.&#xA;&#xA;### Clean the air filter&#xA;Look at your air conditioner's filter on a regular basis, especially throughout heavy use times. If the filter seems dirty after a month, clean it (or replace it if it's not a reusable one). &#xA;&#xA;A dirty air filter is likely to slow air flow and make the unit work harder in order to keep you warm or cool — burning up energy and increasing the chances of maintenance issues down the line. &#xA;&#xA;### Have your air-con serviced&#xA;Air-cons need occasional maintenance especially if the unit is getting on in age. It's best to have this done professionally. The service person will generally check the refrigerant gas levels, test the thermostat and make sure all the internals are in good condition. &#xA;&#xA;### Compare the efficiency of your air-con with newer makes&#xA;Depending on the age of your unit, there may be more energy efficient options available on the market. Definitely double check the energy efficiency before making a purchase.&#xA;&#xA;### Home-level changes:&#xA;Depending on whether or not you own or rent these options may or may not apply, but consider the following:&#xA;&#xA;- **Check for air leakage** - Not just under doors, but gaps in window frames, cornices, around vents or downlights, gaps in floorboards (they shrink over the years). [This site][1] gives a good overview of the sorts of places to check and gives good guides for detecting and mitigating air leaks.&#xA;- **Insulate** - Add Roof batting, Underfloor (or undercarpet) insulation and if possible, wall insulation. Insulation works double duty - helping to maintain warmth in winter and cold in summer.&#xA;- **Install Double-glazed windows** - basically the same thing as insulation but for your windows, one of the primary ways heat (or cold) escapes a room&#xA;- **Door Seals** - look at installing proper door seals for doors with gaps.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.yourhome.gov.au/passive-design/sealing-your-home" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9732" RevisionGUID="89c616f1-5a5c-4609-bb44-494203a05b13" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="In the recycling of lithium-ion batteries, cobalt is first in importance while lithium is second:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Rechargeable battery waste, particularly from lithium-ion batteries, will become an increasingly menacing environmental challenge in the future as the demand for these through their usage in electric vehicles and other gadgets increases dramatically,&quot; Ajayan said.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&quot;It's important to recover strategic metals like cobalt that are limited in supply and are critical for the performance of these energy-storage devices&quot;...&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;**New 'blue-green' solution for recycling world's batteries** | Science Daily (sciencedaily.com, April 1st, 2019) : https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190401115823.htm&lt;/sub&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- HTML comment to separate quote boxes --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Cobalt and lithium are central to the development and deployments of [sustainable] technologies—largely due to their use in lithium-ion batteries—and as such, the demand for both minerals has and is predicted to increase substantially. The supplies of both minerals, however, is not projected to meet the demand, with shortfalls expected in the coming decade. Concerns along the supply chains of both minerals—including the potential use of child labour in cobalt extraction and the intensive use of water and energy in lithium production—place additional strain on the responsible sourcing of both.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt;**Sustainability and Second Life: The case for cobalt and lithium recycling** | International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD.org, March 2019) : https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/sustainability-second-life-cobalt-lithium-recycling.pdf&lt;/sub&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;!-- HTML comment to separate quote boxes --&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&gt;Japan's Sumitomo Metal Mining has developed a method to recycle cobalt from spent electric car batteries, allowing conservation of a relatively scarce metal, Nikkei has learned... &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;...Mined in only a few regions of the world, including parts of Africa, the supply of cobalt is expected to fall short of demand in the next few years as electric vehicles become more widespread.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&lt;sub&gt; **Milestone reached in the recycle of cobalt from spent EV batteries** | Nikkei Asian Review (asia.nikkei.com, March 28, 2019) : https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/Commodities/Milestone-reached-in-the-recycle-of-cobalt-from-spent-EV-batteries&lt;/sub&gt;&#xA;&#xA;But presumably, nickel is third in importance:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The presence of LiCoO2 and LiCoxNi(1 − x)O2 in the cathodic material of Li-ion and Li-polymer batteries has stimulated the recovery of Co and Ni by hydrometallurgical processes. In particular, the two metals were separated by SX method and then recovered by electrochemical (galvanostatic and potentiostatic) processes.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt; **Nickel and cobalt recycling from lithium-ion batteries by electrochemical processes** | Science Direct (sciencedirect.com, 2005) : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X05000164&lt;/sub&gt;&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;As a side note, consider that BYD battery-powered electric-vehicles use lithium-iron-phosphate batteries. The lithium-iron-phosphate batteries have less fire risk than lithium-ion batteries.&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9676" RevisionGUID="e476c38d-b060-4492-ab18-43c2838996eb" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="If every citizen in the world had an average carbon footprint of **16.1 Mg** (1 Mg = 1 metric ton) per year, the global average temperature would likely rise more than **6.0º C** by 2050.&#xA;&#xA;However, there are some important caveats to this answer which I will detail below.&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;### *Per capita* vs. Globalization&#xA;&#xA;The question you stated might be slightly different from the question you intended to ask.&#xA;&#xA;The quantified emissions per capita of American citizens may under-represent the emissions associated with American lifestyle if America is buying things made in other countries. For example, if a car is manufactured in Taiwan but used in America, then the emissions associated with production will be counted in Taiwan, and not counted as part of the _per capita_ emissions of the American citizen. Globalization and cross-border trade makes it quite difficult to assess the &quot;true&quot; environmental impact of products. For further reading, look up *scope 3 emissions* or *product lifecycle analysis*.&#xA;&#xA;To simplify this question, I'll just go with Wikipedia's number of 16.1 metric tones per person, per year.&#xA;&#xA;### Which atmospheric gases&#xA;&#xA;For simplicity, I'm only going to consider carbon dioxide (CO2) and not other greenhouse gases like methane (CH4). I would also note that in asking this question, it's important to be careful about the difference in mass of elemental carbon vs carbon dioxide. [One ton of carbon equals 3.67 tons of carbon dioxide.](https://thinkprogress.org/the-biggest-source-of-mistakes-c-vs-co2-c0b077313b/)&#xA;&#xA;### The time dimension&#xA;&#xA;Global average temperature does not change instantly in response to changes of atmospheric composition. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causes more radiative forcing (heat), which over time causes the slow accumulation of thermal energy. So the temperature at some point in the future could be very different depending on when emissions levels changed.&#xA;&#xA;Some scenarios of inquiry might ask what the temperature would be like if that shift had happened in the past, or if it happened gradually over a period of decades. For simplicity, I'm going to assume that global emissions suddenly jump up to a much higher level starting next year and stay at that level until 2050.&#xA;&#xA;### Climate sensitivity&#xA;&#xA;This is the largest, most difficult part of the whole question. How much *will* global surface temperature change as a result of changing composition of the atmosphere? This is a fertile area for ongoing science and there is plenty of nuance. For example...&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, at concentrations up to around eight times the current value, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.&#xA;&#xA;And that's just talking about concentration of trace gases in air, without even getting to other challenging questions like oceans and soils as carbon sinks. Those other factors mean there isn't an even linear relationship between emissions and atmospheric concentration.&#xA;&#xA;But to keep this answer short here's a very rough benchmark.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2.&#xA;&#xA;###  &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;## Bring it all together&#xA;&#xA;Average *per capita* emissions of CO2 [on a global basis](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pc) are 4.981 metric tons; for the United States it would be 16.1 metric tons. Current global emissions of CO2 are around 37 Gt per year, which would change to about **120 Gt per year** if everyone in the world had an average carbon footprint like an American.&#xA;&#xA;For a first order estimate and sanity check, I turned some knobs in [The Global Calculator](http://tool.globalcalculator.org/globcalc.html?levers=111111111111111111111111111111111113p33112111113n2211111111/dashboard/en) and was able to produce a scenario that forecast global GHG emissions of more than 120 Gt per year. This produced a warning:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The top of the possible temperature range exceeds 6º C and you are at risk of triggering feedbacks and impacts not represented well in climate models. The IPCC does not assess a high/low temperature range at this extreme level of emissions.&#xA;&#xA;Looks like we'll have to fall back on our very rough ballpark estimates.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Atmospheric CO2 levels are expressed in parts per million by volume (ppm). To convert from ppm to gigatonne of carbon, the conversion tables of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center advise that 1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon.&#xA;&#xA;So if we emit 120 Gt CO2 each year and all of it ended up in the atmosphere, that would raise atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 56 ppm each year. Over 30 years, that's a delta of 1680 ppm. The current concentration of CO2 is about 400 ppm, and the 2050 concentration would be 2080. That's a bit more than two doublings, so we would probably be looking at 6-7º C of surface warming in 2050 relative to current day, or 7-8º C of surface warming in 2050 relative to the usual baselines." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24004" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9504" RevisionGUID="62ccf495-347a-429b-a230-2aa09259c5f2" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="*I was looking into this question for a project at work and found some research studies addressing water savings from automated faucets.*&#xA;&#xA;------------------&#xA;&#xA;# Automated faucets result in increased water and energy usage, based on several real-world studies&#xA;&#xA;### Increased water usage &#xA;&#xA; - Hills, Birks, and McKenzie, 2002. [&quot;The Millennium Dome 'Watercycle' experiment: to evaluate water efficiency and customer perception at a recycling scheme for 6 million visitors&quot;](https://www.map-testing.com/assets/reports/Millenium_Dome_Watercycle(1).pdf)&#xA;&#xA;Though a bit old, this is perhaps the most comprehensive and detailed study. It was conducted at the Millennium Dome, an exhibit in London open for the year 2000 to celebrate the beginning of the new millennium. Over six million people visited the dome over the year it was open.&#xA;&#xA;Part of the exhibit included six identical restroom facilities (&quot;cores&quot;), with various evaluation technologies installed to reduce water usage. Data collection was detailed and precise, accounting for both volume and manner of use of the restrooms:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Water use by the different appliances in the various cores was monitored via 150 discrete meters, which recorded the use of hot, cold and reclaimed water by visitors to the washrooms. Each washroom was also equipped with an infra-red detector at the entrance, which recorded the specific number of visitors to each particular washroom. [...] Using this data, combined with a correction coefficient, it was possible to calculate the water consumption of each visitor to the washroom  for  each  particular  appliance.  The  correction  coefficient  was  applied  to  take account of the fact that not all visitors to the washrooms used all of the appliances [...] The  correction  coefficient  was  calculated  via  a  series  of  visual  surveys,  where  [...] researchers undertook detailed observations in the male and female washrooms over several  hours.&#xA;&#xA;The researchers concluded that automated faucets resulted in increased water usage:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Three  types  of  tap  were  evaluated  during  the  research,  infra-red  activated  (48  in total), push-top (96 in total) and conventional swivel top (96 in total). **Surprisingly over the year the conventional swivel top taps used significantly less water than the purported more efficient types**, with each user of the swivel top taps using, on average, just less than 1 litre of water. Assuming  that  users  could  deliver  the  optimal  amount  for  their  hand-washing  needs from the manually operated swivel top taps the optimal value for a single hand wash would appear to be approximately 0.9 litre per use.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;### Increased water and energy usage&#xA;&#xA; - Fanney, Dougherty, and Richardson, 2002. [&quot;Field Test of a Photovoltaic Water Heater&quot;](https://www.map-testing.com/assets/files/ashrae.pdf)&#xA;&#xA;This study documents implementation of a solar photovoltaic water heating system at the visitor center at Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee, USA. After installing the system, the authors tested several scenarios (called &quot;Configurations&quot; in the paper) to determine how best to reduce water and energy usage for the total system. The study ran from November 1996 to February 2000, with each individual configuration scheduled to run for one year.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Questioning whether users tend to run the water more than is needed, the project leaders decided to try automatic faucets. The aerators on the new faucets had the same nominal flow rating,  8.3  [Liters per min (2.2 gallons per minute)],  as  the  aerators used for Configuration II. Automatic faucets  offer  the  trade-off  of potentially shorter draw  times  versus  always  operating  at maximum flow. No throttling is provided as with a manual faucet. The water volume and energy usage results for Configuration III were poorer than for the two previous hot water configurations. Using the common interval of November to February as the basis for comparison, **the average daily hot water volume increased 58%** (372 Liter/day to 586 L/day). **The average daily AC energy requirement increased to 12.85 kWh/day,** as compared to 8.49 and 8.85 kWh/day for Configuration I and II, respectively.&#xA;&#xA;As a mitigating factor, the authors do note that attendance during this time period represented an increase of 22% compared to the baseline. However, this is not sufficient to explain the increased water and energy usage.&#xA;&#xA;These results were so bad that ultimately the team decided to uninstall the automated faucets after less than five months of the proposed one year test.&#xA;&#xA;### Increase in water usage despite lower maximum flow rate of automated faucets&#xA;&#xA; - Gauley and Koeller, 2010. [&quot;Sensor-Operated Plumbing Fixtures: Do They Save Water?&quot;](https://www.map-testing.com/assets/files/hillsborough~study.pdf)&#xA;&#xA;This paper describes field testing of automated faucets (as well as automated flush valves) on one floor of an office building in Tampa, Florida USA. Measurements were recorded using a water meter recording all water usage in all bathrooms on the floor. No adjustments were made for seasonality, occupancy, or building schedule.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [P]re-monitoring  of  the  existing  fixtures [...] was  conducted  from  February  2007  until  January  2008. The  average  daily  water  demands during this period was 654 gallons per day. [...] The existing faucets in the mens’ and ladies’ washrooms were [...] replaced with new sensor-operated faucets on January 29, 2008.  [...] The average flow rate of the manual faucets was measured as 1.32 gallons per minute (with the valve fully open) and the average flow rate of the sensor faucets was slightly less at 1.21 gallons per minute (valve fully open).  Water demands were monitored for the 127-day period from the date of installation until June 4, 2008.  **The average daily water demand of the washrooms during this period was 856 gallons per day – an increase of 202 gallons or 30% per day.**&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4YZgH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24005" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9502" RevisionGUID="7ee0eed8-4acf-46e7-b5cc-0d56c4940da2" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Are you sure it doesn't? In sparkling water cans, sometimes the deposit label is stamped on the top (from a sparkling water I'm about to enjoy):&#xA;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has a list of [&quot;Frequently Asked Questions About the Bottle Bill&quot;](https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/57687.html) which confirms that there is a deposit for these types of beverage cans (emphasis added):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; What beverages are covered by NY’s Bottle Bill?&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - Carbonated Soft Drinks&#xA;&gt; - Including **Sparkling Water**&#xA;&gt; - Carbonated Energy Drinks&#xA;&gt; - Carbonated Juice (anything less than 100% juice, containing added sugar or water)&#xA;&gt; - Carbonated Tea&#xA;&gt; - **Soda Water**&#xA;&gt; - Beer and Other Malt Beverages&#xA;&gt; - **Mineral Water – Both carbonated and non-carbonated mineral water**&#xA;&gt; - Wine Products&#xA;&gt; - **Water which does not contain sugar, including flavored or nutritionally enhanced water**&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tTk9h.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24006" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8416" RevisionGUID="f8e46b98-c585-4b66-bf99-e9d92f1a35f5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Both of [Tim's](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/8415/6851) points (re: negative population growth and elastic demand) are important points, but I don't think they're doing a good job of answering your question. &#xA;&#xA;Unlike people living in the 1980s, a lot of people today expect marginal changes in their carbon footprint to have marginal global effects _within their own lifetimes_. Therefore, a plan of not having children may be _too long-term_.  &#xA;Furthermore, many people, for whatever reasons, may already have kids, or be planning not to have kids, and still be worrying about veganism/vegetarianism/omnivorism&#xA;&#xA;_Probably_ it's true that the demand for meat is elastic, but it's also probably true that the _supply_ is elastic. If we drive down the price of meat, then we're driving down the _profit_ of meat production, so less money will be spent producing meat, which means less meat produced.  &#xA;Of course it would be ideal to simultaneously drive profits down and prices up; I'm open to ideas.&#xA;&#xA;### To actually answer your question:&#xA;&#xA;[Project Drawdown](https://www.drawdown.org) is a source I tend to trust for technical questions about margins like this. [Here's their discussion of vegetarianism/veganism](https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/plant-rich-diet). They also have various pages that discuss the ways animal husbandry could be improved, some of which are [well](https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/silvopasture) [ranked](https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/managed-grazing), and they have pages discussing possible improvements to the way crops are grown, but **eating less or no animal products is simple and high-impact**. &#xA;&#xA;My overall impression is that it's fine to raise some animals as food, if you have time for that, but sustainable animal husbandry is so complicated and nuanced that it will probably never make sense to buy meat from a store." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8379" RevisionGUID="90c29750-f44c-481d-be5d-8dc422db9de4" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="There are a ton of different factors to take into consideration here.  Lets make sure we keep **net GHGe** and **tailpipe GHGe** separate here.&#xA;# Net GHGe&#xA;**Net GHGe**: Since 2015, satellite observation as well as international agriculture reporting data have started to show that the original assumptions surrounding Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) for generation I and advanced biofuels have been grossly over calculating the effects of ILUC, as well as under and over accounting in other areas. Utilizing new data, there are several studies all pointing to a considerably lower GHGe footprint of Gen I and advanced biofuels. The most comprehensive study I've found to date has been [A Life-Cycle Analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Corn-Based Ethanol][1]&#xA;&#xA;The tl;dr here is, the current EPA model that claims ethanol lifecycle emissions are a 20% reduction from baseline gasoline still has the incorrect ILUC numbers. The real number as calculated in the above as well as several other studies [ [GHGe recent evidence][2] | [ILUC data review][3] ] is likely between a 35% and 50% reduction (with many studies finding in the 40%-45% range) from baseline gasoline. This is the net carbon accounting of **EVERYTHING** - Tailpipe, ILUC, vapor emissions, fuel production and transport, fertilizer - everything. It should be noted that the GHGe intensity of gen 1 and advanced biofuels are continuing to decline and will likely do so as shown below, and that none of these numbers even take into account other sources of ethanol with lower GHGe, including sugarcane and cellulosic. &#xA;&#xA;[![figure 4-4][4]][4]&#xA;&#xA;From left to right: 2005 gasoline baseline (self explanatory), EPARIA: 2022 (current EPA model), ICF 2014 (correction for ILUC and other accounting from EPA model), ICF: 2022 BAU (business-as-usual projection to 2022 showing addition reductions), ICF: 2022 Building Blocks (described in paper, this is a theoretical potential based on new technologies such as combined heat &amp; power, fiber digestion, etc). **Note the dramatic difference in production &amp; ILUC numbers**&#xA;&#xA;# Tailpipe GHGe&#xA;&#xA;The first thing you'll notice in the above graph is that the tailpipe emissions of EtOH are a sliver of gasoline. This is confusing until you read the lifecycle analysis report. &#xA;&#xA;&gt; The carbon dioxide emissions from corn ethanol are assumed to not increase the atmospheric CO 2&#xA;emissions as the biogenic carbon emitted is offset by the carbon uptake of new growth biomass. Life-&#xA;cycle CO 2 emissions from biofuel tailpipe combustion are not included in the analysis. The biofuel&#xA;tailpipe combustion CH 4 and N 2 O emissions are included however. These emission factors are based on&#xA;EPA’s MOVES model results (EPA, 2015b; EPA, 2010g).&#xA;&#xA;This may seem &quot;shady&quot; if you aren't used to the carbon accounting, but every atom of carbon (no matter the form) involved in the actual transport biofuel comes from sequestration of an identical carbon atom in the air. This is an even, 1-1 exchange. They note that other compounds that are not CO2 are included, as they may be a 1-1 carbon exchange but they may have an uneven impact (GHGe). &#xA;&#xA;Now, you were asking about the actual tailpipe emissions, not the tailpipe emissions that were matched with carbon sequestration via agriculture. For this we have to do a bit of math, and use the correct numbers. Reference this same study:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; About **19.64 pounds (8.91 kg)** of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) are produced from burning a gallon of gasoline that does not contain ethanol.......About **12.73 pounds (5.77 kg)** of CO 2 are produced when a gallon of pure ethanol is combusted&#xA;&#xA;But as always when utilizing ethanol - gasoline comparisons, the per-gallon numbers don't mean anything. Using an energy density of 121.12 &amp; 79.86 MJ/Gal for Gasoline &amp; EtOH respectively, we end up with 73.56 &amp; 72.25 gCO2e/MJ for Gasoline and EtOH, respectively. that difference is effectively nothing, as if you jumped between the LHV and HHV of gasoline you can flip which fuel is technically on top. We should expect this too, because we're talking about general hydrocarbon bonds being taken from a fixed state of reduction to completely oxidized, and regardless of the species we should see similar if not the same amount of energy released from breaking those bonds in the same way. &#xA;&#xA;# Caveats &#xA;There are two caveats here.&#xA;&#xA;The first: The above **Net GHGe** analysis takes into account conversion of N2 into N2O, and CH4, CO etc emissions at the tailpipe. **The tailpipe GHGe analysis does not**. [Generally speaking][5], Ethanol fuel results in lower or identical non-CO2 emissions than gasoline, though under certain circumstances N2O &amp; acetaldehyde emissions can be slightly higher than gasoline, and certain toxic, organic and other ozone forming compounds can be slightly lower than gasoline. &#xA;&#xA;The second caveat is that EtOH can be considerably more efficient in producing usable work on a per-MJ basis than gasoline, due to its highly desirable qualities as an internal combustion engine fuel (specifically octane rating, octane sensitivity &amp; heat of vaporization). [EERC found][6] that in both flex fuel &amp; non-flex fuel cars, ethanol has a dramatic impact on fuel economy when looked at on a per-BTU or MJ basis. This is effectively an increase in efficiency in internal combustion engines, especially undersized engines under heavy load. I personally tested this on my own vehicle (2014 GMC Sierra, 5.3 flex fuel) and found almost identical results to what EERC found.&#xA;&#xA;EERC's results:&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xA;&#xA;My personal results:&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xA;&#xA;I had previously calculated my per-mile carbon intensity using the life cycle analysis here:&#xA;[![enter image description here][9]][9]&#xA;&#xA;**Here I have adjusted the per-mile carbon intensity utilizing the above calculated tailpipe emissions numbers instead of the lifecycle analysis numbers:**&#xA;&#xA;[![enter image description here][10]][10]&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;I believe we're just getting the point where vehicles are capable of utilizing higher blends of ethanol combined with gasoline, and I think there is going to be a dramatic reduction of carbon footprint of the U.S. fuel supply as higher amounts of ethanol are blended in, and as auto-manufactures begin demanding higher performing liquid transport fuels. Ford is already testing out all horsepower numbers for their Ecoboost engines on 94-95 octane fuel, and many manufactures are finding the value in producing downsized-turbocharged engines. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2017/01/12/usda-releases-new-report-lifecycle-greenhouse-gas-balance-ethanol&#xA;  [2]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17597269.2018.1546488&#xA;  [3]: http://chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://ethanolrfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SIUE-Review-of-Land-Use-Change-Literature-07-2019.pdf&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BW5X3.png&#xA;  [5]: http://chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://res.mdpi.com/energies/energies-11-00221/article_deploy/energies-11-00221.pdf?filename=&amp;attachment=1&#xA;  [6]: http://chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.speedperf6rmanc3.com/content/ACE_Optimal_Ethanol_Blend_Level_Study.pdf&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gRXb0.png&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lPSac.png&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0VLDp.png&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RFJnp.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24008" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8364" RevisionGUID="13fa6200-ecb4-4ba2-8cec-93c8eccf5200" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="## What you're seeing: biopiles&#xA;&#xA;&gt;  it looks like companies just dig the ground, leave everything in a pile for a while (few weeks?) and then bring over the dirt elsewhere.&#xA;&#xA;It sounds like what you're seeing are **biopiles** (also known as heap pile bioremediation, bioheaps, biomounds, or static-pile composting).&#xA;&#xA;From the [Remediation Technologies Screening Matrix and Reference Guide](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/top_page.html), a project of the Federal Roundtable on Remediation Technology (FRTR), a group comprised of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Dept of Defense, and the Dept of Energy:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Excavated soils are mixed with soil amendments and placed on a treatment area** that includes leachate collection systems and some form of aeration. It is used to reduce concentrations of petroleum constituents in excavated soils through the use of biodegradation. Moisture, heat, nutrients, oxygen, and pH can be controlled to enhance biodegradation. [...]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Soil piles and cells commonly have an air distribution system buried under the soil to pass air through the soil either by vacuum or by positive pressure. **The soil piles in this case can be up to 20 feet high** (generally not recommended, 2-3 meters maximum). Soil piles may be covered with plastic to control runoff, evaporation, and volatilization and to promote solar heating. [...]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Biopile is a short-term technology. **Duration of operation and maintenance may last a few weeks to several months.**&#xA;&#xA;**Biodegradation** is the actual process at work to neutralize the harmful compounds. Here's a definition from the page on [treatment tech for fuels in soil](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_7_2.html):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Biodegradation uses indigenous or inoculated microorganisms (e.g., fungi, bacteria, and other microbes) to degrade (i.e., metabolize) organic contaminants found in soil and/or ground water. **In the presence of sufficient oxygen (aerobic conditions), microorganisms will ultimately convert many organic contaminants to carbon dioxide, water, and microbial cell mass. In the absence of oxygen (anaerobic conditions), the contaminants will be ultimately metabolized to methane.** Sometimes contaminants may not be completely degraded, but only transformed to intermediate products that may be less, equally, or more hazardous than the original contaminant. &#xA;&#xA;## Applicability of biopiles&#xA;&#xA;From the page on biopiles:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Biopile treatment has been applied to treatment of nonhalogenated VOCs and fuel hydrocarbons. Halogenated VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides also can be treated, but the process effectiveness will vary and may be applicable only to some compounds within these contaminant groups.&#xA;&#xA;**Benzene, Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(b,j,k)fluoranthene, and Naphthalene** are all listed on the [fuels section](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_7.html) of the FRTR.&#xA;&#xA;A reference for [Petroleum Hydrocarbon Ranges](http://www.caslab.com/Petroleum-Hydrocarbon-Ranges/) from a commercial testing laboratory indicates that **petroleum hydrocarbons** are all derived from crude oil. While some of these may be classified differently, it seems that remediation tech for typical fuels would also apply here.&#xA;&#xA;Going back to the FRTR guide, other possible [soil treatment technologies for fuels](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_7_2.html) include:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; - **Incineration** uses high temperatures, 870 to 1,200 C (1,400 to 2,200 F), to volatilize and combust (in the presence of oxygen) organic constituents in hazardous wastes.&#xA;&gt; - **Soil vapor extraction** is an in situ unsaturated (vadose) zone soil remediation technology in which a vacuum is applied to the soil to induce the controlled flow of air and remove volatile and some semivolatile contaminants from the soil.&#xA;&gt; - **Low temperature thermal desorption** systems are physical separation processes and are not designed to destroy organics. Wastes are heated to between 90 and 315 C (200 to 600o F) to volatilize water and organic contaminants. A carrier gas or vacuum system transports volatilized water and organics to the gas treatment system. Ground water treatment concentrates the collected contaminants.&#xA;&#xA;## What about tin and lead?&#xA;&#xA;Tin and lead are [inorganics](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_8.html), for which [soil treatment technologies](https://frtr.gov/matrix2/section2/2_8_2.html) include:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; - **Solidification** processes produce monolithic blocks of waste with high structural integrity. The contaminants do not necessarily interact chemically with the solidification reagents (typically cement/ash) but are mechanically locked within the solidified matrix. &#xA;&gt; - **Excavation and off-site disposal** of contaminated soil (with or without solidification/stabilization pretreatment).&#xA;&gt; - **Acid extraction** uses an acid, such as hydrochloric acid, to extract heavy metal contaminants from soils. Hydrochloric acid is then introduced into the soil in the extraction unit. [...] The soil-extractant mixture is continuously pumped out of the mixing tank, and the soil and extractant are separated using hydrocyclones.&#xA;&#xA;Based on how you describe the site, it sounds like the workers may be moving the tin and lead off-site for one of these treatment methods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6614" RevisionGUID="d0f18448-6f1c-40cc-a5f3-d46c1b3b22a7" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### The two are not mutually exclusive, and in fact installing PV panels over a green roof improves PV performance anywhere from 1 to 10% due to the cooling effect of the green roof.&#xA;&#xA;From the presentation [&quot;Interaction between PV-systesm and extensive green roofs&quot;](http://www.worldgreenroof.org/files/pdf/Manfred-KoehlerMinneapolisPV.pdf) given at the Fifth Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference, Awards and Trade Show in 2007 (emphasis added): &#xA;&#xA;&gt; The energy output of PV-panels depends on several factors. In this survey of over approximately 5 years of data, the effect of the green roof has been estimated at an **average 6% increase in yields**. But the green roof is only one factor in enhancing the efficiency of PV-panels.  **The total range of increased energy output varies between 1 and 10%**. PV over green roofs can be mounted on fixed frames. The costs are lower in comparison to the tracking systems, which follow the sun. Under the PV panels, a variety of extensive green roof vegetation can be grown. In the case of UFA it was originally a Sedum roof but this was subsequently changed to include a wide variety of plantings. Minimum garden roof maintenance is required to reduce taller growing plants. The PV – cells must be without shade. The estimated benefit of a higher Power output from a green roof can help to offset the cost of green roof installations.  &#xA;&#xA;This effect is attributable to the fact that [solar panels are more efficient when kept cooler](http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2668), which a green roof facilitates through evaporative cooling.&#xA;&#xA;Several other research studies verify this finding:&#xA;&#xA; - [&quot;Quantification of the passive cooling of photovoltaics using a green roof&quot;](https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/11242) uses TRNSYS building energy modeling software to estimate a small (&lt;1%) improvement in power output for a city in the Northeast US, but notes that the dual use of space increases the PV system's value regardless.&#xA; - [&quot;Green roof integrated PV canopies -- an empirical study and teaching tool for low income students in the South Bronx&quot;](https://ases.conference-services.net/resources/252/2859/pdf/SOLAR2012_0183_full%20paper.pdf) uses a number of student-planned and -built test setups to measure a 2.4% increase in PV system output, and a 4.6% reduction in interior temperature over an eight-month period (covering summer, fall, and the beginning of winter).&#xA; - [&quot;Photovoltaic-green roofs: An experimental evaluation of system performance&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191301026X) measured increased PV output of 1.3 to 3.3% over a five-day period in the summer in Spain.&#xA; - [&quot;Integration of green roof and solar photovoltaic systems&quot;](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sam_C_M_Hui/publication/281901499_Integration_of_green_roof_and_solar_photovoltaic_systems/links/55fd676908ae07629e26bfc9.pdf) used EnergyPlus modeling software on a hypothetical building in Hong Kong to predict a slight decrease in cooling needs, and an 8.3% increase in PV system output." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9900" RevisionGUID="f37cddd6-a6dd-41cd-bc68-d7feb6c1f192" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Our World in Data recently put together an interesting chart on this topic. From the article [&quot;You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local&quot;](https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [![Food: greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;The article provides a specific (extreme) example for someone in the UK getting beef from their neighbor, vs a ranch in Central America:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Transporting food by boat emits 23 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq per tonne of product per kilometer. To transport the 9000 kilometers from Central America to the UK therefore emits 0.207 kilograms CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq [9000km * 23g per tonne-kilometer / 1000 / 1000 = 0.207 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq per kg]. This is equivalent to 0.35% of the total footprint of the 60 kilograms of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq per kilogram of beef. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; If you buy from your local farmer – let’s assume you walk there, and have zero transport emissions – your beef footprint is 59.8 kilograms CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;eq per kilogram [we calculate this as 60kg – 0.2kg]. It makes almost no difference.&#xA;&#xA;Beef is the extreme example. For other animal products, here's the total emissions per kg, and the share that transport makes up:&#xA;&#xA;    Product           kg CO2eq emissions per kg      Transport share&#xA;    ------------------------------------------------------------------&#xA;    Beef (beef herd)            59.6                       0.5%&#xA;    Lamb &amp; Mutton               24.5                       2.0%&#xA;    Cheese                      21.2                       0.5%&#xA;    Beef (dairy herd)           21.1                       1.9%&#xA;    Shrimps (farmed)            11.8                       1.7%&#xA;    Pig Meat                     7.2                       4.2%&#xA;    Poultry Meat                 6.1                       4.9%&#xA;    Fish (farmed)                5.1                       2.0%&#xA;    Eggs                         4.5                       2.2%&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tUoIQ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8250" RevisionGUID="61908f41-d88e-494c-9869-735990818c33" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="[National Grid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_plc) supplies the energy for the UK, and also manages the high voltage power transmission system. Each year, they prepare a [Future Energy Scenarios](http://fes.nationalgrid.com/fes-document/) report looking at energy needs across the UK and the different alternatives for how those needs can be met. The [most recent FES](http://fes.nationalgrid.com/media/1363/fes-interactive-version-final.pdf) was published in July 2018, and is the source for the figures and quotes below.&#xA;&#xA;----------&#xA;&#xA;## Widespread adoption of electric vehicles will increase energy consumption by 30%&#xA;&#xA;The FES includes two possible future scenarios with heavy EV adoption -- &quot;Community Renewables&quot; (envisioning widespread energy decentralization) and &quot;Two Degrees&quot; (focused on a centralized model for limiting global warming to 2C). In these two scenarios, the UK meets the goal of ending sales of gas and diesel powered vehicles by 2040.&#xA;&#xA;This table shows 2017 demand (for all sectors) and expected growth in the transport sector by scenario: &#xA;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xA;&#xA;An interesting aspect of the model is that early, aggressive adoption of EVs reduces the total peak demand, because of smart charging and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; In all our scenarios, peak demand from EVs is managed through **smart charging**. This behaviour is more evident in our two 2050 compliant scenarios, reducing peak demand by 8 GW in 2030. By 2040 this saving would stabilise at 32 GW.&#xA;&#xA;## The increase in electricity demand from EVs will be met mostly with wind power&#xA;&#xA;This figure shows how the generation mix is expected to change in the &quot;Community Renewables&quot; scenario:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;You can see that the greatest growth comes in the form of wind (on- and off-shore) and solar capacity, with coal generation eliminated by 2025, and natural gas diminishing to a fraction of its current capacity by 2035. The description in the text reads (emphasis added):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Figure 5.2 shows the annual electricity output of different generation technologies and their carbon intensity in the Community Renewables scenario. Here, the **electrification of transport and heat increases demand**, leading to higher generation output being produced to meet demand.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; By 2030, renewable generation, particularly wind and to a lesser extent solar, makes up more than 75 per cent of generation output. By 2030, the carbon intensity of electricity has fallen to 75 grams of CO2/kWh, and then continues to fall to reach 32 grams of CO2/kWh by 2050.&#xA;&#xA;In the &quot;Two Degrees&quot; scenario, off-shore wind and nuclear make up a larger share, with on-shore wind supplying less, and solar about the same.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wFYaT.png&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6obax.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24012" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7073" RevisionGUID="127a7de0-8140-4aff-bafd-89ca1a24e6e8" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="&gt; What level of light intensity (lumens) do you need across a solar panel in order to obtain an energy-output to incident-light efficiency of 15%?&#xA;&#xA;This depends on the varying characteristics of different materials, so in this case I'll pick one Silicon based as they're pretty common, mass produced and cheap, and more to the point they're the only one I could find a nice graph which makes the point clear:&#xA;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;_Accreditation  A. Ibrahim, &quot;Analysis of Electrical Characteristics of Photovoltaic Single Crystal Silicon Solar Cells at Outdoor Measurements,&quot; Smart Grid and Renewable Energy, Vol. 2 No. 2, 2011, pp. 169-175. doi: 10.4236/sgre.2011.22020._&lt;sub&gt;&#xA;&#xA;- So, for the point of 15 % efficiency you need only provide about 900 W/m^2 - that corresponds to 90% of peak sun (with the panel flat-on to it).&#xA;&#xA;[Lumens][2] you ask for:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; A source radiating a power of one watt of light in the color for which&#xA;&gt; the eye is most efficient (a wavelength of 555 nm, in the green region&#xA;&gt; of the optical spectrum) has luminous flux of 683 lumens. So a lumen&#xA;&gt; represents at least 1/683 watts of visible light power, depending on&#xA;&gt; the spectral distribution.&#xA;&#xA;Well this is specific and related to human vision rather than how solar cells are normaly measured, but we can make a conversion for a ball-park figure assuming that your light source is spectrally similar to the sun.&#xA;&#xA;- 900 W/m^2 approximatley corresponds to 614700 Lumens per square metre.&#xA;&#xA;**This is not the whole story**, [temperature matters][3] when looking at quoted power outputs in a catalogue or from a salesman:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The averaged conversion efficiency of the solar cell recorded for a&#xA;&gt; period of six month is approximately 5.4%. It is 54% less than the&#xA;&gt; efficiency of the same cell measured at STC.&#xA;&#xA;**A graph plotting temperature against efficiency is &quot;illuminating&quot;:**&#xA;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xA;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;_Accreditation  A. Ibrahim, &quot;Analysis of Electrical Characteristics of Photovoltaic Single Crystal Silicon Solar Cells at Outdoor Measurements,&quot; Smart Grid and Renewable Energy, Vol. 2 No. 2, 2011, pp. 169-175. doi: 10.4236/sgre.2011.22020._&lt;sub&gt;&#xA;&#xA;**Recognise the trend and measurement distribution points? This corresponds very closley to the Illuminance/efficiency graph.**&#xA;&#xA;- Another thing you should bare in mind is that manufacturers quoted ratings are taken from flash tests provided at 25 Celsius (room temp) under what's called [STC][5],  standard test conditions, but frequent variation in lamp spectra and type used for measurement lead to variable comparison between different brands - it's just not tightly regulated.&#xA;&#xA;# Conclusion&#xA;&#xA;- *An infra-red reflecting shield, and a heatsink to stop the thing overheating may be as important as the level of illuminance, when it comes to the panel's efficiency.*&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mp1Sc.jpg&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_(unit)&#xA;  [3]: http://file.scirp.org/Html/13-6401084_4965.htm&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PzAAL.jpg&#xA;  [5]: https://sinovoltaics.com/learning-center/quality/standard-test-conditions-stc-definition-and-problems/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24013" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6922" RevisionGUID="9fdcde21-dce0-499e-89b6-3939393d7faf" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="## Vegan cheese has the lowest carbon footprint&#xA;&#xA;First, let's take a look at cheese from dairy milk. Let's go with the lowest estimate and say that cheese has a carbon footprint of **5.13 kg CO2e/kg yield**.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; For cheddar, as sold at retail (63.2 % milk solids), the carbon footprint using the IPCC 2007 factors is 8.60 kg CO2e/kg cheese consumed with a 95 % confidence interval (CI) of 5.86–12.2 kg CO2e/kg. For mozzarella, as sold at retail (51.4 % milk solids), the carbon footprint is 7.28 kg CO2e/kg mozzarella consumed, with a 95 % CI of 5.13–9.89 kg CO2e/kg.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Source: [Life cycle assessment of cheese and whey production in the USA](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-013-0553-9)&#xA;&#xA;Now let's consider two different vegan cheeses with two different compositions. First up is Miyoko's cheese where the main ingredient cashews, has a carbon footprint around **2.3 kg CO2e/kg yield**. This is likely to represent an upper bound because adding water (second ingredient) reduces the carbon footprint per kg of yield.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [Miyoko's](https://miyokos.com/collections/vegan-cheese-wheel/products/garlic-herb-cheese) -  Organic Cashews, Filtered Water, Organic Coconut Oil, Organic Parsley, Organic Rice Miso (Organic Rice, Water, Salt, Alcohol, Koji Culture), Organic Garlic, Organic Herbs, Sea Salt, Nutritional Yeast, Cultures.&#xA;&#xA;And let's look at Daiya cheese. One [life cycle analysis of cassava starch](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212827115000700) found that dry starch (like tapioca starch) had a footprint of **0.594 kg CO2e/kg yield**. Again, this is likely to represent an upper bound because the first ingredient is just water. Vegetable oils (canola/safflower) can get as high as 4 kg CO2e/kg yield, but even if Daiya was made of 100% oil it would still be less than dairy cheese.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; [Daiya](https://daiyafoods.com/our-foods/blocks/medium-cheddar/) - Filtered water, tapioca starch, coconut oil, vegan natural flavours, pea protein isolate, non-GMO expeller pressed: canola and/or safflower oil, chicory root extract, sea salt, xanthan gum, lactic acid (vegan), tricalcium phosphate, pea starch, potato protein, vegan enzyme, cane sugar, annatto (colour), coconut cream" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24014" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6898" RevisionGUID="1074cfe9-6a62-4d5b-af06-dbd7e52bd856" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="There is something to be said for both tiny houses and RVs. [This Treehugger blog](https://www.treehugger.com/tiny-houses/tiny-houses-vs-trailers-campers.html) lists a number of pros for both. In short tiny houses:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ... look like a house.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Tiny homes are more weatherproofed.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; One can choose the materials and finishes that one wants in a custom-made tiny house.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Customization. Tiny homes come in all shapes, sizes, builds and aesthetics.&#xA;&#xA;On the other hand RVs:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; ... are more mobile.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Building codes, insurance..... In many places, tiny homes occupy a bit of a grey area - they are often built as workarounds to local codes and regulations, and can be difficult to insure as such&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; A vintage camper is much cheaper to buy as a fixer-upper&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; They can blend in&#xA;&#xA;So in the end it's really a matter of personal preference. In my experience eco-minded people are often also progressive and thus are more inclined to select new options. As Jean Paul Calderone rightfully [comments](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/4834/jean-paul-calderone) RVs have a bit of a old-fashioned image. Tiny houses on the other hand are often promoted as &quot;[sustainable living for people who otherwise cannot afford it&quot;](https://greenfuture.io/sustainable-living/tiny-houses-sustainable-living/)&#xA;&#xA;BTW at the bottom of the Treehugger blog you can vote on which you prefer. At the moment:&#xA;&#xA;- 31% of voters are in favor of tiny houses&#xA;- 30% go for a conventional RVs &#xA;- 18% is for a custom designed, eco-friendly RV and &#xA;- 19% vote for renovated, retrofitted, eco-friendly vintage campers, trailers, &#xA;etc.&#xA;- 2% other" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6849" RevisionGUID="4f1376dc-9edb-4069-acad-9d902c7d0b73" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="There's a term used which *may* apply to such a lifestyle: **freeganism.** &#xA;&#xA;[From Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeganism):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Freeganism** is a practice and ideology of limited participation in the conventional economy and minimal consumption of resources, particularly through recovering wasted goods like food. The word &quot;freegan&quot; is a portmanteau of &quot;free&quot; and &quot;vegan&quot;. While vegans might avoid buying animal products as an act of protest against animal exploitation, freegans—at least in theory—avoid buying anything as an act of protest against the food system in general.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Freeganism is often presented as synonymous with &quot;dumpster diving&quot; for discarded food, although freegans are distinguished by their association with an anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist ideology and their engagement in a wider range of alternative living strategies, such as voluntary unemployment, squatting abandoned buildings, and &quot;guerilla gardening&quot; in unoccupied city parks. &#xA;&#xA;Freegans have organized themselves a bit, and have a website: [freegan.info: strategies for sustainable living beyond capitalism](https://freegan.info/). On this website you could find more information about strategies and even meetings of local like-minded individuals.&#xA;&#xA;However, as @Tim points out in the comments, while the freegan ethos relates to a fundamental rejection of capitalism, your participation in the economy as a worker means you aren't (yet?) a freegan." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24016" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6827" RevisionGUID="3f606882-cfa6-4d7d-9684-22749c6c1254" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="Be careful with wood fireplaces — most emit A LOT of very bad particulate matter!&#xA;---&#xA;&#xA;Burning wood in a common type of stove may result in more particulate matter than a diesel truck and may carry more carcinogens than a diesel or petrol exhaust.  In the United Kingdom, where many people have such stoves or even open hearths, wood burning generates twice as much PM2.5 as all traffic combined.  In many urban areas, burning wood is prohibited (I don't know if those bylaws make exceptions for modern, cleaner stoves).  Globally, biomass [is estimated to be responsible for 250,000 casualties per year](http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/biomass-burning-kills-250000-people-a-year/), as the overwhelming majority of biomass burning takes place with open fire or primitive stoves.&#xA;&#xA;From an environmental point of view, burning solid fuel at home may be *much* worse than you think, depending on the type of fireplace you have.  Wood may be (at least potentially) be carbon neutral, that does not mean the exhaust is anywhere near healthy to breathe.  Check the characteristics of *your* fireplace before you assume that wood is carbon neutral and therefore environmentally friendly.&#xA;&#xA;See [this article in The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/feb/22/wood-diesel-indoor-stoves-cities-pollution):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Wood smoke is thick with the tiny particulates, known as PM2.5, that are linked to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia and various other ailments. What’s more, the claims about a climate benefit from wood use are questionable.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Cars and trucks get more attention but nationally, domestic wood burning is the largest single source of PM2.5. According to one analysis of government data, it produces more than twice as much as all road traffic. While concerns about diesel vehicles focus largely on the nitrogen dioxide they produce, the evidence tying particulates to death and disease is even more powerful.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; According to Leigh Crilley, an atmospheric chemist at the University of Birmingham, wood smoke also carries more carcinogens than diesel or petrol exhaust.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; The increasing popularity of wood fires, scientists warn, threatens to erase any progress big cities might achieve in reducing pollution from traffic. “It’s overtaking the gains we’re making,” Crilley said.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;  One study from 2014 found that wood smoke was adding more particle pollution to London’s air than the first two phases of the city’s low-emission zone were expected to remove. In London and Birmingham, King’s College researchers reported wood accounted for up to 31% of locally produced particulates. And across Europe, wood burning is worsening pollution in capitals such as Paris, Berlin and Lisbon. &#xA;&#xA;Cities are moving toward it:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;  The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in September for the power to ban solid fuel use (wood, coal and the like) in high-pollution areas of the city, starting in 2025, which would require amending the Clean Air Act.&#xA;&#xA;If you live equatorward of 60°, there is in theory no need to actively heat your home.  The most sustainable thing you can do, if you can afford it, is to upgrade your home to [passive house](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house) standards and you can dispense with any sources of space heating altogether (you still need hot water, of course, but most wood fireplaces are impractical for this purpose).&#xA;&#xA;There may exist specialised high pressure/temperature or perhaps heavily filtered wood fireplaces that exhaust much less or no particulate matter.  If you insist on burning wood, investigate the particulate matter exhaust of your technological choice.  Being carbon neutral is not enough; air quality must be part of your sustainability budget, in particular if you live in a populated area.&#xA;&#xA;NB: This answer is focussing purely on what is best from a sustainability point of view.  Of course, many people around the world cannot afford any other source of cooking or heating than wood fires, just like they cannot afford access to clean water, access to sewage, or the only vehicle they can afford is a very dirty scooter.  Sustainable solutions often cost more out of pocket, which puts policy makers in a very difficult dilemma.  Humanity must all work together to improve the economic situation of rural and urban people around the world such that we can all sustainably stay warm and cook.  However, if you are purely asking from a sustainability point of view, there are far better alternatives than burning wood — in particular if your fireplace is typical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6802" RevisionGUID="afc1f86c-f6dd-437a-95fb-1e28e9664313" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="The largest predictor of sustainable consumption is poverty. The diverse rich all consume far more resources. Because there is a robust relationship between income and health, and even between income and happiness, I would expect that across large populations the happiest are behaving less sustainably.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The environmental behavior of rich countries affects poor countries much more than the reverse, even given the much lower population of rich countries:&#xA;&gt; https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3322505/Environment-damage-of-rich-countries-on-poor.html&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Happiness increases linearly with income, and then plateaus&#xA;&gt; https://qz.com/1211957/how-much-money-do-people-need-to-be-happy/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6775" RevisionGUID="650fe698-aa9e-4384-810d-62f3b5e8164b" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="From a BBC article on 2018-01-25:&#xA;&gt;[**Plastic bottles: Free water refill points rolled out to cut waste**][1]&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;**Shops, cafes and businesses will offer free water refill points in every major city and town in England by 2021.**&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Industry body Water UK says its scheme could cut disposable plastic bottle use by tens of millions a year.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;The move comes amid growing concern about the effect of plastic waste on the environment.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Whitbread, which owns Costa Coffee and Premier Inn, is the first to sign up to the initiative and will provide water in all of its branches from March 2018.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;Refill stations and public fountains will be able to be found via an app or window signs pointing people in the direction of the nearest one. &#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;...&#xA;&#xA;More details are available in the [Water UK press release][2].&#xA;&#xA;[Refill.org.uk][3] is where you can go to download the app and find refill stations.&#xA;&#xA;Refill stations exist in [Devon itself][4].&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42808302&#xA;  [2]: https://www.water.org.uk/news-water-uk/latest-news/new-national-drinking-water-scheme-water-companies-cut-plastic-bottle-use&#xA;  [3]: https://www.refill.org.uk/&#xA;  [4]: https://www.recycledevon.org/RefillDevon" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24019" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6763" RevisionGUID="d2c6a55a-22ec-495e-a38b-ba4e5ea3a058" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Diversify&#xA;In a paper unearthed recently by our friend LShaver [question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6752/what-is-the-maximum-sustainable-population-of-the-earth?noredirect=1&amp;lq=1), a key point is that the worst identified menace today is **Biodiversity loss**, beyond Nitrogen cycle disruption, and way beyond Climate change...&#xA;[![safety guides of 9 earth process][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;So my answer will encourage you to **diversify!**, locally.&#xA;&#xA;For example, think about the extremes:&#xA;&#xA;* if there is only milk - too many cows, farmland everywhere, high nitrogen into our underground water and so on.&#xA;* if there is no milk - no cows, this means &quot;open&quot; alpine landscape disappears replaced by only forests, with loss of diversity associated to it.&#xA;&#xA;# Documented study&#xA;In [this documented paper for milk replacements](http://esu-services.ch/fileadmin/download/wenzel-2017-LCA-vegan-drinks.pdf) (esu-services ***.ch***, maybe colleagues of yours?), the figures stacks so:&#xA;&#xA;[![Environmental impact of whole milk][2]][2]&#xA;&#xA;Leaving Cashew and Coconut out of the scope, this seems to point to oat drink as the optimal replacement.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RKuOA.png&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1NPnd.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24020" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6754" RevisionGUID="0ce09b42-5f7f-4e9c-b8d4-bfba06718f66" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### PVWatts&#xA;[PVWatts](https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/) provides exactly what you're looking for.&#xA;&#xA;It's a solar calculator maintained by the National Renewable Energy Lab of the U.S. Department of Energy. To use the tool:&#xA;&#xA; 1. **Enter the location of the proposed solar system.** PVWatts will show you nearby weather stations for the simulation, and uses the most relevant solar irradiation data.&#xA; 2. **Enter the system parameters.** You can enter either basic info (size, orientation, angle) or provide more detail (inverter efficiency, system losses, etc). You can even draw an outline of your system on the satellite imagery of the proposed location.&#xA;&#xA;The **results** include monthly solar radiation and AC power production values. If you included your utility rate, it will provide the value of this power as well. You can also download hourly data which includes much more detailed information on irradiance and factors such as temperature and wind speed which affect the output.&#xA;&#xA;### PWVatts irradiance data&#xA;PVWatts has up-to-date, high-resolution solar irradiance data is for most of North America, the northern half of South America, and the Indian subcontinent. For other parts of the world, older and less precise data sets are used which vary by location. These aren't as accurate as the NREL data, but suitable for rough estimates.&#xA;&#xA;### A note on optimal angles&#xA;The reason you're getting different answers is probably because the definition of &quot;optimal&quot; for a given location varies according to preference. Are you looking for:&#xA;&#xA; - Any easy-to-remember formula? Install the panels at latitude tilt.&#xA; - Greater energy output over the course of the year? Consider laying them a bit flatter.&#xA; - Greater power output in the winter? Lay them a bit steeper.&#xA; - Less need to clean the panels off? Steeper still.&#xA;&#xA;The topic likely deserves a separate question, but for your purposes playing around with PVWatts will hopefully give you the guidance you need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24021" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6686" RevisionGUID="db5c3e61-c07e-4d91-849e-2caaec031c11" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="### Yes, when the data center is located near heating loads&#xA;&#xA;The U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO features a prime example of this, at the [Energy Systems Integration Facility](https://www.nrel.gov/computational-science/waste-heat-energy-reuse.html):&#xA;&#xA;&gt; With heat exchangers, heat energy in the energy recovery water (ERW) loop becomes available to heat the facility's process hot water (PHW) loop. Once heated, the PHW loop supplies:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; - Active chilled beams to heat the office space&#xA;&gt; - Air handlers to heat the conference and high bay spaces&#xA;&gt; - Snow melt loop in the courtyard of the ESIF's main entrance&#xA;&gt; - District heating loop: &#xA;&gt;   - If additional heat is needed for the building, the PHW loop can draw heat from the campus heating loop&#xA;&gt;   - If surplus heat is available, the PHW loop can provide heat to the campus heating loop. During transition months (April and October), excess heat from the ESIF has been sufficient to provide heat for other buildings, shortening the time boilers are needed to provide campus heat.&#xA;&#xA;This was one project I was aware of, but I googled a bit and found a few lists with other examples:&#xA;&#xA; - [&quot;Data Centers that Recycle Waste Heat&quot;](http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/data-centers-that-recycle-waste-heat), from DataCenterKnowledge.com&#xA; - [&quot;Going Green with Data Center Heat Recovery - Yes, It's an Option&quot;](http://www.ledesigngroup.com/blog/data-center/going-green-data-center-heat-recovery/), from the Leading Edge Design Group&#xA; - [&quot;Using Waste Heat from the Data Center&quot;](https://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-content?type=webcontent&amp;articleId=5287761), from Cisco&#xA;&#xA;### But often, data centers are located far from other buildings and population centers&#xA;&#xA;Here's a picture [from Google](https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/inside/locations/mayes-county/) of one of their data centers:&#xA;&#xA;[![Google data center in Mayes County, Oklahoma][1]][1]&#xA;&#xA;As you click through the lists of data centers for [Google](https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/inside/locations/index.html), [Amazon](https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/data-center/data-centers/), and [IBM](https://www.ibm.com/cloud-computing/bluemix/data-centers#datacentermap), you see that many of them are in suburban or rural areas. There are several reasons for this:&#xA;&#xA; - Land is cheaper&#xA; - Construction costs are lower&#xA; - No need for a large workforce&#xA; - Can be co-sited with wind and/or solar power&#xA;&#xA;The one down-side to rural areas is that a high-speed telecommunication network may not be readily available -- but it seems that in many cases the data center operator finds it cheaper to pay the costs to bring one in, than to locate the data center in an area with better telecom infrastructure.&#xA;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y30FIm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24022" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6672" RevisionGUID="d04fb3a7-7c8a-4cd3-8c83-36eaba1fa45e" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Move them far away in a place they like&#xA;&#xA;The strategy I use is to move them to a remote place of the yard (at least 30 meters away). It will take them long to come back, and the journey may be dangerous for them. That's also the point of gathering them: attracting predators.&#xA;&#xA;Of course this works if you have a large-enough yard. Otherwise, someone of your neighbors may have an appropriate place for them.&#xA;&#xA;# Let them work for you&#xA;Gathering all the slugs in one places attracts their predators here. On my composting pile, they work for me in accelerating the degradation process.&#xA;&#xA;My composting pile is a very good place for this because it is under tree shades near a small stream. The slug diseases are also prone to develop widely in a slug-crowded place. &#xA;&#xA;# How to collect the sticky little creatures&#xA;&#xA;Collect them with (old-recycled) plumbing pliers and put them into a bucket with water at the bottom, and moving the water within the bucket detaches the slugs that try to escape from the sides. Then unload the slug bucket on your composting pile.&#xA;&#xA;You may also find helpful tips [here](https://gardening.stackexchange.com/questions/928/what-is-the-best-organic-way-to-defeat-slugs/34098#34098).&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24023" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7185" RevisionGUID="cc2e7972-b839-4ed9-bc13-c44112b51c97" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# What happens to #4 plastic in the waste stream depends on local policy where you live&#xA;&#xA;Waste Dive, a project of the same folks who run [Utility Dive](https://www.utilitydive.com/), runs a [tracker](https://www.wastedive.com/news/what-chinese-import-policies-mean-for-all-50-states/510751/) dedicated to &quot;tracking the effects of China's scrap import policies across all 50 [US] states (and the District of Columbia)&quot;.&#xA;&#xA;The tracker includes links to news stories about state, city, and county policies and changes in light of changes to China's import policies. Here are a few examples of how different jurisdictions are handling #4 plastic (emphasis added throughout):&#xA;&#xA;### No longer accepting it&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Sacramento, CA:** The City of Sacramento **drops plastics #4-7**, effective July 1, according to The Sacramento Bee. The Marin Independent Journal reports that Mill Valley Refuse is piloting dual-stream collection in select neighborhoods for four months to improve quality. Bakersfield begins composting some mixed paper, according to Bakersfield.com. (July 2018)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **Hawaii:** Maui County is no longer accepting mixed paper at its drop-off center and has also **restricted its list of accepted plastics to #1 and #2**, as reported by Maui Now. (Jan. 2018)&#xA;&#xA;### Burning it for power&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Philadelphia, PA:** Action News reports that about **half of Philadelphia's recyclables are now going directly to a Covanta waste-to-energy facility**. A city contract with Republic Services wasn't renewed due to cost concerns. A temporary deal was struck with Waste Management for the other half of Philadelphia's material while the city solicits bids for a new 10-year contract. Metro reports that situation has continued into November. (Nov. 2018)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **Connecticut:** The Materials Innovation and Recycling Authority, which owns a MRF operated by Republic Services, reported it was sitting on more than 1,000 bales of ONP and mixed paper, as well as hundreds more of OCC. Glass had already been a challenge, with much of it being shipped nearly 500 miles to Pennsylvania. With the exception of #5 plastics, MIRA was also **sending other low-grade plastics that have no market with residue to its waste-to-energy facility**. (April 2018)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **Clearwater, FL:** Clearwater reportedly **sent nearly one-third of its recyclables to the Pinellas County waste-to-energy facility in August due to contamination**. WFTS reports that some loads from Tampa have also been highly contaminated recently. (Oct. 2018)&#xA;&#xA;### Sending it to landfills&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Westland, MI:** The city of Westland is temporarily disposing all of its recyclables after a tip fee increase from $18 to $80 at a local Republic Services MRF, according to Hometown Life. After facing public pressure, including from Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the Westland City Council decided against sending material to a Detroit incinerator and is instead **shipping it to a landfill**. (NEW - Feb.-March 2019)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **Fargo, ND:** It's previously been reported that Fargo saw an uptick in contamination since switching to single stream collection. Inforum also reports that this is an issue at the city's two dozen drop-off sites. The average contamination rate for such locations is around 10%, enough to sometimes **send loads to a landfill**. (Aug. 2018)&#xA;&#xA;### Rejecting it for contamination&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Las Cruces, NM:** Las Cruces will begin inspecting carts for contamination starting in Sept. 2018 and use The Recycling Partnership's &quot;Oops&quot; **tag method of positive feedback**, rather than a fee, according to the Las Cruces Sun News. The Los Alamos Monitor reports that Los Alamos County is also focusing on education, in an effort to reduce its 17% contamination rate and stave off a potential rate increase from Friedman. (Aug. 2018)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **El Paso, TX:** Rather than renegotiate contract terms, or resort to a cheaper landfill option, El Paso Inc. reports that the city will step up its **education efforts**. El Paso's Environmental Services Department launches a a pilot program called &quot;Tug Tip Turn and Tag&quot; across 10,000 of the 180,000 households it services. The goal is **to cut current contamination rates** of 30-35% in half. (May 2018)&#xA;&#xA;### Charging more to process it&#xA;&#xA;&gt; **Onondaga County, NY:** The Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency's WTE tip **fee will increase** by about 7% in 2019 to offset its recycling losses, according to The Post-Standard. The agency also signed a new contract with Waste Management that raises its cost cap from $10 per ton to $49. (Oct. 2018)&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; **Moore County, NC:** Moore County has approved a **tip fee increase** for recyclables at its local facility from $25 to $100, according to The Pilot. (Dec. 2018)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10050" RevisionGUID="05cbc3df-eb37-40d7-8986-265b260da00b" CreationDate="2020-06-18T08:35:16.440" UserId="-1" Comment="Commonmark migration" Text="# Salt Dough&#xA;Another solution I used was to cover and fill the cracks with salt dough. &#xA;&#xA;* 2 cups all-purpose flour&#xA;* 1 cup salt&#xA;* apply and let it dry on a sunny day&#xA;&#xA;Easier to implement than spruce resin with ashes, but could not live through the second winter (since it received too much rain this time)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10080" RevisionGUID="885b0e7d-d565-4eee-8786-ba4b580b32e5" CreationDate="2020-06-18T11:57:28.537" UserId="99" Comment="fixed punctuation and readability" Text="This may sound strange but what I have tried this year was to collect a load of dry grass from the outside of my house and place a layer of about 3-4 inches around my apple tree. When the hundreds of windfall apples fall and eventually full grown apples fall, it’s going to create a natural compost. As of now the dry grass is slowly decomposing underneath and some windfall apples are decomposing quickly with it. It’s my first year doing compost and have a separate pile but I wanted to try this method and it seems to be doing well.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10082" RevisionGUID="712e3634-46d1-4fc6-9bf7-b805e9ebbd68" CreationDate="2020-06-18T13:32:38.010" UserId="8782" Text="**I'm currently planning the conversion of a panel van into an RV including heating, water, and electrical.&#xD;&#xA;The part which I'm not confident about is the reliable supply of electrical power in the winter months in central Europe (latitude: 48°).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The van will be used starting from September onwards and I'm thinking about skipping the installation of solar panels until spring and using the saved money on extra batteries. The batteries could be charged by the alternator of the van while driving and it would be possible to charge halve the batteries on the grid and switch the batteries once a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My electricity consumers would be:&#xD;&#xA;- 1 phone charge `5Ah`&#xD;&#xA;- 2 laptop charges `15Ah`&#xD;&#xA;- lamps run 10h `15Ah`&#xD;&#xA;- water pump `4Ah`&#xD;&#xA;- heater `20Ah`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which comes to a total of ~60Ah a day, 420Ah a week.&#xD;&#xA;I've [read][1] that a 100W solar panel will on average produce about 6Ah a day in winter.&#xD;&#xA;Considering that the panels have to be mounted flat on the van and have a higher chance of being partially obstructed because of the low height compared to buildings, is it viable to use solar for electricity generation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there some mistake in my thinking or rough calculations or am I right that there is no chance to live off the grid during the winter with my guesstimated power consumption?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My actual consumption is likely to be less because I would be able to charge the phone, power bank, and laptop from grid power most days (work) but ends would still not meet and I'm probably forgetting consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.thegreenage.co.uk/solar-technology-guide/#:~:text=In%20winter%2C%20you%20will%20probably,system%20might%20work%20for%20you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24029" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10082" RevisionGUID="712e3634-46d1-4fc6-9bf7-b805e9ebbd68" CreationDate="2020-06-18T13:32:38.010" UserId="8782" Text="Designing an electrical off grid system for winter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24030" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10082" RevisionGUID="712e3634-46d1-4fc6-9bf7-b805e9ebbd68" CreationDate="2020-06-18T13:32:38.010" UserId="8782" Text="|solar-power|off-grid|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10083" RevisionGUID="e2343e1f-c7b5-4ef9-aec0-7dd7cee22641" CreationDate="2020-06-18T14:14:59.823" UserId="3379" Text="I'm getting ready to take a trip for about a month. We'll eat all of the perishable stuff in our fridge/freezer, but this will leave lots of other things that will do just fine (frozen veggies, condiments, etc). In the past, for longer trips, I've worked harder at reducing these quantities, then given away whatever was left so I could simply unplug my fridge. For various reasons, that's not an option this time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard that putting a large, sealed container of water in the refrigerator can help stabilize the temperature and reduce usage for extended periods when the door won't be opened at all. Is this true? **Are there other strategies I can use to reduce energy usage of my fridge while I'm traveling?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24032" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10083" RevisionGUID="e2343e1f-c7b5-4ef9-aec0-7dd7cee22641" CreationDate="2020-06-18T14:14:59.823" UserId="3379" Text="How to reduce energy usage of refrigerator while away?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24033" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10083" RevisionGUID="e2343e1f-c7b5-4ef9-aec0-7dd7cee22641" CreationDate="2020-06-18T14:14:59.823" UserId="3379" Text="|energy-use|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10084" RevisionGUID="121f2cd8-7da9-4821-bbe0-18c2300bf566" CreationDate="2020-06-18T21:05:40.403" UserId="2846" Text="Some models have a holiday mode which can be used with care.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a fridge-freezer it often [stops cooling the fridge compartment](https://www.aeg.co.uk/support/support-articles/cooling/fridge-freezers/what-is-holiday-mode-on-a-fridge-freezer/) (AEG) or at least stops cooling it enough to keep food fresh.  Check the manual for your model if you plan to leave anything in your fridge (except things that don't really need to be chilled like chocolate in a hot climate, sealed drinks).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On separate appliances it's less common but effectively sets a higher setpoint on the thermostat.  You can do the same by turning the fridge down. On most models I've used there's a graduated but uncalibrated dial representing some sort of cooling power - bigger numbers=colder. On others there's a digital thermostat with a readout in degrees - you can set this to the warm end of the safe range when going away, while you might normally run it a degree or two cooler. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24035" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7230" RevisionGUID="f3e80aef-6aee-41b0-beff-1cccc04381ee" CreationDate="2020-06-19T12:00:00.760" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1273948646816518147" />
  <row Id="24036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10085" RevisionGUID="1b289ed4-1994-44fe-a89e-0db6f8914005" CreationDate="2020-06-19T20:13:31.607" UserId="6293" Text="The refrigerator runs more with more items in it. And the refrigerator runs more with a hotter house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the house air-conditioning is turned-off in a summertime climate then the refrigerator will run more. The house can be made a little cooler in a summertime climate with a standing-seam steel roof-covering that has a special granulated paint. Or I use 430 SS for roof coverings with no paint required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course hardwood trees will shade the house in summertime but let sunlight through in the wintertime. The house will be cooler in summertime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crack some windows when the A/C is turned off in summertime. Cracked windows can be drilled and pegged with 1/4&quot; bolts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24037" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10085" RevisionGUID="7402475d-af57-4346-ac88-a6d862f73ae9" CreationDate="2020-06-19T20:19:31.400" UserId="6293" Comment="added 39 characters in body" Text="The refrigerator runs more with more items in it. And the refrigerator runs more with a hotter house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the house air-conditioning is turned-off in a summertime climate then the refrigerator will run more. The house can be made a little cooler in a summertime climate with a standing-seam steel roof-covering that has a special granulated paint. Or I use 430 SS for roof coverings with no paint required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course hardwood trees will shade the house in summertime but let sunlight through in the wintertime. The house will be cooler in summertime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crack some windows when the A/C is turned off in summertime. Cracked windows can have the window frames drilled and pegged with 1/4&quot; bolts so as to be locked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24038" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10085" RevisionGUID="78a823ce-d45f-4008-9736-879d1b2afa59" CreationDate="2020-06-20T02:09:45.790" UserId="6293" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="The refrigerator runs more with more items in it. And the refrigerator runs more with a hotter house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the house air-conditioning is turned-off in a summertime climate then the refrigerator will run more. The house can be made a little cooler in a summertime climate with a standing-seam steel roof-covering that has a special granulated paint. Or I use 430 SS for roof coverings with no paint required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course hardwood trees will shade the house in summertime but let sunlight through in the wintertime. The house will be cooler in summertime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crack some windows open when the A/C is turned off in summertime. Cracked open windows can have the window frames drilled and pegged with 1/4&quot; bolts so as to be locked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24039" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10085" RevisionGUID="5317e876-22be-4a3d-ba4b-2bb3b7c98f3f" CreationDate="2020-06-20T21:03:24.923" UserId="6293" Comment="deleted 54 characters in body" Text="The refrigerator runs more with a hotter house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the house air-conditioning is turned-off in a summertime climate then the refrigerator will run more. The house can be made a little cooler in a summertime climate with a standing-seam steel roof-covering that has a special granulated paint. Or I use 430 SS for roof coverings with no paint required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course hardwood trees will shade the house in summertime but let sunlight through in the wintertime. The house will be cooler in summertime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Crack some windows open when the A/C is turned off in summertime. Cracked open windows can have the window frames drilled and pegged with 1/4&quot; bolts so as to be locked." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10086" RevisionGUID="df1e57ba-60a7-4fe5-b145-218bc9022775" CreationDate="2020-06-22T18:32:02.023" UserId="4834" Text="The best solution is for these windfall apples to never exist in the first place.  Most apple varieties fall into a biennial bearing pattern.  They produce a very heavy fruit set in year N.  The burden of bringing this large quantity of fruit to maturity suppresses fruit bud growth (which happens in the fall).  In year N+1 there are negligible fruit buds and so little or no fruit is set.  This leaves all the tree's resources to create fruit buds in the fall and in year N+2 you again have an extremely heavy fruiting year.  Most apple varieties will set such heavy fruit in year N, N+2, etc that they cannot bring it all to maturity.  This contributes to windfalls, &quot;june drop&quot;, as well as under-mature fruit at the end of the season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of allowing the tree to fall into this pattern, thin the fruit set before fruitlets reach the size of a US quarter.  Note that whatever fruit is set you will have to eventually handle (if you are planning to clean up after the tree).  You can handle it when it is small and on the tree or you can clean it up off the ground.  If you thin it from the tree, you will have less material to deal with (by composting or otherwise) because you will be taking smaller fruit off the tree before it can grow and fall.  Correspondingly, by taking fruitlets off when they are small, you are allowing the tree to direct its resources towards the remaining fruit.  This means more fruit will reach maturity and those that do will be larger, healthier, and typically sweeter.  You can also be selective in your thinning - take fruitlets that already have insect damage, fungal damage, or are incompletely formed.  This further improves your eventual harvest by increasing the number and proportion of well-formed, undamaged fruit the tree eventually brings to maturity.  Finally, by thinning to a manageable number of fruit you leave the tree with energy to create fruit buds for the following season, giving you more even production from year to year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you thin, you will still have some drops.  These, along with the thinnings, should be removed from the area.  If you compost them, compost them away from the tree.  Fungus is a healthy and essential part of the composting process but you do not want to encourage fungus that eats apple biomass to grow beneath your apple trees.  If you do, you may find it moves from your drops to the tree itself, damaging fruit you left on the tree for eventual harvest or damaging foliage or even branches of the tree itself.  Take your compostable material as far from your apple trees as practical and let the fungus go to work there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Citation: _The Apple Grower: A Guide for the Organic Orchardist_.  Michael Phillips.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10081" RevisionGUID="24ad5ee2-010c-4291-83c1-fd8d943604b8" CreationDate="2020-06-23T07:08:43.947" UserId="8232" Comment="Cropped images, header formatting" Text="I have 150watts 7 solar panels of specs : max DC volts 20; max SC amps 8.02Amps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Individually checked all 7 solar panels short circuit amps and they are in 6.54 - 7.84amps range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Solar Inverter Specs&#xD;&#xA;[![Specification][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## PV Watts in inverter&#xD;&#xA;[![Watts][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## PV Amps in inverter&#xD;&#xA;[![Amps][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## PV Volts in inverter&#xD;&#xA;[![Volts][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/w5Gc1.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ew8S9.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9CWDQ.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JZLxa.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24042" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10081" RevisionGUID="24ad5ee2-010c-4291-83c1-fd8d943604b8" CreationDate="2020-06-23T07:08:43.947" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 638" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24043" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10087" RevisionGUID="4e594882-50a2-4496-86ce-486463410df1" CreationDate="2020-06-23T18:20:25.517" UserId="8789" Text="I was looking at the shelf with &quot;ecological&quot; detergents in a store and noticed that most of them boasted of being enzyme-free. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wondered why this is a preferable quality in a detergent, especially seeing that they are there to make the detergent better at washing. Since these were the ones branded for sustainability-minded customers, I assume it is supposed to have an impact in that direction. So, from a sustainability point of view, what are the pros and cons of using a detergent that has no enzymes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10087" RevisionGUID="4e594882-50a2-4496-86ce-486463410df1" CreationDate="2020-06-23T18:20:25.517" UserId="8789" Text="What is the connection between detergent enzymes and sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10087" RevisionGUID="4e594882-50a2-4496-86ce-486463410df1" CreationDate="2020-06-23T18:20:25.517" UserId="8789" Text="|home|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24046" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="931bcd2a-4991-4534-b095-cc1d486207e8" CreationDate="2020-06-23T22:06:10.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10088" RevisionGUID="428f375a-9ab4-4d22-8f0e-8e7020343ae6" CreationDate="2020-06-24T13:12:24.343" UserId="3379" Text="When going away for vacation for a few weeks, what steps can I take to reduce the energy and water my home will use while I'm gone?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've already asked about [what to do with a refrigerator](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/10083/3379), but I'm wondering what other strategies there are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10088" RevisionGUID="428f375a-9ab4-4d22-8f0e-8e7020343ae6" CreationDate="2020-06-24T13:12:24.343" UserId="3379" Text="How to prepare my home for vacation to reduce energy use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10088" RevisionGUID="428f375a-9ab4-4d22-8f0e-8e7020343ae6" CreationDate="2020-06-24T13:12:24.343" UserId="3379" Text="|home|energy-use|water-conservation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10089" RevisionGUID="6422b79f-2feb-4e7f-93a0-552cce3e242f" CreationDate="2020-06-25T00:58:01.810" UserId="6293" Text="If the heating is turned off in wintertime, the water-heater might be enough to keep the water pipes from freezing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the air-conditioning is turned off in summertime, several windows should be cracked open to avoid moisture build-up in the house. The window frames can be drilled and pegged slightly open. And I wonder about water in the toilets contributing to moisture build-up in the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lights left on, the new 40-watt glass-bulb LED's at 450 lumens only use 4.5 watts. Well, LED's don't like too much heat while CFL's don't like too much cold." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10089" RevisionGUID="a6843bad-5cc7-465a-9fe4-a2c24e6ea036" CreationDate="2020-06-25T01:16:17.567" UserId="6293" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="If the heating is turned off in wintertime, the water-heater might be enough to keep the water pipes from freezing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the air-conditioning is turned off in summertime, several windows should be cracked open to avoid moisture build-up in the house. The window frames can be drilled and pegged slightly open. And I wonder about water in the toilets contributing to moisture build-up in the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lights left on, the new 40-watt glass-bulb LED's at 450 lumens only use 4.5 watts. Well, LED's don't like too much heat while CFL's don't like too much cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, if the refrigerator can be emptied then turn it off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24052" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10089" RevisionGUID="ec9379d1-9425-464d-9302-80d260d99f45" CreationDate="2020-06-25T03:04:25.837" UserId="6293" Comment="added 242 characters in body" Text="If the heating is turned off in wintertime, the water-heater might be enough to keep the water pipes from freezing. Otherwise, the water can be turned off, the pipes drained with open faucets, and both heater and water-heater turned off. In fact the water might have to be turned off at the street because of the high-pressure it has coming from the street.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the air-conditioning is turned off in summertime, several windows should be cracked open to avoid moisture build-up in the house. The window frames can be drilled and pegged slightly open. And I wonder about water in the toilets contributing to moisture build-up in the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For lights left on, the new 40-watt glass-bulb LED's at 450 lumens only use 4.5 watts. Well, LED's don't like too much heat while CFL's don't like too much cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, if the refrigerator can be emptied then turn it off." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24053" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="a2f17303-9e7e-40fb-ab93-d85c124588d3" CreationDate="2020-06-25T05:47:06.520" UserId="8232" Text="We currently have an ailing 14 yr old solar hot water installation that is no longer doing the job, running almost continuously with it's 'booster' switch turned on and still not generating enough hot water. A few plumbers have given us the same story: due to the age and general condition of the system, it makes more sense to replace it rather than attempt to repair it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They've given us various options, all with advantages and disadvantages in terms of efficiencies, costs, performance and so on, and we've pared the options down to two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A (new) Solar Hot Water system&#xD;&#xA;- A [Heat Pump Hot water storage system][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read that both are fairly efficient, and - as I plan to get solar panels for electricity generation* - going with the heat pump version would free up some prime real estate on the roof for the panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other options we considered include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (Electric) instant hot water (Wouldn't work for our household size + operating costs would be higher vs storage). &#xD;&#xA;- Various natural gas options (both storage and instant) - cost prohibitive as we'd have to get gas connected to our property. (Plus... you know... *it's gas*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, which of the available hot water systems are 'best' in terms of sustainability? Are there other factors to consider here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*COVID-19 and personal commitments meant my [original timeline][2] for this was pushed back&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.redenergy.com.au/living-energy/appliances/a-guide-to-heat-pump-hot-water-systems&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/9800/8232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24054" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="a2f17303-9e7e-40fb-ab93-d85c124588d3" CreationDate="2020-06-25T05:47:06.520" UserId="8232" Text="What is the most sustainable hot water system for a household?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24055" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="a2f17303-9e7e-40fb-ab93-d85c124588d3" CreationDate="2020-06-25T05:47:06.520" UserId="8232" Text="|solar-power|home|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10091" RevisionGUID="ac6704ab-51dd-43d9-9311-a5f243b6e68e" CreationDate="2020-06-25T10:23:33.107" UserId="2846" Text="The biggest thing by far is turning off/down heating and air conditioning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in some climates/jurisdictions, your insurance may not pay out for damage from any cause (not just frozen pipes) if the house wasn't heated while you were away.  Mine says &gt;15C at all times, which some parts aren't even overnight when I'm at home.  I used to have a frost thermostat that satisfied a previous policy, but was  incompatible with my more efficient heating system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to leave any lights on, use a timer, though they don't use much less power than modern LED lights." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24060" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="7107b37d-91b0-409c-8f84-8d346eefe0c4" CreationDate="2020-06-26T07:01:20.110" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24061" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="c0eb528b-824f-4bd9-bb2c-1b1bf2678e4e" CreationDate="2020-06-28T02:03:04.270" UserId="6870" Comment="trying to make size criteria more objective" Text="1. Can a [parabolic reflector-type solar cooker][1] of reliably boil water? If so, what major factors determine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - how much/how intense sunlight is required to do this&#xD;&#xA; - how much water can be boiled&#xD;&#xA; - how long the process takes&#xD;&#xA; - what should be kept in mind to obtain good results?&#xD;&#xA;2. &#xD;&#xA;Do any other &quot;passive&quot; solar devices exist that can boil water effectively?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there any good way to safely boil water using a (small) [solar hot water system][2]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly interested in systems of a size that is normally marketed in rich countries as appropriate to households of 2-4 individuals (in the case of solar hot water systems, to systems on the very small end of those available). I'm interested in a range of conditions, but the &quot;base case&quot; I have in mind is a moderately sunny winter day in the United States, around 40 degrees north latitude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To anyone reading this, I should emphasize that that boiling water does not necessarily make it safe to drink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cooker#Parabolic_reflectors&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_water_heating" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="51899235-968f-4fb3-9a47-3633e25eb5fd" CreationDate="2020-06-28T10:00:05.390" UserId="2345" Comment="edited body" Text="1. Can a [parabolic reflector-type solar cooker][1] of reliably boil water? If so, what major factors determine&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - how much/how intense sunlight is required to do this&#xD;&#xA; - how much water can be boiled&#xD;&#xA; - how long the process takes&#xD;&#xA; - what should be kept in mind to obtain good results?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Do any other &quot;passive&quot; solar devices exist that can boil water effectively?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Is there any good way to safely boil water using a (small) [solar hot water system][2]?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly interested in systems of a size that is normally marketed in rich countries as appropriate to households of 2-4 individuals (in the case of solar hot water systems, to systems on the very small end of those available). I'm interested in a range of conditions, but the &quot;base case&quot; I have in mind is a moderately sunny winter day in the United States, around 40 degrees north latitude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To anyone reading this, I should emphasize that that boiling water does not necessarily make it safe to drink.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cooker#Parabolic_reflectors&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_water_heating" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24064" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10087" RevisionGUID="04608919-554e-458d-b83e-a636417d3424" CreationDate="2020-06-28T12:00:03.297" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1277210147933339648" />
  <row Id="24065" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6604" RevisionGUID="d76fc2ea-408e-4822-94a9-ffb9a1973c52" CreationDate="2020-06-30T00:00:10.133" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1277753758592774146" />
  <row Id="24066" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="91b084cd-1770-4825-86bc-f1a5f505caac" CreationDate="2020-07-01T00:00:09.747" UserId="8232" Comment="edited title" Text="Should I purchase new tins or plastic refills for chocolate powder?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10093" RevisionGUID="406e2e75-f113-409e-8632-3bbb937321aa" CreationDate="2020-07-03T19:31:07.297" UserId="6393" Text="Depends on where you live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with solar hot water in climates where real winter occurs every year is that you don't have enough sun in the winter. Thus, a solar hot water system always requires a backup, some source that is able to provide the heat. What is your backup?  I suspect in most cases, it's electric resistance heating and that alone if less efficient than heat pump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with solar hot water, thus, is exactly the same as the problem with wind power or solar power. Many people have selected wind electricity as their electricity plan. When the wind stops and it's calm, they don't experience a power blackout. Thus, this simple tough experiment shows that wind power is a massive con. The same is true for solar power. If you do not have the possibility to adjust your electricity use according to the available renewable energy, your marginal energy comes from coal or natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you have a heat pump based water heater, most likely it has some insulated storage. This storage allows you to run the heat pump when it's windy. It is often windy during the winters too, when there is not enough sunshine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, if you live in a cold climate, do by all means select the heat pump based system, but ensure you have a huge amount of heat storage built in. Adapt the heating based on the spot electricity price. When renewables are plentiful, electricity is cheap. You save money and the power comes from clean sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I wouldn't be surprised to find if in a hot climate solar hot water wins in terms of sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24075" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="57b0f003-ebcd-4085-9f92-1144e0746dff" CreationDate="2020-07-05T00:56:21.140" UserId="4834" Comment="reflect the real question asked" Text="What domestic hot water system is more sustainable: solar thermal or air-source heat pump?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24077" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="314ead19-85b4-40c5-9a37-f71e753056e4" CreationDate="2020-07-06T00:09:18.573" UserId="8232" Comment="edited title; made question clearer" Text="What is the most sustainable choice for a domestic hot water system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="314ead19-85b4-40c5-9a37-f71e753056e4" CreationDate="2020-07-06T00:09:18.573" UserId="8232" Comment="edited title; made question clearer" Text="We currently have an ailing 14 yr old solar hot water installation that is no longer doing the job, running almost continuously with it's 'booster' switch turned on and still not generating enough hot water. A few plumbers have given us the same story: due to the age and general condition of the system, it makes more sense to replace it rather than attempt to repair it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They've given us various options, all with advantages and disadvantages in terms of efficiencies, costs, performance and so on but here's the two most relevant to us:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A (new) Solar Hot Water system&#xD;&#xA;- A [Heat Pump Hot water storage system][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read that both are fairly efficient, and - as I plan to get solar panels for electricity generation* - going with the heat pump version would free up some prime real estate on the roof for the panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other options we considered include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- (Electric) instant hot water (Wouldn't work for our household size + operating costs would be higher vs storage). &#xD;&#xA;- Various natural gas options (both storage and instant) - cost prohibitive as we'd have to get gas connected to our property. (Plus... you know... *it's gas*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, which of the hot water systems are 'best' in terms of sustainability? Is there another (more sustainable) option than the two above? Are there other factors to consider here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*COVID-19 and personal commitments meant my [original timeline][2] for this was pushed back&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.redenergy.com.au/living-energy/appliances/a-guide-to-heat-pump-hot-water-systems&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/9800/8232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="27a90e50-9615-4fcb-9320-6e23f302457b" CreationDate="2020-07-06T00:17:10.160" UserId="8232" Comment="deleted 9 characters in body" Text="We currently have an ailing 14 yr old solar hot water installation. A few plumbers have given us the same story: due to the age and general condition of the system, it makes more sense to replace it rather than attempt to repair it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They've given us various options, all with advantages and disadvantages in terms of efficiencies, costs, performance and so on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A (new) Solar Hot Water system&#xD;&#xA;2. A [Heat Pump Hot water storage system][1]&#xD;&#xA;3. (Electric) instant hot water&#xD;&#xA;4. (Gas) instant hot water&#xD;&#xA;5. Gas storage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read that 1 and 2 are both fairly efficient, and - as I plan to get solar panels for electricity generation* - going with the heat pump version would free up some prime real estate on the roof for the panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric Instant probably wouldn't work for our household size, and the gas options would be cost prohibitive as we'd have to get gas connected to our property. (Plus... you know... *it's gas*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, which hot water system is 'best' in terms of sustainability? Is there another (more sustainable) option than the two above? Are there other factors to consider here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*COVID-19 and personal commitments meant my [original timeline][2] for this was pushed back&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.redenergy.com.au/living-energy/appliances/a-guide-to-heat-pump-hot-water-systems&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/9800/8232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24080" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="52a0101e-a06c-4f9e-8049-f1bfa7efe26d" CreationDate="2020-07-06T00:27:55.933" UserId="8232" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="We currently have an ailing 14 yr old solar hot water installation. A few plumbers have given us the same story: due to the age and general condition of the system, it makes more sense to replace it rather than attempt to repair it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They've given us various options, all with advantages and disadvantages in terms of efficiencies, costs, performance and so on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A (new) Solar Hot Water system&#xD;&#xA;2. A [Heat Pump Hot water storage system][1]&#xD;&#xA;3. (Electric) instant hot water&#xD;&#xA;4. (Gas) instant hot water&#xD;&#xA;5. Gas storage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read that 1 and 2 are both fairly efficient, and - as I plan to get solar panels for electricity generation* - going with the heat pump version would free up some prime real estate on the roof for the panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric Instant probably wouldn't work for our household size, and the gas options would be cost prohibitive as we'd have to get gas connected to our property. (Plus... you know... *it's gas*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, which hot water system is 'best' in terms of sustainability? Is there another (more sustainable) option than the two above? Are there other factors to consider here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We live in a temperate, coastal environment. No snow in winter, and really hot summers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*COVID-19 and personal commitments meant my [original timeline][2] for this was pushed back&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.redenergy.com.au/living-energy/appliances/a-guide-to-heat-pump-hot-water-systems&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/9800/8232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10101" RevisionGUID="22e186f8-e23a-4edc-8ef0-cfe34c3a83df" CreationDate="2020-07-06T10:32:12.037" UserId="3653" Text="In theory people can separate waste much better than a machine, since they have mor knowledge about the waste itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, with all my good will, I find that following the directions for separating is very difficult, since (just one example) paper can be recycled, but not is it is coated, which is not easy to judge sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, many people do not follow the rules, it's life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, mechanical separation does exist. While it cannot (I think) surpass manual sorting, it brings reliable results, which it could also be that they surpass not the theoretical, but the actual quality of manual sorting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: are there studies about the real effectiveness of manual vs mechanical sorting of household waste? I assume in this case only a humid/food vs everything else manual separation, since it's easy enough to do and to understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24089" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10101" RevisionGUID="22e186f8-e23a-4edc-8ef0-cfe34c3a83df" CreationDate="2020-07-06T10:32:12.037" UserId="3653" Text="Is manual sorting of household waste more effective than mechanical separation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24090" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10101" RevisionGUID="22e186f8-e23a-4edc-8ef0-cfe34c3a83df" CreationDate="2020-07-06T10:32:12.037" UserId="3653" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10102" RevisionGUID="bc100569-7052-492d-881b-921c8bd132c9" CreationDate="2020-07-06T10:40:58.603" UserId="3653" Text="It is very unlikely that a chip tuning, almost every time developed by small companies, can surpass the factory tuning, considering that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - tuning requires controlling at least 10 parameters (in the last 10-15 years, more nowadays) in a range of rpm which should be split in several points, let's say 5-10 from minimum to max rpm. If you do the math, we are talking about 5 to the 10th power. Even assuming optimisations here and there, it's several thousands of combinations which need to be taken into account. NO small company can do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - tuning for emissions is difficult to reach even for big companies because it affects other more interesting parameters such as power and fuel efficiency. It's extremely unlikely that a small company can improve fuel efficiency 1) significantly at all, and 2) not significantly but without hugely affecting emissions. If it were possible, the car companies would have done it already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So no, tuning usually gives you more power, but even if in theory it could give you a fuel efficiency gain, in fact it will increase emissions a lot more to get that. Example: the FIRE engine from FIAT was developed to run lean and efficient, but it produced NOx. When the NOx emissions started to be regulated, the fuel efficiency worsened for few years. In any case, the worsening was minor, so even with the increased emissions you would get only small improvements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24092" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10101" RevisionGUID="7f4deffc-a154-4b37-b6f3-c7bec0221ba1" CreationDate="2020-07-06T12:42:06.790" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typos" Text="In theory people can separate waste much better than a machine, since they have more knowledge about the waste itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, with all my good will, I find that following the directions for separating is very difficult, since (just one example) paper can be recycled, but not if it is coated, which is not easy to judge sometimes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, many people do not follow the rules, it's life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, mechanical separation does exist. While it cannot (I think) surpass manual sorting, it brings reliable results, which it could also be that they surpass not the theoretical, but the actual quality of manual sorting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: are there studies about the real effectiveness of manual vs mechanical sorting of household waste? I assume in this case only a humid/food vs everything else manual separation, since it's easy enough to do and to understand." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24093" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10101" RevisionGUID="168eeb2d-70ac-4258-a768-20909c381099" CreationDate="2020-07-06T21:00:04.547" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1280245151332474883" />
  <row Id="24094" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9830" RevisionGUID="57f69293-79f9-4f2f-ba06-970f5250a43b" CreationDate="2020-07-07T04:08:28.127" UserId="8232" Comment="CommonMark migration (the automated script must've skipped this answer as the rendered HTML ended up different)" Text="&gt;How can I make my family understand my CO2-emissions-related hesitation to fly in order to spend time with them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want to keep your carbon footprint as low as possible, I get that. But, I feel I need to frame-challenge this question: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now, the message you are sending your family, is that your high morals (righteous and laudable as they may be!), are more important than your familial connection. They think it's a poor excuse, and **no amount of carbon emission doomsaying is going to change that.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice? Rather than seeing flying as an *obstacle*, you should look for *solutions* that will allow you to meet up with your family with a clean conscience. If they know you are making the effort, this might even lead to a conversation about how *they* can get involved and lead more sustainable lives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, it might be 'more sustainable' to avoid flying. But sustainable living should be less about sacrificing and more about... well, **living**. So, how can you 'justify' a large carbon output such as flying?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Carbon Offsetting&#xD;&#xA;If you're worried about the carbon effects of flying and can't reduce your daily carbon footprint enough to justify a once-a-year round trip, you should really look into Carbon Offsetting (as initially covered by [@HighlyIrregular's answer][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A relevant example which may help put things into perspective is [Tom Scott][2], a media personality and YouTuber (covering tech, science, history, culture, and nature). Tom flies all over the world to film on-location for his various series. Here's what he had to say in regards to [carbon offsetting][3] his travel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The best solution would be to reduce my carbon footprint. Which I intend to try: but it’s difficult when my job requires me to travel to lots of places, and I don’t want to give up my job. Outside of travel, I don’t have much of a carbon footprint to reduce.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; So: second best choice. I can offset. Or, more accurately, my company can.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Based on recommendations from folks I trust, I picked a [carbon offsetting service][4], one that:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - supports sustainable projects around the world, so there’s an actual, short-term impact that directly helps people now&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **and** ensures there is genuinely a long-term reduction in emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *That way, even if one of those approaches doesn’t work, hopefully the other one will.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He then goes on to make the point that - if you can afford the cost of flying, you can afford the cost of offsetting. 1.3 tonnes of CO2 should run you about $15-$30, judging by the projects on the [site Tom linked][4], which is not a lot of money when compared to the cost of international flights. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So whether you fly regularly, or only once a year, you should consider factoring in the cost of an offsetting service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Choose an appropriate airline&#xD;&#xA;There are also some airlines that [offer some form of carbon offsetting][5] at the time of booking. Consider booking with these airlines over those that do not offer any carbon offsetting - as this may act as positive feedback, allowing them to continue to offset, and/or put pressure on other companies that do not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note: I have no affiliation with Tom Scott or his company I just found him a relevant example of someone that can't avoid flying frequently&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6206/8232&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.tomscott.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.tomscott.com/carbon/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.goldstandard.org/take-action/offset-your-emissions&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/airlines-that-offer-carbon-offset-programs.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10107" RevisionGUID="d6b09b0c-e319-4642-a5c5-816f3cde9e45" CreationDate="2020-07-09T04:06:51.147" UserId="6293" Text="I would say that the OEM engine tune is sufficiently developed to be as lean as possible relative to the fuel octane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so improve fuel economy by increasing the tire pressure. Also, shorter sidewall tires are possible. For instance a 205/50-15 tire and a 205/45-16 tire have about the same diameter and width but the 205/45-16 tire has a shorter sidewall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a manual transmission, then improve fuel economy by not lugging the engine and by not highly revving the engine. Shift the transmission to be in the correct gear at the correct time. Otherwise get an automatic transmission.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now a front air-dam will improve fuel economy but a front air-dam can have a larger effect on reducing aerodynamic lift at the front than at the rear and therefor there is a risk of a high-speed aerodynamic oversteer. So current technology more often uses a front splitter and then smoothing panels on the underside of the car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A rear lip spoiler will improve fuel economy but only have a small effect on aerodynamic lift at the rear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Strangely enough a stiffer suspension will improve fuel economy because a stiffer suspension produces faster weight transfer and faster weight transfer results in less tire drift in ordinary driving. (Tire drift is what a tire does when it is not sliding. The sport of drifting is really the sport of power-sliding.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no easy answer in exhaust systems. Current cars mostly need a tune just to use a low-restriction cat-back exhaust. For instance, popping sounds from the cat-back are due to un-burned fuel in the exhaust system. At least the electronic tuner then has something to tune-for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Easy choices, but expensive choices, of vehicle weight reduction are available in AGM batteries, with premium racing style wheels, and in stainless-steel exhaust systems. The AGM battery can simply be smaller than the OEM gel battery. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="3dfc59b8-2422-4774-8ab3-cdaf47eb7fa3" CreationDate="2020-07-09T08:39:38.980" UserId="8823" Text="i'm having a hard time finding specific up-to-date sources that contain clear guidlines and regulatory quality thresholds for graywater reuse. The only thing i could find was the EPA 2012 report and the WHO 2006 volumes, but i can't seem to find other sources for ( germany,france,singaphore,spain,and other countries ...). &#xD;&#xA;Does any of you have good resources for what i'm looking for ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24114" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="3dfc59b8-2422-4774-8ab3-cdaf47eb7fa3" CreationDate="2020-07-09T08:39:38.980" UserId="8823" Text="Where can i find graywater reuse quality thresholds for different uses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24115" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="3dfc59b8-2422-4774-8ab3-cdaf47eb7fa3" CreationDate="2020-07-09T08:39:38.980" UserId="8823" Text="|water|waste-water|greywater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10111" RevisionGUID="bb23da6c-9255-42e9-8ef9-936e9c096b3f" CreationDate="2020-07-12T22:00:08.707" UserId="8833" Text="I am currently studying circular economy theory.  More specifically life cycle sustainability assessment theory. And I notice that a paper in this area that presents a lot of citations is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finkbeiner, M., K. Reimann, and R. Ackermann. 2008. *Life cycle*&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *sustainability assessment (LCSA) for products and processes.* Paper&#xD;&#xA;&gt; presented at SETAC Europe 18th Annual Meeting, 25–29 May 2008, Warsaw,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Poland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I trying to find this paper through the internet (in order to buy or download it, I don't know the current availability policy for this paper). But I was not even able to find the DOI code of this paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone help me to find how I can read such paper?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24122" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10111" RevisionGUID="bb23da6c-9255-42e9-8ef9-936e9c096b3f" CreationDate="2020-07-12T22:00:08.707" UserId="8833" Text="Where can I find the paper &quot;Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) for products and processes.&quot;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24123" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10111" RevisionGUID="bb23da6c-9255-42e9-8ef9-936e9c096b3f" CreationDate="2020-07-12T22:00:08.707" UserId="8833" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24124" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="40718986-8b24-41b6-8ea8-5bf3621b605a" CreationDate="2020-07-16T00:05:00.587" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10113" RevisionGUID="0c4250e8-8a85-4546-8f68-70b8145a435d" CreationDate="2020-07-16T15:55:38.363" UserId="8844" Text="I have seen a number of videos that talk about melting down HDPE and/or LDPE for craft projects. Some site the plastic as being safer to some extent. I would like to do some crafts as well that would use stock pieces, like the seat of a stool or a bowl. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are other plastics (non HDPE/LDPE) just not sturdy enough to go through melting to be used or even safe?&#xD;&#xA;Which plastics would be food safe? In the case of making a bowl or plate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24130" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10113" RevisionGUID="0c4250e8-8a85-4546-8f68-70b8145a435d" CreationDate="2020-07-16T15:55:38.363" UserId="8844" Text="What plastics are safe/useful to melt?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24131" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10113" RevisionGUID="0c4250e8-8a85-4546-8f68-70b8145a435d" CreationDate="2020-07-16T15:55:38.363" UserId="8844" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10116" RevisionGUID="f566cf06-1b8b-490a-b96e-92d089514a9c" CreationDate="2020-07-17T08:17:27.213" UserId="99" Text="Many plastics can be used for melting, but not all. Basically there are 2 types to distinguish here; thermoplastics and thermosetting plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Thermoplastics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoplastic) can be heated and shaped. Examples are HDPE, LDPE, PLA, and PP (see the Wikipedia link for a longer list of types)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Thermosetting plastics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosetting_polymer) harden or burn when heated. Examples are Phenolic (PF) resins, most polyurethanes (PUR) and some types of polyester.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that melting plastic can release toxic fumes. How toxic the fumes are depends on the type of plastic. I would not recommend melting PVC, ABS or PS. I heard mixed stories about PET, I guess it depends on the used additives. In any case make sure you have good ventilation when you melt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food grade plastics are plastics that contain very little contaminants like dyes or other additives. To guarantee a plastic is food safe, it's usually made from virgin (non-recycled) plastic. The exception is PET bottles. When collected separately they can be reused or recycled into new PET bottles.&#xD;&#xA;Whether your molded plates are food grade depends on how well you can control the temperature while melting (keep it as low as possible) and if you introduce contaminants or not. The safest to use is probably HDPE. In any case I would not put your plates in a dish washer or microwave, or use them with acidic foods like tomato sauce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more information also here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Other Sustainability SE question: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/225/99&#xD;&#xA; - Chemistry SE question: [Does melting HDPE plastic produce toxic fumes? (melting, not burning)](https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/q/115002/24093)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="934073f9-56fb-442a-a164-bf475f16266d" CreationDate="2020-07-17T21:55:34.437" UserId="8448" Text="One of the advantages of timber buildings is regularly said to be their ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't this require the timber used in the building to not decay, or at least to decay slower than the life cycle of a living tree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when the timber  building decays it releases the carbon back into the atmosphere. Doesn't this then close the circle, leading to a net effect of zero in the long run?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24142" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="934073f9-56fb-442a-a164-bf475f16266d" CreationDate="2020-07-17T21:55:34.437" UserId="8448" Text="Do timber buildings absorb carbon in the long run?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24143" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="934073f9-56fb-442a-a164-bf475f16266d" CreationDate="2020-07-17T21:55:34.437" UserId="8448" Text="|building-materials|carbon-sequestration|co2|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24144" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10118" RevisionGUID="9c78daa7-6545-456f-b5df-78d19631dc2c" CreationDate="2020-07-18T04:49:36.433" UserId="8851" Text="I have an old fridge that has not been used in years. I am hesitant to get rid of it as it is an antique.    I would like to upcycle it into something else but am lacking in imagination.  Does anyone have any ideas, tips or experience with upcycling large appliances?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24145" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10118" RevisionGUID="9c78daa7-6545-456f-b5df-78d19631dc2c" CreationDate="2020-07-18T04:49:36.433" UserId="8851" Text="In What Ways Can I Upcycle my Old, Unused Refrigerator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24146" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10118" RevisionGUID="9c78daa7-6545-456f-b5df-78d19631dc2c" CreationDate="2020-07-18T04:49:36.433" UserId="8851" Text="|upcycling|appliance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10113" RevisionGUID="f55228d0-bad0-4fd8-a588-4ad38e650bf2" CreationDate="2020-07-18T10:08:03.983" UserId="99" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I have seen a number of videos that talk about melting down HDPE and/or LDPE for craft projects. Some say these types of plastic are safer to some extent. I would like to do some crafts as well that would use stock pieces, like the seat of a stool or a bowl. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are other plastics (non HDPE/LDPE) just not sturdy enough to go through melting to be used or even safe?&#xD;&#xA;Which plastics would be food safe? In the case of making a bowl or plate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24148" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10113" RevisionGUID="f55228d0-bad0-4fd8-a588-4ad38e650bf2" CreationDate="2020-07-18T10:08:03.983" UserId="99" Comment="added 5 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|recycling|plastic|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10119" RevisionGUID="4564e616-f809-42f2-a257-fa2fca51ae88" CreationDate="2020-07-18T20:49:42.823" UserId="8853" Text="You can alternatively  make bone broth out of your bones, after several hours of boiling your bones, you’ll have a mineral and nutrient rich broth in addition to significantly softer bones that are easier to decompose. Some people put the bones through two rounds of brothing at which point the bones crumble in your hand (which when salted become great chewy snacks for both canine and children).  The crumbled bone are now easily compostable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24150" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10120" RevisionGUID="7620c4da-ab08-4048-bb63-4132687361b6" CreationDate="2020-07-19T21:24:30.510" UserId="4343" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have a load of water butt rainwater storage linked to my gutter downpipes for my garden water needs, but I can't stand around waiting to fill watering cans from taps on butts, so occasionally (once a week?) decant (say) 80l from the water butts into plastic dustbins so I can then just dunk a bucket in the bin (takes seconds to fill) as needed and pour the water where it is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'd like to use a hose too, so would like a water butt (maybe 100L) high on an external wall to feed the hose by gravity...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The challenge is filling that elevated tank... As I'd only water maybe 50L twice a week, a weak slow pump to fill that butt is fine (solar powered, 100L a week, to (say) 20ft).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd appreciate any input/experience people can give before I start experimenting with this! I know mains powered water-butt pumps are available, but I am keen on an elevated 'water tower' for my hose... then I have options for how I get the tank filled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24151" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10120" RevisionGUID="7620c4da-ab08-4048-bb63-4132687361b6" CreationDate="2020-07-19T21:24:30.510" UserId="4343" Text="Renewable garden watering system - 12v battery system (solar recharged) to ensure there is 50l of water at 20ft twice a week" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24152" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10120" RevisionGUID="7620c4da-ab08-4048-bb63-4132687361b6" CreationDate="2020-07-19T21:24:30.510" UserId="4343" Text="|solar-power|gardening|water-conservation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10120" RevisionGUID="0c4902f1-4139-4701-900d-85353dd0e764" CreationDate="2020-07-20T12:08:23.270" UserId="106" Comment="adde SI units" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have a load of water butt rainwater storage linked to my gutter downpipes for my garden water needs, but I can't stand around waiting to fill watering cans from taps on butts, so occasionally (once a week?) decant (say) 80l from the water butts into plastic dustbins so I can then just dunk a bucket in the bin (takes seconds to fill) as needed and pour the water where it is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'd like to use a hose too, so would like a water butt (maybe 100L) high on an external wall to feed the hose by gravity...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The challenge is filling that elevated tank... As I'd only water maybe 50L twice a week, a weak slow pump to fill that butt is fine (solar powered, 100L a week, to (say) 20ft (6m)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd appreciate any input/experience people can give before I start experimenting with this! I know mains powered water-butt pumps are available, but I am keen on an elevated 'water tower' for my hose... then I have options for how I get the tank filled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24154" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10119" RevisionGUID="d56a578e-335f-433d-9e88-8e7b908dbbc1" CreationDate="2020-07-20T21:51:43.167" UserId="8853" Comment="more information" Text="You can alternatively  make bone broth out of your bones, after several hours of boiling your bones, you’ll have a mineral and nutrient rich broth in addition to significantly softer bones that are easier to decompose. Some people put the bones through two rounds of brothing at which point the bones crumble in your hand (which when salted become chewy calcium snacks for both canine and children).  The crumbled bone are now easily compostable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: Nourishing Traditions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10119" RevisionGUID="bfda45bb-98fe-40c6-9299-c2bdc7b5a7e6" CreationDate="2020-07-20T21:57:01.120" UserId="8853" Comment="more information" Text="You can alternatively make bone broth out of your bones, after several hours of boiling your bones, you’ll have a mineral and nutrient-rich broth in addition to significantly softer bones that are easier to decompose. Some people put the bones through two rounds of boiling at which point the bones crumble in your hand (which when salted become chewy calcium snacks for both canine and children).  The crumbled bone are now easily compost-able.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: Nourishing Traditions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you choose the bone broth route, I recommend roasting your bones first so that the future broth's aroma is simply scrumptious. Bone broth is the chefs' favorite as the base for many soulful soups." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10119" RevisionGUID="8fa4d9b9-7948-40d1-8269-88b76032b81f" CreationDate="2020-07-20T22:55:27.167" UserId="8853" Comment="edited body" Text="You can alternatively make bone broth out of your bones. After several hours of boiling your bones, you’ll have a mineral and nutrient-rich broth in addition to significantly softer bones that are easier to decompose. Some people put the bones through two rounds of boiling at which point the bones crumble in your hand (which when salted become chewy calcium snacks for both canine and children).  The crumbled bone are now easily compost-able.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: Nourishing Traditions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you choose the bone broth route, I recommend roasting your bones first so that the future broth's aroma is simply scrumptious. Bone broth is the chefs' favorite as the base for many soulful soups." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24157" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10121" RevisionGUID="afa7c93d-77c6-4964-8798-d93e1b41ae13" CreationDate="2020-07-21T03:19:08.987" UserId="8232" Text="**Word of caution:** If it's truly an antique and is in working order, upcycling the fridge may not be in your best interests. Depending on how you upcycle it, you may have to make irreversible changes to the fridge which could lower it's potential value. Definitely double-check with someone specialising in antique appliances first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that out of the way, here's a few options you might consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Bar fridge** - More of a 'reuse' rather than upcycling, but a lot of people like to use older fridges in their home bar/rumpus/cave/den or other entertaining space, as a place to chill drinks and party food when they have guests over, turning it off when they aren't using it to save on power. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If the fridge still works (or only needs cleaning/minor repairs/re-gassing), it would be more economical to keep it in service, whether at yours or a family member's / close friend's place. If it has been sitting for a while, do have an appliance repair person inspect the fridge before powering it on first!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Cabinet or Pantry** - This one is probably the most obvious choice and doesn't require much in the way of alteration - use it in the kitchen, laundry, or den as a place to store dry stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Bookshelf or Storage Nook** - Another one that doesn't require much alteration. If you want the shelves to be visible, you could take the door off, or place the fridge in a corner and prop it open along the wall, so it still looks like a fridge but the door doesn't get in the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Planters and Garden Bed** - The door shelves could be used as small planters, and the main fridge section could be used as a raised garden bed. Or, you could use the shelves as a space to grow your seedlingss and tender crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Poolside/Outside storage** - need a place for your pool towels, plastic cups and plates, kids toys, and party supplies? It means less worry about forgetting your towels inside, and more free space in the inside closets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Wine cellar/Whisky cabinet** - with some nice custom wooden shelving, you could use the fridge as a cool, dry place to store your best bottles of booze. Painting the insides a darker colour, or continuing the wood up the sides and back can add to the effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Doghouse** - I once saw a fridge on it's side, with the door held open with poles like a veranda roof and a dog bed inside. Probably better for small to medium sized-dogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do go down the route of upcycling it in a way that doesn't require powering it on, I would recommend getting it de-gassed. As LShaver mentioned in the comments - it's likely that the old refrigerant is harmful to the environment, so that should be removed and disposed of correctly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could potentially even re-sell the mechanical parts (like the compressor and coils) as spares, to save them from landfill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10121" RevisionGUID="9de11582-4741-498d-8da3-58375e46e995" CreationDate="2020-07-21T04:11:03.200" UserId="8232" Comment="added 86 characters in body" Text="**Word of caution:** If it's truly an antique and is in working order, upcycling the fridge may not be in your best interests. Depending on how you upcycle it, you may have to make irreversible changes to the fridge which could lower it's potential value. Definitely double-check with someone specialising in antique appliances first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that out of the way, here's a few options you might consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Bar fridge** - More of a 'reuse' rather than upcycling, but a lot of people like to use older fridges in their home bar/rumpus/cave/den or other entertaining space, as a place to chill drinks and party food when they have guests over, turning it off when they aren't using it to save on power. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  If the fridge still works (or only needs cleaning/minor repairs/re-gassing), it would be more economical to keep it in service, whether at yours or a family member's / close friend's place. If it has been sitting for a while, do have an appliance repair person inspect the fridge before powering it on first!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Cabinet or Pantry** - This one is probably the most obvious choice and doesn't require much in the way of alteration - use it in the kitchen, laundry, or den as a place to store dry stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Bookshelf or Storage Nook** - Another one that doesn't require much alteration. If you want the shelves to be visible, you could take the door off, or place the fridge in a corner and prop it open along the wall, so it still looks like a fridge but the door doesn't get in the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Planters and Garden Bed** - The door shelves could be used as small planters, and the main fridge section could be used as a raised garden bed. Or, you could keep it upright and use the shelves as a space to grow your seedlings and tender crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Poolside/Outside storage** - need a place for your pool towels, plastic cups and plates, kids toys, and party supplies? It means less worry about forgetting your towels inside, and more free space in the inside closets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Wine cellar/Whisky cabinet** - with some nice custom wooden shelving, you could use the fridge as a cool, dry place to store your best bottles of booze. Painting the insides a darker colour, or continuing the wood up the sides and back can add to the effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Doghouse** - I once saw a fridge on it's side, with the door held open with poles like a veranda roof and a dog bed inside. Probably better for small to medium sized-dogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you do go down the route of upcycling it in a way that doesn't require powering it on, I would recommend getting it de-gassed. As LShaver mentioned in the comments - it's likely that the old refrigerant is harmful to the environment, so that should be removed and disposed of correctly.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could potentially even re-sell the mechanical parts (like the compressor and coils) as spares, or as a last resort, take them to a scrap metal recycling facility to save them from landfill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10118" RevisionGUID="e3c935d7-110b-453b-8106-18305e26ca23" CreationDate="2020-07-21T05:55:47.740" UserId="8232" Comment="fixed capitalisation of title, and slight body changes to improve readability" Text="I have an old fridge that has not been used in years, but I am hesitant to get rid of it as it is an antique. I would prefer to upcycle it into something else but am lacking in imagination. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have any ideas, tips or experience with upcycling large appliances?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24160" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10118" RevisionGUID="e3c935d7-110b-453b-8106-18305e26ca23" CreationDate="2020-07-21T05:55:47.740" UserId="8232" Comment="fixed capitalisation of title, and slight body changes to improve readability" Text="In what ways can I upcycle my old, unused refrigerator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24161" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10118" RevisionGUID="e3c935d7-110b-453b-8106-18305e26ca23" CreationDate="2020-07-21T05:55:47.740" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 640" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10123" RevisionGUID="99743e9a-a37c-40c1-9d6d-cb4e3749fd13" CreationDate="2020-07-22T03:34:19.523" UserId="8860" Text="I work for a brewery and we have recently started using 3mm thick 140x90mm Pump Clips on our taps instead of 2mm thick PVC Pump clips. These are the little plaques we see when we order a beer at the pub. We have done this for 2 reasons: 1, the asthetics but 2 in order to reduce our use of plastics.&#xD;&#xA;My questions is: Does marine plywood actually have a smaller environmental footprint than PVC as it contains many glues? &#xD;&#xA;The plastics were not being recycled.&#xD;&#xA;Not sure what will happen to plywood clips at end of use - but hope to use them many times over (definitely not single use).&#xD;&#xA;Hopefully someone can help me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10123" RevisionGUID="99743e9a-a37c-40c1-9d6d-cb4e3749fd13" CreationDate="2020-07-22T03:34:19.523" UserId="8860" Text="Is Marine Plywood better than plastic for the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10123" RevisionGUID="99743e9a-a37c-40c1-9d6d-cb4e3749fd13" CreationDate="2020-07-22T03:34:19.523" UserId="8860" Text="|plastic|carbon-footprint|plastic-alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10124" RevisionGUID="cda3d386-e21f-48f2-b4da-adce0a54939e" CreationDate="2020-07-23T17:45:23.390" UserId="6870" Text="The commercially available solar cookers seem to use a variety of different technologies. I have seen ones that use mirrors, ones that use evacuate tubes, and other things, in different configurations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I am wondering what combination of solar cooker features would be best at reliably boiling water in dim daylight conditions.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally I would be looking only at the subset of devices that cost &lt;1000 USD and are marketed to individual consumers, or that are fairly easy for someone without special skills to assemble. If these constraints veer too closely into &quot;shopping advice,&quot; please ignore them and I will be happy to delete them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24167" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10124" RevisionGUID="cda3d386-e21f-48f2-b4da-adce0a54939e" CreationDate="2020-07-23T17:45:23.390" UserId="6870" Text="Best solar cooker type for dim sunlight?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24168" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10124" RevisionGUID="cda3d386-e21f-48f2-b4da-adce0a54939e" CreationDate="2020-07-23T17:45:23.390" UserId="6870" Text="|cooking|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24169" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="f62f9b70-a3ec-41ce-9ea3-7dc9d9f9330d" CreationDate="2020-07-23T21:05:30.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24174" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="8b8aa482-f455-4ae9-9594-87c6c44fed89" CreationDate="2020-07-28T10:07:20.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="24175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10119" RevisionGUID="7dc2ee85-7d67-4462-a33d-70b436025fd3" CreationDate="2020-07-28T15:39:01.080" UserId="8853" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="You can alternatively make bone broth out of your bones. After several hours of boiling them, you’ll have a mineral and nutrient-rich broth in addition to significantly softer bones that are easier to decompose. Some people put them through two rounds of boiling at which point the bones crumble in your hand (which when salted become chewy calcium snacks for both canine and children).  The crumbled bone are now easily compost-able.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: Nourishing Traditions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*If you choose the bone broth route, I recommend roasting your bones first so that the future broth's aroma is simply scrumptious. Bone broth is the chefs' favorite as the base for many soulful soups." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24176" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10113" RevisionGUID="8b3085f0-2277-4cbe-87a8-5de3d460b429" CreationDate="2020-07-29T03:00:45.977" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1288308455326056449" />
  <row Id="24177" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10126" RevisionGUID="4c489593-9816-415b-bd2a-35e2d9c4a98d" CreationDate="2020-07-29T05:35:18.307" UserId="8876" Text="I want to live alone in a floor above where I'm currently living cause I don't stand my family, only inconvenience, there is nothing not even tiles, I don't mind the discomfort but, how can I get rid of my poop, can I burn it or what do I do with it? (I plan on investing on a solar panel for the electricity, and an electric stove for cooking)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24178" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10126" RevisionGUID="4c489593-9816-415b-bd2a-35e2d9c4a98d" CreationDate="2020-07-29T05:35:18.307" UserId="8876" Text="How to correctly get rid of human poop?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24179" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10126" RevisionGUID="4c489593-9816-415b-bd2a-35e2d9c4a98d" CreationDate="2020-07-29T05:35:18.307" UserId="8876" Text="|environmental-impact|lifestyle|family|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10126" RevisionGUID="ca9d3976-5e8f-4405-a290-e7023e9f938e" CreationDate="2020-07-29T11:59:24.587" UserId="8876" Comment="added 337 characters in body" Text="I want to live alone in a floor above where I'm currently living cause I don't stand my family, only inconvenience, there is nothing not even tiles, I don't mind the discomfort but, how can I get rid of my poop, can I burn it or what do I do with it? (I plan on investing on a solar panel for the electricity, and an electric stove for cooking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in Colombia and I plan to invest on a 100Watt panel with inverter, battery and charger controller (only things I use are my cellphone and laptop for college, ilumination and electric stove), while I save to install the aqueduct I need a way of disposing of my waste (poop) with as less impact to the environment as possible. I would only use my income for my and my cat's food and water, the roof has a big space for the panel and for putting small crops.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24181" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10126" RevisionGUID="39554a21-f24c-4951-a284-bd10a71a3365" CreationDate="2020-07-29T12:06:43.353" UserId="8876" Comment="added 205 characters in body" Text="I want to live alone in a floor above where I'm currently living cause I don't stand my family, only inconvenience, there is nothing not even tiles, I don't mind the discomfort but, how can I get rid of my poop, can I burn it or what do I do with it? (I plan on investing on a solar panel for the electricity, and an electric stove for cooking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in Colombia and I plan to invest on a 100Watt panel with inverter, battery and charger controller (only things I use are my cellphone and laptop for college, ilumination and electric stove), while I save to install the aqueduct I need a way of disposing of my waste (poop) with as less impact to the environment as possible. I would only use my income for me and my cat's food and water, the roof has a big space for the panel and for putting small crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a very long term thing, I want to do everything for my self, and try to save every penny to put the space in good condition, live and even later lease the space when it is in better conditions. My income is 800.000 COP or around 220 dollars monthly.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="24185" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="c2424d8e-64d1-4d2b-8923-bddd6b961853" CreationDate="2020-07-31T00:01:20.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10132" RevisionGUID="cb99a804-cee0-4b13-a958-e467e8323748" CreationDate="2020-08-02T08:26:07.423" UserId="8041" Text="Wireless charging requires a number of 'receiving charging pad's and a 'management module' and I imagine there will be additional wiring.  How much extra weight does this add to an electric bus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25198" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10132" RevisionGUID="cb99a804-cee0-4b13-a958-e467e8323748" CreationDate="2020-08-02T08:26:07.423" UserId="8041" Text="How much weight would a wireless charging system add to an electric bus?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25199" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10132" RevisionGUID="cb99a804-cee0-4b13-a958-e467e8323748" CreationDate="2020-08-02T08:26:07.423" UserId="8041" Text="|transport|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25217" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10132" RevisionGUID="27643fd5-5767-4a53-b450-d6ce143ea4ad" CreationDate="2020-08-04T09:00:05.697" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1290573210610806785" />
  <row Id="25240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10141" RevisionGUID="4263bbfb-139c-475b-b89f-8a99d2723a81" CreationDate="2020-08-06T11:59:19.400" UserId="1912" Text="There are areas in the country I live in where deforestation has been extreme and I'm thinking of going to transplant smaller trees from the neighboring forests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this make sense? Could I end up doing more harm than good?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10141" RevisionGUID="4263bbfb-139c-475b-b89f-8a99d2723a81" CreationDate="2020-08-06T11:59:19.400" UserId="1912" Text="does moving baby trees help carbon sequestriation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10141" RevisionGUID="4263bbfb-139c-475b-b89f-8a99d2723a81" CreationDate="2020-08-06T11:59:19.400" UserId="1912" Text="|carbon-sequestration|forestry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10142" RevisionGUID="0a2429eb-8f8a-4dff-b2e8-8ef5b78d6b8f" CreationDate="2020-08-06T12:14:45.310" UserId="8823" Text="are there any documents or examples about reusing greywater a particular building in another adjacent building? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;example: Using treated greywater from an office building for toilet flushing in a hotel that's next to it.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25244" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10142" RevisionGUID="0a2429eb-8f8a-4dff-b2e8-8ef5b78d6b8f" CreationDate="2020-08-06T12:14:45.310" UserId="8823" Text="greywater reuse between buildings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25245" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10142" RevisionGUID="0a2429eb-8f8a-4dff-b2e8-8ef5b78d6b8f" CreationDate="2020-08-06T12:14:45.310" UserId="8823" Text="|water|water-management|city-living|greywater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10143" RevisionGUID="a2282f72-e5d8-419a-96c1-c068ff06fbcf" CreationDate="2020-08-06T12:33:09.743" UserId="8875" Text="I'm deigning a solar plant over the roof or a huge building for my company. Now the roof has a lot of obstacles, Shafts, pillars, AC equipment etc. I have a couple of questions that I could really use some answers for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Does partial shading on the modules will cause hot spots? keeping in mind that it would probably cover about 10-15% of the module area.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Neglecting the reduced power output of the system and will the shading cause any damage to the inverter or other modules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Project info: &#xD;&#xA;I'm using 395W SunTech panels model (STP405S - A72/Vfh) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverters are 100KW with 6 MPPTs and each one has 4 input pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm using 16 String and 15 Module per string." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10143" RevisionGUID="a2282f72-e5d8-419a-96c1-c068ff06fbcf" CreationDate="2020-08-06T12:33:09.743" UserId="8875" Text="Shading percentage to cause hot spots" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10143" RevisionGUID="a2282f72-e5d8-419a-96c1-c068ff06fbcf" CreationDate="2020-08-06T12:33:09.743" UserId="8875" Text="|solar-power|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10144" RevisionGUID="59f304cb-cac6-46d6-a09d-7d559b858565" CreationDate="2020-08-06T14:43:12.710" UserId="1056" Text="By moving a tree from one area to another, that's -1 tree to the source and +1 tree to the destination, for a net change of 0 trees over the region. That probably won't make much of a difference overall. The specific tree being moved might fare slightly better or worse over its lifetime, which could have a small impact, good or bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe the real question here is about the best (or fastest) method of afforestation. Is it best to plant trees from seed, or transplant saplings, or something else? Large-scale afforestation sometimes has problems (like planting too many of a single species of tree, all at the same age) but perhaps introducing seedlings and saplings of various species and age might better contribute to the re-development of forest biodiversity. I'm not an expert here, so hopefully a real forest scientist can provide a better answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25250" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10143" RevisionGUID="a9bb3803-ada4-44fe-827c-13f4cbe2f709" CreationDate="2020-08-06T14:57:47.310" UserId="1056" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="I'm designing a solar plant over the roof or a huge building for my company. Now the roof has a lot of obstacles, Shafts, pillars, AC equipment etc. I have a couple of questions that I could really use some answers for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Does partial shading on the modules will cause hot spots? keeping in mind that it would probably cover about 10-15% of the module area.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Neglecting the reduced power output of the system and will the shading cause any damage to the inverter or other modules?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Project info: &#xD;&#xA;I'm using 395W SunTech panels model (STP405S - A72/Vfh) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverters are 100KW with 6 MPPTs and each one has 4 input pairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm using 16 String and 15 Module per string." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25251" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10145" RevisionGUID="eac1169b-4acc-4b9f-970e-8a16063d944c" CreationDate="2020-08-06T14:57:51.567" UserId="1056" Text="Yes, partial shading is very likely to cause hotspots. Those hotspots may be up to 19º C warmer than nearby panels, according to [Efficiency analysis of PV power plants shaded by MV overhead lines](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40095-016-0208-2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's hard to predict how much damage could occur. Increased heat definitely increases the risk of module damage. And obstacles that cause shading are guaranteed to cause localized heating in the same spot again and again, which puts those spots at even higher risk. Catastrophic damage is usually associated with higher temperature differences, but it's still quite possible for shading hotspots to damage the module.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are ways of reducing hotspots when shading is inevitable, but those solutions cost money too. So the question comes to down cost, and whether you prefer the up-front cost of preventing module damage, or the deferred costs of lost power and potential module damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, this is highly dependent on the geometry of your site." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10146" RevisionGUID="8beb0245-5f0e-4c14-ac43-3ac85c7ac3f1" CreationDate="2020-08-06T15:30:00.763" UserId="8893" Text="I am trying to create a cheap and easy way to distill water, I learned through some research and talking with people that making a solar still is the best way. I really would like a cheap solution to the water crisis around the world and I think this is the best way. I wanted to know is I make normal solar still paint it black and have a mirror or some other way to focus the suns rays into the water, would this be a good way to heat up the water. I also wanted to know if this has been done before, I have looked around and not seen anything like it. If this is not a good and efficient way to distill water then do you know what is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25253" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10146" RevisionGUID="8beb0245-5f0e-4c14-ac43-3ac85c7ac3f1" CreationDate="2020-08-06T15:30:00.763" UserId="8893" Text="New Solar Still?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25254" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10146" RevisionGUID="8beb0245-5f0e-4c14-ac43-3ac85c7ac3f1" CreationDate="2020-08-06T15:30:00.763" UserId="8893" Text="|solar-power|water|water-management|solar-thermal|seawater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10147" RevisionGUID="e1d64616-d35f-4702-8957-10e7863d8ec6" CreationDate="2020-08-06T22:43:09.993" UserId="8893" Text="I am trying to figure out an application for a biodegradable packaging material a found out about. It is made from old or used potatoes or corn starch. I was thinking of using it in Pizza boxes to suck up the grease so pizza boxes can be recycled. Does anybody know any good applications for this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10147" RevisionGUID="e1d64616-d35f-4702-8957-10e7863d8ec6" CreationDate="2020-08-06T22:43:09.993" UserId="8893" Text="Biodegradable Food Packging" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10147" RevisionGUID="e1d64616-d35f-4702-8957-10e7863d8ec6" CreationDate="2020-08-06T22:43:09.993" UserId="8893" Text="|recycling|food|plastic|packaging|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25259" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10142" RevisionGUID="89fc4aa4-e7ed-4baf-b7e1-14371db5affb" CreationDate="2020-08-07T10:59:13.280" UserId="8232" Comment="made title a question + slight grammar/formatting fixes of the body" Text="Are there any documented cases or examples about reusing greywater from a particular building in another adjacent building? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: Using treated greywater from an office building for toilet flushing in a hotel that's next to it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25260" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10142" RevisionGUID="89fc4aa4-e7ed-4baf-b7e1-14371db5affb" CreationDate="2020-08-07T10:59:13.280" UserId="8232" Comment="made title a question + slight grammar/formatting fixes of the body" Text="Are there examples of Greywater reuse between buildings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25261" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10142" RevisionGUID="89fc4aa4-e7ed-4baf-b7e1-14371db5affb" CreationDate="2020-08-07T10:59:13.280" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 643" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10141" RevisionGUID="1247385f-f635-4bb4-a915-eed0fdc76b42" CreationDate="2020-08-07T10:59:27.293" UserId="8232" Comment="improved title and minor grammar fixes" Text="There are areas in the country I live in where deforestation has been extreme. I'm thinking of going to transplant smaller trees from the neighboring forests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this make sense? Could I end up doing more harm than good?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25263" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10141" RevisionGUID="1247385f-f635-4bb4-a915-eed0fdc76b42" CreationDate="2020-08-07T10:59:27.293" UserId="8232" Comment="improved title and minor grammar fixes" Text="Would moving baby trees help with carbon sequestration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25264" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10141" RevisionGUID="1247385f-f635-4bb4-a915-eed0fdc76b42" CreationDate="2020-08-07T10:59:27.293" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 642" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25265" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10146" RevisionGUID="32997f58-7f63-4732-8f5c-be729784fc51" CreationDate="2020-08-07T11:13:05.990" UserId="99" Comment="Improved title, remove irrelevant tag" Text="I am trying to create a cheap and easy way to distill water. I learned through some research and talking with people that making a solar still is the best way. I really would like a cheap solution to the water crisis around the world and I think this is the best way. I wanted to know is I make normal solar still paint it black and have a mirror or some other way to focus the suns rays into the water, would this be a good way to heat up the water. I also wanted to know if this has been done before, I have looked around and not seen anything like it. If this is not a good and efficient way to distill water then do you know what is?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25266" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10146" RevisionGUID="32997f58-7f63-4732-8f5c-be729784fc51" CreationDate="2020-08-07T11:13:05.990" UserId="99" Comment="Improved title, remove irrelevant tag" Text="How do I create a cheap solar still?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25267" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10146" RevisionGUID="32997f58-7f63-4732-8f5c-be729784fc51" CreationDate="2020-08-07T11:13:05.990" UserId="99" Comment="Improved title, remove irrelevant tag" Text="|water|water-management|solar-thermal|seawater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25268" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10148" RevisionGUID="7bbc8847-62b7-489d-a795-19277efb7727" CreationDate="2020-08-07T21:12:28.963" UserId="6293" Text="It's not that difficult to make plastic from strong sugars. The trick is to make plastic from less expensive weak sugars like wood chips. One company making plastic from wood chips has given up on a quick biodegradable action because of shelf life requirements of food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.avantium.com/technologies/dawn/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is another link in the news:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.pulpex.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a food industry supplier with a biodegradable lining for grease:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.biomasspackaging.com/no-more-soggy-food-containers-introducing-our-new-ingeo-lined-clamshells/ ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10149" RevisionGUID="9f7be9cc-788b-4609-9817-a9aa16c9ffc7" CreationDate="2020-08-08T09:25:23.997" UserId="3659" Text="Soda Stream is advertised as a more sustainable alternative to buying sparkling water in bottles. The main selling points are that no water filled bottles need to be manufactured, transported and recycled anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am a little skeptical, because the Soda Stream machine itself needs to be manufactured in the first place and producing / maintaining the gas bottles also does not seem zero effort to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not doubt, that the machines do make sense when used a lot, but are there any data on how many bottles need to be carbonated until the environmental break even (e.g. in CO2) is reached?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know similar articles about how many ebooks would need to be read on a single ebook reader until its production becomes more sustainable than printing the books on paper instead. For Soda Stream I do however only find articles that deal with which option is cheaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would be interested in comparisons for single use plastic bottles, deposit plastic bottles and deposit glass bottles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25270" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10149" RevisionGUID="9f7be9cc-788b-4609-9817-a9aa16c9ffc7" CreationDate="2020-08-08T09:25:23.997" UserId="3659" Text="After how many litres does Soda Stream get more sustainable than bottled sparkling water" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25271" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10149" RevisionGUID="9f7be9cc-788b-4609-9817-a9aa16c9ffc7" CreationDate="2020-08-08T09:25:23.997" UserId="3659" Text="|environmental-impact|home|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25272" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10149" RevisionGUID="af0355fb-64b8-4e17-acdb-9161af2bbbbe" CreationDate="2020-08-09T15:00:02.913" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1292475735190446080" />
  <row Id="25273" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10143" RevisionGUID="514ca124-d977-4f79-9718-ce1723dcd98d" CreationDate="2020-08-11T09:00:02.793" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1293109913443590144" />
  <row Id="25274" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10111" RevisionGUID="210d3adf-3862-47b4-b590-4ecd737c373c" CreationDate="2020-08-12T09:00:05.283" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1293472311719452672" />
  <row Id="25275" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="50394618-1445-4b3a-9bdb-b175b788a929" CreationDate="2020-08-12T13:07:52.687" UserId="8232" Comment="some spelling &amp; grammar cleanup" Text="I'm having a hard time finding specific up-to-date sources that contain clear guidelines and regulatory quality thresholds for graywater reuse. The only thing I could find was the EPA 2012 report and the WHO 2006 volumes, but I can't seem to find other sources, especially for Germany, France, Singapore, Spain, and other countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know of any good resources for what I'm looking for? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25276" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="50394618-1445-4b3a-9bdb-b175b788a929" CreationDate="2020-08-12T13:07:52.687" UserId="8232" Comment="some spelling &amp; grammar cleanup" Text="Where can I find graywater reuse quality thresholds for different uses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25277" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="50394618-1445-4b3a-9bdb-b175b788a929" CreationDate="2020-08-12T13:07:52.687" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 3379 edit id of 644" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25280" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10082" RevisionGUID="92994eaf-9dcd-4043-91a1-c764f308c7f5" CreationDate="2020-08-12T21:00:06.850" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1293653512509960192" />
  <row Id="25281" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6764" RevisionGUID="a64ca36a-49fe-4b65-a2a8-0d05334a3b5a" CreationDate="2020-08-12T21:06:30.833" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25284" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6041" RevisionGUID="fe43befb-c5b2-499c-acc4-fd0fda924399" CreationDate="2020-08-14T15:03:20.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="26a6f789-57c3-41ba-a425-e4da9ee33365" CreationDate="2020-08-15T04:54:24.353" UserId="8907" Text="It’s 40°C at dusk during a summer heat wave. My electric utility is threatening blackouts and begging people to conserve.&#xA;&#xA;I have a couple unused rooms in a detached suburban house that don’t need air conditioning. If I close the air vents and the doors to these rooms, will my air conditioning usage (and my electric bill) decrease, increase, or stay about the same?&#xA;&#xA;My first thought was that less conditioned air volume absolutely means less cooling. Then I started thinking about the lack of insulation in the interior walls and about air leakage in ducts that now carry greater static pressures. Is there any guidance that doesn’t require a full building energy audit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25287" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="26a6f789-57c3-41ba-a425-e4da9ee33365" CreationDate="2020-08-15T04:54:24.353" UserId="8907" Text="Should I close vents to unused rooms?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25288" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="26a6f789-57c3-41ba-a425-e4da9ee33365" CreationDate="2020-08-15T04:54:24.353" UserId="8907" Text="|electricity|cooling|air-conditioning|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10151" RevisionGUID="0334d5f4-e257-4195-905d-2b7ce47279b5" CreationDate="2020-08-16T15:01:38.020" UserId="8910" Text="The toilet rust is a very tough stain.&#xD;&#xA;I have tried: &#xD;&#xA;- Vinegar alone  &#xD;&#xA;- Lemon juice  &#xD;&#xA;- Baking soda with vinegar: works a little bit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking for other options that are biodegradable. Please let me know the products, and homemade recipes you have. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25298" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10151" RevisionGUID="0334d5f4-e257-4195-905d-2b7ce47279b5" CreationDate="2020-08-16T15:01:38.020" UserId="8910" Text="Looking for eco friendly biodegradable toilet cleaners for removing toilet rust, either home-made or commercial" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25299" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10151" RevisionGUID="0334d5f4-e257-4195-905d-2b7ce47279b5" CreationDate="2020-08-16T15:01:38.020" UserId="8910" Text="|cleaning|toilet|ecolabel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10152" RevisionGUID="8a0301d2-3880-4468-8305-56188a856ae3" CreationDate="2020-08-17T00:19:05.787" UserId="8232" Text="How are you applying the cleaning solutions? The technique is just as important as the ingredients - they need time to work, which may be difficult with a porcelain toilet bowl, as the dimensions and pool of water can interfere with the process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need the solution to remain on the affected area and not be diluted by the bowl of water - draining the latter as much as possible before application would be the best option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this article][1], Vinegar and Baking Soda paste should be left on the affected area for at least an hour, followed up with a second paste of Cream of Tartar (a.k.a. Potassium bitartrate) and 3% Hydrogen Peroxide, also for an hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the eco-friendliness of these ingredients: Cream of Tartar is a byproduct of the winemaking industry and is used in cooking. Hydrogen Peroxide is considered [greener than chloride-based bleaches][2], and produces water as a byproduct. A lot of commercial bleaching, for cotton, paper etc, are switching to Hydrogen Peroxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hunker.com/13424047/how-to-remove-rust-from-porcelain&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/hydrogen-peroxide-tips.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10152" RevisionGUID="5a02f9dc-4c14-4971-b629-a82725e18348" CreationDate="2020-08-17T00:25:15.403" UserId="8232" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="How are you applying the cleaning solutions? The technique is just as important as the ingredients - they need time to work, which may be difficult with a porcelain toilet bowl, as the dimensions and pool of water can interfere with the process. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need the solution to remain on the affected area and not be diluted by the bowl of water - draining the latter as much as possible before application would be the best option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [this article][1], Vinegar and Baking Soda paste should be left on the affected area for at least an hour, followed up with a second paste of Cream of Tartar (a.k.a. Potassium bitartrate) and 3% Hydrogen Peroxide, also for an hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the eco-friendliness of these ingredients: Cream of Tartar is a byproduct of the winemaking industry and is used in cooking. Hydrogen Peroxide is considered [greener than chloride-based bleaches][2], and produces water as a byproduct. Some businesses are making the switch to Hydrogen Peroxide over chloride-based bleaches, for example, [Barnhardt Cotton][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hunker.com/13424047/how-to-remove-rust-from-porcelain&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/hydrogen-peroxide-tips.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://barnhardtcotton.net/blog/the-eco-friendliness-of-hydrogen-peroxide/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25302" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10150" RevisionGUID="cf786d2e-f93c-40c5-98ec-951b88d18498" CreationDate="2020-08-17T03:00:43.507" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1295193814429310981" />
  <row Id="25303" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6343" RevisionGUID="0b1e2a46-58ff-4032-b34e-0e7b624931e9" CreationDate="2020-08-17T07:24:02.773" UserId="8232" Comment="added information from the comments" Text="You are correct in that a separate sump tank is not necessary. In these systems, the tank simply becomes the sump. The water level difference depends on the dimensions of the 3500 gallon tank&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as you have access to service pumps and filters, it can certainly all be in one reservoir. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25304" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6343" RevisionGUID="0b1e2a46-58ff-4032-b34e-0e7b624931e9" CreationDate="2020-08-17T07:24:02.773" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 645" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25305" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7107" RevisionGUID="b1b96bd8-013e-42e1-aaa7-fd475d255e9c" CreationDate="2020-08-17T18:52:08.877" UserId="2134" Comment="unit fixes" Text="To be ecologically truly sustainable, no live trees should be cut. That will most closely mimic a natural ecosystem instead of turning them into managed tree plantations (which ain't properly forests).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## &quot;Only take dead wood&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now forests naturally create also a lot of biomass in the form of dead coarse wood, dead fine wood and dead leaves. That would slowly release its carbon as CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; through natural decay, so we might as well collect and burn that. We can extract (let's say) half of that, while leaving the other half as habitat for animals etc.:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Dead wood, whether standing (snags) or down, plays an important role in forest ecology, acting as habitat for animals such as cavity-nesting birds, plants and microbial lives. (source: [Carbon sequestration via wood burial (2008)][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also let's say we only would take the coarse wood (typically understood as having 10 cm stem diameter and up), as that is easiest to handle. In that case, a rough estimation can be based on this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For example, a 1 km × 1 km area (100 hectares) would accumulate about 100 tonne of carbon per year for a typical coarse wood production rate of 0.1 kgC m&lt;sup&gt;-2&lt;/sup&gt; y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; […]. 500 tonnes of carbon [are equivalent to] […] about 1000 tonne dry wood mass […]. (source: [Carbon sequestration via wood burial (2008)][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 100 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-2&lt;/sup&gt; of carbon yield from coarse deadwood in a mature forest, based on the naturally occurring tree deaths. Which is equivalent to about 200 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-2&lt;/sup&gt; of dry wood mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, taking out only half of that wood results in a production of 100 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-2&lt;/sup&gt; of dry wood mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Comparing results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparability with the [answer by m.w.jacobsen][2]: my number of 100 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; km&lt;sup&gt;-2&lt;/sup&gt; is equivalent to 1 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt;, while m.w.jacobsen had 5.4 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt;, both of dry wood mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The differences are that **(1)** I only include half the coarse deadwood (otherwise it's 2 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; when including all coarse deadwood, or roughly 4 t y&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; ha&lt;sup&gt;-1&lt;/sup&gt; when also including fine deadwood), **(2)** I don't include any clearcutting or cutting of live trees – but it is [not too clear][3] what impact that has on forest productivity, if any and **(3)** the numbers from the study I quote are quite rough. They are derived from global average forest productivity instead of that for only the temperate or tropic climate zone. Boreal forests have a lower productivity ([see][4]), lowering the average.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://doi.org/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2753&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6967&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1#Fig4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25306" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="6d1583f3-e091-470a-9122-5931e45575ca" CreationDate="2020-08-18T20:32:12.407" UserId="8917" Text="recently I got a bid from a solar company and they said I don't need to upgrade my eletrical box since it is rated at 125 amps, and for that value, I can install a 7k system based on calculation here https://www.altestore.com/blog/2018/11/grid-tied-solar-breaker-box-120-percent-rule/#.XzwpBpNKg8N. I poked around the panel itself, and found two ratings, 100amps and 125 amps, and I am not sure which rating should that solar company to use, and definitely blowing out my electrical box after solar panels are installed is the last thing I want to see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/i8pm7.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2M7HC.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25307" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="6d1583f3-e091-470a-9122-5931e45575ca" CreationDate="2020-08-18T20:32:12.407" UserId="8917" Text="How to identify rating of my eletrical panel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25308" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="6d1583f3-e091-470a-9122-5931e45575ca" CreationDate="2020-08-18T20:32:12.407" UserId="8917" Text="|solar-power|home|electricity|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10155" RevisionGUID="87d09cb6-d6c4-4f98-b28a-2fe17f853dea" CreationDate="2020-08-20T21:31:33.447" UserId="6925" Text="Yes, the short of it is that what we’re concerned with on solar is the internal bus rating of the panel’s buses, not anything else.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose you have a 100A main breaker because your wiring from pole through meter to main breaker is only 100A rated.  Then you have 80A of solar back feeding your panel. There was a bungle in how your house was load factored, and as a result you are pulling 24A on each of a dryer, range, A/C and water heater, plus 80A off that Tesla fast charger that probably  should not have been approved :) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you have 180A of draw and 80A coming in from solar and 100A coming in from utility.  **That means you have 180A moving on the panel’s internal bus**.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now if that bus is 200A, no problem. UL and NFPA got together and determined even on a 150A bus that is unlikely to be a problem given the safety margins UL already requires in panels.  Hence they give you a 20% “mulligan”.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you have a 100A bus, then *no way, Jose.*  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On that particular panel, it was clear both versions of the panel had 125 A busing.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10156" RevisionGUID="f18cf3d0-7d48-4833-9f6b-176f4d062477" CreationDate="2020-08-21T20:03:00.097" UserId="4955" Text="It sounds like you just need to add a pumice stone to scrub the rust stains off. I use the one with a handle attached it is about $8 and will last for years. Search on Amazon for “pumice stone toilet”. ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/scPi4.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10157" RevisionGUID="2a448ddc-3e00-4b65-b5e1-da9a5c5427fd" CreationDate="2020-08-22T04:29:40.113" UserId="6925" Text="McDonalds dumped their polystyrene cups several years ago.  Their rationale was the poor recycling availability of polystyrene. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;McDonalds also once made very heavy use of polystyrene foam &quot;clamshells&quot; for presenting their premium burgers.  They have switched to either plain wrappers, or lightly built cardboard boxes that I believe are compost friendly. Those foam clamshells have been gone for at least a decade. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10158" RevisionGUID="bb88aece-258e-4bf8-9491-7f28da62e593" CreationDate="2020-08-22T05:27:22.420" UserId="6925" Text="Heat pump water heaters are powered by externalities&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;A heat-pump water heater warms water by chilling the room the water heater is in.  On a sweltering hot day, that helps air conditioning load somewhat.  But the rest of the time, it is adding cold and draft to a house *you are trying to heat*.   So you pay twice: to run the heat pump itself, and then to replace the heat stolen by the heat pump. **If your heat source is electric resistive heat, this is wholly worse than a normal water heater**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the heat pump water heater will perform poorly if it is in a closed space. It will turn that space into a refrigerator, and then run inefficiently because it can't pump heat that doesn't exist.  Of course all that inefficient pumping *makes* heat, and it will have that heat, at least.  Hard on the machine and no cheaper than resistive heating. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tanked heaters need to be kept at 60C/140F for legionella&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;In recent years, it was discovered that the bacterium which causes Legionnaire's Disease, among others, can thrive and reproduce in a water heater that is too cool.  Because of that, the gold-standard advice of health departments is to set the knob at 60C/140F.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, we have the plumbing safety people saying that 60C/140F is too hot, and can cause scalding.  That is also true.  The only way to not find yourself in a dilemma is to have thermostatic mixing valves at every human-accessed hot water outlet. This is provided by most joystick faucets, and almost any modern style shower valve.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This higher temperature requires more standby power 24x7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric tankless requires *really big* service&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;In Europe, they have &quot;electric showers&quot; which are an electric tankless water heater built into the shower and serving only the shower.  These are modestly sized, on the order of 20-25A at 230V.   It would not be hard for such an electric shower to support the bathroom faucets as well (though, not at the same time).  The upshot is that electric demands *for a single point of use* are not extreme.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the public expectation is that a tankless is a &quot;simple unit drop-in&quot; for a tanked heater: that it installs in the same location and simply works the same way - i.e. all outlets can use water at once at high flow rates, *until it runs out*, only now, it doesn't run out!  This is the expectation.  The high flow rate expectation creates a serious problem that can only be solved by an ostentatiously large tankless heater - Americans are fond of 18KW, 27KW or even 36KW units.   A typical American electric service is 24KW or 48KW.  And since the huge heater runs at max power when it runs, a truly staggering amount of electric service must be *provisioned* for this heater. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This works much better with &quot;point-of-use&quot; heaters such as that electric shower.  Imagine a house with four 30A heaters: one in each bathroom, one kitchen, and one for the laundry room.  This is not provisioned the same as a 120A heater -- this is provisioned on the assumption that they won't all be running at once.   This greatly reduces the house's design load to within the realm of the reasonable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that most on-demand water heaters are fuel or  inefficient *resistive* units - I'm not aware of any &quot;heat pump&quot; on-demand heaters. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25318" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10156" RevisionGUID="965046d6-9ce1-4758-a193-44b139ebc49a" CreationDate="2020-08-24T06:48:25.237" UserId="99" Comment="Removed reference to commercial shop" Text="It sounds like you just need to add a pumice stone to scrub the rust stains off. I use the one with a handle attached it is about $8 and will last for years. Search the Internet for “pumice stone toilet”. ![Pumice stone](https://i.stack.imgur.com/scPi4.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="6fe96fce-fe37-4ffc-af06-56ac2cf673f5" CreationDate="2020-08-25T13:20:41.780" UserId="8934" Text="Say for example in the USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person A lives in a house and uses a personal car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person B lives in an apartment and uses public transport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a national average, how many times more the carbon emissions of Person A are bigger than of Person B?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25322" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="6fe96fce-fe37-4ffc-af06-56ac2cf673f5" CreationDate="2020-08-25T13:20:41.780" UserId="8934" Text="Carbon reductuon of living in an apartment and using public transport?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25323" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="6fe96fce-fe37-4ffc-af06-56ac2cf673f5" CreationDate="2020-08-25T13:20:41.780" UserId="8934" Text="|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25324" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="525a23e5-f397-4e3c-b2be-a62767e2feac" CreationDate="2020-08-25T22:22:11.603" UserId="15" Comment="Fixed spelling" Text="Carbon reduction of living in an apartment and using public transport?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25325" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="6ccf2ce5-d604-4c40-98a7-87f882a2da5a" CreationDate="2020-08-26T07:17:06.000" UserId="8934" Comment="edited title" Text="Carbon footprint of public transport vs private vehicles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="6ccf2ce5-d604-4c40-98a7-87f882a2da5a" CreationDate="2020-08-26T07:17:06.000" UserId="8934" Comment="edited title" Text="Say for example in the USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person A  uses a personal car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person B uses public transport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a national average, how many times more the carbon emissions of Person A are bigger than of Person B?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="3da2cb06-108f-4622-9205-5a0d4963e401" CreationDate="2020-08-26T08:28:26.963" UserId="8934" Comment="added 118 characters in body; edited title" Text="On an average day, people using cars generate more polution than the people using public transport. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person A  uses a personal car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person B uses public transport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a national average, how many times more the carbon emissions of Person A are bigger than of Person B in an year? (or in a day)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25328" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="3da2cb06-108f-4622-9205-5a0d4963e401" CreationDate="2020-08-26T08:28:26.963" UserId="8934" Comment="added 118 characters in body; edited title" Text="Carbon footprint of public transport vs private vehicles in USA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="77b35016-d8df-494a-a5ca-5a4a13fecb3b" CreationDate="2020-08-26T09:50:34.403" UserId="8934" Comment="added 25 characters in body" Text="On an average day, people using cars generate more polution than the people using public transport. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say for example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person A  uses a personal car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Person B doesn't have a car and it uses public transport.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a national average, how many times more the carbon emissions of Person A are bigger than of Person B in an year? (or in a day)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10161" RevisionGUID="78cb74bb-f8c4-486b-a00a-c9a350f43cec" CreationDate="2020-08-26T14:01:21.867" UserId="453" Text="This may be more of an academic question and less of practical relevance but I hope to have some input from this site nevertheless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, multi-use products are always more sustainable than single-use products if viewed holistically (not just single impact categories like water use or CO2 emissions).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes when I say this, this is debated and people might say &quot;Yes, but it's no use to transport empty deposit return bottles back to the producer if the factory is hundreds of kms away&quot;. Which probably is more of an issue of designing a product so that several producers can accept it rather than a flaw of deposit return packaging in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, are there any single-use products that really are more sustainable compared to multi-use products with the same function, ignoring potential flaws in the multi-use system (like absurdly long transport distances)? And what are the biggest flaws affecting sustainability of multi-use products? For example, not-using them frequently enough and therefore a single-use product may be more beneficial?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25331" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10161" RevisionGUID="78cb74bb-f8c4-486b-a00a-c9a350f43cec" CreationDate="2020-08-26T14:01:21.867" UserId="453" Text="Is there a single-use product that is more sustainable that its multi-use counterpart?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25332" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10161" RevisionGUID="78cb74bb-f8c4-486b-a00a-c9a350f43cec" CreationDate="2020-08-26T14:01:21.867" UserId="453" Text="|environmental-impact|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25333" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10161" RevisionGUID="399ce70d-afdf-48fb-bb76-6e299b5ce83c" CreationDate="2020-08-26T21:00:05.537" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1298726936827568133" />
  <row Id="25334" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10160" RevisionGUID="2c07c0c3-60b3-4fc1-b774-d3b8f0d680b3" CreationDate="2020-08-27T08:23:16.073" UserId="8934" Comment="edited title" Text="Carbon footprint of people using public transport vs private vehicles in USA" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10162" RevisionGUID="aff3e465-1b98-4c7b-aead-1f2fb41b12d0" CreationDate="2020-08-27T17:30:18.343" UserId="8936" Text="Try the following: Buy some all-in-one eco dishwasher tablets. Put one directly into the toilet bowl where the lime is jammed and leave it there over night (it will dissolve in the little amount of water there). In the morning just flush and the bowl should be cleaned from any lime etc. Maybe you need to do this more than one time, but it should work pretty easy and fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10163" RevisionGUID="9cc4038d-1bcc-4d02-bc03-f14962d33a0a" CreationDate="2020-08-27T17:46:21.287" UserId="8937" Text="I've been curious about power to gas technology. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read up on the immense energy losses as you split water to hydrogen and then using the Sabatier reaction to generate methane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we know given the energy prices of solar or wind power, what the price/unit of the generated natural gas is compared to say, mined natural gas? And how does this scale with the price of solar/wind power dropping?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10163" RevisionGUID="9cc4038d-1bcc-4d02-bc03-f14962d33a0a" CreationDate="2020-08-27T17:46:21.287" UserId="8937" Text="What's the current price of power to gas fuel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10163" RevisionGUID="9cc4038d-1bcc-4d02-bc03-f14962d33a0a" CreationDate="2020-08-27T17:46:21.287" UserId="8937" Text="|solar-power|wind-power|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10165" RevisionGUID="4de02cb3-6d24-4e4f-894c-ed96419ed507" CreationDate="2020-08-27T18:25:41.140" UserId="8936" Text="Look at multi-use glass bins (yoghurt, milk, etc.): They have to be cleaned very well, that means a lot of energy and chemical pressure. Transportation even for short distances count, you can´t put this away. And bins always need a brand new cap (because old ones rust and the plastic layer inside can´t be cleaned sufficiently). And last but not least: Even a glass bin can be reused only a few times, because the glass gets easily scratched and milky-intransparent. Customers want new, shiny looking products and glass is not looking new in a very short amount of time.&#xD;&#xA;So a single-use plastic bin CAN (but must not) be much more sustainable than it´s multi-use glass counterpart. Things are often more complicated, than told to the public." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10166" RevisionGUID="4602bedd-1b1d-4ebd-9fc6-8d1cdbc5b6b1" CreationDate="2020-08-28T06:11:47.747" UserId="8232" Text="## Built-in bins for different waste streams&#xD;&#xA;A lot of office kitchens/lunch rooms I've seen have only had one available bin (i.e only landfill). The designs of these kitchens did not account for having multiple waste streams - thus there was only one cupboard/cabinet or freestanding bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some buildings awkwardly 'solved' this by having another free-standing bin for recycling, but very few of them had a dedicated bin for green (organic) waste. Even my current office building, arguably the newest one I've worked in (it was built this century), has two inbuilt bins for waste and recycling, and an awkward small 'container' on the bench for organic waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, if you are designing the buildings and deciding where built-in bins go, ensuring you have appropriate bins for each waste stream would be a good step. Especially in the case of schools, if you are at all involved in the design of the playground layout, ensuring there are plenty of fixed bins, and that each of them takes multiple waste streams, something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Waste multi-stream bin][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Dedicated space for final pickup&#xD;&#xA;One office I worked in did not have a recycling bin anywhere. When I spoke to the secretary (who in turn raised the issue with the building management) - the response we got was they simply did not have the space to place a secondary dumpster to handle a separate recycling stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, ensuring you give adequate space for garbage collection/pickup is essential. It's one thing to provide the bins in the buildings, but if maintenance/cleaning crews cannot dispose of them correctly then it's all gonna end up at the same point anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another factor on the design side to consider: make it clear what that space is for. If you leave it too open to interpretation - like just leaving extra space along a wall in the carpark - it might end up being the space they park the school bus, or the principal's private car spot. Clearly demarcate it as the place that the dumpsters should be: signs, dumpster facades, or sheds can work for this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![dumpster shed][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Incorporate a greenhouse/veggie patch&#xD;&#xA;This one is more specific to the idea of designing a whole school, and might not apply in your case, but: design a space for a greenhouse (or even just a veggie patch). It would more than likely require buy-in from the owners/government education body, but the idea of schools hosting a vegetable patch for the kids to learn about plants and food has seen growing (ha!) support. If you're lucky, [there might][3] even [be grants][4] in your country/area to sweeten the deal!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One such site I found was [Arcadia School Greenhouses][5] who have some neat designs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![School Greenhouse][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Design space for on-site composting&#xD;&#xA;Similar to the one above - buildings with plenty of gardens/open space (such as school grounds) could have composting systems built-in, with organic/green waste being diverted there for landscaping/gardeners to use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would of course depend heavily on the overall design of the buildings, and whether they have those open spaces that would make use of the compost in the gardens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![School composting][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ej23M.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LGSYV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://landcareaustralia.org.au/grants-for-gardens/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E49wSfSTijA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://arcadiaglasshouse.com/greenhouses/arcadia-school-greenhouses/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CVutG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WR6PG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10167" RevisionGUID="efdd4355-22e5-4e39-8531-7059eddedcae" CreationDate="2020-08-28T17:18:05.640" UserId="8934" Text="I found an article claiming that *[In the 1970s and 1980s, Dallas emerged as a model of the kind of economic success government-subsidized suburban sprawl could generate][1]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that true? Did people get subsidies when buying a house in a suburb? Or they got subsidies for car fuel? Or tax cuts for the cars? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am asking because car centric cities generate more polution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2018/dallas-and-the-new-urbanism/successful-cities-are-designed-for-people-not-cars/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10167" RevisionGUID="efdd4355-22e5-4e39-8531-7059eddedcae" CreationDate="2020-08-28T17:18:05.640" UserId="8934" Text="Did subsidies for suburban development exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10167" RevisionGUID="efdd4355-22e5-4e39-8531-7059eddedcae" CreationDate="2020-08-28T17:18:05.640" UserId="8934" Text="|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10168" RevisionGUID="afd70e8d-2ab2-4933-8f3d-76cbaf46747f" CreationDate="2020-08-29T02:37:45.767" UserId="6870" Text="I have a big refrigerator/freezer and barely use any of the space. I also don't necessarily need to keep things cold all the time, as I mostly use it to freeze ice packs and extend the freshness of vegetables. I think this introduces some inefficiency. What is my range of options for smaller or more intermittency-optimized refrigerator/freezers, and how much efficiency gain would I get from these options?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that the optimal solution is to **share my refrigerator/freezer with more people**, ideally by finding roommates or something like that. But for now, let's assume that's not an option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For context, I have looked into the power consumption of various types of freezers as estimated by various outlets on the web. It seems like the smallest &quot;normal food freezers&quot; around (such as [here][1]) actually have higher anticipated annual power consumption than the most efficient &quot;normal size&quot; refrigerator/freezers (such as [here][2]). These both seem fairly comparable to portable DC-type freezers like [this one][3] if it were to run 16 hours/day, although I have no idea how much running time it would need to achieve similar performance to the &quot;normal&quot; ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://tinyhousehugeideas.com/best-mini-freezers/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.energystar.gov/most-efficient/me-certified-refrigerators/results&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.walmart.com/ip/12-Liter-Portable-Refrigerator-Freezer-white/613703181?wmlspartner=wlpa&amp;selectedSellerId=1564" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25346" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10168" RevisionGUID="afd70e8d-2ab2-4933-8f3d-76cbaf46747f" CreationDate="2020-08-29T02:37:45.767" UserId="6870" Text="How to get a small volume of freezer capacity with high efficiency and low cost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25347" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10168" RevisionGUID="afd70e8d-2ab2-4933-8f3d-76cbaf46747f" CreationDate="2020-08-29T02:37:45.767" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|electricity|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10169" RevisionGUID="577f7d6e-d0f0-422f-a749-f30835dfce41" CreationDate="2020-08-29T14:49:52.033" UserId="251" Text="So my installation is for a sail boat. There's a lot things like rigging sails etc, that can create shadows on part of the array and this is constantly moving around. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen a lot of debate online regarding mitigating the effect of shadows on the array. It seems pretty clear that wiring in parallel is key, but a lot of people also seem to be adamant that using more mppt controllers also improves overall average output significantly. However professionals that I talk to so far think this doesn't make sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to dissolve the mystery and looking for a clear guide on the principles and why, in numbers, do people promote the use of multiple MPPT controllers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10169" RevisionGUID="577f7d6e-d0f0-422f-a749-f30835dfce41" CreationDate="2020-08-29T14:49:52.033" UserId="251" Text="Is using multiple MPPT controllers with a solar panels array, to mitigate effect of shadows a myth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10169" RevisionGUID="577f7d6e-d0f0-422f-a749-f30835dfce41" CreationDate="2020-08-29T14:49:52.033" UserId="251" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10170" RevisionGUID="a716f642-b337-40d0-8b82-2c690b63c1d8" CreationDate="2020-08-29T18:26:47.597" UserId="6870" Text="I only use my freezer to freeze ice packs, which I only use about an hour every two days. Because of this, I plan to turn my freezer off (or to the hottest setting) most of the time, and then reduce the temperature right before using the ice packs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will this cause extra wear and tear on my freezer? I am particularly concerned about the effect on the freezer seal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, will it actually save electricity or would something counterintuitive happen?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My freezer is probably about 10 years old but I am also interested in the answer for &quot;state-of-the-art&quot; efficient freezers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25352" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10170" RevisionGUID="a716f642-b337-40d0-8b82-2c690b63c1d8" CreationDate="2020-08-29T18:26:47.597" UserId="6870" Text="What will happen if I leave my freezer off most of the time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25353" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10170" RevisionGUID="a716f642-b337-40d0-8b82-2c690b63c1d8" CreationDate="2020-08-29T18:26:47.597" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|electricity|cooling|appliance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10172" RevisionGUID="5e47b2ab-e75b-4303-b11d-dd7cdcda560a" CreationDate="2020-08-30T13:27:30.750" UserId="6925" Text="Having shut off many fridges and freezers for storage, I can tell you exactly what happens and why. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will quickly become contaminated with mold&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;The interior of a freezer has some plastic &quot;skin&quot; to present a surface that is more aesthetic and easier-to-clean than galvanized steel.  **However, the freezer does not stop at the skin; behind the skin is still the interior of the freezer**.  And air circulates on both sides of that skin as well as the galvanized metal behind it... and condensation and frosting occur on those hidden surfaces as well. *In short, water gets to lots of inaccessible places you can't see or clean*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Try an experiment. Take a Ziploc bag you formerly used to hold food, put about 10 drops of water in it, puff it up, and leave it alone for a week.  &quot;What are you thinking, Harper?  That will turn into a disgusting, moldy cesspool!&quot; *Exactly.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the same exact thing happens inside a fridge or freezer when you shut it off, because, that door seal is so good, and because there is frost or condensate in places you can't reach.  That melts, humidity reaches 100% in there, and the mold goes to town. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the worst part is, much of the mold activity is actually inaccessible - on the *backside* of the skin or the metal parts. You'd have to tear the appliance apart to access those. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cure is to wedge the door open&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;But, you have to do it *everytime*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As long as the door is pushed open 20mm or so, outside air will circulate, and keep the humidity controlled.  That will stop mold growth, provided you have mold/humidity under control in that room of course. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Watch your energy use with an older fridge...&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;As THelper says, newer fridges are *considerably* more efficient, and can be worth the cost and sustainability burden of replacing the fridge, in the energy savings on the fridge.  You can measure its energy usage by a simple energy monitor like a $20 &quot;Kill-a-Watt&quot;, and compare notes with others with new fridges.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider also your duty cycle: if it's powered down 3 days out of 4, factor that into the equation.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That also varies by district - if you're in a place like California or France where so much is sustainable or nuclear, it may not be worth it. That's too complex a calculation to do here. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And recycle that freon! PLEASE! &#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Older fridges use R-22 Freon.  You may recall the hubbub in the early 90s as they abolished R-12 Freon from automobiles.  Those systems function in a very harsh environment and so have a lot more leakage, so were by far the most urgent (and also much harder on the ozone layer than R-22 if I recall).  These freons **devastated** the ozone layer - they're a huge part of why we must wear sunblock today.  But it's on the road to recovery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By treaty, international production of R-22 was phased down to half by 2005, 1/10 by 2015, and ZERO as of January 1, 2020.  In much of the world, refrigeration shops are required to use systems to vampire out old Freon and recover it. This is either to be annihilated (broken down chemically into other molecules such as table salt), or re-refined and re-sold to maintain older systems. **At this point this is the only possible source for R-22**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you decide it's time for a new non-R-22 freezer, please call around to a refrigeration shop to do the proper vampire procedure. DON'T just go all &quot;Office Space&quot; on it or toss it in a dumpster, because the piping will get damaged and it will hissssssss into the atmosphere - the worst possible outcome in all respects. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10173" RevisionGUID="bbb9810e-ab75-4eb5-957a-aaaaad406ae4" CreationDate="2020-08-30T14:45:24.303" UserId="251" Text="If 12v So if you only need a small capacity and high energy efficiency, one model that is popular in the sailing community is https://engelcoolers.com/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a reputation for efficiency. Can be used with 12/24v DC or 110/220 AC &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are cheaper brands, but whether that is the most economical in the long term is another issue. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10174" RevisionGUID="7fb1b391-b473-4ce6-9d02-4bf83380eb5f" CreationDate="2020-08-30T14:56:35.413" UserId="8942" Text="No, closing the air vents will increase your energy bill. The added pressure from closing a vent can cause air leaks in your system, causing long-term and unnecessary energy waste. The heater or air conditioner will produce the same amount of air whether or not you have them closed. Not recommended." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25363" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10175" RevisionGUID="8ab62de0-aed7-4f0a-aade-ac5c626e200d" CreationDate="2020-08-30T19:50:11.097" UserId="4386" Text="I have seen competing information about whether it's a more sound environmental choice to choose real wood or composite decking materials.  Different conclusions are drawn depending on whether the study was backed by a wood industry or plastic industry group.  Big surprise there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is anyone aware of a trustworthy comparison between wood decking and composite decking?  I am actually most curious in using the materials for exterior trim, but it appears that decking is a more commonly-covered subject." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25364" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10175" RevisionGUID="8ab62de0-aed7-4f0a-aade-ac5c626e200d" CreationDate="2020-08-30T19:50:11.097" UserId="4386" Text="Is there a neutral LCA comparing wood to composite materials?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25365" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10175" RevisionGUID="8ab62de0-aed7-4f0a-aade-ac5c626e200d" CreationDate="2020-08-30T19:50:11.097" UserId="4386" Text="|plastic|wood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25366" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10166" RevisionGUID="ac68dac9-8321-4cb0-82b9-541351874104" CreationDate="2020-08-31T01:34:00.170" UserId="8232" Comment="added 825 characters in body" Text="## Place built-in bins for different waste streams&#xD;&#xA;A lot of office kitchens/lunch rooms I've seen have only had one available bin (i.e only landfill). The designs of these kitchens did not account for having multiple waste streams - thus there was only one cupboard/cabinet or freestanding bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some buildings awkwardly 'solved' this by having another free-standing bin for recycling, but very few of them had a dedicated bin for green (organic) waste. Even my current office building, arguably the newest one I've worked in (it was built this century), has two inbuilt bins for waste and recycling, and an awkward small 'container' on the bench for organic waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, if you are designing the buildings and deciding where built-in bins go, ensuring you have appropriate bins for each waste stream would be a good step. Especially in the case of schools. If you are at all involved in the design of the playground layout, ensuring there are plenty of fixed bins for different waste streams: something like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Waste multi-stream bin][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Have a dedicated space for final garbage pickup&#xD;&#xA;One office I worked in did not have a recycling bin anywhere. When I spoke to the secretary (who in turn raised the issue with the building management) - the response we got was they simply did not have the space to place a secondary dumpster to handle a separate recycling stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, ensuring you give adequate space for garbage collection/pickup is essential. It's one thing to provide the bins in the buildings, but if maintenance/cleaning crews cannot dispose of them correctly then it's all gonna end up at the same point anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another factor on the design side to consider: make it clear what that space is for. If you leave it too open to interpretation - like just leaving extra space along a wall in the carpark - it might end up being the space they park the school bus, or the principal's private car spot. Clearly demarcate it as the place that the dumpsters should be: signs, dumpster facades, or sheds can work for this: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![dumpster shed][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Incorporate a greenhouse/veggie patch&#xD;&#xA;This one is more specific to the idea of designing a whole school, and might not apply in your case, but: design a space for a greenhouse (or even just a veggie patch), which could divert green waste from the bins into compost piles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would more than likely require buy-in from the owners/government education body, but the idea of schools hosting a vegetable patch for the kids to learn about plants and food has seen growing (ha!) support. If you're lucky, [there might][3] even [be grants][4] in your country/area to sweeten the deal!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One such site I found was [Arcadia School Greenhouses][5] who have some neat designs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![School Greenhouse][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Design space for on-site composting&#xD;&#xA;Similar to the one above - even without a big greenhouse on site - buildings with plenty of gardens/open space (such as school grounds) could benefit immensely from having composting systems built-in, with organic/green waste being diverted there for landscaping/gardeners to use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would of course depend heavily on the overall design of the buildings, and whether they have those open spaces that would make use of the compost in the gardens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![School composting][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Place plenty of drinking fountains/refill stations&#xD;&#xA;Especially in a school - reduce reliance on single-use plastic bottles from the canteen/lunch room by having plenty of bays of drinking fountains strategically placed around the school for the kids to use any time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![water bubblers][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could even use the kind that double as bottle filling stations, so that people can re-fill their water bottles as required, something like [this one][9]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![drinking fountain + water refill station][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ej23M.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/LGSYV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://landcareaustralia.org.au/grants-for-gardens/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E49wSfSTijA&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://arcadiaglasshouse.com/greenhouses/arcadia-school-greenhouses/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CVutG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WR6PG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vQ1SV.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.civiq.com.au/product/elkay-ezh2o-hands-free-sensor-activated/&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BfeoG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10176" RevisionGUID="b8cd1f08-d841-4fb4-9efb-abe3b04abd55" CreationDate="2020-08-31T15:06:56.837" UserId="6870" Text="I have a digital and a mercury-based thermometer that I normally use to measure the ambient air temperature on my porch. Their temperature range appears to go down to below -30 centigrade and they seem to give accurate readings. Is it likely that these will also give accurate readings in my refrigerator or freezer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would assume that the answer is &quot;yes&quot;; however, I know that there are thermometers specifically marketed for use in refrigerators, so maybe the specific conditions inside a refrigerator impose special challenges I'm not thinking of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10176" RevisionGUID="b8cd1f08-d841-4fb4-9efb-abe3b04abd55" CreationDate="2020-08-31T15:06:56.837" UserId="6870" Text="Can I use a &quot;normal&quot; thermometer in a refrigerator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10176" RevisionGUID="b8cd1f08-d841-4fb4-9efb-abe3b04abd55" CreationDate="2020-08-31T15:06:56.837" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|electricity|cooling|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25370" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10177" RevisionGUID="89836263-4a0c-43cd-a590-170498629029" CreationDate="2020-08-31T15:20:34.910" UserId="4834" Text="One way to increase the efficiency of an upright refrigerator or freezer is to fill up all of the &quot;unused&quot; airspace with something that won't flow out of the unit every time your open the door (as air will) nor facilitate convection heat transfer from the bottom to the top of the compartment even when the door is open.  If you have some plastic containers that you would normally discard or recycle, try filling them with water and putting them in the fridge and freezer (for the freezer, make sure they're a container type that won't burst when the water freezes).  The more air that you can display with water containers, the less air there is to flow out whenever you open the door (to be replaced by warm air that requires cooling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's only so efficient you'll be able to make your current under-utilized unit this way but you may find it to be an appreciable improvement.  You could measure the improvement relatively easily with any &quot;kill-a-watt&quot; style device.  You can also factor into this approach the fact that you avoid buying a new device (with some embodied energy that goes into any lifecycle analysis of (in)efficiency).  At worst, this might be a good intermediate strategy until your current fridge finds a new home where it can be put to better use (any can substitute for someone else's purchase of a new appliance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, to extend the storage time for vegetables, you might find that a very warm setting is sufficient.  The greater the difference between the temperature inside and outside of the refrigerator, the more energy required to maintain that difference.  If you bring the inside temperature closer to the ambient temperature, you can produce a significant efficiency improvement.  Many vegetables will still have a very good storage time at 50°F (certainly compared to what it might be outside of the refrigerator, 70°F or 80°F or higher).  Note of course that such high fridge temperatures are *not* safe for all foods to be careful with this option.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10177" RevisionGUID="56c5cad7-fba9-41e3-8d8e-4f8104e3c8d2" CreationDate="2020-08-31T15:45:54.590" UserId="4834" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="One way to increase the efficiency of an upright refrigerator or freezer is to fill up all of the &quot;unused&quot; airspace with something that won't flow out of the unit every time your open the door (as air will) nor facilitate convection heat transfer from the bottom to the top of the compartment even when the door is closed.  If you have some plastic containers that you would normally discard or recycle, try filling them with water and putting them in the fridge and freezer (for the freezer, make sure they're a container type that won't burst when the water freezes).  The more air that you can displace with water containers, the less air there is to flow out whenever you open the door (to be replaced by warm air that requires cooling).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's only so efficient you'll be able to make your current under-utilized unit this way but you may find it to be an appreciable improvement.  You could measure the improvement relatively easily with any &quot;kill-a-watt&quot; style device.  You can also factor into this approach the fact that you avoid buying a new device (with some embodied energy that goes into any lifecycle analysis of (in)efficiency).  At worst, this might be a good intermediate strategy until your current fridge finds a new home where it can be put to better use (and can substitute for someone else's purchase of a new appliance).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Separately, to extend the storage time for vegetables, you might find that a very warm setting is sufficient.  The greater the difference between the temperature inside and outside of the refrigerator, the more energy required to maintain that difference.  If you bring the inside temperature closer to the ambient temperature, you can produce a significant efficiency improvement.  Many vegetables will still have a very good storage time at 50°F (certainly compared to what it might be outside of the refrigerator, 70°F or 80°F or higher).  Note of course that such high fridge temperatures are *not* safe for all foods to be careful with this option.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25372" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10178" RevisionGUID="47bd3774-8097-4e74-a89d-61fb23093523" CreationDate="2020-08-31T15:50:10.260" UserId="6870" Text="I have a used Kill-A-Watt power meter and want to see how accurate it is. In my &quot;conventional&quot; middle-class USA apartment, am I likely to have any electricity-consuming devices that I could use to test this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I am guessing that some appliances have pretty variable power consumption which would make it hard to test, but that maybe others reliably use some wattage that is listed on their label. If that's true, then maybe I could use one or more appliances from that second group to test?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25373" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10178" RevisionGUID="47bd3774-8097-4e74-a89d-61fb23093523" CreationDate="2020-08-31T15:50:10.260" UserId="6870" Text="How to test accuracy of my Kill-A-Watt or similar device?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25374" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10178" RevisionGUID="47bd3774-8097-4e74-a89d-61fb23093523" CreationDate="2020-08-31T15:50:10.260" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25375" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10173" RevisionGUID="2b2ad4b1-4b3c-4b2d-bab7-0360fd3f19e3" CreationDate="2020-08-31T17:08:27.667" UserId="251" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="So if you only need a small capacity and high energy efficiency, one model that is popular in the sailing community is https://engelcoolers.com/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have a reputation for efficiency. Can be used with 12/24v DC or 110/220 AC &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are cheaper brands, but whether that is the most economical in the long term is another issue. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25376" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="b0769429-dc89-48da-af46-1f409fccadfc" CreationDate="2020-09-01T10:03:45.453" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25377" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="2f6e1160-600a-406e-978e-b3edcb49bc35" CreationDate="2020-09-01T12:07:05.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10179" RevisionGUID="cbb7851e-ca41-45cd-8095-8097007e6a28" CreationDate="2020-09-01T21:05:25.727" UserId="6870" Text="I have a gas water heater. If I go out of town for a week during warm months, I've been told that I will save energy if I turn the heater off before I leave. Would that still be true if I was going to be gone for 3 days? How about 1 day? 12 hours? Does it depend on the water heater?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25379" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10179" RevisionGUID="cbb7851e-ca41-45cd-8095-8097007e6a28" CreationDate="2020-09-01T21:05:25.727" UserId="6870" Text="Gas water heater: Should I turn it off if I will be gone for 3 days?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25380" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10179" RevisionGUID="cbb7851e-ca41-45cd-8095-8097007e6a28" CreationDate="2020-09-01T21:05:25.727" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|water-heating|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10180" RevisionGUID="164486e7-b171-466d-adee-8d178c403342" CreationDate="2020-09-02T00:44:36.823" UserId="4834" Text="At any given thermostat setting, for any given amount of time, it will be more efficient for your gas water heater to be turned off than to be turned on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[As described by Newton's law of cooling, the rate of heat loss of a body is proportional to the difference in temperatures between the body and its surroundings.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Newton's law of cooling][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparing the two situations - heater on and heater off - we can disregard h (heat transfer rate, generally related to insulation of the tank), A (surface area of the device), and Tenv (temperature of the environment) as these should be roughly fixed.  Thus only T (temperature of the water) will be interesting for the comparison.  The greater T, the greater the heat loss, the greater the energy required by the heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the heater is on, energy required is equal to energy lost which is proportional to T times the duration being measured.  Notably, T is held more or less constant at its greatest value in this scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the heater is off, energy required is 0 plus the energy to return the water to the desired temperature.  It should be clear that for a long enough period, the heater off situation always requires less energy because T is not even a factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about for shorter durations?  For the heater off scenario, the amount of energy required to return the water to the thermostat set temperature increases until the water temperature reaches the ambient temperature and then remains constant.  However, since T is dropping the *rate* of that energy requirement increase is dropping as well.  Therefore the average power (energy per time) required to re-obtain the thermostat set temperature is highest instantaneously after the heater is shut off (call it Time[0]) and ever after smaller and smaller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the power required to re-obtain the thermostat set temperature at Time[0] is exactly equal to the average power required by the heater on scenario for the entire time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore shutting the heater off will always use less power, regardless of the duration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There should be no practical matters with change this.  The heat exchanger in the water heater is probably *more* efficient at lower water temperatures, making the heater off scenario even better.  If the water heater has a gas pilot then that's more wasted energy in the heater on scenario.  If it has an inefficient ignition system then that's still more benefit to the heater off scenario, which will involve fewer ignitions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_cooling#Mathematical_formulation_of_Newton's_law&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WZoSH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25382" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10180" RevisionGUID="ac2f578f-63f5-47d4-8351-20b009c1db66" CreationDate="2020-09-02T00:54:48.497" UserId="4834" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="At any given thermostat setting, for any given amount of time, it will be more efficient for your gas water heater to be turned off than to be turned on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[As described by Newton's law of cooling, the rate of heat loss of a body is proportional to the difference in temperatures between the body and its surroundings.][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Newton's law of cooling][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparing the two situations - heater on and heater off - we can disregard h (heat transfer rate, generally related to insulation of the tank), A (surface area of the device), and Tenv (temperature of the environment) as these should be roughly fixed.  Thus only T (temperature of the water) will be interesting for the comparison.  The greater T, the greater the heat loss, the greater the energy required by the heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the heater is on, energy required is equal to energy lost which is proportional to T times the duration being measured.  Notably, T is held more or less constant at its greatest value in this scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the heater is off, energy required is 0 plus the energy to return the water to the desired temperature.  It should be clear that for a long enough period, the heater off situation always requires less energy because T is not even a factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about for shorter durations?  For the heater off scenario, the amount of energy required to return the water to the thermostat set temperature increases until the water temperature reaches the ambient temperature and then remains constant.  However, since T is dropping the *rate* of that energy requirement increase is dropping as well.  Therefore the average power (energy per time) required to re-obtain the thermostat set temperature is highest instantaneously after the heater is shut off (call it Time[0]) and ever after smaller and smaller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the power required to re-obtain the thermostat set temperature at Time[0] is exactly equal to the average power required by the heater on scenario for the entire time period.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore shutting the heater off will always use less power, regardless of the duration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There should be no practical matters which change this conclusion.  The heat exchanger in the water heater is probably *more* efficient at lower water temperatures, making the heater off scenario even better.  If the water heater has a gas pilot then that's more wasted energy in the heater on scenario.  If it has an inefficient ignition system then that's still more benefit to the heater off scenario, which will involve fewer ignitions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_cooling#Mathematical_formulation_of_Newton's_law&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WZoSH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10181" RevisionGUID="93113d52-2c7d-404d-af67-7c6925798dde" CreationDate="2020-09-02T07:04:01.573" UserId="8232" Text="**Note:** As I am answering from my personal experience, this primarily addresses the types of toilets I see day to day, which are Australian toilets. [There are some differences around the world][1], your experiences and the type of toilet technology may differ in your region.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Half-flush&#xD;&#xA;Some toilets have a 'dual-flush' button, allowing you to control the amount of water used for flushing (half or full flush):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Toilet lid with two buttons: half and full flush][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there's any leftover waste after a normal flush, attempt a half-flush to finish removing the waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if there's not a half-flush button, you can re-flush the toilet as it's filling the tank, to try and remove more of the waste without doing a full flush.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your toilet doesn't have a dual-flush option, then using a bucket of water is a viable alternative as @Tms91 covers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.superterry.com/toilets-around-world/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/BegMT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25384" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10170" RevisionGUID="f451139b-dd21-4dfb-9d0b-6e1a565b1f11" CreationDate="2020-09-02T09:00:04.773" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1301082454825086976" />
  <row Id="25385" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="fdd0d053-19a0-429f-9661-a43beda5b893" CreationDate="2020-09-02T13:32:57.653" UserId="8232" Comment="Slight grammar, sentence and paragraphing changes to make the text easier to read." Text="Apologies in advance for a disgusting question. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I share a bathroom with someone, who has complained that after I flush the toilet, not all the waste gets removed. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I flush once, 95% of the waste is removed, but some is left behind and floats to the top. It seems very wasteful to me to flush a second time just to get the remaining 5%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any suggestions? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25386" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="fdd0d053-19a0-429f-9661-a43beda5b893" CreationDate="2020-09-02T13:32:57.653" UserId="8232" Comment="Slight grammar, sentence and paragraphing changes to make the text easier to read." Text="What to do if a small amount is left over in the toilet after flushing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25387" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="fdd0d053-19a0-429f-9661-a43beda5b893" CreationDate="2020-09-02T13:32:57.653" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 3379 edit id of 647" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25388" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10179" RevisionGUID="2ac15e5d-a4bc-4a56-ba0f-f7d6a8ab7818" CreationDate="2020-09-02T13:38:16.053" UserId="8232" Comment="I feel this works better as a sentence rather than tacking it on the start of the question" Text="I have a gas water heater. If I go out of town for a week during warm months, I've been told that I will save energy if I turn the heater off before I leave. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would that still be true if I was going to be gone for 3 days? How about 1 day? 12 hours? Does it depend on the water heater?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25389" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10179" RevisionGUID="2ac15e5d-a4bc-4a56-ba0f-f7d6a8ab7818" CreationDate="2020-09-02T13:38:16.053" UserId="8232" Comment="I feel this works better as a sentence rather than tacking it on the start of the question" Text="Should I turn off my Gas Water Heater if I will be gone for 3 days?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25390" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10179" RevisionGUID="2ac15e5d-a4bc-4a56-ba0f-f7d6a8ab7818" CreationDate="2020-09-02T13:38:16.053" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 4834, 6870 edit id of 646" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25397" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10185" RevisionGUID="b60b88b6-d0e5-4e7b-abb9-338a0f22ae57" CreationDate="2020-09-03T22:33:34.393" UserId="6870" Text="My understanding is that AC-to-DC converters each have their own &quot;sweet spot&quot; in which they achieve their rated or advertised maximum efficiency. I want something with maximum efficiency at around 3 amps and 12 volts, but I'm having trouble searching for that. Any advice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25398" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10185" RevisionGUID="b60b88b6-d0e5-4e7b-abb9-338a0f22ae57" CreationDate="2020-09-03T22:33:34.393" UserId="6870" Text="How do I find an efficient AC-DC converter for low-power applications?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25399" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10185" RevisionGUID="b60b88b6-d0e5-4e7b-abb9-338a0f22ae57" CreationDate="2020-09-03T22:33:34.393" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25408" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10175" RevisionGUID="c94875d0-f6fe-4497-980f-0d76f5d863dc" CreationDate="2020-09-04T12:00:04.320" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1301852527063969792" />
  <row Id="25409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10187" RevisionGUID="a33a8da3-410c-4d00-86f6-df0c6b2cc4e3" CreationDate="2020-09-04T12:30:04.627" UserId="8934" Text="Various news media articles claim that&#xD;&#xA;Two-thirds of glacier ice in the Alps 'will melt by 2100'&#xD;&#xA;https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/09/two-thirds-glaciers-alps-alpine-doomed-climate-change-ice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means 33% melts in 40 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is how much did it melt in the last 40 years?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1980 to 2020" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25410" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10187" RevisionGUID="a33a8da3-410c-4d00-86f6-df0c6b2cc4e3" CreationDate="2020-09-04T12:30:04.627" UserId="8934" Text="How much of glacier ice in the Alps already melted?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25411" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10187" RevisionGUID="a33a8da3-410c-4d00-86f6-df0c6b2cc4e3" CreationDate="2020-09-04T12:30:04.627" UserId="8934" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10188" RevisionGUID="3643bf2d-5e92-4e76-ae8f-a235cab9e305" CreationDate="2020-09-04T19:13:56.043" UserId="6870" Text="I'm trying to get a simplified idea of how the EPA estimates annual power consumption for refrigerators, e.g. [here][1]. There are a number of reasons why I want to know this, but there are three big ones:&#xD;&#xA;1. I want to estimate my annual power consumption with an energy star fridge versus my current fridge.&#xD;&#xA;2. I want to get an idea of how the EPA rankings would change given my particular fridge usage patterns (e.g. if I always fill it to capacity versus barely at all, if I run it on the coldest setting versus the normal one, etc).&#xD;&#xA;3. I want to get an idea of how to compare energy star refrigerators to non-energy star refrigerators based on more granular performance claims made by the manufacturers. Obviously this also depends on how the manufacturers estimate things too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.energystar.gov/most-efficient/me-certified-refrigerators/results" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25413" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10188" RevisionGUID="3643bf2d-5e92-4e76-ae8f-a235cab9e305" CreationDate="2020-09-04T19:13:56.043" UserId="6870" Text="How does the EPA estimate annual power consumption for refrigerators?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25414" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10188" RevisionGUID="3643bf2d-5e92-4e76-ae8f-a235cab9e305" CreationDate="2020-09-04T19:13:56.043" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|electricity|cooling|food-storage|statistics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10189" RevisionGUID="375a25ac-f70e-4dfe-b86d-190bd633ae16" CreationDate="2020-09-04T19:22:57.280" UserId="6870" Text="I am shopping for refrigerators and looking at [this model][1]. Feel free to let me know if that's stupid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But my main question is this: I'm trying to come up with a moderately conservative power consumption estimate for this fridge, based on [this performance data sheet from the manufacturer][2]. **I'm wondering whether my methodology makes sense.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would expect to be using &quot;control position 1&quot; under a range of ambient temperatures &lt;=35 degrees celsius. If I understand correctly, the performance datasheet predicts that this setting will consume ~6.4W at 25 deg and ~13.44W at 35 deg. My area (central Indiana, USA) is predicted to have x cooling degree days per year with a reference temperature of 25 deg, and to almost never go above 35 deg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I now pretend that, every year, I will have x/(35-25)=x/10 35-degree days and 365-x/10 sub-25-degree days, and thus my power consumption in watt-hours per year will be 13.44x/10 + 6.4(365-x/10). I interpret this as a conservative estimate since the power required to cool by one degree probably increases with ambient temperature. Does that make sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If so, how would it compare to other common methodologies for estimating annual power consumption, such as the US EPA's energy star approach?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://engelcoolers.com/collections/powered-fridge-freezers/products/mt17-portable-acdc-fridge&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0343/7179/7125/files/MT17F_performance_curve.pdf?v=1587146842" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25416" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10189" RevisionGUID="375a25ac-f70e-4dfe-b86d-190bd633ae16" CreationDate="2020-09-04T19:22:57.280" UserId="6870" Text="Help me estimate my annual refrigerator power consumption from this data sheet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25417" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10189" RevisionGUID="375a25ac-f70e-4dfe-b86d-190bd633ae16" CreationDate="2020-09-04T19:22:57.280" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|electricity|cooling|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25418" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="2a22313f-73a1-4db7-9ecb-6bdbc19c969f" CreationDate="2020-09-05T06:03:55.387" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25419" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10190" RevisionGUID="22a4dce6-d80c-4067-8baf-45209ff4ac04" CreationDate="2020-09-05T11:19:55.587" UserId="6393" Text="There is an indirect subsidy that most people ignore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast to where I live (Finland), where gas taxes are high, higher than the cost to construct roads, in USA gas taxes are almost nothing. The total amount of gas taxes collected in USA is not enough to fund the total amount of roads that are constructed and maintained in USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, some part of road construction is funded by all taxpayers equally in the form of other taxes. Those who drive the most, and pay the most gas tax, do not pay their fair share of the road usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In situations like this, there is an indirect subsidy for living in an area that requires lots of car usage. The net payers are those who live in a city, and the net receives of the subsidy are those who live far away from the city." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10191" RevisionGUID="59714144-31e2-4c2d-b72e-7b65a3ebf706" CreationDate="2020-09-05T11:24:29.677" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; My understanding is that AC-to-DC converters each have their own &quot;sweet spot&quot; in which they achieve their rated or advertised maximum efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any device has a &quot;sweet spot&quot;. This does not mean the design is terribly inefficient far outside of this sweet spot. In general, you can see that a typical AC-to-DC converter is passively cooled, there is no fan. From this it can be deduced that the maximum power loss is some watts at most.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a modern power brick style AC-to-DC converter has practically zero losses when idle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I want something with maximum efficiency at around 3 amps and 12 volts, but I'm having trouble searching for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually, the sweet spot is near the maximum load. You need 36 watts. I would pick (approximately) a 45-watt AC-DC converter with output voltage of 12 volts. Of course if you occasionally need more than 45 watts (3.75 amperes), pick a sturdier unit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10192" RevisionGUID="5f502526-c63b-4937-b912-b6553b476567" CreationDate="2020-09-05T11:32:20.420" UserId="6393" Text="A very rough calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weigh an individual empty bottle that originally contained bottled water. You get a measure for how much materials went into manufacturing it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weigh the SodaStream machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the SodaStream machine weighs 2.5 kg, and an individual 1.5 liter bottle weighs 0.04 kg, you have used the same amount of material when approximately 62.5 bottles of 1.5 liters each have been consumed. That's little less than 100 liters of carbonated water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality, you need to take into account the energy used for hauling the full 1.5 liter plastic bottles and the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; containers used for SodaStream. That would slightly reduce the number of liters needed for net benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would assume the answer is somewhere around 50 liters of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10193" RevisionGUID="e06c66c8-5bcb-4ced-9aea-de5ae4b4d98b" CreationDate="2020-09-05T11:39:35.057" UserId="6393" Text="I think you'll find that in areas where forests are managed, baby trees come from a central location the only purpose of which is to grow lots of these small baby trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trees are used to create a new forest in an area where the old forest has been cut down for timber.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast to letting the new forest be naturally seeded, obtaining the baby trees from the central location where only the trees with the best genes are grown, you obtain better genes for the trees. The trees in the forest grow faster than they would grow if the forest was naturally seeded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Would moving baby trees help with carbon sequestration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;YES&lt;/b&gt;, and it is currently being done in massive scale in countries with managed forest (example: Finland).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10194" RevisionGUID="28d2826c-250d-46ef-bb24-28e1bea5a657" CreationDate="2020-09-05T11:46:40.240" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; I've been curious about power to gas technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been curious about it too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Do we know given the energy prices of solar or wind power, what the price/unit of the generated natural gas is compared to say, mined natural gas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect you'll find that with the current carbon price (zero in practice, or very near zero), the synthetic methane is more expensive. Otherwise it would already be done in massive scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, businesses are currently investigating synthetic methane, constructing experimental small scale plants. Thus, they expect that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Either the cost of carbon capture and purification / electrolysis / Sabatier reaction goes down&#xD;&#xA;* Or the cost of renewable power (wind power, solar power) goes down, thus bringing electricity price down intermittently during periods there's more energy than needed&#xD;&#xA;* Or high carbon tax will be imposed for burning of fossil natural gas&#xD;&#xA;* Or some combination of the these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And how does this scale with the price of solar/wind power dropping?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It scales extremely well. If price of electricity is at or near zero for extended periods due to plentiful and cheap solar / wind power, the production of synthetic methane will become less expensive and thus possibly competitive with natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll also find that a carbon tax would make synthetic methane more competitive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, do note that to create not only methane but also liquid fuels, more processes are needed. Those processes reduce the energy efficiency of the whole production chain. Thus, even though we will likely see power-to-gas replacing natural gas, we won't necessarily see power-to-liquids replacing fossil fuel liquids." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10195" RevisionGUID="997095a7-8fd9-44dc-874c-14f7d1e47278" CreationDate="2020-09-05T12:00:30.387" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; Does marine plywood actually have a smaller environmental footprint than PVC as it contains many glues&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The glues might outgas volatile compounds, but unless used in an area where volatile compounds are a genuine problem, my opinion is that those glues are not any kind of a problem. In areas where smog is formed by those volatile compounds, you might want to avoid all products outgassing volatile compounds. Anyway, the glues are a very small part of the plywood. Most of the plywood is after all wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than that, both plastics and plywood store carbon, i.e. they are good for the environment. In the case of plastics, this carbon comes from petroleum. However, the petroleum that was created to produce this plastic would otherwise be burned for its energy, so you can argue that plastics offset carbon dioxide emissions, much like wood stores sequestered carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there will be a high carbon dioxide emission price, it may mean some petroleum reserves have to be left under the ground for economical reasons. In this kind of environment, plastic no longer offsets carbon dioxide emissions. However, plywood does store sequestered carbon. So, with a high carbon dioxide emissions price, plywood is better than &#xD;&#xA;plastic. (I hope the politicians realize someday that it makes sense to have a subsidy for carbon captured by wood -- such a subsidy would make plywood and other wood products more competitive and thous would encourage storage of carbon away from the atmosphere.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not sure what will happen to plywood clips at end of use - but hope to use them many times over (definitely not single use).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you'll find that plywood can be only reused as-is. If the plywood is of the correct shape, you can reuse it. If not, well then, the only practical solution is to burn it to energy, as plywood cannot be recycled to new plywood of different dimensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastics, on the other hand, are somewhat easier to recycle. Old plastic products can be used to create new plastic products. Of course plastic can be reused too if it is of the correct dimension.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, plastics are more stable than plywood. Plywood can biodegrade, plastics not so much. This is a good thing (plastic stores the carbon for a very long time if not burned) and also a bad thing (microplastics problem in the oceans)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10196" RevisionGUID="2e5649a0-ddd4-4850-a075-b6c3c81bbcef" CreationDate="2020-09-05T22:25:01.733" UserId="659" Text="Biodegradeable glues are an area of active research right now ([example][1], and [woodwork forums thread][2]), but I haven't been able to find a plywood that uses one. The good news is that glue is only [5-10% of the plywood][3] by weight, and the glue is not entirely fossil based (often has urea which at least *can* be natuarlly produced).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of reuse, one obvious option is to clean the back surface and label that the second time you use them. It would be better in many ways if you could make them double sided in the first place (you're not transporting, cleaning and re-distributing them. Which is a hassle=mental cost as well as a monetary and environmental cost).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously almost all plastics are 100% fossil, and generally can't be re-used, [only downcycled][4]. But since your plaques are decorative you should be able to use non-food-grade, recycled plastic for them. If you can that might be better environmentally than plywood because the plastic ones are thinner and lighter, as well as possibly more durable (which may not matter if you replace them regularly for branding reasons).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would need to do that anyalysis for the exact products you're comparing, in your exact location. This is where we all would like the sustainability equivalent of an MSDS or food tracking label. Something that tells you exactly what you're buying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gut feeling is that this isn't really a sustainability question, it's a marketing one. These things are a branding exercise, and an important part of the branding is sustainability. Plywood says to the consumer &quot;natural&quot;, with all those associations. It might also be a differentiating factor (for a while) since the industry standard is plastic. That's not a bad thing, but it does influence whoever makes the decisions in your company more than some random employee turning up with &quot;I found it on the internet&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to give you links and keywords so you can reverse engineer the environmental justification you need from this answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/sustainable-adhesives/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.woodworkforums.com/f198/toxic-biodegradable-wood-glue-181824&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/plywood#:~:text=Manufacture.,by%20weight%20dependent%20on%20type&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/938/sustainability-of-steel-versus-plastic-bottles/945#945" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10176" RevisionGUID="bc832608-2138-4955-86b5-003df64fab3e" CreationDate="2020-09-05T22:33:47.010" UserId="659" Comment="moved comment in to start to make the question more obviously about sustainability" Text="My refrigerator has a rheostat that I want to turn up to save energy. I'm trying to figure out whether I need to get a dedicated refrigerator thermometer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a digital and a mercury-based thermometer that I normally use to measure the ambient air temperature on my porch. The temperature range appears to go down to below -30 centigrade and seems to give accurate readings. Is it likely that it will also give accurate readings in my refrigerator or freezer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that there are thermometers specifically marketed for use in refrigerators, so maybe the specific conditions inside a refrigerator impose special challenges I'm not thinking of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25431" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="7e10dcb9-562a-4c4e-be2e-aa8d42d03d96" CreationDate="2020-09-05T23:28:55.547" UserId="8360" Comment="corrected typos/improved phrasing" Text="Recently I got a bid from a solar company and they said I don't need to upgrade my electrical box since it is rated at 125 amps, and for that value, I can install a 7k system based on calculation [here][1]. I poked around the panel itself, and found two ratings, 100 amps and 125 amps, and I am not sure which rating that solar company should use, and blowing out my electrical box after solar panels are installed is definitely the last thing I want to see.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.altestore.com/blog/2018/11/grid-tied-solar-breaker-box-120-percent-rule/#.XzwpBpNKg8N&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/i8pm7.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2M7HC.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25432" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="7e10dcb9-562a-4c4e-be2e-aa8d42d03d96" CreationDate="2020-09-05T23:28:55.547" UserId="8360" Comment="corrected typos/improved phrasing" Text="How to identify the rating of my electrical panel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25433" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10153" RevisionGUID="7e10dcb9-562a-4c4e-be2e-aa8d42d03d96" CreationDate="2020-09-05T23:28:55.547" Comment="Proposed by 8360 approved by 659, 8917 edit id of 649" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10198" RevisionGUID="f720c5c1-f353-4e14-b402-58ccaea833f3" CreationDate="2020-09-06T10:49:41.900" UserId="8041" Text="The Euro 6 bus WHTC test cycle here shows a value of 4.0 carbon dioxide and the Euro 5 ESC &amp; ELR test cycles show a value of 1.5 CO. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems different test cycles have higher or lower limits allowed of CO2.  Of course these are just allowances and not the actual amounts of CO2 that vehicles produce (and of course who actually believes the manufacturers or tests anymore!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the expected real emission differences between new and old double decker buses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25438" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10198" RevisionGUID="f720c5c1-f353-4e14-b402-58ccaea833f3" CreationDate="2020-09-06T10:49:41.900" UserId="8041" Text="What is the difference in CO2 emissions between new and old double decker buses?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25439" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10198" RevisionGUID="f720c5c1-f353-4e14-b402-58ccaea833f3" CreationDate="2020-09-06T10:49:41.900" UserId="8041" Text="|carbon-footprint|transport|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25441" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10200" RevisionGUID="953369c9-d331-41b2-812f-b4e1082e04d0" CreationDate="2020-09-06T17:08:34.600" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; What are the expected real emission differences between new and old double decker buses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An internal combustion engine produces two kinds of emissions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Oxides&#xD;&#xA;* Combustion byproducts&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The oxides are materials that even perfect combustion will produce. They are what is on the right side of the combustion chemical reaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Internal combustion engines usually use hydrocarbon fuels. Hydro = hydrogen, carbon = carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the produced oxides are the oxide of hydrogen (H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O) which is water, and the fully oxidized oxide of carbon (CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) which is carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of these, water vapor is a greenhouse gas but in equilibrium with oceans, so adding a little won't hurt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, much of the produced carbon dioxide increases the carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere. Historically there was very little carbon dioxide, but recently its concentrations have increased, causing climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The oxides have a direct relationship with produced energy. If you produce a certain amount of energy, a certain amount of oxides are produced. The energy efficiency of internal combustion engines is rising very, very slowly indeed. Most of the advances in energy efficiency have already happened long time ago. So, given this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;A new bus has very slightly less CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, combustion byproducts are non-fully oxidized oxide of carbon (carbon monoxide), oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds and particulate matter. There is no physical law that links these byproducts to the obtained amount of energy. Thus, radical decreases can be and have been obtained.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 4.0 and 1.5 you found in Wikipedia are related, not to carbon dioxide, but to carbon monoxide. Its concentration can be reduced markedly in newer engines. However, the test procedures are evolving too, and thus, sometimes you see a new test cycle that creates more emissions, necessitating a newer limit that is actually larger than an older limit. Usually, even in these cases, if you put a new engine and an old engine to the same test cycle, you will find the new engine produces less combustion byproducts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No emission law controls the amount of carbon dioxide produced. There are entirely separate targets for the fuel efficiency of vehicles, which directly have an effect on the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions. The laws controlling combustion byproducts are for combustion byproducts only, not for CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25443" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10201" RevisionGUID="208bb28c-3fe8-430a-ba24-40a44fc0c9b2" CreationDate="2020-09-08T02:08:41.513" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25444" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10201" RevisionGUID="208bb28c-3fe8-430a-ba24-40a44fc0c9b2" CreationDate="2020-09-08T02:08:41.513" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10202" RevisionGUID="182ee1e0-07ee-4279-bd6d-1de9be262c60" CreationDate="2020-09-08T02:08:41.513" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25446" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10202" RevisionGUID="182ee1e0-07ee-4279-bd6d-1de9be262c60" CreationDate="2020-09-08T02:08:41.513" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25447" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10202" RevisionGUID="51050e1f-9bd2-451c-8aa4-f2fd154a2422" CreationDate="2020-09-08T06:36:17.637" UserId="8232" Comment="added 256 characters in body" Text="A place for employees to perform business or administrative work for an organization. If your sustainability question pertains to office or workplace practices and supplies, use this tag. Use [home] for questions that are more relevant to places of living." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25448" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10202" RevisionGUID="51050e1f-9bd2-451c-8aa4-f2fd154a2422" CreationDate="2020-09-08T06:36:17.637" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 651" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="59e1e08d-3e96-4ca6-be55-824d8e3591a5" CreationDate="2020-09-08T06:36:30.697" UserId="8232" Comment="some slight grammar fixes &amp; added the office tag" Text="I write a lot on a whiteboard and I would like to find a sustainable alternative to traditional (disposable) [whiteboard markers][1] which are what I'm using right now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking of getting a refillable marker like [this alternative][2] or [any of these][3] but I was wondering if there is any other possible choice. Are there any sustainable alternatives to write on a whiteboard other than refillable markers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.bicworld.com/us/products/details/118/velleda-whiteboard-marker-1701-1751&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.staedtler.com.au/en/products/markers-refill-ink/refill-stations-refill-ink/lumocolor-whiteboard-refill-station-488-51-refill-station-for-lumocolor-whiteboard-markers-351-and-351-b/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.auspen.us/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25450" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="59e1e08d-3e96-4ca6-be55-824d8e3591a5" CreationDate="2020-09-08T06:36:30.697" UserId="8232" Comment="some slight grammar fixes &amp; added the office tag" Text="What is the most sustainable choice to write on a whiteboard?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25451" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="59e1e08d-3e96-4ca6-be55-824d8e3591a5" CreationDate="2020-09-08T06:36:30.697" UserId="8232" Comment="some slight grammar fixes &amp; added the office tag" Text="|diy|alternatives|office|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25452" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5016" RevisionGUID="59e1e08d-3e96-4ca6-be55-824d8e3591a5" CreationDate="2020-09-08T06:36:30.697" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 650" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10203" RevisionGUID="832c55d2-6031-4aea-81a0-ef7114ece744" CreationDate="2020-09-08T16:23:03.970" UserId="6870" Text="I live in the US midwest and am looking to upgrade from my current old baseboard heaters to a more energy-efficient solution. Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am already well advanced on a parallel project of home insulation and learning to wear more sweaters, etc. I need to heat maybe 500-1000 square feet on a second floor; currently I have 3 baseboard heaters in the three major rooms. My landlord will let me do pretty much anything that doesn't involve major work on structural supports. I am willing to spend up to ~$2000. My goal would be to heat the apartment up to ~45 degrees fahrenheit when the outside temperature falls below that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar question was asked 7 years ago and it sounds like the answer was &quot;very efficient heat pump.&quot; But things might have changed since then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25455" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10203" RevisionGUID="832c55d2-6031-4aea-81a0-ef7114ece744" CreationDate="2020-09-08T16:23:03.970" UserId="6870" Text="Most efficient cheap heating system for small apartment in the US midwest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25456" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10203" RevisionGUID="832c55d2-6031-4aea-81a0-ef7114ece744" CreationDate="2020-09-08T16:23:03.970" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|electricity|heating|usa|apartment|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25457" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10204" RevisionGUID="87682065-23cc-4bfc-a284-3329a6d2f2f4" CreationDate="2020-09-08T16:48:43.587" UserId="6870" Text="I live in a second-floor apartment in the US midwest. For a few weeks per year, I have found that I need to turn on the baseboard heater in my kitchen in order to prevent the pipes in the kitchen and adjacent bathroom from freezing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two sinks, a toilet, a water heater and a shower. I'm not exactly sure about how heat enters/leaves my pipes once it goes into my floor, e.g. whether the pipes go outside above ground, where they are in the walls, whether they are insulated, etc. . But I am wondering whether there is a more energy-efficient way to keep my pipes from freezing than running the baseboard heaters to maintain pretty much constant 45+ degrees Fahrenheit in my apartment, without any modifications requiring removal of wall/floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the pipes run outside above ground, then I'm assuming insulating them would be an obvious first step. Also insulating my apartment would reduce the power required to use the current baseboard system. Maybe I could use small space heaters and point them at the pipes for my two sinks? Maybe I could install heating coils on the exposed portion of the pipe only? Not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25458" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10204" RevisionGUID="87682065-23cc-4bfc-a284-3329a6d2f2f4" CreationDate="2020-09-08T16:48:43.587" UserId="6870" Text="Most energy-efficient way to keep my pipes from freezing without tearing up walls/floor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25459" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10204" RevisionGUID="87682065-23cc-4bfc-a284-3329a6d2f2f4" CreationDate="2020-09-08T16:48:43.587" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|heating|water-heating|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10205" RevisionGUID="bac42c93-d754-45e2-8cf3-901a96335040" CreationDate="2020-09-08T17:05:13.587" UserId="6870" Text="I have a room in my apartment that can sometimes get around 40 degrees fahrenheit, and that's where my new tankless water heater is stored. Should I take any special precautions to keep my pipes from freezing or to avoid any other weird problems with my water heater? I live in the US midwest in a second-floor apartment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25461" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10205" RevisionGUID="bac42c93-d754-45e2-8cf3-901a96335040" CreationDate="2020-09-08T17:05:13.587" UserId="6870" Text="How to keep my tankless water heater safe in a cold room?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25462" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10205" RevisionGUID="bac42c93-d754-45e2-8cf3-901a96335040" CreationDate="2020-09-08T17:05:13.587" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|water-heating|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25463" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10205" RevisionGUID="c9b5c0c3-658d-4c9b-b856-519c0ea9efdf" CreationDate="2020-09-08T17:13:33.550" UserId="106" Comment="Units and spelling" Text="I have a room in my apartment that can sometimes get around 40 degrees Fahrenheit (4°C), and that's where my new tankless water heater is stored. Should I take any special precautions to keep my pipes from freezing or to avoid any other weird problems with my water heater? I live in the US Midwest in a second-floor apartment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25464" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10205" RevisionGUID="5fc31103-2c18-4ea5-88e8-91c606cdc9f1" CreationDate="2020-09-08T17:18:40.560" UserId="6870" Comment="deleted 17 characters in body" Text="I have a room in my apartment that can sometimes get around 40°F (4°C), and that's where my new tankless water heater is stored. Should I take any special precautions to keep my pipes from freezing or to avoid any other weird problems with my water heater? I live in the US Midwest in a second-floor apartment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25465" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10203" RevisionGUID="01e54966-3182-4c6b-9d1c-f037bdddeb06" CreationDate="2020-09-08T17:19:40.170" UserId="6870" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body" Text="I live in the US Midwest and am looking to upgrade from my current old baseboard heaters to a more energy-efficient solution. Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am already well advanced on a parallel project of home insulation and learning to wear more sweaters, etc. I need to heat maybe 500-1000 square feet on a second floor; currently I have 3 baseboard heaters in the three major rooms. My landlord will let me do pretty much anything that doesn't involve major work on structural supports. I am willing to spend up to ~$2000. My goal would be to heat the apartment up to ~45°F (7°C) when the outside temperature falls below that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A similar question was asked 7 years ago and it sounds like the answer was &quot;very efficient heat pump.&quot; But things might have changed since then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25466" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10204" RevisionGUID="697a4fa0-2bf3-4700-825e-d36d7ff62871" CreationDate="2020-09-08T17:20:24.683" UserId="6870" Comment="deleted 8 characters in body" Text="I live in a second-floor apartment in the US Midwest. For a few weeks per year, I have found that I need to turn on the baseboard heater in my kitchen in order to prevent the pipes in the kitchen and adjacent bathroom from freezing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have two sinks, a toilet, a water heater and a shower. I'm not exactly sure about how heat enters/leaves my pipes once it goes into my floor, e.g. whether the pipes go outside above ground, where they are in the walls, whether they are insulated, etc. . But I am wondering whether there is a more energy-efficient way to keep my pipes from freezing than running the baseboard heaters to maintain pretty much constant &gt;=45°F (&gt;=7°C) in my apartment, without any modifications requiring removal of wall/floor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the pipes run outside above ground, then I'm assuming insulating them would be an obvious first step. Also insulating my apartment would reduce the power required to use the current baseboard system. Maybe I could use small space heaters and point them at the pipes for my two sinks? Maybe I could install heating coils on the exposed portion of the pipe only? Not sure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks a lot!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10203" RevisionGUID="92ffd3ce-79a2-4683-bc45-19c9886f3a2f" CreationDate="2020-09-08T20:32:51.687" UserId="6870" Comment="added 129 characters in body" Text="I live in the US Midwest and am looking to upgrade from my current old baseboard heaters to a more energy-efficient solution. Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am already well advanced on a parallel project of home insulation and learning to wear more sweaters, etc. I need to heat maybe 500-1000 square feet on a second floor; currently I have 3 baseboard heaters in the three major rooms. My landlord will let me do pretty much anything that doesn't involve major work on structural supports. I am willing to spend up to ~$2000. My goal would be to heat the apartment up to ~45°F (7°C) when the outside temperature falls below that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[A similar question was asked 7 years ago][1] and it sounds like the answer was &quot;very efficient heat pump.&quot; But things might have changed since then?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/867/what-is-the-most-sustainable-heating-strategy-for-a-home" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25468" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10206" RevisionGUID="8798c917-cf31-4885-9a09-fcbad08e7a27" CreationDate="2020-09-08T22:20:38.057" UserId="3379" Text="I'll assume for now the [earlier answer on indoor heating systems](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/867/what-is-the-most-sustainable-heating-strategy-for-a-home) that you linked remains correct, and address two other points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Heat pump efficiency and temperature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Engineering toolbox provides a [thorough explanation of heat pump performance](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-pump-efficiency-ratings-d_1117.html), which includes this chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![Theoretical heat pump coefficient of performance][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **COP** stands for **coefficient of performance,** and is a measure of heat pump efficiency (higher is better)&#xD;&#xA; - **Cold temperature** is the outdoor/ambient air temperature -- this is the the source where the heat pump will extract heat&#xD;&#xA; - **Hot temperature** is the temperature to which the heat pump needs to heat. This is typically *higher* than your thermostat setting, because heat is coming in at one or a few places, but needs to propagate throughout the living space&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The highest COP occurs when the hot temperature is lowest, and the cold temperature is highest.** To use a pumping analogy, it's like moving water up a short hill. The colder it gets outside, or the hotter we set the system inside, the higher the hill that the water needs to be pumped up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, since you plan to keep the indoor temperature lower than the &quot;standard&quot; 65 degF (18 degC), a heat pump will do better than for the average home. (However, I'd recommend taking a look at this question: [Potential health risks with keeping temperature in a house low?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/3194/3379).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Cold weather performance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The COP/temperature relationship results in one of the biggest challenges with heat pumps -- at low outdoor temperatures, they start to perform poorly. In the US Midwest, the outdoor temperature can drop to 5 degF / -15 degC on a regular basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NEEP (an energy efficiency organization in the U.S.) provides a directory of air-source heat pumps (ASHPs) and their performance. Here's [one example](https://ashp.neep.org/#!/product/33592) for a smallish system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Heating/cooling capacity graph of example ASHP][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5 degF (-15 degC) the capacity (amount of heat the system can provide) is about half of what it is at 47 degF (8 degC), and the COP drops from 3.77 to 2.29. When it gets really cold outside, this system will have high electric use, and depending on the size and insulation of the home, it might not be able to keep it warm all winter long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few solutions to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Buy a heat pump that has enough capacity to heat your home regardless of how cold it gets.&#xD;&#xA; - Add a back-up heat source that only runs when the outdoor temperature is really cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In your case, since cost is an important factor, I'd recommend leaving your baseboard heating in place to use as a back-up source.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, heating systems are sized to be sufficient for 99% of the hours in an &quot;average&quot; winter (see this [Energy Star guide](https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/Design%20Temperature%20Limit%20Reference%20Guide%20%282019%20Ed%29%20-%20ENERGY%20STAR%20Certified%20Homes_Rev10.pdf) which tells you the 99% temperature for selected cities in the U.S.). With an existing back-up system, you could design for 95% or even 90%, and use your baseboard heat to cover the remaining 5-10% of winter hours. This would save significantly on the up-front costs since you could use a much smaller heat pump. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setting up optimal controls might be a challenge depending on the ASHP you choose, but in a pinch you could just set the baseboard heater thermostat a few degrees lower than the heat pump thermostat -- once it gets too cold for the ASHP to keep up, the indoor temperature will drop and the baseboard heaters will come on. (This isn't ideal as the ASHP will keep running and you might get into a feedback loop. A better system would monitor outdoor air temperature and switch heat source accordingly.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jDxgz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q4uD9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25469" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10206" RevisionGUID="3acb0f6a-d7f5-4c81-9c74-b840f7a11532" CreationDate="2020-09-08T22:39:32.167" UserId="3379" Comment="added 264 characters in body" Text="I'll assume for now the [earlier answer on indoor heating systems](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/867/what-is-the-most-sustainable-heating-strategy-for-a-home) that you linked remains correct, and address two other points.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Heat pump efficiency and temperature&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Engineering toolbox provides a [thorough explanation of heat pump performance](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-pump-efficiency-ratings-d_1117.html), which includes this chart:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![Theoretical heat pump coefficient of performance][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few definitions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **COP** stands for **coefficient of performance,** and is a measure of heat pump efficiency (higher is better). It is the ratio of energy input to useful heat output. For home heating, COP at rated conditions is typically around 3, meaning that for each unit of electricity used, three units of heat are provided. By contrast, baseboard electric heat has a COP of exactly 1.&#xD;&#xA; - **Cold temperature** is the outdoor/ambient air temperature -- this is the the source where the heat pump will extract heat&#xD;&#xA; - **Hot temperature** is the temperature to which the heat pump needs to heat. This is typically *higher* than your thermostat setting, because heat is coming in at one or a few places, but needs to propagate throughout the living space&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The highest COP occurs when the hot temperature is lowest, and the cold temperature is highest.** To use a pumping analogy, it's like moving water up a short hill. The colder it gets outside, or the hotter we set the system inside, the higher the hill that the water needs to be pumped up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, since you plan to keep the indoor temperature lower than the &quot;standard&quot; 65 degF (18 degC), a heat pump will do better than for the average home. (However, I'd recommend taking a look at this question: [Potential health risks with keeping temperature in a house low?](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/3194/3379).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Cold weather performance&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The COP/temperature relationship results in one of the biggest challenges with heat pumps -- at low outdoor temperatures, they start to perform poorly. In the US Midwest, the outdoor temperature can drop to 5 degF / -15 degC on a regular basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NEEP (an energy efficiency organization in the U.S.) provides a directory of air-source heat pumps (ASHPs) and their performance. Here's [one example](https://ashp.neep.org/#!/product/33592) for a smallish system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Heating/cooling capacity graph of example ASHP][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 5 degF (-15 degC) the capacity (amount of heat the system can provide) is about half of what it is at 47 degF (8 degC), and the COP drops from 3.77 to 2.29. When it gets really cold outside, this system will have high electric use, and depending on the size and insulation of the home, it might not be able to keep it warm all winter long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few solutions to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Buy a heat pump that has enough capacity to heat your home regardless of how cold it gets.&#xD;&#xA; - Add a back-up heat source that only runs when the outdoor temperature is really cold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In your case, since cost is an important factor, I'd recommend leaving your baseboard heating in place to use as a back-up source.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, heating systems are sized to be sufficient for 99% of the hours in an &quot;average&quot; winter (see this [Energy Star guide](https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/Design%20Temperature%20Limit%20Reference%20Guide%20%282019%20Ed%29%20-%20ENERGY%20STAR%20Certified%20Homes_Rev10.pdf) which tells you the 99% temperature for selected cities in the U.S.). With an existing back-up system, you could design for 95% or even 90%, and use your baseboard heat to cover the remaining 5-10% of winter hours. This would save significantly on the up-front costs since you could use a much smaller heat pump. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setting up optimal controls might be a challenge depending on the ASHP you choose, but in a pinch you could just set the baseboard heater thermostat a few degrees lower than the heat pump thermostat -- once it gets too cold for the ASHP to keep up, the indoor temperature will drop and the baseboard heaters will come on. (This isn't ideal as the ASHP will keep running and you might get into a feedback loop. A better system would monitor outdoor air temperature and switch heat source accordingly.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jDxgz.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q4uD9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25470" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10203" RevisionGUID="38ae6a38-e92b-4c44-998d-407b7d629908" CreationDate="2020-09-09T00:23:53.400" />
  <row Id="25471" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10151" RevisionGUID="0e42d1f4-012d-414c-a2c9-acc5167e1736" CreationDate="2020-09-09T03:00:26.460" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1303528663791661056" />
  <row Id="25472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10207" RevisionGUID="0b5c94be-709b-44e3-a78d-769530cf73c9" CreationDate="2020-09-09T13:45:13.307" UserId="3379" Text="Leave the faucet open at a trickle. From [Consumer Reports](https://www.consumerreports.org/home-maintenance-repairs/how-to-keep-pipes-from-freezing/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Let the cold water drip from a faucet served by exposed pipes. Running water through the pipe—even at a trickle—helps prevent pipes from freezing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing this at the two sinks is probably sufficient (no need to leave the shower or toilet running). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can use something [like this](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B074FV1J21/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_x_XTnwFbQFTKZX2) to divert the dripping water into a large bucket, while still having full use of the sink. The dripping water is potable, so you can save it for drinking, cooking, washing, or watering plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Faucet with hose diverter][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/oh2XOm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25474" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10208" RevisionGUID="7996600e-fa78-4b59-8705-2e0ad77e92fa" CreationDate="2020-09-10T05:04:08.093" UserId="3379" Text="**TL;DR** -- had to pull a lot of data together for this one. Per passenger mile traveled, private vehicles in the U.S. have an average emissions rate of 0.27 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per passenger mile traveled, while public transit (including walking and biking) has a rate of 0.14 kg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't fully answer the question, because I haven't found data on public transit ridership (i.e. how many people use public transit per year), to compare to the data on household vehicle use. Most ridership data counts passenger trips, so a person who takes the bus to work every day is counted every day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Private vehicles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Private vehicle data is from the [Bureau of Transportation Statistics](https://www.bts.gov/). All figures for 2009 (the most recent available covering all statistics) unless otherwise stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Average fuel efficiency of light duty vehicles](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles): 21.7 miles per gallon (mpg)&#xD;&#xA; - [CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per gallon of gasoline consumed](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php): 8.89 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per gallon&#xD;&#xA; - [Average vehicle miles traveled per household](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-annual-pmt-vmt-person-trips-and-trip-length-trip-purpose) (which covers privately owned vehicles -- [source](https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/NHTS2017_UsersGuide_04232019_1.pdf)): 19,850 miles&#xD;&#xA; - Average person miles traveled per household (ibid.): 33,004 miles&#xD;&#xA; - [Household vehicles](https://www.bts.gov/content/summary-statistics-demographic-characteristics-and-total-travel): 210,778,000&#xD;&#xA; - Households in the US (ibid.): 113,101,000 &#xD;&#xA; - US population (ibid.): 283,054,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Working through the data, we can figure out that the average person travels 13,187.54 miles a year, but the average vehicle only travels 10,651.28 miles per year.  &#xD;&#xA;- This means that part of the time, private vehicles are carrying more than one person, so we can't attribute all of that vehicle's emissions to one person. &#xD;&#xA; - The average vehicle is carrying 1.24 people per mile -- or to put it another way, the average person uses 81% of a car when they travel, meaning that they're &quot;responsible&quot; for only 81% of the emissions of the vehicle each time it travels a mile.&#xD;&#xA; - `(13,187.54 miles per year) / (21.7 miles per gallon) = 490.84 gallons per vehicle`&#xD;&#xA; - 81% of this is 396.44 gallons (1500 L)&#xD;&#xA; - **Resulting CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per passenger from private vehicles is 3,524.37 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per year, or 0.27 kg per passenger mile traveled.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Public transit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some public transit data is from BTS, and the rest is from the [National Transit Database](https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd), for 2009. Note that the tables are full of acronyms, so you'll need to use the [glossary](https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/NTD_Glossary_2014.pdf) to decipher them. &quot;Transit&quot; below includes buses, trains, trolleys, shuttles, walking, and biking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Total transit passenger miles](https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles): 90.8 billion&#xD;&#xA; - [Fuel consumption by transit type](https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/2009-table-17-energy-consumption) are in the table below. (&quot;DO&quot; and &quot;PT&quot; refer to whether a public agency directly operates or privately contracts vehicles -- the distinction is immaterial here.) [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA; - Emissions by fuel type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       Diesel       10.16 kg CO2 / gallon&#xD;&#xA;       Gasoline      8.89&#xD;&#xA;       Kerosene      9.75&#xD;&#xA;       LPG           5.61&#xD;&#xA;       LNG           3.98&#xD;&#xA;       CNG           6.36&#xD;&#xA;       Electricity   0.76 kg CO2 / kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   - Data for gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and natural gas [from the EIA](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php). Liquefied natural gas (LNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) were converted to BTU using [Wikipedia sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent).&#xD;&#xA;   - Data for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) from [EPA's Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references)&#xD;&#xA;   - National average for electric consumption from [EPA's AVERT database](https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/avoided-emission-factors-generated-avert)&#xD;&#xA;   - I'll assume &quot;biodiesel&quot; refers to 100% plant-derived fuel (not blended with diesel) and treat the emissions as 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Multiplying all emissions factors by fuel consumption gives a total CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions from public transit of 12.82 million tonnes per year.&#xD;&#xA; - Dividing by passenger miles gives a value of **0.14 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per passenger mile traveled on public transit.** This rises to 0.24 kg if we exclude walking and biking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JDkPl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="6cf30459-48d4-4b9c-8f67-80a4bef2a1f2" CreationDate="2020-09-10T09:48:54.253" UserId="8232" Comment="some slight grammar fixes &amp; added the office tag" Text="Our office occupies one floor of a 4-story, one hundred year old building. We are making tenant-level improvements to our space, and are interested in lowering and monitoring our energy use, but are unable to install submetering or take significant savings for any changes we make, since we pay a flat percentage of the overall building’s utilities.  We are currently not able to make massive systems changes.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you have any recommendations for energy monitoring without full-blown submetering?  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25477" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="6cf30459-48d4-4b9c-8f67-80a4bef2a1f2" CreationDate="2020-09-10T09:48:54.253" UserId="8232" Comment="some slight grammar fixes &amp; added the office tag" Text="|energy|electricity|energy-management|office|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25478" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="6cf30459-48d4-4b9c-8f67-80a4bef2a1f2" CreationDate="2020-09-10T09:48:54.253" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 652" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10208" RevisionGUID="94ea0f9b-1b2e-4b40-96e0-87f724a9079c" CreationDate="2020-09-10T14:38:54.677" UserId="3379" Comment="Added per trip data." Text="**TL;DR** -- had to pull a lot of data together for this one. Per passenger mile traveled, private vehicles in the U.S. have an average emissions rate of 0.27 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, while public transit has a rate of 0.24 kg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a per trip basis, private vehicles result in 2.59 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions, and public transit trips result in 1.27 kg emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't fully answer the question, because I haven't found data on public transit ridership (i.e. how many people use public transit per year), to compare to the data on household vehicle use. Most ridership data counts passenger trips, so a person who takes the bus to work every day is counted every day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Private vehicles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Private vehicle data is from the [Bureau of Transportation Statistics](https://www.bts.gov/). All figures for 2009 (the most recent available covering all statistics) unless otherwise stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Average fuel efficiency of light duty vehicles](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles): 21.7 miles per gallon (mpg)&#xD;&#xA; - [CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per gallon of gasoline consumed](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php): 8.89 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per gallon&#xD;&#xA; - [Average vehicle miles traveled per household](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-annual-pmt-vmt-person-trips-and-trip-length-trip-purpose) (which covers privately owned vehicles -- [source](https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/NHTS2017_UsersGuide_04232019_1.pdf)): 19,850 miles&#xD;&#xA; - Average person miles traveled per household (ibid.): 33,004 miles&#xD;&#xA; - Average trip length per person (ibid.): 9.7 miles&#xD;&#xA; - [Household vehicles](https://www.bts.gov/content/summary-statistics-demographic-characteristics-and-total-travel): 210,778,000&#xD;&#xA; - Households in the US (ibid.): 113,101,000 &#xD;&#xA; - US population (ibid.): 283,054,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Working through the data, we can figure out that the average person travels 13,187.54 miles a year, but the average vehicle only travels 10,651.28 miles per year.  &#xD;&#xA;- This means that part of the time, private vehicles are carrying more than one person, so we can't attribute all of that vehicle's emissions to one person. &#xD;&#xA; - The average vehicle is carrying 1.24 people per mile -- or to put it another way, the average person uses 81% of a car when they travel, meaning that they're &quot;responsible&quot; for only 81% of the emissions of the vehicle each time it travels a mile.&#xD;&#xA; - `(13,187.54 miles per year) / (21.7 miles per gallon) = 490.84 gallons per vehicle`&#xD;&#xA; - 81% of this is 396.44 gallons (1500 L)&#xD;&#xA; - **Resulting CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per passenger from private vehicles is 3,524.37 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per year, or 0.27 kg per passenger mile traveled.**&#xD;&#xA; - With an average trip length of 9.7 miles, this equals **2.59 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per trip per person in a private vehicle.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Public transit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Public transit data is from the [National Transit Database](https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd), for 2009. The tables are full of acronyms, so you'll need to use the [glossary](https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/NTD_Glossary_2014.pdf) to decipher them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Total transit passenger miles and trips](https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/2009-table-19-transit-operating-statistics-service-supplied-and-consumed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           MODE            TRIPS              MILES&#xD;&#xA;       Bus	           5,359,274,947 	 21,099,988,629 &#xD;&#xA;       Commuter Rail	 463,965,983 	 11,129,418,953 &#xD;&#xA;       Demand Response	 100,196,024 	    881,048,515 &#xD;&#xA;       Ferryboat	      59,496,556 	    364,671,729 &#xD;&#xA;       Heavy Rail	   3,489,503,588 	 16,805,109,970 &#xD;&#xA;       Light Rail	     464,354,520 	  2,196,117,518 &#xD;&#xA;       Other	          93,616,555 	  1,253,960,289 &#xD;&#xA;       Trolleybus	     103,853,889 	    168,066,937 &#xD;&#xA;       TOTAL	      10,134,262,062 	 53,898,382,540 &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - [Total passenger miles for walking and cycling](https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles): 27,943,000,000 and 8,956,000,000 respectively.&#xD;&#xA; - [Fuel consumption, in gallons, by transit type](https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/2009-table-17-energy-consumption):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       MODE                 Diesel       Gasoline       Kerosene	  BioDiesel      LPG            LNG             CNG       Electricity (kWh)&#xD;&#xA;       Bus               447,876,760      6,291,716      467,827 	 39,541,271    2,913,821     25,195,388     139,562,108           804,539&#xD;&#xA;       Commuter Rail      91,303,122                                                                                            1,779,699,164&#xD;&#xA;       Demand Response    41,374,620     44,360,579       34,324 	  3,972,804    1,890,771                      2,590,337            51,204&#xD;&#xA;       Ferryboat          32,612,447          9,972                     168,822 &#xD;&#xA;       Heavy Rail                                                                                                               3,885,608,599&#xD;&#xA;       Light Rail          1,028,660                                                                                              735,067,349&#xD;&#xA;       Other                 237,795     14,689,106                                                                   3,719        22,511,081&#xD;&#xA;       Trolleybus                                                                                                                  68,707,427&#xD;&#xA;       TOTAL             614,433,404     65,351,373      502,151 	 43,682,897    4,804,592     25,195,388     142,156,164     6,492,449,363 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Emissions by fuel type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       Diesel       10.16 kg CO2 / gallon&#xD;&#xA;       Gasoline      8.89&#xD;&#xA;       Kerosene      9.75&#xD;&#xA;       LPG           5.61&#xD;&#xA;       LNG           3.98&#xD;&#xA;       CNG           6.36&#xD;&#xA;       Electricity   0.76 kg CO2 / kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   - Data for gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and natural gas [from the EIA](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php). Liquefied natural gas (LNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) were first converted to Btu using [Wikipedia sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent).&#xD;&#xA;   - Data for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) from [EPA's Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references)&#xD;&#xA;   - National average for electric consumption from [EPA's AVERT database](https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/avoided-emission-factors-generated-avert)&#xD;&#xA;   - I'll assume &quot;biodiesel&quot; refers to 100% plant-derived fuel (not blended with diesel) and treat the emissions as 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Multiplying all emissions factors by fuel consumption gives a total CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions from public transit of 12.82 million tonnes per year.&#xD;&#xA; - Dividing by passenger miles gives a value of **0.24 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per passenger mile traveled on public transit.** &#xD;&#xA; - The average trip length on public transit is 5.32 miles, resulting in **1.27 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per trip.**&#xD;&#xA; - If we include walking and biking, emissions per mile drops to 0.14 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per passenger mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JDkPl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10210" RevisionGUID="32027c00-dafa-439b-806f-69e54ebbf3e9" CreationDate="2020-09-10T14:49:12.713" UserId="6870" Text="I want to keep my hands warm(er) while working on a laptop in a cold room. Would it make sense to take a polar fleece blanket, fold it in half, sew together the two edges that are perpendicular to the fold, cut a slot in the middle two thirds of the fold, use it to create a sort of &quot;enclosure&quot; covering hands, mouse and keyboard with an open slot facing me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25481" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10210" RevisionGUID="32027c00-dafa-439b-806f-69e54ebbf3e9" CreationDate="2020-09-10T14:49:12.713" UserId="6870" Text="Keep my hands warm while working on a laptop?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25482" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10210" RevisionGUID="32027c00-dafa-439b-806f-69e54ebbf3e9" CreationDate="2020-09-10T14:49:12.713" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|heating|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10210" RevisionGUID="b45befc2-2ed6-4b02-befd-d6a7aa1bfa44" CreationDate="2020-09-10T15:05:31.847" UserId="6870" Comment="added 94 characters in body" Text="I want to keep my hands warm(er) while working on a laptop in a cold room. Would it make sense to take a polar fleece blanket, fold it in half, sew together the two edges that are perpendicular to the fold, cut a slot in the middle two thirds of the fold, use it to create a sort of &quot;enclosure&quot; covering hands, mouse and keyboard with an open slot facing me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Same question with one of those hot/cold insulated shopping bags, or other similar things." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25484" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10211" RevisionGUID="3e7631d4-f1d4-4b16-89ff-a9c333713558" CreationDate="2020-09-10T17:09:03.997" UserId="4834" Text="I use a pair of wool fingerless gloves.  They don't impair dexterity and even though they leave fingers exposed they cover enough that my entire hands remain comfortable.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10208" RevisionGUID="eef89858-74d9-4550-994b-05023d81295e" CreationDate="2020-09-10T18:31:34.373" UserId="3379" Comment="added 621 characters in body" Text="**TL;DR** -- had to pull a lot of data together for this one. Per passenger mile traveled, private vehicles in the U.S. have an average emissions rate of 0.27 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, while public transit has a rate of 0.24 kg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a per trip basis, private vehicles result in 2.59 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions, and public transit trips result in 1.27 kg emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't fully answer the question, because I haven't found data on public transit ridership (i.e. how many people use public transit per year), to compare to the data on household vehicle use. Most ridership data counts passenger trips, so a person who takes the bus to work every day is counted every day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Private vehicles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Private vehicle data is from the [Bureau of Transportation Statistics](https://www.bts.gov/). All figures for 2009 (the most recent available covering all statistics) unless otherwise stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Average fuel efficiency of light duty vehicles](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles): 21.7 miles per gallon (mpg)&#xD;&#xA; - [CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per gallon of gasoline consumed](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php): 8.89 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per gallon&#xD;&#xA; - [Average vehicle miles traveled per household](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-annual-pmt-vmt-person-trips-and-trip-length-trip-purpose) (which covers privately owned vehicles -- [source](https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/NHTS2017_UsersGuide_04232019_1.pdf)): 19,850 miles&#xD;&#xA; - Average person miles traveled per household (ibid.): 33,004 miles&#xD;&#xA; - Average trip length per person (ibid.): 9.7 miles&#xD;&#xA; - [Household vehicles](https://www.bts.gov/content/summary-statistics-demographic-characteristics-and-total-travel): 210,778,000&#xD;&#xA; - Households in the US (ibid.): 113,101,000 &#xD;&#xA; - US population (ibid.): 283,054,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Working through the data, we can figure out that the average person travels 13,187.54 miles a year, but the average vehicle only travels 10,651.28 miles per year.  &#xD;&#xA;- This means that part of the time, private vehicles are carrying more than one person, so we can't attribute all of that vehicle's emissions to one person. &#xD;&#xA; - The average vehicle is carrying 1.24 people per mile -- or to put it another way, the average person uses 81% of a car when they travel, meaning that they're &quot;responsible&quot; for only 81% of the emissions of the vehicle each time it travels a mile.&#xD;&#xA; - `(13,187.54 miles per year) / (21.7 miles per gallon) = 490.84 gallons per vehicle`&#xD;&#xA; - 81% of this is 396.44 gallons (1500 L)&#xD;&#xA; - **Resulting CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per passenger from private vehicles is 3,524.37 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per year, or 0.27 kg per passenger mile traveled.**&#xD;&#xA; - With an average trip length of 9.7 miles, this equals **2.59 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per trip per person in a private vehicle.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Public transit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Public transit data is from the [National Transit Database](https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd), for 2009. The tables are full of acronyms, so you'll need to use the [glossary](https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/NTD_Glossary_2014.pdf) to decipher them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Total transit passenger miles and trips](https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/2009-table-19-transit-operating-statistics-service-supplied-and-consumed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           MODE            TRIPS              MILES&#xD;&#xA;       Bus	           5,359,274,947 	 21,099,988,629 &#xD;&#xA;       Commuter Rail	 463,965,983 	 11,129,418,953 &#xD;&#xA;       Demand Response	 100,196,024 	    881,048,515 &#xD;&#xA;       Ferryboat	      59,496,556 	    364,671,729 &#xD;&#xA;       Heavy Rail	   3,489,503,588 	 16,805,109,970 &#xD;&#xA;       Light Rail	     464,354,520 	  2,196,117,518 &#xD;&#xA;       Other	          93,616,555 	  1,253,960,289 &#xD;&#xA;       Trolleybus	     103,853,889 	    168,066,937 &#xD;&#xA;       TOTAL	      10,134,262,062 	 53,898,382,540 &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - [Total passenger miles for walking and cycling](https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles): 27,943,000,000 and 8,956,000,000 respectively.&#xD;&#xA; - [Fuel consumption, in gallons, by transit type](https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/2009-table-17-energy-consumption):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       MODE                 Diesel       Gasoline       Kerosene	  BioDiesel      LPG            LNG             CNG       Electricity (kWh)&#xD;&#xA;       Bus               447,876,760      6,291,716      467,827 	 39,541,271    2,913,821     25,195,388     139,562,108           804,539&#xD;&#xA;       Commuter Rail      91,303,122                                                                                            1,779,699,164&#xD;&#xA;       Demand Response    41,374,620     44,360,579       34,324 	  3,972,804    1,890,771                      2,590,337            51,204&#xD;&#xA;       Ferryboat          32,612,447          9,972                     168,822 &#xD;&#xA;       Heavy Rail                                                                                                               3,885,608,599&#xD;&#xA;       Light Rail          1,028,660                                                                                              735,067,349&#xD;&#xA;       Other                 237,795     14,689,106                                                                   3,719        22,511,081&#xD;&#xA;       Trolleybus                                                                                                                  68,707,427&#xD;&#xA;       TOTAL             614,433,404     65,351,373      502,151 	 43,682,897    4,804,592     25,195,388     142,156,164     6,492,449,363 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Emissions by fuel type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       Diesel       10.16 kg CO2 / gallon&#xD;&#xA;       Gasoline      8.89&#xD;&#xA;       Kerosene      9.75&#xD;&#xA;       LPG           5.61&#xD;&#xA;       LNG           3.98&#xD;&#xA;       CNG           6.36&#xD;&#xA;       Electricity   0.76 kg CO2 / kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   - Data for gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and natural gas [from the EIA](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php). Liquefied natural gas (LNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) were first converted to Btu using [Wikipedia sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent).&#xD;&#xA;   - Data for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) from [EPA's Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references)&#xD;&#xA;   - National average for electric consumption from [EPA's AVERT database](https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/avoided-emission-factors-generated-avert)&#xD;&#xA;   - I'll assume &quot;biodiesel&quot; refers to 100% plant-derived fuel (not blended with diesel) and treat the emissions as 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Multiplying all emissions factors by fuel consumption gives a total CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions from public transit of 12.82 million tonnes per year.&#xD;&#xA; - Dividing by passenger miles gives a value of **0.24 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per passenger mile traveled on public transit.** Below is the data by transit mode. Several of these are higher than the private vehicle average -- this is likely because transit tends to operate in urban areas, where the combination of lower speed and traffic result in lower efficiencies. By contrast, private vehicles spend more time on highways, where higher speeds increase efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       Bus               0.27 kg CO2 per passenger mile&#xD;&#xA;       Commuter Rail     0.21&#xD;&#xA;       Demand Response   0.96&#xD;&#xA;       Ferryboat         0.91&#xD;&#xA;       Heavy Rail        0.18&#xD;&#xA;       Light Rail        0.26&#xD;&#xA;       Other             0.12&#xD;&#xA;       Trolleybus        0.31&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The average trip length on public transit is 5.32 miles, resulting in **1.27 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per trip.**&#xD;&#xA; - If we include walking and biking, emissions per mile drops to 0.14 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per passenger mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JDkPl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10212" RevisionGUID="5fd4a4fc-bcc2-44eb-96a4-d84fcbdde340" CreationDate="2020-09-10T22:58:17.840" UserId="6870" Text="Any &quot;reasonable&quot; methods would be appreciated. I have heard that this can be done but I'm dubious that it would do much. Maybe if I put polyethylene on the right bits?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25487" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10212" RevisionGUID="5fd4a4fc-bcc2-44eb-96a4-d84fcbdde340" CreationDate="2020-09-10T22:58:17.840" UserId="6870" Text="Can I insulate my refrigerator to improve efficiency?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25488" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10212" RevisionGUID="5fd4a4fc-bcc2-44eb-96a4-d84fcbdde340" CreationDate="2020-09-10T22:58:17.840" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|electricity|cooling|insulation|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10208" RevisionGUID="c658a3f0-f36e-4c4d-9cdf-172005d49496" CreationDate="2020-09-10T23:31:28.017" UserId="3379" Comment="added 753 characters in body" Text="**TL;DR** -- had to pull a lot of data together for this one. Per passenger mile traveled, private vehicles in the U.S. have an average emissions rate of 0.27 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, while public transit has a rate of 0.24 kg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a per trip basis, private vehicles result in 2.59 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions, and public transit trips result in 1.27 kg emissions. Here's a table with compiled average results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    MODE             Trip distance (mi)    kg CO2 / mi      kg CO2 / trip&#xD;&#xA;    Trolleybus             1.6                 0.31             0.51&#xD;&#xA;    Heavy Rail             4.8                 0.18             0.85&#xD;&#xA;    Bus                    3.9                 0.27             1.05&#xD;&#xA;    Light Rail             4.7                 0.26             1.23&#xD;&#xA;    Other transit         13.4                 0.12             1.60&#xD;&#xA;    Private vehicle        9.7                 0.27             2.59&#xD;&#xA;    Commuter Rail	      24.0                 0.21             4.93&#xD;&#xA;    Ferryboat              6.1                 0.91             5.57&#xD;&#xA;    Demand Response        8.8                 0.96             8.41&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This doesn't fully answer the question, because I haven't found data on public transit ridership (i.e. how many people use public transit per year), to compare to the data on household vehicle use. Most ridership data counts passenger trips, so a person who takes the bus to work every day is counted every day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Private vehicles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Private vehicle data is from the [Bureau of Transportation Statistics](https://www.bts.gov/). All figures for 2009 (the most recent available covering all statistics) unless otherwise stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Average fuel efficiency of light duty vehicles](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-fuel-efficiency-us-light-duty-vehicles): 21.7 miles per gallon (mpg)&#xD;&#xA; - [CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per gallon of gasoline consumed](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php): 8.89 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per gallon&#xD;&#xA; - [Average vehicle miles traveled per household](https://www.bts.gov/content/average-annual-pmt-vmt-person-trips-and-trip-length-trip-purpose) (which covers privately owned vehicles -- [source](https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/NHTS2017_UsersGuide_04232019_1.pdf)): 19,850 miles&#xD;&#xA; - Average person miles traveled per household (ibid.): 33,004 miles&#xD;&#xA; - Average trip length per person (ibid.): 9.7 miles&#xD;&#xA; - [Household vehicles](https://www.bts.gov/content/summary-statistics-demographic-characteristics-and-total-travel): 210,778,000&#xD;&#xA; - Households in the US (ibid.): 113,101,000 &#xD;&#xA; - US population (ibid.): 283,054,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Working through the data, we can figure out that the average person travels 13,187.54 miles a year, but the average vehicle only travels 10,651.28 miles per year.  &#xD;&#xA;- This means that part of the time, private vehicles are carrying more than one person, so we can't attribute all of that vehicle's emissions to one person. &#xD;&#xA; - The average vehicle is carrying 1.24 people per mile -- or to put it another way, the average person uses 81% of a car when they travel, meaning that they're &quot;responsible&quot; for only 81% of the emissions of the vehicle each time it travels a mile.&#xD;&#xA; - `(13,187.54 miles per year) / (21.7 miles per gallon) = 490.84 gallons per vehicle`&#xD;&#xA; - 81% of this is 396.44 gallons (1500 L)&#xD;&#xA; - **Resulting CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per passenger from private vehicles is 3,524.37 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per year, or 0.27 kg per passenger mile traveled.**&#xD;&#xA; - With an average trip length of 9.7 miles, this equals **2.59 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per trip per person in a private vehicle.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Public transit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Public transit data is from the [National Transit Database](https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd), for 2009. The tables are full of acronyms, so you'll need to use the [glossary](https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/NTD_Glossary_2014.pdf) to decipher them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Total transit passenger miles and trips](https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/2009-table-19-transit-operating-statistics-service-supplied-and-consumed)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           MODE            TRIPS              MILES&#xD;&#xA;       Bus	           5,359,274,947 	 21,099,988,629 &#xD;&#xA;       Commuter Rail	 463,965,983 	 11,129,418,953 &#xD;&#xA;       Demand Response	 100,196,024 	    881,048,515 &#xD;&#xA;       Ferryboat	      59,496,556 	    364,671,729 &#xD;&#xA;       Heavy Rail	   3,489,503,588 	 16,805,109,970 &#xD;&#xA;       Light Rail	     464,354,520 	  2,196,117,518 &#xD;&#xA;       Other	          93,616,555 	  1,253,960,289 &#xD;&#xA;       Trolleybus	     103,853,889 	    168,066,937 &#xD;&#xA;       TOTAL	      10,134,262,062 	 53,898,382,540 &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - [Total passenger miles for walking and cycling](https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles): 27,943,000,000 and 8,956,000,000 respectively.&#xD;&#xA; - [Fuel consumption, in gallons, by transit type](https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd/data-product/2009-table-17-energy-consumption):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       MODE                 Diesel       Gasoline       Kerosene	  BioDiesel      LPG            LNG             CNG       Electricity (kWh)&#xD;&#xA;       Bus               447,876,760      6,291,716      467,827 	 39,541,271    2,913,821     25,195,388     139,562,108           804,539&#xD;&#xA;       Commuter Rail      91,303,122                                                                                            1,779,699,164&#xD;&#xA;       Demand Response    41,374,620     44,360,579       34,324 	  3,972,804    1,890,771                      2,590,337            51,204&#xD;&#xA;       Ferryboat          32,612,447          9,972                     168,822 &#xD;&#xA;       Heavy Rail                                                                                                               3,885,608,599&#xD;&#xA;       Light Rail          1,028,660                                                                                              735,067,349&#xD;&#xA;       Other                 237,795     14,689,106                                                                   3,719        22,511,081&#xD;&#xA;       Trolleybus                                                                                                                  68,707,427&#xD;&#xA;       TOTAL             614,433,404     65,351,373      502,151 	 43,682,897    4,804,592     25,195,388     142,156,164     6,492,449,363 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Emissions by fuel type&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       Diesel       10.16 kg CO2 / gallon&#xD;&#xA;       Gasoline      8.89&#xD;&#xA;       Kerosene      9.75&#xD;&#xA;       LPG           5.61&#xD;&#xA;       LNG           3.98&#xD;&#xA;       CNG           6.36&#xD;&#xA;       Electricity   0.76 kg CO2 / kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   - Data for gasoline, diesel, kerosene, and natural gas [from the EIA](https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php). Liquefied natural gas (LNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) were first converted to Btu using [Wikipedia sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent).&#xD;&#xA;   - Data for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) from [EPA's Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references)&#xD;&#xA;   - National average for electric consumption from [EPA's AVERT database](https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/avoided-emission-factors-generated-avert)&#xD;&#xA;   - I'll assume &quot;biodiesel&quot; refers to 100% plant-derived fuel (not blended with diesel) and treat the emissions as 0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Calculations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Multiplying all emissions factors by fuel consumption gives a total CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions from public transit of 12.82 million tonnes per year.&#xD;&#xA; - Dividing by passenger miles gives a value of **0.24 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per passenger mile traveled on public transit.** Below is the data by transit mode. Several of these are higher than the private vehicle average -- this is likely because transit tends to operate in urban areas, where the combination of lower speed and traffic result in lower efficiencies. By contrast, private vehicles spend more time on highways, where higher speeds increase efficiencies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;       Bus               0.27 kg CO2 per passenger mile&#xD;&#xA;       Commuter Rail     0.21&#xD;&#xA;       Demand Response   0.96&#xD;&#xA;       Ferryboat         0.91&#xD;&#xA;       Heavy Rail        0.18&#xD;&#xA;       Light Rail        0.26&#xD;&#xA;       Other             0.12&#xD;&#xA;       Trolleybus        0.31&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The average trip length on public transit is 5.32 miles, resulting in **1.27 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per trip.**&#xD;&#xA; - If we include walking and biking, emissions per mile drops to 0.14 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per passenger mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/JDkPl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25493" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="5a5af02b-076d-4ff1-a857-eb490ee419d6" CreationDate="2020-09-11T02:28:29.613" UserId="6870" Text="The title says it all; I'm looking for any qualitative information that can help me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Freezers: https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-residential-freezers/details/2255167&#xD;&#xA;Refrigerators: https://www.energystar.gov/most-efficient/me-certified-refrigerators/results&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per [this question][1], the testing process for refrigerators costs money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10188/how-does-the-epa-estimate-annual-power-consumption-for-refrigerators" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25494" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="5a5af02b-076d-4ff1-a857-eb490ee419d6" CreationDate="2020-09-11T02:28:29.613" UserId="6870" Text="Why do the best energy star freezers have higher capacity and lower rated power consumption than the best refrigerators?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25495" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10214" RevisionGUID="5a5af02b-076d-4ff1-a857-eb490ee419d6" CreationDate="2020-09-11T02:28:29.613" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|cooling|usa|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25499" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9906" RevisionGUID="8698c3e2-de93-429c-bc25-11f315902b03" CreationDate="2020-09-11T06:54:49.557" UserId="3500" Comment="Changed arguments from singular to plural form" Text="Many population growth estimates actually suggest that the growth will slow down in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![World population estimate (Pew Research Center][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main arguments are that the global fertility rate is decreasing and that the median age of the world population is going up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Global fertility rate and median age (Pew Research Center][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reference: [World population growth is expected to nearly stop by 2100][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0dRfm.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7ulnT.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25500" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="396" RevisionGUID="4466e18a-bf04-4b4d-a406-7ed1ddd18451" CreationDate="2020-09-11T15:00:07.907" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1304434555684818945" />
  <row Id="25501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10216" RevisionGUID="7ed1db66-b52b-47bf-9656-8c768d177a43" CreationDate="2020-09-11T16:11:20.933" UserId="3379" Text="Although it seems logical that a refrigerator would be more efficient since it doesn't have to keep things as cold, there are a few different factors affecting real-world performance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Freezers are simpler to operate.**&#xD;&#xA;In a freezer there's only a top end on the temperature range. From [this paper](https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/3/400) you can see the range in the refrigerator is narrow, but the fridge range is broad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![Temperature in freezer and refrigerator vs thermal load][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a freezer, the compressor can run for a while to get the compartment well below zero. During start-up and stopping, the compressor is less efficient, so it makes sense to run it for a while. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in a refrigerator, if you run the compressor too long, you risk freezing things that shouldn't be frozen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fridges need a &quot;relief&quot; valve.** If a fridge does get too cold, it needs to be able to warm back up again. I suspect this is why the insulation is thinner in the fridge compartment -- if it's too thick and the compartment gets too cold, there's no way to warm it back up. But having thinner insulation means that if the compartment gets a bit too cold, it will naturally warm back up a bit. This allows the thermostat and control system to be simpler (and cheaper). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Freezers aren't opened as often.** &#xD;&#xA;This part gets to the real-world aspect of Energy Star ratings. It's 11am where I am, and so far I've opened my refrigerator three times: creamer for my coffee, orange juice with breakfast, and an apple for a snack. I've only opened my freezer once to get some frozen fruit for my oatmeal. So the testing criteria likely emulates this real-world usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0mi0h.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10217" RevisionGUID="22defc10-d4fd-4995-8371-668c01975012" CreationDate="2020-09-11T17:14:56.930" UserId="5477" Text="I think the greatest efficiency improvement can be obtained by cleaning the condenser coils on the bottom and/back . In a home unit the coils,especially on the bottom collect a lot of lint , pet hair , etc. Vacuum them annually or more often. I have also added aluminum window screen to protect the coils from lint. If you use foam ,I think you will find polyurethane and polystyrene easier to obtain." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10220" RevisionGUID="317e59e5-9544-4cfc-9bb9-faf15de5ffbb" CreationDate="2020-09-13T00:34:24.707" UserId="6870" Text="I want to connect my freezer to an external thermostat like this to maintain a higher temperature than it otherwise could. Are there any thermostats or other control devices that would keep the freezer compressor from cycling on and off too often?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I intend to keep it at around 30 deg F to 50 deg F, or -1 to 10 deg C. I haven't bought the freezer yet but it will probably be an [Avanti CF24Q0W][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.avantiproducts.com/products/id/733" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25513" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10220" RevisionGUID="317e59e5-9544-4cfc-9bb9-faf15de5ffbb" CreationDate="2020-09-13T00:34:24.707" UserId="6870" Text="Help me safely mod my freezer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25514" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10220" RevisionGUID="317e59e5-9544-4cfc-9bb9-faf15de5ffbb" CreationDate="2020-09-13T00:34:24.707" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|electricity|life-cycle-analysis|cooling|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10221" RevisionGUID="64ba4fd3-a10a-4e75-b4f0-2baf38e1e236" CreationDate="2020-09-13T00:51:08.860" UserId="6870" Text="It appears that some of these thermostats have &quot;compressor delay protection,&quot; such as this one: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01HXM5UAC/?th=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10224" RevisionGUID="0982e20f-2a1c-494a-a302-578534f00ce5" CreationDate="2020-09-13T09:21:28.130" UserId="2345" Text="One problem with using such &quot;blanket&quot; as you describe is that it can also insulate the keyboard. If you are using a desktop computer that may be okay, but it you are using a laptop computer you risk overheating the computer through insulating it and also possibly  restricting or blocking the exhaust vent for the computer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Like Jean-Paul Calderone states, fingerless gloves are a better alternative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10225" RevisionGUID="4f028a98-b57a-4d85-8210-7e5f727ae37b" CreationDate="2020-09-13T12:39:15.320" UserId="8910" Text="Usually, it is oil-based soap or cream. There are commercial products out there. It seems that olive oil, coconut oil, shea butter would work well. It also depends on whether you have sensitive skin or not, that would determine which product is best for you. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also products that have red clay/ Kaolin clay. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Red clay:&#xD;&#xA;   https://www.nealsyardremedies.com/skincare/organic-facial-skincare/nyr-men/0450.html&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA; - Kaolin clay: https://www.wearthlondon.com/natural-shaving-soap&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be interesting to know the results from someone who has tried red clay or clay soap or cream for pre-shaving. Please let me know the results if you have tried those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10226" RevisionGUID="cbe35b39-e074-4b73-94a8-7a36e6cb1b0e" CreationDate="2020-09-14T19:28:15.950" UserId="3379" Text="## Component mass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;Plug-in vs. wireless charging: Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions for an electric bus system&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.031) provides a full inventory of the mass of the various components required for bus wireless charging (a pdf of the masters thesis the article is based on has more detail and is available [here](http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/css_doc/CSS15-26.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The on-board components of a 60 kW wireless battery charger are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Coil plate (inductive charging secondary): 75 kg&#xD;&#xA; - Power conditioner and protection, output rectifier and filter, with driver circuit: 3 kg&#xD;&#xA; - In-vehicle cooling system: 20 kg&#xD;&#xA; - Control board: 0.3 kg&#xD;&#xA; - Aluminum sheet (for mounting and enclosure): 17 kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Total mass of all components: 114 kg for 60 kW charger, or 1.9 kg/kW.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plug-in charging requires the same components, but only one (the cooling system) is on the bus. The mass of the on-vehicle cooling system is 98 kg, meaning that **the on-vehicle weight for wireless charging is only 16 kg greater (0.3 kg/kW) than for a plug-in electric bus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bus &quot;lightweighting&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the on-vehicle charging system is heavier for a wireless charging bus, the total capacity of the battery can be reduced without sacrificing range, since the bus can charge more often. As the battery mass is reduced, bus efficiency improves, allowing a secondary reduction in battery capacity while still maintaining the same range -- for every 10% decrease in bus mass, the energy demand is reduced by 4.5%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the route, the mass of the battery pack can be reduced by anywhere from 56 to 73% (1,979 to 2,577 kg):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Wireless vs plug in battery weight][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This decrease is about 100x more significant than the increased charger weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZrZd1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25531" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10226" RevisionGUID="82289078-8baa-432b-8d76-7a0549230f1a" CreationDate="2020-09-15T20:54:34.157" UserId="3379" Comment="added 428 characters in body" Text="**TL;DR:** Wireless charging adds about 16 kg to the mass of a bus vs plug-in charging, but allows the total battery sized to be reduced (given ability to charge more frequently), allowing a battery mass reduction of 56 to 73% (1,979 to 2,577 kg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Component mass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;Plug-in vs. wireless charging: Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions for an electric bus system&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.031) provides a full inventory of the mass of the various components required for bus wireless charging (a pdf of the masters thesis the article is based on has more detail and is available [here](http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/css_doc/CSS15-26.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The on-board components of a 60 kW wireless battery charger are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     Coil plate (inductive charging secondary)       75   kg&#xD;&#xA;     Power conditioner and protection, output &#xD;&#xA;        rectifier and filter, with driver circuit     3   kg&#xD;&#xA;     In-vehicle cooling system                       20   kg&#xD;&#xA;     Control board                                    0.3 kg&#xD;&#xA;     Aluminum sheet (for mounting and enclosure)     17   kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;     TOTAL                                          114   kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Total mass of all components: 114 kg for 60 kW charger, or 1.9 kg/kW.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plug-in charging requires the same components, but only one (the cooling system) is on the bus. The mass of the on-vehicle cooling system is 98 kg, meaning that **the on-vehicle weight for wireless charging is only 16 kg greater (0.3 kg/kW) than for a plug-in electric bus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bus &quot;lightweighting&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the on-vehicle charging system is heavier for a wireless charging bus, the total capacity of the battery can be reduced without sacrificing range, since the bus can charge more often. As the battery mass is reduced, bus efficiency improves, allowing a secondary reduction in battery capacity while still maintaining the same range -- for every 10% decrease in bus mass, the energy demand is reduced by 4.5%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the route, the mass of the battery pack can be reduced by anywhere from 56 to 73% (1,979 to 2,577 kg):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Wireless vs plug in battery weight][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This decrease is about 100x more significant than the increased charger weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZrZd1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10228" RevisionGUID="c3210c95-a671-42f2-9dc7-f0d83156566b" CreationDate="2020-09-17T15:05:42.883" UserId="8976" Text="Good day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I came across some videos on YT. They used a home made incubator to hatch hen eggs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The system is nothing fancy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Just a cardboard box. They put a light inside and some alluminium foils near the bulb, perhaps to reflect the light. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The system also had a glass of water and they claimed it was to increase the humidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Then they put some saw dust or dried grass over which they put the eggs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Keep the light on 24 hours, 21 days. Suggested power of bulb is 25 watts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Rotate the eggs twice a day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Another variant used sunlight during the day. They didn't put the container directly under sunlight but outside the house and at a place where temperature is 37-40 degree celcius. (If I remembered it correctly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am quite interested to replicate the process. However, winter is near in my country (India) and I stay in a place where it rains often. So, I can't rely on the sun always. Also, I don't want to light the bulb for 21 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I hatch the eggs? My first guess is using wool or something to cover the eggs. Again, I am unsure about the specifics: how much to cover, humidity maintenance, and if the temperature that I mentioned is correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note, I don't want to use a hen though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would appreciate any advice regarding this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25537" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10228" RevisionGUID="c3210c95-a671-42f2-9dc7-f0d83156566b" CreationDate="2020-09-17T15:05:42.883" UserId="8976" Text="Hatching eggs at home without incubator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25538" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10228" RevisionGUID="c3210c95-a671-42f2-9dc7-f0d83156566b" CreationDate="2020-09-17T15:05:42.883" UserId="8976" Text="|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25539" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10205" RevisionGUID="74534f1c-f365-4d6c-b1d6-e024f648c4e1" CreationDate="2020-09-17T18:00:07.847" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1306654181105840129" />
  <row Id="25541" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10228" RevisionGUID="fe6ee6b5-9075-480d-81b2-293a8e6ceb02" CreationDate="2020-09-18T04:16:56.573" UserId="8232" Comment="better tagging and title + minor formatting/spelling/grammar updates to the body" Text="I came across some videos on YouTube where they used a home-made incubator to hatch hen eggs. The system was nothing fancy: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A cardboard box with a light inside&#xD;&#xA;- Some aluminum foil near the bulb (perhaps to reflect the light). &#xD;&#xA;- A glass of water inside (they claimed it was to increase the humidity).&#xD;&#xA;- Saw dust or dried grass over which they put the eggs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process they used was to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Keep the light on 24 hours, 21 days. Suggested power of bulb is 25 watts. &#xD;&#xA;- Rotate the eggs twice a day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another variant used sunlight during the day. They didn't put the container directly under sunlight but outside the house and at a place where temperature is 37-40 degree celcius. (If I remember it correctly)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am quite interested to replicate the process. However, winter is near in my country (India) and I stay in a place where it rains often. So, I can't rely on the sun always. Also, I don't want to light the bulb for 21 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I incubate the eggs? My first guess is using wool or something to cover the eggs. Again, I am unsure about the specifics: how much to cover, humidity maintenance, and if the temperature that I mentioned is correct. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note, I don't want to use a hen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would appreciate any advice regarding this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25542" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10228" RevisionGUID="fe6ee6b5-9075-480d-81b2-293a8e6ceb02" CreationDate="2020-09-18T04:16:56.573" UserId="8232" Comment="better tagging and title + minor formatting/spelling/grammar updates to the body" Text="How to hatch eggs at home without a bulb-based incubator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25543" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10228" RevisionGUID="fe6ee6b5-9075-480d-81b2-293a8e6ceb02" CreationDate="2020-09-18T04:16:56.573" UserId="8232" Comment="better tagging and title + minor formatting/spelling/grammar updates to the body" Text="|home|animals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25544" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10228" RevisionGUID="fe6ee6b5-9075-480d-81b2-293a8e6ceb02" CreationDate="2020-09-18T04:16:56.573" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 3379 edit id of 653" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10228" RevisionGUID="e706e8a7-98e0-4f0a-9e9f-27f8ac284a17" CreationDate="2020-09-18T13:20:26.043" UserId="8976" Comment="Added optimal incubation conditions" Text="I came across some videos on YouTube where they used a home-made incubator to hatch hen eggs. The system was nothing fancy: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A cardboard box with a light inside&#xD;&#xA;- Some aluminum foil near the bulb (perhaps to reflect the light). &#xD;&#xA;- A glass of water inside (they claimed it was to increase the humidity).&#xD;&#xA;- Saw dust or dried grass over which they put the eggs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process they used was to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Keep the light on 24 hours, 21 days. Suggested power of bulb is 25 watts. &#xD;&#xA;- Rotate the eggs twice a day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another variant used sunlight during the day. They didn't put the container directly under sunlight but outside the house where it is warm enough for incubation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am quite interested to replicate the process. However, winter is near in my country (India) and I stay in a place where it rains often. So, I can't rely on the sun always. Also, I don't want to light the bulb for 21 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How should I incubate the eggs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read the optimal incubation conditions for chicken eggs. The temperature needed is between 98-102 degree Fahrenheit. And humidity needed is 50-65%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I haven't tried but I think I will be able to increase the temperature by using wool or dry grass. Humidity in my place is higher than the required value, I am unsure how to control it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would appreciate any advice regarding this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="833" RevisionGUID="8a3504c0-7b0e-4bbf-98a7-2bc6091093d7" CreationDate="2020-09-19T13:13:56.533" UserId="99" Comment="Removed calculators that are not available anymore, added new calculators" Text="An ecological footprint estimates how much land and ocean area is required to sustain the consumption pattern of one person or a particular group of people. For example in 2007 it was estimated that mankind's total ecological footprint was 1.5 planet Earths, i.e. humanity uses 1.5 times more of the available resources than the Earth can renew them. In 2016 this world average was calculated to be 1.6 Earths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Usage:**&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions on how to derive an ecological footprint, or for questions about the exact ecological footprint of a country or of a particular lifestyle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that ecological footprint is sometimes confused with [tag:environmental-impact] which describes all effects (positive or negative) of the production, consumption or disposal of a product or service on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;Also note the difference between ecological footprint and [tag:carbon-footprint] which only considers the emissions of greenhouse gasses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online personal or family ecological footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Footprintnetwork.org](https://www.footprintcalculator.org)&#xD;&#xA; - [Henkel.com](https://footprintcalculator.henkel.com)&#xD;&#xA; - [Ecologicalfootprint.com](http://ecologicalfootprint.com) (very basic calculator, aimed at UK residents)&#xD;&#xA; - [Easycalculation.com](https://www.easycalculation.com/other/eco-footprint-United_states.php) (very basic)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25547" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="58683fb5-cbfe-454b-a0b1-db3fc855b4d1" CreationDate="2020-09-19T13:46:39.377" UserId="99" Comment="Updated links; removed broken ones, added new" Text="A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor and ozone) that is produced directly and indirectly by a person, an organisation, an event or a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Direct emissions, also called primary footprint, come from sources directly controlled by the person(s) or activity in question, for example heating one's house. Indirect emissions or secondary footprint are emissions that are the consequence of a person(s) actions using sources owned or controlled by someone else, for example fuel that was used to transport the products you buy from the factory to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The global average carbon footprint is approximately 4 tons of CO2-equivalent per person per year [[source]](https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the difference with [tag:ecological-footprint] that measures the total impact (so not only greenhouse gas emissions) of a person, organisation or activity on the Earth's ecosystems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online carbon footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Personal/Household*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbonfootprint.com](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator1.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [Berkeley University - CoolClimate Carbon Footprint Calculator](http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/carboncalculator)&#xD;&#xA; - [Conservation International](https://www.conservation.org/carbon-footprint-calculator) for US residents&#xD;&#xA; - [EPA USA - Household Carbon Footprint Calculator](https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/) for US residents&#xD;&#xA; - [Nature Conservancy](https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/consider-your-impact/carbon-calculator/) for US residents&#xD;&#xA; - [Terrapass](https://www.terrapass.com/carbon-footprint-calculator) for US residents, calculate for individuals, business or events&#xD;&#xA; - [KnowYourCarbonFootprint.com](https://www.knowyourcarbonfootprint.com) for US residents&#xD;&#xA; - [WWF UK Footprint Calculator](http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/) for UK residents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Kids*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Meet the Greens - Zero footprint youth calculator](http://www.meetthegreens.org/features/carbon-calculator.html) temporarily broken?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Business*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Greenhouse Gas Protocols](http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools) Excel worksheets for many specific purposes&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbonfootprint.com](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/businesscalculator.aspx) registration required&#xD;&#xA; - [Terrapass](https://www.terrapass.com/carbon-footprint-calculator) for US companies, requires registration)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Transportation*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Eco Passenger](http://ecopassenger.hafas.de) compares train, car and flight for Europeana destinations&#xD;&#xA;- [ICAO calculator](https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx) for air travel, includes aircraft type information and route specific data&#xD;&#xA; - [MyClimate.org](https://co2.myclimate.org) in English, German or French&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6003" RevisionGUID="0c85d233-1e3f-4d66-acc4-360d343093cd" CreationDate="2020-09-21T05:47:50.137" UserId="4312" Comment="fix broken link" Text="I've been writing an informal essay on the [true cost of everything](https://ljs.dev/blog/true_cost/) and as per the question asked at the end, I want to approximate the average human's impact on habitat destruction/human sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With this, I then aim to elaborate how much action would need to be taken by how many people in order to counter the effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this even measurable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10230" RevisionGUID="4efc0414-691c-413e-9826-ddc6728121ad" CreationDate="2020-09-22T19:40:33.147" UserId="6870" Text="I'm imagining heating some water pipes using heating coils similar to [these][1]. Under various conditions, would I need to apply almost continuous lengths of heating coil to the entire length of pipe? Or could I leave &quot;gaps&quot; along the pipe, allowing some sections to be heated by adjacent sections?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://hdsupplysolutions.com/p/frost-king-water-pipe-heat-cable-p402570" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25554" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10230" RevisionGUID="4efc0414-691c-413e-9826-ddc6728121ad" CreationDate="2020-09-22T19:40:33.147" UserId="6870" Text="How much coil do I need to heat a given length of pipe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25555" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10230" RevisionGUID="4efc0414-691c-413e-9826-ddc6728121ad" CreationDate="2020-09-22T19:40:33.147" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|water-heating|building-physics|building|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25557" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10230" RevisionGUID="902d5a53-515a-4588-85ef-94f73b233e0c" CreationDate="2020-09-22T19:47:43.560" UserId="6870" Comment="added 44 characters in body; edited title" Text="I'm imagining heating some water pipes using heating coils similar to [these][1]. Under various conditions, would I need to apply almost continuous lengths of heating coil to the entire length of pipe? Or could I leave &quot;gaps&quot; along the pipe, allowing some sections to be heated by adjacent sections? What other major factors would affect this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://hdsupplysolutions.com/p/frost-king-water-pipe-heat-cable-p402570" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25558" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10230" RevisionGUID="902d5a53-515a-4588-85ef-94f73b233e0c" CreationDate="2020-09-22T19:47:43.560" UserId="6870" Comment="added 44 characters in body; edited title" Text="How much coil do I need to heat a given length of pipe (as a function of x,y,z)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10231" RevisionGUID="a6b5756b-49d7-4e50-b520-59edd4dbbaaf" CreationDate="2020-09-23T03:41:34.673" UserId="8232" Text="A lot of washing machines offer different washing modes which change various run settings: Cotton (or 'General'), Towels, Bedsheets, Wool and so on. Most even have settings for 'Eco Mode' - which (if the advertising is to be believed) are purportedly more Eco-conscious than the standard 'Cotton' Wash - using less water, cycles, temperatures or lower spin speeds to save resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, how do these Eco modes compare to another setting - the 'Quick Wash'? Is it more sustainable to run quicker washes, (ostensibly similar settings to a regular 'Cotton' wash but... quicker), vs running a longer wash in Eco mode?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise that different makes and models offer different values and settings, have different definitions of what constitutes an 'Eco' mode, or even the ability to run every mode with 'Eco' turned on, but I'm only after generalities here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also only interested in the settings as they apply to washing general 'worn' clothes (office, casual, sportswear etc) - obviously it makes more sense to run dirtier loads on more intensive settings rather than running them through more than once." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10231" RevisionGUID="a6b5756b-49d7-4e50-b520-59edd4dbbaaf" CreationDate="2020-09-23T03:41:34.673" UserId="8232" Text="How do 'Eco' vs 'Quick' modes compare for washing clothes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10231" RevisionGUID="a6b5756b-49d7-4e50-b520-59edd4dbbaaf" CreationDate="2020-09-23T03:41:34.673" UserId="8232" Text="|home|appliance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10231" RevisionGUID="b3bbe178-204a-42e1-adb4-69f8a12b8b64" CreationDate="2020-09-23T10:58:36.987" UserId="8232" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="A lot of washing machines offer different washing modes which change various run settings: Cotton (or 'General'), Towels, Bedsheets, Wool and so on. Most even have settings for 'Eco Mode' - which (if the advertising is to be believed) are purportedly more Eco-conscious than the standard 'Cotton' Wash - using less water/cycles, lower temperatures/spin speeds to save resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, how do these Eco modes compare to another setting - the 'Quick Wash'? Is it more sustainable to run quicker washes, (ostensibly similar settings to a regular 'Cotton' wash but... quicker), vs running a longer wash in Eco mode?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise that different makes and models offer different values and settings, have different definitions of what constitutes an 'Eco' mode, or even the ability to run every mode with 'Eco' turned on, but I'm only after generalities here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm also only interested in the settings as they apply to washing general 'worn' clothes (office, casual, sportswear etc) - obviously it makes more sense to run dirtier loads on more intensive settings rather than running them through more than once." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10232" RevisionGUID="106958e2-f0cb-4168-9e18-a80f9b91c2fa" CreationDate="2020-09-24T22:15:35.587" UserId="8013" Text="An individual environmental footprint is not strictly measurable in a physical scientific sense, unless you live a life which is completely detached from others. The normal human existence is so deeply entwined with the lives of others that you cannot measure the precise impact of your own actions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many different ways in which we (speaking as a middle aged white western European here) are destroying the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know about the impact of humanity, averaged over all people, then the [Earth Overshoot Day][1] is a good guide. This year in fell on day 235, meaning that the average per person resource use is 50% too much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Paris Agreement][2] sets out a frame work for trying to decide how much each **nation** should do to address the climate emergency angle of sustainability. This deals with the tricky question of how the economic cost of not destroying the ecosystems that sustain life should be shared out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is that just about everybody needs to make significant change. Good luck, I hope those two references are useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10232" RevisionGUID="617c810b-0deb-4c6c-b0ad-2e42778f6b9d" CreationDate="2020-09-25T07:15:08.007" UserId="8013" Comment="added postscript: 454 characters in body" Text="An individual environmental footprint is not strictly measurable in a physical scientific sense, unless you live a life which is completely detached from others. The normal human existence is so deeply entwined with the lives of others that you cannot measure the precise impact of your own actions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are so many different ways in which we (speaking as a middle aged white western European here) are destroying the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to know about the impact of humanity, averaged over all people, then the [Earth Overshoot Day][1] is a good guide. This year in fell on day 235, meaning that the average per person resource use is 50% too much. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Paris Agreement][2] sets out a frame work for trying to decide how much each **nation** should do to address the climate emergency angle of sustainability. This deals with the tricky question of how the economic cost of not destroying the ecosystems that sustain life should be shared out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The bottom line is that just about everybody needs to make significant change. Good luck, I hope those two references are useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS: there are many calculators which can give you an idea of where your individual choices can make an impact. The World Wildlife Fund has some good suggestions on their [Measure Your Impact][3] page, and they recommend a [footprint calculator][4] provided by the [Global Footprint Network][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://wwf.panda.org/get_involved/live_green/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.footprintcalculator.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Footprint_Network" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10233" RevisionGUID="bf8de70d-8c5b-4b40-92fd-14c655eeddfc" CreationDate="2020-09-25T16:16:37.543" UserId="6870" Text="I live in an apartment in the US midwest, and during the winter my pipes freeze unless I trickle my faucet. I think that the point at which it freezes is in a difficult-to-access exterior wall on the second floor, significantly downstream of my water shutoff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So I was wondering: If I shut off my running water when I'm not using it (and if I'm correct about the above), could I possibly prevent the pipe from freezing? Are there obvious negative consequences that this could have (other than convenience)?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously I would need to double-check that this wouldn't cut off anyone else's water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Related question [here][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10229/how-much-do-i-need-to-trickle-my-faucet-in-cold-weather-as-a-function-of-x-y-z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25567" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10233" RevisionGUID="bf8de70d-8c5b-4b40-92fd-14c655eeddfc" CreationDate="2020-09-25T16:16:37.543" UserId="6870" Text="Will this work to prevent my pipes from freezing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25568" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10233" RevisionGUID="bf8de70d-8c5b-4b40-92fd-14c655eeddfc" CreationDate="2020-09-25T16:16:37.543" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|water|building-physics|apartment|cold-climate|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25569" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10233" RevisionGUID="a8a83cf6-6c6f-4c04-a58e-cef26be2a4b0" CreationDate="2020-09-25T19:22:12.473" UserId="6870" Comment="words of warning" Text="I live in an apartment in the US midwest, and during the winter my pipes freeze unless I trickle my faucet. I think that the point at which it freezes is in a difficult-to-access exterior wall on the second floor, significantly downstream of my water shutoff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So I was wondering: If I shut off my running water when I'm not using it (and if I'm correct about the above), could I possibly prevent the pipe from freezing? Are there obvious negative consequences that this could have (other than convenience)?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously I would need to double-check that this wouldn't cut off anyone else's water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: If I want to do this, I believe that I need to be ***very certain*** that there will not be a freeze upstream of my shutoff, because this could exacerbate the damage caused by the upstream freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Related question [here][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10229/how-much-do-i-need-to-trickle-my-faucet-in-cold-weather-as-a-function-of-x-y-z" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10234" RevisionGUID="d2fc52b1-3f2c-4867-98dc-5e937cda5b8f" CreationDate="2020-09-25T20:44:36.070" UserId="8993" Text="I love Dr. Bronners unscented liquid soap! I can use it as dish washing liquid, body wash, laundry detergent, and shaving soap. And it's biodegradable so I can use it on the trail when backpacking! It makes my life VERY efficient by only needing to purchase one big container of this stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I'm wondering if there is any powdered version of this kind of soap that is easily dissolvable in water and is accessible in major stores (I know Dr. Bronner's does not make any). If this is not the case, perhaps there is a very easy method to make some without having follow a bunch of steps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please let me know. Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25571" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10234" RevisionGUID="d2fc52b1-3f2c-4867-98dc-5e937cda5b8f" CreationDate="2020-09-25T20:44:36.070" UserId="8993" Text="DIY Powdered Biodegradable Soap" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25572" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10234" RevisionGUID="d2fc52b1-3f2c-4867-98dc-5e937cda5b8f" CreationDate="2020-09-25T20:44:36.070" UserId="8993" Text="|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25573" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="086d3069-44e2-46cf-a0cf-2b9575aec4cb" CreationDate="2020-09-25T22:24:00.127" UserId="6870" Text="There is a significant chance that this has been covered on SE, but I haven't yet found anything similar enough for my taste (see related questions, below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Basic Question:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could I go about coming up with a good estimate of the average electricity consumption (per unit volume) of residential US city water in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A fairly water-abundant area&#xD;&#xA; 2. A fairly water-scarce area,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;assuming that I am in a low-rise building using cold water that I do not soften or filter, and that the water is going straight from my sink into the drain? I want to include the &quot;downstream&quot; costs of treatment, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Detailed Elements of the Question:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In particular,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a. Is it common for people on city water to have their own on-site pumping, or is the pressure usually entirely supplied by the municipal infrastructure/water towers etc? What about other on-site costs that I might not be considering? I'm thinking of a low-rise building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;b. Is it the case that some of the energy expenditure associated with waste treatment is more proportional to the amount/type of waste than to the amount of treated water (meaning that my water has a lower marginal cost than a unit of water used for washing/flushing)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;c. what factors would I want to account for other than the following?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Embodied energy of waste treatment chemicals&#xD;&#xA; - Energy consumption of the &quot;not-on-my property&quot;/municipal treatment and pumping infrastructure&#xD;&#xA; - Potential cost of bringing new sources online&#xD;&#xA; - Capital costs/land use/potential displacement of other more ecological uses (I'm not so interested in this one)&#xD;&#xA; - Desalination/overland transport where applicable (I'm not so interested in this one)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;d. How should I think about the degree to which my water use necessitates more energy-intensive methods of water delivery by others users/sectors? Speculative example: I'm using the whole aquifer for my residential uses, so now the nearby farmers switch to desalination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;e. A few studies I've seen specifically enumerate the energy use of chilling. Where in the system does most of that happen? Is my municipal water system likely to be chilling the water, and if so would studies normally include that in the energy consumption of the pumping/treatment infrastructure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background:** &#xD;&#xA; - I am trying to guesstimate the order of magnitude of the average energy cost of potable water in the US.&#xD;&#xA; - For specificity, you can imagine that I'm talking about Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles.&#xD;&#xA; - I am not so concerned about distinguishing between marginal and average cost; either one would satisfy me.&#xD;&#xA; - Related questions: [here][1], [here][2], [here][3]&#xD;&#xA; - My best guess so far: seems like a reasonable estimate excluding chemical production would be 3.6Wh/gallon, based on the municipal treatment and pumping cost from p4 of [this][4] study.&#xD;&#xA; - I have this unsourced number from a forum where the people seem really smart, [here (reply #7)][5], which is around 15Wh/gallon and seems to apply to both city and rural water in the UK.&#xD;&#xA; - [This study][6] from an open access journal for the entire US, says that &quot;residential&quot; &quot;withdrawals&quot; were around 29 billion gallons per day in 2005 and &quot;residential&quot; &quot;direct&quot; energy use for steam plus for heating, chilling, treating, pressurizing and pumping water was 4.47 quads in 2010, if I understand correctly. So if I assume steam=0, withdrawals=consumption, and 2005=2010, I get 4.47*[293 trillion]/(365*29 billion) Wh/gallon which is around 120Wh/gallon. I'm guessing maybe half to 75% of that is heating so I would get like 30Wh/gallon? Then maybe I should subtract a little bit because the steam use will be more energy-intensive on average?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/837/what-is-worse-wasting-water-or-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6587/what-are-the-consequences-of-wasting-water-in-a-water-rich-country&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10229/how-much-do-i-need-to-trickle-my-faucet-in-cold-weather-as-a-function-of-x-y-z&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43200.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=16054.0&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034034" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25574" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="086d3069-44e2-46cf-a0cf-2b9575aec4cb" CreationDate="2020-09-25T22:24:00.127" UserId="6870" Text="&quot;Ghost energy&quot; in my cold water budget?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25575" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="086d3069-44e2-46cf-a0cf-2b9575aec4cb" CreationDate="2020-09-25T22:24:00.127" UserId="6870" Text="|electricity|water|usa|waste-water|economics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25577" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="5f8f38a6-0b9c-4293-b39b-f799e6ba601c" CreationDate="2020-09-26T00:06:50.777" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10236" RevisionGUID="d10e0d7d-8a16-4865-9c89-e4612551f172" CreationDate="2020-09-26T02:57:08.670" UserId="6870" Text="**Are there long-distance water pipelines emanating from the North American Great Lakes region? Why or why not? Under what circumstances would this be an ecologically reasonable way to provide water to other parts of the continent? How would the ecological impact of this compare with desalination or other methods?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask this because I live in a water-rich area (not near the Great Lakes), and I'm used to thinking that I do not need to place a high priority on saving water, because any water I use will recharge downstream water systems, and that my upstream water systems will recharge over time as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if it would be socially/ecologically good to send water from my upstream water systems to other people, then the importance of building good water habits and practices would be higher, to prepare for the time when we start sending water out across the continent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25579" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10236" RevisionGUID="d10e0d7d-8a16-4865-9c89-e4612551f172" CreationDate="2020-09-26T02:57:08.670" UserId="6870" Text="Are there long-distance water pipelines emanating from the North American Great Lakes region? Why or why not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25580" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10236" RevisionGUID="d10e0d7d-8a16-4865-9c89-e4612551f172" CreationDate="2020-09-26T02:57:08.670" UserId="6870" Text="|water|transport|usa|economics|water-conservation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10216" RevisionGUID="df8b1324-7648-4bd8-8f8f-7c50fece8f19" CreationDate="2020-09-26T13:40:38.807" UserId="3379" Comment="Typo, image was misleading." Text="Although it seems logical that a refrigerator would be more efficient since it doesn't have to keep things as cold, there are a few different factors affecting real-world performance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Freezers are simpler to operate.**&#xD;&#xA;In a freezer there's only a top end on the temperature range. From [refrigerator manufacturer LG](https://www.lg.com/ca_en/support/product-help/CT20098040-20150106740310) you can see the range in the refrigerator is narrow, but the freezer range is broad:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Freezer and refrigerator temperature range][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a freezer, the compressor can run for a while to get the compartment well below zero. During start-up and stopping, the compressor is less efficient, so it makes sense to run it for a while. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in a refrigerator, if you run the compressor too long, you risk freezing things that shouldn't be frozen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fridges need a &quot;relief&quot; valve.** If a fridge does get too cold, it needs to be able to warm back up again. I suspect this is why the insulation is thinner in the fridge compartment -- if it's too thick and the compartment gets too cold, there's no way to warm it back up. But having thinner insulation means that if the compartment gets a bit too cold, it will naturally warm back up a bit. This allows the thermostat and control system to be simpler (and cheaper). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Freezers aren't opened as often.** &#xD;&#xA;This part gets to the real-world aspect of Energy Star ratings. It's 11am where I am, and so far I've opened my refrigerator three times: creamer for my coffee, orange juice with breakfast, and an apple for a snack. I've only opened my freezer once to get some frozen fruit for my oatmeal. So the testing criteria likely emulates this real-world usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DAI4Z.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25582" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="10068" RevisionGUID="28f0bb16-5ecd-4535-b2d8-a47ff0557097" CreationDate="2020-09-26T15:48:00.477" UserId="8113" Comment="65" />
  <row Id="25583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="03a61a53-72da-4add-b544-ca01c8f2a0bb" CreationDate="2020-09-26T16:12:46.580" UserId="6870" Comment="removed subquestions" Text="There is a significant chance that this has been covered on SE, but I haven't yet found anything similar enough for my taste (see related questions, below).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How could I go about coming up with a good estimate of the average energy consumption (per unit volume) of residential US city water in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. A fairly water-abundant area&#xD;&#xA; 2. A fairly water-scarce area,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;assuming that I am in a low-rise building using cold water that I do not soften or filter, and that the water is going straight from my sink into the drain? I want to include the &quot;downstream&quot; costs of treatment, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background:** &#xD;&#xA; - For specificity, you can imagine that I'm talking about Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles.&#xD;&#xA; - I'm interested in a range of interpretations of &quot;energy,&quot; so feel free to include/exclude things like indirect effects on other water consumers, opportunity costs, embodied energy of water treatment chemicals, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - I am not so concerned about distinguishing between marginal and average cost; either one would satisfy me.&#xD;&#xA; - Related questions: [here][1], [here][2], [here][3]&#xD;&#xA; - My best guess so far: seems like a reasonable estimate excluding chemical production would be 3.6Wh/gallon, based on the municipal treatment and pumping cost from p4 of [this][4] study.&#xD;&#xA; - I have this unsourced number from a forum where the people seem really smart, [here (reply #7)][5], which is around 15Wh/gallon and seems to apply to both city and rural water in the UK.&#xD;&#xA; - [This study][6] from an open access journal for the entire US, says that &quot;residential&quot; &quot;withdrawals&quot; were around 29 billion gallons per day in 2005 and &quot;residential&quot; &quot;direct&quot; energy use for steam plus for heating, chilling, treating, pressurizing and pumping water was 4.47 quads in 2010, if I understand correctly. So if I assume steam=0, withdrawals=consumption, and 2005=2010, I get 4.47*[293 trillion]/(365*29 billion) Wh/gallon which is around 120Wh/gallon. I'm guessing maybe half to 75% of that is heating so I would get like 30Wh/gallon? Then maybe I should subtract a little bit because the steam use will be more energy-intensive on average?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/837/what-is-worse-wasting-water-or-energy&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6587/what-are-the-consequences-of-wasting-water-in-a-water-rich-country&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10229/how-much-do-i-need-to-trickle-my-faucet-in-cold-weather-as-a-function-of-x-y-z&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43200.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=16054.0&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034034" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25584" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="03a61a53-72da-4add-b544-ca01c8f2a0bb" CreationDate="2020-09-26T16:12:46.580" UserId="6870" Comment="removed subquestions" Text="Embodied enegy of cold water" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10237" RevisionGUID="4f60a10c-343e-4c93-9a05-88301df55c0f" CreationDate="2020-09-26T16:20:29.267" UserId="6870" Text="Is it common for people on city water in the US to have their own on-site pumping as part of the &quot;standard&quot; delivery system, or is the pressure usually entirely supplied by the municipal infrastructure/water towers etc? What about other on-site costs that I might not be considering? I'm thinking of a low-rise building." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25586" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10237" RevisionGUID="4f60a10c-343e-4c93-9a05-88301df55c0f" CreationDate="2020-09-26T16:20:29.267" UserId="6870" Text="Residential water pumping" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25587" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10237" RevisionGUID="4f60a10c-343e-4c93-9a05-88301df55c0f" CreationDate="2020-09-26T16:20:29.267" UserId="6870" Text="|energy|water|building|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10238" RevisionGUID="11906943-f2fb-4b43-b7cf-07b4b6e877c2" CreationDate="2020-09-26T16:22:23.353" UserId="6870" Text="A few studies I've seen investigating the energy intensity of water use in the US specifically enumerate the energy use of chilling.&#xD;&#xA;1. Where in the system does most of that happen?&#xD;&#xA;2. How common/for what purpose does it usually happen on site at residences of people on city water, if at all?&#xD;&#xA;3. In the US, is my municipal water system likely to be chilling the water, and if so would studies normally include that in the energy consumption of the pumping/treatment infrastructure?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25589" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10238" RevisionGUID="11906943-f2fb-4b43-b7cf-07b4b6e877c2" CreationDate="2020-09-26T16:22:23.353" UserId="6870" Text="Where in the US water system does most chilling occur?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25590" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10238" RevisionGUID="11906943-f2fb-4b43-b7cf-07b4b6e877c2" CreationDate="2020-09-26T16:22:23.353" UserId="6870" Text="|energy|water|cooling|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25591" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10239" RevisionGUID="cbfd59db-033b-472e-a599-13c517717679" CreationDate="2020-09-26T16:36:10.190" UserId="6870" Text="Is it the case that some of the energy expenditure associated with wastewater treatment is more proportional to the amount/type of waste than to the amount of treated water (meaning that my water has a lower marginal cost than a unit of water used for washing/flushing)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I say &quot;energy expenditure,&quot; I'm also interested in embodied energy of treatment chemicals. I'm particularly interested in US cities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to include analysis of &quot;fixed-cost&quot; things like building the plant, precluded alternative land uses due to the plant, etc., feel free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25592" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10239" RevisionGUID="cbfd59db-033b-472e-a599-13c517717679" CreationDate="2020-09-26T16:36:10.190" UserId="6870" Text="How does the cost of wastewater treatment scale?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25593" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10239" RevisionGUID="cbfd59db-033b-472e-a599-13c517717679" CreationDate="2020-09-26T16:36:10.190" UserId="6870" Text="|energy|water|usa|waste-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25594" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10240" RevisionGUID="8851bb42-b4e1-450f-b417-16575054837d" CreationDate="2020-09-26T16:48:21.643" UserId="6870" Text="As a residential water consumer on US city water, I am used to thinking about the marginal environmental cost (particularly energy cost) of my additional water use, based on considerations like allocating the energy cost of pumping and treatment proportionally to the users throughout the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If instead I wanted to think about the long-run cost/savings from increasing/decreasing my water use, what would I want to change in my thought process? These things probably are not going to be quantifiable, but I just want to &quot;learn how to think,&quot; as they say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are three hypothetical examples to motivate the distinction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If my city was currently close to full utilization of our water treatment capacity, but if my city was also projected to quintuple in size by 2050: Then for the &quot;long-run&quot; evaluation I would want to account for the cost of new plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If I live in an area with abundant water, but a water-intensive process is discovered for creating zero-carbon sustainable biofuels. Then it might be socially desirable for some of my area's water to be used for the biofuels, and thus the &quot;long-run&quot; cost of my water use to society/ecosystem now needs to include the foregone biofuel production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - If my city was currently close to full utilization of our water treatment capacity, but that includes some cooling use by a nearby power plant. Maybe the plant has an alternative zero-water-use cooling method available, but hasn't yet adopted it because of fixed costs. Then if my (and neighbors') increased water use pushed that power plant to adopt the new cooling method, then the cost of my additional water use might be close to zero or even negative (maybe). On the other hand, maybe the plant has another another water source that it could switch to, but the hydrology dictated that the plant would end up using more energy or water with the new water source (I don't know why, maybe the new water source is warmer or needs to be filtered more or something). Then the cost of my water use would be higher would be higher." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25595" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10240" RevisionGUID="8851bb42-b4e1-450f-b417-16575054837d" CreationDate="2020-09-26T16:48:21.643" UserId="6870" Text="Long-run marginal energy cost of my water use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25596" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10240" RevisionGUID="8851bb42-b4e1-450f-b417-16575054837d" CreationDate="2020-09-26T16:48:21.643" UserId="6870" Text="|energy|water|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25609" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10068" RevisionGUID="7ad0efd2-ebad-459c-b075-2ad002d94186" CreationDate="2020-09-28T03:00:00.070" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1310413922801987590" />
  <row Id="25614" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="9f98c711-f4c9-443d-9873-686eb9343f7a" CreationDate="2020-09-28T04:04:10.300" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25623" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="15ff9ef4-85d4-40bf-a858-08c3039fe8da" CreationDate="2020-09-28T16:31:18.097" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="Embodied energy of cold water" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25624" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="15ff9ef4-85d4-40bf-a858-08c3039fe8da" CreationDate="2020-09-28T16:31:18.097" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|electricity|water|usa|waste-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25625" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10238" RevisionGUID="5a4687ff-29d9-4c7f-95ab-d89e84d66746" CreationDate="2020-09-28T16:36:32.203" UserId="6870" Comment="added 262 characters in body" Text="A few studies I've seen investigating the energy intensity of water use in the US specifically enumerate the energy use of chilling*.&#xD;&#xA;1. Where in the system does most of that happen?&#xD;&#xA;2. How common/for what purpose does it usually happen on site at residences of people on city water, if at all?&#xD;&#xA;3. In the US, is my municipal water system likely to be chilling the water, and if so would studies normally include that in the energy consumption of the pumping/treatment infrastructure?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*edit: per LShaver, here are some studies pointing to chilling as important: [1][1] (refers to &quot;cooling&quot;), [2][2] (refers to &quot;chilling&quot;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43200.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034034" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25626" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10068" RevisionGUID="92ce6762-2a80-4be8-ae4f-df6154f2a8e1" CreationDate="2020-09-28T22:01:07.610" UserId="8232" Comment="Made it clearer this addresses home-based solutions" Text="Is there a solution for flattening/reducing the volume of plastic recyclables in the home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25627" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10068" RevisionGUID="92ce6762-2a80-4be8-ae4f-df6154f2a8e1" CreationDate="2020-09-28T22:01:07.610" UserId="8232" Comment="Made it clearer this addresses home-based solutions" Text="|recycling|home|plastic|storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25628" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10068" RevisionGUID="92ce6762-2a80-4be8-ae4f-df6154f2a8e1" CreationDate="2020-09-28T22:01:07.610" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 3379 edit id of 654" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25629" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10248" RevisionGUID="6c0ce0fa-829d-4a7a-8419-5150d81c0a22" CreationDate="2020-09-28T22:12:56.540" UserId="8013" Text="The weight of CO2 produced is roughly the weight of fuel consumed multiplied by 44/12 (ratio mass of CO2 molecule to the carbon atom).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The food will be delivered by a small helicopter, and the mass of the food is pretty small compared to that of the helicopter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small helicopter might fly 1.5 km/l (https://www.enn.com/articles/23533-what-about-helicopter-emissions) and the valley station might be a few kilometers away. The helicopter is probably making deliveries to several huts in the area. Lets assume it is flying 30km in total for each hut, that makes 20 litres of fuel, close to 20kg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each flight provides meals for 50 people for 16 days: 800 person-days of supplies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That means that the weight of CO2 released is 44/12 * 20 / 800 = 0.1 kg /person/day . &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Driving 300km in a small car may burn 5 litres of fuel, and hence release around 18kg of CO2. Each night in the hut is equivalent to driving a little less than 2km ... so it is not bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a short haul flight, covering maybe 500km, the fuel use per passenger is quite similar to covering the same distance by car (e.g. https://www.you.co/sg/blog/reducing-carbon-footprint-flight-car-bus-train/ ): so this is worse than the 300km drive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The estimates I've used for the helicopter transport have a lot of uncertainty, but based on these numbers I'd say that personal transport is a bigger concern for many tourists, unless you are lucky enough to live a short train ride away from the Alps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10249" RevisionGUID="16434181-a1e6-496e-b97c-ab656626c07a" CreationDate="2020-09-29T23:29:39.880" UserId="8232" Text="Sometimes, the simplest solutions are the best:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Step on plastics to crush them** - Crude, but efficient, and good for stuff like takeaway food containers, PET bottles (with lids removed), plastic cups, and even balled-up cling wrap. It isn't great for crinkly plastic like chip packets, but they can usually be flattened out by hand, and don't take up that much space anyway.&#xD;&#xA;- **Cut up larger pieces** - Use a pair of sturdy scissors or wire cutters to cut up larger, tougher plastics into smaller pieces. This is what I do for blister packs and old/broken containers. A good pair of [industrial scissors][1] work well for a lot of home-grade plastic, and would be a good investment if you find yourself cutting up large bits of plastic often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Any active/powered tool or system is going to use some amount of resources. Because you specify that you are only doing this as a pre-step to passing the plastic into the municipal waste stream anyway, it's worth mentioning that some systems will probably increase the overall carbon footprint of the pieces of plastic that you feed into it. So please carefully consider if this is enough of a problem for you to consider some sort of automatic system to handle it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, there is a potential option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Shred them&#xD;&#xA;The 3D Printer community deals with this kind of problem with their test/failed prints, and has taken to shredding plastics using either [store-bought or homemade shredders][2]. In addition to motor-driven ones, you may be able to find or build manual shredders as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few designs out there, ones that are similar to a food shredder, and others more similar to paper shredders. Note that any given design may not handle all shapes, sizes or types of plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bunnings.com.au/kincrome-200mm-multi-purpose-industrial-scissors_p0028285&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.instructables.com/id/50-Plastic-Shredder-Grinder-Recycler/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10250" RevisionGUID="07c90662-3266-410f-80ea-71a31a0850d6" CreationDate="2020-09-30T13:28:40.347" UserId="4834" Text="The most obvious way to reduce the volume of plastics in the home is not to bring them into the home in the first place.  Reduce usage of single-use plastics and you will have less material to store for recycling (more commonly downcycling or just plain incineration).  This is a greater step towards sustainability than any tricks to take a large quantity of plastic and reduce its volume for storage.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10249" RevisionGUID="4197cdf5-8226-4d50-8f73-2e718686e3be" CreationDate="2020-09-30T14:14:20.753" UserId="8232" Comment="added 320 characters in body" Text="Sometimes, the simplest solutions are the best:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Step on plastics to crush them** - Crude, but efficient, and good for stuff like takeaway food containers, PET bottles (with lids removed), plastic cups, and even balled-up cling wrap. It isn't great for crinkly plastic like chip packets, but they can usually be flattened out by hand, and don't take up that much space anyway.&#xD;&#xA;- **Cut up larger pieces** - Use a pair of sturdy scissors or wire cutters to cut up larger, tougher plastics into smaller pieces. This is what I do for blister packs and old/broken containers. A good pair of [industrial scissors][1] work well for a lot of home-grade plastic, and would be a good investment if you find yourself cutting up large bits of plastic often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;Any active/powered tool or system is going to use some amount of resources. Because you specify that you are only doing this as a pre-step to passing the plastic into the municipal waste stream anyway, it's worth mentioning that some systems will probably increase the overall carbon footprint of the pieces of plastic that you feed into it. So please carefully consider if this is enough of a problem for you to consider some sort of automatic system to handle it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With that said, there is a potential option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Shred them&#xD;&#xA;**Warning:** This will depend heavily on how your recycling center handles plastic waste - some may not accept shredded plastic at all (being reliant on finding the type of plastic by the symbols that are placed on it). Definitely double check with your local waste handler to see if this is an ok approach for them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 3D Printer community deals with this kind of problem with their test/failed prints, and has taken to shredding plastics using either [store-bought or homemade shredders][2]. In addition to motor-driven ones, you may be able to find or build manual shredders as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few designs out there, ones that are similar to a food shredder, and others more similar to paper shredders. Note that any given design may not handle all shapes, sizes or types of plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bunnings.com.au/kincrome-200mm-multi-purpose-industrial-scissors_p0028285&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.instructables.com/id/50-Plastic-Shredder-Grinder-Recycler/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25640" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="d2dd45ba-9f94-4173-95ee-d84db91999d2" CreationDate="2020-10-02T14:00:55.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25641" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="10068" RevisionGUID="a56fddd7-8855-442b-92a8-e086dbdc1dc8" CreationDate="2020-10-02T16:50:32.483" UserId="8113" Comment="65" />
  <row Id="25642" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10253" RevisionGUID="dfcbdbfc-8071-4844-a747-291589b51737" CreationDate="2020-10-02T21:54:31.660" UserId="8013" Text="For plastic bottles, remove cap, twist and crush and then replace cap to stop the bottle from expanding again as explained [here](https://rcubed3.com/those-pesky-bottle-caps/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For plastic bags, stuff them in a cloth tube, and take bags out of the bottom to re-use. The cloth tube keeps them compressed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For yoghurt pots etc: stack them together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General: get a box with a heavy lid, or a tall narrow bin so that you can stuff things in and the pressure on the sides stops the plastic from just bouncing up again." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10255" RevisionGUID="89e2e8a9-dd53-4d16-a36f-3db28c8b07f0" CreationDate="2020-10-03T21:49:36.163" UserId="9007" Text="Reforestation is a wishy washy subject. It's difficult, labor intensive and time consuming. But done well You can successfully reestablish forest cover. Jadav Payeng planted an entire forest by himself over 30 years so it's not impossible. If one man can do it in 30 years, 30 can do it in one...&#xD;&#xA;Reforestation is achieveable in a sequence steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. allocate the land you wish to plant. Private property is easier than public, If you own it, you're in charge of it or obtain permission from the owner to do so.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Berm the land so the soil does not wash away (geotextile bags, sand bags, rockwalls, etc) or a silt fence.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA; 3. Build a hill(s): Sounds unusual but perfectly flat terrain is seldom what you want in an environment. scrap rocks, covered in dirt and built up, even to a moderate elevation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. determine the trees necessary native to the environment formerly found. &#xD;&#xA; 5. Upon finding the necessary trees, find trees in the &quot;*Fabaceae*&quot; family. As they are nitrogen fixers they can grow in bad soils. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Microbe colonization: Mycorrhizal fungi and beneficial bacteria are as essential under the soil as the trees above it. Once you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. At this point, once the trees are growing, depleted soils don't regenerate quick enough to support them. It's time to fertilize, that can be done with compost, manure, artificial fertilizer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 8. Water routinely til the tree's no longer require intervention and can sustain themselves on natural rainfall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 9. At the point the trees are self sustaining, begin planting forbes, herbs, ferns and understory vegetation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4e4kw.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MB0Bf.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10256" RevisionGUID="1d5bc788-6ed8-47c4-abb9-a52286a96666" CreationDate="2020-10-03T23:06:13.100" UserId="9007" Text="Reducing your plastic waste volume begins with Reducing bringing plastics into your home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Reduce plastic inputs by removing items from their wrapper after purchase and carry in your own bag/container.&#xD;&#xA; 2. plastic bags, plastic wraps, plastic fiber, flexible plastics, cereal bags, etc you can stuff them all in one coke bottle known as the &quot;Coke BOttle Challenge&quot; Once the bottle is full to capacity, simply dispose of it at the recycling drop off.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA; 3. Switch to natural chewing gums (modern chewing gum is made of plastic)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Switch to matches instead of disposeable lighters (matches are largely biodegradable) or switch to refillable zippo style lighters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VVed8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10257" RevisionGUID="bb19938e-3a7e-4b84-8827-50d8a5bf6053" CreationDate="2020-10-03T23:11:34.847" UserId="9007" Text="Nothing beats the classic dehumidifier and the water you can later use for whatever purpose&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4saFo.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10258" RevisionGUID="c24eb406-bb45-4575-839b-d3481e50e3c7" CreationDate="2020-10-03T23:27:09.727" UserId="9007" Text="On an industrial scale, wastewater treatment costs vary on region, labor and desired water quality.&#xD;&#xA;Capital costs are the costs forthe physical assets of the project. Capital costsare part of the fixed component of the total cost. They arenormally incurred one time but also includecost of rehabilitation or replacement of equipments during the life of the system.&#xD;&#xA;Over all about 1.2 Million dollars per Million gallon/per day set up. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10260" RevisionGUID="f9e4688c-5e0c-4fbd-b457-125c56ca7db8" CreationDate="2020-10-03T23:43:13.887" UserId="9007" Text="Put your hands under the laptop, laptops dispose of waste heat with their fan systems It's very warm. &#xD;&#xA;Another trick, microwave a mug of water til it boils then seal plastic wrap so it cant spill.......instant hand warmer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25654" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10262" RevisionGUID="d46e969f-a5a0-4458-93b6-94eeaeff6014" CreationDate="2020-10-04T07:40:28.507" UserId="9007" Text="You could fill a library with books describing the importance of energy-efficient heating systems and home insulation. However, not a word has been said energy savings potential of clothing. Without sacrificing comfort or appeal. The potential energy savings are huge; the costs are almost nil. Insulating yourself is more efficient than heating a entire room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10255" RevisionGUID="11c90ad5-a226-4228-b043-c12ac7f58069" CreationDate="2020-10-04T08:38:55.957" UserId="99" Comment="fixed capitalization, added link to Jadav Payeng on Wikipedia" Text="Reforestation is a wishy washy subject. It's difficult, labor intensive and time consuming. But done well you can successfully reestablish forest cover. [Jadav Payeng](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadav_Payeng) planted an entire forest by himself over 30 years so it's not impossible. If one man can do it in 30 years, 30 can do it in one...&#xD;&#xA;Reforestation is achievable in a sequence steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Allocate the land you wish to plant. Private property is easier than public, If you own it, you're in charge of it or obtain permission from the owner to do so.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Berm the land so the soil does not wash away (geotextile bags, sand bags, rockwalls, etc) or a silt fence.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA; 3. Build a hill(s): Sounds unusual but perfectly flat terrain is seldom what you want in an environment. scrap rocks, covered in dirt and built up, even to a moderate elevation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Determine the trees necessary native to the environment formerly found. &#xD;&#xA; 5. Upon finding the necessary trees, find trees in the &quot;*Fabaceae*&quot; family. As they are nitrogen fixers they can grow in bad soils. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Microbe colonization: Mycorrhizal fungi and beneficial bacteria are as essential under the soil as the trees above it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. At this point, once the trees are growing, depleted soils don't regenerate quick enough to support them. It's time to fertilize, that can be done with compost, manure, artificial fertilizer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 8. Water routinely until the tree's no longer require intervention and can sustain themselves on natural rainfall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 9. At the point the trees are self sustaining, begin planting forbes, herbs, ferns and understory vegetation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4e4kw.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MB0Bf.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25656" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="fee8c323-ff03-4c42-9b25-5102f3e06823" CreationDate="2020-10-04T16:04:50.463" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25657" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="6bf974eb-8e20-4aed-bc55-e3d1b22d0cc3" CreationDate="2020-10-04T21:00:01.297" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1312860046120955907" />
  <row Id="25658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10255" RevisionGUID="2983db06-0035-40bb-8c57-92a64c4179dd" CreationDate="2020-10-05T02:44:07.293" UserId="9007" Comment="added 180 characters in body" Text="Reforestation is a wishy washy subject. It's difficult, labor intensive and time consuming. But done well you can successfully reestablish forest cover. [Jadav Payeng](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadav_Payeng) planted an entire forest by himself over 30 years so it's not impossible. If one man can do it in 30 years, 30 can do it in one...&#xD;&#xA;Reforestation is achievable in a sequence steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Allocate the land you wish to plant. Private property is easier than public, If you own it, you're in charge of it or obtain permission from the owner to do so.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Berm the land so the soil does not wash away (geotextile bags, sand bags, rockwalls, etc) or a silt fence.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA; 3. Build a hill(s): Sounds unusual but perfectly flat terrain is seldom what you want in an environment. scrap rocks, covered in dirt and built up, even to a moderate elevation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Determine the trees necessary native to the environment formerly found. &#xD;&#xA; 5. Upon finding the necessary trees, find trees in the &quot;*Fabaceae*&quot; family. As they are nitrogen fixers they can grow in bad soils. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Microbe colonization: Mycorrhizal fungi and beneficial bacteria are as essential under the soil as the trees above it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. At this point, once the trees are growing, depleted soils don't regenerate quick enough to support them. It's time to fertilize, that can be done with compost, manure, artificial fertilizer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 8. Water routinely until the tree's no longer require intervention and can sustain themselves on natural rainfall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 9. At the point the trees are self sustaining, begin planting forbes, herbs, ferns and understory vegetation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10. Your forest prototype however is a monoculture of one tree species. At this point it's necessary to replicate environment of forest sucession, by planting other varieties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4e4kw.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MB0Bf.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25660" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10255" RevisionGUID="dc71d532-9403-4838-87b6-747b27c5f9ad" CreationDate="2020-10-05T03:14:14.357" UserId="9007" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Reforestation is a wishy washy subject. It's difficult, labor intensive and time consuming. But done well you can successfully reestablish forest cover. [Jadav Payeng](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadav_Payeng) planted an entire forest by himself over 30 years so it's not impossible. If one man can do it in 30 years, 30 can do it in one...&#xD;&#xA;Reforestation is achievable in a sequence steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Allocate the land you wish to plant. Private property is easier than public, If you own it, you're in charge of it or obtain permission from the owner to do so.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Berm the land so the soil does not wash away (geotextile bags, sand bags, rockwalls, etc) or a silt fence.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA; 3. Build a hill(s): Sounds unusual but perfectly flat terrain is seldom what you want in an environment. scrap rocks, covered in dirt and built up, even to a moderate elevation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Determine the trees necessary native to the environment formerly found. &#xD;&#xA; 5. Upon finding the necessary trees, find trees in the &quot;*Fabaceae*&quot; family. As they are nitrogen fixers they can grow in bad soils. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Microbe colonization: Mycorrhizal fungi and beneficial bacteria are as essential under the soil as the trees above it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. At this point, once the trees are growing, depleted soils don't regenerate quick enough to support them. It's time to fertilize, that can be done with compost, manure, artificial fertilizer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 8. Water routinely until the tree's no longer require intervention and can sustain themselves on natural rainfall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 9. At the point the trees are self sustaining, begin planting forbs, herbs, ferns and understory vegetation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10. Your forest prototype however is a monoculture of one tree species. At this point it's necessary to replicate environment of forest sucession, by planting other varieties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4e4kw.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MB0Bf.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10265" RevisionGUID="356bc38d-4f86-4c21-84bd-a3c296def6dd" CreationDate="2020-10-05T04:29:27.167" UserId="9007" Text="There's No long term evidence biochar aids in carbon sequestering. Even if it does it would do so at the behest of burning an Enormous amount of plant matter (and enormous resources to grow it) it's a net loss. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10266" RevisionGUID="58187c0c-57e5-45e0-9776-e348a8620878" CreationDate="2020-10-05T04:39:56.203" UserId="9007" Text="Scarcity of water is a geopolitical issue. It's not water we're running out of it's fresh, clean water. Scarcity is the byproduct of lack of sanitation to keep the water clean for re-use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peak Potable water? The emphasis being that the rate of water demand per day exceeds natural aquafer's capacity to take or gravity powered systems where water comes from river systems...........&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; All of these experts are all predicting wars will break out over resources. Typically the one they talk of most is water. But the supposed water wars of the future will never erupt. Water is too heavy and dense a substance. A gallon of water weighs over 8 pounds, so transporting it accounts for most of the costs, so the idea of these Mad Max style thugs running off with water jugs is ridiculous, they would have to drink a lot of it sweating from the workout carrying it. It's simply not cost effective to do it in the long run compared to spending the money/resources on developing new supplies of potable water. A month's worth of fighting between Israel and neighboring nations over water sources would be more costly than if Israel built several desalination plants and ran them for a year producing billions of surplus gallons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Human activity consumed 3000 cubic kilometers of water in the year 2000, up from 600 cubic km in 1900. Yet the world contains 1.38 billion cubic kilometers of water, 461,000 times more water than we currently use. Since future demands for water coincide with a future growing GDP, water access and cleanliness will increase in the future not decrease. Desalination is expensive no doubt but recycling waste water is less expensive than desalination. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10267" RevisionGUID="90adfd1d-7180-4c06-b2a9-96b7b76de58a" CreationDate="2020-10-05T05:02:30.913" UserId="9007" Text="Solar distillation though doable requires Hours of solar exposure to produce barely a liter or two of water per day.&#xD;&#xA;Example: A typical swimming pool loses an 0.25 inches of water a day to evaporation or 0.15 gallons a day per square foot of pool surface (2.5 cups) Not much to go by if you're looking for liters of water. A children sized kiddie pool would produce 3 gallons per day if you could collect it using the same still method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25665" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10267" RevisionGUID="c835868c-98cc-4330-9468-3c0e256cc9f5" CreationDate="2020-10-05T05:08:48.323" UserId="9007" Comment="added 71 characters in body" Text="This technique is for survival only, not long term water availability. Solar distillation though doable requires Hours of solar exposure to produce barely a liter or two of water per day.&#xD;&#xA;Example: A typical swimming pool loses an 0.25 inches of water a day to evaporation or 0.15 gallons a day per square foot of pool surface (2.5 cups) Not much to go by if you're looking for liters of water. A children sized kiddie pool would produce 3 gallons per day if you could collect it using the same still method" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10268" RevisionGUID="eedb1c4d-2638-42e8-93e1-172b2c23d564" CreationDate="2020-10-05T07:09:38.847" UserId="9007" Text="For the energy, time and effort to move a juvenille tree's that trying to set it's roots. Starting from seeds or new saplings planted makes more sense" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25669" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10163" RevisionGUID="e55a34fe-5500-41f7-bccc-7ba93afefce3" CreationDate="2020-10-05T12:03:45.410" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25670" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10149" RevisionGUID="ba89ff0c-ea64-4d61-863a-5fa2ce4e9603" CreationDate="2020-10-05T13:04:45.377" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25671" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5440" RevisionGUID="dee258df-b8f8-447a-8dd6-8446c41f919c" CreationDate="2020-10-05T21:00:04.613" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1313222447517388802" />
  <row Id="25672" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10123" RevisionGUID="55019736-030c-4bba-9160-e0fa007aa0f3" CreationDate="2020-10-05T23:01:45.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25673" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10123" RevisionGUID="825f502a-17da-4ffe-b711-88d740bb92bf" CreationDate="2020-10-06T06:00:05.430" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1313358346389524480" />
  <row Id="25677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10272" RevisionGUID="00da31a8-7947-49a6-ad1c-3b2fbb416177" CreationDate="2020-10-06T23:11:53.070" UserId="9007" Text="Electric is probably the best bet. YOU ALready get electricity, and electric water heaters have evolved alot since then to be vastly more efficient. Gas heating is pretty reliable and not to mention VERy hot if you like the heat or take long showers. Point is solar hot water is only efficient if you live in a climate where it's cool year round. Basically if you live below 40 degrees latitude. Solar panels must be angled based on what latitude you reside. If you live up north, passive solar is way more practical if it's built already. &#xD;&#xA;-electric: emission free&#xD;&#xA;- natural gas: Probably more efficient, certainly better temp quality.&#xD;&#xA;- solar: questionable economics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="498f8a27-411e-484e-b3fc-fc66a2bcce6f" CreationDate="2020-10-07T00:02:35.547" UserId="8232" Comment="restricted location" Text="We currently have an ailing 14 yr old solar hot water installation. A few plumbers have given us the same story: due to the age and general condition of the system, it makes more sense to replace it rather than attempt to repair it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They've given us various options, all with advantages and disadvantages in terms of efficiencies, costs, performance and so on:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A (new) Solar Hot Water system&#xD;&#xA;2. A [Heat Pump Hot water storage system][2]&#xD;&#xA;3. (Electric) instant hot water&#xD;&#xA;4. (Gas) instant hot water&#xD;&#xA;5. Gas storage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have read that 1 and 2 are both fairly efficient, and - as I plan to get solar panels for electricity generation* - going with the heat pump version would free up some prime real estate on the roof for the panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric Instant probably wouldn't work for our household size, and the gas options would be cost prohibitive as we'd have to get gas connected to our property. (Plus... you know... *it's gas*). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, which hot water system is 'best' in terms of sustainability, for a coastal, temperate location such as the east coast of Australia? Is there another (more sustainable) option than the two above? Are there other factors to consider here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We live in a temperate, coastal environment. No snow in winter, and really hot summers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*COVID-19 and personal commitments meant my [original timeline][3] for this was pushed back&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.redenergy.com.au/living-energy/appliances/a-guide-to-heat-pump-hot-water-systems&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/9800/8232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25679" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10090" RevisionGUID="498f8a27-411e-484e-b3fc-fc66a2bcce6f" CreationDate="2020-10-07T00:02:35.547" UserId="8232" Comment="restricted location" Text="What is the most sustainable choice for a domestic hot water system in temperate, coastal Australia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10273" RevisionGUID="8b1f0844-230e-48d3-af58-2de5b5f82c6b" CreationDate="2020-10-07T06:03:02.860" UserId="4886" Text="6.  Electric Tank&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The technology is tried and tested, and the tanks are cheap.  Take the money you save and increase the size of your planned solar array.  Tilt your (north) array string a little bit more towards the horizon to increase winter generation.  Put your (300+L) electric tank on a timer so that it only comes on between, say 11:00 and 15:00.  (Increasing solar self-consumption is better than any feed-in tariff that you're going to get nowadays.)  Surplus power from your larger array can go to charging your EV or be sold back out to the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are fancy options, but you don't need fancy options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  Any arguments about efficiency are moot when you generate your own power and have a regular surplus during the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 2:  Heat pumps have noisy fans that can run for hours on end.  (Solar) Electric tanks are completely silent.  That also may matter to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10274" RevisionGUID="da18e7eb-d8ac-4f39-a7c8-0d2cf6ddfc50" CreationDate="2020-10-07T21:03:18.917" UserId="8392" Text="I have an enameled cast iron dutch oven that has become unusable due to how cracked and chipped the enamel is. I need to get rid of it, and I'd hate to throw it away because there are several pounds of perfectly good iron underneath the enamel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where, if anywhere, can I recycle this? Will a normal metal recycling company be able to process it with the enamel coating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25687" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10274" RevisionGUID="da18e7eb-d8ac-4f39-a7c8-0d2cf6ddfc50" CreationDate="2020-10-07T21:03:18.917" UserId="8392" Text="How can I recycle an enameled cast iron dutch oven?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25688" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10274" RevisionGUID="da18e7eb-d8ac-4f39-a7c8-0d2cf6ddfc50" CreationDate="2020-10-07T21:03:18.917" UserId="8392" Text="|recycling|usa|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10275" RevisionGUID="b0d29ec5-85dd-435e-a7ef-13ac7392eea3" CreationDate="2020-10-08T00:11:14.580" UserId="9007" Text="Cast iron has little metallic value, it's not steal, it's source for making steel. It is literally worth about 2 cents per pound. If you wish to recycle it, wait til you have a couple dozen pounds" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10276" RevisionGUID="191521a0-0c72-47f4-9608-d8fcf96eec4a" CreationDate="2020-10-08T00:13:19.977" UserId="9007" Text="Gillette has a  Razor Recycling Program: Participants who wanna recycle their razors from home are invited to sign up on the program page thru &quot;Terracycle&quot; You merely Ship your stockpile of razor blades when it's big enough, hold on to your razors in a soap box til you have it filled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10275" RevisionGUID="78c73695-3549-46ac-a450-7790f6877310" CreationDate="2020-10-08T00:17:31.560" UserId="9007" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="Cast iron has little metallic value, it's not steel, it's source for making steel. It is literally worth about 2 cents per pound. If you wish to recycle it, wait til you have a couple dozen or few hundred pounds to turn in for money.&#xD;&#xA;A black smith might have use for it, if they make steel product from scratch or do wrought iron work" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10277" RevisionGUID="11274786-a54c-4b80-85dc-40e816dc94bb" CreationDate="2020-10-08T00:41:31.583" UserId="9007" Text="Nut shells are compostable. But said rate of decomposition is abysmally slow compared to other material, after all alot of shells are meant to protect from harm. Never the less if you wanna speed up composting, grind the shells into a powder. Ground nut shells are also a good fire starter or disposable fuel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10278" RevisionGUID="babecb7e-5791-474e-a710-1b1318149259" CreationDate="2020-10-08T00:44:21.433" UserId="9007" Text="Sometimes combustion is better than compost, Yes you can shred and compost brown paper bags, be they lunch bag or large grocery bag. Never the less you can also shred them and add them to soil, food for the worms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10273" RevisionGUID="4e05c727-34f8-4e82-8e74-00f1c7281003" CreationDate="2020-10-08T01:46:46.023" UserId="4886" Comment="edited body" Text="6.  Electric Tank&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The technology is tried and tested, and the tanks are cheap.  Take the money you save and increase the size of your planned solar array.  Tilt your (north) array string a little bit more towards the horizon to increase winter generation.  Put your (300+L) electric tank on a timer so that it only comes on between, say 11:00 and 15:00.  (Increasing solar self-consumption is better than any feed-in tariff that you're going to get nowadays.)  Surplus power from your larger array can go to charging your EV or be sold back out to the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are fancy options, but you don't need fancy options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note:  Any arguments about efficiency are moot when you generate your own power and have a regular surplus during the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note 2:  Heat pumps have noisy fans that can run for hours on end.  (Solar) Electric tanks are completely silent.  That may also matter to you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25699" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10278" RevisionGUID="1801fee6-5c1e-4fa7-9820-0de26e2f7410" CreationDate="2020-10-08T06:38:27.313" UserId="9007" Comment="added 85 characters in body" Text="Sometimes combustion is better than composting. Ash is a rich source of concentrated phosphate, is water soluble instantly. Yes you can shred and compost brown paper bags, be they lunch bag or large grocery bag. Never the less you can also shred them and add them to soil as is, food for the worms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10280" RevisionGUID="364780c7-cd63-4c76-b9d9-7d28e30dfeb8" CreationDate="2020-10-08T06:45:39.850" UserId="9007" Text="You can compost dog waste, however mixing it with compost meant for edible vegetables is potentially hazardous affair because of pathogens. dog waste compost bins are separate and often meant only to feed aesthetic garden plants; It's possible to use it for edibles...provided they not contact the food like fruit from trees for vegetables that grow from stalks. One septic style system called a &quot;Doggy Dooley&quot;. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25701" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10281" RevisionGUID="97167728-a32e-43b2-9efb-a1fdacd8ce8d" CreationDate="2020-10-08T09:16:29.033" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20298/what-happens-to-all-the-shards-of-broken-glass-that-get-recycled" />
  <row Id="25702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10281" RevisionGUID="e59c3b6d-1207-4322-baec-67d9ea2c9f8a" CreationDate="2020-10-08T04:48:41.940" UserDisplayName="Andy" Text="I searched for recycling glass and there are no results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.chestercountyswa.org/DocumentCenter/View/1646/New-Mixed-Paper-Guidelines?bidId=&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happens with the broken glass in the recycling? Do little bits of glass escape and potentially cut people? Do magnets prevents all of the danger? Not all recyclable are magnetic. It was not allowable to recycle glass down a chute in an apartment building." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25703" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10281" RevisionGUID="e59c3b6d-1207-4322-baec-67d9ea2c9f8a" CreationDate="2020-10-08T04:48:41.940" UserDisplayName="Andy" Text="What happens to all the shards of broken glass that get recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25704" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10281" RevisionGUID="e59c3b6d-1207-4322-baec-67d9ea2c9f8a" CreationDate="2020-10-08T04:48:41.940" UserDisplayName="Andy" Text="|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25705" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10281" RevisionGUID="d1c20e4d-1ab4-45ff-bf60-e349af5024af" CreationDate="2020-10-08T13:38:21.680" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|glass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="ec18c632-a0d4-44e4-9b8a-64d8a6626d53" CreationDate="2020-10-08T14:19:48.327" UserId="3923" Text="I am working in the modelling and environmental evaluation of redox flow batteries based on Anthraquinone and ferrocyanide. Currently I am having difficulties in finding information on how ferrocyanide is produced, for example as Potassium Ferrocyanide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know where I can find information or data concerning its production, if possible at an industrial scale. I searched but could not find any inventory data concerning ferrocyanide. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any information you can give me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards and stay safe,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regards,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;António Martins&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25707" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="ec18c632-a0d4-44e4-9b8a-64d8a6626d53" CreationDate="2020-10-08T14:19:48.327" UserId="3923" Text="Life cycle inventory data or information concerning Ferrocyanide production" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25708" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="ec18c632-a0d4-44e4-9b8a-64d8a6626d53" CreationDate="2020-10-08T14:19:48.327" UserId="3923" Text="|environmental-impact|life-cycle-analysis|industrial-production|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25709" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="37661559-3dfd-4c4a-833a-85d85d27e96b" CreationDate="2020-10-08T16:46:49.863" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25710" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="37661559-3dfd-4c4a-833a-85d85d27e96b" CreationDate="2020-10-08T16:46:49.863" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 2345, 3379 edit id of 655" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25711" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6614" RevisionGUID="30a2e2d9-1095-42ef-8f53-828901afee3d" CreationDate="2020-10-08T18:27:20.437" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed broken link." Text="### The two are not mutually exclusive, and in fact installing PV panels over a green roof improves PV performance anywhere from 1 to 10% due to the cooling effect of the green roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the presentation [&quot;Interaction between PV-systems and extensive green roofs&quot;](https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/20926951) given at the Fifth Annual Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference, Awards and Trade Show in 2007 (emphasis added): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The energy output of PV-panels depends on several factors. In this survey of over approximately 5 years of data, the effect of the green roof has been estimated at an **average 6% increase in yields**. But the green roof is only one factor in enhancing the efficiency of PV-panels.  **The total range of increased energy output varies between 1 and 10%**. PV over green roofs can be mounted on fixed frames. The costs are lower in comparison to the tracking systems, which follow the sun. Under the PV panels, a variety of extensive green roof vegetation can be grown. In the case of UFA it was originally a Sedum roof but this was subsequently changed to include a wide variety of plantings. Minimum garden roof maintenance is required to reduce taller growing plants. The PV – cells must be without shade. The estimated benefit of a higher Power output from a green roof can help to offset the cost of green roof installations.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This effect is attributable to the fact that [solar panels are more efficient when kept cooler](http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2668), which a green roof facilitates through evaporative cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several other research studies verify this finding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Quantification of the passive cooling of photovoltaics using a green roof&quot;](https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/11242) uses TRNSYS building energy modeling software to estimate a small (&lt;1%) improvement in power output for a city in the Northeast US, but notes that the dual use of space increases the PV system's value regardless.&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Green roof integrated PV canopies -- an empirical study and teaching tool for low income students in the South Bronx&quot;](https://ases.conference-services.net/resources/252/2859/pdf/SOLAR2012_0183_full%20paper.pdf) uses a number of student-planned and -built test setups to measure a 2.4% increase in PV system output, and a 4.6% reduction in interior temperature over an eight-month period (covering summer, fall, and the beginning of winter).&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Photovoltaic-green roofs: An experimental evaluation of system performance&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191301026X) measured increased PV output of 1.3 to 3.3% over a five-day period in the summer in Spain.&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Integration of green roof and solar photovoltaic systems&quot;](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sam_C_M_Hui/publication/281901499_Integration_of_green_roof_and_solar_photovoltaic_systems/links/55fd676908ae07629e26bfc9.pdf) used EnergyPlus modeling software on a hypothetical building in Hong Kong to predict a slight decrease in cooling needs, and an 8.3% increase in PV system output." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25713" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6436" RevisionGUID="326c577f-cbca-4d05-8d3a-1f57aede0c12" CreationDate="2020-10-09T00:00:13.007" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1314354944863072256" />
  <row Id="25714" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10283" RevisionGUID="7b68bfd6-7545-4d04-9f49-0711dc5b8cec" CreationDate="2020-10-09T21:18:17.303" UserId="3379" Text="Using the resource [&quot;Chemical composition of natural gas&quot;](https://www.uniongas.com/about-us/about-natural-gas/Chemical-Composition-of-Natural-Gas) linked in [Sherwood Botsford's answer](https://www.uniongas.com/about-us/about-natural-gas/Chemical-Composition-of-Natural-Gas), I calculated the range of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions for various compositions of natural gas, using this process:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Using the molar mass and chemical formula from Wikipedia, calculate the % mass of carbon in each constituent hydrocarbon&#xD;&#xA;2. Combine this with the [heat of combustion](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-heat-of-combustion-energy-content-d_1987.html) from Engineering Toolbox, to determine a heat content to carbon content ratio -- a sort of &quot;carbon efficiency&quot;&#xD;&#xA;3. Within the typical range of each gas, determine the value that makes the end product more or less carbon efficient overall&#xD;&#xA;4. Sum up the total heat of combustion and carbon mass from the resulting mix to calculate the ratio of carbon dioxide to heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are the results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Typical analysis: 50.26 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; / GJ&#xD;&#xA; - Maximum emissions: 51.62 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; / GJ&#xD;&#xA; - Minimum emissions: 49.76 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; / GJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The total variation from the typical analysis is -1% to +3%. Because methane is the most &quot;carbon efficient&quot; constituent of natural gas, the emissions rate essentially correlates to how much methane it contains." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10284" RevisionGUID="45cb6d31-9bfa-4a0b-a4f9-ddf9b7b1d5fc" CreationDate="2020-10-10T07:14:30.060" UserId="9007" Text="Glass is broken up into cullet. When recycled it ends up being used to make the very products it was originally made from. Glass is infinitely recycle-ble it doesn't lose it's propensity for quality for every recycling cycle. You can recycle it 1000 times it's still good glass. Glass (besides lead crystal) is inert and non-toxic thus disposing of glass in landfills or open poses no real environmental hazard. Artificial sand (made of glass crushed to particulate size) is being used in construction and beach nourishment projects all over. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25716" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10285" RevisionGUID="b4e992d2-2b3f-4d06-9b65-6419275e3523" CreationDate="2020-10-10T19:39:45.500" UserId="1056" Text="I have recently seen some pumpkins being curved for Halloween into jack-o'-lanterns and noticed it in some cases they are also being decorated with paint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that pumpkins should normally be composted, but are they still safe to compost if they have paint on them? Or would this cause a problem with growing plants in the future using the soil made from this compost?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10285" RevisionGUID="b4e992d2-2b3f-4d06-9b65-6419275e3523" CreationDate="2020-10-10T19:39:45.500" UserId="1056" Text="Is it safe to compost a pumpkin that has paint on it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10285" RevisionGUID="b4e992d2-2b3f-4d06-9b65-6419275e3523" CreationDate="2020-10-10T19:39:45.500" UserId="1056" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10286" RevisionGUID="40376d62-7edb-4257-9001-791bf62e63e7" CreationDate="2020-10-11T05:22:50.483" UserId="9007" Text="If it's synthetic paint probably not, natural paints are biodegradable and free of petrochemical ingredients if they're made using natural oils (Linseed, etc). Conventional paints made using petrochemical additives, no. &#xD;&#xA;You can use a lemon zester, a file or sandpaper to eliminate the paint. Then compost the pumpkin" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25720" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10287" RevisionGUID="50bf06aa-2e69-4102-b45e-0b71708f24a3" CreationDate="2020-10-11T05:52:11.277" UserId="9007" Text="Compost is spongy and easily compacted. Which is why it's a soil amendment and not a pure growing medium. Pre compost is still in it's decomposition stage so there's few soluable nutrients yet for the plant to grow but it's not uncommon for weeds to often spring up in compost piles" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10288" RevisionGUID="b9c2b98a-fa3f-44c6-99c4-0625eab7a235" CreationDate="2020-10-12T00:38:24.217" UserId="8232" Text="@LazyReader's answer gives some good advice about the types of paint that can and shouldn't be composted, but you could still try a couple of things if you're unsure what type of paint was used before you chuck the whole pumpkin away:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Use Vegetable Oil as a solvent&#xD;&#xA;Veg Oil can be used as a light (and biodegradeable) solvent. Depending on the amount and type of paint used, this should be able to remove most of the paint from the pumpkin skin. Simply apply the oil with a rag and some light rubbing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that other household oils (such as Olive Oil) aren't quite as good, but if it's all you have on hand it may be worth giving it a shot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Scrape/Peel/Cut off excess paint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use a knife, putty knife, razor blade or potentially even a potato peeler to manually scrape or cut off areas of paint (and likely, some of the pumpkin skin too!), leaving the rest of the pumpkin to be composted properly. Any leftover paint &amp; pumpkin flakes could then be disposed of separately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25722" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10288" RevisionGUID="9778ea30-10dd-4016-8aad-add7348a5a0d" CreationDate="2020-10-12T23:37:11.113" UserId="8232" Comment="added point about water" Text="@LazyReader's answer gives some good advice about the types of paint that can and shouldn't be composted, but you could still try a couple of things if you're unsure what type of paint was used before you chuck the whole pumpkin away:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Wipe the paint off with water&#xD;&#xA;@MJuckes raises a good point that some paints might come off with a bit of water and a light rub with a cloth or rag. This is especially true if it's decorated with the types of paints that kids might use. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Use Vegetable Oil as a solvent&#xD;&#xA;Veg Oil can be used as a light (and biodegradeable) solvent. Depending on the amount and type of paint used, this should be able to remove most of the paint from the pumpkin skin. Simply apply the oil with a rag and some light rubbing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that other household oils (such as Olive Oil) aren't quite as good, but if it's all you have on hand it may be worth giving it a shot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Scrape/Peel/Cut off excess paint&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use a knife, putty knife, razor blade or potentially even a potato peeler to manually scrape or cut off areas of paint (and likely, some of the pumpkin skin too!), leaving the rest of the pumpkin to be composted properly. Any leftover paint &amp; pumpkin flakes could then be disposed of separately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10289" RevisionGUID="fe42cf42-8f15-4949-8271-291b7743e34d" CreationDate="2020-10-13T17:19:11.820" UserId="9007" Text="While composting toilets are a big issue in terms of size, cost or practicality. Never the less; urine is instantly recyclable and needs no seperate handling. Urine is a great natural fertilizer on it's own (from a healthy individual). It is largely composed of 95% water and it's main dissolved ingredients are Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium. With an average NPK ratio of 18:2:5. Dilute it in water every 10 to 1 and apply directly to any plant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25724" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="6782df5f-27d3-4b91-98eb-be792a48dd5e" CreationDate="2020-10-14T09:01:28.917" UserId="8232" Comment="remove thanks and signature, minor copy edits" Text="I am working in the modelling and environmental evaluation of redox flow batteries based on Anthraquinone and Ferrocyanide. Currently I am having difficulties in finding information on how Ferrocyanide is produced, for example as Potassium Ferrocyanide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know where I can find information or data concerning its production? At an industrial scale if possible. I searched but could not find any inventory data concerning Ferrocyanide. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance for any information you can give me.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25725" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10282" RevisionGUID="6782df5f-27d3-4b91-98eb-be792a48dd5e" CreationDate="2020-10-14T09:01:28.917" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 3923 edit id of 656" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10290" RevisionGUID="12240821-1c6b-4a5c-8d97-8b39db6f37dd" CreationDate="2020-10-14T23:50:53.640" UserId="2703" Text="According to a [report][1] by the US Climate Change Program &quot;virtually all the glaciers in the mid-latitudes are in a state of negative mass balance and are retreating&quot; (2008). By how much each year and specifically in the last 40 years, is presented in the following [study][2] as being −5.2 ± 2.2 Gt[¹][3] (metric gigatonnes) per year during the full 1975–2016 interval (2019). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://books.google.ca/books/about/Abrupt_Climate_Change.html?id=92T2d-0NBkQC&amp;redir_esc=y&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/6/eaav7266&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/estimating-glacier-contribution-to-sea-level-rise/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25727" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10132" RevisionGUID="20a1b4a9-2c84-4027-843b-5125bc401403" CreationDate="2020-10-15T21:02:10.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25728" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10291" RevisionGUID="9797efa7-42e1-4b1f-9ec4-ba4486e3b026" CreationDate="2020-10-15T23:09:41.333" UserId="9041" Text="Lots of big companies are making grand pledges to go carbon-neutral (or even carbon-zero, removing historical emissions). It is feasible for a smaller company (that is, businesses that’d never be described as “enterprise”)? Is it worth it? Why do it? How do you do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're on this path -- or tried to be -- tell me about your journey. What did you do, and what was the outcome? What advice would you offer to other small and medium sized businesses that want to accomplish this feat?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25729" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10291" RevisionGUID="9797efa7-42e1-4b1f-9ec4-ba4486e3b026" CreationDate="2020-10-15T23:09:41.333" UserId="9041" Text="How can smaller businesses go carbon neutral?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25730" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10291" RevisionGUID="9797efa7-42e1-4b1f-9ec4-ba4486e3b026" CreationDate="2020-10-15T23:09:41.333" UserId="9041" Text="|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25731" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10285" RevisionGUID="1138badd-ca0c-4498-9e23-c87f83c8363f" CreationDate="2020-10-16T03:00:43.463" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1316937086151307264" />
  <row Id="25732" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10292" RevisionGUID="46212e5f-b81a-494f-acbf-d47700c25062" CreationDate="2020-10-16T07:24:48.393" UserId="9007" Text="A couple of hundred pounds. But it's meaningless. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whether you charge a battery by wire or wirelessly matters not, it still needs the battery. An EV future is an environmental nightmare, basically it means a 2000 percent increase in overall mining for all the critical resources needed to make them. People just dont understand Energy physics, a gallon of gasoline weighs 6.3 pounds and can propel your four cylinder car 30-40 miles, a Tesla battery stores 100 kilowatt-hours on a 1200 pound battery; or 12 pounds per kw-h and can only propel it 3 miles per kw-h. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A trolleybus on the other hand does not need a battery. In this way, it bypasses the inferiority of electric cars, namely the battery charge time and the enormous environmental profile of making the battery. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ftWth.jpg&#xD;&#xA;Unlike a train or a tram, a trolleybus does not need set up rail infrastructure or tearing up streets to make tracks. This not only results in huge cost and time savings, it saves a large amounts of energy in construction. Granted trolleybuses cant go everywhere but with no need for rail and city grid streets they can accomodate a multitude of locations. Quito, Ecuador has a trolleybus system, During peak hours, there is a bus every 50 to 90 seconds (because of it's overall high frequency, there are no schedules). El Trole as it’s called transports over 200,000 passengers each day. The total capital invested for the 19 kilometers of line was less than 60 million dollars; for a comprehensive system that moves nearly a quarter million people a day. Electric buses are nearly as expensive, but their ranges are poor, a charging system doesn't matter if it takes 3-6 hours or a range of less than 200 miles. Diesel buses can go 300-400 miles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10293" RevisionGUID="7f90ca51-5f74-4602-b03b-e737b7a5f043" CreationDate="2020-10-16T07:55:55.440" UserId="9007" Text="No. If Renewables are so economical, why is Electricity in California So expensive (and unavailable). &#xD;&#xA;Germany alone has spent Over half a trillion dollars on renewables and they have 2nd most expensive electricity in Europe. As of March 2020, ranks $0.28 per kilowatt hour (nearly Twice the US average) and they still get 80% of their energy from fossil fuels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In E.A. Wrigley's book &quot;Energy and the English Industrial Revolution*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Before coal became widely available, wood was used not just for heating homes but also for industrial processes; it was the predominant energy source for humanity. Even if half the land surface of Britain had been covered with woodland we could have made 1.25 million tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of current consumption) and nothing else. Even with a much lower population than today's, manufactured goods in the land-based economy were the preserve of the elite. Deep green energy production – decentralised, based on the products of the land – is far more damaging&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The UK used 8.2 Quadrillion BTU's of energy in 2017 (8.65 Exajoules) or 2.4 Petawatt hours. &#xD;&#xA;A 1 MW wind turbine requires 220 tons of coal (Coke) just to make the steel. The turbine will produce on average 2.19 million kw-h per year. Britain would need 1 million turbines. Actually more, because of parasitic energy losses from electric conversion. 72% of the worlds energy is thermal based because it’s efficient to convert thermal energy into work without having to convert it to electricity. You convert to electricity you lose half to 2/3rds of the energy as waste heat. Fossil fuels convert chemical energy into heat energy which is either used directly in manufacture or converted into mechanical energy. Renewables take mechanical energy, with poor conversion efficiencies (Betz limit, Shockley-Queisser limit) convert it into electricity which touts parasitic losses, transmit electricity which about 1/3 is lost as waste heat, convert it back into mechanical power or heat energy. A million wind turbines would need 260,000 sq miles of land. Offshore wind means you're building a million anchored installations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25734" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10293" RevisionGUID="41e78e49-6664-42fa-8d3b-b5d338af9c7e" CreationDate="2020-10-16T18:30:50.667" UserId="9007" Comment="added 840 characters in body" Text="No. If Renewables are so economical, why is Electricity in California So expensive (and unavailable). &#xD;&#xA;Germany alone has spent Over half a trillion dollars on renewables and they have 2nd most expensive electricity in Europe. As of March 2020, ranks $0.28 per kilowatt hour (nearly Twice the US average) and they still get 80% of their energy from fossil fuels. &#xD;&#xA;https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In E.A. Wrigley's book &quot;Energy and the English Industrial Revolution*&quot;&#xD;&#xA;Before coal became widely available, wood was used not just for heating homes but also for industrial processes; it was the predominant energy source for humanity. Even if half the land surface of Britain had been covered with woodland we could have made 1.25 million tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of current consumption) and nothing else. Even with a much lower population than today's, manufactured goods in the land-based economy were the preserve of the elite. Deep green energy production – decentralised, based on the products of the land – is far more damaging&quot;...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The UK used 8.2 Quadrillion BTU's of energy in 2017 (8.65 Exajoules) or 2.4 Petawatt hours. &#xD;&#xA;https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/GBR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 1 MW wind turbine requires 220 tons of coal (Coke) just to make the steel. &#xD;&#xA;https://www.worldsteel.org/en/dam/jcr:16ad9bcd-dbf5-449f-b42c-b220952767bf/fact_raw%2520materials_2019.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The turbine will produce on average 2.19 million kw-h per year. Britain would need 1 million turbines. Actually more, because of parasitic energy losses from electric conversion. 72% of the worlds energy is thermal based because it’s efficient to convert thermal energy into work without having to convert it to electricity. You convert to electricity you lose half to 2/3rds of the energy as waste heat. Fossil fuels convert chemical energy into heat energy which is either used directly in manufacture or converted into mechanical energy. Renewables take mechanical energy, with poor conversion efficiencies (Betz limit, Shockley-Queisser limit) convert it into electricity which touts parasitic losses, transmit electricity which about 1/3 is lost as waste heat, convert it back into mechanical power or heat energy. A million wind turbines would need 260,000 sq miles of land. Offshore wind means you're building a million anchored installations. Offshore windfarms require no land, but they cost 2-3 times more. And out at sea are conducive to nothing but rusting.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile an offshore nuclear plant covers less than 100 acres, can be built using rip rap and concrete dolos. And with an 1150 MW reactor produce 9.5 Terawatt-hours per year; or enough for over 800,000 homes.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CPBqn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/b1Q6j.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eDtVu.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10294" RevisionGUID="b83648e7-cca3-42f6-8a45-e19afb45a648" CreationDate="2020-10-18T02:31:13.887" UserId="9007" Text="Coca cola. The acidity in Coke makes it super handy for cleaning purposes. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10296" RevisionGUID="02658d10-c418-4f16-8b9b-59ea2c38e276" CreationDate="2020-10-18T02:43:18.167" UserId="9007" Text="If you're concerned your compost pile is no longer biologically active, restart it.&#xD;&#xA;There's bacterial start up's that can easily be purchased. Another way to speed it up is to Heat it up. Fresh urine (98.6 degree's) can activate a pile too, another strategy is to use hot water; because temperature drives thermophilic activity.Dig a donut shaped hole in your pile Boil some water and soak a big piece of crumbled up cardboard, hen immediately add the cardboard to the bottom and press it like a bowl and dump the hot water then back fill the hole and add the bacteria. Heat rises so a warm environment is perfect for them. Also you've mixed and there fore aerated the pile" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25738" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9601" RevisionGUID="fda6948d-ceda-4c63-80fb-607adab1d632" CreationDate="2020-10-18T03:00:00.217" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1317661680839593984" />
  <row Id="25741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10297" RevisionGUID="36f045b7-e723-4cb9-be27-a6d5ac3d092f" CreationDate="2020-10-18T16:24:10.417" UserId="6293" Text="The electric utility might be able to sell renewable electricity to the business. In other words how much renewable electricity the utility sells then relates to how much they buy. To the customer it's just a more expensive bill. Then possibly combine an electric furnace with a ground-source heat-pump. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't mention solar panels because I live in a city that has trees. But I could put two solar panels on a 16' high 304L tube that has a 6&quot; diameter and a wall thickness of 0.120&quot;. The 304L tube would sit 4' in a wet-pour concrete footing in the ground. I would use the solar panels to charge AGM batteries that run a refrigerator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10297" RevisionGUID="95ce884e-8cea-4dd6-aea4-df7852caaf9f" CreationDate="2020-10-18T16:32:35.170" UserId="6293" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="The electric utility might be able to sell renewable electricity to the business. In other words how much renewable electricity the utility sells then relates to how much they buy. To the customer it's just a more expensive bill. Then possibly combine an electric furnace with a ground-source heat-pump. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't mention solar panels because I live in a city that has trees. But I could put two solar panels on a 16' high 304L tube that has a 6&quot; diameter and a wall thickness of 0.120&quot;. The 304L tube would sit 4' in a wet-pour concrete footing in the ground. The 304L tube could be positioned exactly where it needs to be positioned. I have priced the tube, but in standard finish instead of brushed finish, at $2600. I would use the solar panels to charge AGM batteries that run a refrigerator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10297" RevisionGUID="31e98c38-d102-4f84-9f1e-53f056c50137" CreationDate="2020-10-18T16:37:38.400" UserId="6293" Comment="added 73 characters in body" Text="The electric utility might be able to sell renewable electricity to the business. In other words how much renewable electricity the utility sells then relates to how much they buy. To the customer it's just a more expensive bill. Then possibly combine an electric furnace with a ground-source heat-pump. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't mention solar panels because I live in a city that has trees. But I could put two solar panels on a 16' high 304L tube that has a 6&quot; diameter and a wall thickness of 0.120&quot;. The 304L tube would sit 4' in a wet-pour concrete footing in the ground. The 304L tube could be positioned exactly where it needs to be positioned. I have priced the 20' long tube, but in standard finish instead of brushed finish, at $2600. I would use the solar panels to charge AGM batteries that run a refrigerator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10299" RevisionGUID="08a6620a-34ce-4d7f-a6dd-be09c883c8a9" CreationDate="2020-10-19T15:06:16.813" UserId="3379" Text="I've heard lots of people mention that concerns about the sustainability of electric vehicles are mitigated when you consider that the batteries can be recycled, for instance into stationary, grid connected energy storage systems. To what extent is this happening in practice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25748" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10299" RevisionGUID="08a6620a-34ce-4d7f-a6dd-be09c883c8a9" CreationDate="2020-10-19T15:06:16.813" UserId="3379" Text="Are a significant portion of electric vehicle batteries recycled into grid-connected batteries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25749" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10299" RevisionGUID="08a6620a-34ce-4d7f-a6dd-be09c883c8a9" CreationDate="2020-10-19T15:06:16.813" UserId="3379" Text="|recycling|electric-vehicles|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10299" RevisionGUID="f79665b4-32a7-4338-822e-af1cac59f5b7" CreationDate="2020-10-19T15:47:54.673" UserId="3379" Comment="added 64 characters in body; edited title" Text="I've heard lots of people mention that concerns about the sustainability of electric vehicles are mitigated when you consider that at end-of-life the batteries can be reused as stationary, grid connected energy storage systems. To what extent is this happening in practice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not interested in small pilot projects or research studies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25751" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10299" RevisionGUID="f79665b4-32a7-4338-822e-af1cac59f5b7" CreationDate="2020-10-19T15:47:54.673" UserId="3379" Comment="added 64 characters in body; edited title" Text="Are a significant portion of electric vehicle batteries reused as grid-connected batteries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10300" RevisionGUID="a829b7b3-3577-4ccc-8450-ddd6bee9ec31" CreationDate="2020-10-19T23:40:22.717" UserId="9007" Text=" Recycling batteries sounds very noble. But fruitless. Because recycling batteries to make &quot;Grid storage&quot; for communities......That's a lot of batteries. New York City uses 11,000 Megawatt hours of electricity a day! You'd have to gather 110,000 tesla batteries to store a days worth of electric use. Batteries are a horrible way to provide energy, they cost 10-20 dollars a pound, hydrocarbon storage (a steel drum) costs $0.75 Even if you recycle the car batteries, they're gonna find their way into cars again to meet speculative demand. Worse, what's the quality of the battery that it can be re-adopted for other duties. So far Tesla has produced it's millionth car in april 2020. But the demand for ev batteries will outpace ALL recycling efforts. And the demand to replace our gas powered fleet with ev's will require a 1000 fold increase in those batteries. An EV future is an environmental nightmare. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10300" RevisionGUID="35022682-40d0-4869-ab73-ed321e112fbb" CreationDate="2020-10-20T05:02:49.370" UserId="9007" Comment="added 323 characters in body" Text=" Recycling batteries sounds very noble. But fruitless. Because recycling batteries to make &quot;Grid storage&quot; for communities......That's a lot of batteries. New York City uses 11,000 Megawatt hours of electricity a day! You'd have to gather 110,000 tesla batteries to store a days worth of electric use. Batteries are a horrible way to provide energy, they cost 10-20 dollars a pound, hydrocarbon storage (a steel drum) costs $0.75 Even if you recycle the car batteries, they're probably not gonna find their way into cars again; even if they were they'll have to be reprocessed, in essence Re-manufactured to meet speculative demand for new cars. It takes the energy of 100 barrels of oil, to make just one battery from scratch, recycled contents or otherwise will save about half that. Worse, what's the quality of the battery that it can be re-adopted for other duties. So far Tesla has produced it's millionth car in april 2020. But the demand for ev batteries will outpace ALL recycling efforts. And the demand to replace our gas powered fleet with ev's will require a 1000 fold increase in those batteries and given their shelf life, they may not be available to donate for other uses. An EV future is an environmental nightmare. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10301" RevisionGUID="6d898d50-19f9-418d-bffb-580a787f2c95" CreationDate="2020-10-20T07:22:27.407" UserId="9056" Text="This question is focused on high quality solar panels (certified Tier 1) which are more and more mainstream. The 25 years warranty is becoming standard, and producers describe degradation in 25 years charts. What happens after 25 years? Is degradation expected to be constant for another decade or two, or is there some likeliness of speeding up and falling down from linear progress? Sure total panel failures can be expected too, and estimate of that can be included to make the picture more robust. Anyway, **how do solar panels degrade after 25 years of warranty?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LG:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;SunPower:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/s527l.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bjl6o.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10301" RevisionGUID="6d898d50-19f9-418d-bffb-580a787f2c95" CreationDate="2020-10-20T07:22:27.407" UserId="9056" Text="How do solar panels degrade after 25 years of warranty?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10301" RevisionGUID="6d898d50-19f9-418d-bffb-580a787f2c95" CreationDate="2020-10-20T07:22:27.407" UserId="9056" Text="|solar-power|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25760" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10301" RevisionGUID="3dc362d8-d6bd-4fb2-bd27-b9eb5067b1d1" CreationDate="2020-10-20T21:00:09.210" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1318658284807688193" />
  <row Id="25761" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8271" RevisionGUID="42578cc4-7265-4e9c-93dd-1b4ebb381807" CreationDate="2020-10-21T07:47:32.747" UserId="8232" Comment="better tagging and title" Text="Is it more environmentally friendly to use laptops or desktop PCs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25762" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8271" RevisionGUID="42578cc4-7265-4e9c-93dd-1b4ebb381807" CreationDate="2020-10-21T07:47:32.747" UserId="8232" Comment="better tagging and title" Text="|waste|life-cycle-analysis|green-it|computing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25763" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8271" RevisionGUID="42578cc4-7265-4e9c-93dd-1b4ebb381807" CreationDate="2020-10-21T07:47:32.747" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 657" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10303" RevisionGUID="cd5e4e8f-30ca-4f10-b040-81eb51619de0" CreationDate="2020-10-21T21:09:34.657" UserId="9061" Text="## Summary&#xD;&#xA;Using multiple charge controllers is useful if your solar panel array exceeds the specifications for the controller. You can't exceed panel input voltage, and you can't exceed the maximum power (watts) that the charge controller supports. Otherwise, you risk damaging the charge controller and rendering it useless.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Example Scenario&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, my charge controller is the EP Solar Tracer 3210an. According to the product documentation, this charge controller has a maximum voltage rating of 100 volts, or 92 volts at 25 celsius (77 fahrenheit). The maximum power of the charge controller is 790 watts. Hence, I need to design the solar panel configuration to match those parameters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I want to harvest more than 790 watts, then I need to use additional charge controllers. I can connect additional panels to a second (or third) charge controller, and increase my power. I can connect these additional controllers to the same battery bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Addressing Your Question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With all of this in mind, to answer your question, I'm not convinced that using multiple MPPT charge controllers will mitigate the problems with shadows on the panel. Your best bet is to place the panel in a South-facing location that has maximum sunlight. You can use a mobile application such as [The Sun Ephemeris](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=fr.avianey.ephemeris&amp;hl=en_US&amp;gl=US) to track the Sun based on your geographic location and date / time. Proper panel placement will help to reduce shadows and maximize your power harvesting capabilities." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25765" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="67547534-8aff-465b-9e2b-f39f0d1489f9" CreationDate="2020-10-21T23:05:25.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10255" RevisionGUID="57619559-7a85-4494-af67-e9431d989ff6" CreationDate="2020-10-22T14:46:46.087" UserId="8232" Comment="image descriptions; some minor content tweaks so it's easier to read; some minor formatting so that the markdown displays nicer." Text="Reforestation is a wishy washy subject. It's difficult, labor intensive and time consuming. But done well you can successfully reestablish forest cover. [Jadav Payeng](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadav_Payeng) planted an entire forest by himself over 30 years so it's not impossible. If one man can do it in 30 years, 30 can do it in one...&#xD;&#xA;Reforestation is achievable in a sequence steps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Allocate the land you wish to plant. Private property is easier than public, If you own it, you're in charge of it or obtain permission from the owner to do so.&#xD;&#xA; 2. [Berm][1] the land so the soil does not wash away. Use geotextile bags, sand bags, rockwalls, or a silt fence.  &#xD;&#xA;[![A Berm made of silt fence and wire][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Build a hill(s): Sounds unusual, but perfectly flat terrain is seldom what you want in an environment. scrap rocks, covered in dirt and built up, even to a moderate elevation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. Determine the trees necessary native to the environment formerly found. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. Upon finding the necessary trees, find trees in the &quot;*Fabaceae*&quot; family. As they are nitrogen fixers they can grow in bad soils.  &#xD;&#xA;[![Fabaceae roots][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6. Microbe colonization: Mycorrhizal fungi and beneficial bacteria are as essential under the soil as the trees above it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 7. Fertilize: At this point, once the trees are growing, depleted soils don't regenerate quick enough to support them. It's time to fertilize, that can be done with compost, manure, artificial fertilizer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 8. Water routinely until the tree's no longer require intervention and can sustain themselves on natural rainfall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 9. At the point the trees are self sustaining, begin planting forbs, herbs, ferns and understory vegetation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 10. Your forest prototype however is a mono-culture of one tree species. At this point it's necessary to replicate environment of forest succession, by planting other varieties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berm&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4e4kw.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MB0Bf.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25767" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10255" RevisionGUID="57619559-7a85-4494-af67-e9431d989ff6" CreationDate="2020-10-22T14:46:46.087" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by  edit id of 658" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10304" RevisionGUID="655c4c5d-983e-4af3-8c1e-3d3453890cf7" CreationDate="2020-10-23T02:51:32.517" UserId="9007" Text="GRASS, is an excellent carbon accumulator. But our mowing practices make it less practical. Grow your grass, let it grow to a high height then mow it. More time for growth permits longer, more thicker roots which stores more carbon. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10306" RevisionGUID="da662262-9386-461e-be40-9f16c45d1ab7" CreationDate="2020-10-23T03:43:10.120" UserId="9007" Text="Whether it's trains or buses they use the same resources&#xD;&#xA;Steel, which requires 600 kilograms of coal (Coke) to make one ton of steel.&#xD;&#xA;And the incentive to make trains faster......increases energy consumption exponentially.&#xD;&#xA;Both technologies require resources but the train assuming steam power and wood for fuel can be fueled environmentally with a regenerative fuel supply indefinitely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="e2dbba5d-ade1-42f9-93e6-7415e0f1872f" CreationDate="2020-10-23T15:23:07.533" UserId="6388" Text="I've got a new EPEver 30a  MPPT solar controller and single 320 watt 40v solar panel connected 4 feet away with 12awg wire.  Very simple van setup my battery is a single 12v deep cycle 115AH.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The oversized panel is basically to allow use of fans, TV and charging during daylight hours and also to get more watts on cloudy days and in shade and not so much for charging a battery up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In morning cloudy skies in Florida in October at 10am I was reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PV in:   ***30v, 6.5a, .6kwh.***  (note my battery was reading 13v)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How many watts is my solar producing at this reading**? (6.5 x 30v = 185w) or (6.5 x 12v = 78w) and&#xD;&#xA;**How is .6kwh (600wh) possible or true?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25774" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="e2dbba5d-ade1-42f9-93e6-7415e0f1872f" CreationDate="2020-10-23T15:23:07.533" UserId="6388" Text="Trying to read display data on my new MPPT solar controller" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25775" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="e2dbba5d-ade1-42f9-93e6-7415e0f1872f" CreationDate="2020-10-23T15:23:07.533" UserId="6388" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25776" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10308" RevisionGUID="d701ae39-44e4-40cf-b9f7-ddd8826ade05" CreationDate="2020-10-23T16:16:33.720" UserId="9064" Text="&lt;b&gt;Background:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Just acquired a 4-acre lot in Southern Virginia. It was recently cleared of a ton of small (roughly 6-foot-tall) pine saplings that look like they were mechanically planted. I am not entirely sure. There were as many as 10 saplings in every single square foot and they were clearly choking each other out.&#xD;&#xA;The saplings are gone now, and I am trying to figure out what steps to take to begin restoring the land for gardening, animals, carbon accumulation, food forest, all the permaculture/sustainability life goals. &#xD;&#xA;The main issue now is I have 4 acres of pointy ½ inch to 2-inch wide stumps. It is almost impossible to walk the property without tripping on a stump and goring yourself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Question:&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;What is the best way to begin restoring farmland by removing thousands of ½ inch to 2 inch wide pine stumps?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25777" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10308" RevisionGUID="d701ae39-44e4-40cf-b9f7-ddd8826ade05" CreationDate="2020-10-23T16:16:33.720" UserId="9064" Text="Soil Restoration Issue - How to deal with thousands of small pine stumps?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25778" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10308" RevisionGUID="d701ae39-44e4-40cf-b9f7-ddd8826ade05" CreationDate="2020-10-23T16:16:33.720" UserId="9064" Text="|permaculture|soil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="51f8f190-c2db-4dd9-a646-78459fbe24f9" CreationDate="2020-10-23T16:49:10.497" UserId="6388" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="I've got a new EPEver 30a  MPPT solar controller and single 320 watt 40v solar panel connected 4 feet away with 12awg wire.  Very simple van setup my battery is a single 12v deep cycle 115AH.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: The oversized panel is basically to allow use of fans, TV and charging during daylight hours and also to get more watts on cloudy days and in shade and not so much for charging a battery up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In morning cloudy skies in Florida in October at 10am I was reading:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PV in:   ***30v, 6.5a, .6kwh.***  (note my battery was reading 13v)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How many watts is my solar producing at the above reading**? (6.5 x 30v = 185w) or (6.5 x 12v = 78w) and&#xD;&#xA;**How is .6kwh (600wh) possible or true?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25780" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10309" RevisionGUID="8e7ed1c8-5c27-4dfb-a8b3-b1af8f523e5f" CreationDate="2020-10-23T19:59:21.170" UserId="5477" Text="Nature will take care of them in a year or so . Next time cut closer to the ground. I have several large ( 3 ft. dia +) pine stumps around the house; they take a few years for nature to fix so I let grass grow over them. Upside for me , I also have a number of large hardwood stumps and most are presently full of chantrelle mushrooms ( they do not grow on pine). If you are in a hurry , buy some lever action lopers . They should cut 2 &quot; dia. pine as low as you want. Lopers do not care about running into the soil like a chainsaw." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25781" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10310" RevisionGUID="25129f70-2378-4b26-a37c-ee5ef5117f05" CreationDate="2020-10-24T07:39:21.243" UserId="9007" Text="Grind down the stumps. But that's a difficult thing and time consuming. &#xD;&#xA;Another is the wet method, drill holes deep in them and pour water and soil mix and high nitrogen fertilizer, cover with a tarp or black trash bag to speed up their decomposition. &#xD;&#xA;Last technique, fire." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25782" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10311" RevisionGUID="6414dc08-9eec-4f14-9a43-2d7ba3f3f4a3" CreationDate="2020-10-24T07:43:01.210" UserId="9007" Text="Arbuscular Mycorrhizal are fungi that coexist with trees. Species experimented with commercial crop trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Funneliformis mosseae&#xD;&#xA; - Rhizophagus irregularis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10312" RevisionGUID="b6909a14-a0a4-4f65-a50a-fe457319c4a8" CreationDate="2020-10-25T05:34:41.870" UserId="9007" Text="Biochar should not be added to any forest soil or natural setting. The soil that evolved there has the fixed amount of carbon it requires. Biochar is for repairing damaged soils or adapting agricultural soils. Despite numerous sayings of &quot;Biochar&quot; in the amazon rainforest, that was not biochar, it was &quot;Terra Preta&quot; which was meant for agricultural soils and subsequently after their extirpation the forest simply grew back." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25784" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10313" RevisionGUID="e3a98443-a5e8-4535-926e-538aadaf66d2" CreationDate="2020-10-25T05:46:15.187" UserId="9007" Text="Even with a pH of 5-6, soil acidity thou important is not detrimental to nitrogen fixing bacteria to survive. As for berry bushes, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - *Frankia* a species of nitrogen fixing bacteria have symbiotic associations with non-Fabaceae (pea/bean) plants. Including various Berry producing shrubs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10314" RevisionGUID="355d5760-242b-489f-87c0-b23b14794d86" CreationDate="2020-10-25T05:53:47.580" UserId="9007" Text="The upper echelon of the waste hierarchy is avoidance of products that produce too much waste. As for separation...that's a matter of scale of waste and how much time/effort goes into your routine. Recycling paper is a waste of time. Incineration or composting (if it's doable) is more practical. As for plastic........you can melt down your plastic in the oven or using a simple 30 dollar heat gun. Reduce your trash volume by 90%" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10315" RevisionGUID="0beed75c-d3ba-41a8-96ac-4fd804a1c88a" CreationDate="2020-10-25T15:17:45.400" UserId="9066" Text="I use a Maze Compost Tumbler, which is a 2-sided rotary composter, to compost kitchen scraps.  By volume, I add equal parts kitchen scraps, sawdust and peat moss whenever I add the scraps.  It is rotated twice a day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lids on this composter are kept shut. It has vent ports which I keep closed.  It is in a re-purposed stock trailer so it gets some sunlight, but not a large amount of it.  However, I cannot put it outside the trailer because bears would break into it to eat the scraps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem I am having with it is that it has become a breeding spot for Gnats.  The compost is used in a vegetable garden, so I am not willing to use poisons to kill them.   We placed a fan on it to blow the the gnats away, but if there is any decline in the population of gnats because of the fan, it is negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know a non-poisonous way to rid it of gnats?  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25787" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10315" RevisionGUID="0beed75c-d3ba-41a8-96ac-4fd804a1c88a" CreationDate="2020-10-25T15:17:45.400" UserId="9066" Text="Gnat problem with a rotating composter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25788" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10315" RevisionGUID="0beed75c-d3ba-41a8-96ac-4fd804a1c88a" CreationDate="2020-10-25T15:17:45.400" UserId="9066" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25789" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="302" RevisionGUID="953b9cfd-d905-423d-a2a5-38894171bd4f" CreationDate="2020-10-25T21:00:05.580" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1320470208902012929" />
  <row Id="25790" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10315" RevisionGUID="ee06b771-d696-4dfe-8ed8-36d71e3dc4de" CreationDate="2020-10-26T07:22:37.687" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|composting|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10316" RevisionGUID="05b75ead-eddc-4b4c-9249-a6ce515ded4a" CreationDate="2020-10-26T08:28:34.673" UserId="9007" Text="Gnat's are attracted to fruit, if that's what you're putting in the bin, you've identified the problem. One way is to Freeze your fruit/vegetable scraps in the freezer, this eliminates their odor, then shred em in a blender/food processsor. Mix it deep in the pile so bugs cant get at it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25792" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10317" RevisionGUID="6cced434-d8cc-4c7b-bb3b-54af3dbdddd8" CreationDate="2020-10-26T08:36:07.370" UserId="99" Text="Where I live we have separate waste streams for things like organic waste, paper, glass, batteries and cloth but for everything else (like plastics, metals, drink cartons, and crisp bags) it's up to each municipality to decide whether people need to separate waste themselves (a.k.a. source separation) or do mechanical separation in a waste processing facility. Most cities here use source separation, but a few larger ones recently opted for mechanical separation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big advantage of letting people separate waste at home is that you generally get cleaner plastics and thus a higher quality of recycled plastic. Another advantage is that separating waste requires people to think about their waste and raises awareness how much they generate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However with source separation, some form of mechanical separation is often still needed. People can be sloppy, or unknowingly throw their waste in the wrong container. Since equipment for mechanical separation is there, it's cheaper to separate all waste mechanically. Also collecting 1 big container is easier, cheaper and requires less space than collecting multiple smaller containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is clear that source separation is best for some materials like organic waste, paper and cloth. If you do not, those types of wastes cannot be recycled properly and become worthless. For the remaining materials there is no clear conclusion. The research (and debate) which approach is best for processing plastics, metals and drink cartons is still ongoing here, but it seems that the effectiveness of each approach differs per municipality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10318" RevisionGUID="e3a25df0-c1a7-466a-9b1b-08f3d6db5b5c" CreationDate="2020-10-27T00:14:12.797" UserId="659" Text="Yes. I [searched for &quot;study consumer recycling separation&quot;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume you mean manual sorting by consumers, because an awful lot of recycling is manually sorted in recycling centres. In the worst case things like circuit boards are burned then smelted in terrible conditions by wretchedly poor people to &quot;sort&quot; the valuable metals from the other parts, but almost any recycling centre will have a conveyor belt somewhere with people standing over it picking bits out. The ones that don't typically consume pre-sorted material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The studies I found are generally comparing consumer sorted vs not, because there will always be a post-consumer sorting stage. Since your question compares &quot;in theory...&quot; I'm going to focus on the &quot;in practice&quot; comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - as noted in the question, even with the best will in the world there will still need to be a post-consumer separation stage. There will always be mis-sorted and contaminated material in the recycling, even if it's caused by birds pooping on the material as it's being processed (happens!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- not all recycleable material is easily categorised. And not all consumers have the proper tools to classify material, especially plastics. But a plastic recycler can justify buying a reflective spectrometer (for example) to better sort some plastics. And not all producers of plastics are honest in their labelling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- for practicality/ease of handling it's often necessary or convenient to combine sorted recycling into fewer streams. Ideally this is done with sets than can be trivially separated (think scrap steel + plastic bottles), and it's often done at the customer-sorting stage &quot;plastic and aluminium drink containers&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- many, many recycleable things are compound objects. At the extreme a smartphone is extremely recycleable, but there are many different materials involved. But even something as simple as glass is generally contaminated with bottle tops (ideally steel, because magnetic separation is easy, but in practice aluminium and plastic are also present).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=study%20consumer%20recycling%20separation&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=0&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholart" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10319" RevisionGUID="d07eb88d-3148-470b-889a-924827453a79" CreationDate="2020-10-27T00:17:44.377" UserId="659" Text="One other approach would be to breed maggots and feed those to the fisk. [This is done commercially][1] with blood worms and other species. [They are also fed to chickens][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-15/maggots-eat-food-to-make-fish-food-for-aquaculture-industry/8528332&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/03/maggots-could-revolutionize-global-food-supply-heres-how/?arc404=true" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10320" RevisionGUID="fbefea85-9a5c-46b0-942a-c834fb55c305" CreationDate="2020-10-27T00:23:21.400" UserId="659" Text="If you have a tractor than can drive over them a [flail mower][1] should work. If you intend to mow anything on the property it would be worth looking into a flail mower because they're very useful (and can also be used to shredfallen timber and for light brush clearing). We used to have one for the orchard and used it to reduce the debris from trimming shelter belts as well as mowing between rows (&quot;debris&quot; being anything up to 10cm thick, you just mow along the length a few times and then it's woodchips).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail_mower" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25796" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10308" RevisionGUID="321695ca-df99-4cd4-9b86-3f86d770f0f6" CreationDate="2020-10-27T03:00:38.867" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1320923333345611776" />
  <row Id="25797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10321" RevisionGUID="5666a3fd-5340-455b-91e7-2a3d5f707014" CreationDate="2020-10-27T04:39:26.373" UserId="9007" Text="Horse manure is not an environmental nuisance, unless pathogens are present. Properly recycled.......Manure is fertilizer, just work it into your soil.&#xD;&#xA;Or sell it&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qt0vd.jpg&#xD;&#xA;It's a battle of arguments.&#xD;&#xA;Horses need food, cars need fuel. Where as the impact of human machine assisted locomotion is Far less environmentally harmful and vastly more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;A 150 lb person riding a bike at a steady pace of 14 miles per hour will burn 48 calories. At steady pace will arrive at his destination of about 4.2 miles every minute. It means he cant transit himself the distance of nearly 5 miles with the metabolic energy requirements of eating one candy bar." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10322" RevisionGUID="188ce21f-907e-41be-981d-4c91a0f24015" CreationDate="2020-10-27T04:46:34.910" UserId="9007" Text="It's a question of your driving habits. How many miles do you put down. Ddesels are notoriously reliable and biodiesel is less polluting to air than normal petro diesel, never the less factor in what rough conditions or miles you put on a used car, if after 50,000 miles you're car finally goes up? On average a hybrid car uses 25-50% more energy to manufacture than a normal gas car, so amortization accumulates only after the accumulated years of driving.&#xD;&#xA;In short changing the fuel type is meaningless, Biofuels are notoriously questionable for the environmental. deforestation in the tropics to meet demand for oils (Palm, etc) to make biodiesel. Biodiesel derived from used cooking oil, more suitable but requires refinement.&#xD;&#xA;The real solution is simply driving less regardless of vehicle choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25799" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="228" RevisionGUID="dd004d75-7314-4aa7-ade9-d7ee4d2ff20c" CreationDate="2020-10-27T06:00:06.497" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1320968496063389696" />
  <row Id="25800" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10317" RevisionGUID="05217404-e171-438e-840e-e37c61efe3f2" CreationDate="2020-10-27T08:26:06.487" UserId="99" Comment="added sources" Text="Where I live we have separate waste streams for things like organic waste, paper, glass, batteries and cloth but for everything else (like plastics, metals, drink cartons, and crisp bags) it's up to each municipality to decide whether people need to separate waste themselves (a.k.a. source separation) or do mechanical separation in a waste processing facility. Most cities here use source separation, but a few larger ones recently opted for mechanical separation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big advantage of letting people separate waste at home is that you generally get cleaner plastics and thus a higher quality of recycled plastic. Another advantage is that separating waste requires people to think about their waste and raises awareness how much they generate. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However with source separation, some form of mechanical separation is often still needed. People can be sloppy, or unknowingly throw their waste in the wrong container. Since equipment for mechanical separation is there, it's cheaper to separate all waste mechanically. Also collecting 1 big container is easier, cheaper and requires less space than collecting multiple smaller containers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is clear that source separation is best for some materials like organic waste, paper and cloth. If you do not, those types of wastes cannot be recycled properly and become worthless. For the remaining materials there is no clear conclusion. The research (and debate) which approach is best for processing plastics, metals and drink cartons is still ongoing here, but it seems that the effectiveness of each approach differs per municipality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources (in Dutch):&#xD;&#xA; * https://www.deafvalspiegel.nl/nieuws/bron-of-nascheiding/&#xD;&#xA; * https://wastenet.nl/haalt-de-machine-de-mens-in-bronscheiding-vs-nascheiding/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="7dfdc536-f7ef-485b-9765-e5af22394e4f" CreationDate="2020-10-27T23:46:59.503" UserId="6293" Text="It's an old subject but there is new information with new car configurations coming out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with, I do like turbo-diesels if they also have urea-injection in the exhaust. But most car makers gave up on urea-injection and instead cheated on the emission tests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For hybrids, I recommend using the hybrid system only to assist the primary engine and in that way the hybrid system will last more of the day. Using the hybrid system for an all-electric mode just quickly wipes-out the system. (In fact MB has a hybrid inline-six engine such that an extra-large starter motor just begins moving the car from a stop, at which point the engine picks-up with an electric supercharger, and that gives the single turbocharger time to develop boost such that the turbocharger then takes-over from the supercharger. Of course the turbocharger is run by the exhaust while the supercharger is run by the electrical system.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most often I would avoid the weight, complexity, and cost of a hybrid car and get something else instead. And so there are now premium rear-wheel-drive coupes and sedans with 2.0 turbocharged engines and no hybrid system. These cars are available from BMW, Cadillac, Chevrolet Camaro, Genesis, Jaguar, Kia, Lexus, and Mercedes Benz. In fact, BMW, Jaguar, and MB also have roadsters with 2.0 turbocharged engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the 2.0 turbocharged engine reduces vehicle weight compared to a V6 engine but make almost as much power as a V6. Furthermore, the 2.0 turbocharged engines have a large amount of low-end torque and are easy to drive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two cars with 2.0 engines that are not turbocharged are the Mazda MX-5 roadster and the Toyota 86 coupe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notable battery-powered electric-vehicle is the BMW i3 which has a carbon-fiber bodywork such that the car weighs less than 3000 pounds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25803" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="abb21bdd-3207-41b7-b55f-b1c9db20a14c" CreationDate="2020-10-27T23:52:18.143" UserId="6293" Comment="added 34 characters in body" Text="It's an old subject but there is new information with new car configurations coming out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with, I do like turbo-diesels if they also have urea-injection in the exhaust. But most car makers gave up on urea-injection and instead cheated on the emission tests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For hybrids, I recommend using the hybrid system only to assist the primary engine and in that way the hybrid system will last more of the day. Using the hybrid system for an all-electric mode just quickly wipes-out the system. (In fact MB has a hybrid inline-six engine such that an extra-large starter motor just begins moving the car from a stop, at which point the engine picks-up with an electric supercharger, and that gives the single turbocharger time to develop boost such that the turbocharger then takes-over from the supercharger. Of course the turbocharger is run by the exhaust while the supercharger is run by the electrical system.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most often I would avoid the weight, complexity, and cost of a hybrid car and get something else instead. And so there are now premium rear-wheel-drive coupes and sedans with 2.0 turbocharged engines and no hybrid system. These cars are available from BMW, Cadillac, Chevrolet Camaro, Genesis, Jaguar, Kia, Lexus, and Mercedes Benz. In fact, BMW, Jaguar, and MB also have rear-wheel-drive roadsters with 2.0 turbocharged engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the 2.0 turbocharged engine reduces vehicle weight compared to a V6 engine but make almost as much power as a V6. Furthermore, the 2.0 turbocharged engines have a large amount of low-end torque and are easy to drive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two rear-wheel-drive cars with 2.0 engines that are not turbocharged are the Mazda MX-5 roadster and the Toyota 86 coupe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notable battery-powered electric-vehicle is the BMW i3 which has a carbon-fiber bodywork such that the car weighs less than 3000 pounds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="dfed874d-7323-44e5-9b40-78da5a1df7c2" CreationDate="2020-10-27T23:59:30.713" UserId="6293" Comment="added 61 characters in body" Text="It's an old subject but there is new information with new car configurations coming out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with, I do like turbo-diesels if they also have urea-injection in the exhaust. But most car makers gave up on urea-injection and instead cheated on the emission tests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For hybrids, I recommend using the hybrid system only to assist the primary engine and in that way the hybrid system will last more of the day. Using the hybrid system for an all-electric mode just quickly wipes-out the system. (In fact MB has a hybrid inline-six engine such that an extra-large starter motor just begins moving the car from a stop, at which point the engine picks-up with an electric supercharger, and that gives the single turbocharger time to develop boost such that the turbocharger then takes-over from the supercharger. Of course the turbocharger is run by the exhaust while the supercharger is run by the electrical system.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most often I would avoid the weight, complexity, and cost of a hybrid car and get something else instead. And so there are now premium rear-wheel-drive coupes and sedans with 2.0 turbocharged engines and no hybrid system. These cars are available from BMW, Cadillac, Chevrolet Camaro, Genesis, Jaguar, Kia, Lexus, and Mercedes Benz. In fact, BMW, Jaguar, and MB also have rear-wheel-drive roadsters with 2.0 turbocharged engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the 2.0 turbocharged engine reduces vehicle weight compared to a V6 engine but make almost as much power as a V6. Furthermore, the 2.0 turbocharged engines have a large amount of low-end torque and are easy to drive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two rear-wheel-drive cars with 2.0 engines that are not turbocharged are the Mazda MX-5 roadster and the Toyota 86 coupe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notable battery-powered electric-vehicle is the BMW i3 which has a carbon-fiber bodywork such that the car weighs less than 3000 pounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, consider the new model cars that are coming-out but that have actually been available for a few years now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25805" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10324" RevisionGUID="d3591ddf-2395-4a50-a3d4-60a23df32c0c" CreationDate="2020-10-28T00:29:00.457" UserId="6293" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="It's an old subject but there is new information with new car configurations coming out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To start with, I do like turbo-diesels if they also have urea-injection in the exhaust. But most car makers gave up on urea-injection and instead cheated on the emission tests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For hybrids, I recommend using the hybrid system only to assist the primary engine and in that way the hybrid system will last more of the day. Using the hybrid system for an all-electric mode just quickly wipes-out the system. (In fact MB has a hybrid 3.0 inline-six engine such that an extra-large starter motor just begins moving the car from a stop, at which point the engine picks-up with an electric supercharger, and that gives the single turbocharger time to develop boost such that the turbocharger then takes-over from the supercharger. Of course the turbocharger is run by the exhaust while the supercharger is run by the electrical system.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But most often I would avoid the weight, complexity, and cost of a hybrid car and get something else instead. And so there are now premium rear-wheel-drive coupes and sedans with 2.0 turbocharged engines and no hybrid system. These cars are available from BMW, Cadillac, Chevrolet Camaro, Genesis, Jaguar, Kia, Lexus, and Mercedes Benz. In fact, BMW, Jaguar, and MB also have rear-wheel-drive roadsters with 2.0 turbocharged engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now the 2.0 turbocharged engine reduces vehicle weight compared to a V6 engine but make almost as much power as a V6. Furthermore, the 2.0 turbocharged engines have a large amount of low-end torque and are easy to drive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two rear-wheel-drive cars with 2.0 engines that are not turbocharged are the Mazda MX-5 roadster and the Toyota 86 coupe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The notable battery-powered electric-vehicle is the BMW i3 which has a carbon-fiber bodywork such that the car weighs less than 3000 pounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, consider the new model cars that are coming-out but that have actually been available for a few years now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10325" RevisionGUID="1244429c-627d-4d97-b049-23079cd7fc38" CreationDate="2020-10-28T11:06:59.027" UserId="9072" Text="In the mining university of leoben they have recycling engineering bachelor and masters. But its in german." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10325" RevisionGUID="470c2aea-5093-4a82-a715-9937bd67459b" CreationDate="2020-10-28T12:27:29.757" UserId="99" Comment="Added links" Text="At the mining university of Leoben they have recycling engineering [bachelor](https://www.unileoben.ac.at/studium/bachelor/bsc-studien-im-bereich-recycling) and [masters](https://www.unileoben.ac.at/studium/master/msc-studien-im-bereich-recycling). But it's in german." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25814" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="e0974688-b50c-4501-9935-befdf33e59d2" CreationDate="2020-10-28T23:00:30.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3230" RevisionGUID="79e731c2-7ea6-4766-a5e1-3935231a1ac7" CreationDate="2020-10-29T01:49:25.267" UserId="400" Comment="added 528 characters in body" Text="There are some issues with this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Internally the drip catcher tray is exposed to the air currents running through the compressor.  As such, it will have dust, pollen, and general crud -- Pretty much what you find on your swiffer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Sometimes these catch trays are designed cheaply, so the water doesn't drain until it gets to be 1/8 to 3/4&quot; deep.  So you have dirt soup.  All kinds of stuff find this a happy place to live.  (Wasn't Legionnaires Disease traced to mold in water in an air conditioner?)  This damp tray of stuff is responsible for some of the odd smells that come out of an air conditioner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall I would prefer to drink from a fresh mud puddle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could you run it through reverse osmosis?  Yes.  I'd want to run it through a good filter first to get out the crud.   Indeed:  If you know that there is nothing toxic on the tray liner (galvanized steel say) then filtering may be enough before UV treatment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:  The amount of water isn't huge. Not having lived with an air conditioner, I can't say for sure, but I'd be surprised it it were more than a few gallons a day. This is too much work to salvage a couple of toilet flushes a day in the cooling season.  Direct the drain hose to your favorite tree.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For water conservation, you have much better targets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Grey water -- everything but the toilet and kitchen sink/dishwasher drain.  This water is unfit to drink, and contains soap and dirt.  Neither of these harm plants.  It is quite reasonable to internally divert this, and either drop into a cistern that you use for watering in your yard, or run to a tiny wetland where it can soak into the earth. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this process is  trickier in climates where you have extended periods of frozen ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addendum in response to comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For years I had a neighbour who, to save water costs diverted his washing machine through a 6 foot pipe to a pond which he then used for watering his garden.  No problems were seen around the pond and I can testify that the garden produced wizard squash.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Observations of culverts where there is splashing on the water hitting the pond below:  There are lots of natural soaps.  2-3 inches of foam below a culvert draining land that hadn't had a chemical sprayed on them in 10 years...&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25816" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10327" RevisionGUID="92806616-ea8b-407c-bea2-a77af41f3ecd" CreationDate="2020-10-29T01:56:38.783" UserId="400" Text="The small ones aren't too bad. Conventional rototiller will take care of them.  Two inch is pushing what a rototiller can handle.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of those &quot;20-20 hindsight is wonderful&quot; momemnts.  It's a lot easier to remove stumps while attached to the tree.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method 1: Use a mould board plough.  (or mold board plow in the U.S.) Ideally this one will have a large heavy tractor in front of it.  Were this my problem I'd want a 50 hp tractor on a 2 by 16&quot; plough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method 2:  Buy a 2nd had back hoe.  These are great for removing stumps.  Pick it up, lay it to one side.  Let dry for a week.  Pick up, shake off dirt.  Stack.  Burn.  When you're done, sell the back hoe for about what you paid for it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10328" RevisionGUID="2c8e38c7-d787-4c33-bf7e-e7effd4727f0" CreationDate="2020-10-29T02:06:31.587" UserId="400" Text="Nutshell answer:  Residential use: nil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Commercial use:  Significant.  Any reasonably large building has a larger problem getting rid of extra heat compared to heating.  All those lights and photo-copiers add up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many commercial buildings and large facilities like University campuses will buy power when it's cheap at night and use it to chill water or brine.  This is used during the day to cool off the building.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat pumps are used to move heat from water storage tanks to the air.  Cooler air at night makes the heat pumps more efficient.  However:  Water is not used up.  The same water is reused indefinitely, barring small losses (leaks)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know of a situation where a muni would chill distributed water.  However the University I worked at had a central power plant that would chill brine and pump it all over campus for cooling during the day. The same system was used to heat the buildings during the chilly parts of the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25818" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10329" RevisionGUID="e48b94f5-6399-47dc-af65-b62381ad1024" CreationDate="2020-10-29T02:12:03.607" UserId="9007" Text="There's No &quot;Wasting&quot; water down the drain is treated and returned to the environment........Water doesn't get lost, it just moves from place to place and state to state (vapour, liquid, solid). The hydrological cycle we are part of." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10330" RevisionGUID="23bbbf7f-5520-48e1-8312-6d709782d61b" CreationDate="2020-10-29T02:49:43.943" UserId="9007" Text="At sea, distillation is often more preferred to reverse osmosis systems. Navies still use this Method for production of water because it's efficient, it often uses the ships waste heat from it's engines to flash boil water." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25820" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10331" RevisionGUID="4155e2ad-845b-4499-bfd4-008e8ea130ab" CreationDate="2020-10-29T13:02:02.790" UserId="9079" Text="I have recently moved into a property that needs refurbishment and insulation. It has late 60s - early 70s cavity walls.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wanted to work out what the current U value is across the property and what EPS insulation in the cavity would do to improve it based on published thermal conductivity values. I have also added calculations for the loft space, using a base layer and top-up layer of insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;Walls			&#xD;&#xA;Outer leaf value		Brick	0.90	W/m.K&#xD;&#xA;Outer leaf thickness			102.50	mm&#xD;&#xA;Outer leaf R value				0.11	m²K/W&#xD;&#xA;Insulation value		EPS		0.03	W/m.K&#xD;&#xA;Insulation thickness			100.00	mm&#xD;&#xA;Insulation R value				3.23	m²K/W&#xD;&#xA;Inner leaf value		Block	0.20	W/m.K&#xD;&#xA;Inner leaf thickness			100.00	mm&#xD;&#xA;Inner leaf R value				0.50	m²K/W&#xD;&#xA;Total R value					3.84	m²K/W&#xD;&#xA;Total U value					0.26	W/m².K&#xD;&#xA;			&#xD;&#xA;Loft			&#xD;&#xA;Tiles value				Tile	0.56	W/m.K&#xD;&#xA;Tiles thickness					20.00	mm&#xD;&#xA;Tiles R value					0.04	m²K/W&#xD;&#xA;Insulation value		Bottom	0.04	W/m.K&#xD;&#xA;Insulation thickness			100.00	mm&#xD;&#xA;Insulation R value				2.27	m²K/W&#xD;&#xA;Insulation 2 value		Top up	0.04	W/m.K&#xD;&#xA;Insulation 2 thickness			170.00	mm&#xD;&#xA;Insulation 2 R value			3.86	m²K/W&#xD;&#xA;Total R value					6.17	m²K/W&#xD;&#xA;Total U value					0.16	W/m².K&#xD;&#xA;			&#xD;&#xA;Windows (stated in brochure)			&#xD;&#xA;Total U value					1.40	W/m².K&#xD;&#xA;			&#xD;&#xA;Sliding doors (stated in brochure)			&#xD;&#xA;Total U value					1.60	W/m².K&#xD;&#xA;```&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Am I roughly along the right lines for my calculations? There are some pretty big tolerances based on the type of brick and some confusion around how to get a total U value for a combination of layers. I'd love to nail these values so I can show measurable improvement in the property's heat retention credentials." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10331" RevisionGUID="4155e2ad-845b-4499-bfd4-008e8ea130ab" CreationDate="2020-10-29T13:02:02.790" UserId="9079" Text="Calculating U values - Am I doing it correctly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25822" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10331" RevisionGUID="4155e2ad-845b-4499-bfd4-008e8ea130ab" CreationDate="2020-10-29T13:02:02.790" UserId="9079" Text="|heating|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10333" RevisionGUID="db28b5ec-0532-4395-bcc9-7605f7d64578" CreationDate="2020-10-29T19:46:02.970" UserId="6870" Text="I recently experimented with storing &quot;frozen edamame&quot; in my refrigerator for 7 days (about 45 degrees F/7 deg C), instead of the freezer. There were seemingly no ill effects. So that made me wonder:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the effects are of storing vegetables that are intended to be frozen in a refrigerator instead, for a time range of 1-30 days? What major factors affect this and how?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly interested in this ~7 deg C temperature, and I'm mostly interested in bean-type vegetables like edamame, peas, green beans, etc." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10333" RevisionGUID="db28b5ec-0532-4395-bcc9-7605f7d64578" CreationDate="2020-10-29T19:46:02.970" UserId="6870" Text="Effects of refrigerating vegetables that I'm supposed to freeze" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10333" RevisionGUID="db28b5ec-0532-4395-bcc9-7605f7d64578" CreationDate="2020-10-29T19:46:02.970" UserId="6870" Text="|electricity|cooling|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25828" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10334" RevisionGUID="1bb88df0-ad22-4802-8ffa-d355ea28e129" CreationDate="2020-10-29T20:53:11.043" UserId="2345" Text="Bacteria grow well at temperatures between 4 C and 60 C, generally, the warmer the better for the bacteria.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally refrigerators are set to operate at temperatures around 4 C. Freezers operate at temperatures below zero degrees Celsius. Most bacteria do not thrive in such cold temperatures. Mould/Mold also like warm temperatures and as with bacteria, the warmer the better and like bacteria, mould does not  thrive in the cold of freezers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food stored in freezers is less likely to be affected by bacteria or mould and thus can be preserved for a considerable length of time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If food is left in the refrigerator at 4 C, or thereabouts, mould and bacteria can establish colonies on food and spoil the food. The spoilage time for such food can be as short as 14 days, depending on local conditions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25829" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10333" RevisionGUID="f057775a-debe-47e6-a6b4-b85ed3e69c10" CreationDate="2020-10-29T21:04:11.523" UserId="6870" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="I recently experimented with storing &quot;frozen edamame&quot; in my refrigerator for 7 days (about 45 degrees F/7 deg C), instead of the freezer. There were seemingly no ill effects. So that made me wonder:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the effects are of storing vegetables that are intended to be frozen in a refrigerator instead, for a time range of 1-30 days? What major factors affect this and how?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly interested in this ~4 deg C temperature (thanks to [Fred][1]), and I'm mostly interested in bean-type vegetables like edamame, peas, green beans, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/2345/fred" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10335" RevisionGUID="79e152f4-8a66-4533-ac68-9253a4cecf10" CreationDate="2020-10-29T22:27:13.587" UserId="659" Text="*What are the gotchas in comparing the prices of similar objects to determine sustainability?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What do you mean by &quot;[sustainable][1]&quot;** (an early question here). Some people focus only on short-term financial sustainability ... &quot;do I have enough money to buy this?&quot;. A more documented example of the other extreme is The Green Party(s), who have their four pillars (Ecological wisdom. Social justice. Grassroots democracy. Nonviolence) from which they derive many definitions of sustainable (socially, economically, ecologically, etc). Inevitably there are tradeoffs that vary between people, like buying the locally grown produce even though it's picked by indentured laborers rather than the stuff air-freighted from a country with stronger labour laws. That's without considering questions like chemical vs conventional vs regenerative vs organic agriculture, for example. Or separating the cost of production from the cost of recycling, whether that be plastics, metals or carcinogens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Decide how you measure price**. If money is the measure what does a google search cost? If human lives are the measure does that mean eating people is ok? How do you value irrepairable damage (extinction, heavy metal pollution)? If you use a polyvalue system, how do you resolve conflicts (for example no greenhouse gas emissions, but produces long-lived radioactive waste)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What counts as similar**. Is a widget made by slave labour really &quot;similar&quot; to one made by union labour? Is eating dolphin meat really &quot;similar&quot; to eating kangaroo? Can you separate a sustainable chunk of a homogenised product ([Aotearoa's consumer law][2] has decided that you can't have carbon neutral electricity while any connected generator isn't carbon neutral, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How much are you willing to invest in research?** Despite what many economists think, perfect knowledge isn't possible and the cost of finding things out can be significant. Even using one of the many &quot;sustainable shopping guides&quot; means finding one and deciding how much you trust it. This leads back to the question &quot;can I just use retail price?&quot; because that's a nice simple number that's easy to find out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5638/what-is-the-definition-of-sustainable&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/30-10-2020/conscious-consumers-beware-green-energy-isnt-as-straightforward-as-you-think/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10335" RevisionGUID="12812ed1-fa1b-4321-b139-53bae4e21e2f" CreationDate="2020-10-29T22:32:21.887" UserId="659" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="*What are the gotchas in comparing the prices of similar objects to determine sustainability?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What do you mean by &quot;[sustainable][1]&quot;** (an early question here). Some people focus only on short-term financial sustainability ... &quot;do I have enough money to buy this?&quot;. A more documented example of the other extreme is The Green Party(s), who have their four pillars (Ecological wisdom. Social justice. Grassroots democracy. Nonviolence) from which they derive many definitions of sustainable (socially, economically, ecologically, etc). Inevitably there are tradeoffs that vary between people, like buying the locally grown produce even though it's picked by indentured laborers rather than the stuff air-freighted from a country with stronger labour laws. That's without considering questions like chemical vs conventional vs regenerative vs organic agriculture etc. Or separating the cost of production from the cost of recycling, whether that be plastics, metals or carcinogens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Decide how you measure price**. If money is the measure what does a google search cost? If human lives are the measure does that mean eating people is ok? How do you value irrepairable damage (extinction, heavy metal pollution)? If you use a polyvalue system, how do you resolve conflicts (for example no greenhouse gas emissions, but produces long-lived radioactive waste)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What counts as similar**. Is a widget made by slave labour really &quot;similar&quot; to one made by union labour? Is eating dolphin meat really &quot;similar&quot; to eating kangaroo? Can you separate a sustainable chunk of a homogenised product ([Aotearoa's consumer law][2] has decided that you can't have renewable electricity while any connected generator isn't renewable, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How much are you willing to invest in research?** Despite what many economists think, perfect knowledge isn't possible and the cost of finding things out can be significant. Using a &quot;sustainable shopping guides&quot; means finding one and deciding how much you trust it. This leads back to the question &quot;can I just use retail price?&quot; because that's a nice simple number that's easy to find out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5638/what-is-the-definition-of-sustainable&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/30-10-2020/conscious-consumers-beware-green-energy-isnt-as-straightforward-as-you-think/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25832" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10336" RevisionGUID="3b69b9ca-4494-4e98-b659-30b68f386f51" CreationDate="2020-10-30T09:28:11.960" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20328/how-to-account-for-second-life-usage-of-lithium-ion-batteries-in-a-life-cycle-an" />
  <row Id="25833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10336" RevisionGUID="73a45562-75ac-4d25-80b0-7d11147e77e7" CreationDate="2020-10-13T18:47:08.687" UserDisplayName="Runeaway3" Text="I am looking to conduct a life cycle analysis to investigate the total greenhouse gas (GHG) contributions from lithium ion batteries (LIBs). The first part of their lifecycle is relatively straightforward. GHGs from raw material extraction, refinement, and cell/pack production (including required energy) are intuitive. The use phase is also somewhat easy to do. My question is regarding the second life. How does second life application of an LIB (say... in stationary storage) impact the life cycle emissions of an LIB? If the battery is used in a stationary storage application, I would imagine this is beneficial to its LCA GHGs. However, *how* does this mathematically play out? Is it in new LIB-manufactured avoidance? Is it in replacement of a more GHG-intensive stationary storage alternative? How do I account for the second life benefit of the LIB?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25834" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10336" RevisionGUID="73a45562-75ac-4d25-80b0-7d11147e77e7" CreationDate="2020-10-13T18:47:08.687" UserDisplayName="Runeaway3" Text="How to account for second life usage of lithium ion batteries in a life cycle analysis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25835" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10336" RevisionGUID="73a45562-75ac-4d25-80b0-7d11147e77e7" CreationDate="2020-10-13T18:47:08.687" UserDisplayName="Runeaway3" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25836" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10337" RevisionGUID="329bea1d-c995-4284-bac5-ce4b68786c83" CreationDate="2020-10-30T09:28:11.960" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20328/how-to-account-for-second-life-usage-of-lithium-ion-batteries-in-a-life-cycle-an/20340#20340" />
  <row Id="25837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10337" RevisionGUID="47c3443b-f61e-45d1-a2d9-82a35572a571" CreationDate="2020-10-14T23:51:06.713" UserDisplayName="Ronsaik" Text="It's important to have a consistent approach towards measuring emissions in this case. &#xD;&#xA;Take the approaches below:&#xD;&#xA;Approach 1: measurement of the incremental GHG emissions from manufacturing 1 kwh of LiB capacity in this world. &#xD;&#xA;Here, the GHG from the upstream steps of extraction, refining, and battery production are included. This 1 kwh is going into an EV, in whose use there is a GHG amount equivalent to the grid emission factor (or whatever relevant EF applies) times the kwh usage / day x life of the EV. Here, you need to subtract the GHG from the ICE vehicle that it is displacing. In its second life, the GHG emissions are negative, and given by the avoided emissions (there is a standard methodology to work that out which you can look up elsewhere).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Approach 2: measurement of the absolute GHG emissions. Here, you repeat the steps in Approach 1 but you don't include the avoided emissions from ICE vehicles nor the avoided emissions in its second life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see the output of Approach 1 as being meaningful, while that of Approach 2 serving no practical purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25838" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10336" RevisionGUID="b86d59d1-c50a-42ff-9e9f-5e9fa04f8b6d" CreationDate="2020-10-30T09:28:25.793" UserId="106" Comment="edited tags" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25839" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="4456578f-0861-4656-a330-52098f4fbea1" CreationDate="2020-10-30T09:57:28.030" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/20335/is-hygenic-earth-energy-feasible" />
  <row Id="25840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="7aa67039-dc09-412a-8aef-f52f4854dd98" CreationDate="2020-10-14T18:21:37.517" UserDisplayName="juan Isaza" Text="&#xD;&#xA;This company:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://proton.energy/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is trying to inject oxygen into old oil wells for it to combust and extract only hydrogen using steam reforming and a filter. Making steam reforming happen underground and thus leaving all the CO2 underneath. Short explanation here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MU3BoEt-FM&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a feasible approach?&#xD;&#xA;What hurdles can there be?&#xD;&#xA;Why nobody else seems to be trying this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25841" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="7aa67039-dc09-412a-8aef-f52f4854dd98" CreationDate="2020-10-14T18:21:37.517" UserDisplayName="juan Isaza" Text="Is Hygenic Earth Energy feasible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25842" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="7aa67039-dc09-412a-8aef-f52f4854dd98" CreationDate="2020-10-14T18:21:37.517" UserDisplayName="juan Isaza" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25843" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="a8dcd7f2-1142-49e7-9ac6-3488b1b5b0cd" CreationDate="2020-10-30T09:57:57.787" UserId="106" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25844" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10336" RevisionGUID="2639b991-4e5c-4fb6-a7c8-c7a0b7aa37fe" CreationDate="2020-10-30T16:27:39.770" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting and tags." Text="I am looking to conduct a life cycle analysis (LCA) to investigate the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emission contributions from lithium ion (Li-ion) batteries. The first part of their lifecycle is relatively straightforward. GHGs from raw material extraction, refinement, and cell/pack production (including required energy) are intuitive. The use phase is also somewhat easy to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is regarding the second life. **How does second life application of a Li-ion battery (say... in stationary storage) impact the life cycle emissions?** If the battery is used in a stationary storage application, I would imagine this is beneficial to its LCA GHGs. However, *how* does this mathematically play out? Is it in new battery-manufactured avoidance? Is it in replacement of a more GHG-intensive stationary storage alternative? How do I account for the second life benefit of the battery?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25845" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10336" RevisionGUID="2639b991-4e5c-4fb6-a7c8-c7a0b7aa37fe" CreationDate="2020-10-30T16:27:39.770" UserId="3379" Comment="Formatting and tags." Text="|life-cycle-analysis|greenhouse-gas-emissions|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25846" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10336" RevisionGUID="9bb20f93-6ac8-4852-9dd0-bb8c34d15919" CreationDate="2020-10-31T09:00:05.570" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1322463342095716352" />
  <row Id="25847" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="eaf46221-7242-43ae-8185-2bf18891d575" CreationDate="2020-10-31T13:30:39.313" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|decarbonisation|hydrogen-fuel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10339" RevisionGUID="41f5b1d5-061a-4762-ac90-ef8facb1416c" CreationDate="2020-11-01T10:36:47.173" UserId="8448" Text="Is this due to cost, or infrastructure, or path dependency, or incentives?  &#xD;&#xA;I understand that batteries are more efficient ([1][1]) - but this does not take into account the quantity of rare materials required for batteries vs. hydrogen ([2][2]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.volkswagenag.com/de/news/stories/2019/08/hydrogen-or-battery--that-is-the-question.html#&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9595/are-there-any-unsustainable-supply-chain-issues-unique-to-hydrogen-fuel-cell-veh/9596#9596" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10339" RevisionGUID="41f5b1d5-061a-4762-ac90-ef8facb1416c" CreationDate="2020-11-01T10:36:47.173" UserId="8448" Text="Why do most car manufacturers prefer electric batteries over hydrogen fuel cells?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10339" RevisionGUID="41f5b1d5-061a-4762-ac90-ef8facb1416c" CreationDate="2020-11-01T10:36:47.173" UserId="8448" Text="|cars|decarbonisation|electric-vehicles|hydrogen-fuel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10340" RevisionGUID="9b963042-6e3b-420b-8db2-ecc4dd51273a" CreationDate="2020-11-01T12:58:24.060" UserId="99" Text="The proton.energy website is very optimistic, maybe a bit too much. I see a number of (potential) problems:&#xD;&#xA;- The technology uses &quot;hydrocarbon reservoirs&quot; which is a different word for existing oil and gas fields, so that makes the resulting fuel non-renewable.&#xD;&#xA;- The exact process is not clear to me, but [the paper they link to](https://proton.energy/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Marguerite-Lake-In-situ-Hydrogen-paper.pdf) talks about water being injected and that may not be readily available in some situations (e.g. middle east deserts). On the other hand [this page](https://proton.energy/proton-process/) doesn't say anything about water, so perhaps they are using a different process?&#xD;&#xA;- It's not clear to me how they are preventing other gases to escape when they pump up the hydrogen. Current oil extraction also involves capturing or flaring natural gas, which contributes to rising CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; levels&#xD;&#xA;- Hydrogen can be transported in current gas pipelines as the website claims, but some minor modifications are needed and the &quot;without hardware changes&quot; claimed by the website does not seem entirely incorrect&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not to say that (some of) these problems cannot be solved, but at the moment I'm still a bit skeptical. I don't think it will be as easy as the website suggests and I do wonder how close to carbon-neutral the resulting fuel will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1) Hydrogen makes metal brittle and despite all the reports that say current gas pipelines can be used with only small modifications, so far I haven't seen a good solution for this. Then again, this is outside of my knowledge area so perhaps there is a good solution.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10343" RevisionGUID="0e8d0f8a-3a8f-4cfc-88f5-95c84bc245b6" CreationDate="2020-11-01T20:21:40.313" UserId="6293" Text="In the U.S. there are tax credits only for battery-powered electric-vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wealthy people don't really mind heavy vehicles or expensive vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Truck buyers like the torque of battery-powered electric-vehicles and then don't mind the weight of the batteries. (Fuel-cell electric-vehicles actually have less performance than battery-powered electric-vehicles but then the average car-buyer gets more acceleration than they can really handle with battery-powered electric vehicles. Well, when the battery-powered electric-vehicle attempts to reach the same range as fuel-cell electric-vehicles then battery-powered electric-vehicle weight goes through the roof but so does vehicle performance.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are not very many hydrogen fueling stations in the U.S. outside of California. Blame that situation on the federal government as well. Well, the federal government could build hydrogen fueling stations or federal legislation could require that the powergrid buy electricity from hydrogen fueling stations such that the hydrogen fueling stations would then have two business models. (Now the city of Hempstead NY has a hydrogen fueling station at Point Lookout.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now long-haul trucks, city buses, and trains are likely to go to hydrogen-fuel-cells because they can use centralized fueling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25859" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10343" RevisionGUID="c2e3131c-e569-44d2-b8e8-58d854ea5fc4" CreationDate="2020-11-01T20:28:10.553" UserId="6293" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="In the U.S. there are tax credits only for battery-powered electric-vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wealthy people don't really mind heavy vehicles or expensive vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Truck buyers like the torque of battery-powered electric-vehicles and then don't mind the weight of the batteries. (Fuel-cell electric-vehicles actually have less performance than battery-powered electric-vehicles but then the average car-buyer gets more acceleration than they can really handle with battery-powered electric vehicles. Well, when the battery-powered electric-vehicle attempts to reach the same range as fuel-cell electric-vehicles then battery-powered electric-vehicle weight goes through the roof but so does vehicle performance.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are not very many hydrogen fueling stations in the U.S. outside of California. Blame that situation on the federal government as well. Well, the federal government could build hydrogen fueling stations or federal legislation could require that the powergrid buy electricity from hydrogen fueling stations such that the hydrogen fueling stations would then have two business models. (Now the city of Hempstead NY has a hydrogen fueling station at Point Lookout.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now long-haul trucks, city buses, and trains are likely to go to hydrogen-fuel-cells because they can use centralized fueling and because they are already very heavy but need range." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10344" RevisionGUID="a789415d-e75b-4acb-8fce-9ea6e76c4c9d" CreationDate="2020-11-01T20:40:40.510" UserId="2345" Text="There are a number of issues with hydrogen as an energy source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, there is a lack of infrastructure for hydrogen. The same can be said for battery charging, but slowly the number of battery charging stations is increasing. Nothing comparable has yet been done for hydrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Sourcing hydrogen][1] is another problem. The main ideas for sourcing hydrogen is to split the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen using [electrolysis][2]. The two problems with that is countries with ocean coastlines have an advantage. The other is the energy required to split water molecules  is significant and requires electricity. To provide the electricity required, large solar energy farms, supplemented by wind farms would be required. If electricity is being generated to split water molecules it is more efficient to direct that energy into battery storage. Also, if sea water is used, one of the waste products will be salt, that will need to be disposed of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Storing [hydrogen in tanks][3] has its problems too. There is an issue with hydrogen leaking from its containment vessel. Because the hydrogen molecule (H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) is very small it has a tendency to maneuver past the atoms with the walls of its containment vessel and escape. This leads to the other issue with hydrogen, [safety][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen is not only highly flammable it is explosive! Ensuring leaking hydrogen does not contact naked flames or sparks or other sources if ignition is a major safety concern. Because of this hydrogen fuel tanks need to be strengthened to prevent the tanks from leaking or rupturing during collisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-electrolysis&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.php/hydrogen-fuel-tanks/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25861" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10345" RevisionGUID="baa286ca-a891-4f2b-9ad1-14eb2bf0d39d" CreationDate="2020-11-01T22:23:49.583" UserId="5292" Text="Glazing is expensive and causes thermal loss. With those two considerations in mind, what configuration of windows is the most efficient in terms of reducing the area used by windows and maximizing a room brightness? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, are windows in the upper part of a wall more efficient in capturing sunlight or in the bottom half? or, is there a considerable difference between many elongated rectangular windows and one big pane of glass?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any equations that describe this relationship?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these questions assume that windows are placed in the sun-facing wall of a building, but I would also like to know about the efficiency (understood in terms of thermal loss and lighting) of skylights.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25862" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10345" RevisionGUID="baa286ca-a891-4f2b-9ad1-14eb2bf0d39d" CreationDate="2020-11-01T22:23:49.583" UserId="5292" Text="What is the most efficient disposition of windows to prevent thermal loss and improve lighting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25863" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10345" RevisionGUID="baa286ca-a891-4f2b-9ad1-14eb2bf0d39d" CreationDate="2020-11-01T22:23:49.583" UserId="5292" Text="|glazing|thermal-regulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25864" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10320" RevisionGUID="4d4a6e50-7eac-48a1-b094-50b5a183cefe" CreationDate="2020-11-02T05:04:51.450" UserId="659" Comment="spelling (sorry)" Text="If you have a tractor that can drive over them a [flail mower][1] should work. If you intend to mow anything on the property it would be worth looking into a flail mower because they're very useful (and can also be used to shred fallen timber and for light brush clearing). We used to have one for the orchard and used it to reduce the debris from trimming shelter belts as well as mowing between rows (&quot;debris&quot; being anything up to 10cm thick, you just mow along the length a few times and then it's woodchips).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail_mower" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25865" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10346" RevisionGUID="bf55bad4-05c0-4e21-ab58-c80445cf79bd" CreationDate="2020-11-02T05:14:16.243" UserId="659" Text="This depends primarily on whether you're in a heating or cooling climate. In many places you want to heat the house in winter but cool it in summer, but people also live where they almost always want heating or cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The key search term here seems to be &quot;passive&quot; - I did a couple of searches for &quot;window design passive heating&quot; and &quot;...cooling&quot; and got useful links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.yourhome.gov.au/passive-design/passive-solar-heating (Australia)&#xD;&#xA;https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/energy-efficient-home-design/passive-solar-home-design (États-Unis)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are various equations for the detailed design stage that relate location, orientation and so on to heat gain/loss and light levels as well as structure etc. But those typically aren't very useful for &quot;what should I do&quot; questions so much as &quot;if I do this what happens&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: the difference between a given area of glazing as multiple panes vs a single pane is often cost rather than performance, at least until you get into panes big enough to cause structural problems (you *can* build a glass house, but...). There are edge effects from the window frames but those are generally minor for moderately sized windows. Windows are sometimes deliberately recessed to get shading, but that's a decision made during detailed design." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25869" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10349" RevisionGUID="68c027c1-76ed-434d-82e2-5f5250387f4f" CreationDate="2020-11-02T18:28:32.230" UserId="8934" Text="When wind and solar generate surplus energy, can it be used to break water into oxygen and hydrogen and to store the gases in liquid form for later use as an energy source?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Was this ever tried in any electric grid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the energy efficiency of this method?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25870" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10349" RevisionGUID="68c027c1-76ed-434d-82e2-5f5250387f4f" CreationDate="2020-11-02T18:28:32.230" UserId="8934" Text="Water electrolysis for storing energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25871" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10349" RevisionGUID="68c027c1-76ed-434d-82e2-5f5250387f4f" CreationDate="2020-11-02T18:28:32.230" UserId="8934" Text="|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10350" RevisionGUID="c8f41b4d-a37a-49ee-b961-3d241c5b2ab6" CreationDate="2020-11-02T18:48:40.067" UserId="6293" Text="China, Japan, and South Korea are buying hydrogen that is either made using renewable electricity or that has the carbon from production then captured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen is easier to ship and store in the form of ammonia-gas. Then ammonia-gas can be converted back into hydrogen with only the release of nitrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electric powerplants in Japan are just burning the hydrogen along with along with natural-gas so as to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. But South Korea is known to have a large number of hydrogen-fuel-cells for producing electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the western U.S., salt caverns are being dug for the storage of hydrogen. But actually if the electric powerplants were required to capture carbon-dioxide then they might just buy hydrogen instead. And then massive storage of hydrogen would not be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is something else happening, and petro-chemical companies are capturing carbon-dioxide at refineries, combining with hydrogen made using renewable electricity, and producing carbon-neutral liquid fuels or producing carbon-neutral synthetic gas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10350" RevisionGUID="de278fda-9e8c-46a1-b8f1-0ed55883543e" CreationDate="2020-11-02T18:55:27.543" UserId="6293" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="China, Japan, and South Korea are buying hydrogen that is either made using renewable electricity or that has the carbon from production then captured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen is easier to ship and store in the form of ammonia-gas. Then ammonia-gas can be converted back into hydrogen with only the release of nitrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electric powerplants in Japan are just burning the hydrogen along with along with natural-gas so as to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. But South Korea is known to have a large number of hydrogen-fuel-cells for producing electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the western U.S., salt caverns are being dug for the storage of hydrogen. But actually if the electric powerplants were required to capture carbon-dioxide then they might just buy hydrogen instead. And then massive storage of hydrogen would not be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is something else happening, and petro-chemical companies are capturing carbon-dioxide at refineries, combining with hydrogen made using renewable electricity, and producing carbon-neutral liquid fuels or producing carbon-neutral synthetic gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, captured carbon-dioxide can be combined with renewable electricity and with catalysts to produce plastics that are used in long-term building materials. But this system is not yet being tested on an industrial scale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10350" RevisionGUID="424abe1b-faba-4588-99fb-6a2fbe676726" CreationDate="2020-11-02T19:02:28.080" UserId="6293" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="China, Japan, and South Korea are buying hydrogen that is either made using renewable electricity or that has the carbon from production then captured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen is easier to ship and store in the form of ammonia-gas. Then ammonia-gas can be converted back into hydrogen with only the release of nitrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electric powerplants in Japan are just burning the hydrogen along with along with natural-gas so as to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. But South Korea is known to have a large number of hydrogen-fuel-cells for producing electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the western U.S., salt caverns are being dug for the storage of hydrogen. But actually if the electric powerplants were required to capture carbon-dioxide then they might just buy hydrogen instead. And then massive storage of hydrogen would not be needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there is something else happening, and petro-chemical companies are capturing carbon-dioxide at refineries, combining with hydrogen made using renewable electricity, and producing carbon-neutral liquid fuels or producing carbon-neutral synthetic gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, captured carbon-dioxide can be combined with renewable electricity and with catalysts to produce plastics that are used in long-term building materials. But this system is not yet being tested on an industrial scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The efficiency of producing hydrogen from electrolysis of water or from fossil fuels with the carbon captured, just seems to be in the higher price of the hydrogen. But there is demand for hydrogen that is accounted as zero carbon release.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, excess renewable electricity that does not match up to the demands of the powergrid needs to go somewhere. Then compare the cost of hydrogen production to the cost of battery storage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25875" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10349" RevisionGUID="76fcd1eb-75ac-42d9-b877-4b95f26fc9fe" CreationDate="2020-11-03T02:28:56.967" />
  <row Id="25876" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="402ccef4-292b-48df-9e69-afbd716160ba" CreationDate="2020-11-04T03:01:10.123" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25878" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10327" RevisionGUID="da1b61d9-df2f-49b3-b9ad-60c9cc4b861f" CreationDate="2020-11-04T15:46:16.383" UserId="400" Comment="added 728 characters in body" Text="The small ones aren't too bad. Conventional rototiller will take care of them.  Two inch is pushing what a rototiller can handle.  If you are running 10/sq foot there won't be many 2&quot; ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of those &quot;20-20 hindsight is wonderful&quot; momemnts.  It's a lot easier to remove stumps while attached to the tree.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method 1: Use a mould board plough.  (or mold board plow in the U.S.) Ideally this one will have a large heavy tractor in front of it.  Were this my problem I'd want a 50 hp tractor on a 2 by 16&quot; plough.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now make a second path with an old fashioned potato harvester -- the kind that digs them up and leaves them on the surface.  Often cheap at an auction sale.  This leaves the roots on the surface of the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use a landscape rake set at an angle to gather them in windrows, then a second pass to bunch the windrows into burn piles.  Burn the piles.  Then reprocess the piles and gather the remnants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Method 2:  Buy a 2nd had back hoe.  These are great for removing stumps.  Pick it up, lay it to one side.  Let dry for a week.  Pick up, shake off dirt.  Stack.  Burn.  When you're done, sell the back hoe for about what you paid for it.  This is what you would need for 3&quot; stumps.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Talk to a local forestry consultant.  The forestry guys have some serious equipment for cleaning forest land prepping for the next crop of trees.  May be able to hire it done for a thousand bucks an acre." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25879" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10351" RevisionGUID="80d99a72-4ce2-4957-8c2b-318115c9bed5" CreationDate="2020-11-04T16:22:59.473" UserId="9093" Text="A friend of mine have just recently trying to avoid any ultra-processed food, considering health concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However he had already have some in storage room (some have passed their expired date),&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make me wonder if we can still treat them as normal food (&quot;organic&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Understanding it contain lots of hard-to-spell additives, colourant, preservatives, and other chemical beside the actual food itself, which we never know if it can harm the environment or not&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It made me thinking how supermarket dispose all of those food then? I couldn't find answer elsewhere so any input is really appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10351" RevisionGUID="80d99a72-4ce2-4957-8c2b-318115c9bed5" CreationDate="2020-11-04T16:22:59.473" UserId="9093" Text="How to dispose ultra-processed food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10351" RevisionGUID="80d99a72-4ce2-4957-8c2b-318115c9bed5" CreationDate="2020-11-04T16:22:59.473" UserId="9093" Text="|waste|food|composting|organic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25889" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="32a68d61-65c5-4821-aead-be48c56dcae8" CreationDate="2020-11-05T08:06:49.093" UserId="8232" Comment="reworded to remove the XY problem: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/66377/179041" Text="I recently saw a video (almost certain it was on YouTube) about a university department where they had installed some measures to improve their waste management. One of the measures was to no longer put trash cans in each individual office, but rather have bins in a central point in the building (like the hallway). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I want to introduce this idea in my own department, but I cannot for the life of me find the original video I watched. They gave good reasons why to do this, like getting up and moving to take out trash. I remember vaguely that it was a technical department where they also needed to recycle Styrofoam and such. I'm almost certain it was an English speaking university, and different people were interviewed (researchers, professors, ...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone know the video I'm talking about? Alternatively, can anyone list the sorts of benefits one can achieve by removing individual trash cans in favour of communal trash cans in common areas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25890" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="32a68d61-65c5-4821-aead-be48c56dcae8" CreationDate="2020-11-05T08:06:49.093" UserId="8232" Comment="reworded to remove the XY problem: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/66377/179041" Text="In search for information on removing trash cans from individual offices" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25891" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="32a68d61-65c5-4821-aead-be48c56dcae8" CreationDate="2020-11-05T08:06:49.093" UserId="8232" Comment="reworded to remove the XY problem: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/66377/179041" Text="|waste|office|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25892" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="32a68d61-65c5-4821-aead-be48c56dcae8" CreationDate="2020-11-05T08:06:49.093" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 659" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10351" RevisionGUID="ac8e33e7-cbf6-4082-96ce-e5f9d9c9c8be" CreationDate="2020-11-05T08:11:34.827" UserId="99" Comment="Fixed grammar, removed organic as that's most likely not what the OP means" Text="A friend of mine just recently started avoiding any ultra-processed food because of health concerns. However he already had some in his storage room and some have passed their expiration date.This made me wonder if we can still treat it as normal food?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the food contains lots of hard-to-spell additives, colourant, preservatives, and other chemicals beside the actual food itself, and we do not know if it can harm the environment or not. This made me think how supermarkets dispose all of those food then? I couldn't find an answer elsewhere so any input is really appreciated!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25894" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10351" RevisionGUID="ac8e33e7-cbf6-4082-96ce-e5f9d9c9c8be" CreationDate="2020-11-05T08:11:34.827" UserId="99" Comment="Fixed grammar, removed organic as that's most likely not what the OP means" Text="|waste|food|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25895" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10354" RevisionGUID="bafce6b1-c115-4f03-b52f-7f056f84b4c2" CreationDate="2020-11-05T14:45:23.117" UserId="9096" Text="I am looking to calibrate a new battery monitor for an off-grid battery bank that's ~5 years old, since the previous battery monitor stopped working recently. I'm not sure how to go about it given the age of the batteries and the fact that I am not currently able to charge them to 100%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The setup is a 17280w battery bank (24 lead-acid units of 2V each, rated at 360Ah at C5, in series for a total of 48V)  that is charged by solar panels via a Victron SmartSolar MPPT 150/70 [1], and supplies AC current via a Victron Multiplus 48 / 3000 / 35-16 Inverter [2]. I had a Victron BMV-700 battery monitor [3] that has worked well for the past 4 years and 11 months but recently broke. While I try to get the warranty activated I want to use this cheap AiLi monitor [4] to tell me the State of Charge (SOC) (and eventually replace the broken BMV-700 with a repaired one). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I need to calibrate the battery monitor. How would you suggest going about it? A few options / questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. pre-program  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;(A) I could pre-program it for a capacity of 360Ah. This is what I originally did with the BMV-700. I _think_ it worked well, because the batteries still seem to function well, although I don't have any empirical measurement of this beyond &quot;we generally have had power when we needed it&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;(B) pre-program it for a reduced capacity, e.g. 330Ah, to account for the batteries' reduced capacity over 5 years of use. What reduced capacity would be appropriate in this case? FWIW the batteries have rarely discharged down below 60% (as shown by the BMV-700, whatever that's worth) and only twice below 50%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) measure the SOC using a hydrometer (??) and calibrate accordingly? I believe something of this nature is possible, though I don't know exactly how. What are all the factors I'd need to account for? E.g. temperature, water level inside the batteries, initial chemical composition of the liquid? And would I need to measure each of the 24 batteries and then average them out?  How do I convert the measurement into an SOC or capacity estimate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3) Other options?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The instructions for the AiLi monitor suggest calibrating it by telling it when the batteries are at 100%. But due to cloudy weather recently and short days in winter (I'm in northern Italy) I cannot know when the batteries are at 100%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks in advance!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] https://www.victronenergy.com/solar-charge-controllers/smartsolar-mppt-ve.can&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] https://www.off-grid-europe.com/victron-multiplus-48-3000-35-16-inverter-charger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] https://www.victronenergy.com/battery-monitors/bmv-700&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[4] https://www.amazon.com/AiLi-Battery-Monitor-Voltmeter-Motorhome/dp/B07CTKYFTG?th=1&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25896" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10354" RevisionGUID="bafce6b1-c115-4f03-b52f-7f056f84b4c2" CreationDate="2020-11-05T14:45:23.117" UserId="9096" Text="Callibrate a battery monitor for a ~5yr old 360Ah solar panel installation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25897" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10354" RevisionGUID="bafce6b1-c115-4f03-b52f-7f056f84b4c2" CreationDate="2020-11-05T14:45:23.117" UserId="9096" Text="|solar-power|batteries|off-grid|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25899" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10149" RevisionGUID="8dd7f9c7-7f83-46f7-a70c-c9f53d89b0e8" CreationDate="2020-11-05T19:07:30.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25900" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10355" RevisionGUID="af30b440-d211-4a15-811a-4e6bf6407a7c" CreationDate="2020-11-05T23:09:43.427" UserId="6870" Text="**Question:** What are some good electricity-efficient ways to cool an ice pack down to ~5 degrees C once every 48 hours?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Background:** I am in a warm climate and connected to the grid in a US city. I don't freeze anything else regularly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Ideas:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I think the most efficient method is to share a freezer, e.g. find someone with unused freezer capacity and stick my ice pack in there. But I am interested in other methods as well, and how they compare to the sharing method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I do have a high-efficiency freezer with 70L capacity. Maybe this would be the most efficient, even with nothing else inside other than the ice pack?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I know there are those portable thermoelectric coolers, but I'm not sure how efficient those would be, or how well they would function at high ambient temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very similar to this question, only lower capacity: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10168/how-to-get-a-small-volume-of-freezer-capacity-with-high-efficiency-and-low-cost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25901" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10355" RevisionGUID="af30b440-d211-4a15-811a-4e6bf6407a7c" CreationDate="2020-11-05T23:09:43.427" UserId="6870" Text="Efficiently freezing an ice pack once per 48 hours" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25902" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10355" RevisionGUID="af30b440-d211-4a15-811a-4e6bf6407a7c" CreationDate="2020-11-05T23:09:43.427" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|cooling|energy-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10356" RevisionGUID="31149ad7-e229-4016-bc6c-2c0ddf9b0a63" CreationDate="2020-11-06T03:34:45.747" UserId="400" Text="Some years ago I read of an off-grid farmstead in Australia that used a conventional chest freezer as a refrigerator. The way he did it was to use a probe and temperature controlled relay to turn the freezer on and off.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He added 2&quot; of closed cell XPS polyurethane sheet to the front, ends and top, but not the back, as the radiant grid was under the skin there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My recollection that his average power usage was absurdly small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok:  Found a different blog about the same conversion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.aselfsufficientlife.com/chest-freezer-to-fridge-conversion-the-most-energy-efficient-fridge-ever.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He didn't bother with extra insulation.  He reports 0.15 to 0.18 kWh/day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok.  It's not clear if you need a freezer, or if you need a way to make ice packs to keep your food cold.  If the latter, then this is an easy conversion for your mini-freezer.  If the former, you can set the temperature lower, and operate it as a freezer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not mentioned in the article is that a closer to full cooler is thermally more stable.  The mass of all the cold stuff helps the new warm stuff from warming it up much.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General notes on efficiency:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Chest units are more efficient than uprights because cold air doesn't rush out of them and fall on the floor when you open them.&#xD;&#xA;* Small units use less energy than large units, but efficiency/liter is actually lower because the surface is larger compared to the volume.&#xD;&#xA;* More recent units are more efficient than old units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With reasonable amounts of thermal mass in the unit, this is an ideal solar application.  A 300 W solar array will generate about a kWh/day after conversions. (1 kW =&gt; about 1000 kWh/year ranging from about 700-800 in Germany to about 1400 in southern Arizona)  You should have battery storage for about 3-5 kWh  This will also power a laptop, and charge your phone, and allow some LED lighting.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25904" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10357" RevisionGUID="98f0af8f-b634-4d0b-a0cc-ac23011fdfa7" CreationDate="2020-11-06T03:48:56.567" UserId="400" Text="Clarification of terms:  Your tap is the downstream end.  The City water supply is the upstream end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding of your situation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* City&#xD;&#xA;* Waterline&#xD;&#xA;* Building shutoff vale&#xD;&#xA;* Local distribution valve&#xD;&#xA;* Cold wall&#xD;&#xA;* Tap you trickle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know that your building valve and local distribution valve are or are not the same.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You want to know if it's safe to use what I'm calling your local distribution value to keep your water from freezing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I've understood correctly this will NOT work.  For it to work you would have to drain the line in the wall's cold spot.  Since the valve is below you, you can't open your local tap and drain the water in the cold spot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It *could* work if there is a valve that can be used as a drain valve below the cold spot.  E.g.  If there was a sink on first floor at an elevation below your cold spot, then shutting off the valve an opening up the sink tap  would drain all the water above that tap, assuming you opened all the upstairs taps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to reduce your trickling:  Use a digital thermometer, and record the cold water temperature. You're looking for the minimum temp.  You're looking for that slug of water in the cold spot.  Record the outside temperature too.  After a while you will see how cold the outside temp has to be in order to freeze the pipe.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;E.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Water Temp    Outside&#xD;&#xA;    40            20&#xD;&#xA;    38            17&#xD;&#xA;    36            16&#xD;&#xA;    34            14&#xD;&#xA;    32            12&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It won't be this clear.  It will depend on wind, on sun if that wall gets sun, but you should be able to figure out that when the outside temp is going to be below 15, you better run a trickle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25905" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10358" RevisionGUID="75baeab6-a635-474f-9097-7583fad81b0a" CreationDate="2020-11-06T04:00:23.470" UserId="400" Text="I've used them.  I've never been happy with them.  If you do use them you need to follow these rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.  If you wrap them you must have the wraps evenly spaced.  You can't have 3 turns per foot at one end of the pipe and 6 turns per foot at the other end.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.  The temperature sensor (disk on the orange blob) must be pressed tightly against the pipe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.  The full length of the pipe must be covered. You can't have 4&quot; uncovered at one end.  This can be a problem if the pipe comes out of the ground.   In this case, dig out 6-10 inches, include that in the tape, and rebury.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. You MUST NOT cross the tape over itself.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5.  tape the heat wrap firmly in position.  Even a small air gap between the tape and the pipe is double plus ungood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6.  Wrap about an inch of flexible foam insulation around it.  The foam underlay for laminate works, as does packing foam for separating dishes.  Bubble wrap works too.  Key here:  Uniformity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Less insulation means that the heat tape runs more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Insulation will even out small amounts of non-uniformity in wrapping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the time they haven't lasted more than a year or two.  I now regard them as a temporary fix while I figure out how to keep the whole space where the pipes are above freezing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25906" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10349" RevisionGUID="029f8924-22c4-4cd3-b543-83d46287af37" CreationDate="2020-11-06T09:00:07.530" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1324637677547905024" />
  <row Id="25907" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10351" RevisionGUID="fc3c260f-8f0e-4d28-9989-fdaeb1edc755" CreationDate="2020-11-06T09:27:56.410" UserId="9093" Comment="added details" Text="A friend of mine just recently started avoiding any ultra-processed food because of health concerns. However he already had some in his storage room and some have passed their expiration date.This made me wonder if we can still treat it as normal food?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand the food contains lots of hard-to-spell additives, colourant, preservatives, and other chemicals beside the actual food itself, and we do not know if it can harm the environment or not. This made me think how supermarkets dispose all of those food then? I couldn't find an answer elsewhere so any input is really appreciated!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Added details (11/6/2020):**&#xD;&#xA;Let's say mango syrup, most of the time you'll find in ingredients of actual Mango extracts of just &lt;1%, while others were &quot;mango flavoring&quot;, yellow colourant, along with additional preservatives &amp; enhancer that if we google them a bit, shown some were petroleum-based (though have passed strict regulations to be used in food)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25908" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10355" RevisionGUID="dac88f03-76fe-4b10-94e0-421ab3a1257d" CreationDate="2020-11-06T09:33:09.443" />
  <row Id="25909" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10333" RevisionGUID="8cf1e24b-a788-4736-9974-7ab2d7e0050f" CreationDate="2020-11-06T12:00:04.593" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1324682963674669058" />
  <row Id="25910" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10274" RevisionGUID="f700ba04-cfb1-4030-860d-c3f81f51ec25" CreationDate="2020-11-07T01:04:15.510" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25911" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5908" RevisionGUID="374bf079-121a-4bc8-aa01-ed7ffb34a41b" CreationDate="2020-11-07T12:00:03.420" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1325045346645520386" />
  <row Id="25916" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10291" RevisionGUID="0c40dd87-212f-441e-b069-ef1e802bdb64" CreationDate="2020-11-08T12:00:02.233" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1325407729792528385" />
  <row Id="25917" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10360" RevisionGUID="25416711-97bd-44dd-9f27-97e5682eb57f" CreationDate="2020-11-09T07:52:49.487" UserId="9096" Text="I ended up calibrating it to 310Ah, which corresponds to a 3% loss each year (360Ah * 0.97 ^ 5). I also had to tell the monitor when the batteries were at 100%, which I simply did not have a good answer for. I did it after a stretch of 4 sunny days during which I made very little use of the batteries. In the summer I'll re-calibrate." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10361" RevisionGUID="aae78de6-94ca-495b-9066-e87e1f18a75a" CreationDate="2020-11-10T02:20:20.323" UserId="8232" Text="One of my kids has asked for a bean bag for their room. I'm hesitant, mainly because of the styrofoam/plastic filler beans which (I assume) are generally terrible for the environment when they eventually get disposed of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know I could look into reusing packaging peanuts or other filler, but that isn't a *great* alternative; it still doesn't solve the eventual end-of-life problem, and I don't exactly keep bags of packaging filler lying around so I'd have to go scrounge around or dumpster dive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also heard of using old clothes as filler, but I can imagine that would be heavy, and not exactly the most comfortable option either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better solution for bean bag filler, ideally with similar properties to traditional beans (lightweight and spongy), that's at least a bit better for the environment? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25919" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10361" RevisionGUID="aae78de6-94ca-495b-9066-e87e1f18a75a" CreationDate="2020-11-10T02:20:20.323" UserId="8232" Text="What alternatives exist for bean bag filler?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25920" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10361" RevisionGUID="aae78de6-94ca-495b-9066-e87e1f18a75a" CreationDate="2020-11-10T02:20:20.323" UserId="8232" Text="|home|plastic|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25921" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10361" RevisionGUID="ba02b796-b15d-48ed-a1a2-73c0b04212c7" CreationDate="2020-11-10T02:51:04.763" UserId="8232" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="One of my kids has asked for a bean bag for their room. I'm hesitant, mainly because of the styrofoam/plastic filler beans which (I assume) are generally terrible for the environment when they eventually get disposed of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know I could look into reusing packaging peanuts or similar, but that isn't a *great* alternative; it still doesn't solve the eventual end-of-life problem, and I don't exactly keep bags of packaging filler lying around so I'd have to go scrounge around or dumpster dive. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also heard of using old clothes as filler, but I can imagine that would be heavy, and not exactly the most comfortable option either.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a better solution for bean bag filler, ideally with similar properties to traditional beans (lightweight and spongy), that's at least a bit better for the environment? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25922" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10362" RevisionGUID="d67b5a5f-e66f-4f37-894c-7d1802598904" CreationDate="2020-11-10T02:58:05.880" UserId="400" Text="Polystyrene recycles well. I’d look at intercepting some. Yes, you didn’t like this option. But it’s the best one I can think of off the top of my head. &#xA;&#xA;Additional ideas:&#xA;&#xA;Partially fill the bag with an inflated truck inner-tube or a few air mattresses, or heavy duty beach ball. This reduces the pellets. &#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10363" RevisionGUID="b7e548fe-fc07-468b-8733-c13b05043c05" CreationDate="2020-11-10T03:03:32.327" UserId="400" Text="I would expect any metal scrap dealer would take it. Ar our local landfill all metal goes into a pile. Every couple months they crush it and send it out as scrap. There they sort it somewhat. &#xA;&#xA;A better use is to reuse it. Dog watering dish. Plant. Prop for a play.  Bird bath. Mold for large ice pucks for winter decoration. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25924" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10364" RevisionGUID="a90bce42-4057-4999-ac69-b1193c6abadc" CreationDate="2020-11-10T17:29:42.787" UserId="400" Text="There are whole books on passive design. &#xA;&#xA;Lawrence Livermore has a simulation program that can help with design. &#xA;&#xA;Some quickies:  for a south facing window, triple pane is net lower than double pane. You lose more from the extra glass than you gain from insulation.   It’s pretty close though. On the shaded (north) side if the house triple pane is a win. &#xA;&#xA;Gas leaks out of sealed units. Typically 5-10 years.  Argon fill may be worth it. Xenon not so much. &#xA;&#xA;The year is not symmetrical. April 21 is one month after spring equinox and you want heat. August 21 is one month before fall equinox and has the same sun, but heat is the last thong you want.  Consider crankdown awnings that allow you to adjust. &#xA;&#xA;There is an edge effect with windows. Both the window frame and the rough opening are locations for higher heat loss. Consider the window to be 6” larger all the way around for heat loss, but only its real size for heat gain.  I would not install a window smaller than 3 feet on a side except in a bedroom or bathroom. &#xA;&#xA;Skylights have higher losses. They aren’t close to normal to the sun in winter, unless you have a very steep roof running east west. They get covered in snow. &#xA;&#xA;Air temp at the ceiling is warmer than room as a hole. More loss. &#xA;&#xA;But the biggest reason is that it affects the whole roof design. You can’t put 2 feet of cellulose insulation by a skylight. &#xA;&#xA;Look at clerestory windows for a compromise solution. &#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5487" RevisionGUID="9eb03c95-6be9-4ca4-ba57-27d9609f324c" CreationDate="2020-11-11T07:08:26.837" UserId="8232" Comment="Stated premise at the top; Added an image description; Replaced arrows to be neater" Text="**Yes** - CFCs interact with and break down ozone. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's basic chemistry:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![interaction of CFCs and UV radiation, breaking down O3 into O2][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CFCs are lifted by buoyancy into the stratosphere, where they are broken up by the sun's ultraviolet radiation (1), and the chlorine then reacts with ozone (2), with equation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cl + O&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; → ClO + O&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then that chlorine monoxide reacts with atmospheric oxygen: (4)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ClO + O → Cl + O&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and so the chlorine can go on to damage more ozone, again and again. (5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[source: UCAR][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HeP92.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_6_1.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25926" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5487" RevisionGUID="9eb03c95-6be9-4ca4-ba57-27d9609f324c" CreationDate="2020-11-11T07:08:26.837" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 661" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="1d72738f-6d1e-47b3-b3a2-dfd4b395e57d" CreationDate="2020-11-11T07:08:50.720" UserId="8232" Comment="Cleaned up question somewhat to make it sound less conspiracy-theory and more focused on wanting an answer" Text="I have read that Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are detrimental to the Ozone layer. How exactly? Wasn't Mount Erebus shooting thousands of tons of chlorine per day into the upper atmosphere and over to Anatartica in the 70s with no effect to the ozone layer? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How was it proven that CFCs destroy Ozone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25928" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="1d72738f-6d1e-47b3-b3a2-dfd4b395e57d" CreationDate="2020-11-11T07:08:50.720" UserId="8232" Comment="Cleaned up question somewhat to make it sound less conspiracy-theory and more focused on wanting an answer" Text="What impact do CFCs have on ozone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25929" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="1d72738f-6d1e-47b3-b3a2-dfd4b395e57d" CreationDate="2020-11-11T07:08:50.720" UserId="8232" Comment="Cleaned up question somewhat to make it sound less conspiracy-theory and more focused on wanting an answer" Text="|pollution|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25930" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5486" RevisionGUID="1d72738f-6d1e-47b3-b3a2-dfd4b395e57d" CreationDate="2020-11-11T07:08:50.720" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 660" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25935" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6611" RevisionGUID="8575af02-89c2-4c6f-8c64-890e38eddc83" CreationDate="2020-11-13T01:00:11.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10366" RevisionGUID="9e9581c3-0293-40ef-8efa-b190ba27f133" CreationDate="2020-11-14T10:43:25.747" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; When wind and solar generate surplus energy, can it be used to break water into oxygen and hydrogen and to store the gases in liquid form for later use as an energy source?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. This is possible, and perhaps the best use of surplus electricity. At times when there's plenty of electricity, and not many good uses for it, the price of electricity will due to free market go very low. Then the price of electricity doesn't matter much in the costs of creating the hydrogen. A major reason why this isn't done in a massive scale today is that we still don't have enough renewable generation that electricity price would go near zero often. But it will happen, and this will be the solution for turning the zero price of electricity into a useful thing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good question is what are you going to do with the hydrogen. Hydrogen embrittles steel as used for gas transport pipes and has third of the volumetric energy density of methane (natural gas). Furthermore, existing gas turbines built for methane won't work with 100% hydrogen. A small fraction of hydrogen injected to the gas grid won't hurt much: it can be transported, stored and burned with the methane. But as the share of hydrogen goes higher, it will cause problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One solution could be to capture carbon dioxide from plants emitting it (waste-to-energy, paper and pulp factories, biomass power plants, etc) and combine this carbon dioxide with hydrogen in Sabatier reaction to produce methane. Yep, the same stuff as natural gas, except this time it's a clean synthetic fuel and not a dirty fossil fuel. This methane can then be injected to the natural gas grid, stored just like methane in storage areas, and burned in gas turbines. A major benefit for handling methane instead of hydrogen is that the volumetric energy density of methane is three times that of hydrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Was this ever tried in any electric grid?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. The technology is today called power-to-gas and is being slowly deployed. The German company Uniper is a major player in the natural gas industry, and is today injecting hydrogen directly and hydrogen converted into methane to the natural gas grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Norwegian company NEL is in the business of manufacturing electrolysers. Its business is booming and the share price has increased markedly recently, showing that there is a demand for water electrolysis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What is the energy efficiency of this method?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Electricity to hydrogen in electrolysis cells: about 70-75%&#xD;&#xA;* Sabatier reaction to convert hydrogen and carbon dioxide into methane: about 83%&#xD;&#xA;* (Combined electrolysis + Sabatier: 58-62%)&#xD;&#xA;* Carbon capture for Sabatier from power plants: 78-89%&#xD;&#xA;* Burning methane to electricity in turbines: 45-50%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you capture carbon dioxide from a power plant burning synthetic methane, use electricity to create hydrogen, use Sabatier reactor to combine carbon dioxide with the hydrogen to create methane, and burn it later to electricity in turbines, closing the cycle, you will get about 20-28% cycle efficiency. Yep, it's very poor, but doesn't matter, as you're creating the hydrogen when the price of electricity is practically free due to surplus generation, and converting in back to electricity when the price of electricity is sky-high due to shortage of intermittent renewable generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is also worth mentioning that if there's any use for the waste heat from these processes, for example a district heating grid, you can improve the efficiency by utilizing the waste heat in a useful manner instead of just discarding it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10367" RevisionGUID="07d744da-952b-4701-9021-b95c39373a72" CreationDate="2020-11-14T10:57:32.113" UserId="9106" Text="A poster near a recycling station mentions that one liter of cooking oil contaminates 1 million liters of water and suggesting cooking oil recycling. If I spill cooking oil in the dirt of the backyard, does it also contaminate groundwater pockets 300 yards below surface?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25939" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10367" RevisionGUID="07d744da-952b-4701-9021-b95c39373a72" CreationDate="2020-11-14T10:57:32.113" UserId="9106" Text="Does oil spilled in backyard contaminate groundwater?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25940" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10367" RevisionGUID="07d744da-952b-4701-9021-b95c39373a72" CreationDate="2020-11-14T10:57:32.113" UserId="9106" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25941" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10368" RevisionGUID="b52eeabf-90e4-4e45-a096-8001f3455d43" CreationDate="2020-11-14T11:06:32.540" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; Why do most car manufacturers prefer electric batteries over hydrogen fuel cells?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because it's cheaper today, easy to pack the batteries under the floor, won't decrease the range much and won't have as fast acceleration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from internal combustion engine cars burning hydrogen (which is very silly!), there is no pure hydrogen car today. All cars that are marketed as &quot;hydrogen fuel cell&quot; cars are actually fuel cell - battery hybrids.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen has a very high energy to mass ratio. Unfortunately, it's energy to volume ratio is very poor. You need to store it under huge pressures. The tanks to do this cost much and still have a high size. While the hydrogen in those tanks won't weigh much, the tanks need to be able to withstand such high pressures that the tank weight will be high. Yep, the weight for equal range will be somewhat lower than in electric car batteries but not much. The volume, not so much a benefit for hydrogen as the heavy batteries can be stored in the floor of the car. With hydrogen tanks, you don't have as much freedoms for their placement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen fuel cells aren't durable enough today. The chance that the fuel cell stack in an average hydrogen fuel cell battery hybrid needs replacement during its lifetime is higher than the chance a battery in a purely electric car needs replacement during its lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hydrogen fuel cell and the tanks to store hydrogen today cost so much that you actually save costs by simply increasing the battery size to the desired range rather than using a very small battery and doing the rest by using hydrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there's the acceleration. If you increase the size of the batteries, you increase the acceleration of the car. That's what most car buyers affluent enough to buy new technology want. If you put a hydrogen fuel cell + storage system there, the acceleration increase won't be as big unless you make the hydrogen fuel cell stack ridiculously powerful and big (and expensive!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today the situation is thus that a purely electric battery-based car makes more sense than a hydrogen car. Some day the situation could very well be different. If that day arrives, then the hydrogen infrastructure needs to be built. Hydrogen storage requires very high pressures and still has a poor volumetric energy density. Thus building the infrastructure won't be cheap. The electric car charging infrastructure is trivial in comparison.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's also far poorer energy efficiency of creating hydrogen by electrolysis and converting it to electricity in fuel cells, as compared to charging and discharging a battery. This also makes the situation more favorable to battery-based cars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10369" RevisionGUID="5f28148c-4c4a-44f9-9c43-daa85c1d7b25" CreationDate="2020-11-14T11:22:45.877" UserId="6393" Text="The important thing to realize here is that biodiesel is not sustainable in the required quantities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, you can produce biodiesel from waste, but only a little bit. How does it help that 1% of transportation fuels are created from waste? Not much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also produce biodiesel from oil palms. For example, if you cut down all rainforests in this planet to create oil palm plantations, the produced palm oil could fuel our carbon-based society by renewable fuels. But I don't consider this a desirable scenario. The biodiesel producing companies are claiming their biodiesel is sustainable because it's sourced from certified oil palm plantations that aren't situated in cut-down rainforests. However, if the usage of these &quot;green&quot; biodiesel fuels increases, then some less affluent people will see that the price of sustainable palm oil goes so high that they have to buy non-sustainable palm oil produced in plantations situated in cut-down rainforests. So the increase in palm oil use led to more unsustainable plantations even though the biodiesel consumer believes his biodiesel is &quot;green&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you install carbon dioxide capture equipment to all pulp and paper factories worldwide and use green electricity (wind, solar) to create hydrogen by electrolysis and combine the hydrogen with carbon dioxide to firstly methane and then later post-process it to liquid fuels, the produced fuel amount won't be great enough to offset all oil uses currently supplied by fossil petroleum. (And besides, the fuel would be so expensive nobody would buy it.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, a large change in the energy system needs to happen. Energy needs to be in a form that doesn't emit carbon. 1 liter of biodiesel emits just as much carbon as 1 liter of fossil diesel, because we can't produce enough sustainable biodiesel. It doesn't matter that a small percentage of fuel usage could come from sustainable sources -- if all won't come from sustainable sources, then we need to reduce the usage of carbon based fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A new hybrid vehicle is probably more fuel efficient than an old diesel vehicle regardless of whether it burns biodiesel or fossil diesel. Thus, it emits less carbon per mile than a diesel vehicle. That's what counts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need to realize that &quot;green&quot; fuels are a finite resource. If the world can produce a given amount of liters of &quot;green&quot; fuels, and if somebody decides to buy those &quot;green&quot; fuels, it means the increased demand for these &quot;green&quot; fuels causes the producers to increase prices because they can't increase production past the supply limit. This increase of prices mean somebody else previously consuming these &quot;green&quot; fuels decides they are too expensive and switches to dirty fossil based fuels. A decision to buy &quot;green&quot; fuels thus didn't result in any benefit for the environment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10370" RevisionGUID="f7294fa8-9e63-415a-9378-26e1d000f291" CreationDate="2020-11-14T11:46:53.100" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; Lots of big companies are making grand pledges to go carbon-neutral (or even carbon-zero, removing historical emissions). It is feasible for a smaller company (that is, businesses that’d never be described as “enterprise”)? Is it worth it? Why do it? How do you do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The important thing here is to realize that carbon-neutrality is all about risk management.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't know exactly how large is the carbon impact of your company, you aren't prepared for a risk: that the price of carbon dioxide emissions will skyrocket to let's say 500 USD / tonne, and your company was dependent on the price of carbon dioxide being continuously low. This skyrocketing emission price can and will cause companies to go bankrupt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, there are companies that claim to be carbon neutral. Usually it's just greenwashing. If you have a company that uses 1 GWh of electricity per year, and decide to purchase 1 GWh of &quot;green&quot; electricity (wind / solar) per year, you are carbon neutral, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, this ignores the fact renewables (wind / solar) produce electricity only intermittently. If your company doesn't stop using electricity when the winds cease and the sun sets, the company is in fact using fossil fueled electricity despite the fact it uses 1 GWh of electricity and buys 1 GWh of &quot;green&quot; electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, you could buy some sort of energy storage, right? Buy enough Tesla PowerWalls. However, the price of battery based electricity storage is sky-high and won't be enough to supply electricity for a two-week long calm period (little wind electricity) in the winter (little sunshine and thus little solar power). To actually implement this small-scale plan of storing electricity, the costs will be so high that your company will go bankrupt just because its costs. None of your competitors is doing this silly plan of buying huge numbers of Tesla PowerWalls. They are financially in a better position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To actually implement a green energy system that provides just the right amount of green zero-carbon electricity whenever we need it, we need large-scale cheap energy storage facilities. The best of these involve storing hydrogen underground, or alternatively storing both methane and carbon dioxide underground. No battery based system can compete with the sheer low costs of storing huge amounts of combustible fuel gases. A small company can do little to accelerate the transition to such a green energy system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also other forms of hidden risks that could materialize:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Your company uses only green electricity, heat and cooling so it has no carbon risk, right? Well, not so simple. If the employees of the company live far away from the office and commute by car, it could be that an increase of carbon dioxide emission price would mean the employees simply can no longer afford to commute.&#xD;&#xA;* Your company is situated in a rental office in the middle of a city and every one of its employees live in the middle of a city. Surely your company is now protected against carbon risk, right? Well, wrong. If the price of carbon dioxide emissions increases, soon everyone wants to live and work in the middle of a city. It could be the case that the office rent goes so high that your company won't afford to keep its office there anymore, and it could be the case that the rents of employees go so high that they can no longer afford to live close enough to the office anymore.&#xD;&#xA;* Your company is situated in a rental office in the middle of a city, while owning the office, and you have a policy of only hiring homeowners who happen to live near the office and firing immediately anyone who dares to move further away. Surely your company is now protected against carbon risk, right? Well, not so simple. It could be the case that the office building is connected to district heating which can no longer be produced economically while alternative heating systems built by underfloor heating powered by geothermal heat pumps start to gain market share. So the office building can lose its value, at the same time your competitors that are not in the business of owning real estate are not in an equally difficult situation. Not only that, but the policy of hiring only homeowners is discriminatory and will get you into trouble with law enforcement, exactly like the policy of firing anyone who dares to move further away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, as you can see, risk management is never easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there is little you can do except to have a good climate risk management plan." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25944" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10367" RevisionGUID="1eadcb1b-91e4-45af-aff3-3449d1344f86" CreationDate="2020-11-14T12:08:34.987" UserId="99" Comment="added more relevant tags" Text="|water|pollution|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25945" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10358" RevisionGUID="6af166a8-a98f-40f7-aa30-8b86e6fea54c" CreationDate="2020-11-14T17:13:29.013" UserId="400" Comment="added 1163 characters in body" Text="I've used them.  I've never been happy with them.  If you do use them you need to follow these rules:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1.  If you wrap them you must have the wraps evenly spaced.  You can't have 3 turns per foot at one end of the pipe and 6 turns per foot at the other end.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2.  The temperature sensor (disk on the orange blob) must be pressed tightly against the pipe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3.  The full length of the pipe must be covered. You can't have 4&quot; uncovered at one end.  This can be a problem if the pipe comes out of the ground.   In this case, dig out 6-10 inches, include that in the tape, and rebury.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. You MUST NOT cross the tape over itself.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5.  tape the heat wrap firmly in position.  Even a small air gap between the tape and the pipe is double plus ungood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 6.  Wrap about an inch of flexible foam insulation around it.  The foam underlay for laminate works, as does packing foam for separating dishes.  Bubble wrap works too.  Key here:  Uniformity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Less insulation means that the heat tape runs more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Insulation will even out small amounts of non-uniformity in wrapping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the time they haven't lasted more than a year or two.  I now regard them as a temporary fix while I figure out how to keep the whole space where the pipes are above freezing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addition in response to comment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Failure modes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cheap switches** in the thermostat result either in the tape sticking in the off position, or sticking in the on position.  If the latter, then some spot that is better insulated than the rest, or a place where the turns are closer togehter will overheat and burn out the wire.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sloppy installation.**  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If the tape wraps over itself you have a hot spot that melts the insulation and allows wires to touch.  Zot.  Short circuit.  The short usually will destroy enough of the wire that when you reset the breaker all is good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If the tape is better insulated at one point than where the thermostat is, then on a cold night the thermstat can remain on while the wire gets too hot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If the tape is NOT in contact with the pipe for several inches, heat is not being removed from that section of the tape.  It gets warmer, eventually melts and the wires burn up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that the wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_heating mentions several other designs that are inherently safer and more durable.  I suggest that you also gooogle &quot;failure mode heat tape&quot; for other leads.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25946" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10367" RevisionGUID="7677b46e-4411-452f-9eda-611859d15ae4" CreationDate="2020-11-15T06:00:06.013" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1327853863475556353" />
  <row Id="25947" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10132" RevisionGUID="4ee5a875-2221-4c06-bc07-053159b9d75d" CreationDate="2020-11-15T08:05:05.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1239" RevisionGUID="14632b2e-b553-4e77-b403-7ddbb956de78" CreationDate="2020-11-15T09:47:45.360" UserId="9104" Comment="Add cached link, the latter was dead. " Text="I have been using a CISS (Continuous Ink Supply System) for some time on my Epson RX610. Purchased through eBay it is a cheap investment. Be aware of the following regarding inks: [the most important part of the whole printing system is really the quality of the inks and not so much the hardware](http://www.cnet.com.au/photo-printing-when-inks-aint-inks-240004041.htm.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cached version for the hyperlink above: https://web.archive.org/web/20121206030501/http://www.cnet.com.au/photo-printing-when-inks-aint-inks-240004041.htm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally the printer &quot;Cannot recognise&quot; the non-genuine ink cartridge, but remove and re-insert fixes that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having had the success with the Epson, I purchased a CISS for the HP Officejet we have at our Men's Shed. It too works fine, although the printer recognises that &quot;counterfeit&quot; cartridges have been fitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before rushing out and buying a CISS, please view a Youtube video showing the installation of one - preferably into your printer model.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25949" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="1239" RevisionGUID="14632b2e-b553-4e77-b403-7ddbb956de78" CreationDate="2020-11-15T09:47:45.360" Comment="Proposed by 9104 approved by -1 edit id of 662" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25950" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1239" RevisionGUID="68497df5-0d11-46dd-bbcf-7a20058a58b4" CreationDate="2020-11-15T09:47:45.360" UserId="99" Comment="Add cached link, the latter was dead. " Text="I have been using a CISS (Continuous Ink Supply System) for some time on my Epson RX610. Purchased through eBay. It is a cheap investment. Be aware of the following regarding inks: [the most important part of the whole printing system is really the quality of the inks and not so much the hardware](https://web.archive.org/web/20121206030501/http://www.cnet.com.au/photo-printing-when-inks-aint-inks-240004041.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Occasionally the printer &quot;Cannot recognise&quot; the non-genuine ink cartridge, but remove and re-insert fixes that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having had the success with the Epson, I purchased a CISS for the HP Officejet we have at our Men's Shed. It too works fine, although the printer recognises that &quot;counterfeit&quot; cartridges have been fitted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before rushing out and buying a CISS, please view a Youtube video showing the installation of one - preferably into your printer model.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10372" RevisionGUID="2e96b422-790f-4df7-bcb9-796996690699" CreationDate="2020-11-16T16:56:22.400" UserId="9117" Text="I've been looking for a simple solar powered lighting system for a carport I just built. I bought these without realizing how small they are: [2 Pack Solar Lights Outdoor][1]. Unfortunately they look pitifully small on my timber-frame carport. I've found some larger ones, but still not really large enough for my taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I really would like to do is to buy large regular light figures such as [1-Light Matte Black Barn Light Pendant][2]. Would prefer at least 4 of these lights, but maybe more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wire those in (and put in a light sensor). Then put in 12v bulbs with something like [12V E26 Light Bulb A19 ][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then finally hook up to a solar panel system. I have a 200W setup I put on another building, but it's got the full on charge controller and a VMax battery. I was hoping for something a little less complicated. Everything in the carport is exposed, so there's no place to hide the components either aesthetically or from the elements. And I didn't really want to spend that much money just for some simple lights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess ideally I'd like a solar panel with charge controller and battery built in, that puts out 12v and that I could mount to the roofing if they make such a thing. I'm also thinking about a 12v solar battery charger and then in-line a lipo or lithium ion battery. Any suggestions beyond that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0829VX3NG/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.homedepot.com/p/Globe-Electric-1-Light-Matte-Black-Barn-Light-Pendant-65155/206160552&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B077T5CB75?pf_rd_r=P09EDMEXDT3M4R6BGAGG&amp;pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25958" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10372" RevisionGUID="2e96b422-790f-4df7-bcb9-796996690699" CreationDate="2020-11-16T16:56:22.400" UserId="9117" Text="Simple solar light system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25959" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10372" RevisionGUID="2e96b422-790f-4df7-bcb9-796996690699" CreationDate="2020-11-16T16:56:22.400" UserId="9117" Text="|solar-power|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25960" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10372" RevisionGUID="c7b936d6-07a6-4115-bdee-3da8c0405a39" CreationDate="2020-11-17T14:13:38.997" UserId="9117" Comment="added 829 characters in body" Text="I've been looking for a simple solar powered lighting system for a carport I just built. I bought these without realizing how small they are: [2 Pack Solar Lights Outdoor][1]. Unfortunately they look pitifully small on my timber-frame carport. I've found some larger ones, but still not really large enough for my taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I really would like to do is to buy large regular light figures such as [1-Light Matte Black Barn Light Pendant][2]. Would prefer at least 4 of these lights, but maybe more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wire those in (and put in a light sensor). Then put in 12v bulbs with something like [12V E26 Light Bulb A19 ][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then finally hook up to a solar panel system. I have a 200W setup I put on another building, but it's got the full on charge controller and a VMax battery. I was hoping for something a little less complicated. Everything in the carport is exposed, so there's no place to hide the components either aesthetically or from the elements. And I didn't really want to spend that much money just for some simple lights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I guess ideally I'd like a solar panel with charge controller and battery built in, that puts out 12v and that I could mount to the roofing if they make such a thing. I'm also thinking about a 12v solar battery charger and then in-line a lipo or lithium ion battery. Any suggestions beyond that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit: For more info on carport**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is what the carport looks like, minus the roofing: [Link to carport Design][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been thinking some more about the problem and I think I could stick a small waterproof battery box (or toolbox) near the rear of the carport up on the tie beam next to the king post. For those wondering, the tie beam is the beam that runs from side to side. The king post is the one running from the middle of the tie beam up to the ridge beam (the uppermost beam that the rafters sit on). I think with the right size box I could put a small battery (I'm figuring 35Ah) and I have a leftover MPPT controller that I think I can put in the box as well. Then just get a 100w panel. That should solve my problems, but I'm still open to other ideas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0829VX3NG/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.homedepot.com/p/Globe-Electric-1-Light-Matte-Black-Barn-Light-Pendant-65155/206160552&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B077T5CB75?pf_rd_r=P09EDMEXDT3M4R6BGAGG&amp;pf_rd_p=edaba0ee-c2fe-4124-9f5d-b31d6b1bfbee&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://timberframehq.com/16x24-timber-frame-plan" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10364" RevisionGUID="91f343ff-84b4-4fe6-a14a-fe54282c94ad" CreationDate="2020-11-18T19:07:29.443" UserId="400" Comment="tweaks.  More info on clerestory windows" Text="There are whole books on passive design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lawrence Livermore has a simulation program that can help with design. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some quickies:  for a south facing window, triple pane is net lower than double pane. You lose more from the extra glass than you gain from insulation.   It’s pretty close though. On the shaded (north) side if the house triple pane is a win. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gas leaks out of sealed units. Typically 5-10 years.  Argon fill may be worth it. Xenon not so much. Do they make windows that can be refilled in situ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The year is not symmetrical. April 21 is one month after spring equinox and you want heat. August 21 is one month before fall equinox and has the same sun, but heat is the last thing you want.  Consider crankdown awnings that allow you to adjust. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is an edge effect with windows. Both the window frame and the rough opening are locations for higher heat loss. Consider the window to be 6” larger all the way around for heat loss, but only its real size for heat gain.  I would not install a window smaller than 3 feet on a side except in a bedroom or bathroom. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Skylights have higher losses. They aren’t close to normal (right angles) to the sun in winter, unless you have a very steep roof running east west. They get covered in snow. Air temp at the ceiling is warmer than room as a hole. More loss. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the biggest reason is that it affects the whole roof design. You can’t put 2 feet of cellulose insulation by a skylight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at clerestory windows for a compromise solution. These still are the highest point in the room, so will have higher temp air. (And triple pane may be worth it.)  But in our climate they are close to normal to the Dec 21 sun (13 degrees above the south horizon at noon) and so still do some gain, as well as provide daylight in the northern half of the house.  In addition they are more insulation friendly to the roof as a whole.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25965" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10375" RevisionGUID="d9c6eeb0-0d38-43ba-995f-fc979e7aea95" CreationDate="2020-11-18T19:23:03.400" UserId="400" Text="If you are in a dry environment, water will cool you.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the idea behind the arabian turban.  It could be put on wet, and evaporation from it's surface cooled the mass.  *(I don't know if the sikh turban is used this way...)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've done this on outdoor trips with a plain canvas hat.  Saturate it in the lake and place on my head.  With the smaller capacity, it needs to be redone about every half hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water can be cooled below ambient temp by evaporation.  This is the idea behind canvas sided water bags that slowly oozed water.  The surface was wet, and so the water temp would be somewhere between the drybulb and webbulb temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Putting on a wet t-shirt can help.  It can be gaspingly cold if your water supply is cool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moving air helps.  Ceiling fans draw 12 to 70 watts depending on how fast they are turning.  At their slowest speed, they move water saturated air away from you.  At higher speeds, they speed evaporation from your skin.  This does use electricity, but not much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As temperature approaches body heat, and humidity becomes higher all of these are less effective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's new construction, building underground should be considered.  Ground temps even a few feet down are close to the yearly average temp, rather than the daily high.  Even if only part of the home is underground, it can give respite.  I grew up in northern Idaho where August was 105 to 110C.  In the afternoon we'd retreat to the basement where it was 25 F cooler. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;White is your friend.  When out in the sun, thin white clothing is more reflective than skin is.  Plus cloth doesn't get skin cancer. Again, look at traditional Arab dress. Such clothing should be loose and thin so that air circulates under it easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25967" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="65643d5d-3d7e-44ab-a86f-719c947dba6c" CreationDate="2020-11-20T21:07:00.913" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25968" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10169" RevisionGUID="0b01f7a8-2143-4667-a526-28bec674480f" CreationDate="2020-11-20T22:04:20.623" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25969" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="51625930-b0c0-4f0f-85ef-f3e680325d10" CreationDate="2020-11-22T03:03:35.373" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10376" RevisionGUID="82fab209-c703-4838-bac6-b8f51630a347" CreationDate="2020-11-22T07:39:17.827" UserId="9007" Text="Ceramics cannot rust, corrode under normal circumstances or be easily melted down like scrap metal. Because of the unique chemical properties that denote non reactivity with materials and solvents; the thing that makes them so long lasting; the very thing that makes them so useful for ......it's difficult to recycle. &#xD;&#xA;Some Terra cotta is made of recycled ceramic pipe shards.&#xD;&#xA;Most ceramics aren't recycled; Because of their absurdly high melting points, it's more energy efficient to simply repurpose the material into other uses. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Rubble for landfill or construction filler. &#xD;&#xA; - gravel substitute&#xD;&#xA; - Rock base for driveways&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact is, ceramics are some of humanity's longest lasting manmade items, some pottery is over 20,000 years old. &#xD;&#xA;It is possible to recycle them, Ground into an ultrafine dust, they reconstitute the original source material clay to which they can be made into new ceramics. As virgin clay sources get more scarce; recycling pottery, porcelain toilets, etc will grow in demand. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10377" RevisionGUID="6f87db64-fafc-4bd3-9bee-ca036018e31a" CreationDate="2020-11-22T07:45:01.837" UserId="9007" Text="Cooking oil is an organic substance and typically causes no real harm as it's biodegradable. Vegetable oils are compostable, in small quantities. Are you sure it said cooking oil, mineral or petroleum oils can contaminate water. If you do spill cooking oil in the back yard, oatmeal, sawdust can be used to absorb some of it. Then you can just burn it in the fire pit. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10378" RevisionGUID="6a35e211-ab33-42f1-97c7-bfc6924c21fc" CreationDate="2020-11-22T16:57:16.747" UserId="9007" Text="In 2003, Ford Motor Company unleashedd the Conceptual model car, the Model U, instead of petro, it used refined Sunflower seed oil for lubrication. [![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AHZ89.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10379" RevisionGUID="3f9c8a29-9cf1-4b78-8f3a-e040d1164290" CreationDate="2020-11-22T16:59:28.157" UserId="9007" Text="That all depends on teh ambient energy and power source used to run it.&#xD;&#xA;You can make a simpler, sea water desalination rig using scrap plastic bottles. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Au20y.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10380" RevisionGUID="2946f379-22ff-4bb8-bdbb-b2cb91bbb9a6" CreationDate="2020-11-22T17:02:43.513" UserId="9007" Text="Like any solid state electronic LED's are declining in cost and the materials to make them are largely abundant. LED bulbs are the most energy efficient lights currently on the market. However the incandescent light is still superior in ambient light quality, ALL the materials used in conventional bulbs are recyclable), nontoxic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25976" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10382" RevisionGUID="477710d0-5ff1-4be8-91ba-68c239d3891d" CreationDate="2020-11-23T16:34:18.827" UserId="9007" Text="If the bag ends up in a landfill as most waste does it's not really gonna biodegrade.&#xD;&#xA;Doesn't matter which type of bag you use. Biodegradability requires a air rich environment to feed microbial activity, not found in a anaerobic landfill." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25977" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10383" RevisionGUID="5c93a3df-a715-4d6b-9767-0e3904147566" CreationDate="2020-11-23T17:22:02.663" UserId="400" Text="Solar and complicated go hand in hand.  Actually power generation is generally complicated.  One of the things you buy from the utility is someone else taking care of complicated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Be careful to distinguish power (watts) from energy (watt-hours)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 200 watt panel will typically generate 250-300 kWh/year, or somewhere around 0.6 kWh/day.  At our latitude (54° N) there is about a 2:1 difference between winter and summer.  So that same unit will generate about 1 kWh/day in summer and .2 kWh/day in winter.  If I orient my panel vertically that winter number is closer to 0.3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 100 Amp hour batter at  nominal 12v is about 1.2 kWh.  This would hold 4 days output in winter from your panel, or 2 days in summer.  This is a Group 31 sized battery, commonly used for electric trolling motors.  So basically your car battery, but with internal strucutres for deep cycling instead of maximum current.  It's Can$175 this week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, for winter you have something like a quarter kWh to work with.  250 watt-hours.  A typical LED edison base light is 7W which has the illumination of a 60 w tungsten bulb.&#xD;&#xA;Right now, it's dark enough for the streetlights by 5 p.m. and they don't go off until 7 a.m.  14 hours.  7w * 14 hours = 98 amp hours.  You can run two bulbs all night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still seems kind of feeble.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok.  Lets put a timer on it.  Goes on at dusk off at midnight.  Now you can run 4 bulbs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Different approach:  Lets run a few 1 w bulbs so it's dimly lit, but put in a motion detector that will run a pair of 25w floods for 6 minutes when anything taller than a racoon wanders into the detector's field of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hiding things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look into 'racetrack' wiring.  These are channels that look similar to chair rails that come in two parts:  The base is about 2&quot; wide and half an inch deep.  The top is a lid that clips onto the base.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the ubiquitous vinyl siding there is a cute tool at your building store to unhook the bottom edge.  You can unhook a strip, tack your wiring to the sheathing, then reclip the siding.  This is a real pain for vertical runs, but is fairly fast for horizontal. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10384" RevisionGUID="7b478f74-de10-4236-ac8b-70b688a19549" CreationDate="2020-11-23T23:40:53.437" UserId="400" Text="I question the blanket assertion of 1 liter of oil contaminating 1 million liters of water.  That's 1 part per million.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/water-quality/guidelines/chemicals/petroleumproducts_2add_june2008.pdf?ua=1&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;talks in detail about certain volatile fractions of various petrochemicals.  Some of these have recommended safe levels of 30 ppb (parts per billion)  But most common sources of oil have very small fractions of these in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a typical oil spill on soil, most of of the oil is adsorbed onto the surface of dirt particles.  As long as the oil isn't applied to a level that it fills all the void space, it will generally be harmless.  In large amounts, it effectively seals the surface, keeping water out, and preventing air exchange with the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Observational tests:  Check where old cars are parked on gravel driveways.  If oil was seriously toxic to plant life, you would have patches where there was no growth at all.  Yes, sufficient leaks can do this, but it's not common. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another observation:  Tracks leading into old farmsteads will show compaction while the weeds in the middle thrive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cooking oil, as an organic, is readily decomposed by bacteria in the soil.  Indeed, many of the components in fuel and motor oil are also eaten by bacteria." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10385" RevisionGUID="6087ad72-6618-43ff-bf1c-43d29b282f98" CreationDate="2020-11-23T23:43:14.527" UserId="400" Text="If you can eat it and not die, it's probably reasonable to compost it.  Tons of those addatives are used yearly.  Small quantities in the compost system are not signficant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25984" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4930" RevisionGUID="d4acaae4-bda2-4117-8846-560c5de724e5" CreationDate="2020-11-24T07:50:43.480" UserId="106" Comment="link to carbon tax" Text="&gt; It is well within any government's power to tax the private automobile into the ground by raising taxes exponentially on the private use of fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Not a single major politician, not a single leader of any country, even mentions this possibility, like, ever. Why not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is simple: because the majority of voters drive private automobiles and would decline to vote such politicians into power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, arguably the problem is not that people are driving, but that they are all driving in the same place.  That means we should be taxing access to the *road*, not access to the car at all¹.  The environmental cost of driving 5 km in New York City is higher than the cost of driving 50 km in rural Wyoming, where public transport or cycling alternatives are unlikely to emerge.  Taxing the car overall will just increase the imbalance between urban and rural areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to some, it is going to get worse rather than better with the self-driving car.  You may want to read [this blog post](http://humantransit.org/2015/11/self-driving-cars-a-coming-congestion-disaster.html).  We're not pricing roads according to demand, therefore, there are traffic jams:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It's also why in the old Soviet Union, people spent hours waiting to buy bread: Soviet price controls made the price too low to compensate the suppliers, so there wasn't enough bread, so everyone waited in line.  Congestion — waiting in line to use an underpriced road — works the same way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Untaxed roads are essentially communist.  (&lt;sub&gt;Take that, Tea Party!&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(See also: [London congestion charge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;¹Depending on what you want to achieve.  Battle congestion: tax the road.  Give a strong incentive to move electric cars: tax unsustainable fuels, such as through a [carbon tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4925" RevisionGUID="363f0c2c-6518-4e9c-b06d-cf6dd59f791a" CreationDate="2020-11-24T08:10:11.177" UserId="8232" Comment="Major cleanup, removed a lot of fluff/background to focus on the core points" Text="I have heard that up to two thirds of all the oil we consume in the U.S. is burned in car engines. If you added the section of the infrastructure that directly supports transportation via internal combustion, the number might go up to 90%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how much of that is consumed by buses, taxis, trucks, emergency vehicles, tractors, combine harvesters, etc. What I do know is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One Saturday morning I stepped out for some fresh air, and there was a traffic jam on my street resembling this one:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![major traffic jam][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where the hell were all these people going at 11 a.m. on Saturday? What important events did they have to attend, and what was so special about their destinations that apparently couldn't be reached by subway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which made me question further - why aren't there any major plans in place to incentivize public transport, or on the opposite end - make private cars less appealing? It is well within any government's power to tax the private automobile into the ground by raising taxes exponentially on the *private* use of fuel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would all these people want to drive on Saturday morning if they had to pay $20 per gallon? I doubt it. When people are inconvenienced, they look for *solutions*, and someone always finds one, especially if he or she foresees a sizeable profit that might come with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another solution would be to built train and streetcar tracks. Lots and lots of them. Unemployment would cease to exist as a concept for many years to come. There would be jobs galore for everybody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's ironic, but the automotive industry wouldn't have to lose a dime: they would simply shift their focus on producing large electrical vehicles. The *steel* industry would have to leave China and come back to Pittsburgh: the demand would exceed supply by orders of magnitude during the first few years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether the system we had before was sustainable (when the streetcar accounted for 90% (!!) of all individual passenger trips), or would be more sustainable with a bit of help from modern technology, but it would certainly be more so than what we have now, right? A step in the right direction, perhaps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yet, there doesn't seem to be a single major politician, not a single leader of *any* country, even mentions these possibilities, ever. Why not? Do they know something we don't? Are the way things are currently somehow more sustainable? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QuTHd.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25986" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4925" RevisionGUID="363f0c2c-6518-4e9c-b06d-cf6dd59f791a" CreationDate="2020-11-24T08:10:11.177" UserId="8232" Comment="Major cleanup, removed a lot of fluff/background to focus on the core points" Text="Why is the private car still more popular over other forms of transport in the USA?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25987" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="4925" RevisionGUID="363f0c2c-6518-4e9c-b06d-cf6dd59f791a" CreationDate="2020-11-24T08:10:11.177" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 106, -1 edit id of 665" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4925" RevisionGUID="4928b5dd-1eaa-46fb-80ba-7302834a9c10" CreationDate="2020-11-24T08:10:11.177" UserId="99" Comment="Major cleanup, removed a lot of fluff/background to focus on the core points + removed copyrighted image" Text="I have heard that up to two thirds of all the oil we consume in the U.S. is burned in car engines. If you added the section of the infrastructure that directly supports transportation via internal combustion, the number might go up to 90%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know how much of that is consumed by buses, taxis, trucks, emergency vehicles, tractors, combine harvesters, etc. What I do know is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One Saturday morning I stepped out for some fresh air, and there was a traffic jam on my street. Where the hell were all these people going at 11 a.m. on Saturday? What important events did they have to attend, and what was so special about their destinations that apparently couldn't be reached by subway?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which made me question further - why aren't there any major plans in place to incentivize public transport, or on the opposite end - make private cars less appealing? It is well within any government's power to tax the private automobile into the ground by raising taxes exponentially on the *private* use of fuel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would all these people want to drive on Saturday morning if they had to pay $20 per gallon? I doubt it. When people are inconvenienced, they look for *solutions*, and someone always finds one, especially if he or she foresees a sizeable profit that might come with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another solution would be to built train and streetcar tracks. Lots and lots of them. Unemployment would cease to exist as a concept for many years to come. There would be jobs galore for everybody.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's ironic, but the automotive industry wouldn't have to lose a dime: they would simply shift their focus on producing large electrical vehicles. The *steel* industry would have to leave China and come back to Pittsburgh: the demand would exceed supply by orders of magnitude during the first few years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know whether the system we had before was sustainable (when the streetcar accounted for 90% (!!) of all individual passenger trips), or would be more sustainable with a bit of help from modern technology, but it would certainly be more so than what we have now, right? A step in the right direction, perhaps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And yet, there doesn't seem to be a single major politician, not a single leader of *any* country, even mentions these possibilities, ever. Why not? Do they know something we don't? Are the way things are currently somehow more sustainable? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10385" RevisionGUID="4b5f8ed2-c631-4457-b0f9-17e4f5a22811" CreationDate="2020-11-24T08:10:36.533" UserId="8232" Comment="improved spelling and sentence structur" Text="If you can eat it and not die, it's probably reasonable to compost it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tons of those additives are used yearly, small quantities in the compost system would not be significant." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25990" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10385" RevisionGUID="4b5f8ed2-c631-4457-b0f9-17e4f5a22811" CreationDate="2020-11-24T08:10:36.533" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 664" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25991" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8351" RevisionGUID="76a2e7c4-5b17-4c95-bad4-f92503c4bcb6" CreationDate="2020-11-25T09:04:37.270" UserId="8232" Comment="imported information from the OP's comments, and made less of a 'shopping' question" Text="Methanol is probably the easiest burnable fuel to produce that is also sustainable. I'd like to produce electricity from methanol, using a device I'd call a 'Methanol Generator' - but I am struggling to find any such devices out there. Google is not helping. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does an internal combustion engine (ICE) electrical generator that uses methanol as fuel exist? If nobody makes them, maybe a good solid methanol motor could be attached to a generator?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don’t want a fuel cell, they are not ready for prime time. I'd be changing out membranes frequently. I've also considered solar and wind options - which are great, but I would also then require batteries for times when they are not generating, and batteries are also not ready for extensive use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25992" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8351" RevisionGUID="76a2e7c4-5b17-4c95-bad4-f92503c4bcb6" CreationDate="2020-11-25T09:04:37.270" UserId="8232" Comment="imported information from the OP's comments, and made less of a 'shopping' question" Text="Do electricity generators that run on methanol exist?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25993" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="8351" RevisionGUID="76a2e7c4-5b17-4c95-bad4-f92503c4bcb6" CreationDate="2020-11-25T09:04:37.270" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 666" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25994" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="f7431015-b1a7-4ce3-b113-74dd52b67a74" CreationDate="2020-11-25T11:02:40.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="25995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5437" RevisionGUID="fbb6dea8-c643-4609-9d3b-0bdc74e0bb3f" CreationDate="2020-11-26T00:55:27.767" UserId="8232" Comment="cleanup" Text="I am looking to raise chickens on my 100 acre farm. I live in USDA Zone 4 which gets long, cold winters. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am wondering how I can keep free-range chickens in those conditions, with minimal intervention on my part - i.e. only checking in on them when picking eggs from their coops and otherwise letting them forage and look after themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do I need to do to have chickens survive harsh winters in a free range method?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25996" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10387" RevisionGUID="8ae38a96-8cfe-462c-876e-7581ed9c76d1" CreationDate="2020-11-26T04:50:59.550" UserId="400" Text="When semi-conductors get hot, the impurities that make them work move around somewhat.  Solar cells are very carefully made layers of silicon with very controlled levels of impurities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With enough time sitting on a hot roof, this gradual diffusion starts to affect the back leakage rate of the cell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those cells are connected in series, then the series units are connected in parallel. That a lot of connections.  With time and weather, connections corrode. solder joints crystalize.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 25 year warranty limits their liability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25997" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10388" RevisionGUID="d41cc6de-a6c7-4534-832d-b9584094f8d3" CreationDate="2020-11-27T01:20:59.870" UserId="9142" Text="There are two primary issues here, carbon and plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would expect carbon emissions to be higher for ink, but not significantly. Transport/logistics/retail would be similar for both products and likely has higher emissions than manufacturing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern Ink usually includes micro plastics within the ink, and the packaging for a pen refill also has much more plastic. A fountain pen with traditional ink would avoid this issue obviously.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The half life of carbon is 27 years in the atmosphere, and we are actively dealing with the issue. Plastic on the other hand lasts&#xD;&#xA;much longer and is poorly understood (we don't really know the half life for responsibly disposed of plastic - it could be thousands of years).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I'd argue pencils are more sustainable. Unless you use a fountain pen with traditional ink." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25998" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10389" RevisionGUID="a8066f09-de23-484c-9bb7-01928e952250" CreationDate="2020-11-27T18:29:32.743" UserId="9148" Text="Why not simply install trace htg to the problematic pipe? Of course that's assuming you can access it! Insulation, of itself, does not stop freezing but simply slows down the heat loss. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="25999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10390" RevisionGUID="0787b434-e37b-4b92-b6fe-783610d6fa26" CreationDate="2020-11-27T18:36:10.933" UserId="9148" Text="Personally I'd say no. Too many companies buy cheap &amp; sell high because they understand the psychological impact of exclusivity on certain customers. I worked for a Co who sold identical products with a 5x diff in price. The expensive just wore a 'current colour' paint job.&#xD;&#xA;Towards the end I told custs - but still they bought... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26000" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="32806693-ef50-4062-91a8-0384ed65deb5" CreationDate="2020-11-28T00:03:30.227" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26003" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="5166346e-4d00-4211-a3b8-db490a09f750" CreationDate="2020-12-01T13:05:40.603" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2927" RevisionGUID="ca0fe81f-fcc3-485f-84ed-51370b035495" CreationDate="2020-12-02T08:19:39.173" UserId="99" Comment="Removed Rankabrand as it no longer exists, instead added new EthicalConsumers report" Text="There are 3 websites I recommend visiting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. **[Ethical Consumer](https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/technology/shopping-guide/laptops)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This article scores 15 laptops brands on use of conflict minerals and toxic chemicals, worker rights, carbon reporting and tax avoidance. &#xD;&#xA;The manufacturer of Iameco is listed as a bad choice when it comes to use of conflict minerals and worker rights, but they do score well&#xD;&#xA;on use of toxic chemicals and tax avoidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  2. **[Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/cool-it/Campaign-analysis/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/)**&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  This report is a bit older (2017) and rates 17 major consumer electronics companies. Greenpeace primarily looked at:&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &gt; three critical impact areas tied to product design and responsible supply chain management across the electronics sector:&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; - Energy: Reduction of greenhouse gases through efficiency and renewable energy&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; - Resource Consumption: sustainable design and use of recycled &#xD;&#xA;  materials&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; - Chemicals: Elimination of hazardous chemicals from both the product itself and manufacturing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Labour conditions and other social responsibilities are not included. &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  3. **[Conflict minerals company rankings](https://enoughproject.org/reports/demand-the-supply)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  This report is also from 2017 and rates the largest electronics companies on their usage of what they call &quot;conflict-free&quot; minerals in their products.&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; Companies were ranked based on four core categories of criteria:&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; 1. Conducting Conflict Minerals Sourcing Due Diligence and Reporting&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; 2. Developing a Conflict-Free Minerals Trade and Sourcing Conflict-Free Minerals from Congo, Particularly Gold&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; 3. Supporting and Improving Livelihoods for Artisanal Mining Communities in Eastern Congo&#xD;&#xA;  &gt; 4. Conflict-Free Minerals Advocacy&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;There is no clear winner in the Ethical Consumer report; companies that score well in 1 category score badly in another so it depends on what you think is most important. In the Greenpeace report the clear winner is Fairphone, but they sell smartphones and not laptops. Best laptop seller is Apple, followed by HP. Apple and HP also score well in the conflict minerals report. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned by Pheidlauf in [their comment above](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2925/how-do-i-find-an-eco-friendly-laptop#comment3529_2925) the greenest choice is to continue using your current laptop if you have one. Repairing or upgrading it is a better choice than buying a new one. Older laptops can become very slow if you run Windows, but you could [install Linux instead](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/4824/99).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with any of the sites or brands mentioned in this post (other than owning a Fairphone and making a small donation to Greenpeace every month).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26008" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10392" RevisionGUID="dee8296e-46b3-4fd4-893b-e66440fd1baa" CreationDate="2020-12-04T05:13:54.157" UserId="9007" Text="Decades of wind power subsidies haven't done much for energy solutions. The biggest lie of  is that the wind can power an entire economy. Every country that’s ever tried has failed – abysmally. The UK is no exception nor Ireland. The UK in 2017 had Renewable Energy installations:Wind Power nameplate capacity of 19.0 Gigawatts:  Actual capacity 19.6%:  producing  3.72 GW. Because of both these poor capacity factors and their unreliability, the business case for Weather Dependent Renewables is not viable without the massive subsidies or fossil fuel backup for 80% of the time.  Those additional costs are charged to power consumers. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10393" RevisionGUID="801f7cc3-6c19-45a9-ac26-fa0589ee3a50" CreationDate="2020-12-04T05:18:06.440" UserId="9007" Text="Don't worry about the energy/environmental aspect of such a small instrument.&#xD;&#xA;An ordinary pencil is made of wood, sustainable material. And graphite is recyclable. The US produces 130,000 tons of synthetic graphite annually, so it's not a big deal" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10394" RevisionGUID="8992642d-7285-4722-ba5b-1a56d02d5347" CreationDate="2020-12-05T11:13:48.797" UserId="9159" Text="When I search about recycling compostable packaging I always find articles about recycling packages to the backyard pit etc. My question is not about it. I just want to throw compostable packaging away. The question is: where? Does it go together with plastics? Or should it better go with unsorted waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10394" RevisionGUID="8992642d-7285-4722-ba5b-1a56d02d5347" CreationDate="2020-12-05T11:13:48.797" UserId="9159" Text="Throwing away compostable packaging" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10394" RevisionGUID="8992642d-7285-4722-ba5b-1a56d02d5347" CreationDate="2020-12-05T11:13:48.797" UserId="9159" Text="|recycling|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10395" RevisionGUID="97ba39db-7db7-4e89-b71d-778d147cb16d" CreationDate="2020-12-05T14:42:19.603" UserId="99" Text="How to dispose of things depends on your local waste processing facility and what kind of waste streams they can handle, so it's always best to ask them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few general guidelines though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the packaging is **paper or cardboard-based** dispose of it along with other paper or cardboard if that's collected separately where you live. If the packaging is not laminated and/or does not have a glossy feel you could also dispose of it along with other organic material so it will be composted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it's not paper or cardboard, most likely it's **compostable plastics** (probably PLA) and most recyclers will advice you to dispose of it in the 'unsorted' waste. In theory these types of plastics can be composted, but they require [special processing facilities](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2607/99) where the plastics are kept at high temperatures for a longer period to break it down. Very few waste processors do that and most compostable plastics end up in landfills or being incinerated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not dispose of compostable plastics together with regular plastics because it contaminates that waste stream.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26014" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10394" RevisionGUID="9be2e59f-8cd7-418f-a3a7-b0887127b529" CreationDate="2020-12-05T14:45:54.333" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|composting|compostable-plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26015" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10394" RevisionGUID="9be2e59f-8cd7-418f-a3a7-b0887127b529" CreationDate="2020-12-05T14:45:54.333" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="When I search about recycling compostable packaging I always find articles about recycling packages to the backyard pit etc. My question is not about that. I just want to throw compostable packaging away. The question is: where? Does it go together with plastics? Or should it better go with unsorted waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26016" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10394" RevisionGUID="26c17598-bfa2-48f4-8f2c-03433d942645" CreationDate="2020-12-05T19:14:18.377" />
  <row Id="26018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9878" RevisionGUID="7233e351-c8ba-4f72-b21c-19a95c2011eb" CreationDate="2020-12-06T12:08:44.763" UserId="99" Comment="elaborated on pros and cons of hosting at home, added link to sustainable.dev blog" Text="The most sustainable hosting choice would use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. 100% renewable energy&#xD;&#xA;  2. energy-efficient servers&#xD;&#xA;  3. properly recycle all hardware at the end of their lifespan&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Hosting at home&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could consider hosting yourself at home and use electricity generated by your own solar panels. The [solar.lowtechmagazine.com website](https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/power.html) does that for example. The advantage is that you are sure where the electricity is coming from, have control over what servers are used and how they are disposed eventually.&#xD;&#xA;However if you rely on solar panels only, your site may go down when it's clouded (which does happen occasionally to the lowtechmagazin.com site mentioned above) unless you invest a lot in batteries. Also at home you can't be as energy-efficient as a professional hosting company. They use shared servers or virtualization to host many sites on a single server. Some [data centers](https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/data-centers-that-recycle-waste-heat/) even transfer their waste heat to near-by houses, greenhouses or swimming pools for even better efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Green hosting companies&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a large number of hosting companies that claim they are using 100% renewable energy. Unfortunately data on how they recycle their hardware is very rarely provided. Also it is hard to check if a hosting company is telling the truth about their sources of electricity or are only green-washing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Luckily there is a not-for-profit organization called [The Green Web Foundation (GWF)](https://www.thegreenwebfoundation.org) that checks hosting companies and publishes a list&#xD;&#xA;of companies that use 100% renewable energy. At the time of writing their [directory](https://www.thegreenwebfoundation.org/directory/) contains 533 green hosting companies in 63 countries. &#xD;&#xA;Another interesting source is the blog on sustainable.dev about '[How to find a green hosting provider](https://the-sustainable.dev/how-to-find-a-green-hosting-provider/)'." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10397" RevisionGUID="c876abf0-87dc-4acc-b9ba-c03470b6e499" CreationDate="2020-12-06T12:21:29.723" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; Methanol is probably the easiest burnable fuel to produce that is also sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No it isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only sustainable fuels that can scale to the needed amounts are invariably based on wind/solar electricity that is used to split water into oxygen and hydrogen in electrolysis cells. The easiest fuel to produce that is sustainable is hydrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second easiest fuel to produce that may be sustainable (if you have a source of enough sustainable CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) is methane. To produce methane, you need to combine carbon dioxide and hydrogen in a Sabatier reactor. The downside of methane is that burning it releases carbon dioxide, so to make it truly sustainable you need to get that CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; from a sustainable source. The problem? If you capture all CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emitted by the factories of the forestry industry (producing pulp, paper, etc), you will quickly see that the amount of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; captured isn't enough to make enough methane to cover all energy uses of oil and natural gas today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So methane is sustainable if you limit its use to only some critical areas like air and naval traffic. Usage in road transportation is already too much, the amount of sustainable CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is not enough to produce enough methanol to be used in road transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Producing methanol and other liquid hydrocarbons requires even more steps than producing methane or hydrogen. The cost to produce these sustainably is probably so high that the market isn't willing to pay the cost, instead preferring hydrogen or direct electricity and in some limited cases methane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does an internal combustion engine (ICE) electrical generator that uses methanol as fuel exist? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yes. Large internal combustion engines can burn any combustible liquid or gas. Gasoline, methanol, ethanol, diesel, heavy fuel oil, methane, hydrogen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10398" RevisionGUID="f822986f-1bcd-41d4-a0a2-1192a57241e2" CreationDate="2020-12-06T12:32:21.943" UserId="6393" Text="What you essentially want can be achieved in two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Biodegradable oil. The idea is that the oil you emit to the environment biodegrades so that even though you emit some oil, it won't cause as much harm. The problem of this approach is that there may be no mechanism to prevent it biodegrading in your chain. You want the degradation to happen only if emitted to the environment but you want it to stay as-is in the chain, which may not be feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. An oil that penetrates to the innards of the chain and subsequently will stay in the chain. If the oil will stay in the chain, you won't emit it much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would pick approach (2). The requirements of this approach may be somewhat contradictory. In particular, you want the chain oil to penetrate to the innards of the chain which requires it to be thin, and then subsequently stay in the chain which requires it to be thick. A chain oil that is thick and thin at the same time. Sounds impossible, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, it is possible. There are liquids that are both thick and thin. The interesting property is thixotropy. If you agitate a thixotropic liquid, the movement makes it thin. If you then leave it settle, it gradually becomes thick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These thixotropic chain oils are usually found in a spray can. The act of shaking the can and subsequently spraying the oil makes it thin, so when you apply it, it quickly penetrates to the innards of the chain. Then when left inside the chain, it becomes thick, helping it stay there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to test if a spray can oil is thixotropic: shake the can, spray it to a glass container, test by tilting the glass container how thin the liquid is. Then leave it settle for a day. Check again if it has become thicker.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know about motorcycles but in bicycles the rules of thumb of oiling the chain are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Oil the chain only when it needs the oil. Prior to oiling the chain, wipe the dirt away from the chain. Unnecessary oiling will cause accelerated chain wear. By reducing the number of times you oil the chain, you reduce the amount of chain oil emitted to the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Put as minimal amount of oil to the chain as you can. This also helps reduce the amount of chain oil emitted to the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. After oiled, remove the surface oil with a rag so that only oil inside the chain stays on the chain. This also helps reduce the amount of chain oil emitted to the environment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="849375a0-a4c9-4db6-919c-738449f4f032" CreationDate="2020-12-06T21:45:27.840" UserId="9162" Text="I live in an apartment in an urban area. I would love to be able to recycle, but unfortunately, my building doesn't offer recycling as a service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've searched for recycling facilities near me, and all of the ones that I've found are large-scale industrial ones (places where the recycling trucks unload). I've also searched for individual public recycling stations, but the ones that I've found seem like they're used by the public as trash dumpsters, which makes me think that they would be rejected by the recycling company for being contaminated with non-recyclable material." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26024" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="849375a0-a4c9-4db6-919c-738449f4f032" CreationDate="2020-12-06T21:45:27.840" UserId="9162" Text="How Can I Recycle When My Apartment Doesn't Offer It?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26025" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="849375a0-a4c9-4db6-919c-738449f4f032" CreationDate="2020-12-06T21:45:27.840" UserId="9162" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26026" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10226" RevisionGUID="43a8fa4c-8b30-42f8-ab11-a3c0bb727122" CreationDate="2020-12-07T19:32:08.327" UserId="3379" Comment="Added additional lightweighting sources. Formatted using table." Text="**TL;DR:** Wireless charging adds about 16 kg to the mass of a bus vs plug-in charging, but allows the total battery sized to be reduced (given ability to charge more frequently), allowing a battery mass reduction of 56 to 73% (1,979 to 2,577 kg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Component mass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;Plug-in vs. wireless charging: Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions for an electric bus system&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.031) provides a full inventory of the mass of the various components required for bus wireless charging (a pdf of the masters thesis the article is based on has more detail and is available [here](http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/css_doc/CSS15-26.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The on-board components of a 60 kW wireless battery charger are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;| Component | Mass [kg] |&#xD;&#xA;| --------- | --------: |&#xD;&#xA;| Coil plate (inductive charging secondary)      |    75.0   &#xD;&#xA;| Power conditioner and protection, output rectifier and filter, with driver circuit                                          |     3.0&#xD;&#xA;| In-vehicle cooling system                      |    20.0 &#xD;&#xA;| Control board                                  |     0.3&#xD;&#xA;| Aluminum sheet (for mounting and enclosure)    |    17.0&#xD;&#xA;| **TOTAL**                                      | **114.0**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Total mass of all components: 114 kg for 60 kW charger, or 1.9 kg/kW.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than the coil plate, plug-in charging requires the same components, but only one (the cooling system) is on the bus. The mass of the on-vehicle cooling system is 98 kg, meaning that **the on-vehicle weight for wireless charging is only 16 kg greater (0.3 kg/kW) than for a plug-in electric bus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bus &quot;lightweighting&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the on-vehicle charging system is heavier for a wireless charging bus, the total capacity of the battery can be reduced without sacrificing range, since the bus can charge more often. As the battery mass is reduced, bus efficiency improves, allowing a secondary reduction in battery capacity while still maintaining the same range -- for every 10% decrease in bus mass, the energy demand is reduced by 4.5%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the route, the mass of the battery pack can be reduced by anywhere from 56 to 73% (1,979 to 2,577 kg):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Wireless vs plug in battery weight][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This decrease is about 100x more significant than the increased charger weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other researchers have also looked at the question of how wireless charging can allow battery capacity to be reduced, including such factors as the number of buses along a route (which influences how long they remain in one place), and the use of charging tracks (allowing wireless charging while entering and leaving a bus stop, in addition to while picking up passengers). The range of estimates for battery lightweighting match the range in the study cited above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 40% reduction ([2013: &quot;Charging up the road&quot;](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6481699))&#xD;&#xA; - 50% reduction ([2015: &quot;Economic Analysis of the Dynamic Charging Electric Vehicle&quot;](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7089287))&#xD;&#xA; - 80% reduction ([2016: &quot;System Architecture and Mathematical Models of Electric Transit Bus System Utilizing Wireless Power Transfer Technology&quot;](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7008443))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZrZd1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10226" RevisionGUID="1920004f-ec16-4abe-aa18-8938bc9bcf28" CreationDate="2020-12-07T19:41:31.323" UserId="3379" Comment="Added additional lightweighting sources. Formatted using table." Text="**TL;DR:** Wireless charging adds about 16 kg to the mass of a bus vs plug-in charging, but allows the total battery sized to be reduced (given ability to charge more frequently), allowing a battery mass reduction of 56 to 73% (1,979 to 2,577 kg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Component mass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;Plug-in vs. wireless charging: Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions for an electric bus system&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.031) provides a full inventory of the mass of the various components required for bus wireless charging (a pdf of the masters thesis the article is based on has more detail and is available [here](http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/css_doc/CSS15-26.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The on-board components of a 60 kW wireless battery charger are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;| Component | Mass [kg] |&#xD;&#xA;| --------- | --------: |&#xD;&#xA;| Coil plate (inductive charging secondary)      |    75.0   &#xD;&#xA;| Power conditioner and protection, output rectifier and filter, with driver circuit                                          |     3.0&#xD;&#xA;| In-vehicle cooling system                      |    20.0 &#xD;&#xA;| Control board                                  |     0.3&#xD;&#xA;| Aluminum sheet (for mounting and enclosure)    |    17.0&#xD;&#xA;| **TOTAL**                                      | **114.0**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Total mass of all components: 114 kg for 60 kW charger, or 1.9 kg/kW.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than the coil plate, plug-in charging requires the same components, but only one (the cooling system) is on the bus. The mass of the on-vehicle cooling system is 98 kg, meaning that **the on-vehicle weight for wireless charging is only 16 kg greater (0.3 kg/kW) than for a plug-in electric bus.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bus &quot;lightweighting&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although the on-vehicle charging system is heavier for a wireless charging bus, the total capacity of the battery can be reduced without sacrificing range, since the bus can charge more often. As the battery mass is reduced, bus efficiency improves, allowing a secondary reduction in battery capacity while still maintaining the same range -- for every 10% decrease in bus mass, the energy demand is reduced by 4.5%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the route, the mass of the battery pack can be reduced by anywhere from 56 to 73% (1,979 to 2,577 kg). This assumes stops of 30 seconds at normal bus stops, and 6 minutes at transfer points, for a total charging time of about 25% of the time the bus is active on a route.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Wireless vs plug in battery weight][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This decrease is about 100x more significant than the increased charger weight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other researchers have also looked at the question of how wireless charging can allow battery capacity to be reduced, including such factors as the number of buses along a route (which influences how long they remain in one place), and the use of charging tracks (allowing wireless charging while entering and leaving a bus stop, in addition to while picking up passengers). The range of estimates for battery lightweighting match the range in the study cited above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 40% reduction ([2013: &quot;Charging up the road&quot;](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6481699))&#xD;&#xA; - 50% reduction using charging tracks over 20 minutes, or about 16% of total operating time ([2015: &quot;Economic Analysis of the Dynamic Charging Electric Vehicle&quot;](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7089287))&#xD;&#xA; - 80% reduction using an algorithm that extends charging tracks to match bus schedule ([2016: &quot;System Architecture and Mathematical Models of Electric Transit Bus System Utilizing Wireless Power Transfer Technology&quot;](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7008443))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZrZd1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10400" RevisionGUID="c86b1199-2bfc-4957-9467-c9d3150285a8" CreationDate="2020-12-07T22:32:03.893" UserId="9165" Text="provide them with brush piles and only release them into a free range area when you have alot like at least 20-100. and keep a few backups in a pen. we had a guinea pig live to almost 9 years living in our yard with dogs snakes skunks and hawks it will work fine. i was in texas with one acre." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10401" RevisionGUID="f74c6a30-eb90-4daf-8ac8-2c5b8d75c31e" CreationDate="2020-12-08T00:38:47.037" UserId="9166" Text="Grass is more efficient at capturing carbon from the atmosphere. If it is used productively, ie, used to feed animals or the clippings mulched or composted, this locks away the carbon very effectively. When grass is mowed or grazed, the roots—which store a significant proportion of the plant's carbon deposits—are shed by the plant and become part of the organic matter in the soil, providing nutrition and habitat for bacteria, fungi, worms and other creatures. This all locks away carbon in the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Over 20 years, a hectare of grass, properly managed, will produce more vegetative mass than a hectare of trees. Because the biomass is harvested throughout the year it may seem that there is less in a meadow than in a forest but if you consider all of the clippings that have been usefully produced, the mass is greater from the meadow (all other things being equal)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26032" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10354" RevisionGUID="b62923a9-a5f6-4600-bc89-a67a65910d17" CreationDate="2020-12-09T08:05:50.733" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26036" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="ce68a587-c5a1-4e0b-9b1a-4fe97d03acb9" CreationDate="2020-12-09T13:13:20.933" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10404" RevisionGUID="95168b73-4047-4281-9586-2f0df78dce4e" CreationDate="2020-12-10T06:04:55.933" UserId="6293" Text="Building a house often involves paying a contractor $30000 to build a heavy concrete-block foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead build your own foundation by sticking a piece of 304L in a wet-pour concrete footing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, consider a bird's-eye-view of a 304L L-angle, at 0.100 to 0.120 thickness, that has legs pointing North and West. Then take a 304L channel with legs pointing East. Bolt the channel to the North-pointing leg of the L-angle but have the channel cut shorter such that a floor-joist can sit on the channel and bolt to the side of the L-angle. However, have the width of the channel such that a wall-stud can sit beside the floor-joist. Now put a second wall-stud on top of the floor joist and bolt it in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then as the two wall-studs reach the ceiling-joist one wall-stud is cut shorter such that the ceiling joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of the other stud. Of course the opposite side of the ceiling-joist and floor-joist is also built and the entire house bolts together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But only use 18-8 nuts, bolts, and washers when touching the 304L. Galvanized nuts, bolts, and washers are okay elsewhere but zinc-planted nuts, bolts, and washers are not okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now since the house has two wall-studs at each stud location, consider using even cedar wood. Or inexpensive white-pine is okay if bugs are not a worry. In fact floor-joists can be stacked in position if an extra-size of floor-joist is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the foundation has high reaches, then instead two wall-studs can rise from the 304L foundation such that one wall-stud is cut shorter for the floor-joist to sit on. Then a bolted wall-stud piece is fitted between floor-joist and ceiling joist. Of course use wall-studs with taller cross-sections for the floor-joist support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now a bolted blocking use 0.100 to 0.120 galvanized brackets is needed between wall-stud locations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, all the concrete that the house needs is for simple footings at floor-joist supports. Also, the crawl-space house can add systems at any time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional notes, construction of the 304L foundation requires a metal-cutting bandsaw and power-drills for drilling holes. Also, the 304L should be bought wholesale in twenty-foot lengths.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26041" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10404" RevisionGUID="0c4121e0-e077-44f1-bf28-a56620aa3db1" CreationDate="2020-12-10T06:10:57.350" UserId="6293" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Building a house often involves paying a contractor $30000 to build a heavy concrete-block foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead build your own foundation by sticking a piece of 304L in a wet-pour concrete footing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, consider a bird's-eye-view of a 304L L-angle, at 0.100 to 0.120 thickness, that has legs pointing North and West. Then take a 304L channel with legs pointing East. Bolt the channel to the North-pointing leg of the L-angle but have the channel cut shorter such that a floor-joist can sit on the channel and bolt to the side of the L-angle. However, have the width of the channel such that a wall-stud can sit beside the floor-joist. Now put a second wall-stud on top of the floor joist and bolt it in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then as the two wall-studs reach the ceiling-joist one wall-stud is cut shorter such that the ceiling joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of the other stud. Of course the opposite side of the ceiling-joist and floor-joist is also built and the entire house bolts together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But only use 18-8 nuts, bolts, and washers when touching the 304L. Galvanized nuts, bolts, and washers are okay elsewhere but zinc-planted nuts, bolts, and washers are not okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now since the house has two wall-studs at each stud location, consider using even cedar wood. Or inexpensive white-pine is okay if bugs are not a worry. In fact floor-joists can be stacked in position if an extra-size of floor-joist is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the foundation has high reaches, then instead two wall-studs can rise from the 304L foundation such that one wall-stud is cut shorter for the floor-joist to sit on. Then a bolted wall-stud piece is fitted between floor-joist and ceiling joist. Of course use wall-studs with taller cross-sections for the floor-joist support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now a bolted blocking is required near the tops of the wall-studs. Use 0.100 to 0.120 thickness galvanized brackets for the bolted blocking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, all the concrete that the house needs is for simple small footings at floor-joist supports. Also, the crawl-space house can add systems at any time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional notes, construction of the 304L foundation requires a metal-cutting bandsaw and power-drills for drilling holes. Also, the 304L should be bought wholesale in twenty-foot lengths. Foundation layout and height is required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26042" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10404" RevisionGUID="b847fba5-c80e-4fb0-819c-253c7ed00354" CreationDate="2020-12-10T06:16:42.543" UserId="6293" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="Building a house often involves paying a contractor $30000 to build a heavy concrete-block foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead build your own foundation by sticking a piece of 304L in a wet-pour concrete footing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, consider a bird's-eye-view of a 304L L-angle, at 0.100 to 0.120 thickness, that has legs pointing North and West. Then take a 304L channel with legs pointing East. Bolt the channel to the North-pointing leg of the L-angle but have the channel cut shorter such that a floor-joist can sit on the channel and bolt to the side of the L-angle. However, have the width of the channel such that a wall-stud can sit beside the floor-joist. Now put a second wall-stud on top of the floor joist and bolt it in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then as the two wall-studs reach the ceiling-joist one wall-stud is cut shorter such that the ceiling joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of the other stud. Of course the opposite side of the ceiling-joist and floor-joist is also built and the entire house bolts together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But only use 18-8 nuts, bolts, and washers when touching the 304L. Galvanized nuts, bolts, and washers are okay elsewhere but zinc-planted nuts, bolts, and washers are not okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now since the house has two wall-studs at each stud location, consider using even cedar wood. Or inexpensive white-pine is okay if bugs are not a worry. In fact floor-joists can be stacked in position if an extra-size of floor-joist is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the foundation has high reaches, then instead two wall-studs can rise from the 304L foundation such that one wall-stud is cut shorter for the floor-joist to sit on. Then a bolted wall-stud piece is fitted between floor-joist and ceiling joist. Of course use wall-studs with taller cross-sections for the floor-joist support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now a bolted blocking is required near the tops of the wall-studs. Use 0.100 to 0.120 thickness galvanized brackets for the bolted blocking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, all the concrete that the house needs is for simple small footings at floor-joist supports. Also, the crawl-space house can add systems at any time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional notes, construction of the 304L foundation requires a metal-cutting bandsaw and power-drills for drilling holes. Also, the 304L should be bought wholesale in twenty-foot lengths. Foundation layout and height is required. Oh, the foot of each 304L support, as set in a wet-pour concrete footing, should have a 304L plate on the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10404" RevisionGUID="e57ca25d-0840-4b97-b845-fae2b749df9c" CreationDate="2020-12-10T06:47:41.920" UserId="6293" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Building a house often involves paying a contractor $30000 to build a heavy concrete-block foundation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead build your own foundation by sticking a piece of 304L in a wet-pour concrete footing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance, consider a bird's-eye-view of a 304L L-angle, at 0.100 to 0.120 thickness, that has legs pointing North and West. Then take a 304L channel with legs pointing East. Bolt the channel to the North-pointing leg of the L-angle but have the channel cut shorter such that a floor-joist can sit on the channel and bolt to the side of the L-angle. However, have the width of the channel such that a wall-stud can sit beside the floor-joist. Now put a second wall-stud on top of the floor joist and bolt it in place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then as the two wall-studs reach the ceiling-joist one wall-stud is cut shorter such that the ceiling joist can sit on one stud and bolt to the side of the other stud. Of course the opposite side of the ceiling-joist and floor-joist is also built and the entire house bolts together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But only use 18-8 nuts, bolts, and washers when touching the 304L. Galvanized nuts, bolts, and washers are okay elsewhere but zinc-planted nuts, bolts, and washers are not okay.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now since the house has two wall-studs at each stud location, consider using even rough cedar lumber. Or inexpensive white-pine is okay if bugs are not a worry. In fact floor-joists can be stacked in position if an extra-size of floor-joist is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the foundation has high reaches, then instead two wall-studs can rise from the 304L foundation such that one wall-stud is cut shorter for the floor-joist to sit on. Then a bolted wall-stud piece is fitted between floor-joist and ceiling joist. Of course use wall-studs with taller cross-sections for the floor-joist support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now a bolted blocking is required near the tops of the wall-studs. Use 0.100 to 0.120 thickness galvanized brackets for the bolted blocking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, all the concrete that the house needs is for simple small footings at floor-joist supports. Also, the crawl-space house can add systems at any time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional notes, construction of the 304L foundation requires a metal-cutting bandsaw and power-drills for drilling holes. Also, the 304L should be bought wholesale in twenty-foot lengths. Foundation layout and height is required. Oh, the foot of each 304L support, as set in a wet-pour concrete footing, should have a 304L plate on the bottom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10405" RevisionGUID="4f84c270-7117-43b5-8d9d-e665784dff2d" CreationDate="2020-12-10T17:42:36.700" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; We would like to implement as many sustainable strategies as possible, ideally being nearly &lt;b&gt;off-grid&lt;/b&gt;, with solar panels, rainwater storage, grey water recycling, humanure / methane tank toilets, ventilation based on good design, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forget it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, my house (105 square meters) has perhaps 3500 kWh of electricity used and 13000 kWh of heat used per year. This isn't some load that varies in perfect synchrony with the sun as the sun goes up and down, but it's a continuous load with electricity use peaking after I get home from work, and with head use peaking when it's cold. When it's cold, the Finnish winter has so little sunshine that solar heating would be a bit tricky. I'm not saying it's impossible but the expenses of collecting enough solar heat would be far more than buying the electricity would be in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 13000 kWh of heat when produced with a heat pump would consume about 3700 kWh of electricity. So the total electricity usage would be around 7200 kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the area where I live, a company producing nuclear power and hydropower trades for around 18 euros per share. One share is enough to produce 76 kWh per year of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-free electricity. So, to produce 7200 kWh of electricity per year would need 95 shares, costing 1710 euros. (This 76 kWh per share is the clean generation; currently the company has some CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-emitting production too that will be surely shut down in no time so I didn't count it in the figure.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Show me the system of solar heat collectors, solar panels, inverters, battery chargers and batteries that can produce the electricity and heat for less than 1710 euros!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cleanest power comes from the electricity grid of the future. The current grid still has some dirty power that will be shut down according to the climate agreements. The way to achieve as much environmental benefit as possible for a given amount of money is to invest them to clean grid-scale energy production, not on producing batteries that requires huge amounts of resources and thus has a big ecological footprint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26045" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10405" RevisionGUID="24bf8dce-930c-47c2-902e-d0f9bdf1ad81" CreationDate="2020-12-10T17:49:04.190" UserId="6393" Comment="typo" Text="&gt; We would like to implement as many sustainable strategies as possible, ideally being nearly &lt;b&gt;off-grid&lt;/b&gt;, with solar panels, rainwater storage, grey water recycling, humanure / methane tank toilets, ventilation based on good design, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forget it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, my house (105 square meters) has perhaps 3500 kWh of electricity used and 13000 kWh of heat used per year. This isn't some load that varies in perfect synchrony with the sun as the sun goes up and down, but it's a continuous load with electricity use peaking after I get home from work, and with heat use peaking when it's cold. When it's cold, the Finnish winter has so little sunshine that solar heating would be a bit tricky. I'm not saying it's impossible but the expenses of collecting enough solar heat would be far more than buying the electricity would be in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 13000 kWh of heat when produced with a heat pump would consume about 3700 kWh of electricity. So the total electricity usage would be around 7200 kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the area where I live, a company producing nuclear power and hydropower trades for around 18 euros per share. One share is enough to produce 76 kWh per year of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-free electricity. So, to produce 7200 kWh of electricity per year would need 95 shares, costing 1710 euros. (This 76 kWh per share is the clean generation; currently the company has some CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-emitting production too that will be surely shut down in no time so I didn't count it in the figure.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Show me the system of solar heat collectors, solar panels, inverters, battery chargers and batteries that can produce the electricity and heat for less than 1710 euros!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cleanest power comes from the electricity grid of the future. The current grid still has some dirty power that will be shut down according to the climate agreements. The way to achieve as much environmental benefit as possible for a given amount of money is to invest them to clean grid-scale energy production, not on producing batteries that requires huge amounts of resources and thus has a big ecological footprint." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10406" RevisionGUID="61683b56-a96f-4166-b847-66547509217b" CreationDate="2020-12-10T18:04:38.407" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; I wonder how much carbon dioxide does grass sequester, compared to trees. Moreover, is grass still efficient in absorbing pollution? It seems to me that grass would be more efficient in storing carbon in soil than trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I live, trees grow 7 cubic meters per hectare per year. One cubic meter is 0.5 tonnes so this is 3.5 tonnes per hectare per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 acre is 0.404686 hectares so it's 1.42 tonnes per acre per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If grass grows 10,000lb per acre per year then that's about three times as fast as tree growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, consider what happens to the carbon after the tree or grass is cut down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trees can be for example be used to construct houses. The carbon stays sequestered for 100 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grass will usually biodegrade after cutting it, if exposed to ambient air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to cause the carbon in cut grass to stay sequestered, you will need to dig a hole to the ground, store the grass there and cover it in such a manner that oxygen can't reach the cut grass. Then the cut grass will become the fossil fuel reserves of the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of this however is only of academic interest. In reality, we are using fossil fuels at such a great rate that the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; created will never be captured this way. The problem needs to be fixed at the source, by using alternative forms of energy production, not by attempting to store cut grass underground." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26047" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10407" RevisionGUID="534b2d18-04ed-4294-96e4-ecaa098aeb0b" CreationDate="2020-12-10T18:10:46.417" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; I live in an apartment in an urban area. I would love to be able to recycle, but unfortunately, my building doesn't offer recycling as a service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Vote.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This sounds a very foreign problem to me. I live in an urban area in a house that doesn't have any recycling of waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is not an issue to me. I sort the waste, and when I happen to drive near containers that accept sorted waste, I put my sorted waste there. I do so only when I have some other reason for such a car trip and then dump a large amount of waste there at once, so nobody can complain the dozen or so kilometers in my car create so much emissions that recycling the waste would be counterproductive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems strange to me that there are municipalities where public sorted waste containers are not available. However, to make them available, your best bet is to &lt;b&gt;vote&lt;/b&gt; for a candidate who views such containers favorably." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10408" RevisionGUID="2ecda779-f090-4a4b-9cec-ea68ee797538" CreationDate="2020-12-10T21:45:04.487" UserId="9180" Text="It has been in the news recently that the carbon footprint of Netflix and other streaming services is significant.[1.6 Kg of carbon dioxide][1] per ½ hour viewing is on the high side of the estimates, [451,000 megawatt hours][2] for the whole world is on low side.  An alternative technology for accessing such media is bittorrent.  Without considering the legal aspects, how would the carbon footprint of getting your media from bittorrent compare with getting it from Netflix?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/half-hour-of-netflix-leads-to-emissions-of-1-6kg-of-co2-equivalent-climate-experts-11572240109579.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/12/real-problem-netflix-addiction-arbon-emissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26049" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10408" RevisionGUID="2ecda779-f090-4a4b-9cec-ea68ee797538" CreationDate="2020-12-10T21:45:04.487" UserId="9180" Text="What is the relative carbon footprint of getting ones media from Netfix or bittorrent" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26050" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10408" RevisionGUID="2ecda779-f090-4a4b-9cec-ea68ee797538" CreationDate="2020-12-10T21:45:04.487" UserId="9180" Text="|environmental-impact|carbon-footprint|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10409" RevisionGUID="624f51d1-6253-46d5-b98b-aa25474612b7" CreationDate="2020-12-11T09:56:03.370" UserId="99" Text="I'm not sure what P2P protocol was used and if results for BitTorrent would be the same, but in [this study](https://nms.kcl.ac.uk/netsys/~aravindh/publications/ICDCS2018-consume-local.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;they calculated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a decrease of 24-48% in the system-wide carbon footprint of online video streaming&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;when using P2P compared to Content Delivery Networks. The paper describes that this is mainly because of&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; selecting close by peers to share content from leads to shorter paths compared to traditional CDNs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are however a few caveats:&#xD;&#xA;- There is little incentive for ISPs to participate as their traffic is only going up&#xD;&#xA;- The difference in download and upload bandwidth and different peers having different download speeds can limit the gains.&#xD;&#xA;- I read that a lot of Netflix traffic goes to mobile devices which are less suitable to use P2P networking&#xD;&#xA;- The paper compared a traditional CDN to a hybrid one where data is downloaded from peers where possible. I'm not sure what technology Netflix is using. There were [reports in 2014](https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/netflix-researching-large-scale-peer-to-peer-technology-for-streaming/) that they were hiring P2P engineers, but as far as I can gather Netflix is not using such technology yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26055" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="55bb1911-4e0d-4441-81f2-e7987e7557c2" CreationDate="2020-12-11T11:48:46.857" UserId="8232" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How can I recycle when my apartment doesn't offer it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26056" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="55bb1911-4e0d-4441-81f2-e7987e7557c2" CreationDate="2020-12-11T11:48:46.857" UserId="8232" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|recycling|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10411" RevisionGUID="81f88e0a-fd6a-4263-a21e-8de7ef06e17d" CreationDate="2020-12-12T07:13:04.573" UserId="9183" Text="If one is living in a polluted city and plants trees around his house.&#xD;&#xA;Will it save him from air pollution and heat." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10411" RevisionGUID="81f88e0a-fd6a-4263-a21e-8de7ef06e17d" CreationDate="2020-12-12T07:13:04.573" UserId="9183" Text="Will planting trees around my house save me from pollution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10411" RevisionGUID="81f88e0a-fd6a-4263-a21e-8de7ef06e17d" CreationDate="2020-12-12T07:13:04.573" UserId="9183" Text="|environmental-impact|energy-efficiency|heating|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26067" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10411" RevisionGUID="81ecafee-18b2-4566-a62f-717a40589c52" CreationDate="2020-12-12T18:23:26.233" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|city-living|air-pollution|trees|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26068" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10411" RevisionGUID="81ecafee-18b2-4566-a62f-717a40589c52" CreationDate="2020-12-12T18:23:26.233" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="If one is living in a polluted city and plants trees around their house, &#xD;&#xA;Will it reduce air pollution? What about reducing heat in the summer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10412" RevisionGUID="08cadb87-7fb3-415a-bf49-56a3d702de6f" CreationDate="2020-12-13T06:18:00.923" UserId="9007" Text="Tree's do filter air. But so do houseplants and they can exist in closer proximity to you. &#xD;&#xA;Also consider purchasing an Air purifier" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26070" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10399" RevisionGUID="22863ff2-4669-47dc-b5da-da2f7600388f" CreationDate="2020-12-13T09:00:06.407" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1338046023885787136" />
  <row Id="26071" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5670" RevisionGUID="711e4ec1-1f3d-4db5-90aa-ffb12e3baf95" CreationDate="2020-12-13T18:00:10.443" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1338181936246890497" />
  <row Id="26072" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10291" RevisionGUID="158fe72e-0a69-4f35-963f-12eba6c1b6e4" CreationDate="2020-12-14T12:04:50.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10413" RevisionGUID="3d9c6ba5-2f64-4615-b3c0-046b53d8558e" CreationDate="2020-12-15T22:27:18.077" UserId="2718" Text="Two parts or two questions, not sure: &#xA;Is it more efficient for a supermarket to send a van round to deliver stuff (eg a weekly/monthly shop for groceries) to multiple addresses, or for those people to drive (locally) to go and get it?&#xA;Secondly, individual items from mail order sellers. Again, van driving round but delivering only 1 item per address, or those people having to go on a shopping trip into town,where they would buy multiple items having accumulated a list.&#xA;This is partly driven by seeing adverts for apparently green items being sent to your door (eg dishwasher tablets) and partly because I can't work out which is more efficient so I try not to order online, but would if it was better.&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10413" RevisionGUID="3d9c6ba5-2f64-4615-b3c0-046b53d8558e" CreationDate="2020-12-15T22:27:18.077" UserId="2718" Text="Deliveries: sustainable or otherwise?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10413" RevisionGUID="3d9c6ba5-2f64-4615-b3c0-046b53d8558e" CreationDate="2020-12-15T22:27:18.077" UserId="2718" Text="|fuel-efficiency|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26078" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10413" RevisionGUID="a4934649-1bef-44af-a6f8-714bf25ddebf" CreationDate="2020-12-16T07:11:51.853" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|transport|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26079" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5061" RevisionGUID="c17cd321-9801-44df-9f4e-4013812ffb69" CreationDate="2020-12-16T07:28:40.727" UserId="99" Comment="fixed quote, improved intro" Text="**TLDR:** in this particular case, where the buyer lives very close to the shop, it's likely that buying in a brick-and-mortar shop has a lower carbon footprint compared to buying online. &#xD;&#xA;Online shopping may become greener when the distance to the shop is more than 14 - 50km (depending on your shopping behavior and on which scientific study you consult).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, the answer given by [Maxfield Solar](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5055/99) raises a very good point saying that &#xD;&#xA;  1. you should make a distinction between sustainability and environmental impact and &#xD;&#xA;  2. it's very difficult to go into a specific situation because we don't know all relevant details. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This being said, there have been a number of interesting scientific studies about shopping online versus shopping in a brick-and-mortar shop. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Important factors** to consider are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- method of transportation (for both the consumer and the retailer),&#xD;&#xA;- distance to the brick-and-mortar shop, &#xD;&#xA;- number of items that are bought in one go, &#xD;&#xA;- consumer shopping behavior (e.g. orientation trips, time spent browsing online, ordering express delivery, number of items that are returned),&#xD;&#xA;- missed deliveries (e.g. when a delivery truck tries to deliver a package multiple times, but the recipient is not at home).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Some conclusions** you often encounter in those studies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Transportation is the biggest contributor to carbon emissions&#xD;&#xA;- Delivery trucks are more efficient per item compared to the average consumer's  car because trucks optimize routing and deliver multiple items to various places in one go. Consequently driving to a brick-and-mortar store yourself usually just adds to the carbon footprint of a product.&#xD;&#xA;- Express delivery (often by air) and returned items can both have a significant impact on the total carbon footprint&#xD;&#xA;- Brick-and-mortar shops use more electricity and storage space compared to one central location used in online shopping.&#xD;&#xA;- Online shopping uses more packaging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one study which seems to be particularly relevant for this case. Looking at carbon footprint, [this German study done in 2012](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920912000521) has found that&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; online retailing causes lower CO2 emissions under many conditions. Nevertheless, the brick-and-mortar channel is more environmentally friendly when travel distances are small. The radius for which brick-and-mortar shopping has an advantage increases when returns, shifts in the use of public transport and information behavior are also considered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have access to the full article, but I did find [this online article](http://persquaremile.com/2013/08/21/what-is-more-energy-efficient-shopping-online-or-in-stores/) where more details where provided: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At short distances—less than 8.6 miles or 14 km one-way—in-store shoppers slightly edged out online customers per transaction, about 73.8 g CO2 vs 77.9 g CO2. But over that, online shoppers’ footprints remained relatively stable while store goers emissions skyrocketed to as high as 451.4 g CO2 per transaction if they had to travel over 62 miles or 100 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an older Swedish study done in 1999 which was quoted [here](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1799327) they found somewhat similar results with slightly different numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; one e-commerce delivery replaces 3.5 traditional shopping trips, if more that 25 orders are delivered at a time, and if travel distance is longer&#xD;&#xA;than 50 km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that different studies make different assumptions and use different cut-off rules (what is and isn't included in the measurements). As a result a definitive answer cannot be given.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Sources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Weideli, D. (2013) &quot;Environmental Analysis of US Online Shopping&quot;, Master Thesis Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, carried out at  MIT Center for Transportation &amp; Logistics&#xD;&#xA;Available at http://ctl.mit.edu/library/environmental_analysis_us_online_shopping&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Wiese, A. et al. (2012) &quot;Transport-related CO2 effects of online and brick-and-mortar shopping: a comparison and sensitivity analysis of clothing retailing&quot;, in *Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 17*, Issue 6, pp 473-477. Available via http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920912000521&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Plepys, A. (2002) &quot;The Grey Side of ICT&quot;, *Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 22*, No. 5, pp 509-523. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1799327" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26080" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10414" RevisionGUID="7388eaad-5d00-4800-8ab5-7954e7867ccb" CreationDate="2020-12-17T08:41:40.430" UserId="6182" Text="The Umweltbundesamt (sort of German EPA, I figure) recently released a new study on the &quot;[Ecologisation of online shopping](https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/die-oekologisierung-des-onlinehandels)&quot; - which obviously is in German. Anyway, core findings are that individual shopping using your won car is the worst (CO2-wise) with 600 to 1100 g CO2 (for a 5 km ride to the store), while delivery is better due to optimized routes and vehicle utilization, which sum up to 200 to 400 g CO2. Still, cycling beats both options on the last mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important side notice: The last mile (transport &amp; selling) makes up 10 % tops of the ecological foot print of your product. Therefore, it is way more important to buy sustainable goods in the first place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10415" RevisionGUID="a8e0b7cb-b935-48c2-bca8-3a75e3620077" CreationDate="2020-12-17T20:20:53.243" UserId="2122" Text="You know those hot sandwiches sold in grocery stores (northeast USA at least...) that are wrapped in a foil paper? Wouldn't it thermally make more sense to have the shiny foil facing in? To keep the heat reflected inside the sandwich?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26082" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10415" RevisionGUID="a8e0b7cb-b935-48c2-bca8-3a75e3620077" CreationDate="2020-12-17T20:20:53.243" UserId="2122" Text="doesn't it make more sense to wrap hot sandwiches with the foil facing in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26083" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10415" RevisionGUID="a8e0b7cb-b935-48c2-bca8-3a75e3620077" CreationDate="2020-12-17T20:20:53.243" UserId="2122" Text="|food|heating|food-storage|thermal-regulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10416" RevisionGUID="f746422b-9b57-4341-be39-50ba7bf74abb" CreationDate="2020-12-18T04:08:03.273" UserId="9007" Text="The foil / paper lamination creates air pockets between the layers that retain heat. Also the paper side absorbs some moisture and oils to attempt to keep it from getting soggy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26085" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10414" RevisionGUID="60e0d199-5d72-49c8-a4a3-b83543c67b05" CreationDate="2020-12-18T09:10:15.833" UserId="6182" Comment="edited body" Text="The Umweltbundesamt (sort of German EPA, I figure) recently released a new study on the &quot;[Ecologisation of online shopping](https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/die-oekologisierung-des-onlinehandels)&quot; - which obviously is in German. Anyway, core findings are that individual shopping using your own car is the worst (CO2-wise) with 600 to 1100 g CO2 (for a 5 km ride to the store), while delivery is better due to optimized routes and vehicle utilization, which sum up to 200 to 400 g CO2. Still, cycling beats both options on the last mile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Important side notice: The last mile (transport &amp; selling) makes up 10 % tops of the ecological foot print of your product. Therefore, it is way more important to buy sustainable goods in the first place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26086" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10417" RevisionGUID="a9092b32-2b28-4772-8c56-b3f3531b99ac" CreationDate="2020-12-18T09:11:35.270" UserId="99" Text="&lt;h2&gt;Pollution&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trees (and plants for that matter) can reduce air pollution by trapping small particles (fine dust) on their leaves and by absorbing gases such as nitrogen dioxide, ozone and sulfur dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;However, depending on the location and type of tree it is also possible that trees prevent pollution like exhaust fumes from cars from flowing away. Also, to have any noticeable effects you would have to plant a lot of trees and/or plant big already-mature trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Air quality improvement in New York City due to pollution removal by trees during daytime of the in-leaf season averaged 0.47% for particulate matter, 0.45% for ozone, 0.43% for sulfur dioxide, 0.30% for nitrogen dioxide, and 0.002% for carbon monoxide&#xD;&#xA;....&#xD;&#xA;Large healthy trees greater than 77 cm in diameter remove approximately 70 times more air pollution annually (1.4 kg/yr) than small healthy trees less than 8 cm in diameter (0.02 kg/yr). ([source](https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/units/urban/local-resources/downloads/Tree_Air_Qual.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Temperature&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A single tree can have a fairly big influence on heat. A big tree can shade parts of a house, but the transpiration of a tree also has a cooling effect. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  All the trees show a consistent effect: temperatures are reduced and humidities are elevated under the canopies. The greatest cooling effect (0.7 -1.3°C) occurs&#xD;&#xA;in the early afternoon. ... However, street trees are significantly less effective&#xD;&#xA;in cooling than either individual trees or clumps planted over grass. &#xD;&#xA;([source](http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&amp;ArticleID=2581&amp;Type=2))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10417" RevisionGUID="c7e0fd50-f504-4cfc-aaf2-dab8d59bb896" CreationDate="2020-12-18T10:57:14.103" UserId="99" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="&lt;h2&gt;Pollution&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trees (and plants for that matter) can reduce air pollution by trapping small particles (fine dust) on their leaves and by absorbing gases such as nitrogen dioxide, ozone and sulfur dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;However, depending on the location and type of tree it is also possible that trees prevent pollution like exhaust fumes from cars from flowing away quickly. Also, to have any noticeable effects you would have to plant a lot of trees and/or plant big already-mature trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Air quality improvement in New York City due to pollution removal by trees during daytime of the in-leaf season averaged 0.47% for particulate matter, 0.45% for ozone, 0.43% for sulfur dioxide, 0.30% for nitrogen dioxide, and 0.002% for carbon monoxide&#xD;&#xA;....&#xD;&#xA;Large healthy trees greater than 77 cm in diameter remove approximately 70 times more air pollution annually (1.4 kg/yr) than small healthy trees less than 8 cm in diameter (0.02 kg/yr). ([source](https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/units/urban/local-resources/downloads/Tree_Air_Qual.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;h2&gt;Heat&lt;/h2&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A single tree can have a fairly big influence on heat. Bricks, roofing and tiles take up a lot of heat when they are in direct sunlight, so making sure they are shaded by trees can help keep things cooler. Also, the transpiration of a tree also has a cooling effect by keeping the air more moist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  All the trees show a consistent effect: temperatures are reduced and humidities are elevated under the canopies. The greatest cooling effect (0.7 -1.3°C) occurs&#xD;&#xA;in the early afternoon. ... However, street trees are significantly less effective&#xD;&#xA;in cooling than either individual trees or clumps planted over grass. &#xD;&#xA;([source](http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&amp;ArticleID=2581&amp;Type=2))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26088" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10411" RevisionGUID="76d53c93-f1d6-4a0f-8b0e-f8c79e509d76" CreationDate="2020-12-18T12:00:09.370" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1339903274082852867" />
  <row Id="26089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10418" RevisionGUID="76a26552-e1c2-480d-8938-2923d8488bb5" CreationDate="2020-12-18T19:13:07.083" UserId="3379" Text="There's been a lot of discussion about the impacts of lithium mining vs oil extraction ([here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9866/is-lithium-mining-any-better-for-the-environment-than-fossil-fuel-extraction) for example). I'd like to quantify this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How do the impacts of mining lithium for one electric vehicle (EV) for it's lifetime compare to the impacts of extracting oil for one internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) for it's lifetime?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, the environmental impact of lithium mining and oil extraction can be quantified per unit of mass. For all the gasoline that a car uses in it's lifetime, what is the total impact of that oil extraction compared to the lithium mining to make one EV's battery?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some assumptions:&#xD;&#xA; - Primary analysis should assume a 100% renewable energy source for EV charging (in order to limit the analysis to lithium vs oil extraction)&#xD;&#xA;   - Secondary analysis can include extraction of fuel for EV charging (coal, natural gas, etc)&#xD;&#xA; - Unless numbers are readily available, it's OK to ignore lithium processing and oil refining&#xD;&#xA; - Assume a standard four passenger sedan&#xD;&#xA; - Assume both vehicles are driven the same distance over their lifetimes&#xD;&#xA; - I am interested in *hard numbers* so please provide sources" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26090" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10418" RevisionGUID="76a26552-e1c2-480d-8938-2923d8488bb5" CreationDate="2020-12-18T19:13:07.083" UserId="3379" Text="How exactly do the impacts of lithium mining compare to oil extraction over a vehicle's lifetime?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26091" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10418" RevisionGUID="76a26552-e1c2-480d-8938-2923d8488bb5" CreationDate="2020-12-18T19:13:07.083" UserId="3379" Text="|cars|batteries|electric-vehicles|oil|mining|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10418" RevisionGUID="569b8cc8-bc06-48de-b977-ec8c890575f9" CreationDate="2020-12-19T16:00:16.237" UserId="3379" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="There's been a lot of discussion about the impacts of lithium mining vs oil extraction ([here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9866/is-lithium-mining-any-better-for-the-environment-than-fossil-fuel-extraction) for example). I'd like to quantify this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How do the impacts of mining lithium for one electric vehicle (EV) for it's lifetime compare to the impacts of extracting oil for one internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) for it's lifetime?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, the environmental impact of lithium mining and oil extraction can be quantified per unit of mass. For all the gasoline that a car uses in it's lifetime, what is the total impact of that oil extraction compared to the lithium mining to make one EV's battery?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some assumptions:&#xD;&#xA; - Primary analysis should assume a 100% renewable energy source for EV charging (in order to limit the analysis to lithium vs oil extraction)&#xD;&#xA;   - Secondary analysis can include extraction of fuel for EV charging (coal, natural gas, etc)&#xD;&#xA; - Unless numbers are readily available, it's OK to ignore lithium processing and oil refining&#xD;&#xA; - Ignore end-of-life, such as vehicle emissions and battery disposal/recycling &#xD;&#xA; - Assume a standard four passenger sedan&#xD;&#xA; - Assume both vehicles are driven the same distance over their lifetimes&#xD;&#xA; - I am interested in *hard numbers* so please provide sources" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10420" RevisionGUID="75140eb4-7b16-4fcd-9c70-e664547d40c6" CreationDate="2020-12-19T21:01:12.460" UserId="9209" Text="I am new to permaculture but would like to get a better feeling for if and how mid- to large-scale commercial permaculture farms could feed the world. In particular, I am interested in quantitative studies of the following two questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. How does the biomass produced per unit area compares between permaculture and modern industrial farms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. How does the cost structure of mid-scale permaculture farms compare to modern industrial farms?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If more general studies are hard to get, I am also fine with case studies. So far I have been unable to locate satisfactory studies on these rather central questions. Any pointers are highly appreciated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26098" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10420" RevisionGUID="75140eb4-7b16-4fcd-9c70-e664547d40c6" CreationDate="2020-12-19T21:01:12.460" UserId="9209" Text="Quantitative comparison of the economics and output of permaculture versus industrial farms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26099" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10420" RevisionGUID="75140eb4-7b16-4fcd-9c70-e664547d40c6" CreationDate="2020-12-19T21:01:12.460" UserId="9209" Text="|permaculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26100" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10418" RevisionGUID="3dc3e089-d511-41b8-9fdb-d7ca712f2bee" CreationDate="2020-12-20T03:00:37.307" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1340492271561674759" />
  <row Id="26102" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10420" RevisionGUID="b05a8a48-417c-4608-8025-640ca84e00b5" CreationDate="2020-12-20T09:00:06.307" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1340582738513047553" />
  <row Id="26103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10422" RevisionGUID="25e47b86-99cd-456e-be63-013923e8092f" CreationDate="2020-12-20T13:14:23.523" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; How do the impacts of mining lithium for one electric vehicle (EV) for it's lifetime compare to the impacts of extracting oil for one internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) for it's lifetime?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's one fundamental difference in the comparison that cannot be ignored. It is the impact of lithium recycling. Lithium as an atom cannot vanish so recycling is very efficient, nearly 100% (yes I know some isotopes of lithium can be transmuted to tritium for fusion reactions, but that requires neutron irradiation and thus can be ignored).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A car has a lifetime of 20 years. If we want to live on this planet for 2000 years, that means there will be 100 cars in this time multiplied by the number of car owners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us assume that a battery electric car uses 1.6 kg of lithium per 10 kWh [1] and has a 75 kWh battery. It's 12 kg of lithium needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lithium need is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;* The first car needs 12 kg of lithium.&#xD;&#xA;* The second car needs 0 kg of fresh lithium as the 12 kg of lithium comes from recycling&#xD;&#xA;* The third car needs 0 kg of fresh lithium as the 12 kg of lithium comes from recycling&#xD;&#xA;* ...&#xD;&#xA;* The hundredth car needs 0 kg of fresh lithium as the 12 kg of lithium comes from recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The total lithium usage is 12 kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us also assume that a petroleum fueled car uses 6.5 liters of fuel per 100 km, and has a lifetime of 300000 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fuel use is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The first car needs 19500 liters of fuel (around 14 000 kg)&#xD;&#xA;* The second car needs 19500 liters of fuel (around 14 000 kg)&#xD;&#xA;* The third car needs 19500 liters of fuel (around 14 000 kg)&#xD;&#xA;* ....&#xD;&#xA;* The hundredth car needs 19500 liters of fuel (around 14 000 kg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's comparing 12 kg of lithium with 1.4 million kg of fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, every stage of lithium recycling takes some energy input, but if that energy is in the form of electricity, it's trivial: we can already create green electricity, as you already assumed in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the lithium mining uses 100% green electricity, it has emissions of 0 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per 12 kg of lithium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If oil refining uses 100% green energy (such as hydrogen from renewable electricity for hydrocracking the oil), the 1.4 million kilograms of fuel create 4.6 million kilograms of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions when burned in the car engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not realistic to create that fuel from renewable sources, as the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions of cars are mobile so it's not realistic to capture the emissions, and the sustainable sources of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (mainly those from forestry industry and biofuel plants) are not large enough to create enough synthetic fuels for the present oil consumption [2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there probably is enough lithium to make all cars around the world electric [3]. There is not enough lithium for grid energy storage purposes, but for that purpose we will probably use other technologies such as hydrogen electrolysis and large gas turbines / internal combustion engine plants for converting back that hydrogen for electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_battery says that 0.15 - 0.3 kg of lithium is needed per kWh, and 1.6 kg / 10 kWh is in that range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] A general rule of thumb in the forestry industry is that one cubic meter of forest sequesters one tonne of carbon dioxide. One hectare of forest can grow perhaps around 5 cubic meters per year (forests in warm areas more, boreal taiga forests less). According to http://www.fao.org/state-of-forests/en/ the world forests are 4 billion hectares so they could grow 20 billion cubic meters per year. That's 20 gigatonnes of sustainable carbon dioxide sources. We are already emitting 36 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, and if car usage in developing countries increases, the demand for fossil fuels skyrockets. Plus, a lot of the forests are tropical rainforests which we really don't want to disrupt in any manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] If we assume 5 billion cars are enough, that requires 60 billion kilograms of lithium. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves the lithium resources are over 80 million tonnes, more than those cars need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10422" RevisionGUID="43c085fe-c2cd-401f-b72a-bc2467798ba9" CreationDate="2020-12-20T13:22:56.280" UserId="6393" Comment="wood production" Text="&gt; How do the impacts of mining lithium for one electric vehicle (EV) for it's lifetime compare to the impacts of extracting oil for one internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) for it's lifetime?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's one fundamental difference in the comparison that cannot be ignored. It is the impact of lithium recycling. Lithium as an atom cannot vanish so recycling is very efficient, nearly 100% (yes I know some isotopes of lithium can be transmuted to tritium for fusion reactions, but that requires neutron irradiation and thus can be ignored).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A car has a lifetime of 20 years. If we want to live on this planet for 2000 years, that means there will be 100 cars in this time multiplied by the number of car owners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us assume that a battery electric car uses 1.6 kg of lithium per 10 kWh [1] and has a 75 kWh battery. It's 12 kg of lithium needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lithium need is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;* The first car needs 12 kg of lithium.&#xD;&#xA;* The second car needs 0 kg of fresh lithium as the 12 kg of lithium comes from recycling&#xD;&#xA;* The third car needs 0 kg of fresh lithium as the 12 kg of lithium comes from recycling&#xD;&#xA;* ...&#xD;&#xA;* The hundredth car needs 0 kg of fresh lithium as the 12 kg of lithium comes from recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The total lithium usage is 12 kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us also assume that a petroleum fueled car uses 6.5 liters of fuel per 100 km, and has a lifetime of 300000 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fuel use is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The first car needs 19500 liters of fuel (around 14 000 kg)&#xD;&#xA;* The second car needs 19500 liters of fuel (around 14 000 kg)&#xD;&#xA;* The third car needs 19500 liters of fuel (around 14 000 kg)&#xD;&#xA;* ....&#xD;&#xA;* The hundredth car needs 19500 liters of fuel (around 14 000 kg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's comparing 12 kg of lithium with 1.4 million kg of fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, every stage of lithium recycling takes some energy input, but if that energy is in the form of electricity, it's trivial: we can already create green electricity, as you already assumed in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the lithium mining uses 100% green electricity, it has emissions of 0 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per 12 kg of lithium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If oil refining uses 100% green energy (such as hydrogen from renewable electricity for hydrocracking the oil), the 1.4 million kilograms of fuel create 4.6 million kilograms of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions when burned in the car engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not realistic to create that fuel from renewable sources, as the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions of cars are mobile so it's not realistic to capture the emissions, and the sustainable sources of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (mainly those from forestry industry and biofuel plants) are not large enough to create enough synthetic fuels for the present oil consumption [2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there probably is enough lithium to make all cars around the world electric [3]. There is not enough lithium for grid energy storage purposes, but for that purpose we will probably use other technologies such as hydrogen electrolysis and large gas turbines / internal combustion engine plants for converting back that hydrogen for electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_battery says that 0.15 - 0.3 kg of lithium is needed per kWh, and 1.6 kg / 10 kWh is in that range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] A general rule of thumb in the forestry industry is that one cubic meter of forest sequesters one tonne of carbon dioxide. One hectare of forest can grow perhaps around 5 cubic meters per year (forests in warm areas more, boreal taiga forests less). According to http://www.fao.org/state-of-forests/en/ the world forests are 4 billion hectares so they could grow 20 billion cubic meters per year. That's 20 gigatonnes of sustainable carbon dioxide sources. We are already emitting 36 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, and if car usage in developing countries increases, the demand for fossil fuels skyrockets. Plus, a lot of the forests are tropical rainforests which we really don't want to disrupt in any manner. Besides, http://edepot.wur.nl/196265 tells that annual world wood production is only 1.7 billion cubic meters, so that's only 1.7 gigatonnes of sustainable carbon dioxide sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] If we assume 5 billion cars are enough, that requires 60 billion kilograms of lithium. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves the lithium resources are over 80 million tonnes, more than those cars need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10422" RevisionGUID="1202e110-cdb4-48ca-9e9b-fb84b23fec28" CreationDate="2020-12-20T13:28:46.130" UserId="6393" Comment="wood production" Text="&gt; How do the impacts of mining lithium for one electric vehicle (EV) for it's lifetime compare to the impacts of extracting oil for one internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) for it's lifetime?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's one fundamental difference in the comparison that cannot be ignored. It is the impact of lithium recycling. Lithium as an atom cannot vanish so recycling is very efficient, nearly 100% (yes I know some isotopes of lithium can be transmuted to tritium for fusion reactions, but that requires neutron irradiation and thus can be ignored).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A car has a lifetime of 20 years. If we want to live on this planet for 2000 years, that means there will be 100 cars in this time multiplied by the number of car owners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us assume that a battery electric car uses 1.6 kg of lithium per 10 kWh [1] and has a 75 kWh battery. It's 12 kg of lithium needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lithium need is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;* The first car needs 12 kg of lithium.&#xD;&#xA;* The second car needs 0 kg of fresh lithium as the 12 kg of lithium comes from recycling&#xD;&#xA;* The third car needs 0 kg of fresh lithium as the 12 kg of lithium comes from recycling&#xD;&#xA;* ...&#xD;&#xA;* The hundredth car needs 0 kg of fresh lithium as the 12 kg of lithium comes from recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The total lithium usage is 12 kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let us also assume that a petroleum fueled car uses 6.5 liters of fuel per 100 km, and has a lifetime of 300000 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fuel use is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The first car needs 19500 liters of fuel (around 14 000 kg)&#xD;&#xA;* The second car needs 19500 liters of fuel (around 14 000 kg)&#xD;&#xA;* The third car needs 19500 liters of fuel (around 14 000 kg)&#xD;&#xA;* ....&#xD;&#xA;* The hundredth car needs 19500 liters of fuel (around 14 000 kg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that's comparing 12 kg of lithium with 1.4 million kg of fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, every stage of lithium recycling takes some energy input, but if that energy is in the form of electricity, it's trivial: we can already create green electricity, as you already assumed in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the lithium mining uses 100% green electricity, it has emissions of 0 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per 12 kg of lithium. So in other words, there's nothing in lithium mining that inherently releases carbon dioxide. In contrast to cement manufacturing for concrete, the chemical reactions release carbon dioxide and burning fossil fuels release carbon dioxide. Similarly, some steel production methods release carbon dioxide although there are available methods such as direct hydrogen reduction that avoid the carbon dioxide emissions. We can assume the mining equipment made from steel can be created with hydrogen reduction, and we can assume the energy for mining comes from renewable sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If oil refining uses 100% green energy (such as hydrogen from renewable electricity for hydrocracking the oil), the 1.4 million kilograms of fuel create 4.6 million kilograms of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions when burned in the car engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is not realistic to create that fuel from renewable sources, as the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions of cars are mobile so it's not realistic to capture the emissions, and the sustainable sources of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (mainly those from forestry industry and biofuel plants) are not large enough to create enough synthetic fuels for the present oil consumption [2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there probably is enough lithium to make all cars around the world electric [3]. There is not enough lithium for grid energy storage purposes, but for that purpose we will probably use other technologies such as hydrogen electrolysis and large gas turbines / internal combustion engine plants for converting back that hydrogen for electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_battery says that 0.15 - 0.3 kg of lithium is needed per kWh, and 1.6 kg / 10 kWh is in that range&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[2] A general rule of thumb in the forestry industry is that one cubic meter of forest sequesters one tonne of carbon dioxide. One hectare of forest can grow perhaps around 5 cubic meters per year (forests in warm areas more, boreal taiga forests less). According to http://www.fao.org/state-of-forests/en/ the world forests are 4 billion hectares so they could grow 20 billion cubic meters per year. That's 20 gigatonnes of sustainable carbon dioxide sources. We are already emitting 36 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, and if car usage in developing countries increases, the demand for fossil fuels skyrockets. Plus, a lot of the forests are tropical rainforests which we really don't want to disrupt in any manner. Besides, http://edepot.wur.nl/196265 tells that annual world wood production is only 1.7 billion cubic meters, so that's only 1.7 gigatonnes of sustainable carbon dioxide sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[3] If we assume 5 billion cars are enough, that requires 60 billion kilograms of lithium. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves the lithium resources are over 80 million tonnes, more than those cars need." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10423" RevisionGUID="6226c756-3746-4def-a1c1-1bbffd33156a" CreationDate="2020-12-20T13:43:42.277" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; Two parts or two questions, not sure: Is it more efficient for a supermarket to send a van round to deliver stuff (eg a weekly/monthly shop for groceries) to multiple addresses, or for those people to drive (locally) to go and get it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This depends on the area where you live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in an area where the houses are scattered around, the van has to drive essentially the same amount you would drive in your car. However, the difference is that the van driver is doing an 8-hour workday, and it may be the case there are two 8-hour shifts per day for the van, so the van must support 16 hours of continuous driving. At average speed of 50 km/h (realistic for areas where houses are scattered around), that's 800 kilometers of range requirement. An electric car can be driven around at energy use of 0.16 kWh / km, but a van might require as much as 0.30 kWh / km. So the van must have a battery of 240 kWh at least -- plus all batteries lose capacity over time so to make that van have an acceptable service life, you must account for 25% degradation in the battery at least so that's 320 kWh of battery requirement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know how much weight a 320 kWh battery has? A battery module (as opposed to individual cell) has perhaps 200 watt-hours per kilogram, so that's 1600 kilograms of battery. Not to mention the cost: at 150 dollars per kWh, it's 48 000 dollars for the battery alone (a van seeing heavy use may go through several batteries in its lifetime)!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, if you live in an area where houses are scattered around, your daily drive is probably less than 100 km, and 200 km will probably handle all driving needs in your area except the longest trips. At 0.16 kWh / kg, 200 km is 32 kWh, and factoring in 25% degradation, a 43 kWh battery (215 kg) is enough for you. The battery won't weight much more than an internal combustion engine, transmission, exhaust treatment, plus all accessories needed by those, plus the fuel tank, plus the contents of the fuel tank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in a suburban area, an electric deliver van is simply not realistic. An electric car is (and you can charge it at home!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, if you live in the middle of a city, the average speed of a delivery van is perhaps 20 km/h, and with regenerative braking and lower speeds the energy need lowers to perhaps 0.25 kWh / km. That requires 80 kWh battery, and taking into account 25% degradation, 107 kWh of initial capacity. This capacity is entirely realistic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in the middle of a city, an electric delivery van is realistic. An electric car? Not so much, because if you park your car in the side of a street, there might not be a charging outlet nearby.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in the middle of a city, a typical car won't be electric and a typical delivery van will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the suburban area where houses are scattered around, a typical car will be electric and a typical delivery van won't be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also take into account the fact that in a suburban area the driver of a van can't optimize the route to combine trips (everyone lives far away from the city center and far away from each other), but in the middle of a city, the driver of a van will optimize the route to combine trips." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26107" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10424" RevisionGUID="1587823e-fffc-4572-95d2-23e04835ef33" CreationDate="2020-12-20T19:11:38.650" UserId="9211" Text="![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3TDal.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;I have been up cycling ceramic pots by adding paint, clay design and texture and repurposing them - to make them lovable again " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26109" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10408" RevisionGUID="9db9af77-3d31-48e5-bc34-e53d37a3afe2" CreationDate="2020-12-21T12:00:00.163" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1340990399352098818" />
  <row Id="26110" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10418" RevisionGUID="c9b4abc8-179b-44a2-8598-bc908835fe62" CreationDate="2020-12-21T14:35:55.773" UserId="3379" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="There's been a lot of discussion about the impacts of lithium mining vs oil extraction ([here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9866/is-lithium-mining-any-better-for-the-environment-than-fossil-fuel-extraction) for example). I'd like to quantify this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How do the impacts of mining lithium for one electric vehicle (EV) for it's lifetime compare to the impacts of extracting oil for one internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) for it's lifetime?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, the environmental impact of lithium mining and oil extraction can be quantified per unit of mass. For all the gasoline that a car uses in it's lifetime, what is the total impact of that oil extraction compared to the lithium mining to make one EV's battery?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some assumptions:&#xD;&#xA; - Primary analysis should assume a 100% renewable energy source for EV charging (in order to limit the analysis to lithium vs oil extraction)&#xD;&#xA;   - Secondary analysis can include extraction of fuel for EV charging (coal, natural gas, etc)&#xD;&#xA; - It's OK to ignore lithium processing and oil refining, but specify at what point in the supply-chain the analysis ends&#xD;&#xA; - Ignore end-of-life, such as vehicle emissions and battery disposal/recycling &#xD;&#xA; - Assume a standard four passenger sedan&#xD;&#xA; - Assume both vehicles are driven the same distance over their lifetimes&#xD;&#xA; - I am interested in *hard numbers* so please provide sources" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26111" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10418" RevisionGUID="bdaba055-ff17-427d-9efa-8d45ab980fa8" CreationDate="2020-12-21T14:46:53.913" UserId="3379" Comment="added 27 characters in body" Text="There's been a lot of discussion about the impacts of lithium mining vs oil extraction ([here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/9866/is-lithium-mining-any-better-for-the-environment-than-fossil-fuel-extraction) for example). I'd like to quantify this. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How do the impacts of mining lithium for one electric vehicle (EV) for it's lifetime compare to the impacts of extracting oil for one internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) for it's lifetime?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, the environmental impact of lithium mining and oil extraction can be quantified per unit of mass. For all the gasoline that a car uses in it's lifetime, what is the total impact of that oil extraction compared to the lithium mining to make one EV's battery?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that from an energy perspective you can't compare lithium directly to oil. But the unspoken question that arises from the debate is -- *since mining lithium is **so bad,** would we be better off burning oil?* Thus as a first analysis, I want to understand the environmental impact of that mining, and by comparison, the extraction of oil for an ICEV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some assumptions:&#xD;&#xA; - *Environmental impacts* can include any of greenhouse gas emissions, water toxification, deforestation, air pollution, or others. It should include whatever is most significant for both lithium and oil.&#xD;&#xA; - Primary analysis should assume a 100% renewable energy source for EV charging (in order to limit the analysis to lithium vs oil extraction)&#xD;&#xA;   - Secondary analysis can include extraction of fuel for EV charging (coal, natural gas, etc)&#xD;&#xA; - It's OK to ignore lithium processing and oil refining, but specify at what point in the supply-chain the analysis ends&#xD;&#xA; - Ignore end-of-life, such as vehicle emissions and battery disposal/recycling &#xD;&#xA; - Assume a standard four passenger sedan&#xD;&#xA; - Assume both vehicles are driven the same distance over their lifetimes&#xD;&#xA; - I am interested in *hard numbers* so please provide sources&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26112" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6886" RevisionGUID="dec32988-933a-40b7-bd16-736caa17669d" CreationDate="2020-12-23T11:43:00.787" UserId="400" Comment="added 479 characters in body" Text="Not worth it.  Clay is cheap.  Breaking up clay is more expensive than getting new clay.  The big expense in ceramics are the energy to fire it, and the transport to move it.  The ingrediants are, by comparison, free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In passing:  Ceramics are right up there with flint, chert and obsidian for durability in the archeological record.  Whole cultures are named for the the ceramics they produced.  (E.g. Beaker culture in Europe)  In some cases ceramics are the only record we have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider that if we recycled all ceramics we would leave archeologists a dozen millennia from now guessing who we were.  And the most durable stuff we will leave?  Toss up between toilet bowls and Corelle ware." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10425" RevisionGUID="f478c23e-bc80-4818-b14f-a3658e46a368" CreationDate="2020-12-23T20:56:16.423" UserId="2727" Text="You can smash them yourself and use them for all sorts of things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. As an art medium (great for mosaics!).&#xD;&#xA;2. To line the bottom plant pots to allow better draining and avoid root rot.&#xD;&#xA;3. Put the pieces in sealed jars to make cat toys.&#xD;&#xA;4. Use as pieces when creating new ceramics.&#xD;&#xA;5. Use pieces to create a walkway from a dirt path.&#xD;&#xA;6. Use to delineate the edge of a trail, a walkway, or a driveway.&#xD;&#xA;7. Drill holes in thin shiny pieces and use them when making fishing lures.&#xD;&#xA;8. Glue pieces to a wall or ceiling to make a decoration.&#xD;&#xA;9. Glue magnets to interesting pieces to create unique refrigerator magnets.&#xD;&#xA;10. Use as tools.  I have one piece of broken ceramic that I use as a dirt leveler when working outdoors.  I use another piece as a grout remover.&#xD;&#xA;11. Make a wind chime.&#xD;&#xA;11. Mix with acrylic to make a wonderfully unique countertop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just a dozen quick ideas from the top of my head that I've personally done.  I imagine if you search the internet, you'll find hundreds more creative uses!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26114" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10426" RevisionGUID="bce323c4-b32f-401f-9af5-16306e5c024e" CreationDate="2020-12-23T21:10:11.197" UserId="2727" Text="You mentioned that for recycling, your area has *&quot;large-scale industrial ones (places where the recycling trucks unload)&quot;*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a great start!  If your community is large enough, start a petition to get management to provide recycling as a service.  It may even attract new (and better!) tenants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they are unwilling, find out the minimum quantity for those trucks you see to come and pick up from your location.  Some pick up services even supply their own cans or dumpsters for people in your community to use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26118" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10002" RevisionGUID="a0fcd5d4-5f07-4b4d-acd9-8d29c4f0b31c" CreationDate="2020-12-24T00:00:06.410" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1341896394966237187" />
  <row Id="26119" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="1af82e9f-0e8f-4a8f-9e5a-b9e4d953378a" CreationDate="2020-12-24T06:00:06.267" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1341986991307694080" />
  <row Id="26120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10427" RevisionGUID="bfb03d0a-b5e2-4833-bf64-7833c5b48fdb" CreationDate="2020-12-24T19:27:55.493" UserId="3379" Text="I live in an older home with windows that build up frost in the winter, which indicates they aren't insulated very well. I am thinking of installing kits like these over the windows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Window insulation kit crystal clear shrink film][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, before I spend the time and money (and generate the additional plastic waste) I'd like to have a better idea of how effective they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any research or studies on how effective these kits are?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have heard lots of anecdotal evidence, so that's not what I'm interested in here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CVGf1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10427" RevisionGUID="bfb03d0a-b5e2-4833-bf64-7833c5b48fdb" CreationDate="2020-12-24T19:27:55.493" UserId="3379" Text="How effective are shrink plastic insulation kits for residential windows?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10427" RevisionGUID="bfb03d0a-b5e2-4833-bf64-7833c5b48fdb" CreationDate="2020-12-24T19:27:55.493" UserId="3379" Text="|heating|plastic|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10413" RevisionGUID="3ed88158-65b7-47fe-8bef-8d70aca1e0e0" CreationDate="2020-12-25T08:34:26.520" UserId="8232" Comment="better title" Text="Is it more efficient for a supermarket to send a van round to deliver stuff (eg a weekly/monthly shop for groceries) to multiple addresses, or for those people to drive (locally) to go and get it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, individual items from mail order sellers. Again, van driving round but delivering only 1 item per address, or those people having to go on a shopping trip into town,where they would buy multiple items having accumulated a list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is partly driven by seeing adverts for apparently green items being sent to your door (eg dishwasher tablets) and partly because I can't work out which is more efficient so I try not to order online, but would if it was better.&#xD;&#xA;Thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26126" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10413" RevisionGUID="3ed88158-65b7-47fe-8bef-8d70aca1e0e0" CreationDate="2020-12-25T08:34:26.520" UserId="8232" Comment="better title" Text="Efficiency of delivery services vs individuals travelling to purchase items?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26127" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10427" RevisionGUID="e518275e-7631-4839-bc0e-7fe61850864f" CreationDate="2020-12-25T15:00:06.630" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1342485276145410048" />
  <row Id="26128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10428" RevisionGUID="fb73921f-6274-4d07-b100-fbb52a728ec8" CreationDate="2020-12-25T16:28:41.563" UserId="5477" Text="They will help . But a word of caution ,water will be running off your window sills if you put them on the inside of the windows. They are not attractive but neater when on the outside. On the inside they insulate the window and it is colder; moisture from inside the house condenses and runs down the cold glass. When on the outside ,they make the glass a little warmer and there is no condensation. I have a garden shed /green house so it is fairly humid with some electric heaters . I found insulating the windows on the inside causes  heavy condensation . Insulation on the outside causes less or no condensation on the glass. I use foil faced ridged foam panels so the insulation is greater than the subject plastic film , that makes my situation more pronounced. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26130" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10301" RevisionGUID="e44f726a-35fc-4e68-9d8d-303bfd0aece5" CreationDate="2020-12-26T05:05:50.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26131" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10394" RevisionGUID="24c6d509-7c94-4228-b32f-dca0e0c49143" CreationDate="2020-12-26T18:00:03.467" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1342892949244411909" />
  <row Id="26132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="781240af-53f1-48ef-a3b2-ac0a40a8fa20" CreationDate="2020-12-27T14:25:29.787" UserId="8040" Comment="Improve grammar and wording." Text="I noticed my pet food bag has a recycling symbol with a new number in it - #81:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Package with #81 recycling symbol][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only resource I've found about this symbol is the [Wikipedia page on recycling codes][2], which describes it as Paper/Plastic composite material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this material be recycled anywhere in the USA? Is there any more information about this (new?) recycling category?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/cTkZA.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_codes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26133" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="781240af-53f1-48ef-a3b2-ac0a40a8fa20" CreationDate="2020-12-27T14:25:29.787" UserId="8040" Comment="Improve grammar and wording." Text="|recycling|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26134" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2945" RevisionGUID="781240af-53f1-48ef-a3b2-ac0a40a8fa20" CreationDate="2020-12-27T14:25:29.787" Comment="Proposed by 8040 approved by 1013 edit id of 667" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="d8fdf23e-bb07-42c9-a267-89cb6a68247f" CreationDate="2020-12-27T17:25:56.580" UserId="8448" Text="Are there an online resources about brands or outlets? Are there certifications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have recently come across the [Fairphone][1]. I wonder how to find out about similar products, such as toys, toasters, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.fairphone.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26136" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="d8fdf23e-bb07-42c9-a267-89cb6a68247f" CreationDate="2020-12-27T17:25:56.580" UserId="8448" Text="Where can I find (out about) sustainable electronics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26137" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="d8fdf23e-bb07-42c9-a267-89cb6a68247f" CreationDate="2020-12-27T17:25:56.580" UserId="8448" Text="|alternatives|appliance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26138" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="d53ba999-e786-460d-8c02-469ce11c0b34" CreationDate="2020-12-27T20:28:56.200" UserId="8448" Comment="edited title" Text="Where can I find out about sustainable electronics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26139" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="6cacd9cc-c6ac-4034-b31b-ed12696b8d19" CreationDate="2020-12-27T20:35:26.540" UserId="8448" Comment="Provided more information" Text="Are there an online resources about brands or outlets? Are there certifications?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Wikipedia][1] refers to a 2014 Rank a Brand [report][2] about the sustainability of global electronics brands in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder if more granular information exists, especially about products in what Rank a Brand labels the &quot;A&quot; range?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The report mentions the [Fairphone][3]. I wonder how to find out about similar products, such as toys, toasters, etc. that have recycled and reused components, and that can be repaired.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_electronics#cite_ref-4&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/electronics-green-fair-ranking-report-2014.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.fairphone.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26140" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10430" RevisionGUID="89f533c4-960a-4895-b08e-9fa4209efabc" CreationDate="2020-12-27T22:23:37.460" UserId="8013" Text="This is quite a difficult question to answer with precision, because the impacts of mining depend a lot on how you do it. I can offer a few references which give a guide to the scale of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Institute for Energy Research][1] say that Lithium mining requires 500 gallons (2,250L) per kg of Lithium. Most of the environmental problems are associated with waste water that is heavily loaded with a toxic mix of chemicals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can compare this to water use in petroleum refining, according to [fluence][2], of about 0.5L per litre of petrol. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make the comparison, consider a Nissan Leaf with a 40kWh battery. Taking the low end of Lithium content from [wikipedia][3] of 0.15kg per kWh (the efficiency of batteries is rapidly increasing, so we can expect improvements beyond this figure) we require 6kg of Lithium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For our petrol car, consider a car driving 12,000 km per year (the UK average) at 6L per 100km, and hence consuming 2,000 L per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will also consider a 10 year lifetime for the battery. This means that the 2,250 L/kg * 6 kg = 13,300 kg of water usage for the electric vehicle should be compared with 2,000 L/yr * 10 yr * 0.5 kg/L = 10,000 kg of water usage to create petroleum for the conventional car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, this is much less than the typical domestic usage of 40,000 kg per person per year in the UK. The problem is that this may be heavily polluted water and the usage may be concentrated in very small and sensitive areas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be argued that this comparison is too pessimistic about the Lithium because it SHOULD be recycled and have a much longer lifetime than 10 years. However, current recycling rates in, for example, Australia are 2% ([Inst. Energy Research)][1] .. so we should not count this benefit too early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not dealt explicitly with petroleum extraction: if done cleanly the extraction itself is the major cause of concern for petroleum, though it would be for coal or shale gas. Toxic chemical spills are a problem. Because of the much lower volume of Lithium needed compared to oil, we can expect spillage to be a smaller concern. We might hope that the high value to weight ratio will lead to a cleaner processing chain and reduced damaging spillage, but this hope cannot be verified at this stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium battery factories have a huge scale, how does this compare with oil refineries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Tesla [giga-factory in Nevada][4] aims to produce 50GWh of batteries per year, enough for 1.25 million 40kWh cars, and covers 180,000m2. Taken over our 10 year period reference period, this means 0.18/12.5 = 0.014 m2/car. Seen like this, it is not taking up much space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By comparison, the world's largest oil refinery at [Baton Rouge, Lousiana][5] covers 8,000,000 m2 and produces 80,000,000 L of petrol per day. The typical car described above needs 2L per day, so Baton Rouge is supporting 40,000,000 cars, or 0.2 m2/car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both these numbers indicate that the area of the fuel/battery processing plant is small on a per/car basis. In terms of emissions, battery factories do not appear to have significant waste outputs. The refineries, on the other hand, have a long list of toxic by-products and problems associated with leakage in the input supply chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, on energy efficiency and CO2 emissions. The Nissan Leaf is rated at 114 mpg-e by the [EPA][6] , or 19kWH per 100km. If this electricity is taken from the UK grid, with [233 kg/kWh][7] implies 4.27 kg CO2e per 100km. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For petrol, with [2.3 kg CO2e per Litre][8], we have closer to 13kg CO2e per 100km. So, even with today's electricity supply, the electric car is doing significantly better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As new generation capacity is dominated by carbon free energy sources, this balance will change increasingly in favour of electric vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Pollution associated with Lithium mining is potentially significant. Care needs to be taken with water usage and disposal of waste water. These are not new challenges, but if this is going to be done in a &quot;green&quot; way, there needs to be a significant improvement in the quality of waste management compared to current standards in the fossil fuel industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Lithium battery production is a clean and compact process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Electric vehicles have a lower carbon footprint than comparable petrol vehicles if charged using energy from the UK national grid. The carbon footprint will continue to decrease as the grid moves increasingly to zero carbon emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.fluencecorp.com/water-use-in-petroleum-refining/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_battery&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giga_Nevada&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.listnbest.com/11-worlds-largest-oil-refineries-processing-capacity/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_EPA_fuel_economy&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.rensmart.com/Calculators/KWH-to-CO2&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://slightlyunconventional.com/co2-per-litre-of-petrol/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10431" RevisionGUID="01276036-1b96-406b-aac2-c3d3fd1e3043" CreationDate="2020-12-28T00:26:56.307" UserId="1056" Text="Some resources that I know of:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Current [recommendations from the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/recommendations-specifications-standards-and-ecolabels-federal-purchasing) are to look for products that are [EPEAT](https://epeat.net/) registered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- iFixit produces repairability scores for [smartphones](https://www.ifixit.com/smartphone-repairability), [laptops](https://www.ifixit.com/laptop-repairability), and [tablets](https://www.ifixit.com/tablet-repairability).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In 2018, The Green Electronics Council released their [State of Sustainable IT procurement report](https://greenelectronicscouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/GEC_State-of-Sustainable-IT-Procurement-Report2017.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In 2017, Greenpeace produced a [Guide to Greener Electronics](https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/greener-electronics-2017/) that ranked companies and products based on energy, resource consumption, and chemical production." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26142" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10432" RevisionGUID="45ec3a0a-67b5-4d90-a94f-b4e093da5eed" CreationDate="2020-12-28T18:00:11.013" UserId="3379" Text="Where I live, cold winters and humid summers rule out line drying for bulky items like blankets and towels for a few months out of the year. When I put them in my electric clothes dryer, which strategy will use less energy overall? &#xD;&#xA; - A hotter cycle which uses more power for a shorter time&#xD;&#xA; - A lower heat cycle which uses less power over a longer time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26143" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10432" RevisionGUID="45ec3a0a-67b5-4d90-a94f-b4e093da5eed" CreationDate="2020-12-28T18:00:11.013" UserId="3379" Text="Saving energy in the dryer: short and hot, or long and low?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26144" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10432" RevisionGUID="45ec3a0a-67b5-4d90-a94f-b4e093da5eed" CreationDate="2020-12-28T18:00:11.013" UserId="3379" Text="|energy|appliance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26147" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9680" RevisionGUID="390e1dc4-a7c7-42f0-8cd6-1d8b783b762c" CreationDate="2020-12-28T21:03:03.287" UserId="3379" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26148" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10108" RevisionGUID="b7810f87-9b91-4aa9-a5eb-bfa485296260" CreationDate="2020-12-28T21:05:39.937" UserId="3379" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10430" RevisionGUID="10968a0d-7926-44e7-80e9-252ad2ab799d" CreationDate="2020-12-29T09:07:52.713" UserId="8013" Comment="added 1607 characters in body" Text="This is quite a difficult question to answer with precision, because the impacts of mining depend a lot on how you do it. I can offer a few references which give a guide to the scale of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many environmental concerns around the impact of Lithium mines on the environment and local communities (e.g. [Reuters article on Salar de Atacama][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Institute for Energy Research][2] say that Lithium mining (from salt flats ... see comments on open cast mines below) requires 500 gallons (2,250L) per kg of Lithium. Most of the environmental problems are associated with waste water that is heavily loaded with a toxic mix of chemicals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can compare this to water use in petroleum refining, according to [fluence][3], of about 0.5L per litre of petrol. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make the comparison, consider a Nissan Leaf with a 40kWh battery. Taking the low end of Lithium content from [wikipedia][4] of 0.15kg per kWh (the efficiency of batteries is rapidly increasing, so we can expect improvements beyond this figure) we require 6kg of Lithium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For our petrol car, consider a car driving 12,000 km per year (the UK average) at 6L per 100km, and hence consuming 2,000 L per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will also consider a 10 year lifetime for the battery. This means that the 2,250 L/kg * 6 kg = 13,300 kg of water usage for the electric vehicle should be compared with 2,000 L/yr * 10 yr * 0.5 kg/L = 10,000 kg of water usage to create petroleum for the conventional car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, this is much less than the typical domestic usage of 40,000 kg per person per year in the UK. The problem is that this may be heavily polluted water and the usage may be concentrated in very small and sensitive areas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be argued that this comparison is too pessimistic about the Lithium because it SHOULD be recycled and have a much longer lifetime than 10 years. However, current recycling rates in, for example, Australia are 2% ([Inst. Energy Research)][2] .. so we should not count this benefit too early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not dealt explicitly with petroleum extraction: if done cleanly the extraction itself is the major cause of concern for petroleum, though it would be for coal or shale gas. Toxic chemical spills are a problem. Because of the much lower volume of Lithium needed compared to oil, we can expect spillage to be a smaller concern. We might hope that the high value to weight ratio will lead to a cleaner processing chain and reduced damaging spillage, but this hope cannot be verified at this stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium battery factories have a huge scale, how does this compare with oil refineries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Tesla [giga-factory in Nevada][5] aims to produce 50GWh of batteries per year, enough for 1.25 million 40kWh cars, and covers 180,000m2. Taken over our 10 year period reference period, this means 0.18/12.5 = 0.014 m2/car. Seen like this, it is not taking up much space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By comparison, the world's largest oil refinery at [Baton Rouge, Lousiana][6] covers 8,000,000 m2 and produces 80,000,000 L of petrol per day. The typical car described above needs 2L per day, so Baton Rouge is supporting 40,000,000 cars, or 0.2 m2/car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both these numbers indicate that the area of the fuel/battery processing plant is small on a per/car basis. In terms of emissions, battery factories do not appear to have significant waste outputs. The refineries, on the other hand, have a long list of toxic by-products and problems associated with leakage in the input supply chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should also look at the spatial footprint of Lithium mines. Their are two categories of mine: open cast mines from which a solid ore is extracted and brine deposits. The brine deposits, such as in Salar de Atacama (Chile), currently provide the cheapest source, but many countries are developing large open cast mines, such as at Thacker Pass (Nevada, US). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Salar de Atacama brine pools are visible in [google maps][7] from which I estimate their area as 25 km2. This site produced 80,000 tonnes of Lithium per year in 2017 (e.g. [Reuters article on Salar de Atacama][1]). The life-time of the site is unclear, but even with a conservative estimate of 10 years, this will supply 130 million car batteries, approximately 0.2m2 per car, as for the Baton Rouge site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main concern at the Salar de Atacama site appears to be the rate of extraction brine, which is lowering the local water table. If this is restricted, there will be limits in Lithium supply. This is no doubt one factor leading many countries to invest in open cast mines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, on energy efficiency and CO2 emissions. The Nissan Leaf is rated at 114 mpg-e by the [EPA][8] , or 19kWH per 100km. If this electricity is taken from the UK grid, with [233 kg/kWh][9] implies 4.27 kg CO2e per 100km. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For petrol, with [2.3 kg CO2e per Litre][10], we have closer to 13kg CO2e per 100km. So, even with today's electricity supply, the electric car is doing significantly better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As new generation capacity is dominated by carbon free energy sources, this balance will change increasingly in favour of electric vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Pollution associated with Lithium mining is potentially significant. Care needs to be taken with water usage and disposal of waste water. These are not new challenges, but if this is going to be done in a &quot;green&quot; way, there needs to be a significant improvement in the quality of waste management compared to current standards in the fossil fuel industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Lithium battery production is a clean and compact process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Electric vehicles have a lower carbon footprint than comparable petrol vehicles if charged using energy from the UK national grid. The carbon footprint will continue to decrease as the grid moves increasingly to zero carbon emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-chile-lithium-insight/a-water-fight-in-chiles-atacama-raises-questions-over-lithium-mining-idUKKCN1MS1L8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.fluencecorp.com/water-use-in-petroleum-refining/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_battery&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giga_Nevada&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.listnbest.com/11-worlds-largest-oil-refineries-processing-capacity/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Salar+de+Atacama/@-23.5006283,-68.4862492,42151m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x96a8fa058ec18ecb:0xe467ef5c09abee71!8m2!3d-23.5!4d-68.25&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_EPA_fuel_economy&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.rensmart.com/Calculators/KWH-to-CO2&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://slightlyunconventional.com/co2-per-litre-of-petrol/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10430" RevisionGUID="2cbab916-88fb-4261-bbda-66ff0d703987" CreationDate="2020-12-29T09:13:56.537" UserId="8013" Comment="added 1607 characters in body" Text="This is quite a difficult question to answer with precision, because the impacts of mining depend a lot on how you do it. I can offer a few references which give a guide to the scale of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many environmental concerns around the impact of Lithium mines on the environment and local communities (e.g. [Reuters article on Salar de Atacama][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Institute for Energy Research][2] say that Lithium mining (from salt flats ... see comments on open cast mines below) requires 500 gallons (2,250L) per kg of Lithium. Most of the environmental problems are associated with waste water that is heavily loaded with a toxic mix of chemicals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can compare this to water use in petroleum refining, according to [fluence][3], of about 0.5L per litre of petrol. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make the comparison, consider a Nissan Leaf with a 40kWh battery. Taking the low end of Lithium content from [wikipedia][4] of 0.15kg per kWh (the efficiency of batteries is rapidly increasing, so we can expect improvements beyond this figure) we require 6kg of Lithium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For our petrol car, consider a car driving 12,000 km per year (the UK average) at 6L per 100km, and hence consuming 2,000 L per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will also consider a 10 year lifetime for the battery. This means that the 2,250 L/kg * 6 kg = 13,300 kg of water usage for the electric vehicle should be compared with 2,000 L/yr * 10 yr * 0.5 kg/L = 10,000 kg of water usage to create petroleum for the conventional car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, this is much less than the typical domestic usage of 40,000 kg per person per year in the UK. The problem is that this may be heavily polluted water and the usage may be concentrated in very small and sensitive areas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be argued that this comparison is too pessimistic about the Lithium because it SHOULD be recycled and have a much longer lifetime than 10 years. However, current recycling rates in, for example, Australia are 2% ([Inst. Energy Research)][2] .. so we should not count this benefit too early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not dealt explicitly with petroleum extraction: if done cleanly the extraction itself is the major cause of concern for petroleum, though it would be for coal or shale gas. Toxic chemical spills are a problem. Because of the much lower volume of Lithium needed compared to oil, we can expect spillage to be a smaller concern. We might hope that the high value to weight ratio will lead to a cleaner processing chain and reduced damaging spillage, but this hope cannot be verified at this stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium battery factories have a huge scale, how does this compare with oil refineries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Tesla [giga-factory in Nevada][5] aims to produce 50GWh of batteries per year, enough for 1.25 million 40kWh cars, and covers 180,000m2. Taken over our 10 year period reference period, this means 0.18/12.5 = 0.014 m2/car. Seen like this, it is not taking up much space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By comparison, the world's largest oil refinery at [Baton Rouge, Lousiana][6] covers 8,000,000 m2 and produces 80,000,000 L of petrol per day. The typical car described above needs 2L per day, so Baton Rouge is supporting 40,000,000 cars, or 0.2 m2/car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both these numbers indicate that the area of the fuel/battery processing plant is small on a per/car basis. In terms of emissions, battery factories do not appear to have significant waste outputs. The refineries, on the other hand, have a long list of toxic by-products and problems associated with leakage in the input supply chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should also look at the spatial footprint of Lithium mines. Their are two categories of mine: open cast mines from which a solid ore is extracted and brine deposits. The brine deposits, such as in Salar de Atacama (Chile), currently provide the cheapest source, but many countries are developing large open cast mines, such as at Thacker Pass (Nevada, US). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Salar de Atacama brine pools are visible in [google maps][7] from which I estimate their area as 25 km2. This site produced 80,000 tonnes of Lithium per year in 2017 (e.g. [Reuters article on Salar de Atacama][1]). The life-time of the site is unclear, but even with a conservative estimate of 10 years, this will supply 130 million car batteries, approximately 0.2m2 per car, as for the Baton Rouge site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main concern at the Salar de Atacama site appears to be the rate of extraction brine, which is lowering the local water table. If this is restricted, there will be limits in Lithium supply. This is no doubt one factor leading many countries to invest in open cast mines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Thacker Pass open cast mine referred to above is expected to have spatial footprint of 23 km2 (close to that of the Atacama brine pools) an produce enough Lithium for 100 million cars (see [mining.com][8] -- 3.1 million tonnes of Lithium carbonate implies 0.6 million tonnes of Lithium), and hence 0.23 m2 per car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Thacker pass mine will not use brine pools, but there is concern in the [environmental impact assessment][9] that there are unknown impacts because of new methods being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, on energy efficiency and CO2 emissions. The Nissan Leaf is rated at 114 mpg-e by the [EPA][10] , or 19kWH per 100km. If this electricity is taken from the UK grid, with [233 kg/kWh][11] implies 4.27 kg CO2e per 100km. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For petrol, with [2.3 kg CO2e per Litre][12], we have closer to 13kg CO2e per 100km. So, even with today's electricity supply, the electric car is doing significantly better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As new generation capacity is dominated by carbon free energy sources, this balance will change increasingly in favour of electric vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Pollution associated with Lithium mining is potentially significant. Care needs to be taken with water usage and disposal of waste water. These are not new challenges, but if this is going to be done in a &quot;green&quot; way, there needs to be a significant improvement in the quality of waste management compared to current standards in the fossil fuel industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Lithium battery production is a clean and compact process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Electric vehicles have a lower carbon footprint than comparable petrol vehicles if charged using energy from the UK national grid. The carbon footprint will continue to decrease as the grid moves increasingly to zero carbon emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-chile-lithium-insight/a-water-fight-in-chiles-atacama-raises-questions-over-lithium-mining-idUKKCN1MS1L8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.fluencecorp.com/water-use-in-petroleum-refining/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_battery&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giga_Nevada&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.listnbest.com/11-worlds-largest-oil-refineries-processing-capacity/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Salar+de+Atacama/@-23.5006283,-68.4862492,42151m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x96a8fa058ec18ecb:0xe467ef5c09abee71!8m2!3d-23.5!4d-68.25&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.mining.com/lithium-americas-thacker-pass-moves-closer-to-production/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/1503166/200352542/20024530/250030734/TP_Scoping_Report_2020-05-11_FINAL.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_EPA_fuel_economy&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.rensmart.com/Calculators/KWH-to-CO2&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://slightlyunconventional.com/co2-per-litre-of-petrol/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10433" RevisionGUID="7f481f78-2013-4e20-b196-1e6a969f68b1" CreationDate="2020-12-29T20:42:25.197" UserId="2345" Text="It appears that currently (late December 2020), [lithium from batteries is not recycled][1], because it is only worth 6 euro per kg ([9 USD per kg][2]). The only metals recovered from Li batteries are the valuable ones such as cobalt, which has a current [LME price of 32 USD per kg][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://blog-en.condorchem.com/lithium-extraction-recovery/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lme.com/en-GB/Metals/Minor-metals/Lithium-prices#tabIndex=0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lme.com/Metals/Minor-metals/Cobalt#tabIndex=0" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26152" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="4ce51f39-8403-4b6d-99b7-91150390d870" CreationDate="2020-12-30T13:03:30.293" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26153" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10429" RevisionGUID="17538c04-3fc7-4cfd-a0b8-14e71521179b" CreationDate="2020-12-31T15:00:06.963" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1344659604744138752" />
  <row Id="26154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10434" RevisionGUID="77ab14f7-2f00-4861-8ad4-8d65268232ac" CreationDate="2021-01-01T11:11:00.303" UserId="4886" Text="The generic and vague wording of the question seems deliberate, but unfortunately a meaningful answer can't be so simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary factor that determines how long it will take a dryer to dry a load of clothes is not actually temperature, it's **airflow**.  All the heat in the world won't help you if your dryer is overloaded, the lint tray is full/blocked, and your vent is choked.  Air needs to move through the dryer for the drying process to work.  You can even dry clothes all-year-round by simply putting them into a vented tumble dryer with no heat at all.  Might take a while, and they won't come out all nice and warm, but they will be dry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to progress things towards an answer of some sort, let's make a bunch of assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first assumption is that the dryer is the older vented variety, not any of the other electric varieties.  It draws air from inside the house, uses that air to dry the clothes, and exhausts the air through a wall and outside the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, let's assume that it's not ancient — it has a sensor on it that stops drying &quot;when the clothes are dry&quot;.  There are a variety of ways this can be done, but a temperature sensor on the exhaust is common.  No need to worry about set duration cycles and over-drying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next assumptions will be that the drum motor and fan combined use about 250W and the heating element uses about 5,000W.  That's a huge difference, but given that the heating element is cycled on and off, and the motor/fan run pretty-much continuously, it's not as large as it would first appear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume also that the dryer is not overloaded, the load is made of homogeneous items, the lint tray is empty, the vent is clean, internal temp is 21°C and RH is 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hand wave a bunch of 'fuzzy' math out of the way and you end up with:  **Warm and longer dryer cycles consume less energy than hot and shorter cycles.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Towels and blankets can be called 'thick' items.  They contain far more water than typical clothing.  Since moisture is distributed according to volume, and evaporation is proportional to surface area, you are looking at a dimensional difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A short(/hot) cycle will result in rapid initial evaporation over the exposed surfaces, but then — with those surfaces now being dry — the items (especially blankets) become thermal insulators.  Insulators resist heat transfer.  Since air is continually being vented at the same rate, as the drying cycle proceeds the relative humidity of the vented air drops sharply.  What that means is that, as a ratio, more of the vented air is now dry.  The 5kW heating element still powers on to heat the incoming air up, but most of the air doesn't have a chance to participate in any evaporation before being vented.  In short, hot cycles become very inefficient very quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Warm cycles, on the other hand, don't burst out of the gate with a rapid amount of initial evaporation.  Because the incoming air is (relatively) cooler it takes longer for initial evaporation to occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once surfaces are dry, further drying is limited by how fast heat can conduct through the fibres of the items being dried.  In the insulation world, this would be a material's U-factor.  The thermal properties of polyester, cotton or whatever your blankets and towels are made of, now take over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we make a final assumption that you have material homogeneity, what then becomes the primary determinant of evaporation is **time**.  It just takes time to conduct the heat through the insulating surface layer, time for the deep moisture to be evaporated, and time for the tumbling action to evacuate the moisture-laden air from the depths of the material.  Whilst temperature does influence the first two, it has nothing to do with the last one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a pocket of air deep in a material reaches 100% RH, no further drying at that location will occur until the tumbling action literally forces that air out of the material, and it gets replaced by dryer air.  At this scale the limit is that same as it was at the very beginning of this answer: Airflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, regardless of how you slice and dice the scenario, airflow is King in dryer operations.  Since the impact of airflow is far more tied to cycle length than it is to temperature, the simple fact is that **long dryer cycles are what actually dry the items inside a dryer**.  The 250W motor and fan are doing the heavy lifting.  Temperature control is primarily a 'feature' that marketing departments can use to help sell the product to people who 'lead busy lives'.  Hot cycles use a lot of power to only modestly decrease drying times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the time, the most energy-efficient way to use such a dryer is to not have it do any heating at all, and just allow it to use the house's 21°C/50%RH internal air to do the drying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the questions parameters, and all of the assumptions documented above: **Long and low is the go**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26155" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10434" RevisionGUID="4df05e2e-0abd-496c-8092-834512e41a74" CreationDate="2021-01-01T11:17:09.130" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The generic and vague wording of the question seems deliberate, but unfortunately a meaningful answer can't be so simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary factor that determines how long it will take a dryer to dry a load of clothes is not actually temperature, it's **airflow**.  All the heat in the world won't help you if your dryer is overloaded, the lint tray is full/blocked, and your vent is choked.  Air needs to move through the dryer for the drying process to work.  You can even dry clothes all-year-round by simply putting them into a vented tumble dryer with no heat at all.  Might take a while, and they won't come out all nice and warm, but they will be dry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to progress things towards an answer of some sort, let's make a bunch of assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first assumption is that the dryer is the older vented variety, not any of the other electric varieties.  It draws air from inside the house, uses that air to dry the clothes, and exhausts the air through a wall and outside the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, let's assume that it's not ancient — it has a sensor on it that stops drying &quot;when the clothes are dry&quot;.  There are a variety of ways this can be done, but a temperature sensor on the exhaust is common.  No need to worry about set duration cycles and over-drying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next assumptions will be that the drum motor and fan combined use about 250W and the heating element uses about 5,000W.  That's a huge difference, but given that the heating element is cycled on and off, and the motor/fan run pretty-much continuously, it's not as large as it would first appear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume also that the dryer is not overloaded, the load is made of homogeneous items, the lint tray is empty, the vent is clean, internal temp is 21°C and RH is 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hand wave a bunch of 'fuzzy' math out of the way and you end up with:  **Warm and longer dryer cycles consume less energy than hot and shorter cycles.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Towels and blankets can be called 'thick' items.  They contain far more water than typical clothing.  Since moisture is distributed according to volume, and evaporation is proportional to surface area, you are looking at a dimensional difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A short(/hot) cycle will result in rapid initial evaporation over the exposed surfaces, but then — with those surfaces now being dry — the items (especially blankets) become thermal insulators.  Insulators resist heat transfer.  Since air is continually being vented at the same rate, as the drying cycle proceeds the relative humidity of the vented air drops sharply.  What that means is that, as a ratio, more of the vented air is now dry.  The 5kW heating element still powers on to heat the incoming air up, but most of the air doesn't have a chance to participate in any evaporation before being vented.  In short, hot cycles become very inefficient very quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Warm cycles, on the other hand, don't burst out of the gate with a rapid amount of initial evaporation.  Because the incoming air is (relatively) cooler it takes longer for initial evaporation to occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once surfaces are dry, further drying is limited by how fast heat can conduct through the fibres of the items being dried.  In the insulation world, this would be a material's U-factor.  The thermal properties of polyester, cotton or whatever your blankets and towels are made of, now take over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we make a final assumption that you have material homogeneity, what then becomes the primary determinant of evaporation is **time**.  It just takes time to conduct the heat through the insulating surface layer, time for the deep moisture to be evaporated, and time for the tumbling action to evacuate the moisture-laden air from the depths of the material.  Whilst temperature does influence the first two, it has nothing to do with the last one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a pocket of air deep in a material reaches 100%RH, no further drying at that location will occur until the tumbling action literally forces that air out of the material, and it gets replaced by drier air.  At this scale the limit is the same as it was at the very beginning of this answer: Airflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, regardless of how you slice and dice the scenario, airflow is King in dryer operations.  Since the impact of airflow is far more tied to cycle length than it is to temperature, the simple fact is that **long dryer cycles are what actually dry the items inside a dryer**.  The 250W motor and fan are doing the heavy lifting.  Temperature control is primarily a 'feature' that marketing departments can use to help sell the product to people who 'lead busy lives'.  Hot cycles use a lot of power to only modestly decrease drying times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the time, the most energy-efficient way to use such a dryer is to not have it do any heating at all, and just allow it to use the house's 21°C/50%RH internal air to do the drying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the questions parameters, and all of the assumptions documented above: **Long and low is the way to go**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10434" RevisionGUID="a36526a7-a186-40f7-baf1-75c4a62bc2a0" CreationDate="2021-01-01T11:22:20.470" UserId="4886" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="The generic and vague wording of the question seems deliberate, but unfortunately a meaningful answer can't be so simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary factor that determines how long it will take a dryer to dry a load of clothes is not actually temperature, it's **airflow**.  All the heat in the world won't help you if your dryer is overloaded, the lint tray is full/blocked, and your vent is choked.  Air needs to move through the dryer for the drying process to work.  You can even dry clothes all-year-round by simply putting them into a vented tumble dryer with no heat at all.  Might take a while, and they won't come out all nice and warm, but they will be dry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, to progress things towards an answer of some sort, let's make a bunch of assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first assumption is that the dryer is the older vented variety, not any of the other electric varieties.  It draws air from inside the house, uses that air to dry the clothes, and exhausts the air through a wall and outside the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, let's assume that it's not ancient — it has a sensor on it that stops drying &quot;when the clothes are dry&quot;.  There are a variety of ways this can be done, but a temperature sensor on the exhaust is common.  No need to worry about set duration cycles and over-drying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next assumptions will be that the drum motor and fan combined use about 250W and the heating element uses about 5,000W.  That's a huge difference, but given that the heating element is cycled on and off, and the motor/fan run pretty-much continuously, it's not as large as it would first appear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume also that the dryer is not overloaded, the load is made of homogeneous items, the lint tray is empty, the vent is clean, internal temp is 21°C and RH is 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hand-wave a bunch of 'fuzzy' math out of the way and you end up with:  **Warm and longer dryer cycles consume less energy than hot and shorter cycles.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Towels and blankets can be called 'thick' items.  They contain far more water than typical clothing.  Since moisture is distributed according to volume, and evaporation is proportional to surface area, you are looking at a dimensional difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A short(/hot) cycle will result in rapid initial evaporation over the exposed surfaces, but then — with those surfaces now being dry — the items (especially blankets) become thermal insulators.  Insulators resist heat transfer.  Since air is continually being vented at the same rate, as the drying cycle proceeds the relative humidity of the vented air drops sharply.  What that means is that, as a ratio, more of the vented air is now dry.  The 5kW heating element still powers on to heat the incoming air up, but most of the air doesn't have a chance to participate in any evaporation before being vented.  In short, hot cycles become very inefficient very quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Warm cycles, on the other hand, don't burst out of the gate with a rapid amount of initial evaporation.  Because the incoming air is (relatively) cooler it takes longer for initial evaporation to occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once surfaces are dry, further drying is limited by how fast heat can conduct through the fibres of the items being dried.  In the insulation world, this would be a material's U-factor.  The thermal properties of polyester, cotton or whatever your blankets and towels are made of, now take over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we make a final assumption that you have material homogeneity, what then becomes the primary determinant of evaporation is **time**.  It just takes time to conduct the heat through the insulating surface layer, time for the deep moisture to be evaporated, and time for the tumbling action to evacuate the moisture-laden air from the depths of the material.  Whilst temperature does influence the first two, it has nothing to do with the last one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a pocket of air deep in a material reaches 100%RH, no further drying at that location will occur until the tumbling action literally forces that air out of the material, and it gets replaced by drier air.  At this scale the limit is the same as it was at the very beginning of this answer: Airflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, regardless of how you slice and dice the scenario, airflow is King in dryer operations.  Since the impact of airflow is far more tied to cycle length than it is to temperature, the simple fact is that **long dryer cycles are what actually dry the items inside a dryer**.  The 250W motor and fan are doing the heavy lifting.  Temperature control is primarily a 'feature' that marketing departments can use to help sell the product to people who 'lead busy lives'.  Hot cycles use a lot of power to only modestly decrease drying times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the time, the most energy-efficient way to use such a dryer is to not have it do any heating at all, and just allow it to use the house's 21°C/50%RH internal air to do the drying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the questions parameters, and all of the assumptions documented above: **Long and low is the way to go**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26157" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10432" RevisionGUID="0df77b9f-b33e-4006-a03e-cea4c7ee3910" CreationDate="2021-01-01T12:00:04.187" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1344976682457956357" />
  <row Id="26158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10434" RevisionGUID="69c9ca0c-0d3b-4636-b1b5-cade7ae54518" CreationDate="2021-01-01T23:01:47.417" UserId="4886" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="The generic and vague wording of the question seems deliberate, but unfortunately a meaningful answer can't be so simple.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary factor that determines how long it will take a dryer to dry a load of clothes is not actually temperature, it's **airflow**.  All the heat in the world won't help you if your dryer is overloaded, the lint tray is full/blocked, and your vent is choked.  Air needs to move through the dryer for the drying process to work.  You can even dry clothes all-year-round by simply putting them into a vented tumble dryer with no heat at all.  Might take a while, and they won't come out all nice and warm, but they will be dry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in order to progress towards an answer of some sort, we need to make a bunch of assumptions...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first assumption is that the dryer is the older vented variety, not any of the other electric varieties.  It draws air from inside the house, uses that air to dry the clothes, and exhausts the air through a wall and outside the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Next, let's assume that it's not ancient — it has a sensor on it that stops drying &quot;when the clothes are dry&quot;.  There are a variety of ways this can be done, but a temperature sensor on the exhaust is common.  No need to worry about set duration cycles and over-drying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next assumptions will be that the drum motor and fan combined use about 250W and the heating element uses about 5,000W.  That's a huge difference, but given that the heating element is cycled on and off, and the motor/fan run pretty-much continuously, it's not as large as it would first appear.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume also that the dryer is not overloaded, the load is made of homogeneous items, the lint tray is empty, the vent is clean, internal temp is 21°C and RH is 50%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hand-wave a bunch of 'fuzzy' math out of the way and you end up with:  **Warm and longer dryer cycles consume less energy than hot and shorter cycles.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Towels and blankets can be called 'thick' items.  They contain far more water than typical clothing.  Since moisture is distributed according to volume, and evaporation is proportional to surface area, you are looking at a dimensional difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A short(/hot) cycle will result in rapid initial evaporation over the exposed surfaces, but then — with those surfaces now being dry — the items (especially blankets) become thermal insulators.  Insulators resist heat transfer.  Since air is continually being vented at the same rate, as the drying cycle proceeds the relative humidity of the vented air drops sharply.  What that means is that, as a ratio, more of the vented air is now dry.  The 5kW heating element still powers on to heat the incoming air up, but most of the air doesn't have a chance to participate in any evaporation before being vented.  In short, hot cycles become very inefficient very quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Warm cycles, on the other hand, don't burst out of the gate with a rapid amount of initial evaporation.  Because the incoming air is (relatively) cooler it takes longer for initial evaporation to occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once surfaces are dry, further drying is limited by how fast heat can conduct through the fibres of the items being dried.  In the insulation world, this would be a material's U-factor.  The thermal properties of polyester, cotton or whatever your blankets and towels are made of, now take over.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we make a final assumption that you have material homogeneity, what then becomes the primary determinant of evaporation is **time**.  It just takes time to conduct the heat through the insulating surface layer, time for the deep moisture to be evaporated, and time for the tumbling action to evacuate the moisture-laden air from the depths of the material.  Whilst temperature does influence the first two, it has nothing to do with the last one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a pocket of air deep in a material reaches 100%RH, no further drying at that location will occur until the tumbling action literally forces that air out of the material, and it gets replaced by drier air.  At this scale the limit is the same as it was at the very beginning of this answer: Airflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, regardless of how you slice and dice the scenario, airflow is King in dryer operations.  Since the impact of airflow is far more tied to cycle length than it is to temperature, the simple fact is that **long dryer cycles are what actually dry the items inside a dryer**.  The 250W motor and fan are doing the heavy lifting.  Temperature control is primarily a 'feature' that marketing departments can use to help sell the product to people who 'lead busy lives'.  Hot cycles use a lot of power to only modestly decrease drying times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have the time, the most energy-efficient way to use such a dryer is to not have it do any heating at all, and just allow it to use the house's 21°C/50%RH internal air to do the drying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the questions parameters, and all of the assumptions documented above: **Long and low is the way to go**." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10435" RevisionGUID="2362af4c-0f1a-49e9-b57c-38aac69d35d5" CreationDate="2021-01-01T23:05:16.710" UserId="8210" Text="Battery recycling today is handled by 3rd parties. This leads to issues of economic value on materials extracted since they must cover a large variety of battery types and cannot specialize on any one. Plus, the materials extracted from these recycled batteries that do not represent a 1-to-1 demand for replacement. So we have room for innovation here still.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have information specific to VW, but I do know where to look for Tesla's efforts on this as they continue to lead the charge for sustainable energy. See page 14-15 of [Tesla's 2019 Impact Report][1], which puts it well:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All materials contained in a battery remain in their original form at end-of-life and the vast majority of these materials are then captured in the recycling process. Presently, only high-value elements are recycled and re-introduced into the supply chain. However, as recycling technology improves, we strive to re-introduce more and more materials back into their original commodity markets. Over half of the materials in a battery cell are metals, which is great for sustainability given they are infinitely recyclable. The remaining materials are plastics, organics, and other difficult to re-use materials. Research is underway by organizations all over the world to improve the ability to recycle these remaining materials.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Today, we work with third-party recyclers around the world to process all scrap and end-of-life batteries to recover valuable metals. Our recycling partners work with us to ensure that non-valuable or non-recoverable materials from the batteries are disposed of responsibly.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Tesla is currently developing a unique battery recycling system at Gigafactory Nevada that will process both battery manufacturing scrap and end-of-life batteries. Through this system, the recovery of critical minerals will be maximized along with the recovery of all metals used in Tesla battery cells, such as copper, aluminum and steel. Our ultimate goal is to develop a recycling processes that has high recovery rates, low costs, and a low environmental impact. **From an economic perspective, we expect to recognize significant savings over the long term, as the costs associated with large-scale battery material recovery and recycling will be far lower than purchasing and transporting new materials to put into cells**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(Emphasis added.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Notably: Tesla co-founder JB Strabuel stepped down (but not away) from Tesla in 2019 to start a company dedicated to closed-loop battery recycling called [Redwood Materials][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- See: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-jb-straubel-ramps-battery-recycling-business/&#xD;&#xA;and/or this YouTube video from HyperChange: https://youtu.be/08FOfbhhKlw for more on this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla's Battery Day event on September 22, 2020 expanded on all of this and explains that at some point Tesla expects to get to a steady state where they won't need to do any more mining at all across all of their products. Basically: New batteries will come exclusively from old batteries. Hear it for yourself here: https://youtu.be/l6T9xIeZTds?t=4679 (Timestamp: 1:18:00 - 1:19:32).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See also: https://insideevs.com/features/458173/tesla-jb-straubel-battery-recycling/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2019-tesla-impact-report.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.redwoodmaterials.com" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26161" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="5a7b7e6a-9c73-4cf1-bcd1-9cbda121f667" CreationDate="2021-01-02T06:00:03.960" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1345248472434421760" />
  <row Id="26162" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10169" RevisionGUID="1d0f1062-d13d-4a77-9cbd-ab011a676678" CreationDate="2021-01-02T12:00:05.567" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1345339076107448323" />
  <row Id="26163" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="4a3bb04b-ffe2-4a77-9c33-cbdc0f9e1b11" CreationDate="2021-01-02T15:00:05.420" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1345384373969973254" />
  <row Id="26164" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10436" RevisionGUID="f2498e22-aa0a-4237-9a6c-5a5760f8a852" CreationDate="2021-01-02T19:07:32.323" UserId="8448" Text="Copy paper can be purchased in different white tones. The shades of white are defined by the Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE) and take values from 55 (recycling-grey) to 171 (most white). See table below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Will using a less white paper (low CIE value) usually be more sustainable?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;Source: [PC Welt][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wRrXz.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.pcwelt.de/a/drucker-tipp-das-bedeutet-der-weissgrad-von-papier,3447939" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26165" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10436" RevisionGUID="f2498e22-aa0a-4237-9a6c-5a5760f8a852" CreationDate="2021-01-02T19:07:32.323" UserId="8448" Text="Is less white paper usually more sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26166" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10436" RevisionGUID="f2498e22-aa0a-4237-9a6c-5a5760f8a852" CreationDate="2021-01-02T19:07:32.323" UserId="8448" Text="|alternatives|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26167" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="b378e2bf-b9f6-4978-ab06-f5bf4c1b5740" CreationDate="2021-01-03T00:00:15.377" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1345520311224168449" />
  <row Id="26168" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10413" RevisionGUID="8392a3da-1d4f-4b91-befa-576c6fdc2497" CreationDate="2021-01-03T03:00:25.853" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1345565653613293569" />
  <row Id="26169" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9968" RevisionGUID="b1cb0298-306c-43df-8b28-e965a51740b0" CreationDate="2021-01-03T07:02:10.110" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10437" RevisionGUID="b492b334-315b-48a6-98fc-50005078e72b" CreationDate="2021-01-03T17:52:23.333" UserId="3379" Text="According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, [about 23 L (13%) out of every barrel of oil is turned into &quot;other products&quot;](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![Petroleum products from a barrel of crude oil][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other 150 L or so is turned into things which are burned for energy -- wind and solar PV (with battery backing) are already on course to replace the need for these.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what about the other stuff? Wikipedia has an exhaustive list of [petrochemicals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrochemical) which includes such things as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cosmetics raw materials&#xD;&#xA; - Food additives&#xD;&#xA; - Pharmaceuticals&#xD;&#xA; - Specialty and life sciences chemicals&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is crude oil the *only* practical source for these petrochemicals? Or are there comparable plant-based alternatives available?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F0IFa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26171" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10437" RevisionGUID="b492b334-315b-48a6-98fc-50005078e72b" CreationDate="2021-01-03T17:52:23.333" UserId="3379" Text="Are there petroleum products which do not have practical alternative sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26172" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10437" RevisionGUID="b492b334-315b-48a6-98fc-50005078e72b" CreationDate="2021-01-03T17:52:23.333" UserId="3379" Text="|alternatives|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26173" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10430" RevisionGUID="08e91f92-ecd8-40a5-9477-d6faa85b990a" CreationDate="2021-01-03T20:00:55.117" UserId="8013" Comment="Reorganised and split into sections" Text="This is quite a difficult question to answer with precision, because the impacts of mining depend a lot on how you do it. I can offer a few references which give a guide to the scale of the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many environmental concerns around the impact of Lithium mines on the environment and local communities (e.g. [Reuters article on Salar de Atacama][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Quantifying Impacts**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference in scale, maturity and categories of pollution involved make a detailed comparison of all the toxins involved difficult. I will look at two broad areas of impact: the area of land taken up and the volumes of water used in the processing chain. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Assumptions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make the comparison, consider a Nissan Leaf with a 40kWh battery. Taking the low end of Lithium content from [wikipedia][4] of 0.15kg per kWh (the efficiency of batteries is rapidly increasing, so we can expect improvements beyond this figure) we require 6kg of Lithium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For our petrol car, consider a car driving 12,000 km per year (the UK average) at 6L per 100km, and hence consuming 2,000 L per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We will also consider a 10 year lifetime for the battery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It could be argued that this comparison is too pessimistic about the Lithium because it SHOULD be recycled and have a much longer lifetime than 10 years. However, current recycling rates in, for example, Australia are 2% ([Inst. Energy Research)][2] .. so we should not count this benefit too early.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have not dealt explicitly with petroleum extraction: if done cleanly the extraction itself is the major cause of concern for petroleum, though it would be for coal or shale gas. Toxic chemical spills are a problem. Because of the much lower volume of Lithium needed compared to oil, we can expect spillage to be a smaller concern. We might hope that the high value to weight ratio will lead to a cleaner processing chain and reduced damaging spillage, but this hope cannot be verified at this stage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Water Use**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Institute for Energy Research][2] say that Lithium mining (from salt flats ... see comments on open cast mines below) requires 500 gallons (2,250L) per kg of Lithium. Most of the environmental problems are associated with waste water that is heavily loaded with a toxic mix of chemicals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can compare this to water use in petroleum refining, according to [fluence][3], of about 0.5L per litre of petrol. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that the 2,250 L/kg * 6 kg = 13,300 kg of water usage for the electric vehicle should be compared with 2,000 L/yr * 10 yr * 0.5 kg/L = 10,000 kg of water usage to create petroleum for the conventional car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, this is much less than the typical domestic usage of 40,000 kg per person per year in the UK. The problem is that this may be heavily polluted water and the usage may be concentrated in very small and sensitive areas. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Area of Land Needed***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium battery factories have a huge scale, how does this compare with oil refineries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Tesla [giga-factory in Nevada][5] aims to produce 50GWh of batteries per year, enough for 1.25 million 40kWh cars, and covers 180,000m2. Taken over our 10 year period reference period, this means 0.18/12.5 = 0.014 m2/car. Seen like this, it is not taking up much space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By comparison, the world's largest oil refinery at [Baton Rouge, Lousiana][6] covers 8,000,000 m2 and produces 80,000,000 L of petrol per day. The typical car described above needs 2L per day, so Baton Rouge is supporting 40,000,000 cars, or 0.2 m2/car. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both these numbers indicate that the area of the fuel/battery processing plant is small on a per/car basis. In terms of emissions, battery factories do not appear to have significant waste outputs. The refineries, on the other hand, have a long list of toxic by-products and problems associated with leakage in the input supply chain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We should also look at the spatial footprint of Lithium mines. Their are two categories of mine: open cast mines from which a solid ore is extracted and brine deposits. The brine deposits, such as in Salar de Atacama (Chile), currently provide the cheapest source, but many countries are developing large open cast mines, such as at Thacker Pass (Nevada, US). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Salar de Atacama brine pools are visible in [google maps][7] from which I estimate their area as 25 km2. This site produced 80,000 tonnes of Lithium per year in 2017 (e.g. [Reuters article on Salar de Atacama][1]). The life-time of the site is unclear, but even with a conservative estimate of 10 years, this will supply 130 million car batteries, approximately 0.2m2 per car, as for the Baton Rouge site. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main concern at the Salar de Atacama site appears to be the rate of extraction brine, which is lowering the local water table. If this is restricted, there will be limits in Lithium supply. This is no doubt one factor leading many countries to invest in open cast mines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Thacker Pass open cast mine referred to above is expected to have spatial footprint of 23 km2 (close to that of the Atacama brine pools) an produce enough Lithium for 100 million cars (see [mining.com][8] -- 3.1 million tonnes of Lithium carbonate implies 0.6 million tonnes of Lithium), and hence 0.23 m2 per car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Thacker pass mine will not use brine pools, but there is concern in the [environmental impact assessment][9] that there are unknown impacts because of new methods being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Energy Use**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, on energy efficiency and CO2 emissions. The Nissan Leaf is rated at 114 mpg-e by the [EPA][10] , or 19kWH per 100km. If this electricity is taken from the UK grid, with [233 kg/kWh][11] implies 4.27 kg CO2e per 100km. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For petrol, with [2.3 kg CO2e per Litre][12], we have closer to 13kg CO2e per 100km. So, even with today's electricity supply, the electric car is doing significantly better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As new generation capacity is dominated by carbon free energy sources, this balance will change increasingly in favour of electric vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conclusions**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1) Pollution associated with Lithium mining is potentially significant. Care needs to be taken with water usage and disposal of waste water. These are not new challenges, but if this is going to be done in a &quot;green&quot; way, there needs to be a significant improvement in the quality of waste management compared to current standards in the fossil fuel industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2) Lithium battery production is a clean and compact process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(3) Electric vehicles have a lower carbon footprint than comparable petrol vehicles if charged using energy from the UK national grid. The carbon footprint will continue to decrease as the grid moves increasingly to zero carbon emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-chile-lithium-insight/a-water-fight-in-chiles-atacama-raises-questions-over-lithium-mining-idUKKCN1MS1L8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.fluencecorp.com/water-use-in-petroleum-refining/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_battery&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giga_Nevada&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.listnbest.com/11-worlds-largest-oil-refineries-processing-capacity/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Salar+de+Atacama/@-23.5006283,-68.4862492,42151m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x96a8fa058ec18ecb:0xe467ef5c09abee71!8m2!3d-23.5!4d-68.25&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.mining.com/lithium-americas-thacker-pass-moves-closer-to-production/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/1503166/200352542/20024530/250030734/TP_Scoping_Report_2020-05-11_FINAL.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_EPA_fuel_economy&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://www.rensmart.com/Calculators/KWH-to-CO2&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://slightlyunconventional.com/co2-per-litre-of-petrol/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26178" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10415" RevisionGUID="a173e6b2-8cbd-4314-baa1-c98be2308534" CreationDate="2021-01-04T15:00:07.020" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1346109156466503692" />
  <row Id="26179" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10415" RevisionGUID="8a0e8a97-adcb-40f8-943d-30153a5dc662" CreationDate="2021-01-04T17:23:16.550" UserId="8210" Comment="Use proper capitalization in title." Text="Doesn't it make more sense to wrap hot sandwiches with the foil facing in?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26180" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10415" RevisionGUID="8a0e8a97-adcb-40f8-943d-30153a5dc662" CreationDate="2021-01-04T17:23:16.550" Comment="Proposed by 8210 approved by 2122 edit id of 668" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10439" RevisionGUID="27900521-ae86-4094-8239-251c2dd94bc4" CreationDate="2021-01-05T20:32:37.153" UserId="8448" Text="According to [this][1] article in Environmental Science &amp; Technology (2020) the least GHG intensive process would be online shopping with fulfillment via physical store delivery:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We found that shopping via bricks and clicks (click and fulfillment&#xD;&#xA;&gt; via physical store delivery) most likely decreases the GHG footprints&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when substituting traditional shopping, while FMCGs purchased through&#xD;&#xA;&gt; pure players with parcel delivery often have higher GHG footprints&#xD;&#xA;&gt; compared to those purchased via traditional retail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.9b06252" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26182" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10372" RevisionGUID="94a7d772-b5bd-4d48-a5c7-56fb608a1bcb" CreationDate="2021-01-06T03:00:01.990" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1346652717490581506" />
  <row Id="26183" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10345" RevisionGUID="504b8494-a254-440b-a6ae-d06d2f41bc69" CreationDate="2021-01-06T18:00:01.057" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1346879205905227777" />
  <row Id="26185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10440" RevisionGUID="f60aff10-2887-4106-8412-270febb34487" CreationDate="2021-01-07T04:47:05.840" UserId="3379" Text="Today the governor of Massachusetts [announced](https://www.mass.gov/news/baker-polito-administration-releases-roadmap-to-achieve-net-zero-emissions-by-2050) that starting in 2035, gasoline-powered vehicles will no longer be sold in the state. From the announcement (emphasis added, and a &quot;sic&quot; indicating where some words appear to have been left out by mistake):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The transportation sector highlights a renewed focus on the deployment of electric vehicles with new, nation-leading state and regional programs including the Transportation and Climate Initiative Program. Building on that progress, **Massachusetts will join California in requiring that by 2035, 100% of new light-duty vehicles sold in the Commonwealth are zero emission vehicles (ZEVs)** [*sic*] support the continued build-out of statewide charging infrastructure, including additional consumer incentives for residential EV charging systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This announcement mentions a similar requirement in California, and recently I heard that [New Jersey is working on something too](https://nj.gov/governor/news/news/562020/approved/20200714a.shtml). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How many U.S. states currently have requirements or targets to eliminate or reduce sale of carbon-emitting vehicles? Which states are they, and what are the specifics of the plans?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26186" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10440" RevisionGUID="f60aff10-2887-4106-8412-270febb34487" CreationDate="2021-01-07T04:47:05.840" UserId="3379" Text="Which U.S. states have zero emission vehicle mandates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26187" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10440" RevisionGUID="f60aff10-2887-4106-8412-270febb34487" CreationDate="2021-01-07T04:47:05.840" UserId="3379" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|usa|electric-vehicles|vehicle|law|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="3bf7690f-fe17-43ef-87b5-e7dfffcc2c23" CreationDate="2021-01-07T23:24:28.343" UserId="9219" Text="I am wanting to hook up a solar system to my house but don't want to feed back into the grid (for a number of reasons, including legislative bureaucracy and having to change my electricity company).  Notwithstanding it may make sense for me to spec my solar system so it produces more power then I need (future proofing, handling the differences between summer and winter collection)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I explored this years ago, I recall I was advised to dump the excess power into a hot water cylinder or other arbitrary load.   I do not have a suitable hot water cylinder or similar wasteful load - although I guess I could always rig one up if I absolutely had to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have discovered a hybrid converter where, when asked, **the installer claimed &quot;The solar inverter will only take energy that is required from the solar...&quot;**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct [ that MPPT controllers can do this ], and if so do I need to worry about what happens to the excess power and any effects it could have on the panels?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26189" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="3bf7690f-fe17-43ef-87b5-e7dfffcc2c23" CreationDate="2021-01-07T23:24:28.343" UserId="9219" Text="Excess solar power" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26190" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="3bf7690f-fe17-43ef-87b5-e7dfffcc2c23" CreationDate="2021-01-07T23:24:28.343" UserId="9219" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10443" RevisionGUID="ecfa09fd-e99a-4b98-b071-c03281e6da06" CreationDate="2021-01-08T06:54:57.313" UserId="9243" Text="The short answer: **Yes**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;White paper is produced by bleaching the dried pulp, whether raw tree product or recycled.&#xD;&#xA;The following is reproduced from [this site][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To produce a white paper product, the mill must bleach the pulp to remove color associated with remaining residual lignin. Typically, the bleaching chemicals (such as chlorine dioxide, oxygen, or hydrogen peroxide) are injected into the pulp and the resulting mixture is washed with water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many believe ([source][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recycled paper can be manufactured relatively easily, with end products competitive in quality to those made from virgin materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that recycling degrades the fibers in the paper, new paper will have to be made, but, recycling sure reduces the environmental impact!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, because of the degradation of the fibers through the papermaking and recycling process, the limit to the amount of paper being recycled is slowly being approached. In addition, there are a number of grades of paper that are currently not recycled and will not be in the foreseeable future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][3] research article details the effect of Bleach contents on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarise, recycled paper has the following characteristics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pros**&#xD;&#xA;  1. Less trees will be cut for paper industry&#xD;&#xA;  2. If less white paper is used, less bleach will be needed and hence less toxins are added to environment&#xD;&#xA;  3. Recycling industry will stay alive and create some jobs in the process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cons**&#xD;&#xA;  1. Consumers may not get premium looking white paper, to throw in the trashcan&#xD;&#xA;  2. Recycled paper may (research needed) degrade faster, and important printed documents may not be safe&#xD;&#xA;  3. (Problem specific to Western and west copying countries) personal hygeine papers may not be made with recycled paper&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/paper/web/html/papermaking.html#pulp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/recycled-paper&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00545-4_4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26196" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10443" RevisionGUID="7e6aba4b-e991-42db-b959-ea73fec3bf56" CreationDate="2021-01-08T08:25:43.043" UserId="9243" Comment="added 59 characters in body" Text="The short answer: **Yes**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The long answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;White paper is produced by bleaching the dried pulp, whether raw tree product or recycled.&#xD;&#xA;The following is reproduced from [this site][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; To produce a white paper product, the mill must bleach the pulp to remove color associated with remaining residual lignin. Typically, the bleaching chemicals (such as chlorine dioxide, oxygen, or hydrogen peroxide) are injected into the pulp and the resulting mixture is washed with water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many believe ([source][2]):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recycled paper can be manufactured relatively easily, with end products competitive in quality to those made from virgin materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that recycling degrades the fibers in the paper, new paper will have to be made, but, recycling sure reduces the environmental impact!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However, because of the degradation of the fibers through the papermaking and recycling process, the limit to the amount of paper being recycled is slowly being approached. In addition, there are a number of grades of paper that are currently not recycled and will not be in the foreseeable future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This][3] research article details the effect of Bleach contents on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To summarise, recycled paper has the following characteristics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pros**&#xD;&#xA;  1. Less trees will be cut for paper industry&#xD;&#xA;  2. If less white paper is used, less bleach will be needed and hence less toxins are added to environment&#xD;&#xA;  3. Recycling industry will stay alive and create some jobs in the process&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cons**&#xD;&#xA;  1. Consumers may not get premium looking white paper, to throw in the trashcan&#xD;&#xA;  2. Recycled paper may (research needed) degrade faster, and important printed documents may not be safe&#xD;&#xA;  3. (Problem specific to certain countries) personal hygeine papers may not preferably be made with recycled paper, because if the paper is coarse, many consumers will not use it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://archive.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/paper/web/html/papermaking.html#pulp&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/recycled-paper&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00545-4_4" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26197" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10436" RevisionGUID="415da844-d41d-4f88-b664-6fe7b9c0ecb3" CreationDate="2021-01-08T09:00:07.993" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1347468115010084867" />
  <row Id="26199" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10037" RevisionGUID="9e9e707a-6414-423e-bbb8-cc004f591a64" CreationDate="2021-01-09T03:00:07.850" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1347739905313681419" />
  <row Id="26201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10444" RevisionGUID="a938afd8-0442-498d-b5fd-68ac8cf8df55" CreationDate="2021-01-10T12:18:03.803" UserId="1921" Text="I'm wondering about kinetic energy storage for homes. Imagine a concrete plate resting on hundreds of firmly attached sturdy springs, and a couple of electric winches attached to the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To store energy, pull up the plate. To release energy, release the plate. Springs store energy with the square of the displacement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What part of this won't work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26202" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10444" RevisionGUID="a938afd8-0442-498d-b5fd-68ac8cf8df55" CreationDate="2021-01-10T12:18:03.803" UserId="1921" Text="Why is there no spring based energy storage?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26203" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10444" RevisionGUID="a938afd8-0442-498d-b5fd-68ac8cf8df55" CreationDate="2021-01-10T12:18:03.803" UserId="1921" Text="|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10445" RevisionGUID="a5c33da1-b7f4-4703-b207-dac965b471a1" CreationDate="2021-01-10T21:25:35.490" UserId="3379" Text="I recently had my old, broken furnace replaced with a high-efficiency [condensing furnace](https://www.jerrykelly.com/blog/what-is-a-condensing-furnace-and-why-is-it-so-efficient). One function of this furnace is that it extracts enough heat from the exhaust gases to condense them into liquid (&quot;condensate&quot;), which is sent out of the furnace and down the drain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My understanding is that this liquid is *mostly* water. I'd like to use this to reduce my water usage, rather than letting it go down the drain. **Is furnace condensate safe to use on my houseplants?** If not, is there something else I could safely use the condensate for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26205" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10445" RevisionGUID="a5c33da1-b7f4-4703-b207-dac965b471a1" CreationDate="2021-01-10T21:25:35.490" UserId="3379" Text="Can furnace condensate water be used for houseplants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26206" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10445" RevisionGUID="a5c33da1-b7f4-4703-b207-dac965b471a1" CreationDate="2021-01-10T21:25:35.490" UserId="3379" Text="|water|heating|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10446" RevisionGUID="42ae1c78-69e6-46a0-a0bd-46507f2f8825" CreationDate="2021-01-10T21:27:39.837" UserId="8013" Text="This is a question that I've heard several times, though it is the first time I've seen it here. The main problem is, I think, efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, though, not long ago, when I was a child (OK, quite a few decades ago, but in living memory), energy storage in springs was a common way of powering clocks and watches. Energy stored in weights was used for clocks by my grandfather's generation. My grandfather still had one, and would wind the weights up each day to  run the clock for the next 24 hours .. one weight for the time keeping mechanism and one for the chimes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So much for memory lane. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose you had a 1 tonne weight suspended somewhere in your home, and raised in 5m (assuming your house has 5m vertical extent). The energy stored is weight * gravitational forces * distance =  1000 kg * 10 m s-2 * 5m = 50kJ = 0.013 kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This amount of energy is, unfortunately, not going to last the modern consumer very long. The [typical household usage in the UK][1], for instance, is 8kWh per day, so that 1 tonne weight gives enough energy for less than 3 minutes. Depressing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_energy/average-household-gas-and-electricity-usage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10447" RevisionGUID="1218d0ea-d954-40e1-8562-3f9f93cc4f95" CreationDate="2021-01-11T01:02:58.310" UserId="3379" Text="### Because springs have low energy density&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When storing energy, especially in a residential setting, you want to be able to store a lot of energy, or not take up too much space. To store a reasonable amount of energy with a steel spring, you need a large spring (or a lot of small springs). The 2014 paper [&quot;Benefits and challenges of mechanical spring systems for energy storage applications&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187661021502576X) includes this table comparing the mass-based and volume-based energy density of various energy storage systems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Energy data on spring-based energy storage systems][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A steel spring is 100 times more massive than a battery system, and 50 times larger, for the same amount of energy (using the low end estimates for batteries). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To visualize this, let's compare it to a [Tesla Powerwall](https://www.tesla.com/powerwall), which is about the size of a large television (0.13 m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;), and stores 13.5 kWh of electricity. For the [average U.S. household](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&amp;t=3), this would last more than a week. It's energy density is about 100 kWh per m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get a similar amount of energy from a spring system, it would need to be 45 m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, or about 350 times larger. Assuming a ceiling height of 2.5 m, this would take up about 23 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; -- about the size of a single car garage. Alternatively, if the spring system took up the same amount of space as the powerwall, it would only store 0.04 kWh, or enough to run a standard LED light bulb for about five minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article also explores the possibility of carbon nano-tube (CNT) springs in various arrangements -- while still less energy dense than batteries, their unique structure and properties may make them suited to storing vibrational energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HmiwB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10444" RevisionGUID="234056c0-5b47-4d97-996a-f85b856a7539" CreationDate="2021-01-11T05:45:47.493" UserId="1921" Comment="added 302 characters in body" Text="I'm wondering about kinetic energy storage for homes. Imagine a concrete plate resting on hundreds of firmly attached sturdy springs, and a couple of electric winches attached to the top.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To store energy, pull up the plate. To release energy, release the plate. Springs store energy with the square of the displacement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What part of this won't work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT: I was wrong about the square of extension behavior, the actual behavior is linear+non-linear over a quite short distance as described [here](https://www.tokaibane.com/en/spring-design/compression-springs-stress). Therefore the answer is low energy density as explained by the accepted answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10448" RevisionGUID="3af5dde2-f576-4b0d-9d54-e8dedf1402e5" CreationDate="2021-01-11T06:53:26.820" UserId="9243" Text="I have 3 stage **water purifier** installed at my home which first filters the water, performs `reverse osmosis` and then treats it with UV-C rays. The water that is released at stage 2 (RO) is usually drained-off. Can this water be used for gardening purposes? Or, better still, can it be collected and somehow passed through the purifier to make it potable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These questions are related but for another equipment:&#xD;&#xA;1. https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10445/can-furnace-condensate-water-be-used-for-houseplants&#xD;&#xA;2. https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/3228/can-you-drink-condensation-water-from-air-con-after-treating-it" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26211" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10448" RevisionGUID="3af5dde2-f576-4b0d-9d54-e8dedf1402e5" CreationDate="2021-01-11T06:53:26.820" UserId="9243" Text="The drain-off water from water purifiers: Are they fit for gardening?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26212" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10448" RevisionGUID="3af5dde2-f576-4b0d-9d54-e8dedf1402e5" CreationDate="2021-01-11T06:53:26.820" UserId="9243" Text="|reuse|water-conservation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26213" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10444" RevisionGUID="acadb768-71dd-4034-bc3a-fa67f446e81e" CreationDate="2021-01-11T07:24:03.007" />
  <row Id="26214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10449" RevisionGUID="d39d58cd-1815-4b32-8305-891636c2355a" CreationDate="2021-01-11T07:48:34.743" UserId="9219" Text="Yes. This would be absolutely fine for plants.  It would be almost pure water - not dissimilar to distilled water.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26216" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10450" RevisionGUID="7b760c15-9e80-4a84-9f66-307315ce3dc6" CreationDate="2021-01-11T09:42:32.167" UserId="659" Text="&gt; the installer claimed &quot;The solar inverter will only take energy that is required from the solar...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how all solar inverters work. You can't not get this &quot;feature&quot;, because the system would blow up the first time it was turned on if it dodn't work this way. Think about it in the context of no load - you power up the inverter but for whatever reason the circuit breaker pops or the heater turns of... either the inverter generates no output power, or the output voltage rises until something starts arcing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many solar inverters also have output limiting, so they can be set up in places where the grid operator has rules limiting how much each system can feed into the grid (commonly in Australia it's 5kW per phase). Those, and some others, can be set for zero feed in.  Talk to your installer, they will almost certainly have a system that can do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT... Meridian, and every other supplier in NZ, don't charge extra to allow you to feed back. So the question is really: would you rather be paid something for excess power you have available, or nothing? The cost to you of turning that power into grid-comaptible power is almost unmeasurably low (it's the marginal wear and tear from extra power through the inverter, likely to be (much) less than 0.1c/kWh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26217" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10450" RevisionGUID="b6e63e0a-6010-4dd7-89d0-c4cb9786c9d9" CreationDate="2021-01-11T09:52:44.050" UserId="659" Comment="added way more detail on using the extra electricity" Text="&gt; the installer claimed &quot;The solar inverter will only take energy that is required from the solar...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how all solar inverters work. You can't not get this &quot;feature&quot;, because the system would blow up the first time it was turned on if it dodn't work this way. Think about it in the context of no load - you power up the inverter but for whatever reason the circuit breaker pops or the heater turns off... either the inverter generates no output power, or the output voltage rises until something starts arcing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many solar inverters also have output limiting, so they can be set up in places where the grid operator has rules limiting how much each system can feed into the grid (commonly in Australia it's 5kW per phase, looks like [in NZ it's often 10kW per system][1]). Those inverters (and some others) can be set for zero feed in.  Talk to your installer, they will almost certainly have a system that can do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT... Meridian, and every other supplier in NZ, don't charge extra to allow you to feed back. So the question is really: would you rather be paid something for excess power you have available, or nothing? The cost to you of turning that power into grid-comaptible power is almost unmeasurably low (it's the marginal wear and tear from extra power through the inverter, likely to be (much) less than 0.1c/kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(edit in the rest...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I ran the numbers on a few different options for my house (in Sydney, but the basics are the same), most things never paid for themselves. I use off peak electricity for the resistive hot water, for example, so the maximum possible saving there is the 30c-40c/day I pay now. Even insulating that tank with free rockwool and a couple of $5 plastic drop cloths took more than a year to pay off. That's when I was selling electricity for 10c/kWh and paying 12c/kWh for off peak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a programmable relay to switch your entire output to a heater of some sort is the  cheapest option. You need an electrician to do this, but sadly you also need an off-grid inverter because it's not going to be connected to the grid when it's switched over. So the $200 relay turns into an extra $1000 or so for the inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you can get a controlled load of some sort and match that to your excess solar (easier than it sounds, a clamp meter to detect current on the street feed wire in your meter panel may not even need an electrician to install it). The trouble is with the load. A resistive heater is the obvious option, since that won't care that the supply goes from 0% to 100% in a couple of seconds when the sun pops out from behind a cloud, then back to zero a minute later with another cloud. But... those things aren't off the shelf parts. You can do some of it, but you'll need an electrician to install the heater and controller and that will cost $1000 or more for parts and labour. So now you need to save $1000 worth of 8c/kWh electricity to break even on that, assuming the actual heater etc is free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't come up with a way to make it pay with a grid-attached system. Off grid it's easy... the MPPT controller has a programmable relay, that turns on a 48V hot water heater when the battery is charged... voila, free hot water (in the summer, anyway)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.mysolarquotes.co.nz/about-solar-power/residential/solar-power-buy-back-rates-nz/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26218" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10437" RevisionGUID="17e07904-8d86-41e8-9d20-a519e48d2b48" CreationDate="2021-01-11T12:00:08.253" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1348600578184798210" />
  <row Id="26221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10447" RevisionGUID="d6faa0e6-065c-428c-ae88-23c7c3d4e10a" CreationDate="2021-01-11T14:40:11.747" UserId="3379" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="### Because springs have low energy density&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When storing energy, especially in a residential setting, you want to be able to store a lot of energy, or not take up too much space. To store a reasonable amount of energy with a steel spring, you need a large spring (or a lot of small springs). The 2014 paper [&quot;Benefits and challenges of mechanical spring systems for energy storage applications&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187661021502576X) includes this table comparing the mass-based and volume-based energy density of various energy storage systems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Energy data on spring-based energy storage systems][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A steel spring is 100 times larger by mass than a battery system, and 50 times larger by volume, for the same amount of energy (using the low end estimates for batteries). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To visualize this, let's compare it to a [Tesla Powerwall](https://www.tesla.com/powerwall), which is about the size of a large television (0.13 m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;), and stores 13.5 kWh of electricity. For the [average U.S. household](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&amp;t=3), this would last about 11 hours. It's energy density is about 100 kWh per m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get a similar amount of energy from a system of springs, it would need to be 45 m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, or about 350 times larger. Assuming a ceiling height of 2.5 m, this would take up about 23 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; -- about the size of a single car garage. Alternatively, if the spring system took up the same amount of space as the powerwall, it would only store 0.04 kWh, or enough to run a standard LED light bulb for about five minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article also explores the possibility of carbon nano-tube (CNT) springs in various arrangements. While they are still less energy dense than batteries, they are superior to steel springs, and their unique structure and properties may make them suited to storing vibrational energy in some niche applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HmiwB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10447" RevisionGUID="9e9f1946-7ac0-4757-80f0-f66545a9f477" CreationDate="2021-01-11T15:00:23.237" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 5 characters in body" Text="### Because springs have low energy density&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When storing energy, especially in a residential setting, you want to be able to store a lot of energy, or not take up too much space. To store a reasonable amount of energy with a steel spring, you need a large spring (or a lot of small springs). The 2014 paper [&quot;Benefits and challenges of mechanical spring systems for energy storage applications&quot;](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187661021502576X) includes this table comparing the mass-based and volume-based energy density of various energy storage systems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Energy data on spring-based energy storage systems][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A steel spring is 100 times larger by mass than a battery system, and 50 times larger by volume, for the same amount of energy (using the low end estimates for batteries). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To visualize this, let's compare it to a [Tesla Powerwall](https://www.tesla.com/powerwall), which is about the size of a large television (0.13 m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;), and stores 13.5 kWh of electricity. For the [average U.S. household](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&amp;t=3), this would last about 11 hours. It's energy density is about 100 kWh per m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get a similar amount of energy from a system of springs, it would need to be 45 m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, or about 350 times larger. Assuming a ceiling height of 2.5 m, this would take up about 18 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; -- about the size of a single car garage. Alternatively, if the spring system took up the same amount of space as the powerwall, it would only store 0.04 kWh, or enough to run a single LED light bulb for about six hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article also explores the possibility of carbon nano-tube (CNT) springs in various arrangements. While they are still less energy dense than batteries, they are superior to steel springs, and their unique structure and properties may make them suited to storing vibrational energy in some niche applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HmiwB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26224" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10451" RevisionGUID="1d656c64-71af-4974-a4db-964d0935f74d" CreationDate="2021-01-11T20:52:31.533" UserId="9260" Text="You can easily calculate the maximum strain energy in a material by considering the maximum stress (for metal: yield stress  and stiffness (Young's Modulus). The maximum strain energy in a material is then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; E = 0.5 x yield stress ^ 2 / Young's Modulus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you take high quality steel with a yield stress of 1000MPa and a typical Young's modulus of 200GPa, you get a measly [0.7kWh/m³](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=.5*%281000MPa%29%5E2%2F200GPa+to+kWh%2Fm%C2%B3) of energy per cubic meter of steel. I would need 10m³ of steel just to power our home on a cloudy day, and apparently an average US residence would need 40m³ of steel. This assumes perfectly stressed steel, whereas a typical spring loaded in bending has quite some 'unused' material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that steel is also quite heavy at 8000kg/m³, so we're talking 320 000 kg of steel stretched to its limit to power a US household for a day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10450" RevisionGUID="18b47d3a-1e79-4456-b7b4-d45ed4ed0964" CreationDate="2021-01-11T21:46:23.947" UserId="659" Comment="spelling (sorry)" Text="&gt; the installer claimed &quot;The solar inverter will only take energy that is required from the solar...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is how all solar inverters work. You can't not get this &quot;feature&quot;, because the system would blow up the first time it was turned on if it didn't work this way. Think about it in the context of no load - you power up the inverter but for whatever reason the circuit breaker pops or the heater turns off... either the inverter generates no output power, or the output voltage rises until something starts arcing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many solar inverters also have output limiting, so they can be set up in places where the grid operator has rules limiting how much each system can feed into the grid (commonly in Australia it's 5kW per phase, looks like [in NZ it's often 10kW per system][1]). Those inverters (and some others) can be set for zero feed in.  Talk to your installer, they will almost certainly have a system that can do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BUT... Meridian, and every other supplier in NZ, don't charge extra to allow you to feed back. So the question is really: would you rather be paid something for excess power you have available, or nothing? The cost to you of turning that power into grid-comaptible power is almost unmeasurably low (it's the marginal wear and tear from extra power through the inverter, likely to be (much) less than 0.1c/kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(edit in the rest...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I ran the numbers on a few different options for my house (in Sydney, but the basics are the same), most things never paid for themselves. I use off peak electricity for the resistive hot water, for example, so the maximum possible saving there is the 30c-40c/day I pay now. Even insulating that tank with free rockwool and a couple of $5 plastic drop cloths took more than a year to pay off. That's when I was selling electricity for 10c/kWh and paying 12c/kWh for off peak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a programmable relay to switch your entire output to a heater of some sort is the  cheapest option. You need an electrician to do this, but sadly you also need an off-grid inverter because it's not going to be connected to the grid when it's switched over. So the $200 relay turns into an extra $1000 or so for the inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you can get a controlled load of some sort and match that to your excess solar (easier than it sounds, a clamp meter to detect current on the street feed wire in your meter panel may not even need an electrician to install it). The trouble is with the load. A resistive heater is the obvious option, since that won't care that the supply goes from 0% to 100% in a couple of seconds when the sun pops out from behind a cloud, then back to zero a minute later with another cloud. But... those things aren't off the shelf parts. You can do some of it, but you'll need an electrician to install the heater and controller and that will cost $1000 or more for parts and labour. So now you need to save $1000 worth of 8c/kWh electricity to break even on that, assuming the actual heater etc is free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't come up with a way to make it pay with a grid-attached system. Off grid it's easy... the MPPT controller has a programmable relay, that turns on a 48V hot water heater when the battery is charged... voila, free hot water (in the summer, anyway)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.mysolarquotes.co.nz/about-solar-power/residential/solar-power-buy-back-rates-nz/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10452" RevisionGUID="d609ceb7-a6d7-4edc-a6e2-819d77936ea3" CreationDate="2021-01-12T01:12:42.427" UserId="3379" Text="I can provide and answer for the first part of the question: **No water is currently diverted out of the Great Lakes region**. The 2005 [Great Lakes–Saint Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement](https://gsgp.org/media/1332/great_lakes-st_lawrence_river_basin_sustainable_water_resources_agreement.pdf) prohibits diversion of water from the Great Lakes outside of the Great Lakes Basin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The compact is an agreement between the U.S. states of Illinois,  Indiana,  Michigan,  Minnesota,  New  York,  Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania; and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Québec.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are only [three exceptions](https://www.glslcompactcouncil.org/water-diversions) to the restriction on diversions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Communities that straddle the Basin divide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Intra-Basin transfers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Communities in counties that straddle the Basin divide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To date only [one exception](https://greatlakes.org/campaigns/defending-the-great-lakes-compact/) has been approved, for Waukesha, a Wisconsin city straddling the basin whose own water supply was found to have high radium levels. As part of the exception, Waukesha has to return the water back to Lake Michigan after it has been treated, so that there is no net loss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given how strictly enforced the agreement has been, and the fact that it's [origins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Charter) date back to 1985, it seems unlikely that this will change in the near future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gx57U.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26228" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9707" RevisionGUID="f93f679d-9ce6-4405-9a86-4c76dded9ecd" CreationDate="2021-01-12T01:20:46.680" UserId="3379" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26229" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="6489" RevisionGUID="41b1f6bf-3b2b-45fa-b9d5-6ba9571b1ed3" CreationDate="2021-01-12T01:24:10.493" UserId="3379" Comment="104" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26230" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="4341" RevisionGUID="243bee75-9a82-4b7a-b715-136ac552ad1a" CreationDate="2021-01-12T01:25:29.710" UserId="3379" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10453" RevisionGUID="101b343d-c662-4cd0-afb3-bd3cec180700" CreationDate="2021-01-12T02:53:14.393" UserId="9266" Text="Not only is the energy density of such systems low, as other posts explained - stored energy that will be released as mechanical energy immediately in case the storage system fails has been shown to be extremely dangerous in practice. Even the example of a wind-up clock shows it - if you disassembled a fully wound old school alarm clock the wrong way, there would be a non-negligible chance to get hurt. Pressurized vessels are known for similar tendencies to fail catastrophically... While failure of an energy storage system with the energy released mostly thermally is bad enough, there appear to be more ways to safely contain some unwanted thermal energy than containing some unwanted projectiles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26232" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10444" RevisionGUID="cc5dfd19-2674-41d5-ad46-c38e41a1d666" CreationDate="2021-01-12T03:00:05.007" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1348827057321603074" />
  <row Id="26233" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10454" RevisionGUID="edde2ea3-f5af-4d02-a368-dbdb3a5c291d" CreationDate="2021-01-12T07:13:15.273" UserId="4708" Text="I collect water in a bucket using extension feeder pipe as shown in figure.&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/feWAs.png&#xD;&#xA;I reuse the water released from system for daily household cleaning purpose. I checked the TDS value at all stages and it is as following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source (Tap Water from government): 800-850 ppm&#xD;&#xA;Filtered water (RO+UV): 120-130 ppm&#xD;&#xA;Released water (stored in bucket): 1000-1100 ppm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Released water is good for flower plants but not for vegetable plants. But there is also need to check mineral content of released water to confirm gardening uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10455" RevisionGUID="aecae699-79b4-423f-b185-8e48f366eaaa" CreationDate="2021-01-12T08:43:19.427" UserId="4708" Text="Saudi prince, Mohammand bin Salman, announced a future city spread in 170km with no cars and no street. But any place to meet daily needs like schools, medicine and office will not take more than 5 minutes. Further, they wanted to achieve these things in sustainable way, how feasible is this idea?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;News Source: https://www.wionews.com/world/saudi-arabias-future-city-will-have-no-cars-no-streets-355974" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26235" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10455" RevisionGUID="aecae699-79b4-423f-b185-8e48f366eaaa" CreationDate="2021-01-12T08:43:19.427" UserId="4708" Text="How feasible is a city with no cars and no streets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26236" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10455" RevisionGUID="aecae699-79b4-423f-b185-8e48f366eaaa" CreationDate="2021-01-12T08:43:19.427" UserId="4708" Text="|energy-efficiency|fuel-efficiency|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10456" RevisionGUID="26df78b0-0134-4854-a83b-1535e408e259" CreationDate="2021-01-12T09:53:41.517" UserId="4886" Text="A &quot;city&quot; implies people.  Lots of people.  Those people need to eat.  Food generally is purchased at (super)markets.  It usually is delivered by trucks.  No roads means no trucks means no markets means no food means no people means no city.  I see a teeny, tiny problem with the plan, don't you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, one can transport and distribute food &quot;other&quot; ways, but all of them require non-trivial infrastructure and thus need to be decided in advance and constructed as (or before) the city-proper is constructed (probably *below* it, in all likelihood).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's easy to say &quot;no roads&quot; but much, much harder then to &quot;distribute food&quot;.  No member of a modern society is going to walk two hours with a clay pot or woven basket on their head to collect the daily groceries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26239" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10456" RevisionGUID="803475ad-b78b-462b-9d46-26d4d41227d9" CreationDate="2021-01-12T09:59:46.790" UserId="4886" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="A &quot;city&quot; implies people.  Lots of people.  Those people need to eat.  Food generally is purchased at (super)markets and grocery stores.  It usually is delivered by trucks.  No roads means no trucks means no markets means no food means no people means no city.  I see a teeny, tiny problem with the plan, don't you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, one *can* transport and distribute food &quot;other&quot; ways, but all of them require non-trivial infrastructure and thus need to be decided in advance and constructed as (or before) the city-proper is constructed (probably *below* it, in all likelihood).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's easy to say &quot;no roads&quot; but much, much harder then to &quot;distribute food&quot;.  No member of a modern society is going to walk two hours with a clay pot or woven basket on their head to collect the daily groceries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26240" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10456" RevisionGUID="afbcbcf5-b5af-4833-ae5a-7b0b1285a5af" CreationDate="2021-01-12T10:06:34.760" UserId="4886" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="A &quot;city&quot; implies people.  Lots of people.  Those people need to eat.  Food generally is purchased at (super)markets and grocery stores.  It usually is delivered by trucks.  No roads means no trucks means no markets means no food means no people means no city.  I see a teeny, tiny problem with the plan, don't you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, one *can* transport and distribute food &quot;other&quot; ways, but all of them require non-trivial infrastructure and thus need to be decided in advance and constructed as (or before) the city-proper is constructed (probably *below* it, in all likelihood).  It is not clear from any of the updates on this project exactly how they plan to do that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's easy to say &quot;no roads&quot; but much, much harder to then &quot;distribute food&quot;.  No member of a modern society is going to walk two hours with a clay pot or woven basket on their head to collect the daily groceries.  And even though 2022 is just around the corner, I'm not sure we're quite ready for pipelines carrying Soylent Green just yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26242" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10457" RevisionGUID="78d52008-d79c-45e6-a06c-661839bb985e" CreationDate="2021-01-12T18:22:43.387" UserId="3379" Text="### &quot;Obviously, it would be most ecologic to leave the coal where it is. But since this does not happen...&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, there are some who would like to buy the coal *in the ground* and leave it there as part of an environmentalist strategy, as explained in the 2014 paper [&quot;Buy Coal! A Case for Supply-Side Environmental Policy&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1086/665405) by Bård Harstad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scientific American interviewed the author and summarized the paper [here](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-emissions-curbing-strategy-buy-coal-lock-up-supply/). Here are a few highlights:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The strategy in a nutshell:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [C]limate-concerned governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) should pool their resources and buy up the extraction rights to coal and other fossil fuels from so-called &quot;third countries&quot; that choose not to participate in greenhouse gas-reducing collectives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The strategy addresses the problem of [carbon leakage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_leakage) -- essentially, that as climate coalition countries stop buying coal, markets will expand to non-coalition countries, which will increase their emissions as a result. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This pattern is already taking shape around the globe with U.S. and Australian coal companies coping with shrinking domestic markets by planning to export huge amounts of coal to India and China. In the Harstad approach, an international coalition could outbid Asian buyers and remove the coal from the marketplace.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The paper suggests that to stop the leak, coalition countries could continue buying just as much coal as they did before -- but leave it in the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is it catching on?**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Harstad said he knows of no specific cases in which such approaches are being used by governments or NGOs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [t]here is precedent, [Harstad] noted, pointing to largely successful efforts by NGOs to preserve South American rainforests by purchasing their development rights and allowing the native trees to stand.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;In the United States, he said, land trusts and nonprofits like the Nature Conservancy have purchased millions of acres of land or bought easements that amount to legal barriers that keep the land out of the hands of developers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10451" RevisionGUID="47c050ef-774c-42ec-b61d-b78c51376c6c" CreationDate="2021-01-12T20:26:05.797" UserId="9260" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="You can easily calculate the maximum strain energy in a material by considering the maximum stress (for metal: yield stress)  and stiffness (Young's Modulus). The maximum strain energy in a material is then&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; E = 0.5 x yield stress ^ 2 / Young's Modulus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you take high quality steel with a yield stress of 1000MPa and a typical Young's modulus of 200GPa, you get a measly [0.7kWh/m³](https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=.5*%281000MPa%29%5E2%2F200GPa+to+kWh%2Fm%C2%B3) of energy per cubic meter of steel. I would need 10m³ of steel just to power our home on a cloudy day, and apparently an average US residence would need 40m³ of steel. This assumes perfectly stressed steel, whereas a typical spring loaded in bending has quite some 'unused' material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that steel is also quite heavy at 8000kg/m³, so we're talking 320 000 kg of steel stretched to its limit to power a US household for a day." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10458" RevisionGUID="f9e67907-8870-49ba-8e83-f17732c10069" CreationDate="2021-01-12T21:09:35.177" UserId="2345" Text="&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; My question is, what good ways are there store/sink coal? Just sinking large quantities of coal in the oceans is probably be a bad idea, and can have disastrous side effects. So what is known in this direction?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are correct, buying coal and trying to sink it into oceans is a bad idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your other idea, to leave coal in the ground as nature created it, unmined, is the best idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, leaving coal in the ground does not cost anything. To mine coal and then transport it to an ocean location and dump it costs money. To rehabilitate the mine site afterwards also costs money. This money would be better spent on other things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, by mining coal and trying to sink it in oceans environmental damage has already occurred. Some open pit mining equipment uses diesel as an energy source. Other mining equipment is powered by electricity. If the electricity used to power the mining  equipment is generated by burning coal, or even natural gas, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide will have been added to the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fact that the mine would exist means that equipment must be made to be used by the mine. The mining of the metal ores - iron for the body, copper for the electric cables, nickel and chromium for the manufacturing of steel - their processing, smelting and manufacture of equipment requires energy and produces carbon dioxide and has other negative environmental impacts. It would be better to use such resources to produce electric vehicles to be used for other purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly, [coal generally has a specific gravity between 1.2 and 1.5][1] and depending on conditions, [sea water has a specific gravity between 1.028 and 1.071][2]. Because these values are very similar sinking coal is not a straight forward as sinking iron ore or steel. If coal is largely free of contaminating ash it will float on water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coal-analyses-float-sink.php&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.britannica.com/science/seawater/Density-of-seawater-and-pressure" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26245" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4475" RevisionGUID="abc60e8a-b716-45d5-b9ee-f8cce46b562f" CreationDate="2021-01-12T21:17:40.783" UserId="318" Comment="added 283 characters in body" Text="**Thermal storage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly to many, conversion of electrical energy from PV (photovoltaic) panels to heat energy and storage in hot water is a potentially excellent use of the energy - provided that you have a use for the hot water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water stores energy at the rate of about 1 Watt hour per litre degree or 1 kWh per 1000 litre degrees*. So eg a 100 litres tank (about 25 US gallons) heated by 10 degrees Celsius stores 1 kWh.  So if water is heated from 10 C ambient to 60 C, a difference of 50 C, a 100 litre tank will store 50 x 100 = 5000 litre-degrees or 5 kWh of energy. A battery of that capacity would cost several thousand dollars and have a cycle life of under 1000 cycles - or cost several times as much and have a longer cycle life because it is not deep cycle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *The actual conversion rate is about 850 Wh per litre degree, so 1000 Wh (1 kWh) is too high, but this allows 85% efficiency after losses for insulation. The actual effective recovered heat energy will depend on insulation, storage time and storage and ambient temperatures.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is usual to use thermal panels to heat water, using PV electricity for heating has some advantages. The panels are lighter, there is no liquid associated with the panel. no header tank, no plumbing., no pumps and no problems associated with corrosion and fluids. A good quality well installed solar system has a lifetime in the 20 to 30 year range and this can be higher. &#xD;&#xA;If direct heating is used with a low voltage resistive element a very simple MPPT controller can be used. There is no inverter to mains AC, and no &quot;grid tie arrangements&quot;. Efficiency of storage as heat in the water is close  to 100% (with wiring loses being the main loss). The tank will lose heat due to insulation not being perfect, but with good tank siting the lost heat can be useful.  Any energy used to heat water replaces grid electricity which would have been paid for at full retail rates so you are &quot;paying yourself&quot; retail rates for energy generated as long as you can use the hot water. Stored energy can  be used for standard hot water uses and also for central hearing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analysis of the prose and cons shows that using water for thermal energy storage is often a highly efficient use of the energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get elements for water tanks which have multiple &quot;spears&quot; on the one element with some being low voltage and some being mains voltage rated. These allow a mix of low voltage and mains heating as desired. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Electrolysis:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible storage system is to electrolyse eg water to produce Hydrogen &amp; Oxygen and store the gas. As Hydrogen can be burned in air it is possible to store only the Hydrogen. Electrolysis can achieve efficiencies in the 80%-90% range and burning of Hydrogen can be highly efficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen has the disadvantage of having very high volume per mass at a given pressure. Hydrogen could be stored over water in a simple 40 gallon drum gasometer at low pressure but mass per volume would be low. Storage in steel tanks at modest pressures may be viable. Storage in hydrides achieves reasonable densities for Hydrogen but poor by any other measure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an indication of the volumes required for gaseous storage, Hydrogen occupies about 20 litres per gram at STP. You need about 25 grams to produce 1 kWh thermally by burning at 100% efficiency so would need 20l x 25g = 500 litres per kWh. So a near atmospheric pressure gasometer using steel 40 gallon (imperial) drums would need about 4 drums per kWh. Fun as a home project but unlikely to be commercially viable in most cases. Storage at modest pressure brings the volume down  - a single 40 gallon drum at 5 bar = 754 litres or about 1.5 kWh. Hydrogen will diffuse through steel and embrittle it as a bonus. At 5 bar it would probably not be a problem but joints are equally problematic. Surplus LPG or  CNG tanks (much higher pressure rating) would be safer but still only allow modest pressures and certifications for Hydrogen are probably not available.   &#xD;&#xA;Storage in a bladder at essentially zero differential pressure may be viable for use within short periods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With due design you could electrolyse a suitable quantity of water inside a Hydrogen rated say 3000 psi gas bottle such that the end pressure reached 3000 psi. You can produce mixed gas H2-O2 and even burn it safely with due design!. &#xD;&#xA;Without due design you can burn mixed H2-O2 but can expect a rocket or a bomb :-(.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pumped storage** - immense masses needed.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 kg x 1 metre =~ 10 Joule.   &#xD;&#xA;1 kWh = 1000 Watt x 3600 s = 3,600,000 Joule   &#xD;&#xA;3.6 MJ/10 = 360,000 kg.m   &#xD;&#xA;For eg a 10m head that needs 36000 kg = 36 tons of water for 1 kWh at 100% efficient :-(.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Flywheels** are doable but rapidly get large, massive and very very lethal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Recoinversion of thermal energy to mechanical and/or electrical:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low temperature storage (as above) is viable for heating but not for reconversion to electrical energy.  &#xD;&#xA;Maximum conversion efficiency to mechanical is given by Carnot limit of Z (efficiency) max = (T_hot-T_cold)/T_hot.  &#xD;&#xA;Temperatures in absolute units.  &#xD;&#xA;30C is about 300K.  &#xD;&#xA;So a T_hot of 600K ~- 330C gives a Carnot efficiency of (600-300)/600 = 50% max.   &#xD;&#xA;Getting real world efficiencies of more than 50% of Carnot is doing well. Higher differentials help both Carnot efficiency and actual % of Carnot realisable.  &#xD;&#xA;At T_hot = 630 C Z_Carnot = 66%  &#xD;&#xA;At T_hot = 930C Zc = 75%  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building mechanical things to work reliably at 900C is 'a bit of an ask'.     &#xD;&#xA;600C is doable but falls in the &quot;don't try this at home' category.  &#xD;&#xA;Alas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10452" RevisionGUID="6ba03937-009f-4353-8114-9b9dfb9b2548" CreationDate="2021-01-12T21:28:56.560" UserId="3379" Comment="added 914 characters in body" Text="I can provide an answer for the first part of the question: **No new water diversions out of the Great Lakes region are allowed**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Great Lakes water agreement&#xD;&#xA;The 2005 [Great Lakes–Saint Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement](https://gsgp.org/media/1332/great_lakes-st_lawrence_river_basin_sustainable_water_resources_agreement.pdf) prohibits diversion of water from the Great Lakes outside of the Great Lakes Basin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The compact is an agreement between the U.S. states of Illinois,  Indiana,  Michigan,  Minnesota,  New  York,  Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania; and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Québec.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are only [three exceptions](https://www.glslcompactcouncil.org/water-diversions) to the restriction on diversions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Communities that straddle the Basin divide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Intra-Basin transfers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Communities in counties that straddle the Basin divide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since 2005, only [one exception](https://greatlakes.org/campaigns/defending-the-great-lakes-compact/) has been approved, for Waukesha, a Wisconsin city straddling the basin whose own water supply was found to have high radium levels. As part of the exception, Waukesha has to return the water back to Lake Michigan after it has been treated, so that there is no net loss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Existing Chicago River diversion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One diversion out of the Great Lakes basin already existed prior to the agreement ([source](https://www.watershedcouncil.org/influences-on-great-lakes-water-levels.html)): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Chicago diversion from Lake Michigan into the Mississippi River system is the only major diversion out of the Great Lakes Basin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the 1880s, the flow of the Chicago River was reversed to address problems with the sewer system, carrying water out of Lake Michigan and eventually to the Mississippi River. Other states complained about this, concerned that it would lower the lake level, and eventually a 1967 Supreme Court Case capped the outflow at a daily average of 3,200 cubic feet per second (about 91,000 L) ([source](https://greatlakesecho.org/2011/06/22/great-lakes-diversions-does-illinois-catch-a-break/)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a condition for entering the compact while maintaining the Chicago River diversion, Illinois is not allowed to request any additional diversions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gx57U.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Vl4ss.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10452" RevisionGUID="d9f7369f-80c4-4cd1-bf5b-1ffed8c629d2" CreationDate="2021-01-12T21:38:07.023" UserId="3379" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="I can provide an answer for the first part of the question: **No new water diversions out of the Great Lakes region are allowed**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Great Lakes water agreement&#xD;&#xA;The 2005 [Great Lakes–Saint Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement](https://gsgp.org/media/1332/great_lakes-st_lawrence_river_basin_sustainable_water_resources_agreement.pdf) prohibits diversion of water from the Great Lakes outside of the Great Lakes Basin:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The compact is an agreement between the U.S. states of Illinois,  Indiana,  Michigan,  Minnesota,  New  York,  Ohio, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania; and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Québec.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are only [three exceptions](https://www.glslcompactcouncil.org/water-diversions) to the restriction on diversions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Communities that straddle the Basin divide&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Intra-Basin transfers&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Communities in counties that straddle the Basin divide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since 2005, only [one exception](https://greatlakes.org/campaigns/defending-the-great-lakes-compact/) has been approved, for Waukesha, a Wisconsin city straddling the basin whose own water supply was found to have high radium levels. As part of the exception, Waukesha has to return the water back to Lake Michigan after it has been treated, so that there is no net loss.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Existing Chicago River diversion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One diversion out of the Great Lakes basin already existed prior to the agreement ([source](https://www.watershedcouncil.org/influences-on-great-lakes-water-levels.html)): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Chicago diversion from Lake Michigan into the Mississippi River system is the only major diversion out of the Great Lakes Basin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the 1880s, the flow of the Chicago River was reversed to address problems with the sewer system, carrying water out of Lake Michigan and eventually to the Mississippi River. Other states complained about this, concerned that it would lower the lake level, and eventually a 1967 Supreme Court Case capped the outflow at a daily average of 3,200 cubic feet per second (about 91,000 L) ([source](https://greatlakesecho.org/2011/06/22/great-lakes-diversions-does-illinois-catch-a-break/)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**As a condition for entering the compact while maintaining the Chicago River diversion, Illinois is not allowed to request any additional diversions.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gx57U.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Vl4ss.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26248" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10441" RevisionGUID="574f69ca-ad51-4dce-b2d0-1c6791a7baf4" CreationDate="2021-01-13T00:00:01.557" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1349144132250443784" />
  <row Id="26249" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="35fbbafb-d4e5-4c0b-96ea-a644273d579a" CreationDate="2021-01-13T02:29:31.370" UserId="3379" Comment="added 41 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="One of the advantages of timber buildings is regularly said to be their ability to effectively remove carbon from the atmosphere, through long term carbon storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't this require the timber used in the building to not decay, or at least to decay slower than the life cycle of a living tree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when the timber building decays it releases the carbon back into the atmosphere. Doesn't this then close the circle, leading to a net effect of zero in the long run?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26250" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="35fbbafb-d4e5-4c0b-96ea-a644273d579a" CreationDate="2021-01-13T02:29:31.370" UserId="3379" Comment="added 41 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Do timber buildings remove carbon from the atmosphere in the long run?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26251" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="35fbbafb-d4e5-4c0b-96ea-a644273d579a" CreationDate="2021-01-13T02:29:31.370" UserId="3379" Comment="added 41 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|building-materials|carbon-sequestration|trees|co2|wood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10459" RevisionGUID="35a9b67f-6921-418d-adb6-ee262757886b" CreationDate="2021-01-13T05:06:39.567" UserId="2345" Text="A properly made normal thermometer will function perfectly well in a refrigerator, as you describe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As with all mercury based thermometers be careful not to break it. Cleaning up and then dealing with the released mercury would be problematic. If that were to happen contact the waste disposal department of your local municipal council and get advise because mercury is an environmental toxin and requires special &quot;disposal&quot; methods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26254" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10460" RevisionGUID="ad8c5712-1a3f-4438-bbbe-c58a6c4b08dd" CreationDate="2021-01-13T06:52:18.180" UserId="3293" Text="Here in France Privet is not a desert. Bees are crazy about the flowers (late September). Local birds also eat the fruits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in your location, in Australia, it could be different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good idea could be to mix some other species in the hedge. You proposed Crataegus which is lovely, but could propagate a disease (fire blight) to fragile species like apricot, since you might be in a place where no native Crataegus grows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_Prunus spinosa_ could be a good proposition you received. I also like some _eleagnus_, for berries are small but edible, and leaves are persistent like for Privet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10461" RevisionGUID="65bb9740-e222-4396-8dec-88eca3fd98b3" CreationDate="2021-01-13T09:02:47.307" UserId="6182" Text="This is simply a fancily designed chain of cities based on the about 40 years old idea of the &quot;[compact city][1]&quot;. The idea is to reduce urban sprawl, reduce traffic and improve living conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Each link of the chain in itself will be not self-sufficient, but provide all necessary (daily) needs to its inhabitants, including doctors and if not a hospital, then at least competent first aid. No need to drive 20 km for shopping, no need to commute an hour to work and back, your children may walk to their school. Specialised services/places can be reached via public traffic connecting the cities along &quot;the line&quot;. Delivery of goods, emergency response etc. all happen via the tunnels connecting the cities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, the marketing says &quot;no streets - no cars&quot; - which is hard to believe nowadays and triggers some sentiment like Tim showed. While this may be the ultimate goal, I think there still will be areas for the lone car to roll around (ambulance, police, milk delivery guy, whatever...) but they wont be comparable to our current road system. Simply an open space without privately owned cars, only a few cars/trucks on official business going about.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So yes, the idea in itself is feasible, yet futuristic, once you look past marketing bling-bling and sentiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When it comes to sustainability, it strongly depends on how you build this city, what ressources you use and how you acquired them. Concrete is a climate killer, unless you manage to produce it using renewable energies. Steel is very similar. You can build small villages from local ressources, but a whole city, let alone a chain of cities - that's hard to imagine. [This (german) study][2] on the emission of GHG due to subway-construction estimates that one 1 km of subway tunnel &quot;costs&quot; about 100,000 tons of CO2-equivalents. Now you'll have probably two tunnels, both running 170 km under the cities, that's 340 million tons of CO2-equivalents only for construction of transportation infrastructure. Without more detailled numbers on the project it's hard to do estimations - but I think we can assume, that the construction wont really be sustainable, while living in these cities might as well be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_city&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f64c7e10c87ea03c1b6bef2/t/5fc772510623334b0c60f643/1606906460674/klimabilanz-ubahn-tram.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10456" RevisionGUID="d2860270-c2eb-4b26-a8d8-31ace25edf85" CreationDate="2021-01-13T09:53:04.260" UserId="4886" Comment="added 529 characters in body" Text="A &quot;city&quot; implies people.  Lots of people.  Those people need to eat.  Food generally is purchased at (super)markets and grocery stores.  It usually is delivered by trucks.  No roads means no trucks means no markets means no food means no people means no city.  I see a teeny, tiny problem with the plan, don't you?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, one *can* transport and distribute food &quot;other&quot; ways, but all of them require non-trivial infrastructure and thus need to be decided in advance and constructed as (or before) the city-proper is constructed (probably *below* it, in all likelihood).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's easy to say &quot;no roads&quot; but much, much harder to then &quot;distribute food&quot;.  No member of a modern society is going to walk two hours with a clay pot or woven basket on their head to collect the daily groceries.  And even though 2022 is just around the corner, I'm not sure we're quite ready for pipelines carrying Soylent Green just yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Update**:  The [neom.com website][1] show roads and trucks on a sub-level.  So the streets are still there, and the trucks are still there.  They've just put them underground.  Nothing 'revolutionary' at all.  Dozens of cities (Taipei, London, Chicago, etc.) have such streets.  So, in a nutshell, because Neom still has streets, food is actually deliverable in pretty-much the usual way, so Neom is feasible.  A city with no streets at all (i.e. something which Neom isn't, and which doesn't exist anywhere on Earth) is still not feasible... and won't be until a new way of delivering food to masses of people is invented.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.neom.com/whatistheline/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10462" RevisionGUID="be279356-86ab-4ca4-8c83-992e239f4732" CreationDate="2021-01-13T11:20:03.593" UserId="9278" Text="### There is - it just doesn't use metal springs ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metal springs have numerous failure modes.  In tension, they only remain &quot;springs&quot; for a certain point, after which they simply become wires/rods (which also have a Young's modulus, but in a different way).  In compression, they also only remain &quot;springs&quot; until the coils touch, at which point again you have a solid rod.  Coiled springs of any type simply don't work well for this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What ***does*** work well is any compressible liquid or gas.  As anyone who's bounced a ball knows, compressible gases are a near-perfect spring (and by extension liquids too; they just generally need more force to compress).  Gases and liquids can also be compressed over an extremely wide range of pressures, only limited by the pressure/volume at which a phase change (gas&lt;-&gt;liquid or liquid&lt;-&gt;solid) starts to take place.  An &quot;accumulator&quot; pressure vessel is pumped up to pressure for energy storage, and energy release is simply handled by letting the gas/liquid flow out through a turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one type of system that has been used for kinetic energy recovery systems in cars.  As per [Wikipedia on KERS][1], Bosch and PSA developed a hydraulic KERS system for road cars in 2015.  Some places are still looking into the concept.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is that this design has competition from other methods of energy storage which are generally preferable.  A pressure-storage system inherently needs two tanks, one for the liquid under pressure and one for the liquid not under pressure, so for starters you've made it larger.  And a high-pressure storage tank requires significant effort in construction otherwise you've essentially created a very powerful fragmentation bomb (which of course has been why hydrogen-powered vehicles took so long to come around).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For mechanical energy storage, flywheels generally give higher energy density for smaller applications like cars; and on a larger scale, gravity storage (pumped-hydro) schemes give you scaleability with relatively low cost.  Pressure storage can't generally compete with either (although you could think of pumped-hydro as a very large pressure-storage system running at very low pressures).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And that's just mechanical.  Electrical storage is also popular, of course.  For small applications, KERS systems today generally use supercapacitors because they give very high energy density with the added bonus of being able to control the energy output very accurately; and longer-term electrical storage of course uses batteries for the same reason.  There are currently not many options for larger-scale electrical storage, but [flow batteries][2] have been discussed conceptually for a while, and the technology is starting to come around.  This is especially relevant in the context of renewable energy sources, of course, where there is a definite need to store energy whilst the renewable source is not generating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TLDR:** Yes, you can do it, and people have tried it.  And people haven't then taken it further, for reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_recovery_system&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10463" RevisionGUID="8fb4a430-bb00-42a3-8e7e-b59e4ed2cc8e" CreationDate="2021-01-13T14:55:53.663" UserId="3379" Text="Two natural alternatives that I can think of are [jute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jute) and [bamboo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo) rugs. Depending on how they are sourced and made they are likely to be better for the environment, and of course they are biodegradable, as opposed to plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Jute will be soft and can have intricate designs, but might not work if your balcony gets a lot of rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Jute rug outdoors][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bamboo will handle moisture better, but isn't as soft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Bamboo rug outdoors][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KTQ7s.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZkgmM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10464" RevisionGUID="ab26036a-539d-445e-99c4-70788c5d5b49" CreationDate="2021-01-13T15:43:22.393" UserId="3379" Text="[10 CFR 430.32 - Energy and water conservation standards and their effective dates](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2013-title10-vol3/CFR-2013-title10-vol3-sec430-32/summary) is the U.S. government standard defining (among other things) how energy consumption of refrigerators is to be tested. The standard references the test procedure [AHAM HRF-1-2008](https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/aham/ahamhrf2008), developed by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, an association which &quot;is an ANSI accredited Standards Development Organization, and maintains several standards which are approved by ANSI through the consensus approval process&quot; ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Home_Appliance_Manufacturers)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard costs 100 USD to read, but there's a 2003 research paper comparing the standard to the equivalent ISO standards: [&quot;Energy Consumption Measurements Using AHAM HRF-1 and ISO 8561&quot;](https://www.nist.gov/publications/energy-consumption-measurements-using-aham-hrf-1-and-iso-8561). The paper is free to read as the study was done by the government-funded National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Enclosure:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Each test cell consisted of a non-thermally conductive platform upon which the refrigerator stood, a wall that stands adjacent to the rear of the refrigerator, and two sidewalls that partially enclosed the sides of the refrigerator. All faces of the test cells were painted dull black to minimize the radiant heat to and from the refrigerator during testing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Refrigerator-freezer setup:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]he freezer compartment is left empty, except for the thermocouples used to measure the compartment temperature. Three thermocouples were used for the top-mount units and five thermocouples were used in the side-by-side unit. Three thermocouples were also placed in the refrigerator compartments of each of these units. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The thermostat was set to the median setting for each compartment of the refrigerator-freezer, and it was operated in an environment held at a constant 32. 2 °C (90 °F) until steady state operation was achieved. There is no specified humidity required for these tests [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]he recorded compartment temperature is the average of the measured temperature from each thermocouple; where the measured temperature is the time averaged temperature from a thermocouple over the duration of the test period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Test procedure:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The temperatures and electrical energy were then recorded over the duration of the test period. The test period encompasses one defrost sequence and the entire steady operation between two consecutive defrost sequences. Alternatively, if the defrost sequences are separated by more than 14 h of compressor run time; then the classification of this unit is termed &quot;Long Time Automatic Defrost.&quot; For this type of refrigerator, the test period is broken into two parts, one part demonstrating steady operation and one part demonstrating the defrost sequence. The first part must be at least 3 h long and encompass a whole number of compressor on/off cycles, and the second part must record all of the events associated with the defrost sequence. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The target temperature for refrigerator-freezers is -15 °C (5 °F), measured in the freezer compartment. If the measured freezer compartment temperature for the first test is warmer than this, then the thermostats are set to the coldest setting for a second measurement. Conversely, if the measured temperature in the freezer compartment is colder than the target temperature, then the thermostats are set to the warmest setting for a second measurement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Calculating results:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After two measurements have been taken, a plot of energy consumption versus freezer temperatures is generated and a linear fit is produced. The energy consumption value is found from this curve fit as the energy required to produce a temperature of -15 °C (5 °F) in the freezer compartment. Although the relationship between the evaporating temperature and the energy consumption is not linear, this is a good approximation over this small range of operating conditions and is accepted as the industry standard. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26260" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10464" RevisionGUID="4534d6bb-fb87-47e3-9184-638bc190d4aa" CreationDate="2021-01-13T15:57:13.780" UserId="3379" Comment="added 126 characters in body" Text="[10 CFR 430.32 - Energy and water conservation standards and their effective dates](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2013-title10-vol3/CFR-2013-title10-vol3-sec430-32/summary) is the U.S. government standard defining (among other things) how energy consumption of refrigerators is to be tested. The standard references the test procedure [AHAM HRF-1-2008](https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/aham/ahamhrf2008), developed by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, an association which &quot;is an ANSI accredited Standards Development Organization, and maintains several standards which are approved by ANSI through the consensus approval process&quot; ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Home_Appliance_Manufacturers)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The standard costs 100 USD to read, but there's a 2003 research paper comparing the standard to the equivalent ISO standards: [&quot;Energy Consumption Measurements Using AHAM HRF-1 and ISO 8561&quot;](https://www.nist.gov/publications/energy-consumption-measurements-using-aham-hrf-1-and-iso-8561). The paper is free to read as the study was done by the government-funded National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Enclosure:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Each test cell consisted of a non-thermally conductive platform upon which the refrigerator stood, a wall that stands adjacent to the rear of the refrigerator, and two sidewalls that partially enclosed the sides of the refrigerator. All faces of the test cells were painted dull black to minimize the radiant heat to and from the refrigerator during testing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Refrigerator-freezer setup:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]he freezer compartment is left empty, except for the thermocouples used to measure the compartment temperature. Three thermocouples were used for the top-mount units and five thermocouples were used in the side-by-side unit. Three thermocouples were also placed in the refrigerator compartments of each of these units. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The thermostat was set to the median setting for each compartment of the refrigerator-freezer, and it was operated in an environment held at a constant 32. 2 °C (90 °F) until steady state operation was achieved. There is no specified humidity required for these tests [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]he recorded compartment temperature is the average of the measured temperature from each thermocouple; where the measured temperature is the time averaged temperature from a thermocouple over the duration of the test period. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Test procedure:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The temperatures and electrical energy were then recorded over the duration of the test period. The test period encompasses one defrost sequence and the entire steady operation between two consecutive defrost sequences. Alternatively, if the defrost sequences are separated by more than 14 h of compressor run time; then the classification of this unit is termed &quot;Long Time Automatic Defrost.&quot; For this type of refrigerator, the test period is broken into two parts, one part demonstrating steady operation and one part demonstrating the defrost sequence. The first part must be at least 3 h long and encompass a whole number of compressor on/off cycles, and the second part must record all of the events associated with the defrost sequence. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The target temperature for refrigerator-freezers is -15 °C (5 °F), measured in the freezer compartment. If the measured freezer compartment temperature for the first test is warmer than this, then the thermostats are set to the coldest setting for a second measurement. Conversely, if the measured temperature in the freezer compartment is colder than the target temperature, then the thermostats are set to the warmest setting for a second measurement. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Calculating results:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After two measurements have been taken, a plot of energy consumption versus freezer temperatures is generated and a linear fit is produced. The energy consumption value is found from this curve fit as the energy required to produce a temperature of -15 °C (5 °F) in the freezer compartment. Although the relationship between the evaporating temperature and the energy consumption is not linear, this is a good approximation over this small range of operating conditions and is accepted as the industry standard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the amount of time over which the test was conducted, this value is then extrapolated out to an annual value." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10466" RevisionGUID="386c45b5-6ab2-4063-81f5-190210052e59" CreationDate="2021-01-13T19:48:10.223" UserId="9286" Text="Adding 2¢ here...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We were looking into flywheel UPSes for my company and I read up on this a bit.  Of note in recent developments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Instead of traditional bearings, they're using magnetic bearings to mostly eliminate friction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To be able to suspend the flywheel on magnets, that requires a lower weight/mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To counter the lower weight/mass, you have to replace that with increased velocity to maintain the same amount of momentum, which is your energy storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Supposedly these magnetically-suspended flywheels allow for a very high efficiency, as the reduced mass also means it doesn't take as much energy to spin it up.  &quot;Mass = Resistance to change in motion.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Living in a rather rural area with crappy power service, I would love to see a flywheel system just to clean up the input power and get a uniform waveform output coming into my house.  I'm sitting in a room right now where the lights routinely flicker from dirty grid power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for all the info though!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26263" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10466" RevisionGUID="918d4333-783e-450e-938e-0ab872630472" CreationDate="2021-01-14T05:10:55.680" UserId="8232" Comment="Remove intro/outro messages as per: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/179041" Text="We were looking into flywheel UPSes for my company and I read up on this a bit.  Of note in recent developments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Instead of traditional bearings, they're using magnetic bearings to mostly eliminate friction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To be able to suspend the flywheel on magnets, that requires a lower weight/mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* To counter the lower weight/mass, you have to replace that with increased velocity to maintain the same amount of momentum, which is your energy storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Supposedly these magnetically-suspended flywheels allow for a very high efficiency, as the reduced mass also means it doesn't take as much energy to spin it up.  &quot;Mass = Resistance to change in motion.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Living in a rather rural area with crappy power service, I would love to see a flywheel system just to clean up the input power and get a uniform waveform output coming into my house.  I'm sitting in a room right now where the lights routinely flicker from dirty grid power." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26264" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="cb92ba28-ad0b-4ea0-9958-2b7516517288" CreationDate="2021-01-14T05:21:21.073" UserId="8232" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What viable options (other than batteries) exist for a home owner to be able to store energy from solar panels for use at night or when the sun isn't shining? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I realise there will be losses in the conversion." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26265" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="cb92ba28-ad0b-4ea0-9958-2b7516517288" CreationDate="2021-01-14T05:21:21.073" UserId="8232" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What alternatives to batteries exist to store solar energy at home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26266" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="cb92ba28-ad0b-4ea0-9958-2b7516517288" CreationDate="2021-01-14T05:21:21.073" UserId="8232" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|solar-power|home|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26267" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10448" RevisionGUID="df7c02b7-37aa-48a9-b447-7d4123ed2ad1" CreationDate="2021-01-14T05:23:01.460" UserId="8232" Comment="edited title" Text="Is the drain-off water from water purifiers fit for gardening?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10467" RevisionGUID="cd0c6450-938f-405f-9df6-9738feb6b34b" CreationDate="2021-01-14T17:36:06.323" UserId="3379" Text="### Available data indicates that; 1) electricity usage for water pumping at homes is minimal; and 2) most municipal water systems provide more pressure than required for residential uses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Is it common for people on city water in the US to have their own on-site pumping as part of the &quot;standard&quot; delivery system?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. Energy Information Agency's [2015 &quot;Residential Energy Consumption Survey&quot;](https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/index.php?view=consumption) (RECS) includes data on [electricity end use by category](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36412&amp;src=%E2%80%B9%20Consumption%20%20%20%20%20%20Residential%20Energy%20Consumption%20Survey%20(RECS)-b3):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Residential electricity consumption by end use, 2015][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water pumping is not a specific end-use category, so would be lumped in the 13% of &quot;not elsewhere classified,&quot; which would also include rural homes that pump their own well water. We can assume that across all homes, water pumping doesn't represent significant usage, otherwise it would likely have it's own category. So pumping water is probably going to represent less usage, on average, than each of these ([source](https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/c&amp;e/pdf/ce5.3b.pdf)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; |Category|kWh per house per year using the end use|&#xD;&#xA; |-|-:|&#xD;&#xA;|Microwaves|123&#xD;&#xA; |Dishwashers| 113&#xD;&#xA; |Pool pumps|1527&#xD;&#xA;|Hot tub pumps|305&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Or is the pressure usually entirely supplied by the municipal infrastructure/water towers etc?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Data on municipal water supply pressure standards is hard to come by, but a 2016 paper from the American Society of Civil Engineers provides some interesting details: [&quot;Pressure Standards in Water Distribution Systems:Reflection on Current Practice with Consideration of Some Unresolved Issues&quot;](http://hydratek.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Ghorbanian-Karney-Guo-Pressure-Standards-in-Water-Distribution-Syste....pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would seem that most water delivery systems (WDS) in the U.S. supply sufficient pressure for residential uses because there is a higher-pressure constraint: **fire flow**. Fire flow is water drawn by sprinkler systems and fire hydrants, which require a certain minimum pressure in order to function properly. In fact, meeting fire flow requirements can cause other problems (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although a [minimum pressure constraint] is enforced in WDS design to ensure supplying adequate demands during periods of peak consumptions (e.g., the greater of the maximum hour demand and the maximum day demand plus fire flow), many systems experience higher pressures than necessary during off peak demand periods. This is so much so that, **in certain instances, residential customers might need to install pressure-reducing valves in their homes**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 2014 paper found that most utilities agree on a minimum pressure requirement, but don't track high pressure events. From [&quot;Survey of pressure management in water distribution systems&quot;](https://awwa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.5942/jawwa.2014.106.0144):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Although the majority of utilities recognize the need to maintain distribution system pressure of at least 20 psi under fire flow and emergency conditions, most have no goals to control high pressures in their distribution systems. As a result, their systems are at increased risk of water loss, main breaks, and infrastructure deterioration because of the lack of an effective pressure management system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WfeJG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26270" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10237" RevisionGUID="06f4beed-27aa-4985-baf7-00bcbe45768a" CreationDate="2021-01-14T17:41:23.780" UserId="3379" Comment="added 34 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is it common for people on city water in the US to have their own on-site pumping as part of the &quot;standard&quot; delivery system, or is the pressure usually entirely supplied by the municipal infrastructure/water towers etc? How much energy does this use?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about other on-site costs that I might not be considering? I'm thinking of a low-rise building." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26271" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10237" RevisionGUID="06f4beed-27aa-4985-baf7-00bcbe45768a" CreationDate="2021-01-14T17:41:23.780" UserId="3379" Comment="added 34 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is residential water pumping common?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26272" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4475" RevisionGUID="8fb20468-f8c5-4017-8897-bc20d6ae68a3" CreationDate="2021-01-14T22:45:11.313" UserId="318" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="**Thermal storage**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprisingly to many, conversion of electrical energy from PV (photovoltaic) panels to heat energy and storage in hot water is a potentially excellent use of the energy - provided that you have a use for the hot water. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water stores energy at the rate of about 1 Watt hour per litre degree or 1 kWh per 1000 litre degrees*. So eg a 100 litres tank (about 25 US gallons) heated by 10 degrees Celsius stores 1 kWh.  So if water is heated from 10 C ambient to 60 C, a difference of 50 C, a 100 litre tank will store 50 x 100 = 5000 litre-degrees or 5 kWh of energy. A battery of that capacity would cost several thousand dollars and have a cycle life of under 1000 cycles - or cost several times as much and have a longer cycle life because it is not deep cycle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *The actual conversion rate is about 850 Wh per litre degree, so 1000 Wh (1 kWh) is too high, but this allows 85% efficiency after losses for insulation. The actual effective recovered heat energy will depend on insulation, storage time and storage and ambient temperatures.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it is usual to use thermal panels to heat water, using PV electricity for heating has some advantages. The panels are lighter, there is no liquid associated with the panel. no header tank, no plumbing., no pumps and no problems associated with corrosion and fluids. A good quality well installed solar system has a lifetime in the 20 to 30 year range and this can be higher. &#xD;&#xA;If direct heating is used with a low voltage resistive element a very simple MPPT controller can be used. There is no inverter to mains AC, and no &quot;grid tie arrangements&quot;. Efficiency of storage as heat in the water is close  to 100% (with wiring loses being the main loss). The tank will lose heat due to insulation not being perfect, but with good tank siting the lost heat can be useful.  Any energy used to heat water replaces grid electricity which would have been paid for at full retail rates so you are &quot;paying yourself&quot; retail rates for energy generated as long as you can use the hot water. Stored energy can  be used for standard hot water uses and also for central hearing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Analysis of the prose and cons shows that using water for thermal energy storage is often a highly efficient use of the energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can get elements for water tanks which have multiple &quot;spears&quot; on the one element with some being low voltage and some being mains voltage rated. These allow a mix of low voltage and mains heating as desired. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;____________________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Electrolysis:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A possible storage system is to electrolyse eg water to produce Hydrogen &amp; Oxygen and store the gas. As Hydrogen can be burned in air it is possible to store only the Hydrogen. Electrolysis can achieve efficiencies in the 80%-90% range and burning of Hydrogen can be highly efficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen has the disadvantage of having very high volume per mass at a given pressure. Hydrogen could be stored over water in a simple 40 gallon drum gasometer at low pressure but mass per volume would be low. Storage in steel tanks at modest pressures may be viable. Storage in hydrides achieves reasonable densities for Hydrogen but poor by any other measure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an indication of the volumes required for gaseous storage, Hydrogen occupies about 20 litres per gram at STP. You need about 25 grams to produce 1 kWh thermally by burning at 100% efficiency so would need 20l x 25g = 500 litres per kWh. So a near atmospheric pressure gasometer using steel 40 gallon (imperial) drums would need about 4 drums per kWh. Fun as a home project but unlikely to be commercially viable in most cases. Storage at modest pressure brings the volume down  - a single 40 gallon drum at 5 bar = 754 litres or about 1.5 kWh. Hydrogen will diffuse through steel and embrittle it as a bonus. At 5 bar it would probably not be a problem but joints are equally problematic. Surplus LPG or  CNG tanks (much higher pressure rating) would be safer but still only allow modest pressures and certifications for Hydrogen are probably not available.   &#xD;&#xA;Storage in a bladder at essentially zero differential pressure may be viable for use within short periods. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With due design you could electrolyse a suitable quantity of water inside a Hydrogen rated say 3000 psi gas bottle such that the end pressure reached 3000 psi. You can produce mixed gas H2-O2 and even burn it safely with due design!. &#xD;&#xA;Without due design you can burn mixed H2-O2 but can expect a rocket or a bomb :-(.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_______________________&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Pumped storage** - immense masses needed.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 kg x 1 metre =~ 10 Joule.   &#xD;&#xA;1 kWh = 1000 Watt x 3600 s = 3,600,000 Joule   &#xD;&#xA;3.6 MJ/10 = 360,000 kg.m   &#xD;&#xA;For eg a 10m head that needs 36000 kg = 36 tons of water for 1 kWh at 100% efficient :-(.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Flywheels** are doable but rapidly get large, massive and very very lethal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reconversion of thermal energy to mechanical and/or electrical:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Low temperature storage (as above) is viable for heating but not for reconversion to electrical energy.  &#xD;&#xA;Maximum conversion efficiency to mechanical is given by Carnot limit of Z (efficiency) max = (T_hot-T_cold)/T_hot.  &#xD;&#xA;Temperatures in absolute units.  &#xD;&#xA;30C is about 300K.  &#xD;&#xA;So a T_hot of 600K ~- 330C gives a Carnot efficiency of (600-300)/600 = 50% max.   &#xD;&#xA;Getting real world efficiencies of more than 50% of Carnot is doing well. Higher differentials help both Carnot efficiency and actual % of Carnot realisable.  &#xD;&#xA;At T_hot = 630 C Z_Carnot = 66%  &#xD;&#xA;At T_hot = 930C Zc = 75%  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building mechanical things to work reliably at 900C is 'a bit of an ask'.     &#xD;&#xA;600C is doable but falls in the &quot;don't try this at home' category.  &#xD;&#xA;Alas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26274" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10468" RevisionGUID="97b17025-75ed-4d94-8396-982ab98231fd" CreationDate="2021-01-15T19:36:34.157" UserId="3379" Text="**tl;dr: heat pumps are widely used for swimming pools, can probably be used for hot tubs, and should work reasonably well in your climate.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Swimming pool with cover&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't find good information on hot tubs, but I did find that the U.S. Department of Energy has [this page on heat pump water heaters for swimming pools](https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-swimming-pool-heaters). Then, a quick search suggests that [Seattle is the city with the climate most similar to London](http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2016/07/which-us-city-has-weather-most-similar.html), which is in the south of England. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a pool with a cover, a heat pump (HP) pool heater will use  1700 to 3300 kWh per year. This assumes that you're using it for the months of June to August, and that the HP has an average [COP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance) of 5.0.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on what the HP replaces, this usage will represent savings of 40 to 80%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Hot tub vs water heater&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three things change for your situation with a hot tub: &#xD;&#xA;1. Year-round operation&#xD;&#xA;2. Hotter temperature&#xD;&#xA;3. Less water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, it starts to look more like a storage water heater, so I started looking at some of the data that impacts COP of heat pump water heaters (HPWH).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### [+] Advantages of a hot tub vs HPWH&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Bigger is better.** According to [an NRDC study](https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdf/conferences/hwf/2017/Delforge_Session4B_HWF17_2.28.17.pdf), HPWHs with a larger tank have a higher annual COP, especially in cold climates -- in North Dakota (site of the coldest average installation in the study), an 80 gallon (300 L) tank was about 15% more efficient overall than a 50 gal (190 L) tank. A hot tub is obviously bigger than a water heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Lower setpoints are better.** See chart below from [a NIST study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5155337/). For a hot tub, the &quot;tank&quot; doesn't need to be as hot as for a water heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![COP vs tank temperature][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### [-] Disadvantages of a hot tub vs HPWH&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Cold climates are worse.** From the NRDC study cited above, The HPWHs studied were in basements, whereas yours will likely be outdoors. However, they found that the colder the basement, the worse the COP -- see chart below. So for a hot tub that's outdoors, you'll probably get a worse COP than for a water heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Annual COP for cold, Intermediate, and Hot Climates (50-gal)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Warmer inlet temperature is worse.** A water heater is heating up cold tap water, whereas a hot tub will be re-heating the water already in the tub, which means the COP will be reduced -- see chart below from [a study by the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid](https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/3/479/htm). However, you don't need to add as much heat since the water is already closer to the setpoint temperature, so the total impact on energy usage may be minimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![COP vs tap water inlet temp][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### [=] Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since heat pump water heaters are already marketed for swimming pools, it appears they would already be available and reasonable for a hot tub as well. I couldn't find any research data on heat pump hot tub heaters, but there's a lot of literature on heat pump water heaters for domestic use. A hot tub heater will have some advantages and disadvantages compared to these, but it's probably safe to assume that the COP will never drop below 2.0, and could reach as high as 5.0 in the summertime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ta8Bc.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ggi6B.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EdHwe.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26275" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10469" RevisionGUID="7d1e32e5-edac-4305-bd8b-65617e2a8572" CreationDate="2021-01-15T19:41:27.560" UserId="9299" Text="TL:DR: They extend the life of expensive UPS batteries by **absorbing the transients**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: Hosptial with an MRI&#xD;&#xA;Engery surge on start up with UPS graciously assisting.  The MRI fires up 10 times a day = 3650 times a year.  This hammering halves the rated life of UPS batteries, rated for say 100 deep discharge cycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a month, you have one power outage and 90 transients- half of them comming from within the building itself. This can vary greatly by each place in the extreme. Some municipalities have thousands of transients.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;So, this is where a flywheel which lasts decades can save big money: **premature battery replacement**.  (my thought: what about using a supercapacitor as a buffer)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26276" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="7215" RevisionGUID="34c10d83-a179-48d7-b211-af40b4c7de2c" CreationDate="2021-01-15T19:47:49.300" UserId="3379" Comment="Edited in details from comments." Text="Is an air to water heat pump appropriate to keep a hot tub at temperature throughout the year? The hot tub will run 24 hours a day, seven days a week, covered when not in use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Presumably if the efficiency is greater than 1 even at the lowest temperatures (say -5 °C worst case in the South of England) and the heat pump can generate 3 kW at that temperature, then it can maintain 1,500 litres of water at 39 °C more efficiently than a traditional electric heater. Is this assumption correct?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We do not currently have solar or energy storage, if that matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything I should be wary of when contacting suppliers?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26277" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="7215" RevisionGUID="34c10d83-a179-48d7-b211-af40b4c7de2c" CreationDate="2021-01-15T19:47:49.300" UserId="3379" Comment="Edited in details from comments." Text="Is an air to water heat pump appropriate to keep a hot tub at temperature throughout the year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26278" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10469" RevisionGUID="282c8eeb-6ad1-4737-8c70-3552a88ccddc" CreationDate="2021-01-15T19:58:21.813" UserId="9299" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="TL:DR: They extend the life of expensive UPS batteries by **absorbing the transients**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example: Hosptial with an MRI&#xD;&#xA;Engery surge on start up with UPS graciously assisting.  The MRI fires up 10 times a day = 3650 times a year.  This hammering halves the rated life of UPS batteries, rated for say 100 deep discharge cycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a month, you have one power outage and 90 transients- half of them comming from within the building itself. This can vary greatly by each place in the extreme. Some municipalities have thousands of transients.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;So, this is where a flywheel which lasts decades can save big money: **premature battery replacement**.  (athought: what about using a supercapacitor as a buffer)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source (page 10/13): http://www.power-thru.com/documents/The%20Truth%20About%20Batteries%20-%20POWERTHRU%20White%20Paper.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26279" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7215" RevisionGUID="54daa1e8-c802-480c-ac06-414fa5446aac" CreationDate="2021-01-15T21:00:11.243" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1350186037654528003" />
  <row Id="26280" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6838" RevisionGUID="125743d3-a2a5-45ca-b00e-97a7d99a927b" CreationDate="2021-01-16T03:00:35.457" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1350276736173432841" />
  <row Id="26281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10470" RevisionGUID="91c83649-904a-467b-a1b9-47a7ff1becc6" CreationDate="2021-01-16T03:08:08.647" UserId="3379" Text="It sounds like what you're talking about is [geoengineering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth's climate system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An interesting paper was published just last month that addresses this very question -- geoengineering strategies to limit sea level rise, specifically by reducing glacial flow: [&quot;Glacier geoengineering to address sea-level rise: A geotechnical approach&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2020.11.008). From the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]he high-end sea level rise threat over the next few hundred years comes almost entirely from only a handful of ice streams and large glaciers. [...] This study summarises novel and extant geotechnical techniques for glacier restraint, identifying candidates for further research. These include draining or freezing the bed; altering surface albedo; creating obstacles: retaining snow; stiffening shear margins with ice; blocking warm sea water entry; thickening ice shelves (increasing buttressing, and strengthening fractured shelves against disintegration); as well as using regional climate engineering or local cloud seeding to cool the glacier or add snow. Not all of these ideas are judged reasonable or feasible, and even fewer are likely to be found to be advisable after further consideration. By describing and evaluating the potential and risks of a large menu of responses – even apparently hopeless ones – we can increase the chances of finding one that works in times of need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The study includes [this graphic](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1674927820300940-gr2_lrg.jpg) demonstrating a number of these ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Glacial geoengineering ideas][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The conclusion includes a quick summary of each of the more promising ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Increasing albedo of glaciers by removing or burying dust, or by adding artificial or induced snow;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Drying the glacier bed by draining sediments or freezing in situ – using closed-loop thermosyphons, open-loop CO2 injection, or bedrock fracking;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Thickening and thus strengthening ice shelves – by adding water in winter, anchoring emerging tabular icebergs, raising pinning points, adding artificial or induced snow, or by using windbreaks to retain natural snow;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;- Jamming glacier flow – using cold shear margin water injection, ice shelf thickening &amp; buttressing, and by creating marine pinning points;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;-  Altering glaciers' wider environment, using climate engineering technologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/80sEF.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26282" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10455" RevisionGUID="a2974959-9c7d-4d4d-8976-d1d5f5efe0f2" CreationDate="2021-01-16T21:00:05.313" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1350548400626954243" />
  <row Id="26283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10471" RevisionGUID="d506b7f1-7f26-44c8-bae1-94be83c3d849" CreationDate="2021-01-17T02:56:31.110" UserId="3379" Text="According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Propane is produced as a by-product of two other processes, natural gas processing and petroleum refining. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount from petroleum refining is minimal. The U.S. Energy Information Agency provides detail about [how much propane (a hydrocarbon gas liquid) is produced by each source](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydrocarbon-gas-liquids/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![U.S. hydrocarbon gas liquids production by source, 2000-2019][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing from Wikipedia, if propane *wasn't* removed from natural gas, it would cause problems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The processing of natural gas involves removal of butane, propane, and large amounts of ethane from the raw gas, **in order to prevent condensation of these volatiles in natural gas pipelines.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Since most propane is an unavoidable by-product of natural gas production, they have essentially identical life-cycle impacts in the production stage.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the transport stage, propane does have one key advantage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike natural gas, propane is denser than air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that it does not escape into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. However since there's no way to produce more propane without also producing more natural gas, switching from propane to natural gas would have no net benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ADTdZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26284" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8465" RevisionGUID="fd7ed0aa-a5d5-434d-99de-833abcaff552" CreationDate="2021-01-17T03:09:37.870" UserId="3379" Comment="added 50 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am choosing between natural gas and propane for a boiler.  I see a discussion [here][1] where the accepted response primarily deals with the CO&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; released during actual burning of the gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious to know if there is any good information about the life cycle impact in the production and transportation phases -- getting the gas from the ground through to combustion -- and if one or the other has a significant environmental advantage from that perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2872/is-it-better-to-use-propane-or-natural-gas-as-a-heating-fuel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26285" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8465" RevisionGUID="fd7ed0aa-a5d5-434d-99de-833abcaff552" CreationDate="2021-01-17T03:09:37.870" UserId="3379" Comment="added 50 characters in body; edited title" Text="Life cycle analysis comparing natural gas and propane prior to combustion?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26286" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10471" RevisionGUID="15b8ef91-9093-4247-8fa0-c8b046155033" CreationDate="2021-01-17T03:10:57.680" UserId="3379" Comment="added 248 characters in body" Text="According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Propane is produced as a by-product of two other processes, natural gas processing and petroleum refining. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount from petroleum refining is minimal. The U.S. Energy Information Agency provides detail about [how much propane (a hydrocarbon gas liquid) is produced by each source](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydrocarbon-gas-liquids/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![U.S. hydrocarbon gas liquids production by source, 2000-2019][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Continuing from Wikipedia, if propane *wasn't* removed from natural gas, it would cause problems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The processing of natural gas involves removal of butane, propane, and large amounts of ethane from the raw gas, **in order to prevent condensation of these volatiles in natural gas pipelines.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Since most propane is an unavoidable by-product of natural gas production, they have essentially identical life-cycle impacts in the production stage.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the transport stage, propane does have one key advantage:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Unlike natural gas, propane is denser than air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that it does not escape into the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. However since there's no way to produce more propane without also producing more natural gas, switching from propane to natural gas would have no net benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ultimately, if a consumer needs to use one of these fuels for heating, the analysis should focus on which will be most cost-effective, which will ultimately be a function of the local market. The money saved can be used for a more efficient appliance, better insulation, or perhaps some warm sweaters!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ADTdZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8465" RevisionGUID="4da47758-de2d-4c06-98be-96d567e3d383" CreationDate="2021-01-17T04:37:57.500" UserId="2345" Comment="Correct CO2 from superscript 2 to subscript 2" Text="I am choosing between natural gas and propane for a boiler.  I see a discussion [here][1] where the accepted response primarily deals with the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; released during actual burning of the gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am curious to know if there is any good information about the life cycle impact in the production and transportation phases -- getting the gas from the ground through to combustion -- and if one or the other has a significant environmental advantage from that perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2872/is-it-better-to-use-propane-or-natural-gas-as-a-heating-fuel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10472" RevisionGUID="97515aa1-7983-4219-9299-a406f9e81c01" CreationDate="2021-01-17T05:35:04.513" UserId="2345" Text="In addition to the excellent answer by @LShaver, other things to consider are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Delivery of gas to the premises&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My experience is that there is only one reticulated gas main in residential areas and that such mains supply methane. Similarly, the use of propane requires the use of on site pressurized gas containers which either have to be replaced with full containers as one becomes empty or there is a larger single pressure vessel that is periodically refilled by a truck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that with methane the supply is already at your premises, or just outside it and your premises just need to be connected and every two months or so a person reads the gas meter. With propane a person has to walk around your premises every so often to resupply the premises with gas. For multiple gas containers this requires you to monitor gas levels in the containers and to call your supplier as need arises. For a single larger gas container a refilling schedule between you and your supplier can be arranged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heating value of each gas&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Per unit volume, cubic foot or cubic meter or liter, whichever units apply in your situation, propane generates more heat than methane.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - The [net heating value][1] of methane is 911 Btu/scf  (scf - standard&#xD;&#xA;   cubic foot)&#xD;&#xA; - The net heating value of propane is 2353 Btu/scf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To heat anything to the same temperature will use nearly 2.5 times the amount of methane than propane. This is why the burners for propane heaters are different to those for methane heaters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other implication is the cost of each gas is usually sold on a dollar per Btu (or $/MJ) basis. In effect, your gas supplier isn't selling you gas, they are selling you potential heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Difference Between Methane and Propane][2]    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.enggcyclopedia.com/2011/09/heating-values-natural-gas/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-methane-and-vs-propane/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26289" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10228" RevisionGUID="f721b091-0393-42e6-9109-415f70a37bfd" CreationDate="2021-01-17T06:00:00.067" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1350684274337394688" />
  <row Id="26290" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10473" RevisionGUID="8cb68a2d-6b01-426a-a43b-5879c1a53dde" CreationDate="2021-01-17T17:29:41.690" UserId="8013" Text="I'm afraid the answer is no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greenland alone has enough ice to raise sea-level by 7m. That is, 7m of water spread over the oceans which cover 71% of the Earth's surface. The flow of Alpine glaciers could be dammed, but this is not going to make a significant difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Greenland is slowly melting now, and it is unclear whether this can be stopped. There is a far greater volume of ice in Antarctica, which could raise sea-level by 100m. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only geo-engineering options are those which reduce the global mean temperatures as fast as possible. There are still plenty of opportunities to keep the temperature rise well bellow 4K." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26291" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="d65ca3b0-5966-4362-9a71-66e8787b8d0c" CreationDate="2021-01-18T02:21:03.123" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified the question. Typos and formatting." Text="In the great vegan vs. non-vegan environmental debate a big point of contention is the topic of animal feed. Vegans argue that a large percentage of agriculture should be attributed to cattle farming. For instance, 98% of soybean *meal* is used for animal feed. On the other hand, 88% of soybean *oil* is produced for people -- not animals -- while the rest is used for biofuel ([source](https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_all_these_soybeans_go)). Animal feed, it is argued, is a waste product -- without animals it would simply be discarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is: Would reducing meat consumption put a dent in soy production, or is animal feed mostly a waste material and not the main motivation when it comes to soy cultivation? Would producing soy solely for biofuel and cooking oil be profitable, without the added benefit of selling the waste products? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there were less animals, are there other applications for the soy byproducts? I can think of one -- addition to mushroom substrate, where soybean husks are used with great success.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26292" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8390" RevisionGUID="b45749ee-6f4f-44ba-ba04-4c1a87455691" CreationDate="2021-01-18T03:00:48.120" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1351001565021274113" />
  <row Id="26296" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10475" RevisionGUID="db7fe865-8a99-447e-8973-6e3e06c27a4b" CreationDate="2021-01-18T15:05:19.743" UserId="3379" Text="I found some data from the American Soybean Association on their [SoyStats](http://soystats.com/) page to help answer this. All data is for 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;| Soybean Product | Million metric tons produced | USD per ton | Total value |&#xD;&#xA;|---------|---------------------|-------------|---------------------|&#xD;&#xA;|Meal     | 44.9                | $336        | $15.1 billion|&#xD;&#xA;|Oil      | 11.0                | $694        |  $7.6 billion|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;33.4 million metric tons (about 60%) of the soybean meal is used as livestock feed in the U.S., and the rest is exported (based on [data from the USDA](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/oil-crops-yearbook/oil-crops-yearbook/#Soy%20and%20Soybean%20Products)), where [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_meal) indicates it is also used as animal feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this data, 67% of the money made from soybeans is from the meal, indicating that this use is likely what drives production. If global meat consumption were to be reduced in a meaningful way, we can expect that soybean meal production would also drop, especially since many of the [products that soybean oil is used](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_oil#Applications) for can easily be made with other types of oil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10476" RevisionGUID="e74769d9-3b53-49b1-a6b0-439952dd6648" CreationDate="2021-01-18T18:39:43.910" UserId="3379" Text="### Check the TRM for recent, state-specific data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Illinois (and probably other states) now requires energy efficiency programs to estimate the energy impact of water supply and discharge -- in Illinois, the value is 0.68 watt-hours per liter ([footnote 122 of the Illinois Technical Reference manual](https://www.ilsag.info/technical-reference-manual/il_trm_version_8/)). The TRM of the state you're interested in would probably contain the most complete data. Any state with a publicly-mandated energy efficiency program will have a TRM or similar guide. However, for general ranges, there are a couple of other resources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 2011 nationwide data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2014, the Department of Energy published the report [&quot;The Water-Energy Nexus:  Challenges and Opportunities&quot;](https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f17/Water%20Energy%20Nexus%20Full%20Report%20July%202014.pdf) which includes this Sankey diagram using 2011 data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A quad of energy is one quadrillion Btu. Doing the math, the nationwide averages are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;| Category | Wh per L |&#xD;&#xA;|-|-|&#xD;&#xA;|Public supply|0.48|&#xD;&#xA;|Waste water treatment|0.71|&#xD;&#xA;|**Total**|**1.19**|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 2010 state-level data&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2017, the DOE's Lawrence Livermore National Lab compiled state-level Sankey diagrams for all 50 states using 2010 data: [&quot;Hybrid State Energy-Water Nexus 2010 Report&quot;](https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/report). You can download detailed data for each state.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You asked about Los Angeles, CA and Washington, DC. DC is not in the chart so I'll use the neighboring states of Maryland and Virginia. Here are the totals, along with Illinois for comparison to the more specific number above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;|State|Supply (Wh/L)|Wastewater (Wh/L)|Total|&#xD;&#xA;|-|-|-|-|&#xD;&#xA;|California|0.65|1.03|1.68&#xD;&#xA;|Illinois|0.42|0.61|1.03&#xD;&#xA;|Maryland|0.43|0.54|0.97&#xD;&#xA;|Virginia|0.45|0.39|0.84&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IiNvR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26298" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="c3fb5819-5905-4a70-ae62-62025d7ba017" CreationDate="2021-01-18T18:44:52.637" UserId="3379" Comment="edited title" Text="Embodied energy of tap water" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26299" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="73f4fec6-088c-46ce-bfe4-6d11a2bf19d6" CreationDate="2021-01-18T22:40:46.537" UserId="3379" Comment="added 109 characters in body; edited title" Text="I've got a new [EPEver 3210AN](https://www.epsolarpv.com/upload/file/1811/Tracer-AN-SMS-EL-V1.0.pdf), 30 A  MPPT solar charge controller, and single 320 W 40 V solar panel connected about 4 feet (1 meter) away with 12 AWG wire. It's a very simple van setup. My battery is a single 12 V, 115 Ah deep cycle battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The oversized panel is basically to allow use of fans, TV and charging during daylight hours, and also to get more power on cloudy days and in shade --  not so much for charging a battery up.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In morning cloudy skies in Florida in October at 10am I was reading:&#xD;&#xA; - PV in:   30 V, 6.5 A, 0.6 kWh &#xD;&#xA; - Battery: 13 V&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How many watts is my solar panel producing at the above reading**? Is it (6.5 x 30v = 185w) or (6.5 x 12v = 78w)? **How is 0.6 kWh (600 Wh) possible or true?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26300" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="73f4fec6-088c-46ce-bfe4-6d11a2bf19d6" CreationDate="2021-01-18T22:40:46.537" UserId="3379" Comment="added 109 characters in body; edited title" Text="What do the voltage and energy readings on this MPPT charger mean?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10477" RevisionGUID="d37dd49c-2c83-4031-ab78-10fb4d843e82" CreationDate="2021-01-18T22:42:16.667" UserId="3379" Text="### Which voltage?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;maximum power point&quot; of the Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT) charger is a specific point in the voltage vs current curve of the solar array. From the [manual you linked](https://www.epsolarpv.com/upload/file/1811/Tracer-AN-SMS-EL-V1.0.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Maximum Power Point Curve][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The input voltage (from the array) will vary based on which point on the V-I curve the charger is operating at. In contrast, the output voltage will be a function of the battery, and will stay essentially constant while the battery is charging. So we can assume that the current you're reading on the display is current draws from the panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Power produced is 30 V x 6.5 A = 195 W.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What does the energy reading mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Page 16 of the manual includes this section;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Clear the generated energy&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Operation: &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Step 1: Press the “ENTER” button and hold 5s under the PV power interface and the value is flashing.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Step 2: Press the “ENTER” button to clear the generated energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes it seem that the kWh reading on the display is just an accumulated value since the charger was first connected, or since this energy clearing operation was performed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZWOeT.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26302" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="02b2189d-e540-42eb-accd-d69a3fe53fad" CreationDate="2021-01-18T22:42:57.723" UserId="3379" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="I've got a new [EPEver 3210AN](https://www.epsolarpv.com/upload/file/1811/Tracer-AN-SMS-EL-V1.0.pdf), 30 A  MPPT solar charge controller, and single 320 W 40 V solar panel connected about 4 feet (1 meter) away with 12 AWG wire. It's a very simple van setup. My battery is a single 12 V, 115 Ah deep cycle battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The oversized panel is basically to allow use of fans, TV and charging during daylight hours, and also to get more power on cloudy days and in shade --  not so much for charging a battery up.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In morning cloudy skies in Florida in October at 10am I was reading:&#xD;&#xA; - PV in:   30 V, 6.5 A, 0.6 kWh &#xD;&#xA; - Battery: 13 V&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**How many watts is my solar panel producing at the above reading**? Is it (6.5 A x 30 V = 195 W) or (6.5 A x 13 V = 84.5 W)? **How is 0.6 kWh (600 Wh) possible or true?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10478" RevisionGUID="098e5a5f-b2cc-4ae3-b326-b2f1ca9af68d" CreationDate="2021-01-18T23:27:16.290" UserId="6293" Text="There were projects in India working on far-reaching technological solutions to the need for community toilets. Basically, I said that there is a well-known logistical solution and it is septic tanks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septic_tank&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went on to say that the community toilet buildings could be themed with stainless-steel roofs that funnel rainwater into stainless-steel tanks such that the rainwater is used to flush the toilets. Of course the stainless-steel tanks could also have outdoor faucets for drinking water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now one county, that I am familiar-with in the U.S., requires building lots to be one acre in size to use a septic tank. Also, the ground has to pass percolation tests to qualify for septic tank use. But don't forget the drain-field which leads to the next item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large project such as a city or county could use wetland areas to process treated waste water instead of just discharging into a river. Here are links to an internationally renowned project:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sewaneewetlands.org/case-study-the-clayton-county-constructed-wetlands&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.gwri.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/files/docs/2005/ThomasMike%20paper%20April%2013.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90043021&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.wwdmag.com/ccwa-completes-phase-i-huie-constructed-wetlands-project&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.accesswater.org/publications/-287961/design-and-construction-of-treatment-wetlands-on-a-sloping-site&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.accesswater.org/?fileid=-30106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.georgiatrend.com/2008/12/01/water-solutions/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I listed a large number of links because I was looking for something like several miles of flow through rocky creeks before reaching large slow moving wetlands. What I found was that the waste-treatment plant pumps to a 55 acre constructed wetlands of successive ponds that eventually flow into a reservoir. Of course the constructed wetlands do grow-up with natural vegetation. Also, there is surrounding acreage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sewaneewetlands.org/constructed-wetlands&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_wetland#:~:text=A%20constructed%20wetland%20(CW)%20is,areas%20lost%20to%20land%20development&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am looking for information on a city park project that sends sewer-line overflow into a rocky creek.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26304" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="9849" RevisionGUID="80da6978-2bc3-4281-8cd4-2119f206923d" CreationDate="2021-01-18T23:46:42.307" UserId="3379" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10479" RevisionGUID="af2431b7-9bab-4f8f-890d-533c5ea76d17" CreationDate="2021-01-19T01:13:31.213" UserId="659" Text="You are right about the complexity of the calculations, and also about the very wide tolerances. Normally those are done from CAD drawings but those contain a lot of assumptions (some more complex than you might expect - they will often give you values for &quot;perfectly installed&quot; vs &quot;average install&quot; where the latter comes from manufacturers surveying their products in use).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only way around those is measurement, which can be as expensive as you like. The common pragmatic solution is to measure the house as a whole since that's what you care about - PassivHaus do that, for example. That can be as simple as waiting for a cool night and leaving a heater on inside while using a non-contact thermometer to measure the temperature difference between inside and outside. That's what the final result will be anyway... insulation = heat transfer/temperature difference&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of finding faults or problems, it's easier to use an IR camera (which you can hire) rather than trying to measure hundreds or thousands of points on your building. That will often reveal defects that aren't just insulation, because if air is getting through sometimes so is water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that in practice air movement normally obviates insulation, so the first step is to decide how much you want to seal the building. But since you're familiar with Passivhaus you're likely aware of all those issues and the technologies to make them work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26306" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10478" RevisionGUID="30b4bd65-f6da-44a6-84b0-64afdb85ae85" CreationDate="2021-01-19T01:29:12.517" UserId="6293" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="There were projects in India working on far-reaching technological solutions to the need for community toilets. Basically, I said that there is a well-known logistical solution and it is septic tanks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septic_tank&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I went on to say that the community toilet buildings could be themed with stainless-steel roofs that funnel rainwater into stainless-steel tanks such that the rainwater is used to flush the toilets. Of course the stainless-steel tanks could also have outdoor faucets for drinking water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now one county, that I am familiar-with in the U.S., requires building lots to be one acre in size to use a septic tank. Also, the ground has to pass percolation tests to qualify for septic tank use. But don't forget the drain-field which leads to the next item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A large project such as a city or county could use wetland areas to process treated waste water instead of just discharging into a river. Here are links to an internationally renowned project:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sewaneewetlands.org/case-study-the-clayton-county-constructed-wetlands&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://www.gwri.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/files/docs/2005/ThomasMike%20paper%20April%2013.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90043021&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.wwdmag.com/ccwa-completes-phase-i-huie-constructed-wetlands-project&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.accesswater.org/publications/-287961/design-and-construction-of-treatment-wetlands-on-a-sloping-site&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.accesswater.org/?fileid=-30106&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.georgiatrend.com/2008/12/01/water-solutions/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I listed a large number of links because I was looking for something like several miles of flow through rocky creeks before reaching large slow moving wetlands. What I found was that the waste-treatment plant pumps to a 55 acre constructed wetlands of successive ponds that eventually flow into a reservoir. Of course the constructed wetlands do grow-up with natural vegetation. Also, there is surrounding acreage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://sewaneewetlands.org/constructed-wetlands&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But here is the original link that includes constructed wetlands for small projects:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_wetland#:~:text=A%20constructed%20wetland%20(CW)%20is,areas%20lost%20to%20land%20development&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now I am looking for information on a city park project that sends sewer-line overflow into a rocky creek.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26307" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10307" RevisionGUID="3986e301-37b0-46ea-af42-1ff895ae8650" CreationDate="2021-01-19T03:00:40.637" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1351363921484144642" />
  <row Id="26308" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10126" RevisionGUID="22348ef4-26a6-4bfd-a8ad-266c026fb73f" CreationDate="2021-01-19T12:00:04.397" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1351499664953143298" />
  <row Id="26309" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10480" RevisionGUID="d7029879-c33b-4779-99dd-591ee7e7bcb9" CreationDate="2021-01-19T19:31:21.600" UserId="3379" Text="According to [the manual](http://www.p3international.com/manuals/p4400_manual.pdf), the Kill-A-Watt is calibrated to accuracy within 2%, with 0.5% being typical. In contrast, any conventional electrical load which you might have in your house won't be calibrated at all. It will have some maximum current limit, but beyond that, even for the same product, the actual load might vary by as much as 10% -- there's simply no incentive for manufacturers to &quot;calibrate&quot; those loads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some loads where accuracy is important (certain electronics or medical devices) won't have a &quot;steady&quot; operating mode -- the power will fluctuate based on what the device is doing, so it would be hard to know how much actual usage to expect, for comparing to the Kill-A-Watt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think the Kill-A-Watt is wildly inaccurate (which is unlikely without some other visible symptoms), you could compare it to resistive loads, such as a space heater, water heater, hair dryer, or toaster. These will have constant loads and should roughly match the value stated on the label.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you had this [1875 W hair dryer](https://www.ulta.com/infiniti-pro-dryer?productId=xlsImpprod10881226), you could connect it through the Kill A Watt, and run it at the highest setting for 6 minutes. The display should read roughly 0.1875 kWh." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26310" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10481" RevisionGUID="85646606-06e4-471f-b0ff-516bbf5d24d4" CreationDate="2021-01-19T22:14:15.220" UserId="659" Text="I don't think &quot;mid- to large-scale commercial permaculture farms&quot; exist in big enough numbers to give a meaningful answer, even if they'd been studied. I suspect that because there's no branding or certification of permaculture farms it would be difficult to actually perform those studies (first you'd need a definition to identify eligible farms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;[investigate which aspects of PC may be scalable to commercial farming][1] whilst identifying PC aspects already implemented in commercial (organic) agriculture (OA)&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article seems to be a useful overview][2] with links to actual studies, but the focus is organic vs chemical farming rather than permaculture. But those are the only quantitative studies I've been able to find&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13165-020-00281-8&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.permaculturenews.org/2016/09/12/conventional-farming-higher-yields-organic-farming-sustainable/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10480" RevisionGUID="815fff6e-cdae-4694-8808-5a9bb5cb275a" CreationDate="2021-01-20T01:01:02.690" UserId="3379" Comment="added 434 characters in body" Text="According to [the manual](http://www.p3international.com/manuals/p4400_manual.pdf), the Kill-A-Watt is calibrated to accuracy within 2%, with 0.5% being typical. In contrast, any conventional electrical load which you might have in your house won't be calibrated at all. It will have some maximum current limit, but beyond that, even for the same product, the actual load might vary by as much as 10% -- there's simply no incentive for manufacturers to &quot;calibrate&quot; those loads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think the Kill-A-Watt is notably inaccurate (which is unlikely without some other visible symptoms), you could compare it to resistive loads, such as a space heater, water heater, hair dryer, or toaster. These will have constant loads and should roughly match the value stated on the label.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you had this [1875 W hair dryer](https://www.ulta.com/infiniti-pro-dryer?productId=xlsImpprod10881226), you could connect it through the Kill A Watt, and run it at the highest setting for 6 minutes. The display should read roughly 0.1875 kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to take this further and you have access to your read your utility electric meter and to your electric panel, you could try this:&#xD;&#xA;1. Turn off all the breakers and wait for the meter to &quot;settle.&quot; Then take a kWh reading.&#xD;&#xA;2. Find a breaker with only outlets and lights. Often there will be a panel outlet -- a single breaker feeding only one outlet, right next to the panel. Electricians often set this up first to be able to have power while doing other work.&#xD;&#xA;3. Connect the Kill A Watt and some large load (toaster, heater, etc) on that outlet and run it for a while.&#xD;&#xA;4. Take a kWh reading from the meter, subtract the first reading, and compare the result to the value on the Kill A Watt." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26315" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="05b9abac-1f74-4bce-b220-3b8c250962d6" CreationDate="2021-01-20T15:04:57.977" UserId="3379" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26316" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10483" RevisionGUID="883d09c4-efdb-4f5d-a8a2-2b1d6d16fe6f" CreationDate="2021-01-20T23:50:36.680" UserId="659" Text="It's possible to make a composting toilet out of very simple parts, and those can work very well. But you need a supply of sawdust, woodchips or some other dry organic material. My brief experiment with dried grass was not successful although I've read that it can work. There are lots of places on the web where people document their experiments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem you will have is disposing of the compost. It really needs to be stored in a warm place for months then buried in a garden. But if you have access outside space with a garden that's one option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.lowimpact.org/the-simplest-diy-compost-toilet/#:~:text=A%2020%20litre%20bucket%20sits,the%20sawdust%20and%20that's%20it.&#xD;&#xA;  https://goodlifepermaculture.com.au/wheelie-bin-compost-toilet/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="330e10d1-a9bb-450c-839c-10d11dda3130" CreationDate="2021-01-21T05:07:29.037" UserId="4708" Text="Hydroponics using NFT (Nutrient Film Technique) is heavily dependent on inorganic nutrients. However, modern marketing jargons term the food produced as organic and business model as sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the water used in such system need to be changed every 10-15 days. The water released from such system is having inorganic compounds and not usable for any other purpose. How can this be sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26318" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="330e10d1-a9bb-450c-839c-10d11dda3130" CreationDate="2021-01-21T05:07:29.037" UserId="4708" Text="Can Hydroponic products be termed as organic food?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26319" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="330e10d1-a9bb-450c-839c-10d11dda3130" CreationDate="2021-01-21T05:07:29.037" UserId="4708" Text="|food|water-management|hydroponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26320" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10485" RevisionGUID="24230cb7-9c24-4d7e-aa86-cfd49824705b" CreationDate="2021-01-21T08:25:27.710" UserId="99" Text="It depends on where you live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [many countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_organic_agriculture_regulation) regulations determine when you are allowed to label a product as 'organic', but there are countries where the term organic is not subject to any laws. When organic is a protected label, this usually means that one is not allowed to use synthetic substances for example, but there are always exceptions and these exceptions also differ per country. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the European Union the following applies:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; EU rules do not allow for plants grown hydroponically to be marketed as organic. This is because organic production is only possible when plants are grown naturally in soil. This regulation also applies to plants that are grown in an aquaponics system.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;However, fish which are grown in an aquaponics system can be sold as organic if the relevant legislation for organic aquaculture is followed. ([source](https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/farming/organic-farming/organic-production-and-products_en#rulesonwineaquacultureandhydroponics))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for the US there is no such regulation and hydroponically-grown foods can be labeled as organic if all  US organic regulations are followed. There is however [a debate on this](https://modernfarmer.com/2017/05/is-hydro-organic-farming-organic/) so it's possible that this will change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AFAIK 'sustainable' is not a regulated label in any country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26321" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="bb3d9143-b84f-4c25-914c-559f78110999" CreationDate="2021-01-21T08:25:47.337" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|water-management|organic|hydroponics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26322" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="bb3d9143-b84f-4c25-914c-559f78110999" CreationDate="2021-01-21T08:25:47.337" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="Hydroponics using NFT (Nutrient Film Technique) is heavily dependent on inorganic nutrients. However, modern marketing jargons term the food produced as organic and business model as sustainable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the water used in such system need to be changed every 10-15 days. The water released from such system is having inorganic compounds and is not usable for any other purpose. How can this be sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26323" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="3dbaa781-a208-4388-9b08-eb0d7efc7591" CreationDate="2021-01-21T14:25:52.847" />
  <row Id="26324" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10205" RevisionGUID="37021ce6-bd92-45a4-9f7f-bf06a388de95" CreationDate="2021-01-22T01:43:46.700" UserId="3379" Comment="added 349 characters in body" Text="I have a room in my apartment that can sometimes get around 40°F (4°C), and that's where my new tankless water heater is stored. Should I take any special precautions to keep my pipes from freezing or to avoid any other weird problems with my water heater? I live in the US Midwest in a second-floor apartment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other details from the comments:&#xD;&#xA; - Model: [Rheem RTEX-24](https://www.rheem.com/product/professional-classic-tankless-electric-rtex-24-electric-water-heater-with-5-year-limited-warranty-rtex-24)&#xD;&#xA; - The room is on an exterior wall, some of the plumbing goes through an exterior wall, and the water heater is about 3 feet from an exterior wall." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10486" RevisionGUID="c989fc3e-fd5a-46c0-9516-7d4faf1d8023" CreationDate="2021-01-22T01:50:16.320" UserId="3379" Text="Since the water heater is not on an exterior wall, it is likely that the pipes you mention which do pass through the exterior wall would freeze before pipes inside the heater do. This would cause damage, of course, but might spare the heater. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Addressing the issue with pipes freezing, there's an interesting discussion over on HomeImprovement.SE: [&quot;What is the minimum temperature for house heating system to keep pipes from freezing?&quot;](https://diy.stackexchange.com/q/181316/86548).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To monitor the pipes for freezing, there are a number of commercially available alarms -- some stand-alone, and some sold as part of alarm systems. There's also [plans on Instructables](https://www.instructables.com/Frozen-Pipe-Alarm/) to build one yourself with an Arduino." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10475" RevisionGUID="42c46ad7-efae-4943-b4c8-06c4d3a994e2" CreationDate="2021-01-23T19:59:05.467" UserId="8013" Comment="Adding link to IISD report which reinforces the points already raised." Text="I found some data from the American Soybean Association on their [SoyStats](http://soystats.com/) page to help answer this. All data is for 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;| Soybean Product | Million metric tons produced | USD per ton | Total value |&#xD;&#xA;|---------|---------------------|-------------|---------------------|&#xD;&#xA;|Meal     | 44.9                | $336        | $15.1 billion|&#xD;&#xA;|Oil      | 11.0                | $694        |  $7.6 billion|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;33.4 million metric tons (about 60%) of the soybean meal is used as livestock feed in the U.S., and the rest is exported (based on [data from the USDA](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/oil-crops-yearbook/oil-crops-yearbook/#Soy%20and%20Soybean%20Products)), where [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_meal) indicates it is also used as animal feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this data, 67% of the money made from soybeans is from the meal, indicating that this use is likely what drives production. If global meat consumption were to be reduced in a meaningful way, we can expect that soybean meal production would also drop, especially since many of the [products that soybean oil is used](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_oil#Applications) for can easily be made with other types of oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is backed up by a study from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Their [Global Market Report: Soybeans](https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2020-10/ssi-global-market-report-soybean.pdf) starts with the words &quot;The demand for soybeans is currently tied to global meat consumption and is expected to grow,fuelled by Asia&quot; and goes on to say that 85% of soybean cultivation is destined for livestock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26330" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10475" RevisionGUID="42c46ad7-efae-4943-b4c8-06c4d3a994e2" CreationDate="2021-01-23T19:59:05.467" Comment="Proposed by 8013 approved by -1 edit id of 669" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26331" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10475" RevisionGUID="d781ad33-d4f8-44fa-827a-443a84f86632" CreationDate="2021-01-23T19:59:05.467" UserId="3379" Comment="Adding link to IISD report which reinforces the points already raised." Text="I found some data from the American Soybean Association on their [SoyStats](http://soystats.com/) page to help answer this. All data is for 2019.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;| Soybean Product | Million metric tons produced | USD per ton | Total value |&#xD;&#xA;|---------|---------------------|-------------|---------------------|&#xD;&#xA;|Meal     | 44.9                | $336        | $15.1 billion|&#xD;&#xA;|Oil      | 11.0                | $694        |  $7.6 billion|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;33.4 million metric tons (about 60%) of the soybean meal is used as livestock feed in the U.S., and the rest is exported (based on [data from the USDA](https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/oil-crops-yearbook/oil-crops-yearbook/#Soy%20and%20Soybean%20Products)), where [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_meal) indicates it is also used as animal feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this data, 67% of the money made from soybeans is from the meal, indicating that this use is likely what drives production. If global meat consumption were to be reduced in a meaningful way, we can expect that soybean meal production would also drop, especially since many of the [products that soybean oil is used](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_oil#Applications) for can easily be made with other types of oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is backed up by a study from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Their [Global Market Report: Soybeans](https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2020-10/ssi-global-market-report-soybean.pdf) starts with the words &quot;The demand for soybeans is currently tied to global meat consumption and is expected to grow, fueled by Asia&quot; and goes on to say that 85% of soybean cultivation is destined for livestock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26332" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="619e51e1-71de-4bba-90dd-4e90df885851" CreationDate="2021-01-24T01:02:05.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26333" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10488" RevisionGUID="b4e0dc98-68a1-4fec-8dfc-f5e359728d42" CreationDate="2021-01-24T01:06:46.567" UserId="4343" Text="Unanswered questions hang around - so I am posting an answer... of a kind...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My intention was to have a gravity fed system, using 'renewable' energy when available to keep the 'gravity fed source' topped up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did not find a solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But have now moved on to Kratky style hydroponics, so don't need a running source of water, or externally powered systems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26334" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10484" RevisionGUID="6f1d39a6-00c6-401f-bee9-f41358ccef3a" CreationDate="2021-01-24T09:00:05.400" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1353266309983850496" />
  <row Id="26335" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10427" RevisionGUID="cb7d3515-f009-409d-81af-93748ca20a95" CreationDate="2021-01-24T17:05:05.607" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="1272" RevisionGUID="d56c407a-c79f-408e-b3bd-1ae984218a1e" CreationDate="2021-01-25T15:45:08.743" UserId="868" Comment="edited body" Text="I already have a composting bin in my kitchen, and I'd like to upscale it to my whole building, which has 32 apartments. This is about a hundred people.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've explained why and how to my neighbors and got a favorable vote so now I can use the common parts of the building to enable worm composting for everyone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But then I considered the scale of the thing and got scared. At 2kg/day/apartment, that's 2 tons per month... Even if we only get 1kg/day/apartment, and only half my neighbors contribute, I still get an industrial half a ton per month.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway I have two options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Centralize the thing and put one big bin somewhere&#xD;&#xA; 2. Put one bin per story, alongside the usual trash bins, each serving 4 apartments (10-15 people)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either way I don't really know how big the bins/bin stacks should be for such quantities of raw material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I could not find anything of that scale. [Duckduckgo][1]ing it gives off either individual-scale solutions, up to 4 people, or industrial, hundreds of thousands of kilos per month, automated things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd be glad to hear from anyone who has done something on a similar scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://duckduckgo.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26338" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5312" RevisionGUID="9c1b7895-f29e-4313-928d-47e061842bb5" CreationDate="2021-01-26T00:00:01.063" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1353855172447973381" />
  <row Id="26342" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="1249" RevisionGUID="d3c5b7ea-7a4f-47d8-b007-5f01ea370ac0" CreationDate="2021-01-26T08:14:15.920" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26347" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10448" RevisionGUID="d81b2442-f76c-4633-8b8f-e0838da009c5" CreationDate="2021-01-26T18:00:04.543" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1354126977591083014" />
  <row Id="26348" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10490" RevisionGUID="2bb82312-88d8-4ab3-bbd2-b7277e9cd977" CreationDate="2021-01-27T13:58:42.853" UserId="9322" Text="I've done some amount of upgrades to my house to reduce my overall carbon emissions, and reading online there are all kinds of suggestions for doing even more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Replace my natural gas water heater with electric&#xD;&#xA;* Put solar panels on the roof&#xD;&#xA;* Buy wind energy credits&#xD;&#xA;* Other kinds of carbon offsets&#xD;&#xA;* Geothermal&#xD;&#xA;* Don't replace my electric oven with gas (which I had been thinking about, since I hear how great they are for cooking)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course I only have a limited amount of money to spend on this, so I'm trying to determine which action gives me the best bang (most carbon reduced) for my buck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I almost immediately run into a problem.  Even just looking at that first one - &quot;Replace my natural gas water heater with electric&quot; - I can easily determine what the cost would be, but figuring out the carbon impact of that is tricky.  I live in Colorado which is moving towards wind power, but still has some coal plants.  How much carbon is my natural gas water heater emitting now?  How much carbon would an electric water heater emit (when you take into account the carbon emitted to generate the electricity)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example - my house was built in the 1970s so it doesn't have a lot of the energy-saving features built in to more recent houses, and I had an energy audit done that identified a lot of small items (nothing big).  For example, where the tops of my walls meet the ceiling joists there are lots of tiny air gaps.  Sealing those would be quite expensive, but might be worth it depending on how much energy I would save.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a resource (or resources) that would help me figure out how much carbon would be reduced by each possible action?  Please note that I'm not looking for common knowledge or general lists, I'm really trying to drill down and determine for my specific house, what are the exact (or approximate) impacts of each possible action?  I realize that answering that question for each action will require specific information about my house and situation, I'm hoping that somewhere online there are calculators that would help me understand the impact of each action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26349" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10490" RevisionGUID="2bb82312-88d8-4ab3-bbd2-b7277e9cd977" CreationDate="2021-01-27T13:58:42.853" UserId="9322" Text="Determining bang for buck of various home upgrades" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26350" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10490" RevisionGUID="2bb82312-88d8-4ab3-bbd2-b7277e9cd977" CreationDate="2021-01-27T13:58:42.853" UserId="9322" Text="|home|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10490" RevisionGUID="cb367713-db37-45e1-96c7-a057d5bd1558" CreationDate="2021-01-27T14:31:24.617" UserId="3379" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="I've done some amount of upgrades to my house to reduce my overall carbon emissions, and reading online there are all kinds of suggestions for doing even more:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Replace my natural gas water heater with electric&#xD;&#xA;* Put solar panels on the roof&#xD;&#xA;* Buy wind energy credits&#xD;&#xA;* Other kinds of carbon offsets&#xD;&#xA;* Geothermal&#xD;&#xA;* Don't replace my electric oven with gas (which I had been thinking about, since I hear how great they are for cooking)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course I only have a limited amount of money to spend on this, so I'm trying to determine which action gives me the best bang (most carbon reduced) for my buck.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I almost immediately run into a problem.  Even just looking at that first one - &quot;Replace my natural gas water heater with electric&quot; - I can easily determine what the cost would be, but figuring out the carbon impact of that is tricky.  I live in Colorado which is moving towards wind power, but still has some coal plants.  How much carbon is my natural gas water heater emitting now?  How much carbon would an electric water heater emit (when you take into account the carbon emitted to generate the electricity)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another example - my house was built in the 1970s so it doesn't have a lot of the energy-saving features built in to more recent houses, and I had an energy audit done that identified a lot of small items (nothing big).  For example, where the tops of my walls meet the ceiling joists there are lots of tiny air gaps.  Sealing those would be quite expensive, but might be worth it depending on how much energy I would save.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there a resource (or resources) that would help me figure out how much carbon would be reduced by each possible action?** Please note that I'm not looking for common knowledge or general lists, I'm really trying to drill down and determine for my specific house, what are the exact (or approximate) impacts of each possible action?  I realize that answering that question for each action will require specific information about my house and situation, I'm hoping that somewhere online there are calculators that would help me understand the impact of each action." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26352" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10490" RevisionGUID="cb367713-db37-45e1-96c7-a057d5bd1558" CreationDate="2021-01-27T14:31:24.617" UserId="3379" Comment="added 3 characters in body; edited title" Text="Determining carbon reduction vs cost of various home upgrades" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10491" RevisionGUID="dd707e39-bce3-4088-9728-80dca68f5e73" CreationDate="2021-01-27T16:52:24.350" UserId="3379" Text="### BEopt for cost/benefit analysis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[BEopt](https://www.nrel.gov/buildings/beopt.html) is a physics-based building energy modeling software designed for single-family homes intended to do exactly this. From the description:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; BEopt provides detailed simulation-based analysis based on specific house characteristics, such as size, architecture, occupancy, vintage, location, and utility rates. Discrete envelope and equipment options, reflecting realistic construction materials and practices, are evaluated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![BEopt geometry input screen][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;engine&quot; that drives BEopt is [EnergyPlus](https://energyplus.net/), the open-source building energy modeling program funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, and currently the gold-standard for detailed building energy modeling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BEopt is tailored to single family homes, and simplifies the process of modeling geometry and selecting materials. It will also model weather and utility rates based on location, and includes cost estimates for most proposed upgrades. While it will not model carbon credits, I did confirm that all of the other measures you propose are included as parametrics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To do what you're proposing, you would model your home as-is, then include all of the measures you're considering as optimization options. The output (screenshot below) will allow you to compare the first cost, energy cost and use, and carbon emissions impact of each change, and tell you which one will result in the greatest cost or emissions savings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![BEopt output screen][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This output shows annual cost vs emissions for each iteration, then detail about energy per end use, and the specifics of what's modeled in each iteration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some BEopt caveats:&#xD;&#xA; - It is a Win32 application, so be prepared for a slow, clunky interface.&#xD;&#xA; - Garbage in, garbage out -- the results are only as accurate as the inputs you provide, especially for anything in your home that may diverge significantly from national averages (thermostat set points, schedule, plug loads, etc).&#xD;&#xA; - Simulation is SLOOOOOW. Your PC will be doing the heavy lifting for sub-hourly modeling across a year at a spatial resolution of about a cubic meter, for as many options as you propose. Depending on your technical prowess and how extensively you plan to use BEopt, you could extract the `*.idf` files that define the project and [run them in the cloud](https://unmethours.com/question/37440/how-do-you-run-your-energyplus-modeling-jobs-cloud-local/), but for a single optimization run this is probably overkill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### eGRID for the carbon factor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BEopt will let you input a carbon emissions factor, but this does not update based on location -- you can get your state's emissions factor from EPA's [eGRID database](https://www.epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer). The natural gas emissions factor is essentially identical around the U.S. so no need to adjust this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### PVWatts to estimate solar array size&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BEopt lets you input the size of a proposed solar array, but you can use [PVWatts](https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/) to estimate the size that would fit on your roof, based on satellite images:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![PVWatts' customize system tool][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/CvZzv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8H4B2.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bsXIAl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26357" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10492" RevisionGUID="d0e6a443-4388-43aa-a3fd-9bb1f2cc9ab9" CreationDate="2021-01-27T21:03:02.233" UserId="6925" Text="Yes, that is how solar controllers work normally.  &#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Now, a grid-tie charge controller+inverter has one job: Shove *as much power as possible* back onto the grid while the grid is up, and shut off entirely (per UL 1741) when the grid is down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But plain (DC) charge controllers coupled to a battery, need to throttle their output up and down so they charge the battery at appropriate rates and &quot;tail off&quot; the finishing charge as the battery nears 100%.  This varies &quot;on the fly&quot; based on whichever DC loads are being powered. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is no problem for the controller to reduce its draw to less than the solar panels are capable of putting out.  If the controller reduces its draw, solar voltage will rise.  But it will not rise infinitely; it will stop at the panel's float voltage (commonly 19V for a &quot;12V&quot; panel).  At that point, instead of making power, the solar panel will just sit there getting warm, but that does not harm - it'll get no warmer than any other black thing sitting in direct sun. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dump&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Better-featured DC solar charge controllers have a third set of terminals called &quot;DUMP&quot;.  The charge controller provides DC power to these terminals when the solar is making more than can be put into battery + direct loads.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A DC charge controller with &quot;Dump&quot; make the water heater exercise rather easy: simply route the &quot;dump&quot; power to the heater. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The &quot;dump&quot; power could be fed through a DC-AC inverter to make a correct voltage for the heater (which needs to be AC because switching 120/230V DC is very difficult, and AC-rated heaters are not rated to switch DC).  This could then pick up a DPDT contactor which would switch the heater from utility to solar when solar is present. However, here's another thought. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Many water heaters have 2 heating elements**, and only one is used at a time based on circumstance.  The water heater  could be &quot;hacked&quot; to use one heating element for utility AC, and the other element replaced with a DC element of your system voltage.  This would reduce overall heater performance (it has 2 heaters *for a reason*) but would allow you to capture the excess energy.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or water could be recirculated between the water heater's bottom drain valve and a &quot;tee&quot; off the cold water inlet, using a small pump and an inline heater.  This would need to be well insulated or it would defeat the purpose. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Temperature management&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to plan temperature carefully.  You cannot have water sitting in a heater tank much below 60C (140F) or it will [breed legionella and other bacteria][1]. (and if this is news to you, it's because it's fairly new science). This *already* requires thermostatic faucets.  So you can push temperature higher, e.g. up into restaurant dishwashing temperatures, but  you can't go near 100C or you'll over-pressurize the heater and make the safety valve dump water all over  your floor (or worse: fail to do so, causing a BLEVE!) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your best bet might be a **timer** -- which switches the water heater from utility to solar in the morning just before you do your morning bathing (so that depletes its hot water and gives the dump energy something to heat)... and switches it back at dusk or whenever the favorable utility rates kick in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes longer than 12 hours for bacterial growth to flare up significantly in a water heater, so as long as it's getting heated to ~60C every night, that will definitely kill the bacteria. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/legionella/wmp/overview/growth-and-spread.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10493" RevisionGUID="3960b4ce-1231-4d9d-a664-af008ac512cd" CreationDate="2021-01-28T02:47:38.830" UserId="6925" Text="Suppose I'm already heavily invested in *microinverter* type solar panels - with the inverter on the panel on the roof.  These comply with UL 1741 and will stop supplying the moment they see grid power disappear. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I now realize I want my house to have limited &quot;function off-grid&quot; capabilities.  I'm ready to go with a hefty subpanel for those loads with a proper interlock for utility vs inverter, which is powered from a large battery bank.  That's all taken care of and working.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the solar panels feed into another subpanel, with another interlock.  This one interlocks &quot;utility&quot; and &quot;???? potential future thing here&quot;, so that when I throw that panel over, the solar panels are positively disconnected from the grid and attached to &quot;????&quot;. The battery charger for the large battery banks is also in this subpanel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to set the stage as best I can. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the $10,000 question.  Is there any tech available that will allow me to get these &quot;microinverter&quot; panels to come up, despite the grid being absent, and generate 120VAC (since that's what they do), so I can use them to top up the battery?  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26359" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10493" RevisionGUID="3960b4ce-1231-4d9d-a664-af008ac512cd" CreationDate="2021-01-28T02:47:38.830" UserId="6925" Text="Any way for microinverter panels to power a house when the grid is down?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26360" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10493" RevisionGUID="3960b4ce-1231-4d9d-a664-af008ac512cd" CreationDate="2021-01-28T02:47:38.830" UserId="6925" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26361" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10494" RevisionGUID="3028976c-862f-40bd-b94f-04197239e2f2" CreationDate="2021-01-28T07:59:01.453" UserId="9243" Text="Some daylighting solutions are available in the market that use collectors and large diameter optic fibre cables to transfer sunlight to interiors of residential or underground dwellings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below are images of: _Large Collector_, _Transfer Cables_, _Indoor Lighting_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![One of the largest collectors][1]][1] [![enter image description here][2]][2] [![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is this**: do these solutions provide enough luminous intensity that a solar panel can be charged indoors?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If yes, then it will be useful not only on Earth (for daily needs in ever congested urban areas), but, also in space missions!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**References**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Highly concentrated optical fiber-based daylighting systems for multi-floor office buildings][4]&#xD;&#xA;2. [Fiber Optics for Daylighting][5]&#xD;&#xA;3. [Daylighting by Optic Fibre - Erik Andre, Jutta Schade][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AF73L.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IfEaG.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qB2QM.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.12.031&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://e3tnw.org/ItemDetail.aspx?id=143&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.lightingassociates.org/i/u/2127806/f/tech_sheets/Daylighting_by_optical_fiber.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10494" RevisionGUID="3028976c-862f-40bd-b94f-04197239e2f2" CreationDate="2021-01-28T07:59:01.453" UserId="9243" Text="Are optic fibre based daylighting solutions sufficient for solar panels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10494" RevisionGUID="3028976c-862f-40bd-b94f-04197239e2f2" CreationDate="2021-01-28T07:59:01.453" UserId="9243" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10495" RevisionGUID="93bf652e-003b-4ddf-8537-c6e202954711" CreationDate="2021-01-28T16:29:48.130" UserId="99" Text="I found [this interesting article](http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/fiber-optics-photovoltaics/) that takes this idea one step further. Instead of using 'regular' optic fibres to power a 'regular' solar panel, researchers are combining the two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They are aiming to achieve this feat with the help of zinc oxide nanostructures grown on optical fibers and coated with dye-sensitized solar cell materials. Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have built up a new kind of three-dimensional photovoltaic system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically the fibre optics have become solar panels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Using this technology, we can make photovoltaic generators that are&#xD;&#xA;&gt; foldable, concealed and mobile. Optical fiber could conduct sunlight&#xD;&#xA;&gt; into a building’s walls where the nanostructures would convert it to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; electricity. This is truly a three dimensional solar cell&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article states that the researchers achieved a 3.3% efficiency which is fairly low. Today's photovoltaic panels generally have a 15-23% efficiency and the first 'modern' solar panel built in 1954 already had 6% efficiency. However the researchers hope that with further modifications they can achieve 7-8% and they think the costs will be relatively low.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10496" RevisionGUID="19b74bb1-9be3-4c8c-aadc-484cd80ab310" CreationDate="2021-01-28T20:21:26.767" UserId="8934" Text="If you buy an EV then the batteries last for X years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happens after that?&#xD;&#xA;Are they recycled 100%?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the companies like Tesla collecting those batteries to recycle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they are not recycled then how big an environmental problem they are?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26366" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10496" RevisionGUID="19b74bb1-9be3-4c8c-aadc-484cd80ab310" CreationDate="2021-01-28T20:21:26.767" UserId="8934" Text="How much of the car batteries are reused?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26367" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10496" RevisionGUID="19b74bb1-9be3-4c8c-aadc-484cd80ab310" CreationDate="2021-01-28T20:21:26.767" UserId="8934" Text="|recycling|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26368" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10070" RevisionGUID="58b5ddb8-e704-4193-8e73-f6de3244df2e" CreationDate="2021-01-28T21:00:12.977" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1354897087180251142" />
  <row Id="26369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10497" RevisionGUID="b0487eaf-5b03-4ba9-b8ca-4373050dd8af" CreationDate="2021-01-28T22:34:39.083" UserId="6925" Text="Consider *status quo ante* with plain old lead-acid car batteries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Virtually all car batteries *are already* recycled, over 99%.  The lead is exceedingly easy to recycle.  The sulfuric acid is pretty easy too. The plastic is probably the hardest but it's of known composition.   Batteries are heavy, and they have a $5-15 core charge at the store, so most DIYers recycle their batteries to get the core charge back.  If you just happen to have a loose one, they are stupidly easy to recycle, because any auto mechanic or auto parts store will cheerfully let you drop one off - they have value!  *Mind you, that's lead-acid, and that's in pursuit of $3-4 of mineral value.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EV batteries will be *even more recycled* for several reasons.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- EV batteries tend to last the life of the car*, so they'll tend to end up at a commercial scrap company.  (nobody DIY-scraps cars). &#xD;&#xA;- They have **a heck of a lot more** mineral value. &#xD;&#xA;- EV batteries are extremely heavy - far too heavy for shade-tree DIY work.  So nearly all battery swaps will be done at commercial garages with access to a recycling chain (already, for their lead-acids). &#xD;&#xA;- The fate of EV batteries is closely watched for political reasons (not least by anti-EV types to argue *against* them)... so companies that handle them are less likely to deal dirty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only real leakage I expect from this chain-of-custody is from DIYer off-grid types who are taking old EV batteries to built home solar power systems.  However, those people *as a rule* tend to be environmentally conscious.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Another way of putting that is that the EV batteries last a long time, and represents *so much* of the car's value.... that by the time the battery is simply exhausted, *the car's market value has faded to nil, and it's probably worn out too*.  It would simply be madness to put a $5000 used battery into a $500 car." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10497" RevisionGUID="76b34385-7381-4ac3-a19c-ffc8690bca78" CreationDate="2021-01-28T22:40:04.103" UserId="6925" Comment="added 20 characters in body" Text="Consider *status quo ante* with plain old lead-acid car batteries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Virtually all car batteries *are already* recycled, over 99%.  The lead is exceedingly easy to recycle.  The sulfuric acid is pretty easy too. The plastic is probably the hardest but it's of known composition.   Batteries are heavy, and they have a $5-15 core charge at the store, so most DIYers recycle their batteries to get the core charge back.  If you just happen to have a loose one, they are stupidly easy to recycle, because any auto mechanic or auto parts store will cheerfully let you drop one off - they have value!  *Mind you, that's lead-acid, and that's in pursuit of $3-4 of mineral value.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EV batteries will be *even more recycled* for several reasons.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- EV batteries tend to last the life of the car*, so they'll tend to end up at a commercial scrap company.  (nobody DIY-scraps cars). &#xD;&#xA;- They have **a heck of a lot more** mineral value. &#xD;&#xA;- EV batteries are extremely heavy - far too heavy for shade-tree DIY work.  So nearly all battery swaps will be done at commercial garages with access to a recycling chain (already, for their lead-acids). &#xD;&#xA;- The fate of EV batteries is closely watched for political reasons (not least by anti-EV types to argue *against* them)... so companies that handle them are less likely to deal dirty. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only real leakage I expect from this chain-of-custody is from DIYer off-grid types who are taking old EV batteries to build home solar power systems.  However, those people are few... and *as a rule* they tend to be environmentally conscious.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Another way of putting that is that the EV batteries last a long time, and represents *so much* of the car's value.... that by the time the battery is simply exhausted, *the car's market value has faded to nil, and it's probably worn out too*.  It would simply be madness to put a $5000 used battery into a $500 car." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26371" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10498" RevisionGUID="84a7636c-45b1-4d30-8947-6c78aa0a2e95" CreationDate="2021-01-28T22:40:23.603" UserId="1921" Text="When switching to electric, you should switch to an air source heat pump. They give you 2-5 times the energy you put in as heat, depending on circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So depending on the source of electricity, you might achieve break-even or 0 carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26386" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10440" RevisionGUID="98279e8e-1b3e-45f5-90f3-dd8dd110234f" CreationDate="2021-01-29T03:59:10.003" UserId="3379" Comment="Broadened the scope." Text="Today the governor of the U.S. state of Massachusetts [announced](https://www.mass.gov/news/baker-polito-administration-releases-roadmap-to-achieve-net-zero-emissions-by-2050) that starting in 2035, gasoline-powered vehicles will no longer be sold in the state. From the announcement (emphasis added, and a &quot;sic&quot; indicating where some words appear to have been left out by mistake):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The transportation sector highlights a renewed focus on the deployment of electric vehicles with new, nation-leading state and regional programs including the Transportation and Climate Initiative Program. Building on that progress, **Massachusetts will join California in requiring that by 2035, 100% of new light-duty vehicles sold in the Commonwealth are zero emission vehicles (ZEVs)** [*sic*] support the continued build-out of statewide charging infrastructure, including additional consumer incentives for residential EV charging systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This announcement mentions a similar requirement in California, and recently I heard that [New Jersey is working on something too](https://nj.gov/governor/news/news/562020/approved/20200714a.shtml). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which countries, regions, or cities currently have requirements or targets to eliminate or reduce sale of carbon-emitting vehicles? What are the specifics of the plans?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26387" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10440" RevisionGUID="98279e8e-1b3e-45f5-90f3-dd8dd110234f" CreationDate="2021-01-29T03:59:10.003" UserId="3379" Comment="Broadened the scope." Text="Which countries, regions, or cities have zero emission vehicle mandates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26388" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10440" RevisionGUID="07fd6a98-6eed-4881-9c08-80c6514ad8f8" CreationDate="2021-01-29T04:00:41.130" UserId="3379" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[9862],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="26389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10501" RevisionGUID="416a961c-6996-423b-aa4d-7edcef9af35f" CreationDate="2021-01-29T04:11:47.717" UserId="3379" Text="Last week, the city of Denver, U.S.A. announced a proposal to ban all new natural gas connections by 2030. [From *The Denverite*](https://denverite.com/2021/01/26/denver-aims-to-ban-natural-gas-from-the-menu-of-energy-options-for-new-homes-and-buildings/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Changes to natural gas rules will come via revisions to Denver’s building code, the rulebook for new construction. The Denver City Council will have to sign off on the revisions.&#xD;&#xA;The city is focused primarily on rolling back the prominence of gas-fired heat and, to a lesser extent, gas used for cooking, said Amber Wood, the lead author of the plan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [the press release](https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Departments/Climate-Action-Sustainability-Resiliency/News-Events/News/2021/Denver-Releases-Net-Zero-Energy-New-Buildings-and-Homes-Implementation-Plan) that accompanied [the plan](https://denvergov.org/files/assets/public/climate-action/documents/denver-nze-implementation-plan_final_v1.pdf):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The 2024 Building Code will require net zero energy, all-electric new homes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The 2027 Building Code will require net zero energy, all-electric new buildings.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The 2030 Building Code will require new buildings perform as designed (performance verification).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This move follows [a similar plan](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/california-is-closing-the-door-to-gas-in-new-homes/) announced by the U.S. state of California.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Which other countries, regions, or cities currently have requirements or targets to eliminate or reduce new natural gas connections? What are the specifics of the plans?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26390" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10501" RevisionGUID="416a961c-6996-423b-aa4d-7edcef9af35f" CreationDate="2021-01-29T04:11:47.717" UserId="3379" Text="Which countries, regions, or cities have banned natural gas in new construction?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26391" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10501" RevisionGUID="416a961c-6996-423b-aa4d-7edcef9af35f" CreationDate="2021-01-29T04:11:47.717" UserId="3379" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|construction|natural-gas|law|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26392" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9862" RevisionGUID="b2e9676e-6f2f-4de2-9b41-b2ffcf41d95f" CreationDate="2021-01-29T04:13:22.143" UserId="3379" Comment="added 66 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="This week, the UK announced that sale of gasoline and diesel cars will be banned by 2035. This new policy moves the date up by five years, and also includes hybrid vehicles. From 2035 on, only electric or hydrogen-powered cars will be sold. ([From the BBC](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Rocky Mountain Institute, in a [blog post](https://rmi.org/britains-ban-on-gasoline-and-diesel-cars-is-a-game-changer-for-evs/) about the new policy, included this statement:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The UK is joined by dozens of other countries and cities around the world that have set similar goals to ban the internal combustion engine (ICE) cars between 2025 and 2050. These regions all recognize there is virtually no way to achieve meaningful carbon reductions in transportation without a major contribution from the light duty vehicle sector.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They did not provide any details. **Which countries, regions, and cities have set a target date to ban the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles? What are the specifics of the plan?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26393" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="9862" RevisionGUID="b2e9676e-6f2f-4de2-9b41-b2ffcf41d95f" CreationDate="2021-01-29T04:13:22.143" UserId="3379" Comment="added 66 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Which countries, regions, or cities have set a date to ban the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26394" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="9862" RevisionGUID="b2e9676e-6f2f-4de2-9b41-b2ffcf41d95f" CreationDate="2021-01-29T04:13:22.143" UserId="3379" Comment="added 66 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|transport|cars|greenhouse-gas-emissions|law|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10502" RevisionGUID="20a546bd-642f-4304-8be1-379e6d5f925d" CreationDate="2021-01-29T13:25:28.697" UserId="1921" Text="I noticed that heat pumps for swimming pools are a lot cheaper than equivalent heat pumps for home use. What could be the reasons for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give an idea, a 14kW monoblock heat pump based on R32 (can heat to 60C in -15C/+40C) for home heating currently costs about 5000 EUR online (8k-15k if you get it from an installer). An equivalent swimming pool pump goes for 3400 EUR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26396" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10502" RevisionGUID="20a546bd-642f-4304-8be1-379e6d5f925d" CreationDate="2021-01-29T13:25:28.697" UserId="1921" Text="What makes swimming pool heat pumps unsuited for home use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26397" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10502" RevisionGUID="20a546bd-642f-4304-8be1-379e6d5f925d" CreationDate="2021-01-29T13:25:28.697" UserId="1921" Text="|heating|heat-pump|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26398" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10240" RevisionGUID="1de944ac-03c1-44ba-b1f4-a62bbd016bd6" CreationDate="2021-01-29T15:00:08.407" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1355168858882105345" />
  <row Id="26399" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10231" RevisionGUID="2c3ea908-d7fc-48a6-8404-8a1bdc6b9a4e" CreationDate="2021-01-29T21:00:05.867" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1355259445199196161" />
  <row Id="26400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10493" RevisionGUID="2303dcaa-372f-497f-ae92-900373c1b8d2" CreationDate="2021-01-30T00:23:34.883" UserId="3379" Comment="Links, minor formatting" Text="Suppose I'm already heavily invested in [microinverter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_micro-inverter) type solar panels -- with the inverter on the panel on the roof.  These comply with UL 1741 and will stop supplying power the moment they see grid power disappear. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I now realize I want my house to have limited &quot;off-grid&quot; capabilities -- I want to use my PV array to charge a battery during a grid outage.  I'm ready to go with a hefty subpanel for those loads with a proper interlock for utility vs inverter, which is powered from a large battery bank.  That's all taken care of and working.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the solar panels feed into another subpanel, with another interlock.  This one interlocks &quot;utility&quot; and &quot;???? potential future thing here&quot;, so that when I throw that panel over, the solar panels are positively disconnected from the grid and attached to &quot;????&quot;. The battery charger for the large battery banks is also in this subpanel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to set the stage as best I can. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the $10,000 question.  **Is there any tech available that will allow me to get these &quot;microinverter&quot; panels to come up, despite the grid being absent, and generate 120 VAC (since that's what they do), so I can use them to top up the battery?** &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26401" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10493" RevisionGUID="2303dcaa-372f-497f-ae92-900373c1b8d2" CreationDate="2021-01-30T00:23:34.883" UserId="3379" Comment="Links, minor formatting" Text="Any way for microinverter PV array to power a house when the grid is down?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26402" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10493" RevisionGUID="2303dcaa-372f-497f-ae92-900373c1b8d2" CreationDate="2021-01-30T00:23:34.883" UserId="3379" Comment="Links, minor formatting" Text="|solar-power|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26403" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10503" RevisionGUID="c6385995-2b41-4f83-8a5b-8aeb6e8a9b3f" CreationDate="2021-01-30T04:39:15.613" UserId="3379" Text="**tl;dr: Because of how the grid and your inverters work, it's unlikely that there is a solution for your current system. You will need to set up an ac-coupled system with a centralized battery charger, inverter, and grid disconnect. This will probably require you to replace your microinverters.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Existing system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like your (hypothetical?) system currently looks like this (dashed lines for ac, solid for dc): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Existing system][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are you imagining that &quot;????&quot; is some sort of device that would provide an AC signal to &quot;fool&quot; the inverters into thinking they're seeing an ac signal?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The problem -- you have grid-tied (or grid-following) inverters&#xD;&#xA;The inverters you have are **grid-tied inverters.** Not only are they required by UL 1741 to stop supplying power when the grid signal disappears, they are technically unable to do otherwise. Consider that you have multiple string inverters. When there's an outage, they wouldn't all detect this simultaneously -- so at least one should continue producing 60 Hz -- in theory, this should be enough to provide a 60 Hz signal for the rest. So why doesn't it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grid provides a &quot;stiff&quot; signal. Short of substations, power plants, or large industrial facilities going offline, load and supply changes will not move the frequency by much. This is fundamental to the [droop control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droop_speed_control) algorithm that governs the grid. A large or fast shift in the frequency indicates that an outage is imminent, because the grid is moving outside of the range under which droop control can manage loads and sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grid-tie inverters use [phase-locked loop (PLL) control](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/73476.pdf) to match the frequency and phase of  their output signal to what they detect on the grid. Normally, the grid-tied inverters are following the grid signal, but they're also causing changes of their own. With the grid present, these changes are barely perceptible (ripples in an ocean). But if the grid is absent, the changes that each inverter implements will have a greater effect (ripples in a teacup), causing cascading fluctuations which feed back to the input of each inverter. If this frequency is changing too fast, the PLL will become unstable and the inverter will shut down. The UL 1741 limits* are programmed into the inverters before they reach this technical limit, but either way, if the input ac signal starts fluctuating too quickly, the inverters will shut down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There are two potential solutions to this problem, but either one will may require new microinverters.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Solution one: off-grid inverters with communication&#xD;&#xA;Off-grid inverters, that you'd use for a camper, boat, or remote cabin, develop and sustain their own 60 Hz signal. There's a chance you could install a single off-grid inverter in your system (perhaps at the ???? location, drawing off the battery bank), and the grid-tied inverters would be fooled into following it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are two potential issues:&#xD;&#xA;1. **The signal probably won't be &quot;stiff&quot; enough.** Standard off-grid inverters aren't designed to work in tandem with grid-tied inverters, so the signal they provide is unlikely to be stiff enough to &quot;fool&quot; them. &#xD;&#xA;2. **Grid-tied inverters are current sources and could cause runaway voltage without sufficient load.** Standard grid-tied inverters are designed to push a steady current out by raising their output voltage. When connected to the grid, there's a huge sink for this current, so they don't have to raise the voltage much at all. But in an off-grid situation, if they &quot;run out&quot; of load -- the batteries are charged and no one is around using any power -- they might increase the voltage until something breaks, or a safety mechanism kicks in and shuts it off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way around these problems is with a communication interface between inverters. In your case, that would probably mean replacing all of your microinverters, since the communication protocol is not yet standardized and tends to be proprietary (and microinverters are unlikely to have any sort of communication interface).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Sunny Island inverter](https://www.sma-america.com/products/battery-inverters/sunny-island-4548-us-6048-us.html) from SMA is an example of an off-grid inverter that can do this with other SMA inverters. You can see the communication interface in the diagram below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![SMA Sunny Island example configuration][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Solution two: an ac-coupled system with a grid-forming inverter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to re-wire your system as an ac-coupled system, which centralizes the inverter, charger, and grid disconnect, eliminating the need for a communication interface:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ac-coupled system][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, you would utilize a battery inverter/charger that is designed specifically for this application. ([Schneider electric](https://solar.schneider-electric.com/product/hybrid-solar-inverter/) and [Outback Power](https://www.outbackpower.com/products/inverter-chargers/radian-series) are the first two I found where I could easily confirm they work in this fashion, but there are probably many others.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this solution, the inverter/charger can draw from the grid, the batteries, or the solar array, and supply power to the loads, or back to the grid. When the UL 1741 limits kick in, it disconnects from the grid, but continues drawing power from the PV array or the batteries to supply load. It is designed to produce an ac signal sufficient to operate grid-tied inverters, as long as they're rated to operate in an ac-coupled system (meaning their voltage output is limited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some inverter/chargers can handle the grid disconnect/reconnect seamlessly, and essentially constitute a microgrid -- with others, there may be a slight delay before they continue supplying loads, and are more like hybrid solar/backup power systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some microinverters (like [Enphase](https://enphase.com/en-us/support/technical-brief-ac-coupling-enphase-microinverters-battery-based-systems)) are specifically rated for ac-coupled systems, but may still require some communication hardware to make this work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### *Further reading*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some resources I found helpful when pulling all of this together:&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;AC COUPLING; adding backup to your grid-tie solar power system&quot;](https://www.altestore.com/store/info/ac-coupling/) on altE store&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;AC Coupling of Inverters for Grid Tied PV Systems&quot;](http://solar.schneider-electric.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Conext-XW-AC-Coupling-Application-Note_Rev-B.pdf), a Schneider Electric application note&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Research Roadmap on Grid-Forming Inverters&quot;](https://doi.org/10.2172/1721727), from the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;*I don't have UL1741 handy, but IEEE 1547-2018 mirrors it, and gives these ranges as default settings -- there are situations where an inverter can stay connected outside of these ranges, depending on utility interconnect agreements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;|Frequency (Hz)|Clearing time (s)|&#xD;&#xA;|-|-|&#xD;&#xA;|62.0|0.16|&#xD;&#xA;|61.2|300.0|&#xD;&#xA;|58.5|300.0|&#xD;&#xA;|56.5|0.16|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZEIhu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fdsA9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/djrFS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26404" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10189" RevisionGUID="9ef4fe26-5c4e-4e92-878d-28e6556529fd" CreationDate="2021-01-30T12:00:08.603" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1355485949115961346" />
  <row Id="26405" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9991" RevisionGUID="93451ff4-5346-4434-89c2-9d6623708e0d" CreationDate="2021-01-30T14:07:35.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26407" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10504" RevisionGUID="ea4a2bda-0b25-4941-adb3-fe68ffd90b44" CreationDate="2021-01-30T18:20:59.950" UserId="9332" Text="In my understanding the supply side of the carbon credit market involves a wide range of different methods to sequester or otherwise prevent carbon from entering the atmosphere (renewable energy, fuel change etc.).  Approximately what percentage of these credits in the market represent by reforestation/conservation projects?  Combined compliance and voluntary credit markets would be ideal!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I expected this to be a relatively easy metric to find but have not been able to turn anything up in a few hours of searching.  Hoping it is an institutional knowledge type thing, thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10504" RevisionGUID="ea4a2bda-0b25-4941-adb3-fe68ffd90b44" CreationDate="2021-01-30T18:20:59.950" UserId="9332" Text="What portion of the carbon credit market goes to reforestation/forest conservation projects?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10504" RevisionGUID="ea4a2bda-0b25-4941-adb3-fe68ffd90b44" CreationDate="2021-01-30T18:20:59.950" UserId="9332" Text="|carbon-sequestration|forestry|carbon-offsetting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26410" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8461" RevisionGUID="de13fa50-9fdd-4ce0-a256-1472130ca73d" CreationDate="2021-01-31T12:00:01.577" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1355848307495604224" />
  <row Id="26411" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10490" RevisionGUID="01e7578c-a5c6-4e5b-97e3-525095421da0" CreationDate="2021-01-31T15:00:03.213" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1355893612865867778" />
  <row Id="26412" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9862" RevisionGUID="433d890b-51f1-4d3d-ba05-3941e085c36f" CreationDate="2021-02-01T09:00:05.600" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1356165413726527488" />
  <row Id="26413" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="8465" RevisionGUID="9aea750b-8029-4454-b5b1-e6ff10d8b865" CreationDate="2021-02-02T06:00:07.210" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1356482509903642624" />
  <row Id="26414" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10493" RevisionGUID="97f59620-7062-485f-a7ba-f42965e01e22" CreationDate="2021-02-02T15:20:22.803" UserId="3379" Comment="added 221 characters in body; edited title" Text="Suppose I'm already heavily invested in [microinverter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_micro-inverter) type solar panels -- with the inverter on the panel on the roof.  These comply with [UL 1741](https://standardscatalog.ul.com/ProductDetail.aspx?productId=UL1741) and will stop supplying power the moment they see grid power disappear (referred to as [anti-islanding](https://www.siliconsolar.com/what-is-anti-islanding-protection/) protection). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I now realize I want my house to have limited &quot;off-grid&quot; capabilities -- I want to use my PV array to charge a battery during a grid outage.  I'm ready to go with a hefty subpanel for those loads with a proper interlock for utility vs inverter, which is powered from a large battery bank.  That's all taken care of and working.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, the solar panels feed into another subpanel, with another interlock.  This one interlocks &quot;utility&quot; and &quot;???? potential future thing here&quot;, so that when I throw that panel over, the solar panels are positively disconnected from the grid and attached to &quot;????&quot;. The battery charger for the large battery banks is also in this subpanel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've tried to set the stage as best I can. I can throw a switch to disconnect my system from the utility, and connect &quot;????&quot; to my inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the $10,000 question.  **Is there any tech available that will allow me to get these &quot;microinverter&quot; panels to come up, despite the grid being absent, and generate 120 VAC (since that's what they do), so I can use them to charge the battery and power my house?** &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26415" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10493" RevisionGUID="97f59620-7062-485f-a7ba-f42965e01e22" CreationDate="2021-02-02T15:20:22.803" UserId="3379" Comment="added 221 characters in body; edited title" Text="Any way for solar PV array to power a house when the grid is down?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26416" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10503" RevisionGUID="58a28561-81c0-408f-b194-13c543163ccb" CreationDate="2021-02-02T15:41:29.460" UserId="3379" Comment="added 465 characters in body" Text="**tl;dr: Because of how the grid and your inverters work, it's unlikely that there is a solution for your current system. You will either need to set up a communication network with your microinverters and another device, or you will need to set up an ac-coupled system with a centralized battery charger, inverter, and grid disconnect. This will probably require you to replace your microinverters.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Existing system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like your (hypothetical?) system currently looks like this (dashed lines for ac, solid for dc): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Existing system][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather you're imagining that &quot;????&quot; is some sort of device that would provide an AC signal to &quot;fool&quot; the inverters into thinking they're seeing an ac signal, so they could generate power even with the actual grid signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The problem -- you have grid-tied (or grid-following) inverters&#xD;&#xA;Not only are your inverters required by UL 1741 to stop supplying power when the grid signal disappears, they are technically unable to do otherwise. When there's an outage, they wouldn't all detect this simultaneously -- so at least one should continue producing 60 Hz -- in theory, this should be enough to provide a 60 Hz signal for the rest. So why doesn't it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grid provides a &quot;stiff&quot; signal. Short of substations, power plants, or large industrial facilities going offline, load and supply changes will not move the frequency by much. This is fundamental to the [droop control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droop_speed_control) algorithm that governs the grid. A large or fast shift in the frequency indicates that an outage is imminent, because the grid is moving outside of the range under which droop control can balances loads and sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Grid-tie inverters use [phase-locked loop (PLL) control](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/73476.pdf) to match the frequency and phase of their output signal to what they detect on the grid. In doing this they also affect the grid, but these changes are barely perceptible (ripples in an ocean). But if the grid is absent, the changes that each inverter implements would have a greater effect (ripples in a teacup), causing cascading fluctuations on the inverter network, which feeds back to the input of each inverter. As the changes amplify, the PLL will become unstable and the inverter will shut down. The UL 1741 limits* are programmed to shut the inverters down before they reach this technical limit, but either way, if the input ac signal starts fluctuating too quickly, the inverters will shut down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There are two potential solutions to this problem, but either one may require new microinverters.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Solution one: off-grid inverters with communication&#xD;&#xA;Off-grid inverters (that you'd use for a camper, boat, or remote cabin) develop and sustain their own 60 Hz signal. There's a chance you could install a single off-grid inverter in your system (perhaps at the ???? location, drawing off the battery bank), and the grid-tied inverters would be fooled into following it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are two potential issues:&#xD;&#xA;1. **The signal probably won't be &quot;stiff&quot; enough.** Standard off-grid inverters aren't designed to work in tandem with grid-tied inverters, so the signal they provide is unlikely to be stiff enough to &quot;fool&quot; them. &#xD;&#xA;2. **Grid-tied inverters are current sources and could cause runaway voltage without sufficient load.** Standard grid-tied inverters are designed to push a steady current out by raising their output voltage. When connected to the grid, there's a huge sink for this current to go to, so they don't have to raise the voltage much at all. But in an off-grid situation, if they run out of load (batteries are charged and nothing is using power), they might increase the voltage until something breaks. For many inverters, anti-islanding protection is the only way to prevent this -- they can't be online without the grid as a sink, so this problem won't occur. Others will stop producing all power if the voltage goes too high (as a backup to anti-islanding protection), while others have the ability to limit the output voltage and continue producing (less) power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way around these problems is with a communication interface between inverters. You would need to check the specification of your microinverters to see if they support this, and what other products they could work with. Unfortunately, these systems are not yet standardized, so you may have trouble finding something that works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Sunny Island inverter](https://www.sma-america.com/products/battery-inverters/sunny-island-4548-us-6048-us.html) from SMA is an example of an off-grid inverter that can do this with other SMA inverters. You can see the communication interface in the diagram below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![SMA Sunny Island example configuration][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Solution two: an ac-coupled system with a grid-forming inverter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to re-wire your system as an ac-coupled system, which centralizes the inverter, charger, and grid disconnect, eliminating the need for a communication interface:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ac-coupled system][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, you would utilize a battery inverter/charger that is designed specifically for this application. ([Schneider electric](https://solar.schneider-electric.com/product/hybrid-solar-inverter/) and [Outback Power](https://www.outbackpower.com/products/inverter-chargers/radian-series) are the first two I found where I could easily confirm they work in this fashion, but there are probably many others.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These inverters are called **grid forming** because they create a stiff enough signal to provide support for grid following inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this solution, the inverter/charger can draw from the grid, the batteries, or the solar array, and supply power to the loads, or back to the grid. When the UL 1741 limits kick in, it disconnects from the grid, but continues drawing power from the PV array or the batteries to supply load. It is designed to produce an ac signal sufficient to operate grid-tied inverters, *as long as they're rated to operate in an ac-coupled system* (meaning their voltage output is limited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some inverter/chargers can handle the grid disconnect/reconnect seamlessly, and essentially constitute a microgrid -- with others, there may be a slight delay before they continue supplying loads, and are more like hybrid solar/backup power systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some microinverters (like [Enphase](https://enphase.com/en-us/support/technical-brief-ac-coupling-enphase-microinverters-battery-based-systems)) are specifically rated for ac-coupled systems, but may still require some communication hardware to make this work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### *Further reading*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some resources I found helpful when pulling all of this together:&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;AC COUPLING; adding backup to your grid-tie solar power system&quot;](https://www.altestore.com/store/info/ac-coupling/) on altE store&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;AC Coupling of Inverters for Grid Tied PV Systems&quot;](http://solar.schneider-electric.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Conext-XW-AC-Coupling-Application-Note_Rev-B.pdf), a Schneider Electric application note&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Research Roadmap on Grid-Forming Inverters&quot;](https://doi.org/10.2172/1721727), from the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;*I don't have UL1741 handy, but the limits are defined in IEEE 1547-2018 These ranges are default settings -- there are situations where an inverter can stay connected outside of these ranges, depending on utility interconnect agreements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;|Frequency (Hz)|Clearing time (s)|&#xD;&#xA;|-|-|&#xD;&#xA;|62.0|0.16|&#xD;&#xA;|61.2|300.0|&#xD;&#xA;|58.5|300.0|&#xD;&#xA;|56.5|0.16|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZEIhu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fdsA9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/djrFS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26420" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10505" RevisionGUID="2378d259-c3dd-4abf-a8cb-6f4431a9cded" CreationDate="2021-02-03T18:48:13.293" UserId="3379" Text="# In the United States&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Many cities in the U.S. state of California&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Sierra Club has a [list of 42 cities in California](https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2021/01/californias-cities-lead-way-gas-free-future) that have implemented some form of ban on natural gas in new construction. The list includes a brief snippet about the specifics of the rules, and links to the relevant legislation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They provide this chart showing the impact of these mandates across the state's population:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![CA population with zero emission building code][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a few examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 25. San Francisco recently expanded on their building electrification ordinance, now requiring that all new construction be all electric starting June 1st 2021&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 19) Saratoga- Requires all newly constructed buildings to be all-electric.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. San Jose- San Jose passed a natural gas prohibition for all new building types, with limited temporary exemptions, becoming the largest city in the nation to do so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Other U.S. cities&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Denver, Colorado (as mentioned in the question)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In January, 2021 the Denver Office of Climate Action, Sustainability, and Resiliency released [Denver’s Net Zero Energy (NZE) New Buildings &amp; Homes Implementation Plan](https://denvergov.org/files/assets/public/climate-action/documents/denver-nze-implementation-plan_final_v1.pdf). From [the press release](https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Departments/Climate-Action-Sustainability-Resiliency/News-Events/News/2021/Denver-Releases-Net-Zero-Energy-New-Buildings-and-Homes-Implementation-Plan) that accompanied the plan:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The 2024 Building Code will require net zero energy, all-electric new homes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The 2027 Building Code will require net zero energy, all-electric new buildings.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - The 2030 Building Code will require new buildings perform as designed (performance verification).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Seattle, Washington&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In February, 2021, the Seattle City Council approved an update to the energy code that will limit how natural gas can be used in new buildings and when retrofitting existing buildings. From [The Seattle Times](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-city-council-passes-measure-to-end-most-natural-gas-use-in-commercial-buildings-and-some-apartments/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Seattle City Council on Monday unanimously approved changes to energy codes that will further clamp down on natural gas use in new commercial and apartment buildings taller than three stories.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ordinance bans natural gas for space heating in new construction of these buildings, or for use in replacement heating systems in older buildings. It also would prohibit the use of natural gas to heat water in new hotels and large apartment buildings, and take other steps to improve energy conservation that include a greater use of more efficient electric heating and cooling systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4nhJ7.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26421" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="10505" RevisionGUID="f0097e3b-5705-4951-aa36-201aacfd804e" CreationDate="2021-02-03T18:48:13.293" UserId="3379" />
  <row Id="26422" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="5781" RevisionGUID="4e98b9b9-a737-4fcf-af1c-2ce3d7c2fa44" CreationDate="2021-02-04T12:00:08.540" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1357297888162889729" />
  <row Id="26424" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10506" RevisionGUID="520a66bc-6925-450e-98d1-66bb3d976915" CreationDate="2021-02-04T16:34:53.240" UserId="8264" Text="I have heard testimonies of people with various health conditions in which the ingestion of certain botanical supplements improved their health. Then I see the plastic bottle the supplements came in, and the high price tag, and I question how sustainable the production of such supplements is. Wide, affordable access to safe, beneficial botanical supplements seems like a good goal - but can it be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10506" RevisionGUID="520a66bc-6925-450e-98d1-66bb3d976915" CreationDate="2021-02-04T16:34:53.240" UserId="8264" Text="Can the production of herbal supplements (pills) be sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10506" RevisionGUID="520a66bc-6925-450e-98d1-66bb3d976915" CreationDate="2021-02-04T16:34:53.240" UserId="8264" Text="|manufacturing|industrial-production|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10507" RevisionGUID="62ed434d-2b79-4ed4-ba20-3e07423a0590" CreationDate="2021-02-04T17:25:37.593" UserId="3379" Text="I'm not sure if this report was available at the time I asked the question, but in the process of approving the rule change, the Environmental Protection Agency prepared a [regulatory impact analysis (pdf)](https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/final_safe_fria_web_version_200701.pdf) that includes this estimate (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Today’s final standards are projected to **increase CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions compared to the previously issued standards, by a total of 867 million metric tons** (MMT) over the lifetime of MY 1977 through MY 2029 vehicles [...] —i.e., by 2.9% of the amount projected to be attributable to passenger cars and light trucks under the baseline/augural standards.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Of this CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions increase, 731 MMT would come from tailpipe emissions, and an additional 136 MMT from upstream sources, both being nearly 3% greater than projected to occur under the baseline/augural standards. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This table provides an estimated impact by model year:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Cumulative changes in fuel consumption][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While the rule itself only covers five years (2021 to 2026), other model years (MY) are included for a few reasons:&#xD;&#xA; - Changes in new vehicle technology affect the resale value of older cars (MY 1977 to 2016). In this case, it is assumed that a lower efficiency standard means new cars are cheaper, increasing the rate at which old cars are taken off the road (scrapped), thereby reducing emissions for those model years.&#xD;&#xA; - Vehicle technology changes are anticipated to persist for up to three years, meaning that changes implemented for MY 2026 will also affect MYs 2027 through 2029.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7zhVj.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10508" RevisionGUID="e97dace2-c34f-4fd0-a6d5-c2bdeaa3edc7" CreationDate="2021-02-05T01:25:49.743" UserId="2727" Text="They definitely can be sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The crops themselves can easily be grown in a sustainable manner.&#xD;&#xA; 1. The plastic containers can be replaced with *biodegradable* containers, such as those made with corn.&#xD;&#xA; 1. Regarding price, that comes down to supply and demand as well as any governmental subsidies or regulation.  It also depends on how much (if any) profit the suppliers/growers of the herbal supplements want to make.  &#xD;&#xA;  Overall, growing most herbs is incredibly inexpensive, and many even grow naturally some areas.  Harvesting, cleaning (sometimes optional, depending on the soil and water source), packaging, and shipping the herbs all involve labor/expenses, but those are typically no more than most food sources.  Compared to other plant products like melons, the cost of shipping herbal supplements is minuscule.  Some botanical supplements are *processed* after they are harvested, and that can involve additional labor/machinery/expenses.  &#xD;&#xA;Overall, though, for most truly herbal supplements, all these costs are no more than any other edible plant product.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What often does make herbal supplements more expensive than other edible plant products (such as fruits and vegetables) is that they are sold in much lower quantities, which is inefficient when you consider the economy of scale.  There is also the big factor of huge markups by many herbal product manufacturers and distributors.  Finally, many governments spend large amounts of money subsidizing fruit and vegetable farmers/producers (and sometimes lumber producers and meat suppliers), but not farmers who grow botanical crops for herbal supplements." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26429" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10504" RevisionGUID="76bb8099-f890-499a-b560-c76ac53b8d63" CreationDate="2021-02-05T09:00:03.513" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1357614956699615232" />
  <row Id="26433" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10510" RevisionGUID="ce6de8a2-531e-451c-b6be-9c8305c9bb2c" CreationDate="2021-02-06T09:07:20.723" UserId="1921" Text="I reached out to a manufacturer of swimming pool heat pumps, and it turns out that they go up to 40C or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems that the difference is the maximum temperature they can reach, and presumably this influences the cost of the materials used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26434" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10502" RevisionGUID="f425b679-212d-4b7f-b76f-d6552e163a62" CreationDate="2021-02-06T09:17:17.687" UserId="1921" Comment="added search links" Text="I noticed that heat pumps for swimming pools are a lot cheaper than equivalent heat pumps for home use. What could be the reasons for this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To give an idea, a [16kW monoblock heat pump based on R32](https://www.google.com/search?q=LG+Therma+V+R32+16KW+Monobloc+Heat+Pump) (can heat to 60C in -15C/+40C) for home heating currently costs about 5000 EUR online (8k-15k if you get it from an installer, without installation). An [equivalent swimming pool pump](https://www.google.com/search?q=R32+16KW+swimming+pool+Heat+Pump) can go for 2500 EUR.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the difference?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26435" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10510" RevisionGUID="eaeae574-08ef-4c05-ae1d-ecd87a81e2c8" CreationDate="2021-02-06T09:20:28.703" UserId="1921" Comment="added 171 characters in body" Text="I reached out to a manufacturer of swimming pool heat pumps, and it turns out that they go up to 40C or so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it seems that the difference is the maximum temperature they can reach, and presumably this influences the cost of the materials used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They might also forego cooling, eliminating a component.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is reflected in the weight: one generic poolside heatpump weighs 49kg, an LG Therma unit weighs 150kg." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10511" RevisionGUID="2f338ac5-4610-4422-aa7c-b13b1516dd07" CreationDate="2021-02-07T19:01:42.130" UserId="400" Text="There are a few factors here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Temperature range.  Domestic heating water  ranges from about 90 F (35 C) to 140 F (60C)  The latter is used in radiators and fan coil heat exchangers, the former used in in-floor heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Swimming pools are heated to only to mid 80 F.  Depending on how much water you move, you need water only a few degrees to maybe 15 C warmer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most of the time swimming pools are used only in reasonable weather.  The costs to heat an outdoor pool in mid winter is prohibitive. So the heat pump isn't working with a large temperature differential.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A house heat pump has to work in mid winter.  This requires different engineering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a swimming pool heater breaks down, it's an inconvenience.  A swimming pool takes days to weeks to cool, depending mostly on evaporation.  A home pool owner can decide that he can wait to fix it in a few weeks, or next spring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A home heating system breaking down is a &quot;We need to fix this RIGHT NOW&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most home systems are reversible.  They can be used as cooling systems during the hot part of the year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26437" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10512" RevisionGUID="4d87af09-1fff-4456-9b61-2717eb2a6be9" CreationDate="2021-02-07T19:19:50.710" UserId="400" Text="As stated, Pie in the Sky.  Pipe Dreams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Vehicle use can be severely restricted -- certain hours.&#xD;&#xA;* Almost all shops will require periodic delivery access for supplies.  E.g. A bakery needs flour, sugar.  A grocer needs food.  A Walmart needs all sorts of things.&#xD;&#xA;* Heavy industry is banished to the edge of the city.&#xD;&#xA;* Zoning laws permit a mix of residence and retail.&#xD;&#xA;* Much of the access to residential areas can be on 'grassed breeze block' drives.  These are 4&quot; x 12&quot; x 12&quot; blocks that have holes in them.  The holes are filled with soil, and sown with grass.  I've seen these used in parks for creating vehicle access where it's on the order of a few vehicles per month.  People moving in.  Heavy deliveries. Also, police, fire and utility vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;* Such a city would have 2-4 block walks to access to transit lines.  You still end up with a road system, but it's 1/4 to 1/16 as dense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Things working against this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's a lot harder to implement in cold climates.  Much of this depends on being able to easily walk/bike/skateboard to transit/school/shops.&#xD;&#xA;* Current zoning patterns with large distances between residential and commercial areas.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10513" RevisionGUID="10de080e-1a7f-4926-b546-39b423ba143b" CreationDate="2021-02-07T21:40:41.817" UserId="400" Text="Hmm.  Going after your intent, I'm going to lump all fossil fuel into this, and include coal and natural gas too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm going to also assume that while the chemical engineers can turn almost any organic into any other organic for a price, we will consider that you really mean, &quot;without breaking the bank&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Asphalt.  Used in huge quantities, and the only real alternative to it is concrete, which is even more expensive.  Asphalt, however is quite reusable, and increasingly you see them chip off 2 inches of road surface, then they reheat it mix in a small amount of rock and more asphalt, and re-lay it down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Roofing tar.  Not used in the same quanities, but not using a hot sealed roof would essentially require building a sloped roof on top of the roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Asphalt shingles.  This does have an alternative -- fiberglass and various plastic shingles, and metal roofing.  Metal roofing is a reasonable alternative.  More expensive for the material, but it goes on fast.  But building codes in many cities don't differentiate between the old galvanized 'rusty tin roof' and the powder coated easter egg colours of modern galvalum, or the textured metal shingles (not cheap) that are available now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Tires&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Plastics.  There are degradable plastics coming out now (good thing) mostly made from corn starch, with all the sustainable issues of corn production. For one shot use this is a good idea.  Lots of plastic however is longer term and you need materials that won't be eaten by your local neighbourhood bacteria or fungus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Fertilizer.  This one boils down to energy.  Most nitrogen fertilizer starts as ammonia which in turn is made from natural gas.  There are other processes for making ammonia, but they are more expensive.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many of the things that use methane, (primary component of natural gas) use is as a source for hydrogen.  All of these could use electrolytically split water for their hydrogen.  Right now electricty is too expensive to use this way, but it may be a reasonable way to use surplus renewable electricity.  One advantage of electrolysis is that it's easy to turn on and off, unlike many chemical processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Metallurgical coal.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10514" RevisionGUID="789b6e33-9172-443c-8465-04ff80c1656d" CreationDate="2021-02-07T21:54:07.330" UserId="400" Text="A back of the envelope approach to this is to ask how many people can a permaculture farmer feed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And the answer is, &quot;Not many&quot;  While permaculture can get outstanding efficiency in terms of calories per acre, it's abysmal at calories per man-year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:  A Saskatchewan farmer typically can farm 16 **sections** (about 10 thousand acres) of land by himself.  At 40 bushels per acre that's 400,000 bushels of wheat.  Double that for barley, more yet for oats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ok.  Not by himself.  He's got a couple million dollars worth of equipment to help him.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Permaculture by it's nature uses the synergy that plants creating mutually supporting systems.  This doesn't mechanize well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two approaches that are complementary:  One is espoused by Shepherd in &quot;Restoration Agriculture&quot; where he mixes tree crops and annuals in rows.  Having long rows allows a large amount of mechanization. This does not use the full guild system of permaculture, but it's a lot more manageable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second approach is to use time:  Longer crop rotations.  6, 8 year long crop rotations with several years in pasture to renew the soil.  Shorter and more diverse livestock rotations.  E.g. Cow-calf grazing for 2 weeks then steer grazing for 2 weeks.  Then sheep, goats or pigs, then chickens or turkeys.  (Shepherd is not clear on what to do about coyotes who want lambchops or short ribs for lunch)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26440" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10502" RevisionGUID="41d0395a-4b80-41fd-b58d-b402893c3b56" CreationDate="2021-02-08T12:00:08.380" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1358747438945812484" />
  <row Id="26441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10506" RevisionGUID="3236541a-29c3-4057-b7f5-2736adf427d8" CreationDate="2021-02-08T14:15:19.723" UserId="8264" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="I have heard testimonies of people with various health conditions in which the ingestion of certain botanical supplements improved their health. Then I see the plastic bottle the supplements came in, and the high price tag, and I question how sustainable the production of such supplements is. Wide, affordable access to safe, beneficial botanical supplements seems like a good goal - but can it be accomplished?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26444" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6217" RevisionGUID="2601560e-98f2-4257-be6d-a2fe9f151d54" CreationDate="2021-02-09T07:02:45.363" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10515" RevisionGUID="fdc5d09a-1e7f-442b-9825-478cca6b04ba" CreationDate="2021-02-09T14:32:20.810" UserId="3653" Text="In Europe a tool from the Joint Research Center of the European Commission is also available:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/tools.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tool takes into account location, placement, horizon (if you upload a CSV file with the profile of the horizon in your installation location, to take into account shadows), efficiency of the solar panels and so on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26447" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10516" RevisionGUID="1e783ee8-8d9c-4215-bdc0-610cdc6e0c3f" CreationDate="2021-02-09T15:43:12.643" UserId="3379" Text="[This answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/10513/3379) to another question points out that asphalt, a petroleum product, is used in large quantities. If we as a society want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we will need to find an alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main alternative which comes to mind is cement. However, in 2016, [cement production was responsible for 3% of global CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#direct-industrial-processes-5-2).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When choosing between a carbon emitter and a petroleum product, it seems like it would be very important to have all the facts. **Is there an LCA comparing the two?** Long-term, what product should we be using to construct our roads?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some related questions:&#xD;&#xA; - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4269/most-promising-decarbonisation-routes-for-clinker-cement-and-concrete&#xD;&#xA; - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6673/can-asphalt-and-concrete-be-recycled-at-long-term&#xD;&#xA; - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4948/concrete-vs-asphalt-which-is-better-in-terms-of-sustainability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last question addresses different applications of the products, and which may be appropriate depending on requirements. In this case, I'm interested in comparing them in cases where either product would be generally suitable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QYHx2l.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26448" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10516" RevisionGUID="1e783ee8-8d9c-4215-bdc0-610cdc6e0c3f" CreationDate="2021-02-09T15:43:12.643" UserId="3379" Text="LCA comparison of asphalt and cement for road construction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26449" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10516" RevisionGUID="1e783ee8-8d9c-4215-bdc0-610cdc6e0c3f" CreationDate="2021-02-09T15:43:12.643" UserId="3379" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|construction|cement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26450" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4269" RevisionGUID="004cc139-68a9-4fa8-866d-98fd8cdaa80c" CreationDate="2021-02-09T15:43:42.473" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|decarbonisation|industrial-production|cement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26451" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6673" RevisionGUID="2a7f55b4-cc9d-4815-8aad-667c79bd532f" CreationDate="2021-02-09T15:43:52.790" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|transport|cement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26452" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="4948" RevisionGUID="922edebd-9ca1-4895-9f52-5955477186e1" CreationDate="2021-02-09T15:44:01.617" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|building-materials|cement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26453" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2676" RevisionGUID="5da90409-8c2f-4f02-87c9-b4b4ae354fc6" CreationDate="2021-02-09T15:46:48.020" UserId="3379" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="I am a believer that industrialization is a root of unsustainable practices. I was pondering on what can be considered as a genuine sustainable living. When I try to understand how can mankind change their ways to be truly sustainable, I feel the ways of living of indigenous peoples can be considered as a showcase of how we have to adapt ourselves to the simple ways of living alongside nature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But again, if such a living was to be practiced throughout the world, will indigenous living materials such as bamboo and wood be sufficient for the construction of houses of such a world? Whereas, concrete is a industrialized material and is the most used material in the world for building houses, mainly due to its availability and cheap price. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So is using concrete more sustainable than building a house say with wood?** Bamboo is an alternate choice which is very sustainable but again bamboo constructions need to be renewed every few years, which is kind of a hassle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26454" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2676" RevisionGUID="5da90409-8c2f-4f02-87c9-b4b4ae354fc6" CreationDate="2021-02-09T15:46:48.020" UserId="3379" Comment="added 12 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|housing|cement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26455" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6731" RevisionGUID="74526886-aa36-4be8-a8ae-ae7c183c6a32" CreationDate="2021-02-09T15:47:33.307" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|home|alternatives|building-materials|construction|cement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26456" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10515" RevisionGUID="21473d56-d970-43c4-800d-e99f9d334268" CreationDate="2021-02-09T16:10:02.133" UserId="3653" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="In Europe a tool from the Joint Research Center of the European Commission is also available:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/tools.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tool takes into account location, placement, horizon (if you upload a CSV file with the profile of the horizon in your installation location, to take into account shadows), efficiency of the solar panels and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tool can also suggest optimal tilt and azimuth for the specified location." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26457" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10445" RevisionGUID="dd1adc94-2f13-42f9-bab9-e7f85897d63c" CreationDate="2021-02-10T08:00:25.070" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26458" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10516" RevisionGUID="855c579d-a7e4-440e-b1a7-62474bf08db4" CreationDate="2021-02-10T15:32:05.390" UserId="3379" Comment="edited title" Text="Asphalt (petroleum product) vs cement (carbon emitter) -- how to choose?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26459" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10506" RevisionGUID="52c6ea85-8c02-45f3-a6cc-4425e6d892b4" CreationDate="2021-02-10T18:00:01.533" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1359562782933475329" />
  <row Id="26460" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10517" RevisionGUID="c1f6e753-5a21-45ff-9c41-601309933f4b" CreationDate="2021-02-11T02:32:01.597" UserId="8448" Text="For context:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sweden is said to have the highest carbon price in the world at €110/ton ([source][1]). This price only applies to emissions not covered by the EU ETS (about half) which currently trades at an all-time high of €38/ton ([source][2]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The implicit CO2 tax on petrol in the EU is €140-300 ([source][3]). Yet at the same time the share of SUVs in the EU is actually increasing ([source][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there studies that evaluate which CO2 price would actually lead to significant changes in consumption patterns?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/blogs/2019/10/18/should-every-country-on-earth-copy-swedens-carbon-tax#:~:text=The%20Swedish%20carbon%20tax%20is,per%20tonne%20fossil%20CO2%20emitted&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ember-climate.org/data/carbon-price-viewer/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/179309/1/wp_2018_555.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://europe.autonews.com/sales-segment/suvs-crossovers-continue-grow-market-share-europe-anes-segment-segment-analysis-shows" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26461" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10517" RevisionGUID="c1f6e753-5a21-45ff-9c41-601309933f4b" CreationDate="2021-02-11T02:32:01.597" UserId="8448" Text="Which CO2 price would make a real difference?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26462" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10517" RevisionGUID="c1f6e753-5a21-45ff-9c41-601309933f4b" CreationDate="2021-02-11T02:32:01.597" UserId="8448" Text="|carbon-footprint|alternatives|consumption|co2|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26463" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10518" RevisionGUID="7d2de3e1-73e7-4021-8d5c-13e756018c0d" CreationDate="2021-02-11T10:16:51.697" UserId="8448" Text="In the [Netherlands][3] gas boilers have been banned in new construction since 2018.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the [UK][1] and [Austria][2] gas boilers will be banned in new construction from 2025.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/13/hammond-says-gas-heating-will-be-replaced-by-low-carbon-systems&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/wirtschaft/oesterreich/2092271-Oel-und-Gas-geht-es-an-den-Kragen.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cobouw.nl/duurzaamheid/nieuws/2019/01/gasloos-bouwen-de-stand-van-zaken-101268653?_ga=2.128980300.1550602377.1613038042-413756803.1613038042" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10519" RevisionGUID="70021635-39b8-4308-bfe4-bc9e3be67aef" CreationDate="2021-02-11T13:25:12.733" UserId="8448" Text="Many countries are looking to phase out fossil fuels for domestic heat and hot water within this decade (see [related question][1]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which alternative energy sources will _primarily_ replace fossil fuels? Options include on-site sources (e.g. pellets, or solar panels with heat pump/geothermal) and off-site sources (e.g. pellets with district heat, or grid electricity with heat pump/geothermal). Are there indications which of these will become the dominant energy sources?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10501/which-countries-regions-or-cities-have-banned-natural-gas-in-new-construction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26465" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10519" RevisionGUID="70021635-39b8-4308-bfe4-bc9e3be67aef" CreationDate="2021-02-11T13:25:12.733" UserId="8448" Text="Which energy sources will replace fossil fuels for heating homes in cold climates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26466" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10519" RevisionGUID="70021635-39b8-4308-bfe4-bc9e3be67aef" CreationDate="2021-02-11T13:25:12.733" UserId="8448" Text="|electricity|heating|alternatives|water-heating|fossil-fuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10169" RevisionGUID="88f09cac-dcb7-4381-9fae-0a4ed46dcf74" CreationDate="2021-02-11T14:52:15.213" UserId="251" Comment="narrowed focus of question" Text="So my installation is for a **sail boat**. There's a lot things like rigging sails etc, that can create shadows on part of the array and this is **constantly moving** around. Some panels in the array will **always** be in either total or partial shade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen a lot of debate online regarding mitigating the effect of shadows on the array. It seems pretty clear that wiring in parallel is key, but a lot of people also seem to be adamant that using more mppt controllers also improves overall average output significantly. Some will even go as far as to use a **[controller for every single panel][1]**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However some professionals that I have asked about it think this doesn't make sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to dissolve the mystery and looking for a clear guide on the principles and why, in numbers, do people promote the use of multiple MPPT controllers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iuXKnzjTPI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26468" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10169" RevisionGUID="88f09cac-dcb7-4381-9fae-0a4ed46dcf74" CreationDate="2021-02-11T14:52:15.213" UserId="251" Comment="narrowed focus of question" Text="|solar-power|boat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26470" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10493" RevisionGUID="66761771-3d8f-4f8f-a97c-887f810d5875" CreationDate="2021-02-12T12:00:00.333" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1360196957298393089" />
  <row Id="26471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10520" RevisionGUID="0f187902-be42-4ee1-b869-6f541e0a58d0" CreationDate="2021-02-12T12:16:43.613" UserId="3960" Text="There's an interesting summary of the situation in the UK [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, the most widespread option is likely to be heat pumps, despite some significant disadvantages, such as cost, and that fact that they don't always work well with existing heating infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It may be that hydrogen, generated by renewable power, will also play a significant role - either with pure hydrogen boilers, or hybrid gas/hydrogen. It's supporters claim that it will be able to use the current gas distribution infrastructure, which if true would be a major advantage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood-based heating has fallen out of favour recently, largely due to the fact that it produces dangerous pollutants, and the inability to grow enough wood to meet any large expansion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst district heating may be viable for densely populated urban areas or apartment blocks, there has been very little progress on this front in the UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55948531" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26472" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10169" RevisionGUID="0fa0dbd3-a0d8-4c3a-89bd-0b80ed9f3e03" CreationDate="2021-02-12T15:55:14.667" UserId="3379" Comment="Added details from comments." Text="So my installation is for a **sail boat**. There's a lot things like rigging sails etc, that can create shadows on part of the array and this is **constantly moving** around. Some panels in the array will **always** be in either total or partial shade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen a lot of debate online regarding mitigating the effect of shadows on the array. It seems pretty clear that wiring in parallel is key, but a lot of people also seem to be adamant that using more MPPT controllers also improves overall average output significantly. Some will even go as far as to use a **[controller for every single panel][1]**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However some professionals that I have asked about it think this doesn't make sense. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to dissolve the mystery and looking for a clear guide on the principles and why, in numbers, do people promote the use of multiple MPPT controllers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*From the comments:*&#xD;&#xA; - There are two 120 W panels on the back, where shadows are less of a problem, all on one controller, and I'm adding 8 130 W 110x57 cm flexible panels, where there is always some part in shadow.&#xD;&#xA; - Panels are  re-badged Sunpower semi flexible panels, like [this](https://www.ekonomiksolar.com/esnek-g%C3%BCne%C5%9F-paneli-130-watt-monokristal.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iuXKnzjTPI" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26473" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="3aa5df2d-2f0b-4f4a-91b5-828439f01402" CreationDate="2021-02-12T19:02:20.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26474" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10519" RevisionGUID="45023fa6-7ed7-4ad4-a71c-a8129bd7548b" CreationDate="2021-02-13T00:00:07.630" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1360378181275029509" />
  <row Id="26475" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10521" RevisionGUID="816abe70-9937-424f-bfd3-29b3ad4888b8" CreationDate="2021-02-13T06:04:28.447" UserId="9371" Text="If the &quot;embodied energy&quot; of photo-voltaic tech is&#xD;&#xA;~585KWH/m^2 and it generates ~0.2 KW/m^2 then;&#xD;&#xA;the answer to the question seems to be that the photo-voltaic tech will need to run for:&#xD;&#xA;~(585KWH/m^2)/(0.2KW/m^2) hours&#xD;&#xA;= `3000 hours to generate it's embodied energy;&#xD;&#xA; yes ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10522" RevisionGUID="f69e8a68-eb0d-4985-9821-d3e5787ac1f7" CreationDate="2021-02-13T16:51:41.773" UserId="9372" Text="There seems to be a lot of debate about whether, and how, plastic degrades in a landfill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many different types of plastic, from polypropylene to polystyrene. With this variety, it seems possible that each polymer could have a different behaviour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At any rate, some argue that plastic degrades after several decades, others after hundreds of years, and others still after thousands of years. Whereas, others argue that plastic does not degrade at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there's the argument of &quot;biodegrading&quot; vs &quot;degrading&quot;. While plastic may &quot;break down&quot; in a landfill, does it every completely erode? Or, does it merely break down into micro-plastic and remain in the earth forever? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short: does plastic degrade entirely in a landfill? If so, how does this process work? If not, why?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26477" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10522" RevisionGUID="f69e8a68-eb0d-4985-9821-d3e5787ac1f7" CreationDate="2021-02-13T16:51:41.773" UserId="9372" Text="Does plastic really degrade in a landfill?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26478" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10522" RevisionGUID="f69e8a68-eb0d-4985-9821-d3e5787ac1f7" CreationDate="2021-02-13T16:51:41.773" UserId="9372" Text="|waste|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10521" RevisionGUID="4f921114-b448-4d7c-a16d-6b84b2e09684" CreationDate="2021-02-14T00:50:48.783" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected capitalization of units" Text="If the &quot;embodied energy&quot; of photo-voltaic tech is&#xD;&#xA;~585kWh/m^2 and it generates ~0.2 kW/m^2 then;&#xD;&#xA;the answer to the question seems to be that the photo-voltaic tech will need to run for:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;~(585kWh/m^2)/(0.2kW/m^2) hours&#xD;&#xA;= 2925 hours to generate it's embodied energy;&#xD;&#xA; yes ? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10523" RevisionGUID="61f6fa58-1ca4-459c-bb01-c3f7b344e71f" CreationDate="2021-02-14T18:53:46.750" UserId="400" Text="I would be surprised if it did.  Los Angeles in excavating land fills finds that newspapers &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See this story https://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/13/nyregion/seeking-the-truth-in-refuse.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hot dogs, lettuce, guacamole still appear fresh.  Isolated from air not much happens in a landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10524" RevisionGUID="a1e9bed4-9e37-4354-b130-abb95bfcb64a" CreationDate="2021-02-14T19:08:07.310" UserId="400" Text="A while ago I worked out that a $100/T carbon tax translates to about 6 c /liter (about 25c/gallon)  This probably won't push people to drive much less or to buy smaller cars.  However EV's are increasingly a better deal in terms of TCO, mostly because electricity is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tonne of coal is about 2460 kWh of electricity   So a $100/T carbon tax would increase electricity costs by about 4 cents/kWh, or about 40%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;40% is enough to get people's attention, particularly businesses with high energy products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ideal solution is a tax that increases reasonably rapidly and predictably.  E.g. If $100/T is enough to make small amounts of pain, then increasing this by 10% per year will get lots of people thinking on how to use less energy.  It also establishes a predictable floor price for renewable power, encouraging investment.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26482" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10525" RevisionGUID="8be8743d-5a46-4252-a4f6-6d98b4a00f12" CreationDate="2021-02-15T13:15:12.300" UserId="9374" Text="I spent 2 weeks travelling on my bicycle, and usually I was very hungry.. Since I ate a lot of food, I asked to myself if maybe a train (dividing cost between all passenger) was more green than me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some bibliography or other reference to this topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26483" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10525" RevisionGUID="8be8743d-5a46-4252-a4f6-6d98b4a00f12" CreationDate="2021-02-15T13:15:12.300" UserId="9374" Text="Is human energy efficient?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26484" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10525" RevisionGUID="8be8743d-5a46-4252-a4f6-6d98b4a00f12" CreationDate="2021-02-15T13:15:12.300" UserId="9374" Text="|energy-efficiency|food|human-factors|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10525" RevisionGUID="92658d88-cf53-4834-b9a3-bb97be0c56c0" CreationDate="2021-02-15T15:28:11.823" UserId="9374" Comment="added 182 characters in body" Text="I spent 2 weeks traveling on my bicycle, and usually I was very hungry.. Since I ate a lot of food, I asked to myself if maybe a train (dividing cost between all passenger) was more green than me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine that, as for steam/electric trains, there will be strong dependence upon my diet. Comparison about human energy efficiency probably depends also upon kind of activity done (walk, run, ride a bike) &#xD;&#xA;The matter seems a discouraging one, specially for a non-scientist person like me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some bibliography or other reference to this topic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26486" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10526" RevisionGUID="fd1431ca-7cfd-4d2b-a827-7f9306913f73" CreationDate="2021-02-16T00:59:09.243" UserId="9377" Text="Can't say if such studies exist, doubt that, so as doubt the usefulness of that for certain reasons from an economic point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fundamentally one of the reasons is that it like tax or inflation and there are simpler behavior patterns to be set in motion by that - the same as if there is inflation - people demand a pay rise and all that, raising prices of service to offset expenses and all that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and not sure if there are possible some generalizations as sure there are commonalities but so as specific differences, country local environment-specific. it may affect differently not only different cities but different districts in one city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason is, look there always have been cheap and small cars as an example, but yeah their share stays small as well - those who look for alternatives they do that for a set of different reasons and gas price, not necessarily even top 10 reasons on their list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there would be hard to establish some magic numbers for a variety of reasons Dependency u looking for is hard to establish in a much simpler case of grocery prices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So more important is where existing tax money is spent in? Are they invested in the development of energy-saving solutions etc? Do that money work in finding implementing solutions? is it enough money for the changes? etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at an ideal car - it is 100 percent efficient, very small but combustion engine so it burns gas anyway. And if one has to use the car for personal transportation needs, one has to pay the gas price no matter much it is. And it not possible to improve it further no matter the efforts. if u like to investigate the mass behavior patterns it may be not that bad to start with the USA 1973 1979 oil crises.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then the question is not does the tax changes behavior of individuals, but attractive solutions available to them, do they have to do certain things or don't. people are lazy energy-saving creatures and if one offers better convenience people go for it, one of the reasons small cars share isn't huge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern electric cars offer certain conveniences, in certain cases, but not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it needs to look not for a golden number, but it has to be low enough to not trigger inflation behavior, and the created monetary stream has to be directed where it brings changes, in an efficient way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;work with energy-demanding industries to find solutions, energy-producing devices etc etc. So the effectiveness of carbon tax is limited from the start, it just another straw to a camelback, and it is important what else one does.&#xD;&#xA;And it would be a mistake to think that all the solutions lay in where energy is consumed or produced. Changes in city planning, how the work is done, delivery of goods and services - that may have a greater effect on behavior changes. And remember nuclear energy is carbon-free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10526" RevisionGUID="d6b7bfd8-e414-4421-9017-f75cb1e73f53" CreationDate="2021-02-16T03:51:37.123" UserId="9377" Comment="fix grammar, spelling" Text="Can't say if such studies exist, doubt that, so as doubt the usefulness of that for certain reasons from an economic point of view.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fundamentally one of the reasons is that it like tax or inflation and there are simpler behavior patterns to be set in motion by that - the same as if there is inflation - people demand a pay rise and all that, raising prices of service to offset expenses and all that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and not sure if there are possible some generalizations as sure there are commonalities but so as specific differences, country local environment-specific. it may affect differently not only different cities but different districts in one city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another reason is, look there always have been cheap and small cars as an example, but yeah their share stays small as well - those who look for alternatives they do that for a set of different reasons and gas price, not necessarily even top 10 reasons on their list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So there would be hard to establish some magic numbers for a variety of reasons Dependency u looking for is hard to establish in a much simpler case of grocery prices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So more important is where existing tax money is spent in? Are they invested in the development of energy-saving solutions etc? Do that money work in finding implementing solutions? is it enough money for the changes? etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's look at an ideal car - it is 100 percent efficient, very small but combustion engine so it burns gas anyway. And if one has to use the car for personal transportation needs, one has to pay the gas price no matter how much it is. And it not possible to improve it further no matter the efforts. if u like to investigate the mass behavior patterns it may be not that bad to start with the USA 1973 1979 oil crisis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And then the question is not does the tax changes behavior of individuals, but attractive solutions available to them, do they have to do certain things or don't. people are lazy energy-saving creatures and if one offers better convenience people go for it, one of the reasons small cars share isn't huge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Modern electric cars offer certain conveniences, in certain cases, but not always.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it needs to look not for a golden number, but it has to be low enough to not trigger inflation behavior, and the created monetary stream has to be directed where it brings changes, in an efficient way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;work with energy-demanding industries to find solutions, energy-producing devices etc etc. So the effectiveness of carbon tax is limited from the start, it just another straw to a camelback, and it is important what else one does.&#xD;&#xA;And it would be a mistake to think that all the solutions lay in where energy is consumed or produced. Changes in city planning, how the work is done, delivery of goods and services - that may have a greater effect on behavior changes. And remember nuclear energy is carbon-free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26488" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10527" RevisionGUID="5d3b3339-05a7-4240-bfb7-283bde15bc21" CreationDate="2021-02-16T04:29:05.270" UserId="9377" Text="Human is quite an energy-efficient, kinda.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if I remember correctly - pro bicycle riding on a closed track exercise about 0.5kwatt for about an hour - those are pro guys (there was some video on youtube about that) and not pro guys they will have a hard time being even close to that. if one is just in a good shape it is not enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the electric car spends about 0.125-0.250kwatt hour per km, trains will probably be close to those numbers as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so u may spend 0.01kwatt hour per km or probably less, with a bicycle, and be 10 times more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in general average human power with all inefficiencies and all that is around 0.150kwatt (3000kcal day, hungry adult doing a physical thing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not forget that you are a part of the carbon cycle - food-co2-plants-food - so the energy u use, as a human body, is renewable. There are nuances that food is grown processed and additional energy spend on it, so there is some energy on all that on top of it, some of which is not renewable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there is another angle on the problem - train exists already and riding it you make the train less inefficient. And do we need trains and railroads? - yes, so they won't go away no matter do u use them or not, so using them is also a way to make them making more for the same energy spent aka more efficient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10527" RevisionGUID="d8dd9bd4-b117-42c5-81a6-7b9b2efb3890" CreationDate="2021-02-16T04:44:39.007" UserId="9377" Comment="clarification" Text="Human is quite an energy-efficient, kinda.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if I remember correctly - pro bicycle riding on a closed track exercise about 0.5kwatt for about an hour - those are pro guys (there was some video on youtube about that) and not pro guys they will have a hard time being even close to that. if one is just in a good shape it is not enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;the electric car spends about 0.125-0.250kwatt hour per km, trains will probably be close to those numbers as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;so u may spend 0.01kwatt hour per km or probably less, with a bicycle, and be 10 times more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;in general average human power with all inefficiencies and all that is around 0.150kwatt (3000kcal day, hungry adult doing a physical thing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do not forget that you are a part of the carbon cycle - food-co2-plants-food - so the energy u use, as a human body, is renewable. There are nuances that food is grown processed and additional energy spend on it, so there is some energy on all that on top of it, some of which is not renewable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However there is another angle on the problem - train exists already and riding it you make the train less inefficient. And do we need trains and railroads? - yes, so they won't go away no matter do u use them or not, so using them is also a way to make them making more for the same energy spent aka more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;okay, decided to check myself a little and there is an interesting wiki table: [Energy Efficiency and Consumption of Land Passenger Transport means](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport#Land_Passenger_Transport_means)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So that are cases when train more efficient than walking or bicycle, which is kinda surprising for me, not sure if they mean those &#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here][3] or something which involves less squeezing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zEHHY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OQb2l.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/1vDpZ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26490" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10522" RevisionGUID="6890486d-e45c-42fa-8a25-79bca605360e" CreationDate="2021-02-16T12:00:07.057" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1361646536325742594" />
  <row Id="26491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10528" RevisionGUID="932f7cb6-d819-43c9-9cb4-8533bae40a1e" CreationDate="2021-02-16T15:01:06.077" UserId="3379" Text="Before the invention and commercialization of refrigeration, many homes had an ice box, designed to store a large block of ice to keep perishables cold (from the [National Museum of American History](https://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/ice-harvesting-electric-refrigeration)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Ice box][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ice was harvested in the winter from frozen lakes, and stored in huge piles covered in hay or other insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While today a refrigerator is much more convenient from spring to fall, it occurs to me that with all the snow lying on the ground around my house (up to a meter deep in spots -- I'm in Wisconsin, USA), I could apply the same principle in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there any sort of strategy to use snow to make my refrigerator more efficient in the winter?** Like an ice box, perhaps there's a simple way to store the snow/ice, while collecting the melt water to keep it from making a mess. Has anyone implemented something like this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nXfaQm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26492" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10528" RevisionGUID="932f7cb6-d819-43c9-9cb4-8533bae40a1e" CreationDate="2021-02-16T15:01:06.077" UserId="3379" Text="Effective strategies to use snow for refrigeration in the winter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26493" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10528" RevisionGUID="932f7cb6-d819-43c9-9cb4-8533bae40a1e" CreationDate="2021-02-16T15:01:06.077" UserId="3379" Text="|cooling|food-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10523" RevisionGUID="47a7c9f7-ceb7-44d5-aa51-1229eda8fad2" CreationDate="2021-02-16T17:17:51.427" UserId="400" Comment="Corrected paragraph out of order." Text="I would be surprised if it did.  Los Angeles in excavating land fills finds that newspapers hot dogs, lettuce, guacamole still appear fresh.  Isolated from air not much happens in a landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See this story https://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/13/nyregion/seeking-the-truth-in-refuse.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26495" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10524" RevisionGUID="2e37eaae-3e5a-4b6e-b7b8-b01dacfcc5e7" CreationDate="2021-02-16T17:22:19.433" UserId="400" Comment="Fixed sentence" Text="A while ago I worked out that a $100/T carbon tax translates to about 6 c /liter (about 25c/gallon)  This probably won't push people to drive much less or to buy smaller cars.  However EV's are increasingly a better deal in terms of TCO, mostly because electricity is sold at  low prices due to both subsidies and external costs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tonne of coal is about 2460 kWh of electricity   So a $100/T carbon tax would increase electricity costs by about 4 cents/kWh, or about 40%&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;40% is enough to get people's attention, particularly businesses with high energy products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ideal solution is a tax that increases reasonably rapidly and predictably.  E.g. If $100/T is enough to make small amounts of pain, then increasing this by 10% per year will get lots of people thinking on how to use less energy.  It also establishes a predictable floor price for renewable power, encouraging investment.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26496" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10523" RevisionGUID="dbad3117-5ce0-4032-b124-3bc7370ba928" CreationDate="2021-02-16T17:27:55.943" UserId="400" Comment="response to cooment." Text="I would be surprised if it did.  Los Angeles in excavating land fills finds that newspapers hot dogs, lettuce, guacamole still appear fresh.  Isolated from air not much happens in a landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See this story https://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/13/nyregion/seeking-the-truth-in-refuse.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This actually is useful info.  It means that appropriatly designed landfills could be a good way to dispose of plastic, paper -- anything with carbon that isn't easy to recycle can be used to remove carbon from the cycle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26497" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10529" RevisionGUID="e4012395-59d0-4eb5-829b-1119f6636293" CreationDate="2021-02-16T19:49:15.593" UserId="6925" Text="Imma use metric here. If you explore this field any more, you'll be swimming in metric, so might as well jump in now. 0C is freezing, 100C is boiling point (212F), and body temperature is 37C. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use a fluid-sourced refrigerator. &#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Your refrigerator is a heat pump.  It is using a fluid (a type of freon) to pump heat from inside the fridge to outside the fridge.  It has an **evaporator** (cold thing)*  inside the fridge and a **condenser** (the hot thing) outside the fridge, typically in the back of the fridge where there is poor air circulation.  As a result it's pumping heat from a space that is -10C and 5C, to a space that is 50C.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the thing about that.  Pumping &quot;uphill&quot; (from a hot space to a cold space) is inefficient!  That's one of the reason ground-sourced heat pumps work better - they interact with 50F ground water at all times, instead of trying to get heat out of -15C winter days and dump heat into 30C summer days.   *Air-interchanged heat pumps are always pumping uphill, and your fridge is no exception*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pumping uphill vs downhill has a huge impact on  heat pump efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, my parents' apartment has a heat pump that runs on facility service water. That is delivered at 45C in the winter, and their thermostat is set to 22C.  The heat pump is &quot;pumping downhill&quot;, so it runs very efficiently. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fluid is fed from an ice house&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So let's flip the script.  Suppose you have an &quot;ice house&quot; on your property... an enormous, hyper-insulated shed positioned so you just plow all your driveway snow into it.  At the bottom is a swimming-pool-like structure that is watertight (can't have our 0C water leaking off!)  At the bottom of this pool is the refrigerator's **condenser**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the condenser is always sitting in water (from snow melt) that is 0C because of all the snow on top of it.  **It is still a freon refrigerator, but it's vastly more efficient because it's &quot;pumping downhill (or almost so)**.  Far less energy spent. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the real fun with this is to do it on a larger scale with air conditioning.  We're talking a pretty big ice-house though.   At that point, you'd probably want to switch to a facility service water&quot; scenario where you have a glycol loop taking chilled water to your freon pumps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, all the products I named are commercially available.  The water-sourced refrigerators are marine units.  I mentioned my parents' service-water-sourced heat pump. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately you can't do the same thing in summer. You can store ice as cold as you please, and the *enthalpy of fusion* (latent heat of freezing) is effectively like storing water that is 80C cooler than it is - a very nice boost.  It's impossible to do the same thing with storing steam - it's too big and requires a pressure vessel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* To recap the refrigeration cycle: &#xD;&#xA;- A low-pressure-gas fluid is compressed into high-pressure gas, which is very hot. &#xD;&#xA;- It cools in a **condenser coil**.  At that high pressure, the gas wants to be liquid, so aside from simple temperature, it also gives up its latent heat of vaporization or &quot;enthalpy&quot;, which only makes the cycle work even better.  This happens in the hot coils on the back side of your refrigerator.  &#xD;&#xA;- The warm, high pressure liquid moves back inside your refrigerator. &#xD;&#xA;- It goes through a pressure regulating valve which greatly reduces its pressure. Just as compressing made it hot, decompressing it made it cold. (Getting the picture?) &#xD;&#xA;- At this pressure, it wants to be gas again. However, to turn into gas, it needs its enthalpy back! So it steals energy from the environment (the inside of your fridge).  The **evaporator coil** inside your refrigerator is designed to make that easy for it. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26498" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10493" RevisionGUID="cab7da2a-cfe7-427d-92c5-8fd3462f6327" CreationDate="2021-02-16T19:58:58.547" UserId="6925" Comment="The question is specific to microinverter arrays." Text="Any way for microinverter PV array to power a house when the grid is down?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10530" RevisionGUID="a7982997-05a5-43b1-a949-a3cdf5dcb205" CreationDate="2021-02-17T21:31:37.583" UserId="9384" Text="Following [this question][1], I'm trying to figure out what is [the best][2] option for me.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at brand products, for example SunPower Maxeon 3 400/410 Wp and SunPower P3 Black 325 Wp, they offer a power to price ratio of almost 1.1-2.1, while Jinko Tiger JKM355M-6TL3-V offers 3.2 (both in € here in the Netherlands). Now my question is that why should I choose SunPower over Jinko? Is it because of the reliability and durability, or are there other hidden aspects of the brand products that could make them a cost-effective option? In simple terms, which one is a better investment? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/solar/comments/lffr9f/does_it_worth_paying_50_more_for_25_more_power/?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=web2x&amp;context=3&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VoUsAAXXXFm3Erhn0beJWxM2p9iHrHYsYQAyv_PsfCg/edit?usp=sharing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26500" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10530" RevisionGUID="a7982997-05a5-43b1-a949-a3cdf5dcb205" CreationDate="2021-02-17T21:31:37.583" UserId="9384" Text="Why should I buy the brand solar panels when the cheaper ones offer a better power to price ratio?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26501" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10530" RevisionGUID="a7982997-05a5-43b1-a949-a3cdf5dcb205" CreationDate="2021-02-17T21:31:37.583" UserId="9384" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10531" RevisionGUID="685aa6a7-ccc7-403d-8d30-dd7110253d6a" CreationDate="2021-02-17T23:19:02.417" UserId="9385" Text="SunPower is the high end of module manufacturers with a high per per square meter ratio.  The main reasons to choose SunPower over a lower cost tier 1v manufacturer is limited roof space and you want the most output in that space or astetics, SunPower modules are sleek. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="0a7b204c-bdbf-4d3e-8543-a80743abd604" CreationDate="2021-02-18T15:15:13.910" UserId="2727" Text="I would like to create a white noise generation box.  I want it to be as sustainable as possible (within reason), as it will likely be used 24/7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thinking so far is to use an old, unused smartphone, and install any one of a number of white noise generation apps.  I'm thinking an old smartphone with a removable battery would be best, and then remove the battery so there is no energy waste from the charging circuits.  *(To prevent the battery from eventually becoming waste, I'll first charge it to 50-60%, and then charge it back up to 50-60% every year or two.)*  Once the battery is removed, I'll plug it into AC power via its &quot;charger&quot;, which at that point, I'll just be using as a compact AC/DC inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that the best solution, or are there better alternatives?  If my idea is a good one, does it need any tweaking to improve it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26504" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="0a7b204c-bdbf-4d3e-8543-a80743abd604" CreationDate="2021-02-18T15:15:13.910" UserId="2727" Text="How to create a sustainable white noise generation box?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26505" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="0a7b204c-bdbf-4d3e-8543-a80743abd604" CreationDate="2021-02-18T15:15:13.910" UserId="2727" Text="|environmental-impact|electricity|batteries|health|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10533" RevisionGUID="4e55b439-243a-4006-bdc1-e473fa1b9b56" CreationDate="2021-02-19T09:14:26.923" UserId="2345" Text="By installing a white noise generating app do you intend to keep the phone connected to the mobile/cellar telephone network &amp; thus continually use phone bandwidth 24/7?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would have thought a digital recording of white noise played on a continuous loop would be more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to purchase white [noise generating machines][1]. I see some are advertised online for between $20 and $30.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting something that is battery powered, and having two sets of batteries, and the batteries can be charged by a solar panel would increase sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_noise_machine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26510" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="75d26c90-e7a2-49d1-8fec-64b09a2b7b9a" CreationDate="2021-02-19T15:21:19.660" UserId="2727" Comment="added 226 characters in body" Text="I would like to create a white noise generation box.  I want it to be as sustainable as possible (within reason), as it will likely be used 24/7.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My thinking so far is to use an old, unused smartphone, and install any one of a number of white noise generation apps.  I'm thinking an old smartphone with a removable battery would be best, and then remove the battery so there is no energy waste from the charging circuits.  *(To prevent the battery from eventually becoming waste, I'll first charge it to 50-60%, and then charge it back up to 50-60% every year or two.)*  Once the battery is removed, I'll plug it into AC power via its &quot;charger&quot;, which at that point, I'll just be using as a compact AC/DC inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reduce energy consumption, I will keep the phone in airplane mode with all radios disabled (cellular/WiFi/bluetooth).  The screen will stay off as well except for a moment here or there if I want to change any settings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that the best solution, or are there better alternatives?  If my idea is a good one, does it need any tweaking to improve it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26511" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10535" RevisionGUID="03e5198b-e381-4527-ae29-08247a522447" CreationDate="2021-02-20T10:14:39.170" UserId="2727" Text="I recently asked [a question regarding a sustainable way to generate white noise][1].  I received a [wonderfully helpful comment from Móż][2] *(thank you!)* in which Móż recommended ensuring that the power source (a charger, in this case) is efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That comment prompts this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  **How does one ensure that their electronic chargers are energy efficient?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do have a digital multimeter and electrical leads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10532/how-to-create-a-sustainable-white-noise-generation-box&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10532/how-to-create-a-sustainable-white-noise-generation-box?#comment13461_10532" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26512" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10535" RevisionGUID="03e5198b-e381-4527-ae29-08247a522447" CreationDate="2021-02-20T10:14:39.170" UserId="2727" Text="How to ensure you are using efficient chargers for cell phones, laptop computers, and other electronic devices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26513" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10535" RevisionGUID="03e5198b-e381-4527-ae29-08247a522447" CreationDate="2021-02-20T10:14:39.170" UserId="2727" Text="|environmental-impact|energy-efficiency|electricity|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26514" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="05651358-2f50-47fd-b210-287c3db9f9b3" CreationDate="2021-02-20T12:00:05.830" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1363096082629156867" />
  <row Id="26515" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10525" RevisionGUID="05f9ef39-33a5-41ff-8f60-3ddb08a1188c" CreationDate="2021-02-21T09:00:04.063" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1363413164625428480" />
  <row Id="26516" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10517" RevisionGUID="082c3596-145f-4de1-86e0-995ee607d1cf" CreationDate="2021-02-21T12:00:07.200" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1363458476228431873" />
  <row Id="26517" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10235" RevisionGUID="32a55360-4576-4a5e-8451-dd6086645793" CreationDate="2021-02-21T21:00:05.630" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1363594365130706947" />
  <row Id="26520" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6753" RevisionGUID="4588556b-808d-4323-8c0a-1c0f74333468" CreationDate="2021-02-22T18:00:06.653" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1363911458816417793" />
  <row Id="26521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10536" RevisionGUID="c3d0dff2-afed-4994-938b-d583a5817d0c" CreationDate="2021-02-23T05:02:52.790" UserId="3379" Text="### Power ratings -- choose level VI&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at any external power supply (EPS) you have lying around -- you should notice, along with all the regulatory markings, a roman numeral `I` through `VI` in a circle. Here are four that I just dug up in my house:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These indicate energy efficiency standards for EPS starting with the California Energy Commission in 2004 (levels `I` through `III`), through the U.S. Department of Energy and the European Union Ecodesign in 2020 (level `VI`), according to [this timeline](https://www.cui.com/efficiency-standards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Level `VI` is the current highest standard, required for every EPS sold in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the E.U. [This pdf](https://slpower.com/data/collateral/PW174KB_DS.pdf) from a manufacturer includes a table explaining the level VI requirements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Basic Voltage: nameplate output voltage ≥ 6 V**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;|Nameplate power (*P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;*)|Min avg efficiency in active mode|Max no-load power (W)|&#xD;&#xA;|-|-|-|&#xD;&#xA;|≤1 watt|≥0.5 x *P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;* + 0.160|≤0.100|&#xD;&#xA;|&gt;1 to ≤49 watts| ≥0.071 x Ln(*P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;*) - 0.0014 x *P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;* + 0.67|≤0.100|&#xD;&#xA;|&gt;49 to ≤250 watts|≥0.880|≤0.210|&#xD;&#xA;|&gt;250 watts|≥0.875|≤0.500|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Low voltage: nameplate output voltage &lt; 6 V and nameplate output current ≥550 mA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;|Nameplate power (*P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;*)|Min avg efficiency in active mode|Max no-load power (W)|&#xD;&#xA;|-|-|-|&#xD;&#xA;|≤1 watt|≥0.517 x *P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;* + 0.087|≤0.100|&#xD;&#xA;|&gt;1 to ≤49 watts|≥0.0834 x Ln(*P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;*) - 0.0014 x *P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;*+ 0.609|≤0.100|&#xD;&#xA;|&gt;49 to ≤250 watts|≥0.870|≤0.210|&#xD;&#xA;|&gt;250 watts|≥0.875|≤0.500|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can do the math to determine the specific minimum requirement for any charger you may have, but reading the chart we can see some general rules. Voltage will be a function of the device you need to power, but you may have some leeway to select the nominal power:&#xD;&#xA; - Choosing an EPS with the lowest nameplate power that meets your need will reduce no-load power consumption -- this would apply to anything that you will leave plugged in (speakers, light, etc).&#xD;&#xA; - Choosing the highest power rating will increase active power efficiency -- this would apply to anything mobile (phone or laptop charger in your knapsack).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominal power won't be listed on each EPS, but the voltage (`V`) and current (`A` or `mA`) should be, so you can compute it by multiplying these two values.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Choose a known brand, and be wary of counterfeits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In searching for info, I came across [this blog](http://www.righto.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in-lab-apple-is.html) where the author did detailed testing of 12 chargers. They don't talk about the EPS rating, but you can see in the photos that most of these are level `V` chargers (which makes sense, since the post is from 2012). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They include this chart comparing efficiency and &quot;vampire&quot; (no load) power:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Efficiency of 12 chargers compared][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it's possible that things have changed since then, in general the advice probably still holds true -- buy a brand-name charger from a trusted source to get the most efficient (and safest) EPS. There are ways to check or test for counterfeits, but buying direct from the source or from a reputable reseller is probably the best insurance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aNeNO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eImL2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10537" RevisionGUID="9482222c-a976-4f2d-8689-27e4a65350a0" CreationDate="2021-02-23T05:48:32.863" UserId="7993" Text="I tested this with two identical loads of laundry, mostly socks (so, plenty of retained moisture after the spin cycle).  I then checked my smart meter's records of how much power was used during that period, and subtracted the &quot;baseline&quot; usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Tumble dry high: estimated 2.0 kWh, elapsed time 48 minutes&#xD;&#xA; * Tumble dry low: estimated 1.4 kWh, elapsed time 50 minutes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both tests, peak power draw was in the first ten minutes of drying, with power draw tapering off sharply during the last ten minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It looks to me like most of the drying time is spent waiting for moisture to migrate to the surface so it can evaporate, and the temperature does not significantly impact this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="a2599698-7f63-438f-8e12-b268f602fb7f" CreationDate="2021-02-23T12:58:49.417" UserId="9405" Text="In terms of efficiently using sun's energy. Let's not forget passive solar. &#xD;&#xA;With no mechanical parts to break, a sufficiently heavy or phase change thermal mass can go a long way when the house is properly insulated. 4 m2 of windows (40 sf) is close toe 4 kw. (circa 12000BTU )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10536" RevisionGUID="6212d83d-53af-418d-a8b6-7cd24f6198b8" CreationDate="2021-02-23T18:33:08.557" UserId="3379" Comment="added 1245 characters in body" Text="## Power ratings -- choose level VI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take a look at any external power supply (EPS) you have lying around -- you should notice, along with all the regulatory markings, a roman numeral `I` through `VI` in a circle. Here are four that I just dug up in my house:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These indicate energy efficiency standards for EPS starting with the California Energy Commission in 2004 (levels `I` through `III`), through the U.S. Department of Energy and the European Union Ecodesign in 2020 (level `VI`), according to [this timeline](https://www.cui.com/efficiency-standards).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Level `VI` is the current highest standard, required for every EPS sold in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the E.U. [This pdf](https://slpower.com/data/collateral/PW174KB_DS.pdf) from a manufacturer includes a table explaining the level VI requirements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Basic Voltage: nameplate output voltage ≥ 6 V**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;|Nameplate power (*P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;*)|Min avg efficiency in active mode|Max no-load power (W)|&#xD;&#xA;|-|-|-|&#xD;&#xA;|≤1 watt|≥0.5 x *P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;* + 0.160|≤0.100|&#xD;&#xA;|&gt;1 to ≤49 watts| ≥0.071 x Ln(*P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;*) - 0.0014 x *P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;* + 0.67|≤0.100|&#xD;&#xA;|&gt;49 to ≤250 watts|≥0.880|≤0.210|&#xD;&#xA;|&gt;250 watts|≥0.875|≤0.500|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Low voltage: nameplate output voltage &lt; 6 V and nameplate output current ≥550 mA**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;|Nameplate power (*P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;*)|Min avg efficiency in active mode|Max no-load power (W)|&#xD;&#xA;|-|-|-|&#xD;&#xA;|≤1 watt|≥0.517 x *P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;* + 0.087|≤0.100|&#xD;&#xA;|&gt;1 to ≤49 watts|≥0.0834 x Ln(*P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;*) - 0.0014 x *P&lt;sub&gt;no&lt;/sub&gt;*+ 0.609|≤0.100|&#xD;&#xA;|&gt;49 to ≤250 watts|≥0.870|≤0.210|&#xD;&#xA;|&gt;250 watts|≥0.875|≤0.500|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can do the math to determine the specific minimum requirement for any charger you may have, but reading the chart we can see some general rules. Voltage will be a function of the device you need to power, but you may have some leeway to select the nominal power:&#xD;&#xA; - Choosing an EPS with the lowest nameplate power that meets your need will reduce no-load power consumption -- this would apply to anything that you will leave plugged in (speakers, light, etc).&#xD;&#xA; - Choosing the highest power rating will increase active power efficiency -- this would apply to anything mobile (phone or laptop charger in your knapsack).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nominal power won't be listed on each EPS, but the voltage (`V`) and current (`A` or `mA`) should be, so you can compute it by multiplying these two values.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Choose a known brand, and be wary of counterfeits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In searching for info, I came across [this blog](http://www.righto.com/2012/10/a-dozen-usb-chargers-in-lab-apple-is.html) where the author did detailed testing of 12 chargers. They don't talk about the EPS rating, but you can see in the photos that most of these are level `V` chargers (which makes sense, since the post is from 2012). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They include this chart comparing efficiency and &quot;vampire&quot; (no load) power:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Efficiency of 12 chargers compared][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it's possible that things have changed since then, in general the advice probably still holds true -- buy a brand-name charger from a trusted source to get the most efficient (and safest) EPS. There are ways to check or test for counterfeits, but buying direct from the source or from a reputable reseller is probably the best insurance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Choose switching power supplies over linear (transformer type)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When comparing power supplies that don't have a printed rating, look for a switching (or switched mode) power supply, vs a linear (or transformer type) power supply. Linear supplies can be identified because they use a large, heavy transformer to step down the mains voltage (100 to 230 VAC at 50 or 60 Hz) to a lower voltage before converting to dc current. Switching power supplies use transistors to first increase the frequency of the mains voltage, so that a smaller transformer can be used. Wikipedia offers [this comparison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched-mode_power_supply#SMPS_and_linear_power_supply_comparison) of their efficiency:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;|Linear power supply|Switching power supply|&#xD;&#xA;|-|-|&#xD;&#xA;|&quot;[E]fficiency largely depends on voltage difference between input and output; output voltage is regulated by dissipating excess power as heat resulting in a typical efficiency of 30–40%.&quot;|&quot;Output is regulated using duty cycle control; the transistors are switched fully on or fully off, so very little resistive losses between input and the load. The only heat generated is in the non-ideal aspects of the components and quiescent current in the control circuitry.&quot;|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aNeNO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/eImL2.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10539" RevisionGUID="2f7109ba-a292-4ac9-9515-4b47221eaa63" CreationDate="2021-02-25T20:56:30.207" UserId="8754" Text="I understand that in order to be effective at tackling climate change there needs to be action at a level of global emissions.&#xA;&#xA;I would like to know what are the most cost effective ways of having measurable impacts at that level on a budget of less than AUD 10 000.&#xA;&#xA;At the moment it seams to me that investing the money in the founders pledge climate fund would be the most effective. Although I am located in Australia, and so would be unable to get any tax benefit from that. Is there a more tax effective equivalent for Australian tax residents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26526" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10539" RevisionGUID="2f7109ba-a292-4ac9-9515-4b47221eaa63" CreationDate="2021-02-25T20:56:30.207" UserId="8754" Text="What is the most cost effective way for an individual to contribute to global climate action? (For an Australian resident)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26527" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10539" RevisionGUID="2f7109ba-a292-4ac9-9515-4b47221eaa63" CreationDate="2021-02-25T20:56:30.207" UserId="8754" Text="|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26528" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="239a6f7e-b14b-427f-8f39-ea5918d119ed" CreationDate="2021-02-25T23:00:35.060" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26529" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10539" RevisionGUID="adac1a57-d90f-4bbb-b132-83263412a6a8" CreationDate="2021-02-26T01:47:02.313" UserId="8754" Comment="added 58 characters in body" Text="I understand that in order to be effective at tackling climate change there needs to be action at a level of global emissions.&#xA;&#xA;I would like to know what are the most cost effective ways of having measurable impacts at that level on a budget of less than AUD 10 000.&#xA;&#xA;At the moment it seams to me that investing the money in [_the founders pledge_ climate fund](https://founderspledge.com/funds/climate-change-fund) would be the most effective. Although I am located in Australia, and so would be unable to get any tax benefit from that. Is there a more tax effective equivalent for Australian tax residents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10540" RevisionGUID="9923dd6c-58de-4edd-bd06-c44e1ea03554" CreationDate="2021-02-28T09:22:55.103" UserId="659" Text="&gt; Is it because of the reliability and durability,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indirectly, yes. It's partly about the duration of the warranty and your confidence that the manufacturer will still be around to replace defective panels in ten years time. Or twenty years time. There's a bit of [a rant here][1] about why the actual length is possibly not worth bothering about: decent panels won't fail; decent companies go bust anyway; you're going to forget you *have* the warranty (or not measure the performance); and panel prices are (currently) dropping so replacements will be cheap (and likely more efficient). But... you can't get decent panels with short warranties so it's not necessarily useful to apporach things that way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other part is the &quot;does what it says&quot; warranty. Some countries have decent consumer protection laws (Australia, for example) and oddly a lot of those cheap panels aren't sold in Australia, only in China and the USA. I've never tested the cheap panels, but the mere fact that no-one is willing to import them and sell them here is very suggestive to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have talked to one person with a pair of &quot;500W&quot; panels that are huge but apparently he was given them free by whoever bought them direct from China because the actual output was similar to the 200W panels they replaced. So not worth the hassle of having giant panels in a space that would fit four or more actual 200W panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Australia we also had a pile of panels fail due to water ingress, and at least some of that was due to [cheap backing material][2] but much was just poor construction or damage during installation (microcracks aren't necessarily easily visible, you just have to handle panels carefully).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/solar-panel-warranty-paradox/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ecogeneration.com.au/solar-pv-module-backsheet-durability-an-issue-for-australia/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26533" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10535" RevisionGUID="fc7b5b82-0415-4588-b985-5a952b2d053c" CreationDate="2021-03-01T06:00:06.883" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1366266980874006529" />
  <row Id="26539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10539" RevisionGUID="b244a008-ad75-49a3-a7e3-0313902dc522" CreationDate="2021-03-03T19:44:17.290" UserId="8754" Comment="clarified the intent of the question" Text="__Edited: I would like to spend *money* in the most effective ways (local tax considerations included)__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that in order to be effective at tackling climate change there needs to be action at a level of global emissions. That isn't to discount the importance of individual concessions. But for the sake of this question, let's assume I have taken all reasonable steps to minimize my personal carbon footprint. To the point that any additional reduction requires non-trivial investments of time / money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would like to know what are the most cost effective ways of spending *money* to reduce emissions. Not large amounts by any means, but enough that I would prefer not to be throwing it away without thinking about how far it will actually go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the moment it seams to me that investing the money in [_the founders pledge_ climate fund](https://founderspledge.com/funds/climate-change-fund) would be the most effective. Although I am located in Australia, and so would be unable to get any tax benefit from that. Is there a more tax effective equivalent for Australian tax residents?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10542" RevisionGUID="ce2fbd2d-67f5-44b0-8d51-47236ef96a69" CreationDate="2021-03-03T20:15:27.307" UserId="3505" Text="Is it possible to have a grid tied solar installation operate when power is out without a battery bank?  All of the grid tied inverters I have found kick offline during power outages.  This is a fine safety feature but I'd like to find a way to have my array work when I need it most!  This will of course involve installation of an interlock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10542" RevisionGUID="ce2fbd2d-67f5-44b0-8d51-47236ef96a69" CreationDate="2021-03-03T20:15:27.307" UserId="3505" Text="Grid tied inverters that work during power outages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10542" RevisionGUID="ce2fbd2d-67f5-44b0-8d51-47236ef96a69" CreationDate="2021-03-03T20:15:27.307" UserId="3505" Text="|solar-power|usa|safety|off-grid|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26543" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="45950878-5a79-43e1-a62a-9626be64fd36" CreationDate="2021-03-04T03:03:30.260" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10543" RevisionGUID="d759318f-c631-4104-ac4d-14041678cfa8" CreationDate="2021-03-04T16:19:17.903" UserId="9422" Text="Where I stay, theres a site ([**see intro here**][1]) nearby that used to be a coal gasification plant (produces coal gas for lightning etc.). The plant contaminated the soil with PAHs and heavy metals with decades of use. The land was laid fallow for i think 10-20 years now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, our Government is using thermal remediation to purge the contaminants. Essentially its 24/7 heating of the soil, with fumes piped through chambers where its misted and foamed to remove pollutants. The tender was announced on public news ([**link here**][2]). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is the site is densely populated. Despite the filters, the fumes released are still pungent, with a foul smell thats like a mix of LPG, sewage, burnt rubber and tar. Residents have been reportedly feeling sick, from anything like hay fever/allergy/flu, to inflammation, nausea, difficulties breathing to vertigo/black-out and gastro-intestinal issues. &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I did some research, and my guess is its PAHs but not sure how to detect heavy metals since most are odorless except for Arsenic. The project contractors claimed they have filtered and did soil washing but the odor is just too pungent to ignore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Im just thinking **if its reasonable and safe for the remediation to be done on-site in a dense residential zone?** The contractors claimed that systems and filters are working well and they did not detect any pollutants, and its within safe limits. Seems contradictory when empirically, residents are all falling very ill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, **what other alternatives are there to thermal remediation on-site?** I suggested them to halt all project works in the interim to investigate and prevent further leaks. However, the contractor and agency insisted to proceed and tweak along the way, all while exposing residents to the fumes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_750_2005-01-11.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/kampong-bugis-kallang-gasworks-land-acquisition-soil-treatment-10154012" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26545" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10543" RevisionGUID="d759318f-c631-4104-ac4d-14041678cfa8" CreationDate="2021-03-04T16:19:17.903" UserId="9422" Text="Is thermal heating of soil contaminated by coal gasification plant safe in a built-up zone?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26546" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10543" RevisionGUID="d759318f-c631-4104-ac4d-14041678cfa8" CreationDate="2021-03-04T16:19:17.903" UserId="9422" Text="|environmental-impact|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26548" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10543" RevisionGUID="00383f09-0002-44ef-b86a-f69028c1f83e" CreationDate="2021-03-05T00:00:04.377" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1367625924921982979" />
  <row Id="26549" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10149" RevisionGUID="70b6a5b5-709c-465a-8d0b-519edd85d59a" CreationDate="2021-03-05T20:01:55.193" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26559" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="655422f6-cccf-4cf9-aaca-8bd9dfbfd12b" CreationDate="2021-03-06T23:16:59.357" UserId="5517" Text="I have [Resol DeltaSol BX](https://www.resol.de/Produktdokumente/11209187_DeltaSol_BX.monen.pdf) controller for my solar hot water which I would to configure best for my situation but the wording is a bit puzzling for me to understand.  It was installed about 9 years ago with 10 evacuated tubes on the roof which feeds hot water into my electric hot water cylinder.  I don't want the hot water element unnecessarily activated using the power from my PV panels if it's being adequately heated by the sun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unforunately the PV array is oriented north east and the solar hot water is oriented north west ( Southern hemisphere ).  So, I won't know if the hot water is hot enough until my PV array is already past maximum input.  Ideally it would have been better if the orientations were switched.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now there is an after heating function with three pairs of time frames on the controller, and this is setup for Arr 3 or Arrangment 3 on the controller.  I think it means that if your hot water isn't hot enough as measured by the temperature sensor at the top of the HWC it kicks in the after heater element.  The factory default for time frame 1 is T1O at 6:00 and T1F at 22:00 which I think means that between these times you can choose to boost the hot water with the electric element.  There's a temperature setting that is active during this time frame of AHO (after heating on), and AHF (after heating off) with factory setting of 40C and 45C.  These are the instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it says AHO is the switch on temperature, and AHF is the switch off temperature.  I can see why AHF stops the electric element above the default setting of 45C. But does AHO mean it turns the electric elemement on below AHO of 40C or turns it off? I think it means turn on if below 40C but once it gets into the range of 40-45C, then turn off the element?  The wording is problematic to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EsPrb.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="655422f6-cccf-4cf9-aaca-8bd9dfbfd12b" CreationDate="2021-03-06T23:16:59.357" UserId="5517" Text="How does the after heating function work for a solar hot water controller?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="655422f6-cccf-4cf9-aaca-8bd9dfbfd12b" CreationDate="2021-03-06T23:16:59.357" UserId="5517" Text="|solar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26562" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="d0ffc5a3-3dc0-4d84-a4e6-3c2a2c63a02a" CreationDate="2021-03-07T23:22:13.867" UserId="2727" Comment="Improved readability, fixed errors" Text="I have [Resol DeltaSol BX](https://www.resol.de/Produktdokumente/11209187_DeltaSol_BX.monen.pdf) controller for my solar hot water which I would to configure best for my situation but the wording is a bit puzzling for me to understand.  It was installed about 9 years ago with 10 evacuated tubes on the roof which feeds hot water into my electric hot water cylinder.  I don't want the hot water element unnecessarily activated using the power from my PV panels if it's being adequately heated by the sun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the PV array is oriented north east and the solar hot water is oriented north west ( Southern hemisphere ).  So, I won't know if the hot water is hot enough until my PV array is already past maximum input.  Ideally it would have been better if the orientations were switched.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now there is an afterheating function with three pairs of time frames on the controller, and this is setup for Arr 3 or Arrangement 3 on the controller.  I think it means that if your hot water isn't hot enough as measured by the temperature sensor at the top of the HWC it kicks in the afterheater element.  The factory default for time frame 1 is T1O at 6:00 and T1F at 22:00 which I think means that between these times you can choose to boost the hot water with the electric element.  There's a temperature setting that is active during this time frame of AHO (afterheating on), and AHF (afterheating off) with factory setting of 40C and 45C.  These are the instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it says AHO is the switch on temperature, and AHF is the switch off temperature.  I can see why AHF stops the electric element above the default setting of 45C. But does AHO mean it turns the electric elemement on below AHO of 40C or turns it off? I think it means turn on if below 40C but once it gets into the range of 40-45C, then turn off the element?  The wording is problematic to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EsPrb.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26563" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="d0ffc5a3-3dc0-4d84-a4e6-3c2a2c63a02a" CreationDate="2021-03-07T23:22:13.867" UserId="2727" Comment="Improved readability, fixed errors" Text="How does the afterheating function work for a solar hot water controller?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26564" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="d0ffc5a3-3dc0-4d84-a4e6-3c2a2c63a02a" CreationDate="2021-03-07T23:22:13.867" Comment="Proposed by 2727 approved by -1 edit id of 670" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26565" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="51059013-41a9-4b6c-a306-f6056eecc620" CreationDate="2021-03-07T23:22:13.867" UserId="5517" Comment="grammar" Text="I have [Resol DeltaSol BX](https://www.resol.de/Produktdokumente/11209187_DeltaSol_BX.monen.pdf) controller for my solar hot water which I would like to configure best for my situation but the wording is a bit puzzling for me to understand.  It was installed about 9 years ago with 10 evacuated tubes on the roof which feeds hot water into my electric hot water cylinder.  I don't want the hot water element unnecessarily activated using the power from my PV panels if it's being adequately heated by the sun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, the PV array is oriented north-east and the solar hot water is oriented north-west ( Southern hemisphere ).  So, I won't know if the hot water is hot enough until my PV array is already past maximum input.  Ideally, it would have been better if the orientations were switched.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now there is an after heating function with three pairs of time frames on the controller, and this is set up for Arr 3 or Arrangement 3 on the controller.  I think it means that if your hot water isn't hot enough as measured by the temperature sensor at the top of the HWC it kicks in the after heater element.  The factory default for time frame 1 is T1O at 6:00 and T1F at 22:00 which I think means that between these times you can choose to boost the hot water with the electric element.  There's a temperature setting that is active during this time frame of AHO (after heating on) and AHF (after heating off) with the factory setting of 40C and 45C.  These are the instructions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it says AHO is the switch on temperature, and AHF is the switch-off temperature.  I can see why AHF stops the electric element above the default setting of 45C. But does AHO mean it turns the electric element on below AHO of 40C or turns it off? I think it means to turn on if below 40C but once it gets into the range of 40-45C, then turn off the element?  The wording is problematic to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EsPrb.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26568" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10546" RevisionGUID="9675c581-640b-46b6-9212-4b45ed849103" CreationDate="2021-03-09T09:00:02.440" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1369211364019994624" />
  <row Id="26569" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10547" RevisionGUID="7ed3df5a-1170-438a-84d0-0158b1aeb057" CreationDate="2021-03-10T07:23:34.603" UserId="99" Text="In [this question on Super User](https://superuser.com/questions/589709/power-consumption-ssd-vs-hdd) they say that Solid-State Drives (SSDs) use much less power than traditional Hard Disk Drives (HDDs). I read some internet posts and [research articles](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320025946_A_Comparative_Study_of_HDD_and_SSD_RAIDs%27_Impact_on_Server_Energy_Consumption) that say that this is true, although [some people](https://www.quora.com/Do-SSDs-use-more-or-less-power-than-HDDs-and-by-how-much/answer/Mark-Hahn-2) claim the difference is less than you expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is does this mean that overall SSDs have a lower environmental impact over their entire lifespan (so including manufacturing and disposal)?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26570" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10547" RevisionGUID="7ed3df5a-1170-438a-84d0-0158b1aeb057" CreationDate="2021-03-10T07:23:34.603" UserId="99" Text="Do SSDs have a lower environmental impact compared to HDDs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26571" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10547" RevisionGUID="7ed3df5a-1170-438a-84d0-0158b1aeb057" CreationDate="2021-03-10T07:23:34.603" UserId="99" Text="|environmental-impact|energy-efficiency|green-it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10547" RevisionGUID="9045dc7b-d960-4c8f-bbc4-abc1f5ad82ae" CreationDate="2021-03-11T14:01:33.397" UserId="99" Comment="elaborated on environmental impact" Text="In [this question on Super User](https://superuser.com/questions/589709/power-consumption-ssd-vs-hdd) they say that Solid-State Drives (SSDs) use much less power than traditional Hard Disk Drives (HDDs). I read some internet posts and [research articles](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320025946_A_Comparative_Study_of_HDD_and_SSD_RAIDs%27_Impact_on_Server_Energy_Consumption) that backup this claim, although [some people](https://www.quora.com/Do-SSDs-use-more-or-less-power-than-HDDs-and-by-how-much/answer/Mark-Hahn-2) say the difference is less than you expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: does this mean that overall SSDs have a lower environmental impact over their entire lifespan (so including manufacturing and disposal)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With environmental impact I mean anything that is generally part of a life-cycle analysis so energy use, water use, GHG emissions, use of rare earth metal, toxicity, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26573" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10547" RevisionGUID="9045dc7b-d960-4c8f-bbc4-abc1f5ad82ae" CreationDate="2021-03-11T14:01:33.397" UserId="99" Comment="elaborated on environmental impact" Text="|environmental-impact|energy-efficiency|life-cycle-analysis|green-it|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10547" RevisionGUID="92426972-3b1e-4495-a166-49d354924399" CreationDate="2021-03-11T14:12:58.553" UserId="99" Comment="added 124 characters in body" Text="In [this question on Super User](https://superuser.com/questions/589709/power-consumption-ssd-vs-hdd) they say that Solid-State Drives (SSDs) use much less power than traditional Hard Disk Drives (HDDs). I read some internet posts and [research articles](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320025946_A_Comparative_Study_of_HDD_and_SSD_RAIDs%27_Impact_on_Server_Energy_Consumption) that backup this claim, although [some people](https://www.quora.com/Do-SSDs-use-more-or-less-power-than-HDDs-and-by-how-much/answer/Mark-Hahn-2) say the difference is less than you expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: does this mean that overall SSDs have a lower environmental impact over their entire lifespan (so including manufacturing and disposal)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With environmental impact I mean the aspects that are generally part of a life-cycle analysis so energy use, water use, GHG emissions, use of rare earth metal, toxicity, etc. Preferably all aspects relevant for disk drives, but if there's only data on a single aspect like carbon footprint I'm interested as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26575" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10547" RevisionGUID="011cbd9b-3824-4041-9129-8ac1aea8816e" CreationDate="2021-03-11T18:00:03.140" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1370072037759275011" />
  <row Id="26576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10548" RevisionGUID="4f7ca881-935b-44b5-8819-5f16210fe990" CreationDate="2021-03-12T16:44:00.143" UserId="2942" Text="I have used worm bins before that we premade with plastic. They were nested bins such that the bottom of an upper tray was directly touching the scraps piled up in a lower tray. Worked well! Now at a new place I built a basic worm bin with wood, based on designs I found online. It looks good but I am unsure of the gap between bins. Here's photos then details on the gaps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Bins being constructed][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![first gap on side of boxes][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![bottom gap between boxes][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first picture shows the basic idea with these boxes. There will be 3-5 boxes total, depending on decomposition and fill rates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second picture shows the gap I am most concerned about, gaps between the boxes. The wood and my carpentry is not perfectly straight, so the frames don't sit entirely flush with each other. Most of their sides touch but there are corners and some sides that are separated. Is this an issue for worms (migrating between bins, or being happy with their climate)? If you think it matters, any tips for covering the gap? I would think the gaps improve airflow which is good, and the worms can still travel between bins on the touching parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The third picture shows another gap which I think is less of an issue. Because the bins are not nested, the contents of the lower bin are only in contact with the mesh-bottom of the bin above it if the pile exceeds the height of the lower bin and gets pressed down. That is not the case now but will be over time. Is this gap something also important to avoid, or is it not an issue?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Time will tell but I wanted to get others' insights on this too as I start the bin. I will be using a combo of European nightcrawlers (earthworms) and red wigglers. Bedding is mix of soil and rotting coarse sawdust, input is uncooked organic veggie and fruit scraps sans citrus.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xmr0O.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RvLz2.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ccWKG.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10548" RevisionGUID="4f7ca881-935b-44b5-8819-5f16210fe990" CreationDate="2021-03-12T16:44:00.143" UserId="2942" Text="Worm bin design using stacked wood frames - is it okay to have gaps between frames?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10548" RevisionGUID="4f7ca881-935b-44b5-8819-5f16210fe990" CreationDate="2021-03-12T16:44:00.143" UserId="2942" Text="|vermicomposting|woodwork|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26582" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10226" RevisionGUID="57527bda-2f8f-49df-b04e-0f264a47af48" CreationDate="2021-03-12T19:50:51.367" UserId="3379" Comment="I was looking at this paper again and realized I mis-understood it the first time around." Text="**TL;DR:** On-vehicle components of wireless charging are actually 342 kg *lighter* than for plug-in charging, *and* allows the total battery size to be reduced (given ability to charge more frequently), allowing a battery mass reduction of 56 to 73% (1,979 to 2,577 kg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Component mass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;Plug-in vs. wireless charging: Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions for an electric bus system&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.031) provides a full inventory of the mass of the various components required for bus wireless charging (a pdf of the masters thesis the article is based on has more detail and is available [here](http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/css_doc/CSS15-26.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The on-board components of a 60 kW wireless battery charger are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;| On-board component | Wireless charger mass [kg] | Plug-in charger mass [kg]|&#xD;&#xA;| --------- | --------: | ---:|&#xD;&#xA;| Coil plate (inductive charging secondary)      |    745| --&#xD;&#xA;| Power electronics                              |     26 | 352&#xD;&#xA;| Transformer                                    | -- | 112&#xD;&#xA;| In-vehicle cooling system                      |    195 | 977&#xD;&#xA;| Control boards                                 |     3 | 40 &#xD;&#xA;| Aluminum sheet (for mounting and enclosure)    |    170 | --&#xD;&#xA;| **TOTAL**                                      | **1,140** | **1,482**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The diagram below shows which components are on- or off-board for plug-in and wireless charging. Gray components are unique to each type, and dotted line shows the vehicle boundary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Comparison of (a) wireless charger and (b) plug-in charger for electric vehicles. Component difference is marked in grey. On-board portion of each charger is in the dashed box, and the rest is outside the vehicle.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some differences in which components are needed, but wireless charging allows for less of them to be on-board, so actually ends up being lighter: **The on-vehicle weight for wireless charging is actually 342 kg *lighter* (5.7 kg/kW) than for a plug-in electric bus.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason the wireless charging components are lighter is that the wireless charging does the conversion from mains ac to dc off the vehicle, while plug in charging does this step on the vehicle. I'm not sure how prevalent this set-up is (the paper doesn't comment) but for plug-in charging it seems to make sense -- rather than replicate all of this hardware at each bus stop, the bus carries it around, making the whole system more cost-effective. The big trade-off with wireless charging is that you *do* have to replicate this at each station, meaning it's far more expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bus &quot;lightweighting&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the on-vehicle charging system being lighter for a wireless charging bus, the total capacity (and thus mass) of the battery can be reduced without sacrificing range, since the bus can charge more often. As the battery mass is reduced, bus efficiency improves, allowing a secondary reduction in battery capacity while still maintaining the same range -- for every 10% decrease in bus mass, the energy demand is reduced by 4.5%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the route, the mass of the battery pack can be reduced by anywhere from 56 to 73% (1,979 to 2,577 kg). This assumes stops of 30 seconds at normal bus stops, and 6 minutes at transfer points, for a total charging time of about 25% of the time the bus is active on a route.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Wireless vs plug in battery weight][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other researchers have also looked at the question of how wireless charging can allow battery capacity to be reduced, including such factors as the number of buses along a route (which influences how long they remain in one place), and the use of charging tracks (allowing wireless charging while entering and leaving a bus stop, in addition to while picking up passengers). The range of estimates for battery lightweighting match the range in the study cited above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 40% reduction ([2013: &quot;Charging up the road&quot;](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6481699))&#xD;&#xA; - 50% reduction using charging tracks over 20 minutes, or about 16% of total operating time ([2015: &quot;Economic Analysis of the Dynamic Charging Electric Vehicle&quot;](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7089287))&#xD;&#xA; - 80% reduction using an algorithm that extends charging tracks to match bus schedule ([2016: &quot;System Architecture and Mathematical Models of Electric Transit Bus System Utilizing Wireless Power Transfer Technology&quot;](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7008443))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dOCzQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZrZd1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26583" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10501" RevisionGUID="8d44e9aa-ebb9-43fe-a92a-8a503497ca9c" CreationDate="2021-03-13T11:05:50.503" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26584" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="4e45d0e0-7641-46bd-87a8-327ec3b1a6f5" CreationDate="2021-03-14T00:02:21.477" UserId="9454" Text="My impression is that carbon offset plans are a rather imperfect and somewhat temporary solution - but still seem to be a step in the right direction, and at least signal consumer demand for green solutions.  Despite its somewhat half-hearted nature, even these kinds of plans can be hard to find.  I'm buying a house in Ohio, and I've found carbon-offset plans for my electricity and natural gas, but the house has an oil-burning furnace, and I'm having trouble finding any fuel oil services that do more than e.g. mention &quot;oil is cleaner than gas because blah blah blah&quot;.  I've seen a few for different states (and countries), but so far have come up short for Ohio.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a site with a comprehensive listing of green-ish services, ideally filterable by state/county (and hopefully including heating oil as one of the services)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26585" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="4e45d0e0-7641-46bd-87a8-327ec3b1a6f5" CreationDate="2021-03-14T00:02:21.477" UserId="9454" Text="Carbon offset heating oil" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26586" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10550" RevisionGUID="4e45d0e0-7641-46bd-87a8-327ec3b1a6f5" CreationDate="2021-03-14T00:02:21.477" UserId="9454" Text="|heating|oil|carbon-offsetting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10551" RevisionGUID="7ff9ee47-0587-4a49-a9fd-2c82e852bc70" CreationDate="2021-03-14T00:55:09.307" UserId="659" Text="Almost certainly Aotearoa will phase in a ban from 2025. Currently a draft plan but likely to go ahead:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/green-business/124127933/choosing-gas-for-new-homes-could-be-money-down-the-drain-says-consumer-nz" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10547" RevisionGUID="9fd3b72e-f9c4-490a-b7a6-957d1b4fa5ab" CreationDate="2021-03-15T18:50:11.363" UserId="99" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="In [this question on Super User](https://superuser.com/questions/589709/power-consumption-ssd-vs-hdd) they say that Solid-State Drives (SSDs) use much less power than traditional Hard Disk Drives (HDDs). I read some internet posts and [research articles](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320025946_A_Comparative_Study_of_HDD_and_SSD_RAIDs%27_Impact_on_Server_Energy_Consumption) that backup this claim, although [some people](https://www.quora.com/Do-SSDs-use-more-or-less-power-than-HDDs-and-by-how-much/answer/Mark-Hahn-2) say the difference is less than you expect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: does this mean that overall SSDs have a lower environmental impact over their entire lifespan (so including manufacturing and disposal)? Have there been any scientific studies on this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With environmental impact I mean the aspects that are generally part of a life-cycle analysis so energy use, water use, GHG emissions, use of rare earth metal and toxicity. Preferably all aspects relevant for disk drives, but if there's only data on a single aspect like carbon footprint I'm interested as well.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26589" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="4270" RevisionGUID="10a27cc3-62b3-4ebe-81f7-f38d5b33d3ee" CreationDate="2021-03-19T03:03:10.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26590" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10552" RevisionGUID="1eedfcfc-205c-48bf-87a0-de938106ca1c" CreationDate="2021-03-20T14:57:42.167" UserId="5477" Text="Apparently you do not understand the iron making process. The metallurgical coke serves as physical support of the raw material in the blast furnace, not just as a source of carbon. The support is needed to permit flow of gases up through the furnace . The carbon can be and is supplanted to some degree by addition of nat gas, oil and plastics ( Japan). IRON is produced with the coke , not steel. Steel is produced by blowing oxygen into the molten iron ( no carbon addition) . Once the steel is made you can remelt it for specific use with electric furnaces. Continuous casting has made a substantial reduction in energy consumption in the steel industry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10362" RevisionGUID="7b0fd238-e6a8-49c0-894c-e604ac628049" CreationDate="2021-03-20T15:44:13.037" UserId="400" Comment="Added paragraph about the nobility of reuse." Text="Polystyrene recycles well. I’d look at intercepting some. Yes, you didn’t like this option. But it’s the best one I can think of off the top of my head. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Partially fill the bag with an inflated truck inner-tube or a few air mattresses, or heavy duty beach ball. This reduces the pellets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are intercepting a waste product, so that it spends a few years in a beanbag chair, you at worst are doing no additional harm.  By the end of it's life as a bean bag, there may be better ways to recycle, or better ways to dispose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26592" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10553" RevisionGUID="89565d98-0e49-456c-9c5e-3e0a16c8d4a7" CreationDate="2021-03-20T18:57:48.827" UserId="5477" Text="Rice hulls , and I think other small grain hulls should be very good . Some pillows are stuffed with rice hulls ( the TV advertisements claim they are wonderful ). " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26593" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="6c651ef4-d3d6-46b2-bca7-0d8abf6cde0a" CreationDate="2021-03-20T22:06:25.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26594" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10532" RevisionGUID="d68cfbc0-f3f9-4ec5-9fb9-c0f90d2446af" CreationDate="2021-03-21T16:02:05.263" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26595" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="19e72d70-ac59-4b34-b98c-35c8a632398e" CreationDate="2021-03-22T04:05:45.750" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="26596" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10554" RevisionGUID="6939f724-689f-4d07-86aa-3f75fe95f16a" CreationDate="2021-03-23T03:10:45.300" UserId="9007" Text="Nothing, Steel is 0.3-2% carbon by mass. Methods for reducing co2 emissions may work. In essence, this process relies on my Tax £'s subsidising wealthy companies so they can charge me more for a product quoting increased production costs that I am subsidising. The world death rate has halved since 1950........So doing my six year old research and maths here.....&#xD;&#xA;In 1950 when the world population was 2,300,000,000 with 750,000 vehicles, and considerably less industry than today, the death rate was 19.7 per 1000.&#xD;&#xA;Whereas now we have 7,900,000,000 people and 1,200,000,000 cars and considerably more industry, but the death rate is only 9.2 per 1000,. &#xD;&#xA;With the much shouted increase, by a factor of 10 by some, in pollution since 1950, but with a death rate that has gone down, I would be looking in another direction than pollution for some answers.&#xD;&#xA;Even with the advancements in medical wizardry, that you will no doubt try to quote as the saviour of all mankind, the reduced death rate also has to be balanced against a 1000 fold increase in industrial activity. So the medical advancements and increased activity cancel each other out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10555" RevisionGUID="45e64954-5aeb-45cc-82de-dd3d9e9a15cc" CreationDate="2021-03-23T03:26:34.947" UserId="9007" Text="Even At four dollars a gallon, a gallon of gasoline has 20 lbs of CO2 thus only costs 400 dollars to emit. Heating oil costs US average of 2.50 a gallon (a typical household will consume 2 gallons of heating oil a day or 730 gallons a year or 1,825 dollars a year), Average produces 26 lbs of CO2 per gallon so heating oil per year is 9.5 tons a year.&#xD;&#xA;In other words ANY supposed climate scheme no matter how intrinsic or sophisticated is destined to fail, because at X amount of dollars per ton of CO2; the cost of eliminating CO2 emissions exceeds what it cost to emit it in the first place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26598" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10556" RevisionGUID="4f4deef5-d4e2-41ea-873c-670a88b429f8" CreationDate="2021-03-23T03:34:14.043" UserId="9007" Text="Over moderate distance. Man on a bicycle can go three or four times faster than the pedestrian, but uses five times less energy in the process. An 80 Kilogram human being carries his weight one kilometer of flat road at an expense of only 56 calories; walking 1 kilometer will burn 76 calories (234 joules)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26599" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10226" RevisionGUID="7ee28200-0864-4de7-92c8-58e0caf86c71" CreationDate="2021-03-23T18:35:38.203" UserId="3379" Comment="added 302 characters in body" Text="**TL;DR:** On-board components of wireless charging are actually 342 kg *lighter* than for the on-board components of plug-in charging, *and* allows the total battery size to be reduced (given ability to charge more frequently), allowing a battery mass reduction of 56 to 73% (1,979 to 2,577 kg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Component mass&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[&quot;Plug-in vs. wireless charging: Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions for an electric bus system&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.031) provides a full inventory of the mass of the various components required for bus wireless charging (a pdf of the masters thesis the article is based on has more detail and is available [here](http://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/css_doc/CSS15-26.pdf)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The on-board components of a 60 kW battery charger are in the table below, comparing wireless charging to on-board plug in charging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;| On-board component | Wireless charger mass [kg] | Plug-in charger mass [kg]|&#xD;&#xA;| --------- | --------: | ---:|&#xD;&#xA;| Coil plate (inductive charging secondary)      |    745| --&#xD;&#xA;| Power electronics                              |     26 | 352&#xD;&#xA;| Transformer                                    | -- | 112&#xD;&#xA;| In-vehicle cooling system                      |    195 | 977&#xD;&#xA;| Control boards                                 |     3 | 40 &#xD;&#xA;| Aluminum sheet (for mounting and enclosure)    |    170 | --&#xD;&#xA;| **TOTAL**                                      | **1,140** | **1,482**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The diagram below shows which components are on- or off-board for plug-in and wireless charging. Gray components are unique to each type, and dotted line shows the vehicle boundary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Comparison of (a) wireless charger and (b) plug-in charger for electric vehicles. Component difference is marked in grey. On-board portion of each charger is in the dashed box, and the rest is outside the vehicle.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some differences in which components are needed, but wireless charging allows for less of them to be on-board, so actually ends up being lighter: **The on-vehicle weight for wireless charging is actually 342 kg *lighter* (5.7 kg/kW) than for a plug-in electric bus with on-board charging.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason the wireless charging components are lighter is that the wireless charging does the conversion from mains ac to dc off the vehicle, while plug in charging does this step on the vehicle. For plug-in charging it is common to have these components on-board, so that the vehicle has the flexibility to charge anywhere, using any supply power. For wireless charging, there really isn't a standard yet -- it's possible that wireless charging components would just be added to the plug-in charging components, increasing the total weight. However, for a purpose-built bus system, it seems more likely that only wireless charging components would be included (with perhaps a dc interface for wired charging, which still eliminates the ac/dc conversion components).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Bus &quot;lightweighting&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the on-vehicle charging system being lighter for a wireless charging bus, the total capacity (and thus mass) of the battery can be reduced without sacrificing range, since the bus can charge more often. As the battery mass is reduced, bus efficiency improves, allowing a secondary reduction in battery capacity while still maintaining the same range -- for every 10% decrease in bus mass, the energy demand is reduced by 4.5%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the route, the mass of the battery pack can be reduced by anywhere from 56 to 73% (1,979 to 2,577 kg). This assumes stops of 30 seconds at normal bus stops, and 6 minutes at transfer points, for a total charging time of about 25% of the time the bus is active on a route.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Wireless vs plug in battery weight][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A number of other researchers have also looked at the question of how wireless charging can allow battery capacity to be reduced, including such factors as the number of buses along a route (which influences how long they remain in one place), and the use of charging tracks (allowing wireless charging while entering and leaving a bus stop, in addition to while picking up passengers). The range of estimates for battery lightweighting match the range in the study cited above:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 40% reduction ([2013: &quot;Charging up the road&quot;](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6481699))&#xD;&#xA; - 50% reduction using charging tracks over 20 minutes, or about 16% of total operating time ([2015: &quot;Economic Analysis of the Dynamic Charging Electric Vehicle&quot;](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7089287))&#xD;&#xA; - 80% reduction using an algorithm that extends charging tracks to match bus schedule ([2016: &quot;System Architecture and Mathematical Models of Electric Transit Bus System Utilizing Wireless Power Transfer Technology&quot;](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7008443))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/dOCzQ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZrZd1.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26600" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10557" RevisionGUID="f1dbfbbe-dfae-4b4c-9759-11018b53976b" CreationDate="2021-03-24T04:53:15.283" UserId="9487" Text="I found this site looking for one specifically geared to picking products based on sustainability. I'm not sure if such a specifically-focused site would actually be more effective than this one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The original question I had that inspired this was **paper or plastic**? The answer is far from obvious.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Paper bags weight more, cost more (carbon/petrochemicals) to move around. OTOH they decompose.&#xD;&#xA;2. Plastic bags are, of course, plastic. They vary greatly in weight, but then the ones that are very light tend to be doubled-up.&#xD;&#xA;3. Reusable bags often don't get reused that much. How much reuse justifies their existence? And which kinds? Cotton bags have a huge environment impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This kinds of question bugs me almost every time I go shopping." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10557" RevisionGUID="f1dbfbbe-dfae-4b4c-9759-11018b53976b" CreationDate="2021-03-24T04:53:15.283" UserId="9487" Text="Should we use paper, plastic, or reusable bags. If reusable, which kind?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10557" RevisionGUID="f1dbfbbe-dfae-4b4c-9759-11018b53976b" CreationDate="2021-03-24T04:53:15.283" UserId="9487" Text="|environmental-impact|carbon-footprint|pollution|life-cycle-analysis|lifestyle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26603" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10558" RevisionGUID="d26de881-1ea6-4ebd-b8b1-cc6420459440" CreationDate="2021-03-24T18:19:10.500" UserId="9499" Text="How would one go about calculating the amount of electricity (kilowatt hour) produced from a quantity of, say, 1,000 liters of water per hour falling from a 20 meter fall through a hydro electric generator turbine? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there differing hydro electric generator designs that are more efficient than others that should be considered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10558" RevisionGUID="d26de881-1ea6-4ebd-b8b1-cc6420459440" CreationDate="2021-03-24T18:19:10.500" UserId="9499" Text="How much electricity does 1,000 liters of water per meter of height fallen generate in various hydro generator arrangements?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10558" RevisionGUID="d26de881-1ea6-4ebd-b8b1-cc6420459440" CreationDate="2021-03-24T18:19:10.500" UserId="9499" Text="|hydroelectricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="8803edb9-aa29-4f76-9e50-fd26d36e53b5" CreationDate="2021-03-25T04:42:12.757" UserId="2345" Text="The potential energy of anything falling from a height is given by U = mgh, where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - U is the potential energy in joules&#xD;&#xA; - m is the mass in kilograms&#xD;&#xA; - h is the height in meters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, 1000 liters of water has a mass 1000 kg and the value of g is 9.8 m/s^2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of energy 1000 L of water would have after falling 20 m is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U = 1000(20)9.8 = 196,000 J&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given 1000 L of water falls 20 m every hour the amount of power available is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;196,000/3600 = 54.444 W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3600 seconds in an hour &amp; watts is the joules per second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing for friction and efficiency of a turbine, say 20 percent of the available power is converted to electricity - turbine manufacturers will be able to give a more accurate number. The power generated would be,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electrical power generated = 0.2(54.444) = 10.888 watts per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note watts, not kilowatts. If you want kilowatts then increase the height, the amount of water flowing and the flow rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="964b3f1b-c6ad-4f3e-a745-049d80d5787e" CreationDate="2021-03-26T02:14:01.093" UserId="659" Comment="I've pasted in an answer to the other half of the question" Text="The potential energy of anything falling from a height is given by U = mgh, where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - U is the potential energy in joules&#xD;&#xA; - m is the mass in kilograms&#xD;&#xA; - h is the height in meters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, 1000 liters of water has a mass 1000 kg and the value of g is 9.8 m/s^2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of energy 1000 L of water would have after falling 20 m is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U = 1000(20)9.8 = 196,000 J&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given 1000 L of water falls 20 m every hour the amount of power available is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;196,000/3600 = 54.444 W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3600 seconds in an hour &amp; watts is the joules per second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing for friction and efficiency of a turbine, say 20 percent of the available power is converted to electricity - turbine manufacturers will be able to give a more accurate number. The power generated would be,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electrical power generated = 0.2(54.444) = 10.888 watts per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note watts, not kilowatts. If you want kilowatts then increase the height, the amount of water flowing and the flow rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Móż's answer linked in comments, 90% efficiency from the turbine is possible, and 90% from the generator is also possible with large hydro stations coming close to 90% overall efficiency (in specific conditions that a small system won't be able to replicate, because they use large synchronous AC generators)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![water turbine efficiency graph][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([via wikidot][6] - relative efficiency of various turbines as flow rate varies as a proportion of rated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a very small system like the one asked about efficiency will be lower because water viscosity and edge effects play a larger role. However, since costs are irrelevant some normally ignored solutions become possible - a bucket chain, for example, scales better and could be more efficient for a system this small. But those can't scale up (100 cubic metres per second falling 100m... in buckets?!?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NYEBN.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://waterturbines.wikidot.com/system:join&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="26608" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10559" RevisionGUID="a7e71820-0488-42fc-ab0a-bf8fd793a59f" CreationDate="2021-03-26T02:19:50.753" UserId="659" Comment="I've pasted in an answer to the other half of the question" Text="The potential energy of anything falling from a height is given by U = mgh, where:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - U is the potential energy in joules&#xD;&#xA; - m is the mass in kilograms&#xD;&#xA; - h is the height in meters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, 1000 liters of water has a mass 1000 kg and the value of g is 9.8 m/s^2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of energy 1000 L of water would have after falling 20 m is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;U = 1000(20)9.8 = 196,000 J&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given 1000 L of water falls 20 m every hour the amount of power available is,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;196,000/3600 = 54.444 W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 3600 seconds in an hour &amp; watts is the joules per second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing for friction and efficiency of a turbine, say 20 percent of the available power is converted to electricity - turbine manufacturers will be able to give a more accurate number. The power generated would be,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electrical power generated = 0.2(54.444) = 10.888 watts per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note watts, not kilowatts. If you want kilowatts then increase the height, the amount of water flowing and the flow rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Móż's answer linked in comments, 90% efficiency from the turbine is possible, and 90% from the generator is also possible with [large hydro stations][2](pdf) coming close to [90% overall efficiency][1](pdf) but  in specific conditions that a small system won't be able to replicate, because for example they use large synchronous AC generators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![water turbine efficiency graph][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([via wikidot][6] - relative efficiency of various turbines as flow rate varies as a proportion of rated)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a very small system like the one asked about efficiency will be lower because water viscosity and edge effects play a larger role. However, since costs are irrelevant some normally ignored solutions become possible - a bucket chain, for example, scales better and could be more efficient for a system this small. But those can't scale up (100 cubic metres per second falling 100m... in buckets?!?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry, the only easy efficiency references were pdfs in glossy brochures&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://www.awa.asn.au/Documents/Hydro-Fact-Sheet-An-Overview-of-Hydroelectricity-in-Australia.pdf&#xD;&#xA;[2]: https://www.usbr.gov/power/edu/pamphlet.pdf&#xD;&#xA; [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NYEBN.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://waterturbines.wikidot.com/system:join&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27609" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10558" RevisionGUID="08a3e9e4-261f-4adf-8030-128b8dd84c0b" CreationDate="2021-03-27T18:00:03.193" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1375870243873169414" />
  <row Id="27610" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="b864ce0a-737d-43fa-acb3-34cdda8c9bfc" CreationDate="2021-03-28T01:03:50.360" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10560" RevisionGUID="b5329c97-1d2f-44e5-9a63-0e0d0db7cad8" CreationDate="2021-03-28T05:30:05.430" UserId="9507" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I live in the Maryland suburbs of Washington DC. On December 31, 2012, I signed a lease deal with SolarCity (now Tesla) to install solar panels on the roof of my home + associated electrical infrastructure. I would pay $0 down, I would lease the system for 20 years and I would pay SolarCity/Tesla to purchase the electricity it produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The contract I signed at that time had a buyout clause where I could purchase the solar-system outright for a lump sum after five years. This lump sum was described in the contract as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]he price you will pay for the System will be the greater of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; System's fair market value (&quot;FMV&quot;) and the amount shown on Schedule A.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The interests of any financing party shall not be taken into account&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when determining the FMV; a third party independent appraiser will be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retained to compute the System's FMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is a screenshot of **Schedule A**. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on Schedule A, my payoff amount should currently be the maximum of $4446 and the FMV of the Solar System. I asked Tesla to provide me the payoff amount and yesterday they told me it is $12,557.07.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm very surprised at the large number they have quoted and am wondering if it is legitimate. **What is the FMV of my solar system and how can I verify if the number they provided me is actually FMV or a wildly inflated figure?** To help you answer this question, I have provided multiple images and supporting links below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a mock-up images of my roof provided by SolarCity before installation. You can see that they installed 38 panels. Here is the [datasheet][2] of each panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the side of my house they have installed two large Aurora inverter boxes and some associated cabling etc. Here are the links to those two inverters: [Inverter #1][4], [Inverter #2][5]. This is what they look like from far: [![enter image description here][6]][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inside my basement, next to the main breaker switch, Solar City installed this box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/d3uqt.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13s5TTzXq1orc-HYT4vn2c3NzqaMlINtO/view?usp=sharing&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rbGvl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://misolarenergy.com/store/power-one-aurora-3000-watt-w-dc-disconnect-pvi-3-0-outd-sus&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://misolarenergy.com/store/power-one-aurora-5000-watt-pvi-outd-us&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VP6hH.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IBCWu.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27612" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10560" RevisionGUID="b5329c97-1d2f-44e5-9a63-0e0d0db7cad8" CreationDate="2021-03-28T05:30:05.430" UserId="9507" Text="What is the fair-market value of the Solar System installed by Solar City in 2013?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27613" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10560" RevisionGUID="b5329c97-1d2f-44e5-9a63-0e0d0db7cad8" CreationDate="2021-03-28T05:30:05.430" UserId="9507" Text="|solar-power|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27614" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10560" RevisionGUID="c3521ad5-7fa7-4e96-bd38-ecd2f2822823" CreationDate="2021-03-28T08:41:00.647" UserId="9507" Comment="added 99 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I live in the Maryland suburbs of Washington DC. On December 31, 2012, I signed a lease deal with SolarCity (now Tesla) to install solar panels on the roof of my home + associated electrical infrastructure. I would pay $0 down, I would lease the system for 20 years and I would pay SolarCity/Tesla to purchase the electricity it produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The contract I signed at that time had a buyout clause where I could purchase the solar-system outright for a lump sum after five years. This lump sum was described in the contract as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [T]he price you will pay for the System will be the greater of the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; System's fair market value (&quot;FMV&quot;) and the amount shown on Schedule A.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The interests of any financing party shall not be taken into account&#xD;&#xA;&gt; when determining the FMV; a third party independent appraiser will be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; retained to compute the System's FMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is a screenshot of **Schedule A**. &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on Schedule A, my payoff amount should currently be the maximum of $4446 and the FMV of the Solar System. I asked Tesla to provide me the payoff amount and yesterday they told me it is $12,557.07.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm very surprised at the large number they have quoted and am wondering if it is legitimate. **What is the FMV of my solar system and how can I verify if the number they provided me is actually FMV or a wildly inflated figure?** To help you answer this question, I have provided multiple images and supporting links below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a mock-up images of my roof provided by SolarCity before installation. What they installed matches this mockup. You can see that they installed 38 panels. Here is the [datasheet][2] of each panel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the side of my house they have installed two large Aurora inverter boxes and some associated cabling etc. Here are the links to those two inverters: [Inverter #1][4], [Inverter #2][5]. This is what they look like from far: [![enter image description here][6]][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inside my basement, next to the main breaker switch, Solar City installed this box:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***So what is the Fair Market Value of these items?***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/d3uqt.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13s5TTzXq1orc-HYT4vn2c3NzqaMlINtO/view?usp=sharing&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rbGvl.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://misolarenergy.com/store/power-one-aurora-3000-watt-w-dc-disconnect-pvi-3-0-outd-sus&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://misolarenergy.com/store/power-one-aurora-5000-watt-pvi-outd-us&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VP6hH.gif&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IBCWu.gif" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10561" RevisionGUID="ec6f3397-df22-4cdf-af6b-866802e8d775" CreationDate="2021-03-29T00:23:31.270" UserId="8232" Text="&gt; I'd like to find a way to have my array work when I need it most!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll need to invest in a home battery bank. These batteries are built to simulate grid-like conditions by providing a constant stream of power to your house (until exhausted of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The power produced by the inverters would fluctuate too much for most electronics to operate correctly - as others have commented. For exmaple, fluctuations from both the generation-side (a cloud passing overhead causing a drop in voltage) and use (the fridge or freezer attempting to kick on and drawing too much power)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27616" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="7116f57d-9e26-464d-9603-5f52f6008c0d" CreationDate="2021-03-29T11:33:05.263" UserId="9520" Text="estoy empezando a adquirir conocimientos para montar mi primer kit solar de autoconsumo y he estado investigando qué clase de paneles solares debería utilizar para una casa de aproximadamente 50 m2 con un consumo de unos 3000KW pero no lo tengo del todo claro, estoy entre:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paneles solares de 12 V&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panel solar de 60 celdas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Paneles solares de 24 V ( https://www.solarinstala.es/placas-solares/ )&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alguien tiene experiencia en el tema y me puede aconsejar? un millón de gracias y Salud para todos." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="7116f57d-9e26-464d-9603-5f52f6008c0d" CreationDate="2021-03-29T11:33:05.263" UserId="9520" Text="Que tipo de paneles solares usar para una casa de 50m2 y 3000kw de consumo" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="7116f57d-9e26-464d-9603-5f52f6008c0d" CreationDate="2021-03-29T11:33:05.263" UserId="9520" Text="|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27619" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="40b15df9-1a4b-4bcc-a0e9-5de2f38d11fc" CreationDate="2021-03-29T15:04:53.990" UserId="3379" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27620" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="2a798ac1-ebec-428b-b8f8-855074c5a6b0" CreationDate="2021-03-29T15:27:32.777" UserId="9520" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body; edited title" Text="I am beginning to acquire knowledge to assemble my first self-consumption solar kit and I have been investigating what kind of solar panels I should use for a house of approximately 50 m2 with a consumption of about 3000KW but I am not entirely clear, I am between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12V solar panels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;60 cell solar panel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;24 V solar panels (https://www.solarinstala.es/placas-solares/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have experience on the subject and can you advise me? Thanks a million and Health to all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27621" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="2a798ac1-ebec-428b-b8f8-855074c5a6b0" CreationDate="2021-03-29T15:27:32.777" UserId="9520" Comment="deleted 26 characters in body; edited title" Text="What type of solar panels to use for a house of 50m2 and 3000kw of consumption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27622" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10560" RevisionGUID="4ce7a1b1-8854-4714-b3f0-0bd48932e9d3" CreationDate="2021-03-29T15:30:44.493" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27623" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="c0a94c2b-9e7a-4dee-937d-7bd165b41dc8" CreationDate="2021-03-30T09:08:31.733" UserId="9524" Text="I was arguing with my wife over which dishwasher program to use. I want to use the eco program because it is most environmentally friendly, but she countered that the long program (3:30h) puts more strain on the dishes and results in them having to be changed more frequently. Also she is attached to her dishes. Therefore she would rather use the short program for 0:30h. I imagine it is difficult to calculate the exact environmental impact of the dishes being used out by the dishwasher, because it depends at what point of wear the person would change the dishes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I want to question my wife's premise that the eco program is worse for dishes. It does take longer and the dishes are probably exposed to more high pressure water streams. But my google search shows that most of that time is used to 'soak' the dishes. Furthermore the eco mode can use lower temperature for washing and drying and that is probably also good for the dishes. So my question is: **Which dishwasher program is best to conserve the plates?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm new to this stackexchange, I hope this question is appropriate here. Please tell me how I can improve it to fit here)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="c0a94c2b-9e7a-4dee-937d-7bd165b41dc8" CreationDate="2021-03-30T09:08:31.733" UserId="9524" Text="Which dishwasher program is best to conserve the plates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="c0a94c2b-9e7a-4dee-937d-7bd165b41dc8" CreationDate="2021-03-30T09:08:31.733" UserId="9524" Text="|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27626" PostHistoryTypeId="11" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="bdf28057-cc26-472b-827f-11affe69c8c8" CreationDate="2021-03-30T15:52:36.507" UserId="3379" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27627" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10564" RevisionGUID="0f7a4bc6-d5a9-469f-91b6-34057cbda856" CreationDate="2021-03-30T23:55:36.157" UserId="8041" Text="A transport expert claimed that a Euro 6 car has fewer NOx emissions than a Euro VI bus, surely this cannot be correct?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Euro 6b - 0.080 g/km of NOx&#xD;&#xA;Euro VI - 0.46 g/kWh of NOx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Need to convert from g/kWh to g/km.  Assuming 1 gallon is equal to 36kWh and the bus does 7 miles per gallon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7 m/g = 11.2km/g&#xD;&#xA;NOx/g = 0.46g/kWh &#xD;&#xA;0.46g/kWh * 36kWh/gallon = 16.56g/gallon&#xD;&#xA;11.2km/gallon / 16.56g/gallon = 1.49g/km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I make it that the bus would be 1.49g/km in comparison to the car that would be 0.08g/km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27628" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10564" RevisionGUID="0f7a4bc6-d5a9-469f-91b6-34057cbda856" CreationDate="2021-03-30T23:55:36.157" UserId="8041" Text="Does a single Euro VI bus really release less NOx than a euro 6 diesel car?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27629" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10564" RevisionGUID="0f7a4bc6-d5a9-469f-91b6-34057cbda856" CreationDate="2021-03-30T23:55:36.157" UserId="8041" Text="|transport|pollution|air-pollution|emissions|air-quality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10564" RevisionGUID="7f9ed83c-20e2-4d80-8e49-e426be04d74b" CreationDate="2021-03-31T00:01:56.180" UserId="8041" Comment="added 90 characters in body" Text="A transport expert claimed that a Euro 6 car has fewer NOx emissions than a Euro VI bus, surely this cannot be correct?!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Euro 6b (diesel car) - 0.080 g/km of NOx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Euro VI (bus) - 0.46 g/kWh of NOx&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Need to convert from g/kWh to g/km.  Assuming 1 gallon is equal to 36kWh and the bus does 7 miles per gallon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7 m/g = 11.2km/g&#xD;&#xA;NOx/g = 0.46g/kWh &#xD;&#xA;0.46g/kWh * 36kWh/gallon = 16.56g/gallon&#xD;&#xA;11.2km/gallon / 16.56g/gallon = 1.49g/km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I make it that the bus would be 1.49g/km in comparison to the car that would be 0.08g/km.  I make the single bus 18.6 times more polluting than a single car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this correct?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27631" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="efbdba05-e972-479f-871d-7414ade0fa1b" CreationDate="2021-03-31T10:01:41.120" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected capitalization of units" Text="I am beginning to acquire knowledge to assemble my first self-consumption solar kit and I have been investigating what kind of solar panels I should use for a house of approximately 50 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; with a consumption of about 3000 kW but I am not entirely clear, I am between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12V solar panels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;60 cell solar panel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;24 V solar panels (https://www.solarinstala.es/placas-solares/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have experience on the subject and can you advise me? Thanks a million and Health to all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27632" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="efbdba05-e972-479f-871d-7414ade0fa1b" CreationDate="2021-03-31T10:01:41.120" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected capitalization of units" Text="What type of solar panels to use for a house of 50 m2 and 3000 kW of consumption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27633" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="53c26040-30d9-44b1-a4e2-8ebcc603b1e4" CreationDate="2021-03-31T10:09:25.840" UserId="8041" Text="HC (I assum hydrocarbons) is a column in the euro emission standards for trucks &amp; buses.  Which hydrocarbons are produced and at what quantities?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the particulate matter emissions be included in the hydrocarbon emissions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_trucks_and_buses&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27634" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="53c26040-30d9-44b1-a4e2-8ebcc603b1e4" CreationDate="2021-03-31T10:09:25.840" UserId="8041" Text="What hydrocarbons are produced by a diesel motor?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27635" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="53c26040-30d9-44b1-a4e2-8ebcc603b1e4" CreationDate="2021-03-31T10:09:25.840" UserId="8041" Text="|transport|pollution|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27636" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10338" RevisionGUID="ad02ee71-10d0-42a5-a684-ba932ddc9f4e" CreationDate="2021-03-31T14:01:10.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10566" RevisionGUID="18e1754b-a3b2-4421-ac68-a54426774ad9" CreationDate="2021-03-31T21:16:53.467" UserId="5477" Text="Mostly existing technology except for the magic filter that separate the hydrogen ; Look up &quot;fire flood&quot; oil recovery. Fire flood injects HOT air to ignite hydrocarbons in the formation . No water necessary as it is always in the formation. The existing technology uses the pressurized combustion gases and formation hydrocarbons to push to recovering wells. Presently the recovery wells pump out water , liquid hydrocarbons ,and gasses which are separated in surface equipment. If any hydrogen is produced ( I never heard that it was ) it would go with the methane. I have written more than I know about it but I am certain SPE has monograph or something on fire flood, steam flood , and huff and puff petroleum production.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27638" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10566" RevisionGUID="ffdfe4a7-4a69-4b4c-9be3-403d65af7b6e" CreationDate="2021-03-31T21:33:13.600" UserId="5477" Comment="additions" Text="Mostly existing technology except for the magic filter that separate the hydrogen ; Look up &quot;fire flood&quot; oil recovery. Fire flood injects HOT air to ignite hydrocarbons in the formation . No water necessary as it is always in the formation. The existing technology uses the pressurized combustion gases and formation hydrocarbons to push to recovering wells. Presently the recovery wells pump out water , liquid hydrocarbons ,and gasses which are separated in surface equipment. If any hydrogen is produced ( I never heard that it was ) it would go with the methane. I have written more than I know about it but I am certain SPE has monograph or something on fire flood, steam flood , and huff and puff petroleum production.  Thinking about it a minute , I think what won't work the most is heating millions of tons of formation rock ( many are carbonates) to 700 C where the hydrogen is formed.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27639" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="30343faf-87fa-4ee0-b044-4598d3ba4546" CreationDate="2021-03-31T22:34:14.547" UserId="9020" Text="[Sweden’s H2 Green Steel plant is $4bn green giant fuelled by hydrogen][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Could green steel become one of Australia’s most strategic minerals?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stockhead.com.au/energy/swedens-h2-green-steel-plant-is-4bn-green-giant-fuelled-by-hydrogen/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.mining-technology.com/features/could-green-steel-become-one-of-australias-most-strategic-minerals/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="1692300b-d86f-41a3-a59c-adc5592781b5" CreationDate="2021-04-01T03:07:11.820" UserId="9020" Comment="added 724 characters in body" Text="[Sweden’s H2 Green Steel plant is $4bn green giant fuelled by hydrogen][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Decarbonised steel production is becoming a reality in Sweden where H2 Green Steel is building a €2.5bn ($3.9bn) hydrogen powered steel plant that is set to start up in 2024.  &#xD;&#xA;H2 Green Steel‘s plant in northern Sweden is to supply European end users with steel produced without fossil fuels and is billed as the world’s largest green hydrogen plant.&#xD;&#xA;...&#xD;&#xA;Instead of producing steel in a blast furnace, green steel is made in an electric arc furnace in a process that produces less than 0.1 tonne of carbon dioxide for 1 tonne of steel.  &#xD;&#xA;Green hydrogen employs electrolysis to split water into its two elements of hydrogen and oxygen and the electrolysis process can be powered from low-emission sources like solar.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Could green steel become one of Australia’s most strategic minerals?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stockhead.com.au/energy/swedens-h2-green-steel-plant-is-4bn-green-giant-fuelled-by-hydrogen/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.mining-technology.com/features/could-green-steel-become-one-of-australias-most-strategic-minerals/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="6167cc1d-65c5-4599-8743-4110909261c1" CreationDate="2021-04-01T03:22:12.733" UserId="9020" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="[Sweden’s H2 Green Steel plant is $4bn green giant fuelled by hydrogen][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Decarbonised steel production is becoming a reality in Sweden where H2 Green Steel is building a €2.5bn ($3.9bn) hydrogen powered steel plant that is set to start up in 2024.  &#xD;&#xA;H2 Green Steel‘s plant in northern Sweden is to supply European end users with steel produced without fossil fuels and is billed as the world’s largest green hydrogen plant.  &#xD;&#xA;...  &#xD;&#xA;Instead of producing steel in a blast furnace, green steel is made in an electric arc furnace in a process that produces less than 0.1 tonne of carbon dioxide for 1 tonne of steel.  &#xD;&#xA;Green hydrogen employs electrolysis to split water into its two elements of hydrogen and oxygen and the electrolysis process can be powered from low-emission sources like solar.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Could green steel become one of Australia’s most strategic minerals?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stockhead.com.au/energy/swedens-h2-green-steel-plant-is-4bn-green-giant-fuelled-by-hydrogen/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.mining-technology.com/features/could-green-steel-become-one-of-australias-most-strategic-minerals/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27642" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10567" RevisionGUID="2ad479cb-daa0-4f6b-924f-9036eac3a0fe" CreationDate="2021-04-01T03:53:05.933" UserId="9020" Comment="added 596 characters in body" Text="[Sweden’s H2 Green Steel plant is $4bn green giant fuelled by hydrogen][1]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Decarbonised steel production is becoming a reality in Sweden where H2 Green Steel is building a €2.5bn ($3.9bn) hydrogen powered steel plant that is set to start up in 2024.  &#xD;&#xA;H2 Green Steel‘s plant in northern Sweden is to supply European end users with steel produced without fossil fuels and is billed as the world’s largest green hydrogen plant.  &#xD;&#xA;...  &#xD;&#xA;Instead of producing steel in a blast furnace, green steel is made in an electric arc furnace in a process that produces less than 0.1 tonne of carbon dioxide for 1 tonne of steel.  &#xD;&#xA;Green hydrogen employs electrolysis to split water into its two elements of hydrogen and oxygen and the electrolysis process can be powered from low-emission sources like solar.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Could green steel become one of Australia’s most strategic minerals?][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Green steel -- likely later than sooner][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Green steel, or carbon-neutral steel, would be produced using green hydrogen generated from renewable energy sources rather than fossil fuels, either as an alternative to pulverized coal injection, or PCI, material or as an alternative reductant to produce direct reduced iron, or DRI. The International Energy Agency projected that DRI based solely on hydrogen manufactured via electrolysis will occur as early as 2030.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://stockhead.com.au/energy/swedens-h2-green-steel-plant-is-4bn-green-giant-fuelled-by-hydrogen/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.mining-technology.com/features/could-green-steel-become-one-of-australias-most-strategic-minerals/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/metals/030421-green-steel-likely-later-than-sooner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10568" RevisionGUID="e73917e9-cb93-4eb7-be44-12e06b12f23c" CreationDate="2021-04-01T13:20:04.017" UserId="6393" Text="I'll answer only the &quot;why not&quot; question because I don't know about the feasibility of their plans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why nobody else seems to be trying this?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of two reasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, if you extract natural gas from a field, you can do the steam reforming over the ground. Then you will also have a place where to store the resulting carbon dioxide -- into a depleted natural gas field. So, if you really really want to do steam reforming with CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; sequestration, there's no need to do it underground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, today in most regions that are not very far from the equator, it's already today cheapest to produce energy by solar power. The second cheapest energy production method is wind power. (Far away from the equator the order is reversed.) The trouble is, those have zero fuel costs. Meaning that when the amount of energy that can be produced exceeds the demand for energy, the price of electricity falls to zero. This doesn't make solar and wind power infeasible because they make most of their revenue when energy is scarce but not so scarce that production is zero. When there's absolutely no sunshine and wind (and energy is expensive), revenue is zero due to no energy available, and when there's plenty of sunshine and wind (and energy is zero-priced), revenue is zero due to zero-priced energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is inevitable that the amount of installed solar and wind energy will become so large that we will see a very large fraction of all hours being these zero-priced hours (perhaps even free electricity for half of the hours). Thus, it makes far more sense to create hydrogen using electrolysis of water, because there aren't exactly that many ways free electricity could be put to useful use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today electrolysis cells cost around 1000 EUR per kilowatt, but because the technology is not rocket science unlike solar photovoltaics (that by the way cost today only 200 EUR per kilowatt), we will very likely see in the near future electrolysis cells at a price of 200 EUR per kilowatt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, when the solar and wind share of all energy grows, the electricity consumed by these cheap electrolysis cells is zero-priced. You just turn the cells off when energy becomes too expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can't compete with that with any steam reforming process, whether it is happening over or under the ground, whether it is sequestering the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And in the meantime, before electricity becomes free half of the time and before electrolysis cells reach a low price, the hydrogen can be produced over the ground with steam reforming, deciding whether to capture the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; or not based on the price of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; in the emission trading schemes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27644" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10569" RevisionGUID="e52e6d94-8847-4aee-a6c9-31a32cac8997" CreationDate="2021-04-01T13:33:20.830" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; What are the most promising alternatives, in terms of the economics and scalability, to decarbonise steel production? Both for the reduction of iron oxide to iron, and for the iron-to-steel process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll answer the first:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Direct reduction of iron oxide to iron using hydrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several features that make this a promising alternative:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Firstly, renewables installation will eventually reach a phase where the maximum production exceeds the demand for electricity. A wind turbine produces on the average around 30% of its maximum production (for offshore wind power about 45%), and a solar PV array produces on the average around 10-15% of its maximum production depending on the latitude. So when it's really windy or sunny, we have excess power because the systems need to be sized so that average production matches the average consumption. This pushes the price of electricity to zero.&#xD;&#xA;2. Secondly, unlike solar cells that are a rocket science (solar PV modules by the way cost only around 200 EUR per kilowatt), electrolysis cells are not. So despite the fact that today electrolysis cells cost 1000 EUR per kilowatt, we'll likely see a price below 200 EUR per kilowatt. So electrolysis cells can turn the excess electricity to hydrogen. But it's not ecomonical if continuously done. You need to do it only when electricity is really cheap or free.&#xD;&#xA;3. Thirdly, hydrogen storage is difficult for the average user, but mandatory if we want to put the excess electricity that is zero-priced to a good use. You need to do it underground because no above-the-ground structure can withstand the high pressures required unless the walls are so thick the costs are prohibitive. So unlike batteries which Elon Musk is promoting as a solution to the energy storage problem (and which they are not due to their limited capacity) and which can be bought by the average home user, hydogen storage needs to be done in an industrial scale under the ground. So a perfect match for a steel-producing plant to act as an electricity grid balancer using hydrogen storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Finnish-Swedish steel company SSAB is planning to use direct reduction of iron oxide to iron using hydrogen on an industrial scale. This ambitious plan will need large amounts of renewable electricity, though, and to be economical it might also need the price of electrolysis cells to decrease from the current expensive levels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10570" RevisionGUID="939e5d0a-302d-4d4f-9fcd-706067cbdd13" CreationDate="2021-04-01T13:38:12.560" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; Would the particulate matter emissions be included in the hydrocarbon emissions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, the particulate matter is hydrocarbons because the source fuel is hydrocarbons, but you need to look at the amounts. The emission limits of particulate matter are nearly two orders of magnitude below the emission limits of hydrocarbons. So an insignificant amount of the produced hydrocarbons are particulate matters. Most of the produced hydrocarbons are in the form of evaporated hydrocarbons, not in the form of particulate matters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if you have a measuring device that only measures evaporated hydrocarbons, you get a pretty good picture of the emitted hydrocarbon amount even though it's incorrectly omitting particulate matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10571" RevisionGUID="207447d5-23fa-4dc3-8abb-e886e038e030" CreationDate="2021-04-01T13:44:10.170" UserId="6393" Text="Unless you are planning to go off-grid (which is quite stupid as energy storage is best done on an industrial scale as hydrogen stored underground, and not on a single-home scale in batteries, as batteries are very expensive), there are only two satisfactory answers to this question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. If the cost of solar panels is so high that the annual yield of your investment, taking into account depreciation of the installed panels, is below that of an alternative investment such as a well-diversified stock portfolio, the best bet is to not install these panels at all. Doesn't make sense to invest in something that produces only very little yield.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. If the cost of the solar panels is so low that the annual yield of your investment exceeds that of other alternative investments such as a well-diversified stock portfolio, cover all suitably oriented surfaces of your roof with solar panels. In fact, if you have unused land area, you could also install even more solar panels on the ground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if solar panels are worth it, the amount of panels to install is determined by the amount of area you have for these panels. Better to use all of the area as opposed to using only half of the area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion is that there probably aren't very many places where the price of electricity is so high and the labor rate for installing panels is so low that solar panels would make sense on the small scale for a single home. Also, you have to consider what happens if everyone installs solar panels. Then the price of electricity becomes very dependent on sunshine, i.e. when you have the most sunshine, the price of electricity is zero due to excess production and then your panels aren't producing any revenue at all." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10572" RevisionGUID="9938b0bc-6666-4b8a-a0e7-6cc093d007ca" CreationDate="2021-04-01T13:50:15.950" UserId="6393" Text="Your calculation is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1 gallon contains 36 kWh of heat, but only around 12 kWh of that will be turned into useful motive power in an engine with 33% efficiency. The rest, 24 kWh, are emitted as heat. I suspect the Euro VI standard for buses is 0.46 g / motive-kWh and not 0.46 g / thermal-kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 0.46 g / kWh would be 5.52 g / gallon or 5.52 g / 7 miles or 0.78857 g / mile or 0.49 g / km. Not 1.47 g / km (which I assume is what your calculation without rounding errors would give.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you need only 6 passengers on the average to make the bus less polluting. I think most buses are typically above this level." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27648" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10573" RevisionGUID="c08a2e12-1e78-430e-9253-4d9ccec6ea05" CreationDate="2021-04-01T14:04:46.480" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; Since I ate a lot of food, I asked to myself if maybe a train (dividing cost between all passenger) was more green than me!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A train typically uses electricity. The emissions of electricity on the greenest grids are typically around 50 g / kWh produced. In the near future I think we can even reach zero with hydrogen energy storage and renewables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a train is a heavy object. A human on a bicycle travels at around 150 watts at a speed of 20 km/h, i.e. 7.5 watt-hours per kilometer. Compare that to an electric car using around 180 watt-hours per kilometer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A human is a thermal engine with 25% efficiency. So a human needs 30 watt-hours per kilometer of food energy. This is 25.8 kcal, or 7.6 grams of pasta per kilometer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Creating a kilogram of pasta produces 1.3 kilograms of fossil CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (plus the non-fossil CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; that isn't counted because the plant has sequestered it from the atmosphre). So traveling on a bicycle at the minimum produces 10 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per kilometer. Of course a human could have a more varied diet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An electric car would be 180 watt-hours per kilometer or 9 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per kilometer on the greenest grids already today. So an electric car weighing 2000 kg is already today more climate-friendly than a bicycle weighing 100 kg with the cyclist riding on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A train today consumes 16 watt-hours per kilometer per passenger. So a train already today requires less primary energy than a bicyclist. On the greenest grids today, a train thus produces around 0.8 g / passenger-kilometer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course on the dirtiest grids you can multiply all amounts by 20. So an electric car would be 180 g / km and a train would be 16 g / passenger-km. So in a really dirty grid a train would produce more CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; than a bicyclist on a really green diet. However, most cyclists don't eat only pasta but eat a small portion of meat as well, so we can safely conclude that in 99.9% of cases a train is more green than a cyclist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric bicycles with current regulations won't help much by the way. On an electric bike, over half of the energy comes from the human cyclist due to the 25 km/h requirement, and only less than half from the electricity. This is because a typical cyclist on flat ground is already traveling at more than 25 km/h. To make electric bikes truly green, the 25 km/h requirement at which the electric assist needs to be cut off has to go away." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10574" RevisionGUID="8daa6610-82aa-4588-9ac5-c621ec02e59a" CreationDate="2021-04-01T14:09:42.907" UserId="6393" Text="Your best bet to offset is not via some carbon-offset program that are a big con, but rather by directing your money into green investments. Invest in wind power, solar power, geothermal heat pump etc stocks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And when you have enough money invested in these stocks that you could purchase a geothermal heat pump system, you can decide whether the biggest impact is by continuing these investments or alternatively purchasing a geothermal heat pump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I have a non-plug-in-hybrid car that consumes some amount of gasoline. I drive so little that I have decided the best impact of my money is by investing that money into green energy stocks rather than purchasing an electric vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Someday it may be the case that green energy stocks become so expensive and electric vehicles so cheap that it's better to withdraw my money from the green energy investments and purchase an electric car with the money. If that day ever arrives, I'll be a proud electric vehicle owner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10575" RevisionGUID="049c771b-19df-4dcf-9e2b-42ee03289946" CreationDate="2021-04-01T14:20:22.747" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; Are there studies that evaluate which CO2 price would actually lead to significant changes in consumption patterns?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a study would be of very little interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The change will not happen in consumption patterns but in production patterns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, you pay today perhaps 30 EUR / MWh of natural gas with transportation but without CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; prices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NEL has a 1.5 USD / kg target for green hydrogen. This is 45 USD / MWh or 38 EUR / MWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A megawatt-hour of natural gas produces 0.2 tonnes of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. So already the European emission trading price 40 EUR / tonne today is imposing an additional 8 EUR / MWh tax, so 30 EUR / MWh turns into 38 EUR / MWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, that's why interest today in green hydrogen is increasing and stock prices of hydrogen companies are sky-high and all natural gas turbine / engine manufacturers are racing to create a turbine / engine that can burn 100% hydrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One problem is that the infrastructure for delivering natural gas is already installed. It is a sunk cost. So a carbon price of 190 EUR / tonne would make all such infrastructure worthless as a natural gas producers and transporters wouldn't get any revenue from their product because the entire 38 EUR / MWh price would go to taxes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, we can safely say that a carbon price of 190 EUR / tonne will end the use of the cleanest fossil fuel of them all, natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As we know, in many European countries all of the taxes imposed on gasoline vehicles (purchasing, owning and driving) amount to about 300 EUR / tonne of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. So even this level of pricing does not affect consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a price lower than 300 EUR / tonne, only 190 EUR / tonne, would affect production." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10576" RevisionGUID="41288f53-ac6f-41dd-9875-1e2278b58cdb" CreationDate="2021-04-01T14:30:48.427" UserId="6393" Text="The greatest trend in energy is electrification. I suspect this trend will dominate heat production, so heat would be produced using heat pumps. Their source can be industrial waste heat, datacenter heat, geothermal heat or even seawater heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatives would be small nuclear reactors that produce only heat at low pressure and not steam at high pressure for electricity generation, and deep binary geothermal systems that don't require any heat pumps because 7 km below the ground the temperature is quite high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, electrification is only part of the story. The big question is how the electricity is being produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my country, Finland, the largest clean energy installations will be Olkiluoto-3 and Hanhikivi-1 nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto-3 has about a decade of extra delay and it seems the bill will be mainly paid by the supplier of the plant and not by the future owner of the plant. Hanhikivi-1 comes from Russia and the supplier of the plant has priced in all risks so Hanhikivi-1 will be far more expensive to the future owners than Olkiluoto-3 will be.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the high price of Hanhikivi-1 means it will be the last nuclear reactor constructed in Finland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Already today the cheapest energy source in Finland is not nuclear power but wind power. There is plenty of land area in Finland for wind. So wind power installation is happening at a very rapid pace, in fact at a faster pace than construction of the new nuclear power plants as measured by actual produced average megawatts per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem of wind is that if the amount of wind power is sized to produce on average the needed electricity, with capacity factor of only 30% you get 3.33 times as much energy as you need during windy hours. So something will need to be done with the excess energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two ways the excess energy can be used:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, you can produce hydrogen with electrolysis, store it pressurized under ground and later turn it back to electricity with combined cycle power plants. Fuel cells can't really compete with combined cycle power plants as a fuel cell needs an inverter but a combined cycle power plant does not, fuel cell lifetimes are short and stationary fuel cells are more expensive than combined cycle power plants. Plus, even the theoretical best efficiencies of fuel cells are at about the same level as combined cycle plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, you can produce heat with heat pumps from various sources and store the hot nearly boiling water in some storage areas, to be used later to provide heat. Such storage areas can be underground caves (the rock is already a good enough insulator if the cave is big enough to have any meaningful storage capacity), or insulated floating storage sites constructed in the sea. Of course this storage only makes sense in district heating networks. Small individual homes having their own heat production means can't necessarily store much heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, because solar power production doesn't have a full correlation with wind power production, I suspect the future energy system will also have some proportion of solar photovoltaics installations and not just wind power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it is worth mentioning that the existing installed hydropower capacity can also be used to adjust for variations in wind power production, but the trouble is there's not enough hydropower so other storage means are necessary too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10577" RevisionGUID="c886a7df-d464-441f-9398-a507f3c87c5c" CreationDate="2021-04-01T14:33:24.243" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; How does one ensure that their electronic chargers are energy efficient?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They already are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do a simple experiment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Connect a laptop to a charger. Place full CPU load on the laptop. Can you hear the fan spinning on the laptop? Yes you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But can yo hear the fan spinning on the power supply? No you can't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A power supply doesn't have a fan precisely because it's very efficient, above 90% efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you're purchasing a power supply producing any significant quantity of power, you simply select a power supply that doesn't have a fan. It would self-destruct if it wasn't energy efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course with very large powers, multiple kilowatts, a fan is needed even in relatively efficient power supplies but that's a different story.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the small power supply segment, you won't find poorly efficient power supplies of fans at all because they can't compete with more efficient fanless supplies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27653" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10578" RevisionGUID="2ae56e75-a1d4-4055-b644-9fde761668f0" CreationDate="2021-04-01T14:37:58.943" UserId="6393" Text="SSDs store the data in semiconductors. HDDs store the data in rotating rust platters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a large scale, if you only need to access the data rarely, HDD has a competitive edge, especially if the access is so rare you can spin down and up the disks as needed (so that the constantly spinning disk doesn't consume energy). The reason is that semiconductor production is a relatively dirty and you need lots of semiconductor chips to store any meaningful amounts of data. So for backup purposes HDDs win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the data storage needs are small, and/or if the access to the data is frequent, SSDs will probably win. The reason being that for storing only small amounts of data (such as in a single phone) needs only one small semiconductor chip, and frequent access to a data with HDDs would require a massive RAID 1 mirror of the data so that all accesses can be satisfied at a great rate. So you would need to duplicate the data perhaps ten perhaps hundred times with HDDs if access rates are great, but only once if you are using SSDs that are many orders of magnitude faster than HDDs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27654" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10563" RevisionGUID="910e1180-8a36-42da-b296-884a5d254f67" CreationDate="2021-04-02T00:00:00.423" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1377772768763203585" />
  <row Id="27655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10538" RevisionGUID="b850ad39-e969-494c-9e65-6cbaa7a3ee98" CreationDate="2021-04-02T03:05:35.987" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected unit capitalizations, superscripts" Text="In terms of efficiently using sun's energy. Let's not forget passive solar. &#xD;&#xA;With no mechanical parts to break, a sufficiently heavy or phase change thermal mass can go a long way when the house is properly insulated. 4 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of windows (40 sq ft) is close toe 4 kW. (circa 12 000 BTU )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="188d9dc2-358b-447e-9164-dc8fac95520e" CreationDate="2021-04-07T17:11:57.233" UserId="3379" Text="I recently replaced a 20-year-old ICE vehicle in need of significant repairs with a five-year-old ICE vehicle. We had hoped that we could buy an EV this time around, but models that meet our needs are only available as new cars, the cost of which we couldn't justify. However, in my search for suitable EVs I was having trouble making a good comparison between the cost of a used ICEV (cheaper up-front but higher operating and maintenance costs) vs a new EV (higher up-front but lower operating and maintenance costs). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there a calculator or tool where I could input the cost and fuel efficiency of a used car I'm considering purchasing outright, and be presented with electric vehicle choices that would have a lower total cost of ownership?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I would NOT consider financing a used ICEV, but given the higher cost of an EV and the available tax incentives, I would consider financing a new EV.&#xD;&#xA; - To be useful, any tool should allow me to input:&#xD;&#xA;   - Down payment budget&#xD;&#xA;   - Monthly payment budget&#xD;&#xA;   - My electric rate&#xD;&#xA;   - Local gasoline prices&#xD;&#xA; - I will not buy any car that I wouldn't expect to own for at least 10 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of the [Alternative Fuels Data Center Calculator](https://afdc.energy.gov/calc/) from the U.S. Department of Energy, but this only allows me to compare specific vehicles (so I'd have to know my available EV options up front) and makes a number of assumptions about costs and financing that users can't edit. I'm hoping for a more full-featured calculator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27660" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="188d9dc2-358b-447e-9164-dc8fac95520e" CreationDate="2021-04-07T17:11:57.233" UserId="3379" Text="Is there a total cost of ownership calculator for cars that will give me electric vehicle options?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27661" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10580" RevisionGUID="188d9dc2-358b-447e-9164-dc8fac95520e" CreationDate="2021-04-07T17:11:57.233" UserId="3379" Text="|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27662" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10354" RevisionGUID="b7f28cf3-28e7-4538-8771-3fafbfa17d35" CreationDate="2021-04-08T09:00:50.187" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10581" RevisionGUID="4da6a476-9d0d-42e6-ab0b-0ae6c02d9b0d" CreationDate="2021-04-10T18:05:38.163" UserId="6393" Text="Yes there is, but unfortunately the only calculator I know, which allows determining both the climate impact and the total cost of ownership at the same time, is only available in the Finnish language.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are few options. You could try using it in Finnish by typing the unknown words to Google Translate to see what they mean if not self-evident immediately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or you could click &quot;Lähetä palautetta&quot; (Send feedback) which allows sending mail to the authors at palaute@autokalkulaattori.fi. If you write your feedback in English and request an English language version of the calculator, I'm sure they understand your feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The calculator is available at https://www.ilmastopaneeli.fi/autokalkulaattori/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There seems to be basic financing support, i.e. taking into account the time value of money for bound capital. You can access it in settings (&quot;Asetukset&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27666" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10582" RevisionGUID="b25ba80f-c895-4e85-b4f5-5291f5385f18" CreationDate="2021-04-11T00:52:23.323" UserId="8031" Text="Three factors that are not typically considered in these situations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. The amount of computer usage time saved using an SSD over an HDD.&#xD;&#xA; 2. The amount of industrial equipment built specifically for a single product, as well as the proportion of equipment that can be used for multiple processes.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Where and how is the product being recycled/disposed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these are very difficult to determine carbon footprint values for and can vary wildly between manufacturers.  Unfortunately,  it would be very unlikely to get a manufacturer to agree to an outside comprehensive study of their processes to understand their environmental impact to extrapolate for a consumer scale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27667" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10583" RevisionGUID="27fa7a67-b50f-42ba-86e8-15cb4e1b26b7" CreationDate="2021-04-12T08:59:48.543" UserId="9567" Text="No. Hydrogen fuel-cell cars and fueling stations are well developed. Emission-free hydrogen, derived from water, is still not widely available. But this is an infrastructure development issue being addressed now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.quora.com/Is-Shell-reacting-to-a-change-in-the-publics-attitude-to-hydrogen-cars-in-this-expansion-of-its-hydrogen-filling-station-network/answer/Robert-Stodieck?prompt_topic_bio=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27668" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10561" RevisionGUID="74a02a8b-ebae-46e2-aa3e-51d9b1b1b544" CreationDate="2021-04-13T05:40:25.713" UserId="8232" Comment="typo" Text="&gt; I'd like to find a way to have my array work when I need it most!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll need to invest in a home battery bank. These batteries are built to simulate grid-like conditions by providing a constant stream of power to your house (until exhausted of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The power produced by the inverters would fluctuate too much for most electronics to operate correctly - as others have commented. For example, fluctuations from both the generation-side (a cloud passing overhead causing a drop in voltage) and use (the fridge or freezer attempting to kick on and drawing too much power)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27669" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9595" RevisionGUID="0c5e38c6-2576-4f70-901d-20f12218c22f" CreationDate="2021-04-14T09:03:17.763" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1382258146073317377" />
  <row Id="27672" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10584" RevisionGUID="ce2d4d42-d08b-403c-b91c-be648c579108" CreationDate="2021-04-19T05:17:42.917" UserId="8232" Text="## Return them to a retailer that does 'cylinder swaps'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Soda Stream's website][1], the appropriate place to return them is to a retailer that participates in their 'canister swap' program:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you are no longer going to use your SodaStream, you can return your empty carbonating cylinder(s) to one of your local retailers (without exchanging it for a full cylinder). There is no deposit to return as there is no deposit when a cylinder is purchased. When you buy a SodaStream cylinder you pay for the CO2 in the cylinder along with a license to use the cylinder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They go on to mention that you are entitled to a return fee of $1.00 per cylinder, and if the retailer doesn't want to reimburse you, to contact SodaStream's customer care to get a prepaid shipping label to send your cylinders directly to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://support.sodastream.com/hc/en-us/articles/360021584653-Where-can-I-recycle-my-CO2-cylinders-if-I-no-longer-use-them-and-do-I-get-back-a-deposit-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6534" RevisionGUID="d8419e23-034c-4a20-8004-a81a538a176f" CreationDate="2021-04-19T05:28:08.570" UserId="8232" Comment="typo" Text="My wife and I have a bunch of random broken things from our previous lives that we're trying to get rid of correctly. One of them is a few left over SodaStream canisters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many recycling centres (in NSW at least) don't seem to take on gas canisters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a place in Australia (preferably in Sydney) that would recycle these or dispose of them correctly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27674" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="6534" RevisionGUID="d8419e23-034c-4a20-8004-a81a538a176f" CreationDate="2021-04-19T05:28:08.570" UserId="8232" Comment="typo" Text="Recycling soda stream canisters in Australia?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="995" RevisionGUID="c78799d2-a570-4d41-bd05-faeb5580e5b7" CreationDate="2021-04-19T15:54:52.777" UserId="3379" Comment="Moderator edits article" Text="Sustainable Living Stack Exchange is for people passionate about living lives in a sustainable manner - a lifestyle that can be maintained indefinitely without depleting available resources. Whether you are an individual or business looking to make everyday changes, or an industry professional in waste recovery, renewable energy or clean technologies, chances are you're in the right place to ask your question!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question on sustainability issues, including but not limited to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Carbon footprints and environmental impacts&#xD;&#xA;- Electricity generation and storage &#xD;&#xA;- Product and appliance life-cycles, waste streams and waste minimisation&#xD;&#xA;- Reducing, Reusing, Recycling and alternatives&#xD;&#xA;- Global Warming &amp; Climate Change&#xD;&#xA;- Ecosystems, Hydroponics and Permaculture&#xD;&#xA;- Construction materials and energy-efficient design&#xD;&#xA;- ...and any other questions regarding sustainable practices and designs! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please look around to see if your question has been asked before. It’s&#xD;&#xA;also OK to share knowledge by [asking and answering your own question][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your question is not specifically related to Sustainability, it may be on topic for another Stack Exchange site:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Gardening][3] - for general gardening, weeding, planting and landscaping&#xD;&#xA;- [Home Improvement][4] - for D.I.Y. jobs on households including utilities or major appliances. &#xD;&#xA;- [The Great Outdoors][5] - for exploration of nature and wilderness areas, including required skills and equipment.&#xD;&#xA;- [Skeptics][6] - for challenging pseudoscience, biased data or disinformation. Note that a claim [must be notable][7] to be accepted on Skeptics.&#xD;&#xA;- [Earth Science][8] - for scientific-based questions on climatology, geology, oceanography and [other earth science disciplines][9]&#xD;&#xA;- [Biology][10] - for biological concepts and mechanisms behind biological processes&#xD;&#xA;- [Electrical Engineering][11] - questions about electronics, physical computing, microcontrollers, and embedded systems&#xD;&#xA;- [Motor Vehicle Maintenance &amp; Repair][12] - for questions on vehicles, combustion engines and EVs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more help, see [What types of questions should I avoid asking?][13], and if you're still not sure, please [ask us on Meta][14].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.meta.stackexchange.com/q/352/8232&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/helpcenter/self-answer&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://gardening.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://diy.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://biology.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://sustainability.meta.stackexchange.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27676" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6534" RevisionGUID="af5f2417-b101-46b1-80a5-7b7deb9ca074" CreationDate="2021-04-20T00:01:38.323" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1384296160874033164" />
  <row Id="27677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6535" RevisionGUID="46d03022-4420-421b-af7d-69c6e21b4865" CreationDate="2021-04-20T00:51:37.163" UserId="4886" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="SodaStream gas cylinders don't have anything in them except carbon dioxide.  One way or the other that's going into the atmosphere — it's not getting reclaimed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just bleed the CO&amp;#8322; out of the top of the cylinder by pushing it down against a concrete paver or something hard and rough.  Then, when it's empty, unscrew the valve or drive a large nail through the side of it so it can't be re-pressurised.  From that point on it's nothing but harmless scrap metal — put it in your recycle bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once-upon-a-time you could get a refund for these things (the princely sum of $1), but I *believe* they shut that program down about four years ago.  You can still [return them at any store on this page (filtered by &quot;Gas Exchange&quot;)][1], if any are conveniently local.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said all that, the cylinders *are* solidly built and are tested to 250 bar.  If you're a bit of a hacker you can empty it, swap out the valve, and do some cool things with it at much lower pressures (e.g. brew beer, nerf gun, spud launcher, toroidal vortex air cannon).  Those cylinders *really are* worth the tens of dollars you paid for them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sodastream.com.au/pages/store-locator" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27678" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10584" RevisionGUID="9bacce9e-a2f6-402d-9f1c-b36f55f90506" CreationDate="2021-04-20T00:57:02.883" UserId="4886" Comment="changed US URI to AU one" Text="## Return them to a retailer that does 'cylinder swaps'&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [Soda Stream's website][1], the appropriate place to return them is to a retailer that participates in their 'canister swap' program:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If you are no longer going to use your SodaStream, you can return your empty carbonating cylinder(s) to one of your local retailers (without exchanging it for a full cylinder). There is no deposit to return as there is no deposit when a cylinder is purchased. When you buy a SodaStream cylinder you pay for the CO2 in the cylinder along with a license to use the cylinder.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They go on to mention that you are entitled to a return fee of $1.00 per cylinder, and if the retailer doesn't want to reimburse you, to contact SodaStream's customer care to get a prepaid shipping label to send your cylinders directly to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://support.sodastream.com/hc/en-au/articles/360021584653-Where-can-I-recycle-my-CO2-cylinders-if-I-no-longer-use-them-and-do-I-get-back-a-deposit-" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10585" RevisionGUID="3e6666ac-6c4e-4238-8b8a-27378d1c8c6d" CreationDate="2021-04-21T13:11:40.117" UserId="9625" Text="[Cross-posted on Victron's community https://community.victronenergy.com/questions/85929/difference-in-solar-wattage-between-24v-and-48v-sy.html ]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Background: I'm on a boat with a 48V system and a 24V system. I have the means of charging the 24V system from the 48V system (not covered in this post). I have one set of solar panels which are connected to two MPPTS (I only activate one MPPT at a time), one is on the 48V system, one is on the 24V system. *&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What I noticed was odd. When I switched from the 48V to the 24V, I noticed a doubling of wattage. Here are some graphs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ID 256 is the 48V MPPT, ID 258 is the 24V MPPT. During this time, the MPPTs were in bulk. The lithium batteries are configured to push up to 56.8V/28.4V.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the voltage on the solar side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure why the voltage is held ~constant on the 48V (but solar) side. However at just above 60V it's still above the 56.8V needed to push to the battery, so I don't expect this is why the wattage is half. But I'm not sure. I do suspect the solar panels could be arranged differently, better (and probably arranged differently to take advantage of whether I'm pushing to 48V or 24V), but I suspect that might not be related to why the wattage is half.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Help?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[* Further background if you're curious: I'm on a boat with 48V propulsion. When I'm underway, I want the solar feeding into the 48V directly. When I'm not, I want it feeding into the 24V house battery bank instead of feeding it first into the 48V then charging the 24V off the 48V. Additionally, this lets me charge the battery over more time during the day.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[** The 48V battery is a Valence which could be configured to charge up to 58.4V, but since we're not even to 56.8V, I suspect that isn't the issue here. The 24V is a Victron Li and 28.4V is the correct number here.]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/yixUe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZCvnV.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27680" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10585" RevisionGUID="3e6666ac-6c4e-4238-8b8a-27378d1c8c6d" CreationDate="2021-04-21T13:11:40.117" UserId="9625" Text="Difference in Solar wattage between 24V and 48V system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27681" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10585" RevisionGUID="3e6666ac-6c4e-4238-8b8a-27378d1c8c6d" CreationDate="2021-04-21T13:11:40.117" UserId="9625" Text="|batteries|solar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10586" RevisionGUID="36fe4e48-8e64-4be0-bd12-81357bdf52b0" CreationDate="2021-04-21T15:21:56.540" UserId="9625" Text="This was answered on the Victron site https://community.victronenergy.com/questions/85929/difference-in-solar-wattage-between-24v-and-48v-sy.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer from `wkirby` was that the 24V MPPT was able to pick a lower voltage (~46V) than was the 48V MPPT (60V), and thus the 24V was able to better convert solar energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The solution is to rearrange the panels to provide a higher voltage to the 48V MPPT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10587" RevisionGUID="1697b6d9-4f63-4fd1-bdd8-736e58eac659" CreationDate="2021-04-21T17:06:53.343" UserId="9628" Text="FYI, even if &quot;fresh&quot; is an option, it may not be healthier, nor better for the environment. E.g., some notes (from https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/benefit-of-frozen-foods/) about frozen foods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Can be nutritionally equivalent, or even superior, to fresh. Some of&#xD;&#xA;    the vitamins and minerals in produce start to degrade soon after&#xD;&#xA;    harvesting…. Fruits and vegetables are frozen within hours of harvest, so that&#xD;&#xA;    actually allows you to retain those nutrients.&#xD;&#xA; 2. May contain less pesticide. Before fruits and vegetables are processed, some of them are washed and put through a machine that jostles them around to remove remaining dirt and debris. Some are also blanched and peeled. Thanks to this prep work … processed fruits and vegetables generally have less pesticide residue than fresh conventional produce. &#xD;&#xA; 3. Can be better for the environment. “Fresh fruits and vegetables require cold storage, too,” notes Sean Cash, an associate professor of agriculture at Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy who has studied the environmental footprint of produce. “The difference between 28 degrees and 48 degrees is actually not that great.” Canned foods require even less energy, since they are shipped and stored at room temperature. What’s more, Cash says, while fresh specialty crops like berries are flown from South America, their frozen and canned counterparts generally travel by ship, on a fraction of the fuel. Even locavores, he adds, still have to get themselves to the farm or farmers market to pick up their veggies.&#xD;&#xA; 4. May result in less food waste. Home cooks often trash tough broccoli stems, fruit rinds, and vegetable peelings. But large-scale processors don’t always send that stuff to the landfill. Green Giant’s trimmings, for instance, are used as compost for its research farm, or given to local farmers as animal feed. Earthbound Farm, a large organic producer, sells some of its scraps to juice makers; its frozen spinach and broccoli waste goes to a manufacturer of organic dog food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also (from &quot;Environmental impacts of vegetables consumption in the UK,&quot; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719319758):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The impacts of air-freighted fresh vegetables are around five times&#xD;&#xA;&gt; higher than of those produced domestically. Even processed products&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have lower impacts than fresh air-freighted produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to the original question about canned vs frozen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Another answer refers to a Treehugger article (https://www.treehugger.com/buying-frozen-veggies-versus-canned-which-is-greener-4854641) that refers to a book (&quot;Food, Energy and Society,&quot; https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Society-Resource-Environmental-Sciences-dp-0713127619/dp/0713127619/). That book was written in 1979.&#xD;&#xA;    - It's possible some methods have gotten relatively more efficient (e.g., freezers).&#xD;&#xA;2. That said, going from what the book says, I'd pick canning. First, the math from the Treehugger article is suspect. 2,306 - 2,272 = 34 (kcal). If it takes 120 kcal/month to store a package of frozen corn, then only one week would be enough to make canned better. It was probably sitting a week in your supermarket already. &#xD;&#xA;    - Also, canned is just simpler. You don't have to worry about having space in your freezer or power going out. (You could even not own a freezer.) You don't have to worry about reheating it. Canned lasts longer. It's more portable (e.g., camping, day trip). It stacks better.&#xD;&#xA;    - It also encourages our civilization to use less energy for constant cold storage (e.g., supermarket freezers, plus the freezers they may have in the back, plus the freezer trucks, and the freezer warehouses).&#xD;&#xA;    - When I check out the canned aisle, I see a lot more options for BPA-free liners, &quot;no salt added,&quot; &quot;no sugar added,&quot; etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, thanks for asking! I was wondering the same thing!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27684" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10587" RevisionGUID="7614ee5e-5c31-490c-93f9-9b144a2a36f6" CreationDate="2021-04-21T18:08:00.333" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="FYI, even if &quot;fresh&quot; is an option, it may not be healthier, nor better for the environment. E.g., some notes (from https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/benefit-of-frozen-foods/) about frozen foods:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Can be nutritionally equivalent, or even superior, to fresh. Some of&#xD;&#xA;    the vitamins and minerals in produce start to degrade soon after&#xD;&#xA;    harvesting…. Fruits and vegetables are frozen within hours of harvest, so that actually allows you to retain those nutrients.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. May contain less pesticide. Before fruits and vegetables are processed, some of them are washed and put through a machine that jostles them around to remove remaining dirt and debris. Some are also blanched and peeled. Thanks to this prep work … processed fruits and vegetables generally have less pesticide residue than fresh conventional produce. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Can be better for the environment. “Fresh fruits and vegetables require cold storage, too,” notes Sean Cash, an associate professor of agriculture at Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy who has studied the environmental footprint of produce. “The difference between 28 degrees and 48 degrees is actually not that great.” Canned foods require even less energy, since they are shipped and stored at room temperature. What’s more, Cash says, while fresh specialty crops like berries are flown from South America, their frozen and canned counterparts generally travel by ship, on a fraction of the fuel. Even locavores, he adds, still have to get themselves to the farm or farmers market to pick up their veggies.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. May result in less food waste. Home cooks often trash tough broccoli stems, fruit rinds, and vegetable peelings. But large-scale processors don’t always send that stuff to the landfill. Green Giant’s trimmings, for instance, are used as compost for its research farm, or given to local farmers as animal feed. Earthbound Farm, a large organic producer, sells some of its scraps to juice makers; its frozen spinach and broccoli waste goes to a manufacturer of organic dog food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also (from &quot;Environmental impacts of vegetables consumption in the UK,&quot; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969719319758):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The impacts of air-freighted fresh vegetables are around five times&#xD;&#xA;&gt; higher than of those produced domestically. Even processed products&#xD;&#xA;&gt; have lower impacts than fresh air-freighted produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back to the original question about canned vs frozen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Another answer refers to a Treehugger article (https://www.treehugger.com/buying-frozen-veggies-versus-canned-which-is-greener-4854641) that refers to a book (&quot;Food, Energy and Society,&quot; https://www.amazon.com/Energy-Society-Resource-Environmental-Sciences-dp-0713127619/dp/0713127619/). That book was written in 1979.&#xD;&#xA;    - It's possible some methods have gotten relatively more efficient (e.g., freezers).&#xD;&#xA;2. That said, going from what the book says, I'd pick canning. First, the math from the Treehugger article is suspect. 2,306 - 2,272 = 34 (kcal). If it takes 120 kcal/month to store a package of frozen corn, then only one week would be enough to make canned better. It was probably sitting a week in your supermarket already. &#xD;&#xA;    - Also, canned is just simpler. You don't have to worry about having space in your freezer or power going out. (You could even not own a freezer.) You don't have to worry about reheating it. Canned lasts longer. It's more portable (e.g., camping, day trip). It stacks better.&#xD;&#xA;    - It also encourages our civilization to use less energy for constant cold storage (e.g., supermarket freezers, plus the freezers they may have in the back, plus the freezer trucks, and the freezer warehouses).&#xD;&#xA;    - When I check out the canned aisle, I see a lot more options for BPA-free liners, &quot;no salt added,&quot; &quot;no sugar added,&quot; etc. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, thanks for asking! I was wondering the same thing!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27685" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="65b40469-c8c6-4d31-b7e7-1b32722cd688" CreationDate="2021-04-21T20:08:40.007" UserId="9629" Text="Mealworms for birds are a very cheap form of nutrition.  Could they be processed at home in a way to make them healthy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dried mealworms are sold as birdfood [for just under £1/Kg][1].  This mostly a dehydrated fat protein mixture, [google quotes][2] Protein: 53% Fat: 28% Fibre: 6% Water: 5%.  This is a very economical food source.  Insects are considered a more sustainable source of protein than other animals, and the welfare considerations are different at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they are sold, they taste quite good, a good comparison would be pork scratchings.  However they have not been handled with human food quality standards, and so eating they so is likely to be bad for you, potentially very bad.  One could easily eliminate the main problem of infectious disease by cooking them, but this could leave residues such as heat stable drugs and heavy metals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this food source realistically be used as a low cost sustainable welfare freindly source of nutrition in the UK today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://trustypetsupplies.co.uk/product/trusty-pet-supplies-mealworms-5kg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=dried%20mealworms%20nutritional%20value" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="65b40469-c8c6-4d31-b7e7-1b32722cd688" CreationDate="2021-04-21T20:08:40.007" UserId="9629" Text="Can mealworms form part of a healthy diet in the UK?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="65b40469-c8c6-4d31-b7e7-1b32722cd688" CreationDate="2021-04-21T20:08:40.007" UserId="9629" Text="|food|economy|uk|insects|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="666986e9-5068-460c-bf94-73be0b863b08" CreationDate="2021-04-21T20:24:51.737" UserId="9629" Comment="Mistake, will change more later" Text="Mealworms for birds are a very cheap form of nutrition.  Could they be processed at home in a way to make them healthy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dried mealworms are sold as birdfood [for just under £3/Kg][1].  This mostly a dehydrated fat protein mixture, [google quotes][2] Protein: 53% Fat: 28% Fibre: 6% Water: 5%.  This is a very economical food source.  Insects are considered a more sustainable source of protein than other animals, and the welfare considerations are different at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they are sold, they taste quite good, a good comparison would be pork scratchings.  However they have not been handled with human food quality standards, and so eating they so is likely to be bad for you, potentially very bad.  One could easily eliminate the main problem of infectious disease by cooking them, but this could leave residues such as heat stable drugs and heavy metals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this food source realistically be used as a low cost sustainable welfare freindly source of nutrition in the UK today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.chubbymealworms.co.uk/products/5-litres-dried-mealworms&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=dried%20mealworms%20nutritional%20value" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27689" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="0f86f91e-d52c-42f0-9743-733d65db4ac7" CreationDate="2021-04-21T20:33:06.137" UserId="9629" Comment="Corrected price mistake" Text="Mealworms for birds are a cheap form of nutrition.  Could they be processed at home in a way to make them healthy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dried mealworms are sold as birdfood [for just under £8/Kg][1].  This mostly a dehydrated fat protein mixture, [google quotes][2] Protein: 53% Fat: 28% Fibre: 6% Water: 5%.  This is a protein source comparable to the cheapest animal protein source in the supermarket, chicken at around [£2/Kg and 18% protein][3].  Insects are considered a more sustainable source of protein than other animals, and the welfare considerations are different at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they are sold, they taste quite good, a good comparison would be pork scratchings.  However they have not been handled with human food quality standards, and so eating they so is likely to be bad for you, potentially very bad.  One could easily eliminate the main problem of infectious disease by cooking them, but this could leave residues such as heat stable drugs and heavy metals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this food source realistically be used as a low cost sustainable welfare friendly source of nutrition in the UK today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.thecornmill.com/mealworms-10kg-20&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=dried%20mealworms%20nutritional%20value&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/285210396" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27690" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="47b5bdf7-fee3-4cd7-af18-7d9f368ef718" CreationDate="2021-04-21T20:48:41.500" UserId="9629" Comment="Added cheaper source" Text="Mealworms for birds are a cheap form of nutrition.  Could they be processed at home in a way to make them healthy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dried mealworms are sold as birdfood [for just under £8/Kg in the UK][1] or [$3/Kg from China][4].  This mostly a dehydrated fat protein mixture, [google quotes][2] Protein: 53% Fat: 28% Fibre: 6% Water: 5%.  This is a protein source comparable to the cheapest animal protein source in the supermarket, chicken at around [£2/Kg and 18% protein][3].  Insects are considered a more sustainable source of protein than other animals, and the welfare considerations are different at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they are sold, they taste quite good, a good comparison would be pork scratchings.  However they have not been handled with human food quality standards, and so eating they so is likely to be bad for you, potentially very bad.  One could easily eliminate the main problem of infectious disease by cooking them, but this could leave residues such as heat stable drugs and heavy metals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this food source realistically be used as a low cost sustainable welfare friendly source of nutrition in the UK today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.thecornmill.com/mealworms-10kg-20&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=dried%20mealworms%20nutritional%20value&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/285210396&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Dried-mealworms-for-sale-bulk-High_62424580842.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27691" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="0aa66655-a209-4142-bf07-0cca4582c3c6" CreationDate="2021-04-21T21:00:48.393" UserId="9629" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="Mealworms for birds are a cheap form of nutrition.  Could they be processed at home in a way to make them healthy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dried mealworms are sold as bird food [for just under £8/Kg in the UK][1] or [$3/Kg from China][4].  This mostly a dehydrated fat protein mixture, [google quotes][2] Protein: 53% Fat: 28% Fibre: 6% Water: 5%.  This is a protein source comparable to the cheapest animal protein source in the supermarket, chicken at around [£2/Kg and 18% protein][3].  It does not require refrigeration and has a long shelf life.  Insects are considered a more sustainable source of protein than other animals, and the welfare considerations are different at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they are sold, they taste quite good, a good comparison would be pork scratchings.  However they have not been handled with human food quality standards, and so eating they so is likely to be bad for you, potentially very bad.  One could easily eliminate the main problem of infectious disease by cooking them, but this could leave residues such as heat stable drugs and heavy metals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this food source realistically be used as a low cost sustainable welfare friendly source of nutrition in the UK today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.thecornmill.com/mealworms-10kg-20&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=dried%20mealworms%20nutritional%20value&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/285210396&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Dried-mealworms-for-sale-bulk-High_62424580842.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27692" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="85cef495-6ff3-4b55-83ce-84c50be3e1a5" CreationDate="2021-04-21T22:53:15.827" UserId="9629" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Mealworms for birds are a cheap form of nutrition.  Could they be processed at home in a way to make them healthy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dried mealworms are sold as bird food [for just under £8/Kg in the UK][1] or [$3/Kg from China][4].  This is mostly a dehydrated fat protein mixture, [google quotes][2] Protein: 53% Fat: 28% Fibre: 6% Water: 5%.  This is a protein source comparable in price to the cheapest animal protein source in the supermarket, chicken at around [£2/Kg and 18% protein][3].  It does not require refrigeration and has a long shelf life.  Insects are considered a more sustainable source of protein than other animals, and the welfare considerations are different at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As they are sold, they taste quite good, a good comparison would be pork scratchings.  However they have not been handled with human food quality standards, and so eating they so is likely to be bad for you, potentially very bad.  One could easily eliminate the main problem of infectious disease by cooking them, but this could leave residues such as heat stable drugs and heavy metals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this food source realistically be used as a low cost sustainable welfare friendly source of nutrition in the UK today?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.thecornmill.com/mealworms-10kg-20&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/search?q=dried%20mealworms%20nutritional%20value&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/285210396&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Dried-mealworms-for-sale-bulk-High_62424580842.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27693" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="c34677b9-79cc-4a8a-8308-59dfb83f5845" CreationDate="2021-04-27T02:01:41.180" UserId="8232" Comment="added relevant tags, minor body edit to be more concise" Text="From a [Degrowth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth) perspective, how would one argue in favour or against ad blocking and online advertising? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Degrowth* is a political, economic, and social movement based on ecological economics, anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist ideas that tries to address the limits to growth dilemma (constraints of a finite planet). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surely, online advertising fuels consumption. Yet it is also a potential source of income for anti-consumerist alternatives and blocking advertising thus closes this opportunity of income generation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27694" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5083" RevisionGUID="c34677b9-79cc-4a8a-8308-59dfb83f5845" CreationDate="2021-04-27T02:01:41.180" UserId="8232" Comment="added relevant tags, minor body edit to be more concise" Text="|green-it|internet|degrowth|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27695" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10588" RevisionGUID="6c99a809-5ded-43c6-a75a-99670ec67621" CreationDate="2021-04-29T00:00:24.277" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1387557341113970691" />
  <row Id="27696" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10539" RevisionGUID="fe5a8b34-2009-41e8-a8a2-eb3f5a3eb79d" CreationDate="2021-04-29T03:00:37.457" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1387602694710378497" />
  <row Id="27698" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="c3a8e2ad-d7c5-4c92-9e6b-4cc38d6adb72" CreationDate="2021-05-01T14:08:40.837" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27699" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="0c409ed8-0082-4df2-92b4-c59c38fdd387" CreationDate="2021-05-01T15:03:11.877" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10589" RevisionGUID="f166b911-a38e-4fde-a172-41089ca08d87" CreationDate="2021-05-01T23:44:03.563" UserId="9669" Text="Why is reducing the consumption of recyclables is better than recycling recyclables? Some recyclables can be recycled only a limited number of times (plastics) so I partially understand it. But other recyclables (glass, metal) can be recycled infinitely. Do I need to reduce the consumption of &quot;infinite&quot; recyclables?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27701" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10589" RevisionGUID="f166b911-a38e-4fde-a172-41089ca08d87" CreationDate="2021-05-01T23:44:03.563" UserId="9669" Text="Why is reducing the consumption of recyclables is better than recycling recyclables?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27702" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10589" RevisionGUID="f166b911-a38e-4fde-a172-41089ca08d87" CreationDate="2021-05-01T23:44:03.563" UserId="9669" Text="|recycling|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="8a00687d-60d9-4384-8538-6318256d4cad" CreationDate="2021-05-02T03:23:19.423" UserId="9670" Text="I know it costs. But we got rid of chlorofluorocarbons and are preparing to eliminate stuff like coal! This in between.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Proposal: By international agreement get rid of floatable PE, HDPE and PP and the like, for single use small items. If you make bottles and bags of this, you know what happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Make that stuff out of PVC and other plastics that sink. As a side effect you sequester that carbon. At the bottom of the ocean with mud over it, it is gone for timescales that worry us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This would all but wipe out ocean plastic pollution at modest cost. What am I missing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27704" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="8a00687d-60d9-4384-8538-6318256d4cad" CreationDate="2021-05-02T03:23:19.423" UserId="9670" Text="Why not outlaw low density plastics that cause ocean pollution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27705" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10590" RevisionGUID="8a00687d-60d9-4384-8538-6318256d4cad" CreationDate="2021-05-02T03:23:19.423" UserId="9670" Text="|environmental-impact|plastic|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27706" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10591" RevisionGUID="2d1c057f-29bb-4933-b39c-3f1d9f199946" CreationDate="2021-05-02T06:06:02.413" UserId="2345" Text="Sometimes recyclables are not recycled or reused, they are dumped into waste disposal and thus need to be replaced. This requires more resources to be used to manufacture replacements. By reducing consumption we reduce the resources needed to manufacture items.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if possible it would be better to reused items than to recycle them, even infinitely recyclable materials such as metal and glass, because remelting and remolding such items uses energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycling some metals can be problematic if they are alloys such as different types of steel. Bismuth steel has different properties to vanadium or chromium steel which again is different to ordinary carbon steel. Removing the alloying elements: bismuth, vanadium, chromium etc. can require grinding the use of chemicals or different energy intensive processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27712" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10593" RevisionGUID="2389bd5f-9ae1-4d5a-a145-e5a39ea0dc23" CreationDate="2021-05-03T17:19:01.763" UserId="9680" Text="Is cheese wax compostable? I have some Babybel cheese wax and I was wondering what to do with it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27713" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10593" RevisionGUID="2389bd5f-9ae1-4d5a-a145-e5a39ea0dc23" CreationDate="2021-05-03T17:19:01.763" UserId="9680" Text="Is cheese wax compostable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27714" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10593" RevisionGUID="2389bd5f-9ae1-4d5a-a145-e5a39ea0dc23" CreationDate="2021-05-03T17:19:01.763" UserId="9680" Text="|composting|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10594" RevisionGUID="1839ec86-25d1-4f4d-a900-5748c71fb012" CreationDate="2021-05-03T17:19:01.763" UserId="9680" Text="Cheese wax is made mostly of paraffin, which is petroleum-based, so it is not compostable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10595" RevisionGUID="cbe268b1-7b02-43d2-90fa-ec4b78838c70" CreationDate="2021-05-04T03:50:11.490" UserId="8232" Text="&gt; Make that stuff out of PVC and other plastics that sink. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, we should be sequestering petroleum-based products like plastics, but there are nicer ways to go about it than letting it sink to the bottom of the ocean. Animals live on the ocean floor, even in the deep recesses of the Mariana Trench, so any plastic finding its way down there is more likely to be eaten by fish &amp; crustaceans, which would eventually make its way up the food chain into humans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better alternative would be to stop plastics from reaching the ocean in the first place. Similar to your suggestion about legislating away from floatable plastics - A few governments have simply begun banning single-use plastics altogether, mandating more eco-conscious alternatives instead:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Australia-wide bag ban leads to 1.5 billion fewer plastic bags in the environment][1] &lt;sub&gt;news.com.au&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;- [Ban on single-use plastics from 1 March 2021][2] &lt;sub&gt;South Australia Government | epa.sa.gov.au&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xD;&#xA;  [![SA 'Replace the Waste' campaign][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;- [Single-use plastic items ban][4] &lt;sub&gt;Queensland Government | qld.gov.au&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, there have been a few stories about people and companies attempting to tackle the plastic waste problem, by [recycling more types of plastic into new products][5].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/australiawide-bag-ban-leads-to-15-billion-fewer-plastic-bags-in-the-environment/news-story/678f21eb838fb6706baa370bc3b3ec29&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/articles/2021/02/24/ban_on_single_use_plastics_from_1_march_2021&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/2I3Jv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/pollution/management/waste/recovery/reduction/plastic-pollution/single-use-plastic-products-ban&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-20/scientists-may-have-found-solution-to-plastic-recycling-problem/11679326" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10596" RevisionGUID="490a087a-5802-44f9-9d3b-04473820a254" CreationDate="2021-05-04T10:34:28.633" UserId="6896" Text="[Babybel wax][1] is made of a blend of paraffin and microcrystalline waxes and colouring.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This paper][2] seems to say that paraffin waxes are biodegradable, but I only have access to the abstract:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The wax components, n-and iso-alkanes with up to 50 carbon units were found to be rapidly and completely degraded within 28 days leaving only minute wax residues at the end of the test. The degradation of wax components was hardly influenced by the blended polymers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This statement][3] claims microcrystalline waxes, as used in ski wax, are biodegradable, but it is produced by the wax makers and does not provide references.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.minibabybel.ca/en-ca/faq-0&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/004565359290291X&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.dominatorwax.com/sites/default/files/dominator/THE-ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT-OF-WAXING.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10597" RevisionGUID="477d44d1-1cf1-4917-afdb-34e9a32415f5" CreationDate="2021-05-04T14:47:32.257" UserId="3379" Text="Let's say I have a fixed amount of money that I can either spend on a complete solar PV system (panels, inverter, all the hardware and wiring) or a complete wind system (turbine, inverter, all the hardware and wiring). This is for a typical residential application in terms of power needs and load profile. Let's assume this is an all-electric house with a back-up power source (either the grid, some batteries, a generator, or some combination).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What are the factors I need to think about to determine which choice is better?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things that I can imagine could have an influence (but I'm unsure exactly how):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Whether my backup source is reliable&#xD;&#xA; - Whether I can export (sell to the grid) or store (charge batteries) excess power&#xD;&#xA; - The cost of using my backup source&#xD;&#xA; - Local weather patterns&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Background:* A few years ago I read an article arguing that solar PV is almost always better, and that as PV costs decline and wind costs remain stagnant (the projections at the time), the position of PV would continue to improve. I'm wondering if this was accurate, and if it's still the case." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27720" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10597" RevisionGUID="477d44d1-1cf1-4917-afdb-34e9a32415f5" CreationDate="2021-05-04T14:47:32.257" UserId="3379" Text="When does wind make more sense than solar for a home application?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27721" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10597" RevisionGUID="477d44d1-1cf1-4917-afdb-34e9a32415f5" CreationDate="2021-05-04T14:47:32.257" UserId="3379" Text="|solar-power|home|wind-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="4bfefad7-6024-4a1c-8513-1d919e86c440" CreationDate="2021-05-05T12:07:14.423" UserId="2345" Text="Generally, solar is more reliable than wind. Ignoring arctic and antarctic latitudes most places get *some* sunlight during the day, even on overcast days. However, the same cannot be said for wind. Some places may experience no wind for prolonged periods. However, wind generators can be useful on windy nights, when there is no sun and solar panels are doing nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, wind speeds can vary greatly and wind generators have to deal with gusts. Wind directions also vary. Domestic wind generators will need to be able to deal with wind from all directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to solar panels, wind generators can be noisy.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Municipal councils may have height restrictions that may restrict the height of structures such a wind generator towers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally it would be preferable to have both, to be able to utilize more weather situations but if one is limited to only one, then I would suggest solar would be a better option for home applicaitons" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27734" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10547" RevisionGUID="3cb1aec7-7035-445d-9a06-693fb69e01d5" CreationDate="2021-05-11T01:01:45.190" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27735" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="9fbec8f1-b183-48d3-b4bd-64c4e5db3187" CreationDate="2021-05-11T19:40:41.143" UserId="3379" Text="Given how [leaky natural gas infrastructure is](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6398/186.full), reducing my usage at home (by turning back the thermostat, or using more efficient appliances) will also result in reduced methane emissions throughout the system. This is important because methane itself (the chief component of natural gas) is a [more potent greenhouse gas](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/87/3379) than the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emitted after the natural gas is burned in my home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**For a given amount of natural gas piped into my home, about how much methane is leaked throughout the supply system?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm most interested in data for the U.S. state of Wisconsin where I live, but I've had trouble finding any numbers, so I'd be curious about data for any state, country, or region." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27736" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="9fbec8f1-b183-48d3-b4bd-64c4e5db3187" CreationDate="2021-05-11T19:40:41.143" UserId="3379" Text="How much methane is leaked for each kWh delivered to my home?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27737" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="9fbec8f1-b183-48d3-b4bd-64c4e5db3187" CreationDate="2021-05-11T19:40:41.143" UserId="3379" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27743" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10604" RevisionGUID="e52f3da0-54d6-490a-963e-40db25888b4a" CreationDate="2021-05-13T17:06:27.380" UserId="9725" Text="Depending on where the houses are located; in the Mid-West USA, flat ground and raised water towers means most of the water is gravity fed (with only the initial pumping to get the water into the tank). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my city (Southern California, USA) approximately 40% of our water is gravity fed, the remaining 60% has pump that feed and fill tanks upon the hill, which then are gravity fed back to the upper houses. There is approximately 500' (150 meters) difference in elevation between the purely gravity fed homes and the &quot;pumped to&quot; homes (the upper homes have up to three pump series to get the water into the upper tanks).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Essentially if your home is not directly downhill from a water source treatment plant, your home is being supplied by water which had to be pumped at some point.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are rare cases where additional private homeowner pumps have been installed where the municipal water pressure was lower than expected (we have a few areas like this).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on how low the initial pressure is, the cost of these pumps is minimal in electricity compared to the initial cost, maintenance, and replacement of the pump itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short answer is it is not common to have an additional private pump system, but if you do, the pump is fairly small so electrical usage is low." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10605" RevisionGUID="8977667e-62d2-4a45-9583-18556ef64fc5" CreationDate="2021-05-14T01:40:01.047" UserId="9728" Text="From my quick skim of the above, none of these seem to take into account the water, paper, ink, and toxic waste created. The energy burn for each of these processes and the amount of time if ever it takes for this waste to degrade enough to be able to use the land it’s stored in. The problem any analysis is that the user chooses only a few parts of the argument that for their narrative or make their rival look bad. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27746" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="fa6a236a-b28a-4c43-bdfd-ad0d2f58d434" CreationDate="2021-05-17T04:44:55.220" UserId="9740" Text="UHT is well known to be better for the environment, see e.g. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27898-so-many-milks-but-do-their-health-claims-really-stack-up/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, our local council does not recycle the UHT milk cartons (but does recycle plastic bottles). Is it still more sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am thinking so because recycling Tetra Paks provides only limited benefit, and plastic bottles can only be recycled so many times anyay; However but I haven't seen any study that considers the benefit of UHT over the cost of unrecycled cartons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27747" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="fa6a236a-b28a-4c43-bdfd-ad0d2f58d434" CreationDate="2021-05-17T04:44:55.220" UserId="9740" Text="Is UHT better for the environment even if the Tetra Paks aren't recycled" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27748" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10606" RevisionGUID="fa6a236a-b28a-4c43-bdfd-ad0d2f58d434" CreationDate="2021-05-17T04:44:55.220" UserId="9740" Text="|recycling|environmental-impact|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10607" RevisionGUID="68e0c272-babd-4872-87cb-542953363090" CreationDate="2021-05-17T18:05:08.720" UserId="3960" Text="I don't have any data for your area but [this][1] research from the University of Oxford suggests leakage of 0.39Mt of methane annually from gas mains in the UK. (By way of comparison, agriculture produces 0.91Mt and decomposition of waste in landfill produces 0.46Mt).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most recent consumption figures I could find came from [this][2] page which suggest a total annual usage of 78.8 billion cubic meters, which using [this converter][3] gave a value of 4.3Mt. That would suggest almost 10% leakage which seems rather high to me - someone please correct me if I've got my calculations wrong somewhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is definitely a big push in the UK to replace its ageing gas infrastructure, mainly replacing the old iron pipes with plastic ones. I guess the leakage in your area would largely depend on the age and health of the gas infrastructure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/methaneuk/chapter04.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/265393/natural-gas-consumption-in-the-united-kingdom/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/volume-to-weight" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10607" RevisionGUID="61d46feb-217d-498e-b542-55e2b9cf4ef3" CreationDate="2021-05-17T18:17:53.800" UserId="3960" Comment="Reword last sentence" Text="I don't have any data for your area but [this][1] research from the University of Oxford suggests leakage of 0.39Mt of methane annually from gas mains in the UK. (By way of comparison, agriculture produces 0.91Mt and decomposition of waste in landfill produces 0.46Mt).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most recent consumption figures I could find came from [this][2] page which suggest a total annual usage of 78.8 billion cubic meters, which using [this converter][3] gave a value of 4.3Mt. That would suggest almost 10% leakage which seems rather high to me - someone please correct me if I've got my calculations wrong somewhere. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is definitely a big push in the UK to replace its ageing gas infrastructure, mainly replacing the old iron pipes with plastic ones. The leakage in your area would largely depend on the age and health of the gas infrastructure, particularly the material used for the pipes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/methaneuk/chapter04.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/265393/natural-gas-consumption-in-the-united-kingdom/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/volume-to-weight" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27751" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10237" RevisionGUID="5f0fc768-65e1-4f58-a138-9f83dd85b526" CreationDate="2021-05-18T03:00:13.633" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1394487964256935939" />
  <row Id="27752" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10608" RevisionGUID="799a31a3-21aa-4b46-a96f-07ac0f3a2452" CreationDate="2021-05-18T14:23:16.007" UserId="3625" Text="There is something called Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance (RISUG, see [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm_under_guidance) for more details) which is alternative to a condom which is 100% eco friendly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short, it a one time operation that &quot;sterilize&quot; the sperm, making it uncapable of reaching the egg or impregnating it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, it's available only in India at this point, and not yet approved in other places, though approval process is undergoing, slowly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10609" RevisionGUID="013aeeea-bfd2-44ba-b957-0332ea0deb65" CreationDate="2021-05-19T21:34:28.550" UserId="9748" Text="I was discussing with a friend about renewable resources in which you can generate and store power for a long time. In this one way which I know is hydropower where when you have huge requirement of energy you run the water over motors which drive a shaft which in turn moves a turbine and which in turn gives you a huge boost in energy for say that 1-2 hrs. The rest of the day when energy usage is not so much, you use the same energy to lift the water. Now other examples of energy which I saw sometime back was a giant hole in which something like a huge wreaking ball or something was lowered and then taken back up, using the same principles. Now can somebody tell me what that should such energy producing machines should be called? For me it is gravity-assist but I'm sure there is much better name for it.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27754" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10609" RevisionGUID="013aeeea-bfd2-44ba-b957-0332ea0deb65" CreationDate="2021-05-19T21:34:28.550" UserId="9748" Text="grid-based gravity assist power generaiton" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27755" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10609" RevisionGUID="013aeeea-bfd2-44ba-b957-0332ea0deb65" CreationDate="2021-05-19T21:34:28.550" UserId="9748" Text="|renewables|hydroelectricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10610" RevisionGUID="2d84c70f-a895-40c4-9836-f20e5a6e587d" CreationDate="2021-05-20T05:17:39.283" UserId="659" Text="I think you have exactly the right term already. The Institute of Electrical Engineers use &quot;[gravity energy storage][1]&quot; and wikipedia has a [Gravity Battery][2] page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main issue is that pumping and storing huge amounts of water is a mature technology - people have been doing that for ages. And since gravity isn't very energy dense storing decent amounts of energy that way means at lot of mass or height, so the solid mass storage systems are typically quite small compared to the (pumped) hydro ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question about [home pumped hydro][3] shows how hard small systems are. Browsing the [&quot;energy-storage&quot; tag][4] might help give you an overview.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/batteries-storage/gravity-energy-storage-will-show-its-potential-in-2021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5457/can-pumped-water-energy-storage-be-combined-with-rainwater-harvesting/5460#5460&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/energy-storage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="f77a742f-208d-4590-a90f-3e3d28a9b0ab" CreationDate="2021-05-20T17:39:14.160" UserId="9752" Text="These people who have answered are ignoring some major factors in cash production. Mining the metals for coins, with the trucks, transportation of materials, disposal of waste, facilities to process, smelting, and so on on a micro level have an enormous impact. If not using recycled paper, or only a portion of recycled paper, consider the deforestation impact, transportation of materials from both recycling facility and paper processing plants, the facilities/plants themselves, the workers in all of these situations driving to and from their jobs, all have environmental impacts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't even to begin considering what it takes to transport the currency to banks, the cost/impact of having a bank on every street corner, again arriving at employees' traveling to/from work, and the very obvious travel of customers to/from the bank sites to do business as well as the plastics produced from their bank-issued debit/credit cards (and the facilities necessary to make them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When considering a carbon footprint, failing to account for ALL aspects of the footprint gives you only a portion of the truth. While, yes, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies appear to have a higher up front impact on the environment, the truth is that the entire impact of Bitcoin is accounted for whereas analysts have repeatedly failed to link all carbon processes to the footprint of fiat currencies. It's a no-brainer that cryptocurrencies are the greener option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27758" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10611" RevisionGUID="f5561cd0-f7d7-45ec-b426-1247a5f7308a" CreationDate="2021-05-20T17:47:18.050" UserId="9752" Comment="added 504 characters in body" Text="These people who have answered are ignoring some major factors in cash production. Mining the metals for coins, with the trucks, transportation of materials, disposal of waste, facilities to process, smelting, and so on on a micro level have an enormous impact. If not using recycled paper, or only a portion of recycled paper, consider the deforestation impact, transportation of materials from both recycling facility and paper processing plants, the facilities/plants themselves, the workers in all of these situations driving to and from their jobs, all have environmental impacts. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This isn't even to begin considering what it takes to transport the currency to banks, the cost/impact of having a bank on every street corner, again arriving at employees' traveling to/from work, and the very obvious travel of customers to/from the bank sites to do business as well as the plastics produced from their bank-issued debit/credit cards (and the facilities necessary to make them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When considering a carbon footprint, failing to account for ALL aspects of the footprint gives you only a portion of the truth. While, yes, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies appear to have a higher up front impact on the environment, the truth is that the entire impact of Bitcoin is accounted for whereas analysts have repeatedly failed to link all carbon processes to the footprint of fiat currencies. It's a no-brainer that cryptocurrencies are the greener option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it was only about emissions, you'd have an easy time answering. But it's not. Fiat currencies have been the cause of recessions, on average, every 5.6 years because actual currency production affects the economy overall. They're a means to control inflation in a boom-bust capacity and have historically led to some of the worst crises in human history. Cryptocurrency, in my opinion, is by far the more stable, efficient, and globally-friendly option and the future of currency on a global scale." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27759" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10593" RevisionGUID="251fb279-0d8f-4185-bc47-8e3cc4b4e7d6" CreationDate="2021-05-22T09:00:03.127" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1396028068603518977" />
  <row Id="27760" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="b0bbde21-11dd-4a02-97b5-c44a254ecc6a" CreationDate="2021-05-22T13:51:47.740" UserId="9757" Text="I have just replaced water filters for the water filtration system recently. There are a total 5 filters. 1 of them is ceramic, the other 4 are made of other materials which could probably be opened and dispose the plastic body separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the ceramic filter, is there any usable way of dismantling it? It is made of 2 parts, the bottom stand for fixing up and the ceramic body. I think inside the ceramic body is the activated carbon block.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just want to make sure if there is currently no alternative before dumping it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks in advance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27761" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="b0bbde21-11dd-4a02-97b5-c44a254ecc6a" CreationDate="2021-05-22T13:51:47.740" UserId="9757" Text="What is the recommended way and how to handle and dispose a used water filter effectively and correctly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27762" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="b0bbde21-11dd-4a02-97b5-c44a254ecc6a" CreationDate="2021-05-22T13:51:47.740" UserId="9757" Text="|recycling|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10613" RevisionGUID="5e9a1745-40b9-4ca0-b277-825362291334" CreationDate="2021-05-23T08:12:03.863" UserId="9669" Text="How do I convert MTCE/ton to MTCO2E/metric ton? Should I multiply it by 1.1 (ton to metric ton) and then by 3.67 (MTCE to MTCO2E)? For example, take a look at Exhibit ES5 [here][1]. Recycling aluminum cans, it says, saves 3.71 MTCE/ton. Is it 15 in MTCO2E/metric ton?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/60000AVO.PDF?Dockey=60000AVO.PDF" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27764" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10613" RevisionGUID="5e9a1745-40b9-4ca0-b277-825362291334" CreationDate="2021-05-23T08:12:03.863" UserId="9669" Text="Understanding the relation between MTCE &amp; MTCO2E" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27765" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10613" RevisionGUID="5e9a1745-40b9-4ca0-b277-825362291334" CreationDate="2021-05-23T08:12:03.863" UserId="9669" Text="|recycling|carbon-footprint|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27766" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="324f9027-f3b2-4d1b-9624-985463fe6d21" CreationDate="2021-05-24T01:06:25.663" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10614" RevisionGUID="afc8b5db-1f32-4fc8-bc61-da76ade8cee9" CreationDate="2021-05-24T04:30:24.300" UserId="9759" Text="So I just bought one of the [28W Big Blue portable solar panels][1] on Amazon and got myself a cheap camera tripod from a local garage sale, all for an upcoming camping trip. I want to use the tripod to create a simple, portable, adjustable solar mount that is collapsible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My idea is to make a small square base that can screw into the top of the camera stand and use some kind of telescoping rods to create horizontal spans to hold the panel rigidly open (it measures about 33&quot; x 11&quot; when fully open and has 5 folding sections).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, I'm trying to think of something off the shelf that I could get/make/adapt/hack to use for the telescoping rod. Ideally, it would be something lightweight that is easy to extend and retract for easy carrying with the tripod. Any ideas?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EXWCPLC/ref=ppx_od_dt_b_asin_title_s04?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27769" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10614" RevisionGUID="afc8b5db-1f32-4fc8-bc61-da76ade8cee9" CreationDate="2021-05-24T04:30:24.300" UserId="9759" Text="DIY portable solar panel mount" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27770" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10614" RevisionGUID="afc8b5db-1f32-4fc8-bc61-da76ade8cee9" CreationDate="2021-05-24T04:30:24.300" UserId="9759" Text="|diy|photovoltaics|solar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27774" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10616" RevisionGUID="d732e78b-dc62-43f5-a1b8-6cb99aaf20da" CreationDate="2021-05-24T15:09:40.330" UserId="3379" Text="What about a set of &quot;rabbit ears&quot; from an old TV or TV antenna? With two sets you should be able to use them to prop the panel, depending on how heavy it is and how substantial the antennas are. They typically have a screw-in base so you could remove them from their current mount and rig something up. Given how common these once were, you should be able to pick them up second-hand (or you might even have some in your house now!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![TV with rabbit ears][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EU8n5.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27775" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="32ebf126-0299-4af5-b268-b214857b1a3d" CreationDate="2021-05-24T15:14:35.193" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I have just replaced water filters for the water filtration system recently. There are a total 5 filters. 1 of them is ceramic, the other 4 are made of other materials which could probably be opened to be able to dispose of the plastic body separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the ceramic filter, is there any way of dismantling it? It is made of 2 parts, the bottom stand for mounting and the ceramic body. I think inside the ceramic body is the activated carbon block.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just want to make sure if there is currently no alternative before dumping it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27776" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="32ebf126-0299-4af5-b268-b214857b1a3d" CreationDate="2021-05-24T15:14:35.193" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="What is the recommended way to dispose of a used water filter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27777" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="32ebf126-0299-4af5-b268-b214857b1a3d" CreationDate="2021-05-24T15:14:35.193" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|recycling|waste|water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27778" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10617" RevisionGUID="2989796b-9e41-4f96-9ea2-cb96dfbc54a9" CreationDate="2021-05-24T16:16:23.600" UserId="3379" Text="### To convert from MTCE to MTCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;E, divide by 12/44&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between MTCE and MTCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;E is a function of the number of carbon atoms in each molecule of the greenhouse gases included in the inventory. There's a note on page five of [the report](https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/60000AVO.PDF?Dockey=60000AVO.PDF) that explains this (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In this report, emissions of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;, N&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O, and PFCs have been converted to their “carbon equivalents.” **Because CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is 12/44 carbon by weight, 1 metric ton of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is equal to 12/44 or 0.27 metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE)**. The MTCE value for 1 metric ton of each of the other gases is determined by multiplying its GWP by a factor of 12/44. (All data provided here are from the IPCC, Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, 1996, p. 121.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### To convert from short ton to metric ton, multiply by 1000/907.18474&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per Wikipedia, a [short ton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_ton) is equivalent to 907.18474 kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27779" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10427" RevisionGUID="9fd86728-e965-4d80-8c7d-0197983fc918" CreationDate="2021-05-24T17:06:40.533" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27780" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="8b9d68c7-eab2-4c63-9eef-1d0b79c3f2d3" CreationDate="2021-05-24T18:00:03.477" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1396888741260759040" />
  <row Id="27782" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="952c4097-c72f-4a55-9984-94ac83af4ec6" CreationDate="2021-05-25T11:41:49.177" UserId="9757" Comment="add new finding and personal experience, update English grammar also" Text="I have just replaced water filters for the water filtration system recently. There are a total 5 filters. 1 of them is ceramic, the other 4 are made of other materials which could probably be opened to be able to dispose of the plastic body separately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the ceramic filter, is there any way of dismantling it? It is made of 2 parts, the bottom stand for mounting and the ceramic body. I think inside the ceramic body is the activated carbon block.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just want to make sure if there is currently no alternative before dumping it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Edit 2021/5/25&#xD;&#xA;I have tried to make an enquiry to the manufacturer.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thank you for your e-mail, the filters can generally only go into&#xD;&#xA;&gt; landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; However if you do remove the black mount from the end you can use the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rest in your Garden for drainage.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am not sure if it is a good answer so I am not going to put it in answer field yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because my filter system is a multi-filtering system.&#xD;&#xA;The ceramic filter come first and then the other 4 filters with different purposes such as adding hydrogen, with another activated carbon inside and so on. The first entrance ceramic has done a great job in filtering all the heavy metal already so I don't think it is appropriate to use the activated carbon inside in my case. Because it probably consists of many filtered heavy metal ion. If it goes to the soil, and I plant eatable plants then it will either poison the plant and I will probably eat the heavy metal ion myself if it is polluted. (although I am not a chemist but a programmer LOL, not sure if it is 100% right or not :) )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27786" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10619" RevisionGUID="ff8414cb-2803-4cc5-bd89-0e568d4fabfe" CreationDate="2021-05-27T15:43:11.140" UserId="9725" Text="Whirlpool used to have a program for recycling but it was discontinued due to lack of participation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a water filter recycling service available here: &lt;https://www.recyclewaterfilters.com/fee-to-recycle-water-filters.html&gt;&#xD;&#xA;for a fee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The activated carbon could be removed and used in the garden if it was towards the end of the filtration system (heavy metals would be in the ceramic section), you could then recycle the plastic cases and deposit the ceramic in the trash. At least all the portions that can be recycled will be." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27791" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10622" RevisionGUID="a9fb3601-de00-4daf-838c-407b2921b54f" CreationDate="2021-06-05T12:03:24.343" UserDisplayName="DeltaEnfieldWaid" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27792" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10622" RevisionGUID="a9fb3601-de00-4daf-838c-407b2921b54f" CreationDate="2021-06-05T12:03:24.343" UserDisplayName="DeltaEnfieldWaid" Text="What quantity of basalt would power NYC with power for a day?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27793" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10622" RevisionGUID="a9fb3601-de00-4daf-838c-407b2921b54f" CreationDate="2021-06-05T12:03:24.343" UserDisplayName="DeltaEnfieldWaid" Text="Some companies are refitting steam power stations to hot basalt, where many tons of rocks are heated to 750&amp;deg;C by wind power and the thermal energy is used to generate steam in power stations. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How much basalt can supply 11,000 megawatt-hours, enough to power New York City for a day, given a total process efficiency rate of 55%? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27794" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10622" RevisionGUID="2a934056-25dd-4611-bc1a-a1e41ed04ced" CreationDate="2021-06-06T19:17:29.040" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/569597/what-quantity-of-basalt-would-power-nyc-with-power-for-a-day" />
  <row Id="27795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10624" RevisionGUID="978dc522-984a-4bf8-8a1c-e40c5a596040" CreationDate="2021-06-05T13:09:50.760" UserDisplayName="Andy aka" Text="A few hints...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basalt has a specific heat capacity of 603 joules per kg per &amp;deg;C. This means that to warm 1 kg basalt up by 750&amp;deg;C you need to imbibe it with 603 x 750 joules of heat energy. That's 0.452 MJ. It's the same story when extracting heat from the warmed-up basalt but, you only want to cool it a small fraction of what it has been &quot;charged&quot; to so that the conversion to steam process is not compromised. Bear this in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that 11 MWh in joules is 11 MJ x 3600 = 39.6 GJ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next part calls for a judgement to be made on how much energy you can take from the Basalt without cooling it too much. You don't want to cool it too much else the steam process is going to sag a little. But, maybe you can allow it to cool by 100&amp;deg;C with a bit of hand-waving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, you have to work out how much mass of Basalt will cool by 100&amp;deg;C when 39.6 GJ is taken from it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27796" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10624" RevisionGUID="09746264-0e5e-4977-b166-e847baa3d356" CreationDate="2021-06-06T19:17:29.040" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/569597/what-quantity-of-basalt-would-power-nyc-with-power-for-a-day/569611#569611" />
  <row Id="27797" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="b4b0022e-03a3-468d-a87f-c00103931e71" CreationDate="2021-06-05T13:07:10.227" UserDisplayName="DeltaEnfieldWaid" Text="I'll try to figure it out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11,000MWh = 39,600,000,000 Kj&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basalt specific heat: 0.84 Kj/Kg kelvin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if we were using 1 kelvin of the basalt we would need&#xD;&#xA;39,000,000,000 kg / 0.84 = ~47,000,000,000 kg of granite&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using 600 'C of usable thermal storage:&#xD;&#xA;47,000,000,000/600 = ~ 78,000,000 kg of basalt, 78 thousand tonnes, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;basalt is about 3 tonnes per m3, NYC needs 26,000 m3 of basalt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;say 50,000 m3 of basalt given an efficiency of 50%, that's cube of 36m L-w-h &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A giant shipping container is 78m3, it's only 649 shipping containers, it's about 5% the capacity of the biggest shipping container boat in the world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5% of this boat:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GL8IF.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27798" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="1f3c4843-c7e0-4bb6-810f-8a72db568444" CreationDate="2021-06-06T19:17:29.040" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/569597/what-quantity-of-basalt-would-power-nyc-with-power-for-a-day/569610#569610" />
  <row Id="27799" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="c047c710-0b9a-4571-b6a6-fad58dd76419" CreationDate="2021-06-05T13:18:48.213" UserDisplayName="Transistor" Text="[Engineering Toolbox](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-solids-d_154.html) gives the specific heat capacity of rock as 0.84 kJ/kg.K.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\$ 11000 \ \text {MWh} = 11000 \times 60 \times 60 \ \text {MJ} = 39.6 \ \text{TJ}\$. Let's work with 40 TJ = 4 &amp;times; 10&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; J = 4 &amp;times; 10&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; kJ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say we could operate with rock starting at 600&amp;deg;C and ending at 200&amp;deg;C so a &amp;Delta;T of 400&amp;deg;C through the heat extraction cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the SHC we can calculate &#xD;&#xA;$$ m = \frac E {0.84 \Delta T} = \frac {4 \times 10^{10}}{0.84 \times 4 \times 10^2} = 1.19 \times 10^8 \ \text{kg}$$&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 3 T/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; that gives a volume of \$ \frac {1.19 \times 10^8} {3 \times 1000} = 39700 \ \mathrm{m^3} \$.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a cube of 34 m side." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27800" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="554d2349-1cab-438a-b8ae-4424f77bdbb5" CreationDate="2021-06-06T19:17:29.040" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/569597/what-quantity-of-basalt-would-power-nyc-with-power-for-a-day/569613#569613" />
  <row Id="27801" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10626" RevisionGUID="a68bb97d-a9d3-4649-b97c-24fc259fe4f3" CreationDate="2021-06-06T21:35:41.427" UserId="6925" Text="It was a race of economics.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was already demand for the product: people were sick of grinding gears in manual transmissions, and wanted a self-shifting transmission.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;General Electric had been making electric transmissions since at least 1880, with Westinghouse relentlessly competing with them in exactly the same spaces. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- first for electric trolley operations&#xD;&#xA;- then with &quot;high speed trolleys&quot; known as *interurbans*, a single coach that was self-propelled under speed-tuned trolley wire. &#xD;&#xA;- Then with &quot;doodlebug&quot; self-propelled railroad coaches, which were basically an interurban with a gasoline generator stuck in a compartment, creating a single self-propelled car that didn't need trolley wire.&#xD;&#xA;- Then with diesel-electric locomotives, from the early Ingersoll-Rand box-cabs, to small industrial locomotives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Meanwhile, Allison was working on the idea of having planetary gear-sets with bands and clutch packs inside the rotating gear-sets, that would allow gears to be selected by hydraulic signal.  Then having a &quot;valve body&quot; or hydraulic computer that would react to power, engine and vehicle speed data to select the correct gear *automatically*.   This was happening at the large truck/mining vehicle scale, not automobiles yet.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you had a simple **race of economics** between GE/Westinghouse and Allison, to see who could consumerize this technology for automotive scale, at million quantity, at a happy price point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Allison won.**  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27802" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10627" RevisionGUID="34873530-e407-4cfe-ac97-e9727001b9c6" CreationDate="2021-06-06T21:39:21.983" UserId="6925" Text="There's a lot of talk about hydrogen.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But is there any kind of genuine marketplace for &quot;normal&quot; household appliances to run on hydrogen instead of natural gas:  I mean &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Range/oven&#xD;&#xA;- Water heater &#xD;&#xA;- Dryer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are conversion kits available for COTS natural gas appliances (as they often are for propane)?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's presume the supply problem has been solved, and the house has access to appropriate volumes of hydrogen gas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27803" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10627" RevisionGUID="34873530-e407-4cfe-ac97-e9727001b9c6" CreationDate="2021-06-06T21:39:21.983" UserId="6925" Text="Are hydrogen powered appliances feasible today?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27804" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10627" RevisionGUID="34873530-e407-4cfe-ac97-e9727001b9c6" CreationDate="2021-06-06T21:39:21.983" UserId="6925" Text="|hydrogen-fuel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27805" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10622" RevisionGUID="b19a99f2-eb5a-42be-bdb3-d4c9d463e3bf" CreationDate="2021-06-07T00:00:18.060" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1401690441670705152" />
  <row Id="27806" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10628" RevisionGUID="59e09695-55ba-40e6-838c-d334dd6be814" CreationDate="2021-06-07T01:02:35.933" UserId="6925" Text="The industry term is &quot;pumped storage&quot; and it's used all over the place at a large scale.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Some systems, like Oroville Dam, reverse their turbine-generators to be &quot;motor-pumps&quot;, pumping water from the bottom of the dam to the top*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The Niagara Falls installation sits well above the Falls, and  has separate pumps: they pump *from the high side* of the falls, and obviously the generators discharge to *the low side*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a *small* scale, you just cannot obtain reversible generator-pumps.  So you're better off following the Niagara model, with pumps and generators separate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Micro-hydro *turbo-generators* are readily available, and there are many installations.  They are mainly used in &quot;run of river&quot; applications.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water pumps are, obviously, also readily available commercially.  One of them - the Aermotor - is even a windmill!  Aermotor strongly insists their windmill is not made to generate electricity... well, it can now! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's certainly a boon if you can pump from a higher place than you discharge the turbine.  But it all works at the same level too.  **The important thing is having locations for sufficiently large reservoirs, and not having a [reservoir breach from overfilling it][1]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* Oroville has a huge reservoir at the bottom, but it's hard to see on a satellite view.  Here's the trick: The *Thermalito Diversion Pool* (former Feather River at the bottom of the dam) is **at the same level, and connected to** a broad, shallow reservoir several miles west called the *Thermalito Forebay*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://damfailures.org/case-study/taum-sauk-dam-missouri-2005/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10623" RevisionGUID="c4bce165-17ee-45da-bfda-218f91ffe49c" CreationDate="2021-06-07T04:59:03.557" UserId="2345" Comment="Capitalization of units &amp; superscripts. Granite was incorrectly stated instead of basalt" Text="I'll try to figure it out:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11,000 MWh = 39,600,000,000 kJ&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basalt specific heat: 0.84 kJ/kg kelvin&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if we were using 1 kelvin of the basalt we would need&#xD;&#xA;39,000,000,000 kg / 0.84 = ~47,000,000,000 kg of basalt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using 600&amp;deg; C of usable thermal storage:&#xD;&#xA;47,000,000,000/600 = ~ 78,000,000 kg of basalt, 78 thousand tonnes, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;basalt is about 3 tonnes per m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, NYC needs 26,000 m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; of basalt&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;say 50,000 m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; of basalt given an efficiency of 50%, that's cube of 36m L-w-h &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A giant shipping container is 78m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;, it's only 649 shipping containers, it's about 5% the capacity of the biggest shipping container boat in the world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5% of this boat:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GL8IF.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27808" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10629" RevisionGUID="42520c83-1216-4ff0-a676-0c5e504a8490" CreationDate="2021-06-07T16:49:51.663" UserId="6393" Text="Yes, there is still a big issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The issue is steel making used to produce the vehicle. A vehicle needs probably more than a ton of steel. Iron oxide is still usually reduced by carbon, in a process that produces carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, this seems to be changing. The steel company SSAB is planning to introduce direct reduction of iron oxide using hydrogen, that presumably would be produced using electrolysis from renewables (wind, solar) when they are available and stored underground for use in times when renewables are not available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, we're not there yet. Hydrogen is still predominantly produced from steam reforming of methane, and steel is still predominantly produced by reducing iron oxide using carbon. Electrolysis and direct reduction using hydrogen are still today just practically rounding errors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27809" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="ac315dee-46a6-4ca1-8f25-436d7d69271d" CreationDate="2021-06-07T18:33:35.753" UserId="6213" Text="There seems to be a growing consensus, that the vegan diet is the most sustainable for our environment on multiple levels, such as land use, water use and co2.&#xD;&#xA;There is some debate about whether chicken meat and eggs should be included to a very limited extent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However on the flip side, there are two important questions raised from the opposing side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1) What to do with waste products, if not feed them to animals?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food production for humans involves producing a ton of hulls and such. These are considered inedible for humans. They can be either fed to animals, fungi (cultivated) or bacteria and fungi (natural decomposition).&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't it make sense to have at least some animals around to eat these waste products and upcycle them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) Most grass-lands are not arable**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are huge swaths of land on the plant where its just grass. This land seems to be poorly suited for crops. Why not have some cows there to upcycle grass, which is inedible for humans?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there legitimate large analyses accounting for these factors? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27810" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="ac315dee-46a6-4ca1-8f25-436d7d69271d" CreationDate="2021-06-07T18:33:35.753" UserId="6213" Text="How can a purely vegan diet be the most sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27811" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="ac315dee-46a6-4ca1-8f25-436d7d69271d" CreationDate="2021-06-07T18:33:35.753" UserId="6213" Text="|food|food-waste|agriculture|crop|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="91905096-6935-4a68-844a-e178d353be4e" CreationDate="2021-06-08T12:24:05.830" UserId="6925" Comment="Inserted math symbols as graphics. " Text="[Engineering Toolbox](https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-solids-d_154.html) gives the specific heat capacity of rock as 0.84 kJ/kg.K.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA; Let's work with 40 TJ = 4 &amp;times; 10&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt; J = 4 &amp;times; 10&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt; kJ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say we could operate with rock starting at 600&amp;deg;C and ending at 200&amp;deg;C so a &amp;Delta;T of 400&amp;deg;C through the heat extraction cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the SHC we can calculate  &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At 3 T/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; that gives a volume of &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's a cube of 34 m side.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/34AB9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/jbZSw.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7TPko.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27813" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10625" RevisionGUID="91905096-6935-4a68-844a-e178d353be4e" CreationDate="2021-06-08T12:24:05.830" Comment="Proposed by 6925 approved by 2345, 3379 edit id of 672" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27814" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10631" RevisionGUID="dcfb01b5-93c6-45c1-bafe-44dfef4240b0" CreationDate="2021-06-09T03:06:56.037" UserId="3379" Text="We replaced our furnace last year, and the new one has a fan which can be run independently of the heating function. The fan recirculates air throughout the house. **Is there a way to use this to keep the house cool?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a two story house with a basement. The basement stays cool year round, and the upstairs gets very warm in the afternoon (no shade trees close enough to shield the upstairs rooms from the sun, unfortunately). We spend the day on the main floor, which is the floor we'd like to cool. All levels have roughly the same volume of space. It seems that if I run the fan, I'll just blend the cool basement air with the hot upstairs air and end with the main living space at the same temperature it was before. But perhaps there's some strategy based on the time of day that I run the fan?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At night we open all the windows and use an exhaust fan to blow warm air out the second storey window, drawing cool air in through the ground floor. As soon as the sun comes up, we close the windows and blinds to keep the cooler air in, and block the sun." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10631" RevisionGUID="dcfb01b5-93c6-45c1-bafe-44dfef4240b0" CreationDate="2021-06-09T03:06:56.037" UserId="3379" Text="Can I use the furnace fan to cool my house in the summer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10631" RevisionGUID="dcfb01b5-93c6-45c1-bafe-44dfef4240b0" CreationDate="2021-06-09T03:06:56.037" UserId="3379" Text="|home|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10632" RevisionGUID="26338f9c-ffab-4e28-9c2b-76daeb4c0f8a" CreationDate="2021-06-09T15:51:40.653" UserId="5477" Text="No, it would be expensive and not effective, it only recirculates air in the house. What works very well is a &quot;whole house fan&quot;. It can be located anywhere despite the instructions to centrally locate it. I have one in a utility room at the corner of the house; open windows in rooms that need most air. Of course you are limited to the outside temperature. But I find a half hour in the cool late evening  and a half hour in the early morning works very well. Think of ten times more air movement than your window fan. Be sure to get a belt drive ,not a direct drive , Belt drives are quieter because they turn slower but move as much air with bigger blades. My first house in northern Indiana has a fan and no AC and was generally very comfortable. Since then , I have installed them in three houses which shows what I think of them. Also excellent if there is a smoky cooking accident.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27818" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9595" RevisionGUID="45c76033-0f86-4d51-ae09-f789165b51d6" CreationDate="2021-06-10T18:58:24.293" UserId="3379" Comment="added 189 characters in body" Text="I was recently reading that lithium mining for electric vehicle batteries is [wreaking havoc on deserts in Chile](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-06-11/saving-the-planet-with-electric-cars-means-strangling-this-desert).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One proposed alternative to EVs in the search for a replacement for petroleum-fueled vehicles is [hydrogen vehicles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_fuel_vehicle#Hydrogen). &#xD;&#xA;The most promising type of hydrogen vehicle uses a [fuel cell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell) to convert the chemical energy of hydrogen into electricity, with the only byproduct being water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm wondering if hydrogen vehicles may also have unique supply-chain issues like EVs. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are there significant environmental concerns or issues with supplying the necessary materials to mass-produce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm interested in issues related to production of the *hydrogen fuel cell vehicles themselves* -- not the fuel source, and not vehicles in general. I assume that there is technology in the vehicle for converting hydrogen fuel into energy, that does not exist in any other type of vehicle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27819" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="f3857636-7d18-4e17-b043-f30e269f15cc" CreationDate="2021-06-11T00:00:07.103" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1403139947633254402" />
  <row Id="27820" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="47bada73-bd40-4de8-b481-1befe9d588ff" CreationDate="2021-06-12T19:07:05.753" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10633" RevisionGUID="f3a7d0e8-ed13-4360-9949-5b78397702eb" CreationDate="2021-06-13T00:26:55.417" UserId="9840" Text="Had the same problem... no air in the clay bed. Add an additional air stone to the clay bed. I also devised a filtration system so solid waste wouldn't be in the clay bed and leave the &quot;fishy&quot; smell in my home or whatever area you have your system in. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27822" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10624" RevisionGUID="b167a202-16af-49ee-a2ce-8f937b4929c2" CreationDate="2021-06-14T01:45:42.663" UserId="6925" Comment="OP stated 11,000 MWH not 11 MWH. " Text="A few hints...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basalt has a specific heat capacity of 603 joules per kg per &amp;deg;C. This means that to warm 1 kg basalt up by 750&amp;deg;C you need to imbibe it with 603 x 750 joules of heat energy. That's 0.452 MJ. It's the same story when extracting heat from the warmed-up basalt but, you only want to cool it a small fraction of what it has been &quot;charged&quot; to so that the conversion to steam process is not compromised. Bear this in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that 11,000 MWh in joules is 11,000 MJ x 3600 = 39,600 GJ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The next part calls for a judgement to be made on how much energy you can take from the Basalt without cooling it too much. You don't want to cool it too much else the steam process is going to sag a little. But, maybe you can allow it to cool by 100&amp;deg;C with a bit of hand-waving.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So now, you have to work out how much mass of Basalt will cool by 100&amp;deg;C when 39,600 GJ is taken from it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27823" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10624" RevisionGUID="b167a202-16af-49ee-a2ce-8f937b4929c2" CreationDate="2021-06-14T01:45:42.663" Comment="Proposed by 6925 approved by 2345, 659 edit id of 671" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="ce3d1253-ad20-4b11-bcd8-bc4819984df4" CreationDate="2021-06-14T12:07:14.440" UserId="9842" Text="I want to know if there are any darknets that are sustainable. I have my doubts about Tor due to their apparent interest in Proof of Work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.torproject.org/stop-the-onion-denial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In particular, onion services can ask the client to solve a Proof-of-Work puzzle before allowing entry. With the right Proof-of-Work algorithm and puzzle difficulty, this can make it impossible for an attacker to overwhelm the service, while still making it reachable by normal clients with only a small delay. Similar designs have also been proposed for TLS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I2P developers (on zzz.i2p, the site would not work unless you use I2P) have shown interest in using the same method against DDoS attacks as well. In addition to the whole kovri thing, targeting usage of a PoW cryptocurrency(Monero).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gnunet also appears to be using PoW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://gnunet.org/en/faq.html&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The gnunet-service-nse process will initially compute a so-called &quot;proof-of-work&quot; which is used to convince the network that your peer is real (or, rather, make it        expensive for an adversary to mount a Sybil attack on the network size estimator). The calculation is expected to take a few days, depending on how fast your CPU is. If the CPU load is creating a problem for you, you can set the value &quot;WORKDELAY&quot; in the &quot;nse&quot; section of your configuration file to a higher value. The default is &quot;5 ms&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Safe Network use Proof of Resource instead of PoW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://safenetwork.tech/faq/&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proof of Resource is the process that measures a Node’s ability to store and retrieve data chunks. A User’s computer receives a score based on its CPU speed, bandwidth availability, disk space and time online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proof of Resource in the Safe Network uses a mechanism similar to a Zero Knowledge Proof. The checking mechanism does not need to know what data is being checked—it simply needs to know that the correct data is being held and accurately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I think that is better in theory, they still encourage bitcoin transactions on the same page.&#xD;&#xA;Their forums also show that it encourages usage beyond just  spare resources:&#xD;&#xA;https://safenetforum.org/t/best-farming-hardware/99&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Nym network uses Proof of Mixing, which is based on Proof of work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://nymtech.net/nym-whitepaper.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The NYM rewards nodes that provision a high quality of service via a novel proof-of-work scheme,proof of mixing, which proves that a mix node has been adequately routing traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have seen two somewhat promising networks, Freenet and Lokinet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Freenet, like I2P and Safe Network, encourages 24 hour usage, though this is not strictly necessary. What makes it interesting is that you can limit who you connect to, making it possible to only make direct connections to people using renewable electricity.&#xD;&#xA;You could also encourage those people to do the same themselves. You also do not need to stay online after uploading content(including sites) as it is distributed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lokinet used to use PoW, but now uses PoS(Proof of Stake).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://loki.network/2019/10/02/does-pulse-make-the-rich-richer/&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recently we released our fifth Loki Improvement Proposal in which we outlined a new Proof of Stake scheme, Pulse. If it’s to be implemented, Pulse would have Service Nodes produce blocks, order transactions, and secure the blockchain, rendering miners in the Loki ecosystem no longer necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://oxen.io/blog/clean-crypto&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At Oxen, we’ve already rolled out our Proof of Stake implementation, Pulse. Thanks to the full removal of Proof of Work, Oxen is more efficient and eco-friendly than ever. With the technical requirements and specifications for a service node, and assuming it is running 24/7, a service node can be expected to chew up about 1,400 KWh per year. With 1,700 service nodes, the network would consume 2,380,000 KWh in a year. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rounding up (just in case), Oxen still only uses 0.0025TWh a year. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oxen uses 0.002% of the energy Bitcoin uses. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And only 0.006% of the energy consumption of Ethereum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If care a lot about both sustainability and privacy/anonymity, what would you choose, and why? Would you pick a different route?&#xD;&#xA;(Assume I myself use energy from renewable resources if that makes a difference)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27825" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="ce3d1253-ad20-4b11-bcd8-bc4819984df4" CreationDate="2021-06-14T12:07:14.440" UserId="9842" Text="What darknet would you choose (or is it not justifiable)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27826" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="ce3d1253-ad20-4b11-bcd8-bc4819984df4" CreationDate="2021-06-14T12:07:14.440" UserId="9842" Text="|energy|electricity|green-it|computing|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10635" RevisionGUID="32f7b162-5694-4dfe-9821-53ad507c9bf5" CreationDate="2021-06-14T13:35:55.473" UserId="4834" Text="&gt; 1) What to do with waste products, if not feed them to animals?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Organic (of or relating to an organism) waste products all compost and if you want everyone in the world to live on grains and vegetables then you want all the compost you can get.  In fact, you want to start using some of the waste products that the west mostly does waste already (nightsoil).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wouldn't it make sense to have at least some animals around to eat these waste products and upcycle them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it doesn't *necessarily* make sense.  There is a cost and a benefit to having animals around.  Their feed is part of the cost but it is not all of it.  They have a footprint on the land.  They may have emissions of their own.  There are other handling costs.  And so on.  Their value as food is one benefit.  If their waste stream can be captured and made use of then that is a value.  They may fill in for certain ecosystem services.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Feeding some products from the waste stream itself has a cost.  Those products are no longer available to be used in another re-cycling process.  It has a benefit.  The feed cost of the animals is reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cost/benefit analysis on having the animals around will come to some conclusion.  Feeding materials from the waste stream to those animals will change the cost/benefit analysis but it doesn't necessarily change it all the way from &quot;costs outweigh benfits&quot; to &quot;benefits outweigh costs&quot;.  It doesn't even _necessarily_ move it in that direction.  It is likely that a particular waste stream, particular animals, and a particular system needs to be analysed to understand what the real effects are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biological systems can be quite complex.  As an example of how the benefit of diverting some of the waste stream could be outweighed by the cost of keeping livestock around, consider that methane might be produced as a side-effect of keeping livestock around.  The total amount of carbon in the system obviously has not changed but in methane the warming effects of that carbon have been greatly magnified.  The carbon would have been much less impactful if it had ended up in a carrot or a soil microorganism.  This specific issue is well-studied from multiple angles (from measurement - https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/14/eabe9765 - to extrapolation from prior data - https://extension.psu.edu/livestock-methane-emissions-in-the-united-states - to give just two examples).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2) Most grass-lands are not arable&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This part of the question implicitly mixes two concerns.  The area available for non-forage crop production doesn't obviously or directly impact the sustainability of the use of that area (though in the *extremes* certainly this matters - you can get away with a lot on 1 square meter inside 1 billion square meters of healthy surrounding ecosystem; likewise, convert too much area to crop production and you risk consequences like desertification which may then destroy the capability of that land to produce crops).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, what the area available for non-forage crop production directly impacts is total production capacity - and therefore the number of people you can feed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we consider these two factors - production capacity and sustainability - explicitly then we end up with the idea of carrying capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A population can temporarily exceed the carrying capacity by increasing production at the expense of sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what is the carrying capacity of earth if everyone is vegan?  How does this compare to the carrying capacity if some people are eating some animal products?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here there is significant disagreement.  Some argue that livestock cannot exist in any meaningful numbers without doing more harm than good.  Some argue that livestock are part of the solution, not part of the problem, and we should keep as many of them as we can (using systems that result in carbon draw-down).  If there is any legitimate consensus, it is not clear to me what it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, the world is changing around us.  As we get closer to certain tipping points (the exact position of which we don't even really know) the considerations change.  What's better - N CO2-equivalent units of methane in the air and M CO2-equivalent units of carbon sequestered in the soil (call this the livestock scenario), or X CO2-equivalent units of methane in the air and Y CO2-equivalent units of carbon in the air (call this the vegan scenario)?  The answer twenty years ago is probably not the same as the answer today and may not be the same as the answer in five years." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10634" RevisionGUID="09a2b83c-f772-4795-859e-7704a652ea89" CreationDate="2021-06-14T14:13:02.557" UserId="9842" Comment="added 764 characters in body" Text="I want to know if there are any darknets that are sustainable. I have my doubts about Tor due to their apparent interest in Proof of Work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.torproject.org/stop-the-onion-denial&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In particular, onion services can ask the client to solve a Proof-of-Work puzzle before allowing entry. With the right Proof-of-Work algorithm and puzzle difficulty, this can make it impossible for an attacker to overwhelm the service, while still making it reachable by normal clients with only a small delay. Similar designs have also been proposed for TLS.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I2P developers (on zzz.i2p, the site would not work unless you use I2P) have shown interest in using the same method against DDoS attacks as well. In addition to the whole kovri thing, targeting usage of a PoW cryptocurrency(Monero).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gnunet also appears to be using PoW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://gnunet.org/en/faq.html&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The gnunet-service-nse process will initially compute a so-called &quot;proof-of-work&quot; which is used to convince the network that your peer is real (or, rather, make it        expensive for an adversary to mount a Sybil attack on the network size estimator). The calculation is expected to take a few days, depending on how fast your CPU is. If the CPU load is creating a problem for you, you can set the value &quot;WORKDELAY&quot; in the &quot;nse&quot; section of your configuration file to a higher value. The default is &quot;5 ms&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Safe Network use Proof of Resource instead of PoW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://safenetwork.tech/faq/&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proof of Resource is the process that measures a Node’s ability to store and retrieve data chunks. A User’s computer receives a score based on its CPU speed, bandwidth availability, disk space and time online.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Proof of Resource in the Safe Network uses a mechanism similar to a Zero Knowledge Proof. The checking mechanism does not need to know what data is being checked—it simply needs to know that the correct data is being held and accurately.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I think that is better in theory, they still encourage bitcoin transactions on the same page.&#xD;&#xA;Their forums also show that it encourages usage beyond just  spare resources:&#xD;&#xA;https://safenetforum.org/t/best-farming-hardware/99&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Nym network uses Proof of Mixing, which is based on Proof of work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://nymtech.net/nym-whitepaper.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The NYM rewards nodes that provision a high quality of service via a novel proof-of-work scheme,proof of mixing, which proves that a mix node has been adequately routing traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far I have seen two somewhat promising networks, Freenet and Lokinet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Freenet, like I2P and Safe Network, encourages 24 hour usage, though this is not strictly necessary. What makes it interesting is that you can limit who you connect to, making it possible to only make direct connections to people using renewable electricity.&#xD;&#xA;You could also encourage those people to do the same themselves. You also do not need to stay online after uploading content(including sites) as it is distributed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lokinet used to use PoW, but now uses PoS(Proof of Stake).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://loki.network/2019/10/02/does-pulse-make-the-rich-richer/&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recently we released our fifth Loki Improvement Proposal in which we outlined a new Proof of Stake scheme, Pulse. If it’s to be implemented, Pulse would have Service Nodes produce blocks, order transactions, and secure the blockchain, rendering miners in the Loki ecosystem no longer necessary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://oxen.io/blog/clean-crypto&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At Oxen, we’ve already rolled out our Proof of Stake implementation, Pulse. Thanks to the full removal of Proof of Work, Oxen is more efficient and eco-friendly than ever. With the technical requirements and specifications for a service node, and assuming it is running 24/7, a service node can be expected to chew up about 1,400 KWh per year. With 1,700 service nodes, the network would consume 2,380,000 KWh in a year. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Rounding up (just in case), Oxen still only uses 0.0025TWh a year. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Oxen uses 0.002% of the energy Bitcoin uses. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; And only 0.006% of the energy consumption of Ethereum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If care a lot about both sustainability and privacy/anonymity, what would you choose, and why? Would you pick a different route?&#xD;&#xA;(Assume I myself use energy from renewable resources if that makes a difference)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT1:&#xD;&#xA;I just found found some new information related to Tor:&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.torproject.org/nft-auction-and-whats-next&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We wanted to be mindful of the impact of the blockchain on climate change. Part of our decision to move forward came after we looked into the efforts Ethereum has been putting forward to address their part in this—here is a blog post from them that just came out about moving ETH from PoW to PoS and what this means for ETH’s climate impact.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We also decided that instead of buying carbon offsets as part of this auction, we would put money in the hands of those who are on the frontlines fighting for our planet. We chose to donate to the Munduruku Wakoborũn Women's Association, a grassroots indigenous organization in Pará, Brazil. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10636" RevisionGUID="04a06600-7e0b-4c02-9ec7-50bd3877bdd3" CreationDate="2021-06-17T15:45:53.300" UserId="3379" Text="The title and body of your post have two slightly different questions, to which there are two different answers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Q: *Are hydrogen powered appliances feasible today?* A: **Yes,** and they are in active development.&#xD;&#xA; - Q: *Are conversion kits available for [COTS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_off-the-shelf) natural gas appliances?* A: **No,** and it's unlikely they ever will be due to the engineering challenges and anticipated cost and complexity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2018, the U.K. Department for Business, Energy &amp; Industrial Strategy commissioned a study on the feasibility of using hydrogen in commercial appliances, and published a thorough report: [&quot;Appraisal of domestic hydrogen appliances&quot;](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/appraisal-of-domestic-hydrogen-appliances). I'm going to quote extensively from the executive summary, adding some headings and emphasis, to answer the questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Study methodology:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The study has involved a systematic review of the available literature as well as detailed industry engagement involving 1-2-1 conversations and a discussion workshop.  The industry engagement has included appliance and component manufacturers, gas testing bodies, maintenance and servicing contract companies, trade associations and consultancies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Engineering challenges and differences between burning natural gas vs hydrogen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Hydrogen has a significantly higher flame speed, greater flammability range and is likely to burn at a higher temperature than natural gas.**  These characteristics present significant engineering challenges that particularly affect the burners in all four appliances.  Specifically there are concerns with light-back (propagation of flames back through burner), higher NOx emissions and the potential explosion of unburned gas.  To mitigate these effects, it maybe necessary to remove the primary aeration, re-size the burner ports (holes) and remove internal cavities where combustible gas mixtures could form.  It will also be necessary to select and test materials that are suitable for higher temperature combustion.  **A number of potential options for new burner technologies have been identified in this study but there is currently no industry-wide consensus on the most feasible burners** and further R&amp;D is required.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Another key technical concern is the Flame Failure Device (FFD) which detects the presence of a flame and shuts off the gas supply if it is extinguished.** Natural gas boilers use ionisation sensors to detect flames (via the resulting combustion gases)and these cannot be used with hydrogen. Fires, hobs and ovens use thermoelectric FFDs which have a relatively slow reaction time (typically 30 seconds or greater) and this could be a concern for ovens and fires that have enclosed volumes where unburnt gas could build up.  **Alternatives such as UV and IR sensors are available and used for industrial processes but these will need to be redeveloped to reduce their size and cost.**  In addition, **hydrogen also burns with a pale blue flame that is difficult to see in daylight conditions and this presents aesthetic and safety concerns**, particularly for fires and hobs. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Components such as the pipework, heat exchanger and gas valves will require some redevelopment due to the different combustion characteristics of hydrogen but the operational principles will not fundamentally change. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Potential market pathways for hydrogen-fueled appliances:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1. Hydrogen-specific appliances:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Overall, the view from stakeholders was that **by developing appliances specifically designed for hydrogen (first option), they should be able to match the key features of existing natural gas appliances.**  This includes appliance efficiency, lifetime, maintenance requirements, size and ease of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2. Newly developed natural gas appliances with a hydrogen conversion kit:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The main advantage of adapted appliances (second option) is that the cost is only burdened if there is a switchover during the lifetime of the appliances.  However, following such a switch over they may suffer reductions in performance compared to a new hydrogen appliance as they contain components that have not been fully optimised for hydrogen. There are also significant differences in the design and makeup of domestic gas appliances.  Even within one appliance type, there are variations in current commercially available appliances and even greater variation in the makeup of the existing stock in domestic installations.  **Adapting existing natural gas hobs, ovens and fires to hydrogen is possible although would require a conversion kit that is sufficiently universal to fit different product variations. Adapting boilers is again, in theory possible, although given the limited space inside the appliances this will be very challenging from a practical perspective.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**3. Newly developed dual-fuel appliances:**&#xD;&#xA;&gt;For all four appliances, a dual-fuel option that can readily interchange between natural gas and hydrogen without replacing components is in theory possible, but is likely to require doubling up various components including the burner system.  This will significantly increase the size and is very unlikely to be accepted by occupants. For this reason, **this option has been discounted and has not considered in the detailed options appraisal.**  In the context of a single gas switchover, Hydrogen Ready dual-fuel appliances are potentially more attractive.  These would be designed for hydrogen but back-fitted in the factory to run on natural gas up to, and indeed if, switchover occurs.  These appliances would be specifically developed to be easily converted and this could significantly lessen the burden of switchover. By developing these appliances with hydrogen in mind, they also should offer the same performance as new hydrogen appliances. In principle, Hydrogen Ready dual-fuel could offer an attractive compromise between rolling out hydrogen only appliances and adapting current natural gas appliances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ultimately, the general view of the industry was that the development of domestic hydrogen appliances would be initially led by new hydrogen only appliances and adaption and dual-fuel options would be developed off the back of these.  Also, in the short term, new appliances would be based on existing natural gas products as much as possible to minimise the amount of new innovation required.  If the industry and market for hydrogen appliances develop, further R&amp;D may mean that the appliance components start diverging from those used in natural gas systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### What about fuel cells?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that another option which is commercial available is a [hydrogen fuel cell](https://www.chapmanplumbers.com/heating-services/fuel-cell-technology-vitovalor/). Rather than burning hydrogen in natural gas appliances, with a fuel cell you would use hydrogen to generate heat (for space and/or water heating) and electricity, which would then be used for other appliances such as ovens, ranges, and clothes dryers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently these fuel cells use natural gas as a feedstock, but having a fuel cell which used hydrogen directly would of course be feasible as well, and in theory would cost less to install and operate.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10639" RevisionGUID="7f55b83d-ddf6-4495-acaf-a428f1e4d171" CreationDate="2021-06-21T17:01:38.673" UserId="3379" Text="Now that my partner and I are working from home indefinitely, we decided to install central air conditioning. We got quotes for a unit with a 17 [SEER](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_energy_efficiency_ratio) efficiency rating, and ultimately picked [this one](https://www.yorknow.com/lx-ycg18b21s.html). Note that 17 SEER is about 30% more efficient than the minimum recommendation of the [2019 energy code](https://ashrae.iwrapper.com/ASHRAE_PREVIEW_ONLY_STANDARDS/STD_90.1_2019).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the unit was installed, I saw the Energy Guide label, which shows a 14.5 SEER rating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Energy Guide label][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the model number (YCG18B21S) matches, but the SEER rating does not. What's going on here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vL8C0l.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27841" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10639" RevisionGUID="7f55b83d-ddf6-4495-acaf-a428f1e4d171" CreationDate="2021-06-21T17:01:38.673" UserId="3379" Text="Why is the Energy Guide efficiency rating of my air conditioner so much lower than the specification?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27842" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10639" RevisionGUID="7f55b83d-ddf6-4495-acaf-a428f1e4d171" CreationDate="2021-06-21T17:01:38.673" UserId="3379" Text="|energy-efficiency|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27843" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10640" RevisionGUID="955f810d-a07d-474e-bbad-53caac12cf87" CreationDate="2021-06-22T21:42:58.930" UserId="9854" Text="For the daily energy consumption quoted, optimizing the lights will not make a significant dent. I know because I've been there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that large loads (electric stove, electric drier, heaters, central air, A/C, dehumidifiers, a pool circulation pump etc.) will significantly affect the energy bill even if they are not on all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the Hydro meter might have errors. To check that, you would need access to the incoming line, feeding the whole home electric panel and record the energy consumption over a long enough period of time, say weeks or preferably months (not just short term power consumption at given times of the day).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is not possible, another option would be to ask that you pay according to your own energy consumption. In that case, you'll have to agree with the landlord on a more fair way to measure your own energy consumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="e56e9658-5125-4c41-af8e-fb0ef6ce2680" CreationDate="2021-06-23T21:11:38.123" UserId="9858" Text="They said that Solar and Wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels. One of the primary reasons is subsidies and new technologies. Does anyone know the comparison research using No Subsidies. If we compare the cost of solar/wind renewables vs fossil fuels, both Without subsidies, what is cheaper?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/23/most-new-wind-solar-projects-cheaper-than-coal-report&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.saurenergy.com/solar-energy-news/majority-of-new-renewables-beat-cheapest-fossil-fuel-on-cost-irena" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27845" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="e56e9658-5125-4c41-af8e-fb0ef6ce2680" CreationDate="2021-06-23T21:11:38.123" UserId="9858" Text="Renewables vs Fossil Fuel Cost Comparisons, without Subsidies" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27846" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10641" RevisionGUID="e56e9658-5125-4c41-af8e-fb0ef6ce2680" CreationDate="2021-06-23T21:11:38.123" UserId="9858" Text="|solar-power|energy|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10642" RevisionGUID="34e5d1f3-20ab-46e7-8e1f-807292138b92" CreationDate="2021-06-24T15:37:59.120" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; If we compare the cost of solar/wind renewables vs fossil fuels, both Without subsidies, what is cheaper?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to understand the different roles of different power sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coal is old-fashioned and dying. Traditional coal power plants have poor thermal efficiency, and alternatives such as integrated gasification combined cycle are expensive. Coal has the highest per-energy-unit emissions of all fossil fuels and the lowest efficiency of all fossil fuel plants. Furthermore, coal power plants have poor adjustment properties so they are best used as base load, as they can't follow the load in the electricity grid quickly enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oil is so valuable that it's best reserved for transportation uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves natural gas. Natural gas combined cycle units regularly exceed 50% efficiency in comparison to bit over 30% for coal. The trouble with natural gas is that the fuel cost is high, but if the negative externality damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions is included it isn't such bad anymore since natural gas has bit over half of the per-energy-unit emissions of coal (and less than half if you include the better efficiency in calculations). Natural gas isn't typically used with base load but rather as peaker plants, so that the plants are used only during peak electricity times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind and solar power in fact are very cheap per peak megawatt -- solar cheaper than wind. However, they are not continuous base load power sources. You can only produce electricity when the weather permits. Actually, in very many cases even though solar is cheaper per peak megawatt, wind is cheaper per average megawatt-hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind and solar power are cheaper per average megawatt-hour than natural gas combined cycle turbines. But this is true only when renewables are available -- you cannot produce wind electricity in calm weather and you cannot produce solar electricity during the night or winter (unless in an area with no true winter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the best approach is to not to ask which is cheapest and only use the cheapest power source. When wind is available, it is cheapest. When solar is available, it is cheapest. When neither is available, natural gas is cheapest (unless the area has plentiful hydropower resources in which case hydropower will out-compete natural gas and all adjustable power is hydropower based).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the cheapest electricity system utilizes all of these:&#xD;&#xA;* Wind power&#xD;&#xA;* Solar power&#xD;&#xA;* Hydropower as much as it is available&#xD;&#xA;* Natural gas if not enough hydropower is available&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some day natural gas will be replaced by hydrogen produced during electrolysis using wind and solar power. Today the cost of electrolysis is high so natural gas is used. The shift from natural gas to hydrogen will in new turbines require no changes to the plant, and in old turbines might require replacing the gas turbine part (but you probably can continue to use the old steam turbine of the combined cycle unit)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="b775a469-56c2-41d5-b49a-a4b02957bd94" CreationDate="2021-06-24T22:59:45.267" UserId="9862" Text="@jmk yes the Seasonal energy efficiency ratio or SEER a high number is better. &#xD;&#xA;The system won’t let me comment must be because I am new on this page of the SE .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are similar questions asked on DIY home improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically the outside unit is the compressor and condenser coil.&#xD;&#xA;The inside unit could be a very basic coil and orifice and your system would be a low seer value system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By increasing the coil inside the evaporator to have more fins so the heat transfer is better this brings up the efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To gain additional efficiency we ad active controls called txv (thermal expansion valves) these valves regulate the amount of liquid that is allowed into the evaporator by adjusting the valves based on the temperature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By metering the refrigerant slowly or just what is needed the compressor cycles less often increasing the efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inside coil size and type with a TXV and possibly a multi speed fan are all that can be done there to increase the efficiency of the system. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27849" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10643" RevisionGUID="8e4872cc-4f6c-4293-80c1-97d6c9886e76" CreationDate="2021-06-24T23:04:57.520" UserId="9862" Comment="added 489 characters in body" Text="@jmk yes the Seasonal energy efficiency ratio or SEER a high number is better. &#xD;&#xA;The system won’t let me comment must be because I am new on this page of the SE .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are similar questions asked on DIY home improvement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically the outside unit is the compressor and condenser coil.&#xD;&#xA;The inside unit could be a very basic coil and orifice and your system would be a low seer value system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By increasing the coil inside the evaporator to have more fins so the heat transfer is better this brings up the efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To gain additional efficiency we ad active controls called txv (thermal expansion valves) these valves regulate the amount of liquid that is allowed into the evaporator by adjusting the valves based on the temperature. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By metering the refrigerant slowly or just what is needed the compressor cycles less often increasing the efficiency. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The inside coil size and type with a TXV and possibly a multi speed fan are all that can be done there to increase the efficiency of the system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To increase the overall system beyond that of txv and evaporator coil the outside unit can have a better condenser coil. &#xD;&#xA;(Rare but I did this 1 time when dogs peeing on the outside coil caused it to fail) &#xD;&#xA;The other thing that can be done outside is an inverter driven compressor. I have not upgraded to an inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually the outside unit is chosen and we match to it or slightly better. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cost although off topic can be 2x going from a 14 seer system to a 21 seer system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27850" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10644" RevisionGUID="e6db905e-6c8e-409f-aa94-9da23521f475" CreationDate="2021-06-24T23:39:15.693" UserId="9862" Text="There are ways but not without adding to existing systems.&#xD;&#xA; When I was in the service our furnaces were just like yours 70’s .&#xD;&#xA;We did have swamp coolers, I installed an over ride switch to turn the house fan on. The cool air generated by the swamp cooler was circulated through the home and cooled the upper floor by more than 20 degrees F . (I added the bypass switch to each house on our block shortly after) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are geothermal coils that can exchange ground water through a coil set and once the water is warmed return it to a second well. &#xD;&#xA;The water pump is quite small and the coil was not horribly expensive I put one of these in in the late 90’s it worked quite well for that house. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10645" RevisionGUID="bd2d9f32-ce0d-4817-b9bb-302262d8ef87" CreationDate="2021-06-24T23:53:16.393" UserId="9862" Text="Without batteries a grid tied system may be able to power the home during the day but the controls are expensive and your AHJ has to approve for the permits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10639" RevisionGUID="4ee7472b-4d30-4639-bfc4-b0df43b9cea0" CreationDate="2021-06-25T01:57:52.507" UserId="3379" Comment="added 346 characters in body" Text="Now that my partner and I are working from home indefinitely, we decided to install central air conditioning. We got quotes for a unit with a 17 [SEER](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_energy_efficiency_ratio) efficiency rating, and ultimately picked [this one](https://www.yorknow.com/lx-ycg18b21s.html). Note that 17 SEER is about 30% more efficient than the minimum recommendation of the [2019 energy code](https://ashrae.iwrapper.com/ASHRAE_PREVIEW_ONLY_STANDARDS/STD_90.1_2019).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the unit was installed, I saw the Energy Guide label, which shows a 14.5 SEER rating:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Energy Guide label][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the model number (`YCG18B21S`) matches, but the SEER rating does not. What's going on here?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------&#xD;&#xA;Based on comments and answers, I took a look at the indoor (evaporator) unit, which is made by ADP and has model number `HE31124A155A0004AP`, which appears to be [one of these](https://resource.carrierenterprise.com/is/content/Watscocom/advanced-distributor-products_he31124a155a0004ap_article_13278844375401950_en_ss).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vL8C0l.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10646" RevisionGUID="b99321c3-187b-4b34-8893-190aae0c8804" CreationDate="2021-06-25T14:16:40.493" UserId="3379" Text="Thanks to [MonkeyZeus' answer](https://diy.stackexchange.com/a/227882/86548) to a related question on DIY.SE, I sorted this out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [AHRI product search](https://www.ahridirectory.org/NewSearch?programId=68&amp;searchTypeId=3&amp;productTypeId=3500) lets you see the SEER rating for different combinations of A/C indoor and outdoor units. ([AHRI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Conditioning,_Heating_and_Refrigeration_Institute) is the trade organization that maintains efficiency standards and testing procedures.) If I enter *just* the model number of the outdoor unit (`YCG18B21S`), there are 3,325 possible combinations, with SEER ratings ranging from 10.05 up to 19.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorting out how to search on the indoor unit is a bit more complicated, as they give the results as regular expressions (I think that's what that is?). For example:&#xD;&#xA; - My indoor unit has part number `HE31124A155A0004AP`&#xD;&#xA; - AHRI lists this as `H,YE31(1,2)24`, which can be read as `H` or `Y`, `E31`, `1` or `2`, `24`. Everything after that can be ignored.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I search with this string, there are four matching results (depending on the furnace the unit is paired with), all of which have a SEER rating of 17.00, which is what I expected.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![AHRI search results][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The interesting thing is that the Energy Guide labels that are linked for each one show a rating of 15 SEER. It seems the Energy Guide labels are just designed to confuse!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sYqYq.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27854" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="b18f22fb-0fe9-4b1e-80be-140451c6df5b" CreationDate="2021-06-25T16:42:40.323" UserId="6393" Text="During the last few years, shared electric kick scooter systems such as Voi and Tier have become common where I live. The system consists of a number of shared electric kick scooters scattered around in a city. The scooters have positioning devices, allowing finding them easily and ensuring that they are only used in the allowed city center area, and also during the end of a day the rental company collects all of the scooters with a van, charges them overnight and early in the morning the charged scooters (those that were not broken, that is) are distributed around the city.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The shared e-scooter systems have had a large amount of criticism:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* They are often parked randomly, making it hard to walk if the sidewalk has lots of randomly scattered scooters that are often not in standing position&#xD;&#xA;* They have a very high injury rate per kilometer, far above that of bicycles, probably around that of motorcycles&#xD;&#xA;* The scooters have a short lifetime and often break early, so the company needs to continuously discard a large stream of broken scooters and replace them with new scooters&#xD;&#xA;* The diesel van that collects the scooters during the end of the day and distributes them again for use early in the morning causes emissions even though the scooters themselves are advertised as &quot;emission free&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have already calculated that for a person earning average salary and paying corresponding tax, it usually doesn't make sense to rent such a shared scooter. Walking the distance is bit slower, but the value of the time a scooter would save is somewhat smaller than the total cost of the scooter rental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But what is the total climate impact of these shared scooter systems, per kilometer? A calculation should include both the manufacturing and disposal impact (taking into account the average short lifetime of a used scooter), and also the climate impact of collecting and distributing the scooters with a diesel van. The climate impact of charging is probably very minimal." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27855" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="b18f22fb-0fe9-4b1e-80be-140451c6df5b" CreationDate="2021-06-25T16:42:40.323" UserId="6393" Text="What is the climate impact of shared electric kick scooter systems?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27856" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="b18f22fb-0fe9-4b1e-80be-140451c6df5b" CreationDate="2021-06-25T16:42:40.323" UserId="6393" Text="|transport|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27858" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="a2a9b57e-5e95-430b-8fdb-41e40807373f" CreationDate="2021-06-25T20:59:21.763" UserId="9876" Text="I've seen a lot of references to films which radiate heat from an underlying surface out into space. For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [http://radi-cool.com/][1]&#xD;&#xA;2. [https://arpa-e.energy.gov/technologies/projects/passive-radiative-cooling-film][2]&#xD;&#xA;3. [https://www.skycoolsystems.com/][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some papers/companies seem to claim this technology could be sufficient to cool a house with only the energy usage of a small pump to circulate coolant. But are any of these technologies available for residential use yet? Every company I have found only does commercial.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://radi-cool.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://arpa-e.energy.gov/technologies/projects/passive-radiative-cooling-film&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.skycoolsystems.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27859" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="a2a9b57e-5e95-430b-8fdb-41e40807373f" CreationDate="2021-06-25T20:59:21.763" UserId="9876" Text="Radiative Cooling for Residential" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27860" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="a2a9b57e-5e95-430b-8fdb-41e40807373f" CreationDate="2021-06-25T20:59:21.763" UserId="9876" Text="|energy-efficiency|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27861" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="4ddbfc00-1df6-4594-8151-80e55f96c791" CreationDate="2021-06-26T00:07:20.853" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27862" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="10dcebb8-3497-4ced-a5f7-c0800c219919" CreationDate="2021-06-26T16:04:25.457" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10649" RevisionGUID="ee52abe6-e75d-453d-a333-355f359fa4ff" CreationDate="2021-06-27T17:31:52.410" UserId="9885" Text="What's unsatisfactory about the first answer is that it didn't include the same components for both terms being compared, especially the production impact and replacement rate for fabric towels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When someone at TreeHugger made the estimation in this more rigorous way they got a much closer call, with paper towels beating fabrics comfortably in the restaurant scenario (where they always have to give you super-sterile and super-white towels and napkins, which incurs severe costs in washing), while in the home setting only linen towels appeared to beat paper towels for both GHG emissions and water use, and cotton beat them only for GHG emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At home you probably aren't going to be washing your napkins after each use. [...] Over the course of a year you might wash your napkins 50 times and during the same time you might go through 350 (50 x 7) paper napkins. This scenario is much more favorable towards the reusable napkins, with 5 grams of greenhouse gas emissions for the cotton versus 10 grams for the single-use paper napkins. The linen napkin was even lower at 2.5 grams. In terms of water use, the cotton is still higher (0.5 liters) than the paper napkins (0.3 liters), and the linen is the lowest, at 0.1 liters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.treehugger.com/are-paper-napkins-more-environmentally-friendly-4858552&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But even this is oversimplifying it - ideally we should also compare environmental contamination by every kind of chemical substance used in all upstream and downstream processes for both options (cellulose processing/recycling, detergent production, bleaching for white paper, water treatment before and after washing etc.). Overall what might be the death blow for paper though is the compound climate-change aggravating effect from how much deforestation is done to produce the paper, which reduces the carbon capturing rate and further adds to the CO2 problem beyond just the direct energy consumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27865" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="8889db03-32f3-44c1-9650-e220f47f6505" CreationDate="2021-06-28T16:51:32.960" UserId="9876" Comment="67" />
  <row Id="27866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10650" RevisionGUID="338f7369-2eb6-4f45-b9a0-4bef8ffed581" CreationDate="2021-06-28T16:54:52.970" UserId="5477" Text="It depends on what the soil is. For wiping grease from a pan or an oil spill , I use paper because of the amount of detergent and water necessary to clean a towel for these soils. For cleaning mucus and saliva a towel works well and can be washed at low cost. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27867" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="7d2c4afe-e483-425f-92e3-aaf4abaf173f" CreationDate="2021-06-28T18:00:05.380" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1409572324538556421" />
  <row Id="27868" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10651" RevisionGUID="070041aa-6df1-4714-98ad-49629abc76b4" CreationDate="2021-06-29T11:20:48.557" UserId="9861" Text="Yes, there are!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an example of a product that will do exactly what you are thinking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Renogy 48V 3500W Solar Inverter Charger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.renogy.com/48v-3500w-solar-inverter-charger/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It accepts inputs from the utility grid and solar, then powers your AC loads and charges a battery bank. If the AC utility power goes down, it has a built-in transfer switch and it will power your home from solar and battery power. It can be used without a battery, only from solar, but you will probably want to use it with at least one 48v battery if the outage occurs during the night so you can power your AC loads until the next morning. If not used with a battery, it will start up when the sun comes up. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It connects to your AC distribution box. Each inverter/charger can handle up to 4400 watts of solar input, and up to eight 48v 50ah batteries (19200-watt hours storage). These inverters can be daisy-chained if you need more power than 3500 watts. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10651" RevisionGUID="d39a1993-85b3-46bd-b25c-7dad74f673a7" CreationDate="2021-06-29T11:26:21.527" UserId="9861" Comment="added 24 characters in body" Text="Yes, there are!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an example of a product that will do exactly what you are thinking:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Renogy 48V 3500W Solar Inverter Charger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.renogy.com/48v-3500w-solar-inverter-charger/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It accepts inputs from the utility grid and solar, then powers your AC loads and charges a battery bank. If the AC utility power goes down, it has a built-in transfer switch and it will power your home from solar and battery power. It can be used without a battery, only from solar, but you will probably want to use it with at least one 48v battery if the outage occurs during the night so you can power your AC loads until the next morning. If used without a battery, it will start up when the sun comes up, and power down at night. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It connects to your AC distribution box. Each inverter/charger can handle up to 4400 watts of solar input, and up to eight 48v 50ah batteries (19200-watt hours storage). These inverters can be daisy-chained if you need more power than 3500 watts. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27870" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10640" RevisionGUID="c8c5eff0-6c54-4cbc-805b-b747329d4f4a" CreationDate="2021-06-29T12:44:00.960" UserId="9854" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="For the daily energy consumption quoted, optimizing the lights will not make a significant dent. I know because I've been there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind that large loads (electric stove, electric drier, heaters, central air, A/C, dehumidifiers, a pool circulation pump etc.) will significantly affect the energy bill even if they are not on all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the house energy meter could have errors. To check that, you would need access to the incoming line, feeding the whole home electric panel and record the energy consumption over a long enough period of time, say weeks or preferably months (not just short term power consumption at given times of the day).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If that is not possible, another option would be to ask that you pay according to your own energy consumption. In that case, you'll have to agree with the landlord on a more fair way to measure your own energy consumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27874" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="38b39f4e-e742-4fce-98e6-ef405d6313b7" CreationDate="2021-07-02T03:03:40.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10654" RevisionGUID="f702a5f5-6570-4691-8408-29da47281098" CreationDate="2021-07-02T07:47:48.393" UserId="9148" Text="Some things to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - In the eternal trade off between cost and benefit, lower cost LEDs tend to be overdriven to get as many lumens out of the LEDs as possible. In my experience, it is better to go for established makes as they tend to consider reputation too.&#xD;&#xA; - If you want real longevity explore architectural lighting. Expect to pay much more for the reliability though.&#xD;&#xA; - The lifespan quoted for most LEDs is generally nonsense. Turning on and off stresses the LED and shortens life. Typically the hours quoted are continual run times. In addition at the end of those quoted hours it will be barely lit (so technically 'working' rather than a usable light. Serious manufacturers of LED lighting now quote far less time and it's much closer to 'usable' time. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9863" RevisionGUID="9d306e27-a76a-458a-aebd-f7ecf1d097db" CreationDate="2021-07-02T13:36:53.980" UserId="3379" Comment="added 213 characters in body" Text="The best list is probably wikipedia: [Phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a good review from the World Economic Forum [here][1], dated 2017, which discusses some of the different approaches taken, which I've summarized here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - UK: Ban production of petrol and diesel cars by 2040 (since changed to 2035); &#xD;&#xA; - France: Ban sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2040; &#xD;&#xA; - Norway: Policy to phase out petrol and diesel by 2025; &#xD;&#xA; - Netherlands: Target for all cars to be emission free by 2030;&#xD;&#xA; - Germany: Resolved to ban petrol and diesel by 2030 (but hasn't passed the ban);&#xD;&#xA; - India: Government wants all new cars electric by 2030;&#xD;&#xA; - Canada: Sales of new fuel-powered cars and light trucks will be banned by 2035 [(source)][4];&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is more recent information from the International Energy Agency in their [Global EV Outlook 2019][2], which includes information on some strong measures being taken at the state level in the US and Canada.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/09/countries-are-announcing-plans-to-phase-out-petrol-and-diesel-cars-is-yours-on-the-list/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/GlobalEVOutlook2017.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canada-ban-sale-new-fuel-powered-cars-light-trucks-2035-2021-06-29/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="b4f508fb-c018-47a4-a5f5-c59ae123adb5" CreationDate="2021-07-03T18:20:34.990" UserId="9669" Text="Is there such a thing as safe and green incinerators? Do those cutting-edge incinerators in developed countries like Sweden emit pollutants in quantities that can negatively affect human health and deteriorate the environment (GHG aside)? If it's a bad method of waste management then why is it so widespread in the EU that sets store by environmental sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27881" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="b4f508fb-c018-47a4-a5f5-c59ae123adb5" CreationDate="2021-07-03T18:20:34.990" UserId="9669" Text="Is there such a thing as safe and green incinerators?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27882" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="b4f508fb-c018-47a4-a5f5-c59ae123adb5" CreationDate="2021-07-03T18:20:34.990" UserId="9669" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27883" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10149" RevisionGUID="9582da18-9130-48da-86eb-bb4a9f2f2dc2" CreationDate="2021-07-03T20:03:10.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27884" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="ac7a02fa-8678-4ec0-a839-421155f499b0" CreationDate="2021-07-03T23:00:00.213" UserId="5532" Text="The stone terrace at our house on a Croatian island gets very hot during the summer. So hot it is not possible to walk across barefoot. &#xD;&#xA;We would like to add wind-resistant shading, there is already a metal frame to support it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which option is more sustainable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* canvas sail&#xD;&#xA;* [polyethylene][1] woven fabric&#xD;&#xA;* mats made of bamboo, willow or [reed][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is to put it up in April/May and leave it till September/October. &#xD;&#xA;The best solution would be a tree or a vine, however the terrace is not really a terrace, it is the top of a stone cistern that collects rainwater underneath. So we cannot just lift up some stones and plant something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://shadeclothstore.com/product-category/knitted-shade-cloth/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.natuurmatten.nl/gepelde-rietmatten" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27885" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="ac7a02fa-8678-4ec0-a839-421155f499b0" CreationDate="2021-07-03T23:00:00.213" UserId="5532" Text="Best sustainable shade option for windy terrace" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27886" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="ac7a02fa-8678-4ec0-a839-421155f499b0" CreationDate="2021-07-03T23:00:00.213" UserId="5532" Text="|building-materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27887" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10658" RevisionGUID="2617b69d-6b26-46d7-a76d-082ff05bd091" CreationDate="2021-07-04T05:29:09.243" UserId="2345" Text="As a longer term sustainable option, but one that would require time and effort to become established is to put large heavy, sturdy pots/tubs at close intervals along the frame along the side of the terrace. Fill the tubs with soil an plant vines, possibly grapes. The filled tubs need to be heavy to remain in place during extremely bad weather. Also, the tubs need to be large enough for the plants to develop a good root system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few examples of the types of pots/tubs to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Train the vines to attach themselves to the frame. Stainless steel wire or cable may need to be hung between the posts of the frame to support the vines. Narrow diameter holes could be drilled through the frame posts and the cable threaded through the holes. Something similar to this,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During winter the bare branches of the vines will be visible but during summer the vines and the frame will be shaded by the leaves of the vines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will become messy for a few weeks in autumn when the leaves fall off and some &quot;garden&quot; maintenance will be required to prune dead or wayward branches, but nothing too demanding. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If possible attach a solar powered automatic drip watering system and possibly incorporate a liquid fertilizer system in the watering system during the vine growing period - early Spring to late Summer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To help conserve soil moisture in the tubs put a thick layer of [mulch][5] as the top layer in the tubs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to your more pressing need. The bamboo or reed mats will be easy but they will need to be replace more often because they are made of organic material which will degrade quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Woven polyethylene fabric will last for 10 to 15 years, but it's plastic and end disposal needs to be considered carefully, particularly since you live on a island.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good quality canvas will last for up to 15 years before it needs replacing It is made from a natural material and final disposal will be less of a problem than polyethylene fabric and will have a lesser environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aLON8.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ncdr5.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/P3Yj6.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qFfSw.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulch" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10659" RevisionGUID="fdfc3c6e-63e2-4d01-84ad-1cb3caf26966" CreationDate="2021-07-04T06:01:37.450" UserId="2345" Text="Waste disposal is a big problem, particularly in high population density countries with limited land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Land fill disposal of waste is increasing becoming a problem due to diminishing land availability for dumping waste. Some waste can be toxic which could contaminate the environment and underground water sources. Once filled, the dumps are buried. Usually this can be problematic due to land subsidence afterwards, particularly when houses are constructed on such land. Also it is not uncommon for methane to form in such dumps and be a problem afterwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incineration of waste solves many problems, and it creates others. Land does not need to be used for dumping waste, the amount of solid waste produced by incineration (ash) is much smaller that the original amount of solid waste. Heat from the incinerator provides energy that can be useful to nearby communities. The heat from incinerators can either produce some electricity and/or heat for houses, such as the one at [Högdalenverket][1] in Sweden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The houses will need to be heated by some means and heat from incinerators displaces other energy sources that might be used such a fire wood, oil, gas or more electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sometimes in these matters it is a case of which is the lesser evil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the disposal of toxic industrial wastes [high temperature incineration][2] is currently the least worst option - we don't have any good options other than to not produce the wastes. Such wastes cannot be dumped into landfill due to the potential to contaminate the environment and they cannot easily be converted into something less toxic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://smartcitysweden.com/best-practice/76/waste-incineration-at-hogdalenverket/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://willkemp.net.au/enviroscience/high-temperatureincineration-of-hazardous-waste/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10660" RevisionGUID="bdcd530e-22a2-4487-a562-07594ad6820e" CreationDate="2021-07-05T15:21:19.467" UserId="9669" Text="How long does it take for a cotton piece of clothing to decompose under landfill conditions? I skimmed through the first five pages to my Google Scholar query &quot;cotton degradation decomposition landfill years&quot; and didn't find any information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27890" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10660" RevisionGUID="bdcd530e-22a2-4487-a562-07594ad6820e" CreationDate="2021-07-05T15:21:19.467" UserId="9669" Text="How long does it take for a cotton piece of clothing to decompose under landfill conditions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27891" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10660" RevisionGUID="bdcd530e-22a2-4487-a562-07594ad6820e" CreationDate="2021-07-05T15:21:19.467" UserId="9669" Text="|waste|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27892" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10656" RevisionGUID="48ec6d6c-43c8-487d-8f77-343a9e1ac4c7" CreationDate="2021-07-06T06:00:04.720" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1412290230753890307" />
  <row Id="27893" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10657" RevisionGUID="80d3bea7-dd9e-4709-a9e3-64682ed76849" CreationDate="2021-07-06T06:54:30.113" UserId="5532" Comment="Added info about 1 option" Text="The stone terrace at our house on a Croatian island gets very hot during the summer. So hot it is not possible to walk across barefoot. &#xD;&#xA;We would like to add wind-resistant shading, there is already a metal frame to support it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which option is more sustainable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* canvas sail&#xD;&#xA;* [polyethylene][1] woven fabric&#xD;&#xA;* mats made of bamboo, willow or [reed][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea is to put it up in April/May and leave it till September/October. &#xD;&#xA;The best solution would be a tree or a vine, however the terrace is not really a terrace, it is the top of a stone cistern that collects rainwater underneath. So we cannot just lift up some stones and plant something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;Reed mats have lasted about two years. This is probably not a big problem in terms of sustainability, only  the wires holding the mats together are not so renewable, the reed itself can be composted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://shadeclothstore.com/product-category/knitted-shade-cloth/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.natuurmatten.nl/gepelde-rietmatten" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27894" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="10648" RevisionGUID="de07146b-759b-498c-a363-aff8e2a56f94" CreationDate="2021-07-06T18:07:15.723" UserId="-1" Comment="67" />
  <row Id="27895" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10602" RevisionGUID="e75eb218-ed53-46c2-91db-8f513ccc3c5d" CreationDate="2021-07-07T09:00:02.937" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1412697909636833283" />
  <row Id="27896" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="7e9e85e3-268e-430d-a994-021e0dcc45da" CreationDate="2021-07-07T12:30:42.647" UserId="9918" Text="My understanding is that convection electric baseboards use electricity to run current through a resistor, which generates heat. My understanding is that this should be fairly efficient in the sense that the electrical energy is efficiently converted to heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it may still be inefficient because electricity needs to be generated and transmitted to the home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have recently learned about hydronic electric baseboards. They presumably use resistors to heat mineral oil in the unit. I am told these units are more energy efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: why? I can see that the mineral oil will take some time to heat up, and some time to dissipate the heat, creating a slower/more continuous supply of heat to the room. But why would this be more energy efficient?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27897" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="7e9e85e3-268e-430d-a994-021e0dcc45da" CreationDate="2021-07-07T12:30:42.647" UserId="9918" Text="Why Are Hydronic Electric Baseboards More Efficient Than Convection Electric Baseboards?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27898" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="7e9e85e3-268e-430d-a994-021e0dcc45da" CreationDate="2021-07-07T12:30:42.647" UserId="9918" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27899" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10662" RevisionGUID="4233ecee-59ef-4aa1-829a-a226d2a7f871" CreationDate="2021-07-07T14:33:59.287" UserId="9669" Text="They say &quot;cotton is bad because they use pesticides&quot;. But are they really necessary? Suppose your options are limited when it comes to dramatically reducing cotton farming's water consumption (because cotton naturally guzzles a lot of water). But can you make cotton sustainable with regard to pesticide application? Is cotton bad or those who conned the farmers into buying and using them or buying and using certain varieties of cotton that require so many pesticides, e.g. from Monsanto?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10662" RevisionGUID="4233ecee-59ef-4aa1-829a-a226d2a7f871" CreationDate="2021-07-07T14:33:59.287" UserId="9669" Text="Does cotton really require all those harmful pesticides?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10662" RevisionGUID="4233ecee-59ef-4aa1-829a-a226d2a7f871" CreationDate="2021-07-07T14:33:59.287" UserId="9669" Text="|pest-management|farming|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27902" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10662" RevisionGUID="361f3e5a-a472-4439-b660-01bceb3c7c58" CreationDate="2021-07-07T15:53:11.117" UserId="9669" Comment="added 383 characters in body" Text="They say &quot;cotton is bad because they use pesticides&quot;. But are they really necessary? Suppose your options are limited when it comes to dramatically reducing cotton farming's water consumption (because cotton naturally guzzles a lot of water). But can you make cotton sustainable with regard to pesticide application? Is cotton bad or those who conned the farmers into buying and using them or buying and using certain varieties of cotton that require so many pesticides, e.g. from Monsanto?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read some of a [paper][1] on the topic of ways to reduce the environmental footprint of cotton cultivation in India, and it says some basic stuff: use more manure, mulch soils, rotate crops, etc. Why are Indian and other farmers so hooked up on unsustainable practices?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report68-WaterFootprintReduction-Cotton-India.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27907" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10664" RevisionGUID="f7ad1380-ebf8-4804-a001-296cb283efb0" CreationDate="2021-07-10T11:14:58.043" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;b&gt;There is no green incinerator.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have to understand the flow of materials:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Let's say a material is based on fossil oil. The oil is pumped from the ground, then it goes to making the product and the carbon stays in the product. Then the product is either buried in a landfill (carbon never released to the atmosphere) or incinerated (carbon released to the atmosphere). See the problem?&#xD;&#xA;* Ok, somebody could claim that if the material is based on a biological source such as wood, it has captured the carbon in it from the atmosphere. Surely the situation is now different, right? Wrong! If the product is buried in a landfill, it becomes a permanent carbon sink. If the product is incinerated, it releases the carbon to the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;It is a lie that incineration can be green. It emits carbon dioxide. Even if the carbon dioxide is from a biological source, the carbon could have been permanently stored in a landfill, creating a permanent carbon sink.&lt;/b&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="f2838b7a-4bd9-48aa-aaec-28ee287e4b11" CreationDate="2021-07-12T08:23:50.770" UserId="9520" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text="I am beginning to acquire knowledge to assemble my first [self-consumption solar kit][1] and I have been investigating what kind of solar panels I should use for a house of approximately 50 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; with a consumption of about 3000 kW but I am not entirely clear, I am between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12V solar panels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;60 cell solar panel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;24 V solar panels &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have experience on the subject and can you advise me? Thanks a million and Health to all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://%3Ca%20href=%22https://www.google.com/maps?cid=5587466926662415500%22%3E" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27909" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="5698aadf-2248-44ca-9e4a-587b52e75b28" CreationDate="2021-07-12T08:29:55.357" UserId="9520" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="I am beginning to acquire knowledge to assemble my first [self-consumption solar kit][1] and I have been investigating what kind of solar panels I should use for a house of approximately 50 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; with a consumption of about 3000 kW but I am not entirely clear, I am between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12V solar panels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;60 cell solar panel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;24 V solar panels &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have experience on the subject and can you advise me? Thanks a million and Health to all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.google.com/maps?cid=5587466926662415500&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27910" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5576" RevisionGUID="1aeb873a-bd5a-4324-bbdd-3177ee7ca77b" CreationDate="2021-07-13T11:28:51.380" UserId="9931" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="&lt;b&gt;Sustainable Living Stack Exchange&lt;/b&gt; is a question and answer site for people trying to live a sustainable lifestyle, for professionals in renewable energy and other clean technology, and&amp;nbsp;&amp;ndash;&amp;nbsp;most importantly&amp;nbsp;&amp;ndash;&amp;nbsp;for you. It's built and run *by you* as part of the &lt;a href=&quot;https://stackexchange.com/&quot;&gt;Stack Exchange&lt;/a&gt; network of Q&amp;A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question on sustainability issues including climate change, renewable energy and sustainable resources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10665" RevisionGUID="6d1ae57a-84ae-4548-accb-545879a8ff02" CreationDate="2021-07-14T07:22:19.397" UserId="9007" Text="It's not the incinerators, It's what are you incinerating. Point is, incineration works at higher temps, it's often used for a management air quality issue to keep residual combustion products out of the air." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27913" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10666" RevisionGUID="98723458-ce72-43c3-ad30-fbaafc332faa" CreationDate="2021-07-14T07:28:50.137" UserId="9007" Text="Landfill conditions are notoriously anaerobic, so ANYTHING in a landfill will not decompose barely at all. It may take 20-200 years. Fact is, few things decompose in landfills, organic waste anaerobically decomposes producing some methane and not much else. Better to reuse cotton as rags. I use old t-shirts as cleaning rages, hen when no longer any good, I wash em one final time then recycle cotton. Better long term strategy is that cotton can be shredded and composted to feed mushrooms.&#xD;&#xA;Indoor cultivation of Volvariella volvacea otherwise known as Straw Mushrooms which are edible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10667" RevisionGUID="d49abd51-ae57-4667-b55c-10148a1f4b46" CreationDate="2021-07-14T07:31:35.177" UserId="9007" Text="In the long run, YES.  The rag and the paper towel are roughly equivalent in cost for very light uses. However, when the task becomes heavy duty, the rag wins. I can use a rag for scrubbing dishes, glasses, bowls, silverware, while a single sheet of paper towel will simply fall apart over time. Rinse it, rring it out; Sterilize the rag in the microwave and wash it in the next load of laundry" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27915" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="fee62b0f-0f3e-4487-91dc-b8f4d4db6210" CreationDate="2021-07-14T07:35:57.403" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited, spammy link removed, thanks removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="I am beginning to acquire knowledge to assemble my first self-consumption solar kit and I have been investigating what kind of solar panels I should use for a house of approximately 50 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; with a consumption of about 3000 kW but I am not entirely clear, I am between:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;12V solar panels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;60 cell solar panel&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;24 V solar panels &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does anyone have experience on the subject and can you advise me?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27916" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="fee62b0f-0f3e-4487-91dc-b8f4d4db6210" CreationDate="2021-07-14T07:35:57.403" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited, spammy link removed, thanks removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="What type of solar panels to use for a house of 50 m2 and 3000 kW of consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27917" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="fee62b0f-0f3e-4487-91dc-b8f4d4db6210" CreationDate="2021-07-14T07:35:57.403" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited, spammy link removed, thanks removed as per https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/2950/295232" Text="|solar-power|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27918" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10562" RevisionGUID="fee62b0f-0f3e-4487-91dc-b8f4d4db6210" CreationDate="2021-07-14T07:35:57.403" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 99 edit id of 673" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27919" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10668" RevisionGUID="2b72da9d-68a1-4a2f-9a3c-90bc5934f8dd" CreationDate="2021-07-14T07:36:37.623" UserId="9007" Text="Consider the mass of a scooter, vs. a car. Scooter weighs average of 27 lbs. A typical five passenger compact car weighs 3000 lbs. So the resources of mass of 111 scooters vs. One automobile." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27920" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10666" RevisionGUID="4e5e88cd-7ae3-4377-918d-b62e2e51cd36" CreationDate="2021-07-14T22:33:53.143" UserId="8232" Comment="slight spelling fixes and separated paragraphs" Text="Landfill conditions are notoriously anaerobic, so ANYTHING in a landfill will not decompose barely at all. It may take 20-200 years. Fact is, few things decompose in landfills, organic waste anaerobically decomposes producing some methane and not much else. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's much better to reuse cotton as rags. I use old t-shirts as cleaning rags, then when no longer any good, I wash em one final time then recycle cotton. Better long term strategy is that cotton can be shredded and composted to feed mushrooms.&#xD;&#xA;Indoor cultivation of Volvariella volvacea otherwise known as Straw Mushrooms which are edible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27921" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10669" RevisionGUID="77e53107-e9ce-4dfc-853d-0553d1f18c71" CreationDate="2021-07-16T19:21:34.627" UserId="3423" Text="https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/08/22/there-are-solar-power-fires-per-year/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This data implies (roughly) 1 in a million solar fire risk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So say I have a 1gw solar farm with 1kw panels. Does this mean I have 1 fire every year? Does utility scale solar basically have fires every so often?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10669" RevisionGUID="77e53107-e9ce-4dfc-853d-0553d1f18c71" CreationDate="2021-07-16T19:21:34.627" UserId="3423" Text="Question about solar farms" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10669" RevisionGUID="77e53107-e9ce-4dfc-853d-0553d1f18c71" CreationDate="2021-07-16T19:21:34.627" UserId="3423" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27926" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10671" RevisionGUID="8bb5a3a9-24a1-4975-a02c-c96d2d8e7ff6" CreationDate="2021-07-17T02:37:38.007" UserId="7993" Text="The data isn't good enough to say much of anything about frequency.  It's basically &quot;fires per million installations&quot;, with no information about the size of installation involved (or even if size is of any importance in determining fire frequency)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27927" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10669" RevisionGUID="8ff4fbce-140a-4666-9c9a-901d56ff1d85" CreationDate="2021-07-17T10:12:17.900" UserId="4834" Comment="of course it's a question, this is a question site" Text="What is the frequency of fires at solar power generation facilities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10672" RevisionGUID="07b64b1b-07ae-4051-9001-e5b389481219" CreationDate="2021-07-18T05:54:28.830" UserId="659" Text="Since you didn't ask specifically about the USA I looked for some local statistics instead. Solar-caused fires made up about 1.5% of home fires in 2016. That research was done because Australian standards for DC isolators were foolishly written and a number of fires resulted. So I would take the 1.5% (of home fires) as an upper bound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://renew.org.au/research/rooftop-dc-isolators-and-solar-system-fires/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/07/02/australias-unsafe-solar-installation-standards-under-fire/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For industrial applications I expect the frequency is much, much lower because they use professional installers, do preventive maintenance, and any fires are likely to be less serious because they have staff on site at all times. It's similar to the difference in fire frequency between home generators and thermal power stations... not only are there fewer of the latter, fires are much less likely for a whole lot of reasons." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27929" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="eb7006a8-6097-4a89-b075-e6796a664016" CreationDate="2021-07-18T23:00:20.047" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27936" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="5b0b52ab-cd29-4909-a672-0e6bb487a14e" CreationDate="2021-07-19T12:19:43.100" UserId="9945" Text="[OpenLCA][1] is a Software combining **many [free and non-free LCA databases][2]**. It might be the offer the most comprehensive bundling of free and non-free database (tbc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[OpenLCA Nexus][3] is its corresponding **online tool for convenient Dataset search** -&gt; you'll see which free and non-free dataset it contains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just create a free account, and search online, or download the tool which is quickly installed and simple to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.openlca.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://nexus.openlca.org/databases&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://nexus.openlca.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27937" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10677" RevisionGUID="431cd377-2390-42bc-a413-60746e30c003" CreationDate="2021-07-19T13:08:46.710" UserId="6182" Text="Hypothetical question, since I neither have a garden, nor live in a region seriously affected by drought (yet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In context of the current drought along the western US coast, experts and scientists ask citizens to save water, e.g. by not watering the gras, or even completely removing it (source: last paragraph of this german news article https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/feuer-oregon-101.html). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This left me wondering, how such a garden could look like, especially since vegetation has a cooling effect. I am thinking about a few (fruit) trees, maybe some pots with plants adapted to dry/hot climate, some low bushes and otherwise mostly bare dirt, e.g. like the mediterranean [Garrigue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrigue).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any concept studies out there, or maybe even real examples?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27938" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10677" RevisionGUID="431cd377-2390-42bc-a413-60746e30c003" CreationDate="2021-07-19T13:08:46.710" UserId="6182" Text="How would a garden adapted to drought look like?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27939" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10677" RevisionGUID="431cd377-2390-42bc-a413-60746e30c003" CreationDate="2021-07-19T13:08:46.710" UserId="6182" Text="|water|gardening|water-conservation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27940" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10678" RevisionGUID="6e32e108-cbe1-4aa0-a2e3-83eaa78f3f17" CreationDate="2021-07-19T14:13:14.390" UserId="3379" Text="This concept is called [xeriscaping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeriscaping), a term coined in 1981 by the water authority of Denver, Colorado, USA, in efforts to encourage residents to reduce water usage in their gardens and yards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Xeriscaping focuses on selecting selecting plants which are appropriate to the local climate in arid regions. Usually this means selecting native plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many different ways this can be implemented -- here are a few example images from a [google image search](https://www.google.com/search?q=xeriscape&amp;sxsrf=ALeKk02ffLaVhL6FO7IX36ioPKVk278M_g:1626702894486&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjA3LjBpO_xAhWZLs0KHe3vAXgQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&amp;biw=2482&amp;bih=1355):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A mixture of lawn and mulched areas: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Xeriscape example][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plantings surrounded by gravel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Xeriscape example][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simulated prairies with trees and grasses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Xeriscape example][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zvEoam.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5Dburm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8VgXkm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27941" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10678" RevisionGUID="3eb10db2-fecb-4019-a5c0-46924ccfe33b" CreationDate="2021-07-19T14:19:33.777" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 10 characters in body" Text="This concept is called [xeriscaping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeriscaping), a term coined in 1981 by the water authority of Denver, Colorado, USA, in efforts to encourage residents to reduce water usage in their gardens and yards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Xeriscaping focuses on selecting plants which are appropriate to the local climate in arid regions. Usually this means selecting native plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many different ways this can be implemented -- here are a few example images from a [google image search](https://www.google.com/search?q=xeriscape&amp;sxsrf=ALeKk02ffLaVhL6FO7IX36ioPKVk278M_g:1626702894486&amp;source=lnms&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjA3LjBpO_xAhWZLs0KHe3vAXgQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&amp;biw=2482&amp;bih=1355):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A mixture of lawn and mulched areas: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Xeriscape example][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plantings surrounded by gravel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Xeriscape example][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simulated prairies with trees and grasses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Xeriscape example][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zvEoam.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5Dburm.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8VgXkm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27942" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10676" RevisionGUID="8a32427b-e727-4c37-aa84-8a7f0cecda12" CreationDate="2021-07-19T15:36:22.240" UserId="9945" Comment="Making more clear it's not the only one!" Text="Various places with free LCA info/DBs seem to exist, but among them at least one I'm aware is large-scale and with a lot of free elements - plus relatively convenient:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[OpenLCA][1] is a Software combining **many [free and non-free LCA databases][2]**. It might be the offer the most comprehensive bundling of free and non-free database (tbc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[OpenLCA Nexus][3] is its corresponding **online tool for convenient Dataset search** -&gt; you'll see which free and non-free dataset it contains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just create a free account, and search online, or download the tool which is quickly installed and simple to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.openlca.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://nexus.openlca.org/databases&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://nexus.openlca.org/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="6b876bc2-270d-4d66-9792-535fad886868" CreationDate="2021-07-19T16:16:15.050" UserId="9945" Text="I'm using the Python tool pymrio to do emission analysis for various traded goods (using Exiobase).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see how production and consumption based emissions are calculated on per-country basis, in the available getting-started descriptions on [openresearch][1] and on the [python package][2] page.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But: How to use the tool's functionality to **estimate the consumption based impact**, e.g. GHG emissions, or simply CO2, or in the worst case simply, e.g. Coal or so use, **for a given sector in a given region**, ideally per kg (or per € of value) of the sector's core output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Say: In Exiobase 2 or Exiobase 3, for &quot;Pigs&quot; in &quot;Germany&quot;, as a random example.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does the tool readily provide functionality to calculate this embodied impact? Or does one have to manually work with the matrices after loading the database?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://openresearchsoftware.metajnl.com/articles/10.5334/jors.251/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://pymrio.readthedocs.io/en/latest/intro.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27944" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="6b876bc2-270d-4d66-9792-535fad886868" CreationDate="2021-07-19T16:16:15.050" UserId="9945" Text="pymrio: how to perform product or sector-specific analysis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27945" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10679" RevisionGUID="6b876bc2-270d-4d66-9792-535fad886868" CreationDate="2021-07-19T16:16:15.050" UserId="9945" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27956" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="4950cbc2-1052-45a9-9a61-4d3cf94003e7" CreationDate="2021-07-20T04:08:50.660" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="27961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="e8282f6a-3db9-48a8-bec0-3b986d2fad3b" CreationDate="2021-07-20T15:15:49.140" UserId="3379" Text="Today I read the news that [Tesla is about to start production of electric semi trucks (aka tractor-trailers)](https://electrek.co/2021/07/20/tesla-semi-electric-truck-finally-go-into-production/). Given the size of the trailer and its long, flat roof, I wonder if it would be feasible to fit them with solar arrays to help charge the battery? Could such a solar array generate enough power to reasonably increase the range of the truck?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27962" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="e8282f6a-3db9-48a8-bec0-3b986d2fad3b" CreationDate="2021-07-20T15:15:49.140" UserId="3379" Text="Do solar PV roofs make sense for semi trucks?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27963" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="e8282f6a-3db9-48a8-bec0-3b986d2fad3b" CreationDate="2021-07-20T15:15:49.140" UserId="3379" Text="|solar-power|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27968" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10684" RevisionGUID="5ae6ffa3-c811-480a-8708-98e888836bc0" CreationDate="2021-07-21T01:20:00.143" UserId="659" Text="Taking a single semitrailer as the load you have approximately 12.5m long by 2.5m wide of top surface, or 31.25m². With 20% efficient panels you might get as much as 6kW from the semitrailer, or 6kWh every 100km/60 miles on the highway (which is also where good solar access is most likely).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's tricky to find energy consumption figures for heavy electric trucks, but [BYD claim][1] 124 miles from 435 kWh fully loaded, or about 2.2kWh/km (3.5kWh/mile) which more or less [matches the 2kWh/km unsourced quote in wikipedia][2]. So **at best that truck would get an extra 12kWh or 6km/4 miles** per battery charge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice that's the best possible case, and no trucking company is going to run things that fine, or rely on getting solid sunshine for an entire trip. The real gain would likely be lower, not least because trucks operate 24/7 in most places and the solar peak only covers about 6-8 hours (less further from the equator, obviously) so the average benefit would be 1/3 or 1/4 the best benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second problem comes from the extra weight of the solar setup. Note that it will be on the trailer, so there will be extra weight for the link back to the tractor as well as the solar part of the charger. Mass-market solar panels alone weigh about 80kg/kW, but frameless ones only about 50kg/kWh, so we could expect the trailer to have direct-mounted panels and they would add 300kg to the trailer weight. Or to put it another way: **solar panels would remove 300kg from the carrying capacity of the trailer**. The extra air resistance should be minimal, and may be less important than the extra maintenance to keep the solar panels working, and the extra link/unlink time of the extra cabel between truck and trailer (not to mention the training time!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I doubt anyone has, or will, do a study of exactly how this works out in practice, simply because the potential payoff is so low.  It's much more effective to put the panels on the ground, somewhere they have good solar access, and connect them to the grid than on truck roofs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://insideevs.com/news/379356/byd-8tt-electric-semi-hauls-cargo/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_truck" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27970" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10685" RevisionGUID="8694103a-a184-40c8-9764-8fee6790392e" CreationDate="2021-07-21T07:17:47.050" UserId="99" Text="The open-source project [Cloud Carbon Footprint](https://www.cloudcarbonfootprint.org/) estimated the carbon footprint of storing 1TB in the Cloud. In their [methodology](https://www.cloudcarbonfootprint.org/docs/methodology) they explain that they use the following numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HDD average capacity in 2020 = 10 Terabytes per disk&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Average wattage per disk for 2020 = 6.5 Watts per disk&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Watts per Terabyte = Watts per disk / Terabytes per disk: 6.5 W / 10 TB = &lt;b&gt;0.65 Watt-Hours per Terabyte-Hour for HDD&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SSD average capacity in 2020 = 5 Terabytes per disk&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Average wattage per disk for 2020 = 6 Watts per disk&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Watts per terabyte = Watts per disk / Terabytes per disk: 6 W / 5 TB = &lt;b&gt;1.2 Watt-Hours per Terabyte-Hour for SSD&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So using this to calculate the energy needed to store something for a year (times 24 and 365,25) gives us 5.7 kWh for HDD and 10.5 kWh for SDD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However cloud providers usually provide redundancy via RAID or backups which is not taken into account in this calculation, so that at least doubles the footprint. The Cloud Carbon Footprint project acknowledges this and has drawn up [a list of the replication factors for several providers](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D7mIGKkdO1djPoMVmlXRmzA7_4tTiGZLYdVbfe85xQM/edit#gid=735227650). According to this list a replication factor of 3 is commons, so that results in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 17.1 kWh/TB per year for HDD&#xD;&#xA;* 31.6 kWh/TB per year for SSD&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this doesn't include the energy to transfer the data from the main storage to backup storages located elsewhere.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10686" RevisionGUID="838072ae-a2c9-4783-90d8-54b2ee44dfe4" CreationDate="2021-07-21T23:17:54.933" UserId="9669" Text="I've looked through the first five pages of Scholar search results to my request &quot;landfill decomposition of textiles cotton&quot; and found zero useful information. Is there any scientific research at all on how long does it take for different types of textiles to decompose in a landfill?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27972" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10686" RevisionGUID="838072ae-a2c9-4783-90d8-54b2ee44dfe4" CreationDate="2021-07-21T23:17:54.933" UserId="9669" Text="Is there any scientific research at all on how long does it take for different types of textiles to decompose in a landfill?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27973" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10686" RevisionGUID="838072ae-a2c9-4783-90d8-54b2ee44dfe4" CreationDate="2021-07-21T23:17:54.933" UserId="9669" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27974" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10687" RevisionGUID="6ed2cd50-d4f6-43b3-baa3-1da9476b0e68" CreationDate="2021-07-22T00:43:37.823" UserId="9956" Text="I've been trying to think of creative ways to save on water usage, and one way I thought of was to collect graywater from showers or washing dishes to use for flushing the toilet to reduce # of flushes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have heard that there are bacteria that are beneficial to our drainage systems and I wonder if the variety of shampoos, conditioners, and soaps can potentially harm the normal bacteria specific to toilet drainage systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has anyone used a similar system and if so, did you notice any negative impact from doing so? How about any positive impact observed (e.g., accrued savings on water bills)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10687" RevisionGUID="6ed2cd50-d4f6-43b3-baa3-1da9476b0e68" CreationDate="2021-07-22T00:43:37.823" UserId="9956" Text="Is shower water healthy source of graywater to flush toilets with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27976" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10687" RevisionGUID="6ed2cd50-d4f6-43b3-baa3-1da9476b0e68" CreationDate="2021-07-22T00:43:37.823" UserId="9956" Text="|environmental-impact|toilet|water-conservation|greywater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10687" RevisionGUID="2c66cab4-d8fb-4add-8d7f-a563cd86956a" CreationDate="2021-07-22T00:50:21.377" UserId="9956" Comment="added 62 characters in body" Text="I've been trying to think of creative ways to save on water usage, and one way I thought of was to collect graywater from showers or washing dishes to use for flushing the toilet to reduce # of flushes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have heard that there are bacteria that are beneficial to our drainage systems. Apparently [Drano][1] can be pretty harmful to that bacteria. I understand that Drano is pretty aggressive as an example, but what about the variety of shampoos, conditioners, and soaps from showers and dishwashing? Can't those be potentially harmful the normal bacteria specific to toilet drainage systems? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.wislerplumbingandair.com/why-plumbers-hate-drano/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10688" RevisionGUID="ba38abf7-a3db-487d-b420-d30c4313abf0" CreationDate="2021-07-22T03:21:31.987" UserId="9007" Text="If it's filtered. Typical things that go down the shower besides the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - shed skin&#xD;&#xA; - Hair (body, pubic, head)&#xD;&#xA; - minute fecal matter if you're cleansing your....lower body.&#xD;&#xA; - Residual chemicals you maybe exposed to&#xD;&#xA; - chemicals from various hygiene/beauty products (Makeup, deodorant, body sprays, perfume, cologne)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since greywater goes thru usually a filter stage, most large particles are taken out. However if you're concerned about that stuff going in the water, mitigate using those things. Organic waste and detritus going down the drain isn't a big deal. If anything, bacteria, etc will eat that stuff." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27979" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10687" RevisionGUID="4951768b-fe06-43be-b2db-7a4a105936b7" CreationDate="2021-07-22T03:22:44.447" UserId="9956" Comment="edited title" Text="Is shower water a healthy source of graywater to flush toilets with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27980" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10689" RevisionGUID="86f46fdb-136c-4eb0-bc23-faf21266c81d" CreationDate="2021-07-22T03:24:16.713" UserId="9007" Text="Floating solar panels, is one, namely beside providing power, they also keep the water shaded. Another is classic tarp like swimming pool covers but a reservoir would need given size, Many thousands/millions of square feet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10690" RevisionGUID="ca30f039-e465-4a56-97af-24c61925d397" CreationDate="2021-07-22T03:28:36.577" UserId="3379" Text="You are correct that it does seem difficult to find information on this topic, but I found a couple resources which may be of use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [&quot;Textile waste resource recovery: A case study of New York State’s textile recycling system&quot;](https://hdl.handle.net/1813/40888) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When looking at the relative biodegradability of non-durable goods in landfills, there are three categories: Labile materials which are easily compostable and degrade fairly rapidly in about 5-10 years such as food scraps and other organic wastes; Resistant materials that are moderately degradable over 15-20 years; and **Recalcitrant materials that degrade very slowly over 30-40 years in the landfill**. Other outlying materials including plastics and metals hold their own label as Non-biodegradable. Within this classification system **textiles are classified as Recalcitrant. However, since the mid-twentieth century there has been a rise in the use of man made synthetic fibers &#xD;&#xA;created from oil-derived polymers. This means that many of the textiles that end up in landfills today possess some of the same properties as plastics and will therefore never degrade.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the reference for this information (Black 2008) is not included in the list of references, so that's a dead end. I tried contacting the author -- I will update if they get back to me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another potential resource is the chapter [&quot;Biodegradation Studies of Textiles and Clothing Products&quot;](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-110-7_4) from the book *[Roadmap to Sustainable Textiles and Clothing](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-110-7)*. Unfortunately this reference is behind a paywall, but based on the list of references it could prove to be a valuable resource." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10691" RevisionGUID="c8db99a3-92b1-46f1-a8f7-98fc01573809" CreationDate="2021-07-22T03:31:16.577" UserId="9007" Text="Landfill conditions are notoriously anaerobic, so ANYTHING in a landfill will not decompose barely at all. It may take 20-200 years or thousands. Fact is, few things decompose in landfills, organic waste anaerobically decomposes producing some methane and some residual organic hydrocarbons but plastics, last practically forever in an anaerobic environment. Better to reuse textiles wherever possible.&#xD;&#xA; - Cotton: as rags. I use old t-shirts as cleaning rages, when when no longer any good, I wash em one final time then recycle cotton. Better long term strategy is that cotton can be shredded and composted to feed mushrooms. Indoor cultivation of Volvariella volvacea otherwise known as Straw Mushrooms which are edible using shredded cotton fiber. As an organic material cotton can be safely burned and used ash as a source of fertilizer, compost amendment.&#xD;&#xA; - Fleece is made of polyester. Soda bottles, which can be sent to plastic recycling to make, more fleece or soda bottles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The overall strategy is mitigate sending textiles to landfill in the first place.&#xD;&#xA;Donate clothes to charitable donations groups.&#xD;&#xA;Cotton (100%) can be bonfire fuel.&#xD;&#xA;Synthetic fabrics, should be recycled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27983" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10660" RevisionGUID="62ac4309-f520-4dbe-a4f7-fe83bf384911" CreationDate="2021-07-22T03:50:43.563" UserId="3379" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[10686],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="27984" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10686" RevisionGUID="f12fe1b2-7e43-45ad-9e15-77d518e9b811" CreationDate="2021-07-22T03:52:08.460" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="How long does it take for different types of textiles to decompose in a landfill?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27985" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10686" RevisionGUID="f12fe1b2-7e43-45ad-9e15-77d518e9b811" CreationDate="2021-07-22T03:52:08.460" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags; edited title" Text="|waste|biodegradable-waste|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27987" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2558" RevisionGUID="175f1262-2f54-4fdc-9c96-cf12c7e9bbf6" CreationDate="2021-07-22T19:13:54.767" UserId="-1" Comment="Fixing a sentence that got split" Text="If you think of algae as heat engines -- turning sunlight into algae -- they will produce waste heat.  The problem with the waste heat is the temperature.  You will end up with a lot of low temperature algae soup.  Indeed, the gain in temperature just from the sunlight is much larger than the waste heat of the algae. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Algae are a large fraction water.  80-90 percent at a guess.  Let's look at the dry weight:  Oils and fats are all about 9 kcal/gram.  Carbohydrates and proteins both run about 4 kcal/gram.  The fraction of ash in algae is very small. Under 1%.  So if 10% of the dry weight is oil, then that accounts for close 10 20% of the energy value.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to calculate: Consider a 100 gram sample.  If 20% is oil, that 20 grams at 9 kcal/gram = 180 kcal, and 80 grams of carbohydrate and protein at 4 kcal/gram = 320 kcal.  Total is 500 kcal.  So the 20% oil accounts for 36% of the energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For conventional use, algae are selected for high oil production.  Unfortunately high oil production means that the algae are making oil, instead of more algae.  A mutation back to the original form will outstrip the population of the oil variant very quickly.  Serious energy production from algae will require cleaning out a loop, and restocking it on a regular basis.  This will become a technical management issue with journals and conferences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To get energy out of algae there are several alternatives:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  Blend it, separate out the oil, use the rest as a feed stock for the algae loop.  This oil can then be used as a feed stock for whatever fuel fantasies you can conjure up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Dry it.  As a powder it is the equivalent of greasy sawdust.  Burning this could be done using the same technology as coal fired generating stations that use powdered coal.  This last one seems quite attractive to me.  I wonder if the waste heat from the generating station is sufficient to dry the algae.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    One of the issues here is that with the loss of protein with the burned algae, you lose the nitrogen that the algae need to make more algae.  In an ideal system you are only removing CH chains from the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Compost it.  The decompostion reaction produces heat.  Done right this can supply water at temperataures up to 140 F.  With suitable breeding of composting bacteria it may be possible to raise this some.  This also has the nitrogen loss issue, as bacteria convert the nitrogen either to ammonia or to nitrous oxides, or to plain nitrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are willing to settle for common algae, then you may be able to grow the algae in the cooling pond of the power plant.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, however using algae as fuel is not a great idea.  Far better to use it to make chicken feed, or rabbit feed. Or maybe as the coloring agent in Soylent Green.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27988" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2558" RevisionGUID="175f1262-2f54-4fdc-9c96-cf12c7e9bbf6" CreationDate="2021-07-22T19:13:54.767" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 99 edit id of 674" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27994" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4545" RevisionGUID="158dcc9b-31c4-44cb-996e-a87ef62959ed" CreationDate="2021-07-23T00:22:34.093" UserId="8232" Comment="made title slightly more generic, moved the description into the body." Text="I suspect that my roommate has been using insecticides in my bedroom, living room, or kitchen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I check or test this?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27995" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="4545" RevisionGUID="158dcc9b-31c4-44cb-996e-a87ef62959ed" CreationDate="2021-07-23T00:22:34.093" UserId="8232" Comment="made title slightly more generic, moved the description into the body." Text="How can I easily detect the presence of insecticides?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27996" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10496" RevisionGUID="ba422d78-49d6-46a5-aca1-f4ac38faa29b" CreationDate="2021-07-23T00:24:55.093" UserId="8232" Comment="slight wording/grammar/formatting cleanup" Text="If you buy an EV then the batteries last for a certain amount of years. But what happens after that? Are they recycled 100%?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are the car companies like Tesla collecting those batteries to recycle?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they are not recycled then how big an environmental problem are they?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27997" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10496" RevisionGUID="ba422d78-49d6-46a5-aca1-f4ac38faa29b" CreationDate="2021-07-23T00:24:55.093" UserId="8232" Comment="slight wording/grammar/formatting cleanup" Text="How much of EV car batteries are reused/recycled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="27999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="641bd263-997c-4268-a3b0-0b272f0d849c" CreationDate="2021-07-23T04:48:22.087" UserId="9007" Text="Almost NONE. Despite their proliferation, Since EV's aren't exactly widely adopted.&#xD;&#xA;The growth of ICE cars around the world is going to outstrip EV manufacturing capability for years to come.  For ever, once subsidies become too high for taxpayers to accept, EV sales will crash. EV cars measure just 0.167% of global auto fleet, One out of every 600 cars, Auto industry Spent BIllions on outfitting factories to make cars that only saturate 1% of all new auto sales. Just to make them Environmentalists whine it takes 30,000 lbs (15 tons) of raw material to make a 3000 lb car. It takes Over 4000+ tons of rock/ore to make One electric car, ICE engines made with iron/aluminum come from scrap by melting down cans and scrap metal. EV's require fresh resources of cobalt, lithium, copper, etc. You have to start an industrial revolution over again but instead of coal/iron; you're now digging up HALF the periodic table all of which is dug, mined, processed, manufactured, and shipped using fossil fuels. Under the guise of technology which is supposedly gonna &quot;Rid us&quot; of fossil fuels. Driving is only a small portion of a cars energy embodiment/life cycle, there's heavy energy investment in the beginning and late stages of it's life, namely manufacturing and recycling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes 1000x more lithium to make an EV battery than a laptop battery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="ae453218-77da-40ff-af6a-3b58ddc19c19" CreationDate="2021-07-23T05:22:48.100" UserId="9007" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Almost NONE. Despite their proliferation, Since EV's aren't exactly widely adopted.&#xD;&#xA;The growth of ICE cars around the world is going to outstrip EV manufacturing capability for years to come.  For ever, once subsidies become too high for taxpayers to accept, EV sales will crash. EV cars measure just 0.167% of global auto fleet, One out of every 600 cars, Auto industry Spent BIllions on outfitting factories to make cars that only saturate 1% of all new auto sales. Just to make them Environmentalists whine it takes 30,000 lbs (15 tons) of raw material to make a 3000 lb car. It takes Over 4000+ tons of rock/ore to make One electric car, ICE engines made with iron/aluminum come from scrap by melting down cans and scrap metal. EV's require fresh resources of cobalt, lithium, copper, etc. You have to start an industrial revolution over again but instead of coal/iron; you're now digging up HALF the periodic table all of which is dug, mined, processed, manufactured, and shipped using fossil fuels. Under the guise of technology which is supposedly gonna &quot;Rid us&quot; of fossil fuels. Driving is only a small portion of a cars energy embodiment/life cycle, there's heavy energy investment in the beginning and late stages of it's life, namely manufacturing and recycling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes 1000x more lithium to make an EV battery than a laptop battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10694" RevisionGUID="15f34301-e493-49ad-9c71-644b492f3023" CreationDate="2021-07-23T05:30:21.693" UserId="9007" Text="Don't bother. Sustainably harvested algae like kelp or pond scum is one thing. But all in all, leave it alone. Commercial algae fuels are the next green ponzi scheme after Corn fuel and grass ethanol. algae also need a few things, most notably: a lot of sunshine and massive amounts of water. To grow algae, you also need phosphorus (besides other minerals), an element that is very much needed by agriculture. Most algae are grown in brackish or salt water. That sounds as if water is no issue, since our planet has not a shortage of salt water. However, just like solar energy plants, algae plants are best located in sunny regions, like deserts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, in deserts, and in very sunny places in general, there is not much water to find. That’s not a problem for solar plants, because they don’t need it. But, how are you going to get seawater to your desert algae plant?A very good example is the story of Solazyme, a company that cultivates (genetically modified) algae in non-transparent steel containers, similar to those of breweries. In this case the algae do not get their energy from the sun, but from sugar that is fed to them. This method, says the company, makes them produce 1,000 times more oil than they do in sunlight, because sugar is a much more concentrated form of energy than sunlight.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, where does the sugar come from? The researchers simply leave that part of the process out of their calculation, and nobody seems to care. Growing sugar cane of course requires significant amounts of energy, land and water. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28002" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10693" RevisionGUID="bb98c51d-dcd2-4d45-8d15-b062a7a9cf2d" CreationDate="2021-07-23T05:34:32.753" UserId="9007" Comment="added 145 characters in body" Text="Technically the whole sum of the battery is recyclable. However it must be dissassembled and dismantled, a complicated process, which is why Almost NONE are. Despite their proliferation, Since EV's aren't exactly widely adopted.&#xD;&#xA;The growth of ICE cars around the world is going to outstrip EV manufacturing capability for years to come.  For ever, once subsidies become too high for taxpayers to accept, EV sales will crash. EV cars measure just 0.167% of global auto fleet, One out of every 600 cars, Auto industry Spent BIllions on outfitting factories to make cars that only saturate 1% of all new auto sales. Just to make them Environmentalists whine it takes 30,000 lbs (15 tons) of raw material to make a 3000 lb car. It takes Over 4000+ tons of rock/ore to make One electric car, ICE engines made with iron/aluminum come from scrap by melting down cans and scrap metal. EV's require fresh resources of cobalt, lithium, copper, etc. You have to start an industrial revolution over again but instead of coal/iron; you're now digging up HALF the periodic table all of which is dug, mined, processed, manufactured, and shipped using fossil fuels. Under the guise of technology which is supposedly gonna &quot;Rid us&quot; of fossil fuels. Driving is only a small portion of a cars energy embodiment/life cycle, there's heavy energy investment in the beginning and late stages of it's life, namely manufacturing and recycling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It takes 1000x more lithium to make an EV battery than a laptop battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28003" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10695" RevisionGUID="e22c8fc8-eaf7-4fd1-895f-45508e84eeae" CreationDate="2021-07-23T05:37:53.720" UserId="9007" Text="Solid state memory is far more energy efficienct than cloud storage, because said devices must be ON. ALL the time. In 2012, analysts at the New York Times estimated cloud computing consumed 30 Gigawatts of power per year, or as much as can be produced by 30 nuclear power plants, 262 Terawatt-hours of electricity. As of 2020 he world's data centers store about 1,327 exabytes of data, that works out to five megabytes per watt hour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28004" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="6995" RevisionGUID="48f80612-70c9-4b95-b814-eba123611a23" CreationDate="2021-07-23T06:00:08.223" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1418450839388233731" />
  <row Id="28005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10696" RevisionGUID="06c4910b-89e4-462e-8544-eff4690bca26" CreationDate="2021-07-23T16:52:28.103" UserId="9964" Text="Your shower water is already going into the same waste pipe then sewer or septic your toilet is. I think if you have a lot of soap you might end up with soap suds or scum inside the tank of the toilet, but I don't think that it would hurt the waste infrastructure in any way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10697" RevisionGUID="d6ceb972-4fc5-44a3-b75a-ec013b8dc561" CreationDate="2021-07-23T17:20:07.070" UserDisplayName="user9950" Text="This is similar to, but more general than this [question][1] and referring to from scratch buildings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen [Create an Oasis with Greywater][2] and it's an awesome resource to a  DIY system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, how are new homes built from scratch that are trying to reduce their water impact doing all this, while remaining comfortable and usable by everyone? Can you point to existing companies/systems that build homes just as comfortable as regular homes but that reuse the greywater?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/75/whats-an-effective-design-for-sending-sink-water-to-a-toilet-tank&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/createanoasis/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28007" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10697" RevisionGUID="d6ceb972-4fc5-44a3-b75a-ec013b8dc561" CreationDate="2021-07-23T17:20:07.070" UserDisplayName="user9950" Text="What is the current best system to convert regular homes into greywater homes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28008" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10697" RevisionGUID="d6ceb972-4fc5-44a3-b75a-ec013b8dc561" CreationDate="2021-07-23T17:20:07.070" UserDisplayName="user9950" Text="|greywater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28009" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10697" RevisionGUID="cf7ced30-862d-48b5-92f3-483735fd0ab9" CreationDate="2021-07-23T17:32:47.583" UserDisplayName="user9950" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the current best system to build greywater homes as comfortable as regular homes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10697" RevisionGUID="648841e9-6d9b-494b-86ed-7ad4c0431018" CreationDate="2021-07-23T17:42:07.567" UserDisplayName="user9950" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="This is similar to, but more general than this [question][1] and referring to from scratch buildings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen [Create an Oasis with Greywater][2] and it's an awesome resource to build a DIY system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question is, how are new homes built from scratch that are trying to reduce their water impact doing all this, while remaining comfortable and usable by everyone? Can you point to existing systems used to build new homes that are just as comfortable as regular homes but that reuse the greywater?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/75/whats-an-effective-design-for-sending-sink-water-to-a-toilet-tank&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://oasisdesign.net/greywater/createanoasis/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28017" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10696" RevisionGUID="2f8d384c-56f9-46cd-b45b-81070058ebaa" CreationDate="2021-07-24T05:16:02.617" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical changes" Text="Your shower water is already going into the same waste pipe that sewage from the toilet or septic system empties into. I think if you have a lot of soap you might end up with soap suds or scum inside the tank of the toilet, but I don't think that it would hurt the waste infrastructure in any way. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="1c42743f-3c43-41a2-b5f5-3c76989bf329" CreationDate="2021-07-24T13:41:47.250" UserId="9968" Text="I was under the impression that this was a global phenomenon since at least 50-70 years or so, but apparently not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I went to the Swedish Wikipedia article for &quot;Pant&quot;: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pant_(f%C3%B6rpackning)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I checked the &quot;other languages&quot; section to the left to learn what it's called in English. But there is no English article, which usually means that it doesn't *exist* as a concept in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it clear, I'm talking about &quot;pant&quot; as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You buy a soda can or bottle in a store.&#xD;&#xA;2. You go home and drink it.&#xD;&#xA;3. At a later point, you return to that store (or, I believe, any other store equipped with a little &quot;recycling station&quot;) where you put in the empty soda can/bottle, it is scanned, and you get a receipt which you can use to buy food in the store or to cash out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, you are &quot;incentivized&quot; (or *extorted*, if you will...) to recycle them through having to pay a little extra for each can/bottle, allowing you to get that &quot;locked up&quot; money back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is not a thing in the USA (for example), do all those cans/bottles end up in the trash/landfills? Aren't they recycled at all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28022" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="1c42743f-3c43-41a2-b5f5-3c76989bf329" CreationDate="2021-07-24T13:41:47.250" UserId="9968" Text="Is there no such thing as &quot;pant&quot; in the USA or outside some European countries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28023" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="1c42743f-3c43-41a2-b5f5-3c76989bf329" CreationDate="2021-07-24T13:41:47.250" UserId="9968" Text="|recycling|usa|plastic-bottles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28026" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="983bff78-7318-4523-b369-6c434f54274f" CreationDate="2021-07-24T21:01:07.600" UserId="9669" Text="After all those scary stories about microplastics (I think you don't need references on that one), I was surprised to discover plastic solutions being suggested, even promoted you can say, in environmental publications. Take [this][1], for example. It praises polyethylene mulch! It sounded crazy to me, to apply plastic to soil on purpose. How is it a good idea, with microplastics getting into groundwater and so on (even with the fact that it keeps water from evaporating from soil better than organic alternatives)? Then we have this thing called tire-derived aggregate, or TDA. I know about the environmental toll of sand extraction (TDA is supposed to be substituted for sand), but it can't be right that shredded tires spread over land is a green, sustainable alternative. Again, I suppose, it will degrade into microplastics and wreak colossal damage if this becomes a widespread practice. California's bluest greenest government [doesn't][2] seem to agree, mentioning some studies. Even reusable plastic bags, if you think about it, will end up, sooner or later, in a landfill (that said, I personally do use reusable plastic bags sometimes). I know plastics emit relatively low quantities of GHG during the production phase (compared to paper bags, for instance), but you should consider the entire life cycle, right? So I wound up wondering, can plastics be sustainable after all (including its application to soil, in one form or another)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report68-WaterFootprintReduction-Cotton-India.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/tires/greenroads/tda" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="983bff78-7318-4523-b369-6c434f54274f" CreationDate="2021-07-24T21:01:07.600" UserId="9669" Text="Can plastic be sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="983bff78-7318-4523-b369-6c434f54274f" CreationDate="2021-07-24T21:01:07.600" UserId="9669" Text="|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10703" RevisionGUID="4762a2f4-8fb1-4b1e-a6d9-defb98226f38" CreationDate="2021-07-24T21:04:21.367" UserId="3379" Text="A more general term for this system, with a detailed English wikipedia article, is [container deposit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container-deposit_legislation). Such programs currently exist in 10 U.S. states (representing about 27% of the total population) which pay $0.05 to $0.15 per container, generally accepting glass, aluminum, and plastic beverage containers. The article also includes details of similar programs around the world. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outside of container deposit laws, recycling is [not required at the federal level in the U.S.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_in_the_United_States#National_legislation), and the laws around recycling varies widely by state -- some states ban certain materials from being landfilled, while others require recycling of certain materials. General there is a mix of state and local regulations governing recycling. [This 2016 report from the Northeast Recycling Council (pdf)](https://nerc.org/documents/town_business/Mandatory%20Recycling%20&amp;%20Disposal%20Bans%202011_rev%202016.pdf) indicates that in addition to the 10 states with container deposits, at least 16 others require some form of recycling, and all but three states (Arizona, Montana, and Wyoming) have some form of restrictions on what can be sent to landfills." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28030" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10704" RevisionGUID="bf85c8f5-3127-4f0b-b711-fa00d1aaf300" CreationDate="2021-07-25T02:47:16.813" UserId="9007" Text="Some stores incentivize bottle/container return. Namely because the store will get the return value, 5 cents a bottle deposit times 1000 bottles is 50 bucks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28031" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10705" RevisionGUID="7cd5192b-8ab2-4cfc-97ef-a88720fb31db" CreationDate="2021-07-25T03:25:48.793" UserId="9007" Text="ALL plastic is recycleable, it's quality concerns.&#xD;&#xA;The problem with plastic is it's extremely low value. We knew that 50 years ago, that's why plastic became the dominant packaging/container medium because it's sterile, non-biodegradable and very cheap. But re-collecting that plastic that's been distributed is a nightmare.&#xD;&#xA;A 20 fl oz plastic bottle empty weighs 23.8 grams&#xD;&#xA;An empty glass bottle weighs 8 oz or more. Glass weighs 10x more than plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IN ALL manufacturing there's resources and materials involved. &#xD;&#xA;Plastic, even waste plastic has uses.&#xD;&#xA;Thermal depolymerization is an industrial process where polymers, even complex ones can be converted to monomers/mixture of. This can be powered by renewables/various clean energy&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28032" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="e90ec3f0-73e8-409a-87d6-9cf32b839846" CreationDate="2021-07-25T04:51:23.843" UserId="2345" Comment="Split the text into paragraphs to increase readability" Text="After all those scary stories about microplastics (I think you don't need references on that one), I was surprised to discover plastic solutions being suggested, even promoted you can say, in environmental publications. Take [this][1], for example. It praises polyethylene mulch! It sounded crazy to me, to apply plastic to soil on purpose. How is it a good idea, with microplastics getting into groundwater and so on (even with the fact that it keeps water from evaporating from soil better than organic alternatives)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then we have this thing called tire-derived aggregate, or TDA. I know about the environmental toll of sand extraction (TDA is supposed to be substituted for sand), but it can't be right that shredded tires spread over land is a green, sustainable alternative. Again, I suppose, it will degrade into microplastics and wreak colossal damage if this becomes a widespread practice. California's bluest greenest government [doesn't][2] seem to agree, mentioning some studies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even reusable plastic bags, if you think about it, will end up, sooner or later, in a landfill (that said, I personally do use reusable plastic bags sometimes). I know plastics emit relatively low quantities of GHG during the production phase (compared to paper bags, for instance), but you should consider the entire life cycle, right? So I wound up wondering, can plastics be sustainable after all (including its application to soil, in one form or another)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report68-WaterFootprintReduction-Cotton-India.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/tires/greenroads/tda" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28043" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="c5d652d7-cfc0-4c67-8426-83987c5efc48" CreationDate="2021-07-26T02:07:35.760" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="28044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10708" RevisionGUID="4f3626ac-807e-46e4-a6f8-a19e2a017b1d" CreationDate="2021-07-26T03:19:40.853" UserId="9007" Text="It matters little, While it takes more energy to make a tin than a bag, HOW much cocoa mix are you buying to justify. It takes 6 megajoules to make an aluminum can, Tin with a lower melting point, slightly less. It takes less than half a megajoule of energy to make a plastic bag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, buy cocoa powder in reusable container that sells it by weight?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10709" RevisionGUID="69bb2a56-5bd3-4343-9492-184184598822" CreationDate="2021-07-27T19:00:07.897" UserId="9669" Text="Why don't they make playgrounds generate electricity (at least, not on a large scale)? It's a pity that all that energy of children horsing around goes to waste instead of being harnessed. You could incorporate a generator into a swing, for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28046" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10709" RevisionGUID="69bb2a56-5bd3-4343-9492-184184598822" CreationDate="2021-07-27T19:00:07.897" UserId="9669" Text="Why don't they make playgrounds generate electricity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28047" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10709" RevisionGUID="69bb2a56-5bd3-4343-9492-184184598822" CreationDate="2021-07-27T19:00:07.897" UserId="9669" Text="|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10710" RevisionGUID="131dd511-6c44-4b87-8d4d-8c6d6d78bd6e" CreationDate="2021-07-27T19:49:59.870" UserId="1056" Text="Because a playground equipped with generators would probably not be much fun.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The merry-go-round would grind to a stop the moment it is no longer being pushed.&#xD;&#xA;- The swings would not swing; they would glide back to their resting place then sit idle.&#xD;&#xA;- The jungle gym would require children to follow a prescribed exit that could capture their stored gravitational energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if children could be convinced to exploit themselves for child labour, there is still the problem that all of their rambunctious energy originates as food energy. Food is not free to purchase, nor is it free to produce, so any kind of power generation based on food and human kinetics tends to have poor economics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since we're here, let's think about how much energy could potentially be captured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A child age 8 expends about [1000 kcal/day](https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1340695676) as the basal metabolic rate (BMR). A very active person (such as a playful child) might have a physical activity level (PAL) around 2.0, which means that 1000 kcal/day are available to perform mechanical work. The human body is about [25% efficient](https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Conceptual_Physics/Book%3A_Body_Physics_-_Motion_to_Metabolism_(Davis)/10%3A_Powering_the_Body/10.09%3A_Efficiency_of_the_Human_Body) at converting food energy into mechanical work. Turbine generators are around [80% efficient](https://www.power-eng.com/coal/steam-generator-efficiency/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, one playful child could produce about 200 kcal (2.3 kWh) of usable mechanical energy each day. Where I live, that's about $0.14 worth of electricity. This clearly won't be a good investment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28049" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="c5ad9ffb-22b4-4f93-b2b4-d043bcce9e05" CreationDate="2021-07-27T20:15:59.150" UserId="9669" Text="Livestock and manure [produce][1] 5,8% of global GHG. But releases from agricultural soils (N2O), crop burning, and rice cultivation (all are associated with plant farming) generate 8,9%. So is being a vegetarian really environmentally friendly, climate change-wise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28050" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="c5ad9ffb-22b4-4f93-b2b4-d043bcce9e05" CreationDate="2021-07-27T20:15:59.150" UserId="9669" Text="Is being a vegetarian really environmentally friendly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28051" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="c5ad9ffb-22b4-4f93-b2b4-d043bcce9e05" CreationDate="2021-07-27T20:15:59.150" UserId="9669" Text="|agriculture|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="34b78f80-9062-468c-9b09-6106aa0dea5a" CreationDate="2021-07-27T21:51:21.273" UserId="3379" Text="#### Gram for gram, meat products produce from twice (comparing fish to wheat) to 150 times (comparing beef to root vegetables) more greenhouse gas emissions than plant products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2020, Our World in Data put together a chart showing total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across about 30 types of food, including 11 animal products, in the article [&quot;You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local&quot;](https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local). They considered seven different factors that contribute to GHG emissions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Land use change&#xD;&#xA; - Farm&#xD;&#xA; - Animal feed&#xD;&#xA; - Processing&#xD;&#xA; - Transport&#xD;&#xA; - Retail&#xD;&#xA; - Packaging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the chart from the article showing total kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalent per kg of food product (I highlighted animal products): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Food: greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#### What about caloric content?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparing food products by mass does ignore the fact that certain types of food have more calories per gram than others. However, the difference in energy density between meat and plant products is an order of magnitude less than the difference in GHG emissions. [This U.S. Department of Agriculture study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5687574/) indicates that in the extreme case, an animal product may have 2.5 times more calories per gram than plant products such as whole grains and legumes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I2jId.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28053" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="31526086-9447-4dff-9dab-0ca38a1ea019" CreationDate="2021-07-27T22:32:32.067" UserId="3379" Comment="added 834 characters in body" Text="#### Gram for gram, meat products produce from twice (comparing fish to wheat) to 150 times (comparing beef to root vegetables) more greenhouse gas emissions than plant products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2020, Our World in Data put together a chart showing total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across about 30 types of food, including 11 animal products, in the article [&quot;You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local&quot;](https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local). They considered seven different factors that contribute to GHG emissions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Land use change&#xD;&#xA; - Farm&#xD;&#xA; - Animal feed&#xD;&#xA; - Processing&#xD;&#xA; - Transport&#xD;&#xA; - Retail&#xD;&#xA; - Packaging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the chart from the article showing total kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalent per kg of food product (I highlighted animal products): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Food: greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#### What about caloric content?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparing food products by mass does ignore the fact that certain types of food have more calories per gram than others. However, the difference in energy density between meat and plant products is an order of magnitude less than the difference in GHG emissions. [This U.S. Department of Agriculture study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5687574/) indicates that in the extreme case, an animal product may have 2.5 times more calories per gram than plant products such as whole grains and legumes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#### Back to the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Livestock and manure produce 5,8% of global GHG. But releases from agricultural soils (N&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O), crop burning, and rice cultivation (all are associated with plant farming) generate 8,9%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These figures are a reflection of how much of each commodity type was produced in 2016 (the year of the data). If everyone replaced the animal products in their diet with plant products, that 5.8% would go to zero, and the share from agriculture, crop burning, and rice cultivation would increase by substantially less than 5.8 percentage points, since plant products provide more nutritional value with less associated GHG emissions than animal products. Figuring out the exact change will be complicated by the fact that some current plant production goes to produce animal feed, and the need to predict what people would replace meat with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I2jId.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="a70c7cc8-975f-4974-99ce-a33a8cd7c999" CreationDate="2021-07-27T23:35:53.677" UserId="9669" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="Livestock and manure [produce][1] 5,8% of global GHG. But releases from agricultural soils (N2O), crop residue burning, and rice cultivation (all are associated with plant farming) generate 8,9%. So is being a vegetarian really environmentally friendly, climate change-wise?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28055" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="7e02bc8c-ae5c-4455-a7a0-aec1392a36ab" CreationDate="2021-07-28T00:01:05.373" UserId="9669" Comment="minor edit" Text="#### Gram for gram, meat products produce from twice (comparing fish to wheat) to 150 times (comparing beef to root vegetables) more greenhouse gas emissions than plant products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2020, Our World in Data put together a chart showing total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across about 30 types of food, including 11 animal products, in the article [&quot;You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local&quot;](https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local). They considered seven different factors that contribute to GHG emissions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Land use change&#xD;&#xA; - Farm&#xD;&#xA; - Animal feed&#xD;&#xA; - Processing&#xD;&#xA; - Transport&#xD;&#xA; - Retail&#xD;&#xA; - Packaging&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the chart from the article showing total kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalent per kg of food product (I highlighted animal products): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Food: greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#### What about caloric content?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparing food products by mass does ignore the fact that certain types of food have more calories per gram than others. However, the difference in energy density between meat and plant products is an order of magnitude less than the difference in GHG emissions. [This U.S. Department of Agriculture study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5687574/) indicates that in the extreme case, an animal product may have 2.5 times more calories per gram than plant products such as whole grains and legumes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#### Back to the question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Livestock and manure produce 5,8% of global GHG. But releases from agricultural soils (N&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O), crop residue burning, and rice cultivation (all are associated with plant farming) generate 8,9%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These figures are a reflection of how much of each commodity type was produced in 2016 (the year of the data). If everyone replaced the animal products in their diet with plant products, that 5.8% would go to zero, and the share from agriculture, crop burning, and rice cultivation would increase by substantially less than 5.8 percentage points, since plant products provide more nutritional value with less associated GHG emissions than animal products. Figuring out the exact change will be complicated by the fact that some current plant production goes to produce animal feed, and the need to predict what people would replace meat with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/I2jId.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28056" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10712" RevisionGUID="7e02bc8c-ae5c-4455-a7a0-aec1392a36ab" CreationDate="2021-07-28T00:01:05.373" Comment="Proposed by 9669 approved by 1056 edit id of 675" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28057" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10496" RevisionGUID="2af65eac-02d8-4195-ae7a-8fb0e77ffe2f" CreationDate="2021-07-28T00:02:41.283" UserId="1056" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[6259],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8232,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robotnik&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:1056,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28058" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="10709" RevisionGUID="8da8f8f7-7c6a-4950-a091-ece78c4422e7" CreationDate="2021-07-28T03:06:22.753" />
  <row Id="28060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10713" RevisionGUID="174768be-9a70-42f6-942e-420c44c40e0f" CreationDate="2021-07-28T09:08:47.547" UserId="9996" Text="Playground equipment is [very expensive][1] and not typically something that local councils have large budgets for. Hooking it up to the electrical grid for minor amounts of electricity generation would increase the cost substantially and require an ongoing electrical maintenance contract.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.actionplayandleisure.co.uk/community-playground-equipment/playground-design-to-your-budget/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10714" RevisionGUID="05e358c1-2ee0-4472-90d2-f2b92324f0d2" CreationDate="2021-07-28T11:16:03.737" UserId="10003" Text="There are two main areas to consider here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Safety.  &#xD;&#xA;Anything put near children has to be safe, and mains voltage and generators generally aren't. Damaged wires could electrocute somebody, a generator rotor could kick back, injuring a kid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Durability  &#xD;&#xA;A regular playground will be used in every possible unintended way, and there will be often damages. Not a good place to put an expensive equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could put a rugged bicycles as &quot;charge your phone&quot; stations novelty, but don't expect any huge output." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28063" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10709" RevisionGUID="9cd20690-c44e-40dd-a2de-f0e994931018" CreationDate="2021-07-28T18:00:03.337" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1420443952134696967" />
  <row Id="28064" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="978eac05-817a-4a0e-9581-d4e2d6df294d" CreationDate="2021-07-28T19:47:12.303" UserId="2828" Comment="More readable link to Swedish WIkipedia." Text="I was under the impression that this was a global phenomenon since at least 50-70 years or so, but apparently not?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, I went to the Swedish Wikipedia article for &quot;Pant&quot;: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pant_(förpackning)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then I checked the &quot;other languages&quot; section to the left to learn what it's called in English. But there is no English article, which usually means that it doesn't *exist* as a concept in English.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To make it clear, I'm talking about &quot;pant&quot; as in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You buy a soda can or bottle in a store.&#xD;&#xA;2. You go home and drink it.&#xD;&#xA;3. At a later point, you return to that store (or, I believe, any other store equipped with a little &quot;recycling station&quot;) where you put in the empty soda can/bottle, it is scanned, and you get a receipt which you can use to buy food in the store or to cash out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, you are &quot;incentivized&quot; (or *extorted*, if you will...) to recycle them through having to pay a little extra for each can/bottle, allowing you to get that &quot;locked up&quot; money back.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this is not a thing in the USA (for example), do all those cans/bottles end up in the trash/landfills? Aren't they recycled at all?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28065" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="978eac05-817a-4a0e-9581-d4e2d6df294d" CreationDate="2021-07-28T19:47:12.303" Comment="Proposed by 2828 approved by 1056 edit id of 676" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28066" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10715" RevisionGUID="201e2a28-5a08-41ff-b6c1-8af9b71d86da" CreationDate="2021-07-28T20:40:58.427" UserId="5477" Text="Never heard the word &quot;pant&quot;, but deposits on bottles have been typical in US since 1950s at least. That is how I got to the saturday movies; collect a few empty bottles from back porches , return them to the store for about $ 0.15. I guess I did not think it was right to collect more bottles so I could get candy. Around then the cheap ,no return bottles started showing up." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28067" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10715" RevisionGUID="b711a432-318c-4310-b20d-68720a41e256" CreationDate="2021-07-28T20:47:17.977" UserId="5477" Comment="additions" Text="Never heard the word &quot;pant&quot;, but deposits on bottles have been typical in US since the late 1940's at least. That is how I got to the saturday movies; collect a few empty bottles from back porches , return them to the store for about $ 0.15. I guess I did not think it was right to collect more bottles so I could get candy. Around then the cheap ,no return bottles started showing up. Any store would take a Coke bottle, but the various brands of quart bottles had to be returned to the right store" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10716" RevisionGUID="6805e51d-1be2-4a5f-be6d-99f6bb1de0cd" CreationDate="2021-07-28T21:09:10.443" UserId="9669" Text="What with fast fashion, loads of clothes are dumped in landfills, especially, I [guess][1], in the US, given its humongous consumption of fiber goods. They are organic matter and therefore supposed to emit methane (well, not clothes themselves, technically, but you get my point). I suppose, food waste contributes to it substantially more, and yet: what is the climate impact of discarding natural apparel in landfills? Keep in mind, I'm not asking about the textile industry's impact as a whole (the study I provided calculated that number) or even the cotton industry's impact. Are there any studies on that specific question (not paywalled ones, preferably)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28069" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10716" RevisionGUID="6805e51d-1be2-4a5f-be6d-99f6bb1de0cd" CreationDate="2021-07-28T21:09:10.443" UserId="9669" Text="What is the climate impact of discarding natural apparel in landfills?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28070" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10716" RevisionGUID="6805e51d-1be2-4a5f-be6d-99f6bb1de0cd" CreationDate="2021-07-28T21:09:10.443" UserId="9669" Text="|waste|clothing|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10717" RevisionGUID="95574395-2dd3-4383-9cad-998af5648c05" CreationDate="2021-07-28T22:07:01.447" UserId="9669" Text="Tell me please about this murky concept of Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF). First, why is it written as &quot;PDF.m2.yr&quot; instead of PDF/m2*yr. Second, what is it, how to interpret it? How can it be in [hundreds of billions][1] *[p. 24]*? Does it refer to species loss (no certain species anymore) or to a reduction of their number (all species are in place, but there are fewer of them)? And what does it mean, &quot;potentially&quot;? So they may be fine after all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28072" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10717" RevisionGUID="95574395-2dd3-4383-9cad-998af5648c05" CreationDate="2021-07-28T22:07:01.447" UserId="9669" Text="What is PDF, exactly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28073" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10717" RevisionGUID="95574395-2dd3-4383-9cad-998af5648c05" CreationDate="2021-07-28T22:07:01.447" UserId="9669" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10718" RevisionGUID="21f3b7e3-94d2-40fe-9608-47859f07dbb6" CreationDate="2021-07-28T22:21:08.757" UserId="10018" Text="A better target would be gym exercise machines&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Indoors, not exposed to elements, controlled environment so less chance of theft and vandalism.&#xD;&#xA; - Customers stay on machines for a prolonged period instead of kids who would play on 1 thing for 5 minutes or less before moving on to the next one&#xD;&#xA; - Arrays of identical machines can be connected to same grid tie inverter, cheapening costs&#xD;&#xA; - Gym already has electrical supply and on-site consumption so no need to lay much extra cabling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28075" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10719" RevisionGUID="4a3061f6-252b-459f-8c66-f8b2dfde2e43" CreationDate="2021-07-29T08:31:12.860" UserId="6896" Text="All the references I can find to this end up pointing at the paper &quot;Muller-Wenk R (1998) Land use—the main threat to species. How to include land use in LCA. Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland, IWÖ Diskussionsbeitrag no. 64&quot; which I have been unable to access.  Here is how it is described by [Kok *et al.*](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343375128_Balancing_biodiversity_and_agriculture_Conservation_scenarios_for_the_Dutch_dairy_sector)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The impact of the different scenarios on biodiversity was assessed&#xD;&#xA;using the indicator potentially disappeared fraction (PDF) (De Schryver&#xD;&#xA;et al., 2010), in an attempt to compare the relative biodiversity value.&#xD;&#xA;The PDF expresses the species richness of vascular plants under a specific&#xD;&#xA;land use compared with a reference situation of semi-natural&#xD;&#xA;woodland (Knudsen et al., 2017). The mean impact on biodiversity&#xD;&#xA;across land use types in each scenario was expressed as mean PDF (per&#xD;&#xA;m2), calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![PDF Formula](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jSxdW.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with CF being a characterisation factor expressing PDF of plant species&#xD;&#xA;richness, and A the area occupied (in m2) by land use i.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And by [An M. De Schryver *et al.*](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-010-0205-2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For ecosystem damage, Muller-Wenk (1998) proposes the potentially disappeared fraction (PDF) of species as endpoint indicator. This indicator measures the change in species diversity and is integrated over a certain time and area presented by the life cycle inventory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is a fraction.  One would be complete loss of all species, zero would be no loss at all.  It is multiplied by land area and time.  So a 10% loss over 1 square mile would be equal to a 1% loss over 10 square miles.  It is not clear to me what potential refers to, I think it is that this is compared to a reference situation that is by definition potentially how this area could have been managed.  Since the unit is square meters, and there are 148,940,000,000,000 square meters of land area on earth hundreds of billions is not that much.  For example, a 1% PDF over the whole world in 1 year would be 1,489.4 billion PDF.m2.yr. It does refer to species loss, rather than a count of individuals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28077" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10719" RevisionGUID="8b591fff-9f7a-4109-80e4-7464fa934e3b" CreationDate="2021-07-29T13:32:49.527" UserId="3379" Comment="Included DOI links and paper titles to help with link rot." Text="All the references I can find to this end up pointing at the 1998 book [&quot;Land use—the main threat to species. How to include land use in LCA&quot;](https://www.worldcat.org/title/land-use-the-main-threat-to-species-how-to-include-land-use-in-lca/oclc/78186469) by Müller-Wenk, which I have been unable to access.  Here is how it is described by Kok *et al.* in the paper [&quot;Balancing biodiversity and agriculture: Conservation scenarios for the Dutch dairy sector&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107103):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The impact of the different scenarios on biodiversity was assessed&#xD;&#xA;using the indicator potentially disappeared fraction (PDF) (De Schryver&#xD;&#xA;et al., 2010), in an attempt to compare the relative biodiversity value.&#xD;&#xA;The PDF expresses the species richness of vascular plants under a specific&#xD;&#xA;land use compared with a reference situation of semi-natural&#xD;&#xA;woodland (Knudsen et al., 2017). The mean impact on biodiversity&#xD;&#xA;across land use types in each scenario was expressed as mean PDF (per&#xD;&#xA;m2), calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![PDF Formula](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jSxdW.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with CF being a characterisation factor expressing PDF of plant species&#xD;&#xA;richness, and A the area occupied (in m2) by land use i.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And by An M. De Schryver *et al.* in the paper [&quot;Uncertainties in the application of the species area relationship for characterisation factors of land occupation in life cycle assessment&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0205-2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For ecosystem damage, Muller-Wenk (1998) proposes the potentially disappeared fraction (PDF) of species as endpoint indicator. This indicator measures the change in species diversity and is integrated over a certain time and area presented by the life cycle inventory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is a fraction.  One would be complete loss of all species, zero would be no loss at all.  It is multiplied by land area and time.  So a 10% loss over 1 square mile would be equal to a 1% loss over 10 square miles.  It is not clear to me what potential refers to, I think it is that this is compared to a reference situation that is by definition potentially how this area could have been managed.  Since the unit is square meters, and there are 148,940,000,000,000 square meters of land area on earth hundreds of billions is not that much.  For example, a 1% PDF over the whole world in 1 year would be 1,489.4 billion PDF.m2.yr. It does refer to species loss, rather than a count of individuals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28078" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="10717" RevisionGUID="563122bf-a35d-46f2-babd-15fec08dec8a" CreationDate="2021-07-29T22:23:27.597" UserId="1056" Comment="edited title" Text="What is Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="4d7bca15-29b8-4ef9-87e9-011822ae0d99" CreationDate="2021-07-29T22:34:08.270" UserId="9669" Text="Synthetic fibers [make up][1] the largest share of total apparel production and are expected to become even more common. They also, it [seems][2], contribute to microplastic pollution more than anything else. Could synthetic fibers be ever environmentally-friendly, can you deal with the issue of microfibers? Or do you have to get rid of this phenomenon altogether?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://hs0010910.jnu.edu.cn/_upload/article/files/40/1a/ec492aca44bc8826b64c4749219c/8c5d440e-b209-4646-8e10-b218eaf5c7af.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="4d7bca15-29b8-4ef9-87e9-011822ae0d99" CreationDate="2021-07-29T22:34:08.270" UserId="9669" Text="Could synthetic fibers be environmentally-friendly, can you deal with the issue of microfibers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="4d7bca15-29b8-4ef9-87e9-011822ae0d99" CreationDate="2021-07-29T22:34:08.270" UserId="9669" Text="|plastic|pollution|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10721" RevisionGUID="9bff0c84-470f-45b1-930f-c9ff08097cf9" CreationDate="2021-07-30T01:16:30.290" UserId="12029" Text="My brother is a bicycle fanatic, a former engineer, and a current nurse.  According to his calculations ... Lance Armstrong (with some chemical enhancement) is likely the single greatest generator of electricity in the human race.  According to brother's calculations ... Lance could roughly keep a 60 to 75 watt bulb (incandescent, better with LED) going during his maximum cycles.  Realizing the best kids are going to be about half of that ... this is something only government would invest in ... because the costs would be 100x or more over the benefit.  Even in a gym's spin class (far better source than a playground) ... you might only spend 20x as much as the benefit you would get.  Don't forget ... one of the downsides to these wind farms miles from civilization  ... is that moving the energy to civilization costs a big chunk of that same energy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28083" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="4dbcab6a-12b6-4995-81c5-c10cd115d5bf" CreationDate="2021-07-30T02:03:35.507" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="28089" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10724" RevisionGUID="7d2949e7-586c-48b2-bffb-edfa687f8769" CreationDate="2021-07-30T06:07:45.923" UserId="9007" Text="Because it's useless. A typical bike generator outputs 100 watts, If you pedal for an hour a day, 30 days a month, that's (30 hours x 100 watts) = 3000 watt-hours, or 3 kWh. Enough to power four lightbulbs..... for 7 hours." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10725" RevisionGUID="2e6e14c2-484e-4930-9041-99023e8146de" CreationDate="2021-07-30T06:11:15.830" UserId="9007" Text="Landfill conditions are notoriously anaerobic, so ANYTHING in a landfill will not decompose barely at all. Fact is, few things decompose in landfills, organic waste anaerobically decomposes producing some methane and not much else. Better to reuse cotton as rags. I use old t-shirts as cleaning rages, hen when no longer any good, I wash em one final time then recycle cotton. Better long term strategy is that cotton can be shredded and composted to feed mushrooms. Indoor cultivation of Volvariella volvacea otherwise known as Straw Mushrooms which are edible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28092" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10726" RevisionGUID="b65bd067-9acf-4bea-ae46-ac56ea3b9b6f" CreationDate="2021-07-31T00:14:47.847" UserId="9669" Text="What is blue, green, and grey water ([example][1])? Is green water only rainwater? I came across words like &quot;mostly rain&quot;, &quot;predominantly rain&quot;, etc., so it's not only rain, is it? And if grey water is wastewater, doesn't it mean that it's double-counted (because it's counted as blue or green water too)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Mekonnen-Hoekstra-2011-WaterFootprintCrops.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28093" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10726" RevisionGUID="b65bd067-9acf-4bea-ae46-ac56ea3b9b6f" CreationDate="2021-07-31T00:14:47.847" UserId="9669" Text="What is blue, green, and grey water?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28094" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10726" RevisionGUID="b65bd067-9acf-4bea-ae46-ac56ea3b9b6f" CreationDate="2021-07-31T00:14:47.847" UserId="9669" Text="|water-management|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28098" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10711" RevisionGUID="1acfc5ed-e8d7-4691-9e9d-6d32fba576b4" CreationDate="2021-07-31T09:00:03.680" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1421395222144110598" />
  <row Id="28099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10728" RevisionGUID="9f77a46e-0b63-446c-a718-53c1646e000d" CreationDate="2021-07-31T18:31:31.607" UserId="12053" Text="They do.) Just to show how small power such generator can produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the pcture bicycle generators that convert mechanical power into different types of power are shown, they're located near Municipality of Jerusalem.&#xD;&#xA;[![Bicycle generators near Municipality of Jerusalem][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qsedr.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28100" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10728" RevisionGUID="48020081-7a11-4380-bbf2-e63054e420c6" CreationDate="2021-08-01T11:04:49.093" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo" Text="They do.) Just to show how small power such generator can produce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the picture bicycle generators that convert mechanical power into different types of power are shown, they're located near Municipality of Jerusalem.&#xD;&#xA;[![Bicycle generators near Municipality of Jerusalem][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qsedr.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10729" RevisionGUID="3352dae1-7c8b-42f0-bb27-6be59487bbd3" CreationDate="2021-08-01T16:27:20.023" UserId="12054" Text="I live near a nature reserve, it is a combination of moors, fields and forests.  (containing animals like deer, snakes, frogs, foxes, sheep, goats, cows and a large variety of bugs) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But since last week there is a new &quot;art-project&quot; that has the local community in an uproar, mainly because it looks like they just ditched trash in the area... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a valid environmental concern? Are there arguments i can bring towards the organizer of this &quot;art&quot; project to halt it? seeing this is going to continue for another 3 months. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Art in question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A giant ball made of sugar and food coloring. &#xD;&#xA;[![sugarball[1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The engine of an old oil ship:&#xD;&#xA;[![ship-engine][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;a &quot;ship-wreck&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ship-wreck][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this is the appropriate Stack exchange site, otherwise i would love a referral to one where this question is better suited. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/k7vqn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/nGnbF.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/HAsZn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28102" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10729" RevisionGUID="3352dae1-7c8b-42f0-bb27-6be59487bbd3" CreationDate="2021-08-01T16:27:20.023" UserId="12054" Text="Art VS Nature (What is the impact)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28103" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10729" RevisionGUID="3352dae1-7c8b-42f0-bb27-6be59487bbd3" CreationDate="2021-08-01T16:27:20.023" UserId="12054" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28108" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10731" RevisionGUID="0551c37c-e1ae-4dc6-8d46-ee4826787c98" CreationDate="2021-08-02T05:49:12.477" UserId="2345" Text="A document produced by the [US Geological Service][1], for what looks like a conference presentation, gives a good explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Green and blue water are waters from two natural water systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Green Water** is from unsaturated natural water sources, such as soils&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Blue Water** is from saturated natural water sources, such as streams, lakes, ground water, wetlands, glaciers and snow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Grey Water** is domestic waste water from the laundry, kitchen or bathroom which can be reused for irrigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Black Water** is sewage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Another document][2] states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Precipitation falling onto the land surface in terrestrial ecosystems is transformed into either “green water” or “blue water.” Green water is the portion stored in soil and potentially available for uptake by plants, whereas blue water either runs off into streams and rivers or percolates below the rooting zone into a groundwater aquifer. The principal flow of green water is by evapotranspiration from soil into the atmosphere, whereas blue water moves through the channel system at the land surface or through the pore space of an aquifer. Globally, the flow of green water accounts for about two-thirds of the global flow of all water, green or blue; thus the global flow of green water, most of which is by transpiration, dominates that of blue water. In fact, the global flow of green water by transpiration equals the flow of all the rivers on Earth into the oceans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://wrrc.umass.edu/sites/wrrc.umass.edu/files/pdf-doc-ppt/Weiskel_Plenary.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-368" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28109" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10731" RevisionGUID="861c3a8a-ef0f-4572-814a-99cf719cfb27" CreationDate="2021-08-02T06:28:31.550" UserId="2345" Comment="added 190 characters in body" Text="A document produced by the [US Geological Service][1], for what looks like a conference presentation, gives a good explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Green and blue water are waters from two natural water systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Green Water** is from unsaturated natural water sources, such as soils. One way to think of it is, green water is easily available to and is used green plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Blue Water** is from saturated natural water sources, such as streams, lakes, ground water, wetlands, glaciers and snow. Another way to think of it is, blue is deeper than green and blue water is deeper than green water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Grey Water** is domestic waste water from the laundry, kitchen or bathroom which can be reused for irrigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Black Water** is sewage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Another document][2] states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Precipitation falling onto the land surface in terrestrial ecosystems is transformed into either “green water” or “blue water.” Green water is the portion stored in soil and potentially available for uptake by plants, whereas blue water either runs off into streams and rivers or percolates below the rooting zone into a groundwater aquifer. The principal flow of green water is by evapotranspiration from soil into the atmosphere, whereas blue water moves through the channel system at the land surface or through the pore space of an aquifer. Globally, the flow of green water accounts for about two-thirds of the global flow of all water, green or blue; thus the global flow of green water, most of which is by transpiration, dominates that of blue water. In fact, the global flow of green water by transpiration equals the flow of all the rivers on Earth into the oceans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://wrrc.umass.edu/sites/wrrc.umass.edu/files/pdf-doc-ppt/Weiskel_Plenary.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-368" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28113" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10731" RevisionGUID="786f40f8-164d-43ea-89ad-1b5ff3c3ccd6" CreationDate="2021-08-02T11:31:08.860" UserId="2345" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="A document produced by the [US Geological Survey][1], for what looks like a conference presentation, gives a good explanation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Green and blue water are waters from two natural water systems. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Green Water** is from unsaturated natural water sources, such as soils. One way to think of it is, green water is easily available to and is used green plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Blue Water** is from saturated natural water sources, such as streams, lakes, ground water, wetlands, glaciers and snow. Another way to think of it is, blue is deeper than green and blue water is deeper than green water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Grey Water** is domestic waste water from the laundry, kitchen or bathroom which can be reused for irrigation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Black Water** is sewage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Another document][2] states,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Precipitation falling onto the land surface in terrestrial ecosystems is transformed into either “green water” or “blue water.” Green water is the portion stored in soil and potentially available for uptake by plants, whereas blue water either runs off into streams and rivers or percolates below the rooting zone into a groundwater aquifer. The principal flow of green water is by evapotranspiration from soil into the atmosphere, whereas blue water moves through the channel system at the land surface or through the pore space of an aquifer. Globally, the flow of green water accounts for about two-thirds of the global flow of all water, green or blue; thus the global flow of green water, most of which is by transpiration, dominates that of blue water. In fact, the global flow of green water by transpiration equals the flow of all the rivers on Earth into the oceans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://wrrc.umass.edu/sites/wrrc.umass.edu/files/pdf-doc-ppt/Weiskel_Plenary.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-368" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10719" RevisionGUID="7f9f3123-9594-4825-afbb-848d84070c26" CreationDate="2021-08-02T13:45:42.453" UserId="6896" Comment="Explained what the proportion of species refers to" Text="All the references I can find to this end up pointing at the 1998 book [&quot;Land use—the main threat to species. How to include land use in LCA&quot;](https://www.worldcat.org/title/land-use-the-main-threat-to-species-how-to-include-land-use-in-lca/oclc/78186469) by Müller-Wenk, which I have been unable to access.  Here is how it is described by Kok *et al.* in the paper [&quot;Balancing biodiversity and agriculture: Conservation scenarios for the Dutch dairy sector&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107103):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The impact of the different scenarios on biodiversity was assessed&#xD;&#xA;using the indicator potentially disappeared fraction (PDF) (De Schryver&#xD;&#xA;et al., 2010), in an attempt to compare the relative biodiversity value.&#xD;&#xA;The PDF expresses the species richness of vascular plants under a specific&#xD;&#xA;land use compared with a reference situation of semi-natural&#xD;&#xA;woodland (Knudsen et al., 2017). The mean impact on biodiversity&#xD;&#xA;across land use types in each scenario was expressed as mean PDF (per&#xD;&#xA;m2), calculated as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![PDF Formula](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jSxdW.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; with CF being a characterisation factor expressing PDF of plant species&#xD;&#xA;richness, and A the area occupied (in m2) by land use i.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And by An M. De Schryver *et al.* in the paper [&quot;Uncertainties in the application of the species area relationship for characterisation factors of land occupation in life cycle assessment&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0205-2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; For ecosystem damage, Muller-Wenk (1998) proposes the potentially disappeared fraction (PDF) of species as endpoint indicator. This indicator measures the change in species diversity and is integrated over a certain time and area presented by the life cycle inventory.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it is a fraction, with the number of species found in the test plot compared to those found in the reference plot (such as &quot;semi-natural woodland&quot;).  One would be complete loss of all species, zero would be no loss at all.  It is multiplied by land area and time.  So a 10% loss over 1 square mile would be equal to a 1% loss over 10 square miles.  It is not clear to me what potential refers to, I think it is that this is compared to a reference situation that is by definition potentially how this area could have been managed.  Since the unit is square meters, and there are 148,940,000,000,000 square meters of land area on earth hundreds of billions is not that much.  For example, a 1% PDF over the whole world in 1 year would be 1,489.4 billion PDF.m2.yr. It does refer to species loss, rather than a count of individuals." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10733" RevisionGUID="1610a287-f426-4345-a54f-90e9cbce1699" CreationDate="2021-08-03T01:04:50.833" UserId="9669" Text="More and more attention is being paid to the harmful impacts of textile manufacture. Some [suggest][1] that rental subscription models could do the trick and reduce the scope of the problem. It's not really something I'm familiar with so could you tell me how this works? I mean, if something goes out of fashion, no one will want to rent it. So in order to get rid of the stockpiles of unwanted clothes, you'd need to landfill or incinerate it anyway, wouldn't you (or ship it to developing countries)? What's so green about it? And then again, YCloset, a Chinese rental service, recently [shut down][2] so it may be not a lucrative business to boot (although, as I understand it, its American counterpart Rent the Runway is still [doing well][3]). It seems to me that as long as this concept of fashion exists, it wouldn't make much of a difference, would it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/A-New-Textiles-Economy_Full-Report_Updated_1-12-17.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://technode.com/2021/07/14/alibaba-backed-fashion-rental-app-ycloset-shuts-down-after-five-years/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/19/rent-the-runway-confidentially-files-for-ipo.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28116" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10733" RevisionGUID="1610a287-f426-4345-a54f-90e9cbce1699" CreationDate="2021-08-03T01:04:50.833" UserId="9669" Text="Is garment rental all that sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28117" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10733" RevisionGUID="1610a287-f426-4345-a54f-90e9cbce1699" CreationDate="2021-08-03T01:04:50.833" UserId="9669" Text="|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28118" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10733" RevisionGUID="5bf08f45-737b-4f58-b21b-209171051e0c" CreationDate="2021-08-03T01:17:18.277" UserId="9669" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="More and more attention is being paid to the harmful impacts of textile manufacture. Some [suggest][1] that rental subscription models could do the trick and reduce the scope of the problem. It's not really something I'm familiar with so could you tell me how this works? I mean, if something goes out of fashion, no one will want to rent it. So in order to get rid of the stockpiles of unwanted clothes, you'd need to landfill or incinerate it anyway, wouldn't you (or ship it to developing countries)? What's so green about it? In addition, YCloset, a Chinese rental service, recently [shut down][2] so it may be not a lucrative business to boot (although, as I understand it, its American counterpart Rent the Runway is still [doing well][3]). It seems to me that as long as this concept of fashion exists, it wouldn't make much of a difference, would it? But then again, fashion is said to go in circles – but those circles last decades, you can't store anything for that long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/A-New-Textiles-Economy_Full-Report_Updated_1-12-17.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://technode.com/2021/07/14/alibaba-backed-fashion-rental-app-ycloset-shuts-down-after-five-years/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/19/rent-the-runway-confidentially-files-for-ipo.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10733" RevisionGUID="dd2e7202-24ab-458d-8ff8-469b0ee66363" CreationDate="2021-08-03T04:51:06.563" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical change" Text="More and more attention is being paid to the harmful impacts of textile manufacture. Some [suggest][1] that rental subscription models could do the trick and reduce the scope of the problem. It's not really something I'm familiar with so could you tell me how this works? I mean, if something goes out of fashion, no one will want to rent it. So in order to get rid of the stockpiles of unwanted clothes, you'd need to landfill or incinerate it anyway, wouldn't you (or ship it to developing countries)? What's so green about it? In addition, YCloset, a Chinese rental service, recently [shut down][2] so it may not be a lucrative business to boot (although, as I understand it, its American counterpart Rent the Runway is still [doing well][3]). It seems to me that as long as this concept of fashion exists, it wouldn't make much of a difference, would it? But then again, fashion is said to go in circles – but those circles last decades, you can't store anything for that long.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/A-New-Textiles-Economy_Full-Report_Updated_1-12-17.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://technode.com/2021/07/14/alibaba-backed-fashion-rental-app-ycloset-shuts-down-after-five-years/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/19/rent-the-runway-confidentially-files-for-ipo.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28120" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10734" RevisionGUID="1884c1e9-518c-4dc8-8220-74278cbe09ae" CreationDate="2021-08-03T13:49:38.043" UserId="3379" Text="I came across this [interesting infographic](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml) from the U.S. Department of Energy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Where the energy goes: Gasoline vehicles][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They provide a figure of 12 to 30% efficiency of a gasoline vehicle converting fuel energy into forward motion (or kinetic energy). **How does this compare to other vehicle types?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia has a detailed table on [energy efficiency in transport](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport#Land_Passenger_Transport_means), but all the numbers are in terms of fuel used per mile traveled, or per passenger mile. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**All of these vehicles convert stored energy (whether electric, chemical, or something else) into kinetic energy. How efficient are they at doing this?** I'm looking for actual numeric figures (not a discussion or ranking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since kinetic energy accounts for mass (`KE = 1/2 * mass * (velocity)^2`), this should provide for a fair comparison across vehicle types.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/My9XI.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28121" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10734" RevisionGUID="1884c1e9-518c-4dc8-8220-74278cbe09ae" CreationDate="2021-08-03T13:49:38.043" UserId="3379" Text="How efficiently do different vehicles convert stored energy to kinetic energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28122" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10734" RevisionGUID="1884c1e9-518c-4dc8-8220-74278cbe09ae" CreationDate="2021-08-03T13:49:38.043" UserId="3379" Text="|transport|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10735" RevisionGUID="ff113b3d-2942-4c63-8ec8-ba2241fa871b" CreationDate="2021-08-03T18:54:05.137" UserId="253" Text="Looks like over 90% for electrical - from [caranddriver.com][1], &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Taming the Powertrain&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Reducing waste in the powertrain increases range. The more efficient a motor, the more time an EV will stay on the road. Tesla told Car and Driver that the motor in the Model S has gone from 80 percent efficient to 90 percent, with peak efficiency at 94 percent during the EPA test cycles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to get the same figures on Hydrogen Fuel Cells - looks like about twice as efficient as gasoline, but unsure of the exact amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a34046953/tesla-range-strategy-details/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10736" RevisionGUID="fd3bdbba-d8d4-44c6-85ae-a68a907e6c71" CreationDate="2021-08-03T19:40:56.353" UserId="12065" Text="Although there are other ways nowadays, most births result from people having old-fashioned heterosexual intercourse. So a good way to decrease births is by stimulating people having less of that. This could be done in the following ways.&#xA;&#xA; - Like LShaver says in his answer, a good way is to provide for other engaging (nightly) entertainment like television, video-games, social media etc.&#xA; &#xA; - Make with image-editing software pornactrices and pornactors so attractive that real men and women look pale, ugly and unattractive in comparison.&#xA; &#xA; - Promote alternative (non-cis/non-heterosexual) gender identities and sexual orientations. Most/a lot resulting intercourse probably cannot lead to offspring." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28125" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10736" RevisionGUID="96d1a832-bc3f-4364-b07e-79b724018e33" CreationDate="2021-08-03T19:50:54.373" UserId="12065" Comment="added 218 characters in body" Text="Although there are other ways nowadays, most births result from people having old-fashioned heterosexual intercourse. So a good way to decrease births is by stimulating people having less of that. This could be done in the following ways.&#xA;&#xA; &#xA; - Like LShaver says in his answer, a good way is to provide for other engaging (nightly) entertainment like television, video-games, social media etc.&#xA; &#xA; &#xA; - Make with image-editing software pornactrices and pornactors so attractive that real men and women look pale, ugly and unattractive in comparison.&#xA; &#xA; &#xA; - Promote alternative (non-cis/non-heterosexual) gender identities and sexual orientations. Most/a lot resulting intercourse probably cannot lead to offspring.&#xA; &#xA; - Interacting with other humans in general and intercourse specifically can be joyous. However both can also be a source of potential deadly diseases, for example: AIDS, syphilis, corona. Spread this message!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10737" RevisionGUID="82bc63f4-2fd9-4d36-8e02-fa0d83d261bd" CreationDate="2021-08-04T04:27:36.707" UserId="12077" Text="Try Terracycle, look on their website as they recycle hard to recycle items and have a mixture of paid for and free schemes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28127" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10700" RevisionGUID="b0c2d2dc-0af0-4b34-b44c-803d1b2a40cb" CreationDate="2021-08-04T06:00:06.717" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1422799487244853249" />
  <row Id="28128" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10738" RevisionGUID="24bca378-42f6-4478-9b59-730a7e97c615" CreationDate="2021-08-04T19:11:08.193" UserId="12054" Text="Today i had about an 2 hour long conversation with the local park ranger. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;He assured me that all measures are made to make sure that the environmental impact is kept to a minimum. But he also said that there was a limit to what they could do, their budget only covers about 80% of what is needed to keep everything going on a year to year basis and they are forced to allow such things (by the local government) to increase their funding... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least the worst exhibits were blocked...one with tonal music and one with flashing lights seeing they would upset the fauna to much. Also the giant sugar ball is getting removed due to a high number of insect deaths. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10740" RevisionGUID="5d2ae67a-60e3-4ddc-b647-0e644552dd25" CreationDate="2021-08-04T21:38:02.270" UserId="12090" Text="FYI I believe it was July 2020 the 10 KW AC was changed to 15 KW AC before incurring standby charges. Not sure if you have looked at this lately, but came across this explanation trying to help a customer that wants a larger system and I know it is 15 KW now. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28134" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10729" RevisionGUID="b2ff03c5-07fc-4f7f-851c-710f45e8217d" CreationDate="2021-08-05T15:00:05.113" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1423297763798888449" />
  <row Id="28135" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10741" RevisionGUID="078816e2-21dd-42e3-97ad-c561753c1b59" CreationDate="2021-08-05T20:45:25.603" UserId="12095" Text="My company Green City Living addressed this in 2014 when I invented the Bacon Sponge.  It’s an absorbent towel that releases the grease when soaked in hot water and a degreaser soap like Mrs Meyer or Dawn for 15 minutes.  Then it can be washed in the laundry with towels.    https://greencityliving.earth/products/bacon-sponge-unpaper-towel-for-grease" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28136" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10741" RevisionGUID="72422b99-05e6-4d40-a94f-9fac2ecec90f" CreationDate="2021-08-05T21:03:34.647" UserId="12095" Comment="added 37 characters in body" Text="My company Green City Living addressed this in 2014 when I invented the Bacon Sponge.  It’s an absorbent towel that releases the grease when soaked in hot water and a degreaser soap like Mrs Meyer or Dawn for 15 minutes.  Then it can be washed in the laundry with towels.   It’s 100% cotton and  biodegradable.  https://greencityliving.earth/products/bacon-sponge-unpaper-towel-for-grease" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28139" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="2413" RevisionGUID="564e29b3-0107-4b7c-a6fe-a622315f8150" CreationDate="2021-08-05T21:34:36.563" UserId="3379" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3115" RevisionGUID="5de7a9d0-fefd-4e9e-8686-2cc7d51e1e5d" CreationDate="2021-08-06T15:03:55.690" UserId="-1" Comment="removed snark while keeping important content intact" Text="I have been using this method for years, on both my Toyota and my Ford Explorer. I save lots of gas, nothing has ever happened to my batteries, and have never had a mechanical problem. You need to use common sense. I typically shut it off when it's a long light and I'm in a long line, railroad crossings, and any other situation where it's going to be at least a minute wait.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no need to panic about a mechanical issue or the battery going bad; it isn't any different than shutting the car off at the mall or the grocery store. If the battery went bad in a parking lot somewhere or if a mechanical problem developed, it's just normal wear and tear. Starting a car in the roadway is not different than starting it in your driveway or the parking lot of a grocery store. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28144" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3115" RevisionGUID="5de7a9d0-fefd-4e9e-8686-2cc7d51e1e5d" CreationDate="2021-08-06T15:03:55.690" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 2345, 1056 edit id of 677" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10721" RevisionGUID="8450a8c3-5e21-4ea2-ae4a-d9245f6f0efd" CreationDate="2021-08-06T15:19:35.120" UserId="1056" Comment="Removed inaccurate and unfounded claim about transmission loss from wind farms." Text="My brother is a bicycle fanatic, a former engineer, and a current nurse.  According to his calculations ... Lance Armstrong (with some chemical enhancement) is likely the single greatest generator of electricity in the human race.  According to brother's calculations ... Lance could roughly keep a 60 to 75 watt bulb (incandescent, better with LED) going during his maximum cycles.  Realizing the best kids are going to be about half of that ... this is something only government would invest in ... because the costs would be 100x or more over the benefit.  Even in a gym's spin class (far better source than a playground) ... you might only spend 20x as much as the benefit you would get." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28149" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="f170bab7-148c-49b6-9f93-1e5687e73f14" CreationDate="2021-08-08T06:40:15.103" UserId="9669" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="Synthetic fibers [make up][1] the largest share of total apparel production and are expected to become even more common. They also, it [seems][2], contribute to microplastic pollution more than anything else. Could synthetic fibers be ever environmentally-friendly, can you deal with the issue of microfibers (for example, by replacing oil-based polyester with bio-based one, I'm not sure there's a difference)? Or do you have to get rid of this phenomenon altogether?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://hs0010910.jnu.edu.cn/_upload/article/files/40/1a/ec492aca44bc8826b64c4749219c/8c5d440e-b209-4646-8e10-b218eaf5c7af.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28150" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="4743f19c-9481-4ee4-b985-8dd402798c0e" CreationDate="2021-08-08T06:41:25.803" UserId="9669" Comment="68" />
  <row Id="28151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10743" RevisionGUID="596dd3b7-fc53-4ae1-9f67-4514595d7fce" CreationDate="2021-08-08T07:35:36.067" UserId="9669" Text="The FSC certification is supposed to be granted to &quot;responsible&quot; producers of timber, but Greenpeace [doesn't][1] see much difference between certified and non-certified patches of forest in commercial use. Is FSC certification something I should pay attention to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-international-stateless/2021/04/b1e486be-greenpeace-international-report-destruction-certified_finaloptimised.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28152" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10743" RevisionGUID="596dd3b7-fc53-4ae1-9f67-4514595d7fce" CreationDate="2021-08-08T07:35:36.067" UserId="9669" Text="Is FSC certification something I should pay attention to?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28153" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10743" RevisionGUID="596dd3b7-fc53-4ae1-9f67-4514595d7fce" CreationDate="2021-08-08T07:35:36.067" UserId="9669" Text="|forestry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="4e6b2e5a-799b-4875-bb24-e2a5da64e1e3" CreationDate="2021-08-08T08:25:45.563" UserId="9669" Text="Greenpeace is [against][1] GMOs, but [some][2] argue that it helped alleviate the hunger problem in developed countries through improved yields. Is advocating against genetically modified seeds anti-science? Is there a consensus in the academic community on the matter?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/sustainable-agriculture/issues/gmos/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/are-genetically-modified-crops-answer-world-hunger/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28155" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="4e6b2e5a-799b-4875-bb24-e2a5da64e1e3" CreationDate="2021-08-08T08:25:45.563" UserId="9669" Text="Is advocating against genetically modified seeds anti-science?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28156" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10744" RevisionGUID="4e6b2e5a-799b-4875-bb24-e2a5da64e1e3" CreationDate="2021-08-08T08:25:45.563" UserId="9669" Text="|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28157" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="8336aaf3-ed20-48ae-ba6d-14808253f7af" CreationDate="2021-08-08T09:00:00.433" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1424294311206821893" />
  <row Id="28158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10745" RevisionGUID="f5119a65-bd9b-4daf-be8c-81b9fd70db25" CreationDate="2021-08-08T20:24:02.860" UserId="4834" Text="If someone were to argue that GMOs do not exist or that some particular method which has been devised in a scientific manner to create GMO species does not exist or does not work, that would be arguing against the scientific method - which is one way to interpret &quot;arguing against science&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone were to argue that use of GMOs leads to increased negative health outcomes, and makes this argument based on data gathered in a manner consistent with scientific method, this is not &quot;arguing against science&quot; - it is *using* science.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If someone were to argue that it is *better* to have some people get sick because of pesticide use so that other people don't starve to death - or the reverse - this is neither using science nor arguing against science.  The same is true if someone argues that it is wrong to grant patents on particular genetic sequences.  These are both examples of taking an ethical position, something upon which science is largely silent.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10746" RevisionGUID="891f6525-64e0-4763-890f-e2199b2928e8" CreationDate="2021-08-09T03:51:29.820" UserId="1056" Text="Greenpeace is clearly **not anti-science**; they are not opposed to scientific practices such as research and publishing. Their [2015 report on pesticides](https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-international-stateless/2015/05/881fa243-pesticides-and-our-health.pdf) which includes over 150 reference citations, many of which refer to peer-reviewed scientific journals. Using references to scientific papers to construct an argument is the *modus operandi* of the scientist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disagreement among scientists doesn't mean anyone is anti-science. Scientists do not agree about everything all the time, but rather they build on shared research to create a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the world around us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Being *anti-science* means having the belief that science cannot reliably provide the understanding that it claims to provide. You will know an anti-scientist not from their citations and research, but from the absence thereof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10743" RevisionGUID="6478c8d1-1805-47bb-a1db-f575e423e7c7" CreationDate="2021-08-09T03:54:06.153" UserId="1056" Comment="add link to Forestry Stewardship Council (best not to rely too heavily on acronyms!)" Text="The [Forest Stewardship Council](https://fsc.org/en) (FSC) certification is supposed to be granted to &quot;responsible&quot; producers of timber, but Greenpeace [doesn't][1] see much difference between certified and non-certified patches of forest in commercial use. Is FSC certification something I should pay attention to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-international-stateless/2021/04/b1e486be-greenpeace-international-report-destruction-certified_finaloptimised.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28161" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="10743" RevisionGUID="d8f8abb9-90ab-43cf-9e01-622b218860da" CreationDate="2021-08-09T03:59:44.057" UserId="1056" Comment="105" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:1056,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Nic&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="e4beabb4-672f-478a-a1ec-4ad2998529ea" CreationDate="2021-08-09T07:15:39.633" UserId="9669" Text="How is lumbering bad for the climate? Don't final products still store that carbon? What do those calculations ([example][1]) mean? The report says it doesn't include in-use storage because of the low life-cycle of paper products. But if they imply that the carbon would be shortly released from a landfill or incinerator anyway, then I don't get why landfill emissions are so much lower from calculated carbon storage sequestration (sometimes, see p. 3-6, the emissions are negative, i.e. discarded paper products act as a sink). But speaking generally, what harm does deforestation do (unless the logged wood is burned, either intentionally or not)? The carbon would be stored either in soil (e.g. sawdust) or final products, wouldn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/warm_containers_packaging_and_non-durable_goods_materials_v15_10-29-2020.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28163" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="e4beabb4-672f-478a-a1ec-4ad2998529ea" CreationDate="2021-08-09T07:15:39.633" UserId="9669" Text="How is lumbering bad for the climate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28164" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="e4beabb4-672f-478a-a1ec-4ad2998529ea" CreationDate="2021-08-09T07:15:39.633" UserId="9669" Text="|forestry|climate-change|deforestation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28165" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10747" RevisionGUID="306abbbc-f0e9-4e17-8b75-b3f62556cfc9" CreationDate="2021-08-09T07:25:30.500" UserId="9669" Comment="added 139 characters in body" Text="How is lumbering bad for the climate? Don't final products still store that carbon? What do those calculations mean ([example][1] *[ch. 3]*, [methodology][2] *[ch. 4]*)? The report says it doesn't include in-use storage because of the low life-cycle of paper products. But if they imply that the carbon would be shortly released from a landfill or incinerator anyway, then I don't get why landfill emissions are so much lower from calculated carbon storage sequestration (sometimes, see p. 3-6, the emissions are negative, i.e. discarded paper products act as a sink). But speaking generally, what harm does deforestation do (unless the logged wood is burned, either intentionally or not)? The carbon would be stored either in soil (e.g. sawdust) or final products, wouldn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/warm_containers_packaging_and_non-durable_goods_materials_v15_10-29-2020.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/warm_background_v15_10-29-2020.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10748" RevisionGUID="dc98b06e-7398-48a8-b664-90a4bfd3e9fa" CreationDate="2021-08-09T13:27:04.777" UserId="6393" Text="Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a forest that is cleared with no intention whatsoever to re-plant a new forest, that is bad for the climate. You can't make all of the trees into lumber, you will have waste products like small diameter treetops (too small to make lumber from it, can be used as pulpwood), roots, branches and lots of sawdust. Those waste products will eventually decompose or alternatively can be burned immediately for energy. Either way, they release their carbon dioxide into atmosphere and since no new forest was planted, the carbon dioxide won't be sequestered again. At least that part of lumber that was used to create furniture or build houses retains the carbon for some time but the forest wasn't re-planted so no new carbon will be sequestered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, let us consider a different kind of forestry: sustainable forestry. If you have a forest that is on the end of its growth cycle, so old that it is at equilibrium and the carbon stored in the forest won't increase. Now if you cut the forest, you make room for new forest to grow and store more carbon (some countries like Finland mandate that a new forest must be planted). Out of the cut trees, you get treetops and other small diameter wood (good for pulpwood to make packaging products like cardboard that displace plastic products made from oil), roots (you can burn to energy and return the ashes as fertilizer to accelerate growth of new forest), branches (the same), sawdust (the same). Out of the forest that had ceased to be a net carbon sink, you get lots of bioenergy (and return the ashes as fertilizer), lots of wood-based packaging material (that displace packaging materials made from oil), and lots of lumber that is used to build for example houses and furniture that act as a permanent carbon sink for &gt;100 years. Some of the lumber is left over, but that can be burned to energy while returning the ashes back to the forest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's a question of what kind of forestry you want to do. In the country where I live, Finland, sustainable forestry is the only kind of forestry. Unfortunately the European Union consisting of countries that have long time ago eliminated their forests is attempting to mandate what kind of forestry practices can be used in Finland, but fortunately Finnish politicians have had good success in telling European Union that no mandates are needed since we only have already sustainable forestry." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10749" RevisionGUID="586886a8-89af-4775-b4e9-76d112c37480" CreationDate="2021-08-09T13:34:22.540" UserId="6393" Text="The power produced would be so small scale and have so poor capacity factor that it isn't worth the effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, you need investments. You can't make power without equipment. You need a generator. A wind turbine for example has a generator that makes power at 30% capacity factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A playground? If we assume it's used 5 hours per day (and produces always power at the same rate), that's only about 20% capacity factor, worse than wind turbines. So your power production scheme can't really compete with wind turbines but requires the same investment for generators that run at a very poor capacity factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also children aren't machines that produce power at exactly the same rate. I suppose the power produced would fluctuate a lot and to allow generating power during the peaks at peak power, you need excess capacity. So the 20% capacity factor at non-fluctuating power output actually turns into something like 10% capacity factor. That's worse than solar power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also your power production scheme that can't compete with wind or solar based on capacity factor also can't compete with quantity. A child may produce perhaps 100 watts and at 10% capacity factor that's 10 watts average. To put that into perspective, the human population uses around 5000 watts per capita and &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000-watt_society&quot;&gt;there have been unsuccessful proposals to reduce that to 2000 watts per capita&lt;/a&gt;. Considering that perhaps 15% of the population are children of the age that produce the 10 watts average, it means you get 1.5 watts per capita. Try satisfying your power need of 5000 watts per capita from that and you see why it won't be successful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28168" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10750" RevisionGUID="98511315-81db-4046-b04a-327c9c3757b7" CreationDate="2021-08-09T13:49:32.403" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; How much resources are really saved by this process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very little. In fact, so little that for example Toyota that used to have a stop/start system in they Yaris small car got rid of the system (probably because it requires beefied up battery and starter motor that are more expensive than in non-stop/start systems).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My journey to work is driving at about 50 km/h average speed but 20 km journey takes half hours. So I assume a commute has about 6 minutes of idling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A car uses 0.7 liters per hour idling. So 0.07 liters of fuel is saved for my commute. At fuel consumption of 6.5 liters / 100 km, the commute takes 1.3 liters of fuel. That's only 5% savings. In contrast, we have technologies like hybrid vehicles that allow far greater reductions in fuel consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does the car need to be designed differently to make this effective? For example, do they make the ignition system different?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several differences in normal cars and stop/start cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, a stop/start car has a beefied up battery. In higher end vehicles it may be expensive absorbed glass mat battery, but cheaper stop/start vehicles use enhanced flooded batteries that have plates withstanding more use at slightly lower states of charge than 100% full and withstand cycling better. Also the stop/start system has a beefier starter motor that is rated for more cycles than on non-stop/start cars. Also usually the system has a counter that counts how many times the stop/start motor has been operated and tells the driver when to replace the stop/start motor to resume the stop/start functionality (when the lifetime is over, it starts to work like an ordinary non-stop/start car).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, usually stop/start systems have engines with variable valve timing in intake and exhaust sides that allow minimal effective compression ratio at the time the engine is restarted. This makes for a very smooth restart process by minimizing the amount of energy needed to restart the engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The HVAC system also has improvements. For example, in stop/start cars the blower motor is often automatically controlled to have minimum possible speed during engine stop (this may be omitted in manual HVAC systems), and also there is automatic engine restart if the the temperature inside the car becomes too hot (requiring AC which requires engine to be on) or cold (requiring heat from engine).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, the battery is saved by a low voltage detection circuit that automatically turns the engine on if the battery voltage becomes too low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can we do the same manually (just remember to shut down when stopping, and start again when the light turns green) and get similar benefits?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. You'll wear your starter motor and your battery if doing that. Normal batteries aren't designed to continuously cyclically produce power for the lighting system when the engine is off, and normal starter motors will be worn out in no time if doing that. Also you lack the conveniences like auto-restart on too hot or cold temperature, and the essential feature which restarts the engine automatically if battery voltage becomes too low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it's less convenient to not have the engine automatically restart when pressing the clutch or releasing the brake. Furthermore restart will be more rough because the car may not have dual variable valve timing minimizing compression ratio of restart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The battery could obviously be replaced with a battery that withstands abuse, the type of battery used in stop/start cars, but you probably can't replace the starter motor with a stop/start variant because you may not find a compatible stop/start starter motor for your car that originally had non-stop/start starter motor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28169" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10751" RevisionGUID="dc766de3-a4fc-44e7-b7a6-8a18fcdc0fb6" CreationDate="2021-08-09T15:27:47.387" UserId="3379" Text="I recently removed some goldenrod that had started to take over the pollinator habitat in my front garden. In researching plants that will do well to replace it, I'm having trouble determining what plants are *native.* Lots of gardening websites tell me if it will *grow* in my area, but I want to know if it is native. Many lists of [invasive species](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species) focus on plants that are aggressively invasive, but there seems to be a gap in information about plants that aren't native, but aren't aggressive either. Just because it won't cause readily apparent ecosystem disruption, doesn't mean it's okay to plant a foreign species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there a good resource to determine the native territories of plants I am thinking about planting in my garden?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28170" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10751" RevisionGUID="dc766de3-a4fc-44e7-b7a6-8a18fcdc0fb6" CreationDate="2021-08-09T15:27:47.387" UserId="3379" Text="How to find out if a plant is native to my area?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28171" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10751" RevisionGUID="dc766de3-a4fc-44e7-b7a6-8a18fcdc0fb6" CreationDate="2021-08-09T15:27:47.387" UserId="3379" Text="|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28175" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="33" RevisionGUID="5b6cadda-1824-46ec-a1f6-615381557635" CreationDate="2021-08-09T21:00:04.970" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1424837911674073090" />
  <row Id="28176" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10753" RevisionGUID="46108970-89b8-4e1e-bd65-551c38263d64" CreationDate="2021-08-10T04:36:23.880" UserId="2345" Text="There is a beta website by [The National Wildlife Federation][1] that claims to list native plants for North America by zip code. For zip code 53011, it produced [this page][2]. Which lists:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - goldenrod Solidago Asterales&#xD;&#xA; - strawberry Fragaria Rosales&#xD;&#xA; - sunflower Helianthus Asterales&#xD;&#xA; - deer vetch, trefoil Lotus Fabales&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nwf.org/Garden-for-Wildlife/About/Native-Plants&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nwf.org/NativePlantFinder/Plants" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10753" RevisionGUID="7631f9e1-a766-42db-aa46-a11a51729bad" CreationDate="2021-08-10T04:48:49.383" UserId="2345" Comment="Added more links" Text="There is a beta website by [The National Wildlife Federation][1] that claims to list native plants for North America by zip code. For zip code 53011, it produced [this page][2]. Which lists:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - goldenrod Solidago Asterales&#xD;&#xA; - strawberry Fragaria Rosales&#xD;&#xA; - sunflower Helianthus Asterales&#xD;&#xA; - deer vetch, trefoil Lotus Fabales&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Along with others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The website for [The Biota of North America Program North American Vascular Flora][3] may be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively you could contact the [Native Plant Society][4] for the State where you live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nwf.org/Garden-for-Wildlife/About/Native-Plants&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nwf.org/NativePlantFinder/Plants&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://www.bonap.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: http://www.ecosystemgardening.com/native-plant-societies-in-north-america.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10754" RevisionGUID="db1ed9fe-a35a-46d9-9ac1-a9da1f1461ec" CreationDate="2021-08-10T11:05:35.850" UserId="4158" Text="Fairly authorative sources would be books used typically by botanists/biologists/ecologists/... to determine native plant species: these so-called 'floras' aim to include literally all native species, as wel as non-native ones which are fairly common and/or problematic. Principle:&#xD;&#xA;- if it's mentioned in the book it wil either not explicitly state anything in which case it is a native plant, or otherwise will explicitly say non-native and perhaps specify additional details like whether the plant is used (and escaped) as a crop or garden plant&#xD;&#xA;- if it's not in the book it is not native&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of these books might also be available in digital form on a website (i.e. including the determination tables), and there might be official (state-funded) and other websites listing all these species as well but just not providing the determination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead of turning to reading material you could also figure out which nature organizations are active in your area and contact them. Usually they'll already have answers on their websites for the typical 'how do I get my garden to fit into the local native ecosystem as good as possible' questions, because these questions are rather common.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I post this as an answer because it is too long for a comment, and know all of the above-mentioned material for my area, but the problem is I do not know which are the de-facto standard books for the U.S. (or better yet: for your particular state). This might help though: https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/features/books/index.shtml. Likewise for the websites: a simple search for 'us online plant recognition' yields a ton f result but I cannot account for how well they work (i.e. can they correctly determine the species?) nor how good the provided information is." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10751" RevisionGUID="043e3cf0-9a6c-430c-a2bc-2791dc46ffe6" CreationDate="2021-08-10T13:20:04.140" UserId="3379" Comment="added 110 characters in body" Text="I recently removed some goldenrod that had started to take over the pollinator habitat in my front garden. In researching plants that will do well to replace it, I'm having trouble determining what plants are *native.* Lots of gardening websites tell me if it will *grow* in my area, but I want to know if it is native. Many lists of [invasive species](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species) focus on plants that are aggressively invasive, but there seems to be a gap in information about plants that aren't native, but aren't aggressive either. Just because it won't cause readily apparent ecosystem disruption, doesn't mean it's okay to plant a foreign species.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is there a good resource to determine the native territories of plants I am thinking about planting in my garden?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm located in Madison, Wisconsin, U.S., but hoping for resources that cover a broad range of territories." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28181" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10647" RevisionGUID="7804ecd3-0a0d-4ca2-9d12-8b98bd6df795" CreationDate="2021-08-13T08:04:45.497" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="28182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10756" RevisionGUID="ff21b12e-de7f-4d36-bb33-68ea8e946848" CreationDate="2021-08-13T08:56:15.267" UserId="2846" Text="I'll address a few of your points, though maybe not the overall question:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* They are often parked randomly, making it hard to walk if the sidewalk has lots of randomly scattered scooters that are often not in standing position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An irritation (or worse e.g. to wheelchair users), a hazard, but only a sustainability issue as far it affects public acceptance and choices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* They have a very high injury rate per kilometer, far above that of bicycles, probably around that of motorcycles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A major problem, and to some extent inherent to the design (small wheels, short wheelbase) combined with the speeds they reach (jumping off at speed to  avoid a crash is more likely to result in injury than with an unpowered kick-scooter) and the state of the roads. At the same time, used on pavements (sidewalks) they're a risk to pedestrians, but on road they're less visible and more vulnerable than bikes. Lack of helmet wearing is a contributing factor, to the extent that I wouldn't be surprised if helmets became compulsory, and that was extended to bikes at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again the main sustainability aspect is public acceptance of the risks, especially to non-riders.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The scooters have a short lifetime and often break early, so the company needs to continuously discard a large stream of broken scooters and replace them with new scooters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is important, but comes back to the more general repair/replace issue.  The early failures should be repairable (vandalism and theft may not be of course) so if they're being scrapped and replaced that counters the green credentials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The diesel van that collects the scooters during the end of the day and distributes them again for use early in the morning causes emissions even though the scooters themselves are advertised as &quot;emission free&quot;.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You assume they're gathered up at night - that's not exactly true on any scheme I've seen.  Yes there's some repositioning and charging going on, but not nearly as much as you imply given how many I see scattered around early in the morning.  This could be reduced further by only allowing parking in designated places as many bike schemes do, which would also address the littering aspect.  *The need to get them to a charger (or get a charger to them) is probably the biggest energy consumer of the whole system.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The van could be an EV, charged off-peak using renewable sources; even a modern diesel doing the rounds of the scooter parking has lower emissions and is better for urban air quality than a few cars.  For the rental *bike* scheme here the van avoids the rush hour, so less waiting in traffic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have already calculated that for a person earning average salary and paying corresponding tax, it usually doesn't make sense to rent such a shared scooter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your financial calculations are only one way of looking at it.  For most people comparing wages with rental is irrelevant.  They may want to spend the money and get there quicker, or they may not, but *most people can't stay in work and earn an extra 10 minutes pay*. They either get paid a fixed salary or they get paid hourly with little control over the actual hours; overtime increments are usually longer than the journey length even when overtime is truly optional.  On the other hand if you can get a cheaper off-peak train and still get to work on time by scooting the last mile, they have a financial benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now many of my &quot;could&quot; points are actually done by some schemes, which means there will be a big variation between the energy implications of each scheme." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28184" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="4907" RevisionGUID="442e0bf2-c4e6-4b00-afd8-8ce2713609a2" CreationDate="2021-08-13T12:41:15.697" UserId="3379" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="28185" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="15660a89-99cc-455a-888a-ad954ae915d4" CreationDate="2021-08-13T17:34:05.153" UserId="1056" Comment="removed broken links, added headings, improved readability" Text="[Ayurveda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda), an ancient science of life, food, medicine &amp; healing and sister science to Yoga, provides these suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Datun / Datoon can made from plant stems&#xD;&#xA;- Dant Manjan / Herbal Tooth Powder also from herbal preparations. (*PS. The word 'Dant' (think Dental) is Sanskrit/Hindi for Tooth/Teeth. So, ever wonder where your modern dental techniques came from?*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoted from [Rajiv Dixit's talks on Prakrutik Chikitsa i.e. Natural Medicine][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12 types of [daatoon (plant stems/ twigs)][3] can be used only.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - There are 3 basic season and 3 sub seasons. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Summers [neem][4] daatoon, [babool][5],&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Winters, [amrood][6] is best, [jaamoon][7] is next&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Rains – mango, [Arjun][8]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dant Manjans (Powder)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan   – daaru  - haldi {turmeric}, salt, sarso/ mustard oil &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 2 – burn dried gobar {cow dung}, add haldi and sendha namak to it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 3 – [triphala choorna][9], sendha namak. This is the only one that can be used in all seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mango Leaves - Chew - make paste - Rub on teeth - Amazing whitener&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;From: [Types of Salts][10]:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Sendha namak (Rock salt)**. A large crystalline salt that's usually used for making ice cream in ice cream machines. Food grade rock salt is also available to use in regular cooking.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Kala namak (Black salt). This is a dark, reddish-black colored crystalline salt that turns a pinkish grey color when ground up. It has a distinct sulfurous odor and taste.&#xD;&#xA;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Commercial Preparations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some commercial preparations that use these components and great blends of the same. Outline of Commercial Preparations suggested by Ayurvedic experts that I use: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Vicco Vajradanti Tooth Powder][11] - Coarse Powder of dried Stems/ Herbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - I had gum bleeding for decades &amp; have close friends &amp; cousins who are dentists and that never stopped. Gum bleeding is not just a dental issue, it is said to be connected with Blood imbalance/ impurity&#xD;&#xA;  - Another fellow yogi told me how with a week of using these his bleeding stopped. Tried and got the same result.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Patanjali Dant Kanti Tooth Paste][12]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - My toothpase of daily use. Although I feel the above powder with my fingers is way better for tooth health. I use both in conjunction.   &#xD;&#xA;  - Use less of tooth brushes and carefully as they damage soft gums. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Vicco Vajradanti_Paste][13]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - There are several other brands that make similar herb based formulations for dental care. I'll update as I try &amp; evaluate more of them, myself &amp; expert advise.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colgate tried to patent some of this but was thrown out due to prior known knowledge: [Reddit: India_blocks_colgate_patents_for_spices][14].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Ayurvedic principles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mentioned Ayurvedic solutions focus on one principle in Ayurveda: 6 tastes;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- where Sweet, Salty and Bitter &amp; Astringent tasting items have different effect on a persons system  &#xD;&#xA;- and how each of them is needed in right amount and in the right order  &#xD;&#xA;- Typically ending with Bitter/ Astringent items (to cleanse/ sanitize the palate) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such items are suggested above for dental usage, and also used as after-mint or after food chewing, using betel nuts or betel leaves. {In excessive abuse, it also has a negative effect}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Ancient Rome&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar principle seems to have been present in the Pompeii / ancient Roman excavations.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://qz.com/516672/ancient-romans-had-no-need-for-dentists-because-of-one-food-they-didnt-eat/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  revealed in a press conference that the ancient Romans had perfect teeth and “no immediate discernible need for dentists,” according news agency Agenzia Giornalistica Italia. Though Pompeii citizens never used toothbrushes or toothpaste, they had healthy teeth thanks to their low-sugar diet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20160907221134/http://rootsandshoots.ning.com/forum/topics/summary-of-rajiv-dixit-s-lectures-on-ayurveda-based-on-mharishi&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teeth_cleaning_twig&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azadirachta_indica&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vachellia_nilotica&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guava&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygium_cumini&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminalia_arjuna&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triphala&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://caloriebee.com/nutrition/Types-Of-Salts-Sendha-Namak-Rock-Salt-And-Kala-Namak-Black-Salt&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_powder.php&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://patanjaliayurved.net/product/dant-kanti/91&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_paste.php&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3dv4q1/india_blocks_colgate_patents_for_spices/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10757" RevisionGUID="0f7b0777-dce1-441f-a5d9-021d3d1cbfb2" CreationDate="2021-08-13T17:58:34.340" UserId="1056" Text="I remember seeing many news articles and posts on social media saying that a single container ship pollutes as much as 50 million cars. Is this true? How could that be possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![A container ship on the high seas. The ship is named &quot;EVER GIVEN&quot;.][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- https://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/11/23/1618229/one-giant-cargo-ship-pollutes-as-much-as-50m-cars&#xD;&#xA;- https://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/&#xD;&#xA;- https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1020063_pollution-perspective-one-giant-cargo-ship-emits-as-much-as-50-million-cars&#xD;&#xA;- https://go.enfos.com/blog/2015/06/23/behemoths-of-emission-how-a-container-ship-can-out-pollute-50-million-cars&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AuYhT.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28187" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10757" RevisionGUID="0f7b0777-dce1-441f-a5d9-021d3d1cbfb2" CreationDate="2021-08-13T17:58:34.340" UserId="1056" Text="Does 1 container ship really pollute as much as 50,000,000 cars?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28188" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10757" RevisionGUID="0f7b0777-dce1-441f-a5d9-021d3d1cbfb2" CreationDate="2021-08-13T17:58:34.340" UserId="1056" Text="|carbon-footprint|transport|pollution|cars|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10758" RevisionGUID="df665c5b-59dc-40e2-b773-893b22ff10a2" CreationDate="2021-08-13T20:25:52.170" UserId="7993" Text="It depends on how you define &quot;pollution&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cargo ships use some of the dirtiest fuels available: [bunker fuel][1] is basically what's left over after you refine all the good stuff out of crude oil.  It's got all sorts of contaminants that something like gasoline or jet fuel doesn't have.  On top of that, there are basically no regulations on emissions by cargo ships.  This results in very high emissions of nitrogen and sulfur oxides, while cars emit almost none -- a ratio of 50 million to 1 is not unreasonable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon dioxide emissions are a different story.  Cargo ships are the most fuel-efficient way of moving things from one place to another, while passenger cars are the least.  Per ton of cargo moved, cargo ships are between a hundred and a thousand times more efficient than cars, depending on how heavily-loaded the car is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil#Bunker_fuel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28190" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4945" RevisionGUID="f817a99a-9466-4041-ba58-20c9e83ef277" CreationDate="2021-08-13T21:03:26.130" UserId="3379" Comment="Fixed broken link." Text="[Ayurveda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda), an ancient science of life, food, medicine &amp; healing and sister science to Yoga, provides these suggestions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Datun / Datoon can made from plant stems&#xD;&#xA;- Dant Manjan / Herbal Tooth Powder also from herbal preparations. (*PS. The word 'Dant' (think Dental) is Sanskrit/Hindi for Tooth/Teeth. So, ever wonder where your modern dental techniques came from?*)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Quoted from [Rajiv Dixit's talks on Prakrutik Chikitsa i.e. Natural Medicine][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 12 types of [daatoon (plant stems/ twigs)][3] can be used only.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - There are 3 basic season and 3 sub seasons. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Summers [neem][4] daatoon, [babool][5],&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Winters, [amrood][6] is best, [jaamoon][7] is next&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Rains – mango, [Arjun][8]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Dant Manjans (Powder)&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan   – daaru  - haldi {turmeric}, salt, sarso/ mustard oil &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 2 – burn dried gobar {cow dung}, add haldi and sendha namak to it.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  - Dant manjan 3 – [triphala choorna][9], sendha namak. This is the only one that can be used in all seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Mango Leaves - Chew - make paste - Rub on teeth - Amazing whitener&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From: [Types of Salts][10]:  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Sendha namak (Rock salt)**. A large crystalline salt that's usually used for making ice cream in ice cream machines. Food grade rock salt is also available to use in regular cooking.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Kala namak (Black salt)**. This is a dark, reddish-black colored crystalline salt that turns a pinkish grey color when ground up. It has a distinct sulfurous odor and taste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Commercial Preparations&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some commercial preparations that use these components and great blends of the same. Outline of Commercial Preparations suggested by Ayurvedic experts that I use: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Vicco Vajradanti Tooth Powder][11] - Coarse Powder of dried Stems/ Herbs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - I had gum bleeding for decades &amp; have close friends &amp; cousins who are dentists and that never stopped. Gum bleeding is not just a dental issue, it is said to be connected with Blood imbalance/ impurity&#xD;&#xA;  - Another fellow yogi told me how with a week of using these his bleeding stopped. Tried and got the same result.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Patanjali Dant Kanti Tooth Paste][12]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - My toothpase of daily use. Although I feel the above powder with my fingers is way better for tooth health. I use both in conjunction.   &#xD;&#xA;  - Use less of tooth brushes and carefully as they damage soft gums. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Vicco Vajradanti_Paste][13]  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - There are several other brands that make similar herb based formulations for dental care. I'll update as I try &amp; evaluate more of them, myself &amp; expert advise.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colgate tried to patent some of this but was thrown out due to prior known knowledge: [Reddit: India_blocks_colgate_patents_for_spices][14].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Ayurvedic principles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mentioned Ayurvedic solutions focus on one principle in Ayurveda: 6 tastes;   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- where Sweet, Salty and Bitter &amp; Astringent tasting items have different effect on a persons system  &#xD;&#xA;- and how each of them is needed in right amount and in the right order  &#xD;&#xA;- Typically ending with Bitter/ Astringent items (to cleanse/ sanitize the palate) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such items are suggested above for dental usage, and also used as after-mint or after food chewing, using betel nuts or betel leaves. {In excessive abuse, it also has a negative effect}&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Ancient Rome&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar principle seems to have been present in the Pompeii / ancient Roman excavations.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://qz.com/516672/ancient-romans-had-no-need-for-dentists-because-of-one-food-they-didnt-eat/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  revealed in a press conference that the ancient Romans had perfect teeth and “no immediate discernible need for dentists,” according news agency Agenzia Giornalistica Italia. Though Pompeii citizens never used toothbrushes or toothpaste, they had healthy teeth thanks to their low-sugar diet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20160907221134/http://rootsandshoots.ning.com/forum/topics/summary-of-rajiv-dixit-s-lectures-on-ayurveda-based-on-mharishi&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teeth_cleaning_twig&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azadirachta_indica&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vachellia_nilotica&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guava&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygium_cumini&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminalia_arjuna&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triphala&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://caloriebee.com/nutrition/Types-Of-Salts-Sendha-Namak-Rock-Salt-And-Kala-Namak-Black-Salt&#xD;&#xA;  [11]: http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_powder.php&#xD;&#xA;  [12]: http://patanjaliayurved.net/product/dant-kanti/91&#xD;&#xA;  [13]: http://www.viccolabs.com/product_vajradanti_paste.php&#xD;&#xA;  [14]: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3dv4q1/india_blocks_colgate_patents_for_spices/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28191" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="10759" RevisionGUID="598557af-47bf-4664-a7c5-7368d481aeb9" CreationDate="2021-08-14T02:10:50.333" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/658233/electricity-need-to-switch-all-cars-from-fossil-fuel" />
  <row Id="28192" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10759" RevisionGUID="d4cd841a-2df0-4da7-a9fa-c225d40366fc" CreationDate="2021-08-09T09:38:09.487" UserId="12101" Text="For purely hypothetical discussion, I was asking myself how big electrical production increase would be needed for a first-world country when switching all cars from fossil fuel to EV only.&#xD;&#xA;I made the calculation myself for the country I live in ([Italy][1], though the reasoning in principle would be valid for any chosen country), but the result is somehow unconvincing to me. So I would like to share my reasoning here and read you comments about it.&#xD;&#xA;Please note this is a very rough estimation, so please point out lack of precision in the calculation only when really matters to the general result, keeping in mind this is a very high level calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the examples I will reference data from 2019 which are the most recent complete dataset I was able to find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The annual consumption of fuel for transportation was 7.3 million metric tons in gasoline and 23.8 million metric tons in diesel. The energy content is 46.9 MJ/kg for gasoline and   45.8 MJ/kg for diesel.&#xD;&#xA;The energy content sums up to about 344 PJ and 1090 PJ respectively. Converting to Wh (for easy comparison with electric consumption data) the total is just short of 400 TWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found out that the efficiency of an internal combustion engine mounted on a vehicle is something around 20% - 35%, so I assumed an average value of 30% for the sake of simplicity.&#xD;&#xA;So the *real* energy that goes to motion is around 120 TWh.&#xD;&#xA;The efficiency of a full electric vehicle seems to me to be around 75%, so the electricity needed to charge that hypothetical EV fleet would be a little less than 160 TWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the same year 2019, the electricity consumption in Italy was 320 TWh.&#xD;&#xA;So the conclusion of all this reasoning is that a country should roughly add 50% of its electrical production to support a full transition to electrical mobility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instinctively this seems way too much: have I made any serious error in my assumptions or calculations? Or is this basically a correct conclusion?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28193" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10759" RevisionGUID="d4cd841a-2df0-4da7-a9fa-c225d40366fc" CreationDate="2021-08-09T09:38:09.487" UserId="12101" Text="Electricity need to switch all cars from fossil fuel" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28194" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10759" RevisionGUID="d4cd841a-2df0-4da7-a9fa-c225d40366fc" CreationDate="2021-08-09T09:38:09.487" UserId="12101" Text="|energy|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10761" RevisionGUID="2b39ea2a-2042-4b83-827b-18feb2fe3f2d" CreationDate="2021-08-14T03:37:14.883" UserId="3379" Text="By order of magnitude your approximation is reasonable. I compared it to a 2021 analysis performed by Mark Jacobson as part of his [100% Wind, Water, and Solar (WWS) All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for Countries, States, Cities, and Towns](http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USState-plans.html). The results for Italy are available [here (pdf)](http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/143Country/20-WWS-Italy.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a complete electrification of the transport sector by 2050, Table 2 shows an estimated average annual demand of 19.51 GW. Over 8,760 hours per year, this translates to 171 TWh. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between your estimate of 120 TWh is likely accounted for by a few factors:&#xD;&#xA; - Non-petrol loads already on the road (EVs and electric trains or buses)&#xD;&#xA; - A broader definition of transport including trains, boats, and planes&#xD;&#xA; - Growth from 2019 to 2050" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28198" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10759" RevisionGUID="cbd57861-8b9a-4513-9393-81a28b6077de" CreationDate="2021-08-14T04:08:11.303" UserId="1056" Comment="edited tags" Text="|energy|electricity|transport|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28200" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="9b6ef57f-804c-476d-86e8-e680828ee169" CreationDate="2021-08-14T05:36:01.077" UserId="1056" Comment="edited tags" Text="|food|agriculture|food-waste|vegetarianism|crop|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28201" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10759" RevisionGUID="24315727-d2a8-4e5c-b9e8-0c7352d27ddd" CreationDate="2021-08-14T12:00:05.357" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1426513957175574529" />
  <row Id="28202" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="84fae336-12fb-4f9c-9277-462b04884043" CreationDate="2021-08-14T15:52:31.227" UserId="1056" Comment="edited tags" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28203" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10762" RevisionGUID="194f2163-f069-4c51-ba65-fcac7c1e919d" CreationDate="2021-08-14T20:41:47.067" UserId="1056" Text="I live in the Pacific Northwest which has seen some [serious heat waves](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/preliminary-analysis-concludes-pacific-northwest-heat-wave-was-1000-year) this summer, so now I'm considering the possibility of adding of insulating window films on some south-facing windows to reduce indoor daytime temperatures in the summer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am living as a renter in a single-family detached home, which means I'm not supposed to make any permanent changes, especially to the outside of the house. That means I can only install window films if I'm sure it's possible to remove them later on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **is it possible to fully remove a window film** after it has been installed for years, or is it permanently attached to the window? If removal is attempted, does it leave a trace or residue on the window?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28204" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10762" RevisionGUID="194f2163-f069-4c51-ba65-fcac7c1e919d" CreationDate="2021-08-14T20:41:47.067" UserId="1056" Text="Can window films be fully removed from a window?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28205" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10762" RevisionGUID="194f2163-f069-4c51-ba65-fcac7c1e919d" CreationDate="2021-08-14T20:41:47.067" UserId="1056" Text="|home|cooling|insulation|thermal-regulation|renting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10762" RevisionGUID="983587fd-afce-4480-b165-7e70e2cbb97e" CreationDate="2021-08-14T20:47:56.787" UserId="1056" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="I live in the Pacific Northwest which has seen some [serious heat waves](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/preliminary-analysis-concludes-pacific-northwest-heat-wave-was-1000-year) this summer, so now I'm looking for more ways to keep cool. Aside from air-conditioning, I'm interested in passive techniques to improve indoor comfort, so I am considering the possibility of adding of insulating window films on some south-facing windows to reduce indoor daytime temperatures in the summer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I am living as a renter in a single-family detached home, which means I'm not supposed to make any permanent changes, especially to the outside of the house. That means I can only install window films if I'm sure it's possible to remove them later on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So **is it possible to fully remove a window film** after it has been installed for years, or is it permanently attached to the window? If removal is attempted, does it leave a trace or residue on the window?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28207" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10763" RevisionGUID="1d2556b8-f1d8-4a1b-948e-08916e99d486" CreationDate="2021-08-14T21:22:01.297" UserId="9862" Text="Although this has an accepted answer there is a better way. &#xD;&#xA;There is an electrolysis method where water is charged (think hydrogen peroxide) and that is the cleaning solution. The enhanced water leaves no soap or chemical residue as none is used. &#xD;&#xA;After cleaning the charge breaks down into oxygen and water, If you don’t believe me take some hydrogen peroxide put it in a glass on your window cil and after a few days in the sun check it (this is why the bottles you buy in the store are brown) but even in a brown bottle it will break back down into water and oxygen over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I believe this is the best process to clean and sanitize your carpets, if you wand to do it yourself make sure to dilute any hydrogen peroxide to less than 3% with water or it just may take any color out of the carpet being cleaned. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10764" RevisionGUID="e9cd2d96-b27a-4680-a787-bf2a6f46653d" CreationDate="2021-08-14T23:37:32.713" UserId="1056" Text="I live in the traditionally temperate Pacific Northwest, but after the [heat waves of summer 2021](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Western_North_America_heat_wave) I'm thinking about giving up and finally buying an air conditioner. But I've heard that air conditioners use refrigerants like [Freon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorodifluoromethane) that damage the ozone layer and contribute to global warming. _(In theory it should be possible to recover and recycle refrigerants... but in reality it sounds like a lot of refrigerant does end up in the atmosphere.)_&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2021, is it possible to buy an air conditioner with a refrigerant that doesn't damage the ozone layer or have a massive global warming potential?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;_I'm living in Canada, if that matters._" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28209" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10764" RevisionGUID="e9cd2d96-b27a-4680-a787-bf2a6f46653d" CreationDate="2021-08-14T23:37:32.713" UserId="1056" Text="What kind of refrigerant should I look for in a residential air conditioner?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28210" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10764" RevisionGUID="e9cd2d96-b27a-4680-a787-bf2a6f46653d" CreationDate="2021-08-14T23:37:32.713" UserId="1056" Text="|home|greenhouse-gas-emissions|cooling|refrigerant|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28212" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10766" RevisionGUID="49c72651-3911-4fff-8fd3-2fca293ba5e3" CreationDate="2021-08-15T06:09:41.833" UserId="2345" Text="It seems the [later models][1] of refrigerative air conditioners (heat pumps) use refrigerant [R-32][2]. Freon, also known as R-22, is not being used by the major manufacturers for new air conditioners.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;R-32 doesn't affect the ozone layer. The following picture is from a [manufacturers website][3]. It's just a convenient visual of the similar data in [tabular format][4].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some [more info][2] about R-32.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.arctick.org/information/r32/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.airah.org.au/Content_Files/TechnicalPublications/R32-Common-Questions-Sept-2014.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.daikin.com/corporate/why_daikin/benefits/r-32/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.airconditioning-systems.com/R32.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/68u1V.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28213" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10767" RevisionGUID="5e45396b-db8f-40c2-8a32-b1a7a3149344" CreationDate="2021-08-15T06:16:28.740" UserId="2345" Text="Window film [can be removed][1], but it takes some effort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The film needs to be softened with ammonia, heated with a blow dryer &amp; carefully peeled from the one of the corners. A razor blade could be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After the film has been removed the window needs to be thoroughly cleaned to remove the adhesive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.fabglassandmirror.com/blog/how-to-remove-old-window-tint-or-window-film-from-glass/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28214" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10682" RevisionGUID="c6ec6f6f-6bbd-4962-83d4-379e0744e330" CreationDate="2021-08-15T09:00:07.070" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1426831053671616513" />
  <row Id="28215" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10768" RevisionGUID="db91def0-0c17-410f-b72b-68f279e6fffb" CreationDate="2021-08-15T12:51:52.693" UserId="6393" Text="When I bought a portable air conditioner unit, I was happy to see some genuine progress made in the refrigerants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long time ago, I bought my older portable air conditioner unit and it used R410a as the refrigerant. It consists of artificial hydrocarbons that have some hydrogen atoms substituted with fluorine. Apparently it doesn't cause ozone depletion which was why it was allowed as a refrigerant, but its global warning potential is horrible. Its global warming potential is over 2000, meaning that about half kilogram charge would cause as much damage as a ton of carbon dioxide if released to the atmosphere. To put that into context, in its lifetime the unit will probably consume around 5000 kWh of electricity, and at 100 g / kWh emissions from generating electricity in the relatively clean Finnish grid, the emissions caused by the electricity consumption would be 500 kg, half of the damage that would be caused if the unit releases all its refrigerant charge. Also the emissions from electricity generation are rapidly decreasing whereas the damage caused by R410a leak stays the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, good refrigerants have been available for long. We have however been too scared of using them because they are flammable (but there's so little of these refrigerants in one AC unit so something like a barbecue grill would be a far greater flammability hazard). My new portable air conditioner unit uses R-290, or in other words propane. It has a global warming potential of 3. Only 0.24 kg of it is used, so this means if all of it are released, it corresponds to only 0.72 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why the government doesn't get rid of special permits needed for installing air conditioner units. With propane as refrigerant, it could be perfectly well vented to atmosphere with no damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, look for propane (R-290) as the refrigerant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why cars use today R-1234yf. Probably some chemical company was worried that their revenue stream from specialty AC chemicals would go away if propane was allowed and lobbied for everyone to switch to a more expensive patented chemical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10768" RevisionGUID="4a3be78a-f59c-4f6d-b0b3-f68024499aad" CreationDate="2021-08-15T12:57:09.357" UserId="6393" Comment="split" Text="When I bought a portable air conditioner unit, I was happy to see some genuine progress made in the refrigerants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long time ago, I bought my older portable air conditioner unit and it used R410a as the refrigerant. It consists of artificial hydrocarbons that have some hydrogen atoms substituted with fluorine. Apparently it doesn't cause ozone depletion which was why it was allowed as a refrigerant, but its global warning potential is horrible. Its global warming potential is over 2000, meaning that about half kilogram charge would cause as much damage as a ton of carbon dioxide if released to the atmosphere. To put that into context, in its lifetime the unit will probably consume around 5000 kWh of electricity, and at 100 g / kWh emissions from generating electricity in the relatively clean Finnish grid, the emissions caused by the electricity consumption would be 500 kg, half of the damage that would be caused if the unit releases all its refrigerant charge. Also the emissions from electricity generation are rapidly decreasing whereas the damage caused by R410a leak stays the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, good refrigerants have been available for long. We have however been too scared of using them because they are flammable (but there's so little of these refrigerants in one AC unit so something like a barbecue grill would be a far greater flammability hazard). My new portable air conditioner unit uses R-290, or in other words propane. It has a global warming potential of 3. Only 0.24 kg of it is used, so this means if all of it are released, it corresponds to only 0.72 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why the government doesn't get rid of special permits needed for installing split air conditioner units. With propane as refrigerant, it could be perfectly well vented to atmosphere with no damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, look for propane (R-290) as the refrigerant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wonder why cars use today R-1234yf. Probably some chemical company was worried that their revenue stream from specialty AC chemicals would go away if propane was allowed and lobbied for everyone to switch to a more expensive patented chemical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10769" RevisionGUID="1f607f2c-54b4-4aa7-bec7-831f127d0c0b" CreationDate="2021-08-15T13:26:00.977" UserId="6393" Text="In my country, a typical motorist drives 15000 km/year. With state of the art electric cars that consume less than 0.2 kWh / km, and taking into account charging losses (that bring the total consumption from the grid to about 0.2 kWh/km), that's about 3000 kWh/year for a single passenger car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world produces 25600 TWh/year of electricity and has about 1 billion passenger cars. So only 12% increase in global electricity production is needed to electrify all passenger cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are other vehicles too that may benefit from electrification: vans, buses, heavy trucks, etc. So the true answer that to electrify all that can be electrified is larger than 12%. In my country (Finland), passenger cars amount to 55% of emissions from road traffic so to electrify all road traffic would require about 22% more electricity generation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If some of the electrification is indirect through hydrogen (for example long haul heavy trucks might benefit from hydrogen because to get enough range from batteries would require ridiculous battery sizes) rather than direct through batteries, then that figure of 22% increases.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet, it is still manageable. Some other future uses of electricity include:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Heating using heat pumps&#xD;&#xA;* Production of hydrogen for steelmaking (by reducing iron ore to iron using hydrogen instead of coal) and for ammonia production (needed to produce fertilizers)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;World ammonia production requires 42 million tons of hydrogen and to produce 1900 million tons of steel, 103 million tons of hydrogen are required. To make that 145 million tons of hydrogen needed for steelmaking and ammonia, 8200 TWh of electricity is needed. This is 32% increase in global electricity need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About 50% of final energy consumption is heating, and about 50% of that heating is space heating (the rest being mainly industrial heat). World final energy consumption is 113000 TWh/a, so space heating need is 28250 TWh/a. A typical heat pump might have a COP of 3, so around 9400 TWh/a of electricity is needed for space heating purposes. This is 37% increase in electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to summarize, there are at least three reasons why electricity consumption is increasing:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Buildings are increasingly heated with heat pumps (37% increase)&#xD;&#xA;* Steelmaking and ammonia production require hydrogen (32% increase)&#xD;&#xA;* Road transportation will be electrified (22% increase)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of these three, road transportation is the least significant driver of increasing electricity consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The industrial heat is tricky to estimate so I left it out. Part of it might be possible to produce by heat pumps, but part may require such high temperatures that resistance heating is the best approach. Some may require hydrogen due to even higher temperatures than resistance heating can produce." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10763" RevisionGUID="9be2c7fb-c004-4258-8eee-5d78f97b2b5f" CreationDate="2021-08-15T16:04:00.753" UserId="40" Comment="Spelling correction" Text="Although this has an accepted answer there is a better way. &#xD;&#xA;There is an electrolysis method where water is charged (think hydrogen peroxide) and that is the cleaning solution. The enhanced water leaves no soap or chemical residue as none is used. &#xD;&#xA;After cleaning the charge breaks down into oxygen and water, If you don’t believe me take some hydrogen peroxide put it in a glass on your window silk and after a few days in the sun check it (this is why the bottles you buy in the store are brown) but even in a brown bottle it will break back down into water and oxygen over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I believe this is the best process to clean and sanitize your carpets, if you wand to do it yourself make sure to dilute any hydrogen peroxide to less than 3% with water or it just may take any color out of the carpet being cleaned. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28222" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10763" RevisionGUID="b3ddc48b-2b7d-4fbe-9f63-270090b536e5" CreationDate="2021-08-15T16:49:59.033" UserId="1056" Comment="sill, not cil or silk" Text="Although this has an accepted answer there is a better way. &#xD;&#xA;There is an electrolysis method where water is charged (think hydrogen peroxide) and that is the cleaning solution. The enhanced water leaves no soap or chemical residue as none is used. &#xD;&#xA;After cleaning the charge breaks down into oxygen and water, If you don’t believe me take some hydrogen peroxide put it in a glass on your window sill and after a few days in the sun check it (this is why the bottles you buy in the store are brown) but even in a brown bottle it will break back down into water and oxygen over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I believe this is the best process to clean and sanitize your carpets, if you wand to do it yourself make sure to dilute any hydrogen peroxide to less than 3% with water or it just may take any color out of the carpet being cleaned. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10770" RevisionGUID="ca022cfa-8fd2-4103-9e38-e9e64607a710" CreationDate="2021-08-16T00:31:32.097" UserId="9007" Text="I answered this on another forum....72% of&#xD;&#xA;the worlds energy is thermal based because it’s efficient to convert thermal energy into work without having to convert it to electricity. You convert to electricity you lose half to 2/3rds of the energy as waste heat.US Energy Consumption was 100 Quadrillion BTU's ( 105.6 Exajoules)US Electric Consumption was 3.8 Trillion Kilowatt hours or 13.6 Exajoules Only 13% of US energy consumption were produced/consumed Electrically.The carbon emissions from changing electric sources wont matter much since 75% of all Greenhouse gas emissions come from non&#xD;&#xA;electric sources, Factories, chemicals, cars, trucks, concrete, planes, ships, etc. You think the transition to renewables is slow/bad; Try replacing thermal/chemical power with electricity.It means replacing thermal, chemical and mechanical power with several added steps, electric generation, electric voltage, transmission, and plug in and end use and heat dissipation. ALL these stages result in thermodynamic&#xD;&#xA;losses. An electric transportation infrastructure requires a 14 fold&#xD;&#xA;increase in grid construction, An All electric society would need a 90&#xD;&#xA;fold grid construction. Fossil fuels are so much simplerExample: Fossil&#xD;&#xA;energy: Chemical energy --- Thermal energy --- Mechanical energy ---&#xD;&#xA;WorkRenewable/electrical energy: External mechanical energy: Weather&#xD;&#xA;permitting --- mechanical energy transition (Generator) --- electrical&#xD;&#xA;energy --- Voltage step up --- electric transmission on site ---&#xD;&#xA;electric transmission to destination (thermodynamic losses in route) ---&#xD;&#xA;voltage step down (transformer) --- transmission to consumer ---&#xD;&#xA;consumer utilization (electric motor) --- mechanical energy--- work&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not to mention manufacture: Typically vehicles range from compacts to SUV’s so they use between 18-50 pounds of copper in their manufacture for their wiring. A hybrid car on the other hand uses over 80 pounds copper, a Plug in hybrid uses about 132 pounds of copper and a Fully electric car uses between 180-250 POUNDS of copper; Over three or four times that of a normal car. Plus the charging infrastructure needed to recharge these babies requires copper. You want to deter the demand for copper…. Go back to gas. Tesla uses Lithium-carbon-iron battery technology; innovative but to manufacture one Tesla battery puts out as much carbon as 8 years of auto driving and if the power used to run the car is fossil fuels you’ll probably never amortize it’s environmental cost unless you hold onto the car for decades and pass it on to your kids……Doubtful. Plus to make that 1000 pound battery pack you have to mine 50,000 lbs of rock and mineral ore to chemically refine and make it. A kilowatt-hour of coal electricity produces 2.07 pounds of CO2 so a 100 kw-h battery charging is 207 pounds of CO2. A strip mine for rare Earth metal is 1000 times bigger than a oil drilling location, the metals have to be chemically extracted from the rock; that requires toxic chemical catalysts; just like gold mining. The process also extracts Thorium and other isotopes from the soil which produces radioactive waste. In short, for every ton of rare earth metals, a ton or more of radioactive waste is produced. China whom consolidates 90% of the global supply produces 100,000 tons of rare earth metals (and radioactive waste) per year. In comparison the US nuclear industry produces 3000 tons of spent fuel (semantics 30 tons is actual fission waste).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TO SUM up&#xD;&#xA;Global Energy consumption circa 2020: about 600 Exajoules (600 quintillion Joules)&#xD;&#xA;Transportation energy consumes 25% of global energy demand ( 150 Exajoules)&#xD;&#xA;77% of that uses motor gasoline and Diesel fuels (Cars and trucks mostly) or 115.5 Exajoules (Subtracting some because gas and diesel are also used in agriculture, construction, lawn equipment) that's....probably averaging 80-90 Exajoules&#xD;&#xA;3.6 Megajoules per kilowatt-hour .&#xD;&#xA;90,000,000,000,000,000,000 divided by 3,600,000 joules per kwh = 25 Trillion kilowatt hours per year or 68.4 Billion kwh per day divided by 1000 = 68.4 Million Megawatt hours (MWh). To generate that much power in a 24 hour time frame you need 2.85 million Megawatts of power generation. Factor in transmission losses and thermodynamic energy losses in generation and consumer grid and waste heat, Probably 3+ Million Megawatts. That's 3000 Nuclear reactors, just to replace the automotive/truck fleets energy demands. Also to keep the grid from melting from all that extra power, you'd have to build the grid out 14 fold to handle all that juice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28224" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="10720" RevisionGUID="11d694f4-7a24-4478-85d8-80bfa0a96052" CreationDate="2021-08-16T08:02:30.310" UserId="-1" Comment="68" />
  <row Id="28225" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10770" RevisionGUID="75620ef9-ef0d-4d3d-8541-b8f3088963ba" CreationDate="2021-08-16T21:26:52.003" UserId="1056" Comment="removed unrelated parts of answer; improved readability" Text="An electric transportation infrastructure requires a 14 fold&#xD;&#xA;increase in grid construction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Global demand for transportation energy (2018)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Global Energy consumption circa 2020: about 600 Exajoules (600 quintillion Joules). Transportation energy consumes 25% of global energy demand (150 Exajoules). 77% of that uses motor gasoline and Diesel fuels (Cars and trucks mostly) or 115.5 Exajoules (subtracting some because gas and diesel are also used in agriculture, construction, lawn equipment) that's....probably averaging **80-90 Exajoules**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Conversion to units of electricity (watt-hours)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;90 exajoules/year = 25000 TWh (or 68.5 TWh/day). Averaged over 24 hours, that's 2.85 terawatts of constant power generation. Factor in transmission losses and thermodynamic energy losses in generation and consumer grid and waste heat, probably 3+ million megawatts. That's 3000 Nuclear reactors, just to replace the automotive/truck fleets energy demands. Also to keep the grid from melting from all that extra power, you'd have to build the grid out 14 fold to handle all that juice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28226" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="6793" RevisionGUID="e1fec82b-10fb-4aa2-92aa-b492f9b5a351" CreationDate="2021-08-18T08:01:25.173" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="28238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10772" RevisionGUID="aa91af64-32c8-4d35-84ba-d91397fe1574" CreationDate="2021-08-20T02:27:20.560" UserId="1056" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28239" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10772" RevisionGUID="aa91af64-32c8-4d35-84ba-d91397fe1574" CreationDate="2021-08-20T02:27:20.560" UserId="1056" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10773" RevisionGUID="872a5012-2304-4ab3-a37f-9b3007c7e7d6" CreationDate="2021-08-20T02:27:20.560" UserId="1056" Text="Freezers, fridges, air conditioners, and heat pumps all contain refrigerant. Some kinds of refrigerant damage the ozone layer or contribute to global warming if released to the atmosphere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10773" RevisionGUID="872a5012-2304-4ab3-a37f-9b3007c7e7d6" CreationDate="2021-08-20T02:27:20.560" UserId="1056" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28242" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10772" RevisionGUID="ab3139f3-904b-46be-a815-1bbfffcc417f" CreationDate="2021-08-20T03:02:58.113" UserId="1056" Comment="outline a few common refrigerants; added 18 characters in body" Text="## Current Refrigerants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;GWP - 100-year Global Warming Potential (relative to CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;)  &#xD;&#xA;ODP - Ozone Depletion Potential&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           | Common Name | GWP    | ODP&#xD;&#xA;    -------+-------------+--------+----------&#xD;&#xA;    R-290  | Propane     | 3      | 0&#xD;&#xA;    R-32   |             | 675    | 0&#xD;&#xA;    R-134a | Freon-134a  | 1430   | 0.000015&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Banned Refrigerants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;           | Common Name | GWP    | ODP&#xD;&#xA;    -------+-------------+--------+-----&#xD;&#xA;    R-12   | Freon-12    | 10,900 | 1.00&#xD;&#xA;    R-22   |             | 1760   | 0.05&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacture of R-12 was banned in 1996 as part of the Montreal Protocol.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;R-22 was a temporary replacement for R-12; it's manufacture and import was banned in Canada in 2020.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Ozone Depletion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Scientists first observed a thinning of the ozone layer in 1985. It was quickly determined that CFCs were a major contributor to ozone depletion. The [Montreal Protocol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol) was adopted in 1987, and the ban came into effect in 1989." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="b7fe6d1c-b777-4583-a866-9283f2a0f4ba" CreationDate="2021-08-20T16:54:05.660" UserId="9884" Text="Until I see a lifecycle analysis of safety razor shaving vs. electric shaving to show electric is more sustainable (less water, less soap etc.), I would say safety razor wet-shaving seems to be the most sustainable and accessible, at least vs. plastic cartridge razors where you have to routinely throw away mixed metal+plastic pieces that will never be recycled:&#xD;&#xA;- the razor itself is mechanically very simple (if you ignore &quot;butterfly&quot; and 2-piece designs and just go for 3-piece) and if it's made of good metals with good surface plating it can last you decades&#xD;&#xA;- the blades are made of mostly stainless steel plus a little plating material and AFAIK can be melted down and recycled at specialized centers (but generally don't go around throwing them in &quot;yellow bins&quot; or other generic recyclables bins, they need special handling because they're sharp).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Straight razors might be even more sustainable, but as someone else pointed out above they require skill and patience that many people don't have, and when used wrong or if accidents happen with them they can be quite dangerous (there's a reason they put the word &quot;safety&quot; in &quot;safety razor&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10774" RevisionGUID="5dcd4111-bb92-4b6b-b24b-c92fdfdfb004" CreationDate="2021-08-20T17:00:16.433" UserId="9884" Comment="added 444 characters in body" Text="Until I see a lifecycle analysis of safety razor shaving vs. electric shaving to show electric is more sustainable (less water, less soap etc.), I would say safety razor wet-shaving seems to be the most sustainable and accessible, at least vs. plastic cartridge razors where you have to routinely throw away mixed metal+plastic pieces that will never be recycled:&#xD;&#xA;- the razor itself is mechanically very simple (if you ignore &quot;butterfly&quot; and 2-piece designs and just go for 3-piece) and if it's made of good metals with good surface plating it can last you decades, and then be recycled (especially if it's stainless steel, brass or aluminium)&#xD;&#xA;- the blades are made of mostly stainless steel plus a little plating material and AFAIK can be melted down and recycled at specialized centers (but generally don't go around throwing them in &quot;yellow bins&quot; or other generic recyclables bins, they need special handling because they're sharp).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no reason to be afraid of safety razors as a general design - there are models that have so little blade exposure they're even safer than Mach types, and in fact can get annoying with how little hair they're cutting off with each pass (depending also on how much hair growth you allow between shaves). If you start off with a model generally reviewed as &quot;mild&quot; you won't be in significantly more danger than with the plastic razors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Straight razors might be even more sustainable, but as someone else pointed out above they require skill and patience that many people don't have, and when used wrong or if accidents happen with them they can be quite dangerous (there's a reason they put the word &quot;safety&quot; in &quot;safety razor&quot;)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10775" RevisionGUID="9b2e1c56-a820-4aad-9782-92d13af91033" CreationDate="2021-08-20T17:59:04.777" UserId="9007" Text="If you wanna avoid disposeable razors&#xD;&#xA;1: Get a straight razor&#xD;&#xA; If you don't have the skill to use it or afraid to&#xD;&#xA;2: Get an electric" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28246" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="02d92616-020d-4141-92cf-be69120465ec" CreationDate="2021-08-20T20:00:17.630" UserId="1056" Text="I've noticed that carbon offsets are usually sold by the tonne of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalent, without any information about *when* that offsetting will occur. Given the urgency of the climate crisis (between 1.5º and 5.0º C of warming by 2100) it seems important to know **when** the offsetting will occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And when offsetting projects focus on gases like methane, where most of the Global Warming Potential (GWP) occurs in the first couple decades, it seems that timeliness of offsets is even *more* important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some kind of standard that defines **when** carbon offsets need to be realized?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28247" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="02d92616-020d-4141-92cf-be69120465ec" CreationDate="2021-08-20T20:00:17.630" UserId="1056" Text="How immediate are the benefits from carbon offsets?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28248" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="02d92616-020d-4141-92cf-be69120465ec" CreationDate="2021-08-20T20:00:17.630" UserId="1056" Text="|carbon-offsetting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28249" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="5afeaa83-1719-41c2-a2e7-1cd4cf2a9ce6" CreationDate="2021-08-20T20:17:53.887" UserId="1056" Text="I was thinking about buying carbon offsets, but when I started looking into what kind of projects would be funded, I noticed that all the projects listed had already been completed. This seems to be the case for several companies selling carbon offsets, including [Less.ca](https://www.less.ca/en-ca/projects.cfm) and [Offsetters.ca](https://www.offsetters.ca/project-services/offset-projects/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the point of buying carbon offsets for completed projects? If the project is already completed, then it must already providing a benefit (reduced emissions). If I was paying for carbon offsets, I would expect that money to be used for new projects that provide an [additional](https://www.offsetguide.org/high-quality-offsets/additionality/) reduction of carbon emissions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="5afeaa83-1719-41c2-a2e7-1cd4cf2a9ce6" CreationDate="2021-08-20T20:17:53.887" UserId="1056" Text="What's the point of buying carbon offsets for completed projects?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="5afeaa83-1719-41c2-a2e7-1cd4cf2a9ce6" CreationDate="2021-08-20T20:17:53.887" UserId="1056" Text="|carbon-offsetting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="d44c4fd0-643e-4e20-9f5f-1b25cfa31639" CreationDate="2021-08-21T08:42:22.717" UserId="12136" Text="Recently I am facing a dilemma: I am living in The Netherlands and in this area it is encouraged to separate out plastic trash for recycling.&#xD;&#xA;Usually my plastic trash consists of food packages and sheets (the point is: let us assume the trash itself does not contain a bag or something that can contain trash easily).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now there are two scenarios:&#xD;&#xA;1. Put plastic directly into the mixed container at my house (gets picked up on a fixed schedule and has sufficient capacity)&#xD;&#xA;2. Put plastic inside a bag, and bring it to the recycling point (short walk)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I was opening a bag to contain the plastic trash this made me wonder:&#xD;&#xA;Is it actually better for the environment to separate the plastic at home, or put it in the mixed trash (which may see separation later?) and avoid the production of an additional bag. In short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Is the recycling of 1 bag of plastic trash environmentally worth the production of 1 plastic bag to hold it?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28253" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="d44c4fd0-643e-4e20-9f5f-1b25cfa31639" CreationDate="2021-08-21T08:42:22.717" UserId="12136" Text="Environmental impact of using an extra bag to separate out plastic vs not separating" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28254" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="d44c4fd0-643e-4e20-9f5f-1b25cfa31639" CreationDate="2021-08-21T08:42:22.717" UserId="12136" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10779" RevisionGUID="cade6c93-d164-4395-9fe0-950fec599133" CreationDate="2021-08-21T19:23:56.323" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; However, there is another thing that troubles me, the use of plastic in my preferred razor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is not a problem at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic is a chemical that is made from oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oil can be made from trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, plastic can be made from trees too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using plastic should not be avoided, you should instead just ensure that (1) you use so little plastic that your share of the trees on this planet is enough to make all plastic you use, and (2) that the plastic is burned to energy at the end of its lifetime to prevent it from getting to the oceans. The important thing here is that the humans on this planet use so little plastic that only few percent of oil consumption is needed to create it. So for example somebody who argues that hey gasoline can be made from trees too so I'll continue driving my gasoline car, is wrong, because gasoline is used in such large quantities that no way could the trees on the planet supply enough oil to create enough gasoline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps some very large excessive use of single-use plastic could be avoided, but I'd say 99% of plastic use is not excessive. Also something that 100% certainly distributes microplastics to the environment like a weed whacker with plastic cutting line instead of steel cutting blade can be argued to be bad.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I am aware of stainless steel blades that are cheap that'll go into steel razor slots&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You seem to think that steel is somehow better than plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not. Like plastics that are made from oil, steel is made from iron ore reduced using coal. So the steel production today is one of the dirtiest things human race does, emitting nearly 10% of the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions caused by humans on this planet. I'd say actually that if we compare the emissions of plastic production to the emissions of steel production, it's steel that creates more CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions than plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually if there's some material that's evil, it's concrete. Cement production for making concrete requires a chemical reaction that releases CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and there's no way to avoid that CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emission because it's part of the reaction. Sure you could capture the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; but then there's the question if it's economical to ship it to an area with geological formations that can be used to store CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and if the formation is stable enough to retain it for hundreds of millenia. And if we even have enough many such formations to store all CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; produced by cement making.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, like you shouldn't avoid plastics (because they can be made from trees), there's no reason to avoid steel (because iron ore can be reduced using hydrogen created by electrolysis fueled by renewable wind and solar power). Concrete however should probably be avoided if it's an option to use something like wood instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Come to think of it, I won't mind spending more for a sustainable alternative with equivalent benefits ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you believe that plastic should be made sustainably, invest a few dollars into a company that aims to create all different things from trees that can be made from it. Like UPM or Stora Enso. They are investing to find new uses of trees to replace the thing that was their main product long time ago, paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your belief that plastic use is somehow harmful is wrong. And your belief that steel is somehow better than plastic is wrong too, actually plastic is better today in the quantities we make it when compared to steel in the quantities we make it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10780" RevisionGUID="151cb975-64b8-4005-b8e9-2ac0a1318160" CreationDate="2021-08-21T19:34:42.237" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; Is the recycling of 1 bag of plastic trash environmentally worth the production of 1 plastic bag to hold it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost certainly it is. Just for fun, I weighed a plastic bag. It's 14 grams. So if recycled plastic causes let's say 90% of the emissions non-recycled plastic causes (I'm using a really ridiculous number like 90% here, probably it's far smaller), then recycling 1 kilogram or 1000 grams of plastic causes emissions of  producing 1014*0.9 = 912.6 grams of new plastics. So it's a win. (In fact, even if recycled plastics would cause 98% of the emissions of non-recycled plastics, it's still a win, and that would be 2% savings only for recycling. I'm sure we wouldn't recycle plastics if it caused only 2% savings.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also do note you can reuse some plastic bag you have laying around. It's not a problem to find used plastic bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real problem is the short walk to the recycling point. If we assume that a plastic bag weighing 14 grams causes 50 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions, then we need to consider how much emissions the short walk causes. I assume here it's 2 kilometers (1 kilometer there, 1 kilometer back).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/10573/6393&quot;&gt;An electric car driven 2 kilometers would cause 18 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions but for example a bicycle would cause at least 20 grams, and if bicycle is 2.5 times as efficient as walking then walking would produce at least 50 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So really the walk there and back is about as bad as the additional plastic bag and that's assuming you're vegan. Someone who occasionally eats meat would cause the walk there and back to be the major problem!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28257" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10781" RevisionGUID="37aae6a2-73ca-45a9-b8e6-92a47e3a5db8" CreationDate="2021-08-21T19:46:16.237" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; I've noticed that carbon offsets are usually sold by the tonne of CO2 equivalent, without any information about when that offsetting will occur&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course they don't tell you when that offsetting will occur.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon offsets are a major con. If you for example pay to reforest some land, if you do so by purchasing the land to be reforested and reforest it yourself (or pay someone to plant the forest), you as the landowner will get to decide how the forest will be used in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you on the other hand are foolish enough to pay for these ridiculous &quot;carbon offsets&quot;, most likely they plant the forest somewhere and then the landowner who was paid to reforest the land can 10 years later chop it down, and if the landowner doesn't chop it own immediately, it would probably have been reforested anyway without the &quot;carbon offsets&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you'll find that these &quot;carbon offsets&quot; are often multiply counted, so the same CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; reduction is sold to three or more different buyers of &quot;carbon offsets&quot; who fail to realize they essentially bought the same offset.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only ways to possibly cause environmental benefits are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Buy carbon permits but don't emit the carbon. (However, if enough many people will do this then the policymakers will take a note of this and increase the number of carbon permits available, so this is not a foolproof way.)&#xD;&#xA;2. Reduce your carbon dioxide emissions for example by becoming vegan, or buying an electric car, or starting bicycling, or switching to geothermal heat pumps, or living in a house built from wood as opposed to concrete. (However, if you do this in an area where carbon permits are used, one person reducing carbon emissions causes the carbon permit price to decrease, causing other people to emit more carbon dioxide, so this is not a foolproof way. However it's very good risk management to reduce your emissions intensity to a minimum.)&#xD;&#xA;3. Store the carbon in the form of biochar or forest stock or lumber or buildings made from wood in a land owned by you. (However, if enough many people start doing this then the policymakers will take a note of this and increase the number of carbon permits available, so this is not a foolproof way.)&#xD;&#xA;4. Vote! By voting someone who prefers large CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; reductions very soon, it's more likely such reductions will happen very soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note &quot;carbon offsets&quot; are not on this list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is there some kind of standard that defines when carbon offsets need to be realized?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a standard would be contrary to the interests of these conmen who sell these carbon offsets. Thus, no such standard is there, and no such standard will be there." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28258" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10782" RevisionGUID="62859767-6ce4-41c2-944f-8662e7e70bec" CreationDate="2021-08-21T19:54:30.543" UserId="6393" Text="Carbon offsets for completed projects seem like a major con but then again &lt;a href=&quot;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/10781/6393&quot;&gt;carbon offsets are a major con anyway.&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you buy something that has been already completed, remember to ensure you will be the new owner of the thing that was completed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. A car maker completes building an electric car. You can buy it.&#xD;&#xA;2. A heat pump company completes construction of a geothermal heat pump. You can buy it.&#xD;&#xA;3. A publicly listed company completes a wind farm (or a solar farm or a utility-scale storage battery or a hydrogen electrolysis plant or ...). You can buy shares of this company.&#xD;&#xA;4. A landowner reforests some land. You can buy this land and ensure the forest will be from this moment to eternity be used in sustainable forestry as the new landowner.&#xD;&#xA;5. A bicycle manufacturer completes building an electric bicycle. You can buy it and start riding it instead of driving a gas-guzzling car.&#xD;&#xA;6. A construction company builds an energy-efficient house entirely made from wood and heated by a geothermal heat pump. You can buy the house.&#xD;&#xA;7. A farmer grows some peas using sustainable farming practices. You can buy the peas and eat some pea soup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you buy &quot;carbon offsets&quot;, you'll soon find you are very poor, and the seller of the &quot;carbon offsets&quot; will be very rich. There's nothing you gain, nothing you own after buying these offsets." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28260" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10784" RevisionGUID="f9d2f895-43c5-4cbb-885f-08afb97e02af" CreationDate="2021-08-23T00:08:27.617" UserId="659" Text="The simple answer is that the &quot;completed&quot; project is ongoing. Much as a motorway doesn't stop emitting once it's completed, a landfill gas capture system does not stop reducing emissions once construction is complete, and a forest doesn't stop absorbing carbon once it's planted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the exact answer is generally in the fine print. Often those projects are front-loaded, there's an estimate made of how much carbon will be avoided/absorbed during the entrie working life of the project and those negative emissions are sold on day one, then the project is complete. That's where a lot of the scams come from - the originators have essentially sold promises, and once they're paid they lose interest. So you need to do quite specific research to find out the exact details for the scheme/scam you're buying into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are other traps, forsts can burn, machinery can irrecoverably break down, wars can break out. In those cases even the best intentions can fail, and often the insurance payout only covers the money cost, there's no provision for &quot;net zero emissions replacement&quot; to allow the original abatement to take place. The PV system on my roof, to use a trivial example, was funded by selling the &quot;expected lifetime output&quot; but it was impossible to buy insurance that did not also include selling the lifetime output of the replacement system (viz, it covered the cost of a new, equivalent system but not buying back the lost non-emissions of the system it replaced)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28261" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10785" RevisionGUID="4224ee4c-eb0c-4032-b25e-5b92052748e0" CreationDate="2021-08-23T07:06:20.673" UserId="12137" Text="A [recent article][1] suggests that garment rental isn't all that sustainable. Not surprisingly, the most sustainable garment is the one that is not produced at all or, on the flip side, the garment that is used for an extended amount of time, reducing the need for a new replacement garment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When renting clothing, customers don't wan clothing that looks used or worn out, so the life cycles of rented clothing will be much shorter than that of (regularly used) owned clothing. In addition, rented garments will have an additional impact through delivery and / or pick-up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For high end clothing that people would only wear once or twice anyway (e.g. for weddings), a rental solution might nevertheless be the more sustainable option, as the number of use cycles per garment might acutally increase. But as those types of garments only make up a tiny fraction of the overall clothing and textile consumption, the resulting impact will probably be very low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abfac3/pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28262" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10785" RevisionGUID="93bb3996-8e61-4955-a69c-222b2c413636" CreationDate="2021-08-23T07:13:44.240" UserId="2345" Comment="Typo correction" Text="A [recent article][1] suggests that garment rental isn't all that sustainable. Not surprisingly, the most sustainable garment is the one that is not produced at all or, on the flip side, the garment that is used for an extended amount of time, reducing the need for a new replacement garment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When renting clothing, customers don't want clothing that looks used or worn out, so the life cycles of rented clothing will be much shorter than that of (regularly used) owned clothing. In addition, rented garments will have an additional impact through delivery and / or pick-up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For high end clothing that people would only wear once or twice anyway (e.g. for weddings), a rental solution might nevertheless be the more sustainable option, as the number of use cycles per garment might acutally increase. But as those types of garments only make up a tiny fraction of the overall clothing and textile consumption, the resulting impact will probably be very low.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abfac3/pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="706ee64f-ff62-4921-8104-cf81cdc0befa" CreationDate="2021-08-23T07:43:33.550" UserId="12137" Text="What you should consider when trying to refresh the waterrepellency of your garment is how the garment is constructed / was waterproofed originally and which materials were used. There are different types of waterproof garments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **modern outdoor clothing**: Their ability to repel water comes from both a membrane system and a external waterproofing. The membrane has pores that allow single water molecules (aka steam or vapor) from the inside of the clothing to escape while being to small for liquid water (aka rain) to enter from the outside. In addition, the outside of the garment is waterproofed with a hydrophobic coating, to prevent the fabric from being soaked in water. This coating can be washed away and needs to be renewed. This is the stuff from the spray can. The problem with using a wash-in hydrophobic coating is that it will coat also the inside of the jacket, which could prevent sweat and moisture from escaping through the pores of the membrane. So although this might seem like a more sustainable option, it is not if the function of the garment is impaired. The biggest problem with these hydrophobic solutions is that the often still contain fluoride compounds that are very damaging to the environment, so if you use this kind of stuff, try to look for fluor-free products. If you buy a new garment, some brands will also already have fluor-free outdoor clothing available.&#xD;&#xA; - **plastic based rain gear**: Their ability to repel water comes from using plastic coated fabrics or plastic foils. Those garments will not be very breathable, and if they loose their ability to repel water, it will be due to holes, abrasion of polymer material or cracks in the material due to ageing or UV. Spraying those garments with hydrophobic coating will not lead to much improvement, as the spray might not adhere well to the polymer surface. Cuts or holes might be fixed with special tapes.&#xD;&#xA;- **waxed cotton**: cotton that has been made water repellent by impregnating it with natural or synthetic wax. Those need to be re-waxed from time to time to maintain their properties. Often brands that sell those supply their own wax for maintenance. If used properly, there will be very little wax wastage. If natural wax is used, this is a very sustainable waterproofing method.&#xD;&#xA;- **felted wool**: densely felted wool garments (boiled wool) will be kind of waterproof because of their structure and the properties of the wool fiber. This can be enhanced by applying additional lanolin regularly. As with the waxed cotton, this is a quite sustainable approach, although these kind of garments will be quite heavy and stiff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you try to re-proof outdoor clothing with wax, or cotton with lanolin, or combine any other type of waterproofing with the wrong kind of material, it will not yield usefull results. So before you blindly apply anything make sure you are using the right type of product, otherwise you might damage your garment beyond repair. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28265" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="39886aa3-275b-4285-b13c-0b6e28339e51" CreationDate="2021-08-23T09:00:02.910" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1429730139148066825" />
  <row Id="28266" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10777" RevisionGUID="ccc1e2bf-af4a-45bf-bc21-1bc03162443a" CreationDate="2021-08-23T12:00:01.257" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1429775430693830660" />
  <row Id="28273" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="f9f84017-3e23-461f-ad59-caf8036e7893" CreationDate="2021-08-24T05:01:35.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="28274" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10733" RevisionGUID="41d0b738-6ebf-4510-84e1-39e2c30e1961" CreationDate="2021-08-24T18:00:06.120" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1430228435960467464" />
  <row Id="28278" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="83b8b097-fc83-4067-8f54-1f575b7e9aa6" CreationDate="2021-08-25T04:09:25.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="28280" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10792" RevisionGUID="7127b87c-2959-43c6-9e22-a01e242380ab" CreationDate="2021-08-25T09:49:51.337" UserId="6896" Text="Yesterday the theme of the [Extinction Rebellion protests](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/24/extinction-rebellion-block-whitehall-in-protest-against-hmrc-and-barclays) was HMRC and Barclays over funding of fossil fuel industries.  While their focus is on the government contracts, moving individual accounts from these banks could provide additional incentives for them to behave in a more responsible way.  However, in the modern world one needs to bank with somebody.  Are there any banks that are significantly better than others in this regard, but provide the services we are accustomed to from the big ones?  I am interested in both current and saving accounts.  I am in the UK, so that is most relevant to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28281" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10792" RevisionGUID="7127b87c-2959-43c6-9e22-a01e242380ab" CreationDate="2021-08-25T09:49:51.337" UserId="6896" Text="Who can you bank with for environmental sustainability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28282" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10792" RevisionGUID="7127b87c-2959-43c6-9e22-a01e242380ab" CreationDate="2021-08-25T09:49:51.337" UserId="6896" Text="|uk|money|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28288" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10793" RevisionGUID="62ff3bf9-5eff-44a7-a912-283d4b46abd1" CreationDate="2021-08-25T21:13:18.993" UserId="1056" Text="There are many answers to this question, and this is the best resource I know of for providing a simple answer that is specific to where you live.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://bank.green&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This provides evaluations of many banks around the world. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28289" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="917" RevisionGUID="c7293c64-776d-4667-92c9-f48a938d7954" CreationDate="2021-08-26T20:02:32.013" UserId="1056" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="A carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor and ozone) that is produced directly and indirectly by a person, an organisation, an event or a product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Direct emissions, also called primary footprint, come from sources directly controlled by the person(s) or activity in question, for example heating one's house. Indirect emissions or secondary footprint are emissions that are the consequence of a person(s) actions using sources owned or controlled by someone else, for example fuel that was used to transport the products you buy from the factory to the store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The global average carbon footprint is approximately 4 tons of CO2-equivalent per person per year [[source]](https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the difference with [tag:ecological-footprint] that measures the total impact (so not only greenhouse gas emissions) of a person, organisation or activity on the Earth's ecosystems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Online carbon footprint calculators:**&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;*Personal/Household*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbonfootprint.com](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator1.html)&#xD;&#xA; - [Berkeley University - CoolClimate Carbon Footprint Calculator](http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/carboncalculator)&#xD;&#xA; - [Conservation International](https://www.conservation.org/carbon-footprint-calculator) for US residents&#xD;&#xA; - [EPA USA - Household Carbon Footprint Calculator](https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/) for US residents&#xD;&#xA; - [Nature Conservancy](https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/consider-your-impact/carbon-calculator/) for US residents&#xD;&#xA; - [Terrapass](https://www.terrapass.com/carbon-footprint-calculator) for US residents, calculate for individuals, business or events&#xD;&#xA; - [KnowYourCarbonFootprint.com](https://www.knowyourcarbonfootprint.com) for US residents&#xD;&#xA; - [WWF UK Footprint Calculator](http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/) for UK residents&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Kids*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Meet the Greens - Zero footprint youth calculator](http://www.meetthegreens.org/features/carbon-calculator.html) temporarily broken?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Business*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Greenhouse Gas Protocols](http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools) Excel worksheets for many specific purposes&#xD;&#xA; - [Carbonfootprint.com](http://www.carbonfootprint.com/businesscalculator.aspx) registration required&#xD;&#xA; - [Terrapass](https://www.terrapass.com/carbon-footprint-calculator) for US companies, requires registration)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Transportation*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Eco Passenger](http://ecopassenger.hafas.de) compares train, car and flight for Europeana destinations&#xD;&#xA;- [ICAO calculator](https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx) for air travel, includes aircraft type information and route specific data&#xD;&#xA; - [MyClimate.org](https://co2.myclimate.org) in English, German or French&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### History&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The idea of a &quot;carbon footprint&quot; was popularized by fossil fuel company BP in 2005." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28290" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9926" RevisionGUID="793ffd12-24ca-45de-b4ca-1ea0a1e93f69" CreationDate="2021-08-26T20:14:01.623" UserId="1056" Comment="added 194 characters in body" Text="Carbon offsetting is an economic model for supporting projects that counteract the primary cause of human-caused climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Target Markets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two main groups of buyers that are interested in purchasing carbon offsets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Compliance customers**, especially branches of government, may be legally compelled to demonstrate net-zero carbon emissions in a given reporting period. If the cost of reducing emissions is high or the path to net-zero extends beyond the reporting period, the organization may purchase carbon offsets as an interim measure.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Voluntary customers**, most often private citizens, may be interested in purchasing offsets as a means of private action on climate change or as a way of reducing guilt associated with personal carbon footprint. Organizations selling carbon offsets to this group of buyers often price them with relevance to specific resource-intensive purchases or activities, such as purchasing flights for long-distance vacations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Evaluating Offsets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon offset projects must guarantee four principles in order to be considered high quality offsets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- **Additionality**. The project must provide a reduction in emissions compared to a business-as-usual baseline.&#xD;&#xA;- **Permanence**. The avoided emissions or collected carbon must not make its way back into the atmosphere over a reasonably long timeline.&#xD;&#xA;- **Not double-counted**. No other organization or nation can take credit for the avoided emissions.&#xD;&#xA;- **Leakage**. The project must not support or encourage emissions in another area. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Verifying that a particular project guarantees all of these principles is a challenging task, and that has led to the formation of certifying bodies like [Gold Standard](https://www.goldstandard.org/) that provide evaluation of offset projects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Controversy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The practice of using carbon offsets has garnered controversy because it is easy to find offsetting projects that miss at least one of the four important principles for a high quality offset. And furthermore, there is concern that the use of carbon offsets may create a moral hazard where high-emitters feel entitled or encouraged to continue or even increase activities that generate carbon emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [2016 study](https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/ets/docs/clean_dev_mechanism_en.pdf) estimated more than 80% of carbon offset projects do not meet the criteria for additionality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Alternative Models&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are some other economic models that have similar goals to carbon offsetting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Carbon Tax&#xD;&#xA;- Cap and Trade&#xD;&#xA;- Low-carbon investing" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28298" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="e7599335-8402-4bb7-b75f-3e62f11c4bd4" CreationDate="2021-08-27T06:41:04.637" UserId="2345" Comment="CO2" Text="There seems to be a growing consensus, that the vegan diet is the most sustainable for our environment on multiple levels, such as land use, water use and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;There is some debate about whether chicken meat and eggs should be included to a very limited extent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However on the flip side, there are two important questions raised from the opposing side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1) What to do with waste products, if not feed them to animals?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food production for humans involves producing a ton of hulls and such. These are considered inedible for humans. They can be either fed to animals, fungi (cultivated) or bacteria and fungi (natural decomposition).&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't it make sense to have at least some animals around to eat these waste products and upcycle them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) Most grass-lands are not arable**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are huge swaths of land on the plant where its just grass. This land seems to be poorly suited for crops. Why not have some cows there to upcycle grass, which is inedible for humans?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there legitimate large analyses accounting for these factors? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="758050fa-b8c0-4a1c-8a7b-76ed57de6672" CreationDate="2021-08-27T19:44:24.313" UserId="5864" Comment="fixed list formatting" Text="There seems to be a growing consensus, that the vegan diet is the most sustainable for our environment on multiple levels, such as land use, water use and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;There is some debate about whether chicken meat and eggs should be included to a very limited extent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However on the flip side, there are two important questions raised from the opposing side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **What to do with waste products, if not feed them to animals?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Food production for humans involves producing a ton of hulls and such. These are considered inedible for humans. They can be either fed to animals, fungi (cultivated) or bacteria and fungi (natural decomposition).  &#xD;&#xA;    Wouldn't it make sense to have at least some animals around to eat these waste products and upcycle them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Most grass-lands are not arable**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    There are huge swaths of land on the plant where its just grass. This land seems to be poorly suited for crops. Why not have some cows there to upcycle grass, which is inedible for humans?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there legitimate large analyses accounting for these factors? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28302" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="758050fa-b8c0-4a1c-8a7b-76ed57de6672" CreationDate="2021-08-27T19:44:24.313" Comment="Proposed by 5864 approved by 3379 edit id of 678" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28303" PostHistoryTypeId="8" PostId="10630" RevisionGUID="0de27927-fa3f-4291-8906-d607e5f9b446" CreationDate="2021-08-27T19:54:52.907" UserId="6213" Comment="Rollback to [e7599335-8402-4bb7-b75f-3e62f11c4bd4] - Edit approval overridden by post owner or moderator" Text="There seems to be a growing consensus, that the vegan diet is the most sustainable for our environment on multiple levels, such as land use, water use and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;There is some debate about whether chicken meat and eggs should be included to a very limited extent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However on the flip side, there are two important questions raised from the opposing side:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**1) What to do with waste products, if not feed them to animals?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food production for humans involves producing a ton of hulls and such. These are considered inedible for humans. They can be either fed to animals, fungi (cultivated) or bacteria and fungi (natural decomposition).&#xD;&#xA;Wouldn't it make sense to have at least some animals around to eat these waste products and upcycle them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**2) Most grass-lands are not arable**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are huge swaths of land on the plant where its just grass. This land seems to be poorly suited for crops. Why not have some cows there to upcycle grass, which is inedible for humans?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there legitimate large analyses accounting for these factors? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28304" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10797" RevisionGUID="9b5dba3a-52ea-4870-8821-23fe11393406" CreationDate="2021-08-28T01:36:08.920" UserId="12156" Text="I have an outdoor fire pit in my backyard. The fire pit is about 3 feet in diameter and is similar to ones you might find at a camp site.  My family and I enjoy using it purely for recreation. I’ve been trying to limit my carbon footprint, and in doing so, wondered how much a fire in the fire pit contributes to it. We usually have about 2 to 3 logs, and a handful of sticks. So what’s an estimate for how many pounds of CO2 are released every hour of from an average sized camp fire? Are there other gases released  other than CO2 that are harmful to the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28305" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10797" RevisionGUID="9b5dba3a-52ea-4870-8821-23fe11393406" CreationDate="2021-08-28T01:36:08.920" UserId="12156" Text="CO2 emissions from outdoor fire pit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28306" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10797" RevisionGUID="9b5dba3a-52ea-4870-8821-23fe11393406" CreationDate="2021-08-28T01:36:08.920" UserId="12156" Text="|environmental-impact|firewood|co2|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10798" RevisionGUID="555bd8fe-3c90-4786-ac66-a9262dd0e5d3" CreationDate="2021-08-28T02:53:05.093" UserId="1056" Text="### The Short Answer &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning 1 kg of wood releases 1.6 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. (source: [EPA](https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/stationaryemissions_3_2016.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how big your 2-3 logs are, so I'll just say that 5 kg wood is probably enough to make a reasonable outdoor fire for one evening of entertainment. That would emit 8 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, or **17.6 lbs** in one evening.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, the global average of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per capita (per-person) is **26 lbs/day** ([4.8 metric tons/year](https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions)), but that varies a *lot* from one country to another!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### ... but it's complicated&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trees have been growing, decomposing, burning, and growing again as a natural part of the [carbon cycle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle) for millions of years without causing rapid global warming like we're seeing now. As long as global forest cover remains constant, burning wood doesn't make much difference to carbon in the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anthropogenic global warming (and climate change) is caused by extraction and combustion of underground carbon (oil, gas, etc.) that was removed from the atmosphere over millions of years, and also by deforestation that results in burned wood and loss of soil carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Where does the wood come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have waste wood lying around that would have eventually decomposed, it would release the same amount of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, but over a different timespan. By burning it now, you do create a temporary flux of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; into the atmosphere that makes a small contribution to global warming for many years until the carbon is reabsorbed by new plants or trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, understanding the impact of burning wood is really a question about understanding forest management, which I can't fully explain in this short answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Other air pollution&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other than CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, burning wood also releases soot and fine [particulate matter](https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution) that can be harmful to human health." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10799" RevisionGUID="c5f6c441-0b65-41eb-b6bd-888aeef242e8" CreationDate="2021-08-28T11:07:33.770" UserId="2266" Text="Your premise - that population size *per se* strains natural resources - is wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What strains natural resources is overconsumption, i.e. consumption of natural resources that exceeds the world's biocapacity. **Not the most populous but the richest countries in the world consume most natural resources.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world has a biocapacity of 1.63 global hectares (gha) per person. Australia, for example, has an ecological footprint of 9.31 gha per person; the United States have an ecological footprint of 8.22 gha per person, and the United Kingdom has an ecological footprint of 7.94 gha per person. By contrast, Eritrea has 0.49, Rwanda has 0.87, and Ethiopia has 1.02. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Overpopulation&quot; is a red herring. The way in which our politico-economic system produces wealth by exploiting natural resources is the actual issue. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28309" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10799" RevisionGUID="a09f2ab3-16b7-40c1-8476-7aafde1a4033" CreationDate="2021-08-28T11:13:56.710" UserId="2266" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="Your premise - that population size *per se* strains natural resources - is wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What strains natural resources is overconsumption, i.e. consumption of natural resources that exceeds the world's biocapacity. **Not the most populous but the richest countries in the world consume most natural resources.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world has a biocapacity of 1.63 global hectares (gha) per person. Australia, for example, has an ecological footprint of 9.31 gha per person; the United States have an ecological footprint of 8.22 gha per person, and the United Kingdom has an ecological footprint of 7.94 gha per person. By contrast, Eritrea has 0.49, Rwanda has 0.87, and Ethiopia has 1.02, staying well below biocapacity despite their alleged &quot;overpopulation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Overpopulation&quot; is an ideological red herring. The way in which our politico-economic systems (in the affluent &quot;global north&quot;) produce wealth by exploiting natural resources is the actual issue. At their current ecological footprints, North America and Europe, not Africa and Asia, would actually have to drastically reduce their population size." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28310" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10799" RevisionGUID="d60bcd03-e1d4-4bf8-a85a-bc621194f878" CreationDate="2021-08-28T11:20:01.367" UserId="2266" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Let me challenge the framing of the question: Your premise - that population size *per se* strains natural resources - is wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What strains natural resources is overconsumption, i.e. consumption of natural resources that exceeds the world's biocapacity. **Not the most populous but the richest countries in the world consume most natural resources.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/World_map_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint_%282007%29.svg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world has a biocapacity of 1.63 global hectares (gha) per person. Australia, for example, has an ecological footprint of 9.31 gha per person; the United States have an ecological footprint of 8.22 gha per person, and the United Kingdom has an ecological footprint of 7.94 gha per person. By contrast, Eritrea has 0.49, Rwanda has 0.87, and Ethiopia has 1.02, staying well below biocapacity despite their alleged &quot;overpopulation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Overpopulation&quot; is an ideological red herring. The way in which our politico-economic systems (in the affluent &quot;global north&quot;) produce wealth by exploiting natural resources is the actual issue. At their current ecological footprints, North America and Europe, not Africa and Asia, would actually have to drastically reduce their population size." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28311" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10799" RevisionGUID="30604846-0f30-4c20-a401-e3fc445de1c5" CreationDate="2021-08-28T11:25:53.477" UserId="2266" Comment="added 46 characters in body" Text="Let me challenge the framing of the question: Your premise -- that population size *per se* strains natural resources -- is wrong. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What strains natural resources is overconsumption, i.e. consumption of natural resources that exceeds the world's biocapacity. **Not the most populous but the richest countries in the world consume most natural resources.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![enter image description here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/World_map_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint_%282007%29.svg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Image source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint_(2007).svg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The world has a biocapacity of 1.63 global hectares (gha) per person. Australia, for example, has an ecological footprint of 9.31 gha per person; the United States have an ecological footprint of 8.22 gha per person, and the United Kingdom has an ecological footprint of 7.94 gha per person. By contrast, Eritrea has 0.49, Rwanda has 0.87, and Ethiopia has 1.02, staying well below biocapacity despite their alleged &quot;overpopulation&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Data Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Overpopulation&quot; is an ideological red herring. The way in which our politico-economic systems (in the affluent &quot;global north&quot;) produce wealth by exploiting natural resources is the actual issue. At their current ecological footprints, North America, Australia and Europe, rather than Africa and Asia, would actually have to drastically reduce their population size." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10800" RevisionGUID="7ef9bc94-d854-4301-8001-df3a32cf512d" CreationDate="2021-08-28T16:35:19.037" UserId="6393" Text="For me it's single-use plastic Nescafe Dolce Gusto coffee capsules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sounds strange? Let me explain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A coffee maker is generally tuned to make a certain amount of coffee. Some machines have adjustable drip rate allowing the coffee to be in contact with the water for longer duration. Even then, it's usually only ideal and/or possible to make at least 2 cups of coffee at a time. For example I have an old grinding coffee machine that actually can't grind the correct amount of coffee for 1 cup, I can only grind 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 cups. But I drink only 1 cup at a time. Also another coffee machine I have that makes coffee for a large metallic thermos flask, has dual-setting drip rate. With this other coffee machine it might be possible to make only 1 cup, but the drip rate for small amounts is probably optimized for 2 cups and not 1 cup. The thermos flask is initially cold and if I make 1-2 cups only, it absolutely has to be pre-warmed with hot water. It requires 1.4 liters of hot water at a temperature of 80 degrees C (heated from 10 degrees C) to make it pre-warmed, requiring 0.11 kilowatt-hours of heat energy. 1 kWh of heat where I live produces 0.2 kg of emissions, so this water pre-warming alone causes 22 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions. I could theoretically make the coffee to a cup directly eliminating the needed pre-warming but the machine isn't really designed for that. I would have to devise some solution to activate the switch that detects the presence of the thermos flask that doesn't detect the presence of a cup. I also have to have some stand for the cup so the top of the cup is higher, where the coffee drips.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Nescafe Dolce Gusto single-use plastic capsule has 5 grams of plastic and 7 grams of coffee. The 5 grams of plastic cause about 13 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because I live alone and drink only one cup of coffee at a time, the single-use plastic capsules really are the most sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Make coffee with single-use capsules by a machine that makes single cup at a time: 13 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions from plastic. It tastes perfect as the machine is designed for producing a single cup at a time&#xD;&#xA;* Make coffee with a grinding machine: minimum 2 cups at a time, so 7 g extra coffee consumed, and at rate of 15 g/g (one kg of coffee produces 15 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions), it produces 105 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions from the extra wasted coffee alone.&#xD;&#xA;* Make 1 cup of coffee into a thermos flask: 22 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions from pre-heating the flask and it will taste strange because the &quot;make only a small amount&quot; drip-lock is not optimized for 1 cups, it's optimized for a slightly large amount of cups&#xD;&#xA;* Make 2 cups of coffee into a thermos flask: 22 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions from pre-heating the flask and 105 grams of emissions from extra cup&#xD;&#xA;* Make 1 cup of coffee into a cup directly using the thermos flask machine replacing the thermos flask with a cup: now there's no extra emissions from the coffee-making, but the cup will taste strange due to making 1 cup only as opposed to 2, and I have to somehow fabricate some mechanism to activate the switch that detects the presence of the thermos flask, and also I have to somehow fabricate some stand for the coffee cup so it is high enough that the dripping coffee won't miss its target&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically somebody might argue that fabricating the mechanism to activate the switch and fabricating the stand for the single coffee cup would be most sustainable, but then I would have to suffer strange-tasting coffee made by a machine that is optimized for more than one cup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, typically ground coffee is sold in 500 gram containers. Non-opened, it stays fresh for long but when opened, the clock starts ticking. One container makes about 70 cups. For me, that lasts about 35 weeks as I drink most of the coffee not at home but rather at workplace. Usually even after a week from opening a 500 gram coffee container, it would change its taste even if perfectly stored. So if I throw it away when it's not perfect anymore, out of the 500 grams 486 grams would be left as waste. I suspect a plastic container with lid in refrigerator would allow storing the coffee for longer, but probably not for 35 weeks. So there might be waste from spoiled coffee anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28313" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10792" RevisionGUID="cfeecc53-8758-411a-9c47-418b115bfd5a" CreationDate="2021-08-29T09:00:00.200" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1431904455306457088" />
  <row Id="28314" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10801" RevisionGUID="10f42c6a-b4ed-43bd-a70d-adbb7c4aa75a" CreationDate="2021-08-29T09:07:50.693" UserId="6896" Text="TL;DR&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Get your coffee beans with [rainforest alliance](https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/insights/rainforest-alliance-certified-coffee/) certification&#xD;&#xA; - Drink it black or with non-dairy whiteners&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Full answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the points you mention are relatively trivial compared to the big things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Where the coffee comes from and how it is transported&#xD;&#xA; - If you add milk&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Professor Mark Maslin and PhD student Carmen Nab](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/jan/analysis-heres-carbon-cost-your-daily-coffee-and-how-make-it-climate-friendly) have analysed the environmental impact, and they found:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Growing a single kilogram of Arabica coffee in [Brazil or Vietnam] and exporting it to the UK produces greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 15.33 kg of carbon dioxide on average. That’s raw, pre-roasted beans (otherwise known as “green coffee”) produced using conventional methods. But by using less fertiliser, managing water and energy use more efficiently during milling and exporting the beans by cargo ship rather than aeroplane, that figure falls to 3.51 kg of CO₂ equivalent per kg of coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The average cup of coffee contains about 18g of green coffee, so 1 kg of it can make 56 espressos. Just one espresso has an average carbon footprint of about 0.28 kg, but it could be as little as 0.06 kg if grown sustainably.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; But what if you like your coffee with milk? Lattes have a carbon footprint of about 0.55 kg, followed by cappuccinos on 0.41 kg and flat whites on 0.34 kg. But when the coffee is produced sustainably, these values fall to 0.33 kg, 0.2 kg and 0.13 kg respectively. Using non-dairy milk alternatives is one way to make white coffee more green.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Carbon footprint of coffee](https://images.theconversation.com/files/376986/original/file-20210104-23-gutj0d.jpg?q=90&amp;w=754&amp;h=521)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28315" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="685f3fce-4fe4-4b39-a26b-bc5755b222c6" CreationDate="2021-08-29T15:04:40.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="28323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10804" RevisionGUID="d50193a7-1303-4114-ab1b-e228ee3d3fb6" CreationDate="2021-08-31T20:22:19.157" UserId="12164" Text="These rough numbers oddly enough are in line with Solar Energy International estimates almost 18 years ago regarding solar panels earning back their “embodied energy” over time. Taking manufacturing variables into account basically gives you a range of time from 1.25 - 6.5 years based on 5 sunny days out of seven and an average of 6-8 hours of sun per day. But in reality none of this matters, here’s why. Electricity as a commodity has been in use for over a century, it isn’t going away in our lifetime. A better question is, “What’s the best way to produce it?” If you look at the embodied energy of a coal plant, or even a modern high efficiency natural gas generator, how long does it take to earn back their embodied energy? The answer is they never do. We forget, or more accurately ignore the fact that once you build a coal plant, or gas fired turbine, you then have to feed it fuel the rest of its life which it converts to electricity at a rate somewhere less than 100%. So they keep digging themselves a deeper and deeper embodied energy hole they can never crawl out of. At least the solar panel, water wheel and wind turbine can one day get even. This is why renewable energy as a whole is better for us environmentally and economically than any form of fossil based fuel source. Questions like this one are designed to detract us from the real issue. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28324" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10751" RevisionGUID="8cd7c1b6-32f0-409c-9d50-e5940befa286" CreationDate="2021-09-01T00:00:21.417" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1432855812188344323" />
  <row Id="28325" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10805" RevisionGUID="01e19c04-203a-4160-b37b-a3bffcae1ee2" CreationDate="2021-09-01T00:31:26.103" UserId="12164" Text="your actual question here, why are oil filled electric heaters more efficient is excellent. The short answer is they aren’t. One watt of electricity fed through a resistive heating element produces 3.412 BTU’s of heat. It doesn’t matter if you use a simple resistor, fill the cavity with oil, or stack rocks on top, it’s the same amount of heat. The difference, as Jean-Paul points out is the comfort level in the room. Simple resistive heaters heat a space quickly, which is great if the room is cold to begin with, but once it reaches desired temperature they must cycle on and off to maintain it, which may not be desirable depending on how close you are sitting to the heater. Oil filled units take advantage of a feature called, “thermal inertia.” It takes longer to transfer the electric heat into the room, slowing down the temperature rise, but once the unit cycles off, the oil continues adding smaller amounts of heat so the room cools slower as well. Some people find this more comfortable. Makers of oil filled electric heaters try to bill this change of how the heat feels as an incentive to set your thermostat lower, and frame it as an efficiency increase, it isn’t, and at the end of the day, if it’s 40 degrees outside and your room is set at 70, the exact same amount of BTU’s, and watts per hour will be needed to keep this temperature differential. So an oil filled 1500 watt heater produces 5118 BTU’s, exactly the same as the simple 1500 watt electric strip. The efficiency is the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are indeed losses in power line transmission as you suggested, but these are not evident in your electric usage since the meter is on the side of your house, downstream of all the transmission lines. While your heater might be using 1500 watts, and your electric meter is accurately tracking it as such, the power plant might have to produce 2000 watts to make it run, with the remaining 500 watts heating lines between you and the power plant. This loss however needs to be paid for by the power company, which is why it generally costs more to heat a home with electricity than other sources, like natural gas or oil, since in the end, the entire 2000 watts has to be paid for by the users, your electric rate reflects the total cost of running the power plant, including the transmission losses. Natural gas and other fossil based fuel heating systems have losses too, but the end cost of these fuels “per BTU” is generally far less than electricity, this lower cost usually more than offsets the heating system losses in the home. As always, your mileage may vary. Take care Ned, Rudydoo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28326" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10661" RevisionGUID="99195d2e-e3b7-4545-9f24-d55b5d5cd29a" CreationDate="2021-09-01T03:01:12.660" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1432901325575102474" />
  <row Id="28327" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10805" RevisionGUID="5a647c45-5e44-414a-a2cd-2c2b270a361c" CreationDate="2021-09-01T04:05:47.937" UserId="1056" Comment="added headings; removed valediction; removed incorrect claim that electric heat costs more because of transmission losses" Text="### Thermodynamic Efficiency&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydronic electric baseboards are **not** any more thermodynamically efficient than convection electric baseboards. One watt of electricity fed through a resistive heating element produces one watt (3.412 BTU) of heat. It doesn’t matter if you use a simple resistor, fill the cavity with oil, or stack rocks on top, it’s the same amount of heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Heating Comfort&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference, as Jean-Paul points out is the comfort level in the room. Simple resistive heaters heat a space quickly, which is great if the room is cold to begin with, but once it reaches desired temperature they must cycle on and off to maintain it, which may not be desirable depending on how close you are sitting to the heater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oil-filled units take advantage of a feature called, “thermal inertia.” It takes longer to transfer the electric heat into the room, slowing down the temperature rise, but once the unit cycles off, the oil continues adding smaller amounts of heat so the room cools slower as well. Some people find this more comfortable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Makers of oil filled electric heaters try to bill this change of how the heat feels as an incentive to set your thermostat lower, and frame it as an efficiency increase, it isn’t, and at the end of the day, if it’s 40 degrees outside and your room is set at 70, the exact same amount of BTU’s, and watts per hour will be needed to keep this temperature differential. So an oil filled 1500 watt heater produces 5118 BTU’s, exactly the same as the simple 1500 watt electric strip. The efficiency is the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Power line losses&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are indeed losses in power line transmission as you suggested, but these are not evident in your electric usage since the meter is on the side of your house, downstream of all the transmission lines. [Transmission and distribution losses in the United States are estimated at 5%.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses) While your heater might be using 1500 watts, and your electric meter is accurately tracking it as such, the power plant might have to produce 1580 watts to make it run, with the remaining 80 watts heating lines between you and the power plant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Natural gas heating costs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas and other fossil based fuel heating systems have losses too, but the end cost of these fuels “per BTU” is generally far less than electricity, this lower cost usually more than offsets the heating system losses in the home. As always, your mileage may vary." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28329" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10804" RevisionGUID="b51ddc27-753a-470e-860f-8b74f7b84fc6" CreationDate="2021-09-01T04:18:51.137" UserId="1056" Comment="add headings; remove confusing(unsourced) statements; remove criticism of the question" Text="### Energy payback in 1-6 years&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Taking manufacturing variables into account basically gives you a range of time from 1.25 - 6.5 years based on 5 sunny days out of seven and an average of 6-8 hours of sun per day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in reality none of this matters, here’s why...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Fossil fuels never reach energy payback&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity as a commodity has been in use for over a century, it isn’t going away in our lifetime. A better question is, “What’s the best way to produce it?”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you look at the embodied energy of a coal plant, or even a modern high efficiency natural gas generator, how long does it take to earn back their embodied energy? The answer is they never do. We forget, or more accurately ignore the fact that once you build a coal plant, or gas fired turbine, you then have to feed it fuel the rest of its life which it converts to electricity at a rate somewhere less than 100%. So they keep digging themselves a deeper and deeper embodied energy hole they can never crawl out of.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least the solar panel, water wheel and wind turbine can one day get even. This is why renewable energy as a whole is better for us environmentally and economically than any form of fossil based fuel source." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="202a592e-7ad2-4520-a967-88d22406f535" CreationDate="2021-09-01T23:58:57.063" UserId="12168" Text="I'd like to go solar with a couple of our battery-powered tools without a) charging the batteries with DC directly, as they're expensive batteries with their own fancy AC chargers, or b) spending money on other expensive solar batteries to power charging these expensive tool batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically, I have a tool shed I'd like to put solar panels on solely to charge the electric mower &amp; weed whacker (two 7.5ah@56v/420wh EGO brand batteries), and a bike shed I'd like to do the same - charge three Bosch 500wh (36v) battery packs with solar on the bike shed. We drain all batteries to about half capacity once a week, so they have roughly similar requirements - generate about 1kwh per week, although more than that is better &quot;just in case.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can get used 250w, 30v panels locally for about $90, so I figure four of those should be enough per shed, but I'm new to solar. I live in Seattle, so I figure 1kw of solar capacity, when factoring in clouds, conversion losses, and other system losses, should be enough to get 1kw into the batteries over the course of a week in most conditions, but I could use a sanity check there. Since the panels are relatively cheap I figure it's a good place to spend money as opposed to solar battery capacity, which seems very expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of batteries, that's my question. There's lots of advice on how to hook up a solar array to a big battery to run your fridge at night etc, but not so much for my use case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally I'd just charge the tool batteries straight off an inverter, without a solar battery, or use a small (and inexpensive) battery. But I have the intuition that I can't just do that with typical equipment - it's here where I start to get fuzzy... both the EGO tool charger and Bosch battery charger draw about 2a while charging (one a little less, one a little more). So take the Bosh charger, 120v @ 2.2a = 264w, and the internet says an inverter draws 1 amp to output 20w at 24v, so that would mean I'd need a 264/20=13.2amp battery? The cheapest decent-looking LIFEPO4 I can find would be four 12v 7ah Dakota batteries (two pairs in parallel would give 24v 14ah), which would run about $200, and it seems like that's just scraping by for the requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Would this work as I've imagined it? Surely I'm missing something.&#xD;&#xA;2. Any way to cut out the charge controller &amp; battery middleman? I'm aware of microinverters, would it be better to use microinverters and a voltage regulator to get 120v without going through a charge controller?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks for any input!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28331" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="202a592e-7ad2-4520-a967-88d22406f535" CreationDate="2021-09-01T23:58:57.063" UserId="12168" Text="Cost-effective way to solar charge proprietary LiPo tool packs having AC chargers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="28332" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="202a592e-7ad2-4520-a967-88d22406f535" CreationDate="2021-09-01T23:58:57.063" UserId="12168" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29330" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="b07452ee-b477-4107-9a7f-03dbe072a102" CreationDate="2021-09-02T03:01:06.780" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1433263688706887686" />
  <row Id="29331" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11806" RevisionGUID="0aad76c4-a98b-40f2-b144-b7c4d00eb26d" CreationDate="2021-09-02T04:19:22.117" UserId="1056" Text="Consider the following setup:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Solar panel (0.5 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; / 12V / 100W)&#xD;&#xA;- Solar inverter (12 volts DC → 120 volts AC)&#xD;&#xA;- LED TV (32&quot; / 55 watts)&#xD;&#xA;- ***no batteries / no grid-tie***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume the solar panel is receiving sufficient insolation (positioned in direct sunlight at midday in the summer) would it be possible to turn on and use the TV in this configuration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What happens in low-sun and no-sun scenarios? If a cloud temporarily passed in front of the sun, would the inverter detect a low voltage scenario and shut itself off? And would it resume working once full sun exposure was regained? *(Assume the TV is configured to turn itself back on after a power outage.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are any components in this system at risk of getting damaged? It seems like frequent low-power scenarios might be bad for the inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;I've been wondering about this for so long and [this question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/10806/1056) inspired me to ask here.&lt;/sub&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29332" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11806" RevisionGUID="0aad76c4-a98b-40f2-b144-b7c4d00eb26d" CreationDate="2021-09-02T04:19:22.117" UserId="1056" Text="Can a solar inverter still work without batteries? (off-grid)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29333" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11806" RevisionGUID="0aad76c4-a98b-40f2-b144-b7c4d00eb26d" CreationDate="2021-09-02T04:19:22.117" UserId="1056" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|off-grid|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11807" RevisionGUID="6258b437-591e-400f-ad8f-879affc1f2e5" CreationDate="2021-09-02T05:53:08.003" UserId="1056" Text="Sometimes I have multiple batteries I want to charge, but I don't want to charge them all simultaneously. There are two scenarios for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - My power source isn't strong enough to charge all the batteries simultaneously. For example, maybe I'm off-grid using a small inverter. Charging batteries sequentially rather than all at once &#xD;&#xA; - I want to keep several gadgets with batteries charged above 20%, but I want to avoid keeping them all at 100% in order to maximize their longevity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All my batteries have their own AC adapters, so I'm looking for smart control of standard 120VAC outlets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anything on the market like this? I'm not even sure what to call this product category. I know there are &quot;smart&quot; power bars, but they mostly seem only useful for remote control, and that's the opposite of what I'm thinking of here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally I'm looking for something that can do any/all of these functions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ensure that only one power socket is energized at a given time. (Software developers describe this as &quot;mutual exclusion&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - Keep one socket energized until the power demanded drops below a threshold, then automatically energize the next socket.&#xD;&#xA; - rotate power to each socket on a  timed schedule anywhere from minutes to days. (Bonus if the schedule can also be programmed with intentional blackout windows.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no product like this on the market, what would be a reasonable way to DIY something like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29335" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11807" RevisionGUID="6258b437-591e-400f-ad8f-879affc1f2e5" CreationDate="2021-09-02T05:53:08.003" UserId="1056" Text="Charging only one battery at a time, automatically" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29336" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11807" RevisionGUID="6258b437-591e-400f-ad8f-879affc1f2e5" CreationDate="2021-09-02T05:53:08.003" UserId="1056" Text="|electricity|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29337" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11807" RevisionGUID="fbd820da-d4c0-423e-ad96-c7f86df50497" CreationDate="2021-09-02T05:59:46.723" UserId="1056" Comment="added 118 characters in body" Text="Sometimes I have multiple batteries I want to charge, but I don't want to charge them all simultaneously. There are three scenarios for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - My power source isn't strong enough to charge all the batteries simultaneously. For example, maybe I'm off-grid using a small inverter. Charging batteries sequentially rather than all at once &#xD;&#xA; - I want to keep several gadgets with batteries charged above 20%, but I want to avoid keeping them all at 100% in order to maximize their longevity.&#xD;&#xA;- I am connected to the grid but I'm trying to minimize my peak demand because I'm paying a peak demand tariff.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All my batteries have their own AC adapters, so I'm looking for something like a 120V power bar that has smart control of the outlets. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anything on the market like this? I'm not even sure what to call this product category. I know there are &quot;smart&quot; power bars, but they mostly seem only useful for remote control, and that's the opposite of what I'm thinking of here (I want something that works unattended.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally I'm looking for something that can do any/all of these functions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ensure that only one power socket is energized at a given time. (Software developers describe this as &quot;mutual exclusion&quot;)&#xD;&#xA; - Keep one socket energized until the power demanded drops below a threshold, then automatically energize the next socket.&#xD;&#xA; - rotate power to each socket on a  timed schedule anywhere from minutes to days. (Bonus if the schedule can also be programmed with intentional blackout windows.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is no product like this on the market, what would be a reasonable way to DIY something like this?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29338" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11808" RevisionGUID="c89cec27-4252-48e7-885a-d3d636e93e88" CreationDate="2021-09-02T10:25:07.427" UserId="9331" Text="I'm trying to figure out my daily dilemma: whether it's more ecological to take a diesel ferry that hops me over the river (roughly 160m) or to drive my EV a 15km drive through the nearest bridge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking like this:&#xD;&#xA; - Ships consume a ton of fuel.&#xD;&#xA; - On the other hand this ferry travels no matter if I'm there or not.&#xD;&#xA; - However this ferry will carry +2 tons of cargo (car+me) which will consume more fuel.&#xD;&#xA; - An EV doesn't directly consume gas but indirectly it does consume some fuel and that can be easily approximated to gas consumption.&#xD;&#xA; - Odd thing is that driving the EV around costs only about 1/5 compared to taking the ferry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an easy way how I can calculate the amount of *extra* diesel-fuel the ferry will consume when 2 tons of extra load are added on board?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm looking for the most possible accurate answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Motivational image:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Routes compared][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/55S3n.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29339" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11808" RevisionGUID="c89cec27-4252-48e7-885a-d3d636e93e88" CreationDate="2021-09-02T10:25:07.427" UserId="9331" Text="Is it more ecological to take a diesel ferry or drive an EV the longer route?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29340" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11808" RevisionGUID="c89cec27-4252-48e7-885a-d3d636e93e88" CreationDate="2021-09-02T10:25:07.427" UserId="9331" Text="|energy|carbon-footprint|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11809" RevisionGUID="b0bb5ce1-7d48-4fab-9445-92593ec224ad" CreationDate="2021-09-02T15:11:12.993" UserId="12168" Text="Here's a potential answer one of my friends gave me. I'm still leaning towards a more traditional solution but:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This video][1] shows the internals of the particular charger I have for the EGO system, and it appears that after the transformer, it uses about 60v DC, so my friend is suggesting I verify this with a multimeter and if accurate, wire up leads after the transformer and power it with two 30v solar panels in series.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 250w panels, that would put 500w/60v=8a into the charger, which normally has a load of 210w @ 120v (1.75a). Would the charger just ignore this extra juice? Fry the charger? Put too much into the batteries?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cYAKUuVgUE" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11810" RevisionGUID="9aa49778-73d5-4667-b035-05f8db35ddfc" CreationDate="2021-09-02T15:47:04.200" UserId="1056" Text="## Take the ferry!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The short ferry trip likely results in lower emissions of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; compared to the long detour, if the EV is charged from a grid that uses fossil fuels (coal/gas).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there are actually three different change scenarios worth considering here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Marginal: You change your route, but nobody else does. (This is looking at the problem from an individual &quot;carbon footprint&quot; perspective).&#xD;&#xA;2. Group: a significant number of people all change their route.&#xD;&#xA;3. System: the ferry is shut down entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Marginal Scenario (one more car on the ferry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my reading I've learned there are several factors that significantly impact fuel usage and emissions on passenger/vehicle ferry transports (eg. trip frequency, speed, prevailing winds, vessel size, fuel type) but number of vehicles on board  **is not a significant factor**. *(disclosure: I am not a marine engineer.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I think your assumption about ship's fuel use (below) is intuitively correct, it's such a small factor that it doesn't make a significant difference and cannot be reasonably measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; However this ferry will carry +2 tons of cargo (car+me) which will consume more fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although it's tempting to use a measure of fuel use like litres/passenger-km to estimate the impact of a single trip, the reality is that the actual carbon emissions and air pollution don't really change in any significant measurable way whether you board the ship or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, you can assume approximately *zero emissions* for the diesel ferry. On the other hand, natural gas peaking plants are designed to scale power output up or down based on power demand from the grid, so using electricity to charge your EV likely does result in a very slight marginal increase to carbon emissions and air pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Winner:** Diesel Ferry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Group Scenario (many more cars on the ferry)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vessel speed and number of return trips have a **very significant** impact on fuel usage. If many more people decide to take the ferry, the ferry may need to perform more round trips and/or operate at a higher sailing speed. *(Although sailing speed probably doesn't matter much for a very short-haul trip like the river crossing you're asking about.)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the ferry needs to make an additional round trip to handle increased demand, then we can distribute the fuel usage across the group using a measure like litres/passenger-km. Luckily there's a study we can refer to: [Comparison of Ferry Boat and Highway Bridge Energy Use](https://doi.org/10.3390/en4020239).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Examinations of three of the systems found that the passenger-MPG of the ferries ranged from 2.61 to 14.00 (1.11 to 5.95 km/L) [0.90 L/km to 0.16 L/km]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a per-passenger basis, your 0.16 km river crossing would use between 0.0256 - 0.14 litres of diesel fuel. Diesel engines produce 2.7 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per litre of diesel fuel consumed.[&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;](https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/oee/pdf/transportation/fuel-efficient-technologies/autosmart_factsheet_9_e.pdf) So a single trip by diesel ferry would result in around 0.07 - 0.38 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric passenger vehicles typically use around 20 kWh/100 km, so your 15 km drive would use around 3 kWh. Natural gas peaking plants emit 0.91 pounds[2](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&amp;t=11) (0.41 kg) of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per kWh produced, so the 15 km drive would result in 1.23 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Winner:** Diesel Ferry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### System&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Maybe I'll add this in the future. This answer is already quite long and I have to stop for now.]*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29343" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10734" RevisionGUID="60312c94-1969-4496-8d89-563a7588805a" CreationDate="2021-09-02T19:01:55.237" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29344" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10778" RevisionGUID="ac03d64b-9b00-4711-a4ac-b01f3958d11a" CreationDate="2021-09-02T19:18:59.960" UserId="5864" Comment="removed header formatting from non-header text" Text="Recently I am facing a dilemma: I am living in The Netherlands and in this area it is encouraged to separate out plastic trash for recycling.  &#xD;&#xA;Usually my plastic trash consists of food packages and sheets (the point is: let us assume the trash itself does not contain a bag or something that can contain trash easily).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now there are two scenarios:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Put plastic directly into the mixed container at my house (gets picked up on a fixed schedule and has sufficient capacity)&#xD;&#xA;2. Put plastic inside a bag, and bring it to the recycling point (short walk)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I was opening a bag to contain the plastic trash this made me wonder:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it actually better for the environment to separate the plastic at home, or put it in the mixed trash (which may see separation later?) and avoid the production of an additional bag. In short:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is the recycling of 1 bag of plastic trash environmentally worth the production of 1 plastic bag to hold it?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11811" RevisionGUID="f8398abf-1675-4e4e-936a-09f1bb0ae944" CreationDate="2021-09-02T20:06:21.173" UserId="12168" Text="After more research, I think a 12v 200w system is more calibrated to my use case. Since my load will be 120v, 2.2a, that'll draw not quite 300w out of an inverter, so at 12v that's 25a. If the panels produce 20a, that might do it, or maybe it'll need an extra ~5a from the battery. I found a 12v 16ah battery for $60, which should satisfy the use case of charging the tool battery mostly from the sun with a small solar buffer battery. It's beyond me how to remove the charge controller and battery from this system, but that's only $110 of equipment. Good enough!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there's a policy here against linking to products, so I'll be generic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$500 planned total:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 2x 100w 12v panels, $100ea&#xD;&#xA;* Cheap 500w 30a 12v inverter, $40&#xD;&#xA;* 20a PWM charge controller, $50&#xD;&#xA;* 12v 16ah Lifepo4 battery, $60&#xD;&#xA;* 2x RV tilt mounting brackets, $35ea&#xD;&#xA;* Misc wiring, $45&#xD;&#xA;* Low voltage disconnect (since battery can't handle full load w/o solar), $25&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to remember to post back here and accept this answer after some testing, but in case I forget, here's a breadcrumb for someone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11812" RevisionGUID="1c79e163-295e-433b-87eb-5664b73455dc" CreationDate="2021-09-02T20:31:55.260" UserId="1056" Text="### Walk your plastic to the recycling centre (in a reusable bag).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Your items are *slightly* more likely to be recycled if you sort them yourself.&#xD;&#xA;- A bag can be reused many times. Your recycling point should allow you to empty your bag into a large bin -- if not, ask them why!&#xD;&#xA;- A short walk is good for physical and mental health. Don't be deterred from walking because some people claim that walking emits more CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; than cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### MRF Effectiveness&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I see it, this question is really about the effectiveness of automated sorting at Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF). Luckily, I found a Masters' thesis titled [Carbon footprint of recycling systems](https://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/136412.pdf) by David Palm from Chalmers University Of Technology in Sweden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The MRF uses approximately 1.83 litres of fuel oil and 30 kWh electricity per tonne mixed waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MRF is pretty energy-efficient at sorting recyclable material, but you can probably do slightly better when sorting by hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- In the Greenwich MRF, the [sorting] reject rate is 3-11% [15]. The rejected material is an unknown mix of potentially recyclable materials and other waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, the &quot;bring&quot; system (self-sorting) results in a higher percentage of material being recycled. Single-stream recycling is less efficient (lower % of items successfully recycled) but ends up collecting much more of the potentially recyclable material because it takes less effort from people, so the overall result is more items being diverted from the landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This actually exposes an interesting dilemma that often appears when trying to make environmentally-friendly choices: the most efficient solution is usually not the best solution overall! This is the crux of the debate about single-stream vs multi-stream recycling. To help understand this better, think about single-use bottles vs. reusable bottles. Reusable bottles are clearly better _if they get reused_, but not everyone participates equally. If you gave free reusable bottles to everyone in a city, many of them would go unused, which ends up being more wasteful! The best policy overall is to provide options for motivated people (ie. central recycling points and reusable water bottles) while also providing a backstop that makes it easy for everyone else (ie. curbside bin pickup)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11808" RevisionGUID="341445da-c829-4a7d-994b-3e810724d647" CreationDate="2021-09-02T20:51:04.587" UserId="1056" Comment="added headings; incorporated additional details from comments" Text="I'm trying to figure out my daily dilemma: whether it's less polluting to take a diesel ferry that hops me over the river (roughly 160 m) or to drive my electric vehicle (EV) on a 15 km detour to take the nearest bridge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#### Ferry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Ships consume a ton of fuel.&#xD;&#xA; - On the other hand this ferry travels no matter if I'm there or not.&#xD;&#xA; - However this ferry will carry +2 tons of cargo (car+me) which will consume more fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;#### Electric Vehicle&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - An EV doesn't directly consume gas but indirectly it does consume some fuel and that can be easily approximated to gas consumption.&#xD;&#xA; - Odd thing is that driving the EV around costs only about 1/5 compared to taking the ferry.&#xD;&#xA; - EV is charged from the power grid. Our energy mix is 55% nuclear, 40% fossil, 5% renewable. However, nuclear plants have a fixed capacity therefore it's sad but fair to assume that excess energy is coming from coal+natural gas peak plants. BTW I also have solar panels on my roof which could flip it to solar but since I mostly charge my car at night -&gt; let's go with a mix of coal+gas as the worst case scenario.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there an easy way how I can calculate the amount of *extra* diesel-fuel the ferry will consume when 2 tons of extra load are added on board?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Time savings are not a factor; environmental gains are more important to me. I'm interested in the overall environmental impact (CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; + toxic air pollution both local and global). And I'm looking for the most accurate answer possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Motivational image:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/55S3n.jpg&quot; width=&quot;313&quot; alt=&quot;satellite view showing river crossing and long detour&quot;&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29348" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11808" RevisionGUID="341445da-c829-4a7d-994b-3e810724d647" CreationDate="2021-09-02T20:51:04.587" UserId="1056" Comment="added headings; incorporated additional details from comments" Text="|energy|carbon-footprint|cars|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11813" RevisionGUID="a3599d9c-67dd-42b5-972e-fd6c56e992fd" CreationDate="2021-09-02T21:16:40.960" UserId="12164" Text="the short answer to your question is yes, that type of inverter does exist, they are very rare. The Delta model H6 (Thailand) is one example. A battery less grid tie inverter that is also advertised as a backup inverter for power outages, up to its full rated 6kw output, provided the solar array is sized for the load and in direct sun, no clouds. This unit also costs much less than similar sized grid tie units and has a full 1 month warranty, you can derive your own conclusions from that. Most battery less models that had backup capabilities are not on the market long because as your question states,are components in the system at risk of damage? Yes. There are a number of grid tie battery bank models that operate as backup power as well with proven track records. Our Trace (Xantrex now) SW-4024 is one example, it’s been running non stop at our property for over 20 years now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It’s worth mentioning that a battery bank can be expensive, or cheap. We use 4 Trojan T-105 golf cart batteries for ours, so for a few hundred dollars we have reliable grid tie solar and solar/battery backup. The components never seem to have any trouble going from one mode to another and back again, mainly because the inverter has two fairly solid voltages to anchor to, 24 VDC batteries, and 120 VAC grid to synchronize with. Either one is sufficient, but the batteries are required in either mode, and any available solar power is simply dumped into the homes existing AC wiring. In most cases when our power goes out here, we are not aware of it until a neighbor calls and asks if we have power, because they don’t. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The few batteryless, grid tie/backup power inverters that are available are purely computer generated sine waves driven entirely by the variable output of your array, which accounts for why most companies making them stop making them after a time, or offer short warranty periods. A battery based grid tie “hybrid” unit has a much higher incidence of reliability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29350" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11814" RevisionGUID="3a9c234b-6150-4893-be97-71f591610459" CreationDate="2021-09-03T01:34:39.433" UserId="3379" Text="There are two different ways you could do this depending on how much programming you want to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Start with a commercial smart power strip with energy monitoring&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are likely a number of compatible products, but I've used TP-Link's Kasa line in my house. Here's the [HS300](https://www.kasasmart.com/us/products/smart-plugs/kasa-smart-wi-fi-power-strip-hs300), a smart WiFi power strip with energy monitoring. From the specs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **6 Smart Outlets.** Independently control 6 smart outlets and charge 3 devices with built-in USB ports.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Energy Monitoring.** Monitor how much energy devices connected to the power strip consume. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Control From Anywhere.** Control connected devices from anywhere with the Kasa Smart app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Basic programming with IFTTT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Kasa line is compatible with [IFTTT](https://ifttt.com/kasa) (If this, then that) a simple web-based platform for coordinating actions of web-connected devices and services. Based on [a forum posting](https://community.tp-link.com/en/home/forum/topic/200926), it seems like the power level from Kasa may not be available as a trigger for IFTTT, but if you know how long each device takes to charge, you could use that as a trigger&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Advanced programming with a Raspberry Pi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of hits for [&quot;HS300 raspberry pi&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&amp;q=hs300+raspberry+pi) that could likely serve as a starting point for this project. Several point to [python-kasa](https://github.com/GadgetReactor/pyHS100) on GitHub:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**python-kasa** is a Python library to control TPLink smart home devices (plugs, wall switches, power strips, and bulbs) using asyncio. This project is a maintainer-made fork of pyHS100 project.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29351" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11814" RevisionGUID="6abb2cee-9249-4bac-8cf4-ed7f7dba3f36" CreationDate="2021-09-03T04:06:31.757" UserId="3379" Comment="added 580 characters in body" Text="There are two different ways you could do this depending on how much programming you want to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Start with a commercial smart power strip with energy monitoring&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are likely a number of compatible products, but I've used TP-Link's Kasa line in my house. They offer the [HS300](https://www.kasasmart.com/us/products/smart-plugs/kasa-smart-wi-fi-power-strip-hs300), a smart WiFi power strip with energy monitoring. From the specs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **6 Smart Outlets.** Independently control 6 smart outlets and charge 3 devices with built-in USB ports.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Energy Monitoring.** Monitor how much energy devices connected to the power strip consume. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; - **Control From Anywhere.** Control connected devices from anywhere with the Kasa Smart app.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Basic programming with IFTTT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Kasa line is compatible with [IFTTT](https://ifttt.com/kasa) (If this, then that) a simple web-based platform for coordinating actions of web-connected devices and services. Based on [a forum posting](https://community.tp-link.com/en/home/forum/topic/200926), it seems like the power level from Kasa may not be available as a trigger for IFTTT, but you could use this for your third function:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - rotate power to each socket on a timed schedule anywhere from minutes to days. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Advanced programming with a Raspberry Pi&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of hits for [&quot;HS300 raspberry pi&quot;](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&amp;q=hs300+raspberry+pi) that could likely serve as a starting point for this project. Several point to [python-kasa](https://github.com/GadgetReactor/pyHS100) on GitHub:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**python-kasa** is a Python library to control TPLink smart home devices (plugs, wall switches, power strips, and bulbs) using asyncio. This project is a maintainer-made fork of pyHS100 project.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With some tinkering, you should be able to program an RPi to monitor the consumption of each outlet to accomplish your first two functions: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Ensure that only one power socket is energized at a given time. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Keep one socket energized until the power demanded drops below a threshold, then automatically energize the next socket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With a web-connected RPi you'd be able to monitor this remotely and could even integrate data from a web-connected solar inverter, weather station, your own location, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11815" RevisionGUID="f62b12e2-7cda-4561-a0b8-15413880af4d" CreationDate="2021-09-03T17:06:29.477" UserId="1056" Text="I have a few glass candle jars that I'm thinking about cleaning and recycling. But I've read that candle jars might be made from different kinds of glass, and some glass should not be recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Your main concern when recycling glass candle jars is the type of glass used. Candle jars are safe for curbside recycling if they’re made from standard container (soda-lime) glass. However, other types of glass, such as borosilicate, may be used for these jars to help withstand the heat of the burning candle, in which case there could be a problem. This is because mixing different kinds of glass in a recycling batch is a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, the different melting points of the different glass types can lead to low-quality recycled glass and even broken machinery. [[1]](https://livegreen.recyclebank.com/column/because-you-asked/can-i-recycle-glass-candle-jars)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The labels stuck to the glass don't identify the kind of glass, and the company that made them has gone out of business so I can't email them to ask what they used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some way to identify whether a given piece of glass is soda-lime or borosilicate, and therefore know whether it's safe to return to the glass recycling centre?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29353" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11815" RevisionGUID="f62b12e2-7cda-4561-a0b8-15413880af4d" CreationDate="2021-09-03T17:06:29.477" UserId="1056" Text="How can I tell if glass is soda-lime or borosilicate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29354" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11815" RevisionGUID="f62b12e2-7cda-4561-a0b8-15413880af4d" CreationDate="2021-09-03T17:06:29.477" UserId="1056" Text="|recycling|glass|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29355" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11806" RevisionGUID="f9c26192-791b-40be-950c-b96066883672" CreationDate="2021-09-03T18:00:10.237" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1433852331909595147" />
  <row Id="29356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11816" RevisionGUID="cca041ea-7a36-4346-81e6-fdfb7634a8f0" CreationDate="2021-09-04T14:16:09.390" UserId="1778" Text="Say I need to stock up on some shower gel. What would be a lesser evil pick?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1 huge 5L bottle of liquid soap that uses cheap crappy pseudo-apple-and-jasmin perfume that will pollute the drain water, or&#xD;&#xA;- 20 small 250 ml plastic bottles of perfume-free shower gel; the bottles may not be recycleable where I live, so I will hand them over for professional burning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29357" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11816" RevisionGUID="cca041ea-7a36-4346-81e6-fdfb7634a8f0" CreationDate="2021-09-04T14:16:09.390" UserId="1778" Text="Shower gel: creating more plasting packaging vs. polluting the drain with perfumes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29358" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11816" RevisionGUID="cca041ea-7a36-4346-81e6-fdfb7634a8f0" CreationDate="2021-09-04T14:16:09.390" UserId="1778" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11817" RevisionGUID="acd2d66e-0945-4522-aa43-8438a220c46e" CreationDate="2021-09-05T21:53:57.723" UserId="9669" Text="What should I pick for sportswear if synthetics are bad (microplastics)? It's not a pleasant experience to sweat in cotton clothes (whether organic or not). If I should ask this on Meta (you may see it as opinion-based), just tell me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29360" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11817" RevisionGUID="acd2d66e-0945-4522-aa43-8438a220c46e" CreationDate="2021-09-05T21:53:57.723" UserId="9669" Text="What should I pick for sportswear if synthetics are bad (microplastics)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29361" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11817" RevisionGUID="acd2d66e-0945-4522-aa43-8438a220c46e" CreationDate="2021-09-05T21:53:57.723" UserId="9669" Text="|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11818" RevisionGUID="352f59d5-0a1b-449c-934f-47b273038554" CreationDate="2021-09-05T22:32:30.373" UserId="1056" Text="### Use a fine-mesh bag when washing your sportswear&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first goal of sustainability is to [tag:reuse] goods for as long as possible. Microplastics are a real concern, but we don't need to throw our synthetic textiles into the trash. Instead, make sure to put your synthetics in a fine-mesh bag (like the [Guppyfriend](https://en.guppyfriend.com)*) when doing your washing. This will trap at least 90% of the fibres that break off, substantially decreasing the amount of microplastics that end up in the ocean.  &#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;*I have no affiliation or connection with this brand, I just know of them as a good solution to this problem.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Consider natural fibres&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural fibres like wool (from animals) and hemp (from plants) can be woven to produce fabrics and textiles with desirable properties for sportswear. Merino wool is moisture-wicking and retains its insulating properties even when damp, making it a good choice for activewear. Vegans may prefer to avoid animal-based products, so they should look toward hemp-based apparel as one of the most sustainable fibres for producing textiles." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29363" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11817" RevisionGUID="0b4091b6-05f7-452d-b8c2-85c4b3dd4441" CreationDate="2021-09-06T03:00:32.347" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1434713095788810245" />
  <row Id="29364" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11817" RevisionGUID="0d4ce189-6a4a-401a-b028-b6ad4a2c7020" CreationDate="2021-09-06T05:57:46.023" />
  <row Id="29366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11819" RevisionGUID="0a6d7a0c-99d0-43b7-8dd7-d1fb72cddb0c" CreationDate="2021-09-06T09:23:58.690" UserId="13173" Text="Typical apple scent is not that bad: while not completely free of hazard or health concerns, [ethyl isovalerate](https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ethyl-isovalerate#section=EPA-Safer-Chemical) is considered &quot;best in class&quot; by US Environment Protection Agency. In particular, it's much better than [ethyl formate](https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Ethyl-formate#section=Pharmacology-and-Biochemistry), another popular cheap artificial scent (lemon), which is known to be absorbed by the lungs and skin and hydrolyze to formic acid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The jasmine part of the perfume remains unknown. Unfortunately, fragrances are considered trade secrets, so manufacturers often don't specify the exact composition on the label.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Considering the impact of producing and burning 20 250 ml plastic bottles, I would probably go for the 5L one." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11820" RevisionGUID="f6416e2b-5aa3-4eda-b9dc-f65e9854f3e4" CreationDate="2021-09-06T09:26:24.523" UserId="2846" Text="A couple of further suggestions, that don't involve buying new products (though a similar bag could be made from an old pillowcase):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use a gentle wash cycle, to reduce the agitation that releases microplastics.   I've seen conflicting advice on the effects of soaking and whether we should prefer a cycle that uses a lot of water or a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Save the synthetics for when they're needed: If you're outdoors all day in all weathers, carrying all your kit, choose stuff that's lightweight, wicking, quick-drying, etc.  If you're just going to the gym, or for a short run in nice weather, a cotton T-shirt might not be so bad after all - probably not your best ones as they can end up less than fresh even after a good wash if you have to save up your washing to make a load.  If you exercise frequently, this can reduce the amount you need to own, and prolong the life of synthetic garments." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29368" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5087" RevisionGUID="f0ec9ee5-8da8-452c-a115-0cb05d1bf034" CreationDate="2021-09-06T09:45:34.270" UserId="2846" Comment="added 482 characters in body" Text="Your grinder *may* be less efficient than a commercial unit, and shipping beans rather than ground coffee *may* affect the bulk for shipping. If you use extra (hot) water in washing a permanent filter you may be better off using unbleached paper filters and composting them along with the grounds. I find that you can't put lots of coffee grounds through a dishwasher without clogging the filter so pre-rinsing is necessary there. A drip machine used with paper filters doesn't need to be washed every time it's used. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of the many cases where you're trading off water, energy and materials, so a direct comparison isn't possible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option I've used recently, when bike-touring, is a coffee sock.  This is simply a cotton bag (I made one from a spare cheesecloth) that fits in a mug, held over the rim by a drawstring or elastic.  The coffee goes in, then the water.  When done, tip out the coffee grounds and compost. Some rinsing is needed, though this might not be every use.  With a suitable (e.g. enamel) mug you can add coffee and cold water, than heat.  That's the attraction for me when camping." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11821" RevisionGUID="45b2cf88-d494-43eb-899e-59894f493554" CreationDate="2021-09-06T09:48:46.390" UserId="13173" Text="If the glass is uncolored, you can tell which one it is by looking at a thick layer of it (e.g. along the sides): soda-lime has a green-blue tint, while borosilicate is more yellow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Borosilicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Soda-lime:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6vIyx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wZg3z.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11821" RevisionGUID="02b73044-f5f6-4d90-99fe-9fb489fa6121" CreationDate="2021-09-06T10:01:10.870" UserId="13173" Comment="added 275 characters in body" Text="If the glass is uncolored, you can tell which one it is by looking at a thick layer of it (e.g. along the sides): soda-lime has a green-blue tint, while borosilicate is more yellow:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Borosilicate:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Soda-lime:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't mind shattering the jar, you can always test it: put some ice cubes inside, wait until the jar is cold to the touch, and then pour boiling water on the outside (or put the jar in a pot with just boiled water). Borosilicate glass will not crack, soda-lime will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6vIyx.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wZg3z.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11817" RevisionGUID="a5fddab7-9eb0-4f09-89b7-8c418cf153ee" CreationDate="2021-09-06T14:06:54.380" UserId="7967" Comment="Remove comment about meta " Text="What should I pick for sportswear if synthetics are bad (microplastics)? It's not a pleasant experience to sweat in cotton clothes (whether organic or not)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29372" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11817" RevisionGUID="a5fddab7-9eb0-4f09-89b7-8c418cf153ee" CreationDate="2021-09-06T14:06:54.380" Comment="Proposed by 7967 approved by 99 edit id of 679" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29374" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11822" RevisionGUID="dc721803-46ef-4baf-9423-008b47ec79d8" CreationDate="2021-09-06T14:20:02.117" UserId="13175" Text="The problem with the carbon market is also the benefit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no necessary connection between the benefit (which is reduced CO2) and the cost (which is money).  The output of a project might be a CO2 reduction but this is not connected to the money-based economy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The CO2 offsets market is a way of making this connection so that reduced CO2 has some kind of value&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the product you are buying into has already made a CO2 reduction but has not sold the offsets and you buy them then you are aiding the CO2 reduction project in the same way as if you had bought them _before_ the reduction was made&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the statistics and the governance on this type of market is not well developed then there must be a large measure of trust in how the transaction is carried out&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are efforts to make these types of transactions more transparent ( see https://www.sylvera.com/ )" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11823" RevisionGUID="285eb1af-8a46-46c0-bfda-6e956cbd5c57" CreationDate="2021-09-07T06:24:51.703" UserId="13175" Text="Long term, forget drinking coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current temperature rises due to climate change is going to make less and less of the land that currently grows coffee viable for this purpose&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ethiopia - [Speciality coffees will become impossible to make](https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/global-warming-coffee-ethiopia-arabica-b1832396.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Colombia - [Production yields vary by 40% year on year making small scale production unviable](https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-climate-changes-colombias-small-coffee-farmers-pay-the-price)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brazil - [Coffee yield is already down by 20% in SE Brazil](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aba471)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consumer behaviour is not going to change this!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29382" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10547" RevisionGUID="95663225-ab51-481a-aca8-7c6bb9bd3d9f" CreationDate="2021-09-08T02:01:20.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11825" RevisionGUID="1a69a802-24a4-4ff5-b011-3207f09e85ac" CreationDate="2021-09-09T06:32:19.120" UserId="13183" Text="Put the broccoli in a microwave safe bowl with a few tablespoons of water, cover the bowl with a microwave safe top (ideally maybe a glass lid, but if plastic, don't let it touch the food!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then microwave it.  Guaranteed less energy, and you don't lose significant nutrients into the water you'd be boiling it with either of the other two ways." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29384" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11815" RevisionGUID="91f0734f-cb3f-4db0-ad8e-8b8778304380" CreationDate="2021-09-09T12:00:00.277" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1435936020730720257" />
  <row Id="29385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11826" RevisionGUID="ddbd9433-5ce5-43d6-8d7c-b753f93ede96" CreationDate="2021-09-09T17:07:24.217" UserId="13185" Text="The air drag is the biggest force to overcome on flat road. Air drag is growing exponentially with speed increasing. The position of a bike rider seems more economical than the regular position of the e-scooter rider or unicyclist. &#xD;&#xA;In case we let those guys also sit down - e-scooter rider on the seat and EUC rider on the wheel cover, the difference should become less significant. It is the function of the area the rider covers with its body facing the air and the aerodynamic position the rider can take and clothing they may use. Somebody may want to invest some time and figure this out. &#xD;&#xA;My guess is that the cyclist would still win, whatever way the other two try to position themselves.  Losing the air drag game means the whole competition for efficiency is lost.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11827" RevisionGUID="33dbd1d7-d761-4a0e-abfa-f4cb9852b4ed" CreationDate="2021-09-10T04:22:16.677" UserId="12156" Text="I’ve always thought that the bowls from restaurants like Chipotle Mexican Grill were fully compostable. However, after seeing articles like [this one][1] and [this one][2], I’m not sure sure. According to these articles, the bowls contain PFAS chemicals, which are non-compostable and bad for human health. However I also found [this article][3] claiming that Chipotle was going to remove these chemicals from their bowls. So the question is, has Chipotle removed these chemicals yet? In addition, do most other restaurants that use these types of bowls still use PFAS?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/amp/s/people.com/food/new-study-chipotle-sweetgreen-bowls-contain-cancer-linked-non-biodegradable-chemicals/%3Famp=true&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1942912001&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thecounter.org/sweetgreen-chipotle-pfas-free-compostable-bowls-by-2020/amp/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29387" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11827" RevisionGUID="33dbd1d7-d761-4a0e-abfa-f4cb9852b4ed" CreationDate="2021-09-10T04:22:16.677" UserId="12156" Text="Do Chipotle style bowls still have PFAS chemicals?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29388" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11827" RevisionGUID="33dbd1d7-d761-4a0e-abfa-f4cb9852b4ed" CreationDate="2021-09-10T04:22:16.677" UserId="12156" Text="|composting|food-storage|toxic-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29389" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11827" RevisionGUID="fa41c8ed-23f2-4f46-a76f-0dcb64898fa8" CreationDate="2021-09-10T13:41:23.530" UserId="3379" Comment="Removed Google Amp redirects from links." Text="I’ve always thought that the bowls from restaurants like Chipotle Mexican Grill were fully compostable. However, after seeing articles like [this one][1] and [this one][2], I’m not sure sure. According to these articles, the bowls contain [PFAS chemicals][4], which are non-compostable and bad for human health. However I also found [this article][3] claiming that Chipotle was going to remove these chemicals from their bowls. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So the question is, has Chipotle removed these chemicals yet? In addition, do most other restaurants that use these types of bowls still use PFAS?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://people.com/food/new-study-chipotle-sweetgreen-bowls-contain-cancer-linked-non-biodegradable-chemicals/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/08/13/chipotle-sweetgreen-bowls-may-have-chemicals-linked-cancer/1942912001/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://thecounter.org/sweetgreen-chipotle-pfas-free-compostable-bowls-by-2020/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29390" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11828" RevisionGUID="6e2d4ba0-ed5b-4e40-ba7c-962dad51ea6d" CreationDate="2021-09-10T17:50:21.730" UserId="3379" Text="From the [the article](https://thecounter.org/sweetgreen-chipotle-pfas-free-compostable-bowls-by-2020/) you referenced, Chipotle is quoted as saying (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  We’ve been working closely with our suppliers to develop new food packaging that is sustainably sourced, functional, compostable, and free of PFAS. We look forward to rolling this new packaging out into our restaurants **by the end of the year.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That article is from March 2020, so I looked for anything more recent, and came across [this article](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/wendys-states-ditch-food-wrappers-with-forever-chemicals) in Bloomberg Law from June 2021. Here are a few excerpts that mention Chipotle as well as others:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **McDonald’s** Corp., **Wendy’s** Co., and **Whole Foods** Market, Inc., are among at least 15 companies that have announced policies in recent years to phase PFAS out of packaging they use or sell.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Chipotle** Mexican Grill, Inc.; **Office Depot**, LLC; and Koninklijke Ahold Delhaize NV, which owns grocery stores and food delivery services like **Food Lion**, the **Giant** Co., and **Fresh Direct**, are among more than a dozen companies with some type of PFAS in food packaging exclusion policy confirmed by Bloomberg Law. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are also several regions that are legislating removal of PFAS from food packaging:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Denmark, Maine, New York, Washington, and Vermont already banned PFAS from food packaging, while Minnesota, New York, and Connecticut have purchasing policies barring packaging with the chemicals. California, Minnesota, and Maryland are considering phase-out laws and/or developing regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bloomberg Law also maintains a [PFAS State Activity Tracker](https://aboutblaw.com/Vqo), though this hasn't been updated since February 2021.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the article mentions that some regions are actually testing the products to independently verify if restaurants are following through on promises or complying with regulations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In Denmark, which banned PFAS in paper and board food packaging in July 2020, none of McDonald’s french fry bags tested contained PFAS. But the french fry bags that McDonald’s sold in the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom did, according to the report. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While it's hard to say if &quot;most&quot; restaurants use disposable food packaging with PFAS, many well-known brands are actively seeking to stop using packaging with PFAS, and state and national governments have implemented or are pursing bans on PFAS. Given the attention that this issue has received, you may be able to find out if a specific restaurant chain uses packaging with PFAS by checking their website or contacting them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29393" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11808" RevisionGUID="972391cd-18b8-437e-b3d7-60b6e05478c9" CreationDate="2021-09-12T12:00:05.417" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1437023205508665346" />
  <row Id="29394" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11829" RevisionGUID="76cdf2d9-a981-47cf-8a5c-72cb89011e06" CreationDate="2021-09-12T15:04:47.080" UserId="13192" Text="How can paper recycles know how many times a given input paper has been recycled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read that paper can be recycled &quot;up to 6 times.&quot; I'm imagining a paper recycling plant that gets a ton of newspapers, books, cardboard, gift wrapping, and other household and industrial paper waste in their input stream. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a hard limit on &quot;6 recycling&quot; for paper, I imagine the recycling plant would need to reject items that have been recycled too many times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can a recycling plant possibly know how many times a given input paper source has already been recycled to ensure the output paper stays within the recycle-no-more-than-6-times limit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29395" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11829" RevisionGUID="76cdf2d9-a981-47cf-8a5c-72cb89011e06" CreationDate="2021-09-12T15:04:47.080" UserId="13192" Text="Detecting &quot;old&quot; paper in paper recycling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29396" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11829" RevisionGUID="76cdf2d9-a981-47cf-8a5c-72cb89011e06" CreationDate="2021-09-12T15:04:47.080" UserId="13192" Text="|recycling|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11829" RevisionGUID="7c2c7362-ae51-44d8-9b4f-87a76378078a" CreationDate="2021-09-12T15:12:29.457" UserId="13192" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="How can paper recyclers know how many times a given input paper has been recycled?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read that paper can be recycled &quot;up to 6 times.&quot; I'm imagining a paper recycling plant that gets a ton of newspapers, books, cardboard, gift wrapping, and other household and industrial paper waste in their input stream. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there is a hard limit on &quot;6 recycling&quot; for paper, I imagine the recycling plant would need to reject items that have been recycled too many times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can a recycling plant possibly know how many times a given input paper source has already been recycled to ensure the output paper stays within the recycle-no-more-than-6-times limit?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11830" RevisionGUID="5a915a0b-1684-412b-9807-4fbff103ba46" CreationDate="2021-09-15T14:12:09.267" UserId="13199" Text="I couldn't find a source for the economic impact of cloth napkins, but there are numerous studies that examine the environmental impact of cotton bags over plastic and paper. I know it's not a 100% comparison, but we have to use these since we don't know the environmental impact of a single paper and cloth napkin. One [study out of England](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/291023/scho0711buan-e-e.pdf) found that you need to use a paper bag 3 times to get the effectiveness, and a cotton bag 131 times. So using these numbers, for this to work for cloth napkins, you'd need to use it 43 times. This doesn't take into account the environmental impact of washing them (heating up hot water, and the electricity usage of the dryer and washer themselves).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is less than I expected before I found myself at this stack exchange, and seems very doable. If you get your napkins used, which you should, you could also argue you're not responsible for any demand on the cloth napkin manufacturers side so the environmental impact is even smaller." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11831" RevisionGUID="c3d104da-868a-487c-9e17-f1f90258cf4b" CreationDate="2021-09-16T15:17:38.573" UserId="8425" Text="&gt;The environmental impact potentials were evaluated based on the metal contents and masses of the drives and environmental impact characterization factors used in life cycle impact assessments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The SSD had 86% to 94% lower resource depletion potentials than the HDD, due primarily to the lower contents of Au, Cu, Pd, Ru, and Pt, whereas the SSD had 33% higher potential for only In. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The SSD also had 87% to 94% lower toxicity potentials due primarily to the lower contents of Ni, Pb, Cu, and Cr. Thus, **this study showed that the technology transformation is environmentally desirable** to conserve resources and to protect human and ecological health.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Environmental effects of the technology transformation from hard-disk to solid-state drives from resource depletion and toxicity management perspectives*, 24 January 2019 – https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ieam.4127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29404" PostHistoryTypeId="16" PostId="11831" RevisionGUID="e45564e0-69ad-474a-9c9d-57a1fa55b6df" CreationDate="2021-09-16T15:17:38.573" UserId="8425" />
  <row Id="29405" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11831" RevisionGUID="db1b90bc-6bf3-4be3-8fd3-1d498f74f914" CreationDate="2021-09-16T15:29:04.863" UserId="1056" Comment="prefer DOI links when available" Text="&gt;The environmental impact potentials were evaluated based on the metal contents and masses of the drives and environmental impact characterization factors used in life cycle impact assessments. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The SSD had 86% to 94% lower resource depletion potentials than the HDD, due primarily to the lower contents of Au, Cu, Pd, Ru, and Pt, whereas the SSD had 33% higher potential for only In. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The SSD also had 87% to 94% lower toxicity potentials due primarily to the lower contents of Ni, Pb, Cu, and Cr. Thus, **this study showed that the technology transformation is environmentally desirable** to conserve resources and to protect human and ecological health.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Environmental effects of the technology transformation from hard-disk to solid-state drives from resource depletion and toxicity management perspectives*, 24 January 2019 – https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4127" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11832" RevisionGUID="91d5831b-b808-4477-8d4d-890b47c09be4" CreationDate="2021-09-17T09:19:11.633" UserId="13201" Text="I read that clothes shed more fibers in top-loaded washing machines than in front-loaded ones. Does that also apply to horizontal top-loaded ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29408" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11832" RevisionGUID="91d5831b-b808-4477-8d4d-890b47c09be4" CreationDate="2021-09-17T09:19:11.633" UserId="13201" Text="Do horizontal top-loaded washing machines shed more fibers from clothes than front-loaded ones?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29409" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11832" RevisionGUID="91d5831b-b808-4477-8d4d-890b47c09be4" CreationDate="2021-09-17T09:19:11.633" UserId="13201" Text="|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11833" RevisionGUID="e4275875-a926-4277-8265-acd7dfe92764" CreationDate="2021-09-20T13:33:33.883" UserId="1371" Text="The USDA PLANTS Database.  [https://plants.usda.gov/home][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The PLANTS Database provides standardized information about the vascular plants, mosses, liverworts, hornworts, and lichens of the U.S. and its territories. It includes names, plant symbols, checklists, distributional data, species abstracts, characteristics, images, crop information, automated tools, onward Web links, and references. This information primarily promotes land conservation in the United States and its territories, but academic, educational, and general use is encouraged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This database has a dizzying array of search criteria and filters by most any characteristic you can think of, including native status and location, as well as the ability to download your filtered list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://plants.usda.gov/home&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29412" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11834" RevisionGUID="1332822d-5a13-45c2-b972-36f93911ea35" CreationDate="2021-09-20T14:51:33.320" UserId="13211" Text="I'm a vegan, and a lot of times vegan frozen food (and maybe other food) packaging can be this thick plasticy non-recycable material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some example brand food images are the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [Morning star veggie burgers][1]&#xD;&#xA; - [Gardein veggie burgers][2]&#xD;&#xA; - [Amy's frozen meals (inside plastic not recyclable)][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How bad is throwing away these plastics? Should I avoid these as much as possible?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/9f275c7a-9d4d-4850-84a9-cff0351997d8.05482fecfe4b23dfdd597baa97f64c69.jpeg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://images.heb.com/is/image/HEBGrocery/001850242&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.tampabay.com/resizer/PnsVQ1ie1rwLtAmXZuTHyqEntrA=/620x0/smart/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tbt/4FZ63T7CZVFJFFECJNBSNZDUZA.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29414" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11834" RevisionGUID="1332822d-5a13-45c2-b972-36f93911ea35" CreationDate="2021-09-20T14:51:33.320" UserId="13211" Text="Environmental impact of vegan food packaging" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29415" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11834" RevisionGUID="1332822d-5a13-45c2-b972-36f93911ea35" CreationDate="2021-09-20T14:51:33.320" UserId="13211" Text="|recycling|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29416" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11835" RevisionGUID="950d03fd-3a0a-412c-a0ad-b20d035920f5" CreationDate="2021-09-20T15:42:19.943" UserId="6393" Text="Actually, all packaging materials can be recycled in the following way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Burn it to energy, releasing carbon dioxide and preferably using that energy to create electricity or district heating (or ideally both in combined heat and power generation)&#xD;&#xA;* Let a tree grow in a forest, capturing the released carbon dioxide&#xD;&#xA;* Chop down the tree&#xD;&#xA;* Manufacture more of the packaging material from the tree&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, even plastics can be made this way. For cost reasons, most are made from oil today but there's genuine progress in making all sorts of fuels and plastics from trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, packaging materials are not a genuine problem. Usually the weight of the packaging is about 1/20 the weight of the food inside the packaging. If the packaging is plastic, making one gram of plastic creates about 2.6 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions. So packaging of 200 grams of food (10 grams of packaging) creates 26 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, one kilogram of pasta creates 1.3 kilograms of fossil CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions. So 200 grams would create 260 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions. Compare that to the 26 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; produced by creating the packaging material.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer to minimizing your CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions from food is to prefer low-CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; food items and avoid meat. For example, a very small amount of meat in a &quot;recyclable&quot; (I hate that word because by burning it and growing trees every organic material can be recycled) packaging is far worse to the environment than an equivalent amount of vegetables in a non-&quot;recyclable&quot; packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have already minimized your emissions by choosing to be a vegan. There's nothing more to do." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11836" RevisionGUID="8ec95593-6745-47a7-a0e9-decc105aca52" CreationDate="2021-09-20T18:44:01.973" UserId="5" Text="Considering self-sustainable living in a bear country (like the wilderness of Canada) can the dogs be used to protect animals and fruit trees against bears? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm reluctant to the invasive methods like electric fences that require a lot of resources and constant maintenance, or hunting down and killing bears that settle nearby, because it's their home too. But are there dog breeds that are able to cope with a bear and successfully keep it away from my territory? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that [dogs can cope with wolves and coyotes,][1] but brown bears are the other pair of shoes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2818/what-animal-should-i-pen-with-my-goat-herd-overnight-to-protect-them-from-wolves" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11836" RevisionGUID="8ec95593-6745-47a7-a0e9-decc105aca52" CreationDate="2021-09-20T18:44:01.973" UserId="5" Text="Dogs to protect housing against bears" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11836" RevisionGUID="8ec95593-6745-47a7-a0e9-decc105aca52" CreationDate="2021-09-20T18:44:01.973" UserId="5" Text="|animals|housing|safety|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29422" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10776" RevisionGUID="4a33625a-bd31-46c9-a1bd-b6139981347a" CreationDate="2021-09-20T20:03:25.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29423" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11834" RevisionGUID="3935855a-69eb-467d-99e0-85364d906d89" CreationDate="2021-09-20T21:49:38.813" UserId="1056" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|environmental-impact|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29424" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="f5e36c0e-2053-4c8e-aa99-fe5e25ecfc0a" CreationDate="2021-09-21T02:04:40.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29425" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10427" RevisionGUID="b3fcd464-7fcd-4529-951a-3fb04b6ad8e4" CreationDate="2021-09-21T18:08:30.707" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29426" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11837" RevisionGUID="2e674e52-474f-4a65-9dbb-439c269080f7" CreationDate="2021-09-22T02:12:11.987" UserId="7993" Text="I'm not aware of any dog that can go up against a brown bear and survive.  Even wolves have trouble -- a brown bear can easily steal the kill from a small wolfpack.  Your best option is probably a noisy dog that can alert you and let you take whatever non-lethal measures you feel are appropriate (rubber bullets, bear spray, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And be ready to follow up with lethal force: brown bears, especially the grizzly subspecies, sometimes get cranky as a result of being injured.  Yellowstone National Park rangers, for example, always have someone carrying a shotgun loaded with slugs as backup for the beanbag rounds, firecracker rounds, and other non-lethal deterrents used to move bears away from the campgrounds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29428" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11838" RevisionGUID="100bc084-b409-43ef-9d15-bfe15df6460d" CreationDate="2021-09-22T02:49:43.243" UserId="4951" Text="I thought to expand a bit on user the answer provided by [lshaver][1] above. The following discussion concerns the use of an air heat pump though the discussion of some of the mechanics also applies to a geothermal heat pump. I would expect that a geothermal heat pump does not depend to any great extent on the placement of the outside unit since it uses geothermal source/sink for the heat rather than air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The bottom line**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The outside condenser unit should be in an environment that provides an air temperature as close to the desired air temperature of the inside evaporator unit as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For warmth, a Southern exposure with provisions to create a warm micro climate in the area of the outside unit is preferable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cooling, a Northern exposure with provisions to create a cool micro climate in the area of the outside unit is preferable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases due to the amount of airflow through the condenser, the area of the micro climate will need to be large enough to handle the volume of air that flows through the unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The details**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the [link at Engineering Toolbox he provided][2] there is an additional graphic that is important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![graph of COP versus difference in temperature of heat pump condenser and evaporator][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What this is saying is that as the temperature difference between the inside air temperature and the outside air temperature gets larger, the ability of the heat pump to move heat between the inside and the outside gets smaller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a heat pump in the winter to warm a home, the heat pump is more efficient when the outside temperature is warmer and closer to the setpoint for the internal air temperature. This is why heat pumps are not desirable in cold climates and why there is a radiant heat device built into the heat pump to handle when the temperature difference is large enough that the heat pump isn't able to pump sufficient heat from the outside into the inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reverse is the case for a heat pump in the summer to warm a home. As the outside temperature becomes greater than the internal temperature, a point is reached at which the heat transfer from inside to outside is too small to be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in a warm climate, the southern part of the state of Georgia in the Southeast United States, where summertime temperatures (Fahrenheit) are routinely in the 80s and 90s. Winters are mild with the temperature seldom dropping into the 20s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this article, [Does Your Air Conditioner Need Shade? – Energy Efficiency Myths][4], which has links to a couple of research articles. The research question was whether shading the outside condenser unit of a heat pump improve efficiency by cooling the unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research by the Florida Solar Energy Center, [Measured Impacts of Air Conditioner Condenser Shading][5], indicates that shading the outside unit provides negligible benefit. They also found that plantings or surrounding walls/roofs to provide shade must not interfere with airflow through the unit nor redirect airflow so that air coming out of the outside (condenser) unit mixes with air entering the outside unit since that affects the temperature of air entering the unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The probable explanation for the lower than expected performance in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the experiments is that outdoor AC units draw in a volume of air that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; greatly exceeds that of the nearby shaded air volume. Air-cooled&#xD;&#xA;&gt; condensers move a quantity of 600 - 1200 cfm of air per ton (80-160&#xD;&#xA;&gt; L/s/kWt) of cooling capacity (ASHRAE, 1992). For instance, a typical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3-ton (10.6 kWt) air conditioner's 300-W condenser fan would draw&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2,800 cfm (1321 L/s) of air at a very low static pressure across the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coil (Proctor et al., 1994). Thus, the unit would process 168,000&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cubic feet (4.76 x 106L) of air per hour. Assuming no mixing, this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would represent a volumetric equivalent to a cube of air with sides&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measuring 55 feet (16.8 m).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article doesn't mention the effect of turbulence on airflows but I would expect any installation that may generate turbulence within the airflows would reduce efficiency as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article has a final conclusion for their results on testing cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We conclude that any savings produced by localized AC condenser&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shading are quite modest (&lt;3%) and that the risk of interrupting air&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flow to the condenser may outweigh shading considerations. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preferred strategy may be a long-term one: locating AC condensers in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an unobstructed location on the shaded north side of buildings and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; depending on extensive site and neighborhood-level landscaping to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lower localized air temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the average temperature in the UK, the range seems to be from around 40F (5C) to around 70F (20C) though it seems I've read of some above average days in in the 80s Fahrenheit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Monthly average daily temperatures in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2015 to 2021][6]&#xD;&#xA;[![monthly average daily temperatures in the UK][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the above chart, it appears that average temperatures are well within the efficient operating range of most recent air type heat pumps and unobstructed airflow is the main consideration for the placement of the unit,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Air-Source Heat Pump or Air-to-Air Heat Pump][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Heat pump balance point graph outside air temperature vs. BTU/Hour][9]][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/3379/lshaver&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-pump-efficiency-ratings-d_1117.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SK0Xd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://blog.directenergy.com/shading-air-conditioner-myths/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/html/FSEC-PF-302-96/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/322658/monthly-average-daily-temperatures-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4l8C3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/2090&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/w0Izh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29430" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11838" RevisionGUID="5e0c4dda-3843-4401-a998-cf5d22d3514f" CreationDate="2021-09-22T02:57:17.970" UserId="4951" Comment="added link to article about splits and central heat pumps." Text="I thought to expand a bit on user the answer provided by [lshaver][1] above. The following discussion concerns the use of an air heat pump though the discussion of some of the mechanics also applies to a geothermal heat pump. I would expect that a geothermal heat pump does not depend to any great extent on the placement of the outside unit since it uses geothermal source/sink for the heat rather than air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The bottom line**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The outside condenser unit should be in an environment that provides an air temperature as close to the desired air temperature of the inside evaporator unit as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For warmth, a Southern exposure with provisions to create a warm micro climate in the area of the outside unit is preferable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cooling, a Northern exposure with provisions to create a cool micro climate in the area of the outside unit is preferable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases due to the amount of airflow through the condenser, the area of the micro climate will need to be large enough to handle the volume of air that flows through the unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However also see this article, [Heat Pump Efficiency | At What Temperature Is a Heat Pump NOT effective?][2], about two types of heat pump units, the split heat pump and the central/whole-house heat pump which do have different characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The details**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the [link at Engineering Toolbox he provided][3] there is an additional graphic that is important.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![graph of COP versus difference in temperature of heat pump condenser and evaporator][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What this is saying is that as the temperature difference between the inside air temperature and the outside air temperature gets larger, the ability of the heat pump to move heat between the inside and the outside gets smaller.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using a heat pump in the winter to warm a home, the heat pump is more efficient when the outside temperature is warmer and closer to the setpoint for the internal air temperature. This is why heat pumps are not desirable in cold climates and why there is a radiant heat device built into the heat pump to handle when the temperature difference is large enough that the heat pump isn't able to pump sufficient heat from the outside into the inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reverse is the case for a heat pump in the summer to warm a home. As the outside temperature becomes greater than the internal temperature, a point is reached at which the heat transfer from inside to outside is too small to be useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm in a warm climate, the southern part of the state of Georgia in the Southeast United States, where summertime temperatures (Fahrenheit) are routinely in the 80s and 90s. Winters are mild with the temperature seldom dropping into the 20s.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found this article, [Does Your Air Conditioner Need Shade? – Energy Efficiency Myths][5], which has links to a couple of research articles. The research question was whether shading the outside condenser unit of a heat pump improve efficiency by cooling the unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Research by the Florida Solar Energy Center, [Measured Impacts of Air Conditioner Condenser Shading][6], indicates that shading the outside unit provides negligible benefit. They also found that plantings or surrounding walls/roofs to provide shade must not interfere with airflow through the unit nor redirect airflow so that air coming out of the outside (condenser) unit mixes with air entering the outside unit since that affects the temperature of air entering the unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The probable explanation for the lower than expected performance in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the experiments is that outdoor AC units draw in a volume of air that&#xD;&#xA;&gt; greatly exceeds that of the nearby shaded air volume. Air-cooled&#xD;&#xA;&gt; condensers move a quantity of 600 - 1200 cfm of air per ton (80-160&#xD;&#xA;&gt; L/s/kWt) of cooling capacity (ASHRAE, 1992). For instance, a typical&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3-ton (10.6 kWt) air conditioner's 300-W condenser fan would draw&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2,800 cfm (1321 L/s) of air at a very low static pressure across the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; coil (Proctor et al., 1994). Thus, the unit would process 168,000&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cubic feet (4.76 x 106L) of air per hour. Assuming no mixing, this&#xD;&#xA;&gt; would represent a volumetric equivalent to a cube of air with sides&#xD;&#xA;&gt; measuring 55 feet (16.8 m).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article doesn't mention the effect of turbulence on airflows but I would expect any installation that may generate turbulence within the airflows would reduce efficiency as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article has a final conclusion for their results on testing cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We conclude that any savings produced by localized AC condenser&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shading are quite modest (&lt;3%) and that the risk of interrupting air&#xD;&#xA;&gt; flow to the condenser may outweigh shading considerations. The&#xD;&#xA;&gt; preferred strategy may be a long-term one: locating AC condensers in&#xD;&#xA;&gt; an unobstructed location on the shaded north side of buildings and&#xD;&#xA;&gt; depending on extensive site and neighborhood-level landscaping to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; lower localized air temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the average temperature in the UK, the range seems to be from around 40F (5C) to around 70F (20C) though it seems I've read of some above average days in in the 80s Fahrenheit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Monthly average daily temperatures in the United Kingdom (UK) from 2015 to 2021][7]&#xD;&#xA;[![monthly average daily temperatures in the UK][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking at the above chart, it appears that average temperatures are well within the efficient operating range of most recent air type heat pumps and unobstructed airflow is the main consideration for the placement of the unit,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See [Air-Source Heat Pump or Air-to-Air Heat Pump][9]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Heat pump balance point graph outside air temperature vs. BTU/Hour][10]][10]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/users/3379/lshaver&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.remodelingcalculator.org/heat-pump-efficiency/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-pump-efficiency-ratings-d_1117.html&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SK0Xd.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://blog.directenergy.com/shading-air-conditioner-myths/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/publications/html/FSEC-PF-302-96/index.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/322658/monthly-average-daily-temperatures-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4l8C3.png&#xD;&#xA;  [9]: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee102/node/2090&#xD;&#xA;  [10]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/w0Izh.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29432" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11839" RevisionGUID="f16ac0df-957c-469c-81c6-4ddfd8b630c9" CreationDate="2021-09-24T13:49:47.767" UserId="13225" Text="I've seen plenty of articles about gas stoves and the impact on indoor air quality. Specifically, there are reports of much higher CO2, NOx, PM 2.5 particulates, and formaldehyde, relative to electric stoves. However, I can't find any reference specifically to natural gas vs. propane. It looks as if most such articles are written with natural gas in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do natural gas and propane stoves compare in terms of indoor air quality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29434" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11839" RevisionGUID="f16ac0df-957c-469c-81c6-4ddfd8b630c9" CreationDate="2021-09-24T13:49:47.767" UserId="13225" Text="Propane vs. natural gas stove - indoor air quality?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29435" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11839" RevisionGUID="f16ac0df-957c-469c-81c6-4ddfd8b630c9" CreationDate="2021-09-24T13:49:47.767" UserId="13225" Text="|air-pollution|natural-gas|air-quality|kitchen|stove|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11840" RevisionGUID="fa78aa11-04ec-40b4-8943-871a53fb741e" CreationDate="2021-09-24T18:07:37.370" UserId="1056" Text="#### Combustion of either propane or natural gas can create dangerous conditions for indoor air quality without adequate ventilation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Propane is a hydrocarbon that ideally consists of length-3 carbon chains (C&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;H&lt;sub&gt;8&lt;/sub&gt; also known as C3). However, cooking propane is never 100% pure, and contamination from soluble hydrocarbons from C10 up to C40 is likely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas is a mix of hydrocarbons primarily composed of methane (CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;) but also longer hydrocarbons and alkanes. In Canada, natural gas must be [at least 90% methane](https://www.ryan.com/globalassets/canada-articles/fcn12c~1.pdf) to be legal for sale. Some [common impurities](https://www.e-education.psu.edu/fsc432/content/natural-gas-composition-and-specifications) in natural gas are sulfur compounds and mercury.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under *idealized* circumstances (100% pure methane or propane and 100% complete burn) the only combustion products are heat, water, and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. However, ideal circumstances are never achieved in the real world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5792075/) shows that normal combustion of propane is likely to produce carbon monoxide (CO) because of less-than-perfect combustion efficiency and particulate matter (PM2.5) because of impurities and contaminants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no substantial safety difference between propane and natural gas when used for indoor cooking. I strongly recommend electric (either resistance or induction) heat for safe indoor cooking." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29438" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11839" RevisionGUID="3ab1339d-22a7-4d2c-b5e4-ec2747e6b267" CreationDate="2021-09-24T21:54:37.117" />
  <row Id="29440" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11841" RevisionGUID="7d49cb83-82d3-4240-9f72-d82dd5783902" CreationDate="2021-09-25T11:37:05.827" UserId="13231" Text="I mean to pick a land, grow your own food, use self-generated energy, etc.&#xA;Not depend of the state in general.&#xA;I supose that solar panels, generators and so on have more taxes in some countries than others.&#xA;&#xA;*(not sure if this is the correct server)*&#xA;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29442" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11841" RevisionGUID="7d49cb83-82d3-4240-9f72-d82dd5783902" CreationDate="2021-09-25T11:37:05.827" UserId="13231" Text="What're the best countries to autosuficient life" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29443" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11841" RevisionGUID="7d49cb83-82d3-4240-9f72-d82dd5783902" CreationDate="2021-09-25T11:37:05.827" UserId="13231" Text="|nature|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11841" RevisionGUID="ec9ef149-af85-46a4-a00b-1b1fdaafe3a7" CreationDate="2021-09-25T16:20:12.923" UserId="13231" Comment="added 210 characters in body; deleted 41 characters in body; added 1 character in body; deleted 2 characters in body" Text="Thought in europe at first instance, but still open to other options.&#xA;&#xA;The idea resumes in:&#xA;&#xA; &#xA; &#xA; &#xA; &#xA; - Buy a land at good price with some space&#xA; &#xA; &#xA; - Build home from scratch&#xA; &#xA; - Grow own echologic food (vegetables and few animals)&#xA; &#xA; &#xA; &#xA; - Grow some stuff to have income&#xA; &#xA; &#xA; - Use self-generated energy, water, etc&#xA; &#xA; &#xA;I supose that solar panels, generators and so on have more taxes in some countries than others.&#xA;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29445" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11841" RevisionGUID="8dd51d64-de83-4eae-aa8f-3b22a220a5e5" CreationDate="2021-09-26T07:22:40.557" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo's, added more relevant tags" Text="I thought in Europe at first instance, but still open to other options. The idea is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Buy a land at good price with some space&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - Build home from scratch&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA; - Grow own organic food (vegetables and few animals)&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - Grow some stuff to have income&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA; - Use self-generated energy, water, etc&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;I suppose that solar panels, generators and so on have more taxes in some countries than others?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29446" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11841" RevisionGUID="8dd51d64-de83-4eae-aa8f-3b22a220a5e5" CreationDate="2021-09-26T07:22:40.557" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo's, added more relevant tags" Text="What are the best countries to lead a self-sufficient life?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29447" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11841" RevisionGUID="8dd51d64-de83-4eae-aa8f-3b22a220a5e5" CreationDate="2021-09-26T07:22:40.557" UserId="99" Comment="fixed typo's, added more relevant tags" Text="|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29448" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11842" RevisionGUID="680d7776-7485-4bae-918b-2ae937111e12" CreationDate="2021-09-26T09:19:21.217" UserId="6393" Text="I'll focus on the last.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Use self-generated energy, water, etc&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Self-generated energy usually means solar power, as wind power doesn't really work well at small scales and hydropower requires a river which most places don't have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problems with solar power are two-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Sun shines only at day, so you need huge batteries to use solar power at night.&#xD;&#xA;* Away from the equator, sun shines well during only the summer. In winter, there's no practical way to get reasonable amounts of solar power. This means you'd need to store the excess power generated during summer for use during winter. Batteries aren't cheap enough to store that amount of power; pumped hydro and underground hydrogen storage can store it but they are relatively expensive too for seasonal storage and they don't really work at small scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in order to be able to use self-generated electricity, you need a place near the equator where the summer and winter have nearly equal amounts of sunshine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Europe that would mean Greece, southern Italy or southern Spain. Most of Europe is quite far away from equator. United States would have locations that are closer to the equator, and thus a better place for self-generated electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apart from the land near the equator, you need big honking batteries and the ability to replace them every 20 years or so (or if you use lead-acid as opposed to lithium-ion, the replacement cycle will be shorter).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reasonable option apart from the &quot;near the equator&quot; plan is to try to see if you can find a place where you can install a micro hydro plant. In optimal cases, if the river is flowing all the time, it might eliminate the need for batteries. Finding the land allowing the installation of micro hydro plant would be tricky, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A different approach (with very low energy efficiency and lots of labor required): you could of course buy a big forest, clear some of it away and build your house there and run a generator with wood gasifier to generate your electricity. However, that would require some modification as standard generators run on fossil fuels only, and also the generator needs to be rated for continuous use as an emergency generator will break if used continuously for decades. Also keeping that generator running requires lots of labor unless you construct an automated wood feeding machine which eliminates some of that work. This approach however has a ridiculously low energy efficiency and is very wasteful. It's far better to create electricity from other sources such as wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I find your question a bit amusing. What is it about self-generated electricity that make it so desirable? I'll make a different suggestion: why don't you partner with thousands of other investors, collect all your money into one joint stock company, and construct a wind farm? Owning 0.01% of 100 MW wind farm is far better than owning 100% of 10 kW solar array, because wind production capacity factor is 30% and solar usually maxes out at 15% in good places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My approach is the stock investing approach: I make myself self-sufficient by buying stocks of companies that make products that I need. This includes electricity generation companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29450" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11843" RevisionGUID="ce377829-5402-4bcb-8970-fd0fd764d7a1" CreationDate="2021-09-26T15:31:38.643" UserId="13235" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Emissions from landfills, mostly CO2 and CH4,  are significant. Could layers being glomalin-enriched soil placed over the heap help contain part of these emissions?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Landfill Emissions &#xD;&#xA;- https://www.mswmanagement.com/landfills/article/21127408/landfill-emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Glomalin: an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal soil protein &#xD;&#xA;- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22990749/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29452" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11843" RevisionGUID="ce377829-5402-4bcb-8970-fd0fd764d7a1" CreationDate="2021-09-26T15:31:38.643" UserId="13235" Text="Could glomalin-enriched soil be useful for emissions reduction in garbage landfills?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29453" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11843" RevisionGUID="ce377829-5402-4bcb-8970-fd0fd764d7a1" CreationDate="2021-09-26T15:31:38.643" UserId="13235" Text="|waste|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29458" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11845" RevisionGUID="615b4705-2fd3-4934-88b5-bf67cf9c9441" CreationDate="2021-09-29T18:30:49.350" UserId="13245" Text="We generate &quot;green hydrogen&quot; using electrolysis of water which is powered by Renewable energy sources like Solar Panels, Wind mills, Hydro power etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we obtain such hydrogen and store it for use later on to generate electricity, the output can be below 30% of the input electricity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why even produce such green hydrogen through sheer wastage of electricity produced through renewable means? Why not directly use that electricity to power industries and homes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People say &quot;hydrogen can be an alternate fuel&quot;. I think we can directly make a transition to &quot;electric vehicles&quot; rather than finding &quot;alternate fuels&quot; endlessly until there are no more options left but &quot;electricity&quot;(green, of course)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29460" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11845" RevisionGUID="615b4705-2fd3-4934-88b5-bf67cf9c9441" CreationDate="2021-09-29T18:30:49.350" UserId="13245" Text="Why create green hydrogen using renewable energy? Why not directly use electricity from Renewable sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29461" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11845" RevisionGUID="615b4705-2fd3-4934-88b5-bf67cf9c9441" CreationDate="2021-09-29T18:30:49.350" UserId="13245" Text="|renewables|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11846" RevisionGUID="7487ad0e-a36e-49e9-91f2-843047a7169b" CreationDate="2021-09-29T20:07:22.183" UserId="7993" Text="It's a matter of energy density.  Compared to lithium-ion batteries, compressed hydrogen gas stores about 150 times as much energy per kilogram, or twice as much energy per liter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you're using the energy immediately after generating it, then yes, direct power makes sense.  But if you're storing it for later, or need to use it to power something that can't be plugged in (such as an airplane), then you want to store it in a compact form.  Something like gasoline would be a better choice than hydrogen (better volumetric density and easier to handle), but we don't know how to turn electricity into gasoline.  We do know how to turn electricity into hydrogen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29464" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11845" RevisionGUID="498c1b63-0a2c-40df-948c-52843b72e4e1" CreationDate="2021-09-30T04:16:12.177" />
  <row Id="29465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11847" RevisionGUID="450caef4-af1f-492a-8c10-10610ff402ee" CreationDate="2021-09-30T15:59:14.210" UserId="6393" Text="Try to use electricity and nitrogen to create ammonia for fertilizer production. I'm sure you see the difficulties in that, as electricity is not an element and thus the only element you have is nitrogen. The element hydrogen is missing. Ammonia requires hydrogen and nitrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, try to use electricity to create hydrogen from water (electrolysis) and use that hydrogen and nitrogen to create ammonia for fertilizers. Now you have all the elements you need to make the ammonia molecules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, I'm sure that iron production from iron ore is far easier to be done with hydrogen (that takes the oxygen from the iron ore away and makes water as a byproduct) instead of direct electricity. I have heard about plans to make iron using hydrogen to replace coal-based iron production, but have never heard about plans to make iron using direct electricity. However, later on in the steel production chain you might need an electric arc furnace if you need high temperatures, and that actually uses direct electricity and not hydrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also hydrogen is very easy to store. Salt cavern storage costs about 50 euros per cubic meter. If you can cram hydrogen there at a pressure of 100 bar, it's 0.5 euros per natural cubic meter of hydrogen. A natural cubic meter weighs 0.08988 kg so at density if about 120 MJ/kg (using the lower heating value here) or 33.333 kWh/kg, a natural cubic meter stores approximately 3 kWh. So storage cost is 0.5 EUR / 3 kWh or 0.167 EUR / kWh. The current batteries cost 100 EUR / kWh, nearly three orders of magnitude difference. Even if you take into account that converting hydrogen back to electricity has 50% energy efficiency, hydrogen storage is still 300 times cheaper than lithium ion. Why is this important? Because if you live anywhere far away from the equator, solar power is heavily seasonal. You get lots of it during summer, and practically nothing at winter. Solar power (specifically, photovoltaics, as solar-thermal is very expensive and its cost is not falling exponentially) is projected to become the cheapest electricity production method. Hydrogen allows storing solar power created during summer for consumption during winter. Batteries are way too expensive for seasonal energy storage, although in areas near the equator batteries win for charging during every day and discharging during every night (because batteries have 99% efficiency compared to 75% for hydrogen production and 50% for converting back into electricity or 37.5% for the whole hydrogen chain).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that whenever electricity is available, it should be consumed immediately. If electricity production all the time matches consumption, then you only use electricity immediately. But production using intermittent renewables never matches the consumption, and that's why you need storage. Batteries win for storage between days, hydrogen wins for storage between seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what you are missing is failing to realize that renewables are intermittent. If we could produce load-adjustable nuclear power plants cheaply enough then you'd be partially right, hydrogen would not be needed for anything apart from chemical reactions that require hydrogen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11847" RevisionGUID="7662c57f-81d2-44f1-829e-4a37e2ea2cb5" CreationDate="2021-09-30T16:04:15.773" UserId="6393" Comment="electricity transport" Text="Try to use electricity and nitrogen to create ammonia for fertilizer production. I'm sure you see the difficulties in that, as electricity is not an element and thus the only element you have is nitrogen. The element hydrogen is missing. Ammonia requires hydrogen and nitrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, try to use electricity to create hydrogen from water (electrolysis) and use that hydrogen and nitrogen to create ammonia for fertilizers. Now you have all the elements you need to make the ammonia molecules.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, I'm sure that iron production from iron ore is far easier to be done with hydrogen (that takes the oxygen from the iron ore away and makes water as a byproduct) instead of direct electricity. I have heard about plans to make iron using hydrogen to replace coal-based iron production, but have never heard about plans to make iron using direct electricity. However, later on in the steel production chain you might need an electric arc furnace if you need high temperatures, and that actually uses direct electricity and not hydrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also hydrogen is very easy to store. Salt cavern storage costs about 50 euros per cubic meter. If you can cram hydrogen there at a pressure of 100 bar, it's 0.5 euros per natural cubic meter of hydrogen. A natural cubic meter weighs 0.08988 kg so at density if about 120 MJ/kg (using the lower heating value here) or 33.333 kWh/kg, a natural cubic meter stores approximately 3 kWh. So storage cost is 0.5 EUR / 3 kWh or 0.167 EUR / kWh. The current batteries cost 100 EUR / kWh, nearly three orders of magnitude difference. Even if you take into account that converting hydrogen back to electricity has 50% energy efficiency, hydrogen storage is still 300 times cheaper than lithium ion. Why is this important? Because if you live anywhere far away from the equator, solar power is heavily seasonal. You get lots of it during summer, and practically nothing at winter. Solar power (specifically, photovoltaics, as solar-thermal is very expensive and its cost is not falling exponentially) is projected to become the cheapest electricity production method. Hydrogen allows storing solar power created during summer for consumption during winter. Batteries are way too expensive for seasonal energy storage, although in areas near the equator batteries win for charging during every day and discharging during every night (because batteries have 99% efficiency compared to 75% for hydrogen production and 50% for converting back into electricity or 37.5% for the whole hydrogen chain).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And before you claim that hey let's transport solar power from equatorial deserts long distances, remember that electricity transportation has very large losses and is extremely expensive. Electricity has to be produced near where it's consumed. (Actually you could transport the power as hydrogen using very low losses, having far cheaper transmission pipelines than electricity transmission lines. The trouble is creating that hydrogen in the first place has high losses and converting that hydrogen back into electricity has high losses.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree that whenever electricity is available, it should be consumed immediately. If electricity production all the time matches consumption, then you only use electricity immediately. But production using intermittent renewables never matches the consumption, and that's why you need storage. Batteries win for storage between days, hydrogen wins for storage between seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what you are missing is failing to realize that renewables are intermittent. If we could produce load-adjustable nuclear power plants cheaply enough then you'd be partially right, hydrogen would not be needed for anything apart from chemical reactions that require hydrogen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29473" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11845" RevisionGUID="397efc00-bd22-425e-aa29-86f585c01b27" CreationDate="2021-10-01T18:00:13.113" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1443999204200878089" />
  <row Id="29474" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="9f0a8021-00f1-40f5-b2a0-2c25b6fc8e62" CreationDate="2021-10-02T21:05:45.513" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29481" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11851" RevisionGUID="b6c0654e-cced-4708-b11b-3b6264bcd547" CreationDate="2021-10-08T16:11:16.963" UserId="6393" Text="Since providing my older answer to this question, and since considering electric scooters, I have actually purchased an electric bike and have to not update my old answer but provide a new much better answer with completely different perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used to dismiss electric bikes based on three problems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Bikes are low-speed high-torque devices whereas electric motors are high-speed low-torque devices. I used to think there's no logical place to put an electric motor into a bike. Motor in front wheel hub makes it hard to fix a front puncture, offers no logical way to implement reduction gearing for high-speed low-torque motors, makes it hard to have two wheelsets with different types of tires, and results in front wheelspin and a crash if riding on slippery steep uphill. Motor in rear wheel hub makes it hard to fix a rear puncture, has to be crammed in very small space because the rear hub also has bicycle gearing, offers no logical way to implement reduction gearing for high-speed low-torque motors, and makes it hard to have two wheelsets with different types of tires. Also any motor in hub requires a very high torque low speed motor which are uncommon beasts. Motor in bottom bracket would be even more ridiculous than motor in a wheel hub because the torque there needs to be much higher and the speed much lower, or so I thought.&#xD;&#xA;* Law restricts electric bikes to 250 watts. This is not much higher than the power of your average cyclist when riding up a hill (actually athletic cyclists produce far bigger power levels).&#xD;&#xA;* Law restricts electric bikes to 25 km/h. I thought this means that at 25 km/h the power assist needs to be already zero, so to avoid a very bumpy on-off-on-off-on-off assist, the power level needs to be reduced at already 22 km/h, or so I thought.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, later I bought a new e-bike and found how e-bikes solve these challenges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Good quality e-bikes are mid-drives where the motor is at the bottom bracket. However, the bottom bracket area is made much larger and the motor is actually not directly connected to the bottom bracket, but rather connected via a reduction gearing. Thus you can have a high-speed low-torque motor and modify its speed and torque characteristics to be useful in bicycles.&#xD;&#xA;* E-bike makers interpret the 250 watt limitation as &quot;maximum sustained power&quot;. So it's very typical to have 70 newton meter e-bikes that provide the power even at 90 RPM. A simple calculation shows such a motor provides 659.73 watts, much higher than 250 watts. How can this be the case? The reason is that the e-bike has software that integrates the average power over a very long time period of an hour or so, and if it threatens to be the case that average power exceeds 250 watts calculated over a very long time, it starts to restrict power. Because an average cyclist rides on flat land at speeds higher than 25 km/h, on typical e-bikes the electric assist is used only when riding against a very strong headwind, up a hill or when accelerating. It is not a flatland assist level. Thus, almost never the 250 watt average power limitation is exceeded even though the motor assists at over 650 watts at every uphill.&#xD;&#xA;* E-bike makers interpret the 25 km/h as the midpoint of where power begins to be reduced. So it doesn't mean that at 25.1 km/h the power needs to be already at zero. It's more like power begins to be reduced at 23.5 km/h and at 26.5 km/h it's at zero. So substantial power assist can be still provided at slightly above 25 km/h. Furthermore, because the electric motor in e-bikes is an uphill and acceleration assist device, even if some brand of e-bike already has the assist at zero at 25 km/h, it's not a major problem. Your average speed suffers but not by much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So why do I advocate e-bikes over e-scooters for example? The reason is simple: range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My e-road-bike has 125 - 175 km range using a half-kilowatt-hour battery, at the maximum assist level (125 km is the range on routes where I need to brake a lot, but a leisurely country road ride has 175 km range).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A typical electric scooter with half-kilowatt-hour battery is advertised to have about 45 km range. However, if you read a fine print it's for a lightweight rider riding at constant 20 km/h speed with no braking, no headwind and perfectly level ground. I actually saw a test report of a half-kilowatt-hour e-scooter that was advertised to have 45 km range, but had only 21 km range at higher speed when braking occasionally and riding occasionally up hills. Also most e-scooters limit the power level to a very low value when only 20% of battery is left. Thus, only 0.8 * 21 km = 16.8 km provides full power. Also typically lithium ion batteries are considered to be at the end of their useful lifetime when 70% of capacity is left. Thus, you can only rely on full power at the end of the battery lifetime to have 0.7 * 16.8 km = 11.76 km range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why is the range on an e-bike far better? The reason is based on many differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Firstly, a bicycle has very low rolling resistance high pressure narrow large diameter tires. An e-scooter usually has either honeycomb airless tires or maybe low pressure small diameter wide pneumatic tires (in which case it'll be a very major chore to fix a puncture as the electric motor is built into the wheel hub). The e-scooter tires have several times worse rolling resistance than bicycle tires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Secondly, a bicyclist is riding in a fairly aerodynamic position. In most e-scooters, the rider is standing, maximizing the frontal area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Thirdly, in electric bikes the cyclist can ride on human power at speeds greater than 25 km/h on flat land. Thus, the electric assist is practically never used on flat land (only momentarily when accelerating to full speed). It's an uphill assist device, and even then only an assist device and not a device that produces 100% of the power. Because of this, the motor is rarely used that increases the range to very high values.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also consider that the 125 - 175 km range of half-kilowatt-hour e-bikes can be extended if considering acceptable to ride without electric assist. Thus, you can actually rely on the range. If the battery starts to become aged, you can still ride the 125 - 175 km, only the very end of the journey has to be made without electric assist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, on a half-kilowatt-hour e-scooter you can only rely on the 11.76 km range on aged battery without using the last 20% that only offers very much reduced power (so the speed will be horribly slow).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you want 125 - 175 km range?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or do you want 11.76 km range?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll choose the 125 - 175 km range. I chose an electric bike therefore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, quality e-bikes are still expensive. Spending too little typically means you have an e-bike that does not have a power sensor on the bottom bracket (so the computer has no idea how hard you are pedaling and the pedaling level doesn't directly affect assist level). Typically on cheap e-bikes the motor is at the front wheel hub. Also on cheap e-bikes the battery is typically very small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortunately, e-bike prices are continuously decreasing. So in few years, a quality mid-drive e-bike with decent half kilowatt hour battery can be bought for far less money than it costs today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Riding on an e-bike is still considered &quot;exercise&quot; so it has major health benefits. However, by dressing suitably you won't become sweaty like you do on a regular bike if needing to ride uphill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also on an e-bike, if choosing a model that has pannier rack or installing an aftermarket pannier rack, you can carry a lot of stuff on the panniers. Far more than you can fit in a backpack, and far heavier stuff. On e-scooter where the rider is standing, typically the only feasible option to carry stuff is a backpack." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29483" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="a73e25ce-88da-40e1-a0f2-0a0e888690a9" CreationDate="2021-10-08T16:57:03.827" UserId="6393" Comment="add measured data point" Text="If you come across this answer and have measured your idle system's power consumption please extend the list by editing this answer or adding a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Power Consumption Measured by Users &#xD;&#xA;Power consumption of running systems doing nothing. Does not include external devices like monitors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2 W business laptop from 2017, monitor off, CPU at idle, running on battery power. CPU: i5. GPU: integrated.&#xD;&#xA;- 18 W business laptop from 2011. CPU: i5. GPU: integrated.&#xD;&#xA;- 60 W desktop PC from ???. CPU: Pentium 4&#xD;&#xA;- 80 W desktop PC from 2014. CPU: i5. GPU: GTX 660&#xD;&#xA;- 100 W Desktop PC. CPU: Ryzen 7 1700 (Overcloaked to 3.8GHz). GPU: GTX 1080 ti.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11853" RevisionGUID="eb4c9c2f-5357-4f9b-843c-dae8702e4125" CreationDate="2021-10-09T01:39:04.937" UserId="13262" Text="This question is most probably meaningful when there is a lot of area to build a single house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept house -with a living area of no more than 60m2- is designed in a way that its concrete walls are covered /surrounded by a sand barrier. The concrete walls are 5cm thick and 220cm high while the sand barrier is ~40cm thick and ~150cm tall. Several windows are planned to be placed between the sand barrier's top and the ceiling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **what should be taken into account** before attempting to use sand as an insulation material in that way? For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What is the ideal grain size?&#xD;&#xA;2. When damp or wet, how effective would the sand barrier be?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is it easy to keep the sand dry, especially in rainy climates? Would the sand barrier absorb the moisture in the air -even when covered by a roof? What type of sand would be the best? &#xD;&#xA;4. What plants and other organisms would grow up in the sand?&#xD;&#xA;5. What constructional and functional complexities would be encountered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The list may go on...*&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;Considering all these *and more*, **do you think a sand barrier is an effective, reliable and 'long term' solution for heat insulation?** Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29492" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11853" RevisionGUID="eb4c9c2f-5357-4f9b-843c-dae8702e4125" CreationDate="2021-10-09T01:39:04.937" UserId="13262" Text="Is it possible to use sand for heat insulation at walls?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29493" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11853" RevisionGUID="eb4c9c2f-5357-4f9b-843c-dae8702e4125" CreationDate="2021-10-09T01:39:04.937" UserId="13262" Text="|heating|insulation|housing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11854" RevisionGUID="ff9d44df-4096-4f49-9887-c8f6b812cd3e" CreationDate="2021-10-09T08:20:23.727" UserId="6393" Text="Even though rock is a poor heat conductor for example in geothermal wells that slowly become cooler over time as heat is extracted, you cannot use sand as a general purpose heat insulator in houses. The coefficient of thermal conductivity isn't just small enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sand has a coefficient of heat conductivity of about 1-2 W/mK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A real insulator like expanded polystyrene has coefficient of heat conductivity of about 0.03 - 0.04 W/mK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need nearly 50 times more dimension in the walls for sand to work effectively. This means the exterior dimensions of your house could be several times bigger than the interior dimensions. Not practical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11855" RevisionGUID="d4903d8e-2b4c-40f9-b58e-f8a0af387c80" CreationDate="2021-10-09T09:45:13.253" UserId="13262" Text="I suppose a 5kWh storage would be more than enough for a minimalist house *with solar energy system*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium-Ion electric car batteries would do the job, but they are too expensive and I am not sure about their lifetime. A pack of ordinary lead acid car batteries seems to be a more affordable solution but I don't know if they are stable under high power demands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Energy density graph][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Power &amp; Energy density graph][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **what do you think is the most economical and comfortable battery type to store solar energy?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things to consider are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Safety&#xD;&#xA;2. Lifetime (I don't know if possible but 10 years is a nice goal for active use)&#xD;&#xA;3. Number of charge cycles before 50% efficiency&#xD;&#xA;4. Output capacity (Should be able to provide 3kW in a stable way)&#xD;&#xA;5. Rechargeable-ness before empty (This can be overcome by a control circuit which does not let charge before a unit is empty.)&#xD;&#xA;6. Price (maintenance included)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be nice **if you could include the negative sides** in your answer, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Secondary_cell_energy_density.svg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Energiespeicher2.svg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29505" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11855" RevisionGUID="d4903d8e-2b4c-40f9-b58e-f8a0af387c80" CreationDate="2021-10-09T09:45:13.253" UserId="13262" Text="What is the most economical and comfortable house battery type?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29506" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11855" RevisionGUID="d4903d8e-2b4c-40f9-b58e-f8a0af387c80" CreationDate="2021-10-09T09:45:13.253" UserId="13262" Text="|solar-power|batteries|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29507" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11856" RevisionGUID="4e6f240d-1c10-4356-890f-8cfd7efd8a06" CreationDate="2021-10-09T10:30:51.233" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; Lithium-Ion electric car batteries would do the job, but they are too expensive and I am not sure about their lifetime. A pack of ordinary lead acid car batteries seems to be a more affordable solution but I don't know if they are stable under high power demands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You'll reget your choice if you select lead acid instead of lithium ion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any lead acid battery user tells you that you have to minimize your depth of discharge and immediately when partially discharging the battery, charge it as fast as you can. It's a race. Failing in that race, leaving the battery for hours (or worse, even days) partially discharged means the battery lifetime suffers. Complete discharges also let the battery lifetime suffer very fast. So with solar, if you have a sunny day and a cloudy day following the sunny day, being partially discharged during the cloudy day will kill your battery very fast. Lead acid is only realistic if every single day is sunny and you live in latitudes where solar power is not limited to summer season. Otherwise it'll fail very fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So lead acid batteries are batteries that really like to be fully charged. If not all the time fully charged, the lifetime suffers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium ion batteries in contrast degrade fast if fully charged. However, leaving few percent from the charge helps to remedy that situation. So for example 95% charged lithium ion batteries last quite long. Electric vehicles usually have a configurable charge limiter, allowing you to regularly charge to only 95% but then when you make a long trip, temporarily remove the charge limiter and charge to 100% prior to the long trip. Plug-in hybrid vehicles usually have a charge scheduler, meaning you tell that you depart at 8 o'clock and then the charger fully charges the battery to be just ready at 8 o'clock. Then it spends minimum amount of time in the fully charged states. Mobile phones also these days have a charge scheduler. If you set an alarm at 8 o'clock and leave the battery charging, it charges it just in time to be fully charged at 8 o'clock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the best use for lead acid batteries are computer UPSes. They have a battery to provide backup power when the grid power fails. A computer UPS battery is almost never discharged, because power failures occur usually more rarely than once a year. So a typical UPS lead-acid battery stays all the time fully charged. Even then, the users have to replace the battery usually once every 3 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use lead acid as a house battery, it will have a far worse life than a computer UPS battery. I'd say every 1-2 years you need to replace your batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also lead acid suffers from Peukert effect. The faster you discharge it, the less capacity they have. Lithium ion does not suffer from Peukert effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the only real solution is lithium ion. Todays there are other lithium ion batteries than the very dangerous lithium cobalt oxide batteries of old used in computer electronics. The newer chemistries such as lithium iron phosphate are reasonably safe and stable so they won't start a fire. 10 year lifetime is a realistic possibility if you don't charge to 100% but rather charge to 95%. You can get probably ten thousand cycles, perhaps more, if you charge to 95% and never discharge to 0%. Lithium ion batteries are used in power tools so faster than 1 hour discharge is a possibility. So 5 kWh battery would allow 5 kW discharge. There is no &quot;memory effect&quot; so you can charge a partially discharged battery (actually with nickel cadmium batteries the &quot;memory effect&quot; isn't ever encountered in terrestrial uses, it only limits battery use in satellites where the battery is all the time discharged to the same power level, usually instead of &quot;memory effect&quot; the cause for battery degradation is bad chargers which torture the battery by overcharging).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About price: they are starting to approach 100 USD / kWh. So 500 USD (without taxes, without charger, without inverter) could be a realistic possibility. However, expect to spend at least several thousand USD if you want charger and inverter along with the battery." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29510" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="9703" RevisionGUID="e8dbcff1-a939-457e-ba13-5f62fa708b1b" CreationDate="2021-10-09T17:44:33.677" UserId="99" Comment="70" />
  <row Id="29511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11855" RevisionGUID="5516ef15-c339-4df5-9003-b003143759bf" CreationDate="2021-10-10T00:03:45.917" UserId="13262" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="I suppose a 5kWh storage would be more than enough for a minimalist house *with solar energy system*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium-Ion electric car batteries would do the job, but they are too expensive and I am not sure about their lifetime. A pack of ordinary lead acid car batteries seems to be a more affordable solution but I don't know if they are stable under high power demands.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Energy density graph][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Power &amp; Energy density graph][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **what do you think is the most economical and convenient battery type to store solar energy?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some things to consider are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Safety&#xD;&#xA;2. Lifetime (I don't know if possible but 10 years is a nice goal for active use)&#xD;&#xA;3. Number of charge cycles before 50% efficiency&#xD;&#xA;4. Output capacity (Should be able to provide 3kW in a stable way)&#xD;&#xA;5. Rechargeable-ness before empty (This can be overcome by a control circuit which does not let charge before a unit is empty.)&#xD;&#xA;6. Price (maintenance included)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be nice **if you could include the negative sides** in your answer, too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Secondary_cell_energy_density.svg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Energiespeicher2.svg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29512" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11855" RevisionGUID="5516ef15-c339-4df5-9003-b003143759bf" CreationDate="2021-10-10T00:03:45.917" UserId="13262" Comment="deleted 1 character in body; edited title" Text="What is the most economical and convenient house battery type?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29513" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11853" RevisionGUID="90a93cb9-a6c5-47c6-9daf-0761d1c345d8" CreationDate="2021-10-10T09:06:01.423" UserId="13262" Comment="added 104 characters in body" Text="This question is most probably meaningful when there is a lot of area to build a single house. The main purpose is to keep the heat inside in winters, where it rarely drops below -5 degrees Celsius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The concept house -with a living area of no more than 60m2- is designed in a way that its concrete walls are covered /surrounded by a sand barrier. The concrete walls are 5cm thick and 220cm high while the sand barrier is ~40cm thick and ~150cm tall. Several windows are planned to be placed between the sand barrier's top and the ceiling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, **what should be taken into account** before attempting to use sand as an insulation material in that way? For instance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. What is the ideal grain size?&#xD;&#xA;2. When damp or wet, how effective would the sand barrier be?&#xD;&#xA;3. Is it easy to keep the sand dry, especially in rainy climates? Would the sand barrier absorb the moisture in the air -even when covered by a roof? What type of sand would be the best? &#xD;&#xA;4. What plants and other organisms would grow up in the sand?&#xD;&#xA;5. What constructional and functional complexities would be encountered?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*The list may go on...*&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;Considering all these *and more*, **do you think a sand barrier is an effective, reliable and 'long term' solution for heat insulation?** Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29514" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="c7d69de6-3149-4089-86f5-e42177c403a2" CreationDate="2021-10-12T21:13:33.903" UserId="13271" Text="I'm interested in electric cars and a specific model I'm interested is not equipped with a heat pump.... but does have AC.  The discussion across the internet usually cites cost as a reason they did not include the heat pump.  Given that an air conditioner IS a heat pump, and in their simplest forms the only difference is valving to make the refrigerant run in reverse, I assume that in practice there is something more complicated involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, what are the differences between a &quot;bi-directional&quot; heat pump and a &quot;uni-directional&quot; AC/heat pump that would contribute to cost differences? I'm interesting in both specifics relating to vehicles, but also anything that might apply generally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sorry if this question is too engineery for this site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29516" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="c7d69de6-3149-4089-86f5-e42177c403a2" CreationDate="2021-10-12T21:13:33.903" UserId="13271" Text="Why are heat pumps said to be more expensive than AC?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29517" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="c7d69de6-3149-4089-86f5-e42177c403a2" CreationDate="2021-10-12T21:13:33.903" UserId="13271" Text="|cars|electric-vehicles|heat-pump|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29518" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11858" RevisionGUID="16de7894-b1f3-4e96-9677-dc499320847e" CreationDate="2021-10-12T22:54:52.657" UserId="9669" Text="The sun doesn't shine brightly enough everywhere and is sometimes clouded. Winds don't blow always and are expected to become, overall, even weaker (that's what the IPCC report says anyway). Can energy be both sustainable and reliable? I heard good stories on tidal power, but this technology is unlikely to ever be scaled up and be used across the globe (solar panels are at least relatively cheap)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29520" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11858" RevisionGUID="16de7894-b1f3-4e96-9677-dc499320847e" CreationDate="2021-10-12T22:54:52.657" UserId="9669" Text="Can energy be both sustainable and reliable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29521" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11858" RevisionGUID="16de7894-b1f3-4e96-9677-dc499320847e" CreationDate="2021-10-12T22:54:52.657" UserId="9669" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29522" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11859" RevisionGUID="139d2191-805e-43de-862a-ef24987ba76b" CreationDate="2021-10-13T08:07:28.383" UserId="2345" Text="If you want to include a means of energy storage within the system then yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Batteries can be used to store electrical energy for when the sun doesn't shine and when the wind doesn't blow, when the tide is not moving in tidal systems or when waves are flat in wave energy system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar or wind powered pumps can be used to return water to hydroelectric dams." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29524" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11860" RevisionGUID="8e8471d3-64d9-4f34-ada7-93e9195b7e1e" CreationDate="2021-10-13T09:46:51.990" UserId="13262" Text="The purpose is to reduce heating costs as much as possible in winters, in which the temperature rarely drops below -5 degrees Celsius (23 F) at nights and 0 degree Celsius (32 F) daytime. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, internal wall insulation seems to be a better solution than the external one. Because I think the air inside will heat up more quickly that way, which is -in my opinion- more comfortable than waiting for the walls to warm up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[in another question][1], one community user (@Móż) mentioned strawbale for insulation. [After a quick search][2] I saw that it can be used as building material. But it is weak against moisture and mold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, considering factors like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Health (should be made from a healthy material, better if organic)&#xD;&#xA;2. Material cost (should be as cheap and abundant as possible)&#xD;&#xA;3. Robustness (should stay intact with time and mild accidental impacts)&#xD;&#xA;4. Moisture resistance (should be resistant to moisture inside the house, maybe can be dealt with a proper but thin coating)&#xD;&#xA;5. Organisms (should not allow organisms like mold or insects to grow inside)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what do you think would be the most economical and convenient **inner wall** insulation solution for winters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. *It would be nice if you include the other important factors that come to your mind.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/11853/is-it-possible-to-use-sand-for-heat-insulation-at-walls&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-bale_construction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29526" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11860" RevisionGUID="8e8471d3-64d9-4f34-ada7-93e9195b7e1e" CreationDate="2021-10-13T09:46:51.990" UserId="13262" Text="What is the most economical and convenient inner insulation for winters?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29527" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11860" RevisionGUID="8e8471d3-64d9-4f34-ada7-93e9195b7e1e" CreationDate="2021-10-13T09:46:51.990" UserId="13262" Text="|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29533" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11839" RevisionGUID="e71baa90-54db-4203-9d93-68437de71649" CreationDate="2021-10-14T03:00:08.417" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1448483734341234689" />
  <row Id="29534" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11860" RevisionGUID="13c2af1b-8bca-4f82-aace-2765bc003902" CreationDate="2021-10-14T10:40:15.293" UserId="13262" Comment="deleted 19 characters in body" Text="The purpose is to reduce heating costs as much as possible in winters, where the temperature rarely drops below -5 degrees Celsius (23 F) at nights and 0 degree Celsius (32 F) daytime. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, internal wall insulation seems to be a better solution than the external one. Because I think the air inside will heat up more quickly that way, which -seemingly- would be more comfortable than waiting for the walls to warm up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[in another question][1], one community user (@Móż) mentioned strawbale for insulation. [After a quick search][2] I saw that it can be used as building material. But it is weak against moisture and mold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, considering factors like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Health (should be made from a healthy material)&#xD;&#xA;2. Material cost (should be as cheap and abundant as possible)&#xD;&#xA;3. Robustness (should stay intact with time and mild accidental impacts)&#xD;&#xA;4. Moisture resistance (should be resistant to moisture inside the house, maybe can be dealt with a proper but thin coating)&#xD;&#xA;5. Organisms (should not allow organisms like mold or insects to grow inside)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what do you think would be the most economical and convenient **inner wall** insulation solution for winters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. *It would be nice if you include the other important factors that come to your mind.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/11853/is-it-possible-to-use-sand-for-heat-insulation-at-walls&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-bale_construction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29541" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11864" RevisionGUID="b1296fa6-7b8e-4c67-b7c4-8dcecf5a3bc2" CreationDate="2021-10-14T16:29:01.073" UserId="6393" Text="There are very many ways energy can be sustainable and reliable at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, you can observe the fact that there is no renewable energy. All so-called &quot;renewables&quot; (a misnomer) actually use fusion energy from the sun. The sun has a finite life. If we could find a terrestrial non-intermittent power source that lasts for 5 billion years then that would be enough. There are three such terrestrial power sources that could create enough energy for 5 billion years in the future: (1) fusion energy but that has always been at least 50 years away in the future, (2) uranium-238 breeder reactors, (3) thorium breeder reactors. Both (2) and (3) are realistic but even non-breeder fission reactors are quite expensive nowadays and presumably breeder reactors would be even more expensive than current nuclear reactors. Current nuclear reactors can't produce power 5 billion years into the future because they run on uranium-235 that makes only 0.7% of all uranium. Thus, due to very inefficient fuel use, they require lots of cheap fuel. Breeder reactors would require very little fuel that can be very expensive, and thus for example uranium extraction from seawater would become financially feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, you can utilize energy sources that obtain their energy from the sun and come with included storage. The most important of these is hydropower. The main problem is that hydropower is limited by the size of hydropower reservoirs (mainly natural reservoirs in mountainous areas can be used because constructing artificial height differences would cost way too much) and the rain fall amount unless you use pumped hydro in which case only reservoir size limits you. Because mountainous areas are non-evenly distributed, it is unlikely this would be a truly global solution valid for even areas far away from hydropower reservoirs, because transferring electricity for large distances is expensive and has high lossees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly, you can construct transfer of energy from orbit into earth. This is today too expensive but space launch costs are exponentially decreasing so might become feasible someday. An open question is how to beam this energy to earth in a non-dangerous manner. The energy density of the beams would be very high. This solution is probably very far away in the future, possibly even further away than fusion power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fourthly, you can transfer energy from sunny/windy areas to areas where there is no sun and no wind. Unfortunately, transferring electricity is expensive and has high losses. Perhaps superconductors might change the situation some day, but it's uncertain if they ever become working in common temperatures and cheap enough for bulk energy transfer. There is always sunshine and wind somewhere on the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fifthly, you can use thermal storage with concentrating solar-thermal power which is cheap. Unfortunately, it is feasible only in areas where solar power is not seasonal and is being outcompeted by batteries and solar photovoltaics. The thermal storage isn't good enough for seasonal energy storage. Because of competition from photovoltaics and batteries, this solution is doomed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sixthly, you can use batteries. Areas that receive lots of sunshine every day and have no real winter can even use lithium-ion, but new forms of batteries such as iron-air batteries developed by Form Energy and funded by Bill Gates are rapidly appearing. Still, it is unlikely they would become cheap enough for seasonal solar energy storage for areas that have real winter. The new battery chemistries could perhaps be used with wind power where calm periods usually last for weeks at the most. Wind power and iron-air batteries could allow a global energy solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seventhly, you can produce green hydrogen. Producing it with electrolysis has 75% efficiency and converting it back to electricity in fuel cells or combined cycle power plants has 50% efficiency. So 37.5% round-trip efficiency. Yet, if solar and/or wind power become very cheap the 37.5% round-trip efficiency might still be enough to outcompete for example natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eighthly, biomass can be burned in limited amounts to energy. One possibility is old-fashioned power plants that use it like coal. Unfortunately, varying the output of these steam power plants is very inflexible and thus can't be realistically used for balancing intermittent renewables. However, there are new technologies such as integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) that could allow these biomass power plants to work like natural gas peaker plants, allowing both a high efficiency and also having very good adjustment properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, don't underestimate demand-side management. Electric cars are a flexible demand that can shift charging in the future. A typical home doesn't need to be continuously heated or air-conditioned, as a typical home has about a day worth of thermal energy storage. You can build larger water-based thermal energy reservoirs in district heating networks allowing for weeks or even months of thermal energy storage. If some processes such as steelmaking or fertilizer production shift to using green hydrogen, deciding when you create it allows demand-side management. Putting a time-dependent variable price on electricity solves most of the supply/demand mismatch issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, for the next 100 years we won't need sustainable energy. We only need net-zero emission energy. For example, capturing all carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas power plants and pumping them back under the ground would solve the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emission problem. One cubic meter of natural gas burned produces one cubic meter of carbon dioxide. So if the natural gas was stored under the ground, there will be enough space to store the produced carbon dioxide. This reduces environmental risks, as natural gas (methane) is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So if the gas is released, it's far better if the gas is in carbon dioxide form than in the methane form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29543" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11864" RevisionGUID="8b31f72a-cb02-4d89-8eb6-1575df7928a6" CreationDate="2021-10-16T07:54:32.713" UserId="6393" Comment="other than sun-based renewables" Text="There are very many ways energy can be sustainable and reliable at the same time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, you can observe the fact that there is no renewable energy. Most so-called &quot;renewables&quot; (a misnomer) actually use fusion energy from the sun, although some less common &quot;renewables&quot; like geothermal power or tidal power use other finite sources of energy like geothermal heat or gravitational energy in Earth-Moon system. The sun has a finite life, the Earth will cool if actively cooled and the orbit on the Moon will change if interfered with. You also can't find any other truly renewable power source because it's forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics. If we could find a terrestrial non-intermittent power source that lasts for 5 billion years then that would be enough. There are three such terrestrial power sources that could create enough energy for 5 billion years in the future: (1) fusion energy but that has always been at least 50 years away in the future, (2) uranium-238 breeder reactors, (3) thorium breeder reactors. Both (2) and (3) are realistic but even non-breeder fission reactors are quite expensive nowadays and presumably breeder reactors would be even more expensive than current nuclear reactors. Current nuclear reactors can't produce power 5 billion years into the future because they run on uranium-235 that makes only 0.7% of all uranium. Thus, due to very inefficient fuel use, they require lots of cheap fuel. Breeder reactors would require very little fuel that can be very expensive, and thus for example uranium extraction from seawater would become financially feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, you can utilize energy sources that obtain their energy from the sun and come with included storage. The most important of these is hydropower. The main problem is that hydropower is limited by the size of hydropower reservoirs (mainly natural reservoirs in mountainous areas can be used because constructing artificial height differences would cost way too much) and the rain fall amount unless you use pumped hydro in which case only reservoir size limits you. Because mountainous areas are non-evenly distributed, it is unlikely this would be a truly global solution valid for even areas far away from hydropower reservoirs, because transferring electricity for large distances is expensive and has high lossees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thirdly, you can construct transfer of energy from orbit into earth. This is today too expensive but space launch costs are exponentially decreasing so might become feasible someday. An open question is how to beam this energy to earth in a non-dangerous manner. The energy density of the beams would be very high. This solution is probably very far away in the future, possibly even further away than fusion power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fourthly, you can transfer energy from sunny/windy areas to areas where there is no sun and no wind. Unfortunately, transferring electricity is expensive and has high losses. Perhaps superconductors might change the situation some day, but it's uncertain if they ever become working in common temperatures and cheap enough for bulk energy transfer. There is always sunshine and wind somewhere on the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fifthly, you can use thermal storage with concentrating solar-thermal power which is cheap. Unfortunately, it is feasible only in areas where solar power is not seasonal and is being outcompeted by batteries and solar photovoltaics. The thermal storage isn't good enough for seasonal energy storage. Because of competition from photovoltaics and batteries, this solution is doomed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sixthly, you can use batteries. Areas that receive lots of sunshine every day and have no real winter can even use lithium-ion, but new forms of batteries such as iron-air batteries developed by Form Energy and funded by Bill Gates are rapidly appearing. Still, it is unlikely they would become cheap enough for seasonal solar energy storage for areas that have real winter. The new battery chemistries could perhaps be used with wind power where calm periods usually last for weeks at the most. Wind power and iron-air batteries could allow a global energy solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Seventhly, you can produce green hydrogen. Producing it with electrolysis has 75% efficiency and converting it back to electricity in fuel cells or combined cycle power plants has 50% efficiency. So 37.5% round-trip efficiency. Yet, if solar and/or wind power become very cheap the 37.5% round-trip efficiency might still be enough to outcompete for example natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eighthly, biomass can be burned in limited amounts to energy. One possibility is old-fashioned power plants that use it like coal. Unfortunately, varying the output of these steam power plants is very inflexible and thus can't be realistically used for balancing intermittent renewables. However, there are new technologies such as integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) that could allow these biomass power plants to work like natural gas peaker plants, allowing both a high efficiency and also having very good adjustment properties.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, don't underestimate demand-side management. Electric cars are a flexible demand that can shift charging in the future. A typical home doesn't need to be continuously heated or air-conditioned, as a typical home has about a day worth of thermal energy storage. You can build larger water-based thermal energy reservoirs in district heating networks allowing for weeks or even months of thermal energy storage. If some processes such as steelmaking or fertilizer production shift to using green hydrogen, deciding when you create it allows demand-side management. Putting a time-dependent variable price on electricity solves most of the supply/demand mismatch issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, for the next 100 years we won't need sustainable energy. We only need net-zero emission energy. For example, capturing all carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas power plants and pumping them back under the ground would solve the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emission problem. One cubic meter of natural gas burned produces one cubic meter of carbon dioxide. So if the natural gas was stored under the ground, there will be enough space to store the produced carbon dioxide. This reduces environmental risks, as natural gas (methane) is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So if the gas is released, it's far better if the gas is in carbon dioxide form than in the methane form." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29544" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11843" RevisionGUID="b7bd991e-cacf-45a3-acf5-51204faf299c" CreationDate="2021-10-17T14:00:21.287" UserId="13235" Comment="deleted 3 characters in body" Text="&#xD;&#xA;Emissions from landfills, mostly CO2 and CH4,  are significant. Could layers of glomalin-enriched soil placed over the heap help contain part of these emissions?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Landfill Emissions &#xD;&#xA;- https://www.mswmanagement.com/landfills/article/21127408/landfill-emissions&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Glomalin: an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal soil protein &#xD;&#xA;- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22990749/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29545" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="9703" RevisionGUID="a9a46424-3114-4fc4-af8b-b45cadce52d9" CreationDate="2021-10-17T19:11:21.113" UserId="-1" Comment="70" />
  <row Id="29546" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11860" RevisionGUID="5cfde69b-41e7-4b02-8a6e-354ab3c62846" CreationDate="2021-10-18T21:38:03.950" UserId="13262" Comment="added 436 characters in body" Text="The purpose is to reduce heating costs as much as possible in winters, where the temperature rarely drops below -5 degrees Celsius (23 F) at nights and 0 degree Celsius (32 F) daytime. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To me, internal wall insulation seems to be a better solution than the external one. Because I think the air inside will heat up more quickly that way, which -seemingly- would be more comfortable than waiting for the walls to warm up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[in another question][1], one community user (@Móż) mentioned strawbale for insulation. [After a quick search][2] I saw that it can be used as building material. But it is weak against moisture and mold.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, considering factors like:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Health (should be made from a healthy material)&#xD;&#xA;2. Material cost (should be as cheap and abundant as possible)&#xD;&#xA;3. Robustness (should stay intact with time and mild accidental impacts)&#xD;&#xA;4. Moisture resistance (should be resistant to moisture inside the house, maybe can be dealt with a proper but thin coating)&#xD;&#xA;5. Organisms (should not allow organisms like mold or insects to grow inside)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;what do you think would be the most economical and convenient **inner wall** insulation solution for winters?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. *It would be nice if you include the other important factors that come to your mind.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***&#xD;&#xA;**Edit**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The house on my mind is a single house, maybe two stores. It is located around Mediterranean (Europe) and might be exposed to some north wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By 'economical' I mean very low heating bills, i.e. the least amount of heat escape. But the material and installation cost is important. Vacuum panels would transfer almost no heat but would be very expensive to install, which makes it an uneconomical solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/11853/is-it-possible-to-use-sand-for-heat-insulation-at-walls&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-bale_construction" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11865" RevisionGUID="7034a79a-2ed1-4ec7-a0f3-37707240c631" CreationDate="2021-10-20T10:46:33.670" UserId="659" Text="Insulation alone does not make for a comfortable building. I live in Sydney, Australia which is a cooling climate (ie, it's more often hot here than cold) but the general principle is the same. I own a 1950's brick house that is uninsulated and well ventilated... it's almost always colder inside than out, whether it's 5°C outside or 45°C outside. Heating it is pointless, the hot air just goes out the vents and leaks. It has a lot of thermal mass from the brick walls, and once those heat up the house stays hot for days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I built a sleepout using coolstore panels (0.6mm steel skin with 75mm eps core). That is nearly airtight and very well insulated. But it has no thermal mass, so while it cools down quickly (at night, or with the air considtioner) and heats up quickly (resistive heater), it does not stay that way very long. It's still much more comfortable than the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally a house would be well insulated and have thermal mass inside to stabilise it. [Passive solar design][1] can make a huge difference, properly positioned windows with the right shading mean you get sun shining on your internal thermal mass during the day, heating it up and that heat keeps the house warm overnight. In summer the sun is higher so the shade keeps the sun away from the windows and the house syas cool. [PassiveHaus][2] designs almost always work this way but more so.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are standard, common houses that use those principles, and some of them predate the formal knowledge (some of which came from looking at the older houses and trying to discover why they worked so well). In Australia [reverse brick veneer][3] is something that even non-environmentalists do just because it's an easy way to make a house more comfortable. That puts the insulation on the outside and the thermal mass on the inside. That alone usually means you don't need to run the air conditioner or heater at night, so your house is quieter while you sleep. Temperatures inside change more slowly, so you don't have to keep taking off and putting on clothes as the heat/cool turns on and off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of sustainable building practices and materials, [Passive House][4] is an excellent place to start. To get certified the house not only has to perform well, it has to have a low environmental footprint. You don't have to pay for certification, or even a passive house type design, to benefit from seeing what they do and understanding why they do that. Or even just looking at the material choices any copying them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the USA the &quot;Earthship&quot; idea has many benefits, but sadly has become synonymous with rammed earth and reused tyre walls which are a tiny, stupid part of the whole philosophy. Only read up on this if you are willing to think critically and have good social skills.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Hempcrete][5] is one useful insulator and thermal mass in one [if you can get it][6]. It absorbs and releases humidity so acts as a phase change material as well, making it more comfortable to live in than the raw insulation value suggests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are willing to use Portland Cement (horrible environmental costs) there are many ways to make it insulating as well as its obvious use for structure and thermal mass. You can buy aerated concrete blocks in many countries, or DIY it using either foaming materials or reusing shredded EPS (or other insulators), or even sawdust or other biomaterials. But the latter very quickly take you back to bioaggregates using lime mortar instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wooden framed houses with insulation in the walls are very common around the world, and it's easy to find builders who do that. With effort it's possible to make those houses perform very well, usually by judicious use of internal thermal mass either in the floor or a (sometimes freestanding) concrete or rock wall. Sealing the houses to reduce air movement between inside and outside is usually the biggest challenge, and many builders are very bad at this so you may have to pause the build after the sheel is &quot;complete&quot;, have a test done, then fix the leaks yourself before allowing the builder back on site. They will create new holes, but at least you'll have less to fix. Australian builders are especially awful in this regard, so I may be exaggerating the problem you will have in Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The extreme of non-sustainable material is perhaps the various concrete and eps systems, commonly EPS blocks that link together then have concrete poured into the middle. That works, but combines two very non-sustainable materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar_building_design&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://passivehouse.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://renew.org.au/sanctuary-magazine/ideas-advice/the-ins-and-outs-of-reverse-brick-veneer/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.bcb-tradical.com/en/tradical-hempcrete/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://wayofleaf.com/hemp/disadvantages-of-hempcrete-as-a-building-material" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29549" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11865" RevisionGUID="c084229c-afb6-48d8-9d26-fcc1b3e4be9c" CreationDate="2021-10-20T10:52:34.203" UserId="659" Comment="added 509 characters in body" Text="Insulation alone does not make for a comfortable building. I live in Sydney, Australia which is a cooling climate (ie, it's more often hot here than cold) but the general principle is the same. I own a 1950's brick house that is uninsulated and well ventilated... it's almost always colder inside than out, whether it's 5°C outside or 45°C outside. Heating it is pointless, the hot air just goes out the vents and leaks. It has a lot of thermal mass from the brick walls, and once those heat up the house stays hot for days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I built a sleepout using coolstore panels (0.6mm steel skin with 75mm eps core). That is nearly airtight and very well insulated. But it has no thermal mass, so while it cools down quickly (at night, or with the air conditioner) and heats up quickly (resistive heater), it does not stay that way very long. The temperature inside oscillates uncomfortably quickly. It's still much more comfortable than the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally a house would be well insulated and have thermal mass inside to stabilise it. [Passive solar design][1] can make a huge difference, properly positioned windows with the right shading mean you get sun shining on your internal thermal mass during the day, heating it up and that heat keeps the house warm overnight. In summer the sun is higher so the shade keeps the sun away from the windows and the house stays cool. [PassiveHaus][2] designs almost always work this way but more so - better insulation, MHRV systems (heat exchangers rather than/as well as heat pumps), better design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are standard, common houses that also use those principles, and some of them predate the formal knowledge (some of which came from looking at the older houses and trying to discover why they worked so well). In Australia [reverse brick veneer][3] is something that even non-environmentalists do just because it's an easy way to make a house more comfortable. That just puts the insulation on the outside and the thermal mass on the inside of a conventional house design. That alone usually means you don't need to run the air conditioner or heater at night, so your house is quieter while you sleep. Temperatures inside change more slowly, so you don't have to keep taking off and putting on clothes as the heat/cool turns on and off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of sustainable building practices and materials, [Passive House][4] is an excellent place to start. To get certified the house not only has to perform well, it has to have a low environmental footprint. You don't have to pay for certification, or even a passive house type design, to benefit from seeing what they do and understanding why they do that. Or even just looking at the material choices and copying them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the USA the &quot;Earthship&quot; idea has many benefits, but sadly has become synonymous with rammed earth + reused tyre walls which are a tiny, stupid part of the whole philosophy. Only read up on this if you are willing to think critically and have good social skills - the walls take a lot of labour to build so IMO you're better off ignoring that specific gimmick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Hempcrete][5] is one useful insulator and thermal mass in one [if you can get it][6]. It absorbs and releases humidity so acts as a phase change material as well, making it more comfortable to live in than the raw insulation value suggests. It doesn't have to be hemp, rice husks or other farm waste can be used instead, but hemp has more research/experience behind it. &quot;[Bio Aggregate based building materials&quot; by Amziane and Arnaud][7] is worth reading, it is quite technical but very detailed. There are many easier to read books about hempcrete if you prefer more &quot;DIY guide&quot; style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are willing to use Portland Cement (horrible environmental costs) there are many ways to make it insulating as well as its obvious use for structure and thermal mass. You can buy aerated concrete blocks in many countries, or DIY it using either foaming materials or reusing shredded EPS (or other insulators), or even sawdust or other biomaterials. But the latter very quickly take you back to bioaggregates using lime mortar instead (hempcrete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wooden framed houses with insulation in the walls are very common around the world, and it's easy to find builders who do that. With effort it's possible to make those houses perform very well, usually by judicious use of internal thermal mass either in the floor or a (sometimes freestanding) concrete or rock wall. Sealing the houses to reduce air movement between inside and outside is usually the biggest challenge, and many builders are very bad at this so you may have to pause the build after the sheel is &quot;complete&quot;, have a test done, then fix the leaks yourself before allowing the builder back on site. They will create new holes, but at least you'll have less to fix. Australian builders are especially awful in this regard, so I may be exaggerating the problem you will have in Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The extreme of non-sustainable material is perhaps the various concrete and eps systems, commonly EPS blocks that link together then have concrete poured into the middle. That works, but combines two very non-sustainable materials. Just add gypsum board to the interior walls for a trifecta of disaster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building regulations might be your main issue. It would be worth finding your local &quot;green building&quot; groups and owner-builder people, to see what they know and how they deal with the legal side of things. In Australia where I am www.renew.org.au is amazing and hopefully there are equivalent group(s) where you live. Reinventing everything is hard and it's better to learn from other people's mistakes where you can &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar_building_design&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://passivehouse.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://renew.org.au/sanctuary-magazine/ideas-advice/the-ins-and-outs-of-reverse-brick-veneer/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.bcb-tradical.com/en/tradical-hempcrete/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://wayofleaf.com/hemp/disadvantages-of-hempcrete-as-a-building-material&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118576809" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29550" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11865" RevisionGUID="f355cb80-6494-4bd6-83a4-8da097e90bb9" CreationDate="2021-10-20T10:59:06.537" UserId="659" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Insulation alone does not make for a comfortable building. I live in Sydney, Australia which is a cooling climate (ie, it's more often hot here than cold) but the general principle is the same. I own a 1950's brick house that is uninsulated and well ventilated... it's almost always colder inside than out, whether it's 5°C outside or 45°C outside. Heating it is pointless, the hot air just goes out the vents and leaks. It has a lot of thermal mass from the brick walls, and once those heat up the house stays hot for days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I built a sleepout using coolstore panels (0.6mm steel skin with 75mm eps core). That is nearly airtight and very well insulated. But it has no thermal mass, so while it cools down quickly (at night, or with the air conditioner) and heats up quickly (resistive heater), it does not stay that way very long. The temperature inside oscillates uncomfortably quickly. It's still much more comfortable than the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally a house would be well insulated and have thermal mass inside to stabilise it. [Passive solar design][1] can make a huge difference, properly positioned windows with the right shading mean you get sun shining on your internal thermal mass during the day, heating it up and that heat keeps the house warm overnight. In summer the sun is higher so the shade keeps the sun away from the windows and the house stays cool. [PassiveHaus][2] designs almost always work this way but more so - better insulation, MHRV systems (heat exchangers rather than/as well as heat pumps), better design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are standard, common houses that also use those principles, and some of them predate the formal knowledge (some of which came from looking at the older houses and trying to discover why they worked so well). In Australia [reverse brick veneer][3] is something that even non-environmentalists do just because it's an easy way to make a house more comfortable. That just puts the insulation on the outside and the thermal mass on the inside of a conventional house design. That alone usually means you don't need to run the air conditioner or heater at night, so your house is quieter while you sleep. Temperatures inside change more slowly, so you don't have to keep taking off and putting on clothes as the heat/cool turns on and off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of sustainable building practices and materials, [Passive House][4] is an excellent place to start. To get certified the house not only has to perform well, it has to have a low environmental footprint. You don't have to pay for certification, or even a passive house type design, to benefit from seeing what they do and understanding why they do that. Or even just looking at the material choices and copying them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the USA the &quot;Earthship&quot; idea has many benefits, but sadly has become synonymous with rammed earth + reused tyre walls which are a tiny part of the whole system. Only read up on this if you are willing to think critically and have good social skills - the walls take a lot of labour to build so IMO you're better off ignoring that specific gimmick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Hempcrete][5] is one useful insulator and thermal mass in one [if you can get it][6]. It absorbs and releases humidity so acts as a phase change material as well, making it more comfortable to live in than the raw insulation value suggests. It doesn't have to be hemp, rice husks or other farm waste can be used instead, but hemp has more research/experience behind it. &quot;[Bio Aggregate based building materials&quot; by Amziane and Arnaud][7] is worth reading, it is quite technical but very detailed. There are many easier to read books about hempcrete if you prefer more &quot;DIY guide&quot; style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are willing to use Portland Cement (horrible environmental costs) there are many ways to make it insulating as well as its obvious use for structure and thermal mass. You can buy aerated concrete blocks in many countries, or DIY it using either foaming materials or reusing shredded EPS (or other insulators), or even sawdust or other biomaterials. But the latter very quickly take you back to bioaggregates using lime mortar instead (hempcrete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wooden framed houses with insulation in the walls are very common around the world, and it's easy to find builders who do that. With effort it's possible to make those houses perform very well, usually by judicious use of internal thermal mass either in the floor or a (sometimes freestanding) concrete or rock wall. Sealing the houses to reduce air movement between inside and outside is usually the biggest challenge, and many builders are very bad at this so you may have to pause the build after the sheel is &quot;complete&quot;, have a test done, then fix the leaks yourself before allowing the builder back on site. They will create new holes, but at least you'll have less to fix. Australian builders are especially awful in this regard, so I may be exaggerating the problem you will have in Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The extreme of non-sustainable material is perhaps the various concrete and eps systems, commonly EPS blocks that link together then have concrete poured into the middle. That works, but combines two very non-sustainable materials. Just add gypsum board to the interior walls for a trifecta of disaster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building regulations might be your main issue. It would be worth finding your local &quot;green building&quot; groups and owner-builder people, to see what they know and how they deal with the legal side of things. In Australia where I am www.renew.org.au is amazing and hopefully there are equivalent group(s) where you live. Reinventing everything is hard and it's better to learn from other people's mistakes where you can &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar_building_design&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://passivehouse.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://renew.org.au/sanctuary-magazine/ideas-advice/the-ins-and-outs-of-reverse-brick-veneer/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.bcb-tradical.com/en/tradical-hempcrete/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://wayofleaf.com/hemp/disadvantages-of-hempcrete-as-a-building-material&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118576809" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29551" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11865" RevisionGUID="26e57770-4020-44d7-9545-8bb2cf4cc9de" CreationDate="2021-10-20T20:55:25.743" UserId="659" Comment="trim unnecessary stuff" Text="Insulation alone does not make for a comfortable building. I built a sleepout using coolstore panels (0.6mm steel skin with 75mm eps core). That is nearly airtight and very well insulated. But it has no thermal mass, so while it cools down quickly (at night, or with the air conditioner) and heats up quickly (resistive heater), it does not stay that way very long. The temperature inside oscillates uncomfortably quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally a house would be well insulated and have thermal mass inside to stabilise it. [Passive solar design][1] can make a huge difference, properly positioned windows with the right shading mean you get sun shining on your internal thermal mass during the day, heating it up and that heat keeps the house warm overnight. In summer the sun is higher so the shade keeps the sun away from the windows and the house stays cool. [PassiveHaus][2] designs almost always work this way but more so - better insulation, MHRV systems (heat exchangers rather than/as well as heat pumps), better design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are standard, common houses that also use those principles, and some of them predate the formal knowledge (some of which came from looking at the older houses and trying to discover why they worked so well). In Australia [reverse brick veneer][3] is something that even non-environmentalists do just because it's an easy way to make a house more comfortable. That just puts the insulation on the outside and the thermal mass on the inside of a conventional house design. That alone usually means you don't need to run the air conditioner or heater at night, so your house is quieter while you sleep. Temperatures inside change more slowly, so you don't have to keep taking off and putting on clothes as the heat/cool turns on and off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of sustainable building practices and materials, [Passive House][4] is an excellent place to start. To get certified the house not only has to perform well, it has to have a low environmental footprint. You don't have to pay for certification, or even a passive house type design, to benefit from seeing what they do and understanding why they do that. Or even just looking at the material choices and copying them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the USA the &quot;Earthship&quot; idea has many benefits, but sadly has become synonymous with rammed earth + reused tyre walls which are a tiny part of the whole system. Only read up on this if you are willing to think critically and have good social skills - the walls take a lot of labour to build so IMO you're better off ignoring that specific gimmick.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Hempcrete][5] is one useful insulator and thermal mass in one [if you can get it][6]. It absorbs and releases humidity so acts as a phase change material as well, making it more comfortable to live in than the raw insulation value suggests. It doesn't have to be hemp, rice husks or other farm waste can be used instead, but hemp has more research/experience behind it. &quot;[Bio Aggregate based building materials&quot; by Amziane and Arnaud][7] is worth reading, it is quite technical but very detailed. There are many easier to read books about hempcrete if you prefer more &quot;DIY guide&quot; style.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are willing to use Portland Cement (horrible environmental costs) there are many ways to make it insulating as well as its obvious use for structure and thermal mass. You can buy aerated concrete blocks in many countries, or DIY it using either foaming materials or reusing shredded EPS (or other insulators), or even sawdust or other biomaterials. But the latter very quickly take you back to bioaggregates using lime mortar instead (hempcrete).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wooden framed houses with insulation in the walls are very common around the world, and it's easy to find builders who do that. With effort it's possible to make those houses perform very well, usually by judicious use of internal thermal mass either in the floor or a (sometimes freestanding) concrete or rock wall. Sealing the houses to reduce air movement between inside and outside is usually the biggest challenge, and many builders are very bad at this so you may have to pause the build after the sheel is &quot;complete&quot;, have a test done, then fix the leaks yourself before allowing the builder back on site. They will create new holes, but at least you'll have less to fix. Australian builders are especially awful in this regard, so I may be exaggerating the problem you will have in Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The extreme of non-sustainable material is perhaps the various concrete and eps systems, commonly EPS blocks that link together then have concrete poured into the middle. That works, but combines two very non-sustainable materials. Just add gypsum board to the interior walls for a trifecta of disaster.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Building regulations might be your main issue. It would be worth finding your local &quot;green building&quot; groups and owner-builder people, to see what they know and how they deal with the legal side of things. In Australia where I am www.renew.org.au is amazing and hopefully there are equivalent group(s) where you live. Reinventing everything is hard and it's better to learn from other people's mistakes where you can &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_solar_building_design&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://passivehouse.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://renew.org.au/sanctuary-magazine/ideas-advice/the-ins-and-outs-of-reverse-brick-veneer/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.bcb-tradical.com/en/tradical-hempcrete/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://wayofleaf.com/hemp/disadvantages-of-hempcrete-as-a-building-material&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118576809" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11867" RevisionGUID="aed2d4f9-b4e7-453d-8c3d-9abac332c04b" CreationDate="2021-10-21T07:04:13.607" UserId="12137" Text="Top-loading impeller and agitator style washing machines (predominant in Asia and the US) generally put more mechanical wear on the laundry than front loading machines (predominant in Europe). The better distinction would be vertical axis (impeller and agitator) and horizontal axis (EU-style front loaders AND horizontal axis top loaders), as the main difference is not how you load the machine, but the different laundry process resulting from horizontal or vertical axis.&#xD;&#xA;Washing cycles in vertical axis machines are (in general) shorter than in horizontal axis machines and often [use only cold water][1], while most horizontal axis washing programes use heated water. According to *Sinners Circle* (the four interdependent factors time, chemistry, temperature and mechanical action influence the outcome of any cleaning process. For a consistent cleaning result, you have to increase factors if you lower others, see e.g. [here][2]), using cold water and a short washing time needs higher chemistry and/or mechanical action in the vertical axis machines to achieve a similar cleaning result as for horizontal axis machines. &#xD;&#xA;Through higher mechanical action, the laundry experiences more mechanical wear: rubbing, abrading, etc. wich in turn allows more fibers to come lose or fiber pieces to break off, resulting in more fibers in the suds. In the case of synthetic fibers, this will in turn lead to an increase of microplastic fibers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12053-009-9072-8.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.miele.com/en/com/sinners-circle-5149.htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11868" RevisionGUID="aa2cf5be-af8f-4c1f-81ae-9a88020aa9f1" CreationDate="2021-10-21T07:24:23.240" UserId="12137" Text="The sustainability of synthetic fibers cannot be reduced to microplastic shedding. In general, polyester (and other synthetic fibers) use [much less water][1] during production, no pesticides and have other environmentally positive aspects like their recyclability (at least to some extent) as well as longer life cycles. &#xD;&#xA;So while swapping polyester sports clothing for wollen or cotton ones might reduce microplastics, the swap might bring about other detrimental effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buying as little clothin as possible with the highest possible quality (that lasts the longest), washing less often and on a gentle cycle and environmentally friendly detergent (while still making sure that the clothing gets sufficiently cleanded, increasing its usability duration) and repairing existing clothing is the way to go for environmentally concious clothing consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.autexrj.com/cms/zalaczone_pliki/2b.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29558" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11832" RevisionGUID="f90c68bf-4549-45a7-bc71-c64725b37c11" CreationDate="2021-10-21T09:00:07.693" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1451111043464318982" />
  <row Id="29560" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10697" RevisionGUID="f28b197e-9244-4e54-a322-0e1851b214ac" CreationDate="2021-10-22T03:06:35.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29562" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="c14dd511-55d8-4cb1-aa31-6f63fdb0c358" CreationDate="2021-10-24T01:02:35.320" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29563" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="d32e97de-be12-42dc-bbca-716d843ec861" CreationDate="2021-10-24T16:04:50.437" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11869" RevisionGUID="350d8d9a-2a82-4288-9a11-9669fe3871ba" CreationDate="2021-10-24T21:05:05.130" UserId="9669" Text="While I was reading a recent BBC [article][1] on so-called &quot;carbon farming&quot;, I started to wonder, is crop production a net source or a net sink of carbon emissions? Even with tillage and ploughing it seems implausible that it emits more than it sequesters (it's plants after all, consuming carbon is what they do). Are there any studies on the topic, how much it sequesters, how much it emits? What are the numerically represented advantages of no-till, no-plough systems, are they tiny, are they huge?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211020-carbon-farming-a-better-use-for-half-earths-land" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29566" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11869" RevisionGUID="350d8d9a-2a82-4288-9a11-9669fe3871ba" CreationDate="2021-10-24T21:05:05.130" UserId="9669" Text="Is crop production a net source or a net sink of carbon emissions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29567" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11869" RevisionGUID="350d8d9a-2a82-4288-9a11-9669fe3871ba" CreationDate="2021-10-24T21:05:05.130" UserId="9669" Text="|farming|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11870" RevisionGUID="6c5d6338-bffb-47ff-b9ae-3284afa0cb65" CreationDate="2021-10-26T15:22:25.660" UserId="3379" Text="[Food is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food?country=#breakdown-of-where-food-system-emissions-come-from), and crops are no exception. For crop production, there are two major categories of emissions sources: Land use, and agricultural production. For crops, the relevant sources within these categories are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Land use&#xD;&#xA;   - Land use change (e.g. deforestation)&#xD;&#xA;   - Cultivated soils&#xD;&#xA;   - Drainage and burning of soils, including peatlands&#xD;&#xA; - Agricultural production&#xD;&#xA;   - Emissions from fertilizer application&#xD;&#xA;   - Methane from rice&#xD;&#xA;   - Fuel use from on-farm machinery&#xD;&#xA;   - Energy for fertilizer production&#xD;&#xA;   - Burning of agricultural waste&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The specific impact of each varies by crop and farming method. The 2018 paper [&quot;Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216) ([pdf](https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:b0b53649-5e93-4415-bf07-6b0b1227172f/download_file?safe_filename=Reducing_foods_environment_impacts_Science%2B360%2B6392%2B987%2B-%2BAccepted%2BManuscript.pdf&amp;file_format=application%2Fpdf&amp;type_of_work=Journal%20article&amp;fbclid=IwAR1fQfU5zKTtxPRwHAgmDezOUzpt2QnZjtZkZ3g5H6AD-_8R5no9qCFj58o)) includes this chart showing the range of impact for several agricultural sources at wheat farms, from a meta-analysis of studies covering nearly 40,000 farms around the world:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![GHG emissions sources from wheat farms][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the largest impact categories are related to fertilizer, pesticides, and energy use on the farm (electricity and fuel). These are things that can't be reduced by the no-till, no-plough methods mentioned in the question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While that figure is for wheat, there are also differences depending on which type of crop is being farmed. Here's [another graphic](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-emissions-supply-chain?country=Rice~Peas~Bananas~Wheat+%26+Rye~Tofu~Maize~Apples~Barley~Berries+%26+Grapes~Citrus+Fruit~Groundnuts~Nuts~Oatmeal~Onions+%26+Leeks~Potatoes~Root+Vegetables~Soymilk~Tomatoes) from Our World in Data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Food: GHG emissions across the supply chain][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that some crops (such as tree nuts) actually sequester carbon -- however the trade-off here is the high [water footprint](https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#water-footprint-of-food).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Zua8e.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/tCrok.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11871" RevisionGUID="cced6d1e-ec5d-4105-8c1d-c91d85742a7d" CreationDate="2021-10-26T23:42:35.170" UserId="9669" Text="Is driving an electric car any better, GHG-wise, than driving a conventional car if 100% of electricity is generated by fossil fuel combustion? Are there any peer-reviewed studies of that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29572" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11871" RevisionGUID="cced6d1e-ec5d-4105-8c1d-c91d85742a7d" CreationDate="2021-10-26T23:42:35.170" UserId="9669" Text="Is driving an electric car any better than driving a conventional car if electricity is generated with fossil fuel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29573" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11871" RevisionGUID="cced6d1e-ec5d-4105-8c1d-c91d85742a7d" CreationDate="2021-10-26T23:42:35.170" UserId="9669" Text="|transport|greenhouse-gas-emissions|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29574" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11872" RevisionGUID="5900fdee-1c03-47c5-b61b-d1edb72fcab1" CreationDate="2021-10-27T01:01:54.640" UserId="1056" Text="The GHG intensity of battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) charged from a fossil-fuel based electrical grid is a *moot point* (a fact that doesn't matter because it's not relevant to the current situation) in the context of global decarbonization and here's why: **There is no realistic pathway for deep decarbonization of combustion engine vehicles.** [1](https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Global-LCA-passenger-cars-jul2021_0.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only realistic pathway to decarbonizing transportation is a combined effort at both vehicle electrification and transitioning the electrical grid to low-carbon energy sources (ie. renewables).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fgaEo.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just doesn't make sense to ask about a hypothetical scenario where 100% of electricity is generated by fossil fuel combustion because that's not a reality in any country today, and most countries are transitioning their electrical grids to lower-carbon energy sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29576" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11873" RevisionGUID="1cda346c-7c30-4679-89ec-9364f7a9271e" CreationDate="2021-10-27T01:08:41.193" UserId="6293" Text="Driving a battery-powered electric-vehicle on electricity produced by fossil fuel could be some percentage of efficiency gain. For instance, gas-turbines at electric powerplants often run for long periods of time at fixed speeds and that's an efficiency gain. Also, the gas-turbines at powerplants can make use of waste heat which is another efficiency gain. Another possibility is for natural-gas to be reformed to gray hydrogen and then the gray hydrogen run in fuel-cells at the electric powerplants. Certainly, compare the efficiency of hydrogen fuel-cells to gas-turbines for electric powerplant use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with battery-powered electric-vehicles is that they are primarily developed and designed for required driving ranges and that's a potentially wasteful development. Other types of vehicles could just change the size of the fuel tank for different driving ranges and that's not primary development and design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the electric powergrid is only expected to be 45% renewable electricity at the year 2050. Much of the problem is that the transition to battery-powered electric-vehicles will increase demand for electricity. Now if the renewable electricity is accounted to buildings and houses then the non-renewable electricity could be accounted to battery-powered electric-vehicles !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29578" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11874" RevisionGUID="e0b76cb1-70cf-4a1e-be12-f28f6b764497" CreationDate="2021-10-27T02:27:27.327" UserId="7993" Text="Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hard limit on the efficiency of a heat engine is the [Carnot efficiency][1]: the amount of usable energy extracted from a heat source is limited by the temperature of the heat source and the temperature of the heat sink.  Only an infinitely hot heat source or a heat sink at absolute zero permits extracting all the energy from a heat source in a useful form.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A typical car extracts about 25% of the available energy from gasoline, representing about 60% of Carnot efficiency for the car's operating temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A coal-fired power plant extracts about 45% of the available energy from the coal, representing 90% or more of Carnot efficiency.  It can use techniques such as multiple-expansion turbines, preheaters, and re-heaters that are too heavy or too bulky to fit into a car.  Even after you factor in transmission losses and the relative carbon emissions of coal versus gasoline, an electric car charged from a coal power plant produces lower emissions than a gasoline car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(There are other advantages to an electric car that can boost its advantage even higher, such as regenerative braking, but the increased efficiency of turning heat to useful energy is the big one.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency#Carnot_efficiency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29580" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="11858" RevisionGUID="1a8081a1-5ae2-4459-b3c1-4fc8ccd92aba" CreationDate="2021-10-27T16:33:40.403" UserId="3379" Comment="105" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:4834,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Jean-Paul Calderone&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:659,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Móż&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29581" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11871" RevisionGUID="27473171-e886-4302-a75d-ada8c67b5928" CreationDate="2021-10-27T18:32:42.373" UserId="9669" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Is driving an electric car any better, GHG-wise, than driving a conventional car if 100% of its electricity is generated by fossil fuel combustion? Are there any peer-reviewed studies of that?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11875" RevisionGUID="e2e32013-81d4-4855-91e8-a4bb63eefd12" CreationDate="2021-10-28T21:44:48.097" UserId="6393" Text="Oh yes it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fossil fuel of choice in electricity generation today is natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas combined cycle turbines run at 50% efficiency. Compare that to the 25% average efficiency of a car internal combustion engine (sure you can read information about 38% record efficiency but that's only at a particular operating point, not average over a general drive cycle). Natural gas is actually a very efficient hydrogen container: a particular amount of natural gas contains twice as much hydrogen as the same amount of hydrogen gas. Thus, a very significant fraction of the energy in natural gas is actually zero-emission hydrogen. Therefore, natural gas produces only 200 g / kWh of primary energy. At 50% efficiency, that's 400 g / kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An largish electric car consumes about 0.18 kWh / km so that gives 72 g / kWh. With internal combustion engine cars, emissions are usually at least twice that even in the smallest engines, and an engine that gives good acceleration has very high emissions (compare that to electric cars that by default have very fast acceleration). Also, the stated emissions of fossil fuel cars are the tailpipe emissions. If oil refining emissions are taken into account too, the emissions easily increase 30% over the stated emissions and can be as high as 250 g / kWh taking into account refining for a comparable gasoline car having good acceleration. Natural gas is a nice fuel in that it requires absolutely no refining at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a natural gas power plant is a stationary carbon dioxide source. So it's a very good location for carbon capture. One mole of natural gas (methane) burned produces one mole of carbon dioxide. A general law related to gases is that a mole of gas takes a certain volume. Thus, if the natural gas came from under the ground, once the natural gas field has been depleted, you can use it for storing the carbon dioxide -- it will fit there if the natural gas was there in the past. This is actually very environmentally beneficial, because if the natural gas by accident was released, it would cause very strong global warming, whereas carbon dioxide is a much weaker cause of global warming. Thus, best approach to reduce risks is to convert all natural gas we can into carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, an internal combustion engine in a car is a mobile power source. There's no practical way to capture the carbon dioxide as it's a gas and takes far more space than the liquid fuel from which it was produced. Thus, the only option is to release the carbon dioxide back to atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it is noteworthy that practically no one is planning to use natural gas as baseload far into the future. Solar power and especially wind power are very good candidates for producing the bulk of electricity, and their fuels being free allow very cheap production, far cheaper than natural gas. Natural gas turbines have very good adjustment properties, meaning you can for example very easily produce power from 85% renewables and 15% natural gas, even given the intermittency of renewables. You just over-size the renewables a bit and use the spare electricity for example for producing green hydrogen or charging large iron-air batteries. Even without carbon capture, this 85%/15% mix would give 10.8 g / kWh average emissions. However, carbon capture is very likely and this gives 0 g / kWh average emissions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29585" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11875" RevisionGUID="f8ec75a5-06bc-4284-aede-842559b65acb" CreationDate="2021-10-28T21:51:05.627" UserId="6393" Comment="typos" Text="Oh yes it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fossil fuel of choice in electricity generation today is natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Natural gas combined cycle turbines run at 50% efficiency. Compare that to the 25% average efficiency of a car internal combustion engine (sure you can read information about 38% record efficiency but that's only at a particular operating point, not average over a general drive cycle). Natural gas is actually a very efficient hydrogen container: a particular amount of natural gas contains twice as much hydrogen as the same amount of hydrogen gas. Thus, a very significant fraction of the energy in natural gas is actually zero-emission hydrogen. Therefore, natural gas produces only 200 g / kWh of primary energy. At 50% efficiency, that's 400 g / kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An largish electric car consumes about 0.18 kWh / km so that gives 72 g / km. With internal combustion engine cars, emissions are usually at least twice that even in the smallest engines, and an engine that gives good acceleration has very high emissions (compare that to electric cars that by default have very fast acceleration). Also, the stated emissions of fossil fuel cars are the tailpipe emissions. If oil refining emissions are taken into account too, the emissions easily increase 30% over the stated emissions and can be as high as 250 g / km taking into account refining for a comparable gasoline car having good acceleration. Natural gas is a nice fuel in that it requires absolutely no refining at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a natural gas power plant is a stationary carbon dioxide source. So it's a very good location for carbon capture. One mole of natural gas (methane) burned produces one mole of carbon dioxide. A general law related to gases is that a mole of gas takes a certain volume. Thus, if the natural gas came from under the ground, once the natural gas field has been depleted, you can use it for storing the carbon dioxide -- it will fit there if the natural gas was there in the past. This is actually very environmentally beneficial, because if the natural gas by accident was released, it would cause very strong global warming, whereas carbon dioxide is a much weaker cause of global warming. Thus, best approach to reduce risks is to convert all natural gas we can into carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, an internal combustion engine in a car is a mobile power source. There's no practical way to capture the carbon dioxide as it's a gas and takes far more space than the liquid fuel from which it was produced. Thus, the only option is to release the carbon dioxide back to atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it is noteworthy that practically no one is planning to use natural gas as baseload far into the future. Solar power and especially wind power are very good candidates for producing the bulk of electricity, and their fuels being free allow very cheap production, far cheaper than natural gas. Natural gas turbines have very good adjustment properties, meaning you can for example very easily produce power from 85% renewables and 15% natural gas, even given the intermittency of renewables. You just over-size the renewables a bit and use the spare electricity for example for producing green hydrogen or charging large iron-air batteries. Even without carbon capture, this 85%/15% mix would give 10.8 g / km average emissions. However, carbon capture is very likely and this gives 0 g / km average emissions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29586" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11873" RevisionGUID="bf20601f-fd24-472b-ae34-3071ee841984" CreationDate="2021-10-29T00:34:42.110" UserId="6293" Comment="added 863 characters in body" Text="Driving a battery-powered electric-vehicle on electricity produced by fossil fuel could be some percentage of efficiency gain. For instance, gas-turbines at electric powerplants often run for long periods of time at fixed speeds and that's an efficiency gain. Also, the gas-turbines at powerplants can make use of waste heat which is another efficiency gain. Another possibility is for natural-gas to be reformed to gray hydrogen and then the gray hydrogen run in fuel-cells at the electric powerplants. Certainly, compare the efficiency of hydrogen fuel-cells to gas-turbines for electric powerplant use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with battery-powered electric-vehicles is that they are primarily developed and designed for required driving ranges and that's a potentially wasteful development. Other types of vehicles could just change the size of the fuel tank for different driving ranges and that's not primary development and design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the electric powergrid is only expected to be 45% renewable electricity at the year 2050. Much of the problem is that the transition to battery-powered electric-vehicles will increase demand for electricity. Now if the renewable electricity is accounted to buildings and houses then the non-renewable electricity could be accounted to battery-powered electric-vehicles !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can add primary sources. This first source says that 450GW of European offshore wind-power will be 30% of Europoean electricity demand in the year 2050 and that result because demand will have grown 50%. However, the current amount of European offshore wind-power is only 20GW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://windeurope.org/about-wind/reports/our-energy-our-future/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Down in their assumptions they improve the numbers by saying that there could also be 650GW of European onshore wind-power. I suppose my number used 650GW as the total but I'm going to check that point again and then edit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second source says that U.S. solar-power could be 40% of demand in the year 2035. However, current U.S. solar-power is only 3% of current demand while full demand is expected in the year 2050.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-releases-solar-futures-study-providing-blueprint-zero-carbon-grid&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29587" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11873" RevisionGUID="0f9ff821-77fd-4c06-8e97-9c5fadd3e9b1" CreationDate="2021-10-29T00:49:50.490" UserId="6293" Comment="added 42 characters in body" Text="Driving a battery-powered electric-vehicle on electricity produced by fossil fuel could be some percentage of efficiency gain. For instance, gas-turbines at electric powerplants often run for long periods of time at fixed speeds and that's an efficiency gain. Also, the gas-turbines at powerplants can make use of waste heat which is another efficiency gain. Another possibility is for natural-gas to be reformed to gray hydrogen and then the gray hydrogen run in fuel-cells at the electric powerplants. Certainly, compare the efficiency of hydrogen fuel-cells to gas-turbines for electric powerplant use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with battery-powered electric-vehicles is that they are primarily developed and designed for required driving ranges and that's a potentially wasteful development. Other types of vehicles could just change the size of the fuel tank for different driving ranges and that's not primary development and design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the electric powergrid is only expected to be 45% renewable electricity at the year 2050. Much of the problem is that the transition to battery-powered electric-vehicles will increase demand for electricity. Now if the renewable electricity is accounted to buildings and houses then the non-renewable electricity could be accounted to battery-powered electric-vehicles !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can add primary sources. This first source says that 450GW of European offshore wind-power will be 30% of European electricity demand in the year 2050 and that result because demand will have grown 50%. However, the current amount of European offshore wind-power, as dated in November of 2019, is only 20GW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://windeurope.org/about-wind/reports/our-energy-our-future/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Down in their assumptions they improve the numbers by saying that there could also be 650GW of European onshore wind-power in the year 2050. I suppose that I previously used 650GW as the total of all European wind-power. However, these are their visionary numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second source says that U.S. solar-power could be 40% of demand in the year 2035. However, current U.S. solar-power is only 3% of current demand while full demand is expected in the year 2050.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-releases-solar-futures-study-providing-blueprint-zero-carbon-grid&#xD;&#xA;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11876" RevisionGUID="00f19923-b3b5-44f5-b5ed-39886fdbccd0" CreationDate="2021-10-29T21:28:53.057" UserId="13271" Text="This is slightly speculative, but I came across a sensible answer.  In an electric car, the cooling system cools the cabin but also cools the battery.  In some conditions, the passenger may request heat while the battery needs cooling.  So to offer a bi-directional heat pump for the cabin, two systems become necessary, one for the cabin and one for the battery.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw the info about the shared cooling system in this walk through of the chevy bolt: https://youtu.be/5gDILvW5yMg?t=188" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29590" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="9cff0479-adb5-4606-b700-2c66bae58da6" CreationDate="2021-10-30T03:06:05.660" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29596" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11873" RevisionGUID="dbadd616-80b3-43b2-ab58-582664677ae2" CreationDate="2021-10-31T19:58:09.937" UserId="6293" Comment="added 325 characters in body" Text="Driving a battery-powered electric-vehicle on electricity produced by fossil fuel could be some percentage of efficiency gain. For instance, gas-turbines at electric powerplants often run for long periods of time at fixed speeds and that's an efficiency gain. Also, the gas-turbines at powerplants can make use of waste heat which is another efficiency gain. Another possibility is for natural-gas to be reformed to gray hydrogen and then the gray hydrogen run in fuel-cells at the electric powerplants. Certainly, compare the efficiency of hydrogen fuel-cells to gas-turbines for electric powerplant use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with battery-powered electric-vehicles is that they are primarily developed and designed for required driving ranges and that's a potentially wasteful development. Other types of vehicles could just change the size of the fuel tank for different driving ranges and that's not primary development and design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, the electric powergrid is only expected to be 45% renewable electricity at the year 2050. Much of the problem is that the transition to battery-powered electric-vehicles will increase demand for electricity. Now if the renewable electricity is accounted to buildings and houses then the non-renewable electricity could be accounted to battery-powered electric-vehicles !&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can add primary sources. This first source says that 450GW of European offshore wind-power will be 30% of European electricity demand in the year 2050 and that result because demand will have grown 50%. However, the current amount of European offshore wind-power, as dated in November of 2019, is only 20GW.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://windeurope.org/about-wind/reports/our-energy-our-future/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Down in their assumptions they improve the numbers by saying that there could also be 650GW of European onshore wind-power in the year 2050. I suppose that I previously used 650GW as the total of all European wind-power. However, these are their visionary numbers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This second source says that U.S. solar-power could be 40% of demand in the year 2035. However, current U.S. solar-power is only 3% of current demand while full demand is expected in the year 2050.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-releases-solar-futures-study-providing-blueprint-zero-carbon-grid .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, my overall point is that in spite of a battery-powered electric-vehicles's higher efficiency, if in the future if personal vehicle use is rationed, so that energy use of buildings and houses is not rationed, then many battery-powered electric-vehicles will have been over-designed and over-developed for their usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29597" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10149" RevisionGUID="87050869-6d77-436f-a5c8-215b2be61d48" CreationDate="2021-10-31T20:04:35.443" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29602" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11879" RevisionGUID="b5a033e9-bdc3-4a9c-a47c-5f6533ff3dea" CreationDate="2021-11-01T03:28:04.680" UserId="9669" Text="What climate benefits does a four-day working week have? I was a bit surprised to stumble across it among proposed ways to mitigate climate change listed in a recent BBC [article][1] (it didn't go into details on that, though). How does it help, other than reducing commuting (though, remote working, public transportation seem to offer comparable benefits)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211025-climate-how-to-make-the-rich-pay-for-their-carbon-emissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29604" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11879" RevisionGUID="b5a033e9-bdc3-4a9c-a47c-5f6533ff3dea" CreationDate="2021-11-01T03:28:04.680" UserId="9669" Text="What climate benefits does a four-day working week have?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29605" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11879" RevisionGUID="b5a033e9-bdc3-4a9c-a47c-5f6533ff3dea" CreationDate="2021-11-01T03:28:04.680" UserId="9669" Text="|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29607" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11880" RevisionGUID="22440bb3-09a8-4812-8336-a551744715d1" CreationDate="2021-11-01T17:17:06.283" UserId="6393" Text="There are two effects of a four-day working week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Reduced productivity. A four-day working week has approximately 80% the amount of working hours of a five-day working week.&#xD;&#xA;2. Reduced transportation. A four-day working week has approximately 80% the transportation of a five-day working week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I live, about 20% of emissions are from transportation. If you reduce 20% from that, it's 4% only. So the reduced transportation needs reduce emissions by 4%. However, the reduced productivity is more significant. You can expect to receive only 80% of your current salary, so the reduced consumption means you can't afford to consume as much as you used to and 16% consumption emissions are reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in reality the situation is a bit more complex. Not all extra salary goes to consumption. Some of it goes to investments, and today most investors prefer green investments. So for example a four-day working week could mean people can no longer afford to fund wind power plants and electric cars, and in that case a four-day working week can actually be more harmful to environment as opposed to 20% less harmful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So in reality the full effects are very difficult to model and depend on how people use the extra salary from a five-day working week." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29609" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11879" RevisionGUID="8f7d2faa-c127-40ba-af60-7899f9c09451" CreationDate="2021-11-01T18:00:05.570" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1455233197248335887" />
  <row Id="29611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11881" RevisionGUID="c84aca8e-2cb2-46e5-95b1-b9000068ebc8" CreationDate="2021-11-02T15:22:08.183" UserId="13331" Text="Access to safe drinking water for human consumption remains a global challenge, affecting an estimated 2.2 billion people. In recent years, devices for collecting water from the atmosphere - similar to the Star Wars saga concept of &quot;moisture farms&quot; - have been developed and tested to benefit water-scarce regions, especially in countries with tropical climates, where two-thirds of those affected are found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, in a study published in the journal Nature, researchers have carried out a comprehensive analysis to assess the global potential for atmospheric water harvesting (condensation and water vapor collection) using solar energy. The study results showed that this water harvest could provide clean water for 1 billion people in need. With the help of the Google Earth Engine tool, and considering a 1 square meter device with an efficiency of 0.2 to 2.5 liters per kilowatt-hour in a region with a relative humidity of 30% to 90%, respectively, it would be possible to provide the basic requirement of 5 liters of water per day per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the authors of the study, this harvesting potential can be practically achieved in the near future with continuous technological advances and considering the current technologies already employed for this purpose, and well within thermodynamic limits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03900-w" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29614" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11882" RevisionGUID="2424795d-5a08-4cd9-9452-1d686023a0f1" CreationDate="2021-11-02T18:02:07.360" UserId="13332" Text="I live in an old rental house with 12 foot ceilings and zero ceiling fans. I am trying to conserve as much energy as possible as heating costs are expensive. I have placed plastic on all of my windows and close doors, etc. but I am wanting to do more. My question is this, if I hang items from my ceiling, will that help keep my energy costs down? I am not sure what I would hang but almost like panels of some kind. The intent behind hanging panels from the ceiling is to help keep the heat from rising to ceiling level. My landlord is not likely to install ceiling fans. Would it make a difference even if I don't do a whole complete &quot;drop-down&quot; ceiling? Like, if I hang 2 or 3 panels, will that help in the slightest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29616" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11882" RevisionGUID="2424795d-5a08-4cd9-9452-1d686023a0f1" CreationDate="2021-11-02T18:02:07.360" UserId="13332" Text="Minimizing home heating costs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29617" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11882" RevisionGUID="2424795d-5a08-4cd9-9452-1d686023a0f1" CreationDate="2021-11-02T18:02:07.360" UserId="13332" Text="|electricity|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29618" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11882" RevisionGUID="9a4384e0-64df-4047-8b10-fa76c87d24d3" CreationDate="2021-11-02T18:54:51.797" UserId="1056" Comment="edited tags" Text="|electricity|heating|renting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29619" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11882" RevisionGUID="9a4384e0-64df-4047-8b10-fa76c87d24d3" CreationDate="2021-11-02T18:54:51.797" UserId="1056" Comment="edited tags" Text="Minimizing home heating costs with high ceilings" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29620" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11883" RevisionGUID="efa86a77-7374-4e81-9f59-82c13819cb80" CreationDate="2021-11-02T19:12:19.927" UserId="1056" Text="There are two general approaches to reducing heating costs:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Reduce the amount of space/floor area/volume that needs heating.&#xD;&#xA;- Improve the insulating value of the enclosure (eg. plastic on windows)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Suspended Panels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like your primary concern here is the 12&quot; high ceilings, and you are wondering if you can effectively reduce the volume of the room by suspending panels as a way to divide the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm mostly just guessing here, but I don't think suspending panels would help much at all. A successful outcome would result in the high-ceiling area having a lower temperature (closer to the outdoor temperature) and that seems incredibly unlikely because heat likes to rise. Gaps will facilitate convection, and the panels themselves would conduct heat readily unless they were already efficient insulators (at which point, why suspend them instead of using them as insulation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Alternatives&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting that **raised flooring** (such as Korean [Ondol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ondol)) is a recurring architectural element that helps maintain comfortable warmth inside a home, but that's probably too severe a retrofit to consider for your space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Closing doors** between rooms is a more common and effective way of reducing the heating area. If you have some rooms that don't need heat, isolating that room by closing the door, closing heat vents, turning off baseboard heaters etc. can make a big difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11886" RevisionGUID="a232dcfb-39fe-4e31-89a0-1a874bf01e23" CreationDate="2021-11-03T03:56:54.670" UserId="659" Text="Single panels will not do very much at all, they just reduce air circulation and slightly increase the thermal mass of the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two effective strategies I've used are: buy cheap cloth (ideally not flammable, just for safety) and hang that right across the room. You want to make it as close to a complete ceiling as possible. If you can, two layers will work better. Wall hangings might also help if you have cold walls (I did this in one awful rented flat), ideally hung a couple of centimetres out from the wall (it's the air that insulates). Adding proper curtains and pelmets often helps as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also build draped/four poster beds, once with thermal drapes and polystyrene on the roof. Those are very effective because the contained volume is tiny. But obviously only useful while you're actually in bed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also possible to pitch a dome tent inside the room, and that will help. Those are cheap, but also very flammable. That means no candles, but also taking care not to get any other accidental flames near them. It's worth thinking about whether you're imeding your fire exits when doing thise sort of thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29630" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11886" RevisionGUID="53630777-5320-4843-a458-9f81c9327265" CreationDate="2021-11-04T00:34:35.040" UserId="1056" Comment="fix typos" Text="Single panels will not do very much at all, they just reduce air circulation and slightly increase the thermal mass of the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two effective strategies I've used are: buy cheap cloth (ideally not flammable, just for safety) and hang that right across the room. You want to make it as close to a complete ceiling as possible. If you can, two layers will work better. Wall hangings might also help if you have cold walls (I did this in one awful rented flat), ideally hung a couple of centimetres out from the wall (it's the air that insulates). Adding proper curtains and pelmets often helps as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've also build draped/four poster beds, once with thermal drapes and polystyrene on the roof. Those are very effective because the contained volume is tiny. But obviously only useful while you're actually in bed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also possible to pitch a dome tent inside the room, and that will help. Those are cheap, but also very flammable. That means no candles, but also taking care not to get any other accidental flames near them. It's worth thinking about whether you're impeding your fire exits when doing this sort of thing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11888" RevisionGUID="718b7f23-7e9a-409d-b9da-3dd0959079a2" CreationDate="2021-11-05T09:27:46.673" UserId="13340" Text="While Tetra Pak is harder to recycle (you will need to take it yourself to a recycling center and there is lots of work to include it in the circular economy eg Platnieks et al &quot;Sustainable tetra pak recycled cellulose / Poly(Butylene succinate) based woody-like composites for a circular economy&quot;, Journal of Cleaner Production,&#xD;&#xA;Volume 270,2020,122321,ISSN 0959-6526,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122321.&#xD;&#xA;(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620323684))and in general as food cans now also contain plastic layers the Co2 savings of the much lighter and easier to tightly pack tera paks are much better for the environment on almost all measures. Also its recycling is less energy intensive than for cans or glass which need much greater heat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29639" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11888" RevisionGUID="f5655ae9-8090-4b28-aab0-7c37a76492f3" CreationDate="2021-11-05T11:28:45.940" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical &amp; formating changes" Text="While Tetra Pak is harder to recycle (you will need to take it yourself to a recycling center and there is lots of work to include it in the circular economy, eg Platnieks et al &quot;[*Sustainable tetra pak recycled cellulose / Poly(Butylene succinate) based woody-like composites for a circular economy*][1]&quot;, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 270,2020,122321, ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122321.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In general, as food cans now also contain plastic layers, the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; savings of the much lighter and easier to tightly pack tera paks are much better for the environment on almost all measures. Also its recycling is less energy intensive as compared to cans or glass which need much greater heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652620323684" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6717" RevisionGUID="72f3b3f2-5449-4456-ae35-0102252b6ebd" CreationDate="2021-11-05T11:32:27.213" UserId="2345" Comment="Degree symbol for temperatures" Text="I live in a second floor apartment with a small balcony. In my kitchen I have a small vented container where I place kitchen scraps as I'm preparing food -- like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Kitchen counter compost bucket][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About once a week when this gets full, I transfer everything into a 20 L sealed plastic pail on my balcony, like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![5 gallon bucket][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once *that* is full (about every six to eight weeks), I take it in my car (while doing other errands, of course) to a nearby community garden where a coworker has a plot and dump it in the communal compost bin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My question is, does storing compost made of kitchen scraps in a sealed container for up to eight weeks cause any problems for the open-air compost bin where I eventually place it?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few points on my compost:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Scraps are about 80% raw fruit and vegetable peelings, with some egg shells, produce that has gone bad, and a few odds and ends from houseplants.&#xD;&#xA; - The bucket is sealed airtight to keep out the rain.&#xD;&#xA; - It is on a balcony facing east, so receives full morning sunlight.&#xD;&#xA; - Climate is humid continental -- highs of 35 &amp;deg;C in the summer, lows of -20 &amp;deg;C in the winter.&#xD;&#xA; - I have no need for the humus myself -- I compost to reduce the volume of waste going to the landfill, and keep the smells out of my house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: There are some great answers to the question [&quot;Is it feasible to compost in an apartment in a city like New York?&quot;](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/7/3379), but nothing on my specific question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fdYH1t.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QGkp0t.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29641" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6722" RevisionGUID="92911ab1-68dd-4ebd-8843-ce05a9926e86" CreationDate="2021-11-05T11:33:38.840" UserId="2345" Comment="Subscript" Text="When you seal everything airtight the contents of your bin will start to decompose anaerobically. There are no big problems with this, but there are a few downsides:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - anaerobic decomposition is slower than 'regular' aerobic composting&#xD;&#xA; - during anaerobic decomposition methane gas is formed which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; that comes from aerobic composting&#xD;&#xA; - methane build-up in a very tightly sealed (metal) container can potentially be dangerous (but the plastic bin you posted is not 100% airtight, so I don't expect problems there).&#xD;&#xA; - when you open up your bin after a few weeks the decomposing materials will smell badly.&#xD;&#xA; - switching from an anaerobic to an aerobic decomposition process takes extra time&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The disadvantages can be reduced a bit if the person maintaining the aerobic compost heap loosens up the decomposing material so it can 'breathe' and switch to aerobic composting faster. Burying the materials in the heap will reduce the smell." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29643" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11871" RevisionGUID="f3923617-74a4-48ad-8605-0256d49d6e37" CreationDate="2021-11-06T00:01:04.440" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1456773591710765058" />
  <row Id="29645" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11889" RevisionGUID="700698de-6306-4348-aaa4-dc86f35c56c4" CreationDate="2021-11-06T16:15:37.033" UserId="384" Text="When plants grow they absorb carbon-dioxide from air by photosynthesis, but when they die and decompose, then eventually all the captured carbon dioxide in them returns back to the atmosphere. The question is: can we utilize this aerobic decomposition of plant material to capture the carbon-dioxide that gets released in the process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's autumn here, and fallen leaves are all over the place on the sidewalks and roads, I wonder if it makes sense collect them and put them into tanks and pass air through it to promote aerobic decomposition and use a gas separation technique to separate the carbon-dioxide produced by decomposition which we can sequester or use it for making synthetic fuels using renewable energy. The residue will be humus which needs to be redistributed to fertilize the soil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29647" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11889" RevisionGUID="700698de-6306-4348-aaa4-dc86f35c56c4" CreationDate="2021-11-06T16:15:37.033" UserId="384" Text="Can we capture carbon from decomposing plants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29648" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11889" RevisionGUID="700698de-6306-4348-aaa4-dc86f35c56c4" CreationDate="2021-11-06T16:15:37.033" UserId="384" Text="|carbon-footprint|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29649" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11889" RevisionGUID="047a1e02-cb8e-4dbc-b7c2-569a79a3976f" CreationDate="2021-11-06T17:37:11.440" UserId="384" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="When plants grow they absorb carbon-dioxide from air by photosynthesis, but when they die and decompose, then eventually all the captured carbon dioxide in them returns back to the atmosphere. The question is: can we utilize this aerobic decomposition of plant material to capture the carbon-dioxide that gets released in the process?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's autumn here, and fallen leaves are all over the place on the sidewalks and roads, I wonder if it makes sense collect them and put them into tanks and pass air through it to promote aerobic decomposition and use a gas separation technique to separate the carbon-dioxide produced by decomposition which we can sequester or use it for making synthetic fuels using renewable energy. The residue will be humus which needs to be redistributed to fertilize the soil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume all the energy needed for this process are coming from renewable energy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29650" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11890" RevisionGUID="c5abde32-729e-48a1-bf6d-ff5f5d276fb7" CreationDate="2021-11-07T10:31:17.820" UserId="6393" Text="When organic waste decomposes, it produces a mix of methane and carbon dioxide. This is called biogas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any of these two are gases containing carbon and they can be converted to each other.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You convert methane into carbon dioxide by burning it. The benefit of this process is that it gives energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can convert carbon dioxide into methane by combining it with hydrogen produced using electrolysis, for example powered by renewable energy. Presumably you won't want to store this methane underground (or if you store it, only temporarily for energy storage) but you want to burn it for energy and store the produced carbon dioxide underground to store carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, it is possible to produce biochar from wood for example instead of letting it decompose. This biochar production process is exothermic so it releases energy. Some of the carbon in the wood will stay in the biochar in solid form. The main benefit of this process is that it creates solid carbon, so the volume it takes is very small and it's easy to store therefore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume these processes will be used a lot, because they are the most mature and cheapest atmospheric carbon capture technology. By creating biogas and biochar en masse, it is possible to slowly reverse climate change. We will not reach the ambitious lower goal of Paris agreement (1.5 degrees Celsius warming) solely by reducing fossil fuel use, but we will exceed it. However, by atmospheric carbon capture it's possible to slowly start to reverse climate change and bring back the total warming to an acceptable level, 1.5 degrees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11891" RevisionGUID="a2954dd2-9b8d-4936-8d5d-a61e7096ab30" CreationDate="2021-11-07T18:24:32.927" UserId="1778" Text="I currently live in an Eastern European country where conscious consumption and recycling is uncommon. For context, I get looks when coming to a grocery store with a reusable bag. Or when ordering coffee into a reusable cup, baristas may still try and make it into a single use cup, then pour the coffee into mine and just throw the used one away. When confronted, they would say “*did it automatically, not used to someone ordering with their own cup*&quot;. My neighbour was about to throw away a large bag of expired medicines from 90s to recent (incl. antibiotics) into common waste bin (read: landfill).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am decluttering and finding some new and never used household and personal care products that I don’t and won’t need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [5R’s of Recycling](https://www.purchase.edu/live/news/4108-the-five-rs-to-zero-waste) framework, I should:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Refuse**: not applicable as I already have them&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Reduce**: not applicable for the same reason&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Reuse**: give them away to someone who needs them&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Recycle**: won’t work because these are almost always made of this sort of plastic that can’t be recycled locally&#xD;&#xA; 5. **Rot** (landfill): the last resort when all else fails.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The twist is, if I give them away, most likely at some point later they will be unconsciously and irresponsibly thrown away into the common garbage which goes directly to landfill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I can take them away now to a facility which will burn them down in a controlled environment. And then still take whatever remains to landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For someone in my position, what would be the lesser evil option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I have learned my lesson and am not buying these anymore (and overall producing significantly less waste)&#xD;&#xA; - I am considering, once the amount is enough, sorting and sending this to the closest EU country where they can re/up-cycle this kind of plastic; subject to research on whether reasonable&#xD;&#xA; - Ideally, I should move myself out of this country for good" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29654" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11891" RevisionGUID="a2954dd2-9b8d-4936-8d5d-a61e7096ab30" CreationDate="2021-11-07T18:24:32.927" UserId="1778" Text="Should I down cycle something myself instead of giving it away knowing it will end up in landfills?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29655" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11891" RevisionGUID="a2954dd2-9b8d-4936-8d5d-a61e7096ab30" CreationDate="2021-11-07T18:24:32.927" UserId="1778" Text="|recycling|home|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29656" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11891" RevisionGUID="a4eed47c-4984-4484-b5d0-f6ce59d11943" CreationDate="2021-11-07T18:30:20.737" UserId="1778" Comment="added 49 characters in body" Text="I currently live in an Eastern European country where conscious consumption and recycling is uncommon. For context,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I am sometimes frown upon by the cashiers when coming to a grocery store with a reusable bag.&#xD;&#xA; - Or when ordering coffee into a reusable cup, baristas may still try and make it into a single use cup, then pour the coffee into mine and just throw the used one away. When confronted, they would say “*did it automatically, not used to someone ordering with their own cup*&quot;.&#xD;&#xA; - My neighbour was about to throw away a large bag of all kinds of expired medicines from 90s to recent (incl. antibiotics) into common waste bin (read: landfill).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Point is, nobody cares. Really.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am decluttering and finding some new and never used household and personal care products that I don’t and won’t need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [5R’s of Recycling](https://www.purchase.edu/live/news/4108-the-five-rs-to-zero-waste) framework, I should:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Refuse**: not applicable as I already have them&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Reduce**: not applicable for the same reason&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Reuse**: give them away to someone who needs them&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Recycle**: won’t work because these are almost always made of this sort of plastic that can’t be recycled locally&#xD;&#xA; 5. **Rot** (landfill): the last resort when all else fails.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The twist is, if I give them away, most likely at some point later they will be unconsciously and irresponsibly thrown away into the common garbage which goes directly to landfill&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I can take them away now to a facility which will burn them down in a controlled environment. And then still take whatever remains to landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For someone in my position, what would be the lesser evil option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - I have learned my lesson and am not buying these anymore (and overall producing significantly less waste)&#xD;&#xA; - I am considering, once the amount is enough, sorting and sending this to the closest EU country where they can re/up-cycle this kind of plastic; subject to research on whether reasonable&#xD;&#xA; - Ideally, I should move myself out of this country for good" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29657" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11892" RevisionGUID="34a472da-b7a7-4bca-900c-75b01054faa3" CreationDate="2021-11-07T23:05:15.660" UserId="659" Text="It depends a lot on what exactly happens to the thing you're giving away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Giving someone a bicycle that they will ride until it falls apart then dump in landfill is better than downcycling it into a coat rack. But giving someone a reusable shopping bag that they will use once then throw away is almost certainly worse than downcycling it yourself (not that you should buy those, pick them up when you see them littered).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It also depends a lot on what your goals are. We're all encouraged to personalise environmental activism, because that's compatible with the polticial and economic systems we have. Going along with that and feeling better about yourself because you waste less than people around you is definitely the easy option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you want systematic change you need to work at a systematic level. That starts with finding others who agree with you on the issue and working with them to encourage others, or get systematic changes. Rather than using a few less plastic bags yourself, try to persuade lots of people to use ones less. Or your government to ban them via a political campaign." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29659" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="0bb14872-06a6-45c2-964a-a761e2152e55" CreationDate="2021-11-08T07:52:23.220" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="|terminology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29660" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="109" RevisionGUID="0bb14872-06a6-45c2-964a-a761e2152e55" CreationDate="2021-11-08T07:52:23.220" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 659, 99 edit id of 680" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29661" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10685" RevisionGUID="ff10bf86-1458-463f-b1ab-7aea0af25f15" CreationDate="2021-11-08T07:55:38.930" UserId="99" Comment="Add remark about data center PUE" Text="The open-source project [Cloud Carbon Footprint](https://www.cloudcarbonfootprint.org/) estimated the carbon footprint of storing 1TB in the Cloud. In their [methodology](https://www.cloudcarbonfootprint.org/docs/methodology) they explain that they use the following numbers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; HDD average capacity in 2020 = 10 Terabytes per disk&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Average wattage per disk for 2020 = 6.5 Watts per disk&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Watts per Terabyte = Watts per disk / Terabytes per disk: 6.5 W / 10 TB = &lt;b&gt;0.65 Watt-Hours per Terabyte-Hour for HDD&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; SSD average capacity in 2020 = 5 Terabytes per disk&lt;br/&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Average wattage per disk for 2020 = 6 Watts per disk&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Watts per terabyte = Watts per disk / Terabytes per disk: 6 W / 5 TB = &lt;b&gt;1.2 Watt-Hours per Terabyte-Hour for SSD&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So using this to calculate the energy needed to store something for a year (times 24 and 365,25) gives us 5.7 kWh for HDD and 10.5 kWh for SDD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However cloud providers usually provide redundancy via RAID or backups which is not taken into account in this calculation, so that at least doubles the footprint. The Cloud Carbon Footprint project acknowledges this and has drawn up [a list of the replication factors for several providers](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D7mIGKkdO1djPoMVmlXRmzA7_4tTiGZLYdVbfe85xQM/edit#gid=735227650). According to this list a replication factor of 3 is commons, so that results in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 17.1 kWh/TB per year for HDD&#xD;&#xA;* 31.6 kWh/TB per year for SSD&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that this doesn't include the energy to transfer the data from the main storage to backup storages located elsewhere. Also data center PUE doesn't seem to be included, so that can increase the numbers with a factor 1.1 - 1.6.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29662" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11893" RevisionGUID="566754d7-8558-47cf-8bc1-a9f2f8876184" CreationDate="2021-11-08T07:58:50.073" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29664" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11893" RevisionGUID="566754d7-8558-47cf-8bc1-a9f2f8876184" CreationDate="2021-11-08T07:58:50.073" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29665" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11894" RevisionGUID="dc68fb01-6942-4d6a-ba1e-5b3d8ae17da6" CreationDate="2021-11-08T07:58:50.073" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29667" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11894" RevisionGUID="dc68fb01-6942-4d6a-ba1e-5b3d8ae17da6" CreationDate="2021-11-08T07:58:50.073" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29668" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11882" RevisionGUID="94165e47-47d5-404e-bb77-742c88915a75" CreationDate="2021-11-08T09:00:00.173" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1457633993717915648" />
  <row Id="29669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11895" RevisionGUID="9c003d5d-a38e-4e7a-befa-a3e2abd00988" CreationDate="2021-11-08T12:03:06.167" UserId="13357" Text="In the 1980's, a company I worked at owned a stand-alone building, and they were concerned about their electricity bill. It seemed to be higher than it should be. A manager called the electrical utility, and they said that the problem was turning everything on at the same time in the morning. That that surge of electrical usage all at once caused their electrical bill to spike, and instead they should try and turn only 1-2 things on within each 15 minute period. The company made that change, and their electrical bill was reduced.&#xD;&#xA;Is that a thing still today? Is it better (at home, and/or at work) to try and spread out the process of turning many appliances/lights/computers on at the start of the day - either to save money and/or to be a better energy consumer? Or doesn't that matter actually?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11895" RevisionGUID="9c003d5d-a38e-4e7a-befa-a3e2abd00988" CreationDate="2021-11-08T12:03:06.167" UserId="13357" Text="Home Electricity Use - turning appliances on all at the same time vs with time delay - which is better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11895" RevisionGUID="9c003d5d-a38e-4e7a-befa-a3e2abd00988" CreationDate="2021-11-08T12:03:06.167" UserId="13357" Text="|electricity|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11896" RevisionGUID="cdcd3f04-b414-4a40-b0c0-13f926481366" CreationDate="2021-11-08T12:18:57.530" UserId="13357" Text="I have definitely found my prius reacting to the cold (am located not far from Madison) - not so much as far as it not working, but in terms of the dashboard indicators of optimal performance, the numbers are never as good as in summer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Changes I try and make in the winter - plan for a colder car environment, dress warmly for the car to not have to use too much heat (especially on longer trips). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the same applies to smart phones, try to have the phone charged already and to not need to charge the phone via the car. Also if it's really cold, keep the phone very protected in the car (just like outside), to keep its battery levels intact. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good to pay attention to tire pressure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All that being said, definitely still worth it!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29681" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11899" RevisionGUID="11abee3f-320c-4323-8de8-cc6a04d760d3" CreationDate="2021-11-08T15:59:20.933" UserId="5477" Text="Difficult to think it makes a difference in the consumption. It is not unusual for us to have power outages ; I normally go around and shut off the large users; AC, refrigerator, etc. But 1- I am not always home, and 2- it may be such a brief outage that I do not turn things off. Then the power comes on and everything turns on at once. I also have about 1000 watts of aquarium heaters, if power is off long enough for them to cool they also all come on at one time.  I have not noticed any particular influence on the consumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11900" RevisionGUID="397660ed-0fa8-404f-9a6f-d8aa7e6057bd" CreationDate="2021-11-08T16:50:12.253" UserId="3379" Text="The &quot;surge&quot; that the electric utility was referring to is the [demand charge](https://energywatch-inc.com/electricity-demand-charges/): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The kWh charge (consumption) is the measurement of the amount of energy the building uses over the given period of time.  The kW charge (**demand**) represents the amount of energy consumed at a single point in time.  An intuitive way to visualize this is through the car speedometer/odometer metaphor.  The rate at which you are using electricity (kW) is comparable to the speed you are driving the car (speedometer).  Your actual consumption (kWh) is similar to the total distance in miles that is driven by the car over a given time period (odometer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. most utilities use a rolling 15 minute demand window. The meter averages the demand within each 15 minute chunk of time, and the chunk with the highest average is used to calculate the demand charge. The demand, time, and day all factor in to the amount of the bill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The day and time matters because the cost of generating and delivering electricity changes. Continuing with the car analogy, certain days and times are like rush hour traffic -- when everyone is trying to use power. The transmission and distribution system (the wires that carry electricity) have physical limits, like lanes of a highway. Demand charges create an incentive for power users to shift the days and times when they use power. Most businesses tend to open around the same time, which is why your employer had a high demand charge. Waiting 15 minutes lowered the average and reduced those charges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Demand charges are still in use today and have mostly increased. Looking at your profile, I see that you're in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, where your utility is likely Xcel. Xcel publishes [rate cards](https://www.xcelenergy.com/company/rates_and_regulations/rates/rates_brochures_and_resources) which give an overview of the different rates available for homes and businesses. As is typical across the U.S., there is no demand charge for homes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For businesses, the per kW demand charge is $14.79 in the summer, and $10.79 the rest of the year. There are optional time-of-day rates that limit this demand charge to weekdays between 9am and 9pm, with other charges that apply to peaks at night and on weekends." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11895" RevisionGUID="d23adf4c-884d-4cf4-85c4-373c4e15b136" CreationDate="2021-11-08T16:51:04.093" UserId="3379" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="In the 1980's, a company I worked at owned a stand-alone building, and they were concerned about their electricity bill. It seemed to be higher than it should be. A manager called the electrical utility, and they said that the problem was turning everything on at the same time in the morning. That that surge of electrical usage all at once caused their electrical bill to spike, and instead they should try and turn only 1-2 things on within each 15 minute period. The company made that change, and their electrical bill was reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is that a thing still today? Is it better (at home, and/or at work) to try and spread out the process of turning many appliances/lights/computers on at the start of the day - either to save money and/or to be a better energy consumer? Or doesn't that matter actually?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29686" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11895" RevisionGUID="d23adf4c-884d-4cf4-85c4-373c4e15b136" CreationDate="2021-11-08T16:51:04.093" UserId="3379" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="For electricity use, which is better: Turning all appliances on at the same time, or spread out?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29691" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11895" RevisionGUID="5171b4aa-e294-4f7d-a58d-b241fbc059ff" CreationDate="2021-11-08T20:03:19.723" />
  <row Id="29693" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11902" RevisionGUID="56b92195-eb92-4b51-9950-f05b5006aace" CreationDate="2021-11-09T02:28:51.900" UserId="13362" Text="theoretically, if the charge is big enough for the electrical wiring the heat can also be a concern.&#xD;&#xA;when everything turns on together a high current can make the cables hot and that increases its resistance making it consume more energy. but this increase is usually insignificant, especially if the wiring is dimensioned properly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29695" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11899" RevisionGUID="5cd7b53a-9e77-4d1c-bd1b-8bd6f09da19d" CreationDate="2021-11-09T03:03:15.553" UserId="-1" Comment="minor grammar fixes" Text="It is difficult to think it makes a difference in consumption. It is not unusual for us to have power outages. I normally go around and shut off the large users: AC, refrigerator, etc. But 1) I am not always home, and 2) it may be such a brief outage that I do not turn things off. Then the power comes on and everything turns on at once. I also have about 1000 watts of aquarium heaters. If the power is off long enough for them to cool, they also all come on at one time.  I have not noticed any particular influence on consumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29696" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11899" RevisionGUID="5cd7b53a-9e77-4d1c-bd1b-8bd6f09da19d" CreationDate="2021-11-09T03:03:15.553" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by -1 edit id of 682" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29697" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11899" RevisionGUID="c31eaf9e-266d-4542-b6cc-6fabb61b294f" CreationDate="2021-11-09T03:03:15.553" UserId="3379" Comment="minor grammar fixes" Text="It is difficult to think it makes a difference in consumption. It is not unusual for us to have power outages. I normally go around and shut off the large users: AC, refrigerator, etc. But &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) I am not always home, and &#xD;&#xA;2) It may be such a brief outage that I do not turn things off. Then the power comes on and everything turns on at once. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also have about 1000 watts of aquarium heaters. If the power is off long enough for them to cool, they also all come on at one time.  I have not noticed any particular influence on consumption." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11894" RevisionGUID="fefbfcef-cb65-4a9b-a635-a7e4a2c8e8ef" CreationDate="2021-11-09T03:03:28.303" UserId="4099" Comment="added 91 characters in body" Text="For questions about words, phrases and definitions that are specific to sustainable living." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29699" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11894" RevisionGUID="fefbfcef-cb65-4a9b-a635-a7e4a2c8e8ef" CreationDate="2021-11-09T03:03:28.303" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 659, 3379 edit id of 681" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29701" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11900" RevisionGUID="78d5ccc9-fd48-47ba-9716-f3678b464682" CreationDate="2021-11-09T15:01:49.957" UserId="3379" Comment="added 537 characters in body" Text="The &quot;surge&quot; that the electric utility was referring to is the [demand charge](https://energywatch-inc.com/electricity-demand-charges/): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The kWh charge (consumption) is the measurement of the amount of energy the building uses over the given period of time.  The kW charge (**demand**) represents the amount of energy consumed at a single point in time.  An intuitive way to visualize this is through the car speedometer/odometer metaphor.  The rate at which you are using electricity (kW) is comparable to the speed you are driving the car (speedometer).  Your actual consumption (kWh) is similar to the total distance in miles that is driven by the car over a given time period (odometer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. most utilities use a rolling 15 minute demand window. The meter averages the demand within each 15 minute chunk of time, and the chunk with the highest average is used to calculate the demand charge. The demand, time, and day all factor in to the amount of the bill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The day and time matters because the cost of generating and delivering electricity changes. Continuing with the car analogy, certain days and times are like rush hour traffic -- when everyone is trying to use power. The transmission and distribution system (the wires that carry electricity) have physical limits, like lanes of a highway. Demand charges create an incentive for power users to shift the days and times when they use power. Most businesses tend to open around the same time, which is why your employer had a high demand charge. Waiting 15 minutes lowered the average and reduced those charges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a rough illustration: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Power vs time for two scenarios][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume the area under the two curves (energy, in kWh) is the same. But the red curve (turning all appliances on at the same time) has one big spike in power demand (kW). The blue curve (spacing out when you turn appliances on) has two smaller demand spikes. Since you're only billed based on the single largest spike in the month, the demand charge for the second case will be half of the first case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Demand charges are still in use today and have mostly increased. Looking at your profile, I see that you're in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, where your utility is likely Xcel. Xcel publishes [rate cards](https://www.xcelenergy.com/company/rates_and_regulations/rates/rates_brochures_and_resources) which give an overview of the different rates available for homes and businesses. As is typical across the U.S., there is no demand charge for homes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For businesses, the per kW demand charge is $14.79 in the summer, and $10.79 the rest of the year. There are optional time-of-day rates that limit this demand charge to weekdays between 9am and 9pm, with other charges that apply to peaks at night and on weekends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/COZxY.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29702" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11903" RevisionGUID="c0731dde-0f0d-484c-bf02-d88dc4eb687f" CreationDate="2021-11-09T18:31:40.687" UserId="13372" Text="The primary issue being described is Peak Demand charge. The description in LShaver's answer explains a lot of that, but there are a few more pieces that I think are important:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Why does peak demand matter so much that utilities charge extra for it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transmission/distribution system needs to be able to handle peak demand at each level (transmission lines, substations, neighborhood distribution lines, etc.). Except for major industrial customers though, this really isn't much of an issue. However, for the actual generation of electricity it is a **big** issue. Unlike water (think &quot;water towers&quot;), electricity doesn't have any storage within the system (generally, more below) and *most* electricity sources can't spin up/down very quickly. Coal and oil plants take a long time to add capacity. Solar and wind are mostly beyond human control (in the case of solar, at least the peak solar generation generally corresponds to peak usage - middle of the day). Natural gas is the typical &quot;peak capacity plant&quot;, but even that takes *some* time to start up. Nuclear is the ultimate - very slow to start up or shut down, except emergency shutdowns, of course - you can't turn on another reactor for peak power in the middle of each day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what happens if there is not enough power? Voltage drops. In a small range that is not a problem at all. If it drops too much, that's a brownout. If it drops *way* too much, the system crashes, which is a blackout. Frequency (50 or 60 Hz) can also be affected, as well as other problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one power source that can add more power to the electric grid super fast: **Batteries**. [Tesla did this with the Hornsdale Power Reserve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve). This doesn't entirely eliminate the peak demand issue, but it does allow for a more reliable electricity grid that can handle changes in demand better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The end result though is that utilities need to handle peak demand (kW) needs in different ways from the overall production (kWh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Time of Day Rates&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to peak demand, which is typically a single value per month, based on the top 15-minute or 30-minute usage, general usage charges are often based on time of day and/or day of the week. Typically 2 or 3 different rates. This can be very effective in pushing commercial and industrial customers to move usage to off-peak hours. In places where this is also applied to residential customers (many utilities don't - depends on utility, meter technology and governmental regulations), it makes sense to run electric dryer, dishwasher, etc. in the middle of the night.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29704" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11895" RevisionGUID="a07a8956-3853-4135-8600-81410c313cfc" CreationDate="2021-11-10T03:00:43.400" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1458268353831768066" />
  <row Id="29705" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11904" RevisionGUID="18a67a41-ee2c-4497-8ca0-d5e80b7be19e" CreationDate="2021-11-10T06:06:43.280" UserId="6925" Text="The company was having problems with *demand pricing* as discussed in other answers. That's not a problem for residences (usually). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a &quot;micro&quot; level *on the grid*, it doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;You dancing through your house throwing all your loads on at 8:16 isn't going to make a difference to the generator, because your tiny peak will &quot;disappear in the noise&quot; (average out) amongst thousands of houses being served by that distribution equipment and generators. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a &quot;macro&quot; level, it matters a lot.  &#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;For instance most grids have times of day/year which are peaks for them.  An example is 4 pm on a hot summer day - shopping is open and doing business (unlike 7am), industries are *still* running full tilt (unlike 7pm) and residential A/C load is coming on strong, as kids get home from school and smart thermostats spin up the A/C in preparation for adults to come home from work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peaks are tough. This is when &quot;peaker&quot; generators must be brought online that are only used for a few hours, a few dozen days per year. *Yet the bank wants the mortgage paid all year*. That makes these generators expensive - and usually they are natural gas, so not all that green.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical peaker *used to be* a locomotive diesel engine... but today it's a jet engine - like those in the A330 or 777 airliner, but the &quot;fan&quot; on the front is replaced with a generator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Anything you can do to avoid power use during these times helps reduce demand for peaking generators and their fuel consumption**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flattening your peaks works well for everyone&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Here's what one really smart guy does with a well-insulated house.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f9GpMWdvWI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TLDW: runs the air conditioner *in the middle of the night*, chilling the house to 66F.  Then does not run at all through the day.  Due to shading and good insulation, it never gets above 75F. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a far more radical way to do this works with extreme rate plans such as Duke Energy, which charges a peaking charge of $8 per kilowatt, *but a 1 cent per kilowatt-hour rate*.  This favors great care so that your load never exceeds your baseline load (say 500W) plus one largest appliance (e.g. dryer at 5500W).  Total 6000W ($48/month). Other than that, you are paying a penny a kilowatt-hour! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance using load shed devices so that range pre-empts dryer, which pre-empts water heater, which pre-empts A/C - only one runs at once.  Moving the blue peaks to the green. Thusly: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And another layer can be added to this. Those white areas below the green &quot;6000W&quot; line is power that would only cost you 1 cent per KWH under Duke's plan.  *The profitability of Bitcoin mining is tied to the cost of electricity*. So you have a rack of Bitcoin miners that throttle up and down to &quot;backfill&quot; all usage below your 6000W. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an area which is overstocked on baseline 24x7 nuclear or &quot;run of river&quot; hydro (which can't be stored), you become the perfect customer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PcR7L.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4Lrag.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11905" RevisionGUID="32e89ef3-57bc-411f-9af7-e5bc18431331" CreationDate="2021-11-10T10:32:24.537" UserId="13381" Text="The whole point of running a landfill site is to generate hydrocarbons to burn in a generator. The ideal mix is &lt; 5% O2, ~40-60% CH4 and ~60-40% CO2. If you trap these emissions in the soil, the quality/calorific value of the gas is reduced, meaning you need to flare more of it, and/or the turbine is less efficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, landfill sites are managed differently across the world. In parts of Europe, the cells are capped individually, allowing a positive pressure to build up as a result of the anaerobic digestion process. In the USA, they use gas extraction, with a layering of waste product, pipework for extraction, and membranes built up over time. They are eventually capped, when the hole is full. The gas is then drawn out from areas with sufficient quantities of hydrocarbons to flare/run a turbine. Using your suggestion wouldn't be applicable for these types of landfill site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better path to follow is to reduce the amount of product going into landfills in the first place, particularly harmful products which cause toxic leachate which can spill into the watercourse, and high levels of hydrogen sulphide &amp; carbon monoxide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29710" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11900" RevisionGUID="be1ebea7-bd35-409f-a2a6-2a330cb4c896" CreationDate="2021-11-10T14:50:54.097" UserId="6925" Comment="improve graphic" Text="The &quot;surge&quot; that the electric utility was referring to is the [demand charge](https://energywatch-inc.com/electricity-demand-charges/): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The kWh charge (consumption) is the measurement of the amount of energy the building uses over the given period of time.  The kW charge (**demand**) represents the amount of energy consumed at a single point in time.  An intuitive way to visualize this is through the car speedometer/odometer metaphor.  The rate at which you are using electricity (kW) is comparable to the speed you are driving the car (speedometer).  Your actual consumption (kWh) is similar to the total distance in miles that is driven by the car over a given time period (odometer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. most utilities use a rolling 15 minute demand window. The meter averages the demand within each 15 minute chunk of time, and the chunk with the highest average is used to calculate the demand charge. The demand, time, and day all factor in to the amount of the bill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The day and time matters because the cost of generating and delivering electricity changes. Continuing with the car analogy, certain days and times are like rush hour traffic -- when everyone is trying to use power. The transmission and distribution system (the wires that carry electricity) have physical limits, like lanes of a highway. Demand charges create an incentive for power users to shift the days and times when they use power. Most businesses tend to open around the same time, which is why your employer had a high demand charge. Waiting 15 minutes lowered the average and reduced those charges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a rough illustration: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Power vs time for two scenarios][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume the area under the two curves (energy, in kWh) is the same. But the red curve (turning all appliances on at the same time) has one big spike in power demand (kW). The blue curve (spacing out when you turn appliances on) has two smaller demand spikes. Since you're only billed based on the single largest spike in the month, the demand charge for the second case will be half of the first case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Demand charges are still in use today and have mostly increased. Looking at your profile, I see that you're in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, where your utility is likely Xcel. Xcel publishes [rate cards](https://www.xcelenergy.com/company/rates_and_regulations/rates/rates_brochures_and_resources) which give an overview of the different rates available for homes and businesses. As is typical across the U.S., there is no demand charge for homes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For businesses, the per kW demand charge is $14.79 in the summer, and $10.79 the rest of the year. There are optional time-of-day rates that limit this demand charge to weekdays between 9am and 9pm, with other charges that apply to peaks at night and on weekends.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MRsZZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/3dTiC.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29711" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11900" RevisionGUID="be1ebea7-bd35-409f-a2a6-2a330cb4c896" CreationDate="2021-11-10T14:50:54.097" Comment="Proposed by 6925 approved by 3379 edit id of 684" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29712" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11905" RevisionGUID="fb846a0c-9086-4196-bba2-012dd6949278" CreationDate="2021-11-10T15:10:00.767" UserId="13381" Comment="added 9 characters in body" Text="The whole point of running a landfill site is to generate hydrocarbons to burn in a generator. The ideal mix is &lt; 5% O2, ~40-60% CH4 and ~60-40% CO2. If you trap these emissions in the soil, the quality/calorific value of the gas is reduced, meaning you need to flare more of it, and/or the turbine is less efficient. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, landfill sites are managed differently across the world. In parts of Europe, the cells are capped individually, allowing a positive pressure to build up as a result of the anaerobic digestion process. In the USA, they use gas extraction, with a layering of waste product, pipework for extraction, and membranes built up over time. They are eventually capped, when the hole is full. The gas is then drawn out from areas with sufficient quantities of hydrocarbons to flare/run a turbine. Using your suggestion wouldn't be applicable for these types of landfill site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better path to follow is to reduce the amount of product going into landfills in the first place, particularly harmful products which cause toxic leachate which can spill into the watercourse, and generate high levels of hydrogen sulphide &amp; carbon monoxide." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11904" RevisionGUID="72a7c2fd-8790-4185-a354-b5c289e5cbd3" CreationDate="2021-11-10T18:42:30.387" UserId="6925" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="The company was having problems with *demand pricing* as discussed in other answers. That's not a problem for residences (usually). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a &quot;micro&quot; level *on the grid*, it doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;You dancing through your house throwing all your loads on at 8:16 isn't going to make a difference to the generator, because your tiny peak will &quot;disappear in the noise&quot; (average out) amongst thousands of houses being served by that distribution equipment and generators. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a &quot;macro&quot; level, it matters a lot.  &#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;For instance most grids have times of day/year which are peaks for them.  An example is 4 pm on a hot summer day - shopping is open and doing business (unlike 7am), industries are *still* running full tilt (unlike 7pm) and residential A/C load is coming on strong, as kids get home from school and smart thermostats spin up the A/C in preparation for adults to come home from work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peaks are tough. This is when &quot;peaker&quot; generators must be brought online that are only used for a few hours, a few dozen days per year. *Yet the bank wants the mortgage paid all year*. That makes these generators expensive - and usually they are natural gas, so not all that green.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical peaker *used to be* a locomotive diesel engine... but today it's a jet engine - like those in the A330 or 777 airliner, but the &quot;fan&quot; on the front is replaced with a generator. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Anything you can do to avoid power use during these times helps reduce demand for peaking generators and their fuel consumption**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flattening your peaks works well for everyone&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Here's what one really smart guy does with a well-insulated house.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f9GpMWdvWI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TLDW: runs the air conditioner *in the middle of the night*, chilling the house to 66F.  Then does not run at all through the day.  Due to shading and good insulation, it never gets above 75F. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a far more radical way to do this works with extreme rate plans such as Duke Energy, which charges a peaking charge of $8 per kilowatt, *but a 1 cent per kilowatt-hour rate*.  This favors great care so that your load never exceeds your baseline load (say 500W) plus one largest appliance (e.g. dryer at 5500W).  Total 6000W ($48/month). Other than that, you are paying a penny a kilowatt-hour! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance using load shed devices so that range pre-empts dryer, which pre-empts water heater, which pre-empts A/C - only one runs at once.  Moving the blue peaks to the green. Thusly: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And another layer can be added to this. Those white areas below the green &quot;6000W&quot; line is power that would only cost you 1 cent per KWH under Duke's plan.  *The profitability of Bitcoin mining is tied to the cost of electricity*. So you have a rack of Bitcoin miners that throttle up and down to &quot;backfill&quot; all usage below your 6000W. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an area which is overstocked on baseline 24x7 nuclear or &quot;run of river&quot; hydro (which can't be stored), you become the perfect customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Now how does this Duke plan handle summer peaking loads? They have certain hours during the summer where they suspend &quot;penny a KWH&quot; and charge much higher KWH rates.  During those times, curtail usage.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PcR7L.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4Lrag.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29714" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11904" RevisionGUID="2f4ef364-ee96-45bf-9864-360f615f93e0" CreationDate="2021-11-10T18:54:49.460" UserId="6925" Comment="added 209 characters in body" Text="The company was having problems with *demand pricing* as discussed in other answers. That's not a problem for residences (usually). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a &quot;micro&quot; level *on the grid*, it doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;You dancing through your house throwing all your loads on at 8:16 isn't going to make a difference to the generator, because your tiny peak will &quot;disappear in the noise&quot; (average out) amongst thousands of houses being served by that distribution equipment and generators. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a &quot;macro&quot; level, it matters a lot.  &#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;For instance most grids have times of day/year which are peaks for them.  An example is 4 pm on a hot summer day - shopping is open and doing business (unlike 7am), industries are *still* running full tilt (unlike 7pm) and residential A/C load is coming on strong, as kids get home from school and smart thermostats spin up the A/C in preparation for adults to come home from work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peaks are tough. This is when &quot;peaker&quot; generators must be brought online that are only used for a few hours, a few dozen days per year. *Yet the bank wants the mortgage paid all year*. That makes these generators expensive - and usually they are natural gas, so not all that green.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical peaker *used to be* a locomotive diesel engine... but today it's a jet engine - like those in the A330 or 777 airliner, but the &quot;fan&quot; on the front is replaced with a generator.  *Great, you're paying mortgage on a **jet engine** you use 3% of the time*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;... And that's why they're so keen to have EVs and PowerWalls back-feed the grid during peak times. People don't like this being mandatory, but no worries - as you plainly see, there's plenty of money &quot;on the table&quot; to incentivize willing participants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Anything you can do to avoid power use during these times helps reduce demand for peaking generators and their fuel consumption**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flattening your peaks works well for everyone&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Here's what one really smart guy does with a well-insulated house.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f9GpMWdvWI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TLDW: runs the air conditioner *in the middle of the night*, chilling the house to 66F.  Then does not run at all through the day.  Due to shading and good insulation, it never gets above 75F.  This &quot;battery&quot; stores about 16 KWH, larger than a Tesla PowerWall.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a far more radical way to do this works with extreme rate plans such as Duke Energy, which charges a peaking charge of $8 per kilowatt, *but a 1 cent per kilowatt-hour rate*.  This favors great care so that your load never exceeds your baseline load (say 500W) plus one largest appliance (e.g. dryer at 5500W).  Total 6000W ($48/month). Other than that, you are paying a penny a kilowatt-hour! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance using load shed devices so that range pre-empts dryer, which pre-empts water heater, which pre-empts A/C - only one runs at once.  Moving the blue peaks to the green. Thusly: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And another layer can be added to this. Those white areas below the green &quot;6000W&quot; line is power that would only cost you 1 cent per KWH under Duke's plan.  *The profitability of Bitcoin mining is tied to the cost of electricity*. So you have a rack of Bitcoin miners that throttle up and down to &quot;backfill&quot; all usage below your 6000W. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an area which is overstocked on baseline 24x7 nuclear or &quot;run of river&quot; hydro (which can't be stored), you become the perfect customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Now how does this Duke plan handle summer peaking loads? They have certain hours during the summer where they suspend &quot;penny a KWH&quot; and charge much higher KWH rates.  During those times, curtail usage.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PcR7L.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4Lrag.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29715" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11904" RevisionGUID="7723980a-e551-4ef1-a023-78f6b2c75702" CreationDate="2021-11-10T19:01:31.420" UserId="6925" Comment="edited body" Text="The company was having problems with *demand pricing* as discussed in other answers. That's not a problem for residences (usually). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a &quot;micro&quot; level *on the grid*, it doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;You dancing through your house throwing all your loads on at 8:16 isn't going to make a difference to the generator, because your tiny peak will &quot;disappear in the noise&quot; (average out) amongst thousands of houses being served by that distribution equipment and generators. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At a &quot;macro&quot; level, it matters a lot.  &#xD;&#xA;- &#xD;&#xA;For instance most grids have times of day/year which are peaks for them.  An example is 4 pm on a hot summer day - shopping is open and doing business (unlike 7am), industries are *still* running full tilt (unlike 7pm) and residential A/C load is coming on strong, as kids get home from school and smart thermostats spin up the A/C in preparation for adults to come home from work. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peaks are tough. This is when &quot;peaker&quot; generators must be brought online that are only used for a few hours, a few dozen days per year. *Yet the bank wants the mortgage paid all year*. That makes these generators expensive - and usually they are natural gas, so not all that green.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The typical peaker *used to be* a locomotive diesel engine... but today it's a jet engine - like those in the A330 or 777 airliner, but the &quot;fan&quot; on the front is replaced with a generator.  *Great, you're paying mortgage on a **jet engine** you use 3% of the time*.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*... And that's why they're so keen to have EVs and PowerWalls back-feed the grid during peak times. People don't like this being mandatory, but no worries - as you plainly see, there's plenty of money &quot;on the table&quot; to incentivize willing participants*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Anything you can do to avoid power use during these times helps reduce demand for peaking generators and their fuel consumption**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flattening your peaks works well for everyone&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Here's what one really smart guy does with a well-insulated house.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f9GpMWdvWI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TLDW: runs the air conditioner *in the middle of the night*, chilling the house to 66F.  Then does not run at all through the day.  Due to shading and good insulation, it never gets above 75F.  This &quot;battery&quot; stores about 16 KWH, larger than a Tesla PowerWall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But a far more radical way to do this works with extreme rate plans such as Duke Energy, which charges a peaking charge of $8 per kilowatt, *but a 1 cent per kilowatt-hour rate*.  This favors great care so that your load never exceeds your baseline load (say 500W) plus one largest appliance (e.g. dryer at 5500W).  Total 6000W ($48/month). Other than that, you are paying a penny a kilowatt-hour! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance using load shed devices so that range pre-empts dryer, which pre-empts water heater, which pre-empts A/C - only one runs at once.  Moving the blue peaks to the green. Thusly: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And another layer can be added to this. Those white areas below the green &quot;6000W&quot; line is power that would only cost you 1 cent per KWH under Duke's plan.  *The profitability of Bitcoin mining is tied to the cost of electricity*. So you have a rack of Bitcoin miners that throttle up and down to &quot;backfill&quot; all usage below your 6000W. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In an area which is overstocked on baseline 24x7 nuclear or &quot;run of river&quot; hydro (which can't be stored), you become the perfect customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Now how does this Duke plan handle summer peaking loads? They have certain hours during the summer where they suspend &quot;penny a KWH&quot; and charge much higher KWH rates.  During those times, curtail usage.* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/PcR7L.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4Lrag.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11906" RevisionGUID="b65a072d-573a-421a-9523-bc313252f398" CreationDate="2021-11-11T00:51:06.467" UserId="13386" Text="**Problem:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have 6 100W panels wired in series on the roof of my van. I can only get 180W maximum out of my entire setup (with a canadian winter, I'm expecting at least 300W), and I think the problem lies in them being in series. Someone told me that the panel with the least amps will bottleneck the entire system amperage output (which makes sense), so I'm looking for a way to increase my total wattage output by getting rid of this bottleneck.&#xD;&#xA;Two of my panels bend over the front of the vehicle, so they're great when my van is facing the sun, but they do poorly otherwise (thereby causing a really low amp bottleneck).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My plan:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking of wiring the back 4 panels in series (grid_1), then the front 2 panels in series (grid_2), then wire grid_1 and grid_2 together in parallel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this series-parallel setup that I'm thinking about make sense for optimizing my total wattage output? I've also read that microinverters can work around this bottleneck issue as well, does anyone have any thoughts/experience with that? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29719" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11906" RevisionGUID="b65a072d-573a-421a-9523-bc313252f398" CreationDate="2021-11-11T00:51:06.467" UserId="13386" Text="Solar panels - series vs parallel and microinverters" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29720" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11906" RevisionGUID="b65a072d-573a-421a-9523-bc313252f398" CreationDate="2021-11-11T00:51:06.467" UserId="13386" Text="|solar-power|vehicle|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11906" RevisionGUID="8cfb33a2-9f18-45a7-baa7-b7396c47988f" CreationDate="2021-11-11T08:34:42.443" UserId="2345" Comment="Spelling corrections" Text="**Problem:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have six 100 W panels wired in series on the roof of my van. I can only get 180 W maximum out of my entire setup (with a Canadian winter, I'm expecting at least 300 W), and I think the problem lies in them being in series. Someone told me that the panel with the least amps will bottleneck the entire system amperage output (which makes sense), so I'm looking for a way to increase my total wattage output by getting rid of this bottleneck.&#xD;&#xA;Two of my panels bend over the front of the vehicle, so they're great when my van is facing the sun, but they do poorly otherwise (thereby causing a really low amp bottleneck).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My plan:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking of wiring the back 4 panels in series (grid_1), then the front 2 panels in series (grid_2), then wire grid_1 and grid_2 together in parallel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My questions:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this series-parallel setup that I'm thinking about make sense for optimizing my total wattage output? I've also read that microinverters can work around this bottleneck issue as well, does anyone have any thoughts/experience with that? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11907" RevisionGUID="93819984-1529-4977-8b2c-1403dee5da5f" CreationDate="2021-11-11T17:42:43.567" UserId="6393" Text="Your plan will not work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wire 4 panels in series, the voltage is that of 4 panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wire 2 panels in series, the voltage is that of 2 panels. Half of that of 4 panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You are then planning to wire the grids of different voltages in parallel. Ain't gonna work. If you do that with batteries, the blue smoke will leak out. With solar panels at least there's some limitation of current so you may be able to avoid the smoke effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Every device or chain of devices connected in parallel must have the same voltage.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that if you have an inverter, it may have its requirements on the input voltage. Thus, if you are going to modify the input voltage for example by wiring 3 panels in series and the a second similar series chain in parallel with the first chain, you will halve the voltage from a chain of 6 panels. The inverter may not like this halved voltage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11910" RevisionGUID="b9b015bc-c944-401d-8d38-978d035ba088" CreationDate="2021-11-13T11:44:44.670" UserId="6393" Text="In series, yes, as long as the amp-hour capacity of the batteries is the same or you are taking some actions to ensure you won't over-discharge the weakest battery in the link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In parallel, I'd much rather use identical batteries and even then they should have equal state of charge (i.e. full because otherwise you can't be sure the state of charge is equal) and you may want to &quot;trickle equalize&quot; them first via a power resistor that can take the heat from the current that goes through it, and only then after equalizing connect them to parallel without the resistor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You shouldn't parallelize batteries that are not equal. Slight changes in battery chemistry can lead to slight changes in voltage, and then it's possible that one of the batteries is 100% full at the voltage where another is only 75% full.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's possible to parallelize otherwise equal batteries that only differ in capacity but are from the same manufacturer and use the same cells. For example it's possible that you have 5 Ah battery and 10 Ah battery, and they differ only by the 10 Ah battery having twice as many parallelized cells as the 5 Ah battery. Those are candidates for connecting into parallel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it is good to explicitly state this: never ever parallelize batteries that are of different nominal voltage, such as 12V and 24V. Then the blue smoke will immediately leak out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also parallelized batteries should be in identical temperature. For example if one battery is indoors and another is outdoors and they are parallelized, you have problems. Also if one battery is in sunlight and another is in shade and they are parallelized, you have problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11910" RevisionGUID="7c3d0984-2ee8-4c3d-8a54-0df136d75f1b" CreationDate="2021-11-13T11:51:17.823" UserId="6393" Comment="neither series nor par4allel" Text="In series, yes, as long as the amp-hour capacity of the batteries is the same or you are taking some actions to ensure you won't over-discharge the weakest battery in the link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In parallel, I'd much rather use identical batteries and even then they should have equal state of charge (i.e. full because otherwise you can't be sure the state of charge is equal) and you may want to &quot;trickle equalize&quot; them first via a power resistor that can take the heat from the current that goes through it, and only then after equalizing connect them to parallel without the resistor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You shouldn't parallelize batteries that are not equal. Slight changes in battery chemistry can lead to slight changes in voltage, and then it's possible that one of the batteries is 100% full at the voltage where another is only 75% full.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it's possible to parallelize otherwise equal batteries that only differ in capacity but are from the same manufacturer and use the same cells. For example it's possible that you have 5 Ah battery and 10 Ah battery, and they differ only by the 10 Ah battery having twice as many parallelized cells as the 5 Ah battery. Those are candidates for connecting into parallel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it is good to explicitly state this: never ever parallelize batteries that are of different nominal voltage, such as 12V and 24V. Then the blue smoke will immediately leak out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also parallelized batteries should be in identical temperature. For example if one battery is indoors and another is outdoors and they are parallelized, you have problems. Also if one battery is in sunlight and another is in shade and they are parallelized, you have problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, it's theoretically possible there are inverters that treat different batteries as independent power sources and intelligently combine their power together. In such a system, the batteries are neither in series nor in parallel; they are entirely different circuits. Such a system allows using a mix of different battery brands. However, I assume an inverter that supports such a mix of independent batteries, especially if the battery count is large, would rapidly become very expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29733" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11911" RevisionGUID="a9e3c521-7884-435c-8b3e-5ca030828138" CreationDate="2021-11-14T01:22:25.563" UserId="13357" Text="Here is a link to a current article on this topic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/15/climate/electric-car-cost.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the other question in my mind is how much the entire petroleum economy costs - to society as a whole. Which is perhaps outside the scope of this question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29735" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11911" RevisionGUID="dc6429fc-86da-4260-9c63-58557c1c107b" CreationDate="2021-11-14T01:29:47.693" UserId="13357" Comment="Fuller discussion and additional reference" Text="Here is a report from Union of Concerned Scientists on the total benefits of hybrid vehicles:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/11/cv-report-ev-savings.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was quoted in this general interest article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/15/climate/electric-car-cost.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It discusses a full range of aspects of this question, including state-by-state electricity costs and fuel savings; and vehicle costs for a range of vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the other question in my mind is how much the entire petroleum economy costs - to society as a whole. Which is perhaps outside the scope of this question. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29737" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11912" RevisionGUID="a3503fe2-4349-4b70-8465-e14b85f47a18" CreationDate="2021-11-14T12:04:16.950" UserId="6393" Text="There are several environmental concerns when driving a hybrid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is the rare earth metals used in permanent magnet motors such as neodymium. However, it has been already established that &lt;a href=&quot;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/612/are-electric-cars-as-environmentally-friendly-as-we-think-they-are&quot;&gt;electric cars end up being more sustainable than gasoline cars&lt;/a&gt;, and also the electric motors in hybrid vehicles aren't bigger than those in electric cars (actually in some cases they may even be smaller), so this is not an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another is the battery. However, a non-plug-in hybrid car has typically 1-2 kWh battery, whereas a plug-in hybrid car has 10-20 kWh battery and an electric car has 50-90 kWh battery. So you can see from this that the amount of metals in a non-plug-in hybrid is insignificant, because the battery is so small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a non-plug-in hybrid very often uses a different battery chemistry. Prius uses nickel metal-hydride whereas electric cars practically all use lithium-ion today. In Prius, the main concern is lanthanum (10-15 kg in battery) whereas in electric vehicles the main concern is cobalt (10 kg in battery). World cobalt reserves are 7.1 megatonnes, and world rare earth reserves are 120 megatonnes. If we assume 25% of rare earth metals obtained from a mine is lanthanum, that would mean we have 30 megatonnes of reserves. So it can be seen that cobalt is limiting electric vehicles more than lanthanum is limiting non-plug-in hybrids. By the way, the lanthanum reserves would allow 2-3 billion hybrid vehicles using nickel methal-hydride batteries. That's more than the number of cars on the roads today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it's possible to consider that battery recycling is very efficient and nearly all of the metals in batteries can be recycled. The battery can be treated as a deposit of valuable metals far richer than the deposits found in mines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, because gasoline cars use oil at a far greater rate than Prius uses oil, and because lanthanum isn't consumed by hybrid vehicles, it's probably better to reduce oil use by putting the lanthanum inside hybrid vehicle batteries and then at end of life recycle the lanthanum, than to leave the lanthanum in the ground and continue using oil at a great rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end, the main concern of non-plug-in hybrid vehicles is that they aren't good enough. We shouldn't reduce oil use and carbon dioxide emissions by 30% (which is what Prius does), but by at least 90% if not more (which is what electric vehicles in a clean electricity grid do).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclosure: I drive a Toyota non-plug-in hybrid, but my next car will be a fully electric car. The only reason I drive a non-plug-in hybrid was that back when I bought the car, the price of reasonable comparable electric cars was at least twice of what it is today, and plug-in-hybrids had concerns of battery wear and weren't available from Toyota back then (I only buy Toyotas because I like reliable cars). Also back then I didn't have a realistic possibility to charge a plug-in-hybrid, because the only electrical outlet available was behind a 2-hour clock switch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29740" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11913" RevisionGUID="af6c4645-f995-4ba2-88f6-d9e979cfcfdc" CreationDate="2021-11-15T03:33:17.143" UserId="9669" Text="With renewables being in large part weather-dependent, the issue of energy storage is slowly moving to the center stage of the incipient net-zero economy. Lithium ion batteries are kinda good, but expensive, take up a lot of space per a single unit of stored energy, and rely on rare minerals. Hydrogen storage is gaining a lot of attention, but there are other cutting-edge storage technologies that claim to square this circle and provide reliable long-duration solutions. Just now, I've read about liquid air storage that sounds interesting in the [words][1] of the company that is in charge of this project but also sparks doubt about whether this moonshot technology is really going to do the trick. Is it really more competitive than hydrogen storage (including in terms of occupied physical volume, capital and operational costs, and net carbon footprint – after all, it's refrigerated under extreme temperatures)? And more generally, what are the most viable options for long-duration storage of large amounts of energy in the context of ongoing decarbonization? If there is some overview of such methods that either exist or are under implementation – like the described liquid air storage facility in Vermont – that you can share with me, it would be nice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://highviewpower.com/news_announcement/highview-power-and-encore-renewable-energy-to-co-develop-the-first-long-duration-liquid-air-energy-storage-system-in-the-united-states/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29742" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11913" RevisionGUID="af6c4645-f995-4ba2-88f6-d9e979cfcfdc" CreationDate="2021-11-15T03:33:17.143" UserId="9669" Text="What are the most viable options for long-duration storage of large amounts of energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29743" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11913" RevisionGUID="af6c4645-f995-4ba2-88f6-d9e979cfcfdc" CreationDate="2021-11-15T03:33:17.143" UserId="9669" Text="|renewables|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11913" RevisionGUID="7c66bbad-6ca9-4fdb-8425-b006f38ef813" CreationDate="2021-11-15T03:49:04.820" UserId="9669" Comment="deleted 23 characters in body" Text="With renewables being in large part weather-dependent, the issue of energy storage is slowly moving to the center stage of the incipient net-zero economy. Lithium ion batteries are kinda good, but expensive, take up a lot of space per a single unit of stored energy, and rely on rare minerals. Hydrogen storage is gaining a lot of attention, but there are other cutting-edge storage technologies that claim to square this circle and provide reliable long-duration solutions. Just now, I've read about liquid air storage that sounds interesting in the [words][1] of the company that is in charge of this project but also sparks doubt about whether this moonshot technology is really going to do the trick. Is it really more competitive than hydrogen storage (including in terms of occupied physical volume, capital and operational costs, and net carbon footprint – after all, it's refrigerated under extreme temperatures)? And more generally, what are the most viable options for long-duration storage of large amounts of energy in the context of ongoing decarbonization? If there is some overview of such methods that either exist or are under implementation – like liquid air storage facilities – that you can share with me, it would be nice&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://highviewpower.com/news_announcement/highview-power-and-encore-renewable-energy-to-co-develop-the-first-long-duration-liquid-air-energy-storage-system-in-the-united-states/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29745" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11902" RevisionGUID="03dbdc24-5d6d-487d-8f21-a3b12216fea8" CreationDate="2021-11-15T12:59:06.083" UserId="4099" Comment="typos corrected" Text="Theoretically, if the charge is big enough for the electrical wiring the heat can also be a concern.&#xD;&#xA;When everything turns on together a high current can make the cables hot and that increases its resistance, making it consume more energy. But this increase is usually insignificant, especially if the wiring is dimensioned properly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29746" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11902" RevisionGUID="03dbdc24-5d6d-487d-8f21-a3b12216fea8" CreationDate="2021-11-15T12:59:06.083" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 683" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11914" RevisionGUID="a3d4116a-fcca-45c5-b4b9-4e591efd5eb7" CreationDate="2021-11-15T17:34:53.153" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; With renewables being in large part weather-dependent, the issue of energy storage is slowly moving to the center stage of the incipient net-zero economy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lithium ion batteries are kinda good, but expensive, take up a lot of space per a single unit of stored energy, and rely on rare minerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rare? Not necessarily. The only essential mineral in lithium ion batteries is lithium. Some chemistries like nickel cobalt aluminum or nickel manganese cobalt require cobalt, but some others like lithium iron phosphate don't. So the only material you absolutely need is lithium (apart from the trivial plentiful ones that vary based on the exact type of the lithium ion battery chemistry).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium need is 1.6 kg / 10 kWh of battery energy amount. This means global lithium reserves of 14 million tons can store 87.5 TWh. If we assume world population stabilizes at 10 billion, it's 8.75 kWh per capita.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal electricity use outside of summer is 6.6 kWh per day (in summer the extra happens only during sunshine hours because it's air conditioning use). However, about half of that is during the day so to store electricity for use during night requires only 3.3 kWh if I happened to live in an area where solar energy is feasible both in summer and in winter. For that storage need, 8.75 kWh per capita is enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also reserves mean &quot;what can be extracted at current prices&quot;. Lithium resources (what can be extracted if the price was higher) are 73 million tonnes, so with these 45.6 kWh per capita storage is feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I don't necessarily agree that lithium ion batteries are expensive. If one kWh costs 100 EUR and lasts for 25 years, even taking into account capital cost that's 6.4 euros per year per kWh. If you cycle a battery 365 times per year, that's 17.5 euros of battery cost per MWh of energy. That's cheaper than solar power for example! So to store solar power for use during night, more than half of the cost is the actual solar power production cost and less than half of the cost is the storage cost. Also do remember that half of energy is used during daytime, so the less-than-doubled cost is only a problem during nighttime. So that's not even 50% energy cost increase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also don't underestimate the intelligence of chemists to invent new battery chemistries. There are at least sodium ion, potassium ion, iron air and sodium sulfur batteries in development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hydrogen storage is gaining a lot of attention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen is useful in areas where solar power is not available during the winter. Then wind power must be used, but calm periods can last for multiple weeks. The main problems of hydrogen are its terribly low energy efficiency and the high cost of the equipment to both produce it (electrolyzers), transport it (pipelines), store it (lined underground caves), and convert it back to electricity (combined cycle power plants). If you add all these costs together and also take into account the low 35-40% efficiency of electricity-to-hydrogen-back-to-electricity, you'll see that hydrogen makes sense only in cases where you need to achieve not a single day but several weeks or months of storage duration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume that in areas with plentiful solar power, hydrogen is used only to allow fertilizer production (ammonia is needed for that, and hydrogen is needed for ammonia) and carbon-free steelmaking. Then the hydrogen is a way to use and store excess electricity as hydrogen, but the hydrogen will probably never be converted back to electricity but rather used in steel and fertilizer industries. The hydrogen production is timed so that it is produced only when electricity is very cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just now, I've read about liquid air storage that sounds interesting in the words of the company that is in charge of this project but also sparks doubt about whether this moonshot technology is really going to do the trick&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Liquid air energy storage will lose the battle with hydrogen and batteries. While it has slightly better 60% round trip efficiency than hydrogen, for example the storage part costs around 50 euros per kWh (and that only includes the storage part, not the liquid air creation and consumption parts). It can't compete with lithium ion batteries because of the low 60% energy efficiency. Lithium ion is better for short-term storage, although it is slightly more expensive in storage, because it has better 99% efficiency. It also can't compete with hydrogen because hydrogen storage costs around 0.15 euros per kWh, far less than 50 euros per kWh of liquid air storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it really more competitive than hydrogen storage (including in terms of occupied physical volume, capital and operational costs, and net carbon footprint – after all, it's refrigerated under extreme temperatures)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a poor solution. Too expensive storage costs for long-term energy storage. Too poor energy efficiency for short-term energy storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And more generally, what are the most viable options for long-duration storage of large amounts of energy in the context of ongoing decarbonization?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several technologies excel there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is hydropower, both in natural and pumped forms. It's not feasible where the geography doesn't permit it, but if it's feasible it's one of the cheapest options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another is load-side management in hydrogen production. The hydrogen probably can't competitively be turned back to electricity, but it doesn't matter: if you eliminate 1 kilowatt of consumption, it's equivalent for the grid balance than adding 1 kilowatt of production. So hydrogen essentially allows good uses for lots of very cheap electricity that wouldn't otherwise have any uses. The hydrogen will be stored for later use in industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third may perhaps be new battery chemistries like iron-air batteries developed by Form Energy. Not all of the specs like efficiency have been released, but apparently it's 2000 euros per kilowatt, 20 euros per kilowatt hour, 100 hours. The efficiency is a question mark, though. If it's below that of liquid air energy storage, it may be it can compete neither with hydrogen nor with lithium ion batteries. But based on the initial information we have, they seem very surprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fourth is biomass. This is mainly in areas where heating is needed during the winter. The bulk of heating will likely be produced using heat pumps, but if heat is needed at times when electricity is expensive, biomass burning is an attractive option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fifth is thermal energy storage. It's feasible in individual homes today, for example in areas where there are lots of nuclear electricity, electricity is cheaper during the night so it makes sense to cool the home to be very cool in morning, and then let the heat naturally rise. However in the future the economics will shift and electricity will be cheap during sunshine hours. That's perfect for air conditioning: it's needed most when the sun is shining, so it doesn't matter if you need to turn off the AC during cloudy periods. Also large-scale thermal energy storage is feasible in district heating and cooling networks where massive caves store hot or cold water. These allow reliable heating and cooling even when solar and wind power are not available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sixth is nuclear energy. It can be produced all the time, even at times where wind and solar power are not available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't list lithium ion batteries because they are best for short-term energy storage and you specifically asked about long-duration storage of large amounts of energy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11914" RevisionGUID="ad9e39a5-51df-440f-abb7-c3174b27897b" CreationDate="2021-11-15T17:44:28.877" UserId="6393" Comment="natural gas" Text="&gt; With renewables being in large part weather-dependent, the issue of energy storage is slowly moving to the center stage of the incipient net-zero economy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lithium ion batteries are kinda good, but expensive, take up a lot of space per a single unit of stored energy, and rely on rare minerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rare? Not necessarily. The only essential mineral in lithium ion batteries is lithium. Some chemistries like nickel cobalt aluminum or nickel manganese cobalt require cobalt, but some others like lithium iron phosphate don't. So the only material you absolutely need is lithium (apart from the trivial plentiful ones that vary based on the exact type of the lithium ion battery chemistry).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium need is 1.6 kg / 10 kWh of battery energy amount. This means global lithium reserves of 14 million tons can store 87.5 TWh. If we assume world population stabilizes at 10 billion, it's 8.75 kWh per capita.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal electricity use outside of summer is 6.6 kWh per day (in summer the extra happens only during sunshine hours because it's air conditioning use). However, about half of that is during the day so to store electricity for use during night requires only 3.3 kWh if I happened to live in an area where solar energy is feasible both in summer and in winter. For that storage need, 8.75 kWh per capita is enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also reserves mean &quot;what can be extracted at current prices&quot;. Lithium resources (what can be extracted if the price was higher) are 73 million tonnes, so with these 45.6 kWh per capita storage is feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I don't necessarily agree that lithium ion batteries are expensive. If one kWh costs 100 EUR and lasts for 25 years, even taking into account capital cost that's 6.4 euros per year per kWh. If you cycle a battery 365 times per year, that's 17.5 euros of battery cost per MWh of energy. That's cheaper than solar power for example! So to store solar power for use during night, more than half of the cost is the actual solar power production cost and less than half of the cost is the storage cost. Also do remember that half of energy is used during daytime, so the less-than-doubled cost is only a problem during nighttime. So that's not even 50% energy cost increase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also don't underestimate the intelligence of chemists to invent new battery chemistries. There are at least sodium ion, potassium ion, iron air and sodium sulfur batteries in development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hydrogen storage is gaining a lot of attention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen is useful in areas where solar power is not available during the winter. Then wind power must be used, but calm periods can last for multiple weeks. The main problems of hydrogen are its terribly low energy efficiency and the high cost of the equipment to both produce it (electrolyzers), transport it (pipelines), store it (lined underground caves), and convert it back to electricity (combined cycle power plants). If you add all these costs together and also take into account the low 35-40% efficiency of electricity-to-hydrogen-back-to-electricity, you'll see that hydrogen makes sense only in cases where you need to achieve not a single day but several weeks or months of storage duration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume that in areas with plentiful solar power, hydrogen is used only to allow fertilizer production (ammonia is needed for that, and hydrogen is needed for ammonia) and carbon-free steelmaking. Then the hydrogen is a way to use and store excess electricity as hydrogen, but the hydrogen will probably never be converted back to electricity but rather used in steel and fertilizer industries. The hydrogen production is timed so that it is produced only when electricity is very cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just now, I've read about liquid air storage that sounds interesting in the words of the company that is in charge of this project but also sparks doubt about whether this moonshot technology is really going to do the trick&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Liquid air energy storage will lose the battle with hydrogen and batteries. While it has slightly better 60% round trip efficiency than hydrogen, for example the storage part costs around 50 euros per kWh (and that only includes the storage part, not the liquid air creation and consumption parts). It can't compete with lithium ion batteries because of the low 60% energy efficiency. Lithium ion is better for short-term storage, although it is slightly more expensive in storage, because it has better 99% efficiency. It also can't compete with hydrogen because hydrogen storage costs around 0.15 euros per kWh, far less than 50 euros per kWh of liquid air storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it really more competitive than hydrogen storage (including in terms of occupied physical volume, capital and operational costs, and net carbon footprint – after all, it's refrigerated under extreme temperatures)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a poor solution. Too expensive storage costs for long-term energy storage. Too poor energy efficiency for short-term energy storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And more generally, what are the most viable options for long-duration storage of large amounts of energy in the context of ongoing decarbonization?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several technologies excel there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is hydropower, both in natural and pumped forms. It's not feasible where the geography doesn't permit it, but if it's feasible it's one of the cheapest options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another is load-side management in hydrogen production. The hydrogen probably can't competitively be turned back to electricity, but it doesn't matter: if you eliminate 1 kilowatt of consumption, it's equivalent for the grid balance than adding 1 kilowatt of production. So hydrogen essentially allows good uses for lots of very cheap electricity that wouldn't otherwise have any uses. The hydrogen will be stored for later use in industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third may perhaps be new battery chemistries like iron-air batteries developed by Form Energy. Not all of the specs like efficiency have been released, but apparently it's 2000 euros per kilowatt, 20 euros per kilowatt hour, 100 hours. The efficiency is a question mark, though. If it's below that of liquid air energy storage, it may be it can compete neither with hydrogen nor with lithium ion batteries. But based on the initial information we have, they seem very surprising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fourth is biomass. This is mainly in areas where heating is needed during the winter. The bulk of heating will likely be produced using heat pumps, but if heat is needed at times when electricity is expensive, biomass burning is an attractive option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fifth is thermal energy storage. It's feasible in individual homes today, for example in areas where there are lots of nuclear electricity, electricity is cheaper during the night so it makes sense to cool the home to be very cool in morning, and then let the heat naturally rise. However in the future the economics will shift and electricity will be cheap during sunshine hours. That's perfect for air conditioning: it's needed most when the sun is shining, so it doesn't matter if you need to turn off the AC during cloudy periods. Also large-scale thermal energy storage is feasible in district heating and cooling networks where massive caves store hot or cold water. These allow reliable heating and cooling even when solar and wind power are not available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sixth is nuclear energy. It can be produced all the time, even at times where wind and solar power are not available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also we can continue using fossil fuels provided that the carbon dioxide produced is stored back underground. Coal is problematic because it's very dense and coal mines are not sealed, so you can't pump the carbon dioxide produced by combusting the coal back into the coal mine. Oil is slightly better because oil wells are sealed, but oil as a liquid takes less space than the carbon dioxide produced by burning the oil. However, natural gas is very ideal: one cubic meter of natural gas produces one cubic meter of carbon dioxide, and natural gas wells are guaranteed to be sealed because the natural gas was stored there for hundreds of thousands of years. Thus, we can use all natural gas resources provided that we store the carbon dioxide back there, where the natural gas was. If all adjustable peaking electricity production (production during times when solar power and wind power are not available) was natural gas and natural gas was never used for baseload, the known natural gas reserves would last probably at least hundred years if not two hundred years. Furthermore, converting the natural gas into carbon dioxide reduces environmental risks: if the natural gas leaks, we're in trouble because it's a very strong greenhouse gas. If the carbon dioxide leaks, that's less worrying because it's a far less potent greenhouse gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't list lithium ion batteries because they are best for short-term energy storage and you specifically asked about long-duration storage of large amounts of energy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29752" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="5f0f1275-eeaa-4293-857f-de6972686d03" CreationDate="2021-11-16T00:05:30.587" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11914" RevisionGUID="86b58a17-9419-4720-9aa8-aedcfc2e825f" CreationDate="2021-11-16T17:25:03.250" UserId="6393" Comment="more info" Text="&gt; With renewables being in large part weather-dependent, the issue of energy storage is slowly moving to the center stage of the incipient net-zero economy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Lithium ion batteries are kinda good, but expensive, take up a lot of space per a single unit of stored energy, and rely on rare minerals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rare? Not necessarily. The only essential mineral in lithium ion batteries is lithium. Some chemistries like nickel cobalt aluminum or nickel manganese cobalt require cobalt, but some others like lithium iron phosphate don't. So the only material you absolutely need is lithium (apart from the trivial plentiful ones that vary based on the exact type of the lithium ion battery chemistry).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium need is 1.6 kg / 10 kWh of battery energy amount. This means global lithium reserves of 14 million tons can store 87.5 TWh. If we assume world population stabilizes at 10 billion, it's 8.75 kWh per capita.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal electricity use outside of summer is 6.6 kWh per day (in summer the extra happens only during sunshine hours because it's air conditioning use). However, about half of that is during the day so to store electricity for use during night requires only 3.3 kWh if I happened to live in an area where solar energy is feasible both in summer and in winter. For that storage need, 8.75 kWh per capita is enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also reserves mean &quot;what can be extracted at current prices&quot;. Lithium resources (what can be extracted if the price was higher) are 73 million tonnes, so with these 45.6 kWh per capita storage is feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I don't necessarily agree that lithium ion batteries are expensive. If one kWh costs 100 EUR and lasts for 25 years, even taking into account capital cost that's 6.4 euros per year per kWh. If you cycle a battery 365 times per year, that's 17.5 euros of battery cost per MWh of energy. That's cheaper than solar power for example! So to store solar power for use during night, more than half of the cost is the actual solar power production cost and less than half of the cost is the storage cost. Also do remember that half of energy is used during daytime, so the less-than-doubled cost is only a problem during nighttime. So that's not even 50% energy cost increase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also don't underestimate the intelligence of chemists to invent new battery chemistries. There are at least sodium ion, potassium ion, iron air and sodium sulfur batteries in development.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hydrogen storage is gaining a lot of attention&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen is useful in areas where solar power is not available during the winter. Then wind power must be used, but calm periods can last for multiple weeks. The main problems of hydrogen are its terribly low energy efficiency and the high cost of the equipment to both produce it (electrolyzers), transport it (pipelines), store it (lined underground caves), and convert it back to electricity (combined cycle power plants). If you add all these costs together and also take into account the low 35-40% efficiency of electricity-to-hydrogen-back-to-electricity, you'll see that hydrogen makes sense only in cases where you need to achieve not a single day but several weeks or months of storage duration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume that in areas with plentiful solar power, hydrogen is used only to allow fertilizer production (ammonia is needed for that, and hydrogen is needed for ammonia) and carbon-free steelmaking. Then the hydrogen is a way to use and store excess electricity as hydrogen, but the hydrogen will probably never be converted back to electricity but rather used in steel and fertilizer industries. The hydrogen production is timed so that it is produced only when electricity is very cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Just now, I've read about liquid air storage that sounds interesting in the words of the company that is in charge of this project but also sparks doubt about whether this moonshot technology is really going to do the trick&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Liquid air energy storage will lose the battle with hydrogen and batteries. While it has slightly better 60% round trip efficiency than hydrogen, for example the storage part costs around 50 euros per kWh (and that only includes the storage part, not the liquid air creation and consumption parts). It can't compete with lithium ion batteries because of the low 60% energy efficiency. Lithium ion is better for short-term storage, although it is slightly more expensive in storage, because it has better 99% efficiency. It also can't compete with hydrogen because hydrogen storage costs around 0.15 euros per kWh, far less than 50 euros per kWh of liquid air storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is it really more competitive than hydrogen storage (including in terms of occupied physical volume, capital and operational costs, and net carbon footprint – after all, it's refrigerated under extreme temperatures)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a poor solution. Too expensive storage costs for long-term energy storage. Too poor energy efficiency for short-term energy storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; And more generally, what are the most viable options for long-duration storage of large amounts of energy in the context of ongoing decarbonization?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Several technologies excel there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is hydropower, both in natural and pumped forms. It's not feasible where the geography doesn't permit it, but if it's feasible it's one of the cheapest options.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another is load-side management in hydrogen production. The hydrogen probably can't competitively be turned back to electricity, but it doesn't matter: if you eliminate 1 kilowatt of consumption, it's equivalent for the grid balance than adding 1 kilowatt of production. So hydrogen essentially allows good uses for lots of very cheap electricity that wouldn't otherwise have any uses. The hydrogen will be stored for later use in industry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Third may perhaps be new battery chemistries like iron-air batteries developed by Form Energy. Not all of the specs like efficiency have been released, but apparently it's 2000 euros per kilowatt, 20 euros per kilowatt hour, 100 hours. The efficiency is a question mark, though. If it's below that of liquid air energy storage, it may be it can compete neither with hydrogen nor with lithium ion batteries. But based on the initial information we have, they seem very promising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fourth is biomass. This is mainly in areas where heating is needed during the winter. The bulk of heating will likely be produced using heat pumps, but if heat is needed at times when electricity is expensive, biomass burning is an attractive option. Biomass can only be &quot;charged&quot; with direct sunlight and not with electricity, so although you can convert solar power into biomass, you can't convert wind power into biomass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fifth is thermal energy storage. It's feasible in individual homes today (although only for very short durations), for example in areas where there are lots of nuclear electricity, electricity is cheaper during the night so it makes sense to cool the home to be very cool in morning, and then let the heat naturally rise. However in the future the economics will shift and electricity will be cheap during sunshine hours. That's perfect for air conditioning: it's needed most when the sun is shining, so it doesn't matter if you need to turn off the AC during cloudy periods. Also large-scale thermal energy storage is feasible in district heating and cooling networks where massive caves store hot or cold water, in which case long-term storage like seasonal energy storage is feasible. These allow reliable heating and cooling even when solar and wind power are not available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sixth is nuclear energy. It can be produced all the time, even at times where wind and solar power are not available. Nuclear energy can't be &quot;charged&quot; -- we have only a finite amount of uranium and thorium. However, that doesn't matter because if we use breeder reactors and extract the fuel from seawater, we have enough fuel for several billion years for current human race power usage -- in which case the power output of sun has changed so much life on this planet may not be feasible anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also we can continue using fossil fuels provided that the carbon dioxide produced is stored back underground. Coal is problematic because it's very dense and coal mines are not sealed, so you can't pump the carbon dioxide produced by combusting the coal back into the coal mine. Oil is slightly better because oil wells are sealed, but oil as a liquid takes less space than the carbon dioxide produced by burning the oil. However, natural gas is very ideal: one cubic meter of natural gas produces one cubic meter of carbon dioxide, and natural gas wells are guaranteed to be sealed because the natural gas was stored there for hundreds of thousands of years. Thus, we can use all natural gas resources provided that we store the carbon dioxide back there, where the natural gas was. If all adjustable peaking electricity production (production during times when solar power and wind power are not available) was natural gas and natural gas was never used for baseload, the known natural gas reserves would last probably at least hundred years if not two hundred years. Furthermore, converting the natural gas into carbon dioxide reduces environmental risks: if the natural gas leaks, we're in trouble because it's a very strong greenhouse gas. If the carbon dioxide leaks, that's less worrying because it's a far less potent greenhouse gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't list lithium ion batteries because they are best for short-term energy storage and you specifically asked about long-duration storage of large amounts of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some technologies that will not succeed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Compressed air energy storage. The problem is that when you compress air, it becomes very hot. There are two strategies: store the air in thermally insulated container and then expand it back to ambient pressure and temperature when power is needed (but the thermally insulated container is very expensive), or use massive heat exchangers to make the process isothermal (but in that case the heat exchangers cost so much it alone makes the project unfeasible), or compress the air into a cave, letting it gradually lose its heat, and then when expanding it again provide additional heat using natural gas (but in this case the natural gas consumption is so high this should be thought more of a way to improve efficiency of natural gas by compressed air rather than using only compressed air to store energy).&#xD;&#xA;* Other gravity-based energy storage methods than hydropower. The problem is that you need heavy blocks you can stack over each other. The blocks can't be made by fracturing rock into small pieces because the blocks must stack over each other, and fracturing rock doesn't produce uniform blocks, so only concrete is feasible as the material. Concrete production produces very high carbon dioxide emissions, and the concrete alone even without emission trading prices is so expensive that the energy storage cost of these gravity-based schemes will be so high that it's practically the same as the cost of battery energy storage, but with very expensive charging-discharging cranes and with much poorer efficiency. Not competitive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29754" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11913" RevisionGUID="0c924d9d-39d6-4a1e-9afe-dc063ff20f84" CreationDate="2021-11-16T18:00:02.543" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1460669001672105987" />
  <row Id="29755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11915" RevisionGUID="a0710a95-8eaa-4602-b93a-bfa3bf09af95" CreationDate="2021-11-17T02:45:50.673" UserId="9669" Text="I still don't fully grasp the climate impact of lumbering (unless its purpose is burning the wood for energy or making space for pastures which is obviously bad). Is cutting down trees and making something from them good or bad for the climate? Deforestation is supposed to be detrimental for the environment, but Finnish researchers [suggest][1] we shift from steel and concrete to wood. It's gonna cost us all trees in the world considering the population growth and urbanisation, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aba134" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29757" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11915" RevisionGUID="a0710a95-8eaa-4602-b93a-bfa3bf09af95" CreationDate="2021-11-17T02:45:50.673" UserId="9669" Text="Is cutting down trees and building something from them good or bad for the climate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29758" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11915" RevisionGUID="a0710a95-8eaa-4602-b93a-bfa3bf09af95" CreationDate="2021-11-17T02:45:50.673" UserId="9669" Text="|building-materials|climate-change|deforestation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29761" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11915" RevisionGUID="e8f09791-1b39-4f87-850a-5748944e6822" CreationDate="2021-11-17T03:19:25.300" UserId="9669" Comment="added 16 characters in body" Text="I still don't fully grasp the climate impact of lumbering (unless its purpose is burning the wood for energy or making space for pastures which is obviously bad). Is cutting down trees and making or constructing something from them good or bad for the climate? Deforestation is supposed to be detrimental for the environment, but Finnish researchers [suggest][1] we shift from steel and concrete to wood. It's gonna cost us all trees in the world considering the population growth and urbanisation, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aba134" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29762" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="8537a658-177e-4ca7-bc17-0c87fc2a16c6" CreationDate="2021-11-17T05:02:40.190" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11917" RevisionGUID="b30e41a7-6ade-4042-aeb6-11cb733c823d" CreationDate="2021-11-17T08:18:57.183" UserId="4477" Text="How about soy yogurt?     &#xD;&#xA;The numbers in this [report](https://www.ifeu.de/publikation/oekologische-fussabdruecke-von-lebensmitteln-und-gerichtenin-deutschland/) for Germany, (so, close to Switzerland,) give me the following g-CO2 per kcal ratios*:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yogurt (white, non-bio):   2.6  &#xD;&#xA;Soy yogurt	(white/plain):	1.0	  &#xD;&#xA;Milk (cow, non-bio): 2  &#xD;&#xA;Soy drink		0.9  &#xD;&#xA;Oat drink		0.6  &#xD;&#xA;(Almond drink: similar to oat drink)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I proposed soy yogurt (or other plant-based yogurt alternatives) because they seem most like yogurt, also nutrition profile wise. As said in J. Chomel's answer, if you are fine to replace it with a milk replacement, oat drink seems to be a good option with an even lower carbon footprint. However, oat drinks tend to have more carbs and less protein and fat, compared to soy milk and yogurt. (I don't know about almond, cashew and rice milk. From Wikipedia, almond milk seems to have more fat, rice milk also much more carbs and little protein).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;Unlike J.Chomel's answer, the numbers above only include CO2 footprint.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;`*` Just dividing grams of CO2 per kg given in the report, by the calories (kcal) per 1kg given on: &#xD;&#xA;- [this website](https://eatsmarter.de/lexikon/warenkunde/),&#xD;&#xA;- products in my fridge, with 63 kcal/100g for soy joghurt, and 45/49 kcal/100g for soy and oat milk, respectively.)     &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The numbers I got won't be perfectly accurate, since the &quot;dilution&quot; of those drinks can vary, as well as the sugar content in soy yogurt, and other factors ... all changing how many calories per kg a product has.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11918" RevisionGUID="1461c378-8059-44b6-a2dd-427e5be7c88c" CreationDate="2021-11-17T11:16:00.730" UserId="13420" Text="No, since building a new electric car has already so much Carbon impact on the planet compared to an old existing conventional car that its lifetime Carbon impact can only be balanced through the use of renewable sources of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best approach is:&#xD;&#xA;- to drive less, only when necessary&#xD;&#xA;- co-comutte&#xD;&#xA;- drive a bike !&#xD;&#xA;- use shared electric cars&#xD;&#xA;- upgrade conventional cars to run on Gas or cleaner energies than fuel&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11918" RevisionGUID="3b50ada5-26c1-4bf4-b49b-99771d580905" CreationDate="2021-11-17T11:32:39.313" UserId="2345" Comment="Spelling correction" Text="No, since building a new electric car has already so much Carbon impact on the planet compared to an old existing conventional car that its lifetime Carbon impact can only be balanced through the use of renewable sources of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best approach is:&#xD;&#xA;- to drive less, only when necessary&#xD;&#xA;- co-commute&#xD;&#xA;- drive a bike !&#xD;&#xA;- use shared electric cars&#xD;&#xA;- upgrade conventional cars to run on Gas or cleaner energies than fuel&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29768" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11919" RevisionGUID="be465221-98f9-4ef3-8f90-3f7b88b00134" CreationDate="2021-11-17T11:58:30.687" UserId="2345" Text="Deforestation per se, without replanting trees to compensate for the trees felled, is bad for the environment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replacing steel and concrete with lumber/timber from trees for construction purposes is an old concept of sustainability. The manufacturing of steel and concrete is very energy intensive and the manufacturing of both currently produces a lot of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In producing steel, currently carbon, in the form of coal, is added to the molten iron ore to remove oxygen from the melt. Basically the chemical equation is iron oxides + carbon gives iron + carbon dioxide:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fe&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;O&lt;sub&gt;y&lt;/sub&gt; + C -&gt; Fe + CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are new processes to produce green steel/iron by using hydrogen instead of coal (carbon) to remove the oxygen from the melt. Such a process would produce water vapor instead of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fe&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;O&lt;sub&gt;y&lt;/sub&gt; + H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; -&gt; Fe + H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting the hydrogen is the tricky part. Currently plans are in place to use electricity from renewables, and hydro electricity to produce hydrogen and oxygen via the electrolysis of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process of manufacturing cement for concrete involves roasting limestone (CaCO&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;). This produces carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using lumber from trees, instead of steel and concrete, avoids the production of vast quantities of carbon dioxide. The tree plantations that were felled to produce construction lumber can eventually be replaced by replanting the forest plantation. This is a more sustainable and less environmentally damaging of producing construction material." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29770" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11920" RevisionGUID="5230cd6e-1aa2-4c69-aba6-799d9f225ca9" CreationDate="2021-11-17T12:17:35.193" UserId="3960" Text="Volvo have done an interesting study on this recently, looking at whole-lifecycle emissions for a BEV (battery electric vehicle) XC40 versus a ICE (internal combusion engine) XC40. A vehicle life-cycle of 200,000km is assumed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In summary, the lifetime emissions are as follows:&#xD;&#xA;- ICE XC40: 58 tons&#xD;&#xA;- BEV XC40 using average global energy mix: 54 tons (break even at 146,000km)&#xD;&#xA;- BEV XC40 using EU28 energy mix: 45 tons (break even at 84,000km)&#xD;&#xA;- BEV XC40 using wind energy: 27 tons (break even at 47,000km)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For info, production emissions of the BEV were 70% higher than that of the ICE version. Of course, this could vary substantially between vehicles and manufacturers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Link to study][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://group.volvocars.com/news/sustainability/2020/~/media/ccs/Volvo_carbonfootprintreport.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29772" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11921" RevisionGUID="fb8511a3-2e96-4a0d-b49e-6cadb2b0805e" CreationDate="2021-11-17T16:09:15.580" UserId="13427" Text="I don't believe driving an electric car is more fuel efficiency than for example a modern diesel (which is around 41% fuel efficient more if they made hybrid or better heat recovery). Especially when you consider the losses between the power station, charging the batteries and then driving the car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it is easier to modify power station to deal with the pollutions (e.g. capture and storage) or using greener tech like nuclear, solar, wind, tidal than it is to modify a car to deal with it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29774" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11915" RevisionGUID="250d1ba3-0cd3-45a2-a06a-b0e00efc1278" CreationDate="2021-11-17T16:54:55.877" UserId="9669" Comment="added 29 characters in body" Text="I still don't fully grasp the climate impact of lumbering (unless its purpose is burning the wood for energy or making space for pastures which is obviously bad). Is cutting down trees and making or constructing something from them good or bad for the climate? Deforestation is supposed to be detrimental for the environment, but Finnish researchers [suggest][1] we shift from steel and concrete to wood in our building construction. It's gonna cost us all trees in the world considering the population growth and urbanisation, isn't it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aba134" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11922" RevisionGUID="3f817165-a1e2-47ca-8a5d-837a1b726e19" CreationDate="2021-11-17T18:29:57.887" UserId="13430" Text="Renewable diesel is a Co2 neutral product that is a direct replacement for hydrocarbon diesel in the diesel fleet. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biofuels/biodiesel-in-depth.php&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This fuel is available today, I run it in my Audi Q5 TDI and get better mileage (about 2 mpg). Switching to this fuel also give us a more diverse infrastructure and better economic independence from scarce minerals like lithium and cobalt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also need to look at the pollution hazards of disposing of batteries after their 4-6 years of usable life. Co2 is not the only issue in the cleaner equation. So I'll have to say no electric cars are not necessarily cleaner than conventional cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29777" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="11871" RevisionGUID="c68a141c-fa1e-49c0-82e1-50fce1321695" CreationDate="2021-11-17T20:56:08.703" UserId="3379" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="29779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11923" RevisionGUID="75c9aacb-c580-42a8-b118-01fefd588eff" CreationDate="2021-11-18T18:37:44.703" UserId="6393" Text="Oh yes it is very useful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's consider you have an old forest, something in which the trees have grown very large so if you choose to chop them down, you get a very high share of sawlog and very low share of pulpwood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three sustainable things you can do to it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Leave the forest there. The trouble is, the forest is already at equilibrium, so any carbon sequestered is matched by carbon dioxide from decomposing. Climate benefit of that particular forest is exactly zero.&#xD;&#xA;2. Chop down the forest, and use all of the wood as pulpwood. Financially this is a very poor decision, because pulpwood has a far lower price than sawlogs. However, this is still more sustainable than leaving the forest there, because at least the pulpwood substitutes for packaging materials that would have otherwise been made out of oil (plastics). However, the packaging materials created from the pulpwood are rapidly burned for energy, so they don't retain their carbon for long. So the only climate benefit is from substituting for oil use. At least you get some climate benefit.&#xD;&#xA;3. Chop down the forest, attempting to make the sawlog percentage as high as possible. The sawlogs are maximally used for creating permanent carbon sinks and used for furniture, houses, etc. You can expect them to retain the carbon for 100 years. You will still get a small pulpwood share, but that has climate benefits too: it substitutes for oil use. Also you will get sawdust etc that can be burned for energy (substitutes coal use in heating in cold climates), or be used to make biochar (it retains most of the carbon while still producing some energy for heating although less than if it was burned directly to energy).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In cases 2 and 3, you will obviously plant a new forest that during its rapid growth stage is a very efficient carbon sink. By removing the old forest, you retained its carbon maximally, while at the same time created room for new forest to grow. Forest is always limited by room: if there was infinite room on this planet, there would be no climate crisis as we would just plant exponentially increasing amounts of new forest to capture emissions from exponentially increasing fossil fuel use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can see that chopping down the forest and maximizing the sawlog percentage, building something from the wood, maximizes the climate benefit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29783" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11924" RevisionGUID="b571f1d1-4918-4572-9721-4fc3dd48c14a" CreationDate="2021-11-19T19:05:38.760" UserId="9669" Text="Do solar panels generate more electricity in hot or cold climate? Who is right (sorry for the messiness, I currently don't know how to take a long screenshot)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][6]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][8]][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Mzplg.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ovhaq.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6fEIP.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/N8Vru.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/f4MJ6.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9oshU.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4AWcG.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4WKby.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29785" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11924" RevisionGUID="b571f1d1-4918-4572-9721-4fc3dd48c14a" CreationDate="2021-11-19T19:05:38.760" UserId="9669" Text="Do solar panels generate more electricity in hot or cold climate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29786" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11924" RevisionGUID="b571f1d1-4918-4572-9721-4fc3dd48c14a" CreationDate="2021-11-19T19:05:38.760" UserId="9669" Text="|solar-power|energy-efficiency|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29787" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11925" RevisionGUID="e9df8f02-3d1c-4308-babe-22ee8ddd79ef" CreationDate="2021-11-19T19:23:24.420" UserId="6393" Text="If the amount of radiation stays the same, solar panels produce more energy when they are cooler. Heat causes efficiency to suffer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is assuming the radiation amount is the same. Usually it isn't. If you consider a place that's very cold, so cold that there's snow, usually there's a reason for that. The reason being that it's winter season and the sun shines for only 5 hours per day if there are no clouds. The sun angle is also very low. The combination of low sun angle and low sunshine amount per day means that in areas that are periodically cold, practically no solar power is generated during the winter season. The summer season on the other hand has very good production figures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If solar power is heavily seasonal, it's far less useful than it would be if you get about the same energy production every day throughout the year. It means you have to store energy during summer and consume it during winter. The trouble is, no battery or pumped hydro plant has the possibility to store such energy amounts. The only feasible solution is hydrogen but its poor 38% electricity-to-hydrogen-back-to-electricity-again efficiency and the high cost of conversion equipment (electrolysers, combined cycle power plants) and the high expense of storing large amounts of a gas that has low voluminous energy density make using hydrogen for seasonal energy storage very expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually in climates that actually get cold in the winter, the preferred power production is wind power. At least you get wind power during all seasons of the year. Solar power is mainly useful in areas where the sunshine amount doesn't vary much between seasons, and so you can charge a battery every day and discharge it every night. That's 365 cycles per year as opposed to 1 cycle per year in seasonal energy storage. Your battery just became 365 times cheaper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, although solar panels produce more electricity when they're cold, you really don't want to rely on solar panels in climates where the weather can get cold in the winter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29789" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11926" RevisionGUID="9a3a05a7-7c88-4e78-bfdc-f884916b2a29" CreationDate="2021-11-20T01:29:42.230" UserId="9669" Text="Tell me about concentrated solar power plants. Under what circumstances are they more feasible than conventional solar panels? It seems to me, a layman, that there are way too many energy transfers for it to be a better solution (PV devices appear to capture that solar energy more &quot;directly&quot; or something)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29791" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11926" RevisionGUID="9a3a05a7-7c88-4e78-bfdc-f884916b2a29" CreationDate="2021-11-20T01:29:42.230" UserId="9669" Text="Tell me about concentrated solar power plants. Under what circumstances are they more feasible than conventional solar panels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29792" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11926" RevisionGUID="9a3a05a7-7c88-4e78-bfdc-f884916b2a29" CreationDate="2021-11-20T01:29:42.230" UserId="9669" Text="|solar-power|electricity-generation|solar-thermal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29793" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11924" RevisionGUID="c0207955-177c-45f3-8694-0d2e46968fbe" CreationDate="2021-11-20T03:08:43.267" />
  <row Id="29794" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11832" RevisionGUID="e446791c-9609-4f91-aead-a88fbd9f51ef" CreationDate="2021-11-20T08:01:35.180" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11927" RevisionGUID="fe3fcecd-3f37-4bb5-b94a-e86e1e93d330" CreationDate="2021-11-20T09:49:01.333" UserId="6393" Text="Concentrating solar-thermal power is an entirely different way of producting solar power. There are two types of concentrating solar-thermal plants. One type has parabolic mirrors in a line. Then a pipeline with some oil for example runs at the focal line. The heat from sunshine warms up the oil. With thousands of parabolic mirrors, the oil is warmed up very hot. Then the heat of the sun can be used in a thermal engine that uses steam as the working fluid. You need some way of disposing of the waste heat at lower temperature. One possibility is running water, but in hot deserts water may not be available. Another possibility is a cooling tower but it consumes water too. There are also air cooled condensers that cool the steam without consuming any water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is flat mirrors that are all oriended so that they direct the sunshine to a single tower. Then the oil is heated in the tower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's a traditional steam engine that works entirely like coal plants do. It shares the poor thermal efficiency of coal plants. However, solar panels too have a poor efficiency and if you take into account that, it doesn't look so bad anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A benefit of concentrating solar thermal power is that heat is much easier and cheaper to store than electricity, in molten salt for example. If you build a concentrating solar thermal power plant in a hot desert that has about equal sunshine every day of the year, it's possible to store the heat for use during nighttime. Then you get 24/7 electricity without needing to invest in any batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A drawback of concentrating solar thermal power is that it's already today more expensive than photovoltaic cells and lithium ion batteries. Then when you take into account that photovoltaic cell prices are exponentially decreasing, lithium ion battery prices are exponentially decreasing, and that new battery chemistries like iron-air are appearing, promising cheaper energy storage than lithium ion, you'll see why practically nobody builds concentrating solar thermal power plants anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another drawback, especially of the tower type installations, is that the sunlight intensity near the tower is very high so if a bird flies there, it'll be killed. Yet wind power kills birds too and it's still installed en masse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concentrating solar thermal power works only for large installations. You can't install a concentrating solar thermal power to produce electricity for a single house, unlike what you can do with photovoltaics. Perhaps some of the techniques could work to provide solar heat for a single house at a far lower temperature, though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29797" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11915" RevisionGUID="2d1fd17c-ced8-4e19-8a3a-cb9cd4ea47b1" CreationDate="2021-11-22T03:00:19.017" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1462616905567674375" />
  <row Id="29798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11928" RevisionGUID="1220461d-ad15-4e31-a1ee-ee067e3a743f" CreationDate="2021-11-22T04:38:31.907" UserId="9669" Text="Is mercury still used in modern e-waste? I need an authoritative reference, please. I did try to research it on my own, but got conflicting information" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29800" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11928" RevisionGUID="1220461d-ad15-4e31-a1ee-ee067e3a743f" CreationDate="2021-11-22T04:38:31.907" UserId="9669" Text="Is mercury still used in modern e-waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29801" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11928" RevisionGUID="1220461d-ad15-4e31-a1ee-ee067e3a743f" CreationDate="2021-11-22T04:38:31.907" UserId="9669" Text="|recycling|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11919" RevisionGUID="f40bdf28-4bec-44ee-bbf8-40d8e6815e85" CreationDate="2021-11-22T11:27:43.240" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected grammatical error" Text="Deforestation per se, without replanting trees to compensate for the trees felled, is bad for the environment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Replacing steel and concrete with lumber/timber from trees for construction purposes is an old concept of sustainability. The manufacturing of steel and concrete is very energy intensive and the manufacturing of both currently produces a lot of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In producing steel, currently carbon, in the form of coal, is added to the molten iron ore to remove oxygen from the melt. Basically the chemical equation is iron oxides + carbon gives iron + carbon dioxide:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fe&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;O&lt;sub&gt;y&lt;/sub&gt; + C -&gt; Fe + CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are new processes to produce green steel/iron by using hydrogen instead of coal (carbon) to remove the oxygen from the melt. Such a process would produce water vapor instead of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fe&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;O&lt;sub&gt;y&lt;/sub&gt; + H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; -&gt; Fe + H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;O&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Getting the hydrogen is the tricky part. Currently plans are in place to use electricity from renewables, and hydro electricity to produce hydrogen and oxygen via the electrolysis of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process of manufacturing cement for concrete involves roasting limestone (CaCO&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt;). This produces carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using lumber from trees, instead of steel and concrete, avoids the production of vast quantities of carbon dioxide. The tree plantations that were felled to produce construction lumber can eventually be replaced by replanting the forest plantation. This is a more sustainable and less environmentally damaging way of producing construction material." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11929" RevisionGUID="e4bf041b-230d-4752-87d9-def2e9357904" CreationDate="2021-11-23T02:06:56.053" UserId="9669" Text="How is biochar production as a CDR method, which is good, different from crop residue burning, which is bad? Does it have something to do with oxygen availability?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29805" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11929" RevisionGUID="e4bf041b-230d-4752-87d9-def2e9357904" CreationDate="2021-11-23T02:06:56.053" UserId="9669" Text="How is biochar production as a CDR method different from crop residue burning?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29806" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11929" RevisionGUID="e4bf041b-230d-4752-87d9-def2e9357904" CreationDate="2021-11-23T02:06:56.053" UserId="9669" Text="|carbon-sequestration|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11930" RevisionGUID="475519a2-3771-4a6a-bfa6-776b9c70d5f2" CreationDate="2021-11-23T10:27:21.923" UserId="2345" Text="The usage of mercury in electronics devices that end up producing e-waste is small but present in some components.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though not widely used now, cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors contain mercury as do some button batteries, [liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors][1] and [screens][2] and some [printed circuit boards and switches][3].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epa.gov/mercury/mercury-consumer-products&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://itechxpressinc.com/cracked-lcd-screen-can-be-hazardous-know-these-things-beforehand/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://mcbia.com/ewasterecycle.com/?page_id=228" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11928" RevisionGUID="304e1a2e-33b6-4d72-a723-a4c1965bcb5e" CreationDate="2021-11-23T14:51:04.270" UserId="3379" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is mercury still found in modern e-waste? I need an authoritative reference, please. I did try to research it on my own, but got conflicting information." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29810" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11928" RevisionGUID="304e1a2e-33b6-4d72-a723-a4c1965bcb5e" CreationDate="2021-11-23T14:51:04.270" UserId="3379" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is mercury still found in modern e-waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29811" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="11928" RevisionGUID="304e1a2e-33b6-4d72-a723-a4c1965bcb5e" CreationDate="2021-11-23T14:51:04.270" UserId="3379" Comment="added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|recycling|waste|toxic-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29812" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11926" RevisionGUID="dcfc4168-49cc-4769-bc91-96ef9ccbefd4" CreationDate="2021-11-23T14:52:07.023" UserId="3379" Comment="edited title" Text="Under what circumstances are concentrated solar power plants more feasible than conventional solar panels?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11931" RevisionGUID="8af0c3ba-1b58-42b1-9fa3-1ed56de758f0" CreationDate="2021-11-23T15:09:31.013" UserId="2846" Text="Deliberate biochar production differs from open burning in two important ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- The first is oxygen availability as you said.  Limiting the amount of oxygen means far more of the biomass ends up as solid carbon rather than CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;- The second is particulate pollution.  Burning biomass always produces particulates, but open burning is worse than burning in a controlled manner (in an incinerator, power station, or even wood-burning stove).  This leads to severe effects on air quality, up to and including smog for huge distances downwind of the source.  Compared to incinerating, biochar production causes still less particulate pollution if done properly.  Field methods (similar to the charcoal-burning of old) may still release a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29815" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11932" RevisionGUID="387da2af-ff87-477c-94be-05b1ac298bd3" CreationDate="2021-11-23T16:36:43.267" UserId="6393" Text="Let's compare biochar production from wood with burning wood:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1000 tonnes of biochar sequester 3000 tonnes of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and the production of said biochar creates 5000 MWh of energy as heat, requiring 10625 solid cubic meters of wood&#xD;&#xA;* 10625 solid cubic meters of wood would produce 21356 MWh of energy as heat if directly burned, but if wood is burned, it retains approximately zero of the carbon dioxide, but the carbon dioxide can be captured in gaseous form and stored if you happen to have a depleted gas field within pipeline reach&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's a matter of whether you want more energy or carbon capture in solid material. In some cases, it may be you can capture the carbon dioxide from wood burning, transport it via pipelines and store it in a depleted gas field. Also a benefit of energy is that there are still areas that are cold in winter and heat is being produced by combusting coal. Wood burning can offset coal burning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, capture, transport and storage of gaseous carbon dioxide is expensive, so in most cases, if wood is burned, the carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere. Also the cases where wood burning offsets coal burning are getting rarer and rarer every year, and in 5 years we most likely are in the situation that no area in developed nations is heated by coal, but rather heat is being produced using heat pumps utilizing renewable or nuclear electricity (and large-scale heat storage is used if the electricity is intermittent renewable to provide heat during sun-free and wind-free hours). Therefore, I would argue that today the most useful choice is to capture as much carbon dioxide as solid material as we can. Thus, this would favor biochar production. You still get some energy as heat from it, but much less than if wood was directly burned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29817" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11933" RevisionGUID="205e868f-729d-4a5e-a585-a5b5209d2dbb" CreationDate="2021-11-25T03:51:23.673" UserId="9669" Text="Reading the latest IPCC report, I came across an interesting overview of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options (5SM-16 onwards). I've never heard of some of them: it includes biochar, ocean alkalinization, enhanced weathering, artificial ocean upwelling. They differ by sequestration potentials, reliability and tradeoffs. For example, you can sequester a considerable amount of carbon by afforestation, but that carbon is vulnerable to forest fires and pest outbreaks, both of which are theorized to become more frequent with climate change. Besides, afforestation can compete with food production for arable land thereby potentially threatening food security. Some of the options are associated with great uncertanties. Which CDR options, on balance, are the most preferrable in terms of feasibility and efficiency at long-term carbon sequestration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29819" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11933" RevisionGUID="205e868f-729d-4a5e-a585-a5b5209d2dbb" CreationDate="2021-11-25T03:51:23.673" UserId="9669" Text="Which CDR options, on balance, are the most feasible?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29820" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11933" RevisionGUID="205e868f-729d-4a5e-a585-a5b5209d2dbb" CreationDate="2021-11-25T03:51:23.673" UserId="9669" Text="|carbon-sequestration|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29821" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11934" RevisionGUID="246c182c-2863-4c96-97ad-816cee84d0c1" CreationDate="2021-11-25T17:51:21.213" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; you can sequester a considerable amount of carbon by afforestation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Planting new forest is only capable of capturing about the same amount of carbon dioxide that has been released by burning down forests. This is negligible. All the news headlines are reporting about deforestation in Brazil, but what they won't tell is that releasing this one-time carbon sink creates negligible emissions. The main problems that cause climate change are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Excessive use of fossil fuels&#xD;&#xA;* Release of methane, from cows and leaks from use of natural gas&#xD;&#xA;* Production of cement&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to solve climate change, you need to tackle these issues. Deforestation is not in this list -- it creates negligible emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that all forest is prone to being burned. If you want to sustainably capture carbon, what you want to do is to use the forest to create biochar and lumber that is used to build houses. (Unfortunately, houses still have a finite lifetime but at the end of their lifetime the scrap wood should be used to create biochar instead of being burned.) However, the problem is that this is slow -- in cold areas forest cycle is 100 years and in warmer areas shorter but still too long to make large-scale carbon capture by forests feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Which CDR options, on balance, are the most preferrable in terms of feasibility and efficiency at long-term carbon sequestration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion that we should use forests maximally to capture and store carbon, creating biochar and lumber, but the main effort should be to eliminate most of fossil fuel use by renewable electricity, eliminate most of the cattle on this planet, and capture whatever carbon dioxide is produced by cement production and combustion of very little natural gas that is used to create electricity during periods when the sun won't shine and wind won't blow and the nearest area where either sun is shining or wind is blowing is more than 5000 km away so electricity transportation using power lines isn't feasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forests do allow slow carbon capture, but the main effort should be to reduce fossil fuel use very quickly to zero. Forests are a rounding error unless we are able to plant forests in hot deserts like Sahara, being composed of trees that grow very quickly in the warm climate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, rainforests do have a possibility to slow down climate change. I say &quot;unfortunately&quot; because the possibility to slow down climate change using rainforests includes chopping down the existing ecosystem and creating plantations of very fast-growing trees and using those trees en masse for lumber and biochar. Unlike deserts that haven't demonstrated the possibility to sustain fast-growing trees, rainforests have. The problem with utilizing rainforests in this way is that it destroys the existing ecosystem, and rainforests are home to a huge number of species that would be placed under threat if this was done." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29823" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11933" RevisionGUID="fef3a3b2-cb55-4a4e-9ea3-6e9376cc4863" CreationDate="2021-11-25T22:05:01.457" UserId="9669" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Reading the latest IPCC report, I came across an interesting overview of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options (5SM-16 onwards). I've never heard of some of them: it includes biochar, ocean alkalinization, enhanced weathering, artificial ocean upwelling. They differ by sequestration potentials, reliability and tradeoffs. For example, you can sequester a considerable amount of carbon by afforestation, but that carbon is vulnerable to forest fires and pest outbreaks, both of which are theorized to become more frequent with climate change. Besides, afforestation can compete with food production for arable land thereby potentially threatening food security. Some of the options are associated with great uncertanties. Which CDR options, on balance, are the most preferable in terms of feasibility and efficiency at long-term carbon sequestration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11935" RevisionGUID="e0c52417-f1b2-40be-a0e0-4a1938073036" CreationDate="2021-11-26T22:56:33.803" UserId="9669" Text="Is it true that cannabis is not sustainable because of high water consumption? If so, what are more environmentally friendly alternatives? Magic mushrooms, maybe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29826" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11935" RevisionGUID="e0c52417-f1b2-40be-a0e0-4a1938073036" CreationDate="2021-11-26T22:56:33.803" UserId="9669" Text="Is it true that cannabis is not sustainable because of high water consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29827" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11935" RevisionGUID="e0c52417-f1b2-40be-a0e0-4a1938073036" CreationDate="2021-11-26T22:56:33.803" UserId="9669" Text="|agriculture|water-conservation|crop|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11935" RevisionGUID="f3ca449e-051c-4b77-af7a-6c3415d724f4" CreationDate="2021-11-27T23:43:43.710" UserId="9669" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is it true that cannabis is not sustainable, for example because of high water consumption? If so, what are more environmentally friendly alternatives? Magic mushrooms, maybe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29829" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11935" RevisionGUID="f3ca449e-051c-4b77-af7a-6c3415d724f4" CreationDate="2021-11-27T23:43:43.710" UserId="9669" Comment="added 13 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is it true that cannabis is not a sustainable recreational drug?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11936" RevisionGUID="5f887aac-14c8-4876-b300-f362da07b47d" CreationDate="2021-11-28T17:44:58.617" UserId="8469" Text="There are simultaneous calls for not using paper in any form because it causes deforestation, but when it comes to building and making products from wood it is considered environmentally sustainable, as new trees are constantly planted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wooden (but not paper) products are praised because of being bio-degradable, although it means that most of the CO2 captured by the tree to form it's structure gets back into the atmosphere when wood degrades (or is burned), and same goes for paper (please correct me if I'm wrong). Both can store it's carbon for hundreds of years, if prevented from degradation, but in such case bio-biodegradability argument makes less sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fully understand dangers of plastic (and other artificial substances) pollution, especially if plastic makes it's way into water, but in the last case, how hard is it to keep plastic waste away from rivers and oceans?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, given the fact that there are maintained forests that are specifically used to harvest wood, black / grey markets for timber are also huge. Could an end consumer possibly find out what is the source for that material? And is the capacity of these special timber-producing forests cover the needs of the entire planet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29832" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11936" RevisionGUID="5f887aac-14c8-4876-b300-f362da07b47d" CreationDate="2021-11-28T17:44:58.617" UserId="8469" Text="how &quot;green&quot; is using wood as a material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29833" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11936" RevisionGUID="5f887aac-14c8-4876-b300-f362da07b47d" CreationDate="2021-11-28T17:44:58.617" UserId="8469" Text="|carbon-footprint|decarbonisation|construction|deforestation|wood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29834" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11937" RevisionGUID="949248ed-72d4-45a8-b440-ae4c21fe0e0d" CreationDate="2021-11-28T19:16:54.957" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; There are simultaneous calls for not using paper in any form because it causes deforestation, but when it comes to building and making products from wood it is considered environmentally sustainable, as new trees are constantly planted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think any paper manufacturer is using forestry practices where the forest isn't replanted. All of the major manufacturers accept only sustainable wood. The main problem of paper is that it releases the carbon very soon, unlike lumber or biochar that retain wood for at least a century if not more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Wooden (but not paper) products are praised because of being bio-degradable, although it means that most of the CO2 captured by the tree to form it's structure gets back into the atmosphere when wood degrades (or is burned), and same goes for paper (please correct me if I'm wrong). Both can store it's carbon for hundreds of years, if prevented from degradation, but in such case bio-biodegradability argument makes less sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's true. For optimal carbon retention, wood should be used to make either biochar or lumber from which houses or furniture are built.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I fully understand dangers of plastic (and other artificial substances) pollution, especially if plastic makes it's way into water, but in the last case, how hard is it to keep plastic waste away from rivers and oceans?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pretty hard, as we have found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example consider a garbage can in a public place. When garbage is thrown there, birds start to search the garbage can for nutrition. They distribute the plastic waste everywhere. Wind moves it to the nearest river, where it goes to oceans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also plastic used for clothing leaves massive microplastics in the washing water (well, not if you never wash your clothes but I don't think that's a viable solution). Those aren't filtered away. They go to oceans as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Also, given the fact that there are maintained forests that are specifically used to harvest wood, black / grey markets for timber are also huge. Could an end consumer possibly find out what is the source for that material? And is the capacity of these special timber-producing forests cover the needs of the entire planet?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem is that there are other uses of land than forest. If the other use is more profitable, it's possible that forests are cut and used for raising cattle for example. However, if planting a new forest is more profitable, then that will be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, it's not easy to claim that the demand for lumber caused deforestation. If the demand of lumber is truly high, it increases the price of lumber, meaning the most profitable use of the land would be to plant a new forest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real culprit for deforestation is eating meat and drinking milk. Raising cattle requires massive amounts of land.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, if nobody buys lumber from deforested areas, then the forest will be burned. Deforestation was not prevented, and the carbon dioxide due to burning reached the atmosphere immediately. Therefore, I would argue it's in fact good for sustainability to buy lumber from all areas, including those that were deforested. Otherwise the forest would be burned instead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The current rate of construction is so high that if we needed for example to replace all concrete with wood then no, there probably won't be enough wood. However, even despite this, we should maximally use wood because it's a carbon sink as opposed to concrete that requires cement (a carbon source). Even if we manage to cut only one third of cement manufacturing emissions, and at the same time store carbon, that's significant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to maximize the chance that the wood you buy is sustainable, you should buy wood from tree species that don't grow in rainforests, but instead grows in northern areas where the other uses of land are not so profitable and thus practically all land is forest. But that won't stop deforestation of rainforests. If nobody buys wood from rainforests, those rainforests will be deforested not by cutting down the wood, but by burning the forest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to stop deforestation, you should reduce consumption of meat and milk massively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29836" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="a08a329f-b74f-4e6b-9d55-aeb3a91829a6" CreationDate="2021-11-28T22:06:35.573" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11938" RevisionGUID="6c26b38b-7292-46b7-9505-b5f15f74c9e7" CreationDate="2021-11-29T08:09:12.030" UserId="2345" Text="The [Forest Stewardship Council][1] (FSC) verifies forest management practices and [Chain of Custody][2] (CoC) of forest products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Chain of Custody (CoC) certification applies to manufacturers, processors and traders of FSC certified forest products. It ensures that FSC materials and products have been checked at every stage of processing, so customers purchasing products sold with FSC claims can be confident that they are genuinely FSC certified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some Jurisdictions consumers of lumber/timber can also ask to see whether the timber is [certified][4]. Such products have labels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If a product is labelled, for example buying from a retailer; it will have the product claim and manufacturers unique FSC Chain of Custody code on the label. If you are purchasing from a timber merchant, ask the supplier to show you their unique Chain of Custody certificate number. You can then validate this number by going to the FSC database – here you can check whether their certificate is valid and whether it covers the related products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://fsc.org/en&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://au.fsc.org/en-au/for-business/fsc-certification&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/c11RD.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://au.fsc.org/en-au/buy-fsc-certified/timber" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11939" RevisionGUID="c5ecc698-87df-482f-87e9-405a6f764923" CreationDate="2021-11-30T00:35:45.907" UserId="659" Text="There are two very different ways cannibis is grown, and those have radically different environmental impacts. This is somewhat distinct from the legality differences.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Grown outdoors** cannibis often is more problematic as a weed than for any other environmental impacts, because illegal growers often use remote &quot;wilderness&quot; ares to grow in, don't clean up sites and only use them for a short time, leaving behind many viable seeds and often whole plants. Legal growers are generally better because they use existing farmland and are more effectively regulated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in terms of water, electricity, fertiliser etc use, outdoor cannibis is better likened to [commercial hemp farming for fibre or seed][1] (pdf of paper can be downloaded, link is to abstract). In that regard it is a less damaging crop than most and is even used as a rest crop or for restoration because it roots relatively deeply and uses less water and fertiliser than alternative low value crops (like alfalfa or peas).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Grown indoors**, normally hydroponically with artifical light, cannibis is just as horrible as any other kind of indoor farming. Especially when done illegally water use can be high due to single-use or open hydroponic systems, and electricity use is typically also very high (grow sites are more often detected through electricity useand especially by theft, than by water use). The few references I've found to legal indoor growing suggest it's expensive and thus only used for niche applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more general problem with illegal production is that the penalties for drug production far exceed the penalties for environmental damage, resource theft, violation of occupational health and safety laws etc. So the producers typically ignore those laws and thus the damage can be unreasonably high (why bother with the fuss of a closed loop hyroponic system with all the pumps and filters if you're stealing the water anyway?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6570" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29845" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11941" RevisionGUID="17dab038-6194-4070-95a3-71b6ddffe0fd" CreationDate="2021-12-01T03:51:08.440" UserId="9669" Text="Forest fires are considered a contributor to global warming, but using firewood is considered carbon-neutral. I'm not sure I understand it. In both cases, only the carbon that had been captured several years or decades prior is released, why aren't both carbon-neutral (for that matter, even petroleum is carbon-neutral, applying a large enough timescale)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29847" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11941" RevisionGUID="17dab038-6194-4070-95a3-71b6ddffe0fd" CreationDate="2021-12-01T03:51:08.440" UserId="9669" Text="Is burning wood for energy less bad than forest fires?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29848" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11941" RevisionGUID="17dab038-6194-4070-95a3-71b6ddffe0fd" CreationDate="2021-12-01T03:51:08.440" UserId="9669" Text="|energy|carbon-footprint|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11942" RevisionGUID="67f86fdb-e3ae-42e5-99ac-e4991d5d81fc" CreationDate="2021-12-01T21:44:59.220" UserId="7993" Text="It's the timescale that's the issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firewood is generally harvested from a managed forest; there's a continuous cycle of planting, harvesting, and burning going on, and the carbon dioxide released from this year's burning will be absorbed in next year's growing season.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Major forest fires are not continuous events.  Even with a healthy fire cycle going on, the carbon dioxide released in a bad fire season will take a decade or more to be absorbed -- and for the past century, the fire cycle has been anything but healthy." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29851" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="ba6df95f-60f5-4ba1-a2ff-39484979b701" CreationDate="2021-12-02T00:47:54.087" UserId="5824" Text="The new CNN Business video [This startup is making coffee...without coffee beans](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_rg5p5SZxY) describes a recent entry into the coffee alternative market. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They use no coffee beans and start with date pits, something the company says would otherwise be &quot;discarded&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The video feels somewhat like a promotion of a product, but my question is about the mention of *deforestation* in relation to traditional, actual coffee and one of the claims.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Shown in the screenshot, video shows the following three items in text, citing the company as the source of the information:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 94% less water&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 93% less CO2 emissions&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - 100% less deforestation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and the CNN Business narrator says at the same time:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And since the date pits would otherwise be discarded, there's no deforestation involved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Would choosing coffee alternatives reduce deforestation? What is the deforestation rate associated with the coffee industry?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot from the CNN Business video &quot;This startup is making coffee...without coffee beans&quot;](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHK2H.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eHK2H.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29853" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="ba6df95f-60f5-4ba1-a2ff-39484979b701" CreationDate="2021-12-02T00:47:54.087" UserId="5824" Text="Would choosing coffee alternatives reduce deforestation? What is the deforestation rate associated with the coffee industry?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29854" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="ba6df95f-60f5-4ba1-a2ff-39484979b701" CreationDate="2021-12-02T00:47:54.087" UserId="5824" Text="|alternatives|deforestation|coffee|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11944" RevisionGUID="edfebbf7-5eaa-43b2-b46b-36e26bd87153" CreationDate="2021-12-02T08:13:59.367" UserId="2345" Text="One of the things about substitutes is sometimes they don't match the real thing. I was first introduced to carob as an alternative to chocolate years ago. As nice as carob is, I still prefer chocolate. Likewise with coffee substitutes, they will only become widely used if people like them or prefer them to coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Coffee substitutes][1] have been around for a long time. Apparently in 1766 Fredrick the Great banned the importation of coffee into Prussia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “In 1766, Frederick the Great banned the importation of coffee into Prussia, leading to the development of the coffee substitute,” and chicory coffee was born.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Chicory coffee][2] has been around for a long time. I can recall my mother drinking for a brief period in the 1960s. For her, instant coffee was better tasting than chicory coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having listened to various people who lived behind the iron curtain, during the Soviet era, a number of them described making and drinking coffee substitutes by roasting &quot;various items&quot;, usually grains, because coffee was either unavailable or excessively expensive. They all abandoned the substitute coffee as soon as they could.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other question is why do people drink coffee. Do they drink it for the taste, the social aspect of meeting someone over a coffee, or for the caffeine? Can substitute coffee satisfy all of these criteria? [Why Starbucks Failed in Australia][3] gives an interesting expose into the difference between the coffee cultures of Australia and the US - less expensive, quality coffee with a social aspect compared to caffination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Demand for coffee is increasing][4], deforestation for coffee production is a [significant issue][5],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to coffee industry estimates, in order to keep up with consumer demand for coffee, coffee production will need to triple by 2050. This will require an area the size of Honduras and Nicaragua combined to be converted to coffee. The majority of the of this expansion would come at the expense of forest habitat, threatening the remaining forests in Central America &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deforestation for coffee production is a two fold problem. Initially part of a forest is cleared to create a coffee plantation and secondly, until recently, forest timber was used as a source of heat during in coffee dryers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The firewood used to fuel industrial coffee dryers equates to approximately 3 cm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of forest habitat per cup of coffee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some producers are changing to solar and bio fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Each solar/biomass drying tower with Café Solar® saves nearly 1 hectare of forest each year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Deforestation-free coffee][6] has been considered, particularly in 2014, but there appears to be no significant results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Varying terms used to communicate deforestation-free pledges make it difficult for stakeholders to know what exactly is being committed to. Participants expressed frustration that these terms sometimes overlap with one another and do not always communicate a clear meaning…&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  “deforestation-free” is a noble concept, it cannot exist in a sustainability silo, especially given all the local contexts under which agricultural crops are produced&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ultimate objective is not an end to deforestation per se, but realization of sustainable land management as a component of sustainable development… Some participants noted that one of the reasons we have not seen more deforestation-free commitments than we have is that governments are wary of making pledges that could be interpreted as hindering economic development, and that companies are concerned about sending mixed messages to their customers.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deforestation is not only [a problem][7] for coffee production, but also for tea, cacao and palm oil.[enter link description here][8]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_substitute&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.perfectbrew.com/blog/how-to-make-chicory-coffee-recipe/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FGUkxn5kZQ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://mesoamerican.org/deforestation/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/sciencebites/chapter/a-bitter-brew-coffee-production-deforestation-soil-erosion-and-water-contamination/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://dailycoffeenews.com/2021/11/15/thoughts-on-deforestation-free-coffee-as-world-leaders-tackle-climate-change/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/deforestation-agriculture&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://commoditytrading.guru/sustainability-ethics/deforestation/deforestation-in-the-production-of-tea/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29871" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11943" RevisionGUID="34bf4e21-bd63-4796-adfb-07cf863decdf" CreationDate="2021-12-02T15:00:04.943" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1466421919117365264" />
  <row Id="29873" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11944" RevisionGUID="38fc20b2-dd42-4001-a515-884ee120ccd1" CreationDate="2021-12-02T16:48:44.660" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected web link" Text="One of the things about substitutes is sometimes they don't match the real thing. I was first introduced to carob as an alternative to chocolate years ago. As nice as carob is, I still prefer chocolate. Likewise with coffee substitutes, they will only become widely used if people like them or prefer them to coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Coffee substitutes][1] have been around for a long time. Apparently in 1766 Fredrick the Great banned the importation of coffee into Prussia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “In 1766, Frederick the Great banned the importation of coffee into Prussia, leading to the development of the coffee substitute,” and chicory coffee was born.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Chicory coffee][2] has been around for a long time. I can recall my mother drinking for a brief period in the 1960s. For her, instant coffee was better tasting than chicory coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having listened to various people who lived behind the iron curtain, during the Soviet era, a number of them described making and drinking coffee substitutes by roasting &quot;various items&quot;, usually grains, because coffee was either unavailable or excessively expensive. They all abandoned the substitute coffee as soon as they could.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other question is why do people drink coffee. Do they drink it for the taste, the social aspect of meeting someone over a coffee, or for the caffeine? Can substitute coffee satisfy all of these criteria? [Why Starbucks Failed in Australia][3] gives an interesting expose into the difference between the coffee cultures of Australia and the US - less expensive, quality coffee with a social aspect compared to caffination.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Demand for coffee is increasing][4], deforestation for coffee production is a [significant issue][5],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; According to coffee industry estimates, in order to keep up with consumer demand for coffee, coffee production will need to triple by 2050. This will require an area the size of Honduras and Nicaragua combined to be converted to coffee. The majority of the of this expansion would come at the expense of forest habitat, threatening the remaining forests in Central America &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deforestation for coffee production is a two fold problem. Initially part of a forest is cleared to create a coffee plantation and secondly, until recently, forest timber was used as a source of heat during in coffee dryers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The firewood used to fuel industrial coffee dryers equates to approximately 3 cm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of forest habitat per cup of coffee. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some producers are changing to solar and bio fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Each solar/biomass drying tower with Café Solar® saves nearly 1 hectare of forest each year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Deforestation-free coffee][6] has been considered, particularly in 2014, but there appears to be no significant results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Varying terms used to communicate deforestation-free pledges make it difficult for stakeholders to know what exactly is being committed to. Participants expressed frustration that these terms sometimes overlap with one another and do not always communicate a clear meaning…&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt;  “deforestation-free” is a noble concept, it cannot exist in a sustainability silo, especially given all the local contexts under which agricultural crops are produced&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The ultimate objective is not an end to deforestation per se, but realization of sustainable land management as a component of sustainable development… Some participants noted that one of the reasons we have not seen more deforestation-free commitments than we have is that governments are wary of making pledges that could be interpreted as hindering economic development, and that companies are concerned about sending mixed messages to their customers.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Deforestation is not only [a problem][7] for coffee production, but also for [tea][8], cacao and palm oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_substitute&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.perfectbrew.com/blog/how-to-make-chicory-coffee-recipe/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FGUkxn5kZQ&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://mesoamerican.org/deforestation/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/sciencebites/chapter/a-bitter-brew-coffee-production-deforestation-soil-erosion-and-water-contamination/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://dailycoffeenews.com/2021/11/15/thoughts-on-deforestation-free-coffee-as-world-leaders-tackle-climate-change/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://research.wri.org/gfr/forest-extent-indicators/deforestation-agriculture&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://commoditytrading.guru/sustainability-ethics/deforestation/deforestation-in-the-production-of-tea/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29874" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11947" RevisionGUID="86315c98-bc86-4b80-8eb0-c03bf1e08158" CreationDate="2021-12-02T18:52:21.270" UserId="6393" Text="Another thing to consider:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If burning wood for energy, it is generally displacing other alternative dirty fuels that would emit net carbon dioxide. However, forest fires do not displace anything. It's far better to harvest wood from forests and use it for useful purposes and replant a new forest than let a forest burn and replant a new forest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for ecological diversity purposes, it may be useful to let forests burn. It creates environments that are needed by many species. If all forests fires are put out very soon, such environments are rare and the species dependent on them may go extinct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, the best of both worlds: mostly harvest a forest, leave a few trees here and there, and then after harvesting burn whatever remains." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29876" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11948" RevisionGUID="d47cb301-aba5-4c06-9906-b1a1565c658b" CreationDate="2021-12-02T18:58:48.670" UserId="6393" Text="I don't really think that deforestation due to coffee drinking would be a major problem. The main driver for reforestation is cattle used for meat and milk, including the area needed to grow food for the cattle. Reduce meat and milk use and replace them with substitutes, and the major cause of deforestation goes away. Coffee caused deforestation is nothing compared to that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main reason why companies like VTT are exploring alternative production methods for coffee, without needing any of the coffee plants and instead producing essentially the same thing with identical taste in a bioreactor is that climate change is rapidly reducing the area suitable for coffee cultivation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's not due to coffee consumption causing ecological problems, but rather ecological problems making coffee production with traditional methods impossible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29878" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="1b0997af-5e29-44a1-94ab-9ad210a8bf8d" CreationDate="2021-12-02T21:18:55.813" UserId="9669" Text="What's the difference between a synthetics mode and a cotton mode of a washing machine, and does it have any environmental relevance? I think it's better to put it all together and wash in one go than to subdivide your laundry into two smaller groups, one cotton heap and one heap of clothes made from synthetic or mixed fibers, and then launch two washes one after another with twice as much energy consumed. Am I right? What good would it make to separate your clothes at the end of the day?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29880" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="1b0997af-5e29-44a1-94ab-9ad210a8bf8d" CreationDate="2021-12-02T21:18:55.813" UserId="9669" Text="What's the difference between a synthetics mode and a cotton mode of a washing machine?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29881" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11949" RevisionGUID="1b0997af-5e29-44a1-94ab-9ad210a8bf8d" CreationDate="2021-12-02T21:18:55.813" UserId="9669" Text="|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29882" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9826" RevisionGUID="06faaa05-bd5f-4943-b831-49611dd57a8f" CreationDate="2021-12-03T16:45:56.853" UserId="5477" Comment="typo" Text="Scrap metals are not cleaned, they are melted. For steel; Zn, Sn, Pb, and others vaporize or oxidize. The most problematic is Zn as the oxide in the slag can deteriorate the refractory. Aluminum is similar except scrap aluminum containing Cu and Si will be segregated as much as possible, used for certain alloys. Copper scrap, being more valuable is separated according to the alloy to be produced. Oil, grease and paint are non-factors." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29883" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11941" RevisionGUID="658d08e2-fc59-4330-b58b-7e0abef48563" CreationDate="2021-12-04T15:00:03.947" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1467146690637479939" />
  <row Id="29888" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11889" RevisionGUID="8e024fff-a255-4de9-ae38-03ff7d1cf92f" CreationDate="2021-12-07T11:04:35.570" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29889" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="9cb6d942-229e-4bb8-8257-1254bed715d7" CreationDate="2021-12-07T16:17:50.173" UserId="2846" Text="This is related to [Relative carbon footprint of gas or electric heating (UK)](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2864/2846) but with 2 key differences: things have changed in the 7 years since it was asked; I'm asking about the use of the systems I have, rather than about installation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've currently got a gas boiler (condensing, supposed to be well over 90% efficient and  set to a return temperature that should maximise efficiency).  I also have the option of heating some areas with resistive electric heating (bathroom underfloor heating or standalone electric heaters).  There's also a gas fire in the living room, but I don't spend much time there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's clearly a benefit to heating only the parts of the house that are used - I already have the radiators turned way down in the spare room and off in the utility room.  Using the electric heaters is good for heating only the rooms that are needed, e.g. I like to sleep in a cold room but my daughter doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's less clear is when I start heating several room electrically. I'd like to estimate the carbon difference between heating some of the house with electric heaters and most of it with the central heating (I can guesstimate the difference in external surface area of heated rooms).  So given a typical UK winter generation mix and the inherent inefficiencies of transmitting electricity, how does the carbon footprint from resistive electric heating compare to that from gas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29891" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="9cb6d942-229e-4bb8-8257-1254bed715d7" CreationDate="2021-12-07T16:17:50.173" UserId="2846" Text="Choosing heat sources to use with the current UK energy mix (carbon footprint)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29892" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="9cb6d942-229e-4bb8-8257-1254bed715d7" CreationDate="2021-12-07T16:17:50.173" UserId="2846" Text="|electricity|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11952" RevisionGUID="29e9f794-18b4-470c-9b8c-09a4b627be41" CreationDate="2021-12-07T16:41:08.547" UserId="13511" Text="I found that story on the site &quot;I Fucking Love Science&quot;: https://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/method-that-turns-plastic-into-proteins-wins-12-million-prize/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think this will solve the problem of plastic pollution, at least in the long term? Will it be possible to produce proteins by this way in a large scale?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29895" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11952" RevisionGUID="29e9f794-18b4-470c-9b8c-09a4b627be41" CreationDate="2021-12-07T16:41:08.547" UserId="13511" Text="Researchers found a way to turn plastic into proteins. What is the impact of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29896" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11952" RevisionGUID="29e9f794-18b4-470c-9b8c-09a4b627be41" CreationDate="2021-12-07T16:41:08.547" UserId="13511" Text="|recycling|environmental-impact|food|plastic|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29897" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11953" RevisionGUID="d92ff124-2f4e-4af2-a45a-2aab8027737f" CreationDate="2021-12-07T17:23:42.803" UserId="6393" Text="We have to remember here is that all electricity have the emissions of marginal electricity. So, if there's only a single gas-fired power plant running, that's the last plant profitable as electricity price rises and the first plant unprofitable as electricity price falls. Thus, if you can reduce your electricity consumption, that's the plant that will reduce its output as a response to you reducing your electricity use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume that at least on non-windy hours, there will be gas-fired power plants running providing marginal electricity. However, due to the massive installation of wind power, if it's very windy the gas-fired plants may be turned off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I claim that most of the time electricity has the emissions of gas-fired generation. Gas-fired generation have an efficiency of 50% (actually it's slightly over 50% in state of the art, but there will be transmission losses so let's say 50%), as opposed to your gas boiler having an efficiency of 90%. Therefore, it makes sense to use the gas boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are only concerned about emissions, you need some way to see if the marginal electricity is provided by gas-fired plants or by wind. If marginal electricity is provided by gas-fired plants, then electricity spot price will be about twice the cost of gas per megawatt hour (because of 50% efficiency). If marginal electrictiy is provided by wind, then electricity spot price will be whatever the cheapest load that can be increased on demand is willing to pay. In most cases, this will be some factory or a bitcoin mining operation. There may be some online service that tells the momentary generation mix. The key to look as is whether a single gas fired power plant is on. If even a single gas-fired power plant is running, that's the plant that will reduce its emissions as a response to you reducing your consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are several things to note. Firstly, as more and more wind power will be installed, there will be less and less hours when marginal electricity is produced by gas. Secondly, in the future gas-fired plants may capture the carbon dioxide, but I'm sure your gas boiler won't capture its emissions ever. Thirdly, more transfer capacity from Norway may be installed, and this may allow using Norwegian hydropower as the marginal electricity production method. Thus, my assumption is that over time marginal electricity will become cleaner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, as you correctly noted, with electricity it's easier to fine-tune the heating of individual rooms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I propose that you should make the decision on total cost. If the total cost of burning gas (and any maintenance the gas boiler might need) is greater than the total cost of providing resistance heat, use electric resistance heaters. If electricity is more expensive, use gas. In most cases, this will result not only in the cheapest heating, but also in the most environmentally friendly heating. Also you can consider in this comparison the costs of heating only needed rooms with electric resistance heat and the costs of heating the whole house with a gas boiler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also do consider split air source heat pumps that convert outdoor air heat into a higher temperature. They have a high installation cost but the investment may be useful as it reduces electricity consumption of heating to one third of resistance heating consumption. They also allow fine-tuning heating of individual rooms if you install a heat pump in every room, but of course a heat pump in every room will cost a lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air-to-water heat pumps and ground source heat pumps may be an option too, but their investment cost is higher and in some cases it may be non-permitted to drill a geothermal well if there are underground constructions or plants to do such construction, or if the geothermal well could contaminate water supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With heat pumps, almost always electricity wins over operating the gas boiler." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29899" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="73e61234-ad09-4030-a56f-f3e1c072488d" CreationDate="2021-12-07T17:33:33.317" UserId="-1" Comment="A calculation based on Uk circumstances and electric heating" Text="First order approximation:  R-1 (british units BTU/hr/sqft/DegF) per sheet of glass.&#xD;&#xA;So double pane is R2, triple pane R3. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second order approximation depends on the frame material, and to some degree on coatings, and gas fills, and years since the gas fill; also depends on your heating system, exterior wind exposure.  It gets complicated enough that I have never bothered beyond the first order approximation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that financially, replacing existing non broken windows does not pay off in terms of saving on your heating bill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:  Let's talk about a 1 square meter window -- 10 square feet.  Suppose that the replacement window costs $100 and you install it yourself.  Suppose that you found a wonder window that was rated as R-5, and that your old windows are R-2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in my climate you have a 10,000 degree day heating season.  That's 240,000 degree hours.  The old window:  10 square feet * 240000 degree hours/2 = 1.2 million BTUs per year.  That's about 1/8 gigajoule or about 1.25 therms.  Last year at peak winter rates, my gas bill was running $6/Gigajoule.  So the old window cost me 75c per year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the new window was PERFECT, it would save me 75 cents per year.  So the minimum payback is 133 years at zero percent interest.  If I have to borrow money at even 1% the new window will never pay for itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flaws in this reasoning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  If the old window is also a serious air leak, then it has a much smaller effective R value, and a correspondingly higher cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Windows such as aluminum sliders have a lower R value, often being effectively R-1.  This would double the annual cost.  Still not enough to warrant replacement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  While replacing the windows may not be cost effective they will make the house more comfortable. They will also make it easier to sell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Window replacement is one of the LAST steps in making a house more energy efficient.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A much better strategy is to put shrink film plastic on the inside of your windows.  This is only a few bucks per window, adds an R to the window, and also stops air leaks around the edges of the any windows that open.  For a bit more you can get systems where you make frames of thin wood with magnets that stick to washers screwed to the existing frames.  These are easy to remove for summer use.  With more clever you make the add on frames 'double pane' with plastic on both faces, turning your R-2 window into an R4 window.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In winter when it is very cold out, the radiation through the window is significant.  Having double layer window coverings can make a significant difference.  In addition having a surface window treatment that reduces air circulation near the window allows the creation of a thicker boundary layer near the window, which will cool off, thus reducing the effective temperature differential between inside and outside.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently in the Uk the electricity runs at 0.20£/kW-hr. My flat has 5 m2 of 30 years old double glazed windows, assuming a u-value of u = 3 W/m2/K, a winter outside Tout of 4C and an inside T of 20C it gives 3(u)*5(m2)*(20C-4C)*24h*0.20(£/kW-hr)/1000(W to kW conversion) = 1.15£/day.  Make that for 180 days extended winter of the Uk and you have 200£ spent each year. If I were to install new windows that would cost about 2500£ labour included and it would result in a saving of roughly a 100£ per year, as well as improve condensation, etc.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29900" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="73e61234-ad09-4030-a56f-f3e1c072488d" CreationDate="2021-12-07T17:33:33.317" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by -1 edit id of 685" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29901" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3054" RevisionGUID="c4ba8ed7-e500-45b0-9269-c212a13d5aca" CreationDate="2021-12-07T17:33:33.317" UserId="2345" Comment="A calculation based on Uk circumstances and electric heating" Text="First order approximation:  R-1 (British units BTU/hr/ft&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/&amp;deg;F) per sheet of glass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So double pane is R2, triple pane R3. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second order approximation depends on the frame material, and to some degree on coatings, and gas fills, and years since the gas fill; also depends on your heating system, exterior wind exposure.  It gets complicated enough that I have never bothered beyond the first order approximation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that financially, replacing existing non broken windows does not pay off in terms of saving on your heating bill. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider:  Let's talk about a 1 square meter window -- 10 square feet.  Suppose that the replacement window costs $100 and you install it yourself.  Suppose that you found a wonder window that was rated as R-5, and that your old windows are R-2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are in my climate you have a 10,000 degree day heating season.  That's 240,000 degree hours.  The old window:  10 square feet * 240000 degree hours/2 = 1.2 million BTU per year.  That's about 1/8 gigajoule or about 1.25 therms.  Last year at peak winter rates, my gas bill was running $6/Gigajoule.  So the old window cost me 75c per year. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the new window was PERFECT, it would save me 75 cents per year.  So the minimum payback is 133 years at zero percent interest.  If I have to borrow money at even 1% the new window will never pay for itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flaws in this reasoning:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.  If the old window is also a serious air leak, then it has a much smaller effective R value, and a correspondingly higher cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Windows such as aluminum sliders have a lower R value, often being effectively R-1.  This would double the annual cost.  Still not enough to warrant replacement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  While replacing the windows may not be cost effective they will make the house more comfortable. They will also make it easier to sell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Window replacement is one of the LAST steps in making a house more energy efficient.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A much better strategy is to put shrink film plastic on the inside of your windows.  This is only a few bucks per window, adds an R to the window, and also stops air leaks around the edges of the any windows that open.  For a bit more you can get systems where you make frames of thin wood with magnets that stick to washers screwed to the existing frames.  These are easy to remove for summer use.  With more clever you make the add on frames 'double pane' with plastic on both faces, turning your R-2 window into an R4 window.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In winter when it is very cold out, the radiation through the window is significant.  Having double layer window coverings can make a significant difference.  In addition having a surface window treatment that reduces air circulation near the window allows the creation of a thicker boundary layer near the window, which will cool off, thus reducing the effective temperature differential between inside and outside.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently in the UK the electricity runs at 0.20£/kW-hr. My flat has 5 m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; of 30 years old double glazed windows, assuming a u-value of u = 3 W/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;/K, a winter outside T out of 4 &amp;deg;C and an inside T of 20 &amp;deg;C it gives 3(u) &amp;times; 5(m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) &amp;times; (20&amp;deg;C-4&amp;deg;C) &amp;times; 24h &amp;times; 0.20(£/kW-hr)/1000(W to kW conversion) = 1.15£/day.  Make that for 180 days extended winter of the UK and you have 200£ spent each year. If I were to install new windows that would cost about 2500£ labour included and it would result in a saving of roughly a 100£ per year, as well as improve condensation, etc.    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11954" RevisionGUID="97d84d50-e583-4148-a517-5b41214529ac" CreationDate="2021-12-07T17:38:07.413" UserId="6393" Text="There are two ways this can be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, it's possible to collect the plastic somehow from oceans, and then convert into protein. However, this approach has two problems: (1) it's only feasible to collect the largest plastic pieces from large garbage areas, as opposed to collecting the most harmful microplastic so you are collecting only the least harmful objects (but there may be some benefit still as &quot;macroplastics&quot; today will be microplastics tomorrow), (2) if you collect the plastic, why convert it into protein in a bioreactor -- why not burn into energy in a waste-to-energy plant as that surely will be cheaper than a bioreactor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it seems collecting plastic waste from oceans is not a good approach: you can collect only the least harmful waste, and if you do so, you don't need the new microorganism but rather can burn the collected plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some other way? Yes there is -- if the microorganism has been engineered to survive in the oceans, we could release it into the oceans and let it multiply and do its job. However, in this case we would be releasing genetically engineered microorganisms into the wild, which seems like a bad idea. It's uncertain how this would affect the ecosystems around the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can actually note that long time ago, lignin and cellulose in wood couldn't be eaten by microorganisms. Therefore, old forests became coal deposits as there were no organisms that could consume the dead trees. Today, that will no longer happen because microorganisms have evolved the ability to consume the nutrients in dead trees. So it may be that one possible solution for plastic pollution could be if microorganisms developed the ability to eat plastic -- either by genetic engineering or via natural evolution. So certainly having plastic-eating bacteria in oceans is one possible solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29904" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11951" RevisionGUID="e0a9db87-c039-41c6-89b0-a3170db8ec68" CreationDate="2021-12-07T21:24:21.767" UserId="2846" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="This is related to [Relative carbon footprint of gas or electric heating (UK)](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/2864/2846) but with 2 key differences: things have changed in the 7 years since it was asked; I'm asking about the use of the systems I have, rather than about installation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've currently got a gas boiler (condensing, supposed to be well over 90% efficient and  set to a return temperature that should maximise efficiency).  I also have the option of heating some areas with resistive electric heating (bathroom underfloor heating or standalone electric heaters).  There's also a gas fire in the living room, but I don't spend much time there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's clearly a benefit to heating only the parts of the house that are used - I already have the radiators turned way down in the spare room and off in the utility room.  Using the electric heaters is good for heating only the rooms that are needed, e.g. I like to sleep in a cold room but my daughter doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's less clear is when I start heating several rooms electrically. I'd like to estimate the carbon difference between heating some of the house with electric heaters and most of it with the central heating (I can guesstimate the difference in external surface area of heated rooms).  So given a typical UK winter generation mix and the inherent inefficiencies of transmitting electricity, how does the carbon footprint from resistive electric heating compare to that from gas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29906" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11955" RevisionGUID="838754d7-5a4f-495a-8313-cb80d20e9e0e" CreationDate="2021-12-08T08:38:56.103" UserId="13513" Text="Tilapia will eat those. But unlike pill bugs or BSFL, I don't think they are particularly fond of them. Some of my tilapia (mainly wild-caught Mozambiques) won't eat them at all and those that do (mainly the Niles) seem to loose interest before long. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11956" RevisionGUID="ccd33b6a-8b66-499a-b473-77f6fea70b11" CreationDate="2021-12-08T10:34:29.743" UserId="295" Text="My power company has very consistently reported 45kWh ± 5% per month higher consumption than my grid-tied Enphase system data over the first 6 months of my installation. Why would that be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have 3-phase power and a smart meter. The 3 Enphase consumption CTs are installed in my main switchboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this be a resistive loss somewhere?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it have something to do with power-factor (reactive load)? I don't have any heating, cooling or fluorescent lights in the house if that helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11956" RevisionGUID="ccd33b6a-8b66-499a-b473-77f6fea70b11" CreationDate="2021-12-08T10:34:29.743" UserId="295" Text="Power company consistently reports higher consumption than solar PV system" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11956" RevisionGUID="ccd33b6a-8b66-499a-b473-77f6fea70b11" CreationDate="2021-12-08T10:34:29.743" UserId="295" Text="|solar-power|electricity|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11956" RevisionGUID="20363c3d-4faa-4c8e-a1a6-d444f8d0ab61" CreationDate="2021-12-08T11:41:21.013" UserId="295" Comment="added 74 characters in body" Text="My power company has very consistently reported 45kWh ± 5% per month higher consumption than my grid-tied Enphase system data over the first 6 months of my installation. Why would that be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my power company, my smart meter or my solar PV system likely at fault?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have 3-phase power and a smart meter. The 3 Enphase consumption CTs are installed in my main switchboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this be a resistive loss somewhere? If I’m calculating it right that would be about 60 Watts continuous draw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it have something to do with power-factor (reactive load)? I don't have any heating, cooling or fluorescent lights in the house if that helps." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29913" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="dccdf009-08c0-4372-8ad3-23a99aefe674" CreationDate="2021-12-08T13:07:15.713" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11957" RevisionGUID="2c765c2f-b2f2-47c8-82e6-ac16bcd2316a" CreationDate="2021-12-08T19:13:04.580" UserId="6393" Text="All utilities measure real power, not reactive power, for small customers. Thus even if you have only heavily inductive loads like motors, that will not cause your cost to increase. The only case where reactive power is measured is for large users of electricity that have to pay for not only real power but also for reactive power (although the payment for reactive power is less).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a solar PV array, it is possible that your power use is unevenly distributed between phases but the solar PV array distributes its power production evenly. For example the following is possible:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Phase 1: 60 kWh solar production, 30 kWh use, 0 kWh provided by power company, 30 kWh provided to power company&#xD;&#xA;* Phase 2: 60 kWh solar production, 120 kWh use, 60 kWh provided by power company, 0 kWh provided to power company&#xD;&#xA;* Phase 3: 60 kWh solar production, 45 kWh use, 0 kWh provided by power company, 15 kWh provided to power company&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, one possible way to calculate power use is the following: 0 kWh + 60 kWh + 0 kWh = 60 kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way is the following: -30 kWh + 60 kWh - 15 kWh = 15 kWh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference between these methods is 45 kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So read the fine print: are you being compensated if you use more electricity than your solar array produces, but some phases are heavy users of electricity and other phases actually provide power back to the power company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also time of day could affect you here. It's possible some times of day you are providing power to the power company and at other times you are using power from the power company. These negative and positive energy flows may not be treated in the same manner." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29916" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11958" RevisionGUID="ac8241f0-8f58-4581-aa6c-12d93689a8e7" CreationDate="2021-12-09T01:09:29.150" UserId="9669" Text="When the topic of transport decarbonization comes up, all I hear is batteries and hydrogen. But what about renewable natural gas (RNG)? The milage is better, less energy losses, as I understand. You can make your own fuel by decomposing your food waste and poo in your [anaerobical digester in the backyard][1], it's also an advantage. What's the catch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://envirotecmagazine.com/2017/11/20/domestic-digester-now-more-efficient-and-easy-to-install-says-developer/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29918" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11958" RevisionGUID="ac8241f0-8f58-4581-aa6c-12d93689a8e7" CreationDate="2021-12-09T01:09:29.150" UserId="9669" Text="When the topic of transport decarbonization comes up, all I hear is batteries and hydrogen. But what about renewable natural gas (RNG)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29919" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11958" RevisionGUID="ac8241f0-8f58-4581-aa6c-12d93689a8e7" CreationDate="2021-12-09T01:09:29.150" UserId="9669" Text="|transport|decarbonisation|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11959" RevisionGUID="a8adfc2f-cb4e-41da-affa-045443714e90" CreationDate="2021-12-09T01:37:34.280" UserId="7993" Text="Leakage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen isn't a greenhouse gas.  If it escapes into the atmosphere, no big deal: it'll either combine with oxygen to produce water, or it'll reach the outer atmosphere and escape.  Either way, no global warming effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Methane is a rather potent greenhouse gas, second only to carbon dioxide (it has a stronger effect, but doesn't last as long -- and it combines with atmospheric oxygen to produce carbon dioxide).  Any leaks during production or use will make global warming worse, not better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11958" RevisionGUID="0f0d0b98-4023-4483-9879-47cde267d2ff" CreationDate="2021-12-09T01:39:33.077" UserId="9669" Comment="added 70 characters in body" Text="When the topic of transport decarbonization comes up, all I hear is batteries and hydrogen. But what about renewable natural gas (RNG)? The milage is better, less energy loss, as I understand. You can refill it in an instant (unlike recharging your Tesla). Plus, you can make your own fuel by decomposing your food waste and poo in your [anaerobical digester in the backyard][1], it's also an advantage. What's the catch?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://envirotecmagazine.com/2017/11/20/domestic-digester-now-more-efficient-and-easy-to-install-says-developer/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11960" RevisionGUID="7a22611e-f955-47c3-a2a5-9ae2a8ba90d1" CreationDate="2021-12-09T02:37:46.413" UserId="9669" Text="If we can capture landfill gas, why can't we capture cows' burps and farts and use them as a source of energy too? It's the same methane after all" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29925" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11960" RevisionGUID="7a22611e-f955-47c3-a2a5-9ae2a8ba90d1" CreationDate="2021-12-09T02:37:46.413" UserId="9669" Text="If we can capture landfill gas, why can't we capture cows' burps and use them as a source of energy too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29926" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11960" RevisionGUID="7a22611e-f955-47c3-a2a5-9ae2a8ba90d1" CreationDate="2021-12-09T02:37:46.413" UserId="9669" Text="|energy|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29927" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11961" RevisionGUID="4d0e20e9-ced0-43a5-8f01-a1d559b4b180" CreationDate="2021-12-09T09:08:29.110" UserId="2345" Text="How do you propose capturing methane laden cow burps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Land fill sites are stationary and inanimate. Getting methane out of a land fill site basically involves putting some pipes into the back fill site and running the pipes to a central collection point to process the gas. Some pumping of the gas may be required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cattle however, are live mobile creatures. They move around, they eat grass, they lie on the ground, they chew cud, drink water, bellow and interact with other members of the herd. With so much activity, how does one collect methane laden burps?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A collection mask could be placed on the cattle and a collection container, whether rigid or flexible, could be placed on a cow's back or side but all this would interfere with the normal activities of a cow and could be regarded as being cruel. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cows could be restrained in a cage with limited movement or confined to a barn where the air inside the barn is filtered for methane. In such scenarios the animals would not see daylight or engage in normal activities for cattle and would definitely be regarded as cruel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is easier to devise ways for cattle to [not produce methane][1]. This is easily done by giving cattle [food additives that inhibit methanogens][2] in the rumen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Methane-reducing feed additives and supplements inhibit methanogens in the rumen, and subsequently reduce enteric methane emissions.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Methane-reducing feed additives and supplements are most effective when grain, hay or silage is added to the diet, especially in beef feedlots and dairies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://beef.unl.edu/reduce-methane-production-cattle&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/carbon-farming-reducing-methane-emissions-cattle-using-feed-additives" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11963" RevisionGUID="36bfafb2-03bd-4cd2-a495-e426acbc070a" CreationDate="2021-12-09T13:24:40.803" UserId="13517" Text="Natural gas is not sustainable as others have pointed out. However, natural gas is mostly [methane][1] and there is a type of gas with a similar composition that is mostly methane too, biogas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Biogas contains roughly 50-70 percent methane, 30-40 percent carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases. - [Environmental and Energy Study Institute][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biogas is renewable and can be a reliable replacement for natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-biogasconverting-waste-to-energy" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29933" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11964" RevisionGUID="2a7715b7-0820-46e6-9541-36ea09e3494e" CreationDate="2021-12-09T17:29:20.587" UserId="6393" Text="Natural gas is more sustainable due to three reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Natural gas needs no refining. Oil refining requires energy and only part of its product is gasoline. You get lot of other products too like diesel and bitumen. The stated emissions of cars for example contain only the tailpipe emissions -- you need to add easily 20% to get refining emissions covered as well. Maybe more if there is imbalance between the supply and demands of the various fractional distillation products like gasoline and diesel.&#xD;&#xA;* Using natural gas frees a lot of space underground. Thus, if natural gas is being burned in stationary power plants, the carbon dioxide emissions can be captured. If the natural gas was stored underground, the carbon dioxide it produces can be stored in the freed space. The same is not true of oil, as oil is liquid and you would need to store carbon dioxide gas in the same volume the liquid took. Impossible. Obviously, for mobile power sources like cars, capturing the emissions isn't easy so it's unlikely we would ever see carbon capturing cars.&#xD;&#xA;* Natural gas is a very efficient hydrogen container. One cubic meter of natural gas contains as much hydrogen atoms as two cubic meters of hydrogen gas. Therefore, a lot of the energy is combustion of hydrogen, which is completely clean, and only part of the energy comes from combustion of carbon, which is dirty (creates carbon dioxide). Oil has some hydrogen too, but the amount of hydrogen per carbon in  natural gas is nearely twice that of oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Due to these reasons, I'm sure natural gas has a very bright future. At some stage, it may become cheaper to use hydrogen produced using electrolysis instead of natural gas in peaker plants, so the end of natural gas will probably happen not due to running out of natural gas, but rather alternatives becoming cheaper. Many major oil and gas companies are planning to shut down oil production, but continue natural gas production. Their plans also include 0% emissions from their own operations and from the combustion of their products by customers, so full carbon capture is planned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11965" RevisionGUID="d796b1c4-49ca-4833-891f-5927865fecaf" CreationDate="2021-12-09T17:42:49.837" UserId="6393" Text="Renewable natural gas ain't happening, ever, at the scales required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are using massive amounts of mobile energy as gasoline and diesel. The only feasible way to replace that is a generation mix of onshore wind, offshore wind, solar, nuclear, hydropower and maybe little (but very little) natural gas should hydropower and nuclear be incapable of meeting the momentary demand in the electric grid. About the only feasible way to store that energy in mobile sources is batteries. Hydrogen has very poor electricity-to-hydrogen-back-to-electricity-again efficiency (about 38% as opposed to over 90% of batteries), electrolysis cells are expensive, fuel cells are expensive and have a short lifetime, and storage of hydrogen is difficult due to it having very poor volumetric energy density. Therefore, the total cost of a hydrogen solution would probably be higher than what the market expects from the gasoline and diesel replacement technology. Batteries, on the other hand, have been demonstrated to be economically viable, and carmakers are adopting batteries as the definite solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem of renewable natural gas is that it releases carbon. Where do you get it if you create &quot;renewable natural gas&quot;? From carbon dioxide, naturally, combined with hydrogen produced using electrolysis. Combusting fossil fuels to get carbon dioxide is counterproductive. Atmospheric carbon dioxide capture is too expensive due to the low concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If you capture carbon dioxide from office spaces where the concentration is higher (about double that of general atmospheric concentration), you make the economics of carbon dioxide capture from air more favorable but then you run into the problem that there aren't enough humans to breathe enough carbon dioxide. So about the only way to get sustainable carbon dioxide is from combustion of biofuels. The trouble is, we don't have enough biofuels to create enough carbon dioxide. Not only that, but if carbon dioxide of biofuels is captured from stationary sources like forestry industry plants, you could directly store that carbon dioxide underground (BioCCS) as opposed to creating &quot;renewable natural gas&quot; for combustion in cars where it would release its carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere. So claiming the product is &quot;renewable&quot; is silly because there's a far better place for that carbon -- under ground, not in atmosphere. Thus, so-called &quot;renewable natural gas&quot; contributes to the global warming problem due to atmospheric carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, the only solutions feasible are solutions that emit zero carbon dioxide. Those are basically hydrogen and batteries. It seems batteries are winning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11956" RevisionGUID="3be19001-ad20-4fc1-84ea-7e8fd6819bbf" CreationDate="2021-12-10T03:41:43.833" UserId="295" Comment="more context" Text="My power company has very consistently reported 45kWh ± 5% per month higher consumption than my grid-tied Enphase system data over the first 6 months of my installation. Why would that be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is my power company, my smart meter or my solar PV system likely at fault?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have 3-phase power and a smart meter. The 3 Enphase consumption CTs are installed in my main switchboard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could this be a resistive loss somewhere? If I’m calculating it right that would be about 60 Watts continuous draw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Could it have something to do with power-factor (reactive load)? I don't have any heating, cooling or fluorescent lights in the house if that helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit:**&#xD;&#xA;1. My utility typically reports between 170 kWh/month (summer) and 330 kWh/month (winter) consumption and my solar system reports almost exactly 45 kWh/month less than that.&#xD;&#xA;2. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between this discrepancy and my production, consumption, imports or exports.&#xD;&#xA;3. My export numbers are very accurate.&#xD;&#xA;4. I have 3 phase both to support my 90cm induction cooker and for future proofing (future EV, etc).&#xD;&#xA;5. Not sure how I would put together a system diagram, but happy to pop the switchboard cover and share photos if that helps.&#xD;&#xA;6. My biggest single load is a small resistive single-phase hot water system which uses between 3.5 kWh/day (summer) and 5.5 kWh/day (winter) to heat. This is on a timer in the middle of the day.&#xD;&#xA;7. I was told that for metering purposes my imports/exports are boiled down to a single number across all 3 phases (unsubstantiated though)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29938" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4827" RevisionGUID="0ef28d5a-4f87-446a-9dee-474b40d63a83" CreationDate="2021-12-10T08:33:22.240" UserId="2345" Comment="Update after 6 years" Text="An interesting question you pose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm writing my answer via a computer that is 7 years old and has been using GNU/Linux for 3 or 4 years. The battery or battery charger no longer works, but everything else does, and everything else is original.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I got this computer, new, it ran Windows NT. After about 3 years it was virtually unusable due to the Microsoft ladened crud that it had acquired over time that was slowing it down and causing it to crash. I've never had a similar issue after I replaced Windows NT with the Ubuntu distribution of GNU/Linux.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Three or four years ago I seriously considered replacing this computer with a new one because of the issues I was having. Replacing Windows with GNU/Linux not only saved me money but also reduced my environmental impact on the planet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For some people this is not an option due to the reasons they use computers and the software they use. There are a lots of applications written for Windows that cannot be used on GNU/Linux because they are either proprietary or they  haven't been converted. If you use computers to play games check what is available on GNU/Linux, it's limited compared in Windows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For other types of applications: media players, office suites, photo editors there are applications in GNU/Linux that are as good, and in some cases better, than similar applications used by Windows. Research is required before adopting GNU/Linux.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a side note, most of the world's super computers, Internet servers and servers operated by larger corporations, internationally, run GNU/Linux. It's extremely stable, **cheap** and *generally* doesn't need to be rebooted after an update or upgrade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning the sustainability of software, recently I saw an application that was written more than 20 years ago still being used by a corporation - colored text on a black screen with no graphics and no mouse; the TAB key was used to navigate around the screen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is lots of legacy scientific and engineering code written in FORTRAN and commercial/corporate code written in COBOL. Both these languages were introduced in the 1950s. Some legacy code has been re-written in C or C++, but most is still in its original, old format.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently I came across an article that discussed how the computing system used for a pension scheme in one of the Balkan countries badly needed to be replaced with something modern but it was such a large and complicated undertaking no-one is prepared to commit to change. There is no desire to disrupt people's pensions during a transition period. One of the issues is when the system was devised in the 1970s it was modern for the time but it used a programming language called PL/1, which was popular then but very few people know that language now.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes **software** sustainable is people wanting to learn a particular computing language so that software can be maintained. There must also be a need for keeping the software.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;***Update 10 December 2021***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is now 6 years since I wrote this answer. Over the years the computer ended up being too low spec for bloated upgrades of Ubuntu, so Ubuntu was replaced by Linux Mint, which happily ran on the computer for years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sadly, all things expire. After having had the computer for 13.5 years (May 2008 to November 2021) the graphics card failed. I suspect due to the failure of the cooling fan. After having removed the hard drive, the laptop will be sent to be recycled.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29942" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="851" RevisionGUID="2b2ba345-4ac3-4917-9abd-93bfc3250f60" CreationDate="2021-12-13T21:25:42.703" UserId="502" Comment="rewrite" Text="What is the sustainablity of working from home compared to the office" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29943" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11966" RevisionGUID="4f572d89-6710-40eb-8e21-68b050046420" CreationDate="2021-12-14T17:35:45.167" UserId="6393" Text="This totally depends on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. the insulation of the home&#xD;&#xA;2. the heating method of the home, if heating is needed&#xD;&#xA;3. the length of commute&#xD;&#xA;4. the vehicle used for commuting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a poorly insulated home in a cold climate can consume 250 kWh / square meter of living space per year. If working from home requires 10 more square meters of living space, that's 2500 kWh per year. Oil heating produces about 300 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per kWh of energy, so this would create 750 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is theoretically possible that you are comparing a short electric car trip (10km there and back) in a country with a clear electricity grid (sub-100g/kWh) with heating an old oil-heated building. In this case, the electric car could create only 41 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions whereas the said oil-heated building requires 750 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I can in general say that this is a very extreme situation. In almost any case, it's far more environmentally friendly to work from home. For example, the 2500 kWh per year could with an air-to-water heat pump be produced with 1000 kWh of electricity, producing only 100 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions. In this case, the electric car would win but only because the distance to work is 5 km, and the distance back home is 5 km. Increase the distance to 12 km to work and 12 km back, and the emissions are equal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also not fair to compare an old building with an electric car. Most people who can afford to buy electric cars can also afford to live in newer buildings where the insulation can halve the heating bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, usually working from home wins, but not always. It especially wins if you can optimize your working area so that you use the same area for work and personal purposes, meaning no living space is wasted for a dedicate working area." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11967" RevisionGUID="a6ebc62f-30d4-46ad-9707-26738d8032e3" CreationDate="2021-12-15T17:25:39.130" UserId="13527" Text="Well.....  This is a tough subject for those of us who understand the problems associated with the circuit boards in almost every consumer product out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we purchased many of our products in the &quot;dark ages&quot; before the advent of led lights, buzzers, glitzy features, etc. there were little to no power or controller type motherboards in these devices. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the advent of everything needing to be &quot;shiny&quot; or powered, it is almost for sure there will be at least a small motherboard that provides the power, controls the device or flashes the lights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On these boards, in most cases there are small components called capacitors, resistors and thermal protectors. Capacitors have a gel like substance inside that eventually dries up and the capacitor weakens or fails.  In many cases, just by looking at the capacitors on say a power supply for an led TV, one can see a bulging or leaking area on the component. Thermal protectors and resistors can just plainly fail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, with a little bit of electronic knowledge, a soldering iron, the research to identify the capacitor, finding and ordering the capacitor (usually in lots of 10-100 and a little bit of patience, planned obsolescence (usually in the 5-8 year time frame) can be obverted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, considering the actual low price of most electronic devices (say your average clock radio, printer, can opener) and even into your larger electronics (big screen TV, phones, computers and major appliances) consider the above time and cost at maybe a nominal $75/hour or on major appliances up to $200 per hour, you will never be able to afford to have a technician come in and &quot;fix&quot; the issue.  Much more cost effective to replace the device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And there you have it - Planned or Programmed obsolescence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is example:  On GE Profile washers manufactured around 2008 there is an electromagnetic clutch that is engaged basically with an electronic magnet that is protected by a $0.42 (yes 42 cent) thermal protector (one time fuse) that fails if you happen to leave the lid open during the cycle.  The full clutch is what most technicians will charge at $175 plus the 2 hours at $125 to replace it in the main mechanism.  Now there is a choice - at least $425 to fix it or find a new one for $700 to replace the 12 year old washer.  What do you think most consumers choose.  Even to replace the 42 cent part takes the 2 hours to replace plus another hour to solder in the part plus whatever time it took to diagnose, order and receive the part.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are going to attack planned obsolescence, you will have to begin by stopping the production of crappy capacitors (components), then build controller boards that don't rely on those failing devices (in the case of the washer, put in a resetting thermal protector) or just don't get electronic devices that will eventually fail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AND EVENTUALLY OUR LANDFILLS AND OCEANS WILL BE FULL OF BURNED OUR ELECTRONICS (much more dangerous than global warming or climate change).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29952" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="42843cf6-f0aa-4065-a806-0abb90843beb" CreationDate="2021-12-16T16:48:27.987" UserId="13531" Text="I could build a steel box and fill it with the heads, then put a steel plate on top of that, so I can still use my heat powered fan on it as well." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29954" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="42843cf6-f0aa-4065-a806-0abb90843beb" CreationDate="2021-12-16T16:48:27.987" UserId="13531" Text="I can get cast-iron engine heads from junk yard and my wood stove has flat top so I can safely stack the heads on top if my stove to add thermal Mass?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29955" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="42843cf6-f0aa-4065-a806-0abb90843beb" CreationDate="2021-12-16T16:48:27.987" UserId="13531" Text="|woodstove|wood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11969" RevisionGUID="babb99f7-f025-4962-9a56-7c7338b3334d" CreationDate="2021-12-16T17:16:25.220" UserId="6393" Text="Thermal mass is almost always best implemented by using water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cast iron has only 460 J/kgK heat capacity whereas water has 4190 J/kgK. That's nine times bigger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only is the heat capacity of water nine times bigger than cast iron, but also water production never releases any carbon dioxide as the water is already present on this planet (well theoretically desalinating seawater might use some energy but in most places desalination is unnecessary), whereas steelmaking releases carbon due to the fact that iron is reduced using coal. In the future, steelmaking will use hydrogen, but today, if you start hoarding cast iron, you are preventing other far more sensible uses of iron from using recycled iron and they have to use new iron that releases carbon dioxide during production. Also, if you use cast iron, you have to haul heavy solid material. If you use water, you only have to haul very lightweight empty water containers, and you can fill them with water at your home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, doesn't make any sense. Use water instead." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="dfae5d54-625f-4c5f-84f5-ba66daf46a11" CreationDate="2021-12-17T00:09:24.647" UserId="2345" Comment="Punctuation changes" Text="I could build a steel box and fill it with the heads, then put a steel plate on top of that, so I can still use my heat powered fan on it as well?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29959" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11968" RevisionGUID="dfae5d54-625f-4c5f-84f5-ba66daf46a11" CreationDate="2021-12-17T00:09:24.647" UserId="2345" Comment="Punctuation changes" Text="I can get cast-iron engine heads from junk yard and my wood stove has flat top so I can safely stack the heads on top of my stove to add thermal mass?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11970" RevisionGUID="52a4a6a4-f326-40aa-a70b-1a4143e3093b" CreationDate="2021-12-17T15:36:10.870" UserId="2846" Text="Mine lacks any override controls for temperature and spin speed, so I have a range of preset temperatures for cottons, a slightly different range for synthetics, and a few other presets (delicates &amp;times;2, quick half-load, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest difference is spin speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, cottons would traditionally have been ironed (e.g. shirts, washed fairly cool) or hold a lot of water (towels, washed hot).  Synthetics would include blended &quot;permanent press&quot; items - not very absorbent and to be treaty fairly gently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite washing cold, I tend to sort by colour (white/pale v.s dark/bright) and not by fabric, and wash everything on the cottons program.  Most of what I *wash* is synthetic exercise kit\*, which gets stinky quite easily if neglected so is washed frequently (some days, wearing it for both morning and evening bike or run commutes is too much really). Most of what I *wear* is natural fibres and washed less frequently.  So effectively I use cottons to make up a load of exercise kit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vigorous spin of the cottons program does no harm to functional synthetics, which I get as much life out of as possible.  Unless you can reliably air-dry outside, it saves power to remove water mechanically than by evaporation.  In my case drying at this time of year is done by hanging indoors in a barely-heated room, with a dehumidifier running.  That's also slow so you don't want things too wet to start with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* It needs to be high-performance given that I can be wearing it wet for several hours, and I don't have the budget for merino." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11971" RevisionGUID="acd42df4-4c4f-4538-9ab1-0df7f438384d" CreationDate="2021-12-17T15:56:56.360" UserId="2846" Text="If you were to decompose it anaerobically, you'd get methane, not CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and wouldn't need to process it to get fuel.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Composting, on the other hand, should be aerobic, and does produce CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, as well as humus to add to the soil.  If I put my leaves in the garden waste bin (we have those in my area), they're composted at a municipal facility and returned to the soil (farmland) but plenty of diesel is used to run the lorries that collect the waste and the machinery to manipulate, transport, and spread the compost.  My garden has 3 mature oaks overhanging it, so I get a lot of leaves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At home, instead, leaves can be buried, returning organic matter and carbon to the soil, and making rather good soil in the process, or decomposed aerobically in nets or sacks, damp or dry rather than wet.  Both of these methods bury some carbon and release some carbon, but can be done with small amounts of manual labour in a modest garden.  They're effectively tidier forms of the natural processes in a forest." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11972" RevisionGUID="b18002c2-9ed9-4ff4-ad17-b5da8c5aaa80" CreationDate="2021-12-17T16:27:05.543" UserId="5477" Text="Possible , the density of iron/steel permits storage of more heat in a specific volume than water. However, cleaning engine heads will be difficult. They are likely to smell bad whenever heated. And modern cast iron is engineered to be thin so there is not as much mass as it may appear; but you can get the same efficiency with something like steel rebar - it is clean and can be stacked neatly, is readily available. Cost to be determined based on what a junk yard may charge for heads as the have a reuse value. Water, of course is cheap and versatile; I use a few 5 gallon carbouys in my shed to store heat" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11974" RevisionGUID="72f77c47-a940-4406-9670-b26626e32f49" CreationDate="2021-12-20T02:35:22.167" UserId="9669" Text="What does it mean? What does Circle Economy (a nonprofit) [suggest][1]? Can and should we outsource the computing power of our personal devices to the cloud? It sounds reasonable (it's more efficient, less direct and indirect GHGs, I take it) but I'm not sure it's not putting your eggs in few baskets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://circularity-gap.world/2021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RUG33.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29975" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11974" RevisionGUID="72f77c47-a940-4406-9670-b26626e32f49" CreationDate="2021-12-20T02:35:22.167" UserId="9669" Text="Can and should we outsource the computing power of our personal devices to the cloud?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29976" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11974" RevisionGUID="72f77c47-a940-4406-9670-b26626e32f49" CreationDate="2021-12-20T02:35:22.167" UserId="9669" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29981" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11976" RevisionGUID="8bdd167b-93f6-4489-aba6-89d416de3cc7" CreationDate="2021-12-21T12:19:35.653" UserId="13554" Text="I can't give any precise number here, but using wood for a long lifetime product (housing, some furniture, etc) is actually a form of [carbon storage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage) (though maybe not the most efficient). Whereas paper also stores carbon, but for a much shorter time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, [making paper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper#Papermaking) is actually a whole industry with its energy consumptions and pollutions that need to be taken into account when comparing paper to rawer wood. In this regard, using timber wood is probably more sober in energy and pollutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Regarding the deforestation issue, I agree with juhist's answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One also needs to care about where the wood came from. If you live in Europe, then using some oak wood from nearby probably emits less greenhouse gases than a tropical tree from Amazony because of the reduced transport.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29983" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11977" RevisionGUID="92c21aa9-7207-4a0a-b518-8bfd608cc877" CreationDate="2021-12-21T13:18:12.823" UserId="13554" Text="If you put aside the big issue of confidentiality of your activities on the outsourced device and of your data, it sounds good for several reasons :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It lets you use efficient devices managed by professionals : Frequent software updates and quick support.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Those devices would be used as much as they can be : Few computers in standby, lifetime as long as profitable, etc... That is less consumption of hardware.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, any action you make (reading/writing in files, using large softwares, etc...) would need sending and receiving data from you personnal terminal (which could be a [raspberry pi](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi)), which actually consumes energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think a compromise can be found, but the balance between advantages &amp; disadvantages is unclear to me." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29985" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11970" RevisionGUID="6fa3ac09-78d5-41aa-91cc-c5ab7a12ffc2" CreationDate="2021-12-21T13:59:27.880" UserId="2846" Comment="added 404 characters in body" Text="Mine lacks any override controls for temperature and spin speed, so I have a range of preset temperatures for cottons, a slightly different range for synthetics, and a few other presets (delicates &amp;times;2, quick half-load, etc.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The biggest difference is spin speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I understand it, cottons would traditionally have been ironed (e.g. shirts, washed fairly cool) or hold a lot of water (towels, washed hot).  Synthetics would include blended &quot;permanent press&quot; items - not very absorbent and to be treaty fairly gently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite washing cold, I tend to sort by colour (white/pale v.s dark/bright) and not by fabric, and wash everything on the cottons program.  Most of what I *wash* is synthetic exercise kit\*, which gets stinky quite easily if neglected so is washed frequently (some days, wearing it for both morning and evening bike or run commutes is too much really). Most of what I *wear* is natural fibres and washed less frequently.  So effectively I use cottons to make up a load of exercise kit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The vigorous spin of the cottons program does no harm to functional synthetics, which I get as much life out of as possible.  Unless you can reliably air-dry outside, it saves power to remove water mechanically than by evaporation.  In my case drying at this time of year is done by hanging indoors in a barely-heated room, with a dehumidifier running.  That's also slow so you don't want things too wet to start with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(*Edit*) In any case, if you're washing part loads, change your habits so you don't - mix fabrics or wash less often. If you really don't have enough clothes or storage/drying  space to avoid washing part loads, use the part-load program, with mixed fabrics.  And wash as cool as you can.  I use the cold program except for things with grease stains and an occasional hot wash to clean the machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;\* It needs to be high-performance given that I can be wearing it wet for several hours, and I don't have the budget for merino." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11978" RevisionGUID="f19399d5-aa90-4a78-877e-2a4a4004f2ae" CreationDate="2021-12-21T16:01:24.543" UserId="6393" Text="This totally depends on the amount of computation performed in the cloud versus the latency and data transfer amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For small quick computations, latency kills the idea of using the cloud: it's faster to compute locally than to transfer the data to a cloud that will most likely be at least 50 milliseconds round-trip away from you. So it only makes sense if the computation performed locally would take nearly a second or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For large computations, the key is to determine how much data transfer is needed to give the server in the cloud enough data to do the computation. Then you need to calculate how much carbon dioxide emissions you save from requiring a smaller battery and perhaps a smaller CPU in the mobile device that offloads its computations to the cloud versus how much energy the mobile network base stations use to transfer the needed data. For massive datasets, it may well be useful to perform the computation locally. However, for datasets where the problem description and answer description are short (for example please give me the fastest car route between these two points) but the computation would use lot of battery on the mobile device, it's likely to make sense  to perform the computation on the cloud.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't underestimate the power use of the mobile network base stations!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29988" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11974" RevisionGUID="6914fc21-e594-4a94-983f-f5b067e66d6f" CreationDate="2021-12-22T00:26:37.983" UserId="9669" Comment="added 13 characters in body" Text="What does it mean? What does Circle Economy (a nonprofit) [suggest][1]? Can and should we outsource the computing power of our personal devices to the cloud? It sounds climatically reasonable (it's more efficient, less direct and indirect GHGs, I take it) but I'm not sure it's not putting your eggs in few baskets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://circularity-gap.world/2021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/RUG33.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29989" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11974" RevisionGUID="275c21c1-3f4b-4f0b-8219-1399f8386f7a" CreationDate="2021-12-22T00:32:58.237" UserId="9669" Comment="edited body" Text="What does it mean? What does Circle Economy (a nonprofit) [suggest][1]? Can and should we outsource the computing power of our personal devices to the cloud? It sounds climatically reasonable (it's more efficient, less direct and indirect GHGs, I take it) but I'm not sure it's not putting your eggs in few baskets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://circularity-gap.world/2021&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9pxEA.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29992" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="9198b3ef-8a10-4d90-8520-6f12360e9640" CreationDate="2021-12-22T06:01:35.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29993" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="8621f6e6-765e-4871-95ec-c5736629f595" CreationDate="2021-12-23T05:07:00.727" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="29994" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11979" RevisionGUID="a4598db4-ed45-405a-82e7-5f6966063758" CreationDate="2021-12-23T05:31:10.320" UserId="9669" Text="Should we recycle paper products given what [this][1] paper pointed out? We are, in most places, a long way from renewable grids. Maybe a good idea is to suspend this practice?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10112312/1/van%20Ewijk%20et%20al%20%282020%29%20Limited%20climate%20benefits%20of%20global%20recycling%20of%20pulp%20and%20paper.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29996" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11979" RevisionGUID="a4598db4-ed45-405a-82e7-5f6966063758" CreationDate="2021-12-23T05:31:10.320" UserId="9669" Text="Should we recycle paper products?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29997" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11979" RevisionGUID="a4598db4-ed45-405a-82e7-5f6966063758" CreationDate="2021-12-23T05:31:10.320" UserId="9669" Text="|recycling|waste|paper|forestry|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29998" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11979" RevisionGUID="e8d4bdc4-1002-4548-9c19-b4a17c567f5b" CreationDate="2021-12-23T17:22:06.527" UserId="3379" Comment="Added DOI of cited paper and a relevant quote from the abstract." Text="Should we recycle paper products given what this paper pointed out? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [&quot;Limited climate benefits of global recycling of pulp and paper&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00624-z) ([pdf](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10112312/1/van%20Ewijk%20et%20al%20%282020%29%20Limited%20climate%20benefits%20of%20global%20recycling%20of%20pulp%20and%20paper.pdf)) they write:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We [...] show that additional recycling yields small or negative climate change mitigation benefits when it requires high-carbon grid electricity and&#xD;&#xA;displaces virgin pulping that is powered by low-carbon pulping by-products. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are, in most places, a long way from renewable grids. Maybe a good idea is to suspend this practice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="29999" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11980" RevisionGUID="4f969429-46bd-46d9-aaee-d23d4dc949bf" CreationDate="2021-12-23T17:26:11.173" UserId="6393" Text="That paper is totally wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nobody except China is planning to install large amounts of fossil baseload power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In developed nations, all increased power production is wind (on- and offshore) and solar and perhaps little bit natural gas peakers. Nuclear is dying because of its high cost, but few areas are still constructing new zero-carbon nuclear power. We probably would be using more hydropower too but geographical constraints limit the amount of hydropower than can be produced. About the only new plants that are not in this zero-carbon list are natural gas peakers. In a balanced electricity system, peaker plants produce perhaps 15% of the energy, and about half of that can be realistically hydropower. So the other half, 7.5%, comes from natural gas (400 g / kWh of electricity). 7.5% * 400 g / kWh = 30 g / kWh. That's nothing compared to the 1000 g / kWh of coal power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My point is that solutions to problems the human race faces that use massive amounts of electricity should be encouraged rather than discouraged. The new power production that will be installed will produce about 30 g / kWh of electricity, only 3% of that of coal power. It doesn't make sense financially to use for example natural gas baseload (400 g / kWh) because it can't compete with a system predominantly based on solar and wind power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, given the 30 g / kWh emissions of new to-be-installed capacity, the problem of electricity use in paper recycling is practically zero. It makes sense to recycle paper, because it reduces the demand of new pulp, which means most of harvested pulpwood can be used for better uses such as creating biochar to permanently store carbon out of the atmosphere." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11981" RevisionGUID="6b7b7597-7680-4be1-a1d4-b7ab20f31a05" CreationDate="2021-12-23T23:23:31.930" UserId="9669" Text="Coal is going to be the first victim of the green energy revolution as the least sustainable kind of fossil fuel. What do we do with all the mines, both surface and underground ones? You can do quite a few things (e.g. [flood][1] them and pump that warm water to heat homes or [turn][2] them into lakes), but what the best upscaleable options that could handle thousands of mines about to shut down in a few years or, at most, decades' time? Don't forget about the people employed by the coal industry. I guess you can retrain former miners into photovoltaic engineers but you're unlikely to succeed in doing so on a large scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210706-how-flooded-coal-mines-could-heat-homes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.premiercoal.com.au/page/sustainability/environment/lake-kepwari/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30003" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11981" RevisionGUID="6b7b7597-7680-4be1-a1d4-b7ab20f31a05" CreationDate="2021-12-23T23:23:31.930" UserId="9669" Text="What do we do with all the coal mines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30004" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11981" RevisionGUID="6b7b7597-7680-4be1-a1d4-b7ab20f31a05" CreationDate="2021-12-23T23:23:31.930" UserId="9669" Text="|energy|climate-change|coal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30005" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11982" RevisionGUID="3b9bd308-2d93-45da-a276-96596faeac54" CreationDate="2021-12-24T01:09:33.157" UserId="5477" Text="For decades the US has required surface mines to filled with spoils ( removed material) and graded to resemble original topography and planted with local trees, etc. Underground mines pretty much fill with water naturally so entrances need to be sealed to prevent anyone from entering. Two problems, coal mines always have methane gas and you don't want it to build up pressure. And a mine may catch fire; some are now burning in US and I have read that many are burning in China and else where.  The fires are difficult to control because of air access points that are unknown. The good news is the UN environmental committee does not count the CO2 from burning coal mines as &quot;man made&quot;." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30007" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11983" RevisionGUID="526f56ad-bc88-4c65-bac6-4fb80756f4e3" CreationDate="2021-12-24T07:35:25.013" UserId="2345" Text="Abandoned underground coal mines present a potential hazard to anyone who might enter them. The first hazard is fugitive methane gas and the second is coal dust. Under the right conditions, both can be explosive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of fugitive methane emissions it would be best for underground coal mines to be allowed to flood and to be sealed to prevent entry to the underground voids. Whether flooding is possible depends on the location of the water table and any aquifers in relation to the coal seams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The state of any abandoned underground coal mine will depend on the mining method used to mine the coal, when the mine was operating. Room and pillar methods, also known as bord and pillar, leave some of the coal behind as pillars, to support the overlying rock and the mined voids between the pillars are generally left open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other significant coal mining method is/was longwall where highly mechanized coal cutting machines cut long walls of coal. The cut coal is loaded onto conveyor belts to be sent out of the mine. While cutting the coal the immediate region is supported by hydraulic shields. All this equipment moves automatically as the coal face advances. The void left behind is required to collapse. If it doesn't special teams of people induce failure of the overlying rock, behind the hydraulic shields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves a rubble pile of various sized boulders filling the void. Ultimately the overlying rock unravels to fill the void and in doing so the land surface will experience subsidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Poland used to orientate the longwalls so surface subsidence would be uniform and occur at the same time so that entire villages would sink intact, without damaging any of the buildings - particularly centuries old churches. How successful this process was I don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a broken, porous terrain will easily allow fugitive methane emissions to be released. Sometimes coal seams occur in groups of various thicknesses and quality of coal. The interburden of non coal sedimentary rock between the coal seam can also vary in thickness. Usually the &quot;best quality&quot; and &quot;most profitable&quot; coal is mined. The other seams remain as they are. Methane emissions can occurs from such seams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing the mines to flood would minimize much of the fugitive methane emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for open cut coal mines, it largely depends on how the coal has been mine as to what can be done. Some open cut coal mines are already backfill, during the course of mining, with the waste overburned from the new region to be mined filling the mined out region next to it. This occurs when draglines are used to strip the waste overburden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mines that use bucket wheel excavators, such as many in Germany, are generally backfilled by other means. In other regions of the world, such mines are left unfilled. If the water table is high enough, such pits will fill with water to form artificial lakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the people who would have worked in the coal mines the world needs to do better than Britain did when it shut its coal mines during the 1980s and also abandoned the people and the towns to largely fend for themselves. Many of those regions are still suffering." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11983" RevisionGUID="71ebd8aa-b025-4c71-9b28-76832b768b9b" CreationDate="2021-12-24T08:02:22.803" UserId="2345" Comment="Added more information" Text="Abandoned underground coal mines present a potential hazard to anyone who might enter them. The first hazard is fugitive methane gas and the second is coal dust. Under the right conditions, both can be explosive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of fugitive methane emissions it would be best for underground coal mines to be allowed to flood and to be sealed to prevent entry to the underground voids. Whether flooding is possible depends on the location of the water table and any aquifers in relation to the coal seams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The state of any abandoned underground coal mine will depend on the mining method used to mine the coal, when the mine was operating. Room and pillar methods, also known as bord and pillar, leave some of the coal behind as pillars, to support the overlying rock and the mined voids between the pillars are generally left open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other significant coal mining method is/was longwall where highly mechanized coal cutting machines cut long walls of coal. The cut coal is loaded onto conveyor belts to be sent out of the mine. While cutting the coal the immediate region is supported by hydraulic shields. All this equipment moves automatically as the coal face advances. The void left behind is required to collapse. If it doesn't special teams of people induce failure of the overlying rock, behind the hydraulic shields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves a rubble pile of various sized boulders filling the void. Ultimately the overlying rock unravels to fill the void and in doing so the land surface will experience subsidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Poland used to orientate the longwalls so surface subsidence would be uniform and occur at the same time so that entire villages would sink intact, without damaging any of the buildings - particularly centuries old churches. How successful this process was I don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a broken, porous terrain will easily allow fugitive methane emissions to be released. Sometimes coal seams occur in groups of various thicknesses and quality of coal. The interburden of non coal sedimentary rock between the coal seam can also vary in thickness. Usually the &quot;best quality&quot; and &quot;most profitable&quot; coal is mined. The other seams remain as they are. Methane emissions can occurs from such seams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing the mines to flood would minimize much of the fugitive methane emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for open cut coal mines, it largely depends on how the coal has been mine as to what can be done. Some open cut coal mines are already backfill, during the course of mining, with the waste overburned from the new region to be mined filling the mined out region next to it. This occurs when draglines are used to strip the waste overburden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mines that use bucket wheel excavators, such as many in Germany, are generally backfilled by other means. In other regions of the world, such mines are left unfilled. If the water table is high enough, such pits will fill with water to form artificial lakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the people who would have worked in the coal mines the world needs to do better than Britain did when it shut its coal mines during the 1980s and also abandoned the people and the towns to largely fend for themselves. Many of those regions are still suffering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;***Edit*** - Additional information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With some open pit coal mines the amount of waste over burden, lying on top of the coal can be thin and the coal seam thick. In such situations, there isn't enough overburden to completely fill the resulting pit. Unless other forms of backfill can be utilized the &quot;rehabilitated&quot; pit will always have a depression within it, compared to the natural setting prior to mining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another use for some open pit coal mines is to use them as landfill rubbish site for domestic rubbish.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30010" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11982" RevisionGUID="d75bd2ce-7d8a-4a17-9216-3a36e666386a" CreationDate="2021-12-24T17:26:13.030" UserId="5477" Comment="clarifications ." Text="For decades the US has required surface mines to filled with spoils ( removed material) and graded to resemble original topography and planted with local trees, etc. Underground mines pretty much fill with water naturally so entrances need to be sealed to prevent anyone from entering. Two problems, coal mines always have methane gas and you don't want it to build up pressure. Clarification; if a coal field is flooded the methane is not released. To produce gas from the Black Warrior (US) coal basin, water must first be pumped out of the coal strata.  And a mine may catch fire; some are now burning in US and I have read that many are burning in China and else where.  The fires are difficult to control because of air access points that are unknown. The good news is the UN IPCC does not count the CO2 from burning coal mines as &quot;man made&quot; so it does not contribute to anthropogenic global warming." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30011" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11981" RevisionGUID="fa7b51ff-8202-4a63-bf96-0f1cd1adc292" CreationDate="2021-12-24T23:00:00.840" UserId="9669" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="Coal is going to be the first victim of the green energy revolution as the least sustainable kind of fossil fuel. What do we do with all the mines, both surface and underground ones? You can do quite a few things (e.g. [flood][1] them and pump that warm water to heat homes or [turn][2] them into lakes), but what are the best upscaleable options that could handle thousands of mines about to shut down in a few years or, at most, decades' time? Don't forget about the people employed by the coal industry. I guess you can retrain former miners into photovoltaic engineers but you're unlikely to succeed in doing so on a large scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210706-how-flooded-coal-mines-could-heat-homes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.premiercoal.com.au/page/sustainability/environment/lake-kepwari/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30012" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11933" RevisionGUID="f547abf1-81e8-4980-93aa-c06a5fd37d11" CreationDate="2021-12-25T23:01:20.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11984" RevisionGUID="8d0018c7-405e-4f72-bf34-e349507b0920" CreationDate="2021-12-26T11:50:01.560" UserId="9669" Text="What do developed nations do with organic municipal waste? Are there separate receptacles in addition to bins for plastics, glass, metals, etc.? Is organic waste then transported for anaerobic digestion or composting? By &quot;developed nations&quot; I mean &quot;nations that have developed and sustainable waste management systems&quot; (not the two-bin US or the incinerating Japan, for instance)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11984" RevisionGUID="8d0018c7-405e-4f72-bf34-e349507b0920" CreationDate="2021-12-26T11:50:01.560" UserId="9669" Text="What do developed nations do with organic municipal waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11984" RevisionGUID="8d0018c7-405e-4f72-bf34-e349507b0920" CreationDate="2021-12-26T11:50:01.560" UserId="9669" Text="|waste|composting|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30017" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11985" RevisionGUID="4c01292e-1083-4db7-a446-9e4db373f7ac" CreationDate="2021-12-26T12:07:55.957" UserId="9669" Text="What percentage of wood is harvested for paper production? I need more or less recent data please. What I found is a 1999 publication that calculated that it's 42% excluding fuelwood. It's old. I also want a share of total harvested wood, not just industrial wood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30019" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11985" RevisionGUID="4c01292e-1083-4db7-a446-9e4db373f7ac" CreationDate="2021-12-26T12:07:55.957" UserId="9669" Text="What percentage of wood is harvested for paper production?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30020" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11985" RevisionGUID="4c01292e-1083-4db7-a446-9e4db373f7ac" CreationDate="2021-12-26T12:07:55.957" UserId="9669" Text="|paper|forestry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30021" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11986" RevisionGUID="5f8ca6a3-8219-4cec-8ce6-fe7c0b2cf929" CreationDate="2021-12-26T12:28:37.150" UserId="6393" Text="You have to understand that paper production is rapidly declining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Finland, a country with large forestry industry, the rule of thumb is that about half of wood is used for sawlogs and about half of wood is pulpwood. Note &quot;pulpwood&quot; does not mean it's used for only paper production. It's also used for making pulp and cardboard packaging for products ordered online. As content is more and more read digitally on a computer, paper production is on the decline, but as online shopping is rapidly gaining traction, cardboard packaging production is on the increase. In the future pulpwood might also be used for creating biochar for permanently storing carbon away from the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I downloaded the 2020 annual reports of Stora Enso, UPM and Metsä Board, three large forestry industry companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stora Enso in 2020 produced 2.7 million tonnes of consumer board, 1.3 million tonnes of containerboard, 0.5 million tonnes of corrugated and other packaging solutions, 2.6 million tonnes of market pulp and 3.1 million tonnes of paper. Based on this, 3.1 million tonnes out of 10.2 million tonnes is paper. So about 30% of pulpwood used by Stora Enso is going to paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPM in 2020 is more paper-heavy: it produces 2 million tonnes of specialty papers, 6.4 million tonnes of communication papers and 3.7 million tonnes of biorefining outputs. So about 70% of its pulpwood goes to paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metsä Board, a far smaller company, makes 3.2 million tonnes of cardboard and pulp. Zero paper in that company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we can conclude that out of 10.2+12.1+3.2 million tonnes (25.5 million tonnes) of pulpwood product outputs, 11.5 million tonnes is paper. That's 45% paper. Note not all of this is newspaper-grade paper or office printing paper, the paper also includes labels for product packaging too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I'd say that about 45% of pulpwood goes to making paper, but that share is reducing rapidly. Because about half of harvested wood is pulpwood, that means about 22.5% of all harvested wood goes to paper. The share of paper is rapidly decreasing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30023" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11987" RevisionGUID="df65c2c2-1934-4053-b054-c1f30ec4df57" CreationDate="2021-12-26T12:36:03.083" UserId="6393" Text="Generally the best uses of organic municipal waste is by extracting whatever biogas you can, created in anaerobic conditions, and injecting that biogas (methane) into the natural gas network. Generally you can't make enough methane that way so only small percentage of the total used methane is biogas and most of it is still natural gas, but it's a very useful way to reduce the use of the natural gas somewhat. Also the organic waste is then decomposed and becomes new soil used for gardens for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's for sorted organic waste. For non-sorted waste, it is directly burned to energy, and that energy is used to create district heating (if in a cold area where heating is required) and electricity. If in a warm area where heating is not required, only electricity is produced." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30025" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11985" RevisionGUID="4a8ef7ff-cfde-430e-a57b-5a976dec341b" CreationDate="2021-12-26T12:45:00.613" UserId="9669" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="What percentage of wood is harvested for paper and cardboard production? I need more or less recent data please. What I found is a 1999 publication that calculated that it's 42% excluding fuelwood. It's outdated. I also want a share of total harvested wood, not just industrial wood" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30026" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11985" RevisionGUID="4a8ef7ff-cfde-430e-a57b-5a976dec341b" CreationDate="2021-12-26T12:45:00.613" UserId="9669" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="What percentage of wood is harvested for production of paper products?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11986" RevisionGUID="ba759da2-ecbf-4110-bb9d-1605fadbc54b" CreationDate="2021-12-26T16:45:00.953" UserId="6393" Comment="response to comment" Text="You have to understand that paper production is rapidly declining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Finland, a country with large forestry industry, the rule of thumb is that about half of wood is used for sawlogs and about half of wood is pulpwood. Note &quot;pulpwood&quot; does not mean it's used for only paper production. It's also used for making pulp and cardboard packaging for products ordered online. As content is more and more read digitally on a computer, paper production is on the decline, but as online shopping is rapidly gaining traction, cardboard packaging production is on the increase. In the future pulpwood might also be used for creating biochar for permanently storing carbon away from the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I downloaded the 2020 annual reports of Stora Enso, UPM and Metsä Board, three large forestry industry companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stora Enso in 2020 produced 2.7 million tonnes of consumer board, 1.3 million tonnes of containerboard, 0.5 million tonnes of corrugated and other packaging solutions, 2.6 million tonnes of market pulp and 3.1 million tonnes of paper. Based on this, 3.1 million tonnes out of 10.2 million tonnes is paper. So about 30% of pulpwood used by Stora Enso is going to paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPM in 2020 is more paper-heavy: it produces 2 million tonnes of specialty papers, 6.4 million tonnes of communication papers and 3.7 million tonnes of biorefining outputs. So about 70% of its pulpwood goes to paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metsä Board, a far smaller company, makes 3.2 million tonnes of cardboard and pulp. Zero paper in that company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we can conclude that out of 10.2+12.1+3.2 million tonnes (25.5 million tonnes) of pulpwood product outputs, 11.5 million tonnes is paper. That's 45% paper. Note not all of this is newspaper-grade paper or office printing paper, the paper also includes labels for product packaging too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I'd say that about 45% of pulpwood goes to making paper, but that share is reducing rapidly. Because about half of harvested wood is pulpwood, that means about 22.5% of all harvested wood goes to paper. The share of paper is rapidly decreasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I actually meant &quot;paper products&quot;, i.e. both paper and cardboard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, practically all of pulpwood is being used for paper products such as both paper and cardboard, and paper towels and toilet paper. The other uses such as textile fibers for clothing and biochar for permanently storing carbon away from the atmosphere are emerging and their share currently is practically zero. So if we can assume that about 50% of all harvested wood is pulpwood, then about 50% of harvested wood is used for paper products. So  your figure of 42% is not far away from that. Your publication is not outdated: the only change in forestry industry is between 1999 and 2021 is that in 1999, paper had a much larger share and paper towels, toilet paper and cardboard a smaller share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finland is probably not representative of the global forestry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, I have to disagree. Two of the companies whose annual reports I cited (Stora Enso and UPM) are major global companies with operations all around the world, despite the fact that the headquarters are in Finland. So they represent a significant share of the world forestry market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a significant share of currently existing forests on this planet are boreal taiga forests, similar to forests in Finland. Two major countries with big boreal taiga forests are Canada and Russia. The central European forests have been cut away long time ago, and the land is used for farming there. So Finnish forests are very representative of the economically utilized world forests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the fundamentals of forestry are similar all around the world. When you have harvested an entire forest, you plant a new forest. Young trees can have a high density so you plant a high density forest. Then at some stage when the forest has grown a bit, the trees are becoming so large they are competing for resources, yet not so large they would be useful for sawlogs. So you do a reduction harvest, harvesting away less viable trees (that are entirely used for pulpwood because they are too small for sawlogs). You let the forest grow more and you do a second reduction harvest, this time again giving you only pulpwood. Then at the end of the life cycle of the forest, most of the trees are useful for sawlogs, there may be little bit of trees here and there that are only useful for pulpwood. However, even though most of the trees are useful for sawlogs, only the bottom parts of their trunks are useful for it. The tree tops are narrow and thus can't be used for sawlogs, so they are pulpwood. These two effects (little bit of trees here and there not useful for sawlogs and tree tops not useful of sawlogs) mean about two thirds of the total solid volume is sawlogs and one third of total solid volume is pulpwood. You want to use as much as you can as sawlogs as sawlogs have a price of 60 EUR/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; whereas pulpwood has a price of 20 EUR/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. When you take into account the earlier reduction harvests that gave you entirely pulpwood, you can conclude that about half of the total harvested volume is pulpwood and about half of the total harvested volume is sawlogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How forestry differs between different temperature areas is that boreal taiga forests are cold, so the tree species are mainly pine and spruce (and perhaps birch) and they grow so slowly that time between terminal harvests is between 70 and 120 years. In warmer areas, different tree species are used, and the trees grow faster so time between terminal harvests is far shorter. Yet the fundamentals are the same: you want to use as much as you can as sawlogs and minimize the produced pulpwood amount (yet you still get half pulpwood!) and you have to do several reduction harvests to remove less viable trees as pulpwood to give more viable trees enough resources to grow bigger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11988" RevisionGUID="4ef27ab4-6979-4833-959d-d7c0440e953a" CreationDate="2021-12-27T00:47:23.200" UserId="2345" Text="I don't know that any nation has a uniform system of domestic waste collection and processing/disposal. Waste collection and disposal systems are usually determined by municipal councils, either individually or in collaboration with neighboring councils.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the past 25 to 30 years, depending on where I have lived, my experience has been each household is supplied with three colored bins by the local council for curbside collection. One smaller bin is for general household rubbish that will be either dumped in to landfill, burned in power generating incinerator or &quot;processed&quot; by other means. This bin is put out each week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other two bins are for recyclables and for garden waste respectively. These bins are put out on alternate weeks. On odd numbered weeks it might be the recyclable bin and on even numbered weeks it would be the garden waste bin that gets put out. In addition to this, some councils have a system where they collect larger amounts of garden waste twice a year. The councils inform householders at the start of the year, on which two dates, six months apart, it will collect additional garden waste for their region. These dates are usually in spring and autumn. For a week prior to those dates, householders can prune, chop and tidy their gardens and place the additional garden waste in large heaps on the curb or verge outside their houses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Upon collect, all garden waste, is turned into compost or mulch which the council then sells to whoever wants to buy it. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30030" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11974" RevisionGUID="fa30bd2c-4027-4699-873b-6536dd439c87" CreationDate="2021-12-27T06:00:03.457" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1475345714049953793" />
  <row Id="30042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11991" RevisionGUID="3fcc3d59-af76-4d50-9218-6ec7ab7d00cb" CreationDate="2021-12-27T07:41:49.303" UserId="9669" Text="What is the difference between energy-from-waste (EFW) and cogeneration, and why is the latter more efficient (let's compare electricity to electricity)? Aren't both essentially incineration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(p. 9, 12 from [here][3])*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F6CsN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Xqw7j.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/undergraduateresearch/52966/items/1.0075499" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30044" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11991" RevisionGUID="3fcc3d59-af76-4d50-9218-6ec7ab7d00cb" CreationDate="2021-12-27T07:41:49.303" UserId="9669" Text="What is the difference between energy-from-waste (EFW) and cogeneration?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30045" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11991" RevisionGUID="3fcc3d59-af76-4d50-9218-6ec7ab7d00cb" CreationDate="2021-12-27T07:41:49.303" UserId="9669" Text="|electricity-generation|paper|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30046" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11992" RevisionGUID="fd6a9b67-8777-44f2-920a-b4b4d2e0f9b9" CreationDate="2021-12-27T10:35:43.803" UserId="9669" Text="I thought it's scientific consensus that landfill paper, as any organic matter with low levels of lignin, is a net source of GHGs. But this Canadian paper of 2008 contains this unusual train of thought I have hard time following. Does it make sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Within the 90 kg of methane, 67.4 kg of carbon are ‘sequestered’, albeit it in a more greenhouse contributing form. An equivalent of 67% of this amount of carbon (44.9 kg) is emitted as CO2 from the remaining carbon through normal decomposition (Mikales and  Skog 1996). The remaining 652 kg of carbon (2457 kg of CO2e) are effectively sequestered, due to the anaerobic conditions inside landfills. The net result is that paper in a landfill actually constitutes a carbon sink, sequestering 567 kg of CO2e per tonne." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30048" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11992" RevisionGUID="fd6a9b67-8777-44f2-920a-b4b4d2e0f9b9" CreationDate="2021-12-27T10:35:43.803" UserId="9669" Text="Does landfill paper constitute a net source of GHGs or not?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30049" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11992" RevisionGUID="fd6a9b67-8777-44f2-920a-b4b4d2e0f9b9" CreationDate="2021-12-27T10:35:43.803" UserId="9669" Text="|waste|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30050" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="36bce0ff-405e-4562-af50-5228e631068b" CreationDate="2021-12-27T15:06:05.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30051" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11991" RevisionGUID="9c82adc5-e54e-4016-8660-d498f24a29d2" CreationDate="2021-12-27T15:51:32.503" UserId="3379" Comment="Replaced image with text, added paper title, replaced link with DOI." Text="What is the difference between energy-from-waste (EFW) and cogeneration, and why is the latter more efficient (let's compare electricity to electricity)? Aren't both essentially incineration?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See below from pages 9 and 12 (respectively) from [&quot;The Environmental Impact of Paper Waste Recycling: A Comparative Study&quot;][3] (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Net energy from paper waste management options (one cycle)][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In fact, due to the energy requirements of paper production, combustion of&#xD;&#xA;unusable fibre can be used even more effectively when integrated into milling. Because a significant portion of the energy required for paper production is thermal, combustion of waste paper can be used directly to fuel the process. Wood fibre cogeneration plants, which generate both electricity and useable thermal energy, obtain efficiencies of 25-30% for electrical generation (mean of 27.5%), and up [to] 75% overall when heat is recovered (FAO 1990). So if the average thermal content of paper is assumed to be 17.3 GJ/T (Morris 1996), a maximum of 2.60 GJ/T could be recovered **as electricity** through EFW, but 4.76 GJ/T could be recovered through cogeneration, plus an additional 8.23 GJ/T in thermal energy (see Appendices 2, 3). This represents an improvement of 2.16 GJ/T in electrical production, and 10.4 GJ/T overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/F6CsN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0075499" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30052" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11993" RevisionGUID="e1101325-ca28-4221-afd1-fb795eff6c61" CreationDate="2021-12-27T15:58:59.523" UserId="3379" Text="Cogeneration is a more specialized process with specific fuel requirements which is used to produce electric and heat energy. Energy from waste is a general process whereby any mix of waste is burned to produce electric energy *only*. This is explained further in the paper. From page seven:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  It is important to note the efficiency level of EFW generation. Because these&#xD;&#xA;plants operate by burning all household wastes: organics, plastics, glass, aluminum, etc. as well as paper, it is difficult to optimize plant design for generation due to the variability of the combustibles (Ekvall and Finnveden 2000). As a result of this, and the normal inefficiencies involved in energy conversion, burning garbage to produce&#xD;&#xA;electricity is able to capture only 15% of the waste’s intrinsic energy (Morris 1996),&#xD;&#xA;significantly lower than other fuels (such as coal, which averages approximately 38%&#xD;&#xA;efficiency) (Taylor et al. 2008). This could be improved if further sorting were carried&#xD;&#xA;out in the waste-fuel stream, with specific incinerators for different fuels, but this would largely undermine the simplicity advantage conferred by such a catch-all disposal&#xD;&#xA;method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that when cogeneration is introduced in the quote included in the question it is referred to as *wood fibre cogeneration,* meaning that the authors are looking at one specific type of cogeneration, and comparing it to a broad array of EFW processes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30054" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11992" RevisionGUID="3688ca18-a3a6-4ef7-9f04-c62bbcfd289c" CreationDate="2021-12-27T16:03:54.147" UserId="3379" Comment="Added DOI of cited paper." Text="I thought it's scientific consensus that landfill paper, as any organic matter with low levels of lignin, is a net source of GHGs. But this Canadian paper of 2008 contains this unusual train of thought I have hard time following. Does it make sense?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Within the 90 kg of methane, 67.4 kg of carbon are ‘sequestered’, albeit it in a more greenhouse contributing form. An equivalent of 67% of this amount of carbon (44.9 kg) is emitted as CO2 from the remaining carbon through normal decomposition (Mikales and  Skog 1996). The remaining 652 kg of carbon (2457 kg of CO2e) are effectively sequestered, due to the anaerobic conditions inside landfills. The net result is that paper in a landfill actually constitutes a carbon sink, sequestering 567 kg of CO2e per tonne.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From [&quot;The Environmental Impact of Paper Waste Recycling: A Comparative Study&quot;](https://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0075499)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30056" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11994" RevisionGUID="f67b4c1a-cbf5-4e90-8cab-53ff78b15736" CreationDate="2021-12-28T01:01:23.317" UserId="13577" Text="The mark is to prevent overflow when the water boils. Be careful as the water that overflow may leak down. Depending on the kettle design, the water may even touch the connection base where there's electric plate exposed and might cause accidents. If the base is just fine with no potential for exposure to water in any way, then it probably is okay to go pass the line a little bit. However, the next risk is the splashing of the boiling water. You won't want to be near it when it reaches boiling point. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Choosing a good kettle design is important for this. Make sure it is approved to be safe by your government as well. Electronics usually have to pass through some tests to ensure safety. So, this is something to look at rather than choosing a China brand kettle just because it's cheaper. Not saying all is bad just something to consider. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30058" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11995" RevisionGUID="55030ad6-63e2-404d-a84d-8c99e7ea66bb" CreationDate="2021-12-28T16:36:13.833" UserId="6393" Text="The thing about producing electricity using a thermal engine is that thermal engines have a maximum efficiency that cannot exceed the Carnot efficiency. Example: discard heat at 30 degrees Celsius, use 300 degree Celsius steam, the Carnot efficiency is `(1-(273.15+30)/(273.15+300)) * 100% = 47%`. That's the maximum that no engine can exceed given the temperatures. Usually you would find that the true efficiency is far lower, something like 37%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cogeneration works as follows: you discard the heat at 90 degrees Celsius instead. That gives efficiency of `(1-(273.15+90)/(273.15+300)) * 100% = 37%`. In practice that would be far lower, something like 28%. But this time you can utilize the waste heat at 90 degrees Celsius to heat buildings in a cold climate. Thus, the total efficiency can be said to be even 90% or higher. However, do note if you lose 9 units of the electric energy, a heat pump with COP=4 could produce 36 units of heat with that, giving 27 units of 'free' heat. So the 'true total' comparable efficiency of non-cogeneration would be 37% + 27% = 64% if the 9% extra is used for additional heating. Yet, the 64% is still below 90% of cogeneration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cogeneration can be used with any heat source, waste, coal, fuel oil, natural gas, hydrogen, diesel, gasoline, etc. Every car is essentially using cogeneration as they have a heater powered by the engine waste heat. Even nuclear can use cogeneration but typically due to safety requirements the distance of nuclear is far away from population centers, so cogeneration would require so long heat transfer pipelines that it might not be economically efficient. Also you can't make any plant a cogeneration plant, it has to be taken into account at the plant design stage to allow discarding 90 degree Celsius water instead of 30 degree Celsius water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;District heating networks are what make large-scale cogeneration feasible. With no district heating network, you might not have a way to transfer the heat from large centralized plants to individual buildings." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11996" RevisionGUID="a93ba198-e90d-4ca4-8249-3acb655ee71e" CreationDate="2021-12-28T16:41:25.273" UserId="6393" Text="Landfill is a carbon sink only given either of the following two conditions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You consider waste-to-energy &quot;carbon neutral&quot; (which would be totally ridiculous)&#xD;&#xA;2. You store plant-based materials like organic waste, or wood, or paper, or cardboard, in the landfill, and make sure that they don't ever emit methane due to anaerobically decomposing or ever emit all their carbon as carbon dioxide due to aerobically decomposing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As (1) is totally ridiculous, the only reasonable way to consider landfill a carbon sink is (2)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30062" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4319" RevisionGUID="c8ff4e2f-abd9-421e-8fee-6c2d87be8d5b" CreationDate="2021-12-29T00:20:56.763" UserId="400" Comment="Added info about peat moss for sequestering carbon." Text="Ecologists refer to this as 'gross productivity' and define it to be dry weight plant matter per area per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In temperate climates this is likely to be a grass.  Switchgrass has been proposed as a bio feedstock, both because it's highly productive, and the plant pulls most of the necessary trace nutrients back into the roots in fall. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Poplar and willow are two other bio feedstocks.  They reach maximum productivity when coppice grown, and harvested when stems are about 1&quot; thick.  (Grow on about 6&quot; spacing)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bamboo is a contender in more tropical climates.  Note that it can be invasive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Peatmoss is a contender for a different reason:  All the temperate ones mentioned will reach a steady state fairly quickly (under 100 years) where the rate of decomposition matches the rate of production.  But peat bogs are often saturated and acidic.  This interferes with decomposition.  Peat bogs will increase in depth as long as they remain wet. Peat bogs in Britain date back to the end of the last ice age.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally peat requires very little besides air and water.  Bogs are very poor in nutrients.  In principle to sequester more peat it may only be necessary to place a low dam cross the outlet of a bog raising the water level a foot&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you aren't limited to land use, you can likely do better with algae.  They produce very fast, but also decompose fast.  You have to figure out some way to rapidly harvest the biomass, and remove enough water to frustrate the bacteria.  This may make it an impractical solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(One of the proposed solutions to carbon sequesterization is to 'fertilize' the oceans with iron.  In most water this is the limiting element.  The notion is to create an algae bloom.  When the algae die, their corpses settle to the abysal plain where decomposition is very slow. So far the experiments to test this aren't conclusive.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30063" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11997" RevisionGUID="12e4ff6f-2903-4075-bc0d-f83dcc8b6143" CreationDate="2021-12-29T04:31:53.560" UserId="6870" Text="(Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this. I considered politics--maybe that is better.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have seen various groups that try to set up small campaigns targeted at individual organizations to achieve a specific goal. Examples would be the various national organizations pushing fossil fuel divestment campaigns at businesses, colleges, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anything like that with the mission of trying to get businesses to retrofit or manage their buildings more sustainably? I have in mind the type of “white collar” business that owns or rents a lot of office space or similar commercial real estate. I have in mind actions like insulation, “smart” energy management, composting, rooftop gardening, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that something like this does not exist, because the demands would need to be so specific to each building. But I figured I’d ask." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30065" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="11997" RevisionGUID="12e4ff6f-2903-4075-bc0d-f83dcc8b6143" CreationDate="2021-12-29T04:31:53.560" UserId="6870" Text="Meta-campaigns for sustainable building management?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30066" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="11997" RevisionGUID="12e4ff6f-2903-4075-bc0d-f83dcc8b6143" CreationDate="2021-12-29T04:31:53.560" UserId="6870" Text="|energy-efficiency|city-living|insulation|waste-minimisation|building|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="11998" RevisionGUID="a4ca0a19-cb8c-47a9-a01f-d184d41fcb43" CreationDate="2021-12-29T05:18:22.263" UserId="3379" Text="There are several active organizations which provide guidelines, ratings, and certification of sustainable buildings, focusing variously on energy, water, waste, and embodied carbon. Several standards also include a focus on occupant health, comfort, and safety. Links and descriptions below from Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Green Building Initiative**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Building_Initiative)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Green Building Initiative (GBI) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that owns and administers the Green Globes green building assessment and certification in the United States and Canada. It was established in 2004 and is headquartered in Portland, Oregon.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The organization works to accelerate the adoption of building practices that result in resource-efficient, healthier and environmentally sustainable buildings. It educates through the Green Globes certification program and Guiding Principles Compliance for federal building sustainability requirements, which provide independent verification for green building and operational practices. GBI focuses on energy conservation, reduced water consumption, responsible use of materials, ecological stewardship and healthy indoor environments for occupants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**LEED**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEED)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a green building certification program used worldwide. Developed by the non-profit U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), it includes a set of rating systems for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of green buildings, homes, and neighborhoods, which aims to help building owners and operators be environmentally responsible and use resources efficiently. By 2015, there were over 80,000 LEED-certified buildings and over 100,000 LEED-accredited professionals. Most LEED-certified buildings are located in major U.S. metropolises. LEED Canada has developed a separate rating system for the regulations and climate of that country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Living Building Challenge**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Building_Challenge)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Living Building Challenge is an international sustainable building certification program created in 2006 by the non-profit International Living Future Institute. It is described by the Institute as a philosophy, advocacy tool and certification program that promotes the measurement of sustainability in the built environment. It can be applied to development at all scales, from buildings—both in new constructions and renovations—to infrastructure, landscapes, neighborhoods and communities, and differs from other green certification schemes such as LEED or BREEAM.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The end goal of the Living Building Challenge is to encourage the creation of a regenerative built environment. The challenge is an attempt &quot;to raise the bar for building standards from doing less harm to contributing positively to the environment.&quot; It &quot;acts to rapidly diminish the gap between current limits and the end-game positive solutions we seek&quot; by pushing architects, contractors, and building owners out of their comfort zones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[**Passive House**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Passive house (German: Passivhaus) is a voluntary standard for energy efficiency in a building, which reduces the building's ecological footprint. It results in ultra-low energy buildings that require little energy for space heating or cooling. A similar standard, MINERGIE-P, is used in Switzerland. The standard is not confined to residential properties; several office buildings, schools, kindergartens and a supermarket have also been constructed to the standard. Passive design is not an attachment or supplement to architectural design, but a design process that integrates with architectural design. Although it is principally applied to new buildings, it has also been used for refurbishments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*A few others linked from these articles include [BREEAM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREEAM) and [MINERGIE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minergie) -- I'm not familiar with them specifically so can't say if they meet the description in the question.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30071" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="11997" RevisionGUID="d0a2651e-47d4-4701-96db-9df418625d67" CreationDate="2021-12-29T12:32:07.683" />
  <row Id="30074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12000" RevisionGUID="b57ee8ea-a696-4950-9b42-d4e4508f3942" CreationDate="2021-12-30T03:40:10.570" UserId="9669" Text="What is the difference between organic and syntropic agriculture? I watched a few of videos on the latter but couldn't get the gist of it. Is it like planting crops among trees or something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30076" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12000" RevisionGUID="b57ee8ea-a696-4950-9b42-d4e4508f3942" CreationDate="2021-12-30T03:40:10.570" UserId="9669" Text="What is the difference between organic and syntropic agriculture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30077" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12000" RevisionGUID="b57ee8ea-a696-4950-9b42-d4e4508f3942" CreationDate="2021-12-30T03:40:10.570" UserId="9669" Text="|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30078" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12001" RevisionGUID="cde1e675-3f42-4753-9b06-c79992927bcf" CreationDate="2021-12-31T07:43:25.167" UserId="9669" Text="What is the difference between a hybrid vehicle and a plug-in hybrid vehicle? And why are plug-in hybrid vehicles better than regular hybrid vehicles, even as good as EVs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/pN4JC.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30080" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12001" RevisionGUID="cde1e675-3f42-4753-9b06-c79992927bcf" CreationDate="2021-12-31T07:43:25.167" UserId="9669" Text="What is the difference between a hybrid vehicle and a plug-in hybrid vehicle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30081" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12001" RevisionGUID="cde1e675-3f42-4753-9b06-c79992927bcf" CreationDate="2021-12-31T07:43:25.167" UserId="9669" Text="|carbon-footprint|life-cycle-analysis|electric-vehicles|hybrid-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30082" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12002" RevisionGUID="bab85580-b18d-47aa-b7a5-64154d7e861e" CreationDate="2021-12-31T12:16:04.930" UserId="3960" Text="Regular hybrids tend to have a small Li-ion battery, say 4kWh, and a low-power motor (actually it tends to be something like an upgraded starter motor). It charges the battery with energy generated during braking and cannot be independently charged. The motor can power the car at low speeds in traffic, and also start the engine and provide power for ancillary electricals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A plug-in hybrid or PHEV typically has a larger Li-ion battery, say 10-15kWh, and a much more powerful motor. As a result a PHEV can be propelled by electric power alone, for a typical range of 30-40 miles. &#xD;&#xA;As the name suggests, you plug it in to charge the battery (although it still uses regenerative braking to top it up). The engine cuts in when the battery is depleted or the motor is under heavy load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The figures often quoted for PHEVs are now coming under serious dispute - [this][1] article suggests that real CO2 emissions are around 120g/km, instead of the quoted average of 44g/km. Some more realistic assessments are available at the [GreenCap website][2] and [Emissions Analytics website][3]. Part of the problem is that drivers don't actually *need* to charge them and can drive around almost entirely on petrol power. It is highly likely that many are bought as company cars due to their low tax rates, but are never actually charged.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it gets worse - as the petrol engine can be suddenly called upon to start up and immediately be placed under heavy load, the emissions of other pollutants such as VOCs can be worse than diesel vehicles (see [this article][4].)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you have the added complexity and maintenance requirements of having both a regular and EV powertrain in the same vehicle. So in no way are PHEVs &quot;as good as&quot; pure EVs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54170207&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.greenncap.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/2021/2/1/letting-the-cat-out-of-the-bag-the-great-plug-in-hybrid-subsidy&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-10229493/Hybrids-emit-higher-levels-harmful-emissions-diesels.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30084" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12003" RevisionGUID="11e9678d-cf8a-4fa0-afc3-e974caeabfdb" CreationDate="2021-12-31T12:52:39.297" UserId="99" Text="The two concepts overlap somewhat but the main focus and way of thinking is different.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With syntropic agriculture degraded unproductive land is transformed into healthy productive land by planting trees and shrubs and pruning them. Pruning rejuvinates trees and since the pruned branches are left to decay on the ground, it also returns organic matter (nutrients) to the soil, increases biodiversity and sequesters carbon. &#xD;&#xA;So basically it's like creating an organic food forest from the ground up by setting up a new ecosystem. The main difficulty is selecting the right plants and trees and spacing them in such a way that it benefits the entire ecosystem. &#xD;&#xA;The method was developed by a Swiss farmer named Ernst Gotsch who moved to Brazil in 1980s and applied it to poor land for which people saw little use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main focus of organic agriculture is to produce food with little or no chemicals and keeping animal welfare in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the differences are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Syntropic agriculture focuses on restoring unproductive lands, organic farming generally uses already productive land.&#xD;&#xA; - Once setup the syntropic forest should be self-sustainable with no outside inputs. This is usually not true for organic agriculture.&#xD;&#xA; - In organic agriculture there are rules what substances are allowed or not to fight pests, in syntropic agriculture pests are accepted as being part of the local ecosystem and/or as hints to fix human mistakes in the setup of the forest.&#xD;&#xA; - In organic farming weeds are usually removed, in syntropic agriculture all plants fulfill a role.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BTW in [this post](https://agendagotsch.com/en/diferencas-entre-a-agricultura-sintropica-e-organica-2/) Ernst Gotsch himself answers&#xD;&#xA;the question about the differences between organic farming and syntropic farming." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30086" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12000" RevisionGUID="4514bebb-61b6-4e70-b526-d67c8e1b1cba" CreationDate="2021-12-31T12:53:08.307" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|agriculture|organic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12004" RevisionGUID="7a0c999e-e701-4055-a943-577ee82528ac" CreationDate="2021-12-31T17:36:27.297" UserId="6393" Text="There are even more categories of hybrid vehicles: micro hybrid, mild hybrid, full hybrid, plug-in hybrid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A micro hybrid has slightly beefed up enhanced flooded lead-acid battery, a starter motor that tolerates frequent use and intelligent charging systems. What they essentially do is that while you drive, the battery is left slightly below full charge. Then when you engine brake, the intelligent charging system realizes now may be a good point to rapidly charge the battery, and the battery is charged very rapidly with full current, to maximize the amount of energy regenerated and minimize need for braking. When you stop at a stoplight, the engine is stopped too. When you want to continue driving again, the engine is rapidly restarted with the starter motor that withstands more frequent use. Then when you drive, initially the charger is providing zero current and the battery is slightly discharged to make it slightly below full charge. Then when the battery is at a certain state of charge, the charging system activates again to maintain this state of charge that allows rapid recharging when engine braking. The benefit here is that engine idling doesn't waste fuel, and part of the electrical load of the car is provided by rapidly charging the battery when engine-braking and then operating on the battery. Therefore, fuel use is slightly reduced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mild hybrids typically have heavierweight systems such as 48-volt battery and an integrated starter-generator. Then can provide additional torque to the engine using the 48-volt battery and the integrated starter-generator in the starter (motor) mode. They may have the ability to entirely stop the engine when coasting to a stop, freewheeling. However, none of these vehicles allow driving only on battery power. The battery only slightly provides boost to torque during acceleration. This allows the engine to be slightly smaller. A smaller engine is more fuel efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A regular good full hybrid uses a clever arrangement with an electric continuously variable transmission that has a planetary gearset, two motor-generators in the transmission, and high-voltage inverters to control the motor-generators. There is no ordinary alternator, and no starter motor. The 12-volt battery only boots up the computers. The 12-volt battery is charged from the high-voltage system using a DC-DC converter, and the high-voltage system is kept charged with the motor-generators in generator mode. Because there is no starter motor, the 12-volt battery can't be used to start the engine. Instead, the high-voltage battery and motor-generators in motor mode start the engine. The high-voltage battery is isolated from the car electrical systems by a relay if the car is turned off. The high-voltage battery is typically 200-300 volts 1-4 kWh, and it is shallow cycled. This means that even if you might have 1.6 kWh battery, only some 0.4 kWh of it is actually utilized. By maintaining the battery at the very center of its state of charge, never empty, never full, you can get hundreds of thousands of cycles from the high-voltage battery. The air conditioning compressor is typically electric (allowing air conditioning when engine is stopped), and there is usually at least one electric water pump (allowing fully providing engine heat to heater core when engine is stopped, but eventually the heat is exhausted and engine needs to be turned back on). The transmission, being a planetary gearset, has only one gear but three shafts. It is cleverly used as an electric continuously variable transmission by controlling the motor-generators independently. This allows a transmission that is cheaper than a manual transmission, that has no wearable clutch, and that essentially works like an automatic continuously variable transmission with no wearable belts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typically, a full hybrid can drive only 1-5 kilometers on battery charge. The purpose of the battery is not to drive long distances on battery only, but rather to allow a smaller more efficient Atkinson cycle engine (that would be terribly non-torquey on a standard car) to work well, and to allow regenerative braking. Usually regenerative brakes are operated by the brake pedal. If driving down a mountain road, once the battery is full, the car automatically turns on the engine to provide braking by the engine and not overheating the brakes. If driving a regular road, once the battery is full, it transparently changes to disc brakes. The battery may not be usually charged. Even if you could charge it, it would provide so little charge there's no point in charging. There may be strict restrictions on the maximum electric-only speed: between speeds of 50 km/h and 80 km/h there is usually a point where electric-only driving becomes impossible. Also, while the motors in the eCVT transmission allow high-power operation, the battery is usually so small you may not be able to extract more than 20-30 kilowatts out of it. Nickel metal hydride batteries are surprisingly common, but lithium ion is gaining foothold. There is no point in full hybrids that don't have electric continuously variable single-speed planetary gearset transmission, or in full hybrids that don't have Atkinson cycle engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A plug in hybrid is similar to a regular full hybrid, but with these differences: the battery may be charged, the battery is far larger, between 8-20 kWh, the battery is almost always lithium ion, and the battery allows providing more power, so much that full fast acceleration on battery power only is possible. Usually electric-only operation is allowed at all reasonable speeds, up to 120-130 km/h. Electric-only range is between 15-60 km. Optimally the engine would be Atkinson cycle and there would be similar electric water pump, electric A/C unit, electric continuously variable planetary gearset, etc. but some manufacturers other than Toyota are combining plug-in hybrid operation with non-Atkinson cycle engines and traditional transmissions. In these cases, the manufacturer usually markets the car with something like &quot;20 g/km emissions, 0.9 l / 100 km fuel consumption&quot; and doesn't tell that while the fuel consumption when driving only on electricity is 0.9 l / 100 km, if you drive on gasoline the fuel consumption skyrockets to over 10 l / 100 km. Also quite many plug-in hybrid cars have strict restrictions on cold operation: it may not be possible to drive only on electricity if the temperature is freezing. Some good plug-in hybrids (i.e. Toyota) allow full electric operation when cold, and also have very low fuel consumption when the battery is empty and electric-only operation therefore is impossible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30089" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10734" RevisionGUID="6a3820f9-81e5-4fc5-8978-c19c99e676e4" CreationDate="2021-12-31T19:02:25.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30090" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12005" RevisionGUID="f994a3f7-7215-482f-858f-e52774fb7a50" CreationDate="2022-01-01T03:46:04.160" UserId="13592" Text="It seems natural (promoted by the media) that `composting is a form of recycling` while `burning is *no* form of recycling`. In this question I'd like to question this way of thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Why exactly is it better to compost VS burning food waste?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning food also *recycles* the material: it goes back to the natural cycle: Turns into CO2, CO2 is absorbed by plants, plants become food, food is burned (Of course, other chemicals also go back to the cycle - like nitrogen (I guess), which becomes useful for the plants through thunders).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, *burning might be much more energy efficient*: &#xD;&#xA;- Quite easy to accomplish.&#xD;&#xA;- Only comparably small space is needed.&#xD;&#xA;- Transport infrastructure of other burn-trash can be used (i.e. collecting cars have to drive only once)&#xD;&#xA;- No need to produce/distribute recycle bins.&#xD;&#xA;- You could produce electricity and/or hot water from the energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*So why would someone (a person, a city, a state, a country) go through the hassle of composting, when they can just &quot;recycle&quot; by burning their bio waste?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][1] did not go into comparison details. Therefore I ask a new question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/158/why-should-i-compost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30092" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12005" RevisionGUID="f994a3f7-7215-482f-858f-e52774fb7a50" CreationDate="2022-01-01T03:46:04.160" UserId="13592" Text="Why is composting of food waste &quot;better&quot; than burning it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30093" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12005" RevisionGUID="f994a3f7-7215-482f-858f-e52774fb7a50" CreationDate="2022-01-01T03:46:04.160" UserId="13592" Text="|waste|composting|waste-minimisation|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30094" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12006" RevisionGUID="d23ed494-acf0-4829-a4ab-83ef14c6fb8d" CreationDate="2022-01-01T05:10:22.173" UserId="3379" Text="Some of the energy you'd produce would go to producing the very things that compost becomes -- humus, fertilizer, and topsoil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By producing them directly from compost, you skip the inefficiencies in each of these steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Compost --&gt; heat --&gt; energy --&gt; fertilizer production and shipping --&gt; garden/farm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you can just do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Compost --&gt; garden/farm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And, you can still produce energy from compost. Large operations can employ a methane digester to do [anaerobic digestion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion), which, according to Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is widely used as a source of renewable energy. The process produces a biogas, consisting of methane, carbon dioxide, and traces of other 'contaminant' gases. This biogas can be used directly as fuel, in combined heat and power gas engines or upgraded to natural gas-quality biomethane. The nutrient-rich digestate also produced can be used as fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can even purchase [digesters for use at home](https://www.homebiogas.com/product/homebiogas-2/), though they are probably impractical and expensive for most homes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I use a backyard composter because it keeps the stinky food out of my garbage can, reduces how often I have to take out the trash, and produces nutrient-rich humus that I supplement my vegetable garden with each year, producing better yields for less money." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30096" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12005" RevisionGUID="22359f78-c15e-416a-89c3-eb70f6de69dd" CreationDate="2022-01-01T07:10:21.453" UserId="13592" Comment="Explicitly added (1) and (2) as comparing points; Cleaner structuring" Text="##### Introduction&#xD;&#xA;It seems natural (promoted by the media) that `composting is a form of recycling` while `burning is *no* form of recycling`. In this question I'd like to question this way of thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##### Question&#xD;&#xA;Why exactly is it better to compost VS burning food waste?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Comparing to a municipal compost service, that collects food waste to a central location and composts it there to afterwards distribute the end product as fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;2) Comparing to private composting in your own garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##### Background &#xD;&#xA;Burning food also *recycles* the material: it goes back to the natural cycle: Turns into CO2, CO2 is absorbed by plants, plants become food, food is burned (Of course, other chemicals also go back to the cycle - like nitrogen (I guess), which becomes useful for the plants through thunders).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, *burning might be much more energy efficient*: &#xD;&#xA;- Quite easy to accomplish.&#xD;&#xA;- Only comparably small space is needed.&#xD;&#xA;- Transport infrastructure of other burn-trash can be used (i.e. collecting cars have to drive only once)&#xD;&#xA;- No need to produce/distribute recycle bins.&#xD;&#xA;- You could produce electricity and/or hot water from the energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*So why would someone (a person, a city, a state, a country) go through the hassle of composting, when they can just &quot;recycle&quot; by burning their bio waste?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##### References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][1] did not go into comparison details. Therefore I asked a new question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/158/why-should-i-compost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12007" RevisionGUID="b60ee059-1ca4-4d2a-902c-101296dfb714" CreationDate="2022-01-01T09:07:06.733" UserId="13592" Text="Your question itself is quite unspecified (although interesting):&#xD;&#xA;- Are we talking home-computing?&#xD;&#xA;- Are we talking server?&#xD;&#xA;- Are we focusing on power consumption?&#xD;&#xA;- Are we focusing on usage of older hardware? (=live longer)&#xD;&#xA;- Are we really comparing Windows to any of the thousand linux distributions?&#xD;&#xA;- Are we only comparing kernels (&quot;Linux&quot;)?&#xD;&#xA;- What's your definition of &quot;sustainable&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question and the answer to that has so many variables, that a clear answer is IMO impossible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Dee's `Definitely YES.` is very doubtful, I think.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are just the very first things coming to mind:&#xD;&#xA;- Energy efficiency: The &quot;Linux world&quot; has much choice: many distributions, many window managers, many file manager, many repo servers. Much work is done redundently. Redundent work is not energy efficient.&#xD;&#xA;- Energy efficiency: The &quot;Linux world&quot; has much choice. Therefore, an individual must find their choice. Windows is `latest Windows`. No energy wasted on which *distribution* one should take.&#xD;&#xA;- Energy efficiency: Microsoft has a big legal department and puts a lot of energy into copyright. This is not energy efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30099" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12005" RevisionGUID="b1c22fde-13dd-4f3d-9233-1fa336b0231c" CreationDate="2022-01-01T09:44:13.437" UserId="2345" Comment="subscripts" Text="##### Introduction&#xD;&#xA;It seems natural (promoted by the media) that `composting is a form of recycling` while `burning is *no* form of recycling`. In this question I'd like to question this way of thinking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##### Question&#xD;&#xA;Why exactly is it better to compost VS burning food waste?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Comparing to a municipal compost service, that collects food waste to a central location and composts it there to afterwards distribute the end product as fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;2) Comparing to private composting in your own garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##### Background &#xD;&#xA;Burning food also *recycles* the material: it goes back to the natural cycle: Turns into CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is absorbed by plants, plants become food, food is burned (Of course, other chemicals also go back to the cycle - like nitrogen (I guess), which becomes useful for the plants through thunders).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, *burning might be much more energy efficient*: &#xD;&#xA;- Quite easy to accomplish.&#xD;&#xA;- Only comparably small space is needed.&#xD;&#xA;- Transport infrastructure of other burn-trash can be used (i.e. collecting cars have to drive only once)&#xD;&#xA;- No need to produce/distribute recycle bins.&#xD;&#xA;- You could produce electricity and/or hot water from the energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*So why would someone (a person, a city, a state, a country) go through the hassle of composting, when they can just &quot;recycle&quot; by burning their bio waste?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;##### References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This question][1] did not go into comparison details. Therefore I asked a new question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/158/why-should-i-compost" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30100" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12005" RevisionGUID="da779bf5-bc5c-4a1e-9667-22cfa435b14a" CreationDate="2022-01-01T12:40:54.917" />
  <row Id="30101" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12006" RevisionGUID="2b2e6f15-0ad5-43d0-883a-4c74042570d1" CreationDate="2022-01-01T18:38:45.137" UserId="3379" Comment="Added detail and sources." Text="### Benefits of composting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists [several benefits of composting](https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/reducing-impact-wasted-food-feeding-soil-and-composting):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compost reduces and in some cases eliminates the need for chemical fertilizers.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compost promotes higher yields of agricultural crops.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compost can help aid reforestation, wetlands restoration, and habitat revitalization efforts by improving contaminated, compacted, and marginal soils.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compost can be used to remediate soils contaminated by hazardous waste in a cost effective manner.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compost can provide cost savings over conventional soil, water and air pollution remediation technologies, where applicable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compost enhances water retention in soils.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compost provides carbon sequestration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They also mentioned reduced methane emissions, but if we're comparing composting to incineration where the methane would be burned, this doesn't apply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Composting is more efficient than incineration&#xD;&#xA;Some of the energy you'd produce from burning compost would go to producing the very things that compost becomes -- humus, fertilizer, and topsoil -- along with the packaging materials and transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By producing those products directly from compost, you skip the inefficiencies in each of these steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Compost -&gt; heat -&gt; energy -&gt; production, packaging, transport -&gt; garden/farm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you can just do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Compost -&gt; garden/farm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### With a digester, composting can still produce energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large operations can employ a methane digester to do [anaerobic digestion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion), which, according to Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is widely used as a source of renewable energy. The process produces a biogas, consisting of methane, carbon dioxide, and traces of other 'contaminant' gases. This biogas can be used directly as fuel, in combined heat and power gas engines or upgraded to natural gas-quality biomethane. The nutrient-rich digestate also produced can be used as fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(You can even purchase [digesters for use at home](https://www.homebiogas.com/product/homebiogas-2/), though they are probably impractical and expensive for most homes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Backyard composting is convenient&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I use a backyard composter because it keeps the stinky food out of my garbage can, reduces how often I have to take out the trash, and produces nutrient-rich humus that I supplement my vegetable garden with each year, producing better yields for less money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Municipal composting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MIT's Urban Sustainability Assessment produced a report titled [&quot;Municipal Curbside Compostables Collection: What Works and Why&quot;](http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14121.03680) which includes data on specific benefits of centralized municipal composting, including (paraphrased from Appendix A, &quot;The Benefits of Composting&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Diverting materials away from landfills, which can help meet landfill reduction targets and save on landfill fees.&#xD;&#xA; - Wet food waste reduces the efficiency of incinerators -- diverting waste food thus improves their operation by increasing the relative content of wood, paper, and other dry combustibles.&#xD;&#xA; - Locally owned/operated composting facilities reduce the need to transport waste to distant landfills *and* can create local job opportunities.&#xD;&#xA; - Many municipalities maintain parks, open spaces, and even some farms and gardens. Owning their own composting operations can reduce the costs of soil and soil amendments and increase productivity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30102" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12006" RevisionGUID="4d2152d3-1a47-4b5d-8114-7ed2d67cf4df" CreationDate="2022-01-01T20:28:13.150" UserId="3379" Comment="added 1481 characters in body" Text="## Composting has many benefits beyond dealing with waste&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists [several benefits of composting](https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/reducing-impact-wasted-food-feeding-soil-and-composting):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compost reduces and in some cases eliminates the need for chemical fertilizers.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compost promotes higher yields of agricultural crops.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compost can help aid reforestation, wetlands restoration, and habitat revitalization efforts by improving contaminated, compacted, and marginal soils.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compost can be used to remediate soils contaminated by hazardous waste in a cost effective manner.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compost can provide cost savings over conventional soil, water and air pollution remediation technologies, where applicable.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compost enhances water retention in soils.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; - Compost provides carbon sequestration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(They also mentioned reduced methane emissions, but if we're comparing composting to incineration where the methane would be burned, this doesn't apply.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Composting is more efficient than incineration...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### ... for by-products...&#xD;&#xA;Some of the energy you'd produce from burning compost would go to producing the very things that compost becomes -- humus, fertilizer, and topsoil -- along with the packaging materials and transportation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By producing those products directly from compost, you skip the inefficiencies in each of these steps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Compost -&gt; heat -&gt; energy -&gt; production, packaging, transport -&gt; garden/farm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Instead, you can just do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Compost -&gt; garden/farm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### ... and for energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About 23% of municipal solid waste (MSW) is comprised of food and yard waste that could be composted, according to the report [&quot;Waste Incineration and Public Health&quot;](https://www.nap.edu/read/5803/chapter/4#19) from the National Research Council. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of these materials also have a high moisture content. This moisture has to be removed (i.e. evaporated) before it can burn and produce energy, a step which in itself requires energy. From [&quot;Pyrolysis technologies for municipal solid waste: A review&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.08.004):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; During pyrolysis [i.e. incineration] the feedstock will not undergo thermal&#xD;&#xA;decomposition before its moisture is vaporized [...] therefore to reduce this part of energy, MSW components with high moisture content such as food wastes, biomass are suggested to be separate before pyrolysis. In addition, in order to reduce this portion of energy a drying step is usually adopted in front of pyrolysis reactor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So by removing compostable food waste, incinerators can be made simpler and more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, due to metal content, the ash from incinerators requires special handling and is one of the highest costs, according to the U.S. Department of Energy report [&quot;Waste-to-Energy from&#xD;&#xA;Municipal Solid Wastes&quot;](https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/08/f66/BETO--Waste-to-Energy-Report-August--2019.pdf). Removing content that doesn't have any metal (compostable waste) reduces these operating costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## With a digester, composting can still produce energy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large operations can employ a methane digester to do [anaerobic digestion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion), which, according to Wikipedia:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; is widely used as a source of renewable energy. The process produces a biogas, consisting of methane, carbon dioxide, and traces of other 'contaminant' gases. This biogas can be used directly as fuel, in combined heat and power gas engines or upgraded to natural gas-quality biomethane. The nutrient-rich digestate also produced can be used as fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(You can even purchase [digesters for use at home](https://www.homebiogas.com/product/homebiogas-2/), though they are probably impractical and expensive for most homes.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Backyard composting is convenient&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally, I use a backyard composter because it keeps the stinky food out of my garbage can, reduces how often I have to take out the trash, and produces nutrient-rich humus that I supplement my vegetable garden with each year, producing better yields for less money.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Municipal composting provides economic benefits&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MIT's Urban Sustainability Assessment produced a report titled [&quot;Municipal Curbside Compostables Collection: What Works and Why&quot;](http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14121.03680) which includes data on specific benefits of centralized municipal composting, including (paraphrased from Appendix A, &quot;The Benefits of Composting&quot;):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Diverting materials away from landfills, which can help meet landfill reduction targets and save on landfill fees.&#xD;&#xA; - Improved incinerator efficiency for the leftover waste (see above).&#xD;&#xA; - Locally owned/operated composting facilities reduce the need to transport waste to distant landfills *and* can create local job opportunities.&#xD;&#xA; - Many municipalities maintain parks, open spaces, and even some farms and gardens. Owning their own composting operations can reduce the costs of soil and soil amendments and increase productivity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30103" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11981" RevisionGUID="d954701c-e884-428c-b545-e99910ba3ef3" CreationDate="2022-01-02T01:41:10.730" UserId="9669" Comment="added 119 characters in body" Text="Coal is going to be the first victim of the green energy revolution as the least sustainable kind of fossil fuel. What do we do with all the mines, both surface and underground ones? You can do quite a few things (e.g. [flood][1] them and pump that warm water to heat homes or [turn][2] them into lakes), but what are the best upscaleable options that could handle thousands of mines about to shut down in a few years or, at most, decades' time? Don't forget about the people employed by the coal industry. I guess you can retrain former miners into photovoltaic engineers but you're unlikely to succeed in doing so on a large scale. How to make use of decommissioned coal mines, globally, in a way that is both environmentally and socially beneficial?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210706-how-flooded-coal-mines-could-heat-homes&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://www.premiercoal.com.au/page/sustainability/environment/lake-kepwari/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30104" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11986" RevisionGUID="916451b7-3b38-4d77-8a43-cc2517530bfe" CreationDate="2022-01-02T12:04:04.250" UserId="6393" Comment="links" Text="You have to understand that paper production is rapidly declining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Finland, a country with large forestry industry, the rule of thumb is that about half of wood is used for sawlogs and about half of wood is pulpwood. Note &quot;pulpwood&quot; does not mean it's used for only paper production. It's also used for making pulp and cardboard packaging for products ordered online. As content is more and more read digitally on a computer, paper production is on the decline, but as online shopping is rapidly gaining traction, cardboard packaging production is on the increase. In the future pulpwood might also be used for creating biochar for permanently storing carbon away from the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I downloaded the 2020 annual reports of Stora Enso, UPM and Metsä Board, three large forestry industry companies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stora Enso in 2020 produced 2.7 million tonnes of consumer board, 1.3 million tonnes of containerboard, 0.5 million tonnes of corrugated and other packaging solutions, 2.6 million tonnes of market pulp and 3.1 million tonnes of paper. Based on this, 3.1 million tonnes out of 10.2 million tonnes is paper. So about 30% of pulpwood used by Stora Enso is going to paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPM in 2020 is more paper-heavy: it produces 2 million tonnes of specialty papers, 6.4 million tonnes of communication papers and 3.7 million tonnes of biorefining outputs. So about 70% of its pulpwood goes to paper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Metsä Board, a far smaller company, makes 3.2 million tonnes of cardboard and pulp. Zero paper in that company.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we can conclude that out of 10.2+12.1+3.2 million tonnes (25.5 million tonnes) of pulpwood product outputs, 11.5 million tonnes is paper. That's 45% paper. Note not all of this is newspaper-grade paper or office printing paper, the paper also includes labels for product packaging too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, I'd say that about 45% of pulpwood goes to making paper, but that share is reducing rapidly. Because about half of harvested wood is pulpwood, that means about 22.5% of all harvested wood goes to paper. The share of paper is rapidly decreasing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sources:&#xD;&#xA;* &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.upm.com/siteassets/asset/investors/2020/upm-annual-report-2020.pdf&quot;&gt;UPM annual report 2020&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.metsaboard.com/MaterialArchive/Annual-reports-and-summaries/Metsa-Board-Annual-report-2020.pdf&quot;&gt;Metsä Board annual report 2020&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.storaenso.com/-/media/documents/download-center/documents/annual-reports/2020/storaenso_annual_report_2020.pdf&quot;&gt;Stora Enso annual report 2020&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I actually meant &quot;paper products&quot;, i.e. both paper and cardboard. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently, practically all of pulpwood is being used for paper products such as both paper and cardboard, and paper towels and toilet paper. The other uses such as textile fibers for clothing and biochar for permanently storing carbon away from the atmosphere are emerging and their share currently is practically zero. So if we can assume that about 50% of all harvested wood is pulpwood, then about 50% of harvested wood is used for paper products. So  your figure of 42% is not far away from that. Your publication is not outdated: the only change in forestry industry is between 1999 and 2021 is that in 1999, paper had a much larger share and paper towels, toilet paper and cardboard a smaller share.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Finland is probably not representative of the global forestry&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually, I have to disagree. Two of the companies whose annual reports I cited (Stora Enso and UPM) are major global companies with operations all around the world, despite the fact that the headquarters are in Finland. So they represent a significant share of the world forestry market.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, a significant share of currently existing forests on this planet are boreal taiga forests, similar to forests in Finland. Two major countries with big boreal taiga forests are Canada and Russia. The central European forests have been cut away long time ago, and the land is used for farming there. So Finnish forests are very representative of the economically utilized world forests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the fundamentals of forestry are similar all around the world. When you have harvested an entire forest, you plant a new forest. Young trees can have a high density so you plant a high density forest. Then at some stage when the forest has grown a bit, the trees are becoming so large they are competing for resources, yet not so large they would be useful for sawlogs. So you do a reduction harvest, harvesting away less viable trees (that are entirely used for pulpwood because they are too small for sawlogs). You let the forest grow more and you do a second reduction harvest, this time again giving you only pulpwood. Then at the end of the life cycle of the forest, most of the trees are useful for sawlogs, there may be little bit of trees here and there that are only useful for pulpwood. However, even though most of the trees are useful for sawlogs, only the bottom parts of their trunks are useful for it. The tree tops are narrow and thus can't be used for sawlogs, so they are pulpwood. These two effects (little bit of trees here and there not useful for sawlogs and tree tops not useful of sawlogs) mean about two thirds of the total solid volume is sawlogs and one third of total solid volume is pulpwood. You want to use as much as you can as sawlogs as sawlogs have a price of 60 EUR/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; whereas pulpwood has a price of 20 EUR/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. When you take into account the earlier reduction harvests that gave you entirely pulpwood, you can conclude that about half of the total harvested volume is pulpwood and about half of the total harvested volume is sawlogs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How forestry differs between different temperature areas is that boreal taiga forests are cold, so the tree species are mainly pine and spruce (and perhaps birch) and they grow so slowly that time between terminal harvests is between 70 and 120 years. In warmer areas, different tree species are used, and the trees grow faster so time between terminal harvests is far shorter. Yet the fundamentals are the same: you want to use as much as you can as sawlogs and minimize the produced pulpwood amount (yet you still get half pulpwood!) and you have to do several reduction harvests to remove less viable trees as pulpwood to give more viable trees enough resources to grow bigger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="227" RevisionGUID="27ff14f1-489f-4a02-ad21-b9596d3eee25" CreationDate="2022-01-02T13:35:35.610" UserId="66" Comment="remove dead link" Text="Things you could do with organic waste, other than composting:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* For food and garden weeds/waste, most of this makes decent chicken food. If I dump a wheelbarrow of weeds from the garden into the chicken run, the girls go nuts -- similarly with a bucket of kitchen waste. They'll skip the stuff they don't like (e.g. banana peels), and you can rake this up when they're done to use for composting. (If you watch [Back to Eden](http://backtoedenfilm.com/), there's a short segment about this practice. It's only a short bit of the film, but the rest of it is worth watching anyway.) Other animals will eat scraps like this too -- pigs, for example. (But do know your animals and avoid feeding anything that would be harmful!)&#xD;&#xA;* If you're getting resistance to simply managing a &quot;proper&quot; compost pile, you could switch to low-management forms of composting like trench composting. With this, you just dig a trench maybe 45-60cm deep and as long as appropriate. Fill the trench with your organic waste, starting at one end. When a section of the trench is filled to within 5-10cm of the top of the hole, cover with topsoil. Over time the waste will decompose and the trench will sink a bit -- you can  dig another trench next to it and use the soil from the second trench to level out the first one.&#xD;&#xA;* A biogas digester, though this requires some up-front investment and some acquired skill in managing the equipment and handling the gas. I don't have direct experience with biogas, but I'd guess that this would work better on a community level." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30106" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12008" RevisionGUID="a11c3c88-67a5-4258-af8d-627458fac5ec" CreationDate="2022-01-02T15:44:46.747" UserId="6024" Text="I am reading https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-nuclear-energy-gas-green-climate-technology/ that this (2022) year the EU will have to decide on the labeling of nuclear energy - is it sustainable and/or green and/or at least can help the transitioning to the green, carbon-free and sustainable Europe and world?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there scientific/academic consensus on this question, e.g. in the form of IPCC report or something similar?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.s. I am watching *Don't look up* in these days and I feel that nuclear scientists and engineer are something like astronomers in this movie - they have the important part of the solution by they are being isolated by the secular religion, political and business interests or just popular subculture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30108" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12008" RevisionGUID="a11c3c88-67a5-4258-af8d-627458fac5ec" CreationDate="2022-01-02T15:44:46.747" UserId="6024" Text="Is there definitive, authoritative scientific/academic consensus about the sustainability and greenness of nuclear energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30109" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12008" RevisionGUID="a11c3c88-67a5-4258-af8d-627458fac5ec" CreationDate="2022-01-02T15:44:46.747" UserId="6024" Text="|nuclear|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30110" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12009" RevisionGUID="cc3507d4-2d11-4b2c-9623-4c6cfdcd7b49" CreationDate="2022-01-02T15:46:53.623" UserId="9669" Text="How is recycling of plastics beneficial to the climate? Using PET flakes, for example, reduces your indirect demand for oil extraction, it's good. But if you break them down to monomers during chemical recycling, it's more or less the same thing as synthesizing monomers from oil or gas, isn't it? Is reducing demand for oil the only reason production with recycled material has a lower carbon footprint than virgin production? Are there complex analyses that look into when (at what stages) GHGs are emitted and what technological differences between recycled and virgin plastics lead to different climate impacts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30112" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12009" RevisionGUID="cc3507d4-2d11-4b2c-9623-4c6cfdcd7b49" CreationDate="2022-01-02T15:46:53.623" UserId="9669" Text="How is recycling of plastics beneficial to the climate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30113" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12009" RevisionGUID="cc3507d4-2d11-4b2c-9623-4c6cfdcd7b49" CreationDate="2022-01-02T15:46:53.623" UserId="9669" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30114" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12008" RevisionGUID="320ebf16-9e1b-4ba4-9660-b11f0c467a76" CreationDate="2022-01-02T15:49:51.670" UserId="6024" Comment="added 750 characters in body" Text="I am reading https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-nuclear-energy-gas-green-climate-technology/ that this (2022) year the EU will have to decide on the labeling of nuclear energy - is it sustainable and/or green and/or at least can help the transitioning to the green, carbon-free and sustainable Europe and world?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there scientific/academic consensus on this question, e.g. in the form of IPCC report or something similar?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.s. I am watching *Don't look up* in these days and I feel that nuclear scientists and engineers are something like astronomers in this movie - they have the important part of the solution by they are being isolated by the secular religion, political and business interests or just popular subculture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.p.s. I am also reading scientific papers about the nuclear fusion synthesis of heavy metals. Many green technologies require heavy (rare, precious) metals and the price of them can stop the greening of the world. That is why we should be bold and try to seek the synthesis of those metals in nuclear fusion reactors. Yes, this is quite a distant future because of technical hurdles, but still - scientifically it is possible and only the technical/engineering issues should be solved and the price of this technological process should be lowered. My guess is that nuclear engineering can one of the main component to both the green world and to transhuman world of superabundance. That is why I hope that we will not kill nuclear technologies." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12010" RevisionGUID="127776e8-8437-42f2-aee1-4aafd5ba96a1" CreationDate="2022-01-02T16:46:31.053" UserId="6024" Text="The green technologies require a lot of rare earth and precious chemical elements which are composed of the heavy nuclei that (beyond iron) are quite rare on our planet and our Solar system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All those heavy nuclei/elements can be theoretically synthesized in nuclear reactions. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2019.0301 is review about those reactions that are happening in the nature. While the article is saying that heavy elements emerges in such a &quot;exotic&quot; processes as the mergers of neutron stars or explosion of supernova, we should put those processes into the perspective of what the human beings have achieved already. Indeed - the mentioned processes (neutron start mergers and explosion of supernova) are just nuclear reactions that transform one element into another and those processes can be repeated even today in the accelerators with the electromagnetically accelerated ions of lighter of heavier elements. Indeed, human beings have already achieve the processes of more higher energy densities/temperatures that smashes the nuclei, protons and neutrons into quark-gluon soup, into the matter that existed the the Big Bang.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, from the theoretical and experimental point of view the human beings are already repeating the reactions that created the heavy elements/nuclei. The scale is the problem. Our accelerators are doing the reactions on single of few nuclei, but technologies requires the amounts of 10^25 of nuclei. So, scalability should be achieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is - taking into account the theoretical possibility of creation the rare earth and precious elements in the accelerators - **is it acceptable for the society to label as sustainable and green the science and technology that develops and advances the nuclear synthesis of heavy elements in the industrial quantities?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see here the dilemma. From the one hand there are the usual risks with the nuclear technologies. From the other hand the greening and sustainability and growth can be halted if there are not enough rare earth and precious metals for the green technologies. So, I see the safety advancement as the only solution that preserves the growth and leads to green and sustainable future." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12010" RevisionGUID="127776e8-8437-42f2-aee1-4aafd5ba96a1" CreationDate="2022-01-02T16:46:31.053" UserId="6024" Text="Can the society label the development of the recyclable nuclear synthesis processes as sustainable and green?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12010" RevisionGUID="127776e8-8437-42f2-aee1-4aafd5ba96a1" CreationDate="2022-01-02T16:46:31.053" UserId="6024" Text="|nuclear|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12012" RevisionGUID="f3d4aae6-17b3-4055-9773-6bfb522b1bac" CreationDate="2022-01-02T17:17:49.747" UserId="3379" Text="### No, and it's unlikely there ever will be -- because the risk is just too high and hard to quantify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. in the 1950s, the government wanted to encourage the development of a civilian nuclear power industry, so they spoke to nuclear scientists and engineers, investors, and utility professionals to understand the key obstacles. Technology? financing? fuel supply?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there are challenges with all of these, the real kicker end up being insurability. At the time, the most liability insurance that was available for utilities was $60 million (about $600 million in today's dollars), and this was seen as inadequate. The solution to this was the [Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act). Per the Wikipedia article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The main purpose of the Act is to partially compensate the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $15 billion (as of 2021) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What this means is that all nuclear plants pay into an insurance fund. In the event of a disaster, the first $15 billion (or $12.6 for an individual claim) come from the fund -- anything beyond this comes from the taxpayers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Is the risk really that bad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might argue that in the 1950s people were scared of nuclear, and such protection isn't necessary today. In fact, congress set a time limit on the act, thinking that private insurers would eventually catch up. But insurance companies, who are in the business of calculating risk, never changed their minds on the insurability of nuclear power. Since the plants were built and politicians are suckers for the [sunk cost fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Fallacy_effect), the only feasible option was to extend the act, which has been done six times since by congress, with the coverage increasing each time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turns out the private interests were correct on this one, too -- of all nuclear reactors ever built, [about 1.5% of them have melted down](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/44087/38403). Would you buy a car if you knew it would break down five times a year if you drive every day? Possibly, but you'd expect the maintenance costs to be higher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Aren't modern plants better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, they probably are better and safer. But the [Fukushima incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster) taught us that some risks just can't be managed, and as a result Japan will be [releasing radioactive water into the ocean for the next 30 years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_of_radioactive_water_of_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to make plants better is to spend more money on them, and that's exactly what's been happening. To [quote myself](https://slipstreaminc.org/blog/who-real-rodney-dangerfield-energy):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The most recent nuclear power plant to come on-line in the U.S. is Watts Bar 2, in eastern Tennessee. The plant came on-line in October 2016, after starting construction in January 1973 -- that's nearly 44 years. Of course, that includes a halt in construction that lasted 22 years, from 1985 until 2007. The last plant to come on-line before Watts Bar 2 was Watts Bar 1, which did come on-line 20 years sooner, in 1996. But that's still 23 years from start to finish. And what about the cost? When construction on Watts Bar 2 halted, $1.7B had already been invested. When construction started up again, it was estimated that an additional investment of $2.5B would be required to complete the plant. This was shockingly optimistic, as the total additional cost ended up being $4.7B, for a total construction cost of $6.4B, or $5.57/watt. Meanwhile, over at Vogtle (in Georgia, the only plant currently under construction), the current estimate of the final cost is $25B, or $11.19/watt. This compares extremely unfavorably to natural gas at about $0.89/W and solar at $2.43/W. Nuclear is reliable and clean -- but not cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why not focus on improving the technology further?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly an option, and most likely research and development will continue in this area -- there are certainly things to be optimistic about such as [traveling wave reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor) and [fusion reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when it comes to governing bodies approving and subsidizing energy investments today, it is simply financially irresponsible to divert time and money from things such as batteries, wind, and solar to nuclear power. While these three technologies keep getting cheaper, better, and faster to build, nuclear keeps getting slower and more expensive, with no clear way to mitigate the risks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30123" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12008" RevisionGUID="366316de-353f-46fd-b0cf-240a9ae03b04" CreationDate="2022-01-02T17:28:18.323" UserId="6024" Comment="added 169 characters in body" Text="I am reading https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-nuclear-energy-gas-green-climate-technology/ that this (2022) year the EU will have to decide on the labeling of nuclear energy - is it sustainable and/or green and/or at least can help the transitioning to the green, carbon-free and sustainable Europe and world?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there scientific/academic consensus on this question, e.g. in the form of IPCC report or something similar?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.s. I am watching *Don't look up* in these days and I feel that nuclear scientists and engineers are something like astronomers in this movie - they have the important part of the solution by they are being isolated by the secular religion, political and business interests or just popular subculture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;p.p.s. I am also reading scientific papers about the nuclear fusion synthesis of heavy metals. Many green technologies require heavy (rare, precious) metals and the price of them can stop the greening of the world. That is why we should be bold and try to seek the synthesis of those metals in nuclear fusion reactors. Yes, this is quite a distant future because of technical hurdles, but still - scientifically it is possible and only the technical/engineering issues should be solved and the price of this technological process should be lowered. My guess is that nuclear engineering can one of the main component to both the green world and to transhuman world of superabundance. That is why I hope that we will not kill nuclear technologies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For background information see this UN short report https://unece.org/climate-change/press/international-climate-objectives-will-not-be-met-if-nuclear-power-excluded" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12013" RevisionGUID="4fb9df69-d7e3-4f17-aefc-7b2b051ee5db" CreationDate="2022-01-02T18:03:53.443" UserId="6393" Text="Sustainable? What do you count as sustainable? Do you consider for example solar power or wind power or geothermal power sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They aren't. If you extract solar power, eventually the sun has run out of fusion fuel, and you can't extract solar power anymore. Same for wind -- it's just harvesting solar power in an indirect way. Geothermal power relies on earth having enough thermal energy. The faster you extract geothermal heat energy, the faster it runs out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we bend a little bit the definition of &quot;sustainability&quot;, and consider solutions that have enough fuel for 5 billion years &quot;sustainable&quot;, then some forms of nuclear energy are sustainable. Nuclear energy based on U-235 isn't (as only 0.7% of natural uranium is U-235, so eventually we will run out of U-235 and have only U-238 left), but nuclear energy based on U-238 (converting it to plutonium in breeder reactors) is sustainable. Also, thorium reactors are sustainable too (they convert thorium to U-233) because essentially all of thorium is the isotope 232, and it can be converted entirely to U-233 in breeder reactors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also good breeder reactors that have proper waste processing (a lot of the waste, especially of the most active waste, is good nuclear fuel) can provide a waste stream that decays faster than the waste stream of our once-through reactors. So the waste issue is mostly solved, because only 300-400 years of storage is needed for the waste (it decays in 300-400 years to the activity of natural ore) as opposed to hundreds of thousands or millions of years of the waste of current reactors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current nuclear reactors, that aren't passively safe, are by far the safest electricity generation method we currently have. Compared to it, for example wind power is fatal (it kills people servicing the wind turbine at great heights) and solar power is fatal (it kills people on the roof, servicing the solar array, resulting in people getting fallen from the roof). Any combustion-based electricity production method should be banned right away if we need the very good safety of current nuclear reactors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passively safe reactors, by the way, are safe even in the hands of incompetent people. For example, the General Atomics TRIGA nuclear reactor in Finland was operated by university students. It was in the middle of a university building. No accidents happened, because it was designed to be safe. The university was very near the city center, and there were huge amounts of people living in 5 mile radius. No problem there. We could build all nuclear reactors that way: so that they can be operated in the middle of a city. That way, their waste heat could be economically utilized in city district heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, current nuclear reactors aren't the only way. In current reactors, every plant is a custom design and has to be proven safe enough separately. They also aren't passively safe. However, there is nothing preventing construction of nuclear reactors in factory assembly lines, so that only the general design needs to be proven safe once, and everyone would use essentially the same reactor. They can also be made passively safe, to prevent the accident of Fukushima for example (if we consider it important enough to prevent a future Fukushima -- the death toll of the Fukushima nuclear accident by the way is far below the death toll of the tsunami that caused it; completely different orders of magnitude here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big mistake in nuclear power was stopping research, development and construction of new nuclear reactors in 1980s. Because of this, we don't have passively safe reactors. We don't have reactors produced in factory assembly lines (very cheap!). We don't have breeder reactors that produce enough electricity for 5 billion years. We don't have reactors that produce waste that decays to natural radioactivity in 300-400 years. We don't have thorium reactors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best choice, right now, if we want to have any chance of stopping the climate crisis is to construct massive amounts of all clean electricity production methods, as much as we can. This includes hydropower. This includes hydrogen-based energy storage. This includes battery-based energy storage. This includes wind power. This includes solar power. This includes current nuclear reactors. And before someone claims that we haven't solved the waste problem of current nuclear reactors, we have: Finland has geological permanent storage for nuclear waste, good for the amount of time it stays radioactive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we should not stop there: we should begin the R&amp;D to create reactors produced in assembly lines, passively safe, capable of utilizing all natural uranium and thorium in breeder mode, capable of producing waste that needs storage for only 300-400 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the EU labeling, by the way, it's bullshit. They are planning to consider natural gas &quot;sustainable&quot;. The only way it can be sustainable if it's used only for peaking power plants (so its capacity factor is below 15%) and if the carbon dioxide produced is captured and stored back underground from where the natural gas came. The massive production of baseload electricity using natural gas is nothing but foolish." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12014" RevisionGUID="78b388bc-1962-471a-bdd2-b4fde25d9a01" CreationDate="2022-01-02T20:30:17.133" UserId="3379" Text="## Recycling plastic uses less energy than producing new plastic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Note: this answer borrows heavily from [my answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/6667/3379) to an earlier question about [shipping plastic](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/6593/3379).*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to Wikipedia, [polyethylene (PE)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene) is the most common type of plastic. There are three main categories of polyethylene (also [from Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **PET** (polyethylene terephthalate), used in polyester fibers, drink bottles, tote bags, furniture, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - **HDPE** (High-density polyethylene), used in bottles, playground equipment, plastic lumber, etc.&#xD;&#xA; - **PP** (polypropylene), used for auto parts, industrial fibers, food containers, and dishes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 2019 the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR), the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), and the PET Resin Association (PETRA) funded a third-party life cycle analysis of PET, HDPE, and PP recycling. The study is available here (pdf): [&quot;Life Cycle Impacts for Postconsumer Recycled Resins: PET, HDPE, and PP&quot;](https://plasticsrecycling.org/images/library/2018-APR-LCI-report.pdf).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results show significant energy savings from using recycled plastics:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Energy savings from recycling PET, HDPE, and PP][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The analysis includes all aspects of the recycling process, including collection, transportation, cleaning, and processing. &quot;Cut-off&quot; assigns 100% of the impacts of the virgin plastic to the first use, while the &quot;open loop&quot; analysis distributes the impact of the virgin plastic across all subsequent uses of the product (i.e. even a product made from 100% recycled plastic required virgin plastic at some point in it's lifecycle).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the sustainability-minded, the open loop analysis is most relevant -- in this case, **recycling PE results in an energy savings of about 30% compared to virgin PE**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qtzOP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30128" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12008" RevisionGUID="08e63ed3-878b-4da3-af2c-fbf04a0c2fcb" CreationDate="2022-01-02T23:46:13.063" />
  <row Id="30129" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12015" RevisionGUID="66f994cd-f038-4d59-a097-c050988a5781" CreationDate="2022-01-03T01:52:44.663" UserId="3379" Text="Today, breastfeeding is recommended for all newborns due to the health benefits for both the infant and the mother. In addition to health benefits, it is generally cheaper than formula feeding, and once established, is more convenient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most formula is made from cow's milk ([per Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_formula#Preparation_and_content)), and given the [environmental impact of the dairy industry](https://www.nrdc.org/stories/shrink-your-carbon-footprint-ease-dairy), it seems obvious that breastfeeding would be more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this true? **What, if any, are the environmental benefits of breastfeeding compared to formula feeding?** I am hoping for answers which provide research, data, or life cycle analyses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30131" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12015" RevisionGUID="66f994cd-f038-4d59-a097-c050988a5781" CreationDate="2022-01-03T01:52:44.663" UserId="3379" Text="Is breastfeeding more sustainable than formula feeding?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30132" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12015" RevisionGUID="66f994cd-f038-4d59-a097-c050988a5781" CreationDate="2022-01-03T01:52:44.663" UserId="3379" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30133" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12012" RevisionGUID="e0123cad-23aa-46eb-9ed4-5fc5b069be0d" CreationDate="2022-01-03T11:08:57.280" UserId="3379" Comment="deleted 156 characters in body" Text="### No, and it's unlikely there ever will be -- because the risk is just too high and hard to quantify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. in the 1950s, the government wanted to encourage the development of a civilian nuclear power industry, so they spoke to nuclear scientists and engineers, investors, and utility professionals to understand the key obstacles. Technology? financing? fuel supply?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there are challenges with all of these, the real kicker end up being insurability. At the time, the most liability insurance that was available for utilities was $60 million (about $600 million in today's dollars), and this was seen as inadequate. The solution to this was the [Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act). Per the Wikipedia article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The main purpose of the Act is to partially compensate the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $15 billion (as of 2021) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What this means is that all nuclear plants pay into an insurance fund. In the event of a disaster, the first $15 billion (or $12.6 for an individual claim) come from the fund -- anything beyond this comes from the taxpayers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Is the risk really that bad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might argue that in the 1950s people were scared of nuclear, and such protection isn't necessary today. In fact, congress set a time limit on the act, thinking that private insurers would eventually catch up. But insurance companies, who are in the business of calculating risk, never changed their minds on the insurability of nuclear power. Since the plants were built and politicians are suckers for the [sunk cost fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Fallacy_effect), the only feasible option was to extend the act, which has been done six times since by congress, with the coverage increasing each time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turns out the private interests were correct on this one, too -- of all nuclear reactors ever built, [about 1.5% of them have melted down](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/44087/38403). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Aren't modern plants better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, they probably are better and safer. But the [Fukushima incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster) taught us that some risks just can't be managed, and as a result Japan will be [releasing radioactive water into the ocean for the next 30 years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_of_radioactive_water_of_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to make plants better is to spend more money on them, and that's exactly what's been happening. To [quote myself](https://slipstreaminc.org/blog/who-real-rodney-dangerfield-energy):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The most recent nuclear power plant to come on-line in the U.S. is Watts Bar 2, in eastern Tennessee. The plant came on-line in October 2016, after starting construction in January 1973 -- that's nearly 44 years. Of course, that includes a halt in construction that lasted 22 years, from 1985 until 2007. The last plant to come on-line before Watts Bar 2 was Watts Bar 1, which did come on-line 20 years sooner, in 1996. But that's still 23 years from start to finish. And what about the cost? When construction on Watts Bar 2 halted, $1.7B had already been invested. When construction started up again, it was estimated that an additional investment of $2.5B would be required to complete the plant. This was shockingly optimistic, as the total additional cost ended up being $4.7B, for a total construction cost of $6.4B, or $5.57/watt. Meanwhile, over at Vogtle (in Georgia, the only plant currently under construction), the current estimate of the final cost is $25B, or $11.19/watt. This compares extremely unfavorably to natural gas at about $0.89/W and solar at $2.43/W. Nuclear is reliable and clean -- but not cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why not focus on improving the technology further?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly an option, and most likely research and development will continue in this area -- there are certainly things to be optimistic about such as [traveling wave reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor) and [fusion reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when it comes to governing bodies approving and subsidizing energy investments today, it is simply financially irresponsible to divert time and money from things such as batteries, wind, and solar to nuclear power. While these three technologies keep getting cheaper, better, and faster to build, nuclear keeps getting slower and more expensive, with no clear way to mitigate the risks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30134" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12015" RevisionGUID="5253b653-4e6b-4b3f-ac81-a404a0a4e4b0" CreationDate="2022-01-03T16:34:58.737" UserId="3379" Comment="added 105 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Today, breastfeeding is recommended for all newborns due to the health benefits for both the infant and the mother. In addition to health benefits, it is cheaper than formula feeding, and once established, is more convenient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most formula is made from cow's milk ([per Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_formula#Preparation_and_content)), and given the [environmental impact of the dairy industry](https://www.nrdc.org/stories/shrink-your-carbon-footprint-ease-dairy), it seems obvious that breastfeeding would be more sustainable. This is without considering the plastic bottles, formula packaging, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to understand the magnitude of these benefits. **What are the specific environmental benefits of breastfeeding compared to formula feeding?** I am hoping for answers which provide research, data, or life cycle analyses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30135" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12015" RevisionGUID="5253b653-4e6b-4b3f-ac81-a404a0a4e4b0" CreationDate="2022-01-03T16:34:58.737" UserId="3379" Comment="added 105 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="How much more sustianable is breastfeeding than formula feeding?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30136" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12015" RevisionGUID="5253b653-4e6b-4b3f-ac81-a404a0a4e4b0" CreationDate="2022-01-03T16:34:58.737" UserId="3379" Comment="added 105 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|food|baby|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30137" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="7086" RevisionGUID="a181d58d-4d2c-410c-972c-a69a6bd2261c" CreationDate="2022-01-03T16:35:18.753" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|environmental-impact|life-cycle-analysis|waste-minimisation|baby|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30138" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5951" RevisionGUID="6c192fc1-d23e-4efa-9526-e49773a116fd" CreationDate="2022-01-03T16:35:25.940" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|alternatives|hygiene|baby|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30139" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="907" RevisionGUID="084915a8-f517-4120-b70e-6844d9b2021f" CreationDate="2022-01-03T16:36:52.393" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|home|composting|ecological-footprint|clothing|baby|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30140" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2376" RevisionGUID="36553b6d-c8d2-4578-acbf-4cd7b6b61b36" CreationDate="2022-01-03T16:37:11.460" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|home|paper|waste-minimisation|baby|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30141" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12012" RevisionGUID="a357b3f0-e816-41c4-8ed7-1d5db1b416c3" CreationDate="2022-01-03T16:53:49.020" UserId="3379" Comment="added 314 characters in body" Text="### No, and it's unlikely there ever will be -- because the risk is just too high and hard to quantify.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S. in the 1950s, the government wanted to encourage the development of a civilian nuclear power industry, so they spoke to nuclear scientists and engineers, investors, and utility professionals to understand the key obstacles. Technology? financing? fuel supply?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While there are challenges with all of these, the real kicker end up being insurability. At the time, the most liability insurance that was available for utilities was $60 million (about $600 million in today's dollars), and this was seen as inadequate. The solution to this was the [Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act). Per the Wikipedia article:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The main purpose of the Act is to partially compensate the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first approximately $15 billion (as of 2021) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate to retroactively increase nuclear utility liability or would be covered by the federal government.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What this means is that all nuclear plants pay into an insurance fund. In the event of a disaster, the first $15 billion (or $12.6 for an individual claim) come from the fund -- anything beyond this comes from the taxpayers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Is the risk really that bad?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might argue that in the 1950s people were scared of nuclear, and such protection isn't necessary today. In fact, congress set a time limit on the act, thinking that private insurers would eventually catch up. But insurance companies, who are in the business of calculating risk, never changed their minds on the insurability of nuclear power. Since the plants were built and politicians are suckers for the [sunk cost fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Fallacy_effect), the only feasible option was to extend the act, which has been done six times since by congress, with the coverage increasing each time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turns out the private interests were correct on this one, too -- of all nuclear reactors ever built, [about 1.5% of them have melted down](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/44087/38403). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Haven't safety standards gotten better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, they probably are better and safer. But the problem is that the likelihood or severity of some risks just can't be predicted, and the impacts can span generations and continents:&#xD;&#xA; - As a result of the [Chernobyl incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster), radiation traveled [as far as Canada](http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/Rad7b.html#Canada).&#xD;&#xA; - As a result of the [Fukushima incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster), Japan will be [releasing radioactive water into the ocean for the next 30 years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discharge_of_radioactive_water_of_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to make plants better is to spend more money on them, and that's exactly what's been happening. To [quote myself](https://slipstreaminc.org/blog/who-real-rodney-dangerfield-energy) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The most recent nuclear power plant to come on-line in the U.S. is Watts Bar 2, in eastern Tennessee. The plant came on-line in October 2016, after starting construction in January 1973 -- that's nearly 44 years. Of course, that includes a halt in construction that lasted 22 years, from 1985 until 2007. The last plant to come on-line before Watts Bar 2 was Watts Bar 1, which did come on-line 20 years sooner, in 1996. But that's still 23 years from start to finish. And what about the cost? When construction on Watts Bar 2 halted, $1.7B had already been invested. When construction started up again, it was estimated that an additional investment of $2.5B would be required to complete the plant. **This was shockingly optimistic, as the total additional cost ended up being $4.7B, for a total construction cost of $6.4B, or $5.57/watt. Meanwhile, over at Vogtle (in Georgia, the only plant currently under construction), the current estimate of the final cost is $25B, or $11.19/watt.** This compares extremely unfavorably to natural gas at about $0.89/W and solar at $2.43/W. Nuclear is reliable and clean -- but not cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Why not focus on improving the technology further?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is certainly an option, and most likely research and development will continue in this area -- there are certainly things to be optimistic about such as [traveling wave reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor) and [fusion reactors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But when it comes to governing bodies approving and subsidizing energy investments today, it is simply financially irresponsible to divert time and money from things such as batteries, wind, and solar to nuclear power. While these three technologies keep getting cheaper, better, and faster to build, nuclear keeps getting slower and more expensive, with no clear way to mitigate the risks." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30143" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2842" RevisionGUID="bc761cde-8e3c-4efb-bf1c-b93c0279e953" CreationDate="2022-01-03T19:30:53.087" UserId="1053" Comment="deleted 15 characters in body" Text="In Canada we return wine and beer bottles and beer cans, and the super large water bottles you see used in water coolers. You pay a deposit when you buy them, and you return them to the place you bought them (mostly; wine bottles are returned to [a place that sells beer][1], not wine, because [they have the contract][2].) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Time was, the beer bottles were [all the same][3] and were reused. Now every beer seems to have its own shape and colour. I can't easily discover what fraction of the returns are reused and what are recycled, but the claim is that 95% of the packaging for wine, beer and spirits (including corks, bottle caps, and boxes) is returned. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I grew up returning 4 quart milk jugs for reuse in Ontario; we consider it normal to take stuff back. We also have extensive recycling options with home pickup, but you don't put returnable stuff in the blue box. (Apparently if you do, the municipality will extract it and return it - I guess they get the deposit in that case.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.thebeerstore.ca/about-us/environmental-leadership&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Deposit_Return_Program&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_bottle#Stubby_and_steinie" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30148" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12008" RevisionGUID="904e0148-0415-4c5d-850d-28a8395f2a49" CreationDate="2022-01-04T12:00:03.720" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1478335415031631884" />
  <row Id="30150" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11954" RevisionGUID="aad898ac-e2c5-4210-9b43-4e353dc0128a" CreationDate="2022-01-04T17:51:23.990" UserId="13592" Comment="Made (1) and (2) an enumeration." Text="There are two ways this can be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, it's possible to collect the plastic somehow from oceans, and then convert into protein. However, this approach has two problems: &#xD;&#xA;1) It's only feasible to collect the largest plastic pieces from large garbage areas, as opposed to collecting the most harmful microplastic so you are collecting only the least harmful objects (but there may be some benefit still as &quot;macroplastics&quot; today will be microplastics tomorrow),&#xD;&#xA;2) If you collect the plastic, why convert it into protein in a bioreactor -- why not burn into energy in a waste-to-energy plant as that surely will be cheaper than a bioreactor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it seems collecting plastic waste from oceans is not a good approach: you can collect only the least harmful waste, and if you do so, you don't need the new microorganism but rather can burn the collected plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there some other way? Yes there is -- if the microorganism has been engineered to survive in the oceans, we could release it into the oceans and let it multiply and do its job. However, in this case we would be releasing genetically engineered microorganisms into the wild, which seems like a bad idea. It's uncertain how this would affect the ecosystems around the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can actually note that long time ago, lignin and cellulose in wood couldn't be eaten by microorganisms. Therefore, old forests became coal deposits as there were no organisms that could consume the dead trees. Today, that will no longer happen because microorganisms have evolved the ability to consume the nutrients in dead trees. So it may be that one possible solution for plastic pollution could be if microorganisms developed the ability to eat plastic -- either by genetic engineering or via natural evolution. So certainly having plastic-eating bacteria in oceans is one possible solution." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30151" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11954" RevisionGUID="aad898ac-e2c5-4210-9b43-4e353dc0128a" CreationDate="2022-01-04T17:51:23.990" Comment="Proposed by 13592 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 686" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30152" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12017" RevisionGUID="523bf477-b16e-4a23-8d85-4082ce4f1bf3" CreationDate="2022-01-05T01:22:06.750" UserId="13629" Text="Would blowing a fan on yourself and raising the AC save energy on hot days? Assume we keep the feels-like temperature the same. For example, 23C with still air and 28C with airflow may feel similar. An aimed box fan on a medium setting shouldn't take much energy, but still provide air movement when the vents are not running (or when you are away from where the vents blow to)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30154" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12017" RevisionGUID="523bf477-b16e-4a23-8d85-4082ce4f1bf3" CreationDate="2022-01-05T01:22:06.750" UserId="13629" Text="Combining fans and AC" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30155" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12017" RevisionGUID="523bf477-b16e-4a23-8d85-4082ce4f1bf3" CreationDate="2022-01-05T01:22:06.750" UserId="13629" Text="|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30156" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12017" RevisionGUID="10dfe1b6-ef10-4daf-8f7d-9222deda8c74" CreationDate="2022-01-05T01:38:48.223" UserId="13629" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Would blowing a fan on yourself and easing the AC save energy on hot days? Assume we keep the feels-like temperature the same. For example, 23C with still air and 28C with a fan may feel similar. An aimed box fan on a medium setting shouldn't take much energy, but still provide air movement when the vents are not running (or when you are away from where the vents blow to)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30157" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12005" RevisionGUID="8bd209ba-2aee-4452-89e6-9b238a3494fa" CreationDate="2022-01-05T03:00:20.463" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1478561977664430084" />
  <row Id="30158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12017" RevisionGUID="978a81bc-8dac-40c1-bc08-793abcd15091" CreationDate="2022-01-05T09:59:42.927" UserId="2345" Comment="Degree symbol for temperatures" Text="Would blowing a fan on yourself and easing the AC save energy on hot days? Assume we keep the feels-like temperature the same. For example, 23 &amp;deg;C with still air and 28 &amp;deg;C with a fan may feel similar. An aimed box fan on a medium setting shouldn't take much energy, but still provide air movement when the vents are not running (or when you are away from where the vents blow to)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30159" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12018" RevisionGUID="3f5f7838-ae7a-4b02-94c6-f527128df26d" CreationDate="2022-01-05T10:20:18.943" UserId="2345" Text="Depending on the circumstances, using a fan when it is hot instead of air conditioning can reduce electricity consumption, but it depends on both temperature and humidity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Directing fan forced air onto oneself is similar to the effect a breeze has on a hot day. It's cooling effect derives from the increased ability of sweat to evaporate. As humidity increases the ability of the air to absorb moisture decreases and this decreases the cooling effect of blowing ambient temperature air onto one's body.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During very humid periods refrigerative air conditioning is the only way to be become cool. The disadvantage of using refrigerative air conditioning is that in addition to consuming electricity for the associated fan, electricity is used  to compress the refrigerant and pump it to the air conditioning head.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Evaporative air conditioners blow air through a water moist pad to cool. They become less effective in humid conditions because they are adding additional moist air to air that already contains a high degree of moisture. They are best suited to dry inland regions as opposed to coastal regions or areas near large bodies of water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can seek relief using a fan you will be using less electricity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30161" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12019" RevisionGUID="e7dbad22-6f00-4acb-bb44-7a0b89621b2b" CreationDate="2022-01-05T11:23:41.587" UserId="2345" Text="[Technetium][1] has been made artificially for decades. It is the lightest element whose isotopes are all radioactive. Because of its relatively short half life, 4.2 million years, and the fact that Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, very little natural technetium **exists on Earth**. It has been detected in red giant stars. Technetium is manufactured because it is a useful gamma-ray emitting medical radioisotope that is used in diagnosing bone cancer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The question as to whether the synthesizing of scarce elements via artificial means is labelled green and sustainable will largely comes down to what energy sources are used in the synthesizing process. I very much doubt it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30163" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12020" RevisionGUID="ec9431e6-e08e-45fe-9252-638bfb61a10e" CreationDate="2022-01-05T14:47:38.867" UserId="13635" Text="I would summarize the argument this way:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The argument *for* nuclear power being green is that it doesn't emit carbon dioxide. Also today's nuclear reactors are designed to run continuously with steady output. This makes them ideal for complementing solar and wind, whose power output fluctuates. So in that sense also, nuclear power is &quot;green&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, nuclear power is sustainable because there is no shortage of uranium. Plus, despite what people think, the engineering of storing high-activity nuclear waste is a solved problem, the issue now being that people are nervous about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The argument *against* nuclear power being sustainable is that it has the potential to cause accidents that contaminate wide areas with radioactivity. This has happened twice: Chernobyl and Fukushima. In both cases power reactors vented part of their cores to the environment as a result of engineering failures that can be traced to bad management and, ultimately, to societal failures. Since failures of this kind can never be entirely eliminated, it can be argued that nuclear power is not sustainable because its use will inevitably cause changes to the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We know a lot about nuclear fission technology since we have been using it for decades. We understand its risks and advantages. We face a difficult choice: to balance the certainty of poisoning the entire planet with CO2 if we don't take action now, against the risk of engineering failures that could poison hundreds of square miles but which we might make less likely by being very, very careful.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30165" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12021" RevisionGUID="b1718f03-c4f6-4030-810e-72e58b6cf882" CreationDate="2022-01-05T14:59:18.630" UserId="8151" Text="You are asking a couple related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 1. Is nuclear fission (that is, existing, conventional nuclear power plants, as opposed to fusion) sustainable? ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No.** The simple reason is that nuclear fuel, like fossil fuel, is a finite resource that will be depleted in the foreseeable future (order of magnitude hundreds of years). This is undisputed (&quot;Meeting high case demand requirements through 2040 would consume about 28% of the total 2019 identified resource base recoverable at a cost of &lt; USD 130/kgU&quot;, from a recent  [IAEA report](https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium-resources-enough-for-the-foreseeable-future-say-nea-and-iaea-in-new-report)). Surely not all resources are known, and more Uranium can be obtained at higher cost like with fracking and oil sands over in the fossil camp. Also, technologies like breeding may increase efficiency. But this does not change the fundamental resource depletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 2. Is it green? ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debatable.** *Politically* it is certainly not &quot;green&quot; because many Green parties have emerged from the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s. *Factually* it is more complicated:&#xD;&#xA;- The **carbon footprint is much smaller** than with fossil fuels even if we consider the effort of mining and extracting and processing etc. &#xD;&#xA;- There are **fewer deaths** than from fossil fuels, both because mining coal is dangerous and because the air pollution kills people. &#xD;&#xA;- But the **waste problem is not solved.** An unsolved waste problem is obviously a showstopper for a green label.&#xD;&#xA;- Nuclear power comes with **huge secutity issues** because some fuels and waste products as well as the plants themselves can be used in terrorist attacks or can be used to build bombs. Typically the fuel and waste is meticulously tracked, facilities are subject to routine inspections etc. These safety issues exclude many developing countries from the list of countries that we would feel comfortable with if they had nuclear technology. &#xD;&#xA;- The risk of **Black Swan events.** There is a small chance for truly catastrophic events which makes risk assessment difficult. The incalculable chance of large-scale destruction and pollution is a green showstopper, even if *actual* events in the past are less detrimental to humans than the distributed, permanent, low-key impact of fossil fuels, which is very well predictable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 3. Can it serve as a bridge/transition technology until everything is renewable? ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debatable. Probably not.**&#xD;&#xA;- The time scale is rather long (decades to ramp up). By then we are hopefully mostly renewable anyway if we focus on that instead.&#xD;&#xA;- New projects in the West tend to run into cost problems and are many years late. &#xD;&#xA;- Deployment is terrible compared to renewables. Everybody can slap solar cells on their roof. Wind-power is not really high-tech and scales well. Nuclear, by contrast, needs central planning, resource allocation, complicated approval procedures, large infrastructure measures etc. Renewables can be a grassroot movement, which eases implementation in developing regions; nuclear cannot.&#xD;&#xA;- The technology is too expensive compared to renewables. It is dependent on public subventions which will only make sense if the reactors and processing plants are part of a nuclear weapons production. As an example for the hidden public subsidies consider the fact that nuclear power plants are not insurable; the public bears the cost of large-scale catastrophic events like in Chernobyl or Fukushima. A [German study from 2011](https://www.bee-ev.de/fileadmin/Publikationen/Studien/110511_BEE-Studie_Versicherungsforen_KKW.pdf) concluded that the electricity price would be Euros, not Cents per kWh if a realistic insurance would be priced in. *That* is the true cost of nuclear.&#xD;&#xA;- Nuclear fission is a hard-to-manage, capital intensive, centralized mega technology (pipe dreams of modular reactors notwithstanding). *It is clearly not a technology suitable to satisfy the energy demand of the developing countries, which is one of the main problems to solve in this century.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30167" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12021" RevisionGUID="b6d02ffa-d691-4234-aa40-335029a64fa8" CreationDate="2022-01-05T16:40:19.993" UserId="8151" Comment="added 276 characters in body" Text="You are asking a couple related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 1. Is nuclear fission (that is, existing, conventional nuclear power plants, as opposed to fusion) sustainable? ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No.** The simple reason is that nuclear fuel, like fossil fuel, is a finite resource that will be depleted in the foreseeable future (order of magnitude hundreds of years). This is undisputed (&quot;Meeting high case demand requirements through 2040 would consume about 28% of the total 2019 identified resource base recoverable at a cost of &lt; USD 130/kgU&quot;, from a recent  [IAEA report](https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium-resources-enough-for-the-foreseeable-future-say-nea-and-iaea-in-new-report)). Surely not all resources are known, and more Uranium can be obtained at higher cost like with fracking and oil sands over in the fossil camp. Also, technologies like breeding may increase efficiency. But this does not change the fundamental resource depletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 2. Is it green? ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debatable.** *Politically* it is certainly not &quot;green&quot; because many Green parties have emerged from the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s. *Factually* it is more complicated:&#xD;&#xA;- The **carbon footprint is much smaller** than with fossil fuels even if we consider the effort of mining and extracting and processing etc. &#xD;&#xA;- There are **fewer deaths** than from fossil fuels, both because mining coal is dangerous and because the air pollution kills people. &#xD;&#xA;- But the **waste problem is not solved.** An unsolved waste problem is obviously a showstopper for a green label.&#xD;&#xA;- The risk of **Black Swan events.** There is a small chance for truly catastrophic events which makes risk assessment difficult. The incalculable chance of large-scale destruction and pollution is a green showstopper, even if *actual* events in the past are less detrimental to humans than the distributed, permanent, low-key impact of fossil fuels, which is very well predictable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 3. Can it serve as a bridge/transition technology until everything is renewable? ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debatable. Probably not.**&#xD;&#xA;- The **time scale is rather long** (decades to ramp up). By then we are hopefully mostly renewable anyway if we focus on that instead.&#xD;&#xA;- New projects in the West tend to run into cost problems and are many years late. Building nuclear power plants is **extremely challenging** compared to renewables.&#xD;&#xA;- **Deployment is terrible** compared to renewables. Everybody can slap solar cells on their roof. Wind-power is not really high-tech and scales well. Nuclear, by contrast, needs central planning, resource allocation, complicated approval procedures, large infrastructure measures etc. Renewables can be a grassroot movement, which eases implementation in developing regions; nuclear cannot.&#xD;&#xA;- Nuclear power comes with **huge security issues** because some fuels and waste products as well as the plants themselves can be used in terrorist attacks or can be used to build bombs. All nuclear facilities are high-security areas; typically the fuel and waste is meticulously tracked, facilities are subject to routine inspections etc. These safety issues exclude many developing countries from the list of countries that we would feel comfortable with if they had nuclear technology. But serving the energy needs of developing nations without fossil fuels is a core challenge for the next decades.&#xD;&#xA;- The technology is **too expensive** compared to renewables. It is dependent on public subventions which will only make sense if a nuclear infrastructure is also needed for nuclear weapons production. As an example for the hidden public subsidies consider the fact that nuclear power plants are not insurable; the public bears the cost of large-scale catastrophic events like in Chernobyl or Fukushima. A [German study from 2011](https://www.bee-ev.de/fileadmin/Publikationen/Studien/110511_BEE-Studie_Versicherungsforen_KKW.pdf) concluded that the electricity price would be Euros, not Cents per kWh if a realistic insurance would be priced in. *That* is the true cost of nuclear.&#xD;&#xA;- Nuclear fission is a **hard-to-manage, capital intensive, centralized mega technology** (pipe dreams of modular reactors notwithstanding). *It is clearly not a technology suitable to satisfy the energy demand of the developing countries, which &amp;mdash; again &amp;mdash; is one of the main problems to solve in this century.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12021" RevisionGUID="64255b46-f2df-46db-90fe-7152cb98d27a" CreationDate="2022-01-05T16:51:07.093" UserId="8151" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="You are asking a couple related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 1. Is nuclear fission (that is, existing, conventional nuclear power plants, as opposed to fusion) sustainable? ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No.** The simple reason is that nuclear fuel, like fossil fuel, is a finite resource that will be depleted in the foreseeable future (order of magnitude hundreds of years). This is undisputed (&quot;Meeting high case demand requirements through 2040 would consume about 28% of the total 2019 identified resource base recoverable at a cost of &lt; USD 130/kgU&quot;, from a recent  [IAEA report](https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium-resources-enough-for-the-foreseeable-future-say-nea-and-iaea-in-new-report)). Surely not all resources are known, and more Uranium can be obtained at higher cost like with fracking and oil sands over in the fossil camp. Also, technologies like breeding may increase efficiency. But this does not change the fundamental resource depletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 2. Is it green? ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debatable.** *Politically* it is certainly not &quot;green&quot; because many Green parties have emerged from the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s. *Factually* it is more complicated:&#xD;&#xA;- The **carbon footprint is much smaller** than with fossil fuels even if we consider the effort of mining and extracting and processing etc. &#xD;&#xA;- There are **fewer deaths** than from fossil fuels, both because mining coal is dangerous and because the air pollution kills people. &#xD;&#xA;- But the **waste problem is not solved.** An unsolved waste problem is obviously a showstopper for a green label.&#xD;&#xA;- The risk of **Black Swan events.** There is a small chance for truly catastrophic events which makes risk assessment difficult. The incalculable chance of large-scale destruction and pollution is a green showstopper, even if *actual* events in the past are less detrimental to humans than the distributed, permanent, low-key impact of fossil fuels, which is very well predictable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 3. Can it serve as a bridge/transition technology until everything is renewable? ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debatable. Probably not.**&#xD;&#xA;- The **time scale is rather long** (decades to ramp up). By then we are hopefully mostly renewable anyway if we focus on that instead.&#xD;&#xA;- New projects in the West tend to run into cost problems and are many years late. Building nuclear power plants is **extremely challenging** compared to renewables.&#xD;&#xA;- **Deployment is terrible** compared to renewables. Everybody can slap solar cells on their roof. Wind-power is not really high-tech and scales well. Nuclear, by contrast, needs central planning, resource allocation, complicated approval procedures, large infrastructure measures etc. Renewables can be a grassroot movement, which eases implementation in developing regions; nuclear cannot.&#xD;&#xA;- Nuclear power comes with **huge security issues** because some fuels and waste products as well as the plants themselves can be used in terrorist attacks or can be used to build bombs. All nuclear facilities are high-security areas; typically the fuel and waste is meticulously tracked, facilities are subject to routine inspections etc. These safety issues exclude many developing countries from the list of countries that we would feel comfortable with if they had nuclear technology. But serving the energy needs of developing nations without fossil fuels is a core challenge for the next decades.&#xD;&#xA;- The technology is **too expensive** compared to renewables. While the bottom continues to fall out of renewable prices, the price of nuclear power stays constant or even rises. Nuclear power today is dependent on public subventions which will only make sense if a nuclear infrastructure is also needed for nuclear weapons production. As an example for the hidden public subsidies consider the fact that nuclear power plants are not insurable; the public bears the cost of large-scale catastrophic events like in Chernobyl or Fukushima. A [German study from 2011](https://www.bee-ev.de/fileadmin/Publikationen/Studien/110511_BEE-Studie_Versicherungsforen_KKW.pdf) concluded that the electricity price would be Euros, not Cents per kWh if a realistic insurance would be priced in. *That* is the true cost of nuclear.&#xD;&#xA;- Nuclear fission is a **hard-to-manage, capital intensive, centralized mega technology** (pipe dreams of modular reactors notwithstanding). *It is clearly not a technology suitable to satisfy the energy demand of the developing countries, which &amp;mdash; again &amp;mdash; is one of the main problems to solve in this century.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30169" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="12008" RevisionGUID="79db2cdf-f8bc-4615-9175-b077fc9c2588" CreationDate="2022-01-05T17:01:27.730" UserId="3379" Comment="71" />
  <row Id="30170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12021" RevisionGUID="5f377252-b6c3-4d80-a7c2-efeb07bc5b16" CreationDate="2022-01-05T17:11:34.593" UserId="8151" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="You are asking a couple related questions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 1. Is nuclear fission (that is, existing, conventional nuclear power plants, as opposed to fusion) sustainable? ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**No.** The simple reason is that nuclear fuel, like fossil fuel, is a finite resource that will be depleted in the foreseeable future (order of magnitude hundreds of years). This is undisputed (&quot;Meeting high case demand requirements through 2040 would consume about 28% of the total 2019 identified resource base recoverable at a cost of &lt; USD 130/kgU&quot;, from a recent  [IAEA report](https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium-resources-enough-for-the-foreseeable-future-say-nea-and-iaea-in-new-report)). Surely not all resources are known, and more Uranium can be obtained at higher cost like with fracking and oil sands over in the fossil camp. Also, technologies like breeding may increase efficiency. But this does not change the fundamental resource depletion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 2. Is it green? ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debatable.** *Politically* it is certainly not &quot;green&quot; because many Green parties have emerged from the anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s. *Factually* it is more complicated:&#xD;&#xA;- The **carbon footprint is much smaller** than with fossil fuels even if we consider the effort of mining and extracting and processing etc. &#xD;&#xA;- There are **fewer deaths** than from fossil fuels, both because mining coal is dangerous and because the air pollution kills people. &#xD;&#xA;- But the **waste problem is not solved.** An unsolved waste problem is obviously a showstopper for a green label.&#xD;&#xA;- The risk of **Black Swan events.** There is a small chance for truly catastrophic events which makes risk assessment difficult. The incalculable chance of large-scale destruction and pollution is a green showstopper, even if *actual* events in the past are less detrimental to humans than the distributed, permanent, low-key impact of fossil fuels, which is very well predictable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### 3. Can it serve as a bridge/transition technology until everything is renewable? ###&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Debatable. Probably not.**&#xD;&#xA;- The **time scale is rather long** (decades to ramp up). By then we are hopefully mostly renewable anyway if we focus on that instead.&#xD;&#xA;- New projects in the West tend to run into cost problems and are many years late. Building nuclear power plants is **extremely challenging** compared to renewables.&#xD;&#xA;- **Deployment is terrible** compared to renewables. Everybody can slap solar cells on their roof. Wind-power is not really high-tech and scales well. Nuclear, by contrast, needs central planning, resource allocation, complicated approval procedures, large infrastructure measures etc. Renewables can be a grassroot movement, which eases implementation in developing regions; nuclear cannot.&#xD;&#xA;- Nuclear power comes with **huge security issues** because some fuels and waste products as well as the plants themselves can be used in terrorist attacks or can be used to build bombs. All nuclear facilities are high-security areas; typically the fuel and waste is meticulously tracked, facilities are subject to routine inspections etc. These safety issues exclude many developing countries from the list of countries that we would feel comfortable with if they had nuclear technology. But serving the energy needs of developing nations without fossil fuels is a core challenge for the next decades.&#xD;&#xA;- The technology is **too expensive** compared to renewables. While [the bottom continues to fall out of renewable prices](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png/1024px-3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png), the price of nuclear power stays constant or even rises. Nuclear power today is dependent on public subventions which will only make sense if a nuclear infrastructure is also needed for nuclear weapons production. As an example for the hidden public subsidies consider the fact that nuclear power plants are not insurable; the public bears the cost of large-scale catastrophic events like in Chernobyl or Fukushima. A [German study from 2011](https://www.bee-ev.de/fileadmin/Publikationen/Studien/110511_BEE-Studie_Versicherungsforen_KKW.pdf) concluded that the electricity price would be Euros, not Cents per kWh if a realistic insurance would be priced in. *That* is the true cost of nuclear.&#xD;&#xA;- Nuclear fission is a **hard-to-manage, capital intensive, centralized mega technology** (pipe dreams of modular reactors notwithstanding). *It is clearly not a technology suitable to satisfy the energy demand of the developing countries, which &amp;mdash; again &amp;mdash; is one of the main problems to solve in this century.*" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12022" RevisionGUID="699ad56c-67a1-4996-99a4-3b4b41607243" CreationDate="2022-01-06T00:30:58.017" UserId="3379" Text="On Monday night, a snowstorm in Virginia [stranded drivers for up to 48 hours on Interstate 95](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cars-far-can-see-drivers-stranded-hours-95-virginia-winter-storm-rcna10840). An op-ed this morning in the Washington Post [argued that it would have been much worse if all the cars were EVs](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/04/imagine-virginias-icy-traffic-catastrophe-with-only-electric-vehicles/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All else being equal, though, cars and trucks with internal combustion engines (ICE) would have the advantage in coping with a sudden challenge such as the I-95 fiasco. It is much easier to rehabilitate a disabled ICE vehicle. Rescuers can deliver gallons of gas in convenient jugs; gas stations are still far more numerous than EV charging stations; and ICE car batteries can be jump-started in minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While such events are rare in Virginia, there are parts of the world where sudden, heavy snow is much more common. A lot of [common advice for what to carry in your car to prepare](https://www.familyhandyman.com/list/things-you-need-in-your-winter-car-survival-kit/) applies equally to an ICEV as an EV, but things like jumper cables and gas cans obviously don't apply. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So how should EV drivers prepare for severe winter weather?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12022" RevisionGUID="699ad56c-67a1-4996-99a4-3b4b41607243" CreationDate="2022-01-06T00:30:58.017" UserId="3379" Text="How should EV drivers prepare for winter driving?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12022" RevisionGUID="699ad56c-67a1-4996-99a4-3b4b41607243" CreationDate="2022-01-06T00:30:58.017" UserId="3379" Text="|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30175" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11983" RevisionGUID="5fb75bab-aaf1-44a6-a788-94ffedbab239" CreationDate="2022-01-06T03:52:01.197" UserId="2345" Comment="Information about mine used used for heating" Text="Abandoned underground coal mines present a potential hazard to anyone who might enter them. The first hazard is fugitive methane gas and the second is coal dust. Under the right conditions, both can be explosive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of fugitive methane emissions it would be best for underground coal mines to be allowed to flood and to be sealed to prevent entry to the underground voids. Whether flooding is possible depends on the location of the water table and any aquifers in relation to the coal seams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The state of any abandoned underground coal mine will depend on the mining method used to mine the coal, when the mine was operating. Room and pillar methods, also known as bord and pillar, leave some of the coal behind as pillars, to support the overlying rock and the mined voids between the pillars are generally left open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other significant coal mining method is/was longwall where highly mechanized coal cutting machines cut long walls of coal. The cut coal is loaded onto conveyor belts to be sent out of the mine. While cutting the coal the immediate region is supported by hydraulic shields. All this equipment moves automatically as the coal face advances. The void left behind is required to collapse. If it doesn't special teams of people induce failure of the overlying rock, behind the hydraulic shields.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves a rubble pile of various sized boulders filling the void. Ultimately the overlying rock unravels to fill the void and in doing so the land surface will experience subsidence.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Poland used to orientate the longwalls so surface subsidence would be uniform and occur at the same time so that entire villages would sink intact, without damaging any of the buildings - particularly centuries old churches. How successful this process was I don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a broken, porous terrain will easily allow fugitive methane emissions to be released. Sometimes coal seams occur in groups of various thicknesses and quality of coal. The interburden of non coal sedimentary rock between the coal seam can also vary in thickness. Usually the &quot;best quality&quot; and &quot;most profitable&quot; coal is mined. The other seams remain as they are. Methane emissions can occurs from such seams.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Allowing the mines to flood would minimize much of the fugitive methane emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for open cut coal mines, it largely depends on how the coal has been mine as to what can be done. Some open cut coal mines are already backfill, during the course of mining, with the waste overburned from the new region to be mined filling the mined out region next to it. This occurs when draglines are used to strip the waste overburden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mines that use bucket wheel excavators, such as many in Germany, are generally backfilled by other means. In other regions of the world, such mines are left unfilled. If the water table is high enough, such pits will fill with water to form artificial lakes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the people who would have worked in the coal mines the world needs to do better than Britain did when it shut its coal mines during the 1980s and also abandoned the people and the towns to largely fend for themselves. Many of those regions are still suffering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;***Edit*** - Additional information&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With some open pit coal mines the amount of waste over burden, lying on top of the coal can be thin and the coal seam thick. In such situations, there isn't enough overburden to completely fill the resulting pit. Unless other forms of backfill can be utilized the &quot;rehabilitated&quot; pit will always have a depression within it, compared to the natural setting prior to mining.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another use for some open pit coal mines is to use them as landfill rubbish site for domestic rubbish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;***Edit 6 January 2022***&#xD;&#xA;I recently came across this BBC news for a second time, *[How flooded coal mines could heat homes][1]*. The title of the news item self descriptive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently in the United Kingdom a quarter of the homes sit above abandoned coal mines, now flooded with water. It is estimated there is 2 billion cubic meters of water with these underground coal mines. It is also estimated the amount of heat these waters contain is 2.2 million GWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using geothermal consultants from Iceland a scheme has been devised where the warm waters within the mines can be used to provide heating on a large scale. The temperature of the water is apparently steady throughout the entire year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the Coal Authority is exploring the feasibility of some 70 mine water heating projects across the UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since 2008 a similar scheme has been operating in the Netherlands where is supplies heat to,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 500 houses and commercial facilities, serving over 250,000 sq m (2.7 million sq ft) of building space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How applicable such a scheme would be elsewhere would be dependent on the depth of the mines, the geothermal gradient at those locations and hence the temperature of the water within the mines and how the heat could be used on the surface. In some locations, such as Australia and South Africa, some of the mines are not located under urban or industrial landscape but under rural and semi wilderness landscapes remote from established or permanent towns or cities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210706-how-flooded-coal-mines-could-heat-homes" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30176" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="7086" RevisionGUID="81738a3d-8f66-47a0-9cbf-b34b00e0800f" CreationDate="2022-01-06T09:00:03.290" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1479014890501292037" />
  <row Id="30177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12022" RevisionGUID="7dc46595-5caa-479b-bf78-7aea773a5791" CreationDate="2022-01-06T15:32:38.333" UserId="3379" Comment="added 137 characters in body" Text="On Monday night, a snowstorm in Virginia [stranded drivers for up to 48 hours on Interstate 95](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cars-far-can-see-drivers-stranded-hours-95-virginia-winter-storm-rcna10840). An op-ed this morning in the Washington Post [argued that it would have been much worse if all the cars were EVs](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/04/imagine-virginias-icy-traffic-catastrophe-with-only-electric-vehicles/):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; All else being equal, though, cars and trucks with internal combustion engines (ICE) would have the advantage in coping with a sudden challenge such as the I-95 fiasco. It is much easier to rehabilitate a disabled ICE vehicle. Rescuers can deliver gallons of gas in convenient jugs; gas stations are still far more numerous than EV charging stations; and ICE car batteries can be jump-started in minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article goes on to argue that because EVs aren't good at handling situations like this, people shouldn't buy them. But it seems that with a bit of preparation, being stranded in a snow storm shouldn't really be any worse for an EV than an ICEV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A lot of [common advice for what to carry in your car to prepare](https://www.familyhandyman.com/list/things-you-need-in-your-winter-car-survival-kit/) applies equally to an ICEV as an EV, but things like jumper cables and gas cans obviously don't apply. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So how should EV drivers prepare for severe winter weather?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12023" RevisionGUID="d9d2bc5d-1de5-47ba-b259-6edcf00a9356" CreationDate="2022-01-06T17:41:20.253" UserId="6393" Text="Keep the vehicle nearly fully charged during cold periods (if not using LiFePO4 batteries then at 95% charge to avoid full charge damage) at all times. Not only because of possible need for lots of cabin heat, but also because the charging port can get stuck due to ice, meaning you need the range to drive the car to a heated parking hall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If driving long distances, stop at 50% charge at a DC fast charger and charge to 90%. Above 80%, the charging rate becomes very slow so you need to pay for more charging minutes, meaning driving the car becomes very expensive, but you are better prepared for traffic jams due to snowstorms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have an internal combustion engine vehicle, the worst case is you have only 15 liters of fuel and get stuck in traffic, needing to use the fuel for heat. It provides 150 kWh of heat energy if idling, but about half of that goes away in exhaust heat. So, realistically only 75 kWh of energy can be provided to cabin heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, if you have an electric vehicle, you nearly fully charged it (to 70 kWh), and drove only little (using 20 kWh of battery energy), you can realistically use about 40 kWh of energy for heat to avoid deep discharge. A COP=2.5 heat pump can provide 100 kWh of cabin heat with 40 kWh of electricity. That's better than the worst case in an internal combustion engine vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true that in ICE vehicles, you can bring extra fuel in containers. But assuming you don't want to do that, the nearly fully charged electric vehicle is actually better than the ICE vehicle, assuming it has a heat pump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for non heat pump EVs the situation is very bad. You can provide only 40 kWh of cabin heat. Assuming you haven't yet purchased your EV, this is one major reason to stay away from fully resistively heated EVs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat pumps need maintenance too. A good idea to do the heat pump maintenance at least every second year, if not every year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12023" RevisionGUID="fd8b9935-f5d7-49d9-8bdd-1e5cbd8b71fa" CreationDate="2022-01-06T17:46:38.033" UserId="6393" Comment="lazy refueling" Text="Keep the vehicle nearly fully charged during cold periods (if not using LiFePO4 batteries then at 95% charge to avoid full charge damage) at all times. Not only because of possible need for lots of cabin heat, but also because the charging port can get stuck due to ice, meaning you need the range to drive the car to a heated parking hall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If driving long distances, stop at 50% charge at a DC fast charger and charge to 90%. Above 80%, the charging rate becomes very slow so you need to pay for more charging minutes, meaning driving the car becomes very expensive, but you are better prepared for traffic jams due to snowstorms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have an internal combustion engine vehicle, the worst case is you have only 15 liters of fuel and get stuck in traffic, needing to use the fuel for heat. It provides 150 kWh of heat energy if idling, but about half of that goes away in exhaust heat. So, realistically only 75 kWh of energy can be provided to cabin heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, if you have an electric vehicle, you nearly fully charged it (to 70 kWh), and drove only little (using 20 kWh of battery energy), you can realistically use about 40 kWh of energy for heat to avoid deep discharge. A COP=2.5 heat pump can provide 100 kWh of cabin heat with 40 kWh of electricity. That's better than the worst case in an internal combustion engine vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true that in ICE vehicles, you can bring extra fuel in containers. But assuming you don't want to do that, the nearly fully charged electric vehicle is actually better than the ICE vehicle whose driver is lazy in refueling (very typical), assuming it has a heat pump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for non heat pump EVs the situation is very bad. You can provide only 40 kWh of cabin heat. Assuming you haven't yet purchased your EV, this is one major reason to stay away from fully resistively heated EVs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat pumps need maintenance too. A good idea to do the heat pump maintenance at least every second year, if not every year." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30181" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="12008" RevisionGUID="2534f58e-73ab-4a96-9da6-af95d9121b18" CreationDate="2022-01-06T21:09:04.313" UserId="3379" Comment="71" />
  <row Id="30182" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12024" RevisionGUID="6d1ab0c8-275d-42c5-8ac6-63dd438aa40c" CreationDate="2022-01-08T16:16:42.147" UserId="9669" Text="How is composting different from regular aerobic decomposition in terms of its (negative) GHG footprint? Or are those the same thing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30184" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12024" RevisionGUID="6d1ab0c8-275d-42c5-8ac6-63dd438aa40c" CreationDate="2022-01-08T16:16:42.147" UserId="9669" Text="How is composting different from regular aerobic decomposition?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30185" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12024" RevisionGUID="6d1ab0c8-275d-42c5-8ac6-63dd438aa40c" CreationDate="2022-01-08T16:16:42.147" UserId="9669" Text="|composting|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30186" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12025" RevisionGUID="fd6a2829-b002-4e8f-97f4-8280bbe97893" CreationDate="2022-01-08T22:28:22.583" UserId="13643" Text="Broadly, it will.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AC works on the whole room, house, office or what have you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fans work on a comparatively tiny volume." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30188" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12024" RevisionGUID="f881a607-19ac-492b-8cd7-99dbf8b0c633" CreationDate="2022-01-09T06:43:24.807" UserId="9669" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="How is composting different from regular aerobic decomposition in terms of its (negative?) GHG footprint? Or are those the same thing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30189" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12026" RevisionGUID="9cee5a8a-cc50-431d-902c-d03d8eabc8c5" CreationDate="2022-01-09T08:13:13.790" UserId="13644" Text="1kg of firewood is said to have [around 4-5kwh of energy](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4594/how-much-firewood-does-it-take-to-produce-the-equivalent-of-1kwh-of-electrical-h). Some wood stoves claim a burning efficiency up to 90%, and I understand this means how completely the wood is burned. Pipe loss is not accounted for by this number so there are more losses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Losses and inefficiencies aside, are there any residential scale electricity generators that run on firewood? Or is this not viable? Apparently there are [several technologies](https://permies.com/t/99695/Turning-wood-electricity-months-winter) that can create electricity from wood, but some alternatives are unrealistic for residential use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30191" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12026" RevisionGUID="9cee5a8a-cc50-431d-902c-d03d8eabc8c5" CreationDate="2022-01-09T08:13:13.790" UserId="13644" Text="Is there av efficient method to generate electric power from wood on a residential scale?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30192" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12026" RevisionGUID="9cee5a8a-cc50-431d-902c-d03d8eabc8c5" CreationDate="2022-01-09T08:13:13.790" UserId="13644" Text="|electricity|electricity-generation|firewood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30193" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12026" RevisionGUID="45abe803-2f20-4038-8f45-75726f061c71" CreationDate="2022-01-09T10:05:38.413" UserId="2345" Comment="Capitalization of units" Text="1 kg of firewood is said to have [around 4-5 kWh of energy](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/4594/how-much-firewood-does-it-take-to-produce-the-equivalent-of-1kwh-of-electrical-h). Some wood stoves claim a burning efficiency up to 90%, and I understand this means how completely the wood is burned. Pipe loss is not accounted for by this number so there are more losses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Losses and inefficiencies aside, are there any residential scale electricity generators that run on firewood? Or is this not viable? Apparently there are [several technologies](https://permies.com/t/99695/Turning-wood-electricity-months-winter) that can create electricity from wood, but some alternatives are unrealistic for residential use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30194" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12026" RevisionGUID="b5573ac6-e986-4b3e-839a-697fe3a5f5ee" CreationDate="2022-01-09T17:18:14.523" UserId="1056" Comment="fix typo in title" Text="Is there an efficient method to generate electric power from wood on a residential scale?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12027" RevisionGUID="69ba7d96-a2c2-494a-9786-5400d629404a" CreationDate="2022-01-09T21:46:43.347" UserId="9669" Text="In landfill conditions, it takes everything forever to decompose, especially plastics. Besides, landfilling doesn't deal with, only masks the problem of waste, including plastic waste. Maybe it's a radical idea, but is litter actually a good thing? With oxygen and sunlight available, it will decompose faster, and that way it kinda says, &quot;Hey, look at me, pay attention to me, I exist&quot;, so it's more likely to be actually handled (recycled, composted, prevented). If it's something dangerous, you incinerate it. I can't think of anything for which landfilling is the best option" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30197" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12027" RevisionGUID="69ba7d96-a2c2-494a-9786-5400d629404a" CreationDate="2022-01-09T21:46:43.347" UserId="9669" Text="Is litter actually good?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30198" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12027" RevisionGUID="69ba7d96-a2c2-494a-9786-5400d629404a" CreationDate="2022-01-09T21:46:43.347" UserId="9669" Text="|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30199" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12027" RevisionGUID="64bb92e0-9cd4-49ab-94c5-58edb9782b3b" CreationDate="2022-01-09T22:42:31.653" UserId="9669" Comment="added 17 characters in body" Text="In landfill conditions, it takes everything forever to decompose, especially plastics. Besides, landfilling doesn't deal with, only masks the problem of waste, including plastic waste. Maybe it's a radical idea, but is litter actually a good thing? With oxygen and sunlight available, it will decompose faster, and that way it kinda says, &quot;Hey, look at me, pay attention to me, I exist&quot;, so it's more likely to be actually handled (recycled, composted, most importantly prevented). If it's something dangerous, you incinerate it. I can't think of anything for which landfilling is the best option" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12029" RevisionGUID="ac011247-620e-4355-bd42-58eaaa6484f2" CreationDate="2022-01-10T02:36:06.140" UserId="6393" Text="Oh yes, you can generate electricity from wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wood has actually been used as fuel for cars. You need &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas_generator&quot;&gt;a wood gasifier&lt;/a&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually this is a DIY project, because cars that run on gas are very impractical, as the gasifier is heavy and takes lots of space. Similarly, you should be able to modify a gasoline powered generator to use a wood gasifier as its fuel source instead of running on gasoline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The efficiency will be terrible, though, and it's a high maintenance work to maintain the composition of the gas suitable for continuously running the generator. I'd say this isn't something that's good for commercially selling. We won't see any wood-fired commercial generators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On large scale, coal-fired power plants can actually be modified to run on wood. However, coal-fired power plants are dying for a good reason, they are dirty and their efficiency is poor, and the generation is very inflexible, good for mainly baseload. If you run it using wood, it's still dirty (although the carbon dioxide is from biological sources so it doesn't cause global warming but otherwise it's dirty, causing lots of pollution) and the efficiency is poor. It's also good for mainly baseload. Natural gas fired combined cycle plants have displaced coal plants for a good reason: they are flexible and efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, integrated gasifier combined cycle plants could have some of the benefits of natural gas plants, while still being able to run on wood. They are expensive, though, and not a large-scale solution to the electricity generation problem because we will run out of wood if they are used en masse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30204" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12026" RevisionGUID="ff62ce6a-fc48-4563-b17a-2e7a8b604912" CreationDate="2022-01-10T15:00:01.053" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1480555029920727041" />
  <row Id="30205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12030" RevisionGUID="be6044a8-a6bb-4c04-9b7e-253a7f8d8eb1" CreationDate="2022-01-10T15:42:56.930" UserId="3379" Text="## No, because landfills are the best place to capture carbon escaping from degradable materials, and to store non-degradable materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency](https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials), nearly 60% of the municipal solid waste (MSW) that is landfilled in the U.S. consists of degradable materials such as paper, food, wood, and yard waste:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Total municipal solid waste landfill by material, 2018][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these materials will eventually biodegrade into methane and carbon dioxide. In a managed, anaerobic landfill with methane capture, nearly all of the methane can be captured and used to generate electricity. If such waste were left as litter, these gases would escape directly to the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect without doing any useful work along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S., methane capture is [required](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-I/part-258/subpart-C/section-258.23) at most landfills, and the EPA has an [active program](https://www.epa.gov/lmop/about-landfill-methane-outreach-program) to institute methane capture at eligible landfills. [Per the EIA](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/landfill-gas-and-biogas.php), landfill gas (LFG) projects in the U.S. in 2020 captured a quantity of methane that, if released to the atmosphere, would represent 100.4 million metric tons of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalent (MMTCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e). This is slightly more than than the 99.4 MMTCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e directly released, [according the the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/lmop/frequent-questions-about-landfill-gas#howmuchmethane).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for everything else (mostly metal, glass, and plastic) it originally came from a hole in the ground, so putting back in one seems appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/g08Pe.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30207" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12030" RevisionGUID="52145141-d164-46dd-aaa8-ccba3f7eac8b" CreationDate="2022-01-10T18:32:30.847" UserId="3379" Comment="Added info on leachate collection." Text="**tl;dr: No, because landfills are the best place to capture carbon escaping from degradable materials, prevent toxic chemicals from entering the groundwater, and to store non-degradable materials.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Capturing landfill gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency](https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials), nearly 60% of the municipal solid waste (MSW) that is landfilled in the U.S. consists of degradable materials such as paper, food, wood, and yard waste:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Total municipal solid waste landfill by material, 2018][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these materials will eventually biodegrade into methane and carbon dioxide. In a managed, anaerobic landfill with methane capture, nearly all of the methane can be captured and used to generate electricity. If such waste were left as litter, these gases would escape directly to the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect without doing any useful work along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S., methane capture is [required](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-I/part-258/subpart-C/section-258.23) at most landfills, and the EPA has an [active program](https://www.epa.gov/lmop/about-landfill-methane-outreach-program) to institute methane capture at eligible landfills. [Per the EIA](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/landfill-gas-and-biogas.php), landfill gas (LFG) projects in the U.S. in 2020 captured a quantity of methane that, if released to the atmosphere, would represent 100.4 million metric tons of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalent (MMTCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e). This is slightly more than than the 99.4 MMTCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e released from landfills without LFG capture, [according the the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/lmop/frequent-questions-about-landfill-gas#howmuchmethane).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Treating leachate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most LFG collection systems have the benefit of combing with a leachate collection system (image from [EIA](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/landfill-gas-and-biogas.php)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Leachate collection system][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leachate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leachate#Composition_of_landfill_leachate) is the nasty mix of liquids and chemicals that ooze out of garbage. It oozes out of all garbage wherever it is, so better to collect it in a landfill where it can be treated, which is typically done in large tanks with the same kind of enzymes and neutralizing chemicals that are used to treat sewage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The leachate itself is actually a very corrosive substance, which means that it helps break down the stuff in the landfill, increasing methane production and reducing the time it takes for things to break down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## All the other stuff&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for everything else (mostly metal, glass, and plastic) it originally came from a hole in the ground, so putting back in one seems appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/g08Pe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KjvN4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12031" RevisionGUID="acbf9685-fa51-427c-a307-518a3979bdf8" CreationDate="2022-01-10T18:49:18.707" UserId="3379" Text="My house has two bathrooms, roughly the same distance from the water heater. One was added during a renovation and has [PEX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-linked_polyethylene) piping, while the other has copper piping. When washing my hands, I've noticed that the water in the bathroom with PEX piping warms up much faster. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect this is because the copper pipe conducts heat away faster than the the PEX pipe. At least [one website](https://energydiagnosticsinc.com/blog/pex-vs-copper-which-is-better-for-your-home/) supports this theory, but they don't provide any data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Water loses more heat while traveling through copper pipes, resulting in more energy use when compared to plastic piping. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this claim true, or could there be some other factor causing the water to warm up faster at the tap?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am planning to renovate the other bathroom soon, and could replace the copper pipe with PEX in the process if there are energy efficiency benefits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12031" RevisionGUID="acbf9685-fa51-427c-a307-518a3979bdf8" CreationDate="2022-01-10T18:49:18.707" UserId="3379" Text="Is PEX piping more energy efficient than copper?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12031" RevisionGUID="acbf9685-fa51-427c-a307-518a3979bdf8" CreationDate="2022-01-10T18:49:18.707" UserId="3379" Text="|energy-efficiency|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30212" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10503" RevisionGUID="7d437b01-b04f-4d06-bda5-ea1c1ab00e6a" CreationDate="2022-01-10T19:56:04.967" UserId="3379" Comment="Updated with NEC inverter definitions." Text="**tl;dr: Because of how the grid and your inverters work, it's unlikely that there is a solution for your current system. You will either need to set up a communication network with your microinverters and another device, or you will need to set up an ac-coupled system with a centralized battery charger, inverter, and grid disconnect. This will probably require you to replace your microinverters.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Existing system&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It sounds like your (hypothetical?) system currently looks like this (dashed lines for ac, solid for dc): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Existing system][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I gather you're imagining that &quot;????&quot; is some sort of device that would provide an AC signal to &quot;fool&quot; the inverters into thinking they're seeing an ac signal, so they could generate power even with the actual grid signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### The problem -- you have utility-interactive inverters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only are your inverters required by UL 1741 to stop supplying power when the grid signal disappears, they are technically unable to do otherwise. When there's an outage, they wouldn't all detect this simultaneously -- so at least one should continue producing 60 Hz -- in theory, this should be enough to provide a 60 Hz signal for the rest. So why doesn't it work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The grid provides a &quot;stiff&quot; signal. Short of substations, power plants, or large industrial facilities going offline, load and supply changes will not move the frequency by much. This is fundamental to the [droop control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droop_speed_control) algorithm that governs the grid. A large or fast shift in the frequency indicates that an outage is imminent, because the grid is moving outside of the range under which droop control can balances loads and sources. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Utility-interactive inverters (also known as grid-tie or grid following) use [phase-locked loop (PLL) control](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/73476.pdf) to match the frequency and phase of their output signal to what they detect on the grid. In doing this they also affect the grid, but these changes are barely perceptible (ripples in an ocean). But if the grid is absent, the changes that each inverter implements would have a greater effect (ripples in a teacup), causing cascading fluctuations on the inverter network, which feeds back to the input of each inverter. As the changes amplify, the PLL will become unstable and the inverter will shut down. The UL 1741 limits* are programmed to shut the inverters down before they reach this technical limit, but either way, if the input ac signal starts fluctuating too quickly, the inverters will shut down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**There are two potential solutions to this problem, but either one may require new microinverters.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Solution one: Standalone inverters with communication&#xD;&#xA;Standalone or off-grid inverters (that you'd use for a camper, boat, or remote cabin) develop and sustain their own 60 Hz signal. There's a chance you could install a single standalone inverter in your system (perhaps at the ???? location, drawing off the battery bank), and the utility-interactive inverters would be fooled into following it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are two potential issues:&#xD;&#xA;1. **The signal probably won't be &quot;stiff&quot; enough.** Standard standalone inverters aren't designed to work in tandem with utility-interactive inverters, so the signal they provide is unlikely to be stiff enough to &quot;fool&quot; them. &#xD;&#xA;2. **Utility-interactive inverters are current sources and could cause runaway voltage without sufficient load.** Standard utility-interactive inverters are designed to push a steady current out by raising their output voltage. When connected to the grid, there's a huge sink for this current to go to, so they don't have to raise the voltage much at all. But in an off-grid situation, if they run out of load (batteries are charged and nothing is using power), they might increase the voltage until something breaks. For many inverters, anti-islanding protection is the only way to prevent this -- they can't be online without the grid as a sink, so this problem won't occur. Others will stop producing all power if the voltage goes too high (as a backup to anti-islanding protection), while others have the ability to limit the output voltage and continue producing (less) power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way around these problems is with a communication interface between inverters. You would need to check the specification of your microinverters to see if they support this, and what other products they could work with. Unfortunately, these systems are not yet standardized, so you may have trouble finding something that works.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Sunny Island inverter](https://www.sma-america.com/products/battery-inverters/sunny-island-4548-us-6048-us.html) from SMA is an example of a standalone inverter that can do this with other SMA inverters. You can see the communication interface in the diagram below:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![SMA Sunny Island example configuration][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Solution two: an ac-coupled system with a grid-forming multimode inverter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another option is to re-wire your system as an ac-coupled system, which centralizes the inverter, charger, and grid disconnect, eliminating the need for a communication interface:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![ac-coupled system][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this case, you would utilize a battery inverter/charger that is designed specifically for this application. ([Schneider electric](https://solar.schneider-electric.com/product/hybrid-solar-inverter/) and [Outback Power](https://www.outbackpower.com/products/inverter-chargers/radian-series) are the first two I found where I could easily confirm they work in this fashion, but there are probably many others.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These inverters are called **grid forming** because they create a stiff enough signal to provide support for grid following inverters. **Multimode** refers to their ability to be utility-interactive when connected to the grid, and standalone otherwise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In this solution, the inverter/charger can draw from the grid, the batteries, or the solar array, and supply power to the loads, or back to the grid. When the UL 1741 limits kick in, it disconnects from the grid, but continues drawing power from the PV array or the batteries to supply load. It is designed to produce an ac signal sufficient to operate grid-tied inverters, *as long as they're rated to operate in an ac-coupled system* (meaning their voltage output is limited).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some inverter/chargers can handle the grid disconnect/reconnect seamlessly, and essentially constitute a microgrid -- with others, there may be a slight delay before they continue supplying loads, and are more like hybrid solar/backup power systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some microinverters (like [Enphase](https://enphase.com/en-us/support/technical-brief-ac-coupling-enphase-microinverters-battery-based-systems)) are specifically rated for ac-coupled systems, but may still require some communication hardware to make this work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### *Further reading*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some resources I found helpful when pulling all of this together:&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;AC COUPLING; adding backup to your grid-tie solar power system&quot;](https://www.altestore.com/store/info/ac-coupling/) on altE store&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;AC Coupling of Inverters for Grid Tied PV Systems&quot;](http://solar.schneider-electric.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Conext-XW-AC-Coupling-Application-Note_Rev-B.pdf), a Schneider Electric application note&#xD;&#xA; - [&quot;Research Roadmap on Grid-Forming Inverters&quot;](https://doi.org/10.2172/1721727), from the U.S. National Renewable Energy Lab&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;*I don't have UL1741 handy, but the limits are defined in IEEE 1547-2018 These ranges are default settings -- there are situations where an inverter can stay connected outside of these ranges, depending on utility interconnect agreements:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;|Frequency (Hz)|Clearing time (s)|&#xD;&#xA;|-|-|&#xD;&#xA;|62.0|0.16|&#xD;&#xA;|61.2|300.0|&#xD;&#xA;|58.5|300.0|&#xD;&#xA;|56.5|0.16|&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZEIhu.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fdsA9.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/djrFS.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30213" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12031" RevisionGUID="993481d7-f840-4332-844f-4a100f2c7fe9" CreationDate="2022-01-10T20:00:54.573" UserId="3379" Comment="added 67 characters in body" Text="My house has two bathrooms, with roughly the same distance of pipe from the water heater to each. One was added during a renovation and has [PEX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-linked_polyethylene) piping from the point where they diverge, while the other has copper piping all the way. When washing my hands, I've noticed that the water in the bathroom with PEX piping warms up much faster. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect this is because the copper pipe conducts heat away faster than the the PEX pipe. At least [one website](https://energydiagnosticsinc.com/blog/pex-vs-copper-which-is-better-for-your-home/) supports this theory, but they don't provide any data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Water loses more heat while traveling through copper pipes, resulting in more energy use when compared to plastic piping. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this claim true, or could there be some other factor causing the water to warm up faster at the tap?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am planning to renovate the other bathroom soon, and could replace the copper pipe with PEX in the process if there are energy efficiency benefits." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30214" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12031" RevisionGUID="5c89bff1-3875-480d-9a6a-a0ca2350b7f6" CreationDate="2022-01-11T16:33:13.590" UserId="3379" Comment="Added diagram" Text="My house has two bathrooms, with roughly the same distance of pipe from the water heater to each (see diagram below). One was added during a renovation and has [PEX](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-linked_polyethylene) piping from the point where they diverge, while the other has copper piping all the way. When washing my hands, I've noticed that the water in the bathroom with PEX piping warms up much faster. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect this is because the copper pipe conducts heat away faster than the the PEX pipe. At least [one website](https://energydiagnosticsinc.com/blog/pex-vs-copper-which-is-better-for-your-home/) supports this theory, but they don't provide any data:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Water loses more heat while traveling through copper pipes, resulting in more energy use when compared to plastic piping. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this claim true, or could there be some other factor causing the water to warm up faster at the tap?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am planning to renovate the other bathroom soon, and could replace the copper pipe with PEX in the process if there are energy efficiency benefits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Water piping diagram][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wdKXR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30217" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="f4a89048-9ae8-4dc3-a0cf-3d4a5d49ac84" CreationDate="2022-01-11T18:32:47.827" UserId="9669" Text="I came across a passing [mention][1] of a peculiar way they recycle in Belgium (it's not paywalled as you may think, use Google Scholar). They say they sort out plastic containers, cans, and tetrapaks. But what about paper and glass? They seem to be more important waste categories than tetrapaks. It turned out to be not an easy task to find information about it on the internet (or pictures of their trash bins). How do they recycle in Belgium?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956053X17305354" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30219" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="f4a89048-9ae8-4dc3-a0cf-3d4a5d49ac84" CreationDate="2022-01-11T18:32:47.827" UserId="9669" Text="How do they recycle in Belgium?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30220" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12032" RevisionGUID="f4a89048-9ae8-4dc3-a0cf-3d4a5d49ac84" CreationDate="2022-01-11T18:32:47.827" UserId="9669" Text="|recycling|waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30221" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12027" RevisionGUID="5539118d-a926-4e66-8d88-8aa58f42fce1" CreationDate="2022-01-11T18:34:12.923" UserId="9669" Comment="added 106 characters in body" Text="In landfill conditions, it takes everything forever to decompose, especially plastics. Besides, landfilling doesn't deal with, only masks the problem of waste, including plastic waste. Maybe it's a radical idea, but is litter actually a good thing? With oxygen and sunlight available, it will decompose faster, and that way it kinda says, &quot;Hey, look at me, pay attention to me, I exist&quot;, so it's more likely to be actually handled (recycled, composted, most importantly prevented). If it's something dangerous, you incinerate it. I can't think of anything for which landfilling is the best option. Proper lining, methane capture, it's what developed countries have, and most countries are not developed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30222" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12033" RevisionGUID="4ffe412d-314a-475b-b0d9-216f18ca7e3a" CreationDate="2022-01-11T20:11:12.233" UserId="9669" Text="Why does color matter for PET recycling but not for HDPE recycling? I'm not sure about other countries, but in the place I live in the recycling plant that receives PET from recycling bins I use only works with certain colors (blue, brown, green, colorless) whereas HDPE's color has no relevance. And the Russian recyclers are [annoyed][1] with other PET colors, they want to confine them to those four only. But HDPE colors are not a problem. Why? It has something to do with the types of final products, I'm told&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://telegra.ph/Vtoraya-zhizn-plastika-kak-pererabatyvat-bolshe-polimerov-06-18" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30224" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12033" RevisionGUID="4ffe412d-314a-475b-b0d9-216f18ca7e3a" CreationDate="2022-01-11T20:11:12.233" UserId="9669" Text="Why does color matter for PET recycling but not for HDPE recycling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30225" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12033" RevisionGUID="4ffe412d-314a-475b-b0d9-216f18ca7e3a" CreationDate="2022-01-11T20:11:12.233" UserId="9669" Text="|recycling|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30226" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11936" RevisionGUID="6bb38a39-cdcb-48e9-b9e9-70579f906a27" CreationDate="2022-01-11T20:35:18.290" UserId="13653" Comment="corrected spelling, fixed grammar" Text="There are simultaneous calls for not using paper in any form because it causes deforestation, but when it comes to building and making products from wood it is considered environmentally sustainable, as new trees are constantly planted.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wooden (but not paper) products are praised because of being bio-degradable, although it means that most of the CO2 captured by the tree to form its structure gets back into the atmosphere when wood degrades (or is burned), and same goes for paper (please correct me if I'm wrong). Both can store their carbon for hundreds of years, if prevented from degradation, but in such case bio-biodegradability argument makes less sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I fully understand dangers of plastic (and other artificial substances) pollution, especially if plastic makes its way into water, but in the last case, how hard is it to keep plastic waste away from rivers and oceans?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, given the fact that there are maintained forests that are specifically used to harvest wood, black / grey markets for timber are also huge. Could an end consumer possibly find out what is the source for that material? And is the capacity of these special timber-producing forests cover the needs of the entire planet?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30227" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11936" RevisionGUID="6bb38a39-cdcb-48e9-b9e9-70579f906a27" CreationDate="2022-01-11T20:35:18.290" UserId="13653" Comment="corrected spelling, fixed grammar" Text="How &quot;green&quot; is using wood as a material?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30228" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="11936" RevisionGUID="6bb38a39-cdcb-48e9-b9e9-70579f906a27" CreationDate="2022-01-11T20:35:18.290" Comment="Proposed by 13653 approved by 8469 edit id of 688" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6884" RevisionGUID="0b89eaa2-df33-4183-b540-8e43e846b0ce" CreationDate="2022-01-12T02:58:45.713" UserId="13592" Comment="Moved answer to top; added bullet points; " Text="**Probably best to use an anaerobic digester first.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon dioxide release occurs when compounds containing carbon are oxidised. In conventional aerobic decomposition, this process is relatively direct and carried out by a range of organisms. In a biogas digester, whilst there is no initial release of carbon dioxide, it is released when the resulting methane is burnt. At the end of both processes, you are left with carbon compounds that are only very slowly decomposed. *So the in effect they are equivalent.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Anaerobic digesters make it easier to recover energy from waste (although it is possible to extract heat from compost piles). &#xD;&#xA;- They also have an advantage over composting in that most compost piles release some methane and other greenhouse gases. These gases are captured during the recovery of gas in an anaerobic digester and then combusted to carbon dioxide which has a lower warming potential than methane." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30232" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6884" RevisionGUID="0b89eaa2-df33-4183-b540-8e43e846b0ce" CreationDate="2022-01-12T02:58:45.713" Comment="Proposed by 13592 approved by 2345, 659 edit id of 687" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30234" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12022" RevisionGUID="20eff3cb-c91a-4f66-940f-70b36e223d21" CreationDate="2022-01-12T09:00:02.657" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1481189215035613186" />
  <row Id="30235" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12030" RevisionGUID="7b83aea0-85c4-466d-8b1f-d0471b49cca4" CreationDate="2022-01-12T15:31:03.107" UserId="3379" Comment="added 151 characters in body" Text="*This answer was written before the question was changed to specifically ask about landfills in developing countries.*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**tl;dr: No, because landfills are the best place to capture carbon escaping from degradable materials, prevent toxic chemicals from entering the groundwater, and to store non-degradable materials.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Capturing landfill gas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency](https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials), nearly 60% of the municipal solid waste (MSW) that is landfilled in the U.S. consists of degradable materials such as paper, food, wood, and yard waste:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Total municipal solid waste landfill by material, 2018][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these materials will eventually biodegrade into methane and carbon dioxide. In a managed, anaerobic landfill with methane capture, nearly all of the methane can be captured and used to generate electricity. If such waste were left as litter, these gases would escape directly to the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect without doing any useful work along the way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the U.S., methane capture is [required](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-I/part-258/subpart-C/section-258.23) at most landfills, and the EPA has an [active program](https://www.epa.gov/lmop/about-landfill-methane-outreach-program) to institute methane capture at eligible landfills. [Per the EIA](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/landfill-gas-and-biogas.php), landfill gas (LFG) projects in the U.S. in 2020 captured a quantity of methane that, if released to the atmosphere, would represent 100.4 million metric tons of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalent (MMTCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e). This is slightly more than than the 99.4 MMTCO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e released from landfills without LFG capture, [according the the EPA](https://www.epa.gov/lmop/frequent-questions-about-landfill-gas#howmuchmethane).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Treating leachate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most LFG collection systems have the benefit of combing with a leachate collection system (image from [EIA](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/biomass/landfill-gas-and-biogas.php)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Leachate collection system][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Leachate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leachate#Composition_of_landfill_leachate) is the nasty mix of liquids and chemicals that ooze out of garbage. It oozes out of all garbage wherever it is, so better to collect it in a landfill where it can be treated, which is typically done in large tanks with the same kind of enzymes and neutralizing chemicals that are used to treat sewage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The leachate itself is actually a very corrosive substance, which means that it helps break down the stuff in the landfill, increasing methane production and reducing the time it takes for things to break down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## All the other stuff&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for everything else (mostly metal, glass, and plastic) it originally came from a hole in the ground, so putting back in one seems appropriate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/g08Pe.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KjvN4.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30236" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12027" RevisionGUID="fba16eef-7130-4d7c-b93e-249e1dee8797" CreationDate="2022-01-12T15:36:17.530" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified the specific question." Text="In landfill conditions, it takes everything forever to decompose, especially plastics. Proper lining, methane capture, it's what developed countries have, and most countries are not developed. So could litter be better than an unmanaged landfill?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Landfilling doesn't deal with, only masks the problem of waste, including plastic waste. Maybe it's a radical idea, but is litter actually a good thing? With oxygen and sunlight available, it will decompose faster, and that way it kinda says, &quot;Hey, look at me, pay attention to me, I exist&quot;, so maybe it's more likely to be actually handled (recycled, composted, most importantly prevented). If it's something dangerous, you incinerate it. I can't think of anything for which an unmanaged landfill is the best option." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30237" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12027" RevisionGUID="fba16eef-7130-4d7c-b93e-249e1dee8797" CreationDate="2022-01-12T15:36:17.530" UserId="3379" Comment="Clarified the specific question." Text="Is litter better than an unmanaged landfill?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12035" RevisionGUID="896aba8f-c565-40a8-87d1-6bab84eb24d2" CreationDate="2022-01-14T10:07:37.017" UserId="99" Text="Belgium has had [several separate recycling streams](https://www.belgium.be/en/environment/sorting_and_recycling_household_waste) for decades; for example paper, glass, textile, electronic devices. However about 10 years ago a new recycling stream called PMD was introduced, which stands for Plastics, Metals and Drink cartons. The efficiency of this waste stream is under debate and recently also changed a bit to include more types of plastic. This is one of the reasons why current research on recycling is focusing primarily on this waste stream. The other waste streams get very little attention because they generally work well (perhaps with the exception of electronics recycling and construction waste)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12036" RevisionGUID="98ef6c7c-ffae-43ef-a1bc-9ccff50ea338" CreationDate="2022-01-15T20:40:16.407" UserId="9669" Text="In the place where I live, hard plastics (e.g. bottles) are valued more and easier to recycle whereas soft plastics (e.g. wrappers), even of the same type (say, HDPE) are valued much less and it's harder to find someone who would be willing to accept them. Why is it so? Soft plastics are thinner so there are more contaminants per unit of volume/weight compared to hard plastics. But suppose I wash them thoroughly, why would soft plastics still be inferior? More volume per weight ratio during transportation because of air? You can compress them into bales, can't you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30242" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12036" RevisionGUID="98ef6c7c-ffae-43ef-a1bc-9ccff50ea338" CreationDate="2022-01-15T20:40:16.407" UserId="9669" Text="Why are soft plastics inferior to hard plastics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30243" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12036" RevisionGUID="98ef6c7c-ffae-43ef-a1bc-9ccff50ea338" CreationDate="2022-01-15T20:40:16.407" UserId="9669" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30244" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12037" RevisionGUID="fbbd2bd0-4c63-4383-860a-9b710db53937" CreationDate="2022-01-16T01:10:19.300" UserId="2345" Text="Inferior is probably not the best word to use in this situation. Something such as *less preferable* might be better. Inferior denotes lesser quality or lower strength or functionality characteristics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;English lessons aside, who is going to wash the soft plastics before they get recycled, those disposing of the plastics or those who would collect it or those who would recycle it? You can't rely on those disposing of the plastic to wash it because most people are either lazy or just want the convenience of simply disposing it without much thought, They need an incentive. Leaving it to the others gives them a waste disposal problem they don't want. What do they do with the dirty wash water and any associated biological material or solids? What is it going to cost them to be rid of something they don't want?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for compressing soft plastics, yes that's possible but who want's to spend the money buying machines to do this, if they don't have to?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the differences I see between the two types of plastics is the ease or difficulty in how each type might be handled. Using your example of hard and soft plastics, hard plastics would be easier to handle, they flow more easily and more controllably under gravity and are less prone to being blown on conveyor belts by gusts of wind or other forms of airflow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30246" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12036" RevisionGUID="a0c0b92b-02ad-41b6-a41f-9c29a30aff8b" CreationDate="2022-01-16T12:49:08.603" UserId="9669" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="In the place where I live, hard plastics (e.g. bottles) are valued more and easier to recycle whereas soft plastics (e.g. wrappers), even of the same type (say, HDPE) are valued much less and it's harder to find someone who would be willing to accept them. Why is it so? Soft plastics are thinner so there are more contaminants per unit of volume/weight compared to hard plastics. But suppose I wash them thoroughly, why would soft plastics still be inferior? A higher volume per weight ratio during transportation because of air? You can compress them into bales, can't you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30247" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12036" RevisionGUID="55b937b4-726d-4c6f-bfbd-f79c8e8144ec" CreationDate="2022-01-16T13:08:50.420" UserId="9669" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="In the place where I live, hard plastics (e.g. bottles) are valued more and easier to recycle whereas soft plastics (e.g. wrappers), even of the same type (say, HDPE) are valued much less, and it's harder to find someone who would be willing to accept them. Why is it so? Soft plastics are thinner so there are more contaminants per unit of volume/weight compared to hard plastics. But suppose I wash them thoroughly, why would soft plastics still be inferior, less fit for recycling? Is a higher volume per weight ratio during transportation to blame (because of air)? You can compress them into bales, though, can't you?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30249" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5320" RevisionGUID="c13e01b2-ee4a-4229-bafd-7b065e570ef7" CreationDate="2022-01-18T17:58:10.090" UserId="3379" Comment="72" />
  <row Id="30258" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="496e7f0a-846b-45db-bcb6-1cbc9cd2f1a0" CreationDate="2022-01-19T03:02:20.390" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12040" RevisionGUID="04f7bcab-d14a-4a83-a105-cf3a8278020c" CreationDate="2022-01-19T22:43:24.737" UserId="13674" Text="BUMP FOR POSTERITY: Feedback is almost always a net positive and would absolutely provide a ROI for hotels in the specific case you provide. Excepting the 4.4% off total electrical usage that @Tim came up with, I think he is missing the point of charging guests for the energy they do use - because they now would be able to effectively meter individual use. This would result in a, what was the statistic you quoted earlier - 63% of electrical use by guests... so a 63% savings on the hotels energy bills, if I'm not mistaken? Moreso even, because as another user mentioned they can sell the energy for a higher rate than they pay the utility for their bulk deals. And this is only in terms of profits due to guests. Ive also seen no mentions of the efficiency increase and resulting profits related to these increases. Short circuit on a lamp in room 236? Well it's unoccupied and reading way higher energy use than an equivalent unoccupied room. Let's get that fixed and see a savings from guest QOL improvements, total hotel energy use, oh and the enormous future potential costs of a hotel fire torching everything. This is one example with a faulty plug. Now translate this to HVAC and heating systems, plumbing systems, normal and emergency power systems, pollution/air quality control, and occupancy control, and this is what my company sells (to hotels etc.) for a living. Feedback systems can save millions of dollars per year for buildings, and the more buildings you have data on the more potential savings there are to be found. Feedback systems keep planes and shuttles from crashing (and do lots of other things) by warning of impending issues before catastrophic failure - saving billions of dollars. The concept is the same for buildings - they just don't usually crash as quickly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12040" RevisionGUID="c9a8cd6b-92db-415e-88ed-ecaaa54cfb67" CreationDate="2022-01-19T22:57:32.747" UserId="13674" Comment="Link" Text="BUMP FOR POSTERITY: Feedback is almost always a net positive and would absolutely provide a ROI for hotels in the specific case you provide. Excepting the 4.4% off total electrical usage that @Tim came up with, I think he is missing the point of charging guests for the energy they do use - because they now would be able to effectively meter individual use. This would result in a, what was the statistic you quoted earlier - 63% of electrical use by guests... so a 63% savings on the hotels energy bills, if I'm not mistaken? Moreso even, because as another user mentioned they can sell the energy for a higher rate than they pay the utility for their bulk deals. And this is only in terms of profits due to guests. Ive also seen no mentions of the efficiency increase and resulting profits related to these increases. Short circuit on a lamp in room 236? Well it's unoccupied and reading way higher energy use than an equivalent unoccupied room. Let's get that fixed and see a savings from guest QOL improvements, total hotel energy use, oh and the enormous future potential costs of a hotel fire torching everything. This is one example with a faulty plug. Now translate this to HVAC and heating systems, plumbing systems, normal and emergency power systems, pollution/air quality control, and occupancy control, and this is what my company sells (to hotels etc.) for a living. Feedback systems can save millions of dollars per year for buildings, and the more buildings you have data on the more potential savings there are to be found. Feedback systems keep planes and shuttles from crashing (and do lots of other things) by warning of impending issues before catastrophic failure - saving billions of dollars. The concept is the same for buildings - they just don't usually crash as quickly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7343990&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example - $40-$50/room" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12041" RevisionGUID="0a1aeec4-c69f-4706-952e-e8097d60cbe1" CreationDate="2022-01-21T01:57:33.107" UserId="9669" Text="Is environmentally-driven [purchasing][1] of coal mines a good idea? Certainly environmental non-profits won't have enough funds to do it on a large scale. Governments have, but they are corrupt. There's a huge risk that they'll just buy up those mines under the pretext of climate change and after the reserves deplete elsewhere and the prices soar, it'll just be one colossal fossil fuel cartel that would dwarf OPEC immensely&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220118-the-environmental-case-for-buying-a-coal-mine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30264" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12041" RevisionGUID="0a1aeec4-c69f-4706-952e-e8097d60cbe1" CreationDate="2022-01-21T01:57:33.107" UserId="9669" Text="Is environmentally-driven purchasing of coal mines a good idea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30265" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12041" RevisionGUID="0a1aeec4-c69f-4706-952e-e8097d60cbe1" CreationDate="2022-01-21T01:57:33.107" UserId="9669" Text="|energy|climate-change|fossil-fuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12042" RevisionGUID="2034200e-b5d4-4575-860f-6a6398e1b7e9" CreationDate="2022-01-21T16:41:50.010" UserId="6393" Text="No this won't work, because there's so much coal reserves, unless you buy all of them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With oil it might just work. Buy an oilfield and promise to not utilize it in any manner. However, the fossil fuel industry is probably capable of finding more oilfields than there is room for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and electric car transition is rapidly progressing, so I wouldn't be surprised if we naturally end up with unused oilfields. So the plan to buy oilfields could only work if there are more buyers for oilfields to be left unutilized than what oil would be left unutilized naturally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With natural gas it might work. Natural gas will be used as transition adjustable power in electricity grids (because we don't have enough hydropower resources), to be replaced later with hydrogen. If you buy natural gas fields and leave them unused, it might accelerate the transition towards hydrogen. Yet, I wouldn't be surprised if the hydrogen transition accelerates so much that natural gas would be left unused naturally too. So not certain it will work, like with oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With coal no way is it going to work. The problem is, we have massive massive coal reserves, so much that using them all would warm the planet at least 10 degrees Celsius if not more. No way would all of them be utilized naturally. So your plan would work only if you purchased every single coal mine on this planet, and would continue buying them at a great rate as new mines are found.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A simpler way, much cheaper, would be to just buy carbon dioxide permits and promise to leave them unused. However, if enough many people start doing this, the policymakers deciding the number of carbon dioxide permits will increase the number of future permits, knowing that part of them will be left unused by intentional buyers, so the effect might be negated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another simpler way, much cheaper, is to buy forest and create biochar from the trees. No need to find all that money for a single oilfield, gasfield or coal mine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also a very important (if not the most important) way to prevent dangerous climate change is to vote in every election for a candidate favoring the environment. Also you should change all home appliances to the most energy efficient appliances possible, and switch to an electric car. All of them are cheaper than buying coal mines. Any unused money should be invested in companies that do good for the environment." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12043" RevisionGUID="00c51775-4010-472a-ae8c-6ff3a70c5630" CreationDate="2022-01-22T22:47:53.343" UserId="13688" Text="I know that frozen food boxes are not supposed to be recycled because the packages have a plastic coating that interferes with recycling.  However, lately I have been seeing frozen food boxes that are explicitly marked &quot;please recycle&quot; (e.g., Hilary's Eat Well).  Is this an indication that these packages do not have the non-recyclable coating, and can be safely recycled?  Or is this just misleading labeling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30271" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12043" RevisionGUID="00c51775-4010-472a-ae8c-6ff3a70c5630" CreationDate="2022-01-22T22:47:53.343" UserId="13688" Text="Recycling frozen food packages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30272" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12043" RevisionGUID="00c51775-4010-472a-ae8c-6ff3a70c5630" CreationDate="2022-01-22T22:47:53.343" UserId="13688" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12044" RevisionGUID="6d721ddd-1e96-4369-b17d-15a1edd14cea" CreationDate="2022-01-24T00:55:12.553" UserId="5824" Text="In the NPR podcast and transcript [Former NSA McMaster proposes climate policy to pressure Russia](https://www.npr.org/2022/01/22/1075108292/former-nsa-mcmaster-proposes-climate-policy-to-pressure-russia) is the following exchange between reporter Michel Martin and former National Security Advisor, [General H.R. McMaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._R._McMaster):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MARTIN: So first of all, we should say that Russia makes a lot of money from exporting natural gas through a number of pipelines to Europe, and European governments are eager to not have that supply disrupted or shut off, especially in the middle of winter. So that being said, can you describe this idea of using climate and trade policy to put pressure on Russia? What exactly are you proposing?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;MCMASTER: It's really important to recognize that economic security is national security, and energy security is national security. And we can't really compartmentalize these aspects of policy. They ought to be consistent with one another. **We ought to reward economically those who produce energy sources in a way that reduces carbon emissions, and this is, in particular, natural gas production and shipment. Russia - the way that Russia produces natural gas is dirty itself. The United States, the way we produce and export natural gas with LNG and others is relatively clean,** and this is a way to align economic incentives with using, in this case, natural gas as a bridge to renewables and zero-emissions energy sources. We know we can't do it really any other way, Michel. I mean, this is why, you know, Europe can't keep the lights on. And the fact that they are dependent on Russian gas has given Vladimir Putin tremendous coercive power over Europe's economies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Is the natural gas sold to other countries by Russia produced in a more environmentally detrimental way than the natural gas sold by the US? If so, how? Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30275" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12044" RevisionGUID="6d721ddd-1e96-4369-b17d-15a1edd14cea" CreationDate="2022-01-24T00:55:12.553" UserId="5824" Text="Is the natural gas sold to other countries by Russia produced in a more environmentally detrimental way than the natural gas sold by the US? How? Why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30276" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12044" RevisionGUID="6d721ddd-1e96-4369-b17d-15a1edd14cea" CreationDate="2022-01-24T00:55:12.553" UserId="5824" Text="|usa|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30283" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12044" RevisionGUID="f68f7196-8188-40fb-a3e7-3f8c48c26d57" CreationDate="2022-01-24T10:10:03.620" UserId="2345" Comment="edited tags" Text="|usa|natural-gas|russia|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30284" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12046" RevisionGUID="6d6b7382-5230-4f10-a2e4-1b918a3e8eb3" CreationDate="2022-01-24T10:14:15.867" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30286" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12046" RevisionGUID="6d6b7382-5230-4f10-a2e4-1b918a3e8eb3" CreationDate="2022-01-24T10:14:15.867" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30287" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12047" RevisionGUID="e0134a3e-d3db-46e2-9078-0735677974c1" CreationDate="2022-01-24T10:14:15.867" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30289" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12047" RevisionGUID="e0134a3e-d3db-46e2-9078-0735677974c1" CreationDate="2022-01-24T10:14:15.867" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30290" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12044" RevisionGUID="749762b0-32f2-4244-9af5-365a813aee1e" CreationDate="2022-01-24T12:00:09.237" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1485583195491995652" />
  <row Id="30292" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12047" RevisionGUID="7c596b51-c0ae-4ab2-9ed9-19b040343534" CreationDate="2022-01-24T15:06:24.273" UserId="2345" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="Russia is a country that spans from Eastern Europe to Eastern North Asia. Use this tag for questions that are specific for Russia and not applicable to other countries." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30293" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12047" RevisionGUID="7c596b51-c0ae-4ab2-9ed9-19b040343534" CreationDate="2022-01-24T15:06:24.273" Comment="Proposed by 2345 approved by 99 edit id of 690" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30294" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12048" RevisionGUID="f81f82d1-96e0-4486-8f21-7f5d7f91c1e8" CreationDate="2022-01-24T16:01:50.420" UserId="5477" Text="Generally, yes; but difficult to quantify. Environment and safety have lower priorities in Russia ( and other countries) than in the west. I remember touring a Russian steel mill with no safety glasses, no hardhat, etc, unless you brought your own. The Japanese even give you paper coveralls. Starting with the well drilling mud which is contained and treated in the west, it is pretty much left in the mud pits unless some is salvaged for the next well in Russia. Admitted all I have is anecdotal; like Amoco drillers refused to go back to Russian drill site after first trip due to safety concerns (about 1990). However , Russians want to make money selling oil and gas, so they lose as little as possible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30296" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12048" RevisionGUID="54811e52-61d5-4f9d-a629-1d2f1b8196b0" CreationDate="2022-01-25T14:58:48.983" UserId="5477" Comment="clarifications ." Text="Generally, yes; but difficult to quantify. Environment and safety have lower priorities in Russia ( and other countries) than in the west.As an example I remember touring a Russian steel mill with no safety glasses, no hardhat, etc, unless you brought your own. I felt undressed compared to being in a western mill. Starting with the well drilling mud which is contained and treated in the west, it is pretty much left in the mud pits unless some is salvaged for the next well in Russia. Admitted all I have is anecdotal; like Amoco drillers refused to go back to Russian drill site after first trip due to safety concerns (about 1990). However , Russians want to make money selling oil and gas, so they lose as little as possible. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30297" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12049" RevisionGUID="eb219734-d32f-4780-848d-dd0e224ee59f" CreationDate="2022-01-25T16:48:37.687" UserId="13696" Text="You can reuse padded envelopes and mailers by donating them on BoxGiver.com. Hope that helps!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30300" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12050" RevisionGUID="56117b09-990e-46a5-aff7-82b5bcbb5f91" CreationDate="2022-01-25T23:49:40.067" UserId="13698" Text="**Problem**: Use excess exhaust air heat from industry to heat outdoor pool. What temperature and at what pressure would air have to be to heat volume of water, say 375m3 to 25degC. Is there a way of calculating a smaller volume, then scaling it up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30302" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12050" RevisionGUID="56117b09-990e-46a5-aff7-82b5bcbb5f91" CreationDate="2022-01-25T23:49:40.067" UserId="13698" Text="Heat water with hot air" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30303" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12050" RevisionGUID="56117b09-990e-46a5-aff7-82b5bcbb5f91" CreationDate="2022-01-25T23:49:40.067" UserId="13698" Text="|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30304" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11984" RevisionGUID="e7188efa-2b2b-4253-a710-f09a345773e3" CreationDate="2022-01-26T01:02:40.267" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12051" RevisionGUID="9b880f79-e137-49ae-b54d-b9ea2d02776d" CreationDate="2022-01-26T02:19:55.033" UserId="5477" Text="It is primarily a matter of cost. Nat gas heater is likely the lowest cost. No pressure would be required for the air/flue gas, only movement. Any heat is good, it does not need to be a specific temperature except possibly for a commercial pool somewhere like a hotel. Our subdivision pool is heated by the sun to around 29C for 4 months; some say too warm, some say too cool , some say it is fine. I am sure all would consider 25C too low. &quot; Industry exhaust&quot; would need to be defined to be considered. Industrial flue gas can a very corrosive material requiring expensive alloys. I had a plan to heat my home pool with heat from the house attic; Use a home furnace fan (free) to blow air through an auto radiator ( cheap, from junkyard) using a side stream from the pool filter pump ( only cost only some plastic pipe). But like many good intentions it never happened.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30307" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12050" RevisionGUID="921740f1-2082-4b1a-a23e-7405c316dcfe" CreationDate="2022-01-26T22:45:22.000" UserId="2345" Comment="Superscripts &amp; degree symbol" Text="**Problem**: Use excess exhaust air heat from industry to heat outdoor pool. What temperature and at what pressure would air have to be to heat volume of water, say 375 m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; to 25 &amp;deg;C. Is there a way of calculating a smaller volume, then scaling it up?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30308" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12052" RevisionGUID="7eb5422e-4689-4599-bd6d-7c3a249c1eb4" CreationDate="2022-01-27T15:40:30.093" UserId="13618" Text="In recent years there has been a significant move towards electricity generation from natural gas.  This has in large part been driven by the desire to reduce green house gas release.  However methane is a potent green house gas, with a [global warming potential of 28 - 36 times](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials) that of CO2, making leaks a significant problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recently there has developed tension between western Europe and Russia.  One potential result could be Europe getting more of its gas as liquid natural gas from the United States, shipped by boat, and less from the Russian Federation, shipped by pipeline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do we have any data on the extraction and transmission losses of natural gas?  In particular, do we know if it is better to get it from the US or Russia?  Intuitively, one may suppose that the opportunities for leaks would be greater with shipping by sea, but it is also possible that differences in regulations around extraction would have a bigger difference." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30310" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12052" RevisionGUID="7eb5422e-4689-4599-bd6d-7c3a249c1eb4" CreationDate="2022-01-27T15:40:30.093" UserId="13618" Text="How much methane is lost in extraction and transmision from different sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30311" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12052" RevisionGUID="7eb5422e-4689-4599-bd6d-7c3a249c1eb4" CreationDate="2022-01-27T15:40:30.093" UserId="13618" Text="|energy|natural-gas|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30312" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12053" RevisionGUID="8be129c1-59bc-444f-9ebb-ed8c131240a1" CreationDate="2022-01-28T13:33:16.873" UserId="9669" Text="There's a whole [movement][1] in Russia called &quot;Antiborschevik&quot; (Antihogweed). Sosnowsky's hogweed used to be cultivated on purpose in the Soviet Union as a type of fodder, but then it became an invasive nuisance spreading all over the place on its own. Among other things, they, the movement, suggest applying herbicides. But herbicides are bad, aren't they? What are both environmentally friendly and efficient ways to fight hogweed (Sosnowsky's hogweed)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://antiborschevik.info/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30314" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12053" RevisionGUID="8be129c1-59bc-444f-9ebb-ed8c131240a1" CreationDate="2022-01-28T13:33:16.873" UserId="9669" Text="What are environmentally friendly and efficient ways to fight hogweed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30315" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12053" RevisionGUID="8be129c1-59bc-444f-9ebb-ed8c131240a1" CreationDate="2022-01-28T13:33:16.873" UserId="9669" Text="|pest-management|pesticides|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30323" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="1c4b0906-d61c-40af-abf0-8ccfc4063c33" CreationDate="2022-01-29T07:46:49.000" UserId="13711" Text="I've seen it [mentioned][1] that it could be possible to daisy chain the 3,500W Renogy charger/invertor output but I haven't seen exactly how you might do that or any mention in the manual.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- How would you go about daisy chaining this or any other invertor on the A/C side? &#xD;&#xA;- Is there a limit to how many you could chain or is it just limited to your output copper?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Set-up we're looking at is an array of solar panels on top of some parking shade combined with some lithium batteries to power some guest accommodation.  Each guest unit is expected to peak around 2000W. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We could do one charger/invertor per unit. However, it seems like a bit of a waste to do it that approach when if you had x3 your 10.5kW peak could probably cover 8 units happily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/10542/grid-tied-inverters-that-work-during-power-outages" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30325" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="1c4b0906-d61c-40af-abf0-8ccfc4063c33" CreationDate="2022-01-29T07:46:49.000" UserId="13711" Text="How would you go about daisy chaining a solar invertor/charger like the Renogy 3,500W" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30326" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="1c4b0906-d61c-40af-abf0-8ccfc4063c33" CreationDate="2022-01-29T07:46:49.000" UserId="13711" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12056" RevisionGUID="82d25754-98a3-4e28-bfad-48eb458bf2c6" CreationDate="2022-01-29T10:12:00.413" UserId="6393" Text="To me, it looks like much better idea to have multiple 3500 watt circuits. Not necessarily one circuit per guest, but let's say 2 guests per circuit for example. If you're using 230 V voltage, that's bit below 16 amps. So it means you can use ordinary Schuko connectors and 1.5mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; cables. For 120 V voltage, the output already would be bit below 30 amps, which probably can't be used with standard cables and standard connectors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you parallel the outputs of 3 inverters, that's 46 amperes at 230 V and 88 amperes at 120 V. It would require 10 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; cables at 230 V, and 25 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; cables at 120 V. Have you seen those cables? 10 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; is thick, especially if you have three inner cables (ground, neutral, live) in a composite cable. One 25 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; cable is as thick as car jumper wires and a mains cable requires three cables for neutral, live and ground. Or actually one cable in a mains cable would be probably thicker, as with higher voltages you need more insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the huge cables, you need connectors capable of delivering that current. Ain't going to be easy to find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In contrast, if you limit each circuit to below 3500 watts, standard cables and connectors work just fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the inverters were smaller, let's say 1000 watts, I would encourage to parallel them if at all possible to get near the limit of ordinary cables and connectors (3600 watts at 230 V), but paralleling 3500 watt inverters to get over 10 kW is entirely different, the copper need in cables would be ridiculous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30329" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12052" RevisionGUID="2b4a7ec5-c10e-4f66-8c2e-8dc1f24d90df" CreationDate="2022-01-29T17:52:13.407" UserId="99" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[12044],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30330" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12057" RevisionGUID="12530a3b-6c31-475c-9c95-0721b3105899" CreationDate="2022-01-30T19:06:44.823" UserId="4158" Text="Main problem is that the seeds can remain vital for 5 or more years, so any measurements taken need to be persisted for a while and there's really no silver bullet (also not herbicides since they're not guaranteed to kill seeds present in the soil). Repeatedly mowing/grazing makes sure existing plants cannot produce seeds. Grazing is efficient in that it doesn't require manual intervantion, but is not feasible in some areas because fencing does take manpower. And the flocks might eat other plants which can be undesired in case of rare species. Mowing could be less environmentally friendly (possible fuel use, soil compacting or degradation). Mowing followed by removing a large part of the root might be efficient enough that it needs to be done once, but again requires more manpower and disturbs soil (which in turn might lead to seeds getting more chances). All in all, as is often the case for other invasive species, it is just a hard problem." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12058" RevisionGUID="87865e8d-0ada-47db-9645-61bba9e1b666" CreationDate="2022-01-30T19:26:23.763" UserId="8656" Text="My council collects food waste and turns it into biogas which is used in the municipal vehicle fleet - mostly buses and caddy type vans, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We put our food waste into a separate bin, which is collected weekly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30334" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="5b3551a0-2c77-479f-a320-8e8def69b95c" CreationDate="2022-01-30T22:05:15.580" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12059" RevisionGUID="95bc7519-9063-4ee7-946a-d426f6d7c992" CreationDate="2022-02-01T13:00:45.850" UserId="4353" Text="I am thinking of attaching what is a akin to an &quot;inverted umbrella&quot; to some trees - i.e. underneath the tree canopy, so that I can harvest rain from underneath the tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please note, this is not EXACTLY what I'm doing - so go along with the analogy. I don't want people asking me WHY I am doing this etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, going on with the analogy of the &quot;inverted umbrella&quot; under the tree canopy, to collect rain, I am aware that there will be debris/detritus consisting of (but not limited to):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Bird (and other fauna) excreta&#xD;&#xA;- Dead leaves, twigs etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can such collected water be used to irrigate vegetables (especially salads) - that are often eaten raw?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the answer is a resounding &quot;No&quot; - then, please indicate what the potential dangers are - and how these may be mitigated against.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30337" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12059" RevisionGUID="95bc7519-9063-4ee7-946a-d426f6d7c992" CreationDate="2022-02-01T13:00:45.850" UserId="4353" Text="Is this idea for rain harvesting suitable for crop irrigation" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30338" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12059" RevisionGUID="95bc7519-9063-4ee7-946a-d426f6d7c992" CreationDate="2022-02-01T13:00:45.850" UserId="4353" Text="|water|rain-harvesting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30339" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12060" RevisionGUID="7109c10a-3a60-4153-a3b9-e3febd349e1a" CreationDate="2022-02-01T13:07:38.680" UserId="13618" Text="Yes.  Plants get their water from the soil, and soil is made of detritus consisting of organic mater of animal and plant origin similar to what you expect to fall into the rain collection devices.  Any such in the water will help the plants rather than harm them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you actually hung up umbrellas you may well get man made chemicals in the water, in particular water proofing substances can be quite harmful.  This is probably what you should be considering most." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30341" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12061" RevisionGUID="98a15614-915c-4f6b-8ecf-bf904b5f1aa7" CreationDate="2022-02-01T15:06:45.793" UserId="2727" Text="Wouldn't it be great if we could just drill into the ground and find pools of a natural energy source?  Sure.  Well, that's oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oil is generally considered a non-renewable resource.  But if humans used less of it - ***much, much, much less of it*** - would it actually be a good renewable and sustainable resource?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, there's also the issue of finding a way to use it that doesn't result in global warming.  But that's another question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: Asked the follow-up question [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/12062/can-oil-be-used-as-a-fuel-source-without-contributing-to-global-climate-change" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30343" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12061" RevisionGUID="98a15614-915c-4f6b-8ecf-bf904b5f1aa7" CreationDate="2022-02-01T15:06:45.793" UserId="2727" Text="Is oil actually a renewable and sustainable resource, but we just use much too much of it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30344" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12061" RevisionGUID="98a15614-915c-4f6b-8ecf-bf904b5f1aa7" CreationDate="2022-02-01T15:06:45.793" UserId="2727" Text="|energy|renewables|electricity-generation|defining-sustainability|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30345" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12062" RevisionGUID="1b563fc9-d353-4767-b233-8ae1aefdc5b9" CreationDate="2022-02-01T15:09:07.567" UserId="2727" Text="I just posted [this other question regarding oil][1], and as a follow-up, I would like to ask if oil can be used as a fuel source for energy without contributing to global climate change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/12061/is-oil-actually-a-renewable-and-sustainable-resource-but-we-just-use-much-too-m" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30347" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12062" RevisionGUID="1b563fc9-d353-4767-b233-8ae1aefdc5b9" CreationDate="2022-02-01T15:09:07.567" UserId="2727" Text="Can oil be used as a fuel source without contributing to global climate change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30348" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12062" RevisionGUID="1b563fc9-d353-4767-b233-8ae1aefdc5b9" CreationDate="2022-02-01T15:09:07.567" UserId="2727" Text="|energy|greenhouse-gas-emissions|climate-change|oil|emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30349" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12063" RevisionGUID="fa5ba9a2-b8c8-4ab6-bc65-9e5c95fa1dae" CreationDate="2022-02-01T15:20:16.627" UserId="2727" Text="You're right, it's a similar gas, so it could theoretically be used for energy.  The problem with doing this is two-fold:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. There is no currently known non-cruel way to capture such gases.  The most feasible way would be to surgically insert tubes in the animals.  I don't think anyone wants to see that happen, especially the cattle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Collection would likely interfere with cattle depositing their feces on the ground.  In most areas, animal feces are an essential part of the ecosystem.  However, since cattle or similar animals aren't endemic to many ecosystems in which they are currently present, the effect would vary depending on the region." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12064" RevisionGUID="ff9832fe-aef5-4bb7-8631-f998e1dacf2e" CreationDate="2022-02-01T15:36:29.857" UserId="3379" Text="Wikipedia defines a [renewable resource](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_resource) as (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a natural resource which will replenish to replace the portion depleted by usage and consumption, either through natural reproduction or other recurring processes in a finite amount of time **in a human time scale.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, crude oil (or petroleum) takes millions of years to form. Per the University of Calgary's [Energy Education](https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Oil_formation) portal (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The formation of oil takes a significant amount of time with oil beginning to form **millions of years ago**. 70% of oil deposits existing today were formed in the Mesozoic age (252 to 66 million years ago), 20% were formed in the Cenozoic age (65 million years ago), and only 10% were formed in the Paleozoic age (541 to 252 million years ago).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because oil takes millions of years to form, there is no way we could reasonably classify its use as renewable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30353" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12065" RevisionGUID="74f899bf-7032-483e-9d5e-62da69f4cb12" CreationDate="2022-02-01T21:39:58.587" UserId="659" Text="Not of itself. Using oil as fuel means burning it and that means producing carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things we can do after burning oil to avoid releasing the CO2 to the atmosphere, but none of those things are specific to CO2 from oil. For example, we can plant trees to absorb the CO2, but that works for any CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is also a situation where we don't have to burn oil for energy, so that's an easy thing to stop doing. At least compared to breathing which is very difficult to stop doing. But we do need to reduce CO2 emissions, to the point where we need to be active taking CO2 out of the atmosphere (and oceans)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30355" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12061" RevisionGUID="801a703f-6e3b-434d-8b5f-8e651f8250b6" CreationDate="2022-02-01T23:08:18.403" />
  <row Id="30356" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12064" RevisionGUID="295efd52-bf79-43da-9682-ca7371b54dc2" CreationDate="2022-02-02T03:11:40.513" UserId="3379" Comment="added 1394 characters in body" Text="### What does renewable mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia defines a [renewable resource](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_resource) as (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a natural resource which will replenish to replace the portion depleted by usage and consumption, either through natural reproduction or other recurring processes in a finite amount of time **in a human time scale.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Human time scale&quot; is rather vague, but we can assume it's no more than 10,000 years, which is about how old [human civilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_history#Rise_of_civilization) is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How long does oil take to form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, crude oil (or petroleum) takes millions of years to form. Per the University of Calgary's [Energy Education](https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Oil_formation) portal (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The formation of oil takes a significant amount of time with oil beginning to form **millions of years ago**. 70% of oil deposits existing today were formed in the Mesozoic age (252 to 66 million years ago), 20% were formed in the Cenozoic age (65 million years ago), and only 10% were formed in the Paleozoic age (541 to 252 million years ago).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Because oil takes millions of years to form, there is no way we could reasonably classify its use as renewable.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### But what if new oil is *still* being formed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a great question about this on [EarthScience.SE](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/571/how-much-oil-is-created-each-year), and while there's no real conclusion, there's a range of suggestions from 15,000 to 80,000 barrels per year of new oil being formed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if we round up to 100,000 barrels, this is a very small amount: &#xD;&#xA; - It would fit in [one oil tanker](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=17991). &#xD;&#xA; - It's 1/100th of a percent of the size at which [oil fields](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields) *start* to be measured -- one billion barrels.&#xD;&#xA; - It's 1/10th of a percent of the amount of oil consumed [every day at the global level](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&amp;t=6). &#xD;&#xA; - Put another way, 100,000 barrels would last about 90 *seconds* at our current rate of consumption.&#xD;&#xA; - Given a population of [8 billion](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/), everyone would get about 2 mL per year:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Hand holding 2 mL bottle][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't spend it all in one place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5W2O3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12067" RevisionGUID="999d645f-75a5-47ee-9257-79bacaa0ccf4" CreationDate="2022-02-02T17:07:42.347" UserId="6393" Text="I'll provide a different answer to this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fossil oil isn't something that is being produced at a great rate currently. So the 2 milliliters per year in the other upvoted answer is probably a good approximation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a chemically equivalent liquid, renewable oil, can actually be produced in scales reasonably close to the scales oil is being consumed today. We still have to reduce our oil consumption, perhaps to 10-20% of what it is today, but not more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, in this year, 19.5% of the energy content of fuels sold in Finland have to be from renewable sources. This percentage gradually rises to 30% in 2029. And the decisions were made before the accelerating adoption of electric vehicles. So the 30% was assumed to be realistic given our current rate of oil use. Realistically electric cars will make about 15% of the cars in use in 2029, so it's probably realistic to have even 35% of energy content in fuels be biofuels. Part of the 30% target will probably be bioethanol, that is not chemically equivalent to fossil fuels, but a lot of it will be next-generation biofuels that are chemically the same compound as the fossil fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every compound in oil can be made from renewable sources. The trouble is, we can't maintain our current rate of oil consumption and produce 100% of oil from renewable sources because there aren't enough feedstocks. However, if all light road transportation (passenger cars, vans, etc) become electric vehicles and only heavy trucks, buses, industrial and agricultural equipment, marine transportation, and aviation continue to use oil, the remaining oil users can very well use oil at their current rate of oil consumption. The oil will be renewable, but the vehicles don't need to care about that. It's still chemically the same compound.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we consider more drastic measures, such as eliminating every single tropical rainforest on this planet and replacing them with oil palm plantations, we could probably replace even 100% of oil use from renewable oils. However, renewable does not equate to environmentally friendly, if rainforests were destroyed there's nothing environmentally friendly in that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12068" RevisionGUID="bb12b737-8281-40fa-b52b-1912bd2eb99d" CreationDate="2022-02-02T17:16:40.990" UserId="6393" Text="There are two ways oil can be used as a fuel source for energy without contributing to global climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first is carbon capture and storage. However, part of the allure of oil is that it's very volumetrically dense, meaning a liter of oil contains a lot of energy at 1 bar pressure. Not so with natural gas, you have to have at least 700 bar pressure and even then a litre of compressed natural gas won't contain much energy. The problem is the burning product, carbon dioxide, is a gas and therefore not volumetrically dense. You'd have to compress it to very large pressures, meaning a pressure vessel is needed, and still it would take a lot of volume. If you have an oilfield and extract a liter of oil, and then burn it into carbon dioxide, you can't store the carbon dioxide in the liter of freed space on the oilfield. Gasfields are different: extract a given volume of gas, burn it to carbon dioxide (and water), and store the carbon dioxide in the freed space. The carbon dioxide fits in there. So if oil is being used at great rate, it usually means we need energy-dense fuels and that eliminates carbon capture and storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second is making oil from renewable sources. Renewable oil is exactly the same compounds. Finland plans to have 30% biofuel energy content requirement in 2029 for all fuels. We already have reached 19.5% in 2022. And the 2029 target was made before the accelerating adoption of electric cars that reduce oil use. So with the accelerating adoption of electric cars, it probably would be realistic to raise the target for 2029 to 35%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So most users of oil can use renewable oil. It's a bit more expensive, but not by much. It can't be produced at the rates oil is being used today, but if light road transportation only (the main user of oil) switches to electric vehicles, the remaining oil users which constitute only a small percentage of oil use can still continue to use oil, only using renewable oil instead. It's chemically the same compounds." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30364" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12064" RevisionGUID="f527574b-293e-45ea-b97b-33654b593a71" CreationDate="2022-02-02T17:31:45.873" UserId="2727" Comment="Show how small 2ml really is." Text="### What does renewable mean?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia defines a [renewable resource](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_resource) as (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a natural resource which will replenish to replace the portion depleted by usage and consumption, either through natural reproduction or other recurring processes in a finite amount of time **in a human time scale.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Human time scale&quot; is rather vague, but we can assume it's no more than 10,000 years, which is about how old [human civilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_history#Rise_of_civilization) is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### How long does oil take to form?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By contrast, crude oil (or petroleum) takes millions of years to form. Per the University of Calgary's [Energy Education](https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Oil_formation) portal (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The formation of oil takes a significant amount of time with oil beginning to form **millions of years ago**. 70% of oil deposits existing today were formed in the Mesozoic age (252 to 66 million years ago), 20% were formed in the Cenozoic age (65 million years ago), and only 10% were formed in the Paleozoic age (541 to 252 million years ago).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Because oil takes millions of years to form, there is no way we could reasonably classify its use as renewable.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### But what if new oil is *still* being formed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a great question about this on [EarthScience.SE](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/571/how-much-oil-is-created-each-year), and while there's no real conclusion, there's a range of suggestions from 15,000 to 80,000 barrels per year of new oil being formed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if we round up to 100,000 barrels, this is a very small amount: &#xD;&#xA; - It would fit in [one oil tanker](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=17991). &#xD;&#xA; - It's 1/100th of a percent of the size at which [oil fields](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields) *start* to be measured -- one billion barrels.&#xD;&#xA; - It's 1/10th of a percent of the amount of oil consumed [every day at the global level](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&amp;t=6). &#xD;&#xA; - Put another way, 100,000 barrels would last about 90 *seconds* at our current rate of consumption.&#xD;&#xA; - Given a population of [8 billion](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/), everyone would get about 2 ml per year:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Hand holding 2 ml bottle][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't spend it all in one place!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note: the 2mL is just in the lower part of the image (the translucent bottle), and not in the top opaque part.  So 2mL is even less than this image may initially convey.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5W2O3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30365" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12064" RevisionGUID="f527574b-293e-45ea-b97b-33654b593a71" CreationDate="2022-02-02T17:31:45.873" Comment="Proposed by 2727 approved by 3379 edit id of 691" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30366" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12069" RevisionGUID="a1053624-c2b5-4fef-a5eb-9c5aa41c0b97" CreationDate="2022-02-02T22:18:28.230" UserId="4353" Text="I have recently come across aeroponics - and I am considering using it to grow plants on a rooftop - in a tropical country.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of the videos I have seen online (or articles I have read), seem to be focusing on industrial scale indoor areoponic systems, where everything looks like the interior of a hospital, so I don't think they have issues with flying critters and bugs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, as anyone in the tropics knows - the tropics is full of bugs and critters - and I'm wondering if anyone has managed to create an *OUTDOOR* aeroponic system, and how they managed to control insects and other bugs (hopefully, without using pesticides) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30368" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12069" RevisionGUID="a1053624-c2b5-4fef-a5eb-9c5aa41c0b97" CreationDate="2022-02-02T22:18:28.230" UserId="4353" Text="Aeroponics system on a rooftop in the tropics - what could go wrong?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30369" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12069" RevisionGUID="a1053624-c2b5-4fef-a5eb-9c5aa41c0b97" CreationDate="2022-02-02T22:18:28.230" UserId="4353" Text="|pest-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30370" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12065" RevisionGUID="93ae120b-4dfc-4026-b416-f554beffabc7" CreationDate="2022-02-03T01:08:04.647" UserId="659" Comment="added 1715 characters in body" Text="Not of itself. Using oil as fuel means burning it and that means producing carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of things we can do after burning oil to avoid releasing the CO2 to the atmosphere, but none of those things are specific to CO2 from oil. For example, we can plant trees to absorb the CO2, but that works for any CO2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(edit) I'm focussing on CO2 and the atmosphere to make my language simpler and hopefully easier to understand, when I mean &quot;CO2 equivalent&quot; and &quot;global ecosystems&quot;, ignoring the diffence between money and resources, as well as indirect contributions to climate change (if an oil spill kills an ecosystem that contributes to climate change, but that's hard to discuss in the context of &quot;is it theoretically possible to...&quot;). At heart this is an economic argument, &quot;by taking resources from here to use there, you're making climate change worse&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But: we burn oil, we get CO2. How do we stop that contributing to climate change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At the simplest level, we can capture the CO2 and store it forever (&quot;carbon capture and storage&quot;). Let's ignore what &quot;forever&quot; means, and just accept that it can be done. There are companies that say they can do it. They charge money for doing that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we ask: is spending that money the cheapest way to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is no. Not now, and there doesn't seem to be any prospect of that changing. The various CCS experiments around the world have all been very expensive to build and operate, and many have been shut down or are running at minimum capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What does that mean? **It means that for a given amount of money, we can reduce climate change by a small amount using CCS (is, burning oil without adding to climate change), or by a much larger amount by spending the money somewhere else - usually by planting trees.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, why don't we just plant trees so we can burn oil without making climate change worse?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's because we don't have to burn oil for energy, so that's an easy thing to stop doing. At least compared to breathing which is very difficult to stop doing. But we do need to reduce CO2 emissions, and things are so bad we need to be actively taking CO2 out of the atmosphere (and oceans).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* this is the basis of carbon taxes: by having a &quot;free market&quot; in CO2 reduction we spend resources most efficiently" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30373" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12071" RevisionGUID="92316e2c-257b-4261-b435-558571a36e20" CreationDate="2022-02-03T09:53:14.133" UserId="2345" Text="Yes, you idea is possible. However, by placing a water collecting device under a tree to irrigate vegetables you will be robbing Peter to pay Paul.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without the device all the rain that would fall on the tree would end up watering the tree. With the device the tree will be deprived of some water. Whether or not that is going to be significant for the tree in your situation I don't know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better solution would be to collect water from roofs of houses and other building and to direct the collected water to storage tanks for use wherever you want." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30375" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11952" RevisionGUID="0958ae61-bd4d-433a-b629-626dfd8eee44" CreationDate="2022-02-03T19:06:50.760" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="116d5726-4460-47ee-8c14-da96f6951316" CreationDate="2022-02-04T13:51:01.560" UserId="13730" Text="I often read, that leaking motor oil is a major risk for the environment. It is also often said, that motor oil leakages can endanger the drinking water supply for communities. So what exactly are the mechanisms? Sadly I can't find many sources on this. Most websites only mention practical tipps in handling motor oil or just remain vague on the topic. I'd like to know a little more detail about the following questions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please notice: This is not about oil spills of crude oil into the oceans. Or a about someone saying oil does not belong into clean earth. I'd like to hear about mechanisms and facts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Questions ##&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. What exactly does the damage: Is it the oil? If so would cooking /&#xD;&#xA;    vegetable oil do the same damage to environment? Or is it the fact,&#xD;&#xA;    that it is synthetic or mineral oil opposed to organic oil?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 2. What do additives inside the oil add to this topic? Maybe they are&#xD;&#xA;    the reason, why it is so harmful to environment? If so: Why does no&#xD;&#xA;    one try to produce motor oil, that does contain less toxic&#xD;&#xA;    additives?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 3. How is the damage done?&#xD;&#xA;    &#xD;&#xA; 4. How much damage does oil leakage of motor oil to the environment and&#xD;&#xA;    society? Is this also contributing to climate change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Partial answers are welcome. Thanks for clarifying!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30378" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="116d5726-4460-47ee-8c14-da96f6951316" CreationDate="2022-02-04T13:51:01.560" UserId="13730" Text="Motor oil and environment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30379" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="116d5726-4460-47ee-8c14-da96f6951316" CreationDate="2022-02-04T13:51:01.560" UserId="13730" Text="|environmental-impact|pollution|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30380" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12073" RevisionGUID="3a486a66-8faa-479e-a8f1-7d4c632f934f" CreationDate="2022-02-05T06:34:46.003" UserId="6629" Text="[Here][1] is a document from the National Park Service which summarizes a lot of information about environmental effects of used motor oil.  It includes references to many other papers.  The primary concerns are toxic organic compounds formed while the oil is in use, and heavy metals that make their way into the oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here are a couple of useful excerpts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; New motor oil contains fresh and lighter hydrocarbons that would be more of a concern for short-term (acute) toxicity to aquatic organisms, whereas used motor oil contains more metals and heavy polycyclic aromatic&#xD;&#xA;hydrocarbons (PAHs) that would contribute to chronic (long-term) hazards including carcinogenicity (see Chem.Detail section below). Metals of concern include lead; and often to a lesser degree, zinc, chromium, barium, and arsenic&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Aromatics are considered to be the most acutely toxic component of petroleum products, and are also associated with chronic and carcinogenic effects [770]. Aromatics are often distinguished by the number of rings they possess, which may range from one to five [770]. Lighter, :mono-aromatics (one ring) compounds include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes [771]. Aromatics with two or more rings are referred to as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) [770]. Waste crankcase oil contains several toxic components including up to 30% aromatic hydrocarbons, with as much as 22 ppm benzo(a)pyrene (a PAH) [75].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As an oil used in a crankcase, motor oil breaks down to give a wide variety of oxygenated and aromatic hydrocarbons [497]. Other organic compounds found in waste oil include toluene, benzene, xylenes, and ethylbenzene. Also present are organic and inorganic compounds of chlorine, sulphur, phosphorus, bromine, nitrogen, and metals such as zinc, magnesium, barium, and lead resulting from.~oil additives and. contamination during use or disposal [752].&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Used engine oil is a contaminant of concern, with large volumes entering aquatic ecosystems through water runoff. The major source of petroleum contamination in urbanized estuaries comes from waste crankcase oil [762]. PAHs, heavy metals, additives and antioxidants, trace levels of chlorinated solvents, and PCBs have been detected in used engine oil [519]. As mentioned above, naphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene, fluorene, and phenanthrene are common PAH components of used motor oil [75].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.fws.gov/caribbean/es/PDF/Contaminants/oilused.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30382" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12059" RevisionGUID="19ef0cf5-7fca-4247-ab05-96eee9f6969a" CreationDate="2022-02-06T03:00:49.370" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1490158510633623556" />
  <row Id="30383" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12074" RevisionGUID="8b12a985-4f44-43f9-861c-b9715ab5d25b" CreationDate="2022-02-08T02:55:11.607" UserId="13739" Text="I have an answer to operating a refrigerator with a freezer in an unheated, uninsulated garage in winter.  Originally my freezer would at times get near thawing or 32 degrees because the refrigerator compressor was not running (refrigerator at or below 34 degrees).  I am currently testing a second generation two stage controller that adds the precise heat needed to maintain safe and efficient operation. There is always some concern about the impact of the cold on the closed refrigeration system but I have not seen or heard of many problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By next Fall I hope to have someone producing and marketing the two stage system.  It works here in MD.  I check temperatures of refrigerator and freezer several times each day - no problem.  Temperatures are where you would expect them to be.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one poor solution provided for models of several manufactures refrigerators that seem to work by heating (tricking) the thermostat, but no one talks about how it messes up the cooling the rest of the year.  Some people have added a summer/winter switch to improve operation - still not a great solution.  I suspect that is why most manufactures do not have a modification for using refrigerators/freezers in an unheated garage. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12075" RevisionGUID="0c9b7a91-e7df-4d69-8dc9-f32d2561c8b3" CreationDate="2022-02-08T19:35:25.280" UserId="13744" Text="Until when plastics was still not thought of as environmentally bad? I would like to have some valid references." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30387" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12075" RevisionGUID="0c9b7a91-e7df-4d69-8dc9-f32d2561c8b3" CreationDate="2022-02-08T19:35:25.280" UserId="13744" Text="Until when plastics was still not thought of as environmentally bad?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30388" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12075" RevisionGUID="0c9b7a91-e7df-4d69-8dc9-f32d2561c8b3" CreationDate="2022-02-08T19:35:25.280" UserId="13744" Text="|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30389" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12026" RevisionGUID="b551f638-fd71-445e-a294-65e30d73ca2d" CreationDate="2022-02-09T03:04:30.473" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30390" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="c89d66b7-5c0f-4f6c-aa5b-09a1a578f5d3" CreationDate="2022-02-09T04:26:44.927" UserId="2727" Comment="Simplified the text and focused on what's relevant to make reading easier" Text="I recently moved into a new home with 2 other housemates and our combined bill for electricity is far higher than I expected. We're using just over 40 kWh per day, on average. When I lived alone, my consumption was only around 3 kWh per day all year round! We have natural gas for space-heating here, just like my last place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/PWky6.png&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/PWky6.png&quot; width=&quot;175&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/uIBKQ.png&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;https://i.stack.imgur.com/uIBKQ.png&quot; width=&quot;400&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to figure out how I can conserve some energy and reduce my electric bill. Here's what I've _already_ tried:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Walked around with a Kill-a-Watt and tested most of our devices plugged into the wall. All of them were using pretty small amounts of power, and besides most of them are turned off during the day when we're away.&#xD;&#xA;- Already switched all lighting fixtures (that I can find) to LED.&#xD;&#xA;- Installed smart lighting to automatically turn off lights when we leave the home.&#xD;&#xA;- Tried to install a [Sense](https://sense.com/) home energy monitor, but the electrician told me it was impossible with the way our electric panel is installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One challenge is that my access to parts of the home is restricted because the basement is rented out separately from the rest of the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other tools or techniques can I use at home to identify what is responsible for all this energy consumption?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30391" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="c89d66b7-5c0f-4f6c-aa5b-09a1a578f5d3" CreationDate="2022-02-09T04:26:44.927" Comment="Proposed by 2727 approved by 1056 edit id of 692" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30393" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12075" RevisionGUID="ed92d3e2-87bd-4150-89eb-2a265da1b103" CreationDate="2022-02-09T06:02:26.200" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical changes" Text="When did plastics become regarded as bad for the environmental? I would like to have some valid references." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30394" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12075" RevisionGUID="ed92d3e2-87bd-4150-89eb-2a265da1b103" CreationDate="2022-02-09T06:02:26.200" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical changes" Text="When did plastics become regarded as bad for the environmental?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30395" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12076" RevisionGUID="02af29b5-d2ed-4d1c-bbca-b56ed7c561c7" CreationDate="2022-02-09T15:35:34.117" UserId="5477" Text="NO, not when you add &quot;efficient&quot; to the question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30397" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12075" RevisionGUID="86b70ffb-aa6d-41ca-8253-37792d1e71e9" CreationDate="2022-02-09T15:38:35.347" UserId="3379" Comment="Typo in title, tags." Text="When did plastics become regarded as bad for the environment? I would like to have some valid references." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30398" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12075" RevisionGUID="86b70ffb-aa6d-41ca-8253-37792d1e71e9" CreationDate="2022-02-09T15:38:35.347" UserId="3379" Comment="Typo in title, tags." Text="When did plastics become regarded as bad for the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30399" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12075" RevisionGUID="86b70ffb-aa6d-41ca-8253-37792d1e71e9" CreationDate="2022-02-09T15:38:35.347" UserId="3379" Comment="Typo in title, tags." Text="|environmental-impact|waste|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30400" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12076" RevisionGUID="d6bb5492-f881-4474-a642-cc0b0f609a6b" CreationDate="2022-02-09T21:14:24.173" UserId="5477" Comment="additions" Text="NO, not when you add &quot;efficient&quot; to the question. Certainly it is possible ,however efficient is the catch and everyone will not have the same definition. I suggest look up wood gasification on &quot;u-tube&quot;; there are several examples, some include running an engine driven electric generator. I am impressed by the ingenuity, however they seem to require frequent attention. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30405" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12077" RevisionGUID="e11fc71e-63e4-4d39-ba38-45a8bf5162e8" CreationDate="2022-02-10T17:30:04.060" UserId="6393" Text="The idea that plastics are bad is usually based on two observations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, there are giant garbage patches in oceans full of large plastic waste. These consist of large plastic items. The observation of these garbage patches is fairly old. According to Wikipedia, at least in 1945 the Great Pacific garbage patch was present.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, more recently, an observation has been made that every location on this planet if full of microplastics. The water we drink has microplastics. The food we eat has microplastics. The term &quot;microplastics&quot; was created in 2004 by professor Richard Thompson. Presumably the first observations of microplastics were made earlier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note neither of these two indicate that every use of plastics is bad. If plastic waste is properly handled, it doesn't create any environmental risks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In areas with proper waste handling, the harm mainly comes from people carelessly laying waste around and trash cans that allow birds to open them, distributing plastic waste to the environment, which the wind carries to oceans. Also plastic clothing if washed in a washing machine creates huge amounts of microplastics in the wastewater. Currently water treatment facilities don't remove the microplastics, and washing machines don't have microplastics filters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biodegradable plastics could be a solution, although biodegradation means plastics won't be as durable as non-biodegradable plastics. It may be the case microbes are evolving the ability to eat plastic, like they evolved ability to eat lignin and cellulose (stopping the accumulation of coal reserves from dead forests). If this is the case, every plastic may become biodegradable in the future. It affects the longevity of plastic parts negatively, but also affects the environmental risks created by plastic pollution positively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30408" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12072" RevisionGUID="85fd417f-40c0-4ba1-9714-d852b85e6503" CreationDate="2022-02-11T12:00:00.247" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1492106140167122944" />
  <row Id="30413" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12079" RevisionGUID="107bf490-af6d-4ed9-90c8-a61fda4d7b98" CreationDate="2022-02-12T09:43:45.170" UserId="99" Text="I think concerns about plastic slowly increased over time. The earliest mention I am aware of is 1966 when a survey was held that reveiled plastic fragments in dead albatrosses. [This scientfic article](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873009/) mentions that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  Some of the earliest accounts of plastic debris in the marine environment are of fragments and pellets ingested by seabirds in the 1960s (e.g. Kenyon &amp; Kridler 1969; Harper &amp; Fowler 1987) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;and&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plastic fragments found in body cavity of dead laysan albatrosses during 1966 survey (Kenyon &amp; Kridler 1969)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The 1960s was also the time when the image of plastics changed from wonderful new material that opened up possibilities to something cheap and flimsy. &#xD;&#xA;However, it wasn't until the 1970s that the negative effects of plastic became more widely known.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plastic’s reputation fell further in the 1970s and 1980s as anxiety about waste increased ([source](https://www.sciencehistory.org/the-history-and-future-of-plastics))" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30419" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="10717" RevisionGUID="05f0af91-7038-45fd-8178-bdcd77fd3eda" CreationDate="2022-02-13T15:17:03.757" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="|terminology|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30420" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="10717" RevisionGUID="05f0af91-7038-45fd-8178-bdcd77fd3eda" CreationDate="2022-02-13T15:17:03.757" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 99 edit id of 693" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12081" RevisionGUID="183a2b17-4948-491f-bdba-e74f66329c8b" CreationDate="2022-02-15T02:24:20.817" UserId="13757" Text="Nope there's no commercial Wood Gasifiers at all no no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except just these few manufacturers running a couple of 100 or so installations:&#xD;&#xA;https://volter.fi/&#xD;&#xA;https://www.holz-kraft.com/en/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficency is around 90% with a CHP mix of 30% electric power and 60% heating, ambient heating from the plant is sometimes used for drying the feedstock(fuel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For it to be worthwhile you ofc need that amount of heat for something like: local distric heating, wood drying, industrial premises or perhaps a spa with heated pools ... " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30424" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12036" RevisionGUID="25abb5b6-1a33-425b-afe5-d1fda7ced891" CreationDate="2022-02-16T02:57:39.093" UserId="15" Comment="Updated the title to reflect the question content - I felt this was important to be useful to others interested in the same issue" Text="Why are soft plastics less desirable to recycle than hard plastics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="52c98d18-94eb-4181-8149-cacda5102b9e" CreationDate="2022-02-16T19:20:27.867" UserId="13767" Text="I live in Minnesota and I am concerned about my carbon footprint. I know that heating and cooling are large contributors to emissions globally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This video from the excellent Youtube channel Technology Connections concisely describes why directly burning fossil fuels in homes for heating is preferable for now in cold climates, until carbon neutral energy generation can produce and store much more energy for the grid. It is less efficient to generate electrical power via natural gas or coal, transmit it to homes and use it to run an electric furnace than it is to burn the fuel directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56DSH8tKUvo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also know that carbon capture technology exists, targeted at a few areas that I'm aware of personally. There are direct carbon capture technologies for the transportation sector, like this company backed by YC for capturing carbon directly from trucks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://remoracarbon.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also know of even more discussion happening around capturing carbon from the air. This has the nice impact of being able to correct our historical emissions if used widely enough. These projects however are energy intensive in themselves, as they are looking for a proportionally sparse amount of carbon in regular air that is mixed with lots of nitrogen an oxygen. I do understand that planting trees may be more efficient than any of these mechanical/chemical processes in the short term, but that isn't really the point of this discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://climeworks.com/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried looking around to see if there is anything being developed that can apply this same principle of direct carbon capture on transportation vehicles, and attach it to a furnace. So far I haven't found much, mostly just articles about technology about potentially turning AC units into carbon capture devices, but these seem again to be pulling carbon out of the air, not capture furnace emissions directly. It seems like an easy path to reduce current emissions, I have a carbon dense stream of gas I intentionally vent out of my house so I don't build up CO2 in my living space, but could I instead put that into a carbon capture device?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did find one article discussing this directly, but it was published pretty recently and says the work is pretty theoretical at this point. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132321010209&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something obvious I'm missing that explains why this isn't being discussed more? Does an HVAC system produce too much exhaust to process right away? Could we install a holding tank for the exhaust that would be fed into a carbon capture system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do understand that any carbon capture system doesn't magically destroy the carbon, this system would produce some liquid or solid that contains carbon and oxygen. Like the climeworks site says of its capture technology's biproducts &quot;Once the CO₂ is captured, it can be permanently and safely turned into stone through rapid mineralization which is a natural occurrence where the CO₂ reacts with basalt rock.&quot; So maybe it is simply a problem of being too much of a hassle to get people to properly handle these byproducts if a residential system like this was developed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="52c98d18-94eb-4181-8149-cacda5102b9e" CreationDate="2022-02-16T19:20:27.867" UserId="13767" Text="Is anyone developing direct carbon capture for home HVAC system based on natural gas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="52c98d18-94eb-4181-8149-cacda5102b9e" CreationDate="2022-02-16T19:20:27.867" UserId="13767" Text="|home|heating|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30434" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12084" RevisionGUID="4facd820-8c87-4c00-a005-93843065cbe4" CreationDate="2022-02-16T22:39:33.023" UserId="13768" Text="I lived completely off grid in a tropical forest for nearly 10 years, and had several different iterations of hydro/aero/aqua ponics systems inoperation for large periods of that time.  In my location the concept of 'indoors' was largely ideological; the mosquito netting over each bed was the least buggy location, but nowhere was bug free.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best solution to controlling insect damage to domesticated plants was a combination of rigorous mechanical control (squishing them) and periodic application of a combination of neem oil or melaleuca oil, chili powder, and a strong soap (Dr Bronners was my choice just by availability) all in suspension with rainwater.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The oils are pretty readily available, and can be produced in small quantities on site in some locations.  Otherwise a soy+garlic oil with a little chili capsicum will also stand in for neem oil, but without as much fungal inhabitant effect in my experience.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Start lean in the soap:oil:water ratios, a very little bit can be effective for a lot of vegetation when applied with the finest mister tip on a hand pumped sprayer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't expect dead bugs all over the floor, using non-toxic formulas like this are often most effective at interrupting the reproductive cycles and most effectiveness will be in reductions of recurrent hatches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One careful note; the oil/soap/capsaicin blend is pretty effective on even beneficial insects, and if you can encourage a healthy spider, mantis, ladybug, etc population most of the critter control can be left to them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A few insects i found have some resistance to this oil soap mist, in particular very waxy tiny aphids and mites and a few very invasive tiny fire ants.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These succumbed to periodic spray with a kaolin and diotomaceous earth powder, applied dry to plants not likely to get direct rainfall and sprayed as a very fine slurry to uncovered plants with enough time to adhere and mostly dry before the afternoon rain washed it off.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The two powders interfere with respiration and mechanical aspects of arthropod exoskeletons and if applied at the right time (egg laying/hatching intervals) will interrupt the target insect populations and help get it back into a controllable state for your hungry beneficial insects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In some indoor garden spaces a useful tactic was putting my hens (chicken and guinea fowl) into the greenhouse some days at 'roost out' for a brief spell, beginning when I had noticed a few more cutworms in the squash bean and corn.  For this to work the bugs have to be tasty chicken treats, and you need to have cooperative birds that don't tear into unbuggy fruit.  It cost me a few hens at first, but the rest seemed to either not be inclined to damage fruit or maybe they learned ... they werent very smart so it must have just been luck.  One thing is if the birds learn that it is a short opportunity in the early morning when they are very perky, then they get quick about getting through the plants in a hustle, because i was gonna 'shoo' them out after my coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PS the oil soap didnt seem to have any effect on the bugs being palatable to the hens or to the hens themself, but in theory the kaolin+DE could lead to inhalation silicosis for humans and fowl so don't breathe the dust yourself in large doses or over long durations, and rinse any powdery residue down before allowing the birds inside.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But be aware, guinea fowl in particular appear to like to eat praying mantids... that was maybe the most expensive per unit treat i ever bought the hens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hope this helps. Can you tell I wish I was still farming in the tropics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30436" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12085" RevisionGUID="a8f33a79-5144-4658-81f0-8853feb5ce3b" CreationDate="2022-02-17T16:43:14.420" UserId="6393" Text="This is not practical.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two main ways in which carbon dioxide can be captured from gas burning equipment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One is that there's a plant that liquifies air and creates a pure stream of oxygen. Then the pure stream of oxygen is mixed with carbon dioxide in 20% / 80% ratio to create an atmosphere that's 20% oxygen and contains absolutely no nitrogen at all. Then the combustion produces a mixture of carbon dioxide and water. You remove the water, for example by cooling the stream and discarding liquids, and then redirect part of the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to input to create the 20% oxygen / 80% carbon dioxide atmosphere. The rest of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; becomes your waste stream, that you have to transport away in pipelines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, liquifying air and creating pure oxygen takes lots of energy, and the air liquefaction equipment is very expensive and takes lots of space. Also cooling the waste stream to be able to discard water wouldn't be simple either, probably the equipment to do that takes lots of space and cost lots of money. Furthermore, you need a secondary set of pipelines only to transport CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A second possibility is that you have a plant that converts 20% carbon dioxide / 80% nitrogen stream from ordinary in-air combustion to a stream of carbon dioxide only and a stream of nitrogen only. This takes somewhat less energy than air liquefaction, but it still is highly expensive and takes lots of space. You won't install these kinds of equipment at home. You still would have the problem of needing a secondary set of pipelines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't realistic to transport a mixture of 20% carbon dioxide / 80% nitrogen in pipelines away from your home because that would mean you need pipelines five times as big.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a far easier and cheaper solution. It's ground source heat pumps. They can operate realistically at COP=4. When combined with a central power plant burning natural gas at 50% efficiency, you get 200% total efficiency, twice that of in-air combustion that releases its waste to atmosphere and far more than twice that of oxyfuel combustion or removal of carbon dioxide from the waste stream. Furthermore, the centralized power plant that burns natural gas is in a far better position to use these expensive and space-consuming techniques to remove carbon dioxide from its waste. The pipelines carrying waste CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; away from the centralized power plant are cheaper to build than a CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; pipeline network reaching every home. Also, the 200% total efficiency is assuming that 100% of electricity at all times is produced from natural gas. In reality, 70% will be wind power, maybe 15% will be solar power, maybe 7.5% will be hydropower and maybe 7.5% will be natural gas peaker plants. So in reality in the electricity production structure of tomorrow, the total efficiency from natural gas to heat won't be 200%, it will be 2666.66...%. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the natural gas peaker plants will surely be modified to run on hydrogen produced from electrolysis in the future. This means 0% of electricity comes from natural gas. Thus, the efficiency that was 200% initially and then 2666.66...% will eventually be infinite!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even today, ground source heat pumps are far more viable option for this case. Tomorrow, they will be even more viable. The day after tomorrow, the ground source heat pump uses 0% natural gas for its electricity production." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12086" RevisionGUID="e59d500e-6def-4d7b-8167-f9d701cbcdd8" CreationDate="2022-02-18T01:04:28.457" UserId="6293" Text="Countries like Saudi Arabia can pump oil out of the ground with very little effort. And then the supply of oil is something like 300 years. Now, deep-water oil wells are high-margin operations but exploration is required to find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But terminologies like &quot;sustainable&quot; and &quot;renewable&quot; are political terminologies with specific purposes and limited applications. A better terminology would be &quot;carbon-neutral&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So oil could be pumped out of the ground, reformed to hydrogen with the carbon-dioxide captured, and be carbon-neutral. Or that process would be more correctly called &quot;zero-carbon-release&quot;. But current blue-hydrogen processes mostly use waste methane or direct natural-gas and not oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the oil companies are now talking about second-generation ethanol. And so second-generation ethanol is carbon-neutral. Ethanol produced from lightly-fertilized sorghum can be carbon-neutral, ethanol produced from waste wood chips can be carbon-neutral, and ethanol produced from waste agricultural produces can be carbon-neutral. Some of these processes are going for &quot;sustainable&quot; jet fuel. Now does &quot;sustainable&quot; mean &quot;carbon-neutral&quot; ? Well, the accounting method of carbon-neutral needs to be considered and some processes might depend on a perverse logic to be carbon-neutral but they are safely &quot;sustainable&quot; and &quot;renewable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12086" RevisionGUID="45cadfc1-3c2e-4747-a8bf-1c9ff39db9cc" CreationDate="2022-02-18T01:10:26.740" UserId="6293" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="Countries like Saudi Arabia can pump oil out of the ground with very little effort. And then the supply of oil is something like 300 years. Now, deep-water oil wells are high-margin operations but exploration is required to find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But terminologies like &quot;sustainable&quot; and &quot;renewable&quot; are political terminologies with specific purposes and limited applications. A better terminology would be &quot;carbon-neutral&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So oil could be pumped out of the ground, reformed to hydrogen with the carbon-dioxide captured, and be carbon-neutral. Or that process might be more correctly called &quot;zero-carbon-release&quot;. But current blue-hydrogen processes mostly use waste methane or direct natural-gas and not oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the oil companies are now talking about second-generation ethanol. And so second-generation ethanol could be carbon-neutral. Ethanol produced from lightly-fertilized sorghum could be carbon-neutral, ethanol produced from waste wood chips could be carbon-neutral, and ethanol produced from waste agricultural produces could be carbon-neutral. Some of these processes are going for &quot;sustainable&quot; jet fuel. Now does &quot;sustainable&quot; mean &quot;carbon-neutral&quot; ? Well, the accounting method of carbon-neutral needs to be considered and some processes might depend on a perverse logic to be carbon-neutral but they are safely &quot;sustainable&quot; and &quot;renewable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30442" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12086" RevisionGUID="05b326b6-b535-4bbe-bb85-efb2e9dc13f7" CreationDate="2022-02-18T01:21:53.663" UserId="6293" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="Countries like Saudi Arabia can pump oil out of the ground with very little effort. And then the supply of oil is something like 300 years. Now, deep-water oil wells are high-margin operations but exploration is required to find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But terminologies like &quot;sustainable&quot; and &quot;renewable&quot; are political terminologies with specific purposes and limited applications. A better terminology would be &quot;carbon-neutral&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So oil could be pumped out of the ground, reformed to hydrogen with the carbon-dioxide captured, and be carbon-neutral. Or that process might be more correctly called &quot;zero-carbon-release&quot;. But current blue-hydrogen processes mostly use waste methane or direct natural-gas and not oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the oil companies are now talking about second-generation ethanol. And so second-generation ethanol could be carbon-neutral. Ethanol produced from lightly-fertilized sorghum could be carbon-neutral, ethanol produced from waste wood chips could be carbon-neutral, and ethanol produced from waste agricultural produces could be carbon-neutral. Some of these processes are going for &quot;sustainable&quot; jet fuel. Now does &quot;sustainable&quot; mean &quot;carbon-neutral&quot; ? Well, the accounting method of carbon-neutral needs to be considered and some processes might depend on a perverse logic to be carbon-neutral but they are safely &quot;sustainable&quot; and &quot;renewable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are processes for production of synthetic methanol and synthetic gaseous gas. Carbon-dioxide is captured from industrial processes and combined with green-electricity to produce these synthetic fuel products. But are these processes carbon-neutral or are they two uses of one carbon-release ? How should they be accounted ?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30443" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12086" RevisionGUID="79e77f0e-865a-4bc0-ba65-cb4701ea114f" CreationDate="2022-02-18T01:50:50.453" UserId="6293" Comment="added 142 characters in body" Text="Countries like Saudi Arabia can pump oil out of the ground with very little effort. And then the supply of oil is something like 300 years. Now, deep-water oil wells are high-margin operations but exploration is required to find them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But terminologies like &quot;sustainable&quot; and &quot;renewable&quot; are political terminologies with specific purposes and limited applications. A better terminology would be &quot;carbon-neutral&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So oil could be pumped out of the ground, reformed to hydrogen with the carbon-dioxide captured, and be carbon-neutral. Or that process might be more correctly called &quot;zero-carbon-release&quot;. But current blue-hydrogen processes mostly use waste methane or direct natural-gas and not oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the oil companies are now talking about second-generation ethanol. And so second-generation ethanol could be carbon-neutral. Ethanol produced from lightly-fertilized sorghum could be carbon-neutral, ethanol produced from waste wood chips could be carbon-neutral, and ethanol produced from waste agricultural produces could be carbon-neutral. Some of these processes are going for &quot;sustainable&quot; jet fuel. Now does &quot;sustainable&quot; mean &quot;carbon-neutral&quot; ? Well, the accounting method of carbon-neutral needs to be considered and some processes might depend on a perverse logic to be carbon-neutral but they are safely &quot;sustainable&quot; and &quot;renewable&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then there are processes for production of synthetic methanol and synthetic gaseous gas. Carbon-dioxide is captured from industrial processes and combined with green-electricity to produce these synthetic fuel products. But are these processes carbon-neutral or are they two uses of one carbon-release ? How should they be accounted ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And so &quot;sustainable&quot; and &quot;renewable&quot; can simply be administratively determined while &quot;carbon-neutral&quot; would require a rigorous accounting.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30444" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12087" RevisionGUID="53699c5c-2f11-41b2-a511-c0ad2dabb7d1" CreationDate="2022-02-18T07:13:30.880" UserId="13773" Text="Well, as far as Hydrogen is concerned, the primary reason why it is so sought after is, EASE OF STORAGE and this has already been discussed. Further, transportation and distribution of energy through, say Hydrogen tankers, is much easier, given its high energy density compared to batteries (weight to volume ratio of batteries is quite high) and elimination of after-use disposal problems associated with batteries. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, the most promising aspect of Hydrogen comes into play when Hydrogen is produced through renewable means. Electricity produced through Solar panels which is then used to produce Green Hydrogen by Electrolyzers is the most viable solution to the world energy problem.&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30447" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="edb9ca4f-08b7-468b-9dcb-d630ceb2ed31" CreationDate="2022-02-21T02:06:55.627" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30448" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="3893ceed-ad65-4843-92bb-ddabd5f0e31d" CreationDate="2022-02-21T16:05:35.730" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30449" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12088" RevisionGUID="7cb857f6-729e-4bb6-bdf4-c23c31467403" CreationDate="2022-02-23T17:01:06.403" UserId="13783" Text="In some regions, summer is cool and there's little use of air conditioning.  In other regions, winter is mild and there's little use of heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose a household adopted the practice of flying twice a year like migratory birds, living in a cool region during the summer and a warm region during the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Under what circumstances (if any) would the environmental benefits of their reduced use of heating and air con outweigh the environmental costs of the flights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30451" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12088" RevisionGUID="7cb857f6-729e-4bb6-bdf4-c23c31467403" CreationDate="2022-02-23T17:01:06.403" UserId="13783" Text="Flying vs heating and cooling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30452" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12088" RevisionGUID="7cb857f6-729e-4bb6-bdf4-c23c31467403" CreationDate="2022-02-23T17:01:06.403" UserId="13783" Text="|heating|transport|cooling|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12089" RevisionGUID="69cea195-974e-4d51-9b80-01babfa5713c" CreationDate="2022-02-23T19:24:05.483" UserId="6393" Text="Firstly, you have to notice that heating is not optional, it's mandatory. If you leave a home unheated, the water pipes will freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you could perhaps reduce half of the heating bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where I live, my house consumes 10000 kWh/a of heating energy plus water heating (which won't be reduced as water will be heated in the other home too). That's about 3000 kWh/a of electricity if heating is produced using the state of the art technology, ground source heat pumps. The current Finnish electricity system produces around 100 g / kWh of electricity produced, but the emissions are mainly from old-fashioned combined heat and power coal plants that will be retired very soon. If we assume half of load-following power is hydropower and half is natural gas without carbon capture (400 g / kWhe), and 15% of electricity is load-following power, then emissions are 30 g / kWhe. That's 90 kg of emissions for a whole year of heating. Very soon, load-following natural gas power plants will probably use either hydrogen or carbon capture so the emissions from heating will very soon be 0 kg per year because electricity production produces 0 g / kWhe very soon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say my current house is suitable for 1-4 people, although I currently live there alone. An aeroplane consumes 3 l / 100 km of fuel per passenger. If we assume 3500 km is needed to reach a warm climate during winter, that's 105 liters one way per passenger or 210 liters per year per passenger. Aeroplane fuel direct and production emissions are probably around 3.5 kg / l, so it's 735 kg per year per passenger. Given 1-4 passengers, it's 735 kg - 2940 kg.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see that the lowest possible flying emissions (for 1 passenger) are already 735 kg, far more than 90 kg from heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also do note that while a clear pathway to 0 kg of emissions from heating exists, a clear pathway for eliminating emissions of 3500 km aeroplane flight don't exists. Batteries aren't big enough for such a long distance. Maybe if very few people fly, all of the aeroplanes could use biofuels. But if everyone starts flying twice per year, we won't have enough biofuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume a similar calculation could be done for cases where someone lives in a hot place, and flees to a cold place during summer. Given that the cooling technology (an air conditioner) is simply a heat pump in reverse, I assume the emissions would be very similar, around 90 kg per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you used the 100 g / kWhe current emissions, then heating emissions are 300 kg, far less than 735 kg - 2940 kg from flying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I din't take into account that it's realistic only to perhaps halve the heating bill. That would halve the emission reductions from heating too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, your plan does not make sense, ever. Not financially (two homes and flying twice every year is very expensive). Not when considering carbon dioxide emissions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30455" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12050" RevisionGUID="d1b59139-e7ff-480f-89c8-54bf3269be0c" CreationDate="2022-02-25T23:01:10.093" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30457" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="4effb1aa-c6ee-4926-b729-cbbc87e2a445" CreationDate="2022-02-27T04:02:15.243" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30462" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12091" RevisionGUID="173e5b23-1ead-40f8-8783-1c10bb5a854f" CreationDate="2022-02-28T01:26:03.940" UserId="5831" Text="Canada uses 1.3L bags to deliver milk.  Each set of 3 such bags are enclose in another bag.  It results in incomprehensible volumes of waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I searched the internet to see why we haven't found a better alternative.  The 2 main alternatives are not great.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One alternative is re-usable jugs.  The problem is keeping them clean and the impossibility of assuring that the jugs haven't been mis-used for unpalatable things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second alternative is Tetra Pak style containers.  That seems less preferable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These, and less likely alternatives, are presented [here](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/8451/what-is-the-most-sustainable-packaging-for-milk)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every few years, my environmental crime punches me in the gut, and I look again for new developments. But the alternatives have been this bleak for many years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a venue where one can continue batting at the challenge in discussion?  A succinct Q&amp;A forum like Stack Exchange is not suitable for &quot;storming&quot; and evolving ideas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30464" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12091" RevisionGUID="173e5b23-1ead-40f8-8783-1c10bb5a854f" CreationDate="2022-02-28T01:26:03.940" UserId="5831" Text="A venue to ongoingly &quot;storm&quot; alternatives to milk bags?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30465" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12091" RevisionGUID="173e5b23-1ead-40f8-8783-1c10bb5a854f" CreationDate="2022-02-28T01:26:03.940" UserId="5831" Text="|plastic-alternatives|bags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30466" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="d1da087d-e32e-45de-9cb3-c1b7c3d4c3a7" CreationDate="2022-02-28T11:00:15.050" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30467" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2440" RevisionGUID="c7f6509c-48df-423b-a755-47c876c5e94b" CreationDate="2022-02-28T17:59:28.970" UserId="13790" Comment="the source material quotes per ONE HUNDRED passenger-km!" Text="While this doesn't fully answer the question in terms of ecological impact, David MacKay provides a good chart of the energy use of various modes of transport, [here][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll extract some figures from it (they're approximate, from me reading off the vertical axis). They refer to typical occupancy unless otherwise stated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that, as pointed out by a commenter here, the first two figures are far too high - this may be a problem with reading off the very bottom of a linear y-axis scale. The others should be considered as approximate (but useful) estimates, rather than accurate results.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Cycling: 2 kWh per 100 passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Walking: 4 kWh per 100 passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Tram: 10 kWh per 100 passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Electric train: 15 kWh per 100 passenger km (2 if full)&#xD;&#xA;* Bus: 31 kWh per 100 passenger km (6 if full)&#xD;&#xA;* Turboprop aircraft (full): 39 kWh per 100 passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Boeing 747: 52 kWh per 100 passenger km (42 if full)&#xD;&#xA;* Car (single occupant): 80 kWh per 100 passenger km (20 if full)&#xD;&#xA;* Range Rover: 112 kWh per 100 passenger km&#xD;&#xA;* Helicopter or private jet: 150 kWh per 100 passenger km&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://withouthotair.com/c20/page_128.shtml" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30468" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2440" RevisionGUID="c7f6509c-48df-423b-a755-47c876c5e94b" CreationDate="2022-02-28T17:59:28.970" Comment="Proposed by 13790 approved by 99 edit id of 694" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30479" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12094" RevisionGUID="4b82429a-debb-4501-b802-7438086807c5" CreationDate="2022-03-06T14:48:17.313" UserId="6393" Text="It would be totally ridiculous to distribute milk in reusable bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Milk is about as unsustainable drink as you can make. Cows emit huge amounts of methane to atmosphere, and feeding those cows requires massive amounts of land that has resulted in destruction of nearly every non-human species on this planet. It's totally irrelevant whether or not the milk is in a reusable or recyclable container. The container is almost 0% of the total environmental effects of milk. Almost 100% of the total environmental effects of milk are due to methane and land use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not only that, but even if you replace milk with something better, such as oat-based drink that tries to emulate milk, it's still irrelevant whether it's in a container that's wholly or partially plastic-based. One liter of oat &quot;milk&quot; produces about kilogram of carbon dioxide when made. Even if it's in a container that's completely made of plastic, the container for one liter probably weighs around 50 grams at most. It's also possible to use a cardboard container that's only lined with a very thin layer of plastic to make it impermeable to liquids. Even in the worst case, container made of completely 100% plastic, it has around 4 kg/kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint, so 50 gram container would cause 200 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions. Compare that to 1 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions caused by the contents of said container.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also we can't have 100% renewable electricity production. It's mandatory to have reliable electricity production methods that allow producing electricity even when sun doesn't shine and there are no winds. It's impossible (uneconomical) to transfer electricity over long distances so the claim that it's always windy or sunny somewhere doesn't save us. Therefore, we should encourage every electricity production method that allows producing electricity in complete calm darkness.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One such electricity production method is waste-to-energy. It is not dependent on weather.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will happily continue buying massive amounts of products in plastic-based containers, fully knowing that they will be burned to energy in the future at some point of time when it's calm and dark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before someone complains about CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions of burning that plastic waste, let me explain that only about 15% of electricity needs to come from sources that work in worst possible weather conditions (dark and calm), and much of that is hydropower so probably around 7.5% of the power needs to come from combusting fuels. Plastic waste has probably around 300 g / kWh CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions and 40% energy efficiency meaning 750 g / kWh of electricity produced. If only 7.5% of power comes from such waste-to-energy plants, and the rest comes from CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-free sources, that's only 56 g / kWh. If all electricity production of this planet was only 56 g / kWh, we would effectively have no climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it's possible to capture the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions of waste-to-energy plants and store them and perhaps reuse later, combining with hydrogen to create artificial methane that can later be burned to energy, capturing the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; again, and never emitting that CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to the atmosphere in any part of the fully cyclical energy generation scheme.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, it's feasible to produce 0 g CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; / kWh from waste-to-energy plants effectively.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your plastic waste may be fully environmentally friendly after all, having no negative environmental effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it's possible to make plastic from trees. You don't need crude oil to make plastic. If you make plastic from trees, then burn it in a waste-to-energy plant, then capture the carbon dioxide, it will have &lt;i&gt;negative&lt;/i&gt; emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only problem with plastics is that if it gets ever into oceans, it will become microplastics. If you handle plastic waste properly, that's not an issue." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11820" RevisionGUID="86729992-5977-4bd8-bfd0-22106dbe4a47" CreationDate="2022-03-07T14:15:38.523" UserId="2846" Comment="added 330 characters in body" Text="A couple of further suggestions, that don't involve buying new products (though a similar bag could be made from an old pillowcase):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use a gentle wash cycle, to reduce the agitation that releases microplastics.   I've seen conflicting advice on the effects of soaking and whether we should prefer a cycle that uses a lot of water or a little.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Save the synthetics for when they're needed: If you're outdoors all day in all weathers, carrying all your kit, choose stuff that's lightweight, wicking, quick-drying, etc.  If you're just going to the gym, or for a short run in nice weather, a cotton T-shirt might not be so bad after all - probably not your best ones as they can end up less than fresh even after a good wash if you have to save up your washing to make a load.  If you exercise frequently, this can reduce the amount you need to own, and prolong the life of synthetic garments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing you can do to reduce the amount of microplastic synthetic garments shed is to make then last longer. This might mean repairing them, such as replacing a failed zip as I did on a bike jersey yesterday. For a few minutes and a few grams of (synthetic) materials, I significantly prolonged the life of the garment. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12081" RevisionGUID="f72c9874-4b35-4db5-8d41-e377dd5a9dac" CreationDate="2022-03-07T14:18:36.690" UserId="13757" Comment="Concepts beeing diffrent in the Americas and Europe about what a residential scale xx is, this would be for a Personal Use or Private residence on this side of the pond(Atlantic ocean)..." Text="Nope there's no commercial Wood Gasifiers at all no no.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Except just these few manufacturers running a couple of 100 or so installations:&#xD;&#xA;https://volter.fi/&#xD;&#xA;https://www.holz-kraft.com/en/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Efficency is around 90% with a CHP mix of 30% electric power and 60% heating, ambient heating from the plant is sometimes used for drying the feedstock(fuel).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For it to be worthwhile you ofc need that amount of heat for something like: local distric heating, wood drying, industrial premises or perhaps a spa with heated pools ... &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EDIT:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TEG:s are horrible at efficency generally. For a 0 maintenance home system depending on your electricity usage a micro-stirling might do the trick but depends on your electricity usage, there are 1kWe and 2kWe models available but they put out alot of heat (8 kWth / 16 kWth) when ran at those energy output levels, probably suitable for a outdoor pool or as you suggested a greenhouse, and perhaps also to heat a house with ofc. Although I've realised there's some aversion to lp-radiators in the americas with airducted heating and/or steam installs beeing the norm. Underfloor heating is ofc also an option for heating a home not sure of the aversion there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12095" RevisionGUID="3ac573f6-b7ed-4c28-a567-5e57382b6b72" CreationDate="2022-03-08T10:16:11.057" UserId="13806" Text="Could anyone give me a good anwser here,  even an approximation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12095" RevisionGUID="3ac573f6-b7ed-4c28-a567-5e57382b6b72" CreationDate="2022-03-08T10:16:11.057" UserId="13806" Text="How much polysilcon is required to make 1GW of solar modules?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12095" RevisionGUID="3ac573f6-b7ed-4c28-a567-5e57382b6b72" CreationDate="2022-03-08T10:16:11.057" UserId="13806" Text="|solar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30487" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12096" RevisionGUID="08b08773-bddf-4702-b1c6-778864719e2a" CreationDate="2022-03-09T11:47:16.463" UserId="13813" Text="Flywheels for residential use should come as a kit, not only because of their weight, but also because of their size. Transporting a pre-manufactured rod that heavy is simply not an option for residential customers, poring any cheap but heavy material into a flywheel cavity may just do the trick, and surely almost everyone can dig a hole of 4m diameter in the backyard to accommodate for a flywheel kit.  There have been initiatives on Kickstarter, with no success so far, but times have changed.  Flywheel batteries are probably the most compact energy storage systems that can be designed with the lowest environmental impact and highest durability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30489" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="04f8483c-1626-41a7-b4d0-fe95e65d727e" CreationDate="2022-03-09T22:13:26.537" UserId="13767" Comment="73" />
  <row Id="30490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12097" RevisionGUID="81af40d9-bd5e-4700-a1ef-09a2ea888380" CreationDate="2022-03-10T23:11:19.187" UserId="5824" Text="[Wind turbines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine) are a mature technology for offshore harvesting of wind power. They can manage themselves in variable wind speed and shut down safely when it gets too strong. The largest systems have blade lengths of 80 to 120 meters (even longer are being explored) with maximum power of 8 to 12 MW or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since blades need to be replaced from time to time, there is now work to make them from materials more suitable for recycling or reuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Tethered or crosswind kites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosswind_kite_power) are still in the development stage. Since they &quot;fly&quot; they can reach higher up where winds may be stronger and steadier. They have the potential to be lighter and cheaper per unit, but without long term demonstration at scale it may be difficult to compare them directly to wind turbines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter, I'd like to ask anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** What are the tradeoffs between wind turbines and tethered kites for offshore wind power? For a given site how would one know which is likely to be better? For example, will one be cheaper per square km of &quot;wind farm area&quot; while the other cheaper per MW?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potentially helpful:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - BBC Future Planet's [The kites seeking the world's surest winds](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220309-the-kites-flying-to-harness-the-worlds-strongest-winds) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Ground-tethered kites have the potential to reach higher than conventional turbines, to access strong, reliable winds (Credit: SkySails Group)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qX3MO.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qX3MO.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ground-tethered kites have the potential to reach higher than conventional turbines, to access strong, reliable winds (Credit: SkySails Group)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30492" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12097" RevisionGUID="81af40d9-bd5e-4700-a1ef-09a2ea888380" CreationDate="2022-03-10T23:11:19.187" UserId="5824" Text="Tradeoffs between wind turbines and tethered kites for offshore wind power? How to decide which is better for a given site?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30493" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12097" RevisionGUID="81af40d9-bd5e-4700-a1ef-09a2ea888380" CreationDate="2022-03-10T23:11:19.187" UserId="5824" Text="|wind-power|economics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30494" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12097" RevisionGUID="91392233-77d7-48b8-8bd5-46947ae6617d" CreationDate="2022-03-10T23:16:24.390" UserId="5824" Comment="added 312 characters in body" Text="[Wind turbines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine) are a mature technology for offshore harvesting of wind power. They can manage themselves in variable wind speed and shut down safely when it gets too strong. The largest systems have blade lengths of 80 to 120 meters (even longer are being explored) with maximum power of 8 to 12 MW or more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since blades need to be replaced from time to time, there is now work to make them from materials more suitable for recycling or reuse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Tethered or crosswind kites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosswind_kite_power) are still in the development stage. Since they &quot;fly&quot; they can reach higher up where winds may be stronger and steadier. Some use work done by kite on the tether (reeling in and out) others put propellors and generators on the kites themselves and end up looking a lot like multi-prop airplanes. They have the potential to be lighter and cheaper per unit, but without long term demonstration at scale it may be difficult to compare them directly to wind turbines. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No matter, I'd like to ask anyway:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** What are the tradeoffs between wind turbines and tethered kites for offshore wind power? For a given site how would one know which is likely to be better? For example, will one be cheaper per square km of &quot;wind farm area&quot; while the other cheaper per MW?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potentially helpful:&#xD;&#xA; - [Makani; Harnessing wind energy with kites to create renewable electricity](https://x.company/projects/makani/)&#xD;&#xA; - BBC Future Planet's [The kites seeking the world's surest winds](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220309-the-kites-flying-to-harness-the-worlds-strongest-winds) (source of image below)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Ground-tethered kites have the potential to reach higher than conventional turbines, to access strong, reliable winds (Credit: SkySails Group)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qX3MO.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qX3MO.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Ground-tethered kites have the potential to reach higher than conventional turbines, to access strong, reliable winds (Credit: SkySails Group)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30495" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9962" RevisionGUID="8e1320f3-c194-46d6-9b6f-e13681acdc48" CreationDate="2022-03-11T05:03:05.347" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30496" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12098" RevisionGUID="d904124a-1326-424a-a8a8-03e0fc80c9b2" CreationDate="2022-03-12T22:11:57.637" UserId="3379" Text="Last year, I made a backyard dog poop composter (like [this one](https://pethaus.com.au/blogs/news/13879355-diy-pet-poo-composter)). This way we keep dog poop and bags out of the landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem is, it's filling up faster than than it's breaking down. I've been using [Doggie Dooley waste tablets](https://ht-pet.com/shop/ols/products/waste-terminator-tablets) to support the right kind of microbes, but they don't seem very effective, I can only get them online, and they aren't really cheap (since it seems like the only solution is to use more of them).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since what I have is essentially a miniature septic system, is there something else I could use? either an environmentally friendly off-the-shelf product that my grocery store or hardware store might have, or a DIY solution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30498" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12098" RevisionGUID="d904124a-1326-424a-a8a8-03e0fc80c9b2" CreationDate="2022-03-12T22:11:57.637" UserId="3379" Text="Environmentally friendly or DIY dog waste digester solution?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30499" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12098" RevisionGUID="d904124a-1326-424a-a8a8-03e0fc80c9b2" CreationDate="2022-03-12T22:11:57.637" UserId="3379" Text="|waste|pets|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30500" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="fb92bcc3-f768-4b6a-8730-0153845a73de" CreationDate="2022-03-16T01:01:50.200" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30501" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="e20762c4-d87d-49e2-b141-d6b0fd227ffa" CreationDate="2022-03-17T06:03:00.273" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30502" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12095" RevisionGUID="0b332e99-b566-4a1d-805c-99b746dcf5cf" CreationDate="2022-03-17T17:56:13.347" UserId="99" Comment="103" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:659,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Móż&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:99,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;THelper&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12099" RevisionGUID="95500f60-03f6-4f6b-9783-50ec7417a3c4" CreationDate="2022-03-17T19:01:46.817" UserId="6393" Text="While grass may capture carbon efficiently, the problem is keeping the carbon outside of the atmosphere permanently. If you grow grass, it will quickly grow to an equilibrium state, where every flow of carbon from the atmosphere is balanced by a flow of carbon to the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have some strategy of harvesting grass that has captured carbon and turning it into biochar for example, while making room for new grass to grow, in that case grass may be a good option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you don't, you are pretty much limited to trees. Trees have the benefit that they can easily grow for hundred years, and during that time, effectively capture carbon for the most of the 100-year period. While you can let a tree grow to as old as several hundred years, the carbon capture slows as the tree ages so it may be beneficial to chop down the trees at 100 years. Then you may use the trees to create lumber or biochar. Actually chopping down a tree and cutting it to pieces, if you put the pieces to some place that is sheltered from rain, it will keep the carbon captured for a very long time. So biochar production may not be necessity: whatever remains you have after creating lumber may be stored in a dry place, and it will keep the carbon captured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trees also have the benefit of needing very little care. Grass will grow to an equilibrium state very quickly, so you may need to cut the grass every 2 weeks or so and haul the cut grass into a biochar factory (and if you don't have a biochar factory nearby, if you leave the grass somewhere it will decompose and release its carbon)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30505" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="9637449a-2785-46d5-a331-241c14ce84c6" CreationDate="2022-03-18T00:02:10.210" UserId="-1" Comment="73" />
  <row Id="30515" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12102" RevisionGUID="5e5a26b8-67c5-49a3-971f-6cd906b1a1c9" CreationDate="2022-03-21T14:00:20.583" UserId="13850" Text="In the UK, most bubble wrap is LDPE and can be recycled in supermarkets along with other film and thin/&quot;single-use&quot; bags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As others have said...it'd be best if we wean ourselves off disposable products altogether but that's a matter of writing emails to retailers and politicians and hoping for progress!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12103" RevisionGUID="8b4ff1e6-ccea-4bbd-ad5a-c27b111be540" CreationDate="2022-03-25T15:03:22.583" UserId="13857" Text="Well my opinions are.&#xD;&#xA;I have a ice car and would accept a ev car, my problem is that i drive older x3's and the engines are as good as new provided you maintain them. Ev engines are fine. The huge problem for me is the battery. If you buy an older ev say 8 years old, well the battery is spent. An 8 year old car is fine, the engine is fine and does not need replacement. A new battery on a 8 year ev will cost thousands, even if you save money on gas in those 8 years nobody will want to pay several k for a battery. Just like I would not want to pay several k for a new engine after 8 years. Still way too expensive for my view. I also live in canada in freezing temps, another problem.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12104" RevisionGUID="78e99bff-f2c0-45ec-b676-996d4708cb9d" CreationDate="2022-03-25T16:18:39.510" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; What are the pros and cons of electric motors, compared to internal combustion engines, from a sustainability perspective?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main comparison is between fuel energy density and energy efficiency, although in very small scales such as in lawnmowers or passenger cars, the low maintenance costs of small electric motors compared with the high maintenance costs of small internal combustion engines helps too. Anything equal to or smaller than passenger car in power output will be electrified.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric motor has nearly 100% efficiency, when compared to 25% of small high-speed engines or 50% of large low-speed marine or power generation engines. Maybe some percent or two is lost in practical applications but in theory you could make 99.9% efficient electric motor. Also it helps that electricity can be easily created using sustainable methods with very high limits (electrify the entire world with solar panels, onshore wind power and offshore wind power, and you will have thousand times more power than you need), whereas fuels for internal combustion engines are much harder to make sustainably, maybe hydrogen can be produced sustainably with practically no limit but any carbon-containing sustainable fuel is limited by the available of sustainable CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; sources, and above-ground storage of hydrogen requires very heavy pressure vessels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main advantage of internal combustion engines is the massive energy density of their fuels. Gasoline has 34 megajoules (9.4 kWh) per liter and it's at atmospheric pressure, no need to store it in pressure vessels. No battery can match that. Also internal combustion engines are very good in powering ships that cruise at low power levels but need high power bursts for maneuverability, plus enough energy for month-long journeys, whereas aeroplanes use gas turbines that are a form of internal combustion engine that really likes working at nearly full load constantly. Furthermore, because there are not enough hydropower resources on this planet for balancing the power grid, we probably need to store massive amounts of hydrogen in compressed underground storage areas and subsequently burn them in one of two kinds of internal combustion engines: either a gas turbine (good for full-load efficiency) or a reciprocating engine (good for part-load efficiency), to create electricity at times when sun doesn't shine and it's calm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both are needed. Passenger cars will surely use electric motors. Light commercial vehicles too. Heavy long-haul trucks may use either internal combustion engines (burning biofuels) or hydrogen fuel cells and electric motors. Ships will use internal combustion engines, burning either biofuels, ammonia or hydrogen. Aeroplanes for very short trips could use electric motors, but long-distance aeroplanes will use gas turbines (a form of internal combustion engine), burning either biofuels or hydrogen. Hydrogen electric power plants will use gas turbines or reciprocating engines, plus a steam turbine running on the hot exhaust to bump up the efficiency. Batteries will see some use in balancing the power grid too, but the main long-term energy storage methods will be hydropower reservoirs and underground compressed hydrogen storage areas." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30523" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12105" RevisionGUID="397c7930-4749-46ed-a8ec-e0d4c62ed58a" CreationDate="2022-03-28T13:34:42.777" UserId="3379" Text="In the 1970s, my dad bought a new Mazda sports car on a payment plan. About a year later he happened to see what the same model was selling for, and realized that he still owed more money than the car was even worth. Since then, he's never bought a new car, and he taught my brother and I this lesson as well, and neither of us have ever bought a new car either. This is not unique among a lot of middle class Americans, based on conversations I've had.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the age of the market, there are more used internal combustion engine vehicles for sale than new, but the same is not true of electric vehicles. **Will there ever be a robust used market for EVs like there is for ICEVs?** I've heard concerns about how long batteries will last (and the cost to replace them), if software updates will be offered long-term, or if older charger standards will continue to be supported." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30525" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12105" RevisionGUID="397c7930-4749-46ed-a8ec-e0d4c62ed58a" CreationDate="2022-03-28T13:34:42.777" UserId="3379" Text="What is the potential for a used car market for EVs?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30526" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12105" RevisionGUID="397c7930-4749-46ed-a8ec-e0d4c62ed58a" CreationDate="2022-03-28T13:34:42.777" UserId="3379" Text="|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30527" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12106" RevisionGUID="be9ccf2f-aae5-4925-81b1-66ea4de8c1bb" CreationDate="2022-03-28T13:58:24.770" UserId="13618" Text="One point of evidence we can use to answer this question is the market of hybrid cars.  These suffer from the same problem that fully electric cars do in that the batteries would be expected to degrade with time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live in the UK and have been looking at used car prices fairly closely, and Toyota Prius's sell for much more than the equivalent Toyota with only an internal combustion engine, usually more than twice.  I am afraid I cannot demonstrate this with numbers right now, but probably could if pushed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This bodes well for purely electric cars having a robust used car market as they reach the age that new buyers are likely to upgrade to newer models." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12107" RevisionGUID="94a304ae-aea0-4b6a-a472-df1b3c056fd7" CreationDate="2022-03-28T16:18:36.063" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; I've heard concerns about how long batteries will last (and the cost to replace them)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't be worried.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in an internal combustion engine car your engine gets damaged, most of it will be replaced. For example today cylinder or piston damage means the entire lower end is replaced. That easily costs at least 5000 EUR. There used to be a time in history where cylinders were re-bored to a larger size and pistons were replaced, but not anymore at these labor costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If in an internal combustion engine car your transmission gets damaged, it will have to be replaced too. Especially on automatic transmission cars (that are preferred nowadays a lot even in my country Finland that traditionally had strong presence of manual transmission cars) replacing the transmission is very very expensive indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare that to electric cars. If part of your battery pack fails, only the part that failed is replaced with a new module. Cost probably below 1000 EUR. If electric motor fails, it's far cheaper to replace than internal combustion engine. If the single-speed transmission fails, it's very cheap to replace too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the only problem might be if the entire battery pack has severely reduced capacity. The most durable chemistries are NMC and LFP, and the least durable is NCA. Tesla is using NCA. Guess what? Tesla batteries with 500 000 km generally show very negligible capacity reduction. Based on that, we shouldn't be worried at all about the NMC and LFP packs if their cooling hardware and charging software is good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally battery packs with proper liquid cooling last several times that of a typical internal combustion engine. The only packs that have severely reduced capacity when very young are the Nissan Leaf style packs with air cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, car manufacturers take into account battery pack capacity reduction in range estimate. Therefore, if you see a used electric car, you can just look at the remaining range indicator. It knows the battery health and provides information about the true range. So the buyer knows the battery health. A buyer on the other hand doesn't know internal combustion engine or automatic transmission health in an ICE vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question you shouldn't be asking is about the potential for a used car market for EVs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You should be asking whether or not there will be a used car market for ICE vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe there won't be. Today there is, but it will fail very soon. The failure of used ICE vehicle market is due to three reasons: (1) high fuel costs, (2) high maintenance costs, (3) it's very hard to estimate engine and transmission health, very costly to replace these if they fail, and very easy for a seller to fool buyers by for example pouring oil into spark plug holes to prevent engine damage from being audible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30531" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="1e09899b-c4b5-4721-b13b-3856828a02b4" CreationDate="2022-03-28T23:03:30.317" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12108" RevisionGUID="fa4762b2-1de6-4470-9a14-3162518be0a1" CreationDate="2022-03-29T12:19:03.080" UserId="6683" Text="I'd like to maximize rainwater reuse in my household. I want to **wash the dishes** and **take a bath/shower** with the water, as well as supply a **washing machine** with it. [Wikipedia states](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#Human_health_effects), that acid rain is not dangerous for humans. Is physical particle filter enough for treatment? Is water collected from steel roof a problem, compared to water collected from extensive green roof?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30534" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12108" RevisionGUID="fa4762b2-1de6-4470-9a14-3162518be0a1" CreationDate="2022-03-29T12:19:03.080" UserId="6683" Text="How to treat rainwater for indoor use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30535" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12108" RevisionGUID="fa4762b2-1de6-4470-9a14-3162518be0a1" CreationDate="2022-03-29T12:19:03.080" UserId="6683" Text="|water|reuse|rain-harvesting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12109" RevisionGUID="a806531a-17db-4a7f-9677-28ec39451275" CreationDate="2022-03-30T15:00:49.893" UserId="13855" Text="Whilst a heat pump is more efficient than just using direct electric to thermal energy e.g. using electrically resistant wire, the tiny air volume of a car does not need much energy to heat it so it might be that over the life time of operating the vehicle you could save X cost from a more efficient heat pump but it actually would cost you, the consumer and the planet, more in terms of emissions, natural resources, manufacturing costs etc to use a heat pump to do it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe.  I'd like to see some back of the envelope calculations though before I was confident in this answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30538" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="12110" RevisionGUID="1ef34148-506d-44d0-8e50-183f4c38d5dc" CreationDate="2022-03-30T23:37:20.210" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/613955/amount-of-distributed-generation-installed-capacity" />
  <row Id="30539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12110" RevisionGUID="d6209c3d-3436-4b5c-af89-18e8473aa0ea" CreationDate="2022-03-30T16:19:43.263" UserDisplayName="Samuele Benito Di Gioia" Text="Since there are no data available (I didn't find anything regarding that :( ) I was trying to estimate the amount of distributed generation installed in the European electric grid. To do so, I thought that a good estimate could be to assume that 90% of the installed renewable energy generation is connected to the distribution grid (and the installed RES generation is available) because the main part of this type of generation is usually connected to the distribution grid. But I have some doubts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Are there non-renewable energy sources connected to the distribution grid? &#xD;&#xA;2) Which is a good estimate of the percentage of RES connected to the distribution grid? I think for example that all concentrated solar energy plants and geothermal power plants are connected to the high voltage grid due to the very huge size of these plants, but what about the other types (BIOMASS, HYDRO, and WIND)? For PV I think that 99% of generation is connected to distribution grid for example. Basically I have no experience, so I don't know the most common size of these types of generation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12110" RevisionGUID="d6209c3d-3436-4b5c-af89-18e8473aa0ea" CreationDate="2022-03-30T16:19:43.263" UserDisplayName="Samuele Benito Di Gioia" Text="Amount of distributed generation installed capacity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12110" RevisionGUID="d6209c3d-3436-4b5c-af89-18e8473aa0ea" CreationDate="2022-03-30T16:19:43.263" UserDisplayName="Samuele Benito Di Gioia" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30543" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12110" RevisionGUID="0186c8b8-5e7e-4c94-9603-0200464413c3" CreationDate="2022-03-31T16:28:38.527" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|renewables|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30544" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11857" RevisionGUID="aaf4a733-cfa3-424d-b2b5-d9f35fc0e598" CreationDate="2022-04-01T03:00:15.330" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1509727312606117889" />
  <row Id="30545" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12111" RevisionGUID="6f70a57b-7dd6-4965-9d96-310bcbbaa0be" CreationDate="2022-04-01T14:30:55.737" UserId="99" Text="I want to upload a video on YouTube and was wondering what file format would be best if I want to minimize carbon emissions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Google says [all emissions of its services are offset](https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/sustainability/our-third-decade-climate-action-realizing-carbon-free-future/), so let's assume hosting the video does not contribute to its footprint&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carbon emissions will come from people streaming the video. I can reduce the amount of data that is streamed by lowering the video's resolution. But what exactly is the influence of video format here? Some video formats will reduce file size more than others, but on the other hand more data compression will result in more CPU usage to uncompress the data and show the video? How does this balance out? Is anyone aware of research done on this topic?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; I realize offsetting emissions is not the same as having no carbon emissions, but let's keep things simple and leave this out of the discussion.&lt;/sup&gt;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30547" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12111" RevisionGUID="6f70a57b-7dd6-4965-9d96-310bcbbaa0be" CreationDate="2022-04-01T14:30:55.737" UserId="99" Text="What's the most carbon efficient format for videos on YouTube?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30548" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12111" RevisionGUID="6f70a57b-7dd6-4965-9d96-310bcbbaa0be" CreationDate="2022-04-01T14:30:55.737" UserId="99" Text="|carbon-footprint|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12112" RevisionGUID="37ef1d3a-5fab-4f32-994e-04781b203f5d" CreationDate="2022-04-01T15:33:44.720" UserId="1056" Text="Most battery-electric vehicles support regenerative braking, where energy is sent back into the battery. Does the battery state-of-charge (percentage charged) affect how much energy is recovered in regenerative braking, and if so, is there an optimal state-of-charge for maximizing the effect of regenerative braking?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30551" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12112" RevisionGUID="37ef1d3a-5fab-4f32-994e-04781b203f5d" CreationDate="2022-04-01T15:33:44.720" UserId="1056" Text="Does battery state-of-charge affect regenerative braking in electric vehicles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30552" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12112" RevisionGUID="37ef1d3a-5fab-4f32-994e-04781b203f5d" CreationDate="2022-04-01T15:33:44.720" UserId="1056" Text="|batteries|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12113" RevisionGUID="f446a966-f103-4d4b-b777-c5ca028d03b7" CreationDate="2022-04-01T16:40:00.757" UserId="6393" Text="Yes it does, especially on the &quot;1-pedal driving&quot; cars that lack the proper hardware to use brake pedal for braking, but rather they automatically slow down when the gas pedal is released.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla electric vehicles can disable regenerative braking due to three reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Battery is very cold (as in freezing)&#xD;&#xA;* Battery is full&#xD;&#xA;* Car driver disabled regenerative braking or reduced its strength to half (good for driving on snow or ice with 1-pedal driving cars, because the automatic slowdown can be too rapid and the car can spiral out of control if releasing the gas pedal and the regenerative braking strength hasn't been reduced)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For these Tesla vehicles, the car driver will immediately notice the effect: the car no longer slows down automatically. This may even be dangerous if the driver is used to automatic slowdown. I believe there is a warning on the display about these conditions that modify the auto-slowdown effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For cars that have proper hardware to distribute force between regenerative braking, possibly engine braking, and brake pads, such as Toyota vehicles, then it will use other means of braking than regenerative braking automatically such as engine braking or brake pads. The car driver doesn't notice this. All it means is that the brake energy isn't being regenerated but rather wasted via engine or brake pads.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toyota hybrids on mountainous areas automatically shift to engine braking once the battery is full, so you won't overheat your disc brakes even though you press the brake pedal to slow down on descents. Purely electric vehicles can't do this engine braking.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, you always use more battery charge than you gain by braking, so nearly all of the time there is room for regenerative braking in the battery. Therefore, unless you live on top of a mountain, regular use will mean all energy will be regenerated (sans a small efficiency loss). If you live on top of a mountain, then you shouldn't charge to 100% to allow regenerative braking to work on the descent but you probably won't do that anyway since 100% charge reduces battery shelf life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the optimal state of charge, NiMH batteries are about 99% efficient when charging to 70% and after that the efficiency reduces. However, NiMH batteries aren't used in electric cars, only in non-plug-in hybrids, and they anyway operate always below 70% state of charge (even if the display indicates it's full that means 70% full). Lithium ion is very efficient to practically full charge so there isn't an optimal state of charge unless the battery is so full it no longer accepts any charge." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30555" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12114" RevisionGUID="e61309bb-ea40-455d-8ccd-8c2dd462bbd5" CreationDate="2022-04-01T16:50:48.527" UserId="6393" Text="The question is unanswerable because it depends on the type of computer being used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the computer has hardware acceleration for the used video codec, then decoding uses practically no energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the computer doesn't have hardware acceleration for the used video codec, then decoding may depending on resolution, video codec, computer age, and many other reasons use very little or very much energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may not be able to choose the video codec, as YouTube has the freedom to re-encode (I'm not sure if it does). If you can choose the codec and it stays in this format, then some very common and old codec such as basic MPEG-4 may be the best as support for hardware acceleration is widespread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only certain choice you have is video resolution. Minimize it and the environmental impact will be minimized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for newer codecs requiring less data transfer because they create a smaller video file: this matters only if data transfer happens via a mobile network that is very energy-hungry. Data transfer via WLAN or data transfer via optical or electrical cable uses so little energy it doesn't matter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, computers use electricity, not fossil fuels. Electricity generation is rapidly moving away from fossil fuels, so you can treat it as nearly emission free in few years time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The hard-to-defossilize uses of energy are long-distance heavy transportation, large-scale heating and some industrial processes. Small scale heating is already better done using heat pumps, but large-scale heat pump installations need some large-scale heat source that may not be easily available." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12115" RevisionGUID="6d501325-75c7-4f00-8d0d-e8a695357342" CreationDate="2022-04-01T17:55:39.163" UserId="13868" Text="I don't seem to see a whole lot of discussions pertaining to the recycling of the renewables which looks to be a huge issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbine blades are [near impossible][1] to recycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar panels are [equally bad][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, where does all this stuff go? Doesn't this stuff cost too much in terms of using rare Earth elements? Aren't we going towards the very bleak future when e.g. instead of containing our power appetites, limiting or reversing the population growth and increasing nuclear power plants outputs we are instead rushing towards the ... non-sustainable future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/06/25/recycling-turbine-blades-the-achilles-heel-of-wind-power-and-the-controversy-engulfing-ren&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/19/1032215/solar-panels-recycling/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30559" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12115" RevisionGUID="6d501325-75c7-4f00-8d0d-e8a695357342" CreationDate="2022-04-01T17:55:39.163" UserId="13868" Text="How is the recycling of the renewables is not a huge pressing issue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30560" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12115" RevisionGUID="6d501325-75c7-4f00-8d0d-e8a695357342" CreationDate="2022-04-01T17:55:39.163" UserId="13868" Text="|recycling|renewables|population|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30561" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12115" RevisionGUID="f6d0290a-a472-4c24-a1c2-5e18e28fb54e" CreationDate="2022-04-01T23:24:55.673" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical changes" Text="I don't seem to see a whole lot of discussions pertaining to the recycling of renewables which looks to be a huge issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbine blades are [near impossible][1] to recycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar panels are [equally bad][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is, where does all this stuff go? Doesn't this stuff cost too much in terms of using rare Earth elements? Aren't we going towards the very bleak future when e.g. instead of containing our power appetites, limiting or reversing the population growth and increasing nuclear power plant output we are instead rushing towards a ... non-sustainable future?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/06/25/recycling-turbine-blades-the-achilles-heel-of-wind-power-and-the-controversy-engulfing-ren&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/19/1032215/solar-panels-recycling/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30562" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12115" RevisionGUID="f6d0290a-a472-4c24-a1c2-5e18e28fb54e" CreationDate="2022-04-01T23:24:55.673" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical changes" Text="How is the recycling of renewables not a huge pressing issue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30563" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12116" RevisionGUID="b5c24428-124a-4f7b-bb0b-1dac41b6a132" CreationDate="2022-04-02T00:12:33.037" UserId="2345" Text="Initially addressing the issue of recycling wind turbine blade.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently [Kaunas University of Technology][1] in Lithuania and the [University of Strathclyde in Glasgow][2] and Norwegian offshore wind developer Aker Offshore Wind worked out how to recycle glass-reinforced polymer composites (GRP) used in wind turbine blades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The process is a two step process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; First, thermoset composites are split into fiber and epoxy. Second, the epoxy is further broken up into base components similar to virgin materials using a chemcycling process. These materials can then be reused in new turbine blades.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It remains to be seen whether turbine blades will be recycled this, or another way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One possibility I thought of, and this is just an idea, it may be possible to grind the blades into a powder, or something similar, and use them as components of road making materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning solar panels, [they are being recycled][3] [in some parts][4] of the world, but in very small quantities. Not enough to prevent most replaced solar panels from being dumped into land fill sites. The solar panel recycling industry needs to expand. This may happens as older solar panel are replaced in the future when the industry can rely on a steady supply of a minimum number of solar panels each year to enable recycling facilities to continuously operate at a required scale of operation throughout the year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Up to 95 per cent of a solar panel can be recycled, with the most valuable parts being the glass, aluminium frames, polymers, silicon, copper and silver paste. The silver paste and aluminium frames are particularly valuable to obtain through this process. About 80 per cent of crystalline silicon can also be recovered through a refined recycling process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Apparently][5],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Solar recycling is far more advanced in Europe when compared to the U.S.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [In Europe][6],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; European regulators are leading they way, and have developed a set of standards for recycling solar panels, requiring manufacturers to take back their panels at the end of their lives at no charge to the owners, and send them to a recycling facility where the components are broken down, sorted, and re-sold to make new solar panels and other products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][7]][7]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2022/03/method-for-recycling-wind-turbine-blades-almost-waste-free/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://electrek.co/2021/05/17/wind-giant-vestas-says-it-can-now-fully-recycle-turbine-blades/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.canstarblue.com.au/solar/recycle-solar-panels/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.pvindustries.com.au/services/solar-panel-recycling/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://news.energysage.com/recycling-solar-panels/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/recycling-solar-panels&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DiS0I.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12117" RevisionGUID="20a21704-924e-44c8-aeed-457dccd21967" CreationDate="2022-04-02T06:12:04.490" UserId="13869" Text="I've placed aluminum heat reflectors on walls, behind radiators. As the reflectors were quite visible I've painted them the same color as the walls. Now I'm not sure it was a good idea. Do they still reflect the heat ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other (poorly chosen) words: does the reflecting ability of an aluminum panel come from its surface pattern or from its core material ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30568" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12117" RevisionGUID="20a21704-924e-44c8-aeed-457dccd21967" CreationDate="2022-04-02T06:12:04.490" UserId="13869" Text="Does painting an aluminum heat reflector make it useless?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30569" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12117" RevisionGUID="20a21704-924e-44c8-aeed-457dccd21967" CreationDate="2022-04-02T06:12:04.490" UserId="13869" Text="|heating|building-materials|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30570" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12118" RevisionGUID="569edb6f-0a7b-42f6-95fd-e264fd776e1d" CreationDate="2022-04-02T08:14:02.603" UserId="6393" Text="Probably not. Reflection is a process that happens in the surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about mirror. It reflects visible light. Now if you paint it, does it reflect visible light anymore?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heat reflectors are simply reflectors for infrared radiation. It's similar to visible light but has somewhat longer wavelength (lower frequency).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the paint is white, it's far better than if it was black, but still worse than the bare reflectors. Anyway, white-painted reflector isn't any better than a white wall." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12119" RevisionGUID="2064bf0a-0c9b-45f9-a9d3-a1d8d118d559" CreationDate="2022-04-02T13:00:13.737" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; Doesn't this stuff cost too much in terms of using rare Earth elements?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this means &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element&quot;&gt;these rare chemical elements&lt;/a&gt;, then no, it doesn't cost too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbine blades contain no rare Earth elements. What does contain is the magnets in the generator. Those can and will be recycled, unlike turbine blades for which recycling is hard. Actually rare earth elements are not necessary because induction generators can be used if we ever run out of rare earth elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/28/are-rare-earths-used-in-solar-panels/&quot;&gt;solar doesn't use rare earth elements at all&lt;/a&gt; so that's a non-issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For solar panels, the limiting factor is silver. Very little silver is used, so if you recycle used panels, you don't get much useful silver at all. Yet silver reserves are not huge, so every panel is gradually eating away our silver reserves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main component of solar panels is silicon. You could recycle it, but you get some impurities that are deposed on the panels during manufacturing stage. So for this reason, it probably makes sense to get our new silicon from as pure as possible silicon dioxide deposits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You often hear it said that silicon is very common so solar panels can be made out of dirt. Actually this is not economically feasible. If we have orders of magnitude more silicon available than what we need, only the very purest deposits have significance, because the purer the deposit is, the less it needs to be purified after mining, so the cheaper it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we ever run out of very pure silicon dioxide deposits (unlikely), we could use less pure deposits, and also recycle old solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another significant component of both solar and wind power are the copper wirings. Those can and will be recycled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12119" RevisionGUID="5fd7a7cb-674c-4a16-96f0-4b229cc47c0b" CreationDate="2022-04-02T13:06:33.673" UserId="6393" Comment="weights" Text="&gt; Doesn't this stuff cost too much in terms of using rare Earth elements?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If this means &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element&quot;&gt;these rare chemical elements&lt;/a&gt;, then no, it doesn't cost too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turbine blades contain no rare Earth elements. What does contain is the magnets in the generator. Those can and will be recycled, unlike turbine blades for which recycling is hard. Actually rare earth elements are not necessary because induction generators can be used if we ever run out of rare earth elements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/28/are-rare-earths-used-in-solar-panels/&quot;&gt;solar doesn't use rare earth elements at all&lt;/a&gt; so that's a non-issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For solar panels, the limiting factor is silver. Very little silver is used, so if you recycle used panels, you don't get much useful silver at all. Yet silver reserves are not huge, so every panel is gradually eating away our silver reserves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main component of solar panels is silicon. You could recycle it, but you get some impurities that are deposed on the panels during manufacturing stage. So for this reason, it probably makes sense to get our new silicon from as pure as possible silicon dioxide deposits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You often hear it said that silicon is very common so solar panels can be made out of dirt. Actually this is not economically feasible. If we have orders of magnitude more silicon available than what we need, only the very purest deposits have significance, because the purer the deposit is, the less it needs to be purified after mining, so the cheaper it is.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we ever run out of very pure silicon dioxide deposits (unlikely), we could use less pure deposits, and also recycle old solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another significant component of both solar and wind power are the copper wirings. Those can and will be recycled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also remember the scale of the problem. A 1.5 megawatt wind turbine weights 164 tonnes. During its lifetime, it generates 100 000 megawatt hours of electricity. So waste is 164 tonnes per 100 000 megawatt hours or 1.64 kg / MWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity generation from coal generates 1000 kg / MWh of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wind power waste that is 1.64 kg / MWh is solid, so easy to store and contain. The coal power waste is 1000 kg / MWh and gaseous, so hard to store and contain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 1 kW solar panel weights 60 kg, and it creates 26 MWh of electricity during its lifetime. That's 2.3 kg / MWh waste, far less than coal power even though it's somewhat more than wind power. (Actually with solar, you need inverters too which creates slightly more electronic waste -- a 1 kW inverter weighs 10 kg, less than the panels though.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12120" RevisionGUID="202d3d92-aca1-4bac-9f45-f15c18d503e0" CreationDate="2022-04-02T14:25:07.593" UserId="13870" Text="In light of current crisis of energy and food supply,&#xD;&#xA;I came up with a system/facility which may be able simultaneously produce heat, fertilizer, animal feed, and even electricity.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I'll describe its design and how it works.&#xD;&#xA;Its potential problems will also be listed below.&#xD;&#xA;I want to know how feasible it is and hope you can tell me how you think about it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A.Key technology:** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It combines three technologies including compost heat recovery(CHR), vermiculture, and updraft tower.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CHR systems can harvest heat from aerobic composting.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A compost heap will release a great deal of heat during aerobic fermentation.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;According to an article which reviewed 45 CHR systems, one managed to generate 7084 kJ/kg DM (kilojoules per kilogram of dry material). see reference 1.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is also a good method to swiftly digest organic waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vermiculture is the cultivation of annelid worms or black soldier fly larvae(BSFL).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;These detritivore can digest decaing organic matter and become a good source of animal feed.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The compost generated from CHR system can be serverd as the food source of these worms.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Intense aerobic fermentation with heat can remove most pathogens from raw materials and create compost with stable constituents.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to random food scrap mixed with manure, compost will yield predictable quantity of worms with better quality.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The updraft tower power is used in solar chimney power plant.see reference 2.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There is a facility in Manzanares, Spain which generates 50KW of electricity.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Its mechanism is quite simple: creating hot air in the bottom of a long chimney and pressure difference will trigger stack/chimney effect.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The energy is harvested by a turbine system.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;By replacing solar heat with compost heat, an extremely compact power system can be created.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If each floor of a building is fully installed with CHR systems, its total power will be the output of one floor times number of floors.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B.What can it provide?**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1.Compost and vermicompost&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2.Animal feed&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3.Heat&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4.electricity&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**C.Why building this system?**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1.Fun fact: fertilizer is made from natural gas. see reference 3.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Vermicompost, which further concentrate nutrients from the feedstock compost, may be able to partially replace chemical fertilizers.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2.Householde heating uses natural gas.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A CHR is comparatively safer and independent of gas pipeline.&#xD;&#xA;The heat pump systems for communities will be more efficient when they have an active heat source from CHR systems.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3.Eletricity is generated from natural gas.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4.Food and animal feed supply chain is being disturbed and one major producer in Europe is not likely to resume its production any sooner.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5.This system has lower environmental nuisance compared to its fossil fuel-based counterparts.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It's easier to find locations for building this type of facility.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If it is constructed inside a city, it can reduce odor problems by restricting feedstock sources to coffee grounds, grass clippings and fallen leaves.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;6.Its feedstock is organic wastes, which are produced by cities on regular basis.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**D.A sketch of the bioreactor system facility**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This system can be constructed in ordinary buildings.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It would be better if it already has a chimney.&#xD;&#xA;If not, a thick ventilation duct attached on its outer wall will do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On each floor, an array of bioreactors(aerobic compost bin) is installed.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a more detailed view of the reactor.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to automatize its flipping/turning process to reduce the labor need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three reactors made into one group.&#xD;&#xA;Two motors on both sides of it can tilt and flip it by pulling four chords attached on each reactor.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic D&amp;E&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(Sorry, I don't have enough reputation to post more links,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;you can find Pic D to K at: https://github.com/gitpharm01/gitpharm01.github.io/tree/main/imgs/facility)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is the tubing for air and heat exchange.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic F&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the bioreactor is flipped, the tubing cap of this group will be lifted and the sealing cap will shut off the opening.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic G&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heat and air will be transfered by a ventilation system.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic H&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the weather is cold, the heat can be sold to nearby community to generate income.&#xD;&#xA;Pic I&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are no buyers for heat, the facility can redirect it to the bottom of its chimney to generate electricity.&#xD;&#xA;Pic J&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last but not least, the vermiculture bins can be warmed by this system too.&#xD;&#xA;And the bioreactors will provide stable food source to the worms.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic K&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**E.Jobs needed to run this system**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Reactor/System manager:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Check temperature/moisture of each reactor.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Supervise the automatic turning process of reactors.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Control ventilation system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Material manager&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Control the quality of incoming feedstock by screening out harmful ingredients.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Create compost heap with correct nitrogen/carbon ratio and moisture level.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Worm farmer&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Check temperature/moisture of each vermiculture bin.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Feed and harvest worms.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Product processor&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Process compost/vermicompost/worms when these products are harvested.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pack compost/vermicompost/worms and get them ready to be sold.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.Facility engineer&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Assist construction of new facility.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Maintain and repair bioreactor/ventilation/turbine generators.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.Facility chief&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Coordinate and assign jobs for workers in the facility.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Collect data of daily operation and analyse it to improve efficiency.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Contact with customers and raw material providers.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**F.Potential problems and solutions**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1.Lack of data&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;All three key technologies are well studied for years, but there's no guarantee for these three to be perfectly combined.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There might be some incompatibilities and a small-scale experiment will get the answers.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.technical limitation&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the review article(reference 1), it described corrosion problems on heat exchanger tubings due to direct contact to compost heap.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;My recommendation is to use a stainless steel or aluminum tubing and cover it with a thin layer of teflon tape.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Teflon tapes are chemically inert and readily available on the market.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The highest temprature an aerobic compost heap can reach is around 70 degrees celcius, which is much lower than teflon's temperature limit(260 degrees celcius).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Low cost efficiency when it comes to electricity generation&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The electricity generated from a updraft tower system may not be efficient enough to create profit in small-scale.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If a facility's heat output is not strong enough and does not have a pre-built chimney of adequate size,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;it should abandon the power generation function.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Regulations &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;FDA of the United states and the European Food Safety Authority have already made some regulations on the use of insect as animal feed.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Though there are some progress made to approve this in recent years, the vermiculture department of this facility must follow those regulations.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reference 1.&#xD;&#xA;Heat Recovery from Composting: A Comprehensive Review of&#xD;&#xA;System Design, Recovery Rate, and Utilization&#xD;&#xA;Matthew M. Smith, John D. Aber &amp; Robert Rynk&#xD;&#xA;https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1065657X.2016.1233082&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reference 2.&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reference 3.&#xD;&#xA;Fertilisers in the EU&#xD;&#xA;EU Agricultural Markets Briefs June 2019&#xD;&#xA;https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/market-brief-fertilisers_june2019_en.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/olNSN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KCYdv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wtlfZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ps6lR.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12120" RevisionGUID="202d3d92-aca1-4bac-9f45-f15c18d503e0" CreationDate="2022-04-02T14:25:07.593" UserId="13870" Text="Feasibility of a bioreactor-based system for fertilizer, animal feed, heating, and electricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12120" RevisionGUID="202d3d92-aca1-4bac-9f45-f15c18d503e0" CreationDate="2022-04-02T14:25:07.593" UserId="13870" Text="|electricity|food|heating|composting|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12121" RevisionGUID="ce7c71d3-84d3-4cc4-9e42-9e7001474729" CreationDate="2022-04-03T02:23:01.917" UserId="5824" Text="In the recent NPR Fresh Air podcast [The Extraordinary Lives Of Migratory Birds&#xD;&#xA;](https://www.npr.org/2022/04/01/1090231441/the-extraordinary-lives-of-migratory-birds) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Author Scott Weidensaul talks about the millions of birds flying unseen over our heads in the night sky, how the bar-tailed godwit can fly more than a week over water without stopping, and how new tracking technology may help with strategies to keep them alive. His book is *A World on the Wing*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At about `33:48`:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Davies:** Is there anything you can do to mitigate the harm of wind farms that are in critical locations?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Weidensaul:** *There are!* And in fact in one of the things that's being  experimented with is equipping wind farms with artificial intelligence and radar capabilities, so that when the IA and the radar detect a large number of birds moving in they shut down the wind farms.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Or in some cases actually in places where there are large endangered birds like California Condors in North America and some species of old world vultures, even just detecting a single large vulture moving into a wind farm will theoretically be able to turn off the turbines in those areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Which wind farms are using advanced technology such as radar, artificial intelligence and other tracking information to shut down wind farm turbines when risks are highest for migratory and endangered birds?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potentially helpful resources:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Home page: [Scott Weidensaul](http://www.scottweidensaul.com/)&#xD;&#xA; - Wikipedia [Scott Weidensaul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Weidensaul)&#xD;&#xA; - [A WORLD ON THE WING; The Global Odyssey of Migratory Birds By Scott Weidensaul](https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393608908) and [Review of the New York Times bestseller](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/books/review/a-world-on-the-wing-scott-weidensaul.html)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30581" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12121" RevisionGUID="ce7c71d3-84d3-4cc4-9e42-9e7001474729" CreationDate="2022-04-03T02:23:01.917" UserId="5824" Text="Wind farms using advanced technology (radar, AI, tracking) to shut down wind farm turbines when risks are highest for migratory and endangered birds?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30582" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12121" RevisionGUID="ce7c71d3-84d3-4cc4-9e42-9e7001474729" CreationDate="2022-04-03T02:23:01.917" UserId="5824" Text="|environmental-impact|wind-power|animals|computing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30583" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12120" RevisionGUID="b2a1940c-ffad-4b36-b851-8be18ddd7a55" CreationDate="2022-04-03T02:42:10.237" UserId="13870" Comment="added 248 characters in body; edited title" Text="In light of current crisis of energy and food supply,&#xD;&#xA;I came up with a system/facility which may be able simultaneously produce heat, fertilizer, animal feed, and even electricity.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I'll describe its design and how it works.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Its potential problems will also be listed below.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I want to know if there are any resources helpful to test or build this system up.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The term **resources** include:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1.**Books, literature or websites** that provide information or knowledge for the technologies I described in A.Key technolgy.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2.**People or groups** who may be interested in this project.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A.Key technology:** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It combines three technologies including compost heat recovery(CHR), vermiculture, and updraft tower.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CHR systems can harvest heat from aerobic composting.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A compost heap will release a great deal of heat during aerobic fermentation.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;According to an article which reviewed 45 CHR systems, one managed to generate 7084 kJ/kg DM (kilojoules per kilogram of dry material). see reference 1.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is also a good method to swiftly digest organic waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vermiculture is the cultivation of annelid worms or black soldier fly larvae(BSFL).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;These detritivore can digest decaing organic matter and become a good source of animal feed.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The compost generated from CHR system can be serverd as the food source of these worms.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Intense aerobic fermentation with heat can remove most pathogens from raw materials and create compost with stable constituents.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to random food scrap mixed with manure, compost will yield predictable quantity of worms with better quality.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The updraft tower power is used in solar chimney power plant.see reference 2.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There is a facility in Manzanares, Spain which generates 50KW of electricity.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Its mechanism is quite simple: creating hot air in the bottom of a long chimney and pressure difference will trigger stack/chimney effect.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The energy is harvested by a turbine system.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;By replacing solar heat with compost heat, an extremely compact power system can be created.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If each floor of a building is fully installed with CHR systems, its total power will be the output of one floor times number of floors.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B.What can it provide?**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1.Compost and vermicompost&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2.Animal feed&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3.Heat&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4.electricity&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**C.Why building this system?**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1.Fun fact: fertilizer is made from natural gas. see reference 3.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Vermicompost, which further concentrate nutrients from the feedstock compost, may be able to partially replace chemical fertilizers.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2.Householde heating uses natural gas.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A CHR is comparatively safer and independent of gas pipeline.&#xD;&#xA;The heat pump systems for communities will be more efficient when they have an active heat source from CHR systems.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3.Eletricity is generated from natural gas.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4.Food and animal feed supply chain is being disturbed and one major producer in Europe is not likely to resume its production any sooner.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5.This system has lower environmental nuisance compared to its fossil fuel-based counterparts.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It's easier to find locations for building this type of facility.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If it is constructed inside a city, it can reduce odor problems by restricting feedstock sources to coffee grounds, grass clippings and fallen leaves.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;6.Its feedstock is organic wastes, which are produced by cities on regular basis.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**D.A sketch of the bioreactor system facility**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This system can be constructed in ordinary buildings.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It would be better if it already has a chimney.&#xD;&#xA;If not, a thick ventilation duct attached on its outer wall will do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On each floor, an array of bioreactors(aerobic compost bin) is installed.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a more detailed view of the reactor.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to automatize its flipping/turning process to reduce the labor need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three reactors made into one group.&#xD;&#xA;Two motors on both sides of it can tilt and flip it by pulling four chords attached on each reactor.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic D&amp;E&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(Sorry, I don't have enough reputation to post more links,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;you can find Pic D to K at: https://github.com/gitpharm01/gitpharm01.github.io/tree/main/imgs/facility)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is the tubing for air and heat exchange.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic F&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the bioreactor is flipped, the tubing cap of this group will be lifted and the sealing cap will shut off the opening.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic G&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heat and air will be transfered by a ventilation system.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic H&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the weather is cold, the heat can be sold to nearby community to generate income.&#xD;&#xA;Pic I&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are no buyers for heat, the facility can redirect it to the bottom of its chimney to generate electricity.&#xD;&#xA;Pic J&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last but not least, the vermiculture bins can be warmed by this system too.&#xD;&#xA;And the bioreactors will provide stable food source to the worms.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic K&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**E.Jobs needed to run this system**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Reactor/System manager:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Check temperature/moisture of each reactor.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Supervise the automatic turning process of reactors.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Control ventilation system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Material manager&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Control the quality of incoming feedstock by screening out harmful ingredients.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Create compost heap with correct nitrogen/carbon ratio and moisture level.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Worm farmer&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Check temperature/moisture of each vermiculture bin.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Feed and harvest worms.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Product processor&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Process compost/vermicompost/worms when these products are harvested.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pack compost/vermicompost/worms and get them ready to be sold.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.Facility engineer&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Assist construction of new facility.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Maintain and repair bioreactor/ventilation/turbine generators.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.Facility chief&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Coordinate and assign jobs for workers in the facility.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Collect data of daily operation and analyse it to improve efficiency.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Contact with customers and raw material providers.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**F.Potential problems and solutions**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1.Lack of data&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;All three key technologies are well studied for years, but there's no guarantee for these three to be perfectly combined.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There might be some incompatibilities and a small-scale experiment will get the answers.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.technical limitation&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the review article(reference 1), it described corrosion problems on heat exchanger tubings due to direct contact to compost heap.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;My recommendation is to use a stainless steel or aluminum tubing and cover it with a thin layer of teflon tape.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Teflon tapes are chemically inert and readily available on the market.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The highest temprature an aerobic compost heap can reach is around 70 degrees celcius, which is much lower than teflon's temperature limit(260 degrees celcius).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Low cost efficiency when it comes to electricity generation&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The electricity generated from a updraft tower system may not be efficient enough to create profit in small-scale.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If a facility's heat output is not strong enough and does not have a pre-built chimney of adequate size,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;it should abandon the power generation function.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Regulations &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;FDA of the United states and the European Food Safety Authority have already made some regulations on the use of insect as animal feed.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Though there are some progress made to approve this in recent years, the vermiculture department of this facility must follow those regulations.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reference 1.&#xD;&#xA;Heat Recovery from Composting: A Comprehensive Review of&#xD;&#xA;System Design, Recovery Rate, and Utilization&#xD;&#xA;Matthew M. Smith, John D. Aber &amp; Robert Rynk&#xD;&#xA;https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1065657X.2016.1233082&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reference 2.&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reference 3.&#xD;&#xA;Fertilisers in the EU&#xD;&#xA;EU Agricultural Markets Briefs June 2019&#xD;&#xA;https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/market-brief-fertilisers_june2019_en.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/olNSN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KCYdv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wtlfZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ps6lR.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30584" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12120" RevisionGUID="b2a1940c-ffad-4b36-b851-8be18ddd7a55" CreationDate="2022-04-03T02:42:10.237" UserId="13870" Comment="added 248 characters in body; edited title" Text="Where can I find resources for building a bioreactor-based system thata can generate fertilizer, animal feed, heating, and electricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30585" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12120" RevisionGUID="7020d692-9123-4ff6-afa2-3b2e5b89565f" CreationDate="2022-04-03T02:47:31.333" UserId="13870" Comment="added 248 characters in body; edited title" Text="Where can I find resources for building a bioreactor-based system that can generate fertilizer, animal feed, heating, and electricity" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30586" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12122" RevisionGUID="31600b6b-3dac-446e-84a1-645cfa843d44" CreationDate="2022-04-03T07:43:29.793" UserId="99" Text="I am aware of 1 such wind farm in my country named '[Windpark Krammer](https://www.windparkkrammer.nl)'. This farm is located near 3 protected nature areas. According to their [webpage that lists a few media articles](https://www.windparkkrammer.nl/vogel-en-vleermuisdetectiesysteem-media/) (all in Dutch) they have a bird and bat detection system that uses cameras, microphones and speakers. Other sources mention that such systems primarily target birds of prey such as eagles since those are endangered species and run a much bigger risk of getting hit, so I do wonder if it really is able to detect small birds and bats. This [Dutch news article](https://www.omroepzeeland.nl/nieuws/12153265/deze-windmolens-stoppen-voor-vogels-maar-dat-kost-wel-meer-dan-een-ton-per-jaar) mentions that the costs are about 120,000 euros per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a debate recently whether more wind farms here should be equipped with such a system after researchers saw an eagle equipped with a GPS tracking device got hit by a windmill, fall to the ground and crawl around for an hour before dying. I heard experiments are planned with a simpler and cheaper system used in Germany which is to paint the tip of one of the blades of a wind mill black." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30588" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12120" RevisionGUID="d2e5455b-0ec9-4304-af15-a52a9895634e" CreationDate="2022-04-03T10:08:21.363" UserId="13870" Comment="added 399 characters in body; edited title" Text="I want to develop a system mainly based on compost heat recovery technology.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There are already many researches done in the past years and some good DIY design for farms to warm greenhouses.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;But what I want is a small and modularized system like this:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIbrURqwoE &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It's developed by students from University of Utah at 2017.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is comparatively small and I want to build my system based on it.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I could not find any more data of this project on researchgate.net and NBCI.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I wish to learn more about s**mall-scale CHR system** which is proven to be **efficient**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following is the system I want to build:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In light of current crisis of energy and food supply,&#xD;&#xA;I came up with a system/facility which may be able simultaneously produce heat, fertilizer, animal feed, and even electricity.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I'll describe its design and how it works.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Its potential problems will also be listed below.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A.Key technology:** &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It combines three technologies including compost heat recovery(CHR), vermiculture, and updraft tower.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;CHR systems can harvest heat from aerobic composting.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A compost heap will release a great deal of heat during aerobic fermentation.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;According to an article which reviewed 45 CHR systems, one managed to generate 7084 kJ/kg DM (kilojoules per kilogram of dry material). see reference 1.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is also a good method to swiftly digest organic waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Vermiculture is the cultivation of annelid worms or black soldier fly larvae(BSFL).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;These detritivore can digest decaing organic matter and become a good source of animal feed.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The compost generated from CHR system can be serverd as the food source of these worms.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Intense aerobic fermentation with heat can remove most pathogens from raw materials and create compost with stable constituents.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to random food scrap mixed with manure, compost will yield predictable quantity of worms with better quality.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The updraft tower power is used in solar chimney power plant.see reference 2.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There is a facility in Manzanares, Spain which generates 50KW of electricity.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Its mechanism is quite simple: creating hot air in the bottom of a long chimney and pressure difference will trigger stack/chimney effect.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The energy is harvested by a turbine system.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;By replacing solar heat with compost heat, an extremely compact power system can be created.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If each floor of a building is fully installed with CHR systems, its total power will be the output of one floor times number of floors.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B.What can it provide?**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1.Compost and vermicompost&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2.Animal feed&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3.Heat&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4.electricity&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**C.Why building this system?**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1.Fun fact: fertilizer is made from natural gas. see reference 3.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Vermicompost, which further concentrate nutrients from the feedstock compost, may be able to partially replace chemical fertilizers.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;2.Householde heating uses natural gas.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;A CHR is comparatively safer and independent of gas pipeline.&#xD;&#xA;The heat pump systems for communities will be more efficient when they have an active heat source from CHR systems.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;3.Eletricity is generated from natural gas.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;4.Food and animal feed supply chain is being disturbed and one major producer in Europe is not likely to resume its production any sooner.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;5.This system has lower environmental nuisance compared to its fossil fuel-based counterparts.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It's easier to find locations for building this type of facility.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If it is constructed inside a city, it can reduce odor problems by restricting feedstock sources to coffee grounds, grass clippings and fallen leaves.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;6.Its feedstock is organic wastes, which are produced by cities on regular basis.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**D.A sketch of the bioreactor system facility**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This system can be constructed in ordinary buildings.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It would be better if it already has a chimney.&#xD;&#xA;If not, a thick ventilation duct attached on its outer wall will do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On each floor, an array of bioreactors(aerobic compost bin) is installed.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a more detailed view of the reactor.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to automatize its flipping/turning process to reduce the labor need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three reactors made into one group.&#xD;&#xA;Two motors on both sides of it can tilt and flip it by pulling four chords attached on each reactor.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic D&amp;E&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;(Sorry, I don't have enough reputation to post more links,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;you can find Pic D to K at: https://github.com/gitpharm01/gitpharm01.github.io/tree/main/imgs/facility)&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is the tubing for air and heat exchange.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic F&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Before the bioreactor is flipped, the tubing cap of this group will be lifted and the sealing cap will shut off the opening.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic G&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The heat and air will be transfered by a ventilation system.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic H&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the weather is cold, the heat can be sold to nearby community to generate income.&#xD;&#xA;Pic I&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there are no buyers for heat, the facility can redirect it to the bottom of its chimney to generate electricity.&#xD;&#xA;Pic J&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last but not least, the vermiculture bins can be warmed by this system too.&#xD;&#xA;And the bioreactors will provide stable food source to the worms.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pic K&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**E.Jobs needed to run this system**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Reactor/System manager:&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Check temperature/moisture of each reactor.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Supervise the automatic turning process of reactors.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Control ventilation system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Material manager&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Control the quality of incoming feedstock by screening out harmful ingredients.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Create compost heap with correct nitrogen/carbon ratio and moisture level.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Worm farmer&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Check temperature/moisture of each vermiculture bin.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Feed and harvest worms.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Product processor&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Process compost/vermicompost/worms when these products are harvested.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Pack compost/vermicompost/worms and get them ready to be sold.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.Facility engineer&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Assist construction of new facility.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Maintain and repair bioreactor/ventilation/turbine generators.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.Facility chief&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Coordinate and assign jobs for workers in the facility.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Collect data of daily operation and analyse it to improve efficiency.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Contact with customers and raw material providers.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**F.Potential problems and solutions**&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;1.Lack of data&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;All three key technologies are well studied for years, but there's no guarantee for these three to be perfectly combined.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There might be some incompatibilities and a small-scale experiment will get the answers.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.technical limitation&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;In the review article(reference 1), it described corrosion problems on heat exchanger tubings due to direct contact to compost heap.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;My recommendation is to use a stainless steel or aluminum tubing and cover it with a thin layer of teflon tape.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Teflon tapes are chemically inert and readily available on the market.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The highest temprature an aerobic compost heap can reach is around 70 degrees celcius, which is much lower than teflon's temperature limit(260 degrees celcius).&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Low cost efficiency when it comes to electricity generation&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;The electricity generated from a updraft tower system may not be efficient enough to create profit in small-scale.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;If a facility's heat output is not strong enough and does not have a pre-built chimney of adequate size,&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;it should abandon the power generation function.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Regulations &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;FDA of the United states and the European Food Safety Authority have already made some regulations on the use of insect as animal feed.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Though there are some progress made to approve this in recent years, the vermiculture department of this facility must follow those regulations.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reference 1.&#xD;&#xA;Heat Recovery from Composting: A Comprehensive Review of&#xD;&#xA;System Design, Recovery Rate, and Utilization&#xD;&#xA;Matthew M. Smith, John D. Aber &amp; Robert Rynk&#xD;&#xA;https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1065657X.2016.1233082&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reference 2.&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;reference 3.&#xD;&#xA;Fertilisers in the EU&#xD;&#xA;EU Agricultural Markets Briefs June 2019&#xD;&#xA;https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/market-brief-fertilisers_june2019_en.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/olNSN.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KCYdv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wtlfZ.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ps6lR.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30589" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12120" RevisionGUID="d2e5455b-0ec9-4304-af15-a52a9895634e" CreationDate="2022-04-03T10:08:21.363" UserId="13870" Comment="added 399 characters in body; edited title" Text="Is there any efficient and small-scale compost heat recovery(CHR) system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30590" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12121" RevisionGUID="4c241308-3cd0-45f1-9a6b-b90680a88e9d" CreationDate="2022-04-03T10:25:21.017" />
  <row Id="30591" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12120" RevisionGUID="6dfafa80-5232-4a87-bdd9-ff7a276ffe08" CreationDate="2022-04-03T10:30:18.357" UserId="13870" Comment="deleted 8037 characters in body" Text="I want to develop a system mainly based on compost heat recovery technology.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;There are already many researches done in the past years and some good DIY design for farms to warm greenhouses.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;But what I want is a small and modularized system like this:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIbrURqwoE &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;It's developed by students from University of Utah at 2017.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;This is comparatively small and I want to build my system based on it.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I could not find any more data of this project on researchgate.net and NBCI.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;I wish to learn more about s**mall-scale CHR system** which is proven to be **efficient**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30592" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12120" RevisionGUID="0f2f9326-0fd3-4de9-9b0e-5f50d67e4e16" CreationDate="2022-04-03T23:07:20.923" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical changes" Text="I want to develop a system mainly based on compost heat recovery technology.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much research has already been in the past years and some good DIY designs established for farms to warm greenhouses. But what I want is a small and modularized system like this:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIbrURqwoE &lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It was developed by students from the University of Utah in 2017.&#xD;&#xA;It is comparatively small and I want to build my system based on it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, I could not find any more data of this project on *researchgate.net* and *NBCI*.&lt;br&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish to learn more about **small-scale CHR systems** which are proven to be **efficient**.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30593" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12122" RevisionGUID="06b963b7-f69a-4686-868b-0fd56680e1fb" CreationDate="2022-04-04T07:37:24.527" UserId="99" Comment="added second answer (Wyoming)" Text="The Netherlands&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of 1 such wind farm in my country named '[Windpark Krammer](https://www.windparkkrammer.nl)'. This farm is located near 3 protected nature areas. According to their [webpage that lists a few media articles](https://www.windparkkrammer.nl/vogel-en-vleermuisdetectiesysteem-media/) (all in Dutch) they have a bird and bat detection system that uses cameras, microphones and speakers. I did not find a better description so I'm not sure how 'smart' this system really is. Other sources mention that these bird detection systems primarily target birds of prey such as eagles since those are large birds and easier to detect, are endangered species and run a much bigger risk of getting hit because they fly at higher altitudes than other birds. This [Dutch news article](https://www.omroepzeeland.nl/nieuws/12153265/deze-windmolens-stoppen-voor-vogels-maar-dat-kost-wel-meer-dan-een-ton-per-jaar) mentions that the costs are about 120,000 euros per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a debate recently whether more wind farms here should be equipped with such a system after researchers saw an eagle equipped with a GPS tracking device got hit by a windmill, fall to the ground and crawl around for an hour before dying. I heard experiments are planned with a simpler and cheaper system used in Germany which is to paint the tip of one of the blades of a wind mill black.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wyoming, US&#xD;&#xA;-----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some time ago I watched a BBC documentary on eagles  where they briefly showed an AI system named [IdentiFlight](https://www.identiflight.com/) which was said to be 5 times better in detecting birds than humans. This system was applied at a wind farm in Wyoming, but not other details on the location were provided. I think it was shown in [this documentary](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000ggph)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30594" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12122" RevisionGUID="3dea8672-94ce-4c4b-b492-2b9c8630a7bb" CreationDate="2022-04-04T07:50:59.640" UserId="99" Comment="added more details about IdentiFlight" Text="The Netherlands&#xD;&#xA;---------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of 1 such wind farm in my country named '[Windpark Krammer](https://www.windparkkrammer.nl)'. This farm is located near 3 protected nature areas. According to their [webpage that lists a few media articles](https://www.windparkkrammer.nl/vogel-en-vleermuisdetectiesysteem-media/) (all in Dutch) they have a bird and bat detection system that uses cameras, microphones and speakers. I did not find a better description so I'm not sure how 'smart' this system really is. Other sources mention that these bird detection systems primarily target birds of prey such as eagles since those are large birds and easier to detect, are endangered species and run a much bigger risk of getting hit because they fly at higher altitudes than other birds. This [Dutch news article](https://www.omroepzeeland.nl/nieuws/12153265/deze-windmolens-stoppen-voor-vogels-maar-dat-kost-wel-meer-dan-een-ton-per-jaar) mentions that the costs are about 120,000 euros per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There was a debate recently whether more wind farms here should be equipped with such a system after researchers saw an eagle equipped with a GPS tracking device got hit by a windmill, fall to the ground and crawl around for an hour before dying. I heard experiments are planned with a simpler and cheaper system used in Germany which is to paint the tip of one of the blades of a wind mill black.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;IdentiFlight system&#xD;&#xA;-------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some time ago I watched a [BBC documentary on eagles](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000ggph) where they briefly showed an AI system named [IdentiFlight](https://www.identiflight.com/) which was said to be 5 times better in detecting birds than humans. This system was applied at a wind farm in Wyoming.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The IdentiFlight website has a [list of installations](https://www.identiflight.com/installations) that mentions 8 locations in the US (including 2 in California and 2 in Wyoming), 1 in Tasmania, Australia, 1 in Sweden, 1 in France and multiple in Germany. The bottom of this webpage also mentions that the first installation was at the Duke Energy Renewables’ Top of the World Windpower Project in Wyoming." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12123" RevisionGUID="40a6e0de-02cf-4ae8-9771-69dd7d5dbecf" CreationDate="2022-04-04T10:25:29.160" UserId="13882" Text="I'm a fan of indoor, cold, worm composting (`[vermicomposting][1]`) to reduce my rubbish. This uses a box with many worms that eat your vegetable remains in a very efficient way, without any odor, and outputs earth and vermicompost &quot;juice&quot;. And it is also very entertaining to have such pets!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefit of this practice are: &#xD;&#xA;- reducing the amount of rubbish to be sent to landfill, &#xD;&#xA;- having rubbish less humid to avoid the use of additives to burn the rubbish in the garbage processing centers,&#xD;&#xA;- reducing the weight of rubbish and reduce the frequency and number of bin lorry,&#xD;&#xA;- transform this rubbish into a re-usable product (fertilizer), can be used indoor in city where people usually doesnt have a garden to make traditional composting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems that vermicomposting creates a lots of greenhouse gas ([1],[2]) due to the intrinsic chemical process, although it is far less than hot composting and can vary with several factors (temperature, humididy rate, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: globally, and in the context of global warming, is it more appropriate to throw their vegetable waste to the bin or to use vermicomposting at home?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960852418310988&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960852418310988&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30597" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12123" RevisionGUID="40a6e0de-02cf-4ae8-9771-69dd7d5dbecf" CreationDate="2022-04-04T10:25:29.160" UserId="13882" Text="Does vermicomposting our food rubbish good for climate change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30598" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12123" RevisionGUID="40a6e0de-02cf-4ae8-9771-69dd7d5dbecf" CreationDate="2022-04-04T10:25:29.160" UserId="13882" Text="|carbon-footprint|greenhouse-gas-emissions|waste-minimisation|vermicomposting|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12124" RevisionGUID="132ba6c8-cb0f-4371-a216-b1f26e7966b8" CreationDate="2022-04-04T10:34:57.820" UserId="13882" Text="A too large gap could dry the system, but I think it is fine as it is in your picture, except if you bring too much dry waste. Just keep an eye on it from time to time to be sure that moisture is still there on the internal wall. But as you said, ventilation is important in vermicomposting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main issue with such a hole is that flies can come to lay their eggs and then you could have many of them. If you don't care, it is fine; if you care, then it is fine only if you bring non-sweet waste mostly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Small rodent may also try to pass in to snack some worms..." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30601" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12125" RevisionGUID="32579ab5-1aa6-45cd-8192-9598bfaf8993" CreationDate="2022-04-04T10:44:50.720" UserId="13882" Text="As others said: add more dry stuff to reduce the moisture (cardboard pieces), open it daily to make the adult flied away, use a vinegar bait and cover well all the food with dry material (cardboard pieces).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition:&#xD;&#xA;- kill the pupae (coccon) that you see on the back cover or box walls, they are the fly coccons which looks for dryer part of the compost to become adults.&#xD;&#xA;- stop putting fruit remains. Put only non-sweet waste (vegetable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal experience is that is you keep putting fruit waste, they will always manage to keep reproducing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30603" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12123" RevisionGUID="05019de0-233a-428b-bc9f-05e278c55b1e" CreationDate="2022-04-04T12:02:15.800" UserId="13882" Comment="grammar" Text="Is vermicomposting our food rubbish good for climate change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30604" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12123" RevisionGUID="05019de0-233a-428b-bc9f-05e278c55b1e" CreationDate="2022-04-04T12:02:15.800" UserId="13882" Comment="grammar" Text="I'm a fan of indoor, cold, worm composting ([vermicomposting][1]) to reduce my rubbish. This uses a box with many worms that eat your vegetable remains in a very efficient way, without any odor, and outputs earth and vermicompost &quot;juice&quot;. And it is also very entertaining to have such pets!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefit of this practice are: &#xD;&#xA;- reducing the amount of rubbish to be sent to landfill, &#xD;&#xA;- having rubbish less humid to avoid the use of additives to burn the rubbish in the garbage processing centers,&#xD;&#xA;- reducing the weight of rubbish and reduce the frequency and number of bin lorry,&#xD;&#xA;- transform this rubbish into a re-usable product (fertilizer), can be used indoor in city where people usually doesnt have a garden to make traditional composting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems that vermicomposting creates a lots of greenhouse gas due to the intrinsic chemical process, although it is far less than hot composting and can vary with several factors (temperature, humididy rate, etc) ([2], [3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: globally, and in the context of global warming, is it more appropriate to throw their vegetable waste to the bin or to use vermicomposting at home?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermicompost&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960852418310988&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960852418310988&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30605" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12123" RevisionGUID="690d6514-0940-44f9-b521-2ae41c6cc2d5" CreationDate="2022-04-04T12:08:11.653" UserId="13882" Comment="title rewording + reference correction" Text="I'm a fan of indoor, cold, worm composting ([vermicomposting][1]) to reduce my rubbish. This uses a box with many worms that eat your vegetable remains in a very efficient way, without any odor, and outputs earth and vermicompost &quot;juice&quot;. And it is also very entertaining to have such pets!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefit of this practice are: &#xD;&#xA;- reducing the amount of rubbish to be sent to landfill, &#xD;&#xA;- having rubbish less humid to avoid the use of additives to burn the rubbish in the garbage processing centers,&#xD;&#xA;- reducing the weight of rubbish and reduce the frequency and number of bin lorry,&#xD;&#xA;- transform this rubbish into a re-usable product (fertilizer), can be used indoor in city where people usually doesnt have a garden to make traditional composting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems that vermicomposting creates massive greenhouse gas due to the intrinsic chemical process , although it is far less than hot composting and can vary with several factors (temperature, humididy rate, etc) ([2], [3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: globally, and in the context of global warming, is it more appropriate to throw their vegetable waste to the bin or to use vermicomposting at home?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermicompost&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201700042&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960852418310988&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30606" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12123" RevisionGUID="690d6514-0940-44f9-b521-2ae41c6cc2d5" CreationDate="2022-04-04T12:08:11.653" UserId="13882" Comment="title rewording + reference correction" Text="Is vermicomposting our food rubbish sustainable in term of climate change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30607" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12125" RevisionGUID="59c5be71-f6c1-4d65-a140-967fabb26f36" CreationDate="2022-04-04T17:17:51.630" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical changes" Text="As others said: add more dry stuff to reduce the moisture (cardboard pieces), open it daily to make the adults fly away, use a vinegar bait and cover well all the food with dry material (cardboard pieces).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition:&#xD;&#xA;- kill the pupae (cocoon) that you see on the back cover or box walls, they are the fly cocoons which looks for dryer part of the compost to become adults.&#xD;&#xA;- stop putting in fruit remains. Put only non-sweet waste (vegetable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My personal experience is that if you keep in putting fruit waste, they will always manage to keep reproducing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30608" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12123" RevisionGUID="cbaef9aa-dfdd-49f7-9b21-a852fe511b5e" CreationDate="2022-04-04T21:00:03.240" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1511086216736821268" />
  <row Id="30609" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12126" RevisionGUID="39ced093-8f6f-407e-abd1-0ebc39f8f462" CreationDate="2022-04-05T12:00:13.160" UserId="3851" Text="Any kind of home composting will result in less greenhouse gas emissions than sending the waste to landfill. The waste composting at home will indeed release CO2, as a result of the worms and microbes respiring, but this is exactly balanced out by CO2 removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis when the food was growing. However, in a landfill, there is less oxygen available than in a home composting situation, so some anaerobic digestion will take place, and methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, will be released. Even in the best case, the waste would decompose in landfill and emit the same amount of CO2 as in the home composter anyway. I suppose that in some cases the methane may be captured for use as fuel, but for general landfill I would suspect that the proportion captured this way is not high enough to counter the negatives that the original poster mentions. I have seen a few projects based on collecting food waste for anaerobic digestion to methane, but these tend to be small scale operations focused on very local sources of waste, often using bikes to transport the waste, rather than long distance trasnport in trucks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30611" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12123" RevisionGUID="65d97010-c66d-409a-aef3-a7ba44a544bf" CreationDate="2022-04-05T12:27:13.280" UserId="13882" Comment="added precision of greenhouse gases that are produced during vermicomposting" Text="I'm a fan of indoor, cold, worm composting ([vermicomposting][1]) to reduce my rubbish. This uses a box with many worms that eat your vegetable remains in a very efficient way, without any odor, and outputs earth and vermicompost &quot;juice&quot;. And it is also very entertaining to have such pets!!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefit of this practice are: &#xD;&#xA;- reducing the amount of rubbish to be sent to landfill, &#xD;&#xA;- having rubbish less humid to avoid the use of additives to burn the rubbish in the garbage processing centers,&#xD;&#xA;- reducing the weight of rubbish and reduce the frequency and number of bin lorry,&#xD;&#xA;- transform this rubbish into a re-usable product (fertilizer), can be used indoor in city where people usually doesnt have a garden to make traditional composting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it seems that vermicomposting creates massive greenhouse gas due to the intrinsic chemical process in the worm gut which produce nitrous oxyde (N2O), a greenhouse gas hundreds time more powerful than CO2. However, vermicomposting produces less mathane (CH4) greenhouse gas than hot composting; also N2O emission in vermicomposting can be reduced with several factors (temperature, humididy rate, aeration, carbon  etc) ([2], [3]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is: globally, and in the context of global warming, is it more appropriate to throw their vegetable waste to the bin or to use vermicomposting at home?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermicompost&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://doi.org/10.1002/clen.201700042&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960852418310988&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30612" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12091" RevisionGUID="0fd66c82-a791-42d8-b0c9-de590862fd41" CreationDate="2022-04-05T15:05:30.490" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30617" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12128" RevisionGUID="0e99a41a-2510-4a54-8c8a-c231e7bee9eb" CreationDate="2022-04-05T22:27:05.613" UserId="13884" Text="How would you calculate the gravimetric &amp; volumetric energy density of a gravity based system like Energy Vault ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30619" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12128" RevisionGUID="0e99a41a-2510-4a54-8c8a-c231e7bee9eb" CreationDate="2022-04-05T22:27:05.613" UserId="13884" Text="Renewable energy gravity storage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30620" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12128" RevisionGUID="0e99a41a-2510-4a54-8c8a-c231e7bee9eb" CreationDate="2022-04-05T22:27:05.613" UserId="13884" Text="|energy|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30621" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12121" RevisionGUID="5594348b-cf59-403c-88ed-452982a8d8f8" CreationDate="2022-04-06T03:00:15.503" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1511539252672319499" />
  <row Id="30622" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12129" RevisionGUID="d70aa88a-5675-4580-8813-1a49416f17ca" CreationDate="2022-04-06T15:17:15.070" UserId="13885" Text="I recently purchased two [300 gallon tanks](https://www.plastic-mart.com/product/6761/300-gallon-quadel-titan-vertical-water-storage-tank-black-1013) to supplement my existing two [55 gallon barrels](https://www.plastic-mart.com/product/5171/55-gallon-cubo-rain-barrel-plus-cubo-55plus), allowing me to do some more legitimate rainwater harvesting.  I've been really intrigued by [manifold system designs like this one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdqznxPT_cY), but my concern is that it might not work with differently sized containers.  Would I need to get the tops or bottoms of the different barrels to the same height to ensure they filled equally?  Should I order them in a particular sequence of sizes?  Any other considerations I should be making? Many thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30624" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12129" RevisionGUID="d70aa88a-5675-4580-8813-1a49416f17ca" CreationDate="2022-04-06T15:17:15.070" UserId="13885" Text="How to gravity feed differently sized rain collection tanks at equal rates?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30625" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12129" RevisionGUID="d70aa88a-5675-4580-8813-1a49416f17ca" CreationDate="2022-04-06T15:17:15.070" UserId="13885" Text="|water|gardening|water-management|agriculture|rain-harvesting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30626" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12130" RevisionGUID="836caf9a-2892-491e-b69e-63edd70fa2ad" CreationDate="2022-04-07T15:12:57.960" UserId="6393" Text="Let's look at the specifications of EnergyVault.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, the tower height is claimed to be &quot;nearly 500 feet&quot; or nearly 150 meters. However, since the tower consists of bricks, an average brick has half this height or 75 meters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One kilogram at 75 meter height stores 75*9.81 = 736 joules or 0.2 watt-hours. Compare that to batteries that store 200 watt-hours per kilogram. Three orders of magnitude difference!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most likely the bricks are made out of concrete since that's the only cheap reasonable heavy material out of which you can make bricks with flat top and bottom (so that you can stack them). It has density 2400 kg/m^3 or 2.4 kg / liter. However, batteries have about the same density so EnergyVault stores about 0.5 watt-hours per liter whereas batteries store 500 watt-hours per liter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking pretty bad, right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The claimed EnergyVault system can store 20, 35 or 80 MWh and discharge at rates of 4-8 MW for 8-16 hour discharge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need a tower crane to lift these. A tower crane has rental cost of about 160 000 euros per year. Therefore, if the 20 MWh system uses a single crane and the larger systems require multiple cranes, the cost per year is 8 EUR / kWh / year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If lithium ion batteries cost 100 EUR / kWh and last for 25 years at interest rate of 4%, that's 6.4 EUR / kWh / year. Less than EnergyVault already and that didn't even include the price of the bricks!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also crane costs are not exponentially decreasing contrary to battery costs that are. Therefore, the balance that slightly favors batteries will even more strongly favor batteries over EnergyVault in the future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one crane can discharge at 4 MW, and costs 160 000 euros per year, the cost per year is 40 EUR / kW / year. Wind turbines cost 1000 EUR / kW, so for 25-year lifetime and 4% interest rate, they cost 64 EUR / kW / year. So while a crane might look like slightly cheaper, you have to remember that a crane can produce energy only if you have enough bricks stacked, whereas wind turbine can produce energy out of &quot;thin air&quot; (wind).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverters cost 180 EUR / kW, so for 25-year lifetime and 4% interest rate that's 11.5 EUR / kW / year. So if you have batteries, converting their energy into grid voltages is cheaper than operating the tower crane in an EnergyVault system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the bricks. Concrete costs 100 EUR/m3. Density is 2400 kg/m3 so to store 480 watt hours or 0.48 kWh, you need 100 EUR. Therefore, the bricks cost 208 EUR / kWh. Compare that to lithium ion batteries (100 EUR / kWh). So if you want to increase the storage capacity of an EnergyVault installation while using the same number of cranes, you are paying 208 EUR for every kilowatt hour of extra capacity. With lithium ion batteries, you would be paying only 100 EUR for every extra kilowatt hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now probably everyone agrees that EnergyVault is an extraordinarily poor idea. With lithium ion batteries connected to an inverter, you get cheaper per-kW and per-kWh costs if you compare them to a tower crane near a brick stack (which EnergyVault is)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30628" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="10548" RevisionGUID="6a2596d7-fa12-42b7-842f-90afe4a25942" CreationDate="2022-04-08T09:00:02.567" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1512354571108114437" />
  <row Id="30632" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12132" RevisionGUID="f0e2eb51-dbc1-4394-9da4-e3c655dfe95f" CreationDate="2022-04-11T07:53:09.887" UserId="13768" Text="If I understand, the overall CO2 (and weighted N2O, CH3 equivalents) net balance of of in home vermicomposting (or other composting) is at the crux of the question here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some rigorous and easily repeatable testing of the compost vs vermicultivation has been done, the results put vermicomposting as in improvement in general; and that CO2 and CH3 reduction performance could be improved with the sufficient inclusion of carbonaceous material, aka 'Brown' and also improves with increasing density of worms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems than any net CO2 discussion could include the net effects of the CO2 emissions caused by transportation systems for large scale collection of wastes.  Simply not adding to that source of emissions makes some sense in reducing net CO2 equivalent.  Whatever that amount is, zero is less than any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, in the  case of the resulting fertilizer from on-site  vermicomposting, there is the potential for further net reductions by not purchasing or transporting fertilizer to your garden; however small that might be.  Add to that the further reduction in transportation of the vegetables costing only the breath walking from garden to kitchen.  Truly, this isn't a facetious argument; the net total of all CO2 from consumer produce shipping is made up of exactly all our little bits we didn't grow or gather ourselves, and by conservative estimates most produce contributes an average of 0.1kg of CO2 equivalent per 1.0 kg of food due to transportation of that food. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a comprehensive meta-analysis of 1530 studies, supplemented &#xD;&#xA;&gt;with additional data received from 139 authors, assessed against &#xD;&#xA;&gt;11 criteria designed to standardize methodology, resulting in 570 &#xD;&#xA;&gt;suitable studies with a median reference year of 2010. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The data set covers ~38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 &#xD;&#xA;&gt;countries and 40 products representing ~90% of global protein &#xD;&#xA;&gt;and calorie consumption'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reference for actual numbers comparing composting to worms:&#xD;&#xA;http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.058&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vermicomposting as a technology for reducing nitrogen&#xD;&#xA;&gt;losses and greenhouse gas emissions from small-scale composting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;TLDR; Vermicomposting reduces nitrogen loss 10–20% over composting,&#xD;&#xA;decreasing N2O  25–36% and methane emissions by 22–26% and that's before including transportation related CO2 emissions which may be reduced when you manage your own greenwealth, I mean greenwaste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, please raise worms or make friends with a neighbor who does and wants more feedstock." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30634" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12133" RevisionGUID="cfc6241d-cef1-4989-8f06-fc8e45f70526" CreationDate="2022-04-11T09:13:18.413" UserId="13768" Text="There are some very interesting new approaches to this problem which have the potential to dramatically change the calculus for point-of-emissions CO2 capture and storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, a technique using liquid gallium and silver-gallium nanorods in an ultrasonic bath acts to electrochemically reduce solute CO2 into O2 gas and solid C particulates.  The input energy of 230kWh per tonne of CO2 makes this an interesting possible route for the scenario you propose.  source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/adma.202105789&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, another technique pyrolyzes bulk plastic waste particles into a carbonaceous substrate having pores sized to enable it to absorb a significant % of it own weight in CO2,  at low temps, and re-release CO2 gas above 75°c.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The low temperature absorption performance may make it somewhat viable to use in capture-and-sequester home systems. but systems which recirculate the material for repeated extraction/concentrated/release may be able to use this as a cost effective stage to isolate diffuse CO2 from flue gas streams and further process that concentrated CO2 into more stable/more economically useful compounds. source: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acsnano.2c00955 Plastic Waste Product Captures Carbon Dioxide in Nanometer Pores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turns out the 'secret sauce' is  pyrolyzing the plastic in the presence of potassium acetate. That, and really high temperatures -600°c/1112°F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to the extent of my awareness, there are no commercially available 'bolt-on' solutions to household carbon capture from your HVAC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one wanted to use HVAC specific CO2 streams to enrich a greenhouse atmosphere, so long as the appropriate precautions against CO poisoning and CO2 safe human respiration levels are in place and operating properly, is not an impossibility given a large enough greenhouse.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Net CO2 reduction, by such means as supporting long term, persistent natural carbon sequestration through rewilding or other actions to reverse habitat loss may be the best, most  immediate response to the continued use of CO2 emitting home heat sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As has already been state; an answer to this for new installations may be ground thermal heat pumps, to avoid burning petroleum for heat in the first place.  I think though, for existing installations, were maybe a few years away from the 'CO2 non-emitting' add-on for gas powered home HVAC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;HopeThisHelps" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30636" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="12134" RevisionGUID="60d6359f-7147-42f7-887f-08ca9be45a0e" CreationDate="2022-04-12T01:18:04.977" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/79284/when-this-label-is-used-can-you-recycle-the-cartons-cap" />
  <row Id="30637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12134" RevisionGUID="b260991c-08f1-4863-8820-eff7b551ad5c" CreationDate="2022-04-11T17:32:20.220" UserDisplayName="The Editor" Text="Usually, when recycling, I see cartons with labels saying to &quot;empty and replace cap.&quot; However, labels such as the following lack such a notice:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![A recycling label that says &quot;Coated Paper: Carton&quot;][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When placing the carton in the recycle container, am I permitted to include the cap, or should I recycle only the carton?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/7lCRg.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30639" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12134" RevisionGUID="b260991c-08f1-4863-8820-eff7b551ad5c" CreationDate="2022-04-11T17:32:20.220" UserDisplayName="The Editor" Text="When this label is used, can you recycle the carton's cap?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30640" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12134" RevisionGUID="b260991c-08f1-4863-8820-eff7b551ad5c" CreationDate="2022-04-11T17:32:20.220" UserDisplayName="The Editor" Text="|usa|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30641" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12135" RevisionGUID="f0ebefd4-2e3d-4a8d-89bf-6980a4332ac5" CreationDate="2022-04-11T18:54:45.027" UserDisplayName="user6726" Text="The legal answer is, if and only if the local authorities or your contract allow it. Recycling may be mandated by local ordinance: check the local ordinance. Or you may have a private contract with a company: check that contract." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30643" PostHistoryTypeId="36" PostId="12135" RevisionGUID="4266a2fe-5e40-4c12-a530-7ca538ed80a6" CreationDate="2022-04-12T01:18:04.977" UserId="-1" Comment="from https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/79284/when-this-label-is-used-can-you-recycle-the-cartons-cap/79286#79286" />
  <row Id="30644" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12083" RevisionGUID="3284db4a-6e6f-4017-a718-c10bda2dbce9" CreationDate="2022-04-12T14:44:00.560" UserId="13767" Comment="added 528 characters in body" Text="I live in Minnesota and I am concerned about my carbon footprint. I know that heating and cooling are large contributors to emissions globally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This video from the excellent Youtube channel Technology Connections concisely describes why directly burning fossil fuels in homes for heating is preferable for now in cold climates, until carbon neutral energy generation can produce and store much more energy for the grid. It is less efficient to generate electrical power via natural gas or coal, transmit it to homes and use it to run an electric furnace than it is to burn the fuel directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56DSH8tKUvo&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Update: New video from Technology connections makes the case that heat pumps with current tech actually change this math, because they move around energy from the environment, they can be more than 100% efficient. So in short, this is more evidence to back up the respondents to this question. Moving to heat pumps ASAP will reduce carbon output, even with the current grid that has lots of fossil fuels in the mix. And things only get better as energy generation decarbonizes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFEHFsO-XSI&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also know that carbon capture technology exists, targeted at a few areas that I'm aware of personally. There are direct carbon capture technologies for the transportation sector, like this company backed by YC for capturing carbon directly from trucks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://remoracarbon.com/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also know of even more discussion happening around capturing carbon from the air. This has the nice impact of being able to correct our historical emissions if used widely enough. These projects however are energy intensive in themselves, as they are looking for a proportionally sparse amount of carbon in regular air that is mixed with lots of nitrogen an oxygen. I do understand that planting trees may be more efficient than any of these mechanical/chemical processes in the short term, but that isn't really the point of this discussion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://climeworks.com/ &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried looking around to see if there is anything being developed that can apply this same principle of direct carbon capture on transportation vehicles, and attach it to a furnace. So far I haven't found much, mostly just articles about technology about potentially turning AC units into carbon capture devices, but these seem again to be pulling carbon out of the air, not capture furnace emissions directly. It seems like an easy path to reduce current emissions, I have a carbon dense stream of gas I intentionally vent out of my house so I don't build up CO2 in my living space, but could I instead put that into a carbon capture device?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I did find one article discussing this directly, but it was published pretty recently and says the work is pretty theoretical at this point. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132321010209&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there something obvious I'm missing that explains why this isn't being discussed more? Does an HVAC system produce too much exhaust to process right away? Could we install a holding tank for the exhaust that would be fed into a carbon capture system?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do understand that any carbon capture system doesn't magically destroy the carbon, this system would produce some liquid or solid that contains carbon and oxygen. Like the climeworks site says of its capture technology's biproducts &quot;Once the CO₂ is captured, it can be permanently and safely turned into stone through rapid mineralization which is a natural occurrence where the CO₂ reacts with basalt rock.&quot; So maybe it is simply a problem of being too much of a hassle to get people to properly handle these byproducts if a residential system like this was developed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30645" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12133" RevisionGUID="cb158c83-7e23-4d29-8db9-39d6783f1312" CreationDate="2022-04-13T02:13:03.477" UserId="2345" Comment="Subscripts&amp; capitalization of units" Text="There are some very interesting new approaches to this problem which have the potential to dramatically change the calculus for point-of-emissions CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; capture and storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, a technique using liquid gallium and silver-gallium nanorods in an ultrasonic bath acts to electrochemically reduce solute CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; into O&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; gas and solid C particulates.  The input energy of 230kWh per tonne of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; makes this an interesting possible route for the scenario you propose.  source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/adma.202105789&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondly, another technique pyrolyzes bulk plastic waste particles into a carbonaceous substrate having pores sized to enable it to absorb a significant % of it own weight in CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;,  at low temps, and re-release CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; gas above 75°C.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The low temperature absorption performance may make it somewhat viable to use in capture-and-sequester home systems. but systems which recirculate the material for repeated extraction/concentrated/release may be able to use this as a cost effective stage to isolate diffuse CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; from flue gas streams and further process that concentrated CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; into more stable/more economically useful compounds. source: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acsnano.2c00955 Plastic Waste Product Captures Carbon Dioxide in Nanometer Pores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Turns out the 'secret sauce' is  pyrolyzing the plastic in the presence of potassium acetate. That, and really high temperatures -600°C/1112°F.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to the extent of my awareness, there are no commercially available 'bolt-on' solutions to household carbon capture from your HVAC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If one wanted to use HVAC specific CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; streams to enrich a greenhouse atmosphere, so long as the appropriate precautions against CO poisoning and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; safe human respiration levels are in place and operating properly, is not an impossibility given a large enough greenhouse.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Net CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; reduction, by such means as supporting long term, persistent natural carbon sequestration through rewilding or other actions to reverse habitat loss may be the best, most  immediate response to the continued use of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emitting home heat sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As has already been state; an answer to this for new installations may be ground thermal heat pumps, to avoid burning petroleum for heat in the first place.  I think though, for existing installations, were maybe a few years away from the 'CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; non-emitting' add-on for gas powered home HVAC.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12136" RevisionGUID="8c7c2e85-8601-44ca-9e5c-2d4a0a176937" CreationDate="2022-04-13T12:46:51.653" UserId="13882" Text="I guess that youtube reformats all uploaded videos. Or at least, the energy consumption would be neglictible compared to that used to read your video by many users on youtube.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my opinion, the by far most efficient way to mitigate energy consumption would be that GOOGLE chooses one of the lowest resolution as a default quality when a video is played. Now, the default is the highest resolution, even when we don't watch the image and only need the sound for instance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30648" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12136" RevisionGUID="ad6e6739-f939-4a07-b36c-fb1f83fbc2da" CreationDate="2022-04-13T12:57:25.243" UserId="13882" Comment="rephrase" Text="I guess that youtube reformats all uploaded videos (see https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/12449/how-does-youtube-convert-between-different-videos-resolutions).&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the energy consumption needed for the user to encode the video would be negligible compared to that used to read your video by many users on youtube.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To my opinion, the by far most efficient way to mitigate energy consumption would be that GOOGLE chooses one of the lowest resolution as a default quality when a video is played. Now, the default is the highest resolution, even when we don't watch the image and only need the sound for instance." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="4cc8526e-0bad-4e67-854b-4d34a0d1b2fd" CreationDate="2022-04-14T13:09:30.390" UserId="13899" Text="Cows emmit about 3 billion tons of CO2 equivalents, which is roughly 6% of the global emissions. The number can be actually higher considering in 20-year span CH4 is 84 times stronger than CO2 (the 6% uses 25x potency over 100-years span). Although going vegan can help, there is slim chance that veganism can spread in such speed and scale that will put a denth in CH4 emissions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that spirit, is there any cost analysis of how much changing diet of cows, or adding supplements to their food, can affect the methane they emit? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="4cc8526e-0bad-4e67-854b-4d34a0d1b2fd" CreationDate="2022-04-14T13:09:30.390" UserId="13899" Text="Changing cow diet to lower methane emissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30652" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="4cc8526e-0bad-4e67-854b-4d34a0d1b2fd" CreationDate="2022-04-14T13:09:30.390" UserId="13899" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30653" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="34452323-c367-446f-a7ff-9d5148b456fa" CreationDate="2022-04-14T13:15:39.833" UserId="13899" Comment="added 133 characters in body" Text="Cows emmit about 3 billion tons of CO2 equivalents, which is roughly 6% of the global emissions. The number can be actually higher considering in 20-year span CH4 is 84 times stronger than CO2 (the 6% uses 25x potency over 100-years span). Although going vegan can help, there is slim chance that veganism can spread in such speed and scale that will put a big denth in CH4 emissions until 2030 or 2050. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that spirit, is there any analysis of how much changing diet of cows, or adding supplements to their food, can affect the methane they emit? One could also do selective breeding with the goal of reducing their methane emissions, but that would be slower than changing diet. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30654" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="d7719ecd-73fa-47c7-8473-36feb12bcfdf" CreationDate="2022-04-14T16:20:38.187" UserId="1056" Comment="edit tags and fix typos" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|animals|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30655" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="d7719ecd-73fa-47c7-8473-36feb12bcfdf" CreationDate="2022-04-14T16:20:38.187" UserId="1056" Comment="edit tags and fix typos" Text="Cows emit about 3 billion tons of CO2 equivalents, which is roughly 6% of the global emissions. The number can be actually higher considering in 20-year span CH4 is 84 times stronger than CO2 (the 6% uses 25x potency over 100-years span). Although going vegan can help, there is slim chance that veganism can spread in such speed and scale that will put a big dent in CH4 emissions until 2030 or 2050. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that spirit, is there any analysis of how much changing diet of cows, or adding supplements to their food, can affect the methane they emit? One could also do selective breeding with the goal of reducing their methane emissions, but that would be slower than changing diet. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30656" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12138" RevisionGUID="5c109c70-7faf-44a3-8a85-349556b75bb3" CreationDate="2022-04-14T17:10:22.630" UserId="2345" Text="A number of sources claim that adding seaweed to the diet of cattle can reduce methane emissions from cattle by 70 to 86 percent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Cows fed small amount of seaweed burp 86 per cent less methane in trial][1]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Carbon farming: reducing methane emissions from cattle using feed additives][2]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[In the U.S., domestic livestock contribute 36 percent of the methane humans cause to be put into the atmosphere.][3]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-03-18/cows-fed-seaweed-methane-emissions-reduced-82-per-cent/13253102&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/carbon-farming-reducing-methane-emissions-cattle-using-feed-additives&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-eating-seaweed-can-help-cows-to-belch-less-methane" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30658" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12138" RevisionGUID="12bde11d-33bf-40ae-bbd5-13551a183680" CreationDate="2022-04-14T17:16:06.130" UserId="2345" Comment="added 307 characters in body" Text="A number of sources claim that adding seaweed to the diet of cattle can reduce methane emissions from cattle by 70 to 86 percent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Cows fed small amount of seaweed burp 86 per cent less methane in trial][1]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Carbon farming: reducing methane emissions from cattle using feed additives][2]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, cattle fed [high carbohydrate diets][3] such are diets containing more corn than cellulose, such as hay or grass, produce less methane. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Methane emissions from cattle][4]* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[In the U.S., domestic livestock contribute 36 percent of the methane humans cause to be put into the atmosphere.][5]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-03-18/cows-fed-seaweed-methane-emissions-reduced-82-per-cent/13253102&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/carbon-farming-reducing-methane-emissions-cattle-using-feed-additives&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://beef.unl.edu/reduce-methane-production-cattle&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8567486/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-eating-seaweed-can-help-cows-to-belch-less-methane" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30659" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12138" RevisionGUID="2668ebaf-1b7b-4966-8e58-2ed1204c5e35" CreationDate="2022-04-14T17:35:57.033" UserId="2345" Comment="added 258 characters in body" Text="A number of sources claim that adding seaweed to the diet of cattle can reduce methane emissions from cattle by 70 to 86 percent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Cows fed small amount of seaweed burp 86 per cent less methane in trial][1]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Carbon farming: reducing methane emissions from cattle using feed additives][2]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, cattle fed [high carbohydrate diets][4] such are diets containing more corn than cellulose, such as hay or grass, produce less methane. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Methane emissions from cattle][5]* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[In the U.S., domestic livestock contribute 36 percent of the methane humans cause to be put into the atmosphere.][6]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Trials in the Netherlands][3] that are showing promise in reducing cattle methane emissions are using garlic compounds with citrus and other additives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-03-18/cows-fed-seaweed-methane-emissions-reduced-82-per-cent/13253102&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/carbon-farming-reducing-methane-emissions-cattle-using-feed-additives&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://energyindemand.com/2020/05/09/a-solution-to-reducing-methane-emissions-from-cattle/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://beef.unl.edu/reduce-methane-production-cattle&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8567486/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-eating-seaweed-can-help-cows-to-belch-less-methane" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30662" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="5fe5d814-dfde-4d1d-b6b0-86efa184090f" CreationDate="2022-04-15T01:33:01.207" UserId="2345" Comment="Subscripts" Text="Cows emit about 3 billion tons of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalents, which is roughly 6% of the global emissions. The number can be actually higher considering in 20-year span CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; is 84 times stronger than CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (the 6% uses 25x potency over 100-years span). Although going vegan can help, there is slim chance that veganism can spread in such speed and scale that will put a big dent in CH&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; emissions until 2030 or 2050. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that spirit, is there any analysis of how much changing diet of cows, or adding supplements to their food, can affect the methane they emit? One could also do selective breeding with the goal of reducing their methane emissions, but that would be slower than changing diet. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="aaeca39e-d584-4fa7-b1ea-9032cdcc5d08" CreationDate="2022-04-15T13:54:29.917" UserId="13899" Comment="added 303 characters in body; edited title" Text="Methane emissions by livestock are responsible for [14.5%][1] of the global emissions. The number can be actually higher considering that methane is [84 times more potent][2] than CO2 in a 20-year span. Considering the net-zero targets for mid-century, 84x potency may be more relevant than 25x used to get the 14.5% figure. Although going vegan can help, there is slim chance that veganism can spread in such speed and scale that will put a big dent in time. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that spirit, is there any cost analysis of how much changing diet of cows, or adding supplements to their food, can affect the methane they emit? One could also do selective breeding with the goal of reducing their methane emissions, but that would be slower than changing diet. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/using-global-emission-statistics-distracting-us-climate-change-solutions&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://unece.org/challenge#:~:text=Methane%20is%20a%20powerful%20greenhouses,grows%20to%2084%2D86%20times." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30664" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="aaeca39e-d584-4fa7-b1ea-9032cdcc5d08" CreationDate="2022-04-15T13:54:29.917" UserId="13899" Comment="added 303 characters in body; edited title" Text="Cost analysis of changing cow diet to lower methane emissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30667" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12137" RevisionGUID="64552e65-e620-423f-a872-8334cc245c10" CreationDate="2022-04-16T18:00:05.810" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1515389583063662592" />
  <row Id="30668" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9825" RevisionGUID="9abd028d-c8d7-4b89-a5fb-0972262c15c2" CreationDate="2022-04-16T19:04:15.380" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12140" RevisionGUID="83372e7a-1fc9-42ad-8128-a172f6a86d39" CreationDate="2022-04-17T00:22:51.453" UserId="13903" Text="It has it been proven that it takes more fuel to start a car than it does to let it sit and idle at a traffic light nevertheless the extra wear and tear on the charging system and the starter" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12141" RevisionGUID="47200a83-779a-49e2-a392-ed9f14477134" CreationDate="2022-04-17T12:53:29.037" UserId="13907" Text="Pool heat pumps are expensive but economical pool heating systems in the medium and long term due to the initial installation cost. Stretching the cover and leave it on the pool will shorten the pool heating time" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30673" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5189" RevisionGUID="5e0ceb57-e820-4c21-b6df-70084b2a3939" CreationDate="2022-04-19T11:54:19.530" UserId="4099" Comment="broken link fixed" Text="AFAIK there hasn't been much research on this topic, at least not about energy consumption of encryption on a global scale. Most research I've seen is concerned with the impact of specific types of encryption on the battery life of wireless devices (e.g. [this article][1] or [this article](http://palms.ee.princeton.edu/PALMSopen/potlapally03analyzing.pdf))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Estimates are that the ICT sector is responsible for around 0.6% of the world's total energy use and about 4.7% of the generated electricity (see also [this post][2]). So on a global scale the impact of encryption is most likely rather small.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose encryption is responsible for 0.01% of all ICT electricity usage (I'm not sure, just a wild guess on my part), that's 930 TWh * 0.0001 = 93 GWh or 93,000,000 kWh used per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume a carbon emissions factor of 0.5 kg / kWh (rough global estimate), then we can say that encryption is responsible for 93 * 1000 * 0.5 = **46500 metric tons of CO2e each year.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the [EPA](https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator) that's roughly the equivalent of 110,714,286 miles or 178,177,372 kilometers driven with an average American passenger vehicle, or the energy used by 4243 American homes in one year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is of course just a back-of-the-envelope calculation and depends largely on my estimate that encryption uses 0.01% of all ICT. If someone has a better estimate I'd be happy to revise my calculation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; [1]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6830130&#xD;&#xA; [2]: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-ecological-footprint-of-internet/answer/Patrick-Ehlert?share=64878736&amp;srid=OMyv" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30674" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5189" RevisionGUID="5e0ceb57-e820-4c21-b6df-70084b2a3939" CreationDate="2022-04-19T11:54:19.530" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 99 edit id of 697" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30675" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="270" RevisionGUID="9d93e1c1-75b6-4bb7-b738-f22148a5422a" CreationDate="2022-04-19T11:58:56.967" UserId="4099" Comment="2 broken links fixed" Text="I feel like the term 'sustainable choice' is pretty open here - sustainability is mostly a case of what we as a civilization want to devote limited resources to. In general, server farms are going to be a more efficient use of electricity than everyone hosting a site locally (even if that were technically feasible). And, for context, while server farms consume a [lot of electricity][1] on an absolute basis, the whole internet uses about [2% of the nationwide total][2], a very good deal considering the services provided (and clearly room to improve). Having pages hosted at home would require a lot of personal computers to be on all the time, rather than shared servers. So, assuming we want to have a digitally connected civilization, server farms are probably a good choice to get economies of scale. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To the second question: Primarily, what you want to look for is where they get their electricity, ideally whether they pay attention to energy efficiency, and, if possible, whether they are decent to their employees. There are several companies out there that buy renewable energy directly, or buy renewable energy credits ([RECs][3]) equal to or greater than their demand. It's probably preferable to go with one that buys direct, but either way will help incentivize more green power. Statements of corporate responsibility - sponsorship, values, etc. - might help with the other metrics. As with anything, there are a lot of different impacts that could be considered, but since electricity is responsible for the bulk of the global warming impacts from the internet (as well as some respiratory-related ones), that's a straightforward decision tool.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4937762&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/technology/data-centers-waste-vast-amounts-of-energy-belying-industry-image.html?pagewanted=2&amp;_r=0&amp;pagewanted=all&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://web.archive.org/web/20210915091204/https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/renewable-energy-certificates-recs" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30676" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="270" RevisionGUID="9d93e1c1-75b6-4bb7-b738-f22148a5422a" CreationDate="2022-04-19T11:58:56.967" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 99 edit id of 696" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30677" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12132" RevisionGUID="ba663338-f961-484f-8c7a-2c18f5332356" CreationDate="2022-04-20T07:29:19.997" UserId="13768" Comment="Incorporated concepts of intentional and coincidental composting to clarify the tangentality of transportation emissions ratios to vermicultivation emissions ratio." Text="If I understand, the overall CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (and weighted N2O, CH3 equivalents) net balance of of in home vermicomposting (or other composting) is at the crux of the question here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some rigorous and easily repeatable testing of the compost vs vermicultivation has been done, the results put vermicomposting as in improvement in general; and that CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and CH&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; reduction performance could be improved with the sufficient inclusion of carbonaceous material, aka 'Brown' and also improves with increasing density of worms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It seems than any net CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (N&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;H, NO&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt; , H&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;S, plastic nanoparticles) discussion could include the net effects of the total emissions caused by transportation systems for large scale collection of wastes.  Simply not adding to that source of emissions makes some sense in reducing net CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and other equivalents.  Whatever that amount is, zero is less than any.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, in the  case of the resulting fertilizer from on-site  vermicomposting, there is the potential for further net reductions by not purchasing or transporting fertilizer to your garden; however small that might be.  Add to that the further reduction in transportation of the vegetables costing only the breath walking from garden to kitchen.  Truly, this isn't a facetious argument; the net total of all CO2 from consumer produce shipping is made up of exactly all our little bits we didn't grow or gather ourselves, and by conservative estimates most produce contributes an average of 0.1kg of CO2 equivalent per 1.0 kg of food due to transportation of that food. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987&#xD;&#xA;&gt; a comprehensive meta-analysis of 1530 studies, supplemented &#xD;&#xA;&gt;with additional data received from 139 authors, assessed against &#xD;&#xA;&gt;11 criteria designed to standardize methodology, resulting in 570 &#xD;&#xA;&gt;suitable studies with a median reference year of 2010. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;The data set covers ~38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 &#xD;&#xA;&gt;countries and 40 products representing ~90% of global protein &#xD;&#xA;&gt;and calorie consumption'.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One reference for actual numbers comparing composting to worms:&#xD;&#xA;http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.058&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Vermicomposting as a technology for reducing nitrogen&#xD;&#xA;&gt;losses and greenhouse gas emissions from small-scale composting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As all food waste byproduct not incinterated will eventually undergo decomposition, whether intentional or simply buried in a landfill; any situation which worms participate in the process appears to reduce harmful emissions overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both composing cases; at home or collected/municipal; the total food waste emissions might change in rate of release vs duration of decay, but not in aggregate total emissions. So, it would appear that little net difference in direct emissions is made if none, any, or all homes compost.  As the ratio of vermicomposting is used to replace composting; the specific emissions should decrease as shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any reduction of transportation related emissions in the pursuit of a transition from composting to vermicultivation appears to be a tangental but beneficial outcome.  In some specific situation where the transition would increase the distance, total net mass, or utilize dirtier energy sources this might work against those gains. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**TLDR;** Vermicomposting reduces nitrogen loss 10–20% over composting,&#xD;&#xA;decreasing N2O  25–36% and methane emissions by 22–26% and may be less overall when including transportation related CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and other greenhouse emissions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if forced to choose worms or composting, the worms are marginally better overall.  If the total volume of food waste was handled at home; compost or vermiculture, the reduction in transportation is the same, and reduced emissions would occur to the extent that worms are preferred over compost." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30678" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="c2e01a11-511a-4816-aeff-81f7cac9eafd" CreationDate="2022-04-21T06:06:10.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12142" RevisionGUID="1e4c700d-ff59-4435-8941-36055cea6313" CreationDate="2022-04-22T00:34:05.487" UserId="164" Text="It looks like we may need to find someone who is prepared to install a install a small VRF system in a home environment. These are incredibly efficient, but only normally found in commercial and larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VRF is Variable Refrigerant Flow, and it means that refrigerant can be pumped between different indoor units. So when one room is too hot and another is too cold, the heat taken out of the hot room can be used to warm the another room rather than both units pumping heat to and from their own outside units. This makes both the heating and the cooling more efficient." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30681" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="6f454522-6222-4ea1-ac30-54c6063bca9e" CreationDate="2022-04-22T06:04:20.480" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30682" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12143" RevisionGUID="04e6c76b-0a7f-4534-942e-e98751c03307" CreationDate="2022-04-22T06:10:56.417" UserId="13924" Text="My 95 Accord MT went from ~28.5mpg to ~32mpg easily from mostly shutting off at stoplights, even as little as 7sec or more. About 10%-12% increase in mpg. I also use engine breaking and conserve momentum in general, but I feel the bulk of the saving is from shutting off when idle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you were to plot your mpg on a graph, turning off the engine while idle cuts out all the time when your mpg is 0, therefore increasing overall mpg. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I imagine the gas used while idling is about the same as if you feather it at 60mph. So every cumulative minute you shut off, you add 1 mile of range, which is about the result I have experienced. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think starting up uses any more fuel. The fuel pump is either on or off and puts out the same psi whether you start the car or driving. I think it possibly insignificantly shortens the lifespan of the starter, because you are just adding starts to it's lifetime. I think it could possibly kill the battery if you are starting too frequently (very excessive) without much driving in between for the alternator to charge it back up. If people had battery problems doing this, I imagine their battery health was poor to start with. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know if I would suggest this for the typical person though. I do my own repair work; I have back up starter, I have upgraded grounds, starter wires, newer battery cable, and I usually trickle charge my battery every other weekend. I also drive with voltmeter for good measure. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use common sense, be aware of your surroundings and learn to read the lights. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12144" RevisionGUID="bf0cdd01-e064-4017-b3c0-49eeba767071" CreationDate="2022-04-23T12:08:32.313" UserId="13928" Text="I will soon be going to Atlanta, GA, USA from Copenhagen, DK, and I would like know which of the following opportunities you think is the most climate-friendly way to travel:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flying from CPH to Atlanta with transfer in Amsterdam (4.750 miles/7.650 km).&#xD;&#xA;Taking train/bus from CPH to London (aprrox. 950 miles/1500km). Then flying from London to Boston (3.250 miles/5.250km). Then taking train/bus from Boston to Atlanta (1.050 miles/1.700km). Distance in total: 5.200 miles/8400km.&#xD;&#xA;This trip is roughly 500 miles/1.000 km longer, but it’s a 1.500 miles/2.400km shorter flight-trip. What do you think the difference in the CO2 emission will be?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30686" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12144" RevisionGUID="bf0cdd01-e064-4017-b3c0-49eeba767071" CreationDate="2022-04-23T12:08:32.313" UserId="13928" Text="What is the most climate friendly way to travel from Copenhagen to Atlanta?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30687" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12144" RevisionGUID="bf0cdd01-e064-4017-b3c0-49eeba767071" CreationDate="2022-04-23T12:08:32.313" UserId="13928" Text="|carbon-footprint|transport|co2|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30688" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12142" RevisionGUID="9599a1f2-3fa9-49b8-99c9-05f22bde9bfe" CreationDate="2022-04-24T00:16:27.463" UserId="164" Comment="added 509 characters in body" Text="It looks like what we need is a small VRF system with heat recovery. These are incredibly efficient, but only normally found in commercial and larger installations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;VRF is *Variable Refrigerant Flow*, and *heat recovery* means that refrigerant can be pumped between different indoor units. So when one room is too hot and another is too cold, the heat taken out of the hot room can be used to warm another room rather than both units pumping heat to and from their own outside units. This makes both the heating and the cooling more efficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, most VFR-HR systems require specialist external units. These have 3 pipes rather then two (High pressure liquid, High pressure gas and low pressure gas), require heading mode change units inside, require a 3 phase electric supply and come in capacities far higher than an average house needs and they are huge (1-2 cubic meters). One manufacturer does a VFR-HR system utilising a 2 pipe reversible flow external unit, but again their smallest configuration for this is huge, and unlikely to be viable for all but the largest homes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30689" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12145" RevisionGUID="5b114428-028f-4ac6-af6f-26b574285599" CreationDate="2022-04-24T17:43:29.560" UserId="6393" Text="A bus consumes about 40 liters of diesel fuel per kilometer. If there are 20 occupants, that's 2 liters of fuel per kilometer. However, with 10 occupants it would be 4 liters of fuel per kilometer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An airplane consumes about 3.5 liters of jet fuel per passenger kilometer (assuming the airplane is full, which it usually is).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you replace 2400 km of flying with 3200 km of bus traveling, that's probably not an overall good idea although if the bus is fully occupied, it will save a small amount of fuel (but maybe waste a lot of your time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you on the other hand replace 2400 km of flying with 3200 km train trip, that's an excellent idea. Trains today almost always use electricity, and practically all new electricity production installed today is carbon neutral. There is a clear pathway to make both electricity production carbon-free (onshore wind power, offshore wind power, solar power, electrolysis, hydrogen storage, combined cycle hydrogen power plants, hydropower) and also make short bus trips carbon-free (battery-electric buses) but for long bus trips and airplanes, we are very far from making them economically carbon-free. Also in many countries today such as France, Norway, Sweden and Finland, carbon dioxide emissions of the whole existing generation mix are very small, far below 100 g / kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be climate friendly, prefer train and maybe electric buses that are only economically feasible in transportation inside cities, not between cities. Don't prefer long-distance diesel buses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't live near a train station, it is not a major crime to take a short bus trip to a train station. That trip is presumably so short that it would be a prime candidate for electrification if the bus making that trip isn't already electrified." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30691" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12146" RevisionGUID="ec5c791e-6096-4926-9a92-f75815ba7b7f" CreationDate="2022-04-25T02:36:42.130" UserId="5824" Text="In CNN's April 25, 2022 [Hear bold new idea to bring clean energy to billions](https://youtu.be/_atY2UtHX3k?t=124) journalist [Fareed Zakaria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fareed_Zakaria) interviews [Dr. Rajiv Shah](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajiv_Shah), the [President of The Rockefeller Foundation](https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profile/rajiv-shah/). Here is a bit of the conversation after the 2 minute mark:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Zakaria:** What is the technology *at the core* of your bet, what is it that makes you think you can provide that much energy, that much power, that much electricity to those many people?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Shah:**  Well the answer to that question is really *renewable energy systems*. We've seen over the last decade as Rockefeller has been pioneering this work to reach lower income communities with say solar mini-grids, we've seen the cost of power go down significantly. Photovoltaics have gone down 90 percent, energy storage is down more than 80 percent, we're about to make a huge leap into lithium ion phosphate battery storage for stationary energy grids and small, mini- and micro-grids. &#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;It's now cheaper to provide power this way than it is through either dirty diesel generators or coal connected to grids that try to reach into these communities and do so poorly. So...&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Zakaria:** (interrupting) Why is the market not doing it already? Why do we need the Rockefeller Foundation?&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;**Shah:**  Well most government utilities look at providing power to rural communities in particular as just a traditional loss-maker. To them, you build a big coal plant near a city connected to a grid, the extra cost of connecting grid connections out to rural communities, to villages, to small towns and cities in those settings is expensive, and then the power that they deliver on it is erratic, and their systems are not very good for doing that.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;These new systems are *loaded with technology*. In addition to photovoltaics and battery storage, they also use remote, artificial intelligence-based energy management systems. We have smart meters that allow a very poor household to  pay for only what they consume and do so via their phone and do it very efficiently so that these systems are economically productive.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;And frankly Fareed because these work, we've partnered with Tata Power&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; which is now rolling out ten thousand of these systems in India. **We'll get the cost down to under 15 cents per kilowatt-hour at which point it beats every alternative source of energy, and we'll help 25 million people not just move out of poverty, but do it on a green development path that safe for our planet and for their local communities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Power&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** What technical details and projections does The Rockefeller Foundation provide to justify a projected 15 cents/kWh for rural solar mini- and micro-grid solutions at scale?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course answers based on a technical analysis and comparative systems are also welcome, but this is primarily a resource request question; presumably at this point with the first thousand systems being built with partners there will be enough information available for them to internally justify 15 cents/kWh, but I'm interested in how much has been shared.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Screenshots from the video; images supplied by The Rockefeller Foundation (for reference):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot from CNN's &quot;Hear bold new idea to bring clean energy to billions&quot; https://youtu.be/_atY2UtHX3k (image supplied by The Rockefeller Foundation)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qgYJtm.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qgYJt.jpg) [![screenshot from CNN's &quot;Hear bold new idea to bring clean energy to billions&quot; https://youtu.be/_atY2UtHX3k (image supplied by The Rockefeller Foundation)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yWm6em.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yWm6e.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot from CNN's &quot;Hear bold new idea to bring clean energy to billions&quot; https://youtu.be/_atY2UtHX3k (image supplied by The Rockefeller Foundation)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ieHNFm.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ieHNF.jpg) [![screenshot from CNN's &quot;Hear bold new idea to bring clean energy to billions&quot; https://youtu.be/_atY2UtHX3k (image supplied by The Rockefeller Foundation)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VUrp2m.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VUrp2.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30693" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12146" RevisionGUID="ec5c791e-6096-4926-9a92-f75815ba7b7f" CreationDate="2022-04-25T02:36:42.130" UserId="5824" Text="Technical details The Rockefeller Foundation provides to justify a projected 15 cents/kWh for rural solar mini- and micro-grid solutions at scale?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30694" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12146" RevisionGUID="ec5c791e-6096-4926-9a92-f75815ba7b7f" CreationDate="2022-04-25T02:36:42.130" UserId="5824" Text="|batteries|photovoltaics|energy-management|off-grid|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30695" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="c2d1605c-da42-4b28-bc52-fca5e8760a87" CreationDate="2022-04-26T15:06:50.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30696" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6560" RevisionGUID="510b3cc2-e9d1-444b-b493-472f570e69b8" CreationDate="2022-04-27T12:02:33.107" UserId="164" Comment="added 614 characters in body" Text="We have been living in our home for a number of years now, so have seen several summers and winters, but we are still looking to solve the heating and cooling problems we have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The walls and roof of the house are well insulated, and upstairs only has relatively small Velux windows, so upstairs is always warm enough, even in the depths of winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The open plan downstairs however is laminate flooring on concrete with minimal under floor insulation, so the floor is always cold, and it's always a struggle to get downstairs to feel warm in winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even when downstairs is warm enough and the upstairs radiators cold, upstairs is almost always too hot, so a huge temperature differential exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Cooling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far we haven't had many problems with downstairs being too warm in summer, but upstairs can get uncomfortably hot, especially in our bedroom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Neither of us sleep too well if too hot, so we are currently looking at options for air-conditioning. I am concerned about our environmental footprint however and would prefer a more sustainable solution if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Some Notes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All radiators except the upstairs bathroom towel radiator (which acts as a bypass radiator) are controlled by TRVs. Originally they had thermostatically controlled valves, but switching to smart valves just confirmed what we already knew, the logs show that upstairs radiators never turn on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Downstairs consists of a small toilet room (2m²/22ft²), plus a large open plan area consisting of living and dining areas, stair well and kitchen which is also open to the conservatory (a total of 39m²/416ft²), where all external doors open into this area.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The central heating is relatively new, so the condensing gas combi-boiler is quite efficient. It has a [SEDBUK][1] rating of 90% and a heat output of 24.9kW, which should be more than enough to heat a to heat 77m² / 826ft² house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the UK gas is much cheaper for heating than electricity, so we currently pay 8.3p/kWh for gas (at 90% boiler efficiency) and 28p/kWh for electricity (that's 10 &amp; 36 cents/kWh at current exchange rates) so we would prefer the bulk of the heating load to be carried by the gas central heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Down the line we would like under floor heating downstairs, but that would be a big, disruptive job, teh same as addadding more radiators. We will also eventually get around to replacing the patio doors and the conservatory, which should help with insulation downstairs, but again those are longer term plans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can we equalise the temperature between upstairs and downstairs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've already added a vent and duct fan to pump cold air from downstairs to upstairs, but this doesn't help with extracting the hot air from upstairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I thought of just fitting an insulated duct and a fan which extracts air from upstairs and pipes it downstairs, but the only place I could fit such a duct would be in the stair well, and it feels like the air would just end up circulating straight back upstairs. Other than that we would need to take a duct outside, which feels like a lot of work for an indeterminate benefit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have sought out quotes for a standard split air conditioner unit to cool upstairs, but that won't help with heating downstairs and I'm not happy about the environmental impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was hoping that there may be solutions which could pump heat from upstairs to downstairs, but normal split air conditioner systems can't be configured to take advantage of temperature differentials like this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since upstairs is almost always too hot, even in winter, and downstairs is almost always too cold, even in summer, the absolute last thing I want is to be using electricity to cool upstairs all year round, at the same time as we are burning gas to heat downstairs. This would have an unacceptable environmental impact to us.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sub&gt;Note, I'm not looking for product recommendations, or someone to do a complete analysis of our situation, the detail is more to illustrate an example of the more general problem. What I am looking for is what would be considered a sustainable solution to the more generic problem of equalising temperature throughout a house with differing levels of heat load and desired temperatures.&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensing_boiler#Efficiency" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30697" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12147" RevisionGUID="200e1109-ab93-493a-83cc-05c7c45e45e3" CreationDate="2022-04-27T13:34:24.407" UserId="3379" Text="### The story so far&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are three different things that can cause an upstairs to be hotter than a downstairs, and you've mentioned each briefly in your question and comments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **Convection.** Hot air rises to the higher parts of the house. It sounds like you have reason to believe this is only part of your problem, and you've either taken steps to mitigate it, or doing so would not be possible.&#xD;&#xA; - **Solar radiation.** The sun hits the top of your house, adding more warmth there than to the other parts. Since your problem is year-round (and there's less sun in winter) this may not be the main factor, but long-term you might think about switching to a light-colored roof, and planting shade trees (particularly deciduous on the south side, so they shade in summer but not in winter).&#xD;&#xA; - **Internal loads.** People, pets, and anything that uses electricity, generate heat. It sounds like this is a big part of your problem, as you've got more of your stuff upstairs, and there isn't much that can be done about that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All of these are compounded by another problem which hasn't been addressed yet -- **poor thermal mass distribution.** You have a large downstairs with a concrete slab floor. This is a huge thermal mass which takes a long time to heat up, and releases heat for a long time once it's warm. Upstairs, there's no concrete, and less space, so only minimal thermal mass. This means the space heats up quickly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One solution to this is to heat the concrete directly with the underfloor heating, but you mention that's not in the cards right now. Since removing the concrete floor probably isn't an option either, the other solution would be to **add more thermal mass upstairs.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Enter PCM -- Phase Change Materials&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per Wikipedia, a [phase change material](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-change_material) is: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[...] a substance which releases/absorbs sufficient energy at phase transition to provide useful heat/cooling. Generally the transition will be from one of the first two fundamental states of matter - solid and liquid - to the other. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The energy released/absorbed by phase transition from solid to liquid, or vice versa, the heat of fusion is generally much higher than the sensible heat. Ice, for example, requires 333.55 J/g to melt, but then water will rise one degree further with the addition of just 4.18 J/g. Water/ice is therefore a very useful phase change material and has been used to store winter cold to cool buildings in summer since at least the time of the Achaemenid Empire.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By melting and solidifying at the phase change temperature (PCT), a PCM is capable of storing and releasing large amounts of energy compared to sensible heat storage. Heat is absorbed or released when the material changes from solid to liquid and vice versa or when the internal structure of the material changes; PCMs are accordingly referred to as latent heat storage (LHS) materials. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In daily life we are most likely to encounter these in hot and cold packs for treating injuries or keeping drinks cool. However, there are also products now on the market for HVAC applications in buildings. The PCM can be &quot;tuned&quot; to an appropriate temperature in the range that's comfortable for humans, plus or minus a few degrees depending on whether the climate is cooling dominated or heating dominated. This results in shifting the thermal setpoint of the space toward the more comfortable temperature, providing thermal stability and reducing the amount of energy needed to heat or cool the space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your case, adding PCM to the upstairs with a temperature tuned just below what you want means that as heat is added to the space, it is being used to melt PCM, rather than heating the air and other mass in the space. As long as the space cools enough overnight for the PCM to refreeze, this cycle repeats again the following day (and if it doesn't cool enough, the addition of a simple exhaust fan at night to draw cooler outdoor air across the PCM could be sufficient).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Further reading:**&#xD;&#xA; - Hussein Akeiber, Payam Nejat, Muhd Zaimi Abd. Majid, Mazlan A. Wahid, Fatemeh Jomehzadeh, Iman Zeynali Famileh, John Kaiser Calautit, Ben Richard Hughes, Sheikh Ahmad Zaki, [A review on phase change material (PCM) for sustainable passive cooling in building envelopes](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.036) ([pdf](https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/52866512/6.79_A_review_on_phase_change_material_PCM_for_sustainable_passive_cooling_in_building_envelopes-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1651069137&amp;Signature=aZaH5~bFzsXdb0jxtZ-RTVau-SwufpY-ALTAuIJZ77ZCJufd4kUWWudR8uiRHWvluuob-oECjzWUCzMTAQ3wauThz7D0rNlZ9wS81LN5~tiAvI8W0T7RipNHvqNG3Ho6QIHU8sjLRPGZ-IpdD9NuxZTxf1437wcOeoXs6zHYOj25gpPdCxWm9jfYEgkY~WYUcRoyeY2Gt7CvoQpL8HI~FNhS1PQgTit6IIGR8sToSH89635eHPiUcN5XXNW-vygM8hTllqx1Ibz0ljybME4JBC5DXDbM8sdPQGqdt9gtD08yMm1wDTJNU5ui6aYYZqqdkRRV1Tzmwy9nQsMVhcVISQ__&amp;Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA)), Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 60, 2016.&#xD;&#xA; - Schmerse, Erik, Charles A. Ikutegbe, Amar Auckaili, and Mohammed M. Farid. 2020. [Using PCM in Two Proposed Residential Buildings in Christchurch, New Zealand](https://doi.org/10.3390/en13226025), Energies 13, no. 22: 6025.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30699" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12105" RevisionGUID="a4a0f821-5fb3-4e04-bfd5-d05c796706b0" CreationDate="2022-04-27T17:03:45.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30700" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12148" RevisionGUID="7e1dc1f9-8fe7-410e-aeed-a4d54d83f1b0" CreationDate="2022-04-27T17:30:09.230" UserId="3379" Text="My house has raised tie trusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Raised tie trusses][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that on the second floor the central part of the ceiling is flat, but near the long walls it is slanted. The trusses are 2x6 timber construction, meaning that there is minimal space for insulation in these areas (red squares in the image).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the space outlined in blue there is more space for insulation, but this area needs to be vented to prevent the roof from overheating and damaging the asphalt shingles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are planning to replace the roof with metal in the next year or two. While making this change, I would like to increase the roof insulation. Short of replacing the trusses, what are my options for improving insulation with this roof construction type?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the ideas we have considered:&#xD;&#xA;1. Open the ceiling from the inside and replace the blown-in cellulose insulation with closed cell spray foam.&#xD;&#xA;2. Add a layer of rigid foam above the sheathing and below the new roof. This may cause problems with roof venting.&#xD;&#xA;3. Remove the exterior sheathing and sister in 2x6s or even 2x8s to create additional space for insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q7A5El.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30702" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12148" RevisionGUID="7e1dc1f9-8fe7-410e-aeed-a4d54d83f1b0" CreationDate="2022-04-27T17:30:09.230" UserId="3379" Text="Solutions to increase roof insulation with raised tie trusses" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30703" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12148" RevisionGUID="7e1dc1f9-8fe7-410e-aeed-a4d54d83f1b0" CreationDate="2022-04-27T17:30:09.230" UserId="3379" Text="|home|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30709" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12148" RevisionGUID="2e89577b-1d10-4159-92ea-cec2bff5e0a8" CreationDate="2022-04-30T14:27:47.073" UserId="3379" Comment="added 150 characters in body" Text="My house has raised tie trusses:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Raised tie trusses][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that on the second floor the central part of the ceiling is flat, but near the long walls it is slanted. The trusses are 2x6 timber construction, meaning that there is minimal space for insulation in these areas (red squares in the image).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the space outlined in blue there is more space for insulation, but this area needs to be vented to prevent the roof from overheating and damaging the asphalt shingles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We are planning to replace the roof with metal in the next year or two. While making this change, I would like to increase the roof insulation. Short of replacing the trusses, what are my options for improving insulation with this roof construction type?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are the ideas we have considered:&#xD;&#xA;1. Open the ceiling from the inside and replace the blown-in cellulose insulation with closed cell spray foam.&#xD;&#xA;2. Add a layer of rigid foam above the sheathing and below the new roof. This may cause problems with roof venting.&#xD;&#xA;3. Remove the exterior sheathing and sister in 2x6s or even 2x8s to create additional space for insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is a picture of the roof from the outside showing the small vent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Picture of roof][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Q7A5El.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/UFIrol.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30710" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12150" RevisionGUID="1265fb6b-c66e-49a3-acb0-81d124044ac9" CreationDate="2022-04-30T19:57:31.043" UserId="5477" Text="In a similar situation; I cut one inch thick foil faced foam board to fit snuggly between between the joists. I left one inch space between the foam board and roof sheathing for air circulation up from the continuous eve vents. I then put 3.5 in. paper covered fiberglas batts in the remaining space between the joists. Drywall went over the batts in sloped sections. A contractor was building the house but I put in insulation except the fiberglas blown into the attic" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30712" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10734" RevisionGUID="d5482b41-a65e-4bb3-b87d-beb60d3e28e1" CreationDate="2022-04-30T20:01:20.090" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12151" RevisionGUID="2585a34e-1a47-404e-9553-64afb4943994" CreationDate="2022-05-01T12:21:22.120" UserId="6393" Text="We can estimate the efficiency of a hybrid (Toyota RAV4 hybrid, consuming 6 L / 100 km) by noting that a similar purely electric vehicle (Toyota bZ4X) consumes 0.17 kWh / km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we set the efficiency of the electric vehicle to 90% (an estimate, including losses in battery, wiring, power electronics and motor), and note that one liter of gasoline contains 9.5 kWh / liter, then the hybrid consumes 0.57 kWh / km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The estimate for the hybrid is therefore 27% (calculated from 0.17/0.57*90)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A non-hybrid (gasoline engine) would consume about 7.5 L / 100 km, and the efficiency would be therefore 21%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality, an electric vehicle has charging losses too, maybe having a charging efficiency of 93% (the 0.17 kWh / km figure does not have this charging loss included, with the charging loss it would be more like 0.18 kWh / km). The electricity distribution network has maybe an efficiency of 95%. Electricity generation from fossil fuels or nuclear power can have 30%-50% efficiency, but those generation methods are becoming more rare and we are increasingly utilizing wind power and hydropower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen cars are like electric cars so the power electronics, wiring and motor efficiency is about 90% combined, but the fuel cell is running at 50% efficiency and the hydrogen electrolyzer is running at 75% efficiency. Thus, the efficiency from the grid is about 34%. Presumably electrolyzers would be located near the electricity generation so distribution losses don't affect hydrogen. However, an electric vehicle would have efficiency of 0.93 * 0.95 * 0.9 (charging times distribution times vehicle) or 80%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can compare hydrogen's efficiency of 34% to electric vehicle total charging, driving and distribution efficiency of 80% and the electricity clearly wins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also if calculating well-to-wheels efficiency, you should include oil refining efficiency too in the gasoline models.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All these figures were in warm climates. In cold climates, efficiency of gasoline vehicles suffers only very little because you get waste heat for free, but for electric cars, the efficiency suffers a lot because you need to use a heat pump (typical these days) or even resistive heaters (typical for older Tesla models)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12152" RevisionGUID="f3dee105-3dd2-47e6-93f0-fd02636991b9" CreationDate="2022-05-01T19:41:17.837" UserId="6264" Text="I want to convince my neighbors on the idea of adopting a (white) clover lawn. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. drought-tolerant green ground cover that uses less water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. fixes nitrogen from the air for better soil and chokes out weeds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. compared to grass, only needs to be cut every 2-3 months to keep it tidy (low or no mow)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. even then only grows about 6&quot; tall while tolerating foot traffic ([quote][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. copy of quote from city administrator:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We have no ordinance prohibiting the planting of a clover lawn.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I’m unsure what height they grow to, just keep in mind we have a height limit of 1 foot for the lawn, and it must be free of noxious weeds (clover, obviously, is NOT a noxious weed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/378/6264" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30717" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12152" RevisionGUID="f3dee105-3dd2-47e6-93f0-fd02636991b9" CreationDate="2022-05-01T19:41:17.837" UserId="6264" Text="What are the benefits of clover instead of grass lawns?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30718" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12152" RevisionGUID="f3dee105-3dd2-47e6-93f0-fd02636991b9" CreationDate="2022-05-01T19:41:17.837" UserId="6264" Text="|defining-sustainability|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30719" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12153" RevisionGUID="b5d2cf1f-6714-42ea-93b8-f479fe5aaf54" CreationDate="2022-05-02T04:11:39.673" UserId="6629" Text="The Department of Energy has an equivalent infographic for electric cars [here][1].  The bottom line is 60% to 73% efficient, not counting the benefit of regenerative braking, compared with 12% to 30% efficient for gasoline powered cars.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With regenerative braking included, they say 77% to 100% efficient.  I don't understand the basis for the 100% figure, and the pop-up description is not helpful, saying &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; An EV’s electric motor stops when the vehicle stops. The motor doesn't waste energy idling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The efficiency is clearly much higher, primarily because the extremely inefficient conversion from heat to mechanical power has been eliminated in the car.  Of course, electricity has to be generated somewhere to charge the car, so the total system efficiency is lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv-ev.shtml&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/qdra1.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12152" RevisionGUID="421e55d8-0096-4ff5-b2fe-fc105a1fbf54" CreationDate="2022-05-02T13:17:39.060" UserId="6264" Comment="added 32 characters in body" Text="I want to convince my neighbors on the idea of adopting a (white) clover lawn. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. drought-tolerant green ground cover that uses less water&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. fixes nitrogen from the air for better soil and chokes out weeds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. compared to grass, only needs to be cut every 2-3 months to keep it tidy (low or no mow)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. even then only grows about 6&quot; tall while tolerating foot traffic ([quote][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 5. copy of quote from city administrator:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We have no ordinance prohibiting the planting of a clover lawn.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I’m unsure what height they grow to, just keep in mind we have a height limit of 1 foot for the lawn, and it must be free of noxious weeds (clover, obviously, is NOT a noxious weed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What other benefits are there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/378/6264" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30722" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="1d8246be-4d72-4923-8906-f66cc0b81846" CreationDate="2022-05-03T15:39:51.683" UserId="3379" Text="## Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cars get very hot in the sun.** From the study [Evaluating the impact of solar radiation on pediatric heat balance within enclosed, hot vehicles](https://doi.org/10.1080/23328940.2018.1468205) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In direct solar radiation, a greenhouse situation occurs within the vehicle, trapping longwave radiation and heating the vehicle interior to a steady-state with little-to-no airflow. This situation of radiation trapping highlights the importance of solar exposure in vehicle heating and child vulnerability, even on milder days. **In as little as five minutes under an ambient temperature of 30°C [86°F], interior car temperatures can rise to 57–68°C [135-154°F]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Using air conditioning (AC) reduces vehicle efficiency.** [According to the Department of Energy](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hotweather.shtml) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Under very hot conditions, **AC use can reduce a conventional vehicle's fuel economy by more than 25%**, particularly on short trips. The AC's effect on hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric vehicles (EVs) can be even larger on a percentage basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Most car trips are short.** 85% of all car trips in the U.S. are 15 miles or shorter, [according to the Department of Energy](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1042-august-13-2018-2017-nearly-60-all-vehicle-trips-were-less-six-miles):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Share of Vehicle Trips by Trip Distance, 2017][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If cars were parked in the shade, how much energy could this save?** I'm imagining parking lots at workplaces and shopping centers having canopies installed to shade all vehicles so that they aren't blistering hot at the start of a short trip. If some *x%* of vehicles in *x region* were parked in the shade *x%* of the time, how much gasoline, diesel, or electric energy would this save?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wi6ifl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30724" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="1d8246be-4d72-4923-8906-f66cc0b81846" CreationDate="2022-05-03T15:39:51.683" UserId="3379" Text="How much energy would parking cars in the shade save?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30725" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="1d8246be-4d72-4923-8906-f66cc0b81846" CreationDate="2022-05-03T15:39:51.683" UserId="3379" Text="|energy|cars|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30726" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12155" RevisionGUID="2682f15b-5f9b-4a0d-a709-f2493830fd87" CreationDate="2022-05-03T17:44:23.033" UserId="6393" Text="Not very much. The parts of interest to cool are the seats and the air inside the car. If the cabin is three meters long, 1.5 meters wide and 1.5 meters high, then there's 6.75 cubic meters of air. At density 1.2 kg / m3, that's 8.1 kilograms.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Air has 1 kJ/kgC heat capacity. I don't believe that the car gets more than 40 degrees Celsius hotter than the environment. Thus, the cooling needed is 0.324 MJ.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Engines have a marginal efficiency of maybe 35%. Air conditioning compressors generally have an energy efficiency rating of maybe 2.5. Thus, you need 0.324 MJ / 2.5 / 0.35 = 0.370 MJ of fuel to cool down the cabin. Fuel has 34 MJ / liter energy content so that's about 0.01 liters of fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With 0.01 liters of fuel, a car could travel about 160 meters. Compare that to your typical car trip of 10-30 kilometers. That's not even one percent of fuel saving!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously considering the surface layers of the seat insulation too would somewhat increase the mass to be cooled and the needed energy. Note that seats have thermally insulating material so you don't need to cool down the heavy metal seat frames, and not even the whole insulation, but just the very surface of the insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also consider that if the air is 40 degrees Celsius hotter than outside air, then just blowing in colder outside air without any air conditioning would remove most of the heat. I suspect even when the AC is operating, in the very initial cooling stages, most of the effort is just blowing air in, and not actively cooling it. This would diminish the fuel savings to an even smaller value." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30728" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12152" RevisionGUID="634810de-7061-4091-bb76-da0f0f13398e" CreationDate="2022-05-04T05:50:47.980" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|gardening|plants|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12158" RevisionGUID="ac682032-1c85-4633-a6db-4fd2e9df2d1c" CreationDate="2022-05-06T16:40:57.343" UserId="6393" Text="Currently, it's very beneficial but this will change in future.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today, the most important new clean energy sources are wind power and solar power. Hydropower is usually available only in limited quantities, and only in some areas, although there are areas like Norway that have plenty of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both solar and wind are weather dependent. If you are using electricity at times where solar and wind are unavailable or available in a very limited way, you are using fossil fuel produced electricity, most likely a natural gas fired power plant, although some areas may use oil fired power plants and China is still constructing coal power plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, lithium ion batteries are becoming cheap very fast. This means it's more and more economical to charge a large lithium ion battery during daytime when the sun is shining and solar power is plentiful, and discharge it during the night. So very soon it's actually the case that you can use solar power even during the night!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, lithium ion batteries don't solve the seasonality issue of solar power in high latitudes where there's practically none of it during the winter. Wind power is available during winter too but only when it's windy. If it's winter and it's calm, you can't charge the lithium ion batteries with solar power and the calm period may last so long, even over a week, that lithium ion batteries big enough to last during that period longer than week would be ridiculously expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in an area with near plentiful hydropower with storage pools, on calm winter days clean hydropower would provide the electricity needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in areas with practically no hydro storage pools like Germany, where there's still a real winter, the electricity would be produced by combined cycle gas turbine power plants during calm winter days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those gas turbines will likely eventually be modified to run on hydrogen. Hydrogen can be stored underground like natural gas, be transported in pipelines like natural gas, and be used in turbines designed or modified to work on hydrogen. Hydrogen can be created from water and electricity using electrolysis. Today the electrolysis cells are so expensive (and we still don't have enough wind and solar power to reduce price of electricity to zero during favorable weather) that clean hydrogen isn't cost-competitive with natural gas, but this is rapidly changing due to the falling prices of electrolysis cells, and also due to a certain maniac called Putin who has made natural gas ridiculously expensive in Europe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So although today it's useful to consume electricity only when either wind or solar power is plentiful at the time of consuming electricity, it won't take long until the situation changes." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30739" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12159" RevisionGUID="9aa0f867-7222-4b6b-8947-8bf6f5cf8c58" CreationDate="2022-05-07T14:26:28.840" UserId="13960" Text="In a reasonably cold climate like Hamburg, Germany where the standard practice is to open all your windows in the winter for 20 minutes once a day to ventilate your home (Stoßlüften or “shock-ventilation” as [promoted by the German government](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.10.020)), would a heat recovery ventilator or energy recovery ventilator be a more efficient solution than opening the windows once a day as is standard practice in a nation where many residents pride themselves on the energy efficiency of their homes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of [this similar question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/114/13960) which asks for a non-specific location and answered with what appears to be mostly non-objective American sensibilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just find it hard to believe that an advanced nation like Germany could continue promoting “shock-ventilation” as opposed to pushing for regulations to include an ERV/HRV in new construction projects unless the practice is at least as efficient as an ERV/HRV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly an ERV/HRV is more convenient for day-to-day ventilation (you don’t have to stop and open your windows once a day for 20 minutes) and you don’t have to wait for your home to warm up again, but if you can live with the inconvenience like the Germans do, is it more efficient under any circumstances to do “shock-ventilation”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30741" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12159" RevisionGUID="9aa0f867-7222-4b6b-8947-8bf6f5cf8c58" CreationDate="2022-05-07T14:26:28.840" UserId="13960" Text="Is it more energy efficient to ventilate a home with an HRV/ERV or “shock-ventilation”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30742" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12159" RevisionGUID="9aa0f867-7222-4b6b-8947-8bf6f5cf8c58" CreationDate="2022-05-07T14:26:28.840" UserId="13960" Text="|energy-efficiency|ventilation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12159" RevisionGUID="523f2654-4bca-4722-ba2b-3679d3e018bb" CreationDate="2022-05-07T20:47:58.513" UserId="13960" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="In a reasonably cold climate like Hamburg, Germany where the standard practice is to open all your windows in the winter for up to 20 minutes once a day to ventilate your home (Stoßlüften or “shock-ventilation” as [promoted by the German government](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.10.020)), would a heat recovery ventilator or energy recovery ventilator be a more efficient solution than opening the windows once a day as is standard practice in a nation where many residents pride themselves on the energy efficiency of their homes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of [this similar question](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/114/13960) which asks for a non-specific location and answered with what appears to be mostly non-objective American sensibilities.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I just find it hard to believe that an advanced nation like Germany could continue promoting “shock-ventilation” as opposed to pushing for regulations to include an ERV/HRV in new construction projects unless the practice is at least as efficient as an ERV/HRV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Certainly an ERV/HRV is more convenient for day-to-day ventilation (you don’t have to stop and open your windows once a day for 20 minutes) and you don’t have to wait for your home to warm up again, but if you can live with the inconvenience like the Germans do, is it more efficient under any circumstances to do “shock-ventilation”?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30744" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12160" RevisionGUID="e098b4af-81cf-4d1a-b169-27f302107d75" CreationDate="2022-05-08T01:54:42.663" UserId="13962" Text="I'm building an [open source climate accounting application][1], and I'm looking for emissions factors of electricity generation. There is data from both the UK government ([2020][2]) and the EPA ([2020][3]), but the two don't agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the top half, which is eGRID data, the US generated 4,021,549,453 MWH of electricity which produced 1,654,106,291 tons of CO2e emissions, so the emissions factor should be about 0.41.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the bottom half, though, the UK government data shows 0.06644 for generation and 0.00434 for transmission and distribution. So the total is only 0.07078.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why such a big difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://github.com/opentaps/blockchain-carbon-accounting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.epa.gov/egrid/download-data&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/z10MW.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30746" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12160" RevisionGUID="e098b4af-81cf-4d1a-b169-27f302107d75" CreationDate="2022-05-08T01:54:42.663" UserId="13962" Text="Why do the UK and US EPA electricity emissions factors differ?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30747" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12160" RevisionGUID="e098b4af-81cf-4d1a-b169-27f302107d75" CreationDate="2022-05-08T01:54:42.663" UserId="13962" Text="|electricity-generation|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12161" RevisionGUID="3a6d3d38-914b-4339-81b4-45d53a23f4bd" CreationDate="2022-05-08T02:33:39.323" UserId="2345" Text="You need to look at how each country generates electricity, how much CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; does each generation method produce and how much electricity is generated by each method.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Generation  Energy    CO2&#xD;&#xA;    Method      Produced  Produced&#xD;&#xA;                 (GWh)     (Tonnes)&#xD;&#xA;    Coal&#xD;&#xA;    Gas&#xD;&#xA;    Diesel/Oil&#xD;&#xA;    Hydro&#xD;&#xA;    Nuclear&#xD;&#xA;    Solar&#xD;&#xA;    Wind&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You will find that each country has a different mix of electricity generating methods. [Britain][1] has a significant generation from offshore wind farms, which produce little if any CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. It also has significantly less coal generation than it used to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [US][2] has a different mix.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_the_United_Kingdom&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.motive-power.com/npuc-resource/the-united-states-electricity-mixas-featured-on-visual-capitalist/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30750" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12160" RevisionGUID="7a8a1237-314b-4be1-a751-feec42be3511" CreationDate="2022-05-08T09:57:36.523" />
  <row Id="30751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12162" RevisionGUID="28b9def1-f7b6-42e0-ada5-fa6a48279a7f" CreationDate="2022-05-08T11:54:56.290" UserId="6393" Text="The big questions of ventilation are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* How much air is exchanged&#xD;&#xA;* How much heat (or coldness) is recovered from the exhaust air&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A perfect ventilation system for homes would have at least 0.5 air changes per hour and would recover 100% of the heat (or coldness) from the exhaust air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means the perfect ventilation system would not cause any additional heating or air conditioning need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're not there yet. We can achieve any air change rate, but the 100% heat recovery cannot be achieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problems of opening the windows are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* It's not a constant ventilation but rather too much ventilation during too little time, and then when you close the windows again, ventilation rate drops to practically zero&#xD;&#xA;* Even during the time the windows are open, the ventilation rate is not constant, but rather dependent on wind for example&#xD;&#xA;* Exactly zero percent of the heat in exhaust air is recovered&#xD;&#xA;* Pollen is not filtered away from the incoming air unlike it is in centralized systems that have air filters&#xD;&#xA;* It is manual, requires additional effort to ventilate unlike centralized systems that are fully automatic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say opening the windows is the crudest possible ventilation system, to be avoided at all costs. It's not energy efficient unless you ventilate so little that it would be unhealthy due to accumulating volatile organic compounds inside the home air.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In real exhaust heat recovery ventilation systems, about 70-90% of the exhaust heat can be recovered. Far better than 0% of opening the windows. It also helps when the  outside air is warmer than inside air. Then it recovers coldness, allowing to reduce air conditioning need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An alternative for rapid ventilation would be to have less rapid ventilation combined with air purifiers. However, a good air purifier that actually works (so that it has a large particle pre-filter, a volatile organic compound filter, and a HEPA filter for small particles) has huge filter costs, surprisingly consumes lots of electricity, generally makes a louder sound than ventilation systems, and also steals non-negligible floor area away from your home. However, if you live in a rental home or an apartment building so that you can't affect the centralized ventilation system since you don't own it, operating an air purifier could be the only way to achieve better indoor air." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12163" RevisionGUID="29bf354a-cfee-4c44-b37d-98e6b4976383" CreationDate="2022-05-08T13:19:01.630" UserId="13962" Text="Actually the reason is that these UK conversions factors are for Scope 3 (indirect) emissions from electricity in those countries.  The UK does publish the direct emissions of electricity generation but only for the UK.  You can see it here for only UK:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KYsfZ.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30755" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12160" RevisionGUID="b0784157-c70a-4a56-85cd-741bc05e490d" CreationDate="2022-05-08T15:53:34.607" UserId="13962" Comment="added 66 characters in body" Text="I'm building an [open source climate accounting application][1], and I'm looking for emissions factors of electricity generation for the same country from two different data sets. There is data from both the UK government ([2020][2]) and the EPA ([2020][3]), but the two don't agree:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the top half, which is eGRID data, the US generated 4,021,549,453 MWH of electricity which produced 1,654,106,291 tons of CO2e emissions, so the emissions factor should be about 0.41.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to the bottom half, though, the UK government data shows 0.06644 for generation and 0.00434 for transmission and distribution of US electricy. So the total is only 0.07078.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why such a big difference?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://github.com/opentaps/blockchain-carbon-accounting&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2020&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.epa.gov/egrid/download-data&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/z10MW.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30756" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12164" RevisionGUID="81f77480-89cc-4123-97b3-088fa9fe0573" CreationDate="2022-05-08T16:31:58.523" UserId="13963" Text="(Also asked in Engineering Stack Exchange)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm buying a new place in the northern hemisphere (49° N) with lots of southern (or rather SES) exposure. I'm putting quite a bit of thought (together with an architect) into how to improve its energy performance. I'm particularly interested in passive heating and cooling.  I have actually just written a little simulation that lets me see where direct sunlight will fall at a particular date and time: &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What kind of material do I want on e.g. cabinet doors to absorb direct sunlight during winter days and then give it back as heat in the course of the day or evening? (The doors would be where the sun simply doesn't fall during summer months.) Does a waxed hardwood floor absorb more sunlight than a vitrified one? What should one do during the summer if one doesn't want to just pull the shutters all the way down - use light-colored rugs? (Of what material?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Climate zone Cfb. Heat waves during the summer are a thing; AC is not. It can be rather cloudy during the winter, so it's unclear to me that I will be able to get much passive heating, but every bit helps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/s7Zeo.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30758" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12164" RevisionGUID="81f77480-89cc-4123-97b3-088fa9fe0573" CreationDate="2022-05-08T16:31:58.523" UserId="13963" Text="What materials to use indoors to absorb sunlight and store it as heat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30759" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12164" RevisionGUID="81f77480-89cc-4123-97b3-088fa9fe0573" CreationDate="2022-05-08T16:31:58.523" UserId="13963" Text="|heating|light|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30760" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="aba90ada-afa2-44db-b2e9-b5b6331fe8c7" CreationDate="2022-05-09T00:51:43.827" UserId="3379" Comment="added tl;dr" Text="**tl;dr:** Cars get hot in the sun and it takes a lot of energy to cool them off. But most car trips are short, so the cars may not even get cool during that time. If they were parked in the shade, they would cool off faster, saving energy -- but how much?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Background&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cars get very hot in the sun.** From the study [Evaluating the impact of solar radiation on pediatric heat balance within enclosed, hot vehicles](https://doi.org/10.1080/23328940.2018.1468205) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; In direct solar radiation, a greenhouse situation occurs within the vehicle, trapping longwave radiation and heating the vehicle interior to a steady-state with little-to-no airflow. This situation of radiation trapping highlights the importance of solar exposure in vehicle heating and child vulnerability, even on milder days. **In as little as five minutes under an ambient temperature of 30°C [86°F], interior car temperatures can rise to 57–68°C [135-154°F]**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Using air conditioning (AC) reduces vehicle efficiency.** [According to the Department of Energy](https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hotweather.shtml) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Under very hot conditions, **AC use can reduce a conventional vehicle's fuel economy by more than 25%**, particularly on short trips. The AC's effect on hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric vehicles (EVs) can be even larger on a percentage basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Most car trips are short.** 85% of all car trips in the U.S. are 15 miles or shorter, [according to the Department of Energy](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1042-august-13-2018-2017-nearly-60-all-vehicle-trips-were-less-six-miles):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Share of Vehicle Trips by Trip Distance, 2017][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Question&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**If cars were parked in the shade, how much energy could this save?** I'm imagining parking lots at workplaces and shopping centers having canopies installed to shade all vehicles so that they aren't blistering hot at the start of a short trip. If some *x%* of vehicles in *x region* were parked in the shade *x%* of the time, how much gasoline, diesel, or electric energy would this save?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/wi6ifl.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30761" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12154" RevisionGUID="aba90ada-afa2-44db-b2e9-b5b6331fe8c7" CreationDate="2022-05-09T00:51:43.827" UserId="3379" Comment="added tl;dr" Text="How much energy would it save to park cars in the shade in summer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12165" RevisionGUID="c0650fdd-864e-4e88-9002-fa8c7066b7d6" CreationDate="2022-05-09T17:18:54.950" UserId="6393" Text="The answer is very clear: since large enough quantities of phase change material with a melting point near the indoor temperatures are expensive, you want to use water. Water isn't a phase change material near indoor temperatures (the phase change is zero degrees Celsius), but water stores a lot of energy per one degree of temperature change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water stores 4190 joules per degree Celsius per kilogram, and is cheap as dirt. You won't find many other materials where a degree of temperature change would store as much energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use water for a similar purpose: I want my refrigerators to withstand a long power cut. So I have put large containers of water in the refrigerators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Water also has the benefit that it's a liquid so it's easy to transport. So you can have a huge container of it, and then pump it through heat exchangers using pipes to actually distribute the heat to indoor air, and you can also construct large solar collectors where water is flowing and collecting heat, to be stored in the huge container." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30764" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12033" RevisionGUID="0b056563-0413-4c0d-8cd2-afb0d08c0ec1" CreationDate="2022-05-10T12:00:03.223" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1523996284046262273" />
  <row Id="30765" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12166" RevisionGUID="75893ac7-6719-4d9d-b70b-c4ed6d1736c8" CreationDate="2022-05-10T13:22:59.017" UserId="13969" Text="HC in the case of the pollutant class refers to unburnt or partially burnt hydrocarbons not directly to particulate. They are an unwanted product of all engine types, not just diesel and actually diesel engines produces less unburnt HC than equivalent gasoline engines because the fuel ignition is not localised around the spark plug. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particulate includes ash/soot particles formed around impurities, it is measured with laser sensors and that result is not classified as HC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30767" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12166" RevisionGUID="723a526a-efbc-466f-8b13-d6ddf85d9910" CreationDate="2022-05-10T17:46:56.950" UserId="13969" Comment="added 127 characters in body" Text="HC in the case of the pollutant class refers to unburnt or partially burnt hydrocarbons not directly to particulate. That includes all types of hydrocarbons, what you get at the exhaust depends on the composition on the fuel and the additives. They are an unwanted product of all engine types, not just diesel and actually diesel engines produces less unburnt HC than equivalent gasoline engines because the fuel ignition is not localised around the spark plug. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Particulate includes ash/soot particles formed around impurities, it is measured with laser sensors and that result is not classified as HC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30772" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12111" RevisionGUID="a8059bb8-91b3-450e-bc6e-28818712feba" CreationDate="2022-05-13T13:07:55.767" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30773" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12168" RevisionGUID="cd63d1a3-2c1c-4c78-a71a-4a31cef1b01d" CreationDate="2022-05-14T12:49:52.670" UserId="13980" Text="As a software engineer and advocate for sustainability I'd love to take my discipline and make a positive impact e.g. monitoring sun levels and raising blinds to tune the interior temperature etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However I'm struggling to find initiatives with a wider impact to get involved in e.g. open source. I think because I'm uncertain of the communities and search terms to discover them. And more broadly what the wider issues are that can be impacted with software, that aren't private.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do people have any good resources? P&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30775" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12168" RevisionGUID="cd63d1a3-2c1c-4c78-a71a-4a31cef1b01d" CreationDate="2022-05-14T12:49:52.670" UserId="13980" Text="Software engineering to aid the environment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30776" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12168" RevisionGUID="cd63d1a3-2c1c-4c78-a71a-4a31cef1b01d" CreationDate="2022-05-14T12:49:52.670" UserId="13980" Text="|product-design|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30777" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12169" RevisionGUID="87cdd6a2-572b-4a54-93a6-0028cb46d63d" CreationDate="2022-05-14T17:16:06.683" UserId="13988" Text="I would have insisted on Kinetic Step panels. But that might be expensive, even the installation to routing the whole house. But if DIY isn't problem perhaps. Someone could re-engineering the Kinetic Floor Tiles concept into an affordable one" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30779" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12170" RevisionGUID="73040523-c063-4ebb-879e-e663b944a580" CreationDate="2022-05-14T17:55:25.470" UserId="6393" Text="I think as a software engineer by far the best you can do for the environment is working with compiled languages. That's languages that use pre-compiled code like C, C++, Go or Rust, or languages that are compiled to bytecode and the JIT'd to machine code like Java, or languages that are directly JIT'd like many JavaScript implementations similar to NodeJS/V8 do or like LuaJIT does (although there are implementation of JavaScript and Lua that are not JIT'd).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find C, C++, Go, Rust, Java, NodeJS or LuaJIT isn't good for some use, such as due to lack of libraries, you can implement the missing library and share it on Github.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason this is important is that interpreted languages are 30 times slower than compiled languages. This matters due to two reasons. Firstly, computers that run programs made in interpreted languages use 30x more dynamic energy (although there's always a small constant idle energy use) and secondly, if many computer programs are inoptimally implemented in interpreted languages, this means more powerful computers need to be purchased more often, and more of these computers are needed. Electronics manufacturing creates a surprisingly large amount of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, especially if it's happening in China like it's nowadays.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are really ambitious and willing to become a guru, perhaps you could start working on LuaJIT. The sole author, Mike Pall, has abandoned the project and nobody has stepped in to become the new maintainer. However, I have to warn that becoming the new LuaJIT maintainer is not for amateur developers, it requires so much expertise that for example I would be unfit for the job." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30785" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="12168" RevisionGUID="ab3c3d4e-b9f5-4e5b-9345-73c508537be2" CreationDate="2022-05-15T12:55:18.447" UserId="3379" Comment="101" Text="{&quot;OriginalQuestionIds&quot;:[4709],&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:8232,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robotnik&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="30791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12173" RevisionGUID="5f09249d-c97c-4636-ab3e-4a766a9f7ccb" CreationDate="2022-05-17T19:19:44.807" UserId="3379" Text="# LShaver&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi, I'm LShaver! I'm an electrical and energy engineer in Wisconsin, USA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# My story&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During college I got stuck while programming a microgrid, and [asked a question on Stack Overflow](https://stackoverflow.com/q/33702261). Within 3 minutes I had a solution, and I was hooked. Soon I found Sustainability.SE, [wrote my first answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/5259), and fell in love.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why sustainability matters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Climate change is *the* issue of our time, and sustainability is about making choices big and small that address it. This site connects people to share knowledge, learn skills, and work together to build a sustainable society.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why I'd make a good moderator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been on the site for over 6 years, the last 2 as a moderator. I [ask lots of questions](https://data.stackexchange.com/sustainability/query/1187874), and [keep an eye out](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/help/badges/70).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an active member, meta regular, current moderator, I understand the guiding principles well. Whether elected or not, I look forward to helping the community grow through active participation and community-building." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30794" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12174" RevisionGUID="9093a2de-5e61-46c3-a4d2-980738387873" CreationDate="2022-05-17T19:19:44.807" UserId="3379" Text="&gt; 1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming that the standard approach of a 7 day suspension for first offense and 30 day suspension for second offense has already been implemented, I would consult with fellow site moderators and consider implementing a one year suspension. If that has already been attempted, I would reach out to the network moderators and community managers to discuss next steps, including whether a permanent ban may be called for. I find that good citizens are more valuable and harder to find than good answer-writers, so I'm willing to lose the latter if it means we can attract more of the former.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would contact the moderator directly to understand their reasons for the action they took, assuming they observed or are aware of something that I am not. If the two of us are not able to agree on a course of action, I would suggest we enlist additional moderators (on our site or across the network) to seek advice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Since Covid started early 2020, participation on Sustainable Living SE has declined somewhat. What do you think is the best way to increase this again and make sure the site continues to grow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Participate! While there may be ways to advertise and drive traffic to the site, we first need to make sure we provide a consistently valuable experience to new visitors. There are three specific ways I would like to see this community improve:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. [Vote early and often.](https://sustainability.meta.stackexchange.com/q/386/3379) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Write good answers. Answers that help people solve their problems or reach a deeper understanding of a complicated issue bring people back and attract new members. The best answers on are either well-researched, based on direct personal experience, or both. These types of answers take some work, but are most likely to provide real value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Ask good questions. There are a lot of smart folks who hang out on the site just waiting for those good questions to unleash their brilliance. A solid supply of good questions means that there will be a solid supply of ways for people to engage!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suppose a user posts several plausible answers on a topic you are less familiar with and nicely backs those answers up with references. On closer inspection it turns out that all references link to research funded by organisations that are known to be climate change deniers. What do you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it is clear that the user is an employee of one of those organizations, I would leave a comment that they need to disclose their affiliation -- if they don't do so within a day or so, I would flag the answer as spam. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise, I would point out these problematic sources in a comment to warn other users, downvote the answer, and move on (just as I would do if I were not a moderator). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Longer term, if this user or these answers generate a lot of flags, I would consult with the other moderators to discuss next steps (such as applying a post notice).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. You (a moderator) and another community member both answer a question on the main site. The other answer is well written but (objectively) incorrect, and has gathered a similar amount of upvotes to yours. What do you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I consider this to be an example where a moderator status doesn't apply. If nothing in the answer is a flaggable offense, then I'd simply downvote and move on, perhaps with a comment explaining why I believe the answer is wrong. If anything *is* a flaggable offense (such as plagiarism), I would point it out to the other mods, as flagging by a moderator causes instant deletion (the so-called &quot;mod-hammer&quot;) which could be interpreted as an abuse of power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. In your opinion, what do moderators do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators have three main roles, listed by importance:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Respond to flags&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Deal with problematic users (that is, those that generate a lot of flags)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Serve as a liaison between the community and Stack Exchange corporate / the community managers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This last role mostly revolves around communicating to the CMs any concerns that are raised by the community (typically on our meta site), or communicating to the community any relevant news or changes to the Stack Exchange network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've made a consistent effort to be a valuable contributor to this site, and don't believe that any of my prior contributions would be considered unfit for a mod -- though if they were challenged I would defer to the other mods to decide the appropriate response.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While flags on this site rare, they do happen -- and moderators are needed to address them. I'm also passionate about the mission of this site, and being a mod provides some opportunity to support the growth of the site (through collaboration with the community managers) that I wouldn't have as a high rep user." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12175" RevisionGUID="57348c86-6fc9-4a9a-87c3-18ba2bffa273" CreationDate="2022-05-18T03:38:52.240" UserId="8232" Text="# Robotnik&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My name is Ryan, I'm an Australian software developer and an active Stack Exchange community member for over 10 years. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I joined Sustainable Living in late 2019, and ran in the previous election. I was a little green (ha!), but I feel I've learned so much more about the community over the last two years. I am passionate about living sustainably and reducing our impact and footprints at a personal and community level. Over the last few years especially, I've been able to implement some of my personal sustainability goals (always more to do!), as well as submitting to local council on sustainability practices on a larger scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Moderation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm an active mod on Arqade (Gaming SE), I also have experience administrating groups on other platforms (Discord/Facebook)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I regularly edit, participate in meta discussions &amp; reviews, and browse older questions/answers to see if they need updating or improving. I have a track record of positive engagement, and I respect and uphold community decisions that I may not personally agree with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I feel that I have the necessary experience, personality and mindset to help moderate Sustainability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30798" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12176" RevisionGUID="b33091cf-a5b0-48a5-a60a-4d10b17439d8" CreationDate="2022-05-18T03:38:52.240" UserId="8232" Text="&gt; 1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, when someone's actions are causing issues (especially for repeated ongoing arguments or flags), I would use a one-on-one chat, or private mod message. I'd highlight the pattern of behaviour with specific examples, explain why it's an issue, and how to avoid those same patterns of behavior in the future. If nothing changed in the days or weeks following that message, or the pattern of behaviour got worse, I would escalate to a formal warning or suspension, if warranted. Ultimately, the users reputation or history of valuable answers wouldn't really be a factor here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods are representatives of the community and by using their mod powers to close or delete something, they would usually be upholding the community's rules and values in their actions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would first discuss it with them privately. Maybe there's some context I've missed, and the closure/delete makes sense following that explanation. Or, maybe I've got a suggestion or an edit which could warrant a reopen or undelete? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we can't reach a consensus on it ourselves, I would offer to create a meta discussion about it (if there wasn't already one), so that the wider community can weigh in and find a solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Since Covid started early 2020, participation on Sustainable Living SE has declined somewhat. What do you think is the best way to increase this again and make sure the site continues to grow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot of things that can affect site growth, and just as equally, I'd say there isn't one &quot;best&quot; way to increase it. We should try multiple different strategies - starting with increasing engagement through site events (eg topic challenges), cross-SE advertising (community promotion ads, and making sure our HNQ questions shine), updating question titles and tags to rank better in search engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More directly, we could reach out to other like-minded sustainability groups on the net (and offline), offering to be a resource for organising information and presenting it in the Q&amp;A format - if that's a direction the community wants to take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suppose a user posts several plausible answers on a topic you are less familiar with and nicely backs those answers up with references. On closer inspection it turns out that all references link to research funded by organisations that are known to be climate change deniers. What do you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would probably take this to the community in the form of a Meta question. If something feels off, but not in a way that I can pinpoint within my scope of expertise, this is the safest action to get the wider community (and therefore, the experts) to take a closer look. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. You (a moderator) and another community member both answer a question on the main site. The other answer is well written but (objectively) incorrect, and has gathered a similar amount of upvotes to yours. What do you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would leave my misgivings as a comment under their post. If there was a serious flaw in their logic in a way that could cause harm (eg &quot;Touch the live wire, it's fine!&quot;), I would edit out the portion myself, but also ask another moderator to weigh in and take it to meta where it could be discussed in more detail by the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. In your opinion, what do moderators do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're representatives *of* the community, *from* the community. Thus, moderators are present and active in guiding the community, and act as a go-between for bringing community issues to Stack Exchange. They also have the power handle the janitorial stuff: deletion/undeletion, merging questions, renaming/merging tags, as well as deal with problematic users and the occasional spammer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that's fine. I have nothing to hide in that regard - if there's an issue with anything I've said in the past, I'm happy to address it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While access to those tools are certainly useful for site moderation, I've found in my experience that my most often used tool is my voice (well, a computer keyboard, but let's not nitpick). Community moderation often comes down to how you present yourself publicly. As a moderator, I can help guide the community easier: comments, chat messages, meta posts and other actions will carry more weight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30801" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12175" RevisionGUID="d26b2f70-0287-4321-a45d-babc06159795" CreationDate="2022-05-18T05:08:19.453" UserId="8232" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="# Robotnik&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My name is Ryan, I'm an Australian software developer and an active Stack Exchange community member (for over 10 years).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I joined Sustainable Living in late 2019, and ran in the previous election. I was a little green (ha!), but I feel I've learned so much more about the community over the last two years. I am passionate about living sustainably and reducing our impact and footprints at a personal and community level. Over the last few years especially, I've been able to implement some of my personal sustainability goals (always more to do!), as well as submitting to local council on sustainability practices on a larger scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Moderation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm an active mod on Arqade (Gaming SE), I also have experience administrating large communities on other platforms (Discord/Facebook)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I regularly edit, participate in meta discussions &amp; reviews, and browse older questions/answers to see if they need updating or improving. I have a track record of positive engagement, and I respect and uphold community decisions that I may not personally agree with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on this, I feel that I have the necessary experience, personality and mindset to help moderate Sustainability." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30802" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12176" RevisionGUID="e6219589-9ff9-495d-ba58-73b98a582e17" CreationDate="2022-05-18T05:08:19.453" UserId="8232" Comment="deleted 4 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally speaking, when someone's actions are causing issues (especially for repeated ongoing arguments or flags), I would use a one-on-one chat, or private mod message. I'd highlight the pattern of behaviour with specific examples, explain why it's an issue, and how to avoid those same patterns of behavior in the future. If nothing changed in the days or weeks following that message, or the pattern of behaviour got worse, I would escalate to a formal warning or suspension, if warranted. Ultimately, the users reputation or history of valuable answers wouldn't really be a factor here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods are representatives of the community and by using their mod powers to close or delete something, they would usually be upholding the community's rules and values in their actions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, I would first discuss it with them privately. Maybe there's some context I've missed, and the closure/delete makes sense following that explanation. Or, maybe I've got a suggestion or an edit which could warrant a reopen or undelete?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we can't reach a consensus on it ourselves, I would offer to create a meta discussion about it (if there wasn't already one), so that the wider community can weigh in and find a solution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Since Covid started early 2020, participation on Sustainable Living SE has declined somewhat. What do you think is the best way to increase this again and make sure the site continues to grow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a lot of things that can affect site growth, and just as equally, I'd say there isn't one &quot;best&quot; way to increase it. We should try multiple different strategies - starting with increasing engagement through site events (eg topic challenges), cross-SE advertising (community promotion ads, and making sure our HNQ questions shine), updating question titles and tags to rank better in search engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More directly, we could reach out to other like-minded sustainability groups on the net (and offline), offering to be a resource for organising information and presenting it in the Q&amp;A format - if that's a direction the community wants to take.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suppose a user posts several plausible answers on a topic you are less familiar with and nicely backs those answers up with references. On closer inspection it turns out that all references link to research funded by organisations that are known to be climate change deniers. What do you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would probably take this to the community in the form of a Meta question. If something feels off, but not in a way that I can pinpoint within my scope of expertise, this is the safest action to get the wider community (and therefore, the experts) to take a closer look.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. You (a moderator) and another community member both answer a question on the main site. The other answer is well written but (objectively) incorrect, and has gathered a similar amount of upvotes to yours. What do you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would leave my misgivings as a comment under their post. If there was a serious flaw in their logic in a way that could cause harm (eg &quot;Touch the live wire, it's fine!&quot;), I would edit out the portion myself, but also ask another moderator to weigh in and take it to meta where it could be discussed in more detail by the community.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. In your opinion, what do moderators do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We're representatives *of* the community, *from* the community. Thus, moderators are present and active in guiding the community, and act as a go-between for bringing community issues to Stack Exchange. They also have the power handle the janitorial stuff: deletion/undeletion, merging questions, renaming/merging tags, as well as deal with problematic users and the occasional spammer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that's fine. I have nothing to hide in that regard - if there's an issue with anything I've said in the past, I'm happy to address it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While access to those tools are certainly useful for site moderation, I've found in my experience that my most often used tool is my voice (well, a computer keyboard, but let's not nitpick). Community moderation often comes down to how you present yourself publicly. As a moderator, I can help guide the community easier: comments, chat messages, meta posts and other actions will carry more weight." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30804" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12136" RevisionGUID="281b033c-c68f-427d-8d34-6a9df5ed8aa9" CreationDate="2022-05-18T10:52:20.463" UserId="8232" Comment="Link formatting; Added quote from link; Some minor formatting,  sentence &amp; grammar fixes" Text="YouTube [reformats all uploaded videos][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; YouTube stores whatever you upload and transcodes to other formats using their own versions of multiple compression formats including h.264 and webm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the energy consumption needed for the user to encode the video would be negligible compared to that used to read your video by many users on YouTube.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, by far the most efficient way to mitigate energy consumption from this process, would be that *Google* chooses one of the lowest resolution as a default quality when a video is played. At the moment, the default is the highest resolution, even when we don't watch the image and only need the sound for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/12449/how-does-youtube-convert-between-different-videos-resolutions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30806" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="2357" RevisionGUID="ff7600d1-1fc9-4a18-9c97-7cf7f26ce7a2" CreationDate="2022-05-18T11:17:49.557" UserId="8232" Comment="Remove overuse of bold/italicformatting" Text="I believe electric cars are much more efficient than the classic combustion engine, they do not give off pollutants like the combustion engine cars. But they do produce ill wanted chemicals producing the electricity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30807" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5516" RevisionGUID="192355e3-8b63-480d-b964-be76bf670ed4" CreationDate="2022-05-18T11:21:11.137" UserId="8232" Comment="formatting and paragraphinh" Text="If everyone starts using electric vehicles (EVs) over Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) cars, we will need to produce more electricity. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is no free lunch, because electric power is produced by burning non-renewable (and still polluting) forms of energy -- if not coal, then natural gas or nuclear power). Hydro electric generation has its own set of environmental concerns. There is also solar and wind power, but just imagine the areas that will be required to accommodate these very large solar panel farms and wind turbine generators to satisfy all the increased demand. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There will be NIMBY concerns if located near urban areas and even in rural areas, and given that these solar and wind farm locations have to be in areas where there are either significant number of cloud free days or where there is a reliable steady flow of wind at the surface there are not too many alternate locations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30808" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9946" RevisionGUID="b143943c-29bf-4070-b8cc-208949d333f5" CreationDate="2022-05-18T11:43:29.873" UserId="8232" Comment="Cleanup. Added quote &amp; link from CNBC article added in the comments; Made links inline with text." Text="Nestle has a new 70% dark chocolate [made entirely from the cocoa fruit][1]. This is not just a brand-naming but a new chocolate process that - according to CNBC - is more sustainable as it does not use added sugar:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The Swiss company's new &quot;Cacao Fruit Chocolate&quot; will be made wholly from cacao fruit with white cacao pulp as a natural sweetener. The cacao pulp, which was once partially used and discarded, will now be used to create a more sustainable, health-conscious option for consumers.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;[*Nestle to sell a chocolate made without added sugar*][2] - CNBC - Accessed 18th May, 2022&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And a [trend has started][3] in the industry of using most of the cocoa fruit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.nestle.com/media/news/nestle-first-chocolate-cocoa-fruit&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/16/nestle-to-sell-a-chocolate-made-without-added-sugar.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-05/wholefruit-chocolate-review-using-cacao-pulp-pod-not-just-beans" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30810" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12136" RevisionGUID="13e7e3b4-33dd-4212-82d4-9c8070d866f3" CreationDate="2022-05-18T14:21:17.030" UserId="13882" Comment="added some details following a comment from @Robotnik" Text="YouTube [reformats all uploaded videos][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; YouTube stores whatever you upload and transcodes to other formats using their own versions of multiple compression formats including h.264 and webm&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, the energy consumption needed for the user to encode the video would be negligible compared to that used to read your video by many users on YouTube.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my opinion, by far the most efficient way to mitigate energy consumption from this process, would be that *Google* chooses one of the lowest resolution as a default quality when a video is played. At the moment, the default is the highest resolution that fits with your internet debit and device, even when we don't watch the image and only need the sound for instance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/12449/how-does-youtube-convert-between-different-videos-resolutions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30811" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12178" RevisionGUID="ac1b1ba0-8e33-4274-be29-c47ea51619b1" CreationDate="2022-05-18T22:20:16.793" UserId="5824" Text="Wikipedia's [Environmental, social, and corporate governance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_corporate_governance) is long and dense and difficult for me to understand and only briefly mentions [S&amp;P](). I was able to locate [S&amp;P Dow Jones Indicies/Core ESG/Overview](https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/index-family/esg/core-esg/#overview):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Our core ESG indices include best-in-class indices such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI), which target the top 10% of ESG performers, as well as broader market indices **such as the S&amp;P 500 ESG Index, which target the top 75% of the float market capitalization of each GICS® industry group within their parent indices by S&amp;P DJI ESG Score.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but so far I haven't found the &quot;...and here is how we rank them&quot; bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Can someone help me understand basically how the S&amp;P 500 ESG Index actually ranks companies? Is it objective? Are their methods public?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hadn't known about the S&amp;P 500 ESG Index until today's news that Tesla was delisted from it. From what I can understand from the news, the index focuses on the impacts and behaviors related to the *operation of the company* and does not factor in those of the company's products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if I understand correctly a company might be responsible for major deforestation, but if corporate implements a strict paper recycling program in its offices it might still rank highly. (abstract example meant to highlight my current understanding of what the index does and does not take into account) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference only; I'm not asking about Tesla specifically but there are some attempts to explain the index in these news items:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - CNBC May 18, 2022 [Why Tesla was kicked out of the S&amp;P 500′s ESG index](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/18/why-tesla-was-kicked-out-of-the-sp-500s-esg-index.html)&#xD;&#xA; - Reuters May 18, 2022 [Tesla cut from S&amp;P 500 ESG Index, and Elon Musk tweets his fury](https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/tesla-removed-sp-500-esg-index-autopilot-discrimination-concerns-2022-05-18/)&#xD;&#xA; - Bloomberg May 18, 2020 [Tesla Loses Spot on S&amp;P ESG Index Due to Concerns Over Crashes, Working Conditions](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-18/tesla-crashes-work-conditions-see-it-pushed-off-s-p-esg-index?srnd=equality) &quot;A lack of low-carbon strategy and codes of business conduct also counted against Elon Musk’s company, it said.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30813" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12178" RevisionGUID="ac1b1ba0-8e33-4274-be29-c47ea51619b1" CreationDate="2022-05-18T22:20:16.793" UserId="5824" Text="Can someone help me understand basically how the S&amp;P 500 ESG Index actually ranks companies? Is it objective? Are their methods public?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30814" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12178" RevisionGUID="ac1b1ba0-8e33-4274-be29-c47ea51619b1" CreationDate="2022-05-18T22:20:16.793" UserId="5824" Text="|environmental-impact|carbon-footprint|ecological-footprint|economics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30815" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12178" RevisionGUID="bd4fe9b6-e15e-48a1-8c87-7f3d3fa5c4e4" CreationDate="2022-05-18T22:25:55.263" UserId="5824" Comment="added 28 characters in body" Text="Wikipedia's [Environmental, social, and corporate governance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_corporate_governance) is long and dense and difficult for me to understand and only briefly mentions [S&amp;P](). I was able to locate [S&amp;P Dow Jones Indicies/Core ESG/Overview](https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/index-family/esg/core-esg/#overview):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Our core ESG indices include best-in-class indices such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI), which target the top 10% of ESG performers, as well as broader market indices **such as the S&amp;P 500 ESG Index, which target the top 75% of the float market capitalization of each GICS® industry group within their parent indices by S&amp;P DJI ESG Score.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but so far I haven't found the &quot;...and here is how we rank them&quot; bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** Can someone help me understand basically how the S&amp;P 500 ESG Index actually ranks companies? Is it objective? Are their methods public?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hadn't known about the S&amp;P 500 ESG Index until today's news that Tesla was delisted from it. From what I can understand from the news, the index focuses on the impacts and behaviors related to the *operation of the company* and does not factor in those of the company's products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if I understand correctly (and I certainly might not) a company might be responsible for major deforestation, but if corporate implements a strict paper recycling program in its offices it might still rank highly. (abstract example meant to highlight my current understanding of what the index does and does not take into account) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference only; I'm not asking about Tesla specifically but there are some attempts to explain the index in these news items:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - CNBC May 18, 2022 [Why Tesla was kicked out of the S&amp;P 500′s ESG index](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/18/why-tesla-was-kicked-out-of-the-sp-500s-esg-index.html)&#xD;&#xA; - Reuters May 18, 2022 [Tesla cut from S&amp;P 500 ESG Index, and Elon Musk tweets his fury](https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/tesla-removed-sp-500-esg-index-autopilot-discrimination-concerns-2022-05-18/)&#xD;&#xA; - Bloomberg May 18, 2020 [Tesla Loses Spot on S&amp;P ESG Index Due to Concerns Over Crashes, Working Conditions](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-18/tesla-crashes-work-conditions-see-it-pushed-off-s-p-esg-index?srnd=equality) &quot;A lack of low-carbon strategy and codes of business conduct also counted against Elon Musk’s company, it said.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30816" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12178" RevisionGUID="62f7c379-d209-4c16-8f81-1966e4f9de22" CreationDate="2022-05-19T00:26:32.053" UserId="8232" Comment="Used a more concise title and moved the questions in the body closer to the top" Text="I hadn't known about the S&amp;P 500 ESG Index until today's news that Tesla was delisted from it. Can someone help me understand how S&amp;P actually ranks companies for the Index? Is it objective? Are their methods public?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've read Wikipedia's [Environmental, social, and corporate governance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social,_and_corporate_governance), but it is long, dense and difficult for me to understand (and only briefly mentions S&amp;P). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was also able to locate [S&amp;P Dow Jones Indicies/Core ESG/Overview](https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/index-family/esg/core-esg/#overview):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Our core ESG indices include best-in-class indices such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI), which target the top 10% of ESG performers, as well as broader market indices **such as the S&amp;P 500 ESG Index, which target the top 75% of the float market capitalization of each GICS® industry group within their parent indices by S&amp;P DJI ESG Score.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;but so far I haven't found the &quot;...and here is how we rank them&quot; bit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I can understand from the news regarding Tesla, the index focuses on the impacts and behaviors related to the *operation of the company* and does not factor in those of the company's products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In other words, if I understand correctly (and I certainly might not) a company might be responsible for major deforestation, but if corporate implements a strict paper recycling program in its offices it might still rank highly. (abstract example meant to highlight my current understanding of what the index does and does not take into account) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For reference only; I'm not asking about Tesla specifically but there are some attempts to explain the index in these news items:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - CNBC May 18, 2022 [Why Tesla was kicked out of the S&amp;P 500′s ESG index](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/18/why-tesla-was-kicked-out-of-the-sp-500s-esg-index.html)&#xD;&#xA; - Reuters May 18, 2022 [Tesla cut from S&amp;P 500 ESG Index, and Elon Musk tweets his fury](https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/tesla-removed-sp-500-esg-index-autopilot-discrimination-concerns-2022-05-18/)&#xD;&#xA; - Bloomberg May 18, 2020 [Tesla Loses Spot on S&amp;P ESG Index Due to Concerns Over Crashes, Working Conditions](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-18/tesla-crashes-work-conditions-see-it-pushed-off-s-p-esg-index?srnd=equality) &quot;A lack of low-carbon strategy and codes of business conduct also counted against Elon Musk’s company, it said.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30817" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12178" RevisionGUID="62f7c379-d209-4c16-8f81-1966e4f9de22" CreationDate="2022-05-19T00:26:32.053" UserId="8232" Comment="Used a more concise title and moved the questions in the body closer to the top" Text="How does the S&amp;P 500 ESG Index actually rank companies?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30818" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="18e7b193-c46e-4fcb-9be2-b1c0bf191c7c" CreationDate="2022-05-19T03:09:50.960" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12179" RevisionGUID="2ecdd5d4-5aed-4308-be01-7dcbe3a727bb" CreationDate="2022-05-19T05:36:16.497" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30821" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12179" RevisionGUID="2ecdd5d4-5aed-4308-be01-7dcbe3a727bb" CreationDate="2022-05-19T05:36:16.497" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30822" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12180" RevisionGUID="bb4a6c9d-c626-485c-bcf5-78ce142f29db" CreationDate="2022-05-19T05:36:16.497" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30824" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12180" RevisionGUID="bb4a6c9d-c626-485c-bcf5-78ce142f29db" CreationDate="2022-05-19T05:36:16.497" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30826" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12180" RevisionGUID="29464f1a-54f2-4de2-b340-ae326a39226e" CreationDate="2022-05-19T06:29:33.333" UserId="8232" Comment="added 323 characters in body" Text="automotives that use one or more electric motors for propulsion, including cars, trucks, buses, bikes and more. Consider this tag for questions regarding EV designs, technologies, fuel types and performance/efficiency comparisons. Also consider [cars], [batteries], [transport] or [electricity], depending on your question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30827" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12180" RevisionGUID="29464f1a-54f2-4de2-b340-ae326a39226e" CreationDate="2022-05-19T06:29:33.333" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 699" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30828" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12179" RevisionGUID="d66d05a4-d269-4fb9-9819-e64aa6715a51" CreationDate="2022-05-19T06:29:59.180" UserId="8232" Comment="added 533 characters in body" Text="Electric Vehicles (EVs) are automotives that use one or more electric motors for propulsion. This tag can be used for any type of vehicle, including cars, trucks, buses, bikes, trains, planes and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are specifically asking about EV technology in relation to passenger cars, consider also using the [tag:cars] tag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Related Tags&#xD;&#xA;[tag:cars], [tag:batteries], [tag:transport] [tag:electricity]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Informative Links&#xD;&#xA;- [Wikipedia - Electric Vehicle][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30829" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12179" RevisionGUID="d66d05a4-d269-4fb9-9819-e64aa6715a51" CreationDate="2022-05-19T06:29:59.180" Comment="Proposed by 8232 approved by 99 edit id of 698" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12181" RevisionGUID="ac413d2d-dd0a-46cd-9321-bf273d4b4158" CreationDate="2022-05-19T09:23:28.567" UserId="6393" Text="Environmental investing is hard, and most likely these indices get it wrong.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you want to do is to value all operations of the company in a hypothetical world where operations damaging the environment are not permitted. You will find that all fossil fuel operations reduce their value to zero. However, it is important to note that they reduce to a zero value, not to a negative value, because the operations can be discontinued. So a company having fossil fuel operations can still have value if it has some other operations too that have lot of value in the hypothetical world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good example about why this may be counterintuitive is by far my largest stock investment, Fortum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fortum used to be a company that created mainly electricity, using primarily carbon-free generation methods such as hydropower and nuclear power. (It also has some fossil fuel operations in Russia which caused its stock price to reduce recently.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then Fortum bought 75% stake of Uniper. Uniper creates electricity using primarily carbon-producing generation methods such as coal power, oil power and gas power, but also some hydropower and nuclear power. (Uniper also has some fossil fuel operations in Russia which caused its stock price to reduce recently, in addition to selling Russian natural gas to European users.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After buying this 75% stake, the per-kilowatt-hour carbon dioxide production of Fortum skyrocketed. All the newspapers are writing about its dirty carbon footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many might consider this purchase of Uniper a mistake. But was it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, it wasn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, the purchase price was so cheap (valuing the entire company as 8 billion euros) that it made sense to buy Uniper just for the hydropower and nuclear power because I estimate the valuation of these to be about 14 billion euros.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also existing gas plants have some value. A gas-fired power plant can be modified to be zero emission by modifying it to run on hydrogen, which certainly will be done. Thus the 8.8 gigawatts of gas capacity may be worth 0.3 EUR / watt (constructing new one might cost 0.8 EUR / watt). Furthermore, the underground gas storage capacity of Uniper has value too: in the future, clean hydrogen can be stored there. The coal capacity however has zero value, it can't be used in a hypothetical clean world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, today for an intelligent investor Fortum is a very good investment: in the hypothetical world where fossil fuel can't be used to create electricity, the price of electricity rises at times when it's neither windy nor sunny, and the hydropower and nuclear power plants create a lot of profit then, and most likely the gas capacity will be modified to help create electricity at non-windy and non-sunny times using hydrogen produced from electrolysis at windy or sunny times.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the question is: do you consider Fortum a good investment for a clean world? Even though it has lots of dirty fossil fueled electricity generation capacity, it actually is a very good investment for a clean world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also a second example to think about: when thinking about electric cars, most think about Tesla. Tesla produces about 930 000 EVs per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Volkswagen ships about 400 000 EVs per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla has a valuation of 735 billion dollars and Volkswagen of 85 billion euros or 89 billion dollars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So Volkswagen's valuation is 222 500 USD per EV/year and Tesla's is 790 323 USD per EV/year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Tesla, you get just the capacity to produce those 930 000 EVs per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With Volkswagen, you not only get the capacity to produce 400 000 EVs per year, but also about 9 million non-EVs per year. The capacity that produces those non-EVs can likely be modified to produce EVs with some minor costs, assuming batteries can be sourced from somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you want to invest in EVs, you &lt;b&gt;don't&lt;/b&gt; want to invest to Tesla. You do want to invest to Volkswagen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know why Tesla was delisted but seemed like an excellent move, because a green investor doesn't want Tesla; a green investor wants Volkswagen. You get more for less with Volkswagen." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30832" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12178" RevisionGUID="65c93cf5-0cfb-4f6b-b357-a66cebdb47aa" CreationDate="2022-05-19T21:00:01.713" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1527393663931801600" />
  <row Id="30833" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12182" RevisionGUID="933fe258-41af-45e9-9f4c-77bf78a4ec14" CreationDate="2022-05-20T04:32:05.963" UserId="2345" Text="According to [news reports][1] Tesla was removed from the S&amp;P 500 ESG Index because it no longer met minimum corporate governance requirements concerning: environmental, social and government standards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to [S&amp;P Dow Jones Indices][2], &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Tesla was ineligible for index inclusion due to its low S&amp;P DJI ESG Score, which fell in the bottom 25% of its global GICS® industry group peers. It joins Berkshire Hathaway, Johnson &amp; Johnson and Meta&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the factors that contributed to Tesla removal from the list are a decline in criteria level scores related to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Tesla’s (lack of) low carbon strategy&#xD;&#xA; - Codes of business conduct&#xD;&#xA; - Claims of racial discrimination&#xD;&#xA; - Poor working conditions at Tesla’s Fremont factory&#xD;&#xA; - Its handling of the NHTSA investigation after multiple deaths and&#xD;&#xA;   injuries were linked to its autopilot vehicles&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; While Tesla may be playing its part in taking fuel-powered cars off the road, it has fallen behind its peers when examined through a wider ESG lens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;S&amp;P Dow Jones Indices conducts an annual review of companies to ascertain whether they meet its criteria for inclusion on the [S&amp;P 500 ESG Index][3]. The Index was [first launched][4] in January 2019. From what S&amp;P have published on its website it has a defined methodology for determining which companies are eligible for listing on the Index.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/sp-removes-tesla-from-esg-index-182259870.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.indexologyblog.com/2022/05/17/the-rebalancing-act-of-the-sp-500-esg-index/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://file:///C:/Users/Ivan/Downloads/fs-sp-500-esg-index.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/esg/sp-500-esg-index/#data" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30837" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12125" RevisionGUID="91e25e0a-e520-44d2-bd84-472c9d44bc9c" CreationDate="2022-05-20T13:08:07.993" UserId="13882" Comment="improved formating" Text="As others already said: &#xD;&#xA;- add more dry stuff to reduce the moisture (cardboard pieces), &#xD;&#xA;- open it daily to make the adults fly away, &#xD;&#xA;- use a vinegar bait and cover well all the food with dry material (cardboard pieces).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition:&#xD;&#xA;- kill the pupae (cocoon) that you see on the back cover or box walls, they are the fly cocoons which looks for dryer part of the compost to become adults.&#xD;&#xA;- stop putting in fruit remains. Put only non-sweet waste (vegetable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In practice**: my personal experience is that if you keep in putting fruit waste, fly larvae will keep manage to grow and you won't manage to get rid of them entirely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30839" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12183" RevisionGUID="d892daa1-1cdb-4479-8ce4-4b980ee45fcc" CreationDate="2022-05-21T17:56:32.960" UserId="1056" Text="# Nic&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hi, I'm Nic. I've been a Stack Exchange user for 11 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Sustainability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been exploring various aspects of sustainability for over a decade, with a particular focus on understanding the relationship between behavioural change and organized, collective action. I've contributed my effort toward eco-oriented software startups, local political candidates, and activist movements. I believe that Stack Exchange is a small but important element in helping motivated people to do the right thing. I also believe that sites like Stack Exchange and Wikipedia are even more valuable in the current political atmosphere of disinformation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Moderation&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been a moderator here at Sustainability for the last two years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My general philosophy is to be welcoming and gracious to people who are unfamiliar and don't know the rules or the culture, but maintain firm rule against malevolent misbehaviour and misinformation." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12184" RevisionGUID="012778b1-429d-4589-8acb-c518f4318473" CreationDate="2022-05-21T17:56:32.960" UserId="1056" Text="&gt; 1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although good answers are valuable to everyone involved (the network, this site, and the people seeking answers), ultimately the [Code of Conduct](https://meta.stackexchange.com/conduct) takes precedence. I would start by assuming good faith and try to work directly with the person to help them understand that strong arguments are valued, but being argumentative is not. As a moderator, I first try to help people fit into the community before resorting to moderator tools like warnings or suspensions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe consistent moderation is important to the site. If I have a disagreement with another moderator I will express my disagreement privately, strive to understand how we arrived at a different understanding, and push for a consensus decision among all the mods. It would not be okay for a question to be repeatedly opened and closed because of a &quot;mod war&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Since Covid started early 2020, participation on Sustainable Living SE has declined somewhat. What do you think is the best way to increase this again and make sure the site continues to grow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do want this site to succeed, but I believe that moderators have a limited role in promotion. Our role is primarily to support the community of this site and uphold the Code of Conduct. Ensuring the site is free of spam/abuse and that conflict is reasonably managed is the best way I can support the growth of this site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suppose a user posts several plausible answers on a topic you are less familiar with and nicely backs those answers up with references. On closer inspection it turns out that all references link to research funded by organisations that are known to be climate change deniers. What do you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Very good question! I believe this site, Sustainability, is exposed to this kind of risk more than the Stack Exchange sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I see obvious climate change denial, I'm going to immediately use all of the non-moderator tools at my disposal. I will vote-down climate change denial. I would use comments to perform fact-checking and call out questionable sources. I would even consider editing the answer to add fact-checks directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually the community will identify these posts and down-vote them past the close threshold, so I would allow the community a chance to react before using moderator tools such as closing or deleting questions. If I see a pattern of intentional misinformation, I will suggest to the other moderators that we should intervene with the author. If there is any evidence of using sock-puppets to artificially inflate votes on wrong information, I would take swift action to shut down the sock-puppet ring and associated posts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. You (a moderator) and another community member both answer a question on the main site. The other answer is well written but (objectively) incorrect, and has gathered a similar amount of upvotes to yours. What do you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would use comments to perform fact-checking, call out questionable sources, and down-vote the answer I disagree with. I will provide the community with extra information they need to make informed decisions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will not use my moderator powers to delete answers only because they are wrong, especially when there is a perception that I could be acting in my own self-interest to boost my own answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. In your opinion, what do moderators do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The moderator's role is to support the community of this site and uphold the Code of Conduct.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an incumbent moderator, I still aim for the same level of respectfulness and professionalism that I did before I was elected as a moderator. I believe my previous questions, answers, and comments are consistent with expectations of a community moderator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now it's easier for me to improve tag wikis. :) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30843" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="626" RevisionGUID="ed6f3cf1-5124-4f02-a526-d68feedd4c80" CreationDate="2022-05-22T23:38:48.260" UserId="8232" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="You can make a trap to catch the existing fruit flies with an empty jar, a small plastic sandwich or zip close baggie with square corners, a rubber band and some wine or beer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pour a small amount of beer in the bottom of the jar. Snip off a tiny bit of the corner of the bag, making a small hole. Push the corner of the bag a few inches down into jar, making a funnel shape, and pull the rest of the bag over edge of the jar. Put a rubber band around the the rim of the jar sealing the edge of the bag. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fruit flies crawl in through the funnel, then can't get back out. I seen similar versions of a fruit fly trap where you punch small holes through the lid of the jar with a nail. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12185" RevisionGUID="29f78bb9-1369-41a8-83a6-01f10629d7dd" CreationDate="2022-05-23T03:35:13.103" UserId="8232" Text="I found myself recently needing to purchase something to line my waste/landfill bins with. Up until now, I've been relying on a tub of single-use plastic bags that I've collected over the years, but they've (finally!) run out. When I went to the supermarket, I was quite surprised to find multiple options all claiming to be green or eco friendly. There were:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *100%* virgin plastic (i.e. 'new' bags)&#xD;&#xA;- *X%* recycled plastic (unknown source)&#xD;&#xA;- *X%* recycled plastic (sourced from the ocean)&#xD;&#xA;- *X%* plant-based (unknown source)&#xD;&#xA;- *100%* plant-based (made from sugarcane, not compostable)&#xD;&#xA;- Biodegradeable (i.e. compostable, conforming to [AS 4736-2006][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The percentages varied between brands: with recycled plastic usually between 80-95% and plant-based between 40-60%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the right choice for containing things headed for landfill? Or is there a better option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Notes&#xD;&#xA;- The majority of my household waste usually ends up in either green (garden/food waste) or mixed recycling, but there are a handful of items that still can't go in either of those. We normally fill a small under-sink bin in about a week.&#xD;&#xA;- I have read [Alternatives to garbage plastic bags][2] and while I agree that ideally we shouldn't need them at all, or make do on the odd plastic bag that enters the home through other means, unfortunately this doesn't fit everyone's use case, and in the event that garbage bags MUST be purchased, it would be helpful to have these comparisons to make the best (or least-worse) option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ablis.business.gov.au/service/act/australian-standard-as-4736-2006-biodegradable-plastic-biodegradable-plastics-suitable-for-composting-and-other-microbial-treatment/36797&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5027/8232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12185" RevisionGUID="29f78bb9-1369-41a8-83a6-01f10629d7dd" CreationDate="2022-05-23T03:35:13.103" UserId="8232" Text="What type of bin liner is best for waste heading to landfill?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12185" RevisionGUID="29f78bb9-1369-41a8-83a6-01f10629d7dd" CreationDate="2022-05-23T03:35:13.103" UserId="8232" Text="|plastic|plastic-alternatives|compostable-plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30848" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12186" RevisionGUID="318e42e8-1d32-4fac-92f1-3a220f6f73c5" CreationDate="2022-05-23T09:51:31.190" UserId="13882" Text="As the climate change emergency is high, I am wondering whether long-range train service across countries of same continents are being built to limit as much as possible flights (and cars) which are far worse then train in term of greenhouse gas emission (for details, see [here][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance in European Union, &#xD;&#xA; - theoretically, it could be possible to travel by train e.g. from Portugal to Letonie; the infrastructure is more or less already there, however, it is nearly impossible for a user to simply buy such a ticket. &#xD;&#xA; - I personally tried to buy tickets from London to the south of Spain, it is quite a nightmare, at least there is no support at all from the governments/train companies to simplify it and this just encourages to buy  a flight instead. Long train journey would also imply to develop night trains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In India, although trains are slow, I found it relatively easy to travel long distances across states (night trains are well developped).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the limitations? Is is only political? A lack of coordination between countries to offer such a service? A lack of infrastructure? I guess it a mix of all this, but would somebody know whether it is being discussed/organized?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30850" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12186" RevisionGUID="318e42e8-1d32-4fac-92f1-3a220f6f73c5" CreationDate="2022-05-23T09:51:31.190" UserId="13882" Text="Building/improving continental trains to replace intra-continent flights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30851" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12186" RevisionGUID="318e42e8-1d32-4fac-92f1-3a220f6f73c5" CreationDate="2022-05-23T09:51:31.190" UserId="13882" Text="|transport|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30852" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12186" RevisionGUID="b1e7bf87-4b63-47fc-8c08-d3167d124e81" CreationDate="2022-05-23T11:28:51.200" UserId="13882" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="As the climate change emergency is high, I am wondering whether long-range train service across countries of same continents are being built to limit as much as possible flights (and cars) which are far worse then train in term of greenhouse gas emission (for details, see [here][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance in European Union, &#xD;&#xA; - theoretically, it could be possible to travel by train e.g. from Portugal to Latvia; the infrastructure is more or less already there, however, it is nearly impossible for a user to simply buy such a ticket. &#xD;&#xA; - I personally tried to buy tickets from London to the south of Spain, it is quite a nightmare, at least there is no support at all from the governments/train companies to simplify it and this just encourages to buy  a flight instead. Long train journey would also imply to develop night trains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In India, although trains are slow, I found it relatively easy to travel long distances across states (night trains are well developped).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the limitations? Is is only political? A lack of coordination between countries to offer such a service? A lack of infrastructure? I guess it a mix of all this, but would somebody know whether it is being discussed/organized?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30853" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12186" RevisionGUID="8b0c894a-c333-4dad-ae2e-f5ccbd04f790" CreationDate="2022-05-23T12:29:10.517" UserId="13882" Comment="corrected spelling" Text="As the climate change emergency is high, I am wondering whether long-range train service across countries of same continents are being built to limit as much as possible flights (and cars) which are far worse then train in term of greenhouse gas emission (for details, see [here][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance in European Union, &#xD;&#xA; - theoretically, it could be possible to travel by train e.g. from Portugal to Latvia; the infrastructure is more or less already there, however, it is nearly impossible for a user to simply buy such a ticket. &#xD;&#xA; - I personally tried to buy tickets from London to the south of Spain, it is quite a nightmare, at least there is no support at all from the governments/train companies to simplify it and this just encourages to buy  a flight instead. Long train journey would also imply to develop night trains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In India, although trains are slow, I found it relatively easy to travel long distances across states (night trains are well developped).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the limitations? Is it only political? A lack of coordination between countries to offer such a service? A lack of infrastructure? I guess it a mix of all this, but would somebody know whether it is being discussed/organized?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30854" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12186" RevisionGUID="599734fc-1922-4a42-a430-424b9ee14ff0" CreationDate="2022-05-23T14:29:32.317" UserId="13882" Comment="precision in the question" Text="As the climate change emergency is high, I am wondering whether long-range train service across countries of same continents are being built to limit as much as possible flights (and cars) which are far worse then train in term of greenhouse gas emission (for details, see [here][1]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For instance in European Union, &#xD;&#xA; - theoretically, it could be possible to travel by train e.g. from Portugal to Latvia; the infrastructure is more or less already there, however, it is nearly impossible for a user to simply buy such a ticket. &#xD;&#xA; - I personally tried to buy tickets from London to the south of Spain, it is quite a nightmare, at least there is no support at all from the governments/train companies to simplify it and this just encourages to buy  a flight instead. Long train journey would also imply to develop night trains.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In India, although trains are slow, I found it relatively easy to travel long distances across states (night trains are well developped).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the limitations? Is it only political? A lack of coordination between countries to offer such a service? A lack of infrastructure? Would anyone know whether and where it is being discussed/organized?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30855" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12187" RevisionGUID="93132042-aacd-471a-932f-bde5fd1a1849" CreationDate="2022-05-23T16:09:21.183" UserId="106" Text="There is very little demand for making it easier to buy long distance train tickets such as Portugal to Latvia.  Most railway journeys in Western Europe are for short or medium distances.  Unlike for flights, booking systems have developed nationally because that's where almost all railway journeys are made.  Often cross-border trains can still be booked, but not beyond that.  However, some booking systems do interact.  The German, Austrian, and Swiss railway systems are quite compatible, as are the French and Spanish systems.  Despite the difficulties and the relatively low number of long distance international travellers, today there are websites and smartphone apps that connect to multiple national booking systems.  Examples include thetrainline.com and raileurope.com.  When it becomes even more complicated, there are dedicated travel agencies such as the *treinreiswinkel* in The Netherlands, which used to advertise tickets from Portugal to Vietnam.  You can read more about thetrainline [at seat61.com](https://www.seat61.com/websites/who-are-trainline.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the distant past, there were many more long distance international services.  The Orient Express was famous (and expensive), but there were others such as Sud Express and Nord Express, allowing people to travel from Lisbon to Stockholm with a change only in Paris.  Since 2020, there has not even been a train from Lisbon to Madrid any more.  With the advent of passenger airlines, long distance passenger trains service was reduced.  With the advent of ultra-cheap passenger flights, it was reduced further.  Night trains are quite expensive to operate because, unlike day trains, they can only run once per day (night) and are less full than day trains.  So although you can still travel from Portugal to Stockholm by train, you'll need many trains, many tickets, and probably several hotel nights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the climate crisis, there are hints at a revival of night trains in Europe.  ÖBB Nightjet has restarted on some routes that DB CityNightLine had dropped.  The Swedish government is partly subsidising the new route Stockholm - Hamburg (starting 1 September 2022).  The former German transport minister suggested reviving the Trans Europe Express.  But we are a long way from being able to book international trains as easily as we can book complex airline tickets, and it seems this is not coming any time soon.  In fact, [in 2009, BBC News reported](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8382508.stm) on the failure of a Europe-wide common booking system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Railteam, the alliance of European high-speed rail operators, has shelved plans for a Europe-wide common booking system because of increasing costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The system would have allowed customers to book tickets for Europe-wide rail journeys in a single transaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The platform was due to be unveiled this year, but has been scrapped for the foreseeable future, according to Eurostar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Railteam's other members include Thalys, SNCF and Deutsche Bahn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;All seven high-speed operators thought the platform would be a good idea but once we started looking at the system in detail we realised that it would be very complicated and therefore extremely expensive.&quot; said Lesley Retallack from Eurostar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At present, although travellers can book some Europe-wide tickets through the individual websites of Railteam's members, passengers often receive more than one ticket for journeys onward from the carriers' normal routes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The new system would have created a one-stop-shop for tickets for complete high-speed journeys across Europe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In India and Russia, among other places, long distance train journeys are slow, but booking is relatively easy and there are many night trains.  It helps that those systems were built within one country with one booking system (in case of Russia, also linking with its shrinking number of post-Soviet friends).  I would expect that, here too, long distance train usage is shrinking due to the availability of (cheap) flights, but I don't have factual information on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30857" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12187" RevisionGUID="b6b59730-6808-435b-bde7-66a634e962a9" CreationDate="2022-05-23T16:16:43.730" UserId="106" Comment="added 168 characters in body" Text="There is very little demand for making it easier to buy long distance train tickets such as Portugal to Latvia.  Most railway journeys in Western Europe are for short (&lt;100 km) or medium (100-1000 km) distances.  Unlike for flights, booking systems have developed nationally because that's where almost all railway journeys are made.  Often cross-border trains can still be booked, but not beyond that.  However, some booking systems do interact.  The German, Austrian, and Swiss railway systems are quite compatible, as are the French and Spanish systems.  Despite the difficulties and the relatively low number of long distance international travellers, today there are websites and smartphone apps that connect to multiple national booking systems.  Examples include thetrainline.com and raileurope.com.  When it becomes even more complicated, there are dedicated travel agencies such as the *treinreiswinkel* in The Netherlands, which used to advertise tickets from Portugal to Vietnam.  You can read more about thetrainline [at seat61.com](https://www.seat61.com/websites/who-are-trainline.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the distant past, there were many more long distance international services in Western Europe.  The Orient Express was famous (and expensive), but there were others such as Sud Express and Nord Express, allowing people to travel from Lisbon to Stockholm with a change only in Paris.  Since 2020, there has not even been a train from Lisbon to Madrid any more.  With the advent of passenger airlines, long distance passenger trains service was reduced.  With the advent of ultra-cheap passenger flights, it was reduced further.  Night trains are quite expensive to operate because, unlike day trains, they can only run once per day (night) and are less full than day trains.  Night trains suffer not only from cheap flights, but also from high speed rail.  So although you can still travel from Portugal to Stockholm by train, you'll need many trains, many tickets, and probably several hotel nights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the climate crisis, there are cautious hints at a revival of night trains in Europe.  ÖBB Nightjet has restarted on some routes that DB CityNightLine had dropped.  The Swedish government is partly subsidising the new route Stockholm - Hamburg (starting 1 September 2022).  The former German transport minister suggested reviving the Trans Europe Express.  But we are a long way from being able to book international trains as easily as we can book complex airline tickets, and it seems this is not coming any time soon.  In fact, [in 2009, BBC News reported](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8382508.stm) on the failure of a Europe-wide common booking system, which is apparently very expensive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Railteam, the alliance of European high-speed rail operators, has shelved plans for a Europe-wide common booking system because of increasing costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The system would have allowed customers to book tickets for Europe-wide rail journeys in a single transaction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The platform was due to be unveiled this year, but has been scrapped for the foreseeable future, according to Eurostar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Railteam's other members include Thalys, SNCF and Deutsche Bahn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;All seven high-speed operators thought the platform would be a good idea but once we started looking at the system in detail we realised that it would be very complicated and therefore extremely expensive.&quot; said Lesley Retallack from Eurostar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At present, although travellers can book some Europe-wide tickets through the individual websites of Railteam's members, passengers often receive more than one ticket for journeys onward from the carriers' normal routes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The new system would have created a one-stop-shop for tickets for complete high-speed journeys across Europe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In India and Russia, among other places, long distance train journeys are slow, but booking is relatively easy and there are many night trains.  It helps that those systems were built within one country with one booking system (in case of Russia, also linking with its shrinking number of post-Soviet friends).  I would expect that, here too, long distance train usage is shrinking due to the availability of (cheap) flights, but I don't have factual information on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12189" RevisionGUID="55bcf7cf-9943-4e00-8e57-76ec66e4590a" CreationDate="2022-05-23T16:30:36.040" UserId="6393" Text="New plastic bags (if you can still find them in your local shops -- I can't anymore) are best for purchasing once and then using maybe 10 times. In contrast to recycled plastic bags that generally break on the first use, new plastic bags stay useful for long because they're very strong. Don't throw such valuable items out with garbage!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Recycled plastic from oceans would be my choice. It's clearly better than recycled plastics from unknown source, because most of recycled plastic is from plastic waste stream that wouldn't go into the oceans if unused. Also once you have used a recycled plastic bag once, it's generally so damaged that you can't use it multiple times after that. Best to throw them to the garbage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A tip: if the bag you use may contain holes, and you may throw something wet into the garbage can, put four consecutive paper towels bent into &quot;M&quot; as the first thing into the bag. It will capture a minor amount of liquids, meaning the liquids don't stain your garbage can. Of course many wet items should go to biowaste if you create enough biowaste to warrant treating it separately." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30866" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12190" RevisionGUID="b5a5f933-f3db-46f2-9893-d56230716ba6" CreationDate="2022-05-23T16:39:02.777" UserDisplayName="user13971" Text="Yes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See this (Salmon have effectively survived on Black Soldier Fly Larvae) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://thefishsite.com/articles/feed-trial-successfully-replaces-fishmeal-with-black-soldier-fly-larvae-for-farmed-atlantic-salmon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this (biowaste can be turned into fish or plant food using this scaleable system) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/sourcing/tech-startup-better-origin-launches-ai-insect-farm-to-convert-waste-into-feed/645796.article&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30872" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12191" RevisionGUID="8fc572bf-e9bf-48cb-92f8-d8f37afdcd2b" CreationDate="2022-05-23T16:50:09.107" UserDisplayName="user13971" Text="Smart Cara is a device that sits on the kitchen counter. A powered/odorless composting system that converts food waste into organic fertilizer pellets in as little as 3 hours. This is probably the most environmental way if coupled with electricity derived from renewable sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative - biodegradable waste which is flushed down the toilet ends up in the sewer system, which can be extracted to be used as fertilizer - but not always - sometimes it's disgarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although if it is still not fully biodegraded, it will release methane gas. Future sewer networks may extract thegas for generating electricity asCO2 is a better greenhouse gas than methane and plants can take it in for photosynthesis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30874" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12186" RevisionGUID="d8207d53-c9ba-43f4-a171-2acbcccba0e0" CreationDate="2022-05-23T18:00:04.263" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1528797927598080001" />
  <row Id="30875" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12190" RevisionGUID="f2fa81d1-5e79-4a41-b95a-fcdd5890f13c" CreationDate="2022-05-23T20:30:28.037" UserId="2345" Comment="added 183 characters in body" Text="Yes. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;See this (Salmon have effectively survived on Black Soldier Fly Larvae) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://thefishsite.com/articles/feed-trial-successfully-replaces-fishmeal-with-black-soldier-fly-larvae-for-farmed-atlantic-salmon&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And this (biowaste can be turned into fish or plant food using this scaleable system) :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/sourcing/tech-startup-better-origin-launches-ai-insect-farm-to-convert-waste-into-feed/645796.article&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It works by converting inputs such as agricultural residues into insect larvae, which can then be fed to livestock&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such insects of their larvae can be turned into fish food. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30876" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12191" RevisionGUID="cc82a831-213f-43e5-978a-4604fa66c04f" CreationDate="2022-05-23T20:31:42.193" UserId="2345" Comment="Spelling corrections" Text="Smart Cara is a device that sits on the kitchen counter. A powered/odorless composting system that converts food waste into organic fertilizer pellets in as little as 3 hours. This is probably the most environmental way if coupled with electricity derived from renewable sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an alternative - biodegradable waste which is flushed down the toilet ends up in the sewer system, which can be extracted to be used as fertilizer - but not always - sometimes it's discarded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although if it is still not fully biodegraded, it will release methane gas. Future sewer networks may extract the gas for generating electricity as CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; is a better greenhouse gas than methane and plants can take it in for photosynthesis." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30883" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12159" RevisionGUID="19cad160-e75f-4f28-999b-9302ae1c2cf8" CreationDate="2022-05-24T00:00:03.187" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1528888520319836160" />
  <row Id="30884" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12185" RevisionGUID="66fcacfb-43e0-48b9-b655-d2dbddc81974" CreationDate="2022-05-24T02:56:24.620" UserId="8232" Comment="moving info from comments into answer" Text="I found myself recently needing to purchase something to line my waste/landfill bins with. Up until now, I've been relying on a tub of single-use plastic bags that I've collected over the years, but they've (finally!) run out. When I went to the supermarket, I was quite surprised to find multiple options all claiming to be green or eco friendly. There were:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- *100%* virgin plastic (i.e. 'new' bags)&#xD;&#xA;- *X%* recycled plastic (unknown source)&#xD;&#xA;- *X%* recycled plastic (sourced from the ocean)&#xD;&#xA;- *X%* plant-based (unknown source)&#xD;&#xA;- *100%* plant-based (made from sugarcane, not compostable)&#xD;&#xA;- Biodegradeable (i.e. compostable, conforming to [AS 4736-2006][1])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The percentages varied between brands: with recycled plastic usually between 80-95% and plant-based between 40-60%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which is the right choice for containing things headed for landfill? Or is there a better option?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Notes&#xD;&#xA;- The majority of my household waste usually ends up in either green (garden/food waste) or mixed recycling, but there are a handful of items that still can't go in either of those. We normally fill a small under-sink bin in about a week.&#xD;&#xA;- The waste stream in my local area goes to a managed landfill, where it is buried.&#xD;&#xA;- I have read [Alternatives to garbage plastic bags][2] and while I agree that ideally we shouldn't need them at all, or make do on the odd plastic bag that enters the home through other means, unfortunately this doesn't fit everyone's use case, and in the event that garbage bags MUST be purchased, it would be helpful to have these comparisons to make the best (or least-worse) option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ablis.business.gov.au/service/act/australian-standard-as-4736-2006-biodegradable-plastic-biodegradable-plastics-suitable-for-composting-and-other-microbial-treatment/36797&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5027/8232" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30885" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10256" RevisionGUID="16660825-b1cf-4e19-b050-4ff784c35662" CreationDate="2022-05-24T03:01:10.537" UserId="8232" Comment="fix formatting interaction so that the image is under the text" Text="Reducing your plastic waste volume begins with Reducing bringing plastics into your home. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Reduce plastic inputs by removing items from their wrapper after purchase and carry in your own bag/container.&#xD;&#xA; 2. plastic bags, plastic wraps, plastic fiber, flexible plastics, cereal bags, etc you can stuff them all in one coke bottle known as the &quot;Coke BOttle Challenge&quot; Once the bottle is full to capacity, simply dispose of it at the recycling drop off.  &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA; 3. Switch to natural chewing gums (modern chewing gum is made of plastic)&#xD;&#xA; 4. Switch to matches instead of disposeable lighters (matches are largely biodegradable) or switch to refillable zippo style lighters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/VVed8.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30886" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12192" RevisionGUID="d04b5816-ed74-48db-8b7b-2fc6189013ab" CreationDate="2022-05-24T19:29:53.457" UserId="106" Text="# Gerrit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe I may be a suitable moderator on Sustainable Living.  I am quite able to keep a cool head in face of conflict, which helps me to remain patient and fair as well as respectful to my fellow community members.  Moderation is always an act of last resort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability is critically important.  I have been a moderator on Earth Science since many years, and there are some topical intersections between the two.  Planetary boundaries in general and climate change specifically are among the largest challenges facing mankind in the 21st century.  They are central to both Earth Science and Sustainability, so I think being a moderator on both sites is quite compatible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Having said that, it is likely that other moderator candidates will be able to put more time into the site than me.  My participation has not been super active, therefore you may consider voting for someone else.  It's good that this election is competitive now that I'm adding my nomination.  However, since it's not one of the biggest sites, so it should not require a very large amount of time.  If elected, I will put in more time than I have until now." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30888" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12193" RevisionGUID="b4b7f199-0c9a-4a52-a3e7-f2d82d3633b6" CreationDate="2022-05-24T19:29:53.457" UserId="106" Text="&gt; 1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have experience with such users over at Earth Science.  I take a patient and constructive approach, but will remove comments where necessary.  If it becomes too bad, I might write a moderator message to discuss the problem with them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In most cases I would just leave it.  If I feel strongly about it, I would address it in the moderator chatroom.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. Since Covid started early 2020, participation on Sustainable Living SE has declined somewhat. What do you think is the best way to increase this again and make sure the site continues to grow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need good content and good contributors.  We already have this, but we can have more.  I'm not sure what the best way is to get more of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. Suppose a user posts several plausible answers on a topic you are less familiar with and nicely backs those answers up with references. On closer inspection it turns out that all references link to research funded by organisations that are known to be climate change deniers. What do you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a user, It depends.  If the answer is wrong or (worse) harmful, I would downvote and leave a comment explaining my downvote.  If the answer is right, I would leave a comment asking if they could find other references to avoid possible confusion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;None of this requires moderator privileges.  I wouldn't do anything that requires moderator privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. You (a moderator) and another community member both answer a question on the main site. The other answer is well written but (objectively) incorrect, and has gathered a similar amount of upvotes to yours. What do you do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a user, I would downvote the other answer and leave a comment why it is incorrect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wouldn't do anything that requires moderator privileges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 6. In your opinion, what do moderators do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First of all, moderators are users.  Good moderators do what good users do.  They contribute with questions, answers, votes, proposals on meta, and in other ways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the best of worlds, they do nothing that needs moderator privileges, because the best communities are self-moderating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Communities are made of people.  People aren't perfect, and therefore communities are also not perfect.  A moderator is a gatekeeper who takes action if really necessary.  They serve the community by cleaning up what needs to be cleaned up, speeding up moderation tasks that would take too long if done by non-moderators, preventing conflicts or de-escalating them where they do arise.  This list is not exhaustive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators are also the contact between the community and Stack Exchange.  If the community needs something from Stack Exchange, the moderators can address staff for assistance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 7. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's a bit of an overstatement that everything I do will be seen in a different light.  I hope people will still value my content for what it is.  Above all, I'm still a user.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 8. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching 10k or 20k rep?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By being among a small number of highly privileged users, I will feel more responsible and take more action than I would with reputation-earned privileges.  Reaching 10k is not simple on this site; only 3 people have.  Nobody has reached 20k." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30890" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12194" RevisionGUID="7fd7abab-e9ff-4ffd-815b-c4b44b925a80" CreationDate="2022-05-25T08:32:10.020" UserId="2345" Text="There's an inherent reply question to your question: &quot;What is your bench mark and what are you comparing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Travel options for both passengers and freight is a dynamic situation where options are always under review and continuously changing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using trains to limit or replace car travel be appealing and logical now from a CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; reduction perspective given most cars now use petrol/gasoline, diesel or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), but in 10 to 20 years time the vast majority of cars in Europe, and elsewhere, will be electrically powered and infrastructure to recharge vehicle batteries will be much easier to access than now. Upgrading existing rail infrastructure or replacing it will take years. Maybe waiting for cars to change might be an easier and cheaper option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the advantages of air travel compared to rail is air travel can be more direct and it can take less time to travel, depending on the starting and end points and the travel route between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other changing dynamic is the design of aircraft and the fuel used. Some aircraft can be designed to have less mass and to be more fuel efficient. Additionally alternate fuels could be used. [Some airlines][1] are already investigating options and utilizing alternatives on certain routes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the development or expansion of rail travel, depending on location, politics can be an impediment. Australia is not known for its log distance rail services. What little it has is mainly for foreign tourists &quot;wanting an experience&quot;. [Since the early 1980s][2] a number of studies have been undertaken for a high speed rail line linking Melbourne with Sydney and depending on the study also linking Canberra and/or Brisbane. Apart from &quot;studies&quot;, nothing has happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be argued that politics hampers rail elsewhere, such as the USA, maybe Canada. Economics is also another factor. China has done much to establish a fast long distance rail system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, using trains for long distance travel is logical if electrified trains are used, not diesel powered ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.qantas.com/au/en/qantas-group/acting-responsibly/our-planet/sustainable-aviation-fuel.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Australia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30892" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12194" RevisionGUID="4884f05f-ade8-475d-a3de-c6a0e9418625" CreationDate="2022-05-25T11:15:44.167" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected typo" Text="There's an inherent reply question to your question: &quot;What is your bench mark and what are you comparing?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Travel options for both passengers and freight is a dynamic situation where options are always under review and continuously changing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using trains to limit or replace car travel would be appealing and logical now from a CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; reduction perspective given most cars now use petrol/gasoline, diesel or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), but in 10 to 20 years time the vast majority of cars in Europe, and elsewhere, will be electrically powered and infrastructure to recharge vehicle batteries will be much easier to access than now. Upgrading existing rail infrastructure or replacing it will take years. Maybe waiting for cars to change might be an easier and cheaper option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some of the advantages of air travel compared to rail is air travel can be more direct and it can take less time to travel, depending on the starting and end points and the travel route between them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other changing dynamic is the design of aircraft and the fuel used. Some aircraft can be designed to have less mass and to be more fuel efficient. Additionally alternate fuels could be used. [Some airlines][1] are already investigating options and utilizing alternatives on certain routes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As to the development or expansion of rail travel, depending on location, politics can be an impediment. Australia is not known for its log distance rail services. What little it has is mainly for foreign tourists &quot;wanting an experience&quot;. [Since the early 1980s][2] a number of studies have been undertaken for a high speed rail line linking Melbourne with Sydney and depending on the study also linking Canberra and/or Brisbane. Apart from &quot;studies&quot;, nothing has happened.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It can be argued that politics hampers rail elsewhere, such as the USA, maybe Canada. Economics is also another factor. China has done much to establish a fast long distance rail system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, using trains for long distance travel is logical if electrified trains are used, not diesel powered ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.qantas.com/au/en/qantas-group/acting-responsibly/our-planet/sustainable-aviation-fuel.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Australia" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30893" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12195" RevisionGUID="5aa394c9-807e-4bef-ac75-60f082283ba2" CreationDate="2022-05-25T12:34:58.257" UserId="14027" Text="Typical period would be 2 years for embodied energy payback, using a nominal 200 peak watt per square meter and 600 kWh embodied energy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sunny regions have over 5 peak solar hours per day and more typical locations are around 4 hours. 200 W x 4 h = 0.8 kWh per day generation - Then 600 kWh / 0.8 kWh/day is 750 days or 2 years. Panels are rated for 25 years and can exceed that. So 25 years of free energy is likely (after embodied energy payback). I agree with others who say it doesn't matter, this embodied energy question and the question of ensuring we will recycle solar panels are red herrings. Panels can and must be recycled and societies will have to embrace that - solar PV is an astoundingly good invention that is improving incrementally. Perhaps it's more astounding that rooftop PV is not already the default standard for new construction energy systems. The world is still largely ignorant of the tremendous environmental and economic benefit of switching to household PV. Household is the best approach because the end users receive the economic benefit of the system - why cede that to energy utilities? Getting off fossil fuels is also key to global stability. Notice that many of the bad actor/dictatorship nations are the world's oil and gas barons. Every individual who embraces solar PV is one more step towards disenfranchising the tyrants. Wind energy is of course also laudable in that regard." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30896" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11853" RevisionGUID="26b0ec9e-cf47-4b79-9695-9024dad1ecab" CreationDate="2022-05-26T12:00:05.347" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1529794498771009538" />
  <row Id="30897" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12187" RevisionGUID="dcbb1033-08be-44b7-9240-5d87fbc05243" CreationDate="2022-05-28T13:33:25.553" UserId="3379" Comment="added 6 characters in body" Text="There is very little demand for making it easier to buy long distance train tickets such as Portugal to Latvia.  Most railway journeys in Western Europe are for short (&lt;100 km) or medium (100-1000 km) distances.  Unlike for flights, booking systems have developed nationally because that's where almost all railway journeys are made.  Often cross-border trains can still be booked, but not beyond that.  However, some booking systems do interact.  The German, Austrian, and Swiss railway systems are quite compatible, as are the French and Spanish systems.  Despite the difficulties and the relatively low number of long distance international travellers, today there are websites and smartphone apps that connect to multiple national booking systems.  Examples include thetrainline.com and raileurope.com.  When it becomes even more complicated, there are dedicated travel agencies such as the *treinreiswinkel* in The Netherlands, which used to advertise tickets from Portugal to Vietnam.  You can read more about thetrainline [at seat61.com](https://www.seat61.com/websites/who-are-trainline.htm)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the distant past, there were many more long distance international services in Western Europe.  The Orient Express was famous (and expensive), but there were others such as Sud Express and Nord Express, allowing people to travel from Lisbon to Stockholm with a change only in Paris.  Since 2020, there has not even been a train from Lisbon to Madrid any more.  With the advent of passenger airlines, long distance passenger trains service was reduced.  With the advent of ultra-cheap passenger flights, it was reduced further.  Night trains are quite expensive to operate because, unlike day trains, they can only run once per day (night) and are less full than day trains.  Night trains suffer not only from cheap flights, but also from high speed rail.  So although you can still travel from Portugal to Stockholm by train, you'll need many trains, many tickets, and probably several hotel nights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the climate crisis, there are cautious hints at a revival of night trains in Europe.  ÖBB Nightjet has restarted on some routes that DB CityNightLine had dropped.  The Swedish government is partly subsidising the new route Stockholm - Hamburg (starting 1 September 2022).  The former German transport minister suggested reviving the Trans Europe Express.  But we are a long way from being able to book international trains as easily as we can book complex airline tickets, and it seems this is not coming any time soon.  In fact, [in 2009, BBC News reported](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8382508.stm) on the failure of a Europe-wide common booking system, which is apparently very expensive:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Railteam, the alliance of European high-speed rail operators, has shelved plans for a Europe-wide common booking system because of increasing costs.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The system would have allowed customers to book tickets for Europe-wide rail journeys in a single transaction.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The platform was due to be unveiled this year, but has been scrapped for the foreseeable future, according to Eurostar.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Railteam's other members include Thalys, SNCF and Deutsche Bahn.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;All seven high-speed operators thought the platform would be a good idea but once we started looking at the system in detail we realised that it would be very complicated and therefore extremely expensive.&quot; said Lesley Retallack from Eurostar.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; At present, although travellers can book some Europe-wide tickets through the individual websites of Railteam's members, passengers often receive more than one ticket for journeys onward from the carriers' normal routes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The new system would have created a one-stop-shop for tickets for complete high-speed journeys across Europe. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In India and Russia, among other places, long distance train journeys are slow, but booking is relatively easy and there are many night trains.  It helps that those systems were built within one country with one booking system (in case of Russia, also linking with its shrinking number of post-Soviet friends).  I would expect that, here too, long distance train usage is shrinking due to the availability of (cheap) flights, but I don't have factual information on this." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30898" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="142d39f7-4e9f-4d08-a523-14a2b153ad58" CreationDate="2022-05-28T17:58:51.637" UserId="14030" Text="How to normalize all the LCA impacts? For example, if I want to compare them in percentage, I would need all of them to be in the same unit. But I don't know how can I change all different units to kg CO2 eq." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30900" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="142d39f7-4e9f-4d08-a523-14a2b153ad58" CreationDate="2022-05-28T17:58:51.637" UserId="14030" Text="how to normalize all the LCA impacts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30901" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12196" RevisionGUID="142d39f7-4e9f-4d08-a523-14a2b153ad58" CreationDate="2022-05-28T17:58:51.637" UserId="14030" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30902" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12197" RevisionGUID="e0a3cfe1-3b5c-4085-9b0f-5f9d9e37a4e9" CreationDate="2022-05-29T09:04:06.740" UserId="99" Text="For normalization you always calculate relative to some reference value. This means that you need to convert all relevant outputs to the unit of your chosen reference value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your reference value is kg CO2e, so I take it you are calculating global warming potential (greenhouse gasses). If a particular input doesn't produce any greenhouse gasses, then the output is 0%. For all other values you look at greenhouse gas outputs which should be in some form of weight CO2e (for example gram CO2e or kg CO2e). If not all values have the same unit, make sure you first convert everything to the same unit. Then you sum up all so you know what is 100%, and finally you look at the portion for each individual value to calculate the percentage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I hope this helps. If not, perhaps you can add a more detailed example of what it is you have trouble with?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30904" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="434e2b4c-6b2f-4306-b82e-0b414ff42cd5" CreationDate="2022-05-30T22:06:50.820" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30905" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12197" RevisionGUID="d297e31c-eb1d-42e7-a8d8-d007e3266844" CreationDate="2022-05-31T12:34:41.553" UserId="99" Comment="Add part how to convert to other GHGs to CO2e" Text="For normalization you always calculate relative to some reference value. This means that you need to convert all relevant outputs to the unit of your chosen reference value. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your reference value is kg CO2e, so I take it you are calculating global warming potential (greenhouse gasses). If a particular input doesn't produce any greenhouse gasses, then the output is 0%. For all other values you look at greenhouse gas outputs which should be in some form of weight CO2e (for example gram CO2e or kg CO2e). If not all values have the same unit, make sure you first convert everything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your comment below you mention you need to convert kg CFC-11 to kg CO2e. This can be done by looking up the [Global Warming Potential (GWP) factor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential) for that gas. [Wikipedia lists conversion factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential#Values) for different gasses. Note that these numbers change a bit over time, so that's why you see more than 1 number per cell. Typically the latest 100 years GWP is used, so in your case that is 6226 (data from 2021). Many LCA software already have such conversion factors available or allow you to output directly in CO2e." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30906" PostHistoryTypeId="10" PostId="7098" RevisionGUID="62b4ab68-49da-4603-9473-91171bf45e19" CreationDate="2022-05-31T13:33:49.523" UserId="3379" Comment="102" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:8232,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Robotnik&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:2345,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Fred&quot;},{&quot;Id&quot;:3379,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;LShaver&quot;}],&quot;SiteSpecificCloseReasonIds&quot;:[1]}" />
  <row Id="30908" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12198" RevisionGUID="20c2c25e-9f41-400b-b798-3b23d8d7d941" CreationDate="2022-05-31T23:39:02.450" UserId="14037" Text="So here is my situation. I am using a lot of electricity out of a couple specific outlets, 24/7. I want to install some solar panels, an inverter, and have these outlets (or possibly the whole house if I have enough power) run off solar as much as possible, to reduce the electrical bill... Without having a 2 way meter and no net metering is available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I of course want to make sure no electricity is feeding back to the grid, if I am producing excess power, as I would just be charged for it, not credited for it because there is not a 2 way meter. Also I want to ensure there is priority that it is always pulling from the solar first, if possible, then pulling from the grid secondary for anything extra it needs if I am not producing enough power to meet demand. Also I want to have a setup without using solar backup batteries for the inverter, because batteries are definitely the biggest expense, the solar panels by themselves are very affordable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to imagine a solution and don't really know what kind of products are available.... But I am thinking the only solution would be some sort of device.... Like a solar inverter maybe... That also has a connection to my grid power going into the solar inverter, and the solar inverter has the function that it will always supply power from solar first, but will just pass through to the grid power for other power requested in excess of the the available solar. Then just wire up the power lines I want to go to the inverter instead of the grid fuse box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, I don't know too much about this type of thing, please help me find the best solution possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Secondary question/afterthought is, if I had solar being produced, and it was never enough to meet my demand and I always had to pull a little from the grid, so I didn't need to worry about extra energy feeding back to the grid, is there an easier way to do this by like... Just mechanically connecting the solar inverter to the fuse box... But then how or in what way would you control or determine where the electricity is being pulled from? I would assume if there are 2 sources of power just mechanically connected, it would pull equally from both the inverter and grid line? How would you ensure it always pulls from the inverter first before pulling out of the grid? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30910" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12198" RevisionGUID="20c2c25e-9f41-400b-b798-3b23d8d7d941" CreationDate="2022-05-31T23:39:02.450" UserId="14037" Text="How to use solar power with grid backup without net metering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30911" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12198" RevisionGUID="20c2c25e-9f41-400b-b798-3b23d8d7d941" CreationDate="2022-05-31T23:39:02.450" UserId="14037" Text="|solar-power|energy-use|energy-management|solar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30912" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12197" RevisionGUID="4af6a857-31c3-4694-bd43-9ead9784c99b" CreationDate="2022-06-01T05:50:21.503" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 75 characters in body" Text="For normalization you always calculate relative to some reference value. Your reference value is in kg CO2e, so I take it you are calculating global warming potential (greenhouse gasses). If a particular input doesn't produce any greenhouse gasses, then the output is 0%. For all other values you look at greenhouse gas outputs which should be in some form of weight CO2e (for example gram CO2e or kg CO2e). If not all values have the same unit, make sure you first convert everything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your comment below you mention you need to convert kg CFC-11 to kg CO2e. This can be done by looking up the [Global Warming Potential (GWP) factor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential) for that gas. [Wikipedia lists conversion factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential#Values) for different gasses. Due to new scientific insights these numbers changed a bit over time, so that's why you see more than 1 number per cell. Typically the most recent 100 years GWP is used, so in your case that is 6226 (data from 2021). Many LCA software already have such conversion factors available or allow you to output directly in CO2e." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30913" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12197" RevisionGUID="bb31a141-5d4e-4be8-83d3-89ecea17b80a" CreationDate="2022-06-01T11:38:21.090" UserId="2345" Comment="Spelling correction" Text="For normalization you always calculate relative to some reference value. Your reference value is in kg CO2e, so I take it you are calculating global warming potential (greenhouse gases). If a particular input doesn't produce any greenhouse gases, then the output is 0%. For all other values you look at greenhouse gas outputs which should be in some form of weight CO2e (for example gram CO2e or kg CO2e). If not all values have the same unit, make sure you first convert everything. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In your comment below you mention you need to convert kg CFC-11 to kg CO2e. This can be done by looking up the [Global Warming Potential (GWP) factor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential) for that gas. [Wikipedia lists conversion factors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential#Values) for different gasses. Due to new scientific insights these numbers changed a bit over time, so that's why you see more than 1 number per cell. Typically the most recent 100 years GWP is used, so in your case that is 6226 (data from 2021). Many LCA software already have such conversion factors available or allow you to output directly in CO2e." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12199" RevisionGUID="6ed3c4be-a15d-418f-9749-8db6b00d7504" CreationDate="2022-06-03T16:35:01.440" UserId="6393" Text="From &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_meter#Power_export_metering&quot;&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt;:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; This exported energy may be accounted for in the simplest case by the meter running backwards during periods of net export, thus reducing the customer's recorded energy usage by the amount exported. This in effect results in the customer being paid for his/her exports at the full retail price of electricity. Unless equipped with a ratchet or equivalent, a standard meter will accurately record power flow in each direction by simply running backwards when power is exported&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Either your meter has a ratchet or doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it has a ratchet, it is run forwards only by electricity you get from the grid. If you use less than you produce, the meter would want to run backwards but can't due to the ratchet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it doesn't have a ratchet, you already have net metering!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This applies to mechanical meters. Digital meters measure the strength and direction of current, so the distinction between net metering and no net metering is simply done in software: a &quot;software ratchet&quot; so as to say.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the only thing that can go wrong is if you have multi-phase electricity with imbalance between the phases. In this case, it's possible each phase is measured separately with a separate ratchet. It it's so, then it's possible you produce:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 1 kW in phase 1&#xD;&#xA;* 1 kW in phase 2&#xD;&#xA;* 1 kW in phase 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you now use:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 0 kW in phase 1&#xD;&#xA;* 2 kW in phase 2&#xD;&#xA;* 0 kW in phase 3&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...the grid is feeding to you&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 0 kW in phase 1 (1 kW in the other direction)&#xD;&#xA;* 1 kW in phase 2&#xD;&#xA;* 0 kW in phase 3 (1 kW in the other direction)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...then you produce 3 kW, consume 2 kW, but still have to pay for 1 kW of electric power because of phase imbalance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To find out how phase imbalance is handled, you can ask your electricity company." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30916" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="11952" RevisionGUID="29f20bfc-3e37-4feb-a958-d65720cf021c" CreationDate="2022-06-03T19:08:30.907" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30918" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12200" RevisionGUID="6222345c-fe39-458e-865a-6f0f7607f31d" CreationDate="2022-06-04T16:20:38.133" UserId="2182" Text="This is bugging me to the point that it almost enrages me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A split-unit air conditioner would typically cause condense to form in the indoor unit. This water can be simply drained with gravity having a pipe running to a sewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in most cases there is no nearby sewerage pipe or the installation would be too much of a hassle. Usually the water is pumped all the way back to the outdoor unit (because there are already pipes going through walls that way) where it is just dumped on the roof, in a gutter or elsewhere ([sometimes even causing problems][1])...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't get it.. the manufacturers are not oblivion to the cooling power of evaporating liquid (the whole AC device works on that principle) so why don't they add any contraption to sprinkle the radiator with the condensed water (like dripping it onto a slanted surface for instance)? The radiator is already weather proof since it should be able to handle rain and snow blowing in. Condensed water will not build up calcium or lime scales as opposed to tap water (unless one suffers from severe indoor dust storms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If corrosion of the radiator is the main concern then the hot gas could run trough a separate pipe that is immersed by the condense water before it goes through the radiator, maybe even use sandwiched [Peltier][2] elements to bring the water up to boiling point and dramatically cool the gas with a comparatively small amount of energy. Evaporating water will dramatically boost the efficiency (using Peltier elements without the evaporating water would not be efficient at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a rough illustration of the idea:&#xD;&#xA;![Illustration how to utilize condensate[2]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way condensate currently just gets dumped right under the radiator baffles me, this idea seems so obvious, I cannot believe that I'm the first to come up with it. So my question is why doesn't any AC unit on the market use the condensate for cooling by re-evaporation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=AC+condensation+Drainage+issue&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9fwiB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30920" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12200" RevisionGUID="6222345c-fe39-458e-865a-6f0f7607f31d" CreationDate="2022-06-04T16:20:38.133" UserId="2182" Text="Why is condensate from a split-unit Airco waisted by draining it right next to the radiator?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30921" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12200" RevisionGUID="6222345c-fe39-458e-865a-6f0f7607f31d" CreationDate="2022-06-04T16:20:38.133" UserId="2182" Text="|energy-efficiency|water|cooling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30922" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12200" RevisionGUID="ad7dc169-cc9f-4ea8-a5a1-653729a1ba54" CreationDate="2022-06-04T18:36:31.840" UserId="2182" Comment="Added an illustration to visualise the first (cheap) idea" Text="This is bugging me to the point that it almost enrages me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A split-unit air conditioner would typically cause condense to form in the indoor unit. This water can be simply drained with gravity having a pipe running to a sewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in most cases there is no nearby sewerage pipe or the installation would be too much of a hassle. Usually the water is pumped all the way back to the outdoor unit (because there are already pipes going through walls that way) where it is just dumped on the roof, in a gutter or elsewhere ([sometimes even causing problems][1])...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't get it.. the manufacturers are not oblivion to the cooling power of evaporating liquid (the whole AC device works on that principle) so why don't they add any contraption to sprinkle the radiator with the condensed water (like dripping it onto a slanted surface for instance)? The radiator is already weather proof since it should be able to handle rain and snow blowing in. Condensed water will not build up calcium or lime scales as opposed to tap water (unless one suffers from severe indoor dust storms). Here's a schematic illustration of the principle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Schematic illustration of a simple setup][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If corrosion of the radiator is the main concern then the hot gas could run trough a separate pipe that is immersed by the condense water before it goes through the radiator, maybe even use sandwiched [Peltier][3] elements to bring the water up to boiling point and dramatically cool the gas with a comparatively small amount of energy. Evaporating water will dramatically boost the efficiency (using Peltier elements without the evaporating water would not be efficient at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a rough illustration of the idea:&#xD;&#xA;![Illustration how to utilize condensate[2]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way condensate currently just gets dumped right under the radiator baffles me, this idea seems so obvious, I cannot believe that I'm the first to come up with it. So my question is why doesn't any AC unit on the market use the condensate for cooling by re-evaporation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=AC+condensation+Drainage+issue&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9usDC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9fwiB.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30923" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12201" RevisionGUID="05eeef9e-7431-4911-8d4e-e340aede4508" CreationDate="2022-06-05T09:30:35.020" UserId="6393" Text="Yes, indeed, all AC units have condensing water on the evaporator. One way to get rid of it is simply a pipe where it is discarded to a sewer or discarded outdoors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In units that are not designed to be permanently installed but rather moved on wheels, where the single unit contains both the evaporator and condenser in the same unit (unlike split units where evaporator and condenser are different), there is typically a system that lets the condense water from cold evaporator to drip to the hot condenser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way this works is that these mobile units on wheels have the evaporator on top of the condenser so the dripping part is easy. However, this is not enough. The water doesn't evaporate fast enough, so it may drip to the bottom of the condenser. In this case, the condenser needs a large water container in the bottom of it, and a pump to re-raise the water back to the evaporator above the condenser, where it may start the dripping and evaporating process again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, in some climates where the weather is very hot and humid, it is possible the condenser is unable to evaporate all condensing water and the water container needs to be manually emptied. So there needs to be means to get rid of the water in cases where the condenser can't get rid of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect the reason why split AC units don't do the same is caused by these:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* You need a pump at the condenser to re-raise water from bottom of condenser to top of condenser give water multiple chances at evaporating. The pump adds cost and complexity.&#xD;&#xA;* You need means to get rid of the water in cases where it accumulates faster than it evaporates. If getting rid of it doesn't mean dripping it on the ground, there needs to be some means of containing the water and letting the user empty the accumulated water. If the condenser is installed for example in an apartment building, how do you empty the container? You would need ladders potentially ten meters long or something similar to be able to reach the condenser. Imagine doing this every day! Of course it might be possible to install Yet Another Indoor Unit that absolutely has to be installed lower than the condenser and would contain just a pipe ending at a shut-off valve that would allow draining the water from indoors. Of course this would require Yet Another Hole At The Wall...&#xD;&#xA;* If the condenser is installed higher than the evaporator, the single pump at the condenser isn't enough, you need a second pump at the evaporator to be able to raise the water higher than at the evaporator&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the expense of a pump or two and the inconvenience of draining the container if water doesn't evaporate fast enough isn't probably worth it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true that the temperature at the condenser is critical to AC system efficiency. There are two ways it can be improved:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Make the fan at the condenser rotate faster to cool down the condenser&#xD;&#xA;* Evaporate the condensed water to cool down the condenser&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The manufacturers probably have though that if condensed water can be gotten easily and cheaply rid of by dripping it to the ground, the expense of potentially two pumps and the inconvenience of getting rid of the too fast accumulating water in some climates isn't worth it to slightly improve the system efficiency, because the manufacturer can improve system efficiency by making the fan rotate a bit faster, or to install a better (larger) fan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The self-contained AC units on wheels that can't get rid of water via a pipe because the entire unit is contained indoors and hot air is blown out of a window using a duct, do evaporating not because it greatly improves system efficiency (it improves efficiency only slightly), but rather because that's the only option they have. They have to have a pump and means of shutting down the device when water accumulates too much (to let the user solve the situation).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also I wouldn't be surprised to find out if the evaporation of water in self-contained AC units only works because they're so terribly inefficient in cooling the hot condenser (they do it via a duct). Split AC units have a very very large fan at the condenser. Spit AC units are also more efficient. I suspect the very very large fan can do a far better job at cooling the condenser, improving system efficiency. I'm not sure if the well-cooled condenser is hot enough to actually evaporate the water. If not, then it's not actually true that evaporation of water improves system efficiency. To evaporate, you need hot enough condenser and that alone may mean the system efficiency has to be low." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30925" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12125" RevisionGUID="d766175b-690a-448d-bed4-ec993f5402b0" CreationDate="2022-06-06T10:27:17.343" UserId="13882" Comment="fixed grammar" Text="As others already said: &#xD;&#xA;- add more dry stuff to reduce the moisture (cardboard pieces), &#xD;&#xA;- open it daily to make the adults fly away, &#xD;&#xA;- use a vinegar bait and cover well all the food with dry material (cardboard pieces).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition:&#xD;&#xA;- kill the pupae (cocoon) that you see on the back cover or box walls, they are the fly cocoons which looks for dryer part of the compost to become adults.&#xD;&#xA;- stop putting in fruit remains. Put only non-sweet waste (vegetable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**In practice**: my personal experience is that if you keep in putting fruit waste, fly larvae will keep managing to grow and you won't manage to get rid of them entirely." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12200" RevisionGUID="75c60e32-8f70-4402-b17f-c0cdae25ce3e" CreationDate="2022-06-06T20:50:04.710" UserId="2182" Comment="Added another image" Text="This is bugging me to the point that it almost enrages me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A split-unit air conditioner would typically cause condense to form in the indoor unit. This water can be simply drained with gravity having a pipe running to a sewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in most cases there is no nearby sewerage pipe or the installation would be too much of a hassle. Usually the water is pumped all the way back to the outdoor unit (because there are already pipes going through walls that way) where it is just dumped on the roof, in a gutter or elsewhere ([sometimes even causing problems][1])...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't get it.. the manufacturers are not oblivion to the cooling power of evaporating liquid (the whole AC device works on that principle) so why don't they add any contraption to sprinkle the radiator with the condensed water (like dripping it onto a slanted surface for instance)? The radiator is already weather proof since it should be able to handle rain and snow blowing in. Condensed water will not build up calcium or lime scales as opposed to tap water (unless one suffers from severe indoor dust storms). Here's a schematic illustration of the principle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Schematic illustration of a simple setup][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If corrosion of the radiator is the main concern then the hot gas could run trough a separate pipe that is immersed by the condense water before it goes through the radiator, maybe even use sandwiched [Peltier][3] elements to bring the water up to boiling point and dramatically cool the gas with a comparatively small amount of energy. Evaporating water will dramatically boost the efficiency (using Peltier elements without the evaporating water would not be efficient at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a rough illustration of the idea:&#xD;&#xA;![Illustration how to utilize condensate[2]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way condensate currently just gets dumped right under the radiator baffles me, this idea seems so obvious, I cannot believe that I'm the first to come up with it. So my question is why doesn't any AC unit on the market use the condensate for cooling by re-evaporation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another image to clarify:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=AC+condensation+Drainage+issue&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9usDC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9fwiB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hTZWP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30927" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12200" RevisionGUID="3eeeb746-3ac4-41f6-9e36-48cbb138a954" CreationDate="2022-06-07T10:03:46.757" UserId="2182" Comment="Added note that the condenser also gets wet in reverse (heating) mode." Text="This is bugging me to the point that it almost enrages me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A split-unit air conditioner would typically cause condense to form in the indoor unit. This water can be simply drained with gravity having a pipe running to a sewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in most cases there is no nearby sewerage pipe or the installation would be too much of a hassle. Usually the water is pumped all the way back to the outdoor unit (because there are already pipes going through walls that way) where it is just dumped on the roof, in a gutter or elsewhere ([sometimes even causing problems][1])...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't get it.. the manufacturers are not oblivion to the cooling power of evaporating liquid (the whole AC device works on that principle) so why don't they add any contraption to sprinkle the radiator with the condensed water (like dripping it onto a slanted surface for instance)? The radiator is already weather proof since it should be able to handle rain and snow blowing in and it would also get wet with condensation when working in reverse (heating) mode. Condensed water will not build up calcium or lime scales as opposed to tap water (unless one suffers from severe indoor dust storms). Here's a schematic illustration of the principle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Schematic illustration of a simple setup][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If corrosion of the radiator is the main concern then the hot gas could run trough a separate pipe that is immersed by the condense water before it goes through the radiator, maybe even use sandwiched [Peltier][3] elements to bring the water up to boiling point and dramatically cool the gas with a comparatively small amount of energy. Evaporating water will dramatically boost the efficiency (using Peltier elements without the evaporating water would not be efficient at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a rough illustration of the idea:&#xD;&#xA;![Illustration how to utilize condensate[2]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way condensate currently just gets dumped right under the radiator baffles me, this idea seems so obvious, I cannot believe that I'm the first to come up with it. So my question is why doesn't any AC unit on the market use the condensate for cooling by re-evaporation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another image to clarify:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=AC+condensation+Drainage+issue&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9usDC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9fwiB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hTZWP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30928" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12159" RevisionGUID="d205ed63-e4f6-4ca8-82d6-581fd0b61104" CreationDate="2022-06-07T12:05:35.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30929" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12200" RevisionGUID="0b164acb-50b0-4c37-b98c-ad3731de41bd" CreationDate="2022-06-07T12:34:39.513" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title, re-arranged text to highlight the question." Text="This is bugging me to the point that it almost enrages me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A split-unit air conditioner would typically cause condensate to form in the indoor unit. This water can be simply drained with gravity having a pipe running to a sewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in most cases there is no nearby sewerage pipe or the installation would be too much of a hassle. Usually the water is pumped all the way back to the outdoor unit (because there are already pipes going through walls that way) where it is just dumped on the roof, in a gutter or elsewhere ([sometimes even causing problems][1])...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't get it... the manufacturers are not oblivion to the cooling power of evaporating liquid (the whole AC device works on that principle) so why don't they add a contraption to sprinkle the radiator with the condensed water (like dripping it onto a slanted surface for instance)? The radiator is already weather proof since it should be able to handle rain and snow blowing in and it would also get wet with condensation when working in reverse (heating) mode. Condensed water will not build up calcium or lime scales as opposed to tap water (unless one suffers from severe indoor dust storms). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The way condensate currently just gets dumped right under the radiator baffles me, this idea seems so obvious, I cannot believe that I'm the first to come up with it. So my question is why doesn't any AC unit on the market use the condensate for cooling by re-evaporation?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a schematic illustration of the principle:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Schematic illustration of a simple setup][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If corrosion of the radiator is the main concern then the hot gas could run trough a separate pipe that is immersed by the condensate water before it goes through the radiator, maybe even use sandwiched [Peltier][3] elements to bring the water up to boiling point and dramatically cool the gas with a comparatively small amount of energy. Evaporating water will dramatically boost the efficiency (using Peltier elements without the evaporating water would not be efficient at all).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a rough illustration of the idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Illustration how to utilize condensate[2]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another image to clarify:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=AC+condensation+Drainage+issue&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9usDC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9fwiB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hTZWP.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30930" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12200" RevisionGUID="0b164acb-50b0-4c37-b98c-ad3731de41bd" CreationDate="2022-06-07T12:34:39.513" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title, re-arranged text to highlight the question." Text="Why not use condensate from a split-unit air conditioner to improve cooling efficiency?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30931" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12200" RevisionGUID="0b164acb-50b0-4c37-b98c-ad3731de41bd" CreationDate="2022-06-07T12:34:39.513" UserId="3379" Comment="Improved title, re-arranged text to highlight the question." Text="|energy-efficiency|cooling|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30932" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12202" RevisionGUID="891af4c8-6016-4f3c-8572-d183843f2034" CreationDate="2022-06-07T15:10:46.707" UserId="5477" Text="I considered a water drip on my outside condenser but the possibility of corrosion was likely to more than offset any efficiency gain. Yes, the outside unit gets rained on occasionally but that is not the same as usually wet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12203" RevisionGUID="914e6c3b-4992-4632-9c34-1694e2c49121" CreationDate="2022-06-08T15:25:04.803" UserId="13870" Text="Two months ago I made a post asking about [Compost Heat Recovery System designs ][1] that are compact enough for household usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though I got no answers from that post, I managed to develop a prototype reactor which I think is showing promising results.&#xD;&#xA;Its volume is only 0.24 cubic meters(50cm * 40 cm * 120 cm) .&#xD;&#xA;While the ambient temperature is around 26~29 degrees Celsius, the compost heap in the reactor stayed above 50 degrees Celsius for 14 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My goal is to integrate it with heating system of a house to replace natural gas and reduce the demand of electricity produced from fossil fuels.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general setting is illustrated below:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one of the reactors is at thermophilic stage to provide continuous heat source.&#xD;&#xA;The heat is pumped out from the reactor to the thermal reservoir by Stirling heat pumps.&#xD;&#xA;This reservoir is just a regular hot water tank with fortified thermal insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This system will have far lesser supply chain issues since it completely runs on local resources(grass clippings, food scrap, etc).&#xD;&#xA;The compost, as a byproduct, can also reduce the need for chemical nitrogen fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm now building Stirling heat pumps to test how much and how intense the prototype can heat up.&#xD;&#xA;According to [this review article][3]:&#xD;&#xA;A kilogram(dry weight) of compost can produce as high as 7084kJ in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, do you think this system can reduce the damage from current energy crisis by reducing the oil and gas used in heating?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/12120/is-there-any-efficient-and-small-scale-compost-heat-recoverychr-system&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fogPR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1065657X.2016.1233082" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12203" RevisionGUID="914e6c3b-4992-4632-9c34-1694e2c49121" CreationDate="2022-06-08T15:25:04.803" UserId="13870" Text="Can a compact Compost Heat Recovery system reduce the usage of fossile fuels on household heating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12203" RevisionGUID="914e6c3b-4992-4632-9c34-1694e2c49121" CreationDate="2022-06-08T15:25:04.803" UserId="13870" Text="|heating|composting|heat-pump|fossil-fuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12204" RevisionGUID="ae1a3f79-5c59-4fbb-b0c7-662b3666c437" CreationDate="2022-06-09T15:28:24.873" UserId="14058" Text="To stay mobile, and also avoid the expensive cost of rent, can you live in a Caravan for a long term? or even permanently? &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12204" RevisionGUID="ae1a3f79-5c59-4fbb-b0c7-662b3666c437" CreationDate="2022-06-09T15:28:24.873" UserId="14058" Text="Can you live in a Caravan for a long term? permanently?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12204" RevisionGUID="ae1a3f79-5c59-4fbb-b0c7-662b3666c437" CreationDate="2022-06-09T15:28:24.873" UserId="14058" Text="|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30942" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="9c09ab57-abb3-4583-a116-8e73fee8cd95" CreationDate="2022-06-09T18:04:00.317" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30943" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="10cb725e-4005-41e4-9af5-2417c0d437af" CreationDate="2022-06-10T10:26:15.487" UserId="2345" Comment="Spelling correction" Text="HC (I assume hydrocarbons) is a column in the euro emission standards for trucks &amp; buses.  Which hydrocarbons are produced and at what quantities?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would the particulate matter emissions be included in the hydrocarbon emissions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards#Emission_standards_for_trucks_and_buses&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30946" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12206" RevisionGUID="d19ff069-055d-494b-b219-a3d3b58a7182" CreationDate="2022-06-10T10:51:25.547" UserId="2345" Text="Some people live in caravans (or trailer homes as they are known in the US), sometimes for long periods of time, as a matter of necessity due to their economic situation. Most people find such a living arrangements unsatisfactory. In addition to social stigma associated with this style of living, most people dislike to lack of permanency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other issues involve the requirement for personal hygiene facilities: bathing, ablutions, laundry facilities for clothing &amp; bedding. As well as limited space for a kitchen pantry and refrigerator." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30948" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12204" RevisionGUID="3096fb31-8610-405b-9877-d457dbe5f44a" CreationDate="2022-06-10T12:32:50.763" UserId="8232" Comment="edited tags" Text="|home|transport|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12206" RevisionGUID="e270d547-697a-44fd-b113-22db4cb4c0fc" CreationDate="2022-06-11T09:31:24.603" UserId="2345" Comment="Added extra details" Text="Some people live in caravans (or trailer homes as they are known in the US), sometimes for long periods of time, as a matter of necessity due to their economic situation. Most people find such a living arrangements unsatisfactory. In addition to social stigma associated with this style of living, most people dislike to lack of permanency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other issues involve the requirement for personal hygiene facilities: bathing, ablutions, laundry facilities for clothing &amp; bedding. As well as limited space for a kitchen pantry and refrigerator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit - Additional material.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the location, some caravan parks allow people to stay for lengthy periods of time, others only allow people to stay for a limited amount of time before having to move elsewhere. Some of the reasons for limited tenure is to clear the park for the local tourist or holiday season. Which can be a lucrative time for caravan park owners and also because some customers are regular temporary customers during such periods." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12208" RevisionGUID="efdd8edb-f618-4472-9ab0-94bd5783bb3f" CreationDate="2022-06-13T11:09:40.540" UserId="96" Text="Your comparing apples to oranges, or rathe apple fruits to apple trees. AD (Anaerobic digestion) can only use parts of the plants that a cow could eat - starch, fat, protein and some fibre (hemicellulose) but not woods biomass. Pyrolysis OTOH *can*, and is most often done, on wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory pyrolysis is exothermal in certain temperature ranges, AFAIK the heat is usually supplied by burning a small amount of the biomass with air - maybe 10% of the energy content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AD is exothermal in the sense that it generates a small amount of heat (a few percent of the energy content of the biogas), in most practical cases this is neglible compared to the energy needed to heat the substrate to 40°C required for most fermentation processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both processes require electrical energy for handling (or not, some small digesters can be stirred by hand). Again, the comparison is difficult. Pyrolysis is usually (the exception is hydrothermal carbonization which is very cool but a different beast) done on dry matter, AD on wet slurrys. So the energy denstiy (usuable energy / kg) is far lower for most AD feedstocks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, treating biogas is far easier than treating pyrolysis gas. In every case, the burner needs to be adjusted for the wobbe index of the gas. With biogas, desulphurization and drying are the most common steps before use. With pyrolysis, you need to remove dust and tar, also cooling is often required (to achieve better density)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30958" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12208" RevisionGUID="aff6a435-2bac-40ec-be3b-d93fa2bf0689" CreationDate="2022-06-13T12:45:21.770" UserId="2345" Comment="Spelling corrections, grammatical changes &amp; weblink inclusion" Text="Your comparing apples to oranges, or rather apple fruits to apple trees. AD (Anaerobic digestion) can only use parts of the plants that a cow could eat - starch, fat, protein and some fibre (hemicellulose) but not woods biomass. Pyrolysis OTOH *can*, and is most often done, on wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory pyrolysis is exothermal in certain temperature ranges, AFAIK the heat is usually supplied by burning a small amount of the biomass with air - maybe 10% of the energy content.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AD is exothermal in the sense that it generates a small amount of heat (a few percent of the energy content of the biogas), in most practical cases this is negligible compared to the energy needed to heat the substrate to 40°C required for most fermentation processes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both processes require electrical energy for handling (or not, some small digesters can be stirred by hand). Again, the comparison is difficult. Pyrolysis is usually (the exception is hydrothermal carbonization which is very cool but a different beast) done on dry matter, AD on wet slurries. So the energy density (usable energy / kg) is far lower for most AD feedstocks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lastly, treating biogas is far easier than treating pyrolysis gas. In every case, the burner needs to be adjusted for the [Wobbe Index][1] of the gas. With biogas, desulphurization and drying are the most common steps before use. With pyrolysis, you need to remove dust and tar, also cooling is often required (to achieve better density).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wobbe_index" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30959" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12206" RevisionGUID="1134107c-1bc5-4b0b-89d8-0af91500fce8" CreationDate="2022-06-13T12:51:35.703" UserId="2345" Comment="Added weblink to recent news item" Text="Some people live in caravans (or trailer homes as they are known in the US), sometimes for long periods of time, as a matter of necessity due to their economic situation. Most people find such a living arrangements unsatisfactory. In addition to social stigma associated with this style of living, most people dislike to lack of permanency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other issues involve the requirement for personal hygiene facilities: bathing, ablutions, laundry facilities for clothing &amp; bedding. As well as limited space for a kitchen pantry and refrigerator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Edit - Additional material.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the location, some caravan parks allow people to stay for lengthy periods of time, others only allow people to stay for a limited amount of time before having to move elsewhere. Some of the reasons for limited tenure is to clear the park for the local tourist or holiday season. Which can be a lucrative time for caravan park owners and also because some customers are regular temporary customers during such periods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Additional Edit**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This recent [news item][1] (12 June 2022) illustrates what some people are prepared to due, with years of planning, to be able to live a nomadic lifestyle in a specially commissioned **off grid** caravan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-13/young-victorian-nomads-sell-up-hit-the-road-in-off-grid-caravan/101142978" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30960" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12209" RevisionGUID="7a791d10-8668-4f8e-8aa4-a4d0140274dd" CreationDate="2022-06-13T22:57:41.357" UserId="5497" Text="It is not for everyone, and even if it agrees with you, it may not be for you for a very long time. That said, I'd plan for a fixed period, after which you could choose to extend, or abort.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I lived *on a bicycle* for over a year! My only possessions were what could be carried on the bicycle. I slept under highway overpasses quite often. I would occasionally hire a room for a month or a few, to get me through the winter, or so I could make some money in order to continue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a step-daughter who loves the vagabond life-style. As I recall, her primary motivation was the high cost of rent. She has a 26' motor home, and pulls a trailer that hauls a motorcycle. She's a phlebotomist (blood drawer), who does contract work. When a contract is nearing its end, she can renew if she likes where she is, or look for another contract somewhere else. I don't know how she makes her parking arrangements, but I know she almost **never** stays in organized campgrounds. Most places where she works have employee shower facilities. She generally avoids putting anything in the blackwater tank, unless &quot;on the road&quot; instead of parked somewhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Providing for your income may be difficult if you don't have a &quot;portable&quot; career, though. Even with a conventionally portable gig, like remote work, maintaining a reliable Internet connection may be difficult.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it certainly is possible, with some compromises and sacrifices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Canada, you'll have to either flee to the West Coast for the winter, or put some serious thought into how to make it through the winter. Most motor homes are not designed for over-winter occupancy, with requirements to drain your fluids and bring your deep-cycle battery indoors, for example. And if you *do* choose to heat it over the winter, keep in mind that they typically are not insulated well, and you may be spending a lot of fuel, just to have it go through the walls and ceiling!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Legally, everything is going to depend on the jurisdiction. On Salt Spring Island, there are places where the authorities simply turn a blind eye to, and there are caravans parked there most of the summer, and well into the colder months. Take time to talk to other such campers, who will share with you where there are good places to stay, and where to avoid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure what this has to do with &quot;sustainable living,&quot; though! I think people living in campers may well use more resources than someone staying on even a small plot of land where they can supply at least some of their own food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had great fun while being a vagabond, but it eventually got old. &quot;Normal&quot; things like having a family, or having a typical &quot;career advancement&quot; can be a challenge. But if that is not a problem for you, go for it!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12210" RevisionGUID="43552654-3475-4cba-a40a-42609fae97d4" CreationDate="2022-06-15T04:37:03.737" UserId="14136" Text="I can definitely say Yes. The grass clippings can be used for ruminant animals like sheep and goat after ensiling or drying of the grass clippings. That has been scientifically proved in our lab.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30964" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12203" RevisionGUID="4c4bbe2f-4d9c-4d42-acb9-d8d249df37c4" CreationDate="2022-06-15T13:26:07.270" UserId="2345" Comment="Rephrased the question + spelling correction" Text="Two months ago I made a post asking about [Compost Heat Recovery System designs ][1] that are compact enough for household usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Though I got no answers from that post, I managed to develop a prototype reactor which I think is showing promising results.&#xD;&#xA;Its volume is only 0.24 cubic meters (50cm * 40 cm * 120 cm).&#xD;&#xA;While the ambient temperature is around 26~29 degrees Celsius, the compost heap in the reactor stayed above 50 degrees Celsius for 14 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**My goal is to integrate it with heating system of a house to replace natural gas and reduce the demand of electricity produced from fossil fuels.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The general setting is illustrated below:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At least one of the reactors is at thermophilic stage to provide continuous heat source.&#xD;&#xA;The heat is pumped out from the reactor to the thermal reservoir by Stirling heat pumps.&#xD;&#xA;This reservoir is just a regular hot water tank with fortified thermal insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This system will have far lesser supply chain issues since it completely runs on local resources(grass clippings, food scrap, etc).&#xD;&#xA;The compost, as a byproduct, can also reduce the need for chemical nitrogen fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm now building Stirling heat pumps to test how much and how intense the prototype can heat up.&#xD;&#xA;According to [this review article][3]:&#xD;&#xA;A kilogram(dry weight) of compost can produce as high as 7084kJ in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So, do you think this system can reduce the amount of oil and/or gas used in heating?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/12120/is-there-any-efficient-and-small-scale-compost-heat-recoverychr-system&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fogPR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1065657X.2016.1233082" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30965" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12203" RevisionGUID="4c4bbe2f-4d9c-4d42-acb9-d8d249df37c4" CreationDate="2022-06-15T13:26:07.270" UserId="2345" Comment="Rephrased the question + spelling correction" Text="Can a compact compost heat recovery system reduce the usage of fossil fuels on household heating?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30966" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12211" RevisionGUID="c01f5d9d-8f46-4a27-b232-678af565b265" CreationDate="2022-06-15T17:51:23.867" UserId="6393" Text="Reduce yes. Reduce markedly, no, unless you live in a passive house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A normal human eats about 12 megajoules per day. If waste food is at such a high level as 3 megajoules per day (most people on this site wanting to be sustainable probably produce less waste), that's about 0.8 kWh per day or about 300 kWh per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The house where I live requires 15 000 kWh per year to heat (southern Finland). So if I produced massive amounts of biodegradable waste (I don't), I might be able to cover perhaps 2% of the heating needs at most. Ok, I live alone in a large house but I don't think more than 4 persons could live in a house of this size, and if every one of those would produce 3 megajoules of waste per day, that still would be only 8%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't think the idea is worth implementing. The heat gets lost in the noise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A passive house would be different, on the other hand. A passive house uses less than 15 kWh / square meter (the standards are bit looser than 15 kWh/m&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; in Finland but let's use 15 here) so a house of the size where I live would use 1500 kWh / year of heating energy at the most. If four persons live in a house of this size and everyone produces 3 MJ / day of waste, then the waste would cover 80% of heating energy needs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30968" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12200" RevisionGUID="9955f16d-7beb-45b9-9322-d2ee2bec23b1" CreationDate="2022-06-16T00:05:32.860" UserId="2182" Comment="More elaboration, greater detail, added more background info" Text="This is bugging me to the point that it almost enrages me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A split-unit air conditioner would typically cause condensate to form in the indoor unit. This water can be simply drained with gravity having a pipe running to a sewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However in most cases there is no nearby sewerage pipe or the installation would be too much of a hassle. Usually the water is pumped all the way back to the outdoor unit (because there are already pipes going through walls that way) where it is just dumped on the roof, in a gutter or elsewhere ([sometimes even causing problems][1])...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't get it... the manufacturers are not oblivion to the cooling power of evaporating liquid (the whole AC device works on that principle) so why don't they add a contraption to sprinkle the radiator with the condensed water (like dripping it onto a slanted surface for instance)? The radiator is already weather proof since it should be able to handle rain and snow blowing in and it would also get wet with condensation when working in reverse (heating) mode. Condensed water will not build up calcium or lime scales as opposed to tap water (unless one suffers from severe indoor dust storms).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Example of a typical ductless AC installation][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Corrosion of the radiator may be a concern, but when used in reverse as a heat-pump, the radiator would be wet any way (in the wetter parts of the year when not freezing) water will condensate on the outside radiator. That is a reason why the radiator should not be designed in a way that it would hold water in order to evaporate it. When used in reverse as a heat-pump it would be ideal to let that water run off before having a chance to evaporate. In this mode there will be no water coming from the drain so it would not interfere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a schematic illustration of a most simple implementation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Schematic illustration of a simple setup][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rate at which condense is supplied may be greater than what can be evaporated this way ([between 5 and 20 gallons a day][4]).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An active way to evaporate the water in a controlled way is to run the hot gas trough a flattened pipe that is cooled by sandwiched [Peltier][5] elements that bring the water up to boiling point and dramatically cool the gas with a comparatively small amount of energy (using Peltier elements without the evaporating water would not be efficient at all, but boiling water should extract a huge amount of heat).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a rough illustration of the idea:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Illustration how to utilize condensate[2]][6]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I cannot find much info about how hot the refrigerant is at the start of the radiator, but I think a [TEC2-19004][7] should be able to get it to boil. It can handle 4 Amps at 16 Volts so that would be 64Watt max to get a difference of ≥80°C according to their claims. Running at max capacity is not most efficient but should not be needed, we don't want the refrigerant to freeze in the radiator either...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However we may need a few of these to consume all the water. The water will not start to boil until the whole body of water has reached boiling point. Without a hot radiator it takes about 2400kW to evaporate 2.4 liters per hour in an [even more wasteful evaporation pan][8]. In this use-case a Peltier solution could be allot more efficient than most of the other inefficient ways that Peltier solutions are usually known for.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way condensate currently just gets dumped right under the radiator baffles me, this idea seems so obvious, I cannot believe that I'm the first to come up with it. So my question is **why doesn't any AC unit on the market have a built-in option to use drained condensate for cooling by re-evaporation?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=AC+condensation+Drainage+issue&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/hTZWP.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9usDC.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.frymire.com/blog/how-much-water-should-drain-from-my-air-conditioner/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9fwiB.png&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000987806535.html&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://www.ezyair.com.au/blogs/before-you-start/termination-of-condensate-drains" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30969" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12212" RevisionGUID="5054b837-8684-4d4c-b5d4-e152769aaa71" CreationDate="2022-06-17T22:56:38.033" UserId="9669" Text="Environmentalists advise us against chemical fertilizers and tell us to use organic alternatives instead. Sri Lanka [tried][1] to do that, and now its economy is in a total shambles (not *only* because of that, but *partly* because of that): they had crop failures and were forced to buy food from abroad, depleting foreign reserves. It also hurt the country's tea and rubber exports. Is it really such a good idea after all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-61028138" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30971" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12212" RevisionGUID="5054b837-8684-4d4c-b5d4-e152769aaa71" CreationDate="2022-06-17T22:56:38.033" UserId="9669" Text="Can you replace chemical fertilizers with organic ones in a way that doesn't compromise food security?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30972" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12212" RevisionGUID="5054b837-8684-4d4c-b5d4-e152769aaa71" CreationDate="2022-06-17T22:56:38.033" UserId="9669" Text="|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30973" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12213" RevisionGUID="f243447e-38c7-4257-83c5-d905a74233a2" CreationDate="2022-06-18T16:56:32.163" UserId="8013" Text="The aim of intense ventilation (&quot;stoßlüften&quot;) is to exchange air in a room efficiently. Generating a substantial draft ensures, ideally, that all corners of the room are ventilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a window ajar (&quot;angekippt&quot; -- because the Germans tilt their windows) there is a steady exchange near the window and very little in the rest of the room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that intense ventilation loses all the heat held in the air that goes out. For instance, if you have a room which is 4m x 4m x 2.5m, that is 40 cubic meters of air, which is about 50kg. If you have substantial 20K temperature difference, you are losing 20 * 50 * 700 J of energy. That might look like a lot, but there are 3.6 million Joules in a kWh. You are actually losing around 0.2 kWh. The important thing is to get the balance right: exchange the air but stop before the walls lose any significant amount of heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With continual ventilation you need to exchange much more air in order to ventilate all parts of the room, so it becomes worth while having a heat exchange. **This appears to be the critical advantage of the &quot;stoß&quot; -- exploiting a strong draft to get fresh air in the whole space quickly.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated roughly from [Richtig Lüften][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bundesimmobilien.de/richtig-lueften-9922595565e3df84" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12214" RevisionGUID="54ff7f3a-0575-4f44-af05-30efcae64a00" CreationDate="2022-06-18T19:25:58.627" UserId="6393" Text="Organic fertilizers are in my opinion a very good idea but require some development to make them economically feasible. The idea is that whatever nutrients are in crops don't disappear but will be in animal/human excrement. It's a 100% efficient process since you can't make matter appear or disappear out of thin air (leaving aside nuclear processes that don't really happen here). So food security won't be compromised, we will have enough of these organic fertilizers for 100% circular economy. We just need to learn to use the correct amount.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If every farm has land for growing crops and a number of animals for meat and milk, most of the crops goes to animals and a very little amount to humans, as animal agriculture is very inefficient. It makes sense to use that animal excrement as fertilizer. Only very little of the nutrients is lost (the amount that humans eat), so some nutrient replacement is necessary using chemical fertilizers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In today's world, however, there are farms that specialize in growing crops and farms that specialize in meat and milk. It's more economical that way. For example, automated milking machines make sense only if there are a lot of cows, so we will have concentrations of cows producing heavy excrement with some nutrients, and long distance away are the plant-producing farms that have no animals. Unfortunately, transporting that excrement to farms that grow crops may not make sense, since the journey would be long, the product is so heavy and fuels are expensive (and for long journeys battery electric vehicles don't make sense). A solution could be to somehow make two waste streams from that excrement, one that is poor in nutrients but could be used for biogas for example, and another that is rich in nutrients. I think we don't have economically viable commercial solutions for making that nutrient-rich stream yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another problem is that due to limited ability to grow crops on finite land and increasing population and wealth in developing countries, it is imperative that most of the population of this planet goes vegan (not necessarily fully vegan but 70% vegan at least). Without that, we can never produce enough food to feed all starving people. Animal agriculture is just way too inefficient. In this case, the nutrients in human excrement are in the wastewater. So wastewater treatment plants should in the future extract those nutrients and make recycled fertilizer out of them. Otherwise we will lose all of the nutrients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nitrogen is something that can be included in fertilizers using chemical processes, no sustainability problems there. Air is mostly nitrogen, and nitrogen can be extracted from it by making liquid air and distilling it. To fix that nitrogen, we need hydrogen, but fortunately that can be made from water and renewable electricity using electrolysis. The main problem in chemical fertilizers is that we have limited phosphorus reserves, so a circular economy would really help there. Fortunately, what phosphorus reserves we have go a long way, so developing solutions to make organic fertilizers make economical sense will have enough time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect, though, that the final solution will not be to distribute human or animal excrement on crop-producing fields directly but rather make a dense nutrient-rich &quot;semi-organic semi-chemical&quot; fertilizer from recycled nutrients, stopping most phosphorus mining." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30978" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12215" RevisionGUID="e366bb2f-eefd-4903-8e6c-bc9b500b91af" CreationDate="2022-06-20T10:25:50.737" UserId="14154" Text="I live in UAE. Here government has started few initiatives recently but I think there is far way to go. I am trying to be more thoughtful for the things I use but It is very difficult as whatever the alternate ways I look for are more time consuming or costly and I end up choosing non environmental friendly ways. What my essential question is that where to start ? Like I have switched from plastic cups to drink water from one portable cup but what are the small suggestions like that which I can embedded in my life swiftly. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30980" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12215" RevisionGUID="e366bb2f-eefd-4903-8e6c-bc9b500b91af" CreationDate="2022-06-20T10:25:50.737" UserId="14154" Text="How to start sustainable living in UAE?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30981" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12215" RevisionGUID="e366bb2f-eefd-4903-8e6c-bc9b500b91af" CreationDate="2022-06-20T10:25:50.737" UserId="14154" Text="|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12216" RevisionGUID="6b9be50d-c2c8-46cc-9801-8859f44f2584" CreationDate="2022-06-20T14:30:29.717" UserId="99" Text="There are lots of small things you can do. The list is potentially endless and really depends on what you consider to be 'small' effort. But to give a few examples:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Always carry a sturdy reusable bag with you and stop using single-use plastic bags&#xD;&#xA; - Fully switch off electronic devices when not in use (many devices go into stand-by mode and will still consume some electricty)&#xD;&#xA; - Turn down heating or cooling a bit to reduce energy consumption&#xD;&#xA; - Replace all light bulbs in your house with low-energy LED bulbs&#xD;&#xA; - Drive your car more efficiently (shift to high gear quickly, don't speed, use cruise control, check tyre pressure regularly)&#xD;&#xA; - Use public transport more often&#xD;&#xA; - Eat less meat &#xD;&#xA; - Buy less stuff&#xD;&#xA; - Stop watering plants and switch to permaculture&#xD;&#xA; - Plant trees or shrubs in your garden (suitable for your climate)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm sure, if you browse around on this website, you will find discussions about many more things you can do. Perhaps over time, when you are willing to also take bigger, more effective steps you could consider to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Better insulate your house &#xD;&#xA; - Install solar panels on your house or join/setup a local energy cooperation&#xD;&#xA; - Buy an electric car or join/setup a car-sharing scheme&#xD;&#xA; - Stop travelling by plane&#xD;&#xA; - Talk to local authorities or politicians, share your concerns with them and ask them to take more action.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever action you choose, do share your concerns and efforts with the people around you. That way you hopefully inspire them to also take action. If your friends and family in turn share their efforts it could end up having a snowball effect." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30984" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12217" RevisionGUID="cdc2b2e3-9d46-402f-a0c1-df9f2ab58218" CreationDate="2022-06-20T20:25:03.487" UserId="5824" Text="CNN's June 20, 2022 [Boeing unveils new 777 'ecoDemonstrator' test jet](https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/boeing-777-ecodemonstrator/index.html) includes the following sentence near the end:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Many airlines have already vowed to offer carbon-neutral flights and explore alternative fuels to reduce pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** For these airlines, how do they say they plan to actually make some flights *demonstrably carbon-neutral?*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe I'm presumptuous, but implicit in my question is that amongst the PR for these future carbon-neutral flights there will be some level of transparency and accounting, but right now I'm just curious how they say explain that carbon-neutral flights actually exist, presumably without shifting the carbon impact to other flights.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Potentially related:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/93/5824&#xD;&#xA; - https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/9555/5824" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30986" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12217" RevisionGUID="cdc2b2e3-9d46-402f-a0c1-df9f2ab58218" CreationDate="2022-06-20T20:25:03.487" UserId="5824" Text="For airlines that have &quot;vowed to offer carbon-neutral flights&quot; how do they say they plan to actually make some flights demonstrably carbon-neutral?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30987" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12217" RevisionGUID="cdc2b2e3-9d46-402f-a0c1-df9f2ab58218" CreationDate="2022-06-20T20:25:03.487" UserId="5824" Text="|carbon-footprint|transport|decarbonisation|air-pollution|carbon-offsetting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30988" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="0d5eae0d-366e-4f5c-862b-ebbcf8bd25c2" CreationDate="2022-06-21T03:09:20.917" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30989" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12218" RevisionGUID="7f427fe1-409d-4957-8d0a-b9f8942caf0b" CreationDate="2022-06-21T06:47:24.973" UserId="14154" Text="I found few while surfing internet&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Switch to portable cup. &#xD;&#xA; - Carry reusable bags.(clothe tote bag).&#xD;&#xA; - Carry steel spoon. &#xD;&#xA; - Use a sustainable razor. &#xD;&#xA; - Switch to bamboo brush. &#xD;&#xA; - Use reusable straws. &#xD;&#xA; - Try switching to menstrual cup. &#xD;&#xA; - Turn off lights and all electric products. &#xD;&#xA; - Compost your kitchen waste. &#xD;&#xA; - Think twice before shopping. &#xD;&#xA; - Buy long lasting things. &#xD;&#xA; - Reduce dairy intake. &#xD;&#xA; - Try using self made cleaners from orange and lemon wastes. &#xD;&#xA; - I am vegetarian for all the others go meat free (even one day a week!)&#xD;&#xA; - Replace cheese.&#xD;&#xA; - Try using public transports.&#xD;&#xA; - Switch to clothe tissues from paper tissues.(Because you can reuse them after use by washing them.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I will keep updating list once I found few more things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30991" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12219" RevisionGUID="f420348c-b41b-43bb-adff-6048d6f3a6ff" CreationDate="2022-06-21T10:59:06.233" UserId="2345" Text="One of the first airlines to initiate [sustainability][1] and [carbon neutrality][2] in it operations was Qantas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has a [Carbon Action Plan][3], which includes things such as:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Establishing [carbon offsetting schemes][4].&#xD;&#xA; - Retiring some aircraft, such as Boeing 747s and Airbus 380s early.&#xD;&#xA; - Commenced using [sustainable aviation fuels][5] (SAF) on some&#xD;&#xA;   flights, particularly those departing California and London. SAF is&#xD;&#xA;   made from sustainable sources such as used cooking oil, council&#xD;&#xA;   waste, plant oils, and agricultural residues. SAF has the potential&#xD;&#xA;   to reduce lifecycle emissions by up to 80 per cent compared to&#xD;&#xA;   conventional jet fuel. It has also used biofuel.&#xD;&#xA; - Removal of single use plastic items from its service.&#xD;&#xA; - The introduction of plant based meals on flights.&#xD;&#xA; - All Qantas buildings powered by 100 percent renewable sources.&#xD;&#xA; - Commitment to net zero emission by 2050.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It has also documented its [commitment to environmental sustainability][6].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of carbon neutral flights it appears the airline will try to use sustainable aviation fuels and &quot;encourage&quot; passengers to assist by paying more for their flights by paying a carbon neutrality or carbon offsetting fee which will be spent of forestry schemes the airline has &quot;invested&quot; in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.qantas.com/au/en/about-us/our-company/in-the-community/sustainability-at-qantas.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.qantas.com/au/en/qantas-group/acting-responsibly/our-planet/carbon-offsetting.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://file:///C:/Users/Ivan/Downloads/qantas-group-climate-action-plan.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.qantas.com/au/en/about-us/our-company/in-the-community/sustainability-at-qantas/fly-carbon-neutral.html&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.qantas.com/au/en/qantas-group/acting-responsibly/our-planet/sustainable-aviation-fuel.html&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://file:///C:/Users/Ivan/Downloads/our-commitment-to-environmental-sustainability.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30993" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12215" RevisionGUID="5d34299a-6c95-4f81-ba38-7b7fa7abd884" CreationDate="2022-06-21T11:07:28.273" UserId="14154" Comment="edited tags" Text="|reuse|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30994" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10612" RevisionGUID="dff813e3-2264-47e9-a188-0525a7521f83" CreationDate="2022-06-21T17:01:20.220" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="30995" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11952" RevisionGUID="eb50f766-04d0-4792-a35a-bae1df77fc47" CreationDate="2022-06-22T01:43:59.987" UserId="8232" Comment="update question title to a single statement; summarised article &amp; included quote" Text="I found this story regarding ongoing research of using bacteria to turn plastic into protein:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The team demonstrated that once the plastic is broken down by heat and a reactor, it can be fed to the bacteria. The microbes flourish on this meal. They keep growing as long as they have plastic to eat, producing more bacterial cells. Given that these cells are about 55 percent protein, once the plastic has been broken down, they can be dried down as a protein powder for later use.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; The team hopes to find a way to make the process completely biological so that the plastic doesn’t need to go through heat and special chemical reactions to be broken down. It is possible that enzymes exist to help break down the plastic  &#xD;&#xA;&gt; &lt;sub&gt;[Method That Turns Plastic Into Proteins Wins $1.2 Million Prize][1] - iflscience.com&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you think this will solve the problem of plastic pollution, at least in the long term? Will it be possible to produce proteins by this way in a large scale?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/method-that-turns-plastic-into-proteins-wins-12-million-prize/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30996" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11952" RevisionGUID="eb50f766-04d0-4792-a35a-bae1df77fc47" CreationDate="2022-06-22T01:43:59.987" UserId="8232" Comment="update question title to a single statement; summarised article &amp; included quote" Text="What is the impact of ongoing research into turning plastic into proteins?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30997" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="11952" RevisionGUID="8e6abe2f-138c-4aca-8977-2715e5245519" CreationDate="2022-06-22T02:00:02.730" UserId="8232" Comment="edited title" Text="What is the impact of ongoing research of turning plastic into proteins?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="30998" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12217" RevisionGUID="ea8874b8-8c9d-4768-a68c-9cdbf97aab79" CreationDate="2022-06-23T12:00:01.673" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1539941343937667074" />
  <row Id="30999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12213" RevisionGUID="a06c0c70-4e5d-4ac3-984e-404e493e8689" CreationDate="2022-06-23T12:03:06.820" UserId="8013" Comment="Expamded on the possibility of combining systems to circulate air with HRV." Text="The aim of intense ventilation (&quot;stoßlüften&quot;) is to exchange air in a room efficiently. Generating a substantial draft ensures, ideally, that all corners of the room are ventilated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a window ajar (&quot;angekippt&quot; -- because the Germans tilt their windows) there is a steady exchange near the window and very little in the rest of the room. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that intense ventilation loses all the heat held in the air that goes out. For instance, if you have a room which is 4m x 4m x 2.5m, that is 40 cubic meters of air, which is about 50kg. If you have substantial 20K temperature difference, you are losing 20 * 50 * 700 J of energy. That might look like a lot, but there are 3.6 million Joules in a kWh. You are actually losing around 0.2 kWh. The important thing is to get the balance right: exchange the air but stop before the walls lose any significant amount of heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With continual ventilation you need to exchange much more air in order to ventilate all parts of the room, so it becomes worth while having a heat exchange. **This appears to be the critical advantage of the &quot;stoß&quot; -- exploiting a strong draft to get fresh air in the whole space quickly.** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Translated roughly from [Richtig Lüften][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As pointed out in a comment below, this implies that circulation within the room needs to be taken into account. Continual ventilation through a partially open window or poorly fitted windows and doors is clearly the worst option. To get full efficiency from Heat Recovery Ventilation you need not only the heat recovery system but some means of ensuring the level of good circulation achieved by intense ventilation. If you do this, the combined HRV + circulation system should give savings relative to intense ventilation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bundesimmobilien.de/richtig-lueften-9922595565e3df84" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31000" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12220" RevisionGUID="d3a70bd8-b0a8-4c99-b2ed-78f88da59fa2" CreationDate="2022-06-24T07:22:18.990" UserId="13223" Text="There are a lot small changes that can be done and one can be improved over time thinking sustainably. Important thing is to start and know it comes with some discomfort at the beginning.&#xD;&#xA;Answers above have good tips. Here are few you can add to them that I personally developed: &#xD;&#xA; 1. Switch off lights in the rooms you are not in/be more dark tolerant overall/use less lights.&#xD;&#xA; 2. Replace balcony and porch lights with solar energy lights.&#xD;&#xA; 3. Don’t run water when not in use even between gaps of brushing teeth/washing hands/washing dishes etc. &#xD;&#xA; 4. Be scarce when using household chemicals/use mindfully/think about fishes in the rivers/seas/oceans.&#xD;&#xA; 5. Don’t overeat/eat just enough.&#xD;&#xA; 6. Plan food preparation ahead/this way it is easier to make environmentally friendly corrections and changes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.Enjoy walking/carrying groceries from nearby store.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 8.Cook simple food which requires less energy consumption and is quick to be done. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 9.Shop sustainably with companies and brands that are eco friendly/joining them you strengthen the message of sustainable living as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10.Invest in things/brands that are durable/easily reparable/have a good customer service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;11.Try to repair first till you throw something/always have household glue in supply.&#xD;&#xA; 12. Have at hand the list/contact numbers of good/reliable service men for household repair. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainable living habits need to be  developed/discovered in the process as there are immense combinations, alterations and choices situationally." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31002" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12215" RevisionGUID="2fee9eb3-e4c5-4afb-bcb0-919dc3aeea73" CreationDate="2022-06-24T15:00:04.133" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1540349040323346435" />
  <row Id="31003" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12050" RevisionGUID="6b18ae4a-04cc-4d23-ac6b-d48e7cfac648" CreationDate="2022-06-25T23:05:10.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31006" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="88865ea1-cfa5-4f4b-bd3a-db68d0a15525" CreationDate="2022-06-27T04:07:40.760" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31008" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="d95799e9-bdeb-4152-8e89-4ea6c92f36cf" CreationDate="2022-06-28T11:01:40.153" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31009" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12222" RevisionGUID="c1aede0b-1fe5-484b-9b23-78cdfd29094a" CreationDate="2022-06-28T17:09:23.133" UserId="4343" Text="I have some IBC's to be used for rainwater storage - but I want to elevate them so I can water directly from them with a hose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has anyone got any cunning/clever ideas on how to elevate them at minimum cost? They are in aluminium frames designed to be lifted by forklift, so have structure to attach to.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am reasonably handy with wood." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31011" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12222" RevisionGUID="c1aede0b-1fe5-484b-9b23-78cdfd29094a" CreationDate="2022-06-28T17:09:23.133" UserId="4343" Text="Budget stand for an IBC (1m or higher)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31012" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12222" RevisionGUID="c1aede0b-1fe5-484b-9b23-78cdfd29094a" CreationDate="2022-06-28T17:09:23.133" UserId="4343" Text="|water|gardening|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31013" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12223" RevisionGUID="43b24eb3-9232-4f24-aeaa-d40f61eb2299" CreationDate="2022-06-29T10:09:49.477" UserId="13618" Text="The [UK government publishes energy use statistics](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1032260/UK_Energy_in_Brief_2021.pdf), and this includes energy efficiency of various sectors.  Most sectors have managed to increase efficiency over the last 3 decades, for example road passenger energy consumption per passenger-kilometres has gone down ~24%, fairly steadily over that time.  However Road freight energy consumption per freight-kilometres has gone up 3.3% over that time, and in 2018 was 10% higher than in 1990.  It dropped in the mid nineties, but has increased significantly since then.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Energy intensity by sector, 1990 to 2020](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kytFl.png)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the reason for this difference?  One might expect the energy efficiency improvements would be fairly similar between passenger and freight transport.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31015" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12223" RevisionGUID="43b24eb3-9232-4f24-aeaa-d40f61eb2299" CreationDate="2022-06-29T10:09:49.477" UserId="13618" Text="Why has road freight got less efficent in recent years?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31016" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12223" RevisionGUID="43b24eb3-9232-4f24-aeaa-d40f61eb2299" CreationDate="2022-06-29T10:09:49.477" UserId="13618" Text="|transport|fuel-efficiency|vehicle|uk|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12226" RevisionGUID="111d087c-9247-4b98-ab03-786eeea06666" CreationDate="2022-06-29T17:42:54.787" UserId="6393" Text="Your calculations are way off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One cubic meter of wood harvests about 1 tonne of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An average tree is 0.6 cubic meters so that's 0.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide per tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide from 400 ppm to 300 ppm, you need to remove 777 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. Your calculation was that 192 gigatonnes would be enough but it's not. Perhaps you are confusing gigatonne of carbon dioxide with gigatonne of carbon? There's 3.66x difference between those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's 1300 billion trees required. Not 16 billion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be about 168 trees per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where would you find enough land area for all those trees?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12138" RevisionGUID="c76ef622-3a43-42e6-8b3d-d0990910dc96" CreationDate="2022-06-30T10:34:35.940" UserId="2345" Comment="Added info about latest news item" Text="A number of sources claim that adding seaweed to the diet of cattle can reduce methane emissions from cattle by 70 to 86 percent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Cows fed small amount of seaweed burp 86 per cent less methane in trial][1]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Carbon farming: reducing methane emissions from cattle using feed additives][2]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Alternatively, cattle fed [high carbohydrate diets][3] such are diets containing more corn than cellulose, such as hay or grass, produce less methane. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[Methane emissions from cattle][4]* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*[In the U.S., domestic livestock contribute 36 percent of the methane humans cause to be put into the atmosphere.][5]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Trials in the Netherlands][6] that are showing promise in reducing cattle methane emissions are using garlic compounds with citrus and other additives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;**Edit 30 June 2022**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Latest news item. *[Methane-reducing seaweed asparagopsis up for sale after years of research][7]*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; After years of frantic research and fast-tracked commercial licensing, cattle feedlots can now buy asparagopsis, a native Australian seaweed touted to reduce methane emissions by &quot;90 to 95 per cent&quot; when fed to cows and sheep.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Research suggests very little asparagopsis needs to be included in a ruminant animal's feed for its methane emissions to plummet.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&quot;Say a cow's dry matter intake is 14 kilos a day,&quot;Mr Main said.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &quot;The amount of seaweed we'd need to give it is less than a [squash][8] ball — it's 50 grams.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-03-18/cows-fed-seaweed-methane-emissions-reduced-82-per-cent/13253102&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/carbon-farming-reducing-methane-emissions-cattle-using-feed-additives&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://beef.unl.edu/reduce-methane-production-cattle&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8567486/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-eating-seaweed-can-help-cows-to-belch-less-methane&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://energyindemand.com/2020/05/09/a-solution-to-reducing-methane-emissions-from-cattle/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-06-30/asparagopsis-methane-reducing-seaweed-sold-in-australia/101198580&#xD;&#xA;  [8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_(sport)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31028" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12227" RevisionGUID="402c5f89-74cf-40d6-82a7-62678ce68189" CreationDate="2022-07-01T04:39:40.657" UserId="14177" Text="With nothing plugged into the power point, there is no closed circuit, i.e. no connection, so no current flow.  Simple electrical theory...switch off, no closed circuit, thus no power flow.  Unless, of course, there is a light of some kind which illuminates when the switch is turned on.  The light will consume a minimal amount of power.  But minus an indicator light, absolutely not." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31030" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12226" RevisionGUID="0e55bd74-cf63-476e-9999-d1bf630430bb" CreationDate="2022-07-02T09:40:09.813" UserId="6393" Comment="maybe it's realistic after all" Text="Your calculations are way off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One cubic meter of wood harvests about 1 tonne of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An average tree is 0.6 cubic meters so that's 0.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide per tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide from 400 ppm to 300 ppm, you need to remove 777 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. Your calculation was that 192 gigatonnes would be enough but it's not. Perhaps you are confusing gigatonne of carbon dioxide with gigatonne of carbon? There's 3.66x difference between those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's 1300 billion trees required. Not 16 billion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be about 168 trees per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where would you find enough land area for all those trees?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: on second thoughts, assuming 720 trees per hectare, converting 36% of all agricultural land area (which is 5 billion hectares) to forest would be enough to eventually (after 100 years) reduce carbon dioxide concentration from 400 ppm to 300 ppm. However, you'd have to kill 36% of world population first. Or maybe they die because of starvation after implementing the plan as there won't be enough food for them. Well, on a more positive side, if meat consumption would decrease drastically (for example by artificial lab-grown meat becoming less expensive), then maybe we could achieve 36% agricultural land area reduction." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12226" RevisionGUID="2bd02c22-dbfb-4364-b813-8269dbcf597c" CreationDate="2022-07-02T09:45:17.747" UserId="6393" Comment="maybe it's realistic after all" Text="Your calculations are way off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One cubic meter of wood harvests about 1 tonne of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An average tree is 0.6 cubic meters so that's 0.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide per tree.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide from 400 ppm to 300 ppm, you need to remove 777 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. Your calculation was that 192 gigatonnes would be enough but it's not. Perhaps you are confusing gigatonne of carbon dioxide with gigatonne of carbon? There's 3.66x difference between those.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's 1300 billion trees required. Not 16 billion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be about 168 trees per person.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where would you find enough land area for all those trees?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: on second thoughts, assuming 720 trees per hectare, converting 36% of all agricultural land area (which is 5 billion hectares) to forest would be enough to eventually (after 100 years) reduce carbon dioxide concentration from 400 ppm to 300 ppm. However, you'd have to kill 36% of world population first. Or maybe they die because of starvation after implementing the plan as there won't be enough food for them. Well, on a more positive side, if meat consumption would decrease drastically (for example by artificial lab-grown meat becoming less expensive), then maybe we could achieve 36% agricultural land area reduction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...or maybe it's too optimistic to assume an average tree is 0.6 cubic meters as that would give 720 trees per hectare * 0.6 cubic meters per tree = 432 cubic meters per hectare which to me as a forest owner seems way too optimistic. You can achieve maybe half that by letting your forest grow very old. So maybe 720 trees per hectare is counting all trees, including very small ones, not just large trees. So better make 36% agricultural land area reduction into 72% agricultural land area reduction. I'm not sure we can realistically achieve that, unless each and every person on this planet stops 100% of meat consumption immediately. There won't be enough land." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12228" RevisionGUID="7ed94203-4f02-4295-b64d-3c0ba85bda5b" CreationDate="2022-07-02T15:42:04.317" UserId="3379" Text="I've started to see this phrase on things like credit cards and plastic bags: &quot;contains recovered ocean-bound plastic.&quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At first, it sounds like something really positive -- this was made from waste that would have polluted the oceans! But how is this any different than recycled plastic? Is it really that much better?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cynically, I imagine a company paying someone to drive a truck full of plastic to the ocean, then at the last minute calling them on the phone and re-directing them to a factory. Voila! recovered ocean-bound plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is &quot;recovered ocean-bound plastic&quot; just corporate green-washing, or is this actually a positive thing that I should choose when making purchases?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31034" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12228" RevisionGUID="7ed94203-4f02-4295-b64d-3c0ba85bda5b" CreationDate="2022-07-02T15:42:04.317" UserId="3379" Text="How is &quot;recovered ocean bound plastic&quot; any different from recycled plastic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31035" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12228" RevisionGUID="7ed94203-4f02-4295-b64d-3c0ba85bda5b" CreationDate="2022-07-02T15:42:04.317" UserId="3379" Text="|recycling|waste|plastic|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31036" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12229" RevisionGUID="25216805-221e-415b-8e14-932f3b2c025b" CreationDate="2022-07-02T17:52:46.647" UserId="2345" Text="I've found two websites with similar definitions of recovered ocean-bound plastic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Website [1][1],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recovered Ocean-Bound Plastic as plastic waste collected from land areas where the plastic would otherwise be highly likely to enter the ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Recovered Ocean-Bound Plastic is typically recovered within 50 kilometers of a seashore, or near streams and rivers that lead to the ocean, in countries or regions that lack adequate waste management infrastructure. ... this plastic ... a subset of Recovered Ocean Plastic, which also includes plastic debris that is collected directly from the ocean.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Website [2][2],&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Ocean bound plastic is plastic waste that is collected and processed before it hits the ocean's shore or from the shoreline itself.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My take on &quot;recovered ocean-bound plastic&quot; is that it is a public relations gimmick. We all know that a some plastic ends up in the oceans, but not all of it. Some of it gets recycled and some of it end up in land fill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic recycling companies that process &quot;recovered ocean-bound plastic&quot; are ensuring that some plastic will not end up in the ocean and they are intercepting it prior to it having an opportunity to end up in the oceans. Basically they are doing what they have always done, they've just given it a fancy name to make them look good - the goody two shoes factor. If anything, they might be making more of a concerted effort to acquire plastic before it has a chance to end up in the oceans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.cpicardgroup.com/ocean-plastic/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.oceanboundplastic.com.au/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31038" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12228" RevisionGUID="6a0b44e8-8237-4934-99cd-94c01dfa7b5b" CreationDate="2022-07-02T23:42:14.143" />
  <row Id="31039" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12198" RevisionGUID="8edada1f-bfca-4fa0-b78a-d036123cdee4" CreationDate="2022-07-03T17:05:50.797" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31040" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12230" RevisionGUID="589952c0-4778-42bc-9df5-fe1c2ea07ca7" CreationDate="2022-07-04T05:04:28.120" UserId="5497" Text="It's always tough coming up with alternatives to plastic. Modern merchandising and consumer expectations demand it. So sad!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I was growing up, popsicles came in waxed paper, inside a waxed cardboard box. Yes, they got freezer burn if they were stored too long!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I think the job for modern sustainable packaging users is consumer education. You need to manage their expectations, while telling them why they are such good people for using your sustainably-packaged product!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We managed to do a plastic-free farmers market operation, and we did a lot of value-added products, in addition to fresh farm goods. A &quot;big think&quot; for us was how to distribute dried goods (peppers, tomatoes, etc.) in sustainable packaging, in a way that was appealing to consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other vendors were all using ziplock bags for such things. Good! This is called &quot;product differentiation!&quot; We just had to explain &quot;why.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First off, we made signs for our tent that touted our sustainable packaging. Then, we displayed our dried goods in large, four-litre glass jars, and sold them by weight, typically 40 grams. Your average consumer doesn't know anything about weight, so we chose that weight so we could easily compare it to something: &quot;about the size of a lunch-box bag of potato chips,&quot; we'd tell them, and if they looked sympathetic, we'd snarkily add, &quot;but without a piece of plastic going to the landfill.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then, we weighed them out into brown paper bags, exhorting the consumer to take them home and put them in a glass jar with a rubber-sealed lid, as soon as they could, to preserve their crispiness and flavour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm guessing that you have a  &quot;boutique&quot; or &quot;artisanal&quot; product, as we did. Your customers are already paying extra for what they perceive as a premium product, so they are already receptive to messages like, &quot;Best consumed in a week&quot; or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We also did fruit preserves, packed in reusable glass canning jars. They had less than a third of the sugar in commercial &quot;jam,&quot; which meant they didn't last as long without going mouldy — sugar is a preservative! So we carefully mentioned that they should be consumed it &quot;three weeks or so,&quot; because (minus snark, of course!) sugar was put into jam by evil industrialists so that it would last forever, so they could make more money, because sugar is cheaper than the extra blackberries they got from us!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a receptive clientele, you'd be surprised at the minor inconveniences they'll endure to have what they perceive as a superior product. Yea, nothing works as well as plastic! Your job is to manage perceptions and expectations, so that your customers not only understand that, but see it as a benefit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31042" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12231" RevisionGUID="03860cde-e3d9-4ab2-a49f-54ef141c4504" CreationDate="2022-07-06T07:38:34.460" UserId="99" Text="Ocean-bound plastic refers to all plastic on land within a 50 kilometer (30 mile) distance of the ocean. The term was popularized by Jenna Jambeck PhD, a professor at the University of Georgia, who published [an article about it in Science in 2015](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/768). She found that the majority of all plastic in the ocean comes from this 50 km area, that about [8 million metric tons](https://jambeck.engr.uga.edu/landplasticinput) of plastic per year ends up in the ocean, and that the main cause is waste mismanagement (littering, incorrect disposal, lack of processing facilities). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite efforts such as [The Ocean Cleanup](https://theoceancleanup.com/), plastic is very hard to extract once it gets into oceans and seas, so in that respect all efforts to reduce these plastics are a good thing. There are several caveats though:&#xD;&#xA; - Ocean-bound plastic does not necessarily move itself in the direction of the ocean. It simply consists of all plastic collected in the above stated 50 kilometer coastal region.&#xD;&#xA; - Even though ocean-bound plastic has a higher chance of ending up in the ocean, but most ocean-bound plastic does not end up there.&#xD;&#xA; - [Other research](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b02368) says that the top 10 of rivers that 'export' the most plastic debris into the sea are located in Asia and Africa, so if you want to focus waste reduction measures on specific areas it would make more sense to target those rivers.&#xD;&#xA; - By focusing on ocean-bound plastic or top 10 polluting rivers, there is a risk that other areas with significant plastic pollution get less attention. Plastic pollution comes from all over the world, not just a few places.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the term ocean-bound plastic is used primarily in the US (and occasionally in the UK and Australia). It is not a protected term, so greenwashing is very easy to do. Then again, I haven't seen any evidence of misuse." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31044" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12232" RevisionGUID="17b325ba-e569-49cc-b705-f693f5be651f" CreationDate="2022-07-06T12:41:11.053" UserId="6182" Text="I was wondering if there's any analysis on which source of caffeine is GHG-wise the most sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Coffee is often shipped around half the globe, while energy drinks usually come in a can, which - even if recycled - need a lot of energy in production. Black or green tea are another option, as well as maté, but also only grow in certain areas of the world. The latter also is available as (glass-)bottled soda, which might taste better, but requires more processing and hence produces more GHG.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, how do I fuel my caffeine craving best when it comes to climate wise sustainability?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am aware of the issues of virtual water and social sustainability/working conditions, but for the sake of simplicity would like to ignore them for this question." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31046" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12232" RevisionGUID="17b325ba-e569-49cc-b705-f693f5be651f" CreationDate="2022-07-06T12:41:11.053" UserId="6182" Text="GHG-wise sustainability of our daily caffeine-dose" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31047" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12232" RevisionGUID="17b325ba-e569-49cc-b705-f693f5be651f" CreationDate="2022-07-06T12:41:11.053" UserId="6182" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31048" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12233" RevisionGUID="1135017a-5ea6-493b-be42-6f3a4fb0bcd7" CreationDate="2022-07-06T13:17:15.953" UserId="13618" Text="There is [an analysis of the carbon footprint of coffee here](https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/geo2.96) with a [less academic write up here](https://theconversation.com/coffee-heres-the-carbon-cost-of-your-daily-cup-and-how-to-make-it-climate-friendly-152629) by Professor Mark Maslin and PhD student Carmen Nab (both University College London, Geography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary impacts are fertiliser use, managing water, transport (particularly if air freighted) and milk production.  Solutions include buying certified coffee that is considered to have a lower carbon footprint, the [rainforest alliance is recomended](https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/everyday-actions/collective-action-a-call-for-the-coffee-industry-to-address-labor-issues-in-producing-countries/), and drinking your coffee black or with non-dairy whitener.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Over 9.5 billion kg of coffee is produced annually and demand is expected to triple by 2050. We identify and quantify the greenhouse gas emission of coffee produced in Brazil and Vietnam and exported to the United Kingdom. The average carbon footprint of Arabica coffee from both countries was calculated as 15.33 (±0.72) kg CO2e kg−1 for conventional coffee production and 3.51 (±0.13) kg CO2e kg−1 for sustainable coffee production. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Comparison of the carbon footprint of different styles of coffee using conventional or sustainable coffee and diary milk or non-diary milk](https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/d41e6e5b-b145-41d6-8258-6405da4944a3/geo296-fig-0006-m.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![The contribution of each phase to the total carbon footprint of coffee production](https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/00eadf89-df6b-4186-979b-4f1002d8b76b/geo296-fig-0005-m.jpg)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31050" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12223" RevisionGUID="5ef45533-08ab-462c-8a54-aa98e086c852" CreationDate="2022-07-07T09:00:00.070" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1544969469029752835" />
  <row Id="31051" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="d7413768-5ba6-4ee6-a8fd-88c2aa056ca0" CreationDate="2022-07-07T10:33:00.707" UserId="14187" Text="I am looking for a viable options for more sustainable personal transportation in Europe. For the sake of this question, let us **ignore the question of emissions / LCA**.  The question is **the practicality of alternative fuels** that are *currently available* for personal vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our **requirements** are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Cost of purchase** - the cost of buying/converting a 2nd-hand car should be affordable, meaning options under €10K available;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Cost of operation** - the cost per 100km should be comparable to a similar vehicle class running of fossil fuels;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Availability of fuel** - it should be possible to travel across Europe with the vehicle, or at least Western and Northern Europe; this means stations should be spaced safely within the vehicle driving range;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Discoverability of fuel** there should be a way to easily discover the stations (ideally some online map);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the **main options** are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Electric** - gaining a lot of popularity and increasing in range;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Ethanol** - adding a flex-fuel converter to a petrol car allows using E85 fuel;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)** - converting traditional internal combustion vehicles is possible;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Biodiesel** - works on diesel vehicles out of the box;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my research so far, the most viable options are *electric* and *ethanol*, which meet all four requirements.  I have not been able to find maps showing locations of *CNG* and *biodiesel* stations in Europe, so they do not seem to meet requirement #4 and possibly also #3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My **questions** are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are there resources providing information for consumers *biodiesel* and *CNG* in Europe? In particular, a map of fuel stations is appreciated. I am **NOT** interested in resources for industry experts and/or businesses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Considering EU legislation is moving towards potentially banning internal combustion vehicles altogether, do any options except *electric* have practical viability in the long term?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Are there any options I missed and which meet all four requirements?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31053" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="d7413768-5ba6-4ee6-a8fd-88c2aa056ca0" CreationDate="2022-07-07T10:33:00.707" UserId="14187" Text="Which alternative fuels are practical for cars in Europe? Is there a map of stations?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31054" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="d7413768-5ba6-4ee6-a8fd-88c2aa056ca0" CreationDate="2022-07-07T10:33:00.707" UserId="14187" Text="|electric-vehicles|biofuels|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31059" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="680ddc62-18ad-4150-bb93-2b867c076bb4" CreationDate="2022-07-08T04:49:43.090" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical changes" Text="I am looking for viable options to allow sustainable personal transportation in Europe. For the sake of this question, let us **ignore the question of emissions / LCA**.  The question is **the practicality of alternative fuels** that are *currently available* for personal vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Our **requirements** are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Cost of purchase** - the cost of buying/converting a 2nd-hand car should be affordable, meaning options under €10k available;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Cost of operation** - the cost per 100 km should be comparable to a similar vehicle class running of fossil fuels;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Availability of fuel** - it should be possible to travel across Europe with the vehicle, or at least Western and Northern Europe; this means stations should be spaced safely within the vehicle driving range;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Discoverability of fuel** there should be a way to easily discover the stations (ideally some online map);&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As far as I can tell, the **main options** are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. **Electric** - gaining a lot of popularity and increasing in range;&#xD;&#xA; 2. **Ethanol** - adding a flex-fuel converter to a petrol car allows using E85 fuel;&#xD;&#xA; 3. **Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)** - converting traditional internal combustion vehicles is possible;&#xD;&#xA; 4. **Biodiesel** - works on diesel vehicles out of the box;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Based on my research so far, the most viable options are *electric* and *ethanol*, which meet all four requirements.  I have not been able to find maps showing locations of *CNG* and *biodiesel* stations in Europe, so they do not seem to meet requirement #4 and possibly also #3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My **questions** are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. Are there resources providing information for consumers *biodiesel* and *CNG* in Europe? In particular, a map of fuel stations is appreciated. I am **NOT** interested in resources for industry experts and/or businesses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. Considering EU legislation is moving towards potentially banning internal combustion vehicles altogether, do any options except *electric* have practical viability in the long term?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Are there any options I missed and which meet all four requirements?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12236" RevisionGUID="b9d89fb8-57b4-4188-8d59-fea57de77e2d" CreationDate="2022-07-08T16:06:06.200" UserId="6393" Text="I can at least name the following alternative energy sources that all have been used to fuel cars: ethanol, biodiesel, biogas, natural gas, liquified petroleum gas, hydrogen, electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Ethanol:&lt;/b&gt; ethanol has been used over century ago for fuel until gasoline derived from petroleum displaced it, so the technology is very mature and the fuel is not terribly expensive. The modifications needed to run on ethanol are in many cases rather small, possibly allowing converting a gasoline car to ethanol, but that won't allow full utilization of the high-octane properties. The best way to run on high ethanol mixtures is to buy a car that was originally designed to utilize high-octane fuels (high compression ratio), meaning you get more distance from a liter of ethanol. Ethanol is very beneficial as octane booster, mix 10% of it to gasoline and that's the cheapest way to make cheap gasoline high-octane without using any lead-based additives. 100% ethanol has poor starting properties in cold, which is why usually ethanol cars run on 85% ethanol + 15% gasoline. A problem is the low energy density, a liter of ethanol doesn't provide as much energy as gasoline, so you get less range even if the car has an engine that has been designed to run on very high octane fuels. A benefit of ethanol is that ethanol cars usually run on gasoline too, so you can always find fuel. A problem of ethanol is that we don't have enough capacity to produce enough of it to all cars without sacrificing carbon capture targets or food production. Burning ethanol releases carbon, and if the carbon was from biological sources, you could have captured it in solid form and stored it for the long term, so even though carbon-neutral, it displaces opportunities for carbon-negativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Biodiesel:&lt;/b&gt; there are two kinds of biodiesel, fatty acid methyl ester and hydrotreated vegetable oil. Fatty acid methyl ester is the older technology and isn't 100% compatible with fossil diesel so it may not work on some modern diesel cars, and even if it works, the engine longevity may be a concern. Hydrotreated vegetable oil is the newer kind promoted by Finnish company Neste. It should be 100% compatible with any diesel car even in 100% mixtures. Also a benefit of biodiesel is that cars running on biodiesel can also use regular diesel so you can always find fuel. A problem of biodiesel is that we don't have enough capacity to produce enough of it to all cars without sacrificing carbon capture targets or food production. Burning biodiesel releases carbon, and if the carbon was from biological sources, you could have captured it in solid form and stored it for the long term, so even though carbon-neutral, it displaces opportunities for carbon-negativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Biogas:&lt;/b&gt; Biogas is just like natural gas, i.e. methane, but from biological sources. A benefit is that if you can't find biogas, you may be able to find natural gas, so finding fuel doesn't require you to buy carbon-neutral fuel. A problem of biogas is that storage of compressed gas is difficult in large quantities (takes space and costs a lot), so usually the pressure vessel size is small. This means range is limited. This may be offset by a secondary gasoline tank allowing you to have more range.  Another problem of biogas is that we don't have enough capacity to produce enough of it to all cars without sacrificing carbon capture targets. Burning biogas releases carbon, and if the carbon was from biological sources, you could have captured it in solid form and stored it for the long term, so even though carbon-neutral, it displaces opportunities for carbon-negativity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Natural gas:&lt;/b&gt; natural gas has exactly the same properties as biogas but is from fossil sources. The benefits and drawbacks are the same, with the additional drawback that you are funding a certain maniac called &lt;strike&gt;Vladimir Putin&lt;/strike&gt; Vladolf Putler and contributing to climate change, both via leaks and via carbon dioxide. It's a fossil fuel so not carbon neutral. However, it's so little used it could be considered &quot;alternative fuel&quot;, and also any natural gas car runs on biogas equally well, and biogas is not a fossil fuel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Liquified petroleum gas:&lt;/b&gt; it's a very little used fuel consisting of propane and butane, with main problem being that oil production produces so little for it and there are better uses that exploit its advantages. An advantage is that it's a gas (so creating burners is easy) but liquifies easily (so you can store a lot of it in low pressure). Better uses for these fuels are barbecue grills, emergency cooking appliances and camping cooking appliances (propane, butane) and lighters (butane), that optimally require a gas that liquifies easily. I understand that in Kazakhstan, this is actually used as a fuel for cars. However, elsewhere, you can't find the cars or the fueling stations. There is no substitute for LPG, so if your car runs on LPG, you can't find an alternative with the same properties, so unless the car was designed as a dual fuel car, you may be out of luck. It's a fossil fuel so not carbon neutral. However, it's so little used it could be considered &quot;alternative fuel&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Hydrogen:&lt;/b&gt; Hydrogen suffers today from the dirty production process from natural gas, which is very energy-inefficient and produces lots of carbon dioxide. Also if you today buy hydrogen, you are funding &lt;strike&gt;Vladimir Putin&lt;/strike&gt; Vladolf Putler indirectly via supporting the price of natural gas. However, it is almost certain that in the near future, in 10 years or so, electrolysis and electricity costs become so low that the cheapest source if hydrogen is electrolysis of green wind/solar electricity. The main benefit of that is it's a natural stabilizer for electricity grid. If there is enough wind and solar for most electricity being green, in maximum power production hours we have to find a use for the excess electricity and that's hydrogen. In large scale, hydrogen storage is cheap although 3x more expensive than that of natural gas -- it is stored underground. In small scale, storage is very expensive, because hydrogen has one third of the volumetric energy density of natural gas and it won't liquify unless very close to absolute zero. Another problem for hydrogen is that hydrogen engines are just silly and energy-inefficient in small scales (although in large scales hydrogen engines can compete with fuel cells) so practical small-scale usage requires fuel cells, and those are expensive as hell today and longevity isn't as good as it is for example for batteries. Even if fuel cell problem is stored and all hydrogen is produced from green electrolysis, hydrogen still suffers from being less energy-efficient than direct battery electricity. Today, finding fuel stations is practically impossible (if you find one you'll find the fuel cost is astronomical) and there are only few hard-to-obtain cars that run on hydrogen and those are very expensive to buy. This is expected to change, but most likely scenario is that hydrogen never catches up with electricity in passenger cars. However, large-scale trucks are a different matter, hydrogen is expected to win electricity in long-haul large-scale trucking. Hydrogen car runs only on hydrogen, there is no alternative fuel substitute for it. A benefit of hydrogen is that it is completely free of carbon and there exists a clear pathway for making green hydrogen. A drawback is that in small scale passenger cars, electricity probably wins.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Electricity:&lt;/b&gt; today, lithium ion batteries are cheap and can be made large enough that electric passenger cars are feasible. There is enough lithium to make all cars electric, cobalt may limit the production of some battery types but as lithium iron phosphate patents expire that will become the main battery type and it requires absolutely no cobalt or any other rare minerals (apart from lithium which we have enough). This is today by far the cheapest long-term cost option for passenger cars, and electricity produces no carbon after generation becomes based on renewables (we have a clear pathway for that -- based on wind/solar chiefly, plus hydrogen/hydropower/batteries for storage, plus some alternative pathways like nuclear power if some parts of the most likely pathway turn out to be difficult). A difficulty is that range is limited, recharging is slow even in optimal stations (from 30 minutes to an hour 10-80% charge) and most charging stations are even slower than that. Electric vehicles suffer when cold because only reasonable way to produce heat, heat pumps, uses electricity and the heat ain't free, and recharging when cold is slow as battery needs to be heated first which requires lots of energy and time. Also batteries are less efficient when cold. Furthermore, if you want to find a car with large enough battery that it's actually useful as a main car, you are limited to only some newest models that are very expensive even when used. By far, on basis of energy efficiency, battery electricity wins any other technology. It's also carbon neutral. A major problem is that this is the only energy source that's dependent on operation of the large-scale grid that can very easily become damaged for a period of months to years during a solar storm. Producing the electricity for charging by using a small-scale gasoline generator easily brings the total fuel consumption to 16-20 liters of gasoline per 100 km even for the most efficient electric cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, it's a fact that only hydrogen and electricity are possible on the large scale. So that's what most of cars will be based on. Whether or not limited sales of other cars are permitted is up to the lawmakers to decide. It may be best to save the limited amounts of carbon-based biofuels we can produce sustainably for aviation for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biodiesel (100% hydrotreated vegetable oil) is widely available in many refueling stations in Finland. Not sure about the status in other Europe, but I suspect it will become widely available there as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cars can also be fueled by quite many fuels, for example methanol, but I suspect my list includes the main energy sources that are actually in use around the world today." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31062" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12237" RevisionGUID="d55ad084-f2ee-4616-bf83-5e8907ab494e" CreationDate="2022-07-09T02:34:59.860" UserId="13870" Text="My answer is yes if this system is **run at the size of a town/city** and it could run as a rental service.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A **medium-sized facility** will be the center of this operation.&#xD;&#xA;First it collect organic wastes from major producer of this town.(Supermarkets, coffee shops, food factories, parks)&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;And these waste will be made into fresh compost piles in correct C:N ratio.&#xD;&#xA;Most of compost is put into reactors and sent to &quot;subscribers&quot; who needs heating:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;This will reduce the space needed for storing the compost in the facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A compost pile can be &quot;revived&quot; or &quot;boosted&quot; by adding fresh material while turning the pile.&#xD;&#xA;This means the thermal output of a compost pile can be maintained at high level for a long time.&#xD;&#xA;I did a experiment on my prototype reactor and proved this.&#xD;&#xA;Here's the record I collected so far:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**A** stands for steam temperature in upper area of the reactor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**B** is the core temperature of the heap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Average ambient temperature = 30 degrees Celsius&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This experiment started at 2022.06.12(Day 0) and on Day 1 the core temperature already reached 64 degrees Celsius.&#xD;&#xA;I boosted it on day 5 and day 17, and you can see the core temperature remained above 50 degrees most of the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another important result is that it is an efficient way to shrink the volume organic waste.&#xD;&#xA;Here's the record of volume change of the pile:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total volume of the reactor is considered 100%.&#xD;&#xA;From day 1 to day 5, it lost 25 percent.&#xD;&#xA;From day 6 to day 17, it lost 30 percent.&#xD;&#xA;From day 18 to day 23, it lost 20 percent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's 75 percent in total.&#xD;&#xA;This is quite normal since the raw material is only grass, which has high water content.&#xD;&#xA;The compost pile shrinks quickly due to dehydration.&#xD;&#xA;If food waste, which usually contains even more water, is added into the mix, the shrinking will be even greater.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we process organic waste in a town in this way, a large amount of diesel/gas will be saved since the waste will not be carried by garbage trucks and travel to distant incineration plant.&#xD;&#xA;Instead, it stays locally and produces useful heat and fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the compost can be swiftly turned into a possible fuel source: black soldier fly oil.&#xD;&#xA;This insect grows fast( 14 days to get mature)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 12–34% percent of fat by weight in this insect's larvae( see reference 1).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have no problem thriving on my finished **grass-based**(manure-free) compost pile as long as it's wet and shaded.&#xD;&#xA;After all, manure from herbivores is just a pile of well fermented grass. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;BSF oil, as a heating fuel, can be sent to extremely cold areas where hot composting might fail and have limited electricity supply.&#xD;&#xA;It can also be converted into biodiesel for diesel engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**This operation creates a series of valuable products which are illustrated in the following picture:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Advantages:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Reduce gasoline/diesel consumption of waste transportation and fuel for incineration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Reduce natural gas usage in heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Reduce natural gas usage in chemical fertilizer synthesis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Carbon fixing effect from compost usage and no dig farming.(reference 4,5)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.Create a fast shortcut from waste to protein and fertilizer&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.**From 1 to 5 combined. This system can help securing national food and energy safety by reducing imported resources from other countries)**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.Create new jobs&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;**Potential income sources:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.Sell compost / vermicompost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Provide rental service of heating&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.Charge for organic waste disposal &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.Sell BSF derived products(animal feed, fuel for heating)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---------------------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;**Challenges:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1.No one ever tried this approach and it's unclear if it can generate enough income to sustain its operation.&#xD;&#xA;An article(reference 2) which proposes a medium-scale BSF based facility which looks quite promising.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.Its operation is complicated and requires a lot of workforce to handle it:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   a.Mini truck drivers to transport organic waste and compost&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   b.Professionals who can sort organic waste, turn them into good compost piles, and determine a compost pile is ripen or not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   c.BSF farmers&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   d.Engineers who can maintain equipment in the facility&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   e.Managers who take care of financial issues and supervise operations of the facility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------References---------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ref 1. Review of Black Soldier Fly (Hermetia illucens) as Animal Feed and Human Food   Foods 2017, 6(10), 91; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6100091 &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ref 2.Opportunities and constraints for medium-scale organic waste treatment with fly larvae composting. October 2015&#xD;&#xA;Conference: 15th International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Sardinia,At: S. Margherita di Pula, Italy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ref 3.Comparison of the Effect of Vermicompost and Inorganic Fertilizers on Vegetative Growth and Fruit Production of Tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L.)&#xD;&#xA;January 2015Open Journal of Soil Science 05(02):53-58&#xD;&#xA;DOI:10.4236/ojss.2015.52006&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ref 4.No-dig gardening https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-dig_gardening&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;ref 5.Koplowicz, Sarah R., &quot;Utilizing Compost for Carbon Sequestration: A Strategy for Climate Goals and Land Use Management&quot; (2019).&#xD;&#xA;Master's Projects and Capstones. 945.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kH5gv.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XNq6B.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DGMYa.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4KJGD.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/rTKjH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31065" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12228" RevisionGUID="4656d5ea-cace-4588-97cf-51a6e20bb0ab" CreationDate="2022-07-09T09:00:02.190" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1545694253187219456" />
  <row Id="31066" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="f6e92d4c-9c39-4b69-b835-a2b680a9337e" CreationDate="2022-07-10T11:00:20.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12238" RevisionGUID="0137cddc-f37e-49b2-a2a7-5783862bba6a" CreationDate="2022-07-11T13:25:09.467" UserId="14194" Text="Use the ac when going downhill. Use regular fan on low temp setting uphill.&#xD;&#xA;Don't set the temperature really low, maybe 22*C means working the compressor less and helps us acclimate to it being summer when we get out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31069" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12239" RevisionGUID="e31cea72-8d94-4a52-970d-bc65a0fe08b7" CreationDate="2022-07-11T16:47:55.647" UserId="6393" Text="Assuming the car has been in hot sunlight but the outdoor temperature is tolerable, the most fuel efficient way is to ventilate without any AC, just by using fan at max speed, blend door at coldest possible position and keeping the windows open. Once the temperature of air inside the car becomes tolerable, then turn on the AC, set the fan to low speed, set blend door to coldest possible position and close windows. If you hit high speeds (80 km/h and above) before the temperature of air inside the car becomes tolerable, then close windows when hitting that speed (earlier than you would otherwise close them), turn on the AC and set fan to a speed that cools the car interior at a comfortable pace. If it becomes too cold, you may slightly increase the blend door to warmer, but the preference is this: first reduce fan speed, and only then if it doesn't help set blend door to warmer position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason for these is that the performance of keeping windows open is best with largest temperature difference (outdoor air comfortable, air inside car very hot). The fuel efficiency of keeping windows open exceeds that of air conditioning if you are traveling at slow speeds. Also if you cool down air and then use blend door to mix in air heated by engine, that's just wasting energy. Therefore the blend door should be always at coldest possible position.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, if the outdoor air isn't very hot, and you drive the entire trip at slow speeds, in that case you could of course keep the windows open during the entire journey. But the savings would be small, and it's hard to control the temperature precisely, so even minor priority on comfort dictates using the AC instead of keeping windows open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In automatic climate control systems, the automatic mode works as follows:&#xD;&#xA;* AC is on&#xD;&#xA;* Initially, fan is at very high speed, blend door at coldest position&#xD;&#xA;* Then, when temperature drops to near the setpoint, fan will be at low speed, blend door at coldest position (but if it nevertheless becomes too cold, then the blend door will be moved to mix some air heated by the engine)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the best plan if you're not going to open the windows at all. However, it wastes a bit of fuel compared to initially rapidly ventilating with all windows open when driving at low speed, and only after that using the automatic mode of the climate control system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If outdoor air is very hot, then windows should never be opened. Instead, just use the AC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most recent cars have an AC compressor that has variable power. Thus, to save on the energy, you want to reduce the load on it as much as you can. You don't do that by cooling down lots of air and then mixing hot engine air using the blend door -- instead, you move little air with blend door in coldest position." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12240" RevisionGUID="92cc6403-59b8-4a06-9c13-2a4849a95e4d" CreationDate="2022-07-12T05:08:54.980" UserId="5497" Text="I am highly skeptical of carbon offsets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They remind me of the cynic's definition of &quot;foreign aid,&quot; which is &quot;The transfer of wealth from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was part of a Permaculture co-op. I am convinced we were a net carbon sink. We made alternative fuel. We planted lots of trees. Our agriculture was almost completely based on manual labour, not mechanization (the only exception was hay.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you know how hard it is for a small (~$150,000 gross revenue) co-op to get carbon credits? I spent way too much time pursuing this, through elected officials and government agencies, to non-governmental organizations, and I even tried direct appeals to CO2 producers. *No one* wanted to so much as discuss it with us!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In our case, the benefits would have been immediate. You give us money, we'd use it to plant trees! We produced several hundred *Paulownia tomentosa* seedlings each year — it is the fastest growing tree in the world, and sequesters carbon at a furious rate! Plus, it's drop-dead gorgeous!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Paulownia tomentosa][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, at present, it seems that &quot;carbon credit&quot; are basically a way for corporations to enrich themselves. And what do they do with that money? They spend it — which inevitably puts more carbon in the atmosphere!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to more directly answer your question rather than simply rant, I think the so-called &quot;benefits&quot; of carbon offsets are simply a way of legitimizing carbon emissions, while letting those who don't like carbon emissions to somehow feel good about them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For carbon offsets to really work would require a fixed number of offsets that steadily decline over time. If carbon emitters — down to *you*, gentle reader, as you drive to work — had a fixed amount of carbon they could emit, then &quot;buying&quot; offsets would still result in declining emissions over time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the current state of carbon offsets doesn't work like that. There is no cap. Governments have swallowed the Adam Smith Kool Aid, and allow any amount of carbon to be emitted, hoping that higher costs will eventually throttle it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality (as we are now seeing in mid-2022), higher carbon costs simply results in general inflation, as fossil sunlight is the master resource by which modern civilization exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't see people driving less; they're just bitching more! And lobbying their bosses for higher pay to cover the higher cost of commuting, on, and on, and on… until something snaps.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Np6cm.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31082" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="1cff180b-7839-4f76-b97b-2e9d4a250e57" CreationDate="2022-07-13T13:05:25.523" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31084" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="e4df7ccd-25a7-41e9-a867-803a05a9a929" CreationDate="2022-07-14T01:06:55.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31085" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="dc9f808c-a483-4420-a907-dc466a3b1b1b" CreationDate="2022-07-14T04:38:16.850" UserId="14154" Comment="added extra tag" Text="|recycling|city-living|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31086" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="2845" RevisionGUID="dc9f808c-a483-4420-a907-dc466a3b1b1b" CreationDate="2022-07-14T04:38:16.850" Comment="Proposed by 14154 approved by 2345, 8232 edit id of 700" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31087" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12243" RevisionGUID="83d50834-0e05-4a75-93fb-185abe903135" CreationDate="2022-07-16T13:32:37.233" UserId="1909" Text="# Is it worth it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After a lot of searching I have found that there is a [Heat recovery unit for hot water from refrigeration systems][1] which transfers heat from refrigerant into water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What astonishes me, I have found only this one manufacturer making it, available for home use. Is it really not that effective, or just people are not aware of this opportunity to save some energy/money?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Maybe the commercial out-of-box solution is not (yet) available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have written to the company and got no response about availability in my country (Slovakia). On the regular Condenser unit, there is no option to access coolant in hot state (between compressor and condenser, as far as I know).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# My theoretical DIY ideas&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would it be safe to ask a professional to open the device and extend the coolant tube from compressor towards condenser, to have it go through Heat Recovery Unit? I would do it with an old appliance, so voiding the warranty is not an issue.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![HotSpot installation diagram][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Simplification&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this scenario is possible, Would it be much less effective to drive hot cooland through **pre-heat** water tank directly (without heat recovery unit)? Of course, using water tank with tubes designed for coolant. This could greatly simplify the system, as there would be no need for water circulation pump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Pre-heat tank with heat exchanger tube][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, in all scenarios with water tank I assume the water inside is cold (used frequently), and that coolant tubes would be split and connected by a technician who would in the end refill the coolant medium to a proper amount. Maybe the question could be: **Can regular AC devices installing technician do this?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## More extreme DIY&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going even more crazy in brainstorming, would it be safe to build the condenser of an external unit into the pre-heat water tank? It is weather resistant, and is getting wet anyways every time it goes in reverse mode, while heating. I would have concern only about the pressure made by water onto the condenser.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![AC Condenser built into boiler][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Simplification, and maybe something more practical&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comparing to above scenario, would it be effective using regular, factory made boiler, with coolant heat exchanger tube (from previous example), with coolant compressor?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does it exist? Coolant compressor out of the box, without condenser, ready for installation (with internal consumer-grade AC unit)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.hotspotenergy.com/img/hotspot-spec-sheet.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1kf-_wL-Xp_LFLzhsp06ei1wn434AoXntr8EhKEBlcM3EppJHGNqdvGMY&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/8kFvr.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/YmEFM.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/IU6eF.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31089" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12243" RevisionGUID="83d50834-0e05-4a75-93fb-185abe903135" CreationDate="2022-07-16T13:32:37.233" UserId="1909" Text="Reuse waste heat from air conditioning" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31090" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12243" RevisionGUID="83d50834-0e05-4a75-93fb-185abe903135" CreationDate="2022-07-16T13:32:37.233" UserId="1909" Text="|water-heating|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31093" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12245" RevisionGUID="06201029-1742-44b9-9843-47980adc492d" CreationDate="2022-07-16T17:43:20.907" UserId="6393" Text="The problem of heating water from waste heat from air conditioning is that the water needs to be heated to at least 60 degrees Celsius to prevent Legionella bacterium from growing. On the other hand, the cold side needs to be at about 10 degrees Celsius to effectively cool a room to 20 degrees Celsius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In regular air-to-air air conditioning units, you are moving heat from 10 degrees Celsius evaporator coil (cold side) to about 40 degrees Celsius condenser coil that is situated in outdoors where air temperature is 30 degrees Celsius. The condenser coil needs to be above 30 degrees Celsius by a safe margin, let's say 10 degrees Celsius, to effectively remove heat without needing massive airspeeds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So using the waste heat for water heating would require discarding heat at 60 degrees Celsius, not at 40 degrees Celsius. Increasing the heat discarding temperature will reduce the efficiency of the air conditioning unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Carnot efficiency of 10 C -&gt; 40 C is 9.44. Carnot efficiency of 10 C -&gt; 60 C is 5.66. So in an ideal Carnot air conditioning unit, your energy usage increases by 1.67x if you increase the hot side temperature to temperatures enough to heat water. I assume that in real units (less efficient than Carnot), you would still multiply energy usage by 1.67x.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also the state of art water heating system (ground source heat pumps) have real coefficient of performance of 4. This means that if you for example need 7000 kWh/a of water heat, that's only 1750 kWh of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be better to use discarded air conditioning heat only if the air conditioning usage is less than 2611.9 kWh/a (because 67% of 2611.9 is 1750). Otherwise the air conditioning electricity bill would increase more than the savings of not having to use that ground source heat pump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some other problems in the plan:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* If you use air conditioning heat to heat hot water, eventually if little water is used, the water could become so hot that temperatures rise to such high levels that the system becomes very inefficient and a secondary way of discarding that heat needs to be present. So you essentially need the ability to switch between two condenser coils situated in different areas. Would make quite an expensive system.&#xD;&#xA;* Refrigerant pipes would need to be installed between the indoor unit and the water heater. These pipes would be long and installation would be costly.&#xD;&#xA;* You still need an alternate heat pump or resistor heater to supply heat to water in cooler days. If it's resistor, it's energy-inefficient and costs lots of money to operate. If it's heat pump, then you need to pay a lot of money for that heat pump, so you can't expect any savings from reduced water heating infrastructure, you need to pay for that infrastructure anyway.&#xD;&#xA;* Air conditioning usage is heavily seasonal, whereas hot water usage happens in all seasons. Thus if for example there are 5 air conditioning months in a year, you wouldn't save 1750 kWh of electricity but rather 729 kWh of electricity (so in that case air conditioning to heat hot water would only make sense if air conditioning electricity usage would be below 1088 kWh per year)&#xD;&#xA;* Even during summer, there are hot days and cooler days. In hot days, the temperature of the heater would become so ridiculously high that the alternative heat discarding pathway is needed. So even if your air conditioning usage is below 1088 kWh per year, that wouldn't necessarily translate to any savings because different days during summer have different air conditoning needs. Part of that heat would be wasted. So I'd say it's realistic to expect any savings if you need less than 600-700 kWh per year energy for air conditioning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12246" RevisionGUID="88e6b439-f755-4421-888c-812f7b8af0b0" CreationDate="2022-07-16T21:37:53.497" UserId="14207" Text="Actually a molecular photoswitch has been recently developed that can capture sunlight.&#xD;&#xA;This could make light bulbs a thing of the past and bring a whole new way if thinking about photovoltaic cells" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31097" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12247" RevisionGUID="d4d5d6e7-189b-4a98-87a3-2371865ff3c8" CreationDate="2022-07-17T09:45:10.810" UserId="6393" Text="Oh no that won't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Those are intended to replicate typical indoor light levels by replacing electric lights. Electric indoor lights typically produce 100 - 500 lux. Sunlight is 100 000 lux.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You don't necessarily realize this because your eyes lie to you, but it's darker indoors than what you think. Every photographer knows that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So at best you are getting half percent of the power output you would be getting in sunlight. At worst, 0.1%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Install the solar panel where it should be installed, next to that solar collector over the roof." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31099" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12248" RevisionGUID="c169cd99-53b1-4baf-9aa7-e6d231307834" CreationDate="2022-07-17T10:00:29.113" UserId="9669" Text="*(I [haven't][1] received a proper answer on Earth Science SE so I decided to try my luck here since I can't yet start a bounty)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do space launches warm or cool the surface temperature (admittedly, for a little bit)? [This][2] BBC article presents it as an emerging climate problem but also says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the amount of black carbon expelled into the atmosphere reach 30 gigagrams a year, or even 100, then there will be some **cooling** of the surface of the planet under this black carbon umbrella.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what's the whole debate all about then? Isn't it a good thing that it counteracts the warming effect to some degree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/24029/whats-the-effect-of-space-launches-on-climate/24030#24030&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220713-how-to-make-rocket-launches-less-polluting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31101" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12248" RevisionGUID="c169cd99-53b1-4baf-9aa7-e6d231307834" CreationDate="2022-07-17T10:00:29.113" UserId="9669" Text="What's the effect of space launches on climate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31102" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12248" RevisionGUID="c169cd99-53b1-4baf-9aa7-e6d231307834" CreationDate="2022-07-17T10:00:29.113" UserId="9669" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12249" RevisionGUID="b2a34b83-251b-4358-8f5a-597195cdae79" CreationDate="2022-07-17T10:29:01.920" UserId="6393" Text="I think this is negligible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Space shuttle uses 0.6 million kilograms of liquid oxygen and 0.1 million kilograms of liquid hydrogen per each trip. So it's not even using fuels that would emit carbon. However, other launch vehicles could use carbon-based fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hydrogen has energy of 120 MJ/kg. Methane has energy of 50 MJ/kg. So if we replaced the hydrogen with methane, we would need 0.24 million kilograms of it. That would create 0.66 million kilograms of carbon dioxide per launch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we estimate there are 100 space launches per year, that would be 66 million kilograms of carbon dioxide per year. That's 66 kilotonnes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Total CO2-equivalent emissions are 40 GtCO2/a. So about 0.000165% of emissions are due to space launches.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if a space launch would have major effects in some other way, such as by emitting black carbon, I'd say it's still negligible." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31107" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12248" RevisionGUID="7bde9d81-bcb6-4dc7-a7eb-b305571fd35b" CreationDate="2022-07-17T21:01:27.310" UserId="9669" Comment="added 865 characters in body" Text="*(I [haven't][1] received a proper answer on Earth Science SE so I decided to try my luck here since I can't yet start a bounty)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do space launches warm or cool the surface temperature (admittedly, for a little bit)? [This][2] BBC article presents it as an emerging climate problem but also says&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the amount of black carbon expelled into the atmosphere reach 30 gigagrams a year, or even 100, then there will be some **cooling** of the surface of the planet under this black carbon umbrella.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what's the whole debate all about then? Isn't it a good thing that it counteracts the warming effect to some degree?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;UPD: I've found an [answer][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The 2010 global climate model study considered rocket BC emissions of 600 tons per year, more than double the current BC emissions of about 225 tons. Run for 40 model years to ensure the model reached steady state, the stratospheric BC burden grew to 2,400 tons. Although the globally averaged surface temperature anomaly was small and not statistically significant, on smaller scales and over limited latitude bands, **significant positive and negative temperature anomalies emerged**. North polar surface temperatures increased by more than 1°C, and upward of 5% of polar sea ice coverage was lost. And beneath the main BC accumulation in the northern midlatitudes (around the latitude of the assumed launch site at 33°N), the surface cooled by 0.5°C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/24029/whats-the-effect-of-space-launches-on-climate/24030#24030&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220713-how-to-make-rocket-launches-less-polluting&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://eos.org/features/the-coming-surge-of-rocket-emissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31108" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12212" RevisionGUID="d7a873fa-5efb-40a8-9cc8-c26ba2e86304" CreationDate="2022-07-18T20:01:40.147" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31109" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12250" RevisionGUID="10e8e766-f1c6-4fb1-8571-7aa7ce9de784" CreationDate="2022-07-19T12:58:55.327" UserId="9669" Text="They plan to decarbonize the aviation industry in two ways: [electric planes][1] and [hydrogen-powered][2] planes. But in any case it implies fewer passenger seats and, as a result, a dramatic increase in ticket prices (if I understand it correctly). Does greener flights mean a lot less affordable flights? Is flying going to become a luxury? Is our world going to be less connected (in terms of international in-person connections)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62120130&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210401-the-worlds-first-commercial-hydrogen-plane" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31111" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12250" RevisionGUID="10e8e766-f1c6-4fb1-8571-7aa7ce9de784" CreationDate="2022-07-19T12:58:55.327" UserId="9669" Text="Does greener flights mean a lot less affordable flights?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31112" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12250" RevisionGUID="10e8e766-f1c6-4fb1-8571-7aa7ce9de784" CreationDate="2022-07-19T12:58:55.327" UserId="9669" Text="|transport|climate-change|aviation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31113" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12251" RevisionGUID="6c90e074-12c6-4ac8-b82c-bccc00335ea5" CreationDate="2022-07-19T18:02:14.437" UserId="6393" Text="The fact is: nobody knows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electric planes could be very useful for short distances. For long-distance flights, the battery cost investment is rather high, the weight of the plane increases rapidly (meaning you need more batteries because of the weight, meaning you have more weight because of the batteries, meaning you need more batteries because of the weight, ...) so I really hope we don't have to resort to battery-powered electric planes in long flights. However, for short distances electric planes could be useful and maybe even they could not increase costs but rather reduce costs. To get there, lots of development and cost-reduction is needed though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In electric cars, we have already seen that the total cost of ownership during the whole ownership period is lower for drivers that use their car a lot and choose electricity, if you buy a new car and drive it until it's no longer serviceable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that in most applications what determines whether fossil fuels are better or whether electricity is better, is the number of cycles a battery gets per year. Electric cars usually have about one cycle per week. This means the battery lasts long enough, but you get actual usage for it (more usage = more fuel savings). A daily cycle wouldn't help because then the battery needs to be replaced early (in plug-in hybrids that have a cycle per day we have already seen early battery failures). In applications where cycles are rare and/or seasonal, for example in lawnmowers (maybe 12 cycles per year, so that's average of cycle per month), battery cost is dominated not by cycles but by battery aging, and it's expensive as hell to have an expensive battery and you won't get even 200 cycles out of it. Based on this, electric planes seem promising (presumably they would get multiple cycles per week), as long as the battery weight is not a showstopper.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For hydrogen in long distance flights, it depends on the technology. Electric motors operated by fuel cells that burn hydrogen might be too expensive as a system. Burning hydrogen directly in jet engines could work, but then the fuel costs will be a showstopper for at least 10 maybe 20 years. To get cheap enough hydrogen, at least massive reductions in hydrogen electrolyzer costs are needed, and we need to have massive amounts of intermittent weather-dependent renewable capacity that could be used to operate those electrolyzers with practically zero electricity costs at times when not all electricity is needed elsewhere and there's plenty of electricity available. Also hydrogen storage is hard, maybe liquid hydrogen could remove the need for huge pressure vessels, but then liquid hydrogen is less efficient and more expensive than compressed hydrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a long way to go. Fuel in international flights has no fuel taxes and the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; produced needs no permits. To help make hydrogen and electricity more viable, we should at first decide that all aviation fuels will be taxed at the same taxation level that motor fuels are taxed in most European Union countries. Maybe then the incentives for electric and hydrogen planes would be larger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the only proof that we have hope is that maybe we don't actually have to do anything. There are already 100% fossil compatible biodiesel variants on the market. The main problem with biodiesel is that we can never produce enough of it to cover all of road transportation usage, because road transportation uses so much fuel. However, if we produced biofuels only to replace jet fuel (which is very similar to diesel so the 100% fossil compatible biodiesel techniques should work with maybe minor modifications), we could have 100% of aviation fuels be sustainable and not even have to use electric or hydrogen planes. Maybe it will be cheaper in short distances to use electric over sustainable fuels. Maybe it will be cheaper in long distances to use hydrogen over sustainable fuels some day. But if it isn't, the technology to produce enough sustainable fuels is existent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sustainable aviation fuels would be more expensive, though, and unlikely to ever become as cheap as fossil fuels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31115" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12252" RevisionGUID="c0e7adaa-30ad-488d-aa71-6279a5da0170" CreationDate="2022-07-19T19:22:08.170" UserId="9669" Text="How do hybrid planes work? Where does electricity come from?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Faradair is planning to develop and sell a hybrid-electric passenger plane, aimed at the regional aviation market. It would have up to 19 seats and would be propelled by a fan driven by an electric motor. **The necessary electricity would be provided by a small gas turbine.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(from [here][1])*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What do they mean by &quot;provided by a small gas turbine&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62120130" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31117" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12252" RevisionGUID="c0e7adaa-30ad-488d-aa71-6279a5da0170" CreationDate="2022-07-19T19:22:08.170" UserId="9669" Text="How do hybrid planes work?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31118" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12252" RevisionGUID="c0e7adaa-30ad-488d-aa71-6279a5da0170" CreationDate="2022-07-19T19:22:08.170" UserId="9669" Text="|transport|decarbonisation|aviation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12254" RevisionGUID="b56c67d7-aa1a-44a3-bda3-f5be0aec53f1" CreationDate="2022-07-21T08:20:30.323" UserId="14203" Text="i am from india. it's been more than 15 years that i'm using electronics and throwing it out when its done. but since 3 years after getting aware of ecosystem and how electronics effect it, i tried to recycle the things. but to my surpise, it is very hard. there are not many places to recycle. some companies have started their initiatives in cities but most of the india is rural and hence something need to be done for other than cities. people just dont have any proper source to decompose the electronic waste. i wanted to ask, how can i start one, what things should be taken care for that . i'm planning to collaborate with a company so that i can atleast start it in my place and take the e-waste to the zones in cities where these companies have set up units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But how do i start and what all things to be considered." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31129" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12254" RevisionGUID="b56c67d7-aa1a-44a3-bda3-f5be0aec53f1" CreationDate="2022-07-21T08:20:30.323" UserId="14203" Text="How can i start a recycle center for electronic goods" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31130" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12254" RevisionGUID="b56c67d7-aa1a-44a3-bda3-f5be0aec53f1" CreationDate="2022-07-21T08:20:30.323" UserId="14203" Text="|recycling|environmental-impact|biodegradable-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31131" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12254" RevisionGUID="773bb70e-bec9-46c6-bf37-00fa9d2e0c81" CreationDate="2022-07-22T07:52:03.870" UserId="99" Comment="Improve grammar, add relevant tags" Text="I am from India. It's been more than 15 years that I'm using electronics and throwing it out when its done. Since 3 years, after getting aware of how electronics affect the environment, I am trying to recycle everything, but to my surprise it is very hard. There are not many places where you can recycle. Some companies have started their initiatives in cities but most of India is rural and hence something needs to be done for those areas. People just don't have any proper way to dispose the electronic waste. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I start a recycling location? What things should be taken care of for that? I'm planning to collaborate with a company so I can at least start it in my place and take the e-waste to the zones in cities where these companies have set up units. But how do I start and what are all things that should be considered?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31132" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12254" RevisionGUID="773bb70e-bec9-46c6-bf37-00fa9d2e0c81" CreationDate="2022-07-22T07:52:03.870" UserId="99" Comment="Improve grammar, add relevant tags" Text="|recycling|waste|green-it|electronics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12255" RevisionGUID="5fda17c0-9c54-4866-9abb-652d64048456" CreationDate="2022-07-22T11:30:09.383" UserId="99" Text="First of all, I think it's great that you are trying to do something about all the electronic waste in rural areas in India. E-waste is not easy to recycle because you need knowledge what usable materials are present in different types of electronics and expensive equipment to process it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not clear to me if this is something you want to do in your free time, or if you really want to make a business out of this and earn money. For the latter, things are more complicated and probably require some investments.&#xD;&#xA;In any case, I think you need to do 4 things:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Check around to get a good impression of the different types of e-waste that are dumped in your area. This will give you an idea of what you can collect and will receive in the future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. You mentioned cooperating with a recycling company. Find such a company, if you haven't done so already, and ask them for help. In my experience recycling companies have specific requirements what materials they accept and under what conditions. Talk to them about what you can offer. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   Some companies may even be willing to pay for large amounts of e-waste, especially for batteries, computers and mobile phones. Also ask them if they can guarantee that the waste you supply is really recycled and not dumped elsewhere. Your &quot;customers&quot; may also be interested in safe data destruction, so ask about that as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3. Think about what you want to do exactly and draw up a business plan if you want to start a business. Important questions to answer are; what waste types will you accept, how will you promote this, where will you store everything and for how long, how do you transport it to the recycling company, what will you do with waste you cannot use (because you're bound to receive that as well even if you don't want it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    If you want to earn money you could also consider refurbishing certain devices and selling them again, or simply extract and sell usable parts. In this case, consider how you will check what parts are still usable and how you can extract them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Check the regulations in your country or state. There could be certain rules you need to abide to when collecting large amounts of waste, and certain licenses or permits to be obtained. Many e-waste contains heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury or lead so especially check health and safety regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good luck!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31135" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12254" RevisionGUID="152197c0-bfe6-4d10-9b18-5ed544e82c53" CreationDate="2022-07-24T11:39:59.150" UserId="8232" Comment="edited title" Text="How can I start a recycle center for electronic goods" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12257" RevisionGUID="a7e9ed23-6644-41dc-8fa1-a530acf5c7e7" CreationDate="2022-07-27T03:48:52.993" UserId="5497" Text="Depending on your location, you can grow your own caffeine!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Camellia sinensis sitka* is a hardy variety of the common tea plant. It does well to Zone 8, or even colder, if you can put it in a protected location, like along a south-facing wall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We had one through ten winters, some with up to a metre of snow, and it did well. Snow is better than dry cold, as snow has insulating value.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can feed it kitchen compost, rather than expensive (financially, and sustainably) fertilizer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [American Camellia Society][1] is a good resource for getting started. They claim starting from seed is easy, although I found it to be finicky, and prefer buying greenhouse stock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Growing your own is almost without exception the best way to be sustainable!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.americancamellias.com/care-culture-resources/the-camellia-family/growing-camellia-sinensis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31143" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12232" RevisionGUID="86d7c876-afa3-412f-9990-363d605154f0" CreationDate="2022-07-28T09:00:05.250" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1552579635472482311" />
  <row Id="31145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12258" RevisionGUID="1337493c-4dbf-4a92-970f-706431bca1c5" CreationDate="2022-07-30T15:33:33.090" UserId="3722" Text="Some thoughts in addition to what @juhist already said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- AC will be the more energy efficient the colder the cold pool/heat sink to cool against is. @juhist has outlined a scenario (10 °C) that will allow for efficient transfer of heat on its own.  &#xD;&#xA;  Nevertheless, *any* heat sink that is cooler than the ambient air you are presumably cooling against will help. From that perspective, a water tank with less than ambient air temperature would help making your AC more efficient, regardless of what additional use you can put that then warmer water to.  &#xD;&#xA;Even more efficient is evaporation (except in very humid conditions). That is what industrial cooling towers use (which btw. have been sources of important legionella infections in the past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Whenever the weather is such that you'd want to run AC, getting *really* hot water via solar thermal collector, and the proposed tank would maybe better be employed as heat buffer for an STE system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Ground source heat pump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_source_heat_pump) systems use either soil or e.g. a pond as heat source that keeps higher temp in winter than ambient air. That basically would also give an opportunity to use the thermal buffer as heat sink in summer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (I don't know whether it is acutally used this way - I'm in Central Europe where for residential buildings we still do fine without AC because masonry walls supply sufficient heat capacity that with thoroughly airing during the night and closing window lids during the day we get along without AC (unless you are living in a flat right under the roof). And heating installation over here is anyways water-based rather than hot air. These systems don't lend themselves well to cooling since you'd easily get into trouble with moisture condensing on the cool surfaces)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31147" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12258" RevisionGUID="a6da639f-84c0-4c20-81b9-cf220a7dcda3" CreationDate="2022-07-30T15:38:41.870" UserId="3722" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="Some thoughts in addition to what @juhist already said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- AC will be the more energy efficient the colder the cold pool/heat sink to cool against is. @juhist has outlined a scenario (10 °C) that will allow for efficient transfer of heat on its own.  &#xD;&#xA;  Nevertheless, *any* heat sink that is cooler than the ambient air you are presumably cooling against will help. From that perspective, a water tank with less than ambient air temperature would help making your AC more efficient, regardless of what additional use you can put that then warmer water to.  &#xD;&#xA;Even more efficient is evaporation (except in very humid conditions). That is what industrial cooling towers use (which btw. have been sources of important legionella infections in the past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Whenever the weather is such that you'd want to run AC, getting *really* hot water via solar thermal collector, and the proposed tank would maybe better be employed as heat buffer for an STE system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Ground source heat pump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_source_heat_pump) systems use either soil or e.g. a pond as heat source that keeps higher temp in winter than ambient air. That basically would also give an opportunity to use the thermal buffer as heat sink in summer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (I don't know whether it is acutally used this way - I'm in Germany where for residential buildings we still do fine without AC because masonry walls supply sufficient heat capacity that with thoroughly airing during the night and closing window lids during the day we get along without AC (unless you are living in a flat right under the roof). And heating installation over here is anyways water-based rather than hot air. These systems don't lend themselves well to cooling since you'd easily get into trouble with moisture condensing on the cool surfaces)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31148" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12258" RevisionGUID="322166d8-505a-4a1f-af94-ca3e87085b8e" CreationDate="2022-07-30T15:46:06.053" UserId="3722" Comment="deleted 7 characters in body" Text="I think it likely does exist, though I cannot point you to any specific system. What you'd want to look for is &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a ground source heat pump system &#xD;&#xA;- which works also in reverse mode, and&#xD;&#xA;- on the house side an AC/air heating system (rather than hot water central heating) &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some thoughts in addition to what @juhist already said:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- AC will be the more energy efficient the colder the cold pool/heat sink to cool against is. @juhist has outlined a scenario (10 °C) that will allow for efficient transfer of heat on its own.  &#xD;&#xA;  Nevertheless, *any* heat sink that is cooler than the ambient air you are presumably cooling against will help. From that perspective, a water tank with less than ambient air temperature would help making your AC more efficient, regardless of what additional use you can put that then warmer water to.  &#xD;&#xA;Even more efficient is evaporation (except in very humid conditions). That is what industrial cooling towers use (which btw. have been sources of important legionella infections in the past)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Whenever the weather is such that you'd want to run AC, getting *really* hot water via solar thermal collector, and the proposed tank would maybe better be employed as heat buffer for an STE system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [Ground source heat pump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_source_heat_pump) systems use either soil or e.g. a pond as heat source that keeps higher temp in winter than ambient air. That basically would also give an opportunity to use the thermal buffer as heat sink in summer.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  (I don't know whether it is acutally used this way - I'm in Germany where for residential buildings we still do fine without AC because masonry walls supply sufficient heat capacity that with thoroughly airing during the night and closing window lids during the day we get along without AC (unless you are living in a flat right under the roof). And heating installation over here is anyways water-based rather than hot air. These systems don't lend themselves well to cooling since you'd easily get into trouble with moisture condensing on the cool surfaces)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31149" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12259" RevisionGUID="f837c4dc-aa5d-49ef-bc9c-42879889f938" CreationDate="2022-07-30T16:28:02.220" UserId="3722" Text="A few thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if you take too much heat from the compost, the lower temperature impacts the rotting processes. In the end, the same amount of energy will be released, but the thermal power will be much lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Two &quot;baseline&quot; energy consumption calcuations would be helpful: do the saving outweigh the energy needed to move the compost from our collection facility to the households? Compost is a low energy high mass (moisture) substance...&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  - Related: what's the energetic outcome of each household having their compost *and not using the heat* vs. fuel saved for organic waste collection?  &#xD;&#xA;I have a sneaking suspicion that communal collection of organic waste is an *energy expenditure* that we need because of dense (urban) living conditions. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Here in Germany, a traditional use of the compost heap heat is to have e.g. zucchini or pumpkins grow there. This boosts the plant productivity because the compost supplies both nutrients and a position that is a bit warmer than usual over here, which both agrees well with those plants.  &#xD;&#xA;The energy savings from having home-grown vegetables may be higher than any direct use of the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Have a look at [this combined biogas and compost facility](https://www.renergon-biogas.com/kompostwerk-mit-biogasanlage-fuer-bioabfaelle/) (link to German language site - I only found general information on the English version).  &#xD;&#xA;Rather than distributing the half-done compost, they use the gas to cogenerate electricity and heat. Interestingly, they say part of the heat is needed to keep up the process temperature in the composting/fermenting facility. Iow, if your compost produces excess heat, that energy could have gone into gas by a different process conduct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12259" RevisionGUID="cfd548ab-b152-41f0-abf1-df0fe3f41a1f" CreationDate="2022-07-30T17:05:35.877" UserId="3722" Comment="added 1237 characters in body" Text="A few thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if you take too much heat from the compost, the lower temperature impacts the rotting processes. In the end, the same amount of energy will be released, but the thermal power will be much lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Two &quot;baseline&quot; energy consumption calcuations would be helpful: do the saving outweigh the energy needed to move the compost from our collection facility to the households? Compost is a low energy high mass (moisture) substance...&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  - Related: what's the energetic outcome of each household having their compost *and not using the heat* vs. fuel saved for organic waste collection?  &#xD;&#xA;I have a sneaking suspicion that communal collection of organic waste is an *energy expenditure* that we need because of dense (urban) living conditions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Found some numbers: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [a 26 t waste truck uses, say, 75 l diesel/100 km](https://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/article213923163/Muellwagen-der-BSR-verbrauchen-mehr-als-80-Liter-Diesel.html)  &#xD;&#xA;  (side note: this could likely be reduced a lot by having little &quot;herds&quot; of big rubbish bins instead of the bin-per-house setup we use in Germany which means that the truck has to stop and go every few meters. Also, these trucks, like buses, would likely be *the* cars where electric drive has *huge* advantage over combustion. The Berlin newspaper article from 2018 reports 60 electric trucks vs. 1000 diesel ones...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Website linked below says, energy produced via their anaerobic process (biogas + heat) from one 120 l bin is equivalent to 3 - 4 l oil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - That would be the equivalent of the truck going 25 additional km to collect and deliver that organic waste. Which gives us some energetic leeway (but notice this is only marginal energy consumption, we did not include the energy needed to produce the truck, nor the compost/biogas facility)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Here in rural Germany, a traditional use of the compost heap heat is to have e.g. zucchini or pumpkins grow there. This boosts the plant productivity because the compost supplies both nutrients and a position that is a bit warmer than usual over here, which both agrees well with those plants.  &#xD;&#xA;The energy savings from having home-grown vegetables may be higher than any direct use of the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Have a look at [this combined biogas and compost facility](https://www.renergon-biogas.com/kompostwerk-mit-biogasanlage-fuer-bioabfaelle/) (link to German language site - I only found general information on the English version).  &#xD;&#xA;Rather than distributing the half-done compost, they use the gas to cogenerate electricity and heat. Interestingly, they say part of the heat is needed to keep up the process temperature in the composting/fermenting facility. Iow, if your compost produces excess heat, that energy could have gone into gas by a different (anaerobic) process conduct.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  They say that 120 l organic waste (one household waste bin) will produce the equivalent of 3 - 4 l of oil. The plant works on a scale of 20000 t/a.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31152" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12259" RevisionGUID="ccd188b9-171a-4e36-a846-408cb476e823" CreationDate="2022-07-30T17:10:52.507" UserId="3722" Comment="added 1237 characters in body" Text="A few thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if you take too much heat from the compost, the lower temperature impacts the rotting processes. In the end, the same amount of energy will be released, but the thermal power will be much lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Two &quot;baseline&quot; energy consumption calcuations would be helpful: do the saving outweigh the energy needed to move the compost from our collection facility to the households? Compost is a low energy high mass (moisture) substance...&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  - Related: what's the energetic outcome of each household having their compost *and not using the heat* vs. fuel saved for organic waste collection?  &#xD;&#xA;I have a sneaking suspicion that communal collection of organic waste is an *energy expenditure* that we need because of dense (urban) living conditions.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Found some numbers: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [a 26 t waste truck uses, say, 75 l diesel/100 km](https://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/article213923163/Muellwagen-der-BSR-verbrauchen-mehr-als-80-Liter-Diesel.html)  &#xD;&#xA;  (side note: this could likely be reduced a lot by having little &quot;herds&quot; of big rubbish bins instead of the bin-per-house setup we use in Germany which means that the truck has to stop and go every few meters. Also, these trucks, like buses, would likely be *the* cars where electric drive has *huge* advantage over combustion. The Berlin newspaper article from 2018 reports 60 electric trucks vs. 1000 diesel ones...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Website linked below says, energy produced via their anaerobic process (biogas + heat) from one 120 l bin is equivalent to 3 - 4 l oil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Which gives us some energetic leeway after the collection (and financially even more since at least over here people are used to pay per kg of organic waste that is removed by the communal waste collection), but your proposed distribution of compost would likely need to stay quite local. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Here in rural Germany, a traditional use of the compost heap heat is to have e.g. zucchini or pumpkins grow there. This boosts the plant productivity because the compost supplies both nutrients and a position that is a bit warmer than usual over here, which both agrees well with those plants.  &#xD;&#xA;The energy savings from having home-grown vegetables may be higher than any direct use of the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Have a look at [this combined biogas and compost facility](https://www.renergon-biogas.com/kompostwerk-mit-biogasanlage-fuer-bioabfaelle/) (link to German language site - I only found general information on the English version).  &#xD;&#xA;Rather than distributing the half-done compost, they use the gas to cogenerate electricity and heat. Interestingly, they say part of the heat is needed to keep up the process temperature in the composting/fermenting facility. Iow, if your compost produces excess heat, that energy could have gone into gas by a different (anaerobic) process conduct.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  They say that 120 l organic waste (one household waste bin) will produce the equivalent of 3 - 4 l of oil. The plant works on a scale of 20000 t/a.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12259" RevisionGUID="0f9a4941-8d5e-4e2f-8529-37f81a5c55dd" CreationDate="2022-07-30T17:20:26.030" UserId="3722" Comment="added 1237 characters in body" Text="A few thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if you take too much heat from the compost, the lower temperature impacts the rotting processes. In the end, the same amount of energy will be released, but the thermal power will be much lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Baseline&quot; energy expenditure calcuation would be helpful: do the saving outweigh the energy needed to move the compost from your collection facility to the households? Compost is a low energy high mass (moisture) substance...&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Found some numbers: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [a 26 t waste truck uses, say, 75 l diesel/100 km](https://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/article213923163/Muellwagen-der-BSR-verbrauchen-mehr-als-80-Liter-Diesel.html)  &#xD;&#xA;  (side note: this could likely be reduced a lot by having little &quot;herds&quot; of big rubbish bins instead of the bin-per-house setup we use in Germany which means that the truck has to stop and go every few meters. Also, these trucks, like buses, would likely be *the* cars where electric drive has *huge* advantage over combustion. The Berlin newspaper article from 2018 reports 60 electric trucks vs. 1000 diesel ones...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Website linked below says, energy produced via their anaerobic process (biogas + heat) from one 120 l bin is equivalent to 3 - 4 l oil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Which gives us some energetic leeway after the collection (and financially even more since at least over here people are used to pay per kg of organic waste that is removed by the communal waste collection), but your proposed distribution of compost would likely need to stay quite local. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Here in rural Germany, a traditional use of the compost heap heat is to have e.g. zucchini or pumpkins grow there. This boosts the plant productivity because the compost supplies both nutrients and a position that is a bit warmer than usual over here, which both agrees well with those plants.  &#xD;&#xA;The energy savings from having home-grown vegetables may be higher than any direct use of the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Have a look at [this combined biogas and compost facility](https://www.renergon-biogas.com/kompostwerk-mit-biogasanlage-fuer-bioabfaelle/) (link to German language site - I only found general information on the English version).  &#xD;&#xA;Rather than distributing the half-done compost, they use the gas to cogenerate electricity and heat. Interestingly, they say part of the heat is needed to keep up the process temperature in the composting/fermenting facility. Iow, if your compost produces excess heat, that energy could have gone into gas by a different (anaerobic) process conduct.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  They say that 120 l organic waste (one household waste bin) will produce the equivalent of 3 - 4 l of oil. The plant works on a scale of 20000 t/a.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Fly production: black soldier flies can be used for oil production, yes. But they're also discussed as food &amp; feed protein source (over here in the EU, AFAIK you can use them as feed but they are not approved for food [yet]). Protein is a higher value product than oil/gas, but I'm not sure you can grow them in the after-fermentation composter of the plant linked above. However, it may make sense to have them as first step and put the remainder they didn't use into the anaerobic fermenter. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12260" RevisionGUID="dd2a4658-2e8d-443a-985d-2235fd704473" CreationDate="2022-08-01T14:01:18.493" UserId="14245" Text="I have a 4kW 220V inverter which I want to connect to 12V 50Ah battery with maximum discharge current 30A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I calculated maximum current that inverter will take by 4kW / 12V = 333A which is much bigger than allowed for this battery. So, I want to protect battery from big current (when too powerful consumer is connected). How can I do it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't plan to take more than 100-200W from that inverter, so, I want to add protection from accidentally connection of high power consumer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12260" RevisionGUID="dd2a4658-2e8d-443a-985d-2235fd704473" CreationDate="2022-08-01T14:01:18.493" UserId="14245" Text="How to protect LiFePO4 battery from too big discharge current (auto turn off on big current)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12260" RevisionGUID="dd2a4658-2e8d-443a-985d-2235fd704473" CreationDate="2022-08-01T14:01:18.493" UserId="14245" Text="|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31158" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12261" RevisionGUID="11c815e2-31ca-467a-8f11-cd4479bf8282" CreationDate="2022-08-01T15:26:23.337" UserId="6393" Text="What you describe is standard practice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's a device that does exactly what you want and it's not expensive either. It's called a &quot;fuse&quot;. Fuses are available for 30 amperes and many other amperages. It's a one-use only device, once you have blown the fuse you will need a completely new fuse. Fuses are cheap, buy at least 10 fuses of the amperage you need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are planning to blow the fuse hundreds of times, then it might be useful to consider DC circuit breakers. The trouble with these is that interrupting high-current DC such as 30 amperes ain't easy. The current will want to continue, even through the air, creating a massive arc. DC does not have a zero-crossing like AC has that would be a natural moment for the current flow to stop. Any circuit breaker must be able to extinguish this arc, in a manner that doesn't cause the expensive circuit breaker to get damaged. (A self-damaging circuit breaker would only be a very expensive single-use fuse -- or worse, it could fail to stop the current flow.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Think about welding. Does the arc when welding stop or does it continue? That's what DC circuit breakers are dealing with.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What makes interrupting the 30 ampere current somewhat easier is the low voltage, 12 volts -- you may be even able to use an AC circuit breaker at such low voltages (although if you really do so make a few tests to ensure they work safely when short-circuited with a huge fuse like over 100 amperes in series -- ideally with a safer battery chemistry than lithium-ion like lead-acid since short-circuiting lithium-ion isn't a good idea)! For higher voltages, it would be much harder. If you can find a 12 volt 30 ampere DC circuit breaker (or any voltage rating above 12 volts is fine but the current rating has to be accurate), you can consider using it but I suspect even if you plan to blow the fuse ten times, fuses would still be less expensive than a circuit breaker. Usually smaller fuses like 30 amperes are installed in a case making swapping the fuse very simple, not even needing a screwdriver. Larger fuses like 100 amperes may be attached with screw terminals to get a connection that allows high current without too much resistive drop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that 30 amperes should use 6 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; wiring. You may be able to achieve 30 amperes with 4 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; wiring without melting the insulator, but at 12 volts and 30 amperes, the voltage drop for long 4 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; wires might be just a little bit too much, and if the two wires are close in a hot environment, two 4 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; wires could still heat just a little too much for infinite insulator lifetime." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31160" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12262" RevisionGUID="c66ecf21-f633-48a1-9871-9d81676c8c16" CreationDate="2022-08-01T19:07:25.920" UserId="14246" Text="I was only able to find one residential flywheel energy storage system for sale as of right now. It has a low (but manageable) power output and is priced competitively. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unit Specs: &#xD;&#xA;Power: 3kW | Energy: 15kWh | Size: 40”x40”x40” | Weight: 750lbs&#xD;&#xA;Round Trip Efficiency: &gt;=80% | Depth of Discharge: 100%&#xD;&#xA;Connectivity: 48VDC “Virtual Lead Acid” buss.&#xD;&#xA;Price: $6,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;http://velkess.com/flywheel.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They have an AC unit as well that is $1,500 more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a few other companies that are getting close, Energiestro is one that comes to mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31163" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12091" RevisionGUID="065c8b6c-a618-4a80-87ed-1551ff78df2d" CreationDate="2022-08-03T16:01:40.133" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12264" RevisionGUID="9a4173b4-22eb-4e51-b036-fce1b589987d" CreationDate="2022-08-03T19:35:32.973" UserId="3237" Text="I live in an apartment in the UK. There's an electric &quot;hot water cylinder&quot; (storage tank) to heat water for tap usage. (Not for heating, there are electric radiators for that.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This hot water cylinder has a thermostat where you can set a temperature from 40°C to 70°C, and whoever installed it set it to 70°C. 70°C seems wasteful to me, 40°C would be enough for my use. Presumably the higher the temperature and the more electricity it uses?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However the manual warns that the thermostat should not be set lower than 60°C to &quot;prevent bacteria growth&quot;. Is this a valid concern in practice, or is it more like some kind of abstract health &amp; safety disclaimer? I mean, I'm not going to drink that hot water, I just use it to wash stuff." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31168" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12264" RevisionGUID="9a4173b4-22eb-4e51-b036-fce1b589987d" CreationDate="2022-08-03T19:35:32.973" UserId="3237" Text="Temperature for hot water cylinder" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31169" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12264" RevisionGUID="9a4173b4-22eb-4e51-b036-fce1b589987d" CreationDate="2022-08-03T19:35:32.973" UserId="3237" Text="|home|electricity|water-heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31170" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="9ce5e3d8-7d46-4b2e-bb41-b193b3b43c5c" CreationDate="2022-08-04T05:47:25.690" UserId="108" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen those around Europe. Using them seems like basic common sense, especially the green one considering glass decomposes in about 1e6 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However lately I've received the following accounts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[an insanely smart son of an influential politician] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Germany exports all it's recyclable garbage to Asian countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a friend of a friend]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I work with garbage disposal in Bulgaria and watch all the rubbish getting mixed in one pile daily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which EU countries recycle glass, metals, plastic? At what volumes? What methods are used for separation of paper, different kinds of plastics and different metals that all go to the yellow bin in some places?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZmvFJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31172" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="9ce5e3d8-7d46-4b2e-bb41-b193b3b43c5c" CreationDate="2022-08-04T05:47:25.690" UserId="108" Text="Which countries in EU recycle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31173" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="9ce5e3d8-7d46-4b2e-bb41-b193b3b43c5c" CreationDate="2022-08-04T05:47:25.690" UserId="108" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31174" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="77b1837a-18fe-4fec-8bf8-fbf0c46be31c" CreationDate="2022-08-04T05:57:06.103" UserId="108" Comment="edited title" Text="Which EU countries recycle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12266" RevisionGUID="ff07f09d-8062-4f07-ac25-7b1ddc43ed61" CreationDate="2022-08-04T08:06:19.980" UserId="99" Text="Yes, higher thermostat temperatures mean more electricity consumption. Also your thermostat manual is right, bacteria growth is a valid concern.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The ideal conditions for the [Legionella](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionella) bacteria to grow is stagnant water between 25 and 45°C. If you breathe in water vapor that contains Legionella, you can develop an infection known as [Legionnaires' disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionnaires%27_disease), which is a serious illness. Its fatality rate is around 10% for healthy people and higher for people with other health problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the reason that drinking water companies often advise customers to let their taps run, when people return from (summer) holidays. With stagnant water and in-house temperatures of 20+°C there is a risk of Legionella build-up in your water pipes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The easiest way to kill the bacteria in your case is to raise the temperature to 60°C or higher, so what you could do is set the temperature to 40°C by default, but every day set it to the maximum temperature for a few minutes. If you think you'll forget to do that then I would advice you to set it to 60°C." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31177" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12264" RevisionGUID="154e793b-ba22-4286-8295-16c0b8538590" CreationDate="2022-08-04T08:06:50.443" UserId="99" Comment="edited tags" Text="|home|electricity|water-heating|health|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31178" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="60a18a0f-162f-4b9d-9a12-bc0a4b205e42" CreationDate="2022-08-04T08:47:19.787" UserId="108" Comment="deleted 90 characters in body; edited title" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've seen those around Europe. Using them seems like basic common sense, especially the green one considering glass decomposes in about 1e6 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However lately I've received the following accounts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[an insanely smart son of an influential politician] &#xD;&#xA;&gt; Germany exports all it's recyclable garbage to Asian countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[a friend of a friend]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I work with garbage disposal in Bulgaria and watch all the rubbish getting mixed in one pile daily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Which are the top EU countries that recycle glass, metals, plastic the most instead of exporting it? What is the ratio?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This seems to be an impossibly difficult question to answer as **@THelper** has alluded. E.g. if no one in the country separates their rubbish then 0% gets exported. Or 100% - whatever suits one's agenda.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZmvFJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31179" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="60a18a0f-162f-4b9d-9a12-bc0a4b205e42" CreationDate="2022-08-04T08:47:19.787" UserId="108" Comment="deleted 90 characters in body; edited title" Text="Which EU countries recycle instead of export plastic, metal and glass waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31180" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12259" RevisionGUID="6162f716-f908-4cdc-8c6e-988cfc3f67c8" CreationDate="2022-08-04T14:07:19.663" UserId="3722" Comment="added 454 characters in body" Text="A few thoughts:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- if you take too much heat from the compost, the lower temperature impacts the rotting processes. In the end, the same amount of energy will be released, but the thermal power will be much lower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- &quot;Baseline&quot; energy expenditure calcuation would be helpful: do the saving outweigh the energy needed to move the compost from your collection facility to the households? Compost is a low energy high mass (moisture) substance...&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  Found some numbers: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - [a 26 t waste truck uses, say, 75 l diesel/100 km](https://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/article213923163/Muellwagen-der-BSR-verbrauchen-mehr-als-80-Liter-Diesel.html)  &#xD;&#xA;  (side note: this could likely be reduced a lot by having little &quot;herds&quot; of big rubbish bins instead of the bin-per-house setup we use in Germany which means that the truck has to stop and go every few meters. Also, these trucks, like buses, would likely be *the* cars where electric drive has *huge* advantage over combustion. The Berlin newspaper article from 2018 reports 60 electric trucks vs. 1000 diesel ones...)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Website linked below says, energy produced via their anaerobic process (biogas + heat) from one 120 l bin is equivalent to 3 - 4 l oil. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  - Which gives us some energetic leeway after the collection (and financially even more since at least over here people are used to pay per kg of organic waste that is removed by the communal waste collection), but your proposed distribution of compost would likely need to stay quite local. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Here in rural Germany, a traditional use of the compost heap heat is to have e.g. zucchini or pumpkins grow there. This boosts the plant productivity because the compost supplies both nutrients and a position that is a bit warmer than usual over here, which both agrees well with those plants.  &#xD;&#xA;The energy savings from having home-grown vegetables may be higher than any direct use of the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Have a look at [this combined biogas and compost facility](https://www.renergon-biogas.com/kompostwerk-mit-biogasanlage-fuer-bioabfaelle/) (link to German language site - I only found general information on the English version).  &#xD;&#xA;Rather than distributing the half-done compost, they use the gas to cogenerate electricity and heat. Interestingly, they say part of the heat is needed to keep up the process temperature in the composting/fermenting facility. Iow, if your compost produces excess heat, that energy could have gone into gas by a different (anaerobic) process conduct.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  They say that 120 l organic waste (one household waste bin) will produce the equivalent of 3 - 4 l of oil. The plant works on a scale of 20000 t/a.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Fly production: black soldier flies can be used for oil production, yes. But they're also discussed as food &amp; feed protein source (over here in the EU, AFAIK you can use them as feed but they are not approved for food [yet]). Protein is a higher value product than oil/gas, but I'm not sure you can grow them in the after-fermentation composter of the plant linked above. However, it may make sense to have them as first step and put the remainder they didn't use into the anaerobic fermenter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Digging a bit further, biogas miniplants are available in various scales, e.g.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [4500 t/a biogas and compost plant](https://www.renergon-biogas.com/en/small-biogas-plant/)   (That's the Swiss company with the larger plant's numbers linked above) &#xD;&#xA;- [20 - 150 t/a container-based system](https://impactbioenergy.com/horse-ad25/)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- [household system 2 - 6 t/a organic kitchen waste + 5 - 13 t animal manure](https://www.homebiogas.com/) " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12267" RevisionGUID="275da94e-83a3-4583-8af2-d952d89840ff" CreationDate="2022-08-05T16:38:10.000" UserId="14255" Text="I have a 10'x12' shed, with a glass door and two windows, and 194 sqft of root at a 2/12 slant (it's a bit bigger than the size of the shed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to run air conditioning in there (8000 BTU probably more than enough), as well as a few screens, wifi router, my computer, lights, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking of buying something like this and covering the roof with it (can fit 8 panels): https://www.homedepot.com/p/Renogy-10Pcs-320-Watt-Monocrystalline-Solar-Panel-for-RV-Boat-Shed-Farm-Home-House-Rooftop-Residential-Commercial-House-RNG-320Dx10-US/318688258?ITC=AUC-153748-23-12070&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would need a controller, inverter and battery pack.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The panels are rated 320W, so that's 2560W. From what I understand (watched https://youtu.be/xnSew-tCuPo), I need the controller before the battery. I'm not clear on what battery I need, and then what inverter I need (rated for 2500?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the air conditioner need is a question for me. If I go with a simple portable one, it may be able to hold up fine. But if I go with a mini-split, there's the initial part where the engine starts and it takes a lot more energy than what the solar panels can generate at a given moment. I want the batteries to help with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So really, I need some assistance understanding if this is feasible, and all the math involved. I read quite a number of forums (including SolarTalks), but am not confident yet that my design makes sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31183" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12267" RevisionGUID="275da94e-83a3-4583-8af2-d952d89840ff" CreationDate="2022-08-05T16:38:10.000" UserId="14255" Text="Solar-powered shed-turned-office supporting air-conditioner" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31184" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12267" RevisionGUID="275da94e-83a3-4583-8af2-d952d89840ff" CreationDate="2022-08-05T16:38:10.000" UserId="14255" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31185" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12268" RevisionGUID="b47b14f9-cd10-4cab-830b-59cd1afec8e2" CreationDate="2022-08-05T18:29:18.703" UserId="3722" Text="ERV/HRV AFAIK comes mainly in two shapes:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- as centralized system with a big heat exchanger and ventilation system for the rooms&#xD;&#xA;- as decentral system with little ventilators in the rooms. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**I'll tackle the decentral ones. They have a chance of being more energy efficient, but the difference isn't that large - all in all, I don't think the case is clear-cut.** &#xD;&#xA;(Don't have numbers for central ones)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;The ones I've seen lately work with flow rates of, say, 10 - 60 m³/h. The lower the flow rate the better the heat/enthalpy recovery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They either have &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a heat exchanger with heat recovery &#xD;&#xA;([these specs](https://www.abluft24.de/lueftungsgeraete-mit-waermerueckgewinnung/dezentrale-lueftungsgeraete/dezentrales-raumlueftungsgeraet-r-tube-integrierte-steuerung) claim 94 % recovery at 10 m³/h, dropping to 60 - 65 % at 60 m³/h)  &#xD;&#xA;However, their inflow and outflow are typically right besides each other (two sides within one circular tube in the wall). I'd expect the air flow to be similarly inefficient as tilted window (air exchange mostly in a small volume close to the ventilator). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- a ceramic body that gets heated up (and adsorbs moisture) when air goes out, and heats up and humidifies ingoing air. With them, the direction of the air flow is reversed about every minute.   &#xD;&#xA;([these specs](https://oxomi.com/service/json/catalog/pdf?portal=3001317&amp;user=&amp;roles=&amp;accessToken=&amp;catalog=10312687) claim ca. 90 % heat recovery at 6 m³/h and ca 82 % at 22 m³/h [that's overall planned flow rate, they say max flow rate is twice as much])&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;  You can set them up so that one room has ingoing air while the other has it outgoing. Which makes for much better than having inlet and outlet withing a few cm of each other.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  In the minute they work in one direction, so, roughly 100 - 600 l of air pass. That's maybe 1 % of the air volume of @MJuckes' example room, or maybe even less if you install it across a flat or house. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So for both variants we in a situation where the outflowing air is close to the inflowing air (convection may help?). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The plan with shock/intense ventilation is to create a substantial draft (if possible across the house) that replaces pretty much the complete air within a short time (5 min - 20 min). That's like refilling a batch reactor, or idealized a [plug flow reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug_flow_reactor_model).    &#xD;&#xA;With the decentralized systems, it's more like a continuous tank reactor: a small amount of fresh air continually mixes with the content of the room(s). For an [ideal CSR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_stirred-tank_reactor#Ideal_CSTR) (which we don't have, but which I think we can use as 0th approximation).  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With continuously 6 m³/h incoming and 40 m³ total volume and 90 % heat recovery,&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- you end up with an average age of the air corresponding to the average air quality you have with shock ventilation every ca. 14 h,&#xD;&#xA;- at energy losses that are only about half compared to a single shock ventilation cycle per day.  &#xD;&#xA;  I calculated this with temperature difference of 20 °C as in @MJuckes' example - that would be winter in Hamburg where freezing temperatures are rare. The 280 Wh thermal energy loss for a complete air exchange 20 °C -&gt; 0 °C compare to about 60 Wh per day for running that ventilation at its lowest speed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A factor of 3 (2 for energy loss and 1.5 for same average air quality) is non-negligible, but OTOH, it can easily be eaten up by small additional inefficiencies.  &#xD;&#xA;If the the air exchange is less efficient due to the changing flow direction, or wind makes the flow rates uneven in the direction, so heat recovery is less efficient, that difference is easily eaten up. Overall heat exchange efficiency of 7e5 % instead of the assumed 90 %, and temperature difference only 10 °C instead of 20 °C (ventilator power consumption stays constant), and the advantage is eaten up.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;- Also, you could decide to do your daily shock ventilation in afternoon when ambient temp is highest (at an average +4 °C instead of -1 °C in Hamburg January) you can cut the shock ventilation losses by 25 %. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- If you're at  home the full 24 h of the day, you'll need to ventilate more than if you're at home only for sleeping. It's easy to adapt shock ventilation to this since it works on a time scale of 5 - 20 min.  &#xD;&#xA;The example ventilation system has a τ of 6:40 h, meaning that it needs 1 1/2 days to reach steady state (rule of thumb for ideal CSR: 5 τ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- There are **norms for minimum ventilation**. [Wiki page in German](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindestluftwechsel) cites for &gt; 1/h for automated ventilation (and 0.5 - 3.6 for manual ventilation), and 25 m³/(h ⋅ person).  &#xD;&#xA;8-o&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Neglecting infiltration air exchange (which would be valid only for new buildings) that would mean shock ventilation of the example room every 2 h when 1 person is there (which noone does...), but also the example ventilation system wouldn't be sufficient when working at highest speed (21 m³/h)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A human emits maybe 75 W heat, so having one more person present in the (admittedly not too large room) &quot;allows&quot; shock ventilation every 4 h (or half as often as prescribed per norm...) ;-) &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12269" RevisionGUID="c8d2ff8f-9108-43c3-94bd-7ce9ae30ad64" CreationDate="2022-08-06T11:09:15.447" UserId="6393" Text="The battery needs to have enough current capacity for the air conditioner. The 8000 BTU air conditioner uses 700 watts. I recommend 48 volts for your system over 12 volts or 24 volts since 700 watts at 12 volts even with 100% inverter efficiency would be 58 amperes continuous, which would require very beefy wires and still you would lose energy to heating of wires. Also charging at 2560 watts at 12 volts would be 213 amperes which would require very thick wires, and at 24 volts would be 107 amperes which also would require very thick wires. At 48 volts it's only 53 amperes which is manageable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for the battery watt-hour capacity, depends on how long you want to use the AC when not sunny. A good thing about air conditioning is that air conditioning need correlates very well with sunny weather so you might find it acceptable to have only 3 hour runtime with no solar power. Remember Peukert's law. 3 hour runtime would be 2100 watt-hours, but those watt-hours are usually specified with 20hr runtime. With 3hr runtime, and Peukert number k=1.2 you would actually need 2900 watt-hours, which at 48 volts is 60 ampere-hours. AGM or gel cell is preferable, don't use flooded because they have acid leaking risks, and also flooded cells typically don't like deep discharge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, 60 ampere-hour batteries can be charged with only about 20 amperes, which at 48 volts is 960 watts. So 2560 watt panels would go to waste. Thus, you need to ramp up battery size to 160 ampere-hours to allow full 2560 watts to charge the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So buy four 160 ampere-hour 12 volt batteries and wire in series. Buy a 48-volt inverter capable of running with 700 watt load continuously and capable of starting the air conditioner. I suspect the starting current could be the limiting factor here. Sine wave inverter is always safer but more expensive. Modified square wave (also sometimes erroneously called modified sine wave) could or could not work, I'm not sure if it works well with air conditioning. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The charge controller should ideally be maximum power point tracking controller intended for 48 volt systems (some may be 12/24/48 volts with automatic detection). Its charging capacity should be 53 amperes at 48 volts at least to allow full usage of the solar power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The wiring needs to be 10mm2 or 16mm2. Any thinner won't work with the charging current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you pick a sine wave inverter, expect it to cost around ~500 EUR at that power level. Batteries would be around ~2000 EUR with only 8-year lifetime (but if you run them completely empty often, lifetime could be as short as only few months). Charge controller around ~500 EUR." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12270" RevisionGUID="64651114-c6c1-4ff4-b73f-2cfba9962a73" CreationDate="2022-08-06T19:16:47.973" UserId="3722" Text=" - Pallets work in terms of strength, but in moist climates/conditions they don't last long (source: experience with central/western German climate)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Over here, it's reasonably easy to get smallish amounts of bricks (e.g. sandlime or concrete blocks) via small-ads. If it's not time-critical (can wait until the stones happen to be available nearby), I'd thus tend to put up walls if this is meant to last. Then screw the IBC frames on top for added stability. This gives some outdoor shelf/storage space as well. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have tanks on low side of our grounds, so rain flows into them on its own (and with sufficient pipe diameter and incline to make it flow fast enough for a downpour). I'm considering to put up a tank at the high side (which is above the level of the roof gutter), and pump water in there as needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31192" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="cd9271a0-ff16-4cc5-8944-564afb1dc966" CreationDate="2022-08-07T17:06:35.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31194" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12264" RevisionGUID="77980af8-fa63-4533-a301-3b947442e5fa" CreationDate="2022-08-08T00:00:20.450" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1556430070243381248" />
  <row Id="31195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12271" RevisionGUID="e9dd75c4-312d-47c3-91f4-f3ee35e73d13" CreationDate="2022-08-09T06:28:02.980" UserId="14262" Text="For decades in the UK (and probably other countries) milk was delivered to the door by a milkman in glass bottles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You kept the empty bottles, and left them out on the door step for the milkman to collect when he made the next delivery. The bottles would be washed and sterilised by the diary and reused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whilst most milk in the UK is now bought in plastic bottles from the supermarket, some areas do still have a milkman service (https://www.mcqueensdairies.co.uk/product/1-pint-semi-skimmed-glass/), delivering milk in glass bottles. It seems that a new solution isn't what's needed here, but to go back to the old one! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12272" RevisionGUID="89b1b7a5-d173-4b53-88e8-dcc445058cf0" CreationDate="2022-08-10T11:07:32.630" UserId="4343" Text="I am using a no dig system and want to generate my own compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am thinking of a wild area of perennials regularly mown/cut purely for comoposting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would a good crop (or mix) be? And how much would I need for each 1M3 of compost each year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31199" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12272" RevisionGUID="89b1b7a5-d173-4b53-88e8-dcc445058cf0" CreationDate="2022-08-10T11:07:32.630" UserId="4343" Text="Perennial crop purely for compost for a no dig bed - what crop and what area?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31200" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12272" RevisionGUID="89b1b7a5-d173-4b53-88e8-dcc445058cf0" CreationDate="2022-08-10T11:07:32.630" UserId="4343" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31201" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12272" RevisionGUID="6f2b69a8-37ef-4ef6-8623-a31620c5269d" CreationDate="2022-08-10T22:49:14.757" UserId="8232" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I am using a no dig system and want to generate my own compost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am thinking of a wild area of perennials regularly mown/cut purely for comoposting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would a good crop (or mix) be? And how much would I need for each 1m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; of compost each year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31205" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12274" RevisionGUID="c4f4f252-5c3a-4f12-b0d4-7f8ba27769b7" CreationDate="2022-08-15T16:02:55.170" UserId="6393" Text="I think you are imagining a problem that isn't there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is true that LEDs use several materials, some of which are rare. But incredibly small amounts of these materials are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most common type of LED today used is the blue gallium nitride LED. White light is produced from it using a phosphor material that converts blue wavelengths to longer wavelengths. Common phosphor is cerium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (containing yttrium, aluminum, oxygen and very little (almost no) cerium).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a common LED that can be run at 8 watts is Osram P9. Osram doesn't specify the dimensions of the chip, but based on the datasheet I can estimate it's at most 9 square millimeters because larger chip wouldn't fit to the final product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So we can say LEDs need about 1 square millimeter per watt.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gallium nitride isn't actually used for wafers because a good production method to make gallium nitride wafers doesn't exist. So actually the wafer (most of the material) is sapphire or aluminum oxide. Both aluminum and oxygen are very common materials. Then a gallium nitride buffer layer is grown on the sapphire wafer, and the active layers are grown on the buffer layer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;According to several searches on scientific papers, the buffer layer thickness of GaN is about 20 micrometers. So one watt has 20 µm x 1 mm x 1 mm of gallium nitride. That's about 0.123 milligrams of gallium nitride per watt. 83% of that is gallium rest being nitrogen, so we can estimate that about &lt;b&gt;0.1 milligram of gallium is needed for 1 watt of LED&lt;/b&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Gallium doesn't occur in rich deposits but at least 1 million tons of gallium are available in bauxite and zinc ores (according to Wikipedia).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that our gallium deposits can be used for 10&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt; watts or ten petawatts of LEDs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have around 700 watts of LED lights in my house, car, bikes, etc. And that's a lot -- I really enjoy lots of bright lights. If every person had the same amount of lights, and if world population stabilizes at 10 billion, we could make about 1400 iterations of these lights for everyone. If one iteration is good for 3.5 years, that means we are good for at least 5000 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are far more limiting resources that become a problem quicker than in 5000 years, such as phosphorus reserves used for fertilizers running out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also searched for a typical thickness of YAG used in LEDs. One paper said 75 micrometers as an example thickness. At this thickness, 0.342 milligrams of YAG are needed per watt. 44% of that is yttrium so &lt;b&gt;about 0.15 milligrams of yttrium is needed per watt of white LED&lt;/b&gt;. Yttrium oxide reserves are half million tons and 78% of that is yttrium so we have about 0.4 million tons of yttrium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is enough for 2.7 petawatts of white LEDs. Assuming every person on this planet would use 700 watts of white LEDs, that's enough for 386 iterations of lights or 1350 years if each iteration is 3.5 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other materials are used in such small quantities that they don't matter. For example the cerium doping in YAG is only doping, so very small amounts of it are used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also both yttrium and gallium can and will be recycled, unlike fossil fuels which are used once and then they're gone." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31207" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12248" RevisionGUID="489abde3-0f69-4522-b8dc-8bb1438ea880" CreationDate="2022-08-16T21:04:50.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12275" RevisionGUID="fd6e4b60-38ce-40e4-bdd1-f66ac309ed68" CreationDate="2022-08-17T00:44:08.087" UserId="4834" Text="Comfrey &quot;Bocking 14&quot; is often given as a good source of biomass.  [Observations][1] made at one site over a two year period found that a 13m² bed (42 plants) of comfrey produced nearly 100 kg of cuttings per season over a two year period, or enough material to mulch an 18m² bed to a depth of 10-15 cm (or between 1.8m³ and 2.7m³).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Comfrey is a vigorous perennial.  The &quot;Bocking 14&quot; strain is sterile, limiting its ability to escape your chosen growing site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.thepolycultureproject.com/comfrey-trials.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31210" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12276" RevisionGUID="949e7b62-0da4-4111-95ff-854f873351a7" CreationDate="2022-08-17T10:07:25.393" UserId="14245" Text="Will human get electrical hurt? Is it possible to protect from this? Some rules set or protection devices?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For i.e. we have power bank of 16 18650 3400mah 30A. What if it's case will be damaged and people accidentally touch batteries contacts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31212" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12276" RevisionGUID="949e7b62-0da4-4111-95ff-854f873351a7" CreationDate="2022-08-17T10:07:25.393" UserId="14245" Text="What will happen if human accidentally touch + and - simultaneously of few parallel connnected 30A 18650 batteries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31213" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12276" RevisionGUID="949e7b62-0da4-4111-95ff-854f873351a7" CreationDate="2022-08-17T10:07:25.393" UserId="14245" Text="|electricity|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31214" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12277" RevisionGUID="3bd379d1-5d97-43b3-9a7c-36334a886765" CreationDate="2022-08-17T11:17:47.277" UserId="6393" Text="Parallel connection is a way of connecting batteries that maintains voltage but increases capacity and current providing capability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;18650 is a lithium ion cell that's usually around 3.7 volts although it could be LiFePO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; which is 3.2 volts. If you connect 16 of them parallel, with each having 3400 mAh capacity and 30 A capability, you will have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 3.7 volts (or 3.2 volts if LiFePO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;* 54400 mAh capacity&#xD;&#xA;* 480 A capability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.7 or 3.2 volts is not a high enough voltage to cause any problems to humans. Consider this: cars use 12 volts usually (although some large trucks may have 24 volts), and even then people work with the system without any special precautions other than avoiding making a short circuit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your 3.7 or 3.2 volt system is safe provided that you don't create a short circuit. There's no way 3.7 or 3.2 volts would even hurt, even if your hands are wet from salty sweat. Don't make a short circuit, though, as you wouldn't want a 480 ampere short circuit to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if the batteries are connected in series (and you made a mistake by saying they are connected in parallel), then you will have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 59.2 volts (or 51.2 volts if LiFePO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;* 3400 mAh capacity&#xD;&#xA;* 30 A capability&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that case, the voltage is large enough that I wouldn't touch it with sweaty hands. Especially if you touch the positive with a sweaty left hand and the negative with a sweaty right hand, you could have a current going through your heart. It's direct current so not as dangerous as alternating current (AC can disrupt the rhytmh of the heart in ways DC can't), but still -- I wouldn't want that current going through my heart. Also once the current starts flowing, it can cause your muscles to contract, making it impossible for you to remove your hands from the current source. Actually DC can cause far more problematic muscle contractions than AC since the current flow doesn't reverse many times per second.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About 60 volt direct current is still relatively safe but you have to understand that it can be touched only with dry hands. Also short circuiting should be avoided too, as interrupting an about 60 volt arc with 30 amperes going through it may not be easy -- and there's nothing to guarantee the current will stay below 30 amperes. The 30 ampere rating of the batteries means you are not allowed to use larger currents, but a short circuit will do exactly that. So use a 30 ampere fuse and insulate well any conductors that could allow you to bypass that fuse accidentally and create a short circuit." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31216" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12267" RevisionGUID="08f16d82-72e8-46a6-b288-14e1f5b2475f" CreationDate="2022-08-17T11:34:36.307" UserId="106" Comment="added SI units" Text="I have a 10'x12' (3 m × 3.6 m)  shed, with a glass door and two windows, and 194 sqft (18 m²) of roof at a 2/12 slant (it's a bit bigger than the size of the shed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to run air conditioning in there (8000 BTU / 2.3 KWh probably more than enough), as well as a few screens, wifi router, my computer, lights, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking of buying something like this and covering the roof with it (can fit 8 panels): https://www.homedepot.com/p/Renogy-10Pcs-320-Watt-Monocrystalline-Solar-Panel-for-RV-Boat-Shed-Farm-Home-House-Rooftop-Residential-Commercial-House-RNG-320Dx10-US/318688258?ITC=AUC-153748-23-12070&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would need a controller, inverter and battery pack.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The panels are rated 320W, so that's 2560W. From what I understand (watched https://youtu.be/xnSew-tCuPo), I need the controller before the battery. I'm not clear on what battery I need, and then what inverter I need (rated for 2500?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the air conditioner need is a question for me. If I go with a simple portable one, it may be able to hold up fine. But if I go with a mini-split, there's the initial part where the engine starts and it takes a lot more energy than what the solar panels can generate at a given moment. I want the batteries to help with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So really, I need some assistance understanding if this is feasible, and all the math involved. I read quite a number of forums (including SolarTalks), but am not confident yet that my design makes sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31218" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="c945ba93-42d4-4347-bee7-7f95bc4ceace" CreationDate="2022-08-17T12:00:00.950" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1559872673697910784" />
  <row Id="31219" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12278" RevisionGUID="01ea50c5-2f2f-442c-ace6-7d0750a5dccc" CreationDate="2022-08-17T14:43:24.803" UserId="14285" Text="I've always wondered if it was any better (in terms of emissions reduction) to burn methane that would otherwise be released in the atmosphere? I suspect it would be, given that methane is a more potent GHG than the CO2 released in the combustion of said methane. Can somebody provide a quantified comparison of both outcomes in terms of CO2e released? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31221" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12278" RevisionGUID="01ea50c5-2f2f-442c-ace6-7d0750a5dccc" CreationDate="2022-08-17T14:43:24.803" UserId="14285" Text="What is the climate change impact of releasing one tonne of methane in the atmosphere vs. the impact of burning it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31222" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12278" RevisionGUID="01ea50c5-2f2f-442c-ace6-7d0750a5dccc" CreationDate="2022-08-17T14:43:24.803" UserId="14285" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31223" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12279" RevisionGUID="4155be03-fef4-4e05-98b9-a8de0b97d236" CreationDate="2022-08-17T15:25:03.610" UserId="9669" Text="I have read [this][1] article of 2019 and still don't understand which one is better (climate-wise). Grass-fed beef involves more belches and produces less meat but seqesters carbon in grass. But what's the bottom line? Does grass-fed beef have lower carbon footprint than feedlot-finished beef or not? It's been a while since 2019. Do they have any recent life-cycle analyses published in peer-reviewed journals?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31225" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12279" RevisionGUID="4155be03-fef4-4e05-98b9-a8de0b97d236" CreationDate="2022-08-17T15:25:03.610" UserId="9669" Text="Does grass-fed beef have lower carbon footprint than feedlot-finished beef?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31226" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12279" RevisionGUID="4155be03-fef4-4e05-98b9-a8de0b97d236" CreationDate="2022-08-17T15:25:03.610" UserId="9669" Text="|food|carbon-footprint|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12280" RevisionGUID="938531f5-d879-4f63-a39d-bd0c302829bb" CreationDate="2022-08-17T16:53:44.793" UserId="6393" Text="You seem to think that the majority of footprint of beef (and similarly, milk) is caused by the carbon footprint of the stuff we feed to cows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not so!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The carbon footprint of beef is almost completely caused by methane emitted by cows. This obviously depends on the timescale, if you consider for example a 10000 year timescale then that would be different but the timescales of interest for climate change are 100 years (used to be the most important timescale) but today more like 20 years (because climate change is happening way too fast).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the long term, one methane molecule converts to one carbon dioxide molecule. Its weight increases from 16.042 grams/mole to 44.01 grams/mole. Thus, 16.042 grams of methane has the same 10000 year carbon footprint as 44.01 grams of carbon dioxide, or stated in another way: global warming potential is 44.01/16.042 = 2.7434.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in short term, methane is a terrible greenhouse gas. In 100 years, GWP is 25-30 and in 20 years, it's 86.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An in those timescales, the problem with beef is the methane. It isn't what you feed to cows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any small increase of that methane more than offsets differences caused by the stuff you feed to cows. A cow produces ~100 kg of methane per year and gives ~200 kg of beef. Beef cattle lives for 2-3 years so it's 200-300 kg of methane per 200 kg of beef, or 1-1.5 kg of methane per 1 kg of beef. In 20 year time scale, that would be 86-129 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalent per 1 kg of beef. For pork it's about 5-10 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per 1 kg of pork, and that's almost entirely CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and not methane. So beef is more than 10x as bad as pork in 20-year timescale, the most important for preventing climate change from becoming dangerous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the only positive features of beef and milk are that their production is independent of production of cereal. If we have multiple poor years in cereal farming, we don't have much opportunities for feeding the world population since so large percentage of our foodchains is dependent on cereal. Beef and milk produced from grass offers another way to produce food from stuff humans can't eat. Pigs and chickens eat what humans could eat, but cows eat stuff humans can never eat (or you can eat grass but don't expect to get any nutrients out of it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I personally think that it would be far better to just start gradually increasing stored amounts of cereal (only gradually to not cause a global famine) to prepare for multiple consecutive bad years in farming cereal, and entirely phase out beef and milk. That would do wonders to slow down climate change, and at the same time removing the usefulness of main benefit of cows: food security.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lab-grown beef is an entirely different matter, though. We will have lab-grown beef, and it will phase out using cows to produce beef. But how quickly lab-grown beef becomes cheaper than real cows, we can't be sure. It could be too slowly to prevent dangerous climate change." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31229" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12281" RevisionGUID="ae6e872c-6b17-47d8-8435-8c1158aa0e00" CreationDate="2022-08-17T16:57:47.127" UserId="6393" Text="That's easy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Methane molecule is 16.042 grams and carbon dioxide molecule is 44.01 grams. Burning methane produces one carbon dioxide molecule per one methane molecule.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you burn 16.042 grams of methane, you get 44.01 grams of carbon dioxide. Or in other words: if you burn 1 kg of methane, you get 2.7434 kg of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you release the methane, you have to consider the timescale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a very long timescale, over 10000 years, methane converts to carbon dioxide when in the atmosphere so it's 2.7434 kg of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But for most interesting timescales, 20 and 100 years, it's 86 in 20 years and 25-30 in 100 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think the most important timescale is 20 years due to the fact that dangerous climate change is happening way too fast, and in that timescale, 1 kg of methane is worth 86 kg of carbon dioxide.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd pick burning it (2.7434 kg of carbon dioxide) over releasing it (86 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31231" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10433" RevisionGUID="babb6115-efa0-4bf7-b8cc-0622b6ca558d" CreationDate="2022-08-17T17:49:54.467" UserId="2345" Comment="Added more details about component of so called lithium batteries" Text="It appears that currently (late December 2020), [lithium from batteries is not recycled][1], because it is only worth 6 euro per kg ([9 USD per kg][2]). The only metals recovered from Li batteries are the valuable ones such as cobalt, which has a current [LME price of 32 USD per kg][3]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;***Edit 18 August 2022***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A recent [news item][4] quotes Elon Musk stating that &quot;The lithium is actually 2 per cent of the cell mass&quot;. Every Tesla battery contains about 50 kg of nickel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other quote attributed to Elon Musk is, &quot;batteries need a sprinkle of lithium compared to nickel. It's like salt on your salad. It's a very small amount of the cell mass and a fairly small amount of the cost, but it sounds like it's big because it's called [a] lithium-ion [battery] , but our batteries should be called nickel-graphite, because it's mostly nickel-graphite.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://blog-en.condorchem.com/lithium-extraction-recovery/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.lme.com/en-GB/Metals/Minor-metals/Lithium-prices#tabIndex=0&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.lme.com/Metals/Minor-metals/Cobalt#tabIndex=0&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-16/nickel-metal-batteries-energy-race-to-produce-to-match-demand/101334424" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31232" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12278" RevisionGUID="8889647d-9342-4c24-801c-e8cfd0a00a45" CreationDate="2022-08-17T17:51:50.070" UserId="2345" Comment="Subscripts" Text="I've always wondered if it was any better (in terms of emissions reduction) to burn methane that would otherwise be released in the atmosphere? I suspect it would be, given that methane is a more potent GHG than the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; released in the combustion of said methane. Can somebody provide a quantified comparison of both outcomes in terms of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e released? Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31237" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12276" RevisionGUID="3f76420a-9055-4046-93b8-637e29f9d26e" CreationDate="2022-08-17T22:50:23.903" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical changes" Text="Will a person get electrocuted? Is it possible to protect against this? Some rules set or protection devices?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For i.e. we have a power bank of 16 18650 3400mAh 30A batteries. What if it's case will be damaged and people accidentally touch the batteries contacts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31238" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12276" RevisionGUID="3f76420a-9055-4046-93b8-637e29f9d26e" CreationDate="2022-08-17T22:50:23.903" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical changes" Text="What will happen if person accidentally touches the + and - terminal simultaneously of a few parallel connnected 30A 18650 batteries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31241" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12283" RevisionGUID="133a0990-3bb4-4f5a-aa84-9b33a0bd1ab0" CreationDate="2022-08-18T08:45:25.957" UserId="13618" Text="It is complicated, on the one hand you have longer growing times and lower food conversion efficiency of pasture raised cattle, on the other pastures are a way of carbon sequestration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[There is a report prepared for Whole Foods Market, Inc.](https://kb.wisc.edu/dairynutrient/375fsc/page.php?id=48431) which may not be considered impartial, that concluded that pasture raised cattle were marginally (~10%) better than feedlot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;|Emission Sources| Feedlot | Pasture|&#xD;&#xA;| -------- | -------------- | -------------- |&#xD;&#xA;|Time (days) | 303 | 450|&#xD;&#xA;|Final Live Weight (kg) | 637 | 505 |&#xD;&#xA;|Feed Production (kg CO2 eq/kg live weight)| 1.47  | 3.14 |&#xD;&#xA;|Transportation (kg CO2 eq/kg live weight) | - | -|&#xD;&#xA;|Enteric Fermentation (kg CO2 eq/kg live weight) | 2.20  | 3.56 |&#xD;&#xA;|Manure Management (kg CO2 eq/kg live weight) | 1.67  | 2.11 |&#xD;&#xA;|Total (kg CO2 eq/kg live weight) | 5.48  | 8.58 |&#xD;&#xA;|Carbon Sequestration  (kg CO2 eq/kg live weight); | - | -3.55|&#xD;&#xA;|Total with Carbon Sequestration Factor (kg CO2 eq/kg live weight) | 5.48  | 5.03 |&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The the difference in enteric fermentation methane emissions are discussed by [this paper](https://academic.oup.com/jas/article-abstract/77/6/1392/4625488):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; When the cattle were grazed on pasture, they produced .23 kg CH4·animal−1·d−1, which corresponded to the conversion of 7.7 to 8.4% of gross energy into CH4. When the same cattle were fed a highly digestible, high-grain diet, they produced .07 kg CH4·animal−1·d−1, corresponding to a conversion of only 1.9 to 2.2% of the feed energy to CH4. These measurements clearly document higher CH4 production (about four times) for cattle receiving low-quality, high-fiber diets than for cattle fed high-grain diets.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is worth noting the difference in magnitude between these two sources.  I read this as significant uncertainty about the values.  What is certain is that beef of one of the most environmentally damaging foods and we should be doing all we can to reduce its production." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31243" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12267" RevisionGUID="373de96e-b626-4c06-b868-9f87788e94fd" CreationDate="2022-08-18T11:08:24.410" UserId="2345" Comment="Capitalization of unit" Text="I have a 10'x12' (3 m × 3.6 m)  shed, with a glass door and two windows, and 194 sqft (18 m²) of roof at a 2/12 slant (it's a bit bigger than the size of the shed).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to run air conditioning in there (8000 BTU / 2.3 kWh probably more than enough), as well as a few screens, wifi router, my computer, lights, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking of buying something like this and covering the roof with it (can fit 8 panels): https://www.homedepot.com/p/Renogy-10Pcs-320-Watt-Monocrystalline-Solar-Panel-for-RV-Boat-Shed-Farm-Home-House-Rooftop-Residential-Commercial-House-RNG-320Dx10-US/318688258?ITC=AUC-153748-23-12070&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would need a controller, inverter and battery pack.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The panels are rated 320 W, so that's 2560 W. From what I understand (watched https://youtu.be/xnSew-tCuPo), I need the controller before the battery. I'm not clear on what battery I need, and then what inverter I need (rated for 2500?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the air conditioner need is a question for me. If I go with a simple portable one, it may be able to hold up fine. But if I go with a mini-split, there's the initial part where the engine starts and it takes a lot more energy than what the solar panels can generate at a given moment. I want the batteries to help with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So really, I need some assistance understanding if this is feasible, and all the math involved. I read quite a number of forums (including SolarTalks), but am not confident yet that my design makes sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31244" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12267" RevisionGUID="e3c06e8f-bda9-41ad-8c36-43197ad741c9" CreationDate="2022-08-18T11:17:44.423" UserId="2345" Comment="Converted roof slant " Text="I have a 10'x12' (3 m × 3.6 m)  shed, with a glass door and two windows, and 194 sqft (18 m²) of roof at a 2/12 slant (1:6, 16.67% or 9.462 degrees) - it's a bit bigger than the size of the shed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to run air conditioning in there (8000 BTU / 2.3 kWh probably more than enough), as well as a few screens, wifi router, my computer, lights, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm thinking of buying something like this and covering the roof with it (can fit 8 panels): https://www.homedepot.com/p/Renogy-10Pcs-320-Watt-Monocrystalline-Solar-Panel-for-RV-Boat-Shed-Farm-Home-House-Rooftop-Residential-Commercial-House-RNG-320Dx10-US/318688258?ITC=AUC-153748-23-12070&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would need a controller, inverter and battery pack.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The panels are rated 320 W, so that's 2560 W. From what I understand (watched https://youtu.be/xnSew-tCuPo), I need the controller before the battery. I'm not clear on what battery I need, and then what inverter I need (rated for 2500?).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the air conditioner need is a question for me. If I go with a simple portable one, it may be able to hold up fine. But if I go with a mini-split, there's the initial part where the engine starts and it takes a lot more energy than what the solar panels can generate at a given moment. I want the batteries to help with that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So really, I need some assistance understanding if this is feasible, and all the math involved. I read quite a number of forums (including SolarTalks), but am not confident yet that my design makes sense." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31245" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12278" RevisionGUID="7766438d-7716-4787-8dc8-f68ec1fedb1d" CreationDate="2022-08-18T21:00:03.177" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1560370965862879237" />
  <row Id="31246" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12250" RevisionGUID="0941f0b7-9eeb-44a8-8ba8-c61d189e02fb" CreationDate="2022-08-19T06:00:00.303" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1560506848712835072" />
  <row Id="31247" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10702" RevisionGUID="a5414fb1-1971-48ae-b48f-fcc60bb44f09" CreationDate="2022-08-19T07:00:05.203" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12284" RevisionGUID="67a5a550-5d37-48b0-93d7-0008df47b1c9" CreationDate="2022-08-19T11:28:04.530" UserId="6393" Text="The main sustainability problem of plastic is microplastics. Anything else is a non-problem, for example plastics made from oil -- only few percent of oil is used to make plastics, so if all oil usage apart from making plastics is phased out, making those plastics won't be a climate change problem. Even plastic recycling isn't strictly speaking necessary, as if we create all plastics from oil with absolutely no recycling at all and then burn them to energy, the carbon dioxide emissions will be minimal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we want plastic to be 100% sustainable, we have to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Educate people that leaving plastics into environment is not permissible, as every lightweight plastic object left to environment will be carried by wind or birds into oceans where it becomes microplastics.&#xD;&#xA;2. Have every public trash can modified so that there's a lid that prevents birds from exploring the contents of that trash can and distributing plastics to environment.&#xD;&#xA;3. For plastics used in clothing (think about fleece that becomes millions of microplastic particles in a washing machine), we need some way to remove microplastics from wastewater or in washing machines before they even reach wastewater.&#xD;&#xA;4. Ideally have some way of recycling it. The main problems of current plastic recycling is that even after the first round of recycling, quality is crap. This is evident from the current plastic bags. Years ago, you could buy plastic bags made of new plastics from any grocery store. I have a small amount of plastic bags still that are approximately 5 years old and are still going strong, being used often. Yet if I buy a new plastic bag, I can only buy recycled bags today, and those generally become torn during the first use and reusing them requires careful inspection of tears and is possible only few times until they become too severely torn. The most promising way of recycling plastics is to burn them to carbon dioxide in a waste-to-energy facility, then capture that carbon dioxide from flue gases, combine it with hydrogen produced using electrolysis to create methane, then post-process that methane to create longer chain hydrocarbons and eventually plastics. This recycling via burning creates plastics that are chemically 100% identical to new plastics, so no quality degradation takes place.&#xD;&#xA;5. Have a way of creating new plastics that doesn't use oil. Today, oil-based production is cheapest way of producing plastic, but once oil is phased out, new plastics can be made from trees. That's bit more expensive today but if plastic producers have to pay for the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; problem of oil being used to create plastics, it may become cheaper. Anything that can be created from oil can be created from a tree. We have enough trees to create all the plastic in the world forever in a sustainable manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Every problem in this list is solveable with technology, apart from (1) that might require legislation changes and severe fines for those who leave plastics into environment, and even then not every offender will be caught." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31252" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="f6f67f79-8fbb-45a4-b836-429c519f7b2b" CreationDate="2022-08-20T06:04:40.470" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31253" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12285" RevisionGUID="e044bd5c-bc15-4c6c-8a52-1e4dd2796013" CreationDate="2022-08-20T11:36:02.213" UserId="6393" Text="One thing is clear at least.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, it doesn't matter how sustainable the packaging it. It matters far more how sustainable the contents of the package are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example for a plastic refill package, I find it very hard to believe the plastic would weigh more than 10 grams. 10 grams of plastic correspond to 20-30 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If there's half a kilogram of chocolate powder there, it also creates about 2-3 g/g of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions. But because half a kilogram is so much more than 10 grams, the ecological footprint of the contents is about 50 times more than the ecological footprint of the packaging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The metal packaging probably weighs far more than the plastic packaging: I estimate it's not 10 grams but 100 grams. Steelmaking has emissions of 1-2 g/g, so the steel packaging would create 100-200 grams of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions. That's about six times more than for the plastic packaging, but steel recycling is easier than for plastic, so by recycling you can reduce the emissions. I suspect if the steel is recycled enough many times, that the metal packaging would win over the plastic packaging. I'm not sure about this though: winning would need that recycled steel production causes 16.66% or less of the emissions that producing steel from iron ore causes. I failed to find a source for the emissions of recycled steel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for average recycling rates plastic would win. Wikipedia says only 65% of cans are recycled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31255" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12286" RevisionGUID="b857307a-bbb7-4f0e-a376-80e5a17bbfb5" CreationDate="2022-08-20T12:52:43.027" UserId="9669" Text="Which is more sustainable: online shopping or shopping in bricks-and-mortar stores?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Construction of malls must have a colossal carbon footprint, and running online stores should be better, I think. On the other hand, the fact that you don't actually see the goods you buy increases the risk that it won't suit you and you'll ship it back (or it'll just have been manufactured for nothing, with all the associated carbon emissions). Those are just a couple of factors. Was there a comprehensive &#xD;&#xA;academic analysis on the matter?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31257" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12286" RevisionGUID="b857307a-bbb7-4f0e-a376-80e5a17bbfb5" CreationDate="2022-08-20T12:52:43.027" UserId="9669" Text="Which is more sustainable: online shopping or shopping in bricks-and-mortar stores?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31258" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12286" RevisionGUID="b857307a-bbb7-4f0e-a376-80e5a17bbfb5" CreationDate="2022-08-20T12:52:43.027" UserId="9669" Text="|consumption|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31277" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12289" RevisionGUID="f0b8c9de-1395-43c1-a755-55a41cad8720" CreationDate="2022-08-24T19:04:31.183" UserId="9669" Text="With Putin having invaded Ukraine, Europe made getting rid of Russian hydrocarbons a more urgent priority than phasing out fossil fuels and other unsustainable energy sources. They now intend to consume more coal, LNG, possibly nuclear energy too (which is not sustainable too, despite it being low-carbon). Is it a more likely to be a long-term shift or just an insignificant blip in its determined way toward green energy? You can't just turn them on and off as a light bulb, those coal and nuclear plants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.: I want to stress that ending the war may indeed be a more pressing goal for now. If you ask me, I'd be happy to see all Russian exports banned if it helps it. Don't take it as a criticism of Europe (they may be criticized for some things but not for ditching Putin's fossil fuels)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31279" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12289" RevisionGUID="f0b8c9de-1395-43c1-a755-55a41cad8720" CreationDate="2022-08-24T19:04:31.183" UserId="9669" Text="The EU made its top priority to stop buying Russian fossil fuels, even if it involves less sustainable energy sorces. Is net-zero under threat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31280" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12289" RevisionGUID="f0b8c9de-1395-43c1-a755-55a41cad8720" CreationDate="2022-08-24T19:04:31.183" UserId="9669" Text="|energy|renewables|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31281" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12290" RevisionGUID="cd20a27d-949a-43e1-8a35-a388b058af62" CreationDate="2022-08-24T20:13:08.190" UserId="6393" Text="No way is net zero threatened at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, the actions have been:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Find alternative gas sources like LNG (there's slight risk of leaking methane, a strong greenhouse gas)&#xD;&#xA;* Restart nuclear power stations (good!)&#xD;&#xA;* Use coal power stations that have been not used for a long amount of time (temporarily bad)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect eventually each and every gas power station will switch to using hydrogen instead of natural gas (methane). The modifications needed are not major. That hydrogen will be produced from clean energy sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that gas prices are so expensive now that nobody is planning of constructing more gas power. So getting replacement fuel for the existing plans will not mean we need more of it -- we need the same amount of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nuclear energy, on the other hand, is about the greenest energy source we have. Sadly, constructing new nuclear power plants is so expensive that it will be outcompeted by renewable electricity and electricity storage. Giving more life for old nuclear power plants doesn't involve the massive costs of constructing new nuclear plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the only really problematic thing is using those dirty coal plants. They replace natural gas plants all of which can't get enough fuel, and as coal is dirtier than natural gas, 1000 g / kWh as opposed to 400 g / kWh of natural gas, this will cause lots of new emissions. But we have to remember that those aging coal power plants are still existing plants that have been given new life. They will be phased out eventually.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The net zero plans are for year 2050 or so -- nearly 30 years in future. In that 30 years, we will get rid of those coal power plants, and use renewables and energy storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The replacement fuels will cause more emissions in the short term, so when considering climate change, it's a problem. But when considering net zero plans, those plans are so far away in the future that we will achieve them. The energy system of 2050 will look so much different than the energy system of 2022.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I see you have a misconception about nuclear energy not being sustainable. It's true that at current uranium prices, for current reactors, we have about 100-200 years of more uranium. But the cost of nuclear power is nearly all capital costs, fuel is practically free. If fuel prices were increased let's say by a factor of 50, nuclear power would still have a low marginal cost. That factor of 50 increase on the other hand would mean lots of new uranium sources become practical to utilize. Also, there are reactors that use uranium 100 times more efficiently than the current light water thermal neutron reactors. Fast breeder reactors for example run on U-238 (over 99% of uranium) rather than on U-235 (less than 1% of uranium -- the reason uranium needs to be enriched for current reactors). With fast breeders and increased uranium prices, we could tolerate 5000x increase in uranium prices. At that price, uranium could be extracted from seawater too, and there's lots of it in seawater." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31283" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12291" RevisionGUID="8fb43a67-7c8b-40ea-be90-2b9ef2216002" CreationDate="2022-08-24T20:26:27.937" UserId="1053" Text="Probably the most important aspect is the &quot;last few miles&quot; transportation. Where I live, a shopping mall is 45 minutes drive each way. I tend to batch trips, doing several different kinds of shopping at once. If I order things online, the warehouse is much further from me, but the truck doesn't come all the way to my house with just my package, so that distance is in effect shared among all the packages being delivered near me.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your mall is closer or further than mine, if you batch more or fewer kinds of shopping into each trip, and even if more or less of your neighbours are ordering from the same online sources as you (or from online sources that use the same courier) then which is more sustainable for you will likely be different than for me. There is no general answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31285" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12289" RevisionGUID="2f553b54-520d-4d72-ba66-0ce712b33e14" CreationDate="2022-08-24T20:27:35.370" UserId="9669" Comment="deleted 2 characters in body" Text="With Putin having invaded Ukraine, Europe made getting rid of Russian hydrocarbons a more urgent priority than phasing out fossil fuels and other unsustainable energy sources. They now intend to consume more coal, LNG, possibly nuclear energy too (which is not sustainable too, despite it being low-carbon). Is it more likely to be a long-term shift or just an insignificant blip in its determined way toward green energy? You can't just turn them on and off as a light bulb, those coal and nuclear plants&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.: I want to stress that ending the war may indeed be a more pressing goal for now. If you ask me, I'd be happy to see all Russian exports banned if it helps it. Don't take it as a criticism of Europe (they may be criticized for some things but not for ditching Putin's fossil fuels)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31286" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12105" RevisionGUID="ff02aaa7-ae6a-4135-b6b5-8c657f92302a" CreationDate="2022-08-25T18:07:45.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31287" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12289" RevisionGUID="42106660-c252-47bd-a68f-305dabf518d9" CreationDate="2022-08-25T19:34:34.177" UserId="2345" Comment="Minor grammatical changes" Text="With Putin having invaded Ukraine, Europe made getting rid of Russian hydrocarbons a more urgent priority than phasing out fossil fuels and other unsustainable energy sources. They now intend to consume more coal, LNG, possibly nuclear energy too (which is not sustainable too, despite it being low-carbon). Is it more likely to be a long-term shift or just an insignificant blip in its determined way toward green energy? You can't just turn them on and off as a light bulb, those coal and nuclear plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S.: I want to stress that ending the war may indeed be a more pressing goal for now. If you ask me, I'd be happy to see all Russian exports banned if it helps it. Don't take it as a criticism of Europe (they may be criticized for some things but not for ditching Putin's fossil fuels)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31288" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12289" RevisionGUID="42106660-c252-47bd-a68f-305dabf518d9" CreationDate="2022-08-25T19:34:34.177" UserId="2345" Comment="Minor grammatical changes" Text="The EU made its top priority to stop buying Russian fossil fuels, even if it involves less sustainable energy sources. Is net-zero under threat?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31293" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12293" RevisionGUID="8c808a1d-79fc-4aa7-98d5-9f7a87f3f7a9" CreationDate="2022-08-27T12:29:27.847" UserId="6393" Text="The two reasons why it often makes sense to use less inverters than panels:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Inverters are expensive, nearly as expensive as panels&#xD;&#xA;* To put that expense into useful work, you want big enough capacity factor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's consider that you have 10 kW of panels, and you are deciding how many 1 kW inverters you want to put there. Let's also assume the inverters share the panels, in such a manner that even the first 1 kW inverter can use power from all of the 10 kW panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Investing in the first 1 kW inverter is easy. 10 kW panels will create more than 1 kW of power from sunlight nearly always except during the night. They will create more than 1 kW of power probably even in cloudy weather and the sun doesn't have to be perfectly aligned with the panels. So the first inverter has a very high &lt;i&gt;capacity factor&lt;/i&gt;: it is creating lots of energy because the utilization hours occur often.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second 1 kW inverter (for a total of 2 kW capacity) is somewhat tougher decision. There are times when it isn't fully used, times when the first 1 kW inverter would be enough. For example in very cloudy weather, or near sunrise or sunset you will find the second 1 kW inverter is fully used.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then let's skip the third to ninth 1 kW inverters and consider the tenth 1 kW inverter. What use is it? Well, you need quite many simultaneous conditions to hold for it to be any use when comparing it to 9 kW of inverters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The panel array needs to be in perfect condition to get that last kilowatt. For example 20-year old array could have reduced power production so it can't produce 10 kW at all, it could max out at 9 kW.&#xD;&#xA;* The panel array needs to be clean. Dust over it can reduce production.&#xD;&#xA;* The sun has to be perfectly aligned with the panels.&#xD;&#xA;* There has to be absolutely no clouds.&#xD;&#xA;* The air mass effect of low sun can't be there. For example in a very northern location it's possible that a 10 kW panel can only produce 9 kW even in optimal situations because in northern locations the sun is quite low even in the summer, meaning sunlight has to be travel over a longer path in atmosphere&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say these conditions occur very rarely: the requirement of perfect orientation limits it to at most few months in a year and only few hours per day on those months, the requirement of needing perfectly sunny weather also removes most of the hours in those few months, and you have to keep your panels clean. Also even if those requirements are satisfied, it's possible the panels have aged or you live in a location where the panels can't produce full power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, in all cases, it actually makes sense to install less inverters than panels. How much less depends on the relative pricing of panels and inverters, on the price of electricity, on the location (typical weather and distance from equator), and also on whether you can orient the panels well or if their in-optimal orientation alone limits power production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5 kW inverter for 6.6 kW panels sounded about right in most cases in 2020. I won't say that was perfect because prices of inverters, panels, installation work and electricity prices varied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverter capacity should be full only in cases where inverters are trivially cheap, yet panels are horrendously expensive. Few years ago, the situation was such that solar cells and panels were very cheap (only their installation had real costs) and inverters cost a lot of money. Today panels are getting more expensive and due to popularity of solar increasing installation also becoming more expensive in many areas, so it no longer may be the ideal to have 5 kW inverter for 6.6 kW of panels. Also, in many areas electricity is now so expensive so the additional missing 1.6 kW of inverters could be easily paid back by high electricity prices, even if the last 1.6 kW of inverter capacity is producing electricity only rarely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This question was asked in 2020 when panels were very cheap." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31295" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="6061921f-5a2e-4e49-8598-68a8a8df9ba8" CreationDate="2022-08-29T08:17:19.793" UserId="453" Text="Currently I'm looking into the issue of deposit return systems. Usually they are quite effective in keeping addressed items out of the environment, so I wonder why they are not expanded to many more products, such as food packaging in general.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there examples of countries (or regions/states) having implemented deposit return systems for products besides beverage containers?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm referring to cheap products typically consumed in large quantity (e.g. food packaging), not more valuable products that might have such a system implemented already (e.g. car tyres, electrical appliances)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31297" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="6061921f-5a2e-4e49-8598-68a8a8df9ba8" CreationDate="2022-08-29T08:17:19.793" UserId="453" Text="Are there deposit return systems for products besides beverage containers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31298" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="6061921f-5a2e-4e49-8598-68a8a8df9ba8" CreationDate="2022-08-29T08:17:19.793" UserId="453" Text="|waste|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12295" RevisionGUID="259320cb-6337-433b-9e4c-222ef814c530" CreationDate="2022-08-29T09:41:10.360" UserId="453" Text="After some more extensive search I have found these promising studies highlighting case studies from the implementation of deposit return systems for products commonly not addressed:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Song, G., Lee, Y., &amp; Jung, E. C. (2020). Developing the ‘0U Cup’: Promoting Ecological Behavior through a Cup-sharing Service System Based on the Comprehensive Action Determination Model and Choice Architecture. Archives of Design Research, 33(3), 5-16.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Cottafava, D., Riccardo, L. E., &amp; Cristian, D. A. (2019). From flow to stock. new circular business models for integrated systems: A case study on reusable plastic cups.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Thomke, S. H., &amp; Sinha, M. (2010). The dabbawala system: On-time delivery, every time. Harvard Business School Case, 610-059.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This article was helpful as an overview, see especially bottom section: https://www.renewablematter.eu/articles/article/making-empties-count-deposit-return-schemes-across-the-world" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31301" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12296" RevisionGUID="39464665-4718-40eb-a73c-18ec302258df" CreationDate="2022-08-29T13:27:26.377" UserId="12137" Text="Adding the essential oils during the rinsing stage of the wash cycle (when the detergents have already done their job) makes much more sense as even though the essential oils might not use up much more of the detergent, the detergent might actually get rid of some or most of the essential oils. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By adding the during rinsing, you minimize the chance of them &quot;wasting&quot; or binding detergent and prevent washing them out. Normally your washing machine should have a compartment for fabric softener that the water is only led through at the rinsing stage. Add the oils there (maybe with a bit of water so that they don't damage the plastic of the tray) before starting the machine and your good to go." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31303" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12297" RevisionGUID="b9c4f525-4181-49ae-8381-d49e09cc1c98" CreationDate="2022-08-29T13:47:52.387" UserId="12137" Text="Is fleece an alternative to cotton (sustainable or otherwise) -- the answer is mostly no due to the vastly different properties of cotton fabric and fleece fabric. An alternative is only an alternative if it can serve the same (or a very similar) purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cotton** is a cellulosic fiber that is hydrophilic, breathable and doesn't have a lot of warming power due to low air retention. Cotton is also quite sturdy and very abrasion resistant when woven.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fleece** on the other hand is rather hydrophobic, very warming and doesn't have a good breathability. Fleece is not very abrasion resistant and prone to pilling. Also, fleece is always knitted, and thus structurally less sturdy than a woven cotton fabric.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think about areas where cotton is used a lot: bedding, towels, jeans, t-shirts or shirts/blouses, in almost none of these application areas would a fleece fabric make any sense at all. So substituting the one with the other would not be feasible and thus the question if the substitution would be more sustainable is futile.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31305" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12298" RevisionGUID="de53a934-ca64-4b67-8836-80703f8126bf" CreationDate="2022-08-29T13:52:31.360" UserId="12137" Text="One thing to consider is that energy can be produced renewably (even though trying to use as little as possible is the goal), whereas disposable diapers use up a lot of non-renewable, non-recyclable and non-decomposable ressources." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31307" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12299" RevisionGUID="bf227ab8-6f55-4034-a370-41e9fae63452" CreationDate="2022-08-29T15:34:11.740" UserId="14308" Text="I'd like to refresh and potentially update my knowledge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anything like CHAdeMO charging cable to Type 2 car plug connector? or any other solution that would allow me to charge my Type 2 car from CHAdeMO cable / charging station? Or no such thing exists.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My knowledge gained so far says that there isn't anything like that and that designing such thing isn't possible due to wide differences in CHAdeMO and Type 2 interfaces up to the level of different request-answer timeouts, voltages, logic and software behind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that CHAdeMO technology / protocol / standard is being phased-out worldwide, but here were I live (Poland) there is a serious number of (roughly ever used) public EV chargers with CHAdeMO cable. And I'd like to have an additional option / my inset into sustainable living by charging my Type 2 car with CHAdeMO cable in situation when other solutions (like using Type 2 cable / plug or CCS cable) are not available. Instead of circling additional kilometres to the next charging station (only to figure out that once available socket is now taken and I have to circle back to the first station).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From my perspective this is not a theoretical question. I had such situation three times only this weekend, so I'd like to find a solution to avoid it in the future.." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31309" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12299" RevisionGUID="bf227ab8-6f55-4034-a370-41e9fae63452" CreationDate="2022-08-29T15:34:11.740" UserId="14308" Text="CHAdeMO to Type 2 connector for charging EV cars" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31310" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12299" RevisionGUID="bf227ab8-6f55-4034-a370-41e9fae63452" CreationDate="2022-08-29T15:34:11.740" UserId="14308" Text="|electricity|cars|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31311" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12300" RevisionGUID="9351ab71-4ec7-4063-8a1d-5cd1565e01b9" CreationDate="2022-08-29T16:21:29.777" UserId="6393" Text="The main problem of fleece is microplastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you never wash your fleece clothing, then it could be argued to be reasonably good. Fleece doesn't require lot of water to make unlike cotton (it only requires oil and only so little of it that wood or other biomass can replace oil in the future when manufacturing fleece). Manufacturing fleece doesn't release methane unlike wool (sheep are a major source of methane).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, it's possible that mere usage of fleece clothing in sports could release small microplastic particles into environment. However, this is likely less than what is released when washing fleece.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main problem of fleece is that when washing it, it releases microplastics into wastewater. The washing machine doesn't filter those away. Neither does the sewage treatment plant. So those will directly go to oceans.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we would need is biodegradable fleece. Wool would be such a material, but sheep release massive amounts of methane. If we can ever manufacture wool synthetically without requiring sheep, that would be the material of choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another solution to the microplastics problem could be implemented either in washing machine or sewage treatment plant, if we could somehow filter those microplastics away and burn them later." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31313" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12301" RevisionGUID="db7295bc-d659-4db5-a5bf-ee236320089e" CreationDate="2022-08-29T16:29:37.257" UserId="6393" Text="That's nearly impossible, or at least so impractical it won't happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CHAdeMO is DC fast charging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Type 2 is AC charging.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In theory, you could create a 11 kW inverter converting CHAdeMO DC signal into three-phase AC, but the cable to do that would be terribly heavy. I'd say the block in the middle of the cable would weigh approximately 20 kg to do that. It would also cost ~2000 EUR / USD / GBP.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically if 3.6 kW is enough for you, you might have only 7 kg block in the middle of the cable, but as far as I know, CHAdeMO is used only in public charging stations. With 3.6 kW, it would take approximately 20 hours to fill a typical electric vehicle battery in a public charging station.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;CHAdeMO doesn't have AC at all. So no possible to avoid the need of the heavy inverter. Type 2 on the other hand doesn't have DC at all so you can't direct-feed DC from CHAdeMO into Type 2." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31315" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12297" RevisionGUID="666bfc6f-9ae9-446e-9888-fcabcfadb7df" CreationDate="2022-08-30T06:56:07.933" UserId="12137" Comment="added 83 characters in body" Text="Is fleece an alternative to cotton (sustainable or otherwise) -- the answer is mostly no due to the vastly different properties of cotton fabric and fleece fabric. An alternative is only an alternative if it can serve the same (or a very similar) purpose.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Cotton** is a cellulosic fiber that is hydrophilic, breathable and doesn't have a lot of warming power due to low air retention. Cotton is also quite sturdy and very abrasion resistant when woven. Most cotton fabric is smooth and rather thin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Fleece** on the other hand is rather hydrophobic, very warming and doesn't have a good breathability. Fleece is not very abrasion resistant and prone to pilling. Also, fleece is always knitted, and thus structurally less sturdy than a woven cotton fabric. Fleece is also thick and and fluffy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you think about areas where cotton is used a lot: bedding, towels, jeans, t-shirts or shirts/blouses, in almost none of these application areas would a fleece fabric make any sense at all. So substituting the one with the other would not be feasible and thus the question if the substitution would be more sustainable is futile.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31317" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12302" RevisionGUID="e3f23bd4-6399-4e4f-b443-1388a981cc3b" CreationDate="2022-08-30T17:03:12.910" UserId="14308" Text="A very similar question to [this one](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/12299/14308). Is there any solution available to use CHAdeMO charging cable to power EV car equipped with CCS socket?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My knowledge gained so far says that there isn't anything like that because there are too wide differences in CHAdeMO and CCS interfaces (up to the level of different request-answer timeouts, voltages, logic, software behind, etc.).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that CHAdeMO technology / protocol / standard is being phased-out worldwide, but here were I live (Poland) there is a vast number of public EV chargers with (roughly never used) CHAdeMO cables.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to have an additional option (my inset into sustainable living) of charging my CCS car with CHAdeMO cable in situation when options (Type 2 cable or plug or CCS cable) are not available. Instead of circling additional kilometres to the next charging station.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know pretty much nothing about Tesla, but I saw Tesla driver powering its car from CHAdeMO (or maybe it was CSS?) cable using some kind of converter or inverter plugged between EV charging station's cable and Tesla's socket. I'd like to know, if similar option exists, if we have CCS instead of Tesla socket?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31319" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12302" RevisionGUID="e3f23bd4-6399-4e4f-b443-1388a981cc3b" CreationDate="2022-08-30T17:03:12.910" UserId="14308" Text="A converter from CHAdeMO cable to CCS connector for charging EV cars" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31320" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12302" RevisionGUID="e3f23bd4-6399-4e4f-b443-1388a981cc3b" CreationDate="2022-08-30T17:03:12.910" UserId="14308" Text="|electricity|cars|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31321" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12296" RevisionGUID="afc02f4d-1578-4961-8ef9-771a7a3c91e3" CreationDate="2022-08-31T02:12:07.777" UserId="12137" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Adding the essential oils during the rinsing stage of the wash cycle (when the detergents have already done their job) makes much more sense as even though the essential oils might not use up much more of the detergent, the detergent might actually get rid of some or most of the essential oils. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By adding the oils during rinsing, you minimize the chance of them &quot;wasting&quot; or binding detergent and prevent washing them out. Normally your washing machine should have a compartment for fabric softener that the water is only led through at the rinsing stage. Add the oils there (maybe with a bit of water so that they don't damage the plastic of the tray) before starting the machine and your good to go." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31322" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12303" RevisionGUID="698e8222-232b-4bfd-a80f-d57f41df918d" CreationDate="2022-09-01T04:08:07.097" UserId="14315" Text="In reading an article in the New Yorker entitled &quot;Africa's Cold Rush and the Promise of Refrigeration&quot;, there were the following snippets&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if global food waste were a country its greenhouse-gas emissions would&#xD;&#xA;&gt; be the third largest in the world, right behind China and the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone specify the exact way that food waste generates so many gas-emissions?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if every country were to have a cold chain similar to the ones the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; developed world relies on, these emissions would increase fivefold.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Seen from that perspective, helping Rwanda develop an energy-efficient&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cold chain looks less like altruistic development aid and more like&#xD;&#xA;&gt; enlightened self-interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, developed countries have technologies that use a lot of energy, and energy is currently usually produced with greenhouse has emissions. What does the author mean by &quot;enlightened self-interest&quot; in the snippet above? It is in the self-interest of the population of a poor underdeveloped country like Rwanda to have a food refrigeration chain as in a developed country. It seems the author is inferring that such developed countries providing aid to accomplish such a chain is less altruism and more self-interest. This doesn't seem to make sense though." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31324" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12303" RevisionGUID="698e8222-232b-4bfd-a80f-d57f41df918d" CreationDate="2022-09-01T04:08:07.097" UserId="14315" Text="How exactly does food waste generate huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31325" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12303" RevisionGUID="698e8222-232b-4bfd-a80f-d57f41df918d" CreationDate="2022-09-01T04:08:07.097" UserId="14315" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|food-storage|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31326" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12304" RevisionGUID="e78549f6-3fa8-4906-8d9e-3603288c87b0" CreationDate="2022-09-01T15:17:35.470" UserId="5477" Text="Bacteria metabolize it release methane and other products. Similar to organics decomposing in a swamp or soil." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31328" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12305" RevisionGUID="4a89f123-645b-45a2-8ae3-0a5841debebd" CreationDate="2022-09-01T17:01:09.000" UserId="14316" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I have this dataset that is simply the nameplate capacity of different generators for a specific year in MW. I'm hoping to get a sum of all nameplate capacity for all solar generators for that year, but I would like to express it in MWh. Would that be possible, if we don't know in what time increments the data is logged? Dataset is in link below... Any advice? I am generally confused about how to convert MW to MWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.gov%2Felectricity%2Fdata%2Feia860m%2Fxls%2Fjuly_generator2022.xlsx&amp;wdOrigin=BROWSELINK " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31330" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12305" RevisionGUID="4a89f123-645b-45a2-8ae3-0a5841debebd" CreationDate="2022-09-01T17:01:09.000" UserId="14316" Text="Confused about MW to MWh" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31331" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12305" RevisionGUID="4a89f123-645b-45a2-8ae3-0a5841debebd" CreationDate="2022-09-01T17:01:09.000" UserId="14316" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12306" RevisionGUID="d0c4d8c6-73fd-4e14-9600-8ee4f509edfa" CreationDate="2022-09-02T06:44:48.237" UserId="9007" Text="You're confusing power for energy.&#xD;&#xA;I'll put it simply....&#xD;&#xA;Energy is the capacity to perform work, as thermodynamic transfer or momentum.&#xD;&#xA;Power is the rate at which energy is delivered in its transit in a given timeframe. (think of a faucet vs. a hose)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy is measured in Joules, Power in watts.&#xD;&#xA;So One Joule per second is One watt&#xD;&#xA;A Meagwatt is One million (Mega) watts based on its rate of delivery....A Megawatt-hour is one Megawatt over the course of one hour. A joule per second is one watt...&#xD;&#xA;3.6 Gigajoules = 1 Megawatt-hour" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31334" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12306" RevisionGUID="70757f6c-e79e-4001-b64b-2c368e4cced9" CreationDate="2022-09-02T06:50:45.597" UserId="9007" Comment="added 560 characters in body" Text="You're confusing power for energy.&#xD;&#xA;I'll put it simply....&#xD;&#xA;Energy is the capacity to perform work, as thermodynamic transfer or momentum.&#xD;&#xA;Power is the rate at which energy is delivered in its transit in a given timeframe. (think of a faucet vs. a hose)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy is measured in Joules, Power in watts.&#xD;&#xA;So One Joule per second is One watt&#xD;&#xA;A Meagwatt is One million (Mega) watts based on its rate of delivery....A Megawatt-hour is one Megawatt over the course of one hour. A joule per second is one watt...&#xD;&#xA;3.6 Gigajoules = 1 Megawatt-hour&#xD;&#xA;1 Joule/sec = watt&#xD;&#xA;1 watt per second is a joule&#xD;&#xA;60x60 second = 1 hour x 1000000 watts = 3.6 Billion Joules&#xD;&#xA; Best way to decipher energy/power delivery take your electric bill&#xD;&#xA;Measured kilowatt-hours (kwh) and divide by 86400 seconds in a day.&#xD;&#xA;There are 8,766 hours in a year...&#xD;&#xA;take Megawatt-hours divided by 8,766 you get power per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Example. A 50 MW generator running 24 hours generates 1,200 Megawatt-hours &#xD;&#xA;prefixes for exponential orders of magnitude x1000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Kilo: Thousand&#xD;&#xA; - Mega: Million&#xD;&#xA; - Giga: Billion&#xD;&#xA; - Tera: Trillion&#xD;&#xA; - Peta: Quadrillion&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31335" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12307" RevisionGUID="5c2d25d8-5d4f-4f45-ac4d-8040d7b7d0e2" CreationDate="2022-09-02T06:52:15.233" UserId="9007" Text="Organic means &quot;carbon&quot; decomposing organic material produces carbon dioxide" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31337" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12308" RevisionGUID="fdf7cb9c-dd07-495a-9c6b-d529668ce135" CreationDate="2022-09-02T06:54:28.753" UserId="9007" Text="Yes...namely fleece clothing is made fro  recycled plastic bottle....billions of which exist and hold promise without need for new manufacture.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fleece is wollen sheep nair..&#xD;&#xA;&quot;polar&quot; flece is made from polyester." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31339" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6981" RevisionGUID="3a51bec1-0429-4093-919f-a674e920db5c" CreationDate="2022-09-02T08:46:56.687" UserId="14317" Comment="add my machine" Text="If you come across this answer and have measured your idle system's power consumption please extend the list by editing this answer or adding a comment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Power Consumption Measured by Users &#xD;&#xA;Power consumption of running systems doing nothing. Does not include external devices like monitors. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 2 W business laptop from 2017, monitor off, CPU at idle, running on battery power. CPU: i5. GPU: integrated.&#xD;&#xA;- 18 W business laptop from 2011. CPU: i5. GPU: integrated.&#xD;&#xA;- 60 W desktop PC from ???. CPU: Pentium 4&#xD;&#xA;- 80 W desktop PC from 2014. CPU: i5. GPU: GTX 660&#xD;&#xA;- 100 W Desktop PC. CPU: Ryzen 7 1700 (Overcloaked to 3.8GHz). GPU: GTX 1080 ti.&#xD;&#xA;- 60-100 W desktop PC from 2021: Ryzen 5800x, GTX 3060 without any CPU/GPU workloads (IDLE/browsing).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31340" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="0704751d-b039-4aba-9c6a-50b7b8435a15" CreationDate="2022-09-02T20:02:53.327" UserId="2828" Comment="Improve English." Text="Cow-milk cheese has a high carbon footprint because raising cows has several negative effects on climate changing factors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A lot of cows are not only fed on grass – this would not have such a bad effect, aside from the deforested land needed – they need extra proteins from soya: this causes major deforestation in Brazil for example.&#xD;&#xA;* A cow’s digestion produces a considerable amount of methane, which has a huge greenhouse effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, good cheese should not be eaten in large quantities: always eat your cheese on a piece of bread!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And consider eating goat cheese: raising goats is known to have [a smaller greenhouse effect](http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/986252/lamb_beef_and_cheese_have_largest_food_footprint.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31341" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5901" RevisionGUID="0704751d-b039-4aba-9c6a-50b7b8435a15" CreationDate="2022-09-02T20:02:53.327" Comment="Proposed by 2828 approved by 99, 2345 edit id of 701" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31342" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12309" RevisionGUID="2a8b4adb-6672-4f84-958b-1046120247fc" CreationDate="2022-09-03T09:22:09.660" UserId="6393" Text="Megawatt-hours is simply megawatts multiplied by hours, if the power of the generator stays constant at full power. To get megawatt-hours from megawatts, you need to know the duration. Usually in financial reporting, megawatt-hours means megawatt-hours per year actually, but it could mean megawatt-hours per quarter for example. And when comparing different months, megawatt-hours per month is a common unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An example: if you have 500 megawatts of generators, for a year it would be `24*365*500 = 4380000 MWh` which is so large number that you should switch to GWh: 4380 GWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's also possible that the generators aren't running at full power all the time. This is taken into account by capacity factor. For example a peakload natural gas generator could have 15% capacity factor so in that case it would be 0.15 * 4380 GWh = 657 GWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For solar power, capacity factor varies based on average cloudiness and latitude. In sourthern Finland for example, averaged over one year, common capacity factors are 11-12%. But that doesn't tell the whole story as solar in Finland generates lots of energy during summer and practically no energy during winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 500 MW of solar in Finland would be `24*365*500*0.115 = 503700 MWh`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Bit older onshore wind power is 30% capacity factor when choosing a good site (a bad site can ruin production), today capacity factors are exceeding 35% for the newest turbines and good sites, and good offshore wind power site with newest turbines is expected to have 45-50% capacity factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Older non-pumped hydro has usually 50% capacity factor, although it could be really anything depending on how many turbines are installed. But older hydro was intended not for peaking power but rather load-following power and for that 50% capacity factor is ideal. Newer peakload hydro installations that are intended to produce power only during shortages should ideally have 15% capacity factor, i.e. with same storage pool size and same rainfall they would have more generators than older hydro installations." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31344" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12310" RevisionGUID="aa1db5ea-3b8f-4b24-a4ee-e0e6e6ccd035" CreationDate="2022-09-03T16:34:55.363" UserId="3379" Text="The link you've shared is from the U.S. Energy Information Agency's [monthly EIA-860 data](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860M/), showing the [generator capacity](https://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.php?id=G#gen_cap) in megawatts (MW). To use an analogy, this is like a report of the number of battery factories that are operating in a given month, and the highest quantity of batteries they could produce at any given moment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Without knowing things like how much raw material those factories have, what shifts they operate, how many workers they have, etc, there's no way to know how many batteries they actually produce in a month just based on the capacity (though you might be able to make some assumptions and estimate).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Going back to the generator information, you need the [EIA-923 data](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/), which shows the actual energy production, in MWh, for each generator that is included in EIA-860. Net generation is provided in the sheet &quot;Page 1 Generation and Fuel Data&quot;, in columns CB to CM. The acronyms and abbreviations used in the report are defined in the last sheet, &quot;Page 7 File Layout.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you can match up the data, using the &quot;Plant ID&quot; column in the two reports. Here's a sample showing capacity from EIA-860, filtered to solar PV plants:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![EIA-860 screenshot][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And here's the corresponding data from EIA-923:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![EIA-923 screenshot][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'm not sure why there are more generators in EIA-860 than EIA-923 -- could be due to delays in reporting, plants that didn't produce anything that month, or some other factor).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XgLE7.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KIeD3.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31346" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12305" RevisionGUID="4aebfb9a-0599-407d-88a8-a6dd1a1f6e8e" CreationDate="2022-09-03T16:43:37.927" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags, minor formatting, improved title" Text="|solar-power|energy|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31347" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12305" RevisionGUID="4aebfb9a-0599-407d-88a8-a6dd1a1f6e8e" CreationDate="2022-09-03T16:43:37.927" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags, minor formatting, improved title" Text="I have [this dataset][1] that is simply the nameplate capacity of different generators for a specific year in MW. I'm hoping to get a sum of all nameplate capacity for all solar generators for that year, but I would like to express it in MWh. Would that be possible, if we don't know in what time increments the data is logged? Any advice? I am generally confused about how to convert MW to MWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.gov%2Felectricity%2Fdata%2Feia860m%2Fxls%2Fjuly_generator2022.xlsx&amp;wdOrigin=BROWSELINK " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31348" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12305" RevisionGUID="4aebfb9a-0599-407d-88a8-a6dd1a1f6e8e" CreationDate="2022-09-03T16:43:37.927" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags, minor formatting, improved title" Text="How to express solar generator capacity in MWh if I have MW?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31349" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12303" RevisionGUID="bdd9070d-3da9-40c8-8421-90cdb613de66" CreationDate="2022-09-03T17:00:20.370" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags, minor typos, linked article." Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31350" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12303" RevisionGUID="bdd9070d-3da9-40c8-8421-90cdb613de66" CreationDate="2022-09-03T17:00:20.370" UserId="3379" Comment="edited tags, minor typos, linked article." Text="In reading an article in the New Yorker entitled [Africa's Cold Rush and the Promise of Refrigeration][1], there were the following snippets:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; if global food waste were a country its greenhouse-gas emissions would be the third largest in the world, right behind China and the US.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can someone specify the exact way that food waste generates so many greenhouse-gas emissions?&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; if every country were to have a cold chain similar to the ones the developed world relies on, these emissions would increase fivefold. Seen from that perspective, helping Rwanda develop an energy-efficient cold chain looks less like altruistic development aid and more like enlightened self-interest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Clearly, developed countries have technologies that use a lot of energy, and energy is currently usually produced with greenhouse-gas emissions. What does the author mean by &quot;enlightened self-interest&quot; in the snippet above? It is in the self-interest of the population of a poor underdeveloped country like Rwanda to have a food refrigeration chain as in a developed country. It seems the author is inferring that such developed countries providing aid to accomplish such a chain is less altruism and more self-interest. This doesn't seem to make sense though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[1]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/22/africas-cold-rush-and-the-promise-of-refrigeration" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31351" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12311" RevisionGUID="9f04c06b-7c8b-4996-aae6-e58eebefc66f" CreationDate="2022-09-03T17:46:21.607" UserId="3379" Text="**tl;dr: food that isn't eaten still takes energy and land to produce, resulting in GHG emissions.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article references The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization as the source of the food waste estimate. I believe they are referring to [World Resources Report: Creating a Sustainable Food Future](https://research.wri.org/wrr-food), which includes this figure (page 54):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![If food loss and waste were a country, it would be the third-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The footnote explains how this is calculated (emphasis added): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; **Figures reflect all six anthropogenic GHG emissions**, including those from land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These six emissions factors are detailed earlier in the report, on page 9:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Agriculture accounts for about one-quarter of global GHG emissions (~2010)][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From the figure, you can see that 24% (11.8 Gt) of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;e emissions are from agriculture and LULUCF -- basically, food production. (Note that this does include biofuels, which accounts for about 3% of total energy production by food calories, per Figure 2-2 on page 18. Also, getting from the total GHG emissions figure of 11.8 Gt, to the figure for wastage, 4.4, is a complicated calculation that depends on the type of food wasted, and where in the supply chain it's wasted -- for more details see the FAO report, [Food wastage footprint &amp; Climate Change](https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/7338e109-45e8-42da-92f3-ceb8d92002b0/).)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So contrary to what other answers have suggested, **GHG emissions from food waste is *not* due to decomposition of the wasted food:** It's a measure of the energy used to produce food that wasn't ultimately consumed. The embodied carbon of the food itself will make it's way to the atmosphere whether it is eaten, or left to decompose -- but the GHG emissions from the agricultural sector and land-use change would not have occurred if that food hadn't been produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vD7S5.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4ROxa.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31353" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="f4e4d5ad-238c-42d5-b29b-caef7cc0da91" CreationDate="2022-09-04T07:06:48.273" UserId="108" Comment="deleted 466 characters in body; edited title" Text="[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The EU citizens separate their rubbish more or less. Yet there are accounts that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; everything gets mixed and buried together after collecting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; all of it gets exported to Asia&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; burning is not recycling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a reliable source stating e.g. 'recycled glass as percent mass of total rubbish in the country?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZmvFJ.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31354" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12265" RevisionGUID="f4e4d5ad-238c-42d5-b29b-caef7cc0da91" CreationDate="2022-09-04T07:06:48.273" UserId="108" Comment="deleted 466 characters in body; edited title" Text="How much of their waste do EU countries recycle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31359" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12313" RevisionGUID="d0d85959-08e3-4acc-847c-b36553644988" CreationDate="2022-09-05T01:32:42.217" UserId="3379" Text="Our World in Data provides a chart showing [municipal waste recycling rates](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/municipal-waste-recycling-rate?tab=chart&amp;time=2005..2015&amp;country=AUT~BEL~CZE~DNK~EST~FIN~FRA~DEU~GRC~HUN~IRL~ITA~LVA~LTU~LUX~NLD~POL~PRT~SVK~SVN~SWE~ESP) for 38 different countries and regions. I've selected the available EU countries here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; [![Municipal waste recycling rate by country, 2005 to 2015][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;([EU countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#Member_states) missing from this chart are Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Malta, and Romania.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The data source is the OECD's [statistics on municipal waste, generation, and treatment](https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=MUNW) where you can find data through 2020 for several countries, as well as additional data points on composting, incineration, and a few categories of waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To your question about recycling rates of specific materials (such as glass), I only know of one for metals: the UN Environment Program 2011 report, [Recycling Rates of Metals](https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/recycling-rates-metals). A [google search](https://www.google.com/search?q=glass+recycling+rates+by+country) indicates there may be some reliable resources available for glass as well, but I am not familiar with any of them in particular. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xD8yI.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31362" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12314" RevisionGUID="6790c24c-c20c-499a-8fa2-63b91b7f41d1" CreationDate="2022-09-05T19:59:58.417" UserId="14325" Text="I'm a few years late to this discussion. There are lots of great answers here, but an underlying problem which humanity, given its creativity and ingenuity, ought to be able to solve. And companies that do, will earn loyalty from the consumers who are paying attention.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's the problem, very specific, but applicable in other circumstances. I buy canopies from Costco for events. Costco Business has reliably carried the same canopy for 3 years. The canopies currently cost $225. The canopies get damaged periodically, by wind mostly. The larger diameter leg is what consistently breaks. The cost of this replacement part is $140 for 2. Each canopy contains 4. So rather than buying replacement parts, I buy a new canopy and strip the broken one down for parts. But I only keep the outer legs. The rest goes in the landfill. The &quot;rest&quot; is made up of 1 broken part and around 200 unbroken parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand &quot;why&quot; the replacement leg cost so much to make. I don't understand why we're not coming up with better solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you buy anything from a company that's conscientious about this issue?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31364" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12303" RevisionGUID="4dbd7afd-e2e2-4219-bd80-2ac2eda902a2" CreationDate="2022-09-05T21:00:03.647" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1566893949406642177" />
  <row Id="31365" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12315" RevisionGUID="1a710136-5c6d-49de-8c20-adc71edd1e77" CreationDate="2022-09-05T21:47:57.253" UserId="14326" Text="Currently have 2 100w panels, in parallel, connected to Newpowa 30a MPPT controller, connected to 580ah of 12v lead acid batteries. Basically runs the fridge. Works well up north. Heading south and think I need to up the system to 400w by adding 2 more 100w panels. Q: duplicate original 2-panel system? or combine all 4 into 1 controller? or use series for second 2-panel system? or use 4 controllers 1 for each panel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31367" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12315" RevisionGUID="1a710136-5c6d-49de-8c20-adc71edd1e77" CreationDate="2022-09-05T21:47:57.253" UserId="14326" Text="Sailboat solar advice" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31368" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12315" RevisionGUID="1a710136-5c6d-49de-8c20-adc71edd1e77" CreationDate="2022-09-05T21:47:57.253" UserId="14326" Text="|solar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12316" RevisionGUID="201a103e-39d7-429f-abbd-facd8efe6df8" CreationDate="2022-09-05T23:28:44.353" UserId="14326" Text="Reducing your loads is critical. On our sailboat there are always shaded portions of our flat solar panels [2x100w] yet solar does it all: our 10 LED lights, 4 12v fans, and 2 phones and laptops charges are negligible, water-pressure and pee-discharge pumps minimal… so our only real load (here at latitude 44) is our fridge (3.5ah but does not run continuously). We have 5 old lead acid batteries totaling 580 ah and our solar panels and 30a MPPT controller keeps up with our load 98% of the time (3 cloudy days in a row requires that we turn on our Honda 2200i gasoline generator for about an hour to top off the batteries). A $150 Chinese “breadbox” diesel heater might really make difference in loads for you. So I’d be really surprised if a setup like ours couldn’t meet your needs.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31371" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12316" RevisionGUID="4b25fa88-db24-47fa-97a7-11ff7fdc1473" CreationDate="2022-09-06T03:28:10.457" UserId="2345" Comment="Capitalization of units" Text="Reducing your loads is critical. On our sailboat there are always shaded portions of our flat solar panels [2x100 W] yet solar does it all: our 10 LED lights, 4 12 V fans, and 2 phones and laptops charges are negligible, water-pressure and pee-discharge pumps minimal… so our only real load (here at latitude 44&amp;deg;) is our fridge (3.5 Ah but does not run continuously). We have 5 old lead acid batteries totaling 580 Ah and our solar panels and 30A MPPT controller keeps up with our load 98% of the time (3 cloudy days in a row requires that we turn on our Honda 2200i gasoline generator for about an hour to top off the batteries). A $150 Chinese “breadbox” diesel heater might really make difference in loads for you. So I’d be really surprised if a setup like ours couldn’t meet your needs.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31372" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12315" RevisionGUID="4e6297bb-da6f-4e05-b83d-c5b6e7f318e4" CreationDate="2022-09-06T03:30:33.670" UserId="2345" Comment="Capitalization of units" Text="Currently have 2 100 W panels, in parallel, connected to Newpowa 30 A MPPT controller, connected to 580 Ah of 12 V lead acid batteries. Basically runs the fridge. Works well up north. Heading south and think I need to up the system to 400 W by adding 2 more 100w panels. Q: duplicate original 2-panel system? or combine all 4 into 1 controller? or use series for second 2-panel system? or use 4 controllers 1 for each panel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31373" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12315" RevisionGUID="23380f11-2093-4c22-8a4f-53475d6a9673" CreationDate="2022-09-06T04:07:47.027" UserId="8232" Comment="Changed question title to a question; Some other minor formatting/grammatical changes." Text="I have a sailboat that currently has 2 100 W panels, in parallel, connected to Newpowa 30 A MPPT controller, connected to 580 Ah of 12 V lead acid batteries. Basically runs the fridge. Works well up north. I'm heading south and think I need to up the system to 400 W by adding 2 more 100w panels. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I duplicate the original 2-panel system? or combine all 4 panels into 1 controller? or use series for second 2-panel system? or use 4 controllers 1 for each panel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31374" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12315" RevisionGUID="23380f11-2093-4c22-8a4f-53475d6a9673" CreationDate="2022-09-06T04:07:47.027" UserId="8232" Comment="Changed question title to a question; Some other minor formatting/grammatical changes." Text="Should I expand or duplicate my sailboat solar array?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31375" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12317" RevisionGUID="377c1613-0f4c-43c9-a31a-933f8e72df1a" CreationDate="2022-09-06T10:09:21.643" UserId="14326" Text="You are a perfect match for glass lenses since you don’t mind the downsides of glass. &#xD;&#xA;Three big knocks against arguments you made, or some people make, in favor of plastic: they are not environmentally sound, they scratch within a year, and frameless ones are not durable if you are at all active (or if they are within reach of someone who might jostle them).&#xD;&#xA;Glasses are expensive, so enjoy the longevity you will benefit from with glass and good frames. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31377" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12318" RevisionGUID="4eafa530-14ae-458b-b867-ab6f95b5a152" CreationDate="2022-09-06T10:37:17.520" UserId="14326" Text="You need to state the specs for the entire roof (and perhaps the vertical/wall supports of the roof). In particular, the spans involved. &#xD;&#xA;In general, unless your spans are very short, say 8’ or less, 2x8 roof joists at 24” oc (on center) is not sufficient because of the loads required for humans and materials when maintenance work is done. The standard for common residential-sized spans, say 10’ or 12’ spans, is 2x10 joists at 16” oc. You’ll note that this is an increase of 26% of depth in your joists and 33% in frequency of joists resulting in a substantially stronger roof. &#xD;&#xA;While the 2.5 psf is a modest amount of additional load (since it is well distributed), the worry is the point load of a human or two working in a specific spot on your roof. &#xD;&#xA;If you and a friend can jump up and down on your roof right now without seeing or feeling any deflection of the roof, you’ll be ok. &#xD;&#xA;Another consideration is the work area around your panels, in case just one needs replacing one day. Are the panels strong enough to stand one while you work on an adjacent one? If so, then butting up panels against each other is ok. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31379" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12319" RevisionGUID="405fa91d-7f55-4f0d-bce9-634665ae9fd7" CreationDate="2022-09-06T13:34:36.923" UserId="13618" Text="The cheapest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is very rough, but a simple way to assess the environmental cost of something is the money cost.  While there are better and worse ways of spending money, an item that costs £2 is going to involve less impact than something that costs £200.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, as long as you need a relatively simple prescription (as is likely with your first glasses, as [presbyopia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyopia) is the most common age related sight impairment) the best way is to get the very cheap glasses from the internet.  Anything you get from the optician will cost orders of magnitude more, and is sure to result in more environmental impact, if just the discretionary spending of the optician that sold you the glasses." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31381" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12320" RevisionGUID="e2755dc0-f78e-4dab-9862-25a759a59f1d" CreationDate="2022-09-06T14:13:23.450" UserId="2942" Text="Wood beams, whether pressure-treated or not, tend to be painted to help preserve them outdoors. Wooden art outdoors tends to be stained or coated in something to weatherize it. I am concerned that most of these paints and sealants are petroleum products that harm the environment in their production, if not also in their use on-site. I might be misunderstanding but I also think of waterproofing agents likely to introduce PFAS, a harmful 'forever chemical' into the local environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are the most environmentally-friendly alternatives to preserve wood outdoors? 'Environmentally friendly' in terms of both off-site production and on-site use. Of course 'none' and 'less' are best, and using naturally rot-resistant materials like cedar and locust are great for that. If I have beams or a wood porch that has paint chipping and wood starting to decay, what can I coat it with to help preserve it? I think of &quot;white wash&quot; as what farmers used to do for wooden outbuildings before petroleum products were widely available, and perhaps that is the right answer - looking for some guidance here. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31383" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12320" RevisionGUID="e2755dc0-f78e-4dab-9862-25a759a59f1d" CreationDate="2022-09-06T14:13:23.450" UserId="2942" Text="What is the most environmentally friendly way to paint/preserve wooden art or construction outdoors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31384" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12320" RevisionGUID="e2755dc0-f78e-4dab-9862-25a759a59f1d" CreationDate="2022-09-06T14:13:23.450" UserId="2942" Text="|home|diy|toxic-chemicals|safe-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31385" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12321" RevisionGUID="ed7058fa-7e53-4a35-8d86-8b4a719b3dbb" CreationDate="2022-09-06T16:28:35.460" UserId="14245" Text="I have no-name 12V LiFePO4 battery from Aliexpress and I don't know it capacity and charge/discharge current (I don't believe in params that Chinese seller wrote). How can I detect it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31387" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12321" RevisionGUID="ed7058fa-7e53-4a35-8d86-8b4a719b3dbb" CreationDate="2022-09-06T16:28:35.460" UserId="14245" Text="How to detect LiFePO14 12V battery capacity and charge/discharge current?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31388" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12321" RevisionGUID="ed7058fa-7e53-4a35-8d86-8b4a719b3dbb" CreationDate="2022-09-06T16:28:35.460" UserId="14245" Text="|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31389" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12322" RevisionGUID="15ce9ab0-0fd0-47e0-944a-40df34c2c798" CreationDate="2022-09-06T16:39:51.577" UserId="6393" Text="Safe charge/discharge current can only be guessed. The best way to guess is to use capacity and limit to some safe value, like 0.5C. 0.5C means two-hour discharge, i.e. if you have 50Ah capacity, discharge current would be 25 amperes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't know capacity, you must measure. You need an electronic load that applies a fixed current and measures the time until the voltage runs down to some setpoint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Charge the battery to full charge first, limiting max charging current to very small value so you don't charge it overly fast. Best guess for charging current would be to measure the weight of your battery, look at LiFePO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; battery specs of similar weight and voltage and use their max charging current, then perhaps divide by 2 or 4 for safety. You can also look at specs of max charging voltage of other LiFePO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; batteries and use that value, or simply by using a LiFePO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; charger.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then apply the electronic load. Look at sources for minimum safe LiFePO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; voltage and set that to your electronic load. Set the current to some safe value, by measuring the weight of your battery and looking at specs of different LiFePO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; batteries of similar weight and voltage and using their max discharge current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The electronic load will tell you the ampere-hour capacity of your battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cheapest electronic load components for prototyping use could be bought for as little as ~30 USD, but good electronic loads easily cost 500-1000 USD. For example, where I live Siglent SDL1020X-E can be bought for about 550 USD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you are unwilling to spend on an electronic load, the only way to measure capacity is to weigh your battery and look for other LiFePO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; batteries of similar weight. That's a guess but could be enough for you. At least much cheaper than electronic loads." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31391" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12323" RevisionGUID="ca3606ad-70ac-4563-9ad0-3762119446ae" CreationDate="2022-09-06T17:07:15.227" UserId="6393" Text="Depends on the controller type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have an MPPT controller, the rule is that panel series voltage needs to be higher than battery voltage. Also there may be max panel series voltage. An example: if your battery bank is 12 V, an MPPT controller will always work with a 12 V panel series, and it may or may not work with a 24 V, 48 V or 96 V panel series. Look at the MPPT controller specs to see if it does work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Panels can always be paralleled. So if you have 12 V battery, 24 V panel series and MPPT controller, and the MPPT controller doesn't support 48 V panel series, then your only option is to parallel the new panel series with the existing 24 V panel series. You get the same voltage but more current. But if the MPPT controller supports 48 V panel series, then you can expand the series for a higher voltage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, MPPT controllers may have a maximum current. If you exceed that, you may need to purchase a completely new controller. Controllers can be paralleled so it's possible to have two 100W panels on one controller, two 100W panels on another controller, and the controllers paralleled.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PWM controllers are different: you really should match panel series voltage to battery voltage. So if you have a 12 V battery, you must use only panel series that are intended for 12 V battery (those 12 V panel series have bit over ~20 V open circuit voltage).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;PWM controllers also may have a current limitation so you may not be able to parallel infinitely many panels on the same controller. But you can always parallel PWM controllers, so for example you could have two panel series for 12 V batteries, two PWM controllers (one for each panel series), and parallel those PWM controllers at the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whatever works and is cheap enough is the best choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also each panel in a series should optimally have the same shading and orientation. If you have different orientations for different panels, don't put them into same series." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31393" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12324" RevisionGUID="7c85d3ee-c8ae-45d9-adc4-fae360712bbe" CreationDate="2022-09-06T17:23:11.287" UserId="6393" Text="If you live in an area with real winter like southern Finland (I use southern Finland as an example because in northern Finland there is polar night, i.e. absolutely zero sunshine even during the day as sun is always below the horizon in winter), a 100 W solar panel can be expected to produce approximately 2 watt hours in the worst winter days. If you have 12 volt system, then that's 0.17 Ah. Not 6 Ah. 6 Ah is way off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a battery long enough to &quot;calculate average&quot; of bad and good winter days, then you can expect to get about 17 watt-hours on an average winter day, i.e. about 1.4 Ah. But do note that then your battery needs to be sized for about 30 days of energy usage so that the battery can average both good and bad days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To produce any reasonable amount of energy in winter, you need panels. Lots of panels. In fact, so many panels it would not be economically viable to do that. You really need gasoline or diesel fuel in the winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At latitude 48, it would be slightly better than southern Finland (latitude 60), but not much better. I don't think at that latitude it would be realistic to use entirely solar power, unless you have at least ~2-3 kW of panels (your RV surely doesn't have enough roof area for that) and at least 1500 Ah of 12 V batteries (420 kg if lead-acid). And that assumes perfect orientation of panels; with inoptimal orientation or with some panels shading other panels, that won't work. Flat roof of an RV is not optimal orientation unless you live near the equator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My estimates assumed MPPT controller. With PWM, add 20% more panels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31395" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="9627" RevisionGUID="b4571ef4-3d39-4fc3-aa63-1182036523a5" CreationDate="2022-09-08T21:00:05.147" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1567981119282315264" />
  <row Id="31396" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12325" RevisionGUID="427f7f81-1f49-49e3-ae62-f2a615436c2d" CreationDate="2022-09-09T08:21:42.493" UserId="14332" Text="what about the sun and a magnifying glass?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31398" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="12320" RevisionGUID="dddd7df3-4fce-4319-ba2d-5971e323ca88" CreationDate="2022-09-09T15:16:53.070" UserId="2942" Comment="74" />
  <row Id="31399" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12320" RevisionGUID="7f33bed1-2df8-459e-adc3-22436b416c79" CreationDate="2022-09-09T18:00:29.067" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1568298309139460098" />
  <row Id="31400" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12326" RevisionGUID="a271044d-3408-4dc7-94b2-3d679cc4b5e0" CreationDate="2022-09-11T06:05:07.070" UserId="6102" Text="I have in my refrigerator relatively few products. However, I always have a 2 week supply of Cola cans. That is, I put the cans in much earlier than I consume them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does my large supply of Coke cans require more energy to cool or is the difference barely noticeable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I stop putting cans of cola in advance in the fridge?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31402" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12326" RevisionGUID="a271044d-3408-4dc7-94b2-3d679cc4b5e0" CreationDate="2022-09-11T06:05:07.070" UserId="6102" Text="Refrigerator in the kitchen: drinks (Cola cans) in stock consumes more energy? Or difference hardly noticeable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31403" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12326" RevisionGUID="a271044d-3408-4dc7-94b2-3d679cc4b5e0" CreationDate="2022-09-11T06:05:07.070" UserId="6102" Text="|electricity|refrigerant|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31404" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12327" RevisionGUID="c4cbd381-eb55-4012-a9f7-64d19e49994a" CreationDate="2022-09-11T07:05:26.970" UserId="6393" Text="No you shouldn't stop that. It's just thermal mass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The consumption of refrigerator is determined by two factors:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. How easily heat leaks inside the refrigerator through the insulated walls&#xD;&#xA;2. How often you open the refrigerator to let warm air in&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Factor (1) is independent of the amount of cola cans inside. Presumably factor (2) is too, so if having refrigerator full of cola cans doesn't cause you to open it more often, it doesn't increase energy usage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it increases thermal mass. This is actually a good thing because if you have a power outage, the more thermal mass there is inside the refrigerator, the longer it takes for the temperature to increase to a problematic level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have purposefully put containers full of 40 liters of water into one of my refrigerators, and containers full of 30 liters of water into the other. This thermal mass allows them to survive longer power cuts." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12328" RevisionGUID="ce6d7748-17fc-41be-9f2f-dc94eac4035e" CreationDate="2022-09-11T10:02:40.140" UserId="14337" Text="If you look at the datasheet of your MPPT solar controller, it will tell you how much Wattage it is able to handle. If this is the controller you are using (https://www.newpowa.com/products/30a-mppt-charge-contoller), the Max PV input power is 390W at 12V. You can safely plug your 4x100W panels in parallel on your controller. If you are ever in light conditions that actually allow your panels to produce 400W all together (rarely happens on a boat), your controller will discard the last 10W with no damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If space is a problem, you could replace the panels by two 200W ones." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31408" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12329" RevisionGUID="679e2189-39e3-46b7-9164-d5c4d4d698fd" CreationDate="2022-09-11T10:33:26.067" UserId="14337" Text="Our preferred solution here (on land and for seagoing wooden boats) is linseed oil based paints, or just plain (raw) linseed oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The oil soaks in the wood and therefore prevent water to soak into it just like the resin of some evergreens naturally does. If you add pigments or some minerals to it, you can increase UV protection by cutting the light. Linseed oil based paints need to be reapplied more often than chemical paints but they are natural and relatively harmless for the environment. It requires several layers and, depending on the wood you are coating and the weather, might take time until it is touch-dry. You can use raw linseed oil as a primer and dilute the oil with turpentine for the very first layer to help it soak better into the wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be sure what your paint actually contains, best is to mix it yourself. you will find plenty of tutorials online and the product is easily available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The environmental friendliness depends of course of how and where the linseed oil was farmed but again, if you mix it yourself you can choose where you buy your ingredients.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the wooden boats we often protect hardwoods with just several layers of raw linseed oil. Cooked linseed oils dry faster and leave a protective layer on the wood but the industrial oils sometimes contain other chemicals than just cooked oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can also use pine tar the exact same way but I have less experience with that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31410" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="c0140af8-8bf3-4a71-b86c-5545ac9ec858" CreationDate="2022-09-11T16:28:23.873" UserId="14337" Text="We have 2 month old chickens and it seems like we would be able to differentiate males from females based on their physical appearance at that stage but I wonder if it is too late for caponizing." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31412" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="c0140af8-8bf3-4a71-b86c-5545ac9ec858" CreationDate="2022-09-11T16:28:23.873" UserId="14337" Text="At what age do you capon chickens?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31413" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12330" RevisionGUID="c0140af8-8bf3-4a71-b86c-5545ac9ec858" CreationDate="2022-09-11T16:28:23.873" UserId="14337" Text="|husbandry|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31414" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12326" RevisionGUID="6fcd3a30-6ec4-4a58-9613-730c9ae40d19" CreationDate="2022-09-11T23:34:50.993" UserId="8232" Comment="Shortened question title somewhat" Text="Does stocking my refrigerator with canned drinks (Cola) consume more energy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12331" RevisionGUID="16b6fd3c-c4a2-4b52-938b-6137e548fceb" CreationDate="2022-09-13T13:38:47.393" UserId="14341" Text="I have an African hedgehog and he uses a wheel every night and I would like to harness his energy in some way.&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to create a system that would allow me to transform and store it? If so how?&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/C3dzG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31417" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12331" RevisionGUID="16b6fd3c-c4a2-4b52-938b-6137e548fceb" CreationDate="2022-09-13T13:38:47.393" UserId="14341" Text="Dynamo and betteries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31418" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12331" RevisionGUID="16b6fd3c-c4a2-4b52-938b-6137e548fceb" CreationDate="2022-09-13T13:38:47.393" UserId="14341" Text="|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31419" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12331" RevisionGUID="930d1bb1-8cb0-4205-8d0d-116c84b72955" CreationDate="2022-09-13T13:59:11.193" UserId="2345" Comment="Spelling correction" Text="I have an African hedgehog and he uses a wheel every night and I would like to harness his energy in some way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to create a system that would allow me to transform and store it? If so how?&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/C3dzG.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31420" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12331" RevisionGUID="930d1bb1-8cb0-4205-8d0d-116c84b72955" CreationDate="2022-09-13T13:59:11.193" UserId="2345" Comment="Spelling correction" Text="Dynamo and batteries" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31421" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12332" RevisionGUID="9dc313a5-14bb-4dac-80ac-c4d9f652c430" CreationDate="2022-09-13T17:02:29.607" UserId="6393" Text="For a 70 kg human, it would be realistic to get 100 watts out continuously (over a timescale of hours).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For an African hedgehog, that has a mass of 450 grams (according to Google), if they have same power-to-weight ratio as humans, you would get less than a watt out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That could perhaps run a very dim flashlight as long as the hedgehog is running. However, these days flashlights are typically rather bright, many watts, so even a bright flashlight won't have enough power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A smartphone LED light has around 50 lumens and requires about the same power the African hedgehog would produce. If you are in a dark room, and turn on the smartphone LED, you will probably see the room is still very dark.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, in bicycles there are hub dynamos for powering headlights from pedaling power and they generally have only about 50% efficiency. They are usually 3 watt units (6 watts in, 3 watts out). So assuming your dynamo would have the same efficiency as bicycle hub dynamos, the electric power your African hedgehog plus poor efficiency hub dynamo would give would be maybe third of a watt. That wouldn't be plentiful enough even for a smartphone LED." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31423" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12333" RevisionGUID="bb039dfe-5953-4cc8-8096-f0cb89166090" CreationDate="2022-09-13T17:15:51.313" UserId="14245" Text="Will it work? Will it damage the power banks? What if I connect 10 banks or 100? Is it safe?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31425" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12333" RevisionGUID="bb039dfe-5953-4cc8-8096-f0cb89166090" CreationDate="2022-09-13T17:15:51.313" UserId="14245" Text="Could I connect parallel USB outputs of two 5V 1A power banks to get 5V 2A power supply?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31426" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12333" RevisionGUID="bb039dfe-5953-4cc8-8096-f0cb89166090" CreationDate="2022-09-13T17:15:51.313" UserId="14245" Text="|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31427" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12334" RevisionGUID="e8e626dc-273f-4511-bb2d-3783017e3e95" CreationDate="2022-09-13T17:35:33.697" UserId="6393" Text="Firstly, if they are USB power banks, they have USB port outputs, USB-A or USB-C. You would need a paralleling cable for those. I'm sure you won't find any such paralleling cable for sale because paralleling USB ports on a computer for twice the performance simply isn't something that would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now assuming you could build such a cable, it might even work! The USB power bank is simply a &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_converter&quot;&gt;buck converter&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter&quot;&gt;boost converter&lt;/a&gt; depending on what voltage internal battery it has (less than 5 volts or more than 5 volts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buck and boost converters have the battery as the power source, plus an inductor to absorb voltage differences in a manner that doesn't lose any energy (unlike a resistor which would lose energy), plus an output capacitor. Power supplies that produce power through an inductor are excellent candidates for paralleling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you parallel the outputs, and draw less than 1 ampere, you would essentially have a system where the higher voltage power supply would dominate and the lower voltage power supply would be entirely off. By higher voltage and lower voltage I mean slight calibration differences, e.g. 5.001 V and 5.002 V (just drawing the numbers from my hat). So in this case the 5.002 V power supply would supply all power and the 5.001 V power supply would be entirely off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when you will start to draw more than 1 ampere of current, the higher voltage power supply can't maintain the 5.002 V voltage anymore. So its voltage sags. In fact, it sags to 5.001 V, after which the lower voltage power supply would kick in and provide the rest of the current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as long as you don't expect both batteries to be depleted equally, it might even work!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you draw less than 1 ampere, you would find one of the supplies is depleted first and only then the other starts to be depleted. But if you draw full 2 amperes, it'll probably deplete them reasonably equally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you draw something between 1 and 2 amperes, let's say 1.5 amperes, then in this case one supply would provide 1 ampere and the other would provide the missing 0.5 amperes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also to make it clear: this would only work for USB-A. If your device requires USB-C power delivery negotiation, none of this is going to work." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31429" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12334" RevisionGUID="5ba800d6-a1f8-4f1c-9c42-1fe89cc37a5b" CreationDate="2022-09-13T17:43:41.687" UserId="6393" Comment="all SMPSs" Text="Firstly, if they are USB power banks, they have USB port outputs, USB-A or USB-C. You would need a paralleling cable for those. I'm sure you won't find any such paralleling cable for sale because paralleling USB ports on a computer for twice the performance simply isn't something that would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now assuming you could build such a cable, it might even work! The USB power bank is simply a &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_converter&quot;&gt;buck converter&lt;/a&gt; or &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter&quot;&gt;boost converter&lt;/a&gt; depending on what voltage internal battery it has (less than 5 volts or more than 5 volts).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buck and boost converters have the battery as the power source, plus an inductor to absorb voltage differences in a manner that doesn't lose any energy (unlike a resistor which would lose energy), plus an output capacitor. Power supplies that produce power through an inductor are excellent candidates for paralleling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you parallel the outputs, and draw less than 1 ampere, you would essentially have a system where the higher voltage power supply would dominate and the lower voltage power supply would be entirely off. By higher voltage and lower voltage I mean slight calibration differences, e.g. 5.001 V and 5.002 V (just drawing the numbers from my hat). So in this case the 5.002 V power supply would supply all power and the 5.001 V power supply would be entirely off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, when you will start to draw more than 1 ampere of current, the higher voltage power supply can't maintain the 5.002 V voltage anymore. So its voltage sags. In fact, it sags to 5.001 V, after which the lower voltage power supply would kick in and provide the rest of the current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So as long as you don't expect both batteries to be depleted equally, it might even work!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you draw less than 1 ampere, you would find one of the supplies is depleted first and only then the other starts to be depleted. But if you draw full 2 amperes, it'll probably deplete them reasonably equally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you draw something between 1 and 2 amperes, let's say 1.5 amperes, then in this case one supply would provide 1 ampere and the other would provide the missing 0.5 amperes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And also to make it clear: this would only work for USB-A. If your device requires USB-C power delivery negotiation, none of this is going to work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By the way, everything I said applies to all switched mode power supplies. If you have two AC-DC switched mode adapters of the same voltage, you can parallel them assuming their grounds aren't conflicting (for example one having negative ground and the other having positive ground would be conflicting).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, theoretically it could be the case some switched mode adapter doesn't sag its voltage on overload, but rather turns entirely off on overload. If this is the case, the adapters / power banks can't be paralleled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12335" RevisionGUID="616f1284-6d79-46ca-acc5-d4506e722076" CreationDate="2022-09-14T20:52:43.110" UserId="14343" Text="I have a small 12V solar system.  The reported charge voltage to battery frequently exceeds 15V, reading ~15.5V as I write this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I read 14.7V is the most one should charge these batteries at.  Should I be concerned?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Details: 12V 20Ah LifePO4 hooked up to a BSC3048 charge controller and one 100W panel.  Frequently the USB charge port is used for phones, tablets, etc.  Aside from the voltage reading, the system otherwise performs admirably.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12335" RevisionGUID="616f1284-6d79-46ca-acc5-d4506e722076" CreationDate="2022-09-14T20:52:43.110" UserId="14343" Text="LiFePO4 Overvolt concern" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12335" RevisionGUID="616f1284-6d79-46ca-acc5-d4506e722076" CreationDate="2022-09-14T20:52:43.110" UserId="14343" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31439" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12338" RevisionGUID="f11017b4-0a02-4eda-bdc9-20ffbe5c8b69" CreationDate="2022-09-15T16:14:55.960" UserId="14345" Text="I found a very intuitive explanation in the ppt of 'EU B@B Platform – Webinar series “Measuring biodiversity for business and finance”' (in general a good overview for LCIA) (https://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/assets/pdf/EU_B@B_Webinar_2_Presentation_Slides.pdf)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PDF = Potentially Disappeared Fraction of species&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10 PDF.m2.yr, can be interpreted as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * 10 m2 has lost all its species during a year&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * 100 m2 has lost 10% of its species during a year&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * 10 m2 has lost 10% of its species during 10 years&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We only know the combined effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PDF accounts for a fraction of species richness that may be potentially lost due to an environmental pressure (land use, ecotoxicity, climate change, eutrophication). The underlying environmental mechanism depends on the pressure being assessed. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Potential number of species in natural state: 4&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Potential number of species in the modified state: 2&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Potential disappeared fraction of species: 2/4 = 0.5&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12338" RevisionGUID="eaddbc3d-005d-4145-928d-04af11296894" CreationDate="2022-09-15T16:16:52.867" UserId="14345" Comment="added 23 characters in body" Text="I found a very intuitive explanation in the ppt of 'EU B@B Platform – Webinar series “Measuring biodiversity for business and finance”' (in general a good overview for LCIA) (The link to the ppt: &lt;https://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/assets/pdf/EU_B@B_Webinar_2_Presentation_Slides.pdf&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PDF = Potentially Disappeared Fraction of species&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10 PDF.m2.yr, can be interpreted as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * 10 m2 has lost all its species during a year&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * 100 m2 has lost 10% of its species during a year&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * 10 m2 has lost 10% of its species during 10 years&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We only know the combined effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PDF accounts for a fraction of species richness that may be potentially lost due to an environmental pressure (land use, ecotoxicity, climate change, eutrophication). The underlying environmental mechanism depends on the pressure being assessed. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Potential number of species in natural state: 4&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Potential number of species in the modified state: 2&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Potential disappeared fraction of species: 2/4 = 0.5&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31442" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12339" RevisionGUID="1a9c830f-7e06-4217-b556-0ad9fb2e6ae0" CreationDate="2022-09-15T17:03:03.773" UserId="6393" Text="This sounds somewhat high for any battery, either lithium iron phosphate or lead acid (exception: maybe below 10 degrees Celsius it could make sense for lead acid, but only for absorption charge though -- 15.5 V is too high for float in any reasonable temperature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From Amazon: &quot;The default battery type is sealed valve-regulated lead-acid, also suitable for gel batteries, liquid lead-acid, lithium iron phosphate and ternary lithium batteries;&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Have you selected lithium iron phosphate as the battery type? If yes, then you should maybe consider customizing the parameters (Amazon says this controller supports it).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, you have two voltages of interest:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Absorption charge voltage&#xD;&#xA;* Float charge voltage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, you could customize these currents too but sadly this is rare:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Bulk charge current&#xD;&#xA;* Current when to end absorption charge&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Look at your battery specs and set the absorption and float charge voltages from it to the controller. If float charging isn't specified, then just put some very low voltage so that practically no current flows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can't find specs for your specific battery, find specs for some other lithium iron phosphate battery and use its specs." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31444" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12338" RevisionGUID="f6034e87-273c-4dc9-af09-d96e3db6674b" CreationDate="2022-09-16T09:09:39.383" UserId="14345" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="I found a very intuitive explanation in the ppt of 'EU B@B Platform – Webinar series “Measuring biodiversity for business and finance”' (in general a good overview for LCIA) (The link to the ppt: &lt;https://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/assets/pdf/EU_B@B_Webinar_2_Presentation_Slides.pdf&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PDF = Potentially Disappeared Fraction of species&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 10 PDF.m2.yr, can be interpreted as:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * 10 m2 has lost all its species during a year&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * 100 m2 has lost 10% of its species during a year&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * 10 m2 has lost 10% of its species during 10 years&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We only know the combined effect&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover:&#xD;&#xA;&gt; PDF accounts for a fraction of species richness that may be potentially lost due to an environmental pressure (land use, ecotoxicity, climate change, eutrophication). The underlying environmental mechanism depends on the pressure being assessed. &#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Potential number of species in natural state: 4&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Potential number of species in the modified state: 2&#xD;&#xA;&gt; * Potential disappeared fraction of species: 2/4 = 0.5&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31445" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12340" RevisionGUID="f2f5cf37-2903-4232-a8ed-97fe2ca09fcd" CreationDate="2022-09-17T04:09:11.623" UserId="14361" Text="Can I burn the AG plastic on my land that the previous owners laid that has deteriorated over the years unable to roll and every time I mow I cut into it and gos every where as well as my neighbors place as it is on the fence line I am trying to find a solution that would be cost effective can someone give me advice as I am breeding sheep and not wantings them to eat the plastic while they are grazing. Can I burn the plastic out of the ground " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31447" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12340" RevisionGUID="f2f5cf37-2903-4232-a8ed-97fe2ca09fcd" CreationDate="2022-09-17T04:09:11.623" UserId="14361" Text="Old agricultural plastic how to get rid of please" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31448" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12340" RevisionGUID="f2f5cf37-2903-4232-a8ed-97fe2ca09fcd" CreationDate="2022-09-17T04:09:11.623" UserId="14361" Text="|plastic|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31449" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12340" RevisionGUID="09f0704f-c33a-4663-a7f6-b005197b1107" CreationDate="2022-09-17T07:57:52.380" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical changes" Text="Can I burn the AG plastic on my land that the previous owners laid that has deteriorated over the years. Unable to roll and every time I mow I cut into it and goes everywhere as well as my neighbors place as it is on the fence line I am trying to find a solution that would be cost effective. Can someone give me advice as I am breeding sheep and not wanting them to eat the plastic while they are grazing. Can I burn the plastic out of the ground? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31450" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="12320" RevisionGUID="cd3da3e9-26dc-4893-8d96-32bf2e3b04a2" CreationDate="2022-09-17T17:00:10.033" UserId="-1" Comment="74" />
  <row Id="31451" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12340" RevisionGUID="5e9d142f-e8fd-4331-976c-cb51234c24c5" CreationDate="2022-09-18T13:26:08.477" UserId="8232" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited title" Text="The previous owners of my land laid down AG plastic, which has deteriorated over the years. Unable to roll and every time I mow I cut into it and goes everywhere, including my neighbor's (it is on the fence line).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am trying to find a solution that would be cost effective. Can someone give me advice as I am breeding sheep and not wanting them to eat the plastic while they are grazing. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I burn the plastic out of the ground? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31452" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12340" RevisionGUID="5e9d142f-e8fd-4331-976c-cb51234c24c5" CreationDate="2022-09-18T13:26:08.477" UserId="8232" Comment="deleted 11 characters in body; edited title" Text="How can I get rid of old agricultural plastic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31453" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12341" RevisionGUID="22fa0a49-7231-4646-9583-1ef13761ea88" CreationDate="2022-09-18T17:13:19.913" UserId="13208" Text=" 1. Windows 7 x64 is sustainable for the long forseable future and needs no more updates.   &#xD;&#xA; 2. Only the browsers and other apps need updates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The extended release Win 7 updates just disables Remote Desktop terminal which I never needed in preference to Teamviewer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have tuned my tower so that it responds quickly with many tasks running and most of the time running at lower voltages and 25% max CPU speed , which I show below from pointing to upper right corner then drag down to show CPU metrics. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've been using computers since 1970 so my opinion doesn't apply to all users. I have a pretty good handle on using 6 of the most popular [SysInternals][2] Tools , various Tweaking tools. I have used and now avoid all AV suites since they protect but make your computer act like it is loaded with ***slugware.***. I secure it &quot;StartupMonitor&quot;an ancient Mike Lin tool that still works and &quot;WinPatrol&quot; an old dog (which I bought but is no longer supported) This old dog has a nose for critical registry autoruns and other nuisance tasks. It prompts you to choose. This is &gt; 99% effective as infections occur during escalated privileges on rebooted new tasks.  Then I have other tools that work well if you shoot yourself in the feet installing many infected free apps.  These tools use &lt;&lt; 0.5% overhead.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability is easy but tuning optimization requires someone with experience to tune Windows to disable the crap that gets added by M$ and others. *Windows* does call home to Redmond in Scheduled Tasks and there are many that revert settings for stability but maybe not the way you prefer. I don't use any neighbourhood features but I can fix anyone's windows PC using Teamviewer to run faster and cooler on Win7x64 than Win 10 or Win 11&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; A massive Hosts file is routinely read by all web apps for example can add latency at times, you'd rather not, so is it necessary if this function is often covered by browsers?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multitasking occurs oddly in that most processes are multi-processor, and multitasking but are throttled to N% of CPU= where 1/N is the number of CPU cores.  e.g. averages to 12.5% for 8 core i7 such as Firefox which creates a task for every addon and tab but averages are capped by 100%/N. However, you can run separate windows if you want.  Here's one tab of an [electronics simulator][3] that will be throttling your browser to 100%/N and disable when not viewed.  Unless you have a high end gaming machine.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MS's latest browser EDGE is slugware! (As in slow as a slug)  Take it or leave it. If your PC runs slow. Uninstall it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not rely on the default DNS or run DNSBench to find the best 10 DNS addresses to use in the Router or network adapter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; I also have a lot of experience trying to break windows then fix it in order to help others.  and prefer Windows 7 over Linux having tried many flavours of Redhat, Mint, Win 10, 11. my motto is the **the best tool is the one (that) you know how to use**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;I find no reason why Windows 7 is unsustainable or reason to change. It's the best OS for my multi-taking use.  My PC is almost 10 yrs old.  The only decent upgrade would be an SSD.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My profession was as an Electrical Engineer in R&amp;D Design, Test, and Manufacturing in every industry since starting in aerospace in 1975, freedom 55 at now age 70.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;here I am running iTunes , playing a video from Youtube and running a dozen Firefix tabes with Thunderbird email open .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][4]][4]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is one of many ways to trim the fat off unnecessary startups. Autoruns, msconfig, ccleaner etc .etc &#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][5]][5]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aNZRU.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://live.sysinternals.com/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://tinyurl.com/2nnmjelk&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bx2Aq.png&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/afXbw.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31455" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12326" RevisionGUID="84e85a40-97cd-4948-bb44-12c55e14e560" CreationDate="2022-09-19T03:01:18.707" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1571695903441928195" />
  <row Id="31456" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="ce853a9d-788f-428c-9e46-26919c9e6562" CreationDate="2022-09-19T12:07:30.700" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31459" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="a9c11c3e-0887-4ef7-b82f-7867fa5cb502" CreationDate="2022-09-20T10:04:59.413" UserId="4304" Comment="added 387 characters in body" Text="The answer for this question depends on the reusability factor.&#xD;&#xA;Both materials have a long life span(In case of ceramics it will depend on composition)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic cups could be used for drinking cold water or normal water to which the plastic content does not melt. On normal and careful use plastic items could be used for a longer period of time(**ie, without being ended up as a land fill**)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we say *Ceramics* they are of different types.&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, even if molding Ceramic cups require more energy than making plastic cups, the chance of breaking it is more than a normal plastic cup.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that regard plastic is good.&#xD;&#xA;But **Ceramic cups** are more ecofriendly than plastic cups." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31460" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5873" RevisionGUID="7b4c97d3-e3e8-4068-9e03-ad2af026f652" CreationDate="2022-09-20T10:12:35.670" UserId="4304" Comment="Added missing points and some facts" Text="The answer for this question depends on the *Reusability factor.&#xD;&#xA;Both materials have a long life span(In case of ceramics it will depend on composition)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic cups could be used for drinking cold water or normal water to which the plastic content does not melt and would not cause health issues. On normal and careful use plastic items could be used for a longer period of time.(**ie, without being ended up as a land fill**).These items will not break easily on normal household use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case of *ceramics* lets first understand its not just [pottery][1].&#xD;&#xA;A ceramic is a non-metallic inorganic material composed of metal or non-metal compounds that have been formed and then hardened at very high temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;There are both high fired(lasts some thousand years) and low fired ceramics(Which erode faster).&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the chance of breaking ceramic is more than a normal plastic cup(*Reusability factor).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In that regard plastic is good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31461" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="3d107365-6188-40d4-9422-1072c8ffd557" CreationDate="2022-09-20T11:16:57.500" UserId="13618" Text="It is in the news ([paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00516-4), [writeup](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02928-w)) that a study has just come out that some seafood, particularly small wild pelagics such as mackerel, herring and pilchard (eg. Japanese pilchard = 0.498 kg CO2e per kg), have a far smaller green house gas emissions than meat (eg. beef = 56 kg CO2e per kg), and comparing the figures to other datasources lower even than vegan protein sources, eg. [soya at 6.44 kg CO2e per kg](https://consumerecology.com/soy-carbon-footprint-environmental-impact/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this actually mean that a small wild pelagic fish based diet is sustainable, or do other factors (such [as the recent work on plastic polution](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-16529-0)) mean that the environmental harm is actually greater than more traditional &quot;green&quot; foods?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;![Nutrient density and greenhouse gas emissions of globally important seafoods](https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs43247-022-00516-4/MediaObjects/43247_2022_516_Fig2_HTML.png?as=webp)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nutrient density scores are based on the 21 nutrients common to all species (full bars) and, where possible, 23 nutrients (grey lines) (for nutrients see Methods). GHG emissions of individual seafood species are representative of the dominant production method for each (or weighted if multiple major production method is employed globally). Solid bars indicate species from fisheries, and striped bars species from aquaculture. Comparisons to land-based animal proteins are based on nutritional content of averaged meat cuts for beef and pork, and fillets for chicken. GHG emissions of beef are beyond the scale at 56 kg CO2e per kg edible product." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31463" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="3d107365-6188-40d4-9422-1072c8ffd557" CreationDate="2022-09-20T11:16:57.500" UserId="13618" Text="Is a fish based diet most sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31464" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="3d107365-6188-40d4-9422-1072c8ffd557" CreationDate="2022-09-20T11:16:57.500" UserId="13618" Text="|food|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31465" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12344" RevisionGUID="e49be867-bd1f-46af-8513-084bf704b352" CreationDate="2022-09-20T15:40:06.697" UserId="9007" Text="In long run if you just rinse out the mug..... it's a good way to save on a lot of cups. But plastic is not used for hot beverages and paper cups&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes. Environmentally ceramics requires clays and baking. If you want environmentally friendly drinkware, try glass with a handle. Infinitely recyclable, made from reused glass cullet, can be laminated to prevent breaking. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31467" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12345" RevisionGUID="d1f91efe-862b-40f1-8c64-ff5ffd550f7a" CreationDate="2022-09-20T15:41:58.210" UserId="6393" Text="Greenhouse gases aren't the only consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem is the sustainability of fishing. Are the fished species in danger of extinction? Do the fishing have extinction-causing effects on other animals (for example by catching unwanted fish species, or fishing nets causing drowning of animals like Saimaa ringed seal in Finland).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also for farmed fish, you should really consider the area where they are farmed. Fish farmed on water tanks over land isn't a problem because they won't leave excess nutrients in water. Fish farmed in large oceans like in Norway isn't a problem too -- the Norwegians are attempting to eutrophicate the Atlantic ocean, but the Atlantic ocean is so large they won't succeed in that. So Norwegian farmed fish should be reasonably good to consume. But fish farmed in Baltic Sea, a very small sea, is in an entirely another category because the sea is so small that eutrophication is a real problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, the country where I live, Finland, has numerous lakes with lots of fish. There are more lakes and more fish than needed to feed the entire country. Most of that fish is left uncaught. So consuming more Finnish fish is obviously a very climate-friendly and otherwise environment-friendly diet, but then again if you live so far away in Finland that consuming Finnish fish has huge transportation climate footprint, it might not make sense. And local fish may not be as sustainable depending on the area where you live." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31469" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12346" RevisionGUID="92a1c83b-37ba-4d27-87f1-f882d96b75b7" CreationDate="2022-09-20T15:44:59.407" UserId="9007" Text="Clothing, furniture, appliances are examples longterm investment that can be mitigated thru maintenance.  However real solution is finding industry uses for it when it's scrapped..... if clean, renewable energies are involved in manufacturing, it's environmental footprint is reduced. &#xD;&#xA;Cotton is biodegradable.... or incinerate-able for power. So is wood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Appliances made from steel, aluminum are recyclable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Rubber and synthetic materials should be returned to stores whom have recycling programs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31472" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12347" RevisionGUID="39c54fc0-a089-4930-bc36-c645cfc7dbbb" CreationDate="2022-09-21T17:49:06.203" UserId="3379" Text="Previously, we used Cascade Platinum Dishwasher pods, which were over 90% successful at removing baked on egg from baking dishes. Unfortunately, that product has a [scary list of ingredients](https://smartlabel.pg.com/00037000977261.html). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We've been trying various environmentally-friendly alternatives, but so far none of them are as effective as Cascade Platinum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Is anywhere aware of a dishwasher soap product or recipe that can remove baked-on food?**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31474" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12347" RevisionGUID="39c54fc0-a089-4930-bc36-c645cfc7dbbb" CreationDate="2022-09-21T17:49:06.203" UserId="3379" Text="Is there an environmentally-friendly dishwasher soap that will remove baked-on egg?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31475" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12347" RevisionGUID="39c54fc0-a089-4930-bc36-c645cfc7dbbb" CreationDate="2022-09-21T17:49:06.203" UserId="3379" Text="|home|water|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31476" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12345" RevisionGUID="c0102170-28ca-4496-a9d1-8e56d5d71d7f" CreationDate="2022-09-21T18:02:56.160" UserId="6393" Comment="typo" Text="Greenhouse gases aren't the only consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem is the sustainability of fishing. Are the fished species in danger of extinction? Do the fishing have extinction-causing effects on other animals (for example by catching unwanted fish species, or fishing nets causing drowning of animals like Saimaa ringed seal in Finland).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also for farmed fish, you should really consider the area where they are farmed. Fish farmed on water tanks over land isn't a problem because they won't leave excess nutrients in water. Fish farmed in large oceans like in Norway isn't a problem too -- the Norwegians are attempting to eutrophicate the Atlantic ocean, but the Atlantic ocean is so large they won't succeed in that. So Norwegian farmed fish should be reasonably good to consume. But fish farmed in Baltic Sea, a very small sea, is in an entirely another category because the sea is so small that eutrophication is a real problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, the country where I live, Finland, has numerous lakes with lots of fish. There are more lakes and more fish than needed to feed the entire country. Most of that fish is left uncaught. So consuming more Finnish fish is obviously a very climate-friendly and otherwise environment-friendly diet, but then again if you live so far away from Finland that consuming Finnish fish has huge transportation climate footprint, it might not make sense. And local fish may not be as sustainable depending on the area where you live." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31477" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12348" RevisionGUID="8d15efb3-eb77-4084-8f60-196ba92a21d9" CreationDate="2022-09-22T12:52:36.317" UserId="1567" Text="In Europe in mediaeval times, the external woodwork of timbered houses was painted with bulls' blood (hence the traditional dark red colour). Apparently it had to be bulls' blood and not pig, for example. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't find any data about how often it had to be repeated. I read that it had to be mixed with salt so it didn't coagulate or stink, but I expect there is much more to it than what I can see in Google." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31480" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12345" RevisionGUID="6242ef8a-62a9-48ec-ba13-4d44deae4afe" CreationDate="2022-09-22T18:37:09.407" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical changes" Text="Greenhouse gases aren't the only consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem is the sustainability of fishing. Are the fished species in danger of extinction? Do the fish have extinction-causing effects on other animals (for example by catching unwanted fish species, or fishing nets causing drowning of animals like Saimaa ringed seal in Finland).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also for farmed fish, you should really consider the area where they are farmed. Fish farmed in water tanks on land isn't a problem because they won't leave excess nutrients in water. Fish farmed in large oceans like in Norway isn't a problem too -- the Norwegians are attempting to eutrophicate the Atlantic ocean, but the Atlantic ocean is so large they won't succeed in that. So Norwegian farmed fish should be reasonably good to consume. But fish farmed in Baltic Sea, a very small sea, is in an entirely another category because the sea is so small that eutrophication is a real problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, the country where I live, Finland, has numerous lakes with lots of fish. There are more lakes and more fish than needed to feed the entire country. Most of that fish is left uncaught. So consuming more Finnish fish is obviously a very climate-friendly and otherwise environment-friendly diet, but then again if you live so far away from Finland that consuming Finnish fish has huge transportation climate footprint, it might not make sense. And local fish may not be as sustainable depending on the area where you live." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31481" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12345" RevisionGUID="6afe4a19-0df8-4762-b1a8-25d3b02aba39" CreationDate="2022-09-24T07:39:15.353" UserId="6393" Comment="I think the last edit made this a bit different from what I meant but still had a point" Text="Greenhouse gases aren't the only consideration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A problem is the sustainability of fishing. Are the fished species in danger of extinction? Do the fish or fishing have extinction-causing effects on other animals (for example by fishing nets catching or human-introduced fish consuming unwanted fish species, or fishing nets causing drowning of animals like Saimaa ringed seal in Finland).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also for farmed fish, you should really consider the area where they are farmed. Fish farmed in water tanks on land isn't a problem because they won't leave excess nutrients in water. Fish farmed in large oceans like in Norway isn't a problem too -- the Norwegians are attempting to eutrophicate the Atlantic ocean, but the Atlantic ocean is so large they won't succeed in that. So Norwegian farmed fish should be reasonably good to consume. But fish farmed in Baltic Sea, a very small sea, is in an entirely another category because the sea is so small that eutrophication is a real problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As an example, the country where I live, Finland, has numerous lakes with lots of fish. There are more lakes and more fish than needed to feed the entire country. Most of that fish is left uncaught. So consuming more Finnish fish is obviously a very climate-friendly and otherwise environment-friendly diet, but then again if you live so far away from Finland that consuming Finnish fish has huge transportation climate footprint, it might not make sense. And local fish may not be as sustainable depending on the area where you live." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12349" RevisionGUID="cb3c9978-9906-49f8-9ef8-96ed3aae8d72" CreationDate="2022-09-26T19:09:02.130" UserId="14379" Text="Lately I have been needing to get rid of some old (and/or broken) electronics and have been struggling with the question of whether I should try to donate the electronics to someone or just drop them off at an e-waste recycling center. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, I feel that someone else could use and/or fix the device and reuse it, and I think reusing old electronics is strictly better than recycling. On the other hand, they could decide that they don't want it anymore and throw it away improperly in a trash bin. Or they extract just a part they need and throw it away improperly. And even if they are environmentally conscious themselves and donate the electronic to a third person, that other person may not be and throw the device away irresponsibly. So it might be better to nip the problem in the bud and take it to the recycling center. But with the recycling center, I am not sure if the processing of the electronic also contributes negatively to the environment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has there been any research on whether it is better to donate electronics or bring them to an e-waste recycling center? If not, has there been any guidance from any authority figure in this field?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The e-waste recycling center I use appears to be a service provided by the local government so I assume that electronics are recycled responsibly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31485" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12349" RevisionGUID="cb3c9978-9906-49f8-9ef8-96ed3aae8d72" CreationDate="2022-09-26T19:09:02.130" UserId="14379" Text="Should I donate old electronics or drop them off at e-waste recycling centers?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31486" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12349" RevisionGUID="cb3c9978-9906-49f8-9ef8-96ed3aae8d72" CreationDate="2022-09-26T19:09:02.130" UserId="14379" Text="|recycling|reuse|electronics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31487" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12349" RevisionGUID="85126a99-f7a3-4270-8e3b-ae6196d1018c" CreationDate="2022-09-26T19:20:22.820" UserId="14379" Comment="edited tags" Text="|recycling|environmental-impact|reuse|electronics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12349" RevisionGUID="85126a99-f7a3-4270-8e3b-ae6196d1018c" CreationDate="2022-09-26T19:20:22.820" UserId="14379" Comment="edited tags" Text="Lately I have been needing to get rid of some old (and/or broken) electronics and have been struggling with the question of whether I should try to donate the electronics to someone or just drop them off at an e-waste recycling center. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, I feel that someone else could use and/or fix the device and reuse it, and I think reusing old electronics is strictly better than recycling. On the other hand, they could decide that they don't want it anymore and throw it away improperly in a trash bin. Or they extract just a part they need and throw it away improperly. And even if they are environmentally conscious themselves and donate the electronic to a third person, that other person may not be and throw the device away irresponsibly. So it might be better to nip the problem in the bud and take it to the recycling center. But with the recycling center, I am not sure if the processing of the electronic also contributes negatively to the environment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has there been any research on whether it is better to donate electronics or bring them to an e-waste recycling center? If not, has there been any guidance from any authority figure in this field?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The e-waste recycling center I use appears to be a service provided by the local government so I assume there is oversight to ensure electronics are recycled responsibly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31489" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12349" RevisionGUID="069f3deb-7791-499d-98e3-6ea60968738f" CreationDate="2022-09-26T19:27:52.640" UserId="14379" Comment="[Edit removed during grace period]" Text="Lately I have been needing to get rid of some old (and/or broken) electronics and have been struggling with the question of whether I should try to donate the electronics to someone or just drop them off at an e-waste recycling center. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, I feel that someone else could use and/or fix the device and reuse it, and I think reusing old electronics is strictly better than recycling. On the other hand, they could decide that they don't want it anymore and throw it away improperly in a trash bin. Or they extract just a part they need and throw it away improperly. And even if they are environmentally conscious themselves and donate the electronic to a third person, that other person may not be and throw the device away irresponsibly. So it might be better to nip the problem in the bud and take it to the recycling center. But with the recycling center, I am not sure if the processing of the electronic also contributes negatively to the environment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has there been any research on whether it is better to donate electronics or bring them to an e-waste recycling center? If not, has there been any guidance from any authority figure in this field?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The e-waste recycling center I use appears to be a service provided by the local government so I assume there is oversight to ensure electronics are recycled responsibly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31490" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12349" RevisionGUID="1bd17485-0b09-4220-bf12-9b35d5a15215" CreationDate="2022-09-26T19:43:29.047" UserId="14379" Comment="added 3 characters in body" Text="Lately I have been needing to get rid of some old (and/or broken) electronics and have been struggling with the question of whether I should try to donate the electronics to someone or just drop them off at an e-waste recycling center. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On one hand, I feel that someone else could use and/or fix the device and reuse it, and I think reusing old electronics is strictly better than recycling. On the other hand, they could decide that they don't want it anymore and throw it away improperly in a trash bin. Or they extract just a part they need and throw the rest away improperly. And even if they are environmentally conscious themselves and donate the electronic to a third person, that other person may not be and throw the device away improperly. So it might be better to nip the problem in the bud and take it to the recycling center. But with the recycling center, I am not sure if the processing of the electronic also contributes negatively to the environment&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has there been any research on whether it is better to donate electronics or bring them to an e-waste recycling center? If not, has there been any guidance from any authority figure in this field?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;P.S. The e-waste recycling center I use appears to be a service provided by the local government so I assume there is oversight to ensure electronics are recycled responsibly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31491" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12350" RevisionGUID="3cb89ba2-e222-4b87-9f94-1157facf1d81" CreationDate="2022-09-27T07:54:16.890" UserId="14308" Text="It seems that an exactly the same solution / converter as asked is available in the market: **Tesla Chademo Adapter EU 1036391-10-D**. [Here is](https://allegro.pl/oferta/tesla-chademo-adapter-eu-1036391-10-d-11414853743) a link to a Polish shop offer for one of them:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I am getting the above picture correctly, this is exactly what I've been asking for: Put a CHAdeMO cable from a charger into this adapter and put the adapter into CCS socket in an electric car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The price (2499 PLN / 510 USD / 530 EUR) is a killer for me. I'd rather go to the second or third charger, if previous one has only CHAdeMO cable available rather than spending that amount of money for such an adapter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0g2t9.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31493" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="76cd80dd-4391-43a5-9449-5e579337ef1b" CreationDate="2022-09-27T23:05:40.717" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31494" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="d3075159-f77f-4e43-a7fe-53e75d378b74" CreationDate="2022-09-28T10:01:45.310" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31495" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12351" RevisionGUID="aad60dca-d986-4bc3-a1e9-d09642ecfbd0" CreationDate="2022-09-29T00:27:10.357" UserId="14382" Text="I am building a block building for a slaughterhouse and I was thinking about filling the block with sand for insulation. My goal is to be able to keep the rooms as cool as possible was wondering if sand would be a good idea thanks. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31497" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12351" RevisionGUID="aad60dca-d986-4bc3-a1e9-d09642ecfbd0" CreationDate="2022-09-29T00:27:10.357" UserId="14382" Text="What is the best way to insulate block walls?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31498" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12351" RevisionGUID="aad60dca-d986-4bc3-a1e9-d09642ecfbd0" CreationDate="2022-09-29T00:27:10.357" UserId="14382" Text="|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12352" RevisionGUID="b5e2f1bc-ae43-462c-b4fb-750eacc8c9d7" CreationDate="2022-09-30T10:30:42.877" UserId="13189" Text="I don't know of any studies on the subject but I suspect your cynicism is justified. There was a study that compared emissions from hybrid EVs with 100% electric EVs using real life usage data and it showed that people had good intentions to lower their emissions by purchasing a hybrid EV, but the majority of owners failed to charge their cars overnight regularly with the result that they drove mostly on fuel and so their emissions figures were actually worse than comparable normal ICE vehicles! So people may have good intentions, but you can't control how they behave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You always have the option of checking with the person or organisation before you donate, and asking them to pledge to recycle properly. This might raise the probability that the e-waste ends up in the right place." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31501" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12353" RevisionGUID="c1da5fe6-db47-495e-935b-557f13c1bb05" CreationDate="2022-09-30T16:06:03.543" UserId="6393" Text="Charging directly with solar panels isn't advisable. The problem is that as clouds obscure the sun or birds fly over your solar panel, power production fluctuates. It would fluctuate so much that nearly every charger would get confused.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So instead use solar to charge a floated 24V lead-acid battery system. It doesn't have to be large, just make sure it can handle the charging current. For example most sealed lead-acid batteries can be charged with 0.3C, so if you want 36 volts * 4 amperes = 144 watts (let's make it 180 watts due to inefficiencies) for ebike battery charging, just add a lead-acid battery that can be charged with 180 watts. At 24 volts, that's 7.5 amperes which would mean 25 ampere-hours of battery capacity is enough (according to the 0.3C rule). For example for 24 volts, you need two 12V 28Ah batteries that cost around $120 both together.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then add a modified square wave inverter that's at least 300 watts to the system. You should find one for less than $50 at least for 24V systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you just wire solar panels with a lead-acid charge controller (preferably MPPT but if you really want to cheap out you can get PWM) to your system. With MPPT, the panel nominal voltage needs to exceed lead-acid battery voltage, with PWM the nominal voltages need to be the same or else your power production suffers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A 24V 300W inverter has about 6 watts of idle power use. Compared to 144 watts of charging an e-bike battery, that's nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to charge very small batteries like Sanyo/Panasonic Eneloop 1.2V 2Ah AA batteries or your phone or tablet, then you have several options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Get a 12V/24V system powered USB power output, you can get one for as cheaply as below $10 for both cigarette lighter sockets and for permanent wiring. Then you can use USB AA/AAA chargers like GP ReCyko M451. You can also charge any USB device like your phone or tablet. With USB power outputs that support power delivery, you may be able to charge even a laptop computer!&#xD;&#xA;* Get a 12V/24V multi-voltage output DC-DC power converter that supports 12V output voltage (and probably has a lot of other choosable output voltages). Then you can use chargers like Maha/Powerex MH-C9000 Pro that use 12 volts, 2 amperes to charge up to 4 AA/AAA batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason I don't recommend using inverter to charge AA/AAA batteries but do recommend using inverter to charge larger batteries like ebike and tool batteries is that small AA/AAA batteries are charged so slowly that the inverter idle power usage would waste lion's share of the energy. However, large batteries like ebike and tool batteries are charged with so much current that direct DC/DC converter would probably be so expensive that it just makes sense to use a modified square wave inverter + the original mains-powered battery charger you already have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Don't choose a sine wave inverter. They have way more idle power loss." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31503" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12354" RevisionGUID="7f020ab9-0edf-4a71-a700-b8e28d032074" CreationDate="2022-09-30T16:16:34.850" UserId="6393" Text="Sand could be an acceptable material for heat storage but still not as good as water. Sand has heat capacity of 0.83 kJ/kgK, but with density of 1600 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. Water has heat capacity of 4.19 kJ/kgK, but with density of 1000 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;. Thus, one liter of sand stores 1.32 kJ, but one liter of water stores 4.19 kJ (per Kelvin). One area where sand excels is if you have the ability to heat it to above the boiling point of water (such as by using power plant waste heat). If you can't then water would be more ideal for heat storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for insulation, sand has heat conductivity of 0.25 W/mK. Polystyrene foam has 0.03 W/mK thermal conductivity. So you can see sand is nowhere close to real insulators.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My advice is to use water if you want to store heat, and use real insulators if you want to prevent heat transfer. If you want to use both, use both water for storage and real insulators for preventing heat transfer. Don't try to cheap out and use sand, because it's a very bad material for either use." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10806" RevisionGUID="90cab6db-5a8d-46f0-9b5d-89c8f92bbe60" CreationDate="2022-09-30T18:15:00.503" UserId="2345" Comment="Correct capitalization of units" Text="I'd like to go solar with a couple of our battery-powered tools without a) charging the batteries with DC directly, as they're expensive batteries with their own fancy AC chargers, or b) spending money on other expensive solar batteries to power charging these expensive tool batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More specifically, I have a tool shed I'd like to put solar panels on solely to charge the electric mower &amp; weed whacker (two 7.5 Ah @ 56 V/420 Wh EGO brand batteries), and a bike shed I'd like to do the same - charge three Bosch 500 Wh (36 V) battery packs with solar on the bike shed. We drain all batteries to about half capacity once a week, so they have roughly similar requirements - generate about 1kwh per week, although more than that is better &quot;just in case.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can get used 250 W, 30 V panels locally for about $90, so I figure four of those should be enough per shed, but I'm new to solar. I live in Seattle, so I figure 1 kW of solar capacity, when factoring in clouds, conversion losses, and other system losses, should be enough to get 1kw into the batteries over the course of a week in most conditions, but I could use a sanity check there. Since the panels are relatively cheap I figure it's a good place to spend money as opposed to solar battery capacity, which seems very expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Speaking of batteries, that's my question. There's lots of advice on how to hook up a solar array to a big battery to run your fridge at night etc, but not so much for my use case.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally I'd just charge the tool batteries straight off an inverter, without a solar battery, or use a small (and inexpensive) battery. But I have the intuition that I can't just do that with typical equipment - it's here where I start to get fuzzy... both the EGO tool charger and Bosch battery charger draw about 2a while charging (one a little less, one a little more). So take the Bosh charger, 120 V @ 2.2 A = 264 A, and the internet says an inverter draws 1 amp to output 20 W at 24 V, so that would mean I'd need a 264/20 = 13.2 amp battery? The cheapest decent-looking LIFEPO4 I can find would be four 12 V 7 Ah Dakota batteries (two pairs in parallel would give 24 V 14 Ah), which would run about $200, and it seems like that's just scraping by for the requirements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Would this work as I've imagined it? Surely I'm missing something.&#xD;&#xA;2. Any way to cut out the charge controller &amp; battery middleman? I'm aware of microinverters, would it be better to use microinverters and a voltage regulator to get 120v without going through a charge controller?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31506" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11811" RevisionGUID="bfe5f253-6a69-407f-be17-bc9d3c15e338" CreationDate="2022-09-30T18:16:15.540" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected capitalization of units" Text="After more research, I think a 12 V 200 W system is more calibrated to my use case. Since my load will be 120 V, 2.2 A, that'll draw not quite 300w out of an inverter, so at 12v that's 25 A. If the panels produce 20a, that might do it, or maybe it'll need an extra ~5 A from the battery. I found a 12 V 16 Ah battery for $60, which should satisfy the use case of charging the tool battery mostly from the sun with a small solar buffer battery. It's beyond me how to remove the charge controller and battery from this system, but that's only $110 of equipment. Good enough!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think there's a policy here against linking to products, so I'll be generic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;$500 planned total:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 2x 100w 12v panels, $100ea&#xD;&#xA;* Cheap 500w 30a 12v inverter, $40&#xD;&#xA;* 20a PWM charge controller, $50&#xD;&#xA;* 12v 16ah Lifepo4 battery, $60&#xD;&#xA;* 2x RV tilt mounting brackets, $35ea&#xD;&#xA;* Misc wiring, $45&#xD;&#xA;* Low voltage disconnect (since battery can't handle full load w/o solar), $25&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll try to remember to post back here and accept this answer after some testing, but in case I forget, here's a breadcrumb for someone else.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31507" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12294" RevisionGUID="01de5b88-2c52-4fca-9d49-b02456a4678e" CreationDate="2022-10-02T00:00:20.570" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1576361403350409227" />
  <row Id="31509" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12289" RevisionGUID="e666defe-d6fa-4d0f-8071-4863408c9bd6" CreationDate="2022-10-04T03:01:11.583" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1577131691520532482" />
  <row Id="31512" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12356" RevisionGUID="1858c3b0-f55a-44ef-a885-7adbc408612a" CreationDate="2022-10-04T19:37:47.460" UserId="14398" Text="My grandfather has a lot of bird feces. We are planning to take uric acid out of those feces and plan to use it if there is a good application. The climate around us is desert and we would like to know what we can do with this uric acid. We would like to use waste for some useful applications for planting." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31514" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12356" RevisionGUID="1858c3b0-f55a-44ef-a885-7adbc408612a" CreationDate="2022-10-04T19:37:47.460" UserId="14398" Text="Is there any useful application area of uric acid in a desert climate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31515" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12356" RevisionGUID="1858c3b0-f55a-44ef-a885-7adbc408612a" CreationDate="2022-10-04T19:37:47.460" UserId="14398" Text="|fertilizer|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12357" RevisionGUID="bde11eca-76cf-44e9-8466-31b198e17fe2" CreationDate="2022-10-05T05:15:14.103" UserId="14400" Text="I'm fact checking the statement: &quot;There isn't enough Lithium in the planet (Earth) to store enough energy to make it 4 months through the Winter&quot; here: https://youtu.be/fzzWVLSPgK4?t=192&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What assumptions need to be made to answer this question, and what is the answer, based on these assumptions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31519" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12357" RevisionGUID="bde11eca-76cf-44e9-8466-31b198e17fe2" CreationDate="2022-10-05T05:15:14.103" UserId="14400" Text="Is there enough total Lithium in the Earth's crust to make sufficient grid storage to meet total global Winter energy demand?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31520" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12357" RevisionGUID="bde11eca-76cf-44e9-8466-31b198e17fe2" CreationDate="2022-10-05T05:15:14.103" UserId="14400" Text="|energy|electricity|batteries|energy-storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31521" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12358" RevisionGUID="76154d0f-99f4-46e6-89f9-45ee04cbb988" CreationDate="2022-10-05T13:58:20.977" UserId="13618" Text="TL/DR Yes, but it is meaningless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium in the earths crust: &#xD;&#xA;[Estimates for the Earth's crustal content range from 20 to 70 ppm by weight.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium)&#xD;&#xA;[Earths crust is 2.3-2.8 *10^19 tonnes](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-total-mass-of-the-Earths-crust)&#xD;&#xA;Take the middle of the esitames&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2.55*10^19) * (55/1000000) = 1.4 * 10^15 tonnes or 10^18 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium in a battery: [7% Li](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Performance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity in a battery: [360 to 900 kJ/kg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Performance) I shall again take the middle of the estimate&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity stored by all Lithium as batteries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1.4 * 10^18)/0.07 * (630 * 10^3) = 1.26 * 10^25 J&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy use: [The annual global energy consumption is estimated to 580 million terajoules](https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/energy/global-energy-consumption) = 5.8 * 10^20, so 4 months = 1.45 * 10^20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore there is about 100,000 times as much Lithium in the earths crust alone than it would take to store 4 months worth of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is meaningless from both sides, no one would try and store four months worth of electricity in batteries and you could not extract all Lithium from the earths crust." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12358" RevisionGUID="9cb48b7a-7d53-4491-85e6-489f05f612d6" CreationDate="2022-10-05T14:04:40.967" UserId="13618" Comment="More explanation of working" Text="TL/DR Yes, but it is meaningless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium in the earths crust: &#xD;&#xA;[Estimates for the Earth's crustal content range from 20 to 70 ppm by weight.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium) Middle = 55/1,000,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mass of Earths Crust: [Earths crust is 2.3-2.8 *10^19 tonnes](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-total-mass-of-the-Earths-crust) Middle = 2.55 * 10^19 tonnes or 2.55 * 10^22 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2.55*10^19) * (55/1000000) = 1.4 * 10^15 tonnes or 10^18 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium in a battery: [7% Li](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Performance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity in a battery: [360 to 900 kJ/kg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Performance) Middle = 630 * 10^3 J/Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity stored by all Lithium as batteries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1.4 * 10^18)/0.07 * (630 * 10^3) = 1.26 * 10^25 J&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy use: [The annual global energy consumption is estimated to 580 million terajoules](https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/energy/global-energy-consumption) = 5.8 * 10^20, so 4 months = 1.45 * 10^20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore there is about 100,000 times as much Lithium in the earths crust alone than it would take to store 4 months worth of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is meaningless from both sides, no one would try and store four months worth of electricity in batteries and you could not extract all Lithium from the earths crust." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12358" RevisionGUID="ab10273c-8565-49b3-9b9d-f034ff08aec2" CreationDate="2022-10-05T21:05:22.797" UserId="13618" Comment="meaningless justification expanded" Text="TL/DR Yes, but it is meaningless&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium in the earths crust: &#xD;&#xA;[Estimates for the Earth's crustal content range from 20 to 70 ppm by weight.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium) Middle = 55/1,000,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mass of Earths Crust: [Earths crust is 2.3-2.8 *10^19 tonnes](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-total-mass-of-the-Earths-crust) Middle = 2.55 * 10^19 tonnes or 2.55 * 10^22 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2.55*10^19) * (55/1000000) = 1.4 * 10^15 tonnes or 10^18 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium in a battery: [7% Li](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Performance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity in a battery: [360 to 900 kJ/kg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Performance) Middle = 630 * 10^3 J/Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity stored by all Lithium as batteries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1.4 * 10^18)/0.07 * (630 * 10^3) = 1.26 * 10^25 J&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy use: [The annual global energy consumption is estimated to 580 million terajoules](https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/energy/global-energy-consumption) = 5.8 * 10^20, so 4 months = 1.45 * 10^20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore there is about 100,000 times as much Lithium in the earths crust alone than it would take to store 4 months worth of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is meaningless from both sides; batteries are useful for dealing with differences between demand and supply over time scales of seconds to hours, and perhaps longer in the future, but  no one would try and store four months worth of electricity in batteries. On the other side it would be completely impossible to extract all Lithium from the earth's crust." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31525" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8461" RevisionGUID="3ef1c0ad-58de-450b-99c4-cf9c94ba200f" CreationDate="2022-10-06T11:04:25.530" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31526" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12359" RevisionGUID="ebbfb490-1328-4faf-a495-e50b87dbb2b2" CreationDate="2022-10-06T16:41:21.237" UserId="6393" Text="No there isn't, but we don't need lithium for that. The lithium reserves are barely adequate to make all cars electric. They are not adequate for grid energy storage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We need about 500 hours worth of storage (three weeks, not four months, since presumably in areas with real winter, power production is predominantly wind power, and presumably electric grids of tomorrow are strong to allow transferring electricity from windy areas to non-windy areas) to allow electricity usage during long large-area calm periods in winter when neither solar power nor wind power is available in big enough quantities. If average annual energy use per person is 10 MWh in a developed world of tomorrow, and world future population will reach 10 billion, then we need 100 PWh of energy per year. That's about 11000 gigawatts assuming constant energy use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So 500 hours * 11000 gigawatts is 5.5 PWh. (Actually the real figure is slightly larger because 11000 gigawatts assumes constant energy use and the 11000 gigawatts should be adjusted for momentary higher-than-normal energy use, but in any case, the figure is below 10 PWh).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14555-y&#xD;&#xA;&quot;&gt;paper in Nature Communications&lt;/a&gt; that shows we can store more than 5.5 PWh, in fact we can store 17.3 PWh, at reasonable cost using pumped hydroelectricity. So grid energy storage is possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, what about lithium? A plug-in hybrid (10 kWh) requires about 1.6 kg of lithium. So to store 5.5 PWh, we need 880 billion kilograms or 880 megatonnes of lithium. Unfortunately, lithium reserves are between 17 and 21 megatonnes, and in 2020 resources were 80 megatonnes. Nowhere close to what is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if the paper in the highly rated Nature Communications journal is wrong and we can't construct enough hydroelectric energy storage at a reasonable cost, then there's another possibility: it's possible to create hydrogen from water using electrolysis and burn that later to electricity in internal combustion engine or gas turbine power plants. That has a round-trip efficiency of about 37%, in contrast to 80% round-trip efficiency of pumped storage hydroelectricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, battery energy storage is so expensive that storing the 5.5 PWh in batteries is nowhere near competitive to storing it in pumped storage hydro or as hydrogen stored underground as compressed gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only a fool would create electricity with 100% solar power, and then try to use 4-month long storage to allow using electricity in winter. The solution is not solar, it's wind. And only a fool would use batteries for long-term energy storage. For short-term use (charge at every day with solar, discharge at every night) batteries are ok." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31528" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12358" RevisionGUID="35c18b86-c22b-4cdb-b751-4ae40bb076f9" CreationDate="2022-10-07T11:55:09.513" UserId="13618" Comment="Added that the meaningless is covered by other answer." Text="TL/DR Yes, but it is meaningless.  The meaningless is well covered by juhist's answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium in the earths crust: &#xD;&#xA;[Estimates for the Earth's crustal content range from 20 to 70 ppm by weight.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium) Middle = 55/1,000,000&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mass of Earths Crust: [Earths crust is 2.3-2.8 *10^19 tonnes](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-total-mass-of-the-Earths-crust) Middle = 2.55 * 10^19 tonnes or 2.55 * 10^22 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(2.55*10^19) * (55/1000000) = 1.4 * 10^15 tonnes or 10^18 Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium in a battery: [7% Li](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Performance)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity in a battery: [360 to 900 kJ/kg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Performance) Middle = 630 * 10^3 J/Kg&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity stored by all Lithium as batteries:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(1.4 * 10^18)/0.07 * (630 * 10^3) = 1.26 * 10^25 J&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy use: [The annual global energy consumption is estimated to 580 million terajoules](https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/energy/global-energy-consumption) = 5.8 * 10^20, so 4 months = 1.45 * 10^20&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore there is about 100,000 times as much Lithium in the earths crust alone than it would take to store 4 months worth of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is meaningless from both sides; batteries are useful for dealing with differences between demand and supply over time scales of seconds to hours, and perhaps longer in the future, but  no one would try and store four months worth of electricity in batteries. On the other side it would be completely impossible to extract all Lithium from the earth's crust." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31529" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12357" RevisionGUID="2715c22b-2289-4900-ad79-8f22e53afa46" CreationDate="2022-10-13T00:00:16.740" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1580347653971333120" />
  <row Id="31532" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12360" RevisionGUID="a799147b-228f-43bf-8656-cbff989a632b" CreationDate="2022-10-16T17:23:59.407" UserId="8013" Text="The operating costs of using a battery once it has been installed been installed are generally low. In fact, they appear to be too low to report on: the recent &quot;[Battery Storage in the United States: An Update on Market Trends][1]&quot; report notes the need for more information on operating costs, but bases its analysis on capital costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the low operating costs, it makes sense to use batteries as much as possible. The batteries installed initially will be used almost every day. As capacity expands, some of the newer installations are not needed as often. Taking the expanded capacity into account, it is clear that the total power supplied by the batteries is increasing steadily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/batterystorage/pdf/battery_storage_2021.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31534" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="11992" RevisionGUID="1f30cae3-a4fa-4c48-8878-cdda208da45a" CreationDate="2022-10-17T03:08:54.620" UserId="9669" Comment="75" />
  <row Id="31535" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="11992" RevisionGUID="b1056fb9-cc1c-4483-8566-df0b94b5a51e" CreationDate="2022-10-17T06:00:04.093" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1581887749342183424" />
  <row Id="31536" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12361" RevisionGUID="10eaa5dc-b4d0-4019-bae5-fcbbf729a3f3" CreationDate="2022-10-17T17:50:47.803" UserId="6393" Text="&lt;b&gt;Because we need capacity, not just energy.&lt;/b&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The same amounts of megawatt-hours but more megawatts means lower usage / capacity factor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If increasingly large amounts of variable wind power and solar power are being installed (especially wind power since solar gives just a little bit of daytime help as opposed to wind that can generate significant amounts of power nearly continuously), we have the problem that sometimes it's just not windy. If the sun isn't shining at that time then, where could we generate the electricity?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some years ago, the electric grid was dominated by large plants, nuclear, hydro, coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, that could generate power nearly continuously. Storage was useful mainly to allow the expensive plants to run near maximum power yet still allow for daily and seasonal variation in energy usage to be handled. We needed consistently the services of adjustable power plants, so their capacity factor was large.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today, the electric grid is increasingly dominated by wind power, plus solar as a small helper. If it's windy, we have electricity. If it isn't windy but sun in shining, we have electricity. These two are able to provide enough power maybe 70% of the time, and even 30% of the time you usually get at least some power from these if not enough. Thus, as a result, I'd expect capacity factors of all adjustable power production combined (hydropower, pumped hydro, batteries, natural gas, oil) to have 15% capacity factor / usage factor / whatever you call it (I call it capacity factor, maybe somewhat incorrectly for pumped hydro and batteries).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Out of the 15% capacity factor production combined, non-pumped hydropower probably has the largest capacity factor, far larger than 15%, because usually reservoir total energy storage capacity isn't that large and many hydropower plants don't even have proper reservoirs but are just nearly continuously producing power from river flow. At least in Finland, the total combined capacity factor of non-pumped hydro is 50% (we don't have currently significant pumped hydro and probably never will).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what is left, pumped hydro and batteries, is expected to have very low capacity factor indeed. Their main job is not to produce significant energy. Their main job is to produce significant power. It's all about megawatts, not about megawatt-hours. Very few megawatt-hours is enough, even 500 hour long storage is plenty for pumped hydro for example. In 500 hours the weather changes and we get wind production again, allowing to recharge that 500 hour long storage. Batteries are usually between 1-24 hours, though, due to them being very expensive, so they are better today in frequency stabilization services and maybe tomorrow in storing solar power during daytime in areas near the equator where the whole year is all summer, and then using that solar power again during the night." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31538" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="4a782c38-4152-451d-ba72-1a58ac9fa9e5" CreationDate="2022-10-19T04:04:25.647" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31539" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12035" RevisionGUID="6726d756-0307-489e-989f-e0f19fc17965" CreationDate="2022-10-20T06:01:50.687" UserId="99" Comment="deleted 12 characters in body" Text="Belgium has [several separate recycling streams](https://www.belgium.be/en/environment/sorting_and_recycling_household_waste) for decades; for example paper, glass, textile, electronic devices. About 10 years ago a new recycling stream called PMD was introduced, which stands for Plastics, Metals and Drink cartons. The efficiency of this waste stream is under debate and recently also changed a bit to include more types of plastic. This is one of the reasons why current research on recycling is focusing primarily on this waste stream. The other waste streams get very little attention because they generally work well (perhaps with the exception of electronics recycling and construction waste)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31540" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12362" RevisionGUID="6d6026a7-f6b3-4e82-8002-145b00d7735f" CreationDate="2022-10-20T13:37:02.363" UserId="14245" Text="Can I connect ten 100W invertors (each with separate battery) parallel to power one 1kW consumer? Will it work? Is it safe?&#xD;&#xA;Should all invertors be equivalent or can be different?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31542" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12362" RevisionGUID="6d6026a7-f6b3-4e82-8002-145b00d7735f" CreationDate="2022-10-20T13:37:02.363" UserId="14245" Text="Can I connect ten 100W invertors (each with separate battery) parallel to power one 1kW consumer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31543" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12362" RevisionGUID="6d6026a7-f6b3-4e82-8002-145b00d7735f" CreationDate="2022-10-20T13:37:02.363" UserId="14245" Text="|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31544" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12363" RevisionGUID="23a8cf55-92cb-4545-aef3-4c292a75ccd7" CreationDate="2022-10-20T16:51:05.253" UserId="6393" Text="The main problem in inverter paralleling is that the inverters must be parallel-capable. You must set one inverter as master and the others as slaves. The master has its own clock, the slaves sync to the master's clock. It also may be possible that each inverter is master/slave, so that it tries to detect signal on its output and if it doesn't detect any signal, assumes the master role. However, in that case if you disconnect the same battery from all inverters and reconnect at the same time, they may be confused due to not being able to decide which should be the master. Inverter generators are usually turned on one at a time, so there master/slave works well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Almost always, if the inverters don't specify anything about paralleling, it means they aren't parallel capable. Making them parallel capable would mean opening the inverter and modifying the circuit. It isn't hard to someone who is experienced in power electronics, but I wouldn't recommend it for a novice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The MOSFETs (that are the most common type of switch in inverters) are parallel-capable, so it's just that the drive circuits must be in sync.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's some instructions: https://yarchive.net/car/rv/inverter_paralleling.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31546" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12362" RevisionGUID="27183f96-f87d-4856-923a-3d8109bb54f6" CreationDate="2022-10-20T22:55:57.067" />
  <row Id="31548" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5175" RevisionGUID="e5347a9a-d945-452d-9977-e70a2a84f1ef" CreationDate="2022-10-23T22:36:07.660" UserId="8232" Comment="typo" Text="It's correct that the production of 1 ceramic mug requires much more material and energy than the production of 1 plastic cup, but this isn't a fair comparison. Plastic cups are generally used once or perhaps twice and then disposed of. A ceramic mug is likely to be used several hundreds of times before it breaks and is thrown away. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's assume you use a plastic cup twice a day and then throw it away. Alternatively you can use a ceramic mug twice a day and then wash it. Let's also assume the lifetime of a ceramic mug is 5 years. This means you need to compare: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 5 * 365 * production, transport and disposal costs of plastic cup&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;versus&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - 1 * production, transport and disposal costs of ceramic mug + 5 * 365 energy and material costs of water and soap used for rinsing the mug.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't have the actual numbers to do the full calculation (they would also depend on the type of plastic cup and ceramic mug and how you rinse the mug), but you can see that in the long run the ceramic mug becomes more environmentally friendly provided the energy and material costs for rinsing are less than the production, transport and disposal costs of 1 plastic cup, which should be the case if you don't use lots of heated water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are several articles on the Internet that do make calculations like this. Most articles compare ceramic mugs with paper cups but the idea is the same. Other assumptions in those articles may also vary from what I've written above (e.g. different lifetime of ceramic mug, transport and disposal is sometimes not included, or an article may only compare energy use instead of full environmental impact). The result is that those articles have different outcomes. Nevertheless most articles I've seen conclude that **the ceramic mug wins if it's lifetime is long enough and you rinse the mug efficiently**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More info:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - http://carbon-clear.com/files/Reuseable_vs_Disposable_Cups_2012.pdf - this article has a nice graph that shows how over time ceramic mugs win.&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.greenlifestylemag.com.au/features/1017/disposable-coffee-cups-vs-ceramic-mugs&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.triplepundit.com/2007/12/askpablo-disposable-cups-vs-reusable-mugs/&#xD;&#xA; - http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/ceramic-or-paper-cups.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31549" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12364" RevisionGUID="85695184-2b6f-478d-8d99-17c4a7ff0e99" CreationDate="2022-10-24T22:42:58.947" UserId="14433" Text="A study published in 2021, conducted by Arizona State University and Plastic Oceans International, claims that the polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) used in both dishwasher and washing machine pods is not completely biodegrading when it is washed into the drains. They say the PVA passes through wastewater treatment without being treated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Plastic Oceans link][1] is more readable than the [original study][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://plasticoceans.org/detergent-pods-contributing-to-plastic-pollution/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/6027/htm" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31551" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="11992" RevisionGUID="8438063f-2547-471c-98a2-1ae1ecffbd7c" CreationDate="2022-10-25T05:00:25.130" UserId="-1" Comment="75" />
  <row Id="31552" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="5bc4c76a-ee10-4cf9-bf3c-133dfaaf903f" CreationDate="2022-10-25T05:00:25.130" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31553" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12365" RevisionGUID="00211e13-15dc-4585-b65f-3e4d93742dc6" CreationDate="2022-10-25T10:09:55.503" UserId="9669" Text="Most air pollution comes not from exhaust fumes but from wear and tear of tyres. EVs are heavier because of their batteries and therefore release those tyre particles more. Are EVs actually worse for ambient air quality than cars with combustion engines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31555" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12365" RevisionGUID="00211e13-15dc-4585-b65f-3e4d93742dc6" CreationDate="2022-10-25T10:09:55.503" UserId="9669" Text="Are EVs actually worse for ambient air quality than cars with combustion engines?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31556" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12365" RevisionGUID="00211e13-15dc-4585-b65f-3e4d93742dc6" CreationDate="2022-10-25T10:09:55.503" UserId="9669" Text="|electric-vehicles|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31557" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12366" RevisionGUID="453c9144-3238-4f42-a9c2-f6415a931bfd" CreationDate="2022-10-25T16:02:07.193" UserId="6393" Text="This totally depends on what you consider pollution and how you measure it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you measure pollution by weight, the vast majority of pollution is carbon dioxide. One liter of fuel produces 2.35 kg of it, so about 42 000 kg of carbon dioxide waste is produced during the lifetime of a combustion engine car. That's about 30-40 times the weight of the car. In that case, EVs win.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would find it hard to believe that a vehicle would consume 42 000 kg of tyres during its lifetime. A set of tyres loses maybe 15 kg of rubber from new to fully worn, and a car maybe uses 4 set of tyres during its lifetime, so that's 60 kg of tyre rubber waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if you somehow think that carbon dioxide is not a waste but tyres are, then maybe, maybe not. The second most prominent gaseous pollutant a gasoline combustion engine car produces according to Euro 6 is carbon monoxide. At most 1 gram of it can be produced per kilometer. So in 300 000 km, that's 300 kg. But that's the absolute maximum. A good vehicle could very well produce only 50 kg of it, less than a vehicle produces tyre waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in today's world carbon monoxide is simply not an issue unless you plan to run your car in unventilated spaces. There's so little of it in air thanks to catalytic converters, so maybe you should consider something actually harmful, like volatile hydrocarbons or nitrogen oxides that produce smog, and even when they don't, nitrogen oxides are directly harmful to human health. A gasoline engine produces at most 0.16 g / km of these combined, or 48 kg during a typical lifetime, so yes, there's less HC + NOx than there's worn tyre rubber. (Especially considering that 0.16 g / km is the absolute maximum, usually the amount is much less.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you have to ignore at least two types of pollutants (carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide) to say that tyre rubber is the most significant pollutant. And even then, an EV wouldn't produce twice the amount of tyre rubber waste, maybe it would produce 1.3 - 1.4 times the amount of tyre rubber waste. So if that's the case, even then an EV would pollute less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, it's very difficult to do these comparisons since comparing by mass may not be the best way to do these comparisons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another thing to think about: EVs produce less brake dust due to regenerative braking. That, however, shouldn't matter anymore today since brake pads are free of asbestos.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Still, there's a valid point: tyre rubber waste is a significant problem, and for example biodegradable rubber could be a solution -- if we could only make rubber last long enough when installed in a car, but when broken to fine particles, degrade quickly enough in the environment, while still having excellent grip in tyres." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31559" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12365" RevisionGUID="16cecd33-4b22-4b28-b30c-630ac6909ba4" CreationDate="2022-10-25T22:29:03.873" />
  <row Id="31560" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12367" RevisionGUID="6949de45-454b-403c-abd0-d1538798c67b" CreationDate="2022-10-25T23:57:50.047" UserId="14436" Text="The relative contribution of tyre wear and tear to the total global amount of plastics ending up in our oceans is estimated to be 5-10%. In air, 3-7% of the particulate matter (PM2.5) is estimated to consist of tyre wear and tear, indicating that it may contribute to the global health burden of air pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29053641/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But we should have in mind that 3-7% are all of tyre wear, from all kind of vehicles. If all vehicles were replaced by EVs, how this number will change?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's say it jumps from 3-7 to 5-10%. I don't think that the difference is enough to say it will make any noticeable difference in air quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;@juhist I think you made a typo, the amount of carbon dioxide produced by 1 liter of fuel should be 2.35 g, not kg.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12369" RevisionGUID="f66ed7b6-ecf4-4a53-9ce5-b0faaac7f039" CreationDate="2022-10-26T04:50:48.523" UserId="14438" Text="Amazon sold me several years' worth of allegedly compostable bags (so also biodegradeable, one would hope), my intent being to transfer compost from kitchen to garden pile every week or so.  We dig the stuff in each time, of course.  So I was not pleased to find an intact bag, still with the orange rinds from a couple of months ago, when our tree finished that fruiting session, still intact.  I pulled it out and weighted it down with a rock nearby, in full sun and rain.  It's perhaps too soon to tell whether it failed THAT test.  But this discovery led me back to the stock I have on hand, which has a paper label that describes them as &quot;starch based garbage bags,&quot; adding &quot;PSM starch based.&quot; (Wouldn't that suggest they'd dissolve in, say, hot water?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, I'm thinking that paper label is more than just a bad translation from Mandarin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh, and as for logos:  the paper label (only) has a plain-Jane &quot;recycling&quot; logo (triangle of three arrows).  The bags themselves...nada." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31566" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="7f8b4e4f-c6f5-47f7-8a37-083a5b87ed30" CreationDate="2022-10-26T11:08:05.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31567" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12365" RevisionGUID="d7e0c8a8-8bc8-4636-a0be-ce8d2e7b04ad" CreationDate="2022-10-26T12:32:35.490" UserId="9669" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="Most air pollution comes not from exhaust fumes but from wear and tear of tyres (it's 1000 times worse, some [say][1]). EVs are heavier because of their batteries and therefore release those tyre particles more. Are EVs actually worse for ambient air quality than cars with combustion engines?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-worse-exhaust-emissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31571" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12302" RevisionGUID="f23e5421-7d85-4780-be3a-c482fdc594df" CreationDate="2022-10-27T08:02:10.280" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31572" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5356" RevisionGUID="521baf28-6487-44f5-81ef-7698649b7a54" CreationDate="2022-10-27T09:31:51.293" UserId="257" Comment="fix a typo, and add fluff to workaround character limit" Text="The main answer is logistical. Building a network of pipes to bring water to houses is a major effort, and most places where that's been done found it extremely expensive. Providing a second set of pipes to bring salt water to houses would probably cost about the same. Except that cities go to considerable lengths to put their water reservoirs above the city as far as possible so they don't have to use as much energy for pumping. The few cities with seawater above them pay a lot to pump water *out*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A minor secondary problem is that sewage treatment plants are fairly heavily biological. They grow things in the sewage to break it down. But most of those things won't grow in salt water. It's already a challenge keeping toxic chemicals out of the sewage. For this to work it might be necessary to add a second set of sewer pipes to carry the water away, and develop new methods of treating that salty sewage (the treated sewage couldn't be spread on farmland, for example)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be far simpler, cheaper and more reliable to simply buy everyone a composting toilet to replace each toilet they currently have. As a halfway measure, mandating more economical toilets would help, as would education campaigns like the  ones [encouraging people not to flush at all when they urinate][1]. Even with a sensible cistern that has a 2 litre &quot;half flush&quot;, that's two litres wasted every time someone pees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One other things is that salt is no good for pipes. A lot of pipes even today are clay or concrete, and salt water is bad for both of those. It's not impossible to get around that, just expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=If%20it%27s%20yellow%2C%20let%20it%20mellow.%20If%20it%27s%20brown%2C%20flush%20it%20down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31573" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5356" RevisionGUID="521baf28-6487-44f5-81ef-7698649b7a54" CreationDate="2022-10-27T09:31:51.293" Comment="Proposed by 257 approved by -1 edit id of 703" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31574" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5356" RevisionGUID="3606bace-9fe5-4995-83ed-d79e2f9fac8d" CreationDate="2022-10-27T09:31:51.293" UserId="2345" Comment="fix a typo, and add fluff to workaround character limit" Text="The main answer is logistical. Building a network of pipes to convey water to houses is a major effort, and most places where that's been done found it extremely expensive. Providing a second set of pipes to bring salt water to houses would probably cost about the same. Except that cities go to considerable lengths to put their water reservoirs above the city as far as possible so they don't have to use as much energy for pumping. The few cities with seawater above them pay a lot to pump water *out*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A minor secondary problem is that sewage treatment plants are fairly heavily biological. They grow things in the sewage to break it down. But most of those things won't grow in salt water. It's already a challenge keeping toxic chemicals out of the sewage. For this to work it might be necessary to add a second set of sewer pipes to carry the water away, and develop new methods of treating that salty sewage (the treated sewage couldn't be spread on farmland, for example).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It would be far simpler, cheaper and more reliable to simply buy everyone a composting toilet to replace each toilet they currently have. As a halfway measure, mandating more economical toilets would help, as would education campaigns like the  ones [encouraging people not to flush at all when they urinate][1]. Even with a sensible cistern that has a 2 litre &quot;half flush&quot;, that's two litres wasted every time someone pees.&#xD;&#xA;Additionally, salt is not good for pipes. A lot of pipes, even today, are clay or concrete, and salt water is bad for both of these. It's not impossible to get around that, just expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=If%20it%27s%20yellow%2C%20let%20it%20mellow.%20If%20it%27s%20brown%2C%20flush%20it%20down&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31575" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5354" RevisionGUID="c92650a0-2a31-474d-b9ce-d2a7bc02d983" CreationDate="2022-10-27T11:44:51.610" UserId="257" Comment="some small impovements" Text="It would seem to be a major environmental benefit if toilets used saltwater instead of potable (drinkable) fresh water, right?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31576" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5354" RevisionGUID="c92650a0-2a31-474d-b9ce-d2a7bc02d983" CreationDate="2022-10-27T11:44:51.610" Comment="Proposed by 257 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 702" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31577" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12371" RevisionGUID="95249b26-065e-4d4e-b8eb-d09dd14ca5aa" CreationDate="2022-10-27T14:40:29.567" UserId="6393" Text="Saltwater piping is difficult due to rust, and would need a full second network of piping.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have recently heard from the news, that a city (Mykolaiv) in Ukraine had to switch to using saltwater in its water distribution network. They fully knew that the pipes will rust away from saltwater, but they are in a difficult situation in the middle of a war and have no other choice. It's either no water now, or saltwater now plus fix the damage later.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we had saltwater piping for toilets, we would need to have two water distribution networks, one for fresh water and another for saltwater. The saltwater network would be the very troublesome network of these two, every metal in contact with saltwater would rust away. So even if the piping was built from plastic for example to avoid corrosion, every pump that has some metal in contact with water would rust away very quickly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31583" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12372" RevisionGUID="7b07c62b-4ecb-4fce-b848-c7e5155016e2" CreationDate="2022-10-27T18:18:07.667" UserId="14433" Text="Instead of donating to an individual or to a general donation center, look up nonprofits who are specifically requesting used electronics (i.e. they have an identified need and experience working with used electronics).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One example is donating used cell phones, laptops, and digital cameras to domestic abuse victims. This one organization in that space: https://ncadv.org/donate-a-phone&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Matching electronics with populations who have a need will extend the life of that unit and reduce both costs and the environmental impact of buying newly manufactured phones.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One note: because these at-risk populations move frequently, and may have transportation challenges, there's no assurance that when the electronic is no longer usable that it will be taken to an electronics recycling center." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31588" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12374" RevisionGUID="5f64292f-c87a-412e-be1a-81547449ff41" CreationDate="2022-10-28T08:26:11.927" UserId="14308" Text="My friend told me that an EV is a huge self-driving powerbank and that with proper cable I can charge my mobile phone, make a barbeque or work on my laptop outdoor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After quite intensively searching the Internet I have found only **one** example of such cable:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://allegro.pl/oferta/samochod-elektryczny-wtyczka-rozladowania-typ2-16a-12404985304&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It says (an automatic Polish-to-English translation based on a very poor Polish text, made most likely automatically from Chinese original):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plug-and-Play, suitable for a wide range of electrical appliances. Discharge yourself anytime, anywhere. Small and portable, 5m cable, easy to carry. Mobile electric station for external power supply. Please check with your car manufacturer or your car owner's manual to see if your car has a discharge function before purchase, it needs Vehicle to Load (V2L) or Vehicle to Home (V2H) or Vehicle to Grind (V2G) support from your car. Inform us about the make and type of your car right after placing the order. We need this information to be compatible with your car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As mentioned, this is the only example found by me. Other solutions allows doing something completely different, i.e. &quot;converting&quot; Type 2 socket in charging station into Schuko socket in order to charge a car equipped with Schuko socket as well (and the integrated on-board charging cable) from charging station itself, not from a home wall socket.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* [Allegro](https://allegro.pl/oferta/adapter-do-ladowania-ev-schuko-do-typ-2-torba-12028964143)&#xD;&#xA;* [Amazon](https://www.amazon.pl/EV-Samochod%C3%B3w-Elektrycznych-1-Fazowy-%C5%81adowania/dp/B083WB6FFX?th=1)&#xD;&#xA;* [AliExpress](https://pl.aliexpress.com/item/1005002886760356.html?spm=a2g0o.productlist.main.3.60a41c8fRF0m3S&amp;algo_pvid=c1ab3034-5456-4dbf-b53e-91a152b6051b&amp;algo_exp_id=c1ab3034-5456-4dbf-b53e-91a152b6051b-1&amp;pdp_ext_f=%7B%22sku_id%22%3A%2212000022625814856%22%7D&amp;pdp_npi=2%40dis%21PLN%21464.03%21269.12%21%21%21%21%21%402100b69816669443987143494d0725%2112000022625814856%21sea&amp;curPageLogUid=F5avv1g5sene)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, nothing about making barbecues using energy from your EV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This makes me very doubtful and question, if this isn't another &quot;wild Chinese idea&quot; that will simply damage my EV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Has anyone have any experience with such cable and with working in the depicted conditions?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/QO4Qn.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gA3Rl.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31590" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12374" RevisionGUID="5f64292f-c87a-412e-be1a-81547449ff41" CreationDate="2022-10-28T08:26:11.927" UserId="14308" Text="Is it safe to use EV de-charging cables?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31591" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12374" RevisionGUID="5f64292f-c87a-412e-be1a-81547449ff41" CreationDate="2022-10-28T08:26:11.927" UserId="14308" Text="|batteries|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31593" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12375" RevisionGUID="4f9db7d7-1e2b-459d-a881-46dbb627e8d4" CreationDate="2022-10-28T16:37:52.303" UserId="6393" Text="No way will this work with most EVs. (It seems to already mention that in the description -- needing V2L.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EV battery is direct current. To create alternating current, you need an inverter. To create it at 3600 W (which is 230 V 16 A), you need a very hefty inverter. Also ideally a sine wave inverter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some cars have the inverter built-in, such as Kia EV6 and Hyundai Ioniq 5. However, in this case you will get the cable with the car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other cars don't have an inverter. In this case, such a cable is not safe. Most likely, it won't work and you only wasted your money. Less likely, something will be damaged if you try to do something that cannot possibly work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Such a small cable can't have an inverter built-in since a sine wave inverter of that capacity has a weight of 10 kg approximately, and requires active cooling with a fan (which I don't see in the cable). Also if you use such an inverter in wet environments, you may run into problems, such as rain getting inside the inverter from vents that are needed for air cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also even if the cable had a built-in inverter, it will not work with the car's AC-to-DC charger. Maybe it could work using DC charging, if the car has bidirectional DC charging support (vehicle-to-grid). But even if the car has V2G, then the cable would need to weigh 10 kg and solve the rain intrusion problem somehow.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best place for the inverter is the car, since the car's body shields it from rain and it can have active cooling, and 10 kg additional weight in a car is next to nothing (EVs weigh regularly 2000kg). So when purchasing your next EV, be sure to ensure it has V2L functionality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31595" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12376" RevisionGUID="95cb390d-09c0-4f3f-a795-2442361e38ce" CreationDate="2022-10-28T21:25:54.503" UserId="14443" Text="Not quite domestic, but the technology keeps maturing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's better suited for leveling short-lived and massive power needs rather than storing energy for days (note the 7%/hr loss below). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Each Kinext unit includes a flywheel with a mass of **5,000 kg** and a&#xD;&#xA;&gt; large **diameter (around 2.6 meters)**. The companies said it is able to spin relatively&#xD;&#xA;&gt; slowly, at **1,800 rpm**, but it can reach a maximum speed of around 950&#xD;&#xA;&gt; km per hour.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Source: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/10/04/abb-to-stabilize-dutch-grid-with-9-mwh-battery-flywheel-storage-facility/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diameter quoted from: https://new.abb.com/news/detail/93092/regenerative-drives-and-motors-unlock-the-power-of-flywheel-energy-storage-to-stabilize-europes-grids&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;More data from: https://www.s4-energy.com/includes/PDF/Flyer_KINEXT.pdf&#xD;&#xA;   &#xD;&#xA;    Technology Flywheel&#xD;&#xA;    Capacity 30 kWh&#xD;&#xA;    Stand-By Loss 7 %/hr&#xD;&#xA;    Power Capacity Modular, 0,1 – 1 MW&#xD;&#xA;    Cycle Efficiency 92 %&#xD;&#xA;    Response Time &lt; 20 ms&#xD;&#xA;    Lifetime 20 years/1.000.000+ cycles&#xD;&#xA;    Footprint 4 x 4 meters&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![2.6m diameter, 5 ton flywheel with footprint of 4x4m, bolted to concrete floor][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/KuQqO.png&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to the Kinext solution described below, ABB is advertising flywheel solutions for ships, tugs etc. which need little energy most of the day (and can charge the flywheel) but need massive bursts of energy for minutes at a time (and today they carry 5x the number of diesel generators just for those bursts): &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0NsS8__gGI &#xD;&#xA; - https://new.abb.com/marine/systems-and-solutions/electric-solutions/energy-storage" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31597" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12377" RevisionGUID="c8571e96-59ab-462c-a5d7-82abd9ab5408" CreationDate="2022-10-29T08:44:47.687" UserId="6393" Text="Domestic flywheels. Not going to happen. Flywheels make noise, and the ones spinning at highest rate (the ones storing maximum amount of energy) are dangerous, if the flywheel shatters it could send high-speed fragments everywhere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Flywheels are heavy: even lead-acid batteries of a given size would weigh less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plus, the self-discharge is horrible. About the only case where you might want to use a flywheel is a device that is discharged right away when the power goes off. Even a day of wait for discharge to happen would self-discharge the flywheel too much. So you'd be limited to UPS devices, except devices that would weigh three times as much as a typical lead-acid UPS and be at least three times larger if not more -- plus the UPS would need to be sized to be round as opposed to typical lead-acid UPSes that are rectangular cuboids. Typical flywheel capacities start from 3 kWh -- typical UPS capacities end at 1 kWh, so that would be one helluva UPS: I'd imagine the UPS weight would start from about 250 kg, making it more of a fixed device than a portable device that current UPSes typically are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And besides, UPSes will probably someday move to lithium-ion. That gives 3x additional power-to-weight benefit, so after this transition a flywheel would be probably 10x heavier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What flywheels will be used in the future could be synchronous compensators in electrical grids to add inertia. Yesterday, electrical grids had all coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear and hydropower. Al of these had rotating turbines that could store about 5 seconds of energy at a typical energy consumption rate since the large turbines had lots of inertia. Not only that, but the turbines were synchronous, so if more power is drawn than is generated, every single turbine in the electrical system would slow down at the same time, decreasing the frequency in the whole network.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's useful since voltage in the network can vary at different points due to voltage drop, but frequency is the same everywhere. If more power is drawn than is generated, it's possible for the grid operators to notice it from the frequency change, avoiding a catastrophical grid collapse, by adding more fast capacity quickly or removing some load. There's few seconds to do such a change before the grid collapses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today, energy generation doesn't have as much inertia. Solar has zero inertia: no energy stored in the cell or the inverter (well maybe there could be an electrolytic capacitor or two, but the storage of these is so small that they can't really be counted as inertia). You might think that wind power could have inertia, but actually not given our current software: wind power uses a clever arrangement where energy is generated between a rotating field and the turbine rotation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubly-fed_electric_machine). This allows to adjust the output frequency to be whatever needed (50 Hz) for any turbine rotation rate, which varies in different wind conditions. Because of this non-synchronous style of generation, wind power software simply tries to generate energy at 50 Hz and isn't contributing to the inertia in the grid. Maybe a future software update could use wind turbines to simulate inertia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similarly, batteries don't have built-in inertia. They have energy storage, but without the right kind of software, they don't contribute to the rotational inertia in the grid, i.e. they are generating power at whatever frequency is needed (50 Hz), rather than forcing grid frequency to slow down as energy is drawn. A correct software maybe could turn a battery to rotational inertia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So to allow lots of solar, wind and batteries, we need more rotational inertia in the grid. A synchronous compensator does that. It's just a motor-generator with a flywheel rotating at synchronous speed, storing energy in its rotation. If more energy is drawn from the grid than is produced, it will slow down among all other synchronous generators, strengthening the frequency slowdown signal (drop in frequency) that can be used to detect the condition of too much power drawn and too little power generated." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31599" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12378" RevisionGUID="f0e53698-d7e6-43d7-b208-836a040f19b3" CreationDate="2022-10-31T15:54:19.430" UserId="14460" Text="I have two 545 solar panels and 50 amps mppt charge controller feeding two 12v batteries and I have a 12v 1000 watt inverter, how do I connect the inverter to the batteries? Should I connect the inverter to one of the batteries? What do you suggest?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ePC0d.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31601" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12378" RevisionGUID="f0e53698-d7e6-43d7-b208-836a040f19b3" CreationDate="2022-10-31T15:54:19.430" UserId="14460" Text="How to connect 12v inverter to 24v two batteries system?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31602" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12378" RevisionGUID="f0e53698-d7e6-43d7-b208-836a040f19b3" CreationDate="2022-10-31T15:54:19.430" UserId="14460" Text="|solar-power|electricity|electricity-generation|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31603" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12198" RevisionGUID="19dbe0f8-e613-4a8e-b2d5-447c5f706611" CreationDate="2022-10-31T17:07:00.987" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31604" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12379" RevisionGUID="d5af755e-f95a-4283-abeb-b12d13639772" CreationDate="2022-10-31T19:56:42.633" UserId="6393" Text="Buy a 24V inverter. There is really no other way if you want to continue using a 24 volt system. Connecting the 12V inverter to only one battery would imbalance that string.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a 24V to 12V DC-DC converter that gives 10 amperes, 120 watts. It cost 30 euros.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your 1000 watt inverter due to inefficiency when giving 1000 watts takes probably more than 1100 watts in. So, nine of these 10 amperes 120 watts DC-DC converters wouldn't be enough, you would need ten. The cost: 300 euros.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The cheapest 1000 watt 24V inverter that I found costs 157 euros (modified square wave) or 180 euros (pure sine wave).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There's no comparison: converting that 24 volts into 12 volts and then converting to AC costs way more than directly converting to AC. Besides, every power conversion stage decreases efficiency." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31606" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12380" RevisionGUID="386396f5-f160-4b04-8450-8d74b9aaee79" CreationDate="2022-11-01T11:59:12.190" UserId="14464" Text="For some time, I've been using an app called *Klima* to calculate my carbon footprint and pay a small monthly amount to offset it. They invest in:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* tree planting schemes&#xD;&#xA;* solar panels&#xD;&#xA;* clean cookstoves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this a good use of my money? (For the purposes of this question, assume my primary aim is reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would a monthly donation to a charity focused on climate change, such as Friends of the Earth, be better?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31608" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12380" RevisionGUID="386396f5-f160-4b04-8450-8d74b9aaee79" CreationDate="2022-11-01T11:59:12.190" UserId="14464" Text="Do carbon-offsetting apps work? Are there better ways for me to invest in reducing climate change?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31609" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12380" RevisionGUID="386396f5-f160-4b04-8450-8d74b9aaee79" CreationDate="2022-11-01T11:59:12.190" UserId="14464" Text="|climate-change|carbon-offsetting|trees|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31610" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12381" RevisionGUID="70d40df1-d1d6-4e8c-8116-4663b6f597d8" CreationDate="2022-11-01T16:25:02.850" UserId="6393" Text="Let's consider the climate investments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; tree planting schemes&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do they pay an external landowner to plant trees, or do they purchase the land, plant trees and ensure the trees will stay there?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If they don't own the land, this has exactly 0% effectiveness. Chances are the landowner just chopped the trees down and would in any case plant the trees to maximize profits from future forest growth. In this case, the climate help is exactly zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, consider this: if you plant a tree, it will grow and be a carbon sink for the next 100 years (in Finland; maybe the growth period is shorter in warmer countries), but after that the forest will be in equilibrium, and no longer actively sinks any carbon. The best choice of action would be to chop down the trees when the forest has grown very old, to get lots of sawlogs and little pulpwood, and replant a forest. Those sawlogs will be used to create furniture, houses, etc. that maintains the stored carbon for 100+ years, and also you get room for a second round of carbon capture by planting the trees again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In southern Finland, prime forest land costs 7000-8000 euros per hectare. One hectare grows maybe 7 cubic meters per year per hectare, removing 7 tonnes of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; from atmosphere per year per hectare. However, a lot of the value of land is the trees on it, so buying something to reforest could be cheaper. If you pay much less than this, most likely they are not buying the land but rather paying some other landowner to plant trees, in which case it's a scam -- the landowner most likely would have planted the trees anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; solar panels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar panels are helpful only in two distinct cases:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The solar panels are installed in an electricity grid where air conditioning dominates electricity consumption. It then correlates really well with consumption, since during cloudy weather less AC is needed and during hot sunny weather more AC is needed&#xD;&#xA;2. The solar panels are installed in a climate wíthout true winter, and are installed along with storage batteries that allow using electricity even during times when the sun doesn't shine. Most of Europe for example doesn't fit this criteria, but maybe the sourthernmost parts of Italy, Greece and Spain could be acceptable for year-round solar power production. In Germany or Finland or UK for example, solar power only offers a very little bit of help in summer, in winter it doesn't help at all.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of the issue I explained in (2), my primary advice would be to invest in wind power and not in solar power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; clean cookstoves&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I understand that in some parts of the world, cookstoves burn wood and create quite a bit of deforestation, CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions via deforestation and particulate matter pollution. A better energy source for cookstoves could help, but in my opinion the best approach would be electrification. &quot;Clean&quot; burning of wood still can cause deforestation and CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions although it could eliminate particulate matter pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something to consider. In EU ETS emission trading scheme, one tonne of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; has a cost of 80 euros. So presumably if you are paying less than 80 euros per tonne, it could be a scam. If you are paying orders of magnitude more than 80 euros per tonne, it could be a scam too -- they charge you too much, pocket some of the money and use only some of the money to offset emissions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31612" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12382" RevisionGUID="61b98136-02aa-4945-af23-ff872b9d40c3" CreationDate="2022-11-01T17:11:21.600" UserId="13357" Text="Also there are many hidden costs in each scenario, and a variety of details which affect the calculation. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most sustainable: buying local meaning items that a local store has sourced (presumably with the least negative impacts possible) or that a local business person has created locally; make that purchase by foot (walking), bicycle, or transit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The least sustainable: buying items that are sourced from around the world (far distances from where you live) online, that travel via ship/train etc.. to get to the online entity's warehouse, and then are delivered to you by plane (possibly)/ vehicle etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are many gradations and cost-aspects in between." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31614" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12349" RevisionGUID="8b3711ef-123b-46ac-ae50-d09afb1406d3" CreationDate="2022-11-01T18:00:03.073" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1587504757006110722" />
  <row Id="31615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12383" RevisionGUID="665a8cd0-ed22-469d-92d6-6b29e5176e8b" CreationDate="2022-11-01T18:27:54.300" UserId="14245" Text="I have an AGM 12V battery which has capacity 100Ah and max peak discharging current 700A.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I check the maximum continuus discharging current?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to use four of this batteries serial connected (48V) at 5kW UPS and need at least 100A of continuus discharging current." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12383" RevisionGUID="665a8cd0-ed22-469d-92d6-6b29e5176e8b" CreationDate="2022-11-01T18:27:54.300" UserId="14245" Text="How to check the AGM 12V-battery continuus discharging current?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12383" RevisionGUID="665a8cd0-ed22-469d-92d6-6b29e5176e8b" CreationDate="2022-11-01T18:27:54.300" UserId="14245" Text="|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31619" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12384" RevisionGUID="f1471092-9d45-4c99-9e8e-bbc5a2f1be71" CreationDate="2022-11-01T19:28:04.303" UserId="6393" Text="If the datasheet doesn't say this, you can only guess.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess however would be that you can safely use it at 100 amperes, provided you take at least a few measures and the batteries have few properties:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The batteries must have large terminals, small spade connectors can't handle 100 amperes but large screw terminals or round terminals can. However I would be very surprised to find if a 100 Ah battery has too small terminals.&#xD;&#xA;* Use at least 25 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; wiring, 10-16 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; wiring isn't up to the task of those currents&#xD;&#xA;* Remember to use a fuse, slightly larger than 100 amperes but not much larger, fuses for these high currents are made with bolt holes on both ends to allow using crimp connectors with bolt holes at both ends of the fuse.&#xD;&#xA;* If the battery has screw terminals or flat terminals with bolt hole, you must use good quality crimp connectors intended for 25 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; wire. Use good quality crimp pliers. An alternative could be soldering but then you need a very big soldering iron, so big you probably won't have it already and have to purchase it separately. Buying crimp pliers for 6-50 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; cables would be cheaper than the very big soldering iron you would need only for one task.&#xD;&#xA;* Remember that if you have a 5kW UPS with small internal battery, and you are going to use it with a large external battery bank, the UPS itself could overheat. Maybe it was rated for only few minutes at max load and with your current batteries, you are capable of using it for maybe 40 minutes now at max load. So be careful at max load. If you use only 3 kW though, I'd say something that withstands 5 kW for few minutes is very likely to withstand 3 kW indefinitely.&#xD;&#xA;* If the UPS has Anderson SB50 connectors, I would actually forget using at 100 amps continuous, and fit a slightly smaller fuse to prevent you from using the full 5 kW. The largest SB50 connectors you can find are for 16 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; wire which isn't up to the task of 100 amperes continuous." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31621" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12385" RevisionGUID="dbee0865-9e78-4480-a21a-33e9b7ec4e2d" CreationDate="2022-11-01T21:42:02.007" UserId="9669" Text="Is it true that nitrate radicals improve air quality during the night (and that is why light pollution, which destroys them, is bad)? I just came across [this][1] old presentation on light pollution from the European Commission site, and it seems fascinating. I'd like to know more about it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;url=https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/project-result-content/0eb54a4b-9b44-47a1-9acb-c56685ce80c5/Light%2520Pollution%2520%2526%2520Climate%2520Change%2520(Turkey).pdf&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjt-9jv9I37AhVCEncKHVBhCWUQFnoECE0QAQ&amp;usg=AOvVaw1zE-ELmpN86i_M7Zw7PFJD&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/DUhr4.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31623" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12385" RevisionGUID="dbee0865-9e78-4480-a21a-33e9b7ec4e2d" CreationDate="2022-11-01T21:42:02.007" UserId="9669" Text="Is it true that nitrate radicals improve air quality during the night (and that is why light pollution, which destroys them, is bad)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31624" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12385" RevisionGUID="dbee0865-9e78-4480-a21a-33e9b7ec4e2d" CreationDate="2022-11-01T21:42:02.007" UserId="9669" Text="|light|air-pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12387" RevisionGUID="bbd8f9bd-9c26-4632-a87d-f8e0af5f5f57" CreationDate="2022-11-06T02:04:59.760" UserId="3379" Text="## Usage factor is declining because the average duration of batteries on the grid is increasing&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inspired by the report that [M Juckes shared](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/12360/3379), I dug into the data source for utility-scale batteries: Table 3.4 from [EIA-860](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using the 2021 data (the most recent available), I created the plot below showing cumulative installed power, cumulative installed energy, and the average duration. Average duration (`hours`) is simply energy (`MW*hours`) divided by power (`MW`). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The results show that since the cumulative energy is increasing faster than the capacity, the average duration of batteries on the grid is increasing for the time period shown.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a result, the usage factor is decreasing simply because it's inversely proportional to the duration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FBv7X.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31630" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="e7d94eda-2cb5-4051-84e2-de404f91e8c4" CreationDate="2022-11-07T11:06:40.813" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31631" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12388" RevisionGUID="dde60245-079b-4f2d-9299-ecf6c9bedd6d" CreationDate="2022-11-08T22:38:44.580" UserId="9669" Text="I thought after the Hindenburg catastrophe large-scale hydrogen-powered vehicles are no longer considered something safe and worthy of investment. However, it's gaining a lot of traction lately: cars, planes, trains... Has the issue of hydrogen's explosiveness been resolved? Or is it going to last till another major tragedy?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31633" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12388" RevisionGUID="dde60245-079b-4f2d-9299-ecf6c9bedd6d" CreationDate="2022-11-08T22:38:44.580" UserId="9669" Text="Why is hydrogen no longer considered a colossal fire hazard?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31634" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12388" RevisionGUID="dde60245-079b-4f2d-9299-ecf6c9bedd6d" CreationDate="2022-11-08T22:38:44.580" UserId="9669" Text="|hydrogen-fuel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31635" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12389" RevisionGUID="2f3e49e3-0d70-46a0-b85d-f9bb2c2de952" CreationDate="2022-11-09T01:57:19.120" UserId="2345" Text="Hydrogen still is a fire/explosion hazard. Nothing about the fundamentals of hydrogen have changed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People still need to be careful regarding liquid lead-acid batteries in cars because of the potential for hydrogen to accumulate within the batteries or to be released by the batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What has changed regarding hydrogen is people's awareness and technology. The hydrogen storage technology and safety technology used by the Hindenburg were primitive compared to what is currently available. People are aware of the history of hydrogen and it usage and they are exercising more care regarding design, manufacturing, materials, exposure to heat, shock reduction, ventilation, static electricity, proximity or naked flames or sparks, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Previously, hydrogen had to be combusted to use its energy. Now, fuel cells can utilize hydrogen to generate electricity, which is safer. See what Japanese car maker Toyota is doing with the [Mirai][1] - it's an electric vehicle that is powered by hydrogen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [hydrogen tank][2], storage capacity is 5.6 kg. That gives a driving range of 650 km. The tank is comprised of a polymer liner, carbon fiber reinforce polymer middle section and a fiber glass reinforced surface section.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.toyota.com.au/mirai&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.toyota.com/mirai/features/hydrogen_tank/3002/3003" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31637" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12390" RevisionGUID="384602a7-eb79-4461-988f-887755b1eafa" CreationDate="2022-11-09T05:22:27.950" UserId="6393" Text="Hindenburg is a disaster waiting to happen. It had a soft fabric with hydrogen inside. If that fabric breaks (for example due to a bird colliding to it), the hydrogen starts to leak. A spark and you have ignition, resulting in a massive fireball. Tanks in cars won't be punctured so easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, we have Hindenburgs in air today. They are weather balloons. Hydrogen is used, because helium is a scarce resource that shouldn't be wasted. The difference is that no humans are onboard, so if it explodes, it won't cause any actual damage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, hydrogen in cars is a completely different matter. A typical car has very little of it, because fuel cells and electric motors are so efficient. In fact, about 5.6 kg, as the other answer explains. That's 66.9 cubic meters. At lower flammability limit of 4%, if everything leaks it can cause a room with size of 1672 cubic meters to explode -- assuming the tank was full. A parking hall with space for 40 cars is large enough that if all of the hydrogen from one car leaks, it still won't cause an explosion because the space where the hydrogen can expand is so large. And even if the parking hall is a very small one with space for maybe 15 vehicles, it probably has very good ventilation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But will that explosion happen? Most likely, no. Firstly, it's extraordinarily unlikely that all of the hydrogen would leak so fast. Secondly, cars are not used in sealed spaces. Every parking hall has to have a very good ventilation system, or else people would die inside due to all of the carbon monoxide produced by gasoline engines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Outdoors, it's not an issue. The hydrogen will dissipate so fast it really won't explode. Actually, outdoors gasoline is a far more major hazard, because it's a liquid that can continue spilling into the fire from the tank, as opposed to gas that would dissipate fast. Also, a typical gasoline vehicle has maybe 56 liters of gasoline, containing 1800 megajoules of energy. The 5.6 kg hydrogen contains only 670 megajoules of energy so smaller fire if all of that burned -- but it won't start to burn except maybe in very extraordinary circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What about electric vehicles then? They have batteries that have all the reactants for a massive fire. That fire is not limited by oxygen like gasoline or hydrogen fires are, because the reactants needed are all inside the battery. So if you try to smother that fire, tough luck, you won't succeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd say that in typical parking hall the most dangerous cars are electric vehicles (due to easily flammable batteries and due to the fire not being limited by the amount of oxygen), and liquid petroleum gas (propane) vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;LPG is dangerous because it's heavier than air, so it can accumulate in parking halls. Hydrogen is lighter than air, so it will easily dissipate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For planes, the only safety issue in hydrogen is if all of it is lost mid-flight far away from airfields, maybe over an ocean. Making a landing in the middle of an ocean won't be very safe... Kerosene fueled planes at least probably wouldn't leak the fuel so fast because it's not pressurized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, planes maybe could use liquid hydrogen instead of pressurized hydrogen. If that's the case, it has exactly the same safety properties as kerosene, except it's so cold you won't want to touch it. Leaks would be slow, like kerosene leaks are." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31639" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="fd22c5c5-1082-4d10-a318-39f085b67ec3" CreationDate="2022-11-09T12:00:01.570" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1590313256929091585" />
  <row Id="31640" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12360" RevisionGUID="30354db4-318b-4219-8049-4aebacfe4675" CreationDate="2022-11-10T04:20:22.623" UserId="8232" Comment="remove duplicate words" Text="The operating costs of using a battery once it has been installed are generally low. In fact, they appear to be too low to report on: the recent &quot;[Battery Storage in the United States: An Update on Market Trends][1]&quot; report notes the need for more information on operating costs, but bases its analysis on capital costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the low operating costs, it makes sense to use batteries as much as possible. The batteries installed initially will be used almost every day. As capacity expands, some of the newer installations are not needed as often. Taking the expanded capacity into account, it is clear that the total power supplied by the batteries is increasing steadily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/batterystorage/pdf/battery_storage_2021.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31641" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="bcfc59b5-d1ec-4121-9257-0b836e219c39" CreationDate="2022-11-10T14:00:50.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31642" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="ae89ecc9-1db1-40f0-a838-6f94771a36d2" CreationDate="2022-11-11T02:03:50.403" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12391" RevisionGUID="047ff72e-e9a9-4399-809f-3b0f4ca53fef" CreationDate="2022-11-12T17:46:42.427" UserId="9669" Text="Why does climate change [lead][1] to more diarrhea? Is it because people drink more E.Coli-contaminated water? Or does it multiply and contaminate a fixed volume of water more at warmer temperatures? Or does it contaminate more water sources somehow?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/214/1/6/2469749" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12391" RevisionGUID="047ff72e-e9a9-4399-809f-3b0f4ca53fef" CreationDate="2022-11-12T17:46:42.427" UserId="9669" Text="Why does climate change lead to more diarrhea?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31646" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12391" RevisionGUID="047ff72e-e9a9-4399-809f-3b0f4ca53fef" CreationDate="2022-11-12T17:46:42.427" UserId="9669" Text="|water|climate-change|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31647" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="2728276b-4293-417c-a18a-ef0171b7a4eb" CreationDate="2022-11-12T18:26:04.970" UserId="13543" Text="The general public has been told for years to carefully bin their plastic litter in the proper bin. Most people believe that doing this actually results in protecting the environment from plastic pollution. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This article](https://grist.org/accountability/380-million-tons-of-plastic-are-made-every-year-none-of-it-is-truly-recyclable/) mentions that the rate of plastic recycling in the US is as low as 5%, and around 9% in the world. In [this other article](https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/whopping-91-percent-plastic-isnt-recycled) it is mentioned that Europe reaches 30% and China 25%, which are still shockingly low proportions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Apparently the main issue is not even the fact that people don't recycle or bad management (although that could explain why the US lags behind), it's the technological difficulty to recycle most types of plastic. But there is no detail about which amount of this proportion is due to lack of action by people, mismanagement by recycling companies, etc.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The first article ends with this quote:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; “[P]lastic recycling is neither a safe nor realistic solution to reducing plastic waste and pollution in the United States.”&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is plastic recycling really not a viable solution? For example, what would be the maximum recycling rate that can be achieved with current technology? Are there places in the world which reach a really high recycling rate?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31649" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="2728276b-4293-417c-a18a-ef0171b7a4eb" CreationDate="2022-11-12T18:26:04.970" UserId="13543" Text="Is plastic recycling mostly green washing?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31650" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="2728276b-4293-417c-a18a-ef0171b7a4eb" CreationDate="2022-11-12T18:26:04.970" UserId="13543" Text="|recycling|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31651" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12393" RevisionGUID="aa7e7e72-409e-49e3-be6f-caf77ba3de1c" CreationDate="2022-11-13T13:41:27.933" UserId="6393" Text="Chemical plastic recycling is viable and creates a product as good as plastic newly created from petroleum. Mechanical, not so much, it leads to poor quality plastic that tears very easily and is unsuitable for food packaging for example due to contamination concerns.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two ways chemical recycling can be done:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Burn plastic into carbon dioxide (and water). Capture carbon dioxide. Capture waste heat, distributing it in a district heating network. Create hydrogen from water using electrolysis. Combine hydrogen and carbon dioxide into methane. Post-process the methane to create longer chain hydrocarbons, and eventually the plastic molecules you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Create petrochemicals directly from plastic, avoiding the need to convert it to carbon dioxide by burning and later back to hydrocarbons. Those petrochemicals can then be processed to create the needed plastic molecules. At least &lt;a href=&quot;https://alterraenergy.com/&quot;&gt;Alterra Energy&lt;/a&gt; has such a process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of these options, (2) has probably greater energy efficiency (leading to cheaper recycling), but (1) isn't bad either assuming you have a use for the waste heat. A benefit of (1) is that it allows creating plastic from any waste containing carbon -- cardboard packaging, newspapers, wood and plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you want to create plastic from wood or paper waste, (1) is the better option. And if you don't want to recycle plastic to a separate stream (which (2) requires) but rather process a single energy waste stream, (1) is better since it can process nearly any waste apart from glass and metal that don't burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Currently most plastic recycling is mechanical, and that explains why recycled plastic has such a crap quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think that given the current processing of plastic waste, it doesn't make sense to separate plastic waste to a separate stream. You are then supporting the creation of inferior quality product, leading to the proliferation of bad quality plastic bags that tear on the first use, leading to people buying a single new plastic bad and using it exactly once, as opposed to using the same plastic bag 100 times (which used to be possible before the disastrous recycling of plastic and usage of the poor recycled plastics in plastic bags began).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But in the future, if technology (2) proves superior to technology (1), then it may begin to make sense to have a separate plastic waste stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, I'm sure that in the future, new non-recycled plastic will be created not from petroleum but from trees." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12395" RevisionGUID="91f3c7fc-2e6b-4c74-a132-051ccd6d98a8" CreationDate="2022-11-13T23:47:03.117" UserId="14488" Text="Whenever applying the Life-Cycles Assessment ISO standard, the scope defined prior to LCI and LCIA seems to be arbitrarily choosable, which apparently was a framework design choice, such that exactly what &quot;should be measured&quot; can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these arbitrary leeway, how do you as a sustainability professional make sure the numbers you present are comparable to alternative investment opportunities, especially considering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Including the whole system as a scope is increasingly complex (thus requiring more resources, data, time and effort)&#xD;&#xA;* LCA results are oftentimes not using the exact same scope and components&#xD;&#xA;* LCA results are sometimes only published in an aggregated form (1 definite number X of 1 unit of product Y produced and company Z)&#xD;&#xA;* LCA results are mostly reported as absolute numbers thus neglecting uncertainty, seasonality, variance, volatility, and product, market and actor heterogenity&#xD;&#xA;* LCA scope of other studies is oftentimes not explicitly reported to the full extent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you consider this somewhat a design flaw of the LCA method, or a necessary restraint to limit tool complexity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31661" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12395" RevisionGUID="91f3c7fc-2e6b-4c74-a132-051ccd6d98a8" CreationDate="2022-11-13T23:47:03.117" UserId="14488" Text="How do sustainability professionals tackle the Life-Cycle Assessment comparability vs. complexity trade-off?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31662" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12395" RevisionGUID="91f3c7fc-2e6b-4c74-a132-051ccd6d98a8" CreationDate="2022-11-13T23:47:03.117" UserId="14488" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31663" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12395" RevisionGUID="d9c1325b-a187-4c90-b506-57d8f8146052" CreationDate="2022-11-13T23:48:18.077" UserId="14488" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Whenever applying the Life-Cycles Assessment ISO standard, the scope defined prior to LCI and LCIA seems to be arbitrarily choosable, which apparently was a framework design choice, such that exactly what &quot;should be measured&quot; can be measured.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With these arbitrary leeway, how do you as a sustainability professional make sure the numbers you present are comparable to alternative investment opportunities, especially considering:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Including the whole system as a scope is increasingly complex (thus requiring more resources, data, time and effort)&#xD;&#xA;* LCA results are oftentimes not using the exact same scope and components&#xD;&#xA;* LCA results are sometimes only published in an aggregated form (1 definite number X of 1 unit of product Y produced in company Z)&#xD;&#xA;* LCA results are mostly reported as absolute numbers thus neglecting uncertainty, seasonality, variance, volatility, and product, market and actor heterogenity&#xD;&#xA;* LCA scope of other studies is oftentimes not explicitly reported to the full extent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do you consider this somewhat a design flaw of the LCA method, or a necessary restraint to limit tool complexity?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31664" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12396" RevisionGUID="92baf1bf-e324-4142-9c81-992a8faecba9" CreationDate="2022-11-14T04:21:00.113" UserId="14489" Text="To begin, I'm interested for a number of reasons in finding ways to decrease the fraction of my household waste that goes to landfill. One simple strategy for achieving this objective, in part if not in whole, is to change my purchasing habits, basically to buy fewer items that involve non-biodegradable materials and sort waste at a minimal level (compostables from non-compostables, plastics from metals, steel/aluminum/tin/etc., etc.) To go further, I'd like to explore ways of processing and repurposing items that aren't recyclable in the conventional sense (e.g. plastic cereal bags, thin shell packaging, etc.).  This is in part because it seems like it could be practical, if not immediately then in aggregate at a sort of population level over time, and in part because it seems like it could be fun (or at least instructive.)  Are there forums or publicly maintained websites/website-communities where an aspiring amateur home recycler such as myself might find guidance and/or share advice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31666" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12396" RevisionGUID="92baf1bf-e324-4142-9c81-992a8faecba9" CreationDate="2022-11-14T04:21:00.113" UserId="14489" Text="Guidance for amateur recyclers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31667" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12396" RevisionGUID="92baf1bf-e324-4142-9c81-992a8faecba9" CreationDate="2022-11-14T04:21:00.113" UserId="14489" Text="|recycling|plastic|waste-minimisation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31668" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12397" RevisionGUID="a77f09fe-76a3-4648-8acb-64650b3b8f79" CreationDate="2022-11-14T04:43:58.287" UserId="14490" Text="I’m not aware of any definitive studies or reputable sources of information that directly link climate change to increased cases of diarrhea. I’d be interested to see any if anyone happens to have a link to anything along those lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or a biological scientist) to see clear potential reasons as to why climate change could cause diarrhea to become more prevalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: climate change has been linked to drought and dry conditions in many areas, which lowers the water table and reduces the number of water sources available. For people who rely on rivers and other non-groundwater sources of drinking water, the lowered water levels that drought causes can turn a free-flowing river or stream into a trickle interspersed with pools of nearly stagnant water which are also much warmer than the flowing water that’s been replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stagnant water or extreme lack of current provides ideal habitat for ample populations of algae, bacteria, and various other microbes that are unable to flourish in cooler, flowing water. As the water becomes concentrated and subject to excessive water temps as it sits in the sun all day, so too do nutrients and pathogens, etc become concentrated. The abundance of nutrients in the water, warmer than usual water temperatures, and lack of circulation/oxygenation are all factors that lead to the water no longer being potable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A spot that typically has safe drinking water due to dilution of any microbes via current, and less productive living conditions (flowing water, cooler temps, no stagnant areas to allow pathogens to thrive) , quickly can become overrun with algae, bacteria, etc…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; failure to abandon this source of water as it is negatively impacted via climate change, in favor of a cleaner source could certainly lead to more cases of diarrhea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31670" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12397" RevisionGUID="bf9fff01-2980-472b-b2a5-ffe75d6b0dca" CreationDate="2022-11-14T09:02:18.477" UserId="2345" Comment="Typo correction" Text="I’m not aware of any definitive studies or reputable sources of information that directly link climate change to increased cases of diarrhea. I’d be interested to see any if anyone happens to have a link to anything along those lines.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or a biological scientist) to see clear potential reasons as to why climate change could cause diarrhea to become more prevalent.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: climate change has been linked to drought and dry conditions in many areas, which lowers the water table and reduces the number of water sources available. For people who rely on rivers and other non-groundwater sources of drinking water, the lowered water levels that drought causes can turn a free-flowing river or stream into a trickle interspersed with pools of nearly stagnant water which are also much warmer than the flowing water that’s been replaced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stagnant water or extreme lack of current provides ideal habitat for ample populations of algae, bacteria, and various other microbes that are unable to flourish in cooler, flowing water. As the water becomes concentrated and subject to excessive water temps as it sits in the sun all day, so too do nutrients and pathogens, etc become concentrated. The abundance of nutrients in the water, warmer than usual water temperatures, and lack of circulation/oxygenation are all factors that lead to the water no longer being potable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A spot that typically has safe drinking water due to dilution of any microbes via current, and less productive living conditions (flowing water, cooler temps, no stagnant areas to allow pathogens to thrive) , quickly can become overrun with algae, bacteria, etc…&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; Failure to abandon this source of water as it is negatively impacted via climate change, in favor of a cleaner source could certainly lead to more cases of diarrhea. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31671" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12398" RevisionGUID="46eda647-05bd-43db-b989-c289c1bf226a" CreationDate="2022-11-15T14:51:43.920" UserId="14492" Text="https://files.sma.de/downloads/HB1124-TEN093421.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Im assuming the inverter does not know where the DC current is coming from as long as it is below the maximum current, or am I missing something here? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31673" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12398" RevisionGUID="46eda647-05bd-43db-b989-c289c1bf226a" CreationDate="2022-11-15T14:51:43.920" UserId="14492" Text="Can I use this &quot;hydro&quot; inverter with solar panels SMA hyroboy HB 1124" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31674" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12398" RevisionGUID="46eda647-05bd-43db-b989-c289c1bf226a" CreationDate="2022-11-15T14:51:43.920" UserId="14492" Text="|solar-power|solar|hydrogen-fuel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31675" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12399" RevisionGUID="4a4c188c-2ab1-4bf0-b1ed-9fd437a3f585" CreationDate="2022-11-15T16:20:04.480" UserId="6393" Text="Maybe, but you need to look at `V_DCmax`, `V_DC` and `I_DCmax` specs of your unit. If you exceed any of these with your solar panel, for example due to open circuit voltage exceeding `V_DCmax`, it won't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also minimum input voltage may matter, for example the specs say 22 - 55 V voltage during operation is the permissible range. So don't try to use it with panels intended for charging 12V batteries (unless you connect two of them in series).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would however heavily recommend a maximum power point tracking inverter that's intended for solar systems. Usually your limitation is how many panels you can fit on the roof, and if this is the case, MPPT offers you 20% more energy production for the same panel count.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So unless you already have the &quot;hydro boy&quot;, don't order it, order something more suitable. But if you already have it, it's worth trying." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31677" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12212" RevisionGUID="54298d9e-fc8d-459e-b8a5-fc05ff9f00a4" CreationDate="2022-11-15T20:03:05.460" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31678" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12400" RevisionGUID="991a839c-0814-4de5-acca-dd67a5d41db7" CreationDate="2022-11-18T09:35:19.880" UserId="5532" Text="Due to wear my rain pants have started leaking.&#xD;&#xA;The pants are made of polyamide with pvc coating. The pvc coating is peeling of in the crotch area, as this is where a lot of friction happens when cycling. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because during normal use there is no friction on the rest of the garment, I suspect the pants could be used for another year at least if I patch the leaky area. I have a glue used for fixing tent-seams. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there anything I should be aware of, in terms of combinations of materials and glue, if I try to patch the garment?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31680" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12400" RevisionGUID="991a839c-0814-4de5-acca-dd67a5d41db7" CreationDate="2022-11-18T09:35:19.880" UserId="5532" Text="Patching pvc coated rain pants?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31681" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12400" RevisionGUID="991a839c-0814-4de5-acca-dd67a5d41db7" CreationDate="2022-11-18T09:35:19.880" UserId="5532" Text="|toxic-chemicals|repair|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31682" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11926" RevisionGUID="5bc2d6e5-0d7b-4eec-8988-47a5c230d860" CreationDate="2022-11-19T01:59:14.833" UserId="9669" Comment="added 208 characters in body" Text="Tell me about concentrated solar power plants. Under what circumstances are they more feasible than conventional solar panels? It seems to me, a layman, that there are way too many energy transfers for it to be a better solution (PV devices appear to capture that solar energy more &quot;directly&quot; or something). On the other hand, concentrated solar appears to be [superior][1] to other types of solar in terms of power density&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518305512?via%3Dihub" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31683" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11927" RevisionGUID="e24dbe68-fea0-4623-bd1c-844a3eb3335f" CreationDate="2022-11-19T10:16:03.367" UserId="6393" Comment="concentrating PV" Text="Concentrating solar-thermal power is an entirely different way of producting solar power. There are two types of concentrating solar-thermal plants. One type has parabolic mirrors in a line. Then a pipeline with some oil for example runs at the focal line. The heat from sunshine warms up the oil. With thousands of parabolic mirrors, the oil is warmed up very hot. Then the heat of the sun can be used in a thermal engine that uses steam as the working fluid. You need some way of disposing of the waste heat at lower temperature. One possibility is running water, but in hot deserts water may not be available. Another possibility is a cooling tower but it consumes water too. There are also air cooled condensers that cool the steam without consuming any water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another possibility is flat mirrors that are all oriended so that they direct the sunshine to a single tower. Then the oil is heated in the tower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's a traditional steam engine that works entirely like coal plants do. It shares the poor thermal efficiency of coal plants. However, solar panels too have a poor efficiency and if you take into account that, it doesn't look so bad anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A benefit of concentrating solar thermal power is that heat is much easier and cheaper to store than electricity, in molten salt for example. If you build a concentrating solar thermal power plant in a hot desert that has about equal sunshine every day of the year, it's possible to store the heat for use during nighttime. Then you get 24/7 electricity without needing to invest in any batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A drawback of concentrating solar thermal power is that it's already today more expensive than photovoltaic cells and lithium ion batteries. Then when you take into account that photovoltaic cell prices are exponentially decreasing, lithium ion battery prices are exponentially decreasing, and that new battery chemistries like iron-air are appearing, promising cheaper energy storage than lithium ion, you'll see why practically nobody builds concentrating solar thermal power plants anymore.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another drawback, especially of the tower type installations, is that the sunlight intensity near the tower is very high so if a bird flies there, it'll be killed. Yet wind power kills birds too and it's still installed en masse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concentrating solar thermal power works only for large installations. You can't install a concentrating solar thermal power to produce electricity for a single house, unlike what you can do with photovoltaics. Perhaps some of the techniques could work to provide solar heat for a single house at a far lower temperature, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; there's another form of concentrating solar power too -- concentrating photovoltaics. In this case, mirrors are used to make the sunlight more intense at the solar cells. It still uses solar cells like ordinary solar power, so it has the benefits of photovoltaics (very cheap), but also the drawbacks of solar power (no way to produce power at night without batteries).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Benefits of concentrating photovoltaics is that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Most solar cells have better efficiency under concentrated sunlight -- so yes, power density is slightly better but only so slightly this shouldn't matter in most cases. Here's the chart of efficiency: https://www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-efficiency.html -- you can see that non-concentrating single-crystalline silicon has a record of 26.1% and concentrating 27.6% so it's not a big benefit.&#xD;&#xA;2. You need less solar cells -- but you need more mirrors&#xD;&#xA;3. The solar cells, since you need less of them, can be more expensive so you can use higher-efficiency cells, the best money can buy. However, the best efficiency cells (multi-junction III-V cells) are still too expensive to be used in any other application than in space applications&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion is that given that today solar cells are very cheap, building a concentrating system for them probably doesn't make sense. Those mirrors need to be moved, so it's no longer a static structure. Another idea that has been proved bad is installing solar panels on movable mounts so they track the sun. The reason this is so bad is that solar panels are today very cheap, but installing them is expensive. Tracking devices make the installation even more expensive, like any sunlight concentrating plus tracking system would.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe for a DIY project where labor is cheap, but cells are expensive, it could make sense to build a concentrating and tracking system. But any installation paid at market labor rates, not so." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31684" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12401" RevisionGUID="d54873b4-3028-4fbd-9ce8-0ea903d23475" CreationDate="2022-11-19T10:40:24.780" UserId="9007" Text="Recycling. Processing sewage is most effective means recovering rebuilding fertilizer use. Human reuse of excreta is thousands of Yeats old. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;China, Japan, Korea did so, China in particular did so foe four millennia. Collapse of Rome eliminated sewers as method of waste disposal for centuries,  unlike Medieval Europe where waterborne diseases proliferated due to collapse post Roman hygiene. China's waters were drinkable up until 19th-20th century. Documented in RF Kings book,&quot;Farmers for Forty Centuries &quot; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31686" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12402" RevisionGUID="42579dd7-ea36-48af-aff1-61bd6bfe6d3d" CreationDate="2022-11-19T10:53:45.350" UserId="9007" Text="EV cars have advantages they don't directly pollute in their vicinity. Power plant emissions are dependant on fuel type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Coal: there aren't enough EV cars on market to care for exacerbate increased coal use, improvements in air scrubbing technology reduces pollutants. Since plants are often far from cities their pollution is not generally a factor. But typically a ton of particulates is produced per Gigawatt hour&#xD;&#xA; - Natural gas: methane has 2 combustion products,  carbon dioxide and water,  neither of which are atmospheric pollutants, some nitrous emissions are made due to combustion reaction with atmospheric nutrogen, but considerably less than coal&#xD;&#xA; - hydroelectric: inconsequential, no atmospheric pollutants&#xD;&#xA; - nuclear: inconsequential,  no atmospheric pollutants &#xD;&#xA; - wood: considerable, however outside third world and some European nations wood as electricity fuel is rare. However pollutants from wood burning are volatile organics, thus pose no long-term environmental consequences. Forest fires are naturally occurring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12403" RevisionGUID="daa9270d-0101-40b0-803c-4b527666def7" CreationDate="2022-11-21T06:14:21.527" UserId="14507" Text="The vinegar sounds good, but if you are seen doing that in the store you, I'm sure, automatically bought it.  The only ones you can check are the ones that are cut in sections with see through covers on them." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31690" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12404" RevisionGUID="cc408164-422c-47ab-b663-af1b6f2b08c5" CreationDate="2022-11-23T20:53:15.290" UserId="5824" Text="The November 23, 2022 CNN article [Etihad's 'Greenliner' shows a glimpse of a more sustainable future for aviation](https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ethiad-greenliner-sustainable-aviation-climate-spc-intl/index.html) includes a photo with the caption:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On March 25 2022, an Airbus A380, the world's largest commercial passenger airliner, completed a test flight powered entirely by SAF -- sustainable aviation fuel -- composed mainly of cooking oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is the photo along with an enlarged and enhanced cropped area showing that painted on the front of the aircraft are the words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;100% Sustainable Aviation Fuel on board&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The caption suggests SAF is composed &quot;mainly of cooking oil&quot; and I don't think they are going to the supermarket and buying bottles of new, unused cooking oil off the shelf, but it's not clear to me exactly what &quot;cooking oil&quot; means here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd like to ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** What fraction of the sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) being used today is actually ***used cooking oil?*** I'm just curious. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;bonus points&quot; for addressing *if that fraction is itself sustainable*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, or if there really isn't enough *suitable* used cooking oil available to maintain this fraction if the use of SAF really &quot;takes off&quot; (pun intended).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;thus the [tag:defining-sustainability] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Cropped and enhanced &quot;On March 25 2022, an Airbus A380, the world's largest commercial passenger airliner, completed a test flight powered entirely by SAF -- sustainable aviation fuel -- composed mainly of cooking oil.&quot; from https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ethiad-greenliner-sustainable-aviation-climate-spc-intl/index.html](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gbdYO.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gbdYO.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![&quot;On March 25 2022, an Airbus A380, the world's largest commercial passenger airliner, completed a test flight powered entirely by SAF -- sustainable aviation fuel -- composed mainly of cooking oil.&quot; from https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ethiad-greenliner-sustainable-aviation-climate-spc-intl/index.html](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aJ72A.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aJ72A.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gbdYO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aJ72A.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31692" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12404" RevisionGUID="cc408164-422c-47ab-b663-af1b6f2b08c5" CreationDate="2022-11-23T20:53:15.290" UserId="5824" Text="What Fraction of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is Actually Used Cooking Oil? (I'm just curious)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31693" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12404" RevisionGUID="cc408164-422c-47ab-b663-af1b6f2b08c5" CreationDate="2022-11-23T20:53:15.290" UserId="5824" Text="|recycling|defining-sustainability|biofuels|aviation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31694" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12404" RevisionGUID="b7b5f2c5-919f-4be3-8c4f-3399f5c95e37" CreationDate="2022-11-23T21:00:05.877" UserId="5824" Comment="added 124 characters in body; edited title" Text="The November 23, 2022 CNN article [Etihad's 'Greenliner' shows a glimpse of a more sustainable future for aviation](https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ethiad-greenliner-sustainable-aviation-climate-spc-intl/index.html) includes a photo with the caption:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;On March 25 2022, an Airbus A380, the world's largest commercial passenger airliner, completed a test flight powered entirely by SAF -- sustainable aviation fuel -- composed mainly of cooking oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Below is the photo along with an enlarged and enhanced cropped area showing that painted on the front of the aircraft are the words&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;100% Sustainable Aviation Fuel on board&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The caption suggests SAF is composed &quot;mainly of cooking oil&quot; and I don't think they are going to the supermarket and buying bottles of new, unused cooking oil off the shelf, but it's not clear to me exactly what &quot;cooking oil&quot; means here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd like to ask:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** What fraction of the sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) being used today is actually ***used cooking oil?*** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm just curious and don't mean to imply that the used cooking oil fraction is necessarily essential to the fuel's sustainability.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;bonus points&quot; for addressing *if that fraction is itself sustainable*&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;, or if there really isn't enough *suitable* used cooking oil available to maintain this fraction if the use of SAF really &quot;takes off&quot; (pun intended).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;thus the [tag:defining-sustainability] tag.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Cropped and enhanced &quot;On March 25 2022, an Airbus A380, the world's largest commercial passenger airliner, completed a test flight powered entirely by SAF -- sustainable aviation fuel -- composed mainly of cooking oil.&quot; from https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ethiad-greenliner-sustainable-aviation-climate-spc-intl/index.html](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gbdYO.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gbdYO.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![&quot;On March 25 2022, an Airbus A380, the world's largest commercial passenger airliner, completed a test flight powered entirely by SAF -- sustainable aviation fuel -- composed mainly of cooking oil.&quot; from https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/ethiad-greenliner-sustainable-aviation-climate-spc-intl/index.html](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aJ72A.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aJ72A.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gbdYO.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/aJ72A.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31695" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12404" RevisionGUID="b7b5f2c5-919f-4be3-8c4f-3399f5c95e37" CreationDate="2022-11-23T21:00:05.877" UserId="5824" Comment="added 124 characters in body; edited title" Text="What Fraction of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is Actually Used Cooking Oil? (Is this fraction itself sustainable?)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12405" RevisionGUID="9c5a83a1-9122-49cc-a43d-afc6e87df2bc" CreationDate="2022-11-23T21:08:07.133" UserId="6393" Text="One of the main companies creating sustainable aviation fuel is Neste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They say here: https://www.neste.com/products/all-products/raw-materials/waste-and-residues#3f0293d6&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...that &quot;In 2021, the share of waste and residues increased to 92% of Neste’s total renewable raw material inputs globally. Our refineries of renewable products have been technically capable of running on 100% waste and residues since 2015.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure if all of that waste is used cooking oil, though. It could be other types of food waste, or even non-food waste. Finding more accurate information is probably impossible, since Neste wants to keep full details of their material sourcing as confidential trade secret.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aviation fuels are nice that if we want to create all of them from sustainable sources, we probably can. For road transportation fuels, that is not possible because road transportation uses so much fuel and we don't have enough waste streams to create all of that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31698" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12406" RevisionGUID="8382795b-1917-4c4f-9af9-be279bb18086" CreationDate="2022-11-24T07:34:07.660" UserId="9669" Text="I read [this][1] and still don't fully understand the difference. Which decomposes faster? Do they mean biodegradables don't need &quot;certain&quot; conditions so they are good to go into a bin (or a hole in your backyard)? Or do they mean biodegradable plastic leave some non-soil residue behind?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Plastic that is compostable is biodegradable, but not every plastic that is biodegradable is compostable. Whereas biodegradable plastic may be engineered to biodegrade in soil or water, compostable plastic refers to biodegradation into soil conditioning material (i.e., compost) under a certain set of conditions. In order for a plastic to be labeled as commercially “compostable” it must able to be broken down by biological treatment at a commercial or industrial composting facility. Composting utilizes microorganisms, heat and humidity to yield carbon dioxide, water, inorganic compounds, and biomass that is similar in characteristic to the rest of the finished compost product. Decomposition of the plastic must occur at a rate similar to the other elements of the material being composted (within 6 months) and leave no toxic residue that would adversely impact the ability of the finished compost to support plant growth. ASTM Standards D6400 and D6868 outline the specifications that must be met in order to label a plastic as commercially “compostable”. There are currently no ASTM standard test methods in place for evaluating the ability of a plastic to compost in a home environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epa.gov/trash-free-waters/frequently-asked-questions-about-plastic-recycling-and-composting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31700" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12406" RevisionGUID="8382795b-1917-4c4f-9af9-be279bb18086" CreationDate="2022-11-24T07:34:07.660" UserId="9669" Text="What is the difference between biodegradable and compostable plastic?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31701" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12406" RevisionGUID="8382795b-1917-4c4f-9af9-be279bb18086" CreationDate="2022-11-24T07:34:07.660" UserId="9669" Text="|composting|biodegradable-waste|compostable-plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31702" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="524efcaf-becc-4b7d-9136-b83a4d6478d9" CreationDate="2022-11-25T01:01:05.117" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31703" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12407" RevisionGUID="c65584cd-4347-4a63-986f-29ba58ef9aca" CreationDate="2022-11-25T07:06:22.000" UserId="9669" Text="Does insulating homes make sense as a carbon footprint reduction strategy if no thermostats are installed? In Russia, we generally don't have them. If heat built up thanks to better insulation, people would just open their windows and the excessive heat would just be wasted. We have rundown buildings, but they need to be demolished altogether, not insulated, with people relocated elsewhere. Is insulation a proposal fit only for EU countries and such? If so, they are decently insulated as it is, it appears to me. Why is it promoted so much then?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31705" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12407" RevisionGUID="c65584cd-4347-4a63-986f-29ba58ef9aca" CreationDate="2022-11-25T07:06:22.000" UserId="9669" Text="Does insulating homes make sense as a carbon footprint reduction strategy if no thermostats are installed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31706" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12407" RevisionGUID="c65584cd-4347-4a63-986f-29ba58ef9aca" CreationDate="2022-11-25T07:06:22.000" UserId="9669" Text="|carbon-footprint|insulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12408" RevisionGUID="1a81aa24-8af1-4497-a424-b366cd61e626" CreationDate="2022-11-25T10:26:27.140" UserId="2345" Text="Not all homes, everywhere are insulated. Insulation also is relevant in hot climates to keep homes cool. Installing insulation is usually one of the first steps to reduce energy usage for heating or cooling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for Russia, I'm assuming homes are provided heating from a &quot;neighborhood heating center&quot; and that the only control home occupiers have is to either have the heating on or off or to open or close the windows. In such situations the benefit of having all homes insulated is that the &quot;neighborhood heating center&quot; can deliver less heat to the homes. If it currently supplies hot water for radiators at a certain temperature, with all homes well insulated that temperature could be reduced resulting in the heating center using less energy to heat the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12409" RevisionGUID="0221a1da-9404-40b8-bf29-b504274852c0" CreationDate="2022-11-25T14:09:58.327" UserId="14245" Text="I have 12V battery that can output 500A (LiFePO4). But all 220V invertors that I found need 48V input to work with high power (6kW).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to make boost DC-DC converter that will allow to use 12V battery with 48V invertors? Is it possible to make it cheap?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31711" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12409" RevisionGUID="0221a1da-9404-40b8-bf29-b504274852c0" CreationDate="2022-11-25T14:09:58.327" UserId="14245" Text="Is it possible to make 12V to 48V boost dc-dc converter of 6kW power?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31712" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12409" RevisionGUID="0221a1da-9404-40b8-bf29-b504274852c0" CreationDate="2022-11-25T14:09:58.327" UserId="14245" Text="|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31713" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12410" RevisionGUID="6d1ec2f5-b349-4489-8a2c-1fa6fd3bdada" CreationDate="2022-11-25T17:09:56.587" UserId="6393" Text="Not at all entirely impossible, just very hard and ridiculous, but what on Earth are you planning to do with 6 kW?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally single phase 230V is limited to 3.6 kW, since most electrical cords are rated for 16 amperes. Even then, the Schuko connector isn't really ideal for 16 amperes continuous for long periods, so I wouldn't advise for example continuously charging electric car with single phase 3.6 kW using Schuko connector, every day, for a number of years. The connector will degrade and then there's a danger of the connector overheating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The largest 230 V appliances I have are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Vacuum cleaner 2200 W (and that's very inefficient, today you could get a similar one with 700 W power once EU started to fight the ridiculous inefficient motors with better regulation)&#xD;&#xA;* Electric kettle 2200 W&#xD;&#xA;* Several electric heaters 2000 W&#xD;&#xA;* Coffee maker 1500 W&#xD;&#xA;* Portable air conditioning unit 1000 W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a single device I have consumes more than 2200 W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6 kW single phase is insane. That would be better implemented by having several different inverters with different AC and DC circuits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;500 amperes (6 kW at 12 V) requires very thick wires. Not even 0000 AWG (107 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) would be up to the task as that can handle about 200 amperes continuous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you limit a single circuit to 2200 W AC, it requires just about 200 amperes at 90% efficiency and 12 volts so you can use 200 ampere wires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even that would be ridiculous. 2200 W AC should be really produced by a 48 V system where the current would be limited to 50 amperes. I wouldn't advise using even 24 V systems to create 2200 W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can create 2200 W AC (50 amperes at 48 volts) using 16 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and maybe even 10 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; wiring without overheating the wire insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my advice: use a 48 volt system and create many 2000 - 3000 watt circuits, each with different AC and DC wiring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your boost converter approach is incorrect. Boosting 12 volts to 48 volts and then to 230 volts is just a very inefficient pathway to create 230 volts. It has higher losses than going directly from 12 volts to 230 volts. Also, where are you planning to find a 6 kW 12 volts to 48 volts boost converter? I'm sure that won't be easy to find, cheap, small, lightweight or efficient. Every single boost converter I have seen is actually more expensive than a modified square wave 230 volt inverter of similar power level. Actually, a boost converter might even be more expensive than a a pure sine wave inverter of similar power level." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31715" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12411" RevisionGUID="ac046776-fbb2-4793-a119-f2b36c480525" CreationDate="2022-11-25T17:18:04.010" UserId="6393" Text="It's true that if you feed a constant heating power to a building, and insulate it better, it's still constant power so same energy consumption. The insulation in such a case would just increase temperature indoors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'm 99% sure there are no buildings heated by constant power input, because the weather ourdoors is constantly changing. There has to be some adjustment, either closed loop (thermostats) or open loop (predict the heat power need based on temperature outdoors).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have thermostats, it's easy: the insulation is very beneficial. If you don't have thermostats, perhaps you should consider installing them, as I'm sure adding extra insulation will be at least 10x costlier than just installing thermostats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the control is open loop, it's still possible to get extra benefit from additional insulation. That open loop control is then just adjusted to deliver a little bit less heat to the buildings at a given temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a district heating network, a primitive open loop control could be that every building has a certain water flow speed (which can usually be adjusted with some adjustment screw), and the district heating network temperature depends on the predicted average heating need in the area, based on the temperature outdoors. In such a case, the adjustment screw just needs to be turned to result in little bit less water flow to get the energy benefits from better insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, the answer is: yes, insulation is always a good plan if it can be done cost-effectively." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31717" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12407" RevisionGUID="e0933d1f-e140-4788-86f6-d1f44a3653f4" CreationDate="2022-11-25T17:42:19.350" />
  <row Id="31718" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12412" RevisionGUID="acaa1b0f-fa2e-4ad2-95bf-604778a83c42" CreationDate="2022-11-25T19:18:16.803" UserId="14517" Text="I see that you're in Ukraine, so I'll do a frame challenge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ***don't*** want to power your stove from batteries. That's plain silly; round trip efficiency will be south of 50% I'd bet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you want:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Lights should be powered from low voltage sources. AC inverters have quite large losses, which you avoid with LED flashlights with a diode fed by a PWM circuit.&#xD;&#xA;1. For heating and cooking, use gas, diesel oil, kerosene or some other fuel source. They're fairly energy dense, and a liter of kerosene contains 3-4 times the energy of your battery bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your battery bank contains ~3.6kWh of energy. Let's say 80% of that's practically usable without destroying your batteries. That's 2.8kWh, or 10MJ. That's the energy content of 0.25 liters of kerosene! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At full throttle your 6kW inverter will suck the batteries dry in 20-30 minutes - and probably even faster in practice due to internal resistance in the cells. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use your inverter for powering the fridges and other 230V loads that you *need*. Use rechargeable flashlights for lights. Use some other fuel for cooking and heating." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31720" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12412" RevisionGUID="2371c9d9-16e4-4d35-a45a-13c422d3cd9c" CreationDate="2022-11-25T19:28:08.740" UserId="14517" Comment="added 309 characters in body" Text="I see that you're in Ukraine, so I'll do a frame challenge.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You ***don't*** want to power your stove from batteries. That's plain silly; round trip efficiency will be south of 50% I'd bet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you want:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Lights should be powered from low voltage sources. AC inverters have quite large losses, which you avoid with LED flashlights with a diode fed by a PWM circuit.&#xD;&#xA;1. For heating and cooking, use gas, diesel oil, kerosene or some other fuel source. They're fairly energy dense, and a liter of kerosene contains 3-4 times the energy of your battery bank.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your battery bank contains ~3.6kWh of energy. Let's say 80% of that's practically usable without destroying your batteries. That's 2.8kWh, or 10MJ. That's the energy content of 0.25 liters of kerosene! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;At full throttle your 6kW inverter will suck the batteries dry in 20-30 minutes - and probably even faster in practice due to internal resistance in the cells. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use your inverter for powering the fridges and other 230V loads that you *need*. Use rechargeable flashlights for lights. Use some other fuel for cooking and heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your batteries simply doesn't have significant amounts of energy when you start listing water heaters, air conditioners and other high power loads. For a small 100l water heater, with incoming water at 10°C and outgoing at 70°C, the *energy* required to heat the 100l is 25MJ - or 2.5 times your battery! " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31721" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12413" RevisionGUID="9ba7551e-12b9-4590-8f23-ec4d9ed18d86" CreationDate="2022-11-25T20:04:01.477" UserId="14518" Text="Sorry for a silly question, I'm sure it was asked many times in different forms but I wasn't able to find any concrete answer so here we go.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I'm trying to understand what is the 'best' way of getting rid of plastic waste and all  options look kinda bleak.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Recycling is very hard due to sorting and contamination and plastic can't be recycled endlessly (and total energy spent is very hard to calculate due to high amount of manual labor)&#xD;&#xA;- Clean burning releases CO2 and also requires a lot of energy, possible a lot of extra fuel&#xD;&#xA;- Chemical recycling into liquid fuel is nice but this fuel will be burned and CO2 will be released as well&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, why not store it as-is? As I see it, the biggest problems with landfills is:&#xD;&#xA;- Smell and general decay, which releases methane&#xD;&#xA;- They take a lot of space&#xD;&#xA;- Garbage may heat up and burn or blown away by wind, birds and animals may eat it&#xD;&#xA;- General leakage into the surrounding ecosystem, ground water and so on&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Okay, so why not do it a bit more specific? Plastic by itself is very resilient, it doesn't decay, smell or catch fire, it doesn't produce radiation. It won't smell by itself or produce methane.&#xD;&#xA;So it can be stored in like, a concrete cave or just in a big warehouse, we just need to separate it from organic waste and protect from wind/rain/ultraviolet.&#xD;&#xA;It can be done with minimal sorting, without separating different kinds of plastic or even glass or metal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the end all this hard garbage will just sit there and.. like.. do nothing? Its carbon contents won't be released into the atmosphere, it shouldn't require a lot of care.&#xD;&#xA;Sure, it will take a lot of space (although we can build skyscrapers for that purpose, lol) but that's kind of it?&#xD;&#xA;Sure, it's a bit sad that we can't use it again but looks like it can't be done efficiently anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And it can sit there until humanity comes up with an efficient way of using it again or until it becomes a new oil for the new sapient species that comes after us :D&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, what am I missing here? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31723" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12413" RevisionGUID="9ba7551e-12b9-4590-8f23-ec4d9ed18d86" CreationDate="2022-11-25T20:04:01.477" UserId="14518" Text="What are the cons of storing plastic waste" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31724" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12413" RevisionGUID="9ba7551e-12b9-4590-8f23-ec4d9ed18d86" CreationDate="2022-11-25T20:04:01.477" UserId="14518" Text="|plastic|storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12414" RevisionGUID="477ccfca-39ca-4111-b958-1b9fd948b542" CreationDate="2022-11-25T23:10:53.857" UserId="14519" Text="Yes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Germany, I've seen so far the following products in returnable packaging:&#xD;&#xA;- yogurt&#xD;&#xA;- different types of nuts&#xD;&#xA;- rice&#xD;&#xA;- beans&#xD;&#xA;- tomato sauce&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that all of the above are covered by 2 or 3 models of glass containers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31727" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12410" RevisionGUID="cab77a64-12de-4003-9a31-6bf62aaf1710" CreationDate="2022-11-26T18:01:42.900" UserId="6393" Comment="add a long list of suggestions for Ukraine" Text="Not at all entirely impossible, just very hard and ridiculous, but what on Earth are you planning to do with 6 kW?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally single phase 230V is limited to 3.6 kW, since most electrical cords are rated for 16 amperes. Even then, the Schuko connector isn't really ideal for 16 amperes continuous for long periods, so I wouldn't advise for example continuously charging electric car with single phase 3.6 kW using Schuko connector, every day, for a number of years. The connector will degrade and then there's a danger of the connector overheating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The largest 230 V appliances I have are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Vacuum cleaner 2200 W (and that's very inefficient, today you could get a similar one with 700 W power once EU started to fight the ridiculous inefficient motors with better regulation)&#xD;&#xA;* Electric kettle 2200 W&#xD;&#xA;* Several electric heaters 2000 W&#xD;&#xA;* Coffee maker 1500 W&#xD;&#xA;* Portable air conditioning unit 1000 W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a single device I have consumes more than 2200 W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6 kW single phase is insane. That would be better implemented by having several different inverters with different AC and DC circuits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;500 amperes (6 kW at 12 V) requires very thick wires. Not even 0000 AWG (107 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) would be up to the task as that can handle about 200 amperes continuous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you limit a single circuit to 2200 W AC, it requires just about 200 amperes at 90% efficiency and 12 volts so you can use 200 ampere wires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even that would be ridiculous. 2200 W AC should be really produced by a 48 V system where the current would be limited to 50 amperes. I wouldn't advise using even 24 V systems to create 2200 W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can create 2200 W AC (50 amperes at 48 volts) using 16 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and maybe even 10 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; wiring without overheating the wire insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my advice: use a 48 volt system and create many 2000 - 3000 watt circuits, each with different AC and DC wiring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your boost converter approach is incorrect. Boosting 12 volts to 48 volts and then to 230 volts is just a very inefficient pathway to create 230 volts. It has higher losses than going directly from 12 volts to 230 volts. Also, where are you planning to find a 6 kW 12 volts to 48 volts boost converter? I'm sure that won't be easy to find, cheap, small, lightweight or efficient. Every single boost converter I have seen is actually more expensive than a modified square wave 230 volt inverter of similar power level. Actually, a boost converter might even be more expensive than a a pure sine wave inverter of similar power level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; I didn't notice who asked the question is for Ukraine. Here is my advice, how I'm prepared for an energy catastrophe in Finland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My home is heated by district heating. However, if that's unavailable but electricity is available, I use numerous resistance heaters (small heat blowers that take very little space when I don't need them). I have 5.8 kW electric heaters total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If electricity is unavailable, I will do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have a cheap flashlight in every room just in case I need a flashlight immediately&#xD;&#xA;* I start a 1900 watt inverter generator to create electricity. I have some fuel in storage. This will run computers, refrigerators plus some floor lights. Unfortunately, it won't run my entire house due to lack of transfer switch. I can of course use any non-fixed appliance with long cable reels and extension cords.&#xD;&#xA;* If the electricity break is long, I will use a propane fueled 5 kW heater to create heat. I have the ability to monitor carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and propane levels to alert about dangerous gases.&#xD;&#xA;* If it's summer, I use two 100 watt solar panels to charge 54Ah 24V lead-acid battery bank. I have modified the 100 watt solar cells for 24V operation (originally they were 12V).&#xD;&#xA;* The lead-acid battery bank can be used to run computers (It's connected to a UPS), plus I have another 300W 24V-to-230V modified square wave inverter. Lead-acid batteries die suddenly and often, so just in case if the lead-acid battery bank fails at an inconvenient time, I have two 210Wh 300W true sine wave battery power stations by Ecoflow&#xD;&#xA;* Cooking, heating and making coffee is accomplished by a camping stove with small propane bottles. I would never dream about using non-grid electricity for cooking, heating or making coffee. Fossil fuels are better for emergencies.&#xD;&#xA;* If fuel runs out, I just ordered a Fenix HM23 headlamp powered by a single AA cell. My opinion is that headlamps are the best available light source for extended outages where fuel runs out, because they leave both hands free and very dim brightness is enough since they will always point the light to the direction where you are looking. It should run 100 hours with a single AA. If the headlamp breaks, I also have a second headlamp run by 3xAA cells that's too bright for extended outages (batteries run out fast). I also have two Fenix E20 AA powered flashlights, homemade bases for them to allow them to tailstand like a candle, plus two Fenix AOD-S diffusers to make them into actual &quot;electric candles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* I have a Nedis World Receiver radio that runs for 60 hours with two AA batteries&#xD;&#xA;* I have ordered 180 AA alkaline batteries. AA batteries are the best power source for emergencies, since AAA costs about the same but AA has 2.5 times the amount of energy. My calculations show these are enough for 2 years. They have a shelf life of 10 years. If buying AA batteries, please do ensure you order name brand batteries with long shelf life.&#xD;&#xA;* I also have numerous Sanyo Eneloop low discharge AA cells that I can charge whenever electricity is available&#xD;&#xA;* I can convert the 24V battery bank to USB directly without an intermediate inverter, plus I have a USB-to-AA charger allowing me to charge my Eneloops directly from 24V and from solar cells&#xD;&#xA;* Although I normally mostly use car, especially during the winter, I have several bikes, some electric, some not. One of them is an electric fatbike, so I have the possibility to do shopping with it in the middle of a winter with lots of snow. I have panniers for all bikes, so I can carry lots of groceries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you should consider something similar? Not thinking that 3600 watt-hour batteries run your entire house, but using a suitable form of energy (propane, gasoline, AA batteries, solar energy, maybe charged grid energy for times when you have it) for different uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find out that yes, indeed, 600 watts continuous (maybe 1200 watts peak) is enough for the uses in which you actually want to use electricity where fossil fuels aren't better, then I'm very sure you can find a single 600+ watt pure sine wave inverter and use the 12-volt system you currently have, and the 3600 watt-hours probably are enough to cover long power outages. I think that 1200 watts peak is enough to start a refrigerator for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If AA batteries and AA battery powered headlamps are in a short supply, a candle is better than nothing, but for emergencies AA batteries and LED headlamps really win." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31728" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12410" RevisionGUID="504b390d-c14f-4cd1-8297-cdbac35ec25d" CreationDate="2022-11-26T18:06:56.240" UserId="6393" Comment="add a long list of suggestions for Ukraine" Text="Not at all entirely impossible, just very hard and ridiculous, but what on Earth are you planning to do with 6 kW?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally single phase 230V is limited to 3.6 kW, since most electrical cords are rated for 16 amperes. Even then, the Schuko connector isn't really ideal for 16 amperes continuous for long periods, so I wouldn't advise for example continuously charging electric car with single phase 3.6 kW using Schuko connector, every day, for a number of years. The connector will degrade and then there's a danger of the connector overheating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The largest 230 V appliances I have are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Vacuum cleaner 2200 W (and that's very inefficient, today you could get a similar one with 700 W power once EU started to fight the ridiculous inefficient motors with better regulation)&#xD;&#xA;* Electric kettle 2200 W&#xD;&#xA;* Several electric heaters 2000 W&#xD;&#xA;* Coffee maker 1500 W&#xD;&#xA;* Portable air conditioning unit 1000 W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not a single device I have consumes more than 2200 W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6 kW single phase is insane. That would be better implemented by having several different inverters with different AC and DC circuits.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;500 amperes (6 kW at 12 V) requires very thick wires. Not even 0000 AWG (107 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;) would be up to the task as that can handle about 200 amperes continuous.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, if you limit a single circuit to 2200 W AC, it requires just about 200 amperes at 90% efficiency and 12 volts so you can use 200 ampere wires.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, even that would be ridiculous. 2200 W AC should be really produced by a 48 V system where the current would be limited to 50 amperes. I wouldn't advise using even 24 V systems to create 2200 W.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you can create 2200 W AC (50 amperes at 48 volts) using 16 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and maybe even 10 mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; wiring without overheating the wire insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my advice: use a 48 volt system and create many 2000 - 3000 watt circuits, each with different AC and DC wiring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your boost converter approach is incorrect. Boosting 12 volts to 48 volts and then to 230 volts is just a very inefficient pathway to create 230 volts. It has higher losses than going directly from 12 volts to 230 volts. Also, where are you planning to find a 6 kW 12 volts to 48 volts boost converter? I'm sure that won't be easy to find, cheap, small, lightweight or efficient. Every single boost converter I have seen is actually more expensive than a modified square wave 230 volt inverter of similar power level. Actually, a boost converter might even be more expensive than a a pure sine wave inverter of similar power level.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; I didn't notice who asked the question is for Ukraine. Here is my advice, how I'm prepared for an energy catastrophe in Finland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My home is heated by district heating. However, if that's unavailable but electricity is available, I use numerous resistance heaters (small heat blowers that take very little space when I don't need them). I have 5.8 kW electric heaters total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If electricity is unavailable, I will do this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* I have a cheap flashlight in every room just in case I need a flashlight immediately&#xD;&#xA;* I start a 1900 watt inverter generator to create electricity. I have some fuel in storage. This will run computers, refrigerators plus some floor lights. Unfortunately, it won't run my entire house due to lack of transfer switch. I can of course use any non-fixed appliance with long cable reels and extension cords.&#xD;&#xA;* If the electricity break is long, I will use a propane fueled 5 kW heater to create heat. I have the ability to monitor carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and propane levels to alert about dangerous gases.&#xD;&#xA;* If it's summer, I use two 100 watt solar panels to charge 54Ah 24V lead-acid battery bank. I have modified the 100 watt solar cells for 24V operation (originally they were 12V).&#xD;&#xA;* The lead-acid battery bank can be used to run computers (It's connected to a UPS), plus I have another 300W 24V-to-230V modified square wave inverter. Lead-acid batteries die suddenly and often, so just in case if the lead-acid battery bank fails at an inconvenient time, I have two 210Wh 300W true sine wave battery power stations by Ecoflow&#xD;&#xA;* Cooking, heating and making coffee is accomplished by a camping stove with small propane bottles. I would never dream about using non-grid electricity for cooking, heating or making coffee. Fossil fuels are better for emergencies.&#xD;&#xA;* If fuel runs out, I just ordered a Fenix HM23 headlamp powered by a single AA cell. My opinion is that headlamps are the best available light source for extended outages where fuel runs out, because they leave both hands free and very dim brightness is enough since they will always point the light to the direction where you are looking. It should run 100 hours with a single AA. If the headlamp breaks, I also have a second headlamp run by 3xAA cells that's too bright for extended outages (batteries run out fast). I also have two Fenix E20 AA powered flashlights, homemade bases for them to allow them to tailstand like a candle, plus two Fenix AOD-S diffusers to make them into actual &quot;electric candles&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;* I have a Nedis World Receiver radio that runs for 60 hours with two AA batteries&#xD;&#xA;* I have ordered 180 AA alkaline batteries. AA batteries are the best power source for emergencies, since AAA costs about the same but AA has 2.5 times the amount of energy. My calculations show these are enough for 2 years. They have a shelf life of 10 years. If buying AA batteries, please do ensure you order name brand batteries with long shelf life.&#xD;&#xA;* I also have numerous Sanyo Eneloop low discharge AA cells that I can charge whenever electricity is available&#xD;&#xA;* I can convert the 24V battery bank to USB directly without an intermediate inverter, plus I have a USB-to-AA charger allowing me to charge my Eneloops directly from 24V and from solar cells&#xD;&#xA;* Although I normally mostly use car, especially during the winter, I have several bikes, some electric, some not. One of them is an electric fatbike, so I have the possibility to do shopping with it in the middle of a winter with lots of snow. I have panniers for all bikes, so I can carry lots of groceries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe you should consider something similar? Not thinking that 3600 watt-hour batteries run your entire house, but using a suitable form of energy (propane, gasoline, AA batteries, solar energy, maybe charged grid energy for times when you have it) for different uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you find out that yes, indeed, 600 watts continuous (maybe 1200 watts peak) is enough for the uses in which you actually want to use electricity where fossil fuels aren't better, then I'm very sure you can find a single 600+ watt pure sine wave inverter and use the 12-volt system you currently have, and the 3600 watt-hours probably are enough to cover long power outages. I think that 1200 watts peak is enough to start a refrigerator for example.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If AA batteries and AA battery powered headlamps are in a short supply, a candle is better than nothing, but for emergencies AA batteries and LED headlamps really win. They are cheaper, take less space when you need light for a very long time, and the brightness can be usually adjusted." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31729" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12415" RevisionGUID="3dadb5e6-41d0-4eb8-89e9-82a2523e3fc0" CreationDate="2022-11-26T18:37:51.923" UserId="6393" Text="What you're missing is that an insignificant amount of the oil we use is used to create plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, it won't matter even a tiny bit if all plastic we use is stored underground. It's a good idea, though, but it won't scale because we use so little plastic. This is just like proposing using biofuels for all cars -- we just can't make enough biofuels for that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic use is only 380 million tonnes per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For comparison, Finnish forests (that grow very slowly), grow at a rate of 100 million cubic meters per year. One cubic meter is 420 kg, so that's 42 million tonnes per year. And that's only Finland, one very small country, that has only  23 million hectares of forest. If we assume every forest on this planet grows at the same rate (probably most grow way faster because most countries are warmer than Finland), the 4.06 billion hectares of forest in the world should grow at a rate of 7400 million tonnes per year. Probably world forest growth is maybe 2 times that since so many forests are in warm countries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So forests grow at least at a rate 20 times greater than plastic usage. You shouldn't be looking at storing plastic underground, but you should instead be looking at storing forestry products underground.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What we should do, is to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Chemically recycle all plastic (not into liquid fuels but into new plastic) in a manner that makes it as good as newly produced plastic. There are methods to do that. Current mechanical recycling makes inferior quality plastic that is a very poor product. But chemical recycling will change all that.&#xD;&#xA;* Use chopped down trees to create all new plastic.&#xD;&#xA;* Stop all oil usage, as fuel, as raw material for new plastic.&#xD;&#xA;* Maybe use some amount of forestry waste for making biochar and use that for carbon storage. Currently forestry waste is used as a fuel for creating heat, but that's just ridiculous. Heat should be created by renewable energy and heat pumps, freeing that large stream of forestry waste, allowing using it for making biochar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's true that carbon-containing materials should be buried underground, but that material probably isn't plastic (we just have too little plastic), but biochar created from wood. Biochar is way better because we can make so much of it. Well, we could make very much plastic too but there wouldn't be any point in it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also biochar doesn't create any &quot;micro-biochar&quot; contamination concerns like plastic creates microplastic concerns." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31731" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12416" RevisionGUID="bc478706-b6c6-4180-9d3e-c193e67d133c" CreationDate="2022-11-27T01:10:49.497" UserId="14520" Text="Does insulating homes make sense as a carbon footprint reduction strategy if no thermostats are installed? &#xD;&#xA;Insulating homes purely as a strategy for reducing their carbon footprint makes sense only if the occupants need to run heating and or cooling devices. If heating and or cooling are necessary, the simplest, most available 'thermostat' still being used in the majority of the world, I assume, is the human occupant. If we feel too hot they'll open a window, if they feel too cool they might put on more clothes, or invite sun-warmth into the house. And they can turn down or up their own heating and cooling devices if they live in an independent house, or install a thermostat to help with that if they live in a block of flats. As electronic thermostats can only measure and implement a general temperature, human thermostats will still need to fine tune for their personal comfort. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31733" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12416" RevisionGUID="c982e259-9e7d-492c-a445-a320fec9aab6" CreationDate="2022-11-28T04:15:32.650" UserId="8232" Comment="formatting" Text="&gt; Does insulating homes make sense as a carbon footprint reduction strategy if no thermostats are installed? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Insulating homes purely as a strategy for reducing their carbon footprint makes sense only if the occupants need to run heating and or cooling devices. If heating and or cooling are necessary, the simplest, most available 'thermostat' still being used in the majority of the world, I assume, is the human occupant. If we feel too hot they'll open a window, if they feel too cool they might put on more clothes, or invite sun-warmth into the house. And they can turn down or up their own heating and cooling devices if they live in an independent house, or install a thermostat to help with that if they live in a block of flats. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As electronic thermostats can only measure and implement a general temperature, human thermostats will still need to fine tune for their personal comfort. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31734" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12417" RevisionGUID="a4fa6048-7e58-475a-9d87-e4256915cd00" CreationDate="2022-11-29T06:00:48.743" UserId="9007" Text="Insulation is passive technology, requires no energy, uses no fuel and once installed,  lasts decades. Thus its more prevalent to insulate homes than invest in new heating technology. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12418" RevisionGUID="a916993b-2d68-42e1-9b07-e658d44dd507" CreationDate="2022-11-29T06:06:22.407" UserId="9007" Text="Inconsequential.  Plastic wastes are largely inert. Stored in landfill pose no long term environmental harm. As recycling goes. New techniques to reuse plastics or recycle them are coming. One unique aspect is home construction. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In 3rd world, plastic waste is rarely recycled... housing scarce and building materials expensive. Plastic is ubiquitous... a house derived using plastic feedstock. They are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - rot resistant&#xD;&#xA; - bug resistant &#xD;&#xA; - moderately fire resistant,  as they contain no instantaneous combustible materials. &#xD;&#xA; - mold resistant, invulnerable to humidity and easy to clean. &#xD;&#xA; - hypoallergenic &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vi8ck.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12419" RevisionGUID="4bbc0719-f611-44a3-abab-dc2512825f7d" CreationDate="2022-11-29T06:31:01.020" UserId="14520" Text="I wonder what this heap looks like now, four years later? The soil will be exquisitely rich. As a long time gardener,I would first clear the weeds, put them in a compost heap of their own. Plant fruit bushes around the edges, berries and such. Get some spawn of Garden King mushrooms and &quot;plant&quot; that between rows of beans, and whatever other vegetables your climate will grow. &#xD;&#xA;[tag:gardening] [tag:ediblefungi][tag:composting]" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31740" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12392" RevisionGUID="95d8c4f9-1f63-474d-a619-f91730113116" CreationDate="2022-11-29T15:00:06.193" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1597606331678183424" />
  <row Id="31741" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12420" RevisionGUID="2fb5e2b4-ba08-4ccb-81db-765d2a80b558" CreationDate="2022-11-30T23:06:19.617" UserId="9007" Text="Starting a hugelkultur means digging below, so the leaches from watering and rain seep to bottom. Some people have innovated to install electric insulated heating blanket to warm the pile in winter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Pile that large is too big, hugelkultur uses a mix if twigs, branches and cut up logs....and hardwoods are preferred medium as opposed to conifers. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12422" RevisionGUID="2df5bf23-dce3-4c96-b54c-c726a9f8c540" CreationDate="2022-12-01T03:32:38.773" UserId="9007" Text="Same. &#xD;&#xA;Biodegradable means disposal reintroduction into the environment where it dissolves fue to biological and outdoor activactivity...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compostable implies it can be added to compost as a soil amendment. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31747" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12423" RevisionGUID="1ea4eeb2-1019-4315-8b12-72c04f40a63e" CreationDate="2022-12-01T03:38:14.567" UserId="9007" Text="Paraffin wax is petroleum based therefore is not biodegradable.... if you have left over waxes, best solution is simply trash it. Trying to recycle it, not a hugely economical endeavor. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have it in LARGE quantities like large scale cheese, deli, operation...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Best thing to do, if you have alot...melt it all down and make a new candle  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31749" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12424" RevisionGUID="f49dca61-355a-4e07-a646-40448583dd2a" CreationDate="2022-12-01T06:25:46.553" UserId="14520" Text="The best way to store plastic after its useful life, at this moment of time, is still storage underground. Although the world in 2019 produced [460 million tonnes of plastic][1], many types are now hard to live without. For example,having so many people to feed would be almost impossible without plastic packaging for food keeping and distribution. Many medical interventions eg vaccinations throughout the world, operations, prosthetic limbs, intravenous delivery of meds would be almost impossible without plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are now 9.5 billion tonnes of plastic in existence, according to [\[Our World in Data\[1\]\].][1] Burning plastic to produce plastic char is not an option, though already happening, as the poisonous gases released add to atmospheric pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, about 20% of post-use plastic is being collected, stored (Australia is still using landfill) and recycled, mainly by developed countries with usually, as mentioned above, governmental input. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the articles I read states that the best way to control 'plastic mismanagement' is for developed countries to help the rest of the world develop strategies for decreasing one-use plastics, and for storage of plastic waste. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm hopeful that science will come up with good recycling solutions. Storing plastic underground, possibly already sorted, will represent a great storehouse of material when a plastic-based industry takes off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31751" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12425" RevisionGUID="8dce6a1f-54cb-490f-bb2f-26df4df9f9d9" CreationDate="2022-12-02T04:06:15.453" UserId="14520" Text="Compostable plastic can be added to a compost heap, to be degraded and transformed into compost along with the rest of the compostable materials, to be turned into a soil improver within 6 months. The municipal council in my town gives out compostable plastic bags for food waste, which are then collected in the weekly pick-up, and composted in huge heaps at the council's waste facility. People can go purchase bales and truckloads for their gardens. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biodegradable plastic, it is said, will break down if exposed to the workings of heat (sun) and wind and water. Like the weather. You might have seen someone storing something in a biodegradable one-use plastic bag, and that bag fragmenting after a few weeks, and them having to pick up the pieces. Trouble is with this sort, it just fragments down to molecules of plastic.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, [&quot;More than 50 species of plastivore – small organisms that consume plastic – have been discovered, which are mostly bacteria and fungi but include some insects capable of turning plastic waste into energy.&quot;][1] And these critters don't even need the plastic to be biodegradable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/plastic-waste-caterpillar-moth-larvae-biodegrade/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31753" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12426" RevisionGUID="1daff946-9483-462c-918a-122534334959" CreationDate="2022-12-02T04:33:33.843" UserId="14520" Text="I live in Australia. Perhaps my experiences in finding guidance in recycling will apply to your living situation as well. [The Brisbane Municipal Council][1] where I live, has a website with a page dedicated to recycling, where I can read what to put in which bin, how to recycle and re-use, etc There's also a blog and [an FB page where you can ask questions and discuss things with like-minded people.][2] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to waste petrol, energy, money, or time driving here and there for the purposes of chasing places where this or that item can be recycled, then you need to stick with your area, supported by the people who pick up your rubbish, and, as you said, change your purchasing habits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even where you shop can be helpful. My local branch of Woollies (supermarket) collects used batteries, dead mobiles (cell phones to you), and other small electronic devices for recycling.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/clean-and-green&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.facebook.com/BrisbaneCityCouncil/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31755" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12427" RevisionGUID="5c862ef5-01b6-4aa7-a0b9-fdb349d0641b" CreationDate="2022-12-02T21:49:28.127" UserId="14530" Text="If human demand for oil went away a farmer wouldn't grow soy. 33% of his profit comes from it. The cost to grow soy wouldn't change regardless if it is grown only for animal feed or not. Take away 33% of a farmers net margin and a farmer would actually loose money if he grew soy just for animal feed. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31761" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12430" RevisionGUID="3089ec2a-8b9e-4e2b-b1df-3e762e61589a" CreationDate="2022-12-03T20:06:26.633" UserId="6578" Text="Since a few years have passed, I think my original question has a better answer: mini PCs are better than either laptops or desktops.  These are as low-power as laptops, or lower, while avoiding the battery and using fewer materials.  If you don't play games and don't need portability, they seem like the current most environmentally friendly choice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31763" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12431" RevisionGUID="df8df2be-31e1-4400-a9b0-0d2fc089a02a" CreationDate="2022-12-03T21:51:22.170" UserId="6393" Text="My opinion is that it's most environmentally friendly to buy a good laptop, but use it mostly as a desktop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Manufacturing electronics creates surprisingly much emissions. There's a Finnish calculator to calculate your environmental footprint (&lt;a href=&quot;https://ilmastodieetti.ymparisto.fi/ilmastodieetti/&quot;&gt;called climate diet&lt;/a&gt;), and it seems to use a factor of about 0.87 kilograms of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; for every euro spent in electronics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a computer costing 1000 EUR, and having a lifetime of 4 years, the yearly manufacturing emissions are 217 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lifetime of a laptop is mostly defined by:&#xD;&#xA;* Lifetime of its battery and fan, if the laptop is so cheap it isn't economically viable to repair a broken battery or fan -- if you buy a good laptop with long expected lifetime, you are more likely to pay to have it repaired&#xD;&#xA;* Lifetime of its keyboard, this isn't usually feasible to repair since there are so many keys that might need repair&#xD;&#xA;* The amount of time the CPU, storage space and amount of RAM stay competitive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, by buying a laptop with powerful CPU, enough space for SO-DIMM memory including future expansion and enough possibilities for installing big storage (preferably at least one M.2 SSD slot and one SATA 2.5&quot; HDD/SSD slot), you can use the laptop about as long as you would use a desktop. It's true that laptop CPU cannot be upgraded, but even with a desktop upgrading a CPU often means upgrading the motherboard, which also means upgrading the RAM since maybe the old motherboard used DDR3 and the new uses DDR4. So, I don't really think that laptops would automatically have a lower lifetime than desktops, assuming the keyboard doesn't degrade, and assuming you are willing to pay for battery and fan repairs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What you can achieve by using the laptop as a desktop is maximizing the lifetime of its keyboard. You also make it more ergonomical since displays can be set at proper height and you have a big keyboard and a real mouse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The benefits of not buying a desktop and using a laptop instead are many:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You don't need to purchase a separate UPS for power outages, and remember, every euro spent in electronics creates 0.87 kilograms of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, so that's clear savings. Also the built-in &quot;UPS&quot; of a laptop has far longer storage duration than most lead-acid battery based UPSes.&#xD;&#xA;2. If you ever need a laptop, with a desktop computer you would have to buy a separate laptop computer (and every euro spent in electronics creates 0.87 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;), whereas if your desktop is a laptop, you just unhook it and use it elsewhere&#xD;&#xA;3. Laptops consume far less power. A desktop may use 100 watts excluding the display, which would be between 292 and 877 kWh per year (depending on whether you keep it always on or put it to sleep mode during night and use only 8 hours per day). At 0.4 kg/kWh emissions of natural gas generation, that's 117 - 351 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per year. However, a laptop would use maybe 10 watts, that's then 12 - 35 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions per year. Even in the relatively clean electricity grid of Finland (0.1 kg/kWh), desktop could create as much as 88 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per year (if you don't use the sleep mode), whereas a laptop would create tenth of that. Although it's true that in clean grids electricity use doesn't matter that much (because manufacturing the computer in China created so much more emissions than using the computer in a clean grid), it's still some clear savings.&#xD;&#xA;4. Laptops are better during extended power outages like what they have in Ukraine now. They use so little power it may be realistic to use a laptop from a power station that is charged by solar panels. And during winter if solar energy is unavailable, it's possible to run a generator for a very short time, rapidly charging a power station, and then use the laptop from a power station for a duration of a week, that was charged with only 0.5 liters of gasoline. A desktop would need ten times the amount of gasoline if charging the same power station with gasoline.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, an external display costing 250 EUR (one-time 218 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;) and using 30 watts (35 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per year at 0.4 kg/kWh and 8 hours per day) will have some emissions drawbacks. However, if with the use of an external display you can extend the lifetime of your laptop keyboard from 2 years to 6 years (or actually the laptop keyboard would last forever then due to non-use but the rest of the laptop might have a lifetime of 6 years), you save 290 kg CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per year. If the display has a lifetime of 6 years too, that's yearly CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint of 36 kg from manufacturing plus 35 kg from usage, which is 71 kg per year total. Even though the external display created some emissions in manufacturing and consumes more power, the fact that it allows you to use an external keyboard more than offsets all created emissions. (Well yes, theoretically someone could hook an external keyboard to a laptop while still using the built-in display, but that's just weird).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My estimate that a laptop keyboard degrades in 2 years to the point it's no longer usable is based on experience using a laptop without external monitor as my main computer for a period of a year. The keyboard showed so much degradation that I could maybe expect a second year out of it, but not more. (After that year of using a laptop as a laptop, I bought a display and used it as a desktop from that point on.)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31769" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8271" RevisionGUID="109fd953-b19c-4e67-9c01-5059c6f299bc" CreationDate="2022-12-04T01:16:44.987" UserId="2345" Comment="Unit capitalization + subscripts" Text="I've often wondered whether it's more environmentally friendly to use a desktop or a laptop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To compare purely the electricity usage, I can of course calculate how long I leave my computer turned on, measure the electricity usage with a meter, convert the kilowatt hours to metric tons of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; pollution depending on my power company or source of power (my power company's website's calculator indicates about 3000 kWh makes a metric ton of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions).  Desktops are clearly worse for the environment in this respect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are other factors to consider, and I'm not sure how to compare them to the electricity cost.  For example:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - There are a lot of harmful and unjust mining practices involved in building a computer to get rare metals - is this impact greater for a desktop or a laptop?&#xD;&#xA; - Laptops have batteries, which are bad for the environment.&#xD;&#xA; - But desktops have more mass, and electronic waste is bad for the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There may be specific situations where computers can be built from parts, often that people give away, which mitigates some of these concerns.  But I don't know how to compare the environmental cost of production of any extra desktop parts / laptops that I have to buy against the difference in electricity usage.  Does anyone have any insights into how to do this analysis, or can anyone point to any studies that have been done?  Let's assume that the computer will get recycled at the end of its life (I don't know enough about electronics recycling to know whether there will still be any harmful materials left though).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31785" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12439" RevisionGUID="9393f533-6ec7-4c14-b284-6c2d68ddb6ac" CreationDate="2022-12-04T12:16:17.690" UserId="6393" Text="Wood buildings do remove carbon in the mid-term, although not without risks: they can catch fire, and in this case the carbon would obviously be released.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if a wood building is demolished, we have to have some strategy of handling the wood waste. Existing ways (burn it for energy, make paper out of it, make cardboard packaging out of it, etc) do release the carbon quickly. However, I suspect that if you today construct a wood building with a lifetime of 100 years, and if in 100 years we still have excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the most likely waste handling mechanism when the building is demolished is actually creating biochar out of the wood and storing the biochar somewhere underground where it retains the carbon for a much longer time than 100 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you have to remember that lumber competes with other uses of trees. Trees can be used to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Create paper (this will be recycled a few times to create more paper and then it will be burned for energy)&#xD;&#xA;* Create cardboard packaging (this will be recycled a few times to create more paper and then it will be burned for energy)&#xD;&#xA;* Create energy&#xD;&#xA;* Create lumber&#xD;&#xA;* Create biochar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today, if you emit a tonne of carbon dioxide in EU, you have to pay around ~85 EUR. However, if you create biochar out of trees, you get no payment for sequestering carbon dioxide permanently. So there's no incentive to create biochar. Therefore, forest owners use forest for lumber, pulpwood (paper, cardboard, etc) and energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today, for example in Finland forests have a mid-range life cycle of 80-100 years where about half of the wood chopped during the lifetime is pulpwood and half of it are sawlogs. However, if lots of people want to create wooden houses, increasing the demand and price of sawlogs, a forest owner can and will increase the life cycle of a forest to 100-120 years so that it's possible to create less pulpwood and more sawlogs. Therefore, today lumber is competing with using wood to create short-lived products like paper and cardboard, and it's also competing with burning wood for energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future, I suspect wood will be mostly used to create biochar, and in that case wooden buildings can directly compete with carbon sequestration. Therefore, I suspect the climate benefit wooden buildings today have will eventually disappear, when all wood production is being used for carbon sequestration anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, remember that if you leave a forest unchopped, it will reach an equilibrium where all carbon flows in and out are in balance. The only way to permanently sequester carbon using a forest, is to chop it down near the time when that balance will be reached, to create room for more forest to grow, and use the wood for something that retains the carbon (lumber, biochar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the environmental Nazis that are demanding us to leave forests unchopped are actually incorrect: if you do that, it will eventually stop carbon sequestration. If wood is used to create long-lived products, it can be a continuous carbon sink, as long as the lifetime of the products is long and the eventual waste is properly treated (i.e. used to make biochar)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31787" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12439" RevisionGUID="68f2ac57-e732-4fc8-9707-85616db6b7da" CreationDate="2022-12-04T16:22:48.847" UserId="1053" Comment="added 5 characters in body" Text="Wood buildings do remove carbon in the mid-term, although not without risks: they can catch fire, and in this case the carbon would obviously be released.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, if a wood building is demolished, we have to have some strategy of handling the wood waste. Existing ways (burn it for energy, make paper out of it, make cardboard packaging out of it, etc) do release the carbon quickly. However, I suspect that if you today construct a wood building with a lifetime of 100 years, and if in 100 years we still have excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the most likely waste handling mechanism when the building is demolished is actually creating biochar out of the wood and storing the biochar somewhere underground where it retains the carbon for a much longer time than 100 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, you have to remember that lumber competes with other uses of trees. Trees can be used to:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Create paper (this will be recycled a few times to create more paper and then it will be burned for energy)&#xD;&#xA;* Create cardboard packaging (this will be recycled a few times to create more paper and then it will be burned for energy)&#xD;&#xA;* Create energy&#xD;&#xA;* Create lumber&#xD;&#xA;* Create biochar&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today, if you emit a tonne of carbon dioxide in EU, you have to pay around ~85 EUR. However, if you create biochar out of trees, you get no payment for sequestering carbon dioxide permanently. So there's no incentive to create biochar. Therefore, forest owners use forest for lumber, pulpwood (paper, cardboard, etc) and energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Today, for example in Finland forests have a mid-range life cycle of 80-100 years where about half of the wood chopped during the lifetime is pulpwood and half of it are sawlogs. However, if lots of people want to create wooden houses, increasing the demand and price of sawlogs, a forest owner can and will increase the life cycle of a forest to 100-120 years so that it's possible to create less pulpwood and more sawlogs. Therefore, today lumber is competing with using wood to create short-lived products like paper and cardboard, and it's also competing with burning wood for energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the future, I suspect wood will be mostly used to create biochar, and in that case wooden buildings can directly compete with carbon sequestration. Therefore, I suspect the climate benefit wooden buildings today have will eventually disappear, when all wood production is being used for carbon sequestration anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, remember that if you leave a forest unchopped, it will reach an equilibrium where all carbon flows in and out are in balance. The only way to permanently sequester carbon using a forest, is to chop it down near the time when that balance will be reached, to create room for more forest to grow, and use the wood for something that retains the carbon (lumber, biochar).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the environmental extremists that are demanding us to leave forests unchopped are actually incorrect: if you do that, it will eventually stop carbon sequestration. If wood is used to create long-lived products, it can be a continuous carbon sink, as long as the lifetime of the products is long and the eventual waste is properly treated (i.e. used to make biochar)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31788" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12440" RevisionGUID="e9060f4f-ff11-4af9-944a-f98ca357c07f" CreationDate="2022-12-05T08:12:05.657" UserId="14520" Text="Going back to the original question but paraphrasing ... what are the factors against storing plastic waste? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main thing against storing it underground is the &quot;out of sight out of mind&quot; tendency we humans suffer from. It's easy to forget it's there. Just set up an industry to bale it and drop it down a hole. Not solving the incrementing problem of too much unused plastic above ground. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best way 'to get rid of plastic waste' is to call it another name. Proponents of the Circular Economy are calling plastic waste a resource that needs to be transformed and put back into the loop, to be sold again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a resource, it won't be wasteful and/or labor intensive to sort it (Sorting that at first may be done by humans, later by robots) and truck it to different factories to be transformed. All processing will be paid for by the eventual product. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EG So far, 16% of Car-tyres thrown out every year in Australia are being reprocessed and made into soft fall surfaces, artificial turf and conveyer belts; road construction and surfacing; alternative fuel source for producers of energy and cement; brake pads and other rubber products. [Sourced from Planet Ark][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a still largely unused resource sitting around in plain view, more people will want value from it, and pay for research &amp; development. Tonerplas asphalt was developed using recycled soft plastics, glass and toner cartridges.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[tag:plastic-waste] [tag:resource] [tag:circular-economy]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://recyclingnearyou.com.au/about/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31795" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12442" RevisionGUID="2d5e7e39-fc61-4808-a1b8-c377075cbd41" CreationDate="2022-12-07T08:37:19.093" UserId="99" Text="The problem is that different people use different definitions for biodegradable and compostable. What people usually agree on is the following: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Biodegradable** means that a plastic can disintegrate into basic elements via a natural process. With basic elements we mean things like water, carbon dioxide, methane and biomass.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Compostable** plastic takes things one step further and says that it should disintegrate under conditions achieved during composting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The trouble begins when people try to refine these definitions;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- most people say that with composting the resulting basic elements should be harmless to the environment (so no toxic residues), but there is [compostable plastics on the market that releases a toxin called PFAS](https://phys.org/news/2019-05-compostable-food-pfas-environment.html)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- some say that biodegradable means &quot;with the use of microorganisms&quot;, so that would exclude dissolving into water which is regularly considered as biodegradable by others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- some say that biodegradable means &quot;no human intervention&quot;, as opposed to composting that is regarded as a human-driven process. However most biodegradable plastics need specific conditions (moist and 50°C+) to start disintegrating, conditions which you won't easily find in nature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- some say that anaerobic composting (composting without oxygen) doesn't count as compostable, others disagree&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- some say compostable plastics can only be made from biobased materials, but researchers found a way to create home compostable plastics using [a mixture of PLA (biobased) and PCL (fossil-fuel based) plastics](https://www.acs.org/pressroom/newsreleases/2018/august/biodegradable-plastic-blends-offer-new-options-for-disposal.html).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- many people say that full decomposition should be achieved within a reasonable timeframe and usually a shorter one for composting than for biodegradation. Then again there are also people that don't consider time (which IMHO is incorrect as it makes everything biodegradable, theoretically speaking)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- some consider microplastics to qualify as basic elements for degradation (personally I disagree because all plastics degrade under the influence of sun light so that would make any plastic biodegradable)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For what it's worth; compostable plastics are generally considered to be a bit more environmentally friendly than biodegradable plastics because they break down faster, should not contain any harmful residues and because they are almost always made from biobased materials such as starch or cellulose. But as the points above show you, you need to really understand people's definitions to be able to validate that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are country-specific regulations and standards saying when you can call something compostable, home compostable or biodegradable. I wrote a bit about that [in this answer](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/2595/99)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31797" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12426" RevisionGUID="de8caae5-0ec0-47a1-8caa-079ff9fc1405" CreationDate="2022-12-08T05:33:50.920" UserId="14520" Comment="Stated the part of the question I was answering, and added in a paragraph about the impossibility of worldwide forums" Text="Your question ... Are there forums ... where an aspiring amateur home recycler ... might find guidance and/or share advice? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's difficult to organise worldwide online communities to discuss the Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle option of managing waste because of the differing local, on-ground realities. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[PlanetArk in Australia][1] is our go-to organisation for recycling for people who live in Australia. Do they operate in US and or Europe? There may be similar organizations there and elsewhere.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Brisbane City Council runs a blog and [an FB page where you can ask questions and discuss things with like-minded people.][3] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't want to waste petrol, energy, money, or time driving here and there for the purposes of chasing places where this or that item can be recycled, then you need to stick with your area, supported by the people who pick up your rubbish, and, as you said, change your purchasing habits. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even where you shop can be helpful. My local branch of Woollies (supermarket) collects used batteries, dead mobiles (cell phones to you), and other small electronic devices for recycling.  &#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://planetark.org/programs/recyclingnearyou&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/clean-and-green&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.facebook.com/BrisbaneCityCouncil/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31803" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12444" RevisionGUID="dd4e9bb5-4ba2-40a2-88eb-26d335679159" CreationDate="2022-12-10T20:29:59.360" UserId="4458" Text="If you are venting heat to atmosphere as a temperature control tool, then the first thing to do is fix this problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I once lived in a block of flats with community heating, and radiators that were too powerful. My strategy was to cover the radiators with towels. If I was staying longer, and had permission, I would have boxed the radiators in, and used a thermostat controlled flap to let the heat out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When your heating controls are improved, then think about insulation.&#xD;&#xA;Also help everyone else using the community heating system." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31805" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12445" RevisionGUID="620496b0-f654-4c39-a6dc-68e34f94df91" CreationDate="2022-12-10T20:41:26.240" UserId="4458" Text="The simple way to convert 12V to 24V. Is to get two 12V batteries and place them in series.&#xD;&#xA;Doing 12V to 24V any other way (Inverter) will involve going via AC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, for this much power, you will be better off using the DC directly. Yes you will need different appliances, but the losses will be lower." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31807" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12446" RevisionGUID="afb7f54c-e1c0-4e75-afbb-4993ca799730" CreationDate="2022-12-10T21:09:55.743" UserId="4458" Text="You need to ask are those numbers realistic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Article says car emitted “5.8 grams per kilometer”.&#xD;&#xA;* We assume that car has 4 tyres.&#xD;&#xA;* [Kwik-fit](https://www.kwik-fit.com/blog/how-long-do-tyres-last#:~:text=A%20general%20recommendation%20is%20that,Cracks%20in%20the%20rubber) (A company that wants to sell tyres, so may be an **under** estimate) “A general recommendation is that your tyres are changed every 20,000 miles or every 10 years.” (that is 32186.88km)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we do the maths then we see that we will have used 46.67Kg (102.8 pounds) from each tyre. Are tyres this heavy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two blogs say&#xD;&#xA;* Here are some examples: 155/70 R13 can weigh about 6.5 kg. 185/70 R13 can weigh between 7.0 and 7.2 kg. 175/65 R14 can weigh between 6.5 and 7.2 kg&#xD;&#xA;* The average tire is around 15 to 25 pounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we know that the numbers are bogus.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31809" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12446" RevisionGUID="231152e6-08df-4663-bcb6-53cd93f07f18" CreationDate="2022-12-11T09:38:15.993" UserId="2345" Comment="Mass conversions" Text="You need to ask are those numbers realistic:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Article says car emitted “5.8 grams per kilometer”.&#xD;&#xA;* We assume that car has 4 tyres.&#xD;&#xA;* [Kwik-fit](https://www.kwik-fit.com/blog/how-long-do-tyres-last#:~:text=A%20general%20recommendation%20is%20that,Cracks%20in%20the%20rubber) (A company that wants to sell tyres, so may be an **under** estimate) “A general recommendation is that your tyres are changed every 20,000 miles or every 10 years.” (that is 32186.88km)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If we do the maths then we see that we will have used 46.67 kg (102.8 pounds) from each tyre. Are tyres this heavy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two blogs say&#xD;&#xA;* Here are some examples: 155/70 R13 can weigh about 6.5 kg. 185/70 R13 can weigh between 7.0 and 7.2 kg. 175/65 R14 can weigh between 6.5 and 7.2 kg&#xD;&#xA;* The average tire is around 15 to 25 pounds (6.8 kg to 11.3 kg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Therefore, we know that the numbers are bogus.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31810" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12400" RevisionGUID="dbbed64b-cd98-4757-aac1-698427451fde" CreationDate="2022-12-12T03:01:03.127" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1602136418788286465" />
  <row Id="31811" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10786" RevisionGUID="edcace13-b088-41d0-8573-5c1cd8c2f4d2" CreationDate="2022-12-12T07:37:10.517" UserId="12137" Comment="added 54 characters in body" Text="What you should consider when trying to refresh the waterrepellency of your garment is how the garment is constructed / was waterproofed originally and which materials were used. There are different types of waterproof garments:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **modern outdoor clothing**: Their ability to repel water comes from both a membrane system and an external waterproofing. The membrane has pores that allow single water molecules (aka steam or vapor) from the inside of the clothing to escape while being to small for liquid water (aka rain) to enter from the outside (due to the high surface tension of water). In addition, the outside of the garment is waterproofed with a hydrophobic coating, to prevent the fabric from being soaked in water. This coating can be washed away and needs to be renewed. This is the stuff from the spray can. The problem with using a wash-in hydrophobic coating is that it will also coat the inside of the jacket, which could prevent sweat and moisture from escaping through the pores of the membrane. So although this might seem like a more sustainable option, it is not if the function of the garment is impaired. The biggest problem with these hydrophobic solutions is that they often still contain fluoride compounds that are very damaging to the environment, so if you use this kind of stuff, try to look for fluor-free products. If you buy a new garment, some brands will also already have fluor-free outdoor clothing available.&#xD;&#xA; - **plastic based rain gear**: Their ability to repel water comes from using plastic coated fabrics or plastic foils. Those garments will not be very breathable, and if they loose their ability to repel water, it will be due to holes, abrasion of polymer material or cracks in the material due to ageing or UV exposure. Spraying those garments with hydrophobic coating will not lead to much improvement, as the spray might not adhere well to the polymer surface. Cuts or holes might be fixed with special tapes.&#xD;&#xA;- **waxed cotton**: cotton that has been made water repellent by impregnating it with natural or synthetic wax. Those need to be re-waxed from time to time to maintain their properties. Often brands that sell those supply their own wax for maintenance. If used properly, there will be very little wax wastage. If natural wax is used, this is a very sustainable waterproofing method.&#xD;&#xA;- **felted wool**: densely felted wool garments (boiled wool) will be kind of waterproof because of their structure and the properties of the wool fiber. This can be enhanced by applying additional lanolin regularly. As with the waxed cotton, this is a quite sustainable approach, although these kind of garments will be quite heavy and stiff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you try to re-proof outdoor clothing with wax, or cotton with lanolin, or combine any other type of waterproofing with the wrong kind of material, it will not yield usefull results. So before you blindly apply anything make sure you are using the right type of product, otherwise you might damage your garment beyond repair. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31812" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12396" RevisionGUID="ec6a3971-f7f6-46de-b5bf-7fa0969828eb" CreationDate="2022-12-13T02:52:50.917" UserId="8232" Comment="deleted 46 characters in body" Text="I'm interested in finding ways to decrease the fraction of my household waste that goes to landfill. One strategy for achieving this objective - in part if not in whole - is to change my purchasing habits, basically to buy fewer items that involve non-biodegradable materials and sort waste at a minimal level (compostables from non-compostables, plastics from metals, steel/aluminum/tin/etc., etc.) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd like to explore ways of processing and repurposing items that aren't recyclable in the conventional sense (e.g. plastic cereal bags, thin shell packaging, etc.).  This is in part because it seems like it could be practical, if not immediately then in aggregate at a sort of population level over time, and in part because it seems like it could be fun (or at least instructive.)  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there forums or publicly maintained websites/website-communities where an aspiring amateur home recycler such as myself might find guidance and/or share advice?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31813" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12447" RevisionGUID="f6fa0bbd-1624-41a9-9079-a934510c9753" CreationDate="2022-12-13T14:09:04.743" UserId="2826" Text="I have a two-sided rotating compost tumbler into which I typically throw kitchen scraps and lawn waste. Due to us shifting to a lawn service (my wife and I had a shift in jobs such that it became hard to be home during daylight hours to mow), I stopped throwing as much lawn waste in (the guy doing the mowing now has a mulching mower that deposits it on the grass), we had an uptick in spoiled produce being added, and I got into a bit of a funk where I kept forgetting to rotate/empty the tumbler. Well, the time came to pay the piper, and the interior of the tumbler is full of smelly sludge, about the consistency of clay mud. I've managing to dig some of it out with a trowel and a garden hose, but the rest is being difficult. I don't particularly want to have to disassemble the tumbler to get at the contents, but the sludge is basically stuck there, and my attempts to wash it out just result in the water flowing back out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31815" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12447" RevisionGUID="f6fa0bbd-1624-41a9-9079-a934510c9753" CreationDate="2022-12-13T14:09:04.743" UserId="2826" Text="Best way to clean the inside of a rotating compost tumbler" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31816" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12447" RevisionGUID="f6fa0bbd-1624-41a9-9079-a934510c9753" CreationDate="2022-12-13T14:09:04.743" UserId="2826" Text="|composting|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31817" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12424" RevisionGUID="4347cf3d-6eb4-45d3-8e13-bcfbfcd16b04" CreationDate="2022-12-14T04:01:53.387" UserId="14520" Comment="Clarified the link" Text="The best way to store plastic after its useful life, at this moment of time, is still storage underground. Although the world in 2019 produced [460 million tonnes of plastic][1], many types are now hard to live without. For example,having so many people to feed would be almost impossible without plastic packaging for food keeping and distribution. Many medical interventions eg vaccinations throughout the world, operations, prosthetic limbs, intravenous delivery of meds would be almost impossible without plastic. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are now 9.5 billion tonnes of plastic in existence, according to [ourworldindata.org][2] Burning plastic to produce plastic char is not an option, though already happening, as the poisonous gases released add to atmospheric pollution.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, about 20% of post-use plastic is being collected, stored (Australia is still using landfill) and recycled, mainly by developed countries with usually, as mentioned above, governmental input. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the articles I read states that the best way to control 'plastic mismanagement' is for developed countries to help the rest of the world develop strategies for decreasing one-use plastics, and for storage of plastic waste. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm hopeful that science will come up with good recycling solutions. Storing plastic underground, possibly already sorted, will represent a great storehouse of material when a plastic-based industry takes off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-plastics-production" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31818" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12340" RevisionGUID="7556500a-2d43-4c00-a694-7c0ec7bd15b8" CreationDate="2022-12-14T12:00:00.193" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1602996826256408580" />
  <row Id="31819" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12448" RevisionGUID="dd65ded1-05e1-4d05-97db-c48bfccb6126" CreationDate="2022-12-14T16:14:29.253" UserId="8656" Text="Yes, if you can adjust the temperature of the water heating the building. E.g. with my house’s heating system, I can choose the building’s “type”: well insulated, moderately insulated or poorly insulated. The value I chose affects the temperature of the water sent from the heating unit to the radiators. (Other factors such as outdoor temperature are also involved).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if the heating source is carbon positive of course :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31821" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5277" RevisionGUID="75382ede-c8fb-410c-a189-16aed927164d" CreationDate="2022-12-15T14:25:12.670" UserId="3401" Comment="deleted 34 characters in body" Text=" 1. There are of course [robotic lawn mowers](https://www.google.com/search?q=robot+lawn+mower) available, probably best suited for the smaller suburban yard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have considered the same problem, as I have quite a large area (1/3 hectare / 0.8 acres), half kudzu, half native.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. For now, I have a ride-on lawn mower that does the area in about 3 hours every 2 weeks to one month. I [cut at the highest setting](http://www.richsoil.com/lawn-care.jsp). I also leave the clippings just where they fall. Collecting them in the catcher and emptying it on the compost pile easily makes the chore a whole-day exercise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. If you do go for biological lawn robots (animals), in my opinion the way to go would be to set up an [intensive grazing system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_intensive_rotational_grazing). You divide your area into a couple of enclosures and have your animals graze everything in it to the ground. Then rotate them to the next enclosure while that area recovers and grows lush from all the nice manure :-) In this way all plants are grazed equally (not only the tasty kudzu - while the bitter weeds are left alone to thrive). Do read the Wikipedia article. This is actually used in some areas to improve pasture by suppressing weeds (while lessening the use of weed killer).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Animals I have considered:**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Cows. Not really. Maybe a very small breed. Rejected the idea.&#xD;&#xA; - Sheep. Probably preferably a mutton breed as you do not want to do the shearing... Else a milking breed. Look for what is available and thriving in your area. (If you are in the USA, I know mutton is all but unknown, but quite tasty, I assure you, if you need to cull some stock.) An ewe-only flock would be easier to handle.&#xD;&#xA; - Goats. Much the same as for sheep, but since they also browse (eat tree leaves - and branches, and bark), you need to keep them away from what you don't want eaten. Quite intelligent animals with a mind of their own. I would prefer a milk breed like the Swiss Saanens or the Nigerian/Cameroon dwarf goats. The latter are excellent milk producers, cute and make good pets, and may be more suited for a smaller space. Again, beginners especially should rather avoid rams.&#xD;&#xA; - Chickens. I have actually kept a couple of Dutch bantams, and am very fond of those little birds (but am now looking at a larger breed that is quite hardy in local conditions). Nice for the eggs, much better than bought. If handled regularly from an early age, can be quite tame and make nice pets. In addition, can help to control insects and slugs in your veggie patch (but should be kept separated from the plants especially cabbages and lettuce - it is quite tasty to them too). I found them quite low-maintenance, I could go away for a week or two and just leave them with a waterer and a feeder. Occasional trimming of claws and wings, maybe once or twice a year. Of course, you would need a lot more individuals for a given area than the larger animals. Also, they should not be combined with sheep (as sheep manure contains a lot of copper, which chickens are sensitive to). Depending on neighbors and city ordinances, roosters may not be a good idea due to noise - although I had a Pekinese that did not make himself all that noticeable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Droppings are not that much of a problem. The grazers and browsers have fairly fibrous pellets, due to the free nature of their confinement they dry out quickly and break down to provide plant nourishment. The poultry may be a slightly bigger problem, but simply avoid the grazed area for a few days until dried out :-)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, an enclosure would disrupt your lawn's flow of movement. But you do not absolutely need permanent enclosures, you may make movable ones (examples: [chicken tractor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tractor), [electrified tape](http://www.zarebasystems.com/store/electric-fence-wire/polytape) or [mesh](http://www.kencove.com/fence/Electric+Net+Fencing_detail_NSPCG.php)). You would also have patches in various stages of grazing/recovery so your lawn would not always look suburb-pristine. You would need to find out (or determine through experimentation) your property's carrying capacity to determine how many animals to get, and then you need to keep in mind that grazing in spring and summer will feed more animals than in fall and winter - so you would need to cull your flock in winter and/or buy feed, then get additional animals in spring (new offspring is nature's way, but all the advice against the males may make that difficult to achieve).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Milking breeds may need daily milking (if they were pregnant), which can be a lot of trouble (milking machines do exist), but can at the same time be rewarding in the self-sufficiency department.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously, animals should always have access to drinking water (which luckily can be made movable and/or automated) and depending on your climate, shelter. So some thinking should go into that. Also, chickens should have a nesting box, which makes it easier to find and collect eggs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Last suggestion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 4. You can always [do away with the lawn and put it to use for (most of) your food needs](http://www.foodnotlawns.com/), perhaps similar to the [One Acre Farm](http://www.earthporm.com/self-sustaining-homestead/) concept. Obviously, this depends a lot on how many people in your family, how much land, climate and soil fertility, and not least, your expertise. I guess something like that is more like an ideal to work towards...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;====&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additional note regarding chickens combined with grazers: I know of this Zimbabwean farmer, having bred an extremely hardy indigenous breed of chicken ([Boschvelder](http://boschveld.co.za/rearing-chickens/)), that would accompany the cattle and peck ticks off them, thus helping to keep them more healthy without the need for dips and antibiotics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31822" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12449" RevisionGUID="9885df55-5d84-4398-b3a0-2bfd13086a19" CreationDate="2022-12-15T16:23:14.267" UserId="6393" Text="&gt;  I don't want to mow the lawn. I see this as a large waste of time, as well as a source of waste in buying a lawnmower, fertilizer, gas, oil, and having a negative effect on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't agree entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true mowing the lawn requires time, but by mowing less often you can reduce the time needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you don't necessarily need fertilizer. If you use a mulching lawnmower, it will leave all nutrients on the lawn without moving any of them away. So, it's a closed cycle, no new nutrients necessarily needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for minimizing time needed and the environmental impact of lawnmower, my solution is a gasoline powered lawnmower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprised? I carefully analyzed this and considered the best solution after using a battery lawnmower mistakenly for 4 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first 2 years, the battery powered lawnmower worked fine. Then one battery of its 2 failed (it requires 2 to operate). I had to purchase 2 new batteries (no individual batteries were available for sale at the time where I bought the 2 new batteries). It was a wise purchase to buy 2 new, since a short time after, the second battery failed. The new batteries immediately often overheated, needing me to stop mowing since overheating protection would cut power, and start after hour of cooling down. A major annoyance. I used the repeatedly-overheating batteries for 2 more years and suffered the interruptions needed. Then the batteries had degraded to the point where they don't have enough capacity to mow my entire lawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gasoline powered new lawnmower on the other hand is very ideal. In contrast to a battery powered lawnmower where you can't be certain whether compatible batteries are available for sale 10 years from now, the gasoline powered lawnmower takes gasoline, something that has been available for 100 years and will be for hundreds of years more to come. It consumes about 0.15 liters per mowing (so I can mow the lawn at least 5 maybe even 6 times with the 0.9 liter tank), or about a liter per year if I mow often, once every 2 weeks. So the environmental impact is around 3 kilograms of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per year. Cost 3 euros per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare that to the environmental impact of having to buy two new batteries every 2 years, or a battery per year at 50 EUR / battery. I'm not sure about the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint but somewhere I found out that for electronics manufactured in China, one euro spent in electronics is about as bad as one euro spent in gasoline at Finnish heavily taxed gasoline prices. So, I'd say the environmental impact of having to buy new batteries all the time is 10x the impact of gasoline. Futhermore, your expensive lawnmower could become useless due to manufacturer discontinuing compatible batteries -- perhaps the manufacturer went out of business, perhaps the manufacturer replaced its models with &quot;new improved&quot; models that use different batteries. With gasoline lawnmowers, all you need is maybe few spare air filters and spark plugs and it'll run forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lawnmower also requires 0.5 liters of oil per oil change. At oil change every 2 years, that's 0.25 liters per year. It's true this has some environmental impact, but probably not as big as buying one 50 EUR battery every year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I mow the lawn 4 hours per year, the lawnmower lasts for at least 25 years until the service schedule reaches the point where the engine should be inspected by a specialist dealer (100 hour usage). It lasts for 12 and half years until engine oil needs to be changed by 50 operating hours (but changing by time every 2 years is advisable) and until spark plugs needs to be inspected (not necessarily changed). It requires cleaning the air filter by tapping it every 6 years (every 25 hours), maybe sometimes tapping isn't enough and a new filter is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the only mistake you can do with a gasoline powered lawnmower is by not using alkylate gasoline / small engine gasoline. Then the carburetor can clog, requiring expensive carburetor cleaning. By only using alkylate gasoline / small engine gasoline, it will not clog even if stored full of gas over winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By using a mulching lawnmower, the environmental impact is small. Don't mow it every week, let it occasionally grow flowers for pollinators. Also you can select an area you mow less often to allow even more flower growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A goat is way worse than a lawnmower. Goat emits huge amounts of methane, a significant greenhouse gas. Same is true of sheep and cows -- in fact, probably every animal that can eat grass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robotic lawnmower could minimize time needed, but never let any flowers grow, since they mow so often, thus causing harm to pollinators." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31824" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12449" RevisionGUID="1eee4d12-ace2-4584-9076-b5f6e06156b1" CreationDate="2022-12-15T17:42:25.947" UserId="6393" Comment="goat emissions" Text="&gt;  I don't want to mow the lawn. I see this as a large waste of time, as well as a source of waste in buying a lawnmower, fertilizer, gas, oil, and having a negative effect on the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't agree entirely.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true mowing the lawn requires time, but by mowing less often you can reduce the time needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, you don't necessarily need fertilizer. If you use a mulching lawnmower, it will leave all nutrients on the lawn without moving any of them away. So, it's a closed cycle, no new nutrients necessarily needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for minimizing time needed and the environmental impact of lawnmower, my solution is a gasoline powered lawnmower.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Surprised? I carefully analyzed this and considered the best solution after using a battery lawnmower mistakenly for 4 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For the first 2 years, the battery powered lawnmower worked fine. Then one battery of its 2 failed (it requires 2 to operate). I had to purchase 2 new batteries (no individual batteries were available for sale at the time where I bought the 2 new batteries). It was a wise purchase to buy 2 new, since a short time after, the second battery failed. The new batteries immediately often overheated, needing me to stop mowing since overheating protection would cut power, and start after hour of cooling down. A major annoyance. I used the repeatedly-overheating batteries for 2 more years and suffered the interruptions needed. Then the batteries had degraded to the point where they don't have enough capacity to mow my entire lawn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My gasoline powered new lawnmower on the other hand is very ideal. In contrast to a battery powered lawnmower where you can't be certain whether compatible batteries are available for sale 10 years from now, the gasoline powered lawnmower takes gasoline, something that has been available for 100 years and will be for hundreds of years more to come. It consumes about 0.15 liters per mowing (so I can mow the lawn at least 5 maybe even 6 times with the 0.9 liter tank), or about a liter per year if I mow often, once every 2 weeks. So the environmental impact is around 3 kilograms of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per year. Cost 3 euros per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compare that to the environmental impact of having to buy two new batteries every 2 years, or a battery per year at 50 EUR / battery. I'm not sure about the CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; footprint but somewhere I found out that for electronics manufactured in China, one euro spent in electronics is about as bad as one euro spent in gasoline at Finnish heavily taxed gasoline prices. So, I'd say the environmental impact of having to buy new batteries all the time is 10x the impact of gasoline. Futhermore, your expensive lawnmower could become useless due to manufacturer discontinuing compatible batteries -- perhaps the manufacturer went out of business, perhaps the manufacturer replaced its models with &quot;new improved&quot; models that use different batteries. With gasoline lawnmowers, all you need is maybe few spare air filters and spark plugs and it'll run forever.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The lawnmower also requires 0.5 liters of oil per oil change. At oil change every 2 years, that's 0.25 liters per year. It's true this has some environmental impact, but probably not as big as buying one 50 EUR battery every year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I mow the lawn 4 hours per year, the lawnmower lasts for at least 25 years until the service schedule reaches the point where the engine should be inspected by a specialist dealer (100 hour usage). It lasts for 12 and half years until engine oil needs to be changed by 50 operating hours (but changing by time every 2 years is advisable) and until spark plugs needs to be inspected (not necessarily changed). It requires cleaning the air filter by tapping it every 6 years (every 25 hours), maybe sometimes tapping isn't enough and a new filter is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the only mistake you can do with a gasoline powered lawnmower is by not using alkylate gasoline / small engine gasoline. Then the carburetor can clog, requiring expensive carburetor cleaning. By only using alkylate gasoline / small engine gasoline, it will not clog even if stored full of gas over winter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By using a mulching lawnmower, the environmental impact is small. Don't mow it every week, let it occasionally grow flowers for pollinators. Also you can select an area you mow less often to allow even more flower growth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A goat is way worse than a lawnmower. Goat emits huge amounts of methane, a significant greenhouse gas. Same is true of sheep and cows -- in fact, probably every animal that can eat grass. (Edit: found from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/tellusb.v38i3-4.15135 that a single goat produces 5 kg of methane per year; that's 150 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalent per year if we assume climate change happens slowly in 100 years, or 425 kg of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; equivalent per year if we assume climate change happens quickly in 20 years -- quite high to compared to 3 kg of year from lawnmower).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Robotic lawnmower could minimize time needed, but never let any flowers grow, since they mow so often, thus causing harm to pollinators." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31825" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12450" RevisionGUID="9abc9d46-7d37-46b3-bf38-96094d5bad97" CreationDate="2022-12-15T19:23:58.753" UserId="5477" Text="I have heard strangers refer to my house as &quot; the one with no grass&quot;. Not really true as there is some grass between azaleas, camellias, and other shrubbery, etc. Not difficult; I also left about a 50 ft. frontage in original piney woods - no work at all. So put in landscape shrubbery and/ or don't do anything. No animals needed. Also plenty of places to blow leaves from a large driveway. My only problem is deer come to my house to eat because most other yards are St. Augustine which deer do not touch." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12451" RevisionGUID="a210e13c-f86c-4536-be56-e56822e88cd7" CreationDate="2022-12-16T15:28:30.180" UserId="400" Text="I've seen a few types of compost tumble.  One has holes in the end that you open and the smaller stuff falls out as the drum rotates.  Another has a hatch in the side that you open to add stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideas:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; * Attack with a crowbar or demolition bar.  (flatter with a wider end than a crowbar) Loosen chunks and rotate.&#xD;&#xA; * Put a few broken concrete blocks in and rotate.  These will chew the compacated stuff  out.&#xD;&#xA; * Put the whole unit on end for a week.&#xD;&#xA; * Rotate it so the load is on top, and wedge in that position.&#xD;&#xA; * Hit it with a baseball bat.  &#xD;&#xA; * Drill 1/8&quot; holes in the drum, and put an air nozzle to it, and blast with compressed air.  If the sludge is making a tight seal,this may free up a nice block of it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31829" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12452" RevisionGUID="edc6008d-7180-47c3-bbef-cc217dddf94d" CreationDate="2022-12-16T15:37:04.450" UserId="400" Text="In desert climates, one building technique is to use massive walls, either stone or adobe.  The net result is a building that takes days to come to equilibrium with the outside temperature.  Over a period of weeks to a month, depending on wall thickness the building will come to an equilibrium of the average temperature +- a few degrees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a desert climate with daytime temps of 120 and night time temps of 30, this would give an interior temp that would stay close to 75 degrees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Windows with shutters can be used to adjust this 10-15 degrees either way.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Large buildings (think big skyscrapers) even in winter have a net cooling problem.  When a building is several hundred feet thick, the waste heat from lights, computers, photocopiers etc produce more heat than the building can shed.  Outer walls lose heat, but inside rooms generate more than is lost.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The answer is to move air, mix it withs some outside air, and adjust the temperature, and redistribute it.  Air to the outer wall rooms has to be warmer to make for all that cold glass." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31831" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12447" RevisionGUID="3f81dd87-e32b-4c84-947a-716fee2144b7" CreationDate="2022-12-19T00:13:00.440" UserId="8232" Comment="paragraphing, restate question at bottom" Text="I have a two-sided rotating compost tumbler into which I typically throw kitchen scraps and lawn waste. Due to us shifting to a lawn service (my wife and I had a shift in jobs such that it became hard to be home during daylight hours to mow), I stopped throwing as much lawn waste in (the guy doing the mowing now has a mulching mower that deposits it on the grass), we had an uptick in spoiled produce being added, and I got into a bit of a funk where I kept forgetting to rotate/empty the tumbler. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, the time came to pay the piper, and the interior of the tumbler is full of smelly sludge, about the consistency of clay mud. I've managing to dig some of it out with a trowel and a garden hose, but the rest is being difficult. I don't particularly want to have to disassemble the tumbler to get at the contents, but the sludge is basically stuck there, and my attempts to wash it out just result in the water flowing back out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the best way to clean the insides?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31832" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12212" RevisionGUID="1a8bd5aa-43b7-40ab-ab02-e733145cda27" CreationDate="2022-12-19T11:01:40.157" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31837" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12455" RevisionGUID="cd439923-afc0-4e49-b3c9-0c6d4ca4c0d7" CreationDate="2022-12-22T06:37:07.080" UserId="14538" Text="If the tanks are all connected at the bottom so water can flow freely between them, they will [all automatically fill to the same level](https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/catalog/demonstrations/fluids/pascalvases.htm) above the ground, independent of their size. Note that  this means that if you have tanks of different height, it is probably best to align the tops of the tanks, not the bottoms. If the bottoms are aligned, the shortest tank will set the maximum height of the water in any connected taller tanks, e.g. once the short tank overflows it will prevent the other taller tanks from filling any higher unless you shut the connection between the short tank and the tall tanks. If the tops are aligned, the short tank won't start to fill until the water level in the taller tanks reaches the bottom of the short tank." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31839" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12105" RevisionGUID="08404ce5-9058-4449-b69f-4539ba8853e8" CreationDate="2022-12-23T19:06:45.850" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31844" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12458" RevisionGUID="9e78f5cf-a5e7-45f1-b58d-bff299a38a72" CreationDate="2022-12-24T10:24:39.983" UserId="14575" Text="We just had a solar panel install in the United Kingdom (latitude of 57 degrees).  The contractor quoted us for panels installed at a standard 35 degree angle.  However, the actual install was panels at a 10 degree angle (i.e. nearly flat). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The panels are installed on a flat roof, not on a pitched roof.  The contractor claims that 35 degrees is standard for a pitched roof, but on a flat roof fitting at a 10 degree angle is standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that the panels will harvest less energy because of the smaller angle.  My questions are: &#xD;&#xA;* Is the contractor telling the truth?&#xD;&#xA;* Is the difference in capacity substantive?  Is this worth arguing about? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31846" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12458" RevisionGUID="9e78f5cf-a5e7-45f1-b58d-bff299a38a72" CreationDate="2022-12-24T10:24:39.983" UserId="14575" Text="Angle of solar panels" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31847" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12458" RevisionGUID="9e78f5cf-a5e7-45f1-b58d-bff299a38a72" CreationDate="2022-12-24T10:24:39.983" UserId="14575" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31848" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12458" RevisionGUID="55f8444f-1260-4066-84b9-0fc3d7402470" CreationDate="2022-12-24T10:25:33.420" UserId="14575" Comment="made title more descriptive" Text="Angle of solar panels on flat roof" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31849" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12459" RevisionGUID="1c5fb198-a262-453a-bd89-2e66a2130e0c" CreationDate="2022-12-24T10:58:55.757" UserId="6393" Text="Oh yes it could be worth arguing about, but only if you have huge roof area and very few panels. With roof fully covered by panels, they should be flat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, if production is limited by panel count and unlimited by land/roof area, you'd want panels to be installed at an angle equal to your latitude and facing south. So at latitude of 57 degrees, you'd want 57 degrees. But if the panels start shading each other, then most of your production will be destroyed so you want to avoid that. Also quite few roofs are at a 57 degree angle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your goal is to even out power production so that you get less power during summer and more power during winter, even greater angles are justified. So 75 degrees could actually be very good if you have lots of panels, because then you have to sell less electricity during summer to the grid, and get more electricity during winter. However, the problem is that approximately no roof is at 75 degree angle -- usually roofs are at a smaller angle than 57 degrees too. Also at 75 degree angle shading during winter is really bad so that destroys the theory that 75 degree angle could be good, unless you have infinite amount of land. Furthermore, if there are trees nearby they'll anyway destroy winter production, so optimizing for winter production might not make sense given the site where the panels are installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's worth asking what is the expensive thing here -- is it the panels, or is it the roof and installation work? Usually roofs and installation work cost a lot, electricity is expensive but panels are cheap as dirt (because they are made out of dirt i.e. silicon), so you probably want to use your entire roof. Tilting the panels mean there are shaded areas, which you can't cover with panels, so actually it turns out to be the case that if your entire roof is fitted with panels, they could as well be installed flat on the roof at the natural angle of the roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the big question is: is your entire roof covered with panels (if it is, then don't start arguing because you won't get single bit more power by tilting the panels but actually less due to shading), or do you have a partial installation? If the installation only covers partially the roof, and if the quote says 35 degrees, then I would demand them to re-do it at 35 degrees, if shading can be prevented. But generally it can be prevented only if you have a very big roof and only very little panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a program I can use to simulate production. At latitude of 57 degrees and panel rotation from zenith of 35 degrees (panels facing south), you get 979 full power hours worth of production. At angle of 10 degrees, you get 814 full power hours worth or production (17% less production, assuming no shading occurs in either case). That's assuming panel count is the limiting factor, and that no shading occurs. If you have so many panels that installing at 35 degree angle would mean some panels shade other panels, then don't start arguing. The theoretical production in that case wouldn't increase and the practical production would actually decrease, because shading even part of panels cause your production to be at few percent of what it could be. A partially shaded panels is actually about as bad as a fully shaded panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it depends on your roof size, your panel count and whether the panels would be shaded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually during winter panel shading could be worse, so the 75 degree angle I suggested is worth it only if you have infinite amount of land but only small amount of panels. With a finite/small amount of land, you generally don't want to install panels at 75 degrees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might also make sense to think about future. So, if for example you covered only 10% of your roof with panels, if you now install them at an angle, later you might expand your system to cover 100% of your roof (or at least the areas of roof facing south), and if you could realistically do that then removing the 10% panels that are at an angle and installing them flat could cost a lot of money. Having them flat allows a cheaper pathway to covering 100% of your roof with panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion is that the contractor isn't telling the truth. They might have done the right thing (if the entire roof is covered with panels then the panels should be flat to prevent shading), but they didn't say that and they didn't say anything about shading, but they said only about &quot;standard practice&quot;. If that contractor can't explain why it's standard practice (shading), it could be a clueless contractor -- that still might have done the right thing, however." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31851" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12459" RevisionGUID="7c31667a-1986-4dbe-b2c5-fb1306320c07" CreationDate="2022-12-24T11:05:17.773" UserId="6393" Comment="edit" Text="Oh yes it could be worth arguing about, but only if you have huge roof area and very few panels. With roof fully covered by panels, they should be flat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Generally, if production is limited by panel count and unlimited by land/roof area, you'd want panels to be installed at an angle equal to your latitude and facing south. So at latitude of 57 degrees, you'd want 57 degrees. But if the panels start shading each other, then most of your production will be destroyed so you want to avoid that. Also quite few roofs are at a 57 degree angle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your goal is to even out power production so that you get less power during summer and more power during winter, even greater angles are justified. So 75 degrees could actually be very good if you have lots of panels, because then you have to sell less electricity during summer to the grid, and get more electricity during winter. However, the problem is that approximately no roof is at 75 degree angle -- usually roofs are at a smaller angle than 57 degrees too. Also at 75 degree angle shading during winter is really bad so that destroys the theory that 75 degree angle could be good, unless you have infinite amount of land. Furthermore, if there are trees nearby they'll anyway destroy winter production, so optimizing for winter production might not make sense given the site where the panels are installed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it's worth asking what is the expensive thing here -- is it the panels, or is it the roof and installation work? Usually roofs and installation work cost a lot, electricity is expensive but panels are cheap as dirt (because they are made out of dirt i.e. silicon), so you probably want to use your entire roof. Tilting the panels mean there are shaded areas, which you can't cover with panels, so actually it turns out to be the case that if your entire roof is fitted with panels, they could as well be installed flat on the roof at the natural angle of the roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the big question is: is your entire roof covered with panels (if it is, then don't start arguing because you won't get single bit more power by tilting the panels but actually less due to shading), or do you have a partial installation? If the installation only covers partially the roof, and if the quote says 35 degrees, then I would demand them to re-do it at 35 degrees, if shading can be prevented. But generally it can be prevented only if you have a very big roof and only very little panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a program I can use to simulate production. At latitude of 57 degrees and panel rotation from zenith of 35 degrees (panels facing south), you get 979 full power hours worth of production. At angle of 10 degrees, you get 814 full power hours worth or production (17% less production, assuming no shading occurs in either case). That's assuming panel count is the limiting factor, and that no shading occurs. If you have so many panels that installing at 35 degree angle would mean some panels shade other panels, then don't start arguing. The theoretical production in that case wouldn't increase and the practical production would actually decrease, because shading even part of panels cause your production to be at few percent of what it could be. A partially shaded panels is actually about as bad as a fully shaded panel.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, it depends on your roof size, your panel count and whether the panels would be shaded.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Actually during winter panel shading could be worse, so the 75 degree angle I suggested is worth it only if you have infinite amount of land but only small amount of panels. With a finite/small amount of land, you generally don't want to install panels at 75 degrees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It might also make sense to think about future. So, if for example you covered only 10% of your roof with panels, if you now install them at an angle, later you might expand your system to cover 100% of your roof (or at least the areas of roof facing south), and if you could realistically do that then removing the 10% panels that are at an angle and installing them flat could cost a lot of money. Having them flat allows a cheaper pathway to covering 100% of your roof with panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My opinion is that the contractor isn't telling the truth. They might have done the right thing (if the entire roof is covered with panels then the panels should be flat to prevent shading), but they didn't say that and they didn't say anything about shading, but they said only about &quot;standard practice&quot;. If that contractor can't explain why it's standard practice (shading), it could be a clueless contractor -- that still might have done the right thing, however.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; I seemed to assume the roof is at 10 degrees. Now I read it's flat and the panels are at 10 degrees. That is probably still the right thing, however. At 10 degrees there's very little shading. If panels were completely free but roofs hugely expensive, then you would want panels at 0 degrees, but panels aren't completely free so given that, 10 degree angle sounds actually quite good -- if nearly the entire roof is covered by panels. If you have a huge roof but very few panels, you probably want even bigger angles because then you can add lots of spacing between panels to prevent shading." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31855" PostHistoryTypeId="52" PostId="12458" RevisionGUID="3a071ab8-b040-42dc-935d-1ea91e0c6358" CreationDate="2022-12-25T02:29:47.107" />
  <row Id="31856" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12461" RevisionGUID="dd47a56c-1a74-4ea0-bff8-ff361767aa69" CreationDate="2022-12-25T08:54:25.963" UserId="14520" Text="In a couple of weeks I'll moving to Far North Queensland in Australia, 16.9 degrees south, hot and humid. I'll be renting, and am wondering how to reduce my footprint when air con will be a necessity. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31858" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12461" RevisionGUID="dd47a56c-1a74-4ea0-bff8-ff361767aa69" CreationDate="2022-12-25T08:54:25.963" UserId="14520" Text="Being sustainable in a rental in the tropics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31859" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12461" RevisionGUID="dd47a56c-1a74-4ea0-bff8-ff361767aa69" CreationDate="2022-12-25T08:54:25.963" UserId="14520" Text="|carbon-footprint|cooling|waste-minimisation|energy-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31860" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12462" RevisionGUID="9ab64f73-840e-425b-9ee2-2a0d4467af51" CreationDate="2022-12-25T10:24:44.967" UserId="2345" Text="The first piece of advice is to try to acclimatize to the hot weather as soon as possible - try to adapt to the environment. As time go on try to use the air conditioner less and less and the ceiling fans more and more and then try to use the fans less and less.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If possible try to live in a house that is elevated above the ground, one that is on stilts. Preferably one that offers good cross flow ventilation internally. Some older houses in the tropics can have partially louvered internal walls. This will help with cross flow ventilation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the issues with modern houses in the tropics, built at ground level is they are closed up all day when people are at work. This causes heat to accumulate inside and when the occupants return home they return to a very hot house. One where both the air and contents (furniture etc.) are all hot. This includes the mattress on the bed and cooling that can take a long time. Sleeping on a hot mattress can be very uncomfortable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Elevated houses, if done properly and securely, can be left open all day. Have a window open at each end of the house and leave all the internal doors open. This allows air to move throughout the house during the day and it won't be as hot as a closed house.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of the mattress you sleep on. Consider a water bed with the water heater turned off. You may need to have a blanket, or similar, between the mattress and the sheet you lie on. Without one it may be too cold to sleep on such a large body of water, even in the tropics. If possible place the bed under a ceiling fan. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For uniform light conditions at night, a room with a ceiling fan needs to have sconce lights on the wall, no lights on the ceiling or the bottom of a rotating fan. Every fan wobbles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In terms of heat from solar absorption a house painted in a lighter color than a darker color is better. Similarly, a house made of wood is better than one made of bricks, concrete or metal, because of the heat retention and radiation of different building materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A house that is shaded as much as possible: veranda, window shutters, shade cloths is better than one with no shading.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An abode with a well established jungle like garden with lots of shade will produce a cooler environment around the home than an empty garden or one with low height plants or one with no plants. Avoid concreted or paved pavements on the property, particularly large expanses such as wide driveways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you throw away food stuffs/scraps into the bin, freeze it and then when the bin is placed out for emptying put the frozen food waste in the bin. This will prevent the food from rotting in the bin and it will not attract insects and other animals. It will also prevent the bin from smelling of rotting food.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31862" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12463" RevisionGUID="fdf5f37c-f46c-4550-89a5-ce5d6f10f284" CreationDate="2022-12-25T11:23:42.660" UserId="6393" Text="In the tropics, solar panels are very useful to reduce your carbon footprint. Since your energy consumption is dominated by air conditioning, and air conditioning need is largest during daytime, solar panel output correlates extremely well with your energy need.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you will live in a rental building, you probably can't install solar panels on your own roof. But maybe you could still &lt;i&gt;own&lt;/i&gt; solar generation (indirectly). There are many companies that are in the business of generating electricity, and I'm sure in the tropics some of those companies are investing massively to solar production, because in the tropics it's the cheapest way currently to generate electricity. So if you buy enough many stocks of such an electricity company, you can claim that part of their production is your own, and that your electricity usage therefore is clean. That's what I do. I live so far in north, that solar panels don't make much sense, but wind power makes a lot of sense, as do nuclear and hydropower. So I invest in companies generating electricity with wind, nuclear and hydro.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second important thing is to ensure that your air conditioning is as efficient as it can be. By far, the best air conditioner is a mini split unit. It's installed in such a manner that hole is drilled to the wall, and there are  separate small outdoor and indoor units. Try to find a rental place that already has a mini split.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the permanent air conditioners, the second best is a window unit that doesn't have separate outdoor and indoor units so it's less efficient, but it's still better than the worst portable units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have to use a portable air conditioner you yourself purchase because the rental place doesn't already have AC, the best is a portable mini split. It has separate outdoor and indoor units, and refrigerant lines between them. However, in very hot places you have to open a door slightly and carry the outdoor unit outdoors, so heat can leak. Also, you can use such a unit only at first floor or if you have a balcony.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second best portable unit is a two duct portable unit. The entire unit is indoors, but it takes air outdoors from an inlet duct and expels it via another duct. Try to add an adapter to an open window that prevents air mixing and has holes for these two ducts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By far, the worst portable unit is a single duct unit, since it's taking already cooled indoor air, heating it and blowing it outdoors, so it's expelling already cooled air (very inefficient), and replacement hot air has to come from somewhere. The worst way to use such a portable unit is to have an open window with duct hanging out there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I use such portable units in the worst possible way in Finland. It's never so hot here that it would be a genuine problem. If you want to cool indoor air more than 5 Celsius degrees cooler than outdoor air, then a portable unit with duct hanging from an open window will probably not work. But it's never so hot there that I would have to suffer. The worst days have maybe 30 - 32 degrees Celsius outdoors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can make a single-duct portable unit slightly better by making an adapter to a window that has a hole for the duct. The replacement air has to come from somewhere, but you won't have much air mixing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want an air conditioner that doesn't create noise pollution indoors, then a mini split is in practice a necessity." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31867" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12465" RevisionGUID="2d1bc929-d9fc-4e32-bbd0-fff17de63c8a" CreationDate="2022-12-26T10:13:05.707" UserId="6393" Text="Electricity grid-scale, the main options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Pumped hydropower (also applicable for seasonal cycling)&#xD;&#xA;2. Compressed hydrogen stored underground (also applicable for seasonal cycling)&#xD;&#xA;3. Batteries (but only for daily cycling, not for seasonal cycling)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a district heating grid, you can also add a fourth option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Thermal energy storage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason thermal storage isn't used to store electricity is very good: to have any reasonable efficiency, the temperature would be so hot heat would leak immediately away. But if what you want is heat not electricity, then it might make sense to create that heat at times energy is cheap, and then use it at time energy is expensive. Also in combination with steam power plants (where you anyway use heat to create electricity at a ridiculously low efficiency), it might make sense to use molten salt e.g. in a nuclear reactor that runs at 500 MW (reactor continuous power) but is able to provide 750 MW bursts from the molten salt storage pool to allow daily load-following: more power during daytime, less power during nighttime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there's a fifth option that's mostly useful for grid stabilization:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Flywheels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...but that isn't mainly used to store electricity, rather to provide rotational inertia to the grid so that once consumption exceeds production, there will be a clear frequency decrease signal that signals to the grid operator that new production must be added in few seconds, or some load must be removed from the grid in few seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason flywheels aren't used for energy storage for long periods is the high self discharge rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, at home none of the options for batteries makes sense. Maybe if you have a refrigerator or a freezer that has a huge compressor, you could put a lot of water inside as thermal mass and then run it only whenever electricity is cheap. I have tried that with my refrigerator-freezers, but it doesn't work in my case because the compressor is so feeble it has to run at least 15 hours per day or else the temperature becomes unacceptably high. Where I live, there's only 6-8 hours of cheap electricity per day, not enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also if you have to use cooling or heating, and have a system that's generously sized, you could cool or heat only whenever electricity is cheap, and then rest of the hours the temperature is in free increase or decline. With thermal mass such as a water tank in a system where water circulates, this becomes easier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But apart from these cases where you want heating or cooling and use electricity to do that only whenever electricity is cheap, the only option is batteries. For example, I use 7 kWh per day. My house is 5 meters high. I would need to raise 5 million liters of water to my roof to store one day of electricity usage -- not feasible. However, a typical electric car has 70 kWh of batteries, and even if you only use 80% of that capacity, I could run my house from an electric car battery for 8 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also hydrogen can only realistically be stored compressed at huge pressures or else the energy density sucks. Above the ground, pressure vessels are so damn expensive it really doesn't make any sense. Below the ground at considerable depth, it makes more sense, because you can use the ground as a pressure vessel and only need thin steel liners to contain that pressure without leaking, like an inner tube of a bicycle that bursts in free air but if it's surrounded by the outer tire, it can contain the pressure without leaking too fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12465" RevisionGUID="fcfdf652-e98d-4d69-84c7-8e5e4644a1f8" CreationDate="2022-12-26T11:03:36.597" UserId="6393" Comment="fix a misleading word" Text="Electricity grid-scale, the main options are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Pumped hydropower (also applicable for seasonal cycling)&#xD;&#xA;2. Compressed hydrogen stored underground (also applicable for seasonal cycling)&#xD;&#xA;3. Batteries (but only for daily cycling, not for seasonal cycling)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have a district heating grid, you can also add a fourth option:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4. Thermal energy storage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason thermal storage isn't used to store electricity is very good: to have any reasonable efficiency, the temperature would be so hot heat would leak immediately away. But if what you want is heat not electricity, then it might make sense to create that heat at times energy is cheap, and then use it at time energy is expensive. Also in combination with steam power plants (where you anyway use heat to create electricity at a ridiculously low efficiency), it might make sense to use molten salt e.g. in a nuclear reactor that runs at 500 MW (reactor continuous power) but is able to provide 750 MW bursts from the molten salt storage pool to allow daily load-following: more power during daytime, less power during nighttime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also there's a fifth option that's mostly useful for grid stabilization:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5. Flywheels&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...but that isn't mainly used to store electricity, rather to provide rotational inertia to the grid so that once consumption exceeds production, there will be a clear frequency decrease signal that signals to the grid operator that new production must be added in few seconds, or some load must be removed from the grid in few seconds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The reason flywheels aren't used for energy storage for long periods is the high self discharge rate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, at home none of the alternatives for batteries makes sense. Maybe if you have a refrigerator or a freezer that has a huge compressor, you could put a lot of water inside as thermal mass and then run it only whenever electricity is cheap. I have tried that with my refrigerator-freezers, but it doesn't work in my case because the compressor is so feeble it has to run at least 15 hours per day or else the temperature becomes unacceptably high. Where I live, there's only 6-8 hours of cheap electricity per day, not enough.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also if you have to use cooling or heating, and have a system that's generously sized, you could cool or heat only whenever electricity is cheap, and then rest of the hours the temperature is in free increase or decline. With thermal mass such as a water tank in a system where water circulates, this becomes easier.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But apart from these cases where you want heating or cooling and use electricity to do that only whenever electricity is cheap, the only option is batteries. For example, I use 7 kWh per day. My house is 5 meters high. I would need to raise 5 million liters of water to my roof to store one day of electricity usage -- not feasible. However, a typical electric car has 70 kWh of batteries, and even if you only use 80% of that capacity, I could run my house from an electric car battery for 8 days.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also hydrogen can only realistically be stored compressed at huge pressures or else the energy density sucks. Above the ground, pressure vessels are so damn expensive it really doesn't make any sense. Below the ground at considerable depth, it makes more sense, because you can use the ground as a pressure vessel and only need thin steel liners to contain that pressure without leaking, like an inner tube of a bicycle that bursts in free air but if it's surrounded by the outer tire, it can contain the pressure without leaking too fast.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31870" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="4450" RevisionGUID="cc4d4117-09cf-4493-ac62-b61534f831b3" CreationDate="2022-12-27T02:51:19.197" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31874" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12458" RevisionGUID="5ccc95b6-282e-4b77-94c4-e534493738fa" CreationDate="2022-12-29T03:24:57.750" UserId="14576" Comment="acted on instruction from moderator to integrate information into question" Text="We just had a solar panel install in the United Kingdom (latitude of 57 degrees).  The contractor quoted us for panels installed at a standard 35 degree angle.  However, the actual install was panels at a 10 degree angle (i.e. nearly flat). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The panels are installed on a flat roof, not on a pitched roof.  The contractor claims that 35 degrees is standard for a pitched roof, but on a flat roof fitting at a 10 degree angle is standard.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that the panels will harvest less energy because of the smaller angle.  My questions are: &#xD;&#xA;* Is the contractor telling the truth?&#xD;&#xA;* Is the difference in capacity substantive?  Is this worth arguing about? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thank you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Update:*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Many thanks to @juhist for the clear answer.  Roof space is limited. The panels are set up in two rows (front row and rear row) --- so close together that there is some shading of the rear row even at a 10 degree angle (in the UK in winter; during other seasons I would expect no shading).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The contractor could raise the rear row by 40cm by adding a platform. This would eliminate shading and perhaps permit raising the panels to an angle of 20-25 degrees. (35 degrees is not possible.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My other half says to leave it be. My mathematician head says to optimise. Comments welcome.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31875" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12458" RevisionGUID="5ccc95b6-282e-4b77-94c4-e534493738fa" CreationDate="2022-12-29T03:24:57.750" Comment="Proposed by 14576 approved by 2345, 3379 edit id of 706" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31879" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="160fb30d-fc0c-4ca9-8e60-5d771eaac407" CreationDate="2022-12-29T16:14:29.820" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="31880" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12467" RevisionGUID="87e5b60a-03a4-47a3-af92-522cf5dfefa9" CreationDate="2022-12-29T20:41:36.137" UserId="9669" Text="Is this a real thing or just greenwashing? This problem of microplastic seemed so huge it's hard to believe you could make such an enormous dent in it just using a right detergent&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Offering consumers a simple solution, Zara just launched the first laundry detergent designed to minimize microfiber shedding during washing. Developed in collaboration with BASF Home Care and I&amp;I Solutions Europe, the liquid detergent is said to reduce microfiber release by **up to 80%**, depending on the type of fabric and how it's washed. Laboratory testing also found that the formula is suitable for washing at low temperatures (down to 20°C), decreasing energy consumption. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*(from [Trendwatching][1])*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.trendwatching.com/innovation-of-the-day/new-laundry-detergent-by-zara-reduces-microfiber-shedding-by-up-to-80-percent?utm_campaign=FTU%20Weekly%20&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;_hsmi=238901472&amp;_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_kkeiPLlkYOduM8Hy1TdJSGJ9OJf2XWJ5FU7jTZKYyCfOt2KYOEncIKS5FrVDh4IE5oIs9YhMfidFhMKWI0_RzO6PSgA&amp;utm_content=238852836&amp;utm_source=hs_email" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31882" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12467" RevisionGUID="87e5b60a-03a4-47a3-af92-522cf5dfefa9" CreationDate="2022-12-29T20:41:36.137" UserId="9669" Text="Could microfiber shedding be slashed by using a proper detergent?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31883" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12467" RevisionGUID="87e5b60a-03a4-47a3-af92-522cf5dfefa9" CreationDate="2022-12-29T20:41:36.137" UserId="9669" Text="|untagged|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31890" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="b7a2cc2f-c26c-414b-b6b9-d14ddd3dfa91" CreationDate="2022-12-31T03:05:35.617" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31891" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12469" RevisionGUID="19b8baaa-b78e-4fd4-a5f2-5db9085833ba" CreationDate="2023-01-01T15:18:28.827" UserId="13357" Text="With the [new tax regulations][1] supporting wider purchase of electric vehicles, there will be many new first-time owners in the near future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are considerations for someone planning to buy their first EV? Are there any distinct situations that an EV is not a good fit for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/hybrids-evs/electric-vehicles-that-qualify-for-new-ev-tax-credit-a9310530660/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31893" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12469" RevisionGUID="19b8baaa-b78e-4fd4-a5f2-5db9085833ba" CreationDate="2023-01-01T15:18:28.827" UserId="13357" Text="Tax Code Benefits EV's" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31894" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12469" RevisionGUID="19b8baaa-b78e-4fd4-a5f2-5db9085833ba" CreationDate="2023-01-01T15:18:28.827" UserId="13357" Text="|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31895" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12469" RevisionGUID="1dd4ea43-f5e3-4b58-8795-3f162682231e" CreationDate="2023-01-01T17:20:55.360" UserId="3379" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="With the [new U.S. tax regulations][1] supporting purchase of electric vehicles (EVs), there will be many new first-time EV owners in the near future. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What are considerations for someone planning to buy their first EV? Are there any distinct situations that an EV is not a good fit for?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/hybrids-evs/electric-vehicles-that-qualify-for-new-ev-tax-credit-a9310530660/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31896" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12469" RevisionGUID="1dd4ea43-f5e3-4b58-8795-3f162682231e" CreationDate="2023-01-01T17:20:55.360" UserId="3379" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Are there any distinct situations that an EV is not a good fit for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31897" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12469" RevisionGUID="1dd4ea43-f5e3-4b58-8795-3f162682231e" CreationDate="2023-01-01T17:20:55.360" UserId="3379" Comment="added 8 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|electric-vehicles|usa|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31898" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12458" RevisionGUID="b469f2ef-18d5-4ab1-af49-594057e1e885" CreationDate="2023-01-02T00:00:06.807" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1609701029569871874" />
  <row Id="31899" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="80605865-dc93-4430-88bf-8c6eb4e1f934" CreationDate="2023-01-02T03:01:23.443" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1609746649202532353" />
  <row Id="31900" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="9daece79-1ef6-40ce-9bc4-d5a59218b47d" CreationDate="2023-01-02T08:18:28.947" UserId="4099" Comment="broken image fixed (click 'Inline' or 'Side-by-side' to see the difference); for more info, see https://git.io/JqCQN" Text="It is in the news ([paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00516-4), [writeup](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02928-w)) that a study has just come out that some seafood, particularly small wild pelagics such as mackerel, herring and pilchard (eg. Japanese pilchard = 0.498 kg CO2e per kg), have a far smaller green house gas emissions than meat (eg. beef = 56 kg CO2e per kg), and comparing the figures to other datasources lower even than vegan protein sources, eg. [soya at 6.44 kg CO2e per kg](https://consumerecology.com/soy-carbon-footprint-environmental-impact/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this actually mean that a small wild pelagic fish based diet is sustainable, or do other factors (such [as the recent work on plastic polution](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-16529-0)) mean that the environmental harm is actually greater than more traditional &quot;green&quot; foods?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Nutrient density and greenhouse gas emissions of globally important seafoods][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Nutrient density scores are based on the 21 nutrients common to all species (full bars) and, where possible, 23 nutrients (grey lines) (for nutrients see Methods). GHG emissions of individual seafood species are representative of the dominant production method for each (or weighted if multiple major production method is employed globally). Solid bars indicate species from fisheries, and striped bars species from aquaculture. Comparisons to land-based animal proteins are based on nutritional content of averaged meat cuts for beef and pork, and fillets for chicken. GHG emissions of beef are beyond the scale at 56 kg CO2e per kg edible product.&#xA;&#xA; [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20221109120829/https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs43247-022-00516-4/MediaObjects/43247_2022_516_Fig2_HTML.png?as=webp" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31901" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12343" RevisionGUID="9daece79-1ef6-40ce-9bc4-d5a59218b47d" CreationDate="2023-01-02T08:18:28.947" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 99, 2345 edit id of 707" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31902" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="e3aa3d73-ef67-43a3-993e-6bfbce862a37" CreationDate="2023-01-03T17:00:45.147" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31903" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12470" RevisionGUID="f7855ff3-5bd3-4ffd-884f-fbad1dda7fd8" CreationDate="2023-01-04T16:23:56.500" UserId="5477" Text="They are a non-starter for me. One trip I make is 80 miles ( 160 round trip), much of it in Houston, so chance of getting struck in traffic with need of AC. You will find the AC ( or heat) needs about as much power as moving the car." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31914" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12406" RevisionGUID="27c6d4f5-27a3-4068-84f0-f09388ec58cd" CreationDate="2023-01-05T21:00:01.317" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1611105259547508736" />
  <row Id="31915" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12471" RevisionGUID="7f4457a7-16e7-4a9e-8035-3750fb4ccbd4" CreationDate="2023-01-08T12:22:24.433" UserId="106" Text="I am trying to find out my total electricity consumption with low latency and high temporal resolution.  Currently, I know my electricity consumption on a yearly basis with a latency of about 4 months.  Meaning, we will find out my total 2022 electricity consumption in April 2023.  I'm in Germany.  Apparently, in Germany, [the grid operator is obliged to provide an interface on its metering device to enable the customer to access the meter reading](https://opensource.com/article/20/5/energy-monitoring), so it should be possible to find this out more frequently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have wall socket meters, but they only help for devices that are powered via a wall socket.  For devices that directly connect to fixtures, they don't help.  I have no clue how much is used by oven, stove, or bathroom fan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we lived in England, our electricity provider provided us with a smart meter, and we could tell electricity consumption with a resolution of about 10 seconds in near real time.  However, for a smart meter, we might have to [wait until 2032](https://www.finanztip.de/stromzaehler/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does there exist a plug-and-play device that I can simply connect to my meter, without electrical DIY skills?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a [device that plugs into a classical electricity meter]( &#xD;&#xA;https://www.amazon.de/-/en/EQ-ESAS-SET-SENSOR-2000/dp/B003TFCGM8/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_product_top), but it's out of stock.  I found [someone who built their own solution](https://opensource.com/article/20/5/energy-monitoring) but I don't really have the skills or interest to build my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One complication may be that our meter is in the basement, from where there is no reliable connection to my home WiFi." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31917" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12471" RevisionGUID="7f4457a7-16e7-4a9e-8035-3750fb4ccbd4" CreationDate="2023-01-08T12:22:24.433" UserId="106" Text="How can I measure the total home electricity consumption with a high temporal resolution in Germany?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31918" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12471" RevisionGUID="7f4457a7-16e7-4a9e-8035-3750fb4ccbd4" CreationDate="2023-01-08T12:22:24.433" UserId="106" Text="|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31919" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12471" RevisionGUID="ebd3166c-ba67-4961-8b6c-07bc672aa2d8" CreationDate="2023-01-08T16:10:24.633" UserId="106" Comment="added 89 characters in body" Text="In order to save energy and to investigate the benefits of a balcony solar array (300W), I am trying to find out my total electricity consumption with low latency and high temporal resolution.  Currently, I know my electricity consumption on a yearly basis with a latency of about 4 months.  Meaning, we will find out my total 2022 electricity consumption in April 2023.  I'm in Germany.  Apparently, in Germany, [the grid operator is obliged to provide an interface on its metering device to enable the customer to access the meter reading](https://opensource.com/article/20/5/energy-monitoring), so it should be possible to find this out more frequently.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We have wall socket meters, but they only help for devices that are powered via a wall socket.  For devices that directly connect to fixtures, they don't help.  I have no clue how much is used by oven, stove, or bathroom fan.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When we lived in England, our electricity provider provided us with a smart meter, and we could tell electricity consumption with a resolution of about 10 seconds in near real time.  However, for a smart meter, we might have to [wait until 2032](https://www.finanztip.de/stromzaehler/).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does there exist a plug-and-play device that I can simply connect to my meter, without electrical DIY skills?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a [device that plugs into a classical electricity meter]( &#xD;&#xA;https://www.amazon.de/-/en/EQ-ESAS-SET-SENSOR-2000/dp/B003TFCGM8/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_product_top), but it's out of stock.  I found [someone who built their own solution](https://opensource.com/article/20/5/energy-monitoring) but I don't really have the skills or interest to build my own.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One complication may be that our meter is in the basement, from where there is no reliable connection to my home WiFi." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31920" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12212" RevisionGUID="9fc4a43e-4674-4360-986c-e65d3b9d5fae" CreationDate="2023-01-09T00:00:03.150" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1612237729336532996" />
  <row Id="31931" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12474" RevisionGUID="f973c2a8-3fda-43f3-a0d4-b61fc97719e5" CreationDate="2023-01-11T14:05:34.237" UserId="14599" Text="I'm currently installing the power monitoring for my solar panels so here we go...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the utility meter is in the basement and your wifi doesn't reach there, then to talk to the meter you'll have to pull a wire to the basement. This is likely to be a lot more annoying than installing a smartmeter in the house's electrical panel, which should be located inside the living space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, these old meters only provide a pulse output, which sends a blip every time your house consumes a set amount of energy. So, to know how much power you're using, you need a device that measures the time between pulses, and the measurement will only be updated on every pulse. So it can be quite slow to update, and it is very inconvenient for what you intend to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend you measure power at the house breaker panel. This requires an energy meter, which needs to measure both voltage and current. The least invasive ones require: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Two wires to both measure voltage and power themselves, to connect to a circuit breaker or to an electrical socket if there is one nearby&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) A current clamp, which [looks like this][1], to put around the main wire coming from the utility meter, which measures current drawn by the whole house. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note a current clamp measures the total current going through the hole in the middle, and it cares about polarity, that is the direction current is flowing as it goes through the hole. So if you run the whole cable through it, since the cable has one wire carrying current in one direction and another wire carrying current in the other direction, the clamp will measure the sum of both, which is zero. So it won't work. I'm mentioning this in case you thought you could avoid opening the electrical panel ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have three phase power then it needs to be three phase, it's just 4 wires and 3 or 4 clamps instead of 2 wires and 1 clamp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, how to choose a smartmeter. Welcome to the wonderful world of home automation, where absolutely nothing works like you want it to out of the box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you know Python, the simplest is a [modbus smartmeter][2]. It speaks modbus, which is a protocol of about Neanderthal tech level. Any tiny computer like a Pi can talk to it with a cheap [USB-RS485 adapter][3], and then you have to figure out what to do with it, make some plots, put the data in a database, whatever, you're in charge. All these meters update about every second, so it's pretty fast and real-time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a device that does &quot;something&quot; out of the box without getting your hands dirty, then I'd recommend a wifi smartmeter. Installation is the same, some will mount on the DIN rail inside your electrical panel which is the best if there's enough space to put it in, some will mount on the wall so you get an extra ugly box hanging plus a bunch of wires running to your panel for decoration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, count about 15 minutes to install it for someone who knows what he's doing, unless there is a surprise inside the electrical panel. If you don't know how, have an electrician do it, or a friend who's handy with this sort of thing. It's really not difficult for someone familiar with the stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HOWEVER**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the wonderful world of home automation, where absolutely nothing works like you want it to out of the box. Which means, most likely, the wifi smartmeter will upload your data to some Chinese cloud servers and only let you access it with a barely (un)usable garbage app, like the ubiquitous tuya wifi &quot;smart&quot; sockets. In addition, usually most of the useful options are on a subscription basis, and the cloud nature of the thing means it updates a little slower than if you could access it directly. This is a hard fail IMO, I absolutely hate these cloud apps from which it is cumbersome or impossible to pull data with a script in order to integrate with other systems. Also you have to give your wifi password to the PCC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a device that does *what you want* out of the box, then you'll have to make really sure it does so before ordering. The best way is to ask someone who has one already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.alternergy.co.uk/products/solar-accessories/ct-clamps&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.fr/search?q=eastron%20SDM120&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.fr/search?q=waveshare%20isolated%20usb%20rs485" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31933" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12396" RevisionGUID="7d20a3be-aee8-4577-87e2-1cd8d981618f" CreationDate="2023-01-12T03:02:15.257" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31934" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12475" RevisionGUID="e60261d4-c1d0-415a-bb6f-02ef347fc8f7" CreationDate="2023-01-12T05:37:31.753" UserId="14602" Text="There are a lot of items that require a lot of material. But this material should not be expensive.&#xD;&#xA;We can fill large items with recycled plastic. No complex processing technology is needed here, but only coarse mechanical grinding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples of things we can make from recycled plastic: benches, gates, hatches, street lamps, bricks for non-residential premises, roof, insulation of facades, advertising signs, trash cans or even cobblestones...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Do our cities already have all the necessary things? &#xD;&#xA;Definitely not... So the question is, why is there still a problem with plastic waste?&#xD;&#xA;Why not put all the plastic in the decoration of cities?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In my city, public things are made of metal and stone, and the problem of plastic is still acute. Tons of plastic could be used to decorate the city. So what is the point here?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31936" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12475" RevisionGUID="e60261d4-c1d0-415a-bb6f-02ef347fc8f7" CreationDate="2023-01-12T05:37:31.753" UserId="14602" Text="Why can't plastic be used as a building material for cities?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31937" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12475" RevisionGUID="e60261d4-c1d0-415a-bb6f-02ef347fc8f7" CreationDate="2023-01-12T05:37:31.753" UserId="14602" Text="|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31938" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12469" RevisionGUID="fb57c575-02c4-48e8-a7f4-b6fbc6e77e91" CreationDate="2023-01-12T09:00:01.653" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1613460781747560453" />
  <row Id="31939" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12474" RevisionGUID="bc84a6b4-15ac-4632-bf62-da8df30a7ddc" CreationDate="2023-01-12T09:07:58.080" UserId="14599" Comment="added 41 characters in body" Text="I'm currently installing the power monitoring for my solar panels so here we go...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the utility meter is in the basement and your wifi doesn't reach there, then to talk to the meter you'll have to pull a wire to the basement. This is likely to be a lot more annoying than installing a smartmeter in the house's electrical panel, which should be located inside the living space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, these old meters only provide a pulse output, which sends a blip every time your house consumes a set amount of energy. So, to know how much power you're using, you need a device that measures the time between pulses, and the measurement will only be updated on every pulse. So it can be quite slow to update, and it is very inconvenient for what you intend to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend you measure power at the house breaker panel. This requires an energy meter, which needs to measure both voltage and current. The least invasive ones require: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Two AC mains wires for the meter's power supply, to connect to a circuit breaker or to an electrical socket if there is one nearby. This also allows the meter to measure voltage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) A current clamp, which [looks like this][1], to put around the main wire coming from the utility meter, which measures current drawn by the whole house. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note a current clamp measures the total current going through the hole in the middle, and it cares about polarity, that is the direction current is flowing as it goes through the hole. So if you run the whole cable through it, since the cable has one wire carrying current in one direction and another wire carrying current in the other direction, the clamp will measure the sum of both, which is zero. So it won't work. I'm mentioning this in case you thought you could avoid opening the electrical panel ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have three phase power then it needs to be three phase, it's just 4 wires and 3 or 4 clamps instead of 2 wires and 1 clamp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, how to choose a smartmeter. Welcome to the wonderful world of home automation, where absolutely nothing works like you want it to out of the box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you know Python, the simplest is a [modbus smartmeter][2]. It speaks modbus, which is a protocol of about Neanderthal tech level. Any tiny computer like a Pi can talk to it with a cheap [USB-RS485 adapter][3], and then you have to figure out what to do with it, make some plots, put the data in a database, whatever, you're in charge. All these meters update about every second, so it's pretty fast and real-time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a device that does &quot;something&quot; out of the box without getting your hands dirty, then I'd recommend a wifi smartmeter. Installation is the same, some will mount on the DIN rail inside your electrical panel which is the best if there's enough space to put it in, some will mount on the wall so you get an extra ugly box hanging plus a bunch of wires running to your panel for decoration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, count about 15 minutes to install it for someone who knows what he's doing, unless there is a surprise inside the electrical panel. If you don't know how, have an electrician do it, or a friend who's handy with this sort of thing. It's really not difficult for someone familiar with the stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HOWEVER**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the wonderful world of home automation, where absolutely nothing works like you want it to out of the box. Which means, most likely, the wifi smartmeter will upload your data to some Chinese cloud servers and only let you access it with a barely (un)usable garbage app, like the ubiquitous tuya wifi &quot;smart&quot; sockets. In addition, usually most of the useful options are on a subscription basis, and the cloud nature of the thing means it updates a little slower than if you could access it directly. This is a hard fail IMO, I absolutely hate these cloud apps from which it is cumbersome or impossible to pull data with a script in order to integrate with other systems. Also you have to give your wifi password to the PCC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a device that does *what you want* out of the box, then you'll have to make really sure it does so before ordering. The best way is to ask someone who has one already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.alternergy.co.uk/products/solar-accessories/ct-clamps&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.google.fr/search?q=eastron%20SDM120&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.fr/search?q=waveshare%20isolated%20usb%20rs485" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31944" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="dd6b068e-7f0d-41c8-aea3-ad2957272eff" CreationDate="2023-01-12T16:12:22.477" UserId="14604" Text="According to [the bbc][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;should everyone go vegetarian by 2050, we would see a global mortality reduction of 6-10%, thanks to a lessening of coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke and some cancers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that the world population would be hundreds of millions of people higher, compared to the situation where most people continue eating meat? Or are there other factors by which vegetarianism influences the world population?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160926-what-would-happen-if-the-world-suddenly-went-vegetarian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31946" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="dd6b068e-7f0d-41c8-aea3-ad2957272eff" CreationDate="2023-01-12T16:12:22.477" UserId="14604" Text="Will vegetarianism increase the world population?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31947" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="dd6b068e-7f0d-41c8-aea3-ad2957272eff" CreationDate="2023-01-12T16:12:22.477" UserId="14604" Text="|health|population|vegetarianism|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31948" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12474" RevisionGUID="7571a585-2599-450c-aa10-49f474379aac" CreationDate="2023-01-12T17:23:09.483" UserId="14599" Comment="fix smartmeter link" Text="I'm currently installing the power monitoring for my solar panels so here we go...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the utility meter is in the basement and your wifi doesn't reach there, then to talk to the meter you'll have to pull a wire to the basement. This is likely to be a lot more annoying than installing a smartmeter in the house's electrical panel, which should be located inside the living space.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, these old meters only provide a pulse output, which sends a blip every time your house consumes a set amount of energy. So, to know how much power you're using, you need a device that measures the time between pulses, and the measurement will only be updated on every pulse. So it can be quite slow to update, and it is very inconvenient for what you intend to do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would recommend you measure power at the house breaker panel. This requires an energy meter, which needs to measure both voltage and current. The least invasive ones require: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1) Two AC mains wires for the meter's power supply, to connect to a circuit breaker or to an electrical socket if there is one nearby. This also allows the meter to measure voltage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2) A current clamp, which [looks like this][1], to put around the main wire coming from the utility meter, which measures current drawn by the whole house. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note a current clamp measures the total current going through the hole in the middle, and it cares about polarity, that is the direction current is flowing as it goes through the hole. So if you run the whole cable through it, since the cable has one wire carrying current in one direction and another wire carrying current in the other direction, the clamp will measure the sum of both, which is zero. So it won't work. I'm mentioning this in case you thought you could avoid opening the electrical panel ;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have three phase power then it needs to be three phase, it's just 4 wires and 3 or 4 clamps instead of 2 wires and 1 clamp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anyway, how to choose a smartmeter. Welcome to the wonderful world of home automation, where absolutely nothing works like you want it to out of the box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you know Python, the simplest is a [modbus smartmeter][2]. It speaks modbus, which is a protocol of about Neanderthal tech level. Any tiny computer like a Pi can talk to it with a cheap [USB-RS485 adapter][3], and then you have to figure out what to do with it, make some plots, put the data in a database, whatever, you're in charge. All these meters update about every second, so it's pretty fast and real-time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 2)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a device that does &quot;something&quot; out of the box without getting your hands dirty, then I'd recommend a wifi smartmeter. Installation is the same, some will mount on the DIN rail inside your electrical panel which is the best if there's enough space to put it in, some will mount on the wall so you get an extra ugly box hanging plus a bunch of wires running to your panel for decoration.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In both cases, count about 15 minutes to install it for someone who knows what he's doing, unless there is a surprise inside the electrical panel. If you don't know how, have an electrician do it, or a friend who's handy with this sort of thing. It's really not difficult for someone familiar with the stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**HOWEVER**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is the wonderful world of home automation, where absolutely nothing works like you want it to out of the box. Which means, most likely, the wifi smartmeter will upload your data to some Chinese cloud servers and only let you access it with a barely (un)usable garbage app, like the ubiquitous tuya wifi &quot;smart&quot; sockets. In addition, usually most of the useful options are on a subscription basis, and the cloud nature of the thing means it updates a little slower than if you could access it directly. This is a hard fail IMO, I absolutely hate these cloud apps from which it is cumbersome or impossible to pull data with a script in order to integrate with other systems. Also you have to give your wifi password to the PCC.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Option 3)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want a device that does *what you want* out of the box, then you'll have to make really sure it does so before ordering. The best way is to ask someone who has one already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.alternergy.co.uk/products/solar-accessories/ct-clamps&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://fr.aliexpress.com/item/32969987033.html&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.google.fr/search?q=waveshare%20isolated%20usb%20rs485" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31949" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12233" RevisionGUID="2a1cc840-edbf-4cd2-926f-d0492493ab4e" CreationDate="2023-01-12T21:53:15.280" UserId="4099" Comment="broken images fixed (click 'Inline' or 'Side-by-side' to see the difference; images retrieved via Wayback Machine); for more info, see https://git.io/JqCQN" Text="There is [an analysis of the carbon footprint of coffee here](https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/geo2.96) with a [less academic write up here](https://theconversation.com/coffee-heres-the-carbon-cost-of-your-daily-cup-and-how-to-make-it-climate-friendly-152629) by Professor Mark Maslin and PhD student Carmen Nab (both University College London, Geography).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The primary impacts are fertiliser use, managing water, transport (particularly if air freighted) and milk production.  Solutions include buying certified coffee that is considered to have a lower carbon footprint, the [rainforest alliance is recomended][3], and drinking your coffee black or with non-dairy whitener.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Over 9.5 billion kg of coffee is produced annually and demand is expected to triple by 2050. We identify and quantify the greenhouse gas emission of coffee produced in Brazil and Vietnam and exported to the United Kingdom. The average carbon footprint of Arabica coffee from both countries was calculated as 15.33 (±0.72) kg CO2e kg−1 for conventional coffee production and 3.51 (±0.13) kg CO2e kg−1 for sustainable coffee production. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Comparison of the carbon footprint of different styles of coffee using conventional or sustainable coffee and diary milk or non-diary milk][1]][1]  &#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(source: [wiley.com](https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/d41e6e5b-b145-41d6-8258-6405da4944a3/geo296-fig-0006-m.jpg))&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![The contribution of each phase to the total carbon footprint of coffee production][2]][2]  &#xA;&lt;sub&gt;(source: [wiley.com](https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/00eadf89-df6b-4186-979b-4f1002d8b76b/geo296-fig-0005-m.jpg))&lt;/sub&gt;  &#xA;&#xA;&#xA; [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/bbfn3.jpg&#xA; [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/xiILV.jpg&#xA; [3]: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/issues/human-rights/forced-labor/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31950" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12233" RevisionGUID="2a1cc840-edbf-4cd2-926f-d0492493ab4e" CreationDate="2023-01-12T21:53:15.280" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 13618 edit id of 708" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31951" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12417" RevisionGUID="5fb97193-edfb-4db6-95e5-0e2e2cfcbc62" CreationDate="2023-01-13T02:47:01.873" UserId="14520" Comment="Fixed grammar and meaning" Text="Insulation is a passive technology that requires no energy or fuel to run it, and once installed, lasts decades. Thus its more useful and economical to insulate homes, than invest in new heating technology. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31952" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12417" RevisionGUID="5fb97193-edfb-4db6-95e5-0e2e2cfcbc62" CreationDate="2023-01-13T02:47:01.873" Comment="Proposed by 14520 approved by 2345, 659 edit id of 705" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31953" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="fb1b5296-2cdc-4903-9a88-fd36af74f5d9" CreationDate="2023-01-14T21:31:01.187" UserId="14604" Comment="76" />
  <row Id="31956" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12480" RevisionGUID="2bf43856-3fbb-4974-b8e3-f308bb07420e" CreationDate="2023-01-14T22:21:49.253" UserId="4458" Text="There are current clamp meters. You just put a sensor around one of the wires. It has to go around live or neutral, but definitely not both. They make assumptions about the voltage (but this does not change by much), and phase (also should not change if you have only resistive loads)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31958" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="56d05116-6375-4dc8-8a92-10a2ee2f34c2" CreationDate="2023-01-15T00:00:27.453" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1614412158309203970" />
  <row Id="31961" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="545a7a32-21de-48f6-8871-4e844a43a50c" CreationDate="2023-01-15T16:56:25.787" UserId="3379" Comment="added 72 characters in body" Text="According to the 2016 BBC article [&quot;What would happen if the world suddenly went vegetarian?&quot;][1]:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;should everyone go vegetarian by 2050, we would see a global mortality reduction of 6-10%, thanks to a lessening of coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke and some cancers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does this mean that the world population would be hundreds of millions of people higher, compared to the situation where most people continue eating meat? Or are there other factors by which vegetarianism influences the world population?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160926-what-would-happen-if-the-world-suddenly-went-vegetarian" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31962" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12481" RevisionGUID="f02451a1-8618-40f6-b1ea-189c59e1d637" CreationDate="2023-01-15T17:29:00.523" UserId="3379" Text="This is really a two-part question, the second part of which probably isn't answerable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# If everyone were vegetarian, what would the impact on mortality be?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The BBC cites [&quot;Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change&quot;](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523119113) by Springmann, Marco, H. Charles J. Godfray, Mike Rayner, and Peter Scarborough, in *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* volume 113, no. 15 (2016).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The article provides the following detail:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Compared with the reference scenario, we project that adoption of global dietary guidelines (HGD) would result in 5.1 million avoided deaths per year [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.8–5.5 million] and 79 million years of life saved (CI, 75–83 million) (Fig. 1A and SI Appendix, Fig. S2). The equivalent figures for the vegetarian (VGT) diet are 7.3 million avoided deaths (CI, 7.0–7.6 million) and 114 million life years saved (CI, 111–118 million) and for the vegan (VGN) diet 8.1 million avoided deaths (CI, 7.8–8.5 million) and 129 million life years saved (CI, 125–133 million). &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**So they aren't saying that there would be hundreds of millions more people in the world, but that there would be five to eight million less people dying per year.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's important to note that the results are broader than simply &quot;not eating meat&quot;, which they point out in the discussion:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We found that about half of the global avoided deaths occurred because of the consumption of less red meat and that the other half was due to a combination of increased fruit and vegetable consumption and reductions in total energy intake (and the associated decreases in the fraction of people overweight and obese)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So simply eating healthier in general would reduce mortality rates -- you can eat less red meat, more fruits and veggies, and less total calories, without being vegetarian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# How would this impact the global population?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That's the question that's much harder to answer. It isn't addressed in the article, but I found the following statement in an article titled [Mortality-Fertility Relationships](https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/mortality-fertility-relationships) (emphasis added):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It is axiomatic that, once death rates in a population have fallen steeply and irreversibly, birth rates must eventually follow. The alternative is rapid population growth that is unsustainable in the long term. However, the characterization of the link between mortality and fertility in classic statements of demographic transition theory has differed. [...]&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since these early theoretical contributions, scientists have accumulated a great deal of empirical evidence on the mortality—fertility link at the societal and family level. **It has become clear that the relationship is not a simple mechanical one.** Though it remains true that mortality decline has always preceded secular declines in fertility, the degree of prior mortality improvement, the absolute level and age pattern of mortality at the onset of fertility decline, and the time lags involved vary widely among societies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Basically, while the immediate impact of less people dying is more people in the world, the long-term impacts of reduced mortality (less people dying) on fertility (how many people are born) varies greatly due to a lot of factors that aren't fully understood. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31964" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12482" RevisionGUID="b410a2b9-fb7e-44ff-89af-e315b0ed5c98" CreationDate="2023-01-15T17:41:06.980" UserId="9669" Text="I came across [this][1] news about a parka prototype that uses human hair as an alternative for animal hair, that is down or wool. Using human hair seems an obvious idea so the fact that it's not practiced by manufacturers makes me suspect that it's not a good replacer (whatever the reasons). In other words, they would've done it already had it possessed necessary properties. Can human hair replace down after all?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.trendwatching.com/innovation-of-the-day/human-material-loop-tests-prototype-parka-filled-with-human-hair?utm_campaign=FTU%20Weekly%20&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;_hsmi=241278558&amp;_hsenc=p2ANqtz--Q-sdbXJhocKsE-JoTxEkpaVaotYzKilMmaooz-rNvjSEMa31iJeB1DivME2JykDlG3iXJtxCNXMUA9cnpstwXhlHTcw&amp;utm_content=241275125&amp;utm_source=hs_email" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31966" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12482" RevisionGUID="b410a2b9-fb7e-44ff-89af-e315b0ed5c98" CreationDate="2023-01-15T17:41:06.980" UserId="9669" Text="Can human hair feasibly replace down as clothing filling?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31967" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12482" RevisionGUID="b410a2b9-fb7e-44ff-89af-e315b0ed5c98" CreationDate="2023-01-15T17:41:06.980" UserId="9669" Text="|clothing|upcycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31972" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12484" RevisionGUID="cac01690-9af2-4f74-8574-00ef396ddb24" CreationDate="2023-01-17T00:49:47.407" UserId="14612" Text="I have some doubts on net metering and how my solar input flows within my electric connections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using grid tied split phase 240V micro-inverters. They only have L1, L2 and Ground connections and they connect directly to my main panel as the diagram shows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this diagram is my main connection panel. Two live bars on the sides and the center would represent the Neutral. In my example, I have an unbalanced load of 4A and 2A. And assuming that my solar array is producing 2.5A per Line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be what I should expect to read from the grid? (does it make sense?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the net meter in this case? a total consumption of 2A (2.5A from L1 minus 0.5A from L2). Or would the meter be two separate numbers, 2.5A consumption and 0.5A feed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iibWR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31974" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12484" RevisionGUID="cac01690-9af2-4f74-8574-00ef396ddb24" CreationDate="2023-01-17T00:49:47.407" UserId="14612" Text="Understanding Net Metering" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31975" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12484" RevisionGUID="cac01690-9af2-4f74-8574-00ef396ddb24" CreationDate="2023-01-17T00:49:47.407" UserId="14612" Text="|solar-power|electricity-generation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12484" RevisionGUID="00188afe-3bee-49d8-ba8f-2dbeed429928" CreationDate="2023-01-17T04:43:11.670" UserId="659" Comment="fix minor arithmetic error" Text="I have some doubts on net metering and how my solar input flows within my electric connections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using grid tied split phase 240V micro-inverters. They only have L1, L2 and Ground connections and they connect directly to my main panel as the diagram shows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this diagram is my main connection panel. Two live bars on the sides and the center would represent the Neutral. In my example, I have an unbalanced load of 4A and 2A. And assuming that my solar array is producing 2.5A per Line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be what I should expect to read from the grid? (does it make sense?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the net meter in this case? a total consumption of 1A (1.5A from L1 minus 0.5A from L2). Or would the meter be two separate numbers, 1.5A consumption and 0.5A feed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iibWR.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31979" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12486" RevisionGUID="d230c4d4-e4ed-4ab1-9b58-aaefba812cab" CreationDate="2023-01-17T09:06:31.653" UserId="14520" Text="Recycling is a minefield, I have read. There may be thousands of different plastics I read [here][1]; some may be recyclable, research is ongoing. I was interested to read about research into [recycling melamine, for example][2]. It would be difficult to set up something for this at a household level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;After I read how the Netherlands have banned melamine tableware and how bad that tableware is for infants ... I have grandchildren visiting ... I threw my melamine mugs and saucers into the county council supplied recycling bin for paper products and hard plastic, hoping that this council collects melamine for the purpose of recycling.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But probably my melamine is going to landfill. Unusable Melamine will need to be collected on an industrial scale before it can be recycled. The factory where melamine might be be recycled is a steel-making town in South Australia, 5000km from where I live. Who is going to truck it there? Totally uneconomical in the present economical structure.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In Australia we have had a [soft plastic collection scheme][3] that has been going since 2011. This was an initiative &quot;The REDcycle Program is a voluntary, industry-led initiative developed by Melbourne-based organisation, RED Group.&quot; Quite likely they started it due to public pressure and I think this is how we can influence industrial initiatives. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This page][4] tells you 7 or so common plastics and whether they can be recycled, and how. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend having a look at what your local county council is doing, getting together with like-minded citizens in your town ... maybe through FaceBook...and try to influence your council.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.plasticsmakeitpossible.com/about-plastics/types-of-plastics/professor-plastics-how-many-types-of-plastics-are-there/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261135297_Recycling_of_end-of-life_Melamine_at_1600C_for_Carbon_Dissolution_into_Liquid_Iron&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://recyclingnearyou.com.au/soft-plastics&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://ourworldindata.org/faq-on-plastics#are-all-types-of-plastic-equally-easy-to-recycle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31981" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="96c6fb1f-9d00-4d78-86d1-e8b25bd9beff" CreationDate="2023-01-17T12:09:31.127" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="31982" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12487" RevisionGUID="855f7483-40da-4b37-b05c-93d4d8c1d0e9" CreationDate="2023-01-18T02:24:11.620" UserId="3379" Text="You state:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;  assuming that my solar array is producing 2.5A per line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this isn't possible. The current produced by your solar array must flow in a complete circuit -- the current has to come from somewhere. So, if it is producing 2.5A, we can visualize that as 2.5A being drawn from L1 by the solar panels and pushed into L2.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Nodal circuit analysis&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a different way to view the circuit and understand how the currents flow, using [nodal analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodal_analysis). In this analysis, we simplify the circuit down to &quot;nodes&quot;, where the sum of currents into and out of each node must equal 0. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![240V split phase circuit with two loads and solar supply][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transformer is your grid supply, and VS is your solar inverter. Now to the nodal analysis:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - **At V1**, `2.5A` is flowing in from the solar, and `4A` is flowing out to the load. This means that `4 - 2.5 = 1.5A` must be flowing in from the grid.&#xD;&#xA; - **At V2**, `2.5A` is flowing out to the solar, and `2A` is flowing out to the load. This means that `2 + 2.5 = 4.5A` must be flowing in from the grid.&#xD;&#xA; - **At N**, `4 + 2 = 6A` is flowing in from the loads, so `6A` must also be flowing out to the grid.&#xD;&#xA; - **At the grid**, we can see that `6A` is coming in from the neutral, which balances the `1.5 + 4.5 = 6A` flowing out on each phase.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Net metering is about power, not current&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the above analysis, we determined that the loads are drawing 6A, and the grid is also supplying 6A. So does this mean that the solar isn't providing any benefit?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No, because it is still producing *power*: `P = V * I`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - Power draw at load 1: `120V * 4A = 480W`&#xD;&#xA; - Power draw at load 2: `120V * 2A = 240W`&#xD;&#xA; - Total power draw from loads: `480W + 240W = 720W`&#xD;&#xA; - Power supply from solar: `240V * 2.5A = 600W`&#xD;&#xA; - Power supply from grid: `720W - 600W = 120W`&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Why is the solar power used &quot;before&quot; grid power?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your solar inverter is a grid-tied (sometimes &quot;grid-tie&quot;) inverter, which functions by measuring the grid voltage and incrementally increasing it's output voltage (up to a set limit) as long as there is more current supply available (which will be the case whenever the sun is shining). The basic algorithm looks like this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Grid-tied inverter algorithm][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Once the algorithm gets to the end it will pause for a moment before it starts again.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because of how the grid functions, when the local voltage is incrementally higher than the grid voltage, power will flow out from the solar array. When there is no solar energy available, the inverter voltage will simply follow the grid, allowing power to flow in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GtyRY.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GXK6i.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31986" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12488" RevisionGUID="d8e7efa4-a5b9-425d-9871-572d6f37421b" CreationDate="2023-01-18T11:49:03.180" UserId="12137" Text="In the end, what keeps us from getting cold in winter clothing is air. Air is a bad conductor of heat and any structure that has loads of air pockets will keep you warm. Down (as well as other types of feather) has that kind of property due to its microscopically branched structure. On top, it is very light weight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Human hair does not fullfill that brief. If you felt it (think dreadlocks), you might be able to get better warmth retention due to the sir pockets you create, but you will end up with a very heavy material, similar to boiled wool. It will be stiff and thick and not very comfortable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And last but not least: down is very compressible, making it suitable for items like sleeping bags that you do not want to have to carry around in their full bulk. Human hair in a form that retains warmth (see previous paragraph) will not be compressible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while technically you could use human hair to replace down in various scenarios, the resulting product properties will be completely different (and in most instances very much inferior). A much better candidate to replace down if you do not want to use animal products is e.g. [poplar seed fiber][1] (link only in German), which has the highest warmth retention capacity of any natural fiber, is very lightweight and not spinnable, making it unattractive to regular textile production methods, which is why it is not widely used yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pappella.de/pappelflaum/pappelflaum.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31993" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12482" RevisionGUID="80755fcd-c7f0-4a5e-afcf-8f2972d26edf" CreationDate="2023-01-18T18:00:01.420" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1615771003862269966" />
  <row Id="31994" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="12478" RevisionGUID="d3f0947a-9a30-40fe-8dcf-2c39eb1598f2" CreationDate="2023-01-19T11:08:27.153" UserId="14604" Comment="76" />
  <row Id="31995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12489" RevisionGUID="12345bde-4007-47d2-b36a-441e31127984" CreationDate="2023-01-19T18:04:12.870" UserId="13969" Text="I remember reading somewhere that freeze dried food is not common apart from coffee because the process is energy intensive and expensive. But I just thought that some food is frozen, transported for thousands of kilometres in refrigerated containers, distributed and sold through a specialised logistic that keeps the cold chain intact. What is the total energy requirement of this cold chain? Is it more or less than freeze dried food packaged in a nitrogen atmosphere and distributed at room temperature?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I do not think that vegetable are distributed frozen over long distances, but I think that my question would apply to shrimps or tilapia grown in a farm in Asia and sold in the Western world. Or it could apply to meat frozen in Argentina and sold in Europe." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12489" RevisionGUID="12345bde-4007-47d2-b36a-441e31127984" CreationDate="2023-01-19T18:04:12.870" UserId="13969" Text="How does the overall energy balance of freeze dried food compares to food frozen and transported over long distances?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12489" RevisionGUID="12345bde-4007-47d2-b36a-441e31127984" CreationDate="2023-01-19T18:04:12.870" UserId="13969" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="31999" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12484" RevisionGUID="00c236b6-e8f6-4125-86c2-99f83879d388" CreationDate="2023-01-19T22:28:22.657" UserId="14612" Comment="added 152 characters in body" Text="I have some doubts on net metering and how my solar input flows within my electric connections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using grid tied split phase 240V micro-inverters. They only have L1, L2 and Ground connections and they connect directly to my main panel as the diagram shows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this diagram is my main connection panel. Two live bars on the sides and the center would represent the Neutral. In my example, I have an unbalanced load of 4A and 2A. And assuming that my solar array is producing 2.5A per Line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be what I should expect to read from the grid? (does it make sense?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the net meter in this case? a total consumption of 1A (1.5A from L1 minus 0.5A from L2). Or would the meter be two separate numbers, 1.5A consumption and 0.5A feed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edited diagram with &quot;Load&quot; currents flowing on the same direction:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iibWR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/FIbg0.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32000" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12488" RevisionGUID="4cd073de-f8eb-4937-9e44-942a340dd019" CreationDate="2023-01-20T05:16:49.157" UserId="12137" Comment="edited body" Text="In the end, what keeps us from getting cold in winter clothing is air. Air is a bad conductor of heat and any structure that has loads of air pockets will keep you warm. Down (as well as other types of feather) has that kind of property due to its microscopically branched structure. On top, it is very light weight. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Human hair does not fullfill that brief. If you felt it (think dreadlocks), you might be able to get better warmth retention due to the air pockets you create, but you will end up with a very heavy material, similar to boiled wool. It will be stiff and thick and not very comfortable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And last but not least: down is very compressible, making it suitable for items like sleeping bags that you do not want to have to carry around in their full bulk. Human hair in a form that retains warmth (see previous paragraph) will not be compressible. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So while technically you could use human hair to replace down in various scenarios, the resulting product properties will be completely different (and in most instances very much inferior). A much better candidate to replace down if you do not want to use animal products is e.g. [poplar seed fiber][1] (link only in German), which has the highest warmth retention capacity of any natural fiber, is very lightweight and not spinnable, making it unattractive to regular textile production methods, which is why it is not widely used yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.pappella.de/pappelflaum/pappelflaum.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32001" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12471" RevisionGUID="3985653a-eada-4c76-9e08-c24843f7425c" CreationDate="2023-01-20T09:00:10.040" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1616359919845777408" />
  <row Id="32002" PostHistoryTypeId="25" PostId="12105" RevisionGUID="7d9f5357-163f-4894-87d6-3cda64561bae" CreationDate="2023-01-20T12:00:00.167" Comment="https://twitter.com/StackSustain/status/1616405177212276738" />
  <row Id="32003" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12484" RevisionGUID="e49d67fb-8e8a-4c3b-bc7a-60ff12002200" CreationDate="2023-01-20T19:08:27.607" UserId="14612" Comment="deleted 38 characters in body" Text="I have some doubts on net metering and how my solar input flows within my electric connections.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am using grid tied split phase 240V micro-inverters. They only have L1, L2 and Ground connections and they connect directly to my main panel as the diagram shows.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming this diagram is my main connection panel. Two live bars on the sides and the center would represent the Neutral. In my example, I have an unbalanced load of 4A and 2A. And assuming that my solar array is producing 2.5A per Line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would this be what I should expect to read from the grid? (does it make sense?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What would be the net meter in this case? a total consumption of 1A (1.5A from L1 minus 0.5A from L2). Or would the meter be two separate numbers, 1.5A consumption and 0.5A feed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Diagram according to answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iibWR.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Trvt6.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12490" RevisionGUID="4fc51baa-3a0b-4d6d-ada6-46685154dc20" CreationDate="2023-01-21T10:58:37.053" UserId="14622" Text="Great questions and important ones&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Is plastic recycling really not a viable solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sustainability talks about 3 Rs: &quot;reduce, reuse, recycle&quot; and &quot;recycle&quot; is the last R. Hence the effective way we can reduce plastic waste is to reduce its usage, e.g. use [water filter systems as an alternative to buying water in plastic bottles][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reduction of plastic usage would also avoid the need to tackle the second question about &quot;recycling rate&quot; which generally depends on the type of plastic (how many times can plastic be recycled before it looses its quality) and recycling infrastructure (collecting, transporting, recycling, reselling)  and citizens awareness about the need to recycle. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that even if Europe has high awareness, it also sends part of its plastic to Asia where the awareness is lower and the [plastic is dumped in Asian waters][2]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So recycling alone is definitely not a solution and people should consider reduction of its usage and make &quot;reduce and reuse&quot; a part of their lifestyle, e.g. use [reusable plates and cutlery][3] instead of single-use ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Are there places in the world which reach a really high recycling&#xD;&#xA;&gt; rate?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Norway][4] and Switzerland recycle more than 90% of plastic bottles, but again plastic has a limit on a number of times it can be recycled comparing to glass recycling, for instance, which can be performed virtually indefinitely. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Disclaimer: I own and wrote [roktao.com][5] linked articles. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.roktao.com/water-filter-systems-alternative-to-plastic-bottles/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200630103603.htm&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.roktao.com/reusable-plates-and-cutlery/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.sciencealert.com/norway-s-recycling-scheme-is-so-effective-92-percent-of-plastic-bottles-can-be-reused&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.roktao.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32006" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12491" RevisionGUID="3f9e10bd-91ff-4605-ac80-40b026e5fb3a" CreationDate="2023-01-22T11:51:09.297" UserId="5824" Text="[PBS NewsHour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_NewsHour) segments often end with little fact-blurbs as text overlays, and the January 22, 2023 [How an Alaska village’s switch to renewable energy helps local Native economies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8vdpcpLlDg) ends with the printed factoid:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Alaska's per capita energy consumption is the fourth highest in the U.S. due to its small population, harsh winters, and energy-intensive industries:&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;SOURCE: US Energy Information Administration&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would the smallness of Alaska's population be a factor in its ***per-capita*** energy consumption ranking?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![screenshot from PBS NewsHour's January 22, 2023 &quot;How an Alaska village’s switch to renewable energy helps local Native economies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8vdpcpLlDg](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gUZiY.jpg)](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gUZiY.jpg)&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32008" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12491" RevisionGUID="3f9e10bd-91ff-4605-ac80-40b026e5fb3a" CreationDate="2023-01-22T11:51:09.297" UserId="5824" Text="Why would the smallness of Alaska's population be a factor in its per-capita energy consumption ranking?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32009" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12491" RevisionGUID="3f9e10bd-91ff-4605-ac80-40b026e5fb3a" CreationDate="2023-01-22T11:51:09.297" UserId="5824" Text="|energy|usa|energy-use|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32010" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12492" RevisionGUID="457d06bd-9608-4a94-ac09-501758f42250" CreationDate="2023-01-22T15:08:10.367" UserId="3053" Text="Is &quot;anti-climb&quot; paint polluting?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I've been able to find it's:&#xD;&#xA; 1. non-toxic&#xD;&#xA; 2. not for underwater use as it's bad for aquatic life&#xD;&#xA; 3. long lasting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In detail:&#xD;&#xA; 1. It's &quot;non-toxic&quot;, such materials are chemically safe, for example eating lots of chalk powder might dangerously dry you out, but will not chemically harm you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. It reminds me of tar and crude oil, these are also bad for aquatic life. I would expect some anti-climb paint to make its way into the water supply. I would also expect the substance to be broken down by the environment and effectively have a half-life of potential harm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Could exacerbate other problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32012" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12492" RevisionGUID="457d06bd-9608-4a94-ac09-501758f42250" CreationDate="2023-01-22T15:08:10.367" UserId="3053" Text="Is &quot;anti-climb paint&quot; polluting" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32013" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12492" RevisionGUID="457d06bd-9608-4a94-ac09-501758f42250" CreationDate="2023-01-22T15:08:10.367" UserId="3053" Text="|pollution|oil|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12494" RevisionGUID="dbf9d5e6-20de-47df-964d-c967ae51450f" CreationDate="2023-01-23T15:34:36.990" UserId="5477" Text="If a burner is working properly both gases should only produce CO2 and water  ( and the original nitrogen from air). The mercaptan orderant produces minuscule  SO2. The BTU level of nat gas is generally adjusted by adding air." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12492" RevisionGUID="30ca1b9b-af6b-411f-83ad-61791288035c" CreationDate="2023-01-24T19:47:16.707" UserId="3379" Comment="added 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is [anti-climb paint](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-climb_paint) polluting?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;From what I've been able to find it's:&#xD;&#xA; 1. non-toxic&#xD;&#xA; 2. not for underwater use as it's bad for aquatic life&#xD;&#xA; 3. long lasting&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In detail:&#xD;&#xA; 1. It's &quot;non-toxic&quot;, such materials are chemically safe, for example eating lots of chalk powder might dangerously dry you out, but will not chemically harm you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 2. It reminds me of tar and crude oil, these are also bad for aquatic life. I would expect some anti-climb paint to make its way into the water supply. I would also expect the substance to be broken down by the environment and effectively have a half-life of potential harm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 3. Could exacerbate other problems." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32019" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12492" RevisionGUID="30ca1b9b-af6b-411f-83ad-61791288035c" CreationDate="2023-01-24T19:47:16.707" UserId="3379" Comment="added 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is &quot;anti-climb paint&quot; polluting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32020" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12492" RevisionGUID="30ca1b9b-af6b-411f-83ad-61791288035c" CreationDate="2023-01-24T19:47:16.707" UserId="3379" Comment="added 48 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|environmental-impact|pollution|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32022" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12495" RevisionGUID="fbe9dfb4-854a-4dc0-96cd-74b7b358251b" CreationDate="2023-01-25T10:21:39.717" UserId="2345" Text="Considering the quote you posted in your question - &quot;due to its small population, harsh winters, and energy-intensive industries&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition to harsh winters I'd add lengthy cold periods and the need to keep warm. This would necessitate the need to use energy for prolonged periods not just to keep warm but to survive. I can envisage heating not being turned off during the cold session, which would include parts of autumn and spring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm no expert on Alaska and I don't know what industries the State has, but if it does have energy intensive industries that use a lot of energy for a prolonged period energy usage can quickly accumulate. I'm assuming the military with its bases, the oil and gas sector and the mining industry would factor into this. If one then simply divides the total energy consumed within the State by a small population number, a large number ensues, the units of which would be watts/person. Hence a large per-capita energy usage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32024" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11839" RevisionGUID="7c4ef27d-112b-42a3-9e19-145ec2f11019" CreationDate="2023-01-25T10:23:22.020" UserId="2345" Comment="Subscripts" Text="I've seen plenty of articles about gas stoves and the impact on indoor air quality. Specifically, there are reports of much higher CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, NO&lt;sub&gt;x&lt;/sub&gt;, PM 2.5 particulates, and formaldehyde, relative to electric stoves. However, I can't find any reference specifically to natural gas vs. propane. It looks as if most such articles are written with natural gas in mind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do natural gas and propane stoves compare in terms of indoor air quality." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32025" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="fd335f75-ac21-48cd-bc87-1b56441b2ee2" CreationDate="2023-01-25T15:00:00.877" UserId="14630" Text="What happens to the heat pump when a space heater is used as a supplemental source?I have been told it will shut down my heat pump and in very cold weather it could freeze my pipes. My house was built in 1952. I have been told it needs insulation. The return is placed at the rear of the house which stays warm and the front of house is cold." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32027" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="fd335f75-ac21-48cd-bc87-1b56441b2ee2" CreationDate="2023-01-25T15:00:00.877" UserId="14630" Text="Will supplemental heating source shut down my heat pump?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32028" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12496" RevisionGUID="fd335f75-ac21-48cd-bc87-1b56441b2ee2" CreationDate="2023-01-25T15:00:00.877" UserId="14630" Text="|heating|heat-pump|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32029" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12497" RevisionGUID="6ef8a3cc-17d2-4c2f-9a5c-630788e104b4" CreationDate="2023-01-25T15:11:50.007" UserId="13969" Text="**Energy consumption for transport**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem actually is not the small population, but the population density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an increasingly specialised society. Small settlements that contain the entire life with all the possible activities do not exist any longer. For example finding a specialist for every possible medical condition in a small place is impossible, people will have often to travel long distances just to visit a doctor. But is is not limited to that, work, businesses and government services will often require to travel long distances. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy consumption by transport and population density are strictly correlated it is well known. [This](https://www.transformative-mobility.org/publications/transport-energy-and-population-density) is just the first result by a search with the keywords *correlation transport energy population density*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32031" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12497" RevisionGUID="1997f1ec-c964-4fd3-9cea-6eb9d7f0eb6b" CreationDate="2023-01-25T15:17:18.470" UserId="13969" Comment="edited body" Text="**Energy consumption for transport**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem actually is not the small population, but the population density.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an increasingly specialised society. Small settlements that contain the entire life with all the possible activities do not exist any longer. For example finding a specialist for every possible medical condition in a small place is impossible, people will have often to travel long distances just to visit a doctor. But it is not limited to that, work, businesses and government services will often require to travel long distances. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Energy consumption by transport and population density are strictly correlated it is well known. [This](https://www.transformative-mobility.org/publications/transport-energy-and-population-density) is just the first result by a search with the keywords *correlation transport energy population density*.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12498" RevisionGUID="5635cb22-85b8-4150-8cb9-ab421032a6e6" CreationDate="2023-01-27T00:44:45.397" UserId="659" Text="It depends where the temperature sensor(s)/thermostats are and where the heat sources are. Imagine a single-room setup - using a heater means the heat pump will not work as hard or as often because the sensors and the heater/heat pump are all in one place.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a real house with a single large heat pump the ducting and heat pump is likely set up to keep the pipes etc from freezing just from heat leakage into the basement. So it warms the house but also keeps the basement/pipework above freezing. Newer ones even have temperature sensors on them to make sure this happens.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Using one heater is probably no big deal, but too many and you are correct: the heaters will run *instead of* the heat pump, the basement will cool down, and things down there freeze.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Trying to fix the front of the house being cold even when the system is &quot;working normally&quot; (ie, not doing what you want) might be as easy as cleaning the ducts, or putting a (partial) shutoff into a duct, or as complex as adding a whole new heat pump to the front of the house. It's the sort of thing that anyone selling ducted heating can proably look at and tell you quickly and easily, but it will take someone looking at your actual house." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12500" RevisionGUID="a6728861-c8b7-430c-a762-2fef612f55b5" CreationDate="2023-01-30T16:15:39.607" UserId="14308" Text="To support my idea of _Sustainable Living_, I'd like to reuse costs spent by my family of purchasing high-end Type2 charger by using it not just to charge up our EV car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any battery-powered non-car vehicles (bikes, motorbikes, scooters, etc.) that can be charged (without any socket modifications) from a regular Type2 cable that my charger has?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or is this socket solely for charging EVs only?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32039" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12500" RevisionGUID="a6728861-c8b7-430c-a762-2fef612f55b5" CreationDate="2023-01-30T16:15:39.607" UserId="14308" Text="Are there any Type2-charged non-car vehicles?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32040" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12500" RevisionGUID="a6728861-c8b7-430c-a762-2fef612f55b5" CreationDate="2023-01-30T16:15:39.607" UserId="14308" Text="|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12501" RevisionGUID="36e60122-fc0f-4430-b19c-c368f9cf7d08" CreationDate="2023-02-01T10:29:18.407" UserId="4458" Text="A better way to look at this, is to judge the reliability of the source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Nassim Nicholas Taleb&quot; has written about this. Specifically, that these factoids are nonsense: e.g a news outlet will announce &quot;the market went up because of A&quot;, then a few minutes later &quot;the market went down because of A&quot;. The author will have no good reason for knowing (no research), but feels compelled to give a reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more in the book &quot;Black swan&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32043" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12501" RevisionGUID="01dc78d3-4807-492f-841d-b71f2437203b" CreationDate="2023-02-01T10:34:38.140" UserId="4458" Comment="add reference to book" Text="A better way to look at this, is to judge the reliability of the source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Nassim Nicholas Taleb&quot; has written about this. Specifically, that these factoids are nonsense: e.g a news outlet will announce &quot;the market went up because of A&quot;, then a few minutes later &quot;the market went down because of A&quot;. The author will have no good reason for knowing (no research), but feels compelled to give a reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more in the book “[The Black swan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan:_The_Impact_of_the_Highly_Improbable)” — (Nassim Nicholas Taleb).&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32044" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12501" RevisionGUID="4197a58c-a278-4c68-aa00-15c756db7d39" CreationDate="2023-02-01T10:48:48.853" UserId="4458" Comment="add quote" Text="A better way to look at this, is to judge the reliability of the source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Nassim Nicholas Taleb&quot; has written about this. Specifically, that these factoids are nonsense: e.g a news outlet will announce &quot;the market went up because of A&quot;, then a few minutes later &quot;the market went down because of A&quot;. The author will have no good reason for knowing (no research), but feels compelled to give a reason.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# References&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can read more in the book “[The Black swan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan:_The_Impact_of_the_Highly_Improbable)” — (Nassim Nicholas Taleb).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Excerpt (probably not the best)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;“You need a story to displace a story. Metaphors and stories are far more potent (alas) than ideas; they are also easier to remember and more fun to read. If I have to go after what I call the narrative disciplines, my best tool is a narrative. Ideas come and go, stories stay.” ― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32050" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12503" RevisionGUID="70639f20-1175-4adc-91f3-b2861a07b751" CreationDate="2023-02-05T20:29:42.663" UserId="5824" Text="NPR's February 4, 2023 podcast with transcript [Gas stove makers have a pollution solution. They're just not using it](https://www.npr.org/2023/02/04/1149736969/gas-stove-makers-have-a-pollution-solution-theyre-just-not-using-it) mentions:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;The natural gas industry saw regulators' interest and worried the CPSC might come for gas cooking stoves next, according to [a 1984 Science News article](https://www.sciencenews.org/archive/cleaner-cooking-gas). That prompted two industry research groups to begin working on burner improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Out of that process emerged a &quot;jet-powered infrared gas-range burner.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Instead of the iconic blue flame that you normally see at a gas stove, the infrared burner had &quot;a flat ceramic plate... honeycombed with window-screen-like perforations,&quot; according to the article. Air and fuel burned as they were sent across the plate and ignited bright red in a way that makes the flame itself difficult to see.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;This infrared burner consumed about 40% less natural gas to reach cooking temperatures and emitted 40% less nitrogen oxides. The Science News article said designers touted another benefit of the infrared burner: a kitchen stays cooler because more energy goes into the cooking vessel instead of the room.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;A Pennsylvania-based stove manufacturer, Caloric Corporation, expressed interest in the infrared burner. That company is no longer in business and was absorbed into Whirlpool Corporation, which did not respond to multiple inquiries about why the burner was never offered in retail stoves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** What would a stovetop &quot;jet-powered infrared gas-range burner&quot; look like and how would it work? Is the pan actually heated primarily by infrared radiation, or is conduction from the hot surface and/or contact with the flame also providing heat transfer?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32052" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12503" RevisionGUID="70639f20-1175-4adc-91f3-b2861a07b751" CreationDate="2023-02-05T20:29:42.663" UserId="5824" Text="What would a stovetop &quot;jet-powered infrared gas-range burner&quot; look like and how would it work? Is heating really only via thermal infrared radiation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32053" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12503" RevisionGUID="70639f20-1175-4adc-91f3-b2861a07b751" CreationDate="2023-02-05T20:29:42.663" UserId="5824" Text="|cooking|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32054" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12504" RevisionGUID="7ee176c2-f8d9-4f47-af28-8a0621253a53" CreationDate="2023-02-07T14:35:15.720" UserId="14659" Text="From an individual point of view, we have a clear target to go under **2000 kgCO2eq/year** by 2050. (I need to find an actual source for that target, any suggestions?)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to setup such a target for a company, I guess you cannot have one single number as companies are not equivalent between them because of (1) their size and (2) their &quot;type&quot;. However, is it possible to find a target per size and per type?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32056" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12504" RevisionGUID="7ee176c2-f8d9-4f47-af28-8a0621253a53" CreationDate="2023-02-07T14:35:15.720" UserId="14659" Text="Is there a (clear) target of GHG emissions per year for companies (by industry)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32057" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12504" RevisionGUID="7ee176c2-f8d9-4f47-af28-8a0621253a53" CreationDate="2023-02-07T14:35:15.720" UserId="14659" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32061" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12506" RevisionGUID="1f2c2ace-f836-465e-b6dc-535c26d847b1" CreationDate="2023-02-08T09:13:41.830" UserId="3851" Text="Yes, electric motorcycles (actual motorcycles rather than e-bikes or pedelecs) can charge from Type 2 (and CCS) chargers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32063" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12506" RevisionGUID="7ab3b590-698e-44fb-a796-bd4aae249ac6" CreationDate="2023-02-10T08:31:02.853" UserId="3851" Comment="Added examples and links" Text="Yes, electric motorcycles (actual motorcycles rather than e-bikes or pedelecs) can charge from Type 2 (and CCS) chargers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Examples include  [Energica][1], [Harley Davidson Livewire][2] and [Zero motorcycles][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.energicamotor.com/us/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.livewire.com/en-gb/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.zeromotorcycles.com/ride-electric/charging-and-range" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12507" RevisionGUID="774ea7d9-ab96-48fb-a0c2-dab2c1decdb1" CreationDate="2023-02-11T11:51:51.653" UserId="14622" Text="I'm using eco dishwasher program which takes about 3h including drying and noticed that with time some of the dishes started to lose small parts on the edges. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My guess is that it relates to the combination of dishwasher pods' aggressiveness and drying. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, I've discovered [eco-friendly dishwasher pods][1] (my article) and started using them. In addition, started to turn off the dishwasher at drying stage to let the dishes dry naturally. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So far, didn't notice more dishes becoming broken at the edges. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But, I believe the materials dishes are made from play an important part as well because some dishes never broke, only specific ones from the same lot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.roktao.com/eco-friendly-dishwasher-pods/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32068" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12508" RevisionGUID="2fa5ec95-629c-4659-8802-dbdcb3ab355a" CreationDate="2023-02-14T11:13:41.300" UserId="13969" Text="The accepted answer is good, but it is too simple. There is a lot more to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Between the described advanced processes and mechanical recycling there are a lot of other different processes. The first one was just melting in different stages. In the first stage at a temperature between 100 and 150 degrees Celsius the weakest plastic would melt and would be easily separated. The rest would go to the next stage at higher temperature. The process was rarely implemented because it was expensive. But there are still many processes based on melting or partial melting of scrap plastic in operation, not just mechanical recycling. Just as an example make an internet search with the keywords *plastic tarmac*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The real reason why what is being told to the public changed so much is the energy cost. Not only the rise in the price of fossil fuels pushed up all the other costs, it also increased the cost of plastic recycling. On the other side a lot of countries began to use rubbish incinerators to generate energy, but rubbish does not contain so much energy, so it was decided to beef up the energy content by reducing the amount of plastic that is recycled. Everything else is just confusion created on purpose." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32070" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12509" RevisionGUID="1811f960-2886-4cd2-9e79-63a88525df80" CreationDate="2023-02-15T10:16:58.813" UserId="14245" Text="I have two 220V AC power sources and contactor that switches to another if one is unavailable. But it takes few microseconds to switch and there is a moment when two power sources is disconnected during switch process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to add some electrical circut (inductors?) after the contactor which will power the AC load during switching process? Is it possible to make it safe without possibility that two power sources will be connected each other for some time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32072" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12509" RevisionGUID="1811f960-2886-4cd2-9e79-63a88525df80" CreationDate="2023-02-15T10:16:58.813" UserId="14245" Text="Is it possible to make device for the AC power supply in seconds during switching to reserve source?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32073" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12509" RevisionGUID="1811f960-2886-4cd2-9e79-63a88525df80" CreationDate="2023-02-15T10:16:58.813" UserId="14245" Text="|electricity|safety|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32074" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12510" RevisionGUID="77c20ca3-8959-4dc3-bc93-251a8423e238" CreationDate="2023-02-15T13:23:53.817" UserId="14679" Text="I would certainly go first with solar PV : cheaper, no maintenance (at worst some rare cleaning), and it can be extended. It also mounts well on rooftop or be set on the ground (for more watts). Lifespan also exceeds largely any wind turbine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Keep in mind they really do not produce anything below a significant wind level, and they can break apart above too much wind.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Horizontal axis wind turbine cables may get twisted with time. Vertical axis wind turbine produce less watts but start producing sooner and cope with irregular wind direction.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind turbines also require a sturdy pole. Do not expect anything with a short one : the higher the better. Then, guy cables do occupy space on the ground, somehow like the one &quot;lost&quot; to ground-level PV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You need a solid reason to go for wind ipo solar if you only have one choice. OK, unless you are on a windy island in terrible weather conditions.&#xD;&#xA;Sole reason to have a wind turbine is because you want to have one, or if you are off-grid (as I am) and you need to suck every renewable watt you can find.  And even then, I tend to think that PV + larger batteries and better insulation upfront are more reliable options.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32076" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="10598" RevisionGUID="53a64d77-22f8-45eb-a653-6dfd792ca6f5" CreationDate="2023-02-16T00:51:39.453" UserId="2345" Comment="Added more detail about different types of wind generators" Text="Generally, solar is more reliable than wind. Ignoring arctic and antarctic latitudes most places get *some* sunlight during the day, even on overcast days. However, the same cannot be said for wind. Some places may experience no wind for prolonged periods. However, wind generators can be useful on windy nights, when there is no sun and solar panels are doing nothing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, wind speeds can vary greatly and wind generators have to deal with gusts. Wind directions also vary. Domestic wind generators will need to be able to deal with wind from all directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Compared to solar panels, wind generators can be noisy.&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;Municipal councils may have height restrictions that may restrict the height of structures such a wind generator towers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally it would be preferable to have both, to be able to utilize more weather situations but if one is limited to only one, then I would suggest solar would be a better option for home applications.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Edit 16 February 2023***&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other thing to consider about wind generators is which one to choose: a [horizontal axis generator][1] with its blade rotor assembly, usually with three blades, which most people are familiar with; or a [vertical axis generator][2].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For domestic use, a vertical axis turbine would be a more appropriate design. They have lesser environment impacts, such a bird strike and objection from neighbors. If done properly and with a suitable turbine, a vertical axis turbine could be placed on top of a roof. A dedicated plinth/pole may not be required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One advantage vertical axis turbines have over horizontal axis turbines is they are always ready to catch the wind. They don't have to rotate to face the wind. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine#Horizontal_axis&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical-axis_wind_turbine" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32077" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="e94682c5-9175-42f4-9e2b-cbc5633a3add" CreationDate="2023-02-16T05:00:20.087" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32078" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12396" RevisionGUID="d1b2d183-b35a-48fd-802e-89495ec364b9" CreationDate="2023-02-16T10:01:50.217" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32079" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12511" RevisionGUID="783f08c3-f8a1-4b1e-8edb-7ac39ef44056" CreationDate="2023-02-20T03:08:43.453" UserId="659" Text="I think you probably mean milliseconds, so I'm answering on that basis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The underying issue is that the two sources are almost certainly not synchronised. You can't get microsecond switching that way, you can't even get millisecond switching. So you need to answer the question &quot;what do I want to happen when things switch?&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The usual answer is a 30ms or so interval when &quot;we don't care, but don't cross the streams&quot; (at 50Hz you have 20ms per cycle). This is how Automatic Transfer Switches work, for example. They are very carefully designed to switch quickly, but always have a gap when both switches are open.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Doing it electronically you could analyse the two waveforms and choose a least-current point to switch over. But that would be very difficult to get approved for grid connection*, so both AC sources will have to be &quot;off grid&quot;. For larger systems the usual answer is to synchonise the secondary supply to the primary before connecting them. But unless you're in the price range where &quot;ask your engineer&quot; is the appropriate answer you will not be doing that*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The normal way around this for anything sensitive is to use an AC UPS or a DC power supply that can provide continuous power to the sensitive equipment for the duration. In high load applications this is commonly via an anlways-on inverter where the AC supplies charge the batteries that feed the inverter. Depending on the money involved this can be very robust and also very expensive. The &quot;cheap&quot; option is UPS's which get quite pricey once you want more than a kW or so for a few minutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that companies like Victron make inverters that can be parelleled or arranged in other co-operative modes so you can DIY them for a reasonable price (by, for example, having three inverters per phase where any two can provide the full required power). Making that setup properly fault tolerant is just a matter of spending money on COTS parts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* because certification cost for grid connection is in the millions of dollars" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12512" RevisionGUID="f301a0dd-3fbf-484b-8892-ff9969413ab4" CreationDate="2023-02-21T18:22:04.203" UserId="2727" Text="When doing what's best for our planet, there are often trade-offs involved.  One such trade-off can be saving energy vs. reducing lifespan of equipment (which can result in significant environmental costs).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To save energy, is it best to have modern (manufactured after 2010) LED computer monitors automatically turn off every 2-3 minutes of computer/laptop non-use, or will that significantly shorten their lifespan?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12512" RevisionGUID="f301a0dd-3fbf-484b-8892-ff9969413ab4" CreationDate="2023-02-21T18:22:04.203" UserId="2727" Text="Best strategy for turning off computer/laptop monitors to save energy but not reduce lifespan?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12512" RevisionGUID="f301a0dd-3fbf-484b-8892-ff9969413ab4" CreationDate="2023-02-21T18:22:04.203" UserId="2727" Text="|electricity|energy-use|energy-management|computing|electronics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12513" RevisionGUID="3e1cbd2d-875d-436b-bd10-2d66fb09887e" CreationDate="2023-02-21T22:44:28.247" UserId="14707" Text="I've been researching a similar topic on how to avoid synthetics all together. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two points, first, before you decide microplastics are bad, might be worth considering [this question][1] that I've posted (waiting for answers); the research on the harmfulness of microplastics is very limited at the moment, it may be too early to conclude its effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second point, 100% merino wool is a commonly used as a base layer for hiking, it is soft, dries fast, wicks moisture, and regulated temperature. Otherwise, cotton is not so bad as long as you change into something dry afterwards. In hot weather, cotton gets wet from sweat and can also cool you down.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/24938/28534" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12513" RevisionGUID="633b452c-872f-410f-a71f-19709fe9de44" CreationDate="2023-02-21T22:47:29.283" UserId="14707" Comment="added 130 characters in body" Text="I've been researching a similar topic on how to avoid synthetics all together, including outdoor rain gear, hiking, camping, and all that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two points, first, before you decide microplastics are bad, might be worth considering [this question][1] that I've posted (waiting for answers); the research on the harmfulness of microplastics is very limited at the moment, it may be too early to conclude its effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second point, 100% merino wool is a commonly used as a base layer for hikers; it is soft, dries fast, wicks moisture, and regulated temperature. Otherwise, cotton is not so bad as long as you have something dry to change into. In hot weather, cotton gets wet from sweat and this can also cool you down. The shape of the fabric is also important, how much airflow you get.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/24938/28534" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32088" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12513" RevisionGUID="8e5a3b19-f686-4305-a328-9f7a4e1f2631" CreationDate="2023-02-21T22:50:40.330" UserId="14707" Comment="added 75 characters in body" Text="I've been researching a similar topic on how to avoid synthetics all together, including outdoor rain gear, hiking, camping, and all that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two points, first, before you decide microplastics are bad, might be worth considering [this question][1] that I've posted (waiting for answers); the research on the harmfulness of microplastics is very limited at the moment, it may be too early to conclude its effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second point, 100% merino wool is a commonly used as a base layer for hikers; it is soft, dries fast, wicks moisture, and regulated temperature. Otherwise, cotton is not so bad as long as you have something dry to change into. In hot weather, cotton gets wet from sweat and this can also cool you down. The shape of the fabric is also important – how much airflow you get. But you say you don't like feeling wet, so I guess merino is your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/24938/28534" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32089" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12513" RevisionGUID="9ca468e4-4bf4-4669-802a-c1cccf93b5de" CreationDate="2023-02-21T22:51:06.937" UserId="14707" Comment="edited body" Text="I've been researching a similar topic on how to avoid synthetics all together, including outdoor rain gear, hiking, camping, and all that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Two points, first, before you decide microplastics are bad, might be worth considering [this question][1] that I've posted (waiting for answers); the research on the harmfulness of microplastics is very limited at the moment, it may be too early to conclude its effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second point, 100% merino wool is a commonly used as a base layer for hikers; it is soft, dries fast, wicks moisture, and regulates temperature. Otherwise, cotton is not so bad as long as you have something dry to change into. In hot weather, cotton gets wet from sweat and this can also cool you down. The shape of the fabric is also important – how much airflow you get. But you say you don't like feeling wet, so I guess merino is your answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/24938/28534" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32090" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="6ff717ad-5976-4d2d-b0ff-d032f708706f" CreationDate="2023-02-22T06:01:35.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32091" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12514" RevisionGUID="b779a8b1-9cbf-4910-8ae8-66e0171c3b8f" CreationDate="2023-02-23T09:56:41.897" UserId="3653" Text="I noticed that all toasters I could find (even the ridiculously expensive ones, 300 Euro/dollars) toast both slots at the same time, instead of offering a selector one/two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I could find [one][1] which is a 2+1 allowing 1, 2, 3 slices at the same time, but still no products offering 1 or 2 slices.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there products for two slices offering a selector for toasting only one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.dualit.com/products/combi-21/white" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32093" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12514" RevisionGUID="b779a8b1-9cbf-4910-8ae8-66e0171c3b8f" CreationDate="2023-02-23T09:56:41.897" UserId="3653" Text="Are there toasters with a selector for one or two slices?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32094" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12514" RevisionGUID="b779a8b1-9cbf-4910-8ae8-66e0171c3b8f" CreationDate="2023-02-23T09:56:41.897" UserId="3653" Text="|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32095" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="0a187a7d-9478-4041-9d25-027fa63bd143" CreationDate="2023-02-23T12:04:05.537" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32096" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12515" RevisionGUID="b6287aa0-5b7d-4c1c-9a30-dcd508182003" CreationDate="2023-02-24T06:47:18.027" UserId="14717" Text="What are promising replacements for throwaway electronics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computers, mobile phones, etc. certainly seem useful, but they have a limited lifetime, and the recycling of components seems a difficult/impossible endeavor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What options are there?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32098" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12515" RevisionGUID="b6287aa0-5b7d-4c1c-9a30-dcd508182003" CreationDate="2023-02-24T06:47:18.027" UserId="14717" Text="What are promising replacements for throwaway electronics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32099" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12515" RevisionGUID="b6287aa0-5b7d-4c1c-9a30-dcd508182003" CreationDate="2023-02-24T06:47:18.027" UserId="14717" Text="|electronics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32100" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12302" RevisionGUID="9318dd85-88e4-4004-bc55-7a840c31a59d" CreationDate="2023-02-24T08:03:00.357" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32101" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12516" RevisionGUID="2350fab9-ca43-44fe-822f-67c4fb9a634c" CreationDate="2023-02-24T18:39:10.597" UserId="14721" Text="I'm planning to setup a smaller **800W off-grid solar panel system** for my weekend cottage in **Western Europe**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I already bought the necessary parts, cables, and accessories, here's my design sketch for this off-grid solar panel system:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Solar panel system diagram][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Parts:&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Batteries: ***4x*** **120Ah 12V** BIG Professional Solar DC&#xD;&#xA;- Solar Panels: ***8x*** **100W 12V Renogy** Monocrystalline (compact design version)&#xD;&#xA;- Charge Controller: **EPEVER Triron 4215N 40A 150V** MPPT 12/24VDC + EPEVER MT50 Remote Control&#xD;&#xA;- Inverter: **Novopal 3000W 24V** Pure Sine Voltage Converter&#xD;&#xA;- 1x **150A ANL Fuse** (between the battery bank and the inverter)&#xD;&#xA;- 2x **15A Inline Solar Panel Fuse** (for the 2 clusters of 400W solar panels)&#xD;&#xA;- 1x **15A 500V DC Curcuit Breaker** (between the solar panels and the charge controller)&#xD;&#xA;- 1x **40A 500V DC Curcuit Breaker** (between the charge controller and the battery bank)&#xD;&#xA;- necessary Y plugs, 2x 10m of standard **10AWG (6mm2)** solar cable extension cords and thick **3/0AWG (95mm2)** cables for the batteries and the inverter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Short Plan Summary:&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1.: connect the 4 batteries in **series AND parallel** getting 24V of 240Ah&#xD;&#xA;- 2.: connect this battery bank with the 3000W 24V inverter, there's a **150A ANL fuse** between the inverter and the battery bank&#xD;&#xA;- 3.: connect the EPEVER charge controller with the battery bank, there's a **40A 500V DC circuit breaker** between them&#xD;&#xA;- 4.: create 2 clusters of 400W solar panels in series (**20V 5A** =&gt; ***80V 5A***), then connect these 2 clusters with **15A inline fuses**, thus getting the 800W solar panel array (**2x 80V 5A** =&gt; ***80V 10A***) - ***the EPEVER charge controller can handle only 150V Max PV***&#xD;&#xA;- 5.: connect the solar panel array to the charge controller, there's a **15A 500V DC circuit** breaker between the solar array and the charge controller&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Questions:&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- 1.: As the **EPEVER charge controller can handle only 150V Max PV**, the solar panel array consists of 2 clusters of 400W solar panels in series, then connect them in parallel. **Is this a correct way to connect these 8x 100W solar panels to my EPEVER charge controller in my case?**&#xD;&#xA;- 2.: Are the **15A inline fuses, the 15A, and 40A circuit breakers**, and also the **150A ANL fuse** correct/applicable for this system?&#xD;&#xA;- 3.: When the solar system is fully connected, **is there a recommendation for where to connect the inverter to the battery bank to**? Connect closest to the charge controller (i.e.: connect the inverter cable directly to the battery tab/terminal/bushing where the charge controller connected too), or farthest from the charge controller connection (i.e.: connect the inverter cable essentially the opposite/farthest battery tabs/terminals/bushings)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any corrections, suggestions, and help is highly appreciated.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/6WVBD.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32103" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12516" RevisionGUID="2350fab9-ca43-44fe-822f-67c4fb9a634c" CreationDate="2023-02-24T18:39:10.597" UserId="14721" Text="Smaller 800W Off-Grid Solar Panel System Arrangement" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32104" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12516" RevisionGUID="2350fab9-ca43-44fe-822f-67c4fb9a634c" CreationDate="2023-02-24T18:39:10.597" UserId="14721" Text="|solar-power|solar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32105" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12517" RevisionGUID="f86e4ebf-6f9c-4f71-9512-5e7e3f46073f" CreationDate="2023-02-25T03:21:48.233" UserId="659" Text="The short answer is to use what you have for as long as you possibly can. My laptop is more than five years old, my &quot;new&quot; phone is two and replaced a five+ year old phone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are products like and FairPhone, PinePhone in the smartphone area that try to be less bad and explicitly have longer lasting and more repairable as goals. Arguably that has helped push the other manufacturers to increase their product lifetimes too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With laptops there's a similar push for sustainability, with PineBook again making one. There's also a lot of corporate interest, with &quot;TCO laptop&quot; being your keyword there. But for many people a second hand or refurbished laptop is a better choice.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Computers more generally work in a similar way. Buy what you need, ideally second hand, and fix what you can when bits break.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With ewaste, right now there are no really good recycling options. It's a toss-up between selling things for parts, stockpiling them in a cupboard somewhere, or sending them in to whatever ewaste recycling system(s) are available where you are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For me local supermarkets and office supply places will take batteries and a few other parts, so I've been pulling those out of dead items and dropping them there (because [battery recycling in Australia][1] actually happens). There are commercial ewaste recyclers here, and luckily my workplace pays one of them to collect our stuff every year and my employer lets us all contribute to the pile (we can also reuse stuff out of the pile if we want to).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://envirostream.com.au/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32112" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12198" RevisionGUID="d6a9705d-a884-47b8-95d5-d06ef02b9bff" CreationDate="2023-02-28T18:03:05.477" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32119" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12514" RevisionGUID="146f6fe1-2f4a-4c6c-ba96-e9ef0903eb06" CreationDate="2023-03-01T13:50:11.150" UserId="3653" Comment="added 60 characters in body" Text="I noticed that all toasters I could find (even the ridiculously expensive ones, 300 Euro/dollars) toast both slots at the same time, instead of offering a selector one/two.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The closest I could find [one expensive brand][1] offering individual slices at the same time, which means either 1, 2, 3, 4 slices depending on the model.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there other products (which don't cost like a small TV) for two slices offering a selector for toasting only one?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.dualit.com/products/2-slice-newgen" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32124" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="7ab18688-b8a6-45e8-a6d5-006b51d3a23b" CreationDate="2023-03-03T20:05:53.557" UserId="14517" Text="Modern monitors use LED's. LED's are not damaged by being turned on and off. In short; I can't see any reason why this would do anything to the lifetime of the monitor, and it has never been a worry for me. Other parts typically wear out before the monitor for laptops." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32127" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12522" RevisionGUID="04b1e8b7-9c93-4207-8e70-c259300724d2" CreationDate="2023-03-04T19:09:02.663" UserId="6393" Text="This looks like a perfectly valid diagram for a working off-grid solar system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, several considerations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Are you really sure you want to use a 24-volt system for 3000W? I would heavily recommend 48 volts for such a big wattage. Note the 95mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; cabling you planned to use to make 3000W at 24 volts possible is &lt;i&gt;insane&lt;/i&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As the solar panels can't provide the full 3000 watts, I would recommend connecting the inverter as close to battery terminals as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Note that DC circuit breakers for high voltages and amperages are big and expensive. The reason is that unlike for AC that has 100 or 120 opportunities every second to extinguish an arc, with DC you are essentially handling a welding arc that needs to be extinguished and that won't be easy. I suspect you already noticed this as you are not planning to use a 150 ampere circuit breaker but rather a 150 ampere fuse. However, you could consider using fuses too for the 15 amp and 40 amp applications. Nothing wrong with a fuse, you need to trip a circuit breaker a big honking number of times until it becomes less expensive than a fuse and a fuse box." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32129" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12522" RevisionGUID="b65a45ed-120d-4646-9c7a-d7b0d2c44596" CreationDate="2023-03-04T19:15:37.923" UserId="6393" Comment="circuit breaker benefits" Text="This looks like a perfectly valid diagram for a working off-grid solar system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, several considerations:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Are you really sure you want to use a 24-volt system for 3000W? I would heavily recommend 48 volts for such a big wattage. Note the 95mm&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; cabling you planned to use to make 3000W at 24 volts possible is &lt;i&gt;insane&lt;/i&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* As the solar panels can't provide the full 3000 watts, I would recommend connecting the inverter as close to battery terminals as possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Note that DC circuit breakers for high voltages and amperages are big and expensive. The reason is that unlike for AC that has 100 or 120 opportunities every second to extinguish an arc, with DC you are essentially handling a welding arc that needs to be extinguished and that won't be easy. I suspect you already noticed this as you are not planning to use a 150 ampere circuit breaker but rather a 150 ampere fuse. However, you could consider using fuses too for the 15 amp and 40 amp applications. Nothing wrong with a fuse, you need to trip a circuit breaker a big honking number of times until it becomes less expensive than a fuse and a fuse box. But maybe with a circuit breaker disconnecting it manually will be easier, to burn a fuse you always need overcurrent, so perhaps there's some merit in using circuit breakers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32130" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12523" RevisionGUID="9c525149-b86f-45d5-b9d7-5c3a64c1ca70" CreationDate="2023-03-06T17:43:03.937" UserId="5901" Text="I would add the the current answers by adding that wind would provide extra power in the winter at a time when sunshine hours (and hence solar PV output) are limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have solar panels installed already, which I would definitely recommend, for the cost of installation I believe it is much lower than an equivalent turbine.  Though I have been pondering whether a micro-turbine might help to top-up the 'winter gap' of the solar PV output.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to get a wind survey carried out, by specialist firms using an anemometer.  I believe the device can be left on site to measure wind over a long period of time.  There are websites that provide further info on wind speed based on post code, for the UK, [for example here][1].  Perhaps something similar exists for where you live too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.solarinsiders.co.uk/cWindspeed/lookup" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32132" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12523" RevisionGUID="6b2ba1a1-ff1f-4d3d-a180-332b726a33df" CreationDate="2023-03-06T17:48:47.873" UserId="5901" Comment="added extra info" Text="I would add the the current answers by adding that wind would provide extra power in the winter at a time when sunshine hours (and hence solar PV output) are limited.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have solar panels installed already, which I would definitely recommend, for the cost of installation I believe it is much lower than an equivalent turbine.  Though I have been pondering whether a micro-turbine might help to top-up the 'winter gap' of the solar PV output.  The cost of a micro-turbine, with an output of 400 Watts is over £1500 at the time of writing, so is pretty expensive compared to it's output.  Despite that, it could be a useful top-up if you really want to go self-sufficient.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You might like to investigate alternatives like Ripple Energy, where you can buy a share of a wind turbine or solar farm.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is possible to get a wind survey carried out, by specialist firms using an anemometer.  I believe the device can be left on site to measure wind over a long period of time.  There are websites that provide further info on wind speed based on post code, for the UK, [for example here][1].  Perhaps something similar exists for where you live too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.solarinsiders.co.uk/cWindspeed/lookup" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32133" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12524" RevisionGUID="97be5836-1869-47c0-8c8c-aec8254411ad" CreationDate="2023-03-06T18:11:54.643" UserId="6393" Text="This totally depends on the amount of money you can spend.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can spend 100 million USD, then by all means, choose wind! Wind turbines have a capacity factor of 30% in contrast to solar PV that's usually around 10-15% depending on the latitude. Wind power also is usually not seasonal unlike solar PV where high latitudes don't get practically any sunshine during the winter. Generally, wind is more economical than solar due to the high capacity factor and due to not needing inverters.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you can spend 10 thousand USD, then the situation changes. There's no way a $10 000 wind turbine can compete with grid electricity. However, solar doesn't have economies of scale: a small project is usually as cheap per watt as a large project would be. Thus, solar generation in the future is expected to be highly distributed whereas wind generation is expected to be highly centralized.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I'd argue there's an option for choosing wind for $10 000 as well. Invest in a wind power company that generates electricity from wind power. For example, a typical wind power company might have a market cap of 1 billion USD, generating wind power at 10 farms of 100 MW each. Buy 0.001% of the shares of such a company and you have invested $10 000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For someone living near the equator and having an electric vehicle, however, it's likely that distributed solar generation could be better since you usually don't have to pay electricity distribution fees and electricity/corporate/dividend taxes and you have direct use for all of the solar electricity you produce, and enough of it is produced during all seasons.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32137" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12526" RevisionGUID="521bab0b-3f86-4eb6-a9a0-e74ab66a39b5" CreationDate="2023-03-07T00:47:43.497" UserId="6925" Text="Your plan seems very well researched.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I agree with Juhist that it's best to push the battery voltage up to 48V since you're only using it to run an inverter.  **This will dramatically reduce wire size for the batteries** and fuse sizes as well.  I agree, 3/0 copper is bonkers, and it would only make sense if you were going a very short distance.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The way to connect the charge controller to the inverter looks fine.  Functionally, the inverter draws from the battery while the solar panels replenish the battery. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know your distances, but the advantage to series wiring the panel is reduced wire size at a given voltage drop on the distance. You know your distances so you know if that's worth paying more for a higher voltage charge controller.  #6 copper is painfully expensive; if your nation has product support for aluminum wire, I'd use that where practicable.  It's also a lower theft risk. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I wish you had access to North American kit. Circuit breakers rated up to 48 volts DC are available cheap, they are the &quot;QO&quot; line from Square D.  They use North America's eccentric system of proprietary circuit breaker panel enclosures, so they only fit a QO panel.  Also, larger amp breakers will only be available 2-pole, so you might as well protect both negative and positive, which doubles your protection and near doubles your interrupting power.  In Europe, they do business as Schneider, but I don't know if they offer QO breakers in normal or DIN rail form.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32139" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12527" RevisionGUID="01103903-9108-43eb-b308-2e56d9aa9fe8" CreationDate="2023-03-07T02:31:03.010" UserId="6925" Text="Limited options except total avoidance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cell phones are particularly noxious. The industry is *really into* the &quot;used car sales business model&quot; where they want you to replace your phone 1-2 times a year while you still owe more on it than it's worth, and they fold your debt into the next phone contract. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One option is actually tablets. Quality tablets (I'm talking about one brand here) can deliver 5-7 years, and with cellular data and certain apps, can even provide voice/txt.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not a big fan of laptops. They tend to be less powerful due to the need to hit usable battery budgets, and that shortens the number of years they can run a current OS version.  Chips are pretty much at hard physics limits on transistor density and MHz speed, so rather than create a stable computing platform, they're just forcing planned obsolescence in other ways. Remember, Moore's &quot;Law&quot; wasn't a physical law, it was a marketing credo of how to pace development to sell the most PCs.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other problem with laptops is they're fragile and get broken a lot, and a physically broken laptop is e-waste - they don't generally sell case parts.   Quality tablets are much more robust when used with tough cases.  As far as desktop computing, I think using a hot-blooded short-lived laptop for that is dumb. I prefer a capable desktop from a reliable vendor; it will make it through more OS upgrades than the laptop will.34" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12528" RevisionGUID="f231925e-5c9e-4570-84b7-6949ecb20fe0" CreationDate="2023-03-07T03:53:44.790" UserId="6925" Text="First, to be clear, the type 2 charger *isn't a charger at all*. It's [just a switch][1] (the video disclaims Europe but actually Mennekes works the same way with same protocols, just with 3-phase sometimes available).  It goes &quot;CLACK&quot;! Well it also contains an RCD aka GFCI, and a simple signal generator to tell your car how much power is safe to draw from the wall.  The entire comm protocol can be explained in 20 minutes. If you [watched that video][1], *it was*. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The charger is on the car. It's the size of a suitcase, water cooled, and it gets HOT. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Anything that takes 230V can have a Type 2 port added. &#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;If it already has a Type 1 (J1772) port, then change it to a Type 2 and wire it to the same pins.  You won't use the L2 or L3 pins. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I assume anything with a Type 1 port has been gray-market imported from North America.  The Type 2/Mennekes port is not used there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise you can take its 230V (or 120V) wall plug, and reroute that to a [Type 2 inlet][2], pins L1 and N... with a couple of necessary steps. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First, you need to manage the signal on the CP line.  You normally have a 2740 ohm resistor across the CP and PE pins; when your device wants to charge, add a 1300 ohm resistor and the EVSE will go CLACK! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Second, if your battery charger can pull more than about 4 amps, you need to add a relay to disconnect it when the EVSE is offering less amps than the charger needs. That's a blunt instrument, but it's easy to implement with an Arduino. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMxB7zA-e4Y&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://eauto.si/metron-shop/product/type-2-mennekes-car-socket-inlet-panel/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/GAP9h.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32143" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="2ce4eda6-3033-4249-9412-379ce9ab22f8" CreationDate="2023-03-07T12:05:05.637" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32145" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12529" RevisionGUID="d5ec83bd-5e69-47fa-bdac-5849375c8cfc" CreationDate="2023-03-07T19:13:40.407" UserId="14757" Text="I turn off my engine at longer traffic lights, especially where I know the light cycle has me in for a wait. I appreciate the math at https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/75572, which puts the &quot;break-even&quot; cost of recharging the battery after restarting the engine at around 3-4 seconds. Another factor that has been on my mind is the **Carbon impact of replacing the starter motor**.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Per https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/car-starter-cost:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; A car starter can give you around 80,000 starts before you should expect it to struggle, regardless of the mileage you drive. This is around 150,000 miles for some cars, while some starters can last the vehicle's life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is about 22 starts per day over ten years to kill the starter. I drive a lot less than that. I wonder if the battery degrades a tiny bit with each start, but I can not find anything. As a solid-state process, I assume this isn't a big factor." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12530" RevisionGUID="f7c55c24-c0fe-4dfd-841d-24640daf3d7f" CreationDate="2023-03-08T05:28:58.560" UserId="14759" Text="I'm moving across half of the country to take a new job and I have a storage unit full of household and miscellaneous stuff. Was planning to move everything to the new place but the moving companies' estimates are way higher than what the stuffs are worth for. So am now thinking maybe just move some key pieces of furniture and get rid of everything else (kitchen stuff, plates, etc.). Don't have time for yard sale (no yard anyway). What's the best way to dispose of the unwanted household and miscellaneous stuff? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12530" RevisionGUID="f7c55c24-c0fe-4dfd-841d-24640daf3d7f" CreationDate="2023-03-08T05:28:58.560" UserId="14759" Text="How best to get rid of household stuff?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12530" RevisionGUID="f7c55c24-c0fe-4dfd-841d-24640daf3d7f" CreationDate="2023-03-08T05:28:58.560" UserId="14759" Text="|storage|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32151" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12531" RevisionGUID="65406436-8597-44a4-993c-c5271e21d348" CreationDate="2023-03-08T08:05:10.737" UserId="106" Text="&gt; What's the best way to dispose of the unwanted household and miscellaneous stuff?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Sell whatever is worth selling.&#xD;&#xA;- Check if there are charity stores in your area.  They may pick up usable household and miscellaneous stuff, perhaps even for free.    If you have access to a car or a (large) freight bike, you can bring things yourself.&#xD;&#xA;- Post on your local/regional &quot;classified ads&quot; website advertising that people can pick up miscellaneous stuff for free.&#xD;&#xA;- Put a big box of stuff outside your home with a note that people can take things for free." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12531" RevisionGUID="c9a7e9e1-03fe-4e18-b207-cb2b857ea548" CreationDate="2023-03-08T08:14:49.160" UserId="106" Comment="added 95 characters in body" Text="&gt; What's the best way to dispose of the unwanted household and miscellaneous stuff?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- Sell whatever is worth selling.&#xD;&#xA;- Check if there are charity stores in your area.  They may pick up usable household and miscellaneous stuff, perhaps even for free.    If you have access to a car or a (large) freight bike, you can bring things yourself.&#xD;&#xA;- Post on your local/regional &quot;classified ads&quot; website advertising that people can pick up miscellaneous stuff for free.&#xD;&#xA;- Put a big box of stuff outside your home with a note that people can take things for free.&#xD;&#xA;- Whatever remains, you can either bring (even if it's economically not worth it) or recycle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12532" RevisionGUID="f8973645-e7b8-4cbe-a953-4af82440bb1f" CreationDate="2023-03-09T14:47:49.487" UserId="2846" Text="The manual should tell you how much power and water each uses.  Dishes are either  OK indefinitely on either program, or at risk of damage on both.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On mine, the quick wash (30 minutes at 65°C) uses less of both than the eco wash (over 2 hours at 50°C).  But a lot of that comes from the lack of a drying cycle; in winter my dehumidifier has to work harder to clear the steam. The quick wash is also more likely to result in rejects, especially if I've been baking - so that wastes space in the next load, increasing the power and water use, including in the manufacture of detergents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for stress on the contents, the chemicals are the same, so it becomes a question of whether longer and cooler is better than shorter and hotter. Certainly some things suffer at high temperatures, suggesting the cooler eco program.  Anything marked as dishwasher safe should be fine at either temperature; I also put non-stick pans and wooden spoons in with no ill effects.  As your quick program is cooler than the eco program, it's likely to use less heat, less water, and be less likely to damage anything.  It's also quite unlikely to be as effective, perhaps meaning you need to pre-rinse or load it less full.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If her precious stuff isn't marked as dishwasher safe, the bets thing to do is save it for special occasions and wash it by hand, though hand washing uses far more water and energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that where I am, dishwashers are cold-fill only.  Hot-fill dishwashers, where they still exist, use far more water, still use nearly as much power unless the hot pipe is very short, and leave hot water sitting in the pipes afterwards." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32156" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12533" RevisionGUID="a76b43ba-286d-4f85-8aca-a1a6b1f74170" CreationDate="2023-03-09T18:27:04.343" UserId="14766" Text="I don't see any problems with the way you want to connect your panels, if you have the cables and interconnects sorted out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your max power point tracker is like the Epever Tracer4210AN, that big wire won't fit into your connection terminals.  You'll need to use 16mm2/6AWG.  I've seen folks worry too much about line losses and use huge wire.  Anyway, you don't want to buy big expensive wire and not be able to use it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use Aluminum wiring make sure you use anti-oxidant on the wiring ends.  Those terminations will get really hot and could burn your house down when corroded.  Aluminum oxide corrosion may not look like much but, it has high resistance and will make things dangerously hot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your fuses seem fine.  Connect the battery fuse within 15cm of the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will cost you some money but, it might be really helpful to use a small junction box/control enclosure and put your circuit breakers and interconnect terminal blocks on DIN rail inside, with bushings for the wire pass throughs into it.  Make a basic mechanical drawing for how everything will mount inside and leave lots of room for the wiring before you buy the box, terminals and rail.  You can mount it all in the box before you go to set up your system then, it will hook up easily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;48V is great because the wiring will be smaller and cheaper but, not so many folks make panels, 48V MPPTs and inverters for retail.  It's also less than 50V and according to the USA NEC electrical standard is not a lethal shock hazard.  24V is fine, too though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good Luck.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32158" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12533" RevisionGUID="30ddabe8-880a-4321-9a07-04f435b068fc" CreationDate="2023-03-09T18:36:15.607" UserId="14766" Comment="deleted 21 characters in body" Text="I don't see any problems with the way you want to connect your panels, if you have the cables and interconnects sorted out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your max power point tracker is like the Epever Tracer4210AN, that big wire won't fit into your connection terminals.  You'll need to use 16mm2/6AWG.  I've seen folks worry too much about line losses and use huge wire.  Anyway, you don't want to buy big expensive wire and not be able to use it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use Aluminum wiring make sure you use anti-oxidant on the wiring ends.  Those terminations will get really hot and could burn your house down when corroded.  Aluminum oxide corrosion may not look like much but, it has high resistance and will make things dangerously hot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your fuses seem fine.  Connect the battery fuse within 15cm of the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will cost you some money but, it might be helpful to use one out tow small junction box/control enclosures to put your circuit breakers and interconnect terminal blocks on DIN rail inside, with bushings for the wire pass throughs into it.  Make a basic mechanical drawing for how everything will mount inside and leave lots of room for the wiring before you buy the box, terminals and rail.  You can mount it all in the box(es) before you go to set up your system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;48V is great because the wiring will be smaller and cheaper but, not so many folks make panels, 48V MPPTs and inverters for retail.  It's also, less than 50V and according to the USA NEC electrical standard is not a lethal shock hazard.  24V is fine, too though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good Luck.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32159" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12533" RevisionGUID="2c57881a-ff31-4612-82a3-291cdd919c76" CreationDate="2023-03-09T18:39:11.140" UserId="14766" Comment="misspelling and mixed up" Text="I don't see any problems with the way you want to connect your panels, if you have the cables and interconnects sorted out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your max power point tracker is like the Epever Tracer4210AN, that big wire won't fit into your connection terminals.  You'll need to use 16mm2/6AWG.  I've seen folks worry too much about line losses and use huge wire.  Anyway, you don't want to buy big expensive wire and not be able to use it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use Aluminum wiring make sure you use anti-oxidant on the wiring ends.  Those terminations will get really hot and could burn your house down when corroded.  Aluminum oxide corrosion may not look like much but, it has high resistance and will make things dangerously hot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your fuses seem fine.  Connect the battery fuse within 15cm of the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will cost you some money but, it might be helpful to use one or two small junction box/control enclosures to put your circuit breakers and interconnect terminal blocks on DIN rail inside, with bushings for the wire pass throughs into it.  Make a basic mechanical drawing for how everything will mount inside and leave lots of room for the wiring before you buy the box, terminals and rail.  You can mount it all in the box(es) before you go to set up your system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;48V is good because the wiring will be smaller and cheaper but, not so many folks make panels, 48V MPPTs and inverters for retail.  It's also, still less than 50V and is not a lethal shock hazard.  24V is fine, too though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good Luck.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32160" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12533" RevisionGUID="3488a7e8-dc24-4ea9-802c-ffd47d5da3b8" CreationDate="2023-03-09T18:43:25.810" UserId="14766" Comment="Forgot about his wiring battery and inverter question." Text="I don't see any problems with the way you want to connect your panels, if you have the cables and interconnects sorted out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your max power point tracker is like the Epever Tracer4210AN, that big wire won't fit into your connection terminals.  You'll need to use 16mm2/6AWG.  I've seen folks worry too much about line losses and use huge wire.  Anyway, you don't want to buy big expensive wire and not be able to use it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use Aluminum wiring make sure you use anti-oxidant on the wiring ends.  Those terminations will get really hot and could burn your house down when corroded.  Aluminum oxide corrosion may not look like much but, it has high resistance and will make things dangerously hot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your fuses seem fine.  Connect the battery fuse within 15cm of the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will cost you some money but, it might be helpful to use one or two small junction box/control enclosures to put your circuit breakers and interconnect terminal blocks on DIN rail inside, with bushings for the wire pass throughs into it.  Make a basic mechanical drawing for how everything will mount inside and leave lots of room for the wiring before you buy the box, terminals and rail.  You can mount it all in the box(es) before you go to set up your system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just connect the battery, inverter and MPPT all together at terminal blocks.  This will keep it convenient.  You don't want extra connections.  Connections are the biggest problem in wiring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;48V is good because the wiring will be smaller and cheaper but, not so many folks make panels, 48V MPPTs and inverters for retail.  It's also, still less than 50V and is not a lethal shock hazard.  24V is fine, too though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good Luck.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32161" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12533" RevisionGUID="ed14943a-499c-48d0-adc5-f12ba9d7a293" CreationDate="2023-03-09T19:19:42.313" UserId="14766" Comment="I checked, there are a fair number of 48V MPPTs and inverters for retail." Text="I don't see any problems with the way you want to connect your panels, if you have the cables and interconnects sorted out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If your max power point tracker is like the Epever Tracer4210AN, that big wire won't fit into your connection terminals.  You'll need to use 16mm2/6AWG.  I've seen folks worry too much about line losses and use huge wire.  Anyway, you don't want to buy big expensive wire and not be able to use it.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use Aluminum wiring make sure you use anti-oxidant on the wiring ends.  Those terminations will get really hot and could burn your house down when corroded.  Aluminum oxide corrosion may not look like much but, it has high resistance and will make things dangerously hot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your fuses seem fine.  Connect the battery fuse within 15cm of the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It will cost you some money but, it might be helpful to use one or two small junction box/control enclosures to put your circuit breakers and interconnect terminal blocks on DIN rail inside, with bushings for the wire pass throughs into it.  Make a basic mechanical drawing for how everything will mount inside and leave lots of room for the wiring before you buy the box, terminals and rail.  You can mount it all in the box(es) before you go to set up your system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just connect the battery, inverter and MPPT all together at terminal blocks.  This will keep it convenient.  You don't want extra connections.  Connections are the biggest problem in wiring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;48V is good because the wiring will be smaller and cheaper.  It's also, still less than 50V and is not a lethal shock hazard.  24V is fine, too though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Good Luck.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32162" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="645d230b-5614-446a-9e70-865e7eebe025" CreationDate="2023-03-09T19:26:05.977" UserId="13189" Text="My family uses lots of bicycle lights and I need to buy some more now because they break or get lost or stolen. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to work out whether it is better to buy the bike lights that use AA or AAA rechargeable batteries, or a bike light that has a built-in battery which needs charging via a USB cable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have a good battery recharger which will not only charge batteries using different modes, but will also &quot;recondition&quot; the batteries. This function refreshes the capacity of the battery to either take more load, or to hold it for longer (or both, I'm not sure).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure how effective this is but I always sense that some batteries run out a lot quicker than other ones and then I put them through the recondition programme. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It strikes me that it's impossible to recondition a built-in battery because my battery charger doesn't have a USB port. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this something I should take into consideration when choosing my next bicycle light? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32164" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="645d230b-5614-446a-9e70-865e7eebe025" CreationDate="2023-03-09T19:26:05.977" UserId="13189" Text="Can I recondition the batteries from a mobile phone or a bike light?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32165" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12534" RevisionGUID="645d230b-5614-446a-9e70-865e7eebe025" CreationDate="2023-03-09T19:26:05.977" UserId="13189" Text="|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32166" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12535" RevisionGUID="613a4065-e0bd-491d-b2d9-b828ec0347a7" CreationDate="2023-03-10T08:21:18.897" UserId="106" Text="Frame challenge rather than an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're asking about bike lights with different types of batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most ecological alternative is **a bike light powered by a dynamo.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The most ecological type of battery is to have no battery at all.&#xD;&#xA;* The energy source would be human muscle power, which is also more ecological than any other alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus, they're also harder and less attractive to steal, because they're permanently fixed to your bike and useless on bicycles that don't have a dynamo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there even exist bicycle dynamos with which you can charge devices by USB, so you can charge your mobile phone on your bike :) (NB: not cheap)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32168" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12535" RevisionGUID="92a8822a-80d7-4929-b51b-3f229083e80a" CreationDate="2023-03-10T08:26:25.137" UserId="106" Comment="added 44 characters in body" Text="Frame challenge rather than an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're asking about bike lights with different types of batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most ecological alternative is **a bike light powered by a [dynamo](https://www.sheldonbrown.com/generators.html).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The most ecological type of battery is to have no battery at all.&#xD;&#xA;* The energy source would be human muscle power, which is also more ecological than any other alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus, they're also harder and less attractive to steal, because they're permanently fixed to your bike and useless on bicycles that don't have a dynamo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there even exist bicycle dynamos with which you can charge devices by USB, so you can charge your mobile phone on your bike :) (NB: not cheap)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32169" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12535" RevisionGUID="8b9e5415-e1ba-44ef-b4fc-3bf5c64979c0" CreationDate="2023-03-10T09:35:19.873" UserId="106" Comment="added 100 characters in body" Text="Frame challenge rather than an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're asking about bike lights with different types of batteries from a sustainability perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most sustainable type of bike light is **powered by a [dynamo](https://www.sheldonbrown.com/generators.html).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The most ecological/sustainable type of battery is no battery at all.&#xD;&#xA;* The energy source would be (mostly) human muscle power (assuming the bicycle is human powered and not electric), which is also more ecological than any other alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus, they're also harder and less attractive to steal, because they're permanently fixed to your bike and are useless on bicycles that don't have a dynamo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there even exist bicycle dynamos with which you can charge devices by USB, so you can charge your mobile phone on your bike :) (NB: not cheap and not terribly useful unless you're going on a bike tour away from civilisation for multiple days)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32170" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12535" RevisionGUID="fa4480b3-555a-472b-9faa-de23326b6b1d" CreationDate="2023-03-10T10:24:04.557" UserId="106" Comment="added 134 characters in body" Text="Frame challenge rather than an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're asking about bike lights with different types of batteries from a sustainability perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most sustainable type of bike light is **powered by a [dynamo](https://www.sheldonbrown.com/generators.html).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The most ecological/sustainable type of battery is no battery at all.&#xD;&#xA;* The energy source would be (mostly) human muscle power (assuming the bicycle is human powered and not electric), which is also more ecological than any other alternative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus, they're also harder and less attractive to steal, because they're permanently fixed to your bike and are useless on bicycles that don't have a dynamo.  Most dynamos are built into the wheel, so thieves would have to steal the entire wheel, which is hopefully secured with a good lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there even exist bicycle dynamos with which you can charge devices by USB, so you can charge your mobile phone on your bike :) (NB: not cheap and not terribly useful unless you're going on a bike tour away from civilisation for multiple days)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32171" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9773" RevisionGUID="f79f791e-7c05-4b44-8a3d-37ec54f3a730" CreationDate="2023-03-10T14:02:45.307" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32172" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="c2582341-064c-41ab-a9d4-1dab68a25bde" CreationDate="2023-03-11T02:07:25.873" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32173" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12536" RevisionGUID="673f5336-f4f8-47df-b4f2-6b7e4bec6e76" CreationDate="2023-03-12T09:14:45.250" UserId="6393" Text="My heavy recommendation would be hub dynamo powered modern LED lights (with a supercapacitor for providing light after stopping).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if for some reason this is not an option for you, the second best choice is AA powered light and Sanyo/Panasonic Eneloop batteries. Make sure to purchase a good charger (like Maha MH-C9000 Pro) for them because poor chargers fry your batteries in no time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have several 15 year old Eneloop batteries that are still working fine. They have over 90% of capacity left.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eneloops have very slow self discharge and long lifetime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AAA batteries cost about as much as AA, but have fraction of the energy so to provide adequate lifetime you need so many AAA batteries you can't fit them to one charger at a time. Thus, I recommend AA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;USB charged devices almost exclusively use cheap chinese Li-Ion cells. My experience has been that in mobile phones, they start swelling in about 3 years. If the batteries in a USB charged device fail, replacing them could be tricky. However, with AA batteries all you need to do is to buy a new battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A single Eneloop has 2.4 watt-hours of energy. With a decent light, it lasts approximately one hour or maybe little less. With four Eneloops, you can get little over 3 hours of runtime. With a dynamo you would get infinite runtime." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12537" RevisionGUID="a7e535e2-cc45-4a24-ba65-0be98d1fd9e5" CreationDate="2023-03-14T16:34:59.547" UserId="2846" Text="USB-rechargeable things are essentially always lithium ion.  Lithium ion batteries can't be meaningfully reconditioned, and anyway the charger is inside the device (your phone &quot;charger&quot; is just a power supply).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I'm not running dynamo lights, or when I need additional lights (including for night mountain biking which needs far more illumination than road riding) I tend to use USB-rechargeable lights.  I have been known to replace the batteries in them, and recycle the old ones, rather than replacing the whole light.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something else I've done with 2 front and one rear lights, with failed batteries and/or electronics, is convert them to run off a USB battery pack - which I would have and carry anyway.  Typically for a front light this means fitting a new controller board that can accept 5V.  That's what I plan on using for an all-nighter next month, as I don't have time to build a dynamo wheel for that bike, and I'm not sure I want to." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32177" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12535" RevisionGUID="eb1aad5f-81f1-42f7-b4f6-4f46ff4155ac" CreationDate="2023-03-14T16:58:03.353" UserId="106" Comment="added 87 characters in body" Text="Frame challenge rather than an answer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're asking about bike lights with different types of batteries from a sustainability perspective.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The most sustainable type of bike light is **powered by a [dynamo](https://www.sheldonbrown.com/generators.html).**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* The most ecological/sustainable type of battery is no battery at all.&#xD;&#xA;* The energy source would be (mostly) human muscle power (assuming the bicycle is human powered and not electric), which I would expect to be more ecological than any other alternative, but I don't have evidence to back this up (it might depend on your diet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As a bonus, they're also harder and less attractive to steal, because they're permanently fixed to your bike and are useless on bicycles that don't have a dynamo.  Most dynamos are built into the wheel, so thieves would have to steal the entire wheel, which is hopefully secured with a good lock.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally, there even exist bicycle dynamos with which you can charge devices by USB, so you can charge your mobile phone on your bike :) (NB: not cheap and not terribly useful unless you're going on a bike tour away from civilisation for multiple days)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32178" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12538" RevisionGUID="3f3dd7aa-c532-43b2-a8c9-04fca4d1c23e" CreationDate="2023-03-15T16:11:59.460" UserId="14783" Text="In &quot;How to Build Super Lightweight Tiny House Wooden Wall Frame (EP3)&quot; (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0CnXxN43_8), Robert Klemensberger demonstrating building framing tiny home walls with 1 x 2's spaced 24-in on center and 5-mm (about 3/8-in) plywood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I build a 30-ft long, 8.5-ft wide tiny home with a cathedral roof that I can tow on highways with 1 x 2's and plywood? What materials are sufficient? What materials are ideal? What is the maximum length of a room? What engineering manuals and software are available for modeling dynamics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32180" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12538" RevisionGUID="3f3dd7aa-c532-43b2-a8c9-04fca4d1c23e" CreationDate="2023-03-15T16:11:59.460" UserId="14783" Text="What are light tiny home framing materials?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32181" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12538" RevisionGUID="3f3dd7aa-c532-43b2-a8c9-04fca4d1c23e" CreationDate="2023-03-15T16:11:59.460" UserId="14783" Text="|home|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32182" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12538" RevisionGUID="b641be68-6c4f-47e3-9d14-715632d8a27b" CreationDate="2023-03-15T16:12:28.107" UserId="14783" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="In &quot;How to Build Super Lightweight Tiny House Wooden Wall Frame (EP3)&quot; (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0CnXxN43_8), Robert Klemensberger demonstrated building framing tiny home walls with 1 x 2's spaced 24-in on center and 5-mm (about 3/8-in) plywood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I build a 30-ft long, 8.5-ft wide tiny home with a cathedral roof that I can tow on highways with 1 x 2's and plywood? What materials are sufficient? What materials are ideal? What is the maximum length of a room? What engineering manuals and software are available for modeling dynamics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32187" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12540" RevisionGUID="83c89c5b-d7c6-49b9-8e37-b206c079a2fd" CreationDate="2023-03-16T03:25:26.900" UserId="8031" Text="This is all climate dependent, but you'd better be able to handle 100+ mph winds which is very difficult with 1x2s and thin plywood. If you have snow, just 4 inches could weigh more than 13,000 pounds on a building that size, not even counting the dead weight of the roof itself. With just nails here and not straps and heavier fasteners (or traditional joinery), all factors of safety are lost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Often the specifications that builders must adhere to come from the [American Wood Council's guide][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://awc.org/publications/2018-nds/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32189" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12538" RevisionGUID="173e4763-62d6-46fb-9fbe-9f385f4debb3" CreationDate="2023-03-16T17:24:10.280" UserId="14783" Comment="added 1 character in body" Text="In &quot;How to Build Super Lightweight Tiny House Wooden Wall Frame (EP3)&quot; (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0CnXxN43_8), Robert Klemensberger demonstrated building framing tiny home walls with 1 x 2's spaced 24-in on center and 5-mm (about 3/16-in) plywood.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can I build a 30-ft long, 8.5-ft wide tiny home with a cathedral roof that I can tow on highways with 1 x 2's and plywood? What materials are sufficient? What materials are ideal? What is the maximum length of a room? What engineering manuals and software are available for modeling dynamics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32190" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12541" RevisionGUID="3de6a822-af0d-4c3c-afea-6eed74d57c15" CreationDate="2023-03-17T21:33:00.683" UserId="13192" Text="Which countries require corporations registered in their land to report their GHG emissions (eg tonnes of CO2 [or GWP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential) emitted), and where can I find those numbers per company?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to find companies who do high-energy industrial manufacturing (eg steel production) with renewable energy power sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Salzgitter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salzgitter) is a major steel producer in Germany that's investing in hydrogen arc furnaces powered by wind. I'd like to find-out the amount of steel they produce per year and divide that by the GWP that their production produces each year, and then compare that to other companies in the region (eg [thyssenkrupp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThyssenKrupp)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find the actual GWP produced per company per year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32192" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12541" RevisionGUID="3de6a822-af0d-4c3c-afea-6eed74d57c15" CreationDate="2023-03-17T21:33:00.683" UserId="13192" Text="GHG emissions per company per year (carbon footprint database)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32193" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12541" RevisionGUID="3de6a822-af0d-4c3c-afea-6eed74d57c15" CreationDate="2023-03-17T21:33:00.683" UserId="13192" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32194" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12541" RevisionGUID="b40ee0a7-2c99-4c08-9321-a925d1d738a1" CreationDate="2023-03-17T21:38:06.703" UserId="13192" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited tags" Text="Which countries require corporations to report their GHG emissions (eg tonnes of CO2 [or GWP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential) emitted), and where can I find those numbers per company?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm trying to find companies who do high-energy industrial manufacturing (eg steel production) with renewable energy power sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, [Salzgitter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salzgitter) is a major steel producer in Germany that's investing in hydrogen-powered electric arc furnaces powered by wind. I'd like to find-out the amount of steel they produce per year and divide that by the GWP that their production produces each year, and then I'd like to compare that &quot;climate damage per product unit produced&quot; to other companies in the region (eg [thyssenkrupp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThyssenKrupp)).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find the actual GWP produced per company per year?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32195" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12541" RevisionGUID="b40ee0a7-2c99-4c08-9321-a925d1d738a1" CreationDate="2023-03-17T21:38:06.703" UserId="13192" Comment="deleted 25 characters in body; edited tags" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32196" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12542" RevisionGUID="ea9bd733-72d0-486c-9492-057665e8e0a3" CreationDate="2023-03-18T12:43:21.960" UserId="6393" Text="I'm not sure why you want to find such companies, but if the reason is that you're planning to do stock investments, then in that case what you want to read is the annual report.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most companies these days do report their GHG emissions in the annual report. But that's not the important information you want right now. You want their future plans. Steelmaking currently doesn't use hydrogen. What you want is not companies who manufacture steel using only hydrogen (since there are none, I think), but companies whose plans to manufacture steel using hydrogen are the fastest and most believable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The HYBRIT project by SSAB in my understanding is the fastest and most believable plan today to create steel in massive scale using hydrogen. So I'd say SSAB is the company you want to invest into.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you aren't planning to make stock investments, reading the annual reports just for the GHG emission information could be useful." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32202" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12544" RevisionGUID="87005c5e-cbe4-442a-9b39-3fd6fe33012d" CreationDate="2023-03-19T20:23:36.197" UserId="4458" Text="Not all batteries are the same.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;NI-MH for example don't like to be recharged before fully flat, but doing a full discharge cycle, will mostly fix it. 3 cycles will do even more.&#xD;&#xA;Ni-cad also don't like to be recharged before fully flat, and the damage is not fixable. &#xD;&#xA;The above phenomenon is often called memory effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium batteries don't have this problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Multi-cell batteries, may need balancing. This will be built into its integrated charger." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32204" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12545" RevisionGUID="acd1da01-0ec8-4326-be12-2b722d4ba7f9" CreationDate="2023-03-19T20:42:51.517" UserId="4458" Text="A few options that manufacturers can do, but won't unless forced to (there may be more).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Modularity: Design to be repaired, and upgraded.&#xD;&#xA;* No lock-in: Design to allow user to be free to do what they want.&#xD;&#xA;   * Can run any OS&#xD;&#xA;   * Can run any apps, &#xD;&#xA;   * Can use modules from any supplier&#xD;&#xA;* No built-in degradation: some products get slower over time. Sometimes this is intentional, sometimes there is just no effort to fix an accidental problem. E.g. &#xD;&#xA;  * NTFS (file-system of MS-Window) suffers from fragmentation. File-system could be changed, but this behaviour benefits MS, with increased sales.&#xD;&#xA;  * MS repository, a simple key-value store (the fastest database type possible), is poorly implemented and slows down. Could be fixed, but benefits MS, with increased sales.&#xD;&#xA;  * Battery in phone degrades (because of poor battery thermal management), and phone has to slow down. Battery can not be replaced. Again more sales.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As can be seen, what is good for the user, and what is good for the company is misaligned." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32206" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="8d3c80ad-6fb9-448e-beab-1deb151eb7af" CreationDate="2023-03-19T20:53:34.270" UserId="4458" Comment="spelling plural of LED. not LED is." Text="Modern monitors use LEDs. LEDs are not damaged by being turned on or off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short; I can't see any reason why this would do anything to the lifetime of the monitor, and it has never been a worry for me. Other parts typically wear out before the monitor for laptops." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32207" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="8d3c80ad-6fb9-448e-beab-1deb151eb7af" CreationDate="2023-03-19T20:53:34.270" Comment="Proposed by 4458 approved by 14517 edit id of 709" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32208" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="339" RevisionGUID="940bb83a-120d-4fc7-b759-22410bf7e8b4" CreationDate="2023-03-20T08:06:39.487" UserId="15" Comment="Fixed link that went to an unrelated advertising site. " Text="A dog and cat owner friend of mine discovered Cedarcide (https://cedarcide.com/) last year and has successfully kept fleas out of her home and off her animals (they make products for home and pet application) for the past year, after several terrible bouts of infestation and unsuccessful (and noxious, toxic, unsustainable) treatments with flea pesticides. And her home and pets always smell delightfully of cedar! Yum!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32209" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12521" RevisionGUID="8ea38659-7b3b-4270-b2d1-dd638aabba27" CreationDate="2023-03-20T08:25:22.627" UserId="14517" Comment="added 10 characters in body" Text="Modern monitors use LED backlights. LEDs are not damaged by being turned on or off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In short; I can't see any reason why this would do anything to the lifetime of the monitor, and it has never been a worry for me. Other parts typically wear out before the monitor for laptops." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32218" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12548" RevisionGUID="44fa3dc4-ec04-4a93-8d6a-e1623c6fcdb5" CreationDate="2023-03-21T23:20:50.113" UserId="14819" Text="The Gravity Assist allows for a spacecraft to gain more speed and energy (&quot;stealing&quot; it from the planet).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can this approach be used for creating power plants that generate &quot;cheap&quot; energy for use on Earth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32220" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12548" RevisionGUID="44fa3dc4-ec04-4a93-8d6a-e1623c6fcdb5" CreationDate="2023-03-21T23:20:50.113" UserId="14819" Text="Gravity assist as energy source" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32221" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12548" RevisionGUID="44fa3dc4-ec04-4a93-8d6a-e1623c6fcdb5" CreationDate="2023-03-21T23:20:50.113" UserId="14819" Text="|energy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32223" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12509" RevisionGUID="c5e56eda-dee7-4fc9-9860-8fa3013959e4" CreationDate="2023-03-22T03:02:20.510" UserId="4458" Comment="fix title to make sence. Fix spelling and grammar errors in body." Text="I have two 220V AC power sources and a contactor that switches to another if one is unavailable. But it takes few microseconds to switch and there is a moment when both power sources are disconnected during switch process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to add some electrical circuit (inductors?) after the contactor which will power the AC load during the switching process? Is it possible to make it safe without possibility that two power sources will be connected to each other for some time?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32224" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12509" RevisionGUID="c5e56eda-dee7-4fc9-9860-8fa3013959e4" CreationDate="2023-03-22T03:02:20.510" UserId="4458" Comment="fix title to make sence. Fix spelling and grammar errors in body." Text="Is it possible to make a device, to stop dropout, when switching between alternate sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32225" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12509" RevisionGUID="c5e56eda-dee7-4fc9-9860-8fa3013959e4" CreationDate="2023-03-22T03:02:20.510" Comment="Proposed by 4458 approved by 659, -1 edit id of 710" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32226" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12509" RevisionGUID="a102593b-5086-41ab-9aee-6b1b7d817b5e" CreationDate="2023-03-22T03:02:20.510" UserId="2345" Comment="fix title to make sence. Fix spelling and grammar errors in body." Text="Is it possible to make a device, to stop dropouts, when switching between alternate sources?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32227" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12549" RevisionGUID="91b20db0-c7aa-4994-a18c-50df385c9483" CreationDate="2023-03-22T19:33:48.147" UserId="6393" Text="Yes, you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is entirely possible to create tidal power plants, stealing energy from the Earth-Moon system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eventually this source runs out of energy, but it would be a much longer duration than the duration until we run out of fossil fuels (or out of room to dump the carbon dioxide somewhere). So it could be considered renewable, like solar power is considered renewable (which it isn't since the sun runs out of fuel someday)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32232" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="5230" RevisionGUID="505f94fd-5c0a-4ae2-9522-68f6dce053d4" CreationDate="2023-03-24T02:42:36.250" UserId="8232" Comment="78" />
  <row Id="32234" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12550" RevisionGUID="160ec7ee-e71b-407b-960b-eecdfc3d3037" CreationDate="2023-03-25T15:43:53.307" UserId="14825" Text="Our property is becoming overrun by Dragon Arum, planted by a previous owner and exacerbated by some excavation work we’ve done. It’s very difficult to eradicate, so I’m wondering/hoping there’s some redeeming permaculture use for it in the garden. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32236" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12550" RevisionGUID="160ec7ee-e71b-407b-960b-eecdfc3d3037" CreationDate="2023-03-25T15:43:53.307" UserId="14825" Text="Dragon Arum in the landscape" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32237" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12550" RevisionGUID="160ec7ee-e71b-407b-960b-eecdfc3d3037" CreationDate="2023-03-25T15:43:53.307" UserId="14825" Text="|permaculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32238" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12551" RevisionGUID="28ab3b90-d921-4489-ba56-f6e29ede197f" CreationDate="2023-03-27T04:09:38.400" UserId="6925" Text="The person in the video was building a stationary home.  It probably didn't survive the first wind storm or snow; they are delusional about natural forces.  As cyanrarroll says, snow is heavy and [this is what it does to buildings that were built properly and to code at the time!][1] &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 kinds of trailered buildings: Manufactured homes which are trailered once from factory to trailer park and never move again; and RVs which move regularly.  I doubt this construction would survive a one-time move from factory to final resting site, which would be the equivalent of a wind storm.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entitlements and liability&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A static building not on wheels is subject to permitting and inspections and this will not pass muster. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An RV is subject to [ANSI/RVIA standards][2] and regulated [by NHTSA][3]. Trailer frames are [subject to DOT][4].  Electrical is subject to NEC in Article 550-552.   Any &quot;travel trailer&quot; or other RV moving on a highway will need a license plate, necessitating a [safety inspection][5] or statement of construction.  You need insurance to take a vehicle on the highway and the insurer has their requirements... if you expect a travel trailer to be covered under the tow vehicle liability, read your policy. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you are going to have huge legal entitlement issues trying to take a flimsy homemade trailer on a highway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the the thing gets blown into smithereens by wind forces and spreads debris all over the freeway, they'll be inclined to make an example of you and charge you with anything they can, as well as pursue you civilly for the expense of the freeway closure, and possibly impound your car in an effort to collect on same costs and fines.  Insurance will be no help.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're also likely to damage others' cars and/or hurt people. Insurance may come to your rescue there. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Structural challenges&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;It might be possible, with tip-top hardwoods and LOTS of bracing and elegantly placed shear walls, to get the thing to survive a gust of wind.  However, a cathedral ceiling creates a very structural challenge.  They're not easy to make even with proper timber. It is an inverted V-shaped form with tremendous forces trying to spread it.  1x2 lumber is simply not up to the task. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can I build a 30-ft long, 8.5-ft wide tiny home with a cathedral roof that I can tow on highways with 1 x 2's and plywood?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Not even close.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What materials are sufficient?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aluminum, using aircraft fabrication techniques.  I would probably get a Shopbot or other CNC router intended for wood, and cut and drill the aluminum sheet on that.  You'd also need some jigs to bend it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What materials are ideal? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Stainless would be nice, since stainless does not have a fatigue limit unlike aluminum.  Probably too tough to cut on a ShopBot though. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; What engineering manuals and software are available for modeling dynamics?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With random dimensional lumber, it's a lost cause since the material isn't consistent enough.  With the metals I mentioned, aircraft techniques will suffice. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6GOz845zJQ&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.rvia.org/node/association-and-ansi-adopted-standards&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.nhtsa.gov/importing-vehicle/importation-and-certification-faqs-1&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.mpofcinci.com/blog/dot-federal-safety-regulations-for-trailer-manufacturers/&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.wikihow.com/Register-a-Homemade-Trailer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32240" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12552" RevisionGUID="7a537a93-cf86-42b9-84b5-ef005f6e30d4" CreationDate="2023-03-28T01:23:04.443" UserId="14833" Text="Here is a reference which explains how lard is better than vegetable oils:  https://www.drberg.com/blog/lard-vs-vegetable-oil-which-is-healthier&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32242" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="12238" RevisionGUID="98beb9dd-7206-49f2-8b56-b51686fb8b00" CreationDate="2023-03-30T05:57:04.610" UserId="8232" Comment="79" />
  <row Id="32243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12553" RevisionGUID="6a46696f-ebd1-4ed9-b1ea-fbdc2efa6cb5" CreationDate="2023-04-03T20:09:05.320" UserId="14843" Text="I believe Tesla is using the income string from you and the renewable credits to determine the FMV of your system. This may be subject to challenge in court, but we would need a class action suit to get far. I am in a similar state, having the same high FMV estimate from Tesla and a 10 year old solar system, with 10 years left on the 20 year contract. Tesla appear to be basing the FMV on the series of payments they are guaranteed to get from me and the renewable energy credits they get, not the FMV of the system itself. Is the income string really part of the FMV? It seems something that could be challenged. Note that even at 10 years into the contract, I still need to pay the FMV, and if I do not pay it, the contract and payments to Tesla continue indefinitely. The system itself on my house is barely worth $4k, but the 10+ years of my payments (length depends if I buy out the system at year 0) and the string of renewable energy credits they get adds a lot of $$ to the FMV as they prefer to see it.  Further, when I asked Tesla for an independent appraisal of the FMV, they state Tesla already hired an &quot;independent&quot; appraiser and that is where the payoff amount they gave me came from. I was told I am not allowed to know who the appraiser is nor am I allowed see the specific equations they used to find the FMV. That is another matter that could be challenged in court." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="98137a1a-1011-422d-b87d-e62fd7a2e422" CreationDate="2023-04-04T15:38:59.233" UserId="2762" Text="# WBT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I co-founded a residential community focused on sustainable living well before this SE site existed, renovated a house to showcase sustainable living technologies/tools/strategies, have been active in several relevant in-person groups discussing these topics, and continue with a strong interest in sustainability topics.  I’ve done a lot of reading about and study of platforms where very large groups of people can discuss solutions to very complex problems, such as and specifically including climate change.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32250" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12555" RevisionGUID="815fa76a-7f99-4842-9653-f19f158baa5b" CreationDate="2023-04-04T15:38:59.233" UserId="2762" Text="&gt; 1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the flags are justified: Call out the specific behaviors, privately or publicly (the latter if others in a discussion could also benefit from the reminder of what's civil discussion) asking for correction or cooldown, and follow the normal ladder of rules enforcement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some extra attention to positive reinforcement of that user's good behaviors would likely be helpful too, and a steady stream of valuable answers suggests a potentially high return on &quot;more like this, please&quot; comments &amp; feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discuss in mod chat, explaining my reasons and listening to others. My mind can be changed, and I suspect good reasons might be able to convince other mods too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. In your opinion, what do moderators do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators are human exception handlers for issues that can't be taken care of through the usual community-driven moderation process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can’t pledge to be super active and on here for several hours a day, but I can pledge to be fair in the actions I do take and not abuse the privileges.  Though I tend to stay pseudonymous for better physical safety, other communities that have trusted me with leadership roles (including open-source stewardship of packages with combined totals of tens of millions of weekly downloads for integration into a wide variety of applications) have consistently found that to be a good decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods also have a secondary role of being an interface point between the company formerly known as Stack Exchange and the community. In this secondary role, I also have the benefit of enough technical background to dive into, diagnose, and advocate more specifically &amp; effectively for fixes to user experience &amp; interface bugs in the platform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching enough reputation to [access moderator tools](/help/privileges/moderator-tools) or become a [trusted user](/help/privileges/trusted-user)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't likely be reaching 5K rep anytime soon, though I do have over 40K rep network-wide. My highest-rep site is Meta Stack Exchange, so it's not like I'm completely inactive in meta discussions, even if I'm less active on this site specifically.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By all-time rep, I'm not in the top 0.2% of users on this site, but I am in the 2% of users just below that tier, and I’ve been a member for well over 7 years. Because I am not that active in writing content for the site (more in reading), this is your opportunity to vote for someone who can be a more neutral arbitrator of issues and disputes that come up due to not having a personal &quot;dog in the fight&quot; for most discussions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32252" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12554" RevisionGUID="bd563de8-3240-4a47-aeda-89f535b551e7" CreationDate="2023-04-04T15:45:04.230" UserId="2762" Comment="added 478 characters in body" Text="# WBT&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I co-founded a residential community focused on sustainable living well before this SE site existed, renovated a house to showcase sustainable living technologies/tools/strategies, have been active in several relevant in-person groups discussing these topics, and continue with a strong interest in sustainability topics.  I’ve done a lot of reading about and study of platforms where very large groups of people can discuss solutions to very complex problems, such as and specifically including climate change.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By all-time rep, I'm not in the top 0.2% of users on this site, but I am in the 2% of users just below that tier, and I’ve been a member for well over 7 years. I’m also one of just 42 users with the Fanatic badge. Because I am not that active in writing content for the site (more in reading), this is your opportunity to vote for someone who can be a more neutral arbitrator of issues and disputes that come up due to not having a personal &quot;dog in the fight&quot; for most discussions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32253" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12555" RevisionGUID="b51ca901-12f4-427b-aa30-b41c116ffb76" CreationDate="2023-04-04T15:45:04.230" UserId="2762" Comment="deleted 431 characters in body" Text="&gt; 1. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assuming the flags are justified: Call out the specific behaviors, privately or publicly (the latter if others in a discussion could also benefit from the reminder of what's civil discussion) asking for correction or cooldown, and follow the normal ladder of rules enforcement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some extra attention to positive reinforcement of that user's good behaviors would likely be helpful too, and a steady stream of valuable answers suggests a potentially high return on &quot;more like this, please&quot; comments &amp; feedback.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. How would you handle a situation where another mod closed/deleted/etc. a question that you feel shouldn’t have been?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Discuss in mod chat, explaining my reasons and listening to others. My mind can be changed, and I suspect good reasons might be able to convince other mods too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 3. In your opinion, what do moderators do?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moderators are human exception handlers for issues that can't be taken care of through the usual community-driven moderation process.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can’t pledge to be super active and on here for several hours a day, but I can pledge to be fair in the actions I do take and not abuse the privileges.  Though I tend to stay pseudonymous for better physical safety, other communities that have trusted me with leadership roles (including open-source stewardship of packages with combined totals of tens of millions of weekly downloads for integration into a wide variety of applications) have consistently found that to be a good decision.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mods also have a secondary role of being an interface point between the company formerly known as Stack Exchange and the community. In this secondary role, I also have the benefit of enough technical background to dive into, diagnose, and advocate more specifically &amp; effectively for fixes to user experience &amp; interface bugs in the platform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 4. A diamond will be attached to everything you say and have said in the past, including questions, answers and comments. Everything you will do will be seen under a different light. How do you feel about that?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 5. In what way do you feel that being a moderator will make you more effective as opposed to simply reaching enough reputation to [access moderator tools](/help/privileges/moderator-tools) or become a [trusted user](/help/privileges/trusted-user)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't likely be reaching 5K rep anytime soon, though I do have over 40K rep network-wide. My highest-rep site is Meta Stack Exchange, so it's not like I'm completely inactive in meta discussions, even if I'm less active on this site specifically." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32254" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12553" RevisionGUID="0cb173e0-b918-42b7-89e8-2b6fba4b0a13" CreationDate="2023-04-04T19:29:47.613" UserId="14843" Comment="added 740 characters in body" Text="I believe Tesla is basing FMV on their income string, not the system resale value. They are using the income string from a) you and b) the renewable credits, which may be a lot (my case RECs worth about 50% of the payments I make directly). The FMV based on income stream vs value of assets gives a huge variation in the FMV of your system. &#xD;&#xA;The Solar City / Tesla contract does not define how FMV is evaluated, but there is a line that says interests of the Financing Party shall not be taken into account in determining FMV. Is Tesla the Financing Party, and hence their income string should not be used for FMV? This may be subject to challenge in court, but if you look at your Solar City contract, you committed to arbitration for all disputes and you cannot participate in a class action suit. I might suggest you look into arbitration to review the FMV . &#xD;&#xA;I am in a similar state, having the same high FMV estimate from Tesla and a 10 year old solar system, with 10 years left on the 20 year contract.  A related note, it may be beneficial to push this now rather than at the end of your contract. Note that even at 20 years into the contract, we/I still need to pay the FMV, which Tesla could continue to define as high due to continued income streams, even though the solar system is antiquated and valueless on the open market. Then to get out of the contract, you pay big $$ to get a valueless system. &#xD;&#xA;Further, when I asked Tesla for an independent appraisal of the FMV, they state Tesla already hired an &quot;independent&quot; appraiser, and that is where the payoff amount they gave me came from. I was told I am not allowed to know who the appraiser is nor am I allowed see the specific equations and process they used to find the FMV. That is another matter that could be challenged in arbitration. &#xD;&#xA;If I had read this contract more closely 10 years ago, I would have at least asked for a better definition of how FMV is evaluated. It is an open invitation to overcharge the homeowner. I do not trust the arbitration process and blocking of access to class action suits; I suspect it is Tesla / big business leaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32255" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12553" RevisionGUID="2d60a6ed-f1c9-4b1c-8eee-6252a0fe36c7" CreationDate="2023-04-04T19:32:25.903" UserId="14843" Comment="added 31 characters in body" Text="I believe Tesla is basing FMV on their income string, not the system asset resale value on the open markte. They are using the income string from a) you and b) the renewable credits, which may be a lot (my case RECs worth about 50% of the payments I make directly). The FMV based on income stream vs value of assets gives a huge variation in the FMV of your system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Solar City / Tesla contract does not define how FMV is evaluated, but there is a line that says interests of the Financing Party shall not be taken into account in determining FMV. Is Tesla the Financing Party, and hence their income string should not be used for FMV? This may be subject to challenge in court, but if you look at your Solar City contract, you committed to arbitration for all disputes and you cannot participate in a class action suit. I might suggest you look into arbitration to review the FMV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am in a similar state, having the same high FMV estimate from Tesla and a 10 year old solar system, with 10 years left on the 20 year contract.  A related note, it may be beneficial to push this now rather than at the end of your contract. Note that even at 20 years into the contract, we/I still need to pay the FMV, which Tesla could continue to define as high due to continued income streams, even though the solar system is antiquated and valueless on the open market. Then to get out of the contract, you pay big $$ to get a valueless system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, when I asked Tesla for an independent appraisal of the FMV, they state Tesla already hired an &quot;independent&quot; appraiser, and that is where the payoff amount they gave me came from. I was told I am not allowed to know who the appraiser is nor am I allowed see the specific equations and process they used to find the FMV. That is another matter that could be challenged in arbitration. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had read this contract more closely 10 years ago, I would have at least asked for a better definition of how FMV is evaluated. It is an open invitation to overcharge the homeowner. I do not trust the arbitration process and blocking of access to class action suits; I suspect it is Tesla / big business leaning." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32256" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12553" RevisionGUID="9b219428-f377-47f8-ab9a-bf97bd4a33f7" CreationDate="2023-04-04T20:12:25.703" UserId="14843" Comment="added 582 characters in body" Text="I am in a similar state, having the same high FMV estimate from Tesla and a 10 year old solar system, with 10 years left on the 20 year contract. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Tesla is basing FMV on their income string, not the system asset resale value on the open market. They are using the income string from a) you and b) the renewable credits, which may be a lot. In my case, Tesla gets about $1300/yr from me directly, and about $400/yr from the local utility for the RECs. The FMV based on: a) Tesla's income stream, or b) the value of the assets on the open market, gives a huge variation in the FMV of your system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Solar City / Tesla contract does not define which of these methods are to be used in how FMV is evaluated, but there is a line (that you show in your post) that says interests of the Financing Party shall not be taken into account in determining FMV. Is Tesla the Financing Party, and hence their income string should not be used for FMV? A judge may say Tesla's income stream cannot be used, but if you look at your Solar City contract, you committed to arbitration for all disputes and you cannot participate in a class action suit. It appears the independent arbitrator is hired by Tesla, so you can guess how really independent they are.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am contemplating going to arbitration anyway to see if I can get a re-evaluation of the FMV using asset value, but have low expectation. I suspect the &quot;independent arbitrator&quot; is in the camp of favoring Tesla, in a similar manner as the &quot;independent appraiser&quot; Tesla uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I asked Tesla for an independent appraisal of the FMV, I get an email saying Tesla already hired an &quot;independent&quot; appraiser, and that is where the payoff amount they gave me came from. I was told I am not allowed to know who the appraiser is nor am I allowed see the specific equations and process they used to find the FMV. When I asked to discuss that more, Tesla would not respond to my emails or give me a means to call.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related note, it may be beneficial to push this now rather than at the end of your contract. Note that even at 20 years into the contract, we/I still need to pay the FMV, which Tesla could continue to define as high due to continued income streams, even though the solar system is antiquated and valueless on the open market. Then to get out of the contract, you pay big $$ to get a valueless system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had read this contract more closely 10 years ago, I would have at least asked for a better definition of how FMV is evaluated. It is an open invitation to overcharge the homeowner. I also would have looked for an &quot;opt out&quot; close from arbitration. You lose too much control and turn things over to someone that is paid by Tesla, so they are not really independent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32257" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12553" RevisionGUID="83f40574-4ec4-44a1-936f-2fcc1aeb4a01" CreationDate="2023-04-04T20:25:51.167" UserId="14843" Comment="added 97 characters in body" Text="I am in a similar state, having the same high FMV estimate from Tesla and a 10 year old solar system, with 10 years left on the 20 year contract. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 methods to value your site. A) the system income string, or B) the system asset resale value on the open market. They are using A mainly. Note the income string has two components: 1) you, and 2) the renewable credits, which may be a lot. In my case, Tesla gets about $1300/yr from me directly, and about $400/yr from the local utility for the RECs. The varying FMV based on A) and B) gives a huge variation in the FMV of your system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Solar City / Tesla contract does not define which of these methods is to be used in how FMV is evaluated. There is a line in the contract (that you show in your post) that says interests of the Financing Party shall not be taken into account in determining FMV. This is a vague line; is Tesla the Financing Party, and hence their income string should not be used for FMV? A judge may say Tesla's income stream cannot be used, but if you look at your Solar City contract, you committed to arbitration for all disputes and you cannot participate in a class action suit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am temped to go to arbitration to get a re-evaluation of the FMV using asset value process B). However, it appears the independent arbitrator is actually hired by Tesla, so you can guess how really independent they are, so I have low expectations. I suspect the &quot;independent arbitrator&quot; is in the camp of favoring Tesla, in a similar manner as the &quot;independent appraiser&quot; Tesla uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I asked Tesla for an independent appraisal of the FMV, I get an email saying Tesla already hired an &quot;independent&quot; appraiser, and that is where the payoff amount they gave me came from. I was told I am not allowed to know who the appraiser is nor am I allowed see the specific equations and process they used to find the FMV. When I asked to discuss that more, Tesla would not respond to my emails or give me a means to call.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related note, it may be beneficial to push this now rather than at the end of your contract. Note that even at 20 years into the contract, we/I still need to pay the FMV to take ownership, which Tesla could continue to define as high due to continued income streams, even though the solar system is antiquated and valueless on the open market. The way I read the contract, it appears the contract and payments to Tesla get renewed if you do not take ownership. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had read this contract more closely 10 years ago, I would have at least asked for a better definition of how FMV is evaluated. It is an open invitation to overcharge the homeowner. I also would have looked for an &quot;opt out&quot; close from arbitration. You lose too much control and turn things over to someone that is paid by Tesla, so they are not really independent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12553" RevisionGUID="40f84a03-099d-4414-9978-8279f28b0804" CreationDate="2023-04-04T20:33:14.827" UserId="14843" Comment="added 63 characters in body" Text="I am in a similar state, having the same high FMV estimate from Tesla and a 10 year old solar system, with 10 years left on the 20 year contract. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 methods to value your site:   A) The system income string, or B) The system asset resale value on the open market. It appears Tesla is mainly using method A. The income string has two components: 1) your payments to Tesla, and 2) the renewable credits the utility pays to Tesla, which may be notable. In my case, Tesla gets about $1300/yr from me directly, and about $400/yr from the local utility for the RECs. The varying FMV based on A) vs. B) gives a huge variation in the FMV of your system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Solar City / Tesla contract does not define which of these methods is to be used in how FMV is evaluated. There is a line in the contract (that you show in your post) that says interests of the Financing Party shall not be taken into account in determining FMV. This is a vague line; is Tesla the Financing Party, and hence their income string should not be used for FMV? A judge may say Tesla's income stream cannot be used, but if you look at your Solar City contract, you committed to arbitration for all disputes and you cannot participate in a class action suit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am temped to go to arbitration to get a re-evaluation of the FMV using asset value process B). However, it appears the independent arbitrator is actually hired by Tesla, so you can guess how really independent they are, so I have low expectations. I suspect the &quot;independent arbitrator&quot; is in the camp of favoring Tesla, in a similar manner as the &quot;independent appraiser&quot; Tesla uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I asked Tesla for an independent appraisal of the FMV, I get an email saying Tesla already hired an &quot;independent&quot; appraiser, and that is where the payoff amount they gave me came from. I was told I am not allowed to know who the appraiser is nor am I allowed see the specific equations and process they used to find the FMV. When I asked to discuss that more, Tesla would not respond to my emails or give me a means to call.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related note, it may be beneficial to push this now rather than at the end of your contract. Note that even at 20 years into the contract, we/I still need to pay the FMV to take ownership, which Tesla could continue to define as high due to continued income streams, even though the solar system is antiquated and valueless on the open market. The way I read the contract, it appears the contract and payments to Tesla get renewed if you do not take ownership. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had read this contract more closely 10 years ago, I would have at least asked for a better definition of how FMV is evaluated. It is an open invitation to overcharge the homeowner. I also would have looked for an &quot;opt out&quot; clause from arbitration. You lose too much control and turn things over to someone that is paid by Tesla, so they are not really independent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12556" RevisionGUID="b015947f-74f1-4af6-a2ef-cdb6787ea531" CreationDate="2023-04-04T20:55:17.237" UserId="6925" Text="Reuse &gt; recycle &gt; discard&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;Put up on Craigslist and Freecycle to see if anyone wants it. Facebook Marketplace is also a popular place now. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take what you can to Goodwill/Salvation Army, though honestly, this can be a burden to them if it's not saleable or if it's stuff they have a glut of. The fact is, America is just swimming in &quot;stuff&quot; - we have more of it than we know what to do with.  As a rule, people buy new for everything, so what good is used stuff? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Familiarize yourself with your local recycling rules and do not throw anything in a recycle bin that is not on the list*. Starting right now, **never miss an opportunity to absolutely fill your recycle bins**.  In fact if a nearby town has drive-up recycling (where you can throw legal recylables in a public bin) take full advantage of that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When the above is exhausted, never miss an opportunity to fill a trash bin that you have a right to fill. Trash costs *somebody* money to dispose of: Do not steal bin space. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Finally talk to the storage site operator about options - this happens all the time, they know what to do. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32261" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12553" RevisionGUID="7962f42f-45ca-4a1c-b70f-71b69433ca06" CreationDate="2023-04-04T21:14:26.723" UserId="14843" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="I am in a similar state, having the same high FMV estimate from Tesla and a 10 year old solar system, with 10 years left on the 20 year contract. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are 2 methods to value your site:   A) The system income string, or B) The system asset resale value on the open market. It appears Tesla is mainly using method A. The income string has two components: 1) your payments to Tesla, and 2) the renewable credits the utility pays to Tesla, which may be notable. In my case, Tesla gets about $1300/yr from me directly, and about $400/yr from the local utility for the RECs. The varying FMV based on A) vs. B) gives a huge variation in the FMV of your system. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Solar City / Tesla contract does not define which of these methods is to be used in how FMV is evaluated. There is a line in the contract (that you show in your post) that says interests of the Financing Party shall not be taken into account in determining FMV. This is a vague line; is Tesla the Financing Party, and hence their income string should not be used for FMV? A judge may say Tesla's income stream cannot be used, but if you look at your Solar City contract, you committed to arbitration for all disputes and you cannot participate in a class action suit. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am temped to go to arbitration to get a re-evaluation of the FMV using asset value process B). However, it appears the independent arbitrator is actually hired by Tesla, so you can guess how really independent they are, so I have low expectations. I suspect the &quot;independent arbitrator&quot; is in the camp of favoring Tesla, in a similar manner as the &quot;independent appraiser&quot; Tesla uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I asked Tesla for an independent appraisal of the FMV, I get an email saying Tesla already hired an &quot;independent&quot; appraiser, and that is where the payoff amount they gave me came from. I was told I am not allowed to know who the appraiser is nor am I allowed see the specific equations and process they used to find the FMV. When I asked to discuss that more, Tesla would not respond to my emails or give me a means to call.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A related note, it may be beneficial to push this now rather than at the end of your contract. At the end of your contract, if you do not have Tesla remove the cells and leave you with a damaged roof, you are faced with either renewing the PPA at an increasing payment level to Tesla (see contract; you pay them 90% of average utility bill, god knows how they figure that number), or paying the FMV. There is a risk of them overstating the FMV at that point based on the continued income stream that will happen if they do not remove the cells. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I had read this contract more closely 10 years ago, I would have at least asked for a better definition of how FMV is evaluated. It is an open invitation to overcharge the homeowner. I also would have looked for an &quot;opt out&quot; clause from arbitration. You lose too much control and turn things over to someone that is paid by Tesla, so they are not really independent. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32262" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12557" RevisionGUID="9ca268ce-c394-4400-80aa-e10aae539aeb" CreationDate="2023-04-06T07:34:56.480" UserId="14852" Text="The spacecraft gain energy mainly because it do not &quot;return&quot; back in the place where the gravitational effect is applied, otherwise the &quot;slingshot effect&quot; would not be effective. So, in the earth, you can use &quot;potential energy&quot; when you have a differential height, but if you want to return to the initial position you must spend the same amount of energy to close the loop. Tidal energy is an exception, because the system sun-moon-earth is creating and subtracting energy to the sea in form of &quot;waves&quot;, and you can steal energy on each front (rising or falling) of the waves, giving the sun-moon-earth is not returning on the same exact position as before after each wave cycle." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32269" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12559" RevisionGUID="755fc533-663c-4e26-9852-e44a27f86abd" CreationDate="2023-04-16T16:43:52.820" UserId="14876" Text="The article you say confirms that propane produces the same toxicity and off-gassing as natural gas does not appear to be research related to cooking ranges.  The article refers to &quot;jet pools&quot; of ignited materials, and done outdoor with burners that are not designed or operated for maximum burn efficiency, as range burners are.  A simple Google search indicated that natural gas is classified &quot;low toxicity&quot; while propane is &quot;non-toxic&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure why you feel the need to discredit propane as a cooking fuel, but in point of fact, it appears to be substantially less polluting tha n. gas. You also mention that propane suppliers rarely sell a 100% clean product, which can cause pollutants, but you include no data to substantiate that claim, such as measurements taken in different parts of the country from different suppliers." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32271" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12541" RevisionGUID="94f3e1fd-aeab-4c91-9e40-ee1ee91b9a28" CreationDate="2023-04-17T13:01:25.150" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32276" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="9f1dbf22-b3f6-44cc-a530-a8cd2a98f23c" CreationDate="2023-04-20T22:35:54.887" UserId="2942" Text="A simple wood frame is going up over some infrastructure in a farm field (a device with a motor in a sealed weather-resistant stainless-steel box). This wood frame is meant to help protect against sun, rain and wind. What is the best siding for the environment and long-term functionality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some not so great options I considered: Woven plastic tarps seem like a short-sighted option, I hate those plastic bits flying around as they fall apart in a few years. Canvas tarp might be better but less weather resistant and will rot eventually anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for the promising options: Wood boards are a more accessible option for me, easy for me to screw on plank shingles or broad sheets. Wood will rot but this structure is somewhat impermanent as you can see from the sketchy design, eventually something better will be setup, and I'd hope the wood would be ok for a few years and then rot and store carbon. Metal is the most long-term option but not sure it's more environmentally friendly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a pic of what I'm assembling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![pic of wood frame from angle][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![wood frame from side][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's shabby but will be functional for this purpose, and it needs to be assembled during a relatively short visit in the field, quick and easy moving materials with a pickup truck. The more weatherproof the siding, the better - this needs to withstand heavy rain, heavy (1ft+) snow loads, zone 4 winters, heavy wind from one side (the other side has a forested windbreak). I'm just asking about **what siding is the most sustainable option, also considering replacement intervals and lifecycle impacts.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EbP6g.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fOhFV.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32278" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="9f1dbf22-b3f6-44cc-a530-a8cd2a98f23c" CreationDate="2023-04-20T22:35:54.887" UserId="2942" Text="Siding for weather resistant cover over outdoor equipment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32279" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="9f1dbf22-b3f6-44cc-a530-a8cd2a98f23c" CreationDate="2023-04-20T22:35:54.887" UserId="2942" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|building-materials|construction|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32286" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12563" RevisionGUID="0123a1d3-2865-49f6-8a5d-c032a748e01f" CreationDate="2023-04-22T01:23:54.450" UserId="14857" Text="I wanted to find out if rubbing alcohol is truly considered eco. I know it is biodegradable and more eco than many of its substitutes, however I have also read it is closely related to acetone. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32288" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12563" RevisionGUID="0123a1d3-2865-49f6-8a5d-c032a748e01f" CreationDate="2023-04-22T01:23:54.450" UserId="14857" Text="is rubbing alcohol considered eco?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32289" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12563" RevisionGUID="0123a1d3-2865-49f6-8a5d-c032a748e01f" CreationDate="2023-04-22T01:23:54.450" UserId="14857" Text="|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32294" PostHistoryTypeId="19" PostId="11839" RevisionGUID="6f27780a-bb65-4f3c-8581-c5d7085aa660" CreationDate="2023-04-28T21:52:13.987" UserId="-1" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:-1,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Community&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32296" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="0701af00-4650-4b28-a18d-c6f12e98a9a0" CreationDate="2023-04-30T03:09:11.107" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32297" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="7dde1db3-8aea-4318-87ef-087f2541813a" CreationDate="2023-05-03T17:01:30.160" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32299" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12565" RevisionGUID="d530cc70-448e-4547-b6e6-9b12674c954d" CreationDate="2023-05-04T05:58:45.280" UserId="14908" Text="The stuffing in a bottle is also a problem from a recycling perspective in the UK as mixes the plastics. However the principle of stuffing in a tube is good. I use a capped piece of drainpipe. Super compact and once stuffed full you can push into a bag for trip to recycling bin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32301" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12565" RevisionGUID="2d8aef7b-3981-4fa7-b42d-bd1eca504cd5" CreationDate="2023-05-04T06:00:02.450" UserId="14908" Comment="edited body" Text="The stuffing in a bottle is also a problem in the UK from a recycling perspective as mixes the plastics. However the principle of stuffing in a tube is good. I use a capped piece of drainpipe. Super compact and once stuffed full you can push into a bag for trip to recycling bin. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32302" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12566" RevisionGUID="d32e7da4-0e3a-4314-ba64-64f7aebf2fed" CreationDate="2023-05-05T14:21:19.947" UserId="5440" Text="I'm orienting myself on buying an extra (small) freezer on top of the limited amount of freezer space I already have in my fridge/freezer combination, so I can more easily cook and store fresh produce that usually comes in 'big' portions, like cabbages, instead of always buying the more expensive (and more unsustainable) pre-cut/washed stuff in little plastic bags. But before I do so, I do want to make sure the costs of the energy it will use and the initial investment won't take years to earn itself back. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can easily find the estimated energy usage on the EU Energy Labels these appliances are sold with, but I can't find on what kind of usage those labels are based. Any explainer I found states that the number is based on an 'average' usage, which means I'm expecting they are likely to be based on some kind of 'perfect' test conditions, which are unlikely to resemble the actual usage I have planned for it. I want to put this freezer in a shed, which means hot summers and cold (but rarely freezing) winters, and I will probably be opening it at least once a day, more often in summer to get myself some ice cream. I doubt it will always be entirely filled, and I don't plan on keeping around a bunch of styrofoam blocks to fill up any nook/cranny anytime I take something out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I can't find anything on Google when searching for 'freezer energy label test conditions' that gives a quick overview of what the used testing conditions would be, which would allow me to compare the result of that test to my expected usage of the freezer and make a more accurate calculation of how fast the freezer will have paid itself off. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**What 'average' conditions are used to test the energy usage of freezers for a EU energy label?** &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32304" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12566" RevisionGUID="d32e7da4-0e3a-4314-ba64-64f7aebf2fed" CreationDate="2023-05-05T14:21:19.947" UserId="5440" Text="What 'average' conditions are used to test the energy usage of freezers for a EU energy label?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32305" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12566" RevisionGUID="d32e7da4-0e3a-4314-ba64-64f7aebf2fed" CreationDate="2023-05-05T14:21:19.947" UserId="5440" Text="|energy-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32314" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="f3223160-3aa8-4287-8e32-127f98a17dae" CreationDate="2023-05-17T12:10:46.247" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32315" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12569" RevisionGUID="73832450-589a-4c45-aaaa-0f69807a4e0e" CreationDate="2023-05-18T13:05:12.430" UserId="14857" Text="I found this site that seems to have good credentials that lists [Isopropyl Alcohol](https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredients/703198-ISOPROPYL_ALCOHOL/)  and [Ethanol](https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredients/702285-ETHANOL/) as being fairly low on the scale for toxicity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I also read both are biodegradable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32321" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12571" RevisionGUID="2f65b1d2-4b3a-4813-b668-3750cdde8bfc" CreationDate="2023-05-19T08:22:00.347" UserId="14935" Text="Something to think about; while recycling (I'd say) is the better option (as long as the paper doesn't have grease etc), a large percentage ends up in landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So is it better to recycle everything you can and have some sit in landfill but others save overall resources by being recycled? Or is it better to compost, so you know 100% of the paper is staying out of landfill?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Personally I think it's worth looking up how much recycling in your area, actually gets recycled." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32324" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12572" RevisionGUID="deb48bad-72a2-47f1-b219-1aa44fb4b1de" CreationDate="2023-05-24T09:50:45.753" UserId="13543" Text="&#xD;&#xA;A few months later after I asked this question, I read [this Guardian article](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/24/recycled-plastic-more-toxic-no-fix-pollution-greenpeace-warns):  Greenpeace also criticizes plastic recycling, even saying that it is incompatible with circular economy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;the toxicity of plastic actually increases with recycling. Plastics have no place in a circular economy and it’s clear that the only real solution to ending plastic pollution is to massively reduce plastic production.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the 1950s about 8bn tonnes of plastic has been produced. The Greenpeace report catalogues peer-reviewed research and international studies showing not only that just a tiny proportion (9%) of plastics are ever recycled, but also that those that are end up with higher concentrations of toxic chemicals, multiplying their potential harm to human, animal and environmental health.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Simply put, plastic poisons the circular economy and our bodies, and pollutes air, water and food. We should not recycle plastics that contain toxic chemicals. Real solutions to the plastics crisis will require global controls on chemicals in plastics and significant reductions in plastic production.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So according to this Greenpeace report, plastic recycling only serves as an excuse for the plastic industry to keep increasing production, even though the impact of recycling is essentially negative.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32326" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12561" RevisionGUID="c546bd6e-4ac6-4afb-bad2-81513746e313" CreationDate="2023-05-25T01:15:06.943" UserId="2942" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="A simple wood frame is going up over some infrastructure in a farm field (a device with a motor in a sealed weather-resistant stainless-steel box). This wood frame is meant to help protect against sun, rain and wind. What is the best siding for the environment and long-term functionality?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some not so great options I considered: Woven plastic tarps seem like a short-sighted option, I hate those plastic bits flying around as they fall apart in a few years. Canvas tarp might be better but less weather resistant and will rot eventually anyway. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now for the promising options: Wood boards are a more accessible option for me, easy for me to screw on plank shingles or broad sheets. Wood will rot but this structure is somewhat impermanent as you can see from the sketchy design, eventually something better will be setup, and I'd hope the wood would be ok for a few years, storing carbon while it stands and even when it's too weathered, eventually rotting harmlessly or maybe into something useful (soil, biochar). Metal is the most long-term option but not sure it's more environmentally friendly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a pic of what I'm assembling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![pic of wood frame from angle][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![wood frame from side][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's shabby but will be functional for this purpose, and it needs to be assembled during a relatively short visit in the field, quick and easy moving materials with a pickup truck. The more weatherproof the siding, the better - this needs to withstand heavy rain, heavy (1ft+) snow loads, zone 4 winters, heavy wind from one side (the other side has a forested windbreak). I'm just asking about **what siding is the most sustainable option, also considering replacement intervals and lifecycle impacts.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/EbP6g.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/fOhFV.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32327" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12573" RevisionGUID="e68d01f6-d486-48e2-b2fa-8e80ec4e1cc9" CreationDate="2023-05-26T14:32:42.370" UserId="14949" Text="I was trying to calculate POA value at a solar plant for my Data Science project. I need to get the foretasted POA value up to next two days. I just have seen that their is a python tool called pvlib; which gives the POA value if I give inputs timezone, latitude, longitude, date, tilt and surface azimuth angle. Here is the [code](https://pvlib-python.readthedocs.io/en/stable/gallery/irradiance-transposition/plot_ghi_transposition.html) to get GHI and POA values in a time-series format of a day. But if **I set the date from a very long future like from 2053, then still it gives me output**. I think **POA value depends on the weather data like Solar Radiation etc**. Obviously we can not forecast weather after such long time. Then still why it gives any output. My background is computer science and Mathematics, have almost no knowledge in this domain, so may be my question may not be sound well researched.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it would be extremely helpful to me if I get **exact formulation to calculate POA from timezone, latitude, longitude, date, solar radiation, tilt and surface azimuth angle** or API link to get **historical POA and forecasted POA** value." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32329" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12573" RevisionGUID="e68d01f6-d486-48e2-b2fa-8e80ec4e1cc9" CreationDate="2023-05-26T14:32:42.370" UserId="14949" Text="Understanding the irradiance on a panel or Plane of Array (POA) value from Python pvlib" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32330" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12573" RevisionGUID="e68d01f6-d486-48e2-b2fa-8e80ec4e1cc9" CreationDate="2023-05-26T14:32:42.370" UserId="14949" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32332" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12574" RevisionGUID="ab45d180-e14a-47da-a0dd-18520abad2b2" CreationDate="2023-05-29T08:02:29.080" UserId="14949" Text="pvlib gives POA for clear-sky condition only; does not include any weather data for this estimation, uses only plant location, time and plant configuration. Clear sky POA is not same as actual POA." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32334" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12575" RevisionGUID="a3951539-e041-48ec-a5d7-0a94223aa47b" CreationDate="2023-05-29T08:56:02.680" UserId="14517" Text="For a few years, wood treated with flaxseed/linseed oil is probably one of the more sustainable options out there. It should last for the time required, and should be entirely bio-degradable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Other alternatives to a large extent depends on the use. Aluminium would certainly last a few years, and is easily recyclable - but it requires some energy. If you however can reuse the aluminium for other purposes without re-melting it, it's a very good alternative." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32336" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12576" RevisionGUID="11535ce2-11e6-441e-8366-83fa617617ba" CreationDate="2023-05-29T12:41:58.710" UserId="13767" Text="I was surprised when I went to go buy some new rechargable batteries to see non-rechargable AA and AAA batteries advertised as containing lithium. I assumed this was wasting material that should be put into lithium-ion batteries. I can't find anyone discussing this after a few web searches, although the keywords are a bit busy as there is an active discussion happening all over about better recycling of rechargable lithium-ion batteries. I'm pretty ignorant about chemistry, is the fact that this is isn't being discussed as simple as lithium-ion batteries require a particular isotope of lithium that needs to be isolated, similar to how most uranium ore isn't useful for nuclear power and we need to isolate the isotope that is useful? And then maybe these disposable batteries are using a up a bunch of spare boring lithium?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32338" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12576" RevisionGUID="11535ce2-11e6-441e-8366-83fa617617ba" CreationDate="2023-05-29T12:41:58.710" UserId="13767" Text="Do Energizer ultimate lithium disposable batteries waste supply that should be used on rechargable batteries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32339" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12576" RevisionGUID="11535ce2-11e6-441e-8366-83fa617617ba" CreationDate="2023-05-29T12:41:58.710" UserId="13767" Text="|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32340" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12577" RevisionGUID="0e086798-9bbe-4cba-9aa8-6b22c048de21" CreationDate="2023-05-29T16:10:03.980" UserId="6393" Text="No. Lithium is chemically lithium, no matter what the isotope. Uranium has two isotopes, U-235 and U-238. Out of these U-235 is fissile and U-238 is fertile. Current reactors only can use U-235 so the uranium needs to be enriched since 0.7% U-235 in natural uranium isn't enough. Better reactors can utilize the U-238 too by breeding it into plutonium.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium has many isotopes. Some of them can be used to create tritium (isotope of hydrogen) for future fusion reactors. However, I believe fusion is a stupid idea not only because the isotope of lithium needed for tritium creation is very rare, and also because a fusion reactor requires far more engineering than a plutonium breeder fission reactor would require. Also, uranium can be extracted from seawater and a reactor that utilizes all of it (including the U-238) won't be economically harmed by the higher cost of seawater extraction. So breeder reactors have enough fuel for at least billion years, probably even more, until the time the Sun starts to run out of fuel and ingests Earth. After that, we won't be needing any more electricity on this planet since the planet will be no more. About 20 years ago, plutonium breeder reactor seemed like the best idea for green future. Today, wind and solar power are so cheap it makes more sense to utilize these and use pumped hydropower and underground hydrogen storage for energy storage. I don't think any kind of nuclear reactor can compete with that anymore since wind and solar are today so cheap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But about lithium usage in batteries, they depend on the chemical not the nuclear properties of lithium. So they use all of the isotopes, no need for isotope separation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true that AA, AAA and 9V lithium batteries may be bit stupid since alkaline is so much cheaper and doesn't need any rare elements. If those AA, AAA or 9V lithium batteries won't be recycled it's a genuine waste of lithium. Recycling is possible, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's calculate a little bit. The global alkaline battery market is about ~10 billion USD (rough order-of-magnitude value). A single AA cell costs maybe 0.3 USD so there are 33 billion batteries sold per year. The lithium content of Energizer AA lithium cell is &quot;less than 1 gram&quot;, let's assume it means 0.8 grams. This means if all AA cells would be lithium cells, 26400 tonnes of lithium is needed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Lithium reserves are 16 million tonnes. So in about 600 years, with no recycling, if all AA batteries were lithium, the lithium would be consumed fully. But then the price of lithium would increase and some of the current resources will become reserves (we have 89 million tonnes of lithium resources so if all of those become reserves we have enough lithium for over 3300 years).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In reality only a very small percentage of AA batteries have lithium, a significant percentage of cells are AAA cells (that cost about the same but have far less lithium), and recycling is a possibility.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I won't say the lithium cells absolutely ruin our future green targets. In some cases such as coin cells the usage of lithium makes sense. But in AA, using lithium is in my opinion just a little bit stupid. It's expensive and it wastes lithium unless recycled. The percentage of AA cells having lithium is so small that I'm not even sure if recycling is easy, but then again if the percentage is small it means lithium waste is small, too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32346" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12579" RevisionGUID="795bb4a1-2b36-4617-828e-67e437b9d9ec" CreationDate="2023-06-09T11:25:55.730" UserId="3653" Text="Washing solar panels is sometimes recommended by some third party companies but it involves monetary and environmental costs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it beneficial? I compared the ratio production over insolation the week before and after a friend washed his labels for the first time in 5 years and I couldn't see any meaningful difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it needed to ensure their long life? Are there studies about it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And is it mandatory to ensure that insurances will pay in case of damage by fire? In my contract the insurance states that regular maintenance should be performed but there's nothing in the documentation by the company providing the panels about it." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32348" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12579" RevisionGUID="795bb4a1-2b36-4617-828e-67e437b9d9ec" CreationDate="2023-06-09T11:25:55.730" UserId="3653" Text="Is washing solar panels useful/needed/mandatory?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32349" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12579" RevisionGUID="795bb4a1-2b36-4617-828e-67e437b9d9ec" CreationDate="2023-06-09T11:25:55.730" UserId="3653" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|cleaning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32352" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12581" RevisionGUID="8998c84b-4d66-4984-bd7c-4b7c34cef53c" CreationDate="2023-06-11T06:25:23.707" UserId="14965" Text=" Where can one obtain mailing envelopes which are more sustainably sourced than usual?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32354" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12581" RevisionGUID="8998c84b-4d66-4984-bd7c-4b7c34cef53c" CreationDate="2023-06-11T06:25:23.707" UserId="14965" Text="What is a sustainable source of mailing envelopes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32355" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12581" RevisionGUID="8998c84b-4d66-4984-bd7c-4b7c34cef53c" CreationDate="2023-06-11T06:25:23.707" UserId="14965" Text="|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32356" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12582" RevisionGUID="69f147e5-4ec8-4a07-9f05-2d769f60ad06" CreationDate="2023-06-11T07:04:47.083" UserId="14965" Text="#  # &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following practice is ***not*** 100% sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the practice is **more** sustainable than what a lot of people do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given two practices **p1** and **p2** we can say that practice **p1** is more sustainable than **p2** in the same way that given buildings we can say which building is taller than the other building (via relativistic comparison) in spite of the fact that niether building is an element of the aet of all tall buildings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Use *used* shipping supplies**    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Purchase (or make) a large box or bin for shipping supplies.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you recieve a box, or envelope, remove the item you purchased from the package you recieved.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place the **used** empty bubble mailer, used box, and/or used packaging material inside of your bin for shipping supplies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mass of materials required to preserve, and store, used packaging materials is less than or equal to the mass of materials required to preserve, and store, new packaging materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a warehouse full of used cardboard boxes has the same amount of steel framing as a warehouse full of newly manufactured boxes.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever you wish to mail, or ship, an item to another peraon, then place your item inaide of the used box or used envelope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Addendum on Tape #   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main point was that using **used** mailing and shipping products is more environmentally sustainable than using *new* products, relativly speaking.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The envelopes can be re-sealed with tape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kraft tape, which is made of of paper and water-activated adhesive, is **more** sustainable than tape with a plastic backing or plastic substrate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rate at which most vegetation grows is faster than the rate at which black petroleum oil forms from dead algea and small ocean animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rate at which perrenial trees (and the annual plants used to create linseed linen, grow back) is greater than the rate at which petroleum finishes forming from dead plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic tape sourced from petroleum is less sustainable than paper or line tape sourced from perennial trees or annual plants.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32358" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12583" RevisionGUID="93ea5284-65ab-4681-b18d-b777b720891e" CreationDate="2023-06-11T07:11:39.457" UserId="14965" Text="You asked about moving out of an apartment of house. If you are in the United States, then take the items you do not want to the ARC Thrift Store or to Good Will. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32360" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12584" RevisionGUID="7840ea81-3872-4083-8c9c-6bd83018414a" CreationDate="2023-06-11T14:06:11.973" UserId="14965" Text="#   #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given two courses of action **a1** and **a2**, there exist times such that we can classify action **a1** as more sustainable than **a2** ( relativly speaking ).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that one of the two actions is to put peanut butter jars in the trash. By &quot;trash&quot;, I mean that the co tents of the trash bin will be transported to a landfill or garage dump. In this context, the phrase &quot;put in the trash&quot; does not have the same meaning, or assosiarion with touchable visual objects, as put &quot;put in a recycling bin&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What action is more sustainable than &quot;put the peanut butter jar in the trash&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing it terms of relativistic comparisons on hyman behaviors regardi g pea ut butter jars, not absolutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This relativistic sustainability concept is related to [ordered sets][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ordered sets are relatedto idea that 10 &lt; 17, or 3 less than 9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following sequence of tasks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *  SML = (form plastic pellets from stock, compress plastic pellets inside auger untill molten, mold molten pellets into a peanut butter jar)    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *  BIG = (refine petroleum into plastc stock, form plastic pellets from stock, compress plastic pellets inside auger untill molten, mold molten pellets into a peanut butter jar) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One set of tasks is smaller than the other set of tasks. SML ⊂ BIG. We so not need to sum up total energy expended when the set of tasks in one procedure is a subset of the tasks in the other procedure. In other cases, we can compare only the things which are different in terms of ordered sets or less-than-or-equals binary relations.( ≤ ). Composting a banana peel is more environmentally friendly than throwing the banana peel into a trash can, relativistically speaking caeteris paribus. In this context, &quot;caeteris paribus&quot; means that you do not drive a car with a banana peel from Los Angeles, CA to Denver, Colorado in order to out the banana peel inside of a composting bin. All bananas are tra sported long distances using fossil fuels, but which practice is more environmentally friendly (relatvly speaking), when it comes to peanut butter jars than putting the jar in the trash?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_ordered_set" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32362" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12584" RevisionGUID="7840ea81-3872-4083-8c9c-6bd83018414a" CreationDate="2023-06-11T14:06:11.973" UserId="14965" Text="What is more sustainable than putting peanut butter jars in the trash?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32363" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12584" RevisionGUID="7840ea81-3872-4083-8c9c-6bd83018414a" CreationDate="2023-06-11T14:06:11.973" UserId="14965" Text="|reuse|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32364" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12585" RevisionGUID="52271dd8-61f4-4ae1-81f8-b1ac33d951e4" CreationDate="2023-06-11T14:36:11.657" UserId="14965" Text="Reusing the peanut butter jar for bread flour is more sustainable and environementally friendly than  putting the jar in the trash and purchasing a newly made container for bread flour or other dry kitchen goods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following photographs from the inside of my domicile act as a analogies to the statement given above. In the photographs, there exist depictions of containers which are not plastic jars originally used for peanut butter. In other photogrpahs, we feature plastic peanut butter jars containing metal screws instead of bread flour. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![a peanut butter jar containing a smattering handfull if steel machine screws][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![a glass jar containing corn meal treated with lye or calcium hydroxide. The jar used to contain peaches. The glass jar was not in a landill or grbage dump as of the year 2023 and month of June. Nobody has to make a second glass jar for me in a factory because I reused an old glass jar][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![a plastic jar containing rice][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Relativly speaking***, re-using a plastic jar to store dry rice is more sustainable than throwing the old plastic jar in the trash and buying a new empty jar from Amazon or the container store and storing dry rice inside of the new container. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The container depictwd here used to contain red chili pepper powder and [saurkraut][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eating rice in North America is not very sustainable when there are more than 8 billion human persons on Earth. Eating Amranthe seeds might be more sustainable in North America than rice.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mmGVS.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5tKcH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sYBXF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauerkraut" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32367" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12586" RevisionGUID="bf8f2cec-9415-4657-a65b-f80ee9cf8cf6" CreationDate="2023-06-12T05:18:50.710" UserId="3653" Text="I personally calculated the ratio energy to insolation for a friend's home system with shallow angle (15°) in the Netherlands after they got cleaned them for the first time in 5 years and there was no discernible improvement. The uncertainty is about 2% so the improvement must be lower than that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Conclusion: it is extremely system and location dependent." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32369" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12587" RevisionGUID="b7dea6cd-a4d2-4d14-bff7-3d82f87fd7ef" CreationDate="2023-06-12T17:46:35.497" UserId="14965" Text="Glass (silicon oxide) is sourced from two types of places on Earth:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Quartz mines featuring large white colored boulders.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Sand deposits.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quartz mines are somtimes mined more often than the sand deposits. In any event, large machines powered by diesel fuel engines, are used to move massive amounts of raw material from one place to another.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Men and women work long hours driving trucks full of mined quartz to factories where the quartz is ground into dust, refined (some impurities are removed) and the quartz is melted melted and molded into water tumblers and other Drinking glasses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Americans, British persons, German persons, and many people living in affluent societies use these glass drinking vessels for orange juice, water, and other beverages.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relativly speaking, what is more &quot;green&quot;, environmentally friendly, os sustainable in the long-run:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Buying food (spaghetti sauce, olives, stawberry jam, salsa,  etc...) in glass jars; throwing glass jars into a recycling bin; and buying water glasses from a store.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Buying food (spaghetti sauce, olives, stawberry jam, salsa,  etc...) in glass jars; re-using glass jars for water; and ***never*** buying water glasses from a store.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32371" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12587" RevisionGUID="b7dea6cd-a4d2-4d14-bff7-3d82f87fd7ef" CreationDate="2023-06-12T17:46:35.497" UserId="14965" Text="Does there exist a more sustainable alternative to buying water glasses for your kitchen or dining room?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32372" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12587" RevisionGUID="b7dea6cd-a4d2-4d14-bff7-3d82f87fd7ef" CreationDate="2023-06-12T17:46:35.497" UserId="14965" Text="|reuse|glass|reduce|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32376" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12589" RevisionGUID="5ac0b25d-580f-4870-bec3-69710d3d0f9d" CreationDate="2023-06-14T00:46:59.777" UserId="8232" Text="Glass as a material can ([mostly][1]) be infinitely recycled - broken glass can be re-melted and re-formed into other glass products with practically 0 loss of quality. Thus, for glass cups and jars that have reached their end of life, it's perfectly ok for them to be recycled. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the recycling process IS energy intensive, thus from a sustainability standpoint it makes sense to delay sending glass to this process as long as possible. In other words, **Reduce** and **Reuse** first. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One way to reduce the use of (new) glass jars, is to buy in bulk from markets or wholesalers. There also might be wholesalers or eco-friendly markets in your local area that will refill jars and containers for you, especially for products like olives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To directly answer your question: *Is there an alternative to buying water glasses?*, you could potentially repurpose glass jars (as you've mentioned in your answer). Another alternative is to purchase used glasses/cups/mugs from second-hand or thrift stores.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-22/can-all-glass-really-be-recycled-war-on-waste/8541048" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32378" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12590" RevisionGUID="4b0ecdc5-0ad6-409f-aab3-ea16bddb7921" CreationDate="2023-06-15T15:50:17.130" UserId="2846" Text="Of course you can drink from glass packaging, but I propose a third option: treat the packaging as packaging (recycle, or reuse for storage), and buy drinking glasses second hand from charity shops / thrift stores, flea markets or similar.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're still not causing a product to be made, you get something that's more decorative (I have a shelf full of odd wine glasses, bought this way), and you get something that's better to drink from. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Drinking from a jar with a screw thread can lead to liquid caught in the thread, and drips on your clothes or surfaces.  That's one thing if you only drink water, and it's easy enough to overcome, but serving an unwary guest red wine in a jam jar isn't to be recommended for this reason.  Note that  &quot;mason jars&quot; sold as drinking glasses often have a lid with a hole for a straw, or lack the screw thread altogether." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32380" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="ffe2f12a-5c51-4ded-aad5-c077dfb12db1" CreationDate="2023-06-16T05:02:35.327" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32384" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12592" RevisionGUID="76b42667-7006-4bbe-8cd3-94cd009c5d73" CreationDate="2023-06-20T12:59:34.147" UserId="15009" Text="It depends on what is fouling the panels, if like us you have Lime trees nearby that drop a sticky residue in summer then you may need to clean the panels more often.&#xD;&#xA;We see a 10-15% gain in power generated immediatley after cleaning the panels when they are dirty.&#xD;&#xA;The angle of the panel in combination with the amount of rainfall will also affect how often the panels will benefit from being cleaned.&#xD;&#xA;To clean the panels we sometimes just spray water on them or if they are heavily fouled we used a telescopic brush designed for cleaning cars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32386" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12593" RevisionGUID="04855956-3eec-4bfb-b9df-7777db9f5b54" CreationDate="2023-06-20T22:23:43.557" UserId="14965" Text="Suppose that you are worried about soap entering the rivers after soapy water goes down the drain. The water from the river might be used to irrigate crops, and then people will eat vegtablea grown from soapy water. In the Great Plains of the United States, the [Ogalala aquifer][1], and other aquifers would be depleted if only water from wells is used to irrigate corn fields and other food crops.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would a school aged child do a science Fair project on the affect of soap on plants? Mainly, we are interested in treated sewage water containing soap and treated sewage water not containing soap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking that if you live in a house in the suburbs, you could water different patches of a lawn with either soapy water or non-soapy water,  ut what are your specific suggestions?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32388" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12593" RevisionGUID="04855956-3eec-4bfb-b9df-7777db9f5b54" CreationDate="2023-06-20T22:23:43.557" UserId="14965" Text="What kind of experiment could be conducted to determine how harmful different kinds of soap are for cleaning floors?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32389" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12593" RevisionGUID="04855956-3eec-4bfb-b9df-7777db9f5b54" CreationDate="2023-06-20T22:23:43.557" UserId="14965" Text="|water|plants|waste-water|greywater|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32391" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8477" RevisionGUID="e56355e8-f647-4504-b3dc-bdb75c1c4634" CreationDate="2023-06-22T06:04:30.590" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32392" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12594" RevisionGUID="32534e62-b6b2-48c1-8a17-d43644c646a1" CreationDate="2023-06-22T12:06:08.247" UserId="15012" Text="Back in the 70's, there was a fashion for converting glass bottles into drinking glasses. It was so pervasive a &quot;thing&quot; that there were several childrens toys that helped you do it. (Hey, it was a different time, OK?) Glass cutting kits are still sold widely - an ebay search for Glass Bottle Cutter brings up dozens.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32394" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12594" RevisionGUID="94a09675-8e19-4b6a-a1b9-29a2fac7d22c" CreationDate="2023-06-22T12:06:35.663" UserId="15012" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="Back in the 70's, there was a fashion for converting glass bottles into drinking glasses. It was so pervasive a &quot;thing&quot; that there were several childrens toys that helped you do it. (Hey, it was a different time, OK?).&#xD;&#xA;Glass cutting kits are still sold widely - an ebay search for Glass Bottle Cutter brings up dozens.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32395" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="3e36df9a-4c16-4271-883f-4f82402c2f18" CreationDate="2023-06-23T13:01:40.223" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32396" PostHistoryTypeId="12" PostId="5804" RevisionGUID="fd41b4fa-7244-4075-bf5a-28dc73603b9f" CreationDate="2023-06-24T13:34:23.080" UserId="5" Comment="via Vote" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:5,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Danubian Sailor&quot;}],&quot;DeleteType&quot;:1}" />
  <row Id="32402" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12596" RevisionGUID="ecae8ecb-c2a6-4a9b-b495-4a499c39bb9d" CreationDate="2023-06-27T19:00:32.767" UserId="15022" Text="I want to research into electrical consumption of air conditioning units. While trying to make a rough estimate of efficiency, found that the btu / h capacity of the specifications does not make sense with the electrical consumption of the unit. For example, one unit reports 12000 btu / h and 950 W of peak energy consumption, but one converts 12000 btu / h and obtains 3516 W of cooling capacity so something feels off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to delve the less I can into the EER or SEER efficiency ratings because I suspect there will be lots of arbitrary decisions or references that will not be helpful enough. Is there a way to know the absolute efficiency of the A / C units (in terms of heat transferred relative to energy usage)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32404" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12596" RevisionGUID="ecae8ecb-c2a6-4a9b-b495-4a499c39bb9d" CreationDate="2023-06-27T19:00:32.767" UserId="15022" Text="Estimating real, overall efficiency of an air conditioning unit" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32405" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12596" RevisionGUID="ecae8ecb-c2a6-4a9b-b495-4a499c39bb9d" CreationDate="2023-06-27T19:00:32.767" UserId="15022" Text="|energy-efficiency|air-conditioning|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32406" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12597" RevisionGUID="b6f4b6ab-1d79-45f9-8f41-16df4c701e96" CreationDate="2023-06-27T19:14:56.947" UserId="15022" Text="If you are planning to do it on a big scale, look into acquiring an FTIR (Fourier Transform Infrared) spectrometer. There are portable ones you can carry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Polypropylene has a remarkably different infrared spectra to the polyethylene spectra so they can be easily distinguished." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32408" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12573" RevisionGUID="85af46ed-8952-4271-9abc-a0b03fd6eb03" CreationDate="2023-06-28T08:09:01.123" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32409" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12598" RevisionGUID="72eada3e-e120-4435-af35-a77c015ba470" CreationDate="2023-06-30T10:02:02.783" UserId="99" Text="Check if there's a refill store nearby that sells peanut butter. We have one in our neighborhood, so every time our glass peanut butter jar is empty we put it in the dishwasher and then we go to the store to have it refilled. The peanuts are crushed on the spot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You reuse and avoid new packaging at the same time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32411" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12599" RevisionGUID="3d4b89ff-3db0-4d58-b4e9-b24b3085b2ec" CreationDate="2023-06-30T15:28:13.697" UserId="9669" Text="The big plastic says we need plastic films to make fresh produce last longer. It seems a bit of a stretch: after all, retailers can just buy less, just as much as they can sell. However, the demand is not totally predictable. Wrapped fruits and vegetables can theoretically &quot;outlast&quot; such dips in demand and have a better chance to find their buyer. However, I don't see any reason for retailers not to offer some huge discounts on overordered produce or just give it away to poor people. It may be not as good for their bottom lines, but it seems pretty sustainable. Can we say goodbye to plastic film without creating massive amounts of additional food waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32413" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12599" RevisionGUID="3d4b89ff-3db0-4d58-b4e9-b24b3085b2ec" CreationDate="2023-06-30T15:28:13.697" UserId="9669" Text="Can we do without plastic film without an explosive growth of food waste?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32414" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12599" RevisionGUID="3d4b89ff-3db0-4d58-b4e9-b24b3085b2ec" CreationDate="2023-06-30T15:28:13.697" UserId="9669" Text="|plastic|food-waste|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32415" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12600" RevisionGUID="1a959ca9-5ccb-4532-a436-560ca933c9f0" CreationDate="2023-06-30T17:31:38.323" UserId="6393" Text="The efficiency of an air conditioning unit is a simple division: divide heat extracted from the cold reservoir by the amount of work it takes to extract that heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that an air conditioning unit is a heat pump. It's the opposite of heat engine. A heat engine moves heat from hot to cold, while generating useful work from that. The useful work will be less than the amount of heat it takes from the hot reservoir.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A heat pump moves heat from cold to hot, while doing work and requiring an external energy source to do that work. The work done will be less than the amount of heat it puts to the hot reservoir. In many cases, it's also the case that the work dine will be less than the amount of heat it takes from the cold reservoir.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The efficiency of either heat engine or heat pump can never exceed the Carnot efficiency. The Carnot efficiencies are the inverses of each other. This explains why a heat pump can have a coefficient of performance of greater than one: a heat engine always has an efficiency of less than one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a heat pump has a coefficient of performance of greater than two, it has an energy efficiency rating of greater than one. EER is simply COP - 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;COP is useful when heat pump is used to create heat, EER is useful when heat pump is used to cool down something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it has 3516 W of cooling capacity for 950 W of heat input, it means it has an EER of 3.7. Perfectly reasonable with today's technology, although this EER is only valid for the measurement conditions: a certain indoor temperature and a certain outdoor temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to save energy, what you want is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A heat pump with EER as big as possible.&#xD;&#xA;* If the heat pump creates so much sound indoors that it's annoying, you might be less annoyed by a continuously-running quieter sound than an intermittent louder sound. So a variable inverter drive for the heat pump is useful. The most expensive units, especially the permanently installed split air conditioners, usually have an inverter drive. Portable units often lack inverter drive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that some definitions of EER perform the division using different units at the dividend and the divisor. This creates a strange number (with units of BTU/(watt-hour)). You shouldn't use such strange numbers, you should divide only watts by watts. But if you see strange-looking EER values, it may be the case that the division uses inconsistent units. Don't contribute to the proliferation of such inconsistent units!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also since we are here interested in sustainability, you might want to consider cooling down your house during night and then turning off the air conditioner during day. This is for several reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Energy efficiency of air conditioners is better when it's hotter indoors and colder outdoors. So during the night, you get the most amount of heat moved for the same amount of electricity used.&#xD;&#xA;2. Electricity is cheaper and more sustainable during the night since there are less electricity users but usually nearly the same amount of electricity generation (with the exception that you obviously lose solar power at night). Fossil fuels are more likely to be burned during daytime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously this strategy requires you having a big enough air conditioner, and it also requires you to tolerate a coolish house during the morning, with temperatures increasing towards the night when the air conditioner is again turned on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32417" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12600" RevisionGUID="c8713db7-5dc9-4d45-b60c-a721a30e0102" CreationDate="2023-06-30T17:41:01.403" UserId="6393" Comment="preferences for AC" Text="The efficiency of an air conditioning unit is a simple division: divide heat extracted from the cold reservoir by the amount of work it takes to extract that heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that an air conditioning unit is a heat pump. It's the opposite of heat engine. A heat engine moves heat from hot to cold, while generating useful work from that. The useful work will be less than the amount of heat it takes from the hot reservoir.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A heat pump moves heat from cold to hot, while doing work and requiring an external energy source to do that work. The work done will be less than the amount of heat it puts to the hot reservoir. In many cases, it's also the case that the work done will be less than the amount of heat it takes from the cold reservoir.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The efficiency of either heat engine or heat pump can never exceed the Carnot efficiency. The Carnot efficiencies are the inverses of each other. This explains why a heat pump can have a coefficient of performance of greater than one: a heat engine always has an efficiency of less than one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a heat pump has a coefficient of performance of greater than two, it has an energy efficiency rating of greater than one. EER is simply COP - 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;COP is useful when heat pump is used to create heat, EER is useful when heat pump is used to cool down something.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If it has 3516 W of cooling capacity for 950 W of heat input, it means it has an EER of 3.7. Perfectly reasonable with today's technology, although this EER is only valid for the measurement conditions: a certain indoor temperature and a certain outdoor temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to save energy, what you want is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A heat pump with EER as big as possible.&#xD;&#xA;* Preferably a split unit as opposed to a unit with evaporator and condenser in the same unit&#xD;&#xA;* If you really have to use a ducted single-unit non-split system, prefer systems with two ducts as opposed to systems that take the air from indoors and blow it hotter to outdoors, since all the air blown outdoors will be replaced by outdoor air, and if it's so hot outdoors that you need air conditioning, you will get a lot of hot outdoor air as replacement air&#xD;&#xA;* If the heat pump creates so much sound indoors that it's annoying, you might be less annoyed by a continuously-running quieter sound than an intermittent louder sound. So a variable inverter drive for the heat pump is useful. The most expensive units, especially the permanently installed split air conditioners, usually have an inverter drive. Portable units often lack inverter drive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note also that some definitions of EER perform the division using different units at the dividend and the divisor. This creates a strange number (with units of BTU/(watt-hour)). You shouldn't use such strange numbers, you should divide only watts by watts. But if you see strange-looking EER values, it may be the case that the division uses inconsistent units. Don't contribute to the proliferation of such inconsistent units!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also since we are here interested in sustainability, you might want to consider cooling down your house during night and then turning off the air conditioner during day. This is for several reasons:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Energy efficiency of air conditioners is better when it's hotter indoors and colder outdoors. So during the night, you get the most amount of heat moved for the same amount of electricity used.&#xD;&#xA;2. Electricity is cheaper and more sustainable during the night since there are less electricity users but usually nearly the same amount of electricity generation (with the exception that you obviously lose solar power at night). Fossil fuels are more likely to be burned during daytime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously this strategy requires you having a big enough air conditioner, and it also requires you to tolerate a coolish house during the morning, with temperatures increasing towards the night when the air conditioner is again turned on." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32418" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12601" RevisionGUID="57a21ad9-0e89-4f47-95f8-e9943f3ad3d4" CreationDate="2023-07-02T02:58:04.023" UserId="108" Text="I am beginning to doubt the obvious answer: in the branches and trunk.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The soil organic carbon (SOC) pool is larger than global vegetation and the atmospheric pool combined  &#xD;&#xA;[source][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forest soils store up to 10 000 times the fungal biomass compared to a field.&#xD;&#xA;[source][2] - not a quote but my interpretation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Fungal biomass stores more carbon than bacterial - source everywhere e.g. the first link above.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How is the carbon typically distributed in a deciduous and in a coniferous forest? Is most of it above or below ground?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01247/full&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.gardenmyths.com/fungal-to-bacterial-ratios/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32420" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12601" RevisionGUID="57a21ad9-0e89-4f47-95f8-e9943f3ad3d4" CreationDate="2023-07-02T02:58:04.023" UserId="108" Text="Where do forests store the carbon?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32421" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12601" RevisionGUID="57a21ad9-0e89-4f47-95f8-e9943f3ad3d4" CreationDate="2023-07-02T02:58:04.023" UserId="108" Text="|carbon-sequestration|forestry|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32422" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12602" RevisionGUID="82fe2cea-cfa5-48b3-92d6-56c7c67884f3" CreationDate="2023-07-02T04:32:57.183" UserId="5824" Text="I just watched the June 9, 2023 DW Planet A video [In-pipe energy: The hydro power nobody is talking about](https://youtu.be/4TBuF5R42Uc). It's a &quot;happy story&quot; video light on data and specifics. There's a demonstration for example of charging a cellphone from a backyard spigot at full throttle. (Don't do that at home!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fairly constant, reliable and significant pressurization of water mains is important for several reasons. It ensures that if/when there are leaks, bad stuff can never get into the water supply, or at least tries to. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [In what situations could &quot;dirty water leak into&quot; municipal water pipes besides a catastrophic loss of pressure?](https://diy.stackexchange.com/q/257292/74089)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course there is viscous friction and sometimes significant height (potential energy) challenges (which are susceptible to air bubble-induced problems).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So pressure in the mains is a *good thing!* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And sometimes we depend on the kinetic energy of exiting water to do some work, like washing things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves me wondering about the following&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** At which points in a pressurized municipal water distribution system are energy-recovering turbines generally placed as part of &quot;in-pipe energy&quot; generation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And why is the inevitable pressure drop due to these turbines during flow not a problem?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32424" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12602" RevisionGUID="82fe2cea-cfa5-48b3-92d6-56c7c67884f3" CreationDate="2023-07-02T04:32:57.183" UserId="5824" Text="At which points in a pressurized municipal water distribution system are energy-recovering turbines placed as part of &quot;in-pipe energy&quot; generation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32425" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12602" RevisionGUID="82fe2cea-cfa5-48b3-92d6-56c7c67884f3" CreationDate="2023-07-02T04:32:57.183" UserId="5824" Text="|water|electricity-generation|water-management|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32426" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12602" RevisionGUID="fc4380b6-566d-4def-824b-63431451abda" CreationDate="2023-07-02T04:38:03.147" UserId="5824" Comment="added 318 characters in body" Text="I just watched the June 9, 2023 DW Planet A video [In-pipe energy: The hydro power nobody is talking about](https://youtu.be/4TBuF5R42Uc). It's a &quot;happy story&quot; video light on data and specifics. There's a demonstration for example of charging a cellphone from a backyard spigot at full throttle. (Don't do that at home!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A fairly constant, reliable and significant pressurization of water mains is important for several reasons. It tries to ensure that if/when there are leaks, bad stuff underground (e.g. nasty microbes, pollutants, dirt) can never get into the water supply.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - [In what situations could &quot;dirty water leak into&quot; municipal water pipes besides a catastrophic loss of pressure?](https://diy.stackexchange.com/q/257292/74089) (the answers are interesting!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And of course there is viscous friction and sometimes significant height (potential energy) challenges (which are susceptible to air bubble-induced problems).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So pressure in the mains is a *good thing!* &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And sometimes we depend on the kinetic energy of exiting water to do some work, like washing things.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This leaves me wondering about the following&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Question:** At which points in a pressurized municipal water distribution system are energy-recovering turbines generally placed as part of &quot;in-pipe energy&quot; generation?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And why is the inevitable pressure drop due to these turbines during flow&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; not a problem?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;There is only a pressure drop when the water is actually flowing. The available power is delta-pressure times area (i.e. force) times velocity. The efficiency of the turbine and its distribution system determines what fraction of that power loss you can recover as electrical power." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32429" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="bb944218-44ab-4ac5-b09a-64b646796202" CreationDate="2023-07-05T13:00:40.083" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32430" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12604" RevisionGUID="ed728c5e-a427-4b75-80c0-f1add08f6732" CreationDate="2023-07-06T04:32:22.127" UserDisplayName="user15047" Text="According to Wikipedia, there has been a global trend of [banning plastic bags](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_bag_ban). But does it really help protect the environment?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the past, I always re-used plastic bags as rubbish bags so I seldom had to buy rubbish bags. Nowadays, I have to buy rubbish bags in the supermarket each month. Is there really any difference? Perhaps others didn't re-use as much as I did?&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32432" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12604" RevisionGUID="ed728c5e-a427-4b75-80c0-f1add08f6732" CreationDate="2023-07-06T04:32:22.127" UserDisplayName="user15047" Text="Does banning plastic bags really protect the environment? I always re-use them as rubbish bags anyway" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32433" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12604" RevisionGUID="ed728c5e-a427-4b75-80c0-f1add08f6732" CreationDate="2023-07-06T04:32:22.127" UserDisplayName="user15047" Text="|environmental-impact|plastic|law|bags|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32434" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12604" RevisionGUID="2403d470-f5d9-4fae-9f72-92eb2747cf81" CreationDate="2023-07-06T04:37:31.633" UserDisplayName="user15047" Comment="edited title" Text="Does banning plastic bags really help protect the environment? I always re-use them as rubbish bags anyway" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32435" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12605" RevisionGUID="e7d149f1-377a-4a85-a7a8-104e1da021fe" CreationDate="2023-07-06T11:23:38.353" UserId="2727" Text="I think the big factor is the trillions of them that were being thrown away into landfills and also winding up in oceans, rivers, and other waterways.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I estimate there were 4 *primary* reasons for this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  1. People obtained more plastic bags than they could use as rubbish bags&#xD;&#xA;  1. Plastic bags used at stores often were not water-tight, making them less than ideal for certain types of rubbish&#xD;&#xA;  1. Many people didn't want to use thin bags for rubbish (although they could be doubled-up with a little effort)&#xD;&#xA;  1. People didn't want to give up their large trash receptacles and use receptacles that would fit the plastic bags offered in stores&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a helpful saying, &quot;Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose, Recycle&quot;.  By reusing them, you managed to do more than most people.  Unfortunately, if they were made of non-biodegradable plastic, they still wound up in a landfill (or accidentally in a waterway) for thousands of years.  They do make biodegradable bags, but they cost stores (and thus consumers) a bit more." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32437" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="00180432-ecc6-43e6-b6c8-8cf0d863487e" CreationDate="2023-07-09T03:06:45.807" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32438" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12606" RevisionGUID="0c2c814f-91c8-41a1-a033-fddcf00702f4" CreationDate="2023-07-09T11:29:35.437" UserId="2846" Text="It would be much easier as well as more informative to use small pots of something fast growing. Cress, for example, though with a plant with bigger seeds you could count them and compare germination rates.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The growing conditions would need to be identical but a tray of pots on a windowsill could be turned round daily.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use commercial or home-made compost (potting soil) as a growth medium. Peat free of course. Ensure water doesn't flow into the tray in such a way that it mixes and soaks into all the pots. Measure the amount of water, soapy or otherwise, so it's the same for each pot. Use a control with tap water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm a (very different sort of) scientist so would want to set up several copies of the experiment, where each copy used the same water mixes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thinking about sewage (and treatment) complicates things. Grey water irrigation is used without treatment though not usually for crops. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32441" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12593" RevisionGUID="c47b6ab0-f74d-4ac1-86f6-63dbbab0d893" CreationDate="2023-07-10T00:45:03.847" UserId="2345" Comment="Correction of typographical errors" Text="Suppose that you are worried about soap entering the rivers after soapy water goes down the drain. The water from the river might be used to irrigate crops, and then people will eat vegtables grown from soapy water. In the Great Plains of the United States, the [Ogalala aquifer][1], and other aquifers would be depleted if only water from wells is used to irrigate corn fields and other food crops.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How would a school aged child do a science Fair project on the affect of soap on plants? Mainly, we are interested in treated sewage water containing soap and treated sewage water not containing soap.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was thinking that if you live in a house in the suburbs, you could water different patches of a lawn with either soapy water or non-soapy water,  but what are your specific suggestions?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32446" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12581" RevisionGUID="85eb6678-376f-4c68-ac05-d283a0042361" CreationDate="2023-07-11T07:07:25.947" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32454" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12609" RevisionGUID="831e6e48-9507-4f6f-898f-1e84a2fdee6d" CreationDate="2023-07-11T17:43:23.253" UserId="4386" Text="We have recently installed a ductless heat pump (Mitsubishi) in some soon-to-be-finished basement space.  It will be used primarily for heating during the winter (we live in Maine).  During the summer, we have always had a few months where we run a dehumidifier in the basement to keep it dry-ish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I would like to use the heat pump in dry mode during the summer rather than running the dehumidifier, as it's one less thing to own and maintain.  My question: **assuming that either is used only for this purpose (not for cooling as well), which will use fewer kWH?**  I know that heat pumps are more efficient than resistance heaters for heating, but I am unclear about how the dehumidification scenario would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, I have tried for the last week or so running the basement heat pump in dry mode, and it seems to be cooling as well and leaving the basement unnecessarily cold (it stays perfectly cool on its own all summer).  I suspect this additional cooling is using more energy than a dehumidifier would.  I wish I had a simple way to measure the kWH consumed by the heat pump...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thanks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32456" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12609" RevisionGUID="831e6e48-9507-4f6f-898f-1e84a2fdee6d" CreationDate="2023-07-11T17:43:23.253" UserId="4386" Text="For dehumidification purposes, does a ductless heat pump use more or less energy than a dehumidifier?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32457" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12609" RevisionGUID="831e6e48-9507-4f6f-898f-1e84a2fdee6d" CreationDate="2023-07-11T17:43:23.253" UserId="4386" Text="|air-conditioning|heat-pump|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32464" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12611" RevisionGUID="3eb66ae8-024d-4343-82bb-ef9449b52642" CreationDate="2023-07-12T17:49:12.507" UserId="3379" Text="**All else being equal, the dehumidifier will be more efficient.**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both devices utilize the same refrigeration cycle (from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump_and_refrigeration_cycle)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;[![Diagram of a heat pump's vapor-compression refrigeration cycle][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Both devices remove moisture from the air at the evaporator (3), where the indoor air passes over a cool heat exchanger, lowering the dew point so that moisture in the air condenses out. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The difference is that the condenser (1) on your heat pump is outside where it's hot, but on your de-humidifier it's inside where it's cool. This means that the heat pump has to work harder to get the refrigerant hotter than the ambient air in order to successfully reject heat outside. The dehumidifier doesn't have to work as hard since it's rejecting the heat indoors where it's already relatively cool.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The main caveat is that a very old, dirty, or poorly maintained dehumidifier might be worse than your brand new heat pump, but I'm assuming your dehumidifier is in good condition.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously a potential downside to this is that the dehumidifier can end up heating the space, but since you say it's already cool enough this isn't an issue for you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are at least two other advantages to using a dehumidifier:&#xD;&#xA; 1. **You can put it in the dampest part of your basement.** Whereas the heat pump will draw air from the entire basement, you can put the dehumidifier in the dampest part of the basement to focus on that.&#xD;&#xA;2. **You can collect the condenser water.** Whereas the heat pump has a drain line, many dehumidifiers have a collection bucket, so you can use the water to [irrigate plants, flush toilets, etc.](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/q/5234/3379)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/SmpOE.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32466" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12612" RevisionGUID="30d41dfd-a585-4583-af3f-7635abf8e717" CreationDate="2023-07-13T04:36:27.153" UserId="15062" Text="I've seen a few papers (like [this][1] and [this][2]) which suggest that fresh pineapple is less co2-intense (also way less fresh water-intense) than canned pineapple in a few different contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these papers don't seem to deal with wastage, storage and transport. It seems to me that canned pineapple might have an advantage in these areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what do you think? Does canned pineapple produce more co2 per calorie than fresh? I'm sure it depends a lot on the specifics. What factors would have the biggest effect on the answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar question: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2713/is-canned-fish-more-sustainable-than-fresh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://neptjournal.com/upload-images/NL-65-15-(13)D-740.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318597918_Evaluation_of_Opportunities_to_Reduce_the_Carbon_Footprint_of_Fresh_and_Canned_Pineapple_Processing_in_Central_Thailand#pf7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32468" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12612" RevisionGUID="30d41dfd-a585-4583-af3f-7635abf8e717" CreationDate="2023-07-13T04:36:27.153" UserId="15062" Text="US: Does canned pineapple produce more co2 per calorie than fresh?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32469" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12612" RevisionGUID="30d41dfd-a585-4583-af3f-7635abf8e717" CreationDate="2023-07-13T04:36:27.153" UserId="15062" Text="|food|transport|food-storage|water-conservation|co2|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32471" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12613" RevisionGUID="c09a76f3-19f2-4cc0-8bed-79e8c312da25" CreationDate="2023-07-13T08:17:27.440" UserId="2345" Text="The performance of lithium ion batteries (LiB), which currently power electric vehicles begins to [deteriorate above temperatures of 26 &amp;deg;C][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; LiBs deployed in hot regions need to use some of their stored energy to maintain lower temperatures, since battery performance begins to deteriorate above temperatures of 26 degrees Celsius, however the introduction of Na-ion and lithium-iron-phosphate (LFP) chemistries overcomes some of these safety concerns, but still does not meet the LDES holy grail.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/peter-strachan-we-need-to-talk-about-long-duration-energy-storage/ar-AA1dInLE?ocid=mailsignout&amp;pc=U591&amp;cvid=4967300900db49eabaf2bddf96387e7f&amp;ei=30" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32473" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12612" RevisionGUID="2f76c68a-a4a9-4fa4-8cef-ff566de707a4" CreationDate="2023-07-13T08:21:41.117" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected CO2" Text="I've seen a few papers (like [this][1] and [this][2]) which suggest that fresh pineapple is less CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;-intense (also way less fresh water-intense) than canned pineapple in a few different contexts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, these papers don't seem to deal with wastage, storage and transport. It seems to me that canned pineapple might have an advantage in these areas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So what do you think? Does canned pineapple produce more CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per calorie than fresh? I'm sure it depends a lot on the specifics. What factors would have the biggest effect on the answer?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar question: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/2713/is-canned-fish-more-sustainable-than-fresh&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://neptjournal.com/upload-images/NL-65-15-(13)D-740.pdf&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318597918_Evaluation_of_Opportunities_to_Reduce_the_Carbon_Footprint_of_Fresh_and_Canned_Pineapple_Processing_in_Central_Thailand#pf7" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32474" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12612" RevisionGUID="2f76c68a-a4a9-4fa4-8cef-ff566de707a4" CreationDate="2023-07-13T08:21:41.117" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected CO2" Text="|food|transport|food-storage|co2|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32475" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12612" RevisionGUID="2f76c68a-a4a9-4fa4-8cef-ff566de707a4" CreationDate="2023-07-13T08:21:41.117" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected CO2" Text="US: Does canned pineapple produce more CO2 per calorie than fresh?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32476" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12614" RevisionGUID="36180527-a733-4952-b50a-1338df922cab" CreationDate="2023-07-13T08:32:11.203" UserId="2345" Text="It all depends on the energy source used by canneries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During the canning process the pineapples have have to be washed, peeled, cut up, most likely cooked, the cans/containers sterilized, sealed, labelled and sent to storage for transportation to consumers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the energy used to do all of of this is derived from renewables then the amount of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; will be close to zero. However, most canneries purchase their electricity from a supplier and in most situations that electricity will have been generated by CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; producing power plants.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To answer your question, until all canneries use renewable sources of energy, the products they produce will have a higher carbon footprint than fresh versions of the product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32478" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12609" RevisionGUID="8995ba3f-a466-454a-8d54-78da1626d967" CreationDate="2023-07-13T08:34:54.870" UserId="2345" Comment="Corrected capitalization of units" Text="We have recently installed a ductless heat pump (Mitsubishi) in some soon-to-be-finished basement space.  It will be used primarily for heating during the winter (we live in Maine).  During the summer, we have always had a few months where we run a dehumidifier in the basement to keep it dry-ish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ideally, I would like to use the heat pump in dry mode during the summer rather than running the dehumidifier, as it's one less thing to own and maintain.  My question: **assuming that either is used only for this purpose (not for cooling as well), which will use fewer kWh?**  I know that heat pumps are more efficient than resistance heaters for heating, but I am unclear about how the dehumidification scenario would work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In practice, I have tried for the last week or so running the basement heat pump in dry mode, and it seems to be cooling as well and leaving the basement unnecessarily cold (it stays perfectly cool on its own all summer).  I suspect this additional cooling is using more energy than a dehumidifier would.  I wish I had a simple way to measure the kWh consumed by the heat pump...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32479" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12582" RevisionGUID="7ea41a76-11b6-4aa5-a285-0b0b956f8eda" CreationDate="2023-07-13T08:40:27.873" UserId="2345" Comment="Spelling corrections" Text="#  # &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following practice is ***not*** 100% sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the practice is **more** sustainable than what a lot of people do.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given two practices **p1** and **p2** we can say that practice **p1** is more sustainable than **p2** in the same way that given buildings we can say which building is taller than the other building (via relativistic comparison) in spite of the fact that neither building is an element of the set of all tall buildings.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Use *used* shipping supplies**    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Purchase (or make) a large box or bin for shipping supplies.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When you receive a box, or envelope, remove the item you purchased from the package you received.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Place the **used** empty bubble mailer, used box, and/or used packaging material inside of your bin for shipping supplies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The mass of materials required to preserve, and store, used packaging materials is less than or equal to the mass of materials required to preserve, and store, new packaging materials.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, a warehouse full of used cardboard boxes has the same amount of steel framing as a warehouse full of newly manufactured boxes.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whenever you wish to mail, or ship, an item to another person, then place your item inside of the used box or used envelope.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;-------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;# Addendum on Tape #   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My main point was that using **used** mailing and shipping products is more environmentally sustainable than using *new* products, relatively speaking.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The envelopes can be re-sealed with tape.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Kraft tape, which is made of of paper and water-activated adhesive, is **more** sustainable than tape with a plastic backing or plastic substrate.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rate at which most vegetation grows is faster than the rate at which black petroleum oil forms from dead algae and small ocean animals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The rate at which perennial trees (and the annual plants used to create linseed linen, grow back) is greater than the rate at which petroleum finishes forming from dead plants. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic tape sourced from petroleum is less sustainable than paper or line tape sourced from perennial trees or annual plants.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32480" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12615" RevisionGUID="333643de-944f-4aa0-b65e-3bf0802b640f" CreationDate="2023-07-13T08:46:47.250" UserId="2345" Text="In most developed countries it is possible to buy envelopes made from recycled paper. They are made in a variety of colors: brown unbleached, white, cream and black.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you enter *sustainable envelopes* or *envelopes made from recycled paper* into an internet search engine you'll be able to find a supplier new you.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32482" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12596" RevisionGUID="98da9a1b-b628-46d2-9585-4420319f177c" CreationDate="2023-07-13T08:52:10.027" UserId="2345" Comment="Removed superfluous spaces in units &amp; abbreviations" Text="I want to research into electrical consumption of air conditioning units. While trying to make a rough estimate of efficiency, found that the btu/h capacity of the specifications does not make sense with the electrical consumption of the unit. For example, one unit reports 12000 btu/h and 950 W of peak energy consumption, but one converts 12000 btu/h and obtains 3516 W of cooling capacity so something feels off.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I want to delve the less I can into the EER or SEER efficiency ratings because I suspect there will be lots of arbitrary decisions or references that will not be helpful enough. Is there a way to know the absolute efficiency of the A/C units (in terms of heat transferred relative to energy usage)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32483" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12616" RevisionGUID="ea2598a0-0932-4971-b933-e8c0213ee755" CreationDate="2023-07-13T09:08:44.030" UserId="2345" Text="The short answer is yes. Plastic film has been used in developed countries since the 1980s, maybe mid 1970s. There was a time when plastic film didn't exist.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastic film is convenient, it's why we use it. If we stopped using it, life will go on. We managed without before the 1980s. The collective &quot;we&quot; will have to change our behavior, which some people will resist. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Depending on the application, sometimes paper or waxed paper can be used to seal certain types of food containers. Some innovation and research and development into alternatives may be required.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Food and beverage cans used to be lined with tin to prevent food spoilage from rusting steel. Now all cans, whether they are made from steel or aluminium are lined with plastic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32485" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12584" RevisionGUID="e00445ba-3650-4198-8222-3f35436b083e" CreationDate="2023-07-13T09:12:17.680" UserId="2345" Comment="Spelling corrections" Text="#   #&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given two courses of action **a1** and **a2**, there exist times such that we can classify action **a1** as more sustainable than **a2** (relatively speaking).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that one of the two actions is to put peanut butter jars in the trash. By &quot;trash&quot;, I mean that the contents of the trash bin will be transported to a landfill or garage dump. In this context, the phrase &quot;put in the trash&quot; does not have the same meaning, or association with touchable visual objects, as put &quot;put in a recycling bin&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What action is more sustainable than &quot;put the peanut butter jar in the trash&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am writing in terms of relativistic comparisons on human behaviors regarding peanut butter jars, not absolutes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This relativistic sustainability concept is related to [ordered sets][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ordered sets are related to idea that 10 &lt; 17, or 3 less than 9.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Consider the following sequence of tasks:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; *  SML = (form plastic pellets from stock, compress plastic pellets inside auger until molten, mold molten pellets into a peanut butter jar)    &#xD;&#xA;&gt;    &#xD;&#xA;&gt; *  BIG = (refine petroleum into plastic stock, form plastic pellets from stock, compress plastic pellets inside auger until molten, mold molten pellets into a peanut butter jar) &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One set of tasks is smaller than the other set of tasks. SML ⊂ BIG. We so not need to sum up total energy expended when the set of tasks in one procedure is a subset of the tasks in the other procedure. In other cases, we can compare only the things which are different in terms of ordered sets or less-than-or-equals binary relations.( ≤ ). Composting a banana peel is more environmentally friendly than throwing the banana peel into a trash can, relativistically speaking caeteris paribus. In this context, &quot;caeteris paribus&quot; means that you do not drive a car with a banana peel from Los Angeles, CA to Denver, Colorado in order to out the banana peel inside of a composting bin. All bananas are transported long distances using fossil fuels, but which practice is more environmentally friendly (relatively speaking), when it comes to peanut butter jars than putting the jar in the trash?   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_ordered_set" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32486" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12585" RevisionGUID="28dfdc6a-1abf-4a12-a121-2cfa17e34766" CreationDate="2023-07-13T09:14:02.760" UserId="2345" Comment="Spelling corrections" Text="Reusing the peanut butter jar for bread flour is more sustainable and environmentally friendly than  putting the jar in the trash and purchasing a newly made container for bread flour or other dry kitchen goods.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following photographs from the inside of my domicile act as a analogies to the statement given above. In the photographs, there exist depictions of containers which are not plastic jars originally used for peanut butter. In other photographs, we feature plastic peanut butter jars containing metal screws instead of bread flour. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![a peanut butter jar containing a smattering handful if steel machine screws][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![a glass jar containing corn meal treated with lye or calcium hydroxide. The jar used to contain peaches. The glass jar was not in a landfill or garbage dump as of the year 2023 and month of June. Nobody has to make a second glass jar for me in a factory because I reused an old glass jar][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![a plastic jar containing rice][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;***Relatively speaking***, re-using a plastic jar to store dry rice is more sustainable than throwing the old plastic jar in the trash and buying a new empty jar from Amazon or the container store and storing dry rice inside of the new container. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The container depictwd here used to contain red chili pepper powder and [sauerkraut][4]. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Eating rice in North America is not very sustainable when there are more than 8 billion human persons on Earth. Eating Amaranth seeds might be more sustainable in North America than rice.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/mmGVS.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/5tKcH.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sYBXF.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauerkraut" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32487" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="8478" RevisionGUID="8d5dc135-45b9-4618-9f2f-f059640b8d23" CreationDate="2023-07-13T09:15:42.717" UserId="2345" Comment="Punctuation change" Text="PP and PE are the same chemical family: olefins.  So they can be recycled similarly. There is probably more difference between high density PE and low density PE than between PE and PP. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32488" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12587" RevisionGUID="2874b58c-5ee6-43a5-8f22-eeff26f9a322" CreationDate="2023-07-13T09:19:19.163" UserId="2345" Comment="Spelling and grammatical changes" Text="Glass (silicon oxide) is sourced from two types of places on Earth:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Quartz mines featuring large white colored boulders.  &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Sand deposits.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The quartz mines are sometimes mined more often than the sand deposits. In any event, large machines powered by diesel fuel engines, are used to move massive amounts of raw material from one place to another.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People work long hours driving trucks full of mined quartz to factories where the quartz is ground into dust, refined (some impurities are removed) and the quartz is melted melted and molded into water tumblers and other drinking glasses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;People living in affluent societies use these glass drinking vessels for drinking beverages.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Relatively speaking, what is more &quot;green&quot;, environmentally friendly, or sustainable in the long-run:   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 1. Buying food (spaghetti sauce, olives, strawberry jam, salsa,  etc...) in glass jars; throwing glass jars into a recycling bin; and buying water glasses from a store.   &#xD;&#xA;&gt;   &#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2. Buying food (spaghetti sauce, olives, strawberry jam, salsa,  etc...) in glass jars; re-using glass jars for water; and ***never*** buying water glasses from a store.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32489" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12587" RevisionGUID="2874b58c-5ee6-43a5-8f22-eeff26f9a322" CreationDate="2023-07-13T09:19:19.163" UserId="2345" Comment="Spelling and grammatical changes" Text="Is there a more sustainable alternative to buying water glasses for the kitchen or dining room?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32490" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12617" RevisionGUID="14395e70-3f2a-4bc5-8451-dfca2433acc3" CreationDate="2023-07-13T10:01:42.557" UserId="2345" Text="It's an interesting concept. Until now, I didn't know it was being utilized, so I can't state that I know where such in-pipe generators are placed, but I can make some intuitive guesses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with, such devices will affect flow rates and pressure in the pipes - the energy in the water used to turn the turbines is lost from the water. Additionally due to roughness of the pipe walls and friction, energy will be lost from the water as it moves along the pipe. Also, at all the bends and changes of pipe diameter there will be energy losses. Engineers call them shock losses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the two most likely places where such generators can be placed is at the end of the long slope in a pipeline. This is similar to what happens in hydroelectric power stations. In a municipal system this can be utilized where water is stored in elevated tanks or storage basins. Where such storage systems are located on a hill, place the generators in the pipe at the bottom of the hill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In flat locations, such as in rural America, towns have water tanks on top of towers. Water is pumped into the tanks and the tanks deliver pressurized water to the town. The pressure in the water leaving the tanks is due to gravity and the height of the tank determines the pressure of the water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a generator were placed at the bottom of the vertical pipe from the tank and the electricity stored in a battery, the electricity could then be used to power the pumps used to pump the water into the tank.  This is similar to pumped hydro electrical energy systems, that a number of large hydroelectric generators use. It enables water to be reused as an energy source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other location where I would consider placing an in-pipe generator is just prior to the location of pressure reducing values. Pressure is going to lost anyway, why not assist the pressure reduction process by placing a generator before the pressure reducing value and generate some electricity as a useful by-product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32492" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12617" RevisionGUID="a7075deb-3247-46f9-9160-dabaa0812058" CreationDate="2023-07-13T10:07:09.890" UserId="2345" Comment="Added pressure equation" Text="It's an interesting concept. Until now, I didn't know it was being utilized, so I can't state that I know where such in-pipe generators are placed, but I can make some intuitive guesses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To begin with, such devices will affect flow rates and pressure in the pipes - the energy in the water used to turn the turbines is lost from the water. Additionally due to roughness of the pipe walls and friction, energy will be lost from the water as it moves along the pipe. Also, at all the bends and changes of pipe diameter there will be energy losses. Engineers call them shock losses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the two most likely places where such generators can be placed is at the end of the long slope in a pipeline. This is similar to what happens in hydroelectric power stations. In a municipal system this can be utilized where water is stored in elevated tanks or storage basins. Where such storage systems are located on a hill, place the generators in the pipe at the bottom of the hill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In flat locations, such as in rural America, towns have water tanks on top of towers. Water is pumped into the tanks and the tanks deliver pressurized water to the town. The pressure in the water leaving the tanks is due to gravity and the height of the tank determines the pressure of the water: P = &amp;rho;gh, pressure in pascals equals the density of water multiplied by the gravitational constant and the height in meters, P = 9800h, where g is 9.8 m/s&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; and &amp;rho; is 1000 kg/m&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If a generator were placed at the bottom of the vertical pipe from the tank and the electricity stored in a battery, the electricity could then be used to power the pumps used to pump the water into the tank.  This is similar to pumped hydro electrical energy systems, that a number of large hydroelectric generators use. It enables water to be reused as an energy source.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other location where I would consider placing an in-pipe generator is just prior to the location of pressure reducing values. Pressure is going to lost anyway, why not assist the pressure reduction process by placing a generator before the pressure reducing value and generate some electricity as a useful by-product.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32499" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12619" RevisionGUID="d8fb1cca-7779-4820-adfa-53c2324f1df4" CreationDate="2023-07-14T06:43:06.537" UserId="106" Text="Seasonal electricity storage&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A Germany company sells [domestic hydrogen storage](https://www.homepowersolutions.de/produkt/?utm_adgroupid=137312805086&amp;gad=1) for seasonal storage of electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The price is &quot;only&quot; in the range from **85.000 – 120.000€** since German VAT on domestic storage systems was reduced to 0% since 2023-01-01.  If you use 10 kWh per night during the winter months when rooftop photovoltaic is insufficient for charging batteries and thermal storage for overnight use, and you assume electricity remains cheap at €0.50/kWh, and you ignore the costs of charging and several other factors, you might save €1000/year and the unit would be economical in only 100 years!  Of course it would take much longer in reality due to operating costs and conversion losses.  The service subscription is only €500/year, so if you factor in other costs you can probably expect the unit to pay for itself in the order of 200–300 years.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32501" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12619" RevisionGUID="5d9e02a3-5016-43b1-b079-47c37216fd5a" CreationDate="2023-07-14T07:21:37.063" UserId="106" Comment="added 7 characters in body" Text="Seasonal electricity storage&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A German company sells [domestic hydrogen storage](https://www.homepowersolutions.de/produkt/?utm_adgroupid=137312805086&amp;gad=1) for seasonal storage of electricity at home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The price is &quot;only&quot; in the range from **85.000 – 120.000€** since German VAT on domestic storage systems was reduced to 0% starting at 2023-01-01.  If you use 10 kWh per night during the winter months when rooftop photovoltaic is insufficient for charging batteries and thermal storage for overnight use, and you assume electricity remains cheap at €0.50/kWh, and you ignore the costs of charging and several other factors, you might save €1000/year and the unit would be economical in only 100 years!  Of course it would take much longer in reality due to operating costs and conversion losses.  The service subscription is only €500/year, so if you factor in other costs you can probably expect the unit to pay for itself in the order of 200–300 years.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32502" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="d26a28b0-a9a2-46c3-9ff5-0ceb80a1572d" CreationDate="2023-07-14T07:43:09.793" UserId="106" Text="If you have an equatorward-facing balcony, or perhaps an east- or west-facing balcony, you can install a small balcony solar power plant at 300 W or 600 W.  In Germany, [ALDI sells 600 W units for €469](https://www.aldi-nord.de/balkonkraftwerk.html).  If you have a power outlet on your balcony you can simply plug them in there.  Depending on local regulations, you might need to inform your electricity provider and/or change your electricity meter so that it doesn't run backwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Balcony plant][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;*Source: [Balkonkraftwerk.wiki](https://www.balkonkraftwerk.wiki/)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you attach it to your balcony you probably need permission from your landlord or condo owner association (or their agent), although in some places this permission cannot be denied without good reason.  If you put them on your balcony self-standing then you shouldn't need any such permission.  Do check local regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4j0sj.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32504" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="450b317c-be21-4e72-8f78-45acf61b97fe" CreationDate="2023-07-14T07:55:29.040" UserId="106" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Solar power in apartments&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have an equatorward-facing balcony, or perhaps an east- or west-facing balcony, you can install a small balcony solar power plant at 300 W or 600 W.  In Germany, [ALDI sells 600 W units for €469](https://www.aldi-nord.de/balkonkraftwerk.html) (as of July 2023).  If you have a power outlet on your balcony, you can simply plug them in there.  Depending on local regulations, you might need to inform your electricity provider and/or change your electricity meter so that it doesn't run backwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Balcony plant][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;*Source: [Balkonkraftwerk.wiki](https://www.balkonkraftwerk.wiki/)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you attach it to your balcony you probably need permission from your landlord or condo owner association (or their agent), although in some places this permission cannot be denied without good reason.  If you put them on your balcony self-standing then you shouldn't need any such permission.  Do check local regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Programmable thermostats&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have knobs on your radiators, you can simply [replace them with programmable thermostats like this one](https://www.voelkner.de/products/6233766/Eurotronic-700083-Comet-Plus-Heizkoerperthermostat-elektronisch-8-bis-28C.html).  We've done that for each radiator that we use in the home.  By default, they're controlled with buttons on the knob, but with an extension they can be controlled with an app too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![programmable thermostat directly on the radiator][2]][2]  &#xD;&#xA;*Source: [DNT](https://www.dnt.de/Produkte/Elektr.-Heizkoerperthermostat-ThermoTune/)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4j0sj.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AhEA2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32505" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12620" RevisionGUID="ed76d16d-3c65-4b05-b672-b31cbfc3b4ed" CreationDate="2023-07-14T08:01:11.510" UserId="106" Comment="added 19 characters in body" Text="Solar power in apartments&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have an equatorward-facing balcony, or perhaps an east- or west-facing balcony, you can install a small balcony solar power plant at 300 W or 600 W.  In Germany, [ALDI sells 600 W units for €469](https://www.aldi-nord.de/balkonkraftwerk.html) (as of July 2023).  If you have a power outlet on your balcony, you can simply plug them in there.  Depending on local regulations, you might need to inform your electricity provider and/or change your electricity meter so that it doesn't run backwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Balcony plant][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;*Source: [Balkonkraftwerk.wiki](https://www.balkonkraftwerk.wiki/)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you attach it to your balcony you probably need permission from your landlord or condo owner association (or their agent), although in some places this permission cannot be denied without good reason.  If you put them on your balcony self-standing then you hopefully shouldn't need any such permission.  Do check local regulations.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Programmable thermostats&#xD;&#xA;--&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have knobs on your radiators, you can simply [replace them with programmable thermostats like this one](https://www.voelkner.de/products/6233766/Eurotronic-700083-Comet-Plus-Heizkoerperthermostat-elektronisch-8-bis-28C.html).  We've done that for each radiator that we use in the home.  By default, they're controlled with buttons on the knob, but with an extension they can be controlled with an app too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![programmable thermostat directly on the radiator][2]][2]  &#xD;&#xA;*Source: [DNT](https://www.dnt.de/Produkte/Elektr.-Heizkoerperthermostat-ThermoTune/)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I've heard that in North America, homes sometimes don't have knobs on radiators or even don't have radiators at all, instead pumping warm air (!) around the home through ducts.  In this case, the radiator-attached thermostat wouldn't work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/4j0sj.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/AhEA2.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32506" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="a47b9aac-440b-4884-baa6-52149d135dda" CreationDate="2023-07-16T13:03:53.567" UserId="15070" Text="This is an intriguing question. While the idea of using mirrors or other reflective surfaces to focus sunlight onto a solar panel might seem like a good way to increase output, there are several factors to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excessive heat from concentrated sunlight can cause thermal stress on the solar cells, potentially leading to faster degradation or even damage. This is especially true if the solar cells are not designed to handle concentrated photovoltaic systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the angle of incidence of the sunlight plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of this method. Adjusting the position of the mirrors or the solar panel throughout the day and year to maximize efficiency could add complexity to the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the decreasing costs of solar panels, it might be more cost-effective and simpler to increase your solar output by adding more panels if you have the space. If space is a constraint and you wish to experiment with focusing sunlight, it's important to do thorough research and possibly consult with a solar energy expert.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information on solar energy and its practical applications, you might find the resources at [damiasolar.com][1] helpful.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.damiasolar.com/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32509" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="6979" RevisionGUID="5be7935d-720d-4ca2-a282-1b23b1b2dcfc" CreationDate="2023-07-19T15:53:58.253" UserId="14406" Comment="Replace link with archived link since it now leads to a 404 not found" Text="Before doing anything make sure your credit cards are not usable/active anymore. You don't want anyone to misuse them!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Reuse**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reuse is almost always preferred over recycling because that usually doesn't require new resources. &#xD;&#xA;One reuse option is to [cut your cards into guitar picks](https://instructables.com/id/Credit-Card-Guitar-Picks). Several other&#xD;&#xA;reuse options are listed [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20170321054027/https://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/8-crafty-ways-recycle-reuse-credit-cards-1273.php) but I'm sure there are plenty of others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Recycling**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This website](https://livegreen.recyclebank.com/column/because-you-asked/can-i-recycle-credit-cards) says that &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; the first thing you should do is verify whether or not your municipality accepts number 3 plastic, and specifically credit cards, membership cards, or gift cards. If they do, play it safe and cut off any holograms or chips, which should go in the trash&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I recommend to also make sure the magnetic strip isn't readable anymore if your card has one. Better safe than sorry.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately the chance that your municipality will accept credit cards is low. The same site explains that recycling credit cards is hard because&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; cards these days contain all kinds of technology that interfere with the recycling process......[for example] contamination problems from holograms, scratch-off material, and embedded chips&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32510" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="6979" RevisionGUID="5be7935d-720d-4ca2-a282-1b23b1b2dcfc" CreationDate="2023-07-19T15:53:58.253" Comment="Proposed by 14406 approved by 2345, 99 edit id of 711" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32511" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12621" RevisionGUID="d241b6be-fb2b-4c1b-8691-1cbe6552d4b7" CreationDate="2023-07-19T15:58:35.287" UserId="99" Comment="Removed spam link (also because it leads to a website that's only in Spanish or Portuguese)" Text="This is an intriguing question. While the idea of using mirrors or other reflective surfaces to focus sunlight onto a solar panel might seem like a good way to increase output, there are several factors to consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Excessive heat from concentrated sunlight can cause thermal stress on the solar cells, potentially leading to faster degradation or even damage. This is especially true if the solar cells are not designed to handle concentrated photovoltaic systems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Moreover, the angle of incidence of the sunlight plays a crucial role in the effectiveness of this method. Adjusting the position of the mirrors or the solar panel throughout the day and year to maximize efficiency could add complexity to the system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Given the decreasing costs of solar panels, it might be more cost-effective and simpler to increase your solar output by adding more panels if you have the space. If space is a constraint and you wish to experiment with focusing sunlight, it's important to do thorough research and possibly consult with a solar energy expert." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32513" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="2f93752d-cf9f-47c8-8b6f-fa23fb33b9d2" CreationDate="2023-07-22T15:59:39.007" UserId="6393" Text="Today there are two kinds of inverters sold: modified square wave (sometimes erroneously marketed as &quot;modified sine wave&quot;) and true sine wave. These allow converting low voltage direct current from solar panels or batteries to mains voltage alternating current.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How do these inverters work?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How to decide which inverter is the best option?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32515" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="2f93752d-cf9f-47c8-8b6f-fa23fb33b9d2" CreationDate="2023-07-22T15:59:39.007" UserId="6393" Text="How do modified square and sine wave inverters work and which to use?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32516" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="2f93752d-cf9f-47c8-8b6f-fa23fb33b9d2" CreationDate="2023-07-22T15:59:39.007" UserId="6393" Text="|solar-power|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32517" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12623" RevisionGUID="790720a4-b06f-419c-9ad6-8f44d55b147a" CreationDate="2023-07-22T15:59:39.007" UserId="6393" Text="The simplest inverter is the modified square wave inverter. A typical schematic is here:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Modified square wave inverter][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The battery is generally between 10 - 15 volts (assuming a 12 volt system, multiply by a suitable factor for 24 and 48 volt systems). The inverter has the input capacitor close to battery. Some cheaper models could theoretically omit the input capacitor. The direct current is chopped at very high frequency (maybe between 20 - 300 kHz) via a switch, typically MOSFET, into a transformer. The transformer has three windings: primary, secondary and reset winding. Because the frequency is high, the magnetization current is low and thus the transformer can be made very lightweight for the power going through it, but high-frequency materials (ferrite) must be used for the transformer core. For 12-to-230 volts, the turns ratio is about 1:23; for 12-to-120 volts it's about 1:12.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The transformer has a third reset winding used to return the magnetization energy back to the input capacitor. Without the reset winding, this energy would have nowhere to go after opening the primary switch since the diode on the secondary side prevents current from going into the secondary in the direction it wans to go. The reset winding has a diode which only allows this reset current but blocks current when the transformer primary is connected via the switch.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The secondary side has a diode and capacitor which work as a half-wave rectifier. Note there is no voltage control mechanism. So with 1:23 turns ratio, the secondary side has these voltages for different battery voltages:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 15 volts (highest possible charging voltage): 345 volts, 6% over nominal peak voltage&#xD;&#xA;* 12.7 volts (fully charged battery at rest): 292 volts, 10% below nominal peak voltage&#xD;&#xA;* 12 volts (fully charged battery with high load): 276 volts, 15% below nominal peak voltage&#xD;&#xA;* 11 volts (empty battery at rest): 253 volts, 22% below nominal peak voltage&#xD;&#xA;* 10 volts (empty battery with high load): 230 volts, 29% below nominal peak voltage&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note the lack of any kind of voltage regulation in this design. If the battery voltage reduces due to end of charging, due to emptying battery, or due to high load, the peak voltage of the output reduces too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The regulation in this modified square wave design is via the width of square wave pulses. The full H bridge consisting of 4 switches alternately switches the output to positive, unconnected and negative. When the battery is at 10 volts, the pulses are full width and create 230 V RMS. When the battery is at 15 volts, the pulses are 345 volts so their width are 44% of full width.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This pulse width regulation only works for resistive loads and loads having their own regulation. It does not work for loads dependent on the peak voltage of the waveform.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The output switches (MOSFETs usually) have diodes across them allowing inductive loads to return back their energy to the output capacitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Only for a battery under charge is the peak voltage of the waveform approximately equal to the peak voltage of a 230 volt sine wave (325 volts). Once charging ends, the output waveform no longer has the right peak voltage.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the output MOSFETs are switched at the mains frequency (50 or 60 Hz), the MOSFETs and the circuit driving them can be cheap and still not waste any significant amount of power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, where power is wasted is in the magnetization of the primary side of transformer. Every pulse creates an increasing magnetization current that is returned via the diode back to the input capacitor. However, part of this magnetic energy may be converted to heat in nearby metallic materials, part may be converted to heat in resistance of the transformer windings, and part may be converted to heat in the diode that supplies it back to the input capacitor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A good design of this modified square wave inverter would vary the width and frequency of pulses to the transformer according to the load. If the load is low, it may create a narrow pulse only occasionally; if the load is high, the frequency of pulses is high and pulse width is the maximum it can be to still allow enough time to supply back the magnetization energy to the input capacitor inbetween pulses. This good design would waste minimal power at idle. So it's possible to create an inverter that wastes way less than 1 watt at idle, while at the same time having continuous 230 volt output and allowing connecting devices consuming thousands of watts anytime.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Unfortunately, if you today buy a modified square wave inverter, with more than 99% certainty it's a bad design. So it's very likely the idle energy usage is between 5-10 watts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also practically all modified square wave inverters have safety guards built in case where the charging voltage of the battery rises to such high levels the output peak voltage would be unacceptably high, or when the battery becomes so flat the output would have unacceptably low peak voltage and the correct RMS voltage can't be achieved with even 100% duty cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A true sine wave inverter is only slightly different: it adds an LC filter between the full H bridge and the output load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![True sine wave inverter][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, a true sine wave inverter would likely have better MOSFETs and better circuitry driving them, because a true sine wave inverter chops the output at very high frequency (maybe between 50 - 300 kHz). The idea is that the output is a pulse width modulated sine wave. It contains the sine wave of the right frequency and amplitude (50 or 60 Hz), and a truckload of very high frequency harmonics. The LC filter consisting of an inductor and capacitor filters away most of these high frequency harmonics, leaving the 50 or 60 Hz sine wave.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Note that pulse width modulation can be used to vary the amplitude of the output too, not just the frequency. So a true sine wave inverter would have a turns ratio that allow creating the desired 325 volt peak voltage also with a flat battery under high load (10 volts), so the turns ratio would probably be around 1:33 or maybe even higher for some safety margin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A true sine wave inverter has to constantly charge and discharge the LC filter capacitor via the LC filter inductor. Although the energy isn't completely wasted, it's just ping-ponging between the transformer output capacitor and LC filter capacitor, nothing is 100% efficient. For example the inductor windings have resistance which wastes this energy as heat and the diodes providing a pathway for this current also waste energy as heat too. Additionally, since the MOSFETs are switched at high frequency, the switching losses are high. Every time a MOSFET is switched on or off, there is a slight transition event when it's neither fully on nor fully off, it behaves instead as a high resistance, which creates heat too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the characteristics of inveters are&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Modified square wave:&#xD;&#xA;    * Lacks any kind of output voltage regulation, regulates instead via duty cycle&#xD;&#xA;    * Can have very low idle power waste, but usually has intermediate idle power waste&#xD;&#xA;    * Output waveform typically is lacking in peak voltage&#xD;&#xA;    * Output waveform doesn't at all resemble a sine wave even remotely&#xD;&#xA;    * Cheap since output MOSFETs are driven at lower frequency and high-current inductor in LC filter avoided, in fact this device doesn't have any inductor at all, just a transformer&#xD;&#xA;2. True sine wave:&#xD;&#xA;    * Is able to regulate voltage perfectly&#xD;&#xA;    * Usually has high idle power waste&#xD;&#xA;    * Output waveform is true sine wave with correct peak voltage all the time, and usually the waveform is cleaner than you get via electricity grid (since the grid has lots of old devices connected without power factor correction that only draw power during the peak of the waveform, flattening the peaks)&#xD;&#xA;    * Expensive since output MOSFETs are driven at higher frequency and high-current inductor in LC filter needed, and inductors handling high current and storing significant amounts of energy in magnetic field are expensive&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also some true sine wave inverters, usually in cheap Chinese power stations, have an additional trick: if you connect a too high resistive load to them, they can artificially lower the output voltage. So with a 1000 watt inverter, you may be able to use a 1400 watt coffeemaker, but the output voltage is reduced so that the coffeemaker heating element is only heating water at a power level of 1000 watts. Whether the other devices connected to the output at the same time are affected by this varies from device to device.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for what devices work with inverters:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. True sine wave:&#xD;&#xA;    * Every device works, always, since the power is better than mains power&#xD;&#xA;    * However, some devices such as refrigerators, air conditioning compressors and power tools draw a high surge current during startup which may exceed the surge current rating of the inverter even though the inverter would be capable of supplying the continuous current used by the device; this can be avoided by choosing a big enough inverter&#xD;&#xA;2. Modified square wave:&#xD;&#xA;    * Resistive loads such as toasters, coffeemakers and heaters work always with the correct amount of power, this includes any incandescent or halogen light bulb too&#xD;&#xA;    * Anything with a switched mode power supply such as computers, mobile phone chargers, most LED lamps, audio equipment, inverter microwaves, etc. work since the switched mode power supply doesn't really care about the waveform&#xD;&#xA;    * Anything that depends on the peak voltage of the waveform may not work perfectly. Example: traditional microwaves without inverter do not always create the right amount of power since the peak voltage of the waveform when the battery is not under charge is typically somewhat deficient; the flatter the battery is, the worse the problem; the longer the wires from the battery to the inverter, the worse the problem&#xD;&#xA;    * Devices that have a capacitor+resistor power supply lacking a Zener diode, typically low power very cheap power measurement/switching devices, may not work. Examples of such devices can be digital kilowatthour meters, or digital timer switches. The reason for this is that the manufacturer used a capacitor to create a known current directly from mains, and a resistor to convert the current to desired voltage, and then use a diode+capacitor to make that voltage DC. The simple addition of a Zener diode or replacing the resistor with a Zener diode would have solved the problem, but some manufacturers have cheaped out and used only a resistor where a Zener diode should have been used. Not all kilowatthour meters suffer from this problem: I have two brands, one suffers from it, another doesn't. The failure mode is that the device works for maybe a fraction of a second or few seconds, then it breaks, as every cycle leads to higher-and-higher voltage at the capacitor.&#xD;&#xA;    * Motors in refrigerators, fans and air conditioning units may buzz and/or create excess heat. Whether or not this is a problem depends on the circumstances.&#xD;&#xA;    * Fans that use a TRIAC to trigger the current into an induction motor at certain moment of the waveform do not work. This also affects some light dimming circuits (but those circuits only work for incandescent or halogen bulbs or for LED bulbs that have been specifically designed to work with such dimmers; normal LED bulbs don't work). I haven't tested corded drills but some may use a TRIAC based power control too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's a common myth that &quot;sensitive electronics&quot; such as computers would require true sine wave. This is completely false. Such &quot;sensitive electronics&quot; use a switched mode power supply that works well with just about any waveform, often including waveform that is DC and not AC at all assuming it has approximately the correct voltage!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, cheap power handling electronics, typically digital kilowatthour meters and digital timers are more at risk; the cheaper the device the greater the likelihood that the manufacturer wanted to save the cost of a single Zener diode which would have solved the problem.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All grid tie inverters supplying solar power to the electricity grid have to be true sine wave for two reasons: (1) the waveform in the grid is a true sine wave, (2) the grid tie inverter has to be able to adjust the output voltage continuously according to conditions in the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Inverter generators typically have a true sine wave output, but they do some simplification: an inverter generator would create the required direct current voltage, 325 volts at the lowest operating speed (let's say 3000 RPM). Then it can simply chop the output voltage at very high frequency and LC filter filters out the high-frequency harmonics. So the transformer, switch driving it, reset winding diode and half-bridge rectifier can be omitted. Typically inverter generators require higher operating speed at full load (let's say 4700 RPM); in this case the generator outputs a higher voltage but the pulse width modulation takes care of that and the amplitude of the sine wave after the LC filter is still the correct one. This is why inverter generators are surprisingly cheap for the power level they produce, since they can omit some components that regular battery / solar inverters have.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/0aLWE.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/MEZJk.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32519" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12624" RevisionGUID="0dee9a63-359d-44d4-aadc-7dea474285fb" CreationDate="2023-07-23T03:29:38.710" UserId="13629" Text="Thermal mass is the amount of thermal energy needed to raise a building one degree. Sometimes it's desirable: [earthships][1] have very thick walls with a lot of material, while [phase-change materials][2] store [latent heat][3]; this phase-change allows [a hot wax bottle to outlast hot water][4] as a hand-warmer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the thermal mass of solid concrete releases heat after sunset and prevents [Pheonix][5] and other hot-desert cities from getting overnight relief from the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heatwaves are the [number one extreme weather killer][6] of this warming world and can occur even in &quot;cold&quot; climates. Shelters without climate control still provide relief from the cold by keeping out rain, snow, and wind. But this same lack of airflow compounded with solar roof heating (designs with inadequate insulation) can make them very dangerous heat-wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naively I would think adding thermal mass is a bad idea for weathering heatwaves. Doing so reduces the peak temperatures but also makes for hotter nights, which can be [quite dangerous][7]. Public spaces such as malls, office workplaces, stores, cafes provide relief and also require less cooled space *per person*. But these options are generally infeasible at night. Also, sleeping in the heat personally is very unpleasant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the significant discussion of adding thermal means my reasoning must be flawed. I see two possible use-cases. The first is to have so much mass that you can store heat seasonally and get relief all summer (and winter). But this point wouldn't the &quot;house&quot; resemble a *cave*? The other use case is if the house is ventilated *a lot* at night to &quot;recharge&quot; the mass and then sealed during the day. But wouldn't the energy costs of sustaining such a wind-tunnel be considerable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are my seasonal energy storage and cool-night ventilation examples common use-cases of thermal mass? Am I overlooking any other use-cases of thermal mass in human-occupied buildings?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://issuu.com/earth_swe/docs/heating_and_cooling&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8469304/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmWiYMPUY6k&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2020/07/21/phoenix-night-temps-get-hotter-because-heat-island-climate-change/5472797002/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.weather.gov/hazstat/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://weather.com/safety/heat/news/2019-07-19-nighttime-heat-wave-deadly-dangerous" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32521" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12624" RevisionGUID="0dee9a63-359d-44d4-aadc-7dea474285fb" CreationDate="2023-07-23T03:29:38.710" UserId="13629" Text="Why is adding thermal mass good for heatwaves, given the importance of cooling off at night?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32522" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12624" RevisionGUID="0dee9a63-359d-44d4-aadc-7dea474285fb" CreationDate="2023-07-23T03:29:38.710" UserId="13629" Text="|heating|air-conditioning|construction|thermal-regulation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32523" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12624" RevisionGUID="1621bc44-494b-4634-9d6d-3552d15a31b0" CreationDate="2023-07-23T03:36:00.630" UserId="13629" Comment="deleted 1 character in body" Text="Thermal mass is the amount of thermal energy needed to raise a building one degree. Sometimes it's desirable: [earthships][1] have very thick walls with a lot of material, while [phase-change materials][2] store [latent heat][3]; this phase-change allows [a hot wax bottle to outlast hot water][4] as a hand-warmer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the thermal mass of solid concrete releases heat after sunset and prevents [Pheonix][5] and other hot-desert cities from getting overnight relief from the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heatwaves are the [number one extreme weather killer][6] of this warming world and can occur even in &quot;cold&quot; climates. Shelters without climate control still provide relief from the cold by keeping out rain, snow, and wind. But this same lack of airflow compounded with solar roof heating (designs with inadequate insulation) can make them very dangerous heat-wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naively I would think adding thermal mass is a bad idea for weathering heatwaves. Doing so reduces the peak temperatures but also makes for hotter nights, which can be [quite dangerous][7]. Public spaces such as malls, office workplaces, stores, cafes provide relief and also require less cooled space *per person*. But these options are generally infeasible at night. Also, sleeping in the heat personally is very unpleasant.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the significant discussion of adding thermal means my reasoning must be flawed. I see two possible use-cases. The first is to have so much mass that you can store heat seasonally and get relief all summer (and winter). But this point wouldn't the &quot;house&quot; resemble a *cave*? The other use case is if the house is ventilated *a lot* at night to &quot;recharge&quot; the mass and then sealed during the day. But wouldn't the energy costs of sustaining such a wind-tunnel be considerable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are my seasonal energy storage and nocturnal-ventilation examples common use-cases of thermal mass? Am I overlooking any other use-cases of thermal mass in human-occupied buildings?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://issuu.com/earth_swe/docs/heating_and_cooling&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8469304/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmWiYMPUY6k&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2020/07/21/phoenix-night-temps-get-hotter-because-heat-island-climate-change/5472797002/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.weather.gov/hazstat/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://weather.com/safety/heat/news/2019-07-19-nighttime-heat-wave-deadly-dangerous" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32524" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12624" RevisionGUID="a8ea7d1c-6350-40e6-9e7f-2f6192665a57" CreationDate="2023-07-24T00:57:17.053" UserId="13629" Comment="added 53 characters in body" Text="Thermal mass is the amount of thermal energy needed to raise a building one degree. Sometimes it's desirable: [earthships][1] have very thick walls with a lot of material, while [phase-change materials][2] store [latent heat][3]; this phase-change allows [a hot wax bottle to outlast hot water][4] as a hand-warmer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On the other hand, the thermal mass of solid concrete releases heat after sunset and prevents [Pheonix][5] and other hot-desert cities from getting overnight relief from the heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Heatwaves are the [number one extreme weather killer][6] of this warming world and can occur even in &quot;cold&quot; climates. Shelters without climate control still provide relief from the cold by keeping out rain, snow, and wind. But this same lack of airflow compounded with solar roof heating (designs with inadequate insulation) can make them very dangerous heat-wise.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Naively I would think adding thermal mass is a bad idea for weathering heatwaves. Doing so reduces the peak temperatures but also makes for hotter nights, which can be [quite dangerous][7]. Public spaces such as malls, office workplaces, stores, cafes provide relief and also require less cooled space *per person*. But these options are generally infeasible at night. Also, sleeping above 30C I find *very* unpleasant, much more so than walking at a dry 40C (if well hydrated!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the significant discussion of adding thermal means my reasoning must be flawed. I see two possible use-cases. The first is to have so much mass that you can store heat seasonally and get relief all summer (and winter). But this point wouldn't the &quot;house&quot; resemble a *cave*? The other use case is if the house is ventilated *a lot* at night to &quot;recharge&quot; the mass and then sealed during the day. But wouldn't the energy costs of sustaining such a wind-tunnel be considerable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Are my seasonal energy storage and nocturnal-ventilation examples common use-cases of thermal mass? Am I overlooking any other use-cases of thermal mass in human-occupied buildings?**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://issuu.com/earth_swe/docs/heating_and_cooling&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8469304/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmWiYMPUY6k&#xD;&#xA;  [5]: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2020/07/21/phoenix-night-temps-get-hotter-because-heat-island-climate-change/5472797002/&#xD;&#xA;  [6]: https://www.weather.gov/hazstat/&#xD;&#xA;  [7]: https://weather.com/safety/heat/news/2019-07-19-nighttime-heat-wave-deadly-dangerous" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32525" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12625" RevisionGUID="2cb60c3e-83f5-4a89-abaf-1528945dff36" CreationDate="2023-07-24T15:39:18.130" UserId="3423" Text="There are 50,000 aircraft in the air or idling all the time. An airliner consumes 5 tons (or whatever) per hour of fuel. So 3 billion tons per year of fuel. So one ton of fuel is actually 3 tons of co2, so 10 billion total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;American co2 emissions are 10 billion tons. I cited that [here](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks%23:~:text%3DIn%25202021%252C%2520U.S.%2520greenhouse%2520gas,sequestration%2520from%2520the%2520land%2520sector.&amp;ved=2ahUKEwj2kqCtyqeAAxWNIEQIHQkSA9gQFnoECBoQBA&amp;usg=AOvVaw3txeJR1C0RXhHzy42InjaWl). So how is it mathematically possible the airline industry produces more co2 than the entire country combined?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32527" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12625" RevisionGUID="2cb60c3e-83f5-4a89-abaf-1528945dff36" CreationDate="2023-07-24T15:39:18.130" UserId="3423" Text="Airline co2 emissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32528" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12625" RevisionGUID="2cb60c3e-83f5-4a89-abaf-1528945dff36" CreationDate="2023-07-24T15:39:18.130" UserId="3423" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32529" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12626" RevisionGUID="e9ca03a8-4293-43fd-8add-87788ea424fc" CreationDate="2023-07-25T09:30:37.697" UserId="106" Text="&gt; So how is it mathematically possible the airline industry produces more co2 than the entire country combined?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The airline industry is worldwide.  Of course, a worldwide industry can and does produce more CO₂ emissions than the total emissions from any particular country." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32531" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12627" RevisionGUID="6bb8c1d5-dceb-4acc-acc6-2ca1728466df" CreationDate="2023-07-25T14:40:02.913" UserId="384" Text="Don't forget that a tree's leaves that fall and the grass clippings you collect when you mow your lawn also contain carbon.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you leave them alone, they will rot and all their carbon content return to the atmosphere. However if you turn this material into biochar, the resulting pure carbon is not bio-available and therefore won't return to the atmosphere.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Biochar retorts can be built from barrels and pieces of pipe. You burn 70% of the collected material to decompose the remaining 30%, the combustible gases that form in the process is also burned.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;All carbon that burns in the process came from the atmosphere when the plant grew and part of it is permanently stored in a form of char." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32539" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="3206f8c2-a62e-4a94-a971-541485adab99" CreationDate="2023-07-26T09:11:11.843" UserId="384" Text="I couldn't find a fair comparison. Let's the compare the following two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A direct air capture plant which is surrounded by solar panel farm which provides the energy to run it. It obviously runs only during the day. In a typical implementation a DAC plant captures CO2 into an alkali solution eg. KOH or NaOH as carbonate ions. Which then reacted by Ca(OH)2 to precipitate the insoluble CaCO3 (limestone) and restore the KOH/NaOH solution. The limestone is then subjected to high heat to release CO2 and store it in a tank which then can be trucked/piped away. The reactants are recycled. So power is needed to run the fans for air filtration and power is needed to bake out the limestone. (There may be less energy intensive processes I don't know about.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A forest planted into the same area: it captures CO2 as it lives. Let's assume we collect all carbon containing parts: eg. the fallen leaves and other shedding and process them. One way to process it is using hydrothermal liquefaction which turns the organic matter into crude-oil like substance which provides a way to remove the carbon from it. What remains is a nutrient rich sludge that can be returned to the forest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of comparisons on the web but they often compare the net DAC plant area without the area needed for the energy source with the carbon sequestered in the wood of the forest only without considering the fallen leaves and stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is which of the two can collect more CO2 per area per year? Are forests better at capturing CO2 than artificial solutions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32541" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="3206f8c2-a62e-4a94-a971-541485adab99" CreationDate="2023-07-26T09:11:11.843" UserId="384" Text="Does a solar powered direct air capture plant capture more CO2 from air than a forest planted on the same area?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32542" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="3206f8c2-a62e-4a94-a971-541485adab99" CreationDate="2023-07-26T09:11:11.843" UserId="384" Text="|carbon-sequestration|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32543" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12630" RevisionGUID="ee7a5db6-ca35-4c44-b99d-68509db66baf" CreationDate="2023-07-26T19:41:53.613" UserId="6393" Text="A quick googling for energy need of direct air capture gives these estimates:&#xD;&#xA;* 1200 kWh/tonne-CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* 2000 kWh/tonne-CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;&#xD;&#xA;* 8.8 GJ/tonne-CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (2400 kWh/tonne-CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;* 14 GJ/tonne-CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; (3900 kWh/tonne-CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Let's use 2500 kWh/tonne-CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; as a mid estimate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A solar panel of 1 square meter at an optimal angle has 200 watts of nominal power at an efficiency of 20% (typical today), yet provides only about 23 watts of average power due to sunlight being available only during daytime, due to angle of sun varying, and due to clouds. However, this is for optimal angle. If the optimal angle is 45 degrees, then one square meter on the ground gets about `23*cos(45*pi/180)` = 16 watts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A square meter on the ground therefore gives 140 kWh per year.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A square meter can therefore extract 140/2500 = 0.056 tonnes of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per year (56 kg).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Forest grows maybe at a rate of 5-10 cubic meters per hectare per year. That's 0.0005 - 0.001 cubic meters per square meter per year. One cubic meter of wood captures about one tonne of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, so there you have it: direct air capture with solar power gets you 56 kg, the same area of forest gets you 0.5 - 1 kg. That's nearly 100x difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yet the costs are likely to have astronomical differences too. The wood that isn't used as long-lived sawlogs to create lumber is today used as pulpwood and energy wood and has a price of around 20 euros per cubic meter, or 20 euros per tonne of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. I suspect this is an order of magnitude below the current costs of direct air capture and the required solar panels and battery energy storage to power it, and direct air capture gives CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; as gas, whereas wood gives CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; converted to solid carbon. Far more convenient to store solid materials than to store a gas (CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also note that this assumes the only surface area used by direct air capture is the solar panels. In reality, you need enough airflow through the devices, which means the airflow itself is going to require quite large surface area too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32545" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12629" RevisionGUID="6c56b3b6-fd1d-4fe6-b041-d80d1ff3697d" CreationDate="2023-07-27T09:31:54.763" UserId="2345" Comment="Subscripts" Text="I couldn't find a fair comparison. Let's the compare the following two:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A direct air capture plant which is surrounded by solar panel farm which provides the energy to run it. It obviously runs only during the day. In a typical implementation a DAC plant captures CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; into an alkali solution eg. KOH or NaOH as carbonate ions. Which then reacted by Ca(OH)&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; to precipitate the insoluble CaCO&lt;sub&gt;3&lt;/sub&gt; (limestone) and restore the KOH/NaOH solution. The limestone is then subjected to high heat to release CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; and store it in a tank which then can be trucked/piped away. The reactants are recycled. So power is needed to run the fans for air filtration and power is needed to bake out the limestone. (There may be less energy intensive processes I don't know about.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- A forest planted into the same area: it captures CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; as it lives. Let's assume we collect all carbon containing parts: eg. the fallen leaves and other shedding and process them. One way to process it is using hydrothermal liquefaction which turns the organic matter into crude-oil like substance which provides a way to remove the carbon from it. What remains is a nutrient rich sludge that can be returned to the forest.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a lot of comparisons on the web but they often compare the net DAC plant area without the area needed for the energy source with the carbon sequestered in the wood of the forest only without considering the fallen leaves and stuff.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is which of the two can collect more CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; per area per year? Are forests better at capturing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; than artificial solutions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32547" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12631" RevisionGUID="af09ec82-65c7-41a1-be21-8ef9f369690d" CreationDate="2023-07-27T10:41:32.907" UserId="2345" Text="No system is ever perfect and when extreme situations occur, sometimes there aren't any good solutions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Answering your questions in reverse order. Ventilating a house over night only works when the overnight temperature is very low compared to the daytime temperature and the duration of the low temperature is long enough to be useful. Hitting a short duration low is of now practical use. There needs to be time for the house to lose it heat and it does so in this situation by warming the air passing through it. The great the temperature difference between the hot house and the night air passing through it the better. It why refrigerative air conditioning systems work better when there is a large difference between inside and outside temperatures.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Concerning thermal mass, yes more is better. The more there is the longer it takes to warm up or cool down, given the season. In many ways thermal mass can also act as insulation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A better concept is to have a thermal mass type of structure made of material that has low heat conductance. A house made of thick earth walls is better than one made of thick steel walls. Houses don't have to resemble caves, they can have windows, but either use double glazed windows or have a heat reflective film on the windows. Also, during the heat of the day protect windows from the sun by shielding them with a cover, something like shutters or awnings. Even season vine type of plants, or leafy trees, that shield the windows and the external walls during summer but have no leaves during winter would help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32550" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12632" RevisionGUID="3d0386cf-9267-41a1-8ee5-70f92e2c9602" CreationDate="2023-07-29T23:20:09.940" UserId="3423" Text="Has anyone provided any evidence that building more wind turbines results in less oil wells being drilled?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32552" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12632" RevisionGUID="3d0386cf-9267-41a1-8ee5-70f92e2c9602" CreationDate="2023-07-29T23:20:09.940" UserId="3423" Text="Is there any evidence more renewables lowers oil consumption" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32553" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12632" RevisionGUID="3d0386cf-9267-41a1-8ee5-70f92e2c9602" CreationDate="2023-07-29T23:20:09.940" UserId="3423" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32554" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12633" RevisionGUID="8c686612-9381-4067-997b-98356095b717" CreationDate="2023-07-30T07:13:13.190" UserId="6393" Text="Currently, it's true that there is no link.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oil and renewables are used mainly for different purposes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind turbines (and solar power plants) create electricity. Electricity is mainly used for heating, cooling, lights, running appliances, industrial purposes, etc. The exception of this is steelmaking which is still using coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Otherwise without wind turbines, the bulk of the electricity would probably be created with coal and natural gas, since we don't have enough hydropower for example. So wind power does in fact displace coal and to some extent natural gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oil is mainly used for transportation, although in some cases it can still be used for heating too but oil for heating is rapidly becoming obsolete. However, what is making oil in heating obsolete rapidly is not wind power, it's heat pumps. Those heat pumps don't use directly wind power, they use electricity which can use any generation method. So in a world where 100% of electricity was generated by coal and natural gas, it would probably make more sense to use ground source heat pumps than to burn oil for heat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is changing, however, is electric vehicles. They are far more efficient than oil-burning cars. It could be argued that it's not wind power that displaces oil, it's electricity that displaces oil. &lt;a href=&quot;https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/11871/is-driving-an-electric-car-any-better-than-driving-a-conventional-car-if-electri&quot;&gt;Even if electricity was generated by 100% natural gas, electric vehicles would still be more efficient than internal combustion engines.&lt;/a&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it could be argued that oil will become obsolete due to electrification in any case. This would happen despite renewables, so it's true that wind power does not displace oil. Electricity does displace oil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's just that in many regions wind power happens to be the most economical way to create electricity. It creates problems for grid stability, but that's nothing that can't be solved: existing hydropower in some cases is enough to accommodate some amount of wind power, and if more adjustability is required from the grid, it's possible to start creating pumped storage hydropower plants and maybe even massive underground hydrogen storage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32556" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12634" RevisionGUID="5385c1a2-e3bf-4e84-bfaf-561211d561bc" CreationDate="2023-08-02T02:50:19.183" UserId="6629" Text="You've presented a lot of numbers without any sources.  If instead of following your calculation based on unreferenced values, we simply search for CO2 emissions by the aviation sector, we [find][1] that 2022 worldwide CO2 emissions totaled 800 Mtons, per the International Energy Agency.  This is described as 80% of pre-pandemic values, so 1 Gton seems to be a reasonable value to use.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus, your calculation is off by an order of magnitude.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation#" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32558" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12635" RevisionGUID="cb6dd63b-ee65-4dbb-b303-d6dadf83f986" CreationDate="2023-08-02T07:21:03.677" UserId="15109" Text="I was recently recommended *not* to turn off the airconditioner (A/C) when leaving a room for two hours or less but instead to increase the temperature setting closer to the outside temperature. The explanation was that energy use of the A/C unit is very high when initially turning the unit on. However, I think when initially turning on the A/C, then of course the A/C has to work a lot harder to cool the room down. Therefore the explanation is not very satisfying.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - It seems that if the A/C is kept running and the room is kept (even slightly) cooler for the two hours, then more heat will flow into the room in total.&#xD;&#xA; - If the total heat flow into the room is greater, then more heat has to be relocated in total if the A/C is kept running than if it is switched off for two hours.&#xD;&#xA; - If more heat has to be relocated if the A/C is kept running, then the only way that this costs less energy is that there is a difference in efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Thus my question could be rephrased at: is a heat pump less efficient in relocating heat when initially turned on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In case it depends on the type of A/C: in this case it is a modern (2022) heat pump that cools only a single room." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32560" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12635" RevisionGUID="cb6dd63b-ee65-4dbb-b303-d6dadf83f986" CreationDate="2023-08-02T07:21:03.677" UserId="15109" Text="Is it inefficient to turn off the airconditioner for short durations of less than two hours?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32561" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12635" RevisionGUID="cb6dd63b-ee65-4dbb-b303-d6dadf83f986" CreationDate="2023-08-02T07:21:03.677" UserId="15109" Text="|energy-efficiency|air-conditioning|heat-pump|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32564" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12636" RevisionGUID="e027e376-0dd3-4f64-ace7-6e87c1d20de7" CreationDate="2023-08-03T15:51:18.640" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; I was recently recommended not to turn off the airconditioner (A/C) when leaving a room for two hours or less but instead to increase the temperature setting closer to the outside temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entirely bogus recommendation for most units. The compressor is an on/off compressor on most units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where this could theoretically be true is if you have an inverter air conditioner that's sized such that it's working close to the full load. Then if you entirely turn it off, it may work harder when turning it back on, but if you increase the temperature setting closer to the outside temperature, it could theoretically run at a lower power level when cooling down the room, which theoretically could be more efficient. However, whether or not this happens depends on the exact details of the inverter AC. For example if outdoor temperature is 28C, and you cool your room to 22C, and set it to 25C when away, and the room is at this temperature, setting it back down to 22C might already switch to the highest power level. What may help is turning it gradually down: first from 25C to 24C, then to 23C, then to 22C. Also the energy efficiency savings from this are expected to be minimal, and if fact you would save the most money if you just turn the AC off, then when you arrive back, set it first to 27C, then to 26C, then to 25C, then to 24C, then to 23C and finally to 22C.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The explanation was that energy use of the A/C unit is very high when initially turning the unit on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed, it is very high.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In fact, so high that every user of inverter or a generator knows that you can't run an AC unit consuming 900 watts with a generator rated for 1000 watts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this initial high energy consumption happens, maybe for few seconds. Not an issue when considering your electricity bill or environmental impact. Very big issue when considering fuse size, suitability of wiring, or suitability of a particular generator or inverter for running the AC unit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An inverter AC unit will likely be different: they will likely have a soft-start feature that gradually increases the speed of the compressor from zero to the rated speed. But for units having a simple induction motor and no advanced drive electronics, this can't be done.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also inverter AC units could be less efficient when working at full load and more efficient at partial load, but note most AC units are not inverter drive. Also note that when the AC unit is cooling down your house, not maintaining a set temperature, it's highly likely it anyway runs at the max power level, unless the temperature setpoint is only slightly below the current temperature.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; It seems that if the A/C is kept running and the room is kept (even slightly) cooler for the two hours, then more heat will flow into the room in total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is true. More heat will flow into the room, and the AC unit will have to work harder to extract that heat. If you think about it, the most energy efficient temperature is the equilibrium temperature, because it has zero energy consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If the total heat flow into the room is greater, then more heat has to be relocated in total if the A/C is kept running than if it is switched off for two hours.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Entirely true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; If more heat has to be relocated if the A/C is kept running, then the only way that this costs less energy is that there is a difference in efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a difference in efficiency: the cooler the indoor temperature and the hotter the outdoor temperature is, the lower the efficiency. You can't adjust the outdoor temperature but you definitely can adjust the indoor temperature. If you leave the room at a warmer temperature, the AC will have less trouble moving heat away from the room.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the efficiency of AC unit is better when it's hot indoors. Not worse.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, inverter AC units could be more efficient at part load, so definitely check whether you have an inverter AC unit. Also realizing the benefit when cooling down would require gradually decreasing the temperature setpoint one degree at a time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Thus my question could be rephrased at: is a heat pump less efficient in relocating heat when initially turned on?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Yes, it is less efficient ... for maybe few seconds. This doesn't matter if you consider your environmental footprint. This doesn't matter if you consider your electricity bill. It definitely matters when considering wiring size, fuse size, and inverter or generator sizing.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also inverter AC units may be less efficient at full load, but most AC units are not inverter units.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, an inverter unit may have an &quot;energy efficient cooldown&quot; feature where it runs at the most efficient operating point despite the fact that the setpoint may be ten degrees below the current temperature. If you want to save money, then you should use that feature and turn off the AC entirely while away. Of course it's slower to cool down then." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32566" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12637" RevisionGUID="0ffb2ecf-e2a7-4cdf-a314-edaacf702279" CreationDate="2023-08-04T09:10:20.890" UserId="2345" Text="Despite the best intentions of a significant number of people worldwide the consumption of oil has not yet significantly diminished.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are two reasons why oil wells are established: to increase production or to maintain production. Oil is a finite resource and each deposit has its own size and its own time period for which oil can be extracted from it. As oil deposits get depleted and eventually abandoned, sometimes new wells in other deposits are established to replace the former wells or to replace the production from wells that used to produce more oil per unit of time." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32568" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12638" RevisionGUID="b7b8e740-e80e-47f9-a364-780e89a42ab1" CreationDate="2023-08-07T15:03:35.410" UserId="15118" Text="I have a pair of solar panels mounted on my roof. They are rated 90W each, but I want to know, given my latitude and installation, what amount of power they are actually able to generate. I have a test setup that includes two 2-ohm, 100W resistors, a ground, a voltmeter, and ammeter. I can attach one resistor to make a 2-ohm drain, or I can attach them in parallel or series to make the drain 1 or 4 ohms, respectively. If I put this drain circuit on my solar panels and I read 15 volts at 7 amps, then I know that my nominally-rated 180W panels are realistically capable of producing 105W on that date and time at my latitude and under my installation conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have made 36 sets of measurements at various dates and times, always in full sunlight (no clouds). When I make them, I always take readings with the resistors in the 1, 2, and 4-ohm configurations. I'm puzzled by the fact that their power draws are rarely equal. For example, here are the readings I took yesterday:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No drain: 19V 0A&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1-ohm drain: 8V 7.2A = 58W &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2-ohm drain: 14V 6.8A = 95W &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4-ohm drain: 17V 4.4A = 75W&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is pretty typical in that the 2-ohm drain produced the highest power draw. In fact, out of 36 measurements, that has been the result 23 times. 10 times, the 4-ohm drain produced the highest draw; 2 times, the 1-ohm drain did, and once, all three readings were equal. I haven't been able to detect any pattern as to under what sunlight conditions a given resistor configuration will produce the highest draw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;First question: why does the power produced by the solar panels in my test setup differ depending on whether the drain circuit is 1, 2, or 4 ohms? Second, any ideas why the 2-ohm drain usually does a better job of maxing out the solar panels than the 1 or 4-ohm drain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Incidentally, in case anyone is wondering, the highest power output I've been able to get out of this 180W solar panel setup is 112W. That was 14.0V, 8.0A, with a 1-ohm drain.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32570" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12638" RevisionGUID="b7b8e740-e80e-47f9-a364-780e89a42ab1" CreationDate="2023-08-07T15:03:35.410" UserId="15118" Text="Why does my max power produced differ depending on the resistance of the test load?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32571" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12638" RevisionGUID="b7b8e740-e80e-47f9-a364-780e89a42ab1" CreationDate="2023-08-07T15:03:35.410" UserId="15118" Text="|solar-power|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32572" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12639" RevisionGUID="546d3096-94f4-48b9-bcc5-f116bb80e73b" CreationDate="2023-08-07T19:15:52.557" UserId="6393" Text="A solar panel is a diode. It's just a diode where light generates charge carrier pairs. So it obeys the ideal diode law.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An ideal diode law with charge carriers created by light is as follows:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    I = I_l - I_s*(exp(V/(n*V_t)) - 1)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;...where `I` is the external current, `I_l` is the photogenerated current, `I_s` is the saturation current (a diode model parameter), `V` is the voltage at the diode, `n` is the ideality factor (usually between 1 and 2), and `V_t` is the thermal voltage depending on the temperature of the diode (26 mV at room temperature).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The power created for an external load is:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    P = V*I = V*(I_l - I_s*(exp(V/(n*V_t)) - 1))&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You see that in this expression, the `V` inside the diode model isn't cancelled by the `V` by which the current is multiplied.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may consider the following thought experiment:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. You leave the solar panel at an open circuit, with infinite resistance across its terminals. Will the power still be the nominal power of the solar panel? One way that would allow open circuit to create power is an infinite voltage, but can sunlight really create an infinite voltage?&#xD;&#xA;2. You short-circuit the solar panel, so that resistance is zero across its terminals. Will it still generate power at the short circuit? `P = R*I^2` so if `R` is zero, `I` would have to be infinite to have something else than zero. Can finite sunlight generate infinite charge carrier pairs?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These thought experiments demonstrate something: you can't expect a solar panel to produce constant power all the time. In particular, if you short circuit a solar panel, power has to be zero since voltage is zero. If you leave it with an open circuit, power has to be zero since current is zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why would you therefore expect that if the resistance is something else than zero or infinite, that the power would not depend on the resistance?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another way to think about this is as follows: light creates a current `I_l`. Part of that current is recombined already at the diode according to the Shockley diode equation (`I_s*(exp(V/(n*V_t)) - 1)`) and only part ends at the external circuit where it can do useful work. How much work it can do depends on the voltage (because voltage affects power, and also because voltage affects how much current is recombined already at the diode), which depends on the resistance. So actually the solar panel may be thought of as a device with constant power, only some of that power gets lost in the panel itself as heat, and how much gets lost as heat depends on the operating conditions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is exactly the reason why we have maximum power point tracking charge controllers (to allow better efficiency than PWM charge controllers). This is exactly the reason why any decent grid-tie solar inverter already has a maximum power point tracking device built in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want maximal power, there is only one (voltage,current) operating point that generates maximal power, although with partially shaded complex solar systems, there may be local false optima in addition to the true global optimum.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to do something useful with your panels, other than testing it with resistors, you have two ways:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Attach a battery into it, with either:&#xD;&#xA;    * PWM charge controller (cheaper)&#xD;&#xA;    * MPPT charge controller (more efficient)&#xD;&#xA;2. Attach a grid-tie inverter into it and sell the electricity to grid" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32575" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="14c4dd3d-413a-40cf-922c-10402216c634" CreationDate="2023-08-08T06:34:13.940" UserId="6102" Text="My dishwasher is modern, bought 1 year ago. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because dirty dishes stink, I have to run a half empty dishwasher. Unfortunately I have no other choice, even fungus develops when the dirty dishes are too long in the dishwasher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How harmful to the environment is this with modern appliances? Is there a better solution?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that, for example, the washing machine for clothes uses less resources when it is half full. That was an important purchase criterion for me as a single person." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32577" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="14c4dd3d-413a-40cf-922c-10402216c634" CreationDate="2023-08-08T06:34:13.940" UserId="6102" Text="Because dirty dishes stink, I have to run a half empty dishwasher. How environmentally harmful is that with modern appliances?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32578" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12640" RevisionGUID="14c4dd3d-413a-40cf-922c-10402216c634" CreationDate="2023-08-08T06:34:13.940" UserId="6102" Text="|environmental-impact|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32579" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12641" RevisionGUID="85a01858-2054-401b-be5c-2c1bf286c75b" CreationDate="2023-08-08T15:53:41.430" UserId="6393" Text="It sounds like you don't need a dishwasher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I live alone. I don't use a dishwasher, I wash everything by hand.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It isn't hard. For example, I wash my plate when cooking food, which provides plenty of waiting time for allowing washing it. I don't have any other better uses for that waiting time, so the time usage from my point of view is zero.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of the large items like pots and frying pans, they usually aren't intended to be washed in the dishwasher and if you do so, you need quite many of these so that you have enough of them for every day. So most people wash them by hand anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some items like drinking glasses and coffee mugs can be washed as needed, no need to wash every single day. If you drink only water, the drinking glass washing interval can actually be quite long, but coffee mugs require washing more often or else it affects the taste of coffee.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true that modern dishwashers are quite water-efficient so washing by hand definitely won't save water or the energy used to heat that water. So for the environment, it may actually be best if you just use the dishwasher and fill it only partially. The reason I don't have a dishwasher is not because it would be harmful to the environment to run it at quarter full. The reason is that it takes quite a lot of space for which I have far better uses. There's simply no reason to waste space for something big that I fill only partially. I use the space that the dishwasher would otherwise use for storing items (kitchen tools, food, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you really want to fully use your dishwasher, maybe you should consider putting your frying pans, pots etc. there -- buy many of these so you have a free one for every day. They take quite a lot of space so I can't imagine if you cook food that you would be unable to fill your dishwasher.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About a specific cleaning mode for half-full or quarter-full dishwasher: I believe they don't have that, since it's hard to automatically detect how full the dishwasher is. Washing machines can do that, since they have a rotating drum and they can measure the rate of acceleration of the drum with a constant power level to determine how much spinning mass the drum has." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32581" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12642" RevisionGUID="7acd2738-f499-4bc5-99ae-f4796638074e" CreationDate="2023-08-08T16:32:08.483" UserId="15124" Text="Hello and sorry for my silly question! I want to create a pair of sunglasses made of Fimo (polymer clay). I know, maybe no one did something like this, but I'm ambitious when it comes to nonsense. To properly harden FIMO, the oven should be preheated to 130°C, then place my modelled FIMO artwork into the oven for 15-30 minutes. I can find a type of lenses that will not melt in the oven? Thanks!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32583" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12642" RevisionGUID="7acd2738-f499-4bc5-99ae-f4796638074e" CreationDate="2023-08-08T16:32:08.483" UserId="15124" Text="What kind of lenses used for eyewear doesn’t melt in the oven?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32584" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12642" RevisionGUID="7acd2738-f499-4bc5-99ae-f4796638074e" CreationDate="2023-08-08T16:32:08.483" UserId="15124" Text="|recycling|waste|plastic|heating|plastic-alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32585" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12643" RevisionGUID="240f6054-e904-4b81-8b1b-cfdb95eedc06" CreationDate="2023-08-08T17:37:33.707" UserId="6393" Text="I suspect anything made from plastic could be damaged, but true glass lenses should be fine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Borosilicate glass, used in optics, has a glass transition temperature of 500 degrees Celsius. Because the glass transition is not a strict melting point but rather the material becomes softer at around that temperature, you don't want to go anywhere near it. But 130 degrees Celsius should be safe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So buy true glass lenses and you should be fine." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32587" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12644" RevisionGUID="19f89cd6-02a4-480c-bcf0-cad3f4e83f7d" CreationDate="2023-08-09T03:31:57.970" UserId="7993" Text="Using a &quot;smart&quot; dishwasher with a water-turbidity sensor, running a half-full dishwasher is slightly less than twice as harmful as running a fully-loaded one.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of water used doesn't change.  A dishwasher works by cycling the same water repeatedly through a filter to the cleaning jets; a smart washer monitors the progress of cleaning by measuring the opacity of the water just before it enters the filter.  If the water entering the filter is reasonably clean, that's a sign that the dishes are clean and it's time to start the rinse cycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The amount of electricity used will probably decrease slightly.  A half-empty dishwasher, properly loaded, will provide better access to the soiled surfaces of the dishes and faster cleaning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even a basic fixed-cycle dishwasher is going to be more efficient than hand-washing for more than a few dishes.  The &quot;closed cycle with filter&quot; setup means that a dishwasher uses far less water than you'd expect; a high-efficiency one can use as little as 12 liters/3 gallons for a load of dishes.  Don't use the dishwasher's drying feature, though: air-drying is far more environmentally friendly." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32607" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9725" RevisionGUID="23cfa8f2-209d-4c01-9744-894ebdc77af5" CreationDate="2023-08-12T09:04:55.563" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32608" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12612" RevisionGUID="ad42e965-282a-486b-9d4d-245a665269d5" CreationDate="2023-08-12T10:01:00.207" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32611" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12650" RevisionGUID="96f23b88-c4f7-48b5-8700-5eeb6727283f" CreationDate="2023-08-13T21:46:42.913" UserId="15138" Text="I remember Paper milk carton in 1 gal. My mom would bring it home and pore it in to a  1 gal jar then she would rise out the carton fill it with water an freeze for ice. Yes glass is heaver but is much easyer to recyle and much more earth friendly and heathly.&#xD;&#xA;V.L. Snyder Age 65" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32614" PostHistoryTypeId="13" PostId="5804" RevisionGUID="64d690ea-e954-402b-9381-44cc5864ee48" CreationDate="2023-08-14T16:47:41.390" UserId="13949" Text="{&quot;Voters&quot;:[{&quot;Id&quot;:13949,&quot;DisplayName&quot;:&quot;Dalmarus&quot;}]}" />
  <row Id="32615" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="c4fe38ae-5145-47e3-8500-62dc61bc09a3" CreationDate="2023-08-15T07:42:02.543" UserId="3293" Text="Without turning to chemical stuff that I cannot easily produce myself, is there a way to prevent garden tools from rust, as they are bound to stay outdoor, protected from the direct rain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried sunflower oil, but it doesn't seem optimal, since it seems to disappear after a couple of months.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32617" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="c4fe38ae-5145-47e3-8500-62dc61bc09a3" CreationDate="2023-08-15T07:42:02.543" UserId="3293" Text="Prevent rust on tools" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32618" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="c4fe38ae-5145-47e3-8500-62dc61bc09a3" CreationDate="2023-08-15T07:42:02.543" UserId="3293" Text="|alternatives|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32619" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12541" RevisionGUID="c9c3cc0f-c33b-4066-baa8-9c9544668615" CreationDate="2023-08-15T13:10:06.197" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32623" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="f06f7e5d-11f6-42f8-8d17-e8a6a36a7f1c" CreationDate="2023-08-16T04:26:49.813" UserId="2345" Comment="Gramatical changes" Text="Without turning to chemical stuff that I cannot easily produce myself, is there a way to prevent garden tools from rusting, as they are bound to stay outdoors, protected from direct rain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried sunflower oil, but it doesn't seem optimal, since it seems to disappear after a couple of months.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32624" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="f06f7e5d-11f6-42f8-8d17-e8a6a36a7f1c" CreationDate="2023-08-16T04:26:49.813" UserId="2345" Comment="Gramatical changes" Text="|alternatives|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32625" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12653" RevisionGUID="87fc0ccc-2aaa-41e9-8d5d-3be517049c36" CreationDate="2023-08-16T04:39:12.927" UserId="2345" Text="Sealing a cardboard box for use as a beverage container where the box needs to be repeatedly opened and closed, without the use of a plastic screw top lid is a significant challenge. I have seen 1 liter [Tetra Pak][1] cartons with a plastic screw lid used for milk and fruit juice. They can easily be adapted to carry water.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetra_Pak" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32627" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="b542b81a-dd26-4000-8247-af5081d46e30" CreationDate="2023-08-16T07:47:26.093" UserId="3293" Comment="I don't mean the oil must stay on them while I use the tools." Text="Without turning to chemical stuff that I cannot easily produce myself, is there a way to prevent garden tools from rusting, as they are bound to stay* outdoors, protected from direct rain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried sunflower oil, but it doesn't seem optimal, since it seems to disappear after a couple of months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit&#xD;&#xA;As I mean &quot;they stay outdoors&quot;, I mean they are just stored, not used.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32628" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12654" RevisionGUID="d2a5a01d-81aa-4226-9f09-45d6bf75465c" CreationDate="2023-08-17T09:49:11.103" UserId="3960" Text="One issue that has not been mentioned, and which particularly affects older electric vehicles, is battery temperature. This can be exacerbated by using fast (50kW+) chargers which also increase the temperature of the battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have personally struggled to complete a long journey in temperatures of around 30C using an old Nissan Leaf - the journey was long enough to require a couple of stops to fast charge. Each charge raised the battery temperature considerably, and the combination of high ambient temperatures and high power requirements for motorway driving meant that the battery just couldn't cool down - for pretty much the whole journey the battery temperature gauge was right on the verge of going into the red, which made for a pretty nerve-wracking drive...&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It should be noted that the Leaf only uses basic air-cooling for its battery, most modern EVs will use much more sophisticated liquid cooling." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32630" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12655" RevisionGUID="37ee6ba9-7c31-44e9-a4ab-7a1a15625258" CreationDate="2023-08-17T23:26:58.443" UserId="938" Text="[This source](https://www.jenolite.com/blogs/rust-corrosion/7-ways-to-prevent-rusty-garden-tools-this-winter) suggests:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Keep your garden tools clean and dry. Clean them off after use, and especially before putting them away for the winter.&#xD;&#xA;* Preferably store them by hanging them on nails or hooks, instead of on the ground. Moisture is heavier than air, and tends to settle towards the ground. [(Source.)](https://www.godownsize.com/humidity-higher-at-floor-ceiling/#:~:text=Due%20to%20gravity%2C%20moisture%20is%20heavier%20than%20air%20and%20tends%20to%20settle%20down%20toward%20the%20ground.)&#xD;&#xA;* Protect your tools by adding oil just before winter storage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32632" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="8b04b647-d084-4e7b-bbfa-a8254a8583d5" CreationDate="2023-08-18T06:07:20.070" UserId="938" Comment="Copyediting.  Adding a tag." Text="Without using chemicals that I cannot easily produce myself, is there a way to prevent garden tools from rusting? They are bound to stay* outdoors, protected from direct rain.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I tried sunflower oil, but it doesn't seem optimal. It seems to disappear after a couple of months.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*Edit&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As I mean &quot;they stay outdoors&quot;, I mean they are just stored, not used." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32633" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="8b04b647-d084-4e7b-bbfa-a8254a8583d5" CreationDate="2023-08-18T06:07:20.070" UserId="938" Comment="Copyediting.  Adding a tag." Text="How to prevent rust on garden tools" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32634" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="8b04b647-d084-4e7b-bbfa-a8254a8583d5" CreationDate="2023-08-18T06:07:20.070" UserId="938" Comment="Copyediting.  Adding a tag." Text="|gardening|alternatives|metal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32635" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12651" RevisionGUID="8b04b647-d084-4e7b-bbfa-a8254a8583d5" CreationDate="2023-08-18T06:07:20.070" Comment="Proposed by 938 approved by 3293 edit id of 713" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32638" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12656" RevisionGUID="f77d9341-5618-476e-b1cc-dac018c78a6a" CreationDate="2023-08-19T11:40:48.097" UserId="13882" Text="Vermicomposters add cardboard pieces to their waster in order to provide carbon and to dry/ventilate the medium to avoid hot fermentation. The amount of cardboard is usually high to balance the high content of water in vegetable wastes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, cardboards are usually recycled from old cardboard which the recycling process tolerates a certain amount of plastic (rubber etc) and other pollutants. Some of these pollutants are [PFAS][1], which are &quot;eternal&quot; pollutants as they are incredibly stable, then they accumulate in each recycling process. They are [known][2] to be used in cardboard or or paper food packaging as water and grease repellents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the compost from vermicomposting could include a large amount of PFAS. What would be a good alternative to cardboard for vermicomposting in a city flat (i.e. no access to dead leaves etc)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/perfluoroalkyl-chemicals-pfas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32640" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12656" RevisionGUID="f77d9341-5618-476e-b1cc-dac018c78a6a" CreationDate="2023-08-19T11:40:48.097" UserId="13882" Text="Which alternatives to PFAS-contaminated cardboards for vermicomposting?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32641" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12656" RevisionGUID="f77d9341-5618-476e-b1cc-dac018c78a6a" CreationDate="2023-08-19T11:40:48.097" UserId="13882" Text="|waste|pollution|vermicomposting|pfas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32642" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="6318" RevisionGUID="391cda50-36fb-4814-9ecc-b642820f1182" CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:06:36.240" UserId="5040" Comment="edited tags" Text="|air-pollution|manufacturing|fertilizer|nitrogen-oxides|sulphur-oxides|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32643" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12657" RevisionGUID="f8a17a81-ee3f-4e09-8dd1-a9456be6043f" CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:13:11.050" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32645" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12657" RevisionGUID="f8a17a81-ee3f-4e09-8dd1-a9456be6043f" CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:13:11.050" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32646" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12658" RevisionGUID="d64c97dd-0203-4301-8604-a48fb3b292ce" CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:13:11.050" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32648" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12658" RevisionGUID="d64c97dd-0203-4301-8604-a48fb3b292ce" CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:13:11.050" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32649" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="a98f77eb-7204-4dc1-83fc-98498a4f998e" CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:22:08.310" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32651" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12659" RevisionGUID="a98f77eb-7204-4dc1-83fc-98498a4f998e" CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:22:08.310" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32652" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12660" RevisionGUID="25730bc7-f06f-4586-9075-6a84fce800e4" CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:22:08.310" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32654" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12660" RevisionGUID="25730bc7-f06f-4586-9075-6a84fce800e4" CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:22:08.310" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32655" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12661" RevisionGUID="a808138e-5796-46e1-b52c-fe9d4bf534e3" CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:23:18.633" UserId="15022" Text="Preparing for the next heatwave with something more sustainable than air conditioning, I'm looking into the idea of installing cooling reflectors as promoted by the site [www.meer.org][1] (basically, reflecting solar radiation with mirrors on the rooftop).&#xD;&#xA;Despite the simplicity of the idea, I cannot find other resources on it, and I'd like to know how much passive cooling to expect, which I think would not be very hard if I have the insolation data of my area. All I find is longwave radiative cooling, which (this is my opinion) looks like the anthitesis of sustainable (very high tech and questionable long term reliability).&#xD;&#xA;Anyone has a reference on passive cooling techniques that includes solar reflective measures?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.meer.org" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32657" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12661" RevisionGUID="a808138e-5796-46e1-b52c-fe9d4bf534e3" CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:23:18.633" UserId="15022" Text="Resources on reflective cooling" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32658" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12661" RevisionGUID="a808138e-5796-46e1-b52c-fe9d4bf534e3" CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:23:18.633" UserId="15022" Text="|cooling|solar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32659" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12662" RevisionGUID="bf3df34b-9116-4d4f-ba13-e4efd576c0d5" CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:33:00.750" UserId="15022" Text="Why not clay &quot;glasses&quot; (sounds weird in English because the material is synonym of the recipient but you know what I mean)?&#xD;&#xA;They are made from literal earth, so if broken can be ground up to dust which reintegrates and can last a lot. If you worry you can ask for a lead free certificate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know they are expensive up front but stainless steel glasses should also last decades and won't ever break or produce undesirable microplastics." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32661" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12663" RevisionGUID="42d2c6e8-45f5-4934-a7af-901210808df0" CreationDate="2023-08-20T02:40:22.847" UserId="5040" Text="Urea (Ammonia) can be used for scrubbing sulphur oxides &amp; Nitrogen oxides, to create the fertilizer compounds: Ammonium Sulphate &amp; Ammonium Nitrate.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more info, see: https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/6318/is-there-any-way-to-recycle-air-pollution-into-fertilizer/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32663" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12664" RevisionGUID="71074ef9-1f4b-420b-a6ab-a3e1917362f2" CreationDate="2023-08-20T17:40:46.647" UserId="15157" Text="Linseed oil [is traditional](https://www.gardentoolcompany.com/pages/best-oil-for-garden-tools). Presumably you could either grow the seed or buy a bag of it and crush and boil it yourself. Linseed oil is a [drying oil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drying_oil) which, in contrast to the sunflower oil you mentioned, is more like a varnish as it polymerises on the treated workpiece for long-lasting protection. It is traditionally and still currently used for treating sports bats, boats and the like." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32667" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12656" RevisionGUID="775aa5ef-398a-48f9-8880-e494b4f5ea9b" CreationDate="2023-08-21T14:53:46.160" UserId="13882" Comment="typo" Text="Vermicomposters add cardboard pieces to their waste in order to provide a source of carbon and to dry/ventilate the medium to avoid any hot fermentation. The amount of cardboard is usually high to balance the high content of water in vegetable waste.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, cardboards are usually recycled from old cardboard which the recycling process tolerates a certain amount of plastic (rubber etc) and other pollutants. Some of these pollutants are [PFAS][1], which are &quot;eternal&quot; pollutants as they are incredibly stable, then they accumulate every each recycling process. They are [known][2] to be used in cardboard or paper food-packaging as water and grease repellents.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the compost from vermicomposting could include a large amount of PFAS. What would be a good alternative to cardboard for vermicomposting in a city flat (i.e. no access to dead leaves etc)?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/perfluoroalkyl-chemicals-pfas" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32668" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="97ade127-fb79-4726-9572-751173be8af0" CreationDate="2023-08-21T16:01:50.253" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32669" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12665" RevisionGUID="82460bde-57bb-4fbb-94f6-33fa6e143a77" CreationDate="2023-08-22T02:08:26.857" UserId="15022" Text="Personally I dislike cement and concrete. Nothing grows on it, it's hard and unconfortable and exists for cars rather than living beings. There are some concrete spots in front of my house where I would gleefully put plants or even plant a tree if possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, breaking the concrete plate already requires plenty of physical effort hitting it with a sledge hammer or a noisy hydraulic one, and even then there's all the rubble that is supposed to go to a landfill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know cement / concrete is a special mix of calcium and some other carbonates and hydroxides. I suppose its surface pH must be too alkaline for microbial attack but acids should be able to dissolve it. Is there a specific way to degrade it using a combination of microorganisms and maybe some organic substrate?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32671" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12665" RevisionGUID="82460bde-57bb-4fbb-94f6-33fa6e143a77" CreationDate="2023-08-22T02:08:26.857" UserId="15022" Text="Is there a energetically low way to chemically degrade / destroy cement and concrete?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32672" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12665" RevisionGUID="82460bde-57bb-4fbb-94f6-33fa6e143a77" CreationDate="2023-08-22T02:08:26.857" UserId="15022" Text="|cement|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32673" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12666" RevisionGUID="2dc18fa9-ac4a-4e39-b329-1e7334f626cc" CreationDate="2023-08-22T08:46:54.347" UserId="14406" Text="I deliberately avoid cutting off or tearing off parts of packaging which I intend to recycle as in my mind I would imagine that this makes the recycling process easier. But does it actually? Is there any benefit to keeping packaging whole for the purpose of recycling, or is it fine to let parts break off as long as I put those in the recycling too?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32675" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12666" RevisionGUID="2dc18fa9-ac4a-4e39-b329-1e7334f626cc" CreationDate="2023-08-22T08:46:54.347" UserId="14406" Text="Does it matter whether I recycle packaging as one contiguous chunk or as separated parts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32676" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12666" RevisionGUID="2dc18fa9-ac4a-4e39-b329-1e7334f626cc" CreationDate="2023-08-22T08:46:54.347" UserId="14406" Text="|recycling|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32677" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12667" RevisionGUID="bc4bfd06-13ec-408c-aae8-4c2f400e8306" CreationDate="2023-08-23T00:59:55.900" UserId="8232" Text="### Yes, it matters&#xD;&#xA;You should avoid cutting or shredding plastics before sending them to recycling.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It depends on the recycling center as to how exactly your plastics are handled, but MOST modern plastic recycling involves a sorting phase, where different types of plastic are sorted based on the [type of plastic][1], usually denoted by numbers/symbols on the container.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Cutting or Shredding containers before they hit the center makes that process harder/impossible, and thus a lot of these mixed/unknown plastics are usually sent to landfill/burned, or end up contaminating the stock of plastics that are sorted by type.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Additionally - not every recycling center is equipped to deal with every type of plastic. It's best to check with the recycling center that services your area - most have a website or a help/contact service to check what types of plastic are accepted. You might be able to take other types of plastic to a different center (e.g. builder's tips may accept/handle PVC (Type 3) plastic when your general recycling facility does not).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resin_identification_code" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32679" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12668" RevisionGUID="5ec63a3e-a507-421c-8a4f-a00becf62d0c" CreationDate="2023-08-23T14:33:40.727" UserId="15164" Text="Just checking if there's anyone else in Ireland out there ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll be using the SolarMeitheal tag to group all questions about domestic Solar PV in Ireland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Meitheal][1] idea is a workgroup or a peer-to-peer support network for questions about Solar PV in Ireland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://translate.google.com/;)?sl=ga&amp;tl=en&amp;text=Meitheal&amp;op=translate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32681" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12668" RevisionGUID="5ec63a3e-a507-421c-8a4f-a00becf62d0c" CreationDate="2023-08-23T14:33:40.727" UserId="15164" Text="Does anyone know of a map of Solar PV Installers in Ireland?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32682" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12668" RevisionGUID="5ec63a3e-a507-421c-8a4f-a00becf62d0c" CreationDate="2023-08-23T14:33:40.727" UserId="15164" Text="|solar-power|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32683" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12669" RevisionGUID="3075a69a-be4c-4344-99f5-dcabcda91a62" CreationDate="2023-08-23T14:41:56.443" UserId="14377" Text="Not sure it there is a map, but the official list of suppliers/installers is on the SEAI website &#xD;&#xA;https://www.seai.ie/grants/find-a-registered-professional/solar-pv-companies/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32685" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12668" RevisionGUID="4fe004e4-0024-4ec0-b423-1aa4810e5c47" CreationDate="2023-08-24T23:18:24.007" UserId="8232" Comment="fix broken link" Text="Just checking if there's anyone else in Ireland out there ?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'll be using the SolarMeitheal tag to group all questions about domestic Solar PV in Ireland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The [Meitheal][1] idea is a workgroup or a peer-to-peer support network for questions about Solar PV in Ireland.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://translate.google.com?sl=ga&amp;tl=en&amp;text=Meitheal&amp;op=translate" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32688" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12670" RevisionGUID="118f128f-d9c3-4bde-b3c9-2866cc57dc27" CreationDate="2023-08-27T18:48:16.583" UserId="938" Text="I have an 8 ounce (~200 g) can of Foot Locker ultra fabric &amp; leather protector.  I guess this is a [durable water repellent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durable_water_repellent) chemical concoction, similar to 3M Scotchgard.  I think the can may still be half full, or more.  I now know that these kinds of products often contain PFAS &quot;forever chemicals&quot;, and are not very good for the environment.  Therefore, I think it might not be a good idea for me to use up the rest of the contents of the can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the most sustainable way for me to get rid of what's left?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A.) Should I put it out in a box at the curb labelled &quot;Free&quot;, and let someone else take it? They may spray it on garments which eventually end up in landfill. Later on, landfill leachate can contaminate groundwater. [(Source.)](https://chemsec.org/nobody-really-knows-what-happens-to-pfas-when-we-throw-our-old-products-away-2/#:~:text=As%20of%20today,contaminate%20the%20groundwater.)&#xD;&#xA;* B.) Should I try to sell it for US$1 on a local classifieds website?&#xD;&#xA;* C.) Should I offer it to the staff at a local outdoors store, who otherwise might buy their own can?&#xD;&#xA;* D.) Should I take it to a hazardous waste pickup point here in Toronto, and ask them to send it for incineration? Unfortunately, normal hazardous waste incineration (perhaps [2200 °F](https://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-23.html#:~:text=1%2C200%20%C2%B0C%20(1%2C600%2D-,2%2C200%20%C2%B0F,-)%2C%20are%20used%20to)) may not be [hot enough](https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2022/ask-the-expert-how-to-destoy-pfas?collection=79022467-cc5d-4b0d-9d69-8f773df52178#:~:text=2%2C730%20degrees%20Fahrenheit) to destroy PFAS.&#xD;&#xA;* E.) Should I keep the product, and re-spray my winter coat (which is no longer water-repellent)?&#xD;&#xA;* F.) Should I do something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32690" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12670" RevisionGUID="118f128f-d9c3-4bde-b3c9-2866cc57dc27" CreationDate="2023-08-27T18:48:16.583" UserId="938" Text="How do I get rid of half a can of durable water repellent spray (similar to 3M Scotchgard)?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32691" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12670" RevisionGUID="118f128f-d9c3-4bde-b3c9-2866cc57dc27" CreationDate="2023-08-27T18:48:16.583" UserId="938" Text="|waste|reuse|toxic-chemicals|pfas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32692" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="2316c9b7-1813-4de8-8938-85ff4612d7de" CreationDate="2023-08-27T19:39:49.137" UserId="938" Text="My favorite book about garbage is [_Garbology_](https://www.amazon.com/Garbology-Dirty-Love-Affair-Trash/dp/1583335234), by US journalist Edward Humes.  It discusses garbage, what we do with it, and better ways to deal with it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The book is about a decade old, but still relevant today.  According to WorldCat.org, ~1,500 public library systems worldwide still own at least one copy of the book. Some of these library systems may have dozens of branches and may hold multiple copies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On page 181 of the book, Humes cites a magazine column by garbage archaeologist and anthropology professor William Rathje:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Rathje, William. &quot;Decadence now.&quot; Beyond the Pail. _MSW management: the journal for municipal solid waste professionals_. Volume 11, issue 1.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Where can I find this column?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32694" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="2316c9b7-1813-4de8-8938-85ff4612d7de" CreationDate="2023-08-27T19:39:49.137" UserId="938" Text="Where to find the column &quot;Decadence Now&quot;, which is cited in _Garbology_" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32695" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12671" RevisionGUID="2316c9b7-1813-4de8-8938-85ff4612d7de" CreationDate="2023-08-27T19:39:49.137" UserId="938" Text="|waste|internet|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32696" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12672" RevisionGUID="ecb4758f-c52a-4ed2-869f-da2ce1993143" CreationDate="2023-08-27T19:39:49.137" UserId="938" Text="It wasn't very easy for me to do, but I did find a copy of the column using the Internet Wayback Machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may [read the column here](http://web.archive.org/web/20021113165734/http://www.forester.net/msw_0101_beyond.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32698" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12672" RevisionGUID="fd91c9b6-3bbd-43fc-ab66-80dfd31ccc91" CreationDate="2023-08-27T20:36:55.890" UserId="938" Comment="added 8 characters in body" Text="It wasn't very easy for me to do, but I did find a copy of the column using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may [read the column here](http://web.archive.org/web/20021113165734/http://www.forester.net/msw_0101_beyond.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32699" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12234" RevisionGUID="b491b24f-7ceb-4fa0-a3c6-08816f6729f6" CreationDate="2023-08-28T03:10:21.757" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32700" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12670" RevisionGUID="00c6a692-49b9-4493-95c3-7a0358215c47" CreationDate="2023-08-28T08:47:38.827" UserId="938" Comment="edited tags" Text="|waste|reuse|pollution|toxic-chemicals|pfas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32701" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12673" RevisionGUID="26bbe856-bb7a-40aa-97d2-86da1dc326d8" CreationDate="2023-08-28T09:10:24.767" UserId="15170" Text="It's hard to give more than my opinion to this but from your options I would choose &quot;C&quot;. If you know of people that are already using the product that would be the best option.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My rationale:&#xD;&#xA;- A: Could easily just end up in general waste&#xD;&#xA;- D: If you know of people that already use the product then you are destroying this one for no reason.&#xD;&#xA;- E: It seems you have already decided that you no longer want to use it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;B&quot; would be a good option depending where you live (how far do people have to travel to you).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond an opinion [reducereuserecycle.co.uk][1] offers these options under reuse which are similar to your proposals:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Sell the item, for example by advertising it on one of the many websites such as eBay, on Facebook groups or via local newspapers. If it is an antique or collectable item you may be able to sell it to a local antiques shop.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Give it to a friend that needs the item.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Donate it to a charity shop (thrift store) where it can be sold to raise money for a good cause.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Give it to somebody who is looking for something, via websites such as Freecycle or Freegle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Hold a yard sale or get a pitch at a car boot sale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.reducereuserecycle.co.uk/greenarticles/what_does_reduce_reuse_recycle_mean.php" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32703" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12672" RevisionGUID="fca90a31-7362-4aa6-8b13-288fdeb07c4b" CreationDate="2023-08-28T09:18:30.490" UserId="938" Comment="added 4 characters in body" Text="It was perhaps rather tricky to find, but I did find a copy of the column using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may [read the column here](http://web.archive.org/web/20021113165734/http://www.forester.net/msw_0101_beyond.html)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32704" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12670" RevisionGUID="0405fc8c-6136-4004-a056-9b8e2ccfc9fd" CreationDate="2023-08-28T10:28:07.180" UserId="938" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="I have an 8 ounce (~200 g) can of Foot Locker ultra fabric &amp; leather protector.  I guess this is a [durable water repellent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durable_water_repellent) chemical concoction, similar to 3M Scotchgard.  I think the can may still be half full, or more.  I now know that these kinds of products often contain PFAS &quot;forever chemicals&quot;, and are not very good for the environment.  Therefore, I think it might not be a good idea for me to use up the rest of the contents of the can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the most sustainable way for me to get rid of what's left?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A.) Should I put it out in a box at the curb labelled &quot;Free&quot;, and let someone else take it? They may spray it on garments which eventually end up in landfill. Later on, landfill leachate can contaminate groundwater. [(Source.)](https://chemsec.org/nobody-really-knows-what-happens-to-pfas-when-we-throw-our-old-products-away-2/#:~:text=As%20of%20today,contaminate%20the%20groundwater.)&#xD;&#xA;* B.) Should I try to sell it for US$1 on a local classifieds website?&#xD;&#xA;* C.) Should I offer it to the staff at a local outdoors store, who otherwise might buy their own can?&#xD;&#xA;* D.) Should I take it to a hazardous waste drop-off point here in Toronto, and ask them to send it for incineration? Unfortunately, normal hazardous waste incineration (perhaps [2200 °F](https://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-23.html#:~:text=1%2C200%20%C2%B0C%20(1%2C600%2D-,2%2C200%20%C2%B0F,-)%2C%20are%20used%20to)) may not be [hot enough](https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2022/ask-the-expert-how-to-destoy-pfas?collection=79022467-cc5d-4b0d-9d69-8f773df52178#:~:text=2%2C730%20degrees%20Fahrenheit) to destroy PFAS.&#xD;&#xA;* E.) Should I keep the product, and re-spray my winter coat (which is no longer water-repellent)?&#xD;&#xA;* F.) Should I do something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32705" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12670" RevisionGUID="cce44822-597b-4474-825c-69b03b903464" CreationDate="2023-08-28T11:06:01.097" UserId="938" Comment="edited title" Text="How to get rid of half a can of durable water repellent spray (similar to 3M Scotchgard)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32706" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12670" RevisionGUID="034383cb-d23e-4f87-b280-e215f5b251da" CreationDate="2023-08-28T11:17:43.780" UserId="938" Comment="edited title" Text="(Cross-posted, together with additional questions, to [a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Anticonsumption/comments/163j8pl/how_to_get_rid_of_half_a_can_of_durable_water/) on the /r/Anticonsumption sub-Reddit.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I have an 8 ounce (~200 g) can of Foot Locker ultra fabric &amp; leather protector spray.  I guess this is a [durable water repellent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durable_water_repellent) chemical concoction, similar to 3M Scotchgard.  I think the can may still be half full, or more.  I now know that these kinds of products often contain PFAS &quot;forever chemicals&quot;, and are not very good for the environment.  Therefore, I think it might not be a good idea for me to use up the rest of the contents of the can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What's the most sustainable way for me to get rid of what's left?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* A.) Should I put it out in a box at the curb labelled &quot;Free&quot;, and let someone else take it? They may spray it on garments which eventually end up in landfill. Later on, landfill leachate can contaminate groundwater. [(Source.)](https://chemsec.org/nobody-really-knows-what-happens-to-pfas-when-we-throw-our-old-products-away-2/#:~:text=As%20of%20today,contaminate%20the%20groundwater.)&#xD;&#xA;* B.) Should I try to sell it for US$1 on a local classifieds website?&#xD;&#xA;* C.) Should I offer it to the staff at a local outdoors store, who otherwise might buy their own can?&#xD;&#xA;* D.) Should I take it to a hazardous waste drop-off point here in Toronto, and ask them to send it for incineration? Unfortunately, normal hazardous waste incineration (perhaps [2200 °F](https://www.frtr.gov/matrix2/section4/4-23.html#:~:text=1%2C200%20%C2%B0C%20(1%2C600%2D-,2%2C200%20%C2%B0F,-%29%2C%20are%20used%20to)) may not be [hot enough](https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2022/ask-the-expert-how-to-destoy-pfas?collection=79022467-cc5d-4b0d-9d69-8f773df52178#:~:text=2%2C730%20degrees%20Fahrenheit) to destroy PFAS.&#xD;&#xA;* E.) Should I keep the product, and re-spray my winter coat (which is no longer water-repellent)?&#xD;&#xA;* F.) Should I do something else?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32707" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12674" RevisionGUID="21e43471-635e-4d30-91d0-219e58a9eb4c" CreationDate="2023-08-28T17:16:48.097" UserId="15164" Text="It really all depends on the local climate. &#xD;&#xA;In dry regions, dust will build up over time on the panels and that will slowly have an effect on output.&#xD;&#xA;In wet regions, like Ireland, the panels get washed far more than they need so other cleaning is unnecessary.&#xD;&#xA;In hot, wet regions you can get growth in any part of the panel that retains water, i.e. where the laminate meets the aluminium frame, and if left uncleaned this will in time have an effect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I thinkg it would be rare that the panels need cleaning every year but definitely keep an eye out for dust buildup and/or growth." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32709" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12675" RevisionGUID="1cf577d5-3cca-4c58-8c5e-69d7ff9d1fd3" CreationDate="2023-08-28T17:24:44.160" UserId="15164" Text="Have a look at [PVGIS][1] which is a nice EU-funded tool  (not all money is wasted !) that allows you to simulate production for any location in the world.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can then compare your decrease in output between the 10° install and the 35° install.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A couple of points to note :&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Wind : This is the main reason why installers go for lower profile installs on flat roofs. The higher the angle of the panel, the bigger the sail you are creating for the wind and my oh my wind will do damage. So on a flat roof, I would agree to go with low angle panels, unless you ballast the hell out of it which can bring it's own problems.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Impact on seasonal production : With a lower angle, you'll be producing a larger proportion of your annual usage in the summer half of the year. This means that your proportion of elec exported to the grid will increase if you compare with an installation that is optimised for winter or year-round production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I don't think the installer is lying to you, flat roofs really should have almost flat panels even if that has an impact on seasonal/overall production.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/tools.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32711" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12467" RevisionGUID="88f307cc-5db1-454d-b30e-9dc8e08fb088" CreationDate="2023-08-28T23:08:13.497" UserId="4099" Comment="tags edited" Text="|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32712" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12467" RevisionGUID="88f307cc-5db1-454d-b30e-9dc8e08fb088" CreationDate="2023-08-28T23:08:13.497" Comment="Proposed by 4099 approved by 8232 edit id of 722" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32713" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="973bf1ce-8b6f-4fa0-b4c1-fdaab2e2708c" CreationDate="2023-08-28T23:10:39.553" UserId="938" Comment="Copyediting.  Adding a tag.  No need to thank." Text="I've started teaching at a school in Indonesia and found an arch-enemy of mine: naphthalene. People here use huge quantities in our flush toilets to suppress the smell.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I made the principals remove the naphthalene balls from the toilets. But now the question arises of what to do to get rid of the smell. (We have permanent temperatures of 30 °C and up.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any ideas?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32714" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="973bf1ce-8b6f-4fa0-b4c1-fdaab2e2708c" CreationDate="2023-08-28T23:10:39.553" UserId="938" Comment="Copyediting.  Adding a tag.  No need to thank." Text="How can I deodorize a school bathroom without using naphthalene?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32715" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="973bf1ce-8b6f-4fa0-b4c1-fdaab2e2708c" CreationDate="2023-08-28T23:10:39.553" UserId="938" Comment="Copyediting.  Adding a tag.  No need to thank." Text="|toxic-chemicals|toilet|hygiene|air-quality|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32716" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5119" RevisionGUID="973bf1ce-8b6f-4fa0-b4c1-fdaab2e2708c" CreationDate="2023-08-28T23:10:39.553" Comment="Proposed by 938 approved by 8232 edit id of 719" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32717" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12676" RevisionGUID="b06feb44-a023-4650-b419-60b79c884a38" CreationDate="2023-08-29T01:10:25.590" UserId="15022" Text="Aren't the toilets flushed after every use? Are there water availability problems for they to remain unflushed?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Chlorine or deodorant tablets that are put in the water tank are what first come to mind." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32719" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="17a1d72e-b329-4592-93a4-cebf5534e1a2" CreationDate="2023-08-29T19:45:20.903" UserId="938" Comment="Copyediting." Text="**Short answer:** Since the flammability requirements in the state of California are changing, you probably can shop for a new couch which does not have flame-retardant chemicals next summer. The label `TB-117-2013` on the product means that it meets the new requirements, though it does not guarantee that the product is free of flame-retardant chemicals. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Long answer:** Current flammability regulations in the state of California (4 CA ADC § 1374, *CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS / TITLE 4. BUSINESS REGULATIONS / DIVISION 3. BUREAU OF HOME FURNISHINGS / ARTICLE 13. FLAMMABILITY REGULATIONS*) which originally date back to 1975 require that:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; (a) All filling materials contained in any article of upholstered &#xD;&#xA;&gt; furniture, and all filling materials added to reupholstered furniture,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; shall meet the test requirements as set forth in the State of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; California,  Bureau of Home Furnishings Technical Bulletin Number 117,&#xD;&#xA;&gt; entitled  [&quot;Requirements, Test Procedures and Apparatus for Testing the&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Flame  Retardance of Filling Materials Used in Upholstered Furniture,&quot;][2]&#xD;&#xA;&gt; dated  March 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The tests require the material to be exposed for 12 seconds to a small, open flame. &quot;[...] as a result, manufacturers throughout the nation have been adding brominated or chlorinated chemicals to the foam to slow the spread of flames.&quot;[&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;][3] to meet the flammability regulations requirements. Although this was not a national regulation or law, it affected the national production.[&lt;sup&gt;+&lt;/sup&gt;][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A [draft][4] for new flammability regulations was released in February 2013 which only requires the material to be exposed to smoldering objects during the tests and not to an open flame. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The regulations do not forbid the use of flame-retardant chemicals (which are [claimed][5] to be safe by the chemicals industry), but the relaxed test requirements make it possible for the manufacturer to start making new furniture without adding the flame-retardant chemicals. These new products would be labelled as `TB-117-2013`.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;   [1]: http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Flame-retardant-law-may-be-scaled-back-4264854.php&#xD;&#xA;   [2]: http://www.bhfti.ca.gov/industry/117.pdf&#xD;&#xA;   [4]: http://www.bhfti.ca.gov/about/laws/propregs.shtml&#xD;&#xA;   [3]: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=california-to-unveil-new-flammability-standard-to-avoid-chemicals-in-furniture&#xD;&#xA;   [5]: http://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news-releases/Flame-Retardants-Are-Used-in-Furniture-to-Meet-Standards-and-Provide-Protection-from-Fires.html" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32720" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="772" RevisionGUID="17a1d72e-b329-4592-93a4-cebf5534e1a2" CreationDate="2023-08-29T19:45:20.903" Comment="Proposed by 938 approved by 472 edit id of 721" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32721" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5135" RevisionGUID="36ef5228-54ed-4418-8379-a8ac37bbcaaa" CreationDate="2023-08-29T23:13:46.823" UserId="938" Comment="Various changes." Text="As I understand the smell is the problem.  The naphthalene masks the smell but it too is a problem.  So the issue is &quot;How to reduce the smell&quot;.  One answer is to cover it up.  Anotehr answer is to dilute it.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I worked in a school, we had a fly problem at some times of the year.  We got a sprayer on a timer.  It would emit a 1 second mist of fly spray every 10 minutes.  One cartridge would last for weeks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Substitute an air freshener (masking chemical scent) for the fly spray, and the same mechanism could work.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An even safer option would be to **increase ventilation** by increasing the air change speed in the room.  Calculate how many hours you could run a 300 CFM fan on the price of one air freshener puck.  This is solving the problem via dilution.  The fan removes the smelly air from the bathroom, so that fresh outdoor air can enter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you have steady daytime breezes, there are wind powered ventilators you can mount on the roof.  This saves power." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32722" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="5135" RevisionGUID="36ef5228-54ed-4418-8379-a8ac37bbcaaa" CreationDate="2023-08-29T23:13:46.823" Comment="Proposed by 938 approved by 8232 edit id of 720" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32723" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12677" RevisionGUID="37408f98-6134-4751-8442-3178ae70e8df" CreationDate="2023-08-30T13:37:55.437" UserId="15164" Text="If you have a given output capacity of a generator, or multiple generators, in MW and you want to know how much energy does it produce over a given period in MWh then you can use the following formula&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MWh = MW * Number of hours * Capacity Factor&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Capacity Factor is the % of time the generator is producing at its named capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So a 3 MW wind turbine over 24 hours, at a capacity factor of 30%,  will produce&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3 * 24 * 0.30 = 21.6 MWh" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32725" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12678" RevisionGUID="559780f8-2c08-445d-8cbc-aaff1f01ed8c" CreationDate="2023-08-30T13:59:06.127" UserId="15164" Text="On the Enmax website they have [a page that shows how to read your meter][1].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is a link there &quot;How to find your electric meter number&quot;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This overlays a picture of the electricity meter&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is this your meter ? If so, it looks like it will spin backwards or, in a worst case, remain static, as you feed back to the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But if you want to avoid that scenario then it's always possible to install a dump load to make sure nothing gets exported.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take for example the [EDDI Hot water diverter][4]. What this does is monitor the flow of electricity out of the house and switch on a load to eat up that exported electricity. This was typically connecte to an electric immersion heater so that the excess PV (i.e. not being used in the circuits of the house) is used to heat water instead of exporting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As for how the circuits know which electricity to take my default, well it just works. The local electricity , from PV, will be used first and the grid will automatically make up any shortfall from the PV. I think that the inverter generates AC at a voltage slightly above the grid voltage and this is what makes it more &quot;attractive&quot; if you will. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.enmax.com/services/meter-services/meter-reading/submit-a-meter-reading&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/zj61Q.png&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/P8bDp.png&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.myenergi.com/ie/eddi-power-diverter/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32727" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="88ad848f-6950-4de3-bb7b-fc2b24a357b4" CreationDate="2023-08-31T14:04:32.877" UserId="1644" Text="If anything - shouldn't the EV battery have more requirements and be more expensive? It needs to be lighter as that affects efficiency, it needs to have safety aspects like not blowing up in a crash, a car is likely going to drain it faster and more often too. A household battery on the other hand just sits static in one place for years on end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32729" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="88ad848f-6950-4de3-bb7b-fc2b24a357b4" CreationDate="2023-08-31T14:04:32.877" UserId="1644" Text="Why are EV batteries so much cheaper than household batteries from a per KWH basis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32730" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="88ad848f-6950-4de3-bb7b-fc2b24a357b4" CreationDate="2023-08-31T14:04:32.877" UserId="1644" Text="|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32731" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="1177484f-f7c9-4f71-9063-d8f2ac745712" CreationDate="2023-08-31T15:35:02.630" UserId="15170" Comment="Points in bullets" Text="If anything - shouldn't the EV battery have more requirements and be more expensive?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;- It needs to be lighter as that affects efficiency&#xD;&#xA;- It needs to have safety aspects like not blowing up in a crash&#xD;&#xA;- A car is likely going to drain it faster and more often too. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A household battery on the other hand just sits static in one place for years on end.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32732" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="1177484f-f7c9-4f71-9063-d8f2ac745712" CreationDate="2023-08-31T15:35:02.630" Comment="Proposed by 15170 approved by 1644 edit id of 723" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32733" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="78b3cbf2-2f80-4882-bda3-efd0aa10241e" CreationDate="2023-08-31T17:04:30.540" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32734" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="82b73c54-4b27-4b2b-9426-5ea05d61cbee" CreationDate="2023-09-01T03:57:49.013" UserId="2345" Comment="Unit capitalization correct + tag edit" Text="Why are EV batteries so much cheaper than household batteries from a per kWh basis?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32735" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12679" RevisionGUID="82b73c54-4b27-4b2b-9426-5ea05d61cbee" CreationDate="2023-09-01T03:57:49.013" UserId="2345" Comment="Unit capitalization correct + tag edit" Text="|batteries|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32736" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12680" RevisionGUID="73d5b394-ebfc-4e97-9df6-236fb8f5f7d0" CreationDate="2023-09-02T05:04:54.657" UserId="6393" Text="Indeed. There's something very much wrong in the pricing of lithium ion batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One strange feature is that generally you end up paying ~1 USD / Wh for e-bike and power tool batteries. Of course, these are battery packs not individual cells, but still it's very expensive indeed. If car manufacturers can buy batteries for ~0.1 - 0.2 USD / Wh, and tool/ebike batteries cost 1 USD / Wh, someone is making very much money at the expense of customers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Another strange feature is that large LiFePO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; batteries when purchased as single large 12.8 V / 25.6 V batteries, cost a lot of money. Maybe if you're very lucky, you can find a Chinese supplier with reasonable cost of ~0.3 USD / Wh, but then again car makers tend to use good quality cells and the cheapest Chinese supplier you can find may not be the best quality.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can't understand the current market of lithium ion batteries. In the case of lead acid batteries, the market tends to make sense, batteries are available for small buyers at a reasonable cost. However, for lithium ion this ain't true.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I don't know the answer. I just know that there's something very much wrong." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32738" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12681" RevisionGUID="946b9a3f-580c-453d-85a0-350295306554" CreationDate="2023-09-02T09:34:03.603" UserId="14296" Text="Could someone giver a clear and authoritative answer on HOW miles per  gallon equivalent (or L/100 Km) are   calculated? On the Electric  Vehicle Alberta website it states that a Tesla Model 3 AWD Long range  has a 1.8 L/100 km equivalent of mileage..But it shows the same value  for all provinces...In reality this calculation will be affected by the  particular mix to produce electricity in that province. The Union of  Concerned scientist has a more granular values for mileage for US states. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; How do you  factor in the Carbon intensity of an electric grid?  Burning one gallon of gasoline releases 115,000 BTUs of heat the average  amount of electric energy needed to generate 115,000 BTU is 33.7  kilowatt hour so if a vehicle travels 100 mi for 33.7 kilowatt hours it  said to have an effective mileage of 100 miles per   gallon. I think the figure 33.7 kilowatt hour is an average. in actuality you have  to scale it by Factor related to how clean the grid is. In effect in a cleaner grid you  have to burn less gasoline to produce one kilowatt hour of  electricity, and this  affects the miles per gallon  calculation..you essentially scale it by the carbon intensity of the  grid?  Even in a hypothetical 100 percent Clean grid, there is still the  Carbon emission in the manufacturing of the Solar panel/windmill...**In effect in a cleaner grid less Gasoline has to be burned for 1kWh of electricity in Car.**  Is this reasoning correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  How about the Lifecycle CO2 emissions of the electric vehicle and battery from manufacture to disposal? Is that also factored into Miles per Gallon Calculations per US state or Canadian province..or is that lifecycle only used for CO2 emissions over lifecycle, and only electricity generation is used for Miles per gallon equivalent calculations per province? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Could you please  illustrate with a  a simplified detailed  hypothetical calculation for miles  per gallon (or Liters/100 km) equivalent  Two or Three Canadian  provinces..Like Manitoba, Alberta, and BC, to show how differences can be accounted for?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32740" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12681" RevisionGUID="946b9a3f-580c-453d-85a0-350295306554" CreationDate="2023-09-02T09:34:03.603" UserId="14296" Text="For Electric vehicles, HOW are miles per gallon equivalent (or L/100 Km) are calculated, accounting for different sources of energy in the grid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32741" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12681" RevisionGUID="946b9a3f-580c-453d-85a0-350295306554" CreationDate="2023-09-02T09:34:03.603" UserId="14296" Text="|energy-efficiency|greenhouse-gas-emissions|electric-vehicles|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32742" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12681" RevisionGUID="07c231fa-6873-4e77-b0d8-f040c77a7dbf" CreationDate="2023-09-02T09:35:16.430" UserId="14296" Comment="added 135 characters in body" Text="Could someone giver a clear and authoritative answer on HOW miles per  gallon equivalent (or L/100 Km) are   calculated for Battery electric Vehicles like Tesla Model 3 AWD long range? On the Electric  Vehicle Alberta website it states that a Tesla Model 3 AWD Long range  has a 1.8 L/100 km equivalent of mileage..But it shows the same value  for all provinces...In reality this calculation will be affected by the  particular mix to produce electricity in that province. The Union of  Concerned scientist has a more granular values for mileage for US states. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; How do you  factor in the Carbon intensity of an electric grid?  Burning one gallon of gasoline releases 115,000 BTUs of heat the average  amount of electric energy needed to generate 115,000 BTU is 33.7  kilowatt hour so if a vehicle travels 100 mi for 33.7 kilowatt hours it  said to have an effective mileage of 100 miles per   gallon. I think the figure 33.7 kilowatt hour is an average. in actuality you have  to scale it by Factor related to how clean the grid is. In effect in a cleaner grid you  have to burn less gasoline to produce one kilowatt hour of  electricity, and this  affects the miles per gallon  calculation..you essentially scale it by the carbon intensity of the  grid?  Even in a hypothetical 100 percent Clean grid, there is still the  Carbon emission in the manufacturing of the Solar panel/windmill...**In effect in a cleaner grid less Gasoline has to be burned for 1kWh of electricity in Car.**  Is this reasoning correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  How about the Lifecycle CO2 emissions of the electric vehicle and battery from manufacture to disposal? Is that also factored into Miles per Gallon Calculations per US state or Canadian province..or is that lifecycle only used for CO2 emissions over lifecycle, and only electricity generation is used for Miles per gallon equivalent calculations per province? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Could you please  illustrate with a  a simplified detailed  hypothetical calculation for miles  per gallon (or Liters/100 km) equivalent  Two or Three Canadian  provinces..Like Manitoba, Alberta, and BC, to show how differences in Grid energy use can be accounted for? Use the Tesla Model 3 AWD Long range as reference. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32743" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12681" RevisionGUID="ac7eea4b-c36d-499b-82aa-14dded7cd63d" CreationDate="2023-09-02T09:36:58.927" UserId="14296" Comment="added 82 characters in body" Text="Could someone giver a clear and authoritative answer on HOW miles per  gallon equivalent (or L/100 Km) are   calculated for Battery electric Vehicles like Tesla Model 3 AWD long range? On the Electric  Vehicle Alberta website it states that a Tesla Model 3 AWD Long range  has a 1.8 L/100 km equivalent of mileage..But it shows the same value  for all provinces...In reality this calculation will be affected by the  particular mix to produce electricity in that province. The Union of  Concerned scientist has a more granular values for mileage for US states. Each US state/Region has a different estimate for MPGe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; How do you  factor in the Carbon intensity of an electric grid?  Burning one gallon of gasoline releases 115,000 BTUs of heat the average  amount of electric energy needed to generate 115,000 BTU is 33.7  kilowatt hour so if a vehicle travels 100 mi for 33.7 kilowatt hours it  said to have an effective mileage of 100 miles per   gallon. I think the figure 33.7 kilowatt hour is an average. in actuality you have  to scale it by Factor related to how clean the grid is. In effect in a cleaner grid you  have to burn less gasoline to produce one kilowatt hour of  electricity, and this  affects the miles per gallon  calculation..you essentially scale it by the carbon intensity of the  grid?  Even in a hypothetical 100 percent Clean grid, there is still the  Carbon emission in the manufacturing of the Solar panel/windmill...**In effect in a cleaner grid less Gasoline has to be burned for 1kWh of electricity in Car.**  Is this reasoning correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  How about the Lifecycle CO2 emissions of the electric vehicle and battery from manufacture to disposal? Is that also factored into Miles per Gallon Calculations per US state or Canadian province..or is that lifecycle only used for CO2 emissions over lifecycle, and only electricity generation is used for Miles per gallon equivalent calculations per province? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Could you please  illustrate with a  a simplified detailed  hypothetical calculation for miles  per gallon (or Liters/100 km) equivalent  Two or Three Canadian  provinces..Like Manitoba, Alberta, and BC, to show how differences in Grid energy use can be accounted for different estimate of MPGe? Use the Tesla Model 3 AWD Long range as reference. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32744" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12681" RevisionGUID="74e47d57-9eb2-4e62-8ca8-b44c131b4f60" CreationDate="2023-09-02T09:38:42.380" UserId="14296" Comment="added 88 characters in body" Text="Could someone giver a clear and authoritative answer on HOW miles per  gallon equivalent (or L/100 Km) are   calculated for Battery electric Vehicles like Tesla Model 3 AWD long range? On the Electric  Vehicle Alberta website it states that a Tesla Model 3 AWD Long range  has a 1.8 L/100 km equivalent of mileage..But it shows the same value  for all provinces...In reality this calculation will be affected by the  particular mix to produce electricity in that province. The Union of  Concerned scientist has a more granular values for mileage for US states. Each US state/Region has a different estimate for MPGe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; How do you  factor in the Carbon intensity of an electric grid?  Burning one gallon of gasoline releases 115,000 BTUs of heat the average  amount of electric energy needed to generate 115,000 BTU is 33.7  kilowatt hour so if a vehicle travels 100 mi for 33.7 kilowatt hours it  said to have an effective mileage of 100 miles per   gallon. I think the figure 33.7 kilowatt hour is an average. in actuality you have  to scale it by Factor related to how clean the grid is. In effect in a cleaner grid you  have to burn less gasoline to produce one kilowatt hour of  electricity, and this  affects the miles per gallon  calculation..you essentially scale it by the carbon intensity of the  grid?  Even in a hypothetical 100 percent Clean grid, there is still the  Carbon emission in the manufacturing of the Solar panel/windmill...**In effect in a cleaner grid less Gasoline has to be burned for 1kWh of electricity in Car.**  Is this reasoning correct? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  How about the Lifecycle CO2 emissions of the electric vehicle and battery from manufacture to disposal? Is that also factored into Miles per Gallon Calculations per US state or Canadian province..or is that lifecycle only used for CO2 emissions over lifecycle, and only electricity generation is used for Miles per gallon equivalent calculations per province? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Could you please  illustrate with a  a simplified detailed  hypothetical calculation for miles  per gallon (or Liters/100 km) equivalent  Two or Three Canadian  provinces..Like Manitoba, Alberta, and BC, or Uses to show how differences in how electricity is produced in the region (mix  of Natural gas, Coal, Hydro, nuclear, solar...) can be accounted for different estimate of MPGe? Use the Tesla Model 3 AWD long range as reference. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32745" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12682" RevisionGUID="59de8092-d530-4b56-8227-482ff0253233" CreationDate="2023-09-02T10:02:48.013" UserId="14377" Text="I think the simplest explanation is volume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EV's contain large batteries, typically 60 kWh and upwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Domestic batteries are more typically in the 5~10 kWH range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So EV manufacturers (who paln on selling ù$&quot;'(-loads of EV's) can buy at volume and integrate/ship/support at volume which has a huge impact on the final cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine that a battery supplier brought a 1 kWh battery to the domestic market. They still have all the engineering/marketing/sales/support costs associated with &quot;a battery pack&quot; even though it is a small battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that as EV production drives the expansion of battery production, this will have a knockon effect on the domestic battery market." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32747" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12681" RevisionGUID="1e0332c4-0ff2-4290-9cf4-cf6515ce63ce" CreationDate="2023-09-02T22:21:01.943" UserId="14296" Comment="added 236 characters in body" Text="Could someone giver a clear and authoritative answer on HOW miles per  gallon equivalent (or L/100 Km) are   calculated for Battery electric Vehicles like Tesla Model 3 AWD long range? On the Electric  Vehicle Alberta website it states that a Tesla Model 3 AWD Long range  has a 1.8 L/100 km equivalent of mileage..But it shows the same value  for all provinces...In reality this calculation will be affected by the  particular mix to produce electricity in that province. The Union of  Concerned scientist has a more granular values for mileage for US states. Each US state/Region has a different estimate for MPGe.&#xD;&#xA; https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/2022-09/driving-cleaner-figure-2a.png?itok=jhyVduQa&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; How do you  factor in the Carbon intensity of an electric grid?  Burning one gallon of gasoline releases 115,000 BTUs of heat the average  amount of electric energy needed to generate 115,000 BTU is 33.7  kilowatt hour so if a vehicle travels 100 mi for 33.7 kilowatt hours it  said to have an effective mileage of 100 miles per   gallon. I think the figure 33.7 kilowatt hour is an average. in actuality you have  to scale it by Factor related to how clean the grid is. In effect in a cleaner grid you  have to burn less gasoline to produce one kilowatt hour of  electricity, and this  affects the miles per gallon  calculation..you essentially scale it by the carbon intensity of the  grid?  Even in a hypothetical 100 percent Clean grid, there is still the  Carbon emission in the manufacturing of the Solar panel/windmill...**In effect in a cleaner grid less Gasoline has to be burned for 1kWh of electricity in Car.**  Is this reasoning correct? You have to use a penalty/scaling factor to MPGe the calculations to account for how the Grid is powered in a region&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  How about the Lifecycle CO2 emissions of the electric vehicle and battery from manufacture to disposal? Is that also factored into Miles per Gallon Calculations per US state or Canadian province..or is that lifecycle only used for CO2 emissions over lifecycle, and only electricity generation is used for Miles per gallon equivalent calculations per province? &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  Could you please  illustrate with a  a simplified detailed  hypothetical calculation for miles  per gallon (or Liters/100 km) equivalent  Two or Three Canadian  provinces..Like Manitoba, Alberta, and BC, or Uses to show how differences in how electricity is produced in the region (mix  of Natural gas, Coal, Hydro, nuclear, solar...) can be accounted for different estimate of MPGe? Use the Tesla Model 3 AWD long range as reference. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32748" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12683" RevisionGUID="7309eda3-e7b3-40db-8083-22a246f5f3e0" CreationDate="2023-09-03T02:59:37.417" UserId="14296" Text="I sort of understand now. I think what they mean here driving an electric vehicle in California produces the equivalent life cycle emission of driving a gasoline vehicle which gets 109 per gallon (obviously such a gasoline vehicle doesn't exist it's an abstraction). They consider life cycle emission for both the gasoline and the electric vehicle and scale accordingly. That is a gasoline vehicle driving in California would have to go 109 mpg to emit the same kind of total life cycle carbon emission as the electric vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see why this would be different in different electricity regions in the United States because carbon emissions are different based the energy mix of the electricity grid.. for example in Florida driving an EV will produce a life cycle emission of driving a gas car that gets 73 miles per gallon, and in upstate NY driving an EV will produce life cycle emissions of driving a gas vehicle that gets 249 miles per gallon!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Miles per Gallon estimate by the Union of Concerned scientist study. is different than the traditional Energy equivalent view of MPGe..which is computed like this (33.7 kWH of electricity, and combusting 1 Gallon of Gasoline both produce 115000 BTU of heat). It is a matter of semantic, the MPG estimate of an EV here discussed here is not the same as MPGe that most people consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/todays-electric-vehicles-can-greatly-reduce-emissions-from-driving/&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32750" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12683" RevisionGUID="3efb0e48-a218-4bea-a912-952262943197" CreationDate="2023-09-03T03:09:35.213" UserId="14296" Comment="added 45 characters in body" Text="I think I found the answer to my question.&#xD;&#xA;I think what they mean here driving the average  electric vehicle in California produces the equivalent life cycle emission of driving a gasoline vehicle which gets 109 per gallon (obviously such a gasoline vehicle doesn't exist it's an abstraction). They consider life cycle emission for both the gasoline and the electric vehicle and scale accordingly. That is a gasoline vehicle driving in California would have to go 109 mpg to emit the same kind of total life cycle carbon emission as the electric vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see why this would be different in different electricity regions in the United States because carbon emissions are different based the energy mix of the electricity grid.. for example in Florida driving an EV will produce a life cycle emission of driving a gas car that gets 73 miles per gallon, and in upstate NY driving an EV will produce life cycle emissions of driving a gas vehicle that gets 249 miles per gallon!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Miles per Gallon estimate by the Union of Concerned scientist study. is different than the traditional Energy equivalent view of MPGe..which is computed like this (33.7 kWH of electricity, and combusting 1 Gallon of Gasoline both produce 115000 BTU of heat). It is a matter of semantic, the emission based MPG estimate of an EV here discussed here is not the same as MPGe that most people consider.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/todays-electric-vehicles-can-greatly-reduce-emissions-from-driving/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32751" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12683" RevisionGUID="01230f5b-7cf1-4819-9019-8319eaaf38a0" CreationDate="2023-09-03T03:16:58.620" UserId="14296" Comment="Corrected Spelling, punctuation. " Text="I think I found the answer to my question. I think what they mean here driving the average electric vehicle in California produces the equivalent life cycle emission of driving a gasoline vehicle which gets 109 per gallon (obviously such a gasoline vehicle doesn't exist it's an abstraction). They consider life cycle emission for both the gasoline and the electric vehicle and scale accordingly. That is, a gasoline vehicle driving in California would have to go 109 mpg to emit the same kind of total life cycle carbon emission as the electric vehicle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see why this would be different in different electricity regions in the United States because carbon emissions are different based the energy mix of the electricity grid.. for example in Florida driving an EV will produce a life cycle emission of driving a gas car that gets 73 miles per gallon, and in upstate NY driving an EV will produce life cycle emissions of driving a gas vehicle that gets 249 miles per gallon!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Miles per Gallon estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists study. is different from the traditional Energy equivalent view of MPGe..which is computed like this (33.7 kWH of electricity, and combusting 1 Gallon of Gasoline both produce 115000 BTU of heat). It is a matter of semantics, the emission based MPG estimate of an EV discussed here is not the same as MPGe that most people consider. Check out the two links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/todays-electric-vehicles-can-greatly-reduce-emissions-from-driving/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/EV-maps-2021-data_average.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32752" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12683" RevisionGUID="16e65d33-486a-42e0-ab34-3944ad1f391d" CreationDate="2023-09-03T19:57:35.463" UserId="14296" Comment="added 227 characters in body" Text="I think I found the answer to my question. I think what MPG estimates mean in this context is how many miles per gallon a hypothetical gas vehicle has to get in order to have the same life cycle emissions as an average Electric vehicle in that region.  For example  driving the average electric vehicle in California produces as much  life cycle emission as would  driving a hypothetical  gasoline vehicle which gets 109 per gallon (obviously a gasoline vehicle that gets 109 MPG doesn't exist,it's an abstraction). They consider life cycle emission for both the gasoline and the electric vehicle and scale accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see why this would be different in different electricity regions in the United States because carbon emissions are different based the energy mix of the electricity grid.. for example in Florida driving an EV will produce a life cycle emission equivalent to driving a hypothetical  gas car that gets 73 miles per gallon, and in upstate NY driving an EV this MPG estimate is 249 miles per gallon! Because the Electric grid in upstate New york is so clean our hypothetical gas vehicle has to go 249 miles per gallon to produce as little life time emission as the average EV there! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Miles per Gallon estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists study. is different from the traditional Energy equivalent view of MPGe..which is computed like this (33.7 kWH of electricity, and combusting 1 Gallon of Gasoline both produce 115000 BTU of heat). It is a matter of semantics, the emission based MPG estimate of an EV discussed here is not the same as MPGe that most people consider. Check out the two links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/todays-electric-vehicles-can-greatly-reduce-emissions-from-driving/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/EV-maps-2021-data_average.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32753" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12683" RevisionGUID="87e22030-46f0-44ea-83f6-a52c02dd50e1" CreationDate="2023-09-03T20:42:04.967" UserId="14296" Comment="added 12 characters in body" Text="I think I found the answer to my question. I think what MPG estimates mean in this context is how many miles per gallon a hypothetical gas vehicle has to get in order to have the same life cycle emissions as an average Electric vehicle in that region.  For example  driving the average electric vehicle in California produces as much  life cycle emission as would  driving a hypothetical  gasoline vehicle which gets 109 per gallon (obviously a gasoline vehicle that gets 109 MPG doesn't exist,it's an abstraction). They consider life cycle emission for both the gasoline and the electric vehicle and scale accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see why this would be different in different electricity regions in the United States because carbon emissions are different based the energy mix of the electricity grid.. for example in Florida driving an EV will produce a life cycle emission equivalent to driving a hypothetical  gas car that gets 73 miles per gallon, and in upstate NY driving an EV this MPG estimate is 249 miles per gallon! Because the Electric grid in upstate New york is so clean our hypothetical gas vehicle has to go 249 miles per gallon to produce as little  of a life time emission as the average EV emits there! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Miles per Gallon estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists study. is different from the traditional Energy equivalent view of MPGe..which is computed like this (33.7 kWH of electricity, and combusting 1 Gallon of Gasoline both produce 115000 BTU of heat). It is a matter of semantics, the emission based MPG estimate of an EV discussed here is not the same as MPGe that most people consider. Check out the two links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/todays-electric-vehicles-can-greatly-reduce-emissions-from-driving/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/EV-maps-2021-data_average.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32754" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12683" RevisionGUID="adb3e945-ac6c-4ee2-bfaf-9659f2b63810" CreationDate="2023-09-04T23:36:30.307" UserId="14296" Comment="added 47 characters in body" Text="I think I found the answer to my question. I think what MPG estimates mean in this context is how many miles per gallon a hypothetical gas vehicle has to get in order to have the same life cycle emissions as the emissions of an average Electric vehicle in that region.For example  driving the average electric vehicle in California produces as much  life cycle emission as would  driving a hypothetical  gasoline vehicle which gets 109 per gallon over the gas vehicle's lifecycle(obviously a gasoline vehicle that gets 109 MPG doesn't exist,it's an abstraction). They consider life cycle emission for both the gasoline and the electric vehicle and scale accordingly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You can see why this would be different in different electricity regions in the United States because carbon emissions are different based the energy mix of the electricity grid.. for example in Florida driving an EV will produce a life cycle emission equivalent to driving a hypothetical  gas car that gets 73 miles per gallon, and in upstate NY driving an EV this MPG estimate is 249 miles per gallon! Because the Electric grid in upstate New york is so clean our hypothetical gas vehicle has to go 249 miles per gallon to produce as little  of a life time emission as the average EV emits there! &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The Miles per Gallon estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists study. is different from the traditional Energy equivalent view of MPGe..which is computed like this (33.7 kWH of electricity, and combusting 1 Gallon of Gasoline both produce 115000 BTU of heat). It is a matter of semantics, the emission based MPG estimate of an EV discussed here is not the same as MPGe that most people consider. Check out the two links.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/todays-electric-vehicles-can-greatly-reduce-emissions-from-driving/&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/EV-maps-2021-data_average.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32755" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12638" RevisionGUID="3cfddecf-c5ef-452e-8d07-f2fc7df9cc5e" CreationDate="2023-09-06T20:02:35.367" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32757" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12684" RevisionGUID="3009cf7c-e255-44a3-b373-7fe7d6cf0417" CreationDate="2023-09-14T11:20:35.607" UserId="15219" Text="I was wondering if my facial scrub contains any microplastics. In particular, the tiny beads that are inside the soap, are they made of plastic? Are they polluting the waste water or they just decompose?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Find below the ingredients list:&#xD;&#xA;aqua (water), polysorbate 20, cellulose, cocamidopropylamine oxide, methylpropanediol, sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, carbomer, jojoba esters, ethylhexylglycerin, caprylyl glycol, butylene glycol, PEG-60 almond glycerides, nordihydroguaiaretic acid, oleanolic acid, polyquaternium-7, sodium hydroxide, phenylpropanol, mentha arvensis leaf oil, juniperus communis fruit oil, glycerin, CI 77007 (ultramarines).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here is a link to the product:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.bionike.it/it_en/cleansing-gel-4406.html&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32759" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12684" RevisionGUID="3009cf7c-e255-44a3-b373-7fe7d6cf0417" CreationDate="2023-09-14T11:20:35.607" UserId="15219" Text="Does my facial scrub contain microplastics?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32760" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12684" RevisionGUID="3009cf7c-e255-44a3-b373-7fe7d6cf0417" CreationDate="2023-09-14T11:20:35.607" UserId="15219" Text="|pollution|waste-water|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32761" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10012" RevisionGUID="03167564-69c7-4dad-a92b-f9823815c0dc" CreationDate="2023-09-14T13:01:25.143" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32762" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12685" RevisionGUID="fdcbfb9b-4271-4b2b-b601-c8b03d99e099" CreationDate="2023-09-14T16:50:05.420" UserId="15220" Text="I put white factory painted aluminum sheeting behind my wood burning stove. Had to replace it with unpainted aluminum because it got very hot. Unpainted aluminum stayed cool. Aluminum foil works but it doesn’t look nice." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32764" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12686" RevisionGUID="536b3db5-02b4-41ee-8d8e-01bcd753d254" CreationDate="2023-09-14T20:40:02.487" UserId="15170" Text="## Ingredients&#xD;&#xA;I used [beatthemicrobead.org][1] to check the ingredients which gave the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following ingredients are considered microplastics:&#xD;&#xA;- carbomer: [environmental impact article][2]&#xD;&#xA;- polyquaternium-7 (this seems to have sources saying it is &amp; it isn't)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following are considered &quot;sceptical&quot; microplastics, meaning synthetic polymers for which there is not enough information available&#xD;&#xA;- polysorbate 20&#xD;&#xA;- PEG-60 almond glycerides&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## BioNike Products&#xD;&#xA;From the BioNike site [here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As of the year 2017, we have replaced microplastic polyethylene granules in scrub products with microbeads made of cellulose, jojoba wax or the mineral perlite.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As of the year 2020, we have totally excluded the use of potential microplastics in our product development processes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By 2023, approximately 95% of our rinse-off products will not contain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ingredients potentially classifiable as microplastics.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; By 2024, BioNike aims to eliminate ingredients potentially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; classifiable as microplastics from all its rinse-off products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks the company will eventually have their products microplastic free, but at the moment it appears that is does have microplastics in it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.beatthemicrobead.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://monoskincare.com/en-gb/blogs/news/carbomers-in-your-skincare-know-why-this-microplastic-is-harming-our-planet&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.bionike.it/it_en/sustainability-enviroment-formulation/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32766" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12625" RevisionGUID="fedbe17c-5c4d-4e27-b154-95dcb9418f1d" CreationDate="2023-09-15T05:38:45.707" UserId="8360" Comment="improved link and phrasing" Text="There are 50,000 aircraft in the air or idling all the time. An airliner consumes 5 tons (or whatever) per hour of fuel. So 3 billion tons per year of fuel. So one ton of fuel is actually 3 tons of CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, so 10 billion total.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;American CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions are 10 billion tons, according to [this page][1]. So how is it mathematically possible the airline industry produces more CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; than the entire country combined?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32767" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12625" RevisionGUID="fedbe17c-5c4d-4e27-b154-95dcb9418f1d" CreationDate="2023-09-15T05:38:45.707" UserId="8360" Comment="improved link and phrasing" Text="Airline CO2 emissions" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32768" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12625" RevisionGUID="fedbe17c-5c4d-4e27-b154-95dcb9418f1d" CreationDate="2023-09-15T05:38:45.707" Comment="Proposed by 8360 approved by 8232 edit id of 725" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32769" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12681" RevisionGUID="6e559447-39c6-497b-839e-bf354b811499" CreationDate="2023-09-15T05:39:10.270" UserId="2727" Comment="Fixed the title" Text="For Electric vehicles, HOW are miles per gallon equivalent (or L/100 Km) calculated, accounting for different sources of energy in the grid?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32770" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12681" RevisionGUID="6e559447-39c6-497b-839e-bf354b811499" CreationDate="2023-09-15T05:39:10.270" Comment="Proposed by 2727 approved by 8232 edit id of 724" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32771" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12686" RevisionGUID="1fead4de-a1e1-40eb-9336-75e4d3a7964e" CreationDate="2023-09-15T06:23:41.477" UserId="15170" Comment="Further reading article" Text="## Ingredients&#xD;&#xA;I used [beatthemicrobead.org][1] to check the ingredients which gave the following:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following ingredients are considered microplastics:&#xD;&#xA;- carbomer: [environmental impact article][2]&#xD;&#xA;- polyquaternium-7 (this seems to have sources saying it is &amp; it isn't)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The following are considered &quot;sceptical&quot; microplastics, meaning synthetic polymers for which there is not enough information available&#xD;&#xA;- polysorbate 20&#xD;&#xA;- PEG-60 almond glycerides&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## BioNike Products&#xD;&#xA;From the BioNike site [here][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; As of the year 2017, we have replaced microplastic polyethylene granules in scrub products with microbeads made of cellulose, jojoba wax or the mineral perlite.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; As of the year 2020, we have totally excluded the use of potential microplastics in our product development processes.&#xD;&#xA;&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; By 2023, approximately 95% of our rinse-off products will not contain&#xD;&#xA;&gt; ingredients potentially classifiable as microplastics.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &#xD;&#xA;&gt; By 2024, BioNike aims to eliminate ingredients potentially&#xD;&#xA;&gt; classifiable as microplastics from all its rinse-off products.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So it looks the company will eventually have their products microplastic free, but at the moment it appears that is does have microplastics in it&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;## Further Reading On Microplastics&#xD;&#xA;- This article [Microplastics in cosmetics: what do you need to know?][4] is quite a nice, concise read for environmental impact of products with microplastics. Hopefully this answers the part of your question about polluting waste water &amp; the environment in general&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.beatthemicrobead.org/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://monoskincare.com/en-gb/blogs/news/carbomers-in-your-skincare-know-why-this-microplastic-is-harming-our-planet&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.bionike.it/it_en/sustainability-enviroment-formulation/&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://skinconsult.com/en/blog/microplastics-in-cosmetics" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32775" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12688" RevisionGUID="25c23c75-3bec-495c-b5a3-df5f6fbc7a01" CreationDate="2023-09-17T11:32:50.057" UserId="6393" Text="None of any &quot;equivalent&quot; figures make any sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Electricity and amount of liquid fuel have no relation to each other. Any relation &quot;estimated&quot; would be totally and completely arbitrary.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you have a large open cycle internal combustion engine power plant, it might let's say turn 45% of the energy content of a liquid fuel to electricity. So 1 liter of gasoline (~32 MJ, 8.9 kWh) would be about 4 kWh at 45% efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But wait! Combined cycle power plants exist and achieve 55% efficiency. So maybe it should be 4.9 kWh? But there's no way to decide whether 1 liter corresponds to 4 kWh or 4.9 kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, electricity distribution efficiency varies, some areas might have better efficiency than others. How are you planning to take this into account?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could consider CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; emissions too. But emissions vary not only based on the location (for example, the Finnish electricity grid is very clean), but also based on time (is it windy, are some nuclear plants under scheduled maintenance?). Also do consider that electricity grids become all the time less reliant on fossil fuels, so over the 20-year life cycle of an electric vehicle, in the middle of it (after 10 years from now), electricity will create less emissions than it creates today.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I personally think that what you should consider is not emissions but total cost of ownership. Where I live today, if considering purchase of a new car, electricity wins so clearly there's no competition. But when considering whether I retain my old car or purchase a new one, the old car clearly wins. Unfortunately, eventually it will become so worn that I have to buy a new car, and this will be the time I will switch to electric vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's true that battery manufacturing creates emissions, but it's a non-mobile emission source so easy to decarbonize. Most likely a large share of the energy comes from electricity when you manufacture batteries. About the only problem is that many batteries are from China and there electricity production isn't so clean yet." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32777" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12356" RevisionGUID="2059bc18-bac9-44f1-822f-1533c9b4c1d6" CreationDate="2023-09-19T03:08:15.983" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32779" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12682" RevisionGUID="090d35df-ebfe-4e39-9d74-2669886c3956" CreationDate="2023-09-22T04:43:14.797" UserId="-1" Comment="Corrected spelling" Text="I think the simplest explanation is volume.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;EV's contain large batteries, typically 60 kWh and upwards.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Domestic batteries are more typically in the 5~10 kWH range.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So EV manufacturers (who plan on selling ****-loads of EV's) can buy at volume and integrate/ship/support at volume which has a huge impact on the final cost.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Imagine that a battery supplier brought a 1 kWh battery to the domestic market. They still have all the engineering/marketing/sales/support costs associated with &quot;a battery pack&quot; even though it is a small battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The good news is that as EV production drives the expansion of battery production, this will have a knock-on effect on the domestic battery market." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32780" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12682" RevisionGUID="090d35df-ebfe-4e39-9d74-2669886c3956" CreationDate="2023-09-22T04:43:14.797" Comment="Proposed by anonymous approved by 8232 edit id of 726" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32791" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12691" RevisionGUID="c17f2499-890a-4269-94ea-9b066afc16ad" CreationDate="2023-10-02T14:32:27.937" UserId="3664" Text="I have about USD $3,000 that I can use to invest in solar-powered alternatives at my apartment. Since I live in Latin America, my small rooftop receives tons of sunlight 12 hours/day but is not big enough to hold a bunch of panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The appliances that consume the most electricity now are the fridge (which is always on), the 18K inverter A/C (which is on about 8-10 hrs/day), and the washer/dryer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since the fridge is the only appliance that's always on, I guess my question is: what's the most inexpensive way to constantly power this appliance with solar energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I saw this [Costco ad for a portable power station][1] and thought that maybe something like this would help.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;On a related note, a local group that deals with solar power alternatives in the Caribbean posted this [battery array alternative][2]. Would this be a possible solution for me?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.costco.com/.product.4000205419.html&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OOY1W.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32793" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12691" RevisionGUID="c17f2499-890a-4269-94ea-9b066afc16ad" CreationDate="2023-10-02T14:32:27.937" UserId="3664" Text="Inexpensive way of permanently running a fridge with solar power?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32794" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12691" RevisionGUID="c17f2499-890a-4269-94ea-9b066afc16ad" CreationDate="2023-10-02T14:32:27.937" UserId="3664" Text="|solar-power|electricity|electricity-generation|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32800" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12693" RevisionGUID="291337ad-2695-468d-aeb4-a03f7adee348" CreationDate="2023-10-03T14:07:04.980" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; what's the most inexpensive way to constantly power this appliance with solar energy?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think you are mistaken in your strategy. You don't want to power &lt;i&gt;this&lt;/i&gt; appliance with solar power. You want to power &lt;i&gt;some&lt;/i&gt; cooling appliance with solar power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I suspect your fridge has been optimized for usage on grid power. Grid power is incredibly cheap. Thus, appliances that run on grid power are optimized for low manufacturing cost, compact external size and large internal size. Very little insulating material there.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, I have two fridge-freezers that consume approximately 60 watts each (average over a long period). They are large, though.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To run this on solar power, you need an inverter, ideally a sine wave inverter, that is capable of starting a full-size fridge compressor. Those have about 88% efficiency plus about 10 watts of constant idle power usage. Therefore, your 60 watts turns into `60/0.88+10 = 78` watts. That's about 1900 watt-hours per day. The inverter would cost about ~350 euros/dollars if you select the cheapest Chinese model you can find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To supply 1900 watt-hours per day using solar power considering cloudy days too, you should expect to regularly use `1900*3 = 5700` watt-hours of battery charge since you generally aim to have 3 days of energy storage. Lead-acid doesn't like discharging below 25% state of charge, so with lead-acid you need 7600 watt-hours. With lithium iron phosphate, though, 5700 watt-hours would be enough (so that's about seven and half Ecoflow River 2 stations which would probably cost too much). Expect to put around ~2000 euros/dollars into the batteries alone if you choose lead-acid, and those batteries need to be replaced quite often since no battery has an infinite shelf life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then the panels. Solar power has a capacity factor of around 15% near the equator. So to provide 78 watts, you need 520 watts of panels not considering losses. However, MPPT charge controllers are generally only about 95% efficient so 550 watts is a more reasonable figure. Expect to put around ~130 euros/dollars into a charge controller and around 550 euros/dollars into the panels. Wiring costs too, and installing the panels has a cost too.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By far, the largest cost is the battery (2000 USD), the second largest the panels (550 USD), the third largest the inverter (350 USD), the fourth largest the charge controller (130 USD). Together, this makes 3030 USD so your budget of 3000 USD may be met if you do the installation work yourself and don't need long wiring.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I have a better option. Select a 12V/24V compressor coolbox. For example Dometic makes those. Avoid Peltier models since they use huge amounts of energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My Dometic MCF32 uses about 4 watts DC if the indoor temperature is about 20 degrees Celsius and it cools the inside to 5 degrees Celsius.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, to use Dometic MCF32, you need 384 watt-hours of lead-acid batteries (in practice the smallest marine deep cycle AGM 12V battery you can find, about 180 USD, is much larger than what you need here), the cheapest charge controller you can find (for such a small usage PWM wins, about 50 USD), and a 50 watt solar panel is plentiful enough even considering the inefficiency of PWM charge controllers (about 50 USD). Plus also the Dometic MCF32 appliance itself, about 300 USD. Only 600 USD budget.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, a compressor coolbox is small. But it's so darn efficient that with your 3000 USD budget, you can buy the largest compressor coolbox you can find.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only reason why the situation is so favorable for you is that you live in Latin America, i.e. near the equator, so solar power has practically no seasonal variation. Areas far from the equator suffer severely during the winter, making the whole project infeasible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Of course, the question is do you want to do this project? Is there any reason for using solar power and not grid power? For me, the justification is that I want to have cool storage even during extended grid outages. If you don't have this same justification, the simplest way would be to simply continue using grid power. Grid power is an extraordinarily good deal, very cheap." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32827" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12699" RevisionGUID="c7a0a550-632a-4d46-98a1-a23d068dc2eb" CreationDate="2023-10-11T15:20:59.867" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32829" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12699" RevisionGUID="c7a0a550-632a-4d46-98a1-a23d068dc2eb" CreationDate="2023-10-11T15:20:59.867" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32830" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12700" RevisionGUID="0fd1fc19-7e9e-417e-903c-f693f28d43e3" CreationDate="2023-10-11T15:20:59.867" UserId="-1" Text="" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32832" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12700" RevisionGUID="0fd1fc19-7e9e-417e-903c-f693f28d43e3" CreationDate="2023-10-11T15:20:59.867" UserId="-1" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32839" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="3e152012-5bbd-4d95-8ef6-6de545a15997" CreationDate="2023-10-14T06:00:30.073" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32840" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12702" RevisionGUID="d8c38411-64a4-4d3e-863c-5f63e27a26d2" CreationDate="2023-10-15T15:23:00.683" UserId="15286" Text="I have melted plastic by chipping and placing the resultant plastic on a baking tray that's vaselined up in a hot oven for 45mins to an hour and the result was good a solid sheet of plastic once room temp cooled for 30-45 min. Slides out easy due to the vaseline, you can make marbled effect if you spread out 2 or more colours prior to heating. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32842" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12703" RevisionGUID="23755047-a644-4127-9828-3adfc739e18c" CreationDate="2023-10-17T10:39:04.440" UserId="5901" Text="I've been mulling over whether to have a domestic battery installed.  I already have solar panels.  I know that installing a battery will reduce my reliance on grid electricity, however I have concerns about where the battery is produced.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I think it's fair to say that China is pretty dominant in the production of batteries, including some of good quality.  My concern is that China is less regulated and is still building coal-fired power stations.  China's CO2 emissions are really high, as you see [here][1] and [on Our World in Data here][2] &lt;- watch the short video.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[This video on coal emissions since industrialisation is useful too in graphically observing the changes][3]; you can see some countries and regions including Canada, Western Europe and Argentina are abandoning coal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Finally to my question**:  What is better, bite the bullet and buy a cheaper Chinese-made battery now.  Or wait until I can afford to buy a less-polluting, in terms of CO2 emissions, more expensive Canadian, West European or Argentinian battery?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I feel ethically I can't buy a Chinese one.  Yet environmentally and in terms of CO2 emissions, what would the best option be for this conundrum?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I've not even mentioned the fact China uses slave labour as part of it's production ([references: take your pick from these search results, plenty of reliable sources amongst them][4])&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/china-co2-emissions/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-coal?time=latest&#xD;&#xA;  [4]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&amp;newwindow=1&amp;biw=1600&amp;bih=775&amp;q=uighurs%20slave%20labour%20UN&amp;btnG=&amp;oq=bbc%20weather&amp;gs_l=serp.3.0.0l10.284204.287096.0.288825.11.5.0.6.6.0.169.414.4j1.5.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.serp.01zvsK5sGEM" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32844" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12703" RevisionGUID="23755047-a644-4127-9828-3adfc739e18c" CreationDate="2023-10-17T10:39:04.440" UserId="5901" Text="Sustainability and ethics of buying a domestic battery from a higher emissions country" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32845" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12703" RevisionGUID="23755047-a644-4127-9828-3adfc739e18c" CreationDate="2023-10-17T10:39:04.440" UserId="5901" Text="|solar-power|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32847" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12704" RevisionGUID="9dcf7877-3fe7-4af6-a041-998f972f0dbb" CreationDate="2023-10-19T11:40:54.833" UserId="15290" Text="Walking around the city centre of Warsaw I saw a poster placed by a construction zone of a new skyscraper. The poster said something along the lines &quot;our building will use electricity from windfarm in XYZ Norway&quot;. (I can double check tomorrow.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I started wondering: how is that possible? I highly doubt that there is special very long cable that runs from Norway to that very building in Warsaw.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I presume that there is some big electricity distribution centre in Poland and that distribution centre buys some energy from that wind farm in Norway. If that's the case, then the poster is just a scam. Let me portray that with an example. Being in Australia and saying: &quot;oh you there, oh come here and taste this amazing lemonade that was made with water specially gathered on the beach in Mexico&quot;. Where in fact water was just a regular tap water sourced in Australia.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Looking forward to a conversation :)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32849" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12704" RevisionGUID="9dcf7877-3fe7-4af6-a041-998f972f0dbb" CreationDate="2023-10-19T11:40:54.833" UserId="15290" Text="How buildings with eco-electricity know their electricity is eco?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32850" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12704" RevisionGUID="9dcf7877-3fe7-4af6-a041-998f972f0dbb" CreationDate="2023-10-19T11:40:54.833" UserId="15290" Text="|energy|environmental-impact|electricity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32853" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12706" RevisionGUID="c40ca2a7-6547-4b35-a1fc-d4aed47a401b" CreationDate="2023-10-21T10:24:43.887" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; our building will use electricity from windfarm in XYZ Norway&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No it doesn't.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, all electricity in the grid is mixed. It is completely impossible to say that a particular building gets its electricity from a particular generation site.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Theoretically, an electrical engineer could calculate how much the load at every generation site increases if a new electricity consumer is added to a certain location of the grid. However, the answer to this is very clear: a consumer uses electricity mostly from nearby generation sites, and very little from far-away generation sites.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, what if the connection of the wind farm XYZ to the grid fails? Does the building have a contract that says the building will automatically be isolated from the grid to prevent it from using electricity from other sources? Most likely it doesn't. Because it doesn't, it uses electricity from whatever generation sites may be available.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Furthermore, even a claim that a particular building uses &quot;wind electricity&quot; is bogus. What if it's a windless day? Do the lights in the building turn off then? No they don't. And because they don't, the building doesn't really use &quot;wind electricity&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Usually claims about using &quot;wind electricity&quot; are made in the following way: a building consumes X kWh, and it buys X kWh from wind power. However, those X kWh:s are generated and consumed at different times, and since the grid doesn't yet have a good and plentiful way of storing energy deployed in large enough scale (today the largest-deployed storage is hydropower but we don't have enough of it), it's actually very likely that even though X kWh:s of wind power  were generated, the building partially used fossil fuel generated electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Maybe someday pumped storage hydro will be built in large enough scale to mountainous areas. &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14555-y&quot;&gt;A paper in Nature Communications&lt;/a&gt; claims that we have enough suitable sites. Also, hydrogen can be stored underground. The problems of hydrogen however are that the round-trip efficiency from electricity to hydrogen to electricity back again is about 35%, i.e. not very good, and that the turbine / combustion engine power plants that convert it back to electricity are needed so rarely but still have to be paid for, that you can expect price of 200-300 USD/MWh for hydrogen electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One solution that is available near the equator is solar cells and lithium ion batteries. For wind power, battery storage doesn't work since there can easily be 2-3 consecutive weeks with poor wind, but solar power is more consistent and even during cloudy days you get about one fourth of the energy you would get from a sunny day, whereas on a windless day you would get nothing from wind power. So you can charge a battery daily and discharge it nightly. Far away from the equator, the problem is that there's so little solar power available during winter, so solar + batteries doesn't work far away from the equator.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So you're right. The claim is a scam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if there was a special cable from the wind farm to the building, then it wouldn't be a scam. But then if the one single cable gets damaged or if winds at the wind farm are poor, then the building would experience a blackout." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32855" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="23b52815-ede2-4e4a-ba62-bd1baa0b047f" CreationDate="2023-10-21T13:05:55.653" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32856" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12704" RevisionGUID="1a6cc368-e7db-4e22-8c4c-51d12b813c0e" CreationDate="2023-10-23T11:13:28.060" UserId="4834" Comment="grammar" Text="How do buildings with eco-electricity know their electricity is eco?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32857" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12707" RevisionGUID="6ae233d6-71c2-4f79-ae2d-b9254767e869" CreationDate="2023-10-23T12:38:37.160" UserId="5901" Text="Just a brief answer to my own question, following Juhist's helpful comment.  I'm choosing to answer this from a UK perspective, as the UK seldom uses coal in power stations to produce electricity.  (Norway might be even better, as they use loads more renewable energy than the UK).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a [post by the Centre for Alternative Technology][1] which covers the CO2 emissions issue well.  The post explains that in less than 1 year of use of a domestic battery, the emissions saved from not burning gas to produce electricity would outweigh the emissions of a UK-produced domestic battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The carbon emissions payback on a Chinese-produced battery would be longer, due to higher coal use, I can't put a figure on this though.  Depending on which Chinese battery is installed, there might also be quality issues - though Huawei and said to be pretty high-end, though many other manufacturers are not.  So it's important to do your research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not been the focus of my question, but the slavery of millions of the Uyghur minority group needs to be taken into account - [see more info on that here][2].  Incidentally, Russia and Saudi Arabia seem much worse than China on this measure.  Furthermore, it's worth mentioning that Western countries have exposure to modern slavery too, based on their supply chain; for more info look at the [country studies][3] on the same website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cat.org.uk/store-and-save/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/map/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studies/united-kingdom/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32863" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12709" RevisionGUID="c5c3fe9d-dd82-4f8e-a6bd-3c733b7343cf" CreationDate="2023-10-25T13:26:42.183" UserId="15300" Text="I tried googling an answer to this one, but this is one of those times when Google just didn't provide an answer.   It says that trees are good at removing contamination from soil and that harvested sap is prone to molding if not handled correctly and warnings about DIY maple syrup production, but nothing on whether undesirable minerals go from the groundwater into the sap of the tree.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any researched backed information would be appreciated. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32865" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12709" RevisionGUID="c5c3fe9d-dd82-4f8e-a6bd-3c733b7343cf" CreationDate="2023-10-25T13:26:42.183" UserId="15300" Text="If the groundwater is unsafe to drink, does that make the tree-sap unsafe to harvest?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32866" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12709" RevisionGUID="c5c3fe9d-dd82-4f8e-a6bd-3c733b7343cf" CreationDate="2023-10-25T13:26:42.183" UserId="15300" Text="|trees|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32867" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12709" RevisionGUID="dbfa339e-f24b-4d25-bdce-5e3a13ff0ae7" CreationDate="2023-10-27T10:37:59.563" UserId="15300" Comment="added maple to the question" Text="If the groundwater is unsafe to drink, does that make the sap from a maple tree unsafe to use for maple syrup?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32869" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12709" RevisionGUID="d357802d-2f7c-4af9-922b-a78dbd547767" CreationDate="2023-10-28T21:34:15.027" UserId="15300" Comment="added 11 characters in body" Text="I tried googling an answer to this one, but this is one of those times when Google just didn't provide an answer.   It says that trees are good at removing contamination from soil and that harvested sap is prone to molding if not handled correctly and occasional warnings about DIY maple syrup production, but nothing on whether undesirable minerals go from the groundwater into the sap of the tree.    &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any researched backed information would be appreciated. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32870" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12710" RevisionGUID="fd60ffbe-4cf8-4836-bb4c-1135c428445d" CreationDate="2023-10-29T02:34:05.543" UserId="6629" Text="I don't think it's a scam.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is certainly true that there is no way to control - or even to know - where a particular &quot;bit&quot; of electricity came from.  But electricity is a generic commodity - within an electric grid it's all the same voltage, same frequency, same phase angle.  None of it is better or worse or different than any other.  Nor is it labeled or tracked in any way.  The grid accepts it from all the generators, and distributes it to all the users.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some states within the U.S. have deregulated electricity systems, where the generation facilities are owned by various companies, and the utility company handles the transmission and distribution, and billing.  In these areas, customers can choose their supplier based on price or any number of other criteria, which can include the energy source.  The various suppliers all feed their electricity into the grid, and the utility tracks the energy supplied by each generator and energy used by each customer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The utility also must have a system for reconciling the production by each generator with the consumption by all of their customers, to ensure everyone is meeting their commitments.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a system like this, each generator will supply the amount of energy that its customers consume - no more and no less.  If one generator is a nuclear power plant, another is a coal plant, and a third is a wind farm, and 20% of the customers buy their power from the third supplier, then the wind farm is supplying the energy needs of 20% of the customers.  If more customers sign up for wind power, the supplier will increase output to meet their new demand, and the other two suppliers will operate their plants at lower power levels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the wind stops blowing, the coal and nuclear plants will increase output temporarily.  Then when the wind picks up again, the wind power will be increased to a higher level than their customers demand in order to make up for the power they didn't supply.  In the end it will all balance out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So are the particular electrons that are used in a building actually supplied exclusively by the wind farm?  No, but the wind farm does feed into the grid the amount of electricity that the building consumes.  And if the building management changes it's mind and decides to use nuclear power instead of wind, the wind plant output will go down and the nuclear plant output will go up by the amount the building uses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32872" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="4547" RevisionGUID="441e70f6-d924-40b4-8d5e-1003ced1e1f6" CreationDate="2023-10-29T17:39:02.290" UserId="1053" Comment="edited body" Text="The simplest rule to follow is this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt;Buy Less Stuff&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people replace large articles of furniture (couch, fridge, bed) every 3-5 years, often for reasons of style or fashion. That stuff has to be made and shipped to where you buy it. If you keep those things for 30 years (which is by no means impossible or even particularly difficult) you have a big impact.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people buy food half made for them in boxes, bags, and cans. That requires shipping raw ingredients to a factory, building and running a factory, and shipping the finished goods to the store. Buying meat from the farm yourself (especially if you didn't drive to it) has a lower carbon footprint than buying Tofurky or Hamburger Helper and not eating meat. The &quot;stuff&quot; that is the box, bag, can and the time-and-effort of the factory people is stuff you don't need. Buy raw ingredients and cook them. Buy them from the farm if you can.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Some people own many pairs of shoes, dozens of shirts and pants, a cupboard full of candlesticks and placemats and gadgets and knickknacks. Every one of these items has to be made (from cloth, petroleum products, metal, whatever) in a factory that had to be made, and so on. If you don't buy these things, you save all that footprint. How many candlesticks does one home need?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Sure, walk or bike when you can. Take public transport. Eat less meat. Use LED bulbs and don't waste electricity. But the biggest impact you will ever have - on the planet, on CO2, on your health, and on your retirement savings - is to Buy Less Stuff." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32873" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12711" RevisionGUID="b79873ba-8d34-4da2-b67a-172af73bd85c" CreationDate="2023-10-29T18:08:06.117" UserId="1053" Text="The problem is the general word &quot;toxins&quot; covers just too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Say the soil in an area is so rich in arsenic that the groundwater is contaminated with it and you shouldn't drink it. That's entirely different from an aquifer having bacterial contamination like e. coli in it. And both of them are different from having some leaking industrial site putting carcinogens into the water. You aren't even sure if the tree is taking up the water in question - a river or pond can be contaminated with no impact on a tree 100 feet away from it. (I do feel that &quot;undesirable minerals&quot; is totally not a thing.) It would help if you knew what made the groundwater undrinkable in the area you're considering.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Setting aside &quot;does the tree take up the toxin or not, and if so does it end up in the sap?&quot; as unanswerable because it will vary toxin by toxin, you can still draw some conclusions. Two things are likely to help you relax about your maple syrup: the boiling, and the dose. Boiling will kill bacteria and boil off &quot;light&quot; components such as some hydrocarbons. And you consume maybe a litre of maple syrup a year, right? Or two if you're crazy for it? While you take in more water than that every day. So the threshold for &quot;you shouldn't drink this water it will poison you&quot; is at a very very low level. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the contamination is not an instant poison like arsenic, but more a &quot;over the years it could really add up&quot; thing like radon, I would trust the syrup. If the issue is bacterial, I would trust the syrup. Beyond that I can't say without knowing what contaminants are worrying you.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32875" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12712" RevisionGUID="e5ec61d8-8bda-481c-ba4d-de3755bd02d0" CreationDate="2023-10-31T14:03:14.923" UserId="14377" Text="Does anyone know of any source of recycled / second-life PV panels in Ireland ?&#xD;&#xA;I have a idea for a pathway to reuse panels but I'm missing the original source.&#xD;&#xA;Many panels that are rejected from solar PV farms can be repaired, even if not to 100% rated power and could re-enter production ." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32877" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12712" RevisionGUID="e5ec61d8-8bda-481c-ba4d-de3755bd02d0" CreationDate="2023-10-31T14:03:14.923" UserId="14377" Text="Any source of recycled / second-life PV panels in Ireland?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32878" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12712" RevisionGUID="e5ec61d8-8bda-481c-ba4d-de3755bd02d0" CreationDate="2023-10-31T14:03:14.923" UserId="14377" Text="|solarmeitheal|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32881" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12714" RevisionGUID="7144704e-70f8-4130-bcf5-83fdc3fdc757" CreationDate="2023-11-01T23:35:14.010" UserId="8031" Text="I'm currently a co-owner of a small renovations contractor in a small city (~50k) in northern Wisconsin.  My equipment consists of a 7x14' trailer full of tools, large diesel truck, and minivan.  All of these pieces of equipment are near catastrophic failure, but see at least weekly use.  We do not have a location for office, shop, or indoor parking of any of our equipment.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For all my previous careers, I've been able to operate without vehicles or large equipment which has satisfied my personal environmental goals, but it seems extremely unlikely that I'll be able to do any sort of single/double family residential construction without gas powered vehicles, and especially because most customers would scoff at seeing a contractor show up on a bicycle.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Despite this, I'm wondering what different aspects of this I should really be looking at in regards to sustainability.  Is driving my old leaky minivan and finding locally sourced and milled lumber more important than riding my bike to site and having box store lumber delivered all the way from Oregon?  What's the impact of owning and moving around a wide variety of tools?  Could this even be economically competitive with all the other specialized contractors who are willing to drive from a county away to do short, specific tasks?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I conceivably have access to build any type of trailer for bicycles.  I'm fabricating a trailer for a local bike delivery service that can hold 1000 pound pallets, this person could also deliver some types of lumber for me.  We can assume that my budget is high, operating costs are low, but time is short.  I'm interested in any types of stories, success or failure, of people running handyman/carpenter/trade businesses to be more sustainable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32883" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12714" RevisionGUID="7144704e-70f8-4130-bcf5-83fdc3fdc757" CreationDate="2023-11-01T23:35:14.010" UserId="8031" Text="Is there a business model to do carpentry without a vehicle?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32884" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12714" RevisionGUID="7144704e-70f8-4130-bcf5-83fdc3fdc757" CreationDate="2023-11-01T23:35:14.010" UserId="8031" Text="|transport|cars|building-materials|building|wood|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32885" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12715" RevisionGUID="5febda74-0fd7-4c39-877d-c496c07f728f" CreationDate="2023-11-02T11:37:20.227" UserId="106" Text="No affiliation, but I have proof-ridden an Urban Arrow Tender at a large bicycle trade fair in Germany, and it would seem to fit a lot of stuff:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Urban Arrow Tender][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;*Urban Arrow Tender.  Source: [Greenbike Shop](https://www.greenbike-shop.de/lastenfahrrad/gewerblich/urban-arrow-tender?number=URB-201361L-UA09-1101)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Competitors exist.  A regular engine will go up to 25 km/h, but as an S-Pedelec you could pedal up to 45 km/h (or whatever the US equivalent limits are), competitive with speeds driving a car for moderate distances.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the vendor would tell you some &quot;success stories&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ilZiy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32887" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="57749258-8910-46dc-81dc-877f6fa1c558" CreationDate="2023-11-02T13:08:06.013" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32908" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="3173" RevisionGUID="370aebeb-af91-4ab1-852f-e749a1373fb0" CreationDate="2023-11-06T02:30:17.753" UserId="2727" Comment="Upgraded link to HTTPS" Text="I ask this question all the time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am living in Southeast Asia &amp; the temperature there is always 30-32 C in almost every day of the year. So, houses in Southeast Asia normally are pretty hot. However, people there tried many way to make their home cooler.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, if you come to Southeast Asian countries, you often see &quot;&lt;b&gt;Roof Turbine Vents&lt;/b&gt;&quot; (https://www.askthebuilder.com/roof-turbine-vents/) installed on top of the roof. The wind will make the turbine spin, and when it is spinning it will withdraw the hot air out of the roof. It is not a complete solution but the house is less hot if it uses Roof Turbine Vents than if it does not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In addition, they also install the solar panel on top of the roof to get the hot water, and generally the Solar Hot Water system is quite effective as it can give the hot water all the time without spending any cent for electricity bill.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, come back to the cooling system. Even my house got a Roof Turbine Vents installed on top, we still have to use electricity air conditioner to cool the rooms, which cost a lot of energy bill. Also, for electricity air conditioner, we can only afford to cool a few rooms like the bed room. If I walk out the bed room then it is very hot.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So my question is:&#xD;&#xA; &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Can we build a very effective cooling system for house or apartment&#xD;&#xA;&gt; using solar or wind power?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example, we can install a cooling system on top of the roof. The cooling system can use the solar power from the sun, and then somehow use that energy to cool entirely the roof.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Or, for example, when building a house, instead of making the brick walls like the traditional house, we can use the wall that made of  a lot of tiny hot-to-cold material. When the hot sun light triggers the wall, the tiny hot-to-cold material on the wall will convert hot energy to cold energy or something like that to cool off entirely the house.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe the technical issue is not too difficult, but it is just too expensive to build. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32909" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="3173" RevisionGUID="370aebeb-af91-4ab1-852f-e749a1373fb0" CreationDate="2023-11-06T02:30:17.753" Comment="Proposed by 2727 approved by 2345, 8232 edit id of 727" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32910" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="0a87a9e5-ec6b-4cba-9b0c-b8c488502cea" CreationDate="2023-11-06T03:09:56.180" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32911" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12715" RevisionGUID="018509f2-f6f7-4e91-a1c6-30a5a6ba75ac" CreationDate="2023-11-06T09:03:57.643" UserId="106" Comment="added 120 characters in body" Text="No affiliation, but I have proof-ridden an Urban Arrow Tender at a large bicycle trade fair in Germany, and it would seem to fit a lot of stuff:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Urban Arrow Tender][1]][1]  &#xD;&#xA;*Urban Arrow Tender.  Source: [Greenbike Shop](https://www.greenbike-shop.de/lastenfahrrad/gewerblich/urban-arrow-tender?number=URB-201361L-UA09-1101)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Competitors exist.  A regular engine will go up to 25 km/h, but as an S-Pedelec you could pedal up to 45 km/h (or whatever the US equivalent limits are), competitive with speeds driving a car for moderate distances (I don't know if they exist as S-Pedelecs; you'd some pretty good breaks to stop quickly if this beast is fully loaded, and personally I find that 25 km/h already feels quite fast — riding such a bike takes some getting used to!).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Perhaps the vendor would tell you some &quot;success stories&quot;?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/ilZiy.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32912" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12719" RevisionGUID="7686b03c-ba9c-4aa2-a65f-c20c6e6770a4" CreationDate="2023-11-06T18:21:47.200" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; Can we build a very effective cooling system for house or apartment using solar or wind power?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Oh yes you can, if the temperatures during the night are tolerable. Just use solar panels and an air conditioning system.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The fun thing about cooling is that you need it mostly when the sun is shining. After all, you are removing the heat that comes from solar radiation.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Typical solar panels are 20% efficient. Typical air conditioner SEER is 10 BTU/(Wh), which using more typical units of Wh/Wh is approximately 3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This means that 80% of the solar heat output remains, but 3*20% = 60% of solar heat output is removed. So only 20% remains after removal. However, note that the 80% of the solar heat that remains, some is reflected away anyway so the 20% that remains after removal isn't typically a big problem. Pretty good if you cover your entire roof and all walls with solar panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;A small trouble is windows. Presumably you don't have solar panels over the windows because this would defeat the purpose of having windows. But you can install window blinds that do a reasonably good job at reflecting most of the heat away.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, in areas where the outside temperatures during the night are too hot, this strategy may not work, since you have zero cooling during the night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also it may be a good idea to connect the solar panels to grid electricity and use the air conditioner off of the grid electricity. This means that if it's a single particularly hot night, you can still run your AC even though the solar panels aren't supplying any power. Mostly the AC would run from the solar panels anyway. If you want to maximize the probability of the AC running only using solar power, you can measure the production of solar electricity and adjust the AC accordingly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wind power? No. It can be a windless day or a windless week but it can be still hot. This just doesn't work the same way as solar power works, since solar power is the reason you need cooling anyway." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32914" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12720" RevisionGUID="7479b333-45bb-42cf-96cb-1327df27ab47" CreationDate="2023-11-09T13:52:16.927" UserDisplayName="user5058" Text="Another use is as one food source for passerines in winter, by embedding breadcrumbs and seeds in the fatty side of pork rind strips, and hanging them from a string under an eaves for example." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32920" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12722" RevisionGUID="62fe4193-d448-4073-af3e-ea7834d660f7" CreationDate="2023-11-09T23:06:32.853" UserId="14406" Text="I used up a bottle of moisturising cream today, and so I looked around the bottle to find out whether I could recycle it or not. I found this symbol of a person with three arrows coming out of his hand and an arrow going around him:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Symbol representing a person with three arrows coming out of his hand and an arrow going around him][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm not sure I've seen this before, and I wasn't able to find it by searching the web. What does this mean? Does it tell me anything about how I should dispose of the object?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9TJJA.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32922" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12722" RevisionGUID="62fe4193-d448-4073-af3e-ea7834d660f7" CreationDate="2023-11-09T23:06:32.853" UserId="14406" Text="Is this symbol of three arrows pointing away from a person with a arrow surronding him a recycling symbol?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32923" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12722" RevisionGUID="62fe4193-d448-4073-af3e-ea7834d660f7" CreationDate="2023-11-09T23:06:32.853" UserId="14406" Text="|recycling|packaging|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32924" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12700" RevisionGUID="efc7f14d-4c48-48fa-a4f1-00c24f93c274" CreationDate="2023-11-10T06:04:33.793" UserId="106" Comment="added 55 characters in body" Text="Device for efficient energy transfer from cold to warm." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32925" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12700" RevisionGUID="efc7f14d-4c48-48fa-a4f1-00c24f93c274" CreationDate="2023-11-10T06:04:33.793" Comment="Proposed by 106 approved by 99, 8232 edit id of 729" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32926" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12699" RevisionGUID="95dc1616-b97c-4d31-8fd7-c967ba784f64" CreationDate="2023-11-10T06:04:49.127" UserId="106" Comment="added 1672 characters in body" Text="A [Heat pump](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat%20pump) is a device that uses work to transfer energy from cold to warm.  Heat pumps can be a sustainable alternative for domestic or commercial heating, as electric heat pumps have no combustion at the point of use and are much more efficient than direct electric heating, because they can transfer up to 3–6 units of heat using a single unit of energy.  Most heat pumps are powered by electricity, but heat pumps powered by natural gas exist as well.  They are a popular choice in the decarbonisation of heating, in particular in areas where district heating is not expected.  In many countries, the high upfront investment cost is subsidised, such that they quickly pay off not only energetically but economically as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Broadly speaking, heat pumps can be categorised based on their heat source, such as outside air, exhaust air, geothermal, shallow earth, groundwater, surface water or even [ice](https://www.kfw.de/stories/environment/renewable-energy/eisspeicher-sternenberger-hof/), and their heat sink, typically air or water (for use with central heating or for hot water).  They can be combined with other sources of heating, such as solar, fossil, or wood.  In buildings with central heating, air-to-water heat pumps are the most popular replacement for existing fossil-fuel boilers, as the pre-existing central heating can often remain in place with little or no changes, although they work most efficiently with very large radiators such as underfloor heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use this tag for questions about transitioning heating to heat pumps, about different types of heat pumps, or about other related questions." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32927" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12699" RevisionGUID="95dc1616-b97c-4d31-8fd7-c967ba784f64" CreationDate="2023-11-10T06:04:49.127" Comment="Proposed by 106 approved by 99, 8232 edit id of 728" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32928" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12723" RevisionGUID="b88657a5-7d0d-425f-b836-032a6d99fb76" CreationDate="2023-11-10T21:19:10.900" UserDisplayName="user5058" Text="by searching the web for &quot;recycling pictogram&quot; this is the &quot;[triman logo][1]&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; The French Decree No. 2014-1577 has made it mandatory from 1 January&#xD;&#xA;&gt; 2015 to print the Triman Logo on recyclable products and packaging&#xD;&#xA;&gt; sold to consumers in France. The main reason for this symbol is to&#xD;&#xA;&gt; make it easier for consumers to understand how to sort their garbage.&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Products and packaging with the Triman Logo on them are meant to be&#xD;&#xA;&gt; collected in separate waste streams, such as paper or recyclable&#xD;&#xA;&gt; plastics. If the symbol is not there, the product can be disposed of&#xD;&#xA;&gt; in the general waste. However, it is not quite as simple as it sounds.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;this means that heterogeneous packaging is regulated, since printing the logo is mandatory - another victory for triman.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.ecosistant.eu/en/triman-logo/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32934" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12013" RevisionGUID="7d797e54-a831-4877-a3e9-ae9021f64fc3" CreationDate="2023-11-12T16:58:37.370" UserId="6393" Comment="clarify the effect of price of uranium" Text="Sustainable? What do you count as sustainable? Do you consider for example solar power or wind power or geothermal power sustainable?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They aren't. If you extract solar power, eventually the sun has run out of fusion fuel, and you can't extract solar power anymore. Same for wind -- it's just harvesting solar power in an indirect way. Geothermal power relies on earth having enough thermal energy. The faster you extract geothermal heat energy, the faster it runs out.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, if we bend a little bit the definition of &quot;sustainability&quot;, and consider solutions that have enough fuel for 5 billion years &quot;sustainable&quot;, then some forms of nuclear energy are sustainable. Nuclear energy based on U-235 isn't (as only 0.7% of natural uranium is U-235, so eventually we will run out of U-235 and have only U-238 left), but nuclear energy based on U-238 (converting it to plutonium in breeder reactors) is sustainable. Also, thorium reactors are sustainable too (they convert thorium to U-233) because essentially all of thorium is the isotope 232, and it can be converted entirely to U-233 in breeder reactors.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also good breeder reactors that have proper waste processing (a lot of the waste, especially of the most active waste, is good nuclear fuel) can provide a waste stream that decays faster than the waste stream of our once-through reactors. So the waste issue is mostly solved, because only 300-400 years of storage is needed for the waste (it decays in 300-400 years to the activity of natural ore) as opposed to hundreds of thousands or millions of years of the waste of current reactors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Current nuclear reactors, that aren't passively safe, are by far the safest electricity generation method we currently have. Compared to it, for example wind power is fatal (it kills people servicing the wind turbine at great heights) and solar power is fatal (it kills people on the roof, servicing the solar array, resulting in people getting fallen from the roof). Any combustion-based electricity production method should be banned right away if we need the very good safety of current nuclear reactors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Passively safe reactors, by the way, are safe even in the hands of incompetent people. For example, the General Atomics TRIGA nuclear reactor in Finland was operated by university students. It was in the middle of a university building. No accidents happened, because it was designed to be safe. The university was very near the city center, and there were huge amounts of people living in 5 mile radius. No problem there. We could build all nuclear reactors that way: so that they can be operated in the middle of a city. That way, their waste heat could be economically utilized in city district heating.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, current nuclear reactors aren't the only way. In current reactors, every plant is a custom design and has to be proven safe enough separately. They also aren't passively safe. However, there is nothing preventing construction of nuclear reactors in factory assembly lines, so that only the general design needs to be proven safe once, and everyone would use essentially the same reactor. They can also be made passively safe, to prevent the accident of Fukushima for example (if we consider it important enough to prevent a future Fukushima -- the death toll of the Fukushima nuclear accident by the way is far below the death toll of the tsunami that caused it; completely different orders of magnitude here).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The big mistake in nuclear power was stopping research, development and construction of new nuclear reactors in 1980s. Because of this, we don't have passively safe reactors. We don't have reactors produced in factory assembly lines (very cheap!). We don't have breeder reactors that produce enough electricity for 5 billion years. We don't have reactors that produce waste that decays to natural radioactivity in 300-400 years. We don't have thorium reactors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The best choice, right now, if we want to have any chance of stopping the climate crisis is to construct massive amounts of all clean electricity production methods, as much as we can. This includes hydropower. This includes hydrogen-based energy storage. This includes battery-based energy storage. This includes wind power. This includes solar power. This includes current nuclear reactors. And before someone claims that we haven't solved the waste problem of current nuclear reactors, we have: Finland has geological permanent storage for nuclear waste, good for the amount of time it stays radioactive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, we should not stop there: we should begin the R&amp;D to create reactors produced in assembly lines, passively safe, capable of utilizing all natural uranium and thorium in breeder mode, capable of producing waste that needs storage for only 300-400 years.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;About the EU labeling, by the way, it's bullshit. They are planning to consider natural gas &quot;sustainable&quot;. The only way it can be sustainable if it's used only for peaking power plants (so its capacity factor is below 15%) and if the carbon dioxide produced is captured and stored back underground from where the natural gas came. The massive production of baseload electricity using natural gas is nothing but foolish.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&lt;b&gt;Edit:&lt;/b&gt; &lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; When reading this answer again long time after writing it, I have to note that the reason U-238 is sustainable is the fact that once you use all of the uranium, not just 0.7% of it (U-235), you can tolerate 142.86 times higher price of uranium. This means that you can extract uranium from seawater. So claiming that we have enough U-238 for 5 billion years is not equivalent to the claim that we have enough U-235 for `0.007*5 = 0.035` billion years or 35 million years (which we don't). The current reactors that utilize U-235 only require the uranium to be very cheap because they are very inefficient in using the uranium, meaning that they can tolerate only a very low price of uranium. This means that the vast majority of available sources of uranium are too expensive. Maybe I should have explained this better in the first version of the answer." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32935" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12725" RevisionGUID="e57e93d4-fdcd-4328-ba82-eee762252dcf" CreationDate="2023-11-12T18:21:59.443" UserId="15342" Text="Many folks don't realize that glass canning jars are made to be freezer safe.  If you look closely most of the wide mouth straight sided jars (4 oz, 8 oz, 12 oz, 16 oz, and 24 oz) have the words &quot;freeze-fill&quot; embossed under the etched line indicating the max freezer fill point for the jar.  It is the thin line etched just under the ring at the bottom of the threads. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most folks use plastic lids, but the traditional flat lid and rings work really well in the freezer.  I have a friend who always vacuum seals the jar (using a jar vacuum sealer attachment) before freezing.  This can significantly reduce the risk of freezer burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information about choosing the right canning jars for your freezer:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.ballmasonjars.com/take-guesswork-out-jar-selection.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;[![Freeze Line on Ball Canning Jars][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Aakvn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32937" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12725" RevisionGUID="c4fa3b9d-dc53-4cb4-ab6b-124500b38a06" CreationDate="2023-11-12T18:23:08.107" UserId="15342" Comment="edited body" Text="Many folks don't realize that glass canning jars are made to be freezer safe (4 oz, 8 oz, 12 oz, 16 oz, and 24 oz).  If you look closely most of the wide mouth straight sided jars have the words &quot;freeze-fill&quot; embossed under the etched line indicating the max freezer fill point for the jar.  It is the thin line etched just under the ring at the bottom of the threads. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most folks use plastic lids, but the traditional flat lid and rings work really well in the freezer.  I have a friend who always vacuum seals the jar (using a jar vacuum sealer attachment) before freezing.  This can significantly reduce the risk of freezer burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information about choosing the right canning jars for your freezer:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.ballmasonjars.com/take-guesswork-out-jar-selection.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;[![Freeze Line on Ball Canning Jars][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Aakvn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32938" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12726" RevisionGUID="a3f061a3-0d33-465e-b36b-1fabb8bf649c" CreationDate="2023-11-13T02:56:52.177" UserId="15343" Text="I have the small garden lights with the LED lamp powered by a AA Ni-MH battery that is recharged by a solar panel on the top of the light fixture. These lights loose power and go dark within a couple hours of their turning on. Would I have better luck with Ni-Cd batteries?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32940" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12726" RevisionGUID="a3f061a3-0d33-465e-b36b-1fabb8bf649c" CreationDate="2023-11-13T02:56:52.177" UserId="15343" Text="Short Life of a Battery in a Solar Cell Garden Light" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32941" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12726" RevisionGUID="a3f061a3-0d33-465e-b36b-1fabb8bf649c" CreationDate="2023-11-13T02:56:52.177" UserId="15343" Text="|solar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32942" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12727" RevisionGUID="d71aa775-0335-4383-ada3-afe185f8e928" CreationDate="2023-11-13T19:57:18.303" UserId="6393" Text="You haven't diagnosed the problem yet.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem isn't necessarily battery life. It could be available energy. If the solar panel isn't big enough, it's very likely that after a cloudy day it hasn't produced enough energy for the entire night.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, short battery &lt;i&gt;life&lt;/i&gt; (duration of providing power) doesn't mean you should change battery chemistry. Short battery &lt;l&gt;lifetime&lt;/i&gt; means either the battery chemistry isn't good or you are charging it in an improper manner.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So if you find that the lights last entire night for the first 3 years and then don't anymore, the cause is that the batteries have a poor chemistry or you are charging them improperly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the battery &lt;i&gt;life&lt;/i&gt; (as opposed to &lt;i&gt;lifetime&lt;/i&gt;) is bad, then the cause is either that (1) you need bigger battery or more batteries, or (2) the solar panel can't produce enough power for the day.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;To diagnose which is the cause, you need to do some information gathering. First, find out the capacity in watt hours of your battery bank. Usually the batteries state on a label the capacity in mAh or Ah, multiply by voltage to get mWh or Wh. Then find out the power usage of the light. For this you need a multimeter or a power meter.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Then you know how long theoretically the light should last on battery power. You should aim for as many hours as it's dark during the night plus some extra safety margin.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the calculation showed the light doesn't last an entire night on battery power, then you know the cause: too few batteries. But if the calculation showed that you have enough duration for the entire night but the light still doesn't really last that long, you know you have too few solar panels. In this case, you need to install more panels." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32944" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12725" RevisionGUID="098ff25f-6782-4bec-894a-11bb24f80b90" CreationDate="2023-11-14T07:40:15.507" UserId="2345" Comment="Added addtional terminology" Text="Many folks don't realize that glass canning jars (also known as preserving jars) are made to be freezer safe (4 oz, 8 oz, 12 oz, 16 oz, and 24 oz).  If you look closely most of the wide mouth straight sided jars have the words &quot;freeze-fill&quot; embossed under the etched line indicating the max freezer fill point for the jar.  It is the thin line etched just under the ring at the bottom of the threads. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most folks use plastic lids, but the traditional flat lid and rings work really well in the freezer.  I have a friend who always vacuum seals the jar (using a jar vacuum sealer attachment) before freezing.  This can significantly reduce the risk of freezer burn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For more information about choosing the right canning jars for your freezer:&#xD;&#xA;https://www.ballmasonjars.com/take-guesswork-out-jar-selection.html&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  &#xD;&#xA;[![Freeze Line on Ball Canning Jars][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Aakvn.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32947" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12707" RevisionGUID="96cabab8-c23f-4b15-b2d2-3a33202a8150" CreationDate="2023-11-15T14:11:58.817" UserId="5901" Comment="typo fixed" Text="Just a brief answer to my own question, following Juhist's helpful comment.  I'm choosing to answer this from a UK perspective, as the UK seldom uses coal in power stations to produce electricity.  (Norway might be even better, as they use loads more renewable energy than the UK).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I found a [post by the Centre for Alternative Technology][1] which covers the CO2 emissions issue well.  The post explains that in less than 1 year of use of a domestic battery, the emissions saved from not burning gas to produce electricity would outweigh the emissions of a UK-produced domestic battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The carbon emissions payback on a Chinese-produced battery would be longer, due to higher coal use, I can't put a figure on this though.  Depending on which Chinese battery is installed, there might also be quality issues - though Huawei are said to be pretty high-end, though many other manufacturers are not.  So its important to do your research.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It's not been the focus of my question, but the slavery of millions of the Uyghur minority group needs to be taken into account - [see more info on that here][2].  Incidentally, Russia and Saudi Arabia seem much worse than China on this measure.  Furthermore, it's worth mentioning that Western countries have exposure to modern slavery too, based on their supply chain; for more info look at the [country studies][3] on the same website.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://cat.org.uk/store-and-save/&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/map/&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studies/united-kingdom/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32948" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12728" RevisionGUID="fa4e7d10-dc6a-457a-88a2-b0b51fb2a8fa" CreationDate="2023-11-15T14:30:49.563" UserId="15347" Text="To answer the maths question simply I think you have 2 options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. (easier option) Find out how much energy (in kWH) it takes to produce a battery of the size you want. Find out the grid emissions intensity of China and another country you're considering. Work out the rough grid emissions used to make your battery. Using the grid emissions for where you live, calculate how your &quot;emissions pay back rate&quot;, and see how long it would take to pay back a Chinese battery vs your other choice.&#xD;&#xA;2. (harder option) Same as option 1, except try to find a multi-regional input output (MRIO) model for free which has emissions factors for electronics manufacturing in the two countries you want. (Try searching free MRIO emissions factors.) Then follow the same procedure, but using these emissions factors instead of the grid ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second option is more difficult because the emissions factors may be more difficult to find (you have to pay to see a lot of the MRIOs which are out there); the first option should be easier but depends on the ratio of grid emissions in each country being the same as the electronics sector emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ethically, although China's supply chains are probably worse for human welfare, other countries aren't perfect. It's widely known that conditions in cobalt mines in Congo are appalling, with the use of children and slaves, and cobalt from these mines permeates the world's supply chain. (See https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2020.11.018 for example)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32950" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12729" RevisionGUID="bd5da3dc-95cf-4a2e-8966-c20a9ff80645" CreationDate="2023-11-15T22:16:59.933" UserId="15348" Text="I need a car for occasional short journeys.   My yearly millage will probably be less than 2000 miles.  Is it worth getting an EV or will a small petrol be more environmental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ll be buying used, probably either a vw polo or a Renault Zoe.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I only drive &lt; 2000 miles, is that enough to keep the battery of the Zoe healthy? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32952" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12729" RevisionGUID="bd5da3dc-95cf-4a2e-8966-c20a9ff80645" CreationDate="2023-11-15T22:16:59.933" UserId="15348" Text="How many miles per year is too few to make an EV more sustainable than a small petrol car" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32953" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12729" RevisionGUID="bd5da3dc-95cf-4a2e-8966-c20a9ff80645" CreationDate="2023-11-15T22:16:59.933" UserId="15348" Text="|electric-vehicles|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32955" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12729" RevisionGUID="407ab119-2a3a-4335-8c3b-75fb78d8203c" CreationDate="2023-11-20T05:49:28.367" UserId="2345" Comment="Grammatical change" Text="I need a car for occasional short journeys. My yearly millage will probably be less than 2000 miles.  Is it worth getting an EV or will a small petrol be more environmental.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ll be buying used, probably either a VW Polo or a Renault Zoe.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If I only drive &lt; 2000 miles, is that enough to keep the battery of the Zoe healthy? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32956" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12728" RevisionGUID="de7812eb-9938-41f6-a600-719868c76188" CreationDate="2023-11-20T05:52:21.303" UserId="2345" Comment="Correction of capitalization of units" Text="To answer the maths question simply I think you have 2 options:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. (easier option) Find out how much energy (in kWh) it takes to produce a battery of the size you want. Find out the grid emissions intensity of China and another country you're considering. Work out the rough grid emissions used to make your battery. Using the grid emissions for where you live, calculate how your &quot;emissions pay back rate&quot;, and see how long it would take to pay back a Chinese battery vs your other choice.&#xD;&#xA;2. (harder option) Same as option 1, except try to find a multi-regional input output (MRIO) model for free which has emissions factors for electronics manufacturing in the two countries you want. (Try searching free MRIO emissions factors.) Then follow the same procedure, but using these emissions factors instead of the grid ones.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The second option is more difficult because the emissions factors may be more difficult to find (you have to pay to see a lot of the MRIOs which are out there); the first option should be easier but depends on the ratio of grid emissions in each country being the same as the electronics sector emissions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Ethically, although China's supply chains are probably worse for human welfare, other countries aren't perfect. It's widely known that conditions in cobalt mines in Congo are appalling, with the use of children and slaves, and cobalt from these mines permeates the world's supply chain. (See https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2020.11.018 for example)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32957" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12730" RevisionGUID="aa03952d-ffac-4b74-b8d6-54002fcbe95e" CreationDate="2023-11-20T08:03:28.943" UserId="15359" Text="In cases like this we do what is called an LCA.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This looks at a few areas, production&#xD;&#xA;Transportation as well as end of life.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;While I do not have an exact case study for this application, I have one which is worse case situation for plastics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;100% aluminium vs tin plate which are what milo cans are made off &#xD;&#xA;And bottles rigids for plastics vs flexibles in your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;100% Al would be easier to recycle than tin plate and a lot lighter.&#xD;&#xA;Rigid bottles use alot more plastics as compared with flexible films.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://napcor.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/NAPCOR-Beverage-Container-LCA-Report-2023.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Results:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Plastics are better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.flexpack-europe.org/files/images_flexpack-europe/Inhaltsbilder/Sustainability/Pouch%20LCA/ifeu-study-2021-LCA-Pouches-Executive-summary-report.pdf&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is an LCA of a pouch vs a can for pasta sauce.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Results:&#xD;&#xA;Likewise plastic better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Honestly in terms of matrix it’s harder to find a LCA which states that metal is better than plastics environmentally.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But there are use cases where metal and glass are better, and this is with regards to extended shelf life,if you’re planning on keeping a drink around for 5-6 years your better off using glass or metal due to the barrier properties. But that’s a different discussion.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32959" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12731" RevisionGUID="77ef11a1-9058-4202-8c8c-3ea5ee56c1c8" CreationDate="2023-11-20T08:36:48.000" UserId="15359" Text="CR 39, forget about it, it’s thermosetting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For your project stick to PC(120 deg C) or PMMA.&#xD;&#xA;Based on the softening temperature PMMA(70) should be the easiest to work with for a sculpture." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32961" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12732" RevisionGUID="47efe66d-6522-42f3-b1b3-56a5e329cc80" CreationDate="2023-11-20T08:40:31.823" UserId="15359" Text="CR-39 or MR type lenses may be your best bet, but they may crack. how about snapping them in? Or does FIMO have 0 ductility? " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32963" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12733" RevisionGUID="e10bb885-beb0-4a68-bbdc-50655d17fa19" CreationDate="2023-11-22T18:22:45.717" UserId="15365" Text="Not wishing ever to charge a (prospective) house-battery from the grid, naively, I think of a DC-coupled battery as a sort of capacitance between existing solar panels and their inverter. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Again, naively, I imagine a DC-side battery should be able to smooth the supply to varying load beyond the existing inverter. The inverter shouldn't be able to tell there's a battery upstream.. AC load downstream of the inverter (including export to grid) shouldn't care where the inverter got its DC from.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But domestic installers' information sites  always insist that it's prohibitively difficult to retrofit a DC-coupled battery to existing panels and their inverter, and that an AC-coupled battery, with its own inverter, is much to be preferred.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Can anyone explain why?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32965" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12733" RevisionGUID="e10bb885-beb0-4a68-bbdc-50655d17fa19" CreationDate="2023-11-22T18:22:45.717" UserId="15365" Text="Why is it easier to retrofit an AC-coupled than a DC-coupled battery to an existing domestic PV installation?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32966" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12733" RevisionGUID="e10bb885-beb0-4a68-bbdc-50655d17fa19" CreationDate="2023-11-22T18:22:45.717" UserId="15365" Text="|solar-power|batteries|photovoltaics|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32967" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12734" RevisionGUID="04676f7b-8faa-425f-8f9a-b5301f411150" CreationDate="2023-11-22T20:43:16.223" UserId="15366" Text="It's generally accepted these days that electric vehicles are better for the environment than similar gas-powered models. Despite that, I have heard (and [this very site confirms](https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/a/3209)) that the most environmentally friendly option of all is to keep an existing car on the road, regardless of its power source, because a few years of emissions benefit are outweighed by the environmental impact of manufacturing any new car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does similar logic apply to home heating systems? I currently have a furnace that burns natural gas, and have been planning to switch to a heat pump. I want to know if I should do it ASAP or wait until the furnace fails. I'm asking purely from an environmental perspective, not taking into account things like money (e.g. the cost of gas) or comfort (e.g. the potential of not having heat for a few wintry weeks). The furnace is currently in good condition, if that makes a difference.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My searching only turned up [one web page about this question](https://pharoheating.com/hvac/wait-hvac-system-completely-fail-replacing/), which leans towards not waiting, but it's by an HVAC contractor, not a neutral source." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32969" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12734" RevisionGUID="04676f7b-8faa-425f-8f9a-b5301f411150" CreationDate="2023-11-22T20:43:16.223" UserId="15366" Text="What is the environmental impact of replacing a functioning furnace with a heat pump?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32970" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12734" RevisionGUID="04676f7b-8faa-425f-8f9a-b5301f411150" CreationDate="2023-11-22T20:43:16.223" UserId="15366" Text="|home|heat-pump|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32971" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12735" RevisionGUID="67d140ae-ca39-4ad4-a71a-0e011fad1eb6" CreationDate="2023-11-23T14:31:34.397" UserId="15347" Text="To use as similar logic to that of whether to replace a car, we need to know the current operational emissions of your gas boiler, the embedded emissions of a new heat pump, and the operational emissions of the new heat pump.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In [this](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778817323101) meta-analysis of embodied emissions in low-carbon technologies they give a figure of around 1.5 tonnes CO2e for a domestic air source heat pump from the UK.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Nesta](https://www.nesta.org.uk/press-release/gas-boiler-emits-more-annual-co2-seven-transatlantic-flights) reckon an average UK gas boiler emits 2.2 tonnes CO2e per year (this will obviously be less if you're more eco-conscious than average, which presumably you are if you're on this site).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[Ovo](https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/how-much-heating-energy-do-you-use) seems to think 10,000 kWh a year of heat energy per household is a reasonable guess so we'll go with it. Assuming a slightly pessimistic COP of 2.8 for your heat pump, you'll need 3,570 kWh of electricity for your heating. The average emissions intensity of the UK national grid is about 250 gCO2e/kWh, so that's less than a tonne of CO2e per year. (And obviously the hope is the grid gets cleaner every year.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These are rough numbers, but it means the &quot;payback&quot; time for investing in a heat pump is about 1 or 2 years, much less than the payback for switching to an EV.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of the difference comes from just how massive and complicated cars are, and on average getting heavier all the time. So they need a huge amount of materials to make, which leads to such a massive embodied footprint.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Obviously you'll make the rough calculations much better if you can fill in the numbers I've guessed, or use better sources.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One thing to note though, if you do buy a heat pump be sure to dispose of it properly at the end of its life. Otherwise if the refrigerant gases are allowed to leak their potent greenhouse gas effects will more than cancel out any savings you will have made during its life." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32975" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12737" RevisionGUID="1b7e6f89-ded2-4fa1-9fa0-930e4a0975f3" CreationDate="2023-11-25T22:05:21.387" UserId="15375" Text="Saying that isopropyl alchohol is like acetone is kind of like saying that water is like carbonic acid. Water reacts with calcium carbonate (calcite), which makes up about 40% of our Earth's crust, and forms carbonic acid. This particular chemical reaction is very well known to people in the mining industry, as this reaction is known for weakening cave mouths and causing the mines to collapse. Irresponsible mining practices can cause major water acidification, which can cause eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems. Now does that mean that water is bad or harmful? Absolutely not! In fact, even the carbonic acid, in small amounts, is safe and a natural part of our Earth's natural processes. However too much can be extremely harmful to both humans and the environment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one process for making isopropyl alcohol that involves acetone. The acetone is then chemically converted (changed on a molecular level) into isopropyl alcohol. Presumably there is very little acetone left in the final product, and manufacturers would strive to make this reaction perfect (no acetone left) because it is more cost-effective for the company. Of all of the research that I have done, this method seems to be the most environmentally friendly, but there is notably very little information on the sourcing of the acetone, which would be my concern with this process. Also, I don't know how you would be able to tell which process was used, save for contacting the manufacturers directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more common (much more common!) method for making isopropyl alcohol involves sulfuric acid, both as a catalyst, and as a byproduct. This raises the major question for me as to how they are producing the sulfuric acid, and how they are disposing of it. I have found precious little information on this topic which, to me, makes it suspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the other users said, isopropyl alchohol is very safe, on its own, and is biodegradable. But my big question is, is the sourcing and disposal of the other chemicals involved (acetone and sulfuric acid) environmentally friendly? I have spent a lot of time researhing this because, frankly, I love isopropyl alcohol! It is a fantastic solvent, and I use it nearly everyday in my house. To date I have found no concrete answers on this, and this leads me to believe that the manufacturers may be hiding thier dirty little secrets about chemical diaposal. Maybe I am wrong, and I hope I am. If any other user has found more information on this, I would love to hear it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that's a lot of words just to say &quot;I don't know&quot;, but I think all of this information is pertenant when trying to decide if isopropyl alchohol is eco-friendly. All of the sources that I have read focus solely on the isopropyl alcohol itself, and not all of the other chemicals involved. It leaves me frustrated and I am still on the fence as to wether or not I should use this chemical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32977" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12737" RevisionGUID="6de60157-5b78-4ca4-ac1f-f3c99076622b" CreationDate="2023-11-25T22:23:06.363" UserId="15375" Comment="added 113 characters in body" Text="Saying that isopropyl alchohol is like acetone is kind of like saying that water is like carbonic acid. Water reacts with calcium carbonate (calcite), which makes up about 40% of our Earth's crust, and forms carbonic acid. This particular chemical reaction is very well known to people in the mining industry, as this reaction is known for weakening cave mouths and causing the mines to collapse. Irresponsible mining practices can cause major water acidification, which can cause eutrophication of aquatic ecosystems. Now does that mean that water is bad or harmful? Absolutely not! In fact, even the carbonic acid, in small amounts, is safe and a natural part of our Earth's natural processes. However too much can be extremely harmful to both humans and the environment. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There is one process for making isopropyl alcohol that involves acetone. The acetone is then chemically converted (changed on a molecular level) into isopropyl alcohol. Presumably there is very little acetone left in the final product, and manufacturers would strive to make this reaction perfect (no acetone left) because it is more cost-effective for the company. Of all of the research that I have done, this method seems to be the most environmentally friendly, but there is notably very little information on the sourcing of the acetone, which would be my concern with this process. This method also requires a metal like platinum, which raises questions about the mining processes involved with that. I don't know how you would be able to tell which process was used, save for contacting the manufacturers directly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The more common (much more common!) method for making isopropyl alcohol involves sulfuric acid, both as a catalyst, and as a byproduct. This raises the major question for me as to how they are producing the sulfuric acid, and how they are disposing of it. I have found precious little information on this topic which, to me, makes it suspect.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;As the other users said, isopropyl alchohol is very safe, on its own, and is biodegradable. But my big question is, is the sourcing and disposal of the other chemicals involved (acetone and sulfuric acid) environmentally friendly? I have spent a lot of time researhing this because, frankly, I love isopropyl alcohol! It is a fantastic solvent, and I use it nearly everyday in my house. To date I have found no concrete answers on this, and this leads me to believe that the manufacturers may be hiding thier dirty little secrets about chemical diaposal. Maybe I am wrong, and I hope I am. If any other user has found more information on this, I would love to hear it!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know that's a lot of words just to say &quot;I don't know&quot;, but I think all of this information is pertenant when trying to decide if isopropyl alchohol is eco-friendly. All of the sources that I have read focus solely on the isopropyl alcohol itself, and not all of the other chemicals involved. It leaves me frustrated and I am still on the fence as to wether or not I should use this chemical." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32978" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12563" RevisionGUID="2a8c3c16-c504-4e7c-9b7e-fcda7b4bd7a3" CreationDate="2023-11-27T04:33:30.833" UserId="8232" Comment="added 92 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="I wanted to find out if rubbing alcohol is truly considered Eco-friendly. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I know it is biodegradable and more Eco-friendly than many of its substitutes, however I have also read it is closely related to acetone.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Should I use it or is there a better, more sustainable alternative?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32979" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12563" RevisionGUID="2a8c3c16-c504-4e7c-9b7e-fcda7b4bd7a3" CreationDate="2023-11-27T04:33:30.833" UserId="8232" Comment="added 92 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="Is isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol considered Eco-friendly?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32980" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12563" RevisionGUID="2a8c3c16-c504-4e7c-9b7e-fcda7b4bd7a3" CreationDate="2023-11-27T04:33:30.833" UserId="8232" Comment="added 92 characters in body; edited tags; edited title" Text="|cleaning|safe-chemicals|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32983" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12704" RevisionGUID="563acf50-5ea0-4aba-850d-27d733aea043" CreationDate="2023-11-28T03:10:51.323" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32984" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12709" RevisionGUID="94293aa9-d3e2-4996-9c88-0d54104bb6d3" CreationDate="2023-11-28T19:05:45.693" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="32987" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12739" RevisionGUID="257fe715-c554-41f5-9e06-339d4be72156" CreationDate="2023-11-30T09:20:47.787" UserId="3401" Text="I have dabbled with keeping some chickens in the back yard so have some basic knowledge from observing them, but I'm by no means a chicken eggspert. I know that different chicken breeds have been bred for certain desirable traits, but apart from looks, size, egg-laying ability and meat quality, they may also incidentally become known for other traits e.g. hardiness, good foragers/survivalists in free-range circumstances, sociability, tameness/friendliness, etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I now want to build up a small flock again, and have decided on a breed. I am debating between getting a number of adult birds vs. getting a number of fertilized eggs and incubating them to start off the flock. Getting fertilized eggs is of course more convenient as they can be mailed from various suppliers; it seems less convenient in my circumstances to get hold of some adults (hard to get willing sellers close by).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My question is basically **what differences one would expect to see in a flock of chickens hatched via an incubator, vs. chicks that were raised in a flock of adult birds?** I'm specifically interested in a free-range foraging set-up with only supplemental feeding (think back yard or permaculture) and not commercial &quot;factory farming&quot; in tightly-controlled artificial set-ups. **How much does a chick know instinctively, vs. how much is learned from its mother or other adult birds in a flock?** Specifically with regards to things like foraging/scratching behavior, choosing safe roosting positions and avoiding predators, rearing the next generation of chicks, getting along with other birds in the flock, getting along with the humans that tend them, etc.&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32989" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12739" RevisionGUID="257fe715-c554-41f5-9e06-339d4be72156" CreationDate="2023-11-30T09:20:47.787" UserId="3401" Text="Incubated chickens: how much of behaviour is nature vs. nurture?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32990" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12739" RevisionGUID="257fe715-c554-41f5-9e06-339d4be72156" CreationDate="2023-11-30T09:20:47.787" UserId="3401" Text="|chickens|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32995" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12741" RevisionGUID="e7789725-d5b5-49cc-87e6-690fc2ed1628" CreationDate="2023-12-01T10:54:13.550" UserId="8868" Text="Since Degrowth is a political, economic, and social movement based on ecological economics, anti-consumerism and anti-capitalism. I wonder what type of investment could be compatible with Degrowth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: some of their proponents are Giorgos Kallis, Jason Hickel, and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could be ethical investments for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask this, because, most proponents are professors and some also work for the UN, so they surely get good salaries, so, what could be that they do with their surplus that doesn't go against growth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The only thing that occurs to me is donation, but per my research is not their case, unless they are donating it anonymously of course).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32997" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12741" RevisionGUID="e7789725-d5b5-49cc-87e6-690fc2ed1628" CreationDate="2023-12-01T10:54:13.550" UserId="8868" Text="What type of financing is compatible with Degrowth?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="32998" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12741" RevisionGUID="e7789725-d5b5-49cc-87e6-690fc2ed1628" CreationDate="2023-12-01T10:54:13.550" UserId="8868" Text="|degrowth|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33001" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12743" RevisionGUID="fc7eb448-abc3-49d7-89a7-c3448980aa51" CreationDate="2023-12-01T15:43:22.290" UserId="15347" Text="I'm not sure your post title matches your content, so I'll try to answer as best I understand your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a post-growth world investment wouldn't be a way of getting a financial return, it would be to fulfill a particular aim. I.e., you/society would invest in a wind farm because we need the energy out of it, not because we can sell the energy at a profit. Investment to make a profit is a basic function of a capitalist economy, and one that bakes growth into it's fundamentals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the word &quot;investment&quot; would mean something more like &quot;we have an upfront cost to pay in order to get a societal benefit out of this thing we want to build/set up&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to get to a post-growth world, we need to undergo degrowth. Which means &quot;investing&quot; in the parts of the Global South which still need to grow, and &quot;investing&quot; in movements to try to make the Global North degrow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33004" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12744" RevisionGUID="d0bccd0d-83a4-408c-8609-37b8594ab015" CreationDate="2023-12-03T16:01:41.880" UserId="6393" Text="DC battery as a capacitance is not a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, a DC battery cannot be simply connected to the output of the solar panel like you would connect a capacitor. The DC battery would be destroyed by lack of charge control algorithm. To actually not destroy it, you need a PWM or a MPPT charge controller. PWM is notoriously inefficient, wasting a lot of energy, so by adding the battery plus a PWM charge controller behind the inverter you lose so much energy you'd be better off without a battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this limits us to MPPT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPPT charge controller extracts the maximum amount of energy from a solar panel to charge a battery the fastest you can charge it. If you have DC loads, or AC loads run from an inverter, this is what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, with a grid-tie inverter the grid is &lt;i&gt;stiff&lt;/i&gt;. You can output practically any amount of energy to the grid. The grid-tie inverter extracts as much energy from the solar panels (and your MPPT-charged battery it knows nothing about) as it can. So it prefers to keep the battery empty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So with a grid-tie inverter this is what will happen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. MPPT charge controller charges your battery as fast as it can from solar power&#xD;&#xA;2. Grid-tie inverter extracts energy out of the PV+battery system as fast as you can, and since it has a battery, it can extract energy very fast. So grid-tie inverter is working at it maximum power all the time. This prefers to keep the battery empty. The only location where the battery is not empty is that if sun is shining directly on the panels and if you have more panel capacity than inverter capacity. But, it can only happen during cloud-free middays.&#xD;&#xA;3. There is a blackout.&#xD;&#xA;4. Your battery is empty during the blackout since the grid-tie inverter is producing power as quickly as it can all the time, keeping the battery empty. Your battery helps nothing during the blackout.&#xD;&#xA;5. Even if your battery wasn't empty, the grid-tie inverter would stop its production when it sees no grid connection. With a grid-tie inverter, you never get any power during blackouts, even if you have a full battery, since it won't allow feeding power to the grid, there being no grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How a DC battery could theoretically work is that if you feed all power through a charger and an inverter like in an online UPS. But this is very inefficient, expect about 70% round trip efficiency. So you don't definitely want this, since your electricity bill will be increased by `1/0.7 = 1.43x`. Also the charger and inverter need to be sized according to your fuse size which makes them very expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AC coupling like what is done in for example Victron MultiPlus is far better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AC coupled battery has its own inverter. It also measures all currents going through it, measures whether grid is online and can connect/disconnect your isolated electricity inland to/from the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an AC coupled battery can vary its charging and discharging. It can for example run optimized self-consumption algorithms which ensure that electricity produced during daytime is used during nighttime for 0% grid electricity usage, completely eliminating your power bill (apart from the fixed fee). It can also run algorithms to ensure that at least 50% battery state of charge remains for blackouts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the whenever a blackout happens, the AC coupled battery can notice this and use a relay to disconnect your electricity island from the grid. Then the AC coupled battery maintains the frequency on your isolated electricity island, meaning the grid-tie solar inverters still continue to produce electricity. When the grid becomes available, the AC coupled battery slowly starts to drift the phase and voltage of your isolated electricity island to match that of the grid, after which if connects the relay to return back the grid electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the solar inverters ever generate too much energy, the AC coupled battery uses its main primary inverter to slowly ramp up the frequency in the isolated grid, to signal the solar grid-tie inverters that it's overloading, at which point the solar grid-tie inverters slowly start to decrease their production, seeing the signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, you don't always need an AC coupled &lt;i&gt;battery&lt;/i&gt;. You can buy an &lt;i&gt;inverter-charger&lt;/i&gt; that can be connected via DC to as large battery bank as you like. For example Victron MultiPlus is just an &lt;i&gt;inverter-charger&lt;/i&gt;, and you can connect a lead-acid AGM/gel or a LiFePO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; battery system to it via DC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33006" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="12733" RevisionGUID="7ad82ba9-59f1-4f34-bc7b-0d3f11d44f10" CreationDate="2023-12-05T09:41:57.563" UserId="15365" Comment="80" />
  <row Id="33007" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12744" RevisionGUID="cf1f16ca-345f-41e7-b400-1a8b79c8b338" CreationDate="2023-12-05T17:44:23.387" UserId="6393" Comment="two typos" Text="DC battery as a capacitance is not a good idea.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Firstly, a DC battery cannot be simply connected to the output of the solar panel like you would connect a capacitor. The DC battery would be destroyed by lack of charge control algorithm. To actually not destroy it, you need a PWM or a MPPT charge controller. PWM is notoriously inefficient, wasting a lot of energy, so by adding the battery plus a PWM charge controller behind the inverter you lose so much energy you'd be better off without a battery.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this limits us to MPPT.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;MPPT charge controller extracts the maximum amount of energy from a solar panel to charge a battery the fastest you can charge it. If you have DC loads, or AC loads run from an inverter, this is what you want.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, with a grid-tie inverter the grid is &lt;i&gt;stiff&lt;/i&gt;. You can output practically any amount of energy to the grid. The grid-tie inverter extracts as much energy from the solar panels (and your MPPT-charged battery it knows nothing about) as it can. So it prefers to keep the battery empty.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So with a grid-tie inverter this is what will happen:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. MPPT charge controller charges your battery as fast as it can from solar power&#xD;&#xA;2. Grid-tie inverter extracts energy out of the PV+battery system as fast as you can, and since it has a battery, it can extract energy very fast. So grid-tie inverter is working at it maximum power all the time. This prefers to keep the battery empty. The only location where the battery is not empty is that if sun is shining directly on the panels and if you have more panel capacity than inverter capacity. But, it can only happen during cloud-free middays.&#xD;&#xA;3. There is a blackout.&#xD;&#xA;4. Your battery is empty during the blackout since the grid-tie inverter is producing power as quickly as it can all the time, keeping the battery empty. Your battery helps nothing during the blackout.&#xD;&#xA;5. Even if your battery wasn't empty, the grid-tie inverter would stop its production when it sees no grid connection. With a grid-tie inverter, you never get any power during blackouts, even if you have a full battery, since it won't allow feeding power to the grid, there being no grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How a DC battery could theoretically work is that if you feed all power through a charger and an inverter like in an online UPS. But this is very inefficient, expect about 70% round trip efficiency. So you don't definitely want this, since your electricity bill will be increased by `1/0.7 = 1.43x`. Also the charger and inverter need to be sized according to your fuse size which makes them very expensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;AC coupling like what is done in for example Victron MultiPlus is far better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The AC coupled battery has its own inverter. It also measures all currents going through it, measures whether grid is online and can connect/disconnect your isolated electricity island to/from the grid.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an AC coupled battery can vary its charging and discharging. It can for example run optimized self-consumption algorithms which ensure that electricity produced during daytime is used during nighttime for 0% grid electricity usage, completely eliminating your power bill (apart from the fixed fee). It can also run algorithms to ensure that at least 50% battery state of charge remains for blackouts.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, the whenever a blackout happens, the AC coupled battery can notice this and use a relay to disconnect your electricity island from the grid. Then the AC coupled battery maintains the frequency on your isolated electricity island, meaning the grid-tie solar inverters still continue to produce electricity. When the grid becomes available, the AC coupled battery slowly starts to drift the phase and voltage of your isolated electricity island to match that of the grid, after which it connects the relay to return back the grid electricity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If the solar inverters ever generate too much energy, the AC coupled battery uses its main primary inverter to slowly ramp up the frequency in the isolated grid, to signal the solar grid-tie inverters that it's overloading, at which point the solar grid-tie inverters slowly start to decrease their production, seeing the signal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Besides, you don't always need an AC coupled &lt;i&gt;battery&lt;/i&gt;. You can buy an &lt;i&gt;inverter-charger&lt;/i&gt; that can be connected via DC to as large battery bank as you like. For example Victron MultiPlus is just an &lt;i&gt;inverter-charger&lt;/i&gt;, and you can connect a lead-acid AGM/gel or a LiFePO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; battery system to it via DC." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33009" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12743" RevisionGUID="eccbe082-1583-493c-a2cd-63afd570facb" CreationDate="2023-12-08T04:02:06.750" UserId="8232" Comment="comma for clarity" Text="I'm not sure your post title matches your content, so I'll try to answer as best I understand your question.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In a post-growth world, investment wouldn't be a way of getting a financial return, it would be to fulfill a particular aim. I.e., you/society would invest in a wind farm because we need the energy out of it, not because we can sell the energy at a profit. Investment to make a profit is a basic function of a capitalist economy, and one that bakes growth into it's fundamentals.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So the word &quot;investment&quot; would mean something more like &quot;we have an upfront cost to pay in order to get a societal benefit out of this thing we want to build/set up&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In order to get to a post-growth world, we need to undergo degrowth. Which means &quot;investing&quot; in the parts of the Global South which still need to grow, and &quot;investing&quot; in movements to try to make the Global North degrow." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33010" PostHistoryTypeId="34" PostId="12733" RevisionGUID="c68d32c4-6cc1-47f9-b708-c154f277a7e9" CreationDate="2023-12-09T10:08:39.923" UserId="15365" Comment="80" />
  <row Id="33011" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12612" RevisionGUID="ef97f06c-c2f0-4e3d-b7ba-be8b4d338c98" CreationDate="2023-12-10T10:04:00.493" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33012" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12745" RevisionGUID="b4f9a8ba-082b-44e8-8a1e-cae01f611402" CreationDate="2023-12-11T05:01:24.597" UserId="14965" Text="What sturdy fibers are more biodegradable than plastic bristles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume the baccteria which eat the toothbrush bristles are a 95% or greater match in DNA comparison to baccteria which pre-date the year 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, do not consider baccteria which were bred for ourposes of eating plastic.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, assume that the tooth brush is kept inside of a cleaning solution such as 99% pure alchohol.  " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33014" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12745" RevisionGUID="b4f9a8ba-082b-44e8-8a1e-cae01f611402" CreationDate="2023-12-11T05:01:24.597" UserId="14965" Text="What material is more biodegredable than plastic bristles for a tooth brush?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33015" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12745" RevisionGUID="b4f9a8ba-082b-44e8-8a1e-cae01f611402" CreationDate="2023-12-11T05:01:24.597" UserId="14965" Text="|plastic|biodegradable-waste|plastic-alternatives|non-bio-degradable|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33016" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12746" RevisionGUID="9d5ddcf0-f596-4541-a48d-ff676d996144" CreationDate="2023-12-11T18:27:45.060" UserId="6393" Text="I'd say here the biodegradation isn't a concern. Biodegradation is a concern for things that might get accidentally thrown around by wind. An example: if you are generally an environmentally friendly person, you could still use plastic bags and the wind can &quot;steal&quot; your plastic bag with you being unable to retrieve back. Then, the plastic bag becomes microplastics in the oceans, even though you didn't intend that to happen.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since you are asking about this, I'd say you are not the kind of person that throws toothbrushes into the environment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Just ensure your toothbrush is properly handled during the end of its life -- burnt to carbon dioxide and water in a waste-to-energy facility -- and you are being very environmentally friendly.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Toothbrushes contain so little plastic that whatever plastic they have I'm sure will eventually be made from trees or from captured carbon dioxide and hydrogen. Today it's made from oil, so burning the waste toothbrush into energy increases the atmospheric CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; concentration but only so little that it doesn't matter." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33018" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12745" RevisionGUID="5f9b2a3a-aa1a-48f2-8802-c3c21a4f6594" CreationDate="2023-12-12T01:24:54.140" UserId="5901" Comment="corrected some spelling, also in title" Text="What sturdy fibres are more biodegradable than plastic bristles?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Assume the bacteria which eat the toothbrush bristles are a 95% or greater match in DNA comparison to bacteria which pre-date the year 2000.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Please, do not consider bacteria which were bred for purposes of eating plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also, assume that the toothbrush is kept inside of a cleaning solution such as 99% pure alcohol." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33019" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12745" RevisionGUID="5f9b2a3a-aa1a-48f2-8802-c3c21a4f6594" CreationDate="2023-12-12T01:24:54.140" UserId="5901" Comment="corrected some spelling, also in title" Text="What material is more biodegradable than plastic bristles for a toothbrush?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33020" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12745" RevisionGUID="5f9b2a3a-aa1a-48f2-8802-c3c21a4f6594" CreationDate="2023-12-12T01:24:54.140" Comment="Proposed by 5901 approved by 8232 edit id of 730" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33023" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12541" RevisionGUID="b81c1f47-c6a1-47c0-9875-f434c1a3231d" CreationDate="2023-12-13T14:02:10.233" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33024" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12748" RevisionGUID="f914f12b-cfd4-4666-b64f-783ecb0c4e2e" CreationDate="2023-12-14T17:19:28.027" UserId="6393" Text="Two major problems:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. The planting should be &lt;i&gt;additive&lt;/i&gt;. If you have a location where forest could theoretically develop, if there's any forest nearby, the forest would naturally grow there. So if you have land without forest, chances are forest would develop there naturally, and if not naturally, surely the landowner doesn't want to waste a valuable piece of land and would plant a forest for profit anyway. So someone asking for money to plant a forest is scam: the landowner would probably use that land for forest anyway. This doesn't create any carbon offsets even though it may falsely be sold as carbon offsetting.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. A forest will grow fast for maybe 100-150 years (faster near tropical areas), then it will be in equilibrium with the environment. If you plant a forest now, it will offset carbon emissions only for 100-150 years (and naturally only if it's &lt;i&gt;additive&lt;/i&gt;). The eco-fascists would want you to leave this forest untouched once it reaches old age. But this stops any carbon sequestration, so your carbon sink is no more a carbon sink. So you have to have some plan of chopping down the forest and utilizing the wood in ways that retains the carbon for millenia, to make room for further forest to grow and continue capturing carbon. For example converting wood to biochar and making long-lived buildings and high-quality furniture could retain the carbon for a long amount of time. Even if the building is demolished or the furniture is scrapped, chances are we soon have such wood recycling in the future that it would be converted to biochar anyway.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Overall, unless someone manages to convert the entire Sahara into forest, we don't have enough suitable land for using forest to offset emissions for our current usage of fossil fuels. So the use of fossil fuels absolutely has to end, there is no alternative to this. Especially use of any carbon-based fuels has to end in mobile vehicles, since it's unfeasible to capture carbon dioxide from those. A factory could allow easy carbon capture since its tailpipe is not in motion like it is in cars." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33027" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12741" RevisionGUID="1f77c5c6-2cdd-4acf-b5f5-333bbb9c4ad9" CreationDate="2023-12-14T23:53:52.257" UserId="5901" Comment="corrected punctuation, also made a key correction in the 4th paragraph - otherwise the question made no sense i.e. I changed 'growth' to 'degrowth'." Text="Since Degrowth is a political, economic, and social movement based on ecological economics, anti-consumerism and anti-capitalism. I wonder what type of investment could be compatible with Degrowth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For example: some of their proponents are Giorgos Kallis, Jason Hickel, and others.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What could be ethical investments for them?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I ask this because most proponents are professors and some also work for the UN, so they surely get good salaries. So what could it be that they do with their surplus that doesn't go against degrowth?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(The only thing that occurs to me is donation, but per my research that is not the case, unless they are donating it anonymously of course)." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33028" PostHistoryTypeId="24" PostId="12741" RevisionGUID="1f77c5c6-2cdd-4acf-b5f5-333bbb9c4ad9" CreationDate="2023-12-14T23:53:52.257" Comment="Proposed by 5901 approved by 8232 edit id of 731" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33029" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12622" RevisionGUID="c3b16401-57fa-41ea-a305-4ad5846c1c99" CreationDate="2023-12-19T16:04:50.557" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33030" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12703" RevisionGUID="ebb1bf5b-4f23-407a-a2d9-efc06714ddbf" CreationDate="2023-12-20T06:07:15.840" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33031" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12734" RevisionGUID="16c53569-e62b-442d-831d-356fa1823e4b" CreationDate="2023-12-23T15:08:36.053" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33032" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12749" RevisionGUID="31e0881a-8e1f-4637-8303-8399cfab0303" CreationDate="2023-12-24T19:07:16.273" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; Despite that, I have heard (and this very site confirms) that the most environmentally friendly option of all is to keep an existing car on the road, regardless of its power source, because a few years of emissions benefit are outweighed by the environmental impact of manufacturing any new car.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed. Few years of emissions on the road corresponds to the emissions of manufacturing a new car. But cars aren't on the road for just &quot;few&quot; years. In the country where I live (Finland), cars are generally scrapped at the age of about 22 years old. So scrapping an old internal combustion engine car and replacing it with a new electric car makes a lot of sense from the emissions standpoint. Unfortunately, it generally doesn't make sense from the economic standpoint, so that's why everyone keeps on driving on old cars burning fossil fuels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Does similar logic apply to home heating systems? I currently have a furnace that burns natural gas, and have been planning to switch to a heat pump. I want to know if I should do it ASAP or wait until the furnace fails.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Similar to cars: ASAP, since the emissions here are almost entirely usage and not manufacturing. The other answer gives the exact numbers. Also, natural gas isn't such a clean fuel as we are led to believe; while its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy are lower than for example coal, the infrastructure leaks in a major manner and the methane that natural gas is, is a very potent greenhouse gas.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Something you might want to consider: while ozone-depleting refrigerants are banned, some of the hydrofluorocarbons that replaced them still are very potent greenhouse gases. You might want to select a heat pump that uses a refrigerant with very low global warning potential. Such refrigerants include propane, butane and isobutane -- and carbon dioxide too." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33034" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12750" RevisionGUID="b8061033-32ec-49d6-a511-70829f99c039" CreationDate="2023-12-27T19:14:35.220" UserId="15427" Text="**It is measurable**, &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;if you put an arbitrary amount of people inside a room with a carbon dioxide sensor.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You would need to do two tests.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Test one:**&#xD;&#xA; - make them converse on a topic which interests everyone, but is neutral&#xD;&#xA; - play a relaxing video in the background, probably one of a beach&#xD;&#xA; - play soft noises&#xD;&#xA; - use green light&#xD;&#xA; - make the room as relaxing as possible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Test two**:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - make them argue&#xD;&#xA; - play an unrelaxing video in the background, probably a horror movie&#xD;&#xA; - put on aggravating noise&#xD;&#xA; - use red light&#xD;&#xA; - make the room as unrelaxing as possible&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Safety aspects:**&#xD;&#xA;The exact legal boundaries for such experiments are unknown to me, here are some precautions that should be taken, to increase the safety.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The individuals should:&#xD;&#xA;- sign a form or document, so they agree on not using physical violence as an example&#xD;&#xA;- be mentally stable and able to endure the experiment&#xD;&#xA;- face a psychological examination before and after the experiment&#xD;&#xA;- never be exposed to a dangerous amount of carbon dioxide&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;----------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Statistical requirements**&#xD;&#xA; - The tests would also need to be done multiple times, so the result is more accurate and not bound as much to randomness&#xD;&#xA; - A paired t-test would suit the experiment well&#xD;&#xA; - You could also obtain additional values, like age, gender, or physical condition(older people could emit less carbon dioxide in an argument)&#xD;&#xA; - If former is the case it is also important to think about data protection laws, the individuals can be asked if they allow the raw data to be published or you could use statistical methods to hide the original data from the public&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33036" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10117" RevisionGUID="dda9b586-34ea-4af5-8276-d477ef9705d7" CreationDate="2023-12-29T18:05:55.743" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33037" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12751" RevisionGUID="0eaabab6-05aa-487f-baae-cb34d52d0b27" CreationDate="2023-12-30T07:38:23.610" UserId="15432" Text="Long story short, had some soil stuck to a vegetable that ended up passing customs (got waved through by the customs officer as they were reasonably confident there should be none present, despite offering to get it inspected) and when I looked it up later, it's a _big_ no-no to import soil because of the potential for diseases to spread.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The soil in question is probably a spoonful or two at most, but I don't know if that means it's OK to ignore. Erring on the side of caution, probably not.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Right now it's currently separated from everything else (to the best of my ability), but the question now is - how do I dispose of this properly? [Soil is notoriously difficult to &quot;kill&quot;](https://biofortified.org/2013/10/how-to-kill-your-soil/) apparently, so I'm not sure what to do. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Is the amount of soil I've discovered going to pose a problem if I &quot;just&quot; throw it away in the trash or compost? Also considering the fact that this is a fairly large vegetable with a peel, does that affect the way I will have to dispose of it? Or am I making a mountain out of a molehill here?&#xD;&#xA;2. What are my options to dispose of this, assuming it is in fact A Big Deal™?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33039" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12751" RevisionGUID="0eaabab6-05aa-487f-baae-cb34d52d0b27" CreationDate="2023-12-30T07:38:23.610" UserId="15432" Text="How to properly dispose of foreign soil?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33040" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12751" RevisionGUID="0eaabab6-05aa-487f-baae-cb34d52d0b27" CreationDate="2023-12-30T07:38:23.610" UserId="15432" Text="|waste|food-waste|biosecurity|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33041" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12752" RevisionGUID="4b655bbe-1793-4cf1-b3ec-a75cc771ea37" CreationDate="2023-12-31T19:19:10.530" UserId="14544" Text="I am interested in farming South and Southeast Asian fish species (e.g., Labeo catla, Labeo rohita, Heteropneustes fossilis, Channa punctata, etc.) in my backyard pond in Germany.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;How can I obtain their fingerlings?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33043" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12752" RevisionGUID="4b655bbe-1793-4cf1-b3ec-a75cc771ea37" CreationDate="2023-12-31T19:19:10.530" UserId="14544" Text="Where can I find South and South East Asian fish fingerlings in Europe?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33044" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12752" RevisionGUID="4b655bbe-1793-4cf1-b3ec-a75cc771ea37" CreationDate="2023-12-31T19:19:10.530" UserId="14544" Text="|farming|fish|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33045" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="dd9d6c55-03f4-4d75-b3fc-4af55b0f6515" CreationDate="2024-01-01T18:53:57.623" UserId="8013" Text="If you use services which are paid for by someone else, through advertising or because they like the views that the editor is pushing, then you foreit an element of control and knowledge about service that you are using. When using a search engine the is provided by a company that has a focus on growth you are supporting that company by adding to their profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is not an argument against all ads. Ads which have been selected to be compatible with sustainability (e.g. as used by [Ecosia][1]) should be compatible with Degrowth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, I suggest, it is the prevalent economic model which is supported by the majority of ads which is the problem, rather than the adds themselves. Avoid, as far as possible, services from companies which have a business model which is incompatible with sustainability ... even if they are free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://whatisthebusinessmodelof.com/business-models/ecosia-business-model/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33058" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="8337" RevisionGUID="bc67b97b-4324-4d1e-9929-8dc48eb9b301" CreationDate="2024-01-11T22:22:26.540" UserId="8232" Comment="More descriptive title; added appropriate tags" Text="How reliant is Corn on human intervention? Would it survive if humans couldn't tend to it?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33059" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="8337" RevisionGUID="bc67b97b-4324-4d1e-9929-8dc48eb9b301" CreationDate="2024-01-11T22:22:26.540" UserId="8232" Comment="More descriptive title; added appropriate tags" Text="|food|farming|crop|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33060" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12754" RevisionGUID="3c96a47e-f9ac-461a-ae3f-4246ab11e586" CreationDate="2024-01-13T02:23:45.763" UserId="3664" Text="I recently saw a sale on EcoFlow products (in this case, an *EcoFlow Delta Pro Ultra Starter Kit*) so I decided to contiue researching ways to power up my small apartment without having a rooftop full of solar panels. I live in the Caribbean so we have tons of sun. I also know very little of this, so I prefer something *out-of-the-box*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I had posted a similar (but more specific) question, but I realized that I don't have the *know-how* or the time to finding a solution for powering up one thing. So this question is more of a solution to power-up my whole apartment.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We really don't use much electricity: my bedroom A/C is on about 5 hours/night and the fridge is the only appliance that's on 24/7. We use the washer and dryer once a week. Everything else are smaller appliances (ie. laptop, TV, microwave, coffee maker, toaster, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My *ideal solution* would be to purchase some type of product that's charged with 2-3 panels and connect this installation to my electrical breaker box.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any thoughts?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33062" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12754" RevisionGUID="3c96a47e-f9ac-461a-ae3f-4246ab11e586" CreationDate="2024-01-13T02:23:45.763" UserId="3664" Text="Powering a small apartment" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33063" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12754" RevisionGUID="3c96a47e-f9ac-461a-ae3f-4246ab11e586" CreationDate="2024-01-13T02:23:45.763" UserId="3664" Text="|solar-power|energy|electricity|batteries|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33064" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12755" RevisionGUID="b3219d4b-6d6a-4861-b7dc-d976839b8073" CreationDate="2024-01-13T19:50:49.380" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; We really don't use much electricity: my bedroom A/C is on about 5 hours/night and the fridge is the only appliance that's on 24/7. We use the washer and dryer once a week. Everything else are smaller appliances (ie. laptop, TV, microwave, coffee maker, toaster, etc).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You have a major hole in your understanding.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An A/C that's on is a &lt;i&gt;massive&lt;/i&gt; power consumer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas a refrigerator may consume about 40-50 watts when on, an AC consumes 600-1000 watts maybe.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With solar, you generally want 3 days of independence to compensate for possibly cloudy days. So with your consumption of 5000 watt hours for A/C and 1200 watt hours for refrigerator, you want 6200 watt hours per day or 18600 watt hours for 3 days of independence. An EcoFlow that stores 1000 watt hours costs around 1000 euros, so you have there already 18600 euros in batteries.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Also you need solar panels to charge those batteries. Solar has a capacity factor of maybe 15% in your Caribbean area. This means you need to produce an average of 6200/24 = 258 watts of energy. At 15% capacity factor, this is 1720 watts of panels. And I didn't even consider efficiency losses. To take into account those, you should really have 2200 watts of panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Solar power produces 200 watts per square meter so you already have there 11 square meters of panels. So sorry to bust your dream, but 2-3 panels ain't gonna do it. A 200 watt panel is quite big, and you need 11 of those. Maybe with bigger panels you could do with 7-8, but not with 2-3.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; We use the washer and dryer once a week.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I didn't include those in my calculations, but a dryer is a massive power consumer too. Maybe 3-4 kilowatt hours per week there or ~550 watt-hours per day more. This adds 9% to your 11 panels or yet another panel for a total of 12 panels.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And I didn't even include cooking, computer, TV, etc!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I believe that for your use case, grid electricity would be a major bargain. Please use it, it's cheap, the investments you need aren't big as with solar power.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Your solar costs 7000-8000 euros for panels alone, batteries over 15000 euros if you choose EcoFlow, or if you select the cheapest LiFePO&lt;sub&gt;4&lt;/sub&gt; and buy a separate inverter maybe somewhat cheaper." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33066" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12356" RevisionGUID="f7664708-6968-4fd5-88e4-c7e52568a762" CreationDate="2024-01-17T04:10:31.250" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33067" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12756" RevisionGUID="5d1a3931-5c4b-4a74-b41f-6d1f9bd2541f" CreationDate="2024-01-17T14:13:11.183" UserId="15462" Text="In a previous part of my life, to reduce my environmental footprint, I consciously kept my salary low. My thinking was, even saving the money wouldn't help, as banks would invest them in energy demanding projects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am under the assumption that businesses [should report salary levels][1] as part of their GHG reporting. Whilst that would be at an aggregate level, for the individual, what's the connection between salary level and environmental footprint?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Simply put: If I get a significant pay rise (e.g. 30K USD), will I realistically be able to avoid this affecting my carbon impact? If yes, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/56594/what-are-the-sourced-counterarguments-against-including-salary-levels-in-the-ghg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33069" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12756" RevisionGUID="5d1a3931-5c4b-4a74-b41f-6d1f9bd2541f" CreationDate="2024-01-17T14:13:11.183" UserId="15462" Text="Can a significant pay rise realistically not affect my carbon impact?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33070" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12756" RevisionGUID="5d1a3931-5c4b-4a74-b41f-6d1f9bd2541f" CreationDate="2024-01-17T14:13:11.183" UserId="15462" Text="|carbon-footprint|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33071" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12757" RevisionGUID="d0c8327c-98cb-414d-a08d-dc3f73bb356b" CreationDate="2024-01-17T14:46:10.873" UserId="15347" Text="One argument would be that the more money you have control of the more you can direct it towards less carbon-intensive aims. (Of course this is also an argument the effective altruists make, but they all turned out to be much less than altruistic.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You assume that if you put your higher salary into savings banks will use it for evil, but not all banks/building societies are equal. At one end of the spectrum is HSBC/Barclays, but at the other end of the spectrum there are cooperatively owned building societies with the explicit aim of funding projects for the social good.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The other alternative is to use your higher salary in a different way. Maybe you can trade it off for time. I.e. if you take a salary increase but decrease your working hours so your pro-rata income remains the same, you have then freed up time you can spend on volunteering/sustainability projects/growing your own food/etc.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;One of the drivers behind the correlation between wealth and carbon impact is that they will be using their investments to seek the highest returns without regard for social consequences, which as you rightly point out, will be carbon/energy-intensive.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But the other driver is more direct - high levels of consumption. Richer people use more energy at home (swimming pools, higher heating levels, more demand for cooling), more for transport (cars, multiple cars, flights), conspicuous consumption (lobsters flown in from Maine) and so on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You're in control of what you spend your money on so if you feel you can live the same lifestyle as you do now despite getting richer at least the consumption part of your emissions won't increase. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33073" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12758" RevisionGUID="8a097600-7c6e-4a0b-9a91-d2ad92522947" CreationDate="2024-01-18T07:55:03.253" UserId="106" Text="&gt; Simply put: If I get a significant pay rise (e.g. 30K USD), will I realistically be able to avoid this affecting my carbon impact? If yes, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in a house you own, you can invest this money in energy efficiency.  For example, you could improve home insulation, replace fossil-fuel based central heating by renewable central heating (heat pump), good quality solar photovoltaic arrays, and/or sodium batteries.  It's not difficult to invest 6-digit amounts of €/£/$ into energetic home improvements.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you drive a car a lot and you really, *really* cannot avoid doing so, replacing an ICE-based car by an electric car pays off environmentally.  Of course, avoiding driving a car is much better.  You could get an electric freight bike.  The high-end ones have 5-digit price tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond direct personal use, you can invest in (local) energy cooperatives that build citizen-owned wind turbines, solar energy plants, and electricity storage." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33075" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12758" RevisionGUID="b012aeb7-f328-42d5-b5bb-ae1e4cbf6303" CreationDate="2024-01-18T08:01:16.370" UserId="106" Comment="added 426 characters in body" Text="&gt; Simply put: If I get a significant pay rise (e.g. 30K USD), will I realistically be able to avoid this affecting my carbon impact? If yes, how?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you live in a house you own, you can invest this money in energy efficiency.  For example, you could improve home insulation, replace fossil-fuel based central heating by renewable central heating (heat pump), good quality solar photovoltaic arrays, and/or sodium batteries.  It's not difficult to invest 6-digit amounts of €/£/$ into energetic home improvements.  If you live too far from the equator to be self-sufficient with solar energy in winter and you really have some money you can and want to invest, you can consider [seasonal energy storage](https://www.homepowersolutions.de/en/product/) where you produce hydrogen using surplus solar energy in summer, and generate electricity from that in winter.  In Germany such systems are on the market, but expect to pay at least €100k.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you drive a car a lot and you really, *really* cannot avoid doing so, replacing an ICE-based car by an electric car pays off environmentally.  Of course, avoiding driving a car is much better.  You could get an electric freight bike.  The high-end ones have 5-digit price tags.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Beyond direct personal use, you can invest in (local) energy cooperatives that build citizen-owned wind turbines, solar energy plants, and electricity storage.  This you can do even if the investments mentioned in the previous paragraphs are too expensive." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33076" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12759" RevisionGUID="5bb399e2-b342-474e-b928-7b34f6f8d60b" CreationDate="2024-01-19T01:39:17.987" UserId="15463" Text="The breakeven point for a home soda machine to be more sustainable than glass bottles is about 33 liters. This means, if you can make 33 liters or more with a soda machine at home, it will be more sustainable than just buying the bottles themselves.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This comes from a lifecycle analysis that calculates the global warming potential of individual bottles and compares it to that of a Soda Stream.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This research also compares aluminum cans and plastic bottles which have a higher breakeven point because their impact of production is lower than glass.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://plastic.education/home-soda-machine-soda-stream-vs-bottled-soft-drinks/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33078" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12753" RevisionGUID="ce09da35-85e2-4a12-9372-3860aa5f6e04" CreationDate="2024-01-19T08:58:21.800" UserId="2345" Comment="Typo corrections" Text="If you use services which are paid for by someone else, through advertising or because they like the views that the editor is pushing, then you forfeit an element of control and knowledge about service that you are using. When using a search engine that is provided by a company that has a focus on growth you are supporting that company by adding to their profile.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, this is not an argument against all ads. Ads which have been selected to be compatible with sustainability (e.g. as used by [Ecosia][1]) should be compatible with Degrowth.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Hence, I suggest, it is the prevalent economic model which is supported by the majority of ads which is the problem, rather than the adds themselves. Avoid, as far as possible, services from companies which have a business model which is incompatible with sustainability ... even if they are free.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://whatisthebusinessmodelof.com/business-models/ecosia-business-model/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33079" PostHistoryTypeId="6" PostId="12503" RevisionGUID="aa41fb97-66c8-4dfe-80a9-9c866d3784d3" CreationDate="2024-01-20T08:47:28.613" UserId="5824" Comment="edited tags" Text="|alternatives|cooking|natural-gas|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33080" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12734" RevisionGUID="a61c696e-9603-4b69-bab9-5963e9f4784b" CreationDate="2024-01-23T20:01:25.163" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33081" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="a58a27d1-8ec5-4939-ac38-170c78ff99d5" CreationDate="2024-01-24T02:27:31.590" UserId="15022" Text="I'm under the impression that it's better to burn the plastic and maybe get a bit of energy from it than disposing it somewhere only for it to deteriorate into many microplastic particles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That said, I no longer believe in industrial scale solutions designed to deal with metric tons of waste that need to be mass transported by trucks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'm aware that plastic can't be just thrown to a campfire for it to burn completely to carbon dioxide without leaving both solid residues or uncombusted gases. Are there attempts to build small scale (home) incinerators which would be able to burn them thoroughly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any links to a paper or a final product is welcome." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33083" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="a58a27d1-8ec5-4939-ac38-170c78ff99d5" CreationDate="2024-01-24T02:27:31.590" UserId="15022" Text="Homescale designs for plastic incinerators?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33084" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12760" RevisionGUID="a58a27d1-8ec5-4939-ac38-170c78ff99d5" CreationDate="2024-01-24T02:27:31.590" UserId="15022" Text="|waste|plastic|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33085" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="4a436933-1d47-4e58-a0bc-6b728c9815a9" CreationDate="2024-01-27T08:34:09.260" UserId="5824" Text="It's a good question, but not a good idea *by a long shot!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning plastic at home is probably one of the nastiest things you can do to both the general environment and your own, personal, local environment, including the one inside your lungs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia's [Incineration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration) and [Waste-to-energy plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy_plant) make it clear that you need several disparate and simultaneous technologies to both &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. achieve *extremely high temperature and thorough* combustion&#xD;&#xA; 2. remove the remaining toxic and polluting gases and the carcinogenic compound-laced micron-sized particulates that go into lungs and never come out (except perhaps by making their way into your bloodstream first!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proposal is just a little like thinking that if we burn hydrocarbons in power plants to make electricity to run cars, why don't we just make our own fires at home and run little generators to charge our electric car batteries, or maybe even get rid of the middleman and each burn our own hydrocarbons right in our own cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Scaling&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sort-of main it's cheaper and less polluting to use electric vehicles charged by hydrocarbons burnt in central locations is the technological advantages of scale. It is much, much cheaper to achieve high efficiency and *relatively* lower levels of environmental impact when (the newer) big hydrocarbon power plants can take advantage of the latest technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making a &quot;home&quot; fluidized bed incinerator and producing sufficiently high temperatures to ensure  thorough combustion and making a scrubber for gases and particulates at home would be incredibly labor and money intensive.  &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33087" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12761" RevisionGUID="84faa2c0-9995-4f91-badb-e78b3ffed7f6" CreationDate="2024-01-27T08:39:59.080" UserId="5824" Comment="added 325 characters in body" Text="It's a good question, but not a good idea *by a long shot!*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Burning plastic at home is probably one of the nastiest things you can do to both the general environment and your own, personal, local environment, including the one inside your lungs.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Wikipedia's [Incineration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incineration) and [Waste-to-energy plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy_plant) make it clear that you need several disparate and simultaneous technologies to both &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; 1. achieve *extremely high temperature and thorough* combustion&#xD;&#xA; 2. remove the remaining toxic and polluting gases and the carcinogenic compound-laced micron-sized particulates that go into lungs and never come out (except perhaps by making their way into your bloodstream first!)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The proposal is just a little like thinking that if we burn hydrocarbons in power plants to make electricity to run cars, why don't we just make our own fires at home and run little generators to charge our electric car batteries, or maybe even get rid of the middleman and each burn our own hydrocarbons right in our own cars.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### Scaling is good!&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The sort-of main reason that it's cheaper and less polluting to use electric vehicles charged by hydrocarbons burnt in central locations is the *technological and economic advantages of scale.* It is much, much cheaper to achieve high efficiency and *relatively* lower levels of environmental impact when (the newer) big hydrocarbon power plants can take advantage of the latest technology.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making a &quot;home&quot; fluidized bed incinerator and producing sufficiently high temperatures to ensure  thorough combustion and making a scrubber for gases and particulates at home would be incredibly labor and money intensive.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;### &quot;Fire projects&quot; at home are bad, dangerous and frequently illegal&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most communities have all kinds of regulations related to burning garbage at home. You might have intellectual arguments why what you are doing is good and safe, but when someone calls the sheriff or the fire department, good luck with that." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33088" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12762" RevisionGUID="6e38a104-4197-4468-ba72-7b3ccc8d0b12" CreationDate="2024-01-29T18:04:31.320" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; I'm under the impression that it's better to burn the plastic and maybe get a bit of energy from it than disposing it somewhere only for it to deteriorate into many microplastic particles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Indeed.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, there are two alternatives/additions to this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Don't just burn the plastic but also capture the carbon dioxide from burning. Use electrolysis using renewable electricity from wind and solar power to create hydrogen that you store underground in high pressure (for usage at times when sun doesn't shine and winds don't blow), and combine the hydrogen with carbon dioxide to create methane and eventually longer-chain hydrocarbons -- and new plastic! So you can have a completely closed carbon cycle, all of the plastic is chemically recycled into new high-quality plastic that's as good as new plastic made from oil. This could reduce oil usage for plastic production much, because only increased plastic stock would need new oil, if the same amount of plastic gets re-used all the time, it can be created from carbon dioxide obtained from burning old plastic.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2. Bury it into a landfill that doesn't leak its contents into the environment, creating a permanent carbon sink. Of course if the plastic has been made from oil, it just avoids releasing that carbon dioxide and doesn't capture any net carbon dioxide, but plastic can be made from trees or from carbon dioxide obtained from burning biomass, so it can be a net carbon sink as well.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; That said, I no longer believe in industrial scale solutions designed to deal with metric tons of waste that need to be mass transported by trucks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why? Mr. Musk is planning to electrify trucks. And if you are not a believer in Mr. Musk, do note that other companies are doing the same too, even Volvo is planning to have battery-electric trucks.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; I'm aware that plastic can't be just thrown to a campfire for it to burn completely to carbon dioxide without leaving both solid residues or uncombusted gases. Are there attempts to build small scale (home) incinerators which would be able to burn them thoroughly?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Industrial scale solutions are way better. Any home incinerator would be so small that the carbon dioxide it produces can't be economically recycled. Industrial solutions have the benefit of being so large that you can capture the carbon dioxide and use it for making new plastic, reducing the need for new petroleum." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33095" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12765" RevisionGUID="62d55d08-068c-4f2d-83b7-92e6025eb3f1" CreationDate="2024-02-02T19:35:50.263" UserId="14965" Text="### In North America, what is a more long-term sustainable alternative to bubblegum for freshening one's breath? ###  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Suppose that **x** and **y** are elements of the set of all substances edible to men, women, and children above age six.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;We can write down whether or not edible substance **x** is more sustainable than y or **y** is more sustainable than **x**, relatively speaking. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take **y** to be bubble-gum manufactured using old and outmoded production process using ingredients derived from [sugar cane][SUGAR_CANE_REF] and [rubber][REF_RUBBER_HEVEA_BRASILIENSIS].&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What edible substance **x** is more sustainable, in the long-run, than **y**?  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;--------------------------------------&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [SUGAR_CANE_REF]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharum_officinarum&#xD;&#xA;  [REF_RUBBER_HEVEA_BRASILIENSIS]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hevea_brasiliensis" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33097" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12765" RevisionGUID="62d55d08-068c-4f2d-83b7-92e6025eb3f1" CreationDate="2024-02-02T19:35:50.263" UserId="14965" Text="What is an environmentally friendly alternative to bubblegum for freshening one's breath?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33098" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12765" RevisionGUID="62d55d08-068c-4f2d-83b7-92e6025eb3f1" CreationDate="2024-02-02T19:35:50.263" UserId="14965" Text="|food|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33103" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12767" RevisionGUID="51c67264-f818-4ea2-92bb-ed7e41f95b58" CreationDate="2024-02-05T17:05:15.577" UserId="6393" Text="I think the most important concern here is waste disposal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you use bubblegum but don't dispose of the waste properly, it becomes a problem. If the waste is disposed properly, the environmental impacts are so small that they can't be compared to real environmental problems like overuse of antibiotics, prevalence of waste medicine and microplastics in our oceans, massive overuse of fossil fuels, etc. A bubblegum is very lightweight: compare the mass in a bubblegum to the mass of a gallon of gasoline and see which one matters more.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you yourself use bubblegum, you have the power to ensure waste is properly handled. If you are careless about waste handling, anything that doesn't produce any waste is better." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33105" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="9875" RevisionGUID="be54e971-9c61-489f-b7e8-eb758f419420" CreationDate="2024-02-05T22:13:10.137" UserId="6925" Comment="added 204 characters in body" Text="100% of all railroad steel is recycled... Eventually&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;On the active railroads (which you should not be walking on, by the way), you're seeing evidence of recent maintenance-of-way.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It is SOP in the rail business to pre-position supplies weeks or months in advance, and then take up to a year to pick up the old scrap. That is because of MoW priorities - they need to do work on northern climes while the weather is favorable, so work in Texas may get put on hold for months... Or traffic conditions, railroad is too busy to hand it to MoW forces for an afternoon... Or simple availability of the machines - it would be insane to pay crews to pick it up by hand when they have a Giant Magnet Machine that can pick it all up while traversing at 10 miles per hour (which matters due to track downtime). But they may have only two Machines in 20,000 miles of track, so they have to wait, wait, wait for the beast's availability.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Railroads matter&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;It's typical for your basic suburban NIMBY type to figure that trains are yesterday's news, and all those tracks oughta just dry up and die.  However that is not true at all.  Rail moves 40% of America's ton-miles, and is the only way your local Target or Ikea store keeps its shelves stocked.  Rail can move 1 ton of freight 460 miles on 1 gallon of fuel, so this is actually fairly &quot;eco&quot; conpared to trucks - nevermind that two train crew can move 20,000 tons of freight as opposed to only 80 tons if they were truck drivers.   &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Further, rail is the only transport mode that lends itself to electrification (as of this writing, when the most recent pandemic was 1918 and we could barely DC fast charge cars, with a skeletal Tesla &quot;network&quot; and CCS not being worthy of the term; trucks were out of the question), so it could clean up as the grid does.  It's also our best hope for mass intercity transport that is 100% renewable, and remember, French TGV rails are essentially identical to better freight rails.  Heck, the *John Bull* could celebrate its 150th anniversary by steaming down any random freight line, the Acela line, or indeed, the TGV lines. They are *that* compatible.   And nobody ever complained about railroad electrification using minerals that are toxic to manufacture - it's just steel, copper and aluminum. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Removal of a rail line is an environmental nightmare&#xD;&#xA;-&#xD;&#xA;That dormant (**not** abandoned) rails-in-place rail line *can always be reactivated*.  Which means industry can go right  back to taking rail service, or passenger lines can be extended on the cheap.  It costs between $5,000 and $250,000 a mile to reactivate a dormant line.  Even if the line needs 100% replacement of ties, rails and ballast (pushing $1 million a mile), the old rails allow use of on-rail mechanized repair equipment and direct delivery of materiél, which can be 2000 tonnes *per mile*.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Whereas if the steel rail is lifted, it's $2 to $3 million *per mile* to blaze a new railroad on an old grade.  Including double transload of most of that materiél. That's so expensive that I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times it has happened. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Much worse, many abandoned railroads are vulnerable to **reversion** - rather than buy the land outright, the rail company bought an *easement* conditional that when the railroad goes away, the land goes back to the underlying landowner. That means the **right-of-way itself** gets busted up; now you've got an apartment building on the right-of-way, and you'd have to buy it and destroy it to put the railroad back in.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a success story: the Susquehanna Railroad. Their operations shrunk over the years, and part of their line was disused.  Some motorcar collectors got permission to cut the trees growing up in the track, using the motorcars to get access. Their real goal was to have a place to ride their motorcars! As business at the Port of Newark grew, there was an opportunity to run massive container trains (instead of trucks). So Susquehanna evaluated whether that was feasible. They rode the line - in a motorcar - and were able to rehab the line cost-effectively *because it was passable*.  Very nice save. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Bottom line: Once the rails are lifted, they *never* go back down**. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So when you see weedy rails, think &quot;Thank God those are still there&quot;. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, the government is doing several things to help.  First, they are buying up defunct rail lines, and keeping them &quot;rail-banked&quot; for future use. Many a heritage railway sets up shop on such a preserved line.  Second, they're agreeing to tax disused rail lines same as abandoned ones - so there's no financial incentive to lift the rails. And third, Rails to Trails is allowing the rights-of-way to be captured whole *despite* reversion clauses, for use by biking trails, pipelines, roads or indeed railroads.  So no more apartment buildings on the right-of-way. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Part of Rails-to-Trails allows rights-of-way to be reactivated into railroads again.  Again, not likely, but it holds the door open. &#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33121" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12769" RevisionGUID="ee3f8a8b-b53b-4880-8fa7-78796dd49529" CreationDate="2024-02-09T20:06:37.457" UserId="9219" Text="I believe you would - and there are a number of ways you can do this -&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You may be able to use the additional funds to reduce your carbon footprint (Putting solar power on your roof, converting appliances to greener technologies, switching to an EV if its not a step backward for you) -  and even if you can't, you can invest/spend the money in ways that will reduce others footprint.  This varies from supporting projects that reduce CO2 emissions to financing green initiatives.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Making some reasonable (but maybe wrong) assumptions that you have a typical job - I could go so far as to argue that you SHOULD take a raise to reduce the worlds carbon footprint.  If you don't take the raise, the money will still be invested/spent - only in ways you don't control - and are more likely to increase the carbon footprint**" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33123" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12770" RevisionGUID="322c16a9-21fc-4dd0-91fd-47c9a84f00ed" CreationDate="2024-02-10T18:46:53.260" UserId="15486" Text="I believe most experts show that when dirty ground water is filtered through the roots and ecosystem underground, they do such a good job of filtering that what the tree sucks back up into the tree is clean, thus your syrup is clean." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33125" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="8422" RevisionGUID="3b7920d4-bd38-466f-865a-ff524a6aaf4d" CreationDate="2024-02-11T06:00:45.090" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33126" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="389ac642-1729-4466-8921-94be619950b2" CreationDate="2024-02-12T01:24:11.033" UserId="13629" Text="Microwaves are very efficient because they heat the food much more than the (highly reflective) walls of the oven. However, they heat the food throughout and thus won't make a nice crisp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most metals are also highly reflective in the thermal infrared, even more so than visible light. Also, infrared light heats and crisps food much like hot air and can be generated with an incandescent filament at nearly 100% efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would an infrared oven, using reflective walls, be an efficient replacement of a conventional or toaster oven? Unlike a microwave which shortens the time this oven would take as long as a (preheated oven) to cook. However if almost all the energy ended up in the food (and radiation emitted by the food reflected back) it seems like it would vastly reduce the power needed." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33128" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="389ac642-1729-4466-8921-94be619950b2" CreationDate="2024-02-12T01:24:11.033" UserId="13629" Text="Infrared microwave" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33129" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="389ac642-1729-4466-8921-94be619950b2" CreationDate="2024-02-12T01:24:11.033" UserId="13629" Text="|cooking|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33130" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12771" RevisionGUID="44f57101-41c6-4e46-9215-b00b97a970e9" CreationDate="2024-02-12T01:32:59.167" UserId="13629" Comment="deleted 60 characters in body" Text="Microwaves are very efficient because they heat the food much more than the (highly reflective) walls of the oven. However, they heat the food throughout and thus won't make a nice crisp.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Most metals are also near perfect reflectors in the thermal infrared as well. Infrared light heats and crisps food much like hot air and can be generated with an incandescent filament at nearly 100% efficiency.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Would an infrared oven, using reflective walls, be an efficient replacement of a conventional or toaster oven? A microwave is high power but cooks for a very short time. This oven would take as long as a toaster oven to cook but hopefully would use much less power because most of the energy ends up in the food." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33131" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12754" RevisionGUID="1869a0fe-97ba-4ea9-b9e3-26251b35d022" CreationDate="2024-02-12T20:04:25.593" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33132" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12772" RevisionGUID="6ab56c20-36ff-4566-92c9-e90472cdbe55" CreationDate="2024-02-12T20:34:42.900" UserId="14809" Text="There's alot of greenwashing when it comes to electriv vehicles no doubt. One major point I noticed that seems to slip through the cracks is that they don't need to be as fast as they are. The faster they are, the more they consume right? couldn't we reduce the amount of batteries in an EV if it didn't go so fast? They have passenger seats too that probably go unused for the most part, couldn't we push for single passenger (driver only) EVs, then everyone could afford one and we could all be in our own bubble that uses alot less energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are EVs tagged as green when they are engineered or marketed for performance which consumes in excess of?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33134" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12772" RevisionGUID="6ab56c20-36ff-4566-92c9-e90472cdbe55" CreationDate="2024-02-12T20:34:42.900" UserId="14809" Text="Why are EVs tagged as green when they consume so much?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33135" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12772" RevisionGUID="6ab56c20-36ff-4566-92c9-e90472cdbe55" CreationDate="2024-02-12T20:34:42.900" UserId="14809" Text="|electric-vehicles|fuel-efficiency|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33136" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12773" RevisionGUID="e9bb2136-b7ea-41a7-a884-d57503f01ce3" CreationDate="2024-02-13T09:21:34.823" UserId="3851" Text="Such vehicles do exist. There are slower, 1 or 2 person EVs with smaller batteries, such as the Citroen Ami, Silence S01, Renault Twizy, Electramechannica Solo, Arcimoto FUV. Unfortunately, they run up against a few problems that limit the size of the market. Although they may be cheaper than a full-size EV, they are not cheap compared to second-hand cars, or even the cheaper end of new petrol cars. Although a car owner may do 90%+ of journeys with just 1 person in the car, they still need an option for those occasions when they need to transport more people or stuff. One potential solution would be greater options for car sharing, where people can use a different cars depending on what they need to do that day. In answer to the second part of the question, EVs are tagged as green because changing behaviors to get people out of 5-seat cars is unpopular and difficult, and for a large section of the population, EVs are the probably the only alternative to to fossil fuel cars that would be palatable." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33138" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12774" RevisionGUID="0bec508e-66af-4697-ac36-b95182afbde2" CreationDate="2024-02-14T16:51:28.663" UserId="15496" Text="I built [shademap.app](https://shademap.app) and you can use it as a tool to do basic solar analysis. ShadeMap can calculate the total hours of direct sunlight for any location in the world. It differs from other tools because it accounts for shading from mountains, hills, buildings and also trees.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is a direct link to the tool: https://shademap.app/@2m,0t Drag the pin to any location and the analysis will be updated in real-time.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/NZTzU.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/lmPMu.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33141" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12775" RevisionGUID="31644188-15ba-4aa3-8014-193354caee84" CreationDate="2024-02-15T03:06:35.980" UserId="12137" Text="There is chewing gum made from tree sap, [chicle][1], originating from Central America. This gum is biodegradable. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicle" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33143" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12776" RevisionGUID="9ffbac34-dcf2-443a-961d-32ff709fe4ae" CreationDate="2024-02-15T19:44:34.293" UserId="6393" Text="&gt; The faster they are, the more they consume right?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In conventional vehicles, especially those powered by a gasoline engine, this is true. Gasoline engines are very inefficient at part-load. So you want to load a gasoline engine at 50% of its power producing capacity or so. The trouble is, if you make a car with a big engine for fast driving and quick acceleration, and then don't choose the option of driving fast, it consumes maybe 10% of the maximum power production. This is very inefficient and has huge fuel consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But electric vehicles make everything different. Electric vehicle speed is primarily determined by the ability for the battery to supply power, secondarily by the size of power electronics and motors.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Power electronics and motors aren't inefficient at part load, in fact they can perfectly well run at part load. There's some minimal power consumption for an idling inverter, but it isn't anywhere comparable to the fuel consumption of an idling engine.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Making the battery able to supply more power of course makes it heavier, so it is true to some degree that fast electric vehicles consume more power. However, most power is consumed in air resistance, and rolling/uphill/acceleration resistance determined by mass only comes in the second, third and fourth places (not necessarily in that order). The effect of uphill and acceleration resistance on electricity consumption is much reduced by the ability to do regenerative braking, which can't be done in internal combustion engine vehicles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So basically the main worry is that to make a heavy EV, it will have more mass, which increases rolling resistance. But rolling resistance only makes about 20% of the total resistance, and battery mass makes about 25% of the weight of an EV, so that's not a major worry. If you increase battery mass by 50%, maybe you increase EV electricity consumption by few percent or so, not a major issue. And as a bonus, heavier batteries have more capacity so the range will be increased much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; couldn't we reduce the amount of batteries in an EV if it didn't go so fast?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;No. EV battery weight is primarily determined by the ability to be quickly charged and ability to have enough range. Remember that in long trips, you don't charge to 100% because it's slow (you only charge to 100% at home then during the trip do fast charges to 80%). You never run the battery completely empty because that's a huge risk, you can be stranded on the side of the road. So you are using 20%-80% or only 60% of the battery capacity.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So an EV that has 350 km of real-world range in very cold or very hot conditions on the freeway (which would be 500 km ideal range at slower speeds), allows you to use 60% of it during long trips that include fast charging, or only 210 km.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Does 210 km sound great? It's only a couple of hours of freeway driving. Some people might want the ability to drive longer.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;And if you charged every 105 km, which would allow halving the battery capacity, this would also halve the fast charging rate. So you would spend twice the time at fast chargers, not ideal.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So EV battery capacity is determined by fast charging speed and real-world range in the conditions you drive in, which dictates battery mass, which just happens to give the potential for a very fast acceleration and tremendously high speeds, because EVs aren't inefficient at part-load. So if an EV has the potential for a very fast acceleration and very high speeds, why not realize that potential and install good electric drivetrain on the car, since the battery is clearly capable of supporting a good powerful drivetrain?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; They have passenger seats too that probably go unused for the most part, couldn't we push for single passenger (driver only) EVs, then everyone could afford one and we could all be in our own bubble that uses alot less energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I used to drive a car with five seats, Toyota Yaris. It was a bit crowded for hauling cargo.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;When I have to transport only myself in good weather, I ride bike.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;My car fulfills poor-weather transportation and hauling of goods. Hauling of goods requires a big car, bigger than Toyota Yaris which still had five seats.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I couldn't imagine how horrible it would be to own a car with just one seat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Why are EVs tagged as green when they are engineered or marketed for performance which consumes in excess of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Because they are green. Performance doesn't hurt EVs because they are efficient at part-load.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing the length of car doesn't reduce its air resistance, in fact it increases it because it's a less aerodynamic design.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Reducing the height is not an option in many cases, since humans have a certain height and need space to sit in.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So reducing the width is the only option. You could make a two-seater car, with two seats (one in front, one in back), but it's less useful for hauling cargo than a five-seater car since wide cargo can't be transported. I don't think many people would buy such a car, even though it would have less air resistance.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;It just happens that cars that are as wide as cars currently are, are optimal for their users." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33145" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12572" RevisionGUID="bdaf34e8-2216-4b79-b28f-6fb6b2eee57e" CreationDate="2024-02-15T21:53:23.953" UserId="13543" Comment="added another piece of evidence publsihed recently" Text="In May 2023, a few months after I asked this question, I read [this Guardian article](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/24/recycled-plastic-more-toxic-no-fix-pollution-greenpeace-warns):  Greenpeace also criticizes plastic recycling, even saying that it is incompatible with circular economy:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;the toxicity of plastic actually increases with recycling. Plastics have no place in a circular economy and it’s clear that the only real solution to ending plastic pollution is to massively reduce plastic production.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Since the 1950s about 8bn tonnes of plastic has been produced. The Greenpeace report catalogues peer-reviewed research and international studies showing not only that just a tiny proportion (9%) of plastics are ever recycled, but also that those that are end up with higher concentrations of toxic chemicals, multiplying their potential harm to human, animal and environmental health.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; &quot;Simply put, plastic poisons the circular economy and our bodies, and pollutes air, water and food. We should not recycle plastics that contain toxic chemicals. Real solutions to the plastics crisis will require global controls on chemicals in plastics and significant reductions in plastic production.&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So according to this Greenpeace report, plastic recycling only serves as an excuse for the plastic industry to keep increasing production, even though the impact of recycling is essentially negative.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;---&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;*February 2024 update: another report confirms that [plastics producers deceived public about recycling](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/15/recycling-plastics-producers-report)*&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&gt; Companies knew for decades recycling was not viable but promoted it regardless, Center for Climate Integrity study finds&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33146" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12772" RevisionGUID="95967bda-1f8e-45fd-ac80-0a8eb5f8b206" CreationDate="2024-02-16T07:06:17.963" UserId="14809" Comment="added 321 characters in body" Text="There's alot of greenwashing when it comes to electriv vehicles no doubt. One major point I noticed that seems to slip through the cracks is that they don't need to be as fast as they are. The faster they are, the more they consume right? couldn't we reduce the amount of batteries in an EV if it didn't go so fast? They have passenger seats too that probably go unused for the most part, couldn't we push for single passenger (driver only) EVs, then everyone could afford one and we could all be in our own bubble that uses alot less energy.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Why are EVs tagged as green when they are engineered or marketed for performance which consumes in excess of?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Edit: note i didn't mention fossil fuels because this question has nothing to do with them. If anything is to be compared it's the EV offerings vs capabilities, from an engineering or technological point of view. I tagged it with fuel-efficiency referring to the battery (fuel) cells. is there a more appropriate tag?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33147" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12777" RevisionGUID="8ab52f7c-566a-4a34-9c0f-231be07551ef" CreationDate="2024-02-16T11:12:07.483" UserId="15347" Text="I'm trying to make sure my next main set of shoes aren't just cheap plastic tat, but I'm struggling to find good alternatives. My criteria are:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Good enough shape to walk in all day without damaging my feet. To me, this rules out daps/plimsolls/converse-type trainers with flat bottoms&#xD;&#xA;* Hard-wearing enough and snag-proof to be able to worn in most outdoor environments. E.g. streets, mud, undergrowth etc.&#xD;&#xA;* At least slightly water-repellent&#xD;&#xA;* Biodegradeable. Won't wear into microplastic particles which will wash into the rivers/oceans/soils.&#xD;&#xA;* Hard-wearing enough to last as long as possible, nothing disposable. Preferably repairable.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;In the days before plastic I guess I would be wearing leather boots, which would have moulded to my feet, been repairable, have the soles replaced, and would have gently rotted at the end of their life. But nowadays the leather-making process is quite polluting, and I'm not sure how leather sits being vegetarian.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&quot;Vegan leather&quot; is just plastic, so doesn't fit the biodegradeable criterion.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;There are a couple of plastic-free shoe start-ups I've seen online, but a lot of them have very soft uppers (e.g. made of wool) which wouldn't work well off-road nor really repel water. Or I've seen ones made of pineapple leaves but which usually have very flat soles.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Are there any shoes/boots which fit all my criteria? Is the only option some more ethical leather?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33149" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12777" RevisionGUID="8ab52f7c-566a-4a34-9c0f-231be07551ef" CreationDate="2024-02-16T11:12:07.483" UserId="15347" Text="Are there sustainable footwear alternatives to leather boots/shoes?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33150" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12777" RevisionGUID="8ab52f7c-566a-4a34-9c0f-231be07551ef" CreationDate="2024-02-16T11:12:07.483" UserId="15347" Text="|clothing|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33151" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12770" RevisionGUID="3bff43e3-b7c3-4b19-a0f0-12d441b7ac8a" CreationDate="2024-02-17T06:22:01.697" UserId="15486" Comment="Added more information " Text="I believe most experts show that when dirty ground water is filtered through the roots and ecosystem underground like microorganisms and bacteria that specialize in recycling waste and filtering out the bad and turning into good for the roots they do such a good job of filtering that what the tree sucks back up into the tree is clean, thus your syrup is clean, you tube has some good content on how this works." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33152" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12055" RevisionGUID="cd104fb3-2b6a-48a6-a2c5-ef13ddf37708" CreationDate="2024-02-18T13:08:06.030" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33153" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="11868" RevisionGUID="e6979da1-50f1-4ea2-bdc3-30bffb54c7a3" CreationDate="2024-02-19T07:30:23.567" UserId="12137" Comment="added 2 characters in body" Text="The sustainability of synthetic fibers cannot be reduced to microplastic shedding. In general, polyester (and other synthetic fibers) use [much less water][1] during production, no pesticides and have other environmentally positive aspects like their recyclability (at least to some extent) as well as longer life cycles. &#xD;&#xA;So while swapping polyester sports clothing for wollen or cotton ones might reduce microplastics, the swap might bring about other detrimental effects.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Buying as little clothing as possible with the highest possible quality (that lasts the longest), washing less often and on a gentle cycle with environmentally friendly detergent (while still making sure that the clothing gets sufficiently cleanded, increasing its usability duration) and repairing existing clothing is the way to go for environmentally concious clothing consumption.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: http://www.autexrj.com/cms/zalaczone_pliki/2b.pdf" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33154" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12778" RevisionGUID="91af736b-d4e8-4e40-babd-48cab5070a26" CreationDate="2024-02-20T14:06:13.227" UserId="15505" Text="I'm currently dealing with a challenge regarding the long-term accessibility of data in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) setups, particularly within the Building sector. One recurring concern is ensuring that our data remains usable and accessible over the next 10 to 50 years. While one solution might be to generate PDF-based reports regularly, this isn't truly digital.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I'd appreciate any advice or discussions on how to tackle this issue effectively. Thank you!" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33156" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12778" RevisionGUID="91af736b-d4e8-4e40-babd-48cab5070a26" CreationDate="2024-02-20T14:06:13.227" UserId="15505" Text="Ensuring Long-Term Data Accessibility in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for the Building Sector: Strategies and Challenges" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33157" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12778" RevisionGUID="91af736b-d4e8-4e40-babd-48cab5070a26" CreationDate="2024-02-20T14:06:13.227" UserId="15505" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33167" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12781" RevisionGUID="9e1640e2-2ca2-4e32-a9da-67165c74b1f9" CreationDate="2024-02-25T20:20:14.247" UserId="15518" Text="What is the most cost effective from of controlling the electricity use whilst still having toastie warm feet on the tile floors. We currenlty have Underfloor electrical heating on room air temperature thermostat, wish to programe on/&#xD;&#xA;off times if possible?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33169" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12781" RevisionGUID="9e1640e2-2ca2-4e32-a9da-67165c74b1f9" CreationDate="2024-02-25T20:20:14.247" UserId="15518" Text="What is the most cost effective from of controlling the electricity use whilst still having toastie warm feet on the tile floors. thanks" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33170" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12781" RevisionGUID="9e1640e2-2ca2-4e32-a9da-67165c74b1f9" CreationDate="2024-02-25T20:20:14.247" UserId="15518" Text="|heating|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33171" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12782" RevisionGUID="0ad63bc2-2bef-46a5-a5d0-fd3fa6e60107" CreationDate="2024-02-26T13:34:38.103" UserId="15520" Text="My uncle gave me his old 1000w portable power station. I already have a Bluetti SP120 portable solar panel that has mc4 connectors. I'd like to use this to the power station. I tried googling it to no avail. I also tried google lens and it didn't yield any meaningful result.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Here's a photo of the port that the power station has that'll accept solar:&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;here's the spec sheet if it helps:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;another picture for reference:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][3]][3]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/OIZpu.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/khMoB.jpg&#xD;&#xA;  [3]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/gSTCM.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33173" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12782" RevisionGUID="0ad63bc2-2bef-46a5-a5d0-fd3fa6e60107" CreationDate="2024-02-26T13:34:38.103" UserId="15520" Text="What's the proper cable to connect this power station to a solar panel?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33174" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12782" RevisionGUID="0ad63bc2-2bef-46a5-a5d0-fd3fa6e60107" CreationDate="2024-02-26T13:34:38.103" UserId="15520" Text="|solar-power|solar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33175" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12783" RevisionGUID="585adad8-d39c-4ba5-8dae-822e26744bb9" CreationDate="2024-02-26T13:35:00.770" UserId="15505" Text="I'm working on a project to automatically enrich building information models with EPD data using the Oekobaudat API (https://www.oekobaudat.de/en.html). However, I've recently encountered an issue where the API data structure changed without any prior notification.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Since Oekobaudat is maintained by a German general institute, I'm wondering if there's a formal channel to stay informed about such changes, such as a changelog or user mailing list.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Any advice from the community regarding:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Staying informed about future API changes: Are there any official resources (changelogs, mailing lists) provided by Oekobaudat to keep users updated?&#xD;&#xA;Handling unexpected changes: How do others in the community cope with sudden API changes when working with Oekobaudat?&#xD;&#xA;I appreciate any insights or suggestions you might have." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33177" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12783" RevisionGUID="585adad8-d39c-4ba5-8dae-822e26744bb9" CreationDate="2024-02-26T13:35:00.770" UserId="15505" Text="Oekobaudat API - Data structure changes and staying informed" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33178" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12783" RevisionGUID="585adad8-d39c-4ba5-8dae-822e26744bb9" CreationDate="2024-02-26T13:35:00.770" UserId="15505" Text="|life-cycle-analysis|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33179" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12781" RevisionGUID="36002410-38c0-46ad-8717-5c2235bb8743" CreationDate="2024-02-27T13:02:45.597" UserId="1053" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="What is the most cost effective form of controlling the electricity use whilst still having toastie warm feet on the tile floors? We currently have underfloor electrical heating on room air temperature thermostat. Would it help to program on/off times if possible?&#xD;&#xA; " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33180" PostHistoryTypeId="4" PostId="12781" RevisionGUID="36002410-38c0-46ad-8717-5c2235bb8743" CreationDate="2024-02-27T13:02:45.597" UserId="1053" Comment="added 6 characters in body; edited title" Text="Controlling underfloor electrical heating" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33181" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12784" RevisionGUID="4436136b-80e5-458f-92fb-8a8c61e18bf9" CreationDate="2024-02-27T13:08:18.643" UserId="1053" Text="Mint leaves. If your sole purpose is freshening your breath, then chewing some mint leaves will achieve this with no waste at all. You can grow some mint in a pot, and pick a few leaves whenever you like, chew them a while and then swallow them. There's no magical freshening ability in gum itself, only in the mint flavour that is added to it. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Mint leaves aren't super portable or easy to keep randomly in your pocket if you are away from home and suddenly worry about your breath. Carrying that mintiness in the form of candy probably means less waste than using gum, but still requires a factory, packaging, shipping etc which is less sustainable than growing a houseplant and picking some leaves. Perhaps you could develop a habit of grabbing a few leaves and chewing them as you leave the house, so the freshness will last while you're out." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33183" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12785" RevisionGUID="d1b29cd4-e50d-4535-a9b0-d52df5e6a8be" CreationDate="2024-02-28T13:48:06.877" UserId="15528" Text="The ones that I already have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* 		Chicory: Known for its digestive benefits, chicory can help stimulate appetite and aid in digestion.&#xD;&#xA;* 		Yarrow: Yarrow has antiseptic and anti-inflammatory properties, making it useful for treating minor wounds and skin irritations.&#xD;&#xA;* 		California Poppy: Often used as a natural remedy for anxiety, insomnia, and mild pain relief.&#xD;&#xA;* 		Marshmallow: Marshmallow root is known for its soothing properties, particularly for sore throats and coughs.&#xD;&#xA;* 		Chamomile: Chamomile is well-known for its calming effects and can be used to alleviate stress, anxiety, and insomnia.&#xD;&#xA;* 		Evening Primrose: Evening primrose oil is believed to have anti-inflammatory properties and may help alleviate symptoms of eczema and rheumatoid arthritis.&#xD;&#xA;* 		Lavender: Lavender has calming effects and can be used to alleviate stress, anxiety, and insomnia.&#xD;&#xA;* 		Echinacea: Believed to boost the immune system and help fight off colds and infections.&#xD;&#xA;* 		Calendula: Used topically for its anti-inflammatory and wound-healing properties.&#xD;&#xA;* 		Feverfew: Often used to prevent migraines and alleviate symptoms of headaches and arthritis.&#xD;&#xA;These plants offer a range of medicinal benefits, from soothing digestive issues to promoting relaxation and boosting the immune system, making them valuable additions to any backyard and kitchen garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I’ve bought them all in a one kit, which is very comfortable. You can found it by copying the link ://..//// .&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if you’ve never planted anything before, you’ll have no trouble growing these 10 plants. You will find details on how to plant, grow, and harvest each one in the free Herbal Medicinal Guide: From Seeds to Remedies that you'll receive with your Medicinal Garden Kit.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm interested, is there anything else I can add to my garden?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33185" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12785" RevisionGUID="d1b29cd4-e50d-4535-a9b0-d52df5e6a8be" CreationDate="2024-02-28T13:48:06.877" UserId="15528" Text="What are the best medicinal plants that can be grown in a backyard or kitchen garden?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33186" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12785" RevisionGUID="d1b29cd4-e50d-4535-a9b0-d52df5e6a8be" CreationDate="2024-02-28T13:48:06.877" UserId="15528" Text="|gardening|diy|health|survival|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33187" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12785" RevisionGUID="c85ac64e-5f6a-473a-a3ad-152612124138" CreationDate="2024-02-28T19:09:47.757" UserId="1053" Comment="fixed formatting and removed spam" Text="The ones that I already have:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;* Chicory: Known for its digestive benefits, chicory can help stimulate appetite and aid in digestion.&#xD;&#xA;* Yarrow: Yarrow has antiseptic and anti-inflammatory properties, making it useful for treating minor wounds and skin irritations.&#xD;&#xA;* California Poppy: Often used as a natural remedy for anxiety, insomnia, and mild pain relief.&#xD;&#xA;* Marshmallow: Marshmallow root is known for its soothing properties, particularly for sore throats and coughs.&#xD;&#xA;* Chamomile: Chamomile is well-known for its calming effects and can be used to alleviate stress, anxiety, and insomnia.&#xD;&#xA;* Evening Primrose: Evening primrose oil is believed to have anti-inflammatory properties and may help alleviate symptoms of eczema and rheumatoid arthritis.&#xD;&#xA;* Lavender: Lavender has calming effects and can be used to alleviate stress, anxiety, and insomnia.&#xD;&#xA;* Echinacea: Believed to boost the immune system and help fight off colds and infections.&#xD;&#xA;* Calendula: Used topically for its anti-inflammatory and wound-healing properties.&#xD;&#xA;* Feverfew: Often used to prevent migraines and alleviate symptoms of headaches and arthritis.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;These plants offer a range of medicinal benefits, from soothing digestive issues to promoting relaxation and boosting the immune system, making them valuable additions to any backyard and kitchen garden.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But I'm interested, is there anything else I can add to my garden?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33188" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12786" RevisionGUID="11680c23-609e-4aa8-83a8-999ed32548ab" CreationDate="2024-02-29T09:38:10.963" UserId="13618" Text="It is possible to purchase offal mostly from cows and pigs at the butcher.  While this is generally sold as dog food it is treated with human food hygiene standards at my butcher at least.  I am informed by them that most of this product goes into the mass market pet food chain.  It is worth noting that it is &quot;sustainable&quot; on the wallet, costing between £1.5/Kg for liver/kidneys and £2.5/Kg for ox heart.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is it possible to say if subsisting with this as a major source of protein in ones diet is environmentally sustainable?  On one hand one is contributing to the animal production industry with its significant environmental footprint, on the other it is not the offal market that is driving the industry and it seems likely that any shortfall in the supply of of offal to the pet food industry is likely to be made up with plant protein." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33190" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12786" RevisionGUID="11680c23-609e-4aa8-83a8-999ed32548ab" CreationDate="2024-02-29T09:38:10.963" UserId="13618" Text="Is it sustainable to eat meat that would otherwise go for animal feed?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33191" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12786" RevisionGUID="11680c23-609e-4aa8-83a8-999ed32548ab" CreationDate="2024-02-29T09:38:10.963" UserId="13618" Text="|carbon-footprint|ecological-footprint|meat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33192" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="10565" RevisionGUID="50e21836-fc3f-41c5-a733-a55d49c29037" CreationDate="2024-03-01T14:05:50.667" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33193" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12787" RevisionGUID="4651ad1b-34a0-41f8-b8ed-829032c942be" CreationDate="2024-03-03T04:40:15.897" UserId="15540" Text="Eating plant-based is always going to be more sustainable than eating meat, [with the exception of some shellfish.][1] Regardless of where you are getting the meat or for what purpose it is being bought, it is still contributing the same meat industry, which is the source of all those emissions.&#xD;&#xA;Wallet-sustainable is of course important, but if you are looking for environmentally sustainable as well, avoid meat - especially meat which comes from cows - where possible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://portal.ct.gov/DOAG/Aquaculture1/Aquaculture/Environmental-Benefits-of-Shellfish-Aquaculture" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33195" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12788" RevisionGUID="c2002e08-3447-490a-a6dd-a0b579731c17" CreationDate="2024-03-04T00:15:54.780" UserId="659" Text="If it's a standard plug it seems likely to be a &quot;2 pin cannon female plug&quot; similar to this, but with the two pins in a slightly different position and a screw lock. I see variants online that may well fit, but the ones with the pins in the right position have incompatible shrouds. I suggest sitting on a site like element14 or rscomponents browsing the list of circular two pin connectors until you find something that looks plausible, assuming you can't contact the manufacturer and ask (or just buy their cable assuming it's affordably priced).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![two pin audio style cannon plug][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XYWxH.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33197" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12789" RevisionGUID="8d8409dd-a737-4fc1-b17a-9aa206b5bb79" CreationDate="2024-03-04T01:55:48.400" UserId="3379" Text="With questions like these, I find it helpful to think about what would happen if everyone did it (or at least, lots of people). What would the total market impact be? The offal is cheap because there's a high supply and low demand. If demand (D) increases, the price (P) and supply (S) will increase (image from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand)):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![Supply and demand curve][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, this means that offal will no longer be as cheap for pet food manufacturers as something else. The net result of eating more animal products will always be that more animal products are consumed, meaning more animals are raised and butchered.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The only exception would be a byproduct for which someone generates a new use, or perhaps a strategy for [creating demand to manage populations of an invasive species](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195666313000512). However, both strategies still run the risk of the demand eventually exceeding the &quot;oversupply&quot;.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/9dsQt.png" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33199" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12790" RevisionGUID="61e2d2ed-b252-4902-99a9-f76c278bed54" CreationDate="2024-03-04T06:19:28.957" UserId="15541" Text="In my experience, occasional biodegradable plastic bags can be shredded and put in the worm bin and seem to serve as bedding, and they do eventually get composted. The grocery store I use indicates on their website that their bags are in fact recyclable so double check to be sure." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33201" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12791" RevisionGUID="3212a9ce-c951-4133-9c0c-e749d9a006f7" CreationDate="2024-03-04T10:18:42.057" UserId="15542" Text="I have two batteries 12v each and 2 inverters one is 24v inverter and the other 12v is there a way I can connect both inverters " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33203" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12791" RevisionGUID="3212a9ce-c951-4133-9c0c-e749d9a006f7" CreationDate="2024-03-04T10:18:42.057" UserId="15542" Text="Connecting 12v and 24v" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33204" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12791" RevisionGUID="3212a9ce-c951-4133-9c0c-e749d9a006f7" CreationDate="2024-03-04T10:18:42.057" UserId="15542" Text="|batteries|off-grid|solar|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33205" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="9899" RevisionGUID="34b78022-4cbc-44ac-a03d-240e452e3ca1" CreationDate="2024-03-05T04:04:55.620" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33208" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12793" RevisionGUID="4452b1d3-448a-4169-b5b6-57b74317a1c5" CreationDate="2024-03-10T19:21:05.767" UserId="6213" Text="Is there a discussion about the usefulness of DEF or is it pretty much a clear cut wonder-weapon against emissions?&#xD;&#xA;I read somewhere that NOX can disappear within seconds spontaneously and its not clear if DEF is that much effective because other things have reduced emissions so much already.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This [source][1] claims it reduced NOX by up to 90%.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This graphic implies that actual emissions in the real world aren't that much better (dark grey cloud):&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![enter image description here][2]][2] &#xD;&#xA;https://vcoe.at/service/fragen-und-antworten/was-sind-stickoxide-und-wie-schaedlich-sind-sie &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.capitalremanexchange.com/20-facts-you-need-to-know-about-diesel-exhaust-fluid-def/#:~:text=DEF%20technology%20has%20been%20used,NOx%20by%2070%25%2D95%25.&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/vKAaD.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33210" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12793" RevisionGUID="4452b1d3-448a-4169-b5b6-57b74317a1c5" CreationDate="2024-03-10T19:21:05.767" UserId="6213" Text="Does DEF really reduce NOx emissions by 70-90%?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33211" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12793" RevisionGUID="4452b1d3-448a-4169-b5b6-57b74317a1c5" CreationDate="2024-03-10T19:21:05.767" UserId="6213" Text="|greenhouse-gas-emissions|emissions|nox|diesel|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33220" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="5065" RevisionGUID="c9187477-241a-43dd-9f4c-52008dc68307" CreationDate="2024-03-13T02:32:34.353" UserId="400" Comment="response to comment on burning." Text="Get the plastic itself analyzed.  It is likely Polyethylene.  PE itself is harmless -- chemically it is essentially a very long chain wax.  If there were any solvents in it, by now they have leached into the soil (rueful grimace). In many jurisdictions using PE mulch is allowed in organic farming.  Get a ruling from your local authority.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Long exposure to sunlight will cause PE to cross link.  This reduces it's strength and makes it brittle.  It gradually becomes PE confetti.  If you have sandy soil, this actually helps with water retention.  If you have clay soil water movement can be slowed too much.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The problem with removing the topsoil to get rid of it, is you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  You want that soil for growing your crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I would look at doing this:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;1. Modify your plough by removing the plough shares, leaving the coulters in place.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;2.  Go over the field with coulters several times.  You want to cut the plastic every 4 inches in two directions.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;3.  Put the plough shares back on.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;4.  Plough and disk the land.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;5.  Try harrows of various types.  Chain, bar, and spring tooth. These may catch the plastic and flip it to the surface. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;6.  Try using a hay rake to see if it will gather the bits that are on the surface.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;7.  If #6 didn't work, try using a hay bine with the blades removed. (Essentially vacuuming the field.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;8.  This will remove only the plastic that is mostly above the surface.  Disk again.  Repeat whatever worked before.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;9.  Rototiller may work to bring deeper stuff up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;10.  Rock rake may lift stuff up.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;response to comment on burning.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This will be largely ineffective.  The grass will have created a sod above the plastic (I have had this happen in my tree farm).  Grass fires generally don't get hot enough to kill the roots, let alone burn the plastic 1/2 inch to 2 inches below.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You say that it's fragile.  Cheap non-stabilized plastic then.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;You could make a machine to do this.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;During a dry summer work the dirt up.  Plough disk, harrow, rototil.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use a haybine or peatmoss harverster and go over the surface,  You want some device like a vacuum cleaner brush that lifts the top half inch and flicks it into the air.  The vacuum pulls the  flakes of plastic (high area, low density. high area/mass ratio) as well as a lot of fine dust (low area, but even lower mass, high area mass ratio). A correctly designed cyclone separator should get most of the plastic separate form the dust, which you return to the soil.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Weigh the plastic you retrieve.  Calculate the mass of plastic originally in the field.  &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Use the least energy intensive way to stir the soil to get the next harvest of plastic." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33221" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12796" RevisionGUID="4e6fbb03-4963-4593-a6e4-d88ec339011c" CreationDate="2024-03-13T03:20:12.057" UserId="15558" Text="I understand that whirlybirds are designed to spin with the wind creating a vacuum inside and hence draw out air in a roof space. What I'm curious about is whether an air current from inside a roof space could cause the same effect. For example, if you mounted a fan under a whirlybird (pushing air into the centre of it) would it spin?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33223" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12796" RevisionGUID="4e6fbb03-4963-4593-a6e4-d88ec339011c" CreationDate="2024-03-13T03:20:12.057" UserId="15558" Text="Do whirlybirds rotate from an internal air current?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33224" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12796" RevisionGUID="4e6fbb03-4963-4593-a6e4-d88ec339011c" CreationDate="2024-03-13T03:20:12.057" UserId="15558" Text="|cooling|ventilation|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33226" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12797" RevisionGUID="e6e827e2-3e45-4257-bf8f-7a99fa9e8c5d" CreationDate="2024-03-13T22:02:05.707" UserId="659" Text="The typical wind-powered extractor fan will spin if air is pushed in from underneath, and you can see this in action on hot, still days when hot air is moving from the attic space into the open air. But they typically spin quite slowly, and sometimes not at all (if there is a row of them often not all are lazily rotating).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;[![diagram showing internals of wind-powered roof turbine ventilator][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The construction is shown above, basically a turbine that you can see powering a fan with box fixed to the same shaft.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you wanted to motorise one it would be much more effective to power the shaft directly, thus eliminating two sets of [propellor losses][2] which may be as little as 10% but more likely over 50%. In other words, a 5W motor on the shaft is likely to spin the whirlybird as effectively as a 50W fan pointed vaguely towards it. And you could power the 5W motor from a small solar panel...  https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&amp;q=solar+powered+whirlybird there are many DIY projects and products for sale that do just that.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/sdvuV.png&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller_(aeronautics)" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33231" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="5d38c52d-ea21-4afe-b190-08d161cce4a6" CreationDate="2024-03-14T19:56:50.703" UserId="15563" Text="I am interested in testing/measuring my house to see how leaky it is and how bad the insulation is.  If my house is poorly sealed and insulated then I will know how to improve it and I can retest it afterwards and make sure I fixed the problem. Two local energy companies wanted too much money to do a blower door test and going around with fancy thermal camera.  Purchasing the equipment myself is even more expensive. Recouping the cost of these official tests with future energy savings would be near impossible.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I was wondering if there was a low-tech way to do this.  My idea is this:&#xD;&#xA;1) Wait for a cold day and measure the outside temp.&#xD;&#xA;2) Heat the house to a certain temp and then turn off the heat.&#xD;&#xA;3) Time how long it takes for the inside temp to drop by a certain amount.&#xD;&#xA;4) Calculate some number that tells me something about the thermal efficiency of my home.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;By just doing the test, then making some home improvements and then repeating the test under similar conditions I know that I could gauge my relative improvement, but it wouldn't tell me if my home is poor/average/good compared to other homes.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I googled around and didnt find any low-tech way to ballpark this stuff.  I did find these two equation:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;    Total Heat Loss = (Surface Area of Home) x (Delta T) x (U-Value)&#xD;&#xA;    Air Energy = (Mass of Air) x (Heat Capacity of Air) x (Temperature)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I can measure surface area with a tape measure.&#xD;&#xA;I can measure the mass of my air with a tape measure and the density of air constant (1.2kg/m^3).&#xD;&#xA;I can measure temp with a thermometer.&#xD;&#xA;Heat capacity of air is a constant (~1kJ/kg*K)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, if I calculate the Air Energy at steps 2 and 3 of my experiment then I can subtract to find the heat loss that my home sustained. Plug this into equation 1 and I can then calculate the u-value of my entire house as a whole. However, Im not sure where time plays into the equation since waiting longer would mean more heat loss, and time is not in any of the variables. So thats something I dont know.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Even if I do all this, how would I know if my U-value is low, average or high?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So, back to the original question. Is there an established way to do a cheap/low-tech test of a house to see how efficient it is with regard to heat loss? Is there some rule of thumb like &quot;An average 2000sqft home will lose 50k BTUs per hour&quot;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33233" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="5d38c52d-ea21-4afe-b190-08d161cce4a6" CreationDate="2024-03-14T19:56:50.703" UserId="15563" Text="Measuring Home Heat Loss" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33234" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12798" RevisionGUID="5d38c52d-ea21-4afe-b190-08d161cce4a6" CreationDate="2024-03-14T19:56:50.703" UserId="15563" Text="|energy-efficiency|home|heating|diy|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33235" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12799" RevisionGUID="62df6260-6641-4069-b564-accdf4e44f01" CreationDate="2024-03-16T18:13:39.057" UserId="1210" Text="Our domestic dishwasher has an &quot;Eco&quot; mode that takes around 3.5 hours to run.  I presume that the time includes lots of resting time to allow the contents to soak. &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, I find it very difficult to believe that a machine operating for that long (and it seems to be doing *something* most times I walk past) saves water and energy when compared to the &quot;Quick&quot; (30 minute) mode, or even the 90-minute 'Turbo Eco' mode.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;What is the rationale for calling the slow mode 'Eco' and are there any meaningful measurements / estimates around that give the relative energy/water cost for the different modes?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Details.  I'm based in the UK. Our particular appliance is a UK-typical, under-the-counter, domestic one; a Bosch Exxcel model.   " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33237" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12799" RevisionGUID="62df6260-6641-4069-b564-accdf4e44f01" CreationDate="2024-03-16T18:13:39.057" UserId="1210" Text="How &quot;eco&quot; is the (3hr+) Eco mode on dishwashers" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33238" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12799" RevisionGUID="62df6260-6641-4069-b564-accdf4e44f01" CreationDate="2024-03-16T18:13:39.057" UserId="1210" Text="|energy-efficiency|appliance|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33239" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12800" RevisionGUID="03a1e75a-ce19-4980-a1e4-c6cb60b1ade7" CreationDate="2024-03-16T22:52:21.903" UserId="15565" Text="&#xD;&#xA;I live in Spain. In which container should I throw this - the mug from the coffee maker? It has plastic, glass and metal. The green container is for glass. The yellow container is for plastic and metal. Or should I take it to a collection point?[![enter image description here][1]][1]&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iuvHK.jpg" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33241" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12800" RevisionGUID="03a1e75a-ce19-4980-a1e4-c6cb60b1ade7" CreationDate="2024-03-16T22:52:21.903" UserId="15565" Text="In which garbage container should i throw the mug from the coffee maker?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33242" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12800" RevisionGUID="03a1e75a-ce19-4980-a1e4-c6cb60b1ade7" CreationDate="2024-03-16T22:52:21.903" UserId="15565" Text="|recycling|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33243" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12801" RevisionGUID="1afa9bd3-0268-4bfe-b2fc-10ffd899f096" CreationDate="2024-03-17T20:43:20.330" UserId="15569" Text="It's a myth that eating animals is bad for the planet. Watch one of these vids to learn why: &#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA; - https://youtu.be/SdrhpThqlCo?si=oY-3rmbTmaRHA6n_&#xD;&#xA; - https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g?si=AwBSyayHgPStpALy&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;But it's still worse for the environment (and you) to eat conventionally raised meat than organic. They spray the crops they feed the animals with agrochemicals. So I'd just focus on that aspect. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33245" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12802" RevisionGUID="cf19bbdf-2d10-4e41-89a5-d358742db43f" CreationDate="2024-03-19T12:15:15.763" UserId="15574" Text="Nothing is ideal - neither veganism nor non-veganism. Each has its own merits and demerits. The same is case with dairy or nuts and so on. A research shows that meat and cow milk is more beneficial for the kids growth than their plant based alternatives. And also, manufacturing of the plant based alternates needs more resources like water, energy (if it is being produced using renewable sources) etc. Unfortunately, we have started learning about these things very late in our lives that has additional consequences. Also, in some Asian and low income countries, the meat eaters are proportionally way more than in high income countries. So, reducing the carbon footprint is not adequate globally. And I find this discussion that what should we pickup from the shelf in the supermarket is very INCONCLUSIVE. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33247" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="12802" RevisionGUID="80c29ad9-054d-4e20-9328-6d760cd99a39" CreationDate="2024-03-19T21:29:28.540" UserId="8232" Comment="81" />
  <row Id="33248" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12803" RevisionGUID="a0b57213-91c9-4169-8c56-41c5caffa021" CreationDate="2024-03-21T16:51:13.197" UserId="15022" Text="(apparently there is not an agriculture substack so I'm asking here)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;I am researching homescale production of grains and vegetables and when it comes to grains in general I keep scratching my head because I see little reason to do so other than really liking to eat them.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Take maize: it is a huge eater of nutrients, so it needs plenty of fertilizers or rotating it with nitrogen fixating plants and at the end of the day is ridiculously cheap. A napkin calculation using [market prices][1] and [yields][2](I take here a price of 250 USD / metric ton and ) and a standard productivity of 10.88 metric ton / ha leads to some meager 2712 USD per harvest per ha, well below minimum wage without even accounting the costs. I've done calculations with some other grains and results are not much better.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Although I know there can be self-sufficiency reasons for it, those do not apply to current industrial agriculture which only cares about the profits. I'm no professional farmer and am not pretending to give advice to them but, as far as I can see, even for selfish economic reasons it seems that abandoning a lot of farming land wasted on grains makes the most sense.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Is there a hidden reason why grains are produced so much that I'm not seeing it?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=corn&#xD;&#xA;  [2]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/maize-yields" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33250" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12803" RevisionGUID="a0b57213-91c9-4169-8c56-41c5caffa021" CreationDate="2024-03-21T16:51:13.197" UserId="15022" Text="Why do people produce corn and grains overall currently? Seems neither unsustainable nor profitable. Am I missing something?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33251" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12803" RevisionGUID="a0b57213-91c9-4169-8c56-41c5caffa021" CreationDate="2024-03-21T16:51:13.197" UserId="15022" Text="|agriculture|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33252" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12804" RevisionGUID="8118ee57-f1c4-4484-9b29-f5f364fe819f" CreationDate="2024-03-22T19:05:55.663" UserId="14328" Text="You are correct that for small farms it makes little sense to grow grains, especially corn. It is neither sustainable nor profitable - the only grain I've known small farms to grow in my area (the northeast US) is sweetcorn, which is sold to specialty markets. Because grains are labor-intensive without expensive machinery, heavy nutrient feeders, and so cheap, on a home scale it makes sense to focus on higher-value crops.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, the calculus is entirely different for industrial growers than it is for smallholder farmers. There are several factors that make grains very profitable for industrial growers:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;(I'll focus on corn here, since it is the most produced grain in the US, but other grains follow similar patterns. I'll also focus on the US, since you used USD for prices, but much of this is applicable to other countries.)&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**The Green Revolution**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;With the advent of synthetic fertilizers, it became possible to sustain the intensive production of corn (a nutrient-heavy crop as you note) by adding large amounts of cheap fertilizer. Farmland that would be depleted by corn in a few years can now be kept in production indefinitely. Most industrial corn farms still rotate with soybeans, but grow corn most years. Fertilizers and new, expensive farm machinery favors large producers that can make use of economies of scale.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Farm Subsidies**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;This is probably the biggest &quot;hidden reason.&quot; In the Great Depression, the US started subsidizing corn and other crops, but payments were made in exchange for farmers limiting production to keep prices high. In the 1970s, Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz overhauled these policies so that farmers receive more subsidies for growing more acreage. Additionally, federally-subsidized crop insurance reduces the financial risk of crop failure. These subsidies make corn profitable despite the low prices that you point out - even if farmers are selling corn at a loss, the subsidies can make up for the difference and then some.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The policies of Earl Butz, along with the technological advancements of the Green Revolution, greatly favored large farms over small farms. You estimate a revenue of $2,700 per ha = $1,100 per acre, but most farms are now over 1,000 acres, meaning a revenue of over $1.1 million, not including subsidies.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;**Expanded Markets for Corn**&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The increase in production brought around by Earl Butz started a positive feedback loop, in which new markets are created to make use of the cheap corn. Some of these were engineered by the federal government, such as the export of grains overseas, and corn-derived ethanol. Over 30% of corn grown in the US now goes to producing ethanol fuel, which was initially subsidizes by the federal government. Additionally, the use of corn for livestock feed (instead of pasturing) has increased in response to the low price of corn. High-fructose corn syrup production is now also major market for corn. These markets further incentivize the production of corn.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;For a more detailed overview of US policy surrounding grain production, see &quot;[Corn, Carbon, and Conservation: Rethinking U.S. Agricultural Policy in a Changing Global Environment][1]&quot; by Mary Jane Angelo (2010).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;  [1]: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&amp;context=facultypub" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33254" PostHistoryTypeId="33" PostId="10329" RevisionGUID="b566fda3-250d-45b8-ae9a-e0c658766ce2" CreationDate="2024-03-24T23:11:47.823" UserId="8232" Comment="82" />
  <row Id="33255" PostHistoryTypeId="50" PostId="12144" RevisionGUID="d7d6d624-3792-4811-8beb-e62785033e49" CreationDate="2024-03-26T00:03:40.430" UserId="-1" />
  <row Id="33256" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12805" RevisionGUID="37f7d018-5fc1-4cba-9cbd-c77c4bf80e08" CreationDate="2024-03-26T00:17:53.153" UserId="9007" Text="Fly there. Unless you wanna take a container ship who'll carry you as spare passenger. " ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33258" PostHistoryTypeId="5" PostId="12145" RevisionGUID="6a7e2e9f-d784-4c20-82f2-8b0cff880254" CreationDate="2024-03-26T15:36:05.300" UserId="6393" Comment="fix units" Text="A bus consumes about 40 liters of diesel fuel per 100 kilometers. If there are 20 occupants, that's 2 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers. However, with 10 occupants it would be 4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;An airplane consumes about 3.5 liters of jet fuel per 100 passenger kilometers (assuming the airplane is full, which it usually is).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you replace 2400 km of flying with 3200 km of bus traveling, that's probably not an overall good idea although if the bus is fully occupied, it will save a small amount of fuel (but maybe waste a lot of your time).&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you on the other hand replace 2400 km of flying with 3200 km train trip, that's an excellent idea. Trains today almost always use electricity, and practically all new electricity production installed today is carbon neutral. There is a clear pathway to make both electricity production carbon-free (onshore wind power, offshore wind power, solar power, electrolysis, hydrogen storage, combined cycle hydrogen power plants, hydropower) and also make short bus trips carbon-free (battery-electric buses) but for long bus trips and airplanes, we are very far from making them economically carbon-free. Also in many countries today such as France, Norway, Sweden and Finland, carbon dioxide emissions of the whole existing generation mix are very small, far below 100 g / kWh.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you want to be climate friendly, prefer train and maybe electric buses that are only economically feasible in transportation inside cities, not between cities. Don't prefer long-distance diesel buses.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If you don't live near a train station, it is not a major crime to take a short bus trip to a train station. That trip is presumably so short that it would be a prime candidate for electrification if the bus making that trip isn't already electrified." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33259" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12806" RevisionGUID="1e26116e-2243-4169-b432-02b06d83477f" CreationDate="2024-03-26T17:05:36.527" UserId="6393" Text="Beef is generally considered unsustainable, since cows are ruminants that fill the atmosphere with methane. The greenhouse gas effects are massive per a kilogram of produced beef.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;However, something which I'm unsure about is the sustainability of reindeer meat. I know it's healthier than beef and more ethical than beef (since reindeer live a free life), but I'm not interested in that; I'm interested in the climate impacts of reindeer meat.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Aren't reindeer ruminants just like cows? If so, are there any studies which estimate whether the amount of methane they produce per kilogram of meat is at all comparable to the amount of methane cows produce?&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If reindeer are ruminants, I guess the environmental effects can't be compared with hunted game meat since hunted meat is not artificially grown but just taken away from the naturally occurring population (so they don't produce any extra methane that would otherwise be unproduced), whereas reindeer are artificially grown." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33261" PostHistoryTypeId="1" PostId="12806" RevisionGUID="1e26116e-2243-4169-b432-02b06d83477f" CreationDate="2024-03-26T17:05:36.527" UserId="6393" Text="Is reindeer meat sustainable?" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33262" PostHistoryTypeId="3" PostId="12806" RevisionGUID="1e26116e-2243-4169-b432-02b06d83477f" CreationDate="2024-03-26T17:05:36.527" UserId="6393" Text="|climate-change|meat|" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33264" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12807" RevisionGUID="9ed61f37-cd12-4ef7-84ff-b02d72434bac" CreationDate="2024-03-27T07:27:26.030" UserId="15586" Text="Ikea has recently introduced the SILVERSIDA tableware series made up of 70-75% recycled ceramics, from their own faulty produced ceramics.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;They claim that post-consumer ceramics recycling is yet to come, but I find reducing post-production ceramic waste is already a great achievement.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;The post is quite informative, showing off some machines on the production line.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;https://www.ikea.com/global/en/stories/people-planet/silversida-series-ceramic-production-waste-240313/" ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33266" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12808" RevisionGUID="5f5a5ff9-4768-4b66-86cd-e2fdffb20338" CreationDate="2024-03-27T07:36:06.970" UserId="15586" Text="To add to the @LShaver's answer:&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If half of the population's protein demand is supported by offal and half by meat, then we'll need fewer animals overall.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;So I'd say yes, that could be a viable research path.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;That is assuming the claim that offal is easily replaceable by plant feed is correct." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
  <row Id="33273" PostHistoryTypeId="2" PostId="12810" RevisionGUID="d84000c8-6045-4fc6-88dc-25a42884a41d" CreationDate="2024-03-31T21:41:57.420" UserId="15592" Text="I built something like that, out of repurposed air dryer.. It can be efficient, but there's a catch. I'm using it to preheat the water in the lower part of my water heater tank. The tank itself is 300l tank with 3kW electric heater in the halfway. There is a preheat copper coil on the bottom and i use the 'heat pump' to cool down the house ventilation air going to roof. I have condenser replaced with small plate heat exchanger and water/glycol transporting the heat to the tank and getting the bottom temp up from average 15 celsius up to around 40.. I'm consuming about 180w electrical power (+circulation pump and control circuit abt.25w) and getting about 500w+ heating power.. You can't really use much higher power compressor with house exhaust air because you'd need to either turn up air ventilation so high that it's impossible or to interrupt compressor often due to completely iced and blocked evaporator..  Also the same but looked from another side is the water temp.. you can't go much higher, since the pressures in the system would grow and cop turn to 1 or even negative.. (theoretically one could achieve high temperatures by trying to utilize the superheat portion but that type of system beats me.. :D) As a refrigerant i used r290..not much though, only about 50-60g." ContentLicense="CC BY-SA 4.0" />
</posthistory>